Experimental and numerical investigation of the formation of Oil Particle Aggregates (OPA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract (2017-187) Oil-particle interactions can result in oil particle aggregates (OPA), which move differently from oil droplets or particles alone. This may alter drastically the fate of oil. Laboratory studies were conducted using the EPA baffled flask and the resultant OPAs were analyzed by confocal laser scanning microscopy. 3D images of the OPA structure provided the evidence of a new theory of the oil-particle coagulation mechanism in turbulent flows. The experimental data was then used to validate the newly developed OPA model, A-DROP, that requires the input of particle and oil properties and the mixing intensity. A new parameter to account for the shape of the particles and the packing on the oil droplets, and a new conceptual formulation of oil-particle coagulation efficiency are introduced in the model to account for the overall behavior of the coated area on the droplet surface. The model was used to simulate the OPA formation in a typical nearshore environment. Modeling results indicate that the increase of particle concentration in the swash zone would speed up the oil–particle interaction process; but the oil amount trapped in OPAs did not correspond to the increase of particle concentration. The developed A-DROP model could become an important tool in understanding the natural removal of oil and developing oil spill countermeasures by means of oil–particle aggregation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".