ArticleHeliyon2023
Opportunities for resource recovery from Latvian municipal sewage sludge.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Direct pyrolysis of catalysed raw sewage sludge unlocks superior energy recovery: a kinetic evidence.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026Article
- Efficient removal of lipophilic compounds from sewage sludge: Comparative evaluation of solvent extraction techniques.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Perspectives on innovative non-fertilizer applications of sewage sludge for mitigating environmental and health hazards.Communications engineering · 2024Review
- Enzymatic hydrolysis of waste streams originating from wastewater treatment plants.Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sewage sludge is a type of waste that has high health and environmental risks associated with its reuse. Moreover, sludge has been neglected in global circular economy targets because it is generated in considerably lower quantities than municipal solid waste. At the same time, European Union's transition towards circular economy has set the need to reduce the amount of waste and to promote the production of secondary raw materials. Many countries have developed national strategies for sludge management to reach their sustainability goals. In Latvia, the current sludge management approaches include land application, composting and anaerobic digestion which all utilize sludge as an organic fertilizer. As an alternative to current management practices, resource recovery is put forward as a solution that is in agreement with EU policy. Carbohydrates (including cellulose), proteins and lipids were selected as candidates for energy and materials recovery from sludge. For the first time, this study demonstrates a comprehensive assessment of Latvian municipal sewage sludge composition and offers the theoretical yields of secondary resources on a yearly basis. Primary, secondary, and anaerobically digested sludge from 13 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Latvia was characterized in this study. The most abundant sludge type - secondary sludge - contained 18.5% proteins, 9.8% lipids and 2.6% cellulose per TS. On a yearly basis, secondary sludge from all Latvian WWTPs could provide 2530 t proteins, corresponding to 750 t protein-based fertilizer. Primary sludge contained 23.9% proteins, 9.1% lipids and 7.1% cellulose per TS. Primary sludge could provide 763 t/a carbohydrates, including 545 t/a cellulose. The currently available secondary and digested sludge would yield 727 t bioethanol, corresponding to 4.0% of the national biofuel consumption. This work applies the concept of resource recovery to the Latvian wastewater sector and shows the potential of simultaneously addressing waste and wastewater management issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.