Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2023 May 4;30(26):67974–67996. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-26893-7

Land application of industrial wastes: impacts on soil quality, biota, and human health

Shamali De Silva 1,2, Peter Carson 2, Demidu V Indrapala 2, Barry Warwick 1, Suzie M Reichman 3,4,
PMCID: PMC10212876  PMID: 37138131

Abstract

Globally, waste disposal options such as landfill, incineration, and discharge to water, are not preferred long-term solutions due to their social, environmental, political, and economic implications. However, there is potential for increasing the sustainability of industrial processes by considering land application of industrial wastes. Applying waste to land can have beneficial outcomes including reducing waste sent to landfill and providing alternative nutrient sources for agriculture and other primary production. However, there are also potential hazards, including environmental contamination. This article reviewed the literature on industrial waste applications to soils and assessed the associated hazards and benefits. The review investigated wastes in relation to soil characteristics, dynamics between soils and waste constituents, and possible impacts on plants, animals, and humans. The current body of literature demonstrates the potential for the application of industrial waste into agricultural soils. The main challenge for applying industrial wastes to land is the presence of contaminants in some wastes and managing these to enhance positive effects and reduce negative outcomes to within acceptable limits. Examination of the literature also revealed several gaps in the research and opportunities for further investigation: specifically, a lack of long-term experiments and mass balance assessments, variable waste composition, and negative public opinion.

Keywords: Agriculture, Contamination, Emerging chemicals of concern, Groundwater, Review, Risk assessment, Soil amendment, Sustainable waste disposal

Introduction

Globally, waste disposal options such as landfill, incineration and discharge to water, are not preferred long-term solutions due to their social, environmental, political, and economic implications (Cameron et al. 1997). Expanding industrialisation, population growth, and growing consumer demand are placing stress on existing waste management strategies (Haynes 2009). Across the world, more sustainable ways of handling industrial waste through increased recycling and reuse alternatives are being considered. Thus, there is potential for increasing the sustainability of industrial processes by considering land application of wastes. Applying waste to land can have beneficial outcomes including reducing waste sent to landfill and providing alternative sources of nutrients for agricultural and other primary production systems (Pires and Martinho 2019; van Ewijk and Stegemann 2020).

Studies have shown that the functional benefits of waste application to land can range from increased plant growth and yield, to improved soil structure and alleviation of undesirable soil conditions such as acidity and erosion (Basu et al. 2009; Manoharan et al. 2010; Yunusa et al. 2006). Intensive agricultural practices are dependent on the routine use of fertilisers and liming agents to replenish nutrients and sustain high production. Utilising the beneficial properties of industrial wastes has the potential to provide alternatives to fertilisers and soil conditioners for farming systems. Using wastes instead of, or as a supplement to, commercial products could alleviate the financial pressures imposed on farmers by fluctuating global markets (ACCC 2008).

In addition to the potential benefits from applying wastes to agricultural landscapes, there are also significant potential hazards, including contamination of soils; groundwater; and human and animal food sources from contaminants present in the wastes. In many countries, the acceptance of industrial waste as a soil amendment in agriculture is highly contentious and limited by uncertainty about the effects of contaminants on soil, water, food, and, subsequently, human health (Dessalew et al. 2017; Kirchmann et al. 2017; Spark and Swift 2008). Consequently, the application of wastes as soil amendments must be in a way that ensures safe and sustainable outcomes.

In this review, we have summarised and assessed the scientific literature on the application of industrial wastes to arable land. The review addresses the waste applications of various industries, including foundries, smelters, coal-burning power plants, and agriculture. This review will not focus on biosolid application to land as it has been covered in several recent reviews e.g., Badzmierowski et al. 2021; Clarke and Smith 2011; Gianico et al. 2021; Jjemba 2002b; Lu et al. 2012; Ma and Rosen 2021; and Torri et al. 2017. For the purposes of this review, we considered ‘biosolids’ to be organic solids derived from human sewage treatment processes (EPA Victoria 2004); solid wastes that do not meet this criteria are referred to as ‘sludge’. The review aims to provide information and identify knowledge gaps in the literature on the practice of applying industrial waste to agricultural lands. Whilst there have been multiple reviews focusing on the application of particular industrial wastes to land, or for specific regions or chemical contaminants, there has not been a review synthesising knowledge globally across waste types. To our knowledge, this is the first wholistic review on the use of industrial wastes as soil amendments that synthesises information across waste types; soil characteristics; and environmental and human health risk. We have explored the dynamics between soils and waste constituents, as well as assessing the hazards and benefits associated with the application of wastes to land.

Waste application to land

Waste types

The wastes addressed in this review are broadly categorised as those produced by industrial facilities, such as mills, factories, agriculture, and power stations. In general, the literature addressing waste has predominantly focused on certain types of waste, in particular fly ash1 (Blissett and Rowson 2012; Ram and Masto 2014; Shaheen et al. 2014), rather than evenly covering the broad spectrum of wastes that could be potentially applied to land. Other literature covers wastewater (Johns 1995; Mittal 2006), a term which often refers to a combination of industrial water-based waste discharged into waterways from multiple industries or stored in lagoons. In most cases, the wastes investigated have been sourced directly from the producer and undergone tests in an untreated state, as such, in depth coverage of industrial treatments prior to application of wastes to soil is outside the scope of this review.

A summary of the wastes that have been identified as potential soil amendments, outlining the possible uses and risks of each waste type, is provided in Table 1. As listed in Table 1, wastes generated by industrial activities vary in their material composition and elemental constituents. Constituents, processing, chemical agents, batch number, and technology can have significant impacts on the resulting waste (Arvanitoyannis 2006; Luther 2011). Consequently, the development of procedures for waste application to land is complicated by the variations present in each batch and the type of waste. Furthermore, once wastes are applied to land, they interact with the soil often changing the physiochemical properties of the soil and waste, and thus, the potential impacts on the environment (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

Selected industrial wastes and their soil amendment properties

Industrial waste Waste category based on effects on soil Waste effect on soil Potential disadvantages References
Cement and lime kiln Soil pH

Increase pH

High in Ca

Potential fugitive dust

Highly caustic

Variable composition

May contain contaminants

Low nutrient value (variable)

Allen et al. 2007
Coal combustion products e.g., fly ash (class C1 and F2) Soil physical properties, soil pH, fertiliser

Modifies soil texture

Water retention

Increase pH

Source of nutrients

Variable composition

May be high in B

May be high in salts

May leach Se and As

May contain contaminants (PCB and PAH3)

Low C and N

Amiralian et al. 2012; Basu et al. 2009; Manoharan et al. 2010; Nalbantoğlu 2004; Shaheen et al. 2014; Yunusa et al. 2011; Yunusa et al. 2006
Foundry sand Soil physical properties

Modifies soil texture

Sorbent

Water retention

May contain contaminants

High Na

Water retention

Dungan et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2014
Pulp sludge Soil physical properties, organic matter

Slope stabiliser

Water retention, source of OM

Variable constituents

Total C may not reflect availability

Very low nutrient value (variable)

May contain contaminants

Cameron et al. 1997; Tabassum et al. 2015; USEPA 2000
Red mud bauxite Soil physical properties, fertiliser

CCE3 sorbent

High Mn

May volatise ammonia Brunori et al. 2005; Vlahos et al. 1989
Sugar beet lime Soil pH, fertiliser

Increase pH

High P potential sorbent

Increase pH

High P

Blanco-Velázquez et al. 2019; Fares et al. 2014; Öğüt and Er 2015; Pacharane et al. 2021
Tannery waste Fertiliser Source of nutrients

High Cr (variable), Cu, Zn, Pb, Sr, and V

High salt content

Alvarez-Bernal et al. 2006; Calheiros et al. 2008; Gowd et al. 2010; Kankaria et al. 2011 Nabavinia et al. 2015
Dairy effluents Fertiliser, organic matter

Source of nutrients

Source of organic matter

Highly variable quality

Variable constituent

May have high nutrient loadings

May contain unsafe contaminants

Allinson 2008; Arvanitoyannis 2006; Yang et al., 1989

Habteselassie et al. 2006a; Habteselassie et al. 2006b; Hawke and Summers 2006; Sparling et al. 2001; Zaman et al. 2002

Potable water treatment residuals Soil physical properties, fertiliser

Phosphorous binding

Potential sorbent

Different materials have variable reactivity

May contain As and radioactive isotopes

Zhao et al. 2018; 2010; Dayton and Basta 2001; Howells et al. 2018; Lombi et al. 2010; Mahdy et al. 2009, Turner et al. 2019; Nguyen et al. 2022
Wood ash Soil physical properties, Soil pH, fertiliser, organic matter

Modifies soil texture

Increase pH

Source of nutrients

Source of organic matter

May be high in B variable composition

May have high nutrient loadings

Arvidsson and Lundkvist 2003; Demeyer et al. 2001; Moragues-Saitua et al. 2017; Nkana et al. 1998; Ohno and Erich 1990

1Class C fly ash originates from subbituminous and lignite coals. The composition consists mainly of calcium, alumina, and silica with a lower loss on ignition than class F fly ash (ASTM, 2005).

2Class F fly ash originates from anthracite and bituminous coals (ASTM, 2005).

3PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; CCE, calcium carbonate equivalent.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Conceptual diagram of the fate and behaviour of contaminants in industrial wastes applied to land

Soils are structurally diverse materials with a range of physiochemical properties. Soil attributes affected by waste amendments may include texture, bulk density, pH, water holding capacity, cation exchange capacity (CEC), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), organic matter (OM), and biological properties (Table 1) (Alvarez-Bernal et al. 2006; Mittra et al. 2005; Pandey and Singh 2010; Punshon et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2015). Soils amended with industrial wastes can improve soil physical properties (Dexter 2004; Eneje Roseta and Innocent 2012; Kaur and Sharma 2014; Killi et al. 2014; Tabassum et al. 2015). Soil conditions at waste application sites vary widely; therefore, soil is an important factor to incorporate when designing guidelines for applying wastes to land (Luther 2011).

Waste pretreatment

Whilst applying industrial wastes to land can be considered a beneficial reuse, it is also a form of waste disposal. Waste application to land therefore, often requires authorisation by the relevant jurisdiction before the commencement of any industrial waste treatment and land application (e.g., State of Victoria 2021; British Standards Institute 2014).

The physiochemical properties of the untreated wastes can be a problem for its safe reuse (see Table 1). Thus, various treatment technologies for waste treatment can be used to minimise potential environmental impacts when wastes are applied to land (Table 2). Examples of treatment options include composting, rendering, anaerobic digestion, controlled incineration, nutrient extraction, and aerobic-activated sludge systems (Bandaw and Herago 2017). Composting is effective in breaking down waste and organic material and can kill some pathogens. Rendering involves mechanical, thermal, and chemical treatment of solid livestock waste e.g., slaughter waste and whole carcasses, to produce pelleted soil additives or animal feedstock such as meat and bone meal and tallow (fats and oils) (Mittal 2006). Anaerobic digestion technology can be used for treating organic wastes, such as solid slaughterhouse waste, to combine material recovery and energy production (Beal et al. 1999). Nutrient extraction recovers nutrients in a concentrated form (e.g., the inorganic precipitate struvite) from waste and can be desirable for providing a wider range of options for eventual reuse with reduced pathogen risk and improved ease of transportation (Mehta, et al. 2015). Aerobic-activated sludge systems can be used for wastes (e.g., for paper pulp sludge) to reduce the volume, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (Turner et al. 2022). Sometimes controlled incineration is used for high-risk wastes with the resultant ash being available for application to land (Ragasri, and Sabumon 2023).

Table 2.

Selected industrial wastes with pretreatment options

Waste type Pretreatment method/technology Reference
Abattoir waste Rendering Mittal 2006
Composting
Wood ash Hardening or granulation Maresca et al. 2019
Pelletising Hannam et al. 2016
Dairy effluents COD removal of fat Karpati, et al. 1990
Aerobic digestion Wendorff 2001
Van Horn etal. 1994
Tannery wastes Fermented hydrolysates, treatments with mineral fertiliser, vermicomposting Rigueto et al. 2020
Sugar beet pulp Extract nano elements, bio-adsorb contaminants from wastewater Rana et al. 2022
Paper pulp sludge Aerobic activated sludge systems, aeration, and mixing to oxidise, or a combination of these or other methods to generate a secondary sludge Turner et al. 2022; Veluchamy and Kalamdhad., 2017; Monte et al. 2009

There are several reviews in the literature that cover the assessment of waste pretreatment options for different types of waste (e.g., Mittal 2006; Rigueto et al. 2020). Thus, we refer readers to these reviews for a more in depth understanding of how waste pretreatments can be utilised to overcome some of the potential risks associated with applying wastes to land, and we do not directly discuss waste pretreatment further here.

Waste effects on soil physiochemical properties

Soil texture

Soil texture has an important influence on the physiochemical behaviour and management of wastes and their constituents (Table 3). For example, between 65 and 95% of fly ash particles have a diameter of less than 0.01 mm, which generally resembles a silt loam soil (a preferred texture in agricultural situations) (Pathan et al. 2003a). If well managed, the incorporation of wastes, such as fly ash, into soil may alter the texture favourably, which in turn influences soil properties such as hydraulic conductivity (Basu et al. 2009; Chang et al. 1977). Impacts of waste applications on soil texture are likely to impact on other soil physicochemical characteristics including hydraulic conductivity, soil aeration, and nutrient and contaminant bioavailability (Dexter 2004), and thus, is discussed further in the relevant sections below.

Table 3.

Waste application to land and effects of wastes on soil physiochemical properties

Soil property Waste type Outcome Reference
Soil moisture/water movement and retention Fly ash Increase bulk density, increase porosity, increase hydraulic conductivity Basu et al. 2009; Chang et al. 1977; Ghodrati et al. 1995a; Ghodrati et al. 1995b; Moreira et al. 2016; Pandey et al. 2009; Pathan et al. 2003a; Young et al. 2008; Zhai and Horn 2018
Dairy effluents, meat processing effluents Change/reduce hydraulic conductivity Balks et al. 1997; Sparling et al. 2015
Coal fly ash Reduce hydraulic conductivity Pathan et al. 2003b
Soil pH Bauxite, cement, and lime kiln, fly ash, sugar beet lime and wood ash, dairy waste, steel slag and paper pulp Liming agent to reduce acidity Aitken et al. 1984; Allen et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2011; Cline et al. 2000; Jala and Goyal 2006; Mäkelä et al. 2012; Manoharan et al. 2010; Qing et al. 2015; Spark and Swift 2008; Tarkalson et al. 2005
Redox potential Black coal fly ash, tannery waste Changes in redox effecting solubility and mobility of contaminants Chuan and Liu 1996; Gupta and Sinha 2006; Kumpiene et al. 2008; Miretzky and Cirelli 2010
Organic matter Fly ash, tannery sludge, dairy effluents Mostly increased organic matter, decreased in some cases Cline et al. 2000; Gupta and Sinha 2006; Manoharan et al. 2010; Roy and Joy 2011; Singh et al 2011; Spark and Swift 2008; Sparling et al. 2001
Soil salinity and sodicity Tannery waste, dairy wastes, pulp and paper mill effluent, fly ash Increase soil salinity and/or sodicity Alvarez-Bernal et al. 2006; Fisher and Scott 2008; Hawke and Summers 2003; Johnson and Ryder 1988; Kumar and Singh 2003; Liu et al. 2011; Manoharan et al. 2010; Matsi and Keramidas 1999; Punshon et al. 2002; Roy and Joy 2011; Singh et al. 2012; Wong et al. 1995

Soil moisture, water movement, and retention

Optimal soil composition is balanced between water movement and retention to ensure adequate aeration, provide sufficient water for plant and microbial growth, and drain excess water from the soil matrix. Changes to the physical characteristics of a soil due to waste applications can influence soil attributes related to water infiltration, water retention, aeration, and drainage. For example, the addition of fly ash to an undescribed “garden” soil at rates of 25%, 50%, and 100% (w/w) decreased the bulk density from 1.3 to 1.2, and 0.9 g cm−3, respectively. Inversely related to bulk density, soil porosity improved from 24 to 33%, 42%, and 60% respectively (Pandey et al. 2009). Increased porosity enables the retention of pockets of water and air and establishment of microhabitats for soil organisms and enhanced root penetration (Moreira et al. 2016; Young et al. 2008; Zhai and Horn 2018).

Clay soils characteristically retain more water than other soil types, which can lead to unfavourable soil conditions for agriculture due to waterlogging. Increased hydraulic conductivity can reduce waterlogging and its effects on the soil environment. Several studies have cited enhanced hydraulic conductivity after mixing fly ash (Chang et al. 1977; Ghodrati et al. 1995a; Ghodrati et al. 1995b; Pandey et al. 2009; Pathan et al. 2003a), dairy factory effluent (Sparling et al. 2015), and meat processing effluent in soils (Balks et al. 1997; Matheyarasu et al. 2016ab). For example, soil permeability initially decreased by more than 50% when a silt loam soil was treated with meat processing effluent (Balks et al. 1997). Whilst this initial reduction was significant, it then gradually increased over 41 days, to the point where there was no significant difference in permeability from the original sample levels (Balks et al. 1997). In comparison, an experiment investigating water retention measured in situ in sandy soils amended with weathered, fine (< 20 µm) black coal fly ash identified a 25% reduction in hydraulic conductivity (Pathan et al. 2003b). Ultimately, the impact of waste amendments on porosity and subsequent aeration and hydraulic conductivity of soils is related to the characteristics of both the waste and the receiving soil.

Soil pH

Soil pH has an important impact on the solubility, binding potential, and speciation of elements and potential pollutants (Reichman 2002; Sauve et al. 2000). Soil pH subsequently affects the bioavailability of nutrients and contaminants to plants and soil organisms (Menzies et al. 2007; Reichman 2002). An optimum soil pH, typically favoured for most agricultural practices, is within the range of 6 to 7.5, with the specific optimum pH varying according to the crop type (DPI 2005; NLWRA 2001). Industrial wastes with an alkaline pH have the potential to be used as liming agents for moderating the pH of acidic soils (Jala and Goyal 2006; Spark and Swift 2008; Tarkalson et al. 2005). Provided that other potential environmental impacts are balanced, industrial wastes with prospective liming properties provide an opportunity for cheap lime substitutes, for example, bauxite, cement and lime kiln, fly ash, sugar beet lime, and wood ash (Allen et al. 2007).

The dynamic nature inherent in soil environments and the inconsistent composition of wastes mean their efficacy as liming agents can be highly variable. A comparison between several class F fly ashes and CaCO3 added to acid soils showed the ash was between 1/15 and 1/20 as effective as the CaCO3 in raising the pH of acidic sandy and loamy soils with a pH < 5.5 (Aitken et al. 1984; Manoharan et al. 2010). A similar study revealed class F fly ash applied at a rate of 0.8–3.2% (w/w) in a sandy loam soil raised the pH between 0.2 and 0.4 units, compared with a commercial liming agent applied at a rate of 0.2% (w/w), which raised the pH by 0.75 units (Cline et al. 2000). A greenhouse pot trial involving two soil types (Podzol and Ferrosol) showed that over 8 weeks, ten times the weight of fly ash was needed to raise the soil pH to the same level as lime (Spark and Swift 2008). Fly ash also typically has high concentrations of metals,2 and thus the need to use greater mass of fly ash to achieve the same pH as with the lime, meant an increase in soil metal concentrations in the fly ash treatment (Basu et al. 2009). Consequently, any derivative of coal sourced from class F material, and other wastes, should undergo thorough evaluation when considering applying it to agricultural lands as a liming agent. Other industrial wastes such as wood waste (Bang-Andreasen et al. 2017), dairy wastes (Liu et al. 2011), steel slag, and paper pulp (Mäkelä et al. 2012) when applied to land have shown liming effects in soil similar to commercial ground limestone (Mäkelä et al. 2012; Qing et al. 2015).

Changes in soil pH can affect the chemical equilibrium and subsequently, the mobility of substances in the soil. Iron and manganese oxides, which are particularly susceptible to fluctuations in pH levels, form stable compounds in aerobic soils, adsorbing, and thereby immobilising, many potentially toxic soil contaminants (Gadde and Laitinen 1974; Johnson et al. 2016; Tabassum et al. 2015). As a result of this immobilisation, repeated industrial waste applications may result in accumulation of contaminants within the soil profile (McKenzie 1980; Wuana and Okieimen 2011). For example, As mobility and bioavailability in the soil environment is highly dependent on soil pH and redox potential (Al-Abed et al 2007). A batch leaching experiment by Al-Abed et al.,(2007) showed that 98% of the As released from Fe-rich mineral processing waste was associated with Fe-oxyhydroxides and oxides (Al-Abed et al 2007). Under aerobic conditions, an increase of pH from 3 to 7 correlated with a decrease of As and Fe concentration in solution from 150 to 950 µgL−1, respectively, to approximately 30 µgL−1 each, due to the precipitation of Fe-oxyhydroxides (Al-Abed et al. 2007). The maximum solubilisation occurred at pH 11, with solubilised As at 3592 µgL−1 and Fe at 1683 µgL−1 (Al-Abed et al. 2007). Thus, the amendment of waste materials requires sound scientific knowledge of both the wastes and soils involved to strategically manage solubility, bioavailability, and mobility of potentially toxic compounds as pH changes.

Redox potential

The oxidation/reduction (redox) potential of a soil is an important factor in the solubility, mobility, and bioavailability of metals and other contaminants (Fiedler et al. 2007; Fijałkowski et al. 2012; Aigberua et al. 2018). Reducing conditions occur in low oxygen, anaerobic situations such as waterlogging, soil compaction, and the rapid decomposition of organic matter (Goldberg and Smith 1984; Hamon et al. 2004; Kaur et al. 2020; Patrick and Jugsujinda 1992; Reichman 2002; Rothe et al. 2016). The redox state affects the availability of metal contaminants that may be present in industrial waste directly and indirectly by affecting the solubility, speciation, and toxicity of metal species in the soil solution (Schwab and Lindsay 1983; Olaniran et al. 2013; Wuana and Okieimen 2011).

Changes in redox condition can have a direct effect on the valency and speciation of metals in soil (Pardue and Patrick 2018; Roberts et al. 2005). For example, Cr, a common element in steel, alloy, and tannery wastes (Miretzky and Cirelli 2010), is typically found in two oxidation states in soils: Cr(III) and Cr(VI) (Alvarez-Bernal et al. 2006; Bartlett and Kimble 1976). Under increased aeration and change in pH, Cr(III) is oxidised to Cr(VI) (Apte, et al. 2006). An analysis of Cr in tannery sludge identified Cr(III) as the predominant species, with Cr(III) and Cr(VI) concentrations of 5.02 mg/L and 0.25 mg/L, respectively in the leachate of the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) (Chuan and Liu 1996). Whilst Cr(III) tends to be the predominant species in soils, well-aerated soils often have Cr present as the more toxic Cr(VI) (Jardine et al. 2011; Landrot et al. 2012). As the speciation of elements can vary with redox conditions, the impact of redox conditions on the speciation of certain elements is an important consideration in assessing the risk of applying wastes to land. This is particularly so because of the potential for soil redox conditions to change with time (e.g., intermittent waterlogging) possibly changing the speciation, solubility, mobility, and bioavailability of elements from the waste.

Changes in redox conditions can also indirectly affect the solubility and mobility of bound contaminants. Soil colloids, such as clay minerals, hydrous oxides, and organic matter, immobilise contaminants via sorption. For example, Fe oxides concentrated on the particle surface of fly ash have the potential to sorb metal contaminants and reduce their bioavailability (Kumpiene et al. 2008). Manganese and Fe oxides have great capacity to sorb trace elements (Suda and Makino 2016). However, Fe and Mn oxides are reduced under anaerobic conditions resulting in solubilisation of the metals in the oxides (Olomu et al. 1973; Patrick and Jugsujinda 1992; Quantin et al. 2002). When metal oxides are solubilised, the trace elements previously sorbed to the metal oxide surface become dispersed into the soil solution, potentially resulting in metal toxicity or increased mobility (Basu et al. 2009). For example, soils treated with tannery waste have been found to contain Cd, Cr, Mn, and Zn bound to Fe and Mn oxide complexes (Gupta and Sinha 2006). Changes in redox conditions in the receiving soil could result in changes to the bioavailability of these contaminants. Thus, when wastes are added to soils, it cannot be assumed that redox conditions and the associated speciation, solubility, and toxicity of trace elements will remain unchanged over time.

Organic matter

Organic matter has a number of important roles in soil, including providing a source of nutrients, as an energy source for soil organisms, buffering soil pH changes, conserving soil structure, and regulating water holding and aeration characteristics (Simpson and Simpson 2012; Bot and Benites 2005). Furthermore, the bioavailability and leaching of metal ions, pesticides, and other contaminants can be reduced by the formation of stable complexes with organic matter (Bolan and Duraisamy 2003; Bonin and Simpson 2007; Brady and Weil 1996; Reichman 2002). Sometimes, incorporating waste products into the soil can improve the amount and retention of organic matter in soil (Corti et al. 2012). For example, dried tannery sludge mixed with dried, unspecified “garden” soil at five rates of 10 to 100% showed an increase in organic matter from the control by 1.0 to 10.1%, respectively (Gupta and Sinha 2006). In comparison, a study using fly ash at rates of 5 to 40% (w/w, equivalent to 50 to 400 t ha−1) found a decrease in the organic C of the sandy loam soils despite the addition of 10% farmyard manure in each treatment (Roy and Joy 2011). At a rate of 40% w/w fly ash, Roy and Joy (2011) recorded a maximum loss of 29% organic C compared to the control-untreated soil. Singh et al. (2011) observed similar trends of decreased organic matter in soils treated with fly ash. However, contrary to these findings, Punshon et al. (2002) successfully increased soil organic matter over 3 years from 3.1 to 5.2% after treating kaolinite clay soils with up to 1120 Mg ha−1 of fly ash. Sparling et al. (2001) found a moderate decline in the total C and N content of soil, irrigated with dairy factory effluent, which was accompanied by an increase in microbial biomass of more than double that of the untreated control. Thus, the reason for declines in total organic C after addition of waste amendments to soil may be due to increased microbial activity.

In the long-term, organic matter is not static, but is in a constant state of flux between formation and decomposition. Therefore, unless organic matter containing wastes are regularly added to soil, any impacts (positive or negative) are likely to be relatively short term in nature.

Soil salinity and sodicity

Some industrial wastes have the potential to increase soil concentrations of sodium and other soluble salts to toxic levels (Balks 1998). Unfortunately, little research on industrial wastes has directly investigated the impacts of salts in wastes on soils, and so, most of the results presented here are secondary outcomes of the research rather than the focus of the study. Nevertheless, the body of work suggests that some wastes applied to land pose a risk of increasing soil salinity and sodicity.

In general, soils are considered saline when the electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil solution exceeds 4 dS m−1 (Munns and Tester 2008; Sposito 2008). However, moderately sensitive plants can be adversely affected when the EC of the soil approaches 2 dS m−1 (Brady and Weil 1996). Alvarez-Bernal et al., (2006) investigated agricultural soils irrigated over 25 years with water polluted with tannery and other industrial wastes. A comparison of industrial wastewater-irrigated clay soils with well-water-irrigated clay soils on nearby farmland found industrial wastewater contributed to an increase in EC from 0.6 to 2.3 dS m−1 (Alvarez-Bernal et al. 2006). Other wastes found to heighten soil salinity and sodicity include pig slurry (Brechin and McDonald 1994), pulp and paper mill effluent (Johnson and Ryder 1988), dairy wastewater (Fisher and Scott 2008), and fly ash (Manoharan et al. 2010; Punshon et al. 2002; Roy and Joy 2011; Singh et al. 2012; Wong et al. 1995). For example, the application of fly ash into clay soils at a rate of 50 g kg−1 soil increased the EC from an initial 0.5 to 2.5 dS m−1 (Matsi and Keramidas 1999). An assessment of fly ashes sourced from several locations across Australia found a diverse electrical conductivity ranging from 0.14 to 19.1 dS m−1 (Yunusa et al. 2011). However, wastes with a high calcium content, such as alkaline fly ash, may assist in the amelioration of sodic soils (Yunusa et al. 2006). Following the application of alkaline fly ash at a rate of 7.5 kg per 100 kg soil, the exchangeable sodium potential (ESP) in a sodic, sandy loam soil was reduced from 14.8 to 10.4% (Kumar and Singh 2003). According to Hawke and Summers (2006), farm effluents contain high concentrations of K. Therefore, the application of farm effluents such as dairy effluents to land has the potential to increase the concentration of exchangeable cations in the upper soil profile (Hawke and Summers 2003) and increase soil salinity. These examples demonstrate how application of industrial wastes can impact positively and negatively on soil salinity and sodicity depending on the sodium and calcium concentrations in the wastes.

The reduction of soluble salts, as well as other elements, commonly found in wastes has been successfully demonstrated by weathering wastes, a process that reduces salt concentration by natural or artificially induced leaching (Allinson 2008; Finkelman et al. 2002; Ghodrati et al. 1995a; Pandey and Singh 2010; Punshon et al. 2002; Yunusa et al. 2011). The washing of red mud, a by-product in the production of alumina extraction from bauxite, with deionised water for 1 h resulted in a significant reduction of chloride, fluoride, sulphate, and vanadium from 4880 mg L, 32 mg L, 1140 mg L, and 555 µg L to 128 mg L, 16 mg L, 530 mg L, and 485 µg L, respectively (Brunori et al. 2005). However, there are major limitations to the weathering process. Firstly, the weathering and leaching of waste require substantial amounts of water (Yunusa et al. 2011). Furthermore, the leaching of waste constituents can cause groundwater contamination and is not specific to contaminants but can also leach essential nutrients, limiting the nutrient potential of wastes (Yunusa et al. 2011). Finally, even if wastes contain salts at low concentrations, a tendency for salts to accumulate in soil over time requires long-term management plans to accommodate recurring waste applications without compromising soil and plant productivity. Consequently, weathering wastes to reduce salt content may not be feasible as a practical method of treating wastes prior to soil application unless managed carefully, including the potential for off-site impacts.

Contaminants

Many anthropogenic wastes are a complex mixture of inorganic and/or organic chemicals that, if applied to soil in excess, can produce toxicity impacts in plants, livestock, ecosystems, and humans. Some of the potential contaminants and waste sources are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4.

Categorisation of the types of contaminants found in wastes

Contaminant type Waste type Typical contaminants present References
Inorganic contaminants Tannery waste Cr, Cu, Pb, Sr, V, Zn Gowd et al. 2010; Calheiros et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2004
Farm effluents Cu, Zn Wang et al. 2004
Dairy industry waste As, B, Ca, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, K Cameron and Di 2019
Paper pulp Zn, As, Ba, Cd, Pb Shakil and Mostafa 2021
Potable water treatment residuals As, Mn, Cr Sullivan et al. 2010; Turner et al. 2019; Verlicchi and Masotti 2000
Organic contaminants Fly ash PAH, PCB, PCDD, PCDF, and dimethyl and monomethyl sulphate Shaheen et al. 2014
Tannery waste Chlorinated phenols, PCB, pesticides Chowdhary et al. 2020
Phenol, various dyes Gomes et al. 2016; Piccin et al. 2013; Rigueto et al. 2020
Emerging contaminants Dairy industry Hormones, antibiotics, udder-cleaning antiseptics, and topical applications Arvanitoyannis 2006; Fisher and Scott 2008; Schlüsener and Bester 2006
Paper pulp Hydroxy furanones with mono-, di-, and trichloromethyl groups Franzén and Kronberg 1994
Tannery wastes PFAS mainly L-PFOS Flores et al. 2013

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PCB polychlorinated biphenyls, PCDD polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, PCDF polychlorinated dibenzofuran, PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, L-PFOS linear-perfluorooctane sulfonate.

Inorganic contaminants

There are many studies documenting increased metal loading and bioavailability in soils treated with industrial wastes (Alvarez-Bernal et al. 2006; Calheiros et al. 2007; Gowd et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2006; Roberts et al. 1994; Singh et al. 2010b; Mäkelä et al. 2012). Elevated metal concentrations, like Cr (2652 mg/kg), Cu (43 mg/kg), Pb (38.3 mg/kg), Sr (105.3 mg/kg), V (54 mg/kg), and Zn (160 mg/kg) (values are presented as means), were found in soil treated with tannery waste in India (Gowd et al. 2010). Calheiros et al. (2007) reported Cr accumulation by Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia after tannery waste application demonstrating the bioavailability and potential for food chain transfer of Cr in tannery wastes. Land application is a common option for farm effluent management. Farm effluents also contain metals, such as Cu and Zn but metals in farm effluents have received less attention than metals in other industrial wastes applied to land (Wang et al. 2004) due to the long history of applying farm effluents as soil amendments. These results highlight the potential for soils treated with industrial wastes to accumulate metals and the potential for these contaminated soils to result in metal enrichment of crops (Nan et al. 1999).

Organic contaminants

There is little literature that has directly studied the impacts of organic contaminants in industrial wastes applied to land with some research on indirect application of organic contaminants to land e.g., via smelter fallout. The limited research on organic contaminants in industrial wastes applied to land demonstrates similar outcomes to those of metals in the soil environment. When introduced to soils, many organic pollutants undergo rapid degradation as a result of chemical and metabolic processes (Schnaak et al. 1997; Dabrowska et al. 2005). However, similarly to metals, contaminants categorised as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) resist environmental degradation and therefore can persist and accumulate in soils.

Coal fly ash contains various organic compounds including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and dimethyl and monomethyl sulphate (Shaheen et al. 2014). Whilst the concentrations of PAHs and PCBs in fly ash are generally low, their effects on soil biota, uptake by plants and soil persistence still need to be assessed (Fig. 1). When fly ash is used in land application in excessive amounts or after multiple applications, it could pose significant risk to the wider environment (Shaheen et al. 2014). Tannery wastewater includes chlorinated phenols, PCBs, pesticides, and many more organic chemicals (Chowdhary et al. 2020). (Alam et al. 2010) Tannery wastewater application and the effects of associated POPs on soil have not yet been documented.

The risks of POPs in waste used as soil amendments are not thoroughly investigated in the literature. The inherent nature of POPs to persist in the soil needs to be considered if industrial wastes are to be sustainably utilised as soil amendments.

Emerging contaminants

Previous research on utilising wastes as agricultural inputs has predominantly focused on the spread of pathogens, nutrients, and metal concentrations in plants, soils, and groundwater (Fig. 1) (Jjemba 2002a). New contaminants are emerging that have only recently been recognised as pollutants with potential impacts on the environment and human health. Emerging contaminants are defined as potentially hazardous inorganic or organic compounds that were previously not considered or known to be present in the environment (Brindha and Schneider 2019), and safe environmental thresholds are generally not covered by existing government policies or are still in the process of being refined. Emerging contaminants include hormones (e.g., estradiol and testosterone), chemicals from firefighting foams (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), plastics (including microplastics and nanoplastics), pharmaceuticals (e.g., melengastrol acetate and trenbolone acetate), and industrial cleaning agents, which may contain potentially toxic sequestering agents and surfactants (Arvanitoyannis 2006; Bilal et al. 2021; Shi et al. 2021; Sweeney 2002). The bioavailability of emerging contaminants is largely governed by the physiochemical properties of the soil environment, the dosage applied, and the inherent properties of the chemical (Fisher and Scott 2008; Jjemba 2002a). Many emerging contaminants bind strongly to soils and organic matter, thus inhibiting their mobility and prolonging persistence in the soil environment (Hildebrand and Farenhorst 2006; Jjemba 2002a). However, some veterinary and industrial compounds in soils are more mobile and are therefore capable of contaminating ground or surface water (Stumpe and Marschner 2010) or becoming bioavailable to plants and soil biota (Jjemba 2002b). Once the contaminant is mobile, there remains uncertainty as to the long-term fate and effects of emerging contaminants on ecosystems. Whilst many agricultural and veterinary chemicals have beneficial applications that enhance productivity and control destructive pests and diseases, various environmental pollutants including hormones, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants can be present in sludge and wastewater used for irrigating soils (Orlando et al. 2004; Rowland et al. 1997). The dairy industry is a prominent user of veterinary chemicals, with dairy wastewater typically containing proteins, salt, fatty substances, lactose, and residue chemicals including hormones, antibiotics, udder-cleaning antiseptics, and topical applications (Arvanitoyannis 2006; Fisher and Scott 2008; Schlüsener and Bester 2006). Estimates of yearly estrogens and androgens excreted by farm animals in the USA and Europe show cattle to be the principal source of both hormones, with dairy cow slurry containing up to 500 times more oestrogen than bull slurry, followed by swine, sheep, and chickens (Allinson 2008). Concerns have been raised about the application of dairy farm wastewater as a fertiliser in agricultural landscapes after high concentrations of hormonally active agents were identified in Australia (Allinson 2008; Shore and Shemesh 2003). Animal manures have also been cited as a possible source of antibiotics and synthetic steroid oestrogens (Gadd et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2005; Gudda et al. 2022; Li et al. 2021). The introduction of antibiotics into soil environments fertilised with pig manure (Schmitt et al. 2006) and poultry manure (Chaves-Ulate et al. 2021) increased the number of bacteria displaying genes resistant to that particular antibiotic. An experiment on six antibiotics commonly used in agriculture, and therefore likely to be present in agricultural wastes, investigated antibiotic persistence within a sandy loam soil over 120 days (Schlüsener and Bester 2006). A half-life of 5 to 27 days was calculated for five of the antibiotics (salinomycin, tylosin, tiamulin, erythromycin, and oleandomycin), but roxithromycin had only slightly decreased in the soil by the end of the 120-day duration of the experiment and therefore, no half-life could be determined (Schlüsener and Bester 2006). Tannery wastes have been found to be contaminated with PFAS mainly L-PFOS (linear-perfluorooctane sulfonate) (Flores et al. 2013) but, to the authors’ knowledge, the effects of tannery waste application on PFAS in soil are still not documented. In addition to a lack of knowledge of chemical fate and behaviour, there is little known about the dynamics with other chemical residues present in soils, such as pesticides (Fisher and Scott 2008; Hayes et al. 2006). Limitations remain as to the potential use of a number of industrial and agricultural wastes as soil amendments because of the presence of emerging contaminants. Further studies are needed to investigate emerging chemical fate, behaviour, and toxicity in soil environments before a conclusive response can be made about emerging chemicals of concern in waste materials applied to land.

Offsite impacts

Ground water contamination

Wastes added to land can adversely modify soil properties in ways that impede the proficiency of soil processes to immobilise and degrade soil contaminants before reaching groundwater. For example, batch experiments found leaching of Cr from chromite ore processing waste was dependent on soil pH and organic matter content (Weng et al. 1994). Once wastes are added to agricultural soils, the potential exists for contaminants and nutrients present in the wastes and soils to leach into groundwater and associated human drinking water sources such as wells (Kumar et al. 2007; Yadav et al. 2002). Metals do not undergo microbial or chemical degradation, therefore persisting and potentially accumulating in soils and the wider environment after repeated waste applications to soil (Bolan and Duraisamy 2003; Kim et al. 2009). Metals commonly accumulate in the soil surface due to the strong affinity of the soil matrix for these compounds (Cameron et al. 1997). Eventually, the concentration of metals may exceed the holding capacity of the soil and increase bioavailability, runoff to surface water and/or leaching into groundwater. In comparison, other potential contaminants may not be so tightly bound to soil, for example, nitrates and sodium chloride (Brady and Weil 1996), and are more likely to leach into groundwater or be transported in surface runoff. In a field-study by Yadav et al. (2002), traces of nitrate, Pb, and Mn were found in a well near farmlands irrigated with wastewater and sewage effluent, suggesting that the groundwater supplying the well was contaminated by the waste treatments nearby. Similar results were found in a study in Tamil Nadu, India with salts present in the tannery waste effluent found to leach into groundwater sources (Kumar et al 2007). Due to the high salt content in the tannery waste effluent, the crops no longer grow when irrigated with this water (Kankaria et al. 2011; Madejón et al. 2001). Also, high salt and P concentrations in dairy wastes have been reported to result in groundwater contamination when applied to land (Liu et al. 2011). Similarly, organic contaminants entering the soil typically undergo volatilisation, mineralisation, and/or leaching that may transfer contaminants into the groundwater (Semple et al. 2003).

High rainfall or a large application of high-water containing wastes can increase the downward movement of contaminants through the soil profile and potentially into groundwater. A column experiment with a loamy sand soil (pH 6.4 to 6.7) amended with two different fly ashes at a 30% (w/w) ratio showed Zn, Cu, and Ni initially leached rapidly from one particular fly ash type with reductions from 12, 16, and 4 mg L−1 respectively, to < 0.5 mg L−1 each after 25 cm of rainfall (Ghodrati et al., 1995b). The second fly ash type also had rapid Zn leaching after the first 30 cm of rainfall, from 5.6 to < 0.5 mg L−1, but leaching of Cu and Ni was insignificant. This initial high leaching rate of some metals suggests that early stages of waste application will have the greatest leaching potential before the more soluble forms of metals have leached and remaining metals have sorbed onto the soil matrix. Therefore, the initial high leaching potential of metals from wastes could potentially be managed by staggering waste applications. Furthermore, evaluation or assessment of waste leaching potential needs to account for rates of leaching over time, in addition to the total contaminants leached. In total, the proportion of metals leached after 150 cm of rainfall from ash-amended soils averaged 14% of the metals added to the soil (Ghodrati et al. 1995b). Although 14% may not seem excessive, when considered in the context of the agricultural industry over a large land area, this may equate to a concerning total mass of metals entering groundwater.

Few studies have evaluated the leaching potential and impact of organic contaminants introduced directly to soils through industrial waste application. Organic contaminants entering the soil may undergo mineralisation and/or leaching processes that can result in contaminants moving from the soil and into groundwater (Semple et al. 2003) and is an area of research requiring more attention.

Surface runoff and impacts on waterways

Inadequate mixing of wastes into the soil matrix and/or poor surface plant cover can cause problems such as erosion and contamination of surrounding soils and water (Basu et al. 2009). Thus, mixing wastes thoroughly into soils is important for the homogenisation of wastes and their constituents and reducing erosion and surface run off. Most of the solid manure and liquid waste from concentrated animal farming operations is applied to croplands as the final method of waste disposal. Due to excessive application or inadequate mixing of these wastes with soil, the nutrients can end up in storm water runoff and water bodies causing high concentrations of N and P in waterways (Heckrath et al. 1995; Harter et al. 2002). For example, wastewater from dairy industries often contains high concentrations of P and N that can cause algal blooms in waterways (Arvanitoyannis 2006; Sampat et al. 2018). Researchers are attempting to address this problem by reducing the protein levels in animal feeds to limit N excretion (Belloir et al. 2017; Vieira et al. 2016). A study investigating irrigation with poultry waste and its effects on P loads to Lake Tenkiller, USA, found that applying poultry waste to land had increased the P load to the lake from 311 t year−1 to more than 528 t year−1 with increased potential for eutrophication (Jeon et al. 2015). Furthermore, hormones and other veterinary therapeutic agents in dairy effluent and wastewater may have negative impacts on aquatic life (Miracle and Ankley 2005; Pal et al. 2010; Smital et al. 2004). Fish and other aquatic vertebrates are susceptible to toxicity from oestrogens, with concentrations as low as 1 ng L−1 in waterways causing negative impacts (Stumpe and Marschner 2010).

Effects on soil biota

Soil microbial populations and functioning

Depending on waste- and soil-related variables, some microbial communities may favour waste-induced environmental changes whilst other communities may decline (Cameron et al. 1997). Even moderate waste-induced changes to the soil environment, including pH, salinity, and accumulation of contaminants, can have significant impacts on soil microbes (Barajas Aceves 2005; Broos et al. 2007; Huang et al. 2009; Roy and Joy 2011; Yunusa et al. 2011). For example, the number of protozoa in soils treated with chloroquine and quinacrine dihydrochloride, therapeutic agents commonly found in animal wastes, were increased compared to the control soils from 78 soil to 180 protozoa g−1 soil respectively (Jjemba, 2002b). In contrast, the lowest concentration of metronidazole at 0.5 mg per g−1 soil reduced the protozoa in the rhizosphere tenfold (Jjemba 2002b). A study by Roy and Joy (2011) showed fly ash at rates of 50 and 100 t ha−1 benefited soil microbial populations, probably due to the nutrients added to the soil. However, fly ash applications exceeding 100 t ha−1 correlated with a decrease in colony numbers of soil bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes (Roy and Joy 2011). Hayat et al. (2002) investigated microbial organisms in soils containing elevated metals accumulated over 12 years of wastewater irrigation. A standard spread plate test on metal tolerance of various functional groups (aerobic heterotrophs, asymbiotic nitrogen fixers, actinomycetes, and fungi) in metal concentrations of 200 µg ml−1 for Ni, Cd, Pb, Co, Cu, Cr, Zn, and Hg showed moderate to high tolerance in all groups possibly suggesting adaptation to high metals from long-term exposure. However, microbial survival rates were shown to be reduced significantly at 400 µg ml−1 of metals (Hayat et al. 2002). This correlation between increasing rates of waste and decreased microbial biomass has been found in a number of other studies (Barajas Aceves 2005; Fliessbach et al. 1994; Giller et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2009), and is suggestive of the negative impact on soil microbes and the occurrence of toxicity thresholds of contaminants introduced into soil via wastes.

The modification of soil microbial populations and activity can significantly impact ecological functions important for sustainable agriculture such as nutrient cycling and organic matter decomposition. Microbial sensitivity to metal stress and the subsequent reduction of soil functions has been well documented (Giller and McGrath 1989; McGrath et al. 1988, 1995). For example, Roy and Joy (2011) reported a dose-dependent decline in amylase activity (as a measure of microbial polysaccharide decomposition) in soils treated with fly ash at ≥ 50 t ha−1, which appeared to recover within 60 days in soils treated at 50 and 100 t ha−1 fly ash. For higher applications of fly ash (200 and 400 t ha−1 fly ash), the reduction in amylase activity persisted beyond the 60 days of the experiment (Roy and Joy 2011). Similar trends were found for other microbial enzyme activities (cellulase, invertase, dehydrogenase, and arylsulphatase) under laboratory and field conditions (Roy and Joy 2011). Alvarez-Bernal et al., (2006) found contrasting findings with wood ash application to soil. Bacterial numbers significantly increased up to a wood ash dose of 22 t ha−1 followed by significant decrease at 167 t ha−1 wood ash application to soil. Wood ash application changed the soil bacterial composition, with copiotrophic bacteria responding positively and oligotrophic bacteria negatively. Alvarez-Bernal et al., (2006) also found a trend of decreasing bacterial richness and diversity as the wood ash application rate increased. In comparison, soil microbial biomass was increased in other studies with applications of tannery waste (Nakatani et al. 2011) and dairy waste (Liu et al. 2011).

Waste constituents amended into soils are likely to change the soil microbial communities, but the evidence suggests that genetically diverse microbial communities, at least initially, are more able to adapt and maintain broad functions, although with a different species and genetic composition in the soil (Alvarez-Bernal et al. 2006; Giller et al. 2009; Johnson and Ryder 1988).

The disparity in microbial responses to contaminant loading rates and site-specific factors are so diverse that it is difficult to generalise outcomes based on specific test results. Nevertheless, some microbial functions such as nitrification are necessary for plant growth, and thus agriculture, so further research into these outcomes is important to ensure sustainable waste application on agricultural lands.

Plant production

Benefits to plant production

By providing nutrients or altering soil properties, wastes can potentially enhance soil fertility and plant production. Experiments have demonstrated notable results with fly ash amendments at rates ranging from 5to 20% fly ash to soil dry weight ratio, resulting in benefits to seed yield, increased growth performance, produce and quality of crops including mung bean (Vigna radiata) (Singh and Agrawal 2010), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) (Pandey, peanut (Arachis hypogaea) (Mittra et al. 2005), rice (Dwivedi et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2006; Mittra et al. 2005; Singh et al. 2012), maize (Zea mays) (Spark and Swift 2008), centipedegrass (Eremochloa ophiroides) (Adriano et al. 2002), and ryegrass (Lolium perenne) (Matsi and Keramidas 1999). Studies have attributed the positive growth outcomes to increased nutrient loading in soils treated with wastes (Giachetti and Sebastiani 2006). A study in Australia found an increase of 2.5 to 4.5 times the extractable-P in soils amended with fly ash compared with untreated soil (Pathan et al. 2003b). The study attributed the increase of extractable-P to the direct addition of fly ash, noting an earlier experiment that found fly ash contained 92.5 µg g−1 extractable-P (Pathan et al. 2003a, 2003b). Estimates suggest a moderate application of fly ash at 10 t ha−1 could potentially provide up to 110 kg P ha−1, an amount with the potential to support crop P requirements for 3 to 5 years if the P is all in bioavailable forms and does not leach out of the soil profile (Yunusa et al. 2011). Glass house demonstrations show fly ash added at rates of 5 and 25 t ha−1 enhanced growth and yield of canola (Brassica napus) by approximately 18% compared with an untreated control soil (Yunusa et al. 2008). A study by Luo et al. (2004) investigating irrigation with meat-processing wastewater at an annual loading rate of 600 kg ha−1 of N over 2 years, resulted in an increase in plant growth in two silt loam soils due to increased nutrient loadings. Comparable results on growth and flower yield of Chrysanthemum plants were demonstrated using potted planting media amended with tannery waste (Singh et al. 2011). This study demonstrated that tannery waste at lower concentration promoted vegetative growth of Chrysanthemum cuttings whilst being a growth inhibitor at higher concentration most likely as a result of metal accumulation in plants (Calheiros et al. (2007).

Adverse effects on plant production

Although controlled waste applications may develop favourable soil conditions and provide essential nutrients to plants, excessive or recurring applications may introduce new constituents to the soil that eventually exceed threshold concentrations for plant health (Besen et al. 2021).

Maintaining metal concentrations within tolerable concentrations can promote vigorous plant growth in waste-treated soils. However, plants express a range of stress responses when elevated concentrations of metals exceed toxicity thresholds, including altered metabolism and growth reduction (Angulo-Bejarano et al. 2021; Jamla et al. 2021; Nagajyoti et al. 2010). Canadian poplar (Populus euramericana), grown in lysimeters that had been treated with 192 t ha−1 of tannery waste, had high metal concentrations in tissues, in particular Cr, which appeared to be the primary factor reducing plant growth in comparison with lower dose treatments (Giachetti and Sebastiani 2006). After 4 months, P. euramericana appeared to be overcoming the impacts of the waste despite initial symptoms of growth retardation and some foliage chlorosis (Giachetti and Sebastiani 2006). Whilst the mechanisms for plant recovery were not specified, overcoming this large application demonstrates the potential for utilising large quantities of waste if other issues are adequately addressed.

It is likely that the adverse effects on plant productivity of some wastes are caused by the absorption of added contaminants by plants. Whilst it is worth noting the potential for plants to overcome soil toxicity, applying wastes with the intention of soil amelioration can have detrimental impacts on plant growth if poorly managed. Therefore, potential adverse effects must be considered in addition to known benefits when considering waste applications.

Plant bioaccumulation of contaminants

Crops tolerant of elevated concentrations of contaminants pose different problems compared to more sensitive species because of their potential to accumulate metals (Nagajyoti et al. 2010; Sayyad et al. 2010) and other contaminants (Dobslaw et al. 2021; Lesmeister et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2021), which may ultimately bioaccumulate and enter the food-chain (Puschenreiter et al. 2005). Tolerance of chemicals in plants varies based on plant species; contaminant type and concentration; and the soil physiochemical environment. An increase in metal loading in the edible portion of plants grown in waste-treated soils has been demonstrated for a range of crops and metals (Kim et al. 2009; Kumar et al. 2007; Pandey et al. 2009; Punshon et al. 2002; Singh et al. 2010a; Yunusa et al. 2008). Higher rates of fly ash resulted in increased concentrations of B, Cu, and Mo in the leaves of canola plants at flowering and of Mo in the grain (Yunusa et al. 2008). High concentrations of B and Se were also noted in several species of pasture and turf grass grown on fly ash-amended soil (Matsi and Keramidas 1999; Pathan et al. 2003b; Punshon et al. 2002). Although less studied, the bioaccumulation of organic and emerging contaminants has also been identified in plants grown in waste-amended soils (Jjemba 2002b; Kipopoulou et al. 1999; Migliore et al. 1996, 1995). Thus, the potential exists for land application of wastes to result in bioaccumulation of chemicals from the waste in plants and needs to account for potential bioaccumulation and associated health risks.

Waste application effects on human and animal health

The potential for contaminants from wastes applied to land to enter the food chain is largely dependent on the initial concentration of contaminants in wastes, rate of waste application, and soil properties affecting bioavailability, especially pH, organic matter, and clay content (Bolan and Duraisamy 2003). There have been few studies on food-chain transfer of contaminants from soils treated with waste to farm animals raised for human consumption. Cadmium impurities in fertilisers applied to land in New Zealand have been shown to result in bioaccumulation of cadmium in the livers and kidneys of grazing animals (Roberts et al. 1994). Whilst fertilisers are not industrial waste, the presence of cadmium bioaccumulation in these animals suggests that elevated concentrations of metals from industrial wastes applied to land may have similar effects. Studies in India detected higher metal concentrations in milk samples from dairy pastures irrigated with wastewater in comparison to samples from clean water-irrigated pastures (Singh et al. 2010a). Although contaminant concentrations were relatively low, milk samples from cows eating wastewater-irrigated pastures contained three times higher cadmium and nickel, five times higher copper, lead, and zinc, and seven times higher chromium concentrations than milk produced under control conditions (Singh et al. 2010a, b).

In addition, there have been minimal studies documenting accumulation of contaminants from wastes applied to land on non-agricultural animals, such as invertebrates, birds, mammals, or reptiles. A number of general studies (i.e., not specific to land application of wastes) documenting the bioaccumulation of POPs in plants, animals, and animal produce (Polder et al. 2010; El-Shahawi et al. 2010; Jones and De Voogt 1999), which have been attributed to the chemical persistence and lipophilic nature of POPs (Kipopoulou et al. 1999). The potential health risks posed by emerging contaminants entering ecosystems and the food chain are a contentious area, and there is little direct evidence from research on land application of wastes published. Several studies have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting effects of various chemicals Alsen et al. 2021; Allinson 2008; Annamalai and Namasivayam 2015; Colborn et al. 1993; Ismail et al. 2017; Kiess et al. 2021; Muñiz et al. 2017; Sharma et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2015). However, available research on emerging contaminants has primarily focused on sediment and aquatic life, with reports of hormonal changes, such as variations in production of gender-specific proteins, occurring in fish in waterways contaminated by cattle effluent (Allinson 2008).

The application of waste to agricultural lands poses the risk of contaminants passing through the food chain, and thus, affecting human food products (Xiaobin et al. 2021). For consumer safety and public support of industrial waste as a soil amendment, it is important that we increase our knowledge of the potential for contaminants in wastes applied to land to transfer to livestock and associated products (meat, eggs, milk) via the food-chain.

Bioaccumulation of contaminants within the food chain and contaminated residues on the outside of food (particularly vegetables and fruits) are two of the major routes of human exposure to contaminants from wastes applied to land (Chary et al. 2008; Hashmi et al. 2021). Singh et al. (2010a, b) assessed agricultural produce grown on soils irrigated with wastewater from surrounding industries, including dye, plastic, recycling, and metal surface treatment facilities. Of the 16 plant species tested for Cd, cabbage, rice, and wheat had the highest risks with hazard indices of 10.2, 9.2, and 5.9, respectively. Lead was highest in wheat (Triticum aestivum) (4.37), rice (Oryza sativa) (6.8), and cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) (7.5), whilst Ni was highest in wheat (2.4), cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) (1.8), and amaranthus (Amaranthus sp.) (1.6) (Singh et al. 2010a, b). In comparison, Cu, Cr, and Zn indices in these crops were found to be well below 1.0. The result from this study illustrates the potential for risks from consuming food produced on land amended with industrial wastes, and there is an urgent need for further research in this area.

Human health risks posed by wastes applied to land may also include direct occupational exposure during or after the application process. This is particularly so if application to land requires additional transport and handling compared to direct disposal in local ponds or landfill. A United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) assessment of the risks in handling fly ash found that due to the high extractability of metals in fly ash, extra care is required in handling the ash residue to prevent ingestion and absorption of ash particles across the human gastrointestinal tract (Manskinen et al. 2012). Inhalation of fly ash may also possibly contribute to various diseases like silicosis, fibrosis of lungs, bronchitis, pneumonitis, and may contain carcinogenic agents (Kravchenko and Ruhl 2021; Basu et al. 2009, Whiteside and Herndon 2018). Although no literature was found on the risks of direct industrial exposure of applying other industrial wastes to land, it is likely that some wastes may also pose similar handling and inhalation risks.

Conclusion

There is significant potential for adding wastes to land as soil amendments. There are also potential negative environmental and human health impacts associated with applying wastes to land. Therefore, to reduce pollution and other negative impacts of applying waste to land, the preference is to reduce the production of industrial waste at the source and practise a more circular economy approach to industrial production. However, where that is not possible, the application of industrial waste to land has potential if it occurs within a risk-based and sustainable manner. Safe waste application to land is a combination of effective waste pretreatments and optimising the interaction between the physicochemical properties of the waste and the receiving soil. In this review, we concentrated on the interaction between waste characteristics and soil parameters and the potential benefits and risks associated with applying wastes to land.

Several soil parameters influence the bioavailability and mobility of waste contaminants once added to soil, including soil texture, pH, organic matter, and redox conditions. An appreciation of the importance of soil properties and the diversity of soils is important for the sustainable management of waste applications within the agricultural sector. The current literature demonstrates the potential for the application of industrial waste into agricultural soils and highlights the prospects of linking sustainable waste management with farming practices. However, there is a lack of comprehensive and conclusive findings in direct relation to industrial waste being applied to agricultural soils. Long-term and mass balance assessments are needed to investigate the long-term physical, chemical, and biological outcomes of industrial wastes in agricultural landscapes. Other areas in need of further research include risk profiling of soil types to determine which have the highest and lowest risks associated with waste application; assessment of potential on- and off-site consequences of sustained use of waste amendments; cost–benefit analyses; treatment of wastes prior to use as soil amendments; and risk assessments of the fate and behaviour of chemicals in wastes that have been applied to land. Ultimately, to understand the impact of wastes in agricultural soils, further studies are required that look at multiple applications and long-term impacts. Only recently has the research literature commenced critically evaluating the potential of beneficial waste applications in the agricultural sector, and we hope that our review encourages more research in this area.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr Laura-Lee Innes (EPA Victoria) for work on conceptualising and securing the funding for the original literature review report for EPA Victoria.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: Suzie Reichman and Peter Carson; data curation, formal analysis, and investigation: Shamali de Silva, Peter Carson, Suzie Reichman, and Demidu Indrapala; funding acquisition: Suzie Reichman and Barry Warwick; methodology: Suzie Reichman and Peter Carson; project administration: Suzie Reichman and Barry Warwick; supervision: Suzie Reichman, Shamali de Silva, and Barry Warwick; validation: Shamali de Silva and Suzie Reichman; visualisation: Shamali de Silva; writing—original draft: Suzie Reichman and Peter Carson: writing—reviewing and editing: Shamali de Silva, Suzie Reichman, Peter Carson, Demidu Indrapala, and Barry Warwick. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This work was supported by funding the original literature review report that formed the basis of this article from the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (funding number: not applicable).

Data availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

1

Fly ash is composed of fine solid particles made of ashes, dust, and soot produced by burning coal and other materials.

2

For simplicity, throughout this paper the term metal will be used to denote both metals (e.g., Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb) and metalloids (e.g., As, Sb).

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. ACCC, (2008) Examination of fertiliser prices. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Canberra. ISBN: 978 1 921393 82 2
  2. Adriano DC, Weber J, Bolan NS, Paramasivam S, Koo BJ, Sajwan KS. Effects of high rates of coal fly ash on soil, turfgrass, and groundwater quality. Wat Air Soil Poll. 2002;139(1):365–385. doi: 10.1023/A:1015895922471. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aigberua AO, Tarawou JT, Abasi CY. Effect of oxidation-reduction fluctuations on metal mobility of speciated metals and arsenic in bottom sediments of Middleton River, Bayelsa State. Nigeria JASEM. 2018;22(9):1511–1517. doi: 10.4314/jasem.v22i9.25. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aitken RL, Campbell DJ, Bell LC. Properties of Australian fly ashes relevant to their agronomic utilization. Aust J Soil Res. 1984;22(4):443–453. doi: 10.1071/SR9840443. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Al-Abed SR, Jegadeesan G, Purandare J, Allen D. Arsenic release from iron rich mineral processing waste: influence of pH and redox potential. Chemosphere. 2007;66(4):775–782. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.07.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Alam MS, Ohsako S, Matsuwaki T, Zhu XB, Tsunekawa N, Kanai Y, Sone H, Tohyama C, Kurohmaru M. Induction of spermatogenic cell apoptosis in prepubertal rat testes irrespective of testicular steroidogenesis: a possible estrogenic effect of di (n-butyl) phthalate. Reprod. 2010;139(2):427–437. doi: 10.1530/REP-09-0226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Allen, H.L., Brown, S.L., Chaney, R.L., Daniels, W.L., Henry, C.L., Neuman, D.R., Rubin, E., Ryan, J.A., Toffey, W. (2007).The use of soil amendments for remediation, revitalization, and reuse. USEPA, Washington. Retrieved from: https://clu-in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf
  8. Allinson, G. (2008). Steroid hormones from agroecosystems: a review. Department of Primary Industries, Queenscliff, Victoria
  9. Alsen M, Sinclair C, Cooke P, Ziadkhanpour K, Genden E, van Gerwen M. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and thyroid cancer: an overview. Toxics. 2021;9(1):14. doi: 10.3390/toxics9010014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Alvarez-Bernal D, Contreras-Ramos SM, Trujillo-Tapia N, Olalde-Portugal V, Frías-Hernández JT, Dendooven L. Effects of tanneries wastewater on chemical and biological soil characteristics. Appl Soil Ecol. 2006;33(3):269–277. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.10.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Amiralian, S., Chegenizadeh, A. and Nikraz, H. (2012). Laboratory investigation on the effect of lime on compressibility of soil. In Proceedings of the International Conference on civil and architectural applications (ICCAA ’2012), pp. 89–93. Planetary Scientific Research Centre. ISBN978–93–82242–15–4
  12. Angulo-Bejarano PI, Puente-Rivera J, Cruz-Ortega R. Metal and metalloid toxicity in plants: an overview on molecular aspects. Plants. 2021;10(4):635. doi: 10.3390/plants10040635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Annamalai J, Namasivayam V. Endocrine disrupting chemicals in the atmosphere: their effects on humans and wildlife. Environ Int. 2015;76:78–97. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Apte AD, Tare V, Bose P. Extent of oxidation of Cr (III) to Cr (VI) under various conditions pertaining to natural environment. J Hazard Mater. 2006;128(2–3):164–174. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Arvanitoyannis IS. Current strategies for dairy waste management: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2006;46(5):379–390. doi: 10.1080/10408390591000695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Arvidsson H, Lundkvist H. Effects of crushed wood ash on soil chemistry in young Norway spruce stands. For Ecol Manag. 2003;176(1–3):121–132. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00278-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. ASTM (2005). Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. ASTM C 618: 2005. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
  18. Badzmierowski MJ, Evanylo GK, Daniels WL, Haering KC. What is the impact of human wastewater biosolids (sewage sludge) application on long-term soil carbon sequestration rates? A Systematic Review Protocols Environ Evid. 2021;10(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13750-021-00221-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Balks MR. Effects of sodium accumulation on soil physical properties under an effluent-irrigated plantation. Aust J Soil Res. 1998;36(5):821–830. doi: 10.1071/S97064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Balks M, McLay C, Harfoot C. Determination of the progression in soil microbial response, and changes in soil permeability, following application of meat processing effluent to soil. Appl Soil Ecol. 1997;6(2):109–116. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(97)00005-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Bandaw T, Herago T. Review on abattoir waste management. Global Veterinaria. 2017;19(2):517–524. doi: 10.5829/idosi.gv.2017.517.524. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Bang-Andreasen T, Nielsen JT, Voriskova J, Heise J, Rønn R, Kjøller R, Hansen HC, Jacobsen CS. Wood ash induced pH changes strongly affect soil bacterial numbers and community composition. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1400. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Barajas Aceves M. Comparison of different microbial biomass and activity measurement methods in metal-contaminated soils. Bioresour Technol. 2005;96(12):1405–1414. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Bartlett R, Kimble J. Behavior of chromium in soils: I. Trivalent Forms J Environ Qual. 1976;5(4):379–383. doi: 10.2134/jeq1976.00472425000500040009x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Basu M, Pande M, Bhadoria PBS, Mahapatra SC. Potential fly-ash utilization in agriculture: a global review. Prog Nat Sc Mater Int. 2009;19(10):1173–1186. doi: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.12.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Beal, L.J., Burns, R.T. and Stalder, K.J., 1999. Effect of anaerobic digestion on struvite production for nutrient removal from swine waste prior to land application. Presentation made at American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Annual International Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 18–21 July 2019. Paper No. 994042
  27. Belloir P, Méda B, Lambert W, Corrent E, Juin H, Lessire M, Tesseraud S. Reducing the CP content in broiler feeds: impact on animal performance, meat quality and nitrogen utilization. Animal. 2017;11(11):1881–1889. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117000660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Besen MR, Esper Neto M, Cassim BMAR, Minato EA, Inoue TT, Batista MA. Potential waste application of several industries segments in Brazilian agriculture: effects on physical and chemical soil properties. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2021;52(15):1721–1744. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2021.1892732. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. M Bilal M Alhafeiti SS Ashraf HM Iqbal 2021 Clean-green technologies for removal of emerging contaminants from industrial effluents Int J Environ Bioremediat biodegrad 125 145 10.1016/B978-0-12-820318-7.00006-X
  30. Blanco-Velázquez FJ, Muñoz-Vallés S, Anaya-Romero M. Assessment of sugar beet lime measure efficiency for soil contamination in a Mediterranean ecosystem. The case study of Guadiamar green corridor (SW Spain) CATENA. 2019;178:163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.03.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Blissett R, Rowson N. A review of the multi-component utilisation of coal fly ash. Fuel. 2012;97:1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Bolan NS, Duraisamy VP. Role of inorganic and organic soil amendments on immobilisation and phytoavailability of heavy metals: a review involving specific case studies. Aust J Soil Res. 2003;41(3):533–555. doi: 10.1071/SR02122. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Bonin JL, Simpson MJ. Sorption of steroid estrogens to soil and soil constituents in single-and multi-sorbate systems. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2007;26(12):2604–2610. doi: 10.1897/07-118.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Bot A, Benites J (2005) The importance of soil organic matter: Key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production (No. 80). Food & Agriculture Org
  35. Brady, N.C., Weil, R.R. (1996). The nature and properties of soils, 14th ed. Prentice Hall College Division, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00230-X
  36. Brechin J, McDonald G. Effect of form and rate of pig manure on the growth nutrient uptake and yield of barley (cv. Galleon) Anim Prod Sci. 1994;34(4):505–510. doi: 10.1071/EA9940505. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Brindha, K. and Schneider, M. (2019). Impact of urbanization on groundwater quality. GIS and geostatistical techniques for groundwater science, Eds S. Venkatramanan, M.V. Prasanna and S.Y. Chung, Elsevier, Amsterdam 179–196
  38. British Standards Institute (2014). Specification for whole digestate, separated liquor and separated fibre derived from the anaerobic digestion of source-segregated biodegradable materials. BSI PAS 110. British Standards Institute, London
  39. Broos K, Warne MSJ, Heemsbergen DA, Stevens D, Barnes MB, Correll RL, McLaughlin MJ. Soil factors controlling the toxicity of copper and zinc to microbial processes in Australian soils. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2007;26(4):583–590. doi: 10.1897/06-302R.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Brunori C, Cremisini C, Massanisso P, Pinto V, Torricelli L. Reuse of a treated red mud bauxite waste: studies on environmental compatibility. J Hazard Mater. 2005;117(1):55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Calheiros CS, Rangel AO, Castro PM. Constructed wetland systems vegetated with different plants applied to the treatment of tannery wastewater. Water Res. 2007;41(8):1790–1798. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Calheiros CS, Rangel AO, Castro PM. The effects of tannery wastewater on the development of different plant species and chromium accumulation in Phragmites australis. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008;55:404–414. doi: 10.1007/s00244-007-9087-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Cameron KC, Di HJ. A new method to treat farm dairy effluent to produce clarified water for recycling and to reduce environmental risks from the land application of effluent. J Soils Sediments. 2019;19(5):2290–2302. doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-02227-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Cameron KC, Di HJ, McLaren RG. Is soil an appropriate dumping ground for our wastes? Soil Res. 1997;35(5):995–1036. doi: 10.1071/S96099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Chang A, Lund LJ, Page AL, Warneke J. Physical properties of fly ash-amended soils. J Environ Qual. 1977;6(3):267–270. doi: 10.2134/jeq1977.00472425000600030007x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Chary NS, Kamala CT, Raj DSS. Assessing risk of heavy metals from consuming food grown on sewage irrigated soils and food chain transfer. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2008;69(3):513–524. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Chaves-Ulate C, Granados-Chinchilla F, Rodríguez C. Fertilization with poultry litter increases the abundance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in tropical soil: a microcosm study. Wat air and soil poll. 2021;232(10):1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11270-021-05347-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Chowdhury S, Khan N, Kim GH, Harris J, Longhurst P, Bolan NS. Zeolite for nutrient stripping from farm effluents. In: Prasad MNV, Shih K, editors. Environmental materials and waste: resource recovery and pollution prevention Academic Press. USA: Cambridge; 2016. pp. 569–589. [Google Scholar]
  49. Chowdhary P, Bharagava RN, Mishra S, Khan N (2020) Role of industries in water scarcity and its adverse effects on environment and human health. Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Development, vol 1: Air, Water and Energy Resources, pp 235–256
  50. Chuan MC, Liu JC. Release behavior of chromium from tannery sludge. Water res. 1996;30(4):932–938. doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(95)00227-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Clarke BO, Smith SR. Review of ‘emerging’ organic contaminants in biosolids and assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids. Environ Int. 2011;37(1):226–247. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2010.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Cline J, Bijl M, Torrenueva A. Coal fly ash as a soil conditioner for field crops in southern Ontario. J Environ. Qual. 2000;29(6):1982–1989. doi: 10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900060035x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Colborn T, Vom Saal FS, Soto AM. Developmental effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans. Environ Health Perspect. 1993;101(5):378–384. doi: 10.1289/ehp.93101378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. G Corti DC Weindorf MJ Fernández Sanjurjo H Cacovean 2012 Use of waste materials to improve soil fertility and increase crop quality and quantity Appl Environ Soil Sci 204914 10.1155/2012/204914
  55. Dabrowska D, Kot-Wasik A, Namieśnik J. Pathways and analytical tools in degradation studies of organic pollutants. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2005;35(2):155–176. doi: 10.1080/10408340500207565. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Dayton EA, Basta NT. Characterization of drinking water treatment residuals for use as a soil substitute. Water Environ Res. 2001;73(1):52–57. doi: 10.2175/106143001X138688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Demeyer A, Nkana JV, Verloo M. Characteristics of wood ash and influence on soil properties and nutrient uptake: an overview. Bioresour Technol. 2001;77(3):287–295. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00043-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Dessalew G, Beyene A, Nebiyu A, Ruelle ML. Use of industrial diatomite wastes from beer production to improve soil fertility and cereal yields. J Clean Prod. 2017;157:22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.116. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Dexter A. Soil physical quality: Part I Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter and effects on root growth. Geoderma. 2004;120(3–4):201–214. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.09.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Dobslaw D, Woiski C, Kiel M, Kuch B, Breuer J. Plant uptake, translocation and metabolism of PBDEs in plants of food and feed industry: a review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2021;20(1):75–142. doi: 10.1007/s11157-020-09557-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. DPI . Managing soil factors that can limit plant growth. Fertilizing dairy pastures manual. 2. Melbourne: Department of Primary Industries; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  62. Dungan RS, Kukier U, Lee B (2006) Blending foundry sands with soil: effect on dehydrogenase activity. Sci Total Environ 357(1–3):221–230. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.04.032 [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Dwivedi S, Tripathi RD, Srivastava S, Mishra S, Shukla MK, Tiwari KK, Singh R, Rai UN. Growth performance and biochemical responses of three rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars grown in fly-ash amended soil. Chemosphere. 2007;67(1):140–151. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. El-Shahawi MS, Hamza A, Bashammakh AS, Al-Saggaf WT. An overview on the accumulation, distribution, transformations, toxicity and analytical methods for the monitoring of persistent organic pollutants. Talanta. 2010;80(5):1587–1597. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2009.09.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Eneje Roseta C, Innocent I. Effect of agricultural and industrial wastes on the physicochemical properties of a sandy clay loam soil. Int J Appl Agric. Sci. 2012;7(3):187–196. [Google Scholar]
  66. EPA Victoria. (2004). Guidelines for environmental management of biosolids land application. Publication number 943, April 2004. Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Southbank, Australia
  67. Fares, K., Saadaoui, N. and Zina, Q. (2014). Sugar beet lime sludge composts as organic fertilizers International Symposium on Organic Matter Management and Compost Use in Horticulture, 7 April 2011, Adelaide Australia 165–170 10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1146.22
  68. Fiedler S, Vepraskas MJ, Richardson J. Soil redox potential: importance, field measurements, and observations. Adv Agron. 2007;94:1–54. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(06)94001-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Fijałkowski K, Kacprzak M, Grobelak A, Placek A. The influence of selected soil parameters on the mobility of heavy metals in soils. Inżynieria Ochrona Srodowiska. 2012;15:81–92. [Google Scholar]
  70. Finkelman RB, Orem W, Castranova V, Tatu CA, Belkin HE, Zheng B, Lerch HE, Maharaj SV, Bates AL. Health impacts of coal and coal use: possible solutions. Int J Coal Geol. 2002;50(1–4):425–443. doi: 10.1016/S0166-5162(02)00125-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Fisher PMJ, Scott R. Evaluating and controlling pharmaceutical emissions from dairy farms: a critical first step in developing a preventative management approach J Clean. Prod. 2008;16(14):1437–1446. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Fliessbach A, Martens R, Reber H. Soil microbial biomass and microbial activity in soils treated with heavy metal contaminated sewage sludge. Soil Biol Biochem. 1994;26(9):1201–1205. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)90144-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Flores C, Ventura F, Martin-Alonso J, Caixach J. Occurrence of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in NE Spanish surface waters and their removal in a drinking water treatment plant that combines conventional and advanced treatments in parallel lines. Sci Total Environ. 2013;461:618–626. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Franzen R, Kronberg L. Determination of chlorinated 5-methyl-5-hydroxyfuranones in drinking water, in chlorinated humic water, and in pulp bleaching liquor. Environ Sci Technol. 1994;28(12):2222–2227. doi: 10.1021/es00061a035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Gadd JB, Tremblay LA, Northcott GL. Steroid estrogens, conjugated estrogens and estrogenic activity in farm dairy shed effluents. Environ Pollut. 2010;158(3):730–736. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.10.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Gadde RR, Laitinen HA. Heavy metal adsorption by hydrous iron and manganese oxides. Anal Chem. 1974;46(13):2022–2026. doi: 10.1021/ac60349a004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Ghodrati M, Sims JT, Vasilas BL, Hendricks SE. Enhancing the benefits of fly ash as a soil amendment by pre-leaching. Soil Sci. 1995;15(4):244–252. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ghodrati M, Sims JT, Vasilas BL. Evaluation of fly ash as a soil amendment for the Atlantic Coastal Plain: I. Soil hydraulic properties and elemental leaching. Wat Air Soil Poll. 1995;81:349–361. doi: 10.1007/BF01104020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Giachetti G, Sebastiani L. Metal accumulation in poplar plant grown with industrial wastes. Chemosphere. 2006;64(3):446–454. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Gianico A, Braguglia CM, Gallipoli A, Montecchio D, Mininni G. Land application of biosolids in Europe: possibilities, constraints and future perspectives. Water. 2021;13(1):103. doi: 10.3390/w13010103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Giller K, McGrath S. Muck, metals and microbes. New Scientist. 1989;124:31–32. [Google Scholar]
  82. Giller KE, Witter E, McGrath SP. Heavy metals and soil microbes. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009;41(10):2031–2037. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.04.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Goldberg S, Smith K. Soil manganese: E values, distribution of manganese-54 among soil fractions, and effects of drying. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1984;48(3):559–564. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800030018x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Gomes CS, Piccin JS, Gutterres M. Optimizing adsorption parameters in tannery-dye-containing effluent treatment with leather shaving waste. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2016;99:98–106. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2015.10.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Gowd SS, Reddy MR, Govil P. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in soils at Jajmau (Kanpur) and Unnao industrial areas of the Ganga Plain, Uttar Pradesh. India J Hazard Mater. 2010;174(1–3):113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Gudda FO, Ateia M, Waigi MG, Wang J, Gao Y. Ecological and human health risks of manure-borne steroid estrogens: a 20-year global synthesis study. J Environ Manage. 2022;301:113708. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Gupta AK, Sinha S. Chemical fractionation and heavy metal accumulation in the plant of Sesamum indicum (L.) var. T55 grown on soil amended with tannery sludge: selection of single extractants. Chemosphere. 2006;64(1):161–173. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.10.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Habteselassie MY, Miller BE, Thacker SG, Stark JM, Norton JM. Soil nitrogen and nutrient dynamics after repeated application of treated dairy-waste. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2006;70(4):1328–1337. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0189. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Habteselassie MY, Stark JM, Miller BE, Thacker SG, Norton JM. Gross nitrogen transformations in an agricultural soil after repeated dairy-waste application. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2006;70(4):1338–1348. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0190. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Hamon RE, Lombi E, Fortunati P, Nolan AL, McLaughlin MJ. Coupling speciation and isotope dilution techniques to study arsenic mobilization in the environment. Environ Sci Technol. 2004;38(6):1794–1798. doi: 10.1021/es034931x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Hannam, K., Deschamps, C., Kwiaton, M., Venier, L. and Hazlett, P.W., (2016). Regulations and guidelines for the use of wood ash as a soil amendment in Canadian forests. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre. ISBN 978–0–660–07067–4
  92. Harter T, Davis H, Mathews MC, Meyer RD. Shallow groundwater quality on dairy farms with irrigated forage crops. J Contam Hydrol. 2002;55(3–4):287–315. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7722(01)00189-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Hashmi MZ, Chen K, Khalid F, Yu C, Tang X, Li A, Shen C. Forty years studies on polychlorinated biphenyls pollution, food safety, health risk, and human health in an e-waste recycling area from Taizhou city, China: a review. J Contam Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;29(6):9391. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-17989-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Hawke RM, Summers SA. Effects of land application of farm dairy effluent on soil properties: a literature review. New Zealand J Agric Res. 2006;49(3):307–320. doi: 10.1080/00288233.2006.9513721. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Hawke RM, Summers SA (2003) Land application of farm dairy effluent: results from a case study, Wairarapa, New Zealand. 10.1080/00288233.2003.9513562
  96. Hayat S, Ahmad I, Azam ZM, Ahmad A, Inam A, Samiullah, Effect of long-term application of oil refinery wastewater on soil health with special reference to microbiological characteristics. Bioresour Technol. 2002;84(2):159–163. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00027-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Hayes TB, Case P, Chui S, Chung D, Haeffele C, Haston K, Lee M, Mai VP, Marjuoa Y, Parker J. Pesticide mixtures, endocrine disruption, and amphibian declines: are we underestimating the impact. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(Suppl 1):40–50. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Haynes RJ. Reclamation and revegetation of fly ash disposal sites—challenges and research needs. J Environ Manage. 2009;90(1):43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Heckrath G, Brookes P, Poulton P, Goulding K. Phosphorus leaching from soils containing different phosphorus concentrations in the Broad balk experiment. J Environ Qual. 1995;24(5):904–910. doi: 10.2134/jeq1995.00472425002400050018x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Hildebrand C, Farenhorst A. Sorption and desorption of three endocrine disrupters in soils. J Environ Sci Health Part B. 2006;41(6):907–921. doi: 10.1080/03601230600806020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Howells AP, Lewis SJ, Beard DB, Oliver IW. Water treatment residuals as soil amendments: examining element extractability, soil porewater concentrations and effects on earthworm behaviour and survival. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2018;162:334–340. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.06.087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Huang SH, Peng B, Yang ZH, Chai LY, Zhou L. Chromium accumulation, microorganism population and enzyme activities in soils around chromium-containing slag heap of steel alloy factory. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc. 2009;19(1):241–248. doi: 10.1016/S1003-6326(08)60259-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Ismail NAH, Wee SY, Aris AZ. Multi-class of endocrine disrupting compounds in aquaculture ecosystems and health impacts in exposed biota. Chemosphere. 2017;188:375–388. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.08.150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Jala S, Goyal D. Fly ash as a soil ameliorant for improving crop production—a review. Bioresour Technol. 2006;97(9):1136–1146. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Jamla M, Khare T, Joshi S, Patil S, Penna S, Kumar V. Omics approaches for understanding heavy metal responses and tolerance in plants. Curr Plant Biol. 2021;27:100213. doi: 10.1016/j.cpb.2021.100213. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Jardine P, Mehlhorn TL, Bailey WB, Brooks SC, Fendorf S, Gentry R, Phelps TJ, Saiers JE. Geochemical processes governing the fate and transport of chromium (III) and chromium (VI) in soils. Vadose Zone J. 2011;10(3):1058–1070. doi: 10.2136/vzj2010.0102. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Jemba PK. The potential impact of veterinary and human therapeutic agents in manure and biosolids on plants grown on arable land: a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2002;93(1–3):267–278. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00350-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Jeon J-H, Park C-G, Engel BA. Evaluating effects of poultry waste application on phosphorus loads to Lake Tenkiller. Sustainability. 2015;7(8):10115–10134. doi: 10.3390/su70810115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Jjemba PK. The effect of chloroquine, quinacrine, and metronidazole on both soybean plants and soil microbiota. Chemosphere. 2002;46(7):1019–1025. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00139-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Johns M. Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing industry: a review. Bioresour Technol. 1995;54(3):203–216. doi: 10.1016/0960-8524(95)00140-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Johnson B, Ryder T. The disposal of pulp and paper mill effluents by spray irrigation onto farmland. In: Bhamidimarri R, editor. Alternative Waste Treatment Systems. London: Elsevier; 1988. pp. 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  112. Johnson JE, Savalia P, Davis R, Kocar BD, Webb SM, Nealson KH, Fischer WW. Real-time manganese phase dynamics during biological and abiotic manganese oxide reduction. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(8):4248–4258. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Jones KC, De Voogt P. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs): state of the science. Environ Pollut. 1999;100(1–3):209–221. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(99)00098-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Kankaria, S., Andukuri, A., Hemamailin, C., Krishnaveni, M. (2011). Impact of tannery effluents on ground water and agriculture with a remedial measure. A case study, International Conference on Chemical Biological and Environmental Science, Bangkok 383–388 Retrieved from: http://psrcentre.org/images/extraimages/53.%201211843.pdf
  115. Karpati A, Bencze L, Borszéki J. New process for physico-chemical pretreatment of dairy effluents with agricultural use of sludge produced. Water Sci Technol. 1990;22(9):93–100. doi: 10.2166/wst.1990.0071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Kaur V, Sharma G (2014) Effects of industrial effluent on soil characteristics: a review. Int J Adv Eng Res Sci 3:2 01–207
  117. Kaur G, Singh G, Motavalli PP, Nelson KA, Orlowski JM, Golden BR. Impacts and management strategies for crop production in waterlogged or flooded soils: A review. J Agron. 2020;112(3):1475–1501. doi: 10.1002/agj2.20093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Kiess W, Häussler G, Vogel M. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and child health. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;35(5):101516. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2021.101516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Killi D, Anlauf R, Kavdir Y, Haworth M. Assessing the impact of agro-industrial olive wastes in soil water retention: implications for remediation of degraded soils and water availability for plant growth. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad. 2014;94:48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.06.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. Kim K, Owens G, Naidu R. Heavy metal distribution, bio accessibility, and phyto availability in long-term contaminated soils from Lake Macquarie. Aust J Soil Res. 2009;47(2):166–176. doi: 10.1071/SR08054. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Kipopoulou A, Manoli E, Samara C. Bioconcentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in vegetables grown in an industrial area. Environ Pollut. 1999;106(3):369–380. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(99)00107-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Kirchmann H, Börjesson G, Kätterer T, Cohen Y. From agricultural use of sewage sludge to nutrient extraction: a soil science outlook. Ambio. 2017;46:143–154. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0816-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Kravchenko J., Ruhl L.S. 2021. Coal combustion residuals and health. In: Siegel M., Selinus O., Finkelman R. (eds). Practical applications of medical geology Springer, Switzerland 429–474 10.1007/978-3-030-53893-4_14
  124. Kumar D, Singh B. The use of coal fly ash in sodic soil reclamation. Land Degrad Dev. 2003;14(3):285–299. doi: 10.1002/ldr.557. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  125. Kumar K, Gupta SC, Chander Y, Singh AK. Antibiotic use in agriculture and its impact on the terrestrial environment. Adv Agron. 2005;87:1–54. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(05)87001-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  126. Kumar SR, Agrawal M, Marshall F. Heavy metal contamination of soil and vegetables in suburban areas of Varanasi. India Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2007;66(2):258–266. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2005.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Kumpiene J, Lagerkvist A, Maurice C. Stabilization of As, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn in soil using amendments—a review. Waste Manag. 2008;28(1):215–225. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Landrot G, Tappero R, Webb SM, Sparks DL. Arsenic and chromium speciation in an urban contaminated soil. Chemosphere. 2012;88(10):1196–2010. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Lee H, Ha HS, Lee CH, Lee YB, Kim PJ. Fly ash effect on improving soil properties and rice productivity in Korean paddy soils. Bioresour Technol. 2006;97(13):1490–1497. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.06.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Lesmeister L, Lange FT, Breuer J, Biegel-Engler A, Giese E, Scheurer M. Extending the knowledge about PFAS bioaccumulation factors for agricultural plants–A review. Sci Total Environ. 2021;766:142640. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Li C, Li Y, Li X, Ma X, Ru S, Qiu T, Lu A. Veterinary antibiotics and estrogen hormones in manures from concentrated animal feedlots and their potential ecological risks. Environ. Res. 2021;198:110463. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Liu YY, Haynes RJ. Influence of land application of dairy factory effluent on soil nutrient status and the size, activity, composition and catabolic capability of the soil microbial community. Appl Soil Ecol. 2011;48(2):133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.03.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  133. Liu YY, Haynes RJ. Origin, nature, and treatment of effluents from dairy and meat processing factories and the effects of their irrigation on the quality of agricultural soils. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2011;41(17):1531–1599. doi: 10.1080/10643381003608359. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  134. Liu D, Zhang R, Wu H, Xu D, Tang Z, Yu G, Xu Z, Shen Q. Changes in biochemical and microbiological parameters during the period of rapid composting of dairy manure with rice chaff. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(19):9040–9049. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Lombi E, Stevens DP, McLaughlin MJ. Effect of water treatment residuals on soil phosphorus, copper and aluminium availability and toxicity. Environ Pollut. 2010;158(6):2110–2116. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Lu, Q., He, Z.L. and Stoffella, P.J. (2012). Land application of biosolids in the USA: a review. Appl Environ Soil Sci 201462. 10.1155/2012/201462
  137. Luo J, Lindsey S, Xue J. Irrigation of meat processing wastewater onto land. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2004;103(1):123–148. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.10.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  138. Luther, L. (2011). Regulating coal combustion waste disposal: issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, United States of America
  139. Ma P, Rosen C. Land application of sewage sludge incinerator ash for phosphorus recovery: a review. Chemosphere. 2021;274:129609. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Madejón E, López R, Murillo JM, Cabrera F. Agricultural use of three (sugar-beet) vinasse composts: effect on crops and chemical properties of a Cambisol soil in the Guadalquivir River valley (SW Spain) Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2001;84(1):55–65. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00191-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  141. Mahdy AM, Elkhatib EA, Fathi NO, Lin ZQ. Effects of co-application of biosolids and water treatment residuals on corn growth and bioavailable phosphorus and aluminum in alkaline soils in Egypt. J Environ Qual. 2009;38(4):1501–1510. doi: 10.2134/jeq2008.0335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Mäkelä M, Watkins G, Pöykiö R, Nurmesniemi H, Dahl O. Utilization of steel, pulp and paper industry solid residues in forest soil amendment: relevant physicochemical properties and heavy metal availability. J Hazard Mater. 2012;207:21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Manoharan V, Yunusa I, Loganathan P, Lawrie R, Skilbeck C, Burchett M, Murray B, Eamus D. Assessments of Class F fly ashes for amelioration of soil acidity and their influence on growth and uptake of Mo and Se by canola. Fuel. 2010;89(11):3498–3504. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.06.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  144. Manskinen K, Nurmesniemi H, Pöykiö R. Occupational risk evaluation of using bottom ash and fly ash as a construction material. J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste. 2012;16(1):79–87. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000111. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  145. Maresca A, Krüger O, Herzel H, Adam C, Kalbe U, Astrup TF. Influence of wood ash pre-treatment on leaching behaviour, liming and fertilising potential. J Waste Manag. 2019;83:113–122. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Matheyarasu R, Bolan NS, Naidu R. Abattoir wastewater irrigation increases the availability of nutrients and influences on plant growth and development. Wat Air Soil Pollut. 2016;227(8):253. doi: 10.1007/s11270-016-2947-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Matheyarasu R, Seshadri B, Bolan NS, Naidu R. Assessment of nitrogen losses through nitrous oxide from abattoir wastewater-irrigated soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23:22633–22646. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7438-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Matsi T, Keramidas VZ. Fly ash application on two acid soils and its effect on soil salinity, pH, B, P and on ryegrass growth and composition. Environ Pollut. 1999;104:107–112. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(98)00145-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  149. McGrath SP, CKumdri, A.M., Giller, K.E. Long-term effects of metals in sewage sludge on soils, microorganisms and plants. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 1995;14:94–104. doi: 10.1007/BF01569890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. McGrath S, Brookes P, Giller K. Effects of potentially toxic metals in soil derived from past applications of sewage sludge on nitrogen fixation by Trifolium repens. Soil Biol Biochem. 1988;20(4):415–424. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(88)90052-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  151. McKenzie R. The adsorption of lead and other heavy metals on oxides of manganese and iron. Soil Res. 1980;18:61–73. doi: 10.1071/SR9800061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  152. Mehta CM, Khunjar WO, Nguyen V, Tait S, Batstone DJ. Technologies to recover nutrients from waste streams: a critical review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2015;45(4):385–427. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2013.866621. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  153. Menzies NW, Donn MJ, Kopittke PM. Evaluation of extractants for estimation of the phytoavailable trace metals in soils. Environ Pollut. 2007;145(1):121–130. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2006.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Migliore L, Brambilla G, Cozzolino S, Gaudio L. Effect on plants of sulphadimethoxine used in intensive farming (Panicum miliaceum, Pisum sativum and Zea mays) Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1995;52(2–3):103–110. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(94)00549-T. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  155. Migliore L, Brambilla G, Casoria P, Civitareale C, Cozzolino S, Gaudio L. Effect of sulphadimethoxine contamination on barley (Hordeum distichum L., Poaceae, Liliposida) Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1996;60(2–3):121–128. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01090-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  156. Miracle AL, Ankley GT. Ecotoxicogenomics: linkages between exposure and effects in assessing risks of aquatic contaminants to fish. Reprod Toxicol. 2005;19(3):321–326. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2004.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. Miretzky P, Cirelli AF. Cr (VI) and Cr (III) removal from aqueous solution by raw and modified lignocellulosic materials: a review. J Hazard Mater. 2010;180(1–3):1–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.04.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  158. Mittal GS. Treatment of wastewater from abattoirs before land application: a review. Bioresour Technol. 2006;97(9):1119–1135. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  159. Mittra BN, Karmakar S, Swain DK, Ghosh BC. Fly ash—a potential source of soil amendment and a component of integrated plant nutrient supply system. Fuel. 2005;84(11):1447–1451. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2004.10.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  160. Monte MC, Fuente E, Blanco A, Negro C. Waste management from pulp and paper production in the European Union. J Waste Manag. 2009;29(1):293–308. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  161. Moragues-Saitua L, Arias-González A, Gartzia-Bengoetxea N. Effects of biochar and wood ash on soil hydraulic properties: a field experiment involving contrasting temperate soils. Geoderma. 2017;305:144–152. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  162. Moreira WH, Tormena CA, Karlen DL, da Silva ÁP, Keller T, Betioli E. Seasonal changes in soil physical properties under long-term no-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2016;160:53–64. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.02.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  163. Muñiz S, Gonzalvo P, Valdehita A, Molina-Molina JM, Navas JM, Olea N, Fernández-Cascán J, Navarro E. Ecotoxicological assessment of soils polluted with chemical waste from lindane production: use of bacterial communities and earthworms as bioremediation tools. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2017;145:539–548. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.07.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  164. Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:651–681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  165. Nabavinia F, Emami H, Astaraee A, Lakzian A. Effect of tannery wastes and biochar on soil chemical and physicochemical properties and growth traits of radish. Int Agrophys. 2015;29(3):333–339. doi: 10.1515/intag-2015-0040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  166. Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review. Environ Chem Lett. 2010;8:199–216. doi: 10.1007/s10311-010-0297-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  167. Nakatani AS, Martines AM, Nogueira MA, Fagotti DS, Oliveira AG, Bini D, Sousa JP, Cardoso EJ. Changes in the genetic structure of bacteria and microbial activity in an agricultural soil amended with tannery sludge. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011;43(1):106–114. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.09.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  168. Nalbantoğlu Z. Effectiveness of class C fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer. Constr Build Mater. 2004;18(6):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.wsj.2015.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  169. Nan ZR, Zhao CY, Li JJ, Chen FH, Liu Y. Field survey of Cd and Pb contents in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain grown in Baiyin City, Gansu province, People’s Republic of China. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 1999;63:546–552. doi: 10.1007/s001289901015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  170. MD Nguyen M Thomas A Surapaneni EM Moon NA Milne 2022 Beneficial reuse of water treatment sludge in the context of circular economy Environ. Technol. Innov 102651 10.1016/j.eti.2022.102651
  171. Nkana JV, Demeyer A, Verloo MG. Chemical effects of wood ash on plant growth in tropical acid soils. Bioresour Technol. 1998;63(3):251–260. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00134-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  172. NLWRA, (2001). Australian Agriculture Assessment 2001. Australian Natural Resources Atlas. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australia. http://lwa.gov.au/products/pr010238
  173. Öğüt M, Er F. Mineralizable carbon in biosolids/fly ash/sugar beet lime treated soil under field conditions. Appl Soil Ecol. 2015;91:27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  174. Ohno T, Erich MS. Effect of wood ash application on soil pH and soil test nutrient levels. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1990;32(3–4):223–239. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(90)90162-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  175. Olaniran AO, Balgobind A, Pillay B. Bioavailability of heavy metals in soil: impact on microbial biodegradation of organic compounds and possible improvement strategies. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(5):10197–10228. doi: 10.3390/ijms140510197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  176. Olomu M, Racz G, Cho C. Effect of flooding on the Eh, pH, and concentrations of Fe and Mn in several Manitoba soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1973;137(2):220–224. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1973.03615995003700020019x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  177. Orlando EF, Kolok AS, Binzcik GA, Gates JL, Horton MK, Lambright CS, Gray LE, Jr, Soto AM, Guillette LJ., Jr Endocrine-disrupting effects of cattle feedlot effluent on an aquatic sentinel species, the fathead minnow. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(3):353–358. doi: 10.1289/ehp.6591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  178. Pacharane S, Patil S, Durgude SA, Ram S, Yadav K. Effect of long term in situ recycling of sugarcane trash and industrial waste on soil health under sugarcane land use system in an Inceptisol. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2021;10(02):2021. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2021.1003.xx. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  179. Pal A, Gin KYH, Lin AYC, Reinhard M. Impacts of emerging organic contaminants on freshwater resources: review of recent occurrences, sources, fate, and effects. Sci Total Environ. 2010;408(24):6062–6069. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.09.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  180. Pandey VC, Singh N. Impact of fly ash incorporation in soil systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2010;136(1–2):16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  181. Pandey VC, Abhilash PC, Upadhyay RN, Tewari DD. Application of fly ash on the growth performance and translocation of toxic heavy metals within Cajanus cajan L.: implication for safe utilization of fly ash for agricultural production. J Hazard Mater. 2009;166(1):255–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  182. Pardue JH, Patrick WH. Metal contaminated aquatic sediments. New York: Routledge; 2018. Changes in metal speciation following alteration of sediment redox status; pp. 169–185. [Google Scholar]
  183. Pathan SM, Aylmore LA, Colmer TD. Properties of several fly ash materials in relation to use as soil amendments. J Environ Qual. 2003;32(2):687–693. doi: 10.2134/jeq2003.6870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  184. Pathan SM, Aylmore LAG, Colmer TD. Soil properties and turf growth on a sandy soil amended with fly ash. Plant Soil. 2003;256:103–114. doi: 10.1023/A:1026203113588. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  185. Patrick W, Jugsujinda A. Sequential reduction and oxidation of inorganic nitrogen, manganese, and iron in flooded soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1992;56(4):1071–1073. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600040011x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  186. Piccin JS, Feris LA, Cooper M, Gutterres M. Dye adsorption by leather waste: mechanism diffusion, nature studies, and thermodynamic data. J Chem Eng Data. 2013;58(4):873–882. doi: 10.1021/je301076n. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  187. Pires A, Martinho G. Waste hierarchy index for circular economy in waste management. Waste Manage. 2019;95:298–305. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  188. Polder A, Savinova TN, Tkachev A, Løken KB, Odland JO, Skaare JU. Levels and patterns of persistent organic pollutants (POPS) in selected food items from Northwest Russia (1998–2002) and implications for dietary exposure. Sci Total Environ. 2010;408(22):5352–5361. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  189. Punshon T, Adriano DC, Weber JT. Restoration of drastically eroded land using coal fly ash and poultry biosolid. Sci Total Environ. 2002;296(1–3):209–209. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00128-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  190. Puschenreiter M, Horak O, Friesl W, Hartl W. Low-cost agricultural measures to duce heavy metal transfer into the food chain–a review. Plant Soil Environ. 2005;51(1):1–11. doi: 10.17221/3549-PSE. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  191. Qing X, Yutong Z, Shenggao L. Assessment of heavy metal pollution and human health risk in urban soils of steel industrial city (Anshan), Liaoning, Northeast China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2015;120:377–385. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.06.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  192. Quantin C, Becquer T, Berthelin J. Mn-oxide: a major source of easily mobilisable Co and Ni under reducing conditions in New Caledonia Ferralsols. CR Geosci. 2002;334(4):273–278. doi: 10.1016/S1631-0713(02)01753-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  193. Ragasri S, Sabumon PC. A critical review on slaughterhouse waste management and framing sustainable practices in managing slaughterhouse waste in India. J Environ Manag. 2023;327:116823. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  194. Ram LC, Masto RE. Fly ash for soil amelioration: a review on the influence of ash blending with inorganic and organic amendments. Earth-Sci Rev. 2014;128:52–74. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  195. Rana AK, Gupta VK, Newbold J, Roberts D, Rees RM, Krishnamurthy S, Thakur VK. Sugar beet pulp: resurgence and trailblazing journey towards a circular bioeconomy. Fuel. 2022;312:122953. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122953. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  196. Reichman S. The responses of plants to metal toxicity: a review focusing on copper, manganese and zinc. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  197. Rigueto CVT, Rosseto M, Krein DDC, Ostwald BEP, Massuda LA, Zanella BB, Dettmer A. Alternative uses for tannery wastes: a review of environmental, sustainability, and science. J Leather Sci Eng. 2020;2(1):1–20. doi: 10.1186/s42825-020-00034-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  198. Roberts A, Longhurst R, Brown M. Cadmium status of soils, plants, and grazing animals in New Zealand. New Zealand J Agric Res. 1994;37(1):119–129. doi: 10.1080/00288233.1994.9513048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  199. Roberts D, Nachtegaal M, Sparks DL. Speciation of metals in soils. Chem Proc Soils. 2005;8:619–654. doi: 10.2136/sssabookser8.c13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  200. Rothe M, Kleeberg A, Hupfer M. The occurrence, identification, and environmental relevance of vivianite in waterlogged soils and aquatic sediments. Earth Sci Rev. 2016;158:51–64. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.04.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  201. Rowland, P., Evans, G., Walcott, J.J., Radke, S. (1997). The environment and food quality. Environment Australia, Canberra
  202. Roy G, Joy VC. Dose-related effect of fly ash on edaphic properties in laterite cropland soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2011;74(4):769–775. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.10.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  203. Sampat AM, Ruiz-Mercado GJ, Zavala VM. Economic and environmental analysis for advancing sustainable management of livestock waste: a Wisconsin case study. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2018;6(5):6018–6031. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b04657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  204. Sauve S, Hendershot W, Allen HE. Solid-solution partitioning of metals in contaminated soils: dependence on pH, total metal burden, and organic matter. Environ Sci Technol. 2000;34(7):1125–1131. doi: 10.1021/es9907764. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  205. Sayyad G, Afyuni M, Mousavi S-F, Abbaspour KC, Richards BK, Schulin R. Transport of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in a calcareous soil under wheat and safflower cultivation—a column study. Geoderma. 2010;154(3–4):311–320. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.10.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  206. Schlüsener MP, Bester K. Persistence of antibiotics such as macrolides, tiamulin and salinomycin in soil. Environ Pollut. 2006;143(3):565–571. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.10.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  207. Schmitt H, Stoob K, Hamscher G, Smit E, Seinen W. Tetracyclines and tetracycline resistance in agricultural soils: microcosm and field studies. Microb Ecol. 2006;51:267–276. doi: 10.1007/s00248-006-9035-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  208. Schnaak W, Küchler T, Kujawa M, Henschel KP, Süßenbach D, Donau R. Organic contaminants in sewage sludge and their ecotoxicological significance in the agricultural utilization of sewage sludge. Chemosphere. 1997;35(1–2):5–11. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(97)88285-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  209. Schwab A, Lindsay W. The effect of redox on the solubility and availability of manganese in a calcareous soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1983;47(2):217–220. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1983.03615995004700020005x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  210. Semple KT, Morriss A, Paton G. Bioavailability of hydrophobic organic contaminants in soils: fundamental concepts and techniques for analysis. Eur J Soil Sci. 2003;54(4):809–818. doi: 10.1046/j.1351-0754.2003.0564.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  211. Shaheen SM, Hooda PS, Tsadilas CD. Opportunities and challenges in the use of coal fly ash for soil improvements–a review. J Environ Manage. 2014;145:249–267. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  212. Shakil MSZ, Mostafa MG. Paper industries concern water pollution: a review. Int J Innov Res Rev. 2021;9:19–31. [Google Scholar]
  213. Sharma A, Mollier J, Brocklesby RW, Caves C, Jayasena CN, Minhas S. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and male reproductive health. Reprod Med Biol. 2020;19(3):243–253. doi: 10.1002/rmb2.12326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  214. Shi J, McGill WB, Chen N, Rutherford PM, Whitcombe TW, Zhang W. Formation and immobilization of Cr (VI) species in long-term tannery waste contaminated soils. J Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54(12):7226–7235. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  215. Shi W, Healy MG, Ashekuzzaman SM, Daly K, Leahy JJ, Fenton O. Dairy processing sludge and co-products: a review of present and future re-use pathways in agriculture. J Clean Prod. 2021;314:128035. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  216. Shore LS, Shemesh M. Naturally produced steroid hormones and their release into the environment. Pure Appl Chem. 2003;75(11–12):1859–1871. doi: 10.1351/pac200375111859. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  217. Simpson MJ, Simpson AJ. The chemical ecology of soil organic matter molecular constituents. J Chem Ecol. 2012;38:768–784. doi: 10.1007/s10886-012-0122-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  218. Singh A, Agrawal SB. Response of mung bean cultivars to fly ash: growth and yield. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2010;73(8):1950–1958. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  219. Singh A, Sharma R, Agrawal M, Marshall F. Health risk assessment of heavy metals via dietary intake of foodstuffs from the wastewater irrigated site of a dry tropical area of India. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010;48(2):611–619. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2009.11.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  220. Singh B, Singh BP, Cowie AL. Characterisation and evaluation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment. Soil Res. 2010;48(7):516–525. doi: 10.1071/SR10058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  221. Singh PK, Kumar V, Singh S. Management of tannery waste: its use as planting medium for chrysanthemum plants. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;4(5):560–567. doi: 10.3923/jest.2011.560.567. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  222. Singh A, Sarkar A, Agrawal SB. Assessing the potential impact of fly ash amendments on Indian paddy field with special emphasis on growth, yield, and grain quality of three rice cultivars. Environ Monit Assess. 2012;184:4799–4814. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2303-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  223. Smital T, Luckenbach T, Sauerborn R, Hamdoun AM, Vega RL, Epel D. Emerging contaminants pesticides, PPCPs, microbial degradation products and natural substances as inhibitors of multi xenobiotic defence in aquatic organisms. Mutat Res-Fund Mol M. 2004;552(1–2):101–117. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  224. Spark KM, Swift RS. Use of alkaline fly ash-based products to amend acid soils: plant growth response and nutrient uptake. Soil Res. 2008;46(7):578–584. doi: 10.1071/SR07209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  225. Sparling GP, Schipper LA, Russell JM. Changes in soil properties after application of dairy factory effluent to New Zealand volcanic ash and pumice soils. Soil Res. 2001;39(3):505–518. doi: 10.1071/SR00043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  226. Sparling GP, Littler R, Schipper LA, Stevenson B, Sherman L, Russell JM. Changes in characteristics of soils irrigated with processing wastewater from three New Zealand dairy factories. Soil Res. 2015;53(4):448–460. doi: 10.1071/SR14365. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  227. Sposito G. The chemistry of soils. USA: Oxford University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  228. State of Victoria (2021). EPA determination—specifications acceptable to the authority for receiving processed organics (Processed Organics Determination). Victorian Government Gazette. No. S 723 Thursday 16 December 2021 http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2021/GG2021S723.pdf
  229. Stumpe B, Marschner B. Organic waste effects on the behavior of 17β-estradiol, estrone, and 17α-ethinylestradiol in agricultural soils in long-and short-term setups. J Environ Qual. 2010;39(3):907–916. doi: 10.2134/jeq2009.0225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  230. Suda A, Makino T. Functional effects of manganese and iron oxides on the dynamics of trace elements in soils with a special focus on arsenic and cadmium: a review. Geoderma. 2016;270:68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.12.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  231. Sullivan C, Tyrer M, Cheeseman CR, Graham NJ. Disposal of water treatment wastes containing arsenic—a review. Sci Total Environ. 2010;408(8):1770–1778. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  232. Sweeney T. Is exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds during fetal/post-natal development affecting the reproductive potential of farm animals. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2002;23(1–2):203–209. doi: 10.1016/S0739-7240(02)00157-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  233. Tabassum N, Khatun R, Baten M. Spatial effects of industrial effluent on soil quality around the textile industrial area of Bhaluka Upazila. Mymensingh J Environ Sci Nat Resour. 2015;8(2):79–82. doi: 10.3329/jesnr.v8i2.26870. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  234. Tarkalson D, Hergert G, Stevens W, McCallister D, Kachman S. Fly ash as a liming material for corn production. J Soil Sci. 2005;170(5):386–398. doi: 10.1097/01.ss.0000169910.25356.3a. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  235. Tillman RW, Surapaneni A. Some soil-related issues in the disposal of effluent on land. Aust J Exp Agric. 2002;42(3):225–235. doi: 10.1071/EA00133. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  236. Torri SI, Correa RS, Renella G. Biosolid application to agricultural land a contribution to global phosphorus recycle: a review. Pedosphere. 2017;27(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(15)60106-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  237. Turner T, Wheeler R, Stone A, Oliver I. Potential alternative reuse pathways for water treatment residuals: remaining barriers and questions—a review. Water Air Soil Poll. 2019;230(9):1–30. doi: 10.1007/s11270-019-4272-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  238. Turner T, Wheeler R, Oliver IW. Evaluating land application of pulp and paper mill sludge: a review. J Environ Manage. 2022;317:115439. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  239. USEPA 2000 Regulatory determination on wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels; final rule 40 CFR Part 261 Federal Register 65 99 32213 32237 United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/05/22/00-11138/notice-of-regulatory-determination-on-wastes-from-the-combustion-of-fossil-fuels
  240. Van Ewijk S, Stegemann JA. Recognising waste use potential to achieve a circular economy. J Waste Manag. 2020;105:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  241. Van Horn HH, Wilkie AC, Powers WJ, Nordstedt RA. Components of dairy manure management systems. J Dairy Sci. 1994;77(7):2008–2030. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77147-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  242. Veluchamy C, Kalamdhad AS. Influence of pretreatment techniques on anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill sludge: a review. Bioresour Technol. 2017;245:1206–1219. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  243. Verlicchi, P. and Masotti, L., (2000). Reuse of drinking water treatment plants sludges in agriculture: problems, perspectives and limitations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the FAO ESCORENA Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial Residues in Agriculture, Gargano, Italy, 6–9 September 67–73
  244. Vieira S, Stefanello C, Cemin H. Lowering the dietary protein levels by the use of synthetic amino acids and the use of a mono component protease. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2016;221:262–266. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.07.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  245. Vlahos S, Summers K, Bell D, Gilkes R. Reducing phosphorus leaching from sandy soils with red mud bauxite processing residues. Soil Res. 1989;27(4):651–662. doi: 10.1071/SR9890651. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  246. Wang H, Magesan GN, Bolan NS. An overview of the environmental effects of land application of farm effluents. New Zealand J Agric Res. 2004;47(4):389–403. doi: 10.1080/00288233.2004.9513608. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  247. Wendorff WL. Treatment of dairy wastes. In: Marth EH, Steele J, editors. Applied Dairy Microbiology. USA: CRC Press; 2001. pp. 701–724. [Google Scholar]
  248. Weng CH, Huang CP, Allen HE, Cheng AHD, Sanders PF. Chromium leaching behavior in soil derived from chromite ore processing waste. Sci Total Environ. 1994;154(1):71–86. doi: 10.1016/0048-9697(94)90615-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  249. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Aerosolized coal fly ash: risk factor for COPD and respiratory disease. J Adv Med. 2018;26(7):1–13. doi: 10.9734/JAMMR/2018/41627. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  250. Wilcox JB. Electrical and thermal solutions. In: Agardy FJ, Nemerow NL, editors. Environmental Solutions. USA: Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 2005. pp. 203–211. [Google Scholar]
  251. Wong J, Li S, Wong M. Coal fly ash as a composting material for sewage sludge: effects on microbial activities. Environ Technol. 1995;16(6):527–537. doi: 10.1080/09593331608616294. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  252. Wuana, R.A. and Okieimen, F.E. (2011). Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. Int Sch Res Notices 10.5402/2011/402647
  253. Xiaobin WANG, Xiuying LI, Xiang YAN, Cheng TU, Zhaoguo YU. Environmental risks for application of iron and steel slags in soils in China: a review. Pedosphere. 2021;31(1):28–42. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(20)60058-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  254. Yadav RK, Goyal B, Sharma RK, Dubey SK, Minhas PS. Post-irrigation impact of domestic sewage effluent on composition of soils, crops and ground water—a case study. Environ Int. 2002;28(6):481–486. doi: 10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00070-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  255. Yang O, Kim HL, Weon JI, Seo YR. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: review of toxicological mechanisms using molecular pathway analysis. J Cancer Prev. 2015;20(1):12. doi: 10.15430/JCP.2015.20.1.12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  256. Young IM, Crawford JW, Nunan N, Otten W, Spiers A. Microbial distribution in soils: physics and scaling. Adv Agron. 2008;100:81–121. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)00604-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  257. HL Yu W Gu J Tao JY Huang HS Lin 2015 Impact of addition of FGDB as a soil amendment on physical and chemical properties of an alkali soil and crop yield of maize in northern China coastal plain J Chem 540604 10.1155/2015/540604
  258. Yunusa IAM, Eamus D, DeSilva DL, Murray BR, Burchett MD, Skilbeck GC, Heidrich C. Fly-ash: an exploitable resource for management of Australian agricultural soils. Fuel. 2006;85(16):2337–2344. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.01.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  259. Yunusa I, Manoharan V, DeSilva D, Eamus D, Murray B, Nissanka S. Growth and elemental accumulation by canola on soil amended with coal fly ash. J Environ Qual. 2008;37(3):1263–1270. doi: 10.2134/jeq2007.0021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  260. Yunusa IAM, Loganathan P, Nissanka SP, Manoharan V, Burchett MD, Skilbeck CG, Eamus D. Application of coal fly ash in agriculture: a strategic perspective. Crit Rev Environ Sci. 2011;42(6):559–600. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2010.520236. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  261. Zaman M, Cameron KC, Di HJ, Inubushi K. Changes in mineral N, microbial biomass and enzyme activities in different soil depths after surface applications of dairy shed effluent and chemical fertilizer. Nutr Cycling Agroecosyst. 2002;63(2):275–290. doi: 10.1023/A:1021167211955. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  262. Zhai X, Horn R. Effect of static and cyclic loading including spatial variation caused by vertical holes on changes in soil aeration. Soil Tillage Res. 2018;177:61–67. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2017.11.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  263. Zhang S, Xu X, Wu Y, Ge J, Li W, Huo X. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in residential and agricultural soils from an electronic waste polluted region in South China: distribution, compositional profile, and sources. Chemosphere. 2014;102:55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.12.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  264. Zhang W, Cao H, Liang Y. Plant uptake and soil fractionation of five ether-PFAS in plant-soil systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;771:144805. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  265. Zhao Y, Liu R, Awe OW, Yang Y, Shen C. Acceptability of land application of alum-based water treatment residuals—an explicit and comprehensive review. Chem Eng J. 2018;353:717–726. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.07.143. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


Articles from Environmental Science and Pollution Research International are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES