<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Characterization and treatment of industrial laundry wastewaters: a review

Grégorio Crini, Dario Lacalamita, Eric Lichtfouse, Nadia Morin-Crini, Chong Liu, Lee D Wilson, Lorenzo A Picos-Corrales, Mabel Amen Akhere, Maria Sotiropoulou, Corina Bradu, et al.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Grégorio Crini, Dario Lacalamita, Eric Lichtfouse, Nadia Morin-Crini, Chong Liu, et al. Characterization and treatment of industrial laundry wastewaters: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, In press, 10.1007/s10311-024-01770-y. hal-04671093

HAL Id: hal-04671093

https://hal.science/hal-04671093v1

Submitted on 13 Aug 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# Characterization and treatment of industrial laundry wastewaters:
a review

Grégorio Crini¹☐Dario Lacalamita¹,²☐Eric Lichtfouse³☐Nadia Morin-Crini¹☐Chong Liu⁴Lee D. Wilson⁵☐
Lorenzo A. Picos-Corrales⁶☐Mabel Amen Akhere⁷Maria Sotiropoulou⁸Corina Bradu⁹Chiara Mongioví¹⁰☐

## Abstract

The industrial laundry sector is a major user of water and chemicals such as surfactants, and one of the largest producers of wastewater. Although treated wastewaters comply with regulations, they still contain contaminants. Here we review laundry wastewater with focus on industrial laundry activities and their challenges, chemical composition of wastewater, and treat-ment techniques. We discuss advantages and drawbacks of treatment techniques that can be used as secondary treatment in already existing plants, or as tertiary treatment, i.e., complementary to an existing treatment. We observe that laundry is an expanding industrial sector with increasing water requirements, an abundant use of chemical substances, and increasingly stringent discharge regulations. There is a lack of chemical and biological knowledge on aqueous discharges. Moreover, the chemical composition, temporal variability, treatment information, and environmental and ecotoxicological data are poorly reported. The composition of wastewaters and additives, and their temporal variability are also poorly known. Similarly, detailed information on treatments is rare, and environmental and ecotoxicological data are poorly reported. Finding a tertiary water treatment process that is efficient, viable, and environmentally friendly is challenging since wastewater volumes are very high and contaminants are present at trace level in complex organo-mineral mixtures.

**Keywords** Greywater · Complex contamination · Water quality assessment · Wastewater treatment plant · Discharge water · Integrated treatment · Laundry wastewater · Organo-mineral · Pollutant · Surfactant

## Introduction

Water is under increasing threat from various anthropogenic activities. Among these, the industrial laundry sector is considered one of the largest users of water and chemicals, and therefore one of the largest producers of wastewaters (Braga and Varesche 2014; Bering et al. 2017; Peña-Guzmán et al. 2019; Patel et al. 2020; Jayanto et al. 2021; Santiago et al. 2021; Luo et al. 2022; Procházková and Máša 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Melián et al. 2023; Vishali et al. 2023). In Europe, industrial laundry sector washes 2.7 billion kg of textiles per year and uses 42 million m³ of water (Melián et al. 2023). In China, the amount of laundry wastewater discharged annually is estimated to 11 billion tons (Luo et al. 2022). Due to the use of many commercial formulations containing chemicals of varying nature, wastewater from this industrial sector is known for its polycontamination both qualitatively and quantitatively with both particulate

and dissolved forms. Among these substances, the family of surfactants, generally of anionic type, are often cited in the literature, with concentrations in wastewater ranging from a few mg to several g per L of water (Janpoor et al. 2011; Abd El-Gawad 2014; Delforno et al. 2014; Babajanzadeh et al. 2019; Kaya and Dayanir 2020; Pandey et al. 2020; Akarsu and Deniz 2021; Khan 2022; Lacalamita et al. 2023).

Despite these varying concentrations, in all cases, the laundry sector, like any other industrial sector, must treat its wastewater, heavily contaminated by chemical and biological substances, before being released into the environment. The discharge of wastewater is indeed governed by specific regulations for this industrial sector. Most laundry effluents are first treated internally at the industrial treatment plant and then released to municipal sewer systems, where they are further treated at local wastewater treatment facilities that often use activated sludge as secondary treatment, the water treatment system conventionally used in the urban wastewater treatment plants. Even if their treated wastewaters comply with current regulations, they
still contain measurable quantities of heterogeneous con-
taminants such as surfactants, which can impact the perfor-
mance of activated sludge. Because of their many physical
and chemical properties which are highly useful in washing
processes (Abd El-Gawad 2014), surfactants are widely used
worldwide. These active agents are classified in the family
of emerging contaminants.

Urban treatment plants have not been designed to remove
these emerging substances (Khan 2022; Morin-Crini and
Crini 2017; Gogoi et al. 2018) and release much of them into
the environment. Thus, these molecules and their metabo-
lites are found in the aqueous compartments, and are the
subject of debate, particularly as regards their degradation
and accumulation. However, for the moment, there are no
specific regulations for manufacturers in terms of analytical
monitoring of these molecules. Nevertheless, several target
substances present in complex commercial formulations
are regulated and can be monitored, such as alkylphenols
and their polyethoxylated derivatives, organic fluorinated
substances (PFAS), polybromodiphenylethers (PBDE), and
formaldehyde. Some of which are little or no biodegradable,
may induce ecotoxic effects and are known as endocrine
disruptors since they mimic natural hormones by interacting
with estrogen receptors. The European Union has included
these substances in the list of priority hazardous substances
for surface waters in the Water Framework Directive (Direc-
tive 2000/60/EC). Currently, Europe is asking manufacturers
to innovate to reduce and/or eliminate chemicals, in par-
ticular emerging contaminants, in their discharge waters
(Morin-Crini and Crini 2017). Before implementing actions
to eliminate these substances, laundries must have knowl-
edge of the chemical composition of their wastewater and
discharge water. On this point, however, bibliographic data
on the detailed composition of the waters of this industrial
sector and their temporal variability are scarce (Abney et al.
2021; Sheth et al. 2021; Lacalamita et al. 2023).

Today, industrial laundries are also more aware of their
water consumption and the need to prevent pollution of this
resource, and are looking for alternative or complementary
solutions to reduce their environmental impact. However,
finding a tertiary water treatment process that is efficient,
viable, and environmentally friendly is a real challenge for
this sector, since wastewater volumes are very high and
contaminants are present in trace form in complex organo-
mineral mixtures. Moreover, water contamination is both
chemical and biological, and contaminants can be found
in dissolved or particulate form (microfibers, colloids) in
wastewaters of varying pH, viscosity and temperature. Over
the last decade, many works have been published on the
treatment of raw wastewater and discharge from the laun-
dry sector, with notable contributions (Table 1). However,
detailed information on the type of water treatment is rare,
as each laundry has its own treatment method and know-how

for decontaminating its wastewater (Ho et al. 2021). Regu-
latory, environmental and ecotoxicological data are also
poorly reported in the literature. As far as we know, no effort
has been made to collect these results to make them easier
to understand. That is the purpose of this article, which
attempts to answer the questions raised.

The review comprises three main sections. After a brief
presentation of the context, the first part provides a summary
of industrial laundry operations and the issues surrounding
its aqueous discharges. This part also describes the regula-
tions and the environmental challenges. The second section
lists chemicals that are likely to be found in the water and
summarizes the environmental issues facing this industry.
It also describes data on the chemical composition of the
water. Finally, the last part focuses on the technologies used
for wastewater treatment, illustrated by an example of a gen-
eral wastewater treatment scheme. Then, we discuss the ben-
efits and drawbacks of water treatment, which can be used as
tertiary treatment that is, in addition to existing treatment or
secondary treatment in plants that already exist. The review
will serve as a guide for future researchers working on indus-
trial laundry water. Nevertheless, the subject of microfibers
in water is not covered in this review, as it has been the
subject of numerous publications over the last decade (e.g.,
Prata 2018; Gatidou et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019; Vassilenko
et al. 2019; Sun et al. 2019; Bretas Alvim et al. 2020; Gavi-
gan et al. 2020; Ramasamy and Subramanian 2021; Turan
et al. 2021; Kwak et al. 2022; Le et al. 2022; Belzagui and
Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022; Allen et al. 2024; Arif et al. 2024).
Furthermore, there are currently no regulations governing
this type of pollution in the industrial laundry sector.

Industrial laundries

Context

Industrial laundries are establishments that treat linen in an
industrial way by cleaning it with large quantities of water
and cleaning products containing different chemicals, which
are used not only to improve the efficiency of the clean-
ing cycle, but also to reduce water and energy costs and
improve the service life of the machines used. Their clien-
tele is mainly established by professional companies, and
the dirty linen comes from various sources such as hospital
sheets, hotel linen, restaurant towels and tablecloths, work
clothes and working uniforms, shop towels, and textiles from
beauty salons. In general, the principle of linen treatment is
the same, but it can be modulated according to the type of
the treated linen, the degree of soiling, the used products,
e.g., detergents, softeners and bactericides, and the know-
how and experience of each laundry (Bering et al. 2011;
Braga and Varesche 2014; Dąbkowska 2017; Sheth et al.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Recent literature reviews on laundry wastewater and topics covered</caption><thead><tr><td>Review title</td><td>Topics and keywords</td><td>Comment</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Greywater characteristics, treatment systems, reuse strategies and user perception</td><td>Greywater composition, user perception, treatment methods, reuse</td><td>The authors reviewed innovative treatment technologies, reuses strategies and perception of greywater reuse among users</td><td>Oteng-Peprah et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Ozonation treatment processes for the remediation of detergent wastewater</td><td>Advanced treatment, oxidation, catalytic ozonation, detergent</td><td>This review summarizes studies on ozonation treatment of surfactants and their translation laboratory-scale to real-scale operation processes</td><td>Joseph et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Water pathways through the ages: Integrated laundry wastewater treatment for pollution prevention</td><td>Integrated-treatment process, water reclamation, sustainable process development</td><td>This study describes the feasibility of current laundry wastewater treatment technologies and the experience of various countries in adopting different approaches</td><td>Ho et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Laundry wastewater treatment: Review and life cycle assessment</td><td>Conventional and advanced treatment methods, life cycle assessment, water reclamation</td><td>The review discusses and assesses the life cycle of various laundry wastewater treatment methods, focusing on their environmental impacts, effectiveness, and economic viability</td><td>Santiago et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Advancements in laundry wastewater treatment for reuse</td><td>Treatment technologies, advanced oxidation, ultrafiltration, reclamation, reuse</td><td>The authors discuss the role of several treatment methods to treat laundry wastewater and solutions for reclamation</td><td>Kumar et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Management of greywater: Environmental impact, treatment, resource recovery, water recycling, and decentralization</td><td>Decentralized treatment system, environmental impacts, grey wastewater management, resource recovery</td><td>The review focuses on the management, treatment, and resource recovery for recovery of grey wastewater, highlighting its potential for recycling and the environmental benefits of decentralized treatment systems, particularly in water-scarce areas</td><td>Khajyand et al. (2022)</td></tr></tbody></table>
2017; Babajanzadeh et al. 2019; Furtado et al. 2020; Luterbeck et al. 2020; Abney et al. 2021; Jayanto et al. 2021; Khajvand et al. 2022; Khan 2022; Khery et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Lacalamita et al. 2023).

In Europe, there are about 11,000 industrial laundries, with more than 90% small and medium-sized enterprises employing 170,000 workers (source: European Commission- https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20220627-1). They are a particular, confidential, competitive, and booming industrial sector with significant human resources, energy, chemicals, and water needs. The water consumption is estimated at more than 40 million m³ per year, and therefore, the industrial laundry sector is considered one of the largest producers of wastewater, which is considered a primary pollution source (Oteng-Peprah 2018; Barumbu et al. 2020; Santiago et al. 2021; Kumar et al. 2022; Procházková and Máša 2022; Melián et al. 2023; Pang et al. 2023; Vishali et al. 2023). All the generated wastewater is decontaminated in industrial wastewater treatment plants before being released into the environment.

Figure 1 illustrates the water circuit in an industrial laundry, from collection to treatment in a wastewater treatment plant and discharge. Industrial laundries are often located on the periphery of cities, which is why the treated water is often sent to the urban water treatment plant of a city. In Europe, wastewater from laundries is considered to be of similar quality as urban wastewater. Therefore, it can be discharged into municipal wastewater treatment plants via a discharge agreement (Lacalamita et al. 2023).

To treat wastewater from the industrial laundry sector, the two decontamination processes often encountered are physicochemical and biological treatments or a combination

of both. For confidentiality reasons, these techniques are rarely detailed in the literature (Ho et al. 2021; Lacalamita et al. 2023). Even if the treated wastewater complies with the regulations in force, it still contains a significant amount of chemicals, which is why this industrial sector is responsible for discharging potential toxic organic and inorganic substances, oxidizable materials, and nutrients into the environment. This cocktail of chemicals may raise concerns about possible environmental risks when the treated water is discharged (Ivanković and Hrenović 2010; Abd El-Gawad 2014; Rebello et al. 2014; Verlicchi et al. 2015; Swartz et al. 2017; Furtado et al. 2020; Tomšič et al. 2023). A review of the bibliographic data shows that precise data concerning the pollution in terms of qualitative and quantitative fluctuations in discharge water from the laundry sector have seldom been reported (Abney et al. 2021; Sheth et al. 2021; Lacalamita et al. 2023).

Treated waters sent to urban treatment plants can also cause problems because the presence of certain potentially hazardous components can inhibit the behavior of bacteria, for example, disturbing nitrification processes. Indeed, certain bacteria are highly sensitive to recalcitrant organic substances and metals such as copper, nickel, chromium, and iron (Malik 2004; Morin-Crini and Crini 2017; Bala et al. 2022; Khan 2022). In France for example, in the discharge agreement, it is stipulated that the ratio of COD and BOD, i.e., a biodegradability index used an indicator of water toxicity, must be less than 2.5, a reference value indicating the biodegradability of water and the presence of target metals such as copper, zinc and nickel and the amount of suspended solids is strongly controlled, in order to avoid problems in filtration processes and biological tanks of urban wastewater

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** The water circuit in an industrial laundry, from its use to its treatment and discharge. The water treated in the industrial treatment plant is either discharged into the river or sent to the urban water treatment plant of the city via a discharge agreement. SS: suspended solids; BOD<sub>5</sub>: biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day test; COD: chemical oxygen demand; PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PFAs: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances</figcaption></figure>
treatment plants (Morin-Crini and Crini 2017; Lacalamita
et al. 2023). Other components present in wastewater such
as microplastics and microfibers can affect the treatment pro-
cess, as because wastewater treatment techniques can break
these particles into nanoparticles (Enfrin et al. 2019). Parti-
cles moving through wastewater treatment plants experience
variable shear forces induced by mixing or pumping, which
can break them into other smaller particles, then increasing
the number of nanoparticles in the rejections. In addition,
in the early stages of treatment processes, high concentra-
tions of particles in water can impact the performance for
water treatment processes such as filtration units that may
be clogged or damaged due to clumping or wear of the par-
ticles (Morin-Crini and Crini 2017). However, flocculation
is a standard low-cost stage appropriate for reducing the
impact of microplastic on the rest of the water treatment
process (Huang et al. 2023a). On the other hand, an exces-
sive presence of ionic surfactants can also reduce treatment
performance, for example by altering particle sedimentation
through changes in their surface characteristics (Huang et al.
2023b). Surfactants can also disrupt the primary sedimenta-
tion process and reduce oxygen transfer capacity in biologi-
cal treatment tanks. Surfactants present a complex challenge
for removal and can be removed by degradation or adsorp-
tion processes (Jardak et al. 2016) although their removal
is more difficult than that of microplastics and microfibers.
Finally, regulatory, environmental and ecotoxicological data
are also poorly reported in literature.

Faced with increasingly stringent regulations and chal-
lenges related to the economy, energy, and society, indus-
trial laundries must adapt and evolve through technologi-
cal advancements and operational changes (Ho et al. 2021;
Kumar et al. 2022; Procházková and Máša 2022; Atesci and
Inan 2023; Chen et al. 2023; Konečná et al. 2023; Laca-
lamita et al. 2024). The challenges facing the sector include
the following: using more environmentally-friendly cleaning
processes and eco-friendly products while maintaining linen
quality; using less water in the washing process and recy-
cling more treated wastewater; using more energy-efficient
machines; comply with increasingly stringent health and
safety standards requiring specific disinfection or steriliza-
tion treatments (as in the case of hospital, retirement home
or hotel linen); improve the operation of their wastewater
treatment plants; reduce the flow of pollutants discharged
(including CO₂ emissions) and minimize their impact on
the environment.

All these challenges and problems affect the operational
practices of industrial laundries, which depend mainly on
the type of laundry to be cleaned and the level of dirt. Each
laundry must adapt its way of working according to the trend
and its objectives mentioned above by offering more sustain-
able and responsible solutions to meet the growing demands
of its customers (Furtado et al. 2020; Lutterbeck et al. 2020;

Abney et al. 2021; Jayanto et al. 2021; Khajvand et al. 2022; Khery et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2022). But this adaptation must also be part of a more general framework because it is necessary to take into account all the professional risks of the trade. Industrial laundries collect and process dirty laundry (washing, drying, ironing, folding) and ship it back to their customers. The processes use machines (washers, dryers) emitting heat and moisture and chemicals (detergents, stain removers and disinfectants) whose characteristics (volatility, acidity, alkalinity, corrosive, irritating or allergenic characters) are highly variable from one product to another. Staff work in a prolonged standing position and require many manual handling, postural constraints and repetitive gestures. Staff involved in sorting dirty laundry (which has the ability to fix microorganisms) are also in contact with microbiological agents that are sources of infection and disease. These agents come from laundry soiled or contaminated with biological fluids (blood, urine) or unwanted objects (needles). Staff are thus exposed to various occupational risks: thermal (exposure to high heat released by equipment), chemical (allergies and skin and respiratory irritations), biological (infectious, viral or parasitic diseases) and physical (osteoarticular damage, trauma caused by falls on wet ground, burns) which are very common. Industrial laundries are also technical rooms with a high risk of fire (risk of self-ignition of linen by fermentation, ignition of textile dust in dryers, stocks of chemicals or oxidizing detergents) and electrical malfunctions. Industrial laundries must therefore constantly develop appropriate collective and individual training, good practice and prevention policies. Examples of actions that are implemented are the compliance of machines that must be properly used, well maintained and regularly monitored, the choice of technologies favoring eco-responsible practices (limit water consumption, reduce energy consumption, use products and processes with a lower potential impact on humans, limit gas emissions), respect for hygiene rules, wearing protective clothing and accessories (gloves, gowns, shoes) adapted to each position as well as ergonomic equipment, continuous training of staff, regular control of the risks of biological contamination, and the presence of adequate air extractions and fire protection systems in the premises (McIlwraith et al. 2019; Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022; Le et al. 2022; Konečná et al. 2023).

Initiatives have already been implemented in Europe,
such as eco-detergent certification (EU Ecolabel) or the
use of solar energy and cogeneration sources for laundry
operations (Buehler et al. 2021; Belzagui and Gutiérrez-
Bouzán 2022; Procházková and Máša 2022; Konečná et al.
2023; Melián et al. 2023). In Europe, a thousand detergents
have an eco-certification, attesting to their biodegradability
(Melián et al. 2023). A recent French law called anti-waste
for a circular economy (AGEC Law–loi anti-gaspillage pour
une économie circulaire; decree no. 2022-336 of 10 March 2022) aims to change the production and consumption model in order to preserve natural resources and biodiversity (Lacalamita et al. 2024). This law encourages manufacturers to continue their efforts to reduce their environmental impact. However, initiatives concerning water engineering and treatment in an integrated approach to pollution prevention are rare due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of water, the large volumes of water to be treated daily, as well as technological and economic constraints (Kim et al. 2022; Khapra et al. 2023). While there are many well-known tertiary treatment methods, including membrane filtration, advanced oxidation and evaporation, very few are actually employed because the costs associated with maintenance and operation are just as significant as the initial expenditure (Morin-Crini et al. 2022; Melián et al. 2023). Qualified personnel is also required. Furthermore, skilled workers are needed.

Over the last decade, many works have been published on the treatment of raw wastewater and discharge from the laundry sector (e.g., Oteng-Peprah et al. 2018; Ho et al. 2021; Santiago et al. 2021; Khajvand et al. 2022; Violenta et al. 2022; Akhere and Chukwuka 2023; Atesci and Inan 2023; Kumar et al. 2022, 2023; Melián et al. 2023; Cahayani et al. 2024), but few articles have been devoted to their chemical composition and fluctuations (Sheth et al. 2017; Jayanto et al. 2021; Alhinai 2022). Increasing awareness of water pollution and resource scarcity has stimulated research into conventional and non-conventional treatment methods not yet in use in the laundry sector, such as adsorption onto innovative adsorbents, advanced oxidation, and membrane filtration or a combination of methods to enable greater efficiency (Morin-Crini et al. 2022). The combination of established treatment methods is indeed proving increasingly and necessary. Several studies have been published on the value of combining complementary physical and chemical methods. Janpoor et al. (2011) described the potential of combining electrocoagulation with adsorption for enhanced removal of both organic pollutants and metals.

Similarly, a study by Nascimento et al. (2019) demonstrated the effectiveness of coupling membrane filtration with coagulation. This synergistic approach allowed to obtain higher elimination rate for surfactants and microplastics compared to individual methods. Innovative techniques such as advanced oxidation (ozonation) and photocatalysis are gaining ground because of their ability to completely degrade pollutants to mineralization if this is the desired objective (Oliveira Schwaickhardt et al. 2017). Electrocoagulation and electrooxidation are also promising options (Dimoglo et al. 2019; Ho et al. 2021). A study by Dimoglo et al. (2019) demonstrated the effectiveness of electrocoagulation in removing surfactants and achieving color reduction in laundry wastewater. These electrochemical and advanced

oxidation methods are promising, but the initial investment and high operational costs still limit their feasibility on an industrial scale, unlike membrane filtration methods that are beginning to take root (for example, in some French laundries) despite the fact that they also consume energy. Indeed, the progress of ultrafiltration and nanofiltration with compact and easy-to-use equipment for small industrial structures make it possible to consider these techniques to more effectively eliminate trace of contaminants while being economically viable and through a water recycling route. Nanofiltration, studied by Kaya et al. (2020), has also shown promising results in the removal of emerging contaminants from laundry effluent. Whatever the method, a complete understanding of the environmental footprint is necessary. Further research is also needed to conduct in-depth life cycle assessments that assess factors such as energy consumption, resource use and waste generation throughout the life cycle of each method (Ho et al. 2021).

To the best of our knowledge, there is no comprehensive review that summarizes and discusses the published results. Out of 204,342 documents published on wastewater characterization and treatment from January 2000 to December 2023, only 309 focus on the study of laundry wastewater, representing less than 0.2% of the total corpus. In particular, specifics, as showed in Fig. 2, based on a comparison of grey water and industrial wastewater from 2000, it is becoming apparent that efforts to explore chemical composition and potential treatment methods for treating laundry effluents are minimal compared to their counterparts. Our objective in this review is to provide a brief summary of industrial laundry operations, listing general considerations and environmental challenges posed by their aqueous discharges. Moreover, it identifies chemicals that are likely to be found in water and discusses the broader environmental impacts of the laundry industry. Additionally, this study describes the discharge water quality of the laundry industry and the corresponding regulations from different countries. It also outlines typical wastewater treatment schemes and evaluates both the advantages and limitations of tertiary treatment methods, which can complement existing primary and secondary treatments in established facilities.

## Definition and classifications

Industrial laundry is a service industry, strongly established in Europe, that treats dirty linen in an industrial way (Dąbkowska 2017; Bering et al. 2017; Procházková and Máša 2022). This term refers to laundering activities on a large scale for large institutions that require a constant flow of clean linen, work wear, or uniforms. So industrial laundries play an essential role in various businesses such as hospitals, nursing homes, hotels, restaurants, and factories (Kogut et al. 2021; Procházková and Máša 2022). With their
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Publications on wastewater, leachate, agricultural runoff, and laundry effluents from 2010 to 2023 (top). A comparative analysis of publication counts from 2000 to 2023 focusing on greywater generated by industrial, domestic, and laundry sector (bottom). Data Source: Scopus</figcaption></figure>

wide range of services, including stain removal, mending and alterations, industrial laundries are an essential service for a variety of industries that need to keep their linen and other fabrics properly cleaned, safe, and presentable. Industrial laundries are little known to the general public. However, they played a crucial role in the fight against Covid-19 during the health crisis when they were used to gather and handle tainted laundry.

Industrial laundries, typically equipped with large-scale advanced machineries, target cleaning supplies, and proper techniques, are specialized facilities for washing,

drying, and pressing fabric items in large quantities. The automated machineries include washing machines for cleaning large amounts of linen, dryers for drying the washed items and pressing machines for finishing the linens (ironing, folding), and target cleaning supplies, which are specialized facilities for washing, drying, and pressing fabric items in large quantities, respectively. The washing machines are designed to deliver superior and efficient washing results, using advanced technologies and specialized programs that adapt to different types of fabrics and levels of soiling.
Industrial laundries are classified into two main categories according to their washing capacity: low-capacity laundries with less than 10 tons/day, which are the most common type (Procházková and Máša 2022; Lacalamita et al. 2023), and large laundries (10–50 tons/day). In Europe, industrial laundries are available as private and public commercial facilities, offering turnkey solutions to end users of linen. Most laundries offer basic laundry services (wet cleaning) and dry cleaning. In case of a heavy load of contaminants, the dual-phase washing process, which combines dry cleaning and water washing, is used.

Some of the items that can be processed in an industrial laundry include uniforms, industrial work wear, bedding, drapery, bathrobes, bath towels, and tablecloths. Dirty linen is classified into three main categories: those originating from industrial, chemical, automotive, paper, or metallurgical sectors; those from hospitals including from nursing homes and residential facilities; and those from hospitality sector such as hotels, restaurants, and cafeterias. These different types of laundry are not mixed and are treated separately as they require different washing programs based on the specific demands of the clients or having to comply with specific standards and regulations. For example, the hospitality sector (hotels, restaurants) requires top-level hygiene and efficiency for their bed linen, table linen, and guest linen. A high degree of cleanliness and hygiene is also required for hospital linen to make them free of germs and bacteria. In sectors such as food, it is also crucial to ensure proper hygiene and disinfection of linen (Fijan et al. 2005; Swartz et al. 2017; Sharma et al. 2019; Decker 2022).

It is important to note that in all cases, all wastewater from the different washes are sent to the treatment plant in the same storage tank. Indeed, there is no separation of wastewater, and the same treatment is carried out continuously (Lacalamita et al. 2023). However, the clothes to be treated are not the same, and the levels of dirt are also different. Therefore, washing programs do not use the same formulations. All this can impact the operation of the treatment plant (Sheth et al. 2017; Oteng-Peprah et al. 2018; Santiago et al. 2021).

## Operations

The general operation of industrial laundries consists of five main steps (Fig. 3): sorting, pre-spotting, washing (the main

step), drying, and finishing (ironing, folding). The laundry work is as follows: after collection from the customer site, sorting (this step depends on the soiled level, color, ownership, and fabric type), and counting, the laundry is sent to a washing tunnel consisting of several compartments, each with a given role. Soiled textiles undergo several successive washing stages: rinsing, wetting, pre-washing, pre-spotting, and rinsing, in which some of the dirty masks are identified and treated with typical substances, main washing including bleaching (if needed) and rinsing steps, and softening. The linen is then passed through a press for spinning before being sent to the dryers, and thereafter ironed and folded.

## Chemical additives

Laundry wastewater contains a large amount of contaminants such as surfactants, microplastic fibers, oil, dust particles, pathogenic microorganisms, etc. (Kumar et al. 2022). Moreover, each step uses chemicals and products, among the best known of which are detergents, soaps, chlorinated bleaches, and perfumes (Scott and Jones 2000; Köhler 2006; Bajpai and Tyagi 2007; Yu et al. 2008; Steber and Wiebel 2012; Abd El-Gawad 2014; Zavala and Estrada 2016; Babajanzadeh et al. 2019; Abney et al. 2021; Khalid et al. 2022; Khan 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Morris et al. 2022; Cüce et al. 2023). In reality, the list of chemicals or 'ingredients', which is the term used by the laundry sector, is more varied and complex. These ingredients are the main active agents and can be classified into fifteen categories (Table 2): surfactants, bleaches, alkalis, neutralizers, builders, anti-reposition agents, fabric softeners, disinfectants, enzymes, solubilizers, optical brighteners, preservatives, foam regulators, fragrances, and corrosion inhibitors.

This classification is empirical, and there is no official list, and for example, alkalis, softeners, and anti-repositioning agents are sometimes considered as builders (Bajpai and Tyagi 2007; Ivanković and Hrenović 2010; Braga and Varesche 2014; Najim et al. 2022; Dimoglo et al. 2023). In addition, there are several terms used by manufacturers for the same ingredient (Table 2), and each can also play several roles, which can sometimes lead to confusion. In all cases, each ingredient has a special function. However, each product used is not a singular homogeneous species but rather a mixture of different types of chemicals (Köhler 2006). For example, the list of ingredients in a detergent is as follows

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** The general operation of industrial laundries</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Ingredients used for washing, their functionalities, and examples of substances present in each formulation from the safety data sheet of manufacturers and published literature (Köhler 2006; Bajpai and Tyagi 2007; Yu et al. 2008; Scott and Jones 2000; Ivanković and Hrenović 2010; Steber and Wiebel 2012; Braga and Varesche 2014; Altenbacher et al. 2014; Zavala and Estrada 2016; Babajanzadeh et al. 2019; Abney et al. 2021; Khalid et al. 2022; Khan 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Morris et al. 2022; Najim et al. 2022; Cüce et al. 2023; Dimoglo et al. 2023; Lacalama et al. 2023)</caption><thead><tr><th>Ingredients</th><th>Description of function of washing</th><th>Examples of substances from the safety data sheet of manufacturers*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Surfactants</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Detergents</td><td>Reduce the surface tension of the water, which rapidly wets the linen, increase the contact between the linen to be cleaned and the water, and promote the penetration of water into the fibers, thus facilitating the removal of dirt and then its transfer/suspension in the water</td><td>Alkyl sulfates, alkyl ethoxylate sulfates, <strong>alkylbenzene sulfonates</strong>, alkyl aryl sulfonates, ethers of fatty alcohol, dodecylbenzene sulfonates, sodium cumene-sulfonates, fatty alcohol sulfonates, fatty alcohol ether sulfonates, alcohol ether sulfates, iso alkane, benzyl salicylate, <i>iso-tridecanol</i>, alcohol ethoxylates, (2-methoxy-methyl-ethoxy)-propanol, 3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-ol, quaternary ammonium compounds, α-isomethyl-ionone, alkyl-polyglucosides, alkyl-polyglucosamides, alkyl-betaines, linalyl acetate, terpenes, glycerin, sodium carbonate</td></tr><tr><td>Surface active agents</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cleaning agents</td><td>Used as mild antibacterial agents and in fabric softeners (cationic surfactants)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cleaning and degreasing agents</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Anionic surfactants</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-ionic surfactants</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cationic surfactants</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amphoteric surfactants</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Soap-free detergents</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bleaches</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bleach</td><td>Remove stains by oxidation (change in its oxidation state) and by cleavage of chemical bonds (stain degradation); resulting in the discolor of the stains; having also a disinfection role</td><td>Chlorine-based bleaches, <strong>sodium hypochlorite</strong>, calcium hypochlorite, <strong>per-carbonates</strong>, <strong>sodium percarbonate</strong>, perborates, sodium perborate, peroxide-based products, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetate, tetraacetylethylenediamine</td></tr><tr><td>Bleaching agents</td><td>Whitening and brightening of linen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Active bleaches</td><td>Restore the luster of linen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Active oxygen bleaches</td><td>Clean and disinfect the washer</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bleaching activators</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bleaching stabilizers</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Whitening agents</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alkalis</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Alkaline agents</td><td>Increase the pH of wash water, which helps break down dirt and promotes the dissolution of oily dirt</td><td>Washing soda, sodium carbonate, soaps, sodium hydroxide, caustic soda, ammonium hydroxide, sodium phosphate, sodium bicarbonate, <strong>potassium silicate</strong>, <strong>sodium silicate</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Soda-controlling agents</td><td>Facilitates the removal of dirt from the surface by repulsion of negative charges between those of water (which has increased thanks to pH) and those of the surface of the fabric (which are generally negative) to be washed</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutralizers</td><td>Help dissolve surfactant ingredients in liquid formulations, maintaining a uniform composition</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutralizing agents</td><td>Reduce or neutralize alkalinity</td><td>Sodium metabisulphite, <strong>formic acid</strong>, acetic acid, peracetic acid, alcohols, ethanol, propanol</td></tr><tr><td>Acids (sours)</td><td>Protect the fabric from potential damage (at high pH) and ensure its integrity</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Acid agents</td><td>Promote the dissolution of oily dirt</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutralizing agents</td><td>Neutralize chlorine residue in clothes and remove other residual chemicals</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutralizing agents</td><td>Prevents the yellowing of fabrics and makes them softer and whiter</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mild acids</td><td>Remove unpleasant odors, e.g., due to residual chlorine compounds</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reducing agents</td><td>Treat delicate fabrics either to remove stains or to dry-clean them (solvents)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Antichlors</td><td>Prevent disruption of the physical properties of the detergent (alcohols)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Softeners</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Odor neutralizers</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deodorants</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Solvents</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Organic solvents</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oils</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Ingredients</th><th>Description of function of washing</th><th>Examples of substances from the safety data sheet of manufacturers*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Builders</strong><br>Additives<br>Water-softening builders<br>Water softeners<br>Alkalis<br>Anti-redepositing agents<br>Activators<br>Bleaching activators<br>Cleaning agents<br>Degreasing agents<br>Processing aids<br>Stabilizers<br>Suppressors<br>Desiccants<br>Solvents<br>Precipitating agents<br>Sequestrating agents<br>Ion-exchangers<br>Stiffeners<br>Fillers<br>Absorbents</td><td>Various chemicals or additives which perform many specific functions<br>Enhance the action of surfactants and improve laundering results<br>Maintain the physical characteristics of surfactants during processing, storage, and consumer use<br>Able to bind multiple molecules of water<br>Remove or minimize the influence of interfering ions likely to act with surfactants; e.g., soften water by complexing calcium and magnesium ions, which favors the action of surfactants<br>Promote the dissolution of oily dirt and prevent their redeposition<br>Provide alkalinity, which also assists in the dissolving of oily dirt<br>Clean, degrease, and deodorize<br>Enhance the bleaching effect at lower temperatures<br>Protect the color<br>Remove grease spots from fabrics and for the cleaning of light-colored fabrics (absorbents)<br>Maintain the characteristics of detergents during storage and consumer use (processing aids, solvents)<br>Stabilize or prevent excessive sudsing</td><td><strong>Sodium carbonate</strong>, sodium bicarbonate, percarbonates, perborates, sodium sulfate, sodium nitrate, <strong>sodium tri-polyphosphates</strong>, tetrasodium pyrophosphate, citrates, succinates, gluconates, tetraacetylethylenediamine, diethyl enetriamine pentaacetic acid, triethanolamine, alcohols (ethanol, propanol), 2-butoxyethanol, (2-methoxy-methyl-ethoxy)-propanol, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, sodium disilicate, <strong>zeolites</strong>, polycarboxylates, silicones</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Anti-redeposition agents</strong><br>Auxiliary agents<br>Additives<br>Anti-cling products<br>Sequestering agents<br>Chelating agents<br>Complexing agents<br>Ion-exchangers<br>Dispersers<br>Dispersing agents</td><td>Prevent redeposition of suspended dirt by increasing the negative charge on the fabric surface, so that the surface repels dirt because they are also negatively charged<br>Suppress or minimize the influence of interfering ions<br>Soften water</td><td><strong>Carboxymethylcellulose</strong>, phosphonates, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, sodium tripolyphosphate, zeolites, sodium citrate, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), polyacrylic acids</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fabric softeners</strong></td><td>Soften and smooth textiles<br>Reduce wrinkling, crinkling (greater ease of ironing), and static electricity (preventing the fabric from clinging)<br>Kill microorganisms (microbiocidal) or inhibit their growth (microbiostatic) on linen<br>Reduce odor-causing microorganisms including bacteria, viruses, and fungi</td><td><strong>Cationic surfactants</strong>, quaternary ammonium products, 3-iodo-2-propylbutyl-carbamate, tocopherol</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Disinfectants</strong><br>Antimicrobial agents<br>Sanitizers</td><td>Remove stains<br>Can smooth cotton fabrics<br>Provide color and fabric care<br>Can help to remove fuzz and pills</td><td>Hydrogen peroxide, <strong>quaternary ammonium chlorides</strong>, sodium hypochlorite, triclocarban, triclosan, 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one, 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one, gluconic acid, alcohols, ethoxylated alcohols, acetic acid, cationic surfactants</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Enzymes</strong><br>Catalysts<br>Catalytic enzymes<br>Auxiliary agents</td><td></td><td><strong>Proteases</strong> (break down proteins), <strong>amylases</strong> (break down carbohydrates), <strong>lipases</strong> (break down fats), mannanases (for food-based stains), pectinases (for fruit-based stains)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Ingredients</th><th>Description of function of washing</th><th>Examples of substances from the safety data sheet of manufacturers*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Solubilisers</strong><br>Hydrotropes</td><td>Assist in maintaining the pouring characteristics of liquid detergents by preventing gel and layer formation<br>Maintain a uniform composition throughout the liquid detergent</td><td><strong>Xylene sulfonates</strong>, cumene sulfonates, toluene sulfonates, glycols, glycol ether sulfates, urea</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Optical brighteners</strong><br>Auxiliary agents</td><td>Give whiter and brighter appearance to linen, helping to keep them looking newer for longer<br>Mask the appearance of an undesirable color such as the yellowing of fabric<br>Introduce a complementary color</td><td><strong>Aminotriazines</strong>, coumarins, stilbenes, phosphonates</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Preservatives</strong></td><td>Prevent liquid detergent spoilage during storage (by killing bacteria)<br>Prevent the oxidation, discoloration, and bacterial growth on the linen</td><td><strong>Glutaraldehyde</strong>, butylated hydroxytoluene, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (bronopol), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Foam regulators</strong></td><td>Inhibit the formation of foam during the washing cycle in order to increase the effectiveness of the wash<br>Prevent the formation of foam by disrupting the surfactants at the air-water interface<br>Cause foam bubbles to collapse by forming hydrophobic bridges across bubbles</td><td><strong>Siloxane-based substances</strong>, <strong>paraffin-based products</strong>, soaps</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fragrances</strong></td><td>Influence the perception of cleanliness<br>Neutralize the inherent odor of detergent chemicals<br>Can help create pleasant sensations during washing</td><td><strong>Petroleum-based substances</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Corrosion inhibitors</strong><br>Additives</td><td>Inhibit corrosion of metallic washing machine parts</td><td><strong>Sodium silicate</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*in bold are common examples (each uses its own term to describe the substances)</footnote>
(in order of importance by volume): builders, surfactants, bleach, brighteners, enzymes, fragrances, fabric softener, and others.

Several different chemicals are used in a mixture known as a formulation or 'recipe', each containing one or more active substances or ingredients and additives for well-defined roles. These formulations are generally ready-to-use commercial products prepared by chemical formulators. A laundry processing 6 tons of linen a day uses some thirty different formulations in its industrial process, which represents a significant number of chemical substances that are difficult to quantify (Lacalamita et al. 2023). This study also reported that the information regarding the precise content of organic and inorganic substances is limited.

Table 2 also gives examples of substances present in commercial formulations used in the laundry industrial process, which may be found in wastewater and treated water. These data have been extracted from manufacturers' technical data sheets and safety data sheets (where available) and from published literature (Bajpai and Tyagi 2007; Yu et al. 2008; Ivanković and Hrenović 2010; Steber and Wiebel 2012; Abd El-Gawad 2014; Braga and Varesche 2014; Zavala and Estrada 2016). In general, the chemical composition of the formulations is often not detailed in the data sheets of the products used, with only the role and function of the active agents being described.

Sometimes, certain formulations indicate biodegradability or the absence of target substances such as phosphates, alkylphenols, optical bleaching brighteners, metals, chlorine, fluorinated substances, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid or EDTA. However, although some commercial formulations are defined as biodegradable in agreement with their safety data sheet, numerous contaminants present in these formulations are a risk to human health and the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem because they are persistent and toxic to organisms (Steber and Wiebel 2012; Abd El-Gawad 2014; Altenbaher et al. 2014; Méndez-Hernández et al. 2022). Many of these substances have been debated for more than 20 years (Warne and Schifko 1999; Scott and Jones 2000; Köhler 2006; Ivanković and Hrenović 2010; Steber and Wiebel 2012; Abd El-Gawad 2014; Altenbaher et al. 2014; Rebello et al. 2014; Méndez-Hernández et al. 2022). Another important point concerns the fact that there are no specific regulations on the chemicals to be used, but simply recommendations for the use of biodegradable products.

## Wastewater and discharge water quality

In any industrial process, the water taken for the process has been contaminated. Before considering any kind of treatment, it is necessary to know the volume of effluent to be treated, as well as the form, type, and concentration of contaminants (Morin-Crini and Crini 2017; Liu and Liptak 2000).

The exact nature of the contamination in terms of origin and toxicity must also be known. Raw wastewater or effluent can be a non-uniform colored, malodorous mixture containing solids, including colloids, immiscible liquids such as oils, greases, hydrocarbons, and soluble substances of chemical or biological origin. The presence of such contaminations can also result in wastewater with high redox potential, high acidity or alkalinity, variable temperature, and pathogenicity problems. The chemical composition of laundry wastewater varies based on the sources, influenced by the washing method, the type of laundry, and the efficiency of the washing machine. The primary chemical constituents found in laundry wastewater include surfactants, bleaching agents, enzymes, optical brighteners, phosphates, dyes, fragrances, heavy metals, and microplastics. It is important to note that the concentrations of these chemicals typically diminish throughout the wastewater treatment process. Additionally, these levels may fluctuate over time due to a variety of factors, including dilution and degradation, seasonal variations, variations in treatment efficiency, and regulatory changes (Oteng-Peprah et al. 2018; Jayanto et al. 2021; Khajvand et al. 2022).

Water quality, including wastewater quality and discharge water quality, can then be defined by physical, chemical, and biological characteristics or analytical parameters (Liu and Liptak 2000; Noutsopoulos et al. 2018; Procházková and Máša 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Aguilar-Torrejón et al. 2023). Physical parameters include temperature, turbidity, color, total dissolved solids, and total suspended solids. Solids can be classified into suspended and dissolved substances, as well as organic and inorganic fractions. A classic parameter for solids is the measurement of total dissolved solids and suspended solids, abbreviated as TDS and SS respectively. Chemical parameters associated with the organic content of industrial wastewater include pH, acidity, alkalinity, salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total organic carbon (TOC), oil and grease, hydrocarbons, etc., and the measurement of target organic substances. Inorganic chemical parameters include metals, chlorides, fluorides, sulfates, forms of nitrogen, total phosphorus, etc. Bacteriological parameters include coliforms, specific pathogens, algae and viruses.

All laundry activities generate a tremendous amount of wastewater (Bering et al. 2017, 2018a, b; Oteng-Peprah 2018; Watiniasih et al. 2019; Ho et al. 2021; Najim et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Lacalamita et al. 2023; Melián et al. 2023). Their composition and concentration vary according to the type of linen washed, the washing cycles, and the used products. As a result, the raw effluents are polycontaminated mixtures that can vary significantly in quality and quantity over time. There is a consensus, particularly in the literature, on the fact that these wastewaters
are characterized by high temperatures, basic pH values, high salinity, the presence of suspended solids (SS) including colloids, high values of COD and BOD, and the presence of organic and inorganic substances, such as metals, nitrogen and phosphorus peaks (Aonghusa and Gray 2002; Abd El-Gawad 2014; Braga and Varesche 2014; Dąbkowska 2017; Watiniasih et al. 2019; Najim et al. 2022).

Wastewater is also viscous, turbid, odorous, and sometimes colored. This is why the raw effluents are considered a potential primary pollution source because they contain an important amount of chemical impurities from the dirt from the washed textiles, along with the washing chemicals, which can be used in excess (Altenbaher et al. 2014; Bering et al. 2018a, b; Santiago et al. 2021; Kumar et al. 2022; Melián et al. 2023). Furthermore, there are currently no regulations governing this type of pollution for the industrial laundry sector.

The main parameters of water from laundries often described in the literature are: pH, SS, COD, and BOD (Braga and Varesche 2014; Lacalamita et al. 2023; Fountoulakis et al. 2016; Dąbkowska 2017). Sometimes, from an analytical point of view, a few target chemicals are described and studied. Among the chemical contaminants that may be in dissolved and particulate forms, many target substances, organic and mineral, have been identified, including linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, anionic, cationic and nonionic surfactants, lactate acid, malic acid, isobutyric acid, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, chloride, lead, zinc, iron, oil products, microplastics, nanoparticles, and microfibers. Anionic surfactants are of primary interest, for which examples of variations from 4.48 to 19.93 mg/L have been reported (Pandey et al. 2020).

However, the concentrations described vary greatly and it is very difficult to compare the data. For example, authors have registered the presence of substances of interest in laundry wastewater with the following concentrations: anionic surfactant (4.48–19.93 mg/L), calcium (16.94 ± 2.52 mg/L), and magnesium (11.54 ± 1.10 mg/L) (Pandey et al. 2020); detergent (463 mg/L), phosphorous (27.6 mg/L), lead 4.35 mg/L, and zinc 3.2 mg/L (Janpoor et al. 2011); anionic surfactant (6.5 mg/L), cationic surfactant (0.07 mg/L), and nonionic surfactant (275 mg/L) (Kaya and Dayanir 2020); anionic surfactant (7.51 mg/L), microplastics (15,804 MPs/L), and phosphate (13.8 mg/L) (Akarsu and Deniz 2021); total surfactants (9.42 ± 0.85 mg/L), phosphorous (3.25 ± 0.10 mg/L), and Fe (0.22 ± 0.12 mg/L) (Melián et al. 2023); linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (81 ± 82 mg/L), lactate acid (96 ± 93 mg/L), malic acid (85 ± 143 mg/L), isobutyric acid (48 ± 87 mg/L), phosphate (196 ± 136 mg/L), and chloride (89 ± 42) (Delforno et al. 2014); alkyl benzene sulfonate (19.68 mg/L) and oil products (3.70 mg/L) (Terechova et al. 2014).

Nonetheless, the analysis of all the data shows, that in terms of water treatment and engineering, the two main problems are the presence of particles and a strong organic load characterized by the COD and BOD parameters (Bering et al. 2011; Braga and Varesche 2014; Nicolaidis and Vyrides 2014; Sheth et al. 2017; Huang et al. 2019a, b; Furtado et al. 2020; Moharir et al. 2020; Ho et al. 2021; Jayanto et al. 2021; Alhinai 2022; Procházková and Máša 2022; Lacalamita et al. 2023). There is an urgent need for precise analytical data on the exact composition of laundry water (Braga and Varesche 2014; Noutsopoulos et al. 2018) and its temporal variability (Abney et al. 2021; Sheth et al. 2021; Lacalamita et al. 2023).

## Regulations

Industrial laundries are increasingly being subjected to a variety of environmental regulations related to water consumption and wastewater management (Swartz et al. 2017; Khajvand et al. 2022; Procházková and Máša 2022; Konečná et al. 2023; Melián et al. 2023). Compliance with these regulations is necessary not only to avoid paying too many fines under the 'polluter pays principle' but also to maintain the company's reputation.

This industrial sector is primarily a major consumer of water. As already stated, water consumption depends on the type of laundry, dirt, and the number of washing chemicals used and their concentration (Mozia et al. 2020). In Europe, water withdrawal is regulated (Directives EC n° 648/2004 and EC n° 907/2006; EC 2004, 2006). Each establishment is authorized to take and use a daily volume and an annual volume fixed in a regulatory framework, which will depend on the tonnage of their activity (Pedrazzani et al. 2012; Oteng-Peprah 2018; Mozia et al. 2020). Lacalamita et al. (2023) have recently reported that a French establishment that processes between 6 and 7 tons of linen per day is allowed to use a maximum volume of 250 m³ daily. In the case of this company, the amount of water used in the industrial process is between 100 and 120 m³, thus generating an identical volume of wastewater that must be treated. Bering et al. (2018a, b) previously reported that a Polish industrial laundry with a washing capacity of 80 tons of textiles per day generated nearly 600 m³ of polycontaminated wastewater daily.

Industrial laundry is an important producer of wastewater, which must be treated before discharge and, above all, must meet emission limit values for several water parameters and target substances. Industrial laundries encounter substantial challenges associated with the treatment of wastewater, which is characterized by a complex array of contaminants such as surfactants, fats, oils, phosphates, and suspended solids. These pollutants, primarily derived from the extensive utilization of detergents and cleaning agents, are difficult to manage due to their fluctuating concentrations and unique
chemical properties. Furthermore, the effectiveness of cur-
rent wastewater treatment technologies is often inadequate
for such a diverse range of pollutants, with surfactants pre-
senting particular difficulties because of their high solubility
and limited biodegradability. Additionally, industrial laun-
dries face regulatory hurdles as specific guidelines tailored
to laundry wastewater management are lacking. This defi-
ciency forces these facilities to comply with a spectrum of
general water quality standards, which can vary significantly
across different jurisdictions. Moreover, the economic and
operational burdens associated with the implementation
of advanced treatment technologies represent another sig-
nificant challenge (Swartz et al. 2017; Noutsopoulos et al.
2018; Oteng-Peprah 2018; Ho et al. 2021; Singh et al. 2022;
Konečná et al. 2023). These systems not only require sub-
stantial capital investment but also entail high operational
costs, including those for energy consumption and ongoing
maintenance, which must be balanced against the necessity
for effective wastewater management.

However, only a few chemical analyses are taken into
account (Directives EC n° 648/2004 and EC n° 907/2006;
EC 2004, 2006). For detailed information on the quality
parameters of laundry wastewater, it is necessary to refer
to the national regulations or guidelines issued by the envi-
ronmental agencies of each EU Member State (Melián et al.
2023). These documents generally provide specific limits
and guidelines adapted to local conditions and wastewater
treatment facilities. With the aim of achieving carbon neu-
trality in the EU by 2050, the European Green Deal recog-
nizes wastewater treatment as a crucial area for environmen-
tal improvement, with particular emphasis on improving the
chemical efficiency of the treatments used and encouraging
innovation to find more virtuous and energy-efficient tech-
niques. The European Green Deal presents both challenges
and opportunities for the laundry industry. By embracing
innovation, adopting sustainable practices and collaborating
with stakeholders, the laundry industry can play a crucial
role in achieving cleaner water and a more sustainable future
(EC 2019, 2020a).

In France, with the progressive implementation of various
European directives emanating from the 2000 Water Frame-
work Directive and their transposition into French laws, a list
of nine water parameters and 21 substances have been estab-
lished for the laundry sector since 2007 (Table 3), which is
part of the textile sector (French action called “Monitoring
and Reduction of Substances Present in Water”; first circular
dated 7 May, 2007). All these parameters and substances are
thus characteristics of the waters of the laundry sector. From
this list, each French laundry must monitor a certain num-
ber of parameters and substances declared in their prefec-
tural degree of discharge at a given frequency. Since 2018,
Table 2 provides a list of substances that has been supple-
mented with the following: aluminum, iron, six pesticides

(quinoxyfen, aclonifen, bifenox, cybutryne, cypermethrin
and heptachlor), hexabromocyclododecane, perfluorooc-
tanesulfonic acid, and di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (the *Jour-
nal Officiel de la République Française* of 6 October 2017).
However, these substances are not systematically imposed
on launderers, but they can be subject to ad hoc analyses
(Lacalamita et al. 2023). In addition, there are currently no
regulations governing the potential presence of microfibers
in discharged water, except the measurement of SS.

Table 4 shows the legal maximum admissible level for different parameters and pollutants present in laundry discharge waters according to the regulations of different countries (France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Romania, Mexico, Indonesia, Oman, USA, and China). It can be seen from this table that there are differences in the standards for industrial wastewater discharge among different countries (Kavvalakis et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2021; Alhinai 2022; Violenta et al. 2022; Lacalamita et al. 2023, 2024; Melián et al. 2023). In Europe (France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Romania), there are specific restrictions on water parameters such as SS, COD, and BOD. The regulations are generally very stringent, reflecting the European Union's overall strict environmental standards. In Asia (China, Indonesia), China has stricter regulations on nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals, especially in cities like Beijing, while Indonesia's standards are relatively lenient but are tightening progressively. In the Americas (USA, Mexico), the standards in the USA vary by state, often focusing on reducing nutrients and toxic substances. Mexico is improving its standards but they are not as stringent as those in the USA.

In Canada, there is not a unified set of water quality
standards, due to the variable guidelines and standards set
by the various provinces. In the Middle East (Oman), there
are particularly high standards for COD and metals, indicat-
ing a strict regulatory approach. However, these standards
pose several challenges, such as technological limitations,
especially in developing countries where facilities may lack
advanced treatment technologies to meet stringent stand-
ards; economic constraints that make upgrading facilities
costly and challenging, particularly for small and medium-
sized enterprises; regulatory enforcement issues where
lack of stringent enforcement leads to non-compliance;
and knowledge gaps in awareness or expertise regarding
the best available technologies for wastewater treatment. In
future, as environmental awareness increases, regulations
are likely to become more stringent, with lower permissible
limits for pollutants and the establishment of standards for
new parameters (Kavvalakis et al. 2016; Swartz et al. 2017;
Oteng-Peprah 2018; Ho et al. 2021; Alhinai 2022; Singh
et al. 2022; Violenta et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2021; Konečná
et al. 2023; Melián et al. 2023).

Most laundry effluent is discharged into municipal
sewer systems and treated in local wastewater treatment
<table><caption>**Table 3** French list of water parameters and substances established for the laundry sector. Source: *Journal Officiel de la République Française* of 6 October 2017; Annex VII for industrial</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Name</th><th>Abbreviation</th><th>Unit</th><th>Substance family</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>pH</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Temperature</td><td>T</td><td>°C</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Total suspended solids</td><td>SS</td><td>mg/L</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Chemical oxygen demand</td><td>COD</td><td>mg/L</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Biological oxygen demand</td><td>BOD</td><td>mg/L</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Total phosphorus</td><td></td><td>mg/L</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Total nitrogen</td><td></td><td>mg/L</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Total hydrocarbons</td><td></td><td>mg/L</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water parameter</td><td>Adsorbable organic compounds</td><td>AOX</td><td>mg/L</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Total cadmium</td><td>Cd</td><td>mg/L or µg/L</td><td>Metals</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Total chromium</td><td>Cr</td><td>mg/L or µg/L</td><td>Metals</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Total copper</td><td>Cu</td><td>mg/L or µg/L</td><td>Metals</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Total lead</td><td>Pb</td><td>mg/L or µg/L</td><td>Metals</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Total mercury</td><td>Hg</td><td>mg/L or µg/L</td><td>Metals</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Total nickel</td><td>Ni</td><td>mg/L or µg/L</td><td>Metals</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Total zinc</td><td>Zn</td><td>mg/L or µg/L</td><td>Metals</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Trichloroethylene</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>VOCs<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Tetrachloroethylene</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>VOCs<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Carbon tetrachloride</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>VOCs<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Chloroform</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>VOCs<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>1,4,6-Trichlorophenol</td><td>TCP</td><td>µg/L</td><td>Phenols</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>2-Chlorophenol</td><td>2-CP</td><td>µg/L</td><td>Phenols</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Nonylphenols</td><td>NPs</td><td>µg/L</td><td>Phenols</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Anthracene</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>PAHs<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Fluoranthene</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>PAHs<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Naphthalene</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>PAHs<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Brominated diphenyl ethers</td><td>BDEs<sup>c</sup></td><td>µg/L</td><td>Organobromines</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Tributyl-tin</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>Organotins</td></tr><tr><td>Substance</td><td>Dibutyl-tin</td><td></td><td>µg/L</td><td>Organotins</td></tr></tbody></table>

facilities. However, the impact of these waters on the operation of urban wastewater treatment plants has been studied very little, and so has their toxicity. Currently, from a regulatory perspective, unlike other industrial sectors, ecotoxicological testing is not required to assess the toxicity of aqueous releases, even though biological contamination of water, whether bacterial, algal or fungal, is beginning to interest the authorities. As previously reported by Rebello et al. (2014), it is necessary to study the ecotoxicological impacts of the treated water on different bioindicators. The state-of-the-art shows that in this domain, there is very little data regarding water toxicity (Blasco et al. 2003; Paz et al. 2006; Steber and Wiebel 2012; Rebello et al. 2014; Kern et al. 2015; Silva et al. 2018; Mousavi and Khodadoost 2019; Badmus et al. 2021; Tomšič et al. 2023).

## Environmental challenges

Nowadays, industrial laundries are effective in terms of water and energy use. Modern sustainable technologies in this field make it possible to significantly reduce costs as well as protect the environment. However, this industrial sector must constantly adapt as regulations evolve rapidly, particularly with the occurrence of the problem of emerging polluting substances present in environmental compartments, for example, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and alkylphenols (APs) (Glüge et al. 2020; van der Veen et al. 2022), the presence of microfibers in treated waters (Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022; Gutiérrez et al. 2022; Le et al. 2022; Sotiropoulou et al. 2023), and water scarcity and drought.

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Volatile organic compounds</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>Seven BDEs: 47, 99, 100, 154, 153, 183, and 209</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4** Legal maximum admissible levels for different parameters and pollutants present in laundry discharge waters according to regulations of different countries</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameter/Pollutant</th><th>France</th><th>Spain</th><th>Italy</th><th>Greece</th><th>Romania</th><th>Mexico</th><th>Indonesia</th><th>Oman</th><th>USA</th><th>China</th><th>Beijing (China)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>pH</td><td>6.5-9</td><td>5.5-9.5</td><td>5-9.5</td><td>5-9</td><td>6.5-8.5</td><td>6.0-9.0</td><td>6.0-9.0</td><td>6-10</td><td>6.0-9.0</td><td>6.0-9.0</td><td>6.5-9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Temperature (°C)</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>30</td><td></td><td>40</td><td>35</td><td>±3 °C towards air temperature</td><td>43</td><td></td><td></td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>SS (mg/L)</td><td>500</td><td>1000</td><td>200</td><td>250</td><td>350</td><td>72</td><td>100</td><td>1000</td><td>100</td><td>400</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>COD (mg/L)</td><td>1500</td><td>1600</td><td>500</td><td>1000</td><td>500</td><td>180</td><td>150</td><td>1500</td><td>250</td><td>500</td><td>500</td></tr><tr><td>BOD (mg/L)</td><td>500</td><td>1000</td><td>250</td><td>250</td><td>300</td><td></td><td>75</td><td>1000</td><td>30</td><td>300</td><td>300</td></tr><tr><td>Total phosphorus (mg/L)</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>5.0</td><td>18</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.0</td><td></td><td>8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total nitrogen (mg/L)</td><td>100</td><td></td><td>15</td><td></td><td></td><td>30</td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td></td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Nitrates (mg/L)</td><td></td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total hydrocarbons (mg/L)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AOX (mg/L)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.02</td><td>8.0</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Cr (III) (mg/L)</td><td>0.15</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cr (VI) (mg/L)</td><td>0.1</td><td></td><td>0.2</td><td></td><td>0.2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.05</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total Cr (mg/L)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cu (mg/L)</td><td>0.4</td><td></td><td>0.4</td><td></td><td>0.2</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.0</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Fe (mg/L)</td><td></td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>1.0</td><td></td><td>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>Fe + Al (mg/L)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ni (mg/L)</td><td>0.2</td><td></td><td>4</td><td></td><td>1.0</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zn (mg/L)</td><td>1.5</td><td></td><td>1.0</td><td></td><td>1.0</td><td>15</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total surfactants (mg/L)</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>25</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5.0</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Solvent extractible matter (mg/L)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>30</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>20</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Nonylphenols (µg/L)</td><td>25</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>References</td><td>Lacalamita et al. (2023)</td><td>Melián et al. (2023)</td><td>Kavvalakis et al. (2016)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>6.8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>b</td><td>c</td><td>Violenta et al. (2022)</td><td>Alhinai (2022)</td><td>USEPA (2004)<br>Wang et al. (2021)</td><td>d</td><td>e</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Legislative decree n° 152/06, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Romanian Regulation NTPA-002/2002 (GD no. 188/2002; GD no. 352/2005) for effluents that undergo further treatment in the wastewater treatment plant of the city (https://legislative.just.ro/Public/DetailiDocumentAfis/98310)</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>The maximum contaminant levels, expressed as a daily average for discharges into rivers, were extracted from the official website of this Mexican Environmental Regulation updated in 2021 (NOM-001-SEMARNAT-2021). The limit values were established depending on whether the discharge is released into rivers, lakes, marine areas, or soils (https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detail.php?code=5645374& fecha=11/03/2022#gs.tab=0)</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup>The Chinese laundry discharge water lacks industry standards, with local standards often being more stringent than national ones. In regions where local standards are established, they are implemented, such as DB11/307-2013. In areas without local standards, national standards, like GB8978-1996, are enforced. The data above is derived from the Chinese national wastewater standard GB8978-1996</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup>The data above is derived from the Beijing comprehensive water pollutant discharge standards (DB11/30-2013)</footnote>
In addition to energy challenges (Konečná et al. 2023), industrial laundries face common environmental challenges regarding water resources (Swartz et al. 2017; Noutsopoulos et al. 2018; Oteng-Peprah 2018; Ho et al. 2021; Singh et al. 2022; Lacalamita et al. 2023), which can be summarized as follows:

* decrease the amount of water per ton of dirty laundry to be treated, also with the aim of making water use more efficient,

* use biodegradable, ecological, and safe cleaners and reagents for manipulators,

* produce water and waste that do not pose a risk to the health of employees and workers,

* improve the operation of the treatment plant on site,

* reduce the flow of pollution (in term of water parameters) and pollutants,

* recycle treated wastewater,

* determine the qualitative and quantitative chemical composition of discharge waters; on this point, in France, actions are currently being carried out to collect analytical information on the chemical substances released, in particular emerging substances of recent interest such as alkylphenols and fluorinated substances; these actions should make it possible to propose complementary treatment solutions for these target substances by 2028,

* start studying the presence of microfibers in wastewater and discharged waters and propose solutions to reduce this type of pollution (for the moment, there are no specific regulations on this subject, only recommendations).

Textiles are a major source of microparticle pollution in the aquatic environment (Vassilenko et al. 2019; Gavigan et al. 2020; Gaylarde et al. 2021; Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022; Gutiérrez et al. 2022; Le et al. 2022; Bhat and Gani 2024). These textile microfibers coming from clothing are the main source of primary microplastics in the oceans, being the most common plastics found in aquatic animals (Gaylarde et al. 2021). Bhat and Gani (2024) studied the presence of microfibers (MFs) in the wastewater of Dhobi Ghats, a city in northern India, and compared it with microfiber pollution from commercial laundries. Concentrations of 3204 ± 270 MFs/L and 36,923 ± 389 MFs/L were recorded, respectively. In addition, microfibers smaller than 75 µm dominated in effluents from commercial laundries (around 53% of the total), and microfibers between 75 and 150 µm (around 52% of the total) were present in effluents from the Dhobi Ghats (Bhat and Gani 2024). The presence of these textile microfibers can negatively impact the aquatic ecosystem via several pathways, recently discussed by Le et al. (2022): for example, releasing toxic chemicals, acting as carriers of others contaminants, and blocking the digestive tract of aquatic organisms.

The presence of textile microfibers in water has been the subject of numerous comprehensive publications over the last decade (Prata 2018; Gatidou et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019; Vassilenko et al. 2019; Sun et al. 2019; Bretas Alvim et al. 2020; Gavigan et al. 2020; Ramasamy and Subramanian 2021; Turan et al. 2021; Kwak et al. 2022; Le et al. 2022; Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022; Allen et al. 2024; Arif et al. 2024). In Europe, this source of pollution as a global environmental problem is a key priority (EC 2018, 2020a). It is estimated that synthetic textiles are responsible for a global discharge of between 0.2 and 0.5 million tons of microplastics into the oceans each year (Sherrington 2016). Among anthropic activities, laundry activities are the most important source of microfibers in the aquatic environment (Hernandez et al. 2017; De Falco et al. 2019; Le et al. 2022). Indeed, the majority of microfibers from textiles are released the first few times textiles are washed. The factors causing the increase in microfiber release have been discussed (Hernandez et al. 2017; Issac and Kandasubramanian 2021; Periyasamy 2021). Since microfibers are not retained by washing machines, they are discharged with the washing machine wastewater. They are also emitted during textile manufacturing, garment wearing and end-of-life disposal, and are dispersed not only in water but also in air and soil. Much of the particulate matter, including microfibers and microplastics that end up in wastewater, is retained by wastewater treatment plants. However, a significant fraction is found in the aquatic environment (McIlwraith et al. 2019; Sun et al. 2019). Action must therefore be taken to eliminate this pollution, which has an impact on aquatic life and the degradation of biodiversity.

The important question is whether the problem should be dealt with upstream, that is, in the wastewater coming out of the laundry plants and the washing machines coming out of the homes, or downstream, that is, going into the urban treatment plants. A combination of both seems to be the solution (McIlwraith et al. 2019). The laundry industry is aware of the problem and is looking for solutions (Hernandez et al. 2017; Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022; Le et al. 2022). Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán recently reviewed alternatives for the reduction of textile microfibers emission to water and discussed some viable solutions present on the market (Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022). For example, new detergents and additives are being developed to reduce the generation of microfibers during washing. The use of new liquid detergents and fabric softeners can reduce the friction and damage to the fibers during washing. It is known that washing powders tend to induce more losses than liquid detergents, as they act as abrasives damaging the fibers. One solution could be to install new washing machines whose technologies promoting short washing cycles while using low temperatures, can reduce the rate of release of microfibers.
Other initiatives exist, as in France, where washing machine manufacturers are required to install microfiber filters in their machines from 2025, in order to reduce microfiber pollution. France is the first country in the world to legislate on this type of pollution (AGEC Law–Loi anti-gaspillage pour une économie circulaire; decree no. 2022–336 of 10 March 2022). This French law is anticipated to have significant environmental and economic impacts, stimulating innovation in washing machine technology and influencing global standards on mitigating pollution by textile microfibers. On this topic, Le et al. (2022) reported that small devices for capturing microfibers during household laundry activities are simple to use and affordable at the household level. This would require investment to develop adequate filtration systems for industrial washing machines (McIlwraith et al. 2019; Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022).

Another important topic is the presence of so-called emergent substances in aqueous compartments (Peña-Guzmán et al. 2019; EC 2020b; Patel et al. 2020; ECHA 2022; Morin-Crini et al. 2022). For example, in Europe, the presence of PFAS substances in tap water and waters in general has become a priority (Glüge et al. 2020; van der Veen et al. 2022; Hubert et al. 2024). However, due to their chemical stability and poor degradation, these substances are poorly or even not eliminated by conventional water treatment methods (Buck et al. 2011). Because they have no carbon–carbon double bonds and no functional groups, they are also resistant to advanced oxidation processes. Innovation is therefore required to find removal solutions. Another alternative is to stop the usage of detergent formulations containing these substances. In any case, the laundry sector, like other industrial sectors, will have to take action to eliminate these emerging substances (Lassen et al. 2015). Since 2023, French companies, including those in the laundry sector, have had to monitor the presence of fluorinated substances in their effluent over a 6-month period. Eventually, based on the results of these campaigns, manufacturers will have to take action to eliminate PFAS, which are considered to be priority hazardous substances (the *Journal Officiel de la République Française* of 6 October 2017; French Ministry of Ecology and Solidarity).

## Chemical substances in discharge water from the laundry industry

The review of the literature shows that numerous works mention a number of water parameters to characterize water from domestic and commercial laundry sources, with COD and BOD being the most widely considered (Bering et al. 2011; Braga and Varesche 2014; Sibil et al. 2014; Sheth et al. 2017; Noutsopoulos et al. 2018; Abney et al. 2021; Alhinai 2022; Kumar et al. 2022; Luo et al. 2022; Procházková and

Máša 2022). However, precise data concerning the pollution in terms of qualitative and quantitative fluctuations in discharge water from the laundry sector have seldom been reported. Indeed, among the approximately 100 recent publications examined, only two publications are available on the temporal variability of the chemical composition of laundry water (Braga and Varesche 2014; Lacalamita et al. 2023).

Braga and Varesche (2014) were the first to publish detailed information on the chemical composition of 30 laundry discharge waters taken over a one-month period. In particular, they identified and quantified 8 metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn), forms of nitrogen, phosphates, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, 11 volatile fatty acids, and traditional water parameters (pH, SS, COD, $BOD_5$). The results showed that COD values were in the range of 622–4796 mg/L with an average of $1710 \pm 968$ mg/L. For SS, the values varied from 10 to 290 mg/L with an average of $80 \pm 60$ mg/L. Among the metals analyzed, iron and zinc were observed to have the highest concentrations in 100% of the samples. Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates were quantified in all samples, with concentrations between 12.2 and 1023 mg/L. Phosphates were detected in 93% of samples with an average of 94.6 mg/L. A wide variety of volatile fatty acids was found, the most common acids being propionic and isobutyric (100% of samples). Thirty-three xenobiotic organic molecules, including phthalates and nonylphenols, were identified but not quantified. The authors concluded that the main groups of chemicals were fragrances, preservatives, solvents, and some surfactants. Alhinai (2022) also pointed out the fact that metals, in particular copper, iron, and magnesium, were systematically identified and quantified in all the samples.

Only one paper in the literature, by Lacalamita et al. (2023), presents detailed analytical data on industrial laundry discharges and their temporal variability from both a qualitative and quantitative point of view. These authors investigated the chemical composition of the discharge water from a French laundry industry over a 12-month period for a total of 24 samples. The company processes 6000–7000 kg of laundry per day, uses 100–120 $m^3$ of water per day and about thirty formulations in its industrial process, ranging from detergents to perfumes, including stain removers, disinfectants, bleaching agents, builders, enzymes, optical brighteners, and softeners. Over 160 chemical substances, including 27 metals, 58 volatile organic compounds, 16 polycyclic aromatic carbons, 7 polychlorobiphenyls, 9 alkylphenols, 22 chlorophenols, and 6 pesticides, were monitored. Their results showed that the discharged water presented both inorganic and organic polycontamination with a high degree of qualitative and quantitative variability but the water complied with the regulations in force. Of all monitored substances, only five metals (Al, Cu, Fe, Sr, and Zn), five minerals (P, Ca, K, Na, and S), and alkylphenols were
systematically present and quantifiable, while others, such as trichloromethane, brominated diphenyl ether, and fluorides, were occasionally found and quantified. Substances, such as chlorophenols, organo-tins, and pesticides were never identified.

The data of Lacalamita et al. (2023) also reported that, all the samples had quantifiable levels in COD and BOD<sub>5</sub>. The average and standard deviation values were 835 ± 176 mg/L for COD and 445 ± 114 mg/L for BOD<sub>5</sub>, indicating a biodegradability index of 2.0 ± 0.4. In Europe, the water reference value for this index is 2.5 (Directive 91/271/CEE, 21-03-1994). The authors concluded that the main problem was the presence of a high organic load characterized by high BOD values. In another recent work (Lacalamita et al. 2024), the same group showed that BOD<sub>21</sub> values were particularly high compared to the initial COD, confirming the biodegradability of water. Laundry effluents were also rich in substances that are quickly biodegradable, which has been demonstrated by the values of the ratio between BOD<sub>7</sub> and BOD<sub>5</sub>. However, a significant proportion of surfactants was not degraded, as shown by total organic carbon measurements and anionic surfactant analysis.

It needs to be noted that microfibers in industrial laundry wastewater represent a significant source of microplastic pollution, impacting aquatic ecosystems through physical harm and chemical release, affecting marine life and, potentially, human health. Research and regulatory efforts focus on developing effective filtration technologies, identifying key sources of microfiber emissions, and enhancing public and industry awareness towards sustainable practices. Technological innovations like advanced filters and improved textile materials aim to mitigate microfiber shedding. Although strides are being made in understanding and addressing microfiber pollution, comprehensive solutions and widespread regulatory measures are still needed to significantly reduce their environmental impact (Bretas Alvim et al. 2020; Ramasamy and Subramanian 2021; Turan et al. 2021; Kwak et al. 2022; Le et al. 2022; Belzagui and Gutiérrez-Bouzán 2022; Allen et al. 2024; Arif et al. 2024).

# Treatment of wastewater from laundries

## Wastewater treatment

Wastewater from the laundry sector is known to be difficult to treat through conventional processes (Seo et al. 2001; Hoinkis and Panten 2008). In general, to achieve the decontamination objectives, a combination of physical, chemical, and biological methods is used (Antonopoulou et al. 2013; Arvaniti and Fountoulakis 2021; Ho et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021; Kumar et al. 2022). However, detailed information on the type of treatment is scarce in the open literature. It is a

very confidential sector (Lacalamita et al. 2023), and each laundry has its own processing method and know-how for the decontamination of its wastewater.

In general, a water treatment scheme has two main stages: the first is a primary treatment coupled with a pre-treatment, and the second is a purification or secondary treatment, which is the most important step to eliminate pollution. Pre-treatment, which can be carried out by mechanical, physical or chemical means, is used to remove solid particles, suspended substances, oils, and greases, as well as to oxidize and decomplex the substances. Wastewater is a mixture of organic and inorganic substances, in both insoluble and soluble forms, which interact strongly with each other, often under highly alkaline and saline conditions, and at variable temperatures. Techniques used include filtration, flotation, centrifugation, chemical oxidation, and chemical coagulation assisted by flocculation and separation stages (Matthaios et al. 2016; Huang et al. 2019a, 2019b; Mostafazadeh et al. 2019; Yaseen et al. 2019; Kelemen et al. 2020; Moharir et al. 2020; Ho et al. 2021; de Oliveira Cardoso Nascimento et al. 2021; Santiago et al. 2021; Khajvand et al. 2022; Kumar et al. 2022, 2023; Lacalamita et al. 2023, 2024; Melián et al. 2023; Vishali et al. 2023). The primary treatment stage is essential before considering secondary treatment, as particulate pollution and chemical complexation problems will hinder subsequent treatment, render it less effective, or damage treatment equipment.

Pre-treated effluent can then undergo secondary purification using the most appropriate chemical or biological techniques available to remove the dissolved organic load. Techniques used include chemical or electrochemical coagulation (electrocoagulation) alone or assisted by flocculation and separation steps (Ramcharan and Bissessur 2017; Dimoglo et al. 2019; Akarsu and Deniz 2021), chemical precipitation assisted by flocculation and filtration steps, biodegradation, and membrane bioreactor processes (Bering et al. 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Janus et al. 2017), the two latter methods also being assisted by subsequent separation steps between the sludge formed and the clarified/treated water. In some cases, there may be a final pH adjustment stage.

If it complies with regulations, the final water is sent either to the environment or to the treatment plant of the city where the laundry is located, the latter being the most frequent case in Europe. It is important to note that discharged water always presents mineral and organic contamination at variable concentrations, a relatively basic pH close to 8, high salinity, and the presence of colloids that are very difficult to eliminate completely. In certain cases, a final or tertiary treatment, using membrane filtration technique (Barambu et al. 2020; Kaya and Dayanir 2020; Kumar et al. 2022), for instance, can also be required to remove the remaining pollutants or the molecules produced during the secondary purification, e.g., the removal of salts produced
by the mineralization of organic matter. However, the use of tertiary treatment in Europe is limited, though it may be necessary in the future if new restrictions are applied. Figure 4 shows an example of a wastewater treatment system of a French laundry company, which treats between 100 and 120 m³ of wastewater per day using a range of physical, chemical, and biological techniques.

## Tertiary technologies for laundry water treatment

In terms of pollution prevention, industrial laundries are looking for alternative or complementary solutions as regulations evolve. However, finding a tertiary water treatment process that is both efficient, viable and environmentally friendly is a real challenge for this sector, because their wastewater volumes are very high and, as mentioned above, even if they respect the regulations, these waters are often polycontaminated, complex, highly variable and very saline (Ho et al. 2021; Khalid et al. 2022). Tracking trace contaminants in variable waters is not easy. In addition, tertiary technology must be easily incorporated into existing treatment plants. It must also be energy-efficient and ideally allow recycling the treated water in the industrial process. So, the complementary process must take account not only of these technical and scientific questions but also of economic and ecological criteria.

The literature reports on several tertiary technologies for the post-decontamination of laundry water. These technologies can be divided into three main categories: conventional methods such as biodegradation and adsorption on activated

carbons; established decontamination techniques such as liquid-liquid extraction, ion-exchange assisted by filtration and adsorption steps, membrane filtration, electrochemical treatment (electro-coagulation, electro-flotation), membrane bioreactors, constructed wetlands, and evaporation assisted by adsorption post-treatment; and emerging techniques such as advanced oxidation and biosorption (Fountoulakis et al. 2016, 2017; Crini et al. 2019; Kora et al. 2020; Kotsia et al. 2020; Arvaniti and Fountoulakis 2021; Peter et al. 2021; Elgarahy et al. 2022; George et al. 2022; Morin-Crini et al. 2022; Tawfik et al. 2022; Anand et al. 2023; Balakrishnan et al. 2023; Farghali et al. 2023; Melián et al. 2023; Peng et al. 2023; Wu et al. 2023; Ruan et al. 2024; Sivanesan et al. 2024). Each treatment has its own constraints in terms of cost, feasibility, efficiency, practicability, reliability, environmental impact, sludge production, operation difficulty, pre-treatment requirements, and the formation of potentially toxic byproducts (Morin-Crini and Crini 2017; Crini and Lichtfouse 2019). Indeed, sustainability in industrial laundry wastewater treatment extends beyond the removal of conventional pollutants. By integrating water reuse into their objectives, for example by using membrane filtration and bioreactors, laundries can significantly reduce their environmental impact and move towards a circular economy. Despite current challenges, the benefits of sustainable practices, including cost savings and compliance with evolving regulations, highlight their promising potential for the future of the laundry industry (Morin-Crini et al. 2022).

Table 5 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of different techniques using information published in the literature and provided by water engineering professionals. However, among the various tertiary treatment techniques currently cited, only a few are commonly employed by the laundry sector, for technological and economic reasons. Moreover, for the moment, regulations do not require a reversal to complementary treatment techniques. Nevertheless, the issues of reusing treated water, like that of raw water used and energy (Benis et al. 2021; Ho et al. 2021; Dimoglo et al. 2022; Khapra and Singh 2023; Konečná et al. 2023), is of growing interest to industry, as reuse has become a hotly debated social issue, leading to the use of tertiary water treatment techniques in the years to come.

## Examples of potentially usable water treatment techniques

The evaluation of the water treatment techniques described in the previous section took into account criteria such as removal efficiency, operating and capital costs, complexity, feasibility, reliability, ease of operation, footprint, sludge production, environmental impact and scalability. This evaluation of different water treatment techniques was also based on the ability to treat the specific contaminants present

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Example of a wastewater treatment system of a French laundry company, which treats between 100 and 120 m³ of contaminated water per day using a range of physical, chemical, and biological techniques (source: G. Crini)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 5** Advantages and disadvantages of proposed tertiary techniques for the treatment of discharge water from the laundry sector</caption><thead><tr><th>Technique</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Adsorption on activated carbons</strong></td><td>Large range of carbons<br/>Efficient treatment when coupled to coagulation<br/>Ability to remove a large range of contaminants and color<br/>Synergistic effects enabling the simultaneous elimination of several pollutants/pollutions<br/>Very efficient for COD and detergent removal<br/>Excellent quality of the treated effluent<br/>Efficient for microfibers removal</td><td>Requires pre-treatment steps (coagulation, filtration)<br/>Rapid saturation and clogging of the reactors<br/>Elimination of the carbon<br/>Problem of the presence of several ions and high salinity on purification performance</td><td>Mostafazadeh et al. (2019)<br/>Veli et al. (2019)<br/>Moharir et al. (2020)<br/>Ho et al. (2021)<br/>Kumar et al. (2022)<br/>Atesci and Inan (2023)<br/>Khajvand et al. (2023)<br/>Nasir et al. (2024)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Adsorption on other conventional adsorbents</strong>,<br/>e.g., alumina, zeolite, silica, carbonate rock</td><td>Removes all types of contaminants<br/>Efficient for fluoride and detergent removal (alumina)<br/>Excellent quality of the treated effluent</td><td>Requires pre-treatment steps (coagulation, filtration)<br/>Rapid saturation and clogging of the reactors<br/>Elimination of the adsorbent<br/>Problem of the presence of several ions and high salinity on purification performance</td><td>Mostafazadeh et al. (2019)<br/>Veli et al. (2019)<br/>Kumar et al. (2022)<br/>Nasir et al. (2024)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Biosorption on other non-conventional adsorbents</strong></td><td>Green technologies using natural biosorbents (e.g., algae and bacteria mixtures)<br/>Removes all types of contaminants<br/>Efficient for phosphorus and nitrogen removal<br/>Excellent quality of the treated effluent<br/>Efficiency often independent of salinity</td><td>Laboratory scale; further work needs to be conducted<br/>Availability of biosorbents is an important limitation<br/>Requires pre-treatment steps (coagulation, filtration)<br/>Rapid saturation and clogging of the reactors<br/>Elimination of the biosorbent</td><td>Deresa et al. (2019)<br/>Yaseen et al. (2019)<br/>Pasaribu (2020)<br/>Ayu Haslija and Rabee (2020)<br/>Veli et al. (2021)<br/>Kumar et al. (2023)<br/>Rodzi et al. (2024)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bioprocesses</strong><br/>Biocoagulation<br/>Bioflocculation</td><td>Effective technologies using natural and biodegradable products (e.g., chitosan) which do not produce chemical residue in the water and create nonharmful, biodegradable sludge<br/>Bioprocesses are simple to apply, and are safe for the environment and human health<br/>The use of natural product is well accepted by the public<br/>Efficient for SS removal (biocoagulation), in particular for high-turbidity water<br/>Interesting effect on the reduction of COD and color, and also on the number of bacteria in water<br/>Mechanisms of coagulation and flocculation using bioproducts are well known<br/>Sludge generation reduction</td><td>Most researches are conducted on laboratory scale and application on real and large scaled treatment is challenging; further work needs to be conducted<br/>Extraction processes for raw materials (biocoagulants, bioflocculants) is complex and undeveloped yet<br/>Availability of the materials is an important limitation<br/>The choice and selection of the raw material giving the highest performance is difficult<br/>Performance is dependent on several parameters (pH, temperature, mixing, salinity) due to the occurrence of different mechanisms<br/>Operational costs are variable</td><td>Matthaios et al. (2016)<br/>de Oliveira Cardoso de Oliveira Cardoso Nascimento et al. (2021)<br/>Kasmudin et al. (2022)<br/>Vezar et al. (2024)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 5 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Technique</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Selective precipitation</strong></td><td>Significant reduction of COD, detergents, hydrocarbons, and metals<br>Microfiber removal</td><td>Requires pre-treatment steps (oxidation)<br>Requires adjunction of non-reusable chemicals<br>Generates sludge<br>Ineffective in removal contaminants at low concentrations</td><td>Rott et al. (2017)<br>Moharir et al. (2020)<br>Maryani et al. (2021)<br>Wang et al. (2021)<br>Kumar et al. (2022)<br>Li et al. (2022)<br>Ciabatta et al. (2009)<br>Wang et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Dissolved air flotation</strong></td><td>Compact, modular, and adaptable technology with competitive capital costs and reduced site space requirements<br>Automated system with reasonable costs (low maintenance and operation)<br>Particularly suitable for waters containing low density particles, even those produced after chemical coagulation<br>Obtaining high quality pretreated water from a particle point of view<br>A proven and efficient clarification method for the removal of suspended matter and for pathogen removal, even at low temperature when sedimentation is not effective<br>Little effect of temperature on performance<br>Effect on color-causing organics, even at low temperature<br>Interesting in the case of wastewater reuse as an end goal</td><td>Non-competitive (high energy costs) in the presence of high-density solids or waters with turbidities greater than 100 NTU<br>Technique uses more energy than sedimentation<br>Requires pre-treatment steps (pH control, coagulation, flocculation)<br>Use of chemicals (coagulant aids, metal salts, polymers, flocculants) and materials (carbon powder) that are not recoverable<br>Performance depends on the effectiveness of coagulation and flocculation<br>Reduced performance at low water temperature or if the floc is fragile<br>Little or no effect on dissolved pollution<br>Sludge dewatering prior to discharge<br>Requires post-treatment step (disinfection: e.g., by chlorination or ozonation) as a safety measure</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ion-exchange</strong></td><td>Technological simple with established procedures<br>Efficient treatment for metals and anions removal<br>Excellent quality of the treated effluent<br>Reduces water hardness</td><td>Requires pre-treatment steps (filtration, carbon adsorption)<br>Initial cost of the resins<br>Maintenance costs<br>Rapid saturation and clogging of the reactors<br>Problem of the presence of several ions and high salinity on purification performance</td><td>Tripathi et al. (2013)<br>Fang et al. (2016)<br>Ciabatti et al. (2009)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 5 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Technique</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Biodegradation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bioreactors</td><td>Economically attractive and treatment well accepted by the public</td><td>Efficiency depends on effluent concentration</td><td>Janus et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Membrane bioreactors</td><td>Efficient treatment for the elimination of biodegradable organic matter (COD and BOD) and forms of nitrogen</td><td>Requires management and maintenance of the microorganisms</td><td>Bering et al. (2017, 2018a, 2018b)</td></tr><tr><td>Anaerobic bioreactors</td><td>Useful for removing target alkylbenzene sulfonates</td><td>Inefficient on non-degradable substances or when toxic compounds are present</td><td>Pérez-López et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Rotary biological contactors</td><td>Sustainable, green, and efficient technology in combination with a disinfection process (constructed wetlands)</td><td>Producing suspended solids and biomass and dissolve methane</td><td>de Faria et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Fluidized bed reactor</td><td>Effective method for greywater treatment (COD, BOD, SS, and surfactants removal) with treated water free of pathogenic content (membrane bioreactor)</td><td>Limitation on high COD content treatment</td><td>Siswoyo et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Anaerobic fluidized bed reactor</td><td>High BOD removal (biological activated sludge)</td><td>Problem of kinetics</td><td>Boano et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Sequencing batch bioreactors</td><td>Bioremediation is popular due to its long-term sustainability</td><td>Poor decolorization (biological activated sludge) requires adjunction of chemicals (anaerobic reactors)</td><td>Kora et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Sequencing batch biofilm reactor</td><td>Effluent satisfies the international guidelines for indoor reuse (membrane bioreactor)</td><td>Generates biological sludge and uncontrolled degradation products</td><td>Kotsia et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Moving bed bioreactor</td><td></td><td>Complexity of the micro-biological mechanisms</td><td>Moharir et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Biological activated sludge</td><td></td><td></td><td>Arvaniti and Fountoulakis (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Expanded granular sludge bed biofilters</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ho et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Bioremediation</td><td></td><td></td><td>Nicolaidis and Vyrides (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoremediation</td><td></td><td></td><td>Baihaqi et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Phycoremediation</td><td></td><td></td><td>Kumar et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Violenta et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Akhere and Chukwuka (2023)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Rodzi et al. (2024)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 5 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Technique</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Constructed wetlands</strong><br>Treatment wetlands<br>Biofilters<br>Bioremediation<br>Phytoremediation<br>Phycoremediation</td><td>A mature ecological treatment with an initial investment cost substantially lower than of other conventional systems<br>Simplicity and low-cost of operation and maintenance<br>Basic artificial systems using natural biogeochemical and physical processes in a given, unique and integrated ecosystem<br>No requirement of continuous feeding and operation; need for minimal operational attention and skills; reliable and self-adjusting systems<br>The system can be combined with conventional treatment technologies to provide higher treatment efficiency<br>Ability to treat low strength wastewaters<br>Sustainable, economical and energy efficient technology and well accepted by the public<br>High efficiency for suspended colloids and organics</td><td>Compared to conventional wastewater treatment systems, constructed wetlands generally require larger land areas<br>There is yet no consensus on the optimal design of systems<br>There is still little information on their long-term performance<br>Risk of unpleasant odors<br>Need for a primary step to remove solids and particles<br>Performance can be variable, depending on the type of systems uses, weather conditions, effluent composition (problems with recalcitrant organics) and operation (species involved)<br>The biological components are always sensitive to toxic chemicals<br>Some plants cannot tolerate complete submergence<br>Problem of kinetics<br>The mechanisms of degradation are complex</td><td>Fountoulakis et al. (2017)<br>Arden and Ma (2018)<br>Tefa et al. (2018)<br>Wahyudianto et al. (2019)<br>Kora et al. (2020)<br>Kotsia et al. (2020)<br>Sharma et al. (2020)<br>Li et al. (2021)<br>Lutterbeck et al. (2022)<br>Punyapwar and Muturi (2022)<br>Sotiropoulou et al. (2023)<br>Stefanatou et al. (2024)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Electrochemistry</strong><br>Electro-coagulation<br>Electro-flotation</td><td>Adapted to different pollutant loads<br>More efficient than traditional coagulation and flootation methods; interesting methods due to their safety and environmentally friendly nature<br>Increases biodegradability very effectively in removing SS and dissolved contaminants (electro-coagulation)<br>In situ generation of active adsorbents and formation of gas causing flotation<br>Efficient in removing microplastics (electro-flotation)</td><td>Initial cost of the equipment<br>Cost of the maintenance (sacrificial electrodes)<br>Requires addition of chemicals<br>Formation of sludge with filtering problems<br>Cost of sludge treatment<br>Complex mechanisms</td><td>Ge et al. (2004)<br>Wang et al. (2009)<br>Janpoor et al. (2011)<br>Ramcharan and Bissessur (2017)<br>Dimoglo et al. (2019)<br>Khor et al. (2020)<br>Akarsu and Deniz (2021)<br>Ho et al. (2021)<br>Hu et al. (2021)<br>Kumar et al. (2022)<br>Luo et al. (2022)<br>Huang et al. (2019a)<br>Srivastava et al. (2020)<br>Askari et al. (2021)<br>Ahmad et al. (2022)<br>Lutterbeck et al. (2022)<br>Bashir et al. (2023)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bioelectrochemical systems</strong><br>Bioelectrochemical oxidation<br>Bioelectrochemical degradation<br>Bioelectrochemical systems</td><td>Higher removal efficiencies compared to conventional treatment methods<br>Lower energy consumption as regards electro-chemistry processes<br>Able to treat a diverse range of pollutants</td><td>Initial cost of the equipment<br>Require complex engineering and optimization due to the interplay of electrochemical processes and microbial metabolism<br>Electrode fouling<br>Microbial competition<br>Scalability issue<br>Long term stability</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 5 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Technique</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Advanced oxidation processes</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ozonation</td><td>Efficient in removing recalcitrant substances with disinfecting effect</td><td>Laboratory scale; studies are needed in terms of engineering design and modeling</td><td>Oliveira Schwaickhardt et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Catalytic ozonation</td><td>Mineralization of organics</td><td>Technical constraints (acidic pH, contact time, temperature); short lifetime of the generated</td><td>Zotesso et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Photocatalytic ozonation</td><td>Little or no consumption of chemicals</td><td>ozone</td><td>Souza et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Photo-Fenton process</td><td>No production of sludge</td><td>Excessive energy consumption</td><td>Belén et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Photocatalysis</td><td>Rapid degradation</td><td>Economically non-viable for small and medium industries</td><td>Furtado et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Electrochemical oxidation</td><td>Environmentally friendly and economically profitable (photo-Fenton process)</td><td>Ozone generation cost</td><td>Patil et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Cavitation</td><td></td><td>Cost and life of electrodes</td><td>Vishal et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Ultrasound</td><td></td><td>pH-dependence and mass transfer limitations (ozonation)</td><td>Wahyuni (2020)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Requires pretreatments (coagulation, flocculation, separation, pre-filtration)</td><td>Benis et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Complete mineralization is not economical</td><td>García et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Formation of by-products</td><td>Joseph et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Sludge formation</td><td>Ashari et al. (2023)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Membrane filtration</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Microfiltration</td><td>Simple, rapid, and highly efficient treatment (reverse osmosis)</td><td>High energy requirements</td><td>Šostar-Turk et al. (2005)</td></tr><tr><td>Cross-flow microfiltration</td><td>Cost-effective (gravity-driven membrane method)</td><td>Requires pretreatment steps (coagulation, flocculation, separation, pre-filtration)</td><td>Ciabatta et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>Ultrafiltration</td><td>Eliminates all types of contaminants (reverse osmosis)</td><td>Use of chemicals to protect membranes from deposit build-up by fouling, colloidal fouling and scaling by carbonates and sulphates</td><td>Sumisha et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Reverse osmosis</td><td>Efficient for pathogen (e.g., <i>Escherichia coli</i>) removal</td><td>High investment and energy cost (membrane filtration)</td><td>Manouchehri and Kargari (2017)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Highly efficient treatment (nanofiltration) when coupled to evaporation</td><td>Rapid compaction and clogging of the membrane pores (fouling) both at low (gravity-driven membrane) and high (reverse osmosis) pressure</td><td>Giagnorio et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Possible application as mobile treatment units</td><td>Elimination of the concentrate</td><td>Amita et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Treated water can be reused for laundering purposes (in some countries)</td><td>Requires post-treatment step (disinfection: e.g., by chlorination or ozonation)</td><td>Choobar et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Collivignarelli et al. (2019)</td><td>Huang et al. (2019a, 2019b)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Mostafazadeh et al. (2019)</td><td>Bilad et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Ho et al. (2021)</td><td>Kogut et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Kumar et al. (2022)</td><td>Cahayani et al. (2024)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 5 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Technique</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Evaporation</td><td>A large choice of evaporators having diversity of sizes and shapes<br>Effective at any levels of contamination, or when contamination is unknown and non-organic<br>Interesting when there is not enough space to install a biological unit<br>Drastic reduction of the volume of liquid waste which allows a saving in waste management<br>Permits to achieve zero liquid discharge of wastewater<br>Reuse of reclaimed water (high quality of the distillate)</td><td>The selection and design of an evaporator system must be carefully considered for each case: the choice can be difficult depending on the level of contamination, flow rate, and other conditions (temperature, pressure, residence time)<br>The need for proper effluent characterization and its variability<br>High investment and energy cost<br>Post-treatment requirements (activated carbon step, filtration)</td><td>Haaz et al. (2019)<br>Zhang et al. (2022)<br>Valadez-Renteira et al. (2024)</td></tr></tbody></table>

in industrial laundry wastewater, such as high salinity and variable contaminant loads. Ease of integration into existing treatment systems and the potential for water reuse were also taken into account. Based on this assessment, we have identified several water treatment techniques that can be used to treat laundry water.

Among the evaluated techniques, the following were deemed particularly auspicious:

(i) Adsorption on activated carbons: This method is highly efficient, especially when combined with coagulation, for removing a broad range of contaminants, including color and detergents. It provides excellent water quality but requires pre-treatment and faces challenges such as rapid saturation and clogging (Atesci and Inan 2023; Nasir and Titah 2024).

(ii) Membrane filtration techniques (e.g., reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration): These provide a high-efficiency solution for removing a wide array of contaminants and pathogens, making them suitable for reuse applications. However, they require significant pre-treatment and maintenance, and they are also energy-intensive (Huang et al. 2019b; Mostafazadeh et al. 2019; Bilad et al. 2020).

(iii) Advanced oxidation processes (ozonation, photocatalysis): These are effective for the mineralization of organic contaminants and are environmentally friendly. They are particularly useful when chemical residue is a concern, although they can be costly and technologically demanding (Souza et al. 2019; Joseph et al. 2021).

(iv) Membrane bioreactors: These are cost-effective and environmentally sustainable options that are well-accepted by the public. They are effective for organic matter removal but may be less effective against non-biodegradable substances (Bering 2018a, 2018b).

(v) Constructed wetlands, which use natural processes, are cost-effective and environmentally friendly, offering good removal of nutrients, (biodegradable) organics, and pathogens, though they require significant land area (Tefa et al. 2018; Punyapwar and Mutnuri 2022; Violenta et al. 2022; Melián et al. 2023; Stefanatou et al. 2024).

Many studies point to the chemical efficiency of the proposed technologies but their economic viability is poorly addressed. Indeed, there is a lack of economic and financial data to compare different technologies (Humeau et al. 2011; Nicolaidis and Vyrides 2014; Punyapwar and Mutnuri 2022; Melián et al. 2023). Recently, the use of a combined system involving constructed wetlands and post-treatment with carbon adsorption was proposed to treat efficiently laundry wastewater to meet the required standards with a cost of 0.71 €/m³ (Melián et al. 2023). The same performance could
be obtained with photo-Fenton-based technology but with a cost of 6.72 €/m³. Some papers note that treatment such as membrane filtration and carbon adsorption may be economically viable, but no quantified data are available. Any study comparing wastewater treatment technologies must assess capital costs (equipment investment) and personnel, operational expenses (maintenance, operation) and long-term benefits such as energy savings and environmental impact. For example, membrane bioreactors typically have higher upfront costs, but lower operational expenses due to reduced chemical use and energy efficiency. Conversely, conventional activated sludge systems may have lower initial costs but higher ongoing operating expenses. Choosing the most cost-effective technology also requires consideration of local regulations, water quality objectives and life cycle costs to optimize investment and operational efficiency. It is therefore difficult to define a cost because it depends on several factors and the tertiary method chosen. In any case, before choosing a technique, laboratory tests and preliminary tests on industrial site must be carried out.

## Conclusion

After a brief presentation of the activity of industrial laundry and their problems in terms of aqueous discharges, this comprehensive review has elucidated the multifaceted challenges and current practices associated with wastewater management in the industrial laundry sector. The review also listed chemical substances likely to be found in laundry industry wastewater, summarized environmental challenges for this industrial sector, and described data on the chemical composition of wastewater. A critical analysis of water quality and treatment methodologies revealed that laundry wastewater was inherently complex due to its variable chemical composition and the presence of organic and inorganic contaminants including surfactants and metals. These contaminants pose significant environmental risks, necessitating advanced treatment strategies. The main facts and observations are as follows: an ever-expanding industrial sector, with ever-increasing water requirements; abundant use of chemical substances; increasingly stringent discharge regulations; lack of chemical and biological knowledge of aqueous discharges; little information on water treatment plants; an industrial desire to withdraw less water and improve discharge quality, with the aim of achieving zero discharge of pollutants.

The laundry sector is required to implement actions to reduce the flux of certain substances and water parameters discharged into the environment, by 2028 in Europe, for example. In addition, increasingly restrictive environmental standards associated with high water charges on water consumption and waste streams force industrial

laundries to reuse or recycle treated water by implementing additional treatments. Anyway, before considering any additional treatment actions, qualitative and quantitative knowledge of discharges and their temporal variability is essential. Regrettably, as outlined in this review, the available data on this aspect remain incomplete. The review highlighted the effectiveness of various treatment techniques, from conventional physical and chemical processes to more sophisticated biological and tertiary treatments. For the first time, the review gave an example of a general scheme of wastewater treatment, and presented advantages and disadvantages of water treatment methods that can be used as secondary treatment in current plants, or tertiary treatment, i.e., complementary to existing treatment. Among the numerous methods available to treat discharge water from the laundry industry, membrane filtration and membrane bioreactors combined with disinfection step are frequently lauded for their superior efficiency and technical feasibility, as well as their capability to facilitate water reuse. However, it must be taken into account in operating costs that these methods are also energy intensive. Advanced oxidation processes, membrane filtration, and bioelectrochemical technologies also show promise for enhancing pollutant removal efficiency. However, the practical implementation of these innovative methods encounters obstacles such as high operational costs, technical complexity, and scalability issues.

Future research should focus on optimizing these advanced treatment methods to improve their cost-effectiveness and ease of integration into existing facilities with compact and simple equipment. Objectives should also focus on the targeted elimination of microplastics and emerging contaminants. Additionally, there is a pressing need for more stringent and specific regulatory frameworks tailored to the unique challenges of laundry wastewater. Such regulations would encourage the adoption of best practices and technologies, ultimately leading to more sustainable water management in the sector. Moreover, the ongoing development and refinement of treatment technologies must be paralleled by enhanced regulatory measures and industry standards. This will ensure that the treatment processes not only comply with environmental regulations but also contribute to the broader goal of water sustainability. The findings from this review urge policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers to collaborate more closely to address the critical issues of water quality and treatment efficacy in the industrial laundry sector. Finally, this review serves as a call to action for continuous innovation and stringent regulation in laundry wastewater management. By advancing our understanding and application of effective treatment technologies, we can better protect our water resources and promote a more sustainable and environmentally responsible industry.
**Acknowledgements** The authors thank their institutions for providing the necessary research facilities for this work. NMC and GC thank the Université de Franche-Comté (Besançon, France), the Région Bourgogne Franche-Comté, and the Fonds Européens de Développement Régional (FEDER), through the ALLIGATEX 2023-2025 and MYDREAU 2022-2025 (2022_ANR PCPT) projects, which made it possible to recruit Dario Lacalamita as invited Italian engineer.

**Funding** This work was funded by the Université de Franche-Comté (Besançon, France), the Région Bourgogne Franche-Comté, the Fonds Européens de Développement Régional (FEDER), and the University of Bari (Bari, Italy) Grants: ALLIGATEX 2023-2025 and MYDREAU 2022-2025 (2022_ANR PCPT).

**Declarations**

**Conflict of interest** The authors declare no competing interests. EL declares that he is Editor of Environmental Chemistry Letters.

**References**

Abd El-Gawad HS (2014) Aquatic environmental monitoring and removal efficiency of detergents. Water Sci 28:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2014.09.001

Abney SE, Ijaz MK, McKinney J, Gerba CP (2021) Laundry hygiene and odor control: state of the science. Appl Environ Microbiol 87:e03002-e3020. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03002-20

Aguilar-Torrejón JA, Balderas-Hernández P, Roa-Morales G, Barrera-Díaz CE, Torres-Blancas R-T, T, (2023) Relationship, importance, and development of analytical techniques: COD, BOD, and TOC in water–an overview. SN Appl Sci 5:118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-023-05318-7

Ahmad A, Priyadarshani M, Das S, Ghangrekar MM (2022) Role of bioelectrochemical systems for the remediation of emerging contaminants from wastewater: a review. J Basic Microbiol 62:201–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/jobm.202100368

Akarsu C, Deniz F (2021) Electrocoagulation/electroflotation process for removal of organics and microplastics in laundry Wastewater. Clean Air Soil Water 49:2000146. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.202000146

Akhere MA, Chukwuka H (2023) Phycoremediation of laundry wastewater using *Chlorella vulgaris* (Beijerinck). African Sci 24:175–182

Alhinai AS (2022) Laundry wastewater characterization and treatment for reuse purposes in Oman. In: Badr A and Venables J, eds., Towards a sustainable water future: proceedings of OICWE2020. ICE publishing, London, pp 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1680/oicwe.65253.211

Allen E, Henninger CE, Garforth A, Asuquo E (2024) Microfiber pollution: a systematic literature review to overcome the complexities in knit design to create solutions for knit fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 58:4031–4045. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c05955

Altenbaher B, Šostar-Turk S, Fijan S (2014) Biodegradation of typical laundry wastewater surfactants–a review. Tekstil 63:107–112

Anand U, Dey S, Parial D, Federici S, Ducoli S, Bolan NS, Dey A, Bontempi E (2023) Algae and bacteria consortia for wastewater decontamination and transformation into biodiesel, bioethanol, biohydrogen, biofertilizers and animal feed: a review. Environ Chem Lett 21:1585–1609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01562-w

Anita KH, Marcia TV, Patricia TJ, Gilberto DG, Soraya MP, Camila DOV (2019) Sequential process of coagulation/flocculation/

sedimentation-adsorption-microfiltration for laundry effluent treatment. J Environ Chem Eng 7:1–7

Antonopoulou G, Kirkou A, Stasinakis AS (2013) Quantitative and qualitative greywater characterization in Greek households and investigation of their treatment using physicochemical methods. Sci Total Environ 454:426–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.045

Aonghusa CN, Gray NF (2002) Laundry detergents as a source of heavy metals in Irish domestic wastewater. J Environ Sci Health: Tox Hazard Substance Environ Eng 37:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1081/ese-100108477

Arden S, Ma X (2018) Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: a review. Sci Total Environ 630:587–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.218

Arif Y, Mir AR, Zieliński P, Hayat S, Bajguz A (2024) Microplastics and nanoplastics: source, behavior, remediation, and multi-level environmental impact. J Environ Manag 356:120618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120618

Arvaniti I, Fountoulakis MS (2021) Use of a graphite-cement composite as electrode material in up-flow constructed wetland microbial fuel cell for greywater treatment and bioelectricity generation. J Environ Chem Eng 9:105158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105158

Ashari TM, Marlisa DY, Nisah K (2023) Combination of photocatalyst TiO₂ (titanium dioxide) and H₂O₂ (hydrogen peroxide) in laundry wastewater treatment. Indonesian J Environ Sustain 1:47–59

Askari A, Vahabzadeh F, Mardanpour MM (2021) The identification and performance assessment of dominant bacterial species during linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS)-biodegradation in a bio-electrochemical system. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 44:2579–2590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-021-02629-0

Atesci ZC, Inan H (2023) Removal of microfiber and surfactants from household laundry washing effluents by powdered activated carbon: kinetics and isotherm studies. Wat Sci Technol 88:1578–1593. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2023.281

Ayu Haslija AB, Rabee A (2020) Treatment of laundry wastewater using chemically treated sugarcane bagasse. In: International conference on sustainable energy and green technology 2019. IOP publishing conf series 463:012076. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/463/1/012076

Badmus SO, Amusa HK, Oyehan TA, Saleh TA (2021) Environmental risks and toxicity of surfactants: overview of analysis, assessment, and remediation techniques. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:62085–62104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16483-w

Babajanzadeh B, Sherizadeh S, Ranji H (2019) Detergents and surfactants: a brief review. Open Access J Sci 3:394–99. https://doi.org/10.15406/oajs.2019.03.00138

Baihaqi RA, Prabahandari KA, Hariyono Y, Pratiwi NI, Sutanto H, Wahyonno Y (2022) Application of anaerobic and aerobic bio-reactors in detergent wastewater treatment: a review. IOP Conf Series Earth Environ Sci 1098:012034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1098/1/012034

Bajpai D, Tyagi VK (2007) Laundry detergents: an overview. J Oleo Sci 56:327–340

Bala S, Garg D, Thirumalesh BV, Sharma M, Sridhar K, Inbaraj BS, Tripathi M (2022) Recent strategies for bioremediation of emerging pollutants: a review for a green and sustainable environment. Toxics 10(484):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10080484

Balakrishnan A, Appunni S, Chinthala M, Jacob MM, Vo DV, Reddy SS, Kunnel ES (2023) Chitosan-based beads as sustainable adsorbents for wastewater remediation: a review. Environ Chem Lett 21:1881–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01563-9

Barambu NU, Peter D, Yusoff MHM, Bilad MR, Shamsuddin N, Marbelia L, Nordin NAH, Jaafar J (2020) Detergent and water recovery from laundry wastewater using tilted panel membrane
filtration system. Membranes 10:260. https://doi.org/10.390/
membranes10100260

Bashir Y, Raj R, Ghangrekar MM, Nema AK, Das S (2023) Critical assessment of advanced oxidation processes and bio-electro-chemical integrated systems for removing emerging contaminants from wastewater. RSC Sustain 1:1912–1931. https://doi.org/10.1039/d3su00112a

Belén A, García E, Szyma K, Mozia S (2020) Treatment of laundry wastewater by solar photo-Fenton process at pilot plant scale. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:8576–8584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11151-x

Belzagui F, Gutiérrez-Bouzán C (2022) Review on alternatives for the reduction of textile microfibers emission to water. J Environ Manage 317:115347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115347

Benis KZ, Ali B, Ehsan A, Farabi S, Pourakbar M (2021) Water recovery and on-site reuse of laundry wastewater by a facile and cost-effective system: combined biological and advanced oxidation process. Sci Total Environ 789:148068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148068

Bering S, Mazur J, Tarnowski K (2011) The quantity and quality of industrial wastewater from laundry on example of “fliegl tex-tilservice” company in Nowe Czarnowo. Civil Environ Eng Rep 6:33–44

Bering S, Mazur J, Tarnowski K, Janus M, Mozia S, Morawski AW (2017) The use of moving bed bio-reactor to laundry wastewater treatment?. In: E3S web of conferences vol 22, pp 000115. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20172200015

Bering S, Mazur J, Tarnowski K, Janus M, Mozia S, Morawski AW (2018a) The application of moving bed bio-reactor (MBBR) in commercial laundry wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ 627:1638–1643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.029

Bering S, Mazur J, Tarnowski K, Dąbkowska N, Janus M, Mozia S, Morawski AW (2018b) Removal of organic pollutants and surfactants from laundry wastewater in membrane reactor (MBR). Des Water Treatment 134:281–288. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2018.23207

Bhat ZM, Gani KM (2024) Microfiber pollution from Dhobi Ghats (open air laundry centers) and commercial laundries in a north Indian city. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 31:12161–12173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31700-4

Bilad MR, Nawi NIM, Subramaniam DD, Shamsuddin N, Khan AL, Jaafar J, Nandiyanto ABD (2020) Low-pressure submerged membrane filtration for potential reuse of detergent and water from laundry wastewater: the role of detergent chemistry. J Water Process Eng 36:600–608

Blasco J, Hampel M, Moreno-Garrido I (2003) Toxicity of surfactants. In: Knepper TP, Barceló D, de Voogt P (eds) Analysis and fate of surfactants and the aquatic environment, Chapter 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 827–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-526X(03)40010-X

Boano F, Caruso A, Costamagna E, Ridolfi L, Fiore S, Demichelis F, Galvao A, Pisoeiro J, Rizzo A, Masi F (2020) A review of nature-based solutions for greywater treatment: applications, hydraulic design, and environmental benefits. Sci Total Environ 711:134731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134731

Braga JK, Varesche MBA (2014) Commercial laundry water characterisation. Am J Anal Chem 5:8–16. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajac.2014.51002

Buehler D, Antenen N, Frei M, Koller C, Rousseau DPL, Schoen-born A, Junge R (2021) Towards water and energy self-sufficiency: a closed-loop, solar-driven, low-tech laundry pilot facility (LaundReCycle) for the reuse of laundry wastewater. Circular Econ Sustain 1:1037–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00077-2

Bretas Alvim C, Mendoza-Roca JA, Bes-Piá A (2020) Wastewater treatment plant as microplastics release source—quantification and identification techniques. J Environ Manag 255:109739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109739

Buck RC, Franklin J, Berger U, Conder JM, Cousins IT, de Voogt P, Jensen AA, Kannan K, Mabury SA, van Leeuwen SPJ (2011) Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: terminology, classification, and origins. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:513–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258

Cahayani L, Bilad MR, Khery Y, Nufida BA, Efendi I (2024) Laundry waste filtration performance at ultra-low pressure. E3S Web Conf 481:03003. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202448103003

Chen Y, Ozaki A, Yusuke A, Choi Y, Lee H (2023) Numerical modeling of laundry drying in a commercial laundry plant: incorporating water potential as a driving force for heat and mass transfer. J Cleaner Prod 423:138735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138735

Ciabatti I, Cesaro F, Faralli L, Fatarella E, Tognotii F (2009) Demonstration of a treatment system for purification and reuse of laundry wastewater. Desalination 245:451–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.02.008

Choobar BG, Shahmirzadi MAA, Kargari A, Manouchehri M (2019) Fouling mechanism identification and analysis in microfiltration of laundry wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 7:103030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103030

Collivignarelli MC, Miino MC, Baldi M, Manzi S, Abbà A, Bertanza G (2019) Removal of non-ionic and anionic surfactants from real laundry wastewater by means of a full-scale treatment system. Process Safety Environ Prot. 132:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.10.022

Crini G, Lichtfouse E, Wilson LD, Morin-Crini N (2019) Conventional and non-conventional adsorbents for wastewater treatment. Environ Chem Lett 17:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0785-9

Crini G, Lichtfouse E (2019) Advantages and disadvantages of techniques used for wastewater treatment. Environ Chem Lett 17:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0785-9

Cüce H, Aydın Temel F (2023) Efficient removal performance of COD in real laundry wastewater via conventional and photofenton degradation systems: a comparative study on oxidants and operating time by H₂O₂/Fe²⁺. Arab J Sci Eng 48:15823–15835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-023-07652-9

de Faria CV, Delforno TP, Okada DY, Varesche MBA (2019) Evaluation of anionic surfactant removal by anerobic degradation of commercial laundry wastewater and domestic sewage. Environ Technol 40:988–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1414317

de Oliveira Cardoso C, Veit MT, Palacio SM, da Cunha Gonçalves G (2021) Use of natural coagulants in the removal of color and turbidity from laundry wastewater. Water Air Soil Pollut 232:300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05253-6

De Falco F, Di Piace E, Cocca M, Avella M (2019) The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollution. Sci Rep 9:6633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43023-x

Dąbkowska N (2017) Determination of the quality of industrial laundry raw wastewater. Ecol Eng 18:1–4. https://doi.org/10.12912/23920629/76778

Decker BK (2022) The role of health care laundry in infection prevention. Infection Control Today 26. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/the-role-health-care-laundry-infection-prevention

Delforno TP, Moura AGL, Okada DY, Varesche MBA (2014) Effect of biomass adaptation to the degradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewater using EGSB reactors. Bioresour Technol 154:114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.11.102
Deresa S, Endale H, Dadi D, Kitte SA (2019) Removal of anionic surfactant from residential laundry wastewater using jackfruit (*Artocarpus heterophyllus*) seeds. Adv Environ Technol 1:47–53. https://doi.org/10.22104/ae.t.2020.3841.1189

Dimoglo A, Sevim EP, Dinc O, Gokmen K, Erdogan H (2019) Electro-coagulation/electroflotation as a combined process for the laundry wastewater purification and reuse. J Water Proc Eng 31:1–8

Dimoglo A, Veli S, Konukman AEŞ, Günenç P, Şeker MG, Dinç Ö, Arslan A, İşgören M, Belat B, Kurtkulak H, Gülümçer S, Topkaya E (2022) Experience in using a pilot plant for the treatment and reuse of laundries wastewater: electroflotocoagulation and adsorption. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:5427–5440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04516-x

EC (2004) Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (modified in 2012: Regulation EU 259/2012)

EC (2006) Commission Regulation (EC) No 907/2006 of 20 June 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on detergents, in order to adapt Annexes III and VII thereto

EC (2018) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions - A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy (COM (2018) 28 final); Decision EU 2018/418

EC (2019) The European Green Deal. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

EC (2020a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A new circular economy action plan: for a cleaner and more competitive Europe (COM (2020) 98 final)

EC (2020b) Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2020/784 of 8 April 2020, amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the listing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related compounds. Official Journal of the European Union 2020, L 188.

ECHA (2022) European chemical agency. List of substances subject to POPs Regulation. https://echa.europa.eu/list-of-substances-subject-to-pops-regulation

Elgarahy AM, Eloffy MG, Hammad A, Saber AN, El-Sherif DM, Mohsen A, Abouzid M, Elwakeel KZ (2022) Hydrogen production from wastewater, storage, economy, governance and applications: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20:3453–3504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01480-3

Enfrin M, Dumée LF, Lee J (2019) Nano/microplastics in water and wastewater treatment processes—origin, impact and potential solutions. Water Res 161:621–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.049

Fang X, Xu Z, Luo Y, Ren L, Hua W (2016) Removal of radionuclides from laundry wastewater containing organics and suspended solids using inorganic ion exchanger. Proc Environ Sci 31:375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.02.053

Farghali M, Mohamed IMA, Osman AI, Rooney DW (2023) Sea-weed for climate mitigation, wastewater treatment, bioenergy, bioplastic, biochar, food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics: a review. Environ Chem Lett 21:97–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01520-y

Fijan S, Sostar-Turk S, Cencic A (2005) Implementing hygiene monitoring systems in hospital laundries in order to reduce microbial contamination of hospital textiles. J Hosp Infect 61:30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2005.02.005

Fountoulakis MS, Markakis N, Petousi I, Manios T (2016) Single house on-site grey water treatment using a submerged membrane

bioreactor for toilet flushing. Sci Total Environ 551:706–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.057

Fountoulakis MS, Sabathianakis G, Kritsotakis I, Kabourakis EM, Manios T (2017) Halophytes as vertical-flow constructed wetland vegetation for domestic wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ 583:432–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.090

Furtado AO, Almeida IV, Almeida ACC, Zotesso JP, Tavares CRG, Vicentini VEP (2020) Evaluation of hospital laundry effluents treated by advanced oxidation processes and their cytotoxic effects on Allium cepa L. Environ Monitor Assess 192:360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08328-9

García ABE, Szymański K, Mozia S, Pérez JAS (2021) Treatment of laundry wastewater by solar photo-fenton process at pilot plant scale. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:8576–8584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11151-x

Gatidou G, Stasinakis AOS, AS, (2019) Review on the occurrence and fate of microplastics in sewage treatment plants. J Hazard Mat 367:504–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.081

Gavigan J, Kefela T, Macadam-Somer I, Suh S, Geyer R (2020) Synthetic microfiber emissions to land rival those to waterbodies and are growing. PLoS ONE 15:e0237839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237839

Gaylarde C, Baptista-Neto JA, da Fonseca EM (2021) Plastic micro-fibre pollution: how important is clothes' laundering? Heliyon 7:e07105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07105

Ge J, Qu J, Lei P, Liu H (2004) New bipolar electrocoagulation-electroflotation process for the treatment of laundry wastewater. Sep Purif Technol 36:33–39

George J, Anand SS, Senthil Kumar P, Saravanan P, Lenin R, Rajendran DS, Venkataraman S, Vaidyanathan VK, Vo DVN (2022) Biocatalytic polymeric membranes to decrease biofilm fouling and remove organic contaminants in wastewater: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20:1897–1927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01413-0

Giagnorio M, Amelio A, Grüttner H, Tiraferri A (2017) Environmental impacts of detergents and benefits of their recovery in the laundering industry. J Clean Prod 154:593–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.012

Glüge J, Scheringer M, Cousins IT, DeWitt JC, Goldenman G, Herzke D, Lohmann R, Ng CA, Trier X, Wang Z (2020) An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environ Sci Process Impacts 22:2345–2373. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G

Gogoi A, Mazumder P, Tyagi VK, Chaminda GGT, An AK, Kumar M (2018) Occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants in water environment: a review. Groundw Sustain Dev 6:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2017.12.009

Gutiérrez JEV, Camargo FP, Sakamoto IK, Varesche MBA (2022) Expanded granular sludge bed reactor technology feasibility for removal of nonylphenol ethoxylate in co-digestion of domestic sewage and commercial laundry wastewater: taxonomic characterization and biogas production. Process Safety Environ Protect 161:556–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.03.055

Haaz E, Fozer D, Nagy T, Valentinyi N, Andre A, Matyasi J, Balla J, Mizsey P, Toth AJ (2019) Vacuum evaporation and reverse osmosis treatment of process wastewaters containing surfactant material: COD reduction and water reuse. Clean Technol Environ Policy 21:861–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01673-5

Hernandez E, Nowack B, Mitrano DM (2017) Polyester textiles as a source of microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber release during washing. Environ Sci Technol 51:7036–7046. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01750

Ho KC, Teow YH, Sum JY, Ng ZJ, Mohammad AW (2021) Water pathways through the ages: integrated laundry wastewater treatment
for pollution prevention. Sci Total Environ 760:143966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143966

Hoinkis J, Panten V (2008) Wastewater recycling in laundries—from pilot to large-scale plant. Chem Eng Proc 47:159–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2007.12.010

Hu S, Zhang B, Xu Y (2021) Using electric flocculation to treat domestic laundry wastewater with different types of detergents. E3S Web Conf 61:04008. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126104008

Huang AK, Veit MT, Juchen PT, da Cunha GG, Palácio SM, de Oliveira Cardoso Nascimento C, (2019a) Sequential process of coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation-adsorption-microfiltration for laundry effluent treatment. J Environ Chem Eng 7:103226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103226

Huang KM, Adam TB, Anne C, Patrick D, Emmanuel B (2019b) Development of combined membrane filtration, electrochemical technologies, and adsorption process for treatment and reuse of laundry wastewater and removal of nonylphenolethoxylates as surfactants. J Water Proc Eng 28:277–292

Huang LP, He WT, Zhang YJ, Wang XY, Wu KC, Yang ZW, Zhang J (2023a) Chitosan enhances poly aluminum chloride flocculation system removal of microplastics: effective, stable, and pollution free. J Water Process Eng 54:103929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2023.103929

Huang Z, Xiang Y, Liu YX, Li GF, Cao HQ (2023b) Effect of ionic surfactants on the settling behavior of silt. Heliyon 9:e15669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15669

Hubert M, Meyn T, Hansen MC, Hale SE, Arp HPH (2024) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) removal from soil washing water by coagulation and flocculation. Water Res 249:120888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120888

Humeau P, Hourlier F, Bulteau G, Massé A, Jaouen P, Gerente C, Faur C, Le Cloirec P (2011) Estimated costs of implementation of membrane processes for on-site greywater recycling. Water Sci Technol 63:2949–2956. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.617

Issac MN, Kandasubramanian B (2021) Effect of microplastics in water and aquatic systems. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:19544–19562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13184-2

Ivanković T, Hrenović J (2010) Surfactants in the environment. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 61:95–110. https://doi.org/10.2478/10004-1254-61-2010-1943

Janpoor F, Torabian A, Khatibikamal V (2011) Treatment of laundry waste-water by electrocoagulation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 86:1113–1120. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2625

Janus M, Mozia S, Bering S, Tarnowski K, Mazur J, Morawski AW (2017) Application of MBR technology for laundry wastewater treatment. Des Water Treat 64:213–217. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.11438

Jardak K, Drogui P, Daghrir R (2016) Surfactants in aquatic and terrestrial environment: occurrence, behavior, and treatment processes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:3195–3216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5803-x

Jayanto GD, Widyastuti M, Hadi MP (2021) Laundry wastewater characteristics and their relationship with river water quality as an indicator of water pollution case study: code watershed Yogyakarta. E3S Web Conf 325:02011. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202132502011

Joseph CG, Farm YY, Taufiq-Yap YH, Pang CK, Nga JLH, Puma GL (2021) Ozonation treatment processes for the remediation of detergent wastewater: a comprehensive review. J Environ Chem Eng 9:10699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106099

Kasmudin K, Fitria F, Artiningsih A (2022) The influence of concentration chitosan of a shell snail to lower levels of BOD and COD on waste laundry. J Appl Sci Eng Technol Educ 4:9–15. https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.asci718

Kavvalakis MP, Dialynas EG, Dialynas GE (2016) Advanced treatment of laundry wastewater with coagulation and flocculation. In: Proceedings of 13th IWA. Laboratory of physicochemical & microbiological water and wastewater analyses, DIALYNASS S.A., Troulos Kallitheas, 71601, Heraklion, Greece (cited in reference: Maryani et al. 2021)

Kaya Y, Dayanir S (2020) Application of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis for treatment and reuse of laundry wastewater. J Environ Health Sci Eng 18:699–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-020-00496-7

Kelemen O, Szabolcsik AI, Bodnár I (2020) Investigation of household laundry water as an alternative water source. Müszaki Tudományos Közleményel 13:91–94. https://doi.org/10.33894/mtk-2020.13.15

Kern DI, Oliveira Schwaickhardt R, Lutterbeck CA, Kist LT, Alcayaga EAL, Machado ÊL (2015) Ecotoxicological and genotoxic assessment of hospital laundry wastewaters. Archiv Environ Contam Toxicol 68:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-014-0072-0

Khajvand M, Mostafazadeh AK, Drogui P, Tyagi RD (2022) Management of greywater: environmental impact, treatment, resource recovery, water recycling, and decentralization. Water Sci Technol 86:909–937. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2022.226

Khajvand M, Drogui P, Pichon L, El Khakani MA, Tyagi RD, Brien E (2023) Removal of nonylphenol ethoxylate from laundry wastewater using modified and functionalized activated carbon. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 9:2338–2354. https://doi.org/10.1039/d3ew00329a

Khalid S, Wahab A, Yasar A, Tanveer R, Tabinda AB, Zakaullah M (2022) Laundry wastewater treatment under detergent-free environment and reaction kinetic analysis of ozonation technique for the recycling and other applications. Des Water Treat 278:40–48. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2022.28934

Khan RA (2022) Chapter 7 – Detergents. Environmental Microlubtants. Adv Pollut Res pp 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90555-8.00014-3

Khapra R, Singh N (2023) Physical, chemical, and biological evaluation of domestic laundry greywater discharges to attract recclamation strategies and reuse applications in urban settings. Environ Quality Manage 33:209–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22110

Khery Y, Daniar SE, Mat Nawi NI, Bilad MR, Wibisono Y, Nufida BA, Ahmadi A, Jaafar J, Huda N, Kobun R (2022) Ultra-low-pressure membrane filtration for simultaneous recovery of detergent and water from laundry wastewater. Membranes 12:591. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12060591

Khor CM, Wang J, Li M, Oettel BA, Kaner RB, Jassby D, Hoek EM (2020) Performance, energy and cost of produced water treatment by chemical and electrochemical coagulation. Water 12:3426

Kim S, Park C (2022) Fouling behavior and cleaning strategies of ceramic ultrafiltration membranes for the treatment and reuse of laundry wastewater. J Water Process Eng 48:102840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102840

Kogut I, Szwast M, Hussy S, Polak D, Piątkiewicz GA, W, (2021) Evaluation of wastewater reuse in commercial laundries: a pilot field study. Des Water Treat 214:39–48. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2021.26531

Köhler J (2006) Detergent phosphates: an EU policy assessment. J Business Chem 3:15–30

Konečná E, Máša V, Miklas V, Slovák R, Jöderning A, Blaha V (2023) Gas microturbine as a main source of energy for industrial laundry-feasibility study. Energy 267:126630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126630

Kora E, Theodorelou D, Gatidou G, Fountoulakis MS, Stasinakis AS (2020) Removal of polar micropollutants from domestic
wastewater using a methanogenic-aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor system. Chem Eng J 382:122983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122983

Kotsia D, Deligianni A, Fyllas NM, Stasinakis AS, Fountoulakis MS (2020) Converting treatment wetlands into “treatment gardens”: use of ornamental plants for greywater treatment. Sci Total Environ 744:140889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140889

Kumar S, Mostafazadeh AK, Kumar LR, Tyagi RD, Drogui P, Brien E (2022) Advancements in laundry wastewater treatment for reuse: a review. J Environ Sci Health, Part A Toxic/hazardous Subst Environ Eng 57:927-946. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2022.2132076

Kumar S, Mostafazadeh AK, Kumar LR, Drogui P, Tyagi RD (2023) Treatment of laundry wastewater using extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). Environ Syst Res 12:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s.40068-023-00289-5

Kwak JI, Liu HL, Wang DY, Lee YH, Lee JS, An YJ (2022) Critical review of environmental impacts of microfibers in different environmental matrices. Comp Biochem Physiol Part c: Toxicol Pharmacol 251:109196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109196

Lacalamita D, Mongioví C, Crini G (2023) Chemical substances present in discharge water generated by laundry industry: analytical monitoring. Water Sci Eng 16:324-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2023.07.004

Lacalamita D, Mongioví C, Crini G (2024) Chemical oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand analysis of discharge waters from laundry industry: monitoring, temporal variability, and bio-degradability. Front Environ Sci 12:1387041. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1387041

Lassen C, Jensen AA, Warming M (2015) Alternatives to perfluoro-alkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in textiles. LOUS, Survey of chemical substances in consumer products. No. 137; 978-87-93352-16-2; The Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

Le LT, Nguyen KQN, Nguyen PT, Duong HC, Bui XT, Hoang NB, Nghiem LD (2022) Microfibers in laundry wastewater: problem and solution. Sci Total Environ 852:158412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158412

Li YH, Zhu SK, Zhang Y, Lv MH, Kinhoun JJR, Qian TT, Fan B (2021) Constructed wetland treatment of source separated washing wastewater in rural areas of southern China. Sep Purif Technol 272:118725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118725

Li J, Dagnew M, Ray MB (2022) Effect of coagulation on microfibers in laundry wastewaters. Environ Res 212:113401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113401

Liu DHF, Liptak BG (2000) Wastewater treatment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 85-96

Liu JL, Yang YF, Ding JN, Zhu B, Gao WD (2019) Microfibers: a preliminary discussion on their definition and sources. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:9497-29501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06265-w

Luo J, Jin X, Wang Y, Jin P (2022) Advanced treatment of laundry wastewater by electro-hybrid ozonation-coagulation process: surfactant and microplastic removal and mechanism. Water 14:4138. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14244138

Lutterbeck CA, Colares GS, Dell'Osbel N, da Silva FP, Kist LT, Machado ÊL (2020) Hospital laundry wastewaters: a review on treatment alternatives, life cycle assessment and prognosis scenarios. J Clean Prod 273:122851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122851

Lutterbeck CA, Colares GS, Oliveira GA, Mohr G, Beckenkamp F, Rieger A, Lobo EA, Rodrigues LHR, Machado ÊL (2022) Microbial fuel cells and constructed wetlands as a sustainable alternative for the treatment of hospital laundry wastewaters:

assessment of load parameters and genotoxicity. J Environ Chem Eng 10:108105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108105

Malik A (2004) Metal bioremediation through growing cells. Environ Int 30:261-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.08.001

Manouchehri M, Kargari A (2017) Water recovery from laundry wastewater by the cross flow microfiltration process: a strategy for water recycling in residential buildings. J Clean Prod 168:227-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.211

Matthaios KP, Emmanuuel DG, George DE (2016) Advanced treatment of laundry wastewater with coagulation and flocculation. In: Proceedings of 13th IWA, pp 1-10.

Maryani Y, Baginda D, Nurfadilah I (2021) The effect of additional sludge resulted from laundry wastewater in flocculation-coagulation which used as mixture of planting media in the growth of Chili plants (Capsicum annuum L). Adv Biol Sci Res 9:45-51

McIlwraith HK, Lin J, Erdle LM, Mallos N, Diamond ML, Rochman CM (2019) Capturing microfibers—marketed technologies reduce microfiber emissions from washing machines. Mar Pollut Bull 139:40-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.012

Melián EP, Santiago DE, León E, Reboso JV, Herrera-Melián EP (2023) Treatment of laundry wastewater by different processes: optimization and life cycle assessment. J Environ Chem Eng 11:109302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.109302

Méndez-Hernández J, Ramírez-Vives F, Sobrino-Figueroa AS, Garza-López PM, Loera O (2022) Ecotoxicological evaluation and treatment of a denim-laundry wastewater. Water Air Soil Pollut 233:27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-022-05500-4

Moharir SR, Patni PA, Datar AV, Suryawanshi TS (2020) Study of treatment of laundry wastewater. J Emerg Technol Innov Res 7:574-591

Morin-Crini N, Crini G (2017) Eaux industrielles contaminées. Réglementation, paramètres chimiques et biologiques, procédés d'épuration innovants (in French). Morin-Crini N and Crini G, eds. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, France. IBSN: 978-2-84867-589-3

Morin-Crini N, Lichtfouse E, Fourmentin M, Ribeiro ARL, Noutsopoulos C, Mapelli F, Fenyvesi E, Guregl M, Vieira A, Picos-Corrales LA, Moreno-Piraján JC, Giraldo L, Sohajda T, Huq MM, Soltan J, Torri G, Magureanu M, Bradu C, Crini G (2022) Removal of emerging contaminants from wastewater using advanced treatments. A Review Environ Chem Lett 20:1333-1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01379-5

Morris BG, Aziz M, Kasongo G (2022) Remediation of laundry wastewater with a low-pressure aromatic polyamide thin-film composite reverse osmosis membrane for membrane fouling minimisation and reuse application. Environ Protection Eng 48:43-57. https://doi.org/10.37190/epe220204

Mostafazadeh AK, Benguit AT, Carabin A, Drogui P, Brien E (2019) Development of combined membrane filtration, electrochemical technologies, and adsorption processes for the treatment and reuse of laundry wastewater and removal of nonylphenol ethoxylates as surfactants. J Water Proc Eng 28:277-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.02.014

Mousavi SA, Khodadoost F (2019) Effects of detergents on natural ecosystems and wastewater treatment processes: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:26439-26448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05802-x

Mozia S, Janus M, Bering S, Tarnowski K, Mazur J, Szymanski K, Morawski AW (2020) Hybrid system coupling moving bed bio-reactor with UV/O₃ oxidation and membrane separation units for treatment of industrial laundry wastewater. Materials 13:2648. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13112648

Najim AA, Ismail ZZ, Hummadi KK (2022) Biodegradation potential of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) by mixed cells in domestic and non-domestic actual wastewaters: experimental and kinetic
studies. Biochem Eng J 180:108374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2022.108374

Nascimento CO, Veit MT, Palácio SM, Gonçalves GC, Fagundes-Klen MR (2019) Combined application of coagulation/flocculation/ sedimentation and membrane separation for the treatment of laundry wastewater. Int J Chem Eng 83:247101–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8324710

Nasir FN, Titah HS (2024) The use of GAC (granular activated carbon) and zeolite as an adsorbent to reduce the concentration of phosphate, chemical oxygen demand and total suspended solid in laundry wastewater. J Ecol Eng 25:170–183. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/184089

Nicolaidis C, Vyrides I (2014) Closing the water cycle for industrial laundries: an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactor system. Resour Conserv Recycl 92:128–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.09.001

Noutsopoulos C, Andreadakis A, Kouris N, Charchousi D, Mendrinou P, Galani A, Mantziaras I, Koumaki E (2018) Greywater characterization and loadings-physicochemical treatment to promote onsite reuse. J Environ Manag 216:337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.094

Oliveira Schwaickhardt R, Machado ÊL, Lutterbeck CA (2017) Combined use of VUV and UVC photoreactors for the treatment of hospital laundry wastewaters: reduction of load parameters, detoxification and life cycle assessment of different configurations. Sci Total Environ 590–591:233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.218

Oteng-Peprah M, Acheampong MA, DeVries NK (2018) Greywater characteristics, treatment systems, reuse strategies and user perception—a review. Water Air Soil Pollut 229:255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-3909-8

Pandey A, Katam K, Joseph P, Soda S, Shimizu T, Bhattacharyya, (2020) Micropollutant removal from laundry wastewater in algal-activated sludge systems: microbial studies. Water Air Soil Pollut 231:374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-020-04749-x

Pang CK, Joseph CG, Farm YY (2023) Magnetically recoverable copper ferrite for catalytic ozonation of surfactant-containing simulated laundry wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 11:111203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.111203

Pasaribu M (2020) Phosphate reduction from the artificial sample of laundry wastewater by using bintaro (Cerbera manghas) fruit shell adsorbent. J Environ Eng Waste Manag 5:1–14. https://doi.org/10.33021/jenv.v5i1.961

Patel N, Khan MZA, Shahane S, Rai D, Chauhan D, Kant C, Chaudhary VK (2020) Emerging pollutants in aquatic environment: source, effect, and challenges in biomonitoring and bioremediation—a review. Pollution 6:99–113. https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2019.285116.646

Patil VV, Gogate PR, Bhat AP, Ghosh PK (2020) Treatment of laundry wastewater containing residual surfactants using combined approaches based on ozone, catalyst and cavitation. Sep Purif Technol 239:116594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2020.116594

Paz M, Muzio H, Mendelson A, Magdaleno A, Tornello C, Balbis N, Moretton J (2006) Evaluation of genotoxicity and toxicity of Buenos Aires city hospital wastewater samples. J Brazilian Soc Ecotoxcol 1:1–6. https://doi.org/10.5132/jbse2006001001001

Pedrazzani R, Ceretti E, Zerbini I, Casale R, Gozio E, Bertanza G, Gelatti U, Donato F, Feretti D (2012) Biodegradability, toxicity and mutagenicity of detergents: integrated experimental evaluations. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 84:274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.07.023

Peña-Guzmán C, Ulloa-Sánchez S, Mora K, Helena-Bustos R, Lopez-Barrera E, Alvarez J, Rodriguez-Pinzon M (2019)

Emerging pollutants in the urban cycle in Latin America: a review of the current literature. J Environ Manage 237:408–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.100

Peng XX, Jiang YS, Chen ZG, Osman AI, Farghali M, Rooney DW, Yap PS (2023) Recycling municipal, agricultural and industrial waste into energy, fertilizers, food and construction materials, and economic feasibility: a review. Environ Chem Lett 21:765–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01551-5

Pérez-López ME, Arreola-Ortiz AE, Zamora PM (2018) Evaluation of detergent removal in artificial wetlands (biofilters). Ecol Eng 122:135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.07.036

Periyasamy AP (2021) Evaluation of microfiber release from jeans: the impact of different washing conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:58570–58582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14761-1

Peter AP, Khoo KS, Chew KW, Ling TC, Ho SH, Chang JS, Show PL (2021) Microalgae for biofuels, wastewater treatment and environmental monitoring. Environ Chem Lett 19:2891–2904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01219-6

Prata JM (2018) Microplastics in wastewater: state of the knowledge on sources, fate and solutions. Mar Pollut Bull 129:262–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.01.015

Procházková M, Máša V (2022) Sustainable wastewater management in industrial laundries. Chem Eng Trans 94:577–582. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2294096

Punyapwar S, Mutnuri S (2022) Laundry greywater treatment by anaerobic filters and vertical flow constructed wetlands. Water Environ J 36:504–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12782

Ramcharan T, Bissessur A (2017) Treatment of laundry wastewater by biological and electrocoagulation methods. Water Sci Technol 75:84–93. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.464

Ramasamy R, Subramanian RB (2021) Synthetic textile and microfiber pollution: a review on mitigation strategies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:41596–41611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14763-z

Rebello S, Asok AK, Mundayoor S, Jisha MS (2014) Surfactants: toxicity, remediation and green surfactants. Environ Chem Lett 12:275–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-014-0466-2

Rodzi NAAM, Kasmuri N, Zaini N, Azri NAA, Nayono SE (2024) Analysis of algae and bacteria mixture in removing pollutants from laundry wastewater. Proc IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 1303:012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1303/1/012021

Rott E, Minke R, Steinmetz H (2017) Removal of phosphorus from phosphonate-loaded industrial wastewaters via precipitation/flocculation. J Water Process Eng 17:188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.04.008

Ruan X, Song M, Fang Z, ZH, Wang H, Zhang CY, Chen WD, (2024) Methods to treat industrial salted waste: a review. Environ Chem Lett 22:2035–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-024-01721-7

Santiago DE, Hernández Rodríguez MJ, Pulido-Melián E (2021) Laundry wastewater treatment: review and life cycle assessment. J Environ Eng 147:143966. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001902

Scott MJ, Jones MN (2000) The biodegradation of surfactants in the environment. Biochim Biophys Acta 1508:235–251

Seo GT, Lee TS, Moon BH, Lim JH (2001) Ultrafiltration combined with ozone for domestic laundry wastewater reclamation and reuse. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 1:387–392. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2001.0138

Sharma R, Kumar A, Koushal V (2019) Perceived effectiveness of infection control practices in Laundry of a tertiary healthcare centre. World J Emerg Med 10:114–115. https://doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2019.02.008

Sharma S, Lekshmi B, Sutar RS, Parikh YJ, Ranade DR, Asolekar SR (2020) Reuse of washing machine effluent using constructed wetland: The circular economy of sanitation. In: Ghosh S, Saha P, Di Francesco M (eds) Recent trends in waste water treatment
and water resource management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0706-9_9

Sherrington C (2016) Plastics in the marine environment. Eunomia, Bristol, UK. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/microplastics-from-textiles-towards-a

Sheth KN, Patel M, Desai MD (2017) A study on characterization & treatment of laundry effluent. Int J Innov Res Sci Technol 4:50–55

Sibil R, Berkun M, Bekiroglu S (2014) The comparison of different mathematical methods to determine the BOD parameters, a new developed method and impacts of these parameters variations on the design of WWTPs. Appl Math Model 38:641–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.07.013

Silva JS, Heck MC, Buzo MG, Almeida IV, Vicentini VEP (2018) Evaluation of textile laundry effluents and their cytotoxic effects on Allium cepa. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:27890–27898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2813-5

Singh N, Randhawa S, Dutt I, Kumar A (2022) Characterization of laundry wastewater and its potential applications in garden irrigation and lavatory cleaning: a squat review. AIP Conf Proc 2357:030014. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0086117

Siswoyo E, Utari AW, Mungkari LGN (2019) Adsorption combined phytoremediation system for treatment of laundry wastewater. MATEC Web Conf 280:05002. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201928005002

Sivanesan J, Rameshwar SS, Sivaprakash B, Rajamohan N, Osman AI, Al-Muhtaseb A (2024) Advanced methods for treating gemfibrozil and carbamazepine in wastewater: a review. Environ Chem Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-024-01765-9

Šostar-Turk S, Petrinić I, Simonič M (2005) Laundry wastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane filtration. Resour Conserv Recycl 44:185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.11.002

Sotiropoulou M, Stefanatou A, Schiza S, Petousi I, Stasinakis AS, Fountoulakis MS (2023) Removal of microfiber in vertical flow constructed wetlands treating greywater. Sci Total Environ 858:159723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159723

Souza RC, da Silva TL, dos Santos AZ, Tavares CRG (2019) Wastewater treatment of hospital laundry by advanced oxidation process: UV/H₂O₂. Eng Sanit Ambient 24:601–611. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522019092923

Srivastava, RK (2020) Bioelectrochemical system for wastewater treatment for energy via suitable microbial systems. Bioelectrochemical systems. vol 2: Current and Emerging Applications. pp. 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6868-8_8

Steber J, Wiebel F (2012) Laundry detergents. Ecology and toxicology. Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol 20. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 487–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/14356007.o15_o15

Stefanatou A, Lagkadas M, Petousi I, Schiza S, Stasinakis AS, Fyllas N, Fountoulakis MS (2024) Vertical flow constructed wetlands as green facades and gardens for on-site greywater treatment in buildings: two-year mesocosm study on removal performance. Sci Total Environ 906:167362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167362

Sumisha A, Arthanareeswaran G, Lukka Thuyavan Y, Ismail AF, Chakraborty S (2015) Treatment of laundry wastewater using polyethersulfone/polyvinylpyrrolidone ultrafiltration membranes. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 121:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.04.004

Sun J, Dai XH, Wang QL, van Loosdrecht MCM, Ni BJ (2019) Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Wat Res 152:21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050

Swartz CD, Swanepoel G, Welz PJ, Muanda C, Bonga A (2017) NATSURV 8-Water and wastewater management in the

laundry industry. WRC Report N°. TT 703/16, 2017. ISBN 978-1-4312-0870-8

Tawfik A, Alalm MG, Awad HM, Islam M, Abdul Qyyum M, Al-Muhtaseb A, Osman AI, Lee MY (2022) Solar photo-oxidation of recalcitrant industrial wastewater: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20:1839–1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01390-4

Tefa MA, Harisuseno D, Haribowo R (2018) Potential use of aquatic plants in constructed wetlands for simultaneous removal of phosphate and COD from laundry wastewater. Civil Environ Sci J 1:70–79. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.civense.2018.00102.4

Terechova EL, Zhang GQ, Jie C, Sosnina NA, Yang FL (2014) Combined chemical coagulation-flocculation/ultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants in laundry wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 2:2111–2119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2014.09.011

Tomšič B, Ofentavšek L, Fink R (2023) Toward sustainable household laundry. Washing quality vs environmental impacts. Int J Environ Health Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2023.21

Tripathi SK, Tyagi R, Nandi BK (2013) Removal of residual surfactants from laundry wastewater: a review. J Dispersion Sci Technol 34:1526–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2012.752328

Turan NB, Erkan HS, Engin GO (2021) Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: occurrence, fate and identification. Process Saf Environ Prot 146:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.08.039

USEPA (2004) Modeling environmental fate and ecological effects in aquatic ecosystems. Us Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA

van der Veen I, Schellenberger S, Hanning AC, Stare A, de Boer J, Weiss JM, Leonards PEG (2022) Fate of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances from durable water-repellent clothing during use. Environ Sci Technol 56:5886–5897. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07876

Valadez-Renteria E, Rodriguez-Gonzalez V, Gomez-Solis C, Mtz-Enriquez AI, Oliva J (2024) Wasted scrub pad functionalized with graphene and porous BiFeO₃ microparticles for the desalination/decontamination of water by solar evaporation. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells 266:112650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112650

Vassilenko K, Watkins M, Chastain S, Posacka A, Ross PS (2019) Me, my clothes and the ocean. The role of textiles in microfiber pollution. Ocean wise science feature. Vancouver, Canada, 16 pp. https://ocean.org/blog/canadian-and-us-laundry-releases-trillions-of-plastic-microfibers-into-the-ocean/

Veli S, Arslan A, Gülümser C, Topkaya E, Kurtkulak H, Zeybek S, Dimoglo A, Isgören M (2019) Advanced treatment of pre-treated commercial laundry wastewater by adsorption process: experimental design and cost evaluation. J Ecol Eng 20:165–171. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/113136

Veli S, Arslan A, Topkaya E, Gülümser Ç, Kurtkulak H, Belat B, Zeybek Ş, Zor S, Dimoglo A (2021) Deep purification of pre-treated laundry wastewater through the adsorption by polymeric composites and optimisation of the process. Int J Environ Anal Chem 103:2107–2125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.1889530

Verlicchi P, Al Aukidy M, Zambello E (2015) What have we learned from worldwide experiences on the management and treatment of hospital effluent?—an overview and a discussion on perspectives. Sci Total Environ 514:467–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.020

Vezar SAN, Belinda ZT, Rendana M, Agustina TE, Nasir S, Hanum L, Andarini D (2024) The use of Carica papaya seeds as bio coagulant for laundry wastewater treatment. J Eng Appl Sci 71:99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-024-00438-2
Violenta N, Sutanto HB, Prihatmo G (2022) Laundry wastewater treatment by hybrid system of biofilter and vertical surface flow constructed wetland with *Equisetum hyemale*. Sciscitatio 3:1–8

Vishal VP, Gogate PR, Bhat AP, Ghosh PK (2020) Treatment of laundry wastewater containing residual surfactants using combined approaches based on ozone, catalyst and cavitation. Sep Purif Technol 23:116594

Vishali S, Poonguzhali E, Banerjee I, George SS, Srinivasan P (2023) Purification of domestic laundry wastewater in an integrated treatment system consists of coagulation and ultrafiltration membrane process. Chemosphere 314:137662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137662

Wang CT, Chou WL, Kuo YM (2009) Removal of COD from laundry wastewater by electrocoagulation/electroflotation. J Hazard Mat 164:8–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.07.122

Wang LK, Wang MHS, Shammas NK, Aulenbach DB (2021) Treatment of laundry wastewater by physicochemical and flotation processes. In: Wang LK, Wang MHS, Hung YT (eds) Integrated natural resources research. Handbook of environmental engineering, vol 22. Springer, Cham, pp 503–554

Warne MStJ, Schifko AD, (1999) Toxicity of laundry detergent components to a freshwater Cladoceran and their contribution to detergent toxicity. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 44:196–206. https://doi.org/10.1006/eesa.1999.1824

Wahyudianto FE, Oktavitri NI, Hariyanto S (2019) Kinetics of phosphorus removal from laundry wastewater in constructed wetlands with *Equisetum hy male*. J Ecol Eng 20:60–65. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/108919

Wahyuni ET (2020) Photo-processes as effective and low-cost methods for laundry wastewater treatment. pp 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94336

Watiniasih N, Purnama I, Padmanabha G, Merdana I, Antara I (2019) Managing laundry wastewater. Proc IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 248:012084

Wu KM, Cui W, Ren GF, An J, Zheng KW, Zeng XY, Ouyang MH, Yu ZQ (2023) Organoiodines in effluents of a shale-fracturing wastewater treatment plant. Environ Chem Lett 21:943–1949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01594-2

Yaseen ZM, Zigale TT, Tiyasha DRK, Salih SQ, Awasthi S, Tung TM, Al-Ansari N, Bhagat SK (2019) Laundry wastewater treatment using a combination of sand filter, bio-char and teff straw media. Sci Rep 9:18709. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54888-3

Yu YX, Zhao J, Andrew EB (2008) Development of surfactants and builders in detergent formulations. Chin J Chem Eng 16:517–527

Zavala MAL, Estrada EE (2016) The contribution of the type of detergent to domestic laundry graywater composition and its effect on treatment performance. Water 8:214. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8050214

Zhang Y, Ma T, Zhang F, Guo W, Yu K, Yang C, Qu F (2022) Yolk-like non-stoichiometric nickel sulfide-based Janus hydrogel photothermal film for enhanced solar-driven water evaporation and multi-media purification. J Colloid Inter Sci 607:1446–1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2021.09.074

Zotesso JP, Cossich ES, Janeiro V, Tavares CRG (2017) Treatment of hospital laundry wastewater by UV/H₂O₂ process. Enviro Sci Pollut Res 24:6278–6287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6860-5

## Authors and Affiliations

Grégorio Crini<fnref n="1" /> Ⓓ Dario Lacalamita<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> Ⓓ Eric Lichtfouse<fnref n="3" /> Ⓓ Nadia Morin-Crini<fnref n="1" /> Ⓓ Chong Liu<fnref n="4" /> Ⓓ Lee D. Wilson<fnref n="5" /> Ⓓ Lorenzo A. Picos-Corrales<fnref n="6" /> Ⓓ Mabel Amen Akhere⁷ Ⓓ Maria Sotiropoulou⁸ Ⓓ Corina Bradu⁹ Ⓓ Chiara Mongioví¹⁰

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Grégorio Crini
gregorio.crini@univ-fcomte.fr

Dario Lacalamita
dario.lacalamita@uniba.it

Eric Lichtfouse
eric.lichtfouse@icloud.com

Nadia Morin-Crini
nadia.crini@univ-fcomte.fr

Chong Liu
P295998845@outlook.com

Lee D. Wilson
lee.wilson@usask.ca

Lorenzo A. Picos-Corrales
lorenzo.picos.c@uas.edu.mx

Mabel Amen Akhere
mabel.akhere@uniben.edu

Maria Sotiropoulou
mswtiropoulou@gmail.com

Corina Bradu
corina.bradu@g.unibuc.ro

Chiara Mongioví
c.mongiovi91@gmail.com

<footnote n="1">¹ Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement, Université de Franche-Comté, 16 Route de Gray, Besançon 25000, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Dipartimento Di Chimica, Università Degli Studi Di Bari
Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 28 Xianning West Rd, Xi’an 710049, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering,
University of Auckland, Auckland 0926, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Department of Chemistry, University of Saskatchewan, 110 Science Place, Room 165 Thorvaldson Bldg., Saskatoon, SK S7N 5C9, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Faculty of Engineering Culiacán, Autonomous University of Sinaloa, 80013 Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico</footnote>
⁷ Department of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria

⁸ Institute of Environmental Research and Sustainable Development, National Observatory of Athens, Metaxa and Pavlou, 15236 Penteli, Attiki, Greece

⁹ Department of Systems Ecology, PROTMED Centre, University of Bucharest, 050663 Bucharest, Romania

¹⁰ Istituto Per I Processi Chimico-Fisici, CNR, Via Orabona 4, Bari, Italy