Environmental Chemistry Letters

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00983-1

REVIEW

Removal of microplastics from the environment. A review

Mohsen Padervand1,2 · Eric Lichtfouse3 · Didier Robert4 · Chuanyi Wang1

Received: 14 November 2019 / Accepted: 1 March 2020

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
The production of fossil fuel-derived, synthetic plastics is continually increasing, while poor plastic waste management
has recently induced severe pollution issues. Microplastics are plastic particles smaller than 5 mm. Microplastics are ubiq-
uitous and slowly-degrading contaminants in waters and soils. Microplastics have long residence time, high stability, high
potential of being fragmented and can adsorb other contaminants. Many aquatic species contain microplastics, which are
in particular easily accumulated by planktonic and invertebrate organisms. Then, microplastics are transferred along food
chains, leading to physical damages, decrease in nutritional diet value and exposure of the living organism to pathogens.
Raw plastics contain chemical additives such as phthalates, bisphenol A and polybrominated diphenyl ethers that may induce
toxic effects after ingestion by living organisms. Furthermore, the adsorption capability of microplastics makes them prone
to carry several contaminants. Methods to remove microplastics from water and other media are actually needed. Here, we
review microplastics occurrence, transport, raw polymers and additives, toxicity and methods of removal. Removal methods
include physical sorption and filtration, biological removal and ingestion, and chemical treatments. Mechanisms, efficiency,
advantages, and drawbacks of various removal methods are discussed.

Keywords Microplastic pollution · Environment · Removal method

Introduction pollutants of concern (MacArthur et al. 2016). Microplastics

are plastics with size lower than 5 mm, originating from
The global production of plastics has highly increased since the exfoliation and degradation of many types of plastic-
1950 to improve human life and reached almost 381 million based products released into ecosystems (Zhang et al. 2018).
tons in 2015 (Ritchie and Roser 2018). This increase has, Microplastics has been reported in ocean sediments (Van
however, induced global plastic pollution, making plastics Cauwenberghe et al. 2013), urban and rural areas (Hirai
et al. 2011), freshwaters (Faure et al. 2015) and seawaters
(Law et al. 2014). Most reports suggest an accumulation
* Mohsen Padervand of microplastics in aquatic environments, and, as a conse-
padervand@maragheh.ac.ir; mohsenpadervand@gmail.com
quence, a higher exposure of living organisms to microplas-
* Chuanyi Wang tics and their degradation by-products (Andrady 2011; Sun
wangchuanyi@sust.edu.cn
et al. 2019).
Eric Lichtfouse Microplastics are categorized as primary microplastics,
eric.lichtfouse@gmail.com
which are raw materials used in domestic and personal
Didier Robert care products, and secondary microplastics arising from
didier.robert@univ‑lorraine.fr
the degradation of raw plastic particles by physical, chemi-
1
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Shaanxi cal, and biological processes in the environment (Galgani
University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710021, China et al. 2013). Long-term durability due to their polymeric
2
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University structure and easy transport between different habitats make
of Maragheh, Maragheh, Iran microplastics of high concern for biologists and environmen-
3
Aix‑Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, INRAE, Coll France, talists (Fig. 1). Major raw polymers include polyethylene
CEREGE, 13100 Aix‑en‑Provence, France terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PU), polystyrene (PS),
4
ICPEES, Université de Lorraine, 12 rue Victor Demange, polyvinylchloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyesters,
57500 Saint‑Avold, France

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 1  Microplastics sources, transformation and transport

polyethylene (PE) and polyamide (PA, nylon). Poor plastic the environment, is the secondary source of microplastics
waste management has resulted in ubiquitous microplastics (Eriksen et al. 2014). This increases plastic debris availabil-
occurrence (Gilani et al. 2019; Thompson 2015). Several ity for being ingested by a large variety of organisms and
reports show that long-term exposure to microplastics causes highlights the appearance of further environmental hazards
chronic toxicity, yet there is no evidence on their acute fatal (Thompson et al. 2009).
effects (Li et al. 2018a; Sussarellu et al. 2016). Microplas- Wastewater treatment plants are also a major source of
tic toxicity is controlled by different routes depending upon microplastics release (Browne et al. 2011; Long et al. 2019).
their chemical structure and additives used as linkage dur- Whereas large plastic particles are efficiently removed dur-
ing polymerization (Meeker et al. 2009; Sussarellu et al. ing wastewater treatment, microplastics often bypass the
2016). As an example, polystyrene microplastics are able to treatment units, thus entering and accumulating in the
be transferred in blood, causing reproductive disruption in aquatic environment (Murphy et al. 2016). Noteworthy,
marine filter feeders (Law et al. 2014). a large number of water treatment plants are located near
To our best knowledge, this is the first review on micro- the ocean and seawater, thus inducing a high microplastic
plastics removal. We discuss microplastic additives, occur- release source. For instance, in mainland China, about 1873
rence, transport and toxicity, then we review removal wastewater plants (56%), out of 3340, with 78 × 106 m3/day
methods. Removal methods include sorption and filtration, of treatment capacity, are located in coastal regions where
removal based on chemical phenomena, and biological their effluents can be directly or indirectly discharged into
ingestion treatments. Advantages, disadvantages and effi- aquatic ecosystems (Jin et al. 2014). To address this issue,
ciency of different methods are compared at the end. many researchers are investigating the fate, occurrence,
detection and removal of microplastics in the water treat-
ment plants (Beljanski 2016; Carr et al. 2016; Sun et al.
Microplastic sources, transport, polymers 2019).
and additives
Microplastic transport
Microplastic sources and occurrence
Sea and ocean are viewed as the major sinks for microplas-
Microplastics can be found worldwide in coastal regions tics, whereas freshwaters and terrestrial environments are
and aquatic ecosystems in various size fractions due to the main sources. Indeed, early research found that micro-
the transport phenomena including wind and ocean cur- plastic litter reaching oceans by rivers contains particles
rents. Primary sources are household sewage discharge found in soils (Horton et al. 2017a). This implies that
including polymeric particles from cosmetic and cleaning freshwaters and soils are also sinks of microplastics, as
products, feedstocks used to manufacture plastic products, evidenced by high concentrations of microplastics in some
and plastic pellets or powders used for air blasting (Jiang terrestrial and freshwater areas (Nizzetto et al. 2016).
2018). Progressive fragmentation of larger plastic items The long-term durability of microplastic fibers found in
under the atmospheric conditions, e.g., by mechanical deeper layers (~ 25 cm) of agricultural soils treated by
degradation and UV light exposure, thus contributing to sewage sludge as fertilizer (Zubris and Richards 2005),
the entrance of considerable amounts of microplastics to suggests a gradual transport in solid media, then further

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

accumulation at depth; thus making agricultural and forest the inland freshwaters of Wuhan in China ranged between
soils more likely to retain microplastics compared to urban 1660.0 ± 639.1 and 8925 ± 1591 numbers/m3; here the major
areas (Lwanga et al. 2017). types were polyethylene terephthalate and polypropylene
As rivers carry a huge volume of plastic particles over (Wang et al. 2017). Low-density polyethylene has been also
the large distances, microplastics probably settle out along identified as the dominant type of microplastics.
with sinking sediments, particularly where flow energy Microplastics contain a large variety of chemical addi-
drops, for instance in retard-moving riverbeds. Accord- tives such as bisphenol A, phthalates and polybrominated
ingly, futher sediment deposition of microplastics in lakes diphenyl ethers, which are used during raw plastic synthesis
where water flow is the lowest and sedimentation rate is to improve plasticity (Besseling et al. 2014, Murphy 2001).
high, should induce high accumulation (Corcoran et al. These additives are endocrine disruptors, and thus may
2015). exhibit toxic effects upon release. The concentration of such
The shape diversity, small size, lightweight and low plasticizers in plastic debris of remote and urban beaches
density of microplastics contribute to their widespread is up to 35 ng/g in remote beaches and up to 700 ng/g in
transport and facile dispersal across large distances on urban beaches for bisphenol A; between 0.1 and 400 ng/g
land and within aquatic systems by storm sewers, wind and in remote beaches and up to 9900 ng/g in urban beaches for
other natural currents (Horton and Dixon 2018). Larger polybrominated diphenyl ethers; and up to 3940 ng/g for
size and higher density result in facile sinking and sedi- phthalates (Hirai et al. 2011). These plastic additives have
ment deposition of the microplastics (Horton et al. 2017b). been detected in most microplastic polymers (Jiang 2018).
Furthermore, irregularly shaped microplastics with jagged Researchers also reported the leaching of bisphenol A and
geometry and sharp ends are more likely retained under- nonylphenol from silicone and polycarbonate microplas-
water, rather than returning to the surface, whereas spheri- tics (Fasano et al. 2012). Accumulation of such chemicals
cal particles show a higher tendency to stay at the surface in human bodies through biological phenomena is also
(Ballent et al. 2012; Lagarde et al. 2016). reported (Talsness et al. 2009). The most alarming exposure
Microplastics transport pathways in the air are not fully route to microplastics for human is food, where the adverse
understood (Horton and Dixon 2018). Noteworthy, in the effects of the chemical additives and mechanism of entrance
air, there are few dispersal boundaries, compared to water to the organs are still unexplored (Wright and Kelly 2017).
systems. Nonetheless, microplastics transport within the Accordingly, many efforts must be devoted to finding effi-
atmosphere is not totally independent of aquatic and ter- cient strategies to abate the presence of microplastics in the
restrial pollutions, and here further investigations are environment. While there have been published reports on
needed to elucidate the mechanisms (Dris et al. 2016). characterizing sources, occurrence, fate, methods for detec-
As another major concern, due to their hydrophobic- tion, and environmental effects; to date, few research and
ity and high surface area/volume ratio, microplastics are review papers have discussed removal processes of micro-
highly susceptible to sorb and carry persistent organic plastics from contaminated systems.
pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB),
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polyaromatic
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which can be Toxicity of microplastics
subsequently transferred to coastal regions and be des-
orbed inside living organisms (Browne et al. 2013). Conse- Toxicity from the chemical structure
quently, the concentration of organic pollutants in coastal
areas is expected to increase several orders of magnitude The potential toxicity of microplastics arises from unre-
as a result of pollutant transport by microplastics. Micro- acted monomers, oligomers and chemical additives leaked
plastic morphology and transport are thus major charac- from the plastic in the long rub (Thompson et al. 2004).
teristics controlling the other waterborne pollutants (Cole Monomers and oligomers are both able to migrate from
et al. 2011). food packaging materials (Piringer and Baner 2008). As the
concentration of the residuals reaches specific limits, they
Microplastic raw polymers and additives can be potentially absorbed by human bodies via different
pathways. For instance, the presence of polystyrene residuals
Polymeric ingredients of primary microplastics mainly in food materials is reported to cause serious health issues,
include polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene, while epoxy resins made of bisphenol A are absorbed by
depending upon the type of the products manufactured by the living tissues, then interfer with the rate of cell division
factory; while secondary microplastics are predominantly (Lau and Wong 2000).
made of polyester, acrylic and polyamide, forming fibers in Chemical additives are used during polymers manufac-
the environment (Jiang 2018). The microplastic number in turing for improving the products performance. Additives

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

include functional additives such as plasticizers, heat stabi- former case. They explained the mechanism by interactions
lizers, flame retardants, antioxidants, colorants, e.g. soluble between the cell wall components of the marine mussels,
azo-colorants and pigments, fillers such as kaolin and clay, e.g. p-glycoprotein, involved in pollutant excretion, and
and reinforcements, e.g. carbon and glass fibers. These addi- the microplastics surface.
tives are another source of toxicity. For example, researchers Zhang et al. (2017) investigated the adverse effects of
found that the release level of some phthalates from baby microplastics on the photosynthesis of the marine microal-
bottles was in the range of 50–150 μg/kg of food content gae Skeletonema costatum. They found that the maximum
after the contact time of 120 min at 70 °C (Simoneau et al. growth inhibition ratio reached up to 39.7% after 96 h of
2012). The release level of bisphenol A from food packag- exposure to microplastics with average diameter of 1 μm.
ing items was estimated to be in the range of 100–800 ng/L, Their results show a drastic decrease in chlorophyll content
while the values were in the range of μg/L for some phtha- (20%) and photosynthetic efficiency (32%) after exposure
lates under the same conditions (Fasano et al. 2012). Most of to high concentration of microplastic (50 mg/L), leading
these additives are not chemically bound to the bulk plastic to negative effects on microalgae growth. According to
structures, implying easier release. the results of morphological studies and scanning electron
Nobre et al. (2015) studied the toxicity of raw and beach- microscopy (SEM), they proposed both adsorption and
stranded microplastics on the development of embryos of aggregation of microplastics on the outer surface of micro-
Lytechinus variegatus, simulating leaching of the chemi- algae as the most probable mechanism of toxicity.
cal additives into the water column and interstitial water by Size dependency of microplastics toxicity was also con-
assays of elutriate and pellet–water interface, respectively. firmed by Lu et al. (2016) who investigated the exposure
They found that raw microplastics induced more toxicity, effects of polystyrene microplastics to zebra fish. They stated
enhancing anomalous embryonic development by 58.1% that a 7-day exposure resulted in accumulating the micro-
and 66.5% for the former and latter evaluation method, plastics with size of 5 μm in liver, gill and gut, while those
respectively. Their results also implied that the leaching with size of 20 μm were just found in fish gill and gut. More-
of chemical compounds strongly depends upon the media over, lipid accumulation and inflammation of liver, oxidative
compartment in which microplastics accumulate, and upon stress, and adverse alterations in the metabolism profile of
the exposure pathway. Hahladakis et al. (2018) reviewed the fish liver were the main toxicity outcomes.
migration and release rate, fate, and potential toxicity effects The shape and texture of the ingested microplastics also
of additives on organisms and environment. The release of influence their toxicity and absorption capability. According
volatile compounds, e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, to Au et al. (2015), polypropylene microplastic fibers were
styrene and methylene chloride, from plastics can also con- more toxic than polyethylene microplastic spherical particles
tribute to chronic health effects (Andrady 2017; Huff et al. to the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca. They attrib-
2010; Wexler and Gad 1998). uted this to the longer residence time of the fibers in gut,
which modifies the ability of food processing, thus leading
Toxicity from physical properties to serious changes in sublethal endpoints.

Microplastics exert damage through the effect of a relatively Toxicity from microorganisms carried
large surface area/volume ratio. They absorb hydrophobic by microplastics
pollution from water, then carry this pollution to other habi-
tats (Setälä et al. 2014). A study of the effect of phenan- The potential of microplastics to carry pathogenic bacteria
threne-loaded low-density polyethylene glycol microplastics has been explored by Kirstein et al. (2016). They observed
on biomarker responses in juvenile African catfish revealed Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacterial strains on some polyeth-
significant tissue changes in the liver and brain of the organ- ylene, polypropylene and polystyrene marine microplas-
ism (Karami et al. 2016). tic particles gathered from North Sea. They highlighted
The ingestion of microplastics by biota is a common way the need for further consideration of health impacts of
to induce toxicological effects (Hämer et al. 2014). Polysty- microbial assemblages in microplastics. A 10-day expo-
rene microplastics enhance the bioavailability of fluoran- sure to five types of ~ 70 μm microplastics led to intesti-
thene compounds to marine mussels (Mytilus spp.) after nal damage including splitting of enterocytes and cracking
7 days of exposure under controlled experimental condi- of villi in zebrafish Danio rerio and nematode C. elegans,
tions (Paul-Pont et al. 2016). These results mean that ther as model organisms of freshwater (Lei et al. 2018). They
is a higher fluoranthene concentration in mussels exposed also demonstrated that 2-day exposure of 5.0 mg/m2 of
to fluoranthene-loaded microplastics than those exposed to microplastics considerably reduced calcium levels and sur-
pure fluoranthene. Highest levels of antioxidant markers vival rates, and inhibited body length and reproduction of
and histopathological damages were also observed for the

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

C. elegans. They suggested that oxidative stress and intes- contaminants on the surface, carry them and desorb into the
tinal damages are the main toxicity effects of microplastics. new habitats (Rios et al. 2007). Their large surface area/
Prata (2018) reviewed the potential toxicity of airborne volume ratio makes adsorption of other contaminants likely.
microplastics and adverse effects of their low environmental Sundbaek et al. (2018) studied the adherence behavior
concentrations on human health. They discussed the diseases of fluorescent microplastic particles on the surface of an
aroused from airborne microplastics and pathophysiological edible marine microalgae, seaweed, named Fucus vesicu-
mechanisms of toxicity including dust overload, oxidative losus. The diameter size of the polystyrene microplastics
stress, translocation, and gene mutation. They proposed that was ~ 20 μm, while the plant cells of the sorbent contained
exposure to low atmospheric concentrations can contribute very narrow microchannels to restrict the translocation
to incidence of cardiovascular, respiratory, and interstitial of polystyrene microplastics into the tissues. The results
lung diseases. revealed a high sorption of microplastics (~ 94.5%), mainly
Overall, the toxicity of microplastics arises from near the cut surfaces of the seaweed, which is explained by
raw chemical additives, adsorption and transport of pollut- the role of released alginate compounds from cell walls in
ants and microbes, and release to life and the environment. the cut regions. Indeed, because of the gelatinous charac-
Toxicity depends physically on size and shape of microplas- teristics of this anionic polysaccharide substance, alginate
tics. Biota and humans are affected by toxic effects of micro- is able to improve the adherence of polystyrene particles
plastics via mechanisms including sorption and aggregation on the seaweed’s surface (Martins et al. 2013). This paper
in different organs, ingestion, and exertion of physical dam- and the other researches on microalgae capabilities to sorb
ages and disturbing the life systems. Research is needed to tiny plastic particles accentuate the effective role of micro-
clarify how microplastics induce tissue changes and patho- plastics’ surface charge and microalgae’s surface characters
logical disorders. (Bhattacharya et al. 2010; Nolte et al. 2017). Investigating
the adsorption of 20–500 nm polystyrene particles onto uni-
cellular green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Nolte
Removal of microplastics using sorption et al. (2017) concluded that positively charged polystyrene
and filtration methods microplastics are more efficiently adsorbed on the algae’s
surface than those with negative charge.
Adsorption on green algae Overall, the sorption of microplastics on algae surface
strongly depends on particles’ surface charge. Positively
The presence of microplastics in aquatic environments is charged microplastics have higher tendency to be sorbed
expected to be more critical than other pollutants due to more efficiently, which is explained by the presence of an
several harmful effects and death of organisms, e.g. fishes, anionic polysaccharide in the algal chemical structure.
mammals, marine birds and reptiles, arising from their
entanglement and bioaccumulation (Cole et al. 2011; Gra- Removal using membrane technology
ham and Thompson 2009; Gregory 2009). Their persistence
and low degradability call for removal methods. Microplas- Li et al. (2018b) reported the use of dynamic membranes
tics are generally categorized as persistent materials but for the efficient removal of microplastics from a synthetic
they degrade more of less depending upon their nature and wastewater (Fig. 2). They investigated the effect of influent
chemical structure. Microplastics with half-life times lower flux and particles concentration on the removal efficiency
than the values defined in terms of REACH criteria for per- of dynamic membranes formed on a diatomite platform
sistency (Table 1) can be considered as degradable, and with 90 μm of supporting mesh during filtration of the syn-
do not pose a threat to the environment (Verschoor 2015). thetic wastewater. Excellent filtration of microplastices was
Microplastics are prone to sorb a large variety of waterborne obtained in 20 min by decreasing the turbidity from 195
NTU for the influent to less than 1 for the effluent (Ersahin
et al. 2017; Horton and Dixon 2018). Dynamic membrane
Table 1  Persistency criteria for contaminants in different media formation is facilitated at higher influent fluxes and micro-
according to the REACH Annex XIII (Verschoor 2015) plastics concentrations.
Compartment Half-life (days) Ward (2015) designed an efficient microplastic removal
tool based on polymer coatings as an elongated mesh
Marine water > 60
screen. He claimed that the tool has good durability and
Fresh or estuarine water > 40
has the advantage of being easily fabricated from com-
Marine sediment > 180
modious materials. Other tool advantages included the
Fresh or estuarine sediment > 120
absence of electrical power and mechanical devices.
Soil > 120

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 2  Dynamic membrane

experimental setup and graph
showing the decrease in turbid-
ity with time when micro-
plastics are removed (Li et al.
2018b). TMP transmembrane
pressure, NTU nephelometric
turbidity unit

Membrane bioreactors, however, exhibit higher capacitie Removal using advanced filtration technologies
than simple dynamic membranes for the removal of micro- in wastewater treatment plants
sized plastics (Lares et al. 2018; Talvitie et al. 2017a). Kno-
block et al. (1994) studied the purification capability of a Lares et al. (2018) recently studied the performance of a
coupled system, taking advantage of porous membranes in municipal wastewater treatment plant operating based on
combination with biological processes. Successful removal a pilot-scale, combined membrane bioreactor–conventional
of a large variety of complex industrial wastewaters by mem- activated sludge methodology for the removal of micro-
brane bioreactors confirms the suitability of this technol- plastics. Their study took 3 months and sampling cam-
ogy for the treatment for high-strength contaminants such paigns were every 2 weeks. The wastewater samples were
as polymeric debris and microplastics (Gurung et al. 2016). collected from a municipal water treatment plant located
Talvitie et al. (2017a) investigated the removal of various next to the city center of Mikkeli in Finland. Including an
types of microplastics from wastewater treatment plant aeration tank, for mixing the wastewater with air to activate
effluents using advanced final-stage treatment technologies microorganisms, and a sedimentation tank, where the sludge
including membrane bioreactor, disk filter, rapid sand fil- is separated from the treated wastewater, for the biologi-
tration, and dissolved air floating (Fig. 3). They concluded cal degradation and secondary purification, respectively, a
that the membrane bioreactor eliminated 99.9%, from 6.9 conventional activated sludge system is also expected to
to 0.005 microplactic particle per L (Table 2). They also improve the activity (Gurung et al. 2016). Results revealed
showed that membrane bioreactor, rapid sand filtration and a better removal of microplastics (99.4%) using a membrane
dissolved air floating removed microplastics of any size, bioreactor compared to the conventional activated sludge
even the smallest size fractions of 20–100 μm. Moreover, treatment system (98.3%). Microplastics concentration in
the removal efficiency did not depend upon the microplastics the final effluent of the former system was estimated to be
shape; particularly, textile fibers which were predominant in 0.4 ± 0.1 MP/L, which was lower in comparison with that
both influents and effluents during the treatment, were effi- evaluated for the later process (1.0 ± 0.4 MP/L). They also
ciently removed. Analysis of the samples by Fourier trans- stated that the main reason for observing a narrow range of
form infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) indicated that the mem- final microplastics concentrations is probably due to opting
brane bioreactor highly decreased the number of polymers for different processing steps and wastewater samples than
in the final effluent, too, which highlights the good sorption previous works (Leslie et al. 2017; Mintenig et al. 2017;
capacity of the setup to trap microplastics of various chemi- Murphy et al. 2016).
cal structures. 11 wastewater treatment plants in Changzhou, China,
Membrane technologies were successfully used to remove were studied for their efficiency to remove microplastics
microplastics from polluted aquatic environments. The by following the abundance, color, shape and dimensional
removal efficiency over the membranes particularly depends changes during the removal steps (Ma et al. 2019). All plants
on its durability, influent flux, size, and concentration of the that used several treatment steps such as subsequent tanks
microplastics. The combination of porous membranes with for floating and sedimentation, and filtration processes, elim-
biological processes could enhance the removal efficiency inated more than 90% of microplastics from the influents,
up to 99.9%. with a final removal efficiency reaching 97.15%. The most
important reasons that cause variation in removal efficiencies

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 3  Microplastics removal

efficiency, in terms of number
of microplastics per liter, MP/L,
after treatment by final-stage
treatment technologies (Talvitie
et al. 2017a)

Table 2  Average microplastic Treatment Effluent type Before (MP/L) After (MP/L) Removal (%)
concentrations before and
after treatment with different Disk filter ­10a Secondary 0.5 0.3 40.0
technologies
Disk filter ­20a Secondary 2.0 0.03 98.5
Rapid sand filter Secondary 0.7 0.02 97.1
Dissolved air flotation Secondary 2.0 0.1 95.0
Membrane bioreactor Primary 6.9 0.005 99.9

Data are given in number of microplastics per liter of effluent

a
Pore size in μm (Talvitie et al. 2017a)

might be daily processing volume, different raw water and aerated grit treatment, while the removal efficiency reached
type of treatment processes. Large-size microplastics were to 71.67% following the advance treatment processes.
less abundant in the effluents, in agreement with previous Although the overall removal efficiency in the present sew-
reports (Horton and Dixon 2018). In addition, fiber rayon age treatment plant, of 95.16%, was outstandingly less than
and polyethylene terephthalate were the main ingredients that of for membrane bioreactors, of 99.9%, it was compa-
of these microplastics, and reached the highest removals. rable to the efficiency of dissolved air flotation technolo-
The microplastics removal methodology used by munici- gies and sand filters (Talvitie et al. 2017b). Noteworthy, the
pal sewage treatment plants was studied by researchers in treatment processes currently employed at sewage treatment
Beijing, China (Yang et al. 2019). The influents were ini- plants are not necessarily designed for the removal of micro-
tially treated by a series of processes including aerated grit plastics. Regardless, these processes are able to eliminate
chamber, primary and secondary sedimentation tanks fol- a large portion of microplastics from the wastewater. The
lowing ­A2O treatments, e.g., anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic. researchers finally estimated that sewage treatment plants
Finally, advanced treatment processes including denitrifica- release almost 0.59 × 10 9 items of microplastic into the
tion, ultrafiltration, ozonation and ultraviolet are applied to aquatic ecosystems.
complete the cycle and remove microplastics from waste- Overall, sorption and filtration methodologies show
water. The results of FTIR analysis revealed the presence of a good efficiency for the treatment for microplastics-con-
18 polymers in the effluent, in which polyethylene tereph- taining wastewater, mainly in combination with other pro-
thalate and polyester had the highest abundances of 42.26 cedures such as biological and sedimentation processes. To
and 19.1%, respectively. 58.84% of the microplastics popu- achieve higher removal efficiency, membrane bioreactors are
lation in influents was removed during the primary step of simultaneously used with other advanced physical–chemical

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

treatments in most wastewater treatment plants all over the has better performance than ­Fe3+. Also, the microplas-
world, but it has still been confirmed that these plants act as tic removal efficiency was scarcely modified by the pH of
microplastics sources to aquatic environment. the solution at low concentration of Al coagulant source,
0.5 mM, whereas removal efficiency decreased by increas-
ing the pH, particularly for small-sized microplastics, of
Chemical methods to treat microplastics diameter lower than 0.5 mm. They found that polyacryla-
mide (PAM), an enhancing coagulation agent, increased
Many wastewater treatment plants worldwide use coagula- the removal efficiency for small microplastics much better
tion and agglomeration processes to form enlarged contami- than for large particles under high Al dosage of 5 mM. This
nant particles that are easier to separate (Hu et al. 2012; Lee highlights the greater growth rate of small microplastics in
et al. 2012; Shirasaki et al. 2016). These processes involve the presence of cationic polyacrylamide. The growth rate
Fe- and Al-based salts and other coagulants to bind tiny was highly enhanced when anionic polyacrylamide was
particles via uptake-complexation mechanisms initiated by used for the removal efficiency for the smaller microplas-
a ligand exchange, thus forming strong bonds between waste tics (d < 0.5 mm): here the removal was raised from 25.83%
particles (Chorghe et al. 2017). without polyacrylamide to 61.19% with 15 mg/L polyacryla-
Ariza-Tarazona et al. (2019) recently studied the removal mide, while it just increased from 4.27% to 18.34% for larger
of polyethylene microplastics using iron and aluminum microplastics, of 2–5 mm diameter.
salt coagulants and ultrafiltration (Fig. 4). The experi- Ariza-Tarazona et al. (2019) also explored the removal
ments were carried out under different concentrations of the microplastics with the same method but using
of ­Al3+ and F­ e3+ ions, and the results indicated that A ­ l3+ ­FeCl3·6H2O coagulation agent (Fig. 5). They found that the

Fig. 4  Microplastic removal by coagulation, sedimentation and ultrafiltration (UF) (Ma et al. 2019). The effect of anionic polyacrylamide
(PAM), pH and the formation of Al-based flocs on the removal efficiency is well represented

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 5  Removal of polyethylene microplastics from the wastewater formation of Fe-based flocs on the removal efficiency is well repre-
using ­Fe3+ coagulation, sedimentation and ultrafiltration processes sented. MPs microplastics, UF ultrafiltration
(Ma et al. 2019). The effect of polyacrylamide (PAM), pH and the

removal at neutral pH enhanced as the coagulant concentra- Mn+ + nOH− → MOHn(s) (5)
(aq)
tion increased and, this trend being clearer for small micro-
plastics, of d lower than 0.5 mm. Similarly, the removal effi- The produced coagulants break up the colloids and sta-
ciency was accelerated at high pH and high concentration, bilize the suspended microparticles surface charges, which
2 mM, of the coagulant and for lower size of the micro- allows the particles to get close to each other sufficiently for
plastics. However, in this case and under high dosage of making interactions via van der Waals forces (Akbal and
the coagulation agent, 2 mM, anionic polyacrylamide acted Camcı 2011). The coagulants simultaneously form a sludge
much better than the cationic one to improve the removal blanket to trap the suspended microplastics in the wastewater
rate of polyethylene microplastics. This can be mechanisti- sample. The results show a removal efficiency higher than
cally explained based on facile formation of Fe-based flocs 90% for all experiments using proposing electrocoagula-
during the coagulation process, during which anionic poly- tion. The highest removal efficiency, 99.24%, was obtained
acrylamide makes the products dense enough to be easily with pH of 7.5 and NaCl concentration of 0–2 g/L. Further-
trapped and separated. more, the lowest tested current density of 11 A/m2, which
Researchers have also used the robust and environmen- is the best in view of energy consumption, was the most
tally compatible electrocoagulation technique (Perren et al. efficient for achieving the highest removal rate.
2018), which allows sludge minimization, energy efficiency, Herbort et al. (2018) suggested agglomeration based on
cost-effectiveness, and flexibility to automation, to remove alkoxy-silyl bond formation via sol–gel reactions as a new
the polyethylene microplastics in a stirred-tank batch reactor sustainable removal approach for treatment for the micro-
(Fig. 6). In situ formation of the metal hydroxide coagulants plastics originating from inert products of the textile and
is initiated by the reaction of metal ions such as ­Fe2+ and cosmetic industries. Functionalized molecular precursors
­Al3+ released from sacrificial electrodes in a water stream were initially synthesized in an inert atmosphere, then used
with hydroxyl anions of the media; Eqs. 1–4 display the for bio-inspired alkoxy-silyl formation. Meanwhile, micro-
anodic and cathodic reactions, respectively: plastics adhered together to form large three-dimensional
agglomerates which can, afterward, be removed using cost-
n+
M(s) → M(aq) + ne− (1) efficient filtration methods (Fig. 7). The sol–gel formed in
this way is similar to hybrid organic–inorganic silica gels
2H2 O(l) → 4H+(aq) + O2(g) + 4e− (2) with a large variety of benefits and usages in sensors and
optical materials, medicine, and corrosion protection (Nicole
et al. 2004).
Mn+
(aq)
+ ne− → M(s) (3) The mechanisms of degradation of microplastics are
not fully known. Brandon et al. (2016) studied the degra-
2H2 O(l) + 2e− → H2(g) + 2OH− (4) dative changes of the chemical structure of two types of
microplastics including polypropylene and polyethylene

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 6  Bench-scale reactor setup for the removal of microplastics using electrocoagulation method in which ­Al3+ acts as coagulation agent (Per-
ren et al. 2018)

for 3 years under simulated realistic weather conditions. and the average size of the microplastics play a role in the
According to FTIR analysis, they found some slight nonlin- adsorption capacity and surface properties, which affect the
ear changes with time in moieties like carbonyl, hydroxyl microplastic oxidation rate significantly. Degradation of
and carbon–oxygen bonds, implying microplastics slow polyethylene microplastics in artificial seawater under dark
degradation. and UV radiation to evaluate the structural and morphologi-
The exposure of macroplastics to elements (Colom et al. cal alterations has been recently reported (Da Costa et al.
2003; Gulmine et al. 2003), microorganisms (Pathak 2017), 2018; Pathak 2017). FTIR analysis of the initial materials
catalysts (Hazrat et al. 2015), and photo-active materials (Li and products (Fig. 8) evidenced the stronger degradative
et al. 2010) has been widely reported but there are no large role of the artificial seawater compared to UV illumination.
number of publications on microplastics degradation. Liu This was confirmed by an increase of the organic content
et al. (2019) studied the long-term aging behavior of poly- of the medium. As a control experiment, the researchers
styrene and polyethylene microplastics treated by a com- exposed microplastics to UV light alone for the same period
bined heat-activated persulfate and Fenton method in the of time and did not observe significant changes in the chemi-
aquatic environment. According to their results, O/C ratio cal structure, thus showing implying that salt is needed to

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 7  Removal of polyethylene microplastics using alkoxy-silyl- synthesis reaction in the middle exhibits the formation process of the
induced agglomeration. The microscopy images of the microplastic coagulation agent (Nicole et al. 2004)
before agglomeration (above left) and after that (above right). The

Fig. 8  Fourier transform infra-

red (FTIR) spectra of polyeth-
ylene microplastics before and
after an 8-week treatment with
artificial seawater (Da Costa
et al. 2018). The appearance of
new bands assigned to the oxi-
dized groups in the spectrum of
the treated sample confirms the
microplastic transformation

form oxidized sites. SEM images also revealed the effect of air, is the mostly common process for the breaking of poly-
salt on microplastic surface morphology, in which observ- meric chains (Yousif and Haddad 2013). Different mecha-
able crack lines were clearly detected. This strengthens the nisms were suggested for the photochemical processes in the
fact that media salinity facilitates microplastic degradation aqueous phase, in which hydroxyl radicals strongly promote
(Vasile and Pascu 2005). the degradation reactions (Li et al. 2010). Heterogeneous
Photocatalytic degradation of the organic contaminants is photocatalytic degradation of low-density polyethylene
a destructive process triggered by absorbed photons on the microplastics has been recently investigated in the aquatic
surface of a semiconducting material for generating hyperac- media over the rod-like ZnO nanoparticles (Tofa et al. 2019).
tive radicals. Depending upon the semiconductor band gap, From the optical images, morphological changes including
the energy of the incident photons and, subsequently, the the appearance of wrinkles, brittleness, cracks and spots on
suitable light source must be chosen. Photooxidation degra- photo-exposed surfaces of the microplastics were observed
dation, that is oxidation in the presence of light source and (Fig. 9). Also, the results revealed variations in elasticity

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

properties of the sample exposed to photocatalytic condi- (−CH2 − HCOO⋅ − CH2 −)n + (−CH2 − CH2 −)n
tions in comparison with nonirradiated wastewater, and → (−CH2 − HCOOH − CH2 −)n + (−CH2 − CH⋅ −)n
this directly is in correlation to the changes in the strength (8)
of chemical bonds. Accordingly, the nanorods surface area
influenced the stiffness degree of the microplastics and the (−CH2 − HCOOH − CH2 −)n → (−CH2 − HCO⋅ − CH2 −)n + OH⋅
photocatalytic performance. Liang et al. (2013) obtained (9)
FTIR data which confirmed the presence of newly formed (−CH2 − HCO − CH2 −)n → carbonyl groups (norrish type I)
⋅
functional groups such as carbonyl and vinyl during the pho- (10)
tocatalytic treatment, they proposed a mechanism for the
(−CH2 − CO − CH2 −) → (−CH2 − CO⋅ )n
mineralization of microplastics in wastewater (Eqs. 6–13):
+ (⋅ CH2 − CH2 −)n (norrish type II) (11)
(−CH2 − CH2 −)n + OH → (−CH2 − CH −)n + H2 O (6)
⋅ ⋅

(−CH2 − CO − CH2 −) → (−CH2 − CO)n + (CH2 = CH2 )n

(−CH2 − CH⋅ −)n + O2 → (−CH2 − HCOO⋅ − CH2 −)n (7) (12)
(−CH2 − HCO) + (−CH2 − COOH)
+ (−CH2 − CO − CH2 −) → CO2 + H2 O (13)

Fig. 9  Decrease of the elasticity

of microplastics after photocata-
lytic treatment with: A: ZnO
(10 mM, 5 h), B: ZnO (3 mM,
5 h) and C: control. Optical
images of the treated microplas-
tics, i photo-irradiated, only, for
175 h, ii photo-irradiated in the
presence of the ZnO nanorods,
3 mM for 5 h, iii photo-
irradiated in the presence of
the ZnO nanorods, 10 mM for
5 h, iv photo-irradiated in the
presence of the ZnO nanorods,
20 mM for 5 h, representing the
development of holes, cracks,
and spots (Tofa et al. 2019)

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

The design and degradative capability of the T ­ iO2-based the removal efficiency. The SEM images and FTIR spectra
micro- and nanodevices for the photocatalytic treatment have also provided good evidences to confirm the structural
for microplastics have been studied (Sekino et al. 2012). changes during the mineralization process.
Holding high potential for water purification, remediation of To conclude, coagulation and agglomeration methods
environmental pollutions and medicinal usages, photo-active have been investigated to remove microplastics in the labo-
micromotors have attracted huge attention (Eskandarloo ratory. The efficiency depends on the type of coagulant, pH,
et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2018). Wang et al. (2019) reported the chemical composition of the media and the concentra-
the use of a Au-decorated T ­ iO2-based micromotor for the tions. Although salinity of the media and the presence of
efficient photocatalytic removal of polystyrene microplas- illumination source are reported to affect modify the degra-
tics from wastewater under UV illumination (Fig. 10). dation of microplastic structures in the aquatic environment,
The micromotor propulsion is supplied by photochemical degradative processes have been rarely studied. Of special
reactions in water and hydrogen peroxide initiated by elec- interest are photocatalytic nanomaterials which make use of
tron–hole generation processes. Although the lack of selec- both irradiation and catalytic degradation.
tivity was the most important disadvantage of this system.
The need for low concentrations of ­H2O2 for promoting the
phoretic interactions, which enable the micromotor to move, Biological removal and ingestion
makes this system actually non applicable in real wastewater.
Recently, Ariza-Tarazona et al. (2019) reported the ability Microplastic removal by marine organisms
of a protein-based N-TiO2 photocatalyst to degrade the poly-
ethylene microplastics in solid and aqueous phases. Accord- Harrison et al. (2011) published “Interactions Between
ing to their results, photocatalytic treatment for the pollution Microorganisms and Marine Microplastics: A Call for
resulted in 1.1% of the mass loss in the solid phase with the Research” to highlight the outstanding potential of micro-
rate constant of 12.2 × 10−4/h after 20 h of treatment time. organisms, including picoeukaryotes, bacteria and archaea,
These values were reported to be 6.4% and 38.2 × 10−4/h to facilitate the biological degradation of microplastics in
in the aqueous phase. They demonstrated that surface area coastal sediments. They discuss the interactions between
of the semiconductor and interactions between the photo- synthetic microplastics and marine microorganisms. Many
catalyst surface and microplastics significantly influenced reports present the biological degradation of natural and

Fig. 10  Photocatalytic removal

of polystyrene microplastics in
water by a Au–Ni–TiO2 micro-
motor (Wang et al. 2019). The
microscopy images represent
the efficient interactions leading
to photodegradation reaction of
the microplastics on the surface
of the micromotor

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

synthetic macroplastics (Ahmed et al. 2018; Bettas Ardis- the microplastics to less than 1 μm for the fragmentation
son et al. 2014). products (Fig. 11) (Dawson et al. 2018). The findings thus
Polyethylene microplastics fragmentation and size alter- provide evidence for the biologically-mediated transforma-
ation ingested by Antarctic Krill (Euphausiasuperba), a tion of microplastics to nanoplastics.
planktonic crustacean, were studied by a group of environ- The preliminary results of a four-month study on removal
mentalists in Australia (Dawson et al. 2018). The mecha- of high-density polyethylene secondary microplastics in sea-
nism of fragmentation and type of interactions between water using two types of indigenous marine communities
microplastics and zooplankton, in which biota-facilitated including Agios consortium and Souda consortium were
degradation occurs, still remains unclear but the experi- published by Cocca et al. (2017). According to the recorded
ments confirmed that smaller microplastics are much eas- weight reduction results, the Souda consortium was more
ily fragmented under environmental conditions (Ter Halle efficient. Interestingly, their results on monitoring the cell
et al. 2016). Electron microscopic evidences confirmed the content and populations suggested that microplastics acted
shrinking of polyethylene microplastics through fragmen- as a rich carbon source to feed the organisms. While the
tation, where the physical size decreased from ~ 31 μm for protein content of both communities decreased during the

Fig. 11  Fate of microplastics ingested by Antarctic krill. Microplas- cence microscopy (f). This figure typically represents the pathway of
tics on a filter paper isolated from digested krill with auto-fluorescent microplastics transformation to nanoplastics inside the organism. WB
mandible (a), digestive gland tissue (b), midgut and digestive gland whole bead, FB fragmented bead, M mandible, DG digestive gland,
tissue (c), mandible with the fragments embedded into the surface MG midgut (Dawson et al. 2018)
(d), and fecal pellet with microplastics under bright-field and fluores-

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

The evidences from biological content measurements, such

as protein reduction and carbohydrate increase with expo-
sure time, revealed that the Z. maritimum community pos-
sibly uses the microplastics as a nutrient source, an iden-
tical finding described earlier (Sivan 2011). Noteworthily,
the results of the electron and optical microscopy clearly
revealed that the biological compounds were present on the
surface of the microplastic pellets, typically, highlighting
the aforementioned potential of such organisms for trig-
gering the effective biological degradation of microplastics
from their surfaces. From FTIR analysis, the increases in
the new bands’ intensity appearing at regions 3700–3000,
1700–1500 cm−1, and 1200–950 cm−1, are, respectively,
attributed to the hydroperoxide and hydroxyl groups, car-
Fig. 12  Structural and morphological changes of the treated micro-
bonyl groups, and double bonds, implying the oxidative
plastics through biodegradation over fungus Z. maritimum in a batch
reactor model (Paço et al. 2017). a NMR spectra, b FTIR patterns, degradation of polyethylene microplastics. Such variations
c optical images and d electron microscopy images of the treated were already observed in another work in which low-density
microplastics after 28 days. NMR: nuclear magnetic resonance. polyethylene microplastics were photocatalytically removed
FTIR: Fourier transform infrared
from wastewater under visible light (Tofa et al. 2019).

experiment, the increase in cell’s carbohydrate content Microplastic removal by bacteria

implies enhancement in microbial tendency to adhere to the
microplastics surfaces, which is the first step in microbial Auta et al. (2017) investigated the removal of different
polymer degradation (Sivan 2011). microplastics composed of polyethylene, polystyrene,
An important concern about the microplastics is their polyethylene terephthalate and polypropylene by Bacillus
small size and negligible weight which enables them to eas- cereus and Bacillus gottheilii, two types of Bacillus bacterial
ily spread over the long distances by wind-driven free ocean strains isolated from mangrove sediments (Fig. 13). In addi-
surface layer movements (Ivleva et al. 2017). Studies have tion to scanning the morphological and structural changes
also indicated that microplastics in sediments are normally using electron microscopy and FTIR analyses, the rate of
in the range of 0–3146 particles/kg of dry weight sediment, biodegradation was assessed via measuring the micro-
which highlights the urgent need of designing comprehen- plastics weight loss. The fastest mass reduction (0.0019/
sive experimental routes for the removal from aquatic eco- day) and shortest degradation half-life (363.16 days) was
systems (Maes et al. 2017). The growth of microbial assem- found using B. cereus isolate and polystyrene microplas-
blages on the surface of microplastics should form a new tics, whereas B. gottheilii on polyethylene gave 0.0016/
platform prone to settle other organisms like microscopic day and 431.25 days. Microplastics biodegradation can
fungi and microalgae. Although these microorganism com- also be monitored performed by scanning electron micros-
munities can probably catalyze the metabolic reactions of copy (SEM), where several cracks, holes and erosions were
microplastics resulting in their further biodegradation, the observed (Sowmya et al. 2014). By comparing the degrada-
transport of nonnative organisms, which does not naturally tion results, bond cleavages and chemical alterations scanned
occur in such environments, can induce negative effects on by FTIR analysis, B. gottheilii appeared as a better potential
marine ecosystems variety (Urbanek et al. 2018). microplastic degrader.
Paço et al. (2017) explored the capability of fungus Zale-
rion maritimum, a naturally occurring fungus in marine eco- Microplastic ingestion
systems, for the polyethylene microplastics biodegradation
based on mass and size variations of the microplastics in a The number of papers discussing microplastics inges-
batch reactor (Fig. 12). They measured the concentration tion by organisms as a removal strategy is limited (Arossa
of the contaminant at various time intervals to recognize et al. 2019; Cole et al. 2013; Hall et al. 2015). Based on
the reaction rate order and found that biodegradation kinet- the results of coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering and
ics of the microplastics obeys to fractional order which can fluorescence microscopy, Cole et al. (2013) suggested that
be described in terms of the complex mechanism expected zooplankton’s function and health can be negatively affected
for such reactions (Boudart and Djéga-Mariadassou 2014). by micro-sized polystyrene plastic debris. They also stated

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 13  Removal of different

types of microplastics over
two types of Bacillus bacte-
rial strains, B. cereus and B.
gottheilii (Auta et al. 2017).
a Initial growth of bacterial
population implies the use of
microplastics as nutrient. The
further decrease exhibits the
progress in biodegradation. b
Appearance of new bands in
the Fourier transform infrared
(FTIR) spectra of the treated
samples confirms microplastic
biodegradation. c Scanning
electron microscopy (SEM)
images show numerous erosions
and cracks on the surface of the
microplastics after the biologi-
cal treatment

that microplastics adherence to the external carapace of zoo- to remove 1.7–30.6 μm polystyrene microplastics through
plankton considerably influenced the organism feeding, a uptake and ingestion inside the organism body, in which
crucial hindrance factor against normal growth conditions their intestinal tracts can hold the microplastics up to 7 days
in marine wildlife (Van Franeker et al. 2011). Although this after entrance.
work was not aimed to introduce a way for microplastics Hall et al. (2015) also reported capture and ingestion of
removal, the results reveal the high capacity of zooplankton polypropylene microplastics by scleractinian corals with a

Fig. 14  Polyethylene microplastics removal from wastewater over clams. Removal was done by retention, trapping inside the clam, and
Red Sea clams (Arossa et al. 2019). Experiments involved four con- adhesion on the surface
centrations of microplastics over two different sizes of T. Maxima

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

consumption rate of 50 μg plastic ­cm−2/h, and evidenced and bacterial strains, has been confirmed to be suitable to
the presence of microplastics in mesenterial tissue within remove microplastics at low concentrations. The mechanism
gut cavity of the coral for at least 24 h. However, the mecha- of interactions and fragmentation is not well understood.
nism of the affection which potentially interferes with coral Microplastics, in the most of case studies, acted as a nutri-
growth, physiology, and survival still remains unclear. This ent source for the organisms. This could not convince us
research was important since inshore coral reefs ecosystem, to consider “ingestion” as a removal strategy to treat the
the coastal areas, is easily available as touristic regions for microplastic pollutions.
long periods and many of water treatment plants also daily A comparison of treatment methods for removal of
release their effluents containing microplastics debris, as the microplastics from the environment is represented in
mentioned above, to such environments. Table 3. The table briefly summarizes the advantages, dis-
The evaluation of the capability of the Red Sea giant advantages, and the efficiency of the projects utilized for
clam, Tridacna maxima, for the removal of 53–500 μm the last few years. It is obvious that membrane-included
polyethylene microplastics from wastewater (Fig. 14) has technologies are still the most reliable techniques to remove
been reported by Arossa et al. (2019). Their results revealed microplastics in the practical applications. However, it seems
the key role of clam’s shells to remove the microplastics that finding the suitable alternatives to couple with these
by sorption on the surface, as they resulted in 66.03% of methodologies is the main goal of the ongoing projects.
removal from the wastewater. The authors suggested that this
marine biota can be used for rapid removal of the anthro-
pogenic microplastics debris from aquatic surfaces in the Conclusion
regions with low concentration of microplastics, a fact
partly demonstrated by previous researchers (Martí et al. After short surveying on sources, occurrence, and transport
2017). The effect of microplastics initial concentration and pathways of microplastics, recent studies on three major
clam’s size on the removal rates through active, microplas- approaches including chemical, biological, and physical
tics retention inside the body, and/or passive, trapping by methods to remove them from the environments have been
the shells, pathways was investigated. The results indicated summarized. Sorption and filtration processes coupled with
that big clams tend to retain bigger microplastics inside their membrane bioreactors lead to removing a high percentage of
bodies, while small clams did not show any sharp preference microplastics in the influents entering into the water treatment
for them. Moreover, at any concentration, the microplastics plants but these systems acted themselves as daily microplas-
easily penetrated into the digestive system of all clams used tic sources since the effluents are directly released to aquatic
in this experiment. According to their measurements, the environments. Conventional activated sludge strategy is also
passive route of removal accounts averagely for 35.95% of used to treat wastewaters in water treatment plants but shows
the microplastics, leading to a significant increase in the den- lower efficiency than membrane bioreactor technologies
sity of microplastics attached to clam’s shells and normally, which makes it a less popular methodology. Electrocoagula-
the larger clams adsorb higher concentrations of the micro- tion and agglomeration have also become reliable techniques
plastics. As a whole, this research opened a new window for easy separation of microplastics but are needed to be cou-
for environmental pollution management making use of the pled with eminent extra filtration stages. Photocatalytic degra-
marine biota possessing complex surface and structure. But, dation using T­ iO2 and ZnO semiconductors is experimentally
finding the mechanism of interactions between the micro- revealed to be a suitable method among the aforementioned
plastics and organisms needs to be explored. Accordingly, strategies. FTIR and electron microscopy analyses are widely
we will be able to opt the type of sorbent biota and opera- served to elucidate any structural alterations during the degra-
tional conditions for achieving the highest microplastics dation process. Biological degradation has been investigated
removal efficiency. over the bacterial strains and marine organisms. Appearance
In brief, microplastics can provide a platform to grow of hydroperoxide and hydroxyl groups, carbonyl groups, and
a variety of microbial assemblages. Biological degrada- double-bond characteristic bands in the FTIR patterns of the
tion using microorganisms, e.g., zooplankton, marine fungi treated microplastics suggests the oxidative mechanism for

13
 Table 3  Comparison of different methods for the removal of microplastics from the environment
Method Efficiency% Advantages Drawbacks References

13
Adsorption on green microalgae 94.5 High affinity of the cut surfaces to sorb Nonrecyclable method, chemical adher- Lagarde et al. (2016) and Zhang et al.
tiny microplastic particles, selectivity ence of the microplastics to the surface (2017)
based on microplastics surface charge and poisoning it
Dynamic membranes > 90 Low filtration resistance, low trans- much cleaning to avoid excessive mem- Li et al. (2018b)
membrane pressure, easy operation, brane fouling, energy demand, sludge
nonchemical treatment accumulation due to its flat structure
Membrane bioreactors > 99 Using combined advanced treatment Shape dependency of the removal per- Lares et al. (2018)
methods with porous membranes, centage, membrane fouling
Conventional activated sludge 98 Robust, cost-effective, flexible, treating a long retention times in the tank, the large Gurung et al. (2016)
wide range of influent concentrations, sedimentation surface, the high cost of
applicable for large-scale treatments energy and the processing and disposal
of sludge
Wastewater treatment plants > 95 Efficient mix of sorption-biological treat- Act as secondary microplastic sources, Leslie et al. (2017), Long et al. (2019) and
ment processes, low maintenance costs, disability to treat small-sized micro- Mintenig et al. (2017)
simple operation plastics, sludge aggregation, large
mechanical devices
Classic coagulation and 61 Suitable to remove small microparticles, Addition of chemicals to media, nonus- Herbort et al. (2018) and Ma et al. (2019)
agglomeration methods controllable operational conditions, able for large microplastics,
simple mechanical devices
Electrocoagulation > 90 No chance of secondary pollution, Repeated need of replacing the sacrificial Perren et al. (2018)
suitable for the removal of smallest anode, cathode passivation, nonusable
particles, sludge minimization, energy in areas without electricity
efficiency, cost-effectiveness, flexibility
to automation
Photocatalytic degradation No need to add other chemicals, extend- Lack of selectivity, lower efficiency com- Sekino et al. (2012), Tofa et al. (2019),
able applications to solar light as a pared to the other methods, difficult to Wang et al. (2019) and Ariza-Tarazona
renewable and pollution-free energy scale up, generation of secondary-type et al. (2019)
source, efficient mineralization, envi- organic pollutants, huge photoreactors
ronmentally friendly remediation setup, energy consuming, photocatalyst
recovery
Biological degradation Depends on type of Simplicity and safety for large-scale use, Aggregation of the microbial assem- Arossa et al. (2019), Auta et al. (2017),
microbial community, low operating costs, practically applica- blages on the surface, environmental Cole et al. (2013), Dawson et al. (2018),
mostly > 20 ble in different environments, flexibility conditions cannot be easily controlled, Hall et al. (2015) and Paço et al. (2017)
to handle a wide range of wastewater difficulties to analysis of the products in
characteristics and flows large scale, lack of reproducibility, find-
ing the suitable microbial community
Environmental Chemistry Letters
Environmental Chemistry Letters

biological removal. Ingestion by organisms has still not con- Boudart M, Djéga-Mariadassou G (2014) Kinetics of heterogeneous
sidered as a removal strategy but Red Sea giant clam exhibits catalytic reactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05981​-4_13
good potential for microplastics sorption on the shells besides Brandon J, Goldstein M, Ohman MD (2016) Long-term aging and deg-
its degradation in digestive system. radation of microplastic particles: comparing in situ oceanic and
experimental weathering patterns. Mar Pollut Bull 110(1):299–
Acknowledgements This work is financially supported by SAFEA of 308. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpo​lbul.2016.06.048
China (High-End Foreign Expert Project # G20190241013) and the Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T,
scientific research startup fund of Shaanxi University of Science and Thompson R (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines
Technology. worldwide: sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol 45(21):9175–
9179. https​://doi.org/10.1021/es201​811s
Browne MA, Niven SJ, Galloway TS, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC
(2013) Microplastic moves pollutants and additives to worms,
reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Curr Biol
References 23(23):2388–2392. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012
Carr SA, Liu J, Tesoro AG (2016) Transport and fate of microplastic
Ahmed T, Shahid M, Azeem F, Rasul I, Shah AA, Noman M, Hameed particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 91:174–182.
A, Manzoor N, Manzoor I, Muhammad S (2018) Biodegradation https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2016.01.002
of plastics: current scenario and future prospects for environmen- Chorghe D, Sari MA, Chellam S (2017) Boron removal from hydrau-
tal safety. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(8):7287–7298. https​://doi. lic fracturing wastewater by aluminum and iron coagulation:
org/10.1007/s1135​6-018-1234-9 mechanisms and limitations. Water Res 126:481–487. https​://
Akbal F, Camcı S (2011) Copper, chromium and nickel removal from doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2017.09.057
metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation. Desalination Cocca M, Di Pace E, Errico ME, Gentile G, Montarsolo A, Mossotti R
269(1–3):214–222. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal​.2010.11.001 (2017) Proceedings of the international conference on microplas-
Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar tic pollution in the mediterranean sea. Springer, Berlin
Pollut Bull 62(8):1596–1605. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpo​ Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2011) Microplas-
lbul.2011.05.030 tics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar
Andrady AL (2017) The plastic in microplastics: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 62(12):2588–2597. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpo​
Pollut Bull 119(1):12–22. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.marpo​ lbul.2011.09.025
lbul.2017.01.082 Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Goodhead R, Moger
Ariza-Tarazona MC, Villarreal-Chiu JF, Barbieri V, Siligardi C, J, Galloway TS (2013) Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton.
Cedillo-González EI (2019) New strategy for microplastic deg- Environ Sci Technol 47(12):6646–6655. https:​ //doi.org/10.1021/
radation: green photocatalysis using a protein-based porous es400​663f
N-TiO2 semiconductor. Ceram Int 45(7):9618–9624. https​://doi. Colom X, Canavate J, Sunol J, Pages P, Saurina J, Carrasco F (2003)
org/10.1016/j.ceram​int.2018.10.208 Natural and artificial aging of polypropylene–polyethylene
Arossa S, Martin C, Rossbach S, Duarte CM (2019) Microplastic copolymers. J Appl Polym Sci 87(10):1685–1692. https​://doi.
removal by red sea giant clam (Tridacna maxima). Environ Pol- org/10.1002/app.11613​
lut 252:1257–1266. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol​ .2019.05.149 Corcoran PL, Norris T, Ceccanese T, Walzak MJ, Helm PA, Marvin
Au SY, Bruce TF, Bridges WC, Klaine SJ (2015) Responses of Hya- CH (2015) Hidden plastics of Lake Ontario, Canada and their
lella azteca to acute and chronic microplastic exposures. Envi- potential preservation in the sediment record. Environ Pollut
ron Toxicol Chem 34(11):2564–2572. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ 204:17–25. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2015.04.009
etc.3093 Da Costa JP, Nunes AR, Santos PS, Girão AV, Duarte AC, Rocha-
Auta H, Emenike C, Fauziah S (2017) Screening of Bacillus strains Santos T (2018) Degradation of polyethylene microplastics in
isolated from mangrove ecosystems in Peninsular Malaysia for seawater: insights into the environmental degradation of poly-
microplastic degradation. Environ Pollut 231:1552–1559. https​ mers. J Environ Sci Health Part A 53(9):866–875. https​://doi.
://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2017.09.043 org/10.1080/10934​529.2018.14553​81
Ballent A, Purser A, de Jesus Mendes P, Pando S, Thomsen L (2012) Dawson AL, Kawaguchi S, King CK, Townsend KA, King R, Huston
Physical transport properties of marine microplastic pollution. WM, Nash SMB (2018) Turning microplastics into nanoplastics
Biogeosci Discuss. https​://doi.org/10.5194/bgd-9-18755​-2012 through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nat Commun
Beljanski A (2016) Efficiency and effectiveness of a low-cost, self- 9(1):1001. https​://doi.org/10.1038/s4146​7-018-03465​-9
cleaning microplastic filtering system for wastewater treatment Dris R, Gasperi J, Saad M, Mirande C, Tassin B (2016) Synthetic
plants. 2016 NCUR​ fibers in atmospheric fallout: a source of microplastics in the
Besseling E, Wang B, Lürling M, Koelmans AA (2014) Nano- environment? Mar Pollut Bull 104(1–2):290–293. https​://doi.
plastic affects growth of S. obliquus and reproduction of D. org/10.1016/j.marpo​lbul.2016.01.006
magna. Environ Sci Technol 48(20):12336–12343. https​://doi. Eriksen M, Lebreton LC, Carson HS, Thiel M, Moore CJ, Borerro JC,
org/10.1021/es503​001d Galgani F, Ryan PG, Reisser J (2014) Plastic pollution in the
Bettas Ardisson G, Tosin M, Barbale M, Degli-Innocenti F (2014) Bio- world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over
degradation of plastics in soil and effects on nitrification activity. 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE 9(12):111913–111927.
A laboratory approach. Front Microbiol 5:710–723. https​://doi. https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.01119​13
org/10.3389/fmicb​.2014.00710​ Ersahin ME, Tao Y, Ozgun H, Gimenez JB, Spanjers H, van Lier JB
Bhattacharya P, Lin S, Turner JP, Ke PC (2010) Physical adsorption (2017) Impact of anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor con-
of charged plastic nanoparticles affects algal photosynthesis. J figuration on treatment and filterability performance. J Membr
Phys Chem C 114(39):16556–16561. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ Sci 526:387–394. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsc​i.2016.12.057
jp105​4759 Eskandarloo H, Kierulf A, Abbaspourrad A (2017) Light-harvest-
ing synthetic nano-and micromotors: a review. Nanoscale
9(34):12218–12230. https​://doi.org/10.1039/C7NR0​5166B​

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fasano E, Bono-Blay F, Cirillo T, Montuori P, Lacorte S (2012) Migra- River Thames, UK–Abundance, sources and methods for effec-
tion of phthalates, alkylphenols, bisphenol A and di (2-ethyl- tive quantification. Mar Pollut Bull 114(1):218–226. https​://doi.
hexyl) adipate from food packaging. Food Control 27(1):132– org/10.1016/j.marpo​lbul.2016.09.004
138. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodc​ont.2012.03.005 Horton AA, Walton A, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E, Svendsen C (2017b)
Faure F, Demars C, Wieser O, Kunz M, De Alencastro LF (2015) Plas- Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluat-
tic pollution in Swiss surface waters: nature and concentrations, ing the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and
interaction with pollutants. Environ Chem 12(5):582–591. https​ future research priorities. Sci Total Environ 586:127–141. https​
://doi.org/10.1071/EN142​18 ://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.01.190
Galgani F, Hanke G, Werner S, De Vrees L (2013) Marine litter within Hu C, Liu H, Chen G, Qu J (2012) Effect of aluminum speciation on
the European marine strategy framework directive. ICES J Mar arsenic removal during coagulation process. Sep Purif Technol
Sci 70(6):1055–1064. https​://doi.org/10.1093/icesj​ms/fst12​2 86:35–40. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppu​r.2011.10.017
Gilani AG, Taghvaei V, Rufchahi EM, Mirzaei M (2019) Tautomerism, Huff J, Chan P, Melnick R (2010) Clarifying carcinogenicity of eth-
solvatochromism, preferential solvation, and density functional ylbenzene. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58(2):167–169. https:​ //doi.
study of some heteroarylazo dyes. J Mol Liq 273:392–407. https​ org/10.1016/j.yrtph​.2010.08.011
://doi.org/10.1016/j.molli​q.2018.10.054 Ivleva NP, Wiesheu AC, Niessner R (2017) Microplastic in aquatic
Graham ER, Thompson JT (2009) Deposit-and suspension-feeding ecosystems. Angew Chem Int Ed 56(7):1720–1739
sea cucumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments. J Exp Jiang J-Q (2018) Occurrence of microplastics and its pollution in the
Mar Biol Ecol 368(1):22–29. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe​ environment: a review. Sustain Prod Consum 13:16–23. https​://
.2008.09.007 doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.003
Gregory MR (2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in Jin L, Zhang G, Tian H (2014) Current state of sewage treatment in
marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hang- China. Water Res 66:85–98. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​
ers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philos Trans R Soc s.2014.08.014
B Biol Sci 364(1526):2013–2025. https​: //doi.org/10.1098/ Karami A, Romano N, Galloway T, Hamzah H (2016) Virgin micro-
rstb.2008.0265 plastics cause toxicity and modulate the impacts of phenan-
Gulmine J, Janissek P, Heise H, Akcelrud L (2003) Degradation pro- threne on biomarker responses in African catfish (Clarias
file of polyethylene after artificial accelerated weathering. Polym gariepinus). Environ Res 151:58–70. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Degrad Stab 79(3):385–397. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0141​ envre​s.2016.07.024
-3910(02)00338​-5 Kirstein IV, Kirmizi S, Wichels A, Garin-Fernandez A, Erler R,
Gurung K, Ncibi MC, Fontmorin J-M, Särkkä H, Sillanpää M (2016) Martin L, Gerdts G (2016) Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence
Incorporating submerged MBR in conventional activated sludge for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic parti-
process for municipal wastewater treatment: a feasibility and cles. Mar Environ Res 120:1–8. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.maren​
performance assessment. J Membr Sci Technol. https​://doi. vres.2016.07.004
org/10.4172/2155-9589.10001​58 Knoblock M, Sutton P, Mishra P, Gupta K, Janson A (1994)
Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R, Iacovidou E, Purnell P (2018) Membrane biological reactor system for treatment of oily
An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: migra- wastewaters. Water Environ Res 66(2):133–139. https​://doi.
tion, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, org/10.2175/WER.66.2.6
disposal and recycling. J Hazard Mater 344:179–199. https:​ //doi. Lagarde F, Olivier O, Zanella M, Daniel P, Hiard S, Caruso A (2016)
org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2017.10.014 Microplastic interactions with freshwater microalgae: hetero-
Hall N, Berry K, Rintoul L, Hoogenboom M (2015) Microplastic inges- aggregation and changes in plastic density appear strongly
tion by scleractinian corals. Mar Biol 162(3):725–732. https​:// dependent on polymer type. Environ Pollut 215:331–339. https​
doi.org/10.1007/s0022​7-015-2619-7 ://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2016.05.006
Hämer J, Gutow L, Köhler A, Saborowski R (2014) Fate of microplas- Lares M, Ncibi MC, Sillanpää M, Sillanpää M (2018) Occurrence,
tics in the marine isopod Idotea emarginata. Environ Sci Technol identification and removal of microplastic particles and fibers
48(22):13451–13458. https​://doi.org/10.1021/es501​385y in conventional activated sludge process and advanced MBR
Harrison JP, Sapp M, Schratzberger M, Osborn AM (2011) Interac- technology. Water Res 133:236–246. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tions between microorganisms and marine microplastics: a watre​s.2018.01.049
call for research. Mar Technol Soc J 45(2):12–20. https​://doi. Lau O-W, Wong S-K (2000) Contamination in food from packag-
org/10.4031/MTSJ.45.2.2 ing material. J Chromatogr A 882(1–2):255–270. https​://doi.
Hazrat M, Rasul M, Khan MMK (2015) A study on thermo-catalytic org/10.1016/S0021​-9673(00)00356​-3
degradation for production of clean transport fuel and reduc- Law KL, Morét-Ferguson SE, Goodwin DS, Zettler ER, DeForce E,
ing plastic wastes. Procedia Eng 105:865–876. https​://doi. Kukulka T, Proskurowski G (2014) Distribution of surface plas-
org/10.1016/j.proen​g.2015.05.108 tic debris in the eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-year data set.
Herbort AF, Sturm MT, Fiedler S, Abkai G, Schuhen K (2018) Alkoxy- Environ Sci Technol 48(9):4732–4738. https​://doi.org/10.1021/
silyl induced agglomeration: a new approach for the sustainable es405​3076
removal of microplastic from aquatic systems. J Polym Environ Lee KE, Morad N, Teng TT, Poh BT (2012) Development, charac-
26(11):4258–4270. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1092​4-018-1287-3 terization and the application of hybrid materials in coagulation/
Hirai H, Takada H, Ogata Y, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Saha M, flocculation of wastewater: a review. Chem Eng J 203:370–386.
Kwan C, Moore C, Gray H, Laursen D (2011) Organic micropol- https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.06.109
lutants in marine plastics debris from the open ocean and remote Lei L, Wu S, Lu S, Liu M, Song Y, Fu Z, Shi H, Raley-Susman KM,
and urban beaches. Mar Pollut Bull 62(8):1683–1692. https:​ //doi. He D (2018) Microplastic particles cause intestinal damage and
org/10.1016/j.marpo​lbul.2011.06.004 other adverse effects in zebrafish Danio rerio and nematode
Horton AA, Dixon SJ (2018) Microplastics: an introduction to envi- Caenorhabditis elegans. Sci Total Environ 619:1–8. https​://doi.
ronmental transport processes. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.11.103
5(2):1268–1283. https​://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1268 Leslie H, Brandsma S, Van Velzen M, Vethaak A (2017) Microplastics
Horton AA, Svendsen C, Williams RJ, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E (2017a) en route: field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amster-
Large microplastic particles in sediments of tributaries of the dam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters

and biota. Environ Int 101:133–142. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. Murphy F, Ewins C, Carbonnier F, Quinn B (2016) Wastewater
envin​t.2017.01.018 treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the
Li S, Xu S, He L, Xu F, Wang Y, Zhang L (2010) Photocatalytic deg- aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 50(11):5800–5808.
radation of polyethylene plastic with polypyrrole/TiO2 nanocom- https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b054​16
posite as photocatalyst. Polym Plast Technol Eng 49(4):400–406. Nicole L, Boissière C, Grosso D, Hesemann P, Moreau J, Sanchez
https​://doi.org/10.1080/03602​55090​35321​66 C (2004) Advanced selective optical sensors based on peri-
Li J, Liu H, Chen JP (2018a) Microplastics in freshwater systems: a odically organized mesoporous hybrid silica thin films. Chem
review on occurrence, environmental effects, and methods for Commun 20:2312–2313. https​://doi.org/10.1039/b4088​69g
microplastics detection. Water Res 137:362–374. https​://doi. Nizzetto L, Futter M, Langaas S (2016) Are agricultural soils
org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2017.12.056 dumps for microplastics of urban origin? Environ Sci Technol
Li L, Xu G, Yu H, Xing J (2018b) Dynamic membrane for micro- 50(20):10777–10779. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b041​40
particle removal in wastewater treatment: performance and Nobre C, Santana M, Maluf A, Cortez F, Cesar A, Pereira C, Turra
influencing factors. Sci Total Environ 627:332–340. https​://doi. A (2015) Assessment of microplastic toxicity to embryonic
org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2018.01.239 development of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus (Echino-
Liang W, Luo Y, Song S, Dong X, Yu X (2013) High photocatalytic dermata: echinoidea). Mar Pollut Bull 92(1–2):99–104. https​
degradation activity of polyethylene containing polyacrylamide ://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpo​lbul.2014.12.050
grafted ­TiO2. Polym Degrad Stab 98(9):1754–1761. https​://doi. Nolte TM, Hartmann NB, Kleijn JM, Garnæs J, van de Meent D,
org/10.1016/j.polym​degra​dstab​.2013.05.027 Hendriks AJ, Baun A (2017) The toxicity of plastic nanopar-
Liu P, Qian L, Wang H, Zhan X, Lu K, Gu C, Gao S (2019) New ticles to green algae as influenced by surface modification,
insights into the aging behavior of microplastics accelerated by medium hardness and cellular adsorption. Aquat Toxicol
advanced oxidation processes. Environ Sci Technol 53:3579– 183:11–20. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquat​ox.2016.12.005
3588. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b004​93 Paço A, Duarte K, da Costa JP, Santos PS, Pereira R, Pereira M,
Long Z, Pan Z, Wang W, Ren J, Yu X, Lin L, Lin H, Chen H, Jin X Freitas AC, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos TA (2017) Biodegra-
(2019) Microplastic abundance, characteristics, and removal dation of polyethylene microplastics by the marine fungus
in wastewater treatment plants in a coastal city of China. Water Zalerion maritimum. Sci Total Environ 586:10–15. https​: //
Res 155:255–265. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2019.02.028 doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.02.017
Lu Y, Zhang Y, Deng Y, Jiang W, Zhao Y, Geng J, Ding L, Ren H Pathak VM (2017) Review on the current status of polymer degrada-
(2016) Uptake and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics tion: a microbial approach. Bioresour Bioprocess 4(1):15–42.
in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and toxic effects in liver. Environ https​://doi.org/10.1186/s4064​3-017-0145-9
Sci Technol 50(7):4054–4060. https​: //doi.org/10.1021/acs. Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Fernández CG, Hégaret H, Lambert C, Le
est.6b001​83 Goïc N, Frère L, Cassone A-L, Sussarellu R, Fabioux C (2016)
Lwanga EH, Gertsen H, Gooren H, Peters P, Salánki T, van der Ploeg Exposure of marine mussels Mytilus spp. to polystyrene micro-
M, Besseling E, Koelmans AA, Geissen V (2017) Incorpora- plastics: toxicity and influence on fluoranthene bioaccumulation.
tion of microplastics from litter into burrows of Lumbricus ter- Environ Pollut 216:724–737. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​
restris. Environ Pollut 220:523–531. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. l.2016.06.039
envpo​l.2016.09.096 Perren W, Wojtasik A, Cai Q (2018) Removal of microbeads from
Ma B, Xue W, Ding Y, Hu C, Liu H, Qu J (2019) Removal char- wastewater using electrocoagulation. ACS Omega 3(3):3357–
acteristics of microplastics by Fe-based coagulants during 3364. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acsom​ega.7b020​37
drinking water treatment. J Environ Sci 78:267–275. https​:// Piringer OG, Baner AL (2008) Plastic packaging materials for food:
doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.10.006 barrier function, mass transport, quality assurance, and legisla-
MacArthur DE, Waughray D, Stuchtey M (2016) The new plastics tion. Wiley, Hoboken. https​://doi.org/10.1002/97835​27613​281
economy, rethinking the future of plastics. World Economic Prata JC (2018) Airborne microplastics: consequences to human
Forum health? Environ Pollut 234:115–126. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Maes T, Van der Meulen MD, Devriese LI, Leslie HA, Huvet A, envpo​l.2017.11.043
Frère L, Robbens J, Vethaak AD (2017) Microplastics baseline Rios LM, Moore C, Jones PR (2007) Persistent organic pollutants
surveys at the water surface and in sediments of the North-East carried by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Mar
Atlantic. Front Mar Sci 4:135–149. https​://doi.org/10.3389/ Pollut Bull 54(8):1230–1237. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpo​
fmars​.2017.00135​ lbul.2007.03.022
Martí E, Martin C, Cózar A, Duarte CM (2017) Low abundance of Ritchie H, Roser M (2018) Plastic pollution. https​://ourwo​rldin​data.
plastic fragments in the surface waters of the Red Sea. Front org/plast​ic-pollu​tion
Mar Sci 4:333–345. https​://doi.org/10.3389/fmars​.2017.00333​ Sekino T, Takahashi S, Takamasu K (2012) Fundamental study on
Martins MJF, Mota CF, Pearson GA (2013) Sex-biased gene nanoremoval processing method for microplastic structures using
expression in the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. BMC Genom photocatalyzed oxidation. Key Eng Mater (Trans Tech Publ).
14(1):294–326. https​://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-294 https​://doi.org/10.4028/www.scien​tific​.net/KEM.523-524.610
Meeker JD, Sathyanarayana S, Swan SH (2009) Phthalates and other Setälä O, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Lehtiniemi M (2014) Ingestion and
additives in plastics: human exposure and associated health transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ
outcomes. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1526):2097– Pollut 185:77–83. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2013.10.013
2113. https​://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0268 Shirasaki N, Matsushita T, Matsui Y, Marubayashi T (2016) Effect of
Mintenig S, Int-Veen I, Löder MG, Primpke S, Gerdts G (2017) aluminum hydrolyte species on human enterovirus removal from
Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste water treat- water during the coagulation process. Chem Eng J 284:786–793.
ment plants using focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-trans- https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.09.045
form infrared imaging. Water Res 108:365–372. https​://doi. Simoneau C, Van den Eede L, Valzacchi S (2012) Identification
org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2016.11.015 and quantification of the migration of chemicals from plastic
Murphy J (2001) Additives for plastics handbook. Elsevier, Amster- baby bottles used as substitutes for polycarbonate. Food Addit
dam. https​://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-85617​-370-4.x5000​-3 Contam Part A 29(3):469–480. https​://doi.org/10.1080/19440​
049.2011.64458​8

13
 Environmental Chemistry Letters

Sivan A (2011) New perspectives in plastic biodegradation. Curr Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102(18):7669–7678. https​://doi.
Opin Biotechnol 22(3):422–426. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbi​ org/10.1007/s0025​3-018-9195-y
o.2011.01.013 Van Cauwenberghe L, Vanreusel A, Mees J, Janssen CR (2013) Micro-
Sowmya H, Ramalingappa M, Thippeswamy B (2014) Biodegradation plastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ Pollut 182:495–
of polyethylene by Bacillus cereus. Adv Polym Sci Technol Int J 499. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2013.08.013
4(2):28–32. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.protc​y.2016.05.031 Van Franeker JA, Blaize C, Danielsen J, Fairclough K, Gollan J, Guse
Sun J, Dai X, Wang Q, van Loosdrecht MC, Ni B-J (2019) Microplas- N, Hansen P-L, Heubeck M, Jensen J-K, Le Guillou G (2011)
tics in wastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus
removal. Water Res 152:21–37. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​ glacialis in the North Sea. Environ Pollut 159(10):2609–2615.
s.2018.12.050 https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2011.06.008
Sundbæk KB, Koch IDW, Villaro CG, Rasmussen NS, Holdt SL, Hart- Vasile C, Pascu M (2005) Practical guide to polyethylene. iSmith-
mann NB (2018) Sorption of fluorescent polystyrene microplas- ers Rapra Publishing, Shrewsbury. https​://doi.org/10.4236/
tic particles to edible seaweed Fucus vesiculosus. J Appl Phycol ojm.2013.34020​7232
30(5):2923–2927. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1081​1-018-1472-8 Verschoor AJ (2015) Towards a definition of microplastics: Consid-
Sussarellu R, Suquet M, Thomas Y, Lambert C, Fabioux C, Pernet erations for the specification of physico-chemical properties.
MEJ, Le Goïc N, Quillien V, Mingant C, Epelboin Y (2016) National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bil-
Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene thoven, The Netherlands, p 6
microplastics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(9):2430–2435. https​:// Wang W, Ndungu AW, Li Z, Wang J (2017) Microplastics pollution in
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15190​19113​ inland freshwaters of China: a case study in urban surface waters
Talsness CE, Andrade AJ, Kuriyama SN, Taylor JA, Vom Saal FS of Wuhan, China. Sci Total Environ 575:1369–1374. https​://doi.
(2009) Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2016.09.213
and relevance for human health. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci Wang L, Käppler A, Fischer D, Simmchen J (2019) Photocatalytic
364(1526):2079–2096. https​://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0281 ­TiO2 micromotors for removal of microplastics and suspended
Talvitie J, Mikola A, Koistinen A, Setälä O (2017a) Solutions to micro- matter. ACS Appl Mater Interface 11(36):32937–32944. https​://
plastic pollution—removal of microplastics from wastewater doi.org/10.1021/acsam​i.9b061​28
effluent with advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Water Ward M (2015) Marine microplastic removal tool. Google Patents
Res 123:401–407. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2017.07.005 Wexler P, Gad SC (1998) Encyclopedia of toxicology. Academic Press,
Talvitie J, Mikola A, Setälä O, Heinonen M, Koistinen A (2017b) New Yok
How well is microlitter purified from wastewater? A detailed Wright SL, Kelly FJ (2017) Plastic and human health: a micro issue?
study on the stepwise removal of microlitter in a tertiary level Environ Sci Technol 51(12):6634–6647. https:​ //doi.org/10.1021/
wastewater treatment plant. Water Res 109:164–172. https​://doi. acs.est.7b004​23
org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2016.11.046 Yang L, Li K, Cui S, Kang Y, An L, Lei K (2019) Removal of micro-
Ter Halle A, Ladirat L, Gendre X, Goudounèche D, Pusineri C, Routa- plastics in municipal sewage from China’s largest water recla-
boul C, Tenailleau C, Duployer B, Perez E (2016) Understand- mation plant. Water Res 155:175–181. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ing the fragmentation pattern of marine plastic debris. Environ watre​s.2019.02.046
Sci Technol 50(11):5668–5675. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs. Yousif E, Haddad R (2013) Photodegradation and photostabilization
est.6b005​94 of polymers, especially polystyrene. SpringerPlus 2(1):398–421.
Thompson RC (2015) Microplastics in the marine environment: https​://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-398
sources, consequences and solutions. In: Marine anthropogenic Zhang C, Chen X, Wang J, Tan L (2017) Toxic effects of microplas-
litter. Springer, Cham, pp 185–200. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978- tic on marine microalgae Skeletonema costatum: interactions
3-319-16510​-3_7 between microplastic and algae. Environ Pollut 220:1282–1288.
Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AW, https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2016.11.005
McGonigle D, Russell AE (2004) Lost at sea: where is all the Zhang K, Shi H, Peng J, Wang Y, Xiong X, Wu C, Lam PK (2018)
plastic? Science 304(5672):838. https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ Microplastic pollution in China’s inland water systems: a review
ce.10945​59 of findings, methods, characteristics, effects, and management.
Thompson RC, Moore CJ, Vom Saal FS, Swan SH (2009) Plastics, the Sci Total Environ 630:1641–1653. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
environment and human health: current consensus and future tenv.2018.02.300
trends. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1526):2153–2166. Zubris KAV, Richards BK (2005) Synthetic fibers as an indicator of
https​://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053 land application of sludge. Environ Pollut 138(2):201–211. https​
Tofa TS, Kunjali KL, Paul S, Dutta J (2019) Visible light photocatalytic ://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2005.04.013
degradation of microplastic residues with zinc oxide nanorods.
Environ Chem Lett. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s10311​ -019-00859-​ z Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Urbanek AK, Rymowicz W, Mirończuk AM (2018) Degradation of jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
plastics and plastic-degrading bacteria in cold marine habitats.

13