MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013662896 · doi:10.1021/ef8008597

Study of Solvent−Bitumen−Water Rag Layers

2009· article· en· W2013662896 on OpenAlexaff
Sumit K. Kiran, Edgar Acosta, Kevin Moran

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphalteneAsphaltHeptaneTolueneSolventChemistryChemical engineeringViscosityFraction (chemistry)AdsorptionLayer (electronics)Organic chemistryChromatographyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major operational issue in the crude oil industry is the formation of intermediate rag layers, (primarily water-in-oil emulsions) in oil−water separation processes that limit the amount and quality of recoverable oil. In this study, the formation of rag layers is evaluated as a function of solvent−bitumen−water ratios, solvent aromaticity, and temperature, with various imaging techniques. Using these techniques, it is possible to obtain an estimate of the amount of oil, water, and asphalthenes in the rag layer and excess phases. On the basis of these material balances, it was observed that when bitumen is diluted with a more paraffinic (poor) solvent, such as Heptol 80/20 (80% heptane and 20% toluene), the asphaltenes in solution tend to adsorb/segregate at exposed oil−water interfaces, impacting the extent of rag layer formation. Diluting similar systems with a more aromatic solvent (Heptol 50/50) reduces the surface activity of the asphaltenes, and the stability of rag layers, as evidenced by lower asphaltene and oil losses to the rag layer. Furthermore, it was observed that increasing the temperature of the system minimizes rag layer formation and the fraction of oil lost to the rag layer. The better separation at high temperature could be explained by the lower viscosity of the oil, which results in improved oil drainage from the rag layer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207