A Novel Model of Pressure Decay in Pressure-Driven Membrane Integrity Tests Based on the Bubble Dynamic Process

The membrane integrity is estimated using a pressure decay test based on the bubble dynamic process of membrane defects. The present work builds a schematic diagram for a bubble formation model of a pressure decay test, proposes a simulation model of pressure decay rate (PDR) in the membrane gas chamber by means of numerical simulation using microdefect bubble dynamic behavior, and tries to establish the main factors influencing the back-calculated defect size resolution. Results obtained from the variations in the membrane gas chamber pressure and the PDR allowed for accurate determination of the membrane defect size, and the PDR was found to be relatively dependent on the gas chamber volume and the initial applied test pressure. The measured data about PDR using controlled experimental parameters was in good agreement with the trend found in the prediction model, proving that the pressure decay test process is in essence a bubble dynamic process. Furthermore, the back-calculated defect size resolution was found to decrease with the increase in gas chamber volume and PDR as well as with the decrease in applied pressure.

[1]  P. Moulin,et al.  Analysis of performance criteria for ultrafiltration membrane integrity test using magnetic nanoparticles , 2014 .

[2]  Songlin Wang,et al.  Quantification of the defect size of ultrafiltration membrane system using mathematical model , 2015 .

[3]  Huaizhi Li,et al.  Bubbles in non-Newtonian fluids: Formation, interactions and coalescence , 1999 .

[4]  Khosrow Farahbakhsh,et al.  Estimating air diffusion contribution to pressure decay during membrane integrity tests , 2004 .

[5]  Jurg Keller,et al.  Reverse osmosis integrity monitoring in water reuse: The challenge to verify virus removal - A review. , 2016, Water research.

[6]  Huaizhi Li,et al.  Bubble formation at an orifice: A multiscale investigation , 2013 .

[7]  Koichi Terasaka,et al.  Bubble formation at a single orifice in highly viscous liquids , 1990 .

[8]  Rajinder Kumar,et al.  Studies in bubble formation—I bubble formation under constant flow conditions , 1969 .

[9]  Liang-Shih Fan,et al.  Bubble formation and dynamics in gas–liquid–solid fluidization—A review , 2007 .

[10]  J. Laîné,et al.  Risk management approach for monitoring UF membrane integrity and experimental validation using Ms2-phages , 2010 .

[11]  H Guo,et al.  Low-pressure membrane integrity tests for drinking water treatment: A review. , 2010, Water research.

[12]  J. Xie,et al.  Dynamic bubbling behaviors on a micro-orifice submerged in stagnant liquid , 2014 .

[13]  Xiaowu Sun,et al.  Demographic variables, smoking variables, and outcome across five studies. , 2007, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[14]  Philippe Moulin,et al.  Application of magnetic nanoparticles for UF membrane integrity monitoring at low-pressure operation , 2010 .

[15]  Joseph G. Jacangelo,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of the pressure-based direct integrity test for membranes used in drinking water treatment. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  G. Hébrard,et al.  Bubble formation from a flexible hole submerged in an inviscid liquid , 2003 .

[17]  G. Hébrard,et al.  Dynamics of bubble growth and detachment from rigid and flexible orifices , 2008 .

[18]  J. Xie,et al.  Dynamics of bubble formation and detachment from an immersed micro-orifice on a plate , 2012 .

[19]  Denis Guibert,et al.  Direct membrane integrity testing: Impact of parameter selection on log removal value calculations , 2011 .