What have we known so far about microplastics in drinking water treatment? A timely review

doi:10.1007/s11783-021-1492-5

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (5) : 58 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-021-1492-5

REVIEW ARTICLE

What have we known so far about microplastics in drinking water treatment? A timely review

Jinkai Xue(

), Seyed Hesam-Aldin Samaei, Jianfei Chen, Ariana Doucet, Kelvin Tsun Wai Ng

Environmental Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina SK S4S 0A2, Canada

Download: PDF(666 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

• 23 available research articles on MPs in drinking water treatment are reviewed.

• The effects of treatment conditions and MP properties on MP removal are discussed.

• DWTPs with more steps generally are more effective in removing MPs.

• Smaller MPs (e.g.,<10 μm) are more challenging in drinking water treatment.

Microplastics (MPs) have been widely detected in drinking water sources and tap water, raising the concern of the effectiveness of drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) in protecting the public from exposure to MPs through drinking water. We collected and analyzed the available research articles up to August 2021 on MPs in drinking water treatment (DWT), including laboratory- and full-scale studies. This article summarizes the major MP compositions (materials, sizes, shapes, and concentrations) in drinking water sources, and critically reviews the removal efficiency and impacts of MPs in various drinking water treatment processes. The discussed drinking water treatment processes include coagulation-flocculation (CF), membrane filtration, sand filtration, and granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration. Current DWT processes that are purposed for particle removal are generally effective in reducing MPs in water. Various influential factors to MP removal are discussed, such as coagulant type and dose, MP material, shape and size, and water quality. It is anticipated that better MP removal can be achieved by optimizing the treatment conditions. Moreover, the article framed the major challenges and future research directions on MPs and nanoplastics (NPs) in DWT.

Keywords Microplastics Drinking water treatment Coagulation Flocculation Membrane Filtration

Corresponding Author(s): Jinkai Xue

Issue Date: 19 October 2021

Cite this article:

Jinkai Xue,Seyed Hesam-Aldin Samaei,Jianfei Chen, et al. What have we known so far about microplastics in drinking water treatment? A timely review[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(5): 58.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-021-1492-5
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2022/V16/I5/58

Fig.1 Bibliometrics on MPs in DWT over the period of January 2018 – August 2021: (A) Numbers of research articles according to the first and correspondent authors’ countries, (B) Annual numbers of published studies on full-scale DWTPs, laboratory-scale tests, and literature reviews or perspectives, as well as the totals (up to August 2021), (C) Comparison of the numbers of research papers that cover CF/CFS, membrane, and media filtration.

Authors	Country	Water source	Microplastic composition	Treatment processes	Overall performance remark
Mintenig et al. (2019)	Germany	Ground-water	Materials: PEST, PVC, PE, PA/nylon, and epoxy resin; Size range: 50–150 μm; Concentration: 0–7 MPs/m³	Aeration-serial filtration	MPs in treated water: 0–0.7 MPs/m³
Sarkar et al. (2021)	India	Ganga River water	Materials: PE, PP, PET, and PS; Dominant sizes:≥25 μm; Shapes: fibers, 52%–59%; films/fragments, 41%–48%; Concentration: 17.88 MPs/L	CF-pulse clarifier-sand filtration	CF-pulse clarifier: 60.9% removal; CF-pulse clarifier-sand filtration: 84.6% removal; MPs in treated water: 2.75 MPs/L
Pivokonský et al. (2020)	The Czech Republic	Uhlava River water	Materials: CA, PET, PVC, PE, PP, EVA, PBA, PTT; Size range: 1–100 μm and≥100 μm; Shapes: fibers, fragments, and spheres; Concentration: ~23 MPs/L	CF-sand filtration	~40% removal of MPs 1–100 μm; MPs in treated water: 14 MPs/L
Pivokonský et al. (2020)	The Czech Republic	Uhlava River water	Materials: CA, PET, PVC, PE, PP, EVA, PS, PA6, PEO+ PEG, VC/VAC, PTT, PTFE; Size range: 1–100 μm and≥100 μm; Shapes: fibers, fragments, and spheres; Concentration: ~1300 MPs/L	CFS-Mn oxidation-sand filtration-ozonation-GAC filtration-UV absorption	Up to 88% removal of MPs 1–100 μm; MPs in treated water: 160 MPs/L
Pivokonsky et al. (2018)	The Czech Republic	Reservoir water	Major materials: PET, PP, PS, PVC Size range: 1–100 μm and≥100 μm; Shapes: fragments, spherical, and fibers Concentration: ~1473 MPs/L	CF-sand filtration	~70% removal of MPs 1–100 μm; MPs in treated water: ~443 MPs/L
		Reservoir water	Major materials: PET, PP, PVC Size range: 1–100 μm and≥100 μm; Shapes: fragments, spherical, and fibers Concentration: ~1812 MPs/L	CFS-sand and granular activated carbon filtration	~81% removal of MPs 1–100 μm; MPs in treated water: ~338 MPs/L
		River water	Major materials: PBA, PE, PET, PMMA, PP, PS, PTT Size range: 1–100 μm and≥100 μm; Shapes: fragments, spherical, and fibers Concentration: ~3605 MPs/L	CF-flotation-sand filtration-granular activated carbon filtration	~83% removal of MPs 1–100 μm; MPs in treated water: ~628 MPs/L
Johnson et al. (2020)	UK	River water	Material: PE; Size range:≥25 μm; Concentrations: 0–4.4 MPs/L	GAC-membrane-UV/H₂O₂-GAC-disinfection	MPs in treated water: 0 MPs/L*
		River water	PE:≥25 μm, 0–15 MPs/L; PP:≥25 μm, 0–3.4 MPs/L	HBC-RGF-GAC-disinfection	MPs in treated water: 0 MPs/L
		River water	PE:≥25 μm, 0–1.8 MPs/L;	Disinfection-pH balancing-static mixer-clarifier with FeCl₃-polyelectrolyete-coagulation-RGF-GAC-microscreen	MPs in treated water: 0 MPs/L
		River water	PE:≥25 μm, 0–113 MPs/L; PET:≥25 μm, 0–20 MPs/L; PP:≥25 μm, 0–1.3 MPs/L	DAF or HBC-RGF-GAC-disinfection	MPs in treated water: 0 MPs/L
		River water	PE:≥25 μm, 0–0.2 MPs/L	Reservoir with SSF-RGF-ozone-SSF-disinfection	MPs in treated water: PS 0.0016 MP/L
		Ground-water	–	Disinfection	PS and ABS were detected, totally 0.0028 MP/L
		Ground-water	–	Aeration and pressure-filtration-disinfection	MPs in treated water: 0 MPs/L
		Reservoir water	PP:≥25 μm, 0–0.023 MPs/L	Alum coagulation-RGF-disinfection-pH balancing-UV	MPs in treated water: 0 MPs/L
Wang et al. (2020a)	China	Yangtze River water	Materials: PET, PE, PP, PAM Size range: 1–100 μm and≥100 μm Shapes: fibers, spheres, and fragments Concentration: ~6614 MPs/L	CFS-sand filtration-ozonation-GAC filtration	PET: ~87%; PE: ~89.5%; PP: ~85.0%; PAM: −114.1%; MPs in treated water: ~930 MPs/L
Dalmau-Soler et al. (2021)	Spain	Llobregat river basin river and ground-water	Materials: PP, PEST, PS, PAN, ABS, PE Size: 20 μm–5mm Shape: fragments, fibers Concentration: ~1 MPs/L	[CFS-sand filtration] + $Line1: ozonation-GAC filtration Line 2: UF-RO$	Overall removal: ~93%; MPs in treated water: ~0.07 MPs/L

Tab.1 Summary of studies on full-scale DWTPs

Fig.2 Word-cloud of the major detected MP materials in raw waters to DWTPs. (Font sizes are determined by the frequencies of detection of the materials in all the studies. For example, PE was reported in all the seven studies on full-scale DWTPs, so PE’s frequency is 7. Colors are only for aesthetics. The image was generated using WordItOut at https://worditout.com).

Fig.3 Reported MP concentrations in different source waters to full-scale DWTPs in different countries: a groundwater in Germany (Mintenig et al., 2019), the Ganga River (Sarkar et al., 2021), two locations of the Uhlava River in the Czech Republic (Czechia) (Pivokonský et al., 2020), two reservoirs and a river in Czechia (Pivokonsky et al., 2018), a river in the UK (Johnson et al., 2020), the Yangtze River in China (Wang et al., 2020a), and the Llobregat River and its tributaries in Spain (Dalmau-Soler et al., 2021). It should be noted that this chart is only to showcase how substantial MP concentrations may differ across studies; even for the same water body, the MP concentrations measured at different locations can differ significantly.

Fig.4 Representative DWT trains that contain CF treatment: a conventional DWT consisting of CF, sand filtration, and Cl₂ disinfection (A); and two advanced DWT trains, which are (B) CFS-sand filtration-ozonation-GAC filtration-UV-Cl₂ disinfection and (C) CFS-sand-filtration-membrane filtration- Cl₂ disinfection.

Tab.2 MP removal by CF at full-scale DWTPs

Study	Country	Source water	MPs	Dispersant/surfactant	Treatment process	Coagulant and aid	Coagulant aid	Membrane	Best removal (%)*
Zhou et al. (2021)	China	Synthetic water	Crushed PS (1.05 g/cm³) and PE (0.91 g/cm³) size:<5 mm	–	CFS	PACl (30–180 mg/L)			PS: ~80% when PAC≥60 mg/L PE: ~30% when PAC≥90 mg/L
						FeCl₃ (30–180 mg/L)			PS: ~65% when FeCl₃≥60 mg/L PE: ~16% when FeCl₃≥90 mg/L
						ACH: 0–3.85 mg/L			Similar removal of microplastics as compared with alum
Skaf et al. (2020)	USA	Synthetic water	Model PE microspheres density: 1.3 g/cm³ diameter: 1–5 μm surface: pristine	F68	CFS	Alum: 5–10 mg Al/L			–
Skaf et al. (2020)	USA	Synthetic water	Model PE fibers density: 0.96 g/cm³ diameter: 5 μm (0.1 mm long), 15 μm (0.9 and 1.3 mm long) surface treatment: polyvinyl alcohol	F68, Alconoc, Tide Oxi Ultra, or All Stainlifter	CFS	Alum: 5–10 mg Al/L			–
Xia et al. (2020)	China	Synthetic water	PS microspheres size: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 μm	Tween 20 or sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)	CFS	AlCl₃?6H₂O, 0–0.5 g/L			No surfactant: ~98% removal of 1 μm MP at 0.25 g/L AlCl₃?6H₂O; Tween led to reduced removal of 1 μm microspheres in contrast to SDS
Xue et al. (2021)	Canada	River water	Carboxylated PS microspheres size: 3, 6, 25, 45, and 90 μm; density: 1.05 g/cm³	-	CFS	Alum: 0–50 mg/L			50 mg/L alum: 3 μm: 95.7% 6 μm: 91.2% 25 μm: 97.7% 45 μm: 89.9% 90 μm: 80.5%
		River water				Alum: 30 mg/L			3 μm: 85.2% 6 μm: 75.6% 25 μm: 77.2% 45 μm: 63.3% 90 μm: 44.5%
		Prechlorinated lake water				Alum: 30 mg/L			3 μm: 96.1% 6 μm: 85.2% 25 μm: 90.6% 45 μm: 88.0% 90 μm: 63.7%
Lapointe et al. (2020)	Canada	River water	PE microspheres: 15 and 140 μm Weathered PE microspheres: 64 μm PS microspheres: 140 μm PEST fibers:≤63 μm in length and 90 μm in diameter	–	CF-ballasted flocculation	Alum: 0–3.85 mg Al/L			PE (140 μm): ~90% PE (15 μm): ~92% Weathered PE (64 μm): ~97% PS (140 μm): 83.7% (2.71 mg Al/L) PEST fiber: 100%
Ma et al. (2019b)	China	Synthetic water	Model PE microspheres, density: 0.92–0.97 g/cm³, diameter:<0.5–5 mm	Humic acid (HA)	CFS	FeCl₃?6H₂O: 0–5 mM			2 mM FeCl₃?6H₂O at pH 7.0: d<0.5 mm: 13.5% 0.5<d<1 mm: 6.4% 1<d<2 mm: 3.7% 2<d<5 mm: 2.4%
					CFS	AlCl₃?6H₂O: 0–15 mM			15 mM AlCl₃?6H₂O at pH 7.0: d<0.5 mm: 36.5% 0.5<d<1 mm: 20.6% 1<d<2 mm: 11.5% 2<d<5 mm: 4.4%
					CFS	AlCl₃?6H₂O: 0.5 and 5 mM	cationic PAM: 0–15 mg/L		5 mM AlCl₃?6H₂O and 15 mM cationic PAM at pH 7.0: d<0.5 mm: 45.7% 0.5<d<1 mm: 21.3% 1<d<2 mm: 9.3% 2<d<5 mm: 5.7%
					CFS	AlCl₃?6H₂O: 0.5 and 5 mM	anionic PAM: 0–15 mg/L		5 mM AlCl₃?6H₂O and 15 mM anionic PAM at pH 7.0: d<0.5 mm: 61.3% 0.5<d<1 mm: 41.3% 1<d<2 mm: 30.0% 2<d<5 mm: 17.7%
					CFS-UF	FeCl₃?6H₂O		PVDF 100 kDa UF	–
					UF			PVDF 100 kDa UF	–
Ma et al. (2019a)	China	Synthetic water	Model PE microspheres, density: 0.92–0.97 g/cm³, diameter:<0.5–5 mm	HA	CFS	FeCl₃?6H₂O: 0–5 mM			2 mM FeCl₃?6H₂O at pH 7.0 d<0.5 mm: 13.2% 0.5<d<1 mm: 6.5% 1<d<2 mm: 3.8% 2<d<5 mm: 2.3%
					CFS	FeCl₃?6H₂O: 0.2 and 2 mM	cationic PAM: 0–15 mg/L		2 mM FeCl₃?6H₂O and 15 mg/L cationic PAM at pH 7.0 d<0.5 mm: 55.9% 0.5<d<1 mm: 27.3% 1<d<2 mm: 15.9% 2<d<5 mm: 5.7%
					CFS	FeCl₃?6H₂O: 0.2 and 2 mM	anionic PAM: 0–15 mg/L		2 mM FeCl₃?6H₂O and 15 mg/L anionic PAM at pH 7.0 d<0.5 mm: 88.6% 0.5<d<1 mm: 86.9% 1<d<2 mm: 86.9% 2<d<5 mm: 83.7%
					CFS-UF	FeCl₃?6H₂O: 0.2and 2 mM		PVDF 100 kDa UF	–
					UF			PVDF 100 kDa UF	–
Shahi et al. (2020)	Korea	Synthetic water	PE particles, 10–100 μm 0.91 g/cm³	HA	CFS with cationic polyamine coated sand	Alum: 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 mg/L	Cationic polyamine: 0.5, 1, and 2 mg/L		~71% removal of total MPs at 30 mg alum/L; For smaller MPs, 10–30 μm, the maximum removal 52% was at 30 mg alum/L
Lu et al. (2021)	China	Synthetic water	Pristine and weathered PET microspheres: Diameter: 500±2.5 nm	–	CFS	PACl (Al₁₃)	–	–	Pristine PET: 100% (by mass concentration) at pH= 6; Weather PET: 90% (by mass concentration) at pH= 8
Park et al. (2021)	Korea	Synthetic water	Chitosan and tannic acid pre-coated MPs: PS: 0.5 μm and 90 μm; PE: 45–53 μm and 106–125 μm	–	Coagulation-membrane filtration	FeCl₃	–	11-μm filter paper	0.5-μm PS beads: 97% (by mass concentration)
					CFS	FeCl₃	–	–	0.5-μm PS beads: 50%–60% (by mass concentration)
					CFS	AlCl₃	–	–	0.5-μm PS beads: 45%–57% (by mass concentration)
Peydayesh et al. (2021)	Switzerland	Synthetic water	Carboxylated PS microspheres Diameter: 500 nm	–	CFS	Lysozyme amyloid fibrils	–	–	98.2% (by turbidity) at 12.5 mg/L coagulant
Peydayesh et al. (2021)	Switzerland	Primary effluent from a WWTP	Carboxylated PS microspheres: Diameter: 500 nm	–	CFS	Lysozyme amyloid fibrils	–	–	81% (by turbidity) at 300 mg/L coagulant
Zhang et al. (2021b)	China	Synthetic water	Crushed PET Size:<100–500 μm	–	CFS	PACl: 20–200 mg/L	PAM: 0–100 mg/L	–	79.35% at 20 mg PACl/L and 100 mg PAM/L
					CFS	PACl: 20–200 mg/L	Sodium alginate (SA): 0–100 mg/L	–	69.9% at 20 mg PACl/L and 100 mg SA/L
					CFS	PACl: 20–200 mg/L	Activated silicic acid (ASA): 0–100 mg/L	–	69.8% at 20 mg PACl/L and 100 mg ASA/L
Li et al. (2021)	Singapore	Tap water or raw water	PS microspheres, 0.1, 1, 10, 18 μm; 1.05 g/cm³		UF			PVDF hollow fiber membrane, 0.03 μm pore size
Li et al. (2021)	Singapore	Tap water or raw water	PS microspheres, 0.1, 1, 10, 18 μm; 1.05 g/cm³		Coagulation-UF	AlCl₃?6H₂O		PVDF hollow fiber membrane, 0.03 μm pore size
Wang et al. (2020a)	UK	Synthetic water	PS microspheres: 10 μm	–	Biochar filter				> 95% removal
Wang et al. (2020a)	UK	Synthetic water	PS microspheres: 10 μm	–	Sand filter				60%–80% removal
Li et al. (2020)	China	Synthetic water	PVC,<5 μm		MBR			0.1 μm pore size	Almost complete removal of PVC MPs
Enfrin et al. (2020)	UK	Synthetic water	PE MPs and NPs from personal facial scrub product Size: 13–690 nm	–	UF	–	–	Polysulfone 30kDa	54% (by nanoparticle tracking analysis) at operation time of 24 h

Tab.3 Laboratory-scale studies on MPs in DWT or surface water treatment

1	A Amirtharajah (1988). Some theoretical and conceptual views of filtration. Journal- American Water Works Association, 80(12): 36–46 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.1988.tb03147.x
2	J C Anderson, B J Park, V P Palace (2016). Microplastics in aquatic environments: Implications for Canadian ecosystems. Environmental Pollution, 218: 269–280 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.074 pmid: 27431693
3	A L Andrady (2017). The plastic in microplastics: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 119(1): 12–22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.082 pmid: 28449819
4	G Ašmonaitė, K Larsson, I Undeland, J Sturve, B Carney Almroth (2018). Size matters: Ingestion of relatively large microplastics contaminated with environmental pollutants posed little risk for fish health and fillet quality. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(24): 14381–14391 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04849 pmid: 30451497
5	A K Baldwin, S R Corsi, S A Mason (2016). Plastic debris in 29 Great Lakes tributaries: relations to watershed attributes and hydrology. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(19): 10377–10385 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02917 pmid: 27627676
6	M Barchiesi, A Chiavola, C Di Marcantonio, M R Boni (2020). Presence and fate of microplastics in the water sources: focus on the role of wastewater and drinking water treatment plants. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 40: 101787
7	T J Brown, M B Emelko (2009). Chitosan and metal salt coagulant impacts on Cryptosporidium and microsphere removal by filtration. Water Research, 43(2): 331–338 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.10.035 pmid: 18996552
8	H Cai, M Chen, Q Chen, F Du, J Liu, H Shi (2020a). Microplastic quantification affected by structure and pore size of filters. Chemosphere, 257: 127198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127198 pmid: 32512329
9	H Cai, E G Xu, F Du, R Li, J Liu, H Shi (2021). Analysis of environmental nanoplastics: Progress and challenges. Chemical Engineering Journal, 410: 128208 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128208
10	Y Cai, T Yang, D M Mitrano, M Heuberger, R Hufenus, B Nowack (2020b). Systematic study of microplastic fiber release from 12 different polyester textiles during washing. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(8): 4847–4855 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07395 pmid: 32250104
11	Y L Cheng, J G Kim, H B Kim, J H Choi, Y F Tsang, K Baek (2021). Occurrence and removal of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants and drinking water purification facilities: A review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 410: 128381 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128381
12	J C Crittenden, R R Trussell, D W Hand, K J Howe, G Tchobanoglous (2012). MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles and Design. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons
13	J Dalmau-Soler, R Ballesteros-Cano, M R Boleda, M Paraira, N Ferrer, S Lacorte (2021). Microplastics from headwaters to tap water: occurrence and removal in a drinking water treatment plant in Barcelona Metropolitan area (Catalonia, NE Spain). Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, March: 1–11 pmid: 33709311
14	F De Falco, E Di Pace, M Cocca, M Avella (2019). The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollution. Scientific Reports, 9(1): 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43023-x pmid: 31036862
15	J Delgado-Gallardo, G L Sullivan, P Esteban, Z Wang, O Arar, Z Li, T M Watson, S Sarp (2021). From sampling to analysis: A critical review of techniques used in the detection of micro-and nanoplastics in aquatic environments. ACS ES&T Water, 1(4): 748–764
16	H Ding, J Zhang, H He, Y Zhu, D D Dionysiou, Z Liu, C Zhao (2021). Do membrane filtration systems in drinking water treatment plants release nano/microplastics? Science of the Total Environment, 755: 142658
17	J Duan, N Bolan, Y Li, S Ding, T Atugoda, M Vithanage, B Sarkar, D C W Tsang, M B Kirkham (2021). Weathering of microplastics and interaction with other coexisting constituents in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Water Research, 196: 117011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117011 pmid: 33743325
18	M B Emelko, P M Huck, B M Coffey (2005). A review of Cryptosporidium removal by granular media filtration. Journal- American Water Works Association, 97(12): 101–115 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2005.tb07544.x
19	M Enfrin, L F Dumée, J Lee (2019). Nano/microplastics in water and wastewater treatment processes: Origin, impact and potential solutions. Water Research, 161: 621–638 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.049 pmid: 31254888
20	M Enfrin, J Lee, P Le-Clech, L F Dumée (2020). Kinetic and mechanistic aspects of ultrafiltration membrane fouling by nano-and microplastics. Journal of Membrane Science, 601: 117890 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2020.117890
21	L Frère, L Maignien, M Chalopin, A Huvet, E Rinnert, H Morrison, S Kerninon, A L Cassone, C Lambert, J Reveillaud, I Paul-Pont (2018). Microplastic bacterial communities in the Bay of Brest: Influence of polymer type and size. Environmental Pollution, 242(Pt A): 614–625 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.023 pmid: 30014939
22	A Gomiero, K B Øysæd, L Palmas, G Skogerbø (2021). Application of GCMS-pyrolysis to estimate the levels of microplastics in a drinking water supply system. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 416: 125708 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125708 pmid: 33887568
23	A M Gottinger, S V Bhat, D W Mcmartin, T E Dahms (2013). Fluorescent microspheres as surrogates to assess oocyst removal efficacy from a modified slow sand biofiltration water treatment system. Journal of Water Supply: Research & Technology- Aqua, 62(3): 129–137 https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2013.104
24	E Hendrickson, E C Minor, K Schreiner (2018). Microplastic abundance and composition in western Lake Superior as determined via microscopy, Pyr-GC/MS, and FTIR. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(4): 1787–1796 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05829 pmid: 29345465
25	A C Johnson, H Ball, R Cross, A A Horton, M D Jürgens, D S Read, J Vollertsen, C Svendsen (2020). Identification and quantification of microplastics in potable water and their sources within water treatment works in England and Wales. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(19): 12326–12334 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03211 pmid: 32852201
26	F Katrivesis, A Karela, V Papadakis, C Paraskeva (2019). Revisiting of coagulation-flocculation processes in the production of potable water. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 27: 193–204 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.12.007
27	M Lapointe, J M Farner, L M Hernandez, N Tufenkji (2020). Understanding and improving microplastic removal during water treatment: impact of coagulation and flocculation. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(14): 8719–8727 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00712 pmid: 32543204
28	P L Lenaker, S R Corsi, S A Mason (2020). Spatial distribution of microplastics in surficial benthic sediment of Lake Michigan and Lake Erie. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(1): 373– 384
29	J Li, B Wang, Z Chen, B Ma, J P Chen (2021). Ultrafiltration membrane fouling by microplastics with raw water: Behaviors and alleviation methods. Chemical Engineering Journal, 410: 128174
30	L Li, D Liu, K Song, Y Zhou (2020). Performance evaluation of MBR in treating microplastics polyvinylchloride contaminated polluted surface water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 150: 110724 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110724 pmid: 31759635
31	S Lu, L Liu, Q Yang, H Demissie, R Jiao, G An, D Wang (2021). Removal characteristics and mechanism of microplastics and tetracycline composite pollutants by coagulation process. Science of the Total Environment, 786: 147508 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147508
32	L Lv, X Yan, L Feng, S Jiang, Z Lu, H Xie, S Sun, J Chen, C Li (2019). Challenge for the detection of microplastics in the environment. Water Environment Research, 93(1): 5–15
33	B Ma, W Xue, Y Ding, C Hu, H Liu, J Qu (2019a). Removal characteristics of microplastics by Fe-based coagulants during drinking water treatment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 78: 267–275
34	B Ma, W Xue, C Hu, H Liu, J Qu, L Li (2019b). Characteristics of microplastic removal via coagulation and ultrafiltration during drinking water treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 359: 159–167 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.11.155
35	M R Michielssen, E R Michielssen, J Ni, M B Duhaime (2016). Fate of microplastics and other small anthropogenic litter (SAL) in wastewater treatment plants depends on unit processes employed. Environmental Science. Water Research & Technology, 2(6): 1064–1073 https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00207B
36	S M Mintenig, M G J Löder, S Primpke, G Gerdts (2019). Low numbers of microplastics detected in drinking water from ground water sources. Science of the Total Environment, 648: 631–635 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.178 pmid: 30121540
37	L Nigamatzyanova, R Fakhrullin (2021). Dark-field hyperspectral microscopy for label-free microplastics and nanoplastics detection and identification in vivo: A Caenorhabditis elegans study. Environmental Pollution, 271: 116337 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116337 pmid: 33383415
38	K Novotna, L Cermakova, L Pivokonska, T Cajthaml, M Pivokonsky (2019). Microplastics in drinking water treatment–Current knowledge and research needs. Science of the Total Environment, 667: 730–740
39	C R O’melia, W Stumm (1967). Theory of water filtration. Journal‐American Water Works Association, 59(11): 1393–1412
40	J W Park, S J Lee, D Y Hwang, S Seo (2021). Removal of microplastics via tannic acid-mediated coagulation and in vitro impact assessment. RSC Advances, 11(6): 3556–3566 https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA09645H
41	M Peydayesh, T Suta, M Usuelli, S Handschin, G Canelli, M Bagnani, R Mezzenga (2021). Sustainable Removal of Microplastics and Natural Organic Matter from Water by Coagulation-Flocculation with Protein Amyloid Fibrils. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(13): 8848–8858 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01918 pmid: 34170128
42	D N Pham, L Clark, M Li (2021). Microplastics as hubs enriching antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pathogens in municipal activated sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters, 100014
43	M Pivokonsky, L Cermakova, K Novotna, P Peer, T Cajthaml, V Janda (2018). Occurrence of microplastics in raw and treated drinking water. Science of the Total Environment, 643: 1644–1651 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.102 pmid: 30104017
44	M Pivokonský, L Pivokonská, K Novotná, L Čermáková, M Klimtová (2020). Occurrence and fate of microplastics at two different drinking water treatment plants within a river catchment. Science of the Total Environment, 741: 140236 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140236 pmid: 32603938
45	J C Prata, J P Da Costa, A C Duarte, T Rocha-Santos (2019). Methods for sampling and detection of microplastics in water and sediment: A critical review. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 110: 150–159 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.10.029
46	J C Prata, J P da Costa, I Lopes, A C Duarte, T Rocha-Santos (2020). Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Science of the Total Environment, 702: 134455 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455 pmid: 31733547
47	O M Rodríguez-Narvaez, A Goonetilleke, L Perez, E R Bandala (2021). Engineered technologies for the separation and degradation of microplastics in water: A review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 414: 128692 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.128692
48	D J Sarkar, S Das Sarkar, B K Das, J K Praharaj, D K Mahajan, B Purokait, T R Mohanty, D Mohanty, P Gogoi, S Kumar V, B K Behera, R K Manna, S Samanta (2021). Microplastics removal efficiency of drinking water treatment plant with pulse clarifier. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 413: 125347 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125347 pmid: 33601144
49	J Shah, M R Jan (2014). Polystyrene degradation studies using Cu supported catalysts. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 109: 196–204 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2014.06.013
50	N K Shahi, M Maeng, D Kim, S Dockko (2020). Removal behavior of microplastics using alum coagulant and its enhancement using polyamine-coated sand. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 141: 9–17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.05.020
51	M Shen, B Song, Y Zhu, G Zeng, Y Zhang, Y Yang, X Wen, M Chen, H Yi (2020). Removal of microplastics via drinking water treatment: Current knowledge and future directions. Chemosphere, 251: 126612 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126612 pmid: 32443234
52	M Shen, Z Zeng, X Wen, X Ren, G Zeng, Y Zhang, R Xiao (2021). Presence of microplastics in drinking water from freshwater sources: The investigation in Changsha, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(31): 42313–42324 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13769-x pmid: 33811631
53	D W Skaf, V L Punzi, J T Rolle, K A Kleinberg (2020). Removal of micron-sized microplastic particles from simulated drinking water via alum coagulation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 386: 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123807
54	Q Sun, J Li, C Wang, A Chen, Y You, S Yang, H Liu, G Jiang, Y Wu, Y Li (2021). Research progress on distribution, sources, identification, toxicity, and biodegradation of microplastics in the ocean, freshwater, and soil environment. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 16(1): 1
55	R Sussarellu, M Suquet, Y Thomas, C Lambert, C Fabioux, M E J Pernet, N Le Goïc, V Quillien, C Mingant, Y Epelboin, C Corporeau, J Guyomarch, J Robbens, I Paul-Pont, P Soudant, A Huvet (2016). Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(9): 2430–2435 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519019113 pmid: 26831072
56	N Tufenkji, G F Miller, J N Ryan, R W Harvey, M Elimelech (2004). Transport of Cryptosporidium oocysts in porous media: Role of straining and physicochemical filtration. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(22): 5932–5938 https://doi.org/10.1021/es049789u pmid: 15573591
57	W Uhl, M E Dadkhah (2018). Mapping microplastics in drinking water from source to tap. Toronto, ON
58	F Wang, C S Wong, D Chen, X Lu, F Wang, E Y Zeng (2018). Interaction of toxic chemicals with microplastics: A critical review. Water Research, 139: 208–219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.003 pmid: 29653356
59	Z Wang, T Lin, W Chen (2020a). Occurrence and removal of microplastics in an advanced drinking water treatment plant (ADWTP). Science of the Total Environment, 700: 134520 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134520 pmid: 31669914
60	Z Wang, M Sedighi, A Lea-Langton (2020b). Filtration of microplastic spheres by biochar: Removal efficiency and immobilisation mechanisms. Water Research, 184: 116165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116165 pmid: 32688153
61	World Health Organization (2003). Acrylamide in Drinking-Water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Geneva: World Health Organization
62	World Health Organization (2019). Microplastics in Drinking-Water. Geneva: World Health Organization
63	S L Wright, F J Kelly (2017). Plastic and human health: A micro issue? Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12): 6634–6647
64	Y Xia, X M Xiang, K Y Dong, Y Y Gong, Z J Li (2020). Surfactant stealth effect of microplastics in traditional coagulation process observed via 3-D fluorescence imaging. Science of the Total Environment, 729: 138783 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138783 pmid: 32498162
65	E G Xu, Z J Ren (2021). Preventing masks from becoming the next plastic problem. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 15(6): 125
66	Q Xu, Q S Huang, T Y Luo, R L Wu, W Wei, B J Ni (2021). Coagulation removal and photocatalytic degradation of microplastics in urban waters. Chemical Engineering Journal, 416: 129123 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.129123
67	J Xue, S Peldszus, M I Van Dyke, P M Huck (2021). Removal of polystyrene microplastic spheres by alum-based coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation (CFS) treatment of surface waters. Chemical Engineering Journal, 422: 130023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.130023
68	C Zhang, J Wang, A Zhou, Q Ye, Y Feng, Z Wang, S Wang, G Xu, J Zou (2021a). Species-specific effect of microplastics on fish embryos and observation of toxicity kinetics in larvae. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 403: 123948 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123948 pmid: 33264992
69	H Zhang, J Seaman, Y Wang, H Zeng, R Narain, A Ulrich, Y Liu (2017). Filtration of glycoprotein-modified carboxylated polystyrene microspheres as Cryptosporidium oocysts surrogates: effects of flow rate, alum, and humic acid. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 143(8): 04017032 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001201
70	K Zhang, W Gong, J Lv, X Xiong, C Wu (2015). Accumulation of floating microplastics behind the Three Gorges Dam. Environmental Pollution, 204: 117–123 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.04.023 pmid: 25935612
71	Q Zhang, E G Xu, J Li, Q Chen, L Ma, E Y Zeng, H Shi (2020). A review of microplastics in table salt, drinking water, and air: Direct human exposure. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(7): 3740–3751 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04535 pmid: 32119774
72	Y Zhang, G Zhou, J Yue, X Xing, Z Yang, X Wang, Q Wang, J Zhang (2021b). Enhanced removal of polyethylene terephthalate microplastics through polyaluminum chloride coagulation with three typical coagulant aids. Science of the Total Environment, 800: 149589 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149589 pmid: 34399346
73	G Zhou, Q Wang, J Li, Q Li, H Xu, Q Ye, Y Wang, S Shu, J Zhang (2021). Removal of polystyrene and polyethylene microplastics using PAC and FeCl3 coagulation: Performance and mechanism. Science of the Total Environment, 752: 141837 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141837 pmid: 32889273
74	J J Zhu, W Dressel, K Pacion, Z J Ren (2021). ES&T in the 21st century: A data-driven analysis of research topics, interconnections, and trends in the past 20 years. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(6): 3453–3464 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07551 pmid: 33722002
75	S Ziajahromi, P A Neale, L Rintoul, F D Leusch (2017). Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway for microplastics: Development of a new approach to sample wastewater-based microplastics. Water Research, 112: 93–99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.042 pmid: 28160700

[1]	Weiyi Liu, Ting Pan, Hang Liu, Mengyun Jiang, Tingting Zhang. Adsorption behavior of imidacloprid pesticide on polar microplastics under environmental conditions: critical role of photo-aging[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(4): 41-.
[2]	Zhijun Liu, Xi Luo, Senlin Shao, Xue Xia. Electrocatalytic reduction of nitrate using Pd-Cu modified carbon nanotube membranes[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(4): 40-.
[3]	Min Shang, Yadong Kong, Zhijuan Yang, Rong Cheng, Xiang Zheng, Yi Liu, Tongping Chen. Removal of virus aerosols by the combination of filtration and UV-C irradiation[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(3): 27-.
[4]	Shuang Zhang, Shuai Liang, Yifan Gao, Yang Wu, Xia Huang. Nonpolar cross-stacked super-aligned carbon nanotube membrane for efficient wastewater treatment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(3): 30-.
[5]	Hanqing Fan, Yuxuan Huang, Ngai Yin Yip. Advancing ion-exchange membranes to ion-selective membranes: principles, status, and opportunities[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(2): 25-.
[6]	Mourin Jarin, Zeou Dou, Haiping Gao, Yongsheng Chen, Xing Xie. Salinity exchange between seawater/brackish water and domestic wastewater through electrodialysis for potable water[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(2): 16-.
[7]	Xiaoying Wang, Haiguang Zhang, Xu Wang, Shuo Chen, Hongtao Yu, Xie Quan. Electroconductive RGO-MXene membranes with wettability-regulated channels: improved water permeability and electro-enhanced rejection performance[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(1): 1-.
[8]	Han Qu, Hongting Diao, Jiajun Han, Bin Wang, Gang Yu. Understanding and addressing the environmental risk of microplastics[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(1): 12-.
[9]	Wenwen Gong, Yu Xing, Lihua Han, Anxiang Lu, Han Qu, Li Xu. Occurrence and distribution of micro- and mesoplastics in the high-latitude nature reserve, northern China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(9): 113-.
[10]	Jie Wu, Jian Lu, Jun Wu. Effect of gastric fluid on adsorption and desorption of endocrine disrupting chemicals on microplastics[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(8): 104-.
[11]	Xiaoman Liu, Chang Tian, Yanxia Zhao, Weiying Xu, Dehua Dong, Kaimin Shih, Tao Yan, Wen Song. Enhanced cross-flow filtration with flat-sheet ceramic membranes by titanium-based coagulation for membrane fouling control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(8): 110-.
[12]	Xue Bai, Chang Li, Lingyu Ma, Pei Xin, Fengjie Li, Zhenjia Xu. Quantitative analysis of microplastics in coastal tidal-flat reclamation in Dongtai, China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(8): 107-.
[13]	Abdul Halim, Lusi Ernawati, Maya Ismayati, Fahimah Martak, Toshiharu Enomae. Bioinspired cellulose-based membranes in oily wastewater treatment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(7): 94-.
[14]	Ying Cai, Jun Wu, Jian Lu, Jianhua Wang, Cui Zhang. Fate of microplastics in a coastal wastewater treatment plant: Microfibers could partially break through the integrated membrane system[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(7): 96-.
[15]	Ruobin Dai, Hongyi Han, Yuting Zhu, Xi Wang, Zhiwei Wang. Tuning the primary selective nanochannels of MOF thin-film nanocomposite nanofiltration membranes for efficient removal of hydrophobic endocrine disrupting compounds[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(4): 40-.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed