MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092803771 · doi:10.1021/ef7003688

Novel Bitumen Froth Cleaning Device and Rag Layer Characterization

2007· article· en· W2092803771 on OpenAlexaff
Guoxing Gu, Liyan Zhang, Zhenghe Xu, Jacob H. Masliyah

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltNaphthaOil sandsAqueous two-phase systemAqueous solutionExtraction (chemistry)Phase (matter)ChemistryAsphalteneChromatographyLayer (electronics)Chemical engineeringMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A primary bitumen froth product, from a bitumen extraction process, contains approximately 30% water, 10% solids, and 60% bitumen. In bitumen froth treatment vessels, “rag layer” between the top organic phase and the bottom aqueous phase builds up from time to time. The presence of a thick layer of rag renders a two-phase separation into a three-phase separation, causing a significant reduction in oil/water/solids separation efficiency. A novel setup was built in our laboratory, which allows for a two-step water washing of naphtha-diluted bitumen froth (NDBF) and buildup of rag layer to be collected efficiently for further investigation of rag formation mechanisms. In the first step of bitumen froth cleaning, 1–5 mm diameter NDBF drops were introduced into an aqueous phase to allow the NDBF drops to rise to the top as the organic phase. In the second step, the top organic phase was then washed using the bottom aqueous phase by circulating the top organic phase back to the aqueous phase. The bitumen froth cleaning at 80 °C was tested for two different naphtha-to-bitumen mass ratios (N/B) of 0.7 and 7. In both cases, after the first washing, the water and solid contents were reduced by more than 91% and 87% of their original levels, respectively. In each of the two cases at N/B mass ratios of 0.7 and 7, the rag layer that formed in the device was collected and fractionated into five fractions, ranging from dry rags, chloroform solubles and insolubles, “asphaltenes”, and deasphalted organics. The emulsification potencies of these five fractions were tested using the simulated model system of heptane/toluene/water. The asphaltenes were characterized using elemental analysis, thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The results showed that chloroform solubles and insolubles were in a mass ratio of about 1:1. Emulsion tests showed that the chloroform solubles and asphaltenes exhibited the highest emulsion stabilization potency. Elemental analysis and TGA showed that asphaltenes isolated from rags had twice more heteroatoms (N, S, and O) and contained more volatiles and residues than the asphaltenes obtained from normal bulk bitumen. FTIR characterization confirmed the results of elemental analysis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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