This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sanitation Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Start‑class This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

I think there needs to be a distinction made between biosolids and sludge. In an activated sludge process, the solids wasted out of the process are biosolids, the colonies of bacteria that eat waste matter). In a standard process with primary and secondary clarification, the resulting solids are literally sludge, whatever settles out is what you get.

With both processes, the biosolids and sludges are usually digested, anaerobically or aerobically. This is to reduce VOC content and also further the breakdown -or- digestion of organic matter. Digested biosolids from an activated sludge process are (usually) 12-15 days old, and are nothing but nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen, ammonia, zinc, potassium, sulphur, manganese, magnesium, iron, copper, calcium, and a host of other yummy ingredients, including trace amounts of heavy metals and other pollutants). The quality and constituents of digested biosolids largely depends of the community the wastewater was collected from. For example, in a residential suburb, you may derive a very high quality biosolids that can easily be qualified for land application, but in a heavy industrial and urban community, your biosolids may contain much higher concentrations of chemicals and heavy metals, disqualifying their use as a fertilizer. The level of industrial pre-treatment also plays a large role in the quality of biosolids.

Also, a reason as to why some plants use anaerobic digestion and aerobic digestion needs to be made. For example, the capital cost of an anaerobic system is vastly greater than the cost of an aerobic system, but in the long term, the anaerobic system is more cost efficient. Aerobic systems require air pumped into them, needing power hungry blowers.

After digestion I think there needs to be more descriptions of the dewatering processes, such as:

Sludge Drying Beds Drying beds consist of long skinny concrete troughs filled with sand, and have an underdrain system. Sludge is allowed to fill the bed, and the water slowly drains through the sand, leaving the solids on top. The sludge may be left to air dry, sometimes for days, resulting in a solid that can be ~80% solids or higher. The purpose of the troughs being skinny is so that a front-end loader drive down the trough and scoop up the dried sludge, leaving the sand intact for the next batch. The tires of the loader sit on the very short concrete walls between the troughs. Drying beds are a slow dewatering process, and are perfect for plants processing less than 4MGD.

Belt Filter Press A Belt Filter Press is a carryover from the paper pulp industry. basically, it is a machine that has two belt loops that come together at one point, squeezing the water from the sludge. The solids remain between the belts and are scraped off, usually onto a conveyor. A press feature three main zones, the gravity zone, where the sludge is dropped onto the belt, and a majority of the water is drained via gravity through the belt. The shear zone, where the two belts come together and usually the initial drum that the belts travel around after the gravity zone. A lot of water is squeezed out here. Next is the pressure zone where the belts travel through a series of rollers, placing the belts under extreme pressure. This forces out the last amount of water. Belt Filter Presses are the workhorses of the dewatering section of most plants because of their ease of use, year round ability to dewater, and relatively low power consumption. The dewatered "cake" scraped off the belts is usually a wet 10% to spongy 18% solids, dry enough to haul in a dump truck.

Plate Filter Press Similar to a Belt Filter Press, except higher pressures can be obtained and thus, a drier cake in the 25-35% range. This is a slower process than the Belt Filter Press as the Plate Filter Press cannot continually process biosolids. The plate filters must be filled, squeezed together then unloaded.

Centrifuge A centrifuge is also a carryover, but from multiple industries (mainly food!) and tailored for sludge. basically, there is a large spinning drum, which may reach speeds as high as 20k RPM. Inside, there is a screw which turns at a slightly lower speed than the drum, pushing the driest solids to one end for discharge, and the liquid flows out the drum into the casing for dishcharge. Centrifuges can handle higher flow rates than comparable Belt Filter Presses, and also have drier cake, usually a spongy 18% to crumbly 26-40% solids. Centrifuges consume much more power than a belt filter press, but the savings are seen in lowered hauling costs.

Liquid Usually only in the smallest plants, sludge is hauled by tanker truck to another facility for dewatering, or some other direct use.

And even after de-watering, you have the disposal methods.

Landfill Many plants dispose of their de-watered sludge in sanitary landfills (in the U.S.). This option does have its costs, but sometimes there is no other alternative.

Land Application Depending on the quality of sludge, the dewatered sludge or biosolids can be used as a fertilizer on crops not intended for human consumption. This is by far the cheapest option, as most municipalites give it away to farmers and some even spread it themselves on the farmers fields at no charge. In the U.S. biosolids must meet "Class B" criteria for land application, which has to do with the levels of contaminates in the biosolids.

Deep Well Injection Rarely practiced, liquid sludge may be injected deep into the earth.

Given away or sold to consumers For lawn and garden use. Very stringently drawn rules and regulations govern this practice, ans the only biosolids qualified for this are "Class A" and have had their pathogenic content reduced to near nothing. "Class A" biosolids are made by cooking the "Class B" biosolids cake from the dewatering process. This is accomplished trhough a variety of means, mainly gas-fired rotating drum ovens, microwaves, and sunlight. The prohibitive cost of this makes it unattainable by most municipalities.

Ocean Dumping This practice is now illegal in the U.S. and U.S. waters, not sure about the world.

Incineration Fairly expensive because of the fuel requirement, but incineration reduces biosolids down to about 10% of its original mass and volume, making the ash very cheap to landfill. This is an option when the sludge does not meet the quality requirements for land application or even direct landfilling.

Please feel free to tear this apart. Thanks JAK83 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good work here! I may have a few more comments later but for now let me present a different distinction in terms. Although there is not uniformity nationwide, the USEPA seems to make the distinction that sewage sludge that has been further processed for beneficial reuse under CFR Part 503 would be called "biosolids". I think it would serve us well if we went that way. I think that the organic pre-digester treatment sludges you term "biosolids" above could as well be called "biomass" and avoid confusion. How does that sound? --Justanother 06:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on disposal should be moved to the sewage sludge page because this article is about treatment, not about disposal. However, when looking at it more closely, one can see that it doesn't actually talk about disposal but also about treatment... Therefore it needs to be integrated into the body of the article, or a different header chosen. I think some of it is dublication, was probably copied from another article. Could someone tidy this up? EvM-Susana (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I question if removal of disposal would be appropriate, because treatment requirements are defined by disposal alternatives. Perhaps the disposal section might be moved to an introductory position before description of treatment alternatives. Thewellman (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sounds good to me. EvM-Susana (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A persistent problem with broad concept Wikipedia articles are recurring efforts by special interest editors to inappropriately emphasize emerging technologies. Neutrality requires coverage to accurately reflect present and historical trends. The emerging technologies section of this article is intended to recognize and provide a brief mention of promising technologies; and while there will not be room for a full description of all of them, descriptions of a few broadly successful technologies will ultimately be integrated into the main article as their use becomes widespread. To avoid inappropriately weighting this article with descriptions of little-used treatment methods, I propose to restrict the emerging technologies section to a brief sentence describing those technologies with notability established by a separate article.

In the absence of an alternative organization proposal with appropriately verified notability precedence, I suggest a single alphabetical bullet listing of the emerging technologies by article name to avoid an inappropriately long table of contents unduly weighted toward emerging technologies. I suggest emerging technologies might be considered those applied to less than ten percent of sludge volume and at fewer than ten percent of sludge treatment facilities.Thewellman (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the problem here. The section on emerging technologies is not very long. Just because a technology has its own page (like the one on Omni-processor) does not mean it is necessarily "notable". The Omni-processor page contains little more than the link to the BBC article and the company's website. I could equally create a separate page on "phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge"... (if I had the time). This suite of technologies is in any case far more advanced than the Omni-processor, see the example of Ostara. It was your idea to move "phosphorus recovery" to the emerging technologies section and now you are saying this section is getting too long. In my opinion it (the phosphorus recovery section) should be at the end of the other treatment technologies. I can't say how many treatment plants use the Ostara process. Of course not 10% on a worldwide scale but neither do 10% of all wastewater treatment plants use enhanced biological phosphorus removal and nevertheless that is a notable technology. So my proposal is to move phosphorus technology away from the emerging technologies section; or otherwise just leave it as is and focus on other problem areas of this article (or of the article on sewage sludge) rather. Time will tell how these emerging technologies will develop. Another alternative is to delete the section on emerging technologies altogether, as I don't think they are important (they could simply be mentioned in one sentence or under See Also). But not to delete the section on phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge, because that one is important and well referenced. I can add more references there, however most of it is in German. EvM-Susana (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem has not yet reached critical mass, but your edit causes approximately 10% of this article to be focused on a technology which is not yet economically viable. I anticipate other editors may wish to similarly expand descriptions of emerging technologies. In time, such editing will create an article with disproportionate focus on sludge treatment technologies representing an insignificant fraction of international sewage sludge treatment. I encourage you to compile information into a separate phosphorus recovery article before this article requires thinning of emerging technologies to maintain focus on successful methods. If you don't wish to compile a separate article, you might alternatively create or expand a section of an existing article such as phosphorus recovery or the work you have already done on reuse of excreta. Information from a separate article can be condensed into this article as the technology becomes cost effective. Thewellman (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see what other editors do in future and then we can still re-visit this perceived problem if the part on emerging technologies gets to big. You say the technologies are not yet economically viable - well this doesn't apply to the Ostara process in Canada (they also have installations in Europe). If it wasn't economically viable that company wouldn't sell it. I think it's important that an article on sewage sludge treatment also considers sewage sludge liquor (e.g. digestate) treatment. The section could be restructured to make it clearer that this is sewage sludge liquor treatment. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katana0182 I would like to speak to you and others about how we want to deal with the "biosolids" issue in this article. I am not really in agreement with your recent changes (last paragraph of the lead). The citation for the term biosolids that I had given is the well respected textbook by Metcalf and Eddy. You have only provide one reference from 2002, yet you spoke of "studies". I also don't like the term "sewage treatment industry" - there is no industry, it is simply local governments etc. But I know the whole debate in the US is different than e.g. in Europe. Much more heated over there... You only need to look on the page on sewage sludge and its talk page to see the whole level of controversy there.... I suggest that we tone done the sentences about biosolids, that we move it to further down in the article (take it out of the lead), and generally keep it very short and rather refer to the article on sewage sludge - so that we don't have two pages that explain the issue with biosolids but only one, i.e. the page on sewage sludge. But I think at least once in this article the term "biosolids" needs to be mentioned because of literature (not just the "propaganda literature" but also normal textbooks, like Metcalf and Eddy) use this term. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue might be best handled by expanding the biosolids redirect into a separate article including both its engineering origins to identify the dried organisms grown during secondary treatment, and public discomfort over expanded use of the term to include primary sludge or sorbed toxic materials from industrial wastewaters in municipal sewage. That way this article could simply use to the term with a WikiLink for readers unfamiliar with the meaning and controversy. Thewellman (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I generally agree with these assessments. Clearly it is true that some see the term "biosolids" as propaganda, and it is also true that it is possible to cite sensible references on this point. However, it is absolutely the case that the term has widespread usage by those involved in the treatment of sewage sludge, so it would be rather ridiculous not to use it here. I think it is fair to keep a line making it clear that some are campaigning against the term, but support the idea of an expanded biosolids page where all the different sides to the debate can set out their views without derailing this page. JMWt (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just rearranged that section as a suggestion for resolving this issue. Thoughts? JMWt (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like your changes and I have taken it a bit further. I have moved it out of the lead into a new section called terminology (I think it would otherwise get too much weight in the lead). I have also linked there to other relevant pages. OK like this?EvM-Susana (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested above to have a separate biosolids page. At the moment, biosolids redirects to sewage sludge. The curent page on sewage sludge is an absolute mess. It contains the word biosolids on about 80 occasions - so I think that IS a biosolids page already, full of descriptions of the controversies... So I don't see how a separate biosolids page could help - unless we actually rename the sewage sludge page to "biosolids" and create a new sewage sludge page which is purely focussed on the technical aspects. At the moment, I have a similar paragraph about biosolids at the end of the lead section of the "sewage sludge" article but I am wondering if either the same wording that we have used here now should be copied across, or if a terminology section would also be good there. - I guess the whole debate about biosolids fits better on the page of sewage sludge than on the page of sewage sludge treatment - at least that's how it's set up at the moment. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a "can of worms" which is too complicated to sort out and would require rewriting multiple pages. JMWt (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thewellman has taken the plunge and created a new page for biosolids. Please see on its talk page for further discussion. We have actually gone full-circle because a separate page on biosolids used to exist but was later re-integrated into the page on sewage sludge. My other concern is what to do about the page on sewage sludge? I think there would be very large sections that would need to be deleted.EvM-Susana (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new article is appropriate and balanced and deals principally with the cultural, marketing and quasi-political issues. I believe that all the process and technological and environmental issues should be at "sewage sludge treatment". Where content best lies between "Sewage sludge treatment" and "Biosolids" is a debate worth having, but my strong inclination would be to retain as much as possible in "sewage sludge" and keep "biosolids" relatively compact as a description of a marketing approach.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pages on biosolids and sewage sludge treatment are not bad now, but the page on sewage sludge is a desaster... I have tried to improve it bit by bit, but I think one may need a rigorous approach and delete huge parts of the text, as it's either biased, way too detailed, too focussed on examples in the US, using too many poor references like primary research articles, too repetitive and so forth. But who has the time to work on that page? It seems to be abandoned by its original editors, at least I have had no reactions so far for the edits I have done there. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we tidy these references up? I don't like the split between refs and the further reading section. Also, are there really no good references since the 1970s? I find that very hard to believe. JMWt (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It came about from that method of using notes and references. So it's not technically further reading that is listed there but it is part of the sources. But I don't actually know how to change it? The more recent references are listed under "references". I would delete the "further reading" section but it's not possible because it comes from that method of citing. Help anyone? EvM-Susana (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a paragraph or new section/sub-section describing thermal hydrolysis, a process employed at some sewage treatment plants around the world. I'm not sure where in the article to add this. Suggestions? Moreau1 (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, please go ahead. Add it under emerging technologies? EvMsmile (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a paragraph. Moreau1 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. EvMsmile (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across the new article on sewage waste energy. I don't think it is very good and the term itself is also not well established. I suggest to merge any worthwhile content to here, as it really is about sewage sludge treatment with energy as a side product. EvMsmile (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging what appears to be an experimental technology until practicality is demonstrated by frequency of utilization similar to biogas recovery during anaerobic digestion, or to sludge incineration, which seems a more suitable candidate for merger. The sewage waste energy article seems more focused on energy than on sludge disposal, and could appropriately stand alone with additional description of the energy balances of incineration and biogas recovery. Thewellman (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the article sewage waste energy is actually very poor quality. It starts already with a strange title. There is no such thing as "sewage waste"! If anything it is "sewage sludge". I think it should be nominated for deletion and content worth saving should be integrated into here. When the section on "energy from sewage sludge" gets too big, then a spin-off article could be created. EvMsmile (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a very poor article which seems mostly about promoting companies involved in energy production from sewage sludge. Therefore I agree with EvMsmile and for the avoidance of doubt, I also agreee to the merge here of a well balanced and brief précis. I do not believe that the existing title is appropriate, even for a redirect, and I would advocate its deletion.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the quality of the article. As an inclusionist, I would not initiate deletion; but I have no objection to someone else taking that action. My objection is to the proposal to merge that poor quality material into this article. It appears to be an experimental technology warranting, at most, an internal link from this article to a separate article; but if the experimental technology is not notable enough to warrant a separate article, the experimental technology seems unworthy of description in this article. Thewellman (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was to take any content worth salvaging from sewage waste energy (but not take the poor quality parts) and to merge that into here, and then to delete the sewage waste energy article. Oh, wait, I looked at it again and there is really very little that can be salvaged! I had originally looked at the references and thought some of them might be worth including (if they are not already there). But now I see that none of the references are actually properly cited in the text but just listed. - I think the article ought to be deleted. Question is for me now: speedy deletion or slow deletion. I guess "slow deletion" would be the way to go. EvMsmile (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would PROD it just to allow any contrary views to emerge. Some AfDs tend to attract occasional voices that have no knowledge of the topic and judge only by reference count or some other arbitrary test - no criticism of the great majority of AfD particpants implied by that. An uncontested PROD will gently expire in 7 days without fuss. There is absolutely no avenue for a speedy delete.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the deletion tag now.EvMsmile (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have just noticed that an admin disagreed with the PROD and deleted the tag from the article. I have questioned the decision of the admin here in case you are interested. I wonder if you User:Gronk Oz have an opinion on this since you once did some edits on the article sewage waste energy. EMsmile (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have spoken to that admin and based on his/her advice have placed a redirect on the page sewage waste energy to here. EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have revereted a recent addion about CECs by AndrewDrouin for severla reasons. Firts let me state clearly that I too have significant concernes about organic micro-pollutants in the environment and the risks that they pose to human and animal health and growth and their potential to seriously adversly affect the environment. However, I take issue with the tone of the addition and the quality of the references.

• The statement that "The sewage sludge treatment industry and governments at all levels have recently been targeted by concerned citizens worldwide over concerns with the constituent components of wastewater treatment fluid outfall" appears unsubstantaited and unreferenced.
• The statement that " As sludge ("biosolids") are routinely spread throughout communities by municipal governments, spread on school-grounds and parks, sold to landscapers and even provided to citizens, many of whom use it in gardens to grow vegetables." I must assume relates to the US, if so then it should be stated as such.
• The statemnt that "CEC's consist of as many of 80,000 individual chemicals" is interesting but it would certainly need a robust reference.
• I am unclear what "which ....... metabolized sub-chemicals in their stems, stalk and fruits " means .What are sub-chemicals? Are these metabolites?
• I also have problems with power-point presentations being used as references .

Surely there must be quality references out there from the UN, the EPA or the Environment Agency ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has now been restored with no improvements in the referencing but with a list of supposed concerned citizens group worldwide (unreferenced). This strikes me as being a very biased and POV addition - which is a great pity since there is a story to be told here but in much more moderate and encyclopaedic language and with much better references and taking a world view rather than a clearly US view. Any thoughts Thewellman, EMsmile or any others  ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   06:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a non-governmental organization, began conducting independent analyses of the biosolids regulatory program in the 1990s. Currently there are no references in the article to the NAS documents. I am not familiar with the NAS literature, but I suggest that these reports would be a quality, independent source of information for the US context.

• NAS (2002). "Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices." https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10426/biosolids-applied-to-land-advancing-standards-and-practices
• US EPA, which manages the national regulatory program, has published responses to the NAS reports at https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/epa-response-national-research-council-nrc-report-review-technical-basis-chemical-and

Moreau1 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Andrew Drouin, I have twice edited the "Controversy" section of the Sewage Sludge Treatment page - only to twice have it reverted back to it's former, plainly soft-pitch position.

I've spent the past five years studying this topic, and am about as knowledgeable on it as anyone else on this site.

I provided solid, peer-reviewed scientific articles from the USGS and the EPA to back up my positions, only to have them frankly dismissed by the subsequent re-editors.

For example, the first edit contained these links:

https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/biosolids.html https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/8-jay_gan.pdf

The second edit, which I didn't save a copy of (but can easily recreate) contained additional peer-reviewed, US University and US Gov. studies - which were also offhandedly dismissed...

I'm Canadian, not an American as alluded to above - the reason that I cite US documents is that the Americans have conducted a great deal more scientific study on the topic than we have in Canada.

My recent re-edit contained a list of organizations that advocate for a review of how solid waste is managed - only to have the editor offhandedly dismiss it as "a list of supposed concerned citizens group worldwide (unreferenced)" A minute or two of Google searching would have shown the editor that all of the groups in the list are legitimate organizations, and all exist - not "supposed"...

What ever happened to the addition of "[citation needed]" subedits to an editor's post? As opposed to wholesale dismissal / deletion?

The type of hatchet-editing that my submissions have been subject to is biased and reeks of industry handiwork.

How can a category be titled "Controversies" when it does not present any actual controversy aside from an allusion to propaganda ?

Also, no mention is made on the page of Gasification and Pyrolysis technologies, nor the scientifically accurate phrase "Contaminates of Emerging Concern" which details the main controversy with the contents of sewage sludge. These, in my opinion, are critical oversights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewDrouin (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewDrouin I think that you are missing the point here. I don't believe that anybody doubts the sincerity of your approach nor the real issues that micro pollutants cause in the food chain, in drinking water and in the environment. I have clearly stated my views on the subject and would welcome a well researched and carefully written paragraph on the topic. However, what you have been proposing is not written in the neutral style required by Wikipedia and key elements are unsourced. Certainly we could add "citation required" in a well written piece which is lacking one or two key supporting documents, but the versions submitted have been written in a sensationalistic style which no amount of "citations needed" would remedy. I would be happy to support a well written piece written in a neutral tone, but your version just isn't it IMPO.

It would also be helpful if you could sign your posts using 4 tildes "~~~~" which automatically adds your user name date and time. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur one or several paragraphs of well-written and well-sourced prose would be much more encyclopedic and useful as a stand-alone summary of this important aspect of a complex subject than the scatter effect of extensive proposed lists of links and organizations in opposition. Contaminants of emerging concern is a significant problem with many aspects of our modern lifestyle, but with present population density it is necessary to consider the consequences of reasonable alternatives for practices causing trouble before simply eliminating the present practice. Thewellman (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewDrouin: I understand that you feel strongly, but your writing reads like advocacy. That's not the done thing here. For example: The long list of organizations seems to be design to persuade rather than to inform. It smacks of the Argumentum ad populum. Your introductory paragraph is too full of loaded words. I would advise you to lose the adjectives ("concerned citizens", e.g. is clearly intended to be laudatory).

Consider the difference between these two versions of a paragraph. You wrote:

As sludge ("biosolids") are routinely spread throughout communities by municipal governments, spread on school-grounds and parks, sold to landscapers and even provided to citizens, many of whom use it in gardens to grow vegetables. These practices provide ample opportunities for minute quantities of these countless toxins to enter the food-chain and / or directly interface with humans and animals.

. A more encyclopedia-appropriate version might read something like

Municipal governments distribute sewage sludge to communities^{[citation needed]}. It is spread on schoolgrounds and parks^{[citation needed]}, sold to landscapers^{[citation needed]}, and provided to citizens, who may use it to grow vegetables.^{[citation needed]} The toxins may [even this is a weasel word] thereby enter the food chain or be consumed by people and animals.

Even that isn't particularly good, but it's at least not an obvious attempt to slant the debate.

I hope that you will take this opportunity to rewrite your contributions in a more Wikipedia-friendly fashion.

Finally, please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Phraseology such as "The type of hatchet-editing that my submissions have been subject to is biased and reeks of industry handiwork" can only damage your case. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]