How to record the ULPA leak detection report?

After the leak detection is completed, how to write the report determines whether the data can be used later.

A common practice at the scene is to write down a conclusion: 'Leak detection passed' or 'A leak was found at X and has been dealt with.' Such a record may be barely enough for acceptance, but when a problem occurs after running for a period of time and I want to go back and check 'which positions were scanned at that time', 'which coordinates are the missing points' and 'whether the retest conditions are consistent after rectification', I find that the information is not enough.

The value of a leak detection report does not lie in the conclusion, but in its ability to support subsequent tracing, retesting and troubleshooting. A complete record should be understandable by people who have not been to the scene: which product was tested, under what conditions, which locations were scanned, what was found, how it was handled, and what the retest results were. For specific detection methods, please refer to the relevant instructions for on-site leak detection.

First write down the object and location clearly

The first part of the report is to confirm 'who was measured.'

Product Identity. Filter model, serial number or batch number. If there are multiple products of the same model, each must have an independent number, and you cannot just write a batch summary.

Installation location. Which room, which unit, and which work station should it be installed in? The location information must correspond to the device number or location number, so that the specific device can be found during subsequent troubleshooting.

Detection time. Date and time period if necessary. If multiple tests are performed on the same day, time information can help distinguish them.

Detection properties. Is it factory leak detection, arrival re-inspection, post-installation acceptance or periodic inspection during operation? For different types of tests, the judgment standards and requirements may be different.

This information seems basic, but is often missing in real projects. Some reports only have the filter element model and no serial number; some only write 'Clean Room A' without the specific unit location. When it comes time to trace back, this missing information becomes an obstacle. involving The detection record, number and location of ULPA ultra-high efficiency filter should be used as basic fields.

Testing conditions should be noted

Leak detection results are directly related to detection conditions. The conditions are different and the readings are not comparable.

Air volume. Actual air supply volume or face velocity during detection. Supporting FFU fan filter unit system, records the unit gear and operating mode; equipment-side applications such as EFU is the fan filter unit at the equipment end , recording the operating status of the equipment.

Upstream aerosol conditions. Aerosol type, upstream concentration value, uniformity verification results. These are the basis for interpreting the readings. For specific layout requirements, please refer to the relevant instructions for aerosol layout upstream of leak detection.

Instrument information. Detect instrument model, calibration status, and range settings. If multiple instruments are used, record them separately.

environmental conditions. Temperature, humidity, background particle levels. These conditions can affect readings, especially if the background is high.

detection method. Adopted standards, scanning speed, probe distance settings, and judgment limits. These parameters determine whether the results can be judged according to the corresponding standards. For specific method requirements, please refer to the instructions related to the scanning probe distance.

The more complete the conditions are written, the easier it will be to restore the same state during subsequent retests. If the condition is missing, the retest results cannot be compared with the initial results.

The scanning range and leakage point location must be understandable

The scan result cannot be clearly stated with a sentence of 'qualified' or 'unqualified'.

Scan range. Which locations are covered - filter material surface, glue seams, frames, installation interfaces, and box seams. Which locations have been scanned and which locations cannot be scanned must be noted. Inaccessible areas must be clearly marked in the report and cannot be deemed qualified by default. For specific boundary demarcation, please refer to the relevant instructions for FFU and EFU with ULPA leak detection parts.

Scan the map or coordinate annotation. Use diagrams or coordinates to mark the scanning path and leakage point location. The text description can be used as a reference, but the picture is more intuitive. If there are multiple missing points, number them separately and mark their locations.

Baseline reading. What is the reading range in the normal position. This information can help determine how far off the abnormal reading is.

Leak point reading. The reading value and the corresponding judgment limit when an abnormality is found. There are only two words 'high', and it is impossible to judge the severity.

signal characteristics. Is it a single point peak, continuous along the edge, or multi-point distribution. Different characteristics lead to different investigation directions. For specific positioning methods, please refer to the relevant instructions for leak positioning.

Rectification and retesting should be coordinated

After a leak is discovered, the processing process and retest results must be recorded corresponding to the original anomaly.

Corrective measures. What treatment was done - adjusting the gasket, replacing the filter element, repairing the glue seams, and tightening the pressing parts. The processing method and location should correspond to the specific leakage point.

Correction time. When was it processed and how long did it take. If downtime is involved, document this as well.

Retest conditions. Check whether the air volume, instrument and scanning parameters during the retest are consistent with the initial test. If conditions have changed, note the difference.

Retest results. Whether the original leak point location has been eliminated and whether the surrounding area is normal. The final result cannot be used to cover the initial exception, and both sets of records must be retained at the same time.

Legacy issues. If there are unaddressed or pending positions, note the status and follow-up plans in the report. involving HEPA/ULPA air filters are the same. The requirements for leak detection and rectification records of

How to organize reports for multiple inspections

When testing in batches, the organization of the report affects subsequent search efficiency.

Channel by channel correspondence. The test results of each product correspond to the number and location one by one. You cannot just provide a batch summary conclusion, which cannot be traced back to a single product.

Summary and detail separation. There can be a one-page summary table listing the number, location, test results and rectification status of each station. Detailed records are saved separately by number.

Exceptions are marked individually. Products with missing points are clearly marked in the summary table and detailed records to facilitate quick screening.

Version management. If the report is revised (for example, retesting results are updated after corrections), retain the version number and revision date. The specific report format can be agreed upon in the project document.

Project judgment example

A batch of ULPA filter elements arrived for a certain project and were installed on site for leak detection. The report only stated '5 units were randomly inspected and passed the test', without numbering each unit, and the air volume and instrument information during the test were not recorded.

After running for a period of time, particle anomalies occurred at one of the locations. During the investigation, I wanted to retrieve the leak detection records at that time, but found that I could not confirm whether this product had been randomly inspected at that time, nor did I know the testing conditions at that time. Only a comprehensive leak inspection can be done again, which increases the time and cost of the inspection.

This case illustrates that if the report record is incomplete, subsequent investigation will cost extra. involving HEPA high-efficiency filters are the same. The requirements for leak detection records of

Selection and Acceptance Checklist

About Aili Industrial’s leak detection record package

Whether the leak detection report can support subsequent traceability depends on whether the record fields are complete, whether the numbers correspond, and whether the conditions are noted. If these are clearly agreed upon during the project planning stage, acceptance and operation and maintenance will be much smoother.

Aili Industry has independent manufacturing capabilities in filters, fans, control systems and sheet metal processing, and can provide ULPA ultra high efficiency filter、HEPA high-efficiency filter and supporting air supply equipment. For projects that require leak detection records, the product number, testing conditions and testing data can be provided as agreed to facilitate the project party to establish traceability files. When the filter is delivered together with equipment such as FFU and EFU, the boundaries and recording format of on-site leak detection can be confirmed together during the planning stage.

Specifying recording requirements, reporting formats and traceability scope when enquiring, will help confirm appropriate data matching. The specific record format shall be subject to the technical documents confirmed by the project.