We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Integrating microplastic management into a broader wastewater decision-making framework. Is activated granular sludge (AGS) a game changer?
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers compared three wastewater treatment technologies for their ability to remove microplastics: conventional activated sludge, membrane bioreactors, and activated granular sludge. While membrane bioreactors performed best at removing microplastics, activated granular sludge emerged as the most cost-effective option with strong overall environmental performance. The study suggests that integrating microplastic management into wastewater treatment decisions requires balancing removal efficiency against energy use, cost, and environmental impact.
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are not specifically designed to tackle microplastics (MPs), leaving them in aquatic ecosystems. The novelty of our study is a critical review of the effectiveness of conventional activated sludge (CAS), membrane bioreactors (MBRs), and activated granular sludge (AGS) in managing MPs within WWTPs. We bridge a gap in scientific literature by assessing MP removal and resilience to MPs. Our scope extends beyond MPs management, evaluating these technologies against environmental, economic, and social criteria. Findings show that MBR outperforms CAS and AGS in MP removal but faces challenges with smaller MPs due to fouling and secondary pollution. AGS shows similar removal rates to CAS but often superior resilience to MPs, given its higher decontamination capabilities. Environmentally, AGS may better reduce indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to lower energy and chemical demands. Moreover, AGS exhibits higher resource recovery potential (e.g., biopolymers, phosphates). Socially, MBR excels in pathogen removal, reducing waterborne disease risks. Economically, AGS is the most cost-effective technology regarding both operational and capital expenditures. However, MPs can impact these criteria by reducing nutrient removal efficiency and increasing both direct and indirect GHGs. MPs create “plastisphere” habitats, reducing pathogen removal and compromising water safety. Moreover, MPs increase energy and chemical use, especially in MBR systems due to fouling concerns. • Critical review on microplastics (MPs) management in wastewater treatment, comparing different technologies. • AGS shows higher resilience and effective MP removal compared to CAS and MBR. • MPs tend to dwindle nutrient and pathogen removal efficiency and increase GHG emissions. • Potential impacts of MPs on resource recovery are complex and require further research. • This review offers a holistic system analysis for wastewater decision-making frameworks.
More Papers Like This
Efficient removal of microplastic particles from wastewater through formation of heteroagglomerates during the activated sludge process
AI summary Read the abstract
Microplastic particles were efficiently removed from wastewater using a novel treatment process, demonstrating high removal rates across different plastic sizes and polymer types. The technology contributes to the toolkit for preventing microplastic discharge from wastewater treatment plants into receiving waters.
How to remove microplastics in wastewater? A cost-effectiveness analysis
AI summary Read the abstract
A cost-effectiveness analysis of microplastic removal in wastewater treatment found that activated sludge, rapid sand filtering, and membrane bioreactor technologies differ substantially in removal efficiency and cost per unit removed, with membrane bioreactors achieving the highest removal but at prohibitive cost.
Aerobic granular sludge and microplastics in wastewater treatment: interactions, retention, process impacts and downstream fate
AI summary Read the abstract
This review summarizes existing research on a newer wastewater treatment method, aerobic granular sludge, comparing it to conventional treatment for capturing microplastics. In one direct comparison at a full-scale plant, the two methods removed similar amounts (92% versus 93%), and across many studies of conventional treatment, median removal was 91%.
Mechanisms underlying the detrimental impact of micro(nano)plastics on the stability of aerobic granular sludge: Interactions between micro(nano)plastics and extracellular polymeric substances
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers found that both micro- and nanoplastics at realistic concentrations harmed the performance of aerobic granular sludge, a technology used for wastewater treatment, by reducing its ability to remove nitrogen. The plastic particles interacted with the sticky substances that hold the sludge granules together, weakening their structural integrity. The study reveals a specific mechanism by which plastic pollution can undermine wastewater treatment systems that communities rely on for clean water.
Microplastics removal through water treatment plants: Its feasibility, efficiency, future prospects and enhancement by proper waste management
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers reviewed over 80 studies on water treatment plant performance and found microplastic removal ranges widely — from 16% in basic primary treatment up to near 100% with advanced membrane systems — but a major flaw is that removed microplastics concentrate in sludge, which can re-enter the environment. The review recommends optimizing coagulants and sludge treatment to prevent microplastics from simply being relocated rather than eliminated.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.