4.7 Article

Separation of water-in-heavy oil emulsions using porous particles in a coalescence column

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 148-156

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2016.04.004

关键词

Separation; Emulsion; Porous particle; Coalescence column; Wettability; Demulsifier

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Council (NSERC) of Canada
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [14CX05021A]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of China [51274225]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the principle of capillarity and the mechanism of a wetting film in porous media are applied in designing coalescence media. Water-wet porous particles are used for the first time in a coalescing column to enhance the separation of water from water-in-heavy oil emulsions. Experimental results show that this type of particles can remain water-wet in an oil environment and can significantly enhance the coalescence of water droplets in water-in-heavy oil emulsions. The coalescing column test results show that the flow of the emulsion through the 10 cm coalescing column reduced water content from 44.37% to 21.54% at 80 degrees C, without using a demulsifier. The coalescing column can further reduce the water content beyond what was reached in gravity separation using a high dosage of demulsifier. At a fixed temperature of 80 degrees C, when the dosage of the selected demulsifier changed from 50 to 100 to 150 ppm, water content was reduced to 10.49%, 1.32%, and 0.64%, respectively, with the use of a 10 cm coalescing column. These results indicate that the effect of adding a coalescing column to water separation from water-in-heavy oil emulsions is significant, as compared to using only a demulsifier in gravity separation. More importantly, flow through the coalescing column could reduce the water content in the heavy oil to a very low level (<1.0%) and, at the same time, reduce the consumption of demulsifier. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据