Header Image Source: Adapted from [1]

Project Summary

January 2025 - February 2025

Project Statement

Design addresses microplastic contamination in Hamilton’s wastewater by creating a filtration system that captures particles effectively, minimizes bypass, and ensures long-term sustainability. It must be cost-efficient, corrosion-resistant, and chemically durable, while improving water quality and reducing energy consumption.

P2 Team: Ava Martin, Swetha Jagannath, Tomas Hyvarinen, Ethan Roberts

Figure 1. Team’s final objective tree for filtration system design

Proposed Solution

My team’s solution consists of a polyoxymethylene (POM)–based filtration system designed to remove microplastics from Hamilton’s wastewater. The filter efficiently captures impurities while maintaining a constant water flow by using fibers with an 8 μm pore radius and 25% porosity. The system is appropriate for high-pressure, continuous-use settings since it is designed for chemical resistance, longevity, and minimal maintenance.

<aside> 💡

Important Design Features

• Porous fiber structure with 8 μm pore radius and 25% porosity ensures microplastic capture while maintaining flow.
• POM material provides high strength, chemical resistance, and end-of-life recyclability.
• Compact, durable design allows low-maintenance operation in high-flow wastewater environments. </aside>

Project Objectives

• Design, develop, and fabricate a filtration system to reduce microplastic contamination in Hamilton’s wastewater treatment plants.
  • Define and apply engineering objectives, constraints, and metrics
  • Choose the best materials by weighing strength, cost, and environmental impact using Material Performance Indices (MPIs) and Eco Audit data.
  • Calculate and assess porosity conditions to ensure effective filtration while maintaining material strength.
• Final design should be cost-effective, durable, chemically resistant, and sustainable (Figure 1) under real-world wastewater conditions.
• Analyze and compare material options using ****Eco Audit results, considering CO₂ emissions, energy usage, and end-of-life recycling.
• Communicate the design process and findings through a professional engineering report and group presentation.

Project Constraints

• Mechanism must:
  • Resist chemical exposure and corrosion.
  • Withstand high flow conditions in wastewater.
  • Be cost-effective to implement at scale.
  • Maintain adequate porosity for filtration and flow.
  • Have low carbon footprint and be recyclable.
  • Comply with Ontario, OESC, and EPA regulations.

Applied & Technical Skills

• Using Material Performance Indices (MPIs)
• Eco Audit analysis for carbon footprint and energy efficiency
• Porosity calculations and adjustment of mechanical properties
• Decision-making using morph charts and objective trees
• Regulatory research (EPA, OESC, Ontario environmental standards)
• Team collaboration through milestone planning and weekly meetings
• Engineering communication through written reports and oral presentations

Project Journey & Design process

Team’s Work

Personal Contributions

Project Reflection

<aside> 💭

A big lesson I learned during this filtration project was the importance of clear communication and asking questions early—even if they seem small.

At one point in the project, there was some confusion about our chosen material. I had been working under the assumption that we were still considering ceramic foam, and I had already written my section of the report justifying it. But later, I found out that the team had moved forward with POM as the final material. It wasn’t anyone’s fault—it just hadn’t been explicitly communicated. I realized that I hadn’t asked for clarification because I thought I was on the same page. Looking back, I understand now how important it is to speak up, double-check, and confirm information when things are still evolving. If you don’t ask, people won’t know there’s something you’re unclear on. In hindsight, I see how this moment highlighted the need for stronger personal initiative and critical thinking—recognizing when something doesn’t add up and being confident enough to question it.

That said, I also recognized what made our team strong: we really leaned on each other’s strengths. Brainstorming as a group was one of our best skills—bouncing ideas off each other, building on suggestions, and refining our design objectives felt natural and productive. We all brought different skills to the table, and we collaborated really well during major milestones. Whether it was breaking down the objective tree or working through technical justifications, there was a sense of shared problem-solving and support. It was through these sessions that I realized how valuable collaborative analytical thinking can be—every idea became sharper when tested against someone else’s perspective.

Even during the materials lab sessions, like the ones where we tested the tensile strength of different materials, we were constantly checking in with each other. We’d ask smart, thoughtful questions—“Did we zero this right?” “Why is this one stretching more than expected?”—and make sure we all actually understood what was going on, not just going through the motions. Looking back, I can really see how these moments helped strengthen our engineering judgment and technical confidence. They weren’t just labs; they were practice in applying analytical skills in real time.

This project helped me grow not just technically but interpersonally. I got to practice critical thinking, analytical decision-making, and learn from moments of miscommunication. In future projects, I want to be more proactive about checking in, especially when things seem unclear. Just asking “hey, has this been finalized?” can make all the difference. Above all, I now understand that staying quiet for the sake of keeping pace is rarely worth it—asking smart questions is what actually moves a project forward.

</aside>

References