Essential For Any Laboratory – Filters

November 10th, 2011

Some of the common items present in any laboratory may be the syringe filter. Syringe filters are generally a necessary laboratory supply that may be applied over a broad spectrum of research laboratory procedures. They tend to be generally utilized in the preparation of aqueous and organic solutions, in which it is important to have quick and efficient filtration. Syringe filters will also be needed for the biotech business, pharmaceutical applications, and in food and beverage labs. Syringe filters can be used for a variety of applications and also have just as many corresponding variations. Each and every alternative of non reusable syringe filters is created to accommodate its particular application. Regardless of function, it is critical you have adequate understanding of the product and its vendors before buying any kind of syringe filters from a dealer.

 

The advantages of syringe filters in setting up organic and aqueous solutions for testing is which they are non reusable and sterile. The design of syringe filters offers sterile housing for separated solutions, where outside contamination may otherwise significantly alter results. The ability to effectively filter such solutions reduces costs and guarantees only uncontaminated samples are used for testing.

 

Tisch may be the leader in separations technology for the life sciences and one associated with the top suppliers of disposable syringe filter product lines. Tisch disposable syringe filters are generally composed of either a polypropylene or polycarbonate housing and are heat-sealed ahead of shipment, making sure a sterile bottle for solution filtration and preparation. This also guarantees this the package itself will not impact the substance to be tested.

 

 

Regardless of whether buying Tisch syringe filters for a chemistry lab or replenishing commercial laboratory products, dealing with a trustworthy and reliable supply distributor is ideal. Tisch Scientific, among the largest suppliers of syringe filters, has offered customers regular shipping and aggressive pricing for only the highest quality materials since 1954. Tisch sells the full line of Whatman and Tisch syringe filters, including the Anotop® model, and provides lower annual pricing for both small and volume orders. These also happen to be extremely resilient, catering to the particular requirements of any specific laboratory by providing brand names you recognize and trust for any supply you may demand.

 

If you operate in a research laboratory, it is a reliable guess that you’ll want to inventory syringe filters, along with other significant products. Materials and the function they create aren’t inexpensive, so selecting the best apparatus should be a smart investment. You don’t really need to be a researcher to understand that when you purchase supplies you trust, you trust your outcomes. The Tisch syringe filter design is an important laboratory supply that you can use across a broad variety of work and trust to provide your laboratory uncontaminated results. You can choose the Tisch Syringe Filter Product, as well as all your laboratory items, with the maximum assurance through www.scientificfilters.com.

Filtration-based concentration methods

September 10th, 2011

Filtration-based concentration methods

The 1994 Cryptosporidium Criteria Document described a filtration method using polypropylene wound yarn filter with a 1-:m porosity. This collection method can be used for large volume samples with varying turbidity. Some tested 10 cartridge filters varying in composition (polypropylene, nylon, rayon, and cotton) and porosity (0.5 and 1.0 :m) for removal of Cryptosporidium- and Giardia-sized particles.

Although retention of 3- and 7-:m particles was greater using filters with a 0.5 :m porosity, they tended to clog, limiting the amount of water that could be filtered. The use of cotton, nylon, and rayon filters led to the most efficient removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia-sized particles. The authors tested the filters using 1 gallon (3.78 L) volumes of water. Wound fiber filters may not necessarily be superior to wound filters for samples greater than 1 gallon in volume. To further minimize losses during filtration, the filter housing was matched with the filter, and a screw press was used to wring the filters. Concentration of the eluate was best performed at centrifuge speeds of 6,700 to 10,000 x g.

Also described in the 1994 Cryptosporidium Criteria Document was the use of cellulose acetate membrane

(CAM) filters. Others compared recovery rates of a method using CAM filters to the ASTM

ICR method using wound yarn filters. Prior to filtration by either method, Cryptosporidium and Giardia were spiked into environmental water samples varying in quality and turbidity. Cyst and oocyst recoveries decreased with increasing water turbidity, regardless of the filter type. Overall, the cellulose acetate method gave higher recoveries; however, because the parasites were stained on polycarbonate filters, microscopic confirmation was not possible. Therefore, the authors recommended the use of the ASTM ICR method for environmental sample

Drinking Water Criteria Document Addendum: Cryptosporidium March 2001

75 analysis and the cellulose acetate method for spiking studies. Adlome and Chaglam modified the CAM method by including an acid dissolution step following filtration. This modification resulted in a 70.5% recovery of oocysts spiked into 3 liters of treated municipal water. Graczyke used cellulose acetate filters, followed by filter dissolution and ASTM ICR method processing to test recovery of Cryptosporidium

from spiked drinking water. The overall mean recovery rate was reported as 77.7%. Further studies

indicate that the acetone dissolution step does not compromise viability or infectivity.

EPA’s Method 1622 requires a capsule filter (USEPA, 1999b) these filters contain a pleated polysulfone membrane with a 1-:m porosity. Filter is a 6-cm-diameter by 21-cmlong capsule with a surface area of 1,300 cm2. Clancie compared throughput and recovery rates of this capsule filter with those of polycarbonate membrane filters, vortex flow filtration, and cellulose acetate membrane filters which were dissolved post-filtration. All four filters were challenged with 10 liters of municipal raw and finished waters. The cellulose acetate membranes and polycarbonate membranes were blocked at 8 and 2.5 liters, respectively, at a raw nephlometric turbidity unit (NTU) of 5. The polymer vortex flow and capsule filters were able to process the entire 10 liters of raw water and gave recovery rates of 11-57% and 8-78%, respectively. In finished waters from five utilities, the vortex flow recovered 18-69% of the seeded oocysts, while the capsule filter recovered 45-117%. The researchers concluded that the capsule filter performed best with the various water matrix conditions tested. Other membrane filters composed of glass fiber have been evaluated.

How to choose a filter.

August 17th, 2011

HOW TO Pick A FILTER

You will find 4 primary things to consider when selecting the most effective filter

in your application. They’re:

1. Is the filtering application automated or manual?

2. What exactly is the filter’s chemical compatibility?

a. Level of resistance of membrane layer to solution contact

b. Extractables

c. Adsorption

3. Exactly what Effective Filtering Area is necessary for your filtering?

4. What exactly pore sizing rating is best for sample clean-up?

Can the syringe filter need to be resistant against bases, acids, or organicsolvents?

Chemical compatibility may be a crucial consideration whenever choosing the sample prep syringe filter?

Aqueous Samples

Hydrophilic membranes, that have an affinity for water, tend to be

more effective whenever filtering aqueous samples. Good examples are Nylon syringe filters, PES syringe filters, and PVDF syringe filters.

Gases and Aggressive Organic Solvents

Hydrophobic membranes repel water and are inert to aggressive

organic solvents, which makes them well suited for gases and organic

solvents. PTFE membrane and PTFE syringe filters.

Deciding on the best size

The particulate included inside a liquid impacts the life span of the

filtration system. As particles are generally taken from the fluid, that they obstruct pores

reducing the actual useful part of the filter. Particulate-laden

fluids usually plug a filter faster as compared to “clean” fluids.

Raising the Effective Filtration Area can easily prolong the actual

life of a filter.

Filter systems are available in quite a lot of sizes. 13mm, 17mm, 25mm, and 30mm can be found in a

various membrane and pore dimension alternatives.

Another facet of deciding on the best filtration system size is the hold-up

volume level. This is actually the amount of fluid leftover in the filter following

use. A filter having a minimal hold-up volume is suggested for

use with costly liquids or those having restricted supply.

Regarding the 4 typical reasons for HPLC column failure

(plugging, voids, adsorbed sample, and chemical attack),

plugging is regarded as the usually experienced by analytical

chemists or experts. Injection of samples that contains

particulate could eventually obstruct the column inlet, cause high

column backpressure, and reduce the standard lifetime of the

column. Operations associated with pump elements, injectors, and

detectors should be expected to become much less problematic while

liquids are filtered. For HPLC applications, the 0.45 µm pore

size filter is usually chosen for removal of particulates.

However, there are many apparently comparable such products

available for purchase, lack of edcuation concerning the dissimilarities

among filters leads to ore frequent column replacement

and substantial operation downtime.

Filtration as a preventative maintenance device for HPLC

analyses is well documented. It really is typically assumed

that column life will be extended if samples are filtered prior to

injection, but the extension of the column life has not been

well quantified. It is the intent of this work to demonstrate that

filter efficiency must be considered when choosing an HPLC

sample-prep filter and that filtration will lengthen the life of

a column.

In this paper, retention efficiency of three effectively equivalent

0.45 µm rated syringe filters was examined using 0.45 µm

average diameter latex spheres. This work was conducted

with latex spheres to offer the best possible reproducibility in

both sample preparation and filter effectiveness measurements.

In order to correlate the retention of spheres to the actual

program, the quantitative effect of filtration on HPLC column

life has been examined. This involved evaluating column life

without filtration compared to column life when samples were

filtered. It should be recognized that extending the column life

is dependent on the particulate within the sample and actual

column life extension may vary.

Sand and Organic Filters

July 24th, 2011
Sand and Organic Filters  
Description

Sand filters are usually designed as two-chambered stormwater practices; the first is a settling chamber, and the second is a filter bed filled with sand or another filtering media. As stormwater flows into the first chamber, large particles settle out, and then finer particles and other pollutants are removed as stormwater flows through the filtering medium. There are several modifications of the basic sand filter design, including the surface sand filter, underground sand filter, perimeter sand filter, organic media filter, and Multi-Chamber Treatment Train. All of these filtering practices operate on the same basic principle. Modifications to the traditional surface sand filter were made primarily to fit sand filters into more challenging design sites (e.g., underground and perimeter filters) or to improve pollutant removal (e.g., organic media filter).

Applicability

Sand filters can be applied in most regions of the country and on most types of sites. Some restrictions at the site level, however, might restrict the use of sand filters as a stormwater management practice (see Siting and Design Considerations).

Regional Applicability

Although sand filters can be used in both cold and arid climates, some design modifications might be necessary (See Siting and Design Considerations).

In cold climates, filters can be used, but surface or perimeter filters will not be effective during the winter months, and unintended consequences might result from a frozen filter bed. Using alternative conveyance measures such as a weir system between the sediment chamber and filter bed may avoid freezing associated with the traditional standpipe. Where possible, the filter bed should be below the frost line. Some filters, such as the peat/sand filter, should be shut down during the winter. These media will become completely impervious during freezing conditions. Using a larger under drain system to encourage rapid draining during the winter months may prevent freezing of the filter bed. Finally, the sediment chamber should be larger in cold climates to account for road sanding (up to 40 percent of the water quality volume). Filters have not been widely used in arid climates, however, it is probably also necessary to increase storage in the sediment chamber to up to 40 percent of the water quality volume to account for high sediment loads.

Ultra-Urban Areas

Ultra-urban areas are densely developed urban areas in which little pervious surface is present. Sand filters in general are good options in these areas because they consume little space. Underground and perimeter sand filters in particular are well suited to the ultra-urban setting because they consume no surface space.

Stormwater Hot Spots

Stormwater hot spots are areas where land use or activities generate highly contaminated runoff, with concentrations of pollutants in excess of those typically found in stormwater. These areas include commercial nurseries, auto recycle facilities, commercial parking lots, fueling stations, storage areas, industrial rooftops, marinas, outdoor container storage of liquids, outdoor loading/unloading facilities, public works storage areas, hazardous materials generators (if containers are exposed to rainfall), vehicle service and maintenance areas, and vehicle and equipment washing/steam cleaning facilities. Sand filters are an excellent option to treat runoff from stormwater hot spots because stormwater treated by sand filters has no interaction with, and thus no potential to contaminate, the groundwater.

Stormwater Retrofit

A stormwater retrofit is a stormwater management practice (usually structural) put into place after development has occurred to improve water quality, protect downstream channels, reduce flooding, or meet other specific objectives. Sand filters are a good option to achieve water quality goals in retrofit studies where space is limited because they consume very little surface space and have few site restrictions. It is important to note, however, that sand filters cannot treat a very large drainage area. Using small-site BMPs in a retrofit may be the only option for a retrofit study in a highly urbanized area, but it is expensive to treat the drainage area of an entire watershed using many small-site practices, as opposed to one larger facility such as a pond.

Cold Water (Trout) Streams

Some species in cold water streams, notably trout, are extremely sensitive to changes in temperature. To protect these resources, designers should avoid treatment practices that increase the temperature of the stormwater runoff they treat. Sand filters can be a good treatment option for cold water streams. In some stormwater treatment practices, particularly wet ponds, runoff is warmed by the sun as it resides in the permanent pool. Surface sand filters are typically not designed with a permanent pool, although there is ponding in the sedimentation chamber and above the sand filter. Designers may consider shortening the detention time in cold water watersheds. Underground and perimeter sand filter designs have little potential for warming because these practices are not exposed to the sun.

Siting and Design Considerations

Drainage Area

Sand filters are best applied on relatively small sites (up to 10 acres for surface sand filters and closer to 2 acres for perimeter or underground filters [MDE, 2000]). Filters have been used on larger drainage areas, of up to 100 acres, but these systems can clog when they treat larger drainage areas unless adequate measures are provided to prevent clogging, such as a larger sedimentation chamber or more intensive regular maintenance.

Slope

Sand filters can be used on sites with slopes up to about 6 percent. It is challenging to use most sand filters in very flat terrain because they require a significant amount of elevation drop, or head (about 5 to 8 feet), to allow flow through the system. One exception is the perimeter sand filter, which can be applied with as little as 2 feet of head.

Soils/Topography

When sand filters are designed as a stand-alone practice, they can be used on almost any soil because they can be designed so that stormwater never infiltrates into the soil or interacts with the ground water. Alternatively, sand filters can be designed as pretreatment for an infiltration practice, where soils do play a role.

Ground Water

Designers should provide at least 2 feet of separation between the bottom of the filter and the seasonally high ground water table. This design feature prevents both structural damage to the filter and possibly, though unlikely, ground water contamination.

Pretreatment

Pretreatment is a critical component of any stormwater management practice. In sand filters, pretreatment is achieved in the sedimentation chamber that precedes the filter bed. In this chamber, the coarsest particles settle out and thus do not reach the filter bed. Pretreatment reduces the maintenance burden of sand filters by reducing the potential of these sediments to clog the filter. Designers should provide at least 25 percent of the water quality volume in a dry or wet sedimentation chamber as pretreatment to the filter system. The water quality volume is the amount of runoff that will be treated for pollutant removal in the practice. Typical water quality volumes are the runoff from a 1-inch storm or ½ inch of runoff over the entire drainage area to the practice.

The area of the sedimentation chamber may be determined based on the Camp-Hazen equation, as adapted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (2005). The Center for Watershed Protection (1996) used a settling of 0.0004 ft/s for drainage areas greater than 75% impervious and 0.0033 ft/s for drainage areas less than or equal to 75% impervious to account for the finer particles that erode from pervious surfaces.

Treatment

Treatment design features help enhance the ability of a stormwater management practice to remove pollutants. In filtering systems, designers should provide at least 75 percent of the water quality volume in the practice including both the sand chamber and the sediment chamber. The filter bed should be sized using Darcy’s Law, which relates the velocity of fluids to the hydraulic head and the coefficient of permeability of a medium. In sand filters, designers should select a medium sand as the filtering medium.

Conveyance

Conveyance of stormwater runoff into and through the filter should be conducted safely and in a manner that minimizes erosion potential. Ideally, some stormwater treatment can be achieved during conveyance to and from the filter. Since filtering practices are usually designed as “off-line” systems, meaning that they have the smaller water quality volume diverted to them only during larger storms, using a flow splitter, which is a structure that bypasses larger flows to the storm drain system or to a stabilized channel. One exception is the perimeter filter; in this design, all flows enter the system, but larger flows overflow to an outlet chamber and are not treated by the practice. All filtering practices, with the exception of exfilter designs are designed with an under drain below the filtering bed. An under drain is a perforated pipe system in a gravel bed, installed on the bottom of filtering practices and used to collect and remove filtered runoff.

Maintenance

Typical annual maintenance requirements are:

  • Check to see that the filter bed is clean of sediments, and the sediment chamber is no more than one-half full of sediment; remove sediment if necessary
  • Make sure that there is no evidence of deterioration, sailing, or cracking of concrete
  • Inspect grates (if used)
  • Inspect inlets, outlets, and overflow spillway to ensure good condition and no evidence of erosion
  • Repair or replace any damaged structural parts
  • Stabilize any eroded areas
  • Ensure that flow is not bypassing the facility

The sorbent pillows used in Multi-Chamber Treatment Trains should be replaced twice per year. Routine (monthly) maintenance typically includes:

  • Ensure that contributing area, filtering practice, inlets, and outlets are clear of debris
  • Ensure that the contributing area is stabilized and mowed, with clippings removed
  • Check to ensure that the filter surface is not clogging (also after moderate and major storms)
  • Ensure that activities in the drainage area minimize oil/grease and sediment entry to the system
  • If a permanent pool is present, ensure that the chamber does not leak and that normal pool level is retained
  • Ensure that no noticeable odors are detected outside the facility

In addition to regular maintenance activities needed to ensure the proper function of most stormwater practices, some design features can be incorporated to ease the maintenance burden of each practice. Designers should provide maintenance access to filtering systems. In underground sand filters, confined space rules defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) need to be addressed.

Landscaping

Landscaping can add to both the aesthetic value and the treatment ability of stormwater practices. In sand filters, little landscaping is generally used on the practice, although surface sand filters and organic media filters may be designed with a grass cover on the surface of the filter. In all filters, designers need to ensure that the contributing drainage has dense vegetation to reduce sediment loads to the practice.

Limitations

Sand filters can be used in unique conditions where many other stormwater management practices are inappropriate, such as in karst (i.e., limestone) topography or in highly urbanized settings. There are several limitations to these practices, however. Sand filters cannot control floods and generally are not designed to protect stream channels from erosion or to recharge the ground water. In addition, sand filters require frequent maintenance, and underground and perimeter versions of these practices are easily forgotten because they are out of sight. Perhaps one of the greatest limitations to sand filters is that they cannot be used to treat large drainage areas. Surface sand filters are generally not aesthetically pleasing practices but underground and perimeter sand filters are not visible, and thus do not add or detract from the aesthetic value of a site.

Effectiveness

Filtering practices are for the most part adapted only to provide pollutant removal, although in exfilter designs, some ground water recharge can be provided. Sand filters are effective for pollutant removal with the exception of nitrates, which appear to be exported from filtering systems. The export of nitrates from filters may be caused by mineralization of organic nitrogen in the filter bed.

Water Pollution Microbiology

June 24th, 2011

Membrane Filter Method – When the number of indicator organisms in water is very low, direct inoculation on solid media is not practicable and other methods must be used by which large volumes can be examined. Other, methods of examination include membrane filtration and multiple tube test.
Membrane filter techniques are widely used for the enumeration of bacteria from water sample. In this method the bacterial cells are filtered through a membrane , like gridded MCE, as the sample passes through it. The cells along with the membrane are placed on a suitable solid medium. On incubation these cells produce visible colonies which can be counted

Nutrients – The major nutrients required for the growth of algae include carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus.
Of these nitrogen and phosphorus are the ones which occur in very low concentration in water in relation to algal nutrients.
Thus they act as limiting factors for algal productivity.
Nitrogen is available in the form of ammonium or nitrate and phosphorus is available in the form of phosphates.
The increased concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in eutrophic waters are responsible for the excessive algal growth.

Source of Nutrients – Various natural sources contribute to the increased nutrient level in a water body.
Contamination by excreta of birds and animals especially of live stocks is the major source.
Gross fire accident of vegetation in an area near to the water body can also provide nutrients in the form of burned ashes.
Addition of both treated and untreated sewage into water bodies is another main cause of eutrophication.
Detergents which are rich in phosphate may enter natural water bodies.
Human excreta and industrial effluents can also add to the nutrient status.
Fertilizers applied to agricultural lands are often leached out by irrigation water and rainfall into aquatic environment which provide a direct source of nutrients.

Source for Water Borne Pathogens – Waterborne pathogens make their entry into the waterbodies through a number of sources.
Recycling of treated/inadequately treated wastewater by mixing them with natural waterbodies adds microorganisms.
When septic tanks are built near the waterbodies mixing or seeping of excreta may occur and this may act as a source of waterborne pathogens.

 

Extraction and separation of cationic surfactants from river sediments

May 24th, 2011

The quantitative extraction of cationic surfactant (CS+) in river sediments was studied. Further, the developed method was applied to the spectrophotometric determination of CS+ in urban river sediment samples by solid-phase extraction with membranes. A mixture of methanol and hydrochloric acid was proposed as an eluent. Dried sediment was digested in the eluent under ultrasonic irradiation. After elution, the eluent was evaporated to almost dryness. The residue was dissolved in a small volume of methanol and diluted to a certain volume with water. The pH of the solution was adjusted to 4-5 to separate iron and some other metals as precipitates of hydroxides. The solution was passed through two-piled membranes: first glass-fiber and then polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes. A small volume of methanol was passed through the membranes to elute any CS+ retaining on the membranes. After passing the methanol solution through a cationic exchange resin column, the retained CS+ was eluted with methanol containing a high concentration of sodium chloride. Water, Bromophenol Blue (BPB) and hydrochloric acid were added to the solution. The solution was passed through a mixed cellulose ester membrane filter to retain an ion associate of CS+.BPB-. The retained ion associate was dissolved in a small volume of N,N-dimethylformamide together with the membrane filter, followed by the addition of triethanolamine to make the solution alkaline. The absorbance due to BPB2- was measured at 603 nm against a reagent blank. This method was applied to the determination of CS+ in river water and sediment. A cationic surfactant in sediments at 10(-5) mol kg-1 levels was detected with satisfactory precision. It was found that CS+ was about 500-fold enriched in the sediment from water at the place where domestic wastewater was discharged.

MICROBIOLOGICAL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS – COLIFORM

March 25th, 2011
The fact that a water supply has been used for a long time without any adverse effects is no guarantee of its safety.
Residents of a community may develop a tolerance for certain bacteria to
which they are regularly exposed, but strangers often become ill from drinking the same water.
For this reason it is important that drinking water be tested regularly for bacteriological quality.

 

The standard bacteriological method for judging the suitability of water for domestic use is the
coliform test. This method of analysis detects the presence of coliform bacteria, which are found
in the natural environment (soils and plants) and in the intestines of humans and other
warmblooded animals. They are discharged in the bowel movement; hence, any food or water
sample in which this group of bacteria is found is to be suspected of having come into contact
with domestic sewage, animal manure, or with soil or plant materials. It follows that such a water
supply may contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses which cause such serious human illnesses
as typhoid fever, dysentery, hepatitis, etc.

 

The present regulations require water systems to take a minimum number of microbiological
samples each month based upon the number of persons being served. The larger the population
served, the more microbiological samples required per month.
The two standard methods for determining the numbers of coliform bacteria in a water sample
are the multiple tube fermentation technique and the membrane filter technique. In the multiple
tube fermentation techniaue, a series of fermentation tubes containing special nutrients is
inoculated with appropriate quantities of water to be tested and incubated. After 24 hours, the
presence or absence of gas formation in the tubes is noted. This is considered a presumptive
test for the presence of coliform organisms. A confirming test performed for drinking water
samples involves a similar technique using the culture from the positive presumptive test in a
different nutrient medium.

 

In the membrane filter technique, which is less time consuming, an appropriate quantity of
water to be tested is filtered through a specially designed membrane filter which traps bacteria.
The filter is removed and placed in a special dish with nutrients and incubated for 24 hours. The
typical coliform colony has a metallic surface sheen. The results are usually expressed as
number of coliform colonies per 100 mi of water sample.