Evidence Hub

Natural-based coagulants/flocculants for microplastics and nanoplastics removal via coagulation–flocculation: a systematic review

M. A. Hanif, N. Ibrahim, A. W. Azhari, F. A. Dahalan, M. Hasan, Nabilah Aminah Lutpi, N. Othman, M. H. Isa

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2026

8 citations

Abstract

Abstract Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) are emerging contaminants that can act as vectors for toxic pollutants, posing serious risks to aquatic ecosystems. Coagulation–flocculation–sedimentation (CFS) is a widely used technique for MPs and NPs removal, and natural-based coagulants/flocculants offer a more sustainable alternative to conventional chemicals. However, a comprehensive evaluation of their performance, mechanisms, and influencing factors remains lacking. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, critically assesses the applicability of plant, animal, and microbial-derived natural coagulants/flocculants for MPs and NPs mitigation in aquatic systems. These materials are applied either directly as substitutes for chemical coagulants, chemically modified, or as coagulant aids. Key coagulation mechanisms include charge neutralization, electrostatic patch, adsorption bridging, sweep flocculation and netting-bridging. Removal efficiency is governed by factors such as pH, dosage, interfering substances, stirring conditions, MPs and NPs properties, and temperature. Although natural-based materials demonstrate a promising potential for sustainable plastic remediation, challenges related to material variability and availability, storage stability, environmental impact and process scalability remain. Addressing these limitations is essential to advance their…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free