Wastewater effluent is expected to be a pathway for microplastics to enter the aquatic environment, with microbeads from cosmetic products and polymer fibres from clothes likely to enter wastewater ...treatment plants (WWTP). To date, few studies have quantified microplastics in wastewater. Moreover, the lack of a standardized and applicable method to identify microplastics in complex samples, such as wastewater, has limited the accurate assessment of microplastics and may lead to an incorrect estimation. This study aimed to develop a validated method to sample and process microplastics from wastewater effluent and to apply the developed method to quantify and characterise wastewater-based microplastics in effluent from three WWTPs that use primary, secondary and tertiary treatment processes. We applied a high-volume sampling device that fractionated microplastics in situ and an efficient sample processing procedure to improve the sampling of microplastics in wastewater and to minimize the false detection of non-plastic particles. The sampling device captured between 92% and 99% of polystyrene microplastics using 25 μm–500 μm mesh screens in laboratory tests. Microplastic type, size and suspected origin in all studied WWTPs, along with the removal efficiency during the secondary and tertiary treatment stages, was investigated. Suspected microplastics were characterised using Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy, with between 22 and 90% of the suspected microplastics found to be non-plastic particles. An average of 0.28, 0.48 and 1.54 microplastics per litre of final effluent was found in tertiary, secondary and primary treated effluent, respectively. This study suggests that although low concentrations of microplastics are detected in wastewater effluent, WWTPs still have the potential to act as a pathway to release microplastics given the large volumes of effluent discharged to the aquatic environment. This study focused on a single sampling campaign, with long-term monitoring recommended to further characterise microplastics in wastewater.
Display omitted
•A high-volume sampling device was developed for wastewater-based microplastics.•Microplastic sampling was combined with an efficient sample processing procedure.•Applied to effluent from WWTPs utilizing primary, secondary and tertiary treatment.•FT-IR analysis confirmed many suspected microplastics as non-plastic particles.•Between 0.2 and 1.5 microplastics per litre detected in treated effluent.
There is limited knowledge regarding the adverse effects of wastewater-derived microplastics, particularly fibers, on aquatic biota. In this study, we examined the acute (48 h) and chronic (8 d) ...effects of microplastic polyester fibers and polyethylene (PE) beads on freshwater zooplankton Ceriodaphnia dubia. We also assessed the acute response of C. dubia to a binary mixture of microplastic beads and fibers for the first time. Acute exposure to fibers and PE beads both showed a dose-dependent effect on survival. An equitoxic binary mixture of beads and fibers resulted in a toxic unit of 1.85 indicating less than additive effects. Chronic exposure to lower concentrations did not significantly affect survival of C. dubia, but a dose-dependent effect on growth and reproduction was observed. Fibers showed greater adverse effects than PE beads. While ingestion of fibers was not observed, scanning electron microscopy showed carapace and antenna deformities after exposure to fibers, with no deformities observed after exposure to PE beads. While much of the current research has focused on microplastic beads, our study shows that microplastic fibers pose a greater risk to C. dubia, with reduced reproductive output observed at concentrations within an order of magnitude of reported environmental levels.
Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent has been identified as a potential source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Microplastics have recently been detected in wastewater effluent in ...Western Europe, Russia and the USA. As there are only a handful of studies on microplastics in wastewater, it is difficult to accurately determine the contribution of wastewater effluent as a source of microplastics. However, even the small amounts of microplastics detected in wastewater effluent may be a remarkable source given the large volumes of wastewater treatment effluent discharged to the aquatic environment annually. Further, there is strong evidence that microplastics can interact with wastewater-associated contaminants, which has the potential to transport chemicals to aquatic organisms after exposure to contaminated microplastics. In this review we apply lessons learned from the literature on microplastics in the aquatic environment and knowledge on current wastewater treatment technologies, with the aim of identifying the research gaps in terms of (i) the fate of microplastics in WWTPs, (ii) the potential interaction of wastewater-based microplastics with trace organic contaminants and metals, and (iii) the risk for aquatic organisms.
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) have been identified as an important pathway of microplastics to the environment. Most studies have focused on wastewater effluent, but generally only a small ...fraction of microplastics entering WWTPs are present in treated effluent. Instead, the majority of microplastics are expected to be retained in the sludge. To our knowledge, there is limited information on microplastics in sludge/biosolids from Australian WWTPs, despite 75% of biosolids produced in Australia being used for agriculture. This study evaluated the abundance of microplastics throughout the treatment trains of three WWTPs in Australia. The fate of microplastics >25 μm during treatment and their release to the environment was evaluated using an audit approach. The highest microplastic concentrations were detected in the influent, with fibres the dominant form of microplastic found. The screening and grit removal process preceding primary treatment removed 69–79% of microplastics, with these microplastics transported to landfill. Only 0.2–1.8% of the total microplastics in the influent were present in the final effluent, while 8–16% were retained in biosolids. This equates to between 22.1 × 106 to 133 × 106 microplastic particles per day released in effluent, between 864 × 106 to 1020 × 106 microplastic particles per day in biosolids, and between 4100 × 106 to 9100 × 106 microplastic particles per day transported to landfill. This study shows for the first time that most microplastics are retained during the initial screening and grit removal process with the load of microplastics going to landfill an order of magnitude greater than that in biosolids. Landfills may thus be an important sink (and potential future source) of microplastics from wastewater.
Display omitted
•An audit approach was applied to three WWTPs to evaluate microplastic fate.•Screening and grit removal removed up to 79% of microplastics entering the WWTP.•Removed microplastics transported to landfill, showing it is a microplastic sink.•Up to 2% and 16% of microplastics released in effluent and biosolids, respectively.
Microplastics are a widespread environmental pollutant in aquatic ecosystems and have the potential to eventually sink to the sediment, where they may pose a risk to sediment-dwelling organisms. ...While the impacts of exposure to microplastics have been widely reported for marine biota, the effects of microplastics on freshwater organisms at environmentally realistic concentrations are largely unknown, especially for benthic organisms. Here we examined the effects of a realistic concentration of polyethylene microplastics in sediment on the growth and emergence of a freshwater organism Chironomus tepperi. We also assessed the influence of microplastic size by exposing C. tepperi larvae to four different size ranges of polyethylene microplastics (1–4, 10–27, 43–54 and 100–126 μm). Exposure to an environmentally relevant concentration of microplastics, 500 particles/kgsediment, negatively affected the survival, growth (i.e. body length and head capsule) and emergence of C. tepperi. The observed effects were strongly dependent on microplastic size with exposure to particles in the size range of 10–27 μm inducing more pronounced effects. While growth and survival of C. tepperi were not affected by the larger microplastics (100–126 μm), a significant reduction in the number of emerged adults was observed after exposure to the largest microplastics, with the delayed emergence attributed to exposure to a stressor. While scanning electron microscopy showed a significant reduction in the size of the head capsule and antenna of C. tepperi exposed to microplastics in the 10–27 μm size range, no deformities to the external structure of the antenna and mouth parts in organisms exposed to the same size range of microplastics were observed. These results indicate that environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastics in sediment induce harmful effects on the development and emergence of C. tepperi, with effects greatly dependent on particle size.
Display omitted
•Effect of environmentally relevant microplastic concentration on C. tepperi studied.•Polyethylene microplastics negatively impacted C. tepperi's growth and emergence.•Size-dependent effect was observed upon exposure to different size of microplastics.•Exposure to 10–27 μm microplastics showed the most significant adverse effects.•Exposure to microplastics did not change the morphological structure of C. tepperi.
An environmentally realistic concentration of microplastics adversely affected midge development and emergence in a size-dependent manner.
Effect-based methods including cell-based bioassays, reporter gene assays and whole-organism assays have been applied for decades in water quality monitoring and testing of enriched solid-phase ...extracts. There is no common EU-wide agreement on what level of bioassay response in water extracts is acceptable. At present, bioassay results are only benchmarked against each other but not against a consented measure of chemical water quality. The EU environmental quality standards (EQS) differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable surface water concentrations for individual chemicals but cannot capture the thousands of chemicals in water and their biological action as mixtures. We developed a method that reads across from existing EQS and includes additional mixture considerations with the goal that the derived effect-based trigger values (EBT) indicate acceptable risk for complex mixtures as they occur in surface water. Advantages and limitations of various approaches to read across from EQS are discussed and distilled to an algorithm that translates EQS into their corresponding bioanalytical equivalent concentrations (BEQ). The proposed EBT derivation method was applied to 48 in vitro bioassays with 32 of them having sufficient information to yield preliminary EBTs. To assess the practicability and robustness of the proposed approach, we compared the tentative EBTs with observed environmental effects. The proposed method only gives guidance on how to derive EBTs but does not propose final EBTs for implementation. The EBTs for some bioassays such as those for estrogenicity are already mature and could be implemented into regulation in the near future, while for others it will still take a few iterations until we can be confident of the power of the proposed EBTs to differentiate good from poor water quality with respect to chemical contamination.
Display omitted
•Effect-based triggers (EBTs) for bioassays discriminate good from poor water quality.•EBTs can be derived by read across from existing water quality guideline values.•Mixture factor warranted for bioassays responding to many different chemicals.•EBT derivation method applicable to every bioassay subject to data availability•Here we derived preliminary EBTs for 32 bioassays and discuss many more.
Surface water can contain countless organic micropollutants, and targeted chemical analysis alone may only detect a small fraction of the chemicals present. Consequently, bioanalytical tools can be ...applied complementary to chemical analysis to detect the effects of complex chemical mixtures. In this study, bioassays indicative of activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), activation of the pregnane X receptor (PXR), activation of the estrogen receptor (ER), adaptive stress responses to oxidative stress (Nrf2), genotoxicity (p53) and inflammation (NF-κB) and the fish embryo toxicity test were applied along with chemical analysis to water extracts from the Danube River. Mixture-toxicity modeling was applied to determine the contribution of detected chemicals to the biological effect. Effect concentrations for between 0 to 13 detected chemicals could be found in the literature for the different bioassays. Detected chemicals explained less than 0.2% of the biological effect in the PXR activation, adaptive stress response, and fish embryo toxicity assays, while five chemicals explained up to 80% of ER activation, and three chemicals explained up to 71% of AhR activation. This study highlights the importance of fingerprinting the effects of detected chemicals.
Pharmaceuticals, which are designed to be biologically active at low concentrations, are found in surface waters, meaning aquatic organisms can be exposed to complex mixtures of pharmaceuticals. In ...this study, the adverse effects of four pharmaceuticals, 17α-ethynylestradiol (synthetic estrogen), methotrexate (anticancer drug), diclofenac (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and fluoxetine (antidepressant), and their binary mixtures at mg/L concentrations were assessed using the 7-day Lemna minor test, with both apical and biochemical markers evaluated. The studied biochemical markers included chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, carotenoids and oxidative stress enzymes catalase, glutathione-S-transferase and glutathione reductase, with effects compared to solvent controls. The adverse effects on Lemna minor were dose-dependent for frond number, surface area, relative chlorophyll content and activity of glutathione S-transferase for both individual pharmaceuticals and binary mixtures. According to the individual toxicity values, all tested pharmaceuticals can be considered as toxic or harmful to aquatic organisms, with methotrexate considered highly toxic. The most sensitive endpoints for the binary mixtures were photosynthetic pigments and frond surface area, with effects observed in the low mg/L concentration range. The concentration addition model and toxic unit approach gave similar mixture toxicity predictions, with binary mixtures of methotrexate and fluoxetine or methotrexate and 17α-ethynylestradiol exhibiting synergistic effects. In contrast, mixtures of diclofenac with fluoxetine, 17α-ethynylestradiol or methotrexate mostly showed additive effects. While low concentrations of methotrexate are expected in surface water, chronic ecotoxicological data for invertebrates and fish are lacking, but this is required to better assess the environmental risk of methotrexate.
Display omitted
•Effect of binary mixtures on duckweed assessed using apical and biomarker endpoints.•Photosynthetic pigments and frond surface area were the most sensitive endpoints.•Binary mixtures containing anticancer drug methotrexate were often synergistic.•Joint toxicity of binary mixtures containing diclofenac were typically additive.•Pharmaceutical mixture effects important to consider in ecological risk assessment.
PDF
