Saturday, 13 June 2020

Recent research on Microplastics & Sewage Sludge / Biosolids

Recent Publications on Microplastics and Sewage Sludge / Biosolids




1. "Long-term assessment of nanoplastic particle and microplastic fiber flux through a pilot wastewater treatment plant using metal-doped plastics" June/2020

"nanoplastics and microplastics were tracked through a wastewater treatment plant. Over 98% of plastic particles sequestered into biosolids."
"As the majority of particulate plastic is retained in the sludge, the burden of plastic pollution would shift with sewage sludge application to soil"
" the material that may enter the environment in those locations where sludge is still used as an amendment to agricultural soils."
( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115860 )


2. "Plastic Pollution in Soils: Governance Approaches to Foster Soil Health and Closed Nutrient Cycles " May/2020

"Plastic pollution in soils pose a major threat to soil health and soil fertility, to food security and human health. The highest source of microplastic input into the soil is the direct application of sewage sludge for agricultural fertilization …It is, therefore, to be welcomed—also because of other pollutants in sewage sludge—that in Germany, the direct soil related spreading of sewage sludge will be largely prohibited in the future by the respective command‐and‐control legislation"
 "the potentially high contamination of sewage sludge with a wide variety of pollutants and microplastic particles has already led to an increased focus on indirect, thermal sewage sludge recycling in Germany and the EU. The direct recovery of essential nutrients such as phosphorus from sewage sludge by specific (preferably energy‐efficient) recycling processes is, therefore, seen as future‐oriented. This would also lead to reduced plastic pollution of agricultural soils"


3. "High microplastic levels in soil can halve worm fertility" Oct/2019

“Given we know that microplastics are accumulating in our soils and can stay there for a very long time, we clearly need to understand the effect they are having on our soil ecosystems and the long-term risks they may pose.”
( https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/high-microplastic-levels-soil-can-halve-worm-fertility?fbclid=IwAR3Lly_KY4ngdczt7H08tpLADzsvQDV-ZxzwGzkjDNSFjB-M36V3kuUBL00 )


4. "Municipal sewage sludge as a source of microplastics in the environment" April/2020

"Sewage sludge serves as a source of MPs to the environment, predominantly through the application of biosolids on agricultural lands ... land applied biosolids presents a dangerous opportunity
 for large amounts of Microplastics to enter the environment and accumulate up the food chain"
( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.12.001 )


5. "Microplastics and pollutants in biosolids have contaminated agricultural soils: An analytical study and a proposal to cease the use of biosolids in farmlands" April/2020

"This study examines the detrimental effects of the existing methods for recycling biosolids. Such methods produce negative consequences in terms of contaminating farmlands with microplastics,
micropollutants, chemicals and pathogens. In addition the negative effects of stockpiling biosolids is likewise be examined."
"The agricultural applications of biosolids produce known biological and health concerns, and contamination of farmland through the accumulation of different types of pollutants is occurring despite governing authorities implementing restrictions to lessen their environmental burden."
"Furthermore emerging pollutants, such as microplastics, nanoplastics, pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals, are leading to further contamination of agricultural soils."
"... although guidelines address known pollutants and place ceiling concentrations upon them in order to mitigate their consequences, emerging pollutants, such as pharmaceuticals and chemicals used in the production of household items, have no such limits placed upon them. Thus they are uninhibited from accumulating in the soils on which they are applied."
"Environmental impact of biosolids stockpiles - while stockpiles remain untouched, they contribute to the wastewater treatment industry's damaging carbon footprint … they present a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide … and may also be responsible for polluting waterways, thus affecting the aquatic environment in addition to polluting the atmosphere."
( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.021 )


6. "More than 1,200 tonnes of microplastics are dumped into Aussie farmland every year from wastewater sludge" June/2020

"Biosolids have a cocktail of nasty chemicals. It’s not just plastic – many industrial additives and chemicals have been found in wastewater and biosolids. This means they may accumulate in soils and affect the equilibrium of biological systems, with negative effects on plant growth. For example, researchers have found pharmaceutical chemicals in particular can reduce plant growth and inhibit root elongation"
( https://theconversation.com/more-than-1-200-tonnes-of-microplastics-are-dumped-into-aussie-farmland-every-year-from-wastewater-sludge-137278 )




7. "Microplastic in soil–current status in Europe with special focus on method tests with Austrian samples" April/2020

"In wastewater treatment plants 90% of the microplastic–fibers of textiles, particles of cosmetic and hygiene products are transferred into sewage sludge and remains there independent from the treatment procedures"
( https://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/environsci.2020011/fulltext.html?fbclid=IwAR0OzMRHpTQlnX4ww0c6ZR_e1n6A9Z76V2vDvccS9T38Y7gsi1Ib9xIbTvo )


8. "Transfer and transport of microplastics from biosolids to agricultural soils and the wider environment" July/2020

"This study reinforces the hypothesis that biosolids are a significant source of MicroPlastics to agrosystems … long-term accumulation of MP fibers in soils on plant growth and soil biota could pose a risk to agricultural sustainability"
( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138334 

9. "Microplastics: from origin to impacts" March/2020

"The large proportion of MPs removed during wastewater treatment may be retained in sewage sludge. Depending on the treatment process applied at wastewater treatment plants and during subsequent treatment, the number of particles in sludge has been seen to vary. Following treatment, a large proportion of sludge becomes biosolids, transferred to terrestrial ecosystems through land application and also landfilling. This presents a further problem; in repurposing sludge, MPs are directly released to the terrestrial environment. Further research into the consequences of sludge application and terrestrial transfer and fate of MPs are urgently required"
"Sewage sludge has been identified as a point source for the release of MPs on land ... the presence of these particles in terrestrial ecosystems may facilitate the transport of organic contaminants in soil … If MPs persist and accumulate in soils, there may be significant direct impacts on agriculture and the functioning and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems"
( https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817880-5.00009-8) 


10. "An Overlooked Entry Pathway of Microplastics into Agricultural Soils from Application of Sludge-Based Fertilizers" March/2020

"The quantity of Microplastics in soils exhibited a close correlation with application rate of sludge-based fertilizers... sludge composts may act as a vehicle of MPs into soils, enter soil biota and in turn influence the spread of MPs in the environment"
( https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b07905 )


11. "A scientific perspective on microplastics in nature and society" February/2020

"Plastic and other particulate matter are removed from the liquid waste stream via sedimentation and end up in sewage sludge. Because sewage sludge is used as a fertilizer, microplastics can thereafter be spread on agricultural lands and thus re-emitted to terrestrial ecosystems"
"Transport of plastic particles to air derived from dried sewage sludge onto agricultural soils has also been postulated, supported by the finding that synthetic clothing fibres persisted in soils up to 15 years after being applied"
( https://www.sapea.info/topics/microplastics/?fbclid=IwAR2zRp5HZbdDiG0T6Gb2pZBM21SsoFgGPmdpMnyE_2OkkjTnu3q-vt5jzw0 )


12. "Microplastics making their way to British farms in human sewage fertiliser" Feb/2020

"It warns microplastics could harm soil ecosystems or crops either directly or through hormone-disrupting substances, and contain chemicals that could be released slowly as they break down over hundreds of years"
( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/04/microplastics-making-way-british-farms-human-sewage-fertiliser/ )


13. Government of Canada - "Draft science assessment of plastic pollution"  Jan/2020 - 

"It is estimated that 99% of microplastics are removed from the influent but are retained in sewage sludge ... Microplastics can therefore enter terrestrial environments through the application and use of sewage sludge as fertilizers for agriculture or landscaping purposes"
( https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/draft-science-assessment-plastic-pollution.html?fbclid=IwAR2JWY31Pf0ChEEaRNQLyfsGVLXJHzsSU8T_3tVMfajhqLulfJznAjgb0ow )


14. "Mapping microplastics in sludge" April/2018

" it was estimated that over 500 billion microplastics are released into the environment via sewage sludge application each year, to agricultural soils, green areas and soil producers. This likely represents a significant source of microplastics to terrestrial and marine systems."
( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324220835_Mapping_microplastics_in_sludge )



Microbiologist, Dr. Richard Honour - 

Plastics in Sewage Sludge
Researchers have also looked into how polyester microfibers may be affecting microorganisms in the soil, especially since sewage sludge is loaded with microfibers. They found that the microplastics did, indeed, lead to changes in the soil, including altering the bulk density, water-holding capacity and microbial activity.
Writing in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, researchers noted that wastewater treatment plants act as receptors for the "cumulative loading of microplastics." The solids and liquids are separated using a settlement process, which results in the majority of microplastics (MP) ending up in sewage sludge.
Different methods of treatment affected the end number of particles found in the sludge, but the study found microplastic amounts ranging from 4,196 to 15,385 particles kg–1 (dry weight) in sludge samples.
The researchers noted, "This study highlights the potential for sewage sludge treatment processes to affect the risk of MP pollution prior to land spreading and may have implications for legislation governing the application of biosolids to agricultural land."
Microplastics may act like sponges for contaminants including heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or pathogens, for instance, and may cause harm on a cellular or subcellular level,  raising serious questions about the risks of exposing soil to them.
Indeed, wastewater treatment plants are efficient at removing microplastics from sewage, but they become trapped in the sludge. This helps keep them out of waterways, unless they're applied to agricultural soils (which may run off into waterways).
When researchers evaluated 31 fields that had applications of sewage sludge, microplastics were found in the samples at levels ranging from 18 to 41 particles g−1, with a median of 34 particles g−1.16 What's more, the microplastic levels increased on fields with higher rates of sludge applications.
"Our results indicate that microplastic counts increase over time where successive sludge applications are performed," the researchers adding, "Sludge is proposed as a primal driver of soil microplastic pollution."



 



Update for June 24th

Source, occurrence, migration and potential environmental risk of microplastics in sewage sludge and during sludge amendment to soil”

“Microplastics can adsorb heavy metals, organic pollutants, antibiotics and ARGs, and the mechanism of adsorption mainly relies on physical interaction. MPs that are aged by UV irradiation and weathering will adsorb more pollutants because of the increased specific surface area and oxygen-containing surface groups. Soil amendment with sludge is an important pathway of sludge recycling, but the MPs input with the sludge amendment will accumulate in the soil. The MPs will influence the physicochemical properties of soil such as soluble substance concentration, bulk density and hydrodynamics, and may accumulate in plants. The combination of MPs and the pollutants they adsorb might increase the risk of soil pollution. The desorption and migration of pollutants orginally adsorbed by MPs make them become vectors to transfer pollutants, which increases the risks of spreading heavy metals, organic pollutants, antibiotics and ARGs in soils”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720338778?via%3Dihub

Update for June 25

""Most research has so far focused on agricultural systems, which are expected to contain the largest amount of microplastics because of input pathways including sewage sludge"" 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1430

Update for June 30th

Our fruits and veggies are sucking up microplastics through their roots

"new research has shown that microplastics can penetrate the roots of crops, traveling up the plant into the parts we eat" 

https://www.fastcompany.com/90521397/our-fruits-and-veggies-are-sucking-up-microplastics-through-their-roots?fbclid=IwAR3poXgx0bG_fLjAsfoQT7yVVo7XRTq7_oGE7Zgo0TAyc2lGP5agT5m_Pkk

…….

Micro- and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population

"Agricultural systems are the final recipients of a number of several pollutants and nanomaterials, including microplastics (MPs), with effects relatively unknown. The general lack of understanding regarding nanomaterial fate and effects in agricultural systems is troublesome given the potential for food chain contamination and for an uncharacterized pathway of human exposure"
"Micro- and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population"

...............................

Update for August 8th

Microplastics in soils: a review of possible sources, analytical methods and ecological impacts


"The annual amount of MPs that enter soils through the use of sewage sludge on arable lands is larger than that released into the oceans. Furthermore, sewage sludge discharged into agricultural soils is estimated to be one of the largest sources of MPs entering the environment. Applying sewage sludge as a fertilizer to the soil environment leads to pollution by synthetic fibers, which are mobile and persistent."

From the article ... "Microplastics as vectors for pollutants and additives in soils" 

“after plastics enter the soil environment, they release toxic plastic additives (plasticizers, retardants, antioxidants and photostabilizers), which threaten ecosyste
ms and impact long‐term soil quality. Furthermore, the weathered surfaces of MPs can act as high‐capacity carriers by adhering microorganisms (pathogens) and other toxic pollutants (organic contaminants, heavy metals, pesticides, etc.) in the soil to them. Under certain conditions, the slow degradation process of plastics can release these adsorbed toxic chemicals back to the surrounding environment. Moreover, soil organisms can have access to high concentrations of MPs via ingestion; hence MPs are transported to the food chain and act as potential vectors that may carry pathogens and contaminants in soil systems. Therefore MPs, which act as vectors for these chemicals, move along with soil particles and not only threaten the aquatic environment but also the soil environment”



....................................

Update for August 17th

"Microplastics, especially polyethylene with high adsorption and desorption potentials may serve as a source and carrier to triclosan, and its amendment can change triclosan's environmental behavior and further risk in soil."


...........................................
Update for August 26

Microplastics removal in wastewater treatment plants: a critical review

"reported that successive sludge application on agricultural fields resulted in microplastic accumulation over time. Microplastic content in sludge of the agricultural fields ranged from 18 000 to 41 000 particle per kg. It is expected that microplastics in soil enter the aquatic environment through surface runoff, irrigation or wind"
"The majority of plastics removed during sewage treatment are retained in sewage sludge ... Large numbers of plastic particles enter the terrestrial environment where sludge is reused for agriculture. More research is needed on the environmental fate and impact of plastics in sludge-amended soils, in particular where agricultural reuse of sewage sludge is common practice"

............................

August 26th

Microplastics in Sewage Sludge -
Dr. Scott Coffin - "over time our agricultural soils may become toxic with the addition of these biosolids"
Microplastics in Sludge -starts around the 34 minute mark.

................................
August 26th

Environmental fate and impacts of microplastics in soil ecosystems: Progress and perspective

 "we assessed the ecotoxicological consequences of microplastics contamination on soil ecosystems, including the effects on soil physiochemical properties, terrestrial plants, soil fauna, and soil microbes"




..................................

Are Agricultural Soils Dumps for Microplastics of Urban Origin?

"Based on new Microplastic emission estimates in industrialized countries, we suggest that widespread application of sewage sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to farmlands is likely to represent a major input of MPs to agricultural soils, with unknown consequences for sustainability and food security."
" We expect that none of the common processing steps (e.g., drying, pasteurization, composting, etc.) to produce biosolids from WWTP sludge for agricultural use will remove the MP load."
"Reports are emerging about the occurrence and impacts of MPs in soil, both from breakdown of plastics and sludge additions. Reproduction of worms was recently shown to be impacted at MP exposure levels possibly representative of those in agricultural soils receiving sewage sludge application"
"MPs can potentially impact soil ecosystems, crops and livestock either directly or through the toxic and endocrine-disrupting substances added during plastics manufacturing."
"Studies assessing the scale of contamination of agricultural soils by MPs are notable for their absence while farm soils may arguably represent one of their largest environmental reservoirs."



...............

Update September 2nd


Microplastic pollution devastating soil species, study finds

“We call for a reduction in the use of plastics and to avoid burying plastic wastes in soils, as this may bring adverse ecological consequences on soil communities and biogeochemical cycling in terrestrial ecosystems.”


.................................

Microplastics in farm soils: A growing concern

"Microplastics arrive on farms through processed sewage sludge used for fertilizer ... alarming potential impacts of this contamination on all aspects of agricultural systems from soil quality to human health"


............

Update - Sept. 8th

Inhibitory effect of microplastics on soil extracellular enzymatic activities by changing soil properties and direct adsorption

"Microplastics (MPs), as a new type of environmental pollutant, pose a serious threat to soil ecosystems ... MPs competed with soil microorganisms for physicochemical niches to reduce microbial activity and eventually, extracellular enzyme activity"


Thursday, 12 March 2020

Biosolids - Critical Issues to Consider - a talk by Professor Murray McBride

Biosolids - Critical Issues to Consider Biosolids Information Webinar - November 2019 - Sponsored by New England Farmers Union, Ohio Farmers Union and Pennsylvania Farm

The webinar can be listened to here - https://pafarmersunion.org/biosolids-webinars

There is lots of great information in this webinar. There is good background information provided by Darree Sicher (from approx. minute 2:30 to 14:30)

Biosolids - Critical Issues to Consider



The Cornell Professor, Dr. Murray McBride, takes over from 14:30 to 35:00 - outlining the concerns he has around land disposal of biosolids.

Below is a transcription of the talk he gives during the webinar - 


"Let's look a little more carefully at the nutrient levels in these sludges, they are very highly variable and unbalanced, by that I mean unbalanced in terms of what crops need ... organic matter can vary between 40 - 70% - which is kind of interesting as you wonder what the rest of the material is ... so there is other material in there clearly ...the nitrogen to phosphorous ratio in this material, for most sludges, is not well matched to the crop needs ... there is a build up of phosphorous in these soils ... You also don't have enough potassium relative to the other nutrients ... so it is not an ideal fertilizer at all”

Now to the main concerns - 

"In my view the negative concerns outweigh the positives. The build up of contaminants, and this includes pathogenic organisms, metals, and synthetic organic chemicals (of which there are thousands) means that you potentially contaminate food crops, dairy products, and meat. You also have reduced forage quality on pastures, and forage crops where uptake of metals like molybdenum, and uptake of elements like sulfur, can lead to livestock health problems”

“There is also groundwater contamination, which is rarely monitored, even on long-term application sites ... In the long term you may end up building up enough heavy metals, particularly zinc and copper, that you could reach levels that impact crop growth. This is an issue for soil health. We also have the odor and bioaerosol problems -  I've encountered this numerous times, the effects on human health, of people living adjacent to land application sites”

“Finally, I stress again the tremendous variability and unpredictability of the composition of sludges”

Regarding regulations - 

"Only nine of the metals are regulated, and None of the toxic organic chemicals are under any regulation ... present day sludges do contain metals that are toxic that aren't regulated ...the metals stay put in the soils, and do build up over time ... some of these elements are taken up by forages and by food crops”

"Anaerobic digestion, in the WWTP, reduces the viral numbers, but there will still be between 100 - 10,000 viable viruses per kg in the "treated" sludge.  Viruses have lower infective doses than bacteria, so as little as 1 to 100 can give you a disease"

“Synthetic organic chemicals are not regulated, and there are thousands of them coming on every year. Some of these chemicals, like the fire retardants, are very persistent and long-lived in soils - they build up with time, because every time you apply sludge, you simply add to what is already there. Unfortunately few of these have been studied for human or animal toxicity so we really don't know how bad an effect they may have. Few of these chemicals have been studied for crop uptake, some have shown uptake, while others have not”



What is the concern about synthetic organic pollutants accumulating in farm soils? 

"Many of these chemicals are taken up by crops, research has shown that ... many of them are bioaccumulative in livestock - these are the ones that are fat soluble, things like the brominated fire retardants for example ... they accumulate in cows in the milk fat, or in the meat fat so there is a concentration build up from the soil into livestock, into humans, up the food chain” 

“Many of these organic chemicals are persistent in the soil. Many have known or suspected human or ecological toxicity, some are carcinogenic, others are endocrine disrupting”

 “Most are "invisible" - by that I mean, we do not test for them - so proponents of sludge application say "what's the problem?" They don't see a test for these chemicals, so the assumption is there is no problem there. - but -  a lack of evidence does not represent evidence of a lack of effect - so we simply cannot conclude anything from not having information” 

“There are new unevaluated contaminants showing up all the time ... as a scientist I see that the scientific understanding of the behavior and toxicity of these many chemicals is lagging far, far behind the actual application of these on farms - which seems like a backwards way of doing things"


Potential impacts of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals on ecosystems and humans

"The proponents of land application have claimed that these synthetic chemicals have far too low a concentration in sludges or in soil to have harmful effects. This argument is based on the old toxicological argument, or paradigm, that the "dose makes the poison" (which makes sense for SOME chemicals) but the endocrine disrupting chemicals EDC's don't obey this rule because they have hormone-like behavior in animals and humans, and they operate a low parts per billion into parts per trillion level. Some of the most serious EDC's found in all sludge samples have been the PFOS and PFOA"  - about which there are great knowledge gaps. 

"How much PFOA or PFOS in soils would be sufficient to contaminate groundwater above the guidelines? How much PFOA or PFOS in soils would be sufficient to contaminate milk, dairy products or meat? There is NO research at this time that can answer these questions" 



Wednesday, 12 February 2020

Open Letter by Biochemist Dr. Thomas Maler - On the "Biosolids" Issue



Open Letter - on the topic of relaxing the ban on sewage sludge/biosolids spreading on the land






After much research and consultation, the CRD is about to reverse a previous decision made sometime around 2011 that protects our environment, watershed and the health of rural residents.  The earlier decision banned the application of toxic biosolids on land. What has changed since that earlier vote is that more is known about the toxicity levels contained in sludge/biosolids, and that other communities are using far superior methods that cost a fraction of what we're going to pay and they completely save the environment from toxins.

The value of biosolids as a fertilizer for trees is more than offset by the highly toxic nature of biosolids, which contain up to 85,000 different virtually indestructible chemicals, superbugs (multi-drug resistant bacteria) which breed in all sewage treatment plants, micro-plastics and micro-fibres which absorb many toxins on their surface.  The plants grown on sludge contaminated lands take up these chemicals which then end up in our food and the effluent from those lands contaminates our streams, rivers and oceans, including the fish we eat. 

A recent 2019 study shows that POPs (persistent organic pollutants) in the root level of sewage treated soils indicate extremely high stability and low degradability of a large variety of these chemicals.


A January 2020 study from France indicates that chemical pollution has reached unprecedented levels with every child being born “precontaminated” with hundreds of chemicals many of which can interfere with brain development. These epigenetic interactions are now being increasingly researched and documented. The chemicals get into our environment and into our bodies via industrial and urban waste water treatment plants and via the use of sewage sludge on the land as fertilizer. 


A recent paper described a group of 4700 man made chemicals called PFAS. They are used in a wide variety of consumer products and industrial applications and they have been implicated in developmental defects in unborn child. Reuse of sewage sludge as fertilizer has led to PFAS pollution of soil and water in Austria, Germany, Switzerland and the US. 
“The new European Commission is finally recognizing the need to strive for a non-toxic environment.” 



Many countries in Europe, including Switzerland, Sweden and Germany are turning away from this polluting strategy and banning the use of biosolids on the land. So why are we choosing such an environmentally damaging strategy when there are much better and safer ways to turn sewage sludge into energy. 

Furthermore, why are we choosing much more expensive process that only turns half of the energy in sludge into methane and the other leftover half is being shipped to kilns in Richmond. The CRD has environmentally damaging plan to spray the sludge on the land for 6 weeks of the year when the cement kilns are shut down. The New York/New Jersey metropolitan area(s) have a lowest cost plan to dispose of their sludge/biosolids in a gasifier being built by Aries Clean Energy at Aries Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority in Linden NJ. The cost for the Aries Linden facility will be US$50 million and it will serve population of 13.5 million people. This plant will operate only on sewage sludge with no need to build hugely expensive anaerobic digesters and will be in full operation in Q4 of 2020 . 


In contrast the cost for the  CRD system will be Can$ 330 million and the system will only turn 50% of the amount of sludge into energy ie. methane and will serve population of 368,000 people. In contrast the NJ gasifier will cost only a fraction (6%) of  what the CRD will pay, while serving a population 37 times larger. 

I understand that the CRD had two beneficial use proposals to build gasifiers to turn biosolids into electricity, but those proposals were not chosen. In fact, a lot of taxpayers money could have been saved by not building anaerobic digesters and simply gasifying sewage sludge directly. That approach would also provide a permanent solution so it would not have to be shipped anywhere. The sludge could be stored until the gasifier is built and that would satisfy the ministers requirement for beneficial use.


A more detailed review of this topic can be found here:




Thomas Maler, Ph.D

Monday, 10 February 2020

Open Letter to Minister George Heyman and the CRD's Board of Directors



Open Letter to Minister George Heyman and the CRD's Board of Directors


Minister George Heyman, in a recent letter, outlines that Victoria's biosolids strategy must include, in the long-term  "a range of beneficial uses including, but not limited to forestry (for example fertilizer / soil conditioner), reclamation (for example mines), landfill closure and agriculture." In the short-term, Heyman states that Victoria's strategy may include "applying biosolids to the land." He says that the present policy in place for the region "unnecessarily limits the options available for beneficial use."  (He is reacting to CRD's very wise ban against land disposal of biosolids - voted and passed several years back). Heyman goes on to state that, "it is the ministry's position that the land application of biosolids ... will benefit the environment and potentially reduce costs to the taxpayer."

This position is at odds with recent science. Biosolids is a pollutant-rich material, and spreading it on soils, whether on forests, farms, or flower gardens, means making those pollutants available to the terrestrial environment.

This past week alone three articles were published which dramatically encapsulates these concerns.  The Telegraph ( https://bit.ly/2usTXx6 ) published an article - "Microplastics making their way to British farms in human sewage fertilizer" - in which they warn, "microplastics could harm soil ecosystems or crops either directly or through hormone-disrupting substances, and contain chemicals that could be released slowly as they break down over hundreds of years" Interestingly, the Canadian Government published its "Draft science assessment of plastic pollution 2020" this past week, where it states that - "It is estimated that 99% of microplastics are removed from the influent but are retained in sewage sludge ... Microplastics can therefore enter terrestrial environments through the application and use of sewage sludge as fertilizers for agriculture or landscaping purposes"  (  https://bit.ly/39pgeLn ). 

Another Important new scientific study just came out on a related topic - "Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products: From Wastewater Treatment into Agro-Food Systems"
( https://bit.ly/39jRJ1Q ) In this, the scientists demonstrate that "Use of biosolids in agriculture leads to soil contamination with PPCPs and their metabolites, providing a route for accumulation in food produce, which poses potential risks to environmental and human health" and that  "The extensive use of biosolids in agriculture introduces PPCPs and other contaminants of emerging concern to arable soil and has the potential to contaminate food produce, constituting a route for human exposure"  It is worth pointing out that the OMRR guidelines that Heyman and his government rely on to "assure safety" do not test for microplastics or pharmaceuticals - or other  CECs (contaminants of emerging concern) for that matter - sadly, out of the tens of thousands of pollutants known to be in biosolids, they test for barely a dozen!

A third major article was published this week by Greenpeace - "Secret Environment Agency report finds sewage sludge (biosolids) destined for English fields contaminated with microplastics, weedkiller, and "persistent organic pollutants" ( https://bit.ly/31zzuD6 ). The article notes that - "Investigators commissioned by the agency found sewage waste destined for English crops contaminated with dangerous "persistent organic pollutants" like dioxins, furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at "levels that may present a risk to human health". They also reported evidence that these sludges, which are routinely spread as fertilizer on hundreds of farms, were widely contaminated with microplastics that could ultimately leave soil "unsuitable for agriculture".

There have been many more damning studies published in just the past year. Here are just three more that might serve as an overview of this problematic practice - 

1. Root uptake of toxins - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.8b07222?journalCode=esthag
2. Germination and growth issues after biosolids application - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653519306095
3. Grazing animals affected by biosolids pollutants - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018317318

Minister Heyman assures us that government guidelines will protect the public. Many do not agree. The David Suzuki Foundation on the topic of "biosolids"  has made the following statement - "The David Suzuki Foundation does not support the dumping of sewage sludge, treated or otherwise ... sewage sludge can contain a brew of nutrients laced with PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls - in low levels]; dioxins and furans (again, generally in low levels); chlorinated pesticides [such as DDT Aldrin, endrin, chlordane, indane, mirex, etc..); polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE's - Flame retardant chemicals); hormone mimicking compounds like Phthalates and nonylphenols and their ethoxylates: carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]; heavy metals ( in particular arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc); bacteria, viruses, parasitic worms, and fungi; industrial solvents; asbestos; and petroleum products ... All of these chemicals can, and do contaminate the soil and can contaminate the crops grown in those soils.  There is also the associated problem of these contaminants running off treated fields and into local water courses when it rains." 

So too, The Sierra Club  has stated that it "opposes the land application of municipal sewage sludges as a fertilizer and/or soil amendment because the current policies and regulations governing this practice are not adequately protective of human health."

These views are also shared by enlightened European governments, and their Environmental agencies. For instance - 

Switzerland has completely banned the use of biosolids on agricultural soils because of "the risk of irreversible damage to the soil, the danger to public health and possible negative effects on the quality of the food farmers produce" https://bit.ly/2Fc6ObP

The Swedish Government - "since biosolids contain environmental and health hazardous substances, drug residues and microplastics, our task force will propose a ban on spreading sewage sludge on farmland" https://bit.ly/2PRKdFk

Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment - "biosolids application may be causing persistent, pernicious and almost totally ignored contamination of agricultural land" 

The German Environment Agency - "With the precautionary principle and in light of the pollutants found in biosolids, we deem the agricultural use of biosolids to be a serious public health & environmental hazard & advocate that this practice be phased out" https://bit.ly/2SXfLIQ

(It should be noted that in the EU, UK and Scandinavia, the allowable pollution levels are generally more strict than those listed in the OMRR guidelines that Heyman relies upon to "assure safety").


Those in favour of "land application" see merely organic matter along with some plant nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, and presumably, because it contains some human fecal matter, they see it as a form of manure. This limited view utterly ignores the actual make-up of this waste material. It is after all, the "stuff" taken out of the wastewater within these treatment facilities, in order to CLEAN the water - purify it of its pollutants as much as possible, before the water is released back into the environment. This "stuff" therefore represents the collected and concentrated toxic waste eliminated from the liquid stream. It is a mirror of modern urban life - a goulash comprised of myriad pollutants - the remains of everything we flush away - cleaners, pharmaceuticals, dyes, solvents, microplastics and microfibers, fire retardants - you name it.  As Prof. Murray McBride, of Cornell University, says, it is "a material containing unknown concentrations of thousands of chemicals with undetermined toxicities."

The sludge pushers will say that sewage sludge and "biosolids" are very different things. Not true. The minimal "processing" done to the sludge - be it adding lime, or woodchips, and composting it - anaerobic or aerobic digestion, pelletizing it, or liquefying it - all of these are superficial treatments. The problematic constituents within this matrix of pollutants remains primarily the same. As numerous studies, including those of the US Geological Survey, have shown - thousands of chemicals remain in these so-called "biosolids" ... for instance - 

Microplastics? - Still present - ( https://bit.ly/2Sngwd2 "43% of microplastics that go down the drain eventually end up applied to agricultural land as biosolids." ) Nanomaterials? -Still present - (Uptake of Nanomaterials see - https://rsc.li/2WfDdCA ). Endocrine disruptors like flame retardants? - Still present - (The U.S. Geological Survey scientists confirmed that rainfall mobilized chemicals (including detergents, fire retardants, plasticizers, and antibacterials) from municipal biosolids-amended agricultural fields, directly to runoff. Most (14 of 17) of the chemicals examined were present in edge-of-the-field runoff and not depleted in concentration after three 100-year rainfall events For more on this see - https://on.doi.gov/2Eisa4M ). Prions? - Still present - ( "if prions were to enter municipal wastewater treatment systems, most of the agent would partition to activated sludge solids, survive mesophilic anaerobic digestion, and be present in treated biosolids.'' see - https://bit.ly/2GznGZJ ) In fact some problems like superbugs - antimicrobials, may even get worse through these processes (Antibiotic residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria - https://bit.ly/2KM7xj5 - "spreading of sewage sludge leads to a significant increase of ARG in the soil" )

This practice of land disposal is NOT "green" or "sustainable" or "recycling" or indeed "beneficial" -  it is merely a cheap way of shifting our cities' pollutants.  As Dr. Sierra Rayne has noted - "The science doesn't support the disposal of sewage sludge across the landscape. The supposed benefits are more than offset by the risks to human and environmental health. An unimaginably large number of chemical and biological contaminants exist in these materials, and they persist in the product up to, and after, land disposal. Scientific investigations have identified only a tiny fraction of the total contaminant load. Governments are playing Russian roulette with sewage sludge. Over time, there is a high probability this game will be lost at the public's expense." (http://bit.ly/1sb2qOP)

It is so disappointing to hear Minister Heyman aping the language of the sludge disposal industry when he uses phrases like "beneficial use" ! Perhaps he could explain exactly what is "beneficial" about loading our soils with microplastics, endocrine disrupters, antibacterial resistant bacteria and myriad other pollutants? Beneficial for whom? ...certainly for the sludge industry, and governments that merely search out cheap short-term strategies! It is decidedly NOT "beneficial" for the public - and not for future generations who will depend on healthy soils for years to come.

For the reasons set forth above, I believe that in the public's best interest, the ban on land disposal of biosolids within the CRD should remain in effect.



To dive more deeply into the issues 
- 

To see what experts from leading institutions have to say about "biosolids" - go here - https://bit.ly/38d5H5t To see other new scientific studies on "biosolids" - go here - https://bit.ly/2Hb55kU To see more information around the faulty "risk assessment" practices (used by this government and the sludge industry) for "biosolids" - go here -  https://bit.ly/2H9zsbM To see what alternatives there are to land disposal of "biosolids" - go here - https://bit.ly/2H8MtSQ

Wednesday, 5 February 2020

What the Experts have to Say - Quotable Quotes on this Reckless Practice


"Biosolids" … the reality … without the PR spin … 




Prof. Murray McBride, Cornell University -  "Is it reasonable to conclude that there is little or no risk of land-applying a material (biosolids) containing unknown concentrations of thousands of chemicals with undetermined toxicities?" ... "Once contaminated, stopping the application of pollutants such as metals and many organic chemicals that are in sewage biosolids will not correct the problem. The contamination will remain for decades or centuries"


Prof. Jordan Peccia- Yale University - " biosolids contain heavy metals, hazardous organic chemicals, microbial pathogens, and antibiotic resistant bacteria ... polybrominated flame retardants, pharmaceuticals like Prozac and Tagamet, human hormones such as estrogen, antibiotics, narcotics"



Lidia Epp  (manager of  the Molecular Core Lab in the Biology Department of College of William and Mary in Williamsburg) "It is evident that the long term exposure to a host of the environmental pollutants is the foundation of many chronic conditions that are now at the epidemic levels. Rather than focusing narrowly on determination of specific sets of toxins present in biosolids from different sources – the research needs to shift to the epidemiological studies assessing the overall impact of complex mix of pollutants present in sludge."

Dr Andrew Singer (Microbiologist, Oxford) - "That sludge has e-coli in it,  plus antibiotics, plus biocides, plus metals - all of that breeds something called an antibiotic resistant bacteria. So as you are maybe rambling through a field that's been amended with this sludge, either last week or a year later, there is an elevated risk that you will - or your pet will - acquire this antibiotic resistant bacteria, carry it home with you, the dog licks you in the face, you have it. This is how it is transmitted. It is a rare event, but unfortunately rare events matter on a global scale, so you only need these rare events to happen once for it then to become important for the world.  So you’re effectively disseminating [in the environment] the very thing we should be trying to eliminate.”
Controlling the spread of antibiotic resistance was “one of the highest global priorities in the world,” he added. “There is virtually no higher priority than this, other than maybe climate change, and it is a seemingly routine occurrence that we are spreading this onto our land.”



Prof. Claudia Gunsch,  Duke University "As industry invents new materials and chemicals for modern products, many find their way to our skin and bloodstream and, subsequently, into our sinks and toilet bowls. More than 500 different organic chemicals have been identified in the biosolids used as fertilizer across the United States."

Dr. Sierra Rayne (microbiologist) - "The science doesn't support the disposal of sewage sludge across the landscape. The supposed benefits are more than offset by the risks to human and environmental health. As scientists, we have been watching the issue with increasing concern. An unimaginably large number of chemical and biological contaminants exist in these materials, and they persist in the product up to, and after, land disposal. Scientific investigations have identified only a tiny fraction of the total contaminant load. We cannot even say with any degree of confidence what the true range of contaminant risk is from the sludge ... Governments are playing Russian roulette with sewage sludge. Over time, there is a high probability this game will be lost at the public's expense."



Professor Alistair Boxall (University of York) , said sewage sludge contains "a real mixture of things ... It will contain microplastics, it will contain persistent organic pollutants, it will contain metals, it'll contain pharmaceuticals. We have no idea of how those work in combination to affect our health and also affect ecosystem health."

Brian Bienkowski (Scientific American - May 12, 2014) - "Sewage sludge used as fertilizer on farms can leave traces of prescription drugs and household chemicals deep in the soil, according to a new study by federal scientists. The findings suggest that the widespread use of biosolids could contaminate groundwater near farms with a variety of chemicals, including anti-depressants such as Prozac and hormone-disrupting compounds in antibacterial soaps ...The researchers looked for 57 “emerging” contaminants that are increasingly showing up in the environment. Ten were detected in the soil at depths between 7 and 50 inches 18 months after the treated sludge was applied. None was in the field’s soil beforehand... Other studies have found hormones, detergents, fragrances, drugs, disinfectants, and plasticizers in treated sludge used as fertilizer. But this is the first study to show how they can persist and move in soil."



Dr. Richard Honour (microbiologist) - ""Few in any governments appreciate that nearly all chronic diseases are caused by long-term exposure to low levels of environmental contaminants and pollutants. We should be trying to minimize this exposure, not amplifying it. It is time to end land disposal of Toxic Sewer sludge, and look at cleaner, greener alternatives - gasification / pyrolysis."


Laura Orlando (Boston University civil engineer)  believes a ban on land application is in order. “Everything we have that’s being manufactured in our society ends up in our sewer and it’s going to be in the sludge, so I think we should take land application out of the equation while we figure out what to do with it,” she said.


 Dr. Thomas Maler (biochemistry) -"it seems obvious that application of sewage sludge/biosolids on the land is not the answer to dispose of these toxins and pathogens. Disposal of the sludge mixed with municipal solids waste or with wood chips in a gasifier is the only safe way to go because it completely destroys the toxic chemicals and pathogens. Not putting this toxic soup on the land is the only way of protecting our environment and that’s the primary reason for treating our sewage in the first place" 

Dr. Caroline Snyder  (emeritus professor, Rochester Institute of Technology) -  "Land application is not "recycling"; it is simply transferring a complex mixture of toxic chemicals and pathogens from our large industrialized urban centers to arable farms; nor is the practice "strictly regulated." Current biosolids management is highly energy intensive using fossil fuel for processing and transportation, thus - actually adding greenhouse gas emissions (on top of all the pollution produced by hauling these materials all over). Finally, it is ludicrous to claim that using the nation's arable soils as a repository of persistent toxic chemicals, many of which bioaccumulate in the food chain, "enhances soil health".”

Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment - "biosolids application may be causing persistent, pernicious and almost totally ignored contamination of agricultural land" 

Switzerland has completely banned the use of biosolids on agricultural soils because of "the risk of irreversible damage to the soil, the danger to public health and possible negative effects on the quality of the food farmers produce" https://bit.ly/2Fc6ObP

The Swedish Government- "since biosolids contain environmental and health hazardous substances, drug residues and microplastics, our task force will propose a ban on spreading sewage sludge on farmland" https://bit.ly/2PRKdFk

The German Environment Agency - "With the precautionary principle and in light of the pollutants found in biosolids, we deem the agricultural use of biosolids to be a serious public health & environmental hazard & advocate that this practice be phased out" https://bit.ly/2SXfLIQ