Encyclopedia of Membrane Science and Technology 2013
DOI: 10.1002/9781118522318.emst067
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Membrane Integrity Monitoring

Abstract: This article overviews the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of membrane integrity tests with emphasis on their sensitivity, reliability, and feasibility for various types of membranes. The 10 integrity tests presented are grouped into four categories: pressure‐based, marker‐based, visualization, and acoustic sensing. The methods detailed here include pressure and vacuum decay tests (PDT/VDT), diffuse air flow (DAF), bubble point, TOC profiling, and sonic sensing currently used in industry.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because achieving a sterile effluent is of critical importance, sterilizing-grade filters are typically integrity-tested after assembly and prior to use, as well as again after use, as per industry and regulatory guidelines [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Several types of integrity tests for assessing the integrity of membrane filters for liquid filtration have been previously described, including particle challenge tests, the gas–liquid diffusion test, the bubble point test, and diffusion tests measuring tracer components [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Of these, variants of the gas–liquid diffusion test (gas–liquid pair combinations such as air–water, nitrogen–IPA, and others, along with the diffusive–forward flow and pressure hold–decay measurement methods) and bubble-point-type tests are most commonly used for sterilizing-grade filters [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because achieving a sterile effluent is of critical importance, sterilizing-grade filters are typically integrity-tested after assembly and prior to use, as well as again after use, as per industry and regulatory guidelines [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Several types of integrity tests for assessing the integrity of membrane filters for liquid filtration have been previously described, including particle challenge tests, the gas–liquid diffusion test, the bubble point test, and diffusion tests measuring tracer components [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Of these, variants of the gas–liquid diffusion test (gas–liquid pair combinations such as air–water, nitrogen–IPA, and others, along with the diffusive–forward flow and pressure hold–decay measurement methods) and bubble-point-type tests are most commonly used for sterilizing-grade filters [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several indirect monitoring methods have been proposed by previous research. ,,, Among physicochemical surrogate indicators, turbidity measurements and particle counting are regularly applied for indirect monitoring . While these methods are quick and relatively inexpensive, limited sensitivity due to low concentrations leaves them less applicable in high-pressure membrane processes. , Conductivity and ion retention were also implemented to monitor membrane integrity. While able to be monitored online with LRVs up to log 3, sufficiently high concentrations are required to observe integrity losses .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 21 While these methods are quick and relatively inexpensive, limited sensitivity due to low concentrations leaves them less applicable in high-pressure membrane processes. 22 , 23 Conductivity and ion retention were also implemented to monitor membrane integrity. While able to be monitored online with LRVs up to log 3, sufficiently high concentrations are required to observe integrity losses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several indirect monitoring methods have been proposed by previous research (Antony et al, 2012;Buysschaert et al, 2018;Gitis and Rothenberg, 2013;Huang et al, 2015;Krahnstöver et al, 2019;Lidén et al, 2016;Lousada-Ferreira et al, 2016;Ostarcevic et al, 2018;van Nevel et al, 2017). Among physicochemical surrogate indicators, turbidity measurements, and particle counting are regularly applied for indirect monitoring (Lousada-Ferreira et al, 2016).…”
Section: Abrahamsementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among physicochemical surrogate indicators, turbidity measurements, and particle counting are regularly applied for indirect monitoring (Lousada-Ferreira et al, 2016). While these methods are quick and relatively inexpensive, limited sensitivity due to low concentrations leaves them less applicable in high-pressure membrane processes (Antony et al, 2012;Gitis and Rothenberg, 2013). Conductivity and ion retention have also been implemented to monitor membrane integrity.…”
Section: Abrahamsementioning
confidence: 99%