Figure 7 – uploaded by Agata Gallipoli

Table 1  On the other hand, the total area for agriculture in the EU is about one third of what is now

Table 3. Current disposal options in European countries (% of sludge produced)   It may be seen that in many countries agricultural utilisation still plays an important role while in

reduction, treatment processes and site restrictions in land application (Table 6).

Frequency (minimum number per year)  8Dry and organic matter, pH, primary nutrients (N, PK), secondary nutrients (Ca, Mg, S), micro-nutrients (B, Co, Fe, Mn, Mo}

as reported in Table 8.  representative sample. In the three WW treatment plants the sampling campaigns were carried out

Table 9. Main characteristics of the WW treatment plants   Table 9 shows the main characteristics of the treatment units of the three WW treatment plants.  sludge in the excess sludge line.

Table 11. Solid and nutrient content of Roma Nord sludges   Table. 12 Solid and nutrient content of Co.bis. sludges

the very prolonged sludge age and probably the inefficiency of the degritting unit.

Table 15. Heavy metals content (mg/kg) of Co.bis. sludges

Table 17 Dimensional distribution of the untreated and sonicated sludge (10 min) (a):flocs number; (b): percentage of flocs number

Table 23 Anaerobic digestion trend of the untreated and sonicated mixture (F/I=0.5

Table 25 Characterization of seconadry sludge and inoculums (F/I=1)  For both mixtures, the total and volatile solids and the COD trends during the anaerobic digestion  i ee oo oe i ae

For the untreated mixture, the volatile solids and the COD, soluble and particulate, showed the same

Table 27 volatile solids degradation efficiency and biogas productions of untreated and sonicated sludge during the digestion process. (F/I=1)

In the digestion of the untreated mixture, a significant degradation of the VS in the first 55h was  onicated mixtures during the anaerobic digestion.

Table 30 volatile solids degradation efficiency and biogas productions of untreated and sonicated sludge during the digestion process. (F/I=2)

fable 31 shows VS degradation efficiency for both untreated and sonicated sludge: the beneficial

*= biogas increment at increasing F/I for untreated/sonicated sludge **= biogas increment of sonicated sludge with respect to the untreated one at the same F/I

Table 34 CST determination for the digestion at F/I=0.5   Table 35 CST determination for the digestion at F/I=2

Table 39 Cumulative biogas production of the untreated sonicated sludge

Table 42 Anaerobic digestion trend for the sonicated sludge at F/I=1

Table 41 Anaerobic digestion trend for the untreated sludge at F/I=1

removal increases by decreasing F/I, both for untreated and sonicated sludge digestion.  ludge, in the tests at different F/I ratios. Biogas production of the untreated sludge was, as

contaminants in water, is assigned to the AOPs.

Table 49 LAS physical chemical characteristics   After application, LAS are usually discharged to the sewer systems and appear in municipal

Table 50 Sluge characteristics and operating conditions of the six experiments

Table 52. eigenvalues and the percentage of variance for the first three component:   Fig. 72 (a) shows the distribution of the variables in the space formed by the first two components