Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sorbent Lab Report
Sorbent Lab Report
Abstract
fiber, and peat moss, in order to discover which absorbs the most oil. We tested them
by soaking them in a tin containing 6 cups of water and 2 cups of oil for 2 minutes. We
ran each experiment three times. In the end, the cotton was the most efficient,
absorbing an average of 50mL. Polypropylene were as a little less effective then the
cotton, but more effective than the peat moss. The moss did not do very well and was
messy. It leaked out of its bag into the water. Because of this we decided to use cotton
fiber for our capstone project. It is an organic material and it was the most effective
sorbent.
Glendening-Hunt 2
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………3
Method………………………………………………………………………………………....3-5
Results………………………………………………………………………………………....5-6
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………..6-7
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….7
References……………………………………………………………………………………….7
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………...8-1
0
Glendening-Hunt 3
Introduction
Each year approximately 1.3 million gallons of oil are spilled in U.S. waters. It is
extremely detrimental to the environment and because of this our capstone project is
focused on oil spill cleanup. In order to create our oil spill cleanup apparatus, we must
choose an efficient and eco-friendly sorbent. We tested three possible materials: peat
moss, cotton fiber, and polypropylene. Peat moss is organic and naturally occuring,
cotton fiber is organic, and polypropylene is a synthetic material. To test these materials
V = πr2h
Equation 1: Volume of a Cylinder
We will measure how much oil they absorbed by measuring it in a beaker, but also by
using the volume equation.
Method
Apparatus:
The experimental apparatus includes three large disposable cooking tins, which are
each filled with 6 cups of salt water and 2 cups of oil. We tested each material three
times by dropping them in the oily water and leaving them to soak for 2 minutes. We
tested 3.75 by 3.75 inch squares of cotton fiber and polypropylene, and 6 gram bags of
peat moss. A 500 mL graduated cylinder was used to measure and pour the oil, a 2 cup
measuring cup was used for the water, and a 500 mL beaker was used to measure the
Glendening-Hunt 4
amount of oil squeezed out of the sorbents after each trial. There was also a timer to
Figure 2: 3D Model
Glendening-Hunt 5
Preparation:
Procedure:
1. Fill a tub with 6 cups of water and ⅓ cup of salt, and wait until it is at room
3. Place the peat moss in the center of the oil and leave it there for 2 minutes
4. Remove the moss and measure how much liquid it has absorbed, and how much
of the liquid was oil and how much was water (do this in a beaker so that they
separate)
6. Repeat step 1-5 with polypropylene and cotton fiber instead of peat moss
Results
The cotton fiber was the most effective sorbent. It absorbed an average of 50 milliliters
consistently absorbed almost twice the amount of oil than the other two materials.
Glendening-Hunt 6
Figure 3: Results
Discussion
The results above were used to choose a sorbent for our capstone project. Our results
proved that cotton fiber was the most efficient and absorbent material out of our three
options. We made the water conditions as similar as possible for each experiment to
Glendening-Hunt 7
avoid error. Our results seem valid because according to the scientists, Hyung Min Choi
and Rinn M. Cloud, cotton fiber was found to be more absorbent than polypropylene.
Conclusion
Cotton fiber was the most absorbent material. It soaked up an average of 50 milliliters of
oil. It was also an organic material, which was another reason why we chose it for our
Even though we tried our best to make the trials identical, the peat moss was difficult to
get an exact measurement of, so it is possible that their data is skewed if different trials
contained more or less moss. A further experiment we could do is durability tests of the
materials to see which one lasts the longest. Wear and tear could be important for our
References
pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es00028a016.
Appendix
Glendening-Hunt 9