Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Microplastic, which is of size less than 5 mm, is gaining a lot of attention as it has become a new arising contaminant because of its ecophysiology impact on the aquatic environment. These microplastics are found in freshwater or drinking water and are the major carriers of pollutants. Removal of this microplastic can be done through the primary treatment process, secondary treatment process, and tertiary treatment process. One approach for microplastic remediation is ultrafiltration technology, which involves passing water through a membrane with small pores to filter out the microplastics. However, the efficiency of this technology can be affected by the structure and type of microplastics present in the water. New strategies can be created to improve the technology and increase its efficacy in removing microplastics from water by knowing how various types and shapes of microplastics react during ultrafiltration. The filter-based technique, that is, ultrafiltration has achieved the best performance for the removal of microplastic. But with the ultrafiltration, too some microplastic that are of sizes less than of ultrafiltration membrane passes through the filter and enters the food chain. Accumulation of this microplastic on the membrane also leads to membrane fouling. Through this review article, we have assessed the impact of the structure, size, and type of MPs on ultrafiltration technology for microplastic remediation, with that how these factors affect the efficiency of the filtration process and challenges occur during filtration.

Keywords

Microplastic ultrafiltration toxicity remediation water

Introduction

Plastic is referred to as a synthetic organic polymer obtained from the polymerization of a single unit of monomer which is extracted from oil or gases.^1–4 This plastic has been used widely around the world as it has become an essential material for various purposes. The enormous production of plastic started in 1940, the amount suddenly got increased with the production of 230 million tons which is produced globally in the year of 2009 and its today's production is around 2.4 billion tonnes,^5–7 it is expected that by the end of 2050, the production will be more than 33 billion tones. As the consumption of plastic will increase production will also be increased. These plastics travel easily through the hydrodynamic process and ocean currents. With this, the mid-point quantity of plastic accumulated on the seaplane is around 18,000 items per km² and more plastic was found in North Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean.⁸ Plastic takes time to degrade and the process is very slow. These plastics degrade into tiny particles through automatic action, bioremediation, or photooxidative degradation over a long period. These small molecules below 5 mm are called “microplastic.”^9,10 These MPs with sizes not so much as 5 mm in length they can be found in all types of ecosystem artic areas¹¹ to the seawater in the Antarctic region,^12,13 from rivers^13–16 to the residue^13,17,18 and it is also found in the atmosphere which we inhale,^13,19 it can be said overall environment is sheltered with these MPs. MPs in water bodies are found in a range of sizes, with the concentration varying from zero to millions of particles per cubic meter.²⁰ Unfortunately, this poses a significant risk to aquatic animals as MPs can block their organs and cause serious health problems. Due to their small size, MPs can easily be ingested by aquatic animals, such as fish, birds, and other marine organisms, causing blockages in their organs.²¹ This can lead to a range of issues, including decreased food intake, malnutrition, and even death. Moreover, the accumulation of MPs in the organs of aquatic animals can cause severe damage to their reproductive system, leading to a decline in their population.²² This is a significant concern as it can lead to the extinction of certain species, which can disrupt the entire ecosystem.²³ It has been shown in many studies that these MPs are stable in aquatic environments.²⁴ Now, these MPs are entering into waters thus leading to serious environmental and health problems that have been increased.²⁵ Unfortunately, these plastics can end up in the ocean and contribute to the global plastic pollution crisis. Among the various types of plastics that are commonly found in the ocean, polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are the most abundant.^26,27 These plastics are widely used in many applications due to their durability, flexibility, and versatility, but their accumulation in the ocean can lead to devastating effects on marine life and the entire ecosystem.²⁸ Therefore, it is crucial to reduce the use of these plastic materials and take necessary measures to prevent their release into the environment, such as proper waste management and recycling programs. By doing so, we can mitigate the negative impact of plastics on the environment and ensure a sustainable future for our planet.

These threats are as these MPs are good carriers of noxious organic chemicals that have immense areas and rigorous hydrophobicity. Many of these organic pollutants have been reported in the inshore areas of many countries, such as the USA and the UK, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, and Hong Kong. Various heavy metals such as Zinc, Copper, and Lead usually get adsorbed over the microplastic and some of these heavy metals get influenced due to the hindrance of the light.^29,30 Due to the small size of microplastic, they are usually mistaken for aquatic organisms. And due to this, there is automatic harm to the organism and also decreases the nourishing ability of the organism. Also, it was found that gene expression of fish can alter subsequently microplastic adsorbed organic pollutants which can also lead to threatened human health due to the food chain.^31–34 With the previous studies on microplastic removal technology using wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), MPs were not removed completely from wastewater. Following the example, in the UK, after the preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment process in WWTPs, the overall abundance decreased by 6%, 68%, 92%, and 96%, respectively.³⁵ The mechanical and chemical process removed microplastic up to 99% in WWTP. It is well known that ultrafiltration (UF) has been applied widely and will be applied in the next few decades due to the superb outflow standard they have.^36,37 In this study, we have reviewed different studies in which microplastic has been removed using the UF membrane. The increasing demand for plastic products has led to a surge in plastic pollution in oceans and water bodies, causing harm to aquatic organisms and leading to the death of fish due to plastic ingestion.³⁸ Unfortunately, most industries do not have the capability to filter plastic waste on-site, leading to the discharge of untreated wastewater directly into water bodies like rivers and lakes. This has resulted in alarming levels of microplastic contamination in freshwater sources, with some WWTPs releasing millions of microplastic particles every day. Single-use plastic bottles and cans that contain drinking water quality are also a cause for concern, as they may contain microplastic particles that can have serious impacts on human health.³⁹ Therefore, various technologies are being developed for the treatment of drinking water, specifically targeting the removal of MPs.

Testing for MPs in marine fish of economic value is crucial because MPs may cause the transfer of hazardous chemicals to human tissues. Fish (such as grass carp) have been documented to swallow MPs both near the shore and in deep seas, and reports of plastics in fish digestive systems have grown quite prevalent in recent years.⁴⁰ According to Esposito et al.’s⁴¹ findings, MPs, the major polymer of which is PE and includes fibers, films, and fragments, were found in the intestines of eight distinct deep-sea fish. Diverse marine predators mostly rely on these fish for food and energy. These are vital ecological and economic species that have the potential to have a significant influence on the whole food chain. Aquatic creatures that absorb MPs combined with various nutrients have the potential to move up the food chain and reach higher trophic levels. The detrimental effect of MPs on living things is related to the leaching of monomers and additives, such as plasticizers, stabilizers, pigments or colorants, antioxidants, and fillers or flame retardants, which are toxic, carcinogenic, or endocrine disruptors, as well as the strong mechanical injury potential of MPs ingested in the digestive tract of the organism.⁴²

Although microplastic pollution is not a recent phenomenon, identifying the hazards connected to micro- and nanoplastics is a growing issue. Physical properties (such as size, shape, and surface), purposefully added additives, environmental durability, and the capacity to absorb contaminants and pathogens and concentrate them along the food chain are all dangers posed by micro- and nanoplastics.²¹ Depending on the level of exposure and the individual's vulnerability, MPs are thought to be potentially damaging to organisms.⁴³ They can lead to cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, and translocation to other organs. The consequences that might result from the desorption of pollutants absorbed by the MPs themselves and the chemical additives included in the account for a large portion of the worry generated by MPs.⁴⁴ Overall, plastic pollution is a significant environmental issue that requires immediate attention and action. Industries must take responsibility for their plastic waste and invest in effective waste management and recycling programs. Additionally, individuals can play their part by reducing their use of single-use plastic products and properly disposing of plastic waste. By working together, we can address this issue and ensure a sustainable future for our planet. With the advancement in technology many more advanced technologies are there for wastewater reuse and membrane filtration is one of the main technologies. It is accepted as most because it is cost-effective and deals with secondary treated effluent on non-potable reuses, such as agriculture irrigation, urban reuse, and water for industries.^35,45–47 UF tends to remove high efficiency of total suspended solids, organic matter, microorganisms, and so on. With the studies of Muthukumaran et al.,⁴⁸ and Pollices et al.³⁵ or Falsanisi et al.⁴⁹ it is confirmed that when prefilter is used with UF that water is qualified concerning all guidelines of World Health Organization (WHO) and that water can be reused.

Research on the use of UF membranes for microplastic remediation has been increasing in recent years. However, one research gap that still exists in this area is the limited understanding of the effectiveness of UF membranes in removing MPs of various sizes, shapes, and chemical compositions. Most studies have focused on the removal of MPs in the range of 1–100 μm, but there is a lack of information on the effectiveness of UF membranes for smaller or larger MPs. Additionally, there is a need to investigate the long-term performance and stability of these membranes in the presence of MPs, as well as the potential for fouling and degradation. However, the microplastic particles which are smaller than the pores of the membrane can still be present in the water filter the UF, the techniques to minimize this are still not known.⁵⁰ Further research is needed to optimize the design and operation of UF membrane systems for microplastic remediation, with a focus on increasing efficiency, reducing energy consumption, and minimizing environmental impacts.

Only a few articles have so far documented the use of membrane techniques to remove MPs. In this review, a study of the relevant literature has been done to show how the scientific community is becoming more aware of the issues with plastic pollution and to highlight how little is known about and has been done to remove plastic, with a focus on the use of membrane technologies. The membrane procedures that are used to remove plastic have been documented and severely examined.

Characteristics

Shape and size of MPs

MPs came in a variety of sizes, shapes, and physicochemical compositions, as well as toxicity levels.³⁵ The four types of MPs that were most frequently found in wastewater were fibers, pellets, fragments, and films, with the greatest abundances of 91.32%, 70.38%, 65.43%, and 21.36%, respectively.⁵¹ The most common microplastic shape was that of the fiber, a filamentary microstructure. Domestic washings are where the microplastic fibers came from. The frequency of finding fibers has increased as a result of increased washing and textile use. Toothpaste, face masks, and soaps were the main sources of microplastic pellets and fragments in the environment. Plastic packaging bags served as the source material for microplastic films.⁵² In addition, it was found that there were various microplastic shapes as well, including flakes, ellipses, foams, particles, and lines. A crucial factor affecting the performance and transformation of MPs was their size, not their shape. The food chain could come into contact with MPs. It is important to emphasize the size of the particles in MPs. By shattering the primary MPs into smaller pieces, physical, chemical, and biological processes produced the secondary MPs.⁵³ Plankton, fish, and other filter-feeding species were more likely to consume the smaller microplastic particles, which could have several toxicological impacts on these organisms.⁵⁴ It follows that studies on the biological toxicity and environmental transformation of MPs can learn from research on microplastic particle size, especially that of the smaller particles (less than 1 mm).

Type of polymer of MPs

Polymers include MPs. Twenty-nine different types of polymers were present in the influent and effluent of the WWTPs. PE, PP, polyamide (PA), polyester (PES), PS, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) were the top six MPs most frequently discovered in wastewater with the greatest abundances of 64.07%, 32.92%, 10.34%, 75.36%, 24.17%, and 28.90%, respectively.⁵⁵ Plastic items, such as bags used for food packing, bottles, and cutlery, are the source of the PE, PP, and PS MPs. The main sources of home MPs are synthetic garments and textiles, which are where the PA, PET, and PES MPs primarily come from.^51,56 Additionally, it was discovered that the tire and textile industries, mechanically crushed plastic products, and rubber particles in road dust could all be significant sources of PE, PP, PS, and PES MPs.⁵⁷ In addition to the aforementioned polymer categories, particular polymers were also found in WWTPs.⁵⁸ As a result, particular polymer types should receive higher research priority than ordinary polymers. Different microplastic polymer types are shown in Table 1 of the WWTP.⁵⁹

Table 1.

Different MPs in wastewater treatment plants with the quantity of influent and effluent (particles per liter).

Sr. No.	Types of MPs	Influent (particles per liter)	Effluent (particles per liter)	Reference
1.	Polyethene	0.03–1.05	0.00–0.67	⁵⁶
2.	Polypropylene	0.02–1.42	0.00–0.22	⁵¹
3.	Polyamide	0.06–0.71	0.00–0.06	⁵⁴
4.	Polyester	0.22–6.31	0.07–1.33	⁵⁴
5.	Polystyrene	0.00–0.41	0.00–0.08	⁵³
6.	Polyethene terephalate	0.01–0.63	0.00–0.006	⁵³
7.	Polyurethane	0.07–0.140	0.00–0.02	⁵²
8.	Polyvinyl chloride	0.12–1.65	0.00	⁶⁰
9.	Polyvinyl acetate	0.26–0.50	0.00–0.01	⁶⁰
10.	Alkyd	0.13–4.51	0.00–0.002	⁶⁰
11.	Ethylene-vinyl acetate	0.00–0.01	0.00	⁶⁰
12.	Polyacrylates	0.06–0.40	0.00–0.03	⁶⁰
13.	Acrylic	1.30	0.03	³⁵
14.	Polyvinyl ethylene	0.09	0.00	³⁵
15.	Polyvinyl fluoride	0.09	0.00	³⁵
16.	Styrenebutadienestyrene	0.02	0.00	³⁵
17.	Styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene	0.06	0.00	³⁵
18.	Styrene acrylonitrile	0.01	0.00	³⁵
19.	Polyvinyl alcohol	0.03	0.00	³⁵
20.	Acrylamide	0.09	0.00	³⁵
21.	Polyethene & polypropylene	0.09	0.01	³⁵
22.	Paint	0.01	0.00	³⁵
23.	Polystyrene acrylic	0.30	0.00	³⁵
24.	Polyvinyl acrylate	0.09	0.00	³⁵
25.	Styrenevinyltoluenebutylacrylate	0.01	0.00	³⁵
26.	Polyterpene	0.03	0.01	³⁵
27.	Acrylonitrilebutadiene	0.80	0.01	³⁵
28.	Ethylene-acrylate	0.14	0.01	³⁵
29.	Ehtylenepropylene	0.28	0.00	³⁵

Remediation of MPs by UF

UF is an economical method to remove various types of contaminants from water or wastewater and the use of UF to remove MPs allows the simultaneous removal of other unnecessary feed ingredients, for example, proteins, fatty acids, bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and suspended solids. UF is often used in conjunction with other methods as the second stage of wastewater or water treatment. MPs were removed using a combination of primary treatment processes, secondary treatment processes (biofilters), and tertiary treatment processes. The effectiveness of removing MPs using primary and secondary treatment techniques was comparable. The elimination efficiency of the tertiary therapy was just moderate. The 95% CIs showed a wide variance in the tertiary treatment steps (0.22–1.06). As a result, filter-based methods (UF) had the highest results in terms of eliminating MPs.⁶¹

In a few previous studies, it has been suggested that the microplastic can be removed by coagulation with iron or aluminum salts in combination with UF on a polyvinyl membrane.^62,63 In a conventional treatment system, the findings revealed that an average of 77 7.21 particles/L were discovered in the influent and 10.67 3.51 particles/L were discharged with the final effluent, yielding an overall removal efficiency of 86.14%. The removal efficiency rose to 96.97% when an UF unit was taken into account, and the number of MPs in the effluent decreased to 2.33 1.53 particles/L.⁶⁴

In the study of Joan et al.,⁶⁵ it is shown that the UF technique of advanced treatment of microplastic removal was more effective than that of the carbon filtration stage which is an upgraded conventional treatment. But still, the concentration of microplastic in the finished water was 0.06 ± 0.04 MP/L, which is in the low range considering the state of the art.

Effect of shape, size, and types of polymers on MPs removal

Fibers were the most frequently found MPs in wastewater out of the four shapes of MPs. They had weighted average RR values of 0.31, 0.41, and 0.43 in the primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment phases, respectively. When it comes to removing fiber MPs, primary treatment is better than secondary and tertiary therapy. During the first treatment, flocculation and settling made it simple to catch fibers. Following the first treatment phase, the majority of the easily settled or skimmed particles were removed; any particles that were left over may, however, float neutrally.⁶⁶ During the secondary treatment procedure, however, fragments showed outstanding removal efficiency. Fragments had respective weighted average RR values of 0.41, 0.30, and 0.36. Lamellar-structured activated sludge ate the fragments as they continued to aggregate.⁶⁷ For the primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment processes, the weighted average RR values for the films were 0.35, 0.34, and 0.47, respectively. The primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment processes all had greater success rates at removing MPs than the tertiary treatment operation. Pellet removal was easier during the final stage of treatment. In the primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment phases, the weighted average RR values for the pellets were, respectively, 0.63, 0.76, and 0.35. Pellets could be successfully intercepted by treatment methods that use filters. Additionally, the tertiary treatment method demonstrated incredibly high efficacy in eliminating MPs with particular characteristics and tiny particle sizes. The primary and secondary treatment procedures’ weighted average RR values were, respectively, 0.70 and 0.48. Both MPs with particle sizes between 1 and 5 mm and those between 0.5 and 1 mm were more effectively eliminated during the first treatment procedures. In the size range of 0.5–1 mm, the weighted average RR values of the MPs were 0.31 and 0.74, respectively. For MPs with a size between 1 and 5 mm, the weighted average RR values were 0.06 and 0.53, respectively.³⁵ Processes for secondary treatment made it simple to trap MPs whose range of particle sizes was lower than 0.5 mm. Primary settling was effective at separating fibers and MPs with large particle sizes (0.5–5 mm). It has been found that fibers consist of more than 60% of the total MPs in the 0.05–0.5 mm size category, which was the most prevalent group.⁶⁴ Bacteria in the activated sludge were easily able to capture PE and particles of MPs with small diameters (less than 0.5 mm). More research should be done on the effects of various particle sizes, shapes, and types of polymer on the elimination of MPs during treatment operations.⁵⁹ Table 2 shows the removal efficiency of different sizes of microplastic in wastewater. The efficiency of these UF membranes is decreased if membrane fouling occurs, in this, the microplastic of different sizes blocks the pores of the membrane. If the accumulation of this microplastic over the membrane takes place for longer duration it then completely destroys the membrane. Figure 1 shows the degradation of plastic into microplastic and removal of these through the UF and making water ready for drinking.

Figure 1.

The image depicts the degradation of plastic into MPs and the subsequent removal of MPs using ultrafiltration. The ultrafiltration process involves forcing water through a membrane with pores that are small enough to filter out MPs. The filtered water is ready to drink.

Table 2.

The removal efficiency of different sizes of microplastic.

S.No.	Microplastic type/size	Removal efficiency	Reference
1.	>500 μm to 25 μm	Tertiary—average 41.7% (stage-wise); average 87.3% (overall)	⁶⁸
2.	Average 681.5 μm	71.67 ± 11.58% (stage wise); 95.16 ± 1.57% (overall)	⁶⁹
3.	5000 μm to <500 μm (diameter)	Overall, 100% removal	⁶³
4.	10–1000 μm	99.3%	⁷⁰
5.	PE particles with PAM(d < 0.5 mm)(2 < d < 5 mm)	45.34% ± 3.93%5.83% ± 1.77%	⁶³
6.	PESPETPA (<5 mm)PEPP	99.3%	³
7.	Polythene	0.69% efficiency	⁶³
8.	PET	95%	⁷¹
9.	25 µm	Overall 100%	⁷²
10.	190 μm	Overall 100%	⁷³
11.	PE	42%	⁷⁴
12.	Nylon fibers 500 µmPVC	99.2%	⁷⁵
13.	Fibers	96.97%	⁶⁴
14.	Fibers	99.4% of MP were eliminated	⁷⁶
15.	20 µm	99.9%	⁷⁷
16.	250 µm	99.4%	⁷⁸
17.	Polyvinylidene difluoride	More than 78 ± 9%	⁷⁹
18.	Higher than 70 μm	More than 95%.	⁸⁰
19.	Under 40 μm	17%	⁸⁰
20.	Polyethylene	90.9%	⁸¹
21.	10–100 μm	92.7%	⁸¹
22.	25 μm	39.5%	⁵⁰
23.	10 ± 7 μm	8%	⁸²
24.	PE, PP, PS, PA, PET	69.0–99.9% removal in quantity91.9–100% removal from surface area.	⁸³
25.	1 μm	85%	⁸⁴
26.	500, 999, 1000, 1999 µm	99%	⁸⁵
27.	75, 150 and 300 μm	90%	⁸⁶
28.	77.00 ± 7.21 μm	86.14%	⁸⁷

PES: polyether sulfone; PET: polyethylene terephthalate; PA: polyamide; PE: polyethylene; PP: polypropylene; PS: polystyrene; PAM: polyacrylamide.

Fouling of membrane

Membrane fouling, which lowers throughput, is a problem in the application of membrane filtering. Due to their ability to completely too partially block pores, small MPs have the potential to have a more powerful fouling effect than large ones.^63,88 By combining the sieving and adsorption of particles and chemicals onto the membrane surface or inside the membrane pores, membrane fouling is the term used to describe the blocking of membrane pores during filtration. Pore obstruction lowers the rate at which permeates are produced and complicates the membrane filtration process. Hydraulic resistance significantly increases as a result of membrane fouling.^89,90 A significant membrane fouling could result from a high MP concentration creating a thick cake layer. UF membranes were demonstrated to be completely too partially blocked by small MPs, demonstrating that small MPs may be more harmful to membranes than large ones. Throughout the treatment period, the primary membrane fouling mechanism, as mediated by MPs, changed. Membrane fouling by MPs is intermediate at the start of treatment, and it can eventually result in full obstruction. Cake formation might then take place, with internal pore blocking serving as the main membrane-clogging mechanism over time.⁹¹ The best indications of membrane fouling are permeating flux and transmembrane pressure.⁸⁹ Cake layer development and internal pore obstruction may now be the main causes of MP-related membrane fouling as a result of environmental aging and biofilm. Additionally, these MPs and related biofilms or adsorbate can cause internal, irreversible fouling, that shortens the lifespan of the membrane and raises operating expenses.^88,91 Figure 2 shows the different types of membrane fouling while the process of UF for the removal of microplastic.

Figure 2.

The image displays different types of membrane fouling that can occur during the process of microplastic remediation using ultrafiltration. Here the first image shows the intermediate blocking, then comes the complete blocking, followed by cake filtration and internal pore blocking.

Implementation of this work in conjunction with global work

Governments and organizations are also taking action to tackle the issue of microplastic pollution. For example, in the European Union, a ban on single-use plastics was implemented in 2019. Many countries, such as Canada and the United States, have also implemented regulations to reduce the production and use of MPs. The Canadian government, for instance, has prohibited the use of MPs in cosmetic products since these pellets fall to the bottom of seas and rivers and collect there.⁹² NGOs and research institutions are also conducting research and raising awareness on the issue of MPs to encourage individuals to change their behavior and reduce plastic waste. Financial strategies including penalties, taxes, fees, subsidies, deposit-refund programs, and incentives have also demonstrated their efficacy in encouraging the recycling of goods, which reduces the amount of waste that is dumped and the consequent build-up of MP pollutants in an aquatic environment.⁹³ The use of natural items like walnut shell powder and mineral powder has replaced micro-sized plastic pellets in cosmetic products, while compostable and biodegradable polymers and paper are being advocated for use as packaging materials. Due to their benign nature and biodegradability, polylactic acid, starch, sugarcane, and mushroom-based biomaterials are being advocated for usage in a variety of applications as alternatives to PE and PS.⁹³ Apart from these policies and schemes and various research, several companies and organizations have already begun exploring the use of UF membranes for microplastic remediation. For example, a Dutch company called Aqua Minerals has developed a system that uses UF membranes to remove MPs from surface water sources. Another company, Aquaporin, has developed a biomimetic UF membrane that mimics the natural filtering process of cell membranes.

Overall, the issue of MPs is being tackled through a combination of scientific research, policy changes, and individual actions. It will require a concerted effort from individuals, governments, and organizations globally to effectively address the issue and protect the health of the planet and its inhabitants.

Conclusion

As the plastic gets degraded it started forming microplastic of different shapes and sizes. MPs being size 0.5 to 5 mm are present in large quantities in water bodies and when this microplastic enters the food chain it produces toxicity into the organisms. Microplastic can enter in human food chain either through fish or through the drinking water. So, there is a need to remove microplastic from drinking water and UF is one of the fine methods for removal of these small microplastic from the water. MPs and crucial treatment technologies interacted very differently, as did the removal mechanisms. When used in UF technology, MPs rapidly adsorb to the membrane surface due to interactions with the membrane pores and surface. The sludge eventually contained some of the MPs removed by the above-mentioned technologies, but the MPs produced by the WWTPs posed environmental toxicity and dangers. Also, less understood were the effects of conventional pollutant removal, reaction intermediates, and their toxicity produced by the current treatment technique in the removal of MPs. Microplastic, in particular, contains chemicals that are hazardous to bacteria. To prevent emissions into the soil and aquatic habitats, microplastic-targeted remediation methods are also critically needed. It has been concluded that the larger microplastic can be easily removed with the help of an UF membrane but the microplastic which is of very small size can pass through the pores of the membrane so there is a need to remediate that small sized microplastic too. Due to their ability to completely too partially block pores, small MPs have the potential to have a more powerful membrane fouling effect than large ones. Membrane fouling by MPs is intermediate at the start of treatment, and it can eventually result in full obstruction. More research should be done on how different polymer kinds, particle sizes, and shapes affect the removal of MPs during various treatment techniques. Further research should be done on how crucial treatment technologies remove MPs. The development of standardized sampling and analysis techniques should be the main focus of future research to more accurately assess the fate of the MPs in WWTPs or other environmental media. From the literature analysis, it was found that the removal of microplastic by membrane technology is still insufficient.

Footnotes

Author contributions

Conceptualization: G.A., K.K.A., and M.S.S.; methodology: A.S. and P.P.P.; validation: M.S.S. and G.A.; formal analysis: G.A. and R.L.C.; investigation: S.K.; resources: V.N.; data curation: G.A. and A.R.R.; writing—original draft preparation: G.A.; writing—review and editing: A.S. and K.K.A.; visualization: G.A.; supervision: M.S.S.; project administration: G.A.; all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mahipal Singh Sankhla

Author biographies

Anuj Sharma is currently pursuing a MSc in Forensic Science from Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. He has successfully completed his BSc in forensic science from Lovely Professional University Punjab and he holds a Diploma in Photography from Maharishi Dayanand Vocational Training Institute, New Delhi. Anuj's expertise and dedication are evident in his impressive publication record, which includes 12+ research papers published in international and national journals. His work focuses on various fields, including microplastic remediation, nanoparticles targeting antimicrobial activities, carbon nanotube-based nano-biosensors, adulterants in illicit liquor, fingerprint analysis, and nanotechnology, where he explores innovative approaches and techniques to advance forensic science. Recognized for his contributions, Anuj has participated in numerous national and international conferences. At these prestigious events, he presented his research through posters and oral presentations, sharing his findings with fellow researchers and experts in the field. Anuj's commitment to his field extends beyond research and publication. He has gained valuable practical experience through internships at esteemed institutions such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in New Delhi, the State Forensic Lab in Jammu and Kashmir, and the National Human Rights Commission. In recognition of his exceptional performance, he was awarded the first position in a research project during his internship. Anuj's dedication to forensic science and his outstanding accomplishments have earned him recognition within the field. Notably, he was honoured with the Resilient Forensic Scientist Award at the National Forensic & Criminal Investigation Summit & Awards-2023, further cementing his reputation as an accomplished researcher and aspiring forensic scientist.

Supriya Kumari is currently pursuing a MSc in Forensic Science from Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She successfully completed BSc in Genetics from MAKAUT, WB. Supriya's passion for forensic science led her to embark on a 1-month internship at CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), New Delhi. During this valuable experience, she gained practical knowledge and hands-on training in various aspects of forensic science. Supriya's academic and research achievements are commendable. She has authored and co-authored seven research and review papers on diverse topics such as phytoremediation, heavy metals, forensic science, nanobioformulations, and microplastic remediation. These papers have been published in prestigious Scopus Indexed Journals, both at the national and international levels. Her contributions to the scientific community showcase her dedication and expertise in her chosen field. Beyond her academic pursuits, Supriya actively engages in extracurricular activities, webinars, seminars, and national and international conferences. Her participation in these events demonstrates her commitment to staying updated with the latest developments and advancements in forensic science. Through such engagements, she also nurtures her interpersonal skills and expands her professional network.

Rushikesh L. Chopade is currently pursuing a MSc in Forensic Science from Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. He has successfully completed PG Diploma in Forensic Science and Related Laws from Government Institute of Forensic Science, Aurangabad (Maharashtra). He has completed Bachelors of Science at Sant Gadge Baba Amaravati University, Maharashtra. His passion for forensic science led her to embark on a 1-month internship at CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), New Delhi. Throughout this crucial experience, he got practical understanding and hands-on training in many different aspects of forensic science. Rushikesh's academics and scientific achievements are excellent. He has published and written together 23 research and review publications on themes ranging from nanobiosensors to heavy metals, forensic science, nanobioformulations, and microplastic clean-up. These papers have been published in major Scopus Indexed Journals on both the national and international levels. His contributions to the field of science demonstrate his dedication and expertise for his chosen subject matter. He has been awarded as High Impact Factor Award in NFCI Conference. Rushikesh participates in extracurricular activities, webinars, seminars, and national and international conferences in addition to his academic interests. His attendance at these events displays her dedication to remain up to speed on the newest breakthroughs and achievements in forensic science. She also improves her interpersonal skills and builds her professional network through such activities.

Pritam P. Pandit is currently pursuing a Master's Degree in Forensic Science from Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. He has completed Post Graduate Diploma in Forensic Science and Related Laws from Government Institute of Forensic Science, Aurangabad, and graduated from Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. In addition to academics, he also holds a prestigious degree in music as ‘Sangeet Visharad' in subject Tabla. His passion and outstanding dedication contributing towards the field can be seen by his quality work published in peer-reviewed national and international journals. He has published 21 research and review articles and 4 book chapters during his post-graduate degree. He has also been awarded with one Indian Copyright and one International Patent (German).Pritam has received several internships including CBI(CFSL), New Delhi. Recently, he has been awarded with ‘Resilient Forensic Scientist Award’ by Legal Desire Media and Insights in National Forensic Science Criminal Investigation (NFCI) Summit & Awards, 2023.

Abhishek R. Rai is a student of Forensic Science, currently pursuing Master of Science in Forensic Science from Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. He has successfully completed Bachelor of Science in Zoology from Pune University, Maharashtra, and he holds Diploma in Photography from Maharishi Dayanand Vocational Training Institute, New Delhi. During his studies, Rai Abhishek also had the opportunity to participate in several internships and research projects in the field of forensic science. His passion for Forensic Science led him to embark on a 2-month internship at RFSL (Regional Forensic Science Lab) in Kota in Division of Toxicology. He gained valuable hands-on experience in various areas of forensic science, including DNA analysis, crime scene investigation, and forensic toxicology. Abhishek's academic and research achievements are commendable. He has authored and co-authored in eight research and review papers on topics like Fingerprint, toxicology, wildlife, heavy metal, and nanoparticle. He has received his third award in poster presentation in ‘International Conference on Forensic Science Forum’ organized by Sharda University in Greater Noida. His contribution to the scientific community showcases his dedication and expertise in his field. Beyond his academic pursuits, Abhishek actively engages in extracurricular activities, webinars, seminars, and national and international conferences. His participation in these events demonstrates his commitment to staying updated with the latest developments and advancements in Forensic Science. Through such engagements, he also nurtures his interpersonal skills and expands his professional network.

Varad Nagar is currently pursuing BSc (Honours) in Forensic Science from Vivekananda Global University in Jaipur, Rajasthan, and he holds Diploma in Photography from Maharishi Dayanand Vocational Training Institute, New Delhi. His passion for forensic science inspired him to undertake a 3-month internship at NFSU in Delhi, where he gained hands-on experience in various aspects of forensic science and research. Nagar has achieved impressive academic and research accomplishments. He has authored or co-authored more than 21 research and review articles covering diverse topics such as fingerprinting, nanotechnology phytoremediation, heavy metals, forensic science, and nanoplastic remediation. These papers have been published in Scopus Index Journals at both national and international levels. He has also been credited with one Indian Copyright and one German Patent. Nagar contributions to the scientific community demonstrate his dedication and expertise in his chosen field. He was recognized for his research work with the Junior Researcher of the Year Award at the NFCI 2023 Summit & Awards. In addition to his academic pursuits, Nagar is actively involved in extracurricular activities, webinars, seminars, and national and international conferences. These events showcase his commitment to keeping up-to-date with the latest developments and advancements in forensic science. Nagar also develops his interpersonal skills and expands his professional network through these engagements.

Garima Awasthi is an Assistant Professor in Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She earned PhD in Biological Sciences from CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute (CSIR-NBRI) in 2016. She also worked as SERB-National Post Doc fellow at University of Lucknow from 2016-2018. In recent years, she has published more than 13 scientific articles in international indexed and peer-reviewed journals on heavy metal stress in plants, mainly in arsenic problem in rice, which have been widely cited. She has been an evaluator of scientific articles and manuscripts for various international scientific publishers. The line of research that she develops is multidisciplinary in the areas of plant abiotic and biotic stress, nanotechnology, plant physiology, and proteomics. She has collaborated with various educational institutions and research centres, as well as with the industrial sector. Garima has taught various courses and seminars and has participated in various national and international scientific conferences. Likewise, she has advised various students for the development and completion of bachelor degrees, Master of Science degrees, and Doctor of Science theses in the life sciences discipline.

Apoorva Singh is currently working as a Forensic Professional in the Cyber Forensic Division at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh, MHA, Govt. of India. She is a postgraduate in Forensic Science from Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and is currently pursuing her PhD in Forensic Science from Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. She has also been associated with VGU, Jaipur, as Teaching Assistant and Lloyd Institute of Forensic Science, Greater Noida as Assistant Professor in the past. Singh has been awarded with the ‘Young Scientist Award' and ‘Young Researcher Award’ for her contribution in the field of Forensic Science. Her academic achievements include 1 Copyright, 18 paper publications in renowned journals and 10 book chapters in various books.

Kumud Kant Awasthi is currently working as an Associate Professor and Head at the Department of Life Sciences, Vivekananda Global University (VGU), Jaipur, India. Prior to this position, he worked at the National Institute of Animal Welfare (NIAW), Faridabad, India, the unique and only institute in Asia governed by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. Awasthi is a nanotoxicology expert who received his BSc from CSJM University, Kanpur, India in year 2002, then MSc in Zoology and his PhD from the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India. Awasthi's research focuses on environmental toxicology in relation to nanoparticles. He has extensive experience in toxicity assessment for various nanomaterials in different in vivo and in vitro models, with a focus on their safe use for drug development. He is also guiding PhD scholars in their studies. He also authored/edited books in his field and got copyright: German and Indian patents for the innovative works. He is an active member of Institute Innovation Council (IIC), Nodal Officer of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Cell. Awasthi is also a member of the sectional committee that organizes international courses for Global Initiative for Academic Networks (GIAN) and has served as the course coordinator for Animal Welfare courses offered by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India. Awasthi was invited to debate the ethics of fur at Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, UK. Awasthi is a lifetime member of several prestigious national and international scientific societies, including STOX: Society of Toxicology (India); ISCA: Indian Science Congress Association; SMRS: Soft Materials Research Society; MRSI: Materials Research Society of India; ISLS: International Society of Life Sciences; ESTIV: European Society of Toxicology In Vitro and many more. He is also a nominated member of the committee for ethical use of laboratory animals in research by CPCSEA, Government of India. Awasthi remains actively engaged in research activities, serving as a member of editorial boards and a reviewer for various scientific journals including Springer and Elsevier, as well as participating in organizing committees for many national and international conferences.

Mahipal Singh Sankhla is a highly accomplished Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Science, University Centre for Research and Development (UCRD), Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, India. With extensive experience in the field of Forensic Science, he previously served as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Science at Vivekananda Global University in Jaipur, Rajasthan, Sankhla earned a Bachelor of Science (Hons.) degree in Forensic Science and a Master of Science degree in Forensic Science. He is currently pursuing his PhD in Forensic Science from Galgotias University in Greater Noida, UP, and he holds Diploma in Photography from Maharishi Dayanand Vocational Training Institute, New Delhi. Sankhla has received training from several renowned laboratories, including the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Lucknow, CBI (CFSL) New Delhi, Codon Institute of Biotechnology Noida, and Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (R&D Division), Udaipur. He has received several awards and accolades for his outstanding work, including a ‘Junior Research Fellowship-JRF' from the DST-Funded Project at ‘Malaviya National Institute of Technology-MNIT', Jaipur, a ‘Young Scientists Award', a ‘Young Researcher Award', and a ‘Forensic Researcher Award’. He has also been credited with one Indian Copyright and one German Patent. Sankhla has edited five books and published over 30 book chapters in various national and international publishers. His research work has been published in more than 160 peer-reviewed international and national journals. His primary research areas include Heavy Metals Toxicity, Forensic Toxicology, Environmental Toxicology, Nanotechnology, and Fingerprint analysis.

References

Derraik

JGB

. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2002; 44(9): 842–852.

Rios

Moore

Jones

. Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2007; 54(8): 1230–1237.

Gabrys J. 2011. Material politics: plastic, carbon and the work of the biodegradable. Accumulation: The Material Ecologies and Economies of Plastic. Goldsmiths, London. Available at: http://jupiter. gold. ac. uk/sociology/calendar.

Cole

Lindeque

Halsband

, et al. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2011; 62(12): 2588–2597.

Browne

Crump

Niven

, et al. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol 2011; 45(21): 9175–9179.

Bazargan

McKay

. A review–synthesis of carbon nanotubes from plastic wastes. J Chem Eng 2012; 195: 377–391.

Al-Salem

Evangelisti

Lettieri

. Life cycle assessment of alternative technologies for municipal solid waste and plastic solid waste management in the Greater London area. J Chem Eng 2014; 244: 391–402.

Eriksen

Maximenko

Thiel

, et al. Plastic pollution in the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Mar Pollut Bull 2013; 68(1–2): 71–76.

Kokalj

Horvat

Skalar

, et al. Plastic bag and facial cleanser derived microplastic do not affect feeding behaviour and energy reserves of terrestrial isopods. Sci Total Environ 2018; 615: 761–766.

10.

Thompson

Olsen

Mitchell

, et al.

Lost at sea: where is all the plastic?

Science 2004; 304(5672): 838–838.

11.

Cózar

Martí

Duarte

, et al. The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for floating plastics in the North Atlantic branch of the thermohaline circulation. Sci Adv 2017; 3(4): e1600582.

12.

Cincinelli

Scopetani

Chelazzi

, et al. Microplastic in the surface waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica): occurrence, distribution and characterization by FTIR. Chemosphere 2017; 175: 391–400.

13.

Prata

da Costa

Duarte

, et al. Methods for sampling and detection of microplastics in water and sediment: a critical review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2019; 110: 150–159.

14.

Mani

Hauk

Walter

, et al. Microplastics profile along the Rhine River. 2015; 5: 1–7.

15.

Rodrigues

Abrantes

Gonçalves

, et al. Spatial and temporal distribution of microplastics in water and sediments of a freshwater system (Antuã River, Portugal). Sci Total Environ 2018; 633: 1549–1559.

16.

McCormick

Hoellein

Mason

, et al. Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an urban river. Environ Sci Technol 2014; 48(20): 11863–11871.

17.

Frias

Gago

Otero

, et al. Microplastics in coastal sediments from Southern Portuguese shelf waters. Mar Environ Res 2016; 114: 24–30.

18.

Browne

Galloway

Thompson

. Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. 2010; 44: 3404–3409.

19.

Dris

Gasperi

Mirande

, et al. A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and outdoor environments. Environ Pollut 2017; 221: 453–458.

20.

Mintenig

Löder

Primpke

, et al. Low numbers of microplastics detected in drinking water from ground water sources. Sci Total Environ 2019; 648: 631–635.

21.

Lusher

Welden

Sobral

, et al. Sampling, isolating and identifying microplastics ingested by fish and invertebrates. Anal Methods 2017; 9: 1346–1360.

22.

Liu

, et al. Microplastics in aquatic environments: toxicity to trigger ecological consequences. Environ Pollut 2020; 261: 114089.

23.

Vitousek

Mooney

Lubchenco

, et al. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 1997; 277: 494–499.

24.

Cózar

Echevarría

González-Gordillo

, et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014; 111(28): 10239–10244.

25.

Nkwachukwu

Chima

Ikenna

, et al. Focus on potential environmental issues on plastic world towards a sustainable plastic recycling in developing countries. Int J Ind Chem 2013; 4: 1–13.

26.

Jung

Horgen

Orski

, et al. Validation of ATR FT-IR to identify polymers of plastic marine debris, including those ingested by marine organisms. Mar Pollut Bull 2018; 127: 704–716.

27.

Urbanek

Rymowicz

Mirończuk

. Degradation of plastics and plastic-degrading bacteria in cold marine habitats. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2018; 102: 7669–7678.

28.

Al-Salem

Antelava

Constantinou

, et al. A review on thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic solid waste (PSW). J Environ Manage 2017; 197: 177–198.

29.

Mizukawa

Takada

Ito

, et al. Monitoring of a wide range of organic micropollutants on the Portuguese coast using plastic resin pellets. Mar Pollut Bull 2013; 70(1–2): 296–302.

30.

Ashton

Holmes

Turner

. Association of metals with plastic production pellets in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2010; 60(11): 2050–2055.

31.

Anderson

Grose

Pahl

, et al. Microplastics in personal care products: exploring perceptions of environmentalists, beauticians and students. Mar Pollut Bull 2016; 113(1–2): 454–460.

32.

Rochman

Kurobe

Flores

, et al. Early warning signs of endocrine disruption in adult fish from the ingestion of polyethylene with and without sorbed chemical pollutants from the marine environment. Sci Total Environ 2014; 493: 656–661.

33.

Oliveira

Ribeiro

Hylland

, et al. Single and combined effects of microplastics and pyrene on juveniles (0 + group) of the common goby Pomatoschistus microps (Teleostei, Gobiidae). Ecol Indic 2013; 34: 641–647.

34.

Thompson

. Plastic debris in the marine environment: consequences and solutions. Marine Nat Conser Europe 2006; 193: 107–115.

35.

Vickers

. Animal communication: when i’m calling you, will you answer too? Curr Biol 2017; 27: R713–R715.

36.

Ziajahromi

Neale

Leusch

. Wastewater treatment plant effluent as a source of microplastics: review of the fate, chemical interactions and potential risks to aquatic organisms. Water Sci Technol 2016; 74: 2253–2269.

37.

Ngo

Pramanik

Shah

, et al. Pathway, classification and removal efficiency of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants pathway, classification and removal efficiency of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants. Environ Pollut 2019; 255: 113326.

38.

Alabi

Ologbonjaye

Awosolu

, et al. Public and environmental health effects of plastic wastes disposal: a review. J Toxicol Risk Assess 2019; 5(021): 1–13.

39.

Yee

MS-L

Hii

L-W

Looi

, et al. Impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on human health. Nanomaterials 2021; 11(2): 496.

40.

Lithner

Larsson

Dave

. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. Sci Total Environ 2011; 409(18): 3309–3324.

41.

Esposito

Prearo

Renzi

, et al. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of benthic by-catches from an eastern Mediterranean deep-sea environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2022; 174: 113231.

42.

Eerkes-Medrano

Leslie

Quinn

. Microplastics in drinking water: a review and assessment. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 2019; 7: 69–75.

43.

Prata

da Costa

Lopes

, et al. Environmental exposure to microplastics: an overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ 2020; 702: 134455.

44.

Bakir

Rowland

Thompson

. Enhanced desorption of persistent organic pollutants from microplastics under simulated physiological conditions. Environ Pollut 2014; 185: 16–23.

45.

Warsinger

Chakraborty

Tow

, et al. A review of polymeric membranes and processes for potable water reuse. Prog Polym Sci 2018; 81: 209–237.

46.

Yang

Monnot

Ercolei

, et al. Membrane-based processes used in municipal wastewater treatment for water reuse: state-of-the-art and performance analysis. Membranes 2020; 10(6): 131.

47.

Shi

Lei

Huang

, et al. Ultrafiltration of oil-in-water emulsions using ceramic membrane: roles played by stabilized surfactants. Colloids Surf A: Physicochem Eng Asp 2019; 583: 123948.

48.

Muthukumaran

Nguyen

Baskaran

. Performance evaluation of different ultrafiltration membranes for the reclamation and reuse of secondary effluent. Desalination 2011; 279(1–3): 383–389.

49.

Falsanisi

Liberti

Notarnicola

. Ultrafiltration (UF) pilot plant for municipal wastewater reuse in agriculture: impact of the operation mode on process performance. Water 2010; 2: 872–885.

50.

Gonzalez-Camejo

Morales

Peña-Lamas

, et al. Feasibility of rapid gravity filtration and membrane ultrafiltration for the removal of microplastics and microlitter in sewage and wastewater from plastic industry. J Water Process Eng 2023; 51: 103452.

51.

Mintenig

Int-Veen

Löder

, et al. Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res 2017; 108: 365–372.

52.

Kazour

Terki

Rabhi

, et al. Sources of microplastics pollution in the marine environment: importance of wastewater treatment plant and coastal landfill. Mar Pollut Bull 2019; 146: 608–618.

53.

Magni

Binelli

Pittura

, et al. The fate of microplastics in an Italian wastewater treatment plant. Sci Total Environ 2019; 652: 602–610.

54.

Qiao

Deng

Zhang

, et al. Accumulation of different shapes of microplastics initiates intestinal injury and gut microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of zebrafish. Chemosphere 2019; 236: 124334.

55.

Hernandez

Nowack

Mitrano

. Polyester textiles as a source of microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber release during washing. Environ Sci Technol 2017; 51(12): 7036–7046.

56.

Lares

Ncibi

Sillanpää

, et al. Occurrence, identification and removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process and advanced MBR technology. 2018; 133: 236–246.

57.

Long

Pan

Wang

, et al. Microplastic abundance, characteristics, and removal in wastewater treatment plants in a coastal city of China. Water Res 2019; 155: 255–265.

58.

Nizzetto

Futter

Langaas

. Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics of urban origin? 2016.

59.

Murphy

Ewins

Carbonnier

, et al. Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 2016; 50(11): 5800–5808.

60.

Liu

Zhang

Liu

, et al. A review of the removal of microplastics in global wastewater treatment plants: characteristics and mechanisms. Environ Int 2021; 146: 106277.

61.

Asquer

Cappai

De Gioannis

, et al. Biomass ash reutilisation as an additive in the composting process of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage 2017; 69: 127–135.

62.

Xue

Ding

, et al. Removal characteristics of microplastics by fe-based coagulants during drinking water treatment. J Environ Sci 2019; 78: 267–275.

63.

Xue

, et al. Characteristics of microplastic removal via coagulation and ultrafiltration during drinking water treatment. J Chem Eng 2019; 359: 159–167.

64.

Tadsuwan

Babel

. Microplastic abundance and removal via an ultrafiltration system coupled to a conventional municipal wastewater treatment plant in Thailand. J Environ Chem Eng 2022; 10(2): 107142.

65.

Dalmau-Soler

Ballesteros-Cano

Boleda

, et al. Microplastics from headwaters to tap water: occurrence and removal in a drinking water treatment plant in Barcelona metropolitan area (Catalonia, NE Spain). Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021: 1–11.

66.

Sun

Dai

Wang

, et al. Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res 2019; 152: 21–37.

67.

Jeong

C-B

Won

E-J

Kang

H-M

, et al. Microplastic size-dependent toxicity, oxidative stress induction, and p-JNK and p-p38 activation in the monogonont rotifer (Brachionus koreanus). Environ Sci Technol 2016; 50(16): 8849–8857.

68.

Ziajahromi

Neale

Rintoul

, et al. Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway for microplastics: development of a new approach to sample wastewater-based microplastics. Water Res 2017; 112: 93–99.

69.

Yang

Cui

, et al. Removal of microplastics in municipal sewage from China's largest water reclamation plant. Water Res 2019; 155: 175–181.

70.

Yaranal

Subbiah

Mohanty

. Identification, extraction of microplastics from edible salts and its removal from contaminated seawater. Environ Technol Innov 2021; 21: 101253.

71.

Yuan

Almuhtaram

McKie

, et al. Assessment of microplastic sampling and extraction methods for drinking waters. Chemosphere 2022; 286: 131881.

72.

Gonzalez-Camejo

Morales

Peña-Lamas

, et al. Microplastic removal from urban and industrial wastewaters using rapid gravity filtration and membrane ultrafiltration technologies.

73.

Iyare

Ouki

Bond

. Microplastics removal in wastewater treatment plants: a critical review. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 2020; 6(10): 2664–2675.

74.

Silva

ALP

. New frontiers in remediation of (micro) plastics. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem Curr Opin Green Sust 2021; 28: 100443.

75.

Luogo

BDP

Salim

Zhang

, et al. Reuse of water in laundry applications with micro-and ultrafiltration ceramic membrane. Membranes 2022; 12(2): 223.

76.

Sharma

Pandit

Chopade

, et al. Eradication of microplastics in wastewater treatment: overview. 2022.

77.

Talvitie

Mikola

Koistinen

, et al. Solutions to microplastic pollution–removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res 2017; 123: 401–407.

78.

Ngo

Pramanik

Shah

, et al. Pathway, classification and removal efficiency of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants. Environ Pollut 2019; 255: 113326.

79.

Dalmau-Soler

Ballesteros-Cano

Boleda

, et al. Microplastics from headwaters to tap water: occurrence and removal in a drinking water treatment plant in Barcelona metropolitan area (Catalonia, NE Spain). Environ Sci Pollut Res: 1–11.

80.

Monnot

M-C-A

Yang

J-C-A

Michelet

A-C-A

. Removal of microplastic particles in water by ultrafiltration: assessment of process performances using a new characterization and quantification analytical technique. KEYNOTE LECTURES 2021: 413.

81.

Adewuyi

Campbell

Adeyemi

. The potential role of membrane technology in the removal of microplastics from wastewater. J Appl Membr Sci & Tech 2021; 25(2): 31–53.

82.

Hachemi

Enfrin

Rashed

, et al. The impact of PET microplastic fibres on PVDF ultrafiltration performance–A short-term assessment of MP fouling in simple and complex matrices. Chemosphere 2023; 310: 136891.

83.

Yang

Monnot

Sun

, et al. Microplastics in different water samples (seawater, freshwater, and wastewater): removal efficiency of membrane treatment processes. Water Res 2023; 232: 119673.

84.

Wang

Chen

, et al. Ultrafiltration membrane fouling by microplastics with raw water: behaviors and alleviation methods. J Chem Eng 2021; 410: 128174.

85.

Kara

Sari Erkan

Onkal Engin

. Characterization and removal of microplastics in landfill leachate treatment plants in Istanbul, Turkey. Anal Lett 2022; 56(9): 1535–1548.

86.

Pramanik

Monira

. Understanding the fragmentation of microplastics into nano-plastics and removal of nano/microplastics from wastewater using membrane, air flotation and nano-ferrofluid processes. Chemosphere 2021; 282: 131053.

87.

Tadsuwan

Babel

. Unraveling microplastics removal in wastewater treatment plant: a comparative study of two wastewater treatment plants in Thailand. Chemosphere 2022; 307: 135733.

88.

Enfrin

Lee

Le-Clech

, et al. Kinetic and mechanistic aspects of ultrafiltration membrane fouling by nano-and microplastics. J Membr Sci 2020; 601: 117890.

89.

Abdelrasoul, A., Doan, H. and Lohi, A., 2013. Fouling in membrane filtration and remediation methods. Mass transfer-advances in sustainable energy and environment oriented numerical modeling 195.

90.

Kumar

Ismail

. Fouling control on microfiltration/ultrafiltration membranes: Effects of morphology, hydrophilicity, and charge. J Appl Polym Sci 2015; 132(21).

91.

Hou

Kumar

Yoo

, et al. Conversion and removal strategies for microplastics in wastewater treatment plants and landfills. J Chem Eng 2021; 406: 126715.

92.

Kumar

Upadhyay

Prajapati

. Impact of microplastics on riverine greenhouse gas emissions: a view point. Env Sci Pollut Res 2022: 1–4.

93.

Pandey

Pathak

Singh

, et al. Microplastics in the ecosystem: an overview on detection, removal, toxicity assessment, and control release. Water 2022; 15: 51.

An assessment of the impact of structure and type of microplastics on ultrafiltration technology for microplastic remediation

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Characteristics

Shape and size of MPs

Type of polymer of MPs

Remediation of MPs by UF

Effect of shape, size, and types of polymers on MPs removal

Fouling of membrane

Implementation of this work in conjunction with global work

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author contributions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References