MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070512228 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2008-1-661

OIL SPILL DISPERSION STABILITY AND OIL RE-SURFACING

2008· article· en· W2070512228 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Merv Fingas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCreamingEmulsionOstwald ripeningOil dropletCoalescence (physics)FlocculationPulmonary surfactantChemical engineeringDispersion (optics)ChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper summarizes the data and the theory of oil-in-water emulsion stability resulting in oil spill dispersion re-surfacing. There is an extensive body of literature on surfactants and interfacial chemistry, including experimental data on emulsion stability. The phenomenon of resurfacing oil is the result of two separate processes: de stabilization of an oil-in-water emulsion and desorption of surfactant from the oil-water interface which leads to further de stabilization. The de stabilization of oil-in-water emulsions such as chemical oil dispersions is a consequence of the fact that no emulsions are thermodynamically stable. Ultimately, natural forces move the emulsions to a stable state, which consists of separated oil and water. What is important is the rate at which this occurs. An emulsion is said to be kinetically stable when significant separation (usually considered to be half or 50% of the dispersed phase) occurs outside of the usable time. There are several forces and processes that result in the destabilization and resurfacing of oil-in-water emulsions such as chemically dispersed oils. These include gravitational forces, surfactant interchange with water and subsequent loss of surfactant to the water column, creaming, coalescence, flocculation, Ostwald ripening, and sedimentation. Gravitational separation is the most important force in the resurfacing of oil droplets from crude oil-in-water emulsions such as dispersions. Droplets in an emulsion tend to move upwards when their density is lower than that of water. Creaming is the de stabilization process that is simply described by the appearance of the starting dispersed phase at the surface. Coalescence is another important de stabilization process. Two droplets that interact as a result of close proximity or collision can form a new larger droplet. The result is to increase the droplet size and the rise rate, resulting in accelerated de stabilization of the emulsion. Studies show that coalescence increases with increasing turbidity as collisions between particles become more frequent. Another important phenomenon when considering the stability of dispersed oil, is the absorption/desorption of surfactant from the oil/water interface. In dilute solutions, much of the surfactant in the dispersed droplets ultimately partitions to the water column and thus is lost to the dispersion process. This paper provides a summary of the processes and data from some experiments relevant to oil spill dispersions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Oil Spill Conference ProceedingsSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207