## 3 Plasma Application to Eliminate Organic Pollutants in Water  
The problem of surface and groundwater contamination by toxic chemicals is a major global challenge [48]. The chemistry of plasma and plasma-liquid interactions has received much attention over the past 10 years. Different types of plasma generators are used for the treatment of organic contaminants, as shown in Table 2. The reactive radical production in plasma is the primary source for water purification [49]. Many harmful substances, including organic compounds, phenols, organic dyes, and pesticides, can be removed with the help of plasma-generated RONS. The effect of plasma treatment on different types of organic and inorganic compounds in drinking water or wastewater has been studied. The degradation pathways of some organic pollutants have also been predicted (Table 3). The outcomes of the study by [PERSON] et al. [50] showed that the concentration of some chemicals (e.g., ammonia (NH\({}_{3}\)), ammonium ions (NH\({}_{4}\)\({}^{+}\)), carbonate ion, bicarbonate and carbonic acid, etc.) in tap water changed after plasma treatment. Notably, the interaction of chemicals in tap water during plasma treatment is to blame for these modifications. Plasma can significantly improve the sensory properties of water, while raising the concentration of soluble oxygen and decreasing the concentration of unfavorable factors such as odor. On the other hand, plasma also negatively affects turbidity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Plasma Source** & **Organic Contaminants** & **Operation Conditions** & **Degradation** & **Refs.** \\ \hline DBD reactor & Dimetheoate & 85 W, 7 min, air & \textgreater{}96\% & [51] \\ DBD reactor & Methyl orange, methylene blue & 4.5 W, 10.6 kHz, 10 min, O\({}_{2}\) & -98\% & [52] \\ DBD reactor & Phenol & 16 kV, 50 s & 99\% & [53] \\ DBD reactor & Dichlorvos & 80 kV, 8 min & 78.9\% & [54] \\ DBD reactor & Ceffriaxone & 5 min, O\({}_{2}\) & 100\% & [55] \\ DBD reactor & Caffeine & 10 min, O\({}_{2}\) & 80\% & [55] \\ DBD reactor & Tobacco mosaic virus & 20 kV, 10 min, air & Complete inactivation & [56] \\ Plasma jet & PFCs & 300 W, 3–5 min, air & 64–90\% & [57] \\ Plasma jet & Ciprofloxacinacin & 24 min, air & 84.1\% & [58] \\ Plasma jet & SARS-CoV-2 & 10.89 W, 300 s, argon (99.999\%) & 99.94\% & [59] \\ Plasma jet & Swine coronavirus PEDV and SADS-CoV & 10.89 W, 300 s, argon (99.999\%) & 99.86\%, 99.74\% & [59] \\ Plasma jet & Norovirus (feline calicivirus) & 2.5 W, 15 s & 6.0 log inactivation & [60] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Different types of plasma generators are used for the treatment of organic contaminants. Figure 2: Schematic of the (**A**) dielectric barrier discharge, (**B**) plasma jet, (**C**) gliding arcs, and (**D**) corona plasma reactor, adapted from [43; 46; 47]. (**E**) The processes of plasma generation and wastewater treatment processes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Plasma Source** & **Organic Contaminants** & **Operation Conditions** & **Degradation** & **Refs.** \\ \hline Plasma jet & Potato virus Y & 3 W, 1 min, Ar/O\({}_{2}\) (99:1) & Complete inactivate & [61] \\ Corona plasma reactor & Bromate & 20 kV, 60 min & 95\% & [62] \\ Corona plasma reactor & Seven recalcitrant pharmaceuticals & 15-66 min & 45-99\% & [63] \\ Corona plasma reactor & Paracetamol & 30 min, air/O\({}_{2}\) & 100\% & [64] \\ Corona plasma reactor & Carbofuran & 24 min, air & 91\% & [65] \\ Arc plasma reactor & Perfluoroalkyl carboxylates & 150 kV, 60 min & 98\% & [66] \\ Arc plasma reactor & Anthraquinonic acid green 25 & 9 kV, 60 min & 50\% & [47] \\ Glow discharge & Pentachlorophenol & 30 min, air/O\({}_{2}\) & \textless{}0.01 ppm & [67] \\ Glow discharge & Methyl orange & 15 min, air & 93\% & [68] \\ Needle-plate reactor & Phenol & 20 kV, 30-60 min & \textgreater{}99\% & [69] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._