↓ Skip to main content

Wastewater treatment plant effluent as a source of microplastics: review of the fate, chemical interactions and potential risks to aquatic organisms

Overview of attention for article published in Water Science & Technology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
232 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
486 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Wastewater treatment plant effluent as a source of microplastics: review of the fate, chemical interactions and potential risks to aquatic organisms
Published in
Water Science & Technology, September 2016
DOI 10.2166/wst.2016.414
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shima Ziajahromi, Peta A. Neale, Frederic D. L. Leusch

Abstract

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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 486 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 484 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 18%
Student > Master 84 17%
Student > Bachelor 55 11%
Researcher 43 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 3%
Other 50 10%
Unknown 151 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 132 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 9%
Engineering 37 8%
Chemistry 34 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 3%
Other 46 9%
Unknown 180 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,291,294
of 24,727,020 outputs
Outputs from Water Science & Technology
#63
of 3,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,670
of 344,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Science & Technology
#1
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,727,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,221 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.