Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

A global review of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants:

Understanding their occurrence, fate and impact
Aarif Yaseen a, Irfana Assad a, Mohd Sharjeel Sofi a, Muhammad Zaffar Hashmi b,
Sami Ullah Bhat a, *
a
Department of Environmental Science, University of Kashmir, 190006, India
b
Department of Chemistry, COMSATS University Islamabad, Pakistan

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

Keywords: Microplastics (MPs) are emerging as a serious environmental concern, with wastewater treatment plants
Microplastics (WWTPs) acting as the main entry routes for MPs into aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. On a global scale, our
Wastewater treatment plants literature review found that MP research in WWTPs has only been conducted on 121 WWTPs in 17 countries,
Sludge
with the majority of the work being done in Europe (53%), followed by the United States of America and Canada
Plastic pollution
(24%), Asia (18%), and Australia (5%) in recent years. MPs in WWTPs are primarily derived from Personal Care
and Cosmetic Products (PCCPs), which are primarily composed of polyethylene (PE) derivatives. Based on the
studies, microfibers (57%) and fragments (47%) are observed to be the most common MP forms in influents and
effluents of WWTPs. The chemical characterization of MPs detected in WWTPs, showed the occurrence of
polyethylene (PE) (22%), polystyrene (PS) (21%), and polypropylene (13%). Although MP retention/removal
efficiencies of different treatment technologies vary from medium to high, deliberations on sludge disposal on
agricultural soils containing MPs and MP intrusion into groundwater are required to sustainably regulate MP
contaminant transport. Thus, the development of efficient detection methods and understanding their fate are of
immense significance for the management of MPs. Despite the fact that ongoing research in MPs and WWTPs has
unquestionably improved our understanding, many questions and concerns remain unanswered. In this review,
the current status of the detection, occurrence, and impact of MPs in WWTPs across the world are systematically
reviewed to prioritize policy-making to recognize the WWTPs as global conduits of MPs.

1. Introduction
Microplastics (MPs) (particle size <5 mm) are emerging pollutants of
increasing environmental concern (Huang et al., 2021), and the research
on MPs has considerably increased (Rozman and Kalčikova, 2021). MPs
pose a huge challenge at the global level due to their ubiquitous distri­
bution and impact on terrestrial and aquatic organisms (Rochman,
2015; Avio et al., 2017a, 2017b; de Souza Machado et al., 2018; Xu
et al., 2020; Amato-Lourenço et al., 2021; Vaid et al., 2021). Some sci­
entists have gone to the extent to refer the increasing plastic pollution as
the era of Plasticene (Haram et al., 2020). Plastics, being one of the most
demanded items (d’Ambrières, 2019) constitutes about 54% of the total
global mass of anthropogenically produced waste (Hoellein et al., 2014).
Plastic debris undergoes degradation in the environment through
physicochemical and enzymatic actions which lead to the emergence of
the new contaminants known as MPs (size <5 mm) and nano plastics
(<1 mm) (Zarfl and Matthies, 2010; do Sul and Costa, 2014; Arpia et al.,
2021). About 90% of plastic commodities are composed of polymers
(low-density and high-density) such as polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
and polystyrene (PS), etc. (Andrady, 2011). Many studies have reported
that plastic degradation not only expedites the formation of small par­
ticles on the micro-and nanoscale but also discharges chemicals and
fragments of low-monomers and oligomers into the environment
(Galloway et al., 2017; Jahnke et al., 2017). Both micro and nano-plastic
particles provide a resilient substrate that can readily be inhabited by
microbes, pathogens (Zettler et al., 2013) and harmful algal species
(Masó et al., 2003) and get transported to very long distances. These
plastic particles contain toxic compounds like dioxins, vinyl chloride,
phthalates bisphenol-A, (BPA), and benzene (in PS), etc. (Proshad et al.,
2018). With time, plastic debris brings new contaminants into the
environment to interact with the microbial community in different

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: samiullahbhat11@gmail.com (S.U. Bhat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113258
Received 25 November 2021; Received in revised form 2 April 2022; Accepted 3 April 2022
Available online 14 April 2022
0013-9351/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Yaseen et al.
biomes, causing unknown effects or disturbances in the networks of the
food chain (Amaral-Zettler et al., 2020).
Meanwhile, global plastic production has continued to rise expo­
nentially and reached 368 million tonnes in 2019 (Plastics Europe,
2020), but at the same time, research on the impact of plastic pollution
has led to a better public understanding of its implications (Plastics
Europe, 2020). UNEP, in its yearbook of 2014, declared MPs as one of
the ten emerging concerns. MPs are also identified as contributing to
biodiversity loss, degradation of natural ecosystems (Gall and Thomp­
son, 2015), and risk to human health (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015).
About 8 million metric tonnes of plastic debris reaches the oceans per
annum (Gourmelon, 2015), suggesting about 5.25 trillion plastic parti­
cles are presently circulating in the ocean’s surface water. This figure is
expected to double from 2010 to 2025 (Dauvergne, 2018). Our pro­
jections based on the linear forecast method using yearly based data
showed that plastic production could reach 724 million metric tons in
2050(Fig. 1a and b). The enormous use of plastic and its products,
coupled with mismanagement, led to MPs being found in aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems (Li and Qian, 2018; Baho et al., 2021).
Various studies have concluded that MPs are released into the
aquatic environment through WWTP outlets, insufficient waste man­
agement, urban runoff, public littering, waste dump run-off, and tourism
activity (Dris et al., 2017; Lambert and Wagner, 2018). WWTPs are the
main recipients of terrestrial MPs (Sun et al., 2019), and could
Fig. 1. a. Showing plastic production from 1950 (Plastics Europe, 2020).b. Projected scenario of plastic production up to 2050.
2
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
circumvent the treatment process in WWTPs and getting piled up in the
environment (Murphy et al., 2016a, 2016b). Researchers are now
investigating the performance and transport of MPs in different types of
WWTPs, and have reported that conventional WWTPs are not efficient in
removing these particles completely from the sewage (Karlsson et al.,
2017; Lee et al., 2021). Even treated effluents and sludge products
release abundant MPs into the environment daily (Ziajahromi et al.,
2017). MPs in the effluent show disparity regarding their shape, size,
and concentration (Alvim et al., 2020). Besides, their concentration is
influenced by seasonal and daily variations in wastewater flow and
WWTP capacity (Gies et al., 2018). Therefore, the key challenges are to
understand the occurrence, fate, and impacts of MPs, together with the
evaluation of the efficiency of WWTPs to detect MPs at each step of the
treatment process (Erkan et al., 2021).
This review is based on studies conducted on MPs in WWTPs
worldwide (See Table 1a in supplementary file) focusing critically on
sources, occurrence, retention capacity, technological improvement,
and impact of contaminated sludge.
2. Sources of MPs in the wastewater
MPs are received by WWTPs through numerous pathways (Ngo et al.,
2019). Different sources, like domestic and urban activities, industrial
sources, and roads (car tyre degradation and road paint) are believed to
A. Yaseen et al. Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258

Table 1 Table 2
Personal Care and Cosmetic Products (PCCPs) as sources of MPs. Showing the shape of MPs in the influent and effluent WWTPs of reported
Sources Size (μm) Dominant Polymer Type References
studies.
Treatment type MPs by shape References
Facial Cleaners <500 PE Cowger et al. (2019)
Facial Cleaners 60–600 PE (Chang, 2015) Influent Effluent
Facial Cleaners 80–186 PE Cheung & Fok (2017)
Body scrubs <200 PE Kalčíková et al. (2017) Influent, P, S and T Mainly fragments (Carr et al., 2016)
Facial scrubs <100 PE Grit and grease Fibres, Fibres, Michielssen et al.
Facial Cleaners 7–1020 PE Lei et al. (2017) Influent, P, S and Fragments Fragments (2016)
Shower gel 110–970 PE T Microbeads, Others
Facial cleanser 60–800 PE (Chang, 2015) Others
Facial scrubs 8–2000 PE Napper et al. (2015) Grit and grease Flakes, Fibres, Films, Beads, Foams in Murphy et al.
Toothpaste 90–300 PE Carr et al. (2016) Influent, P and S all the liquids (2016a, 2016b)
Influent and Fibres, foils and spheres Leslie et al. (2017)
effluent
Effluent Fibres Mintenig et al.
be the sources of MPs in surface waters like lakes, ponds, estuaries, and
(2017)
seas. The amount of MPs released from WWTPs is expected to differ Influent, effluent Mainly fibres After advanced Talvitie et al.
subject to the conditions, such as their level of operation (primary, Before treatment Treatment fibres (2017)
secondary, and tertiary), capacity, location, region, season, rainfall, and Influent, P, S and T Fibres, Fibres, Talvitie et al.
Fragments, Fragments, (2017)
urban waste, etc. (Conley et al., 2019). The differences in the concen­
Flakes Flakes
tration of MPs among various WWTPs can be attributed to a range of Films
factors such as population, catchment area, land use, sources of waste­ Effluent, P, S, T Mainly fibres and granules Ziajahromi et al.
water (residential, commercial, or industrial), and the presence of joint (2017)
sewerage systems. Because the majority of MPs are derived from Influent, P and S Fibres, Fragments, Pellets, Others Gies et al. (2018)
Screening and Fibres, Fibres, Gündoğdu et al.
household sewage, the preference of citizens in the catchment area for
effluent Fragments, Films Fragments, (2018)
synthetic clothing or plastic products may also influence the overall MP Films
concentration in the wastewater stream (Sun et al., 2019). For instance, P and T Fibres, Fragments Lares et al. (2018)
a study conducted on 17 WWTPs in the United States found that MPs Influent and Fibres, Fibres, Lee & Kim (2018)
effluent Fragments Fragments
concentration and the total population served are positively correlated
Influent, S and Mainly fragments Simon et al. (2018)
(Mason et al., 2016). The joint sewer system was found to be linked to Effluent
the high load of MP concentrations and Small Anthropogenic Litter Influent, Fibres, Fragments, Films, Pellets Blair et al. (2019)
(SAL) in the influent (Michielssen et al., 2016). Household laundry and Grit and grease,
cleaning agents like microbeads, synthetic textile fibers, and abrasive P, S and T
Influent and Fibres, Particles Conley et al. (2019)
plastic particles break down different sized MPs into further smaller
effluent
pieces, thus contributing to the pool of MPs that eventually find their Influent, P, Microbeads, WWTP – 1: Hidayaturrahman
way in WWTPs via liquid waste collection systems (Browne et al., 2011; S, coagulation- fibres, sheets, Microbeads, & Lee (2019)
Hurley and Nizzetto, 2018). The MP pollutants in the WWTPs consist of flocculation fragments fibres, sheets,
both primary and secondary forms, having different composition and effluent and WWTP – 2: fragments
effluent Microbeads, WWTP – 2:
sources (Dyachenko et al., 2017). The primary MPs come in the form of fibres, sheets Microbeads,
plastic pellets and microbeads manufactured for PCCPs, like facial , fragments fibres, sheets,
cleansers, toothpaste, shower gel, and body scrubs, etc. These particles WWTP – 3: fragments
usually possess spherical or irregular shapes (Table 1) (Eriksen et al., Microbeads, WWTP – 3:
fibres, sheets, Microbeads,
2013; Cheung and Fok, 2017; Magni et al., 2019). The secondary class of
fragments Fibres,
MPs is formed when plastic is degraded and fragmented by biotic and fragments
abiotic processes in the environment (Cole et al., 2011) and gets released Influent and Fragments, Fragments, Kazour et al. (2019)
into the WWTPs (Zettler et al., 2013; He et al., 2020). Besides this, fibres effluent Fibres Fibres
released from textiles through dry-cleaning are also regarded as sec­ Influent, P, S and T Fragments, Fibres, Liu et al. (2019a,
Fibres, Fragment, 2019b)
ondary MP pollutants in WWTPs (Mason et al., 2016; Hernandez et al., Microbeads, Films,
2017a, 2017b). Ellipse, Films, Microbeads
A study has reported that a single face wash contributes about Foams
94,500 microbeads to the drainage system with their sorption potential Grit and grease, Granules, Granules, Long et al. (2019)
Influent, Fragments, Fibres,
intact to transport chemicals to contaminate the marine environment
oxidation ditch Fibres, Pellets Fragments,
(Napper et al., 2015). The MPs released into the WWTPs in the form of effluent, S and T Pellets
pellets and microbeads from PCCPs are generally PE based on synthetic Influent, P, S and T Films, Fibres, Films, Magni et al. (2019)
polymers (Table 1). A single-use of approximately ~1.6 g of toothpaste Fragments, Fragments
contributes up to 4000 PE fragments (Carr et al., 2016). Other types of Fibres
Grit and grease, Fragments, Fibres, Films and Foams Lv et al. (2019)
MPs found in the WWTPs are fragments, films, foam, and microbeads Influent
(Table 2) (Murphy et al., 2016a, 2016b; Magni et al., 2019; Raju et al., oxidation ditch
2020). A substantial amount of MP dust in the atmosphere gets washed effluent, S and T
off by precipitation and is carried to the WWTPs through storm water P, S and T Microfibres, Microparticles Yang et al. (2019)
Influent and Soft plastics, Fibres, Hard Akarsu et al. (2020)
runoff (Ngo et al., 2019).
effluent Hard plastics plastics
Soft plastics,
3. Occurrence of MPs and mirofibers in WWTPs Others
Influent, P and S Fragments, Films, Beads, Fibres, Bayo et al. (2020)
Since 2015, the presence of MPs in WWTPs is now being reported Foams
Grit and grease and Fibres, Films, Fragments, Beads Bayo et al. (2020)
from different countries (Browne et al., 2011, Karlsson et al., 2017; T
Talvitie et al., 2017). WWTPs collect and treat wastewater containing
(continued on next page)

3
A. Yaseen et al. Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258

Table 2 (continued ) MPs in WWTPs has been reported in a few countries (Fig. 2a and b and
Treatment type MPs by shape References Table 3). About 28 WWTPs systems in the United States have been
studied for the MP removal efficiencies at different treatment stages,
Influent Effluent
along with advanced technologies like Membrane bioreactors (MBR),
P and S Fragments, Fragments, Edo et al. (2020) Biological active filters (BAF), Gravitation filters (GF) etc. (Table 3). The
Fibres Fibres
samples collected from the influent and effluent of different WWTPs
Grit and Grease Fragments, Fragments, Park et al. (2020)
and effluent Fibres Fibres across the US are recognized as the main pathway for MPs entering the
Grit and grease, Fragments, Fibres, Raju et al. (2018) aquatic environment (Mason et al., 2016). Furthermore, the occurrence
Influent Fibres, Films, Fragments, of MPs in WWTPs in ten European countries (Finland, Denmark, Ger­
And effluent Glitter, Foams, Films, Glitter, many, Netherlands, Turkey, Spain, France, Sweden, Scotland, and Italy)
Beads, Others Beads, Others
P and S Fibres, Fibres, Ziajahromi et al.
has been studied, comprising 64 treatment plants. Very little work has
Fragments, Fragments (2021) been carried out in the Asian subcontinent on MPs in WWTPs systems.
Granules (Fig. 2a and Table 3).
P and S Fibres, Fragments Vardar et al. (2021) Plastic microfibres (<5 mm) and nanofibres (<100 nm) are the most
P, S and T Fibres Prajapati et al.
prevalent types of MPs. These fibres are cosmopolitan and comprise up
(2021)
P and S Fragments, Granules, Films, Fibres Yuan et al. (2021) to 35% of secondary MPs (Prata, 2018) mostly coming from domestic
P and S Fibres, Films, Fragments, Granules Naji et al. (2021) greywater (Browne et al., 2011). Microfibers are abundantly prevalent
P and S Flakes, Spheres, Fibres, Filaments, Franco et al. (2021) in sewage and WWTPs and are recognized as one of the land-based
Fragments sources of MPs in the aquatic environment (Murphy et al., 2016a,
P-Primary; S-Secondary; T-Tertiary. 2016b; Ziajahromi et al., 2017; Lares et al., 2018). Depending upon the
source, microfibers enter into the environment as primary and second­
MPs generated from the use of personal care products and synthetic fi­ ary forms that are released during the production or use of textiles. The
bres originating from synthetic clothes (Conley et al., 2019). WWTPs are occurrence of fibres in influents and effluents of WWTP have been
regarded as a significant point source for MP emission. Even though greatly reported in the laundering of synthetic fibres. For example, a
WWTPs are not specifically designed to remove plastic particles but study estimated that about a 6-kg load of laundry could release 13.8 ×
these act as conduits for the distribution of MPs from their sources to the 103–72.8 × 103 fibres, subjected to the kind of synthetic textiles (Napper
recipient systems, i.e. water and soil (Gasperi et al., 2018; Rochman, et al., 2015). The number of fibres released is strongly influenced by the
2018; Vianello et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2020). So far, the occurrence of number of washing cycles per week, type of detergents used, tempera­
ture of the water, amount of water used, and the nature of clothes (Cesa
et al., 2017; Koelmans et al., 2019; Zambrano et al., 2019). Microfibers
that reach the aquatic environment from the effluent of WWTPs can be
laden with pathogens and may potentially enter into the networks of the
aquatic food chain and can threaten human health. MPs released from
WWTPs may produce toxicological hazards because of their instant
bioaccessibility and potential to carry reasonably high concentrations of
adsorbed pharmaceuticals and other chemical substances present in the
wastewater (Seidensticker et al., 2017). Furthermore, microfibers
retained in sludge may transport pathogens to agricultural soils when
used as sludge fertilisers (Browne et al., 2011; Hartline et al., 2016).Thus
to decrease the dispersal and harmful effects of MP pollution, a holistic
approach is required to abate MP pollution across the globe.

4. Collection and identification of MPs

Plastic particles detected in both influent and effluent samples vary

Fig. 2. a. WWTP Units Studied for MPs across the world. b. Studies conducted
on MPs in WWTPs in different continent.
between 1 and >10000 particles per litre and 0.0009–133 particles per
litre, respectively (Table 3) (Michielssen et al., 2016; Simon et al.,
2018). Different sampling approaches and techniques have been adop­
ted for the collection of MPs from the WWTPs (Hu et al., 2019). Samplers
with mesh sizes varying in the range of 1–300 μm are used in various
studies for the collection of MPs (Hu et al., 2019). The containers in the
form of Rutner sampler, glass jars, stainless steel buckets, and UV ster­
ilization tanks are used widely (Lares et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2019; Magni
et al., 2019). Pumping coupled with filtration for collecting MP samples
from WWTPs systems is often used in the United States. These devices
are stacked units of several stainless steel mesh screens, a custom-made
mobile membrane pump, a set of Tyler sieves, an extraction pump and
Filter holder made from plankton net, and a suction pump (Dyachenko
et al., 2017; Talvitie et al., 2017). A surface filtrating assembly for
skimming out the surface water at the effluent discharge outfall and an
automated sampler is also used for the collection of MPs in wastewater
systems (Talvitie et al., 2017). There is a wide difference in the counts of
plastic particles reported in the studies associated with the use of
different sample collection techniques, sample pre-treatment, and
analytical methods adopted (Dris et al., 2017; Lares et al., 2018). Several
studies have revealed that the plastic particle size range varies between

4
 A. Yaseen et al.
Table 3
Reported MP concentrations in effluent waters and removal efficiencies for WWTPs.
Country Population Treatment type WWTP Sampling Influent Detection methods Finest Particle Effluent conc. Removal MP Chemical Reference
served method conc. (MP/L) mesh size range (MP/L) efficiency discharge; composition of
Number
used (μm) (%) particles/ MPs particles
(μm) day

Turkey 1.01 × 106 Tertiary 1 Container 3.1 FTIR/Visual 26 26–500 1.6 (0.3–5.1) 48 223 PE > PP > acrylic Akarsu et al. (2020)
fiber > PS
3.4 × 104 Secondary 1 Container 2.6 FTIR/Visual 26 26–500 0.7 (0.2–1.0) 73 329 PE > PP > acrylic Akarsu et al. (2020)
fiber > PS
1.2 × 104 Secondary 1 Container 1.5 FTIR/Visual 26 26–500 0.6 (0.2–1.2) 60 310 PE > PP > acrylic Akarsu et al. (2020)
fiber > PS
6
2 × 10 Primary and 7 Container NA Raman 25 25–5000 NA NA NA NA Vardar et al. (2021)
Secondary spectroscopy
6 6
1.0 × 10 Secondary 1 Container 18.75 μ FTIR 55 <100-5000 4.5 73 1.2 × 10 Polyester > PE > Gündoğdu et al.
PP (2018)
5.0 × 105 Secondary 1 Container NA μ FTIR 55 <100-5000 NA 79 3.5 × 105 Polyester > PE > Gündoğdu et al.
PP (2018)
Thailand 3.0 × 104 Primary and 1 Glass Dishes NA Optical 300 300–5000 NA NA NA PP > PE Killipongvises
Secondary microscopy and et al., 2022
FTIR
NA Primary and 3 Container 12.2 Optical 300 300–5000 2 84 NA Polyester > PE > Hongrasith et al.,
Secondary microscopy and Polyacrylate > 2020
FTIR PP >
polyurethane
Australia 1.0 × 106 Primary 1 Pump 2.2 Visual/FTIR 25 25–500 0.21 90 4.60 × 108 PET > PE: Ziajahromi et al.
Secondary, PET > NYL > PE (2017)
> PP
Tertiary, RO > PS:
5

PE > PET > PS >

PP
1.9 × 105 Primary, 1 Container 11.8 ATR-FTIR 1.5 1.5–1000 2.76 76.6 NA PP > PES > PET Raju et al. (2020)
Secondary > PA > PVC > PS
Tertiary
NA Primary 1 Plankton NA FTIR, SEM and 20 NA 1.76 NA NA PE Prajapati et al.
Secondary net Raman (2021)
Tertiary spectroscopy
NA Primary 3 Bulk NA μ FTIR and ATR- 25 NA NA 79 NA PET > PE > PP Ziajahromi et al.
Secondary samples FTIR (2021)
(Glass
bottles)
Canada 1.3 × 106 Primary, 1 Container 31.1 FTIR 1 1–65 0.5 98 NA NYL > PES> Gies et al. (2018)
secondary PVC > PS
China NA Secondary 1 Container 79.9 micro-Raman 20 20–5000 28.4 64.4 NA Polyamide > PE Liu et al. (2019a,
spectroscopy > PP > PVC > PC 2019b)

Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258

3.5 × 106 Primary, 7 Pump with 6.55 Micro Raman 43 43–355 0.59 90.5 6.5 × 108 PP > PE > PS > Long et al. (2019)
Secondary flow-meter PP-PE
Copolymer >
PET
Oxidative Ditch, 1 Container 5.6 FTIR 25 25–500 0.168 and 97 and NA PET > PS > PE > Lv et al. (2019)
MBR 0.28 99.5 PP
NA Secondary 2 Container NA Optical 65 141–545 4.95 and 3.50 97.67 and NA PE > PP > Yuan et al. (2021)
Tertiary (A2O microscopy/FTIR 98.46 Penolic resin >
and MBR) PS
Iran 6.8 × 106 Primary 1 Container NA Fluoresencent 333 500–1500 NA NA NA PE > PP > PA Naji et al. (2021)
Secondary and microscopy/SEM/
energy dispersive
(continued on next page)
 A. Yaseen et al.
Table 3 (continued )
Country Population Treatment type WWTP Sampling Influent Detection methods Finest Particle Effluent conc. Removal MP Chemical Reference
served method conc. (MP/L) mesh size range (MP/L) efficiency discharge; composition of
Number
used (μm) (%) particles/ MPs particles
(μm) day

plankton X-ray analzer/

net FTIR
Finland NA Primary, 1 Container 12.03 FTIR 50 50->500 NA 58.8 NA PET > PES > PP Yang et al. (2019)
Secondary,
Tertiary
NA Primary, 1 Container 57.6 Visual/FTIR/ 250 250–5000 1 98.3 1.00 × 107 PES > PE > PA Lares et al. (2018)
Secondary Raman
NA Primary/MBR 1 Container 57.6 Visual/FTIR/ 250 250–5000 0.4 99.3 PES > PE > PA Lares et al. (2018)
Raman
5
8.0 × 10 Primary, 1 Pump NA Visual 20 20–200 NA NA NA NA Talvitie et al.
Secondary, (2015)
Purified
wastewater
8.0 × 105 Primary, 1 Pump 610 Visual 20 20–300 13.5 97.8 3.65 × 109 NA Talvitie et al.
Secondary, (2017)
Tertiary (BAF)
8.0 × 105 Primary, 6 Pump NA OM/FTIR 20 20->300 0.02–0.3 RSF: 97 1.26 × 106- PES > PE > Talvitie et al.
Secondary ACRYL > PVC > (2017)
7
Tertiary (BAF, Disc-filter: 6.59 × 10 PS > PP
DF,MBR,DAF, 40–98.5 NA
RSF) DAF: 95 NA
MBR: 99.9 NA
NA Secondary 1 Container 182 × 106 OM 1 and 1–6.3 0.5 × 106 99.4 NA PS Rajala et al. (2020)
Coagulation > 6.3 MP/L
6

6
based 39.1 × 10 13.2 × 106 76
(experimental MP/L
study)
Italy 1.2 × 106 Primary, 1 Container 2.5 Micro FTIR 63 63–5000 0.9 84 1.6 × 108 Polyester > PA Magni et al. (2019)
Secondary,
Tertiary
Netherlands 1.3 × 104 Primary, 7 Container 68–910 Visual 0.7 300–5000 55–81 94 7.48 × NA Leslie et al. (2017)
Secondary 108–4.32 ×
1010
NA Primary/MBR 1 Container 68 Visual 0.7 NA 51 25 2.83 × 108 NA Leslie et al. (2017)
Scotland 6.5 × 105 Primary, 1 Pump 15.7 Visual/FTIR 65 >65 0.25 98.4 6.52 × 107 PES > PUR > Murphy et al.
Secondary Acrylic > (2016a, 2016b)
Effluent PES >
PA > Acrylic >
PP > Alkyd
18.4 × 104 Tertiary 1 Container Na ATR-FTIR 60 60–2800 NA 96 NA PP > PVS > PE Blair et al. (2019)

Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258

South Korea Primary, 3 Container 13813.3 Visual 1.2 >1.2 132 99 NA NA Hidayaturrahman
Secondary & Lee (2019)
Tertiary
5.4 × 105 Primary/ 3 Container 23.7 Visual/infrared 196 106->300 0.33 98 NA NA Lee & Kim (2018)
Secondary A2O Spectroscopy
Primary/ 10.1 0.1
SecondarySBR
Sweden 1.2 × 104 Primary, 1 Container/ 0.8 Visual/FTIR 300 >300 0.00825 99 4.25 × 104 NA Magnusson and
Secondary Pump Norén, 2014
USA 3.5 × 103 Primary, 12 Pump NA Visual 125 >125 - 0.004–0.195 NA 5.28 × NA Mason et al. (2016)
Secondary >355 104–1.49 ×
107
(continued on next page)
 A. Yaseen et al.
Table 3 (continued )
Country Population Treatment type WWTP Sampling Influent Detection methods Finest Particle Effluent conc. Removal MP Chemical Reference
served method conc. (MP/L) mesh size range (MP/L) efficiency discharge; composition of
Number
used (μm) (%) particles/ MPs particles
(μm) day

NA Primary, 1 Surface 1 Visual/FTIR 20/45 20–400 0.00088 99.9 9.30 × 105 PE Carr et al. (2016)
Secondary filtration 100–200
6.8 × 105 Primary, 1 Container NA Visual/FTIR 125 >125 0.023 NA 4.97 × 106
Secondary
NA
2.4 × 106 Primary, 1 Container NA Visual 20 20–4750 133 95.6 5.9 NA Michielssen et al.
Secondary (2016)
NA Primary/An 1 Container NA Visual 20 20–4750 91 99.4 0.5 NA Michielssen et al.
MBR (2016)
1.2 × Primary, 5 Pump 0.009–0.127 Visual 125 >125- NA NA 1.01 × NA Mason et al. (2016)
104–2.5 × Secondary >355 105–9.63 ×
105 Tertiary (GF, 106
BAF)
NA Primary, 3 Surface NA Visual/FTIR 40 >125 NA NA 0-2.08 × NA Dyachenko et al.
Secondary filtration 102 (2017)
Tertiary
(Gravity Filter)
9.9 × 103 Primary, 1 Container 91 Visual 20 20–4750 2.6 97.2 4.43 × 106 NA Michielssen et al.
Secondary, (2016)
Tertiary (GF)
2.65 × 105 Primary, 3 Container 2.5 SEM 43 60->418 1 75–98 NA Polyester > Conley et al. (2019)
Secondary, acrylic
7

Tertiary
Spain 2.9 × 104 Secondary 2 Pump 4.4 Visual/FTIR 0.45 0.45–5000 0.92 (MBR) RSF-75 and NA LDPE > HDPE > Bayo et al. (2020)
(MBR, RSF) and 0.21 ACRYL and
(RSF) MBR-79 PP > PS > NYL
2.1 × 105 Primary, 1 Container NA FTIR 0.45 400–600 NA 90.3 6.7 × 106 LDPE > HDPE > Bayo et al. (2020)
Secondary ACRYL
NA Secondary (A2O 1 Container NA micro-FTIR 25 25–375 NA 94 NA PES > PE> Edo et al. (2020)
biotreatment) Dyed
cotton > PP
NA Secondary 2 Container 645 and Visual/FTIR 100 100–1000 16.40 and 97 and 91 1.49-1.94 PA > PE > PET Franco et al. (2021)
1567 131.35 × 109 > PP
1.07-2.64
× 107
France 8.0 × 105 Primary, 1 Auto- 100 Visual 300 100–5000 NA NA 8.40 × 109 NA Dris et al. (2017)
Secondary sampler
Germany NA Primary 3 Pump 10 TED-GC-MS NA 10–5000 NA 33–96 NA PS > PE > PP > Funck et al. (2021)

Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258

Secondary PET
Tertiary
7.0 × 103 Primary, 8 Pump NA FTIR 10 20–7200 0.08–7.52 NA 4.91 × 104- PE > PP > PE > Mintenig et al.
Secondary, 1.24 × 107 PVAL > PA > PS (2017)
Denmark NA Primary, 10 Container/ 2223–10044 FTIR- Focal plane 10 10–500 29–447 98 NA PP > ACRYL > Simon et al. (2018)
Secondary, Auto- Array based PVC > PE > PUR
Tertiary sampler

NA = Not available.
A. Yaseen et al.
0.45 and < 7200 μm and the finest mesh used varies between 0.45 and
300 μm (Table 3) (Bayo et al., 2020). The concerns with the occurrence
of nano-sized plastic particles were usually not found in most studies due
to the mesh size generally being adopted at >10 μm during sampling
(Table 3). The lack of evidence related to the presence of nano-sized
plastic particles in the wastewater could be due to the use of large
mesh size nets for the collection of MPs. Considering the environmental
impacts of nano-based plastic particles, it is important to use appropriate
sampling techniques in the future studies on WWTP systems.
The detection of MPs in the WWTPs usually collected in the influent
and effluent are examined by studying their topological features through
visual inspection (microscopic examination for predetermining their
polymeric nature). Although the chemical structure of MP identification
is met by several techniques such as vibrational spectroscopy, densi­
tometry, differential scanning colorimetry (DSC), gas chromatography-
mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and hyperspectral imaging (Araujo et al.,
2018).
However, chemical characterization of MPs using Raman spectros­
copy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) techniques is
preferred due to their non-destructibility and ability to distinguish be­
tween large (>500 m) and small (500 m) samples by providing molec­
ular vibrations in the form of a vibrational spectrum (Araujo et al., 2018;
Käppler et al., 2018) (Table 3). Plastic particles found in influents and
effluents are typically classified as microbeads, pellets, fibers, spherical
beads, synthetic particles, flakes, films, fragments, sheets, foils, gran­
ules, and lines (Fig. 3, Tables 2 and 3). So far, the studies have revealed
that visual inspection or optical microscopy are usually used for the
identification of microfibers, fragments, foam, and film types of MP in
the WWTPs. Their contribution plays a significant part for all MP types
in all wastewater treatment systems whereby fibres are the most prev­
alent (by number or count) with an average percentage of 65%, followed
by fragments with an average percentage of 46% (Table 2) (Lares et al.,
2018; Long et al., 2019). The microfibers observed in the United States
of 17 WWTPs effluent samples constitute about 59% of the total load,
with fragments (33%), films (5%), foams (2%), and pellets (1%), indi­
cating that synthetic fibres and fragmented secondary plastics dominate
in finding their entry into the WWTPs (Kang et al., 2018).
The chemical characterization in the WWTPs is mostly carried out by
spectroscopic methods such as FTIR, Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR-
FTIR), Micro FTIR, Focal Plane Array-Based FTIR, Raman Spectroscopy,
Micro-Raman Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
(Table 3). The most frequent polymers detected in the influents and
effluents samples of WWTPs in the reported studies are PE (22.59%), PP
(21.33%), PS (13.38%), ACRYL (10.04%), PVC (7.11%), PET (7.11%),
Polyurethane (PUR) (5.02%), Polyethersulfone (PES) (3.34%), polyvi­
nyl Alcohol (PVAL) (3.34%), Polyester (2.51%), Polymide (PA) (2.09%)
and 2.06% is contributed by polyvinyl stearate (PVS), penolic resins,
Fig. 3. Occurrence of detected shape form of MPs in WWTPs.
8
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
alkyd and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) (Fig. 4 and Table 3).
Studies suggest that PCCPs (facial and body scrubs and toothpaste) have
a major contribution to PE-based MPs in WWTPs (Table 1) (Kalčíková
et al., 2017; Lee and Kim, 2018).
5. Retaining efficiencies for MPs in different treatment
technologies
Different treatment technologies used for wastewater treatment have
not been designed for MP removal as it is a new addition to the envi­
ronment and is now being recognized as an environmental pollutant.
However, in recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on
considering MP removal and retention in various treatment technologies
(Fig. 5 and Table 3). (Fig. 5 and Table 3). Although WWTPs have been
reportedly found efficient (efficiency >90%) in removing the MPs in the
wastewater, despite this, the quantum of MPs escaping the retention
during the treatment is enough to cause severe impacts in aquatic sys­
tems (Table 3). The studies conducted across the world on the removal
efficiencies of MPs in WWTPs show slight variation among treatment
technologies, as depicted in Fig. 5. Primary treatments usually retain the
plastic particle of size above 6 mm with 72% efficiency (Sun et al.,
2019). Primary treatment units remove spherical particles >27–149 mm
in diameter, as per their settling/floating velocities (Iyare et al., 2020).
Subsequently, secondary unit technologies comprising of operational
treatment units like coagulation-aeration and clarification oxidation
ditch, activated sludge process, membrane bioreactors, etc. are rela­
tively less significant in removing/retaining (17–20%) MPs from the
effluent (Michielssen et al., 2016; Long et al., 2019; Lv et al., 2019). The
advanced treatment technologies used in the tertiary treatment, like
ozone, rapid sand filtration (RSF), dissolved air flotation (DAF), reverse
osmosis (RO), dynamic membranes (DM), etc. can further reduce the MP
concentration by about 15% (Iyare et al., 2020) (Table 3). Although
tertiary treatment systems are reported to further remove the plastic
particles, due to the lesser concentration in the final effluent from pri­
mary and secondary treatment processes, it shows no noticeable effects
on minimizing MP concentration (Talvitie et al., 2017; Habib et al.,
2020). The combined average MP removal efficiency of 88% were found
in primary and secondary treatment units of WWTPs, while primary,
secondary, and tertiary treatment units, on average, have 94% MP
removal efficiency (Iyare et al., 2020) (Table 3). Furthermore, the
application of powdered activated carbon (PAC) in advanced oxidation
processes has proven a suitable option for removing MPs up to about
80% in the effluents, implying that the removal efficiency of advanced
treatment technologies surpasses the other methods (Woermann and
Sures, 2020). The presence of MPs in the final effluents indicates that
there is a need to improve and advance operational units of WWTPs to
increase their removal/retention capacity for MPs.
Fig. 4. Occurrence and percentage abundance of polymers detected in WWTPs.
A. Yaseen et al.
Fig. 5. Flow diagram describing the transport of MPs in the WWTPs showing removal efficiencies from the influent to final effluent and sludge containing MPs
distribution (Raju et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2019).
6. Fate of MPs in WWTPs
In the WWTPs, the MPs enter into the treatment systems in different
shapes classified as fibres, films, foams, granular, and pellets, of which
fibres (57%) and fragments (34%) are predominantly found. However,
the morphological characteristics of fibres with a high length-to-width
ratio make their removal from WWTPs difficult (Ngo et al., 2019).
More than 30 plastic polymers have been recognized with different
chemical compositions in the WWTPs, as the abundance of polymer type
is based upon the source of origin i.e., industrial, agricultural, and urban
proximity, carrying domestic sewage into it from the nearby city (Ngo
et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2019). Larger MPs with high density settle down
with sludge in the primary and secondary settling processes, while the
smaller ones with less density remain suspended in water and are more
likely to pass with the final effluent into the receiving water body
(Rolsky et al., 2020). Various studies have been conducted to estimate
the MP removal efficiencies of WWTPs from influent and effluents un­
dergoing different stages of treatment (Table 3). For example, Dris et al.
(2015) used wastewater influent and effluent analyses to undertake the
first analysis concerning the fate of MPs in a WWTP. He used biofilters in
the tertiary stage and reported an overall removal rate of ~90% of MPs
from the sludge. Carr et al. (2016) looked at the movement of MPs in the
tertiary wastewater treatment facility and reported aconcentration of 50
particles/litre of MPs in returned activated sludge, thus suggesting the
transport of MPs through WWTPs.
Apart from the inbuilt toxic nature of MPs, their property of large
surface volume ratio allows them to adsorb organic toxic contaminants
like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated bi­
phenyls (PCBs), phthalates, pesticides, etc. on their surfaces (Rodrigues
et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2021). This is more relevant in the case of WWTP
systems that bring a variety of MP contaminants found relatively in
higher concentrations which entails them as double-edged sword pol­
lutants, as these plastic particles act as a vector for carrying harmful
contaminants that adversely impact both the environment and humans
(Caruso, 2019; Zhang and Chen, 2020). Mahon et al. (2017) have
9
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
reported that WWTPs have a high trapping efficiency for MPs produced
in the solid sludge phase, often supplied to agricultural soils as fertilizer.
The monitoring of hazardous substances in urban-based sludge is being
regulated in most regions, while MPs are not presently integrated under
such regulations for application in agriculture (Gatidou et al., 2019;
Henry et al., 2019).
7. Impacts of MPs retained in sludge
Worldwide production of massive amounts of sludge and increasing
costs of commercial fertilizers has made its application on croplands an
attractive disposal option (Hussein, 2009). Being economically advan­
tageous, the sewage sludge used as fertilizer for agricultural purposes is
frequently practiced in many developed regions (Nizzetto et al., 2016).
Although responding to the practice of circular economy, reuse of both
water and sludge reintroduces MPs into the environment and may pose a
potential environmental threat (Gatidou et al., 2019). The amount of
MPs detected in the wastewater effluents results in transfer of MPs and
causes significant pollution (Gatidou et al., 2019). Wastewater sludge
applied to agricultural fields has been reported to contain textile fibres
in higher amounts with intact characteristics even after 15 years of
application (Hamidian et al., 2021). The application of sludge contain­
ing MPs into the soil can be ingested by the terrestrial biota and may be
transported through the food chain, posing a health risk to humans.
Studies have also shown that MPs analyzed in the mixed sludge of pri­
mary and secondary treatment systems vary between 4 × 102 and 7 ×
103 particles/kg in the wet sludge and about 15 × 102 and 17 × 104
particles/kg in dry sludge (Sun et al., 2019). In Europe, 50% of the
sewage sludge is treated for arable land use (Kelessidis and Stasinakis,
2012), and in China, 87% of sludge is applied to soil (Li and Qian, 2018).
Around 63 × 103–43 × 103 and 44 × 103 − 3 × 105 tons of MPs are
getting supplied to farmlands in Europe and North America per year
which poses a major risk of MP pollution in agricultural soils (Nizzetto
et al., 2016). Application of sludge as a soil amendment accounts for the
major share of phosphorus and nitrogen demand for several crops.
A. Yaseen et al.
7.1. Impact of MPs on soil ecology
The extensive application of sewage sludge from municipal WWTPs
to agricultural land use has been considered as a key source of MPs in
soils (Zhang et al., 2020a, 2020b), as MPs trapped in the sewage sludge
are difficult to remove due to the complexity in their types, shapes, and
sizes (Li and Qian, 2018). MPs accumulate in soil following repeated
sludge applications (Corradini et al., 2019). An estimate hassuggested
that the yearly input of 43 × 104 tons of MPs enter European agricultural
land while in China it is up to about 1.56 × 1014 tons of sludge-based
MPs (Nizzetto et al., 2016). After entering the soil, MPs are wrapped
into soil aggregates, which hinder their isolation from soil particles
(Bläsing and Amelung, 2018). Several studies have pointed out the
adverse impact of MPs on soil biota (de Souza Machado et al., 2018) and
soil properties (Ren et al., 2021). Crops utilize nutrients from the bio­
solids (dry sludge), but MPs remain in the soil and are carried
throughout the soil system via physical, chemical, and biological
mechanisms (Wong et al., 2020). MPs alter the structural and functional
properties of soil (He et al., 2020) like soil aggregation, bulk density,
water-holding capacity, and pH (de Souza Machado et al., 2018; Xiang
et al., 2021). For instance, polyester fibres can decrease soil bulk density,
which is coupled with a significant increase in water holding capacity
and may also lead to misinterpretation of soil carbon storage, which is
considered a key parameter for extrapolating soil carbon storage (de
Souza Machado et al., 2018). MPs may also change the oxygen flow in
soil by changing the porosity and moisture content of the soil, which
could alter the relative distribution of aerobic and anaerobic microor­
ganisms (Rubol et al., 2013). Alteration in pore spaces by MPs may result
in the loss of microhabitat and the extinction of native microorganisms
(Veresoglou et al., 2015). Various classes of toxicants are adsorbed on
the surfaces of MPs such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT),
PAHs, hexachlorocyclohexane (HCHs), PCBs, PCCPs, perfluoroalkyl
substances (PFASs), pesticides and heavy metals due to their hydro­
phobic nature (Horton et al., 2017). When compared to virgin MPs,
sludge-based MPs have a higher capacity for heavy metal adsorption (Li
et al., 2019). The lethal chemicals present in the MPs have the potential
to disperse in the soil (Hüffer et al., 2019), and can alter the geochemical
cycles (Fuller and Gautam, 2016).
MPs hinder the mobility of organisms by adhering to theirbody
surfaces. MPs provide novel microbial niches and act as a carriers for
pathogens and antibiotic-resistant genes, thus underscoring their po­
tential to affect human health (Wu et al., 2019). Various organisms of
the soil ingest MPs as food due to their appealing appearance and odour.
MPs obstruct the digestive tract of the organisms and eventually lead to
starvation and death (Wu et al., 2019). Decreased reproduction and
biochemical responses have also been observed in animals due to the
ingestion of MPs (Lahive et al., 2019). For instance, a significant
reduction in the growth rate of Lumbricus terrestris on the application of
MPs was reported. Moreover, MPs eaten by earthworms move through
the food chain and pose a potential threat to terrestrial predators as well
as human beings (Lwanga et al., 2017). MPs mistakenly taken up by
many aquatic organisms as food results in its bioaccumulation and
subsequent transfer to different food chains (Koelmans et al., 2015;
Ziccardi et al., 2016; Carbery et al., 2018; Lambert and Wagner, 2018;
Piyawardhana et al., 2022).
MPs influence both vegetative and reproductive growth in plants
(Bosker et al., 2019). A significant deviation in plant growth was re­
ported as a result of MPs altering the biophysical properties of soil,
which delayed germination and influenced plant growth (Bosker et al.,
2019). Moreover, these particles affect the absorption and trans­
portation mechanisms of nutrients in plants due to their blockade of cell
connections or cell wall pores (Ma et al., 2010). Both ecotoxicity and
genotoxicity to plants are exerted by MPs (Jiang et al., 2019).
10
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
7.2. Impact of MPs on human beings
As humans occupy the highest trophic level of the food chain, MPs
may impact the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems (Zhang et al.,
2020a, 2020b). MPs of particle size <20 μm enter cell membranes,
intensify risk to feeding, metabolic processes, reproduction, and
behavioural level (Hale et al., 2020). MPs as such, do not trigger any
acute fatal response in biota but may cause chronic toxicity with pro­
tracted exposure (Li and Qian, 2018). Furthermore, MPs can adsorb
various pollutants and toxic substances during the treatment processes,
increasing their lethality and risk to human health (Raju et al., 2018).
MPs may concentrate in the body through several exposure pathways;
for example, consumption of food, inhalation of dust, or drinking water
contaminated by MPs (Dris et al., 2017; Prata, 2018) and can cause
growth retardation, neurological damage, hormonal changes, and can­
cers due to the presence of harmful additives like BPA and phthalates
(Zaman, 2010; Luo et al., 2021). For instance, BPA interferes with the
activity of lipoprotein lipase, aromatase, and lipogenesis regulators and
affects the level of fat tissue hormones (Vom Saal et al., 2012). BPA
disturbs α and β receptors in fat tissues thus could cause obesity
(Michałowicz, 2014). Moderately high levels of plastic additives,
including Bisphenol-A and Phthalates have been found in potentially
MP-rich sludge from wastewater treatments used for agricultural ap­
plications (Michałowicz, 2014). These additives cause endocrine
disruption through estrogenic effects (de Souza Machado et al., 2018).
The presence of nine phthalate esters in different kinds of foodstuffs
revealed that DEHP (di (2- ethylhexyl) phthalate) was found in most of
the food samples (Guo et al., 2012). Phthalates are a major concern,
their detection in wastewater has brought into notice the leaching of
phthalates from plastics into the environment (Bergé, 2012; Bergé et al.,
2013; Bergé et al., 2014). Heavy metals are also being used as additives
in polymer products, causing cellular or tissue damage and adverse
human health effects (Kravchenko et al., 2014). MPs with certain
properties can translocate throughout living cells such as dendritic cells
or M cells to the circulatory and/or lymphatic systems and accumulate
in secondary organs, therefore adversely affecting cell health and im­
mune system (Smith et al., 2018). MPs along with their components may
employ localized particle toxicity, but the cumulative effect is produced
by chronic exposure, which is of greater concern (Smith et al., 2018).
8. Remedial technological options removing microplastics in
WWTPs
Our literature survey analyzed that different treatment technologies
implied for removing/retaining MPs in wastewater, from conventional
to advanced ones, could not completely eliminate these contaminants in
final effluents (Table 3). Due to the different kinds of MPs entering into
wastewater systems, various technological improvements are currently
being discussed to address this problem. Experimental prototype units
were seen as quite efficient in retaining/removing MPs, such as elec­
trocoagulation, which is an effective process that removes 98.6% of MPs
in the final effluent (Elkhatib et al., 2021). Bio-filter prototype in the
secondary treatment process was used to remove MPs from the personal
beautification products and pharmaceutical waste. The bio-filter was
packed with six different thick layers of stone wool (1.1 m in total
height). The study revealed that after treatment with a bio-filter, the
particulate matter in the effluent was reduced to 197 particles/m3 (79%)
with a mass concentration of 2.8 μg/m3 (89%) (Dey et al., 2021).
Removal of MPs is size/density dependent and could require additional
separation units after the conventional process (Hou et al., 2020).
Advanced treatment units like membrane filtration, sand filtration,
gravity filtration, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis are efficient in
removing MPs (Table 3). These separation technologies when combined
with other approaches could achieve efficient MP separation. Membrane
bioreactors, for example, which combine membrane filtration and sus­
pended growth biological reactors, removed 99.9% of MPs from waste
A. Yaseen et al.
water. On the other hand, rapid clogging, is a significant technical
challenge in size-based wastewater treatment methods. Membrane
fouling reduces sample throughput, so advanced membrane separation
techniques like sequential membrane filtration and dynamic membrane
technology (e.g., crossflow filtration) are used to lower maintenance
costs and energy consumption. A pH-induced sol-gel method has also
been proposed, in which contaminants are removed from wastewater
through agglomeration. MP flocculates are formed as a result of the
agglomeration, making it easier to remove them from wastewater using
separation mechanisms such as sand traps (Collivignarelli et al., 2018).
Magnetic extraction is another possibility for removing MPs from water.
The magnetic extraction of MPs from water uses Fe nanoparticles coated
with hexadecyltrimethoxysilane as magnetic seeds (Grbic et al., 2019).
This approach was able to collect 92 percent of small (20 m) PE and PS
MPs from seawater and 84% of medium-sized MPs (200–1000 m) from
freshwater and silt, respectively. Thus, magnetic extraction can be used
torecover MPs from sludge, but at a lesser efficiency due to dirt
obstructing the migration of Fe nanoparticles (Grbic et al., 2019). Sludge
treatment has been the subject of various studies, although just a few of
them focused on MPs. It has been observed that thermal pre-treatment of
sewage sludge results in better anaerobic digestion efficiency due to
thermal hydrolysis, lowering its viscosity and improving its degrad­
ability (Barber, 2016). For global acceptance of standardised analytical
methods for MP analysis, a better understanding of the fragmentation
behaviour of plastics is required.
9. Conclusions
WWTPs are prominent sources of MPs and they distribute them into
the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems through their effluents. The high
bio-accessibility and enrichment of MPs along with high quantities of
sorbed chemicals contained in wastewater can potentially lead to
distinct toxicological hazards. MPs retained by the WWTPs in sludge,
usually supplied to the agricultural fields, need to be studied for
adsorbed pathogens and contaminants, which could pose serious risks
upon their interaction with the biota. The magnitude with which the MP
pollution is exceedingly increasing in the environment may pose a risk to
human health through bioaccumulation. The sludge disposal loaded
with MPs to agricultural fields and groundwater contamination are
future research questions to be taken for understanding the contaminant
transportation. As of now, global efforts on managing MPs in the WWTPs
are not impressive, as only 121 treatment units have been studied so far.
Although advanced treatment technologies like DAF and MBR are
showing the higher MP removal of up to 99%. A high level of stand­
ardisation of experimental protocols for the extraction, separation,
characterization and standards of MPs in distinct environmental com­
partments is urgently needed for more clarity. The lack of a standard
sampling strategy for detecting nano-based plastic particles needs im­
mediate attention, and future studies on WWTP systems must incorpo­
rate these pollutants to advance our understanding of their toxicological
and ecological impacts.
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
The first author thanks Ministry of minority affairs, Govt. of India for
financial assistance under MANF scheme. The authors also thank
Department of Environmental Science University of Kashmir for
providing lab facilities. The authors would like to thank Dr. Riyaz
Ahmad Kumar (Assistant Professor, Moti Lal Memorial, GDC Allochi
Bagh, Srinagar) for language editing the manuscript.
11
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113258.
References
Akarsu, C., Kumbur, H., Gökdağ, K., Kıdeyş, A.E., Sanchez-Vidal, A., 2020. Microplastics
composition and load from three wastewater treatment plants discharging into
Mersin Bay, north eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110776.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110776.
Alvim, C.B., Mendoza-Roca, J.A., Bes-Piá, A., 2020. Wastewater treatment plant as
microplastics release source–Quantification and identification techniques.
J. Environ. Manag. 255, 109739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109739.
Amaral-Zettler, L.A., Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., 2020. Ecology of the plastisphere. Nat.
Rev. Microbiol. 18 (3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0308-0.
Amato-Lourenço, L.F., Carvalho-Oliveira, R., Júnior, G.R., dos Santos Galvão, L.,
Ando, R.A., Mauad, T., 2021. Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung
tissue. J. Hazard Mater. 126124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126124.
Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (8),
1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.
Araujo, C.F., Nolasco, M.M., Ribeiro, A.M., Ribeiro-Claro, P.J., 2018. Identification of
microplastics using Raman spectroscopy: latest developments and future prospects.
Water Res. 142, 426–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.060.
Arpia, A.A., Chen, W.H., Ubando, A.T., Naqvi, S.R., Culaba, A.B., 2021. Microplastic
degradation as a sustainable concurrent approach for producing biofuel and
obliterating hazardous environmental effects: a state-of-the-art review. J. Hazard
Mater. 126381 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126381.
Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F., 2017a. Plastics and microplastics in the oceans: from
emerging pollutants to emerged threat. Mar. Environ. Res. 128, 2–11.
Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F., 2017b. Plastics and microplastics in the oceans: from
emerging pollutants to emerged threat. Mar. Environ. Res. 128, 2–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.05.012.
Baho, D.L., Bundschuh, M., Futter, M.N., 2021. Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems:
moving beyond the state of the art to minimize the risk of ecological surprise. Global
Change Biol. 27 (17), 3969–3986. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15724.
Barber, W.P.F., 2016. Thermal hydrolysis for sewage treatment: a critical review. Water
Res. 104, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.069.
Bayo, J., Olmos, S., López-Castellanos, J., 2020. Microplastics in an urban wastewater
treatment plant: the influence of physicochemical parameters and environmental
factors. Chemosphere 238, 124593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2019.124593.
Bergé, A., 2012. Identification of Sources of Alkylphenols and Phthalates in Urban Area.
Comparison of Domestic Discharges to Pure Industrial Wastewater (Doctoral
Dissertation. Master’s Thesis. University Paris-Est, Créteil, France).
Bergé, A., Cladière, M., Gasperi, J., Coursimault, A., Tassin, B., Moilleron, R., 2013.
Meta-analysis of environmental contamination by phthalates. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Control Ser. 20 (11), 8057–8076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1982-5.
Bergé, A., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Gras, L., Coursimault, A., Moilleron, R., 2014.
Phthalates and alkylphenols in industrial and domestic effluents: case of Paris
conurbation (France). Sci. Total Environ. 488, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2014.04.081.
Blair, R.M., Waldron, S., Gauchotte-Lindsay, C., 2019. Average daily flow of
microplastics through a tertiary wastewater treatment plant over a ten-month
period. Water Res. 163, 114909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114909.
Bläsing, M., Amelung, W., 2018. Plastics in soil: analytical methods and possible sources.
Sci. Total Environ. 612, 422–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.086.
Bosker, T., Bouwman, L.J., Brun, N.R., Behrens, P., Vijver, M.G., 2019. Microplastics
accumulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root growth of the
terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 226, 774–781. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.163.
Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R.,
2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (21), 9175–9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201811s.
Carbery, M., O’Connor, W., Palanisami, T., 2018. Trophic transfer of microplastics and
mixed contaminants in the marine food web and implications for human health.
Environ. Int. 115, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.03.007.
Carr, S.A., Liu, J., Tesoro, A.G., 2016. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in
wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 91, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2016.01.002.
Caruso, G., 2019. Microplastics as vectors of contaminants. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146,
921–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.07.052.
Cesa, F.S., Turra, A., Baruque-Ramos, J., 2017. Synthetic fibers as microplastics in the
marine environment: a review from textile perspective with a focus on domestic
washings. Sci. Total Environ. 598, 1116–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.04.172.
Chang, M., 2015. Reducing microplastics from facial exfoliating cleansers in wastewater
through treatment versus consumer product decisions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101 (1),
330–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.074.
Cheung, P.K., Fok, L., 2017. Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs and
their estimated emissions in Mainland China. Water Res. 122, 53–61. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.053.
A. Yaseen et al.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants
in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12), 2588–2597. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025.
Collivignarelli, M.C., Abbà, A., Benigna, I., Sorlini, S., Torretta, V., 2018. Overview of the
main disinfection processes for wastewater and drinking water treatment plants.
Sustainability 10, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010086.
Conley, K., Clum, A., Deepe, J., Lane, H., Beckingham, B., 2019. Wastewater treatment
plants as a source of microplastics to an urban estuary: removal efficiencies and
loading per capita over one year. Water Res. X 3, 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wroa.2019.100030.
Corradini, F., Meza, P., Eguiluz, R., Casado, F., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Geissen, V., 2019.
Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge
disposal. Sci. Total Environ. 671, 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.03.368.
Cowger, W., Gray, A.B., Eriksen, M., Moore, C., Thiel, M., 2019. Evaluating Wastewater
Effluent as a Source of Microplastics in Environmental Samples. Microplastics in
Water and Wastewater. IWA Publishing, London, pp. 109–131. https://doi: 10.2166
/9781789060034_0109.
Dauvergne, P., 2018. Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans? Global
Environ. Change 51, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.002.
de Souza Machado, A.A., Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., Hempel, S., Rillig, M.C., 2018.
Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biol. 24
(4), 1405–1416.
do Sul, J.A.I., Costa, M.F., 2014. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the
marine environment. Environ. Pollut. 185, 352–364.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Mirande, C., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V., Tassin, B.,
2017. A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and
outdoor environments. Environ. Pollut. 221, 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.12.013.
Dyachenko, A., Mitchell, J., Arsem, N., 2017. Extraction and identification of
microplastic particles from secondary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent.
Anal. Methods 9 (9), 1412–1418. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02397E.
d’Ambrières, W., 2019. Plastics recycling worldwide: current overview and desirable
changes. Field Act. Sci. Rep. J. Field Act. 12–21 (Special Issue 19).
Edo, C., González-Pleiter, M., Leganés, F., Fernández-Piñas, F., Rosal, R., 2020. Fate of
microplastics in wastewater treatment plants and their environmental dispersion
with effluent and sludge. Environ. Pollut. 259, 113837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2019.113837.
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R.C., Aldridge, D.C., 2015. Microplastics in freshwater
systems: a review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and
prioritisation of research needs. Water Res. 75, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2015.02.012.
Elkhatib, D., Oyanedel-Craver, V., Carissimi, E., 2021. Electrocoagulation applied for the
removal of microplastics from wastewater treatment facilities. Separ. Purif. Technol.
118877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118877.
Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., et al., 2013.
Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great lakes. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 77 (1–2), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007.
Erkan, H.S., Turan, N.B., Albay, M., Engin, G.O., 2021. A preliminary study on the
distribution and morphology of microplastics in the coastal areas of Istanbul, the
metropolitan city of Turkey: the effect of location differences. J. Clean. Prod. 307,
127320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127320.
Franco, A.A., Arellano, J.M., Albendin, G., Rodriguez-Barroso, R., Quiroga, J.M.,
Coello, M.D., 2021. Microplastic pollution in wastewater treatment plants in the city
of Cádiz: abundance, removal efficiency and presence in receiving water body. Sci.
Total Environ. 776, 145795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145795.
Fuller, S., Gautam, A., 2016. A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized
fluid extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (11), 5774–5780. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.6b00816.
Funck, M., Al-Azzawi, M.M., Yildirim, A., Knoop, O., Schmidt, T.C., Drewes, J.E.,
Tuerk, J., 2021. Release of microplastic particles to the aquatic environment via
wastewater treatment plants: the impact of sand filters as tertiary treatment. Chem.
Eng. J. 130933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.130933.
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
92 (1–2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
Galloway, T.S., Cole, M., Lewis, C., 2017. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout
the marine ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1 (5), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-
017-0116.
Gasperi, J., Wright, S.L., Dris, R., Collard, F., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., 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.
Gatidou, G., Arvaniti, O.S., Stasinakis, A.S., 2019. Review on the occurrence and fate of
microplastics in sewage treatment plants. J. Hazard Mater. 367, 504–512. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.081.
Gies, E.A., LeNoble, J.L., Noël, M., Etemadifar, A., Bishay, F., Hall, E.R., Ross, P.S., 2018.
Retention of microplastics in a major secondary wastewater treatment plant in
Vancouver, Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.06.006.
Gourmelon, G., 2015. Global plastic production rises, recycling lags. Vital Signs 22,
91–95.
Grbic, J., Nguyen, B., Guo, E., You, J.B., Sinton, D., Rochman, C.M., 2019. Magnetic
extraction of microplastics from environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett.
6, 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.8b00671.
Gündoğdu, S., Çevik, C., Güzel, E., Kilercioğlu, S., 2018. Microplastics in municipal
wastewater treatment plants in Turkey: a comparison of the influent and secondary
12
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
effluent concentrations. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190 (11), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10661-018-7010-y.
Guo, Y., Zhang, Z., Liu, L., Li, Y., Ren, N., Kannan, K., 2012. Occurrence and profiles of
phthalates in foodstuffs from China and their implications for human exposure.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 60 (27), 6913–6919. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3021128.
Habib, R.Z., Thiemann, T., Al Kendi, R., 2020. Microplastics and wastewater treatment
plants—a review. J. Water Resour. Protect. 12, 1, 01. http://www.scirp.org/jour
nal/Paperabs.aspx?PaperID=97637.
Hale, R.C., Seeley, M.E., La Guardia, M.J., Mai, L., Zeng, E.Y., 2020. A global perspective
on microplastics. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 125 (1), e2018JC014719. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2018JC014719.
Hamidian, A.H., Ozumchelouei, E.J., Feizi, F., Wu, C., Zhang, Y., Yang, M., 2021.
A review on the characteristics of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: a
source for toxic chemicals. J. Clean. Prod. 126480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.126480.
Haram, L.E., Carlton, J.T., Ruiz, G.M., Maximenko, N.A., 2020. A plasticene lexicon. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 150, 110714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110714.
Hartline, N.L., Bruce, N.J., Karba, S.N., Ruff, E.O., Sonar, S.U., Holden, P.A., 2016.
Microfiber masses recovered from conventional machine washing of new or aged
garments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (21), 11532–11538. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.6b03045.
He, B., Wijesiri, B., Ayoko, G.A., Egodawatta, P., Rintoul, L., Goonetilleke, A., 2020.
Influential factors on microplastics occurrence in river sediments. Sci. Total Environ.
738, 139901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139901.
Henry, B., Laitala, K., Klepp, I.G., 2019. Microfibres from apparel and home textiles:
prospects for including microplastics in environmental sustainability assessment. Sci.
Total Environ. 652, 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.166.
Hernandez, E., Nowack, B., Mitrano, D.M., 2017a. Polyester textiles as a source of
microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber release
during washing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (12), 7036–7046. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.7b01750.
Hernandez, L.M., Yousefi, N., Tufenkji, N., 2017b. Are there nanoplastics in your
personal care products? Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 4, 280–285. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00187.
Hidayaturrahman, H., Lee, T.G., 2019. A study on characteristics of microplastic in
wastewater of South Korea: identification, quantification, and fate of microplastics
during treatment process. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2019.06.071.
Hoellein, T., Rojas, M., Pink, A., Gasior, J., Kelly, J., 2014. Anthropogenic litter in urban
freshwater ecosystems: distribution and microbial interactions. PLoS One 9 (6),
e98485. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098485.
Hongrasith, N., killimethanong, C., Lertluksanapon, R., Eamchotchawalit, T.,
Killipongvises, S., Lohwacharin, J., 2020. IR microspectroscopic identification of
microplastics in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27
(15), 18557–18564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08265-7.
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.
Hu, Y., Gong, M., Wang, J., Bassi, A., 2019. Current research trends on microplastic
pollution from wastewater systems: a critical review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol.
18 (2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-019-09498-w.
Huang, Y., Liu, Q., Jia, W., Yan, C., Wang, J., 2020. Agricultural plastic mulching as a
source of microplastics in the terrestrial environment. Environ. Pollut. 260, 114096.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114096.
Huang, Y., He, T., Yan, M., Yang, L., Gong, H., Wang, W., et al., 2021. Atmospheric
transport and deposition of microplastics in a subtropical urban environment.
J. Hazard Mater. 416, 126168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126168.
Hüffer, T., Metzelder, F., Sigmund, G., Slawek, S., Schmidt, T.C., Hofmann, T., 2019.
Polyethylene microplastics influence the transport of organic contaminants in soil.
Sci. Total Environ. 657, 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.047.
Hurley, R.R., Nizzetto, L., 2018. Fate and occurrence of micro (nano) plastics in soils:
knowledge gaps and possible risks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 1, 6–11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2017.10.006.
Hussein, A.H.A., 2009. Impact of sewage sludge as organic manure on some soil
properties, growth, yield and nutrient contents of cucumber crop. J. Appl. Sci. 9 (8),
1401–1411.
Iyare, P.U., Ouki, S.K., Bond, T., 2020. Microplastics removal in wastewater treatment
plants: a critical review. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 6 (10), 2664–2675.
https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00397B.
Jahnke, A., Arp, H.P.H., Escher, B.I., Gewert, B., Gorokhova, E., Kühnel, D., et al., 2017.
Reducing uncertainty and confronting ignorance about the possible impacts of
weathering plastic in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 4 (3),
85–90. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00008.
Jiang, X., Chen, H., Liao, Y., Ye, Z., Li, M., Klobučar, G., 2019. Ecotoxicity and
genotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics on higher plant Vicia faba. Environ. Pollut.
250, 831–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.055.
Kalčíková, G., Alič, B., Skalar, T., Bundschuh, M., Gotvajn, A.Ž., 2017. Wastewater
treatment plant effluents as source of cosmetic polyethylene microbeads to
freshwater. Chemosphere 188, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2017.08.131.
Kang, H.J., Park, H.J., Kwon, O.K., Lee, W.S., Jeong, D.H., Ju, B.K., Kwon, J.H., 2018.
Occurrence of microplastics in municipal sewage treatment plants: a review.
Environ. Health Toxicol. 33 (3) https://doi.org/10.5620/eht.e2018013.
Käppler, A., Fischer, M., Scholz-Böttcher, B.M., Oberbeckmann, S., Labrenz, M.,
Fischer, D., Voit, B., 2018. Comparison of μ-ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and py-GCMS as
A. Yaseen et al.
identification tools for microplastic particles and fibers isolated from river
sediments. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 410 (21), 5313–5327. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00216-018-1185-5.
Karlsson, T.M., Vethaak, A.D., Almroth, B.C., Ariese, F., van Velzen, M., Hassellöv, M.,
Leslie, H.A., 2017. Screening for microplastics in sediment, water, marine
invertebrates and fish: method development and microplastic accumulation. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 122 (1–2), 403–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.06.081.
Kazour, M., Jemaa, S., Issa, C., Khalaf, G., Amara, R., 2019. Microplastics pollution along
the Lebanese coast (Eastern Mediterranean Basin): occurrence in surface water,
sediments and biota samples. Sci. Total Environ. 696, 133933. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133933.
Kelessidis, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2012. Comparative study of the methods used for
treatment and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries. Waste Manag.
32 (6), 1186–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.012.
Killipongvises, S., Phetrak, A., Hongrasith, N., Lohwacharin, J., 2022. Unravelling
capability of municipal wastewater treatment plant in Thailand for microplastics:
effects of seasonality on detection, fate and transport. J. Environ. Manag. 302,
113990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113990.
Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E., Shim, W.J., 2015. Nanoplastics in the aquatic
environment. Critical review. Mar. Anthrop. litt. 325–340.
Koelmans, A.A., Nor, N.H.M., Hermsen, E., Kooi, M., Mintenig, S.M., De France, J., 2019.
Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: critical review and assessment of
data quality. Water Res. 155, 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.02.054.
Kravchenko, J., Darrah, T.H., Miller, R.K., Lyerly, H.K., Vengosh, A., 2014. A review of
the health impacts of barium from natural and anthropogenic exposure. Environ.
Geochem. Health 36 (4), 797–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-014-9622-7.
Lahive, E., Walton, A., Horton, A.A., Spurgeon, D.J., Svendsen, C., 2019. Microplastic
particles reduce reproduction in the terrestrial worm Enchytraeus crypticus in a soil
exposure. Environ. Pollut. 255, 113174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2019.113174.
Lambert, S., Wagner, M., 2018. Microplastics are contaminants of emerging concern in
freshwater environments: an overview. Freshwater Microplast. 1–23. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5.
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.
Lee, H., Kim, Y., 2018. Treatment characteristics of microplastics at biological sewage
treatment facilities in Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.09.050.
Lee, J., Choi, Y., Jeong, J., Chae, K.J., 2021. Eye-glass polishing wastewater as significant
microplastic source: microplastic identification and quantification. J. Hazard Mater.
403, 123991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123991.
Lei, K., Qiao, F., Liu, Q., Wei, Z., Qi, H., Cui, S., An, L., 2017. Microplastics releasing from
personal care and cosmetic products in China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123 (1–2), 122–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.016.
Leslie, H.A., Brandsma, S.H., Van Velzen, M.J.M., Vethaak, A.D., 2017. Microplastics en
route: field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals,
wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 101,
133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.018.
Li, P., Qian, H., 2018. Water Resources Research to Support a Sustainable China.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1452723.
Li, X., Mei, Q., Chen, L., Zhang, H., Dong, B., Dai, X., et al., 2019. Enhancement in
adsorption potential of microplastics in sewage sludge for metal pollutants after the
wastewater treatment process. Water Res. 157, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.03.069.
Liu, K., Wang, X., Wei, N., Song, Z., Li, D., 2019a. Accurate quantification and transport
estimation of suspended atmospheric microplastics in megacities: implications for
human health. Environ. Int. 132, 105127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2019.105127.
Liu, M., Song, Y., Lu, S., Qiu, R., Hu, J., Li, X., et al., 2019b. A method for extracting soil
microplastics through circulation of sodium bromide solutions. Sci. Total Environ.
691, 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.144.
Long, Z., Pan, Z., Wang, W., Ren, J., Yu, X., Lin, L., Jin, X., 2019. Microplastic abundance,
characteristics, and removal in wastewater treatment plants in a coastal city of
China. Water Res. 155, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.028.
Luo, H., Liu, C., He, D., Xu, J., Sun, J., Li, J., Pan, X., 2021. Environmental behaviors of
microplastics in aquatic systems: a systematic review on degradation, adsorption,
toxicity and biofilm under aging conditions. J. Hazard Mater. 126915. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126915.
Lv, X., Dong, Q., Zuo, Z., Liu, Y., Huang, X., Wu, W.M., 2019. Microplastics in a
municipal wastewater treatment plant: fate, dynamic distribution, removal
efficiencies, and control strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 225, 579–586. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.321.
Lwanga, E.H., Gertsen, H., Gooren, H., Peters, P., Salánki, T., van der Ploeg, M.,
Geissen, V., 2017. Incorporation of microplastics from litter into burrows of
Lumbricus terrestris. Environ. Pollut. 220, 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.09.096.
Ma, X., Geiser-Lee, J., Deng, Y., Kolmakov, A., 2010. Interactions between engineered
nanoparticles (ENPs) and plants: phytotoxicity, uptake and accumulation. Sci. Total
Environ. 408 (16), 3053–3061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.031.
Magni, S., Binelli, A., Pittura, L., Avio, C.G., Della Torre, C., Parenti, C.C., et al., 2019.
The fate of microplastics in an Italian wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Total Environ.
652, 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.269.
13
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
Magnusson, K., Norén, F., 2014. Screening of Microplastic Particles in and Down-Stream
a Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mahon, A.M., O’Connell, B., Healy, M.G., O’Connor, I., Officer, R., Nash, R., Morrison, L.,
2017. Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51
(2), 810–818. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04048.
Masó, M., Garcés, E., Pagès, F., Camp, J., 2003. Drifting plastic debris as a potential
vector for dispersing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species. Sci. Mar. 67 (1), 107–111.
https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2003.67n1107.
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.
Michałowicz, J., 2014. Bisphenol A–sources, toxicity and biotransformation. Environ.
Toxicol. Pharmacol. 37 (2), 738–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2014.02.003.
Michielssen, M.R., Michielssen, E.R., Ni, J., Duhaime, M.B., 2016. Fate of microplastics
and other small anthropogenic litter (SAL) in wastewater treatment plants depends
on unit processes employed. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2 (6), 1064–1073.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00207B.
Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen, I., Löder, M.G., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2017. Identification of
microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array-
based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res. 108, 365–372. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015.
Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F., Quinn, B., 2016a. Wastewater treatment works
(WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50 (11), 5800–5808.
Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F., Quinn, B., 2016b. 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.
Naji, A., Azadkhah, S., Farahani, H., Uddin, S., Khan, F.R., 2021. Microplastics in
wastewater outlets of Bandar Abbas city (Iran): a potential point source of
microplastics into the Persian Gulf. Chemosphere 262, 128039. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128039.
Napper, I.E., Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2015. Characterisation, quantity
and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
99 (1–2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.029.
Ngo, P.L., Pramanik, B.K., Shah, K., Roychand, R., 2019. Pathway, classification and
removal efficiency of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Pollut.
255, 113326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113326.
Nizzetto, L., Bussi, G., Futter, M.N., Butterfield, D., Whitehead, P.G., 2016. A theoretical
assessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their retention by soils
and river sediments. Environ. Sci.: Process. Impacts 18 (8), 1050–1059. https://doi.
org/10.1039/C6EM00206D.
Park, T.J., Lee, S.H., Lee, M.S., Lee, J.K., Lee, S.H., Zoh, K.D., 2020. Occurrence of
microplastics in the Han River and riverine fish in South Korea. Sci. Total Environ.
708, 134535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134535.
Piyawardhana, N., Weerathunga, V., Chen, H.S., Guo, L., Huang, P.J., Ranatunga, R.R.M.
K.P., Hung, C.C., 2022. Occurrence of microplastics in commercial marine dried fish
in Asian countries. J. Hazard Mater. 423, 127093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.127093.
Plastics Europe, 2020. Plastics the Facts. An Analysis of European Plastic Production,
Demand and Waste Date.
Prajapati, S., Beal, M., Maley, J., Brinkmann, M., 2021. Qualitative and quantitative
analysis of microplastics and microfiber contamination in effluents of the City of
Saskatoon wastewater treatment plant. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 1–9 https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12898-7.
Prata, J.C., 2018. Microplastics in wastewater: state of the knowledge on sources, fate
and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 129 (1), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.02.046.
Proshad, R., Kormoker, T., Islam, M.S., Haque, M.A., Rahman, M.M., Mithu, M.M.R.,
2018. Toxic effects of plastic on human health and environment: a consequences of
health risk assessment in Bangladesh. Int. J. Health 6 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/
10.14419/ijh.v6i1.8655.
Rajala, K., Grönfors, O., Hesampour, M., Mikola, A., 2020. Conley Water Res. 183,
116045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116045.
Raju, S., Carbery, M., Kuttykattil, A., Senathirajah, K., Subashchandrabose, S.R.,
Evans, G., Thavamani, P., 2018. Transport and fate of microplastics in wastewater
treatment plants: implications to environmental health. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol. 17 (4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-018-9480-3.
Raju, S., Carbery, M., Kuttykattil, A., Senthirajah, K., Lundmark, A., Rogers, Z., et al.,
2020. Improved methodology to determine the fate and transport of microplastics in
a secondary wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 173, 115549. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2020.115549.
Ren, Z., Gui, X., Xu, X., Zhao, L., Qiu, H., Cao, X., 2021. Microplastics in the soil-
groundwater environment: aging, migration, and co-transport of contaminants–a
critical review. J. Hazard Mater. 126455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.126455.
Rochman, C.M., 2015. The complex mixture, fate and toxicity of chemicals associated
with plastic debris in the marine environment. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter.
Springer, Cham, pp. 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3.
Rochman, C.M., 2018. Microplastics research—from sink to source. Science 360 (6384),
28–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7734.
Rodrigues, S.M., Almeida, C.M.R., Silva, D., Cunha, J., Antunes, C., Freitas, V., Ramos, S.,
2019. Microplastic contamination in an urban estuary: abundance and distribution
of microplastics and fish larvae in the Douro estuary. Sci. Total Environ. 659,
1071–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.273.
A. Yaseen et al.
Rolsky, C., Kelkar, V., Driver, E., Halden, R.U., 2020. Municipal sewage sludge as a
source of microplastics in the environment. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 14,
16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.12.001.
Rozman, U., Kalčikova, G., 2021. Seeking for a perfect (non-spherical) microplastic
particle–The most comprehensive review on microplastic laboratory research.
J. Hazard Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127529, 127529.
Rubol, S., Manzoni, S., Bellin, A., Porporato, A., 2013. Modeling soil moisture and
oxygen effects on soil biogeochemical cycles including dissimilatory nitrate
reduction to ammonium (DNRA). Adv. Water Resour. 62, 106–124. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.09.016.
Seidensticker, S., Zarfl, C., Cirpka, O.A., Fellenberg, G., Grathwohl, P., 2017. Shift in
mass transfer of wastewater contaminants from microplastics in the presence of
dissolved substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (21), 12254–12263. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.7b02664.
Simon, M., van Alst, N., Vollertsen, J., 2018. Quantification of microplastic mass and
removal rates at wastewater treatment plants applying Focal Plane Array (FPA)-
based Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR) imaging. Water Res. 142, 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.019.
Smith, M., Love, D.C., Rochman, C.M., Neff, R.A., 2018. Microplastics in seafood and the
implications for human health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 5 (3), 375–386. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z.
Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C., Ni, B.J., 2019. Microplastics in
wastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res. 152,
21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050.
Talvitie, J., Heinonen, M., Pääkkönen, J.P., Vahtera, E., Mikola, A., Setälä, O., Vahala, R.,
2015. Do wastewater treatment plants act as a potential point source of
microplastics? Preliminary study in the coastal Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. Water Sci.
Technol. 72 (9), 1495–1504. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.360.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., Setälä, O., 2017. Solutions to microplastic
pollution–Removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res. 123, 401–407. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.005.
Vaid, M., Mehra, K., Gupta, A., 2021. Microplastics as contaminants in Indian
environment: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 1–28. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-021-16827-6.
Vardar, S., Onay, T.T., Demirel, B., Kideys, A.E., 2021. Evaluation of microplastics
removal efficiency at a wastewater treatment plant discharging to the Sea of
Marmara. Environ. Pollut. 289, 117862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2021.117862.
Veresoglou, S.D., Halley, J.M., Rillig, M.C., 2015. Extinction risk of soil biota. Nat.
Commun. 6 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9862.
Vianello, A., Jensen, R.L., Liu, L., Vollertsen, J., 2019. Simulating human exposure to
indoor airborne microplastics using a Breathing Thermal Manikin. Sci. Rep. 9 (1),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45054-w.
Vom Saal, F.S., Nagel, S.C., Coe, B.L., Angle, B.M., Taylor, J.A., 2012. The estrogenic
endocrine disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) and obesity. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol.
354 (1–2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2012.01.001.
Woermann, M., Sures, B., 2020. Ecotoxicological effects of micropollutant-loaded
powdered activated carbon emitted from wastewater treatment plants on Daphnia
magna. Sci. Total Environ. 746, 141104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.141104.
Wong, J.K.H., Lee, K.K., Tang, K.H.D., Yap, P.S., 2020. Microplastics in the freshwater
and terrestrial environments: prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable solutions.
Sci. Total Environ. 719, 137512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137512.
Wu, X., Pan, J., Li, M., Li, Y., Bartlam, M., Wang, Y., 2019. Selective enrichment of
bacterial pathogens by microplastic biofilm. Water Res. 165, 114979. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114979.
14
Environmental Research 212 (2022) 113258
Xiang, Y., Jiang, L., Zhou, Y., Luo, Z., Zhi, D., Yang, J., Lam, S.S., 2021. Microplastics and
environmental pollutants: key interaction and toxicology in aquatic and soil
environments. J. Hazard Mater. 126843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.126843.
Xu, C., Zhang, B., Gu, C., Shen, C., Yin, S., Aamir, M., Li, F., 2020. Are we
underestimating the sources of microplastic pollution in terrestrial environment?
J. Hazard Mater. 400, 123228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123228.
Yang, L., Li, K., Cui, S., Kang, Y., An, L., Lei, K., 2019. Removal of microplastics in
municipal sewage from China’s largest water reclamation plant. Water Res. 155,
175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.046.
Yuan, F., Zhao, H., Sun, H., Zhao, J., Sun, Y., 2021. Abundance, morphology, and
removal efficiency of microplastics in two wastewater treatment plants in Nanjing,
China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 (8), 9327–9337. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-020-11411-w.
Zaman, T., 2010. The prevalence and environmental impact of single use plastic
products. In: Public Health Management & Policy: an Online Textbook, eleventh ed.
Retrieved. (Accessed 23 November 2011)
Zambrano, M.C., Pawlak, J.J., Daystar, J., Ankeny, M., Cheng, J.J., Venditti, R.A., 2019.
Microfibers generated from the laundering of cotton, rayon and polyester based
fabrics and their aquatic biodegradation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 394–407. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.062.
Zarfl, C., Matthies, M., 2010. Are marine plastic particles transport vectors for organic
pollutants to the Arctic? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (10), 1810–1814. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.05.026.
Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A., 2013. Life in the “plastisphere”:
microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (13),
7137–7146. https://doi.org/10.1021/es401288x.
Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., 2020. Effects of microplastics on wastewater and sewage sludge
treatment and their removal: a review. Chem. Eng. J. 382, 122955. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2019.122955.
Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Allen, S., Allen, D., Gao, T., Sillanpää, M., 2020a. Atmospheric
microplastics: a review on current status and perspectives. Earth Sci. Rev. 203,
103118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103118.
Zhang, Y., Pu, S., Lv, X., Gao, Y., Ge, L., 2020b. Global trends and prospects in
microplastics research: a bibliometric analysis. J. Hazard Mater. 400, 123110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123110.
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Rintoul, L., Leusch, F.D., 2017. Wastewater treatment plants
as a pathway for microplastics: development of a new approach to sample
wastewater-based microplastics. Water Res. 112, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2017.01.042.
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Silveira, I.T., Chua, A., Leusch, F.D., 2021. An audit of
microplastic abundance throughout three Australian wastewater treatment plants.
Chemosphere 263, 128294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128294.
Ziccardi, L.M., Edgington, A., Hentz, K., Kulacki, K.J., Kane Driscoll, S., 2016.
Microplastics as vectors for bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic chemicals in
the marine environment: a state-of-the-science review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35
(7), 1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3461.
Further reading
Dey, T.K, et al., 2021. Detection and removal of microplastics in wastewater: evolution
and impact. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12943-5.
Dris, Rachid, et al., 2015. Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study in
Greater Paris, Environ. Chem. Environ. Chem. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN14167.
Hou, Liyuan, et al., 2020. Conversion and removal strategies for microplastics in
wastewater treatment plants and landfills. Chem. Eng. J.