## 3 Results and Discussion
### Technology Implementation for Micropolitan Treatment in WWTPs  
We determined EE2 reduction at ppm (mg/L) concentrations, which are approximately 3-6 orders of magnitude greater than the levels observed in wastewater and surface water [2; 3; 4]. This has also occurred in other studies where the studied EE2 concentrations were higher in order to quantify biodegradation and adsorption during the biological removal of EE2 as mentioned in Tables 2 and 3[14; 29]. While the selected concentrations of EE2 do not represent the actual EE2 concentrations found in WWTPs and other aquatic habitats, the results of this study provide a good indication of their potential reduction using the proposed encapsulation technology. It has been reported that chemicals which are present in low concentrations (mg/L and ng/L) may exhibit a different biodegradation behavior than when they are present in high concentrations (mg/L) [30]. [PERSON] [31] reported that biodegradation is often favored at low concentrations and [PERSON] et al. [28] reported that EE2 removal \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Incubation Medium** & **Incubation Time (h)** & _R. zopfi_ & _P. putida_ & **Control** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{MSM} & 1 & 31.2 & 33.1 & 11.6 \\  & 24 & 86.5 & 73.8 & 1.2 \\  & 48 & 90.4 & 72.7 & \(-\)8.9 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{MSM + 2\% LB} & 1 & 11.7 & 24.5 & 11.5 \\  & 24 & 75 & 56.1 & 8.95 \\  & 72 & 94.9 & 73.2 & 0 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Secondary effluent} & 1 & 64.24 & - & \(-\)1.0 \\  & 24 & 85 & - & 9.5 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 48 & 84.2 & - & 3.9 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 96 & 91.7 & - & 4.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: EE2 reduction (%) over time by the encapsulated _R. zopfi_ and _P. putida_ in the three experimental media (MSM, MSM + 2% LB, secondary effluent). efficiency within WWTPs secondary effluents enriched with 100 ng/L EE2 exhibits similar results to those obtained within the \(\mu\)g/L range (75-85% concentration reduction). Many studies have focused on the efficiency of different treatment methods for OMP reduction in wastewater. It is known that the chemical and physical treatment approaches require substantial input of resources (energy, chemical agents) to reach the desired reduction of the target micropollutants. Some national initiatives for OMP management were launched recently (e.g., Germany and Switzerland). However, no truly ground-breaking solution has been developed to date. Three major technologies are currently offered for removal of OMPs: Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) such as ozonation and UV/H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\), powdered activated carbon (PAC) and reverse osmosis (RO). AOP may present as a useful tool for OMP breakdown and treatment. However, it may also create a new secondary metabolite that might exhibit higher cytotoxicity, thus creating a water safety issue. Moreover, this treatment is considered expensive and perhaps not suitable for the treatment of large water bodies. PAC and RO are not considered as a treating tool for molecule breakdown. They concentrate and transfer the OMPs to a solid phase (PAC) or to RO leachate. This means that the RO and PAC pellets still require additional treatment for disposing of these contaminants prior to their discharge into the environment. We also need to recognize that the aforementioned treatment approaches are not selective. They therefore treat not only the EE2 molecules, but the whole water body (such as in a RO process). This fact increases their energy requirements in order to exclude low concentrations of selective OMP molecules from the entire water body. For example, small and non-polar molecules (500 Da) such as hydrophobic endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can diffuse through the RO membrane [32]. High desalting RO membranes effectively retained 90% of the semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) and 80% of the VOC. However, low desalting membranes retained only 20% of the VOC as bromoform and dibromochloromethane [33].