# Non-Invasive Acidic Pretreatment Technology of Anaerobic Digestion of Waste-Activated Sludge (WAS) on Biogas Production: Unveiling the Role of Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPSs) and Pharmaceutical Degradation

Dragana Žmukić, Ljiljana Milovanović, Nataša Slijepčević, Nataša Duduković, Đurđa Kerkez, Lila Boudahmane, Emilie Caupos, Julien Le Roux, Régis Moilleron, Anita S Leovac Maćerak

► To cite this version:

Dragana Žmukić, Ljiljana Milovanović, Nataša Slijepčević, Nataša Duduković, Đurđa Kerkez, et al. Non-Invasive Acidic Pretreatment Technology of Anaerobic Digestion of Waste-Activated Sludge (WAS) on Biogas Production: Unveiling the Role of Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPSs) and Pharmaceutical Degradation. Molecules, 2026, 31 (2), pp.269. 10.3390/molecules31020269. hal-05455909

HAL Id: hal-05455909

https://hal.u-pec.fr/hal-05455909v1

Submitted on 13 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Article

# Non-Invasive Acidic Pretreatment Technology of Anaerobic
Digestion of Waste-Activated Sludge (WAS) on Biogas
Production: Unveiling the Role of Extracellular Polymeric
Substances (EPSs) and Pharmaceutical Degradation

Dragana S. Žmukić <fnref n="1" />,* ¹D, Ljiljana Milovanović ¹D, Nataša Slijepčević ¹D, Nataša Duduković ¹D, Đurđa Kerkez ¹D,
Lila Boudahmane <fnref n="2" />, Emilie Caupos ²D, Julien Le Roux ²D, Régis Moilleron ²D and Anita S. Leovac Maćerak ¹D

## Abstract

Non-invasive acidic pretreatments using acetic acid (1–5 mM) and citric acid (0.02–0.1 g g⁻<fnref n="1" /> TS) were investigated to enhance anaerobic digestion (AD) of waste-activated sludge (WAS). Both pretreatments improved short-term process stability, with pH (6.5–7.1) and alkalinity (1000–5000 mg CaCO₃ L⁻<fnref n="1" />) remaining within optimal ranges during 10-day digestion. Acetic acid markedly enhanced solubilization and acidification, increasing volatile fatty acids to ~2500 mg L⁻<fnref n="1" /> (+67% vs. control), whereas citric acid achieved ~2000 mg L⁻<fnref n="1" /> (+37%). EPS analysis revealed pronounced redistribution of polysaccharides and proteins, with acetic acid inducing stronger disruption of the EPS matrix (SB-EPS polysaccharides up to 34.1 mg eq Glc mL⁻<fnref n="1" />). Specific methane yield increased from 28.5 mL CH₄ g⁻<fnref n="1" /> VS (control) to 101.7 mL CH₄ g⁻<fnref n="1" /> VS with acetic acid (3.6-fold) and to 73.8 mL CH₄ g⁻<fnref n="1" /> VS with citric acid (2.5-fold). Gompertz modeling confirmed higher maximum methane potential, ~68% higher maximum methane production rates, and reduced lag phases for both pretreatments. In contrast, pharmaceutical concentrations (31 compounds) were largely unaffected by acid pretreatment, with significant reductions observed only for selected biodegradable molecules.

**Keywords:** anaerobic digestion; sludge; acidic treatment; EPS; pharmaceuticals

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

Academic Editor: Łukasz Chrzanowski

Received: 25 November 2025

Revised: 3 January 2026

Accepted: 8 January 2026

Published: 13 January 2026

**Copyright:** © 2026 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the [Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## 1. Introduction

Wastewater treatment processes result in the production of significant amounts of sludge, a complex mixture of microorganisms, extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs), and residual organic and inorganic matter. Among the organic substances present, pharmaceuticals are especially noteworthy due to how they enter the wastewater system and their tendency to accumulate and persist in the sludge [1,2]. Sludge management accounts for almost half of the total operational costs of wastewater treatment plants [3], yet it represents a potential resource when stabilized and valorized through anaerobic digestion (AD) [4].

Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that converts organic matter into biogas through four main stages: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis [5]. This is one of the most environmentally friendly methods in sludge management [6].

<footnote n="1">¹ Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21125 Novi Sad, Serbia; anita.leovac@dh.uns.ac.rs (A.S.L.M.)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² LEESU, University Paris Est Creteil, ENPC, Institute Polytechnique de Paris, 94010 Creteil, France; julien.le-roux@u-pec.fr (J.L.R.); moilleron@u-pec.fr (R.M.)</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: dragana.zmukic@dh.uns.ac.rs</footnote>
The problem with anaerobic digestion can be the decomposition of complex organic struc-
tures, which is affected by factors such as process conditions, sludge content, microbial
communities, and many others. Hydrolysis is generally recognized as the rate-limiting step,
as the complex structure of EPS limits the accessibility of organic substrates to microorgan-
isms [7,8]. EPS, composed mainly of polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, and DNA, forms
soluble (S-EPS), loosely bound (LB-EPS), and tightly bound (TB-EPS) layers, with TB-EPS
being particularly resistant to degradation [9–11]. They produce various microorganisms
which consume organic matter during the biological treatment of wastewater [12].

In order to overcome the existing shortcomings and to increase the yield of biogas,
various pretreatments are applied. Pretreatments are commonly employed to enhance
hydrolysis efficiency and biogas yield by disrupting EPS and increasing substrate acces-
sibility [13]. There are various physical, chemical and biological pretreatments that are
applied. Chemical pretreatments are based on the application of acids, bases and oxidiz-
ers [2,14]. Chemical pretreatments are among the most effective [15], but conventional
acids such as H2SO4, HCl, and HNO3 are often corrosive and environmentally harmful [16].
In addition, there are various physical pretreatments, such as application ultrasonication,
microwaves, electro-kinetic disintegration, that would improve the decomposition of or-
ganic matter [17]. Physical pretreatments have certain disadvantages such as high energy
consumption and the inefficiency of the process. Biological pretreatments can include
aerobic pretreatment, anaerobic pretreatment and the addition of enzymes that promote
the disintegration of organic matter. The disadvantage of these pretreatments is that they
can be very expensive and unprofitable [2]. One of the most critical parameters for the
sustainable improvement of anaerobic digestion sludge is the achievement of energy and
economic efficiency [18]. In addition, ecological performance methods are an important
parameter [19]. Therefore, the pretreatments should meet several different parameters,
which poses additional challenges when improving anaerobic digestion. In recent studies,
various less invasive pretreatments have been emphasized. One of the more environ-
mentally friendly ways of improving anaerobic digestion is the use of carbon-conductive
materials such as biochar [20,21]. In addition, there are other ways to increase biogas yield
using less harmful chemicals that could potentially enhance the anaerobic digestion of
sludge. For this reason, attention has shifted toward environmentally benign, green or
"non-invasive" acids.

Acidogenesis is one of the first phases of anaerobic digestion in which volatile fatty
acids (VFAs) are produced. Monomers formed in the hydrolysis phase are converted into
volatile fatty acids by acidogenic bacteria in the acidogenic phase. Fermentation products
such as acetate can be used by methanogenic bacteria to produce methane [22]. The ad-
dition of acetic acid could potentially enhance VFA production, which would affect the
methanogenic phase and methane production [23]. Also, depending on the concentration
used, acetic acid is one of the less harmful chemicals [24], compared to other acids. Citric
acid is a widely used carboxylic acid. It is most often used in the food and pharmaceu-
tical industry. It is a cheap acid, and is harmless and easily degradable by microorgan-
isms [25]. Citric acid effectively disrupts outer EPS layers, enhancing dewaterability and
solubilization [26,27].

The objectives of the study are to (1) evaluate the effects of *non-invasive* acetic and citric
acid pretreatments on WAS solubilization and hydrolysis; (2) investigate EPS disruption
and redistribution of polysaccharides and proteins; (3) quantify improvements in methane
production and AD kinetics during rapid 10-day BMP tests; (4) assess the impact on
pharmaceutical micropollutant degradation; and (5) compare the effectiveness of acetic
acid versus citric acid pretreatment. This work is, to the best of our knowledge, the first
to explore the combined effects of such pretreatments on biogas yield, EPS degradation, and pharmaceutical occurrence in anaerobically digested waste-activated sludge.

## 2. Results and Discussion

### 2.1. *Impact of Non-Invasive Acidic Pretreatments on Anaerobic Fermentation Performances*

The stability parameters of the anaerobic digestion process are the environmental variables which affect the harmonic relationship between acid formers and methane formers during the AD process. Disturbance of these parameters affects the efficiency of methane formers, which causes the accumulation of acids in the reactor and may lead to process failure. Those factors are VFA concentration, pH, alkalinity and VFA/alkalinity ratio [28], and it should be noted that they reflect short-term process stability during 10-day digestion period. The AD performance from WAS pretreated with different concentrations of acetic and citric acid was first evaluated. Acidification is an important step in AD, and VFA, alkalinity and pH changes are the main parameters during the acidification process. As shown in Figure 1, VFA in the supernatant after AD increased with the increase in dosage of both acids, implying a positive effect of non-invasive acidic pretreatments on the anaerobic fermentation process. Concerning acetic acid pretreatment, VFA increased with the increase in digestion time following the same trend at all investigated dosages and reached a plateau after the eighth day. The VFA was around 2500 mg/L at the 5 mM acetic acid, which increased around 67% of that in the control test (around 1500 mg/L). Clearly, the addition of acetic acid improved the solubilization and hydrolysis efficacy of WAS. This performance was similar to that of the previous VFA production, which involved other pretreatments [29,30]. The VFAs displayed a similar tendency during citric acid pretreatment but exhibited lower VFA production in comparison to the acetic acid pretreatment. The VFA production was nearly 2000 mg/L at the highest citric acid concentration (0.1 g/g TS) and that enhancement was about 37% in comparison to the control test. One can draw the conclusion that overall acetic acid pretreatment was 1.8 times greater than with citric acid. The better performance of acetic acid in contrast to citric acid is expected due to chemical structure, biodegradability and microbial pathways. Citric acid is a larger, more complex tricarboxylic acid which is slowly degradable. In the presence of macronutrients (iron, calcium, magnesium) CA can chelate metal ions. Because of its mild antimicrobial characteristics, especially at low pH, CA can suppress hydrolytic or acidogenic bacteria needed for VFA production. But when it comes to practical application, CA may be more useful in controlled pH regulation [31].

The initial and final pH of all the bottles was measured as presented in Figure 2. Initial pHs for all the bottles were in the range of 6.5 to 7.6 which was in a suitable range for AD. The final pH of all bottles was in the range of 6.5 to 7.1. Methane-producing organisms require an optimal pH range of 6.5–8.2. When the pH value is higher than 8.5, it has toxic effects on the AD process.

Apart from pH, alkalinity is another reliable parameter to assess the balance of the AD process. In this study, the only source of external alkalinity was inoculum. No additional chemical alkalinity was added in the bottles. The initial and final alkalinities of the reactor bottles are shown in Figure 3. The total alkalinity before the incubation ranged from 900 mg CaCO₃/L to 4000 mg CaCO₃/L, resulting in a good system performance, as the experiments remained within the optimal range of 1000 to 5000 mg CaCO₃/L. This range of 1000 to 5000 mg CaCO₃/L ensures the buffer capacity within the mixture and avoids large alkalinity variations. At the end of the experiment, CaCO₃ concentration increased in all samples. As methane-forming bacteria consumed the volatile acids, alkalinity increased, and pH was kept stable, leading to positive effects on the AD conditions.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Effects of acid concentrations: (a) acetic acid 1 mM–5 mM and (b) citric acid 0.02–0.1 g/g TS on the VFA changes.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** *Cont.*</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Effects of acid concentrations: (a) acetic acid 1 mM–5 mM and (b) citric acid 0.02–0.1 g/g TS on the pH changes.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Effects of concentrations: (a) acetic acid 1 mM–5 mM and (b) citric acid 0.02–0.1 g/g TS on the alkalinity changes.</figcaption></figure>

Additionally, 0.4 is thought to be a sign of healthy anaerobic digestion [32,33].

Angelidaki et al. [34] also consider that organic materials with VS content higher than 80% are susceptible to good degradability. When it comes to ACET treatment, the removal efficiencies were in the range 61.2–87.9%, while the removal range in the case of CIT acid was 44.2–94.7% (Figure 4).
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Effects of concentrations: acetic acid 1 mM–5 mM and citric acid 0.02–0.1 g/g TS S on the VS removal.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2. Impact of Non-Invasive Acidic Pretreatments on Methane Production

Figure 5a,b illustrates the impact of acetic acid and citric acid, respectively, on the methane production kinetics and the control condition without the addition of acids. The Gompertz model equation (Equation (1)) was fitted to the experimental specific methane production (SMP) obtained to estimate the kinetic parameters that describe the methane production, allowing a quantitative comparison between the studied conditions. Figure 5a,b shows cumulative daily SMP values, whereas the Gompertz model parameters are summarized in Table 1. The results were presented as means with the standard deviation of each determined parameter. The SMP production of WAS assessed under different concentrations of acetic acid (1–5 mM), which are presented in Figure 1a. Methane production was monitored for 10 days, reaching 28.5 mL CH₄/g VS in control and from 38.6, 43.6, 45.8, 76.0 and 101.7 mL CH₄/g VS for the acetic acid range of 1–5 mM, pointing to a significant increase with the increase with the addition of acetic acid in comparison to the control. Specifically, SMP increases from 35.4% to 256.8% with the increase in acetic acid concentration.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Maximum specific methane potential (M∞), maximum specific methane production rate (μmax), lag phase (λ) and coefficient of determination (R²) with standard deviation (triplicate) for the Gompertz kinetic model.</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameter</th><th>λ (d)</th><th>μ<sub>max</sub><br>(mL CH<sub>4</sub> g<sup>-1</sup> VS d<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>M<sub>∞</sub><br>(mL CH<sub>4</sub> g<sup>-1</sup> VS)</th><th>R<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Control</td><td>1.3 ± 0.1</td><td>5.1 ± 0.6</td><td>29.1 ± 0.5</td><td>0.999 ± 0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Acetic acid (5 mM)</td><td>0.8 ± 0.1</td><td>16.4 ± 0.2</td><td>104.1 ± 0.8</td><td>0.996 ± 0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Citric acid (0.1 g/gTS)</td><td>1.0 ± 0.1</td><td>16.2 ± 0.2</td><td>73.3 ± 2.8</td><td>0.998 ± 0.002</td></tr></tbody></table>

CIT treatment (Figure 5b) showed a similar increasing trend with the increase in CIT concentration: 26.6, 38.0, 36.3, 42.5 and 73.8 mL CH₄/g VS for a range of 0.02–0.1 g/g TS. Based on Figure 5b, it could be indicated that significant variables were not observed at a lower CIT concentration. Specifically, SMP decreased by 7.2% at the dosage of 0.02 g CIT/g TS in comparison with the control. Additionally, a similar enhancement of SMP production of ~20% can be observed at concentrations of 0.04 and 0.06 g CIT/g TS. A significant increase of more than 30% is obtained at higher investigated concentrations > 0.08 g CIT/g TS.

The results showed that methane production of AD probes with ACET pretreatment at 1 mM–5 mM on digested sludge was effectively enhanced, with the highest production
being 3.56 times of that observed in the control AD without ACET addition. When it comes to CIT pretreatment of AD probes, improved methane production was achieved at higher CIT concentration 0.08 and 0.1 g CIT/g TS, with the highest SMP of 2.59 in comparison to the control sample. Tang et al. [27], Amnuaycheewa et al. [35], and Garcia Gomes et al. [36] came to similar conclusions when investigating the same organic acids' pretreatments' effect on the AD of sewage sludge, sugarcane bagasse and rice straw, respectively.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Cumulative specific methane production (SMP) with standard deviation for experimental data and the Gompertz model curve at different (a) acetic acid (1 mM–5 mM) and (b) citric acid (0.02–0.1 g/g TS) concentrations.</figcaption></figure>

The maximum specific methane production ($M_\infty$) obtained from the Gompertz model shows great fitting between experimental and modeled results. One-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of acid pretreatment on the maximum methane potential ($M_\infty$) ($p < 0.05$), following the order acetic acid > citric acid > control, with all pairwise differences being statistically significant. $M_\infty$ obtained in the presence of the highest acetic acid concentration of 5 mM (104.1 mL CH$_4$ g$^{-1}$ VS) is 3.58 times higher than that in the control (29.1 mL CH$_4$ g$^{-1}$ VS). Thus, the addition of acetic acid had an impact on methane
production during the anaerobic digestion of WAS. Acetic acid pretreatment could mecha-
nistically influence AD and biogas yield because of organic matter solubilization acting
as a weak acid by lowering the pH of the sludge matrix. In this way, ACET pretreatment
disrupts EPS and microbial flocs, easily releases biodegradable organics and makes more
available proteins, carbohydrates and lipids (through hydrolysis step) for fermentative
and methanogenic bacteria. Acetic acid is not only a pretreatment reagent but also a direct
substrate for methanogens, particularly acetoclastic methanogens, which convert acetate
into methane (CH₄) and CO₂. In this way, the upstream fermentation of more complex
compounds is omitted, providing a direct source of methanogenic substrate. Acetic acid
has a mild buffering effect at low concentrations, helping stabilize pH during early fer-
mentation, maintaining conditions favorable for acidogens and acetogens. Introducing
acetic acid reduces the need for upstream fermentation processes and promotes acetoclastic
methane production.

In the case of citric acid pretreatment, M∞ obtained in the presence of the highest citric acid concentration of 0.1 g/g TS (73.3 mL CH4 g⁻¹ VS) is 2.52 times higher than that in the control (29.1 mL CH4 g⁻¹ VS). Citric acid also disrupts EPS structure by chelating divalent cations (like Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺) that stabilize EPS matrices and lowering pH, which solubilizes proteins and polysaccharides, making substrates more bioavailable for acidogenic and methanogenic microbes. Gayathri et al. [37] used citric acid to remove EPS from waste-activated sludge, followed by ultrasonic pretreatment. Methane yield increased significantly (up to 0.43 L/g VS). Citric acid is a weak triprotic acid and contributes to the acidification of the sludge, lowering pH. In moderate doses, this shifts fermentation pathways, enhancing VFA production, particularly acetic acid, the main precursor of methane via acetoclastic methanogenesis. Citric acid can also serve as a carbon source, which is fermented into VFAs by acidogenic bacteria.

The maximum methane production rate (μmax) was another parameter used to describe the methane production kinetics. One-way ANOVA showed that acid pretreatment had a significant effect on the maximum methane production rate (μmax) (p < 0.05), with both acetic and citric acid pretreatments significantly increasing μmax compared to the control, while no significant difference was observed between the two acids. A positive impact of the addition of both acids was detected. The μmax was increased by 67.8% and 68.2% by acetic and citric acid, respectively, compared with the maximum production rate obtained in the control, with values of 16.4 and 16.2 mL CH4 g⁻¹ VS d⁻¹, respectively. On the other hand, the lag phase decreased in both pretreatments, indicating the acceleration of methanogenesis. The lag phase (λ) was significantly affected by acid pretreatment (p < 0.05), with acetic acid pretreatment resulting in a significantly shorter lag phase compared to the control, indicating the accelerated onset of methanogenesis. The increased values of M∞ and μmax on one side, and the decreased value of lag phase on the other side, indicate the prevalence of methanogenesis in relation to other processes.

## 2.3. Degradation of EPS During Non-Invasive Acidic Treatments

Figure 6 summarizes the total polysaccharide and protein concentrations in the ex-
tracellular polymeric substance (EPS) fractions following pretreatment with acetic acid.
In the SB-EPS fraction, polysaccharide content increased (*p* < 0.05) in all treatments ex-
cept the one with the lowest acid concentration, where the measured concentration was
4.318 ± 0.108 mg eq Glc/mL, compared to 5.770 ± 0.661 mg eq Glc/mL in the untreated
control. As the concentration of acetic acid increased, polysaccharide concentration in
SB-EPS rose steadily, reaching a maximum of 34.10 ± 0.344 mg eq Glc/mL. Throughout
all acetic acid treatments, SB-EPS consistently contained higher polysaccharide levels than
LB-EPS, which likely reflects the transfer from LB-EPS to SB-EPS as part of a microorganism-
mediated stress response to acid addition [38]. Within the LB-EPS fraction, polysaccharide concentrations generally exceeded control values except at the highest acid dosage, where a decline was observed. LB-EPS polysaccharide content was significantly affected by acid pretreatment (*p* < 0.05). The TB-EPS layer exhibited a modest increase relative to the control; however, at maximum acetic acid concentration, the increase became statistically significant (11.20 ± 1.210 mg eq Glc/mL). These trends may be attributed to the comparatively greater resistance of TB-EPS to breakdown relative to the outer layers. Acetic acid pretreatment significantly influenced SB-EPS protein content (*p* < 0.05), especially at higher dosages. Protein content decreased across most acid treatments in all EPS fractions, except at minimal and maximal acid volumes. When minimal acid was applied, protein concentration increased in the LB-EPS fraction (0.600 ± 0.000 mg eq BSA/mL), which also exhibited higher protein levels than the SB-EPS and TB-EPS layers. At the maximal acid dose, protein content increased in both SB-EPS (4.149 ± 0.340 mg eq BSA/mL) and LB-EPS (0.851 ± 0.012 mg eq BSA/mL). LB-EPS protein content differed significantly among treatments (*p* < 0.05), with acetic acid causing a substantial redistribution of proteins from tightly bound to loosely bound EPS fractions.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** The content of total (a) protein and (b) polysaccharide in EPS fractions during acetic acid (1–5 mM) pretreatment.</figcaption></figure>

These results suggest that acetic acid-induced environmental stress may drive
biomolecular redistribution among EPS layers. Although the relationship between acid
concentration and biomolecular content is not uniformly linear across all fractions, the find-
ings indicate that acetic acid pretreatment can aid the disruption of the rigid EPS matrix,
potentially enhancing biodegradability and structural breakdown.

Citric acid also significantly enhanced SB-, LB-, TB-polysaccharide release compared to the control (p < 0.05). Following citric acid pretreatment (Figure 7), polysaccharide concentrations in the SB-EPS fraction increased across all samples; similar to the response observed under acetic acid, SB-EPS consistently contained the highest polysaccharide levels among EPS layers. At the lowest citric acid concentration (0.02 g/g TS), the LB-EPS fraction exhibited a notable increase, reaching 8.125 ± 0.214 mg eq Glc/mL. As citric acid concentration increased, LB-EPS polysaccharide content fluctuated, ultimately decreasing to 4.697 ± 0.167 mg eq Glc/mL at the highest acid dose. The TB-EPS fraction mirrored this pattern: initial increases in polysaccharide content were followed by a decline at the maximum citric acid mass. These findings align with previously reported effects of citric acid pretreatment at 0.05 g/g suspended solids and an initial pH of 4, where LB-EPS content increased (from ~2.27 to ~5.49 mg/g VSS), while TB-EPS content decreased significantly (from ~12.35 to ~5.01 mg/g VSS), indicating effective disruption of outer EPS layers by citric acid [26]. Citric acid pretreatment induced significant changes in protein content across EPS fractions (p < 0.05), suggesting the partial disruption and redistribution of proteins within the EPS structure. In terms of protein content, increasing citric acid concentration corresponded with elevated protein levels in LB-EPS, whereas protein levels in SB-EPS and TB-EPS generally declined, except at the maximum acid dose, where TB-EPS protein concentration surpassed that of the control. Prior studies indicate that citric acid can induce sharp increases in both protein and carbohydrate across EPS fractions, accompanied by substantial damage to the TB-EPS layer, which may convert into LB-EPS and soluble organic matter [39], a mechanism consistent with the observed increase in LB-EPS biomolecules in the present experiment.

Overall, these results suggest that citric acid pretreatment selectively disrupts the outer EPS structure, promoting redistribution of polysaccharides and proteins toward the LB-EPS layer under conditions of acid-induced stress.

One can conclude that citric acid generally shows a weaker effect on protein decom-
position than acetic acid in anaerobic sludge pretreatments due to different capacity to
release undissociated protons; because acetic acid is a monoprotic weak acid (pKₐ ≈ 4.8), it
maintains a relatively high fraction of its undissociated form (CH₃COOH) at pretreatment
pH ≈ 2–4, which allows for effective intracellular diffusion and acid-catalyzed cleavage
of structural proteins and cell walls, without being significantly sequestered by buffering
or metal complexation. By contrast, citric acid is triprotic, with dissociation constants
pKₐ₁ ≈ 3.13, pKₐ₂ ≈ 4.76, pKₐ₃ ≈ 6.40. Within the same pH range, most citrate exists
in dissociated ionic forms (H₂Cit⁻, HCit²⁻, Cit³⁻), resulting in a much smaller propor-
tion of undissociated acid molecules capable of transferring protons across microbial
envelopes. Moreover, citrate has marked buffering capacity (effective over pH ≈ 2–7) and
strong metal-chelation properties, both of which reduce the availability of free protons
needed for hydrolysis, thereby inhibiting protein breakdown relative to acetic acid pretreat-
ment [11,40–42]. Secondly, at lower dosages (e.g., 0.02–0.05 g citric acid per g TS), citric acid
can deconstruct humic–protein complexes, releasing some hydrolases into solution—but
this process is followed by a rebinding of released humics to protein/hydrolases, which
can inhibit further hydrolysis over time. Acetic acid, being a smaller volatile VFA, does not
foster such readsorptive behavior and thus may support more sustained protein solubiliza-
tion [27]. Thirdly, citric acid serves as a readily degradable organic acid and metal chelator,
which may act as a preferential microbial substrate. Analogous to how the presence of lac-
tose typically suppresses protease/deamination activity in protein-rich sludge (by shifting
microbial metabolism toward carbohydrate fermentation), citrate may similarly dampen protease activity and delay protein breakdown despite the same net pH effect. Acetic acid, on the other hand, is both a protein hydrolysis product and a direct methanogenic substrate, aligning with microbial pathways that prolong deamination and protein turnover [43]. Finally, citric acid is effective at deflocculating EPS and flushing them out of flocs, but it may not specifically solubilize protein fractions within SB-EPS, LB-EPS or TB-EPS fractions unless applied at higher doses or elevated temperatures. Acetic acid, due to stronger proton activity and VFA potency, often yields broader disruption, including protein liquor release [41].

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** The content of total (a) protein and (b) polysaccharide in EPS fractions during citric acid (0.02–0.1 g/g TS) pretreatment.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.4. Impact of Non-Invasive Treatments on the Removal of Pharmaceuticals

A total of 31 pharmaceuticals were analyzed in anaerobically digested wastewater sludge. Most of the molecules were present at low concentrations, i.e., below 10 ng/g on average (e.g., acetaminophen, atenolol, amoxicillin, amisulpride, ketoprofen, irbesartan, naproxen). Some molecules were not detected (e.g., ranitidine, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, clothianidine). Other specific molecules were present at concentrations between 20 and 70 ng/g (diclofenac) or around 100 ng/g (tramadol, penicillin), and some exhibited various concentrations depending on the samples (e.g., iopromide showed concentrations between 30 and 900 ng/g, with an average around 200 ng/g, and ciprofloxacin reached
13,000 ng/g in one specific sample while ranging between 50 and ~1000 ng/g in other samples). Ibuprofen was the most concentrated pharmaceutical in most samples, reaching concentrations of 4 to 11 µg/g. Similarly high concentrations of ciprofloxacin (and of other fluoroquinolones) have also been reported in various kinds of sludges [44]. Large concentrations of ibuprofen have also been reported, though not reaching the range observed in our study (e.g., 100–600 ng/g) [45]. These concentrations in sludge can be related to several factors: first, their occurrence in raw wastewater (either in the dissolved or particulate phase, depending on their consumption rate by the population and their excretion rate in urine and feces), the hydrophobicity of the molecules (governing their partition in the particulate phase through sorption into sludge), as well as their removal potential by anaerobic digestion (or in activated sludge). In particular, the high concentrations of ibuprofen, tramadol or penicillin can be related to their high hydrophobicity. Conversely, acetaminophen or sulfamethoxazole have lower logP values (indicative of their hydrophobicity), which can explain their lower presence in sludge despite usually high consumption. In addition, the large biodegradability of some molecules, including acetaminophen, can also explain their lower concentrations in sludges because of their degradation, either in biological treatment or in sludge treatment. No significant difference was observed between the range of concentrations of pharmaceuticals analyzed after each type of acid pretreatment (Figure 8). The concentrations of each individual molecule were not significantly different between the two pretreatments as well, except for amisulpride and citalopram, which showed lower concentrations after acetic acid pretreatment (t-test with *p*-value < 0.05). Overall, the range of concentrations was also similar between the substrate sample (before AD) and the acid-treated samples, showing a limited impact of the process on the degradation of organic micropollutants despite the enhanced anaerobic digestion. However, for 12 individual molecules (acetaminophen, amisulpride, atenolol, caffeine, carbamazepine, ciprofloxacin, citalopram, diuron, furosemide, iopromide, ketoprofen, naproxen) among the 26 detected organic compounds, the concentrations after acid pretreatment were much lower than the concentration before AD, indicating a substantial degradation of these molecules during the process, which can also be explained by their higher biodegradability.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Concentrations of all pharmaceuticals analyzed in each type of sample of acidic pretreatment (boxplots and individual values).</figcaption></figure>
# 3. Materials and Methods

## 3.1. *Chemicals and Sludge Source*

The acetic acid and citric acid were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (>95% purity). All pharmaceutical standards were of analytical grade, and stock solutions as well as calibration solutions were prepared in LC/MS-grade methanol (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Illkirch Cedex, France) [46]. The waste-activated sludge (WAS) used as a substrate and the anaerobic sludge supernatant used as inoculums were acquired from the WWTP (120,000 population equivalent) in Republic of Serbia. Table 2 summarizes the main characteristics of WAS and the inoculums.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Physicochemical properties of the substrate and inoculums used in this study.</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameter</th><th>Substrate</th><th>Inoculum</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>pH</td><td>6.35 ± 0.09</td><td>7.12 ± 0.06</td></tr><tr><td>TS (%)</td><td>4.35 ± 0.05</td><td>0.53 ± 0.10</td></tr><tr><td>VS (%)</td><td>74.3 ± 0.12</td><td>86.7 ± 0.09</td></tr><tr><td>COD (mg/kg)</td><td>520,930 ± 274</td><td>601,254 ± 141</td></tr><tr><td>N (%)</td><td>3.36 ± 0.02</td><td>n.a.</td></tr><tr><td>C (%)</td><td>27.5 ± 0.04</td><td>n.a.</td></tr><tr><td>C/N ratio</td><td>8.18 ± 0.02</td><td>n.a.</td></tr></tbody></table>

n.a. not analyzed.

## 3.2. *Biochemical Methane Potential Tests*

Glass serum bottles with a volume of 300 mL (150 mL working volume) were used to carry out the biochemical methane production (BMP) tests, with inoculums/substrate (I/S) of 2 (in VS) as detailed [47]. Nitrogen gas was used to purge each bottle before being sealed. BMP bottles were placed in a 37 °C incubator and shaken at 100 rpm to ensure mixing. Biogas production was measured daily using the classical volumetric displacement method. The BMP assays were conducted over a 10-day digestion period, which was intentionally selected to assess the early-stage effects of acidic pretreatments on anaerobic digestion kinetics, including methane production rate and lag phase, rather than to determine ultimate methane potential. Shortened BMP durations have been widely applied in pretreatment studies to evaluate process acceleration and enhanced substrate availability during the initial digestion phase [48–50]. Specific methane production (SMP) (mL CH₄/g VS) was reported at normal conditions (p = 1 atm and T = 273 K). Inoculum blank bottles were prepared to determine the endogenous methane production. All tests were conducted in triplicate, and the results are expressed as their means with their standard deviations (SDs). The citric acid (CIT) concentration was in the range 0.02–0.1 g/g TS, while the acetic acid (ACET) concentration was in the range of 1–5 mM. The dosages of acids were selected to enable a comparative laboratory-scale assessment of non-invasive acidic pretreatments under controlled anaerobic digestion conditions. Dosage ranges for weak organic acids were chosen to achieve measurable effects on sludge solubilization and fermentation while minimizing potential inhibitory effects on methanogenesis. Moderate citric acid doses in the range of 0.02–0.10 g g⁻¹ TS have been shown to enhance sludge solubilization and hydrolysis in anaerobic digestion, with higher dosages improving these effects without significant inhibition [27]. More broadly, acid pretreatments are reported to improve hydrolysis and organic release when appropriately dosed, balancing digestibility benefits and acid loading [51].

## 3.3. *Methane Production Modeling*

To describe and compare quantitatively the experimental data on methane production, we used the Gompertz mathematical model (Equation (1)), a modified sigmoid curve
previously reported to describe the methane production of the degradation of simple substrates with an initial lag phase [47]. The Excel solver function estimated three different parameters by fitting the experimental data and the theoretical model using minimum squared error methodology. All experiments were performed in triplicate. Statistical differences among treatments were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, Minitab Statistical Software, version 21) followed by Tukey's post hoc test, with statistical significance set at *p* < 0.05. Each parameter was represented in the model as follows: (i) maximum specific methane production (mL CH₄ g⁻¹ VS) as M∞; (ii) maximum methane production rate (mL CH₄ g⁻¹ VS d⁻¹) as µmax; (iii) lag phase as λ (days).

$$ \mathbf{M}(t) = \mathbf{M}_{\infty} \cdot e^{-\left[ \frac{\mu_{\max} \cdot \mathbf{e}}{\mathbf{M}_{\infty}} \cdot (\lambda - t) + 1 \right]} \quad (1) $$

### 3.4. EPS Extraction

A heat extraction method [52,53] was applied to extract extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) from the sludge. The sludge suspension (30 mL) was centrifuged (5000 × g, 15 min, 4 °C), and the supernatant was separated. The obtained supernatant contained soluble EPS (SB-EPS). The sludge pellet was re-suspended to 30 mL, in 0.05% (w/v) NaCl solution preheated at 70 °C. The suspension was vortexed for 1 min, and then centrifuged (5000 × g, 10 min, 4 °C). Supernatant was designated as LB-EPS (loosely bound EPS). The left sludge pellet was again re-suspended to 30 mL in preheated (70 °C) 0.05% NaCl solution, and vortexed for 1 min. After incubation in a water bath (60 °C, 30 min), the suspension was centrifuged (5000 × g, 10 min, 4 °C). The collected supernatant was regarded as tightly bound EPS (TB-EPS). The SB-EPS, LB-EPS and TB-EPS were filtered using 0.45 µM filters before analyzing for proteins and polysaccharides.

### 3.5. Analytical Methods

Total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), chemical oxygen demand (COD) were quantified as described in APHA (2017) [54]. Carbon and nitrogen content (%) were obtained using Vario MACRO cube analyzer (Elementar, Germany; software version V3.1.1 (f224d35)). Alkalinity (expressed as mg CaCO₃/L) and VFAs were determined by the titration method using 0.1 N NaOH and 0.1 N HCl [55]. The polysaccharide concentration was measured using the phenol-sulfuric acid method [56], with glucose as the standard. Protein concentration was determined according to the Lowry method [57], adapted to 96-well plates, and using bovine serum albumin (BSA) as the standard. The results were expressed as milligram equivalents of glucose per milliliter of extract (eqGlc/mL) ± SD for total polysaccharide content, and milligrams of BSA equivalents per milliliter of extract (eqBSA/mL) ± SD for total protein content. Additionally, it is important to highlight that all selected treatments were conducted in triplicate to ensure statistical reliability. These low standard deviation values indicate the good reproducibility of the experimental procedure and stability of treatment conditions, as well as reliable quantification of the investigated parameters. The analysis of 31 pharmaceuticals was conducted using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), employing a triple quadrupole detector (Acquity-TQD, Waters, Milford, MA, USA) equipped with an electrospray ionization (ESI) source. Sludge samples were subjected to a modified QuEChERS extraction method inspired by Cuñat et al. [58], followed by an automated solid-phase extraction (SPE) step (Dionex Autotrace 280, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Briefly, a 1 g sample of freeze-dried sludge was extracted with a mixture of methanol (5 mL), Milli-Q water (10 mL) and McIlvaine-EDTA solution (5 mL), after the addition of 4 g MgSO₄, 1 g NaCl and internal standards. After agitation (1 h), the supernatant was recovered, and 10 mL of methanol was added to the remaining sample for additional extraction
(with a 1 h agitation time). The final supernatants were combined and filtered (GF/F filter), then diluted in 500 mL of Milli-Q water. The solution was then extracted by SPE using homemade multilayer cartridges, as previously described for aqueous samples [59,60]. Specific analytical parameters, including stationary and mobile phases, internal standards, elution gradient, ionization mode, and MS/MS acquisition parameters, were previously described [46].

**4. Conclusions**

The results demonstrate that green, *non-invasive* acidic pretreatments effectively enhanced the anaerobic digestion performance of WAS by promoting solubilization and maintaining stable operational parameters.

Non-invasive acidic pretreatments significantly enhanced methane production kinetics during the rapid 10-day anaerobic digestion of WAS, with acetic acid showing a markedly stronger effect than citric acid. The highest SMP reached 101.7 mL CH₄ g⁻¹ VS with 5 mM acetic acid (≈3.6-fold higher than the control), while citric acid achieved a maximum of 73.8 mL CH₄ g⁻¹ VS at 0.1 g g⁻¹ TS (≈2.5-fold increase). Gompertz modeling confirmed significantly higher maximum methane potential (M∞), increased maximum methane production rates (≈68% higher than the control), and shortened lag phases for both acids, indicating accelerated and methanogenesis-dominated AD performance.

Acetic acid markedly increased SB-EPS polysaccharides up to 34.10 ± 0.34 mg eq Glc mL⁻¹ and promoted protein redistribution toward SB- and LB-EPS at higher dosages, indicating effective disruption of the rigid EPS matrix. In contrast, citric acid mainly affected outer EPS layers, increasing LB-EPS biomolecules at low-to-moderate dosages but showing weaker protein decomposition overall, consistent with its lower availability of undissociated protons and strong buffering and chelation capacity.

A total of 31 pharmaceuticals were detected in anaerobically digested sludge at concentrations ranging from <10 ng g⁻¹ for most compounds to µg g⁻¹ levels for ibuprofen (4–11 µg g⁻¹) and up to 13,000 ng g⁻¹ for ciprofloxacin in specific samples, reflecting differences in consumption patterns, hydrophobicity, and biodegradability. Acidic pretreatments did not significantly alter the overall concentration ranges of pharmaceuticals compared to the control, with only amisulpride and citalopram showing significantly lower concentrations after acetic acid pretreatment. Nevertheless, 12 compounds exhibited markedly lower concentrations after anaerobic digestion than in the substrate prior to AD, indicating that enhanced digestion primarily improved bulk organic matter conversion rather than the systematic removal of pharmaceutical micropollutants.

**Author Contributions:** D.S.Ž.: writing—original draft preparation, data curation, methodology, writing—review and editing, validation. L.M.: methodology, data curation. N.S.: methodology, writing—review and editing. N.D.: methodology, writing—review. Đ.K.: funding acquisition, supervision, project administration, writing—review and editing. L.B.: methodology. E.C.: methodology. J.L.R.: methodology, software, validation, writing—review and editing. R.M.: writing—review and editing, supervision. A.S.L.M.: data curation, methodology, writing—review and editing, visualization, formal analysis, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, Horizon Europe-Work Programme 2021–2022 Widening participation and strengthening the European Research Area, HORI-ZON-WIDER A2021-ACCESS-02, under grant agreement No [101060110], SmartWaterTwin.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data will be made available on request.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References

1. Verlicchi, P.; Zambello, E. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in untreated and treated sewage sludge: Occurrence and environmental risk in the case of application on soil—A critical review. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2015**, *538*, 750–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. Khanh Nguyen, V.; Kumar Chaudhary, D.; Hari Dahal, R.; Hoang Trinh, N.; Kim, J.; Woong Chang, S.; Hong, Y.; Duc La, D.; Cuong Nguyen, X.; Hao Ngo, H.; et al. Review on pretreatment techniques to improve anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. *Fuel* **2021**, *285*, 119105. [CrossRef]

3. Neumann, P.; Pesante, S.; Venegas, M.; Vidal, G. Developments in pre-treatment methods to improve anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. *Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol.* **2016**, *15*, 173–211. [CrossRef]

4. Wei, Z.; Qin, Y.; Li, X.; Gao, P. Resource recovery of high value-added products from wastewater: Current status and prospects. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2024**, *398*, 130–521. [CrossRef]

5. Ferrer, I.; Passos, F.; Romero, E.; Vázquez, F.; Front, X. Optimizing sewage sludge anaerobic digestion for resource recovery in wastewater treatment plants. *Renew. Energy* **2024**, *224*, 120123. [CrossRef]

6. Ruiz, B.; Flotats, X. Citrus essential oils and their influence on the anaerobic digestion process: An overview. *Waste Manag.* **2014**, *34*, 2063–2079. [CrossRef]

7. Appels, L.; Baeyens, J.; Degrève, J.; Dewil, R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. *Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.* **2008**, *34*, 755–781. [CrossRef]

8. Hu, T.; Chen, X.; Zhao, W.; He, S.; Feng, L.; Zhao, Q. To what content the chemical characteristics of sludge extracellular polymeric substances affect anaerobic digestion efficiency: A review. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2024**, *498*, 155490. [CrossRef]

9. Vandana, M.; Priyadarshanee, S. Das Bacterial extracellular polymeric substances: Biosynthesis and interaction with environmental pollutants. *Chemosphere* **2023**, *332*, 138876. [CrossRef]

10. Yu, G.H.; He, P.J.; Shao, L.M.; Zhu, Y.S. Extracellular proteins, polysaccharides and enzymes impact on sludge aerobic digestion after ultrasonic pretreatment. *Water Res.* **2008**, *42*, 1925–1934. [CrossRef]

11. Peng, M.; Xu, J.; Yang, G.; Xu, H. Digestion properties of intracellular polymers and extracellular polymeric substances and influences of extracellular polymeric substances on anaerobic digestion of sludge. *J. Environ. Eng.* **2020**, *146*, 04020112. [CrossRef]

12. Cao, B.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, W.; Wang, D. Enhanced technology based for sewage sludge deep dewatering: A critical review. *Water Res.* **2021**, *189*, 116650. [CrossRef]

13. Atelge, M.R.; Atabani, A.E.; Rjesh Banu, J.; Krisa, D.; Kaya, M.; Eskicioglu, C.; Kumar, G.; Lee, C.; Yildiz, Y.Ş.; Unalan, S.; et al. A critical review of pretreatment technologies to enhance anaerobic digestion and energy recovery. *Fuel* **2020**, *270*, 117494. [CrossRef]

14. Obileke, K.; Makaka, G.; Tangwe, S.; Mukumba, P. Improvement of biogas yields in an anaerobic digestion process via optimization technique. *Environ. Dev. Sustain.* **2025**, *27*, 15025–15051. [CrossRef]

15. Pellera, F.M.; Gidarakos, E. Chemical pretreatment of lignocellulosic agroindustrial aste for methane production. *Waste Manag.* **2018**, *71*, 689–703. [CrossRef]

16. Zhen, G.; Lu, X.; Kato, H.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.-Y. Overview of pretreatment strategies for enhancing sewage sludge disintegration and subsequent anaerobic digestion: Current advances, full-scale application and future perspectives. *Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.* **2017**, *69*, 559–577. [CrossRef]

17. Benabdallah El-Hadj, T.; Dosta, J.; Márquez-Serrano, R.; Mata-Alvarez, J. Effect of ultrasound pretreatment in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion with emphasis on naphthalene and pyrene removal. *Water Res.* **2007**, *41*, 87–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

18. Pérez-Elvira, S.; Fdz-Polanco, M.; Plaza, F.I.; Garralon, G.; Fdz-Polanco, F. Ultrasound pre-treatment for anaerobic digestion improvement. *Water Sci. Technol.* **2009**, *60*, 1525–1532. [CrossRef]

19. Carballa, M.; Duran, C.; Hospido, A. Should we pretreat solid waste prior to anaerobic digestion? An assessment of its environmental cost. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2011**, *45*, 10306–10314. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

20. González, J.; Sánchez, M.E.; Gómez, X. Enhancing anaerobic digestion: The effect of carbon conductive materials. *J. Carbon Res.* **2018**, *4*, 59. [CrossRef]

21. Leovac Maćerak, A.; Žmukić, D.; Duduković, N.; Slijepćević, N.; Kulić Mandić, A.; Tomašević Pilipović, D.; Kerkez, Đ. Advances in biochar-assisted anaerobic digestion: Effect on process stability, methanogenic pathways and digestate properties. *Separations* **2026**, *13*, 18.

22. Gomez Camacho, C.E.; Ruggeri, B. Syntrophic microorganisms interactions in anaerobic digestion (Ad): A critical review in the light of increase energy production. *Chem. Eng. Trans.* **2018**, *64*, 391–396.

23. Yuan, Y.; Hu, X.; Chen, H.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, D. Advances in enhanced volatile fatty acid production from anaerobic fermentation of waste activated sludge. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2019**, *694*, 133741.

24. Rahman, M.M.; Sultana Keya, S.; Sahu, A.; Gupta, A.; Dhingra, A.; Phan Tran, L.-S.; Golam Mostofa, M. Acetic acid: A cheap but chief metabolic regulator for abiotic stress tolerance in plants. *Stress Biol.* **2024**, *4*, 34. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, J.; Cui, Z.; Li, Y.; Cao, L.; Lu, Z. Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of citric acid production through different recovery methods. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2020**, *249*, 119315. [CrossRef]

26. Wu, X.; Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Xu, Q.; Tao, Z.; Huang, X.; Wu, Y.; Tao, L.; Pi, Z.; Chen, Z.; et al. Effect of citric acid on extracellular polymeric substances disruption and cell lysis in the waste activated sludge by pH regulation. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2020**, *302*, 122859. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27. Tang, Y.; Sun, J.; Dong, B.; Dai, X. Citric acid treatment directly on anaerobic digester sludge alleviates the inhibitory effect of in-situ generated humic acids by their deconstruction and redistribution. *Water Res.* **2023**, *233*, 119680. [CrossRef]

28. Rajput, A.A.; Sheikh, Z. Effect of inoculum type and organic loading on biogas production of sunflower meal and wheat straw. *Sustain. Environ. Res.* **2019**, *29*, 4. [CrossRef]

29. Liu, C.; Li, L.; Zhang, T.; He, Q.; Xin, X. Enhancing volatile fatty acids production from waste activated sludge: The role of pretreatment by N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamate (GLDA). *Environ. Sci. Ecothenol.* **2024**, *21*, 100393. [CrossRef]

30. She, Y.C.; Wei, W.X.; Ai, X.H.; Hong, J.M.; Xin, X.D. Synergistic pretreatment of CaO and freezing/thawing to enhance volatile fatty acids recycling and dewaterability of waste activated sludge via anaerobic fermentation. *Chemosphere* **2021**, *280*, 130939.

31. Chen, Y.; Ruhyadi, R.; Huang, J.; Yan, W.; Wang, G.; Shen, N.; Hanggoro, W. Comprehensive comparison of acidic and alkaline anaerobic fermentations of waste activated sludge. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2021**, *323*, 124613. [CrossRef]

32. Wu, D.; Li, L.; Peng, Y.; Yang, P.; Peng, X.; Sun, Y.; Wang, X. State indicators of anaerobic digestion: A critical review on process monitoring and diagnosis. *Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.* **2021**, *148*, 111260. [CrossRef]

33. Ye, W.; Li, L.; Yang, P.; Zhang, Z.; Han, L.; Yuan, R.; Peng, X. Mechanism of extracellular polymeric substance production and its contribution to anaerobic digestion foaming: Insights from cellular signaling. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2024**, *500*, 157377. [CrossRef]

34. Angelidaki, I.; Alves, M.; Bolzonella, D.; Borzacconi, J.; Campos, L.; Guwy, A.J.; Kalyuzhnyi, S.; Jenicek, P.; van Lier, J.B. Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: A proposed protocol for batch assays. *Water Sci. Technol.* **2009**, *59*, 927–934. [CrossRef]

35. Amnuaycheewa, P.; Hengaroonprasan, R.; Rattanaporn, K.; Kirdponpattara, S.; Cheenkachorn, K.; Sriariyanun, M. Enhancing enzymatic hydrolysis and biogas production from rice straw by pretreatment with organic acids. *Ind. Crop. Prod.* **2016**, *87*, 247–254. [CrossRef]

36. Garcia Gomes, M.; de Oliveira Paranhos, A.G.; Camargos, A.B.; Baêta, B.E.L.; Baffi, M.A.; Gurgel, L.V.A.; Pasquini, D. Pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse with dilute citric acid and enzymatic hydrolysis: Use of black liquor and solid fraction for biogas production. *Renew. Energy* **2009**, *191*, 428–438. [CrossRef]

37. Gayathri, T.; Kavitha, S.; Adish Kumar, S.; Kaliappan, S.; Yeom, I.T.; Rajesh Banu, J. Effect of citric acid induced deflocculation on the ultrasonic pretreatment efficiency of dairy waste activated sludge. *Ultrason. Sonochem.* **2015**, *22*, 333–340. [PubMed]

38. Jin, B.; Niu, J.; Zhang, J.; Niu, J.; Zhou, P.; Dai, J.; Li, N.; Tao, H.; Ma, Z.; Zhang, Z. Response of extracellular polymeric substances and enzymatic activity to salinity for the waste activated sludge anaerobic fermentation process. *Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng.* **2020**, *43*, 737–745. [CrossRef]

39. Zhang, X.; Huang, X.; Li, X.; Zhang, J.; Tang, M.; Liu, X.; Wang, D.; Yang, Q.; Duan, A.; Liu, J. Performance and mechanisms of citric acid improving biotransformation of waste activated sludge into short-chain fatty acids. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2023**, *373*, 128754. [CrossRef]

40. Duong, T.H.; van Eekert, M.; Grolle, K.; Tran, T.V.N.; Zeeman, G.; Temmink, H. Effect of carbohydrates on protein hydrolysis in anaerobic digestion. *Water Sci. Technol.* **2022**, *86*, 66–79. [CrossRef]

41. Feng, L.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, X. Enhancement of waste activated sludge protein conversion and volatile fatty acids accumulation during waste activated sludge anaerobic fermentation by carbohydrate substrate addition: The effect of pH. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2009**, *43*, 4373–4380. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

42. Zhao, P.; Liu, Y.; Dou, C.; Wan, P. Study on dissolution characteristics of excess sludge by low-temperature thermal hydrolysis and acid production by fermentation. *ACS Omega* **2020**, *5*, 26101–26109. [CrossRef]

43. Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Fang, H. Comparison of enhancement of anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge through adding nano-zero valent iron and zero valent iron. *RSC Adv.* **2018**, *8*, 27181–27190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

44. Mailler, R.; Gasperi, J.; Patureau, D.; Vulliet, E.; Delgenes, N.; Danel, A.; Deshayes, S.; Eudes, V.; Guerin, S.; Moilleron, R.; et al. Fate of emerging and priority micropollutants during the sewage sludge treatment: Case study of Paris conurbation. Part 1: Contamination of the different types of sewage sludge. *Waste Manag.* **2017**, *59*, 379–393. [CrossRef]

45. Radjenović, J.; Petrović, M.; Barceló, D. Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment. *Water Res.* **2009**, *43*, 831–841. [CrossRef]

46. Nabintu Kajoka, C.; Gasperi, J.; Brosillon, S.; Caupos, E.; Mebold, E.; Oliveira, M.; Rocher, V.; Chebbo, G.; Le Roux, J. Reactivity of Performic Acid with Organic and Inorganic Compounds: From Oxidation Kinetics to Reaction Pathways. *ACS EST Water* **2023**, *3*, 3121–3131. [CrossRef]
47. Casabella-Font, O.; Riva, M.; Balc'azar, J.L.; Radjenovic, J.; Pijuan, M. Distinctive effects of graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide on methane production kinetics and pharmaceuticals removal in anaerobic reactors. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2024**, *403*, 130849.
[CrossRef]

48. Astals, S.; Bastone, D.J.; Mata-Alvarez, J.; Jensen, P.D. Identification of synergetic impacts during anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2014**, *169*, 421–427. [CrossRef]

49. Holliger, C.; Alves, M.; Andrade, D.; Angelidaki, I.; Astals, U.; Bougrier, C.; Buffière, P.; Carballa, M.; de Wilde, V.; Ebertseder, F.; et al. Towards a standardization of biomethane potential tests. *Water Sci. Technol.* **2016**, *74*, 2515–2522. [CrossRef]

50. da Silva, C.; Astals, S.; Peces, M.; Campos, J.L.; Guerrero, L.; Dott, W.; Mata-Alvarez, J. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests: Reducing test time by early parameter estimation. *Waste Manag.* **2018**, *71*, 19–27. [CrossRef]

51. Devlin, D.C.; Esteves, S.R.R.; Dinsdale, R.M.; Guwy, A.J. The effect of acid pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion and dewatering of waste active sludge. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2011**, *102*, 4076–4082. [CrossRef]

52. Ding, N.; Peng, C.; Ren, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wang, P.; Dong, L.; Liu, H.; Wang, D. Improving the dewaterability of citric acid wastewater sludge by Fenton treatment. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2018**, *196*, 739–746. [CrossRef]

53. Xiao, K.; Pei, K.; Wang, H.; Yu, W.; Liang, S.; Hu, J.; Hou, H.; Liu, B.; Yang, J. Citric acid assisted Fenton-like process for enhanced dewaterability of waste activated sludge with in-situ generation of hydrogen peroxide. *Water Res.* **2018**, *140*, 232–242. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]

54. American Public Health Association. *Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater*, 23rd ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.

55. Jeniks, S.; Morgan, J.; Sawayer, C. Measuring anaerobic sludge digestion and growth by a simple alkalimetric titration. *J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.* **1983**, *55*, 448–453.

56. Masuko, T.; Minami, A.; Iwasaki, N.; Majima, T.; Nishimura, S.I.; Lee, Y.C. Carbohydrate analysis by a phenol-sulfuric acid method in microplate format. *Anal. Biochem.* **2005**, *339*, 69–72. [PubMed]

57. Lowry, O.H.; Rosebrough, N.J.; Farr, A.L.; Randall, R.J. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. *J. Biol. Chem.* **1951**, *193*, 265–275. [CrossRef]

58. Cuñat, A.; Álvarez-Ruiz, R.; Morales Suarez-Varela, M.M.; Pico, Y. Suspected-screening assessment of the occurrence of organic compounds in sewage sludge. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2022**, *308*, 114587. [CrossRef]

59. Huynh, N.; Caupos, E.; Soares Pereira, C.; Le Roux, J.; Bressy, A.; Moilleron, R. Evaluation of sample preparation methods for non-target screening of organic micropollutants in urban waters using high-resolution mass spectrometry. *Molecules* **2021**, *26*, 7064.

60. Nihemaiti, M.; Huynh, N.; Mailler, R.; Mèche-Ananit, P.; Rocher, V.; Barhdadi, R.; Le Roux, J. High-resolution mass spectrometry screening of wastewater effluent for micropollutants and their transformation products during disinfection with performic acid. *ACS EST Water* **2022**, *2*, 1225–1233. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.