- The document summarizes research on the use of wastewater and sewage sludge for crop production. It includes research findings from studies conducted in various places like Iran, India, Jordan, Nigeria, and Taiwan. - The studies examined the effects on crop growth, soil properties, and nutrient levels from using wastewater, sewage sludge, or a combination for irrigation. They found benefits like improved yields but also risks like heavy metal accumulation that require proper treatment and monitoring. - The document reviews the results of these studies through tables and figures showing effects on parameters like soil organic carbon, available water, micronutrients, crop height, and economic impacts of wastewater use.

1. PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
Course No: SOILS-692
Course Title: Doctoral Seminar
PRESENTED BY
B. VENKATESH,
RAD/2020-03,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY.
COURSE IN-CHARGE:
Dr. S. Harish Kumar Sharma
Professor,
Department of Soil science and
Agricultural Chemistry
College of Agriculture, PJTSAU.
USE OF WASTE WATER AND SEWAGE SLUDGE
FOR CROP PRODUCTION

2. Order of presentation
• Introduction (Waste water and sewage sludge)
• Advantages and risk associated with use of waste water and sewage
sludge
• Sewage water treatment process
• Research findings on waste water use
• Research finding on sewage sludge use
• Research findings on use of both sewage sludge and waste water
• Conclusions
• Future line work

3. Two types of wastewater:
• Two broad categories – sewage and non-sewage.
What is sewage?
• Sewage is wastewater that comes from domestic
activities. That includes houses, public toilets,
restaurants, schools, hotels and hospitals.
What is non-sewage?
• Non-sewage covers all other types of wastewater. That
includes rainwater and storm water from flooding,
water from commercial activity like industrial plants.
• Sewage sludge is the residual, solid material that is
produced as a by-product during sewage treatment.

5. Figure 01: Current and future water usage in India by different sectors
Abhijit et al., 2020

6. Fig 02: Relative volumes of water used for irrigation in Nagarjuna Sagar,
versus that diverted to the city
DAAN et al., 2005

7. • Two litres of water are often sufficient for daily drinking purposes an
average but it takes about 3,000 litres to produce the daily food needs
of a person.
• Water scarcity is present in all the regions of the world. Around 2.5 billion
people living in the dry land areas.
• As per the National Inventory of Sewage Treatment plants-2021, wide gap
prevails between the amount of sewage generated and that being treated in
the State.
• For an estimated sewage generation of 2660 million litres per day (MLD)
in the State, only 706 MLD is being actually treated, as per the report,
which amounts to 26.5%.

8. • Estimated sewage generated each day in greater Hyderabad area, including the
twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad 772 million liters.
• Amount of sewage that is treated in various Sewage Treatment Plants in the
city (43%). The rest of the sewage (57%) is released untreated, mostly in the
Musi river (or) into the Hussain Sagar.
• Judicious use of waste water to grow crops will help solve water scarcity in the
agriculture sector. Either directly through irrigation, and indirectly by
recharging aquifers.
• Due to modern intensive cultivation the soil organic carbon content is
diminishing.
• Application of more inorganic fertilizers on depleted soils often fails to provide the
expected benefits .

9. Benefits by use of waste water and sewage sludge:
• Alternative source of water (Direct use)
• Recharge of aquifers (Indirect use)
• Lower dependence on synthetic fertilizers
• Integrated management with closed water and nutrient cycles
• Lower cost of water treatment
Risks by use of waste water and sewage sludge:
• Harm to environment and public health
• Accumulation of pollutants in soil and food crops
• Contamination of ground water.
• Needs regular monitoring
• Requires nuanced understanding of crop type and soil.

12. Table 01: Hydraulic properties of irrigated areas with treated
wastewater with different periods of application
Treatment
(years)
Depth
(cm)
HC
(mm hr-1)
IRB IR AVG
*F(t)
(mm)
cumulati
ve
Water content (%by
volume) Available
water (%)
(mm hr-1)
33 k Pa 1.5 MPa
Control
0-20 8.20ae 10.5 80.7b 242b 45.06 26.27 18.79a
20-40 9.30af 45.68 28.67 17.00b
2
0-20 7.15bg 2.4 37.9c 113.7c 53.91 32.18 22.74e
20-40 6.05bh 52.82 31.88 20.94d
5
0-20 5.60ci 3.5 36.7c 110.2c 52.21 31.24 20.97d
20-40 6.60cj 49.59 30.13 19.46e
15
0-20 2.90dk 17.3 90.3a 271a 50.97 30.70 20.97d
20-40 3.55dl 46.92 28.20 18.71a
Superscripts indicated significant differences (P<0.05) between treatments (period of application). First
superscript represents differences between treatments; second superscript represents differences
between depths
Gharaibeh et al., 2007
Jordan, vertisols

13. Table 02: Average inlet and outlet concentration and removal efficiencies for different key
rural waste water parameters in the constructed wet land(July 2015-july 2016)
Parameter
Inlet concentration
(mg litre-1)
Out let
concentration
(mg litre-1)
Removal efficiency
(%)
TSS 52.1 7.2 86.15
Sulfate 61.2 24.5 59.92
COD 240.2 92.3 61.54
Phosphate 0.7 0.32 54.29
Ammonical
nitrogen
34.6 14.3 58.54
Nitrate
nitrogen
5.4 1.2 77.41
Total
coliform
1700 124.1 92.71
Datta et al., 2021
ICRISAT, HYD

14. Figure 03. Schematic of the constructed wetland commissioned in
Kothapally, Telangana. (Typha latifolia saplings and Canna indica)

15. Table 03. Comparing the averages for soil chemical characteristic before
and after experiment (0-30 cm) (Sorghum crop)
Parameters
Irrigation treatments
Before of
experiment
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
EC (dsm-1) 2.90 2.20e1 2.80d 3.82b 3.40c 4.52a
Total nitrogen
(%) 0.046 0.049d 0.050c 0.051c 0.062b 0.067a
P (ppm) 2.8 2.9e 5.3d 5.9c 9.4b 10.8a
K (ppm) 180 181d 182cd 183c 187b 189a
O.C (%) 0. 262 0.303c 0.364b 0.380ab 0.402a 0.403a
Ca and Mg total
cations(meq lit-1) 22.00 24.50d 25.25c 26.15b 26.75ab 27.90a
Na (ppm) 25.9 26.1d 29.2c 32b 37.3a 37.4a
SAR 9.4 8.3c 8.67c 9.8b 10.5ab 11.9a
CEC (meq lit-1) 4.30 4.16b 5.10ab 5.20ab 5.08ab 5.40a
1- Row means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 0.05 probability level
Mohammad et al., 2007
Place: Iran
With well water during entire period of growing season as control (T1); Wastewater during the first half of growing
season (T2); Wastewater during the second half of growing season (T3); Wastewater and well water alternately (T4)
and wastewater during entire period of growing season (T5).
Clay soils

16. Table : 04 Socio-economic impact analysis using industrial treated waste water in
agriculture T.N (Rs.Farm-1)(Sample farms using treated waste water SFUTWW)
S.No. Crop
Cost of cultivation Gross income Net income
SFUTWW
Control
farm
SFUTWW
Control
farm
SFUTWW
Contr
ol
farm
Pre-
industry
Post-
industry
Pre-
industry
Post-
industry
Pre-
industry
Post-
industry
1 Coconut
- 64379.0 - - 152932.18 - - 88553.1 0.00
2 Maize
- 5791.5 - - 11254.7 - - 5462.5 0.00
3 Napier grass
- 10893.79 - - 49896.0 - - 39002.2 0.00
4 Sorghum
28186.2 - 12665.4 36806.8 - 13724.2 8620.6 - 1058.8
5 Pearlmillet
15741.4 - 6356.1 18459.7 - 6729.5 2718.3 - 373.5
6 Finger millet
- - 8392.4 - - 8819.7 - - 427.2
Total
43927.6 81064.4 27413.8 55266.5 214082.2 29273.4 11338.9 131158.2
1859.6
0
Sathaiah and Chandrashekaran, 2020.
Coimbatore,Tamil Nadu

17. Fig 04: The comparison of time fluctuation trend leaf area index and total dry weight corn
plant (Treated with activated sludge process)
Asgari et al., 2007
BHU, U.P
T1: Furrow irrigation with normal water, T2: Surface drip (SD) irrigation with waste water,
T3: SSD at 15 cm depth with waste water, T4: SSD at 30 cm depth with waste water,
T5: Furrow irrigation with waste water

18. Abegunrin et al., 2015
Nigeria
Fig.05: Effect of different water sources on growth parameters of cucumber
Sandy loam
WW-waste water, GW- Ground water, RW-Rain water

19. Fig06: Effect of different concentration of paper mill effluent (pot culture three years) on
plant height and pods/panicle number plant-1
Medhi et al., 2011
Guwahati, India Sandy Loam soil

20. Table 05: Available Micronutrients and Heavy Metals contents of surface soil
samples (0-15 cm) collected at ten different locations along the Musi river belt
during Kharif 2012& 2013 (Mean of five samples)
S. No Name of the
village
Micronutrients (mg kg-1) Heavy Metals (mg kg-1)
Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Cd Ni Co Cr
1
Peerzadiguda 22.57 22.25 1.83 6.57 6.62 0.418 2.27 0.411 0.051
2
Parvathapuram 21.27 19.33 1.63 7.38 6.74 0.408 2.36 0.395 0.065
3
Kachwanisingaram 21.72 20.54 1.87 7.33 6.64 0.414 2.28 0.415 0.047
4
Prathapsingaram 20.89 19.6 1.84 7.27 6.24 0.372 2.2 0.357 0.052
5
Sadataliguda 16.14 18.44 1.97 7.66 6.22 0.388 2.19 0.391 0.044
6
Muthawaliguda 18.47 20.32 1.93 5.27 5.97 0.352 2.21 0.383 0.037
7
Korremula 15.54 13.44 1.75 3.17 6.25 0.367 1.91 0.387 0.044
8
Chowdaryguda 16.12 15.27 1.73 4.18 5.65 0.364 2.03 0.371 0.035
9
Gourelli 17.15 12.64 1.69 4.72 5.57 0.329 1.91 0.377 0.042
10
Bacahram 14.37 12.51 1.57 5.55 5.47 0.352 1.84 0.368 0.036
Range 14.37-22.57 12.51-22.25 1.57-1.97 3.17-7.66 5.47-6.74 0.329-0.418 1.84-2.36 0.357-0.415 0.035-0.065
Mean 18.42 17.43 1.78 5.91 6.14 0.376 2.12 0.386 0.045
SD 2.97 3.63 0.131 1.56 0.461 0.030 0.183 0.018 0.009
Control (Non polluted) 7.5 5.62 0.70 1.10 4.2 0.2 1.1 0.20 0.002
Raju et al., 2012
Place:Rangareddy & Nalgonda

21. Table 06: Mean comparison of effects of treated municipal waste
water (TMWW) on growth and Yields of maize
Traits
Treatments
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Stem height (cm) 160.30b1 172.80b 184.30ab 222.50a 220.30a
Stem diameter (mm) 15.00b 16.00ab 18.25a 19.25a 18.50a
Flag leaf length (cm) 32.75b 34.00ab 34.75ab 37.50a 37.55a
Ear diameter (cm) 2.075d 2.200cd 2.300bc 2.500ab 2.525a
Ear length (cm) 14.25c 15.25bc 16.08b 18.55a 18.63a
Number of row per ear 9.750c 10.750bc 12.000ab 13.250a 12.250ab
Number of grain per
row 29.75b 30.75b 33.25b 37.75a 37.00a
Number of grain per ear 292.0c 330.5bc 374.3b 499.8a 469.0a
1000-seed weight (g) 209.5d 230.8c 263.8b 303.8a 296.3a
Grain yield (kg ha-1) 6375c 7088bc 7875ab 8488a 8438a
Sayad et al., 2009
Place: Iran
T1: irrigation with clean water during whole growing period (control); T2: 75% clean water and 25% TMWW; T3: 50%
clean water and 50% TMWW; T4: 25% clean water and 75% TMWW; T5: irrigation with TMWW during whole
growing period.
Alluvial soil

22. Table 07:Effect of effluent water on crop growth parameters of baby corn
under pot culture at critical stages
Treatment
Crop growth parameters
AGR cm d-1 CGR g d-1 RGR g g-1 d-1 NAR g cm2 d-1
HI (%)
35-65
DAS
65-95
DAS
35-65
DAS
65-95
DAS
35-65
DAS
65-95
DAS
35-65
DAS
65-95
DAS
T1Control
(IW)
1.633 1.22 0.202 0.468 0.488 0.412 0.003 0.053 21.54
T2-1:3
(EW:IW)
1.441 0.893 0.101 0.389 0.352 0.305 0.004 0.044 22.13
T3-
1:4(EW:IW)
1.463 0.987 0.171 0.377 0.390 0.323 0.002 0.042 22.16
T4-1:5
(EW:IW)
1.493 1.00 0.146 0.385 0.41 0.34 0.002 0.027 21.98
CD (p=0.05) 0.204 NS 0.047 0.033 0.03 0.021 NS 0.01 NS
EW=Effluent water; IW=Irrigation water; RDF : 120:60:40 kg NPK
Muzaffar et al., 2008
Place: Rajendranagar Red soil

23. Table 08:Chemical Characteristics of Soil Irrigated with
Wastewater and Soil Irrigated with Groundwater
Parameter
Bait al kasham Bait Alhallali Bait Haroon Average
value
of SW
Average
value of
SG Significance
SW SG SW SG SW SG
pH 7.69 8.27 7.55 8.08 7.89 8.14 7.70 8.16 P=0.8900
EC µS cm-1 893 667 943 600 923 705 921 657 P=0.1623
TDS mg l-1 554.9 430.2 618.5 372.6 600.9 463.15 591.4 422 P<0.0001
OM% 2.17 0.83 2.13 0.70 1.70 0.69 2.00 0.74 P=0.0002
Na mg kg-1 400 450 453 453 518 518 399 474 P=0.7578
K mg kg-1 475 107 521 121 561 117 519 115 P=0.0005
P mg kg-1 27.67 8.33 29.16 5 25.33 5.33 27.33 6.22 P=0.0255
N mg kg-1 38.33 22 36.33 9 46.33 16 40.33 15.67 P=0.0706
Muamar et al., 2012
SW soil irrigated with wastewater, SG soil irrigated with groundwater

25. Table 09: Effect of integrated use of sewage sludge, urban compost, FYM and
inorganic fertilizers on enzyme activities in post harvest soil of rice
Treatments
Urease
(mg of NH+ N released h–1 g–1 soil)
Dehydrogenase
(mg of TPF released d–1 g–1 soil)
Main Fertilizer levels (% RDF) Fertilizer levels (% RDF)
Sub 0 50 75 100 Mean 0 50 75 100 Mean
Control 3.000 3.320 3.480 3.720 3.380 0.230 0.280 0.310 0.330 0.288
UC 10 t ha–1 3.280 3.550 3.960 4.100 3.723 0.250 0.270 0.300 0.350 0.293
UC 20 t ha–1 3.470 3.750 4.470 4.600 4.073 0.260 0.280 0.320 0.340 0.300
FYM 10 t
ha–1 3.220 3.650 3.690 3.780 3.585 0.310 0.330 0.350 0.380 0.343
FYM 20 t
ha–1 3.450 3.760 4.020 4.240 3.868 0.360 0.370 0.390 0.410 0.383
SS 10 t ha–1 4.100 4.250 5.480 5.670 4.875 0.330 0.350 0.380 0.400 0.365
SS 20 t ha–1
4.320 4.550 5.730 5.930 5.133 0.380 0.390 0.440 0.450 0.415
Mean 3.549 3.833 4.404 4.577 0.303 0.324 0.356 0.380
S.Em(±)
C.D.
(0.05)
S.Em(±) C.D. (0.05)
Main 0.050 0.01 0.003 0.173
Sub 0.036 0.03 0.011 0.103
M × S
0.125 NS 0.011 0.385
Anjaiah and Rao 2016
Place: Rajendranagar, Soil type: Sandy loam

26. Fig. 07: Root and shoot dry weights of basil plant under different levels of gamma
irradiated (kiloGrays) and non-irradiated sewage sludge (Green house)
Behnam et al.,2019
Iran Sandy clay loam

27. Table 10: Yield parameters of triticale plants grown in sewage sludge and
compost treatments
Treatment DM yield of
above ground
parts (g plant-1)
DM yield of
root parts
(g plant-1)
Ear No.
plant-1
Kernel No.
ear-1
Kernel
weight
ear-1 (g)
Control 1.42b 0.19c 1.00b 27.67b 1.21c
5 t ha-1 sewage sludge 6.7a 1.06ab 3.00a 50.11a 2.15b
10 t ha-1 sewage
sludge
5.95a 1.55a 3.11a 59.00a 2.74b
20 t ha-1 sewage
sludge
5.49a 0.62bc 3.67a 63.33a 3.48a
5 t ha-1 Green waste
compost
0.76bc 0.19c 1.00b 19.77bc 0.75cd
10 t ha-1 Green waste
compost
0.65bc 0.11c 1.11b 16.55bc 0.87cd
20 t ha-1 Green waste
compost
0.34c 0.06c 1.00b 9.29c 0.45d
Rajia et al., 2018
Tunisia, Vertisols
Average values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05

28. Table 11: Selected growth characteristics and total biomass of mung
bean grown at different sewage sludge amendment rates at 65 DAS
Parameters
Unamended
soil
6 kg m−2 SSA 9 kg m−2 SSA 12 kg m−2 SSA
Root length (cm plant-1) 17.67 ± 0.33b 21.0 ± 0.58a 20.67 ± 1.20a 16.67 ± 0.88b
Shoot length (cm plant-1) 38.7 ± 1.5 b 47.7 ± 0.3a 46.7 ± 1.2a 45.0 ± 1.5a
Leaf area (cm2 plant-1) 640.5 ± 7.9b 723.7 ± 5.6a 738.7 ± 16.2a 720.4 ± 8.1a
Number of leaves plant-1 20.33 ± 1.20a 22.20 ± 0.99a 29.67 ± 1.45a 30 ± 2.65a
Number of nodules plant-1 10.00 ± 0.58c 16.33 ± 0.88a 13.33 ± 0.67b 11.33 ± 0.88bc
Total biomass (g plant-1) 22.13 ± 0.19c 26.23 ± 0.43b 26.23 ± 0.43a 27.49 ± 0.83b
Different letters for each parameter show significant difference at p < 0.05 RDF: 10:20:10 kg ha-1 NPK.
Singh and Agarwal, 2010
BHU, Varanasi Sandy loam

29. Fig. 08: Effect of different fertilization treatments including sewage sludge levels
(SS) on yield parameters of Durum Wheat grown under different water stress
(field capacity).
(Control: No fertilization, urea: 35 kg N ha-1 ,SS1: 20 t ha-1 of SS, SS2: 50
t ha-1 of SS, SS3: 100 t ha-1 of SS).
Boudjabi et al. 2019
Algeria Sandy loam

30. Fig. 09: Effect of different levels of biochar application on yield attributed and yields
(straw and grain) of rice in soil amended with sewage sludge
Hanuman et al., 2018
Treatments: T1–Control, T2 – 100% RDF, T3 – 30 t ha−1 SS+RDN50, T4 – 2.5 t ha−1 BC+30 t ha−1 SS
+50% RDN, T5 – 5.0 t ha−1 BC+30 t ha−1 SS +50% RDN, T6 –7.5 t ha−1 BC+30 t ha−1 SS +50%
RDN, T7 –10 t ha−1 BC+30 t ha−1 SS +50% RDN, T8 –15 t ha−1 BC+30 t ha−1 SS +50% RDN, T9 –20
t ha−1 BC+30 t ha−1 SS +50% RDN
BHU, Varanasi Alluvial

31. Table. 12: Effect of sewage sludge application on apparent nutrient use
efficiency (%) of spinach
Treatment Apparent nutrient use efficiency (%)
N P K Zn
Control - - - -
RDF 50.0 14.7 37.4 -
RDF + 5 t ha-1 SS 25.9 6.06 13.7 5.64
RDF + 10 t ha-1 SS 17.2 6.47 10.6 5.06
RDF + 15 t ha-1 SS 14.2 6.33 9.95 4.22
RDF + 20 t ha-1 SS 12.8 6.82 9.30 4.04
RDF + 25 t ha-1 SS 10.1 5.87 7.14 3.48
RDF + 30 t ha-1 SS 7.90 5.52 6.24 2.83
RDF +35 t ha-1 SS 6.30 4.93 5.74 2.58
RDF + 40 t ha-1 SS 5.33 4.58 5.51 2.26
CD (P<0.05) 2.60 1.22 9.61 0.89
Adyasha et al., 2020
BHU, U.P,
RDF: N, P and K @ 80, 50 and 50 kg ha-1 , respectively

32. Fig. 10: Effects of different soil amendments on total dry weight (A) and Root-shoot ratio
(B) of maize at 49 DAS. (D =7% N:14% P2O5:7% K2O)+ammonium nitrate (AN, 34.5% N)
Error bars denote the standard error of the mean (Sludge and biochar 15 g kg-1soil).
Willis et al., 2016
Zimbabwe

33. Fig.11: Effects of different sewage sludge amendment doses on yield parameters of
barley in pot culture experiment
Ebrahem et al., 2019
Egypt

34. Table 13: The cost and net return in peri urban horticulture with application of
Heated sewage sludge (HSS 150-180 ºc) three varieties of lettuce
Variety
Yield (kg100 m-2) Revenue (US $ 100
m-2)
Total cost (US $
100 m-2)
Net returns (US $
100 m-2)
Control (SS 200 kg
100 m-2), NPK 3.75
kg 100 m-2)
NG 77 163 46 117
AV 95 201 46 155
GL 95 203 46 157
HSS 20 kg 100 m-2
NG 31 66 12 54
AV 99 210 12 198
GL 78 165 12 153
HSS 50 kg 100 m-2
NG 180 382 28 354
AV 335 712 28 684
GL 286 609 28 581
HSS 100 kg 100 m-2
NG 290 617 56 561
AV 431 916 56 860
GL 421 897 56 841
Hayashi et al., 2010
ICRISAT, West Africa
**Unit price of HSS = 0.39 US$ kg1

35. Table 14: Cd and Pb average of 3 years concentrations in soil before and
after sewage sludge application (Wheat)
Experimental
conditions
After spreading
in 201
After spreading
in 2013
After spreading
in 2014
Permissable
limit
(MEWMR,2008)
Cd
(mg
kg-1)
Pb (mg
kg-1)
Cd
(mg
kg-1)
Pb (mg
kg-1)
Cd
(mg
kg-1)
Pb (mg
kg-1)
Cd
(mg
kg-1)
Pb (mg
kg-1)
No sewage
sludge
0.67 8.60 0.68 9.20 0.70 10.05 10 300
10 t ha-1
sewage sludge
0.71 9.10 0.74 11.80 0.75 13.60 10 300
25 t ha-1
sewage sludge
0.82 11.60 0.88 15.15 0.93 17.99 10 300
40 t ha-1
sewage sludge
0.95 13.40 1.02 16.27 1.04 20.82 10 300
Diana et al., 2017
Romania, Clay loam

36. Table 15: Soil physico-chemical properties as influenced by sewage sludge, Treated waste
water. Weighed average values for the 0-40 cm soil layer (Ten years average)
Parameter Unit S-SS S-TW S-STW S-WR S-NA
Clay % 17.4 21.6 36.8 30.9 12.7
Silt % 44.9 51.3 30.1 42.8 55.8
Sand % 37.7 27.2 33.1 26.3 31.5
Pd g cm-3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4
CEC Meq 100 g-1 15.8 11.4 19.4 19.6 9.8
SOC % 2.0 1.1 1.2 4.4 0.8
pH - 7.5 7.2 7.6 7.7 7.0
C/N 9.7 13.2 10.7 45.0 9.3
SAR Mmol l-1 1.4 1.2 2.2 1.2 3.8
ESP % 2.5 1.3 1.6 1.2 5.8
Rabia et al., 2018
Loam to clay-loam Algeria, NorthAfrica

37. Table 16: Transfer factor (Tf) of heavy metals for the soils to vegetable samples
Metals
Tf of heavy metals for the SIFW
Okra
Cluster
bean
Brinjal
Bitter
gouard
Spinach
Pepper
mint
Peas
Zn 18.30 13.26 13.52 13.83 14.61 29.48 16.65
Cr 2.16 1.18 1.14 1.71 1.71 0.98 1.75
Ni 16.27 16.22 10.81 9.86 11.89 15.95 15.14
Pb 0.67 0.48 0.18 0.18 0.73 0.29 0.49
Cd 0.40 0.80 0.40 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.50
Tf of heavy metals for SIDWS
Zn 12.60 10.10 9.28 9.53 10.05 17.11 5.60
Cr 0.76 0.44 0.40 0.60 0.60 0.64 0.50
Ni 18.68 8.14 4.34 3.91 4.65 8.91 4.57
Pb 0.54 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.58 0.68 0.36
Cd 0.16 0.23 0.20 0.07 0.37 0.30 0.23
(SIFW): Soil irrigated with fresh canal water ; (SIDWS): Soil amended with and irrigated with waste water; Transfer
factor = Total metals in vegtables/EDTA extractable metals in soil
Jamali et al., 2007
Rangareddy

38. Conclusions:
• Application of sewage sludge as soil fertilizer to improve soil
physical, chemical and biological properties and also plants shows
higher physiological adaptations to drought conditions especially in
arid and semi arid areas.
• Under water scarce areas use of treated waste water will give higher
income and even untreated waste water will mixed with definite
proportion of normal water in limited water available areas
especially during critical growth stages will fetch the yields.
• Use of sewage sludge and waste water with suitable
absorbent(Biochar) will helps in avoiding of heavy metal
accumulation.
• The heavy metals translocation will be less from root to above
ground portion and compared to grain crops and vegetables leaf
vegetable accumulate more heavy metals so, use of waste water and
sewage sludge for leafy vegetables growing should be avoid.

39. Future line of work:
• Among the different grain crops which crop is more tolerant to
higher dose of sewage sludge and waste water to be studied.
• Standardization of sewage sludge quantity need to be
addressed for each crop.
• Effect of composting process on heavy metal concentration in
sewage sludge has to be verified.