Biosolids pose a threat to healthy waters

Wastewater includes everything that is flushed down toilets and drains from households, businesses, and some industries and institutions. In Canada, 86% of homes are served by wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), with millions of cubic metres of wastewater ending up at these facilities every day¹. At these plants, wastewater gets processed to remove pathogens, nutrients, and some contaminants, with the processed liquid effluent being discharged into the environment. 

Treating wastewater is crucial in mitigating water pollution as it can contain human and organic waste, nutrients, pathogens, microorganisms, suspended solids, and chemicals from homes and some industries². There are three basic levels of wastewater treatment, and most municipal Canadian WWTPs use primary and secondary levels which can remove ~90% of suspended solids and coliform bacteria from wastewater³.

Much of the wastewater treatment process relies on the separation and removal of solids from water. These solids contain much of the nutrient-rich organic materials as well as those contaminants that bind to particles. The separated byproduct of the wastewater treatment process is called sewage sludge – and after further processing^{4 5}, is referred to as biosolids.

What are biosolids?

Biosolids are nutrient rich, organic solid or semi-solid materials recovered from wastewater processing. The global production of biosolids is ~125 million tonnes annually, with this value increasing with population growth and subsequent demand for more WWTPs⁶. In British Columbia alone, enough biosolids are produced every year to cover a football field 25m deep (~38,000 dry tonnes)⁷.

Biosolids can be considered either a waste product or a resource, and their management is becoming an increasing challenge for many countries. In North America, biosolids are often applied as a fertilizer in horticulture, agro-forestry operations or in reclamation projects, with their high nutrient content facilitating plant and tree growth^{8 9}. 

In Canada, biosolids management is guided by the framework established in the Approach for the Management of Municipal Biosolids under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). This framework promotes the sound management and beneficial use of biosolids, to capitalize on the high nutrient, organic material, and energy content of this by-product of liquid waste. ‘Beneficial use’ includes composting, certain land applications, and combustion for energy production¹⁰. Regulations for processing, management, and use of biosolids vary among Canadian provinces and territories, and even among municipalities.

The land application of biosolids is less prevalent in other parts of the world. Some countries like the Netherlands and Switzerland have imposed strict regulations and/or outright bans on land application because of environmental and human health concerns. In place of land application, countries may choose to landfill or incinerate their biosolids, or use technologies to capture energy¹². 

Mounting concerns about the safety of biosolid application

There are mounting concerns that the term ‘beneficial uses’ may not fully capture the safety of land based biosolids applications, as risks to the health of the environment and/or human health are poorly understood. These concerns emanate from an increasing number of reports on the diverse suite of contaminants found in biosolids.

The following types of contaminants have been documented in biosolids^{13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22}:

• Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (medications, anti-microbial, anti-fungal, anti-bacterial agents, and synthetic musks (fragrances))
• Recreational and/or illicit drugs
• Detergents and surfactants 
• Flame retardants
• Microplastics
• Hydrocarbons and other petrochemicals
• Pathogens
• Metals

Contaminants end up in biosolids because current wastewater treatment facilities are typically only designed to address nutrients, pathogens and suspended solids. Many contaminants survive WWTP processes and end up in liquid effluent and/or in biosolids. Biosolids are a particular sink for those contaminants that are persistent and ‘particle-active’ (lipophilic or hydrophobic), with many being toxic at relatively low concentrations^{23 24 25}.

Missing the mark: contaminants in biosolids

Biosolids destined for land use in BC must be processed to meet regulatory criteria for fecal coliform and metals²⁶. There is no other legal requirement to monitor biosolids for any other classes of contaminant prior to their land application as a fertilizer. 

A wide range of concentrations of different contaminants of concern have been reported in biosolids^{27 28 29}. In Canada, anti-microbial and bacterial agents (e.g. triclocarban and triclosan), antibiotics (e.g. azithromycin, carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole), synthetic musks (e.g. galoxolide, tohalide), and prescription pharmaceuticals (e.g. estradiols) have been reported in biosolids^{30 31 32}. Although the concentrations of some of these contaminants are often low, the quantities applied are large. In 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) estimated that over 1.96 million dry tonnes of biosolids were land applied in the USA³³. The cumulative impacts of repeated applications are not well understood but could be significant, with biosolid-amended environments becoming an environmental reservoir for a multitude of contaminants.

The fate of contaminants after land application

The limited assessment of contaminants in biosolids in BC and lack of monitoring after application is problematic. In addition to the potential for adverse effects in the lands they are applied to, contaminants in biosolids are free to move into aquatic environments or the atmosphere after biosolid application. Land application of biosolids is not only a terrestrial issue…it has potentially important consequences for aquatic ecosystems.

The fate of biosolid contaminants following land application depends on a number of factors including soil properties, physicochemical properties of the contaminant, application method, and environmental variables of the geographic area where application occurred^{43 44}. Generally, the risk of contaminant migration is highest immediately after biosolid application, with the concentrations in runoff are proportional to the quantity of biosolids applied and the intensity of the precipitation event^{45 46 47}. Climate change and weather events have the potential to affect the transport, fate, and risks associated with biosolid contaminants, highlighting the need for an upgraded evaluation of biosolid risks associated with severe and variable precipitation and flooding events.

A threat to healthy waters

Biosolid-amended lands are a reservoir for a wide variety of contaminants of concern, with strong potential for contaminants to move into adjacent waters. Many of the contaminants reported in biosolids possess endocrine-disrupting properties, which can, at low doses, negatively affect fish through changes to their physiology, behaviour, and reproduction^{48 49 50}. Microplastics are also commonly found in biosolids, and they also have demonstrated potential to elicit negative effects on fish^{51 52}.

The cursory requirements for biosolid screening prior to ‘beneficial use’ in BC underscores the significant unknowns regarding risks to the receiving environment. This, combined with limited understanding of fate and effects in the environment in and around areas of application, raise the spectre of undocumented impacts to aquatic ecosystems in BC.

Moving forward with biosolids: greener options

We are falling short on safeguarding our environment with current biosolid regulations and practices in BC. To align with the CCME Approach, which “promotes the beneficial use of valuable resources such as nutrients, organic matter, and energy contained within municipal biosolids”, we provide options for future biosolids management which would allow for ‘beneficial use’ but with reduced risk of environmental impact.

Option 1: Implement high-resolution contaminant monitoring in biosolids destined for land application

Monitoring should be frequent and must move beyond the current basic screening (fecal coliforms and metals) by targeting some of the other current and emerging contaminants of concern. The list of target contaminants may be derived from studies in WWTPs. Improved monitoring can then be used in human and ecological risk assessments to inform if application is safe and if so, to guide application.

Option 2: Clean up biosolids through source control initiatives and local regulations

Source control initiatives and municipal bylaws are routinely used to reduce or eliminate contaminants from entering the waste stream and ending up in biosolids. Many initiatives already exist, and jurisdictions should maintain and enforce these programs. These initiatives may be supplemented by new programs targeting emerging contaminants of concern. 

Option 3: Inform federal policies and regulations

Use new data from contaminants of concern in WWTPs and in biosolids to inform the national regulation of chemicals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Chemical Management Plan) and other relevant laws and policies. 

Option 4: Focus on energy capture from biosolids

Biosolids can be used as a combustible fuel alternative in power plants, and the ash byproduct of incineration can be used as a component in cement manufacturing⁵³. Emerging technologies including pyrolysis and gasification are becoming more common and can be used to produce process gas which can be converted to energy, with lower emissions compared to incineration⁵⁴. The byproducts of pyrolysis and gasification can also be used as a soil amendment in place of biosolids, with some research suggesting these byproducts are less contaminated compared to biosolids⁵⁵. 

Option 5: Take individual action

As individuals, we can do our part to clean up biosolids by reducing the release of harmful products in our homes and gardens. Find out more about source control programs that are relevant to you, such as BC’s Medications Return Program. Apply best practices at home by using green detergents and soaps, designing a sustainable yard and garden, and installing filters on laundry machines to reduce microfiber pollution from clothing.

1. Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2020, December 8). Municipal wastewater treatment. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/municipal-wastewater-treatment.htm
2. Wastewater Treatment Water Use | U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.). [USGS: science for a changing world]. Retrieved August 31, 2023, from https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/wastewater-treatment-water-use
3. Wastewater Treatment. (2016, December 2). Safe Drinking Water Foundation. https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/wastewater-treatment
4. Biosolids. (n.d.). Genome BC. Retrieved August 31, 2023, from https://www.genomebc.ca/infobulletins/biosolids/
5. Oleszkiewicz, J. A., & Mavinic, D. S. (2001). Wastewater biosolids: An overview of processing, treatment, and management. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28(S1), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1139/l00-042
6. Vaithyanathan, V. K., & Cabana, H. (2021). Integrated Biotechnology Management of Biosolids: Sustainable Ways to Produce Value—Added Products. Frontiers in Water, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frwa.2021.729679
7. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (n.d.). Biosolids in B.C. – Province of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. Retrieved August 31, 2023, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/food-and-organic-waste/regulations-guidelines/biosolids-in-bc
8. US EPA, O. (2016, July 13). Basic Information about Biosolids [Other Policies and Guidance]. https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-information-about-biosolids
9. Environmental Dynamics Inc. (2017). Beneficial Reuse of Biosolids Jurisdictional Review. Capital Regional District. https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/irm-reports/consolidationreportnov17/appendixq.pdf?sfvrsn=d99609ca_2
10. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (2012). CANADA-WIDE APPROACH FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF WASTEWATER BIOSOLIDS. https://ccme.ca/en/res/biosolids_cw_approach_e.pdf
11. Ibid. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy, n.d.
12. Ibid. Environmental Dynamics Inc., 2017.
13. Ibid. US EPA, 2016.
14. Hydromantis Inc., University of Waterloo, & Trent University. (2010). Emerging substances of concern in biosolids: Concentrations and effects of treatment processes. Government of Canada and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. publications.gc.ca/pub?id=9.697885&sl=0
15. Richman, T., Arnold, E., & Williams, A. J. (2022). Curation of a list of chemicals in biosolids from EPA National Sewage Sludge Surveys & Biennial Review Reports. Scientific Data, 9(1), 180. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01267-9
16. Bright, D. A., & Healey, N. (2003). Contaminant risks from biosolids land application: Contemporary organic contaminant levels in digested sewage sludge from five treatment plants in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia. Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987), 126(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0269-7491(03)00148-9
17. Land Resource Consulting Services. (2016). A literature review of risks relevant to the use of biosolids and compost from biosolids with relevance to the Nicola Valley, BC. British Columbia Minstry of Environment. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/organic-waste/biosolids/lit-review-biosolids-nicola-valley.pdf
18. Clarke, R. M., & Cummins, E. (2015). Evaluation of “Classic” and Emerging Contaminants Resulting from the Application of Biosolids to Agricultural Lands: A Review. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21(2), 492–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2014.930295
19. Clarke, B. O., & Smith, S. R. (2011). Review of ‘emerging’ organic contaminants in biosolids and assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids. Environment International, 37(1), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.06.004
20. Coggan, T. L., Moodie, D., Kolobaric, A., Szabo, D., Shimeta, J., Crosbie, N. D., Lee, E., Fernandes, M., & Clarke, B. O. (2019). An investigation into per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nineteen Australian wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Heliyon, 5(8), e02316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02316
21. Shieh, B. H. H., Louie, A., & Law, F. C. P. (2016). Factors Affecting Distribution of Estrogenicity in the Influents, Effluents, and Biosolids of Canadian Wastewater Treatment Plants. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 70(4), 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0230-z
22. Crossman, J., Hurley, R. R., Futter, M., & Nizzetto, L. (2020). Transfer and transport of microplastics from biosolids to agricultural soils and the wider environment. Science of The Total Environment, 724, 138334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138334
23. Kumar, R., Vuppaladadiyam, A. K., Antunes, E., Whelan, A., Fearon, R., Sheehan, M., & Reeves, L. (2022). Emerging contaminants in biosolids: Presence, fate and analytical techniques. Emerging Contaminants, 8, 162–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2022.03.004
24. Kumar, R., Whelan, A., Cannon, P., Sheehan, M., Reeves, L., & Antunes, E. (2023). Occurrence of emerging contaminants in biosolids in northern Queensland, Australia. Environmental Pollution, 330, 121786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121786
25. Langdon, K. A., Warne, M. S. J., & Kookana, R. S. (2010). Aquatic hazard assessment for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine-disrupting compounds from biosolids-amended land. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 6(4), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.74
26. Ibid. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2016.
27. Ibid. Kumar et al., 2022.
28. Ibid. Langdon et al., 2010.
29. BC Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2020). Biosolids sampling project. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/organic-waste/biosolids/biosolids_sampling_report_-_february_2020.pdf
30. Ibid. Bright & Healey, 2003.
31. Ibid. Land Resource Consulting Services, 2016.
32. Ibid. BC Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2020.
33. Ibid. US EPA, 2016.
34. Johnson, G. R. (2022). PFAS in soil and groundwater following historical land application of biosolids. Water Research, 211, 118035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.118035
35. Gottschall, N., Topp, E., Edwards, M., Payne, M., Kleywegt, S., & Lapen, D. R. (2017). Brominated flame retardants and perfluoroalkyl acids in groundwater, tile drainage, soil, and crop grain following a high application of municipal biosolids to a field. The Science of the Total Environment, 574, 1345–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.044
36. Washington, J. W., Yoo, H., Ellington, J. J., Jenkins, T. M., & Libelo, E. L. (2010a). Concentrations, distribution, and persistence of perfluoroalkylates in sludge-applied soils near Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(22), 8390–8396. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1003846
37. Gray, J. L., Borch, T., Furlong, E. T., Davis, J. G., Yager, T. J., Yang, Y.-Y., & Kolpin, D. W. (2017). Rainfall-runoff of anthropogenic waste indicators from agricultural fields applied with municipal biosolids. The Science of the Total Environment, 580, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.033
38. Yang, Y.-Y., Gray, J. L., Furlong, E. T., Davis, J. G., ReVello, R. C., & Borch, T. (2012). Steroid Hormone Runoff from Agricultural Test Plots Applied with Municipal Biosolids. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(5), 2746–2754. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203896t
39. Topp, E., Monteiro, S. C., Beck, A., Coelho, B. B., Boxall, A. B. A., Duenk, P. W., Kleywegt, S., Lapen, D. R., Payne, M., Sabourin, L., Li, H., & Metcalfe, C. D. (2008). Runoff of pharmaceuticals and personal care products following application of biosolids to an agricultural field. Science of The Total Environment, 396(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.02.011
40. Naderi Beni, N., Karimifard, S., Gilley, J., Messer, T., Schmidt, A., & Bartelt-Hunt, S. (2023). Higher concentrations of microplastics in runoff from biosolid-amended croplands than manure-amended croplands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00691-y
41. Dowd, S. E., Gerba, C. P., Pepper, I. L., & Pillai, S. D. (2000). Bioaerosol Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment in Relation to Biosolid Placement. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29(1), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900010043x
42. Borthakur, A., Leonard, J., Koutnik, V. S., Ravi, S., & Mohanty, S. K. (2022). Inhalation risks of wind-blown dust from biosolid-applied agricultural lands: Are they enriched with microplastics and PFAS? Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 25, 100309.
43. Ryerson University. (2015). Risks Associated with Application of Municipal Biosolids to Agricultural Lands in a Canadian Context. Canadian Municipal Water Consortium, Canadian Water Netword. https://cwn-rce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/McCarthy-Risks-Biosolids-2015.pdf
44. Mohapatra, D. P., Cledón, M., Brar, S. K., & Surampalli, R. Y. (2016). Application of Wastewater and Biosolids in Soil: Occurrence and Fate of Emerging Contaminants. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 227(3), 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-2768-4
45. Ibid. Land Resource Consulting Services, 2016.
46. Ibid. Washington et al., 2010a.
47. Brodin, T., Piovano, S., Fick, J., Klaminder, J., Heynen, M., & Jonsson, M. (2014). Ecological effects of pharmaceuticals in aquatic systems—Impacts through behavioural alterations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1656), 20130580. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0580
48. Ibid. Brodin et al., 2014.
49. Correia, D., Domingues, I., Faria, M., & Oliveira, M. (2023). Effects of fluoxetine on fish: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? The Science of the Total Environment, 857(Pt 2), 159486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159486
50. Thayil, A. J., Wang, X., Bhandari, P., Vom Saal, F. S., Tillitt, D. E., & Bhandari, R. K. (2020). Bisphenol A and 17α-ethinylestradiol-induced transgenerational gene expression differences in the brain-pituitary-testis axis of medaka, Oryzias latipes†. Biology of Reproduction, 103(6), 1324–1335. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioaa169
51. Jacob, H., Besson, M., Swarzenski, P. W., Lecchini, D., & Metian, M. (2020). Effects of Virgin Micro- and Nanoplastics on Fish: Trends, Meta-Analysis, and Perspectives. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(8), 4733–4745. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05995
52. de Sá, L. C., Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, F., Rocha, T. L., & Futter, M. N. (2018). Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? Science of The Total Environment, 645, 1029–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207
53. Ibid. Environmental Dynamics Inc., 2017.
54. Egan, M. (2013). Biosolids management strategies: An evaluation of energy production as an alternative to land application. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20(7), 4299–4310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1621-1
55. Thoma, E. D., Wright, R. S., George, I., Krause, M., Presezzi, D., Villa, V., Preston, W., Deshmukh, P., Kauppi, P., & Zemek, P. G. (2022). Pyrolysis processing of PFAS-impacted biosolids, a pilot study. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995), 72(4), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2021.2009935

You can help

Raincoast’s in-house scientists, collaborating graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and professors make us unique among conservation groups. We work with First Nations, academic institutions, government, and other NGOs to build support and inform decisions that protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and the wildlife that depend on them. We conduct ethically applied, process-oriented, and hypothesis-driven research that has immediate and relevant utility for conservation deliberations and the collective body of scientific knowledge.

We investigate to understand coastal species and processes. We inform by bringing science to decision-makers and communities. We inspire action to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats.