Lesson plan Grade 11 Science

Microplastics in the Tessel River: Counting Fibers at Steadmere

A grade 11 lesson pairing a salt-water density separation demonstration with effluent particle counts to estimate a plant's daily microplastic load and compare two fixes.

Objectives

  1. Students will explain how density separation isolates plastic particles from a sediment sample.
  2. Students will calculate a plant's daily microplastic load from a mean concentration and a daily flow.
  3. Students will compare a source-control measure and a treatment upgrade using percent reduction.

Vocabulary

Effluent
Effluent is the cleaned water that leaves a treatment plant at the end of the process. It is tested carefully before being released to a river, lake, or the ocean.
Biosolids
Biosolids are the nutrient-rich solid material left over after sewage sludge has been treated and made safe. Many farms use treated biosolids as fertilizer for their fields.

Also: microplastic, microfiber, density separation, removal efficiency

Teacher overview

Wastewater plants were designed to remove organic matter, solids, and nutrients rather than particles the size of a fragment of sewing thread, so microplastics pass through processes built for a different purpose. This lesson uses the fictional town of Steadmere, whose plant discharges to the Tessel River, to show how analysts separate plastic particles from a sample by density, how a mean concentration becomes a daily load, and how two different fixes compare. The misconception worth naming out loud is that a high removal percentage means the particles are gone. Removal in this context means the particles left the water and entered the sludge, so a plant reporting strong removal may still be sending microplastics to farm fields as biosolids. Students should finish able to say where the removed material actually went.

Procedure

Hook, the jar demonstration (6 min): Before class, mix about one cup of table salt into a quart of warm water until no more dissolves, then let it cool. In front of students, add two tablespoons of sand and a pinch of nylon fishing line and clear plastic bag film to the jar, cap it, shake, and set it down. Ask students to predict what they will see in two minutes. Do not confirm predictions yet.

Density separation, discussion (10 min): While the jar settles, explain that sand grains are denser than the brine and sink, while many common plastics, such as bag film and nylon line, are less dense than brine and rise; polyester clothing fibers are denser than table-salt brine, so laboratories use denser salt solutions to recover them. Return to the jar, pour the surface layer through the strainer, and show the collected fibers and film. Tell students that laboratories use the same principle with a calibrated salt solution, then filter, dry, and count under a microscope. Ask why an analyst would rinse the sand twice rather than once, and take two or three answers.

Direct instruction, sources and plant performance (12 min): Identify the main sources reaching a plant: synthetic fibers shed in laundry, fragments from packaging and road dust, and beads worn off products. Walk through the treatment train and mark where particles leave the water, which is mostly in the primary and secondary settling steps, where they attach to floc and settle with the sludge. State plainly that a plant with strong removal concentrates those particles in its biosolids, so the question of where they end up does not disappear. Introduce removal efficiency as (influent minus effluent) divided by influent, times 100.

Guided practice, a worked load (12 min): Model the load calculation on the board with a set of numbers students will not reuse. Suppose a different plant discharges 8.0 million liters per day and its effluent averages 30 particles per liter. Then 30 x 8,000,000 = 240,000,000 particles per day, or 2.4 x 10 to the 8th. Ask the class what happens to that number if the concentration is halved, and confirm that the load scales directly with concentration when flow is unchanged. Emphasize that the mean of a handful of grab samples carries real uncertainty, so results should be reported as an estimate.

Independent practice (13 min): Students complete the Student Handout using Steadmere's own data, working through the mean, the daily load, removal efficiency, and the two proposed reductions. Circulate and check that students write units at every step rather than only at the end.

Closure and exit ticket (2 min): On an index card, students answer: "A plant reports that it removes 90 percent of microplastics. Where did that 90 percent go?" Collect the cards and confirm that at least three-quarters of the class names the sludge or biosolids rather than saying the particles were destroyed.

Answer Key

  1. Answer: 21.0 particles per liter.
    (22 + 18 + 25 + 20 + 20) / 5 = 105 / 5 = 21.0 particles per liter.
  2. Answer: 270,900,000 particles per day.
    21.0 particles per liter x 12,900,000 liters per day = 270,900,000 particles per day, or 2.709 x 10 to the 8th.
  3. Answer: 90.0 percent.
    (210 - 21) / 210 x 100 = 189 / 210 x 100 = 90.0 percent removal.
  4. Answer: 16.5 particles per liter.
    At 90.0 percent removal, 10.0 percent of the influent passes through: 165 x 0.10 = 16.5 particles per liter.
  5. Answer: 212,850,000 particles per day.
    16.5 particles per liter x 12,900,000 liters per day = 212,850,000 particles per day, or 2.1285 x 10 to the 8th.
  6. Answer: 21.4 percent.
    270,900,000 - 212,850,000 = 58,050,000. 58,050,000 / 270,900,000 = 0.2143, or a 21.4 percent reduction.
  7. Answer: 7.35 particles per liter.
    At 96.5 percent removal, 3.5 percent passes through: 210 x 0.035 = 7.35 particles per liter.
  8. Answer: 94,815,000 particles per day.
    7.35 particles per liter x 12,900,000 liters per day = 94,815,000 particles per day, or 9.4815 x 10 to the 7th.
  9. Answer: 65.0 percent.
    270,900,000 - 94,815,000 = 176,085,000. 176,085,000 / 270,900,000 = 0.6500, or a 65.0 percent reduction.
  10. Answer: Either option, with a criterion and a limitation.
    Accept the cloth filter when students cite the larger reduction, 65.0 percent against 21.4 percent, as the deciding criterion, and note the limitation that it sends still more plastic into the biosolids, which may be land-applied. Accept the laundry filter program when students cite source control as the criterion, since it keeps fibers out of both the river and the sludge, and note the limitation that its measured reduction is smaller and depends on households using and cleaning the filters. Full credit requires naming the biosolids as the destination of the captured particles.

Differentiation

Support

Give students the item 1 mean already computed so the load calculation in item 2 starts from a known value, and provide a place-value chart for converting large products into scientific notation. Supply a filled-in removal-efficiency example with different numbers directly above item 3.

Extension

Have students estimate how the recommendation would change if the plant's flow doubled during a wet week while both concentrations stayed the same, then explain why percent reduction is unchanged even though the particle counts rise. Ask them to state what additional measurement would most improve confidence in the item 1 mean.

ELL supports

Pre-teach effluent, influent, biosolids, and density with the jar demonstration labeled in two languages if possible, since the visual carries most of the meaning. Provide sentence frames for item 10, such as "I recommend ___ because ___, but the particles the plant removes still ___."