Talk:Biosolids

--Alex 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristinaRan. Peer reviewers: Nataliezahrebelny, Ryan Hadaway, Kyliebennett.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible Merge and Re-name?

I think that sludge, sewage sludge treatment, and this article should all be merged somehow, as they all contain very similar topics. Also see the Talk:sewage sludge treatment as I have added some info on the solids processes. JAK83 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I would rename sewage sludge treatment to just sewage sludge then merge in sludge and make sludge a disamb to include industrial sludge, water treatment sludge, etc. I would leave biosolids as a separate article due to the political and social aspects it has that are not shared by sludges that are not distributed as CFR 503 biosolids. --Justanother 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that biosolids needs to remain a separate article. OptimistBen (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with OptimistBen that "biosolids" is a very distinct term from the more generic "sludge", or even "sewage sludge". "Sewage sludge" could be a section of the general sludge article, and could have it's own standalone article if enough content is there. Any of these can (and perhaps should) mention biosolids, but this article should remain separate. —DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I fourth the idea to re-name "biosolids" as "sewage sludge treatment" and then merge it as a part of sludge,and keep biosolids as a seprate article,only more info is needed like farmers thinking about using "biosolids",etc,etc.Kyo kara mazuko (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Done and done. This article now redirects to Sludge, which contains all relevant info from old biosolids article.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Undone. A new page for biosolids has been created. See also talk page of sewage sludge treatment for further information. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-Neutral page.

The information in the introduction of this article and throughout the article is very one-sided and non-neutral to the topic of biosolids, and their use. This is very anti-biosolid and does not present an accurate depiction of the information.

TRL 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is very biased.

I agree with writers above regarding the use of the term biosolids. The definition of biosolids in the introduction is very biased and one-side and does not depict an accurate use of the term. Biosolids are the nutrient rich organic material resulting from treatment of domestic sewage at a wastewater treatment facility. When used according to regulations biosolids are a beneficial resource containing plant nutrient and organic matter that can be applied and recycled as a soil amendment and fertilier. See references below that support the definition of biosolids. http://www.nebiosolids.org/intro.html http://www.biosolids.org/media_main.asp?sectionid=49&pageid=177&pagename=What%20Are% 20Biosolids —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMJ83 (talk • contribs) 21:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

September 17, 2007

The word "biosolids" is generic

About 15 years ago in an effort to deceive the public as to the true content of treated municipal sewage sludge (the landspreading of which is "regulated" at 40 CFR Part 503), the waste industry and EPA changed the name to the euphemism "biosolids". However, so many camels have gotten their noses under the "biosolids" tent, that the word is no longer specific to human sewerage, and is now used for a number of other waste products. (check Google to confirm):

-textile biosolids - winery biosolids - unprocessed dairy biosolids - chemical biosolids - animal biosolids - cow biosolids - poultry biosolids - chicken biosolids - swine biosolids - pig biosolids - paper mill biosolids - brewery biosolids - abattoir biosolids - horse biosolids - meat processing biosolids - sewage biosolids.

Cornell (University) Waste Management Institute correctly refers to this toxic/pathogenic waste as "sewage biosolids".   The federal Clean Water Act defines sewage sludge as a "pollutant".

On Octobver 21, 2001, an EPA administrator stated: "My personal view is, I don't think we should be using euphemisms," said Alan Hais, the EPA's program manager for sludge regulations. (Mr. Hais is now an employee of Water Environment Federation, the lobbying and PR arm of the sludge industry.)hshields16Hshield16 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference that ought to be integrated in the article [1] MaxPont (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe npov tag can be removed based on edits September 18, 2007 by Rhallanger, version=158625067. Is this dispute resolved? --Paleorthid (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm removing the tag. — Reinyday, 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Prions - 2021

There is a lack of citation evidence given for the claims about prions. There is very clearly a lack of scientific consensus on the existence of prions post-processing, but the article reads like a fact- Shalloran031 2 June, 2017

I have not found any studies documenting elimination or significant degradation of prions post-processing in WWTP except for unsupported industry claims and obfuscation of the term pathogen. There are numerous studies highlighting this environmental impact concern as a topic for further urgent research. In fact, prion sterilization of biosolids at scale would be a significant scientific achievement.

Prions in the environment - Occurrence, fate and mitigation

"Based on these studies, it can be assumed that most prion infectivity will be conserved during normal wastewater treatment processes, and prions would thus enter the environment, highly diluted, via landfill disposal or landspreading of biosolids."

Microbiology of hospital wastewater

"Prions are likely to enter through live, infected hosts, and can be shred through saliva, urine, feces, mucus, and blood; and they enter in wastewater through hospital effluents, research facilities, homes, slaughterhouses, and mortuaries [208]. The WWTPs are not able to treat prions, for instance, after entering into municipal WWTP, the prions bind to sewage sludge, survive through anaerobic digestion and are further present in treated biosolids. These biosolids are further used for land application, which results in their introduction into environment. Thereafter they can be swept by wind and contaminated water with prions could further migrate into lakes, rivers, and oceans and thus, directly affecting the humans, aquatic life, and animals as well [209]."

Cervids: Chronic Wasting Disease Specifics

Transmissible spongiform ecephalopathy (TSE) actuated by prions is "unusually resistant to inactivation" and "extremely persistent in the environment"

Long-Term Incubation PrP CWD with Soils Affects Prion Recovery but Not Infectivity

"This study shows that although recovery of PrPCWD bound to soil minerals and whole soils with time become more difficult, prion infectivity is not significantly altered. Detection of prions in soil is, therefore, not only affected by soil type but also by length of time of the prion-soil interaction."

Current evidence on the transmissibility of chronic wasting disease prions to humans-A systematic review

"Therefore, future discovery of CWD transmission to humans cannot be entirely ruled out on the basis of current studies, particularly in the light of possible decades-long incubation periods for CWD prions in humans. It would be prudent to continue CWD research and epidemiologic surveillance, exercise caution when handling potentially contaminated material and explore CWD management opportunities."

The risk level of prion disease transmission from applied biosolids has not been quantified and is open for further scientific study and debate. However, without any opposing citations, the existence of prions post-processing in WWTP and the transmissibility of infectious prions in the environment is currently scientific consensus. As is the likelihood of infectious prions entering the waste stream with the continued spread of prion based diseases like CWD. Additionally, the definition of infectious prions and prion based disease vectors is expanding, although this science is far from settled.

I suggest the subject of prions be added back to topic of Biosolids. Dinglelingy (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have no objection to adding a Characteristics subsection entitled Prions similar to the existing Pathogens subsection. I suggest the text be kept similarly short, with as many source citations as considered necessary. In recognition of the previous tagging of this article for understandability, I suggest the Prions subsection rely primarily on internal links to articles like prion, biomedical waste, Alzheimer's disease or transmissible spongiform encephalopathy for explanation of risks. Thewellman (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Grade A and Grade B

Grade A and Grade B biosolids should be described in the article. Badagnani (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead content

The lead content of biosolids should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Other content

Chemotherapy and other prescription drugs that don't breakdown in treatment?

Other issues

Something really needs to be said about how the Biosolids distributors pay farmers to use this stuff ($100 a truckload) and are legally active in localities to keep biosolids use legal.

   - Actually, in many areas, farmers pay to receive biosolids, as they recognize their beneficial use in agriculture and nutrient cycling.

Biosolids were banned Appomattox Virginia, 4 poor farmers successfully sued and overturned the law since biosolids are legal to distribute in Virginia.

Globalize

above 'issues' need some reference (as well as signatures) - it appears to me this article really needs some globalization, it's more than a US topic/issue Red58bill (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some obvious POV from the History section, which appears to have come verbatim from: this page There appears to be much unreferenced material in the following sections on the US situation that was directly cribbed from other internet sources as well, and when I find sources, I'll cut that too .... suggest someone who has actual references improve the article before it gets reduced to a couple paragraphs .... or it may be preferable to merge to a section of some other waste topic Red58bill (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Improved US section, removing POV material and citeing facts ... would be good if someone could do the same for the EU section ... Biosolids are not doom and gloom, nor anyones salvation, but a "work in progress" toward a much more sustainable way to deal with one area of the waste stream Red58bill (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New page created in April 2015

So I see we have gone full circle now: we had a separate biosolids page, it got pretty messy, it was re-directed to sludge then to sewage sludge. Now we have a new biosolids page again. Thewellman: was there any material from the old page (March 2010) that was worth salvaging? Any of the old references or external links still useful or not really? And what to do now about the page called sewage sludge which contains the word biosolids on 81 occasions? I think we might need a "clean slate" (more or less) with that page as well. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• It seems the original intent by WEF and USEPA was to streamline environmental review of federal public works projects being funded to aid economic recovery in the 1970s by creating a clean name for a material with a notorious past partially attributable to the large number of sludges of variable quality. I recall working at the University of Illinois in the 1970s. Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District had a long history of applying liquid sludge to cropland, but plant upsets would frequently result in application of unstabilized sludge generating odor complaints and local ordinances prohibiting sludge application in that community. Available application sites became more and more distant; and every day I would see a unit train of approximately thirty railway tank cars of Chicago sewage sludge moving south through Urbana-Champaign on the Illinois Central Railroad. Present practice of using the term to describe a broader range of sludges would seem counterproductive to the original intent; but the situation was not as simple as was originally supposed, so regulatory definitions may change.

There may be useful text in the original article; but I thought it would be easier to start from a clean slate. Much of the original text was without reference citations, and it is difficult to know how many of the applicable regulatory definitions may have changed. I would encourage interested editors to integrate old text where reference citations have been checked. Initial regulatory focus appears to have been on pathogen control, and United States regulations established pathogen reduction standards A and B. It might be US-centric to focus on the differing pathogen standards. The heavy metals focus was a legacy of asking chemists trained by the mining industry to "test for everything." We compiled vast amounts of data on concentrations of economically significant metals before there was widespread understanding of the health effects of organic chemicals remaining after conventional sewage treatment. It seems present disagreements about content may revolve around perceived differences between the level of safety afforded by data review of a finite number of metals limitations in comparison to an expanding, and essentially infinite number of organic chemicals.

I suggest replacing the term biosolids wherever it has been used to describe materials unsuitable for agricultural application in first world nations. I will start, but it would take a group effort to quickly implement that change. Thewellman (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, sounds good. I have done some work on the page sewage sludge. I think it is slowly coming together with a logical structure (much work still remains to be done). Can you take a look at the part that is under the heading land application in the sewage sludge article? From there I have placed a link to the new biosolids page. Maybe some of the text that is there should rather be moved to this page? Or maybe not? I am not sure. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of the references need to be re-checked

Thanks, Gruster for your edits to the page with regards to contaminants in biosolids. Could you please take another look at the references that you used? Firstly, it would be better if they follow the style "authors (year) title, location, page" (author can be an organization). Secondly please double check for high quality ones. E.g. this one - which is an important source for several sentences in the text - is just a link to a website, but not a proper publication or report?: "Land Application of Municipal Biosolids". Environmental Health - Toxic Substances. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 24 April 2015. I am sure you could find a better one. We all know that these contaminants can occur in biosolids. The more important question is at what concentration do they represent a health hazard and at what point do they get into the food chain, or the groundwater (for example).EvM-Susana (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

We have also talked about this topic here on the UDDT page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet#Sewer-_and_septic_tank-based_sanitation (are you using some of the same references that you quoted there also here? Some of them might be valid) EvM-Susana (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to EvM-Susana. Regarding your first point you should know that I happily tried out the new citation auto-creator function. You don't like the results? ;) I was so hoping it would produce something usable. I'll go back and add in where appropriate. Regarding your second point I can't for the life of me find where the reference you referred to is cited. What is the number (1-16) that you are referring to? Regarding you third point, I suppose that one or two of the documents I referenced also appear in the UDDT article, although that's not how I came at this edit. As I add to this article I will likely utilize some others. After all I've got an ample supply of documents from which I can cite, many of which don't appear in the UDDT article. You'll recall that we tried to minimize the bleed into the whole sludge issue in those other articles. However, now that we're talking about an article dedicated to sludge I'll be providing a more expanded analysis. Thanks again. Gruster (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Using the auto-creator is great, but as far as I know it only works well when you have a DOI or ISBN number? For everything else you still have to fill it in field by field, don't you? E.g. If you don't put something in the author field then it can't put it in the right order? EvM-Susana (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Secondly that reference that I mentioned belonged to this statement:

"The United States Geological Survey analyzed in 2014 nine different consumer products containing biosolids as a main ingredient for 87 organic chemicals found in cleaners, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and other products. These analysis detected 55 of the 87 organic chemicals measured in at least one of the nine biosolid samples, with as many as 45 chemicals found in a single sample.[10]"

Do you see it now? I actually think the whole sentence could be deleted because it doesn't say very much: you can find any chemicals anywhere (with modern analytical techniques), the point is more at which concentration?EvM-Susana (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

About the third point, yes, I remember. :-) I think it's good to have some information about the contaminants in the biosolids article. But we should be careful about going overboard with this issue... The focus should be on how the biosolids are used on the fields, right? Sludge that is hugely contaminated should be part of the "sewage sludge" page, not the biosolids page, shouldn't it? One should also keep in mind - and perhaps this should be spelled out better - that it all depends on the catchment area of the WWTP which has produced the sludge: if you have a small catchment with very little industry, then the sewage sludge from there will be less contaminated than if you have a large catchment with lots of industry. I don't have a reference for this at hand, but it could be in the Metcalf and Eddy textbook or similar.EvM-Susana (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest the statement with United States Geological Survey (USGS) reference citation should be retained until alternative citations for concentrations of a similar breadth of contaminants may be found. USGS, with responsibility for measuring water resources of the United States, is one of the world's foremost authorities on collection and laboratory procedures for environmental water quality sampling. Fundamental problems with determining concentrations of these organic chemicals of emerging concern are relatively high detection limits and low water solubility with a tendency for the chemicals of interest to sorb onto particulate matter in the water and/or onto containers used for sampling and analysis. USGS interest in concentrations in biosolids is as a surrugate for actual analysis of environmental water samples where low concentrations and sorption problems prevent detection. Concentrations in receiving waters may alternatively be estimated by measuring the mass of particulates in treated wastewater and then projecting contaminant concentrations of those solids from analysis of contaminants in a separated biosolids phase. Thewellman (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But then surely we can cite a proper report of USGS and not just a link to their website where the planned survey is described? I might be missing something. The current citation goes to a website, not to a report as far as I can see. EvM-Susana (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree the report might be preferable if you can find it, but the website includes the stated summary of study results; and there's no reason to throw away the summary until we have something more comprehensive. Thewellman (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with rechecking references. The reference for this existing statement, "EPA regulations allow only biosolids with no detectable pathogens to be widely applied; those with remaining pathogens are restricted in use.[19]" contains no information to back up this claim. With reguard to how the statement is written - "no detectable" seems misleading since A) detection testing has a quantity limit and B) is only for 4 indicator pathogens: enteric viruses (virus), fecal clorifom (bacteria), helminth ova (parasite), salmonella sp. (bacteria). Re: "widely applied" and "restricted in use" vague and can be misleading, since both Class A & B could be considered "widely applied" and "restricted in use". Even industry says 95% "exposed to high temperatures killing 95 percent of the pathogens" A more accurate statement would be: Currently, the EPA only tests for reduction of 4 indicator pathogens in Class A biosolids: enteric viruses (virus), fecal clorifom (bacteria), helminth ova (parasite), salmonella sp. Class A biosolids can not have any detectable pathogens below certain preset limits (for example, "fecal coliform < 1,000 MPN per gram total solids (dry weight) ", while Class B testing can have quantities of all 4 indicator pathogens (for instance, "Salmonella spp. Reduced by a factor of 10" ) Jdmumma (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Add new section on getting biosolids at a higher quality and lower quantity?

We should add a section on what can be done to keep the biosolids at a higher quality, such as: regulating industrial discharges better (ideally keeping them out of the sewer system), user education (ensuring they don't dump nasty stuff into their toilets), industry standards (can personal care products contain fewer harmful substances). One to two sentences could also be added to say that in terms of quantity of biosolids, this could theoretically be reduced if more people switched from flush toilets to dry toilets (although this would not significantly change the quality of the biosolids, except if people use their flush toilets as a dumping mechanism for unwanted other waste, such as drugs, paints, solvents etc.). This is all no-brainer stuff, although we'd need to think carefully which references to cite. The UDDT technology review by GIZ could be one. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Jargon?

Review of the above discussions reveals divergence of opinions regarding use of sewage solids for amendment of agricultural soils. As demonstrated by recent elections, a significant fraction of the English-speaking population is hesitant to recognize a problem until the streets are littered with people having crosses for eyes. An even larger fraction continue to use flush toilets while enjoying better living through chemistry in the belief someone else should deal with the consequences. Perhaps the jargon tag should be removed unless the focus of concern is explained in recognition of Einstein's wisdom: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Thewellman (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree it would help if the person who added the jargon tag could give us some pointers which paragraphs in particular are hard to understand. Having said that, I had a quick glance myself and identified that content about the prions as complete jargon, not encyclopedic and totally unreferenced. The same user had inserted the same stuff elsewhere, too, (where it has already been deleted) so I deleted that here, too. If I had time, I could probably find other pieces of text that can be simplified as well. But the whole biosolids discussion is so emotionally loaded that I have tended to stay away from this article.... But please User:Kintetsubuffalo help us to get motivated by pointing out which sections in particular you find to contain too much jargon? You're probably right, it just helps to get pointers on where to start. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Use of alternative terms like solids or wastewater solids may be preferable for non-conforming biosolids" is one such Gordian knot.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've made quite a few changes to reduce the jargon. Could you take another look please and point out any problematic sentences? Note this article is a bit "iffy" and quickly gets "political". It needs to be read in conjunction with the article sewage sludge which used to be super-political (and biased) but I have tried to make that one objective as well, and not just focused on the U.S..EMsmile (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biosolids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423124151/http://www.biosolids.com.au/what-are-biosolids.php to http://www.biosolids.com.au/what-are-biosolids.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Text from elsewhere

This badly written polemic text is from Cattle feeding, as none of the references are about cattle specifically, removing to here, although doubtfully useful. Leo Breman (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Grass-fed beef hides the controversial and heavy use of human sewage sludge by ranchers in the beef industry. Science has cited being more cautious and reevaluating the practice that was first legalized in 1992. There are new emerging toxic pollutants that could contaminate beef that ultimately end up on USA dinner plates.

References

Information from New Zealand

I am just adding some information and citations about how biosolids are managed in NZ.Realitylink (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, some information and references entered. I am attempting to locate exactly where the NZ government is at with new guidelines that are apparently being developed. If any editors know about this, feel free to go in and add the information.Realitylink (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MandevillaSherlockii, Felis Catuss (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)