Polymeric Surfaces for Heavy Oil Pipelines To Inhibit Wax Deposition: PP, EVA28, and HDPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipelines for heavy crude oils have recurrent clogging situations due to paraffin deposition that may lower production rates and be responsible for leakages. This work evaluates the effect of three polymers on crude oil wettability and on paraffin deposition inhibition: polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and a vinyl acetate copolymer with 28% oxygen content (EVA28). Under static conditions, the interfacial tension between the crude oil and the linings was determined by the contact angle being 12% and 17% higher for EVA28 and HDPE, respectively, than for that of PP. As the crude oil inside the pipelines is flowing at high rates, the dynamic interfacial tension was also observed for high flow rates when molecular effects overtake hydrodynamic ones. For this, the perturbation of intermolecular orientation within the flow, caused by the beginning of deposit formation and by the wettability, was determined using depolarization of the fluorescence induced by laser. Under flow, EVA28 and HDPE caused an increase of interaction with the crude oil of 79% and 43%, respectively, compared to that of PP. HDPE yielded globular wax deposits. The higher tendency of HDPE than PP to form deposits was attributed to the absence of methyl branches in the first. The EVA28 tendency to form deposits was attributed to the oxygen atoms on the surface as well as to its high polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon sorption. Thus, under a high flow rate, PP is better suited to inhibit wax deposition than HDPE and EVA28.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".