Effect of Polar Hydrocarbon Contents on Oil–Water Interfacial Tension and Implications for Recent Observations in Smart Water Flooding Oil Recovery Schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades now, low salinity water flooding (LSWF) oil recovery has emerged as an environmentally benign and cost-effective method for improved oil recovery, where research findings have reported pH and interfacial tension effects. Considering the effect of oil chemistry on interfacial tension and the potential of this chemistry to have a direct relationship with LSWF, we measured the interfacial tension of four crude oils with composition varying from those of conventional to unconventional ones. We also characterized the crude oil samples using infrared spectroscopy and a wet chemistry method based on asphaltene precipitation. Our research approach has enabled us to relate the composition of crude oil to the interfacial tension trend at pH encountered in improved oil recovery schemes. Our research methodology, based on an integrated approach to using infrared spectroscopy and interfacial tensiometry, has also enabled us to propose a more robust theoretical explanation for current observations in LSWF related to pH and interfacial tension. In this regard, oil-water interfacial tension depends on the concentration of polar components, such that the higher the concentration of polar groups in crude oil, the higher the interfacial tension at a given pH of aqueous solution. We have also shown that the acid-base behavior of polar groups at the oil-water interface provides a theoretical interpretation of the explicit relationship between oil-water interfacial tension and the electrostatic components of interfacial tension as given by the energy additivity theory.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".