Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Performance-based criteria for safe and circular digestate use in agriculture

40 Views


Abstract

Anaerobic digestion converts organic waste into renewable energy (biogas) and recyclable nutrients (digestate), generating over one billion tons of digestate annually. While this represents a major resource, its safe reuse remains a bottleneck for nutrient circularity, particularly for closing global nitrogen loops. We analyzed digestates from 23 full-scale digesters in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark across whole, liquid, and solid fractions using germination index (GI) assays and chemical profiling. Three parameters predicted phytotoxicity: total ammonia nitrogen (TAN ≥ 1,122 mg N L− 1), potassium (K ≥ 39.6 × 103 mg kg− 1), and boron (B ≥ 22.5 mg kg− 1). When all thresholds were exceeded, germination indices dropped below 50% in every case. Based on these findings, we propose a decision-ready framework linking TAN-K-B thresholds to germination outcomes, guiding mitigation through acidification, stripping, blending, or source control. This outcome-based screening reduces monitoring complexity while maintaining compliance with EU and US pollutant ceilings. Its implementation strengthens nitrogen use efficiency, curbs NH3 and N2O emissions, and secures crop establishment. By shifting from origin-based restrictions to performance-based thresholds, our framework provides transparent certification, builds farmer confidence, and positions digestate reuse as a global lever for climate mitigation, nutrient circularity, and food system resilience.

Similar content being viewed by others

​ Uncovering associations between DUS test traits and biochemical composition in safflower germplasm​​

Article
Open access
05 December 2025

Addressing nitrogenous gases from croplands toward low-emission agriculture

Article
Open access
02 June 2022

Biochar addition influences C and N dynamics during biochar co-composting and the nutrient content of the biochar co-compost

Article
Open access
10 October 2024

Data availability

All data underlying the figures and analyses are provided as Source Data files. Additional processed tables and metadata are available in the Supplementary Material.

References

  1. Richardson, K. et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fu, Z. et al. A comprehensive review on the Preparation of Biochar from digestate sources and its application in environmental pollution remediation. Sci. Total Environ. 912, 168822 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ciurli, A. et al. Dried anaerobic digestate from slaughterhouse by-products: emerging cues for a bio-based fertilization. Waste Biomass Valorization. 16, 927–943 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Biogas Association. Exploring Digestate’s Contribution to Healthy Soils. www.europeanbiogas.eu. (2024).

  5. Kadam, R. et al. A review on the anaerobic Co-Digestion of livestock manures in the context of sustainable waste management. Energies (Basel). 17, 546 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alberici, S., Wouter, G. & Toop, G. Feasibility of REPowerEU 2030 targets, production potentials in the Member States and outlook to 2050. (2022).

  7. Samoraj, M. et al. The challenges and perspectives for anaerobic digestion of animal waste and fertilizer application of the digestate. Chemosphere 295, 133799 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Surendra, K. C., Takara, D., Hashimoto, A. G. & Khanal, S. K. Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 846–859 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  9. IEA, I. E. A. Outlook for Biogas and Biomethane: Prospects for Organic Growth. (2020). https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/03aeb10c-c38c-4d10-bcec-de92e9ab815f/Outlook_for_biogas_and_biomethane.pdf

  10. Pecorini, I. et al. Evaluation of MSW compost and digestate mixtures for a circular economy application. Sustainability 12, 3042 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carraro, G., Tonderski, K. & Enrich-Prast, A. Solid-liquid separation of digestate from biogas plants: A systematic review of the techniques’ performance. J. Environ. Manage. 356, 120585 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tallaksen, J., Bauer, F., Hulteberg, C., Reese, M. & Ahlgren, S. Nitrogen fertilizers manufactured using wind power: greenhouse gas and energy balance of community-scale ammonia production. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 626–635 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shi, L. & Zhu, H. En route to a circular nitrogen economy. Nat. Sustain. 7, 1221–1222 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  14. AHDB. Nutrient Management Guide (RB209). (2023).

  15. IPCC. Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Mitigation of Climate Change. (2022).

  16. Daramola, D. A. & Hatzell, M. C. Energy demand of nitrogen and phosphorus based fertilizers and approaches to circularity. ACS Energy Lett. 8, 1493–1501 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Giwa, A. S. et al. Advancing resource recovery from sewage sludge with IoT-based bioleaching and anaerobic digestion techniques. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 13, 116293 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lazzari, A. et al. Evaluating urban sewage sludge distribution on agricultural land using interpolation and machine learning techniques. Agriculture 15, 202 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rocha, F., Ratola, N. & Homem, V. Heavy metal(loid)s and nutrients in sewage sludge in Portugal – Suitability for use in agricultural soils and assessment of potential risks. Sci. Total Environ. 964, 178595 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  20. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019. Off. J. Eur. Union L 170, 1–114 (2019).

  21. CONAMA. Resolução no 498, de 19 de agosto de 2020 [Resolution No. 498, of August 19, 2020]. (2020).

  22. Zhang, B., Zhou, X., Ren, X., Hu, X. & Ji, B. Recent research on municipal sludge as soil fertilizer in china: a review. Water Air Soil. Pollut. 234, 119 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Logan, M. & Visvanathan, C. Management strategies for anaerobic digestate of organic fraction of municipal solid waste: current status and future prospects. Waste Manage. Res. 37, 27–39 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lencioni, G., Imperiale, D., Cavirani, N., Marmiroli, N. & Marmiroli, M. Environmental application and phytotoxicity of anaerobic digestate from pig farming by in vitro and in vivo trials. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13, 2549–2560 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hatamleh, A. A., Danish, M., Al-Dosary, M. A., El-Zaidy, M. & Ali, S. Physiological and oxidative stress responses of solanum lycopersicum (L.) (tomato) when exposed to different chemical pesticides. RSC Adv. 12, 7237–7252 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fast, B. J. et al. Aminopyralid soil residues affect rotational vegetable crops in Florida. Pest Manag Sci. 67, 825–830 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Soukupová, M. & Koudela, M. Impacts of aminopyralid on tomato seedlings. Horticulturae 9, 456 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Abdourahime, H. et al. Modification of the existing maximum residue levels for aminopyralid in certain cereals. EFSA J. 17, 1–30 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  29. van Midden, C., Harris, J., Shaw, L., Sizmur, T. & Pawlett, M. The impact of anaerobic digestate on soil life: A review. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 191, 105066 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kabata-Pendias, A. & Szteke, B. Trace Elements in Abiotic and Biotic Environments (CRC, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1201/b18198

  31. Quina, M. J. et al. Studies on the chemical stabilisation of digestate from mechanically recovered organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Biomass Valorization. 6, 711–721 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Li, S. et al. A critical review of plant adaptation to environmental Boron stress: Uptake, utilization, and interplay with other abiotic and biotic factors. Chemosphere 338, 139474 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Broadley, M. R., White, P. J., Hammond, J. P., Zelko, I. & Lux, A. Zinc in plants. New Phytol. 173, 677–702 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sarker, S., Lamb, J. J., Hjelme, D. R. & Lien, K. M. A review of the role of critical parameters in the design and operation of biogas production plants. Appl. Sci. 9, 1915 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rivero-Marcos, M. et al. Plant ammonium sensitivity is associated with external pH adaptation, repertoire of nitrogen transporters, and nitrogen requirement. J. Exp. Bot. 75, 3557–3578 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Britto, D. T. & Kronzucker, H. J. NH4 + toxicity in higher plants: a critical review. J. Plant. Physiol. 159, 567–584 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Atta, K. et al. Impacts of salinity stress on crop plants: improving salt tolerance through genetic and molecular dissection. Front. Plant. Sci. 14, 1241736 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  38. An, X. et al. Nutrient dynamics during the growth period of epimedium pubescens and its impact on growth and Icariin-Flavonoids composition. Ind. Crops Prod. 225, 120520 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pandey, A., Khan, M. K., Hakki, E. E., Gezgin, S. & Hamurcu, M. Combined Boron toxicity and salinity stress—An insight into its interaction in plants. Plants 8, 364 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bony, L., Dhar, A., Wilkinson, S. R. & Naeth, M. A. Assessing electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio as soil salinity indicators in reclaimed well sites. Land. (Basel). 14, 2125 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lilay, G. H. et al. Linking the key physiological functions of essential micronutrients to their deficiency symptoms in plants. New. Phytol. 242, 881–902 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gjata, I., van Drimmelen, C. K. E., Tommasi, F., Paciolla, C. & Heise, S. Impact of rare Earth elements in sediments on the growth and photosynthetic efficiency of the benthic plant myriophyllum aquaticum. J. Soils Sediments. 24, 3814–3823 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tyler, G. Rare Earth elements in soil and plant systems – A review. Plant. Soil. 267, 191–206 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Council of the European Communities. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources. (1991). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0676

  45. Wang, R. et al. Electrochemical ammonia recovery and co-production of chemicals from manure wastewater. Nat. Sustain. 7, 179–190 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kanter, D. R., Chodos, O., Nordland, O., Rutigliano, M. & Winiwarter, W. Gaps and opportunities in nitrogen pollution policies around the world. Nat. Sustain. 3, 956–963 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jwaideh, M. A. A. & Dalin, C. The multi-dimensional environmental impact of global crop commodities. Nat. Sustain. 8, 396–410 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Brueck, C. L., Nason, S. L., Multra, M. G. & Prasse, C. Assessing the fate of antibiotics and agrochemicals during anaerobic digestion of animal manure. Sci. Total Environ. 856, 159156 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Coggins, S. et al. Data-driven strategies to improve nitrogen use efficiency of rice farming in South Asia. Nat. Sustain. 8, 22–33 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  50. American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. APHA vol. 21. (American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, 2005).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was partly financed by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) through PhD and post doctoral scholarship for TMA. HRO thanks the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the PhD scholarship. AE-P and AB gratefully acknowledge financial support from the funding agency Formas [Grant number: 2021-02429] and from the Swedish Energy Agency [Grant number: 35624-2] at the Biogas Research Solutions Center hosted by Linköping University, Sweden, respectively.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Linköping University. This research was funded by Formas [Grant number: 2021–02429] and from the Swedish Energy Agency [Grant number: 35624-2] at the Biogas Research Solutions Center hosted by Linköping University, Sweden.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biotecnologia Vegetal e Bioprocessos, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Thuane Mendes Anacleto

  2. Unidade Multiusuário de Análises Ambientais, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Thuane Mendes Anacleto, Helena Rodrigues Oliveira & Alex Enrich-Prast

  3. Biogas Solutions Research Center, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Thuane Mendes Anacleto, Helena Rodrigues Oliveira, Giacomo Carraro, Luka Šafarič, Sepehr Yekta Shakeri, Annika Björn & Alex Enrich-Prast

  4. Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca (CEFET/RJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Helena Rodrigues Oliveira

  5. Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Giacomo Carraro, Luka Šafarič, Sepehr Yekta Shakeri, Annika Björn & Alex Enrich-Prast

  6. Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Technologies, Sumy State University, Sumy, Ukraine

    Polina Skvortsova

  7. Instituto de Agronomia, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Érika Flávia Machado Pinheiros

  8. Institute of Marine Science, Federal University of São Paulo (IMar/UNIFESP), Santos, Brazil

    Alex Enrich-Prast

Authors

  1. Thuane Mendes Anacleto
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helena Rodrigues Oliveira
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giacomo Carraro
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Polina Skvortsova
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luka Šafarič
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sepehr Yekta Shakeri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Annika Björn
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Érika Flávia Machado Pinheiros
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alex Enrich-Prast
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.M.A.: Conceptualization, methodology, experimental analysis, formal analysis, writing – original draft. H.R.O.: Writing – review & editing, experimental analysis, formal analysis. G.C.: Writing – review & editing experimental analysis. P.S.: Experimental analysis. L.Š.: Writing – review & editing. S.Y.S.: Writing – review & editing. A.B.: Writing – review & editing. E.F.M.P.: Writing – review & editing. A.E.-P.: Supervision, writing – review & editing. All authors discussed the results and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Alex Enrich-Prast.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anacleto, T.M., Oliveira, H.R., Carraro, G. et al. Performance-based criteria for safe and circular digestate use in agriculture.
Sci Rep (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-33314-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-33314-x

Keywords

  • Biofertilizer
  • Phytotoxicity
  • Circular economy
  • Nutrient recovery
  • Solid-liquid separation

Source: Ecology - nature.com

A high-resolution machine learning and multi-source remote sensing approach for estimating net primary productivity in campus green spaces

Effect of leguminous green manures on alleviating continuous cropping obstacles in muskmelon cultivation

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close