MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microfluidic Approach for Evaluating the Solubility of Crude Oil Asphaltenes

2016· article· en· W2280575273 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent J. Sieben, Asok Kumar Tharanivasan, Simon Ivar Andersen, Farshid Mostowfi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSchlumberger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphalteneSolubilityHildebrand solubility parameterGravimetric analysisSolventMicrofluidicsPrecipitationChemistryChromatographyDiluentMaterials scienceChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe a microfluidic approach for measuring the solubility of asphaltenes in a sample of crude oil. The solubility parameter is an important property in assessing stability of asphaltenes in crude oils and crude mixtures, particularly when blending different oils or adding diluents. A range of solvent–precipitant mixtures are added to the crude oil, which modifies the native solubility properties, and the degree of asphaltene precipitation is monitored by the change in optical absorbance for each chosen solvent volume fraction. The microfluidic solubility profiles acquired in hours are compared to conventional gravimetric measurements obtained over days and demonstrate excellent agreement. We also show the application of the data generated for tuning solubility parameter-based thermodynamic models of asphaltene precipitation in mixtures of solvents and precipitants. The microfluidic data were used to determine the asphaltene solubility parameter that ranged from 20 to 23 MPa 1/2 for the crude oils used in this study, in agreement with previous reports. The more efficient use of labor and the reduction in measurement time enabled by the microfluidic method will allow for more frequent asphaltene characterization for evaluating stability and tuning models.

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)0.001
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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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