Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Micropollutants in Wastewater: Fate and Removal Processes

Written By

Sreejon Das, Nillohit Mitra Ray, Jing Wan, Adnan Khan, Tulip Chakraborty and Madhumita B. Ray

Submitted: 11 April 2016 Reviewed: 06 September 2016 Published: 03 May 2017

DOI: 10.5772/65644

Chapter metrics overview

3,599 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The occurrence of micropollutants (MPs) in various streams of municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and their fate and removal processes are discussed. The fate of MPs in WWTPs largely depends on adsorption on suspended particulates, primary and secondary sludge and dissolved organic carbon, and removal occurs due to coagulation-flocculation, and biodegradation. The log Kow (>2.5) and pKa are the dominant properties of the MPs, and the concentration, organic fraction, and surface charge of suspended particulates dictate the extent of adsorption of MPs. Most of the conventional WWTPs do not remove complex MPs by biodegradation or biotransformation effectively (kbio ≤0.0042 L/gss/h), and the removal varies widely for different compounds, as well as for the same substance, due to operational conditions such as aerobic, anaerobic, anoxic, sludge retention time (SRT), pH, redox potential, and temperature. Membrane bioreactor performs better for moderately biodegradable compounds due to the diverse nature of microorganisms as well as greater adaptability due to longer SRT. Ozone and UV-based advanced oxidation processes, membrane filtration can be used for tertiary treatment due to their high rate as well as easy implementation. Various partition coefficients and rate constants values for different MPs are also provided for design and application.


  • micropollutants
  • wastewater
  • fate and removal
  • adsorption
  • coagulation
  • biodegradation
  • membrane filtration
  • advanced oxidation processes

1. Introduction

The widespread presence of micropollutants (MPs) in aquatic systems is a major concern all across the globe. For example, about 143,000 compounds were registered in European market in 2012; many of which would end up in water systems at some point of their lifecycle. Most of them are not eliminated or biotransformed in traditional wastewater treatment plants, can be persistent in aquatic system or form new chemical species reacting with background humic substances in sunlight, can be bioactive, and can bioaccumulate [15]. Although they are present in almost undetectable (low to subparts per billion (ppb)) concentrations, their existence in aquatic systems has been connected to various detrimental effects in organisms such as estrogenicity, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity [6].

While no compound-specific regulation exists anywhere for the removal of MPs in wastewater plants, some regulations are there for the presence in water for compounds such as pesticides, lindane, nonylphenol, and synthetic hormones [7]. The MPs fall into several categories as pharmaceuticals, personal care products (PPCPs), household chemicals, and industrial agents. A comprehensive list of 242 chemicals is provided in EU FP7 Project [8] of which about 70% are pharmaceuticals and personal care products and 30% are industrial agents including perfluoro compounds, pesticides, herbicides, and food additives. Since a significant majority of the MPs in municipal wastewater belong to the class of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP), fate and removal processes of these compounds are discussed in detail in this chapter.


2. Commonly found PPCP in wastewater effluent and surface water

About 70% of the pharmaceuticals in the wastewater originates from household, 20% comes from livestock farming, 5% is from hospital effluent, and rest 5% comes in runoff from nonparticular sources [9]; however, seasonal and geographical variations typically occur. The fate of MPs in wastewater plant depends on the physical properties such as solubility, octanol-water partition coefficient, and Henry’s constant. A list of commonly found pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and biocides and their concentration in wastewater effluent and surface water and physical properties are presented in Table 1. The solubility of MPs varies in a wide range of 0.15 mg/L (maprotiline, C10 H23 N, an antidepressant drug) to 588,000 mg/L (acesulfame, C4H4KNO4S, and artificial sweetener), which is also in accordance with their concentration in the effluent.

Type MP Application Average concentration (ng/L) [10, 11] Solubilityt1 (mg/mL) log Kowt1 pKat1 Henry’s constant (atm-m3/mole)t1
Surface water WWTP effluent
Disinfectants, pharmaceuticals (prescriptions, over-the-counter drugs, veterinary drugs)
Atenolol β-blocker 205 843 0.3 0.16 9.6 1.37 × E-18
Azithromycin Antibiotic 12 175 <1 at 25°C 4.02 8.74 5.30 × E-29
Bezafibrate Lipid-lowering drug 24 139 0.00155 3.97 3.83
Carbamazepine Anticonvulsant 13 482 0.152 2.1 15.96 1.08 × 10−10
Carbamazepin-10, 11–dihydro-10, 11-dihydroxy Transformation product 490 1551
Clarithromycin Antibiotic 30 276 0.00033 3.16 8.99 at 25°C 1.73 × E-29
Diatrizoate (amidotrizoic acid) Contrast medium 206 598 0.107 2.89 2.17
Diclofenac Analgesic 65 647 0.00447 4.98 4 4.73 × E-12
Erythromycin Antibiotic 25 42 0.459 2.37 12.44 1.46 × E-29
Ethinylestradiol Synthetic estrogen 5 2 0.00677 3.63 10.33 7.94 × E-12
Ibuprofen Analgesic 35 394 0.0684 3.5 4.85 1.50 × E-07
Iomeprol Contrast medium 275 380
Iopamidol Contrast medium 92 377 0.117 1.62 4.15 1.14 × E-25
Iopromide Contrast medium 96 876 0.0238 −2.05 1.00 × E-28
Mefenamic acids Analgesic 7 870 0.0137 4.58 3.89 2.57 × E-11
Metformin Antidiabetic 713 10347 1.38 −1.8 12.4
Metoprolol β-blocker 20 166 0.402 1.88 14.09 1.40 × E-13
Naproxen Analgesic 37 462 0.0511 3.29 4.19 3.39 × E-10
Sotalol β-blocker 63 435 0.782 0.85 10.07 2.49 × E-14
Sulfamethoxazole Antibiotic 26 238 0.459 0.79 6.16 6.42 × E-13
Transformation product 3 67
Trimethoprim Antibiotic 13 100 0.615 1.26 17.33 2.39 × E-14
Penicillin V Personal care product 28.7 0.454 1.78 3.39 4.42 × E-15
Disinfectants, pharmaceuticals (prescriptions, over-the-counter drugs, veterinary drugs)
Irbesartan Antihypertensives 479.5 0.00884 4.51 7.4
Tramadol Analgesics 255.8 0.75 2.71 13.8 1.54 × E-11
Risperidone Neuroleptics 6.9 0.171 3.27 8.76
Trihexyphenidyl Antidementia agents 0.2 0.00314 4.93 13.84 4.73 × E-10
Venlafaxine Antidepressant 118.9 0.23 2.69 14.42
Codeine Morphine derivates  70.6 0.577 1.2 13.78 7.58 × E-14
Fluconazole Antifungal medication 108.2 1.39 0.58 12.71
Diphenhydramine Antihistamine 11.7 0.0752 3.44 8.98 3.70 × E-09
Repaglinide Antidiabetic medications 3.1 0.00294 5.05 3.68
Flecainide Antiarrhythmic agents 45.5 0.0324 2.98 13.68 5.75 × E-13
Bisoprolol β-blockers 41.6 0.0707 2.3 14.09 2.89 × E-15
Alfuzosin Alpha-blockers 2.8 0.282 2.02 14.64
Bupropion Antidepressant 1.0 312 3.6 18.29
Ciprofloxacin Antibiotics 96.3 1.35 0.28 6.09 5.09 × E-19
Oxazepam Anxiolytics 161.7 0.0881 2.24 10.61 5.53 × E-10
Carbamazepine Antiepileptic drugs 832.3 0.152 2.45 15.96 1.08 × E-10
Diclofenac Analgesics 65 647 0.00447 4.98 4 4.73 × E-12
Orphenadrine Antihistamine 3.9 0.03 3.77 8.91 4.08 × E-09
Sulfamethoxazole (VITO) Antibiotics 280.2 0.459 0.89 6.16
Haloperidol Psychiatric medication 32.2 0.00446 4.30 8.66 2.26 × E-14
Citalopram Antidepressant 33.8
Sulfamethoxazole (JRC) Antibiotics 142.3 0.459 0.89 6.16
Fexofenadine Antihistamine 165.0 0.00266 5.6 4.04
Diltiazem Antiarrhythmic agents 10.7 0.0168 3.09 12.86 8.61 × E-17
Fluoxetine Antidepressant 2.1 0.0017 4.05 9.8 8.90 × E-08
Terbutaline Antiasthmatics 1.1 5.84 0.90 8.86 1.65 × E-18
Clindamycin Antibiotics 70.4 3.1 2.16 12.16 2.89 × E-22
Telmisartan Antihypertensives 367.5 0.0035 7.7 3.65
Eprosartan Antihypertensives 226.8 0.00866 3.9 3.63
Gemfibrozil Lipid-lowering drugs 137.7 0.0278 3.4 4.42
Zolpidem Hypnotics 1.5 0.0313 3.15 6.2
Hydroxyzine Antihistamine 1.1 0.0914 3.43 15.12
Ketoprofen Analgesics 86.0 0.0213 3.12 4.45 2.12 × E-11
Ranitidine Antihistamine 68 0.0795 0.27 8.08 3.42 × E-15
Triclosan Disinfectants 74.8 0.00605 5.53 7.9 4.99 × E-09
Levamisole Antihelminthics 40.6 1.44 1.84 6.98 4.03 × E-10
Lincomycin Antibiotics 31.2 29.3 0.56 12.37  3.00 × E-23
Rosuvastatin Statins 31.0 0.0886 1.47 4
Mianserin Antidepressant 1.5 0.232 3.52 6.92
Clofibric acid Lipid-lowering drugs 5.3 0.583 2.57 −4.9 2.19 × E-08
Iohexol Radiocontrast agents 158 0.796 −3.05 11.73 2.66 × E-29
Memantine Antidementia agents 22.8 0.0455 3.28 10.7 1.47 × E-05
Sertraline Antidepressant 2.1 0.000145 5.06 9.85
Tiamulin Antibiotics 3.3
Clonazepam Anticonvulsant 1.6 0.0106 2.41 11.89 7.02 × E-13
Alprazolam Antidepressant 1.3 0.0324 2.12 18.3 9.77 × E-12
Fenofibrate Lipid-lowering drugs 1.1 0.000707 4.86 −4.9
Sulfadiazine Antibiotics 3.5 0.601 −0.09 6.36 1.58 × E-10
Tilmicosin Antibiotics 3.1
Cyproheptadine Chemotherapeutic agents 3.9 0.0136 4.69 8.05 9.20 × E-09
Detergents, dishwashing
liquids, personal care
products (fragrances,
sunscreens), and
food products [11]
Methylbenzotriazole Personal care product 2900 0.366 2.720 8.55 4.13 × E-07
Gadolinium Personal care product 115.0
Loperamide Personal care product 29.3 0.00086 4.44 13.96
Buprenorphine Personal care product 3.9 0.0168 4.98 8.31 at 25°C 1.76 × E-17
Maprotiline Personal care product 0.4 0.00015 4.89 10.54
Duloxetine Personal care product 0.1 0.00296 4.72 9.7
Miconazole Personal care product 0.2 0.000763 5.86 6.77
Chlorpromazine Personal care product 0.1 0.00417 5.18 9.3 at 25°C 3.95 × E-11
Flutamide Personal care product 0.1 0.00566 3.35 13.17 3.73 × E-10
DEET, N, N’-diethyltoluamide Personal care product 678.1 0.912 2.80 2.08 × E-08
Caffeine Food additives 191.1 11.0 −0.07 10.4 at 40°C 1.90 × E-19
Acesulfame Food additive 4010 22500 588 −1.33 5.67
Sucralose Food additive 540 4600 22.7 −1.00 4.2
Pesticides [10] Diazinon Insecticide 15 173 0.04 3.81 2.6 1.13 × E-07
Diethyltoluamide (DEET) Insecticide 135 593 0.912 2.80 2.08 × E-08
Dimethoate Insecticide 22 25 0.78 1.05 × E-10
MCPA Insecticides 149.9 0.63 3.25 3.13 1.33 × E-09
Carbaryl Insecticide 1.6 0.11 2.36 10.4
Biocides [10] 2, 4-D Herbicide 67 13 0.012 2.81 2.73 1.59 × E-07
Carbendazim Fungicide 16 81 0.029 1.52 4.2 2.12 × E-11
Diuron Herbicide 54 201 0.042 2.68 5.04 × E-10
Glyphosate Herbicide 373 12 −3.40 0.8 4.08 × E-19
Irgarol (cybutryne) Herbicide 3 30
Isoproturon Herbicide 315 12 0.065 2.87 1.12 × E-10
MCPA Herbicide 40 25 0.63 3.25 3.13 1.33 × E-09
Mecoprop-p Herbicide 45 424 0.62 3.13 3.1 1.82 × E-08
Triclosan Microbiocide 20 116 0.010 4.76 7.9 4.99 × E-09
Terbutylazine Herbicide 90.6 0.0085 3.21 2 3.72 × E-08
Atrazine Herbicide 4.2 0.0347 2.61 1.7 2.36 × E-09
Terbutylazine-desethyl Herbicide 68.8
Isoproturon Herbicide 10.1 0.065 2.87 1.12 × E-10
Bentazone Herbicide 9.6 0.5 2.34 2.92 2.18 × E-09
Metolachlor Herbicide 12.4 0.53 3.13 9 × E-09
Dichlorprop Herbicide 9.6 0.35 3.43 3.1 8.68 × E-11
Simazine Herbicide 26.3 0.0062 2.18 1.62 9.42 × E-10
Atrazine-desethyl Herbicide 13.8 3.2 1.51 1.53 × E-09
Chlortoluron Herbicide 3.2 0.07 2.41
Hexazinone Herbicide 0.8 33 1.85 2.26 × E-12
Linuron Herbicide 40.1 0.075 3.20
2, 4, 5-T Herbicide 0.3 0.248 3.26 2.88 6.83 × E-09
Hormone active substances (effect on the hormone balance) [10] Bisphenol A (BPA) Additive 840 331 0.12 3.32 9.6 1 × E-11
Estradiol Natural estrogens 2 3 0.0213 4.01 10.33 3.64 × E-11
Estrone Natural estrogens 2 15 0.00394 3.13 10.33 3.8 × E-10
Nonylphenol Additive 441 267 0.00635 5.99 10.25 1.1 × E-06
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) Tenside 3.1 6.28 0.14

Table 1.

Commonly found MPs in municipal wastewater effluent and surface water.

Solubility, log Kow, pKa, and Henry’s law constant for selected micropollutants are found in, and

“–”: Data are not available in the literature.


3. Fate and removal processes of MPs in wastewater

The municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are designed to remove most of the suspended solids, dissolved organics, and nutrients from the wastewater. WWTPs employ primary, secondary, and occasional tertiary treatment processes to optimally treat the incoming wastewater. In primary treatment, coagulants such as alum, ferric chloride, and polymers and polymeric coagulant aids are used to remove colloidal and suspended particulates. In the process, organics attached with dissolved humic substances and particles can also be removed. In secondary treatment, dissolved organics are removed aerobically by a consortium of microorganisms in suspension. The thickened sludge from both primary and secondary clarifiers is digested anaerobically (biosolids) prior to disposal. In some places, tertiary treatment processes such as activated carbon adsorption, ozonation, or filtration are adopted for final treatment of effluent to remove trace concentration of the organics.

The fate processes for MPs in a typical WWTP include adsorption on suspended particulates, dissolved humic substances, primary and secondary sludge, while the removal processes include coagulation and sedimentation, biodegradation, adsorption, advanced oxidation, and membrane filtration as shown in Figure 1. Volatilization of the MPs during any of the treatment steps is negligible due to their very low Henry’s constant (<10−5 atm-m3/mol) as shown in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of fate and removal processes of a micropollutant in a typical WWTP.

3.1. Fate: adsorption of micropollutants

Adsorption on suspended solids in both primary and secondary treatment units is an important fate process for MPs in wastewater. Adsorption may occur due to the hydrophobic interactions between the aliphatic and aromatic groups of the compounds with the fat and lipid fractions in primary sludge and the lipophilic cell membrane of the microorganisms in secondary sludge, respectively. Electrostatic interactions also occur between the positively charged groups in the MPs and the negatively charged microorganisms in secondary sludge. Many acidic pharmaceuticals are negatively charged at neutral pH, and their sorption on sludge is negligible.

With a nonpolar core and polar moiety, the properties of pharmaceuticals and antibiotics vary widely, making it difficult to estimate their sorption on sludge. Kinney et al. [12] analyzed nine different biosolids produced by municipal wastewater treatment plants in seven different states in U.S. for 87 different MPs, and the measured concentrations of the contaminants in various sludge were in the range of 64–1811 mg/kg dry weight. Nineteen different pharmaceuticals were detected in these biosolids, representing a wide range of physicochemical properties, including compounds with low log Kow and high water solubility values. Adsorption of MPs on biosolids did not exhibit any particular trend, and no correlation was found between organic carbon-normalized MPs concentrations in biosolids with log Kow, suggesting that organic carbon content of the biosolids may not be the only factor controlling MPs adsorption. It is generally expected that compounds with low water solubilities and large log Kow values will more likely to be present in organic-rich biosolids compared to highly soluble organics; however, this study indicated significant presence of water soluble pharmaceuticals in all nine biosolids. The 25 MPs detected in all nine biosolids had water solubility ranging from 1.3 × 10−5 to 8.28 × 104 mg/L, and log Kow from 1.50 to 9.65 indicating complex nature of the process. Other factors, such as the quantity of organics entering the influent stream (which typically varies temporally and spatially), volume of influent, biosolids/water ratio, and sludge retention time (SRT), all affect the distribution of the MPs in different phases. Increasing sludge age had detrimental effect on the adsorption of lindane [13] on activated sludge, adsorption of pentachlorophenol reduced from 40 to 60% at sludge ages below 4 days to less than 10% at sludge ages above 25 days [14].

The concentrations of some of the commonly found MPs in sludge are summarized in Table 2.

MP Type/application Concentration (mg/kg) Source Reference
Triclosan Personal care
0.41–46 Sludge (primary, excess activated, anaerobically digested) Heidler & Halden [15], McAvoy et al. [16]
Triclocarban 4.7–63 Sludge (excess activated, anaerobically digested) Heidler & Halden [15],
Tonalide 0.4–2.9 Clara et al. [17]
Galaxolide 4.2–21
Cashmerane 0.022–0.26
Celestolide 0.023–0.061
Phantolide 0.010–0.014
Traesolide 0.29–1.75
Octocrylene 1.01–1.32 Kupper et al. [18]
Octyl-triazone 2.6–3.04
Octyl-methoxycinnamate 0.15–1.5
Pipemidic acid Antibiotic 0.04 –0.27 Sludge (primary, excess activated, dewatered) Jia et al. [19]
Fleroxacin 0.02–0.09
Ofloxacin 0.33–7.79
Enrofloxacin 0.02–0.07
Lomefloxacin 0.06–1
Sarafloxacin 0.39–0.13
Gatifloxacin 0.09–0.42
Sparfloxacin 0.01–0.04
Moxifloxacin 0.17–0.56
Norfloxacin 1.06–7.23 Sludge (primary, excess activated, anaerobically digested, dewatered) Jia et al. [19], Golet et al. [20]
Ciprofloxacin 0.22–3.1
Azithromycin 2.5–64 Sludge (excess activated, anaerobically digested) Gobel et al. [21]
Clarithromycin 0.7–67
Erythromycin 0.030–0.041 Sludge, Class A & B biosolids Kinney et al. [12], Ding et al. [22]
Roxythromycin 0.337–1.446 Anaerobically digested dewatered sludge Nieto et al. [23]
Sulfamethoxazole 0.019–68 Sludge (excess activated, anaerobically digested), biosolids Gobel et al. [21], Nieto et al. [23], Ding et al. [22]
Sulfapyridine 0.1–28 Sludge (excess activated, anaerobically digested) Gobel et al. [21]
Sulfamethazine 0.026–0.128 Anaerobically digested dewatered sludge, biosolids Nieto et al. [23], Ding et al. [22]
Sulfamerazine 0.112–0.669 Biosolids from sewage sludge Ding et al. [22]
Chlortetracycline 0.069 –0.346
Oxytetracycline 0.052–0.743
Demeclocycline 0.036–0.131
Tetracycline 0.282–1.914 McCellan & Halden [24], Ding et al. [22]
Doxycycline 0.225–0.966
Trimethoprim 0.017–41 Sludge (excess activated, anaerobically digested) Gobel et al. [21], Nieto et al. [23]
Clindamycin nd–0.006 Municipal sludge Subedi et al. [25]
Lincomycin 0.006–0.174 Municipal sludge, biosolids Ding et al. [22], Subedi et al. [25]
Tiamulin nd–0.7 Agricultural Field soil Schlusener et al. [26]
Tylosin 1.074–1.958 Anaerobically digested dewatered sludge Nieto et al. [23]
Acetaminophen Analgesic 0.013–0.419
Carbamezipine 0.011–0.042
Diclofenac nd–0.087
Ibuprofen 0.024–0.144
Naproxen nd–0.057
Ketoprofen 0.030 –0.336 Activated sludge Radjenovic et al. [27, 28]
Codeine nd–0.022 Sludge, class A biosolids Kinney et al. [12]
Metoprolol β-blocker nd–0.021 Anaerobically digested dewatered sludge Nieto et al.[23]
Propranolol 0.026–0.044 Radjenovic et al. [28]
Atenolol 0.007–0.084 Sewage sludge Radjenovic et al. [28]
Caffeine Psychoactive drug 0.050–0.074 Anaerobically digested dewatered sludge, biosolids Nieto et al.[23], Ding et al. [22]
Diltiazem Antihypertension drug nd–0.059 Sewage sludge, class A biosolids Kinney et al. [12]
Fluoxetine Antidepressant 0.072–1.5 Radjenovic et al. [28]
Paroxetine 0.04 –0.62 Sewage sludge Radjenovic et al. [28]
Gemfibrozil Lipid lowering drug 0.118–0.420 Sewage sludge, class A biosolids Kinney et al. [12], Radjenovic et al. [28]
Bezafibrate nd–0.013 Anaerobically digested dewatered sludge Nieto et al. [23]
Clofibric acid 0.007 –0.01
Thiobendazole Antiparasitic drug nd–5 Sewage sludge, class A biosolids Kinney et al. [12]
Warfarin Anticoagulant nd – 0.092
Cimetidine Antacid nd–0.071
Diphenhydramine Antihistamine 0.015–7
Miconazole Antifungal drug nd–0.46
Famotidine Antacid 0.03–0.050 Sewage sludge Radjenovic et al. [28]
Loratadine Antiallergic drug 0.052–0.153
Hydrochlorothiazide Diuretic drug 0.011–0.060
Glibenclamide Antidiabetic drug 0.013–0.127

Table 2.

Concentrations of commonly found MPs in sludge.

nd- not detected

Although a complex process as described above, the extent of MPs adsorption on sludge is traditionally modeled using linear equilibrium model as

Cads=Kd CssCdisE1

where Cads is the adsorbed concentration of the MP (g/L), Css is the suspended particulate concentration (g/L), Cdis (g/L) is the dissolved concentration, and Kd  is the adsorption constant (L/gss), which is also known as the partition coefficient of the compound between the solids and water. Kd has been proposed as a relatively accurate indicator of adsorption [29, 30]; for compounds with a Kd value below 300 L/kg (log Kd = 2.48), the sorption onto secondary sludge is insignificant. Polar compounds typically have higher Kd values in secondary sludge compared to primary sludge. Typical Kd values are presented in Table 3. Kd  of a compound can be correlated to more fundamental properties such as Kow.

Micropollutants log Kowt2 log Kd log Koc Reft2. Micropollutants log Kt2ow log Kd log Koc Reft2.
Diclofenac 4.98 1.2041 b Estradiol 4.01 2.2304 c
Ibuprofen 3.5 0.8513 b Estriol 2.45 1.7324 c
DEET 2.18 1.91 2.27 a Diphenhydramine 3.27 2.5 2.86 a
Clofibric acid 2.57 0.6812 b Estrone 3.13 2.2304 c
Ifosfamide 0.86 0.1461 b Ethinylestradiol 3.67 2.4997 c
Carbamazepine 2.45 1.95 2.31 a Fenoprofen 3.1 1.415 c
Hydrocodone 2.16 2.03 2.38 a Fluoxetine 4.05 0.699 c
Cyclophosphamide 0.63 0.3802 b Amitriptyline 4.92 2.87 3.21 a
Gemfibrozil 4.77 2.11 2.47 a Gemfibrozil 3.4 1.2856 c
Diazepam 2.82 1.3222 b Hydrocodone 1.2 2.0294 c
Diazepam 2.82 2.14 2.53 a Fluoxetine 4.05 3.08 3.43 a
Ethinylestradiol 3.9 2.5428 b Indomethacine 4.27 1.4472 c
Naproxen 3.2 2.16 2.56 a Ketoprofen 3.12 1.2041 C
Perfluorooctanoic acid 6.3 2.3424 c Mefenamic acid 5.12 2.6375 C
Diclofenac 4.51 2.18 2.54 a Methadone 3.93 1.8808 C
Perfluorononanoic acid 5.48 3.0934 c Metoprolol 1.88 1.8129 C
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 6.9 3.3581 c Morphine 0.89 1.0792 C
Ketoprofen 3.12 2.25 2.64 a Naproxen 3.18 1 C
Bisphenol A 3.32 2.28 2.64 a Primidone 0.91 1.699 C
Amoxycillin 0.87 0.0253 c Propranolol 3.48 2.5353 C
Amitriptyline 4.92 2.8698 c Risperidone 2.5 2.73 C
Trimethoprim 4.9 2.3 2.65 a Roxithromycin 1.7 1.7076 C
Androstenedione 2.75 2.1271 c Sotalol 0.24 1.2553 C
Aspirin 1.19 0.3464 c Sulfadimethoxine 1.63 0.4771 C
Ibuprofen 3.97 2.32 2.64 a Sulfamethazine 0.89 1.301 C
Atorvastatin 5.7 1.9685 c Sulfamethoxazole 0.89 1.0414 C
Azithromycin 4.02 2.4472 c Sulfapyridine 0.35 0 C
Bezafibrate 3.97 1.9395 c Testosterone 3.32 2.1335 C
Benzophenone 3.18 2.1335 c Tramadol 2.4 1.6721 C
Bisoprolol 1.87 1.6021 c Trimethoprim 0.91 1.4048 C
Dilantin 2.47 2.49 2.84 a Triclosan 4.76 3.59 3.95 A
Celiprolol 2.29 1.9294 c Triclocarban 4.9 4.41 4.76 A
Clarithromycin 3.16 2.415 c Diazepam 2.82 1.301 C
Clofibric acid 2.84 0.699 c Diphenhydramine 3.27 2.4997 C
Codeine 1.19 1.1461 c Erythromycin 2.37 1.4456 C

Table 3.

log Kd and log Koc values of some commonly found MPs.

log Kow for selected MPs are found in

log Kd and log Koc values are collected from references (Ref.) as follows: (a) [31], (b) [30], (c) [32].

“–“: Data are not available in the literature.

As mentioned before, the sorption to sludge is not significant for compounds with log Kow < 2.5, moderate sorption for log Kow between 2.5 and 4, and high sorption for log Kow > 4.0 is expected. In absence of experimental data, to relate Kd with Kow, Eqs. (2) and (3) are given by Matter-Muller et al. [33] and Dobbs et al. [34], respectively:

log Kd=0.67 ×log Kow+0.39E2
log Kd=0.58×log Kow+1.14E3

Kd can also be estimated using Eq. (4) (Fetter [35]) and Eq. (5) (Jones et al. [36]) if the fraction of organic carbon of the solids is known as

Kd=foc ×100.72 ×log Kow+0.491000E4
Kd= foc ×0.41 × KowE5

values of Kd and Koc versus Kow for MPs from the literature are plotted in Figure 2 showing slightly lower linear dependence of Kd and Koc on Kow as compared to Eqs. (2) and (3). In addition, the goodness of fit as indicated by R2 is in the range of 0.45–0.48, indicating possible influence of other parameters than only Koc or Kow.

Figure 2.

Correlation between log Kd versus log Kow and log Koc versus log Kow for MPs listed in Table 3.

MP adsorption on sludge mostly follow linear isotherm such as Fruendlich:

qe =Kf. Ce1/nE6

where q= mass adsorbed per unit mass of adsorbent at equilibrium (mg/g)

Ce = concentration of MP in water at equilibrium (mg/L)

1n=strength of adsorption (dimensionless)

Kf= adsorption capacity at unit concentration (mg/g)(L/mg)1/n

The values of Kf  and 1/n for MPs on sludge varied from 0.0052 to 4.40 (mg/g) (L/mg)1/n and 0.51 to 1.0076, respectively [3740]. Larger Kf values indicate higher affinity of adsorption for a particular sludge and closer the value of 1/n around 1.0, greater is the indication of comparatively strong adsorption bond. Typically, adsorption equilibrium is achieved within 24 hours with almost 90% removal from dissolved phase occurs in an hour; for example, at 3.6 g/L mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSSs) concentration, 95% of oxytetracycline was removed from water within only 1 hour and the concentration at equilibrium remained unchanged over 24 hours [40].

Colloidal particles are a relatively small fraction of the total waterborne particle mass (<10%) in typical wastewater but possess large surface areas which can enable covalent, electrostatic, and hydrophobic binding of MPs depending on their polarity. The magnitude of sorption depends on the molecular weight distribution and aromatic content of the colloids fraction, which also depends on the sewage composition, strength, and sludge age [41]. Similar to adsorption on suspended particulates, adsorption on colloidal particles can be quantified using a distribution coefficient Kcoc. Holbrook et al. [41] determined Kcoc using pyrene as a model MP and colloidal fractions from two biological wastewater plants; sorption coefficients (Kcoc) for pyrene ranged from 1 × 103 L/kg colloids to 80 × 103 L/kg colloids and were comparable to values obtained in the literature for natural organic matter. Good correlation was obtained between Kcoc and the aromaticity of the colloidal particles.

3.2. Removal processes

3.2.1. Coagulation and sedimentation of micropollutants

Coagulation-flocculation processes are typically used for improving efficiency of wastewater treatment plants promoting the removal of suspended solids, colloids, and some dissolved organics, which do not settle spontaneously. The coagulation process works by destabilizing the colloids/emulsions using coagulants such as metal salts and/or synthetic organic polymers following any of the mechanisms such as double-layer compression, adsorption and charge neutralization, entrapment of particles in precipitate, adsorption and interparticle bridging. The parameters that affect the performance of coagulation are coagulant dosage, pH, and ionic strength of the solution. Based on the type of coagulant such as aluminum sulfate, ferrous sulfate, and ferric chloride, optimum pH range for coagulation varies between 4.0 and 8.5. In case of polymeric coagulants, the active group (carboxyl, amino group, etc.) present on the polymer influences the change of charge with pH [42].

In general, removal of MPs by coagulation-flocculation processes is not very effective for most of the compounds studied with a few exceptions. Earlier studies on removal of MPs by coagulation were reported for simulated drinking water treatment processes [4347], and percent removal of various MPs varied from 15 to 75% using alum and iron salts, and excess lime/soda ash softening. Vieno et al. [46] evaluated the role of dissolved organic matter, mainly the humic substances in the coagulation process. In the presence of dissolved humic matter, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and bezafibrate could be removed by ferric sulfate coagulation. The removal of diclofenac reached a maximum of 77%, while 50% of ibuprofen, and 36% of bezafibrate were removed. Hence, a high amount of high-molecular-weight dissolved organic matter enhanced the removal of ionizable pharmaceuticals. However, contradictory results were reported by Choi et al. [43] where removal of seven tetracycline classes of antibiotic (TAs) from synthetic and river water using coagulation was achieved. TAs were assumed to be removed through the charge neutralization of zwitterionic or negative TAs by cationic Al (III) and sweep coagulation using poly-aluminum chloride (PACl). Aluminum hydroxide precipitates were formed in the presence of sufficient alkalinity, and TAs were removed by being enmeshed into or adsorbed onto the precipitates. It was suggested that the presence of dissolved organic matter, especially the low-molecular-weight fractions, resulted in possible inhibition of MP removal. This was due to preferential removal of the organic matter by the coagulant.

Huerta-Fontela et al. [48] performed coagulation with alum-coagulants, flocculation with a diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride homopolymer (poly-DADMAC), followed by clarification through sand filters. Of the 55 pharmaceutical compounds present, only five compounds (chlordiazepoxide, zolpidem, bromazepam, clopidogrel, and doxazosin) were completely removed, while warfarin, betaxolol, and hydrochlorothiazide accounted for removals higher than 50%. For some pharmaceuticals such as irbesartan, losartan, or carbamazepine epoxide, negligible removals were obtained.

Suarez et al. [49] evaluated the performance of coagulation-flocculation process for the pretreatment of hospital effluent, both in a batch mode and continuous pilot scale. Highest removal efficiency (>90%) was reported for PPCPs such as galaxolide, tonalide, and synthetic musk (ADBI); these are lipophilic compounds, carrying high negative charge, which facilitates their coagulation in the presence of higher fat content in wastewater. Asakura and Matsuto [50] studied the effect of coagulation for treating landfill leachate. Out of the various EDCs, only nonylphenol showed a removal of >90%, whereas diethylhexylphthalate (DEHP) removal was about 70%. Other EDCs such as diethylphthalate (DEP), dibutylphthalate (DBP), butylbenzylphthalate (BBP), 4-t-octylphenol (4tOP), and 4-n-octylphenol (4nOP) showed poor removal (<50%) by coagulation, with the lowest removal of 20% for bisphenol A.

Few studies have reported the removal of MPs due to coagulation and flocculation in wastewater (Table 4). Matamoros and Salvadó [51] evaluated several MPs removal in a coagulation/flocculation-lamellar clarifier for treating secondary effluent. The hydrophobicity of the compounds (log Kow) was found to be a major factor in determining the removal efficiency with coagulation-flocculation. The highest removal of 20–50% was observed for the compounds with log Kow ≥ 4 at pH 7–8. Since adsorption of MPs on the suspended solids and colloids is the precursor step for their removal during coagulation, the removal efficiency can be tied with the removal efficiency of suspended solids as

Coagulant Dosage(ppm) with pH compound Source Removal (%)  Reference
Ferric chloride/aluminum sulfate 25, 50–pH 7 Ibuprofen Hospital wastewater 12.0 ± 4.8 Suarez et al. [49]
Diclofenac 21.6 ± 19.4
Naproxen 31.8 ± 10.2
Carbamazepine 6.3 ± 15.9
Sulfamethoxazole 6.0 ± 9.5
Tonalide 83.4 ± 14.3
Galaxolide 79.2 ± 9.9
Ferric chloride 100, 200–pH(4, 7, 9) Bisphenol A Landfill leachate 20 Asakura and Matsuto [50]
Nonylphenol 90
Not mentioned Sulfamethoxazole Drinking water treatment plant 33 Stackelberg et al. [47]
Acetaminophen 60
Cholesterol 45
Diazenon 34
Metachlor 28
Aluminum sulfate 200–pH 7 Aldrin Surface water 46 Thuy et al. [53]
100–pH 7 Bentazon 15
78–pH 6.8 Estradiol Drinking water treatment plant 2 Westerhoff et al. [45]
Estrone 5
Progesterone 6
Fluoxetine 15
Hydrocodone 24
Chlordane 25
Benzanthracene 26
Chrysene 33
Erythromycin 33
DDT 36
Heptachlor 36
Aldrin 49
Benzofluoranthine 70
Benzopyrene 72
Ferric sulfate 78.5–pH 4.5 Dichlofenac Lake water with dissolved humic acid 77 Vieno et al. [46]
Ibuprofen 50
Bezafibrate 36
Carbamazepine <10
Sulfamethoxazole <10
Celestolide Secondary effluent from WWTP 50 Matamoros and Salvadó [51]
Tricholsan 24
Octylphenol 50
Tonalide 24
DMP 19
Galaxolide 16
Ibuprofen 4
Carbamazepine 2

Table 4.

Removal of MPs by coagulation/flocculation process from various effluents.

“–“: Data are not available in the literature.

*log Kow for selected MPs are found in

# log Kd and log Koc values are collected from references (Ref.) as follows: (a) [31], (b) [30], (c) [32].

% removal=Kd Css1+ Kd Css ETss E7

where ETSS is the efficiency of TSS removal (%) during coagulation.

Carballa et al. [52] observed that during coagulation-flocculation of primary wastewater, lipophilic compounds such as musks were adsorbed in the lipid fractions of the sludge with two different fat concentrations of 60 and 150 mg/L, while acidic compounds such as diclofenac were adsorbed due to electrostatic interaction. Compounds with high sorption properties (galaxolide and tonalide) and diclofenac were significantly removed during coagulation-flocculation with efficiencies around 70%. Compounds with lower Kd values, such as diazepam, carbamazepine, ibuprofen, and naproxen, were reduced to a lesser extent (up to 25%).

3.2.2. Biodegradation of micropollutants in secondary treatment

Most of the conventional municipal WWTPs do not remove complex MPs by biodegradation and/or biotransformation effectively. Observed removal efficiencies vary in a wide range for different compounds, as well as for the same substance, due to operational conditions such as aerobic, anaerobic, anoxic, sludge retention time (SRT), pH, redox potential, and water temperature. Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) seem to be more effective than conventional-activated sludge (CAS) process as MBR process combines biological treatment with membrane filtration (micro and ultrafiltration). In addition, due to higher SRT at MBRs compared to CAS, biodiversity of the microorganisms in MBR is greater than CAS, and opportunity for adaptation of specific microorganisms to the persistent compounds is greater in MBR than in CAS. Removal of 29 antibiotics in a CAS process was reviewed by Verlicchi et al. [54], where removal of compounds such as sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, roxithromycin, norfloxacin, erythromycin, etc., varied in a wide range of 0 (spiramycin) and 98% (cefaclor) in CAS and between 15 (azithromycin) and 94% (ofloxacin) in MBRs. Only 1 (azithromycin) out of 10 compounds investigated in both systems exhibited higher average removal efficiency in CAS than in MBR. Trinh et al. [55] traced 48 MPs including steroidal hormones, xenoestrogens, pesticides, caffeine, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products (PPCPs) in a MBR with >90% removal for many of the compounds. However, amitriptyline, carbamazepine, diazepam, diclofenac, fluoxetine, gemfibrozil, omeprazole, sulphamethoxazole, and trimethoprim were only partially removed in MBR with the removal efficiencies of 24–68% [55]. Similar results were obtained in a pilot-scale MBR operated for a Swiss hospital effluent for 1 year [56, 57]. Among the 56 pharmaceuticals, an overall load elimination of all pharmaceuticals and metabolites in the MBR was only 22% due to the presence of persistent iodinated contrast media (almost 80% of the total organic load). Weiss and Reemtsma [58] reported that major advantage of MBR lies for the compounds with moderate removal in CAS; MBR showed no advantages for both well-degradable and recalcitrant compounds. For polar compounds, MBR does not provide significant benefits, because effluent quality is improved only gradually and the most critical components of high aerobic stability remain almost unaltered [58].

Longer SRT as required for nitrogen removal also played an important role in reducing the concentrations of certain MPs [59, 60], and a SRT > 10 days was recommended. Longer SRTs resulted in diverse growth of the microbial community including the growth of nitrifying bacteria. Nitrifying bacteria had shown potential for cometabolic degradation of MPs [61, 62]. However, much longer SRT (49 days) was required for 61% removal of iopromide compared to zero removal in CAS [61]. Mixed bacterial cultures also have proved to be quite effective in removing MPs such as triclosan, BPA, and ibuprofen in river [63, 64] and WWTP [65, 66]. While MPs such as quaternary ammonium compounds are biodegraded as single compound, their biodegradation is inhibited in a mixture using Pseudomonas sp. isolated from returned activated sludge [67].

Although an important process variable, hydraulic retention time (HRT) shows varied results for the removal of MPs in WWTP indicating that further research is required on this. A study conducted by Wever et al. [57] reported that decreasing the HRT in a CAS resulted in increasing the concentrations of MPs such as 2, 6 and 1, 6 NDSA; however, it did not affect the percent removal of these compounds in a MBR. In case of pharmaceutical and fragrance compounds, Joss et al. [29] reported that HRT played a very minor role when considering a time period of 0.7 hours for fixed bed reactor, 13 hours for a MBR, and 17 hours for a CAS process.

Solution pH plays a significant role in the removal of MPs as the highly acidic or highly basic solutions affect the solubility of the MPs and also hinder growth of the microbial community [68]. As listed in Table 1, MPs exhibit a wide range of pKa values. At pH range of 6–8, as found in most wastewater, many antibiotics and other MPs with pKa values in this range will be ionized. For example, about 40% of pharmaceuticals contain at least one functional group with pKa values in the range of 5–10 [69]. The degree of speciation of such ionizable compounds and their subsequent adsorption and biotransformation will be affected by pH.

The microbial growth and activity, as well as solubility and other physicochemical properties of MPs, are significantly affected by temperature. Temperature variability has been related to deterioration in bulk water quality and system instability; it has also been linked to sludge deflocculation and decreased sludge metabolic activity [70]. Vieno et al. [71] reported that the removal of ibuprofen, diclofenac, benzafibrate, ketoprofen, and naproxen increased during the summer (average temperature 17°C) and decreased in the winter (average temperature 7°C). However, Lesjean et al. [72] reported that in a conventional WWTP, temperature variation between 12 and 25°C brought about little or no change to the degradation process of MPs whereas for a MBR the removal rates were greatly affected by the seasonal changes. Hai et al. [70] reported that the removal of most hydrophobic compounds (log Kow > 3.2) in a MBR was stable in the temperature range of 10–35°C, while for less hydrophobic compounds, significant variation occurred in the lower temperature regimes (10–35°C). Lower and more variable removal efficiency at 10°C was observed for certain hydrophilic compounds, which have been reported to be moderately recalcitrant in MBR treatment.

No quantitative relationship between structure and activity can be found for the biological transformation. Overall, it can be concluded that for compounds with a sorption coefficient (Kd) below 300 L/kg, sorption onto secondary sludge is not relevant, and their transformation can consequently be assessed simply by comparing influent and effluent concentrations.

At low dissolved concentration, the kinetics of biodegradation/biotransformation of MPs follow first order as

rate=Kbio CssCdisE8

where  Kbio is the biodegradation rate constant, Css is  the suspended solids concentration, and Cdis is the dissolved concentration of MPsss. Typically, complex aromatic structure with more than one benzene ring and/or with chlorine and nitro groups are not efficiently biodegraded [32, 73]. The aerobic biodegradation constants of 20 aromatic species using activated sludge were reported, and the kinetic constants were correlated to the structure of the molecules [73]. The normalized first-order rate constants Kbio (L/gss/h) using Css (g/L) were 0.003, 0.02, and 3.80 for 3, 5 dinitrobenzoic acid, 2, 6 dichlorophenol, and benzoic acid, respectively. Pomiesa et al. [32] summarized a list of both aerobic and anaerobic rate constants for 20 pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, and other compounds such as bisphenol A and nonylphenol, and the aerobic Kbio (L/gss/h) varied from 0.0025 to 7.08 with carbamazepine being the lowest, and galaxolide (a synthetic fragrance) being the highest biodegradable compound. The difference in rate constants for aerobic and anaerobic conditions is less than 15% for some substances (e.g., celestolide and galaxolide) or can be much higher in some other cases (e.g., >50% for estradiol and roxithromycin). Compounds with kbio < 0.0042 L/gss/h are not removed significantly (<20%), whereas compounds with kbio > 0.4 L/gss/h can be transformed by >90%. Therefore, with the existing biological treatment schemes in municipal wastewater, 90% of the MPs are not removed or biotransformed. Many of the plant data do not distinguish between adsorption and biotransformation due to challenging chemical analyses. In most cases, overall removal is estimated based on the influent and effluent concentrations, and information about the intermediate steps is either missing or not reliable [74]. Other challenges are the fate of metabolites, transformation products of pharmaceuticals, and complex chemistry involving these compounds with background water quality, which are all unknown at this point.

Tertiary treatment of wastewater using various combinations of membrane processes, activated carbon adsorption, and advanced oxidation are being performed or characterized in various jurisdictions with stringent water quality requirements. Above technologies all work well for the removal of trace concentration of organics in lab studies and will be described below.

3.2.3. Activated carbon adsorption

Adsorption as a unit operation using either granular- or powder-activated carbon (GAC and PAC) to remove organics from water metrics is well established. The mechanism of adsorption, relevant parameters, and adsorption models discussed in the section of adsorption on sludge are applicable for GAC and PAC adsorption. In absence of experimental data on adsorption isotherm, a correlation developed by Crittenden et al. [75] combining Polanyi potential theory and linear solvation energy relationships (LSERs) can be used.

Activated carbon adsorption for the removal of MPs has been applied in both secondary and tertiary treatment units. Simultaneous adsorption of sulfamethoxazole and carbamazepine to powdered-activated carbon (PAC) in a membrane bioreactor (MBR) was reported at PAC dosage of 0.1–1 g/L [7678]. Altmann et al. [77] compared the performance of PAC and ozonation for seven MPs from four different wastewater plants. Typical dosages were about 20 mg/L of PAC and 5–7 mg/L of ozone, respectively, and the performances of both technologies were very much dependent on the type of pollutants. Hydrophobic compounds with log Kow > 5 have much better removal potential by adsorption than polar compounds, with the exceptions of some protonated bases and deprotonated acids. Empty bed contact time (EBCT) for a biological-activated carbon filter for the removal of numerous MPs for three full-scale reclamation plants varied from 9 to 45 min.

3.2.4. Membrane processes

Membrane-based process systems can be classified as direct membrane-based, integrated membrane-based, and combined direct and integrated membrane system. Pressure-driven membrane filtration processes, such as nanofiltration (NF), ultrafiltration (UF), microfiltration (MF), and reverse osmosis (RO), are routinely used for various effluent treatments. While MF and UF are low-pressure processes, NF and RO are high-pressure processes. In tertiary treatment of wastewater for MPs, UF and NF can be effectively used. The removal of MPs by membrane depends on many different factors including characteristics of membrane, MP, aqueous media/solute characteristics, operating conditions, and membrane fouling. The fundamental mechanism of membrane filtration is size exclusion, although adsorption due to hydrophobic interactions, electrostatic repulsion, and adsorption on fouling layer all can play a part [7982]. Size exclusion mechanism is mostly applicable to noncharged MPs, however, shape of the molecule should also be taken into consideration. Hydrophobic interaction and hydrogen bonding contribute to the adsorption of MPs on the membrane surface. Membrane fouling and the presence of dissolved organic carbon could also increase adsorption by changing the membrane surface characteristics and pore size. For charged MP, electrostatic interaction between the compound and membrane surface gives rise to electrostatic exclusion for membrane surfaces with like charges. Figure 3 shows the four mechanisms of MP removal by membrane processes. Membrane-based processes have several advantages such as good adaptability, high removal rate, robustness, and no harmful intermediates are formed. An overview of research at laboratory, pilot and full-scale applications of MPs removal is presented in Table 5.

Figure 3.

Micropollutants removal mechanism in polymeric membranes. (a) size exclusion, (b) adsorption (hydrophobic interaction), (c) electrostatic repulsion, and (d) adsorption (fouling layer interaction) (concept adopted from Ojajuni et al. [83]).

MPs % Removal Remarks Reference
11 MPs 500 μg/L, (pharmaceuticals and pesticides) >70% UF and NF; laboratory scale; secondary effluent Acero et al. [84]
80 MPs; Metals 18–265 µg/L, VOC 0.65–7.10 µg/L, PAH 0.23–0.67 µg/L, and HVOC 1.45–12.17 µg/L ∼40–50% removal for metals UF; full scale; secondary clarified effluent Battistoni et al. [85]
Macrolides, roxithromycin (ROX), clarythromycin (CLA), erythromycin (ERY), sulfonamides, and trimethoprim:sulfamethazine (SMZ), sulfamethoxazole (SMX), and trimethoprim (TMP) 45– 94% Full scale UF; raw sewage of WWTP Sahar et al. [86]
Pharmaceutically active contaminants (PhACs): sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, and Ibuprofen (500 μg/L) 50–85% NF; laboratory scale; spiked synthetic solution Nghiem et al. [87]
EDCs–estrone, estradiol, and salicin at initial concentration of 1 mg/L 85±/4% for estradiol, 65±/3% for estrone, 91±/1% for salicine NF; laboratory scale; spiked synthetic solution Braeken and Van der Bruggen [88]
Pesticide endosulfan (10–100 μg/L) 84–96% NF; laboratory scale; spiked synthetic solution De Munari et al. [89]
11 neutral EDCs and PhACs at initial concentration of 100 μg/L 0–91% RO; laboratory scale; synthetic solution Kimura et al. [90]
22 EDCs and pharmaceutically active compounds (PhAC)- ∼ 1 μg/L variable removal in NF;
>90% removal in
Loose and tight NF; RO; bench scale; surface water; effluent of MBR of WWTP Comerton et al. [91]
PhACs: carbamazepine, diclofenac, and ibuprofen (IBU) l concentration 0.025–0.1 μg/L 31–39% removal for carbamazepine; 55–61% removal of ionic diclofenac and ibuprofen NF; laboratory; drinking water Vergili [92]
22 compounds representing pharmaceutically active compounds, pesticides, hormones and industrial chemicals; 5 µg/L 80–99% MBR; laboratory; spiked synthetic municipal wastewater Hai et al. [70]
bisphenol A (750 μg/L), sulfamethoxazole (750 μg/L) 90% removal for Bisphenol A; 50% for sulphamethoxazole MBR (submerged); laboratory; secondary effluent spiked Nghiem et al. [93]
40 organic compounds above 85% for hydrophobic compounds; less than 20% for the rest MBR; laboratory;secondary effluent spiked Tadkaew et al. [80]
Ionisable trace organics :sulfamethaxozale, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and diclofenac at 2 μg/L Removal dependent on mixed liquor pH. MBR (submerged); laboratory; synthetic wastewater Tadkaew et al. [94]
56 pharmaceuticals, 10 metabolites, and two corrosion inhibitors at concentration from 0.1 μg/L to 2.6 mg/L Removal varies MBR; pilot scale; wastewater directly from the hospital sewer collection system Kovalova et al. [56]
11 emerging contaminants: acetaminophen, metoprolol, caffeine, antipyrine, sulfamethoxazole, flumequine, ketorolac, atrazine, isoproturon, 2-hydroxybiphenyl, and diclofenac(all at 0.5 mg/L) UF with GAC posttreatment performed better than UF with PAC pretreatment. UF combined with PAC (pretreatment) and GAC (posttreatment), secondary effluent spiked Acero et al. [95]
6 antibiotics, 3 pharmaceuticals (ibuprofen, salicyclic acid, and diclofenac) and Bisphenol A >90% MBR-RO, pilot plant, real wastewater Sahar et al. [96]
PPCPs; acetaminophen, atenolol, carbamazepine, clopidogrel, diclofenac, dilantin, ibuprofen, iopromide, glimepiride, naproxen, and sulfamethoxazole Up to 95% MBR-NF; laboratory; real wastewater Chon et al. [81]
10 micropollutants detected in wastewater including carbamazepine, ibuprofen, and caffeine >76.9% MBR-NF and MBR-RO; pilot plant; real wastewater Cartagna et al. [97]
9 pharmaceuticals, bezafibrate, carbamazepine, clofibric acid, diclofenac, gemfibrocil, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, naproxen, and fenofibric acid 60–80% MBR-PAC (submerged); pilot plant; WWTP primary pollutant Lipp et al. [98]

Table 5.

Membrane systems for micropollutants removal in different scales.

3.2.5. Advanced oxidation processes

Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) using hydroxyl radicals (OH•) are increasingly used for tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater and for water recycling. These processes are fast, nonselective, and effective for recalcitrant compounds. Among numerous combinations of AOPs, UV-, hydrogen peroxide-, and ozone-based processes are easy to implement for tertiary treatment of WWTP effluent. In a comprehensive research, removal efficiency of 220 MPs with postozonation was studied at full scale for a WWTP [1]. Compounds with activated aromatic moieties, amine functions, or double bonds such as sulfamethoxazole, diclofenac, or carbamazepine had second-order rate constants for ozonation >104/M/s at pH 7 (fast reacting) were eliminated to concentrations below the detection limit for an ozone dose of 0.47 g O3/g DOC. Higher ozone dosage of 0.6 g O3/g DOC was needed for more recalcitrant compounds such as atenolol and benzotriazole for >85%. Rahman et al. [99] summarized the second-order ozone and OH• oxidation constants for commonly found EDCs and pharmaceuticals in pure water, which varied from 0.8 to 7 × 109 and 1.2 × 109 to 9.8 ×109 /MS, respectively. In wastewater, rates will be somewhat lower due to the competition of background organics, suspended particulates, and radical scavengers. However, the effect of background organics competition was found to be minimal for estrone degradation in wastewater by Sarkar et al. [100]. The overall cost of ozonation was found to be lower than that of UV/H2O2 process for estrone degradation, although electrical energy per order was lower for UV/H2O2. AOPs are effective in a wide range of pH (i.e., 4–11) depending on the type of target compounds; although ozonation is more effective in alkaline pH. In some cases, transformation products that form due to AOPs may be even more toxic compared to parent compounds. For example, intermediates of UV/H2O2 oxidation of bisphenol A exhibited different estrogenic activity depending on the treatment conditions [101]. Whole effluent analysis methods are better for assessing the toxicity of resulting water instead of time- and labor-intensive chemical analyses.


4. Conclusion

Fate and removal processes of micropollutants (MPs) in wastewater treatment are complex, and difficult to assess due to tedious and cost-intensive analyses. However, these processes can be somewhat estimated based on their physical properties such as log Kow, pKa, and solubility. Adsorption on colloidal and suspended particles and subsequent removal in sludge may occur for compounds with log Kow > 4.0. Majority of the MPs are not removed in conventional-activated sludge process, although better removal for some cases occurs in membrane bioreactors due to greater diversity and adaptability of microorganisms. Compounds with biological degradation constant <0.0042 L/gss/h are not removed significantly (<20%), whereas compounds with rate constants >0.4 L/gss/h can be transformed by >90%. Tertiary treatment of wastewater effluent using activated carbon adsorption, membrane filtration, and advanced oxidation processes are capable of removing MPs with varying degrees of success, although both lab and pilot-scale studies are required to establish their rates of removal. In the case of intermediates or transformation, products are produced during a treatment, whole effluent analysis using a bioassay is a better method to evaluate the quality of effluent instead of conducting compounds specific chemical analyses.


  1. 1. Hollender J, Zimmermann SG, Koepke S, Krauss M, McArdell CS, Ort C, Singer H, Gunten UV, Siegrist H. Elimination of organic micropollutants in a municipal wastewater treatment plant upgraded with a full-scale post-ozonation followed by sand filtration. Environmental Science & Technology. 2009;43(20):7862–9.
  2. 2. Ternes TA. Occurrence of drugs in German sewage treatment plants and rivers. Water Research. 1998;32(11):3245–60.
  3. 3. Fromme H, Küchler T, Otto T, Pilz K, Müller J, Wenzel A. Occurrence of phthalates and bisphenol A and F in the environment. Water Research. 2002;36(6):1429–38.
  4. 4. Heberer T. Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of recent research data. Toxicology Letters. 2002;131(1):5–17.
  5. 5. Kreuzinger N, editor. Occurrence of highly discussed pollutants in the stretch of the Austrian Danube related to the Catchment Area. Oral Presentation at SETAC Europe 12th Annual Meeting, Vienna, Austria, 2002.
  6. 6. Baronti C, Curini R, D'Ascenzo G, Di Corcia A, Gentili A, Samperi R. Monitoring natural and synthetic estrogens at activated sludge sewage treatment plants and in a receiving river water. Environmental Science & Technology. 2000;34(24):5059–66.
  7. 7. Eggen RI, Hollender J, Joss A, Schã±¥r M, Stamm C. Reducing the discharge of micropollutants in the aquatic environment: the benefits of upgrading wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014;48(14):7683–9.
  8. 8. Schüth PDC. Demonstrating Managed Aquifer Recharge as a Solution to Water Scarcity and Drought: An EU FP7 Project. (accessed 31 May 2016).
  9. 9. Gerly Hey, Relevant studies related to the presence of micropollutants in the environment, Published date: May 18, 2016. (accessed 31 May 2016).
  10. 10. Kase R, Eggen R, Junghans M, Götz C, Hollender J. Assessment of micropollutants from municipal wastewater-combination of exposure and ecotoxicological effect data for Switzerland. InTech-Open Access Publisher, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2011.
  11. 11. Loos R, Carvalho R, António DC, Comero S, Locoro G, Tavazzi S, Paracchini B, Ghiani M, Lettieri T, Blaha L and Jarosova B. EU-wide monitoring survey on emerging polar organic contaminants in wastewater treatment plant effluents, Water research. 2013; 47(17): 6475-6487.
  12. 12. Kinney CA, Furlong ET, Zaugg SD, Burkhardt MR, Werner SL, Cahill JD, Jorgensen GR. Survey of organic wastewater contaminants in biosolids destined for land application. Environmental Science & Technology. 2006;40(23):7207–15.
  13. 13. Kipopoulou A, Zouboulis A, Samara C, Kouimtzis T. The fate of lindane in the conventional activated sludge treatment process. Chemosphere. 2004;55(1):81–91.
  14. 14. Jacobsen BN, Nyholm N, Pedersen BM, Poulsen O, Østfeldt P. Removal of organic micropollutants in laboratory activated sludge reactors under various operating conditions: sorption. Water Research. 1993;27(10):1505–10.
  15. 15. Heidler J, Halden RU. Fate of organohalogens in US wastewater treatment plants and estimated chemical releases to soils nationwide from biosolids recycling. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 2009;11(12):2207–15.
  16. 16. McAvoy DC, Schatowitz B, Jacob M, Hauk A, Eckhoff WS. Measurement of triclosan in wastewater treatment systems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2002;21(7):1323–9.
  17. 17. Clara M, Gans O, Windhofer G, Krenn U, Hartl W, Braun K, Scharf S, Scheffknecht C. Occurrence of polycyclic musks in wastewater and receiving water bodies and fate during wastewater treatment. Chemosphere. 2011;82(8):1116–23.
  18. 18. Kupper T, Plagellat C, Brändli R, De Alencastro L, Grandjean D, Tarradellas J. Fate and removal of polycyclic musks, UV filters and biocides during wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2006;40(14):2603–12.
  19. 19. Jia A, Wan Y, Xiao Y, Hu J. Occurrence and fate of quinolone and fluoroquinolone antibiotics in a municipal sewage treatment plant. Water Research. 2012;46(2):387–94.
  20. 20. Golet EM, Xifra I, Siegrist H, Alder AC, Giger W. Environmental exposure assessment of fluoroquinolone antibacterial agents from sewage to soil. Environmental Science & Technology. 2003;37(15):3243–9.
  21. 21. Göbel A, Thomsen A, McArdell CS, Joss A, Giger W. Occurrence and sorption behavior of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in activated sludge treatment. Environmental Science & Technology. 2005;39(11):3981–9.
  22. 22. Ding Y, Zhang W, Gu C, Xagoraraki I, Li H. Determination of pharmaceuticals in biosolids using accelerated solvent extraction and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A. 2011;1218(1):10–6.
  23. 23. Nieto A, Borrull F, Pocurull E, Marcé RM. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals and hormones in sewage sludge. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2010;29(7):1484–9.
  24. 24. McClellan K, Halden RU. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in archived US biosolids from the 2001 EPA national sewage sludge survey. Water Research. 2010;44(2):658–68.
  25. 25. Subedi B, Lee S, Moon H-B, Kannan K. Emission of artificial sweeteners, select pharmaceuticals, and personal care products through sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants in Korea. Environment International. 2014;68:33–40.
  26. 26. Schlüsener MP, Spiteller M, Bester K. Determination of antibiotics from soil by pressurized liquid extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A. 2003;1003(1):21–8.
  27. 27. Radjenović J, Petrović M, Barceló D. Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment. Water Research. 2009;43(3):831–41.
  28. 28. Radjenović J, Jelić A, Petrović M, Barceló D. Determination of pharmaceuticals in sewage sludge by pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) coupled to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2009;393(6–7):1685–95.
  29. 29. Joss A, Keller E, Alder AC, Göbel A, McArdell CS, Ternes T, Siegrist H. Removal of pharmaceuticals and fragrances in biological wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2005;39(14):3139–52.
  30. 30. Ternes TA, Herrmann N, Bonerz M, Knacker T, Siegrist H, Joss A. A rapid method to measure the solid–water distribution coefficient (Kd) for pharmaceuticals and musk fragrances in sewage sludge. Water Research. 2004;38(19):4075–84.
  31. 31. Hyland KC, Dickenson ER, Drewes JE, Higgins CP. Sorption of ionized and neutral emerging trace organic compounds onto activated sludge from different wastewater treatment configurations. Water Research. 2012;46(6):1958–68.
  32. 32. Pomiès M, Choubert J-M, Wisniewski C, Coquery M. Modelling of micropollutant removal in biological wastewater treatments: a review. Science of the Total Environment. 2013;443:733–48.
  33. 33. Matter-Muller C, Gujer W, Giger W, Stumm W. Non-biological elimination mechanisms in a biological sewage treatment plant. Progress in Water Technology. 1980;12:299–314.
  34. 34. Dobbs RA, Wang L, Govind R. Sorption of toxic organic compounds on wastewater solids: correlation with fundamental properties. Environmental Science & Technology. 1989;23(9):1092–7.
  35. 35. Fetter C. Contaminant Hydrogeology. Macmillan Publishing Co.: New York, NY, 1993.
  36. 36. Jones O, Voulvoulis N, Lester J. Aquatic environmental assessment of the top 25 English prescription pharmaceuticals. Water Research. 2002;36(20):5013–22.
  37. 37. Liu J, Wang X, Fan B. Characteristics of PAHs adsorption on inorganic particles and activated sludge in domestic wastewater treatment. Bioresource Technology. 2011;102(9):5305–11.
  38. 38. Lenz K, Koellensperger G, Hann S, Weissenbacher N, Mahnik SN, Fuerhacker M. Fate of cancerostatic platinum compounds in biological wastewater treatment of hospital effluents. Chemosphere. 2007;69(11):1765–74.
  39. 39. Yu J, Hu J. Adsorption of perfluorinated compounds onto activated carbon and activated sludge. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2011;137(10):945–51.
  40. 40. Kim S, Eichhorn P, Jensen JN, Weber AS, Aga DS. Removal of antibiotics in wastewater: effect of hydraulic and solid retention times on the fate of tetracycline in the activated sludge process. Environmental Science & Technology. 2005;39(15):5816–23.
  41. 41. Holbrook RD, Love NG, Novak JT. Investigation of sorption behavior between pyrene and colloidal organic carbon from activated sludge processes. Environmental Science & Technology. 2004;38(19):4987–94.
  42. 42. Luo Y, Guo W, Ngo HH, Nghiem LD, Hai FI, Zhang J, Liangc S, Wang XC. A review on the occurrence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment and their fate and removal during wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment. 2014;473:619–41.
  43. 43. Choi K-J, Kim S-G, Kim S-H. Removal of antibiotics by coagulation and granular activated carbon filtration. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2008;151(1):38–43.
  44. 44. Adams C, Wang Y, Loftin K, Meyer M. Removal of antibiotics from surface and distilled water in conventional water treatment processes. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2002;128(3):253–60.
  45. 45. Westerhoff P, Yoon Y, Snyder S, Wert E. Fate of endocrine-disruptor, pharmaceutical, and personal care product chemicals during simulated drinking water treatment processes. Environmental Science & Technology. 2005;39(17):6649–63.
  46. 46. Vieno N, Tuhkanen T, Kronberg L. Removal of pharmaceuticals in drinking water treatment: effect of chemical coagulation. Environmental Technology. 2006;27(2):183–92.
  47. 47. Stackelberg PE, Gibs J, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Zaugg SD, Lippincott RL. Efficiency of conventional drinking-water-treatment processes in removal of pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds. Science of the Total Environment. 2007;377(2):255–72.
  48. 48. Huerta-Fontela M, Galceran MT, Ventura F. Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals and hormones through drinking water treatment. Water Research. 2011;45(3):1432–42.
  49. 49. Suarez S, Lema JM, Omil F. Pre-treatment of hospital wastewater by coagulation–flocculation and flotation. Bioresource Technology. 2009;100(7):2138–46.
  50. 50. Asakura H, Matsuto T. Experimental study of behavior of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in leachate treatment process and evaluation of removal efficiency. Waste Management. 2009;29(6):1852–9.
  51. 51. Matamoros V, Salvadó V. Evaluation of a coagulation/flocculation-lamellar clarifier and filtration-UV-chlorination reactor for removing emerging contaminants at full-scale wastewater treatment plants in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management. 2013;117:96–102.
  52. 52. Carballa M, Omil F, Lema JM. Removal of cosmetic ingredients and pharmaceuticals in sewage primary treatment. Water Research. 2005;39(19):4790–6.
  53. 53. Thuy PT, Moons K, Van Dijk J, Viet Anh N, Van der Bruggen B. To what extent are pesticides removed from surface water during coagulation–flocculation? Water and Environment Journal. 2008;22(3):217–23.
  54. 54. Verlicchi P, Al Aukidy M, Zambello E. Occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds in urban wastewater: removal, mass load and environmental risk after a secondary treatment—a review. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;429:123–55.
  55. 55. Trinh T, Van Den Akker B, Stuetz R, Coleman H, Le-Clech P, Khan S. Removal of trace organic chemical contaminants by a membrane bioreactor. Water Science and Technology. 2012;66(9):1856–63.
  56. 56. Kovalova L, Siegrist H, Singer H, Wittmer A, McArdell CS. Hospital wastewater treatment by membrane bioreactor: performance and efficiency for organic micropollutant elimination. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;46(3):1536–45.
  57. 57. De Wever H, Weiss S, Reemtsma T, Vereecken J, Müller J, Knepper T, Rördend O, Gonzaleze S, Barceloe D, Hernando MD. Comparison of sulfonated and other micropollutants removal in membrane bioreactor and conventional wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2007;41(4):935–45.
  58. 58. Weiss S, Reemtsma T. Membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment–a viable option to reduce the amount of polar pollutants discharged into surface waters? Water Research. 2008;42(14):3837–47.
  59. 59. Clara M, Kreuzinger N, Strenn B, Gans O, Kroiss H. The solids retention time—a suitable design parameter to evaluate the capacity of wastewater treatment plants to remove micropollutants. Water Research. 2005;39(1):97–106.
  60. 60. Göbel A, McArdell CS, Joss A, Siegrist H, Giger W. Fate of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in different wastewater treatment technologies. Science of the Total Environment. 2007;372(2):361–71.
  61. 61. Batt AL, Kim S, Aga DS. Enhanced biodegradation of iopromide and trimethoprim in nitrifying activated sludge. Environmental Science & Technology. 2006;40(23):7367–73.
  62. 62. Wahman DG, Henry AE, Katz LE, Speitel GE. Cometabolism of trihalomethanes by mixed culture nitrifiers. Water Research. 2006;40(18):3349–58.
  63. 63. Kang J-H, Kondo F, Katayama Y. Human exposure to bisphenol A. Toxicology. 2006;226(2):79–89.
  64. 64. Kang J-H, Katayama Y, Kondo F. Biodegradation or metabolism of bisphenol A: from microorganisms to mammals. Toxicology. 2006;217(2):81–90.
  65. 65. Kanda R, Griffin P, James HA, Fothergill J. Pharmaceutical and personal care products in sewage treatment works. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 2003;5(5):823–30.
  66. 66. Thompson A, Griffin P, Stuetz R, Cartmell E. The fate and removal of triclosan during wastewater treatment. Water Environment Research. 2005;77(1):63–7.
  67. 67. Khan AH, Topp E, Scott A, Sumarah M, Macfie SM, Ray MB. Biodegradation of benzalkonium chlorides singly and in mixtures by a Pseudomonas sp. isolated from returned activated sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2015;299:595–602.
  68. 68. Cirja M, Ivashechkin P, Schäffer A, Corvini PF. Factors affecting the removal of organic micropollutants from wastewater in conventional treatment plants (CTP) and membrane bioreactors (MBR). Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology. 2008;7(1):61–78.
  69. 69. Gulde R, Helbling DE, Scheidegger A, Fenner K. pH-dependent biotransformation of ionizable organic micropollutants in activated sludge. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014;48(23):13760–8.
  70. 70. Hai FI, Tessmer K, Nguyen LN, Kang J, Price WE, Nghiem LD. Removal of micropollutants by membrane bioreactor under temperature variation. Journal of Membrane Science. 2011;383(1):144–51.
  71. 71. Vieno NM, Tuhkanen T, Kronberg L. Seasonal variation in the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in effluents from a sewage treatment plant and in the recipient water. Environmental Science & Technology. 2005;39(21):8220–6.
  72. 72. Lesjean B, Gnirss R, Buisson H, Keller S, Tazi-Pain A, Luck F. Outcomes of a 2-year investigation on enhanced biological nutrients removal and trace organics elimination in membrane bioreactor (MBR). Water Science and Technology. 2005;52(10–11):453–60.
  73. 73. Andreozzi R, Cesaro R, Marotta R, Pirozzi F. Evaluation of biodegradation kinetic constants for aromatic compounds by means of aerobic batch experiments. Chemosphere. 2006;62(9):1431–6.
  74. 74. Jelic A, Gros M, Ginebreda A, Cespedes-Sánchez R, Ventura F, Petrovic M, et al. Occurrence, partition and removal of pharmaceuticals in sewage water and sludge during wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2011;45(3):1165–76.
  75. 75. Crittenden JC, Sanongraj S, Bulloch JL, Hand DW, Rogers TN, Speth TF, Ulmer M. Correlation of aqueous-phase adsorption isotherms. Environmental Science & Technology. 1999;33(17):2926–33.
  76. 76. Li X, Hai FI, Nghiem LD. Simultaneous activated carbon adsorption within a membrane bioreactor for an enhanced micropollutant removal. Bioresource Technology. 2011;102(9):5319–24.
  77. 77. Altmann J, Ruhl AS, Zietzschmann F, Jekel M. Direct comparison of ozonation and adsorption onto powdered activated carbon for micropollutant removal in advanced wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2014;55:185–93.
  78. 78. Bolong N, Ismail A, Salim MR, Matsuura T. A review of the effects of emerging contaminants in wastewater and options for their removal. Desalination. 2009;239(1):229–46.
  79. 79. Nghiem LD, Hawkes S. Effects of membrane fouling on the nanofiltration of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs): mechanisms and role of membrane pore size. Separation and Purification Technology. 2007;57(1):176–84.
  80. 80. Tadkaew N, Hai FI, McDonald JA, Khan SJ, Nghiem LD. Removal of trace organics by MBR treatment: the role of molecular properties. Water Research. 2011;45(8):2439–51.
  81. 81. Chon K, KyongShon H, Cho J. Membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration hybrid system for reclamation of municipal wastewater: removal of nutrients, organic matter and micropollutants. Bioresource Technology. 2012;122:181–8.
  82. 82. Bellona C, Drewes JE, Xu P, Amy G. Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment—a literature review. Water Research. 2004;38(12):2795–809.
  83. 83. Ojajuni O, Saroj D, Cavalli G. Removal of organic micropollutants using membrane-assisted processes: a review of recent progress. Environmental Technology Reviews. 2015;4(1):17–37.
  84. 84. Acero JL, Benitez FJ, Teva F, Leal AI. Retention of emerging micropollutants from UP water and a municipal secondary effluent by ultrafiltration and nanofiltration. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2010;163(3):264–72.
  85. 85. Battistoni P, Cola E, Fatone F, Bolzonella D, Eusebi AL. Micropollutants removal and operating strategies in ultrafiltration membrane systems for municipal wastewater treatment: preliminary results. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2007;46(21):6716–23.
  86. 86. Sahar E, Messalem R, Cikurel H, Aharoni A, Brenner A, Godehardt M, et al. Fate of antibiotics in activated sludge followed by ultrafiltration (CAS-UF) and in a membrane bioreactor (MBR). Water Research. 2011;45(16):4827–36.
  87. 87. Nghiem LD, Schäfer AI, Elimelech M. Role of electrostatic interactions in the retention of pharmaceutically active contaminants by a loose nanofiltration membrane. Journal of Membrane Science. 2006;286(1):52–9.
  88. 88. Braeken L, Van der Bruggen B. Feasibility of nanofiltration for the removal of endocrine disrupting compounds. Desalination. 2009;240(1):127–31.
  89. 89. De Munari A, Semiao AJC, Antizar-Ladislao B. Retention of pesticide endosulfan by nanofiltration: influence of organic matter–pesticide complexation and solute–membrane interactions. Water Research. 2013;47(10):3484–96.
  90. 90. Kimura K, Toshima S, Amy G, Watanabe Y. Rejection of neutral endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceutical active compounds (PhACs) by RO membranes. Journal of Membrane Science. 2004;245(1):71–8.
  91. 91. Comerton AM, Andrews RC, Bagley DM, Hao C. The rejection of endocrine disrupting and pharmaceutically active compounds by NF and RO membranes as a function of compound and water matrix properties. Journal of Membrane Science. 2008;313(1):323–35.
  92. 92. Vergili I. Application of nanofiltration for the removal of carbamazepine, diclofenac and ibuprofen from drinking water sources. Journal of Environmental Management. 2013;127:177–87.
  93. 93. Nghiem LD, Tadkaew N, Sivakumar M. Removal of trace organic contaminants by submerged membrane bioreactors. Desalination. 2009;236(1):127–34.
  94. 94. Tadkaew N, Sivakumar M, Khan SJ, McDonald JA, Nghiem LD. Effect of mixed liquor pH on the removal of trace organic contaminants in a membrane bioreactor. Bioresource Technology. 2010;101(5):1494–500.
  95. 95. Acero JL, Benitez FJ, Real FJ, Teva F. Coupling of adsorption, coagulation, and ultrafiltration processes for the removal of emerging contaminants in a secondary effluent. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2012;210:1–8.
  96. 96. Sahar E, David I, Gelman Y, Chikurel H, Aharoni A, Messalem R, Brenner A. The use of RO to remove emerging micropollutants following CAS/UF or MBR treatment of municipal wastewater. Desalination. 2011;273(1):142–7.
  97. 97. Cartagena P, El Kaddouri M, Cases V, Trapote A, Prats D. Reduction of emerging micropollutants, organic matter, nutrients and salinity from real wastewater by combined MBR–NF/RO treatment. Separation and Purification Technology. 2013;110:132–43.
  98. 98. Lipp P, Groß H-J, Tiehm A. Improved elimination of organic micropollutants by a process combination of membrane bioreactor (MBR) and powdered activated carbon (PAC). Desalination and Water Treatment. 2012;42(1–3):65–72.
  99. 99. Rahman M, Yanful E, Jasim S. Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the aquatic environment: implications for the drinking water industry and global environmental health. Journal of Water and Health. 2009;7(2):224–43.
  100. 100. Sarkar S, Ali S, Rehmann L, Nakhla G, Ray MB. Degradation of estrone in water and wastewater by various advanced oxidation processes. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2014;278:16–24.
  101. 101. Chen P-J, Linden KG, Hinton DE, Kashiwada S, Rosenfeldt EJ, Kullman SW. Biological assessment of bisphenol A degradation in water following direct photolysis and UV advanced oxidation. Chemosphere. 2006;65(7):1094–102.

Written By

Sreejon Das, Nillohit Mitra Ray, Jing Wan, Adnan Khan, Tulip Chakraborty and Madhumita B. Ray

Submitted: 11 April 2016 Reviewed: 06 September 2016 Published: 03 May 2017