Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Organic Fertilizers and Nutrient Recycling from Diluted Waste Streams

Written By

Bente Foereid

Submitted: 24 January 2018 Reviewed: 27 April 2018 Published: 05 November 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.78042

From the Edited Volume

Soil Productivity Enhancement

Edited by Roland Nuhu Issaka and Mohammed Moro Buri

Chapter metrics overview

1,284 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


To develop a circular economy, nutrients from waste streams need to be recovered and brought back to agricultural production as much as possible. Liquid waste streams pose a specific problem because high water content makes transport expensive. Treatment of wastewater and diluted waste streams to recover nutrients are briefly discussed, and two options that are not much used are discussed: sorption to increase the fraction of nutrients found in the solid phase and nitrification of liquid to reduce nitrogen losses. Then, availability of nutrients to plants and environmental effects are discussed. It is concluded that there is little information on how treatment options affect how bioavailable the nutrients are and that this should be taken into account when treatment option is chosen.


  • biofertilizer
  • nutrients
  • liquid waste
  • bioavailability
  • environmental effects

1. Introduction

Many organic waste streams have high nutrient content, and can, if treated properly, become good fertilizers and soil improvers. There are many reasons to promote this use:

  1. Resource efficiency: Nutrients in waste resource can replace mineral fertilizers and therefore reduce resource mining and energy use.

  2. Organic agriculture cannot use mineral fertilizers and needs to use organic fertilizers to get nutrients for crop growth.

  3. Organic fertilizers also contain organic matter as well as organically bound nutrients. Organic matter can improve soil fertility and reduce soil degradation in some cases, and organically bound nutrients are released slowly.

  4. Carbon can be sequestered in the soil and reduce atmospheric build-up.

The benefits of organic matter additions to soil have been stated by many authors [1, 2, 3, 4]; however, the evidence suggests that mineral fertilizers usually are better at supplying plants with nutrients and avoid leaching losses, at least in the short term. However, in the longer term, building organic matter in the soil can improve nutrient retention. Slow release of nutrients may be beneficial for some crops (with long-period nutrient uptake e.g. root crops) and under some conditions (humid conditions with leaching losses early in the season), but less beneficial for other crops and conditions [5].

Many organic waste streams contain a lot of water, making transport difficult and expensive in economic and environmental terms. Examples of diluted waste streams can be sewage, biogas digestate, animal manure, various industrial waste streams, animal manure and fish sludge from aquaculture.

An overview of wastewater treatment can be found in textbooks, for example, [6, 7, 8]. Choice of treatment has so far almost exclusively focused on cleaning the water sufficiently to be discharged to the recipient; the resource recovery perspective has not received much attention. However, this is now changing because of concern of resource mining, particularly for phosphorus [9, 10] and high-energy consumption in nitrogen fertilizer production [11].

Options for concentration (alone or in combination) can be:

  • dewatering (by centrifuge or press)

  • flocculation, settling

  • precipitation

  • drying, evaporation

  • biological stabilization, wet composting

In most cases, liquid waste streams are left to let whatever can settle do so. There are also methods to increase settling and flocculation. Some form of stabilization is also common, either aerobic by use of oxygen or by anaerobic digestion for biogas production.

Dewatering leaves an organic rest with relatively low water content and a liquid residue with dissolved substances. As soluble nutrients are the most readily plant available, that means that a large fraction of the plant available nutrients will be found in the liquid phase. Often no good use of the liquid phase can be found, and it enters into sewage treatment systems. In many cases also some chemicals (polymers) are required to give proper separation [12]. This is costly, and chemicals can also have potentially negative environmental effects.

Dissolved nutrients can be precipitated out of solution. This is commonly done to get phosphorus out of wastewater before discharge to the recipient. Unfortunately, an almost insoluble salt results, and plant availability is very low [13, 14], although different for different precipitation chemicals [15].

Drying or water reduction by evaporation can be good options if cheap or waste heat is available. However, most liquid waste streams contain most of the nitrogen on ammonium form, and some measures must be applied to prevent losses of nitrogen as ammonia [16]. This is commonly achieved by acidifying the solution first or collecting the ammonia in biofilter acid trap afterwards.

Fertilizer products developed from organic residues can be called organic fertilizers or biofertilizers. This chapter deals with biofertilizers developed from liquid waste streams and discusses how biofertilizer quality in agricultural and environmental terms depend on treatment.


2. New treatment option to increase fraction in the solid phase and make liquid waste stable

Some newer options to increase recycling are discussed before Sorption is a physical and chemical process by which one substance becomes attached to another. By adding cheap sorbents to a liquid waste stream prior to dewatering, the fraction of nutrients found in the solid phase after dewatering can be increased. Nitrification is a microbial process where ammonium is transferred to nitrate. This leaves a stable solution that can be applied and evaporated without losses of ammonia.

2.1. Sorption

Some sorbents can be used to remove nutrients from liquid waste streams and concentrate them in a solid phase that can be separated by dewatering. Sorption is a physical and chemical process by which one substance becomes attached to another. Sorbents are the solid substances they attach to, sorbate are the substances (dissolved or gaseous) that attach. Organic material is a weak sorbent, sorption properties can be greatly increased by charring [17]. The sorbents can be charred organic material (e.g. biochar, hydrochar, activated carbon) or some clay or other minerals (bentonite, zeolite, vermiculite). Cation exchange is the most common; there are reports on removal of ammonium ([18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. Some authors also report potassium removal [22, 23]. Sorption of anions appears to be more difficult, but there are some reports of phosphorous sorption [18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Sorption of nitrate is difficult, but it appears that it can be achieved on some biochars produced at high temperature [27, 28]. There are also reports of sorption of hydrogen sulfide (reviewed by [29]) and also one report on ammonia removal from the gas phase [30].

2.2. Nitrification

It is possible to reduce or eliminate losses of ammonia from liquid waste by reducing pH, or nitrogen can be collected in biofilters or by stripping afterwards [31].

Losses of ammonia from liquid waste can also be eliminated by transforming ammonium to nitrate by a microbial process prior to storage and/or evaporation and application. The process also lowers pH, and that will also reduce ammonia volatilization, so that a small free and stable product will be the result. There are reports on tests on this for digestate and urine [32, 33, 34]. This process happens naturally in soil, and it can also be made to happen in an aerated reactor, this is done in many sewage treatment plants [35, 36]. It is also similar to wet-composting where nitrogen transformations happen as well as carbon consumption and stabilization [37].

Nitrification has two steps; both are microbially mediated [35]. In the first step, ammonia is oxidized to nitrite (NO2-) by bacteria belonging to the genus Nitrosomonas. In the second step, nitrite is oxidized to nitrate (NO3-), mostly by Nitrospira and Nitrobacter microorganisms [35, 38, 39]. However, high nitrite concentrations inhibit both processes, and it is therefore important to control the processes so that the intermediate products do not accumulate. This means process parameters must be controlled so that both steps can proceed at the same rate [40]. As ammonia oxidizing bacteria use ammonia as a substrate, not ammonium, this generally means controlling parameters of the concentration of free ammonia in solution is kept relatively low, for example, moderate pH and temperature [40].


3. What do we know about how treatment options affect plant availability?

It is known from numerous studies that not all nutrients in biofertilizers based on organic residues are available to crop plants, and sometimes also become available only after some time, and predicting the availability over time can be challenging [41, 42]. Plants take up dissolved nutrients, and nutrients that are dissolved or readily soluble will usually be 100% plant available. This is the case for mineral fertilizers. Most studies of plant availability of nutrient have assessed final products, for example, [43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. There are few studies assessing the same waste residue treated in different ways. This makes it difficult to disentangle the effect of feedstock from the effect of treatment option.

Dissolved nutrients in liquid organic waste will usually be bioavailable. Dewatering will therefore usually mean that most of the readily plant available nutrients are found in the liquid phase. How well plant nutrients are recycled will then depend on what happens to the liquid phase. Often it is not recycled optimally because transport costs are too high.

Precipitation can make nutrients less available, or even almost unavailable. This is well known for phosphorus removal from sewage treatment [15, 48]. The most common precipitation agents are aluminum and iron salts, leaving phosphorous almost unavailable to crop plants. Excess precipitation chemicals may even make soil phosphorus less available.

It is usually assumed that drying does not affect nutrient quality, so that plant availability remains unaltered. However, there is very little experimental evidence confirming that this is actually true. Knoop et al. [49] compared composting and drying as treatment options. They found that the content of plant available nitrogen decreased during drying although less than during composting, probably because the most plant available nitrogen is lost as ammonia. The fraction of phosphorus that was plant available also decreased during drying. There was no difference between air (20–30°C) and own dried (70°C). However, phosphorus availability was measured chemically; it is not certain that this corresponded exactly to actual plant availability measured in plant growth experiments. We have some indications that drying at high temperature at least may make phosphorus more plant available. This requires further study.

Most biological stabilization options will make the nutrients more available as they are decomposition processes, which mineralize the nutrients. However, during aerobic treatment (composting), some of the nitrogen is lost, more the more open the process is [50, 51, 52]. Anaerobic treatment will also usually make nutrients more available [53], an exception is phosphorus during anaerobic digestion of precipitated sewage sludge [54], probably because excess precipitation chemicals are used, which precipitate mineralized phosphorus.

Adding sorbents before dewatering can be a way to increase the fraction of nutrients found in the liquid phase as discussed in Section 2. The authors usually state that solid product can be applied in agriculture as a fertilizer, but there are surprisingly few studies that investigate if sorbed nutrients are as bioavailable as nutrients added the conventional way. One study found that ammonia sorbed as gas was bioavailable, but the degree of availability was not compared to conventional fertilizer application [55]. Another study found that sorbed nutrients were slowly desorbed in soil [56]. Our own unpublished studies suggest that ammonium sorbed to zeolite is less plant available than conventionally added ammonium. A recent study [57] found that at least some nitrogen sorbed to zeolite from urine was plant available. They also suggest that nitrification could be an important driver of release of nitrogen from zeolite, as liming increased the recovery of mineral nitrogen. It is possible that zeolite and other sorbents provide surface area for biofilm development, and it could therefore stimulate nitrification. This requires further study.

Nitrification has also been discussed as a possible way to treat liquid waste. The question if nitrate or ammonium is the preferable fertilizer is a complicated one. Usually nitrate is preferred, because it can be taken up faster and only ammonium as a fertilizer can be harmful to some plants [58, 59]. However, nitrate is also more easily leached and can be lost from the soil profile before plants can take it up. As such, ammonium can be regarded as a slow release fertilizer, as it is usually quite quickly nitrified in agricultural soil.


4. How does treatment affect environmental performance of biofertilizers?

Most environmental problems related to fertilizer use, either mineral or organic, are related to losses to the environment, as leaching and runoff and as gas. Loss of nitrogen and phosphorus to waterways and coastal areas can result in eutrophication and algal blooms [60]. Losses of ammonia gas can also lead to over-fertilization and acidification [61]. In addition, a small fraction of the nitrogen lost as gas is lost as nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas and as NOx [62, 63]. The best way to avoid losses is therefore to time fertilizer application or availability with crop demand, so that the crop can take it up before it is lost, this will be a win-win situation. Losses can also be reduced by reducing application rates, but this will also reduce yield.

Biofertilizers usually induce larger losses per unit nutrients added than mineral fertilizers. This is partly because not all nutrients in organic fertilizers are immediately available and may become available later when plants cannot take them up. However, this depends on crop type as well, some crops take up nutrients throughout the growing season, and then slow-release fertilizers may be an advantage [5].

The environmental effect of acidification has not been much studied. Particularly the effect on losses of nitrogen a nitrous oxide would be an interesting field of study, as the effect of pH on emissions of this gas is particularly complicated [62, 63, 64, 65, 66]. Denitrification rate increases with pH up to above neutral, but the fraction that is nitrous oxide rather than dinitrogen gas is higher at acidic pH. The effect on emission of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is therefore difficult to predict.

Addition of sorbents to increase the fraction of nutrients found in the solid phase has been discussed in Section 2. There is also some evidence that sorbents could reduce gaseous losses from soils, including greenhouse gases. Vermiculite and bentonite have been shown to decrease emissions of ammonia and nitrous oxide when mixed with manure prior to [67, 68] and increase nutrient retention after application [69]. However, Dietrich [70] did not find any effect of bentonite additions to digestate on nitrous oxide emission, so this also requires further study.

Nitrification as treatment option was also discussed in Section 2. Most environmental effects are related to losses; as mentioned in the previous section, nitrate is more easily lost by leaching. However, it is also more easily taken up by plants, and if application is timed with demand, losses can be low. As greenhouse gases can be emitted by a number of processes [62, 63, 71], it is difficult to predict if nitrification prior to application will increase or decrease emissions. However, a review found lower emissions from nitrate-based fertilizers [62], suggesting that nitrification may be favorable.


5. Conclusion and outlook

Sorption can be a good way to get a larger fraction of available nutrients in the solid phase prior to dewatering. Nitrification prior to storage and application may be a good way to reduce losses of nitrogen. However, little is known about if these and other treatments affect how plant available the nutrients are. More effort should be directed at understanding how treatment options affect plant availability, to be able to choose the best options.



The author wishes to thank Dr. Marianna Makadi, Maria Dietrich and Dr. Nataliia Kasian for help and discussions around the topics of digestate treatment and sorption. The review work was funded by SIS: Sustainable recycling of organic waste resources in the future bioeconomy.


Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. Christensen BT, Johnston AE. Soil organic matter and soil quality – Lessons learned from long-term experiments at Askov and Rothamsted. In: Gregorich EG, Carter MR, editors. Soil Quality for Crop Production and Ecosystem Health. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1997. pp. 399-430
  2. 2. Reeves DW. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continous cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research. 1997;43:131-167
  3. 3. Lal R, Griffin M, Apt J, Lave LM, Morgan G. Managing Soil Carbon. Science. 2004;304:393
  4. 4. Lal R. Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research. European Journal of Soil Science. 2009;60:158-169
  5. 5. Research R. Guide to the Classical and Other Long-Term Experiments. Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Herts, UK: Datasets and Sample Archive; 2008
  6. 6. Pfaffin JR. Ziegler EN, editors. LLC, Taylor and Francis Group: Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering; 2006
  7. 7. Crini G, Badot P-M. Sorption Processes and Pollution: Conventional and Non-conventional Sorbents for Pollutant Removal from Wastewaters. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté; 2010
  8. 8. Perry RH. Green DW, editors. Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Companies; 1999
  9. 9. Cordell D, Drangert J-O, White S. The story of phosphorous: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change. 2009;19:292-305
  10. 10. Cordell D, Rosmarin A, Schröder JJ, Smit AL. Towards global phosphorous security: A system framework for phosphorous recovery and reuse options. Chemosphere. 2011;84:747-758
  11. 11. Gellings CW, Parmenter. In: Gellings CW, editor. KE energy efficiency in fertilizer production and use. In: Efficient Use and Conservation of Energy. Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishing Co. Ltd.; 2016
  12. 12. Alvarenga E, Hayrapetyan S, Govasmark E, Hayrapetyan L, Salbu B. Study of the flocculation of anaerobically digested residue and filtration properties of bentonite based mineral conditioners. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2016;3:1399-1407
  13. 13. Maguire RO, Sims JT, Coale FJ. Phosphorus fractionation in biosolids-amended soils: Relationship to soluble and desorbable phosphorus. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2000;64:2018-2024
  14. 14. Maguire RO, Sims JT, Dentel SK, Coale FJ, Mah JT. Relationships between biosolids treatment process and soil phosphorus availability. Journal of Environmental Qualality. 2001;30:1023-1033
  15. 15. Øgaard AF, Brod E. Efficient phosphorus cycling in food production: Predicting the phosphorus fertilization effect of sludge from chemical wastewater treatment. Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2016;64:4821-4829
  16. 16. Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Amon T, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2006;112:153-162
  17. 17. Bhatnagar A, Sillanpaa M. Utilization of agro-industrial and municipal waste materials as potential adsorbents for water treatment – A review. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2010;157:277-296
  18. 18. Hollister CC, Bisogni JJ, Lehmann J. Ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate sorption to and solute leaching from biochars prepared from corn Stover (Zea mays L.) and oak wood (Quercus spp.). Journal of Environmental Quality. 2012;1:137-144
  19. 19. Kucic S, Cosic I, Vukovic M, Briski F. Sorption kinetic studies of ammonium from aqueous solution on different inorganic and organic media. Acta Chimica Slovenia. 2013;60:109-119
  20. 20. Estevez MM, Sapci Z, Linjordet R, Morken J. Incorporation of fish by-product into the semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of pre-treated lignocellulose and cow manure, with recovery of digestate’s nutrients. Renewable Energy. 2014;66:550-558
  21. 21. Mazeikiene A, Valentukrvicirne M. Removal of ammonium ions from digested sludge fugate by using natual zeolite. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management. 2016;24:176-184
  22. 22. Guaya D, Hermassi M, Valderrama C, Farran A, Cortina JL. Recovery of ammonium and phosphate from treated urban wastewater by using potassium clinoptilolite impregnated hydrated metal oxides as N-P-K fertilizer. Journal Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2016;4:3519-3526
  23. 23. Guaya D, Hermassi M, Valderrama C, Gibert O, Moreno N, Querol X, Batis NH, Cortina JL. Recovery of nutrients (N-P-K) from potassium-rich sludge anaerobic digestion side-streams by integration of a hybrid sorption-membrane ultrafiltration process: Use of powder reactive sorbents as nutrient carriers. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;599-600:422-430
  24. 24. Takaya CA, Fletcher LA, Singh S, Anyikude KU, Ross AB. Phosphates and ammonium sorption of biochar and hydrochar from different wastes. Chemosphere. 2016;145:518-527
  25. 25. Yao Y, Gao B, Inyang M, Zimmermann AR, Cao X, Pullammanappallil P, Yang L. Biochar derived from anaerobically digested sugar beet tailings: Characterization and phosphate removal potential. Bioresource Technology. 2011;102:6273-6278
  26. 26. Kizito S, Luo H, Wu S, Ajmal Z, Lv T, Dong R. Phosphate recovery from liquid fraction of anaerobic digestate using four slow pyrolysed biochars: Dynamics of adsorption, desorption and regeneration. Journal of Environmental Management. 2017;201:260-267
  27. 27. Mizuta K, Matsumoto T, Hatate Y, Nishihara K, Nakanishi T. Removal of nitrate-nitrogen from drinking water using bamboo powder charcoal. Bioresource Technology. 2004;95:255-257
  28. 28. Yao Y, Gao B, Zhang M, Inyang M, Zimmermann AR. Effect of biochar amendment on sorption and leaching of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate in a sandy soil. Chemosphere. 2012;89:1467-1471
  29. 29. Ozekmekci M, Salkic G, Fellah MF. Use of zeolites for removal of H2S: A mini-review. Fuel Process Technology. 2015;139:49-60
  30. 30. Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Clough TJ, Sherlock RR, Condron LM. A wood based low temperature biochar captures NH3-N generated from ruminant urine-N, retaining its bioavailability. Plant and Soil. 2012;353:73-84
  31. 31. Drosg B, Fuchs W, Al Seadi T, Madsen M, Linke B. IEA Bioenergy: Nutrient Recovery by Biogas Digestate Processing. 2015
  32. 32. Botheju D, Svalheim Ø, Bakke R. Digestate nitrification for nutrient recovery. The Open Waste Management Journal. 2010;3:1-12
  33. 33. Sun FY, Dong WY, Shao MF, Li J, Peng LY. Stabilization of source-separated urine by biological nitrification process: Treatment performance and nitrite accumulation. Water Science Technology. 2012;66:1491-1497
  34. 34. Udert KM, Wächter M. Complete nutrient recovery from source-separated urine by nitrification and distillation. Water Research. 2012;46:453-464
  35. 35. Koops H-P, Pommerening-Röser A. Distribution and ecophysiology of the nitrifying bacteria emphasizing cultured species. FEMS Microbiological Ecology. 2001;37:1-9
  36. 36. Massara TM, Malamis S, Guisasola A, Baeza JA, Noutsopoulos C, Katsoua E. A review on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions during biological nutrient removal from municipal wastewater and sludge reject water. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;596-597:106-123
  37. 37. Carceres R, Malinska K, Marfa O. Nitrification within composting: A review. Waste Management. 2018;72:119-137
  38. 38. Wagner M, Loy A. Bacterial community composition and function in sewage treatment system. Environmental Biotechnology. 2002;13:218-227
  39. 39. Moussa MS, Sumanasekera DU, Ibrahim SH, Lubberding HJ, Hooijmans CM, Gijzen HJ, van Loosdrecht MCM. Long term effects of salt on activity, population structure and floc characteristics in enriched bacterial cultures of nitrifiers. Water Research. 2006;40:1377-1388
  40. 40. Udert KM, Fux C, Münster M, Larsen TA, Siegrist H, Gujer W. Nitrification and autotrophic denitrification of source-separated urine. Water Science Technology. 2003;48:119-130
  41. 41. Delin S, Stenberg B, Nyberg A, Brohede L. Potential methods for estimating nitrogen fertilizer value of organic residues. Soil Use and Management. 2012;28:283-291
  42. 42. Brod E, Øgaard AF, Haraldsen TK, Krogstad T. Waste products as alternative phosphorus fertilisers part II: Predicting P fertilisation effects by chemical extraction. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2015;103:187-199
  43. 43. Odlare M, Pell M, Arthurson JV, Abubaker J, Nehrenheim E. Combined mineral N and organic waste fertilization – Effect on crop growth and soil properties. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2014;152:134-145
  44. 44. Kristoffersen AØ, Skretting J, Bergjord AK, Haraldsen TK. Gjødselvirkning av organisk avfall fra storsamfunnet (in Norwegian). Bioforsk FOKUS. 2013;8:1
  45. 45. Haraldsen TK, Andersen U, Krogstad T, Sørheim R. Liquid digestate from anaerobic treatment of source-separated household waste as fertilizer to barley. Waste Management Research. 2011;29:1271-1276
  46. 46. Brod E, Øgaard AF, Hansen E, Wragg D, Haraldsen TK, Krogstad K. Waste products as alternative phosphorus fertilisers part I: Inorganic P species affect fertilisation effects depending on soil pH. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2015;103:167-185
  47. 47. Foereid B. Phosphorus availability in residues as fertilizers in organic agriculture. Agricultural and Food Science. 2017;26:25-33
  48. 48. Bøen A, Haraldsen TK, Krogstad T. Large differences in soil phosphorus solubility after the application of compost and biosolids at high rates. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica, Section B – Soil and Plant Sciences. 2013;63:473-482
  49. 49. Knoop C, Dornack C, Raab T. Effect of drying, composting and subsequent impurity removal by sieving on the properties of digestates from municipal organic waste. Waste Management. 2018;72:168-177
  50. 50. Boldrin A, Andersen JK, Møller J, Christensen FE. Compost and compost utilization: Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management & Research. 2009;27:800-812
  51. 51. Hao X, Chang C, Larney FJ. Carbon, nitrogen balances and greenhouse gas emission during cattle feedlot manure composting. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2004;33:37-44
  52. 52. Wang J, Hu Z, Xu X, Jiang X, Zheng B, Liu X, Pan X, Kardol P. Emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases during combined pre-composting and vermicomposting of duck manure. Waste Management. 2014;34:1546-1552
  53. 53. Möller K, Müller T. Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop growth: A review. Engineering in Life Science. 2012;12:242-257
  54. 54. Alvarenga E, Øgaard AF, Vråle L. Effect of anaerobic digestion and liming on plant availability of phosporus in iron- and aluminum-precipitated sludge from primary wastewater treatment plants. Water Science and Technology. 2017;75:1743-1752
  55. 55. Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Clough TJ, Sherlock RR, Condron LM. Biochar adsorbed ammonia is bioavailable. Plant and Soil. 2012b;350:57-69
  56. 56. Guaya D, Valderrama C, Farran A, Sauras T, Cortina JL. Valorisation of N and P from waste water by using natural reactive hybrid sorbents: Nutrients (N,P,K) release evaluation in amended soils by dynamic experiments. Science of the Total Environment. 2018;612:728-738
  57. 57. Caspersen S, Ganot Z. Closing the loop on human urine: Plant availability of zeolite-recovered nutrients in a peat-based substrate. Journl of Environmental Management. 2018;211:177-190
  58. 58. Magalhaes JR, Huber DM. Ammonium assimilation in different plant-species as affectet by nitrogen form an pH control in solution culture. Fertilizer Research. 1989;21:1-6
  59. 59. Havlin JL, Tisdale SL, Beaton JD, Nelson WL. Soil fertility and fertilizers. In: Yarnell, D. editor. New Yersey: Pearson Education; pp. 137-141
  60. 60. Camargo JA, Alonso A. Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: A global assessment. Environment International. 2006;32:831-849
  61. 61. Guo JH, Liu XJ, Zhang Y, Shen JL, Han WX, Zhang WF, Christie P, Goulding KWT, Vitousek PM, Zhang FS. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science. 2010;327:5968
  62. 62. Bouwman AF, Boumans LJM, Batjes NH. Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: Summary of available measurement data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 2002;16:1058. DOI: 10.1029/2001GB001811
  63. 63. Butterbach-Bahl K, Baggs EM, Dannenmann M, Kiese R, Zechmeister- Boltenstern S. Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: How well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. B. 2013;368:20130122
  64. 64. Simek M, Cooper JE. The influence of soil pH on denitrification: Progress towards the understanding of this interaction over the last 50 year. European Journal of Soil Science. 2002;53:345-354
  65. 65. Stehfest E, Bouwman L. N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: Summarizing available measurement data and modelling of annual emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2006;74:207-228
  66. 66. Liu B, Mørkved PT, Frostegård Å, Bakken L. Denitrification gene pools, transcription and kinetics of NO, N2O and N2 production as affected by soil pH. FEMS Microbiological Ecology. 2010;72:407-417
  67. 67. Redding MR. Bentonite can decrease ammonia volatilisation losses from poultry litter: Laboratory studies. Animal Production Science. 2013;53:1115-1118
  68. 68. Hill J, Redding M, Pratt C. A novel and effective technology for mitigating nitrous oxide emissions from land-applied manure. Animal Production Science. 2016;56:362-369
  69. 69. Redding MR, Lewis R, Kearton T, Smith O. Manure and sorbent fertilisers increase on-going nutrient availability relative to conventional fertilisers. Science of the Total Environment. 2016;569-570:927-936
  70. 70. Dietrich M, Greenhouse Gas Emission from Digestate in Soil [master thesis]. Zurich: ETH; 2017
  71. 71. Firestone MK, Davidson EA. Microbial basis of NO and N2O production and consumption in soil. In: Andrcac MO, Schimel DS, editors. Exchange of Trace Gases between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere. 1989. pp. 7-21

Written By

Bente Foereid

Submitted: 24 January 2018 Reviewed: 27 April 2018 Published: 05 November 2018