Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering

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

Microplastic abundance and removal via an ultrafiltration system coupled

to a conventional municipal wastewater treatment plant in Thailand
Katekanya Tadsuwan , Sandhya Babel *
School of Bio-chemical Engineering and Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand

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

Editor: Despo Kassinos A wastewater treatment plant is one of the land-based sources of microplastics in freshwater environments. A
conventional wastewater treatment plant alone is not designed for microplastic removal. This study evaluates the
Keywords: abundance and microplastic removal efficiency of a conventional wastewater treatment plant and the load daily
Microplastics released to water environment. It also investigates the effect of coupling a pilot-scale ultrafiltration system.
Wastewater treatment plant
Samples were collected at each unit operation by grab sampling. Sludge samples were collected from return
Sludge
activated sludge after the final clarifier to find microplastic pollution levels that might contaminate agricultural
Tertiary treatment
Ultrafiltration soil. The results showed that on average, 77 ± 7.21 particles/L were found in the influent, and 10.67 ± 3.51
particles/L were discharged with the final effluent, resulting in 86.14% overall removal efficiency in a traditional
treatment system. When an ultrafiltration unit was taken into consideration, the number of microplastics in the
effluent reduced to 2.33 ± 1.53 particles/L, which increased the removal efficiency up to 96.97%. The abun­
dance of microplastic particles in sludge samples generated from the final clarifier was 2.63 ± 1.26 × 104
particles/kg (dry weight). The most dominant group was 0.05–0.5 mm, and fibers accounted for more than 60%
of total microplastics at every sampling point. The results from spectroscopic analysis showed that polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) was the major type of microplastics, followed by polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP).
This study shows that advanced technology in tertiary treatment plants could substantially remove microplastic
pollution in wastewater. Moreover, the absence of primary sedimentation tank can also influence removal of
microplastics.

1. Introduction
Plastic is used widely because of its durability, low price, and light
weight. However, the material persists in the environment. The accu­
mulation of plastic waste has become a global challenge. One of the
issues arising from plastic waste that has raised attention worldwide is
microplastic (MP), which is commonly defined as a plastic particle in the
range of 5 mm to 1 nanometer [1]. MPs manufactured for use as in­
dustrial scrubbers or as microbeads in cosmetic products are called
primary MPs, while those which are formed as a result of degradation of
larger plastics are called secondary MPs [1]. These minute-sized plastic
particles are known to be toxic to marine species [2] and pose threats to
human health through the food chain [3,4].
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are considered one of the
land-based sources of MPs [5]. WWTPs act as a receptor for MPs from
industry, household waste, and landfill [6]. Most of the MPs present in
the wastewater treatment system originate from fiber shedding during
laundry processes [7] and also enter through personal care products
such as toothpastes, cleansers, and shower gels [8]. A study by Browne
et al. [9] showed that MPs detected at the shoreline were the same type
as MPs from WWTP effluent. Most conventional wastewater treatment
plants are not designed to eradicate these small-size plastics [10]. Some
advanced treatment technologies including membrane bioreactor, rapid
sand filter, dissolved air filtration, disc-filter [11], reverse osmosis (RO)
[12], and post-filtration [13] have been suggested as an addition to help
remove MPs [11–13]. Different treatment technologies in WWTPs can
affect removal efficiency of MPs [14]. Characteristics of MPs such as size
and shape impact their removal rate [15]. It is also important to study
the performance of an individual WWTP because of the different design
and wastewater characteristics.
Thailand is a top-ten plastic polluter to marine environment [16]. In
2020, 6300 tonnes of plastic waste was produced daily in Thailand [17].
The study on the abundance and MP removal efficiency in WWTPs re­
quires attention because WWTP is the final barrier and a point source of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sandhya@siit.tu.ac.th (S. Babel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107142
Received 12 November 2021; Received in revised form 24 December 2021; Accepted 3 January 2022
Available online 5 January 2022
2213-3437/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Tadsuwan and S. Babel
MPs before they enter freshwater ecosystem. Some recent studies in
Thailand have focused on MP removal in conventional WWTPs [18,19].
However, there is no study so far that investigates the performance of
tertiary treatment in a WWTP in Thailand for MPs removal. A conven­
tional WWTP with a pilot-scale of advance filtration technology was
selected for the study. The objective of the ultrafiltration (UF) is to clean
the water further for reuse. It is demonstrated in this study whether the
addition of UF can improve the efficiency of MP removal in a WWTP.
This study investigates the abundance, morphology, and types of
MPs in a conventional WWTP coupled with a pilot-scale UF system in
Thailand. The removal efficiency of each unit operation was examined
to find the most effective removal step, and the overall removal effi­
ciencies of a traditional treatment plant and an additional tertiary
treatment have been compared. Daily discharge of MPs into water
bodies was also estimated based on the abundance and treatment ca­
pacity of the WWTP.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site
A conventional WWTP with an installation of an advance treatment
unit was selected for the study. The WWTP serves an area of 20.7 km2 in
four districts of Bangkok with a population of 227,660. The total length
of the collection system’s pipeline is 49.4 km. The wastewater collection
system is a combined sewer. The treatment capacity of this WWTP is
120,000 m3/d and 300,000 m3/d in dry and rainy seasons, respectively.
The treatment plant is a close underground system to prevent air and
noise pollution. This wastewater treatment plant includes primary
treatment, secondary treatment, and a pilot-scale tertiary treatment fa­
cility. The treatment technology in tertiary treatment is UF (polyether
sulfone (PES)/polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) blend membrane) with a pore
size of 0.1 µm. There are 2 sets of UF in this WWTP. Each set can treat up
to 1000 m3 of wastewater daily. Treated wastewater after the final
clarifier is discharged directly into the canal, while the effluent from UF
is used for decorative purposes and cleaning within the building.
2.2. Sampling method
MP samples were collected by 1 L grab sampling (n = 3) using a
stainless-steel bucket at each unit operation, as illustrated in Fig. 1, and
transferred into glass bottles. On-site filtration was impractical for this
WWTP. Grab sampling could result in three orders of magnitude of MPs
than other net-based methods [20,21]. Grab sampling is able to capture
smaller size range of MPs and higher amount of non-fibrous plastic [20].
Samples from the WWTP were filtered through a set of sieves in the
laboratory. Plastic pieces on the 5.0 mm sieve were kept separately and
classified as macro-plastics. Samples retained on 1 mm sieve were
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the selected WWTP with sampling locations. S1 = influent after the coarse screen, S2 = after the grit chamber, S3 = after the aeration tanks,
S4 = final effluent after final clarifier, S5 = effluent after ultrafiltration, and SS = sewage sludge.
2
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142
further sorted using tweezers. MP samples on the 500 and 53 µm sieves
were carefully washed out from the sieves using Deionized (DI) water.
Thereafter, the samples were categorized into 3 size fractions: 1–5 mm,
0.5–1 mm, and 0.05–0.5 mm. Each size fraction of the MP samples was
kept in laboratory bottles at 4 ◦ C prior to the analysis.
Sewage sludge (SS) after the final clarifier (Fig. 1) was collected from
randomized points and homogenized in a glass bottle with a total weight
of approximately 0.5 kg per bottle. Sludge samples were preserved in a
refrigerator at 4 ºC.
2.3. Sample processing
2.3.1. Liquid fraction
MP samples were transferred to beakers and kept in the oven at 60 ◦ C
for 24 h. Wet peroxide oxidation, adopted from [22], was used as
pre-treatment for the isolation of MPs from organic-rich wastewater
without affecting particle size, and enables MPs for spectroscopic
method [23]. The dry samples were treated with Fenton’s reagent pre­
pared by mixing 0.05 M Fe (II) solution with 30% hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2) (Chem-Supply™) to remove organic materials attached to the
MP particles. Subsequently, 20 mL of Fe (II) solution and 20 mL H2O2
were added to the dry samples and these samples were heated up to
60 ◦ C (following Munno et al.) to accelerate the reaction and to prevent
MP losses during digestion [24]. Further addition of H2O2 was done in
case there were still traces of organic matter [25]. The samples were left
to cool down for 24 h and then filtered through a set of sieves to wash
away the residue from Fenton’s reagent with DI water. The samples were
then transferred to a beaker and dried at 60 ◦ C.
Density separation was employed to separate MP particles from
sediment and other inorganic materials. In this study, a sodium iodide
(NaI) (99.0% KemAus) solution with a density of approximately 1.5 g/
cm3 was used due to its high recovery rate, cost-effectiveness, and
recyclability [26,27]. The NaI solution was added to the samples and
stirred continuously for 15 min. The samples were transferred to a cyl­
inder and left for 24 h to let them settle down. Particles that floated on
the surface of the solution were extracted and categorized into three size
fractions by wet sieving: 1–5 mm, 0.5–1 mm, and 0.05–0.5 mm. MP
samples were vacuum-filtered onto a gridded cellulose nitrate mem­
brane filter with a pore size of 0.45 µm (Whatman), placed on a petri
dish, and covered with aluminum foil.
Fluorescent tagging using Nile Red (Biotium) (adapted from Tam­
minga et al. [28]) was used to quantify MPs smaller than 0.5 mm. Nile
red staining method can be used to discriminate synthetic polymers from
other inorganic particles [29]. Filter papers containing samples with size
fraction of 0.05 – 0.5 mm were stained with Nile Red in chloroform
(99.8% RCI labscan) (1 mg/mL). Samples were covered with aluminum
foil and left under the fume hood for 24 h. Stained filter papers were
photographed under a fluorescence microscope (Delta Vision™ Elite cell
K. Tadsuwan and S. Babel
Imaging System).
2.3.2. Sludge samples
Sludge samples were collected from return activated sludge. Samples
were first dried at 105 ◦ C until a constant weight was obtained and then
the total solid content was determined. Saturated Nal solution was
added to a beaker of the sewage sludge sample and continuously stirred
for 15 min. The top water layer was separated and washed with DI water
to remove salt residue. Samples were dried at 60 ◦ C before pre-treatment
with Fenton’s reagent, similar to the samples in liquid fraction. After
cooling down for 24 h, the samples were filtered through a sieve set and
the residue of Fenton’s reagent was washed off with DI water. The
retained samples on each sieve size were grouped into three size frac­
tions: 1–5 mm, 0.5–1 mm, and 0.05–0.5 mm. Afterwards, these samples
were vacuum filtered with a cellulose nitrate membrane filter. Nile red
tagging was also employed with the size fraction of 0.05–0.5 mm to
identify the abundance of MPs.
2.4. MP quantification and characterization
Filter papers with size fractions of 1–5 mm and 0.5–1 mm were
inspected under a light microscope (Olympus CX41) with magnifications
of × 4 and × 10. Particles were counted and categorized into shapes:
fragment, fiber, film, and bead. Stained filter papers with a size fraction
of 0.05–0.5 mm were observed through a fluorescence microscope
(Delta Vision™ Elite cell Imaging System) with a magnification of × 4.
The visible blue florescence spots were counted, and the morphologies
were identified.
To obtain removal efficiency of the WWTP, the number of MPs in the
influent and effluent were calculated using Eq. (1).
influent ​ (MPs/L)-effluent (MPs/L)
% removal efficiency = × 100%
influent ​ (MPs/L)
(1)
The polymer types of MPs were identified using spectroscopic
method. MP samples, sizes 1–5 mm and 0.5–1 mm, were picked out with
tweezers individually and analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared
(FTIR) spectroscopy (Nicolet iS50, Thermo Scientific) in the attenuated
total reflectance (ATR) mode with a diamond microtip. The resolution
for analysis was 4 cm-1, with 32 scans. Particles smaller than 0.5 mm
were identified using micro-FTIR (Nicolet iN10, Thermo Scientific) with
the resolution of 8 cm-1 and 64 scans. Ten spots on each filter paper were
selected for identification. Spectral fingerprints were compared to
reference spectra library available in the OMNIC software to obtain
polymer types with a match factor of ≥ 0.70.
2.5. Quality control
Mitigation measures to control airborne- and waterborne-
contamination were strictly followed during sampling and analysis.
Plastic containers and equipment were avoided, and only metal and
glassware were used. DI water was used to rinse all the equipment and
glassware before use in the experiment. The work bench was wiped with
70% ethanol. Most of the procedures were performed under a fume
hood. Blank samples (DI water) were used as control samples during the
experiment. Filter papers of blank samples were observed under a mi­
croscope. A range of 7–12 particles per L of DI water, mostly fibers, was
found on the blank filter papers. The number of similar MPs on blank
samples were subtracted from the study membrane filters as they are
considered background contamination.
2.6. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Minitab 20 software. The
significant differences between the abundance at each sampling point
3
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142
and the size fractions were determine by two-sample t-tests. The value of
p < 0.05 was considered as significantly different.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. MP abundance in the WWTP
MPs were grouped into three size fractions: 1–5 mm, 0.5–1 mm, and
0.05–0.5 mm. Visual sorting under an optical microscope was used to
find the number of MPs (size fractions of 1–5 mm and 0.5–1 mm), which
were then combined with the number of MPs (0.05–0.5 mm) from a
florescence microscope. An example of a dyed filter photographed under
a fluorescence microscope is shown in Fig. 2. There were no plastic
pieces larger than 5 mm found in this study. The most abundant size of
MPs in the treatment system were in the size range of 0.05–0.5 mm
(Fig. 3). Size 0.05–0.5 mm MPs were significantly more abundant than
1–5 mm and 0.05–0.5 mm (p < 0.05) sized MPs. The average number of
MPs entering the system was 77 ± 7.21 particles/L (S1), and a total of
10.67 ± 3.51 particles/L were discharged with the final effluent (S4)
(Table 1). MPs within the size fraction of 1–5 mm were successfully
removed after the secondary treatment (Fig. 4). MPs were significantly
removed by the grit chamber and fine screen (S2) (p < 0.05). The
number of MPs removed by the grit chamber and fine screen (S2) was
25.55% (Table 1). The number of MPs increased to 40.70% in the
aeration tank (S3) (Table 1). MPs were not completely eliminated from
the treatment system but they were retained in the sludge. Once the
sludge was recycled and returned to the aeration tanks, MPs were
resuspended in this stage. Thus, no removal of MPs was observed during
this process. Most importantly, 81.91% of MPs were removed after the
final clarifier (S4) (Table 1). The removal of MPs at the final clarifier was
significant (p < 0.05). Furthermore, there was an extra 78.16% MP
reduction after the UF (S5). Therefore, the addition of UF aided in a
significant removal of MPs (p < 0.05).
The overall removal efficiency was based on the number of MPs at
the influent and effluent. Overall removal efficiency was calculated at
86.14% after the final clarifier, and 96.97% after the tertiary treatment.
As per the results, the installation of an UF unit could improve the
overall efficiency of the WWTP. Despite of the small pore size of UF
membrane (0.1 µm), 0.05–0.5 mm MPs was the only group detected in
the UF effluent. MP particles tend to escape the WWTP by occasional
breakthroughs of filters [30], and are released into the environment. In
addition, smaller size particles correspond to greater adsorption of
persistent organic pollutants due to higher specific surface area [31,32].
However, membrane fouling can occur due to the formation of the
cake layer, which is the main obstacle for the membrane filtration’s
Fig. 2. MP particles photographed under a fluorescence microscope with
4 × magnification.
K. Tadsuwan and S. Babel Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142

100% action to prevent the accumulation of MPs in the ocean.

90% Due to the lack of primary sedimentation, MPs were largely removed
80%
after the secondary treatment. Thus, a final clarifier is the most impor­
tant unit for MP removal in this WWTP. A study by Liu et al. [33] re­
70%
ported that a primary settling tank exhibited excellent MP removal
60%
0.05 - 0.5 mm
efficiency. The combination of grit and grease removal and primary
50%
0.5 - 1 mm
sedimentation is the most crucial step for MP removal [36]. Fiber can be
40% 1 - 5 mm easily trapped with grit or gets attached to larger particles and settles
30% down during the primary treatment [37], while fragments can be
reduced further in secondary processes by entrapment in solid flocs and
20%
settlement in a final clarifier [38]. However, the entrapment of MPs on
10%
an unstable floc might result in redistribution and escape during the
0% clarification process [38].
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 SS
Tertiary and advanced treatments are used to remove specific pol­
Fig. 3. Percentage distribution of the different size classes of MPs during the lutants that cannot be removed by conventional treatments [10]. Table 2
wastewater treatment steps. S1 = after inlet pumping, S2 = after the grit trap, provides MPs removal efficiencies of various tertiary treatment tech­
S3 = the aeration tank, S4 = effluent from the final clarifier, S5 = effluent from nologies. Most of the advanced technologies displayed high removal
ultrafiltration, and SS = sewage sludge. efficiency to above 90%. The overall removal efficiency of MP is this
study is in accordance with the study by Mintenig et al. [13]. With an
installation of UF unit, approximate 97% of MP removal is attained. The
Table 1 membrane bioreactor (MBR) exhibited the highest removal rate. MBR is
Number of MPs released from each sampling site per day, and removal also considered as the most cost-effective option for MP removal [39].
efficiencies.
The number of MPs in the influent and effluent can vary depending on
Sampling MPs/L million MPs/ % Removal Cumulative % the size of the smallest mesh. Regardless of the level of removal effi­
site day after each removal
ciency, considerable amounts of MP particles can still escape into the
location
environment because of the large volumes of wastewater being treated
S1 77( ± 7.21) 9240 ± 865 0 0 daily.
S2 57.33 6880 ± 970 25.55% 25.55%
( ± 8.08)
The abundance of MP particles in sludge samples generated from the
S3 96.67 11,600 ± 3611 – 25.55% final clarifier was 2.63 ± 1.26 × 104 particles/kg (dry weight). The
( ± 30.09) number of MPs in the sludge is in the range of the study by Li et al. in
S4 10.67 1280 ± 421 81.91% 86.14% China and Lassen et al. in Germany [42,43]. The largest group of MPs in
( ± 3.51)
the sewage sludge was of size fraction 0.05–0.5 mm, similar to MPs in
S5 2.33 280 ± 183 78.16% 96.97%
( ± 1.53) liquid fraction (Fig. 4). MPs removed during the settling stage in the
final clarifier were retained in the sludge. Sewage sludge from the final
clarifier is typically dewatered by the sludge dewatering system within
the WWTP and later transported to other sludge digestion facilities. Dry
140
sewage sludge is later used for agriculture. A study by Chen et al. [44]
120 found that agricultural soil was contaminated with fibers and
Microplastic particles/L

100
80
60
40
20
0 bodies by surface runoff.
1-5 mm 0.5-1 mm 0.05-0.5 mm
Fig. 4. Number of MP particles per L of wastewater from treatment steps.
S1 = after inlet pumping, S2 = after the grit trap, S3 = after the aeration tank,
S4 = effluent from the final clarifier, S5 = effluent from ultrafiltration, and SS
= sewage sludge.
performance [33]. Therefore, it is important to implement mitigation
measures for membrane fouling from MPs such as frequent backwash.
The application of coatings onto commercial membrane materials pro­
vides high polarity and controlled surface chemistry which can reduce
membrane fouling [34].
The capacity of this WWTP was 120,000 m3/day in the dry season
during the sample collection. A total of 1280 ± 421 million particles
could be released daily from secondary effluent (S4) into the connected
freshwater ecosystem (Table 1). Even when a full-scale UF unit is
operated, 280 ± 183 million MPs per day can still be discharged to
nearby canals regardless to higher removal efficiency (Table 1). It is
reported that more than one million MP particles are discharged daily
from wastewater treatment plant in many countries (Australia, Canada,
Scotland, Finland, and Italy) [35]. This high MP load requires urgent
microbeads due to the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer. Synthetic fibers
S1
detected in sludge-applied soil retained the same characteristics even
S2
after many years of the application as they were in the sludge [45].
S3
Kumar et al. [46] reported some adverse effects of MPs in the soil
S4
environment that negatively impact flora and fauna and pose risks to
S5
human health when chemicals in MPs are transferred through the food
chain. MPs contaminating the soil can also be transported to water
total
Other sludge treatment was assessed to investigate the abundance of
MP and their spread with land application. MPs were also found in the
sludge after thermal drying and lime stabilization [47]. Smaller size
range of MPs were detected in a larger proportion in sludge after lime
stabilization due to shearing stress during treatment process [47].
Incineration was predicted to be a promising method for MP removal
from the sludge. However, the bottom ash from the incinerator was
contaminated with MPs and was pointed out as a potential source for
MPs [48]. There is still a challenge to remove MP from the sludge,
otherwise, these pollutants might end up in the environment.
3.2. MP characterization
Fibers were found in both liquid fraction and sewage sludge (≥ 60%)
(Fig. 5). Fibers are the dominant group, as per several studies [15,40,
49–51]. Even though large proportions of fibers were found in the
effluent from secondary treatment (S4) and UF (S5), some of the fibers
were removed by the final clarifier, and they were found in the sewage
sludge (SS) (Fig. 5). Larger proportion of fibers were detected in S3
collected from aeration tanks than at S2 as a result of recycled sewage

4
K. Tadsuwan and S. Babel Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142

Table 2
Comparison of MP removal by tertiary treatment technologies.
Location Type of tertiary treatment Influent (MPs/L) Effluent (MPs/L) Overall removal efficiency Reference

Germany UF ND 0 (>500 µm) 97% [13]

1 × 104 (<500 µm)
a
Australia UF and reverse osmosis (RO) 2.2 0.28 after UF 0.21 after RO 90% [12]
China Denitrification 12.03 ± 1.29 0.59 ± 0.22 95.16 ± 1.57% [40]
UF
O3
UV
Finland Pilot-scale MBR 57.6 ± 12.4 0.4 ± 0.1 99.4% [41]
Finland MBR 6.9 0.005 99.99% [30]
Rapid sand filter 0.7 0.02 97%
Dissolved air floatation 2 0.1 95%
Disc-filter 0.5 – 2.0 0.03 – 0.3 40 – 98.5%
Italy Sand filter 2.5 ± 0.3 0.4 ± 0.1 84% [8]
Thailand Pilot-scale UF 77 ± 7.21 2.33 ± 1.53 96.97% This study

ND = no data
a
the number of MPs in the primary effluent was used for calculation.

100%
3%2%
90% 3%
6%
Percentage distribution of shapes

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Fig. 5. Percentage distribution of different shapes of MP samples, found at each
sampling point in the WWTP. S1 = after inlet pumping, S2 = after the grit trap,
S3 = aeration tank, S4 = effluent from the final clarifier, S5 = effluent from
ultrafiltration, and SS = sewage sludge.
sludge. Microplastic fibers, which were already trapped to flocs, were
carried along with the sludge and redistributed in the aeration tanks.
The percentage of fibers is even higher in S4 because fibers could easily
escape with the overflow from weir during final clarification. Talvitie
et al. [5] found insignificant removal of fibers during secondary treat­
ment, and fibers were mostly removed during primary sedimentation.
Since the studied WWTP had no primary sedimentation tank, thus
higher number of fibers were found in the effluent. In S5, although the
mesh size of the UF is very fine, fibers can still escape due to their small
size and morphology [30]. A small proportion of film and fragments
were also detected in the sludge (SS). Only 5.13% (2 items) of spherical
MPs (beads) were found in effluent from grit removal (S2). The reduced
number of microbeads from personal care products detected in this
WWTP might be a result of a ban on plastic microbead usage in Thailand
from January 1, 2020 [52].
MPs with a size fraction of 1–5 mm and 0.5–1 mm were analyzed
with FTIR. The selected MP samples were large enough to be handled
with tweezers. MPs in the size range of 0.05–0.5 mm were tested by FTIR
connected with a microscope (micro-FTIR) and photographed. The
limitation of spectroscopic analysis was that all of 0.05–0.5 mm parti­
cles, which is the largest proportion, could not be tested by micro-FTIR.
Ten spots were selected as a representative of each filter paper. Only
50% of all suspected particles were tested by both FTIR and micro-FTIR,
and 68 items were found to be synthetic polymers from every sampling
point. The results from both FTIR and micro-FTIR showed that there
were 9 types of polymers found in the samples (Fig. 6). The most pre­
dominant polymer type was polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from
PE
3% 29% PET
EDPM rubber
bead
10% PP
fragment
film PS
fiber
4% Acrylic polymer
PU
PA
Alkyd
SS
40%
Fig. 6. Polymer type distribution of microplastics identified by FTIR and
micro-FTIR.
suspected microfibers. An example of PET fibers is shown in Fig. 7. PET
is a predominant group of polyesters (PES) used for fiber production
[53]. The study by Lares et al. reported that the majority of microplastic
fibers found in the WWTP were identified as PES [41]. Murphy et al. also
detected the largest proportion of PES in the final effluent from the
WWTP [36]. Some of the fibers were identified as natural polymers such
as silk and cotton, some particles were organic debris such as chipboard,
and film was identified as cellophane. The number of other natural
materials was excluded from the total count. Talvitie et al. reported that
cotton was the dominant group among fibers detected in the WWTP.
Though natural polymers are considered as non-plastic materials, they
can become anthropogenic pollutant when they are released to the
environment due to the manufacturing processes of natural polymers
including dying or bleaching and the blending of chemical additives to
improve mechanical properties [54,55]. Natural fibers may absorb
surrounding pollutants and act as a carrier to harmful substances which
can be released to the environment [56]. Michielssen et al. introduced a
term called “small anthropogenic litter” which include plastic material
and cellulosic products manufactured from natural material [57]. Both
synthetic and natural fibers can pose negative impact to the environ­
ment. WWTPs act as a final barrier to prevent these pollutants to the
water bodies.
The proportion of synthetic textiles is about 60% of the global fiber
production [58]. The three main polymer types used in textile industry
are PET, acrylic (polyacrylonitrile; PAN), and nylon (polyamide; PA)
[59]. The types of microfibers found can be related to the synthetic
textile released during washing. Polyester shed the highest amount of
fibers in one wash among all the types of fabric [60]. Up to 700,000

5
K. Tadsuwan and S. Babel
100
80
% Transmittance
60
40
20
0
3400
Wavenumber (cm-1)
100
80
% Transmittance
60
40
20
0
3400
Wavenumber (cm-1)
Fig. 7. Example spectrum of MP samples (A) red fiber identified as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (B) black fragment identified as isotactic polypropylene (PP).
fibers can be released per average wash load [7]. Microfibers are the
most dominant shapes detected along the shoreline and in open oceans
[58]. WWTPs can be a potential land-based source of microfibers found
along the coastline and in the ocean. Therefore, Carney Almroth et al.
[60] have suggested solutions to reduce the number of fibers generated
through laundering including smarter textile production, additional
filters in household washing machines, and prewashing and vacuum
exhaustion during textile manufacture. Besides PET fibers, polyethylene
(PE) is the second largest polymer in the WWTP. PE has been used in a
wide range of applications, especially in packaging. PE production ac­
counts for 36% of the total plastic production and is the largest group
among non-fiber plastic products [61]. PE was found in the form of film
and fragments in the studied samples. Carr et al. found some
irregular-shape PE derived from toothpaste [38]. High PE loads detected
in wastewater could be from both cosmetics and abrasion of household
products [13].
The result of this study is in accordance with the study of Ziajahromi
et al. and Lares et al. where the most abundant group of MPs was
polyester fiber followed by PE [12,41]. Mintenig et al. found that PE
dominated all samples in WWTPs and most of the synthetic fibers were
identified as PES [13]. PE and PES were also the most abundant MPs in
treated wastewater [62]. Sun et al. reviewed that there were 4 common
polymers found in the influent and effluent of WWTPs: PES, PE, PET, and
polyamide PA, and other types were acrylate, alkyd, polypropylene
(PP), polystyrene (PS), Polyurethane (PU), PS acrylic, polyvinyl alcohol,
and polylactide (PA) [63]. The differences of polymer types of MPs
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142
A
2400 1400 400
B
2400 1400 400
contaminated in wastewater depends on the population the WWTPs
serve. Regardless to high removal efficiency of the WWTP with UF unit,
the WWTP is considered as an important source of MPs to aquatic
environment.
4. Conclusions
The results of MP sampling from the selected WWTP show that MPs
were discharged with the final effluent from this conventional treatment
system. Since this WWTP lacks a primary settling tank, the final clarifier
assumes a major role for MP removal. The addition of a tertiary treat­
ment using UF enhanced the overall removal efficiency of the plant.
However, the operation of the UF unit is still on a pilot-scale.
The actual number of MPs discharged with the final effluent was
considerable from the conventional WWTP. The most dominant group in
both liquid fraction and sewage sludge was of size fraction
0.05–0.5 mm, and more than 60% fibers were found at every sampling
point. The results from FTIR and micro-FTIR show that the most abun­
dant group was PET in the form of fibers derived from the laundering
process. The retained MPs were found in the sewage sludge. Most of the
sludge after digestion and air-drying is released into soil. Thus, MP
pollutants can be transported to aquatic environments by surface runoff.
It is still challenging to eliminate MPs retained in the sludge to prevent
further spread to the environment. Further study should focus on the
treatment technology to remove MPs from the sludge.
Ultrafiltration as a tertiary treatment can enhance MP removal in a
6
K. Tadsuwan and S. Babel
WWTP. Despite of very fine pore size, MPs were not completely removed
from wastewater. A considerable number of MPs are being released daily
with the final effluent. Factors affecting not complete removal by
advanced filtration system must be further studied to improve the effi­
ciency of MP removal. Other advance treatment technologies such as
membrane bioreactor can also improve the performance of WWTP in MP
retention. However, no study so far has achieved 100% MP removal
efficiency. The design of final-stage technologies needs to take into ac­
count the complexity of the wastewater being processed. The population
and surrounding activities are some of the factors that affect the number
and characteristics of MPs entering a WWTP. Moreover, cost-
effectiveness of an advanced technology must be considered by deci­
sion makers to improve the quality of wastewater effluent.
In developing countries, not only a conventional treatment system is
utilized for wastewater treatment. Pond systems such as aerated lagoon,
constructed wetland, and waste stabilization pond are also employed to
treat domestic wastewater in sub-urban or rural area due to less cost and
maintenance. The study on the effects of these pond system on MP
removal is crucial as treated wastewater is reused in irrigation and
discharged into the river. Future research should focus on the efficiency
of each pond system and planning for MP prevention at source.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Katekanya Tadsuwan conducted the research, and wrote the draft
manuscript and revised based on the comments. Sandhya Babel, the
corresponding author, supervised the research, and corrected the draft
and revised manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a Ph.D. scholarship provided to the first
author by the Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Tham­
masat University, Thailand.
References
[1] P. Kershaw, Sources, fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A
Global Assessment, International Maritime Organization, 2015.
[2] P. Bhatt, V.M. Pathak, A.R. Bagheri, M. Bilal, Microplastic contaminants in the
aqueous environment, fate, toxicity consequences, and remediation strategies,
Environ. Res. 200 (2021), 111762.
[3] L.G.A. Barboza, A. Dick Vethaak, B.R.B.O. Lavorante, A.K. Lundebye,
L. Guilhermino, Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security,
food safety and human health, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133 (2018) 336–348.
[4] S.L. Wright, F.J. Kelly, Plastic and human health: a micro issue? Environ. Sci.
Technol. 51 (12) (2017) 6634–6647.
[5] 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
microplastics? Preliminary study in the coastal Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea, Water
Sci. Technol. J. Int. Assoc. Water Pollut. Res. 72 (2015) 1495–1504.
[6] A.M. Mahon, R. Officer, R. Nash, et al., Scope, fate, risks and impacts of
microplastic pollution in irish freshwater systems, (2017).
[7] I.E. Napper, R.C. Thompson, Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from
domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing conditions, Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 112 (1–2) (2016) 39–45.
[8] S. Magni, A. Binelli, L. Pittura, C.G. Avio, C. Della Torre, C.C. Parenti, S. Gorbi,
F. Regoli, The fate of microplastics in an Italian Wastewater Treatment Plant, Sci.
Total Environ. 652 (2019) 602–610.
[9] 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 (21) (2011) 9175–9179.
[10] P.U. Iyare, S.K. Ouki, T. Bond, Microplastics removal in wastewater treatment
plants: a critical review, Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 6 (10) (2020)
2664–2675.
7
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142
[11] 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.
[12] S. Ziajahromi, P.A. Neale, L. Rintoul, F. 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.
[13] 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.
[14] A.H. Hamidian, E.J. Ozumchelouei, F. Feizi, C. Wu, Y. Zhang, M. Yang, A review on
the characteristics of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: a source for
toxic chemicals, J. Clean. Prod. 295 (2021), 126480.
[15] P. Ren, M. Dou, C. Wang, G. Li, R. Jia, Abundance and removal characteristics of
microplastics at a wastewater treatment plant in Zhengzhou, Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 27 (29) (2020) 36295–36305.
[16] TDRI. Disparity worsens ocean pollution, 2021 December 17, 2021; Available
from: 〈https://tdri.or.th/en/2021/06/disparity-worsens-ocean-pollution/〉.
[17] PCD, สถานการณ์มลพิษของประเทศไทยปี 2563 [Pollution status in Thailand 2020],
Pollution Control Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment,
Thailand.
[18] N. Hongprasith, C. Kittimethawong, R. Lertluksanaporn, T. Eamchotchawalit,
S. Kittipongvises, J. Lohwacharin, IR microspectroscopic identification of
microplastics in municipal wastewater treatment plants, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
27 (15) (2020) 18557–18564.
[19] K. Tadsuwan, S. Babel, Microplastic contamination in a conventional wastewater
treatment plant in Thailand, Waste Manag. Res. 39 (5) (2021) 754–761.
[20] A.P.W. Barrows, C.A. Neumann, M.L. Berger, S.D. Shaw, Grab vs. neuston tow net:
a microplastic sampling performance comparison and possible advances in the
field, Anal. Methods 9 (2017) 9–1453.
[21] D.S. Green, L. Kregting, B. Boots, D.J. Blockley, P. Brickle, M. da Costa, Q. Crowley,
A comparison of sampling methods for seawater microplastics and a first report of
the microplastic litter in coastal waters of Ascension and Falkland Islands, Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 137 (2018) 137–701.
[22] J. Masura, J. Baker, G. Foster, et al., Laboratory methods for the analysis of
microplastics in the marine environment: recommendations for quantifying
synthetic particles in waters and sediments, (2015).
[23] A.S. Tagg, J.P. Harrison, Y. Ju-Nam, M. Sapp, E.L. Bradley, C.J. Sinclair, J.J. Ojeda,
Fenton’s reagent for the rapid and efficient isolation of microplastics from
wastewater, Chem. Commun. 53 (2) (2017) 372–375.
[24] K. Munno, P.A. Helm, D.A. Jackson, C. Rochman, A. Sims, Impacts of temperature
and selected chemical digestion methods on microplastic particles, Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 37 (1) (2018) 91–98.
[25] A. Dyachenko, J. Mitchell, N. Arsem, Extraction and identification of microplastic
particles from secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) effluent, Anal.
Methods (2016) 9.
[26] M. Kedzierski, V. Le Tilly, G. César, O. Sire, S. Bruzaud, Efficient microplastics
extraction from sand. A cost effective methodology based on sodium iodide
recycling, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 115 (1) (2017) 120–129.
[27] B. Quinn, F. Murphy, C. Ewins, Validation of density separation for the rapid
recovery of microplastics from sediment, Anal. Methods 9 (9) (2017) 1491–1498.
[28] M. Tamminga, E. Hengstmann, E. Fischer, Nile Red staining as a subsidiary method
for microplastic quantification: a comparison of three solvents and factors
influencing application reliability, SDRP J. Earth Sci. Environ. Stud. 2 (2017) 2.
[29] W.J. Shim, Y.K. Song, S.H. Hong, M. Jang, Identification and quantification of
microplastics using Nile Red staining, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 113 (1) (2016) 469–476.
[30] 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) 123–407.
[31] I. Velzeboer, C.J.A.F. Kwadijk, A.A. Koelmans, Strong sorption of PCBs to
nanoplastics, microplastics, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 48 (9) (2014) 4869–4876.
[32] J. Wang, X. Liu, G. Liu, Z. Zhang, H. Wu, B. Cui, J. Bai, W. Zhang, Size effect of
polystyrene microplastics on sorption of phenanthrene and nitrobenzene,
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 173 (2019) 331–338.
[33] W. Liu, J. Zhang, H. Liu, X. Guo, X. Zhang, X. Yao, Z. Cao, T. Zhang, A review of the
removal of microplastics in global wastewater treatment plants: characteristics and
mechanisms, Environ. Int. 146 (2021), 106277.
[34] M. Enfrin, J. Lee, A.G. Fane, L.F. Dumée, Mitigation of membrane particulate
fouling by nano/microplastics via physical cleaning strategies, Sci. Total Environ.
788 (2021), 147689.
[35] C. Bretas Alvim, J.A. Mendoza-Roca, A. Bes-Piá, Wastewater treatment plant as
microplastics release source – quantification and identification techniques,
J. Environ. Manag. 255 (2020), 109739.
[36] F. Murphy, C. Ewins, F. Carbonnier, B. Quinn, Wastewater Treatment Works
(WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50 (11) (2016) 5800–5808.
[37] 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.
[38] S.A. Carr, J. Liu, A.G. Tesoro, Transport and fate of microplastic particles in
wastewater treatment plants, Water Res. 91 (2016) 174–182.
[39] L. Vuori, M. Ollikainen, How to remove microplastics in wastewater? A cost-
effectiveness analysis, Ecol. Econ. 192 (2022), 107246.
[40] L. Yang, K. Li, S. Cui, Y. Kang, L. An, K. Lei, Removal of microplastics in municipal
sewage from China’s largest water reclamation plant, Water Res. 155 (2019)
175–181.
K. Tadsuwan and S. Babel
[41] M. Lares, M.C. Ncibi, M. Sillanpää, M. Sillanpää, Occurrence, identification and
removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge
process and advanced MBR technology, Water Res. 133 (2018) 236–246.
[42] X. Li, L. Chen, Q. Mei, B. Dong, X. Dai, G. Ding, E.Y. Zeng, Microplastics in sewage
sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China, Water Res. 142 (2018)
75–85.
[43] C. Lassen, S.F. Hansen, K. Magnusson, et al., Microplastics-Occurrence, effects and
sources of, Significance 2 (2012) 2.
[44] Y. Chen, Y. Leng, X. Liu, J. Wang, Microplastic pollution in vegetable farmlands of
suburb Wuhan, central China, Environ. Pollut. 257 (2020), 113449.
[45] K.A.V. Zubris, B.K. Richards, Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application of
sludge, Environ. Pollut. 138 (2) (2005) 201–211.
[46] M. Kumar, X. Xiong, M. He, D. Tsang, J. Gupta, E. Khan, S. Harrad, D. Hou, Y.S. Ok,
N.S. Bolan, Microplastics as pollutants in agricultural soils, Environ. Pollut. 265
(2020), 114980.
[47] A.M. Mahon, B. Connell, M. Healy, et al., Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of
treatment, Environ. Sci. Technol. (2016) 51.
[48] Z. Yang, F. Lü, H. Zhang, W. Wang, L. Shao, J. Ye, P. He, Is incineration the
terminator of plastics and microplastics? J. Hazard. Mater. 401 (2021), 123429.
[49] 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.
[50] 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,
wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota, Environ. Int. 101
(2017) 133–142.
[51] 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
municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent, Environ. Pollut. 218 (2016)
1045–1054.
[52] FDA, Notice of Thailand Ministry of Public Health’s. Food and Drug
Administration, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand, 2019 (Editor).
[53] J. Militky, 9 - The chemistry, manufacture and tensile behaviour of polyester fibers,
in: A.R. Bunsell (Ed.), Handbook of Tensile Properties of Textile and Technical
Fibres, Woodhead Publishing, 2009, pp. 223–314.
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 10 (2022) 107142
[54] C. Edo, M. González-Pleiter, F. Leganés, F. Fernández-Piñas, R. Rosal, Fate of
microplastics in wastewater treatment plants and their environmental dispersion
with effluent and sludge, Environ. Pollut. 259 (2020), 113837.
[55] J.W. O’Brien, P.K. Thai, S.H. Brandsma, P. Leonards, C. Ort, J.F. Mueller,
Wastewater analysis of Census day samples to investigate per capita input of
organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers into wastewater, Chemosphere
138 (2015) 328–334.
[56] S.M. Ladewig, S. Bao, A.T. Chow, Natural fibers: a missing link to chemical
pollution dispersion in aquatic environments, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (21) (2015)
12609–12610.
[57] M.R. Michielssen, E.R. Michielssen, J. Ni, 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 (6) (2016)
1064–1073.
[58] A.P.W. Barrows, S.E. Cathey, C.W. Petersen, Marine environment microfiber
contamination: global patterns and the diversity of microparticle origins, Environ.
Pollut. 237 (2018) 275–284.
[59] S.T.L. Sait, L. Sørensen, S. Kubowicz, K. Vike-Jonas, S.V. Gonzalez, A.
G. Asimakopoulos, A.M. Booth, Microplastic fibres from synthetic textiles:
environmental degradation and additive chemical content, Environ. Pollut. 268
(2021), 115745.
[60] B.M. Carney Almroth, L. Åström, S. Roslund, H. Petersson, M. Johansson, N.
K. Persson, Quantifying shedding of synthetic fibers from textiles; a source of
microplastics released into the environment, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (2018)
25–1199.
[61] R. Geyer, J. Jambeck, K. Law, Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made,
Sci. Adv. 3 (2017), e1700782.
[62] M. Simon, N. van Alst, J. Vollertsen, Quantification of microplastic mass and
removal rates at wastewater treatment plants applying Focal Plane Array (FPA)-
based Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR) imaging, Water Res. 142 (2018) 1–9.
[63] J. Sun, X. Dai, Q. Wang, M. van Loosdrecht, B.J. Ni, Microplastics in wastewater
treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal, Water Res. 152 (2019)
21–37.