Aqueous foams stabilized with silica nanoparticle and alpha olefin sulfonates surfactant

Carbon dioxide (CO2) foams have been introduced to improve mobility of CO2 in CO2 flooding. However, using surfactant alone to stabilize CO2 foam has potential weaknesses such as high surfactant retention in porous media and the foam is thermodynamically unstable for a long-term. Nanoparticle has be...

全面介绍

书目详细资料
发表在:Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Sciences
主要作者: 2-s2.0-85057506872
格式: 文件
语言:English
出版: Universiti Malaysia Pahang 2018
在线阅读:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85057506872&doi=10.15282%2fjmes.12.3.2018.1.0332&partnerID=40&md5=46a8ce8dee4837846b8482a8fa69a71a
实物特征
总结:Carbon dioxide (CO2) foams have been introduced to improve mobility of CO2 in CO2 flooding. However, using surfactant alone to stabilize CO2 foam has potential weaknesses such as high surfactant retention in porous media and the foam is thermodynamically unstable for a long-term. Nanoparticle has been an alternative in stabilizing CO2 foam longer. This study aims to analyze CO2 foam stability at varying concentrations of surfactant, silica nanoparticle (SNP) and brine. The additions of SNP in anionic surfactant of alpha olefin sulfonates (AOS)-water and in AOS-brine towards foam stability were demonstrated in this study. CO2 foam stability was measured through the foam height observation and bubble size analysis. The performance of SNP and AOS suspensions in stabilizing foam were observed at different concentrations of AOS (0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 wt%), SNP (0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 wt%) and brine (0.1, 1 and 5 wt%). The results revealed that the CO2 foams were most stable at 0.3 wt% SNP suspension in 0.5 wt% AOS-water. It was found that the most stable foams formed at concentration of 1 wt% of brine. Smaller and uniform bubble size has been produced at 0.3 wt% SNP in 0.5 wt% AOS solution. Thus, concentrations of surfactant, SNP and brine have significant effects on CO2 foam stability. © 2018 Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia.
ISSN:22894659
DOI:10.15282/jmes.12.3.2018.1.0332