0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Environmental Sources Policy & Risk Remediation Sign in to save

Distribution and removal mechanism of microplastics in urban wastewater plants systems via different processes

Environmental Pollution 2023 65 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 55 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Ke Guo Borui Zhang, Shilin Gao, Shilin Gao, Ke Guo Qixin Wu, Qixin Wu, Qixin Wu, Qixin Wu, Qixin Wu, Shilin Gao, Shilin Gao, Borui Zhang, Jie Zeng, Shilin Gao, Yunjun Ruan, Jie Zeng, Jie Zeng, Qixin Wu, Qixin Wu, Guizhi Qi, Guizhi Qi, Ke Guo, Yunjun Ruan, Ke Guo Jie Zeng, Yunjun Ruan, Jie Zeng, Ke Guo, Ke Guo

Summary

Researchers compared the microplastic removal efficiency of three wastewater treatment technologies and found that the anaerobic-anoxic-oxic process achieved the highest removal rate at 83.9%. Most microplastics were transferred to sludge during primary and secondary treatment stages, with dehydrated sludge containing significant concentrations. The study highlights that while wastewater treatment plants effectively intercept most microplastics, they also redistribute contamination to sludge, which may become a secondary pollution source.

Study Type Environmental

Microplastic pollution threatens water systems worldwide. As one of the most important parts of city wastewater treatment, wastewater treatment plants are not only microplastics interception barriers but also emission sources. Water samples were collected from each sewage treatment plant stage and sludge from the sludge dewatering room. Microplastics were extracted using wet peroxide oxidation and flotation, and the abundance, size, shape, and polymer type of microplastics were detected. Basis on the results, the influence of each process on the removal rate and characteristics of microplastics under the same influent source was analysed. The influent microplastic concentration in this study was 32.5 ± 1.0 n/L, which rapidly decreased after treatment. The removal rates of the sequencing batch reactor activated sludge, cyclic activated sludge, and anaerobic anoxic oxic technologies were 73.0%, 75.6%, and 83.9%, respectively. Most microplastics were transported to the sludge, and the concentration of microplastics in dehydrated sludge was 27.2 ± 3.1 n/g. Microplastics removal occurred primarily during the primary and secondary stages. Disposal processes, settling time, and process design affected wastewater treatment plant microplastic removal rates at each stage. Significant differences in microplastic characteristics were observed at each stage, with the most abundant being fragment shaped, particle sizes of 30-100 μm, and black in colour. Sixteen polymer types were identified using a Raman spectrometer. The predominant polymers are polypropylene, polyethylene, and polyethylene terephthalate. This study demonstrates that optimising the process design of existing wastewater treatment plants is crucial for the prevention and control of microplastic pollution. It is suggested that the process settings of contemporary wastewater treatment plants should be studied in depth to develop a scientific foundation for avoiding and managing microplastic pollution in urban areas.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper