Separation Technology

Membrane & Filter Characterization

Optimize separation performance through precise bubble point, pore size distribution, MWCO, and flux characterization for water treatment, pharmaceutical, and industrial applications.

Explore Testing Get Analysis Quote
$38B
Membrane Market 2026
99.9%
Particle Rejection Rate
0.1nm
RO Membrane Pore Size
10μm
MF Membrane Range

Bubble Point & Pore Size Analysis

Critical quality control parameters for membrane integrity and performance validation

Capillary Flow Porometry

Key Measurements

  • Bubble point: Largest pore integrity test
  • Mean flow pore: Average pore diameter
  • Smallest pore: Minimum aperture size
  • Pore size distribution: Full characterization
2026 Insight: Automated porometry enables 100% inline QC testing at production speeds.

Testing Principles

  • Young-Laplace equation: d = 4γcosθ/P
  • Wet-dry flow rate comparison
  • Pressure-controlled gas displacement
  • Non-destructive integrity verification

Performance Specifications

Membrane Classification

  • MF (microfiltration): 0.1-10 μm
  • UF (ultrafiltration): 0.01-0.1 μm
  • NF (nanofiltration): 0.001-0.01 μm
  • RO (reverse osmosis): <0.001 μm
Precision Testing: Resolution down to 10 nm for advanced UF/NF membranes.

Critical Parameters

  • Flux rate correlation with pore size
  • Rejection vs pore diameter relationship
  • Fouling resistance indicators
  • Batch-to-batch consistency (CV <5%)

Membrane Types & Applications

Water Treatment

Type UF/NF/RO
Pore size 0.1 nm - 100 nm
MWCO 100 - 100,000 Da
Flux 10-100 L/m²/h
Application Desalination, potable

Critical for drinking water quality assurance

Pharmaceutical

Type Sterile filtration
Rating 0.22 μm absolute
Bubble point >50 psi typical
Integrity 100% tested
Standard FDA/cGMP compliant

Validated bacterial retention testing required

Gas Separation

Type Polymeric/ceramic
Pore size 0.3-1.0 nm
Selectivity α >10 for CO₂/N₂
Permeance 100-1000 GPU
Application H₂, CO₂, N₂ separation

Molecular sieving via precise pore control

Performance & Fouling Analysis

Flux-Porosity Relationship

Optimize membrane performance through pore size distribution and porosity control.

  • Porosity: 60-85% for high flux membranes
  • Narrow PSD: Enhanced selectivity
  • Tortuosity factor: 1.2-2.5 optimal
  • Flux = (porosity × pore size²) / (thickness × tortuosity)
Target: 2× flux increase via optimization

MWCO Characterization

Molecular weight cut-off determination through dextran/PEG retention studies.

  • 90% rejection at rated MWCO
  • Sharp molecular sieving curve
  • Correlation with mean pore diameter
  • Validation: 10 kDa - 1000 kDa range
Precision: ±10% MWCO specification

Fouling Mechanisms

Track pore blocking and cake formation through sequential porometry analysis.

  • Initial vs fouled pore size comparison
  • Pore constriction vs complete blocking
  • Cleaning efficiency assessment
  • 70-95% flux recovery targeted
Goal: >90% pore recovery after CIP

Integrity Testing Protocols

Non-destructive quality control ensuring 100% defect detection capability.

  • Automated bubble point testing
  • Diffusive air flow at 80% BP pressure
  • Pressure hold decay test
  • Statistical process control limits
Standard: Pass/fail criteria per ASTM F316

Testing Standards & Methods

Parameter Test Method Standard Application
Bubble point Capillary flow porometry ASTM F316 All membrane types
Pore size distribution Wet-dry flow method ASTM E1294 MF, UF membranes
MWCO Dextran/PEG retention ASTM D6908 UF, NF membranes
Bacterial retention Challenge test (B. diminuta) ASTM F838 Sterile filtration
Flux determination Pure water permeability ISO 9334 Performance rating
Integrity (installed) Diffusion/pressure decay PDA TR 26 In-situ verification

Industry Case Studies

Pharmaceutical Sterile Filtration

Challenge: Ensure 100% lot release integrity testing for biologic drug product

Solution: Automated inline bubble point testing with statistical control

  • Bubble point: 52 ±2 psi (0.22 μm rated)
  • 100% filter testing at 45 sec/filter
  • Zero defect escapes in 5 million filters
Achievement: FDA PAT validation completed

Reverse Osmosis Desalination

Challenge: Optimize membrane performance for 40% energy reduction

Solution: Ultra-thin selective layer with controlled pore architecture

  • Flux: 85 L/m²/h (50% increase)
  • Salt rejection: 99.8% maintained
  • Operating pressure: 40 bar (vs 60 bar)
Impact: $2M/year energy savings per plant

Bioprocessing UF/DF System

Challenge: Optimize monoclonal antibody purification with minimal product loss

Solution: 30 kDa MWCO membrane with narrow pore distribution

  • Product recovery: 98.5%
  • Impurity clearance: >99.9%
  • Processing time: 40% reduction
Result: 15% increase in manufacturing capacity

Optimize Your Membrane Performance

Expert porometry testing for membrane QC, development, and performance validation

Request Testing Bubble Point Calculator