40 Analytical Instrumentation Precise solutions for low fl ow liquid measurement


Low-fl ow measurement is increasingly prevalent across various industries. Yet, as fl ow rates decrease, the task of controlling and measuring them becomes progressively more challenging. This poses a signifi cant obstacle for users and fl ow sensor manufacturers alike in their search for cost-effective and reliable fl ow measuring technologies.


While there isn’t a standardized defi nition for ‘low fl ow’ concerning fl uidics handling, these applications face distinct challenges compared to larger fl ows. The minimal volume of liquid involved makes low-fl ow systems highly sensitive, amplifying concerns about fl ow stability and performance. Even minor disruptions in process or environmental conditions can signifi cantly affect fl ow stability in low-fl ow scenarios.


In the markets where Titan Enterprises operates, low fl ow rates are considered to be those below 50 ml/min, with many customers seeking fl ow rates ranging from 2 to 20 ml/min.


Neil Hannay, Senior R&D Engineer at Titan Enterprises, noted: “We are observing a signifi cant rise in the demand for low fl ow measurement technologies, fuelled by various industries shifting towards transporting highly concentrated liquids that are later diluted at the point of use. This transition results in substantial savings on transportation and storage expenses, while also yielding positive environmental benefi ts.”


From cleaning fl uid additives to beer or soda syrups and fl avourings, chemical additives for oil and fuel, paint pigments, or drug administration, the use of low-fl ow fl owmeters is essential. They ensure precise dosing of these concentrated fl uids at the end of the process, facilitating accurate dispensing for the correct dilution.


As mentioned, measuring low fl ow presents a challenging application to address. The energy available in low liquid fl ow is often inadequate to drive most mechanical fl owmeters to provide linear results. Electronic fl ow meters, on the other hand, may face limitations such as sensitivity, zero drift, and slow response times. This analysis covers fi ve types of fl ow meter - Ultrasonic, Turbine, Oval Gear, Thermal, and Coriolis - and assesses their suitability for low fl ow measurement.


Selecting the most appropriate high-precision fl ow sensor for your application is crucial, as fl owmeters can often be the most constraining element of a low fl ow fl uidic system.


Neil stated: “We recognise a robust market demand for low fl ow meters, and we are presently collaborating with two international OEMs to devise a solution for measuring ultra-low fl ows leveraging our oval gear technology and miniaturised gears.”


More information online: ilmt.co/PL/92R6 and ilmt.co/PL/Qm7X For More Info, email:


62331pr@reply-direct.com email: email: TALKING POINT


For More Info, email: email:


For More Info, email: email:


What’s next for the regulation of 1,4-dioxane?


1,4-Dioxane, a chemical historically utilized in industrial and consumer applications, is increasingly recognized as an environmental and public health threat. Once valued for its role as a solvent and stabilizer, the chemical’s persistence in the environment and its association with carcinogenic risks have prompted regulatory actions worldwide. However, the approaches taken by different jurisdictions highlight the complexities of managing such risks and reveal the evolving understanding of its impact. 1,4-Dioxane is a synthetic ether that often arises as a byproduct in the production of surfactants and plastics. It can contaminate products such as detergents, cosmetics, and personal care items at trace levels. Though its intentional use has diminished, its role as an unintended contaminant makes it particularly problematic, especially in water systems where it resists degradation. The chemical’s classifi cation as a probable human carcinogen by agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is based on evidence from animal studies showing liver and kidney damage, along with tumor formation. Additionally, its miscibility in water and resistance to standard treatment processes amplify its environmental persistence, making it a widespread contaminant in groundwater and drinking water supplies.


Efforts to regulate 1,4-dioxane vary signifi cantly across jurisdictions, refl ecting differences in legal frameworks, scientifi c understanding, and risk tolerance.


In the United States, the EPA has included 1,4-dioxane under its Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) to gather data on its presence in drinking water systems. While there is no federal standard, states like New York have implemented stringent limits, with a cap of 1 part per billion (ppb) in drinking water—one of the most rigorous standards globally. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) also enables the EPA to


evaluate and potentially restrict the chemical’s use in industrial applications.


In the European Union, 1,4-dioxane has been classifi ed as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) under the REACH framework, highlighting its carcinogenic risks and environmental persistence. This designation imposes strict control measures, requiring companies to disclose its presence in products if it exceeds threshold levels. Recent guidance from the Scientifi c Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) recommended limiting 1,4-dioxane in cosmetics to below 10 ppm to minimize consumer exposure, refl ecting a strong precautionary approach.


The United Kingdom, having retained elements of the EU regulatory framework post-Brexit, is conducting a Regulatory Management Options Analysis (RMOA) for 1,4-dioxane. This assessment aims to determine the most effective measures to mitigate risks, informed by stakeholder input on manufacturing, usage, and contamination control practices.


Globally, other nations have also addressed the chemical’s risks. Japan and Canada have focused on reducing industrial discharges and limiting its presence in consumer products, while the World Health Organization (WHO) has included 1,4-dioxane in its drinking water quality guidelines, advocating for enhanced monitoring and remediation measures.


The management of 1,4-dioxane presents unique challenges. Its formation as an unintended byproduct complicates efforts to eliminate it entirely. For instance, ethoxylated surfactants, which generate trace amounts of 1,4-dioxane during synthesis, are widely used in industrial and consumer applications. Phasing out these products or modifying production processes would require signifi cant economic and technical investments.


To address these challenges, regulatory bodies are promoting process optimization as a way to reduce residual 1,4-dioxane


For More Info, email: email:


For More Info, email: email:


PFAS sample preparation and fi ltration for complex matrices


When dealing with higher particulate samples, such as wastewater, a fi ltration step may be necessary before analysis. Millipore EXPRESS Polyethersulfone (PES) membranes, available in either a Millex®


syringe


fi lter or in cut disc format, provide the means to test these more complex matrices. In a recent study, three lots of nonsterile PES Millex®


syringe fi lters


were tested for PFAS (per- and polyfl uoroalkyl substances) extractables, and no PFAS extractables were detected for all the compounds tested. Notably, the analytes tested included all those in EPA 537.1 and SW-846 Method 8327, as well as the majority of analytes in ASTM D7979-19 and ISO 21675. This demonstrates the effi cacy of PES membranes in enabling the analysis of PFAS in challenging sample types.


Sample preparation products play a crucial role in achieving accurate and precise results when dealing with PFAS analysis. To address the need for optimized sample cleanup and concentration, a range of high-quality vacuum manifolds, solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridges, and large volume samplers are available. These products are designed to support diverse PFAS sample preparation requirements, ensuring the reliability of analytical outcomes.


In particular, Supelclean™ SPE cartridges are instrumental in PFAS analyte extraction from drinking water, as detailed in various regulatory methods such as EPA 537 and 533. These methods recommend the use of SPE cartridges followed by analysis via liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). The Supelclean™ ENVI-WAX SPE cartridges, based on weak anion exchange (WAX), are commonly employed due to their capacity to extract both short and long-chain PFAS analytes with high recoveries, as validated in EPA 533 and ISO methods. Similarly, EPA 537 utilizes polystyrene divinylbenzene (PS-DVB) cartridges, such as the Supelclean™ ENVI™-Chrom P SPE cartridge, to achieve high recoveries for medium and long-chain PFAS analytes.


These solutions offer a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges associated with PFAS sample preparation, ensuring the reliability and accuracy of PFAS analysis in diverse environmental and industrial matrices.


More information online: ilmt.co/PL/vw6m For More Info, email:


62695pr@reply-direct.com


in products. Improved manufacturing practices, such as vacuum stripping, can help minimize contamination. At the same time, efforts are underway to develop safer substitutes for ethoxylated compounds, with industry and academia leading research into alternative materials. Enhanced monitoring techniques, including advanced analytical methods, allow for more accurate detection of trace 1,4-dioxane and ensure compliance with increasingly stringent regulatory limits.


As scientifi c understanding of 1,4-dioxane advances, regulatory approaches will likely evolve to refl ect new insights and technological innovations. The ongoing debates between implementing precautionary measures and addressing practical constraints underscore the broader challenges of managing legacy pollutants. Effective regulation of 1,4-dioxane will require international collaboration, robust scientifi c evidence, and proactive industry engagement to safeguard both public health and economic interests.


PIN ANNUAL BUYERS’ GUIDE 2025


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92