[go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Rigid Vegetation Affects Slope Flow Velocity
Previous Article in Journal
Methyl Red Adsorption from Aqueous Solution Using Rumex Abyssinicus-Derived Biochar: Studies of Kinetics and Isotherm
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/w16162238
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sources, Transport, and Accumulation of Synthetic Microfiber Wastes in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments

by
Kundan Samal
1,
Satya Ranjan Samal
1,
Saurabh Mishra
2 and
Jagdeep Kumar Nayak
3,4,*
1
School of Civil Engineering, KIIT University Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar 751 024, India
2
Institute of Water Science and Technology, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
3
Department of Polymer and Process Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247 667, India
4
Bernal Institute, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2024, 16(16), 2238; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162238
Submission received: 16 June 2024 / Revised: 28 July 2024 / Accepted: 29 July 2024 / Published: 8 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Approaches in Wastewater Treatment: Bioremediation and Nutrient Recovery for Emerging Contaminants)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>An indicative scheme of microfibers’ sources.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Timeframe for degradation of various plastic products (<a href="https://scdhec.gov" target="_blank">https://scdhec.gov</a> (accessed on 22 July 2024)).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Schematic of the sources, generation, transportation, and accumulation of microplastics [<a href="#B55-water-16-02238" class="html-bibr">55</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Health impacts of microfibers in humans.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The global proliferation of synthetic microfiber waste has emerged as a pressing environmental concern due to its widespread distribution in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Primary sources of synthetic microfibers include laundering of synthetic textiles, manufacturing, and plastic breakdown, with transport via wastewater, runoff, atmospheric deposition, and animal ingestion. This review highlights the sources of microfiber formation and accumulation, ranging from freshwater lakes and rivers to deep-sea sediments. The presence of microfibers in agricultural soils, urban dust, and even remote locations indicates atmospheric transportation and diverse accumulation patterns. Additionally, this review discusses the transportation of microfibers through various pathways and elaborates on various treatment technologies for microfiber removal and reduction. The potential human health impacts and mitigation solutions are also highlighted. Overall, this review aims to provide comprehensive knowledge of the sources, transport mechanisms, and accumulation patterns of synthetic microfibers, emphasizing their multifaceted environmental impact and the need for further research to develop effective solutions.

1. Introduction

The emergence of synthetic microfibers as a significant environmental pollutant stems primarily from their origin and physical characteristics. These tiny fibers, typically less than 5 mm long, are predominantly shed from synthetic textiles like polyester, nylon, and acrylic during washing, wearing, and manufacturing processes [1]. Despite being invisible to the naked eye, their accumulation in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems over recent decades has raised considerable environmental concerns. In contrast to other microplastics, which encompass a broader range of small plastic particles from various sources, microfibers stand out due to their textile origin. While microplastics include primary forms like microbeads from personal care products and industrial abrasives, as well as secondary particles resulting from the breakdown of larger plastic items through environmental processes [2,3], microfibers are primarily introduced into the environment through household laundry and wastewater systems. This specific pathway poses distinct challenges for water treatment and marine ecosystem health. The global increase in synthetic textile production, driven by economic growth, technological advancements, and changing consumer preferences, has significantly contributed to the release of microfibers into the environment [4,5]. Each wash cycle of synthetic garments releases thousands of these minute fibers, most of which evade filtration and ultimately enter rivers, lakes, and oceans, becoming pervasive forms of microplastic pollution [3]. Beyond textiles, microfibers are also generated during the production, use, and disposal of various synthetic products, further complicating efforts to mitigate their environmental impact. The transport pathways of synthetic microfibers are complex and extensive. They travel vast distances through wind and water currents, reaching remote deep-sea sediments, polar ice caps, and even becoming airborne in certain regions. These fibers have a propensity to bind with other pollutants and serve as vectors for toxic compounds. Due to their durability, synthetic microfibers persist in the environment for extended periods [4]. Moreover, their ingestion by a wide range of organisms—from microscopic plankton to large marine mammals—leads to physiological disturbances and the potential transfer of associated contaminants through the food web [5,6,7]. On land, synthetic microfibers are increasingly detected in agricultural soils, potentially due to the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer, as well as in terrestrial organisms. The long-term implications of microfiber accumulation in terrestrial ecosystems are still being investigated, with early indications suggesting adverse effects on soil properties and soil-dwelling organisms [8,9,10,11]. This review aims to comprehensively explore the sources, transport mechanisms, and accumulation patterns of synthetic microfibers in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. By synthesizing current knowledge, this review underscores the global scale of this environmental challenge, delineates its multidimensional impacts, discusses existing treatment technologies, and proposes strategies for mitigation. Addressing the pervasive issue of synthetic microfibers demands concerted efforts across industries, policymakers, and researchers to develop effective solutions that mitigate their environmental and health impacts.

2. Sources of Synthetic Microfibers

There are various sources of microfibers’ production and accumulation in aquatic and terrestrial environments, which are discussed below briefly (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Table 1 shows the final destination and properties of different microfibers (MFs).

2.1. The Textile Industry and Washing Machines

The textile and fashion industry is a major contributor to synthetic microfiber pollution. Textiles contribute about 14% of plastic waste production by sector, the second-largest source of plastic pollution following packaging. Approximately 60 million tons of synthetic fibers is produced each year, with polyester being the most common. It was reported that approximately 700,000 microfibers (about 0.5 g in weight) could be discharged with laundry sewage for every cycle that the washing machine drum rotates. Globally, it is estimated that 500,000 tonnes of microfibers is released into the ocean because of domestic washing annually [20]. Synthetic fabrics like polyester, nylon, and acrylic are commonly used in clothing production. During the manufacturing process, as garments are cut, stitched, and finished, small synthetic fibers are released into the environment [12]. Additionally, when consumers wear and wash these synthetic garments, they shed microfibers. These microfibers, which are too small to be filtered by wastewater treatment plants, often find their way into water bodies, particularly through the drainage systems of homes [13]. One of the most prevalent sources of synthetic microfibers is household washing machines. When the synthetic clothing is laundered, especially in the form of fleece jackets, yoga pants, and athletic wear, thousands of tiny synthetic microfibers are released with each wash cycle [15,16,17,18]. Over time, the cumulative impact of countless washing machines worldwide contributes significantly to microfiber pollution. From raw materials to the end product, fiber losses occur at each step of the textile production processes, including spinning, weaving, dyeing, finishing, cutting, trimming, and sewing. For example, in different manufacturing processes, the cotton fiber loss rates for different end products are listed in Table 1, released by the Better Cotton Initiative (2022) through member survey responses in 2020 (Initiative 2020) [21]. Between 6 and 43% of fibers were lost during each process (Table 1). If the fiber loss rate is simply set at 30% from fiber to end product, about 70,000,000 tonnes of cotton was globally wasted in 2020 [22]. Assuming that the microfiber loss rate is 1% from fiber to end product during the production of home textiles and apparel, nearly 1.1 million metric tons of microfiber was lost, which is 2.2 × 106 times the weight of the estimated fibers being released from domestic washing [12].
Source reducing microfibers is crucial for mitigating their environmental impact, the primary focus is on minimizing their release at the origin. This can be achieved through multiple strategies, such as improving the design and manufacturing of synthetic textiles to reduce fiber shedding. Innovations in fabric production, such as tighter weaves and the use of coatings, can significantly decrease microfibers’ release during washing. Additionally, implementing better washing machine filters and encouraging the use of liquid detergents, which are less abrasive than powder detergents, can help reduce microfiber discharge. Public awareness campaigns and education on proper garment care can further contribute to reducing microfiber pollution. By addressing the issue at its source, these measures collectively help prevent microfibers from entering waterways and, ultimately, the broader environment.

2.2. Plastic Products and Materials

In 2020, global plastic production reached approximately 367 million tons. A substantial portion of these plastics are used in products that degrade into microfibers over time [23]. This issue primarily arises from the widespread use of synthetic polymers in various everyday items, including clothing, packaging, and household goods. These microfibers make their way into wastewater systems and, eventually, into rivers, lakes, and oceans. Plastic packaging materials, such as disposable bottles and food containers, can degrade over time, shedding microplastic particles into the environment. Plastic packaging accounts for about 40% of global plastic production, equating to roughly 147 million tons annually. These materials contribute significantly to the overall microplastic burden as they degrade [24]. Similarly, the wear and tear of plastic products like car tires and construction materials contributes to the release of microplastics on roadways and urban areas, which can be washed into water bodies through stormwater runoff [25]. It is estimated that 1.5 million tons of tire wear particles is released into the environment each year globally. Used in construction and landscaping, geotextiles made from synthetic fibers can degrade and release microfibers. The global usage of geotextiles is projected to reach 7.9 billion square meters by 2025, contributing significantly to microfiber pollution [26]. These synthetic microfibers and microplastics pose significant environmental and health risks, as they are ingested by various organisms and can accumulate in the food chain, potentially exposing humans to toxic chemicals.

2.3. The Fishing Industry

The fishing industry contributes to approximately 10% of the global marine plastic pollution, including microfibers. One of the primary sources of these microfibers is the materials used in fishing gear and equipment. An estimated 640,000 tons of fishing gear, including nets and ropes, is lost or discarded in the oceans every year. These materials are predominantly made of synthetic fibers that degrade into microfibers over time [26]. Many fishing nets, lines, and other tools are constructed from synthetic polymers such as nylon and polyester, designed for their durability and longevity [27]. However, these materials are not biodegradable, and as they wear and degrade due to the harsh marine conditions, they shed tiny microfibers into the water. Studies have found that polypropylene ropes used in the fishing industry can release up to 20,000 microfibers per meter per use. In areas heavily influenced by fishing activities, marine sediments have been found to contain up to 200,000 microfibers per square meter [25]. These minuscule plastic particles are virtually invisible to the naked eye but are pervasive in the marine ecosystem [28]. They can be ingested by a wide range of marine organisms, from small zooplankton to larger fish and even whales, inadvertently introducing them into the food chain. Additionally, when fishing gear becomes lost or abandoned, often referred to as ‘ghost gear’, it continues to release microfibers into the water over time, compounding the problem. It is estimated that ghost gear can account for up to 70% of large plastic debris in certain ocean regions.

2.4. Landfills and Waste Sites

Landfills and waste sites significantly contribute to the dispersal of synthetic microfibers into the environment. This problem arises from the disposal of vast quantities of synthetic materials, such as clothing, household goods, and plastic products, which often contain microfibers [29]. When these items reach landfills, they undergo degradation and breakdown due to environmental factors and microbial activity, releasing microfibers into the surrounding soil and, in some cases, nearby water bodies through leachate [30]. Studies have found that landfill leachate can contain up to 250 microfibers per liter. In the U.S., landfills receive approximately 11 million tons of textile waste each year. Given that textiles can shed thousands of microfibers per garment, this represents a significant source of microfiber pollution [31]. This poses a risk to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as microfibers can migrate through groundwater and surface runoff.

2.5. Personal Care Products

Microfiber waste from personal care products, particularly those containing microplastics, contributes to environmental pollution. It is estimated that between 8000 and 16,000 tons of microplastics, including microbeads, is used in personal care products annually in the United States alone. Globally, approximately 30,000 to 80,000 tons of microplastics from personal care products enters the environment each year [30]. Many wet wipes contain synthetic fibers, which contribute to microfiber pollution. It is estimated that wet wipes contribute to around 1–2% of the microplastic pollution found in aquatic environments. Each wet wipe can release thousands of microfibers during use and disposal. A single wet wipe can shed up to 150,000 microfibers into wastewater systems. Microbeads used in facial scrubs are a significant source of microplastic pollution. One tube of facial scrub can contain as many as 300,000 microbeads. Toothpaste with microbeads can release microplastics into the environment. Each application of toothpaste can introduce up to 100,000 microbeads into wastewater systems [31].
Understanding the diverse sources of synthetic microfibers is critical for addressing the growing issue of microfiber pollution. Efforts to mitigate this problem should encompass both prevention at the source, such as improved textile manufacturing techniques and product design, and effective wastewater treatment and waste management strategies to capture and manage these tiny plastic particles before they can harm the environment.

3. Transport Mechanisms

A few points with extensive descriptions related to the transport of synthetic microfiber wastes in both aquatic and terrestrial environments are given below.

3.1. Waterborne Transport in Aquatic Environments

Synthetic microfibers released into water bodies, such as rivers and oceans, can be transported over long distances. The buoyant nature of microfibers allows them to remain suspended in the water column for extended periods. When released from washing machines, textiles, and other sources, these microfibers are carried away by the flow of water [32]. They can be transported downstream by river currents and tides, dispersing across vast areas. As these microfibers move with the water, they pose a significant risk to aquatic ecosystems [33,34]. They can be ingested by aquatic organisms, bioaccumulate in the food chain, and negatively impact the health of marine life (Table 2).

3.2. Transport in the Atmosphere

Airborne transport is a lesser-known yet notable contributor to the distribution of synthetic microfibers in the environment [35]. This phenomenon occurs when microfibers shed from various sources, such as clothing, textiles, and synthetic materials used in building construction, become airborne and are carried by wind currents [36]. In urban areas, these microfibers are released through activities like traffic and industrial processes, as well as during laundry and in indoor dust particles. Once airborne, these minuscule fibers can be transported over long distances, eventually settling into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. They may even be deposited into bodies of water, thus adding to the already pressing issue of waterborne microfiber pollution [37]. In addition to their role in soil and water contamination, airborne microfibers pose a potential health risk, as they can be inhaled and contribute to indoor air pollution, potentially carrying with them toxic chemicals [38,39].

3.3. Terrestrial Transport

The mechanism of terrestrial transport of microfibers involves several key processes that facilitate their movement and distribution across land environments. Initially, microfibers are shed from synthetic textiles through activities such as washing clothes, which releases fibers into wastewater. When wastewater treatment plants fail to capture all of the microfibers, the remaining fibers can enter the environment through the application of treated sludge as fertilizer on agricultural land [40,41]. Rainfall and irrigation further drive terrestrial transport by generating surface runoff that carries microfibers across the landscape, where they can infiltrate soils [42]. Within the soil, microfibers interact with soil particles and organic matter, which can trap and hold them, leading to their accumulation [43,44]. Additionally, wind can resuspend and redistribute microfibers deposited on surfaces, contributing to their spread. These mechanisms result in the integration of microfibers into terrestrial ecosystems, where they can affect soil health, interact with soil organisms, and potentially be taken up by plants, posing risks to the broader environment and food chain [45,46]. Table 3 shows the effects of microfibers on terrestrial organisms.

4. Accumulation in the Environment

This section presents extensive descriptions related to the accumulation of synthetic microfiber wastes in both aquatic and terrestrial environments:

4.1. Sediment Accumulation in Aquatic Environments

One of the primary ways synthetic microfibers accumulate in aquatic environments is through sedimentation. As microfibers are released into water bodies, they can gradually settle to the bottom, accumulating in the sediments. The accumulation is influenced by the size, buoyancy, and density of the microfibers, as well as the water’s flow rate and turbulence [52]. Over time, these microfibers can amass in significant quantities within the sediment layers, particularly in areas with high input rates. This accumulation poses various ecological risks, as it can alter sediment characteristics, potentially smother benthic habitats, and become a source of contamination for bottom-dwelling organisms. In coastal areas, synthetic microfibers can accumulate along shorelines and beaches. They are often carried by ocean currents and waves, where they may become trapped in intertidal zones and accumulate in large quantities [53]. Accumulated microfibers can have aesthetic, ecological, and economic impacts on coastal communities, affecting both wildlife and tourism. Figure 2 shows the time taken for the degradation of various substances that are primary sources of microfibers.

4.2. Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Food Webs

Synthetic microfibers can accumulate in aquatic food webs as they are ingested by organisms at the base of the food chain, such as zooplankton and filter-feeding species [52]. These microfibers can then be transferred to higher trophic levels as predators consume contaminated prey. As microfibers move up the food web, they can reach fish and other marine species that are commonly consumed by humans. The potential for microfibers to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms raises concerns about human health risks associated with the consumption of contaminated seafood [54]. Figure 3 shows the schematic of the sources of waste plastics and their transportation routes.

4.3. Resuspension and Re-Entry into the Water Column

In aquatic environments, accumulated microfibers in sediments can be resuspended and re-enter the water column during various events, such as storm surges, wave action, and dredging activities. When resuspended, these microfibers can once again become mobile and be transported downstream, potentially affecting distant areas [56,57,58]. The cycle of accumulation, deposition, and resuspension can make it challenging to manage and mitigate the presence of synthetic microfibers in aquatic ecosystems [59].
Understanding the mechanisms of accumulation of synthetic microfiber wastes in both aquatic and terrestrial environments is vital for addressing the issue. Effective mitigation strategies should focus on reducing the input of microfibers, enhancing waste management practices, and developing technologies to capture and remove microfibers from the environment, particularly in areas where accumulation is a significant concern.

5. Techniques for the Identification and Detection of Microplastics

Identification and detection of microplastics follow the sampling process and involve a complex procedure to confirm whether the separated particles are microplastics or false microplastics. Various techniques are employed for identification and chemical composition detection, including SEM-EDS, FTIR, NIR, Raman, and NMR spectroscopy [60,61,62]. SEM-EDS is a powerful microscope technique that provides information about the surface and additives present on microplastics. FTIR and Raman spectroscopy are among the best techniques for chemical characterization, offering accuracy without damaging the sample and producing spectra through the interaction of molecules with light [63]. FTIR analysis is suitable for particles up to 20 μm in size, while Raman spectroscopy can be applied to particles as small as 1 μm. Recently, NIR and NMR spectroscopy have also been used for the identification of microplastics [64,65,66]. NIR does not require pre-treatment and can detect particles up to 1 mm in size in environmental samples, while NMR analysis quantifies the amount of microplastics present in a sample. Table 4 represents different techniques for the identification and detection of microplastics.

6. Treatment Technologies

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are the primary recipients of MFs prior to their discharge into natural water bodies, and in most cases they escape the WWTPs. There are two broad categories for MF removal in WWTPs: conventional, and innovative. Conventional techniques include settling, filtration, adsorption, membrane bioreactors, coagulation, and flocculation [67,68]. In this section, some innovative technologies for MF treatment are discussed along with WWTPs. Some of these are scalable and are currently in use, while others are in further research and development phases.

6.1. Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs)

The majority of MPs found in wastewater treatment plants come from urban activities (tire damage, paint shedding, plastic/textile industries) and domestic items (cosmetics, exfoliants, scrubbers, and textiles). The wastewater systems are designed to convey effluent water discharged from urban and domestic activities to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), aiming to eliminate pollutants prior to their discharge into various water bodies. Peller et al. [58] investigated a WWTP in Michigan, USA, reporting a phenomenal removal rate of 97% for MPs. The majority of removed MPs were sequestered from the sludge generated during wastewater treatment. Leslie et al. [59] reported that WWTP sludge contains an average of 650 MP particles per kilogram of wet sludge. The major concern with these remaining MPs in the sludge is due to their frequent reuse as a fertilizer, which reintroduces MPs into the environment. Dris et al. [60] found that smaller MFs (<800 µm) exhibited a higher likelihood of passing through WWTPs, constituting approximately 70% of MFs in the wastewater. Similarly, Fortin et al. [61] identified MFs ranging from 1 to 10 µm in size as the most prevalent in the water samples extracted post-WWTP. Hartline et al. [62] estimated that if a WWTP serving a population of 100,000 people achieved an MF removal rate of 98.4%, it would still release approximately 1 kg of MFs into water bodies daily. Correspondingly, Uddin et al. [63] reported that, globally, WWTP-treated water contributes to the annual release of 1.47 × 1015 MPs into oceans, while approximately 50% of global wastewater (especially in underdeveloped nations) remains untreated, resulting in the emission of approximately 3.85 × 1016 MPs annually. Henry et al. [64] underscored that MPs traversing WWTPs can absorb pathogens from wastewater, transporting them into natural environments. Table 5 shows different treatment technologies for the removal of microplastics.
Additionally, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) play a role in producing secondary MPs, which, upon partial degradation, can manifest as nanoparticles and nanofibers [76]. Conventional WWTP treatment processes, including sand filtration, ultraviolet disinfection, and biological processes, can induce further degradation of MPs into submicron particles, complicating detection and leading to the underestimation of MP emissions in prior studies [79]. The abundance of nanoplastics, estimated to be 1014 times higher than that of MPs due to their origin from fragmentation processes [81], necessitates additional research for a comprehensive understanding of the detrimental impacts of MPs on public health.

6.2. Electrochemical Oxidation

Electrochemical oxidation (EO) is emerging as a promising method for treating microfibers in wastewater, leveraging the principles of electrochemistry to degrade and remove these pollutants. In this process, an electric current is applied to electrodes submerged in the wastewater, generating reactive species such as hydroxyl radicals, which effectively oxidize and break down microfibers into smaller, less harmful molecules [65,66]. The advantages of EO include its ability to operate at ambient conditions, its relatively low energy consumption, and the minimal production of secondary pollutants. This method can be integrated with other treatment processes to enhance overall removal efficiency. As research advances, optimizing electrode materials and configurations aims to further improve the effectiveness and scalability of EO for microfiber removal, making it a viable solution for reducing microplastic pollution in treated effluents.

6.3. Photocatalytic Degradation

Photocatalytic degradation is a cutting-edge approach to treating microfibers in wastewater, utilizing light-activated catalysts to break down these persistent pollutants. Typically, this process involves the use of semiconductors like titanium dioxide (TiO2), which, when exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light, generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as hydroxyl radicals. These ROS effectively degrade microfibers into smaller, non-toxic molecules [83]. The advantages of photocatalytic degradation include its ability to operate under mild conditions and its potential for complete mineralization of contaminants, minimizing secondary pollution. Research is focused on enhancing the efficiency of this method by developing novel photocatalysts, such as doped TiO2 or composite materials, which can be activated by visible light and offer higher degradation rates [84]. Integrating photocatalytic degradation with conventional wastewater treatment processes could significantly reduce microfiber pollution, contributing to cleaner water bodies and a healthier environment.

6.4. Magnetic Separation

Magnetic separation is an innovative method for treating microfibers in wastewater, leveraging the unique properties of magnetic materials to isolate and remove these pollutants. This technique involves the use of magnetic nanoparticles or beads that are functionalized to bind specifically to microfibers. Once the microfibers are bound to the magnetic particles, an external magnetic field is applied to separate the complex from the wastewater. This method is highly efficient, allowing for the rapid and targeted removal of microfibers with minimal energy input and without the need for chemical additives [85,86]. Research is focused on optimizing the surface chemistry of magnetic particles to improve binding efficiency and selectivity for various types of microfibers. Magnetic separation can be easily integrated into existing wastewater treatment systems, offering a scalable and environmentally friendly solution to reduce microfiber pollution and enhance water quality.

6.5. Activated Carbon Filtration

Activated carbon filtration is a widely utilized method for treating microfibers in wastewater, capitalizing on the highly porous nature and large surface area of activated carbon to adsorb these pollutants effectively. During this process, wastewater passes through a bed of activated carbon, which captures microfibers through physical adsorption and chemical interactions. This technique is highly efficient in removing not only microfibers but also a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants, contributing to overall water purification [87]. The effectiveness of activated carbon filtration can be enhanced by optimizing the particle size and surface properties of the carbon, as well as by combining it with other treatment methods like pre-filtration and coagulation to reduce the load of larger particles. Regeneration of spent activated carbon through thermal or chemical processes allows for sustainable reuse, making this method both cost-effective and environmentally friendly in managing microfiber pollution in wastewater treatment plants.

6.6. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is an effective method for treating microfibers in wastewater, utilizing air bubbles to separate these fine pollutants from the water. In the DAF process, air is dissolved in the wastewater under pressure and then released at atmospheric pressure in a flotation tank. The released air forms tiny bubbles that attach to microfibers and other suspended solids, causing them to float to the surface, where they can be skimmed off and removed. This technique is particularly advantageous for its ability to handle high loads of fine particles and its efficiency in clarifying water with minimal chemical additives. DAF systems can be optimized by adjusting parameters such as bubble size, air-to-solids ratio, and the addition of coagulants or flocculants to enhance microfiber aggregation and flotation. The integration of DAF in wastewater treatment plants offers a robust solution for reducing microfiber pollution, improving the quality of effluent, and protecting aquatic environments [88].

6.7. Electrocoagulation

Electrocoagulation is a promising technique for treating microfibers in wastewater, utilizing electrically induced coagulation to remove these contaminants. In this process, an electric current is applied to metal electrodes, typically aluminum or iron, which dissolve into the water, releasing metal ions. These ions react with the water to form hydroxides that act as coagulants, binding to microfibers and other suspended particles to form larger aggregates. These aggregates can then be easily separated from the water through sedimentation or flotation [89]. Electrocoagulation is advantageous due to its ability to simultaneously remove a wide range of pollutants, including microfibers, without the need for added chemicals. This method can be fine-tuned by adjusting the current density, electrode material, and operational parameters to maximize removal efficiency and minimize energy consumption [90]. Integrating electrocoagulation into existing wastewater treatment systems offers an effective and environmentally friendly approach to mitigating microfiber pollution and improving water quality.

6.8. Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands have emerged as a promising solution for the removal of microfibers from wastewater. These engineered ecosystems mimic natural wetlands by utilizing vegetation, soil, and microbial processes to filter and degrade contaminants. The mechanism of microfiber removal in constructed wetlands involves a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes. Firstly, as wastewater flows through the wetland, physical filtration occurs as microfibers become entangled in the dense network of plant roots and settle into the substrate. This root structure acts as a sieve, capturing microfibers from the water column. Sedimentation also plays a role, as the slower flow rates within the wetland allow heavier particles, including microfibers, to settle out of the water. Additionally, biofilm formation on plant roots and substrate surfaces promotes the adsorption of microfibers. Microbial degradation further aids in breaking down microfibers; specific bacteria and fungi in the wetland’s biofilm can metabolize organic components of microfibers, facilitating their decomposition. Through these synergistic processes, constructed wetlands provide an effective and sustainable approach to mitigating microfiber pollution. Sotiropoulou et al. [91] designed one vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW), planting Zantedeschia aethiopica for the treatment of laundry wastewater. The average concentration of microfibers decreased from 71 ± 25 microparticles/L in the influent to 1 ± 1 microparticles/L in the effluent of the VFCW when an HLR of 63.7 mm/d was applied. Long et al. [92] investigated microfiber removal in a wastewater treatment plant and reported that constructed wetlands contributed to 26.59% of the total microfiber removal, with an overall removal efficiency of 72.38%.

7. Environmental and Health Impacts

Microfiber wastes, primarily in the form of synthetic polyester and nylon fibers, have infiltrated marine ecosystems worldwide. These minuscule particles pose a significant environmental threat by entering the food web. When marine organisms—such as zooplankton, filter-feeding invertebrates, and small fish—ingest microfibers, these particles can accumulate in their tissues. This not only harms individual organisms but disrupts marine ecosystems as a whole. Microfibers can alter the behavior, growth, and reproductive success of marine species, potentially leading to imbalances and population declines [46]. The physical presence of microfibers in the gastrointestinal tracts of marine organisms can lead to a range of adverse effects. These tiny plastic particles can obstruct the digestive system, causing blockages, damage to internal organs, and impaired nutrient absorption. Furthermore, microfibers can act as carriers for toxic chemicals that adhere to their surfaces [52]. In the marine environment, they can release these chemicals, potentially leading to toxicity and disrupting hormonal, metabolic, and reproductive processes in aquatic organisms. In the process of bioaccumulation and biomagnification, microfibers can reach the human diet as well. Microfiber wastes are not limited to aquatic environments. They can also accumulate in terrestrial ecosystems, particularly in soils. This accumulation can affect soil health, microbial communities, and the growth of plants [13]. Microfibers can alter the physical properties of soil, including its texture, porosity, and water-holding capacity. These changes can affect soil aeration and drainage, potentially leading to waterlogging or drought conditions for plants. Some microfibers, especially those made from synthetic materials, can leach harmful chemicals into the soil. These chemicals might include plastic additives, dyes, and other pollutants, which can alter the soil’s chemical composition and pH balance [93]. The presence of microfibers can disrupt soil aggregates, which are crucial for maintaining soil’s structure. Disrupted soil structure can lead to increased erosion and reduced soil stability. The introduction of microfibers can reduce microbial activity by creating a physical barrier that microbes cannot easily penetrate. This can decrease the decomposition rate of organic matter and the cycling of nutrients [94]. Changes in microbial communities might also affect the prevalence of soil pathogens. Some studies suggest that microfibers can create niches for pathogenic microbes, potentially increasing the incidence of plant diseases. Microfibers can physically impede roots’ growth and development. Roots may struggle to penetrate soils laden with microfibers, leading to stunted growth and poor plant health. Plants might absorb harmful chemicals leached from synthetic microfibers through their roots. This can lead to phytotoxicity, affecting plants’ growth and development [83].
While research on the direct health impacts of microfiber ingestion through contaminated seafood and inhalation of airborne microfibers is ongoing, there is growing concern about potential risks to human health (Figure 4). Ingested microfibers may release plastic-related chemicals into the human body, and while the long-term effects are not yet fully understood, they may lead to a range of health problems. Airborne microfibers may reach the respiratory system, potentially causing respiratory irritation and inflammation. Studies have also raised concerns about the potential for microfibers to act as carriers for harmful microorganisms, introducing pathogens into the human body. Microfiber pollution can have aesthetic and economic consequences. Accumulated microfibers on beaches and shorelines can deter tourists, impacting local economies and tourism-dependent communities. The unsightly presence of microfibers in the environment also diminishes the natural beauty of landscapes and can negatively affect people’s quality of life [95,96].
Addressing the environmental and health impacts of microfiber wastes is a complex and multifaceted challenge. Solutions involve reducing the release of microfibers from their sources, improving waste management practices, developing effective filtration and treatment technologies, and advancing our understanding of the long-term effects on both the environment and human health. Public awareness and policy initiatives are also essential for mitigating the detrimental effects of microfiber pollution and protecting both ecosystems and human well-being.

8. Mitigation and Solutions

This section presents descriptions related to the mitigation and solutions for addressing microfiber wastes:
  • Textile manufacturing innovations: One of the primary strategies for mitigating microfiber pollution is the development and use of sustainable textiles. Designing and producing clothing made from natural fibers (cotton, hemp, and wool) or less-shedding synthetic materials can significantly reduce the release of microfibers during washing and use [97,98,99]. Additionally, treatments such as surface coatings can make fabrics more resistant to abrasion. Sustainable textile manufacturing should prioritize the use of biodegradable or low-impact materials and incorporate innovative design and production techniques that minimize microfiber shedding.
  • Wastewater treatment enhancements: Enhancing wastewater treatment technologies is crucial in reducing the release of microfibers into the environment [92]. Advanced filtration technologies such as membrane bioreactors, magnetic separation, and advanced oxidation processes can improve microfiber capture [77,79,81]. Implementing bio-based flocculants can also help in aggregating microfibers for easier removal. These systems can be integrated into existing treatment plants to improve their efficiency in removing microfibers.
  • Microfiber filtration: At the household level, the installation of microfiber filtration devices (PlanetCare filter, XFiltra, Filtrol, etc.) in washing machines is an emerging solution. These devices, often referred to as microfiber filters or laundry filters, capture microfibers released from clothing during the wash cycle [100]. By preventing the release of microfibers into wastewater, they represent a proactive approach to reducing microfiber pollution at its source.
  • Public awareness and education: Public awareness campaigns and consumer education are essential for combating microfiber pollution. Individuals can take steps to reduce their contribution by washing synthetic garments less frequently, using cooler water temperatures, and using laundry bags specifically designed to capture microfibers. Being informed about the environmental impacts of microfibers and making sustainable choices when purchasing clothing can also make a significant difference [100].
  • Regulatory and policy measures: Governments and regulatory bodies can play a vital role in addressing microfiber pollution by implementing and enforcing regulations that require manufacturers to develop more sustainable products and textiles. Legislation can set standards for microfiber shedding and encourage the adoption of best practices for reducing pollution at the source [101,102].
  • Research and innovation: Continued research is essential for understanding the full extent of the problem and identifying effective mitigation strategies. Scientists and innovators are working to develop new materials and coatings that shed fewer microfibers and exploring the use of natural and biodegradable alternatives to synthetic textiles [103]. Innovations in textile recycling and circular economy models are also being explored to reduce waste and microfiber emissions.
  • Circular economy and recycling: Promoting the recycling of textiles can reduce the need for virgin synthetic fibers and decrease microfiber pollution. Closed-loop recycling systems where textiles are collected, processed, and remade into new fabrics can help create a circular economy [104]. Encouraging manufacturers to establish take-back programs for old clothing can ensure textiles are recycled rather than discarded.
Mitigating microfiber pollution is a complex challenge that requires collaboration among governments, industry, scientists, and consumers. A combination of approaches, including the development of sustainable textiles, improved wastewater treatment, consumer education, and regulatory measures, is necessary to address this pressing environmental issue. By taking proactive steps at multiple levels of society, it is possible to reduce the release of microfibers into the environment and protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems from the harmful effects of microfiber pollution.

9. Conclusions

In conclusion, the sources, transport, and accumulation of synthetic microfiber wastes in both aquatic and terrestrial environments represent a multifaceted environmental challenge with far-reaching consequences. The origins of these microfibers are diverse, ranging from textile manufacturing and the fashion industry to plastic products, fishing gear, and urban runoff. Once released, microfibers can be transported over long distances through various pathways, affecting both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Their accumulation in sediments, soils, and food webs has ecological repercussions, threatening the health of aquatic organisms, disrupting terrestrial ecosystems, and potentially impacting human health through the food chain. Addressing this issue requires a holistic approach, encompassing improved waste management, innovative textile production methods, enhanced filtration technologies, and greater public awareness. Only through collaborative efforts at the global, national, and individual levels can mitigation of the environmental and health risks associated with synthetic microfiber pollution be achieved. Reckless and excessive consumption of plastic products should be curbed and potentially even regulated by legislation, particularly in developed countries.

Author Contributions

K.S.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. S.R.S.: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology. S.M.: investigation, methodology, software, J.K.N.: supervision, formal analysis. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the School of Civil Engineering, KIIT Deemed to be University, and KIIT Central Research Facility (CRF) for providing the necessary facilities to carry out this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rathinamoorthy, R.; Raja Balasaraswathi, S. A review of the current status of microfiber pollution research in textiles. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2021, 33, 364–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yang, L.; Qiao, F.; Lei, K.; Li, H.; Kang, Y.; Cui, S.; An, L. Microfiber release from different fabrics during washing. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 249, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Barrows, A.P.W.; Cathey, S.E.; Petersen, C.W. Marine environment microfiber contamination: Global patterns and the diversity of microparticle origins. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hurley, R.R.; Woodward, J.C.; Rothwell, J.J. Ingestion of microplastics by freshwater tubifex worms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 12844–12851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Das, A.P.; Dutta, K.; Khatun, R.; Behera, I.D.; Singh, S.; Mishra, S. Microfiber pollution and its microbial mitigation: A review on current trends and future prospects. J. Tai. Inst. Chem. Eng. 2023, 105104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Peng, G.; Xu, P.; Zhu, B.; Bai, M.; Li, D. Microplastics in freshwater river sediments in Shanghai, China: A case study of risk assessment in mega-cities. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 234, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zhang, S.; Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Qu, F.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Sun, Y. Microplastics in the environment: A review of analytical methods, distribution, and biological effects. TrAC Trends Analyt. Chem. 2019, 111, 62–72. [Google Scholar]
  8. Liang, Y.; Lehmann, A.; Ballhausen, M.-B.; Muller, L.; Rillig, M.C. Increasing temperature and microplastic fibers jointly influence soil aggregation by saprobic fungi. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Muniasamy, G.K.; Guevara, F.P.; Martínez, I.E.; Shruti, V.C. An overview of recent advances in micro/nano beads and microfibers research: Critical assessment and promoting the less known. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 139991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, R.P.; Mishra, S.; Das, A.P. Synthetic microfibers: Pollution toxicity and remediation. Chemosphere 2020, 257, 127199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Samal, K.; Dash, R.R.; Bhunia, P. Treatment of wastewater by vermifiltration integrated with macrophyte filter: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 2274–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Habib, R.Z.; Abdoon, M.M.S.; Al Meqbaali, R.M.; Ghebremedhin, F.; Elkashlan, M.; Kittaneh, W.F.; Cherupurakal, N.; Mourad, A.H.I.; Thiemann, T.; Al Kindi, R. Analysis of microbeads in cosmetic products in the United Arab Emirates. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 258, 113831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ustabasi, G.S.; Baysal, A. Bacterial interactions of microplastics extracted from toothpaste under controlled conditions and the influence of seawater. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 135024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, W.; Ge, J.; Yu, X. Bioavailability and toxicity of microplastics to fish species: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 189, 109913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cheung, P.K.; Fok, L. Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs and their estimated emissions in Mainland China. Water Res. 2017, 122, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Han, M.; Niu, X.; Tang, M.; Zhang, B.T.; Wang, G.; Yue, W.; Kong, X.; Zhu, J. Distribution of microplastics in surface water of the lower Yellow River near estuary. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, 135601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Akarsu, C.; Kumbur, H.; Gökdağ, K.; Kıdeyş, A.E.; Sanchez-Vidal, A. Microplastics composition and load from three wastewater treatment plants discharging into Mersin Bay, north eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Severini, M.D.F.; Villagran, D.M.; Buzzi, N.S.; Sartor, G.C. Microplastics in oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and water at the Bahía Blanca Estuary (Southwestern Atlantic): An emerging issue of global concern. Reg. Studies Mar. Sci. 2019, 32, 100829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nan, B.; Su, L.; Kellar, C.; Craig, N.J.; Keough, M.J.; Pettigrove, V. Identification of microplastics in surface water and Australian freshwater shrimp Paratya australiensis in Victoria, Australia. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 259, 113865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, J.; Liang, J.; Ding, J.; Zhang, G.; Zeng, X.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, B.; Gao, W. Microfiber pollution: An ongoing major environmental issue related to the sustainable development of textile and clothing industry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 11240–11256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Measuring Cotton Consumption: Better Cotton Conversion Factors and Multipliers. Better Cotton Initiative: Geneva, Switzerland. 2022. 23p. Available online: https://ls.bettercotton.org/measuring-cotton-consumption/ (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  22. Johnson, J.; MacDonald, S.; Meyer, L.; Soley, G. The World and United States Cotton Outlook. 2021; pp. 1–21. Available online: https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/agsusao21/320767.htm (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  23. Sadeghi, P.; Sadeghi, B.; Marfavi, Y.; Kowsari, E.; Ramakrishna, S.; Chinnappan, A. Addressing the challenge of microfiber plastics as the marine pollution crisis using circular economy methods: A review. Mater. Circ. Econ. 2021, 3, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mishra, S.; Rout, P.K.; Das, A.P. Emerging microfiber pollution and its remediation. Environ. Pollut. Remediat. 2021, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Samal, K.; Trivedi, S. A statistical and kinetic approach to develop an Ecological Floating Bed for the treatment of wastewater. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mishra, S.; Singh, R.P.; Rath, C.C.; Das, A.P. Synthetic microfibers: Source, transport and their remediation. J. Wat. Proces. Eng. 2020, 38, 101612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jemec, A.; Horvat, P.; Kunej, U.; Bele, M.; Krzan, A. Uptake and effects of microplastic textile fibers on freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 219, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Hu, L.; Chernick, M.; Lewis, A.M.; Ferguson, P.L.; Hinton, D.E. Chronic microfiber exposure in adult japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mishra, S.; charan Rath, C.; Das, A.P. Marine microfiber pollution: A review on present status and future challenges. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Liu, J.; Liu, Q.; An, L.; Wang, M.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, B.; Ding, J.; Ye, C.; Xu, Y. Microfiber pollution in the earth system. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2022, 260, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Athey, S.N.; Erdle, L.M. Are we underestimating anthropogenic microfiber pollution? A critical review of occurrence, methods, and reporting. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2022, 41, 822–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Samal, K.; Moulick, S.; Mohapatra, B.G.; Samanta, S.; Sasidharan, S.; Prakash, B.; Sarangi, S. Design of faecal sludge treatment plant (FSTP) and availability of its treatment technologies. Energy Nexus 2022, 7, 100091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, L.; Su, L.; Cai, H.; Rochman, C.M.; Li, Q.; Kolandhasamy, P.; Peng, J.; Shi, H. The uptake of microfibers by freshwater asian clams (Corbicula fluminea) varies based upon physicochemical properties. Chemosphere 2019, 221, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kokalj, A.J.; Kunej, U.; Skalar, T. Screening study of four environmentally relevant microplastic pollutants: Uptake and effects on Daphnia magna and Artemia franciscana. Chemosphere 2018, 208, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mohsen, M.; Zhang, L.; Sun, L.; Lin, C.; Wang, Q.; Yang, H. Microplastic fibers transfer from the water to the internal fluid of the sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 257, 113606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Woods, M.N.; Hong, T.J.; Baughman, D.; Andrews, G.; Fields, D.M.; Matrai, P.A. Accumulation and effects of microplastic fibers in american lobster larvae (Homarus americanus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 157, 111280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leads, R.R.; Burnett, K.G.; Weinstein, J.E. The effect of microplastic ingestion on survival of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio (Holthuis, 1949) challenged with Vibrio campbellii. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2019, 38, 2233–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hankins, C.; Duffy, A.; Drisco, K. Scleractinian coral microplastic ingestion: Potential calcification effects, size limits, and retention. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qiao, R.; Deng, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wolosker, M.B.; Zhu, Q.; Ren, H.; Zhang, Y. Accumulation of different shapes of microplastics initiates intestinal injury and gut microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of zebrafish. Chemosphere 2019, 236, 124334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Horn, D.A.; Granek, E.F.; Steele, C.L. Effects of environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic fibers on Pacific mole crab (Emerita analoga) mortality and reproduction. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2020, 5, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Welden, N.A.C.; Cowie, P.R. Long-term microplastic retention causes reduced body condition in the langoustine, Nephrops norvegicus. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 895–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Coppock, R.L.; Galloway, T.S.; Cole, M.; Fileman, E.S.; Queirós, A.M.; Lindeque, P.K. Microplastics alter feeding selectivity and faecal density in the copepod, Calanus helgolandicus. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 780–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kolandhasamy, P.; Su, L.; Li, J.; Qu, X.; Jabeen, K.; Shi, H. Adherence of microplastics to soft tissue of mussels: A novel way to uptake microplastics beyond ingestion. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610, 635–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Straub, S.; Hirsch, P.E.; Burkhardt-Holm, P. Biodegradable and petroleum-based microplastics do not differ in their ingestion and excretion but in their biological effects in the freshwater invertebrate Gammarus fossarum. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Samal, K.; Dash, R.R. Modelling of pollutants removal in Integrated Vermifilter (IVmF) using response surface methodology. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 2, 100060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Behera, S.; Samal, K. Sustainable approach to manage solid waste through biochar assisted composting. Energy Nexus. 2022, 7, 100121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Boots, B.; Russell, C.W.; Green, D.S. Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems: Above and below ground. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 11496–11506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Selonen, S.; Dolar, A.; Jemec Kokalj, A.; Skalar, T.; Parramon Dolcet, L.; Hurley, R.; van Gestel, C.A.M. Exploring the impacts of plastics in soil—the effects of polyester textile fibers on soil invertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 700, 134451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kim, S.W.; Waldman, W.R.; Kim, T.-Y.; Rillig, M.C. Effects of different microplastics on nematodes in the soil environment: Tracking the extractable additives using an ecotoxicological approach. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 13868–13878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Prendergast-Miller, M.T.; Katsiamides, A.; Abbass, M.; Sturzenbaum, S.R.; Thorpe, K.L.; Hodson, M.E. Polyester-derived microfibre impacts on the soil-dwelling earthworm lumbricus terrestris. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 251, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Song, Y.; Cao, C.; Qiu, R.; Hu, J.; Liu, M.; Lu, S.; Shi, H.; Raley-Susman, K.M.; He, D. Uptake and adverse effects of polyethylene terephthalate microplastics fibers on terrestrial snails (Achatina fulica) after soil exposure. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 250, 447–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kwak, J.I.; Liu, H.; Wang, D.; Lee, Y.H.; Lee, J.S.; Joo, Y.-A. Critical review of environmental impacts of microfibers in different environmental matrices. Compar. Biochem. Physiol. Part C 2022, 251, 109196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Joos, L.; De Tender, C. Soil under stress: The importance of soil life and how it is influenced by (micro) plastic pollution. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2022, 20, 1554–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. de Souza Machado, A.A.; Lau, C.W.; Kloas, W.; Bergmann, J.; Bachelier, J.B.; Faltin, E.; Becker, R.; Görlich, A.S.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 6044–6052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Roy, P.; Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M. Microplastics in ecosystems: Their implications and mitigation pathways. Environ. Sci. Adv. 2022, 1, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Evangeliou, N.; Grythe, H.; Klimont, Z.; Heyes, C.; Eckhardt, S.; Lopez-Aparicio, S.; Stohl, A. Atmospheric transport is a major pathway of microplastics to remote regions. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Liu, J.; Zhu, B.; An, L.; Ding, J.; Xu, Y. Atmospheric microfibers dominated by natural and regenerated cellulosic fibers: Explanations from the textile engineering perspective. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 317, 120771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Peller, J.R.; Eberhardt, L.; Clark, R.; Nelson, C.; Kostelnik, E.; Iceman, C. Tracking the distribution of microfiber pollution in a southern Lake Michigan watershed through the analysis of water, sediment and air. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2019, 21, 1549–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Leslie, H.A.; Brandsma, S.H.; Van Velzen, M.J.M.; Vethaak, A.D. Microplastics en route: Field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 2017, 101, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Dris, R.; Gasperi, J.; Rocher, V.; Saad, M.; Renault, N.; Tassin, B. Microplastic contamination in an urban area: A case study in Greater Paris. Environ. Chem. 2015, 12, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fortin, S.; Song, B.; Burbage, C. Quantifying and identifying microplastics in the effluent of advanced wastewater treatment systems using Raman microspectroscopy. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hartline, N.L.; Bruce, N.J.; Karba, S.N.; Ruff, E.O.; Sonar, S.U.; Holden, P.A. Microfiber masses recovered from conventional machine washing of new or aged garments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 11532–11538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Uddin, S.; Fowler, S.W.; Behbehani, M. An assessment of microplastic inputs into the aquatic environment from wastewater streams. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 160, 111538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Henry, B.; Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G. Microfibres from apparel and home textiles: Prospects for including microplastics in environmental sustainability assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ouarda, Y.; Tiwari, B.; Azaïs, A.; Vaudreuil, M.A.; Ndiaye, S.D.; Drogui, P.; Tyagi, R.D.; Sauvé, S.; Desrosiers, M.; Buelna, G.; et al. Synthetic hospital wastewater treatment by coupling submerged membrane bioreactor and electrochemical advanced oxidation process: Kinetic study and toxicity assessment. Chemosphere 2018, 193, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kiendrebeogo, M.; Estahbanati, M.K.; Mostafazadeh, A.K.; Drogui, P.; Tyagi, R.D. Treatment of microplastics in water by anodic oxidation: A case study for polystyrene. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 269, 116168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Xu, J.L.; Thomas, K.V.; Luo, Z.; Gowen, A.A. FTIR and Raman imaging for microplastics analysis: State of the art, challenges and prospects. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 119, 115629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Araujo, C.F.; Nolasco, M.M.; Ribeiro, A.M.; Ribeiro-Claro, P.J. Identification of microplastics using Raman spectroscopy: Latest developments and future prospects. Water Res. 2018, 142, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Demir-Yilmaz, I.; Yakovenko, N.; Roux, C.; Guiraud, P.; Collin, F.; Coudret, C.; ter Halle, A.; Formosa-Dague, C. The role of microplastics in microalgae cells aggregation: A study at the molecular scale using atomic force microscopy. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 832, 155036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Yu, J.; Wang, P.; Ni, F.; Cizdziel, J.; Wu, D.; Zhao, Q.; Zhou, Y. Characterization of microplastics in environment by thermal gravimetric analysis coupled with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 145, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lou, F.; Wang, J.; Sun, C.; Song, J.; Wang, W.; Pan, Y.; Huang, Q.; Yan, J. Influence of interaction on accuracy of quantification of mixed microplastics using Py-GC/MS. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Asamoah, B.O.; Kanyathare, B.; Roussey, M.; Peiponen, K.E. A prototype of a portable optical sensor for the detection of transparent and translucent microplastics in freshwater. Chemosphere 2019, 231, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yu, S.; Dai, J.; Liao, R.; Chen, L.; Zhong, W.; Wang, H.; Jiang, Y.; Li, J.; Ma, H. Probing the nanoplastics adsorbed by microalgae in water using polarized light scattering. Optik 2021, 231, 166407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Perren, W.; Wojtasik, A.; Cai, Q. Removal of microbeads from wastewater using electrocoagulation. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 3357–3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ma, B.; Xue, W.; Hu, C.; Liu, H.; Qu, J.; Li, L. Characteristics of microplastic removal via coagulation and ultrafiltration during drinking water treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 359, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Carr, S.A.; Liu, J.; Tesoro, A.G. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 2016, 91, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Wang, Z.; Lin, T.; Chen, W. Occurrence and removal of microplastics in an advanced drinking water treatment plant (ADWTP). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 700, 134520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Sundbæk, K.B.; Koch, I.D.W.; Villaro, C.G.; Rasmussen, N.S.; Holdt, S.L.; Holdt, S.L.; Hartmann, N.B. Sorption of fluorescent polystyrene microplastic particles to edible seaweed Fucus vesiculosus. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 2923–2927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lares, M.; Ncibi, M.C.; Sillanpää, M.; Sillanpää, M. Occurrence, identification and removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process and advanced MBR technology. Water Res. 2018, 133, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Taniguchi, I.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly (ethylene terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Cunha, C.; Silva, L.; Paulo, J.; Faria, M.; Nogueira, N.; Cordeiro, N. Microalgal-based biopolymer for nano-and microplastic removal: A possible biosolution for wastewater treatment. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pramanik, B.K.; Pramanik, S.K.; Monira, S. Understanding the fragmentation of microplastics into nano-plastics and removal of nano/microplastics from wastewater using membrane, air flotation and nano-ferrofluid processes. Chemosphere 2021, 282, 131053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, P.; Qian, L.; Wang, H.; Zhan, X.; Lu, K.; Gu, C.; Gao, S. New insights into the aging behavior of microplastics accelerated by advanced oxidation processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 3579–3588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lam, S.M.; Sin, J.C.; Zeng, H.; Lin, H.; Li, H.; Chai, Y.Y.; Choong, M.K.; Mohamed, A.R. Green synthesis of Fe-ZnO nanoparticles with improved sunlight photocatalytic performance for polyethylene film deterioration and bacterial inactivation. Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. 2021, 123, 105574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Grbic, J.; Nguyen, B.; Guo, E.; You, J.B.; Sinton, D.; Rochman, C.M. Magnetic extraction of microplastics from environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 62, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Su, Y.; Wu, D.; Zhao, Y.; Xie, B. Removal of microplastics from aqueous solutions by magnetic carbon nanotubes. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 406, 126804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, J.; Cahyadi, A.; Wu, B.; Pee, W.; Fane, A.G.; Chew, J.W. The roles of particles in enhancing membrane filtration: A review. J. Membr. Sci. 2020, 595, 117570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Talvitie, J.; Mikola, A.; Koistinen, A.; Setälä, O. Solutions to microplastic pollution—Removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res. 2017, 123, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Moussa, D.T.; El-Naas, M.H.; Nasser, M.; Al-Marri, M.J. A comprehensive review of electrocoagulation for water treatment: Potentials and challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 186, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Garcia-Segura, S.; Eiband, M.M.S.; de Melo, J.V.; Martínez-Huitle, C.A. Electrocoagulation and advanced electrocoagulation processes: A general review about the fundamentals, emerging applications and its association with other technologies. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2017, 801, 267–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sotiropoulou, M.; Stefanatou, A.; Schiza, S.; Petousi, I.; Stasinakis, A.S.; Fountoulakis, M.S. Removal of microfiber in vertical flow constructed wetlands treating greywater. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 159723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Long, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Xiao, R.; Du, L.; Zhu, L.; Liu, R.; Xu, Q.; Li, H.; et al. Microplastics removal and characteristics of constructed wetlands WWTPs in rural area of Changsha, China: A different situation from urban WWTPs. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 811, 152352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhou, J.; Wen, Y.; Marshall, M.R.; Zhao, J.; Gui, H.; Yang, Y.; Zeng, Z.; Jones, D.L.; Zang, H. Microplastics as an emerging threat to plant and soil health in agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Guo, Q.Q.; Xiao, M.R.; Zhang, G.S. The persistent impacts of polyester microfibers on soil bio-physical properties following thermal treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 420, 126671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sharma, U.; Sharma, S.; Rana, V.S.; Rana, N.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, S.; Qadri, H.; Kumar, V.; Bhat, S.A. Assessment of microplastics pollution on soil health and eco-toxicological risk in horticulture. Soil. Syst. 2023, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mahmud, A.; Wasif, M.M.; Roy, H.; Mehnaz, F.; Ahmed, T.; Pervez, M.N.; Naddeo, V.; Islam, M.S. Aquatic microplastic pollution control strategies: Sustainable degradation techniques, resource recovery, and recommendations for Bangladesh. Water 2022, 14, 3968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mondal, I.; Ghosh, D.; Biswas, P.K. Cost-effective remedial to microfiber pollution from wash effluent in Kolkata and Ranaghat. Chemosphere 2023, 313, 137548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Weis, J.S.; De Falco, F. Microfibers: Environmental problems and textile solutions. Microplastics 2022, 1, 626–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ramasamy, R.; Subramanian, R.B. Synthetic textile and microfiber pollution: A review on mitigation strategies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 41596–41611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Erdle, L.M.; Nouri Parto, D.; Sweetnam, D.; Rochman, C.M. Washing machine filters reduce microfiber emissions: Evidence from a community-scale pilot in Parry Sound, Ontario. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 777865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Munhoz, D.R.; Harkes, P.; Beriot, N.; Larreta, J.; Basurko, O.C. Microplastics: A review of policies and responses. Microplastics 2022, 2, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Garcia-Vazquez, E.; Garcia-Ael, C. The invisible enemy. Public knowledge of microplastics is needed to face the current microplastics crisis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1076–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wojciechowska, P. Fibres and textiles in the circular economy. In Fundamentals of Natural Fibres and Textiles; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2021; Volume 1611, pp. 691–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Acharya, S.; Rumi, S.S.; Hu, Y.; Abidi, N. Microfibers from synthetic textiles as a major source of microplastics in the environment: A review. Text. Res. J. 2021, 91, 2136–2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 16 02238 g001
Figure 1. An indicative scheme of microfibers’ sources.
Figure 1. An indicative scheme of microfibers’ sources.
Water 16 02238 g001
Water 16 02238 g002
Figure 2. Timeframe for degradation of various plastic products (https://scdhec.gov (accessed on 22 July 2024)).
Figure 2. Timeframe for degradation of various plastic products (https://scdhec.gov (accessed on 22 July 2024)).
Water 16 02238 g002
Water 16 02238 g003
Figure 3. Schematic of the sources, generation, transportation, and accumulation of microplastics [55].
Figure 3. Schematic of the sources, generation, transportation, and accumulation of microplastics [55].
Water 16 02238 g003
Water 16 02238 g004
Figure 4. Health impacts of microfibers in humans.
Figure 4. Health impacts of microfibers in humans.
Water 16 02238 g004
Table 1. Sources and properties of different microfibers (indicative).
Table 1. Sources and properties of different microfibers (indicative).
DestinationMicrofiber TypesSize Range (μm)ShapeReferences
Tubifex wormsPET and acrylic microfibers55–4100Fibrous[4]
SedimentPP<400Spherical[6]
FishPE, PP, and cellulose1000–5000Fibrous[7]
Body scrubsPE, WS, PAA, MC, silica, and pumice12.3–273.4Irregular, spherical, granular [12]
ToothpastePE and CaCO3 <20Irregular[13]
Surface waterPP, PS, PVC, PET, and polyamide100–5000Fibrous[14]
Facial scrubsPE or LDPE, wax, Luwax, and PVC85–186Irregular, granular, spherical[15]
Surface waterPE, PP, and PS200Fibrous[16]
Wastewater treatment plantPE, PP, acrylic, PS, and cellulose acetate≤2500Fibrous[17]
Oyster-240–1000Spherical[18]
Shrimp P. australiensisPolyamide, rayon, PP, and PE-Fibrous[19]
Table 2. Effect of microfibers (MFs) on aquatic organisms.
Table 2. Effect of microfibers (MFs) on aquatic organisms.
MicrofibersOrganismExposure TimeConcentrationEcotoxicological EffectsReferences
PETDaphnia magna48 h12–100 mg/LMortality rate increased[27]
PESOryzias latipes21 days10,000 MFs/LEmbryo production increased[28]
PETCorbicula fluminea48 h100, 1000 MFs/LPolyester fibers were taken up in the small size range[33]
PETDaphnia magna48 h100 mg/L No acute effect on test organism[34]
PolyesterApostichopus japonicus72 h25, 40 MFs/mLCoelomic fluid accumulation, lysozyme toxicity[35]
PETHomarus gammarus5 days1, 10, 25 MFs/mLSurvival rate decreased at 25 MFs/mL[36]
PESPalaemon pugio96 h45,000 MFs/L No significant mortality rate[37]
PETMontastraea cavernosa48 h30 mg/LMFs did not elicit a feeding response[38]
PPDanio rerio24 h20 mg/LIntestine damaged by ingestion of microfibers[39]
PPEmerita analoga71 days3 MFs/LRetention of egg clutches, embryonic development increased[40]
PPNephrops norvegicus8 months5 MFs/per
feeding		Reductions in blood protein and lipids, body mass reduced[41]
Fibers, PETCalanus helgolandicus24 h100 MFs/mLFeeding reduction[42]
FibersMytilus edulis48 h2000 MFs/mLMicrofibers taken up in multiple organs [43]
Fibers; PAGammarus fossarum24 h10–100,000 microbeads/
individual 		Reduction in assimilation and wet weight gain[44]
Table 3. Effects of microfibers on terrestrial organisms (indicative information).
Table 3. Effects of microfibers on terrestrial organisms (indicative information).
MicrofibersOrganismExposure TimeConcentrationEcotoxicological EffectsReferences
PolyacrylicMucor fragilis,
Fusarium sp.		42 days0.4%Water-stable aggregates were decreased with four specific strains[8]
Acrylic and nylon mixtureAcrasis rosea,
Lolium perenne		30 days10 mg/kg
(0.001%)		No negative impact on plant and earthworm biomass or worm mortality; germination rate decreased and chlorophyll a/b ratio altered[47]
PES blanketEnchytraeus crypticus3 weeks 0.02, 0.06, 0.17, 0.5,
1.5% (various)		Soil exposure to long fibers significantly affected reproduction[48]
Polyacrylic nitrileCaenorhabditis elegans24 h0.001, 0.01, 0.1%Toxicity of MFs on the organism increased after long-term wet–dry cycles in soil[49]
PE cushionLumbricus terrestris35 days0.1, 1%No mortality and no bioaccumulation, but alteration of mt and hsp70[50]
PETAchatina fulica28 days0.014, 0.14, 0.71 g/kgNo mortality and no growth inhibition[51]
Table 4. Techniques for identification and detection of microplastics.
Table 4. Techniques for identification and detection of microplastics.
Identification MethodsBenefitsLimitationsReferences
FTIR
  • Detection of small plastic particles (less than 20 µm) with µ-FTIR
  • Non-destructive analysis of materials
  • Short analysis time
  • Poor spatial resolution
  • Not suitable for wet samples
  • Difficult to detect MPs with irregular shape
[67]
Raman spectroscopy
  • Analysis of samples in solutions, gases, films, surfaces, solids, and single crystals is possible
  • Detection of small MPs (1 µm) and NPs (<1 µm)
  • Non-destructive analysis of materials
  • Requires extensive organic purification of the sample
  • Possible fragments released by adhesive polymers
  • Time-consuming and expensive
[68]
Atomic force microscopy
  • Three-dimensional images of the surface structure of the polymers
  • No radiation damage to the sample
  • Damage caused by the interaction of the tip with the sample
  • No prevention against outside factors like contaminations
[69]
Thermal analysis
  • Characterization of low-solubility MPs and additives
  • Destructive technique and complex data
[70]
Py-GC-MS
  • Polymer and mass of MPs are determined
  • Additives and heavy metals adsorbed to MPs can be reported
  • Rapid detection
  • Not applicable for high-concentration samples
  • Sample destruction
  • Data on the shape, size, and color of MPs are not available
  • Limit of detection > 50 μm
[71]
Optical sensing
  • Simple
  • Portable
  • Sensor-based detection
  • Time-consuming
  • Labor-intensive
[72]
Polarized light
scattering
  • MPs’ size and concentration can be determined
  • Requires sophisticated equipment
  • Inefficiency
[73]
Table 5. Treatment technologies for removal of microplastics.
Table 5. Treatment technologies for removal of microplastics.
MethodsMP Particle RemovedEfficiency (%)AdvantagesChallengesReferences
Electrocoagulation-90 (pH 3–10)
99.24 (pH 7.5)		Does not rely on chemicals or microorganisms,
energy-efficient		Operation time needs to be reduced[74]
Al and Fe salt<0.5 mm45.34Simple process, does not require additional set-upLow efficiency[75]
Wastewater treatment
plant 		100 μm 99Conventional process, no additional costNot possible to remove MPs of size < 100 μm[76]
Filtration with
granular activated carbon		1–5 μm 56.8–60.9 Efficient to remove plastic particles in the nanoscale size rangeFrequent clogging, more regeneration time[77]
Algal masses20 μm 94.5 No chemical, electrical, or mechanical
operations		Efficiency will vary owing to physiological and environmental conditions[78]
Membrane
bioreactor (MBR)		250 μm 99.3MBR process helped to retain moremicroplastics compared to the conventional activated sludge processNot possible to remove MPs of size < 250 μm[79]
Bioremediation
(Ideonellasakaiensis 201-F6)		PET-PET could be degraded within 6 weeks Identification of other microorganisms of the same type that could be more effective for these bioremediation processes is required[80]
Bioremediation
(EPS by Cyanothece sp.)		<300 μm-Hetero-aggregation capability at 1 and 10 mg/L of both nanoplastics and microplastics-[81]
Air flotation and nano-ferrofluid processesPE 75 μm, PVC 150 μm,
PES 300 μm		PE 85%,
PVC 82%,
PES 69% 		-Nanofluid particles were ineffective to remove NPs/MPs[82]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Samal, K.; Samal, S.R.; Mishra, S.; Nayak, J.K. Sources, Transport, and Accumulation of Synthetic Microfiber Wastes in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments. Water 2024, 16, 2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162238

AMA Style

Samal K, Samal SR, Mishra S, Nayak JK. Sources, Transport, and Accumulation of Synthetic Microfiber Wastes in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments. Water. 2024; 16(16):2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162238

Chicago/Turabian Style

Samal, Kundan, Satya Ranjan Samal, Saurabh Mishra, and Jagdeep Kumar Nayak. 2024. "Sources, Transport, and Accumulation of Synthetic Microfiber Wastes in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments" Water 16, no. 16: 2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162238

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop