Assessment of Micro-Plastics in Domestic Sewage Water Treatment Plants in India

Introduction

“MPs are smaller than 5 mm in diameter size synthetic particles”¹. Plastics are everywhere and originate in marine environments, surface water, and soils, and can be found in the air we breathe, a fraction of the food we consume (shellfish, nectar, salt), and even in beer. The amount of smaller size plastic components in groundwater is insignificant. There is rising concern about the possible consequences of small-scale plastics on the environment and network health, which has been high on leaders’ motivation for quite some time.² With the increasing global use of (small-scale) plastics, their discharge to the environment is expected to rise. Small-scale plastics can be appropriately transmitted into the ocean from land-based sources; however, they may consequence in deprived waste administration or the debasement of enormous plastic waste (littering). Consequently, the last’s dedication to the global issue of smaller-scale plastics, especially in maritime waters, might become more relevant.³

Because smaller-scale plastic particles are widespread and visible everywhere, keeping a strategic distance from cross-pollution of water tests is challenging, which could have affected the consequences of specific surveys on drinking water. The research should not be focused exclusively on molecular checks (as in many studies) but on obtaining an accurate and comprehensive portrayal of small-scale plastics in the wastewater cycle. High molecule statistics are not related to one another due to high molecule mass, and as a result, neither do they have a fundamental commitment to the total amount of suspended solids. A correlation of group and molecule inspections across 10 Danish WWTPs provided proof of this. The quantity of particles is not a predictable amount when compared to mass.⁴ Also, the number of tests should be factually critical because of the variable idea of wastewater. Even with a standardized approach, this will be a complex, time-consuming, and costly plan that does not consider establishing a standard checking framework. Finally, it is challenging to undertake thorough research on the fate of smaller-scale plastics and mass equalization during different treatment stages in STPs since wastewater and ooze are perplexing grids for evaluating tiny-scale polymers.

Fewer plastics have been generated in soil than assumed in hypothetical calculations. This could be due to the sun’s rays and worms corroding plastics. Despite this, there is more danger of soil contamination than water due to various living forms and parasites that may break down polymers and upright, smaller-scale vegetation in soil. Therefore, even if there is no evidence that smaller-scale plastics harm human health, additional research is required to determine the toxicological consequences of various miniaturized scale plastics in diverse settings. Smaller-scale plastics might be dangerous for water suppliers if found at the tap. However, this is unlikely to occur due to the treatment processes to remove suspended particulates. As a result, to direct a comprehensive risk calculation of particle proximity. The health dangers connected to the usage of small-scale plastics in drinking water must be addressed by water expert groups with robust and persuasive arguments. The current study aims to identify the different kinds and sizes of smaller-scale plastics present in this significant estuary watershed. Our research makes it possible to compare the potential accumulation of small-scale plastic from STPs with various sources in the estuary. It also makes it possible to assess the best methods for controlling smaller-scale plastic to stop its transit and spread.

Literature Review

 In [1], J. Bayo, S. Olmos, J. López-Castellanos, A. Alcolea, et al. exhibits tiny polymers and manufactured microfibers in the environment, which have been collected and ingestion by various active beings in the ecosystem. This shift corresponds to the relevance of growing STPs as a way to obtain small-scale plastics and microfibers. After being isolated from the ooze, these miniature-size toxins were tested in an urban WWTP throughout 2015. Smaller-scale contaminations were blackmailed with buoyancy and a few tough steel strainers. After a preliminary examination with a trinocular magnifying lens, Fourier changed infrared spectrometry, and a disparity-checking calorimeter was used to investigate the cases. The latter was used just for the perceived subsamples. Extensive records matching could be exploratory, revealing a range of mixes “such as polypropylene, Nylon, easy polyamides, thermoplastic, and ethyl acrylate. These smaller-scale microfibers plastics could be relocated with natural substances on composts and utilized as an energizer in Campo de Cartagena’s field yields”[21].

 In [2], Alec Beljanski, Casey Cole, Fabian Fuxa, Ellen Setiawan, Heena Singh, et al. presents Numerous studies that have shown how quickly marine life absorbs dangerous chemicals from the environment and introduces them into the conventional way of life. Small-scale plastics are regularly discharged into the ocean due to the breakdown of bigger plastic flotsam and jetsam, as tiny scale dots in high-quality objects, as microfibers sprayed off of clothing, or by the failure of angling nets and handles, which are dangerous because they are dangerously resistant to degradation. Unfortunately, most wastewater treatment facilities do not currently select smaller polymers because their nominal size is identical to fluids. This investigation endeavour anticipates delivering a straightforward, sensible reply from sewage water treatment offices. “Purification fabric, water weight, and channel direction on the stream rate and small-scale plastic recuperation of the framework was the primary focal point of this examination”[9].

 In [3], Steve A. Carr, Jin Liu, Arnold G. Tesoro, et al. Present wastewater that is municipal plants which can usually be suspected to be significant potential environmental sources or pipelines. However, these uncertainties were judged to be dispelled by leakage discharges from seven secondary facilities and one optional storage. Similarly, the changes can be seen in influential loads, the size/type of molecules, transportation, and their final destination. A collection of stutters with work measures ranging from 400 to 45 mm were used for each of the 7 tertiary plants to sort over 0.189 million litres of fluid. In addition, three tertiary factories used a 125 mm sifting assembly to skim the external 28.4 million litres of finishing liquid. “The findings show that tertiary emanating is not a significant source of small-scale plastics and that these contaminants are effectively eliminated during the skimming and settling treatment operations” [2]. Finally, one tiny scale molecule per 1.14 thousand litres of closing sewage was tested at a downstream sub-par plant. In this investigation, the bulk of the small-scale plastics was found to have a profile similar to that of blue polyethene toothpaste particles.

Experimental

Materials and Methods

Sources and Study Area

Rewari district in Haryana state has been selected for the research. There are 07 no’s of STPs working under the Rewari district’s Haryana Government Public Health Engineering Department.⁶

Table 1: List of STPs available in District Rewari, Haryana.

Sr.No	STPs Location	STP Installed Capacity	Technology
1	Kosli	3 MLD	MBBR
2	Bawal	3 MLD	MBBR
3	Dharuhera, Huda Sec-6	5 MLD	MBBR
4	Dharuhera, Vill- Kharkhara	9.5 MLD	MBBR
5	Rewari, Vill- Karuwas	6.5 MLD	MBBR
6	Rewari, Nasiaji Road-1	8 MLD	MBBR
7	Rewari, Nasiaji Road-2	16 MLD	SBR

 

A random sample has been collected from the above 07 STPs, analyzed the physicochemical parameters, and detected MP’s in treated wastewater at different stages of treatment.

General Procedure

Stages of processing at a municipal sewage water treatment facility

STPs may treat wastewater through numerous, unlike treatment phases, primary, secondary, and tertiary procedures to clean polluted water, even if they are not considered to remove plastic particles before it is discharged into the environment, gushing or sewage slop.⁷ Currently, numerous exams have been used to estimate the removal skills of dealing plants or stages of pharmaceuticals based on the amount of “micro-sized plastic particles in STP influent and emanation tests. Plastic expulsion efficiencies at different stages of treatment are ordered as follows: primary treatment > secondary treatment > tertiary treatment”⁵. However, the numerous treatment techniques employed by STPs and the various inspecting/ID techniques used in multiple investigations make it challenging to draw a link between the plastic evacuation efficiencies based on the current literature.

Figure 1: schematic diagram of various stages of sewage water treatment plant. Click here to View figure

Sampling techniques for STPs samples 

Testing the representative sample of sewage wastewater for micro-plastic evolution is critical in arranging and evaluating plastic particles from STPs. Although there is no standard method for assessing microplastics in STP effluent or sewage slop, a less severe alternative technique has been used. Furthermore, screens/sifters with pore diameters in the nano-size range may cause barricading, reduce challenging quantities, and make inspecting more tedious.⁸ Examining micro-sized plastics in sewage water is complex, and standardized procedures may not always work despite promoting the get-examining technique due to its simplicity. Continuous inspecting can limit the expense of better transitory insights without packing or testing by gathering a cross-sectional example for a certain age.^9-11

Figure 2: sampling arrangement of STPs. Click here to View figure

Figure 3: Sampling arrangement of STPs. Click here to View figure

Schematic diagram of microplastic particles flowing in sewage water treatment plant

Figure 4: Micro-plastics particle flow diagram in STPs. Click here to View figure

To advance the display, inspecting should be done at various depths rather than only on the exterior. We invite analysts to draw attention to the testing government’s use of some of the methodologies mentioned above and processes, the organization of the examination forms, and the stream extent in which the instances were taken to the wastewater stream flood, if promising, should enhance and adjust the inspecting arrangement before use to avoid potential pollution or inappropriate testing amid in-situ activities^15-17 We suggest that sewage water be tested in further research employing molecule-size filtration/partitioning equipment. It is fundamental for more thorough tests and aids particle size classification. The size of the channels/screens, test tubes made up of plastics used, where they sit in the water area during evaluation, and the level of the sewage water movement should all be fundamentally calculated so that you may influence research and the information below. To offer information for a specific period, we suggest employing persistent or composite testing methodologies, investigating the area, and regaining the homogeneity and representativeness of collected tests.

 Detection Method

Procedures for MPs detection in STPs

The identification of microplastics in STPs mainly contains 03 steps: a sample collection for the test, pretreatment of samples, and microplastics quantification, as described in figure 5. Maximum microplastics are identified in the sludge of Primary and Secondary clarifiers.

Figure 5: Various steps for detecting microplastics in STPs are summarized in this flow chart. Click here to View figure

To avoid test imperfections, quality confirmation and control methods were used. Cotton research Centre shelters and glass or metal instruments were used when evaluating accumulation and lab strategies.^18-19 Dish sets and filter components were carefully cleaned with deionized water before use, and contamination was regularly checked for with a microscope. When safety precautions weren’t taken, tests were shielded using glass fibre channels (TCLP Filter, Fisher Scientific), tempered steelwork, or aluminium foil. Procedural areas containing DI water (3.6-3.8 L) were produced near each example bunch to assess the foundation tainting of miniaturized scale plastics.²⁰

Analytical Discussion

Effect of microplastics on the environment

Smaller-scale plastics are typically resistant to natural deterioration and can act as carriers for microbes, diseases, aggregate, PBTs (polybrominated biphenyls), and other dangerous environmental pollutants. Few fossil-based plastics (PCL, PBS, and PES) and some so-called “bioplastics” are biodegradable, nevertheless. Experts worldwide evaluate the possible effects of smaller-scale plastics on the environment and human health. The Miwa project focuses on the connections between small-scale plastics and biota and their impact on people and amphibians.^21-22

A few studies have shown that smaller-scale plastics harm fish productivity and fishing and aquaculture operations. However, the information that is currently available on the effects of smaller-scale plastics on feathered animals, benthic life forms, and zooplankton is still limited. Comparative counts have revealed fewer plastics in soil than anticipated. This could be the case because sunlight and worms both degrade plastics. In any case, the earth has a more considerable danger of corruption than water because it contains more small-scale vegetation and a variety of organisms that might break down polymers. Despite the lack of evidence, further research is required to ascertain the precise toxicological effects of different types of small-scale plastics used in diverse applications.²³ If little plastic pieces were discovered near the faucet, this would be crucial for water suppliers since the treatment processes will not likely eliminate dispersed particles. Therefore, the water expert cooperatives must have precise and convincing information on the health risks relating to the presence of small-scale plastics in water to conduct an extensive risk assessment of particle proximity.

Microplastics: Source Control

Control at source is the most dependable and practical method for preventing smaller-scale plastics from entering the earth’s crust. 24 By putting it into practice, there will be fewer small-scale plastic waste, sludge, and other leftover objects in drinking water assets. Therefore, it makes sense for the division to distribute a financial framework. Source management for smaller-scale plastics is typically not straightforward but involves a few ongoing tasks.

Prohibition of plastic satchels

Controlling and financial incentives to strengthen the eco-structure of goods

Anticipated limitation of purposefully including small-scale plastics

A Dutch business is dealing with contemporary abrasives and tyres.

If control-at-source measures are unsuccessful, the extended maker obligation (EPR) guideline is extended to manage miniature-size poisons but small-scale polymers.^25-26 Makers who impact the water cycle (and the environment) must fund moderating activities at other life cycle phases through their things under this rule. It would put the cost in the ideal location rather than the water shoppers.²⁷

Results and Discussion

Micro-Raman spectrometry was wont to examine a complete of 1782 plastic-like particles. The analysis data show that 1117 plastic-like particles (62.68%) of the total area were identified as MPs. We analyzed all the 07 STPs, and 21 no’s samples collected from the Rewari district. Dharuhera vill Kharkhara area STP has the highest efficiency of removal of MPs is 97.84%, while Rewari Nasiaji road STP no 2 has the lowest efficiency of removal of MPs is 79.33%. In Rewari district’s average MPs removal efficiency, STPs is 90.40%.

Once we calculate Suspended Solids removal in various STPs, we find that the Dharuhera vill Kharkhara area STP has the highest efficiency of removal of SS is 98.46%. In comparison, Rewari Nasiaji road STP no 2 has the lowest efficiency of removal of SS is 90.48%,  an outstanding figure shown in  (Table 2).

Table 2: shows the removal efficiency of MPs and suspended solids (ss) in 07 STPs in Rewari.

Site	Type	MPs (items/L)		The removal rate of MPs	SS (mg/L)		The removal rate of SS(mg/L)
		Influent	Effluent		Influent	Effluent
KOSLI	Domestic	1.44	0.2	89.96%	140	5	96.43%
BAWAL		9.11	0.47	94.89%	250	9	96.40%
Dharuhera, Huda Sec-6		3.28	0.35	89.38%	126	5	96.03%
Dharuhera ,Vill-Kharkhara		13.69	0.3	97.84%	324	5	98.46%
Rewari, Vill-Kaluwas		9.68	0.8	91.71%	283	7.1	97.49%
Rewari, Nasiaji Road		7.1	0.73	89.72%	522	9	98.28%
Rewari, Nasiaji Road		1.57	0.32	79.33%	126	12	90.48%
Average		6.55	0.59	90.40%	253	7.44	96.22%

 

Characteristics of detected MPs in STPs

 Table 3: Shape of detected MPs.

Shape of MPs	Unit	Influent	Effluent
Pellet	%	2.5	5.6
Fibre	%	17.7	30.4
Granules	%	49.8	36.0
Fragments	%	30.0	28.0

 

Table 4: Types of detected MPs

Types of MPs	Unit	Influent	Effluent
PE	%	26.9	17.9
PP	%	30.2	34.8
PS	%	10.3	9.6
PE+PP	%	6.3	4.7
PP+PE	%	5.1	13.9
PET	%	7.5	7.5
PES	%	3.3	1.1
PA	%	9.9	10.1
OTHER	%	0.5	0.4

 

Table 5: Color of detected MPs.

Colour of MPs	Unit	Influent	Effluent
WHITE	%	35.5	30.4
CLEAR	%	19.6	19.9
RED	%	9.8	10.1
GREEN	%	12.1	17.2
BLACK	%	5.8	9.3
YELLOW	%	8.1	5.1
BLUE	%	9.1	8.0

 

Table 6: Size of detected MPs.

Size of MPs (µm)	Unit	Influent	Effluent
43-63	%	23.7	12.7
63-125	%	43.5	28.0
125-355	%	20.7	32.1
355-5000	%	12.1	27.2

 

Graphical representation of MPs in domestic sewage water treatment plant.

Figure 6: Characteristics of detected MPs in STPs.28 (6A) Shapes of MP’s. (6B) Type of polymers detected in MP’s. (6C) Color of MP’s noticed in STPs.(6D) Size of MP’s (mm). Click here to View figure

The inner ring shows Influent per cent, and the Outer ring shows Effluent percentage.

Figure 6 A shows that granules (49.8%) form the most considerable proportion of MPs within the inflowing, followed by fragments (30%), fibres (17.7%), and pellets (2.5 % ). Granules, fibres, components, and pellets make up 36.0, 30.4, 28.0, and 5.6 per cent associated with effluent. The proportions of granules and fragments in the influent drop to 36.0 per cent and 28.0 per cent in the effluent, respectively, from 49.8% to 30.0 per cent in the influent. Conversely, fibres and pellets increase from 17.7% to 2.5% in the influent to 30.3 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively, in the effluent. On the other hand, fibres and pellets increase at 17.7% to 2.5 % within the inflowing of 30.4 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively.²⁹

In contrast, the proportion of twisted, snaky granules and fragments associated with business activities (Helm, 2017) is high. As a result, we believe that most MPs in our study come back from industrial instead of home backgrounds (Fig. 6C). This is in line with our previous finding that the plastic trade within the locality of WWTPs contributes considerably to the MPs in the STPs underneath investigation. Furthermore, there’s no indication that the concentrations of MP concern population density. The MPs identified within the YD seem unaffected by the large population. The amount of pollution created per capita is broadly consistent during a particular stage of economic development. As a result, population density influences MP flux.

Figure 6 B depicts the polymer types in MPs found in the influent and effluent. Polypropylene (PP, 30.2%) is that the commonest compound in influent, succeed by “PE, 26.9%, PS, 10.3%, PET, 7.5%, polyethylene or polypropylene polymer (PE PP, 6.3%), PP copolymer” [1] (PP 5.1%), PES, 3.3%, and polymer (PE PA, 0.3 %). Raman Organics, alternative polymer materials not enclosed within the micro-Raman spectra library, account for 9.9% of total MPs. Compound materials are found in concerning 10.1 % of the particles.

 The diversity of compound composition seems to be slightly dynamic. Within the inflowing and effluent of all STPs, PP, PE, PS, and PET predominate. However, the proportion of various chemical compounds varies among the STPs investigated. India’s foremost typically used polymers are PS, PP, and PE. They accounted for 10.3 percent, 30.2 percent, and 26.9 percent, respectively. The MPs in the raw and treated sewage are 55.1 percent and 50.3 percent; respectively, different colours of MPs compose the opposite half. The foremost hues of MPs in waste are white and clear (Fig. 6 C). Past analysis has discovered that white and transparent MPs are additional typical than other polymers that are coloured. The MPs known are equally distributed during a style of hues, excluding green. A comparison of the colour composition of MPs within the inflowing and effluent reveals no vital variations in colour variety. This suggests that wastewater treatment techniques influence the colours of MPs. Our spectrometry is a micro-Raman examination “that just 44.9 % of coloured particles in influent and 49.7% of coloured particles quantify as MPs in effluent throughout the visual category. This means that thought should be exercised in future investigations when processing MP samples of various hues. MPs with a diameter of 63-125 millimetres account for 43.5 percent of all MPs within the influent. Those with a diameter of 43-63 mm and >355 mm account for 23.7 percent and 12.1 percent of all MPs (6 D). MPs with a diameter of >355 mm, 125-355 mm, and 43-63 mm compose 27.2%, 32.1%, and 12.7% of the whole MPs in effluent STPs, respectively. The proportion of less area of MPs with 43-63 mm decreases significantly from 23.7 percent within the incoming to 12.7% in the effluent. Different sites offer a good variety of extended sizes of MPs with 63-125 mm. (Fig. 6 D).

Conclusion

Sewage water treatment facilities are a prominent entry point for smaller-scale plastics into typical amphibian ecosystems.^30-31 The detection, occurrence, and evacuation of tiny-scale plastics in STPs are investigated in this work. There are many different approaches to evaluating and identifying microplastics in wastewater treatment facilities, which makes it difficult to compare results among methods. With less reasonable restriction, test assortment by discrete syphoning and filtering can successfully increase the inspecting volume. Micro-FTIR or Raman systems will be the most effective alternatives for explaining smaller plastic materials that are scale complex since they supply a range of approximately the tested molecule, such as quantity, size, and mixture piece. FPA-FTIR, TGA-FTIR, and Raman are used to identify environmental MPs, expanding the research scope.³² Researchers are also considering employing remote sensing to screen MPs as a preliminary step. Most conventional sewerage treatment plants deal with microplastic contamination in the microplastic removal approach. To increase efficiency, pretreatment with photocatalytic and biological degradation would reduce the number of microplastics discharged into the environment. In STPs, miniature-scale plastics are successfully ejected. However, many people are displaced, especially during the oil evacuation stage. This might be a goal for further streamlining small-scale plastic expulsion, potentially preventing; if the oil is handled separately, enormous volumes of smaller-scale plastics will be in the waste slime. Layer filtration innovation, as expected, is often successful in reducing the smaller plastics in the last step.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Pankaj Gupta, sir, for their guidance and support.³³ Also, a special thanks to the Superintendent of Public Health and Engineering Department Rewari for allowing us to interact with Domestic wastewater treatment plants in the Rewari district and allowing us for wastewater sample analysis in their Laboratory to complete our Research Work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. C. F. Araujo, M. M. Nolasco, A. M. Ribeiro, & P. J. Ribeiro-Claro, Water research, 2018, 142:426-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2018.05.060
2.  S. Bagchi, S. Probasco, B. Mardandoost, B.S. Sturma, Proceedings of the WaterEnvironment Federation, 2016, 7: 353-361.       DOI:10.2175/193864716819714546
3.  A. Bakir, S.J. Rowland, R.C. Thompson, Marine pollution bulletin, 2012, 64(12):2782-2789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.09.010
4. J. Bayo, S. Olmos, C. J. López,  A. Alcolea,  International Journal of       Sustainable Development and Planning, 2016, 11(5): 812-821.      DOI: 10.2495/SDP-V11-N5- 812-821
5. E. Besseling, J. T. Quik, M. Sun, & A. A. Koelmans, Environmental pollution, 2017, 220, 540-548. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.10.001
6. E. Besseling, B. Wang, M. Lürling, & A .A.  Koelmans,  Environmental science &   technology, 2014, 48(20), 12336-12343. https://doi.org/10.1021/es503001d
7. M.A. Browne, P. Crump, S. J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin, T. Galloway &   R. Thompson, Environmental science & technology, 2011, 45(21), 9175-9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201811s
8. M. A. Browne, A. Dissanayake, T. S. Galloway, D. M. Lowe, & R. C. Thompson, Environmental science & technology, 2008, 42(13), 5026-  5031. https://doi.org/10.1021/es800249a
9. M. A. Browne, S. J. Niven, T. S. Galloway, S. J. Rowland, & R. C. Thompson, Current Biology, 2013, 23(23), 2388-2392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012
10. K. G. Burra, & A. K. Gupta, Applied Energy, 2018, 220, 408-418.             DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.117
11. S. A. Carr, J. Liu, & A.G. Tesoro,  Water Research, 2016, 91, 174-182.        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.01.002
12. J. Chen, M. Tan, A. Nemmar, W. Song, M. Dong, G. Zhang & Y. Li, Toxicology, 2006, 222, 195-201.       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2006.02.016
13. P. K. Cheung & L.  Fok,  Water Research, 2017, 122, 53-61.          https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.053
14. M. Claessens, C. Van, L. Vandegehuchte, M. B, & C. R. Janssen, Marine pollution bulletin, 2013, 70(1-2), 227-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.03.009
15. M. Cole, H. Webb, P.K. Lindeque, E.S. Fileman, C. Halsband, T.S. Galloway, Sci. Rep. 2014, 4:4528. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04528
16. D.A. Cooper,  P.L. Corcoran,  Marine pollution bulletin, 2010, 60(5):650-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.12.026
17. J. H. Skiff, D. Remy, J. Klausmeier,  E. Fries, Environmental Pollution, 2014,   186:248-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.11.019
18. T. K. Dey, M. E. Uddin, M. Jamal, Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021, 28(14):16925–16947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12943-5
19. D. O. Elvis, O. B. Stacey, W. O. B. Jake, J. T. Benjamin, V.T. Kevin, Environ. Sci.:   Water Res. Technol, 2019, 5:1908-  1931.       https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EW00428A
20. H. L. Zhiyao, D. N. Long, Li G, Z. Arash, Z. Zhao, S. Jing,  W. Qilin, ACS EST Water, 2021, 1, 6:1322–1333.    https://doi.org/10.1021/ acsestwater.0c00218
21. J. Bayo, J. L. Castellanos, S. Olmos, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2020, 156:111-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111211
22. J. Sun, X. Dai, Q. Wang, M. C.M,  V. Loosdrecht, J. N. Bing, Water Research, 2019, 152:21-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050
23. P. Kumar and P. Gupta, Oriental Journal of Chemistry, 2021, 37 (3), 594-601;  http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/ojc/37031
24. L. Yang, K. Li, S. Cui, Y. Kang, L. An, K. Lei, Water Research, 2019,       155:175-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.046
25. N. Tang, X. Liu, W. Xing, Science of The Total Environment, 2020, 745: 141026.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141026
26. H. J. Park, M. J. Oh, P. G. Kim, G. Kim, D.H. Jeong, B. K. Ju, W. S. Lee,      H. M. Chung, H. J. Kang, & J. H. Kwon, Environmental        Science and Technology, 2020, 54(3):1503-1512. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04929
27. P. Kang, B. Ji, Y. Zhao, T. Wei, Science of The Total Environment, 2020, 745:140943.   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140943
28. R.P. G, M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, M. Klages , Marine Anthropogenic Litter, 2015, 1:1- 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_1
29. Z. Long, Z. Pan, W. Wang, J. Ren, X. Yu, L. Lin, H. Lin, H. Chen, X. Jin,  Water   Research, 2019, 155: 255-265; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.028
30.  J. Prasad, V. Kumar, B. Chandra and N.D.Kandpal, Rasayan J. Chem, 2022, 15 (1), 72-81; http://dx.doi.org/10.31788/RJC.2022.1516579
31. P.Jindal and M.S. Chauhan, Rasayan J. Chem, 2022, 15 (1), 538-548;        http://dx.doi.org/10.31788/RJC.2022.1516748
32. U. Nazerbek, P.Abdurazova and Y. Raimbyekov Rasayan J. Chem, 2021, 14 (4), 2171-2176;  http://doi.org/10.31788/RJC.2021.1446416
33. N. Sharma, V. Saini, H. Bhagwani, N. Yadav and D, Chahar, Rasayan J. Chem, 2021, 14 (4), 2549-2558; http://dx.doi.org/10.31788/RJC. 2021.1446482

Abbreviations

PET- Polyethylene Terephthalate

WWTP- Waste Water Treatment Plant

STP- Sewage Water Treatment Plant

PP- Polypropylene

PES- Polyethersulfone

MP’s- Micro-Plastics

PS- Polystyrene

SS- Suspended Solids

PE- Polyethylene

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.