Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

ANALYSIS

How to remove microplastics in wastewater? A cost-effectiveness analysis

Larissa Vuori *, Markku Ollikainen
University of Helsinki: Helsingin Yliopisto, PL 27 (Latokartanonkaari 5), 00014 Helsinki, Finland

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

Keywords: Millions of tonnes of plastic litter end up annually in the environment causing damage to the ecosystem. There
Cost-Effectiveness are currently no standards regulating the amount of microplastic in wastewater, and the question is, should there
Microplastics be? Answering this question requires an understanding of damages microplastic causes to the environment and
Wastewater Treatment
its removal potential from wastewater. This paper examines the cost-effectiveness of three wastewater treatment
Sludge
Incineration
(activated sludge, rapid sand filtering and membrane bioreactor) and two sludge management technologies
(anaerobic digestion and incineration), in terms of their microplastic removal capacity regarding aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems. We find removing microplastic from wastewater technically feasible and cost-effective.
Membrane bioreactor with sludge incineration preventing removed microlitter from accumulating in soils is
the most cost-effective option. This gives grounds for extending government regulation to microplastics in
wastewater treatment plants. Policy targeting companies using microplastics in their products is, however,
necessary to solve the problem ultimately.

1. Introduction antibiotics to other environments (Blackburn and Green, 2021).

Both small and large particles of plastic can be found practically
everywhere on our planet. Plastic is present in oceans, seas and other
water systems, terrestrial soils and even in the air (Gasperi et al., 2018;
Shim and Thompson, 2015; Barnes et al., 2009). According to estima­
tions, millions of tonnes of plastic litter end up annually in aquatic
environment (Derraik, 2002; Lebreton et al., 2018). Littering is harmful
for both the ecosystem and the economy. It damages the flora and fauna
(Gregory, 2009; Derraik, 2002) and causes economic losses in tourism,
the fishing industry and other maritime business (UNEP, 2016).
The emergence of microplastic pollution has particularly evoked
concern, as it is almost impossible to remove this litter once released to
the water (Barnes et al., 2009). Furthermore, the pollution shows up as a
plastic cycle: the size of microplastics in the oceans is so small that they
can be transferred into the clouds during evaporation and come down
with rains even in the remotest locations, and be transferred back to
oceans via rivers (Blackburn and Green, 2021). In aquatic environments
microplastics may absorb chemicals (Bakir et al., 2014a; Bakir et al.,
2014b) and become a part of the food chain of both aquatic and
terrestrial organisms (Law and Thompson, 2014; Setälä et al., 2016;
Zhao et al., 2016; Huerta Lwanga et al., 2017; Lei et al., 2018).
Furthermore, in soils microplastics may interact with chemical pollut­
ants and they may, for instance, become a carrier of pesticides and
Although the ubiquitous nature of microplastics is acknowledged
throughout literature, the understanding of repercussive health hazards
is still vague (Blackburn and Green, 2021). Multiple findings suggest
that microplastics may cause even serious health hazards in aquatic
biota. For example, exposure to microplastics by ingestion causes
inflammation and metabolism disruptions in fish, in addition to
increased chemical burden that causes reproductive toxicity (Lu et al.,
2016; Qiao et al., 2019; Blackburn and Green, 2021).
Direct inhalation of microplastics, plastic contaminated seafood,
fruits and vegetables cause risks for human health, which varies
geographically in different regions (Blackburn and Green, 2021). For
example, current research reveals that the uptake of nano-sized plastic
particles in tissues can activate cell responses and effect human immune
systems, in addition to transmitting toxins (Lehner et al., 2019).Long
term occupational plastic ingestion and inhalation has been found to
cause cancer and death by pneumoconiosis (Prata, 2018; Turcotte et al.,
2013), and in vitro studies revealed polystyrene to cause cytotoxic ef­
fects in cerebral and epithelial cells (Schirinzi et al., 2017). Although
many effects resulting from plastic particle uptake are recognized, the
connection between the exposure and diseases needs more research.
Once the understanding of these links becomes stronger, human damage
can be assessed by using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which
measures the loss of an equivalent of one year of full health due to a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: larissa.vuori@helsinki.fi (L. Vuori), markku.ollikainen@helsinki.fi (M. Ollikainen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107246
Received 7 May 2021; Received in revised form 18 September 2021; Accepted 27 September 2021
Available online 28 October 2021
0921-8009/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen
disease. This kind of measure facilitates economic valuation of micro­
plastic pollution.
The plastic cycle emphasizes that one substantial pathway to
microplastic contamination is through released wastewater effluents to
aquatic environment (Magnusson and Norén, 2014; Sundt et al., 2014;
Murphy et al., 2016). Wastewater contains significant amounts of plastic
particles and fibres detached from textiles, detergents, cosmetics,
abrasives and vehicle tyres (Mason et al., 2016). The discharged effluent
flow contains between 1.7 and 140 million microlitter particles in a
course of one day, despite the treatment of wastewater (Talvitie et al.,
2017a). In the U.S., Mason et al. (2016) estimated the wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) to release daily over 4 million particles of
microlitter per facility, which were identified as fibres or fragments of
larger plastic items. In several studies, the characteristics of microplastic
pollution have been similar (Magnusson and Norén, 2014; Lares et al.,
2018; Murphy et al., 2016).
Along with the wastewater effluent, microplastics can enter the
environment through sludge. The sludge, that is, solids and nutrients
separated from wastewater, may contain from 20 to over 180 particles of
microplastics per one gram of dried sludge, depending on the sludge
management and research methods (Lares et al., 2018; Mahon et al.,
2016; Talvitie et al., 2017a). Due to the relatively high levels of phos­
phorus and nitrogen, the sludge is in several countries applied on agri­
cultural lands or utilized in landscaping (Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008;
Nizzetto et al., 2016). According to Horton et al. (2017), the amount of
microplastics in terrestrial environment may be from 4 to 23-fold to the
one in oceans. The terrestrial plastic particles are also subject to runoff to
waterways.
None of the current treatment technologies in wastewater treatment
plants is actually designed for plastic particle removal, as they have been
developed to remove and neutralize nutrients, such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, and solid waste (Mason et al., 2016; Talvitie et al., 2015).
The treatment technologies are commonly based on mechanical, bio­
logical and chemical processes, which incidentally separate litter par­
ticles as well, either through filtration, or through attaching them in the
precipitated nutrients and microbial flocs (Laitinen et al., 2014; Talvitie
et al., 2017a & 2017b; Hidayaturrahman and Lee, 2019; Lv et al., 2019).
The more effective the wastewater treatment is in removing micro­
plastic, the more particles are separated into the sludge, increasing its
pollution potential (Lares et al., 2018; Lv et al., 2019). Thus, under
current practice, there is a trade-off between water and soil as the re­
cipients of microplastics. Moreover, the removal potential of the tech­
nologies is uncertain, as the results vary between researches and in
certain cases, the effect is not found (Habib et al., 2020; Mason et al.,
2016).
There are currently no standards for the microplastic or microlitter
concentration in treated wastewater in European Union. The share of
microplastics in effluents, and their potential pathways to the ecosys­
tems is neither included in the environmental legislation nor in the
environmental permits given to the WWTPs (Government Decree on
Urban Wastewater Treatment 888/2006. Finlex, n.d.). While it is generally
understood that microplastics cause damage both in the aquatic and
terrestrial environments, the severity of the damage is still unclear but
much research is currently underway. Nevertheless, the technical po­
tential of applying wastewater treatment in microplastic pollution
mitigation is acknowledged (Xu et al., 2020).
Companies using microplastics in their products are the primary
source for the problem. Therefore, societies should consider policies
targeting these sources to reduce or even eliminate the use of micro­
plastic altogether nature. Unfortunately, this may take time. As a final
checkpoint society should consider downstream policy targeting
wastewater treatment plants to safeguard against possible damages in
waters and soils. For instance, the European Commission has evaluated
that microplastics and pharmaceuticals should be taken into account in
the revision of Urban Waste Water Directive (European Commission,
2019).
2
Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246
In this paper we focus on the downstream policy. Introducing
microplastics in the EU and national legislation raises many questions,
such as how great damage do microplastics cause, what are the tech­
nological possibilities to reduce the amount of microplastics released,
and how costly is the removal? These questions constitute the research
problems of this paper. An understanding of damage, abatement tech­
nology and abatement costs are crucial issues when societies ponder
whether to develop regulation of microplastic, or not. Unfortunately,
there are no monetary estimates concerning the severity of damages in
economic terms. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to alternative
removal technologies for microplastics and on the associated removal
costs, and examine at which costs per unit of removal each removal
technology will provide a reduction of microplastics to aquatic and
terrestrial environments.
The aim of this paper is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the
microplastic removing capacity in wastewater treatment and sludge
management facilities by performing a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).
We compare combinations of three wastewater treatment and two
sludge management methods to a baseline scenario (see Table 1), which
consists of conventional activated sludge (CAS) and anaerobic digestion
of sludge. Both methods are globally common in wastewater and sludge
treatment. The alternatives for wastewater treatment are membrane
bioreactor (MBR), which is a relatively new membrane technology, and
CAS enhanced with rapid sand filtering (RFS). Each of the three tech­
nologies remove microplastics from wastewater (see e.g. Talvitie et al.
2017a & b; Lares et al., 2018; Hidayaturrahman and Lee, 2019; Lv et al.,
2019). The alternative for anaerobic digestion is incineration in a hearth
incinerator, which permanently destroys the plastic content in sludge.
We study the costs of microplastic removal by using cost-
effectiveness analysis, since it does not require monetary estimate of
the damage caused by microplastic but, nevertheless, it provides useful
monetary estimates for the physical outcomes on which policy recom­
mendations can be rooted. To consider the trade-offs of potential
nutrient loads and climate emissions deriving from the microplastic
removal, the external costs related to climate and water pollution from
wastewater treatment and sludge management are included in the
analysis. Due to the lack of damage estimates, we only report the release
of microplastic to both receiving ecosystems. This is a drawback but it
can be overcome once research produces a deeper understanding of the
mechanisms by which microplastics impacts on these two environments.
As for other variables, we provide a sensitivity analysis to examine how
the estimates of the efficiency of removal technologies and economic
variables affect the performance of the removal technologies.
Our work contributes the literature in that, to our knowledge, this
paper is the first attempt to assess the cost-efficiency properties of
removal technologies. The amount of economic studies on the subject is
very scarce (Klingelhöfer et al., 2020). None of them has hitherto
focused on the quantities of microplastics in the environment and their
potential effects.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces
the analytic elements of the cost-effectiveness analysis, alongside with
the technology scenarios, and Section 3 represents the parameters
applied in the analysis. Section 4 provides the results of the analysis by
each WWTP size and technology scenario. Lastly, the conclusion of the
analysis and its restrictions are in Section 5, along with the policy and
Table 1
Summary of the technology scenarios.
Scenario Description
Baseline CAS & anaerobic digestion of sludge, land application
1 CAS & sludge incineration
2a CAS, RSF & anaerobic digestion of sludge, land application
2b CAS, RSF & sludge incineration
3a MBR & anaerobic digestion of sludge, land application
3b MBR & sludge incineration
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen
research recommendations.
2. Methods and scenarios
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method used for assessing and
comparing alternative measures and finding the least cost option while
reaching a desired physical outcome (Balana et al., 2011). Another
method for a similar assessment is the cost-benefit analysis, where the
physical effects (reduction in microplastics released to the nature) of a
given measure are estimated and monetized. However, the health and
environmental effects of microplastic contamination remain uncertain
and hence approximating the value of the damage caused is difficult,
cost-benefit analysis is not applicable to our problem.
Cost-effectiveness analysis focuses on the physical change in the
analysed variables, thus, suiting well to our analytical purposes. In
general, CEA aims to either minimize the costs to achieve an exoge­
nously determined level of a desired target, or maximize the effects
deriving from the activity within a given budget boundary (Balana et al.,
2011). To be able to compare costs from activities taking place in
different points of time during wastewater treatment plant operation,
one has to evaluate the values of future costs and benefits at the present
point of time. The method of doing this is discounting. The present
values of cost estimates are calculated and summed up by using Eq. (1)
(Boardman, 2014; 12):
∑n
Ct
PV(C) = , (1)
t=0 (1 + i)t
where Ct represents the costs, i is the discount rate and t is the year. In
our analysis costs comprise of typical economic costs, such as investment
and operational costs, and external costs that is, monetized environ­
mental impacts.
As the scale of both the costs and the effects of wastewater treatment
differs between technologies, it is useful to resort to an incremental cost-
effectiveness analysis for each treatment technology (Boardman, 2014;
465–469). This can be expressed analytically as,
Ci − Cj
ICERij = , (2)
Ei − Ej
where ICERij is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio,Cj is the costs of
the examined treatment technology and Ej the amount of removed
particles,Ci is the costs of the baseline technology and Ei its removal,
again in which the alternative treatment technologies are added.
Subsequent to the estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness
ratios of each technology scenario, we compare and review the ratios
against each other.
The examined technology scenarios are presented in Table 1. In the
baseline scenario, the influent is treated by conventional activated
sludge (CAS), which is a common technology based on aeration and
biological flocculation (Laitinen et al., 2014). The subsequent scenarios
consist of the membrane bioreactor (MBR) and CAS with tertiary rapid
sand filtering (RSF). Each scenario includes preliminary and primary
treatment, such as grit removal, screening and primary sedimentation.
The sludge management is included in the scenarios by two alter­
native sludge management methods. The first one is the business-as-
usual technology, where sludge is anaerobically digested and subse­
quently applied on soil. The second method comprises sludge incinera­
tion in a hearth incinerator with subsequent phosphorus extraction from
the ash.
The time horizon of the analysis is 30 years, and the applied discount
rate is 4%. We examine the impact of the interest rate in the sensitivity
analysis by altering the discount rate by two percentage points, thus
discounting the costs with a discount rate of 2% and 6%. To see how
investment costs affect the ICER, we investigate how increasing or
decreasing the investment costs 20% higher and lower relative to the
base level. The investment costs are assumed to cover 50% of the total
3
Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246
costs of sludge treatment (Myllymaa et al., 2008b), and 60% - 90% of the
total costs of wastewater treatment depending on the process method
and plant size, in accordance with Hautakangas et al. (2014), DeCarolis
et al. (2007) and Adham and DeCarolis (2004).
Since the content of microplastics in wastewater is unstable and
varies hourly basis and within the weekdays, it is included in the
sensitivity analysis as a parameter. As our analysis uses the average
prevalence estimated by Talvitie et al. (2017a & 2017b), the lower and
upper level of particle prevalence are derived from the studies’ standard
deviation (see Talvitie et al., 2017a, 2017b).
3. Data
3.1. Cost of wastewater treatment as a function of population equivalent
The costs of wastewater treatment depend strongly on the size of the
WWTP and its treatment capacity, deriving mainly from investment
costs, electricity, the application of chemicals, and labor (FWUA, 2016).
For sludge management, the costs comprise investment expenditures,
electricity, labor and transportation (Myllymaa et al., 2008b).
The costs of wastewater treatment are typically estimated for a
treatment plant built for certain population equivalent (PE) level, which
is a figure describing the daily incoming sewage load per person. Table 2
provides the basic data of over WWTP sizes, ranging from 10,000 PE to
over 500,000 PE, divided into four size class categories.
While abatement technologies are similar across the countries in the
Baltic Sea, we chose Finnish wastewater treatment plants due to data
availability. Teräväniemi in Äänekoski and the Kariniemi in Lahti are
chosen to represent the two smallest categories with average daily flows
of 3700m3 and 18430m3, and sludge productions of 4660 and 13,700
dry tonnes per annum (see Table 2). The WWTP of Taskila in Oulu and
Viikinmäki in Helsinki represent the two larger categories, with average
daily flows of 46905m3 and 280000m3. The respective annual sludge
productions constitute 29,665 and 65,000 dry tonnes.
To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, we need to
assess the abatement rates of nutrients and associated abatement costs.
Furthermore, we need to define the costs of sludge management and its
possible use for each scenario.
The scenarios are based on an assumption of chemical removal of
phosphorus, as this method enables a meticulous control of nutrient
abatement (Wang et al., 2006), and has been proven to be an essential
tool in improving wastewater treatment at Baltic Sea (Kiirikki et al.,
2003). The level of phosphorus removal of CAS is set to 95%, because it
is a common abatement level in Finland, Sweden and Denmark in
WWTPs without tertiary treatment (Hautakangas et al., 2014; HELCOM,
2018). The average abatement rate of Baltic Sea countries has been
lower, 75% (Hautakangas et al., 2014), but it is increasing due to recent
investments in chemical phosphorus removal, for instance, in St
Petersburg and in Polish WWTPs (OECD, 2020). The abatement level of
phosphorus for tertiary RSF is 95% (Rajala et al., 2003) and 92% for
Table 2
Basic data of the selected wastewater treatment plants.
Size category PE Facility Daily Annual
average sludge
flow, m3 production,
t
10,000–80,000 PE 20,000 Teräväniemi, 3700 4660 1)
Äänekoski
80,000–220,000 137,000 Kariniemi, 18,430 13,700 2)
PE Lahti
220,000–500,000 N/A Taskila, Oulu 46,905 29,655 3)
PE
> 500,000 PE 840,000 Viikinmäki, 280,000 65,000 4)
Helsinki
1) AVI, 2011a. 2) AVI, 2011b, Laitinen et al., 2014, Lahti Aqua 2018. 3) Oulun
Vesi, 2018. 4) HSY.
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen
MBR (DeCarolis et al., 2007; Monclús et al., 2010). For nitrogen, the
applied abatement levels of CAS, RSF and MBR are 70%, 95% and 89%,
respectively (Hautakangas et al., 2014; Monclús et al., 2010).
We estimate the total costs of CAS and RSF by using a cost function of
phosphorus and nitrogen abatement derived in Hautakangas et al.
(2014), as each treatment process is originally designed for nutrient
removal. The cost estimates are calculated by dividing the total costs
computed by Hautakangas et al. (2014) with the average flows in cor­
responding PE category. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the total costs of CAS are
estimated to be between 1.71€ and 0.33€ per treated cubic meter
depending on the treatment plant size, without sludge management. Due
to economies of scale, the wastewater treatment is the cheaper the larger
quantities the facility is able to treat.
According to Hautakangas et al. (2014), the marginal costs of abating
phosphorus are linear up to a removal rate of 95%, notwithstanding the
plant size. Hence, as the abatement rate increases, the marginal costs
increase simultaneously in the same proportion. Consequently, the ter­
tiary treatment of rapid sand filtering costs moderately more than CAS,
resulting in costs of 1.93€ and 0.35€ per cubic meter of effluent in Fig. 1.
The abatement costs of MBR are derived from two sources. For the
smallest plant size and the plant of 80,000–220,000 PE costs are
retrieved from a cost analysis conducted by DeCarolis et al. (2007), and
the total costs of the WWTP size 220,000–500,000 PE are based on
Adham and DeCarolis (2004). In both studies the investment costs and
O&M costs were calculated for a 30 year period with a 5% interest rate.
For this analysis, we discounted the costs using a 4% interest rate, and
converted the costs from U.S. dollars to euros by using the currency rate
of the relevant year. According to DeCarolis et al. (2007), the majority of
the O&M costs in the respective MBR facilities derive from electricity
costs and membrane replacement. The specific calculations of each PE
size are available in Appendix S1.
Since no information is available relating to the costs of MBR in
wastewater treatment plants larger than 500,000 PE, we approximate
the costs from the costs in plant size 220,000–500,000 using a capacity
factor equation. This method is commonly applied in engineering and
roughly describes the increase in a facility’s investment cost when the
capacity increases (Dysert, 2003). Under this procedure, the cost of
wastewater treatment is estimated to vary between 0.27€ and 0.14€ per
cubic meter, depending on the treatment capacity, as illustrated in
Fig. 1. Note that we determined the unit costs of MBR assuming chemical
phosphorus removal, which is widely used in the Baltic Sea region. The
costs are higher when phosphorus is removed biologically (see e.g.
Fig. 1. Private unit costs of wastewater treatment and sludge management.
4
Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246
Drews, 2010; Bashar et al., 2018).
The total costs of each technology in the respective PE sizes can be
regarded constant, since the elementary intention in wastewater treat­
ment is to maintain the optimal average flow. If the influent flow ex­
ceeds the maximum flow designed for the equipment, the plant needs to
release semi-treated wastewater by the process into a repository water
system.
Looking at Fig. 1, we find that the costs change slightly unevenly
over the size classes especially for the MBR, which is due to the differ­
ences in cost data. Furthermore, the costs of CAS and RSF are almost
identical in the middle size classes, as the difference between the
influent quantities is relatively small.
The costs of sludge treatment are estimated for each WWTP size by
utilizing the cost estimates from Myllymaa et al. (2008a). Originally, the
capital costs of sludge management are amortized over 15 years with the
interest rate of 5%. Thus, the investment in sludge management is
assumed to occur twice over the period of 30 years and the costs are
discounted again with a 4% interest rate (see Appendix S2). As the cost
estimates respond to sludge tonnes of 20% dry matter content in
incineration and 15% in anaerobic digestion, the reported sludge
quantities of each WWTP size are converted correspondingly.
Considering anaerobic digestion, the sludge is by assumption ther­
mophilically digested and subsequently composted, while used in biogas
production. By assumption biogas is incinerated in a peat boiler and it
replaces the use of peat as an energy source. The remaining sludge is
transported to a repository site. Hence, the total private cost of digesting
one tonne of sludge costs 54€, comprising diurnally 0.01–0.001€ per a
cubic meter of treated water, as reported in Fig. 1.
Incineration is the alternative treatment method for the sludge.
Incineration is performed in a hearth incinerator subsequent to thermal
drying of the sludge, and the ashes are transported to either a landfill or
an alternative repository. The method is estimated by Myllymaa et al.
(2008a) to cost a total of 160€ per one tonne of sludge, that is,
0.03–0.004€ per one cubic meter of treated water diurnally (see Fig. 1).
The process is assumed to replace oil, wood and coal condensate in
energy production, and is a common practice in EU (European Com­
mission, 2015).
Fig. 1 suggests that the main part of the unit costs for WWTPs comes
from the abatement of nutrients. These costs constitute the costs of the
WWTP company, which do not include the costs that relate to envi­
ronmental impacts of nutrients and other emissions released to the
environment. To complete the cost calculations, we next assess the size
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen
of these costs.
3.2. Cost of environmental damage
Despite abatement in WWTPs, some quantities of nutrients end up in
repository water systems causing eutrophication. Additionally, the
sludge treatment generates diverse regional and greenhouse gases when
the solids and other mediums are degraded. Thus, the determination of
the social net cost of microplastic removal requires estimating the po­
tential environmental costs.
We employ the eutrophication damage estimates used by Lötjönen
and Ollikainen (2019) and many others, who basing on the valuation
studies estimate the damage from nitrogen loads to be 9€ kgN− 1. This
estimate can be translated for phosphorus by using the Redfield ratio,
which indicates that algae absorb phosphorus and nitrogen in relation
1:7.2 (see Lankoski et al. 2006 for the economic explanation). As a
result, the damage of phosphorus is 64.8€ kgP− 1.
The amount of nutrients released to waterway after abatement is
estimated for each technology scenario and WWTP size category by
using the influent quality data of the regarded WWTP’s from Laitinen
et al. (2014) and AVI (2011a) and the average abatement levels in
Table 3. The specific calculations are available in Appendix S3, and the
results are presented in Fig. 2. (See Table 4.)
As Fig. 2 suggests, due to differences in influent quality and high cost
of phosphorus loads, the damage cost of wastewater treatment is
prominently higher in CAS, comprising 0.09; 0.19; 0.17 and 0.15 € m3–1
over the size classes. Nutrient abatement is higher in tertiary RSF and
MBR, so the damage cost comprises 0.02; 0.04; 0.04; and 0.03 € m3–1,
and 0.04; 0.11; 0.10 and 0.08 € m3–1, respectively.
The environmental cost of sludge management is assessed using the
estimates of Myllymaa et al. (2008a). The estimates include trans­
portation costs and the damage cost deriving from greenhouse gas
(GHG) and small particle emissions, soil eutrophication and acidifica­
tion. The climate change effect is the dominant source of environmental
costs in both anaerobic digestion and incineration. However, extracting
energy from sludge generates environmental offsets, as less fossil fuel is
needed in energy production, reducing the social cost.
As the sludge management replaces fossil energy the damage cost is
negative, ranging.
from − 0.0039 to − 0.0004 € m3–1 with respect to anaerobic digestion
(see Fig. 2). Given that the energy recovery is more effective in sludge
incineration, the method provides a small negative damage cost of
− 0.0138 to − 0.0018 € m3–1. (Myllymaa et al., 2008a). In case the en­
ergy recovery does not substitute fossil energy, the damage costs are
close to zero per treated cubic meter of effluent (see Appendix S2).
Nonetheless, substitution can be expected in the Baltic Sea region.
3.3. Data of microplastic removal
We employ the results of Talvitie et al. (2017a & 2017b) to assess the
microplastic removal potential of the chosen wastewater treatment
methods. Table 3 collects the average microlitter removal per litre of
effluent, including the standard deviation.
From Table 3, the membrane bioreactor achieves a removal rate of
Table 3
Microlitter concentration in the process stages of wastewater treatment.
Concentration (microlitter L− 1)
Treatment method Influent Effluent Removal %
Primary treatment 686.7 ± 155.0 10.9 ± 2.9 98
CAS 10.9 ± 2.9 1.3 ± 0.9 88
RSF 0.7 ± 0.1 0.02 ± 0.007 97.1
MBR 6.9 ± 1.0 0.005 ± 0.004 99.9
1) Talvitie et al., 2017a
2) Talvitie et al., 2017b
Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246
99.1%, leaving only 0.005 (± 0.004) particles in the effluent. The results
show that the most of microlitter is removed already in the primary
treatment, as the primary effluent contained only 10.9 (± 2.9) particles
from the original 686.7 (±155.0). The secondary treatment of CAS
resulted in removal of 88%, constituting 1.3 (±0.9) particles left in the
effluent, whereas the tertiary treatment of RSF enhanced the result to
0.02 (±0.007) particles.
4. Results
4.1. Determination of the costs and the scale of the pathway
We examine the overall costs of treating wastewater and sludge for
the company and the society over the 30-year investment period in each
technology scenario, and assess the respective microlitter releases into
the environment. The released quantities are determined by multiplying
the average plastic quantities in effluent with the annually treated
wastewater quantities of each WWTP size. Furthermore, we report the
microplastic release in two categories by their repository: the aquatic
and the terrestrial environment.
Table 5 presents the annual microlitter releases and the costs of the
technology scenarios, organized from the highest to the lowest in terms
of the released microliter (measured in millions of particles). Moreover,
we report the annual social costs that are defined as a sum of the total
private costs and the environmental damage costs (units are in thou­
sands of euros).
The baseline in each size class is CAS with digestion, which leads to
high microplastic release to aquatic environment and extremely high
release to terrestrial environment. The numbers are very large, ranging
from billions to trillions of particles. The sludge digestion allocates the
majority of the release into the terrestrial environment, constituting
0.9–101 trillion particles depending on the WWTP capacity.
The other scenarios lead a lower microplastic release to aquatic
environment than the baseline, but when relying on the digestion of
sludge the terrestrial release increases. If CAS, RSF and MBR employ
incineration of sludge, then the terrestrial release goes to zero. Adjusting
the baseline merely by sludge incineration contributes the microlitter
mitigation significantly.
If incineration is adopted, it is then evident that MBR releases the
least particles into the aquatic environment and CAS the most.
Enhancing the baseline with tertiary RSF performs relatively well but
still releases particles roughly three times as much as MBR.
Regarding the private costs, the MBR is the cheapest technology and
CAS with tertiary RSF the most expensive one. However, the environ­
mental cost, resulting mainly from the nutrient load, alters the ranking
of the scenarios, as the annual damages range from 3000€ to 8 million
euros. Consequently, the annual social costs are now highest in the CAS,
ranging from 2.4 to 34.2 million euros. While the environmental costs of
MBR are higher than in RSF, the private costs are minor, and MBR re­
mains the most economical option. The cost effect of sludge manage­
ment is small, and is not visible in the smaller two WWTP size categories
due to rounding.
In conclusion, the annual microlitter emissions increase as the
WWTP size grows, because the microlitter removal is constant despite
the change in average flow. Due to economies of scale, the unit costs of
wastewater and sludge treatment decrease with the size of the WWTP.
However, the environmental cost of nutrient leakage strongly increases
the social cost of each scenario, making the RSF the second most
economical alternative despite high private costs. The ranking between
the scenarios remains the same despite the increase in treatment ca­
1)
pacity of the WWTP and sludge management method, as MBR is the
1) most economical option and CAS the least.
2)
2) 4.2. Estimated cost-effectiveness ratios
We now estimate the cost-effectiveness of the technology scenarios
5
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246

Fig. 2. Unit damage costs of wastewater treatment and sludge management, € m3–1.

Table 4
Total costs and total releases of each technology scenario.
Scenario Description Aquatic release, Terrestrial release, Total private cost, Total social cost, Total environmental cost,
M particles / year M particles / year K€ / year K€ / year K€ / year

10,000–80,000 PE
Baseline CAS, digestion 1756 925,633 2319 2439 120
2a CAS, RSF, digestion 27 927,361 2617 2633 16
3a MBR, digestion 7 927,382 381 424 43
1 CAS, incineration 1756 0 2346 2452 107
2b CAS, RSF, incineration 27 0 2644 2646 3
3b MBR, incineration 7 0 408 437 30

80,000–220,000 PE
Baseline CAS, digestion 9481 4,998,417 4888 6190 1302
2a CAS, RSF, digestion 146 5,007,751 5182 5442 260
3a MBR, digestion 36 5,007,861 1524 2262 738
1 CAS, incineration 9481 0 4957 6226 1269
2b CAS, RSF, incineration 146 0 5251 5478 227
3b MBR, incineration 36 0 1593 2297 705

220,000–500,000 PE
Baseline CAS, digestion 20,218 10,659,786 12,068 14,985 2917
2a CAS, RSF, digestion 311 10,679,694 13,144 13,721 576
3a MBR, digestion 78 10,679,927 2422 4055 1633
1 CAS, incineration 20,218 0 12,244 15,075 2832
2b CAS, RSF, incineration 311 0 13,320 13,812 491
3b MBR, incineration 78 0 2598 4146 1548

> 500,000 PE
Baseline CAS, digestion 191,543 100,987,278 33,950 48,958 15,008
2a CAS, RSF, digestion 2947 101,175,874 35,393 38,391 2997
3a MBR, digestion 737 101,178,084 8104 16,372 8268
1 CAS, incineration 191,543 0 34,243 49,109 14,867
2b CAS, RSF, incineration 2947 0 35,686 38,542 2856
3b MBR, incineration 737 0 8396 16,523 8127

Table 5
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of WWTP size 220,000–500,000 PE when discount rate is changed (euros per billion microlitter particles).
Scenario Adjustment Total private cost, Total private cost, € / Environmental cost, € / Difference in MP removal, B particles ICER
level €/m3 year year / year

6% 0,69 11,841,093 2,831,604 10,660 − 29

1 CAS, incineration
2% 0,75 12,825,682 2,831,604 10,660 63
CAS, RSF, 6% 0,74 12,684,519 599,275 10,680 − 159
2b
incineration 2% 0,80 13,664,251 599,275 10,680 − 68
6% 0,14 2,388,310 1,655,883 10,680 − 1024
3b MBR, incineration
2% 0,17 2,899,674 1,655,883 10,680 − 977

6
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen
for each WWTP size using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
Thus, for each scenario we assess the total microlitter removal capacity
and costs and then compare these estimates against the baseline
scenario.
Fig. 3 illustrates ICERs for each plant size and scenario. The ICER
expresses the annual social cost of removing one unit of microlitter (a
billion particles) relative to the baseline. The scenarios with anaerobic
digestion are not present in Fig. 3, as they remove microlitter from the
environment in the same extent as the baseline. Therefore, the denom­
inator of the CE equation becomes zero and prevents the calculation of
the given ICERs. Hence, investing in technology improvements is not
worthwhile as long as the sludge is utilized in landscaping or in
agriculture.
The negative values of cost difference indicate that the alternative
scenario is cheaper than the baseline scenario and vice versa for positive
values. The positive values of particle removal difference in turn indi­
cate that the alternative scenario reduces the microplastic release more
than the baseline. The smaller the ICER figure, the better the alternative
scenario relative to the baseline. The best alternative for each size class
is bolded.
Treating the wastewater by MBR and the sludge by incineration
produces the lowest ICERs, decreasing the annual costs by 2158€-321€
per a billion removed microlitter particles depending on the WWTP size.
The technology adoption would annually prevent 0.9–101 trillion par­
ticles from entering the environment. The second lowest ICERs are for
RSF with sludge incineration, as in this scenario the total social costs are
predominantly lower in comparison to the baseline scenario. The ICERs
range from 224€ to − 103€ per one billion removed particles. The ben­
efits of technology adoption increase as the plant size increases, deriving
primarily from nutrient abatement.
The highest CE ratios in each WWTP size category derive from CAS
and sludge incineration. The replacement of sludge management
method increases the annual costs by 15€-1€ per a billion removed
microlitter particles. The microlitter removal comprises altogether from
0.9 to 100.9 trillion particles, with respect to the WWTP size.
Note that in the two middle size categories, the ICERs of MBR with
incineration and CAS, RSF with incineration are close to equal, mostly
due to characteristics of the reference WWTPs and differences in MBR
cost data. Another notable feature is that the advantage of MBR with
incineration reduces relative to other scenarios when the plant size in­
creases. This is caused by higher nutrient content in influent, alongside
with the possible differences in the cost data.
In conclusion, the MBR achieves the lowest CE ratio in each WWTP
size category, and in each size category the cost of removing one billion
litter particles is negative to the baseline. The mutual ranking of the
scenarios remains the same despite the change in treatment capacity.
Again, the economies of scale cause the CE ratios to decrease as the
WWTP size increases. Thus, unambiguously, MBR with incineration of
Fig. 3. A comparison of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (euros per billion microlitter particles).
7
Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246
sludge performs best, reduces the microlitter release radically to both
aquatic and terrestrial environments, and is also an affordable tech­
nology combination for the society.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
To assess how the key parameters affect the CE ratios, we perform a
univariate sensitivity analysis with respect to investment costs, discount
rate and microlitter removal rate. For the analysis, the investment costs
are altered by 20%, and the discount rate by 2%. To estimate the effect
of a lower and higher microlitter removal, the removal rates are adjusted
in accordance with the standard deviation of each treatment method
(see Table 3).
Appendix S5 provides the full set of results. According to the results,
changes in parameter values have no effect on the mutual ranking of the
scenarios. As expected, the strongest impact is caused when the invest­
ment cost and discount rate change, whereas the change in microlitter
removal had a minor effect on the ICER ratio (for details see Appendix
S5).
Table 5 presents the analysis results with respect of discount rate in a
WWTP of 220,000–500,000 PE. Increasing the interest rate decreases
the importance of future costs, leading to a lower ICER. The lower rate of
2% inversely increases the future costs and ICER. The MBR and RSF
remain economical despite the low discount rate, albeit the mutual cost
difference is drastic. The higher rate of 6% decreases the ICER of CAS
below the baseline.
5. Discussion
Millions of tonnes of plastic litter end up annually in aquatic and
terrestrial environments causing damages to the ecosystem and the
economy. There is currently neither policy restricting use of microplastic
in production nor regulation to reduce microplastic or microlitter con­
centration in treated wastewater. Thus the question is how societies
could efficiently reduce microlitter pollution upstream and downstream.
The focus of this paper is downstream and we examine cost-effectiveness
of the most typical wastewater treatment and sludge management
methods. The considered methods were chosen in accordance to the
microlitter removing methods discovered by Talvitie et al. (2017a &
2017b), Lares et al. (2018), Hidayaturrahman and Lee (2019) and Lv
et al. (2019). The baseline scenario was the commonly applied sec­
ondary wastewater treatment method of activated sludge followed by
anaerobic digestion and land application of sludge. The costs and effects
of alternative options were assessed as incremental to the baseline.
Our results show that the control and mitigation of wastewater
derived microplastic pollution is both feasible and cost-effective.
Although the total removal of the influent’s microlitter is unlikely, the
contamination can be decreased by even 88% - 99.9%, especially in the
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen
aquatic systems. The role of sludge treatment is crucial for the micro­
litter release to the terrestrial environment. Using incineration instead of
traditional digestion methods is necessary to eliminate trillions of
microlitter particles from ending up in soils.
According to our analysis, treating the wastewater by MBR produced
the greatest cost savings both in private and social costs, whilst the
annual aquatic release was mitigated by billions to hundreds of billions
particles. Combining MBR with sludge incineration the mitigation effect
covers the terrestrial emissions as well, giving this scenario the lowest
ICER value. The second lowest ICERs with respect to the baseline
resulted from tertiary rapid sand filtering, which was remarkably less
costly in the larger WWTP size categories. CAS and sludge incineration
achieved the third lowest ICERs.
The sensitivity analysis showed that the alteration of individual pa­
rameters had no effect on the cost ranking of the scenarios. The strongest
change in CE ratios was caused by the alteration in investment costs. The
sensitivity analysis was performed on the basis of economic aspects and
the microplastic prevalence, thus the analysis did not consider treatment
process optimization or features in wastewater quality that might affect
the total costs.
In each technology scenario and WWTP size, the social costs are
strongly affected by the environmental cost from nutrient load. Due to
the relatively low nutrient abatement rate of CAS, the differences in
social costs are perceptible. Higher phosphorus and nitrogen abatement
can be reached with enhanced chemical precipitation and denitrification
in secondary process conditions (Laitinen et al., 2014), presumably
enhancing the microlitter removal simultaneously (Park et al., 2020).
Environmental costs of wastewater treatment and sludge management
decrease due to microplastic removal, despite its yet unknown cost of
damage.
Our analysis contains some critical choices. First, as the existing
abatement technologies are not designed for microplastic removal, the
particle separation was considered as an additional benefit without any
impact on the costs deriving from the treatment processes. Second, the
share of microplastic removal was assumed to be constant despite
changes in plant size, although its variation is probable in some extent.
Third, we assumed that sludge incineration removes the whole micro­
plastic content, whereas the anaerobic digestion removes nothing.
This research is one of the first studies evaluating the wastewater
derived microplastic contamination as a whole, while researchers still
widely debate on whether the effects of plastic contamination on land
are parallel to the ones in water (Horton et al., 2017; Machado et al.,
2018; Sheridan et al., 2020). As there is currently no comprehensive
knowledge of the environmental and health effects of microplastic
contamination, it is impossible to estimate how detrimental contami­
nation is in certain ecosystems. More research is required regarding the
distinction between the effects in aquatic and terrestrial environments,
and the overall hazards of microplastic accumulation in organisms.
Nevertheless, precautionary principle suggests an early action, and
wastewater treatment plants have a good possibility in removing
microplastics from of the plastic cycle.
For a better understanding of the economic features of microplastic
pollution, more research is required regarding the subject. In particular,
there is an urgent demand for primary valuation studies to investigate
the benefits of microlitter removal and to conclude an overall estimation
of how adverse the issue is from the economic perspective. In any case,
our research suggests that radical removal of microplastics is feasible
both technologically and economically. Even though we do not have
proper knowledge on the damages microplastics cause in aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems, the precautionary principle suggests that the EU
should include removal requirement of microplastics in the Urban Waste
Water Directive and include the incineration of sludge as a part of it.
Finally, there is a need for studies determining how mitigation efforts
and costs should be allocated towards companies that produce goods
causing microplastic pollution and how costs between WWTPs and
companies should be shared. Future solutions may entail extended
8
Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246
producer responsibility or tax instruments levied on upstream and used
to finance abatement in WWTPs.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Markku Ollikainen reports financial support was provided by Stra­
tegic Research Council of Academy of Finland.
Acknowledgement
The research was funded by by the Strategic Research Council of
Academy of Finland (Contract No. 312650 Blue-Adapt).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107246.
References
Adham, S., DeCarolis, J., 2004. Optimization of Various MBR Systems for Water
Reclamation - Phase III, Final Report Project No. 103. Bureau of Reclamation.
Retrieved 17 September, 2020, from. https://www.usbr.gov/research/dwpr/repor
tpdfs/report103.pdf.
AVI, 2011a. Ympäristölupapäätös 168/2011/1 [Decision on environmental permit] (in
Finnish).
AVI, 2011b. Ympäristölupaviraston ratkaisu 27/2011/1 [Decision on environmental
permit] (in Finnish).
Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2014a. Enhanced desorption of persistent
organic pollutants from microplastics under simulated physiological conditions.
Environ. Pollut. 185, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.007.
Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2014b. Transport of persistent organic
pollutants by microplastics in estuarine conditions. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 140,
14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.01.004.
Balana, B.B., Vinten, A., Slee, B., 2011. A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of Agri-
environmental measures related to the EU WFD: key issues, methods, and
applications. Ecol. Econ. 70 (6), 1021–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2010.12.020.
Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc.
London B. 364 (1526), 1985–1998.
Bashar, R., Gungor, K., Karthikeyan, K.G., Barak, P., 2018. Cost effectiveness of
phosphorus removal processes in municipal wastewater treatment. Chemosphere
197, 280–290.
Blackburn, K., Green, D., 2021. The potential effects of microplastics on human health:
what is known and what is unknown. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-
01589-9.
Boardman, A.E., 2014. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Pearson New International Edition.
DeCarolis, J., Adham, S., Pearce, W.R., Hirani, Z., Lacy, S., Stephenson, R., 2007. Cost
trends of MBR systems for municipal wastewater treatment. In: Proceedings of the
Water Environment Federation, pp. 3407–3418.
Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44 (9), 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X
(02)00220-5.
Drews, A., 2010. Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors - characterisation,
contradictions, cause and cures. J. Membr. Sci. 363, 1–28.
Dysert, L.R., 2003. Sharpen your cost estimating skills. Cost Eng. 45 (6), 22.
European Commission, 2015. New life for sewage sludge. Retrieved 10 October, 2020,
from. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/new-life-sewage
-sludge.
European Commission, 2019. Commission Staff Working Document - Executive Summary
of the Evaluation of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, Concerning
Urban Waste-Water Treatment. Retrieved 15 March, 2020, from. https://ec.europa.
eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/pdf/UWWTD%20Evaluation%20SWD%
20448-701%20web.pdf.
FWUA, 2016. Technical-Financial Study of Increasing the Efficiency of Wastewater
Treatment in Finland. Finnish water utilities association, Helsinki (in Finnish,
English summary).
Fytili, D., Zabaniotou, A., 2008. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and
new methods—a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 12 (1), 116–140.
Gasperi, J., Wright, S.L., Dris, R., Collard, F., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V.,
Kelly, F.J., et al., 2018. Microplastics in air: are we breathing it in? Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sci. Health 1, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2017.10.002.
Government Decree on Urban Wastewater Treatment 888/2006. Finlex. Retrieved 24
November, 2019, from. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2006/e
n20060888.
L. Vuori and M. Ollikainen
Gregory, M.R., 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings
entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions.
Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B. 364 (1526), 2013–2025. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2008.0265.
Habib, R.Z., Thiemann, T., Al Kendi, R., 2020. Microplastics and wastewater treatment
plants—a review. J. Water Res. Protect. 12 (01), 1.
Hautakangas, S., Ollikainen, M., Aarnos, K., Rantanen, P., 2014. Nutrient abatement
potential and abatement costs of waste water treatment plants in the Baltic Sea
region. Ambio 43 (3), 352–360.
HELCOM, 2018. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan 2018 - Three Years Left to
Reach Good Environmental Status. Retrieved 17 April, 2020, from. https://helcom.
fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Implementation-of-the-BSAP-2018.pdf.
Hidayaturrahman, H., Lee, T., 2019. A study on characteristics of microplastic in
wastewater of South Korea: identification, quantification, and fate of microplastics
during treatment process. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2019.06.071.
Horton, A.A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D.J., Lahive, E., Svendsen, C., 2017. Microplastics in
freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current understanding to
identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 586,
127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190.
Huerta Lwanga, E., Gertsen, H., Gooren, H., Peters, P., Salánki, T., van der Ploeg, M.,
Besseling, E., Koelmans, A.A., et al., 2017. Incorporation of microplastics from litter
into burrows of lumbricus terrestris. Environ. Pollut. Part A 220, 523–531. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.096.
Kiirikki, M., Rantanen, P., Varjopuro, R., Leppänen, A., Hiltunen, M., Pitkänen, H.,
Sarkkula, J., 2003. Cost effective water protection in the Gulf of Finland. In: The
Finnish Environment, 632. Finnish Environment Institute.
Klingelhöfer, D., Braun, M., Quarcoo, D., Brüggmann, D., Groneberg, D.A., 2020.
Research landscape of a global environmental challenge: microplastics. Water Res.
170, 115358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115358.
Aqua, Lahti, 2018. Vuosikertomus 2018. Retrieved 17 April, 2020, from. https://lah
tiaquavk.fi/2018/#13.
Laitinen, J., Nieminen, J., Saarinen, R., Toivikko, S., 2014. Best available techniques
(BAT) municipal wastewater treatment plants. In: The Finnish Environment 3/2014,
Helsinki (in Finnish, English summary). Retrieved 2 October, 2019, from. https://he
lda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/43199/SY_3_2014.pdf?sequence=1&is
Allowed=y.
Lankoski, Jussi, Ollikainen, Markku, Uusitalo, Pekka, June 2006. No-till technology:
benefits to farmers and the environment? Theoretical analysis and application to
Finnish agriculture, European Review of Agricultural Economics 33 (2), 193–221
https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbl003.
Lares, M., Ncibi, M.C., Sillanpää, M., Sillanpää, M., 2018. Occurrence, identification and
removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process
and advanced MBR technology. Water Res. 133, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.watres.2018.01.049.
Law, K.L., Thompson, R.C., 2014. Microplastics in the seas. Science 345 (6193),
144–145.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., Hajbane, S.,
Cunsolo, S., et al., 2018. Evidence that the great pacific garbage patch is rapidly
accumulating plastic. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 4666. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-
22939-w.
Lehner, R., Weder, C., Petri-Fink, A., Rothen-Rutishauser, B., 2019. Emergence of
Nanoplastic in the environment and possible impact on human health. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 53 (4), 1748–1765.
Lei, L., Wu, S., Lu, S., Liu, M., Song, Y., Fu, Z., Shi, H., Raley-Susman, K.M., et al., 2018.
Microplastic particles cause intestinal damage and other adverse effects in zebrafish
danio rerio and nematode caenorhabditis elegans. Sci. Total Environ. 619, 1–8.
Lötjönen, S., Ollikainen, M., 2019. Multiple-pollutant cost-efficiency: coherent water and
climate policy for agriculture. Ambio 48 (11), 1304–1313.
Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Deng, Y., Jiang, W., Zhao, Y., Geng, J., Ding, L., Ren, H., 2016. Uptake
and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in zebrafish (danio Rerio) and toxic
effects in liver. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4054–4060. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.6b00183.
Lv, X., Dong, Q., Zuo, Z., Liu, Y., Huang, X., Wu, W., 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.
Machado, de Souza, Abel, Anderson, Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., Hempel, S., Rillig, M.C., 2018.
Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24
(4), 1405–1416.
Magnusson, K., Norén, F., 2014. Screening of microplastic particles in and down-stream a
wastewater treatment plant. In: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report C
55, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved 5 November, 2019, from. http://urn.kb.se/resol
ve?urn=urn:nbn:se:naturvardsverket:diva-2226, 29.7.2019.
Mahon, A.M., O’Connell, B., Healy, M.G., O’Connor, I., Officer, R., Nash, R., Morrison, L.,
2016. Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51
(2), 810–818.
Mason, S.A., Garneau, D., Sutton, R., Chu, Y., Ehmann, K., Barnes, J., et al., 2016.
Microplastic pollution is widely detected in US municipal wastewater treatment
plant effluent. Environ. Pollut. 218, 1045–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.08.056.
Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107246
Monclús, H., Sipma, J., Ferrero, G., Rodriguez-Roda, I., Comas, J., 2010. Biological
nutrient removal in an MBR treating municipal wastewater with special focus on
biological phosphorus removal. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (11), 3984–3991. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.038.
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 (11), 5800–5808. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05416.
Myllymaa, T., Moliis, K., Tohka, A., Isoaho, S., Zevenhoven, M., Ollikainen, M.,
Dahlbo, H., 2008a. Environmental impacts and costs of recycling and incineration of
waste – the alternatives of regional waste management. In: Finnish Environment
Institute (SYKE), Reports of the Finnish environment institute 39/2008. Retrieved 20
December, 2019, from. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38383/
SY_39_2008.pdf?sequence=5.
Myllymaa, T., Moliis, K., Tohka, A., Rantanen, P., Ollikainen, M., Dahlbo, H., 2008b.
Environmental loads and costs of waste recycling and incineration processes. In:
Inventory report. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Reports of the Finnish
Environment Institute 28/2008. Retrieved 20 December, 2019, from. https://helda.
helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/39792/SYKEra_28_2008.pdf?sequence=1&is
Allowed=y.
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M., Langaas, S., 2016. Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics
of urban origin? Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (20), 10777–10779. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.6b04140.
OECD, 2020. Financing Water Supply, Sanitation and Flood Protection: Challenges in EU
Member States and Policy Options, OECD Studies on Water. Retrieved 20 October,
2020, from. https://doi.org/10.1787/6893cdac-en.
Vesi, Oulun, 2018. Vuosikertomus 2018. Retrieved 17 April, 2020, from. https://issuu.
com/cityofoulu/docs/oulun_vesi_toimintakertomus2018_iss.
Park, H., Oh, M., Kim, P., Kim, G., Jeong, D., Ju, B., Lee, W., Chung, H., et al., 2020.
National reconnaissance survey of microplastics in municipal wastewater treatment
plants in Korea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (3), 1503–1512. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.9b04929.
Prata, J.C., 2018. Airborne microplastics: Consequences to human health? Environ
Pollut. Mar 234, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.043. PMID:
29172041. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
Qiao, R., Deng, Y., Zhang, S., Wolosker, M., Zhu, Q., Ren, H., Zhang, Y., 2019.
Accumulation of different shapes of microplastics initiates intestinal injury and gut
microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of zebrafish. Chemosphere 236.
Rajala, R., Pulkkanen, M., Pessi, M., Heinonen-Tanski, H., 2003. Removal of microbes
from municipal wastewater effluent by rapid sand filtration and subsequent UV
irradiation. Water Sci. Technol. 47 (3), 157–162.
Schirinzi, G.F., Pérez-Pomeda, I., Sanchís, J., Rossini, C., Farré, M., Barceló, D., 2017.
Cytotoxic effects of commonly used nanomaterials and microplastics on cerebral and
epithelial human cells. Environ. Res. 159, 579–587.
Setälä, O., Norkko, J., Lehtiniemi, M., 2016. Feeding type affects microplastic ingestion
in a coastal invertebrate community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 102 (1), 95–101. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.053.
Sheridan, H., Johnson, K., Capper, A., 2020. Analysis of international, European and
Scot’s law governing marine litter and integration of policy within regional marine
plans. Ocean Coast. Manag. 187, 105119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2020.105119.
Shim, W., Thompson, R., 2015. Microplastics in the ocean. Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 69 (3), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0216-x.
Sundt, P., Schulze, P.E., Syversen, F., 2014. Sources of microplastic pollution to the
marine environment. In: Mepex for the Norwegian Environment Agency
(Miljødirektoratet), Report no: M-321|2015. Retrieved 25 October, 2019, from. https
://www.miljodirektoratet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/M321/M321.pdf.
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 (9), 1495. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.360.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Setälä, O., Heinonen, M., Koistinen, A., 2017a. 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.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., Setälä, O., 2017b. Solutions to microplastic
pollution–removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res. 123, 401–407.
Turcotte, S.E., et al., 2013. ‘Flock worker’s lung disease: Natural history of cases and
exposed workers in Kingston, Ontario’, Chest. The American College of Chest
Physicians 143 (6), 1642–1648. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-0920.
UNEP, 2016. Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics: Global Lessons and Research to
Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. United Nations Environment Programme,
Nairobi.
Wang, X.J., Xia, S.Q., Chen, L., Zhao, J.F., Renault, N.J., Chovelon, J.M., 2006. Nutrients
removal from municipal wastewater by chemical precipitation in a moving bed
biofilm reactor. Process Biochem. 41 (4), 824–828.
Xu, S., Ma, J., Ji, R., Pan, K., Miao, A.J., 2020. Microplastics in aquatic environments:
occurrence, accumulation, and biological effects. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 134699.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134699.
Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Li, D., 2016. Microscopic anthropogenic litter in terrestrial birds from
Shanghai, China: not only plastics but also natural fibers. Sci. Total Environ. 550,
1110–1115.