4.3 Article

Effect of Demulsifier Structures on the Interfacial Dilational Properties of Oil-Water Films

期刊

JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 37, 期 7, 页码 1050-1058

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01932691.2015.1077456

关键词

Demulsifier; dilational modulus; relaxation process; static modulus; structure modulus

资金

  1. National Science & Technology Major Project [2011ZX05011-004]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51373192]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dilational properties of a branch-shaped polyether-type nonionic demulsifier (PEB), a comb-shaped polyether-type nonionic demulsifier (PEC), and a star-shaped polyether-type nonionic demulsifier (PES) at the decane-water interfaces were investigated by Langmuir trough method through oscillating barrier and interfacial tension relaxation methods, which are mainly in the influences of oscillating frequency and bulk concentration on dilational properties. Meanwhile, the effect of demulsifiers on interfacial dilational modulus of diluted crude oil was also explored. The experimental results indicate that all demulsifiers can decrease the dilational modulus of diluted crude oil at the experimental concentration. The addition of PEB causes the dilational modulus of crude oil to be lower than that at the water-decane interface. The demulsifier PEC has a similar effect with PES to influence the interfacial film of crude oil: at low concentration, the dilational modulus of mixed interfacial film is lower than that of demulsifier alone, while at high concentration, the dilational modulus of mixed interfacial film is slightly higher than that of demulsifier alone. The dependence of static modulus on the bulk concentration is consistent with the trend of interfacial dilational modulus with concentration for demulsifiers PEB, PEC, and PES. The studies about the structure modulus show that the new demulsifiers PEC and PES have a stronger ability than branch-shaped demulsifier PEB to destroy the interfacial film.

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

4.3
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