A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of

Microplastics in Water
I ENV 3
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Abstract:
Microplastics, tiny particles of plastic debris, are found in all ecosystems and pose a
threat to many aspects of the environment. It is vital to design reliable and effective filtration
devices and methods for these plastics. This study compares the effectiveness of three filtration
techniques for microplastics–sieves, media, and ferrofluid. Three common shapes of
microplastics are used to better understand the dependability and exact requirements of the
techniques. In order to determine effectiveness, the data was organized by technique and a mean
for the percentage of effectiveness was determined. The data was then graphed separately,
comparing individual shapes within the technique and each method was compared for a
statistical difference. Additionally, the data as a whole was analyzed for specific differences in
data sets. The results indicated that media filtration is the most effective technique overall;
although, ferrofluid has the least variability between the data sets for each individual shape.

Introduction:
Plastic is any synthetic or semisynthetic polymer that can be molded and then hardened
into a solid object. Plastic does not degrade in the natural environment, but rather will break
down into smaller pieces called microplastics. In the last few decades, the abundance and global
distribution of microplastic fragments in the environment has dramatically increased (Barnes, D.
K. A, et. al., 2009). These plastics remain in the environment because they are miniscule in size
and vary in shape, making them difficult to catch in filters. Microplastics affect all areas of life,
including our terrestrial environments, deep seas, and have even found their way into our food
chain, possibly releasing toxins into the human body (Haslam 2012, Consumer Reports 2019). It
is imperative to determine a quick and effective way to remove microplastics from our
environment and reduce the possibility of long term effects of plastic-ingestion on organisms.
However, the field of microplastics is relatively new and because of this there is very little
information and methodology on removing these tiny particles from our environment (US
Department of Commerce 2016).
This study compared the efficiency of different filtration techniques for removing
microplastics from water samples. Obtaining a better understanding of specific conditions and
requirements for a filtration device or method will aid in the creation of new removal devices to
better equip scientists in tackling the ever growing plastic problem.
This experiment consisted of running plastic-spiked water samples through three different
filtration methods–sieves, media, and ferrofluid (a magnetite-based procedure). Additionally, the
experiment utilized three common shapes of plastics to replicate the varying shapes of
microplastics in the environment. The methods use different backgrounds and devices in order to

1
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

remove microplastics from water and the efficiency rates were compared in order to determine
the most effective filtration method.

Hypothesis:
It is hypothesized that the media filtration technique will provide the best overall
filtration of all shapes of microplastics. The fibre shaped particles will be caught on the many
edges of the media, leaving only water to flow over the pebbles through to the bottom of the
device. Additionally, the media consists of many rocks and pebbles of varying shapes and sizes
that pose as obstacles, so it will be effective at filtering out the sphere and planar shapes.

Methodology:
- A total of 45 samples were created; 15 per shape of plastic. Shapes and sizes of plastic are
sphere (300-600 μm), planar (80-200 μm in width), and fibre (1 mm-8 mm in length). The
following amounts of each product were weighed on an analytical balance and placed into
individual sample jars: 1.00 g sphere plastic, 0.30 g planar plastic, 0.05 g fibre plastic . ​(Tables
1-3)​.
- 5 samples for each shape were run through each filtration technique— sieves, media, ferrofluid.
A total of 15 samples were used for each technique.
- ​Sieve Technique​:​ 100 mL of water was added to the sample, then poured through a 1 mm sieve
layered on top of a 250 μm sieve (the sieves stack on top of each other) into a catch tray and the
sample jar was rinsed. Sample was now ready for vacuum filtration.
- ​Media Technique:​ A media station was constructed using an upside-down soda bottle, cut in
half, and placed in a beaker, with a hole in the cap of the bottle. Small pebbles, gravel, anthracite
and gravel, were layered respectively, about 5 cm for each. 100 mL of water was added to the
sample, slowly poured through the media station, the beaker was rinsed, then a 1cm layer of
gravel was layed and the station was flushed with 250 mL of water. Sample was now ready for
vacuum filtration.
- ​Ferrofluid Technique:​ 100 mL of water was added to the sample, then transferred to a 250mL
beaker, rinsing the sample jar. 1.5 g of magnetite powder (Fe​3​O​4​) was added to the beaker and
stirred. A magnet was submerged, using metal tweezers into the solution, and slowly moved
throughout the beaker for a total of 20 seconds. This was repeated with a total of 6 magnets, until
the beaker was clear of magnetite. Sample was now ready for vacuum filtration.
- ​Vacuum Filtration Procedure​: The device in ​Figure 1​ was assembled consisting of a vacuum
pump, filter flask, Büchner funnel, and filter paper. The mass of the filter paper was recorded
using a balance. Then, the vacuum is turned on and each sample was run through the Büchner
funnel, making sure to keep the sample in the center of the filter paper. The sample was rinsed
into the device. The vacuum was turned off and the filter paper was carefully removed and

2
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

placed on a tray to dry for 48 hours at room temperature (​Figure 2​). After 48 hours, the dried
samples were weighed on an analytical balance and this value was recorded (​Tables 1-3​).
- ​Statistical Analysis​: The weight of the filter paper was subtracted from the dried sample to
calculate the plastic left in the sample. The amount of plastic left in the sample was divided by
the amount in the original sample. A percent effectiveness was calculated [(1 - end/start) *100].
Analysis tests conducted: single factor ANOVA, α≤0.05, and post-hoc Tukey, α≤0.05 (​Figure 3-
appendix​).

Table 1​: All sample data for sieve filtration technique including filter paper and final plastic amounts;
organized by shape. The mean of all columns are represented, along with the mean for the total percent
effectiveness. ​Tables 2 & 3 included in the appendix.

3
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Results:
Raw data was converted into a percent effectiveness [(1 - the weight at the end of
treatment divided by the weight at the beginning of treatment) *100] (​Tables 1-3​). A percent
effectiveness was determined for every sample and was organized by shape in the corresponding
filtration technique. A mean was then calculated for each technique to determine the overall
effectiveness of the technique (​Tables 4-6​). Additionally, a scatter plot was then created for each
technique (​Figures 4-6​). A single-factor ANOVA, with an alpha of 0.05, was conducted for each
graph, in order to determine if the effectiveness of each technique fluctuated between shapes.
The p-values for each method are as follows: Sieve - p<0.0001; Media - p = 0.0001; Ferrofluid -
p = 0.0433. Since all techniques were statistically different, a post-hoc Tukey HSD was run
comparing all data, to determine the differing variables (​Figure 3- appendix​). As a result of the
Tukey, the planar samples were found to be the differing variables in both media and sieve
techniques, with p-values of <0.01 when compared to the insignificant variables within the
technique.

4
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Table 4​: Percent efficiency for the sieve

filtration method. Data used for calculations
from ​Table 1​. ​Tables 5 & 6 are found in the
appendix.

Figure 4​: The efficiency rate (%) is displayed for each sample within the sieve
filtration method. These data sets have significant differences between them;
p<0.0001.

5
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Figure 5​: The efficiency rate (%) is displayed for each sample within the media
filtration method. These data sets have significant differences between them;
p=0.0001.

Figure 6​: The efficiency rate (%) is displayed for each sample within the ferrofluid
filtration method. These data sets have significant differences between them;
p=0.0433.

6
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Discussion:
Overall, the media filtration technique was the most effective technique at removing
microplastics from the water samples (​Figure 5)​. This supports what was previously thought;
that the fibre shaped particles will be caught on the many edges of the media and that the media
consists of many rocks and pebbles of varying shapes and sizes that pose as obstacles, so it will
be effective at filtering out the sphere and planar shapes. However, even though the calculated
mean shows that media was the most effective, the single factor ANOVA shows that the
differences between the three shapes is significant in all techniques. This difference does not
fundamentally affect the statistical determination of the most effective filtration method, but
rather provide an insight into how differing shapes in the environment could affect the efficiency
of a filtration device. Having significant difference between data sets, like in sieve filtration, is a
sign of an inconsistent and unreliable filter. This is because if your data set differs, the filter is
better at filtering out one shape over the other which is not desired in a universal water filter. The
purpose of a water filter is to filter out as many impurities as possible; it should not be sufficient
at filtering one shape, but letting another continue through (Tuser 2020).
In order to determine the cause behind the statistical differences from the ANOVA tests,
a post hoc Tukey test was conducted on all the data. After analyzing the results from the test, it
was determined that the causes of the differences in both the sieve and media techniques were
due to the planar samples. When the planar samples were compared to the other two shapes
within their respective techniques, both p-values were <0.01 indicating that the planar samples
were the data sets that possessed different means. The planar plastic is very thin, almost
2-dimensional, so when orientated in such a way that the thinnest side of the plastic is going
through the holes of a sieve, the plastic is able to slide through (​Figure 7​). Similarly, the side of
the media bottle acts as a slide for the flat plastic to move down the bottle, which was observed
when the plastic seemed to bunch on the edges of the device. This is likely why the planar plastic
was the most difficult to separate using these methods.
Unlike the media and sieve methods, when the Tukey test was analyzed for the cause of
difference in the ferrofluid, no one data set could be determined as the causing factor. This is
understandable because the p-value for this method was p = 0.0433, which is very close to the
alpha value of 0.05. This means that there is a high probability that the difference was caused by
a slight differing in variances, which is supported when observing the variances of the data

7
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

which are as follows: Sphere: 0.001; Planar: 0.004; Fibre: 0.004. If the data set had contained a
greater amount of samples it is likely that the variances would have had less deviation and the
p-value would be ≥0.05.
It is important to understand the effectiveness of different water filters because the data
can be used to select the best filtering technique for water samples. Obtaining clean water is
important in many areas of the world, especially when releasing water back into the environment
or into drinking water ways (Water crisis 2017). Additionally a better understanding of which
shapes can effectively be separated using a specific technique will aid in the creation of newer,
more advanced technology. When designing new filtration devices the shape of microplastic
should be taken into consideration to aid in the determination of the reliability and effectiveness
of the new technique or device.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the data supports the original hypothesis that the media filtration technique
is the most effective technique for the filtration of microplastics in water; this technique had the
greatest mean percentage of effectiveness. All three filtration methods were statistically different
for each shape; however, ferrofluid had the least variation between data sets. When analyzed, the
key factor for the statistical differences of both the sieve and media techniques was the filtration
of the planar plastic. This implies the planar, flat plastic is the most difficult of the three plastic
shapes to separate out. It is important to consider shape when designing and creating filtration
devices and methods to increase the percentage of effectiveness and prevent microplastics from
entering the ecosystem.

8
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Acknowledgments:
I would like to thank my teachers for allowing me to utilize the research lab for this
project and offer their knowledge to aid me in the analysis of the data. Additionally, I would like
to thank my parents for encouraging me along the way throughout this project and offering their
help when needed.

References:

Barnes, D. K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. ​Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,​ ​364(​ 1526), 1985-1998. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0205

Bendix, A. (2019, August 01). An 18-year-old has found a way to USE 'MAGNETIC Liquid'
invented by NASA to remove HARMFUL microplastics from water. Retrieved March 04,
2021, from
http://www.businessinsider.com/microplastics-water-pollution-solution-from-google-2019-
8

Haslam, F. (2012). The Big Problem of Microplastics. Retrieved December 18, 2020, from
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/connectonline/research/2018/the-big-problem-of-microplasti
cs.aspx.

Lares, M., Ncibi, M. C., Sillanpää, M., & Sillanpää, M. (2019). Intercomparison study on
commonly used methods to determine microplastics in wastewater and Sludge samples.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research,​ ​26(​ 12), 12109-12122.
doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04584-6

Oladejo, Abiola. (2017). ​Analysis of Microplastics and Their Removal from the Water,​
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84798523.pdf. PDF download.

Sarquis, M., & Sarquis, J. L. (2016). ​Modern chemistry​. Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Tuser, C. (2020, February 13). What is water filtering? Retrieved March 04, 2021, from
https://www.wwdmag.com/what-articles/what-water-filtering

US Department of Commerce, N. (2016, April 13). What are microplastics? Retrieved March 04,
2021, from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html

Reports, Consumer. (2019, Oct 7). “You're Literally Eating Microplastics. How You Can Cut
down Exposure to Them.” ​The Washington Post,​ WP Company,

9
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

www.washingtonpost.com/health/youre-literally-eating-microplastics-how-you-can-cut-d
own-exposure-to-them/2019/10/04/22ebdfb6-e17a-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html.

Water crisis - learn about the global water crisis. (2017). Retrieved March 04, 2021, from
https://water.org/our-impact/water-crisis/

Appendix:

Table 2​: All sample data for media filtration technique including filter paper and final plastic
amounts; organized by shape. The mean of all columns are represented, along with the mean for
the total percent effectiveness.

Table 3​: All sample data for ferrofluid filtration technique including filter paper and final plastic
amounts; organized by shape. The mean of all columns are represented, along with the mean for
the total percent effectiveness.

10
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Table 5​: Percent efficiency for the media

filtration method. Data used for calculations
from ​Table 2​.

11
A Comparison of Common Filtering Techniques of Microplastics in Water I ENV 3

Table 6​: Percent efficiency for the ferrofluid

filtration method. Data used for calculations
from ​Table 3​.

Figure 4​: Visual representation of the post-hoc Tukey test conducted for the data. Red boxes represent
insignificant differences between the two data values; Green represents a significant difference. Only the
boxes comparing individual shapes within the method itself were analyzed.

12