PARTICLE
COUNTER FOR DETERMINING PURITY OF HYDRAULIC FLUID
 |
|
||||||||||||
| Overview: | A particle counter tests
hydraulic fluid quantitatively for contamination by shining a laser
through a set quantity of the fluid and counting quantity and size of
particles using a photo-detector. The particle counter is a highly
effective, accurate, proven electronic technology. Hydraulic fluid contamination testing for foreign particles or worn metal has traditionally been conducted using the patch test with CFC-113 (a Class 1 Ozone Depleting Substance [ODS] the use of which is no longer allowed), Methyl Chloroform (Class 1 ODS), or Petroleum Solvent, as defined by federal specification PD-680 Type II. The patch test is a three-step process whereby hydraulic fluid is filtered using either a patch or filter, quick-dried using an evaporating agent, and subsequently read by a trained operator. A particle counter is superior for two reasons. First, it eliminates the use of the drying agent (ODS or solvent). Second, it takes the subjectivity out of the process and hence is a more consistent and accurate analytical method as compared to the patch test. Elimination of ODSs leaves PD-680 Type II as the only approved solvent for use in patch tests. While PD-680 Type II offers a satisfactory alternative, it is not an ideal solution. Problems associated with using PD-680 Type II include increased drying time, use of inaccurate color standards, and subjective interpretation of those standards. The end result is a less accurate, less convenient, and more time-consuming testing procedure for hydraulic fluid contamination. The use of an electronic particle counter offers a viable alternative to the patch test and produces a more accurate result. This equipment requires no hazardous solvents, and test results are accurate and non-subjective. Use of this technology is approved for Naval activities in the NAVAIR 01-1A-17 Hydraulic Manual. Through a Navy-funded effort to eliminate ODSs, in conjunction with the Navy's Reverse Engineering Program (a hands-on effort to help field activities deal with rapidly changing environmental regulations), particle counters have been introduced to four prototype sites to completely eliminate the need for CFC-113 in patch tests. The goals of the hydraulic fluid contamination-testing project were to eliminate the need for ODSs and reduce the need for a patch test. Subtasks of the project included reviewing the sampling frequency requirements, evaluating field replacements for the patch test, investigating alternate solvents, and prototyping, at field level, the most promising candidates.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Compliance Benefit: | The use of a particle
counter in place of an ODS will help facilities meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to
Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, a particle counter may also reduce the amount of
solvents used on site that may decrease the amount of hazardous waste
generated. The decrease in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262,
Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce both their
generator status and the number of applicable requirements (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262. The decrease in solvent and/or ODS use
on site will also decrease the possibility that a facility will meet
reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40 CFR 355 and EO
12856. The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of workload involved. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Materials Compatibility: |
There are no materials compatibility issues raised by the use of electronic particle counters. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Safety and Health: | Electronic particle
counters require no special health and safety precautions, although mild
dermal and eye irritation effects can result from contact with hydraulic
fluids. Personal protective equipment should be used. Consult your local
industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and
the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this
technology. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benefits: |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Disadvantages: |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economic Analysis: | The following cost
elements are for electronic particle counters for determining purity of
hydraulic fluid. The economic analysis presented below is for a comparison
of a typical patch test employing PD-680 solvent versus the particle
counter method. However, this cost analysis would be applicable
independent of the solvent employed in the patch test. This analysis is
based on Preproduction Initiative NELP performed at NAS North Island and
NS Mayport.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Approving Authority: | Approval is
controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
USAF activities must follow their governing technical orders for
determining whether the use of particle counters are appropriate for their
application. |
| NSN/MSDS: |
|
| Points of Contact: | Air
Force: Mr. Leo Broome Detachment 3, WR-ALC/AFTT Bldg. 1621-K 2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 123 Lackland, AFB, TX 78236-9823 Phone: (210) 925-7613 DSN: 945-7613 FAX: (210) 925-9964 Email: leopold.broome@lackland.af.mil Ms. Lois Gschwender AFRL/MLBT 2941 P St., Building 654, Room 136 WPAFB, OH 45433-7750 Phone: (937) 255-7530 DSN: 785-7530 FAX: (937) 255-2176 Email: lois.gschwender@wpafb.af.mil |
| Vendors: | This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of equipment.
Pacific Scientific Instruments (High Yield
Technology) Climet Instruments Company |
| Sources: | Mr. Leo Broome, San Antonio Air
Logistics Center, January 1999. Mr. Glen Fisher, HIAC/ROYCO, May 1996 Mr. Mike Patterson, Mensco, May 1996 Mr. Mike Gibson, Naval Aviation Depot-Cherry Point, May 1996 Mr. Michele Guerard, Millipore, June 1996 Mr. Grant Moscowitz, Ecolink, June 1996 P2 Equipment Book, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, May 1997
|
[Back]