Skip to main content
. 2023 Aug 17;21(2):463–473. doi: 10.1007/s40201-023-00872-z

Table 3.

Comparison of the removal methods of polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate microplastics in different removal processes

Removal Method Removal process Removal efficiency (%)
PE PS PP PET
Physical Adsorption NA 81 NA 100
Filteration 96 90 NA NA
Adsorption using biochar NA 54 NA NA
flotation with dissolved air 69 NA NA 61
Chemical Coagulation 64 85 NA 74
Electrocoagulation 82 NA 90 -
Electrooxidaition NA 60 NA NA
VU radiation of zinc oxide nanotubes NA NA NA NA
Physico-chemical Coagulation and filtration 57 NA NA NA
Coagulation and sedimentation NA 80 NA NA
Coagulation and flotation 89 NA NA NA
Coagulation and flocculation and sedimentation and filtration 90 90 NA NA
Adsorption and thermal degradation NA 97 NA NA
Photocatalytic 83 NA NA NA
Thermophotocatalytic NA NA 89 NA
Afran coagulating gas NA 94 NA NA
Magnetic carbon nanotubes 100 NA NA NA
Organosyls 97 58 97 NA
Laser beam and sunlight NA 54 NA NA
Ferrofluid NA NA NA 99
Nano ferrofluid 49 49 NA NA
Biological Activated sludge process 98 NA 98 17
Zalerion maritimum mushroom 43 NA NA NA
Wetland NA 73 73 73
Shell 66 NA NA NA
Integrated Membrane biological reactor 86 84 86 98
Rapid sand filter (RSF) 75 75 75 NA
Extended activated sludge 90 NA 90 NA
Oxidation ditch and RSF 97 97 97 97
Wetland with vertical flow 98 98 98 NA
Adsorption and electrocoagulation 92 NA 92 NA
A2/O, secondary sedimentation, denitrification, UF, O3, UV NA 95 95 95

PE: Polyethylene; PS: Polystyrene; PP: Polypropylene; PET: Polyethylene terephthalate; NA: Not available