Final Research Paper 12th

Comparing the Effectiveness of Ferromagnetism and a Hydrophobic Net for Oil
Spill Remediation
Catherine August and Olivia Hagan
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
AP Chemistry
Section 12C
Mrs. Hilliard / Mr. May / Mr. Acre / Mrs. Tallman
4 December 2019
Comparing the Effectiveness of Ferromagnetism and a Hydrophobic Net for Oil
Spill Remediation
The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of using
ferromagnetism and a hydrophobic net as oil spill remediation methods. The oceans are
one of earth’s most precious ecosystems, providing a home for thousands of diverse
organisms. Oil spills threaten this ecosystem, ergo removing oil from the environment is
imperative. However, current methods of oil spill remediation, such as oil booms, are
ineffective if the oil is widely dispersed, and chemical dispersants are toxic to marine life.
Thus, new methods such as ferromagnetism and a hydrophobic net can be employed.
In this experiment, the neodymium magnet and hydrophobic net methods were
tested to determine which would remove a greater volume of oil. In each trial, one of the
remediation methods was applied to a 10 mL oil spill. After treatment, the remaining
content of the container was poured into a self-constructed graduated cylinder to measure
the mL of oil not removed by the oil collection method. This was subtracted from the
initial 10 mL to determine the mL of oil that were collected by the remediation method.
A two-sample t test resulting in a p-value of 4.2 × 10−8 determined that there is evidence
that on average, the neodymium magnet method removes a greater volume of oil from oil
spills than the hydrophobic net method. Thus, the hypothesis stating that if the
neodymium magnet method is used, then about 5 mL of oil (the greatest volume of oil)
will be removed from the water, was accepted, because the neodymium magnet method
removed an average of 7.8 mL of oil, compared to the hydrophobic net, which only
removed an average of 6.4 mL of oil.

Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Review of Literature ........................................................................................................... 3
Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 12
Experimental Design ......................................................................................................... 14
Data and Observations ...................................................................................................... 20
Data Analysis and Interpretation ...................................................................................... 32
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 42
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A: Professional Contact.................................................................................... 49
Appendix B: Making Stock Saltwater Solution ................................................................ 50
Appendix C: Hydrophobic Net Procedures ...................................................................... 51
Appendix D: Building Graduated Cylinder for Data Collection ...................................... 52
Appendix E: Volume of Oil Removed Sample Calculation ............................................. 56
Appendix F: Two-Sample t Test Formula and Sample Calculation ................................. 57
Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 59

August – Hagan 1
Introduction
Oil spills are a serious and palpable threat facing oceans. Between 1970 and 2016,
almost six million tons of oil were lost to the environment as a result of tanker incidents
(Roser). In 2018 alone, there were approximately 116,000 tons of oil lost to the
environment, the largest annual quantity recorded in 24 years (“Oil Tanker Spill Statistics
2018”). Not only this, but of the oil spills that occurred in 2018, there were three large
spills that alone lost over 700 tons of oil to the environment (“Oil Tanker Spill Statistics
2018”). The immense volume of oil invading the world’s oceans has become a major
concern among activists. Activists argue that if nothing is done to quickly and effectively
remediate oil spills, marine animals and the environment will suffer.
Oil slicks can negatively impact lifeforms near and around oceans. Oil destroys
the insulating ability of fur-bearing mammals and the water repellency of a bird’s
feathers, thus exposing these animals to the harsh elements when covered in oil. Without
the ability to insulate and repel the cold ocean water, these animals die from hypothermia.
Furthermore, birds and mammals could ingest oil when trying to clean themselves, which
poisons them. Finally, if exposed to oil, adult fish may experience enlarged livers,
changes in heart and respiration rates, fin erosion, and reproduction impairment (“How
Does Oil Impact Marine Life?”). Therefore, it is important for humanity to find quick,
effective ways to clean oil spills and prevent animals from suffering.
After decades of oil spills damaging the environment, environmental scientists are
hoping to develop new, quick, and effective methods of oil remediation. One new form of
oil remediation involves magnetizing oil by adding ferromagnetic material to the spill and
using a magnet to retrieve the oil. Another involves using a hydrophobic net to collect the
August – Hagan 2
oil. As these possible methods of oil remediation have become more widely known,
many scientists are questioning which method is more effective for widespread use.
This experiment intended to determine if using ferromagnetism or a hydrophobic
net is a more effective method of oil remediation. To begin trials, oil was injected into a
saltwater solution to represent an oil spill in an ocean. The oil remediation method, either
a neodymium magnet or a hydrophobic net, was then applied to the spill, and the
remaining content of the container was poured into a self-constructed graduated cylinder.
The average values of oil removed from the container were compared using a two-sample
t test, accomplishing the objective of determining which method was most effective.
This research can help the public understand that developing new methods of oil
remediation is beneficial. Although the public is largely aware that oil spills negatively
impact lifeforms near oceans, they are often unaware that with new oil remediation
methods, these consequences could be minimized. Citizens, if informed of the negative
impacts that oil spills have on sea animals, may take action to protect oceans from
devastating oil spills. In turn, this will provide more protection for these animals.
This research is also valuable to the scientific community and environmental
scientists. Environmental scientists are working to develop new, innovative methods for
oil remediation. Little research has been done testing the neodymium magnet and
hydrophobic net methods of oil remediation, ergo this research could provide one source
that determines which method of these two is more effective. Environmental scientists
could then use the oil remediation method that was most effective to treat oil spills.
Overall, this research will provide solutions to protect the world’s oceans from harm,
leading to an environmentally clean future for generations to come.

August – Hagan 3
Review of Literature
Despite today’s seemingly eco-friendly society, little progress has been made to
find environmentally conscious ways to clean up oil spills. Oil spills are a serious threat
facing oceans; in 2018, there were approximately 116,000 tons of oil lost to the
environment, which is the largest annual quantity recorded in 24 years (“Oil Tanker Spill
Statistics 2018”). The worst spill in United States’ history was the Gulf spill in 2010,
where approximately 20 percent of the spilled oil may have ended up on top of and in the
seafloor, damaging sea corals and the underwater ecosystem (“Gulf Oil Spill”). Along
with these quantities reported in recent years, oil spills have been an ongoing issue for
quite some time; between 1970 and 2016, almost six million tons of oil were lost to the
environment as a result of tanker incidents (Roser).
These statistics are concerning, because oil spills can negatively impact lifeforms
near and around oceans. Birds often mistake oil for food and are attracted to it. Their
feathers become coated with oil, so they lose their ability to trap air and maintain body
heat, which leads to hypothermia (“How Does Oil Impact Marine Life?”). Thus, it is
imperative that oil spills are cleaned up as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Crude oil extracted from the ground was formed over millions of years from the
plants, algae, and phytoplankton that died during the carboniferous period. Oil is made up
of hydrocarbons, a compound made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms, and other
elements such as nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur (Thompson). Crude oil is a highly
dangerous substance as it can cause severe health damages and is highly flammable
(Burns). For this reason, olive oil was used as a safe substitute for crude oil in this
experiment as it has a viscosity of 10 centipoise, which is within the 1 to 105 centipoise

August – Hagan 4
range of the viscosity of crude oil (“Heavy Oil vs. Light Oil”). Viscosity is the resistance
of a fluid to change in shape, thus as olive oil and crude oil have similar viscosities they
will behave and move similarly (Wen). Additionally, Carol Miller, Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Wayne State University, agreed that olive oil could be
used as a substitution for crude oil for the purposes of this experiment, see Appendix A
(Miller).
Oil enters the world’s oceans in a multitude of ways, most of which have to do
with human activity. Oil spills can occur when people make mistakes or are careless,
causing an oil tanker, or a ship that carries oil from one country to another, to leak into
the ocean. Spills can also occur when equipment breaks down while extracting crude oil
from the depths of the ocean. When countries are at war, people may even decide to
dump gallons of oil into the other country’s oceans. Similarly, people and companies may
illegally dump crude oil into the ocean to avoid spending money on decomposing waste
oil (“How Do Oil Spills Happen?”). Finally, oil spills can also occur from natural oil
seeps on the seafloor, such as the Coal Oil Point along the California coast where an
estimated 7,570 to 11,400 liters of crude oil are released each day (Thompson).
The most widespread method of oil spill remediation are oil booms that act like a
fence to prevent oil from spreading. An oil boom consists of a freeboard, which is a wall
that rises above the water surface to contain the oil and prevent further spreading. It also
contains a “skirt” that is placed below the water surface, which keeps the oil from
spreading underneath the booms. An example of an oil boom can be viewed in Figure 1.
However, oil booms only work if the oil is in one spot, if there are no rough sea waves,
high wind velocities, or fluctuating tides, and if it used within a few hours of the spill
August – Hagan 5
occurring, or else the spill becomes too large (Sheriff). Meeting all these requirements is
often impractical, thus a different method should be utilized.
Figure 1. Oil Boom Remediation Method from “How Do Oil Booms Work?”
Figure 1 above shows an oil boom, one of the most widespread methods utilized
to contain oil spills. As seen in the image, oil booms only contain oil, but do not remove
it. Furthermore, oil booms only work if the oil is not dispersed, as seen by the contained
spill in Figure 1.
Another common method of oil spill remediation involves the use of dispersants.
Dispersants are made up of surfactant molecules. Surfactant molecules, originating from
the phrase “surface active agent”, are molecules that are amphiphilic, containing
hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails (Laurén). The hydrophilic heads are attracted to
water and the hydrophobic tails are repelled by water. These amphiphilic molecules
embed themselves at interfaces between oil and water, so that the hydrophilic part is in
the water and the hydrophobic part is in the oil (Laurén). Due to this positioning, the
cohesion between the water molecules decrease, thus decreasing the surface tension at the
interface. The decrease in surface tension prevents molecules of oil and molecules of
August – Hagan 6
water from adhering to their own kind. Since the molecules of oil cannot adhere to each
other, the oil is dispersed into small droplets, making it easier for sea-living microbes,
such as Alcanivorax and Oceanospirillales, to consume the oil (Cressey). A diagram of
this process can be seen in Figure 2. However, the primary issue with dispersants is that
they help to spread the oil more widely into the environment; while this does prevent
large amounts of oil from coating beaches and surface-dwelling animals, animals at the
sea floor will experience more pollution (Sheriff). Carys Mitchelmore, an environmental
chemist at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science in Solomons
reflects, “It’s a trade-off…you’re trading one species for another” (Cressey). Therefore, a
more effective, and environmentally conscious method should be developed.
Figure 2. Dispersants Degrading Oil into Smaller Droplets from Cole, Henry S. “BP Oil
in the Gulf: Mission Accomplished?” Essays on Ecology and Economics, 9 Aug. 2010.
Figure 2 above shows the amphiphilic properties of dispersants decreasing the
surface tension of the water and preventing molecules of oil from adhering to each other,
thus dispersing the oil into small droplets, making it easier for microorganisms to
consume the oil, as explained in the previous paragraph. However, again, dispersants
August – Hagan 7
spread the oil more widely into the environment, therefore preventing large amounts of
oil from coating beaches and surface-dwelling animals, but animals at the sea floor
experience more pollution (Sheriff). Ergo, a new method of oil remediation should be
utilized to decrease the consequences that dispersants entail for animals on the sea floor.
A new form of oil recapture involves magnetizing the oil by adding ferromagnetic
material, iron (II,III) oxide (Fe3 O4 ), to the oil spill. Oil on its own does not exhibit
magnetic properties, but the addition of ferromagnetic particles causes it to behave
magnetically. Ferromagnetism occurs when an external magnetic field is applied to a
substance that, on its own, has magnetic domains that face different directions, thus
exhibiting no overall magnetic force. However, the magnetic force allows the magnetic
domains to align and magnetically attract, illustrated in Figure 3 (Britannica). When iron
(II,III) oxide (Fe3 O4 ), a ferromagnetic material, is added to oil, the oil exhibits magnetic
properties. This interaction is due to Van der Waals’ law that states there is a relatively
weak electric force that attracts neutral molecules to each other. One side of a molecule is
always somewhat positive and the other side negative, see Figure 4 below, thus the
positive and negative charges of two molecules will align, creating a net force
(Britannica). Therefore, when a magnetic field is introduced into the oil combined with
the iron (II,III) oxide, the magnet attracts the iron (II,III) oxide particles and the iron
(II,II) oxide pulls the oil nanoparticles along with it, due to the weak force stated in Van
der Waals law, as demonstrated in Figure 5 (Narayan).

August – Hagan 8
Figure 3. Magnetic Domains from Staughton, John, et al. “If Iron Loses Its Magnetism At
High Temperatures, How Is Earth's Core Magnetic? " Science ABC.” Science ABC, 29
Sept. 2018
Figure 3 illustrates that on its own, ferromagnetic material is not magnetic,
because its magnetic domains are not aligned. However, when an external magnetic field
is brought near it, the domains align and magnetically attract.
Figure 4. Van der Waal Forces from Ambrosetti, Alberto, et al. “Wavelike Charge
Density Fluctuations and Van Der Waals Interactions at the Nanoscale.” Science, vol.
351, no. 6278, 2016, pp. 1171–1176., doi:10.1126/science.aae0509.
Figure 4 demonstrates the Van der Waal force between atoms. In molecules, there
is always one end that is positive and another than is negative. When neutral molecules
are in close proximity, their respective negative and positive ends will align and form a
net attracting force between them.

August – Hagan 9
Figure 5. Van der Waals’ Law from Narayan, Sachin. “Deep Sea Oil Trap: An
Underwater Cleanup System for Platforms and Ships to Contain and Recapture Oil
Plumes.” The National High School Journal of Science, 12 Nov. 2017
Figure 5 illustrates how the Van der Waals force between the iron (II,III) oxide,
referred to as magnetite in the diagram, and the oil, creates a weak bond. Once an
external magnetic field is introduced near the iron (II,III) oxide and oil mixture, the
ferromagnetic iron (II,III) oxide is attracted to the magnet, pulling the oil along with it.
Another new method of oil remediation involves using porous hydrophobic and
oleophilic materials (PHOMs), which repel water and attract oil (Ge). PHOMs, in the
form of functionalized membranes with bio-spired surfaces, including steel meshes and
fabrics, are hydrophobic, or “water fearing”. On a molecular level, being hydrophobic is
having the ability to repel water. When exposed to water, hydrophobic, nonpolar (having
no positive or negative poles) molecules disrupt hydrogen bonds between water
molecules and form a clathrate structure on the surface, which can be viewed in Figure 6.
As these nonpolar molecules clump together, their exposure to water, as well as the
entropy of the system, or degree of disorder, decreases (Helmenstine).

August – Hagan 10
Clathrate
Structure in
NeverWet Spray
Water Molecules
Repelled by
NeverWet Spray
Clathrate Structure
Figure 6. Hydrophobic Effect from Ma, Shang, et al. “Hydrophobic Hydration Affects
Growth of Clathrate Hydrate: Insight from an NMR Relaxometric and Calorimetric
Study.” Chemical Communications, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 11 Feb. 2019.
Figure 6 demonstrates the clathrate structure of hydrophobic molecules, as
explained previously. In this experiment, NeverWet spray was used to create a
hydrophobic base coat and hydrophobic topcoat on a woven wire mesh. NeverWet spray
has the clathrate structure shown in Figure 6, therefore when it was sprayed on the mesh,
it repelled water.
A previous study conducted by Sachin Narayan, a high school student who
conducted his experiment with the aid of Schmahl Science Workshops and chemistry
professor Debani Roy, Ph. D, evaluated the use of oleophobicity, the ability to repel oil,
and ferromagnetism in containing and recapturing underground oil spills. He utilized a
fish tank cleaning net with an Ultra Ever-Dry oleophobic coating for one removal
method, and injected iron (II,III) oxide (Fe3 O4 ) into an oil spill and used a neodymium
magnet to extract the oil for another (Narayan). He found that using the oleophobic net
yielded 60.70% effectiveness and the neodymium magnet yielded 43.79% effectiveness.
Although this research is similar to Narayan’s, there are a few distinct differences. Unlike
Narayan’s research, oil was removed from the surface of water rather than underground.
This research also utilized a hydrophobic net method rather than a fish tank cleaning net
August – Hagan 11
with an Ultra Ever-Dry oleophobic coating, due to the availability of materials.
Information from Narayan’s research was helpful for this experiment, as Narayan’s
experiment provided the initial idea for this research, helped give a basis for the
experimental design, and determined that it was possible to clean oil spills using
ferromagnetism.
Another study done by Ibrahim Ali Amar, a professor in the department of
chemistry at Sebha University in Sebha, Libya, applied cobalt ferrite (CoFe2O4) magnetic
nanoparticles to oil to magnetize it, and found that it created a considerable magnetic
force that is strong enough to remove oil spills from a water surface (Amar). Again, this
research is similar to Amar’s, but instead of applying cobalt ferrite (CoFe2O4) magnetic
nanoparticles to the oil spill, this research utilized magnetite powder (Fe3 O4 ). This
previous research was also useful for the experimental design, as it confirmed that
magnetizing oil is a possibility for effective oil remediation, providing one removal
method to test in this experiment.

August – Hagan 12
Problem Statement
Problem:
The purpose of this experiment was to determine which method of oil
remediation, ferromagnetism in which magnetite powder (Fe3 O4 ) was applied onto an oil
spill and collected using a neodymium magnet, or a hydrophobic net in which the net was
cast through the spill to collect the oil, removes the greatest volume of oil, in milliliters
(mL), from a simulated oil spill. This experiment intended to determine which method is
more effective at cleaning oil spills, as current methods of oil remediation involve using
oil booms, which only work if the oil is contained in one spot, or dispersants, which can
damage marine organisms on the ocean floor.
Hypothesis:
If the process of ferromagnetism is used, in which magnetite powder (Fe3 O4 ) is
injected into an oil spill, and collected in mL using a neodymium magnet, then 5 mL of
oil (the greatest volume of oil) will be removed from the water, when compared with a
hydrophobic net.
Data Measured:
The independent variable for this experiment was the method of oil remediation
that was used, whether it was ferromagnetism or a hydrophobic net. The dependent
variable was the volume of oil removed from the oil spill, measured in milliliters (mL).
Constants in this experiment included the temperature of the water in Celsius, the
temperature of the room in Celsius, the salinity percentage of the saltwater solution, and
the concentration of olive oil added to each container. To analyze the data, descriptive
statistics and a two-sample t test were used to determine whether there was a statistically
August – Hagan 13
significant difference between the means of the two independent populations of oil
remediation methods.
August – Hagan 14
Experimental Design
Materials:
(3) Plastic Containers (Holds 735 mL, 16 cm. x 16 cm. x 5 cm.)

Syringe (30 mL Barrel)
Filippo Berio Olive Oil (750 mL)
Scale 0.0001 g Precision
Weigh Boat (81 mm × 81 mm × 18 mm)
Scoopula
Beaker (20 mL)
Graduated Cylinder (1 L)
Graduated Cylinder (0.5 L, See Appendix D)
FloTool Funnel (11.9 cm. Dia.)
(2) Measuring Cup (5 mL and 237 mL)
Plastic Test Tube (45 mL)
Fe3 O4 (Magnetite Powder) (5.0 g)
(5) Magnet Source Adhesive Neodymium Magnet (19 mm. Dia. x 1.53 mm. Thk.)
Hydrophobic Net (See Appendix C)
Home Store Dish Soap (887 mL)
Scrub Buddies Sponge (11.4 cm x 8.1 cm x 2.3 cm)
Masking Tape
Plastic Container (Holds 15 L, 38 cm. x 30 cm. x 23 cm.)
Tidy Cats Cat Litter (5 Cups)
(50) White Cloth Strips (2.54 cm x 12.70 cm)
Cleaning Rod
Procedures:
1. Using the TI-Nspire calculator randomizing function, randomize the order in

which the 40 trials will be completed. Generate numbers 1 through 40, with 1
through 20 representing the neodymium magnet method trials, and 21 through 40
representing the hydrophobic net method trials. Do this until each number
appears, and conduct trials in the order the numbers were generated. Also,
complete the 10 control trials throughout the duration of the experiment by doing
a control after every two trials that were generated.
2. Place the three plastic containers on a table. Use scotch masking tape and a
sharpie to label one container “Neodymium Magnet Method”, another container
“Hydrophobic Net Method”, and the final container “Control”.
3. Follow the instructions detailed in Appendix B to create a stock saltwater solution

that resembles the salinity of oceans (3.5%).
August – Hagan 15
4. Use a 237 mL measuring cup to add 237 mL of the stock saltwater solution
(Appendix B) to the 1 L graduated cylinder. Then, use the 237 mL measuring cup
to add 263 mL of the stock saltwater solution to the 1 L graduated cylinder to total
500 mL of saltwater in the 1 L graduated cylinder. Pour this into the specified
container.
5. Pour 5 mL of olive oil into the 5 mL measuring cup. Pour the 5 mL of olive oil
from the 5 mL measuring cup into the 20 mL beaker. Do this process twice to
pour a total of 10 mL of olive oil into the 20 mL beaker.
6. Use the 30 mL barrel syringe to collect the oil from the 20 mL beaker and inject it
in the center of the surface of the water in the plastic container. Let the oil spread
over the surface for 15 seconds. See Figure 8 for an image of how the syringe is
used to inject the oil into the container.
7. The following steps pertain to the neodymium magnet method of oil removal.
a. Use a weigh boat and a scoopula to measure 0.25 g Fe3 O4 (magnetite powder) on
the scale. Record the actual mass of the magnetite powder in the observations
table.
b. Sprinkle the 0.25 g Fe3 O4 (magnetite powder) from the weigh boat on top of the
oil spill. Allow it to spread over the spill for 20 seconds.
c. Using masking tape, adhere the neodymium magnet to the outer part of the 45 mL
plastic test tube, about 35 mL up from the bottom of the tube. Submerge the 45
mL plastic test tube sideways, halfway underwater.
d. Hold the 45 mL plastic test tube halfway underneath the water for 30 seconds,
allowing the oil to attract to the magnet at the bottom. After 30 seconds, remove
the 45 mL plastic test tube from the water.
8. The following steps pertain to the hydrophobic net method of oil removal.
a. Create the hydrophobic net using the instructions depicted in Appendix C.
b. Submerge the hydrophobic net underneath the water. Use the net to “scoop” the
oil from the surface of the water and let the water drain out the holes of the net as
the oil beads up on the hydrophobic net surface.
c. Lift the net out of the water and dispose of the oil from the net and any excess
water by running water through the net. Dry the net using paper towel.
August – Hagan 16
9. To conduct a control trial, follow steps 1-6 and then proceed to step 10 to measure
the oil that is remaining in the container.
10. To measure the oil remaining in the container, put a funnel at the top of the self-
constructed graduated cylinder (see Appendix D for construction). Pour the entire
content of the container into the funnel slowly to reduce the formation of air
bubbles. Allow the water and oil to separate for two minutes.
11. On the self-constructed graduated cylinder, using the mL lines, measure the oil
that was separated from the water. See Figure 9 to view this process.
12. Pour the contents of the self-constructed graduated cylinder into the 38 cm. x 30
cm. x 23 cm. plastic container. This ensures that the olive oil is not poured down
the drain.
13. The following steps detail how to clean the graduated cylinder after each trial.
a. Pour 500 mL of tap water into the graduated cylinder.
b. Place the graduated cylinder so that the cap opening faces the sink and twist the
cap off to empty the water into the sink. Repeat this process twice.
c. Tie a 2.54 cm. x 12.70 cm. piece of white cloth onto the eye end of the cleaning
rod. Insert the cleaning rod into the graduated cylinder and twist it to dry out the
inside of the tubing. After use, untie the white cloth and throw it away.
14. Repeat steps 1-13 until 20 trials of the neodymium magnet method, 20 trials of
the hydrophobic net method, and 10 trials for the controls are completed.
15. After all the trials have been conducted, use a paper cup and skim the surface of
the 38 cm. x 30 cm. x 23 cm. container to collect the oil. Pour this recollected oil
into a gallon Zip Lock bag with ten cups of cat litter. Skim the entire surface of
the container five times and collect as much oil as possible. Throw the cat litter
into the garbage and pour the remaining water down the drain.
August – Hagan 17
Diagrams:
FloTool Funnel Three Plastic Hydrophobic

Iron (II, III) Containers Net
Oxide Powder
Home Store 1 L Graduated
Dish Soap 30 mL Barrel Cylinder
Syringe
Scrub Buddies 20 mL 750 mL Filippo

Sponge 5 mL Beaker Berio Olive Oil
Cup
45 mL Plastic Neodymium 237 mL

Scoopula Weigh Boat Test Tube Magnet Measuring Cup
Figure 7. Materials Used in Experiment
Figure 7 shows the materials used in the experiment, including the Scrub Buddies
sponge, Home Store dish soap, FloTool funnel, 5 mL measuring cup, iron (II, III) oxide
powder, 30 mL barrel syringe, 20 mL beaker, three plastic containers, hydrophobic net, 1
L graduated cylinder, 750 mL of Filippo Berio Olive Oil, scoopula, weigh boat, 45 mL
plastic test tube, neodymium magnet, and 237 mL measuring cup. Not pictured in Figure
7 is the scale with 0.0001 g precision, 0.5 L graduated cylinder (see Appendix D),
masking tape, 38 cm. x 30 cm. x 23 cm. plastic container, Tidy Cats Cat Litter, white
cloth strips, and the cleaning rod.

August – Hagan 18
Plastic Container
with 500 mL
saltwater solution
10 mL Olive
Oil Spill
30 mL
Barrel
Syringe
Figure 8. Oil Spill Injection
Figure 8 above demonstrates how the oil was injected into the surface of the water
using the 30 mL barrel syringe. The 30 mL barrel syringe filled with 10 mL of olive oil
was inserted on the surface of the water in the plastic container, and the olive oil was
slowly injected to avoid the formation of air bubbles. The olive oil was given 15 seconds
to spread over the surface of the water.
Self-Constructed
Graduated Cylinder
2.5 mL
Oil
4.0 mL
Oil
Neodymium
Magnet Method Hydrophobic Net
Trial 8 Method Trial 10
Figure 9. Measuring the Oil Remaining from the Container
Figure 9 shows how the olive oil and water separate in the 0.5 L graduated
cylinder that was constructed in Appendix D. Due to this separation, the mL of oil in the
August – Hagan 19
graduated cylinder can be measured and recorded, and then subtracted from the initial 10
mL of oil that were added to the container to obtain the mL of oil that the collection
method removed. The collection method that removed the largest volume of mL of oil
would be the more effective method of oil remediation. The left image shows trial 8 of
the neodymium magnet method and the right image shows trial 10 of the hydrophobic net
method.
August – Hagan 20
Data and Observations
In this experiment, two different methods of oil remediation were used to
determine which method would be most effective at cleaning oil spills. To determine the
most effective method, after applying the given recollection method, the remaining oil
from each container was collected and measured using a self-constructed graduated
cylinder. See the procedures for further explanation of the experimental setup.
Table 1
Milliliters of Oil Removed by Neodymium Magnet Method
Neodymium Magnet Oil Remediation Method
Oil Remaining Oil Removed
Trial
(mL) (mL)
1 3.0 7.0
2 3.0 7.0
3 2.0 8.0
4 1.5 8.5
5 2.0 8.0
6 1.5 8.5
7 2.0 8.0
8 2.5 7.5
9 3.5 6.5
10 2.5 7.5
11 3.0 7.0
12 1.5 8.5
13 1.5 8.5
14 1.5 8.5
15 2.5 7.5
16 3.0 7.0
17 2.0 8.0
18 2.0 8.0
19 2.0 8.0
20 1.5 8.5
Average 2.2 7.8
Table 1 shows the volume of oil that remained in the container and the volume of
oil that was removed from the container, both measured in mL, after applying the
August – Hagan 21
neodymium magnet oil remediation method. There were 20 trials done for this method,
with the average oil remaining in the container measuring at 2.2 mL, and thus the average
oil removed from the container was 7.8 mL. A sample calculation to find the oil removed
from the container can be found in Appendix E.
Table 2
Neodymium Magnet Oil Remediation Method Observations
Trial Neodymium Magnet Oil Remediation Observations
Conducted on 10/24/19 at 7:00 A.M. The mass of the Fe3 O4 (Magnetite Powder)
was 0.2474 grams. Oil immediately spread along the sides of the container after
1 injection, making it difficult to apply the Fe3 O4 powder to all parts of the oil
spill. The dispersion of the oil made it difficult to place all the oil directly near
the opening of the test tube.
was 0.2560 grams. Oil started to spread throughout the container after injection,
2 making it difficult to apply the Fe3 O4 powder to the entire oil spill. The
dispersion of the oil made it difficult to place all the oil at the opening of the test
tube.
3 was 0.2525 grams. Rushed to place the test tube near the oil spill before it began
dispersing. Trials otherwise had no significant occurrences.
was 0.2478 grams. When transferring the remaining oil and water from the
4 container to the self-constructed graduated cylinder, the container was dumped
into the funnel too quickly causing some of the liquid to overflow out of the
graduated cylinder and onto the ground.
was 0.2430 grams. Neodymium magnet became unattached from the test tube
5
while conducting the trial and had to quickly be re-taped. No other significant
occurrences.
7
was 0.2499 grams. Trial ran smoothly, no significant occurrences or issues.
August – Hagan 22

10
was 0.2533 grams. Oil started to spread throughout the container after injection,
16 making it difficult to apply the Fe3 O4 powder to the entire oil spill. The
dispersion of the oil made it difficult to place all the oil at the opening of the test
tube.
17
August – Hagan 23

19 was 0.2513 grams. Fe3 O4 powder clumped together and fell to the bottom of the
container. Trials otherwise had no significant occurrences.
The table above lists the observations that were recorded when the neodymium
magnet oil remediation method was used. Notice that trials 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 20 had
the lowest volume of oil remaining in the container at 1.5 mL, and the neodymium
magnet removed 8.5 mL of oil. In all these trials, when transferring the remaining oil and
water from the container to the self-constructed graduated cylinder, the container was
dumped into the funnel too quickly causing some of the liquid to overflow out of the
graduated cylinder and onto the ground. Therefore, the low volume of oil remaining in
the container could be due to some of the oil overflowing out of the funnel. Trial 9 had
the greatest volume of oil remaining in the container at 3.5 mL, and the neodymium
magnet removed 6.5 mL of oil. In this trial, the oil immediately spread along the sides of
the container after injection, making it difficult to apply the Fe3 O4 powder to all parts of
the oil spill. Thus, the high volume of oil remaining in the container could be due to some
of the Fe3 O4 powder not attaching to the oil.
Table 3
Milliliters of Oil Removed by Hydrophobic Net Oil Method
Hydrophobic Net Oil Remediation Method
Trial
(mL) (mL)
1 4.5 5.5
2 5.0 5.0
3 4.0 6.0
August – Hagan 24

Trial
(mL) (mL)
4 3.0 7.0
5 3.5 6.5
6 3.0 7.0
7 3.0 7.0
8 2.5 7.5
9 3.0 7.0
10 4.0 6.0
11 3.5 6.5
12 4.5 5.5
13 4.0 6.0
14 4.0 6.0
15 3.5 6.5
16 3.5 6.5
17 3.0 7.0
18 3.5 6.5
19 4.5 5.5
20 2.5 7.5
Average 3.6 6.4
oil that was removed from the container, both measured in mL, after applying the
hydrophobic net remediation method. There were 20 trials done for this method, with the
average oil remaining in the container measuring at 3.6 mL, and thus the average oil
removed from the container was 6.4 mL. A sample calculation to find the oil removed
from the container can be found in Appendix E.
Table 4
Hydrophobic Net Oil Remediation Method Observations
Trial Hydrophobic Net Oil Remediation Observations
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 7:35 A.M. Oil began to spread along the sides of the
1 container after injection, making it difficult for the net to encompass all the oil
to remove it.
Conducted on 10/21/19 at 8:10 A.M. Oil immediately spread along the sides of
2 the container after injection, making it difficult for the net to encompass all the
oil to remove it.
August – Hagan 25
Title Hydrophobic Net Oil Remediation Observations

Conducted on 10/23/19 at 8:24 A.M. Oil started to spread throughout the
3 entirety of the container after injection, making it difficult for the net to
encompass all the oil to remove it.
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 5:22 P.M. Oil did not disperse after injection,
4 allowing the hydrophobic net to encompass the entire spill. No further
difficulties conducting this trial.
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 5:00 P.M. Oil remained in place after injection. Small
amount of residual oil remained in the container after dumping the contents into
5
the funnel, so 10 mL of water was used to try to rinse the residual oil into the
funnel.
Conducted on 10/23/19 at 8:17 A.M. Oil did not disperse after injection, making
6 it easier for the net to go through all the oil. No complications when conducting
this trial.
Conducted on 10/21/19 at 8:03 A.M. Oil did not disperse after injection,
7 allowing the hydrophobic net to encompass the entire spill. No further
difficulties conducting this trial.
Conducted on 10/23/19 at 9:26 A.M. Oil did not disperse after injection. When
transferring the remaining oil and water from the container to the self-
8 constructed graduated cylinder, the container was dumped into the funnel too
quickly causing some of the liquid to overflow out of the graduated cylinder and
onto the ground.
Conducted on 10/21/19 at 8:34 A.M. Oil remained in place after injection,
9 allowing the hydrophobic net to collect the oil easily. No significant
occurrences.
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 5:35 P.M. Oil immediately spread along the sides of
oil to remove it.
11 it easier for the net to go through all the oil. No significant occurrences while
conducting this trial.
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 8:30 A.M. Oil began to spread along the sides of the
12 container after injection, making it difficult for the net to encompass all the oil
to remove it.
Conducted on 10/21/19 at 8:25 A.M. Oil started to spread throughout the
13 entirety of the container after injection, making it difficult for the net to
encompass all the oil to remove it.
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 5:14 P.M. Oil immediately spread along the sides of
oil to remove it.
Conducted on 10/24/19 at 8:23 A.M. Oil did not disperse while conducting this
15 trial, ergo allowing the hydrophobic net to encompass more of the oil while
moving through the spill.
August – Hagan 26
Trial Hydrophobic Net Oil Remediation Observations

Conducted on 10/23/19 at 9:30 A.M. Oil remained in place after injection,
allowing the hydrophobic net to more easily collect the oil from the oil spill.
16
When transferring the content of the container to the graduated cylinder, a small
amount of water overflowed. No further occurrences.
17 it easier for the net to go through all the oil. No complications when conducting
this trial.
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 5:41 P.M. Oil did not disperse while conducting this
18 trial, ergo allowing the hydrophobic net to encompass more of the oil while
moving through the spill.
Conducted on 10/23/19 at 8:40 A.M. Oil immediately spread along the sides of
oil to remove it.
Conducted on 10/22/19 at 5:51 P.M. Oil did not disperse, making it easier for
the net to encompass all the oil. When transferring the remaining oil and water
20 from the container to the self-constructed graduated cylinder, the container was
dumped into the funnel too quickly causing some of the liquid to overflow out
of the graduated cylinder and onto the ground.
The table above lists the observations that were recorded when the hydrophobic
net oil remediation method was used. Notice that trials 8 and 20 had the lowest volume of
oil remaining in the container at 2.5 mL, and thus the hydrophobic net removed 7.5 mL
of oil. In both these trials, the oil did not disperse, which enabled the hydrophobic net to
more easily collect the oil. Furthermore, in these trials, when transferring the remaining
oil and water from the container to the self-constructed graduated cylinder, the container
was dumped into the funnel too quickly causing some of the liquid to overflow out of the
graduated cylinder. Therefore, the low volume of oil remaining in the container could be
due to the oil staying in place and some of the oil overflowing out of the funnel.
Trial 2 had the greatest volume of oil remaining in the container at 5.0 mL, and
thus the hydrophobic net removed 5.0 mL of oil. In this trial, the oil immediately spread
along the sides of the container after injection, making it difficult for the net to
August – Hagan 27
encompass all the oil to remove it. Thus, the high volume of oil remaining in the
container could be due to the dispersion of the oil.
Table 5
Milliliters of Oil Removed Using No Oil Remediation Method (Control) Data
Control (No Oil Remediation Method)
Oil
Oil Lost
Trial Remaining
(mL)
(mL)
1 7.0 3.0
2 7.0 3.0
3 6.0 4.0
4 6.0 4.0
5 7.0 3.0
6 7.0 3.0
7 6.0 4.0
8 6.0 4.0
9 7.0 3.0
10 6.0 4.0
Average 6.5 3.5
oil that was removed from the container, both measured in mL, when no oil remediation
method was applied. There were 10 trials done for this method, with the average oil
remaining in the container measuring at 6.5 mL, and thus the average oil removed from
the container was 3.5 mL. A sample calculation to find the oil removed can be found in
Appendix D.
Table 6
Control Observations
Trial Control (No Remediation Method) Observations
Conducted on 10/24/19 at 7:35 A.M. When emptying the container of water and
1 oil into the funnel, there was no overflow, thus allowing all the content of the
container to empty into the graduated cylinder for measurement.
Conducted on 10/24/19 at 7:23 A.M. No significant occurrences when
2 conducting this trial; there was no overflow of liquid when transferring the
content of the container to the graduated cylinder.
August – Hagan 28
Trial Control (No Remediation Method) Observations

Conducted on 10/24/19 at 7:42 A.M. A new syringe was used to inject the oil
3 into the water as the previous syringe’s plunger became stiff and caused the oil
to disperse, thus not remaining in a circle.
Conducted on 10/24/19 at 8:18 A.M. When transferring the remaining contents
4 of the container of water and oil into the funnel, a small amount of water leaked
out due to pouring too quickly.
Conducted on 10/24/19 at 8:30 A.M. No significant occurrences or issues when
5
conducting this trial.
Conducted on 10/24/19 at 8:35 A.M. No overflow when transferring the content
6
of the container into the graduated cylinder.
Conducted on 10/25/19 at 7:58 A.M. Noticed some residual oil inside the funnel
after emptying the content of the container into the graduated cylinder, so 10
7
mL of water was rinsed through the funnel to try to empty the residual oil into
the graduated cylinder.
Conducted on 10/25/19 at 8:05 A.M. When transferring the contents from the
container to the self-constructed graduated cylinder, the container was dumped
8
Conducted on 10/25/19 at 8:11 A.M. No overflow of liquid when transferring
9
the content of the container to the graduated cylinder.
Conducted on 10/25/19 at 9:10 A.M. This was the last trial conducted on this
10
day. No significant occurrences when conducting this trial.
The table above lists the observations that were recorded when no oil remediation
method was applied. Trials 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 had the lowest volume of oil remaining in
the container at 6.0 mL, whereas trials 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 had the highest volume of oil
remaining in the container at 7.0 mL, resulting in an average of 6.5 mL of oil remaining
in the container. However, this means that 3.5 mL of oil was lost when no oil remediation
method was applied. It can therefore be assumed that 3.5 mL of oil is lost in the transfer
process from the container to the funnel, and from the funnel to the graduated cylinder.
Thus, when looking at the data points for how much oil a specific oil remediation method
removed, it is estimated that the value of oil removed is actually 3.5 mL lower than the
value in the table.

August – Hagan 29
Dispersed Oil Non-Dispersed Oil
Figure 10. Dispersion of Oil Within the Container
Figure 10 shows a side by side comparison of the saltwater solution when the oil
disperses, compared with the saltwater solution when the oil does not disperse. The left
image shows trial 2 of the hydrophobic net method, in which the oil dispersed, and the
right image shows trial 20 of the hydrophobic net method, in which the oil did not
disperse. When looking at Figure 10, the oil is much more contained and takes up a
smaller surface area. Since the surface area of the oil is smaller, it is easier for the small
width of the hydrophobic net to collect the oil. Ergo, the fact that the oil was more
dispersed in some of the hydrophobic net trials, but less dispersed in others, could explain
the variation in data.

August – Hagan 30
Test Tube With

Collected Oil
Magnetite
Powder
Neodymium Magnet
Figure 11. Fe3 O4 Powder Attracted to Neodymium Magnet
Figure 11 shows how ferromagnetism was used to collect oil from the oil spill for
the neodymium magnet method trials. This image specifically shows trial 3 for the
neodymium magnet method. As seen in Figure 11, the Fe3 O4 powder was attracted to the
neodymium magnet attached to the outer part of the test tube. Ergo, the neodymium
magnet was able to collect the Fe3 O4 powder, along with any of the oil the Fe3 O4
powder was covering.

August – Hagan 31
Hydrophobic Net with

Collected Oil
Figure 12. Oil Collected in the Hydrophobic Net
Figure 12 shows trial 4 of the hydrophobic net method. As shown, the
hydrophobic net collected oil from the simulated oil spill in the container, yet all the
excess water was able to drain out of the net.

August – Hagan 32
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data Analysis:
This experiment tested which method of oil remediation, a ferromagnetism
approach in which magnetite powder (Fe3 O4 ) was injected into an oil spill and collected
using a neodymium magnet, or a hydrophobic net, removes the greatest volume of oil, in
milliliters (mL), from a simulated oil spill. The results from the experiment are beneficial
as they can be used to determine the most effective method of cleaning oil spills, as
current methods of oil remediation involve using oil booms, which only work if the oil is
contained in one spot, or introduce highly toxic dispersants into the environment that can
damage marine organisms.
The data analyzed in this section was collected by injecting 10 mL of oil into a 16
cm. x 16 cm. x 5 cm. container filled with a 500 mL saltwater solution, representing an
oil spill in an ocean. The oil remediation method, either a neodymium magnet or a
hydrophobic net, was then applied to the spill, and the remaining contents of the
container were poured into a self-constructed graduated cylinder to measure how many
mL of oil were not removed by the oil collection method. The mL of oil that were
collected by the oil remediation method was found by subtracting the oil remaining in the
container from the initial oil concentration of 10 mL. A sample calculation for this can be
found in Appendix E. The data collected was quantitative and continuous, as the
graduated cylinder measured the mL of oil removed, and mL of oil removed can take on
all values within any given range.
To ensure that the data collected was reliable, constants, controls, randomization,
and repetition were utilized. To minimize the effect of lurking variables, the same
August – Hagan 33
concentration of oil was added to each container, the saltwater solution was always at
room temperature (25 °C), and the same researcher injected the oil and applied the oil
remediation method to each container. These constants were important, as they kept
everything consistent for each trial, ensuring that the results were due to the oil
remediation method and not lurking variables. Furthermore, in this experiment, control
trials were conducted, in which no oil remediation method was applied. These control
trials helped determine if the oil not remaining in the container was due to solely the oil
remediation method applied, or if some oil was lost in the transfer process from the
measuring cup to the container, and the container to the graduated cylinder.
Moreover, the data was randomized by generating numbers 1 through 40, with 1
through 20 representing the neodymium magnet method trials, and 21 through 40
representing the hydrophobic net method trials. This process was done until each number
appeared, and trials were then conducted in the order the numbers were generated. It was
important to randomize these trials to increase reliability by decreasing the variability in
the data. However, the controls were run throughout the experiment to ensure that the
experiment remained consistent over time. Finally, the experiment was repeated 20 times
with each oil remediation method to provide assurance that the results from the
experiment are valid and consistent, and to reduce variability in the data. This repetition
combined with the constants, controls, and randomization ensured that the data collected
was valid.
The oil removed by the neodymium magnet oil remediation method and the oil
removed by the hydrophobic net oil remediation method can be compared to reveal
which oil remediation method is most effective at removing oil from an oil spill. To do
August – Hagan 34
this, a two-sample t test will be used. A two-sample t test is an appropriate statistical test
to analyze this data, as a two-sample t test allows two means of independent populations
to be compared. In this experiment, the first population is the neodymium magnet trials
and the second population is the hydrophobic net trials. However, before conducting a
two-sample t test, all the necessary assumptions must be met.
There were three assumptions that had to be met to perform a two-sample t test.
The first assumption was that there are two simple random samples taken from two
independent populations. This assumption was met as each individual unit, or oil
remediation method, had an equal chance of being selected due to the randomization
technique applied. The second assumption was that the samples used must be no more
than one-tenth their population sizes. This assumption was met as the population of all
occasions in which the neodymium magnet and hydrophobic net oil remediation methods
have been used is greater than 400 (the sample size of 20 for each method multiplied by
10). The third and final assumption that had to be met was that the samples used in the
two-sample t test were from normally distributed populations, or at least 30 samples were
done. This experiment did not have 30 or more samples for each oil remediation method,
meaning that the Central Limit Theorem could not be used to determine that the sampling
distributions were normal. To determine if the samples collected were from normally
distributed populations, normal probability plots and box plots had to be used to test for
normality. Figures 13, 14, and 15 were used to determine if the data collected came from
a normally distributed population.

August – Hagan 35
Figure 13 below shows the normal probability plot for the neodymium magnet oil
remediation method. The normal probability plot determines whether the data collected
could plausibly come from a normally distributed population.
Figure 13. Neodymium Magnet Oil Remediation Method Normal Probability Plot
As seen in Figure 13, the normal probability plot for the neodymium magnet oil
remediation method is roughly linear, suggesting that the data can reasonably be modeled
using a normal distribution. This meets the third assumption for the two-sample t test,
which is that the sample comes from a normally distributed population.
Figure 14 shows the normal probability plot for the hydrophobic net oil
remediation method. Once again, the normal probability plot helps assess whether the
data recorded could come from a normally distributed population.

August – Hagan 36
Figure 14. Hydrophobic Net Oil Remediation Method Normal Probability Plot
As shown in Figure 14, the data points for the hydrophobic net oil remediation
method create a roughly linear model. This indicates that the data collected from the
hydrophobic net oil remediation method came from a normally distributed population.
This meets the third assumption for the two-sample t test, as the roughly linear normally
probability plot suggests that the data comes from a normally distributed population.
Figure 15 shows the box plots for the data collected for both the neodymium
magnet and hydrophobic net oil remediation methods. The top box plot is for the
neodymium magnet oil remediation method and the bottom box plot is for the
hydrophobic net oil remediation method.

August – Hagan 37
Figure 15. Oil Concentration Removed Using Each Method Box Plots
As shown in Figure 15, each box plot appears to be normal. The box plot for the
neodymium magnet method appears to be fairly normal with minimal skew to the left,
because the mean is less than the median. The box plot for the hydrophobic net method
also appears to be fairly normal with minimal skew to the left, as again, the mean is less
than the median. There are no outliers for either of the box plots, suggesting the results
are consistent.
When further comparing the box plots, the hydrophobic net method has a smaller
range of 1.5 mL compared with the neodymium magnet method, which has a range of 2.0
mL. However, the neodymium magnet method has a larger interquartile range of 1.25
mL, whereas the interquartile range for the hydrophobic net method is only 1.0 mL.
When looking at the overall range, the hydrophobic net oil remediation method has a
slightly lower variance than the neodymium magnet oil remediation method, meaning the
August – Hagan 38
data is less spread out and more consistent for the hydrophobic net trials. Moreover, the
box plot for the hydrophobic net method is furthest to the left, suggesting that the
hydrophobic net removed less oil and was less efficient than the neodymium magnet
approach. However, about 50% of the hydrophobic net data overlaps with the
neodymium magnet data. Thus, it cannot be determined if on average, the neodymium
magnet method removed significantly more oil than the hydrophobic net method.
Furthermore, for the neodymium magnet method, the median is 8.0 mL and the
mean is 7.8 mL, and for the hydrophobic net method, the median is 6.5 mL and the mean
is 6.4 mL. This suggests that the hypothesis predicting the neodymium magnet method
would be most effective at removing oil could be correct, as the neodymium magnet
method has both a higher mean and median than the hydrophobic net method.
Along with the range, mean, and median, the standard deviation can be employed
to compare the patterns between the two oil remediation methods. The standard deviation
measures how much the data is spread out around the mean. The standard deviation for
the neodymium magnet method is about 0.6366 and the standard deviation for the
hydrophobic net method is about 0.6996. This shows that the data for the hydrophobic net
method was more spread out around the mean than the data for the neodymium magnet
method. As a result, the normal probability plot for the neodymium magnet method was
more linear with the data having a better fit than the normal probability plot for the
hydrophobic net method.
As shown in Figures 13, 14, and 15, the samples from each oil remediation
method can be considered to come from normally distributed populations. As all three
August – Hagan 39
assumptions were met for both oil remediation methods, the two-sample t test result
should be reliable.
Figure 16 below shows the hypotheses to complete a two-sample t test comparing
the mean volume of oil removed when using the neodymium magnet oil remediation
method (µ1) and the mean volume of oil removed when using the hydrophobic net oil
remediation method (µ2).
Ho: µ1 = µ2
Ha: µ1 > µ2
Figure 16. Hypotheses for Statistical Test
As shown in Figure 16, the null hypothesis, Ho, states that the mean volume of oil
removed when using the neodymium magnet oil remediation method is the same as that
when using the hydrophobic net method of oil remediation. The alternative hypothesis,
Ha, states that the mean volume of oil removed when using the neodymium magnet oil
remediation method is greater than the volume of oil removed when using the
hydrophobic net oil remediation method. This was determined to be the alternative
hypothesis based on the hypothesis in this experiment, in which the neodymium magnet
oil remediation method was predicted to remove a greater volume of oil from the spill
than the hydrophobic net method.
Figure 17 shows the t value, the p-value, and the probability graph of the two-
sample t test comparing the mean volume of oil removed from an oil spill when the
neodymium magnet and hydrophobic net oil remediation methods are used.
August – Hagan 40
Figure 17. Probability Graph for Two-Sample t Test
As shown in Figure 17, the t value was found to be 6.6190 and the p-value was
found to be 4.2 × 10−8 . A sample calculation to find the t value can be found in
Appendix F.
Interpretation:
From the results of the two-sample t test, the null hypothesis is rejected because
the p-value of 4.2 × 10−8 is less than the alpha (α) level of 0.05. There is evidence that
on average, the neodymium magnet method removes a greater volume of oil from oil
spills than the hydrophobic net method. If the null hypothesis was true, that is, if there
really was no difference in the volume of oil removed when using the neodymium
magnet method and when using the hydrophobic net method, then there would be almost
no chance of getting a difference in volume of oil removed this extreme by chance. Since
this is so unlikely to happen, the null hypothesis was rejected.
Therefore, when considering the small p-value of 4.2 × 10−8 and the rejection of
the null hypothesis, it can be concluded that on average, the neodymium magnet method
August – Hagan 41
removes a significantly larger volume of oil than the hydrophobic net method. Ergo, the
neodymium magnet method of oil remediation was determined to be more effective than
the hydrophobic net method of oil remediation.

August – Hagan 42
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine which method of oil
remediation, a neodymium magnet or a hydrophobic net, removes the greatest volume of
oil in milliliters (mL) from a simulated oil spill. The hypothesis states that if the
neodymium magnet method of oil remediation is used, then 5 mL of oil (the greatest
volume of oil) will be removed from the water, when compared with a hydrophobic net.
The hypothesis was accepted, because the neodymium magnet method removed
an average of 7.8 mL of oil, but when considering the average residual of 3.5 mL of oil
lost when no collection method was utilized, it removed an average of 4.3 mL of oil. On
the other hand, the hydrophobic net method removed an average of 6.4 mL of oil, but
again, when considering the average residual of 3.5 mL of oil lost when no collection
method was utilized, it removed an average of 2.9 mL of oil. Therefore, the neodymium
magnet method removed the greater volume of oil, which was close to 5 mL, confirming
the hypothesis. Furthermore, the two-sample t test comparing the oil removed by the
neodymium magnet and hydrophobic net removal methods resulted in a p-value of
4.2 × 10−8 , suggesting that the volume of oil removed for the neodymium magnet
method was significantly greater than that removed for the hydrophobic net method,
which also supports the hypothesis. Since the neodymium magnet method of oil
remediation removed a greater volume of oil than the hydrophobic net method, the
neodymium magnet method was found to be most effective between the two, which
again, supports the hypothesis.
The data collected supported the hypothesis, as adding the ferromagnetic material
iron (II,III) oxide (Fe3 O4 ) to the oil applied and then applying an external magnetic field
August – Hagan 43
with the neodymium magnet, caused the oil to behave magnetically. Oil alone does not
exhibit magnetic properties, but the addition of Fe3 O4 powder and an external magnetic
field allows the oil to behave in a magnetic manner. Magnetite, Fe3 O4 powder, is a
ferromagnetic material and on its own is not magnetic, but in the presence of an external
magnetic field its domains align and magnetically attract to the magnetic field. The
Fe3 O4 powder particles then pull the oil particles with it due to Van der Waals’ law,
which states there is a relatively weak electric force that attracts neutral molecules to each
other since one side of a molecule is always somewhat positive and the other negative,
thus causing the opposite charges of the two molecules to align and create a net force.
Therefore, in this experiment, when a magnetic field is applied to the oil and Fe3 O4
powder combination, the neodymium magnet attracts the iron (II,III) oxide particles and
the iron (II,II) oxide pulls the oil nanoparticles along with it, due to the weak force stated
in Van der Waals law (Narayan).
Furthermore, the neodymium magnet method of oil remediation does not require
the oil to stay in place, as the magnetic attraction will still be there even if the oil
disperses. On the other hand, the hydrophobic net method will work most effectively if
the oil remains in place and takes up less surface area, because it is easier for the small
width of the hydrophobic net to encompass the entire oil spill as the net runs through the
spill (Liu). Therefore, the neodymium magnet method was able to, on average, collect
more oil than the hydrophobic net method.
The results from this experiment do not agree with some existing research, but do
for other existing research in the field. A study done by Sachin Narayan, a high school
student assisted by professor Debany Roy, Ph. D, utilized a net with Ultra Ever-Dry
August – Hagan 44
oleophobic and hydrophobic coatings for one removal method, and injected iron (II,III)
oxide (Fe3 O4 ) into an oil spill and used a neodymium magnet for another. He found that
using the net method yielded 60.70% effectiveness and the neodymium magnet yielded
43.79% effectiveness (Narayan). These results disagree with this research, as this
research found the neodymium magnet method to be more effective. However, this is
because Narayan utilized an oleophobic and hydrophobic coating rather just a
hydrophobic coating, thus the surface of their net was able to repel water and the oil.
Oleophobic surfaces repeal hydrocarbons like those found in oil (Hanson). Due to the
size of the pores and the hydrophobic and oleophobic coating on Narayan’s net, the water
was able to escape the net, but the oil remained inside the vicinity of the net for recapture.
The oleophobic coating caused the oil to bead up on the surface of Narayan’s net so that
it did not leak through the mesh of the net, however, in this experiment there was no
oleophobic coating applied to the net. This allowed some oil to leak through the pores of
the mesh net, and as a result less oil was able to be recaptured.
Although this research differed from Narayan’s research, it concurred with
Ibrahim Ali Amar’s research, a professor in the department of chemistry at Sebha
University in Sebha, Libya. Amar applied cobalt ferrite (CoFe2O4) magnetic
nanoparticles to oil to magnetize it and found that it created a considerable magnetic
force that is strong enough to remove oil spills from a water surface (Amar). Although
this research utilized magnetite powder (Fe3 O4 ) rather than cobalt ferrite (CoFe2O4)
magnetic nanoparticles, both studies confirmed that magnetizing oil is a possibility for
effective oil remediation.

August – Hagan 45
This experimental design was effective in reaching the conclusion due to the
decision to run controls. Originally, no controls were to be run, which made it difficult to
determine if the remediation method removed all the oil that was not remaining in the
container, or if there was some residual oil left behind. The control trials with no oil
remediation method applied determined that there was indeed, on average, 3.5 mL of
residual oil lost when transferring the content of the container to the graduated cylinder,
allowing the data to be reported more accurately.
However, there were also weaknesses in the experimental design, as in some
trials, the oil would disperse unevenly, and in others, the oil would remain in a single
contained circle towards the center of the water bucket. This was due to the application
method of the syringe. To inject the oil into the water, a 30 mL plastic syringe was used,
and 10 mL of oil was plunged out of the syringe. To plunge the oil out of the syringe, the
plunger was manually pushed down by one of the researchers and when too much
pressured was applied, the oil dispersed unevenly and towards the sides of the water
bucket, rather than staying in a uniform circle towards the center of the water bucket.
This issue primarily effected the hydrophobic net trials, as some of the dispersed oil
could not be captured by the net, leading to variability in the data and an overall lower
average volume of oil collected. This effect can be seen in trials 1, 2, 12, and 19 of the
hydrophobic net method in Table 3, as the oil dispersed in these trials, leading to a lower
volume of oil removed by the hydrophobic net at 5.5 mL, 5.0 mL, 5.5 mL, and 5.5 mL
respectively. To minimize this error, it is recommended to not apply too much pressure to
the syringe, thus preventing the oil from dispersing upon injection.
August – Hagan 46
Another issue that was encountered was when transferring the remaining oil and
water from the container to the self-constructed graduated cylinder, as sometimes, the
container was dumped into the funnel too quickly, air bubbles were created causing some
of the liquid to overflow out of the graduated cylinder and onto the ground. This
impacted the data, as some of the remaining oil could have fallen out and was therefore
not read by the self-constructed graduated cylinder. This problem can be seen in trials 4,
6, 12, 13, 14, and 20 of the neodymium magnet method in Table 1, as all of these trials
resulted in 1.5 mL of oil remaining in the container, which was lower than the average of
2.2 mL remaining in the container. This was also an issue in trials 8, 16, and 20 of the
hydrophobic net method in Table 3, as these trials resulted in readings of 2.5 mL, 3.5 mL,
and 2.5 mL, respectively, which was lower than the average of 3.6 mL remaining in the
container. To minimize this error, it is recommended to pour the content of the container
into the graduated cylinder slowly, thus preventing any water from falling onto the
ground.
The results from this experiment do have a great impact on the scientific
community. Oil spills are a serious threat facing oceans; in 2018, there was
approximately 116,000 tons of oil lost to the environment, which is the largest annual
quantity recorded in 24 years (“Oil Tanker Spill Statistics 2018”). Oil booms have
historically been used to clean oil spills, however they only work if the oil is in one spot,
if there are no rough sea waves, if there are no high wind velocities, and if it used within
a few hours of the spill occurring, or else the spill becomes too large for oil booms to be
effective. Dispersants have also historically been used to clean oil spills, but they are
highly toxic and dangerous to marine organisms (Wise). Thus, it is imperative that oil
August – Hagan 47
spills are cleaned up using a better method, and this research helped determine that the
neodymium magnet method of oil remediation is one such method.
Further research could be conducted to expand upon this research and investigate
more about cleaning oil spills. An experiment could be done using different chemicals
with magnetic properties, including Fe3 O4 and CoFe2O4, to determine which material is
the safest for marine organisms and which material is the most attracted to neodymium
magnets. These results could be utilized by environmental scientists, as it could help
them determine which chemical should be used on a larger scale to remediate oil spills.
More research could also be conducted comparing the neodymium magnet
method with a broader range of oil remediation methods, including bioremediation.
Bioremediation involves the use of microorganisms, including Pseudomonas fluorescens,
Arthrobacter, and Burkholderia to remove pollutants (Peixoto). If these microorganisms
are stimulated with nutrients, especially oxygen and nitrogen, they can destroy
contaminants and use them for growth and reproduction. This is because contaminants,
such as those in crude oil, provide a source of carbon, which is one of the fundamental
aspects of forming new cell constituents and electrons for microorganisms (“In Situ
Bioremediation: When Does It Work?"). Ergo, environmental scientists could compare
the results from this research with future research on bioremediation to determine if the
neodymium magnet method of oil remediation is truly the most effective, or if
bioremediation may be a better option.
Exploration into areas of oil spills and oil remediation methods would help
determine ideas to protect marine organisms and the environment from the threatening
implications of oil spills, ensuring a cleaner world for humanity to inhabit.

August – Hagan 48
Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank Mr. Moore for assisting with the statistical
analysis of the data, and Professor Carol Miller from Wayne State University for helping
with the scientific concepts related to this research and the experimental design.
August – Hagan 49
Appendix A: Professional Contact
Name: Carol Miller
Title: Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering
Organization: College of Engineering at Wayne State University
Phone: +1 (313) 577-3842
Email: cmiller@eng.wayne.edu
Mailing Address: 5050 Anthony Wayne Dr. in Detroit, MI 48082
Figure 18. Professional Contact Email
Figure 18 shows an email exchange with Professor Carol Miller in response to a
request for assistance with this research. Professor Miller gladly helped and explained
that using olive oil as a substitute for crude oil is justified for this academic purpose.
August – Hagan 50
Appendix B: Making Stock Saltwater Solution
Materials:
Graduated Cylinder (1 L)
Tap Water (25 L)
Pure and Natural Morton Salt (875 g)
Scale 0.0001 Precision
(4) Weigh Boat (135 mm × 135 mm × 20 mm)
Scoopula
(3) Plastic Containers (Holds 735 mL, 16 cm. x 16 cm. x 5 cm.)
Latch Storage Box (Holds 62 L, 60 cm. x 40 cm. x 35 cm.)
Glass Stir Rod
Procedures:
1. Use a 1 L graduated cylinder to measure 1 L of room temperature tap water (25

℃) and pour into the 60 cm. x 40 cm. x 35 cm. latch storage box. Do this process
25 times, so that the latch storage box has 25 L of water in it, because there is a
total of 50 trials, each of which require 500 mL of water (50 trials x 500 mL = 25
L).
2. The salinity percentage of ocean water is 3.5%, meaning that for every 1 L of
ocean water, there are 35 g of salt (“Why Is the Ocean Salty?”). Thus, for 25 L of
tap water in the latch storage box, there must be 875 g of salt. Use a 135 mm ×
135 mm × 20 mm weigh boat and a scoopula to measure 175 g of salt on the
scale. Do this process five times to total 875 g of salt.
3. Pour the 875 g of salt from the five weigh boats into the latch storage box,
creating the 3.5% salinity to replicate ocean water
4. Agitate the water with a glass stir rod until the salt is completely dissolved. This
could take up to 20 minutes.
August – Hagan 51
Appendix C: Hydrophobic Net Procedures
Materials:
Top Fin® Fine Mesh Fish Net (7.62 cm)

Never Wet Hydrophobic Base Coat
Never Wet Hydrophobic Topcoat
Procedures:
1. Spray the Never Wet Hydrophobic Base Coat over the Top Fin® Fine Mesh Fish
Net mesh net section, following the directions on the can, and let it dry for 30
minutes in a well-ventilated area, following the directions on the package.
2. Spray the Never Wet Hydrophobic Top Coat over the net Top Fin® Fine Mesh
Fish Net mesh net section, following the directions on the can, and let it dry for 30
minutes in a well-ventilated area, following the directions on the package.
August – Hagan 52
Appendix D: Building Graduated Cylinder for Data Collection
Materials:
Pine Wood Backboard (8.26 cm x 10.80 cm x 107.95 cm)

(2) Pine Wood Sideboard (3.81 cm x 2.54 cm x 107.95 cm)
(2) Pine Wood Front Board (10.00 cm x 3.80 cm x 1.90 cm)
Cedar Wood Baseboard (50.17 cm x 13.97 x 2.54 cm)
UPD Clear Vinyl Tubing 2.54 cm I.D. x 3.18 cm O.D. (3.05 m long)
WATTS Nylon Hose Barb (25.00 mm x 20.00 mm)
White PVC Cap (19.05 mm)
(7) Grip Rite Drywall Screws (#6 size 3.18 cm)
(3) Irwin Quick Grip Clamp
Caliper (15.24 cm)
Titebond Original Wood Glue (236.59 mL)
(28) DeWalt Narrow Crown Staples 9 (3.18 cm)
Staple Gun
Tape Measurer
Nail Drill
Electric Miter Saw
Pencil
Fine Tip Black Sharpie
Ruler (30 cm)
Procedures:
1. Cut a 1.067 m long section of the UPD Clear Vinyl Tubing with an electric miter
saw.
2. At one end of the 1.067 m long clear vinyl tubing, insert the WATTS Nylon Hose
Bard so that the elbow points outward at a 90º angle and screw the white PVC cap
on the end of the WATTS Nylon Hose Bard.
3. With the measuring tape, measure a 8.26 cm x 10.80 cm x 107.95 cm pine wood
rectangle and cut to size with an electric miter saw. This will be the backboard of
the graduated cylinder.
4. With the measuring tape, measure two 3.81 cm x 2.54 cm x 107.95 cm pine wood
rectangles and cut with an electric miter saw. These will be the sideboards around
the vinyl tubing.
5. On the left side of the pine wood backboard, line up one of the pine wood side
boards on top of the backboard so that their 107.95 cm length sides are lined up,
with none of the sideboard overlapping on the outside edge of the baseboard.
Apply a thin line of wood glue all the way down the back of the sideboard and
glue in place.
August – Hagan 53
6. Place three Irwin Quick Grip Clamps over the glued baseboard and sideboard to
hold in place. Using the staple gun, insert 14 DeWalt Narrow Crown Staples into
the back of the baseboard into the sideboard to secure it. Remove the Irwin Quick
Grip Clamps.
7. Place the 3.05 m long UPD Clear Vinyl Tubing on the wood backboard so that the
tubing is lined straight up next to the sideboard and clamp it in this position with
two Irwin Quick Grip Clamps.
8. Repeat steps 5-6 on the right side of the baseboard to secure the tubing in-between
the two sideboards.
9. Measure and cut two pine wood front boards (10.00 cm x 3.80 cm x 1.90 cm)
with the measuring tape and electric miter saw.
10. At 20.40 cm from the top of the wood on the graduated cylinder, place the top
edge on one of the pine wood front boards so that the 10.00 cm edge is across the
front of the two sideboards crossing over the clear vinyl tubing. Using two Grip
Rite Drywall Screws, screw each side of the front board into the left and right side
of the sideboard. See Figure 19 for placement.
11. At 12.50 cm from the bottom of the wood on the graduated cylinder, place the top
edge of the other pine wood front board and repeat step 10.
12. Steps 1-11 form the graduated cylinder to be used in the experiment.
13. Measure and cut the Cedar Wood Baseboard to 50.17 cm x 13.97 x 2.54 cm with
a measuring tape and electric miter saw.
14. Stand the constructed graduated cylinder vertically in the center of the 50.17 cm
side of the baseboard so that the front edge of the graduated cylinder lines up with
the front edge of the baseboard. On the back of the constructed graduated
cylinder, with the nail drill, drill three Grip Rite Drywall Screws on a 45º angle
down into the baseboard. See Figure 19 for the completed graduated cylinder.
15. Pour 500 ml of water into the graduated cylinder, and with a ruler and fine tip
black sharpie, mark on the tube and sideboard where the 500 mL of water lands at
the top. Drain the water after the line is made.
16. To make the 1 mL measurement mark on the tubing, set the Caliper to 3.00 mm
distance; this is the space on the tubing that 1 mL takes up. Set the bottom edge of
the caliper teeth in the middle of the 500 mL mark and score the tubing so that a
line forms above the 500 mL mark. With the ruler, mark a straight line with the
fine tip sharpie at this mark on the tubing, and with a pencil on the wood
sideboard.
August – Hagan 54
17. On the new mL mark created in step 16, set the bottom of the caliper on this mL
line and score the tubing creating another mL line above the previous line. With
the ruler and fine tip sharpie, mark a thin line along this score on the tubing, and
with a pencil on the sideboard.
18. Repeat step 18, continuing up the tubing until 10 measurement lines are created so
that it measures 510 mL.
19. Repeat steps 17-18, but going down below the initial 500 mL mark so that it
measures to 490 mL. See Figure 20 for completed markings.
Diagrams:
UPD Clear
Vinyl Tubing
Front
Board
Sideboard
Baseboard
WATTS
Nylon
Hose
Barb and
PVC Cap
Figure 19. Constructed Graduated Cylinder
Figure 19 displays the graduated cylinder measuring device that was used to
measure the oil remaining in the water boxes after one of the three oil remediation
August – Hagan 55
methods was used. This measurement was then used to determine how much oil was
removed per trial. The Clear UPD Vinyl Tubing is placed vertically against the
backboard, between two sideboards to support it.
510 mL
500 mL
490 mL
Figure 20. Measurement Markings on Tubing
The figure above shows the measurement markings on the tubing that go up by 1
mL increments. There is a 500 mL mark, with 10 mL marked above and below this line.
There are markings on the tubing itself and along the wood next to it. This device was
used to measure the amount of oil remaining in the water buckets. This measurement was
then used to calculate the oil removed by the specified collection method. The
measurement lines go up to 510 mL, as 10 mL of oil were added to each water box per
trial, so if no oil was removed, then the 10 mL of oil would separate from the 500 mL of
water and would be read at 510 mL on the graduated cylinder.

August – Hagan 56
Appendix E: Volume of Oil Removed Sample Calculation
To find the volume of oil removed due to each oil remediation method, the
volume of oil remaining in the container was subtracted from the initial volume of oil
added to the container (10 mL), which is shown below.
𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑 (𝑚𝐿) − 𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝐿)
A sample calculation to find the oil removed due to the oil remediation method is
shown in Figure 21 below with the data collected from the first trial using the
neodymium magnet method of oil remediation.
𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑 (𝑚𝐿) − 𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝐿)
= 10 𝑚𝐿 − 3.0 𝑚𝐿
= 7.0 𝑚𝐿
Figure 21. Calculating Oil Removed by Oil Remediation Method
Figure 21 shows a sample calculation to find the oil removed by the oil
remediation method using the first trial for the neodymium magnet oil remediation
method in Table 1. The volume of oil removed was determined to be 7.0 mL.
August – Hagan 57
Appendix F: Two-Sample t Test Formula and Sample Calculation
The mean oil removed by the neodymium magnet and hydrophobic net oil
remediation methods were compared to reveal which oil remediation method is most
effective at removing oil from an oil spill. To do this, a two-sample t test was used. The
formula is shown below.
x̅ 1 − x̅ 2
𝑡=
𝑠1 2 𝑠2 2
√
𝑛1 + 𝑛2
The variable “x̅ 1 “ represents the mean from the first independent population,
which in this case, would be the mean oil removed by the neodymium magnet oil
remediation method. The variable “x̅ 2 ” represents the mean from the second independent
population, which in this case, would be the mean oil removed by the hydrophobic net oil
remediation method. The variable “𝑠1 ” is the standard deviation from the first
independent population, which in this case, is the standard deviation for the neodymium
magnet oil remediation method. The variable “𝑠2 ” is the standard deviation from the
second independent population, which in this case, is the standard deviation for the
hydrophobic net oil remediation method. The variable “𝑛1 ” is the sample size of the first
independent population, which would be the 20 trials conducted for the neodymium
magnet oil remediation method. Finally, the variable “𝑛2 ” is the sample size of the
second independent population, which would be the 20 trials conducted for the
hydrophobic net oil remediation. A sample calculation to find the t value using this
formula is shown in Figure 22.

August – Hagan 58
x̅ 1 mL − x̅2 mL
𝑡=
𝑠1 2 𝑠2 2
√
𝑛1 + 𝑛2
7.8 mL − 6.4 mL
𝑡= = 6.6192
2 2
√0.6366 + 0.6996
20 20
Figure 22. Calculating t Value
Figure 22 shows a sample calculation to find the value t which represents the
number of standard deviations above or below the mean that average data lie in a t
distribution. This compares the mean oil removed by the neodymium magnet oil
remediation method and the mean oil removed by the hydrophobic net oil remediation
method. The t value was determined to be about 6.6192, which corresponds to a p-value
of about 0.
August – Hagan 59
Works Cited
Amar, Ibrahim Ali, et al. “Oil Spill Removal from Water by Absorption on Zinc-Doped
Cobalt Ferrite Magnetic Nanoparticles.” Advanced Journal of Chemistry, Section
A: Theoretical, Engineering and Applied Chemistry, Sami Publishing Company
(SPC), 1 Sept. 2019, www.ajchem-a.com/article_88429.html.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopedia.
“Ferromagnetism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2
Mar. 2014, www.britannica.com/science/ferromagnetism.
Burns, Kathleen, and Michael Harbut. “Crude Oil and Your Health.” Science Corps,
www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards-public.pdf.
Cressey, Daniel. “The Science of Dispersants.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group,
12 May 2010, www.nature.com/news/2010/100512/full/news.2010.237.html.
Ge, Jin, et al. “Pumping through Porous Hydrophobic/Oleophilic Materials: An
Alternative Technology for Oil Spill
Remediation.” Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 53, no. 14, 2014,
pp. 3612–3616., doi:10.1002/anie.201310151.
“Gulf Oil Spill.” Smithsonian Ocean, 8 Apr. 2019,
ocean.si.edu/conservation/pollution/gulf-oil-spill.
Hanson, Eric, Ph.D. “Ask the Expert: What Makes a Nanocoating Oleophobic?”
YouTube. Aculon, 7 Oct. 2015. Web. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFN9SaYBplg.
“Heavy Oil vs. Light Oil.” Legislative Brown, Mar. 2011, www.aoga.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/HRES-3.10.11-Lunch-Learn-BP-Heavy-Oil1.pdf
August – Hagan 60
Helmenstine, Anne Marie. “The Definition of Hydrophobic With Examples.” ThoughtCo,
ThoughtCo, 9 July 2019, www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-hydrophobic-
605228.\
“How Does Oil Impact Marine Life?” NOAA's National Ocean Service, 4 May 2010,
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oilimpacts.html.
“How Do Oil Spills Happen?” Office of Response and Restoration,
response.restoration.noaa.gov/training-and-education/education-students-and-
teachers/how-do-spills-happen.html.
“In Situ Bioremediation: When Does It Work?" at NAP.edu.” National Academies Press:
OpenBook, www.nap.edu/read/2131/chapter/4#17.
Laurén, Susanna. “What Are Surfactants and How Do They Work?” Surface Science
Blog, blog.biolinscientific.com/what-are-surfactants-and-how-do-they-work.
Liu, Zhanfei, et al. “The Impact of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Petroleum
Hydrocarbons in Surface Waters of the Northern Gulf of Mexico.” Deep Sea
Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, Pergamon, 23 Jan. 2014,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967064514000277?via%3Dihub
Miller, Carol. “Research Project Assistance.” Message to Catherine August. 23 Sep.
2019. E-mail.
Narayan, Sachin. “Deep Sea Oil Trap: An Underwater Cleanup System for Platforms and
Ships to Contain and Recapture Oil Plumes.” The National High School Journal
of Science, 12 Nov. 2017, nhsjs.com/2017/deep-sea-oil-trap-an-underwater-
cleanup-system-for-platforms-and-ships-to-contain-and-recapture-oil-plumes/.
August – Hagan 61
“Oil Tanker Spill Statistics 2018.” ITOPF, www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/data-
statistics/statistics/.
Peixoto, R. S., et al. “Petroleum-Degrading Enzymes: Bioremediation and New
Prospects.” Enzyme Research, vol. 2011, 2011, pp. 1–7.,
doi:10.4061/2011/475193.
Roser, Max. “Oil Spills.” Our World in Data, 5 Mar. 2013, ourworldindata.org/oil-spills.
Sheriff, Khalil H. A., et al. “9 Methods for Oil Spill Cleanup at Sea.” Marine Insight, 5
Aug. 2019, www.marineinsight.com/environment/10-methods-for-oil-spill-
cleanup-at-sea/.
Thompson, Andrea. “FAQ: The Science and History of Oil Spills.” LiveScience, Purch,
23 Apr. 2010, www.livescience.com/9885-faq-science-history-oil-spills.html.
Wen, Christopher. “Viscosity.” Chemistry LibreTexts, Libretexts, 5 June 2019,
chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook
_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_
Properties_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Properties_of_Liquids/Viscosity.
“Why Is the Ocean Salty?” NOAA's National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 14 Nov. 2008,
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/whysalty.html.
Wise, James, and John Pierce Wise. “A Review of the Toxicity of Chemical
Dispersants.” Reviews on Environmental Health, U.S. National Library of
Medicine, 2011, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6730675/.

Final Research Paper 12th

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Research Paper 12th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparing the Effectiveness of Ferromagnetism and a Hydrophobic Net for Oil

Catherine August and Olivia Hagan

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Mrs. Hilliard / Mr. May / Mr. Acre / Mrs. Tallman

The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of using

removed an average of 6.4 mL of oil.

Review of Literature ........................................................................................................... 3

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 12

Experimental Design ......................................................................................................... 14

Data and Observations ...................................................................................................... 20

Data Analysis and Interpretation ...................................................................................... 32

Appendix A: Professional Contact.................................................................................... 49

Appendix B: Making Stock Saltwater Solution ................................................................ 50

Appendix C: Hydrophobic Net Procedures ...................................................................... 51

Appendix D: Building Graduated Cylinder for Data Collection ...................................... 52

Appendix E: Volume of Oil Removed Sample Calculation ............................................. 56

Appendix F: Two-Sample t Test Formula and Sample Calculation ................................. 57

Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 59

This experiment intended to determine if using ferromagnetism or a hydrophobic

methods, these consequences could be minimized. Citizens, if informed of the negative

This research is also valuable to the scientific community and environmental

leading to an environmentally clean future for generations to come.

environment as a result of tanker incidents (Roser).

of hydrocarbons, a compound made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms, and other

experiment as it has a viscosity of 10 centipoise, which is within the 1 to 105 centipoise

often impractical, thus a different method should be utilized.

Dispersants are made up of surfactant molecules. Surfactant molecules, originating from

such as Alcanivorax and Oceanospirillales, to consume the oil (Cressey). A diagram of

chemist at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science in Solomons

more effective, and environmentally conscious method should be developed.

Figure 2 above shows the amphiphilic properties of dispersants decreasing the

magnetic properties, but the addition of ferromagnetic particles causes it to behave

magnetically. Ferromagnetism occurs when an external magnetic field is applied to a

der Waals law, as demonstrated in Figure 5 (Narayan).

Figure 3 illustrates that on its own, ferromagnetic material is not magnetic,

is brought near it, the domains align and magnetically attract.

net attracting force between them.

fabrics, are hydrophobic, or “water fearing”. On a molecular level, being hydrophobic is

no positive or negative poles) molecules disrupt hydrogen bonds between water

entropy of the system, or degree of disorder, decreases (Helmenstine).

Figure 6 demonstrates the clathrate structure of hydrophobic molecules, as

explained previously. In this experiment, NeverWet spray was used to create a

A previous study conducted by Sachin Narayan, a high school student who

and ferromagnetism in containing and recapturing underground oil spills. He utilized a

with an Ultra Ever-Dry oleophobic coating, due to the availability of materials.

Another study done by Ibrahim Ali Amar, a professor in the department of

method to test in this experiment.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine which method of oil

damage marine organisms on the ocean floor.

If the process of ferromagnetism is used, in which magnetite powder (Fe3 O4 ) is

(3) Plastic Containers (Holds 735 mL, 16 cm. x 16 cm. x 5 cm.)

1. Using the TI-Nspire calculator randomizing function, randomize the order in

3. Follow the instructions detailed in Appendix B to create a stock saltwater solution

a. Create the hydrophobic net using the instructions depicted in Appendix C.

a. Pour 500 mL of tap water into the graduated cylinder.

FloTool Funnel Three Plastic Hydrophobic

Scrub Buddies 20 mL 750 mL Filippo

45 mL Plastic Neodymium 237 mL

powder, 30 mL barrel syringe, 20 mL beaker, three plastic containers, hydrophobic net, 1

cloth strips, and the cleaning rod.

to spread over the surface of the water.

Figure 9. Measuring the Oil Remaining from the Container

Data and Observations