Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Review

Recent approaches and advanced wastewater treatment technologies for

mitigating emerging microplastics contamination – A critical review
Radhakrishnan Yedhu Krishnan a,1, Sivasubramanian Manikandan b,1, Ramasamy Subbaiya c,
⁎ ⁎ ⁎⁎
Natchimuthu Karmegam d, , Woong Kim e, , Muthusamy Govarthanan e,f,
a
Department of Food Technology, Amal Jyothi College of Engineering, Kanjirappally, Kottayam 686 518, Kerala, India
b
Department of Biotechnology, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha Nagar, Thandalam, Chennai 602 105. Tamil Nadu, India
c
Department of Biological Sciences, School of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, The Copperbelt University, Riverside, Jambo Drive, P O Box 21692, Kitwe, Zambia
d
PG and Research Department of Botany, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Salem 636 007, Tamil Nadu, India
e
Department of Environmental Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea
f
Department of Biomaterials, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Smaller microplastics (MPs) <100 μm are

not effectively separated by conventional
WWTPs.
• Granules and fragments were easier to sep-
arate than microfibers and pellet shaped
MPs.
• Blue mussels, lugworms and sea grasses are
candidate species for MPs' bioremediation.
• Rapid sand filters and membrane bioreac-
tors can remove 97 % and 99 % MPs
respectively.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Damià Barceló Microplastics have been identified as an emerging pollutant due to their irrefutable prevalence in air, soil, and partic-
ularly, the aquatic ecosystem. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are seen as the last line of defense which creates
Keywords: a barrier between microplastics and the environment. These microplastics are discharged in large quantities into
Microplastics aquatic bodies due to their insufficient containment during water treatment. As a result, WWTPs are regarded as
Wastewater treatment plants
point sources of microplastics release into the environment. Assessing the prevalence and behavior of microplastics
Membrane technology
Bioremediation
in WWTPs is therefore critical for their control. The removal efficiency of microplastics was 65 %, 0.2–14 %, and
Advanced techniques 0.2–2 % after the successful primary, secondary and tertiary treatment phases in WWTPs. In this review, other than
conventional treatment methods, advanced treatment methods have also been discussed. For the removal of
microplastics in the size range 20–190 μm, advanced treatment methods like membrane bioreactors, rapid sand filtra-
tion, electrocoagulation and photocatalytic degradation was found to be effective and these methods helps in increas-
ing the removal efficiency to >99 %. Bioremediation based approaches has found that sea grasses, lugworm and blue
mussels has the ability to mitigate microplastics by acting as a natural trap to the microplastics pollutants and could act
as candidate species for possible incorporation in WWTPs. Also, there is a need for controlling the use and unchecked
release of microplastics into the environment through laws and regulations.

⁎ Corresponding authors.
⁎⁎ Correspondence to: M. Govarthanan, Department of Biomaterials, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail addresses: kanishkarmegam@gmail.com (N. Karmegam), elshine@knu.ac.kr (W. Kim), gova.muthu@gmail.com (M. Govarthanan).
1
R. Yedhu Krishnan and S. Manikandan contributed equally to this work.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159681
Received 3 August 2022; Received in revised form 24 September 2022; Accepted 20 October 2022
Available online 24 October 2022
0048-9697/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R.Y. Krishnan et al. Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Toxicity and health hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Legislations for minimal microplastic pollutants in environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Mitigation of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Pretreatment and primary treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Secondary treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Tertiary treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Advanced approaches in mitigation of microplastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Membrane technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. Dynamic membrane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. Membrane bioreactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Reverse osmosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Eukaryotic marine plants and microalgae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Eukaryotic marine animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Other advanced approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Rapid sand filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Electrocoagulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Photocatalytic degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Sol-gel method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Future outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CRediT authorship contribution statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Data availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. Introduction toxicity in organisms with persistent microplastics exposure (An et al.,

Plastics have been vital in civilization ever since invention of the first
synthetic resin at the turn of the twentieth century (Bolan et al., 2020a;
Cole et al., 2011). Microplastics, which are generally described as plastics
with size <5 mm, are found in a wide range of marine and terrestrial habi-
tats and biota (Arthur et al., 2009; Bhatt et al., 2021; Bradney et al., 2020;
Schmid et al., 2021). With the evolution of time, there have been variations
in the definition of microplastics and its size range. Within the defined size
range, microplastics has been further subclassified into large microplastics
(1–5 mm size) and small microplastics (< 1 mm size) (Bolan et al., 2020c;
Zhang et al., 2019). More recently, the size range of microplastics has
been redefined more conservatively by Hartmann et al. (Hartmann et al.,
2019). Hartmann define microplastics as synthetic polymeric matrix of par-
ticle size lesser than 1 mm size. The other classifications of these regular or
irregularly shaped synthetic solid particles includes mesoplastics (<10 mm
– 1 mm), nanoplastics (<1000 nm – 1 nm) and macroplastics (>1 cm)
(Hartmann et al., 2019). However, it should be noted that the general ac-
cepted definition for microplastics as reported by the bulk of available liter-
atures define them as synthetic particles of size <5 mm (Palansooriya et al.,
2020).
Microplastics can be broadly classified into two based on their origin -
primary microplastics and secondary microplastics. Primary microplastics
are those that are specifically manufactured for household or industrial
applications, whereas secondary microplastics are those that have been
formed by the break-up of larger macroplastics due to the effects of
mechanical abrasion or UV irradiation (Jaikumar et al., 2019). Presence
of microplastics has been detected in freshwater (Choong et al., 2021),
soil (Kumar et al., 2020; Sridharan et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021), marine
ecosystem (Zhang et al., 2020), atmosphere (Chen et al., 2020), and even
in polar regions of the world (Mishra et al., 2021). Due to their smaller
size and higher surface area, microplastics have the ability to adsorb
other pollutants like pharmaceutical and personal care products (Atugoda
et al., 2021; Atugoda et al., 2020; Krishnan et al., 2021), heavy metals
and metalloids (Liu et al., 2021; L. Wang et al., 2021), and polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons (Borges-Ramírez et al., 2021), leading to chronic
2021). Terrestrial microplastics that are getting generated due to various
human activities enter the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) before
getting exposed to other marine or freshwater ecosystems and their even-
tual accumulation in the environment (Q. Wang et al., 2021; Yan et al.,
2020). Therefore, it is upmost necessity to study about the various treat-
ment techniques that are useful in WWTPs and the effectiveness of these
techniques in the removal of microplastics and thereby preventing their
entry to the natural environment.
Microplastic particles have also been classified according to
their type, which included beads, foams, pellets, fibers and fragments
(Dodson et al., 2020; Qi et al., 2020; Saborowski et al., 2019). Polymers
used to manufacture microplastics include polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride,
polyethylene, polyether sulfone, low-density polyethylene, high-density
polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, cellulose acetate,
polyamide, polyacrylates, and polyester (Welden, 2019; Welden and
Lusher, 2020; Wong et al., 2020). Higher concentrations of microplastics
were commonly discharged from WWTPs due to fishing related operations
and laundries. In addition to these primary sources, direct trash discharge
to surface water also played a substantial role in microplastics contamination.
Furthermore, the living environment characteristics influence microplastics
discharges (Duan et al., 2021). For example, densely populated metropolitan
regions with greater prosperity may be greater suppliers and emitters of
microplastics than rural regions (Eckert et al., 2018). Plastics are also widely
utilised in farm and agricultural related activities (Kirkham et al., 2020).
Also, microplastics get introduced into the soil via sewage sludge, after
them being used as fertilizers in agricultural land (Nizzetto et al., 2016). It
should be also noted that the effluent wastewater which hold higher concen-
trations of microplastics gets in direct contact with rivers and canal systems
before eventually reaching the ocean systems (Jambeck et al., 2015).
The breakdown of microplastics into their constituent oligomers,
dimers, and monomers is one of the many stages that are involved in
the biodegradation of microplastics by microbes. Other stages in this
process include: 1) the preliminary degradation of polymeric materials
into smaller size aggregates originating from larger polymeric structures;
2) the breakdown of polymers into their constituent oligomers; and 3) the

2
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
mineralization of microplastics by microbes (Blair Espinoza, 2019). A num-
ber of conditions must be in line for biodegradation of microplastics to be
successful; among them is the presence of potentially degrading microor-
ganisms with the necessary biochemical and metabolic pathways. Further-
more, biodegradation is promoted when other supporting conditions
including temperature, salinity, moisture content, and pH are ideal (Gong
et al., 2012). The lamellar thickness and crystal size of polymers, as well
as the percentage of crystalline and amorphous sections, all affect the enzy-
matic breakdown rates of microplastics. Moreover, for microorganisms to
attach on a polymer, the physical properties of polymer must be suitable
for adhesion of microorganisms to the polymer's surface (Shabbir et al.,
2020). All these factors make the biodegradation of microplastics quite
challenging.
Complete degradation of all contaminants are rarely required and often
presents unfavorable economics. Possible alternatives include partial oxida-
tion process of the initial molecule towards less stable intermediate com-
pounds, which can be further broken down in the ecosystem and pose
minimal threat to human or aquatic. The nature and quantity of byproducts
rely on the type of oxidation, the duration of treatment, and the character-
istics of the aqueous matrix; nonetheless, in some situations, partial oxida-
tion of contaminants can result in the synthesis of intermediates of
increased toxicity (Bratovcic, 2019). For polymer biodegradation to occur
in an aerobic environment, the polymeric carbons must be broken down
into carbon dioxide, microbial biomass, and the carbon present in remnant
monomers and polymers. For instance, there are three main stages involved
in the biodegradation of polyvinyl chloride: the breakdown of long polymer
chains, intermediate products formation, and the complete degradation to
chloride ions, carbon dioxide and water (Peng et al., 2020). Similarly, the
degradation of polyurethanes may result in the formation of secondary
microplastics rich in urethane via breakdown of esters, proceeded by aggre-
gation and attrition of oligomer chains. Also, breakdown of polyvinyl alco-
hol typically involves hydrolase and aldolase processes, which cleave the
primary polymer chain. Hydroxyl fatty acid and acetic acid were the final
products that resulted from the degradation process of polyvinyl alcohol
(Wilkes and Aristilde, 2017).
The different techniques to remove microplastics from wastewater in-
cludes: screening and filtration (Ding et al., 2021), rapid sand filtration
(Wang et al., 2020), dissolved air flotation (Y. Wang et al., 2021), mem-
brane processes (Pramanik et al., 2021), membrane bioreactor (Maliwan
et al., 2021), electrocoagulation (Shen et al., 2022), and activated sludge
process (Bretas Alvim et al., 2021). There are recent reviews available
which discusses the removal of microplastics from WWTPs. Most of these
reviews focusses on the shape, size and type of the microplastics that are
getting removed in conventional WWTPs. There are also other literatures
available based on the characterization and detection methods of
microplastics in aquatic systems. However, there have been limited focus
on the various novel techniques available for removal of microplastics
from wastewater. This review discusses various advanced methods based
on membrane technology, electrocoagulation and photocatalytic degrada-
tion and their effectiveness in mitigation of microplastics. In addition,
bioremediation-based approaches also have proven to be effective in
microplastic containment and is one of the key focus areas in this review.
The health hazards and the key legislations related to the control of
microplastics emissions are also discussed here.
1.1. Toxicity and health hazards
Fish is one among the primary source of protein for humans. As a result,
people devoured a broad range of fish and other aquatic species while
also ingesting microplastics along with them. Such passive intake of
microplastics is a potential risk to humans and has emerged as a growing
issue in recent decades (Bolan et al., 2020b; Bradney et al., 2019; De-la-
Torre, 2020). Microplastics not just have detrimental effects on mammals
but on other species like aquatic birds, amphibians, and reptiles by interfer-
ing with their natural activities like as respiration, ingestion, digestion, and
swimming, thereby reducing their overall survival capability as well as by
3
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
limiting development and fertility (Lahive et al., 2019; Mandal et al.,
2020; Tanaka and Takada, 2016; Yin et al., 2021). The effects of
microplastic ingestion and accumulation were examined in 26 distinct
fish species from various habitats along the Red Sea coast bordering
Saudi Arabia (Baalkhuyur et al., 2018). Microplastics were discovered in
14.6 % of the tested fish, with Parascolopsis eriomma, a fish type that
feeds on benthic organisms, having the greatest percentage of accumulated
microplastics. Pollutants assimilated or attached to microplastics, as well as
the hazardous plastic additives that gets leached are of grave consequence
to marine biota (X. Wang et al., 2021). Microplastics in soil, on the other
hand, have the potential to dramatically affect plant biomass, soil pH,
microbial activity in soil, water dynamics, elemental composition of plant
tissues, and root characteristics (de Souza Machado et al., 2019).
Other than ingestion, the other routes of microplastics exposure in
humans are through skin contact and respiration. Microplastics through re-
spiratory routes are mostly derived from pulverized rubber tyres, urban
dust, and synthetic fabrics like polyester, nylon or acrylic (Prata, 2018a).
Wholly consumed organisms pose a larger risk to human health than
disembowelled organisms (Carbery et al., 2018). Even though the human
dermis and epidermis layer prevents direct entry of microplastics, skin
openings such as hair follicles, skin injuries, and sweat ducts act as viable
entry points (Kurniawan et al., 2021; Schneider et al., 2009). Toxic effects
of microplastics include endothelial dysfunction (Prata et al., 2020), inflam-
matory lesions (Smith et al., 2018), endocrine disturbance (Amereh et al.,
2020) and oxidative stress (Qiao et al., 2019). Numerous researches have
shown that there is a danger of neurotoxicity (Lei et al., 2018), breakdown
of metabolic activities (Prata et al., 2020), and elevated risk of carcinoma in
people (Sharma et al., 2020). Table 1 describes the various classes of
microplastics and the potential health hazards caused by microplastic pol-
lutants. Particles smaller than 150 μm may translocate themselves to the
lymph nodes after ingestion, although assimilation is predicted to occur
in fewer than 0.3 % of the consumed particles (Barboza et al., 2018). The
main site of absorption of microplastics and other emerging pollutants in
the human body is the Peyers's patches present in the small intestine and
the smallest of these particles penetrate the cellular membranes of various
organs (Bouwmeester et al., 2015; Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014).
The different strategies to identify, detect and characterize microplastics
include - microsphere based multiplex immunoassay (MBMIs), multispectral
optoacoustic tomography, particle image velocimetry, laser printer method,
dark-field hyperspectral microscopy, gas chromatography, mass spectrome-
try, pyrolysis gas chromatography - time of flight mass spectrometry
(Py-GC-TOF-MS), Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) analysis, attenuated
total reflection mid-infrared spectroscopy, near infrared-hyperspectral imag-
ing (HSI-NIR), pyrolysis-gas chromatography (GC) in combination with mass
spectrometry (MS), infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, solid–state
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, and near-infrared (NIR)
spectroscopy (Reslova et al., 2017; Tirkey and Upadhyay, 2021; Vilakati
et al., 2021). The best technique possible for chemical characterization of
microplastics are FT-IR and Raman spectroscopy (Ming-Lok Leung et al.,
2021). FT-IR analysis can be used on particles as small as 50 μm, while
Raman can be used on particles of size range 1–10 μm (Corami et al.,
2021). FTIR and Raman are both complementary and generate information
for chemical mapping (Xu et al., 2019). NIR does not require pre-treatment
and can detect particles as small as 1 mm (Piarulli et al., 2020). Similarly,
quantitative NMR is a rapid, size-independent, easy to utilize approach for
quantifying microplastic concentration (Du and Wang, 2021).
1.2. Legislations for minimal microplastic pollutants in environment
Studies recommend removing purposely incorporated microplastics
from commodities, such as microplastics in skincare (microbeads), as it is
a simpler method to execute, despite the fact that they are regarded
a minor concern among the bulk of other microplastic pollutants
(Anagnosti et al., 2021). There is indeed a lack of serious international reg-
ulation prohibiting the production and use of microplastics, particularly in
the field of pharmaceutical and personal care products, but certain
R.Y. Krishnan et al. Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681

Table 1
Microplastics impact on human health.
Various classes of microplastics Health effects of microplastics References

Beads Micro-beads Toxicity effects of micro-beads include inflammatory lesions, (Bhutiani et al., 2017; Bolan et al., 2020d; Dong et al., 2004;
Spherical micro-beads oxidative stress, and translocation Fang et al., 2021; Nigamatzyanova and Fakhrullin, 2021;
Microspheres Reslova et al., 2017)
Foams Polystyrene and their derivatives Metabolic disorders, higher cancer risk in humans, and (Bao et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2020a; Park et al., 2021; Sarkar
Polyvinyl chloride neurotoxicity are possible, tissue inflammation and necrosis et al., 2020; Vidal and Pasquini, 2021; Vilakati et al., 2021)
Expanded polystyrene
Pellets Nibs Immune responses, physical toxicity, and cytokine production result (Bhutiani et al., 2017; Dong et al., 2004; Fang et al., 2021;
Resin in oxidative stress, inflammation, and cellular damage, hemocyte Nigamatzyanova and Fakhrullin, 2021; Reslova et al., 2017)
Pellets aggregation and respiratory failure
Urdles
Fibers Microfibre Obstruct digestive tracts, change feeding habits, and reduce the (Ali et al., 2021; Bhutiani et al., 2017; Bolan et al., 2020d)
Filaments desire to urge to eat, impact on immune system
Thread based materials
Fragments Films Higher cancer risk in humans, reduce the desire to urge to eat food, (Castelvetro et al., 2021; Löder and Gerdts, 2015;
Granules inflammatory lesions, oxidative stress, and translocation or Wijesekara et al., 2020)
Crystals increased uptake, human exposure to associated chemicals
Irregular shaped particles
Powder
Flakes
Granules
Fluff
Shavings

countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have
prohibited the production and use of microbeads (Auta et al., 2017; Prata,
2018b). The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 is a law implemented by
the 114th United States Congress that prohibits the inclusion of
microplastics (microbeads) to manufactured goods (Xanthos and Walker,
2017). This legislation has been effective for industries since July 2017
and for retail outlets since July 2018. The results from these legislations
illustrate both successes and mistakes, which may be utilised to better exe-
cute policy frameworks. Because the microplastics policies were only
recently implemented, there is a scarcity of scientific and quantitative
data to report on the results.
Demand from non-governmental organisations and movements de-
manding prohibitions, such as “Beat the microbead,” prompted bodies
such as the United Nations to establish strategies to combat marine pollu-
tion caused by microplastic particles (Anagnosti et al., 2021; EPA NSW,
2016). Other world countries like the China, New Zealand, Canada, and
South Korea has implemented positive steps in restricting the release of
microbeads in personal care products (Anagnosti et al., 2021; Excell et al.,
2018). Also, countries like India and Brazil are actively considering restric-
tions on microplastics usage. On similar grounds, the European Union
through the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) is considering a proposal
to restrict the intentional addition of microplastics to certain goods during
its production stage (ECHA, 2019). It is estimated that with the implemen-
tation of the said proposal, the microplastic emission into the environment
can be reduced by 85–95 % in the European Union. Furthermore, a pro-
posal for tackling the microplastic pollution emerging from WWTPs and
the issues related to the use of sewage sludge for agricultural purposes is
being considered by the European Parliament (European Commission,
2020). Such efforts could contribute actively for curtailing the release of
microplastics into the environment.
Even though the above legislations aimed at controlling the menace of
microplastics were enacted, betterment of existing methods as well as de-
velopment of advanced treatment methods for removal of microplastics
from WWTPs are required. Waste water ought to be treated and reused if
we are to keep up with our water needs (Velusamy et al., 2022). The term
“treatment process” refers to the procedure by which polluted water,
whether from domestic usage or industrial activity, is restored to a usable
quality (Rathi et al., 2021). The potential presence of newly discovered or
developing contaminants like microplastics in our waterways remains a
key cause for concern for both environmental and human health (Rathi
and Kumar, 2021). Conventional treatment methods were unable to
entirely remove microplastics from wastewater, as was shown in earlier
research carried out in UK (Blair et al., 2019). For instance, after the
preliminary treatment, the cumulative abundance of microplastics was re-
duced by 6 %; after the primary treatment, it decreased by 68 %; after the
secondary treatment, it decreased by 92 %; and after the tertiary treatment,
it decreased by 96 %. On a different note, different WWTPs utilised the
same microplastics treatment process, but achieved significantly different
levels of success in removing the microplastics. Also, in a treatment facility
in Beijing (Yang et al., 2019), it was found that the efficiency of removing
microplastics using aeration grit chambers was 58 %, while the efficiency
of using anaerobic – anoxic - oxic (A2O) was 54 %, and the efficiency of
utilising advanced oxidation methods was 71 %. On the other hand, in a
Shanghai wastewater treatment plant (Jia et al., 2019), the microplastics
removal efficiency for the same treatment methods declined to 49 %
when utilising aeration grit chambers, 26 % when using A2O, and 0.78 %
when using advanced oxidation processes. Hence, a comprehensive study
on the current treatment methods employed in WWTPs and their impact
on removal of microplastics is critical to be analysed.
2. Mitigation of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants
The majority of microplastics that reach the environment comes from
sewage water and wastewater (Ajith et al., 2020; Pereao et al., 2020).
Many research findings have confirmed the widespread presence of
microplastics in freshwater and marine habitats. A WWTP (serving a popu-
lation of 650,000) releases approximately 65 million microplastics into the
aquatic environment daily (Murphy et al., 2016). Over 80 % of the
microbeads released into the surface waters in China each year come
from WWTPs (Cheung and Fok, 2017). The majority of microplastics
found in untreated wastewater get retained within the sludge. The concen-
tration of microplastics in sewage sludge varied between 1.6 × 103 and
56.4 × 103 particles for 1 kg of dry sludge (X. Li et al., 2018). Although
wastewater / sewage treatment plants are currently not intended or opti-
mized for microplastics removal, certain studies indicate that enhanced
wastewater treatment technologies may improve the microplastic waste
disposal (Kumar et al., 2021; Rashid and Liu, 2020; Sobczyk et al., 2021).
The mitigation efficiency of various microplastics by the conventional
WWTPs was determined using the difference in concentrations of
microplastics in both the influent and effluent. As a whole, microplastics
elimination efficacies were >88 % in WWTPs with no tertiary treatment
protocols and >97 % in WWTPs with different tertiary treatment methods
(Dris et al., 2015; Michielssen et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2016). As a result,
the percentage removal of pollutants in WWTPs is insufficient to overcome
microplastics pollution and the attained effectiveness of microplastics re-
moval in each WWTP from different parts of the world varied from around

4
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
60 % to 99.9 % based on the methods implemented for water treatment
(Gies et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019).
Municipal WWTPs around the globe share a fundamental architecture,
albeit the arrangement of this basic design varies with every facility.
Fig. 1 gives the different stages and general outline of a WWTP. The
common steps in a WWTP include sedimentation, flocculation, and aera-
tion. Depending on the morphological and physico-chemical features like
hydrophobicity, particle size, density, and charge, the removal efficiency
of microplastics in wastewater treatment facilities may vary (Keerthana
Devi et al., 2022; Seth and Shriwastav, 2018; Ziajahromi et al., 2021). Dur-
ing the treatment of wastewater, the microplastics residues may be retained
inside the sludge of treatment plants; occasionally, it may be processed and
used on land, an example being use for agricultural purposes (Garcés-
Ordóñez et al., 2021). With screen meshes of 6 mm or higher, the primary
treatment separates larger debris particles. In secondary treatment, precip-
itated and other dissolved organic wastes get eliminated in massive oxida-
tion tanks. This is followed by separation of the treated wastewater from
the processed effluent water by adopting strategies like treatment in sedi-
mentation tanks or flocculation (Murphy et al., 2016). Following the sec-
ondary treatment, the wastewater is disinfected and then get proceeded
for sophisticated tertiary treatment protocols like activated sand filters
and finally gets released into nearby streams (Mahon et al., 2017). It should
be noted that the percentage of microplastics that is getting eliminated de-
pends upon the type of treatment protocols and the nature of microplastics
present in wastewater.
2.1. Pretreatment and primary treatment
It was found that preliminary treatment (sedimentation, screening, flo-
tation etc.) may remove between 35 % and 59 % of microplastics, and that
primary treatment (adsorption, coagulation, ozonation, etc.) could remove
between 50 % and 98 % of microplastics (Sun et al., 2019). The bulk of the
microplastics present in wastewater could be efficiently removed during
the pretreatment and primary treatment stage. It has been observed that
during a conventional primary treatment phase approximately 65 % of
the microplastics are eliminated (Burns and Boxall, 2018), where
microplastics with lower densities favorably get concentrated in the oil or
grease layer (Murphy et al., 2016), and are removed eventually (Carr
et al., 2016). Also, during the gravity settling and grit removal phase, the
microplastics get entrapped within the solid flocs. In the studies conducted
by Gies et al. (Gies et al., 2018) and Bayo et al. (Bayo et al., 2020b) the
microplastic removal efficiency of 92 % and 74 % was observed during
the primary stage of wastewater treatment plant respectively. During the
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
Sedimentation, Equalization, Screening and Aeration, Filtration, Degasiication,
Flotation, Other physical methods
PRIMARY TREATMENT
Ozonation, Coagulation, Ion-Exchange, Adsorption, Chlorination, Neutralization,
Other chemical methods.
SECONDARY TREATMENT
1) Aerobic: Lagoons, Activated sludge treatment, Oxidation ponds, Trickling
iltration.
2) Anaerobic : Lagoons, Septic tanks, other biological treatment methods.
TERTIARY TREATMENT
Filtration, Membrane processes, Ion Exchange, Activated carbon treatment,
Disinfection, Oxidation, Chemically aided settling, Advanced oxidation, Softening,
Other advanced approaches.
Fig. 1. Classification of different stages and general outline of a wastewater
treatment plant.
5
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
primary treatment, microplastics of larger size range, generally between
1000 and 5000 μm get removed (Dris et al., 2015). In addition, considering
the shape of microplastics, the removal efficiency of microspheres was
higher compared to fibers (Claessens et al., 2013). Similarly, in the study
conducted by Long et al. (Long et al., 2019), it was identified that granule
and fragment shaped particles showed a removal efficiency of 91 %,
whereas for fibers and pellets it was 79 % and 83 % respectively. The
smooth texture of fibers and pellets meant that it was difficult for them to
get captured by the solid flocs compared to the twisted and angular
shapes of granules and fragments. Gies et al. (Gies et al., 2018) has also
reported that the microfibers had better removal prospectus during primary
treatment.
Another approach that can be effective in removal of microplastics is
dissolved air flotation (Muniz et al., 2020). Here, the microplastics float
on the surface due to the action of tiny air bubbles and the contaminants fi-
nally get collected physically by skimming (Ødegaard, 2001; Y. Wang et al.,
2021). Low density microplastics like polypropylene and polyethylene are
more easily removed by using air flotation technique than when compared
to sedimentation process which is more favorable for high density
microplastics like polyesters and polyethylene terephthalate (Liu et al.,
2019; Yang et al., 2019). In primary treatment, separation also takes
place by other physical methods like precipitation. Removal of highly con-
centrated toxic substances from the wastewater by neutralization, oxida-
tion, or chemical treatments for making the water suitable for secondary
treatment is an important aspect of precipitation process. Higher treatment
dosages are required for microplastics removal as they are hydrophobic in
nature than compared to non-microplastics (Bretas Alvim et al., 2020;
Hou et al., 2021). It should be also noted that in order to completely
remove microplastics, appropriate technologies must be considered in the
secondary or tertiary stages of WWTPs.
2.2. Secondary treatment
The secondary treatment of wastewater predominantly involves clarifi-
cation and biochemical treatment methods. During the secondary treat-
ment, the microplastic material would settle in the secondary clarifying
tank after being helped along by microbial extracellular polymers or sludge
flocs in the aeration tank. Various studies have reported that, as a result of
the secondary treatment, the microplastics percentage in wastewater gets
reduced to 0.2–14 % (Dris et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2016; Talvitie
et al., 2017b). During secondary treatment, microplastics get trapped
within the aeration tank which consists of microbial polymers or sludge
flocs, which then get proceeded to the clarification tank. The interaction
of microplastics with microorganisms during secondary treatment results
in the denitrification of treated water and results in NH3 accumulation in
water (Bendell et al., 2014). Generally, microorganisms associated with
nitrogen removal are more sensitive than microorganisms that aid in the ac-
cumulation of phosphorous (Zheng et al., 2011). Therefore, the microbial
assisted ammonium generation and the nitrification process is getting af-
fected due to the presence of microplastics (Liu et al., 2017). However,
some of the negative effects of microplastics that affects the efficiency of
secondary treatment processes can be subdued by increasing the contact
time of microplastics with the chemical or microbial sludge flocs
(Carr et al., 2016). Increasing the contact time results in the formation of
a surface biofilm on the microplastics which acts as a coating that could
greatly alter the relative densities and surface characteristics of the pollut-
ants (Rummel et al., 2017). Flocculating agents employed in secondary
treatment like ferric sulphate may have a good effect on removal of
microplastics by causing the dispersed particulate materials to coalesce to-
gether and form a floc (Murphy et al., 2016). Some of the microplastics may
not be efficiently removed because they are caught in unsteady flocs and
not distributed evenly throughout the aqueous phase, where they undergo
a dynamic reorganization and ultimately evade elimination during the final
settling phase (Carr et al., 2016).
When comparing the removal efficiency of microplastics by activated
sludge process against A2O process, it was observed that the efficiency for
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
microplastics removal was higher for activated sludge process. The
microplastic removal efficiency was 66.7 % by using activated sludge pro-
cess (Ziajahromi et al., 2017), whereas it was 54.4 % (Yang et al., 2019)
and 28.1 % (Liu et al., 2019) by A2O process. Also, when considering the
shape of microplastics that were getting removed during secondary treat-
ment, fragments fared better compared to fibers. It was observed that
after secondary treatment, the percentage of fibers in the sludge increased
but that of fragments decreased (Talvitie et al., 2017a; Talvitie et al.,
2015). Considering the size of microplastics, particles with size >500 μm
were generally absent from the effluents after secondary treatment
(Mintenig et al., 2017). Further to the secondary treatment, the wastewater
then proceeds to tertiary treatment where further removal of microplastics
happen.
2.3. Tertiary treatment
In tertiary treatment, the microplastics removal from wastewater is fur-
ther enhanced by supplementary polishing steps. After the tertiary treat-
ment process, the microplastics in wastewater get reduced to 0.2–2 %,
and the final percentage of microplastics that are still retained depended
upon the tertiary treatment methods adopted (Lares et al., 2018;
Michielssen et al., 2016). The shape of microplastics reaching the tertiary
treatment phase varies greatly and is highly irregular due to the particle in-
teraction with prior treatment processes. Due to the presence of such highly
irregular shaped particles, the efficiency of filtration-based processes like
reverse osmosis, microfiltration and ultrafiltration may get affected (Lai
et al., 2014). Even though, most WWTPs around the globe use polymer-
based membranes, chances are that such membranes too get worn out
due to the interaction with uneven shaped microplastics (Geise et al.,
2010). However, among the different tertiary treatment methods studied
by Talvitie et al. (Talvitie et al., 2017a, 2017b), membrane bioreactors
showed the highest removal efficiency of microplastics (99 %), followed
by rapid sand filtration method. Also, there are reports about the reduction
in concentration of microplastics after reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration
process (Ziajahromi et al., 2017). Therefore, more studies on membrane-
based methods could provide better insights about the actual effectiveness
of these methods against microplastics.
After the tertiary treatment processes, analysis of effluents has revealed
that most of the remaining microparticles in it were fibers. The reason be-
hind this might be that fibers are able to pass the membranes longitudinally
(Yuan et al., 2021). In addition, microplastics of smaller size range
of 20–190 μm were detected in the effluents after tertiary treatment
(Ziajahromi et al., 2017). Even though only a small percentage of
microplastics are retained in the final effluent, studies have suggested
that this could account to half-a-billion microplastic items that are finally
getting released into the environment on a daily basis (Fortin et al., 2019;
Wu et al., 2021). However, it should be noted that particles that are leaving
the tertiary treatment phase may not always enter the aquatic ecosystem as
they might get retained in the microparticle loading of the treatment plants.
But if these particles enter the WWTP once again, the chances for such
microparticles to escape the treatment phases are high (Michielssen et al.,
2016). Therefore, more advanced treatment methods which are particu-
larly effective against fibers and smaller sized microplastics are required.
Table 2 gives the different strategies employed and the removal efficiencies
of microplastics.
3. Advanced approaches in mitigation of microplastics
3.1. Membrane technology
Significant advancements for WWTPs are required to increase the effec-
tiveness of microplastics containment (Zhang et al., 2018). However, only a
few of these advancements were actually reported with respect to primary
and secondary treatments and the majority were advanced treatment
methods like membrane technology (Sonune and Ghate, 2004). Membrane
processes offer a promising strategy for removing microplastics from
6
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
marine sources as they deliver multifold advantages (Dalmau-Soler et al.,
2021). Some of these advantages include, operational pliability and
uncomplicatedness, lesser energy utilization, ease of management and
scale-up, superior stability, and the capability to handle and withstand
large quantities of water (Meng et al., 2019; Shahid et al., 2021). In this sec-
tion, we examine the role of membranes in the elimination of microplastics
from wastewater, as well as how membrane processes can be employed to
control microplastics pollution.
3.1.1. Dynamic membrane
Recently, dynamic membranes are being considered as an emerging
technology for treatment of wastewater (Hou et al., 2017). This approach
is associated with the generation of a dynamic membrane or cake deposit,
which functions as a barrier or foulant formed when microplastics and
other fragments in the wastewater are initially getting filtered over a sup-
portive membrane (Isik et al., 2021). Owing to the significant differences
in the mechanism associated with dynamic membranes when compared
to microfiltration or ultrafiltration processes, and because of the fact that
barriers or foulants are required to generate the dynamic membrane
layer, the barrier to filtration is solely caused by the cake layer (Siddiqui
et al., 2021). However, it should be also noted that a heavier layer of cake
deposit could significantly affect the membrane potential and operability
(Saleem et al., 2019). Fig. 2 depicts the mechanism associated with dy-
namic membranes. The formation of dynamic membrane was influenced
by several parameters associated with the supporting membrane used,
such as the materials and pore size associated with the membrane, the con-
centration and particle size distribution of the accumulated material, as
well as the tangential flow rate and operating pressure (Paçal et al., 2019;
Saleem et al., 2019).
Dynamic membranes have been one of the widely explored strategies
for the removal of microplastics (Ersahin et al., 2012; L. Li et al., 2018). A
vital step in dynamic membrane system is the identification of an adequate
support material that allows the creation of a dynamic layer. The material
must possess an acceptable permeability in order to create and maintain
the membrane forming component on its surface, as well as be robust
enough to endure the requisite forces for an extended period of time
(Igawa et al., 1977). Through the active filtration of synthetic wastewater,
dynamic membranes were allowed to be formed on a 90 μm supportive
mesh and the effect of solid flux and particle concentration on the actual
performance of dynamic membrane was studied (L. Li et al., 2018). After
20 min of filtration, the effluent turbidness was reduced to <1 Nephelomet-
ric Turbidity Unit (NTU), demonstrating that the dynamic membranes
could effectively remove microplastics. The transmembrane pressure dur-
ing the dynamic membrane filtering process ranged from 80 to 180 mm
of water head and was nearly 16 times lower than that of conventional ul-
trafiltration and microfiltration, resulting in significant energy savings.
Generally, as solid flux and particle concentration increased, so did
transmembrane pressure and filtration resistance. As a synergistic effect
of the increase in resistance, there was also a quick reduction in effluent
turbidity due to the rapid development of a dynamic membrane on the
supportive mesh.
3.1.2. Membrane bioreactor
Membrane bioreactor has lately gained popularity as a treatment
method in WWTPs (Li et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2019). Membrane bioreactor
technology incorporates systems wherein the catalysis process is
aided by organic catalysts such as enzymes or microorganisms and is
linked to a membrane process such as ultrafiltration or microfiltration
(Ghoshdastidar and Tong, 2013; Xiao et al., 2019). Fig. 3 gives the sche-
matics of a membrane bioreactor. A tailored heterogeneous multiphase re-
action system can be established using the distinct compartments generated
by the membrane. The organic and water phases might be kept separate or
disseminated in each other (Judd, 2016). Due to its favorable suspended
particles concentration ranging from 6 g/L to 10 g/L, the membrane biore-
actor has a removal efficiency of 99 % in microplastics removal (Dvořák
et al., 2013; Talvitie et al., 2017a, 2017b). In the studies conducted by Lv
 Table 2
Different strategies and its effectiveness in removal of microplastics.
Treatment process
Primary, secondary and tertiary – rapid sand filtration
Pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary
Electrocoagulation
Pretreatment, primary – membrane bioreactor and
tertiary – rapid sand filtration
Photocatalytic degradation
Pretreatment, primary and secondary
Pretreatment, primary and secondary – UV treatment
Pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary
7
Pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary –
membrane bioreactor
Primary, secondary and tertiary – rapid sand filter
Pretreatment, primary, secondary – activated sludge, and
tertiary – membrane bioreactor
Pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary –
biologically active filter
Pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary – rapid
sand filtration, membrane bioreactor, discfilter, and
dissolved air flotation
Primary, secondary and tertiary – reverse osmosis
Pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary –
membrane bioreactor
Pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary
Primary, secondary and tertiary
Primary, secondary and tertiary
Characteristics of microplastics after final treatment stage Removal efficiency of microplastics Reference
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Microplastics size: ≥20 μm Post-secondary treatment: 95.8 %; Rapid sand filtration: (Ben-David et al., 2021)
Microplastics shape: Fibers 97 % (post-tertiary treatment)
Microplastics type: Polyimide fibers: 63.9 %; polyethylene: 13.9 %; polyethylene
terephthalate fibers: 6.4 %; polyvinyl chloride: 5.9 %
Microplastics size: 200–400 μm: 24.3 %, 400–600 μm: 18.6 %; 600–800 μm: 11.4 %; Post-tertiary treatment: 64.26 %; Removal efficiency of (Bayo et al., 2021)
800–1000 μm: 12.9 % microfibers were less compared to particulate microplastics
Microplastic shape: Fibers: 79.65 %; film: 11.26 %; fragment: 9.09 %
Microplastic type: Low-density polyethylene: 63 %
Microplastic shape: Microfibers > granular Polypropylene: 98.4 %; polymethyl methacrylate: 91.7 %; (Shen et al., 2022)
Microplastic type: Polyethylene; poly methyl methacrylate; cellulose acetate; polypropylene polyethylene: 93.2 %; 98.2 % for cellulose acetate
Microplastics size: >2 mm: 10 %; 1–2 mm: 31 %; 0.6–1 mm: 31 %; 0.4–0.6 mm: 24 %; Membrane bioreactor: 79.01 %; Rapid sand filtration: (Bayo et al., 2020a)
0.2–0.4 mm: 4 % 75.49 %
Microplastics shape: Fibers: 61 %; Films: 31 %
Microplastics type:
Low-density polyethylene: 71 %; high-density polyethylene: %
Microplastic type: High-density polyethylene 70 % (Ariza-Tarazona et al., 2020)
Microplastics size: 0.4–0.6 mm: 35 %; 0.6–1 mm: 28 %; < 0.4 mm: 20 %; 1–5 mm: 17 % 90.3 % (Bayo et al., 2020b)
Microplastics shape: Fragments: 47 %; Fibers: 7 %; Films: 34 %; Beads: 12 %
Microplastics type: Low-density polyethylene: 52 %; high-density polyethylene: 9 %;
polypropylene: 9 %
Microplastics size: 125–250 μm: 40 %; 40–125 μm: 21 % 76.6 % (Raju et al., 2020)
Microplastics shape: Microfibers: 58 %; micro-fragments: 25 %
Microplastics type: Polyester: 46 %; polypropylene: 24 %;
Microplastics size: > 500 μm: 66 %; < 500 μm: 34 % 55–97 % (Akarsu et al., 2020)
Microplastics shape: Microfibers: 46 %; hard and soft plastics: 33 % and 19 % respectively.
Microplastics type: Polyethylene; polypropylene; acrylic, polystyrene and cellulose
Microplastics size: > 250 μm: 50 %; 63–125 μm: 29 %; 125–250 μm: 12 %; < 63 μm: 8 % Membrane bioreactor: 99.5 % (Lv et al., 2019)
Microplastics shape: Fragments: 65 %; fibers: 21 %; films: 12 %
Microplastics type: Polyethylene terephthalate: 47 %; polystyrene: 20 %; polyethylene:
18 %; polypropylene: 15 %
Microplastics size: 0.5–0.1 mm: 52 %; 0.1–0.01 mm: 27 %; 5–1 mm: 14 %; 1–0.5 mm: 7 % Rapid sand filter: 84 % (Magni et al., 2019)
Microplastics shape: Lines: 41 %; films: 38 %; fragments: 21 %
Microplastic type: Polyester: 35 %; polyamide: 17 %; polyethylene: 10 %
Microplastics size: < 1 mm: 64 %; > 1 mm: 36 % Conventional WWTP: 98.3 % (Lares et al., 2018)
Microplastic shape: Microfibers: 50–90 %; fragments: 10–50 % Activated sludge process: 99 %
Microplastics type: Polyester: 79 %; polyethylene: 11 % Membrane bioreactor: 99.4 %
Microplastics size: 20–100 μm: 71 %; 100–300 μm: 27 %; > 300 μm: 2 % Biologically active filter: 97 % (Talvitie et al., 2017b)
Microplastics shape: Fragments: 62 %; fibers: 29 %; flakes: 9 %
Microplastic type: Polyester: 33 %; cotton: 44 %; linen: 11 %
Microplastics size: 100–300 μm: 28 %; 20–100 μm: 70 % Membrane bioreactor: 99.9 %; dissolved air flotation: (Talvitie et al., 2017a)
Microplastics shape: Fibers: 29–100 % 95 %; discfilter: 98.5 %; rapid sand filtration: 97.1 %
Microplastic type: Polyester: 60 %; polyethylene: 14 %; polyvinylchloride: 5 %
Microplastics size: 500–25 μm Reverse osmosis: 90.4 % (Ziajahromi et al., 2017)
Microplastics shape: Microfibers; granules
Microplastics type: Polystyrene: 92–99 %
Microplastics size: 300–500 μm: 27 %; 10–300 μm: 71 % 72 % (Leslie et al., 2017)
Microplastics shape: Microspheres; microfibers; foils
Microplastics size: 5 mm - 50 μm Primary: 58.8 % (Yang et al., 2019)
Secondary: 54.5 %
Tertiary: 71.7 %
Overall: 95.2 %
Microplastics size: 500 μm Secondary treatment: 99.3 % (Simon et al., 2018)
Microplastics size: 100 μm A2O: 98.5 % (Lee and Kim, 2018)
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Without Dynamic Membrane
FLOW
Microplastics
Clogged Pores
Supporting Layer
With Dynamic Membrane
FLOW
Dynamic Membrane Cake
Supporting Layer
Microplastics
Fig. 2. Mechanism associated with dynamic membranes.
et al. (Lv et al., 2019), the use of membrane bioreactors aided in achieving a
high removal efficacy of microplastics (99.5 %). Similarly, the removal of
polyvinyl chloride microplastics from polluted surface water showed that
even though there was membrane fouling as a result of the treatment, the
microbial community was hardly affected (Li et al., 2020). Furthermore,
the technology's flexibility allows for easy assimilation with other advanced
processes such as reverse osmosis or pervaporation that are entirely consis-
tent with the principles and practices of sustainable chemistry, and thereby
providing advanced opportunities in terms of quality enhancement, com-
petitiveness and novelty (Judd, 2016; Westphalen and Abdelrasoul, 2018).
Membrane bioreactors can be seen as a conglomeration of activated
sludge method and membrane filters. The membrane bioreactor's role in
microplastics treatment is to reduce stream intricacy by decomposition of
the organic components, resulting in microplastic extraction and subse-
quent processing (S. Wang et al., 2019). In general, the cycle begins when
a treated effluent approaches the bioreactor, where degradation and bio-
transformation of organic materials takes place. The liquid stream then
gets forced through a membrane filter for effective separation. As a result
of the membrane process that proceeds the initial biodegradation phase,
microplastics get localized in the retentate phase (Li et al., 2020; Talvitie
et al., 2017b). It could be added that adsorption was one of the primary pro-
cesses behind removal of microplastics by membrane bioreactors. With the
membrane pore size being another key factor, and owing to the fact that the
membranes employed in membrane bioreactors had a pore size of 1 μm
(Li et al., 2020; Melin et al., 2006), they were perfectly suited for the
removal of microplastics.
Among the different tertiary treatment strategies employed in WWTPs,
membrane bioreactors showed the highest percentage of microplastics
Membrane
Level Sensor Module
Pump
Bioreactor
Wastewater
+ Treated Water
Microplastics
Aeration Sludge
Microorganisms
Fig. 3. Schematics of a membrane bioreactor.
8
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
removal when compared to other tertiary treatment methods like rapid
sand filtration, reverse osmosis, disc filters and dissolved air flotation
(Talvitie et al., 2017b; Ziajahromi et al., 2017). The employment of a
blend of several enzymes as a preceding maceration step appears to be
the most viable of the newly established techniques for microplastics re-
moval using membrane bioreactors. The initial maceration step's goal is
to degrade all organic entities so as to generate a pure microplastic mixture
for future processing (Sun et al., 2019). Several investigations have sug-
gested that phthalate esters can be completely degraded by a diverse
group of bacteria and actinomycetes (Gao and Wen, 2016; Gong et al.,
2018; Liang et al., 2008). At the moment, membrane bioreactor technology
in phthalate esters microbial degradation is combined with activated sludge
process from various wastewater sources including municipal and sewage
waste leachates (Boonyaroj et al., 2012; Camacho-Munoz et al., 2012). If
a membrane bioreactor was combined with an initial anaerobic digestion
and proceeded by reverse osmosis filtering, full scale microplastic break-
down could be achieved (Balabanič et al., 2012). However, the key limita-
tions of membrane bioreactor technology for treatment of wastewater are
congestion and managing the thickness of biofilm formed, all of which de-
termine the method's performance efficiency (Nicolella et al., 2000).
3.1.3. Reverse osmosis
Reverse osmosis is indeed one of the most used and efficient water treat-
ment methods (Hailemariam et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). Reverse osmo-
sis works by forcing liquid across a semi-permeable membrane to eliminate
the impurities from the flow. In municipal wastewater treatment systems,
reverse osmosis is used to cleanse water by removing pollutants, salts,
heavy metals, and other contaminants using nonporous screens with pore
sizes >2 nm. Right from its inception, the reverse osmosis technology has
advanced significantly in terms of both synthetic procedures and materials
used (Goh et al., 2018; Shenvi et al., 2015). Generally, reverse osmosis
operates by the exertion of an increased pressure of 1 × 106 to 1 × 107
Pa to a saturated solution, forcing the solution to move through the semi-
permeable membrane (Antony et al., 2011). When it comes to operability,
fouling of membranes is a significant barrier for consistent membrane func-
tioning (Goh et al., 2018). Therefore, a preparatory stage like pretreatment
with coagulants, disinfectants, and oxidizing agents are often required to
keep steady flux rates, limit the effects of fouling, and extend the shelf life
of the reverse osmosis unit (Jiang et al., 2017).
The adaptation of reverse osmosis in to WWTP for removal of
microplastics has been reported recently (Z. Zhang et al., 2021;
Ziajahromi et al., 2017). The efficiency when using reverse osmosis process
for microplastics removal was low when compared to other advanced pro-
cesses like membrane bioreactor. Only around 90 % of the polystyrene
microplastics were removed after the four stages of primary treatment, sec-
ondary treatment, tertiary treatment and reverse osmosis process using 25
μm mesh screens (Ziajahromi et al., 2017). Irregular shaped microplastics
in the range of approximately 1 × 107 debris per day were getting released
along with the treated water even after the four treatment stages. In another
study conducted by Zhang et al. (Z. Zhang et al., 2021), reverse osmosis pro-
cess was conducted after ultrafiltration and nanofiltration processes. The
key observation from the study was that ultrafiltration process showed
higher removal efficiency for microplastics in the size range of 1–5 mm
(75 %) than when compared to both reverse osmosis and nanofiltration.
However, in the microplastics size range of this indicates that the removal
efficiency of reverse osmosis could be enhanced by coupling the process
with membrane bioreactors which had a stand-alone microplastic removal
efficiency of 99 % (Talvitie et al., 2017b). In another study, microplastics
were detected along the Llobregat river area and their characteristics and
removal efficiency in a drinking water treatment facility were investigated
(Dalmau-Soler et al., 2021). After the initial treatment phase of sedimenta-
tion and sand filtration, a microplastics elimination efficiency of 78 % was
achieved. During the successive advanced treatment phase involving mem-
brane filtration and reverse osmosis, a microplastics removal efficiency of
54 % was achieved. In comparison, when conventional treatment methods
like ozonation was carried out after the initial treatment stages, a removal
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
efficiency of only 18 % was achieved for microplastics. This shows the su-
periority of techniques like reverse osmosis compared to advanced conven-
tional treatment methods.
Although the use of membrane technology to eliminate microplastics
has only just begun to gain traction, there has been a noticeable uptick in
the number of studies conducted that combine the membrane bioreactor
and conventional membrane processes with other already established treat-
ment methods to achieve a better elimination of microplastics. The removal
efficiency of microplastics was strongly dependent upon certain factors like
shape and size of membrane, membrane material, membrane surface prop-
erties, pore size of membrane, and membrane thickness. With a removal
efficiency of 99.9 % for microplastics, among the various membrane pro-
cesses, membrane bioreactors stand out as the most interesting among the
tertiary treatment processes. Membrane bioreactors also offer the opportu-
nity to reduce the number of processing stages that are required in WWTPs
(Poerio et al., 2019).
3.2. Bioremediation
Microplastics elimination using various species such as fungi, algae and
bacteria has lately been researched, and bioremediation is an exciting ap-
proach (Shahnawaz et al., 2019; Wilkes and Aristilde, 2017). It should be
noted that use of living organisms for mitigation of microplastics is consid-
ered difficult and more studies are required in this area to prove their actual
effectiveness. The most widely studied bacterial group for plastic biodegra-
dation is Pseudomonas species, known for its ability to degrade different
classes of plastics (Wilkes and Aristilde, 2017). Fig. 4 gives an outline
about the mechanism associated with bioremediation of microplastics. In
the degradation of high density of polyethylene, Pseudomonas species was
observed to be the most efficient followed by the bacterial species
Arthrobacter (Balasubramanian et al., 2010). Similarly, a microbial cocktail
of Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Stenotrophomonas and Pseudomonas species was
used to reduce the weight of high density polyethylene and low density
polyethylene by 55 % and 75 % respectively after 120 days of treatment
(Skariyachan et al., 2017). It was observed that Pseudomonas putida, when
isolated from agricultural fields, has been shown to breakdown 92 % of
polyurethane in under four days (Peng et al., 2014). Physical characteristics
of polyethylene can be altered and intermediate compounds such as ke-
tones and aldehydes can be derived when strains of Pseudomonas putida
and Bacillus cereus were used (Muhonja et al., 2018). Along with bacteria,
fungi are among the most studied organism groups because of their poten-
tial to break down polymeric contaminants. Relevant to the breakdown of
microplastics are >27 genera that belong to the phylum Ascomycota,
such as Fusarium and Aspergillus, as well as the phyla Zygomycota and
Basidiomycota (X. Zhang et al., 2021). For instance, after 280 days
of incubation at 37 °C, Aspergillus fumigatus lowered the weight of
polyhydroxyalkanoate by 77 %, while at 25 °C, at the same moisture and
pH, the reduction was only 59 % (Al Hosni et al., 2019). Utilising both li-
pase and esterase, Aspergillus tubingensis aided in breaking down polyure-
thane sheets (Khan et al., 2017). Also, lipase, esterase and protease from
Fig. 4. Mechanism associated with bioremediation of microplastics (Model
illustrated for styrene monomer, dimer and polymer).
9
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
Monascus sp. of fungi disintegrated the polyurethane films (El-Morsy
et al., 2017).
Other approaches related to synthetic biology, engineered microbes and
genetic level biotechnological advancements have contributed to the degra-
dation of different classes of plastics (Kumari and Chaudhary, 2020; Pratt
et al., 2020; Sharma, 2018). Theoretically, eukaryotic organisms may be
easier for bioremediation applications in WWTPs due to their larger size
and ability to accumulate microplastics compared to bacteria or fungi.
Also, use of prokaryotic organisms pose an additional challenge due to
the difficulty of containment of these organisms within WWTPs and the
increased chance of release of such organisms into the environment
(Nuzzo et al., 2020).
3.2.1. Eukaryotic marine plants and microalgae
Marine seagrasses has been gaining wide attention due to their ability to
grow in brackish waters and the ease of effluent treatment in sea or
seashores (Lee et al., 2019). Seagrasses also provides a large number of
valuable services to the environment like coastal defense, carbon sequestra-
tion, and food sources and habitat for different organisms (Luisetti et al.,
2013; Ondiviela et al., 2014). The earliest in-situ evidence revealed
microplastics binding to seagrasses via encrustation, to macrophyte-
associated epibionts, as well as to the mucus layer (Seng et al., 2020).
Seagrasses could therefore operate as a trap or pitfall for microplastics, im-
plying that they have the prospective for sludge treatment if cultivated on
sludge (Huang et al., 2020b). A wide array of epibiont communities are
hosted by the seagrass Thalassia testudinum (Goss et al., 2018). Along with
those epibionts, T. testudinum also have the ability to accumulate micropar-
ticles and microplastics. In the sample collected close to an urban agglom-
eration (Goss et al., 2018), nearly 75 % of T. testudinum blades have
accumulated microplastics either through attachment to the epibionts or
through biofilm formation. In another study conducted on Zostera marina,
similar results were observed with microplastic accumulation in 94 % of
Z. marina blade samples collected (Jones et al., 2020), with a total
microplastic count of 280 particles (<1 μm).
Algae, notably microalgae, are already being evaluated for their ability
for bioremediation in wastewater (Rempel et al., 2021). In addition, studies
showed that microalgae, sometimes in combination with bacteria, can
breakdown emerging micropollutants in wastewater (Pacheco et al.,
2020). Suspended microplastics may be retained on the membranes of sea-
weeds such as Fucus vesiculosus (Bonanno and Orlando-Bonaca, 2020;
Gutow et al., 2016). Microalgae-based bioremediation is a unified idea
that not only solves problems related to wastewater management but also
benefits the economy by producing value-added goods. There are various
reports of microalgae being effective in the removal of heavy metals, textile
wastes and wastes from rubber industry (Cheng et al., 2019; Posadas et al.,
2014; Sekomo et al., 2012). Therefore, their potential for removing
microplastics from WWTPs is a promising aspect to explore and more stud-
ies in this dimension would produce exciting results.
3.2.2. Eukaryotic marine animals
In the studies conducted on marine invertebrates Mytilus edulis (blue
mussel) and Arenicola marina (lugworm), possible effects of microplastics
in the cellular energy metabolism of the organisms were considered (Van
Cauwenberghe et al., 2015). Microplastics in the range of 0.2 ± 0.3
particles/g and 1.2 ± 2.8 particles/g were found in the case of M. edulis
and A. marina respectively. In addition, lugworm A. marina showed an over-
all retention rate of 240–700 microplastics over its entire lifespan with no
adverse effects on its cellular energy metabolism. This shows that the
A. marina, which has a natural habitat in brackish waters can be considered
as a possible candidate for bioremediation of microplastics in WWTPs.
Under experimental conditions, when both these marine invertebrates
were exposed to higher concentrations of polystyrene microplastics (over
110 particles g−1), the organisms did not show any adverse effects on its
overall cellular metabolism. However, more experimental studies on the
possible negative impacts of microplastics in the overall energy budget of
these organisms are required.
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Another marine organism that is considered a possible candidate for
bioremediation of microplastics is sea cucumber. Presence of microplastics
were observed in Apostichopus japonicus samples collected from coastal re-
gions of China (Mohsen et al., 2019). A. japonicus ingested microplastics
in the range of 0–30 particles/intestine; and after the filtration of coelomic
fluid, microplastics in the range of 0–19 particles/animal was found. This
indicated that the polymers like polyethylene terephthalate, polyesters
and cellophane that were originally ingested by the sea cucumber got trans-
ferred to the coelomic fluid of the organism. Based on these observations, it
can be assumed that sea cucumbers can be a possible candidate for biore-
mediation of microplastics in WWTPS. However, further studies on the
harmful effects of microplastics on the metabolic activities of sea cucumber
is imperative for analyzing the actual potential of this strategy. It should be
noted that studies have already been reported on microplastics affecting the
embryonic development of sea urchins (Murano et al., 2020; Nobre et al.,
2015).
4. Other advanced approaches
4.1. Rapid sand filtration
Rapid sand filtration can be an alternative water treatment process that
can be applicable in the case of both sewage water and general water treat-
ment (Brunner et al., 2019; Hidayaturrahman and Lee, 2019). However,
rapid sand filtration is more preferred as a tertiary treatment option post
various treatment techniques like sedimentation, coagulation and floccula-
tion (Brunner et al., 2019; Patrício Silva, 2021). An advantage of rapid sand
filtration technique is their relatively low maintenance and operational
costs. In a study on artificial microplastics samples made from tyre flakes
and plastic bags, removal using rapid sand filtration was proved effective
(Sembiring et al., 2021). The removal efficiency of microplastics generally
varied with the effective size of filter media. Removal efficiency of 97.7 %
and 90.6 % was achieved using an effective size of 0.39 mm pore size, and a
removal efficiency of 94.3 % and 85.2 % for 0.68 mm pore size for plastic
flakes and tyre flakes respectively. Also, by rapid sand filtration,
microplastics with size >200 μm were removed (Sembiring et al., 2021).
In comparison, when sand and coal filtration system was used (Mason
et al., 2016), the removal efficiency of microplastics was 15 %. Such an ob-
servation might be due to the relative mixing of the coal and sand particles
after operation for a considerable period of time, thus resulting in the in-
creased porosity of the filter. This shows the relative inconsistencies re-
ported in microplastics removal by rapid sand filtration.
4.2. Electrocoagulation
Electrocoagulation, like rapid sand filter, is a low cost water treatment
technique for removal of microplastics (Ungureanu et al., 2020). In electro-
coagulation process, the sacrificial anodes are dissolved in order to release
the coagulant precursors and the electrolysis proceeds at the cathode, and
the separation of microplastics is supported by flotation process (Akarsu
and Deniz, 2021). Electrocoagulation is a complicated process in which
metal electrodes create cations in the presence of an electric field (Shen
et al., 2022). There are three phases - starting from the creation of ions to
the formation of flocs such as (Perren et al., 2018):
(i) Electrons are created in the anode by the electric field, forming
“micro-coagulants,” Al3+ or Fe3+ hydroxides;
(ii) Coagulants destabilize suspended particles and colloidal contaminants
in water; and.
(iii) Micro-coagulants and pollutant particles colloid to form micro-flocs.
The distinct advantage of electrocoagulation process is that it could club
the effects of different conventional treatment techniques like flotation,
flocculation, coagulation, and adsorption (Elkhatib et al., 2021). In the
studies conducted on polyesters in synthetic solution, the removal effi-
ciency of microplastics was 99 % with current densities in the range of
2.88–8.07 mA/cm2 and pH values of 4–7 (Elkhatib et al., 2021). In the
10
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
same study, replacing synthetic solution with real wastewater samples,
the removal efficiency of microplastics was 96.5 %. In another study on
polyethylene microbeads removal from artificial wastewater, the highest
microbeads removal efficiency of 99.24 % was obtained at a pH of 7.5
(Perren et al., 2018). Considering the economic aspects of the process,
lower current densities (11 A/m2) was found to be more energy efficient
(Perren et al., 2018). There are also reports of polyacrylamide addition fa-
voring the removal of polyethylene microplastics due to the formation of
aluminum-based flocculants during electrocoagulation (Ma et al., 2019).
Therefore, such enhanced methods for removal of microplastics has to be
studied in more detail for identifying their pros and cons.
4.3. Photocatalytic degradation
Another advanced treatment method that could be operated as part of
tertiary treatment of wastewaters and can be used for the removal of
microplastics is photocatalysis process (Nabi et al., 2020; Uheida et al.,
2021). During photocatalytic degradation, bombardment of a semi-
conductor like TiO2 with photons results in the generation of positively
charged holes, which on subsequent reaction with water results in the gen-
eration of OH• (Xu et al., 2021). Thus, the free radicals generated mineral-
izes the micropollutants adsorbed on the semi-conductor surface to CO2
and H2O (Llorente-García et al., 2020). When photocatalysis was used for
the degradation of high-density polyethylene microplastics using porous
TiO2 semi-conductor, a mass loss of 6.4 % was observed for the
microplastics after 18 h of irradiation with visible light (Ariza-Tarazona
et al., 2019). Similarly, in the visible light photocatalysis of low-density
polyethylene microplastics using zinc oxide nanorods (Tofa et al., 2019),
it was observed that the microplastic surface got wrinkled with large num-
ber cavities and cracks opening up resulting in the increased brittleness of
the low-density polyethylene microplastic. This was due to the generation
of compounds with low molecular weight like peroxides, hydroperoxides
and other unsaturated groups. Similar results were also reported by using
photocatalytic TiO2 micromotors (L. Wang et al., 2019). Therefore, the
use of photocatalytic degradation would provide a greener alternative for
thwarting the microplastic pollution menace.
In a photocatalytic degradation study by light in the visible region per-
formed on spherical polypropylene microplastics using ZnO nanorods
mounted upon glass fiber scaffolds, it was observed that there was around
65 % reduction in the mean particle volume of microplastics (Uheida
et al., 2021). Similarly, in another study on the degradation of low-
density and high-density polyethylene microplastics using N-TiO2 coating,
a relationship between size of microplastics and the degradation efficiency
was reported (Llorente-García et al., 2020). Degradation was shown to be
maximum for smaller sized microplastics, and lowest for film-shaped
microplastics; both trends were connected to a lack of light and oxygen in
the reaction media. It was also observed that the photocatalytic degradation
process was strongly dependent on the presence of surface hydroxyl groups
on microplastics (Jiang et al., 2021).
4.4. Sol-gel method
In sol-gel method, microplastic pollutants are separated from polluted
wastewater by way of agglomeration caused by the sol-gel process induced
by change in pH. The microplastic flocculates thus generated makes it eas-
ier for the separation of microplastics from wastewater by using detach-
ment methods like sand traps (Collivignarelli et al., 2017). The first step
in the removal process is the development of an inclusion unit, that serves
as the biomolecular part of the entire molecule. The second step in the re-
moval process is the development of an acquisition unit, which is proficient
in linking with the compound to be included via its moiety. The sol-gel
method allows for the production of organized composite gels of silica,
which are made possible by the ordered framework of the acquisition
unit. After that, the interplay between the acquisition unit and the
bioinspiration of the inclusion molecule takes place. This aids in the incor-
poration of neutral molecules, and it also makes it easy to isolate
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
hydrophobic groups that have been collected (Sharma et al., 2021). It is
possible to perform the sol-gel process in both acidic and alkaline environ-
ments. The flocculation of microplastics can be aided by sol-gel method
strongly dependent on pH. This means that large microplastic flocculates
in wastewater can be more easily removed. Environmental compatibility
is exemplified by the fact that heat may be reclaimed and recycled sustain-
ably from flocculate isolates (Herbort et al., 2018). Another benefit of sol-
gel process is that agglomeration can occur regardless of the concentration,
or quantity of trace pollutants or other environmental factors like pressure
and temperature. The development of polymeric inclusion molecules is the
foundation for remediation of water pollution (Herbort and Schuhen,
2017).
5. Future outlook
Considering the current state of research with respect to microplastics,
there are certain key issues that need to be addressed. The cultivation and
management of candidate species which has the potential to retain
microplastics, with special consideration to their containment in WWTPs
as well as the welfare of such candidate organisms in WWTPs should be
assessed. Another key factor in controlling the release of microplastics
into the environment is source control. Development of household type
treatments for microplastics could effectively restrict the release of
microfibers from washing machine sewage. In addition, strict laws and
regulations related to the control of microplastics could pave the way for-
effective source control. Extensive study is needed to establish the validity
of the analytical methods developed for identifying and characterizing
microplastics in WWTPs. The current research cannot be directly compared
with one another due to the discrepancies among the various units used for
quantitative representation of pollutant levels. Novel detection methods are
vital for controlling microplastics release into the environment. Therefore,
advanced approaches for detection of pollutants using nanocomposites or
biogenic nanoparticles and nano-sensors are promising (Boregowda et al.,
2022; Mujtaba et al., 2021). Distinctive processes like enzymatic and
photo catalysis, interactions of surface-active sites, and electrostatic associ-
ation are observed in biofabricated nanocomposites and aid in the removal
of contaminants (Bhavya et al., 2021; Geetha et al., 2021).
6. Conclusions
Even though current WWTPs are able to achieve a high removal effi-
ciency of microplastics (>90 % in most cases), they are not exactly designed
to control the emission of microplastics to the environment. Therefore, a
considerable quantity of microplastics is getting released onto the environ-
ment every single day not just from water discharges of WWTPs but also
from the disposed sewage sludge. Rather than conventional waste treat-
ment methods, WWTPs has to be equipped with advanced treatment
methods to counter the unchecked release of microplastics to the aquatic
environment. In this study, the following key observations were made con-
sidering the review of recent literatures:
(i) After the primary treatment process microfibers showed better re-
moval characteristics and around 65 % microplastics were removed
after this stage. The secondary treatment process was successful in
reducing the microplastics percentage to 0.2–14 % and after the
tertiary treatment process the percentage of microcontaminants get
reduced to 0.2–2 %.
(ii) Considering the shape of microplastics, granules and fragment
shaped particles were getting separated with much ease compared
to microfibers and pellet shaped particles.
(iii) The size of microplastics detected in the tertiary effluents was
>20 μm, which indicated that smaller microparticles are not effec-
tively getting separated by conventional WWTPs.
(iv) Advanced treatment methods need to be incorporated in the tertiary
treatment phase to further restrict the release of microplastics into
the environment through WWTPs.
11
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
(v) Membrane bioreactors were able to lower the concentration of
microplastics in the primary effluent from 6 microplastics/L to 5 ×
10−3 microplastics/L, or 99.9 % efficacy. The incorporation of
rapid sand filters helped in achieving a removal efficiency of 97 %
for microplastics. In order to further increase the effectiveness of
membrane bioreactors, coupling them with other membrane-based
operations like reverse osmosis or microfiltration could be effective.
(vi) Smaller microplastics of size range 20–100 μm were found to pre-
dominate in majority of WWTPs. Therefore, a cutting-edge advanced
treatment method must be employed to get rid of the microplastics
that are 100 μm or smaller in size.
(vii) Although it seems that the complete removal of microplastics from
our environment is impossible due to its limited visibility and tiny
size, bioremediation seems to offer a reliable solution for controlling
plastic pollution. Various microorganisms like bacteria (Pseudomonas
and Bacillus species), fungi and algae can effectively help in the bio-
degradation of microplastics. Along with the microorganisms, higher
marine organisms like sea cucumbers and lugworms too have the po-
tential to control microplastics pollution in the environment.
(viii) Low-cost advanced treatment methods like electrocoagulation
and photocatalysis provide promising results with respect to
microplastics control. So, integration of such methods into conven-
tional WWTPs is recommended.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Radhakrishnan Yedhu Krishnan: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing – original draft, Data curation. Sivasubramanian Manikandan:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Data curation.
Ramasamy Subbaiya: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Software,
Validation. Natchimuthu Karmegam: Formal analysis, Writing – review &
editing, Data curation, Validation. Woong Kim: Writing – review & editing,
Software, Resources, Visualization. Muthusamy Govarthanan: Supervi-
sion, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Validation.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter-
ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the
work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Management and Department of
Food Technology, Amal Jyothi College of Engineering, Kanjirappally,
Kottayam, Kerala, India, The Management Saveetha School of Engineering
(SIMATS), Chennai, India and The Management, Vice-Chancellor, Dean of
SMNS, Head of Biological Sciences, The Copperbelt University, Kitwe,
Zambia for their constant support to complete the review article. This work
was also supported by the Technology Innovation Program (Industrial Stra-
tegic Technology Development Program) (RS-2022-00155946, Develop-
ment of methane gas conversion PHA production technology) funded By
the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea).
References
Ajith, N., Arumugam, S., Parthasarathy, S., Manupoori, S., Janakiraman, S., 2020. Global dis-
tribution of microplastics and its impact on marine environment—a review. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 27, 25970–25986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09015-5.
Akarsu, C., Deniz, F., 2021. Electrocoagulation/electroflotation process for removal
of organics and microplastics in laundry wastewater. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water 49,
2000146.
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Akarsu, C., Kumbur, H., Gökdağ, K., Kıdeyş, A.E., Sanchez-Vidal, A., 2020. Microplastics com-
position and load from three wastewater treatment plants discharging into Mersin Bay,
north eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110776. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110776.
Al Hosni, A.S., Pittman, J.K., Robson, G.D., 2019. Microbial degradation of four biodegradable
polymers in soil and compost demonstrating polycaprolactone as an ideal compostable
plastic. Waste Manag. 97, 105–114.
Ali, I., Ding, T., Peng, C., Naz, I., Sun, H., Li, J., Liu, J., 2021. Micro- and nanoplastics in waste-
water treatment plants: occurrence, removal, fate, impacts and remediation technologies – a
critical review. Chem. Eng. J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.130205.
Amereh, F., Babaei, M., Eslami, A., Fazelipour, S., Rafiee, M., 2020. The emerging risk of ex-
posure to nano (micro) plastics on endocrine disturbance and reproductive toxicity: from
a hypothetical scenario to a global public health challenge. Environ. Pollut. 261, 114158.
An, D., Na, J., Song, J., Jung, J., 2021. Size-dependent chronic toxicity of fragmented polyeth-
ylene microplastics to Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 271, 129591. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129591.
Anagnosti, L., Varvaresou, A., Pavlou, P., Protopapa, E., Carayanni, V., 2021. Worldwide ac-
tions against plastic pollution from microbeads and microplastics in cosmetics focusing
on European policies. Has the issue been handled effectively? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162,
111883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111883.
Antony, A., Low, J.H., Gray, S., Childress, A.E., Le-Clech, P., Leslie, G., 2011. Scale formation
and control in high pressure membrane water treatment systems: a review. J. Membr. Sci.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.08.054.
Ariza-Tarazona, M.C., Villarreal-Chiu, J.F., Barbieri, V., Siligardi, C., Cedillo-González, E.I.,
2019. New strategy for microplastic degradation: green photocatalysis using a protein-
based porous N-TiO2 semiconductor. Ceram. Int. 45, 9618–9624. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ceramint.2018.10.208.
Ariza-Tarazona, M.C., Villarreal-Chiu, J.F., Hernández-López, J.M., Rivera De la Rosa, J.,
Barbieri, V., Siligardi, C., Cedillo-González, E.I., 2020. Microplastic pollution reduction
by a carbon and nitrogen-doped TiO2: effect of pH and temperature in the photocatalytic
degradation process. J. Hazard. Mater. 395, 122632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.
2020.122632.
Arthur, C., Baker, J.E., Bamford, H.A., 2009. Proceedings of the International Research Work-
shop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris, September 9-11,
2008. University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Atugoda, T., Vithanage, M., Wijesekara, H., Bolan, N., Sarmah, A.K., Bank, M.S., You, S., Ok,
Y.S., 2021. Interactions between microplastics, pharmaceuticals and personal care prod-
ucts: implications for vector transport. Environ. Int. 149, 106367. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envint.2020.106367.
Atugoda, T., Wijesekara, H., Werellagama, D.R.I.B., Jinadasa, K.B.S.N., Bolan, N.S., Vithanage,
M., 2020. Adsorptive interaction of antibiotic ciprofloxacin on polyethylene
microplastics: implications for vector transport in water. Environ. Technol. Innov. 19,
100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100971.
Auta, H.S., Emenike, C.U., Fauziah, S.H., 2017. Distribution and importance of microplastics
in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions.
Environ. Int. 102, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013.
Baalkhuyur, F.M., Bin Dohaish, E.J.A., Elhalwagy, M.E.A., Alikunhi, N.M., AlSuwailem, A.M.,
Røstad, A., Coker, D.J., Berumen, M.L., Duarte, C.M., 2018. Microplastic in the gastroin-
testinal tract of fishes along the Saudi Arabian Red Sea coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131,
407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.040.
Balabanič, D., Hermosilla, D., Merayo, N., Klemenčič, A.K., Blanco, Á., 2012. Comparison of
different wastewater treatments for removal of selected endocrine-disruptors from
paper mill wastewaters. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part A 47, 1350–1363. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10934529.2012.672301.
Balasubramanian, V., Natarajan, K., Hemambika, B., Ramesh, N., Sumathi, C.S., Kottaimuthu,
R., Rajesh Kannan, V., 2010. High-density polyethylene (HDPE)-degrading potential bac-
teria from marine ecosystem of Gulf of Mannar, India. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 51, 205–211.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02883.x.
Bao, Z.-Z., Chen, Z.-F., Zhong, Y., Wang, G., Qi, Z., Cai, Z., 2021. Adsorption of phenanthrene
and its monohydroxy derivatives on polyvinyl chloride microplastics in aqueous solution:
model fitting and mechanism analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 764, 142889. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142889.
Barboza, L.G.A., Vethaak, A.D., Lavorante, B.R.B.O., Lundebye, A.-K., Guilhermino, L., 2018.
Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security, food safety and human
health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 336–348.
Bayo, J., López-Castellanos, J., Olmos, S., 2020a. Membrane bioreactor and rapid sand filtra-
tion for the removal of microplastics in an urban wastewater treatment plant. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 156, 111211. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2020.111211.
Bayo, J., Olmos, S., López-Castellanos, J., 2021. Assessment of microplastics in a municipal
wastewater treatment plant with tertiary treatment: removal efficiencies and loading per
day into the environment. Water (Switzerland) 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13101339.
Bayo, J., Olmos, S., López-Castellanos, J., 2020b. Microplastics in an urban wastewater treat-
ment plant: the influence of physicochemical parameters and environmental factors.
Chemosphere 238, 124593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124593.
Ben-David, E.A., Habibi, M., Haddad, E., Hasanin, M., Angel, D.L., Booth, A.M., Sabbah, I.,
2021. Microplastic distributions in a domestic wastewater treatment plant: removal effi-
ciency, seasonal variation and influence of sampling technique. Sci. Total Environ. 752,
141880. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.141880.
Bendell, L.I., Chan, K., Crevecoeur, S., Prigent, C., 2014. Changes in ammonium and pH
within intertidal sediments in relation to temperature and the occurrence of non-
indigenous bivalves. Open J. Mar. Sci. 2014.
Bhatt, P., Pathak, V.M., Bagheri, A.R., Bilal, M., 2021. Microplastic contaminants in the aque-
ous environment, fate, toxicity consequences, and remediation strategies. Environ. Res.
200, 111762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111762.
Bhavya, G., Belorkar, S.A., Mythili, R., Geetha, N., Shetty, H.S., Udikeri, S.S., Jogaiah, S.,
2021. Remediation of emerging environmental pollutants: a review based on advances
12
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
in the uses of eco-friendly biofabricated nanomaterials. Chemosphere 275, 129975.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129975.
Bhutiani, N., Kimbrough, C.W., Burton, N.C., Morscher, S., Egger, M., McMasters, K.,
Woloszynska-Read, A., El-baz, A., McNally, L.R., 2017. Detection of microspheres
in vivo using multispectral optoacoustic tomography. Biotech. Histochem. 92, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10520295.2016.1251611.
Blair Espinoza, R.M., 2019. Microplastics in Wastewater Treatment Systems and Receiving
Waters. University of Glasgow PhD thesis.
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 Res.
163, 114909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114909.
Bolan, N.S., Karthikeyan, K., Bolan, S.S., Kirkham, M.B., Kim, K.-H., Hou, D., 2020a. An intro-
duction to the chemistry and manufacture of plastics. Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial
and Aquatic Environments. CRC Press, pp. 85–93.
Bolan, N.S., Kirkham, M.B., Bolan, S.S., Tsang, D.C.W., Tsang, Y.F., Wang, H., 2020. Particu-
late Plastics and Human Health, in: Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Envi-
ronments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 285–294.
Bolan, N.S., Kirkham, M.B., Halsband, C., Nugegoda, D., Ok, Y.S., 2020c. Particulate plastics
in terrestrial and aquatic environments. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Bolan, N.S., Kirkham, M.B., Ravindran, B., Kumar, A., Ding, W., 2020. Microbial plastisphere:
microbial habitation of particulate plastics in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Partic-
ulate Plastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
pp. 135–145.
Bonanno, G., Orlando-Bonaca, M., 2020. Marine plastics: what risks and policies exist for
seagrass ecosystems in the Plasticene? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 158, 111425. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111425.
Boonyaroj, V., Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Theepharaksapan, S., Yamamoto, K., 2012.
Toxic organic micro-pollutants removal mechanisms in long-term operated membrane
bioreactor treating municipal solid waste leachate. Bioresour. Technol. 113, 174–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.12.127.
Boregowda, N., Jogigowda, S.C., Bhavya, G., Sunilkumar, C.R., Geetha, N., Udikeri, S.S.,
Chowdappa, S., Govarthanan, M., Jogaiah, S., 2022. Recent advances in
nanoremediation: carving sustainable solution to clean-up polluted agriculture soils. En-
viron. Pollut. 297, 118728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118728.
Borges-Ramírez, M.M., Escalona-Segura, G., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Iñigo-Elias, E., Osten, J.R., 2021.
Organochlorine pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals and metalloids in
microplastics found in regurgitated pellets of black vulture from Campeche, Mexico. Sci.
Total Environ. 801, 149674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149674.
Bouwmeester, H., Hollman, P.C.H., Peters, R.J.B., 2015. Potential health impact of environ-
mentally released micro-and nanoplastics in the human food production chain: experi-
ences from nanotoxicology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8932–8947.
Bradney, L., Wijesekara, H., Bolan, N.S., Kirkham, M.B., 2020. Sources of particulate plastics
in terrestrial ecosystems. Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 3–17.
Bradney, L., Wijesekara, H., Palansooriya, K.N., Obadamudalige, N., Bolan, N.S., Ok, Y.S.,
Rinklebe, J., Kim, K.H., Kirkham, M.B., 2019. Particulate plastics as a vector for toxic
trace-element uptake by aquatic and terrestrial organisms and human health risk. Envi-
ron. Int. 131, 104937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104937.
Bratovcic, A., 2019. Degradation of micro-and nano-plastics by photocatalytic methods.
J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. Appl. 3, 206.
Bretas Alvim, C., Bes-Piá, M.A., Mendoza-Roca, J.A., 2020. Separation and identification of
microplastics from primary and secondary effluents and activated sludge from wastewa-
ter treatment plants. Chem. Eng. J. 402, 126293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.
126293.
Bretas Alvim, C., Castelluccio, S., Ferrer-Polonio, E., Bes-Piá, M.A., Mendoza-Roca, J.A.,
Fernández-Navarro, J., Alonso, J.L., Amorós, I., 2021. Effect of polyethylene microplastics
on activated sludge process - accumulation in the sludge and influence on the process and
on biomass characteristics. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 148, 536–547. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.psep.2020.10.014.
Brunner, A.M., Vughs, D., Siegers, W., Bertelkamp, C., Hofman-Caris, R., Kolkman, A., ter
Laak, T., 2019. Monitoring transformation product formation in the drinking water treat-
ments rapid sand filtration and ozonation. Chemosphere 214, 801–811. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.140.
Burns, E.E., Boxall, A.B.A., 2018. Microplastics in the aquatic environment: evidence for or
against adverse impacts and major knowledge gaps. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37,
2776–2796. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4268.
Camacho-Munoz, D., Martín, J., Santos, J.L., Alonso, E., Aparicio, I., De la Torre, T.,
Rodriguez, C., Malfeito, J.J., 2012. Effectiveness of three configurations of membrane
bioreactors on the removal of priority and emergent organic compounds from wastewa-
ter: comparison with conventional wastewater treatments. J. Environ. Monit. 14,
1428–1436. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2EM00007E.
Carbery, M., O’Connor, W., Palanisami, T., 2018. Trophic transfer of microplastics and mixed
contaminants in the marine food web and implications for human health. Environ. Int.
115, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.03.007.
Carr, S.A., Liu, J., Tesoro, A.G., 2016. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in wastewater
treatment plants. Water Res. 91, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.01.002.
Castelvetro, V., Corti, A., Ceccarini, A., Petri, A., Vinciguerra, V., 2021. Nylon 6 and nylon 6,6
micro- and nanoplastics: a first example of their accurate quantification, along with poly-
ester (PET), in wastewater treatment plant sludges. J. Hazard. Mater. 407, 124364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124364.
Chen, G., Feng, Q., Wang, J., 2020. Mini-review of microplastics in the atmosphere and their
risks to humans. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 135504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2019.135504.
Cheng, D.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Kumar, S.M., 2019. Microalgae
biomass from swine wastewater and its conversion to bioenergy. Bioresour. Technol. 275,
109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.019.
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Cheung, P.K., Fok, L., 2017. Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs and their
estimated emissions in mainland China. Water Res. 122, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2017.05.053.
Choong, W.S., Hadibarata, T., Yuniarto, A., Tang, K.H.D., Abdullah, F., Syafrudin, M., Al
Farraj, D.A., Al-Mohaimeed, A.M., 2021. Characterization of microplastics in the water
and sediment of Baram River estuary, Borneo Island. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 172, 112880.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112880.
Claessens, M., Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vandegehuchte, M.B., Janssen, C.R., 2013. New tech-
niques for the detection of microplastics in sediments and field collected organisms.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 70, 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.03.009.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants in
the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588–2597. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025.
Collivignarelli, M.C., Abbà, A., Benigna, I., Sorlini, S., Torretta, V., 2017. Overview of the
main disinfection processes for wastewater and drinking water treatment plants. Sustain-
ability 10, 86.
Corami, F., Rosso, B., Morabito, E., Rensi, V., Gambaro, A., Barbante, C., 2021. Small
microplastics (<100 μm), plasticizers and additives in seawater and sediments: oleo-
extraction, purification, quantification, and polymer characterization using micro-FTIR.
Sci. Total Environ. 148937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148937.
Dalmau-Soler, J., Ballesteros-Cano, R., Boleda, M.R., Paraira, M., Ferrer, N., Lacorte, S., 2021.
Microplastics from headwaters to tap water: occurrence and removal in a drinking water
treatment plant in Barcelona Metropolitan area (Catalonia, NE Spain). Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13220-1.
De-la-Torre, G.E., 2020. Microplastics: an emerging threat to food security and human health.
J. Food Sci. Technol. 57, 1601–1608.
de Souza Machado, A.A., Lau, C.W., Kloas, W., Bergmann, J., Bachelier, J.B., Faltin, E., Becker,
R., Görlich, A.S., Rillig, M.C., 2019. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect
plant performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 6044–6052. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.9b01339.
Ding, H., Zhang, J., He, H., Zhu, Y., Dionysiou, D.D., Liu, Z., Zhao, C., 2021. Do membrane
filtration systems in drinking water treatment plants release nano/microplastics? Sci.
Total Environ. 755, 142658.
Dodson, G.Z., Shotorban, A.K., Hatcher, P.G., Waggoner, D.C., Ghosal, S., Noffke, N., 2020.
Microplastic fragment and fiber contamination of beach sediments from selected sites
in Virginia and North Carolina, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151, 110869. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2019.110869.
Dong, G., Damiano, E., Smith, M.L., Acton, S.T., Ley, K., 2004. Detection of microspheres in
venules for automated particle image velocimetry. Proceedings. 17th IEEE Symposium
on Computer-Based Medical Systems, pp. 392–395 https://doi.org/10.1109/CBMS.
2004.1311745.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N., Tassin, B., 2015. Microplastic contam-
ination in an urban area: a case study in Greater Paris. Environ. Chem. 12, 592–599.
Du, H., Wang, J., 2021. Characterization and environmental impacts of microplastics. Gond-
wana Res. 98, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.05.023.
Duan, J., Bolan, N., Li, Y., Ding, S., Atugoda, T., Vithanage, M., Sarkar, B., Tsang, D.C.W.,
Kirkham, M.B., 2021. Weathering of microplastics and interaction with other coexisting
constituents in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Water Res. 196, 117011. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2021.117011.
Dvořák, L., Svojitka, J., Wanner, J., Wintgens, T., 2013. Nitrification performance in a mem-
brane bioreactor treating industrial wastewater. Water Res. 47, 4412–4421. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.03.053.
ECHA, 2019. ECHA Annex XV Restriction Report 2019. 146.
Eckert, E.M., Di Cesare, A., Kettner, M.T., Arias-Andres, M., Fontaneto, D., Grossart, H.P.,
Corno, G., 2018. Microplastics increase impact of treated wastewater on freshwater mi-
crobial community. Environ. Pollut. 234, 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2017.11.070.
El-Morsy, E.M., Hassan, H.M., Ahmed, E., 2017. Biodegradative activities of fungal isolates
from plastic contaminated soils. Mycosphere 8, 1071–1087.
Elkhatib, D., Oyanedel-Craver, V., Carissimi, E., 2021. Electrocoagulation applied for the re-
moval of microplastics from wastewater treatment facilities. Sep. Purif. Technol.
118877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118877.
EPA NSW, 2016. Plastic microbeads in products and the environment. Environ. Prot. Auth.,
Sydney NSW 2000.
Ersahin, M.E., Ozgun, H., Dereli, R.K., Ozturk, I., Roest, K., van Lier, J.B., 2012. A review on
dynamic membrane filtration: materials, applications and future perspectives. Bioresour.
Technol. 122, 196–206.
European Commission, 2020. Commission Notice Guidelines to Support the Application of
Regulation 2020/741 on minimum requirements for water reuse 2022/C 298/01, C/
2022/5489.
Excell, C., Salcedo-La Viña, C., Worker, J., Moses, E., 2018. Legal Limits on Single-use Plastics
and Microplastics: A Global Review of National Laws and Regulation. United Nations En-
viron. Program. Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 1–118.
Fang, C., Sobhani, Z., Zhang, D., Zhang, X., Gibson, C.T., Tang, Y., Luo, Y., Megharaj, M., Naidu,
R., 2021. Capture and characterisation of microplastics printed on paper via laser printer’s
toners. Chemosphere 281, 130864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130864.
Fortin, S., Song, B., Burbage, C., 2019. Quantifying and identifying microplastics in the efflu-
ent of advanced wastewater treatment systems using Raman microspectroscopy. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 149, 110579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110579.
Gao, D.W., Wen, Z.D., 2016. Phthalate esters in the environment: A critical review of their oc-
currence, biodegradation, and removal during wastewater treatment processes. Sci. Total
Environ. 541, 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.148.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Espinosa, L.F., Costa Muniz, M., Salles Pereira, L.B., Meigikos dos Anjos,
R., 2021. Abundance, distribution, and characteristics of microplastics in coastal
surface waters of the Colombian Caribbean and Pacific. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28,
43431–43442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13723-x.
13
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
Geetha, N., Bhavya, G., Abhijith, P., Shekhar, R., Dayananda, K., Jogaiah, S., 2021. Insights
into nanomycoremediation: Secretomics and mycogenic biopolymer nanocomposites
for heavy metal detoxification. J. Hazard. Mater. 409, 124541. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124541.
Geise, G.M., Lee, H., Miller, D.J., Freeman, B.D., McGrath, J.E., Paul, D.R., 2010. Water puri-
fication by membranes: the role of polymer science. J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 48,
1685–1718.
Ghoshdastidar, A.J., Tong, A.Z., 2013. Treatment of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba using
membrane bioreactor technology. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20, 5188–5197. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-013-1498-z.
Gies, E.A., LeNoble, J.L., Noël, M., Etemadifar, A., Bishay, F., Hall, E.R., Ross, P.S., 2018. Re-
tention of microplastics in a major secondary wastewater treatment plant in Vancouver,
Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 553–561.
Goh, P.S., Lau, W.J., Othman, M.H.D., Ismail, A.F., 2018. Membrane fouling in desalination
and its mitigation strategies. Desalination 425, 130–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.10.018.
Gong, J., Duan, N., Zhao, X., 2012. Evolutionary engineering of Phaffia rhodozyma for
astaxanthin-overproducing strain. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 6, 174–178.
Gong, J., Kong, T., Li, Y., Li, Q., Li, Z., Zhang, J., 2018. Biodegradation of microplastic derived
from poly (ethylene terephthalate) with bacterial whole-cell biocatalysts. Polymers
(Basel) 10, 1326.
Goss, H., Jaskiel, J., Rotjan, R., 2018. Thalassia testudinum as a potential vector for incorporat-
ing microplastics into benthic marine food webs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 135, 1085–1089.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.024.
Gutow, L., Eckerlebe, A., Giménez, L., Saborowski, R., 2016. Experimental evaluation of sea-
weeds as a vector for microplastics into marine food webs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50,
915–923.
Hailemariam, R.H., Woo, Y.C., Damtie, M.M., Kim, B.C., Park, K.D., Choi, J.S., 2020. Reverse
osmosis membrane fabrication and modification technologies and future trends: a re-
view. Adv. Colloid Interf. Sci. 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2019.102100.
Hartmann, N.B., Huffer, T., Thompson, R.C., Hassellöv, M., Verschoor, A., Daugaard, A.E.,
Rist, S., Karlsson, T., Brennholt, N., Cole, M., 2019. Are We Speaking the Same Language?
Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris.
Herbort, A.F., Schuhen, K., 2017. A concept for the removal of microplastics from the marine
environment with innovative host-guest relationships. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24,
11061–11065.
Herbort, A.F., Sturm, M.T., Schuhen, K., 2018. A new approach for the agglomeration and
subsequent removal of polyethylene, polypropylene, and mixtures of both from freshwa-
ter systems–a case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 15226–15234.
Hidayaturrahman, H., Lee, T.G., 2019. A study on characteristics of microplastic in wastewa-
ter of South Korea: Identification, quantification, and fate of microplastics during treat-
ment process. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2019.06.071.
Hou, C., Shen, J., Zhang, D., Han, Y., Ma, D., Sun, X., Li, J., Han, W., Wang, L., Liu, X., 2017.
Bioaugmentation of a continuous-flow self-forming dynamic membrane bioreactor for
the treatment of wastewater containing high-strength pyridine. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 24, 3437–3447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8121-z.
Hou, L., Kumar, D., Yoo, C.G., Gitsov, I., Majumder, E.L.W., 2021. Conversion and removal
strategies for microplastics in wastewater treatment plants and landfills. Chem. Eng. J.
406, 126715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126715.
Huang, Yichao, Chapman, J., Deng, Y., Cozzolino, D., 2020. Rapid measurement of
microplastic contamination in chicken meat by mid infrared spectroscopy and
chemometrics: a feasibility study. Food Control 113, 107187. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodcont.2020.107187.
Huang, Yuzhou, Xiao, X., Xu, C., Perianen, Y.D., Hu, J., Holmer, M., 2020. Seagrass beds act-
ing as a trap of microplastics - emerging hotspot in the coastal region? Environ. Pollut.
257, 113450. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2019.113450.
Igawa, M., Senō, M., Takahashi, H., Yamabe, T., 1977. Reverse osmosis by dynamic mem-
branes. Desalination 22, 281–289.
Isik, O., Batyrow, M., Abdelrahman, A.M., Orman, I., Ozgun, H., Ersahin, M.E., Pasaoglu, M.E.,
Demir, I., Koyuncu, I., 2021. Dynamic membrane bioreactor performance for treatment of
municipal wastewaters at different sludge concentrations. Environ. Technol. Innov. 22,
101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ETI.2021.101452.
Jaikumar, G., Brun, N.R., Vijver, M.G., Bosker, T., 2019. Reproductive toxicity of primary and
secondary microplastics to three cladocerans during chronic exposure. Environ. Pollut.
249, 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.085.
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, 768–771.
Jia, Q.-L., Chen, H., Zhao, X., Li, L., Nie, Y.-H., Ye, J.-F., 2019. Removal of microplastics by
different treatment processes in Shanghai large municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Huan Jing ke Xue 40, 4105–4112.
Jiang, R., Lu, G., Yan, Z., Liu, J., Wu, D., Wang, Y., 2021. Microplastic degradation by
hydroxy-rich bismuth oxychloride. J. Hazard. Mater. 405, 124247. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124247.
Jiang, S., Li, Y., Ladewig, B.P., 2017. A review of reverse osmosis membrane fouling and con-
trol strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 595, 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2017.03.235.
Jones, K.L., Hartl, M.G.J., Bell, M.C., Capper, A., 2020. Microplastic accumulation in a Zostera
marina L. bed at Deerness Sound, Orkney, Scotland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 152, 110883.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110883.
Judd, S.J., 2016. The status of industrial and municipal effluent treatment with membrane
bioreactor technology. Chem. Eng. J. 305, 37–45.
Keerthana Devi, M., Karmegam, N., Manikandan, S., Subbaiya, R., Song, H., Kwon, E.E.,
Sarkar, B., Bolan, N., Kim, W., Rinklebe, J., Govarthanan, M., 2022. Removal of
nanoplastics in water treatment processes: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 845, 157168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157168.
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Khan, S., Nadir, S., Shah, Z.U., Shah, A.A., Karunarathna, S.C., Xu, J., Khan, A., Munir, S.,
Hasan, F., 2017. Biodegradation of polyester polyurethane by Aspergillus tubingensis. Envi-
ron. Pollut. 225, 469–480.
Kirkham, M.B., Antony, R.M., Bolan, N.S., 2020. Particulate plastics from agriculture. Partic-
ulate Plastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. CRC Press, pp. 19–37.
Krishnan, R.Y., Manikandan, S., Subbaiya, R., Biruntha, M., Govarthanan, M., Karmegam, N.,
2021. Removal of emerging micropollutants originating from pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs) in water and wastewater by advanced oxidation processes: a review.
Environ. Technol. Innov. 23, 101757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101757.
Kumar, M., Chen, H., Sarsaiya, S., Qin, S., Liu, H., Awasthi, M.K., Kumar, S., Singh, L., Zhang,
Z., Bolan, N.S., Pandey, A., Varjani, S., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2021. Current research trends
on micro- and nano-plastics as an emerging threat to global environment: a review.
J. Hazard. Mater. 409, 124967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124967.
Kumar, M., Xiong, X., He, M., Tsang, D.C.W., Gupta, J., Khan, E., Harrad, S., Hou, D., Ok, Y.S.,
Bolan, N.S., 2020. Microplastics as pollutants in agricultural soils. Environ. Pollut. 265,
114980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114980.
Kumari, A., Chaudhary, D.R., 2020. Engineered microbes and evolving plastic bioremediation
technology. Bioremediation of Pollutants. INC https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-
819025-8.00021-1.
Kurniawan, S.B., Said, N.S.M., Imron, M.F., Abdullah, S.R.S., 2021. Microplastic pollution in
the environment: Insights into emerging sources and potential threats. Environ. Technol.
Innov. 23, 101790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101790.
Lahive, E., Walton, A., Horton, A.A., Spurgeon, D.J., Svendsen, C., 2019. Microplastic particles
reduce reproduction in the terrestrial worm Enchytraeus crypticus in a soil exposure. Envi-
ron. Pollut. 255, 113174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113174.
Lai, C.Y., Groth, A., Gray, S., Duke, M., 2014. Enhanced abrasion resistant PVDF/nanoclay
hollow fibre composite membranes for water treatment. J. Memb. Sci. 449, 146–157.
Lares, M., Ncibi, M.C., Sillanpää, Markus, Sillanpää, Mika, 2018. Occurrence, identification
and removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process
and advanced MBR technology. Water Res. 133, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.01.049.
Lee, G., Suonan, Z., Kim, S.H., Hwang, D.W., Lee, K.S., 2019. Heavy metal accumulation and
phytoremediation potential by transplants of the seagrass Zostera marina in the polluted
bay systems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2019.110509.
Lee, H., Kim, Y., 2018. Treatment characteristics of microplastics at biological sewage treat-
ment facilities in Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.09.050.
Lei, L., Liu, M., Song, Y., Lu, S., Hu, J., Cao, C., Xie, B., Shi, H., He, D., 2018. Polystyrene
(nano) microplastics cause size-dependent neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and other ad-
verse effects in Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ. Sci. Nano 5, 2009–2020.
Leslie, H.A., Brandsma, S.H., van Velzen, M.J.M., Vethaak, A.D., 2017. Microplastics en route:
Field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treat-
ment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 101, 133–142. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.018.
Li, L., Liu, D., Song, K., Zhou, Y., 2020. Performance evaluation of MBR in treating
microplastics polyvinylchloride contaminated polluted surface water. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
150, 110724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110724.
Li, L., Xu, G., Yu, H., Xing, J., 2018. Dynamic membrane for micro-particle removal in waste-
water treatment: performance and influencing factors. Sci. Total Environ. 627, 332–340.
Li, X., Chen, L., Mei, Q., Dong, B., Dai, X., Ding, G., Zeng, E.Y., 2018. Microplastics in sewage
sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China. Water Res. 142, 75–85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.034.
Liang, D.-W., Zhang, T., Fang, H.H.P., He, J., 2008. Phthalates biodegradation in the environ-
ment. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 80, 183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-008-1548-5.
Liu, H., Yang, X., Liu, G., Liang, C., Xue, S., Chen, H., Ritsema, C.J., Geissen, V., 2017. Re-
sponse of soil dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in Chinese loess soil.
Chemosphere 185, 907–917.
Liu, X., Yuan, W., Di, M., Li, Z., Wang, J., 2019. Transfer and fate of microplastics during the
conventional activated sludge process in one wastewater treatment plant of China. Chem.
Eng. J. 362, 176–182.
Liu, Y., Zhang, K., Xu, S., Yan, M., Tao, D., Chen, L., Wei, Y., Wu, C., Liu, G., Lam, P.K.S., 2021.
Heavy metals in the “plastisphere” of marine microplastics: adsorption mechanisms and
composite risk. Gondwana Res. 108, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GR.2021.06.017.
Llorente-García, B.E., Hernández-López, J.M., Zaldívar-Cadena, A.A., Siligardi, C., Cedillo-
González, E.I., 2020. First insights into photocatalytic degradation of HDPE and LDPE
microplastics by a mesoporous N-TiO2 coating: Effect of size and shape of microplastics.
Coatings 10 (7), 658. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10070658.
Löder, M.G.J., Gerdts, G., 2015. Methodology used for the detection and identification of
microplastics—a critical appraisal. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International
Publishing, pp. 201–227 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_8.
Long, Z., Pan, Z., Wang, W., Ren, J., Yu, X., Lin, L., Lin, H., Chen, H., Jin, X., 2019.
Microplastic abundance, characteristics, and removal in wastewater treatment plants in
a coastal city of China. Water Res. 155, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.
2019.02.028.
Luisetti, T., Jackson, E.L., Turner, R.K., 2013. Valuing the European ‘coastal blue carbon’ storage
benefit. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 71, 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.03.029.
Lv, X., Dong, Q., Zuo, Z., Liu, Y., Huang, X., Wu, W.M., 2019. Microplastics in a municipal
wastewater treatment plant: fate, dynamic distribution, removal efficiencies, and control
strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 225, 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.321.
Ma, B., Xue, W., Hu, C., Liu, H., Qu, J., Li, L., 2019. Characteristics of microplastic removal via
coagulation and ultrafiltration during drinking water treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 359,
159–167.
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. Sci. Total Envi-
ron. 652, 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.269.
14
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
Mahon, A.M., O’Connell, B., Healy, M.G., O’Connor, I., Officer, R., Nash, R., Morrison, L.,
2017. Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51,
810–818. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04048.
Maliwan, T., Pungrasmi, W., Lohwacharin, J., 2021. Effects of microplastic accumulation on
floc characteristics and fouling behavior in a membrane bioreactor. J. Hazard. Mater.
411, 124991.
Mandal, S., Bolan, N.S., Sarkar, B., Wijesekara, H., Bradney, L., Kirkham, M.B., 2020. Environ-
mentally toxic components of prticulate plastics. Particulate plastics in terrestrial and
aquatic environments. CRC Press, pp. 165–179.
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 waste-
water treatment plant effluent. Environ. Pollut. 218, 1045–1054.
Melin, T., Jefferson, B., Bixio, D., Thoeye, C., De Wilde, W., De Koning, J., van der Graaf, J.,
Wintgens, T., 2006. Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment and
reuse. Desalination 187, 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.086.
Meng, Q., Nan, J., Wang, Z., Ji, X., Wu, F., Liu, B., Xiao, Q., 2019. Study on the efficiency of
ultrafiltration technology in dealing with sudden cadmium pollution in surface water and
ultrafiltration membrane fouling. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 16641–16651. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04691-4.
Michielssen, M.R., Michielssen, E.R., Ni, J., Duhaime, M.B., 2016. Fate of microplastics and
other small anthropogenic litter (SAL) in wastewater treatment plants depends on unit
processes employed. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2, 1064–1073.
Ming-Lok Leung, M., Ho, Y.-W., Lee, C.-H., Wang, Y., Hu, M., Wing-Hin Kwok, K., Chua, S.-L.,
Kar-Hei Fang, J., 2021. Improved Raman spectroscopy-based approach to assess
microplastics in seafood. Environ. Pollut. 117648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2021.117648.
Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen, I., Löder, 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 Res. 108, 365–372. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015.
Mishra, A.K., Singh, J., Mishra, P.P., 2021. Microplastics in polar regions: an early warning to
the world's pristine ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 784, 147149. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147149.
Mohsen, M., Wang, Q., Zhang, L., Sun, L., Lin, C., Yang, H., 2019. Microplastic ingestion by
the farmed sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus in China. Environ. Pollut. 245,
1071–1078.
Muhonja, C.N., Makonde, H., Magoma, G., Imbuga, M., 2018. Biodegradability of polyethyl-
ene by bacteria and fungi from Dandora dumpsite Nairobi-Kenya. PLoS One 13,
e0198446.
Mujtaba, M., Wang, D., Carvalho, L.B., Oliveira, J.L., Espirito Santo Pereira, A.do, Sharif, R.,
Jogaiah, S., Paidi, M.K., Wang, L., Ali, Q., Fraceto, L.F., 2021. Nanocarrier-mediated delivery
of miRNA, RNAi, and CRISPR-Cas for plant protection: current trends and future directions.
ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 1, 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsagscitech.1c00146.
Muniz, G.L., Borges, A.C., da Silva, T.C.F., 2020. Performance of natural coagulants obtained
from agro-industrial wastes in dairy wastewater treatment using dissolved air flotation.
J. Water Process Eng. 37, 101453.
Murano, C., Agnisola, C., Caramiello, D., Castellano, I., Casotti, R., Corsi, I., Palumbo, A.,
2020. How sea urchins face microplastics: uptake, tissue distribution and immune system
response. Environ. Pollut. 264, 114685.
Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F., Quinn, B., 2016. Wastewater treatment works (WwTW)
as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50,
5800–5808. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05416.
Nabi, I., Li, K., Cheng, H., Wang, T., Liu, Y., Ajmal, S., Yang, Y., Feng, Y., Zhang, L., 2020.
Complete photocatalytic mineralization of microplastic on TiO2 nanoparticle film.
Iscience 23, 101326.
Nicolella, C., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Heijnen, J.J., 2000. Wastewater treatment with partic-
ulate biofilm reactors. J. Biotechnol. 80, 1–33.
Nigamatzyanova, L., Fakhrullin, R., 2021. Dark-field hyperspectral microscopy for label-free
microplastics and nanoplastics detection and identification in vivo: a Caenorhabditis elegans
study. Environ. Pollut. 271, 116337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116337.
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M., Langaas, S., 2016. Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics of
urban origin? Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 10777–10779.
Nobre, C.R., Santana, M.F.M., Maluf, A., Cortez, F.S., Cesar, A., Pereira, C.D.S., Turra, A.,
2015. Assessment of microplastic toxicity to embryonic development of the sea urchin
Lytechinus variegatus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92, 99–104.
Nuzzo, A., Puccio, S., Martina, C., Pietrangeli, B., Martinez, G.A., Bertin, L., Mancini, M., Fava, F.,
Zanaroli, G., 2020. Containment of a genetically modified microorganism by an activated
sludge system. New Biotechnol. 55, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2019.10.001.
Ødegaard, H., 2001. The use of dissolved air flotation in municipal wastewater treatment.
Water Sci. Technol. 43, 75–81.
Ondiviela, B., Losada, I.J., Lara, J.L., Maza, M., Galván, C., Bouma, T.J., van Belzen, J., 2014.
The role of seagrasses in coastal protection in a changing climate. Coast. Eng. 87,
158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.11.005.
Paçal, M., Semerci, N., Çallı, B., 2019. Treatment of synthetic wastewater and cheese whey by
the anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26,
32942–32956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06397-z.
Pacheco, D., Rocha, A.C., Pereira, L., Verdelhos, T., 2020. Microalgae water bioremediation:
trends and hot topics. Appl. Sci. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051886.
Palansooriya, K.N., Wijesekara, H., Bradney, L., Kumarathilaka, P., Bundschuh, J., Bolan, N.S.,
Rocha-Santos, T., Gu, C., Ok, Y.S., 2020. Characteristics of particulate plastics in terres-
trial ecosystems. Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. CRC
Press, pp. 107–124.
Park, D., Kim, D., Lim, H.J., Park, C., Chua, B., Lee, J.W., Yoon, Y., Son, A., 2021. Chia seed-
assisted separation and detection of polyvinyl chloride microplastics in water via gas
chromatography mass spectrometry. Chemosphere 273, 129599. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129599.
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Patrício Silva, A.L., 2021. New frontiers in remediation of (micro)plastics. Curr. Opin. Green
Sustain. Chem. 28, 100443. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGSC.2020.100443.
Peng, B.Y., Chen, Z., Chen, J., Yu, H., Zhou, X., Criddle, C.S., Wu, W.M., Zhang, Y., 2020. Bio-
degradation of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)
larvae. Environ. Int. 145, 106106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106106.
Peng, Y.-H., Shih, Y., Lai, Y.-C., Liu, Y.-Z., Liu, Y.-T., Lin, N.-C., 2014. Degradation of polyure-
thane by bacterium isolated from soil and assessment of polyurethanolytic activity of a
Pseudomonas putida strain. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 9529–9537.
Pereao, O., Opeolu, B., Fatoki, O., 2020. Microplastics in aquatic environment: characteriza-
tion, ecotoxicological effect, implications for ecosystems and developments in South
Africa. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 22271–22291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
020-08688-2.
Perren, W., Wojtasik, A., Cai, Q., 2018. Removal of microbeads from wastewater using elec-
trocoagulation. ACS Omega 3, 3357–3364. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b02037.
Piarulli, S., Sciutto, G., Oliveri, P., Malegori, C., Prati, S., Mazzeo, R., Airoldi, L., 2020. Rapid
and direct detection of small microplastics in aquatic samples by a new near infrared
hyperspectral imaging (NIR-HSI) method. Chemosphere 260, 127655. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127655.
Poerio, T., Piacentini, E., Mazzei, R., 2019. Membrane processes for microplastic removal.
Molecules 24, 4148.
Posadas, E., Bochon, S., Coca, M., García-González, M.C., García-Encina, P.A., Muñoz, R.,
2014. Microalgae-based agro-industrial wastewater treatment: a preliminary screening
of biodegradability. J. Appl. Phycol. 26, 2335–2345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-
014-0263-0.
Pramanik, B.K., Pramanik, S.K., Monira, S., 2021. Understanding the fragmentation of
microplastics into nano-plastics and removal of nano/microplastics from wastewater
using membrane, air flotation and nano-ferrofluid processes. Chemosphere 282,
131053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131053.
Prata, J.C., 2018a. Airborne microplastics: Consequences to human health? Environ. Pollut.
234, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.043.
Prata, J.C., 2018b. Microplastics in wastewater: State of the knowledge on sources, fate and
solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 129, 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.
02.046.
Prata, J.C., da Costa, J.P., Lopes, I., Duarte, A.C., Rocha-Santos, T., 2020. Environmental expo-
sure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci. Total Environ.
702, 134455.
Pratt, S., Bolan, N.S., Laycock, B., Lant, P., Bryson, E., Dilkes-Hoffman, L., 2020. Biodegrad-
able bioplastics: a silver bullet to plastic pollution? Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial
and Aquatic Environments. CRC Press, pp. 425–434
Qi, R., Jones, D.L., Li, Z., Liu, Q., Yan, C., 2020. Behavior of microplastics and plastic film res-
idues in the soil environment: A critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 134722. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134722.
Qiao, R., Sheng, C., Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, H., Lemos, B., 2019. Microplastics induce intestinal
inflammation, oxidative stress, and disorders of metabolome and microbiome in
zebrafish. Sci. Total Environ. 662, 246–253.
Raju, S., Carbery, M., Kuttykattil, A., Senthirajah, K., Lundmark, A., Rogers, Z., SCB, S., Evans,
G., Palanisami, T., 2020. Improved methodology to determine the fate and transport of
microplastics in a secondary wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 173, 115549.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2020.115549.
Rashid, S.S., Liu, Y.-Q., 2020. Assessing environmental impacts of large centralized wastewa-
ter treatment plants with combined or separate sewer systems in dry/wet seasons by
using LCA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 15674–15690. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-020-08038-2.
Rathi, B.S., Kumar, P.S., 2021. Application of adsorption process for effective removal of
emerging contaminants from water and wastewater. Environ. Pollut. 280, 116995.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116995.
Rathi, B.S., Kumar, P.S., Show, P.L., 2021. A review on effective removal of emerging contam-
inants from aquatic systems: Current trends and scope for further research. J. Hazard.
Mater. 409, 124413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124413.
Rempel, A., Gutkoski, J.P., Nazari, M.T., Biolchi, G.N., Cavanhi, V.A.F., Treichel, H., Colla,
L.M., 2021. Current advances in microalgae-based bioremediation and other technologies
for emerging contaminants treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 772, 144918. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144918.
Reslova, N., Michna, V., Kasny, M., Mikel, P., Kralik, P., 2017. xMAP technology: Applications
in detection of pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 8, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.
00055.
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 environ-
ment. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 4, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.
7b00164.
Saborowski, R., Paulischkis, E., Gutow, L., 2019. How to get rid of ingested microplastic fi-
bers? A straightforward approach of the Atlantic ditch shrimp Palaemon varians. Environ.
Pollut. 254, 113068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113068.
Saleem, M., Masut, E., Spagni, A., Lavagnolo, M.C., 2019. Exploring dynamic membrane as an
alternative for conventional membrane for the treatment of old landfill leachate.
J. Environ. Manag. 246, 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.025.
Sarkar, B., Bolan, N.S., Mukhopadhyay, R., Bolan, S.S., Kirkham, M.B., Rinklebe, J., 2020.
Management of Particulate Plastic Waste Input to Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments.
Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. CRC Press, pp. 397–411.
Schmid, C., Cozzarini, L., Zambello, E., 2021. Microplastic’s story. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162,
111820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111820.
Schneider, M., Stracke, F., Hansen, S., Schaefer, U.F., 2009. Nanoparticles and their interac-
tions with the dermal barrier. Dermatoendocrinol. 1, 197–206.
Sekomo, C.B., Rousseau, D.P.L., Saleh, S.A., Lens, P.N.L., 2012. Heavy metal removal in duck-
weed and algae ponds as a polishing step for textile wastewater treatment. Ecol. Eng. 44,
102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.003.
15
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
Sembiring, E., Fajar, M., Handajani, M., 2021. Performance of rapid sand filter – single media
to remove microplastics. Water Supply 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2021.060.
Seng, N., Lai, S., Fong, J., Saleh, M.F., Cheng, C., Cheok, Z.Y., Todd, P.A., 2020. Early evidence
of microplastics on seagrass and macroalgae. Mar. Freshw. Res. 71, 922–928.
Seth, C.K., Shriwastav, A., 2018. Contamination of Indian sea salts with microplastics and a
potential prevention strategy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 30122–30131. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-018-3028-5.
Shabbir, S., Faheem, M., Ali, N., Kerr, P.G., Wang, L.-F., Kuppusamy, S., Li, Y., 2020. Peri-
phytic biofilm: An innovative approach for biodegradation of microplastics. Sci. Total En-
viron. 717, 137064.
Shahid, K., Srivastava, V., Sillanpää, M., 2021. Protein recovery as a resource from waste spe-
cifically via membrane technology—from waste to wonder. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28,
10262–10282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12290-x.
Shahnawaz, M., Sangale, M.K., Ade, A.B., 2019. Case studies and recent update of plastic
waste degradation. Bioremediation Technology for Plastic Waste. Springer, pp. 31–43.
Sharma, M.D., Elanjickal, A.I., Mankar, J.S., Krupadam, R.J., 2020. Assessment of cancer risk
of microplastics enriched with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J. Hazard. Mater. 398,
122994.
Sharma, S., Basu, S., Shetti, N.P., Nadagouda, M.N., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2021. Microplastics in
the environment: occurrence, perils, and eradication. Chem. Eng. J. 408, 127317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.127317.
Sharma, S.R., 2018. Bioremediation of polythenes and plastics: a microbial approach. Ap-
proaches in Bioremediation. Springer, pp. 97–114.
Shen, M., Zhang, Y., Almatrafi, E., Hu, T., Zhou, C., Song, B., Zeng, Z., Zeng, G., 2022. Efficient
removal of microplastics from wastewater by an electrocoagulation process. Chem. Eng.
J. 428, 131161. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2021.131161.
Shenvi, S.S., Isloor, A.M., Ismail, A.F., 2015. A review on RO membrane technology: develop-
ments and challenges. Desalination 368, 10–26.
Siddiqui, M.A., Biswal, B.K., Saleem, M., Guan, D., Iqbal, A., Wu, D., Khanal, S.K., Chen, G.,
2021. Anaerobic self-forming dynamic membrane bioreactors (AnSFDMBRs) for waste-
water treatment – recent advances, process optimization and perspectives. Bioresour.
Technol. 332, 125101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125101.
Simon, M., van Alst, N., Vollertsen, J., 2018. Quantification of microplastic mass and removal
rates at wastewater treatment plants applying Focal Plane Array (FPA)-based Fourier
Transform Infrared (FT-IR) imaging. Water Res. 142, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.05.019.
Skariyachan, S., Setlur, A.S., Naik, S.Y., Naik, A.A., Usharani, M., Vasist, K.S., 2017. Enhanced
biodegradation of low and high-density polyethylene by novel bacterial consortia formu-
lated from plastic-contaminated cow dung under thermophilic conditions. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 24, 8443–8457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8537-0.
Smith, M., Love, D.C., Rochman, C.M., Neff, R.A., 2018. Microplastics in seafood and the im-
plications for human health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 5, 375–386.
Sobczyk, M., Pajdak-Stós, A., Fiałkowska, E., Sobczyk, Ł., Fyda, J., 2021. Multivariate analysis
of activated sludge community in full-scale wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 28, 3579–3589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10684-5.
Sonune, A., Ghate, R., 2004. Developments in wastewater treatment methods. Desalination
167, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.113.
Sridharan, S., Kumar, M., Bolan, N.S., Singh, L., Kumar, S., Kumar, R., You, S., 2021. Are
microplastics destabilizing the global network of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem ser-
vices? Environ. Res. 198, 111243.
Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Ni, B.J., 2019. Microplastics in wastewater
treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res. 152, 21–37. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050.
Talvitie, J., Heinonen, M., Pääkkönen, J.-P., Vahtera, E., Mikola, A., Setälä, O., Vahala, R., 2015.
Do wastewater treatment plants act as a potential point source of microplastics? Preliminary
study in the coastal Gulf of Finland. Baltic Sea. Water Sci. Technol. 72, 1495–1504.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., Setälä, O., 2017a. Solutions to microplastic pollution –
removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater treatment
technologies. Water Res. 123, 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.005.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Setälä, 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 Res. 109, 164–172. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2016.11.046.
Tanaka, K., Takada, H., 2016. Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of
planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8.
Tirkey, A., Upadhyay, L.S.B., 2021. Microplastics: An overview on separation, identification
and characterization of microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 170, 112604. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112604.
Tofa, T.S., Kunjali, K.L., Paul, S., Dutta, J., 2019. Visible light photocatalytic degradation of
microplastic residues with zinc oxide nanorods. Environ. Chem. Lett. 17, 1341–1346.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00859-z.
Uheida, A., Mejía, H.G., Abdel-Rehim, M., Hamd, W., Dutta, J., 2021. Visible light photocat-
alytic degradation of polypropylene microplastics in a continuous water flow system.
J. Hazard. Mater. 406, 124299.
Ungureanu, N., Vlăduț, V., Paraschiv, G., 2020. Electrocoagulation in wastewater treatment.
Ann. Univ. Craiova-AgricultureMont. Cadastre Ser. 49, 206–216.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Claessens, M., Vandegehuchte, M.B., Janssen, C.R., 2015.
Microplastics are taken up by mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lugworms (Arenicola marina)
living in natural habitats. Environ. Pollut. 199, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2015.01.008.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Janssen, C.R., 2014. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human con-
sumption. Environ. Pollut. 193, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010.
Velusamy, K., Chellam, P.V., Kumar, P.S., Venkatachalam, J., Periyasamy, S., Saravanan, R.,
2022. Functionalization of MXene-based nanomaterials for the treatment of micropollutants
in aquatic system: A review. Environ. Pollut. 301, 119034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2022.119034.
R.Y. Krishnan et al.
Vidal, C., Pasquini, C., 2021. A comprehensive and fast microplastics identification based on
near-infrared hyperspectral imaging (HSI-NIR) and chemometrics. Environ. Pollut. 285,
117251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117251.
Vilakati, B., Sivasankar, V., Nyoni, H., Mamba, B.B., Omine, K., Msagati, T.A.M., 2021. The Py
– GC-TOF-MS analysis and characterization of microplastics (MPs) in a wastewater treat-
ment plant in Gauteng ProvinceSouth Africa. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 222, 112478.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112478.
Wang, L., Kaeppler, A., Fischer, D., Simmchen, J., 2019. Photocatalytic TiO2 micromotors for
removal of microplastics and suspended matter. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11,
32937–32944. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b06128.
Wang, L., Wu, W.M., Bolan, N.S., Tsang, D.C.W., Li, Y., Qin, M., Hou, D., 2021. Environmental
fate, toxicity and risk management strategies of nanoplastics in the environment: current
status and future perspectives. J. Hazard. Mater. 401, 123415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2020.123415.
Wang, Q., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Zhou, Z., Hu, W., Lin, L., Wu, Z., 2021. Effects of microplastics accu-
mulation on performance of membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment.
Chemosphere 131968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131968.
Wang, S., Ma, C., Pang, C., Hu, Z., Wang, W., 2019. Membrane fouling and performance of
anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor treating phenol- and quinoline-containing
wastewater: granular activated carbon vs polyaluminum chloride. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 26, 34167–34176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3802-4.
Wang, X., Bolan, N., Tsang, D.C.W., Sarkar, B., Bradney, L., Li, Y., 2021. A review of
microplastics aggregation in aquatic environment: influence factors, analytical methods,
and environmental implications. J. Hazard. Mater. 402, 123496. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123496.
Wang, Y., Li, Y., Tian, L., Ju, L., Liu, Y., 2021. The removal efficiency and mechanism of
microplastic enhancement by positive modification dissolved air flotation. Water Envi-
ron. Res. 93, 693–702.
Wang, Z., Sedighi, M., Lea-Langton, A., 2020. Filtration of microplastic spheres by biochar: re-
moval efficiency and immobilisation mechanisms. Water Res. 184, 116165.
Welden, N., 2019. Microplastics: Emerging contaminants requiring multilevel management.
Waste 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815060-3.00021-9.
Welden, N.A., Lusher, A., 2020. Microplastics: from origin to impacts. Plast. Waste Recycl.
223–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817880-5.00009-8.
Westphalen, H., Abdelrasoul, A., 2018. Challenges and treatment of microplastics in water.
Water Challenges an Urban. World. 5, pp. 71–82.
Wijesekara, H., Bradney, L., Mandal, S., Sarkar, B., Song, H., Bolan, N.S., Kirkham, M.B., 2020.
Particulate plastics as vectors of heavy metal (loid) s. Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial
and Aquatic Environments. CRC Press, pp. 181–192.
Wilkes, R.A., Aristilde, L., 2017. Degradation and metabolism of synthetic plastics and associ-
ated products by Pseudomonas sp.: capabilities and challenges. J. Appl. Microbiol. 123,
582–593.
Wong, J.K.H., Lee, K.K., Tang, K.H.D., Yap, P.S., 2020. Microplastics in the freshwater and ter-
restrial environments: prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable solutions. Sci. Total En-
viron. 719, 137512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137512.
Wu, M., Tang, W., Wu, S., Liu, H., Yang, C., 2021. Fate and effects of microplastics in waste-
water treatment processes. Sci. Total Environ. 757, 143902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.143902.
Xanthos, D., Walker, T.R., 2017. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from
single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 118, 17–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048.
Xiao, K., Liang, S., Wang, X., Chen, C., Huang, X., 2019. Current state and challenges of full-
scale membrane bioreactor applications: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 271,
473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.061.
16
Science of the Total Environment 858 (2023) 159681
Xu, J.L., Thomas, K.V., Luo, Z., Gowen, A.A., 2019. FTIR and Raman imaging for microplastics
analysis: State of the art, challenges and prospects. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 119,
115629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2019.115629.
Xu, Q., Huang, Q.S., Luo, T.Y., Wu, R.L., Wei, W., Ni, B.J., 2021. Coagulation removal and
photocatalytic degradation of microplastics in urban waters. Chem. Eng. J. 416,
129123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.129123.
Yan, Y., Li, Q., Bolan, S.S., Bolan, N.S., Ok, Y.S., Kirkham, M.B., Kwon, E.E., 2020. Interaction
of dissolved organic matter with particulate plastics. Particulate Plastics in Terrestrial and
Aquatic Environments. CRC Press, pp. 95–105.
Yang, J., Li, L., Li, R., Xu, L., Shen, Y., Li, S., Tu, C., Wu, L., Christie, P., Luo, Y., 2021.
Microplastics in an agricultural soil following repeated application of three types of sew-
age sludge: a field study. Environ. Pollut. 289, 117943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2021.117943.
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 Res. 155, 175–181.
Yin, K., Wang, Y., Zhao, H., Wang, D., Guo, M., Mu, M., Liu, Y., Nie, X., Li, B., Li, J., Xing, M.,
2021. A comparative review of microplastics and nanoplastics: Toxicity hazards on diges-
tive, reproductive and nervous system. Sci. Total Environ. 774, 145758. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145758.
Yuan, F., Zhao, H., Sun, H., Zhao, J., Sun, Y., 2021. Abundance, morphology, and removal ef-
ficiency of microplastics in two wastewater treatment plants in Nanjing, China. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 9327–9337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11411-w.
Zhang, C., Wang, S., Sun, D., Pan, Z., Zhou, A., Xie, S., Wang, J., Zou, J., 2020. Microplastic
pollution in surface water from east coastal areas of Guangdong, South China and prelim-
inary study on microplastics biomonitoring using two marine fish. Chemosphere 256,
127202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127202.
Zhang, S., Wang, J., Liu, X., Qu, F., Wang, Xueshan, Wang, Xinrui, Li, Y., Sun, Y., 2019.
Microplastics in the environment: a review of analytical methods, distribution, and bio-
logical effects. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 111, 62–72.
Zhang, X., Li, Y., Ouyang, D., Lei, J., Tan, Q., Xie, L., Li, Z., Liu, T., Xiao, Y., Farooq, T.H., Wu,
X., Chen, L., Yan, W., 2021. Systematical review of interactions between microplastics
and microorganisms in the soil environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 418, 126288. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126288.
Zhang, Y., Wei, S., Hu, Y., Sun, S., 2018. Membrane technology in wastewater treatment en-
hanced by functional nanomaterials. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.211.
Zhang, Z., Su, Y., Zhu, J., Shi, J., Huang, H., Xie, B., 2021. Distribution and removal charac-
teristics of microplastics in different processes of the leachate treatment system. Waste
Manag. 120, 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.11.025.
Zhao, D.L., Japip, S., Zhang, Y., Weber, M., Maletzko, C., Chung, T.S., 2020. Emerging thin-
film nanocomposite (TFN) membranes for reverse osmosis: a review. Water Res. 173,
115557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115557.
Zheng, X., Chen, Y., Wu, R., 2011. Long-term effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on ni-
trogen and phosphorus removal from wastewater and bacterial community shift in acti-
vated sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 7284–7290.
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 Res. 112, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.042.
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Telles Silveira, I., Chua, A., Leusch, F.D.L., 2021. An audit of
microplastic abundance throughout three Australian wastewater treatment plants.
Chemosphere 263, 128294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128294.