Biodegradation is the predominant removal mechanism for emerging organic micropollutants (EOMs) in wastewater and a promising approach to fully degrade these compounds during wastewater treatment (WWT). This review aims to deliver an up-to-date scientific and technical overview of EOM biological removal during WWTs with a focus on nonconventional biological treatment to include: hybrid activated sludge and membrane bioreactor systems; immobilized, packed-bed, and granular systems; and electro-biochemical treatment. Individual microorganisms that have proven effective in degradation of EOMs commonly found in municipal wastewaters (pesticides, industrial chemicals, disinfectants, and some pharmaceuticals) are included, and elucidated metabolic pathways involved are discussed. Factors that influence biological removal of EOMs in complex wastewater matrices during nonconventional WWTs are assessed based on 25 studies, which provide data on the removal of 151 EOMs and 398 different treatment conditions. Furthermore, in silico tools are discussed, highlighting how they could be used as time-saving approaches to further EOM biodegradation research. Links among these sets of studies are used to identify trends and limitations, to propose future cutting edge research directions to improve biological EOM removal during WWT. Overall, bioremediation has the hallmark of an effective means for removal of EOMs, provided that a well-directed and systemic approach is found to study and implement these complex mechanisms in existing or new WWTs.

The Cuajimalpa campus of the Autonomous Metropolitan University (UAM) is located in the western region of Mexico City. In 2016, its global average population (students, faculty and staff) was around 2750 people. Campus policies include sustainability as one of its main aims. To evaluate and eventually reduce the environmental impact of the campus, its greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory was assessed and the carbon footprint was calculated, using the GHG protocol (GHGP): Scope 1: direct GHG emissions; Scope 2: indirect GHG emissions; and Scope 3: other indirect GHG emissions, on a calendar year basis. Scope 1 includes mobile and stationary sources and leakage of refrigerants; Scope 2 includes electrical energy usage; Scope 3 includes consumption of paper, food, water, gases, cleaning products, solvents, wastewater treatment, municipal and hazardous wastes and academic travel. In 2016, the campus produced around 3000 tons of CO₂ equivalent, with Scope 1, 2 and 3 accounting for 4%, 24% and 72%, respectively. Emissions analysis by activity indicated 51% for commuting; 24% for electricity usage; 14% for academic travel; 11% for other activities. The inventory will aid the establishment of policies for reduction and mitigation of GHG, resulting in environmental and potential economic benefits.