A Comparison of Mass Transfer - Vacuum Dehydration and

Other Fluid Conditioning Methods

Kal Farooq, Pall Corporation, Port Washington, NY
William Herguth, Herguth Laboratories, Inc., Vallejo, CA
Fluids in hydraulic and lubrication systems get contaminated with water, air/gases and in
some applications with lighter hydrocarbons, refrigerants and solvents. Fluid
conditioning, the terms used for the removal of these contaminants combined with
filtration to remove particulate contaminant, is a relatively straightforward and cost
effective way to make these fluids suitable for continued use, thus extending their service
life and reducing waste. Notable among the methods commonly used for fluid
conditioning are the mass transfer vacuum dehydration and flash distillation-vacuum
dehydration methods. This paper discusses the relative merits of the common fluid
purification methods and presents experimental data that demonstrates the effects of
temperature and pressure on water and gas removal, and its impact on the chemical and
physical properties and the additive packages of hydraulic and lubrication fluids.
Key Words: water, mass transfer, vacuum dehydration, hydraulic fluids, lubrication
fluids, and additives.
Introduction: In addition to particulate contaminants, fluids in hydraulic and lubrication
systems get contaminated with water, air/gases and in some applications, such as
compressors and pumped lube systems, with lighter hydrocarbons, refrigerants and
solvents. Fluid conditioning or purification, the term used for the removal of these
contaminants along with filtration for the removal of solid contaminants, is a relatively
straightforward and cost effective way to make these fluids suitable for continued use,
thus extending their service life and reducing the waste stream.
Methods commonly employed for the purification of the fluids include dry air purge,
coalescence, centrifugation, absorbent filtration, settling (settling tanks), mass transfer
vacuum dehydration and flash distillation vacuum dehydration. Methods such as
centrifugation and coalescence rely on purely mechanical means, based on phase
separation. Whereas flash distillation vacuum dehydration methods use a more
aggressive approach, employing flash evaporation of the volatile contaminants including
water at temperatures well above those normally found under standard system operating
conditions, and at significantly reduced pressures, the mass transfer vacuum
dehydration method, on the other hand, employs moderate level of vacuum and virtually
little or no additional heating. The technique is referred to as mass transfer because it
predominantly relies on the transfer of water into a steady stream of dry air under
moderate vacuum and temperature conditions. The intent of this paper is to compare and
contrast the various technologies employed for removal of water and other volatile
contaminants from hydraulic and lubricating systems, and to examine the impact of
vacuum and temperature on the chemical and physical properties of the hydraulic and
lubricating fluids.

Water contamination: Water contamination in hydraulic and lubrication systems is

commonplace due to waters ubiquitous nature and its ingression into these systems
through breathers, condensation, leaks, during storage, transportation and handling.
Presence of water adversely affects the fluid and the system components. Water affects
the viscosity and load carrying ability of the base fluid, and promotes its oxidation or
hydrolytic breakdown in the case of ester base stocks, which in turn generates acids and
sludge. Water causes corrosion of metallic surfaces and promotes fatigue failure of
bearings by hydrogen embrittlement (Reference 6). Water may be present in the form of
free, emulsified or dissolved water in the base fluid. Free and emulsified water exist
when the amount of water in the fluid is in excess of fluids capacity to dissolve water.
Free water is composed of discrete droplets in the 0.1 to 10 m size range, that, under
favorable conditions, coalesce and settle to the bottom of the reservoir. The presence of
free water, for extended periods of time, at the reservoir bottom often results in biological
growth and its associated problems. Emulsified water is a form of free water, which
exists as a colloidal suspension, forming a stable heterogeneous phase that does not
separate from the fluid by gravity even at elevated temperatures. Soluble water is the
water dissolved in the fluid phase as a homogeneous, single phase. The solubility of
water in hydraulic and lubrication fluids is dependent on the type of fluid base stock and
the additive package, and generally increases with temperature and the age of the fluid.
Figure 1 shows the solubility of water in common industrial fluids.

Figure 1 Water Solubility of Common Industrial Fluids

Temperature vs. Saturation Point (ppmw)
for Various Fluids
1000
8000
Synthetic EHC Fluid

900
7000

Hydraulic Oil
Synthetic Gear Oil

Saturation Point (ppmw)

800
6000

Paper Machine Oil

Turbine Oil

700
5000
600
4000
500
400
300
200
100
0
15

30

45
Temperature (

60
o

75

90

C )

Proactive maintenance requires setting target water concentration limits for the fluid.
This target will vary depending on the application. Lubricant applications such as steam
turbines, diesel engines, dryer rollers (paper mills), screw compressors, and industrial
2

gearboxes, each have their own unique requirements when it comes to moisture control.
As a general rule, 100 ppm is a reliable limit for many applications in terms of lubricant
and bearing life. However, in view of the ingression potential of moisture in certain
applications, higher limits may be more practical.
Aeration of hydraulic and lubrication fluids can be caused by a myriad of reasons
including poor system design, fluid degradation, suction side air leaks, etc. Fluid aeration
is undesirable since it affects the response and control of hydraulic actuators, causes
cavitation of valves and pumps, and results in loss of lubrication film, reduced fluid
viscosity, dieseling (adiabatic compression of air bubbles resulting in thermal degradation
of the fluid) and accelerated oxidation of the fluid. In the case of gas compressors and
internal combustion engines, gases from the process are introduced in the lubrication
fluid causing chemical and physical degradation of the lubricant. In the case of gas
compressors, where hydrocarbons blow by piston rings, the blow by gases can result in
dilution of the fluid, and reduced viscosity and flash point.
Fluid conditioning methods: Mechanical separation methods that include settling,
coalescence, absorbent filtration, and centrifugation are limited to the removal of free and
emulsified water. Mass transfer and flash distillation type vacuum dehydrators, on the
other hand, remove not only the free water but also the dissolved water, free / dissolved
air and other gases, and lighter hydrocarbons, solvents and refrigerants. Dry air purge will
not remove dissolved air but will strip dissolved non-environmental gases, lighter
hydrocarbons, solvents, and refrigerants, in addition to free/dissolved water. Following is
a brief discussion on each of the commonly used fluid conditioning method.
Coalescers remove free water entrained in the oil phase by capturing and coalescing
water droplets into larger droplets and separating them from the oil phase. Specific
gravity, viscosity, and interfacial tension of the fluid are key parameters in the process.
Levels as low as 10 ppm free water can be obtained with influent conditions of 10 %
water by weight and an interfacial tension of 2 dyne/cm and higher. Coalescers tend to
disarm (become ineffective) in the presence of surface-active agents in the fluid.
Coalescers also need fine filtration for protection against fouling by solid contaminants.
The process is most effective with low viscosity fluids.
Centrifugal separators utilize the difference in specific gravity between the fluid and the
water for the separation. Industrial centrifuges are designed to generate centrifugal forces
on the order of 3,000 to 10,000 times higher than gravitational force, hence speeding up
the separation of water by the same magnitude as compared with gravitational separation,
for example, in a settling tank. Centrifuges can also remove some emulsified water
depending upon the relative strength of the emulsion vs. the centrifugal force of the
separator. Centrifugal separators do not remove dissolved water. Centrifuges are well
suited for applications where continuous decontamination of fluids with excellent
demulsibility (water separating characteristics) is required.
Water absorbent filters remove free and emulsified water by super absorbent polymers
impregnated in the media of the filter cartridge. The water is absorbed by the polymer,
causing it to swell, and remains trapped in the filtration medium. Super absorbent filters
can remove only a limited volume of water before causing the filter to go into pressure3

drop induced bypass. They are not well-suited for removing large volumes of water, but
are a convenient method to maintain dry conditions in systems that dont normally ingest
a lot of water. These filters do not remove dissolved water.
Mass transfer vacuum dehydration type purifiers work on the principle of mass transfer
of the liquid and gaseous contaminants from the oil to a constant stream of dry filtered air
under vacuum. The process, using techniques such as sheet-metal rings, nozzles, spinning
disc, etc. generates a large surface area of the fluid. The vacuum draws ambient air into
the chamber, expanding the air volume several times consequently decreasing its relative
humidity by the same ratio. For example, the vacuum inside the Pall HVP series purifiers
expands the air about 5 times, hence drying the air drawn into the chamber to 5 times its
value at ambient condition. At a typical 50 % ambient air relative humidity (RH), the air
is dried to ~ 10 % RH inside the vacuum chamber. When the thin layer of the fluid
comes in contact with the 10 % saturated air, moisture and gases transfer into the air
phase until equilibrium is achieved between the fluid and air phases. Vacuum also lowers
the vapor pressure of the water thus helping with its transfer into the dry air. The process
exposes the oil to relatively mild vacuum (22-24 Hg) and near ambient temperatures.
The purifiers can be fitted with in-line heaters if needed in cases such as colder
environments and for high viscosity oils. This technique effectively removes free,
emulsified and dissolved water along with other volatile contaminants. Figure 2 shows a
schematic diagram of Pall HNP series mass transfer type purifier.
Figure 2 Schematic Diagram of Pall HNP Series Fluid Purifier

High vacuum / heat purifiers (flash distillation vacuum dehydration) utilize higher
vacuum and temperature conditions inside a chamber to rapidly boil off water and other
volatile materials. The absolute temperature vs. pressure plot based on the ClausiusClapeyron equation for water, shown in Figure 3, indicates the vacuum and temperature
4

conditions required for the water to transition from the liquid phase to vapor phase and
hence, boil-off. Flash distillation type equipment is often operated at vacuum and
temperature conditions that are well within the vapor phase region of the plot for faster
removal of water.
Unlike the mass transfer type equipment, there is no purging of the vacuum chamber with
dry air and the vacuum and temperature levels are more severe. Vacuum levels of >26
Hg and temperatures >160 F are commonly used in these equipment. Vapor
condensers are often used to remove the vapors before they get to the vacuum pump. By
virtue of higher vacuum and temperature levels, these units offer higher water removal
efficiencies for each pass of the fluid compared with that of the mass transfer vacuum
dehydration type purifiers, but they also expose the fluid to higher thermal stresses in the
process.
Figure 3 Plot for Water Vapor Pressure vs Temperature Based on ClausiusClapeyron Equation
Clausius-Clapeyron Equation for Water
10.000

y = 1E-08e

0.049x

Pressure (atm)

R = 0.9948
1.000

Liquid Phase

0.100

Gas Phase

0.010
280

300

320

340

360

380

Temperature (K)

Table I provides a summary of the common fluid conditioning methods, their

contamination removal capabilities and the various pros and cons associated with each
method.

Table I Summary of Common Fluid Purification Methods

Purification
Method

Phases of Water Removed

Free

Emulsified

Dissolved

Gases /
Solvents
Removed

Pros and Cons

Centrifuge

High removal rate of free

water only. High initial
cost and maintenance.

Coalescer

X1

Removes free water,

sensitive to surfactants and
dirt (requires fine filtration)

Absorbent
Filter

X1

Removes free water only.

Limited water holding
capacity.

Dry Air
Purge

Low initial cost, removes

dissolved water also. Slow
process requiring dry air
source.

Flash
Distillation Vacuum
Dehydration

High single pass removal

of free/dissolved water,
gases, solvents. Severe
operating conditions stress
the fluid.

Mass
Transfer
vacuum
dehydration

Removes free/dissolved
water, gases, and solvents.
Mild operating conditions;
gentler on the fluid.

Removal of emulsions is obtained only under appropriate conditions.

Experimental Work: Tests were conducted using Pall Model HNP021, mass transfer
vacuum dehydration type purifier to determine the effect on the additives and the fluid
base stock. Tests were conducted on a popular brand of anti-wear hydraulic fluid and a
rust & oxidation, double inhibited steam turbine lubrication fluid. Both fluids were
mineral based with a viscosity rating of ISO VG 32. Tests were conducted on a 50 gallon
fluid volume with the starting water concentration of 1 % by volume.
The HNP series purifiers employ nozzles to generate large surface area of the fluid for
the efficient transfer of moisture and other volatile contaminants to the dry air. The
purifier was operated under six vacuum/temperature combinations with the maximum
vacuum of 26 Hg and maximum temperature of 158 F. The extreme vacuum and
temperature conditions were utilized to mimic the typical operating conditions inside
flash distillation- vacuum dehydration type equipment. Pall HNP purifiers normally
operate in the vacuum range of 22-24 Hg and ambient temperatures. An external heater
was used since the purifier does not include a built-in heater.

Table II lists the tests conducted on the fluid samples and the objectives of the test.
Table II List of the Tests Conducted on the Fluid Samples
Test ID

Objective

Karl Fischer per ASTM D1744

Total water content

Dissolved Gas Analysis

ASTM D3612-01

per Dissolved gas (air) content

RULER per ASTM D6810-02

Remaining phenolic antioxidant level

Rotating
Pressure
Vessel Oxidation stability of the fluid
Oxidation Test (RPVOT) per
ASTM D2272-98
Pressure Differential Scanning Time for the onset of fluid oxidation
Calorimetry (PDSC) per ASTM
D6186-98
Fourier Transform-Infrared (FT- Presence of hindered phenol anti-oxidant additives
IR) Spectroscopy
Experimental Results: The samples of the hydraulic and turbine lube fluids treated
under the extreme vacuum and temperature conditions (26 Hg and 158 F) and the new
fluid samples (for baseline) were analyzed for oxidation resistance. Table III lists the
results for the four fluid samples. The magnitude of the phenolic peaks obtained through
the FT-IR analysis shows a 5.7 % decrease for the processed turbine fluid sample. For
the hydraulic fluid samples, the phenolic peaks show an increase of 7.9 % in the
processed sample compared with the new sample. In a discussion with the laboratory
personnel it was concluded that both changes are within the margin of error of the
experimental technique, and, therefore, are not significant.

Table III - Results of the Fluid Analysis

Sample ID

FT-IR
(Phenolic Peak)

RPVOT Test

PDSC Test

RULER

Turbine Fluid- New

0.088

422 minutes

80.7 minutes

N/A

Turbine Fluid-Treated
(26 Hg, 158 F)

0.083

317 minutes

90.8 minutes

Yellow solution
A mode: 90%

Hyd. Fluid-New

0.0267

128 minutes

No clear breaks

N/A

Hyd. Fluid -Treated

(26 Hg, 158 F)

0.0288

206 minutes

No clear breaks

Green solution
V mode: 101%

The results of the RPVOT test, which is a measure of the fluids resistance to oxidation,
show a decrease of 25 % in the time required for oxidation of the treated turbine fluid
compared with the new fluid sample. The results of the RPVOT oxidation stability test
for the hydraulic fluid show a large increase (61 %) for the processed sample, most likely
indicative of the fact that the test is not suitable for this specific fluid.
The test for the onset of fluid oxidation by the PDSC method also measures the oxidation
resistance of the fluid, like the RPVOT test, but does not use copper catalyst. The results
of the PDSC test show a longer oxidation onset time for the treated turbine fluid sample,
and no onset of oxidation up to 210 F for the treated hydraulic fluid sample.
The significant decrease in time (25 %) for oxidation observed for the treated turbine
fluid sample by the RPVOT test, in contradiction with longer oxidation onset time by the
PDSC test, is an anomaly that needs to be studied further.
The test to determine the remaining phenolic antioxidant, using RULER, shows a 10%
decrease in the current flow, compared to new turbine fluid sample. There was no
decrease in the current flow for the processed hydraulic fluid sample. The RULER
results, shown in Table III, are for current transmittance in the processed samples, using
the fresh samples as baseline (100 % current transmittance). A drop of 10 % in the
remaining phenolic antioxidant would not be considered significant in this case.
The above results suggest that the two fluids treated under vacuum and temperature
conditions of 26 Hg and 158 F, respectively, typical for the flash distillation vacuum
dehydration type process, are not significantly impacted in terms of the antioxidant
properties, as measured by FT-IR, PDSC and RULER methods.
The results of the dissolved gas analysis, performed on the new turbine lube fluid sample
from the drum and the processed fluid samples, obtained in syringes at the outlet of the
purifier, are shown in Figure 4. The results indicate that temperature had no effect on the
reduction of the dissolved air content of the purified fluid for the temperature range
examined. The values indicate 69 % decrease in the dissolved air content as a result of
the purifier treatment.
The removal of gases from the fluid is determined by the partition coefficient of the
particular gas between the fluid and the dry air under the operating temperature and
vacuum conditions. Had the oil been contaminated by a non-environmental gas or solvent
/ refrigerant, the removal of the gas or solvent would have been much higher due to the
higher mass transfer gradient (the dry air would have zero concentration of the
contaminants when it entered the vacuum chamber).

Figure 4 Dissolved Air Content of the Turbine Lube Fluid Samples

Reduction in Dissolved Air Content at 26" Hg

Dissolved Air (PPM)

80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Initial at ambient

113 F

158 F

The water concentration levels in the hydraulic fluid samples, following 3 passes of the
fluid volume (20 minutes of operation) through the purifier, are shown in Figure 5. The
starting water concentration was 1 % (10,000 PPM). As the results, plotted below,
indicate, the higher vacuum and temperature resulted in lower water concentration. The
water concentration value obtained for the 18 Hg and 158 F trial was similar to the
values obtained at higher vacuum trials. The values obtained at the typical HNP021
purifier operating conditions of 22 Hg and 113 F were similar to more severe, flash
distillation vacuum dehydration type equipment condition of 26 Hg and 158 F.

Figure 5 Water Concentration of the Hydraulic Fluid Samples

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
in
iti
al

Water (PPM)

Water Concentraion of the Hydraulic Fluid Under Various

Operating Conditions

Conclusions:
1. The purifier test results suggest that the anti-wear hydraulic fluid and the R&O turbine
lube fluid treated under vacuum and temperature conditions of 26 Hg and 158 F,
respectively, typical for the flash distillation vacuum dehydration type process, are not
significantly impacted in terms of their antioxidant properties, as measured by FT-IR,
PDSC and RULER methods. The contradictory results for the RPVOT test for the turbine
lube fluid, showing reduction in oxidation resistance, is an anomaly that needs to be
studied further.
2. The results indicate that temperature had no effect on the reduction of the dissolved air
content of the purified fluid for the range of temperatures examined. The results also
indicate a 69 % decrease in the dissolved air content as a result of the purification
treatment.
3. The reduction in water concentration obtained through the mass transfer vacuum
dehydration process, operating at relatively mild conditions of 22 Hg and 113 F, were
similar to the more severe, flash distillation vacuum dehydration type equipment
conditions of 26 Hg and 158 F.

References:
1. Bloch, Heinz P. Exxon Chemical Company, USA Baytown, Texas 77520, "Criteria for
Water Removal from Mechanical Drive Steam Turbine Lube Oils." Lubrication
Engineering. Volume 36, 12, 699-707 (Presented at the 35th Annual Meeting in
Anaheim, California, May 5-8, 1980).
2. Cantley, Richard E. (Member, ASLE) The Timken Company Canton, Ohio 44706
"The Effect of Water in Lubricating Oil on Bearing Fatigue Life." ASLE Transactions,
Volume 20, 3, 244-248.
3. D6810-02 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hindered Phenolic Antioxidant
Content in HL Turbine Oils by Linear Sweep Voltammetry
4. D2272-98 Standard Test Method for Oxidation Stability of Steam Turbine Oils by
Rotating Pressure Vessel
5. D6186-98 Standard Test Method for Oxidation Induction Time of Lubricating Oils by
Pressure Differential Scanning Calorimetry (PDSC)
6. Hydrogen Degradation of Ferrous Alloys. (p. 243)
Edited by: Oriani, Richard A., Hirth, John P.; Smialowski, Michael 1985 William
Andrew Publishing
7. Perrys Chemical Engineer Handbook, 7th Edition (p. 2-349)

10