Bataan Heroes College

College of Engineering and Architecture

Department of Mechanical Engineering

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MICROPLASTICS SEPARATOR

A Research Paper Submitted

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement

In Project Study 1

Acosta, Harold AC C.

Miranda, Neil Paolo T.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF

CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….ii

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………..vi

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………

vii

NOMENCLATURE……………………………………………………………………...ix

CHAPTER

1……………………………………………………………………………….1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE

STUDY…………………………………………...1

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE

PROBLEM…………………………………………..9

1.3 OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………………………9

1.3.1 General

Objective………………………………………………….9

1.3.2 Specific

Objectives………………………………………………...9

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

STUDY………………………………………….10

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS……………………………………………….11

ii
CHAPTER

2……………………………………………………………………………...12

2.1 HISTORY OF

MICROPLASTICS…………………………………………..12

2.1.1 Plastic Waste

Pollution……………………………………………..12

2.1.2 Plastic Waste Pollution in the

Philippines………………………….13

2.2 MICROPLASTICS…………………………………………………………..15

2.3 MICROPLASTICS IN AQUATIC

ENVIRONMENTS……………………..16

2.3.1 Microplastics in Freshwater Ecosystem……………………………17

2.3.2 Microplastics in Marine

Ecosystem………………………………...18

2.4 MICROPLASTICS AND HUMAN HEALTH………………………………

19

2.5 MICROPLASTICS SEPARATION METHODS……………………………22

2.5.1 Filtration……………………………………………………………22

2.5.2

Elutriation…………………………………………………………..24

CHAPTER

3……………………………………………………………………………...28

3.1 MICROPLASTICS SEPARATOR…………………………………………..28

iii
 3.2 PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF MICROPLASTICS

SEPARATOR……….28

3.2.1 Pipe…………………………………………………………………

28

3.2.2 Check Valve………………………………………………………..29

3.2.3 Ball

Valve…………………………………………………………..30

3.2.4 Submersible

Pump………………………………………………….30

3.2.5 Hydrocyclone Separator……………………………………………31

3.2.6 Mesh

Filters………………………………………………………...31

3.2.7 Elutriator…………………………………………………………...32

3.2.8 Steel Frame…………………………………………………………

33

3.3 FACTORS THAT AFFECTS MICROPLASTICS SEPARATION…………

33

3.3.1 Water

Horsepower………………………………………………….33

3.3.2 Total Dynamic

Head………………………………………………..34

3.3.3 Net Positive Suction Head

Available……………………………….35

iv
 3.3.4 Net Positive Suction Head Required……………………………….35

3.3.5 Pump Mechanical

Efficiency……………………………………….36

3.3.6 Motor Efficiency……………………………………………...……37

3.3.7 Combined Motor – Pump

Efficiency……………………………….37

3.3.8 Reynolds Number

Equation………………………………………...38

3.3.9 Pipe Friction………………………………………………………..39

3.3.10 Stoke’s

Law……………………………………………………….41

CHAPTER

4……………………………………………………………………………...42

4.1 CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK…………………………………………….42

4.2 PROTOTYPE DESIGN……………………………………………………...44

4.2.1 Design Parameters/Considerations…………………………………

44

4.2.1.1 Volume Flow

Rate………………………………………………..44

4.2.1.2 Head……………………………………………………………...44

4.2.1.3 Total Dynamic

Head……………………………………………...45

v
 4.2.1.4 Pressure…………………………………………………………..45

4.2.1.5

Power……………………………………………………………..46

4.2.1.6 Pump Efficiency………………………………………………….46

4.2.1.7 Pipe Diameter…………………………………………………….46

4.2.1.8 Corrosion…………………………………………………………47

4.2.1.9 Accessibility……………………………………………………...47

4.2.1.10 Cable Protection………………………………………………...48

4.2.1.11 pH……………………………………………………………….48

4.2.1.12 Cracking

Pressure……………………………………………….49

4.2.1.13 Stoke’s

Law……………………………………………………..49

4.2.1.14 Terminal Velocity………………………………………………49

4.2.1.15 Location…………………………………………………………

49

4.2.2 Design Options……………………………………………………………..50

4.2.2.1 Design

A………………………………………………………….50

4.2.2.2 Design B………………………………………………………….51

4.2.3 Design

Calculations………………………………………………………...52

vi
 4.2.4 Design Evaluations and Final Design………………………………………

53

4.2.5 Fabrication Procedures……………………………………………………..55

4.2.6 Project

Costs………………………………………………………………..56

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………63

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Top 10 Countries that Release the Most Plastic into the

Ocean………………….5

vii
Table 1.2 US Mesh size conversion to micron, inches and millimeters……………………

Table 4.1 Projected Costs of the Project Study…………………………………………..56

LIST OF FIGURES

viii
Figure 1.1 Commercial seafood and the human food chain's exposure to microplastic……

Figure 1.2 Marine organisms microplastics

ingestion……………………………………..3

Figure 1.3 Microplastics Removal Methods………………………………………………5

Figure 1.4 Schematic diagram of an Elutriator……………………………………………8

Figure 2.1 Plastic Increase Rate………………………………………………………….13

Figure 2.2 Microplastics and Human Health…………………………………………….21

Figure 2.3 Microplastics Removal Methods……………………………………………..22

Figure 3.1 PVC Pipe……………………………………………………………………..29

Figure 3.2 Vertical Check Valve………………………………………………………...29

Figure 3.3 Water Ball Valve……………………………………………………………..30

Figure 3.4 Submersible Pump……………………………………………………………30

Figure 3.5 Hydrocyclone Separator……………………………………………………...31

Figure 3.6 Various Sizes of Mesh Filters………………………………………………...32

Figure 3.7 Vertical Elutriator…………………………………………………………….32

Figure 3.8 Steel Frames………………………………………………………………….33

Figure 4.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study…………………………………………42

Figure 4.2 pH range of metals……………………………………………………………48

Figure 4.3 Microplastics Separator Design A……………………………………………50

Figure 4.4 Microplastics Separator Design B……………………………………………51

Figure 4.5 Microplastics Separator Final Design………………………………………..54

ix
Figure 4.6 Microplastics Separator Final Design (w/o protective cover)………………..54

Figure 4.7 Fabrication Procedures……………………………………………………….55

x
 NOMENCLATURE

ṁw mass flow rate of water

γw specific weight of water

ρw density of water

Q volumetric flow rate of water

go local or observed gravitational acceleration

gc gravitational constant

TDH total dynamic head

hs static head

hv velocity head

hp pressure head

hL head loss

PSL pressure on the surface of the liquid from which the pump

draws

PVP vapor pressure of the liquid at the existing temperature

zs vertical distance from the liquid surface to pump centerline

h LS the head lost due to friction losses between the surface of

the liquid and the pump suction flange

PSF pressure reading at the suction flange

V SF mean velocity of the liquid at suction flange

xi
ȠP pump mechanical efficiency

WP water horsepower or water hydraulic power

BP brake horsepower

Ƞm motor efficiency

EP electrical power

ȠMP combined motor – pump efficiency

NR Reynolds Number

vp mean velocity of the fluid in pipe

dp pipe bore or inside diameter of the pipe

μd dynamic viscosity

hf frictional head loss

μk kinematic viscosity

Lp length of the pipe

Fd frictional force or Stoke’s drag

R radius of the spherical object

NPS H available net positive head available

NPS H required net positive suction head required

xii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Since the start of mass production of plastic items in the 1940s and 1950s

(Thompson et al., 2009), society has become more and more dependent on plastics.

Global demand has been stoked by their adaptability, stability, light weight, and

affordable production costs. Most plastics are initially used and discarded on land, but

precipitation and improper disposal drive them to the ocean. Trash is already present even

in remote locations, and plastic pollution is a growing threat to aquatic ecosystems.

Microplastics are small plastic particles, as the name implies. They are formally

classified as polymers with a diameter of no more than five millimeters (0.2 inches).

There are two types of microplastics are primary and secondary. Primary microplastics

are microplastics that were originally designed to be smaller than 5 mm in size and are

commonly found in fabrics, medications, and personal care items such as face and body

washes (Cole et al., 2011, Browne, 2015). These basic microplastics can enter freshwater

and marine habitats via rivers, wastewater treatment plant discharge, wind, and surface

runoff (Gall and Thompson, 2015).

Secondary microplastics are formed from fragmentation or large plastic debris as

a result of processes such as photodegradation, physical, chemical, and biological

interactions (Thompson et al., 2009, Galgani et al., 2013). Fishing nets, industrial resin

pellets, household items, and other discarded plastic debris are all sources of secondary

microplastics (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015), which have high densities (e.g., 100000

1
items per m3) in waters and sediments, and are interacting with organisms and the

environment in different ways (Dafne E. et al., 2015). They are mostly comprised of

polyesters, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and

polyethylene (PE).

Figure 1.1 Commercial seafood and the human food chain’s exposure to

microplastic.

According to preliminary data, the presence and interactions of microplastics in

freshwater systems appear to be as common as those in marine systems. The first

organismal studies demonstrate that microplastics are consumed by freshwater fauna

across a range of feeding guilds. Europe, North America, and Asia’s freshwaters have

been found to contain microplastics (Dafne E. et al., 2015). Human exposure to

microplastics is inevitable because they can be ingested more readily than bigger particles

throughout the food chain. Marine species have the ability to absorb microplastics and

pass them from one trophic level to the next. One of the most important dietary exposure

pathways for people is eating fish and shellfish.

2
 Figure 1.2 Marine organisms microplastics ingestion.

Source: (Mercogliano et al., 2020)

The capacity of microplastics to accumulate POPs (persistent organic pollutants)

prompts worry that they can spread dangerous POPs to marine life and ultimately people.

Microplastics that are ingested have been linked to immune system deterioration, tissue

inflammation, cellular proliferation, and necrosis (Wright SL, Kelly FJ, 2017).

Depending on the species and environment, microplastics have different effects and

release different compounds (Lusher A. et al., 2017).

1.1.1 Plastic Pollution in the Philippines

The Philippines is the third-largest producer of plastic garbage in the world,

behind China and Indonesia. According to estimates, the Philippines produced 2.7 million

metric tons of plastic garbage, based on a study by Jambeck et al. (2015). This is because

the majority of the people in the Philippines reside in coastal regions and close to rivers

and canals. Additionally, coastal cities like Metro Manila that have paved surfaces, urban

3
drainage systems, and are located in areas with a lot of precipitation have been found to

release higher amounts of land-based plastic debris into the oceans.

Meijer et al. (2021) determined that the Pasig River, which is found in Metro

Manila, a megacity situated along Manila Bay, is the river that contributes the most

marine plastic garbage. It adds to the 6.43% of all the plastic garbage that is discovered in

the oceans. Additionally, the Philippines is a tropical nation with abundant precipitation

each year. The plastic waste on land is transported to rivers via surface run-off, storm

water, and sewage as a result of precipitation, and then to the seas and oceans. The

Philippines is home to seven of the top 10 plastically polluted rivers in the world. The

Philippines’ 4820 rivers collectively discharge about 356,371 million metric tons of

plastic trash into the ocean each year.

Among the top ten (10) countries that release the most plastic into the ocean,

Philippines is leading with a 356, 371 tons, while Nigeria being the last with 18, 640 tons,

shown in Table 1.1.

Country Plastic Waste (tons)

Philippines 356,371

India 126,513

Malaysia 73,098

China 70,707

Indonesia 56,333

Brazil 37,799

Vietnam 28,221

4
 Bangladesh 24,640

Thailand 22,806

Nigeria 18,640

Table 1.1 Top 10 Countries that Release the Most Plastic into the Ocean

Source: (World Population Review, 2021)

A 2017 study indicated that 80% of the ocean’s poorly managed plastic originated

from only five Asian nations: China, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

It is estimated that between 4.8 and 12.7 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean

annually (World Population Review, 2021).

1.1.2 Microplastics Separation Methods

In an effort to combat the growing threat posed by microplastics consumption,

this section discusses recognized methods for removing microplastics from

environmental samples, including those containing biological material.

5
 Figure 1.3 Microplastics Removal Methods

Source: (Liu et al., 2022)

1.1.3 Filtration

Filtration is one of the most popular and efficient ways to remove microplastics

from water and its energy requirements are low, making it an environmentally friendly

option. The size distribution of the microplastics particles affects the outcome of

filtration. As expected, filtering is more successful at removing microplastics when the

pore size is reduced. The sieve’s mesh or the filter’s pore size might vary significantly.

Mesh or mesh size is a unit of particle size used to quantify the distribution of

particle sizes in granular materials (a US measurement standard). For example, a 4-mesh

screen has four tiny square openings across an inch. There are 100 openings per inch in a

100-mesh screen, and so on. The size of openings and the size of particles caught by the

screen decrease as the variety of mesh sizes rises. Particles as small as 25 microns (μm),

or 0.0010 inch, can be filtered via a 500-mesh screen.

US Mesh Microns Inches Millimeters

35 500 0.0197 0.5

40 400 0.0165 0.4

45 354 0.0138 0.354

50 297 0.0117 0.297

60 250 0.0098 0.25

70 210 0.0083 0.21

100 149 0.0059 0.149

6
 120 125 0.0049 0.125

140 105 0.0041 0.105

170 88 0.0035 0.088

200 74 0.0029 0.074

230 63 0.0025 0.063

270 53 0.0021 0.053

325 44 0.0017 0.044

400 37 0.0015 0.037

450 32 0.0013 0.032

500 25 0.0010 0.025

Table 1.2 US Mesh size conversion to micron, inches and millimeters.

1.1.4 Elutriation

Elutriation is a type of particle filtration that is used primarily for particles smaller

than one micron (µm). It has been shown to be effective at removing microplastics from

sand sediments and has gained popularity among scientists. It is a method of sorting

particles based on their size, shape, and density using a stream of liquid or gas flowing in

the opposite direction of sedimentation. Because their terminal sedimentation velocities

are slower than the rising velocities of the fluid, the lighter or smaller particles float to the

top using both centrifugal and counter flow drag forces.

The particles are placed in a vertical tube with water (or another fluid) slowly

flowing upward. The particles fall through the water at different rates depending on their

size and density. If the flow rate of the water is gradually increased, the most slowly

7
sinking particles will be swept upward with the fluid flow and removed from the tube.

Intermediate particles will remain stationary, while the largest or densest particles will

continue to migrate downward. The flow can be increased once more to remove the next

smallest particle size. Particles can thus be separated based on size by carefully

controlling the flow through the tube.

Elutriation columns have a high sand recovery yield and are one of the most

effective methods for removing microplastics from sediment. A new granulometric

classification is used to define various fractions of plastic particle size. The extraction

velocities of silt and plastic particles are measured experimentally (PA, PVC). Particle

recovery experiments show that even with minimal sand recovery, it is possible to extract

> 90% of dense plastic particles (Kedzierski et al., 2016).

Figure 1.4 Schematic diagram of an Elutriator

Source: (Maré et al., 2015)

8
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

With the increasing risk of microplastics water contamination due to the

Philippines’ growing marine and freshwater plastic waste as a result of improper disposal

and usage, a device capable of separating or filtering microplastics from water is required

for practical use and prevent human consumption.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

1.3.1 General Objective

The general objective of this study is to design and develop a microplastics

separator that filters water of microplastics using different sizes of mesh and elutriation

process for practical use and human consumption prevention.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

Specifically, the study aims to:

1. Be aware of the materials, equipment and methods used in constructing a

microplastics separator.

2. Discover which scientific theories are most relevant for creating such a

device.

3. Create a design for a microplastics separator.

4. Fabricate a prototype using the evaluated final design.

5. Valuation of the device in terms of;

9
 5.1 Capacity

5.2 Efficiency and

5.3 Cost effectiveness

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will assist in reducing microplastic contamination of waters and

provide clean water for practical use in response to the world’s increasing plastic

pollution, particularly in the Philippines, which is one of the largest plastic wastes

producing countries. Microplastics are now contaminating our freshwater and marine

ecosystems, affecting fish and other aquatic life. The fact that over a million Filipinos

engage in fishing and consume marine animals such as fish and crustaceans open the door

to unintended human consumption of microplastics.

In order to accomplish this, a device that filters microplastics from water is

required, especially for developing communities in remote locations that rely on streams,

rivers, and lakes for water. It will also benefit small-scale farmers who raise cattle and

grow crops, as well as fishpond owners who rely heavily on water for their business, by

removing the possibility of using contaminated water. In general, removing microplastics

from water reduces the risk of ingestion as well as the possibility of POPs (persistent

organic pollutants) transmission from microplastics to humans.

The study’s findings will also be used as a guide for future microplastic separator

design and development. This will also allow researchers to examine different methods

and materials for removing microplastics from water more closely, which could lead to

the development of a more efficient and cost-effective device and contribute to the

resolution of the microplastics human consumption problem.

10
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

This study will primarily address the microplastics water contamination caused by

growing plastic waste pollution in the Philippines, as well as the design and development

of a device capable of filtering microplastics from water for practical use and human

consumption prevention in Bataan, specifically in Mariveles. Materials exploration, early

experiments, machine design planning, machine fabrication, and microplastics filtering

are all divided into phases that take place over the course of a year.

The scope of exploration and material acquisition is intended to be local or

regional. Setting variables and varying the quantities of parameters, as well as attempting

different material combinations, will be used in experimental design approaches to

improve filtration efficiency, water flow capacity, and cost effectiveness. Following an

intensive study and detailed assessment of the suitable materials and equipment to be

used for the device, a prototype of the chosen design will be sketched using SketchuUp

software. Local machine shops will manufacture the device under the supervision of the

researchers, who will also provide the design.

Following fabrication, the device’s efficiency and reliability will be assessed in

order to determine its structural and mechanical integrity. Furthermore, the device will be

tested and calibrated in order to improve its efficiency and capacity as it moves from the

preliminary to the final version. The water flow rate in the intake and output sections, as

well as the filtration efficiency, will be determined through a series of tests.

11
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents literature and innovations from various fields to investigate

various methods and processes for filtering microplastics from water, as well as to fully

understand the negative effects of microplastics on humans as a result of global plastic

waste pollution. The studies are chosen in such a way that they can aid in the search and

decision-making process for what design, processes, materials, and equipment to use. The

review will attempt to determine which of the available methods and materials would

result in the best combination for the design and development of a microplastics

separator.

2.1 HISTORY OF MICROPLASTICS

2.1.1 Plastic Waste Pollution

Since the beginning of commercial production in the 1950s, society has become

increasingly reliant on plastics. Global demand has increased due to their adaptability,

stability, light weight, and low manufacturing costs. On land, the vast majority of plastics

are used and discarded. Nonetheless, microplastics in some oceanic compartments are

expected to double by 2030. Plastic debris or microplastics are produced by a variety of

processes, including land disposal, wastewater treatment, tire wear, paint failure, textile

12
washing, and at-sea losses. Riverine and atmospheric transport, storm water, and natural

disasters all help to facilitate releases.

Plastics and microplastics biofoul, aggregate, and sink in surface waters, where they are

consumed by organisms and redistributed by currents. Ocean sediments are most likely

the final destination.

Figure 2.1 Plastic Increase Rate (Borelle et al., 2017)

Source: (Borelle et al., 2017)

2.1.2 Plastic Waste Pollution in the Philippines

According to Jambeck et al. (2015), the Philippines is the world’s third largest producer

of plastic waste, trailing only Indonesia and China. Last year, the Philippines produced an

estimated 2.7 million metric tons of plastic waste. In contrast, China generated

approximately 48.1 million metric tons of plastic waste in the same year. Despite the fact

that China generates more plastic waste, the Philippines contributed the most to global

plastic waste in the world’s oceans. This is due to the fact that the majority of the

13
Philippines’ population lives near waterways, rivers, and coastal areas. Furthermore,

coastal cities with urban drainage and paved surfaces, such as Metro Manila, have been

found to emit higher volumes of land-based plastic waste to the oceans.

The Pasig River, according to Meijer et al. (2021), is the leading contributor of marine

plastic waste in Metro Manila, a megacity located along Manila Bay. It is responsible for

6.43 percent of all plastic waste found in the oceans. Furthermore, the Philippines is a

tropical country with a lot of rain every year. Plastic debris is transported on land by

precipitation-induced surface run-off, storm water, and sewage, which then transports the

plastics to the seas and oceans. The Philippines has seven of the top ten most polluted

rivers in the world. Each year, the Philippines’ 4820 rivers discharge approximately

356,371 million metric tons of plastic waste into the ocean, followed by India’s 1169

rivers, which discharge 126.513 million metric tons of plastic waste.

Country Plastic Waste (tons)

Philippines 356,371

India 126,513

Malaysia 73,098

China 70,707

Indonesia 56,333

Brazil 37,799

Vietnam 28,221

Bangladesh 24,640

Thailand 22,806

14
 Nigeria 18,640

Table 2.1 Top 10 Countries that Release the Most Plastic into the Ocean

Source: (World Population Review, 2021)

2.2 MICROPLASTICS

Microplastics are widely defined as synthetic polymers with an upper size limit of

5 mm and without specified lower limit. They can be categorized into primary

microplastics and secondary microplastics (Li et al., 2018).

Primary microplastics are defined as microplastics that are originally

manufactured to be less than 5 mm in size and are commonly found in textiles,

medicines, and personal care products such as facial and body scrubs (Cole et al., 2011,

Browne, 2015). These primary microplastics can enter freshwater and seawater

environments via rivers, discharge from water treatment plants, wind, and surface run-off

(Gall and Thompson, 2015).

Secondary microplastics are formed from fragmentation or large plastic debris as

a result of processes such as photodegradation, physical, chemical, and biological

interactions (Thompson et al., 2009, Galgani et al., 2013). Fishing nets, industrial resin

pellets, household items, and other discarded plastic debris are all sources of secondary

microplastics (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015).

Notably, it was discovered that the majority of microplastics are secondary microplastics

(Eriksen et al., 2013) and that their abundance in waters would increase in tandem with

the increase in input of plastic debris from various sources, resulting in continuous

transformation of secondary microplastics (Cole et al., 2011).

15
 When microplastics are exposed to the environment, there is a greater chance that

they will degrade into nanoplastics, which may pose greater environmental risks due to

the nature of Nano-sizes (Li et al., 2018).

Microplastics are plastic particles of mixed shape that are present in air, soil,

freshwater, seas, in biota, and in several components of our diet. Because of

fragmentation and degradation of larger plastic items and of microplastics, it is plausible

that nanoplastics will be formed (4 Science Advice for Policy by European Academies

MICRO- PLASTICS a SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE on in NATURE and SOCIETY, n.d.).

Microplastics are likely the most numerically abundant items of plastic debris in

the ocean today, and quantities will inevitably increase, in part because large, single

plastic items ultimately degrade into millions of microplastic pieces (Law & Thompson,

2014).

Microplastics are diverse; they come from many different product types; incorporate a

broad range of sizes, colors, and morphologies; are composed of various polymers; and

include a broad array of chemical additives. This diversity is important to consider, and

thinking of them like we do other classes of contaminants may help us advance methods

for sampling and analysis and help us better understand the sources from which they

enter the environment; their fate in water, sediment, and organisms; their toxicity; and

relevant policies for mitigation (Rochman et al., 2019).

2.3 MICROPLASTICS IN AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS

According to Li et al. (2018), microplastics can come from both land and sea

sources. Ocean-based sources, such as commercial fishing, vessels, and other marine

16
activities, contribute only 20% of total plastic debris in the marine environment. The

remaining 80% is made up of microplastics derived from terrestrial sources. Terrestrial

sources include a variety of sources, the most common of which are personal care

products, the air-blasting process, improperly disposed plastics, and landfill leachates.

When terrestrial microplastics enter natural water systems, the majority of them are

transported to the oceans by rivers, with the remainder residing in fresh water

environments such as remote mountain lakes.

The continuous increase in synthetic plastic production and poor management in

plastic waste have led to a tremendous increase in the dumping into our aqueous

environment. Consequently, microplastics commonly defined as sizes less than 5 mm are

produced and stay in both seawater and freshwater environment (Li et al., 2018).

2.3.1 Microplastics in Freshwater Ecosystem

Microplastics enter freshwater systems from a variety of sources, the majority of

which are wastewater treatment plants. The abundance of microplastics varies by

location, ranging from more than one million pieces per cubic meter to less than one

piece per 100 cubic meters (Li et al., 2018).

Although freshwater can accumulate a large number of microplastic particles and

fibers, less effort has been made to monitor microplastics in freshwater than in seawater.

Such fresh waters can be sources (such as waste water treatment plants), transfer media

(such as rivers), and sinks (such as isolated lakes) of microplastics, which may differ

from those found in seawaters due to large variations in quantity (Klein et al., 2018).

17
Microplastics in sewage, for example, are heavily contaminated by organic contents and

exist in relatively large pieces; on the other hand, microplastics in clean fresh waters are

nearly free of organic contents and are barely visible with the naked eye (Orb, 2017).

Furthermore, some freshwater lakes or rivers are located near densely populated areas

with high microplastics abundance (Eriksen et al., 2013). Another notable feature of

microplastics research in freshwater systems is the small sample size. Large sampling

areas, on the other hand, are required to adequately reduce the large variations caused by

spatial and temporal changes (Ryan et al., 2009).

2.3.2 Microplastics in Marine Ecosystem

A recent significant discovery is that minute fragments of plastic debris, known as

microplastics, are found in oceans all over the world, including Antarctica. Microplastics,

a type of man-made litter, have been building up in the oceans for at least four decades.

This fraction of litter, collected from surface waters or beach sand, contains virgin resin

pellets, compounded masterbatch pellets, and smaller fragments of plastics derived from

larger plastic debris (Andrady, 2011).

Microplastics have been discovered on beaches, in shelf and deep-water

sediments, as well as in surface and subsurface water. Furthermore, microplastics have

been found in the stomachs of many aquatic organisms, including commercially

important fish and invertebrates (GESAMP, 2016; Lusher, 2015).

Microplastics are abundant in the marine environment, having been found in

seawater, lakes, rivers, estuaries, sediments, and many species of biota. From field

observations, small amounts of microplastics have been found in commercial species of

finfish and shellfish, as well as in fishery and aquaculture products. Concerns have been

18
raised that the presence of microplastics and their associated chemicals poses a risk to

fish productivity and fisheries resources (possibly affecting food security) and may result

in food contamination (Lusher et al., 2017).

Plastic pollution has been a focus of environmental research over the past few decades,

particularly in relation to macroplastics that are easily visible by the naked eye. More

recently, smaller plastic waste at the micro- and nanoscale has become of increasing

concern, resulting in extensive investment in research to advance knowledge on the

sources, distribution, fate and impact of these materials in aquatic systems. However,

owing to their small sizes and a lack of unified methods, adequate quantitative and

qualitative assessment has been difficult (Blair et al., 2017).

2.4 MICROPLASTICS AND HUMAN HEALTH

In the study of Li et al. (2018), plastics disperse toxins from the environment,

release additives, and act as a substrate for biofilms containing harmful and alien

organisms. The proportion of species able to consume microplastics rises as their quantity

climbs as fragment size lowers. Risks may be increased by particles smaller than 20 m

that can enter cell membranes. Feeding, metabolic functions, reproduction, and behavior

can all be affected by exposure.

Microplastics can have a number of negative physical effects on humans and

living organisms via mechanisms such as entanglement and ingestion. By sorption in

water, microplastics can act as carriers of various toxins such as additives from industrial

production processes and persistent contaminants. These toxins have the potential to

cause serious health problems in humans. A few studies on fish have shown that

19
microplastics and their associated toxins bio-accumulate and cause problems such as

intestinal damage and changes in metabolic profiles (Li et al., 2018).

Microplastics are formed from plastic and have a negative impact on our

environment due to their high fragmentation level. They can come from a variety of

sources and take various forms such as fragment, fiber, foam, and so on. Furthermore,

because microplastics are consumed by a diverse range of marine species, research into

the effects of this pollution on biota as well as humans is critical (Rezania et al., 2018)

It is dangerous for people to consume contaminated water and shellfish. We spend

more than 90% of our time indoors, which increases the risk of indoor microplastics due

to the high concentration of polymeric materials. Enhancing microplastic collection and

characterization techniques, comprehending long-term behavior, additive bioavailability,

and hazards to organismal and ecosystem health are some of the scientific issues.

Improving global pollution prevention, developing biodegradable polymers and additives,

and reducing consumption/expanding plastic reuse are some solutions (Hale et al., 2020).

Microplastics are of environmental concern because their size (millimeters or smaller)

renders them accessible to a wide range of organisms at least as small as zooplankton,

with potential for physical and toxicological harm (Law & Thompson, 2014).

 Microplastics have long residence time, high stability, high potential of being

fragmented and can adsorb other contaminants. Many aquatic species contain

microplastics, which are in particular easily accumulated by planktonic and invertebrate

organisms. Then, microplastics are transferred along food chains, leading to physical

damages, decrease in nutritional diet value and exposure of the living organism to

pathogens. Raw plastics contain chemical additives such as phthalates, bisphenol A and

20
polybrominated diphenyl ethers that may induce toxic effects after ingestion by living

organisms. Furthermore, the adsorption capability of microplastics makes them prone to

carry several contaminants (Padervand et al., 2020).

Microplastics, when inhaled or ingested, can accumulate and cause localized

particle toxicity by inducing or enhancing an immune response. Chemical toxicity could

occur as a result of localized leaching of component monomers, endogenous additives,

and adsorbed environmental pollutants. Chronic exposure is expected to be more

concerning due to the accumulative effect that could occur (Wright & Kelly, 2017).

Figure 2.2 Microplastics and Human Health

Source: (Wright & Kelly, 2017)

21
2.5 MICROPLASTICS SEPARATION METHODS

Many techniques, including microscopic observation, density separation, Raman

and FTIR analysis, have been developed to detect microplastics (Rezania et al., 2018).

Figure 2.3 Microplastics Removal Methods

Source: (Liu et al., 2022)

2.5.1 Filtration

According to Hess (2021), ultrafiltration is yet another effective method for

removing microplastics. To separate toxic materials such as plastics, this system uses

small pore sizes (about 0.01 micrometers). Particles larger than this, which may contain

pathogenic microorganisms, are thus extracted from the water. Ultrafiltration has been

highly regarded for this ability, and has even been used as an alternative to chlorination in

22
some waste water plants. Furthermore, its energy requirements are low, making it an

environmentally friendly option. However, ultrafiltration is not as widely available as

other filtration systems and can be prohibitively expensive. While it is effective at

removing viruses and bacteria, it is not as effective at removing chemicals.

Pore sizes in nanofiltration are even smaller, at 0.001 micrometers, implying that

this method can remove even more minute pieces of plastic. Nanofiltration is frequently

used to soften hard water and has low energy requirements. This filtration method is

popular because it retains a high concentration of minerals required by the human body to

function properly. Unfortunately, it is relatively unknown outside of the scientific

community, and it is also not the most cost-effective option for the general population.

And, like ultrafiltration, its ability to filter out chemicals is not as strong (Hess, 2021).

Mesh or mesh size is a unit of particle size used to quantify the distribution of particle

sizes in granular materials (a US measurement standard). For example, a 4-mesh screen

has four tiny square openings across an inch. There are 100 openings per inch in a 100-

mesh screen, and so on. The size of openings and the size of particles caught by the

screen decrease as the variety of mesh sizes rises. Particles as small as 25 microns (μm),

or 0.0010 inch, can be filtered via a 500-mesh screen.

US Mesh Microns Inches Millimeters

35 500 0.0197 0.5

40 400 0.0165 0.4

45 354 0.0138 0.354

50 297 0.0117 0.297

23
 60 250 0.0098 0.25

70 210 0.0083 0.21

100 149 0.0059 0.149

120 125 0.0049 0.125

140 105 0.0041 0.105

170 88 0.0035 0.088

200 74 0.0029 0.074

230 63 0.0025 0.063

270 53 0.0021 0.053

325 44 0.0017 0.044

400 37 0.0015 0.037

450 32 0.0013 0.032

500 25 0.0010 0.025

Table 2.2 US Mesh size conversion to micron, inches and millimeters.

2.5.2 Elutriation

For particles smaller than one micron (m), elutriation is a sort of particle filtration that is

utilized. It has grown in favor among scientists since it has been proven to be successful

at extracting microplastics from sand deposits. It uses a stream of liquid or gas moving

against the direction of sedimentation to sort particles according to their size, shape, and

density. The lighter or smaller particles rise to the top due to the fluid’s rising velocities,

24
which are slower than their terminal sedimentation velocities, and are pulled upward by

both centrifugal and counterflow drag forces (Elutriation, 2020).

Microplastics, while relatively easy to extract in the marine environment, are extremely

difficult to recover when trapped in sediments. The elutriation column is one of the most

effective tools for extracting plastics from sediment, but it also has a high sand recovery

yield. Different plastic particle-size fractions are defined based on a new granulometric

classification. Their extraction velocities are measured experimentally on sediment and

plastic particles (PA, PVC). The particle recovery experiments show that even with

negligible sand recovery, it is possible to extract > 90% of dense plastic particles

(Kedzierski et al., 2016)

Prior to implementation, efficiencies for two polymers that are not buoyant in

water were tested. In sandy samples, recovery rates of 80% for PET particles and 72% for

PVC particles were achieved (Hengstmann et al., 2018).

During elutriation, particles are subjected to an upward flowing current of fluid.

In doing so, differences in particle size are exploited, leading to separation into size-

based underflow and overflow streams. The tendency of a particle to report to either

stream is dependent on its terminal velocity, as well as the upward velocity of the fluid.

Where the terminal velocity exceeds the fluid velocity, the particle will settle against the

current and report to the underflow and vice versa. The volumetric flow rate of the fluid

is therefore a key parameter for controlling the cut point. The designation of the

underflow and overflow streams may vary based on application. In the context of iron

ore beneficiation classifier, underflow is the product, while overflow is the waste (Maré

et al., 2015).

25
 Figure 2.4 Schematic diagram of an Elutriator

According to the study of Wills & Finch (2016), in elutriation techniques, samples

are sized by allowing the dispersed material to settle against a rising fluid velocity. Both

techniques separate the particles on the basis of resistance to motion in a fluid. This

resistance to motion determines the terminal velocity which the particle attains as it is

allowed to fall in a fluid under the influence of gravity.

For particles within the sub-sieve range, the terminal velocity is given by the equation

derived by Stokes (1891):

26
 2
d g ( ρs −ρf )
v=
18 η

where v is the terminal velocity of the particle (m s−1), d the particle diameter (m), g the

acceleration due to gravity (m s−2), ρs the particle density (kg m−3), ρf the fluid density

(kg m−3), and η the fluid viscosity (N s m−2); (η=0.001 N s m−2 for water at 20°C).

Stokes’ law is derived for spherical particles; non-spherical particles will also attain a

terminal velocity, but this velocity will be influenced by the shape of the particles.

Nevertheless, this velocity can be substituted in the Stokes’ equation to give a value of d,

which can be used to characterize the particle. This value of d is referred to as the

“Stokes’ equivalent spherical diameter” (or simply “Stokes’ diameter” or “sedimentation

diameter”).

Stokes’ law is only valid in the region of laminar flow, which sets an upper size limit to

the particles that can be tested by sedimentation and elutriation methods in a given liquid.

The limit is determined by the particle Reynolds number, a dimensionless quantity

defined by:

vdρf
Re =
η

The Reynolds number should not exceed 0.2 if the error in using Stokes’ law is not to

exceed 5% (Anon., 2001a). In general, Stokes’ law will hold for all particles below

40 µm dispersed in water; particles above this size should be removed by sieving

beforehand. The lower limit may be taken as 1 µm, below which the settling times are too

long, and also the effects of Brownian motion and unintentional disturbances, such as

those caused by convection currents, are far more likely to produce serious errors.

27
 CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 MICROPLASTICS SEPARATOR

A microplastics separator is a device that filters or separates microplastics from

water. The microplastics separator works on simple principles and has a simple design.

The separation process will begin with the use of a submersible pump to send water

through a check valve that only allows fluid to flow in one direction. After that, it will

pass through the ball valve, which controls the flow of water entering the pipe, before

entering the hydrocyclone separator, which separates sand and pebbles from the water.

Following the separation process in the hydrocyclone separator, the water will flow

through a pipe with three successive 50, 200, and 500-mesh filters before proceeding to

the elutriation process.

3.2 PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF A MICROPLASTICS SEPARATOR

3.2.1 Pipe

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes are composed of vinyl and plastic. The pipes are

tough, hard to break, and long-lasting. PVCs do not corrode, deteriorate, or degrade over

28
time. As a result, PVC piping is most commonly used in sewer lines, underground cables,

and water systems.

29
 Figure 3.1 PVC Pipe

3.2.2 Check Valve

A mechanical check valve is a backflow prevention device that is commonly

found in pipeline and piping systems. A check valve’s one-way or non-return valve

designation refers to the fact that it only allows one direction of fluid flow. The check

valve operates on the basis of the concept of differential pressure. It implies that the

check valve will only open if the pressure upstream exceeds the pressure downstream.

30
 Figure 3.2 Vertical Check Valve

3.2.3 Ball Valve

Ball valves are flow control mechanisms that use rotating, hollow, perforated

balls to regulate liquid flow. When the flow inlet and the hole in the ball line up, it is

open. The handle must be twisted 90 degrees before closing.

Figure 3.3 Water Ball Valve

3.2.4 Submersible Pump

A submersible pump transports water to the surface by converting rotary energy

into kinetic and pressure energy. The water is drawn into the pump through the intake,

where the impeller’s movement forces it through the diffuser and forces it to the surface.

31
 Figure 3.4 Submersible Pump

3.2.5 Hydrocyclone Separator

A hydrocyclone is a high-throughput gravity separation tool for sorting slurry

particles by particle weight. Water is fed tangentially into the hydrocyclone under

specific pressure. The heavier phase is pushed outward and downward along the conical

part’s wall by the centrifugal force created. The decreasing diameter of the conical part

improves separation by increasing speed. After concentration, the solids are finally

released via the apex. Thanks to the vortex finder in the overflow part, the fluid in the

center of the conically formed housing is rapidly rotating upward in a spiral pattern. The

liquids are released via the overflow outlet.

Figure 3.5 Hydrocyclone Separator

3.2.6 Mesh Filters

32
 Mesh filters are made up of a network of metallic wires that connect to form a

pliable filter cloth with precise, rigid pore openings that engineers can customize to fit

most filter systems.

Figure 3.6 Various Sizes of Mesh Filters

3.2.7 Elutriator

Elutriators are devices that use the elutriation process, which is a method of

sorting particles based on size, shape, and density by using a stream of gas or liquid that

moves counterclockwise to the direction of sedimentation. This technique is commonly

33
used for particles smaller than 1 μm. Smaller or lighter particles rise to the top because

their terminal sedimentation velocities are slower than the rising fluid’s (overflow).

Figure 3.7 Vertical Elutriator

3.2.8 Steel Frame

Steel framing is an excellent construction technique. It is made up of vertical and

horizontal steel bards that resemble a skeleton frame.

Figure 3.8 Steel Frames

3.3 FACTORS THAT AFFECTS MICROPLASTICS SEPARATION

3.3.1 Water Horsepower

Water horsepower, also known as water power, is the minimum amount of power

required to run a water pump.

˙
℘=ṁ w
( )
go
gc
g
( )
TDH=γ w Q TDH= ρ w o QTDH
gc

(Equation 3.3.1)

34
 Where:

ṁw = mass flow rate of water

γ w = specific weight of water

ρw = density of water

Q = volumetric flow rate, flow, rate of discharge

go = local or observed gravitational acceleration

m ft
go =9.806 2
=32.174 2
s s

gc = gravitational constant

k gm ∙ m l bm ∙ ft k gm ∙ m
gc =9.806 2
=32.174 2
=1 2
k gf ∙ s lb f ∙ s N∙s

3.3.2 Total Dynamic Head

Total Dynamic Head (differential or generated head) is a measurement of the

energy imparted to the liquid by the pump and equals the algebraic difference between

total discharge head and total suction head.

(V 2d−V 2s ) ( Pd −Ps )
TDH =( z d + z s ) + + +h L
2 go γw

(Equation 3.3.2)

Where:

static head, h s = ( z d + z s )

velocity head, h v =
(V 2d −V 2s )
2 go

35
 ( Pd −Ps )
pressure head, h p =
γw

h L = total head loss

3.3.3 Net Positive Suction Hea d available

It refers to all of the different types of energy present on the suction portion of a

pumping system. In a summary, it is the absolute pressure within the suction port of the

pump.

NPS H available=
( P SL−PVP
γw )
+ z s −h LS

(Equation 3.3.3)

Where:

PSL = pressure on the surface of the liquid from which the pump draws

PVP = vapor pressure of the liquid at the existing temperature

z s = vertical distance from the liquid surface to pump centerline

h LS = the head lost due to friction losses between the surface of the liquid

and the pump suction flange

* NPS H available should be at least equal or greater than the NPS H required to avoid

cavitation.

36
3.3.4 Net Positive Suction Hea d required

The suction flange pressure reading adjusted for the pump centerline, less the

water vapor pressure associated with the liquid’s temperature, plus the suction flange

velocity head.

( )
2
PSF −PVP ( V SF )
NPS H required = +
γw 2 go

(Equation 3.3.4)

Where:

PSF = pressure reading at the suction flange

PVP = vapor pressure of the liquid at the existing temperature

V SF = mean velocity of the liquid at suction flange

γ w = specific weight of water

go = local or observed gravitational acceleration

3.3.5 Pump Mechanical Efficiency

Pump mechanical efficiency is the ratio of the water horsepower delivered by a

centrifugal pump to the brake horsepower delivered to the pump shaft.

Ƞ P =℘/BP ×100 %

(Equation 3.3.5)

Where:

37
 Ƞ P = pump mechanical efficiency

WP = water horsepower or water hydraulic power

BP = brake horsepower

3.3.6 Motor Efficiency

Motor efficiency is a measure of how effectively electrical energy is converted to

mechanical energy. Motor efficiency is defined as the ratio of power output to power

input.

BP
Ƞw= ×100 %
EP

(Equation 3.3.6)

Where:

Ƞ w = motor efficiency

BP = brake horsepower

EP = electrical power

3.3.7 Combined Motor – Pump Efficiency

The efficiency of a combined motor and pump is defined as the ratio of hydraulic

or water horsepower to electrical horsepower.

38
 ℘
Ƞ MP = × 100 %∨Ƞ M × ȠP ×100 %
EP

(Equation 3.3.7)

Where:

Ƞ MP = combined motor – pump efficiency

WP = hydraulic or water horsepower

EP = electrical horsepower

3.3.8 Reynolds Number Equation

The term that relates fluid density, velocity and viscosity and the pipe diameter is

called the Reynolds number, a dimensionless number used in fluid mechanics to indicate

whether fluid flow past a body or in a duct is steady or turbulent.

v p d p v p d p ρ v pd p γ gc
N R= = =
μk μd μd g o

(Equation 3.3.8)

Where:

v p = mean velocity of the fluid in pipe

d p = pipe bore or inside diameter of the pipe

μd = dynamic viscosity

For water:

0.01779
μd =
1+ 0.03368+0.000221t 2

39
 (Equation 3.3.9)

Hydraulic radius=
Areaof the water flowing ∈the channel A
= =
( 4)
π
d
2
p

wetted perimeter PW π dp

dp
Hydraulic radius= (for circular pipe full of flowing fluid)
4

(Equation 3.3.10)

* The wetted perimeter (PW) of the water flowing in the pipe or channel is the part of the

pipe or channel that comes into contact with the water (which slows it down due to

friction).

3.3.9 Pipe Friction

Pumping a fluid or slurry through a pipeline reduces the velocity of the fluid,

causing it to lose momentum. This reduction in velocity is referred to as pipe friction

loss. Friction between the fluid being pumped and the inside walls of the pipes causes

pipe friction loss.

Hagen – Poiseuille Equation (for laminar flow)

32 μ d L p v p 32 μk L p v p
hf = =

( )
2
γd p go 2
d
gc p

(Equation 3.3.11)

Where:

h f = frictional head loss

μd = dynamic viscosity

40
 μk = kinematic viscosity

L p = length of the pipe

v p = mean velocity of the fluid in pipe

d p = pipe bore or inside diameter of the pipe

γ = specific weight of water

go = observed or local gravitational acceleration

gc = gravitational constant

Fluid flows can be classified into one of three types:

I. Laminar Flow: N R ≤ 2000

Laminar flow is a type of fluid flow in which the fluid travels in smooth or

regular paths. It is also known as streamline flow because the velocity,

pressure, and other flow properties remain constant at each point in the fluid.

II. Turbulent Flow: N R ≥ 4000

During turbulent flow, the fluid mixes in an irregular manner. Constant

changes in flow behavior (wakes, vortexes, eddies) make measuring flow rates

difficult, if not impossible. Turbulent flow is most commonly found at high

flow rates and/or in larger diameter pipes. When solids must remain

41
 suspended in the fluid to avoid settling or blockages, turbulent flow is usually

preferred.

III. Transitional Flow: 2000< N R <4000

Transitional flow has characteristics of both laminar and turbulent flow.

The edges of the fluid flow in a laminar state, while the center of the flow

remains turbulent. Transitional flows, like turbulent flows, are difficult, if not

impossible, to precisely measure.

*If the Reynolds ( N R) could not be determined, let the flow of fluid be turbulent.

3.3.10 Stoke’s Law

Stoke’s law is an expression derived for the frictional force – also known as drag

force – exerted on spherical objects in a viscous fluid with very small Reynolds numbers.

Stokes’ law can be used to calculate the terminal velocity of any particle in any medium

if the Reynolds Number is less than 0.2.

F d=6 πμRv

(Equation 3.3.12)

Where:

F d = frictional force or Stoke’s drag

42
 μ = dynamic viscosity

R = radius of the spherical object

v = flow of velocity relative to the object

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

4.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

MATERIAL SELECTION
DATA GATHERING
COST ESTIMATION

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
OF THE PROTOTYPE
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
43

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
 Figure 4.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study

This chapter demonstrates an effective conceptual framework for making

conceptual distinctions and gaining ideas that will help with the prototype’s completion.

It is divided into three stages: data collection, prototype design and fabrication.

The most important part of this process is gathering data. The process made use of

all publications, journals, and patents gathered throughout the research. Data collection

was also carried out in order to have a clear and concise idea of how to build the

prototype.

To get a rough idea of how the prototype will look, rough sketches were created.

Before considering the final design, a number of drafts were written and drawn.

44
Following extensive research, various approaches to optimizing the prototype are

developed.

Fabrication for the final design will begin once a firm concept has been

established. A small number of tests will be carried out in order to improve the prototype

design and its capability. The prototype will also be tested, with the results analyzed for

further optimization.

4.2 PROTOTYPE DESIGN

4.2.1 Design Parameters/Considerations

The parameters and design approach discussed in this section are intended to

improve understanding of the variables influencing the efficient removal of microplastics

from water.

45
4.2.1.1 Volume Flow Rate

The volume flow rate, also known as the capacity, is the amount of liquid that

flows through the pump in a given amount of time (measured in gallons per minute or

gpm). It’s an important parameter because it determines how fast a pump can push fluid

through the system. In some cases, the mass flow rate is also used to describe the amount

of mass that passes through the pump over time. The fluid density relates the volume

flow rate to the mass flow rate. The flow rate or rated capacity of the pump must be

matched to the flow rate required by the application or system when selecting pumps.

4.2.1.2 Head

The head of a pump is the height above the suction inlet to which it can lift fluid.

It is a quick measurement of system resistance (pressure) that is not affected by the

fluid’s specific gravity. It is defined as the mechanical energy of the flow per unit weight.

It is measured in feet (ft) or meters of water column height (m). To put it another way, if

water were pumped straight up, the pump head would be proportional to the height

attained. When selecting centrifugal pumps, the rated pump head must be equal to or

greater than the total head of the system (total dynamic head or TDH) at the desired flow

rate.

4.2.1.3 Total Dynamic Head

The total dynamic is an important parameter to consider when purchasing or

renting the right pump for your application. It provides an accurate indication of the

pump’s performance regardless of other contributing factors such as suction level and

fluid density. Total head is a more reliable indicator of pump performance than pressure

46
because it indicates what the pump can do regardless of suction conditions. The total

head combined with your flow requirements will allow you to select the appropriate

pump. Total Dynamic Head is the amount of pressure differential created by a pump as it

operates. The TDH produced by a pump is the difference between the suction and

discharge pressures of the pump while it is in operation.

4.2.1.4 Pressure

Pressure is an important parameter because it measures resistance: the force per

unit area of resistance in the system. The pressure rating of a pump indicates how much

resistance it can withstand or overcome. It is usually expressed in bar or psi (pounds per

square inch). Pump performance is defined by pressure in conjunction with flow rate and

power. Centrifugal pumps, on the other hand, typically use head (described below) rather

than pressure to define the energy or resistance of the pump, because pressure in a

centrifugal pump varies with the specific gravity of the pumped fluid. When selecting

pumps, the rated operating or discharge pressure of the pump must be equal to or greater

than the system’s required pressure at the desired flow rate.

4.2.1.5 Power

Power, also known as output power or water horsepower, is one of the most

important factors to consider because Net head is related to the power actually provided

to the fluid (measured in horsepower or hp). This horsepower rating describes the

practical job that the pump will do on the fluid. It is the minimum amount of power

47
required to run a water pump. Friction, internal leakage, flow separation, and other losses

occur in all pumps. As a result of these losses, the external power supplied to the pump,

referred to as the input power or brake horsepower, is always greater than the water

horsepower. This specification, which is typically provided by the pump manufacturer in

the form of a rating or in the pump’s performance curve, is used to select the appropriate

motor or power source for the pump.

4.2.1.6 Pump Efficiency

Pump efficiency should be considered because it defines the percentage of energy

supplied to the pump that is converted into useful work. It is the proportion of water

horsepower to brake horsepower (useful power vs. required power).

4.2.1.7 Pipe Diameter

Another factor to consider is that more of the liquid comes into contact with the

interior surface area of the pipe in a smaller diameter pipe, slowing it down. The output

of the pump must be increased to make up the difference. Less fluid rubs up against the

pipe in a larger-bore pipe, causing velocity to fall and thus requiring less energy. In

addition, the pipe diameter must be the same and compatible with the other components

required.

4.2.1.8 Corrosion

Submersible pumps should be checked on a regular basis. This way, any

necessary repairs can be carried out to extend the pump’s life. Of course, the corrosion

risk of a submersible pump is determined by the environment it is exposed to, and one of

48
the common liquids the microplastics separator’s pump will be submerged in is sea water,

which is expected to pose a corrosion risk.

Keep in mind that prolonged exposure to any liquid will result in corrosion. Seals

are especially prone to corrosion, which causes leaks and motor damage. To prevent

corrosion, these pumps must be made of corrosion-resistant materials, which can make

them more expensive than other types of pumps of the same capacity.

A coating on a conventional cast iron pump is a less expensive and more flexible

solution to saltwater corrosion. Because the entire range of pumps can be coated, this

method is more adaptable. The most commonly used coating is epoxy (a polymer

material), but using a polymer material will contradict our study because our main goal is

to filter microplastics from water. So, in order to keep our main goal in mind, we decided

that zinc anodes were the best option to use instead of epoxy coating.

4.2.1.9 Accessibility

Submersible pumps are often not easily accessible for routine inspection or

maintenance, especially in deep well applications. This makes it difficult to perform

preventative maintenance and in many applications pumps are left to run until they break

down and need to be replaced.

4.2.1.10 Cable protection

Finally, the cable for a submersible pump also needs protection in corrosive

liquids. Chlorinated rubber is used as cable sheathing for conventional pumps but Flygt

49
has developed a special “HCR” (High Corrosion Resistance) cable, with sheathing made

from a fluorinated ethylene plastic.

4.2.1.11 pH

The pH of the water should be taken into consideration when selecting a pump.

To ensure compatibility with those chemicals, a thorough examination of the construction

materials of the exposed pump components should be performed. This includes the

impeller, pump casing, O-rings/gaskets, cable sheathing, motor housing, fasteners, and

mechanical seal. Cast iron or aluminum components can deteriorate quickly and cause

catastrophic pump failures in extremely low or high pH levels, whereas a stainless steel

or titanium pump can last for years in the same environment.

Figure 4.2 pH range of metals

Source: (Tsurumi Inc.)

4.2.1.12 Cracking Pressure

50
 The cracking pressure, which is a check valve parameter, is the minimum

upstream pressure required to open a check valve sufficiently to allow detectable flow. A

detectable flow occurs when a check valve allows a small but steady flow of liquid or gas

to pass through the valve body and out through its outlet port. Check valve cracking

pressure is defined as the pressure difference between the valve’s inlet and outlet ports

when flow is first detected.

4.2.1.13 Stoke’s Law

Stoke’s law is one of the parameters to consider in the elutriation process. It’s a

mathematical equation that expresses the drag force that prevents small spherical

particles from falling through a fluid medium and calculated by considering the forces

acting on a specific particle as it sinks through a liquid column under the influence of

gravity.

4.2.1.14 Terminal Velocity

Terminal velocity is an important parameter for particle separation during the

elutriation process. It is the maximum velocity (speed) attained by an object as it falls

through a fluid (air is the common example).

4.2.1.15 Location

In order to ensure that the gadget’s frame structure is level, it is required that the

device be positioned on a flat, sturdy surface that can support the weight of the device.

51
4.2.2 Design Options

The subsections that follow discuss the various prototype designs that have been

proposed, as well as their advantages and disadvantages.

4.2.2.1 Design A

Figure 4.3 Microplastics Separator Design A

The microplastics separator’s components are supported by welded steel frames in

this proposed design, as shown in Figure 4.3, for a strong structure. A centrifugal pump is

installed at the inlet section of this design to supply water to the system. Water will be

suctioned through the pipelines and enter the check valve. A check valve is used to allow

one-way water flow. Water will enter the hydrocyclone separator after passing through

the check valve to remove suspended particles from the water (larger plastics particles,

sand, grit, and other fine solids) to prevent equipment efficiency from decreasing. After

the hydrocyclone separation process, a ball valve is installed to control water flow. In

Design A, a carbon block filter is used to filter the smaller plastic particles prior to the

elutriation process. Finally, the water will go through an elutriation process in the

52
elutriation tank to remove the smallest microplastics before being used for practical

purposes.

4.2.2.2 Design B

Figure 4.4 Microplastics Separator Design B

In the proposed design shown in Figure 4.4. Welded steel frames are used to

support the components of the microplastics separator to ensure a strong structure. To

supply water through the system, a submersible pump is installed at the inlet section.

Because the pump is submerged in water, a submersible pump is used to prevent

cavitation and save time priming. Following the pumping, the water will enter a check

valve for a one-way water flow that will enter the hydrocylone separator to separate

suspended particles from the water (larger plastics particles, sand, grit, and other fine

solids) and keep equipment efficiency high. After the hydrocyclone separation process, a

ball valve is installed to control the water flowing through the Mesh filters with varying

sizes of 50, 200, and 500 that can easily filter up to 25 microns of microplastics. Water

53
will then enter the elutriation tank to be elutriated and be rid of the remaining

microplastics before becoming available for practical uses.

4.2.3 Design Calculations

The microplastics sepration rate will depend on the volumetric flow rate produce

by the pump. The volumetric flow rate of the pump can be calculated by:

Q= A × v

Equation 4.1

Where:

Q = volumetrci flow rate

A = area of the pipe used = π r 2

v = velocity of the water

2
A=π r

A=π ¿ ¿

2 2
A=3.142i n ∨0.00202709 m

* The diameter (2 in) used in the calculation is the standard diameter of a submersible

pump.

2 m
Q=0.00202709m ×3.30
s

54
 3
m L
Q=0.00669 ∨6.69
s s

* The velocity used in the calculation is derived from the estimated velocity of a river.

4.2.4 Design Evaluations and Final Design

Several parameters are considered when deciding on the final prototype design.

Some of the factors considered include material and equipment availability, safety, and

efficiency. Both of the proposed design options aided the researchers in developing the

final design shown in this section.

Previous designs built the device’s structure with shorter welded steel frames,

resulting in shorter pipelines. It will result in turbulent water flow, which is

disadvantageous to the elutriation tank. The frame has been adjusted and improved to

prevent tubularity in the water flow and to increase structure rigidity.

A submersible pump is used in the final design to prevent cavitation in the pump’s

impeller and thus extend the pump’s life. Because it is submerged in water, a submersible

pump also does not require priming. These will help to reduce system maintenance costs

and avoid system malfunction.

The discharge and inlet pipeline diameters vary in the first design, requiring more

power from the pump to supply water to the system and increasing production costs. The

diameter of the discharge pipeline is changed to match the diameter of the suction

pipelines to help reduce the device’s production cost.

55
 Instead of using a carbon block filter as a filtration media, we decided to use

different mesh filters with sizes of 50, 200, and 500. Despite the advantage of filtering up

to 0.5 microns, a carbon block filter slows down the flow of water reducing the

volumetric flow rate output which in turn lowering the overall system performance.

A protective cover is also included to help reduce the possibility of corrosion in

the components and structure. The final design of the study is shown below.

Figure 4.5 Microplastics Separator Final Design

56
 Figure 4.6 Microplastics Separator Final Desin

(w/o protective cover)

4.2.5 Fabrication Procedures

GATHERING OF
MATERIALS

MEASURING AND
CUTTING PROCESS

WELDING OPERATIONS

PROTOTYPE ASSEMBLY

Figure 4.7 Fabrication Procedures are shown above.

57
 As illustrated above, the fabrication of the prototype involves four major

processes. These processes include planning, material selection, and assembly of the

prototype’s components. When gathering materials for the prototype, several factors must

be taken into account. The availability, compatibility, strength, and cost of each material

are all considered. Measuring and cutting are done precisely to reduce errors when

installing the components on the prototype. Welding is used to ensure that materials and

components are securely joined. Following these procedures, the prototype will be

assembled.

4.2.6 Project Costs

The table below breaks down each of the materials used in the prototype’s

construction. The costs of each material and component, as well as shipping and labor,

are shown below.

ITEM MATERIAL QUANTITY ORIGINAL TOTAL COST

NO. COST (Php)

1 PVC Pipe 1 pc 61 81

2 Bolts, Nuts & 1 Box 500 550

Washers

3 PVC Elbow 4 pcs 30 150

4 Angle Bars 10 pcs 460 9,010

58
 5 Check Valve 1 pc 2,347 2,397

6 Ball Valve 2 pcs 5,828 11,756

7 Hydrocyclone 1 pc 4,358 4,408

Separator

8 Wire Mesh Filters 3 pcs 5,000 5,500

9 Pipe Outlet 1 pc 715 765

10 Elutriator 1 pc 136,200 140,000

Table 4.1 Projected Costs of the Project Study

REFERENCES

Hale, R. C., Seeley, M. E., La Guardia, M. J., Mai, L., & Zeng, E. Y. (2020). A Global

Perspective on Microplastics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 125,

e2018JC014719. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014719

Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the Marine Environment. Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 62(8), 1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030

Cox, K. D., Covernton, G. A., Davies, H. L., Dower, J. F., Juanes, F., & Dudas, S. E.

(2019). Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environmental Science &

Technology, 53(12), 7068–7074. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517

‌Li, J., Liu, H., & Paul Chen, J. (2018). Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review on

occurrence, environmental effects, and methods for microplastics

59
 detection. Water Research, 137, 362–374.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.056

Vethaak, A. D., & Legler, J. (2021). Microplastics and human

health. Science, 371(6530), 672–674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5041

Wright, S. L., & Kelly, F. J. (2017). Plastic and Human Health: A Micro

Issue? Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12), 6634–6647.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00423

Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.,

Narayan, R., & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the

Ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352

Lusher, A., Hollman, P., & Mendoza-Hill, J. (2017). Microplastics in fisheries and

aquaculture: status of knowledge on their occurrence and implications for aquatic

organisms and food safety. FAO.

https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/49179/1/Microplastics%20in%20fisheries

%20and%20aquaculture.pdf

Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C., & Aldridge, D. C. (2015). Microplastics in

freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge

gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Research, 75, 63–82.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.012

Hess, S. (2021, October 1). How to Remove Microplastics From Water. Aquagear.

https://www.drinkaquagear.com/blogs/news/how-to-remove-microplastics-from-

water

60
Kedzierski, M., Le Tilly, V., Bourseau, P., Bellegou, H., César, G., Sire, O., & Bruzaud,

S. (2016). Microplastics elutriation from sandy sediments: A granulometric

approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 107(1), 315–323.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.041

Zhu, X. (2015). Optimization of elutriation device for filtration of microplastic particles

from sediment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1-2), 69–72.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.054

Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Yang, F., Xie, Y., & Yao, W. (2022). Current status of

microplastics and nanoplastics removal methods: Summary, comparison and

prospect. Science of the Total Environment, 851, 157991.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157991

Philippines, Plastic Pollution Issues – Enviliance ASIA. (n.d.). Enviliance Asia.

https://enviliance.com/regions/southeast-asia/ph/ph-plastic-pollution-issues

The Filtration of Microplastics in Drinking Water. (n.d.). Youth STEM 2030. Retrieved

December 31, 2022, from

https://www.youthstem2030.org/youth-stem-matters/read/the-filtration-of-

microplastics-in-drinking-water

World Population Review. (2021). Plastic Pollution by Country 2020.

Worldpopulationreview.com. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-

rankings/plastic-pollution-by-country

Mercogliano, R., Avio, C. G., Regoli, F., Anastasio, A., Colavita, G., & Santonicola, S.

(2020). Occurrence of Microplastics in Commercial Seafood under the

61
 Perspective of the Human Food Chain. A Review. Journal of Agricultural and

Food Chemistry, 68(19), 5296–5301. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.0c01209

Hengstmann, E., Tamminga, M., vom Bruch, C., & Fischer, E. K. (2018). Microplastic in

beach sediments of the Isle of Rügen (Baltic Sea) - Implementing a novel glass

elutriation column. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 126, 263–274.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.010

Pagter, E., Frias, J., & Nash, R. (2018). Microplastics in Galway Bay: A comparison of

sampling and separation methods. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 135, 932–940.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.013

Zhu, X. (2015). Optimization of elutriation device for filtration of microplastic particles

from sediment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1-2), 69–72.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.054

ISM. (n.d.). Mesh and Micron Sizes Chart. Www.industrialspec.com. Retrieved January

2, 2023, from https://www.industrialspec.com/resources/mesh-and-micron-sizes

MESSAGE -1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -3 LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND MAPS

-5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS -6. (n.d.).

http://pemsea.org/sites/default/files/bataan-sds.pdf

Rezania, S., Park, J., Md Din, M. F., Mat Taib, S., Talaiekhozani, A., Kumar Yadav, K.,

& Kamyab, H. (2018). Microplastics pollution in different aquatic environments

and biota: A review of recent studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133, 191–208.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.022

62
Miller, M. E., Motti, C. A., Menendez, P., & Kroon, F. J. (2021). Efficacy of

Microplastic Separation Techniques on Seawater Samples: Testing Accuracy

Using High-Density Polyethylene. The Biological Bulletin, 240(1), 52–66.

https://doi.org/10.1086/710755

Separation and purification - Filtration and screening | Britannica. (n.d.).

Www.britannica.com. Retrieved January 27, 2023, from

https://www.britannica.com/science/separation-and-purification/Filtration-and-

screening#ref619679

Cellular Therapies. (2011). Www.sciencedirect.com, 411–424.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-088504-9.00186-0

Blair, R. M., Waldron, S., Phoenix, V., & Gauchotte-Lindsay, C. (2017). Micro- and

Nanoplastic Pollution of Freshwater and Wastewater Treatment

Systems. Springer Science Reviews, 5(1-2), 19–30.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-017-0044-7

Law, K. L., & Thompson, R. C. (2014). Microplastics in the seas. Science, 345(6193),

144–145. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254065

Padervand, M., Lichtfouse, E., Robert, D., & Wang, C. (2020). Removal of microplastics

from the environment. A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 18(3), 807–

828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00983-1

4 Science Advice for Policy by European Academies MICRO- PLASTICS A

SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE ON IN NATURE AND SOCIETY. (n.d.).

https://doi.org/10.26356/microplastics

63
Rochman, C. M., Brookson, C., Bikker, J., Djuric, N., Earn, A., Bucci, K., Athey, S.,

Huntington, A., McIlwraith, H., Munno, K., Hannah De Frond, Kolomijeca, A.,

Erdle, L., Grbic, J., Bayoumi, M., Borrelle, S. B., Wu, T., Santoro, S.,

Werbowski, L. M., & Zhu, X. (2019). Rethinking microplastics as a diverse

contaminant suite. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 38(4), 703–711.

https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4371

Hydrocyclones - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (n.d.). Www.sciencedirect.com.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/hydrocyclones

Mesh (scale). (2022, November 5). Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_(scale)

Maré, E., Beven, B., & Crisafio, C. (2015, January 1). 10 - Developments in nonmagnetic

physical separation technologies for hematitic/goethitic iron ore (L. Lu, Ed.).

ScienceDirect; Woodhead Publishing.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781782421566000101

Wills, B. A., & Finch, J. A. (2016). Particle Size Analysis. Wills’ Mineral Processing

Technology, 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097053-0.00004-2

64
 APPENDIX A

DETAILED DESIGN

Figures of each detailed designs are shown in this section below.

Figure D-1. Isometric View of the Microplastics Separator

65
Figure D-2. Orthographic View of the Microplastics Separator

66