4.7 Review

Wastewater treatment plant as microplastics release source - Quantification and identification techniques

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 255, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109739

Keywords

Microplastics; Wastewater treatment plant; Separation; Identification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The high presence of microplastics (MPs) in different sizes, materials and concentrations in the aquatic environment is a global concern due to their potential physically and chemically harm to aquatic organisms including mammals. Furthermore, the bioaccumulation of these compounds is leading to their ingestion by humans through the consumption of sea food and even through the terrestrial food chain. Even though conventional wastewater treatment plants are capable of eliminating more than 90% of the influent MPs, these systems are still the main source of MPs introduction in the environment due to the high volumes of effluents generated and returned to the environment. The amount of MPs dumped by WWTP is influenced by the configuration of the WWTP, population served and influent flow. Thus, the average of MP/L disposed vary widely depending on the region. In addition to MPs disposed in water bodies, more than 80% of these emerging contaminants, which enter the WWTP, are retained in biosolids that can be applied as fertilizers, representing a potential source of soil contamination. Due to the continuous disposal of MPs in the environment by effluent treatment systems and their polluting potential, separation and identification techniques have been assessed by several researchers, but unfortunately, there are no standard protocols for them. Aiming to provide insight about the relevance of studying the WWTP as source of MPs, this review summarizes the currently methodologies used to classify and identify them.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available