Anirudh Modak
Sikkim Manipal University, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim, India
Shamayita Basu*
University of Kalyani, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, India
*Corresponding author: basu95shamayita@gmail.com
Abstract
Plastic is broadly used for various human interests (technological devices, food packaging, medical products, etc.) and there is an increasing concern about the risks for our surrounding environment and health. In particular, microplastics (MPs), both primary and secondary, occur in all environmental pockets and constitute a potential warning, since they easily enter into the food chain. Moreover, microplastics have the ability to absorb diverse pollutants, which thereby get accumulated inside human body via processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification. A systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of wastewater treatment facilities (WWTPs) in removing microplastics. Published research on the effectiveness of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for microplastic removal were searched using international databases (PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus). Contamination of MPs in aquatic environment has presently been recorded as a transpiring environmental threat because of their fatalistic impact on the ecosystem. Their sources are numerous, but, undoubtedly, all are from synthetic matters. The sources of MPs are cosmetics and products of personal care, textile and tyre, abrasion processes of some other plastic products, bitumen and paints for road marking. Due to their low density and tiny particle size, MPs get easily extravasated into the wastewater drainage systems. Therefore, the municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are designated to be the foremost recipients of MPs prior to getting excreted into the natural water reservoirs. The focus of this article is to put forward an all-inclusive review in order to preferably understand the channels of MPs into the environment, their characteristics in wastewater, and most importantly, the removal efficiency of MPs of the subsisting wastewater treatment technologies, as arrogated by the WWTPs. This review also encompasses the expansion of budding microplastics treatment technologies that have been investigated till date. Then, in the not-too-distant future, effective and standardised techniques for measuring MPs should be developed, as well as a greater understanding of sources and strategies for reducing microplastics contamination of treated effluent.
Keywords: Bioaccumulation, Environmental health, Food chain, Plastic, Removal efficiency
DOI: https://doi.org/x
Conflicts of interest: None
Supporting agencies: None
Received 06.03.2022; Revised 19.04.2022; Accepted 22.04.2022
Cite This Article: Modak, A. & Basu, S. (2022). Microplastic- An Imposing Commination to the Aquatic Ecosystem and its Removal Strategies in Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Systematic Review. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(2), X-X. doi: xxxxxxxx
Download full article
1. Introduction
Contamination via microplastics (MPs) in aquatic
environment is an emerging environmental threat owing to the negative impact
that they have on the ecosystem. Many sources of microplastics are there, but
all are from synthetic components, like bitumen and road marking paints,
cosmetics and personal care products, textile and tyre, abrasion or breakdown
of other plastic products. Due to their small particle size and low density,
they easily get discharged into wastewater drainage systems (Phuong Linh Ngoa,
et al. 2019). Microplastics (MPs), the tiny plastic debris which is smaller
than 5 mm in size (Eerkes-Medrano and Thompson, 2018; Lares et al., 2018; Zhang
et al., 2018), have recently been documented as emerging dangerous
contaminants. They are present in every type of environment worldwide from
water to sediments (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2013; Li et al., 2019), from urban
to remote areas (Cole et al., 2011) and from continent to the ocean (Hirai et
al., 2011; Cole et al., 2011; Jambeck et al., 2015). Microplastic impacts have
also been well identified in many environments including air (Liu et al.,
2019a) soil (He et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019), ocean (Hidalgo-Ruz et al.,
2012; Rochman et al., 2015; Clark et al., 2016; Hammer et al., 2016; Li, 2018)
and freshwater (Lechner et al., 2014; Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015). Microplastics
can be ingested by aquatic animals which may cause choke or starvation because
of pseudo satiety or physical harms such as abrasion and blockages (Clark et
al., 2016). They can also poison aquatic biota by leaching out theirs
contaminated monomers and toxins (Sussarellu et al., 2016). For example, MPs
can transport various other toxic chemicals, namely poly-brominated diphenyl
ethers, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals which can poison
aquatic species in many ways (Teuten et al., 2009; Wardrop et al., 2016;
Hermabessiere et al., 2017; Li et al., 2019).
The main sources of microplastic contaminants are the wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs), in aquatic environment, and an in-depth understanding
of the behaviour of microplastics among the critical treatment technologies in
WWTPs is urgently needed. (Weiyi Liu et al., 2021). Microplastics always cause
chronic toxicity due to their accumulation in organisms (Li et al., 2018).
WWTPs are the major recipients of terrestrial microplastics before entering
natural aquatic systems (Sun et al., 2018), which convert primary microplastics
into secondary microplastics. The microplastics that occur in municipal
wastewater usually originate from day to day human activities. For example,
polyester and polyamide components are commonly shed from clothing during the
laundry process (Napper et al., 2016), and personal care products such as
toothpaste, cleanser and shower gel enter WWTPs resulting from our daily use
(Magni et al., 2019). Plastics in garbage are decomposed by microorganisms in
the leachate and then are discharged into WWTPs (Durenkamp et al., 2016). In
addition, the microplastics floating in the atmosphere, which have been emitted
by plastics industries and vehicles, also converge in WWTPs via atmospheric
deposition (Mintenig et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2020). It
has been proven that untreated microplastics are commonly discharged from
WWTPs, enter water bodies, and eventually accumulate in the environment (Carr
et al., 2016). Therefore, it is urgent to study the performance of microplastic
by different treatment technologies in WWTPs and understand the mechanism of
removing microplastics to reduce the amount of microplastics entering the
natural aquatic system. However, few pieces of research have been found to
summarize the microplastics removal mechanisms of the critical treatment
technologies in the WWTPs.
2. Materials and methods
A systematic review was conducted to determine the
effectiveness of wastewater treatment facilities (WWTPs) in removing
microplastics. Published research on the effectiveness of wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) for microplastic removal were searched using international
databases (PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus). Initially, keywords were used
to select over fifty entire research publications. The papers were then further
sorted by English language, title, and abstract, with duplicates and
non-relevant studies being removed based on eligibility criteria. Finally, five
study papers were included in their entirety. The authors of each of the five
full research publications selected classified the microplastics found based on
their shape, size, and kind of polymer.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. About microplastics
The most prevalent marine debris present in oceans and
Great Lakes is plastic. Plastic debris exists in almost all sizes and shapes,
but those less than five millimetres in length are called “microplastics.”
Since it is an emerging field of study, very little is
known about microplastics and their impacts as of now. Field methods that are
standardized for collection of sand, sediment and surface-water microplastics
have been developed for testing purpose. In due course, laboratory and field
procedures will permit for worldwide comparisons of the number of microplastics
released into environs, which is first and foremost step to determine final
dissemination, impacts, and nemesis of this debris.
Microplastics originate from diversity of sources,
inclusive of huge plastic debris which degrade into smaller pieces.
Additionally, a type of microplastic, namely, microbeads, are extremely tiny
slices of fabricated polyethylene plastic which are adjoined as exfoliants in
health and beauty products, like cleansers and toothpastes. These small particles
can easily escape water filtration systems and end up in oceans and Great
Lakes, thereby presenting as a potential ultimatum to aquatic lives. As per
United Nations Environment Programme, for the first time, plastic microbeads
appeared around 50 years ago among personal care products; gradually plastics
almost replaced the natural ingredients. In 2012, this matter was still
comparatively unknown, with loads of products consisting of plastic microbeads
in market and minimal awareness among consumers. President Obama on 28th
December, 2015, signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, banning plastic
microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products.
3.2. Sources
of microplastics
The composition
and sources of MP pollutants are different among various WWTPs due to the way
they collect wastewater (Chang, 2015; Ziajahromi et al., 2017). Depending
on the
pattern of discharge
set up, WWTPs may
obtain only industrial sewage or domestic wastewater
and also landfill leachate, provided distinct discharge systems have
been applied. On the contrary, if integrated or intercepted discharge methods
are utilized, municipal WWTPs may become recipient of contaminants coming from
restricted industrial sewage, domestic wastewater, and storm water flow.
However, irrespective of the type of wastewater runoff which delivers MPs, they
have been categorized into two groups, namely, primary and secondary MPs.
Microbeads and
resin pellets are the primary MPs which are utilised to manufacture plastic
products like, cosmetics and also personal care products such as toothpaste,
facial cleansers, and body washes (Eriksen et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2015;
Gouvia et al., 2018; Magni et al., 2019; Saxena & Srivastava, 2022). In personal care and cosmetic products, a
relevant number of plastic microbeads that are generally irregular or spherical
in shape are employed for cleansing or exfoliation purposes. It is estimated
that a single face wash using one of these products could release around 94,500
microbeads to drainage system (Napper et al., 2016). Road dust associated MP
particles is another major source coming from bitumen, tyres, and paints for
road marking which spread throughout highways and roads. Rubber particles
generated during abrasion from the wear and tear of tyres and road wear are
recognized as MPs (Kole et al., 2017). It is argued that tyre and road wear
particles account for about 42 percent of the total MPs transported by
freshwater system to the ocean (Max Siegfried et al., 2017). It has been
estimated that average number of MPs liberated by ablation of tyres each year
in UK, Japan and Germany is about 63 kilotons, 240 kilotons, 120 kilotons,
respectively (Max Siegfried et al., 2017). Tiny MP dust particles are present
in significant amount in the air pollution (Max Siegfried et al., 2017) that
are washed off from atmosphere by wet denudation processes like snow,
rain, and dew
condensation, what are
further transported to
the WWTPs through storm water runoff.
The incidental
MPs which are considered as dominant type in water environment are generated
from the breakdown or abrasion process of other plastic products such as
packaging and textiles (Sun et al., 2019). The foremost secondary origin is
plastic products that are discarded in landfills under extreme environmental
situation like acid pH, high salinity, physical stress, gas generation,
temperature fluctuation, and decomposition of microorganism particle into
smaller pieces which are then would be carried away by the discharge of
leachates to enter the WWTPs (Pramila et al., 2011; Zettler et al., 2013; He et
al., 2019). Fibre loss from textiles during laundering and discharged into
domestic wastewater pipe systems is also considered as a secondary MP pollutant
in WWTPs (Manson et al., 2016; Hernandez et al., 2017). It has been estimated
that a single wash of one set of synthetic fibre clothing can release more than
1900 fibre debris (Browne et al., 2011). However, these materials were not the
main contributor to pollution due to a low percentage in the detected
contaminants in inland water sources (Zhang et al., 2018). They are mostly
retained in the sludge of WWTPs (Manson et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2016).
However, these synthetic fibre materials may have been detected in a small
percentage of the tested samples in land water sources, but the samples tested
may not be a complete representation of the overall scenario of the presence of
MPs from synthetic fiber materials in the waterbodies.
3.3. Characteristics of microplastics in
WWTP
MPs are a kind
of polymer mixture having various sizes and shapes. Various sizes and shapes of
microplastics showed different toxicity and physicochemical properties
(Lehtiniemi M. et al., 2018).
Shape
Shape is one of
the chief classification factors for microplastics. The shape of microplastics
affects their removal efficiency in WWTPs (McCormick, A. et al., 2014). Total
nine shapes of microplastics have been perceived in effluent and influent of WWTPs
namely Fibre, fragment, film, pellet, foam particle, ellipse, line, flakes.
Fibres, pellets, fragments, and films were the most widely detected
microplastics in wastewater, and their highest abundances were 91.32%, 70.38%,
65.43%, and 21.36%, respectively (Hidayaturrahman et al., 2019; Lehtiniemi, M.
et al., 2018; Bayo et al., 2020).
Size
MPs can even end
up in food chain, and size of these MPs rather than shape was a crucial factor
influencing their performance and transformation in the WWTPs (Lehtiniemi, M.
et al., 2018). Consequently, it is crucial to accentuate particle size of MPs.
The profusion of MPs smaller than 1 mm is about 65.0–86.9% in influent and
about 81.0–91.0% in effluent. With decreasing microplastic sizes, the primary
microplastics were crushed (physical, chemical, and biological processes) into
secondary microplastics (Magni et al., 2019). Those microplastic particles
which are smaller were more probable to be ingested by plankton, filter-feeding
organisms, and fishes, which can cause a series of toxicological effects in
these organisms (Qiao et al., 2019). Accordingly, research regarding particle
size of MPs, particularly smaller particle size (<1 mm) can be of guiding
consequence for successive scrutiny of biological virulence and environmental
transformation of microplastics.
Type
Twenty-nine kinds of polymers were detected in the influent and effluent of the WWTPs. Polyethene (PE), polyamide (PA), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyester (PES) and polyethene terephthalate (PET) were the 6 most extensively detected MPs in wastewater, and their topmost abundances were 64.07%, 32.92%, 10.34%, 75.36%, 24.17%, and 28.90%, respectively (Mintenig et al., 2017; Talvitie et al., 2017a; Ziajahromi, S. et al., 2017; Long et al., 2019).
The PE, PP, and
PS microplastics originated from plastic products, including food packaging
bags, plastic bottles, and plastic cutlery (Mintenig et al., 2017; Talvitie et
al., 2017b; Lares et al., 2018). The PA, PET, and PES microplastics mainly
originated from textiles and synthetic clothing, which are the main sources of
household microplastics (Hernandez E. et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2019; Wei w. et
al 2019). Moreover, mechanical compressing of plastic products, textile
industries, the tire and rubber molecules in road dust were also identified as
potentially important sources of the PE, PP, PS and PES microplastics (Talvitie
et al., 2017a; Hidayaturrahman, H.et al., 2019; Wei w. et al. 2019).
Additionally, polymer kinds mentioned above, distinct polymers also were
recognized in WWTPs. For example, alkyds, which are widely used in industrial
coatings, exhibited the highest abundance in a Glasgow WWTP (28.67%) (Murphy F
et al., 2016). Therefore, research priority should be assigned to specific
polymer types in addition to common polymers.
3.4. Risks of microplastics
Microplastics
and their chemical components
The constituents
of MPs, like additives and monomers, may get released in course of usage and
disposal of product, and some of these substances may be hazardous to the
environment. Monomers are the basic units of plastic polymers, and the backbone
structure derived from them is considered biochemically inert due to its large
molecular size (Teuten et al., 2009).
However, studies
have shown that some monomers have harmful effects. Lither et al.
(2011) classified polymers depending on monomer threat categorizations
and observed that the styrene monomer producing polystyrene possesses
carcinogenic or mutagenic risk, so polystyrene is ranked as one of the most
hazardous polymers and has been listed as a toxic substance by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (Lithner, et al., 2011). Besides monomers,
health hazards associated with additives must not be ignored. Some common plastic supplements include flame
retardants, plasticizers, UV stabilizers and antioxidants. Many of these are recognized as hazardous,
inclusive of brominated flame inhibitors (e.g., poly-brominated diphenyl ethers
or PBDEs), lead heat stabilizers, and phthalate plasticizers (Halden, R.U.,
2010; Lithner, et al., 2011). Bisphenol A, which is used in the production of
polycarbonate, has endocrine-disrupting effects that can adversely affect human
health (Halden, 2010). As a result, MPs and their chemical constituents pose
health hazards.
Effects of
microplastics on marine organisms
Ingestion is the
highest frequent interconnection between microplastics and marine organisms. It
has been evaluated that about 690 species were contrived by marine plastic
pollution in 2015, and at least 10% of those species had ingested microplastics
(Gall et al., 2015). Moore observed that organisms might mistake microplastics
for prey and ingest them directly. Moreover, plastic debris or microplastics
have been identified in the guts or tissues of many marine organisms, including
fish (Lusher, A. et al, 2013a; Neves D. et al., 2015), bivalves (Van
Cauwenberghe et al., 2014), zooplankton (Frias, J. et al., 2014; Desforges et
al., 2015), seabirds (Blight et al., 1997), turtles (Bugoni L et al., 2001),
and whales (De Stephanis, R. et al., 2013). Ingestion of MPs by several aquatic
organisms (bivalves, zooplankton, and fish) have been reported in the natural
environment. The uptake of microplastics by marine organisms shows that the
potential for physical and toxicological harm is an emerging topic. In terms
of physical harm,
plastic debris has
direct mechanical effects
on marine organisms through
entanglement and ingestion (Derraik J.G. 2002) . Specifically, plastic debris
(mainly synthetic fibres) swallowed by marine organisms can lead to intestinal
blockage, while hard microplastics with irregular shapes and sharp edges can
penetrate the intestinal wall and damage the digestive system. All of these
effects can reduce food intake, ultimately leading to starvation and death (Wright
et al, 2013; Duis et al., 2016).
3.5. Microplastic removal efficiency in
existing WWTPs
Removal
efficiency of MPs in the existing WWTPs have been calculated depending on its
congregation in effluent and influent samples. Nonetheless, since MPs are a
transpiring category of pollutants present in wastewater, currently, there are
no WWTP dedicated to eradicate them. As for example, post preliminary, primary,
secondary, then tertiary treatment procedures in UK, in a WWTP, the comprehensive
profusion got decreased by 6%, 68%, 92% and 96%, respectively (Blair et al.,
2019). As a consequence, the removal rate of the contaminants in WWTPs is not
efficient enough to prevent the MPs pollution of natural aquatic ecosystem and
attained coherence of MP elution of each WWTP varies from around 60% to 99.9%
worldwide, depending upon registered mechanics. WWTPs can remove overall 65% of
MP in the wastewater influent such as WWTP in Wuhan, China (64.4%) (Liu X et
al., 2019b) And in Sydney, Australia (66%) (Ziajahromi, et al., 2017). Whereas
WWTP in Vancouver, Canada can reach to 91.7% (Gies et al., 2018) and with
tertiary advanced treatment processes, WWTP in Finland can achieve 99.9% MP
removal (Talvitie et al, 2017a).
Primary
sedimentation and floatation
Primary as well
as secondary treatment phases in sedimentation method brought a noteworthy
contribution to MP eradication. Usually, sedimentation is a technique that
extracts suspended solid fragments from
liquid stream via
gravitational settling, an indispensable ingredient in
WWTP (Cheremisinoff, 2002). This technique may be applied for
wastewater treatment procedure as either primary or secondary method, or also
both. Besides showing a substantial effect in decreasing contaminants, it also
imparts an optimal state for following methodologies like filtration,
biological equipment, and disinfection due to an increased capacity of suspended
material extraction.
Analogously, air
flotation technique is one of the favoured methods for removal of solids,
fibrous material and oil. This technique is the outcome of air bubbles of
microscopic range that enhance the natural proclivity of contaminants to float
on the surface before being collected by mechanical skimming (Cheremisinoff, 2002). The air floatation procedure can
extract grease, solid particles and oil, about up to 99%, hence, it has been
one of the pivotal steps in domestic sewage, food processing and laundry
wastewater treatments (Cheremisinoff,
2002).
Activated
sludge and sedimentation
Initialized
sludge is a favoured technology pertained in municipal WWTPs post or aerated
grit bower, sedimentation tank or diffused air flotation. In the aerobic
panzer, sludge floccules or extracellular polymers of bacteria during the
growth stage are competent of fostering the accumulation of the MP contaminants
in sewage which then would get eliminated in the sedimentation process. The
plastic debris may also be held into sludge flocs by the ingestion of
microorganisms (Scherer et al 2018).
Nevertheless, there is uncertainty yet regarding how exactly plastic
debris associate with microorganisms and to what magnitude the procedure could
pin down MPs. Ziajahromi et al. (2017) encountered the MP removal grade of
activated sludge about at 66.7%, whereas A2O which is the combination of
anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic (activated sludge) eliminated only 28.1% in WWTP
in Wuhan, China (Rummel et al., 2017) and 54.47% in WWTP in Beijing, China
(Yang, L. et al 2019). The outcomes from these reports manifested an unsteady
MP rate of removal of this technology. The influencing factors that could
affect the MP removal rate of the activated sludge process are the retention
time (Carr et al., 2016) and nutrient level in wastewater (Rummel et al.,
2017). Longer the contact period, higher are the probabilities of surface
biofilm overlay on plastic debris that modifies the surface, size and relative
densities of the contaminants (Carr et al., 2016). These changes may cause a
noteworthy impact on the nonchalantly buoyant MPs to escalate the probability
for extracting them by settling or skimming techniques, which then upgrade the removal
frequency of the technique. Hence, the contact time and
nutrient level in sewage need further investigation to enhance the MP removal
efficiency of the technology.
Membrane
Bioreactor System
Biofilm is now
gaining interest for wastewater treatment with a variety of models such as fluidized
bed reactor, rotating biological contactors and membrane bioreactor (MBR) (T.W.
et al., 2016). Amidst these technologies, the exceedingly approved technique is
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) for peak strength treatment of wastewater due to its
high removal capacities of the contaminants. This is due to membrane filtration
and dual biodegradation contrivance which only permit tiny solution molecules
to pass through; while on the contrary, other materials like biomass,
macromolecules and solid particles are captured in the membrane and are removed
with the dead sludge (Seow et al., 2016). Membrane bioreactor technology could
remove MPs up to 99.9% (Talvitie et al, 2017a). The technique may eliminate MPs
far the flow from 6.9 ±1.0 item/L to straight 0.005±0.004 item/L when it was
tested in WWTP of Kenkaveronniemi in Finland (Talvitie et al, 2017a). Talvitie
et al contended that two MPs were advancing through MBR structure in their test
due to intermittent wreckage of filters or tiny leaks in between seals in
structure. Likewise, Lares et al. (2018) encountered 99.4% MPs abolition by the
technique which stipulated that MP removal grade of MBR is consonant and
crucial. Membrane bioreactor filters have been expected to have the slightest
pore size (around 0.08 μm) comparing to other currently used filters in
wastewater treatment, which can prevent most microplastics to pass through.
Consequently, MBR may be the most efficient technology so far among the common
wastewater treatment technologies in terms of eliminating MPs from wastewater
flow.
Figure 1: A Schematic Representation of WWTP
processes and percentages of MPs removal during processing (Paula Masia et al.,
2020)
Figure 2: The schematics of primary settling with flocculation technologies in microplastics removal (Lapointe, et al., 2020)
4. Conclusion
It is estimated
that around 245t of MPs, whose ultimate destiny is the aquatic environment are
being generated every year. The removal efficiency achieved by WWTPs was high,
despite WWTPs not being designed solely for the removal of microplastics. The
filter-based reception procedures procured the highest efficiency for
microplastic removal. Fibres and MPs having larger particle size (0.5–5 mm) got
separated easily via primary settling. PE and tiny-particle size MPs (<0.5
mm) got trapped easily in actuated sludge and by the bacteria in WWTPs. To
evaluate, in a better way, the kismet of MPs in WWTPs or other environmental
avenue, further study should emphasize on generation of standardized analysis
and sampling procedures. Microplastic-directed treatment methodologies are also
incessantly needed in order to avoid discharge into soil and aquatic
environments. Furthermore, the potential effect of successive exertion of
sludge on soil habitats should be scrutinized in future. To date, no standard
protocol or international rules for monitoring MPs in treated wastewater are
available for professionals to follow, making it difficult to compare results.
Concurrently, further study should highlight the inquiry of specific MPs,
particularly those in industrial areas. The regulating components of
ministrations in eliminating MPs in WWTPs also needs in-depth study, like
salinity, hydraulic retention time, and dissolved organic matter.
References
Blair, R.M., Waldron, S.,
Gauchotte-Lindsay, C., (2019). Average daily flow of microplastics through a
tertiary wastewater treatment plant over a ten-month period.Water Research, 163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. watres.2019.114909.
Blight, L.K., Burger, A.E.,
(1997). Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds from the eastern North
Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
34, 323-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X (96)00095-1
Browne, M.A., Crump, P.,
Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R. (2011). Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines
woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Technology, 45,
9175-9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201811s
Bugoni, L., Krause, L.g.,
Petry, M.V.n., (2001). Marine debris and human impacts on sea turtles in
southern Brazil. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 607 42, 1330-1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X (01)00147-3
Carr, S.A., Liu, J.,
Tesoro, A.G., (2016). Transport and fate of microplastic particles in
wastewater treatment plants. Water
Research, 91, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. watres.2016.01.002.
Chang, M, (2015). Reducing
microplastics from facial exfoliating cleansers in wastewater through treatment
versus consumer product decisions. Marine
Pollution Bulletin,101,330-333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.074
Cheremisinoff, N.P. (2002).
Sedimentation,
clarification, flotation, and coalescence, in
NP Cheremisinoff (ed.),
Handbook of
Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn,
268-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-075067498-0/50011-5.
Clark, J.R., Cole, M.,
Lindeque, P.K., Fileman, E., Blackford, J., Lewis, C., Lenton, T.M., Galloway,
T.S., (2016). Marine microplastic debris: a targeted plan for understanding and
quantifying interactions with marine life. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment,14,317-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1297
Cole, M., Lindeque, P.,
Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the
marine environment: a review. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 62, 2588-2597.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025
De Stephanis, R., Giménez,
J., Carpinelli, E., Gutierrez-Exposito, C., Cañadas, A.,(2013). As main meal
for sperm whales: Plastics debris. Maine
Pollution. Bullettin,69,206-214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.033
Derraik, J.G., (2002). The
pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X
(02)00220-5
Desforges, J.-P.W.,
Galbraith, M., Ross, P.S., (2015). Ingestion of microplastics by zooplankton in
the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Archive of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicolology, 69, 320-330.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5.
Duis, K., Coors, A.,
(2016). Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: sources (with
a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. Environmental Sciences Europe, 28, 2.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-015-0069-y
Durenkamp, M., Pawlett, M.,
Ritz, K., Harris, J.A., Neal, A.L., McGrath, S.P., (2016). Nanoparticles within
WWTP sludges have minimal impact on leachate quality and soil microbial
community structure and function. Environmental
Pollution, 211, 399–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.063.
Dyachenko, A., Mitchell,
J., Arsem, N., (2017). Extraction and identification of microplastic particles
from secondary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent. Analytical Methods, 9, 1412-1418.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02397E
Eerkes-Medrano, D., and
Thompson, R., (2018). Occurrence, fate, and effect of microplastics in
freshwater systems'. Microplastic
Contamination in Aquatic Environments, 95-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813747-5.00004-7.
Eriksen, M., Mason, S.,
Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H., Amato, S., (2013).
Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 77, 177-182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007
Frias, J., Otero, V.,
Sobral, P., (2014). Evidence of microplastics in samples of zooplankton from
Portuguese coastal waters. Marine
Environmental Research,95,89-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.01.001
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C.,
(2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92, 170-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041
Gies, E.A., LeNoble, J.L.,
Noël, M., Etemadifar, A., Bishay, F., Hall, E.R., Ross, P.S., (2018).
Retention of microplastics
in a major
secondary wastewater treatment
plant in Vancouver, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133, 553-561
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.06.006
Gouveia, R., Antunes, J.,
Sobral, P., Amaral, L., (2018).
Microplastics from wastewater treatment plants- preliminary data. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Microplastic Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, 53-57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71279-6_8
Halden, R.U., (2010). Plastics
and health risks. Annual Review of Public
Health, 31, 179-194.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103714
Hammer, S., Nager, R.,
Johnson, P., Furness, R., Provencher, J., (2016). Plastic debris in great skua
(Stercorarius skua) pellets corresponds to seabird prey species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 103, 206-210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.018
He, P., Chen, L., Shao, L.,
Zhang, H., Lü, F., (2019). Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill: A source of
microplastics?-Evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate. Water Research, 159, 38-45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.060
Hermabessiere, L., Dehaut,
A., Paul-Pont, I., Lacroix, C., Jezequel, R., Soudant, P., Duflos, G., (2017).
Occurrence and effects of plastic additives on marine environments and organisms:
a review. Chemosphere, 182,781-793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.096.
Hernandez, E., Nowack, B.,
Mitrano, D.M., (2017). Polyester
textiles as a source of microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to
understand microfiber release during washing. Environmental Science and Technology, 51, 7036-7046
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01750
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L.,
Thompson, R.C., Thiel, M., (2012). Microplastics in the marine environment: a
review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environmental Science and Technology,46,3060-3075.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es2031505
Hidayaturrahman, H., Lee,
T.G., (2019). A study on characteristics of microplastic in wastewater of South
Korea: Identification, quantification, and fate of microplastics during
treatment process. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 146, 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.marpolbul.2019.06.071.
Hirai, H., Takada, H.,
Ogata, Y., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Saha, M., Kwan, C., Moore, C., Gray,
H., Laursen, D., (2011). Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris from
the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62,1683-1692.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.004
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R.,
Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., Law, K.L.,
(2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science,347,768571.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352
Kole, P.J., Löhr, A.J., Van
Belleghem, F., Ragas, A., (2017). Wear and tear of tyres: a stealthy source of
microplastics in the environment. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health,14,1265.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101265
Lapointe, M., Farner, J.M.,
Hernandez, L.M., Tufenkji, N., (2020). Understanding and improving
microplastics removal during water treatment: Impact of coagulation and
flocculation. Environmental Science and
Technology, 54, 14, 8719–8727. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00712.
Lares, M., Ncibi, M.C.,
Sillanpää, M., Sillanpää, M., (2018). Occurrence, identification and removal of
microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process and
advanced MBR technology. Water Research,
133, 236-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.01.049
Lechner, A., Keckeis, H.,
Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M., Glas, M.,
Schludermann, E., (2014). The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of plastic
litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe's second largest river. Environment and Pollution, 188, 177-181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.006
Lehtiniemi, M.,
Hartikainen, S., N¨akki, P., Engstr¨om-¨Ost, J., Koistinen, A., Set¨al¨a, O.,
(2018). Size matters more than shape: Ingestion of primary and secondary
microplastics by small predators. Food
Webs, 17, e00097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fooweb.2018.e00097.
Li, J.Y., Liu, H.H., Paul
Chen, J.P. (2018). Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review on occurrence,
environmental effects, and methods for microplastics detection. Water Research, 137, 362–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.056.
Li, X., Mei, Q., Chen, L.,
Zhang, H., Dong, B., Dai, X., He, C., Zhou, J. (2019). Enhancement in
adsorption potential of microplastics in sewage sludge for metal pollutants
after the wastewater treatment process. Water
Research, 157, 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.03.069
Lithner, D., Larsson, A.,
Dave, G. (2011). Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of
plastic polymers based on chemical composition. Science of the Total Environment, 409, 3309-3324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.038
Liu, K., Wang, X., Fang,
T., Xu, P., Zhu, L. & Li, D. (2019a). Source and potential risk assessment
of suspended atmospheric microplastics in Shanghai. Science of the Total Environment, 675, 462-471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.110
Liu, K., Wang, X.H., Fang,
T., Xu, P., Zhu, L.X., Li, D.J. (2019c). Source and potential risk assessment
of suspended atmospheric microplastics in Shanghai. Science of the Total Environment, 675, 462–471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.110.
Liu, W.L., Wu, Y., Zhang,
S.J., Gao, Y.Q., Jiang, Y., Horn, H., Li, J. (2020b). Successful granulation
and microbial differentiation of activated sludge in anaerobic/anoxic/ aerobic
(A2O) reactor with two-zone sedimentation tank treating municipal sewage. Water Research, 178, 115825
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115825.
Liu, X., Yuan, W., Di, M.,
Li, Z., Wang, J., (2019b). Transfer and fate of microplastics during the
conventional activated sludge process in one wastewater treatment plant of
China. Chemical Engineering Journal, 362,
176-182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.01.033
Long, Z.X., Pan, Z., Wang,
W.L., Ren, J.Y., Yu, X.G., Lin, L.Y., Lin, H., Chen, H.Z., Jin, X. L. (2019).
Microplastic abundance, characteristics, and removal in wastewater treatment
plants in a coastal city of China. Water
Research, 155, 255–265. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.028.
Lusher, A., Mchugh, M.,
Thompson, R. (2013a). Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract
of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 67, 94-99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.028
Magni, S., Binelli, A.,
Pittura, L., Avio, C.G., Della Torre, C., Parenti, C.C., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F.
(2019). The fate of microplastics in an Italian Wastewater Treatment Plant. Science of the Total Environment, 652,602–610.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.269.
Mason, S.A.,
Garneau, D., Sutton,
R., Chu, Y.,
Ehmann, K., Barnes,
J., Fink, P., Papazissimos, D., Rogers, D.L., (2016).
Microplastic pollution is widely detected in US municipal wastewater treatment
plant effluent. Environmental Pollution,
218,1045-1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.056
Max, S., Albert A.K.,
Ellen, B., Carolien, K., (2017). Export of microplastics from land to sea. A
modelling approach. Water Research,
127, 15, 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.10.011
McCormick, A., Hoellein,
T.J., Mason, S.A., Schluep, J., Kelly, J.J. (2014). Microplastic is an abundant
and distinct microbial habitat in an urban river. Environmental Science Technology, 48, 11863–11871.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es503610r
Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen,
I., L¨oder, M.G.J., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G. (2017). Identification of
microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane
array-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Research, 108, 365–372. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015
Murphy F., Ewins, C.,
Carbonnier, F., Quinn, B. (2016).
Wastewater treatment works (WwTW)
as a source
of microplastics in
the aquatic environment.
Environmental Science and
Technology,50,5800-5808. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05416
Napper, I.E., Thompson,
R.C. (2016). Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic
washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 112, 39–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025
Neves, D., Sobral, P.,
Ferreira, J.L., Pereira, T. (2015). Ingestion of microplastics by commercial
fish off the Portuguese coast. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 871 101, 119-126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.008
Ngo, P.L., Pramanik, B.K.,
Shah, K., Roychand, R., (2019). Pathway, classification and removal efficiency
efficieny of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Pollution,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113326
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M.,
Langaas, S. (2016). Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics of urban
origin? Environmental Science and
Technology, 50, 10777–10779.https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.est.6b04140.
Paula M., Daniel S., Alba
A., Amanda L., Yaisel J. B., Eduardo, D., Adriana,L., Gonzalo M.S., Mario, D.
& Vazquez, E. (2020). Bioremediation as a promising strategy for
microplastics removal in waste water treatment plants. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 156, 111252
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111252
Pramila, R., Ramesh, K.V.,
(2011). Biodegradation of low density polyethylene (LDPE) by fungi isolated
from municipal landfill area. Journal
Microbiological Biotechnoogical. Research 1, 131-136. https://doi.org/10.5897/JBR12.003
Qiao, R.X., Deng, Y.F.,
Zhang, S.H., Wolosker, M.B., Zhu, Q.D., Ren, H.Q., Zhang, Y., (2019).
Accumulation of different shapes of microplastics initiates’ intestinal injury
and gut microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of zebrafish. Chemosphere, 236, 124334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.065
Rochman, C., Tahir, A., and
Williams, S. et al. (2015). Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and
fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Scientific Reports, 5, 14340.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14340
Rummel, C.D., Jahnke, A.,
Gorokhova, E., Kühnel, D., Schmitt-Jansen, M. (2017). Impacts of biofilm
formation on the fate and potential effects of microplastic in the aquatic
environment. Environmental Science and
Technological Letter, 4, 258-267.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00164
Saxena, A., &
Srivastava, A. (2022). Industry
Application of Green Manufacturing: A Critical Review. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(1), 32-45.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6207141
Scherer C., Weber A.,
Lambert S., Wagner M. (2018). Interactions of microplastics with freshwater
Biota. The Handbook of Environmental
Chemistry, 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_8
Seow, T.W., Lim, C.K., Nor,
M., Mubarak, M., Lam C.Y., Yahya, A., Ibrahim, Z. (2016). Review on wastewater
treatment technologies. International
Journal of Applied Environmental Science, 11, 111-126.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006493
Sun, J., Dai, X.H., Wang, Q.L.,
van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Ni, B.J., (2019). Microplastics in wastewater treatment
plants: Detection, occurrence and removal. Water
Research, 152, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050.
Sussarellu, R., Suquet, M.,
Thomas, Y., Lambert, C., Fabioux, C., Pernet, M.E.J., Le Goïc, N., Quillien,
V., Mingant, C., Epelboin, Y., (2016). Oyster reproduction is affected by
exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science, 113, 2430-2435.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519019113
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A.,
Koistinen, A., Set¨al¨a, O., (2017a). Solutions to microplastic pollution -
Removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater
treatment technologies. Water Research,
123, 401–407. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.005.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A.,
Set¨al¨a, O., Heinonen, M., Koistinen, A., (2017b). How well is microlitter
purified from wastewater? A detailed study on the stepwise removal of
microlitter in a tertiary level wastewater treatment plant. Water Research, 109, 164–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.046.
Teuten, E.L., Saquing,
J.M., Knappe, D.R., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland, S.J.,
Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., (2009). Transport and release of
chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Biological Science, 364,2027-2045.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0284
Van Cauwenberghe, L.,
Janssen, C.R., (2014). Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human
consumption. Environmental Pollution,
193, 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010
Van Cauwenberghe, L.,
Vanreusel, A., Mees, J., Janssen, C.R., (2013). Microplastic pollution in
deep-sea sediments. Environmental
Pollution, 182, 495-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013
Wardrop, P., Shimeta, J.,
Nugegoda, D., Morrison, P.D., Miranda, A., Tang, M., Clarke, B.O. (2016).
Chemical pollutants sorbed to ingested microbeads from personal care products
accumulate in fish. Environmental Science
and Technology, 50, 4037-4044. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06280
Wei, W., Huang, Q.S., Sun,
J., Wang, J.Y., Wu, S.L., Ni, B.J. (2019). Polyvinyl chloride microplastics
affect methane production from the anaerobic digestion of waste activated
sludge through leaching toxic Bisphenol-A. Environmental
Science and Technology,53,2509–2517.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07069.
Weiyi L., Jinlan Z., Hang,
L. , Xiaonan, G., Xiyue, Z., Xiaolong, Y., Zhiguo, C., Tingting, Z. (2021). A review
of the removal of microplastics in global wastewater treatment plants:
Characteristics and mechanisms. Environment
International, 146,106277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106277
Wright, S.L., Rowe, D.,
Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., (2013). Microplastic ingestion decreases energy
reserves in marine worms. Current Biology,
23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.068
Wright, S.L., Ulke, J.,
Font, A., Chan, K.L.A., Kelly, F.J. (2020). Atmospheric microplastic deposition
in an urban environment and an evaluation of transport. Environment International 136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105411.
Yang, L., Li, K., Cui, S.,
Kang, Y., An, L., Lei, K. (2019). Removal of microplastics in municipal sewage
from China's largest water reclamation plant. Water Research,155,175-181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.046
Zettler, E.R., Mincer,
T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A. (2013). Life in the “plastisphere”: microbial
communities on plastic marine debris. Environmental
Science and Technology,47,7137-7146. https://doi.org/10.1021/es401288x
Zhang, K., Shi, H., Peng,
J., Wang, Y., Xiong, X., Wu, C., Lam, P.K.S. (2018). Microplastic pollution in
China's inland water systems: A review of findings, methods, characteristics,
effects, and management. Science of the
Total Environment, 630, 1641-1653.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.300
Zhang, X.L., Chen, J.X.,
Li, J. (2020). The removal of microplastics in the waste water treatment
process and their potential impact on anaerobic digestion due to pollutants
association. Chemosphere, 251,
126360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chemosphere.2020.126360.
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Rintoul, L., Leusch, F.D.L. (2017). Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway for microplastics: Development of a new approach to sample wastewater-based microplastics. Water Research, 112, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. watres.2017.01.042
|
|
©
The Author(s)
2022. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions
of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. |
