Probing the Interfacial Forces and Surface Interaction Mechanisms in Petroleum Production Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the advances that have been made in renewable energy over the past decade, crude oil or petroleum remains one of the most important energy resources to the world. Petroleum production presents many challenging issues, such as the destabilization of complex oil–water emulsions, fouling phenomena on pipelines and other facilities, and water treatment. These problems are influenced by the molecular forces at the oil/water/solid/gas interfaces involved in relevant processes. Herein, we present an overview of recent advances on probing the interfacial forces in several petroleum production processes (e.g., bitumen extraction, emulsion stabilization and destabilization, fouling and antifouling phenomena, and water treatment) by applying nanomechanical measurement technologies such as a surface forces apparatus (SFA) and an atomic force microscope (AFM). The interaction forces between bitumen and mineral solids or air bubbles in the surrounding fluid media determine the bitumen liberation and flotation efficiency in oil sands production. The stability of complex oil/water emulsions is governed by the forces between emulsion drops and particularly between interface-active species (e.g., asphaltenes). Various oil components (e.g., asphaltenes) and emulsion drops interact with different substrate surfaces (e.g., pipelines or membranes), influencing fouling phenomena, oil–water separation, and wastewater treatment. Quantifying these intermolecular and interfacial forces has advanced the mechanistic understanding of these interfacial interactions, facilitating the development of advanced materials and technologies to solve relevant challenging issues and improve petroleum production processes. Remaining challenges and suggestions on future research directions in the field are also presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".