CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

4.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

MATERIAL SELECTION
DATA GATHERING
COST ESTIMATION

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
OF THE PROTOTYPE
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
FABRICATION
PROTOTYPE TESTING

MAINTENANCE AND OUTCOME AND

TESTING VALIDATION

REDESIGNING

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

4.2.1.14 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.

4.2.1.15 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).

4.2.1.16 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.

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

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

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

 A=π r 2

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

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.

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

 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
 Figure 4.7 Fabrication Procedures are shown above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 APPENDIX A

DETAILED DESIGN

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

Figure D-1. Isometric View of the Microplastics Separator

Figure D-2. Orthographic View of the Microplastics Separator