Sensitivity analysis of the pressure-based direct integrity test for membranes used in drinking water treatment.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis of the commonly employed pressure-based direct integrity test (DIT), the most sensitive test for defects in low-pressure hollow fiber (LPHF) microfiltration and ultrafiltration systems used in drinking water treatment. Incorporating uncertainty to assess the practice of DIT, we find the resolution in some tests may be insufficient to verify the presence of a barrier to oocysts of Cryptosporidium. Applying distributions and boundaries derived from literature and practice, we solved for the defect size resolution (DSR) using Monte Carlo and Probability Bounds Analysis for five commercial membrane designs. Surface tension was modeled using annual temperature profiles from three rivers. Contact angle measurement error and variability were derived from literature, respectively, as a standard deviation of 5.7 degrees and +/- 9.6 degrees median change due to natural organic matter (NOM) fouling. These measures of contact angle uncertainty and variability were combined in a normal distribution with the discrete values currently applied. Additionally we considered model uncertainty, applying the maximum bubble pressure method, an established method of surface tension measurement in liquids in which the maximum air pressure in a submerged capillary is developed after the contact angle becomes zero prior to bubble formation. Where the DSR exceeds 3 microm the test design is not compliant with applicable drinking water regulations. Implications include uncertain and variable log-removal values (LRV) as determined by DIT due to the possible emergence of defects large enough to allow oocysts to pass without detection by the DIT. Specifically, we found the DSR may exceed 3 microm and may be as large as 8 microm. With the variable contact angle model, all lower bound possibilities are compliant, whereas the upper bound is over 80% noncompliant for three of five commercial designs. Using the Maximum Bubble Pressure Method, the lower bounds in three designs start to exceed 3 microm for between 50 and 100% of the produced water, whereas the upper bounds of the DSR completely exceed 3 microm for four of five commercial designs examined.

[1]  Bao-ku Zhu,et al.  Modification of porous poly(vinylidene fluoride) membrane using amphiphilic polymers with different structures in phase inversion process , 2008 .

[2]  E. Muniz,et al.  Surface modification of polystyrene and poly(ethylene terephtalate) by grafting poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) , 2002, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[3]  P. M. Williams,et al.  Cleaning results of new and fouled nanofiltration membrane characterized by contact angle, updated DSPM, flux and salts rejection , 2008 .

[4]  Khosrow Farahbakhsh,et al.  Monitoring the Integrity of low‐pressure membranes , 2003 .

[5]  C. Causserand,et al.  Membrane processes for water disinfection: investigation on bacterial transfer mechanisms , 2006 .

[6]  Robert M. Clark,et al.  Application of nanoscale probes for the evaluation of the integrity of ultrafiltration membranes , 2006 .

[7]  J. Laîné,et al.  Control fouling and cleaning procedures of UF membranes by a streaming potential method , 1998 .

[8]  S. Jongwutiwes,et al.  Simple method for long‐term copro‐preservation of Cryptosporidium oocysts for morphometric and molecular analysis , 2002, Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH.

[9]  M. Ulbricht,et al.  Dextran fouling of polyethersulfone ultrafilltrationmembranes-Causes, extent and consequences , 2007 .

[10]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Arithmetic with uncertain numbers: rigorous and (often) best possible answers , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  F. O. Hoffman,et al.  Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  M. Ulbricht,et al.  Influence of ultrafiltration membrane characteristics on adsorptive fouling with dextrans , 2005 .

[13]  George M. Whitesides,et al.  Wet chemical approaches to the characterization of organic surfaces: self-assembled monolayers, wetting, and the physical-organic chemistry of the solid-liquid interface , 1990 .

[14]  A. Zydney,et al.  Humic acid fouling during ultrafiltration , 2000 .

[15]  U. Schaflinger,et al.  Bubble Formation on Porous Media Surfaces , 2002 .

[16]  M. Wahlgren,et al.  Membrane Characterization by the Contact Angle Technique: II. Characterization of UF-Membranes and Comparison between the Captive Bubble and Sessile Drop as Methods to obtain Water Contact Angles , 1989 .

[17]  J. Laîné,et al.  Mechanism of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and MS2 virus removal by MF and UF , 1995 .

[18]  A. Marmur Thermodynamic aspects of contact angle hysteresis , 1994 .

[19]  B. Wesslén,et al.  Polyurethane surfaces modified by amphiphilic polymers: effects on protein adsorption. , 2000, Biomaterials.

[20]  S. Ferson,et al.  Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability , 1996 .

[21]  T. Matsuura,et al.  Determination of surface and bulk pore sizes of flat-sheet and hollow-fiber membranes by atomic force microscopy, gas permeation and solute transport methods , 2003 .

[22]  Hiroaki Ozaki,et al.  Factors affecting seasonal variation of membrane filtration resistance caused by Chlorella algae. , 2002, Water research.

[23]  G. Belfort,et al.  Effect of Undulations on Surface Energy: A Quantitative Assessment , 2001 .

[24]  Tomohiro Onda,et al.  Super Water-Repellent Surfaces Resulting from Fractal Structure , 1996 .

[25]  Sunny Wang,et al.  Direct observation of microbial adhesion to membranes. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[26]  Xian‐Wen Wei,et al.  Mitigated membrane fouling in an SMBR by surface modification , 2008 .

[27]  Tomas Öberg,et al.  Uncertain Numbers and Uncertainty in the Selection of Input Distributions—Consequences for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Contaminated Land , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  E. Muniz,et al.  Characterization of PNIPAAm photografted on PET and PS surfaces , 2005 .

[29]  E. Molis,et al.  The effect of CA membrane properties on adsorptive fouling by humic acid , 1999 .

[30]  R Miller,et al.  Application of the maximum bubble pressure technique for dynamic surface tension studies of surfactant solutions using the Sugden two-capillary method. , 2006, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[31]  K. J. Mysels The maximum bubble pressure method of measuring surface tension, revisited , 1990 .

[32]  T. Egli,et al.  Influence of size, shape, and flexibility on bacterial passage through micropore membrane filters. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[33]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Sensitivity analysis using probability bounding , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[34]  Samer Adham,et al.  Low‐pressure membranes: assessing integrity , 1995 .

[35]  Jean-Philippe Croué,et al.  Fouling studies of a polyamide nanofiltration membrane by selected natural organic matter: an analytical approach , 2005 .

[36]  Jaeweon Cho,et al.  Characterization of clean and natural organic matter (NOM) fouled NF and UF membranes, and foulants characterization☆ , 1998 .

[37]  Zhi‐Kang Xu,et al.  Covalent attachment of phospholipid analogous polymers to modify a polymeric membrane surface: a novel approach. , 2004, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[38]  B. Wesslén,et al.  Adsorption behaviour of amphiphilic polymers at hydrophobic surfaces: effects on protein adsorption. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[39]  K. Sakai,et al.  AFM observation of small surface pores of hollow-fiber dialysis membrane using highly sharpened probe , 2002 .

[40]  A. Ismail,et al.  Fabrication, fouling and foulant analyses of asymmetric polysulfone (PSF) ultrafiltration membrane fouled with natural organic matter (NOM) source waters , 2007 .

[41]  K. Birdi,et al.  Wettability and Contact Angles , 1984 .

[42]  Michelle L. Steen,et al.  Hydrophilic modification of polymeric membranes by low temperature H2O plasma treatment , 2002 .

[43]  M. Clark,et al.  Adsorption of aquatic humic substances on hydrophobic ultrafiltration membranes , 1994 .

[44]  Jan D. Miller,et al.  The effect of solid surface heterogeneity and roughness on the contact angle/drop (bubble) size relationship , 1994 .