Comparison of Different Methods To Determine the Surface Wettability of Fine Solids Isolated from Alberta Oil Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wettability of fine solids in Alberta oil sands is one of the most important factors affecting nonaqueous bitumen extraction and subsequent solvent recovery from the extraction gangue. However, there is some controversy as to which method is most suitable for wettability determination of fine solids isolated from the oil sands. In this paper, four different methods—i.e., particle partition, static sessile drop contact angle coupled with penetration time, Washburn capillary rise, and film flotation—were investigated and compared in order to determine suitable methods to examine the wettability of these fine solids. Two model samples, high-purity kaolinite (hydrophilic) and bitumen-treated kaolinite (hydrophobic), were used to investigate the suitability of the above four methods. These methods were then used to measure the surface wettability of fine solids isolated from the oil sands (marine clay) after toluene extraction, either untreated or heated at 400 °C for 2 h. The results showed that the Washburn capillary rise method was not applicable. In addition, the particle partition and static sessile drop contact angle coupled with penetration time methods had some deficiencies and were not very suitable to determine the wettability of fine solids isolated from the oil sands. The film flotation method was determined to be the most appropriate method, because (i) it was sufficiently sensitive to distinguish solid surface hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity; (ii) it could quantify the hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity, based on the measured “mean critical surface tension”; and (iii) it could be used to determine the surface heterogeneity of the solids, based on the standard deviation of the measurements. By using the film flotation method, the mean critical surface tensions of fine solids was >68.1 mN/m, while that of the heat-treated solids was >72.0 mN/m, and the standard deviation of the critical surface tensions of the floating particles (0–25.9 wt %) for fine solids was 40.5 mN/m, which indicated that heat treatment caused the fine solids to become more hydrophilic and the hydrophobicity of the fine solids was heterogeneous. In addition to direct application of the four standard methods, we have further developed the methods and gained some new insights into them.
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) | 0.001 | 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".