The Chemical Crisis: An Evaluation of Pyrolysis as an Integrated Solution

Section 1: The Scope of the Contamination Crisis

The pervasive presence of microplastics (MPs) and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in modern waste streams represents a complex and escalating environmental crisis. These anthropogenic pollutants, originating from a multitude of urban and industrial activities, navigate complex pathways into wastewater systems. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), while designed to safeguard aquatic environments, inadvertently become concentration points for these persistent substances, particularly within the sewage sludge they generate. This section defines these pollutants, traces their journey into wastewater, and explains their accumulation in sewage, setting the stage for understanding the broader ecological and health implications.

1.1. Defining the Pollutants: Ubiquitous and Persistent Threats

• Microplastics (MPs)
  Microplastics are minute plastic particles, operationally defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as ranging in size from 5 millimeters (mm) down to 1 nanometer (nm).¹ For context, a human hair is approximately 80,000 nm wide.² These particles are broadly categorized based on their origin:
  • Primary Microplastics: These are plastics intentionally manufactured in microscopic sizes. Examples include microbeads formerly common in personal care products (PCPs) like facial scrubs and toothpaste, as well as industrial abrasives and plastic powders or pellets (nurdles) used as raw materials in plastic manufacturing.²
  • Secondary Microplastics: These constitute the majority of MPs found in the environment and result from the physical, chemical, and biological degradation of larger plastic items.² Processes such as photodegradation by UV radiation, thermal degradation, chemical oxidation, mechanical abrasion, and biodegradation contribute to the fragmentation of macroplastics into smaller pieces over time.³

The sources of MPs are extraordinarily diverse. Atmospheric deposition carries MPs from sources like synthetic textile fibers shed during wear and laundering, road traffic (tire wear particles and brake wear particles), and urban dust.³ Terrestrial inputs include the application of WWTP sludge to agricultural land, the breakdown of plastic film mulching used in farming, littering, and industrial activities.³ Marine and freshwater environments receive MPs from land-based runoff via rivers, direct discharges, fishing activities (lost gear), and shipping.³

Notably, synthetic textiles are a major contributor; a single 6 kg wash load of acrylic fabric can release over 700,000 fibers³, and global tire wear particle (TWP) emissions are estimated at 6.1 million tons annually.³ Other significant sources include personal care products, plastic pellet spills, and the general breakdown of plastic packaging and products.³

The most common polymer types mirror global plastic production, with polyethylene (PE) accounting for approximately 36%, polypropylene (PP) for 21%, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) for 12%. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), and polyurethane (PUR) also contribute significantly, with these six types making up about 92% of total global plastic production.³

MPs exhibit a wide array of shapes, including fibers (from textiles, fishing nets), fragments (from brittle plastics), pellets (industrial raw material), films (from bags and packaging), foams (from PS), spheres (from PCPs), and granules.³ The physical properties of MPs influence their environmental transport and fate. Density is a key factor: polymers like PET, nylon, and PVC are denser than water and tend to sink, whereas PS, PE, and PP are less dense and may float or remain suspended.³ However, this behavior can be altered by biofouling—the colonization of MP surfaces by microorganisms—which can increase their density and cause them to sink.³

The size of MPs is a critical determinant of their ecological impact. While the <5 mm definition is standard, particles can degrade further into nanoplastics (NPs), typically defined as smaller than 1 micrometer (µm) or 1000 nm.² NPs are of particular concern due to their potential for increased bioavailability, greater reactivity owing to a larger surface area-to-volume ratio, and easier translocation across biological membranes.⁴

Furthermore, plastics contain a variety of additives, such as plasticizers, flame retardants, stabilizers, and colorants, which can constitute a significant percentage of the plastic’s weight. These additives can leach from the plastic matrix as MPs degrade and migrate with the fragments, posing additional chemical risks.³ The sheer diversity in MP morphology, polymer type, size, and associated chemical additives presents an immense analytical challenge for comprehensive environmental monitoring and a significant regulatory hurdle for effective risk management.

• Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
  Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large and complex class of synthetic organofluorine chemicals, estimated to include thousands of distinct compounds.⁵ Their defining characteristic is the presence of multiple carbon-fluorine (C-F) bonds. The C-F bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry, imparting exceptional thermal, chemical, and biological stability to PFAS molecules.⁵ This stability is the basis for their wide industrial and commercial utility but also underlies their extreme persistence in the environment, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals”.⁵
  The nomenclature distinguishes between two main sub-groups:

  • Perfluoroalkyl substances: In these compounds, all hydrogen atoms on the alkyl chain (except, in some cases, those on functional groups) have been replaced by fluorine atoms. This complete fluorination results in maximum stability. Examples include perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) like PFOA, and perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids (PFSAs) like PFOS.⁶
  • Polyfluoroalkyl substances: These compounds contain at least one perfluoroalkyl moiety (e.g., -Cn​F2n+1​) but also possess carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds elsewhere in the molecule.⁶ These C-H bonds make polyfluoroalkyl substances susceptible to transformation (e.g., biodegradation or metabolic processes) into persistent perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) expanded its definition in 2021 to state that PFAS are “fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it)“.⁵

  Many PFAS are amphiphilic, meaning they possess both a hydrophobic (water-repelling) fluorinated “tail” and a hydrophilic (water-attracting) polar “head” group (e.g., a carboxylate or sulfonate group).⁶ This structure makes them effective surfactants. Among the thousands of PFAS, certain compounds have gained notoriety due to their widespread detection, persistence, and toxicity:

  • Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, C8HF$\_15$O$\_2$) and Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS, C$\_8$HF$\_17$O$\_3$S): These are two of the most extensively studied and historically produced PFAS. They were key ingredients in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) for firefighting, non-stick coatings (e.g., Teflon$$\begin{gathered} {}^{ \\ textTM} \end{gathered}$$), stain- and water-resistant treatments for textiles and carpets, and food packaging.⁵
  • Other PFAAs: Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) are other PFAAs of concern, some of which were introduced as replacements for PFOA or PFOS but have since been found to have their own environmental and health issues.⁵
  • GenX Chemicals (HFPO-DA): Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and its ammonium salt are replacement chemicals for PFOA, used in the production of fluoropolymers. GenX chemicals are also persistent and have been detected in the environment and linked to health concerns.⁷

The environmental fate of PFAS is characterized by their high mobility in water and soil, resistance to degradation, and tendency to bioaccumulate in living organisms and biomagnify up food chains.⁵ Consequently, PFAS are now ubiquitously detected in environmental media, including rainwater, surface water, groundwater, soil, and wildlife, as well as in human blood serum worldwide.⁵ This widespread contamination and persistence mean that even if all PFAS production ceased today, these chemicals would continue to pose risks for generations.

1.2. Pathways to Pollution: The Journey into Wastewater

Microplastics and PFAS enter wastewater systems through a complex network of pathways originating from diverse urban, industrial, and domestic activities.

• Microplastics:
  The primary routes for MPs into municipal and industrial wastewater include:
  • Domestic Sources: The laundering of synthetic textiles (e.g., polyester, nylon, acrylic) is a major contributor, releasing large quantities of microfibers into washing machine effluent, which then enters the sewage system.³ Personal care products containing plastic microbeads (though increasingly banned or phased out in some regions) are directly washed down drains during use.⁸
  • Urban Runoff: Stormwater runoff from urban areas carries a significant load of MPs. Tire wear particles (TWPs), generated from the abrasion of vehicle tires on road surfaces, are a substantial source, with global emissions estimated at 0.81 kg per capita per year.³ Road dust, which contains TWPs and other plastic debris, the breakdown of plastic litter on streets, and fragments from plastic-coated surfaces and paints are washed into storm drains and combined sewer systems during rain events.³
  • Industrial Sources: Spills of plastic pellets (nurdles) during manufacturing, processing, and transportation can lead to their entry into waterways and subsequently sewage systems.³ Industrial wastewater discharges from plastic manufacturing plants, textile dyeing and finishing facilities, and other industries using or processing plastics can contain high concentrations of MPs.⁸ The use of MPs in industrial airblasting media can also lead to environmental release.³
  • Landfill Leachate: Landfills are repositories for vast amounts of plastic waste. As these plastics degrade, MPs are formed and can become entrained in landfill leachate. If this leachate is collected and sent to WWTPs for treatment (a common practice), it introduces an additional MP load into the wastewater stream.⁹
• PFAS:
  PFAS find their way into wastewater through several key pathways:
  • Industrial Discharges: Direct discharges from manufacturing facilities that produce or use PFAS are significant point sources. This includes chemical plants involved in fluoropolymer production, metal plating facilities (particularly chrome plating, where PFAS-based fume suppressants were historically mandated and used extensively, leading to persistent contamination of equipment and discharge streams even after phase-outs)¹⁰, pulp and paper mills (PFAS used for grease and water resistance in food packaging), and textile and carpet manufacturing plants (PFAS used for stain and water repellency).⁵ The unique chemistry of chrome plating, involving harsh conditions, might even promote the transformation of some “PFOS-free” replacement surfactants back into PFOS or related compounds.¹¹
  • Consumer Products: A vast array of consumer products containing PFAS contribute to “down-the-drain” releases from households and commercial establishments. These include food packaging (e.g., grease-resistant wrappers for fast food, microwave popcorn bags, pizza box liners), where PFAS can migrate into food and subsequently be washed off surfaces or disposed of.⁷ Non-stick cookware (PTFE-based coatings) can release PFAS particles and residues during washing, especially if scratched or degraded.⁷ Waterproof and stain-resistant textiles, apparel, and carpets shed PFAS during wear and laundering.⁷ Personal care products such as shampoos, dental floss, cosmetics (e.g., foundation, mascara), and sunscreens can contain PFAS that are washed off during use.⁷ Cleaning products and waxes may also contribute PFAS to wastewater.¹²
  • Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF): Historically, AFFF containing high concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS has been extensively used for extinguishing Class B (flammable liquid) fires, particularly at military bases, airports, and firefighter training facilities.⁵ Releases from AFFF use, spills, and system testing have led to widespread contamination of soil and groundwater, which can then migrate into surface waters or be drawn into WWTPs via infiltration into sewer systems or direct discharge of contaminated water.¹³
  • Landfill Leachate: The disposal of PFAS-containing consumer and industrial products in landfills results in the presence of these chemicals in landfill leachate. As with microplastics, this leachate is often transported to WWTPs for treatment, introducing a persistent PFAS load.¹⁴ This pathway ensures that even legacy PFAS from discarded products continue to enter the active environmental cycle.
  • Fluorinated Pharmaceuticals: A significant and perhaps underappreciated pathway for organofluorine compounds into wastewater is through the excretion of fluorinated pharmaceuticals and their metabolites. A 2024 study of eight large U.S. municipal WWTPs found that the six EPA-regulated PFAAs (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA, PFBS) accounted for less than 10% of the total extractable organofluorine (EOF) in both influent and effluent. In contrast, a diverse array of mono- and polyfluorinated pharmaceuticals and their transformation products constituted the majority of the EOF, ranging from 62% to 75%.¹⁵ This finding dramatically broadens the scope of “PFAS-related” inputs to wastewater beyond conventionally targeted industrial chemicals and AFFF, suggesting that human excretion is a major diffuse source of a wide range of fluorinated organic compounds. This has profound implications, as current source control strategies and regulatory focus on a limited list of legacy PFAAs may be missing a substantial portion of the total organofluorine burden entering and leaving WWTPs.

1.3. Concentration in Sewage: WWTPs as Inadvertent Accumulators

Wastewater treatment plants, while designed to remove conventional pollutants and pathogens, inadvertently act as significant concentrators of both microplastics and PFAS, primarily transferring them from the liquid phase (wastewater) to the solid phase (sewage sludge or biosolids).

• Microplastic Concentration in Sewage Sludge
  Although not engineered for MP removal, conventional WWTPs typically achieve high removal efficiencies for MPs from the wastewater stream, often exceeding 90-99%.⁸ However, this removal primarily translates to a phase transfer, concentrating the MPs into the sewage sludge.
  • Mechanisms of Concentration:
    • Primary Treatment: Initial stages like screening and grit removal eliminate larger debris. In primary settling tanks (clarifiers), denser MPs (e.g., PET, PVC) and MPs that have become heavier due to biofouling or aggregation settle out with other suspended solids, forming primary sludge.⁸ Some WWTPs may use Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) which can remove lower-density MPs that float.
    • Secondary Treatment: The activated sludge process, a common biological treatment, is highly effective at trapping MPs. Microplastics become incorporated into biological flocs through several mechanisms: adsorption onto the surface of the flocs (often mediated by extracellular polymeric substances, EPS, secreted by microorganisms), physical entanglement within the floc matrix, and ingestion or “swallowing” by protozoa and other microorganisms within the activated sludge.⁸ These MP-laden flocs are then separated from the treated water in secondary settling tanks, accumulating in the secondary sludge (also known as waste activated sludge, WAS).
    • Tertiary Treatment: Advanced treatment processes, if present, can further enhance MP removal from the effluent, again concentrating them into a solid waste stream. Membrane bioreactors (MBRs), which combine activated sludge treatment with microfiltration or ultrafiltration membranes, exhibit very high MP removal rates (>99.9%) due to the fine pore sizes of the membranes acting as a physical barrier.⁸ Other tertiary treatments like sand filtration, disc filters, and coagulation/flocculation followed by sedimentation also contribute to MP removal, with the captured MPs ending up in backwash solids or sludge.⁸ For instance, coagulation using iron or aluminum salts can cause MPs to aggregate with chemical flocs, which then settle into the sludge.⁸
  • Concentrations and Characteristics in Sludge: The concentration of MPs in sewage sludge can be substantial and highly variable, depending on the influent characteristics, WWTP design, and operational parameters. Reported concentrations range widely, for example, from 400 to 170,000 MPs per kilogram of dry sludge.¹⁶ One study reported mean concentrations of 5.8±0.6 particles/L in secondary WWTP effluents and 33.3±8 particles/g in sludge.¹⁷ Fibers and fragments are frequently the most common morphological types found in sludge¹⁷, with common polymers including polyamide (PA), polyethylene (PE), polyester (PES), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polystyrene (PS).¹⁷ The physical properties of MPs, such as density, size, and shape, directly influence their behavior and removal efficiency within different WWTP unit processes, ultimately dictating their partitioning into sludge. For example, denser particles are more likely to settle in primary clarifiers, while fibers may be more readily entrapped in biological flocs or removed by filtration. This understanding is crucial, as it implies that the characteristics of MPs in the influent can significantly affect the contamination profile of the resulting sludge.
• PFAS Concentration in Sewage Sludge
  Similar to microplastics, WWTPs also serve to concentrate PFAS into sewage sludge, although the efficiency and mechanisms are more complex and depend on the specific PFAS congener and sludge properties.¹⁸
  • Mechanisms of Concentration:
    • Adsorption: PFAS, particularly those with longer carbon chains (e.g., PFOA, PFOS) and more hydrophobic character, tend to adsorb onto the organic matter and particulate surfaces present in sewage sludge.¹⁹ Shorter-chain PFAS are generally more water-soluble and may pass through the WWTP in the treated effluent to a greater extent.¹⁹ The interactions can involve hydrophobic partitioning, electrostatic attraction/repulsion (depending on pH and the ionic state of PFAS and sludge surfaces), and potentially metal bridging effects or pore occupation within the sludge matrix.²⁰
    • Transformation of Precursors: A critical aspect of PFAS fate in WWTPs is the transformation of polyfluoroalkyl precursor compounds into more stable and often more scrutinized perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) like PFOA and PFOS.¹⁸ Biological and chemical processes within the WWTP can cleave the non-fluorinated parts of precursor molecules, leading to the formation of these terminal PFAAs. This transformation can result in an apparent increase in the concentration of specific PFAAs (e.g., PFOA, PFOS) in the WWTP effluent or sludge compared to their concentrations in the influent.¹⁹ This phenomenon means that WWTPs can act as net generators of certain regulated PFAAs, complicating source tracking and control efforts that focus only on direct PFAA inputs.
  • Concentrations in Sludge: PFAS concentrations in sewage sludge are highly variable, influenced by industrial inputs, consumer product use patterns in the catchment area, and WWTP operational conditions. A study in the Netherlands reported total PFAS concentrations in sludge ranging from approximately 10 to 100 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) dry matter (DM).¹⁹ The U.S. EPA, in its draft risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in sewage sludge, indicated that land application of sludge containing 1 part per billion (ppb, equivalent to 1 μg/kg) of PFOA or PFOS could pose human health risks, noting that this 1 ppb level is on the low end of measured concentrations in U.S. sewage sludge.¹³ This implies that typical sludge concentrations are often higher.

The concentration of these persistent pollutants in sewage sludge is a pivotal point in their environmental lifecycle. WWTPs, by fulfilling their primary function of cleaning wastewater, paradoxically create a concentrated waste stream that poses a significant secondary contamination risk if not managed appropriately. This highlights a fundamental challenge in conventional wastewater management: the effective removal of contaminants from water often leads to their accumulation in sludge, thereby shifting the pollution burden from the aquatic to the terrestrial environment when this sludge is subsequently land-applied. This cycle underscores the need for solutions that address the contaminants within the sludge itself, rather than merely relocating them.

Section 2: The Problem with a “Solution”: Land Application of Biosolids

The land application of treated sewage sludge, commonly referred to as biosolids, has long been promoted as a beneficial reuse strategy. However, this practice is increasingly scrutinized as a significant pathway for introducing persistent urban and industrial pollutants, including microplastics and PFAS, into agricultural ecosystems and potentially the human food chain. This section examines the historical and economic drivers for land application, quantifies its role as a pollutant vector, and analyzes the profound ecological and health ramifications.

2.1. Current Practice: A Legacy of Nutrient Recycling

The practice of applying human and animal excreta to agricultural land to enhance soil fertility dates back millennia, with historical accounts of “night soil” use in various cultures.²¹ In the modern era, with the advent of centralized wastewater treatment in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the focus initially shifted towards public health protection through pathogen reduction and controlled disposal of sewage. However, the nutrient value of the resulting sewage sludge, particularly its content of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), as well as organic matter, was soon recognized.²² This led to the development of practices for land application of treated sludge, or biosolids, as a means of recycling these valuable components back to agricultural systems, often as a substitute for synthetic inorganic fertilizers.²²

The economic rationale for land application is compelling for municipalities. It is frequently the most cost-effective method for managing the large volumes of sludge produced by WWTPs, especially when compared to alternatives like landfilling (which consumes valuable landfill space and can generate problematic leachate and greenhouse gases) or incineration (which involves high capital and operational costs and air pollution concerns).²² For farmers, biosolids can offer a low-cost or free source of essential plant nutrients and organic matter, which can improve soil structure, water retention, and overall soil health.²²

Consequently, land application of biosolids is a widespread practice in many developed regions. In both Europe and North America, it is estimated that approximately 50% of the sewage sludge produced is processed for agricultural use.²³ In the United States, various estimates suggest that between 28% and 31% of biosolids are applied to agricultural land.²⁴ While this represents a significant tonnage of biosolids, it is applied to a relatively small fraction of the total available agricultural land, estimated to be around 1% of U.S. cropland.²⁵ Despite its limited geographical footprint relative to total farmland, the concentrated and repeated application in specific areas raises concerns about pollutant accumulation.

2.2. A Direct Injection of Pollutants: Biosolids as a Contaminant Vector

While nutrient recycling is a primary driver for biosolids land application, compelling evidence has emerged demonstrating that this practice serves as a major conduit for transferring a wide array of persistent pollutants from urban and industrial sources directly onto agricultural soils. As established in Section 1.3, WWTPs effectively concentrate microplastics and PFAS into sewage sludge. When this contaminated sludge is applied to land, these pollutants are directly introduced into the terrestrial environment.

Pioneering research, such as that by Nizzetto et al. (2016), has been instrumental in quantifying this transfer and highlighting agricultural soils as potentially significant reservoirs for these contaminants.²³ The logic is straightforward: if over 90% of incoming microplastics are retained in sludge²³, and a significant portion of PFAS partitions to sludge¹³, then the land application of this sludge inevitably leads to soil contamination.

• Quantification of Microplastic Deposition via Biosolids:
  • Europe: Estimates indicate that between 125 and 850 tons of microplastics per million inhabitants are added to European agricultural soils annually through the application of sewage sludge or processed biosolids.²³ Extrapolating this, the total annual input to European farmlands could range from 63,000 to 430,000 tons.²³ This terrestrial loading is estimated to be substantially higher than the amount of microplastics entering the world’s oceans annually.²⁶
  • North America: Similar estimates suggest an annual input of 44,000 to 300,000 tons of microplastics to North American farmlands via biosolids.²⁷ For the United States specifically, one study estimated an annual release of approximately 21,249 metric tons of microplastics to agricultural lands from sewage sludge.²⁶ The sheer magnitude of these figures suggests that agricultural soils could be, or are becoming, a more significant and persistent reservoir of plastic pollution than marine environments, a realization that demands a shift in research and mitigation priorities.
• Quantification of PFAS Deposition via Biosolids:
  • Biosolids application is recognized as a diffuse but significant source of PFAS contamination in agricultural soils. Annual loading of a sum of 13 PFAS analytes to U.S. soils through biosolids has been estimated to be between 1,375 and 2,070 kilograms.²⁴
  • Globally, surface soil concentrations of PFOA up to 2,351 μg/kg and PFOS up to 5,500 μg/kg have been attributed to biosolids application.²⁴
  • Research indicates that even a single application of PFAS-containing biosolids can lead to the leaching of these chemicals into groundwater at concentrations exceeding advisory or regulatory standards.²⁴ For example, the EPA has modeled that land application of sludge containing PFOA or PFOS at levels as low as 1 ppb may pose risks.¹³

The economic drivers for land application—cost-effectiveness for municipalities and nutrient provision for farmers—create a direct conflict with long-term environmental stewardship and public health. This practice essentially externalizes the costs of pollution, where short-term economic benefits for some stakeholders result in long-term, widespread environmental degradation and potential health risks for broader society and future generations.

2.3. Ecological and Health Ramifications: The Legacy of Contamination

The introduction of microplastics and PFAS into agricultural soils via biosolids application has multifaceted and often long-lasting negative consequences for soil health, food chain integrity, and ultimately, human health.

• Soil Health Degradation:
  Soils are complex ecosystems, and the addition of persistent pollutants can disrupt their delicate balance.
  • Impacts of Microplastics on Soil:
    • Physical Properties: Microplastics can alter fundamental soil physical characteristics. They have been shown to affect soil bulk density, generally decreasing it due to their lower density compared to mineral soil particles.²⁸ Their impact on water holding capacity is variable; some studies report increases, while others show decreases or no significant effect, depending on MP type (e.g., fibers vs. fragments), concentration, size, and soil texture.²⁸ MPs can also disrupt soil structure by affecting aggregation (the clumping of soil particles, crucial for stability and aeration) and porosity, potentially creating preferential flow paths or impeding water infiltration.²⁸ For instance, polyester fibers have been observed to decrease water-stable aggregates.²⁸
    • Microbial Ecosystems: Soil microbial communities are vital for nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and soil fertility. Microplastics can significantly alter the diversity, abundance, and metabolic functions of these communities.²⁹ MPs can provide novel habitats (the “plastisphere”) for microbial colonization, potentially selecting for specific microbial groups, including pathogens or organisms involved in plastic degradation. They can also affect enzyme activities and overall decomposition rates of soil organic matter. Some studies suggest MPs can promote soil organic carbon (SOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC)³⁰, while others indicate they can inhibit microbial activity.²⁸
    • Vector for Pollutants: Microplastics, due to their hydrophobic surfaces and large surface area, can adsorb other pollutants present in the soil or biosolids, such as heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and pesticides, acting as vectors for their transport and potentially altering their bioavailability to soil organisms and plants.3
  • Impacts of PFAS on Soil:
    • Microbial Ecosystems: PFAS can reshape soil microbial communities, often reducing overall biodiversity while potentially favoring certain PFAS-tolerant or degrading microbial species.43 This shift can disrupt essential soil functions.
    • Biogeochemical Cycles: PFAS have been shown to interfere with crucial biogeochemical cycles. For example, they can impact the nitrogen cycle by inhibiting ammonia-oxidizing archaea and bacteria, or by altering nitrate and sulfate levels due to effects on reducing bacteria.45 They can also affect the carbon cycle by inhibiting enzymes involved in carbohydrate metabolism, such as glycoside hydrolases, sucrase, and urease.45
    • Soil Properties: PFAS may influence soil pH and organic matter content, although effects can vary depending on PFAS type and concentration.43

The co-contamination of soils with both microplastics and PFAS, as occurs with biosolids application, creates a complex stress environment. These pollutants may interact synergistically, with MPs potentially influencing the transport and bioavailability of PFAS, but such combined effects are still poorly understood and represent a critical research gap.

• Food Chain Contamination:
  A primary concern regarding the agricultural application of contaminated biosolids is the potential for pollutants to enter the human food chain through crop uptake and livestock exposure.
  • Plant Uptake of PFAS: Plants can absorb PFAS from contaminated soil and irrigation water, primarily through their root systems.34 The extent of uptake and translocation to edible plant parts (leaves, fruits, grains, tubers) is influenced by several factors:
    • PFAS Characteristics: Shorter-chain PFAS (e.g., those with fewer than 7-8 carbons) are generally more water-soluble and mobile in soil and are often taken up by plants more readily than longer-chain PFAS, which tend to bind more strongly to soil organic matter.48 Carboxylic acids (PFCAs) are often taken up more than sulfonic acids (PFSAs) of similar chain length.
    • Soil Properties: Soil organic carbon content is a key factor; higher organic carbon tends to reduce PFAS bioavailability and uptake by binding PFAS. Soil pH can also influence PFAS speciation and mobility.
    • Plant Species: Different plant species exhibit varying capacities for PFAS uptake and accumulation. Leafy vegetables and fodder crops often show higher accumulation than fruits or grains.
  • Plant Uptake of Micro/Nanoplastics: There is growing evidence that very small microplastics, and particularly nanoplastics (typically <100-200 nm), can be taken up by plant roots and translocated to other plant tissues, including stems, leaves, and fruits.49 The primary pathways are thought to be through pores or cracks in the root epidermis, via endocytosis-like mechanisms, or through intercellular connections like plasmodesmata.51 Studies have demonstrated uptake of polystyrene (PS) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) nanoplastics in cucumber plants, with accumulation observed in various tissues.49 The presence of MPs/NPs in plant tissues can induce phytotoxicity, oxidative stress, and negatively impact plant growth and development.51 The slow degradation of larger microplastics in soil into smaller micro- and nanoplastics over time 42 implies an evolving and potentially increasing risk of plant uptake as these smaller, more bioavailable particles are formed.
  • Transfer to Humans and Livestock: Humans can be exposed to these contaminants by consuming crops grown on biosolids-amended soils or by consuming meat, milk, or eggs from livestock that have grazed on contaminated pastures or been fed contaminated fodder.34 Microplastics can also carry associated chemical additives (e.g., bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates) and adsorbed environmental pollutants into the food chain.53 Seafood is another well-documented pathway for human exposure to microplastics 54, and while not directly from biosolids, it highlights the general issue of plastic in the food web.
• Long-Term Liability and Irreversible Contamination:
  The most insidious aspect of contamination from land-applied biosolids is its longevity and the difficulty, if not impossibility, of remediation.
  • Persistence: PFAS are termed “forever chemicals” precisely because their strong C-F bonds make them exceptionally resistant to environmental degradation processes (thermal, chemical, biological).9 Once introduced into soils, they can persist for decades or even centuries. Similarly, most conventional plastics are not readily biodegradable and can persist in soils for very long periods.37 Studies have shown that microplastic levels in soils can remain relatively unchanged even 22 years after the cessation of sludge application.42
  • Leaching and Groundwater Contamination: Persistent PFAS can leach from the soil profile into underlying groundwater, creating long-term sources of drinking water contamination and impacting aquatic ecosystems fed by groundwater discharge.20 This leaching can continue for many years after biosolids application has stopped, creating a “toxic legacy.”
  • Irreversibility: Once agricultural lands are contaminated with significant levels of PFAS and microplastics, remediation is extremely challenging and costly, often rendering the land unsuitable for food production for extended periods. The widespread and diffuse nature of contamination from biosolids application makes large-scale cleanup practically unfeasible with current technologies.
  • Legal and Financial Liability: The growing awareness of PFAS toxicity and persistence has led to increased regulatory scrutiny and legal action. The designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA (Superfund) in the U.S. 57 creates potential long-term liability for contamination, including that stemming from historical biosolids application. This raises significant financial risks for municipalities, wastewater utilities, and potentially farmers.

The current regulatory framework for biosolids application, which historically focused on pathogens and a limited list of heavy metals 30, is ill-equipped to address the risks posed by the complex mixture of persistent organic pollutants like PFAS and the physical contamination by microplastics. This regulatory gap has allowed the widespread introduction of these “forever” contaminants into agricultural environments, a practice whose full consequences are only now beginning to be understood.

Section 3: Pyrolysis as an Integrated Technological Solution

In response to the mounting environmental and health concerns associated with conventional sewage sludge management practices, particularly land application, advanced thermal treatment technologies are gaining attention. Among these, pyrolysis offers a promising pathway not only for contaminant destruction but also for resource recovery, aligning with the principles of a circular economy. This section provides a scientific and technical examination of pyrolysis, detailing its operational principles, its efficacy in destroying microplastics and PFAS, and its potential to convert problematic waste into valuable products.

3.1. The Science of Pyrolysis: Thermal Decomposition Explained

Pyrolysis is a thermochemical conversion process that involves the thermal decomposition of organic materials at elevated temperatures, typically ranging from 300∘C to 900∘C, in an oxygen-limited or, more commonly, an oxygen-absent (anaerobic or inert) atmosphere.59 The absence or severe limitation of oxygen is critical, as it prevents combustion (burning) and instead promotes the cleavage of chemical bonds within the organic matrix through heat. This fundamental difference distinguishes pyrolysis from incineration, which is an oxidative combustion process, and gasification, which involves partial oxidation with a controlled amount of oxygen or steam.

The pyrolysis process transforms the complex organic constituents of the feedstock (in this case, sewage sludge) into three primary product streams 59:

1. Biochar: A solid, carbon-rich residue. It is the primary solid product remaining after the volatile components have been driven off.
2. Bio-oil (Pyrolysis Oil): A complex liquid mixture produced by the condensation of condensable volatile organic compounds released during pyrolysis. It often separates into an organic phase and an aqueous phase (pyrolytic water).
3. Syngas (Synthesis Gas): A mixture of non-condensable gases, primarily composed of hydrogen (H2​), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2​), methane (CH4​), and other light hydrocarbons (e.g., ethane, ethene).

The yield and composition of these products are highly dependent on several key operational parameters:

• Temperature: This is arguably the most critical parameter influencing the pyrolysis process and product distribution. For sewage sludge, pyrolysis temperatures typically range from 300∘C to 900∘C.59
  • Lower temperatures (e.g., 300−500∘C, slow pyrolysis) tend to maximize biochar yield.
  • Intermediate temperatures (e.g., 500−700∘C) can be optimized for bio-oil production (fast pyrolysis) or for specific biochar properties.
  • Higher temperatures (e.g., >700∘C) generally favor syngas production and are crucial for the effective destruction of highly stable organic pollutants like PFAS and the complete degradation of plastics.59 For instance, optimum conditions for biochar stability and nutrient content in one study were found at 750∘C.69 Increasing temperature generally leads to a decrease in biochar yield and an increase in gas and oil yields due to more extensive cracking and volatilization.68
• Residence Time: This refers to the duration the feedstock material is held at the target pyrolysis temperature. It can vary from a few seconds in fast pyrolysis systems (designed to maximize liquid yield) to several hours in slow pyrolysis systems (favoring biochar production and stability).59 Longer residence times can enhance the completeness of pyrolysis reactions, improve char stability, and increase pollutant destruction, but may also lead to a reduction in biochar yield due to further gasification of the char.59 For example, a residence time of 2 hours at 750∘C was found optimal for biochar quality in one study 69, while >3 minutes at >500∘C was noted for pharmaceutical destruction.65
• Heating Rate: This is the rate at which the feedstock is heated to the pyrolysis temperature (typically expressed in ∘C/min). Fast heating rates (hundreds to thousands of ∘C/s) coupled with short vapor residence times are characteristic of fast pyrolysis and promote higher bio-oil yields. Slow heating rates (e.g., 5−30∘C/min) are typical for slow pyrolysis and favor biochar production.59
• Feedstock Characteristics: The physical and chemical properties of the sewage sludge itself significantly influence the pyrolysis process and product characteristics. Key factors include:
  • Moisture Content: Sewage sludge typically has a high moisture content (often >80% for dewatered sludge). Pre-drying is usually essential as high moisture consumes considerable energy during pyrolysis and can affect product quality and yield.70
  • Particle Size: Smaller particle sizes generally lead to more efficient heat transfer and more complete pyrolysis, potentially improving cracking processes and affecting gas composition.59
  • Organic and Inorganic Composition: The relative amounts of volatile matter, fixed carbon, and ash in the sludge dictate the potential yields of biochar, bio-oil, and syngas.60 High ash content, common in sewage sludge, will result in a higher proportion of ash in the biochar.

3.2. A Multi-Pronged Attack on Contaminants: Destruction and Elimination

One of the most significant advantages of pyrolysis for treating contaminated sewage sludge is its ability to simultaneously address a range of problematic pollutants, including microplastics, PFAS, pathogens, and pharmaceuticals.

• Microplastic Destruction:
  Pyrolysis effectively eliminates the physical form of microplastics by breaking down their polymeric structures into simpler molecules.61
  • Mechanism: The high temperatures cause thermal cracking of the long polymer chains that constitute plastics. These chains break down into smaller hydrocarbon molecules, monomers, or other volatile organic compounds. These volatile products then become part of the syngas and bio-oil fractions.
  • Effectiveness: Common microplastics found in sewage sludge, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), are reported to be entirely degraded at pyrolysis temperatures of 450∘C to 500∘C.61 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) also decomposes effectively at temperatures above 450∘C.61 Studies using micro-Raman spectroscopy have shown a dramatic reduction in microplastic concentrations in pyrolyzed sludge residues. For instance, concentrations dropped from 550.8–960.9 particles/g in raw sludge to 1.4–2.3 particles/g in biochar produced at 500∘C, with no microplastics in the 10–50 µm size range remaining.61 Co-pyrolysis of sludge with microplastics can even exhibit synergistic effects, leading to reduced char retention (meaning more complete conversion of the plastic) and increased yields of gaseous and liquid products.³¹
  • Important Consideration: It is crucial that pyrolysis is carried out at sufficiently high temperatures and for adequate residence times. Incomplete pyrolysis, particularly at temperatures below 450∘C, may not fully degrade the plastics. This could result in residual plastic fragments with altered (e.g., roughened) surface morphologies, which might paradoxically increase their capacity to adsorb other contaminants, or even lead to the formation of new, unintended polymeric substances through reactions with organic matter in the sludge.61 Therefore, achieving the target temperature for complete plastic decomposition is vital.
• PFAS Elimination:
  The extreme stability of the carbon-fluorine (C-F) bond makes PFAS resistant to most conventional treatment methods. However, the high temperatures employed in pyrolysis (typically above 600−700∘C, though some effects are seen at >500∘C) can provide sufficient energy to break these C-F bonds, leading to the destruction or transformation of PFAS molecules.62
  • Mechanism: The primary mechanism is thermal decomposition, involving the cleavage of C-F bonds and other bonds within the PFAS molecule (e.g., C-C, C-S). This process, known as defluorination, can lead to the formation of smaller, less complex fluorinated compounds, inorganic fluoride (e.g., hydrogen fluoride, HF), and eventually, mineralization to CO2​ and H2​O for the carbon backbone if conditions are optimal (e.g., in a subsequent thermal oxidation step for the syngas). The precise reaction pathways and the extent of complete mineralization versus transformation into other fluorinated byproducts are still areas of active research and depend heavily on the specific PFAS, pyrolysis conditions, and reactor design.
  • Effectiveness: Numerous studies and commercial system data report high removal or destruction efficiencies for target PFAS (like PFOA and PFOS) from the solid biochar product, often exceeding 90% and in many cases >99.9%.62 For example, one study on a commercial pyrolysis system operating with reactor temperatures around 650∘C and syngas combustion at 1020∘C found that PFAS concentrations in the resulting biochar were below detection limits.62 Another study showed 97-100% reduction of PFAS in biochar at pyrolysis temperatures of 500∘C and 700∘C.63 PYREG systems, for instance, claim elimination of PFAS to below detection limits in biochar, typically operating at 500−800∘C for pyrolysis, often combined with high-temperature (>850∘C) thermal oxidation of the produced syngas to ensure destruction of any volatile PFAS or hazardous organic compounds.³²
  • Fate of Fluorine: A critical aspect of PFAS destruction is managing the fate of the fluorine atoms. If C-F bonds are broken, fluorine can be released as HF or other volatile fluorinated species in the syngas. Effective air pollution control (APC) systems, such as wet scrubbers, are therefore essential to capture these compounds and prevent their release into the atmosphere.62 Some studies have reported low levels of target PFAS in scrubber water 62, suggesting that for certain PFAS and system designs, destruction to simpler, capturable forms is occurring, rather than just a phase transfer of the intact PFAS molecule. However, the formation and fate of all potential fluorinated products of incomplete destruction require ongoing investigation.
• Sterilization (Pathogens, Pharmaceuticals, other Organic Contaminants):
  The high temperatures inherent in pyrolysis are highly effective at sterilizing the sewage sludge, destroying pathogens, and degrading a wide range of other organic contaminants.64
  • Mechanism: Thermal degradation, denaturation of proteins and nucleic acids, and chemical decomposition of organic molecules.
  • Effectiveness: Pyrolysis temperatures (typically >350∘C and often much higher) far exceed those required for standard sterilization protocols (e.g., 132∘C for 4 minutes with steam for pathogen inactivation).65 This ensures the destruction of bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, and their spores, as well as the denaturation of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), which are an emerging concern in biosolids.65 Organic contaminants such as pharmaceuticals (e.g., antibiotics, hormones), endocrine-disrupting compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also effectively degraded or volatilized and subsequently destroyed if the syngas undergoes thermal oxidation. Studies report that pharmaceutical residues are typically below detection limits after pyrolysis at temperatures above 500∘C 65, and PAHs can be reduced by over 99%.73

The multi-contaminant destruction capability of pyrolysis positions it as a robust solution for treating complex and hazardous waste streams like sewage sludge. By simultaneously addressing microplastics, PFAS, pathogens, and other organic pollutants, pyrolysis can significantly reduce the environmental and health risks associated with sludge disposal.

3.3. From Waste to Value: The Circular Economy in Action

Beyond contaminant destruction, pyrolysis embodies circular economy principles by transforming a problematic waste (sewage sludge) into multiple valuable products, thereby recovering resources and minimizing final disposal volumes.80

• Biochar - A Multifunctional Product:
  Biochar, the solid carbonaceous material remaining after pyrolysis, is a key output with diverse applications, particularly in agriculture and environmental management.
  • Soil Amendment: Sewage sludge-derived biochar can improve soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Its porous structure enhances soil aeration and water retention capacity.81 It can increase soil pH, providing a liming effect in acidic soils.81 Crucially, biochar retains and concentrates essential plant nutrients like phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and various micronutrients originally present in the sludge, making them available for plant uptake.59 This can reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers.
  • Carbon Sequestration: Biochar is characterized by a high proportion of stable, aromatic carbon that is highly resistant to microbial decomposition.59 When applied to soil, biochar can sequester carbon for hundreds to thousands of years, thereby removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and contributing to climate change mitigation.59 The stability of biochar is often assessed by its atomic H/C ratio (a lower ratio, typically <0.7, indicates higher stability and aromaticity).59
  • Sorbent for Pollutants: Due to its high porosity, large surface area, and specific surface chemistry (which can be tailored by pyrolysis conditions), biochar acts as an excellent adsorbent for a variety of pollutants.81 It can immobilize heavy metals in contaminated soils, reducing their bioavailability and leachability.85 Importantly, biochar, including that derived from sewage sludge, has shown efficacy in adsorbing residual organic contaminants like PFAS, potentially from the soil itself or from water if used as a filtration medium.65 This sorbent property means that even if the pyrolysis process is primarily for sludge volume reduction and initial contaminant destruction, the resulting biochar can offer further remediation benefits.
• Syngas & Bio-oils - Renewable Energy and Chemical Precursors:
  The volatile fractions produced during pyrolysis can be captured and utilized, further enhancing the resource recovery aspect.
  • Syngas (Synthesis Gas): This mixture of combustible gases (H2​, CO, CH4​) and non-combustible gases (CO2​, N2​) has a significant calorific value (e.g., approximately 9 MJ/Nm3 reported in one study 66).59
    • Energy Recovery: Syngas can be combusted directly in a boiler or gas engine to generate heat and/or electricity. This energy can be used to power the pyrolysis plant itself (including the pre-drying of sludge), making the process more energy self-sufficient and reducing reliance on external fossil fuels.59 Some systems, like PYREG, are designed to be autothermal, using the syngas to provide all process heat once operational.73 Surplus energy can potentially be exported to the grid or used for district heating.
    • Chemical Feedstock: Syngas can also serve as a valuable chemical feedstock for the synthesis of various chemicals, such as methanol, ammonia, or Fischer-Tropsch liquids (synthetic fuels). Hydrogen can also be separated and purified from the syngas for use as a clean fuel or chemical reagent.67
  • Bio-oils (Pyrolysis Oils): This liquid product is a complex mixture of hundreds of organic compounds, including water, acids, alcohols, phenols, ketones, aldehydes, and heavier hydrocarbons.60
    • Liquid Fuel: Bio-oil has a higher energy density than the raw sludge and can be used as a liquid fuel in boilers or furnaces. However, bio-oil derived from sewage sludge often has undesirable properties for direct fuel use, such as high water content, high oxygen content (leading to lower heating value and instability), high nitrogen and sulfur content (leading to NOx​ and SOx​ emissions upon combustion), acidity, and high viscosity.67 Therefore, upgrading processes like hydrodeoxygenation, esterification, or emulsification are often necessary to improve its fuel quality.67 The heating value of the separated organic phase of bio-oil can be substantial (e.g., 30-40 MJ/kg).90
    • Chemical Source: Bio-oil can be a source of various valuable platform chemicals and specialty chemicals through fractionation and refining. Phenolic compounds, for example, can be extracted for use in resins and adhesives, while acetic acid can be recovered.90

The unique ability of pyrolysis to simultaneously destroy hazardous contaminants and convert waste into multiple usable products (biochar for soil and carbon, energy from syngas/bio-oil) strongly aligns with the objectives of a circular economy. This contrasts sharply with linear disposal methods that offer no resource recovery and often exacerbate environmental pollution. The energy balance of a pyrolysis plant is a critical determinant of its overall sustainability; systems that can achieve energy self-sufficiency or net energy export by utilizing the produced syngas and bio-oils are particularly advantageous, as this reduces both operational costs and the carbon footprint associated with sludge treatment.

Section 4: Critical Analysis: Benefits, Challenges, and Alternatives

While pyrolysis presents a technologically advanced approach to managing contaminated sewage sludge, a comprehensive evaluation requires a critical comparison with existing sludge management strategies and a realistic assessment of the hurdles to its widespread adoption. This section provides such an analysis, weighing the benefits of pyrolysis against its challenges and contextualizing its potential within the broader landscape of waste management.

4.1. Comparative Analysis: Pyrolysis vs. Other Sludge Management Strategies

To understand the relative merits of pyrolysis, it is essential to compare it against the most common current sludge management practices: land application, landfilling, and incineration. Each method has distinct advantages, disadvantages, and implications for pollutant fate, resource recovery, and environmental impact.

• Land Application (Status Quo):
  • Pros: Historically, the primary benefits are low cost for municipalities and the recycling of valuable plant nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and organic matter back to agricultural soils, potentially reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.29
  • Cons: The most significant drawback is the direct introduction of a wide range of pollutants present in the sludge—including microplastics, PFAS, pathogens (if not adequately treated to Class A standards), pharmaceuticals, and heavy metals—into the soil.16 This leads to long-term contamination of soil and water resources, potential uptake into the food chain, and risks to ecological and human health. Public opposition to this practice is also growing due to these concerns.
  • Pollutant Fate: Pollutants are largely spread and dispersed into the environment.
  • Resource Recovery: Nutrients and organic matter are recycled, but contaminants are co-applied.
  • GHG Emissions: Can be variable; N$\_2$O emissions from soil, CH$\_4$ from anaerobic spots, but also soil carbon sequestration potential if organic matter is stable.
• Landfilling:
  • Pros: Can be a relatively simple and, in some regions, lower-cost disposal option compared to more complex treatments, especially if landfill space is readily available and tipping fees are low.91 Offers containment of the sludge.
  • Cons: Significant land use. Generation of leachate, which can be highly contaminated with PFAS, heavy metals, and other pollutants, posing a risk to groundwater if liners fail or leachate is not properly managed.17 Production of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in the sludge, contributing to climate change.91 Represents a loss of valuable resources (nutrients, organic carbon, energy potential) embedded in the sludge. Potential for long-term environmental liability.
  • Pollutant Fate: Pollutants are contained within the landfill, but leaching is a risk. Organic pollutants may degrade anaerobically over long periods, but persistent ones like PFAS and MPs remain.
  • Resource Recovery: Minimal to none; resources are lost.
  • GHG Emissions: Significant CH$\_4$ emissions unless landfill gas capture is highly efficient. CO$\_2$ also produced.
• Incineration:
  • Pros: Achieves substantial reduction in sludge volume (typically >90%) and mass, thereby minimizing final disposal requirements.29 Destroys pathogens and most organic compounds due to high temperatures (typically 850−1250∘C).76 Can recover energy in the form of heat or electricity if the facility is equipped for it.29 Some PFAS destruction can occur at these high temperatures, though the completeness and byproducts are subjects of ongoing research.76
  • Cons: Very high capital and operational costs, largely due to the need for extensive flue gas cleaning systems (air pollution control, APC) to manage emissions of pollutants such as dioxins, furans, nitrogen oxides (NOx​), sulfur oxides (SOx​), particulate matter, and volatile heavy metals (e.g., mercury).29 The resulting ash, while reduced in volume, is often classified as hazardous waste due to concentrated heavy metals and potentially undestroyed or newly formed toxic compounds (e.g., some PFAS may persist or reform), requiring careful disposal in specialized landfills. Significant greenhouse gas emissions (CO2​) from the combustion of organic matter. Loss of organic matter and nutrients like nitrogen.
  • Pollutant Fate: Organic pollutants and pathogens are largely destroyed. PFAS destruction is partial to significant depending on conditions. Heavy metals are concentrated in ash and fly ash. Microplastics are destroyed.
  • Resource Recovery: Energy recovery is possible. Nutrient recovery from ash is complex and not widely practiced.
  • GHG Emissions: High CO2​ emissions.

The following table provides a comparative summary:

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Sludge Management Strategies

Feature	Land Application (Status Quo)	Landfilling	Incineration	Pyrolysis
Pros	Cheap; nutrient (N,P) & organic matter recycling 29	Relatively simple; lower cost if land available 91	Significant volume/mass reduction; energy recovery; pathogen/organic destruction 29	Destroys MPs, PFAS, pathogens, pharmaceuticals; produces biochar (soil amendment, C-sequestration, sorbent); energy recovery (syngas/oil)
Cons	Spreads pollutants (MPs, PFAS, pathogens, etc.); long-term soil/water contamination; food chain risk; public opposition 32	Leachate risk (PFAS, metals); CH4​ emissions; resource loss; land use; long-term liability 17	High CAPEX/OPEX; toxic air emissions (dioxins, NOx​, SOx​, metals); ash disposal (conc. metals, some PFAS); CO2​ emissions 76	High CAPEX; technical complexity; heavy metals concentrate in biochar; syngas/bio-oil may need cleaning/upgrading; regulatory uncertainty
Pollutant Fate (MPs)	Spread	Contained (degrade slowly)	Destroyed	Destroyed (at T >450∘C) 61
Pollutant Fate (PFAS)	Spread; persist	Contained (persist; leach)	Partial to significant destruction (T dependent); some may be in ash/emissions 76	High destruction in solids (>99% possible); fate in gas/liquid needs APC 62
Pollutant Fate (Pathogens)	Reduced (Class A/B) but risk remains for Class B	Slow anaerobic decay	Destroyed	Destroyed 65
Pollutant Fate (Heavy Metals)	Spread; accumulate in soil	Contained (leach risk)	Concentrated in ash/fly ash	Concentrated in biochar; speciation may change 95
Resource Recovery	Nutrients, organic matter	None	Energy (heat/electricity)	Biochar (nutrients, C), Energy (syngas, bio-oil)
GHG Emissions (Net)	Variable (N2​O, CH4​, C-seq.)	High (CH4​, CO2​)	High (CO2​)	Lower, potentially negative with C-sequestration & energy offset 84
Indicative CAPEX	Low	Low to Medium	Very High 93	High 93
Indicative OPEX	Low	Low to Medium	High 93	Medium to High (can be offset by energy/product sales) 96
Overall Env. Risk	High (long-term, diffuse)	Medium to High (leachate, GHG)	Medium (air emissions, ash) if not well controlled	Low to Medium (if well designed/operated; heavy metals in char is key concern)
Circular Economy Align.	Fair (nutrient recycling only)	Poor	Fair (energy recovery only)	Excellent (pollutant destruction, material & energy recovery) 80

This comparative analysis underscores that while pyrolysis has higher initial costs and technical complexity than land application or landfilling, it offers superior pollutant destruction and resource recovery potential, aligning far better with circular economy principles and long-term environmental protection goals than any of the other widely practiced alternatives.

4.2. Hurdles to Adoption of Pyrolysis: A Realistic Assessment

Despite its technical merits, the widespread implementation of pyrolysis for sewage sludge management faces several significant challenges that need to be addressed.

• Economic Viability:
  • Capital and Operational Expenditures (CAPEX & OPEX): Pyrolysis facilities typically involve substantial upfront capital investment (CAPEX) for equipment such as reactors, pre-drying units, gas handling and cleaning systems, and product conditioning systems.93 While some studies suggest CAPEX can range from 36 to 1.6 million USD per ton of total solids (TS) per day capacity depending on the specific thermochemical process and scale 96, pyrolysis plants are generally considered high-CAPEX. Operational expenditures (OPEX) include costs for energy (if not fully self-sufficient), labor, maintenance, and disposal of any residual wastes. OPEX can be partially offset by the energy recovered from syngas combustion (which can power the plant and potentially be exported) and by revenues generated from the sale of biochar, bio-oil, and potentially carbon credits.88 However, the economic balance is delicate. For instance, one economic analysis for a slow pyrolysis plant estimated a total capital investment of $13.5 million (2016 CAD) for a 2.1 tonnes/hr capacity, with annual operating costs of $1.32 million, resulting in a negative Net Present Value unless the biochar could be sold at a significant price or landfill tipping fees were very high.³³
  • Economic Models and Market Factors: The overall economic viability of sewage sludge pyrolysis is highly dependent on a complex interplay of factors. These include: the “gate fees” or tipping fees that WWTPs would otherwise pay for sludge disposal via landfilling or incineration (avoided costs); the efficiency of energy recovery and the local price of energy (electricity/heat); the market price and demand for biochar, which is still an emerging market with variable pricing ($50-$200/tonne or higher, depending on quality and application) ³⁴; the potential value of bio-oil (often requiring upgrading); and the availability and value of carbon credits for carbon sequestration in biochar and GHG emission reductions.73 The global biochar market is growing rapidly, with revenues exceeding 600 MUSD in 2023 ³⁴, but developing stable, high-value end-markets for physical biochar, especially from diverse feedstocks like sewage sludge, remains a challenge. ³⁴ The economic feasibility is therefore not a fixed attribute of the technology itself but is highly sensitive to local conditions, policy incentives, and market dynamics.
• Scalability:
  • Challenge: A major hurdle is scaling pyrolysis technology to reliably and economically process the massive and continuous volumes of sewage sludge generated by large municipalities. ^{35 33} WWTPs in large urban centers can produce hundreds or even thousands of tons of dewatered sludge per day.
  • Current Status: While numerous pilot-scale and an increasing number of commercial-scale pyrolysis plants are operational for various biomass feedstocks, including some for sewage sludge (e.g., PYREG has units with capacities around 1,200−1,600 tons of dry solids per year ³⁶), widespread, large-scale deployment specifically for municipal sewage sludge is still in a relatively early phase of adoption compared to established methods like anaerobic digestion or incineration. China, facing enormous sludge volumes(e.g.,JiangsuProvinceproducing 16,000tons/dayofwetsludge ³⁷),isactivelyexploringpyrolysisamongothersolutions.³⁸
  • Influencing Factors: The inherent variability of sewage sludge feedstock—in terms of moisture content (which necessitates energy-intensive pre-drying), organic/inorganic composition (ash content can be very high, affecting biochar yield and quality), and calorific value—poses challenges for consistent reactor operation and product quality at large scales.³⁵ Robust and efficient pre-treatment systems (drying, grinding, feeding) are critical. Modular plant designs, where multiple smaller pyrolysis units operate in parallel, may offer a more flexible and resilient approach to achieving large capacities.³⁹ Co-pyrolysis of sewage sludge with other organic waste streams (e.g., agricultural residues, food waste, or even plastic waste) is also being investigated as a means to improve feedstock characteristics (e.g., increase calorific value, reduce ash content of the blend), enhance product yields and quality, and potentially improve overall process economics and throughput.³⁵³¹
• Heavy Metals in Biochar:
  • Concentration Effect: Pyrolysis, being a thermal process, does not destroy inorganic constituents like heavy metals. As the organic fraction of the sludge is volatilized and converted into bio-oil and syngas, the heavy metals originally present in the sludge become concentrated in the remaining solid biochar fraction. ^{40 41 32 42 43 44} The degree of concentration depends on the initial metal levels in the sludge and the mass reduction achieved during pyrolysis (i.e., the biochar yield).
  • Implications for Safe Use: This concentration effect is a critical concern if the biochar is intended for land application, especially in agriculture. The levels of specific heavy metals (e.g., arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), zinc (Zn)) in the biochar must comply with stringent national and international regulatory limits for soil amendments or fertilizers. ^{45 43 46 47 48 49} If these limits are exceeded, the biochar may be unsuitable for agricultural use, or its application rates may be severely restricted, undermining one of its key valorization pathways. The table below provides a comparison of some regulatory limits with typical concentrations.
  • Management Strategies:
    1. Source Control: The most effective long-term strategy is to prevent heavy metals from entering the wastewater system in the first place, through stringent industrial pre-treatment programs and control of diffuse sources. This improves the quality of the initial sludge, making the derived biochar safer.
    2. Process Optimization: Pyrolysis conditions (e.g., temperature) can influence the chemical speciation and leachability of some heavy metals in the biochar. Higher temperatures can sometimes transform metals into more stable, less bioavailable forms, reducing their environmental risk. ^{50 42 43 47} However, some volatile metals like mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and selenium can be partially or fully volatilized at pyrolysis temperatures and would need to be captured by APC systems. ⁴²
    3. Alternative Biochar Uses: If biochar from a particular sludge source is too high in heavy metals for agricultural use, alternative applications might be considered. These could include its use as a sorbent for remediating heavily contaminated industrial sites, incorporation into construction materials (e.g., asphalt, concrete), or as a component in activated carbon production, provided these uses do not lead to subsequent environmental release of the metals.
    4. Pre- or Post-Treatment: Chemical leaching or washing of the sludge before pyrolysis or the biochar after pyrolysis can be employed to remove heavy metals, but these processes add significant cost and complexity, and generate a secondary waste stream (the metal-laden leachate) that requires management.

Table 2: Regulatory Limits for Heavy Metals in Biosolids/Biochar (mg/kg dry weight) vs. Typical Concentrations in Sewage Sludge Biochar

Heavy Metal	US EPA Ceiling Conc. (Biosolids) 46	EU Directive Limit (Sludge for Agric.) [58]*	IBI Basic Limit (Biochar) 113**	Typical Range in SS Biochar (Pyrolysis >450°C) 69
Arsenic (As)	75	20-50 (country-specific)	13	<10 - 50
Cadmium (Cd)	85	1-40 (country-specific, often <5-10)	1.4	<1 - 15 (can be higher, volatilization dependent) 59
Chromium (Cr, total)	Not listed as ceiling, but regulated for surface disposal	50-1500 (often <1000)	93	30 - 800 59
Copper (Cu)	4300	100-1750 (often <1000)	143	100 - 1500 59
Lead (Pb)	840	50-1200 (often <300-750)	120	20 - 300 59
Mercury (Hg)	57	1-16 (often <1-2.5)	1	<0.1 - 5 (highly volatile, often low in char) 59
Nickel (Ni)	420	20-400 (often <100-200)	47	20 - 250 59
Selenium (Se)	100	Not typically limited in EU sludge directive	5	<5 - 20 (can be volatile) 59
Zinc (Zn)	7500	200-4000 (often <2500-3000)	416	500 - 4000 59

*EU limits vary by member state and soil type; ranges are indicative. Some countries have much stricter limits. The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) sets ranges, e.g., Cd: 20-40 mg/kg in sludge, 1-3 mg/kg in soil.

**International Biochar Initiative (IBI) standards are voluntary guidelines, not legal regulations, and offer different thresholds for different grades/uses. Basic limits are shown.

The data in Table 2 clearly illustrate the challenge: while pyrolysis effectively deals with organic contaminants, the resulting biochar can have heavy metal concentrations that, depending on the initial sludge quality and specific regulatory regime, may exceed limits for unrestricted agricultural application. This underscores that pyrolysis is not a universal panacea for all sludge contaminants if the goal is solely agricultural biochar; it must be part of an integrated strategy that includes robust upstream source control of metals.

• Regulatory & Public Acceptance:
  • Regulatory Frameworks: A significant hurdle is the often lagging or incomplete regulatory landscape for pyrolysis-derived biochar from sewage sludge.114 Existing regulations for biosolids (e.g., US EPA 40 CFR Part 503 30, EU Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC 58) were primarily developed with pathogens and a select list of heavy metals in mind. They often do not adequately address emerging contaminants like PFAS and microplastics, nor do they have specific provisions or quality standards for biochar as a distinct product derived from sludge. Clear, science-based, and internationally harmonized (where feasible) standards for sewage sludge-derived biochar are crucial. These need to cover a broader suite of potential contaminants (PFAS, residual MPs, PAHs, dioxins/furans, in addition to heavy metals) and define clear “end-of-waste” criteria that allow safe biochar to be marketed and used as a product rather than being regulated as a waste.114 The EU Fertilising Products Regulation (EU/2019/1009), which includes provisions for pyrolysis and gasification materials (CMC 14), is a step in this direction but may not cover all potential biochar applications or address all contaminant concerns comprehensively.114 In the US, states like New York are beginning to explore policy considerations for updating biosolids classifications beyond just pathogens and metals to account for emerging pollutants.115
  • Policy Changes and Incentives: To encourage the adoption of advanced technologies like pyrolysis over cheaper, but more polluting, conventional disposal methods (like landfilling or direct land application of untreated sludge), supportive policy measures are likely necessary. These could include financial incentives such as subsidies, grants, tax credits, or preferential loan terms for pyrolysis projects. Carbon pricing mechanisms or the formal recognition of carbon sequestration benefits from biochar in carbon markets could also significantly improve the economic attractiveness of pyrolysis.98 Policies should also strongly promote upstream source control of contaminants to improve sludge quality.
  • Public Acceptance: Public perception can be a substantial barrier to the utilization of any products derived from sewage sludge, even if they have been rigorously treated and proven safe.109 The “disgust factor” or “yuck factor” associated with materials originating from human waste is a powerful psychological hurdle.122 Overcoming this requires transparent communication, robust scientific evidence of safety and benefits, and proactive community engagement and education. Terminology also plays a role; “biosolids” was adopted to sound more positive than “sludge,” and similar care may be needed for marketing biochar from this source.122 Studies show that public acceptance tends to be higher among older demographics and males, and significantly improves when clear information about the process, safety, and benefits is provided.122 Demonstrating the destruction of harmful pollutants like PFAS and microplastics, and highlighting the resource recovery and environmental benefits, can be key messages in building public trust.

Addressing these multifaceted hurdles—economic, technical, regulatory, and social—is essential for pyrolysis to realize its full potential as a sustainable solution for the microplastic and PFAS crisis in sewage sludge. The path forward likely involves a combination of technological innovation, supportive policy frameworks that internalize environmental costs, market development for pyrolysis products, and transparent public engagement.

Section 5: Recommendations and Future Outlook

The escalating crisis of microplastic and PFAS contamination in modern waste streams, particularly their concentration in sewage sludge and subsequent dispersal through practices like land application, demands urgent and transformative action. The preceding analysis indicates that pyrolysis offers a technologically robust pathway to mitigate these risks while fostering a circular economy for sludge management. This concluding section synthesizes these findings into actionable policy recommendations and articulates a vision for a necessary paradigm shift in how society manages these complex wastes.

5.1. Policy Recommendations: Charting a Course for Safer Sludge Management

Effective and sustainable management of contaminated sewage sludge requires a concerted and multi-level governance approach, involving municipal, state/regional, and federal/supra-national authorities. The following policy recommendations are proposed:

• For Municipal, State/Regional, and Federal/Supra-national (EU) Governments:
  1. Phase-Out and Ultimately Ban Land Application of Untreated or Inadequately Treated Biosolids: Implement a clear, time-bound strategy to significantly restrict and eventually prohibit the agricultural land application of sewage sludge that has not undergone advanced treatment processes demonstrated to effectively destroy or remove PFAS, microplastics, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, and other persistent organic pollutants to levels below stringent, health-based, and ecologically protective standards. This aligns with the precautionary principle, given the well-documented risks of current practices.55 Initial steps could include an immediate ban on sludge from WWTPs with significant industrial PFAS inputs.
  2. Establish Comprehensive, Science-Based Standards for Pollutants in Biochar and Other Sludge-Derived Products: Develop and enforce legally binding standards for a comprehensive suite of contaminants (including specific PFAS congeners, total organofluorine, microplastic concentrations by size/type, heavy metals, PAHs, dioxins/furans) in biochar and any other materials derived from sewage sludge intended for land application or other uses. These standards must be differentiated based on end-use (e.g., stricter limits for agricultural soils versus remediation of contaminated industrial sites or use in construction materials) and regularly updated as scientific understanding of risks evolves.114 International collaboration should aim for harmonization of these standards where appropriate to ensure a level playing field and facilitate the safe trade and use of compliant products. Reference should be made to existing frameworks like US EPA heavy metal limits 110 and EU regulations 58, but these must be expanded significantly.
  3. Incentivize and Support the Adoption of Advanced Thermal Treatment Technologies: Create robust financial and regulatory incentives to encourage the transition from conventional sludge disposal methods (landfilling, land application of risky biosolids, outdated incineration) to advanced thermal treatment technologies like pyrolysis. Mechanisms could include capital grants, low-interest loans, tax credits, accelerated depreciation for pyrolysis equipment, and streamlined permitting processes for facilities that demonstrate superior pollutant destruction and resource recovery.93 Carbon pricing or credits for carbon sequestration via biochar should be integrated into these incentive structures.
  4. Strengthen and Enforce Upstream Source Control and Industrial Pre-treatment Programs: Implement and rigorously enforce comprehensive industrial pre-treatment programs to minimize the discharge of persistent pollutants (especially PFAS from known industrial users like plating facilities, textile manufacturers, and chemical plants, as well as heavy metals) into municipal sewer systems.11 This “source control” approach is critical for reducing the initial contamination burden on WWTPs, thereby improving the quality of the sewage sludge feedstock for pyrolysis and increasing the safety and value of the resulting biochar and other recovered products. Consider restrictions on non-essential uses of PFAS in consumer products that readily enter wastewater.
  5. Invest in Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) of Sludge Treatment and Valorization Technologies: Allocate significant public funding for continued RD&D into pyrolysis and other innovative sludge treatment technologies. Focus areas should include optimizing process efficiency, reducing CAPEX and OPEX, improving the understanding of full-scale emissions (especially for PFAS transformation products and nanoparticles), developing cost-effective analytical methods for emerging contaminants, and validating the long-term safety, agronomic efficacy, and environmental benefits of biochar and other sludge-derived products in diverse settings.115 Support the establishment of regional pilot and full-scale demonstration projects to showcase best practices and build operational experience.
  6. Promote and Integrate Circular Economy Frameworks for Sewage Sludge Management: Develop and implement national and regional policies that explicitly recognize sewage sludge as a potential resource rather than solely a waste. These frameworks should support the entire value chain, from contaminant-minimized sludge generation to the development of stable markets and sustainable end-uses for recovered products like biochar (for agriculture, remediation, carbon sequestration), energy (from syngas and bio-oils), and recovered nutrients (e.g., phosphorus).⁵¹ This requires inter-agency collaboration (e.g., environment, agriculture, energy departments).
  7. Enhance Monitoring, Reporting, and Data Transparency: Mandate comprehensive, frequent, and standardized monitoring of a wider range of PFAS congeners, microplastics (types and sizes), and other relevant emerging contaminants in wastewater influent, effluent, and sewage sludge across all WWTPs. Improve the collection, public accessibility, and national/regional aggregation of data on sludge generation, treatment methods, contaminant levels, and final disposition pathways.19 This data is essential for informed risk assessment, policy evaluation, and tracking progress.
  8. Foster Public Education, Stakeholder Engagement, and Workforce Development: Invest in public education campaigns to raise awareness about the challenges of sewage sludge contamination, the risks of current practices, and the safety and benefits of advanced treatment technologies and recovered products. Facilitate transparent stakeholder engagement involving municipalities, industry, farmers, researchers, environmental groups, and the public to build trust and consensus around sustainable sludge management solutions.115 Support training programs for WWTP operators and technicians on advanced treatment technologies.

5.2. A Paradigm Shift in Waste Management: Towards a Circular and Sustainable Future

The intertwined crises of microplastic and PFAS contamination emanating from waste streams are symptomatic of a broader, systemic failure in how modern societies manage waste. The prevailing linear “take-make-dispose” models, particularly evident in sewage sludge management through practices like landfilling and the direct land application of potentially contaminated biosolids, are fundamentally unsustainable. These approaches often merely shift pollutants from one environmental compartment to another (e.g., from water to soil), fail to address the inherent persistence of many modern chemical contaminants, and result in the squandering of valuable resources embedded within waste materials. The ecological degradation, food chain contamination, and long-term public health risks detailed in this report (Section 2.3) unequivocally demonstrate the urgent need for a paradigm shift.

The 21st century calls for a transition towards integrated waste management systems firmly rooted in the principles of the circular economy. This paradigm views “waste” streams, including sewage sludge, not as end-of-pipe problems requiring mere disposal, but as potential feedstocks for the recovery of valuable materials and energy. Such an approach aims to close material loops, minimize environmental pollution, and enhance resource security.

Pyrolysis, as critically evaluated in this report, stands out as a key enabling technology for this paradigm shift in the context of sewage sludge management. Its capacity for:

• Effective Detoxification: Pyrolysis offers a robust means of destroying a wide spectrum of hazardous and persistent organic pollutants commonly found in sewage sludge, including microplastics, PFAS, pharmaceuticals, and pathogens (as detailed in Section 3.2). This breaks the cycle of pollutant transfer into the environment.
• Multi-faceted Resource Valorization: Beyond destruction, pyrolysis transforms the problematic sludge into a suite of valuable products (Section 3.3):
  • Biochar: A stable, carbon-rich solid that can be used as a soil amendment to improve soil health and fertility, a tool for long-term carbon sequestration to combat climate change, and an effective sorbent for immobilizing existing pollutants in soil or water.
  • Syngas and Bio-oils: These combustible products can be utilized to generate renewable energy (heat and/or electricity), potentially making the wastewater treatment process more energy self-sufficient and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. They can also serve as precursors for valuable chemicals.
  • Nutrient Recovery: Essential plant nutrients like phosphorus, which are finite resources, are concentrated in the biochar in plant-available forms, allowing for their safe recycling back to agriculture.65

The adoption of such integrated, recovery-oriented approaches offers profound benefits across multiple domains:

• Environmental Protection: By destroying persistent pollutants and preventing their release, these technologies safeguard soil health, protect water quality from leaching and runoff, and preserve biodiversity. The sequestration of carbon in biochar and the generation of renewable energy contribute directly to climate change mitigation efforts, reducing the overall carbon footprint of wastewater management.
• Food Security and Safety: The provision of safe, pathogen-free, and low-organic-pollutant soil amendments like high-quality biochar can enhance agricultural productivity and soil resilience, contributing to sustainable food production systems. Critically, it helps to break the cycle of food chain contamination that can occur when untreated or inadequately treated biosolids are applied to land.
• Long-Term Public Health: By minimizing human and ecological exposure to harmful persistent chemicals like PFAS and microplastics, and by eliminating pathogens from sludge, advanced treatment strategies directly contribute to protecting public health and reducing the burden of environment-related diseases.

Conclusion:

The contamination of modern waste streams with microplastics and PFAS presents a formidable challenge that necessitates a departure from outdated, linear disposal mentalities. A paradigm shift towards integrated, circular “recover and reuse” models is not merely an aspirational goal but an environmental, economic, and societal imperative for the 21st century. Technologies like pyrolysis, when implemented responsibly and as part of a holistic waste management strategy that includes robust source control and clear regulatory oversight, offer a powerful means to detoxify hazardous sludge, recover valuable resources, and contribute to a more sustainable and healthier future. This transition requires a concerted commitment from researchers, industry innovators, policymakers, and an informed public to embrace solutions that truly close the loop on waste.

Footnotes

1. www.epa.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/water-research/microplastics-research#:~:text=Plastics%20have%20become%20pervasive%20in,to%201%20nanometer%20(nm). ↩

2. Microplastics Research | US EPA, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/water-research/microplastics-research ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

3. A Review of Sources, Hazards, and Removal Methods of … - MDPI, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/17/1/102 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷

4. Microplastic sources, formation, toxicity and remediation: a review …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10072287/ ↩

5. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - Wikipedia, accessed May 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

6. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) - Enviro Wiki, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=Perfluoroalkyl_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_(PFASs) ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. Testing for PFOS, PFOA and Other Related PFAS Compounds …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/articles/testing-for-pfos-pfoa-and-other-related-pfas-compounds-397406 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

8. Microplastics in Wastewater Treatment Plants: Characteristics …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/24/3574 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

9. Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Sources, properties …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://iwaponline.com/wst/article/87/3/685/93169/Microplastics-in-wastewater-treatment-plants ↩

10. PFAS: Impacts, Challenges, and Solutions in Metal Finishing | The Armoloy Corporation, accessed May 27, 2025, https://armoloy.com/pfas-impacts-challenges-and-solutions-in-metal-finishing/ ↩

11. Targeted and Nontargeted Analysis of PFAS in Fume Suppressant Products at Chrome Plating Facilities - State of Michigan, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Programs/WRD/IPP/pfas-chrome-plating.pdf?rev=42fac55f5c6445b387b105a85b578b7d ↩

12. Chemicals: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Substances | Wisconsin Department of Health Services, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm ↩

13. www.epa.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/fact-sheet-wwtps-draft-sewage-sludge-risk-assessment-pfoa-pfos.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

14. Study tracks PFAS, microplastics through landfills and wastewater treatment plants, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1065380 ↩

15. High organofluorine concentrations in municipal wastewater affect downstream drinking water supplies for millions of Americans | PNAS, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2417156122 ↩

16. Microplastic Retention in Secondary Sewage Sludge … - MDPI, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/7/3557 ↩

17. Determination of microplastics in municipal wastewater treatment …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/wecn.2024.72 ↩ ↩² ↩³

18. Wastewater - Washington State Department of Ecology, accessed May 27, 2025, https://ecology.wa.gov/waste-toxics/reducing-toxic-chemicals/addressing-priority-toxic-chemicals/pfas/wastewater ↩ ↩²

19. www.stowa.nl, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.stowa.nl/sites/default/files/assets/PUBLICATIES/Publicaties%202021/STOWA%202021-46E%20PFAS%20Engels.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

20. The Stubborn “Chemical Invader”: Challenges and Solutions for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Chinese Sewage Sludge | ACS ES&T Water - ACS Publications, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsestwater.5c00065 ↩

21. Historical Perspective | NW Biosolids, accessed May 27, 2025, https://nwbiosolids.org/historical-perspective/ ↩

22. A perspective on biosolids management - PMC, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2094821/ ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

23. pubs.acs.org, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.6b04140 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

24. Evaluation of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Leaching from …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00414 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

25. What Does PFAS Mean To My Farm - PFAS Contamination in …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.canr.msu.edu/pfas/what-does-pfas-mean-on-my-farm ↩

26. Microplastics in farm soils: A growing concern - EHN, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.ehn.org/plastic-in-farm-soil-and-food ↩ ↩²

27. Are Agricultural Soils Dumps for Microplastics of Urban Origin …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b04140 ↩

28. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6128618/#:~:text=Microplastics%20affected%20the%20bulk%20density,activity%20and%20water%20stable%20aggregates. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

29. A Dead World, Plastic-Wrapped to Preserve Freshness - resilience, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.resilience.org/stories/2025-05-27/a-dead-world-plastic-wrapped-to-preserve-freshness/ ↩

30. Microplastic-Induced Alterations in Soil Aggregate-Associated Carbon Stabilization Pathways: Evidence from δ13C Signature Analysis | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389778854_Microplastic-Induced_Alterations_in_Soil_Aggregate-Associated_Carbon_Stabilization_Pathways_Evidence_from_d13C_Signature_Analysis ↩

31. Pyrolysis behavior of sewage sludge coexisted with microplastics …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39447367/ ↩ ↩²

32. biochar-us.org, accessed May 27, 2025, https://biochar-us.org/sites/default/files/presentations/USBI-NABC24-RobertKovach-PYREG-Carbonization-of-Sewage-Sludge.pdf ↩ ↩²

33. Pyrolysis as an Economical and Ecological Treatment Option for …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7155&context=etd ↩ ↩²

34. GLOBAL BIOCHAR MARKET REPORT, accessed May 27, 2025, https://biochar-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Global-Biochar-Market-Report-2023-%E2%80%93-Public.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³

35. Biochar from Co-Pyrolyzed Municipal Sewage Sludge (MSS): Part 1 …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278580/ ↩ ↩² ↩³

36. Pyreg - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/activities/p-recovery-technology-inventory?view=article&id=2330:pyreg&catid=93:nutrient-recovery-technology-catalogue ↩

37. Energy Utilization Assessment of Municipal Sewage Sludge Based on SWOT-FAHP Analysis - MDPI, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/15/2/260 ↩

38. Pyrolysis of Municipal Sewage Sludge for Biofuel Production: A Review - ACS Publications, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c01546 ↩

39. Our Technology - PYREG GmbH, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pyreg.com/our-technology/ ↩

40. Impact of temperature and residence time on sewage sludge …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11002555/ ↩

41. Biochar from sewage sludge: the phosphorus fertilizer for a safe and …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pyreg.com/biochar-from-sewage-sludge-the-phosphorus-fertilizer-for-a-safe-and-sustainable-agriculture/ ↩

42. Sewage Sludge Carbonization for Biochar Applications. Fate of …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264905188_Sewage_Sludge_Carbonization_for_Biochar_Applications_Fate_of_Heavy_Metals ↩ ↩² ↩³

43. Nutrients and Heavy Metals in Biochar Produced by Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis: Its Application in Soil Amendment - Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, accessed May 27, 2025, http://www.pjoes.com/pdf-89192-23051?filename=23051.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³

44. Biochar Derived from Sewage Sludge: The Impact of Pyrolysis Temperature on Chemical Properties and Agronomic Potential - ResearchGate, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384300220_Biochar_Derived_from_Sewage_Sludge_The_Impact_of_Pyrolysis_Temperature_on_Chemical_Properties_and_Agronomic_Potential ↩

45. Sewage sludge - European Commission, accessed May 27, 2025, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/sewage-sludge_en ↩

46. Regulatory Determinations for Pollutants in Biosolids | US EPA, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/regulatory-determinations-pollutants-biosolids ↩ ↩²

47. Effects of Biochar-Derived Sewage Sludge on Heavy Metal Adsorption and Immobilization in Soils - PMC, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5551119/ ↩ ↩²

48. Assessing heavy metal contamination in agricultural soils: a new GIS-based Probabilistic Pollution Index (PPI) – case study: Guarda Region, Portugal, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19475683.2025.2452256 ↩

49. Characteristic of heavy metals in biochar derived from sewage sludge - ResearchGate, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277578413_Characteristic_of_heavy_metals_in_biochar_derived_from_sewage_sludge ↩

50. Biochar and hydrochar from sewage sludge (*WNWNW #3) | The MBR Site, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.thembrsite.com/blog/biochar-hydrochar-sewage-sludge ↩

51. Advancing pyrolysis of sewage sludge: Bibliometrics analysis, life …, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391792475_Advancing_pyrolysis_of_sewage_sludge_Bibliometrics_analysis_life_cycle_assessment_and_circular_economy_insights ↩