Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Advances in Sustainable Strategies for Water Pollution Control: A Systematic Review

Written By

Clement Kamil Abdallah, Samuel Jerry Cobbina, Khaldoon A. Mourad, Abu Iddrisu and Justice Agyei Ampofo

Submitted: 10 September 2022 Reviewed: 16 September 2022 Published: 10 November 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.108121

Pollution - Annual Volume 2024 IntechOpen
Pollution - Annual Volume 2024 Authored by Ismail M.M. Rahman

From the Annual Volume

Pollution - Annual Volume 2024 [Working Title]

Dr. Ismail M.M. Rahman and Dr. Zinnat Ara Begum

Chapter metrics overview

155 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Various technologies, strategies, and policies have been implemented to improve water quality worldwide. This systematic review comprehensively appraises technologies, strategies, and water pollution control policies enacted worldwide between 2000 and 2021. Five databases, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Library of Congress, were used for the search. After screening, 89 eligible articles were selected from 2119 documents for further analysis. Selected articles were included: (1) 31 articles covered policies and strategies enacted for controlling water pollution, (2) 47 articles focused on sustainable technologies to control water pollution in different countries, and (3) 11 articles were Nature-based solutions related. Sustainable technologies identified were: aquatic vegetation restoration technology, eco-remediation bio-manipulation technology, wetlands rehabilitation technology, floating aquatic-plant bed systems, and adsorption technology. Most of these methods are geared toward reducing pollutant levels in industrial and agricultural wastewater. Also, most policies are geared toward the manufacturing and farming industries, respectively. Nature-based solutions identified were horizontal-flow treatment wetlands (HFTWs) and constructed wetlands. Furthermore, the current one is atomic layer deposition (ALD).


  • pollution
  • sustainable technologies
  • water policy
  • pollution control strategies

1. Introduction

Pollution of water sources includes the introduction of harmful substances into aquatic ecosystems. This indicates that a material or substances have accumulated in the water supply to unhealthy levels, endangering human health, animal, and plant life [1]. Substances, organic and inorganic, as well as biological, radiological, and thermal, can deteriorate the quality of water to the point where it is no longer usable. In addition, pollution can come from different or single sources, known as a point source and nonpoint source pollution. Point source pollution is an identifiable source of pollution, such as a drain or pipe. An example is the frequent release of industrial wastewater into rivers and the sea. Nonpoint source pollution refers to stormwater runoff that gathers impurities along its path to surface water bodies or aquifers from diffuse sources such as buildings, pavement, and agricultural fields [2]. As a result of these pollutants, the water is unfit for human, animal, or ecological consumption or use.

Furthermore, available freshwater in the world is gradually reducing due to high pollution levels from human and industrial activities. For example, one of humanity’s critical environmental challenges is the contamination of freshwater resources from increasing industries and natural compounds. In addition, rapid population growth and advancing industrialization have increased the demand for water in many countries and parts of the world, a precious commodity due to the adverse effects of climate change. According to Vörösmarty et al. [3], over 80% of the world’s population is exposed to water security threats.

An increasing number of emerging contaminates are entering water systems from industrialization and human activity, such as personal care products, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, detergents, and pesticides. These chemical compounds are released into water bodies causing unprecedented health hazards. More so, water waterborne diseases and microorganisms are found virtually everywhere. These microorganisms enter waterways through septic tanks, farm runoff, storm drains, and meat and other food processing industries.

Countries and institutions worldwide have become increasingly conscious of and concerned about water pollution in recent years. In order to keep water supplies clean in the long run, advanced sustainable pollution control methods have been developed on a global scale [4]. Water pollution can be prevented, controlled, and reduced by measures including source reduction (or “pollution prevention at the source”), the precautionary principle, and the licensing of wastewater discharges by regulatory institutions [5].

Establishing policies and strategies and developing cutting-edge technology in water pollution are inherently beneficial since they help regulate and enhance water quality, avoiding unfavorable health effects. Progress in water pollution control dates back to the industrial revolution era [6]. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1948) followed the Chicago Act (1881) as the first significant water pollution regulation in the United States. Since then, several regional, national, and international systems have been implemented to address these issues [7]. At the continental level, the European Union (EU) Water Directive, adopted in 2000, provided recommendations for safeguarding water on continental scale natural formations such as river basins [8, 9, 10, 11]. The most prevalent methods used to control local water pollution have been the ban on dumping garbage into rivers and the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle) approach to trash management [1, 12].

In light of these challenges, much attention has been focused on finding ways to control pollution and reclaim wastewater. Moreover, develop effective and cost-efficient methods while protecting the environment and human health. In recent years, extensive research has been conducted to identify realistic and alternative water and wastewater treatment systems. Toxic contaminants in water and wastewater can be removed using various techniques, including coagulation, membrane process, adsorption, dialysis, foam flotation, osmosis, photocatalytic degradation, and biological approaches. However, their widespread implementation has been hampered by issues such as processing efficiency, energy demand, engineering knowledge, economic value, and infrastructure.

As stated by Moher et al. [13] and Tawfik et al. [14], posing the review’s objective is imperative in any systematic review study. Therefore, the main objective of this systematic review is to identify various advanced strategies, policies, technologies, and Nature-based solutions enacted in different countries to control water pollution. In addition, the chapter also summarized policy implementation gaps in African and Asia countries, Europe, and North American countries. Finally, the review identified knowledge and research gaps relevant for further investigations.


2. Methods

2.1 Search strategy

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct this thorough systematic review [15]. The search focused on articles published from 2000 to August 2022. Five scientific databases (Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Library of Congress) were searched using a systematic screening approach to identify water pollution control strategies and technologies published in peer-reviewed journals. The search terms were water pollution, aquatic pollution, river basin pollution, pollution control policies, management strategies, pollution prevention programs, and cutting-edge pollution mitigation techniques. Following the establishment of inclusion and exclusion criteria, pertinent articles were chosen. Only English-language sources were considered, and it was further supplemented by a search of a reference list of the most relevant articles.

2.2 Eligibility criteria and data extraction

Four procedures were used to find appropriate manuscripts for the review (Figure 1). To begin, we imported all of the manuscripts we could find from our downloads into EndNote X8. This purpose was to weed out any papers that had already been chosen. Also, titles and abstracts were used to determine which remaining publications were relevant. In addition, we read the articles in their entirety to ensure they fulfilled the criteria for this systematic review. All remaining papers were then carefully examined to ensure they fulfilled the inclusion criteria in Table 1. Water pollution control policies, strategies/technologies, initiation date/period, authors’ names, and publication year are all topics covered by the data extracted from the chosen publications.

Figure 1.

The screening process of articles.

Articles are either published initially in English or translated into English.Articles that are not published in English
Prior to August, articles focused on advanced water pollution management techniques, policies, and technologies.
Articles published after August 2022
Authored articles that merely offer opinions, recommendations, and hypothetical situations.
Articles published before 2001

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection of articles.


3. Results

3.1 Characteristics of literature

After the duplicates were taken out, 2119 papers were reviewed using only their titles and abstracts (Figure 1). After the above process, 227 articles were found to be relevant to the review’s objectives. However, only 89 papers met the criteria for inclusion. The review included articles published after 2001 focusing on groundwater and surface pollution control strategies and recent advances in suitable nature-based solutions. Moreover, articles on water pollution control using cutting-edge technologies were included (Table 2).

CharacteristicsNumberFrequency (%)
Policies and strategies3134.8
Sustainable technologies4752.8
Nature-based solutions1112.4

Table 2.

Distribution of included articles.

3.2 Characteristics of the retained studies

The following sections describe the features of the included study. The included articles were made up of cross-sectional and review papers. Within the included papers, articles that focused on sustainable technologies were (n = 47) 52.8%. In total, 34.8% of the articles concentrated on policies and strategies. In total, 12% (n = 11) of the papers were Nature-based solution-related topics (Table 2).

TechnologyPollutantSource of pollutionReferences
ElectrodialysisChromiumMunicipal sewage[16, 17]
Biosorption by sawdustSafranin-O dyeIndustrial wastewater[18, 19]
Biosorption using Arachis hypogaeaSafranin-O DyeTextiles industries[20]
Anaerobic digestionManure-borne pathogensAgricultural waste[21]
Sewage sludge-based activated carbon adsorptionPhenolic compoundsIndustrial wastewater effluent[22]
Blue-green wallsNutrients such as nitratesAgricultural pollution[23]
Groundwater rechargeArsenicIrrigation fields[24]
Modified magnetic resins (NDMP resin)Ammonia nitrogenIndustrial and municipal effluent[25]
Artificial aquifer researchMicropollutantsMunicipal sewage[26]
Transition metal sulfides (TMSs)Refractory organic pollutantsIndustrial wastewater[27]
Atomic layer depositionAquatic contaminantsAgricultural fields[28, 29]
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs)Industrial and agriculture[30]
SonicationCyanobacteria (blue-green algae)Nutrients[31]
Green liver systemCyanotoxinsWastewater from aquaculture[32]
Floc and sinkCyanobacteria[33]
Lanthanum-modified bentonite (LMB—sink/lock)Planktothrix rubescen[34]
Visible-LED irradiationMicrocystinRiver pollution[35]
Hydrogen peroxide approachCyanobacteriaFarmlands[36]
Phosphorus elimination plant (PEP) combined with advanced pharmaceutical treatmentPhosphorusPharmaceutical[37]
Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs)[38, 39]
Constructed wetlandTotal nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorous (TP)Industrial and domestic sewage[40]
Graphitic carbon nitride-based membrane[41]
Single-atom catalysts (SACs)[28]
Fabric-based materialOil spillOil refinery industry[42]
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for phytoremediationSulfadiazine pollutant[43]
Eco-remediation technologyHeavy metalIndustrial waste[44]
Aquatic vegetation restoration technology[45]
Bio-manipulation technology[46]
Floating aquatic-plant bed systems[47, 48, 49]
Wetlands rehabilitation technology[50]
Adsorption technology[51, 52, 53]

Table 3.

Summary of technology type, pollutant, and sources of pollution.


4. Nature-based solution (NBS) strategies for water pollution control

4.1 Constructed wetlands (CWs)

Constructed wetland technology has been around for quite some time (Table 3). It has widespread use and is well-established in eastern and western Europe and North America, but it is hardly ever used in Africa and the Middle East [4]. However, most European countries are beginning to focus on CWs because of their effectiveness in amicrobial and antibiotic removal from wastewater [54]. Its function is based on natural materials and processes facilitated by interactions between the plant’s main system components, including the plants, substrate media, wastewater, and microorganisms. These components naturally develop within the system [4]. Because the system is composed mainly of soil, gravel, and plants rather than nonrenewable elements such as concrete or steel, CWs are highly valued domestically [55]. Using readily available material is crucial for cost-effectiveness and stimulating local and national economies, as most of the components for a CW can be obtained from domestic suppliers [56]. In addition, hybrid CW is noted to be very efficient in removing phosphorus load from agricultural wastewater [54, 57].

4.2 Horizontal-flow treatment wetlands (HFTWs)

The world’s attention has been drawn to NBS for solving most of its environmental challenges. HFTW is one of the recent advances in developing a sustainable solution to control water pollution worldwide [58]. To facilitate horizontal flow through the filter media, horizontal-flow treatment wetlands (HFTWs) are constructed from gravel beds planted with emergent wetland vegetation [59]. An anaerobic environment can be maintained at a subsurface flow rate if the medium is completely saturated with water. Straining and filtering keep the solids out, while adsorption and absorption of the solubles considerably [60]. Chemical and biological processes in the filter medium play a significant role in further transforming and degrading the retained chemicals. The root zone is a dynamic area that facilitates biofilm adhesion, oxygen exchange, and the maintenance of hydraulic flow [61].


5. Policies for agriculture and industrial pollution control

Voluntary approach (VA) and informal regulations are other approaches to abate water pollution. Furthermore, serving as an alternative policy to market-based and prescriptive. The approach offers polluters incentives through environmental leadership or cost-sharing programs [62]. Policies identified in this review concerning this approach are as follow: U.S. 33/50 program on toxic releases is voluntary regulation implemented in 1988 to reduce emissions of 17 chemicals to water, soil, and air by 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995 [63]. The effectiveness of this policy is mixed, as researchers have different views. Bi and Khanna [64] revealed that pollution reduction could not be attributed to the 33/50 program. However, other researchers attributed the significant decline in the 33/45 releases to participation in the program [65]. Compared with the mandatory regulations, it is unclear if the VA positively impacts pollution control and improves water quality [66]. Another VA approach identified in the review is Mexico’s Clean Industry Program. Industries participate in this voluntary program to improve their knowledge of current pollution control strategies. It was observed that dirty industries punished by the regulatory authority are more likely to participate in the program. Also, the effectiveness of sectors participating in the program to control pollution was not substantially different from the nonparticipants [67].

5.1 Environmental liability policies

These policies are pretty standard, especially in the developed world. It rules that the cost of ambient water pollution should be internalized. Liabilities are designed to support the “Polluter Pay Principle”; however, polluters do not usually pay for the damages [68]. Similar to developing and developed countries, it became relevant when the EU adopted the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) in 2004. The directive holds polluters strictly responsible for the environmental damage they cause to water and requires regulatory authorities to ensure that polluters restore damages to nature in member countries [69]. Water pollution control in South Africa is regulated by the National Water Act 36 of 1998. This Act’s primary objective is to prevent water resource degradation. Section 19 of the Act stipulates that any person, organization, or owner of land whose activities have caused or are likely to cause water resource pollution should put up measures to stop or prevent it from happening [12].


6. Discussion

6.1 Technologies for water pollution control

This study attempted to systematically analyze some countries’ existing literature on water pollution control strategies and technologies. Heavy industrialization in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and food processing has resulted in the pollution of water bodies in the world. A rigorous review sourced from different platforms, including the Web of Science and Scopus, has resulted in 89 articles related to the research on advanced water pollution control strategies. The technologies captured in this review focused more on preventing inorganic pollution than organic pollution. Moreover, most of the pollutants are inorganic pollutants.

Electrodialysis (ED) is remarkable in removing chromium and arsenic from water polluted by sources such as textile dyeing, leather tanning, paints, and pigment industries [70]. ED technology can reclaim wastewater and recover water through concentration, dilution, desalination, regeneration, and valorization. Gurreri et al. [71] reported that factory plants had started large-scale installation for industrial wastewater treatment. However, despite the advancement in electrodialysis development, its liquid membrane generates bubbles at the electrodes, making it unstable, and a voltage of 300 V can easily puncture the liquid membrane [16].

From the systematic review, atomic layer deposition (ALD) is frequently used for aquatic remediation [29]. Cyanide ions, heavy metals, and other toxic substances can be removed from wastewater effectively by ion exchange [72]. ALD is considered the most advanced version of traditional chemical vapor deposition. Among the thin film deposition methods for wastewater treatment, ALD has become the most attractive because of its ability to work perfectly on complex three-dimensional surfaces and the uniqueness of its uniform deposition [73, 74].

Antibiotic contamination of drinking water has recently reached epidemic proportions. Shukla et al. [75] reported that sawdust, a relatively inexpensive and abundant material, was investigated as an absorbent for removing heavy metals and other pollutants. Sawdust has been a proven advanced and scalable technology for removing contaminants from water. Sulfonated sawdust (SD-SO3 H) exhibited high capacity in the removal of antibiotics such as sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and tetracycline (TC) [76]. Also, treated mahogany sawdust as a biosorbent effectively removed Nickel ions (Ni2+) from industrial wastewater [77]. Textile industries consume many dyes to colorate fabrics, and the waste from these activities is often discharged into water bodies in countries like China. Research reports by Saroha & Ghosh [18] have shown that sawdust is very effective in removing safranin-O dye. In the same study, the Arachis hypogaea (peanut hull) shell has been proven very effective in eliminating Sefranin-O dye. This technology is inexpensive because it is made from waste materials from wood products and peanut hulls which can easily be found in our environment. Therefore, low-income countries can adopt it to prevent industrial pollution of water bodies.

Water hyacinth is identified as an invasive weed that threatens the existence of aquatic life. The presence of water hyacinth depletes the oxygen and nutrient levels in the area where they grow. Additionally, it can also obstruct water movement. It is, however, a noxious plant, but one that is also rich in invaluable chemicals such as cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose, which are found inside. It can be used as a biofuel with the help of these chemicals [43]. Its biosorption ability to reduce various contaminants in wastewater has been well studied [78]. It can minimize physiochemical properties such as total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and reduce heavy metals and dyestuffs concentrations in industrial wastewater [79].

Water contaminants can be successfully removed through membrane separation, using little energy and leaving a small carbon footprint. The most critical challenge in developing membrane technology is finding a low-cost, stable, flexible, and multifunctional material [41]. Graphic carbon nitrite has emerged as a promising membrane material because of its unique structural properties and remarkable catalytic activity. According to Gao et al. [80], graphic nitrates showed effective and efficient photodegradation and adsorption properties for removing organic pollutants from wastewater.

Persistent pollution from factories has degraded our freshwater supplies and made them unsafe to drink for decades. Since industrialization increased waste creation, this has become extremely problematic to handle. Researchers have suggested that creating tools to cut down on or eliminate industrial waste entirely is the greatest approach to find a long-term solution to this issue [23]. China, for instance, has spent in creating new cutting-edge technologies for treating industrial wastewater after a number of measures failed to improve river water quality [81, 82]. In Belin, for instance, a phosphorus elimination plant was built to treat the effluent of the pharmaceutical industry in order to limit the quantity of phosphorus discharged into the rivers [37].


7. Policy gaps and implementation challenges in Asia and Africa

The enforcement gap is the major challenge in implementing China’s water pollution control policies and regulations. China is recognized as one of the countries in the developing world with solid institutions and comprehensive environmental regulations [83]. Nevertheless, the enforcement gap is identified in its political, economic, and social factors that prevent China’s comprehensive environmental policies from resulting in clean rivers. Politically, the central government is strong and can create policies without much stakeholder engagement or discussion. An example of such political power was when the central government directed Jiangsu Province to clean Tai lake by 1998. Though the standards were met by the deadline, in-depth examination revealed that most factories cheated to pass the inspection [81]. This directive was either issued with little or no engagement from the stakeholders. Also, complex and fragmented institutional arrangements challenged the “333” integrated strategy [84]. The fragmented authoritarian structure of China’s government is adversely affecting their efforts to keep their water and rivers clean.

Furthermore, Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs) are often found under several bureaucracies and answer to many bureaucracies and local governments [85]. This can make their work very cumbersome and ineffective. To make EPBs effective and efficient, their efforts should be decentralized to all local governments within China. Moreover, Gao et al. [86] and Han et al. [84] identified a lack of incentives for government officials or penalties and complex water administration as challenges for implementing water pollution control measures in China. Another issue undermining the ineffectiveness of water pollution control measures is the lack of awareness of the dangers of water pollution [81]. Despite the increase in awareness, a survey conducted in rural China revealed that lack of environmental consciousness was cited as one of the significant reasons for deteriorating environmental conditions [87].

India’s water pollution management has undergone significant reforms in the past four decades. However, implementation challenges persist [88]. Several ministries deal with the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, which delays decision-making, inter-sectoral conflicts, and fragmentation of efforts [89]. The same gap is identified in Pakistan, where multiple authorities oversee the water sector with various regulations and overlapping responsibilities [90]. To avoid this, a unified framework can be created for decision-making with representation from each ministry and stakeholder. Also, stakeholder participation is identified as a gap impeding India’s river basin conservation plan [91]. In Pakistan, industries are made to self-monitor and report their environmental management situation under the PEPA Act [92]. Alam [93] said that industries discharge low effluent standards into wetlands and rivers in Pakistan. In Ethiopia, there are discrepancies between the nicely crafted policies and practices. For example, there are no centralized water quality database, effluent standards, and water quality guidelines for industries [94]. Coupled with this, Addis Ababa, as the capital city, lacks a proper drainage system [95]. As a result, domestic and industrial wastewater is quickly discharged into river bodies. It has made it almost impossible to control river pollution.

South African Water Act is viewed as s the Rolls Royce of IWRM legislation [96]. However, its implementation became a difficult task. The critical challenge to the performance of the Water Act was that it was too overambitious to implement vast functions simultaneously [97]. Though the Act was written so it could be implemented in phases, the implementing authority was overwhelmed with multiple tasks simultaneously with limited resources [96].


8. Policy gaps and implementation challenges in Europe and North America

In the developed world, water pollution control policies have recorded success in keeping rivers and watersheds clean [98, 99, 100]. This success is attributed to the vital institutions, available funding, and human resources [62]. Despite the success stories of these policies, there are several accounts of policy gaps and challenges hampering the attainment of pollution-free rivers [101]. Regarding water quality trading in the USA, Canada, and Australia, researchers have recounted instances where buyers were not available to purchase pollution credit from sellers [99]. Many in the USA have no trading [102]. Claire and Bryan [103] described it as another “polluter-pays scheme” by more giant industries. More prominent industries buy salinity credit allocation from smaller enterprises if they exceed their limits in Australia Hunter River. This can make more giant industries relax on exploring more innovative technologies to prevent pollution and rely on credits from smaller enterprises. Farmers in Canada had reservations about phosphorous trading in the South Nation River watershed. They feared that blame would come if phosphorus standards were not met [104]. Because water quality trading permits polluters to buy credits instead of reaching their pollution targets, such programs could result in harmful pollution hotspots if one facility purchases too many credits. Individual markets can implement hot spot prevention techniques but are not obligated to do so [101].

The European Union report on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) recommended that Germany and other EU countries improve their water management. This signals gaps in their policies and implementation process. European Commission assesses that measures to protect freshwater are not ambitious, demonstrating very low clean water aspirations. Under this same circumstance, other countries are still opting for the easy way out and pushing for the Water Framework Directive to be significantly weakened. This was noticed during the commission’s fitness check of the WFD [105].


9. Knowledge gap and future research

This systematic review focuses on the last 21 years. The results show that research on water pollution control strategies and technology in developing and developed countries focused on industrial and agricultural pollution control (point source pollution) instead of urban water pollution control. Therefore, it is suggested that future review efforts include the following. First, researchers can do a systematic review of urban water pollution control strategies and technologies with a more extended review period of 30 years. Strategies and technologies to control urban water pollution should focus on sanitary sewage, runoff, separated sewage system, storm drainage, and combined sewage system. A longer review period will give new insights and a good picture of urban water pollution control. Second, considering the gaps and policy implementation challenges, subsequent researchers can do a systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of water pollution control policies and strategies in developing and developed countries.


10. Conclusion

A systematic review was conducted to identify advanced water pollution control strategies, technologies, and policies for published articles from 2001 to 2022. The papers used in this analysis fell into one of three groups: (1) that introduce policies and strategies to control water pollution worldwide, (2) articles that introduce different sustainable technologies to control water pollution in different countries, and (3) Nature-based solutions related strategies to control water pollution. Category two of the review was further classified into technology type, pollutant, and source of pollution. Furthermore, category one was also further disintegrated into different policy types. As a result, water pollution control policies identified were voluntary approaches and environmental liability policies. Therefore, the main conclusions regarding advanced water pollution control strategies, policies, and technologies in the countries included in the review can be drawn as follows:

Among the technologies identified, absorption is common in advanced methods for controlling pollutants such as cyanobacteria, nutrients, arsenic, and heavy metals. The primary sources of the contaminants were industries and agricultural farmlands.

It was revealed that most policies enacted in the reviewed countries were prescriptive. It is also known as the command and control policy because it gives industries and polluters directives to meet specific water quality requirements. USA and China dominated with such policies. Institutions such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are given the power to regulate and closely monitor industries’ activities to prevent water pollution. Global pollution of water resources is mainly from industrial and agricultural waste. However, as observed from the review, most technologies and policies were focused on minimizing waste from industries and agricultural activities. Therefore, there is a need for the following recommendation below:

  • Global adoption of green technology should be encouraged to ensure that the water pollution control approach is environmentally friendly, economically feasible, and energy efficient. With these methods, pollutant and nutrient removal will be very efficient. At the same time, carbon footprints will be minimized, and waste will be reduced, and safeguard human health and the environment.

  • Over ambitious policies and strategies should be redesigned to promote cooperation between stakeholders and all water users to ensure sustainable water management.

  • Waste materials such as peanut hulls and sawdust should be considered for water pollution management in future technological developments. This will encourage the recycling of environmental waste while also preventing water contamination at the same time.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict(s) of interest.


  1. 1. Khatun R. Water pollution: Causes, consequences, prevention method and role of WBPHED with special reference from Murshidabad District. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2017;7(8):269-277
  2. 2. Victoria EPA. Point and Non-point Sources of Water Pollution. Victoria: EPA Victoria; 2021
  3. 3. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature. 2010;467(7315):555-561. DOI: 10.1038/NATURE09440
  4. 4. Stefanakis AI. Constructed wetlands for sustainable wastewater treatment in hot and arid climates: Opportunities, challenges and case studies in the Middle East. Water (Switzerland). 2020;12(6):1665. DOI: 10.3390/W12061665
  5. 5. Adejumoke I et al. Water pollution: Effects, prevention, and climatic impact. In: Water Challenges of an Urbanizing World. IntechOpen; 2018. DOI: 10.5772/ INTECHOPEN(Matjaž Glavan).72018
  6. 6. Owa FD. Water pollution: Sources, effects, control and management. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2013;4(8):65-68. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n8p65
  7. 7. EPA. Environmental Pollution Prevention, Control, and Abatement Manual. USA: EPA; 2016
  8. 8. European Commission. The EU Water Framework Directive. Publications Office. 2014. DOI: 10.2779/75229
  9. 9. Funfak A, Fischlechner M, Donath E, Köhler JM. Fluorescence-labelled polymer beads for chemical monitoring of nanoliter fluid segments. In: Topical Conference on Applications of Micro-Reactor Engineering 2007, Held at the 2007 AIChE Spring National Meeting. New York, NY: American Institute of Chemical Engineers; 2014. pp. 153-165
  10. 10. McInnes RJ. European Union Water Framework Directive and Wetlands. The Wetland Book: I: Structure and Function, Management, and Methods. Dordrecht: Springer; 2018. pp. 583-590. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9659-3_129
  11. 11. Valinia S. EU-Water Framework Directive, Reference Conditions & Public Participation: A Comprehensive Directive with Antagonistic Poles or a Harmonious Monopole? Uppsala: SLU; 2011
  12. 12. Rangata MS, Odeku KO. An overview of water pollution control strategy. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2014;5(23):976-982. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p976
  13. 13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ (Online). 2009a;339(7716):332-336. DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.B2535
  14. 14. Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Tropical Medicine and Health. 2019;47(1):46. DOI: 10.1186/S41182-019-0165-6
  15. 15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009b;6(7):e1000097. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  16. 16. Zhao Y, Kang D, Chen Z, Zhan J, Wu X. Removal of chromium using electrochemical approaches: A review. International Journal of Electrochemical Science. 2018;13(2):1250-1259. DOI: 10.20964/2018.02.46
  17. 17. Sharma B, Singh P. An Overview on Toxicity, Detection, and Removal of Chromium in Water and Waste Water. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 15-23. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-32-9956-6_2
  18. 18. Saroha A, Ghosh A. Biosorption of Safranine O dye by SawDust. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 97-105. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-32-9956-6_11
  19. 19. Abudi ZN. Using sawdust to treat synthetic municipal wastewater and its consequent transformation into biogas. Journal of Ecological Engineering. 2018;19(5):10-18. DOI: 10.12911/22998993/91271
  20. 20. Panchal V, Ghosh A. Biosorption of Safranin-O dye by Shell of Arachis Hypogaea. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 141-149. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-32-9956-6_15
  21. 21. Alegbeleye OO, Sant’Ana AS. Manure-borne pathogens as an important source of water contamination: An update on the dynamics of pathogen survival/transport as well as practical risk mitigation strategies. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 2020;227(January):113524. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113524
  22. 22. Mu’azu ND, Jarrah N, Zubair M, Alagha O. Removal of phenolic compounds from water using sewage sludge-based activated carbon adsorption: A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;14(10):1-34. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14101094
  23. 23. Deletic A, Wang H. Water pollution control for sustainable development. Engineering. 2019;5(5):839-840. DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.07.013
  24. 24. Sanyal T, Bhattacharjee P, Paul S, Bhattacharjee P. Recent advances in arsenic research: Significance of differential susceptibility and sustainable strategies for mitigation. Frontiers in Public Health. 2020;8(October):1-16. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00464
  25. 25. Huang Y, Sun J, Li A, Xie X. The ‘333’ integrated strategy for effective pollution control and its application to the heavily polluted Jialu River in North China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2018;25(13):12579-12587. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-1467-7
  26. 26. Lazarova V, Emsellem Y, Paille J, Glucina K, Gislette P. Water quality management of aquifer recharge using advanced tools. Water Science and Technology. 2011;64(5):1161-1168. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2011.418
  27. 27. Li Y, Dong H, Li L, Tang L, Tian R, Li R, et al. Recent advances in waste water treatment through transition metal sulfides-based advanced oxidation processes. Water Research. 2021;192:116850. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.116850
  28. 28. Huang B, Wu Z, Zhou H, Li J, Zhou C, Xiong Z, et al. Recent advances in single-atom catalysts for advanced oxidation processes in water purification. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2021;412(November 2020):125253. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125253
  29. 29. Li R, Li N, Hou J, Yu Y, Liang L, Yan B, et al. Aquatic environment remediation by atomic layer deposition-based multi-functional materials: A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2021;402(135):123513. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123513
  30. 30. Meng F, Zhang S, Oh Y, Zhou Z, Shin HS, Chae SR. Fouling in membrane bioreactors: An updated review. Water Research. 2017;114:151-180. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.006
  31. 31. Rajasekhar P, Fan L, Nguyen T, Roddick FA. A review of the use of sonication to control cyanobacterial blooms. Water Research. 2012;46(14):4319-4329. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.054
  32. 32. Serrà A, Philippe L, Gómez E. Removal of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in waters. Toxins. 2021;13(9):636. DOI: 10.3390/toxins13090636
  33. 33. Arruda RS, Noyma NP, de L, M, Mesquita MCB, de Almeida ÉC, Pinto E, et al. ‘Floc and Sink’ technique removes cyanobacteria and microcystins from tropical reservoir water. Toxins. 2021;13(6):405
  34. 34. Miquel Lürling MM, G. W. Removal of positively buoyant Planktothrix rubescens in Lake restoration. Toxins. 2020;12(11):700. DOI: 10.3390/toxins12110700
  35. 35. Benamara M, Gómez E, Dhahri R, Serrà A. Enhanced photocatalytic removal of cyanotoxins by Al-doped ZnO nanoparticles with visible-LED irradiation. Toxins. 2021;13(1):66. DOI: 10.3390/toxins13010066
  36. 36. Lusty MW, Gobler CJ. The efficacy of hydrogen peroxide in mitigating cyanobacterial blooms and altering microbial communities across four lakes in NY, USA. Toxins. 2021;12(7):428
  37. 37. Schimmelpfennig S, Kirillin G, Engelhardt C, Nützmann G, Dünnbier U. Seeking a compromise between pharmaceutical pollution and phosphorus load: Management strategies for Lake Tegel, Berlin. Water Research. 2012;46(13):4153-4163. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.024
  38. 38. Wang C, Kim J, Malgras V, Na J, Lin J, You J, et al. Metal–organic frameworks and their derived materials: Emerging catalysts for a sulfate radicals-based advanced oxidation process in Water purification. Small. 2019;15(16):1-21. DOI: 10.1002/smll.201900744
  39. 39. Wang M, Mohanty SK, Mahendra S. Nanomaterial-supported enzymes for Water purification and monitoring in point-of-use Water supply systems. Accounts of Chemical Research. 2019;52(4):876-885. DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00613
  40. 40. Zhang T, Xu D, He F, Zhang Y, Wu Z. Application of constructed wetland for water pollution control in China during 1990-2010. Ecological Engineering. 2012;47:189-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.06.022
  41. 41. Cui Y, An X, Zhang S, Tang Q , Lan H, Liu H, et al. Emerging graphitic carbon nitride-based membranes for water purification. Water Research. 2021;200:117207. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117207
  42. 42. Wang B, Liang W, Guo Z, Liu W. Biomimetic super-lyophobic and super-lyophilic materials applied for oil/water separation: A new strategy beyond nature. Chemical Society Reviews. 2015;44(1):336-361. DOI: 10.1039/c4cs00220b
  43. 43. Madikizela LM. Removal of organic pollutants in water using water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Journal of Environmental Management. 2021;295(June):113153. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113153
  44. 44. Mohanty I, Rath A. Bioremediation: Current Research Trends and Applications. Waste to Energy Prospect Appl (Switzerland). Published online 2020:99-120. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-33-4347-4_5
  45. 45. Geist J, Hawkins SJ. Habitat recovery and restoration in aquatic ecosystems: Current progress and future challenges. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2016;26(5):942-962. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2702
  46. 46. Desai JP, Pillarisetti A, Brooks AD. Engineering approaches to biomanipulation. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering. 2007;9:35-53. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.060906.151940
  47. 47. Kırım B, Çoban D, Güler M. Floating aquatic plants and their impact on wetlands in Turkey. In: Presented on 2nd International Conference on Water Resource and Wetlands. Dambovita, Romania: Romanian Limnogeographical Association; 2013. 2014. pp. 102-109. Available from:
  48. 48. Deng Y, Ni F. Review of ecological floating bed restoration in polluted Water. Journal of Water Resource and Protection. 2013;05(12):1203-1209. DOI: 10.4236/jwarp.2013.512128
  49. 49. Li XN, Song HL, Li W, Lu XW, Nishimura O. An integrated ecological floating-bed employing plant, freshwater clam and biofilm carrier for purification of eutrophic water. Ecological Engineering. 2010;36(4):382-390. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.11.004
  50. 50. Wang J, Zhong C, Kuang M, Yang J. Application of Lake wetland ecological rehabilitation Technology in Environmental Pollution Control and Ecological Rehabilitation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2020;1649(1):0-6. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1649/1/012002
  51. 51. Sivamani S, Leena GB. Removal of dyes from wastewater using adsorption - a review. International Journal of Bio Sciences and Technology. 2009;2(4):47-51
  52. 52. Eniola JO, Kumar R, Barakat MA. Adsorptive removal of antibiotics from water over natural and modified adsorbents. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2019;26(34):34775-34788. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-06641-6
  53. 53. Qu J, Fan M. The current state of water quality and technology development for water pollution control in China. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2010;40(6):519-560. DOI: 10.1080/10643380802451953
  54. 54. Nan X, Lavrnić S, Toscano A. Potential of constructed wetland treatment systems for agricultural wastewater reuse under the EU framework. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020;275:111219. DOI: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2020.111219
  55. 55. Aguado R, Parra O, García L, Manso M, Urkijo L, Mijangos F. Modelling and simulation of subsurface horizontal flow constructed wetlands. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2022;47:102676. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102676
  56. 56. Weng CH. Water environment protection and contamination treatment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2019;26(30):30541-30543. DOI: 10.1007/S11356-019-06281-W
  57. 57. Mohamed AYA, Siggins A, Healy MG, Huallacháin ÓD, Fenton O, Tuohy P. A novel hybrid coagulation-constructed wetland system for the treatment of dairy wastewater. Science of the Total Environment. 2022;847:157567. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157567
  58. 58. Shukla R, Gupta D, Singh G, Mishra VK. Performance of horizontal flow constructed wetland for secondary treatment of domestic wastewater in a remote tribal area of Central India. Sustainable Environment Research. 2021;31(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1186/S42834-021-00087-7/FIGURES/4
  59. 59. Dabrowski W, Karolinczak B, Malinowski P, Boruszko D. Modeling of pollutants removal in subsurface vertical flow and horizontal flow constructed wetlands. Water. 2019;11(1):180. DOI: 10.3390/W11010180
  60. 60. Mello D, Carvalho KQ , Passig FH, Freire FB, Borges AC, Lima MX, et al. Nutrient and organic matter removal from low strength sewage treated with constructed wetlands. Environmental Technology. 2019;40(1):11-18. DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2017.1377291
  61. 61. Cross K, Tondera K, Rizzo A, Andrews L, Pucher B, Istenič D, et al. Nature-Based Solutions Wastewater Treatment. London, UK: IWA Publishing; 2021
  62. 62. Khanna M, Brouhle K. Voluntary approaches to environmental protection. In: Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics. 1st ed. Vol. 3-3. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Inc.; 2013. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-375067-9.00032-2
  63. 63. Bi X, Khanna M, Economics C. Re-assessment of the impact of EPA’s voluntary 33/50 program on toxic releases. Land Economic. 2011;88:1-49
  64. 64. Bi X, Khanna M. Reassessment of the impact of the EPA’s voluntary 33/50 program on toxic releases. Land Economics. 2012;88(2):341-361. DOI: 10.3368/le.88.2.341
  65. 65. Innes R, Sam AG, Journal S, May N. Voluntary Pollution Reductions and the Enforcement of Environmental Law: An Empirical Study of the 33/50 Program. USA: University of Arizona, Ohio State University; 2015
  66. 66. Borck JC, Coglianese C. Voluntary environmental programs: Assessing their effectiveness. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2009;34:305-324. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.environ.032908.091450
  67. 67. Blackman A, Lahiri B, Pizer WA, Rivera-Planter M, Munoz-Pina C. Voluntary Environmental Regulation in Developing Countries: Mexico’s Clean Industry Program. SSRN Electron J. 2012;15:07-36. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1666211
  69. 69. Justice and Environment. THE ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY An Effective Tool for its Purpose? Environmental Liability 2012 Comparative Study on Existing Environmental Liability Regimes and their Practical Application. Dvorakova, Brno, CZ: OECD; 2012. pp. 1-37
  70. 70. Deghles A, Kurt U. Treatment of tannery wastewater by a hybrid electrocoagulation/electrodialysis process. Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification. 2016;104:43-50. doi:10.1016/J.CEP.2016.02.009
  71. 71. Gurreri L, Tamburini A, Cipollina A, Micale G. Electrodialysis applications in wastewater treatment for environmental protection and resources recovery: A systematic review on Progress and perspectives. Membranes. 2020;10(7):1-93. DOI: 10.3390/MEMBRANES10070146
  72. 72. Oviroh PO, Akbarzadeh R, Pan D, Coetzee RAM, Jen TC. New development of atomic layer deposition: Processes, methods and applications. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials. 2019;20(1):465. DOI: 10.1080/14686996.2019.1599694
  73. 73. Birnal P, Marco de Lucas MC, Pochard I, Domenichini B, Imhoff L. Photocatalytic properties of atomic layer deposited TiO2 inverse opals and planar films for the degradation of dyes. Applied Surface Science. 2020;512:145693. DOI: 10.1016/J.APSUSC.2020.145693
  74. 74. You J, Zhao Y, Wang L, Bao W, He Y. Atomic layer deposition of γ-Fe2O3 nanoparticles on modified MWCNT for efficient adsorption of Cr(VI) ions from aqueous solution. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids. 2020;142:109441. DOI: 10.1016/J.JPCS.2020.109441
  75. 75. Shukla A, Zhang Y-H, Dubey P, Margrave J, Shukla SS. The role of sawdust in the removal of unwanted materials from water. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2002;95(1-2, 152):137. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00089-4
  76. 76. Ahsan MA, Islam MT, Hernandez C, Castro E, Katla SK, Kim H, et al. Biomass conversion of saw dust to a functionalized carbonaceous materials for the removal of tetracycline, sulfamethoxazole and Bisphenol a from water. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2018;6(4):4329-4338. DOI: 10.1016/J.JECE.2018.06.040
  77. 77. Chanda R, Mithun AH, Hasan MA, Biswas BK. Nickel removal from aqueous solution using chemically treated mahogany sawdust as biosorbent. Journal of Chemistry. 2021;2021:4558271. DOI: 10.1155/2021/4558271
  78. 78. Mitan NMM. Water hyacinth: Potential and threat. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2019;19:1408-1412. DOI: 10.1016/J.MATPR.2019.11.160
  79. 79. Sanmuga Priya E, Senthamil Selvan P. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) – An efficient and economic adsorbent for textile effluent treatment – A review. Arabian Journal of Chemistry. 2017;10:S3548-S3558. DOI: 10.1016/J.ARABJC.2014.03.002
  80. 80. Gao X, Ai L, Wang L, Ju Y, Liu S, Wang J, et al. The stable and elastic graphitic carbon nitride/polyvinyl alcohol photocatalytic composite sponge: Simple synthesis and application for wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2022;10(3):107814. DOI: 10.1016/J.JECE.2022.107814
  81. 81. Ni T. China’s Ineffective Water Pollution Policy: An Issue of Enforcement [Thesis]. Tacoma: University of Puget Sound; 2016. p. 41
  82. 82. Wang J, Song Y. Effect of water pollution control on provincial boundaries of river-director system: Based on the study of the Yangtze River valley in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27(28):35217-35227. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09684-2
  83. 83. Olmstead S, Zheng J. Water pollution control in developing countries: Policy instruments and empirical evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 2021;15(2):261-280. DOI: 10.1086/715645
  84. 84. Han D, Currell MJ, Cao G. Deep challenges for China’s war on water pollution. Environmental Pollution. 2016;218:1222-1233. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.078
  85. 85. Ka Z, Eastin J. Greening China: The Benefits of Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. USA: University of Michigan; 2011
  86. 86. Gao X, Shen J, He W, Sun F, Zhang Z, Zhang X, et al. Multilevel governments’ decision-making process and its influencing factors in watershed ecological compensation. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2019;11(7):1990. DOI: 10.3390/su11071990
  87. 87. Ni T. Environmental Degradation in Urban and Rural China: A Local Perspective. Summer Research, Tacoma; 2015
  88. 88. Jain SK. Water resources management in India - challenges and the way forward. Current Science. 2019;117(4):569-576. DOI: 10.18520/cs/v117/i4/569-576
  89. 89. Singh A, Saha D, Tyagi AC. Emerging Issues in Water Resources Management: Challenges and Prospects. Singapore: Springer; 2019. pp. 1-23. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-2700-1_1
  90. 90. Cooper R. Water Management/Governance Systems in Pakistan. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies; K4D Helpdesk; 2018
  91. 91. Haque ME, Varma HK, Tyagi AC. Constitutional provisions related to Water and integrated planning and Management of a River Basin: A review. Singapore: Springer; 2019. pp. 103-116. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-2700-1_6
  92. 92. Jabeen A, Huang X, Aamir M. The challenges of Water pollution, threat to public health, flaws of Water Laws and Policies in Pakistan. Journal of Water Resource and Protection. 2015;07(17):1516-1526. DOI: 10.4236/jwarp.2015.717125
  93. 93. Alam AR. The Pakistan Water Quality Crisis. Karachi, Pakistan: The Express Tribune; 2012
  94. 94. Wolka K. Effect of soil and water conservation measures and challenges for its adoption: Ethiopia in focus. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2014;7(4):185-199. DOI: 10.3923/jest.2014.185.199
  95. 95. Kansal ML, Adeba D, Tyagi A. Challenges of sustainable development and Management of Water Resources in Ethiopia. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014: Water without Borders - Proceedings of the 2014 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2014. pp. 966-984. DOI: 10.1061/9780784413548.098
  96. 96. Schreiner B. Viewpoint-why has the south African national water act been so difficult to implement? Water Wheel. 2013;12(5):38-41
  97. 97. Muller M. Polycentric governance: Water management in South Africa. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law. 2012;165(3):193-200. DOI: 10.1680/mpal.11.00018
  98. 98. O’Grady D. Point to non-point phosphorus trading in the south Nation River watershed. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 2008;108:189-195. DOI: 10.2495/EEIA080191
  99. 99. Selman M, Greenhalgh S, Branosky E, Jones CY, Guiling J. Water resource institute issue brief: Water quality trading programs. Environmental Protection. 2009;1:1-16
  100. 100. Steinebach Y. Water quality and the effectiveness of European Union policies. Water (Switzerland). 2019;11(11):2244. DOI: 10.3390/w11112244
  101. 101. Fialko K. Three Strengths and Weaknesses of Water Quality Trading Policies. The Environmental Finance Blog: UNC Environmental Finance Center. Chapel Hill, NC; 2018. pp. 1-3
  102. 102. Eskeland GS, Jimenez E. Policy instruments for pollution control in developing countries. World Bank Research Observer. 2019;7(2):145-169. DOI: 10.1093/wbro/7.2.145
  103. 103. Claire C, Bryan A. Industrial Waste Pollutes America’s Drinking Water. Washington, DC: Center for Public Integrity; 2017
  104. 104. O’Grady D. Sociopolitical conditions for successful Water quality trading in the south Nation River watershed, Ontario, Canada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2011;47(1):39-51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00511.x
  105. 105. World Wide Fund for Nature. Unambitious and Ineffective: Member States’ Water Report Cards Are in. Geneva, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature; 2019

Written By

Clement Kamil Abdallah, Samuel Jerry Cobbina, Khaldoon A. Mourad, Abu Iddrisu and Justice Agyei Ampofo

Submitted: 10 September 2022 Reviewed: 16 September 2022 Published: 10 November 2022