Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials

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

Review on the occurrence and fate of microplastics in Sewage Treatment T

Plants
Georgia Gatidoua, , Olga S. Arvanitib, Athanasios S. Stasinakisa
⁎

a
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100, Mytilene, Greece
b
Department of Food Technology, Ionian University, 28100, Argostoli, Greece

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Microplastics are plastic fragments lower than 5 mm that are detected in the environment causing various effects
Microliter on organisms. Several research articles have recognized Sewage Treatment Plants as important sources of
Presence polyethylene and polypropylene beads, polyester, polyamide and other types of microplastics. For their de-
Analysis termination, techniques such as visual identification using microscope, Fourier-transform infrared and RAMAN
Wastewater
spectroscopy are used, while chemical oxidation, enzymatic maceration and density separation are applied as
Biosolids
pretreatment methods for the removal of the inorganic and organic content. Microplastics’ concentrations range
up to 3160 particles L−1, 125 particles L−1 and 170.9 × 103 particles Kg-1 TS dw in raw, treated wastewater and
sludge, respectively. Their removal during wastewater treatment ranges between 72% and 99.4%; the main
processes that contribute to their removal are primary and secondary treatment, while the effect of tertiary
treatment depends on the applied technology. Entrapment in suspended solids and accumulation to sludge are
the major mechanisms governing their fate. A standardized protocol for samples’ collection and pretreatment as
well as microplastics’ isolation and characterization is needed; future reseach should investigate the possible
chemical and physical changes of microplastics during treatment, and their role as carriers for the transfer of
emerging micropollutants.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ggatid@env.aegean.gr (G. Gatidou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.081
Received 11 June 2018; Received in revised form 6 December 2018; Accepted 20 December 2018
Available online 29 December 2018
0304-3894/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G. Gatidou et al.
1. Introduction
Plastic pollution is a high-priority problem that has received in-
creasing attention during the last decade [1–3]. Plastic items can slowly
breakdown into smaller pieces and due to their lightweight nature, they
are dispersed by ocean currents and wind to the coastal environment
[1]. Microplastics are plastic fragments with size lower than 5 mm,
separated into primary and secondary [4]. The primary microplastics
are intentionally manufactured to be of microscopic size as they are
used in abrasive cosmetic products [5]; whereas secondary micro-
plastics are formed from the breakdown of plastics litter after exposure
to water, wind and sunlight [6,7]. Microplastics are also categorised
according to their shape and colour. The main types that are detected in
the environment are fragments, pellets, fibres, films, granules, and
styrofoam [8]. The occurrence of microplastics has been mentioned
worldwide [9,10], while the effects from their accumulation on aquatic
organisms have been reported in several studies and include reduction
of feeding activity, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, growth delay and
death [11–13]. Physical or chemical changes of microplastics, when
found in the environment, seem to affect their uptake and toxicity
[14,15]. Most of the experiments have been conducted with fish and, in
many cases, concentrations higher than those commonly found in the
environment have been used [12,13]. Additionally, it is known that
microplastics accumulate and transfer toxic compounds to the en-
vironment that are either used during their production or are sorbed
onto the plastic media when the microplastics are in water [16,17].
Several studies have shown that they contain different priority pollu-
tants such as organochlorine pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and polybrominated diphenyl
ethers [18–22]. Due to the higher affinity of these contaminants for the
plastic media than water, accumulation up to one million times higher
onto the plastic particle can be occurred [23]. In a recent work, it has
also been reported that microbeads contained in biosolids could serve
as vectors for heavy metals contamination when biosolids are applied to
the soil [24].
Based on the above and taking into account the durability of mi-
croplastics and their trend to be transferred within food webs [25,26],
their occurrence in the environment is a matter of global concern.
Under this point of view, the identification of the potential aquatic-
based and land-based sources of microplastics remains a challenging
issue. Among the land base sources municipal sewage, stormwater and
riverine transport seem to be of high importance [27–29]. In a recent
study, Cheung and Fok [30] estimated that in Mainland China
306.9 tonnes of microbeads per year are emitted to the environment,
while 80% of them are derived from the effluents of Sewage Treatment
Plants (STPs). Other studies have also pointed out the contribution of
sewage on the amounts of polyester and acrylic fibers found in the
marine environment [31,32].
Since 2009, several research articles have been published reporting
the occurrence of microplastics in wastewater and sewage sludge
samples. Specifically, a search at Scopus database using the keywords
“microplastics” and “wastewater” indicates the existence of 74 pub-
lications in scientific journals (Fig. S1). These publications contain in-
formation on different disciplines such as concentration levels of mi-
croplastics in wastewater, methods for the identification of
microplastics in wastewater and sludge, effects of microplastics con-
tained in wastewater on organisms etc. This number is reduced to 57
publications when the keywords “microplastics” and “wastewater
treatment” are used. The receiving results are even less, only 12, when
the keyword “fate” is also added to the previous ones indicating that
scientists have quite recently started to study the role of different
wastewater treatment processes on microplastics’ behavior. Regarding
the existence of review papers on the field, despite the fact that a sig-
nificant number of review papers are available for the analysis, occur-
rence, effects and fate of microplastics in the aquatic environment
[29,33–35], only one article has been published for the role of STPs as
505
Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512
point sources of microplastics [36]. This important review paper con-
tains information on the fate of microplastics in STPs, their interactions
with microcontaminants as well as their effects in aquatic organisms;
however, it is based on papers published before 2016. According to
Scopus database, ever since numerous research papers have been
published on the field, providing much more and better quality in-
formation on the occurrence and fate of microplastics in STPs.
Under this frame, this review article contains information for the
sampling and analytical procedures that are followed for the mon-
itoring of microplastics in STPs, while the type and the concentrations
of microplastics, typically found in wastewater and sludge samples, as
well as their removal efficiencies and behavior during different treat-
ment processes are also discussed. The current gaps in the literature are
highlighted and the future perspectives for research are indicated.
2. Sampling and analysis of microplastics in sewage treatment
plants
Microplastics’ collection is usually performed by sieving [37,38] or
filtration [39,40] using sieves and filters with various mesh/pore sizes
to distinguish size categories of microplastics. The volume of either
grab [27,37] or composite samples [27,41] varies between some mil-
liliters [27,37,42,43] or liters for the influents [44–46] to several liters
[42,47] or even few m3 for the effluents [37,40,48] (Table 1). The
explanation for the wide range of sample volumes between raw and
treated wastewater is that influent normally has high content of organic
matter and as a result, filters’ or sieves’ clogging is possible to be caused
if large volumes are collected. On the contrary, effluent has sig-
nificantly lower content of organic material and therefore it is achiev-
able to filter large volumes. Additionally, treated wastewater is ex-
pected to contain fewer microplastics. Therefore, it is wise to sample
and handle higher volumes [39] especially when larger particles are
targeted to be identified [49]. For instance Talvetie et al. [27] measured
various categories of microplastics in the effluents using three different
filters with pore sizes 20, 100 and 300 μL. According to the results, for
the determination of larger microplastics (≥ 300 μm), that corre-
sponded to less than 5% of the total amount of particles, 10.5 to 13.5 L
of effluents were filtered. On the contrary, smaller microplastics
(20–100 μm) which corresponded to almost 70% of the total micro-
plastics’ amount were determined after the filtration of only 2 L of
sample. But even when same types of effluents are collected, still are
observed variations in the sample volumes between different articles.
Talvitie et al. [42], Carr at al. [37], Michielssen et al. [38] and Zia-
jahromi et al. [44], when analyzed tertiary effluents, they collected
sample volumes of 2 to 285 L, 1.89 × 105 to 2.23 × 105 L, 34 to 85 L
and 200 L, respectively. This high discrepancy it is probably due to the
lack of a standardized and generally accepted sampling and further
analytical procedure for microplastics’ study. Indeed, the nature of
these “pollutants” allows only partial validation of the analytical
methods because microplastics are found in many different materials,
shapes and sizes [50]. Moreover, samples with regards to microplastics,
present high heterogenicity since, unlike to chemical compounds,
cannot be dissolved. Thus, when a researcher is trying to validate a
method, comes across with questions such as how much sample should
be collected and what size, mass and type of material should be spiked
in the sample during recovery experiments. As for the target micro-
plastics’ fractions it should be ideal if the complete range from 1 to
5000 μm could be analyzed as also reported by [50] in order to obtain a
more comprehensive view of the contamination extent. Regarding the
collected sample volume, there are no available recommendations in
the literature. Definitely, its size is affected by the limit of detection
(LOD) of the analytical method. Although being crucial, only few stu-
dies have up to now reported the determination of LOD during micro-
plastics’ analysis [49,50]. Certainly, when dealing with such particles
presenting high variety in size, material and shape, its calculation is a
challenging topic. However, since its determination reinforces the
 Table 1
In Information on the studied Sewage Treatment Plants, worldwide, applied water/sludge processes and identification methods.
Country Treatment type Population Average treated Sample size: Water sample Sludge Particle size Identification method Reference
G. Gatidou et al.

served sewage volume (L) / mass (g, wet weight-ww) processing Sample processing (μm)
(m3 day−1)

Finland Tertiary 800,000 NR Influent:0.3 Filtration device – 20-200 Visual observation & FT-IR [42]
Primary effluent: 1–20 spectroscopy
Secondary effluent: 1–20
Tertiary effluent: 2–285
France Primary & biological NR 240,000 0.05 Automatic sampler – 100-5000 Visual observation [43]
treatment
Scotland Secondary 650,000 NR Inffluent:30 Steel bucket and – > 65 Visual observation & FT-IR [45]
Primary effluent: 30 steel sieve spectroscopy
Secondary effluent: 50
U.S.A. Secondary, tertiary, NR 2,500,000 raw wastewater: 1–2 Sieving – 20-4750 Visual observation [38]
(3 STPs) anaerobic membrane (data given for preliminary
bioreactor one STP) effluent:
1–6
primary effluent: 10–20 secondary
effluent: 10–20 Tertiary effluent: 34–38
U.S.A Tertiary NR 1,060,000 Influent: 0.1 Sieving Digestion with 20-400 Visual observation & FT-IR [37]
(7 STPs) (data given for Tertiary effluent: 1.89*105-2.23*105 sodium hypochlorite spectroscopy
the largest STP) Sludge: ∼5 (NR)
U.S.A. Primary, secondary, tertiary 3,500- 6,490- 382,000 5.00 × 102-2.10 × 104 Filtration – 125-355 & Visual observation [40]
(17 STPs) (depending on the STP) 56,000,000 > 355
Sweden Mechanical, chemical & 12,000 NR Influent:2 Filtration Filtration > 300 Visual observation & FT-IR [39]
biological Effluent: 1000 spectroscopy
Sludge:25 g

506
Russia Mechanical treatment and NR ̴ 960,000 Influent: 0.1 Filtration device – 20-300 Visual observation [52]
purification Effluent: 8
Australia Tertiary NR NR 0.75 Filtration – NR Visual observation & FT-IR [31]
(2 STPs) spectroscopy
Germany Primary, secondary, tertiary 7.0 × 103- NR Effluent: 390-1000L Filtration pump Density separation > 500 & ATR-FT-IR spectroscopy & [48]
(12 STPs) (depending on the STP) 2.1 × 105 Sludge: 500 < 500 FPA- based transmission
micro-FT-IR
Netherlands (7 NR NR NR Filtration Density separation 10-5000 Visual observation & FT-IR [60]
STPs) spectroscopy
Australia Primary, secondary, tertiary ̴ 150,000 to 13,000-308,000 Primary effluent: 3-100 Filtration device – 25-500 Visual observation & FT-IR [44]
(3 STPs) (depending on the STP) 1,230,000 Secondary effluent: 27-150 spectroscopy
Tertiary:200
Finland Primary, secondary NR ̴ 10,000 Influent: 0.8-3 Primary effluent: 4-30 Sieving Drying at 45 °C for 250 & 5000 Visual observation & FT-IR / [46]
Sludge: 3-20 18h Raman spectroscopy
Finland Tertiary 800,000 Grab sample Filtration device Filtration > 300-20 Microscopy and FT-IR [27]
Influent: 0.1a,b,c
After pre-treatment: 50-333a, 7-10b, 0.5c
After AS: 200-333a, 20-30b, 0.5c
Effluents: 1000a, 100b, 2 c
24-h composite sample
Influent: 0.1a,b,c
After pre-treatment: 13.2-14.5 a, 8.5-
10.5b, 0.5c
After AS: 11-14.5La,b, 1c
Effluents: 10.5-13.5a,b, 2b
Denmark Biological treatment (one of Raw wastewater:1 Filtration – 10-500 Focal Plane Array (FPA)- [49]
(10 STPs) ten WWTR also applies sand Effluent: 4.1-81.5 based FT-IR
filtration)
(continued on next page)
Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512
G. Gatidou et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512

Reference reliability of the results, it should be determined following the 3-Sigma

method like Simon et al. [50] did. As for sludge samples, both wet and

[47]
dry types are analyzed and the treated quantities are in the scale of mL
or grams, respectively [39,46].
In some studies, before microplastics isolation, samples are pre-
treated in order to remove the inorganic and organic content.
Microscopy and FT-IR
Identification method

Degradation of labile organic matter is performed using an oxidizing

agent (e.g. hydrogen peroxide) [37,40,44,46] or enzymatic maceration
[48], while inorganic compounds such as sand and rust can be removed
by density separation [48]. It is worth mentioning that samples pre-
treatment is not applied in all research papers of the field; there are
several studies where no pretreatment method has been followed but
the collected samples were just filtered and subjected to analysis for
microplastics identification and counting [27,38.41,45]. As there is still
Particle size

a lack of a unified standardized established method regarding samples’

collection and pretreatment as well as microplastics’ isolation and
(μm)

1-65

Note: “NR”: Not reported; “FT-IR”: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; a: filter mesh size = 300 μm, b: filter mesh size = 100 μm, c: filter mesh size = 20 μm.

characterization, comparison among different studies becomes very

difficult while the received results present high variation. Vollertsen
Sample processing

and Hansen [50] recognizing the gap in the literature regarding ana-
lytical methods for microplastics determination in wastewater, under-
line the importance for the establishment of a broad-spectrum metho-
Filtration
Sludge

dology.
To avoid contamination with microplastics during sampling and
samples’ preparation, special care should be taken on the types of
and secondary only)

clothing used (avoiding these which are made from synthetic fibers) as
Sieving (primary

well as on the cleaning of the equipment (petri dishes, containers, filter

Water sample

papers, forceps) and the surfaces in the lab [45]. However, despite the
processing

precautions are taken, contamination is not avoided [27,48,49] and

sometimes can reaches over 30% of the estimates microplastics [27].
Nevertheless, since background contamination affects the limit of de-
tection of the used method and also influences the sample size, it always
volume (L) / mass (g, wet weight-ww)

should be accounted. Several authors have reported the parallel ana-

Influent:1, primary effluent: 30,

lysis of field blanks in order to investigate possible contamination by

other sources and prevent the overestimation of their results
[27,47–49]. Moreover, if possible, glass or metal equipment should be
secondary effluent: 30

used instead of plastic as also recommended by Vollertsen and Hansen

Sludge: 5 g (ww)

[50].
Regarding the methods applied for the determination of micro-
Sample size:

plastics, these vary from visual identification using microscope

[38,40,43,52] to Fourier-transform infrared (FT-IR) [42,44,45] and
RAMAN spectroscopy [46]. Having in mind that almost up to 70% of
the small particles, which are characterized visually as microplastics,
Average treated

are usually not confirmed as plastics by FT-IR spectroscopy [52],

(m3 day−1)

spectroscopic techniques are strongly recommended against visual ob-

̴ 490,000

servation for the reliable determination of microplastics’ chemical

sewage

composition. The use of visual observations alone may lead to over-

estimation or underestimation of particles quantity due to the high bias
for distinguishing natural and synthetic materials [43]. For instance,
Mintenig et al. [48] reported that only 50% of the visually detected
Population

1,300,000

fibres were confirmed as being synthetic fibres in treated wastewater

served

samples. Therefore, it is crucial the visual observations to be followed

by spectroscopic analysis in order to secure the consistency of the re-
sults. It is worth mentioning that spectroscopic equipment is expensive
and requires highly trained staff to handle it. Moreover, it presents
uncertainties which are due to the fact that only a part of the sample is
scanned during analysis, while often there are differences between the
Treatment type

spectra from natural samples and reference spectra of pure materials

Secondary

[50]. Nevertheless, research regarding microplastics should be con-

ducted with these techniques because the verification of plastic parti-
cles is a matter of high importance.
Table 1 (continued)

3. Occurrence of microplastics’ in wastewater and sludge

Research conducted since 2009 has highlighted the crucial role of

Country

Canada

wastewater as potential pathway of different groups of microplastics

such as polyethylene and polypropylene beads, polyester, polyamide

507
 G. Gatidou et al.

Table 2
Published data on the occurrence, removal and daily discharges of microplastics from Sewage Treatment Plants, worldwide.
Country Shape & type of detected microplastics* Number of microplastics Number of microplastics Number of Removal rate Daily discharges Reference
influent in final effluent microplastics in sludge (particles d−1)

Finland Synthetic particle and textile fibers 430 synthetic particles/L & 8.6 synthetic particle/L & – 98% Synthetic – [42]
180 textile fibers/L 4.9 textile fibers/L particle, 97% for
fibres
France Fibers 260-320 /L 14-50 particle/L – 83–95% – [43]
Scotland Flakes, fibers, film, bead, foam (alkyds, polystyrene-acrylic, polyester, 15.7 /L 0.25/L – 98.4% 6.5 × 107 [45]
polyurethane, acrylic, polyamide, polypropylene, polyethylene,
polyethylene terephthalate)
U.S.A. Fiber, fragment, microbead, nurdle, paint chip, other > 80- < 140 /L 0.5-5.9 / L – 95.6-99.4% 9–110d [38]
(3 STPs)
U.S.A Irregularly Shaped polyethylene 1 /L ∼0.0007 /L 103 /Kg (NR) 99.9% 0.93 × 106 [37]
(7 STPs)
U.S.A. Fragments, fibers, films, foam, pellets – 0.05/L – – 15 × 103 [40]
(17 STPs)
−3 3
Sweden Fibers, fragments, flakes 15.1 /L 8.25 × 10 /L 16.7 × 10 /Kg (dw) 99.9% – [39]
Russia Textile fibers, synthetic & black particles 467 textile fibers, 160 16 textile fibers, 7 – 96% – [52]
synthetic & 3160 black synthetic & 125 black
particles/L particles/L
Australia Fibers (polyester, acrylic, polyamide) – 1.0 /L – – – [31]
(2 STPs)

508
Germany polyethylene, polypropylene polyamide, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, – 0-0.05 /L (> 500) & 0.01- 103-2.4 × 104 /Kg – 9 × 107-4 × 109 [48]
(12 STPs) polyurethane, silicone and PUR-based coatings (“paint”), SAN, polyester, 9 /L (< 500) (dw) (annual)
polyethylene terephthalate, ethylene vinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol,
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polylactide and paint synthetic fibers
(polyamide, polypropylene, polyester)
Netherlands (7 Fibers, foils, spheres 68-910 /L 51-81 /L 510-760 /Kg (ww) 72% – [60]
STPs)
Australia polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, polypropylene,polyethylene – 0.21-1.5 /L – – 1 × 107 [44]
(3 STPs) terephthalate, polyethylene, Nylon
3 7
Finland polyester, polyamide, polyethylene, various polymers 57.6 /L 1.0 /L 170.9 × 10 /Kg (dw) – 1.0 × 10 [46]
Finland Fibers (cotton, polyester, linen, viscose, wool, polyacryl), fragments, Grab sample* Grab sample** 186.7 ( ± 26.0)*103 > 99% 1.7 × 106 and [27]
flakes, films, spherical 380-636.7 0.7-14.2 (d.w.) 1.4 × 108
24-h composite sample** 24-h composite sample**
630-900 1.4-23.8
Denmark Acrylate, Styrene-Acrylonitrile copolymer, Vinyl-acetate-acrylic 7216 54 – 99.3% 3000e [49]
(10 STPs) copolymer, Polyethylene, Polypropylene, Polyethylene-Polypropylene
copolymer, Polyester, Polystyrene, Polyurethane, Polyvinyl chloride,
Ethylene-vinyl acetate, Polyamide, Poly(vinyl-acetate)
Canada Fibres, fragment, foam granule, sheet, pellet 31.1 ± 6.70 2.6 ± 1.4 after primary primary sludge: 97.1-99.1% 32-97 × 103 [47]
treatment, 14.9*103 ± 6.3
0.5 ± 0.2 after secondary secondary sludge:
treatment 4.4*103 ± 2.9

Note: “NR”: Not reported; “FT-IR”: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; a: filter mesh size = 300 μm, b: filter mesh size = 100 μm, c: filter mesh size = 20 μm; *: sampling during three different days; **: sampling
during three different days and after different treatment steps; d: value was given in kg L−1; e: value was given in Kg year−1.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512
G. Gatidou et al.
and nylon fibres [31,43,44,47,53,54,55]. So far, some information is
available for the amounts of microplastics contained in wastewater,
while all the relevant studies have been conducted in North Europe,
USA and Australia. The detected amounts of microplastics varied be-
tween 1–3160 particles L−1 and 0.0007–125 particles L−1 for raw and
treated wastewater, respectively (Table 2), depending on the size of the
STP and the used treatment processes. A comprehensive analysis of the
existing data can be found below.
Leslie et al. [56] reported that microplastics’ concentrations in in-
fluents and effluents of a Dutch STP were approximately 200 and 20
items/L, respectively. Higher concentrations were found in the effluents
from a German STP (33 granules/L, 24 fibres/L and 24 fragments/L)
[57] and from three STPs in the Netherlands (55 microplastics/L) [58].
In a more comprehensive study, effluents samples were collected from
12 German STPs and analysed for microplastics [59]. According to the
results, microplastics smaller than 500 μm were detected in the ef-
fluents with the most common particles to be items of whitish/trans-
parent color and irregular shape. As for the types of microplastics, the
most often found polymers were polyethylene, polyvinyl alcohol,
polystyrene, polyester, and polyamide. The number of microplastics
with size higher than 500 μm ranged up to 0.05 per L of treated was-
tewater. PE and polypropylene were the most frequently found poly-
mers, while most particles had partly foil-like shape. Similar types of
microplastics were also detected in effluents from a Finish STP by
Talvitie et al. [42]. Mason et al. [40] studied the concentrations and the
type of microplastics in effluents originated from 17 US STPs. Ac-
cording to their results, 0.05 ± 0.024 microparticles per L of treated
wastewater were determined on average, while the commonest type of
particles were fragments and fibers. Significant inter- and intra-facility
variations were noticed both in the concentrations and the fractions of
microparticles. Murphy et al. [45] determined the concentrations and
the types of microparticles in raw and treated wastewater originating
from a Scottish STP. The most common types of polymers in STP’s inlet
were alkyds, polystyrene-acrylic and polyester; whereas polyester and
polyamide were mainly detected in treated wastewater. Finally, in a
recent study, Leslie et al. [60] reported mean particle concentrations of
68 to 910 L− 1 and 51 to 81 L− 1 in raw sewage and treated wastewater
from seven Dutch municipal STPs, respectively (particle sizes between
10 and 5000 μm).
The concentrations of microplastics detected in treated wastewater
and the high volumes of effluents that daily end up to the aquatic en-
vironment result in the transfer of great amounts of microplastics and a
considerable contamination (Table 2). Murphy et al. [45] calculated a
daily discharge of 6.5 × 107 microplastics into the receiving water by a
Scottish STP serving 650,000 inhabitants (average flowrate:
260,954 m3 d−1), while Carr et al. [37] estimated a discharge of
0.93 × 106 microplastics per day from a WWTP treating 1.06 × 106 m3
of wastewater d-1. Ziajahromi et al. [44] estimated that amounts as high
as 1 × 107 microplastics are discharged per day with the effluents of
reverse osmosis in an Australian STP serving 150,000 inhabitants. Si-
milarly, Talvitie et al. [27] estimated high amounts of microplastics in
the effluents of a Finnish STP treating 270,000 m3 wastewater per day.
These amounts ranged between 1.7 × 106 and 1.4 × 108 particles d-1
for different days of the week.
Up to now, high microplastics’ concentrations in sludge have also
been found, varying between 103 and 170.9 × 103 microplastics Kg−1
dw [37,39,48,61]. These results indicate the high potential of STPs in
retaining microplastics from raw wastewater. Bayo et el. [62] analysed
sludge samples originating from the primary clarifier as well as after the
anaerobic digestion and centrifugation and detected various types of
microplastics such as polypropylene, Nylon and transparent thermo-
plastic polyamides. It is generally accepted that the detected amounts of
microplastics in sludge are orders of magnitude higher than those find
in raw and treated wastewaters. According to Mintenig et al. [48],
microplastics were detected in all analyzed sludge samples, collected
from different STPs in Germany, and the amounts ranged from 1 × 103
509
Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512
Kg-1 to 2.4 × 104 Kg-1 dw. Mahon et al. [63] estimated the concentra-
tions of microplastics in sludge samples from different STPs in Ireland
and ranged between 4.196 and 15.385 particles Kg-1 dw while in
Dutsch STPs, mean particle concentrations of 510 to 760 Kg− 1 wet
weight of sludge have been determined [60].
The abundance but also the morphology of microplastics seems to
be affected by the type of sludge treatment. So far, it has been observed
increased abundance of small fibers after sludge lime stabilization [67],
while morphological alterations of microplastics such as melting and
blistering have noticed after thermal drying of sludge [63]. Monitoring
of the concentrations and types of microplastics during different sludge
treatment processes by Mahon et al. [63] showed that sludge alkaline
stabilization results to microplastics’ shearing, while anaerobic diges-
tion resulted to lower amounts of microplastics in the produced sludge.
However, in this study, it was not clear if the decrease of microplastics’
abundance was due to biodegradation or sampling errors. In a current
laboratory study investigating the biodegradability of polylactide fi-
bers, Rom et al. [64] reported that activated sludge, operating at me-
sophilic and thermophilic conditions, was insufficient for the biode-
gradation of this type of microplastic.
4. Fate and removal of microplastics during wastewater treatment
A STP normally comprises a primary, secondary and sometimes
tertiary treatment train to purify the receiving water using chemical,
physical and biological treatment processes. Regarding the role of dif-
ferent processes on microplastics’ removal, most of the studies agree
that pretreatment processes remove microplastics from wastewater to a
small or partial rate. On the other hand, a percentage of 72 to 98% of
microplastics seem to be removed at primary treatment [27,37,45,60].
Secondary treatment contributes to an extra 7 to 20% of removal
[27,45], whereas microplastics’ elimination during tertiary treatment
depends on the applied technology [27,38,41,48,44]. Several studies
reported that tertiary treatment does not guarantee the absence or re-
markable removal of microplastics. For instance, in a comprehensive
study which took place in New York and where 34 STPs were examined,
it was concluded that tertiary treatment processes such as membrane
microfiltration, continuous backwash upflow dual sand microfiltration
and rapid sand filters, did not assure lack of microbeads from the ef-
fluents [65]. Additionally, Mason et al. [40] suggested that the use of
granular tertiary filtration is not that effective and Carr et al. [37] did
not observe a positive impact on microplastics elimination due to
gravity filters. On the contrary, Talvitie et al. [41], comparing different
treatment processes, reported that the highest removal was achieved by
the MBR (99.9%), followed by rapid sand filter (97%), dissolved air
flotation (95%) and discfilter (40 to 98.5%). Michielssen et al. [38]
reported also that among the studied STPs, these with tertiary treat-
ment and membrane bioreactor removed 97.2% and 99.4% of micro-
plastics, respectively. It is worth mentioning that the percentage of
microplastics’ removal in different processes is also affected by the type
of target microplastics.
Information for the removal efficiency of microplastics in different
STPs worlwide is given in Table 2, while the main results of selected
papers are reported below. In general, total removal efficiencies of
microplastics in STPs range between 72–99.4% (Table 2). Specifically,
Murphy et al. [45] observed microplastics’ removal during grit and
grease removal (44.6%), while an additional removal of 33.8% and
20.1% was calculated during primary sedimentation and biological
treatment, respectively. Talvitie et al. [42] studied the removal of
textile fibers and synthetic particles in a Finnish STP and reported that
the textile fibres were mostly removed during primary sedimentation,
while the contribution of this step on the removal of synthetic particles
was limited. Most of these particles were removed during secondary
sedimentation. Dris et al. [43] observed a removal of fibrous micro-
plastics of up to 80% during primary treatment, while this percentage
increased to almost 95% after biological treatment. In a Russian STP the
G. Gatidou et al.
amount of microplastics was reduced about 96% after a secondary
treatment [51], while
Magnuson and Noren [39] reported a removal as high as 99.9%.
Similarly, in a more recent study, Talvitie et al. [27] who investigated
the removal of microplastics in a full-scale STP also reported that 99%
removal was achieved after secondary treatment. It is worth mentioning
that an important amount of microplastics which are removed at some
step of treatment is recycled back at the inlet of the STP. Analyses in
sludge and reject water samples showed that from the 99% of the mi-
croplastics which were removed via primary and excess sludge, 20%
was recycled back at the inlet of STP via the reject water that came up
after sludge treatment (Fig. 1) [27].
Regarding the mechanisms which are responsible for microplastics’
removal, so far there is limited information and almost all of them is
derived from monitoring studies in full-scale STPs. During primary
treatment, a significant amount of microplastics is captured through
skimming of floating solids [37,45], since lower density microplastics
can float on wastewater [37]. Entrapment in suspended solids and ac-
cumulation to the primary and secondary sludge is also another im-
portant mechanism explaining microplastics’ removal during waste-
water treatment [37,45]. In recent lab-scale experiments using a
Sequencing Batch Reactor it was shown that 52% of microbeads were
accumulated to activated sludge [66].
5. Current gaps and future perspectives
As great amounts of treated wastewater is discharged daily into the
aquatic environment worldwide, the role of STPs as land base source of
microplastics is of high importance. So far, a few data exists for the
amounts of microplastics found in wastewater, however a lack of data is
observed for the Mediterranean area, Asia and South America. The
publication of data originating from different geographical areas could
present scientific interest assuming that the different consumer habits
could affect the concentrations and the types of microplastics found in
sewage. Additionally, it is not known yet whether the type of waste-
water (industrial, hospital, touristic area) could have an impact on the
detected microplastics.
The application of different methods of sampling, pretreatment and
analysis sometimes makes difficult the comparison of the results be-
tween different studies. Additionally, little information is available for
the actual removal of microplastics in different stages of STPs, while
limited laboratory data is available on the removal efficiency of
510
Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512
Fig. 1. Microplastics mass balance in a Finnish STP. Blue ar-
rows: wastewater; brown arrows: sludge; light brown arrow:
reject water from the dewatering process; AS: activated
sludge; BAF: biologically active filter; RAS: sludge recircula-
tion. Source: Talvitie et al. [27]. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article).
microplastics when physicochemical and biological treatment processes
are applied. Based on the importance of polyester and polyethylene
microplastics, comprehensive studies regarding their fate and removal
in STPs are also needed. Taking into account the reported effect of
weathering, aggregation and differences in surface charges on micro-
plastics’ toxicity [14,15], further research is needed for their possible
chemical and physical changes during wastewater treatment. So far,
there is also lack of data for the removal and the fate of microplastics in
constructed wetlands and other low cost systems applied in smaller
settlements.
The available information for the role of sludge treatment processes
on microplastics’ removal is also limited and further data is needed
from full-scale STPs and lab-scale experiments. As in previous studies it
has been reported that polymers can be microbially breakdown due to
the activity of exoenzymes [68,69], the role of biodegradation during
anaerobic digestion should be further investigated. Additionally, as
sludge reuse in soil is the predominant choice for most European
countries, accounting for more than 50% of the produced sludge in EU-
27 [70], information is also needed for mobilization and transport of
microplastics in sludge-amended soils and the possible ecological threat
for the environment.
So far, several emerging contaminants such as surfactants, phar-
maceuticals, personal care products and perfluorinated compounds
have been detected in STPs [69–74]. Beside the existed knowledge on
the accumulation of priority pollutants to microplastics, no data is
available for the role of microplastics as carriers of these compounds.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.081.
References
[1] R.C. Thompson, Y. Olsen, R.P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S.J. Rowland, A.W. John,
D. McGonigle, A.E. Russell, Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304 (2004)
838.
[2] D.K.A. Barnes, F. Galgani, R.C. Thompson, M. Barlaz, Accumulation and fragmen-
tation of plastic debris in global environments, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364
(2009) 1985–1998.
[3] S.M. Ladewig, S. Bao, A.T. Chow, Natural fibers: a missing link to chemical pollu-
tion dispersion in aquatic environments, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015)
12609–12610.
[4] K. Tanaka, H. Takada, Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of
planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 34351.
G. Gatidou et al.
[5] M.R. Gregory, Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings -en-
tanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions,
Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 364 (2009) 2013–2025.
[6] B. Singh, N. Sharma, Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation, Polym.
Degrad. Stab. 93 (2008) 561–584.
[7] T. O’Brine, R.C. Thompson, Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine en-
vironment, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (2010) 2279–2283.
[8] L. Van Cauwenberghe, W. Van Echelpoel, K. De Gussem, G. De Gueldre,
M.B. Vandegehuchte, C.R. Janssen, Microplastics in a biological wastewater treat-
ment plant and the receiving freshwater environment in Flanders, Belgium, SETAC
EUROPE 25th Annual Meeting (2015).
[9] C. Zarfl, M. Matthies, Are marine plastic particles transport vectors for organic
pollutants to the Arctic? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (2010) 1810–1814.
[10] L. Van Cauwenberghe, L. Devriese, F. Galganic, J. Robbens, C.R. Janssen,
Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence and effects, Mar.
Environ. Res. 111 (2015) 5–17.
[11] A. Choe, Y.J. An, Effects of micro- and nanoplastics on aquatic ecosystems: Current
research trends and perspectives, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124 (2016) 624–632.
[12] L.C. de Sá, M. Oliveira, F. Ribeiro, T.L. Rocha, M.N. Futter, Studies of the effects of
microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus
our efforts in the future? Sci. Total Environ. 645 (2018) 1029–1039.
[13] I. Paul-Pont, K. Tallec, C. Gonzalez-Fernandez, C. Lambert, D. Vincent, D. Mazurais,
J.-L. Zambonino-Infante, G. Brotons, F. Lagarde, C. Fabioux, P. Soudant, A. Huvet,
Constraints and priorities for conducting experimental exposures of marine or-
ganisms to microplastics, Front. Mar. Sci. 5 (2018) 252.
[14] C. Della Torre, E. Bergami, A. Salvati, C. Faleri, P. Cirino, K.A. Dawson, I. Corsi,
Accumulation and embryotoxicity of polystyrene nanoparticles at early stage of
development of sea urchin embryos Paracentrotus lividus, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48
(2014) 12302–12311.
[15] I.L.N. Bråte, M. Blázquez, S.J. Brooks, K.V. Thomas, Weathering impacts the uptake
of polyethylene microparticles from toothpaste in Mediterranean mussels (M. gal-
loprovincialis), Sci. Total Environ. 626 (2018) 1310–1318.
[16] I. Velzeboer, C.J.A.F. Kwadijk, A.A. Koelmans, Strong sorption of PCBs to nano-
plastics, microplastics, carbon Nanotubes, and fullerenes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48
(2014) 869–4876.
[17] T. Huffer, T. Hofmann, Sorption of non-polar organic compounds by micro-sized
plastic particles in aqueous solution, Environ. Pollut. 2014 (2016) 194–201.
[18] Y. Ogata, H. Takada, K. Mizukawa, H. Hirai, S. Iwasa, S. Endo, Y. Mato, M. Saha,
K. Okuda, A. Nakashima, M. Murakami, N. Zurcher, R. Booyatumanondo,
M.P. Zakaria, le Q. Dung, M. Gordon, C. Miguez, S. Suzuki, C. Moore,
H.K. Karapanagioti, S. Weerts, T. McClurg, E. Burres, W. Smith, M. Van Velkenburg,
J.S. Lang, R.C. Lang, D. Laursen, B. Danner, N. Stewardson, R.C. Thompson,
International Pellet Watch: global monitoring of persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) in coastal waters. 1. Initial phase data on PCBs, DDTs, and HCHs, Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 58 (2009) 1437–1446.
[19] H.K. Karapanagioti, Y. Ogata, H. Takada, Eroded plastic pellets as monitoring tools
for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH): laboratory and field studies, Global
Nest J. 12 (2010) 327–334.
[20] H.K. Karapanagioti, S. Endo, Y. Ogata, H. Takada, Diffuse pollution by persistent
organic pollutants as measured in plastic pellets sampled from various beaches in
Greece, Pollut. Bull. 62 (2011) 312–317.
[21] C.M. Rochmana, R.L. Lewison, M. Eriksen, H. Allend, A.M. Cookd, S.J. Teha,
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in fish tissue may be an indicator of plastic
contamination in marine habitats, Sci. Total Environ. 476 (2014) 622–633.
[22] L.M.R. Mendoza, P.R. Jones, Characterisation of microplastics and toxic chemicals
extracted from microplastic samples from the North Pacific Gyre, Environ. Chem.
12 (2015) 611–617.
[23] H. Hirai, H. Takada, Y. Ogata, R. Yamashita, K. Mizukawa, M. Saha, C. Kwan,
C. Moore, H. Gray, D. Laursen, E.R. Zettler, J.W. Farrington, C.M. Reddy,
E.E. Peacock, M.W. Ward, Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris from
the open ocean and remote and urban beaches, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (2011)
1683–1692.
[24] H. Wijesekara, N.S. Bolan, L. Bradney, N. Obadamudalige, B. Seshadri,
A. Kunhikrishnan, R. Dharmarajan, Y.S. Ok, J. Rinklebe, M.B. Kirkham,
M. Vithanage, Trace element dynamics of biosolids-derived microbeads,
Chemosphere 199 (2018) 331–339.
[25] P.M. Lourenço, C. Serra-Gonçalves, J.L. Ferreira, T. Catry, J.P. Granadeiro, Plastic
and other microfibers in sediments, macroinvertebrates and shorebirds from three
intertidal wetlands of southern Europe and west Africa, Environ. Pollut. 231 (2017)
123–133.
[26] O. Setälä, V. Fleming-Lehtinen, M. Lehtiniemi, Ingestion and transfer of micro-
plastics in the planktonic food web, Environ. Pollut. 185 (2014) 77–78.
[27] J. Talvitie, A. Mikola, O. Setälä, M. Heinonen, A. Koistinen, 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 (2017) 164–172.
[28] E. Zeng, Microplastic Contamination in Aquatic Environments, 1st ed., Elsevier,
2018.
[29] J.Q. Jiang, Occurrence of microplastics and its pollution in the environment: A
review, Sustain. Prod. Consum. 13 (2018) 16–23.
[30] P.K. Cheung, L. Fok, Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs and
their estimated emissions in Mainland China, Water Res. 122 (2017) 53–61.
[31] M.A. Browne, P. Crump, S.J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin, T. Galloway,
R. Thompson, Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and
sinks, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 9175–9179.
[32] F. De Falco, M.P. Gullo, G. Gentile, E. Di Pace, M. Cocca, L. Gelabert, M. Brouta-
Agnésa, A. Rovira, R. Escudero, R. Villalba, R. Mossotti, A. Montarsolo,
511
Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512
S. Gavignano, C. Tonin, M. Avella, Evaluation of microplastic release caused by
textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics, Environ. Pollut. 236 (2018) 916-254.
[33] H.S. Auta, C.U. Emenike, S.H. Fauziah, Distribution and importance of microplastics
in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential
solutions, Environ. Int. 102 (2017) 165–176.
[34] S.H. Hong, W.J. Shim, L. Hong, Methods of analysing chemicals associated with
microplastics: A review, Anal. Methods 9 (2017) 1361–1368.
[35] A.A. Horton, A. Walton, D.J. Spurgeon, E. Lahive, C. Svendsen, Microplastics in
freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to
identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities, Sci. Total Environ. 586
(2017) 127–141.
[36] S. Ziajahromi, P.A. Neale, F.D. Leusch, Wastewater treatment plant effluent as a
source of microplastics: review of the fate, chemical interactions and potential risks
to aquatic organisms, Water Sci. Technol. 74 (2016) 2253–2269.
[37] S.A. Carr, J. Liu, A.G. Tesoro, Transport and fate of microplastic particles in was-
tewater treatment plants, Water Res. 91 (2016) 174–182.
[38] M.R. Michielssen, E.R. Michielssen, J. Niac, M.B. Duhaime, Fate of microplastics
and other small anthropogenic litter (SAL) in wastewater treatment plants depends
on unit processes employed, Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2 (2016)
1064–1073.
[39] K. Magnusson, F. Norén, Screening of Microplastic Particles in and Down-Stream a
Wastewater Treatment Plant, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 2014
No. C55.
[40] S.A. Mason, D. Garneau, R. Sutton, Y. Chu, K. Ehmann, J. Barnes, P. Fink,
D. Papazissimos, D.L. Rogers, Microplastic pollution is widely detected in US mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment plant effluent, Environ. Poll. 218 (2016) 1045–1054.
[41] J. Talvitie, A. Mikola, A. Koistinen, O. Setälä, Solutions to microplastic pollution –
Removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater
treatment technologies, Water Res. 123 (2017) 401–407.
[42] J. Talvitie, M. Heinonen, J.-P. Pääkkönen, E. Vahtera, A. Mikola, O. Setälä,
R. Vahala, Do wastewater treatment plants act as a potential point source of mi-
croplastics? Preliminary study in the coastal Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea, Water Sci.
Tecnol. 72 (2015) 1495–1504.
[43] R. Dris, J. Gasperi, V. Rocher, M. Saad, N. Renault, B. Tassin, Microplastic con-
tamination in an urban area: a case study in Greater Paris, Environ. Chem. 12
(2015) 592–599.
[44] S. Ziajahromi, P.A. Neale, L. Rintoul, F.D.L. Leusch, Wastewater treatment plants as
a pathway for microplastics: Development of a new approach to sample wastewater-
based microplastics, Water Res. 112 (2017) 93–99.
[45] F. Murphy, C. Ewins, F. Carbonnier, B. Quinn, Wastewater treatment works (STW)
as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50
(2016) 5800–5808.
[46] M. Lares, M.Ch. Ncibi, M. Sillanpää, M. Sillanpää, Occurrence, identification and
removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge pro-
cess and advanced MBR technology, Water Res. 133 (2018) 236–246.
[47] E.A. Gies, J.L. LeNoble, M. Noël, A. Etemadifar, F. Bishay, E.R. Hall, P.S. Ross,
Retention of microplastics in a major secondary wastewater treatment plant in
Vancouver, Canada, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133 (2018) 553–561.
[48] S.M. Mintenig, I. Int-Veen, M.G.J. Löder, S. Primpke, G. Gerdts, Identification of
microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array-
based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging, Water Res. 108 (2017) 365–372.
[49] M. Simon, N. Van Alst, J. Vollertsen, Quantification of microplastic mass and re-
moval rates at wastewater treatment plants applying Focal Plane Array (FPA)-based
Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR) imaging, Water Res. 142 (2018) 1–9.
[50] J. Vollertsen, A.A. Hansen, Microplastic in Danish Wastewater Sources, Occurrences
and Fate, Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark, Environmental Project
No.1906, (2017).
[51] HELCOM, BASE Project 2012-2014: Preliminary Study on Synthetic Microfibers and
Particles at a Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant, (2014).
[52] V. Hidalgo-Ruz, L. Gutow, R.C. Thompson, M. Thiel, Microplastics in the marine
environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 3060–3075.
[53] M. Eriksen, S. Mason, S. Wilson, C. Box, A. Zellers, W. Edwards, H. Farleyb,
S. Amatoa, Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great
Lakes, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (2013) 177–182.
[54] A. McCormick, T.J. Hoellein, S.A. Mason, J. Schluep, J.J. Kelly, Microplastic is an
abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an urban river, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48
(2014) 11863–11871.
[55] A. Gallagher, A. Rees, R. Rowe, J. Stevens, P. Wright, Microplastics in the Solent
estuarine complex, UK: An initial assessment, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 102 (2016)
243–249.
[56] H.A. Leslie, M. Moester, M. de Kreuk, A.D. Vethaak, Verkennende studie naar lozing
van microplastics door rwzi’s, H2O 14/15 (2012) 45–47 last access 7.6.2018 http://
Sw.laserlab.vu.nl/en/Images/Artikel_H2O_juli2012_tcm211-280754.pdf.
[57] F. Dubaish, G. Liebezeit, Suspended microplastics and black carbon particles in the
Jade System, Southern North Sea, Water Air Soil Pollut. 224 (2013) 1352.
[58] H.A. Leslie, M.J.M. van Velzen, A.D. Vethaak, Final Report R-13/11, Institute for
Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam, 2013.
[59] S.M. Mintenig, Final Report for the OOWV Helgoland, (2014) last access
21.05.2018 http://Sw.dwa-bayern.de/tl_files/_media/content/PDFs/LV_Bayern/
Abschlussbericht_Mikroplastik_in_Klaeranlagen-3.pdf.
[60] H.A. Leslie, S.H. Brandsma, M.J.M. van Velzen, A.D. Vethaak, Microplastics en
route: Field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, waste-
water treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota, Env. Int. 101 (2017)
133–142.
[61] X. Li, L. Chen, Q. Mei, B. Dong, X. Dai, G. Ding, E.Y. Zeng, Microplastics in sewage
G. Gatidou et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 367 (2019) 504–512

sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China, Water Res. 142 (2018)
75–85.
[62] J. Bayo, S. Olmos, J. López-Castellanos, A. Alcolea, Microplastics and microfibers in
the sludge of a municipal wastewater treatment plant, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 11
(2016) 812–821.
[63] A.M. Mahon, B. O’Connell, M.G. Healy, I. O’Connor, R. Officer, R. Nash,
L. Morrison, Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of treatment, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 51 (2017) 810–818.
[64] M. Rom, J. Fabia, K. Grübel, E. Sarna, T. Graczyk, J. Janicki, Study of the biode-
gradability of polylactide fibers in wastewater treatment processes,
PolimeryPolymers 62 (2017) 834–840.
[65] Discharging Microbeads to Our Waters, An Examination of Wastewater Treatment
Plants in New York, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Environmental
Protection Bureau, Buffalo, New York, 2015.
[66] G. Kalčíková, B. Alič, T. Skalar, M. Bundschuh, A.Ž. Gotvajn, Wastewater treatment
plant effluents as source of cosmetic polyethylene microbeads to freshwater,
Chemosphere 188 (2017) 25–31.
[67] M. Cole, H. Webb, P.K. Lindeque, E.S. Fileman, C. Halsband, T.S. Galloway,
Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms, Sci.
Rep. 4 (2014) 4528.
[68] A.A. Shah, F. Hasan, A. Hameed, S. Ahmed, Biological degradation of plastics: a
comprehensive review, Biotechnol. Adv. 26 (2008) 246–265.
[69] S. Yoshida, K. Hiraga, T. Takehana, I. Taniguchi, H. Yamaji, Y. Maeda, K. Toyohara,
K. Miyamoto, Y. Kimura, K.A. Oda, Bacterium that degrades and assimilates,
Science 351 (2016) 1196–1199.
[70] A. Kelessidis, A.S. Stasinakis, Comparative study of the methods used for treatment
and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries, Waste Manag. 32 (2012)
1186–1195.
[71] A.S. Stasinakis, N.S. Thomaidis, O.S. Arvaniti, A.G. Asimakopoulos, V.G. Samaras,
A. Ajibola, D. Mamais, T.D. Lekkas, Contribution of primary and secondary treat-
ment on the removal of benzothiazoles, benzotriazoles, endocrine disruptors,
pharmaceuticals and perfluorinated compounds in a sewage treatment plant, Sci.
Total Environ. 463-464 (2013) 1067–1075.
[72] N.S. Thomaidis, A.G. Asimakopoulos, A.A. Bletsou, Emerging contaminants: a tu-
torial mini-review, Global Nest Journal 14 (2012) 72–79.
[73] V.S. Thomaidi, A.S. Stasinakis, V.L. Borova, N.S. Thomaidis, Is there a risk for the
aquatic environment due to the existence of emerging organic contaminants in
treated domestic wastewater? Greece as a case-study, J. Hazard. Mater. 283 (2015)
740–747.
[74] O.S. Arvaniti, A.S. Stasinakis, Review on the occurrence, fate and removal of per-
fluorinated compounds during wastewater treatment, Sci. Total Environ. 525
(2015) 81–92.

512