Assignment Abstract
The “Research Proposal” assignment was a group-based assignment in which my group and I were tasked with coming up with an innovation. The proposal includes background information regarding the technology behind the innovation, the technical description, the monetary, time, and labour costs, and the limitations of the design.
Proposed Hybrid Filtration System for Low-Income Communities: A layered, silver-coated, ceramic filter.
Juri Hoxha, Jessica Peralta, Genti Taga
Introduction
Although nearly 70% of the world is made up of water, only about 2.5% of that water is considered drinkable water. Within that 2.5% however, only about 1% of the water is easily accessible drinkable water since much of the world’s freshwater is trapped in glaciers. In reality, only about 0.007% of the world’s water is available to sustain human life (“Competing for Clean Water,”2017). Thanks to global warming, however, even this value is not constant. As the global water temperatures rise, freshwater in glaciers melt and becomes salinized and arid regions suffer from longer and more severe droughts. Therefore, the total amount of available drinking water is constantly decreasing. This is why water scarcity is one of the greatest global risks we face today; it’s an issue that affects billions of lives. To increase the availability of clean water, it is important to incorporate water filters in the solution. Effective water filters make previously undrinkable water drinkable. The real problem, however, is not just to develop an effective filter, but to develop an easy-to-manufacture, cheap, durable, and efficient filter that can be widely used in poverty-stricken areas worldwide.
As time has passed, people attempting to solve the water crisis problem have proposed numerous water filter designs that meet the above criteria to different extents. These filters can range from simple homemade bucket filters (BF) and bio-sand filters (BSF) to more complicated ceramic candle filters (CCF) and silver-impregnated porous pot filter (SIPP) (Mwabi et al.). While these filters all show effectiveness to an extent individually with some better than others, combining the strengths of each will lead to a filter with superior water filtering capabilities and none of the drawbacks. Our solution for such a filter is a layered, silver-coated, ceramic based filter capable of producing clean water by both physically and chemically filtering out malignant organic and inorganic matter.
Background Information:
General Information – Water Safety
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the research done into water filters, it is first important to have a basic understanding of the different contaminants that are found in water and the technical issues that come with removing these contaminants. The safety standards regarding drinking water are given by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which was introduced in 1974. Under the SDWA, water contaminants are generally defined as any substances or chemicals other than water molecules (“Safe Drinking Water Act,” 1974). This vague definition of water contaminants includes a broad range of substances from small dirt particles to uranium isotopes. The phrase “water contaminant” contains no information about the dangers of such chemicals or of the safety of the water sample containing these chemicals; it simply describes the chemicals/substances that would not be found in chemically pure water. Since contaminants have such variability in both safety concerns and chemical natures, the SDWA has categorized water contaminants into several categories including physical, chemical, biological, and radiological (“Safe Drinking Water Act,” 1974).
Physical contaminants include any substances that affect the physical appearance and physical properties of the water (“Safe Drinking Water Act,” 1974). Physical contaminants are very closely related with the concept of water turbidity. The term “turbidity” refers to the reduced visibility in water due to the presence of colloidal (floating) particles mostly consisting of sediment and organic matter (Khan, et al). The turbidity of the water can be used a general indication of the safety of the water with lower turbidity translating to safer drinking water. High turbidity can be a sign of not only high sediment concentration, but also bacterial (Khan et al., 2015). Fortunately, removing colloidal particles and reducing turbidity is a relatively easy task that can be achieved through simple physical filtration through layers.
Chemical contaminants include any pure elements or compound molecules found in water. These chemical compounds can be naturally existing or man-made (“Safe Drinking Water Act,” 1974). Examples of chemical contaminants include nitrogen, sodium-chloride, chlorine, lead, pesticides, herbicides, metals, and toxins produced by human/animal drugs. In order to assess the safety of drinking water, it is important to analyze the chemical contaminants present in the water as they can potentially be extremely harmful to the human body. Drinking lead contaminated water, for example, can lead to lead poisoning which can cause anemia, kidney and brain damage, and even death (“Lead,” n.d.). Chemical contaminants provide the greatest challenge in the filtering process as they can be as small as atoms in size (10-10 meters). As such, they are very difficult to filter out through any other means other than chemical.
Biological contaminants include any microbiological living organisms found in water (“Safe Drinking Water Act,” 1974). These can include bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Biological contaminants can potentially be very harmful. The bacteria responsible for Cholera, Vibrio cholerae, for example, which is often found in water contaminated with feces of other humans with Cholera, is responsible for 95,000 annual deaths (“Cholera,” n.d.). As a result, to produce clean drinking water, filters must be able to filter out biological contaminants like vibrio cholerae. Filtering out biological contaminants does prove to be challenging, however, due to their size which is in the micrometer (10-6 meter) range (Simonis and Basson, 2011).
Radiological contaminants include any chemical elements that produce ionizing radiation (“Safe Drinking Water Act,” 1974). Examples of radiological contaminants include uranium, cesium and plutonium. Just like with chemical contaminants, radiological elements are extremely difficult to remove from water due to their small size.
Research on Water Filters
Research on the effectiveness of various water filter designs has been extensive. While some filter designs have been shown to be superior in both filtering prowess and efficiency than others, each filter has an area where it excels. Previous research is crucial in determining the strengths and weaknesses of these filter designs, so that a superior filter consisting of the most effective methods of removal for each water contaminant can be constructed.
The research done on common household treatment systems by Mwabi et al. is an especially useful resource. In this study, researchers tested the effectiveness of four different common household filter designs. These filters included a bucket filter (BF), a bio-sand filter (BSF), a ceramic candle filter (CCF), and a silver-impregnated porous pot filter (SIPP). Surface water samples from Wallmansthal Waterworks, Pretoria, South Africa were used to test each filter in the categories of “flow rate, physiochemical contaminants (turbidity, fluorides, phosphates, chlorophyll a, magnesium, calcium, and nitrates) and microbial contaminant (Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella typhimurium, Shigella dysenteriae) removals” (Mwabi et al., 2011). The results of each filter will be summarized below.
Bucket Filter (BF)
The BF system (figure 1) consisting of two buckets used a simple two-layer filtering technique. Large physical contaminants were first filtered through a 2 cm layer of gravel and the rest of the contaminants were then filtered through a 5 cm of fine sand. The filtered water was collected in the second bucket. The simple two-layer filtering system of the BF proved to be ineffective at bacterial removal, only removing 25-45 % of the bacteria in the water. While it was ineffective at bacterial removal, the BF was the most effective out of the four filters at removing chemical contaminants. It was especially effective at removing calcium (100%) and chlorophyll a (97.8%), but also the most effective when it came to fluoride removal (46.7%), and second most effective at removing nitrates (64%). The BF also had the second-best water flow rate at 167 liters per hour and the worst turbidity removal (90%) (Mwabi et al. 1125).
Bio-Sand Filter (BSF)
The BSF system (figure 2) consisting of one bucket used a five-layer filtering technique. Starting from the bottom, the BSF contained a 5 cm layer of gravel, a 5 cm layer of coarse sand, a 2.5 cm layer of zeolites, a 2.5 cm layer of fine sand, and a diffusion plate. Contaminated water first entered at the top of the bucket and travelled down to the bottom layer before entering a pipe and coming out of a spigot. The BSF, similar in performance to the BF, also proved to be ineffective at bacterial removal, only removing 20-60% of the bacteria in the water. It was, however, effective in removing chemical contaminants although not to the same extent as the BF. The BSF specifically resulted in the greatest removal of magnesium (56.9 %) and phosphates (66.2%). Moreover, the BSF had the best water flow rate at 171 liters per hour (Mwabi et al. 1125).
Ceramic Candle Filter (CCF)
The CCF system (figure 3) was a ceramic-based filtering method which consisted of “a dome-shaped candle filter, a spigot, two buckets (one for filtration and one for collection of filtrate), and a cloth that covered the candle to reduce contamination” (Mwabi et al., 2011). The CCF system is relatively simple. Contaminated water enters the bucket and is first filtered through the ceramic candle filter and then the cloth before being collected. The CCF showed very poor removal of chemical contaminants when it came to magnesium (2.7 %) and nitrates (6 %) and high removal of chlorophyll a (91.1%). Although the CCF was one of the weakest at removing chemical contaminants, it was very effective at filtering biological contaminants removing 85-93% of the bacteria in the surface water samples with 85% being the lowest removal when it came to E. coli. Additionally, the CCF showed the best turbidity removal at 95%, but had the second lowest flow rate at 6.4 liters per hour (Mwabi et al. 2011).
Silver-Impregnated Porous Pot Filter (SIPP)
The SIPP filter system (figure 4) used a porous clay pot as the only filtering tool. The clay pot was manufactured from brownish clay which was impregnated with silver nitrates before the clay was heat treated. Water flowed through the tiny pores of the clay pot and was collected onto a bucket underneath. The SIPP filter showed a mediocre performance at the removal of chemical contaminants. It was the least effective at removing fluorides (16.7 %) and placed in the middle percent removal ranges when it came to the removal of all the other chemical contaminants. The SIPP filter, however, was the best at removing biological contaminants with a high 99-100% bacterial removal. While it showed the best bacterial removal out of the filters, the SIPP filter suffered from the lowest water flow rate at 3.5 liters per hour (Mwabi et al. 2011).
Summary of Results and Filter Choices
The BSF and BF showed the best removals of chemical contaminants. The study concluded that “the BF unit was found to be the most effective filter in removing chemical contaminants from both synthetic and environmental water” (Mwabi et al. 2011). Based on these results, a layered filter design similar to the BF and BSF will be adopted into our filter design due to its chemical removal capabilities. While the layered-based filters performed well at chemical removals, they also showed the worst removals of biological contaminants. It was the ceramic-based filters that had the highest removal of bacteria. The high effectiveness of ceramic filters at removing bacterial matter has been also been shown by other studies. In the study by Simonis and Basson, low-cost micro porous filters “exceeded all expectations and came close to – and even exceeded the USEPA standards” (Simonis and Basson, 1133). While both the CCF and SIPP were effective, the SIPP filter was the most effective, perhaps indicating that the presence of the silver nitrates played an important role in bacterial removal. The effectiveness of silver in water filters has been shown by other studies as well. Oyanedel-Craver and Smith “found they removed 97.8 to 100 percent of the pathogen [Escherichia coli]” when they tested the effectiveness of silver-applied cylindrical ceramic filters (Harvey et al.). In accordance with these results, our proposed filter system will include a silver-applied, ceramic-based component to remove biological contaminants. This will ensure higher bacterial removal.
To summarize, our filtering mechanism will consist of a layered filter component and a silver-applied ceramic component. The layered component will be able to remove the majority of the chemical contaminants while the silver-impregnated ceramic component will be able to remove the biological contaminants as well as lower the turbidity. Together, the two filtering mechanisms will be able to remove physical, chemical, and biological contaminants and produce highly filtered, safe, drinking water.
Technical Description:
Each of the filters described above have individual weaknesses that do not allow for proper filtration of water. The layered BF and BSF designs cannot filter out bacteria while the ceramic-based CCF and SIPP designs cannot filter out chemical matter. Our innovative filter overcomes these weaknesses through incorporating both designs. A BF-BSF hybrid will be used first to remove large particles and chemical contaminants and a CCF-SIPP hybrid will be used to further reduce turbidity and remove bacterial contaminants. The proposed filter will consist of three components in total. These include a layered filter (1), a ceramic filter (2), and a collection bucket (3). The structure of our proposed filter can be seen in figure 5. Each component of the filter consists of a separate bucket allowing for a simple cleaning and construction procedure. The individual buckets will lie on top of one another. To construct the filter, users must first setup the collection bucket as the base. Then, they need to prepare the ceramic filter and lay it on top of the collection bucket. Finally, users need to add the layers to the layered filter and place that filter on top of the ceramic filter. The final filter setup should match figure 5 above.
Layered Filter Component:
The layered filter is the first component of the proposed innovation. The BF-BSF hybrid filter will consist of designs incorporated from both of the filters Mwabi et al. studied with modifications. The filter is made of a 25 liter bucket with holes drilled at the bottom of the bucket. This allows for the water to pass through to the second filter. The bucket is then packed with filter media that will remove most of the chemical contaminants, as shown in Figure 6. First an activated carbon layer (labeled A) will be placed at the bottom of the bucket. At a height of 2 cm, this added carbon layer will remove any contaminats, odor, or taste from the water (Magnus, 2019). On top of the carbon layer, a layer of fine sand (Labeled B), with an average diameter of 0.3 millimeters, is packed to a height of 5 centimeters. Then, gravel, with an average diameter of 5 to 7 millimeters, is packed on top of the sand up to a height of 2 centimeters. The dirty water is placed on top of the gravel and will slowly flow through the layers finally exiting the filter through the hole at the bottom of the bucket.
Ceramic Filter Component:
The ceramic filter, also based on Mwabi’s design, is a CCF-SIPP hybrid designed to extract even more bacteria and viral contaminats from the water supply. The proposedfilter is shown in Figure 7. The cermaic filter component, similar to the layered filter component is made from a 25 liter bucket with a hole cut out at the bottom. The ceramic candle filter slots into the hole and is secured in place, as shown by letter E, in the figure provided. Unlike the CCF design in which the candle filter opens downward, the candle filter here opens upward as it makes it easier to secure the filter in place. A cloth, represented by F, is placed over the candle filter in order to prevent further contamination of the candle filter by catching any dirt, sand, or gravel remaining in the water after it has passed through the bucket filter. After going through the cloth, the water then flows into the candle filter, which is coated with silver, to remove any bacterial contaminats that the water may contain. The silver aids in removing the contaminats due to its antibacterial properties which control bacteria growth and re-growth.
Collection bucket:
Once the water flows through the ceramic candle filter, the clean water is then collected in a 25 liter bucket as shown in Figure 8. A hole is made on the side of the bucket 4 centimeters high to allow for impurities such as dirt to collect and settle at the bottom of the collection bucket. The hole is threaded, and a threaded spigot is then screwed into place for easy access to the clean water.
Cost Analysis:
Table 1: Cost Analysis of Filter Material.
| Element | Price per kg | Price for 1 filter |
| Activated carbon | $1.95 | $4.80 |
| Sand | $1 | $4.93 |
| Gravel | $3.43 | $7.10 |
| Plastic | $4 | $14.72 |
| Silver Nitrate | $390 | $3.9 |
| Total | $35.45 |
Note: Information gathered from “Activated Carbon” (2019), “Fairmount Mineral” (2019), “Flint Gravel” (2019), “Food Grade PTCG” (2019), and “Silver Nitrate” (2019).
By using the prices found on the wholesale websites online for each element used in the construction of the filter, the total cost of producing one filter is approximately $35.45. The msot expensive element of the filter is the plastic at $14.72. Although plastic is generally very inexpensive, this particular plastic is made of a high quality, food-grade material which makes it safe to be used in water filters. The total price does not include labor of putting the filter together, but this work is expected to be achieved by unpaid volunteers who want to help the communities. After initial training, each volunteer is expected to put one filter together in about 10 min. As more volunteers get involved, each of them can be trained in doing one part of the process only, thus speeding up the overall process. The most time-consuming part of the total process, including order placement for the parts until the filter is completed and ready for delivery, is the manufacturing of the plastic parts. As advertised in the Rodongroup website (the part manufacturing company), the initial first order placed may take up to 8 weeks. Every other order after has an average of completion of 1 week, with a maximum wait time of 2 weeks at peak demand.
Maintenance
The maintenance and cleanliness of the filters is essential for the optimal efficiency of the purification of water.
The layered filter is the most basic of filters, thus the cleaning and maintenance of this filter is very simple. The layered filter should ideally be cleaned everyday to prevent the growth of mold or bacteria. A portion of clean water should be set aside for cleaning. The clean water is then poured through the top of the filter where the contaminated water is usually poured. The clean water will then move through the gravel and sand and remove any impurities. Clean water should be added until the water in the collection tank once gain runs clear. If portions of sand or gravel are lost, they can be easily replaced (Mwabi et al., 2011).
The cleaning of the ceramic filter is essentially the same as for the bucket filter. The ceramic filter is also cleaned by pouring clean water over the candle filter until the water once again runs clear. It is also recommended to wash the filter with warm water and soap. Since this ceramic filter is used in conjunction with a layered filter, the filter will not have to be cleaned as frequently. However, the structural integrity of this filter is important. In ceramic filters, fine cracks can appear on the filter and will create an opening which allows for contaminants to pass through, greatly reducing the filter’s efficiency (Zouaoui & Bouaziz, 2017). Thus, the filter should be checked everyday for any new cracks or chips.
The newly contaminated water collected from the filters’ cleaning should be disposed of in a location far from the water source. The contaminated water can be thrown on the earth or dust in a sunny place, so that the sun can effectively kill the bacteria and viruses in the water. This allows for fewer contaminants in the water source. It is also important to keep the contaminated water away from any agriculture as well.
Conclusion
By analyzing research done on household filtration systems, we were able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various filter designs and design a hybrid filtration system consisting of the most effective filtration methods at filtering physical, chemical, and biological contaminants. The layered BF and BSF designs showed high performance in chemical removal and will be the component responsible for the removal of chemical contaminants. The ceramic CCF and SIPP designs showed high performance in bacterial removal and will be the component responsible for the removal of biological contaminants. Through cost and time analysis, we determined that the price for one filter will be $35.45 and that orders for filters may take up to 8 weeks.
Limitations:
While the hybrid nature of the filter will be highly effective at filtering most contaminants, the proposed filter design has several limitations. One such limitation regards the removal of viruses. As previous research has pointed out, silver-impregnated ceramic filters are very effective at removing bacterial contaminants; however, they are not so effective at removing viruses as shown by Simonis and Basson, 2011. In order to completely remove all viruses, the water needs to reach temperatures high enough to kill them. Therefore, to ensure virus removal, another step of water heating must be added to the water processing system. The second important limitation of the proposed hybrid filter design is the slow filtration speed. While the layered filter component will have a very fast water flow at values ranging between 167 and 171 liters per hour, the ceramic filter will have a very slow water flow rate at values between 3.5 and 6.4 liters per hour (Mwabi et al., 2011). Since the slowest component of a process determines the rate of speed of the whole process, the whole proposed hybrid filtration system will have the flow rate of the ceramic filter. The micro-porous structure of ceramic filters that give them their high filtration also give them their slow water flow rates. In order to increase filtration speed for future designs, it is important to construct larger ceramic filters with a greater surface area. This will ensure that a greater amount of water will be able to filter through the ceramic filter per unit of time.
Sources:
Activated Carbon CTC 55 (n.d.). In kemcore. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.kemcore.com/activated-carbon-ctc-55-6x12mesh.html
Cholera:Vibrio Cholerae Infection. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/general/index.html
“Competing for Clean Water Has Led to a Crisis.” Clean Water Crisis Facts and Information, 27 Jan. 2017, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/.
Fairmount Mineral AquaQuartz Filter Silica Sand (n.d.). In Doheny’s. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.doheny.com/fairmount-mineral-aquaquartz-filter-silica-sand?___store%5B_data%5D%5Bstore_id%5D=1&___store%5B_data%5D%5Bcode%5D=doh&___store%5B_data%5D%5Bwebsite_id%5D=1&___store%5B_data%5D%5
Flint Gravel Underlayer For Filters (n.d.). In affordablewater. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.affordablewater.us/Flint-Gravel-Underlayer-For-Filters–P244.aspx?gclid=CjwKCAjw5dnmBRACEiwAmMYGOc7BHWMhiVcK1bqhVcyFh8y56m-g6rXks8AYPMgtWHLvWxUSOPl-BxoCbWMQAvD_BwE
Food Grade PCTG Resin PCTG Plastic Raw Material Without BPA (n.d.). In Alibaba. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Food-Grade-PCTG-Resin-PCTG-Plastic_60718540680.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.99.77877ecfXuRKc5
Harvey, Reid, et al. “Filtering Safe Drinking Water through Granulated Ceramics .” American Ceramic Society, vol. 98, no. 1, Jan. 2019.
Khan, Md. Z. et al. “Water Purification and Disinfection by Using Solar Energy: Towards Green Energy Challenge.” Aceh International Journal of Science & Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 99–106. EBSCOhost, doi:10.13170/aijst.4.3.3019.
Lead. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/health.html
Magnus. (2019, April 07). What does activated carbon water filters remove? Retrieved from https://tappwater.co/us/what-activated-carbon-remove/
Mwabi, J.k., et al. “Household Water Treatment Systems: A Solution to the Production of Safe Drinking Water by the Low-Income Communities of Southern Africa.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, vol. 36, no. 14-15, 2011, pp. 1120–1128., doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.078.
Safe Drinking Water Act, H.R. 16760 (1974)
Simonis, Jean Jacques, and Albertus Koetzee Basson. “Evaluation of a Low-Cost Ceramic Micro-Porous Filter for Elimination of Common Disease Microorganisms.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, vol. 36, no. 14-15, 2011, pp. 1129–1134., doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.064.
Silver Nitrate Agno3. (n.d.). Retrieved May 13, 2019, from https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Factory-supply-best-price-99-8_60724054856.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.15.59a7350cqlLp9e&s=p
Zouaoui, H., & Bouaziz, J. (2017). Physical and mechanical properties improvement of a porous clay ceramic. Applied Clay Science, 150, 131-137. doi:10.1016/j.clay.2017.09.002
(n.d.). In Rodongroup. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.rodongroup.com/
Self-Reflection
Acknowledge your and others’ range of linguistic differences as resources, and draw on those resources to develop rhetorical sensibility.
When writing the proposal, I assumed that the readers would not be knowledgeable in the field of water filters. As a result, I included a lot of background information to give insight into some of the challenges that are encountered in water filtration. I tried to use simple words and defined any words that I thought readers might not know.
Enhance strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment.
To enhance the reading experience, the information in the paper was chunked into many sections. Moreover, the paper included many pictures to better illustrate ideas. When it comes to drafting and revision, this paper had the longest writing process. To get to the final paper, the group went through three drafts, two of which were reviewed by the professor. Going through the drafts was crucial in continually determining areas of improvement and writing a high quality paper.
Develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.
The class peer-review was extremely helpful in improving the paper. Our paper was reviewed by the professor and the suggestions provided helped make the paper much better. These suggestions included grammar, structural, as well as design suggestions. For example, after reading the first draft, the professor suggested to add pictures to the background information section in order to make the paper less intimidating to read. This made the paper look more like an engineering report rather than a long essay.
Engage in genre analysis and multimodal composing to explore effective writing across disciplinary contexts and beyond.
Since this paper was an engineering proposal, the writing was mostly informative in nature. The purpose of the paper was to inform readers about a new potential innovation to tackle the water crisis problem the world is facing. Graphics were used throughout the picture to better illustrate the innovation.
Formulate and articulate a stance through and in your writing.
The only “stance” really formulated throughout the paper was the fact that the hybrid filter design would be better than any of the individual filters. This was done through compare and contrast of the different filters. Once the strengths and weaknesses of the different filters are highlighted, it becomes clear that a hybrid filter is the best solution for effective water filtration.
Practice using various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources appropriate to your writing projects.
There was a multitude of sources used in this paper (16 in total). The main research articles (Mwabi et al.) came from EBSCO Host while other sources used for cost-analysis came from wholesale websites.
Strengthen your source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources)
Sources have been used throughout the essay starting from the introduction. These sources have been incorporated mostly through paraphrasing, but quotations as well. Additionally, sources were used to cite all the pictures used (other than the ones we made ourselves) and the table. If the reader wants to find these sources online, he/she can use the physical copy attached to do so.
Group Work Experience Reflection:
Overall, I was pretty disappointed with the group work. I noticed from the very beginning that my other group members lacked initiative. I realized, however, that this could be because they were prioritizing their other classes which were much harder. Nonetheless, I took a leadership position and setup deadlines for completion of sections. I would say that I did about 60% of the work in this project. This included planning the essay, writing the outline, introduction, background information, conclusion, as well as creating the 3D model of the filter using CAD software. Moreover, I made sure that the entire paper was uniformly formatted and that grammar errors were minimal. Jessica wrote the technical description and maintenance section of the essay, and Genti wrote the cost-analysis section. There was a problem with Genti in the beginning as he wasn’t really pulling his own weight; however, this was because he was busy with work outside of school. In the end, he wrote a pretty good cost-analysis section for the filter design.
