How can MPT be applied to environmental remediation and

Providing a “quick wash” to oil contaminated wildlife
using magnetic particle technology (MPT)
How can MPT be applied to environmental remediation and
wildlife rehabilitation?
But the science is very challenging……
Development of the particles themselves –
different materials, surface variation, size
distributions, coatings etc….
A very simple concept……
John D. Orbell, Stephen W. Bigger, Lawrence N. Ngeh, Hien Van Dao and
Kasup Munaweera
Optimizing the particles with respect to
different oils and substrates, such as rock
surfaces, feathers, plumage, fur, live
animals….
School of Engineering & Science, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne 8001, AUSTRALIA
Development of the ‘magnetic harvester’ – field
strength, on/off mechanism, design features
etc…..
Peter Dann, Rosalind Jessop and Margaret Healy
Development of methodologies and protocols
for testing ….
Research Department, Phillip Island Nature Park, Victoria 3922, Australia
Moving proof of principle ‘lab work’ to the
field….
Waste disposal for different scenarios…..
Logistics and costs….
WWW.VU/EDU/AU/HES
Potential spin-offs…..
Particle development …..
Optimizing the particles themselves…..
Various particles continue to be explored and tested including -
Comparative removal of oil from feathers for eight different grades of iron powder.
MH300.29 (“spongy superfine”) achieves 100% within experimental error.
Iron particles coated with a hydrophobic oil-ab(d)sorbing material such as PVC or PE.
100
Different grades of finely divided iron powder with different surface characteristics.
O il re m o v e d (F % )
Iron particles with “nanoscale surface roughness” resulting in “super-hydrophobic” properties
when coated with materials such as polydimethysiloxane (PDMS).
95
90
85
80
1
2
3
PVC coated iron pellet
Different grades of iron powder
AFM imaging of iron particle surface
4
5
6
Number of treatments (N)
M40
A100S
NC100.24
ASC300
A40S
C100.29
7
8
9
ASC100.29
MH300.29
H. V. Dao, L.N. Ngeh, S.W. Bigger and J.D. Orbell, 2005, “The achievement of 100% removal of oil from feathers
employing magnetic particle technology”, J. Environ. Eng., Vol. 132, No. 5, 555-559.
Different oil types and ambient conditions…..
Why does this happen?
Removal of tarry/weathered contamination from feathers -
The transfer of oil from the surface of the tarry residue onto the iron particles represents
competitive adsorption between two different surfaces:
Oil (tar) Î
Oil (iron)
The experimental design allows the equilibrium constant for the process to be estimated at
different temperatures and at different stages of removal.
This allows the Van’t Hoff Equation, lnK
0.0
2
R = 0.9917
-0.5
Overall we can say that:
The process is endothermic. This
favours transfer of oil onto the iron
as the temperature increases.
-1.0
lnK
= -ΔHº/RT + ΔSº/R, to be applied.
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
3.32
The process is highly entropy driven.
3.34
3.36
3.38
3.40
3.42
3.44
3.46
3
1/T x 10 /K
Dao HV, Maher LA, Ngeh LN, Bigger SW, Orbell JD, Healy M, Jessop R, Dann P . Submitted to
Environmental Chemistry Letters
J.D. Orbell, H.V. Dao, L.N. Ngeh, S.W. Bigger, M. Healy, R. Jessop and P. Dann, 2005, “Acute temperature dependency
in the cleansing of tarry feathers utilizing magnetic particles”, Environ. Chemistry Letters, 3(1), 25-27.
J.D. Orbell, H.V. Dao, L.A. Maher, L.N. Ngeh, S.W. Bigger, M. Healy, R. Jessop and P. Dann, 2006, ” Removal of petroleum
tar from bird feathers utilizing magnetic particles”, Environ. Chemistry Letters, 4, 111-113.
1
Different substrates…..
Optimizing the magnetic harvester….
From feather clusters
“Horses for courses”…….
From rock surface
From Mammalian fur
100
90
oil removed (F%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Number of tre atments (N)
Trial electromagnetic device
– insufficient magnetic field
strength.
One-handed device powered
by compressed air – too
cumbersome for field work
The
“magnetic
wand”
designed for a “quick clean
(wash)”.
Strong
localized
magnetic field – non magnetic
tip.
The ‘magnetic tester’– suitable
for laboratory testing and
proof of principle studies.
Requires two hands to
operate.
From plumage – whole bird models
Clean Little Penguin
carcase
50% coverage
of bunker oil
After 14 treatments
After 5 treatments
J.D. Orbell, H.V. Dao, J. Kapadia, L.N. Ngeh, S.W. Bigger, M, Healy, R, Jessop and P. Dann, 2007, “An Investigation into
the removal of oil from rock utilizing magnetic particle technology”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 1958 – 1961.
J.D. Orbell, L.N. Ngeh, S. W. Bigger, M. Zabinskas, M. Zheng, M. Healy, R. Jessop and P. Dann, 2004, “Whole-Bird Models
for the Magnetic Cleansing of Oiled Feathers”, Marine Pollution Bull., 48, 336-340.
Development of specific methodologies…..
Systematic feasibility experiments - the potential for a “quick wash”
100
Oil removed (%) and
cleansing time (min)
170
y = 0.2339x - 8.6546
Oil ad(b)sorption (g)
160
2
R = 0.9989
150
140
130
120
100% coverage - saturation
600
650
700
1000
999
930
70
64
800
8 12
60
70 6
50
4 1.2
58 5
37
2 9 .8
400
2 4 .4
19 .3
20
14 .1
234
200
9 .4
4 .7
0
750
600
3 5. 2
4 51
30
0
1
2
3
Little penguin carcass weight (g)
Oil removed (%)
For example: for a bird with a body weight of 620 g
the weight of oil required for saturation (100 %
coverage) is (0.2339 x 620) – 8.6546 = 136 g.
Therefore, 50% coverage by weight requires 136.4 x
0.5 = 68.2 g of oil to be applied.
10 9 1
75
10
82 mL
110
550
86
81
80
40
1200
96
95
90
90
Iron powder use (g)
For example, determining the % coverage by mass
for controlled experiments.
4
5
6
Number of Treatments
Cleansing time (min)
7
8
Iron powder use (g)
100% diesel coverage of Little Penguin plumage – a “worst case” scenario
Diesel required for 50% coverage
J.D. Orbell, H.V. Dao, L.N. Ngeh and S.W. Bigger, (2008), “An investigation into the feasibility of applying magnetic
particle technology to the cleansing of oiled wildlife in the field”. Report prepared for the Australian Maritime Safety
Authority (National Plan Environment Working Group) and the Phillip Island Nature Park.
“In the field” scenario – some conservative numbers
% coverage experiments (diesel)
Based on 100 birds for 1 (blue) treatment and 2 (red) treatments
100
180
90
80
160
70
140
80
30
60
20
40
10
20
10
0
0
0
4
5
6
7
8
150
50
40
100
30
20
50
0
1
9
2
3
4
Cleansing time (min)
Iron powder use (g)
450
50% Coverage
80
70
90
350
80
250
50
200
40
150
30
100
20
5
6
7
8
9
Number of birds = 100 (100)
Total person hours required = 4.2 hrs (8.4 hrs)
500
Average coverage = 50% (50%)
Total time per 2-person team = 2.1 hrs (4.2 hrs)
400
300
1
2
N
oil removed(%)
3
4
5
6
Cleansing time (min)
7
8
Number of birds per 2-person team = 50 (50)
Average time for treatment(s) = 2.5 min (5 min)
Total mass of powder = 3.5 kg (6.8 kg)
Average mass of powder per bird = 35 g (68 g)
Total mass of oil removed = 1.7 kg (2.7 kg)
0
Average % oil removal = 25% (40%)
Total mass of waste = 5.2 kg (9.5 kg)
Average mass of oil removed per bird = 17 g (27 g)
Mass of powder per 2-person team = 1.75 kg (3.4 kg)
Number of 2-person teams = 2 (2)
Mass of oil per 2-person team = 0.85 kg (1.35 kg)
9
N
Iron powder use (g)
Treatments per bird = 1 (2)
100
200
20
0
4
600
70% Coverage
30
10
Cleansing time (min)
Iron powder use (g)
40
0
3
Cleansing time (min)
60
50
2
9
50
0
oil removed(%)
8
70
10
1
7
100
400
300
60
Oil removed (%) and
cleansing time (min)
Oil removed (%) and
cleansing time (min)
oil removed(%)
Iron powder use (g)
100
90
6
N
N
oil removed(%)
5
Iron powder use (g)
3
200
60
120
100
40
2
250
80
70
60
50
1
300
20% Coverage
Iron powder use(g)
200
Oil rem oved (% ) and
cleansing time (min)
10% Coverage
90
Iron powder use (g)
Oil removed (%) and cleansing
time (min)
100
Iron powder use (g)
Magnetic tester; iron powder grade MH300.29; no pre-conditioner
Mass of waste per 2-person team = 2.6 kg (4.75 kg)
J.D. Orbell, H.V. Dao, L.N. Ngeh, S.W. Bigger, M. Healy, R. Jessop and P. Dann, 2006, “Magnetic cleansing of weathered/tarry
oiled feathers - the role of pre-conditioners”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 1591-1594.
2
“Holding bay” scenario – some conservative numbers
Some estimated costs for both scenarios
Based on 1000 birds for 1 (blue) treatment and 2 (red) treatments
100 Birds/2 Teams3
Number of birds = 1000 (1000)
Average coverage = 50% (50%)
Treatments per bird = 1 (2)
Average time per treatment(s) = 2.5 min (5 min)
Average mass of powder per bird = 35 g (68 g)
Average % oil removal = 25% (40%)
Average mass of oil removed per bird = 17 g (27 g)
Number of 2-person teams = 10 (10)
Total person hours required = 42 hrs (84 hrs)
One treatment
Two treatments
Iron powder at $5.50/kg
3.5 kg x 5.5
= $19
6.8 kg x 5.5
= $37
Waste disposal at $8/kg
5.2 kg x 8
= $42
9.5 kg x 8
= $76
Personnel at $25 per hour
2.1 hrs x 4 x 25 = $210
4.2 hrs x 4 x 25 = $420
Total
$271
$533
Cost per bird
$2.71
$5.33
1000 Birds/10 Teams
One treatment
Two treatments
Total time per 2-person team = 4.2 hrs (8.4 hrs)
Iron powder at $5.50/kg
35 kg x 5.5
= $193
68 kg x 5.5
= $374
Waste disposal at $8/kg
52 kg x 8
= $416
95 kg x 8
= $770
Personnel at $25 per hour
4.2 hrs x 20 x 25 = $2100
Number of birds per 2-person team = 100 (100)
Total mass of powder = 35 kg (68 kg)
Total mass of oil removed = 17 kg (27 kg)
Total mass of waste = 52 kg (95 kg)
Mass of powder per 2- person team = 3.5 kg (6.8 kg)
8.4 hrs x 20 x 25 = $4,200
Total
$2,709
$5,344
Cost per bird
$2.71
$5.34
Mass of oil per 2-person team = 1.7 kg (2.7 kg)
Mass of waste per 2-person team = 5.2 kg (9.5 kg)
Latest estimate of equipment with “wand” = $600/team team
Developing equipment, techniques and logistical data for
a quick wash – utilizing the “wand”……..
The Animal Rehabilitation Technology (ART) Group
Victoria University
John Orbell, Stephen Bigger, Lawrence Ngeh, Leroy
Godhino, Sally Ryan, Hien Van Dao, Ali Abdirahman, David
Thompson, Lauren Maher, Eee Kai Tan, Manfred Zabinskas,
Meris Zheng, Leroy Godhino, Jignesh Kapadia, Kasup
Munawerra
100
Non-magnetic tip allows oil
laden particles to be readily
disposed of.
93
90
82
97
100 100
92
85
80
% Rem o val
70
60
Phillip Island Research Centre
58
50
40
Peter Dann, Roz Jessup, Marg Healy
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
Treatment Number
Diesel Oil
Engine Oil
3