Home Physical Sciences Microfluidic dispersion of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows in the presence of dialkyl sulfonates, polysorbates, and glycols
Article Open Access

Microfluidic dispersion of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows in the presence of dialkyl sulfonates, polysorbates, and glycols

  • Chuntian Hu

    Chuntian Hu received his BS in chemical engineering and technology from Shandong University of Technology (2005) and his MS in chemical technology from China University of Petroleum (Beijing) (2009). Currently, he is a PhD candidate at The University of Alabama, with special interests in the study of petroleum and natural gas production using microchemical systems.

    , Carina Herz

    Carina Herz obtained her BS in chemical engineering in 2012 from The University of Alabama, where she studied microfluidic devices to understand mineral oil-seawater interactions in the presence of model dispersants. Ms. Herz subsequently joined Mercedes-Benz US International as paint engineer.

    and Ryan L. Hartman

    Ryan L. Hartman is assistant professor and Reichhold-Shumaker Fellow of Chemical and Biological Engineering at The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Dr. Hartman completed his postdoctoral studies in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, his PhD in chemical engineering at the University of Michigan, and his BS in chemical engineering at Michigan Technological University. His research interests revolve around the use of classical chemical engineering first principles to investigate water and natural gas science and engineering for societal applications of energy, sustainability, and chemicals processing. A major theme in his research is the engineering of microchemical systems to discover translational science that advances full-scale systems.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 2, 2013
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

The role of dispersants on hydrocarbon phase behavior in seawater is an important problem that influences marine environment ecology. Offshore petroleum and natural gas catastrophes, such as the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, motive the need to understand how to minimize the introduction of potentially invasive compounds while maximizing their efficacy during emergency remediation. The microfluidic stabilities of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows in the presence of model dispersants were studied for We<1. Introducing dispersants at varying dimensionless volumetric injection rates, ranging from 0.001 to 0.01, transitions from stable slug flow to the bubbly regime. Dimensionless mass ratios of three model dispersants to the mineral oil necessary to establish emulsions were estimated from 2.6×10-3 to 7.7×10-3. Residence time distributions of seawater single-phase and mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows, laden with dispersants, were also investigated. Increasing the dimensionless dispersant injection rate from 0 to 0.01 was observed to increase convective dispersion, which was confirmed by estimations of the vessel dispersion number and the Bodenstein number. The observations undergird that microfluidics are useful laboratory techniques to identify the transition to bubbly flow where bacteria consumption rates could potentially be enhanced, while minimizing the dispersant mass introduced into calm-sea marine environments.

1 Introduction

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill on April 20, 2010, is regarded as the worst environmental disaster in the history of the US [1]. It caused extensive damage to the marine and wildlife habitats and disrupted the lives of many people. A remediation technique applied to protect the wetlands and beaches from the spreading oil [2] was the use of dispersants at the wellhead and on the ocean surface. Tradeoff exists in such a catastrophe between the negative consequences of the hydrocarbon and the dispersants themselves introduced to remediate the hydrocarbon release. Answering the question of what mass of dispersant is critical requires principal understanding of the phase behavior. Several influencing factors [3, 4], such as salinity, temperature, oil weathering, mixing energy, and particles, should be considered in determining the composition and the total mass of dispersants needed to engineer remediation techniques that preserve the environment.

Remediation techniques [2] applied to protect the wetlands and the beaches from the spreading crude oil include mainly the usage of booms, barriers, skimmers, sorbents, dispersants, and in situ burning. The use of dispersants at the wellhead and on the ocean surface is convenient, especially in harsh weather conditions [3]. Other advantages of dispersant use [3] include allowing for rapid treatment of large ocean surface areas, accelerating the bacteria biodegradation process by significantly increasing oil droplet surface area, and making oil less likely to adhere to sediment, wildlife, and shorelines. Remediation dispersants are blends of organic solvents and surfactants (mixtures of ionic and nonionic components) designed to lower the interfacial tension, which disrupts crude oil slicks into fine droplets that are eventually consumed by natural bacteria [5]. Specific examples of anionic surfactants used in the Deepwater Horizon spill include sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinates, potassium lauryl sulfates, and sodium dodecyl sulfates. Nonionic components include sorbitan monooleate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan trioleate, di(propylene glycol) butyl ether, and 1,2-propanediol. The chemistry is complex in its design because of both environmental concerns and functionality, and the salinity directly influences dispersant efficacy [6].

Microfluidic systems, as model laboratory devices, elucidate the critical formulation conditions needed when absolutely necessary to artificially create hydrocarbon dispersions. Microfluidics take advantage of reduced mass and heat transfer limitations, enhanced mixing, model fluid mechanics, and improved surface-area-to-volume ratios [7–27] that make studying multiphase dispersant systems superior relative to conventional batch techniques. Microfluidic systems are generally constrained to low Reynolds number laminar flow due to their reduced length scales [8], which inherently rely on diffusive mixing principles. Multiphase flows in microfluidics, however, have been shown to achieve mixing in microseconds [9, 28–31]. Consequently, the mapping of intrinsic fluid mechanics is made possible as well as the conditions of their transitions from segmented flows to bubbly flows readily available [9, 32–34]. Such information is critical to identify interfacial surface areas of immiscible liquid-liquid systems.

In the present study, we explored for the first time microfluidic systems toward understanding why model dispersants influence mineral oil-seawater phase behaviors. Classical chemical engineering reactor design principles were used to delineate the critical mass of dispersant necessary to remediate mineral oil in model seawater. The work presented herein was motivated, in part, by the need to minimize chemical additives during an environmental disaster (e.g., an oil spill). The results of our dimensionless analogy demonstrate microfluidics as promising tools to minimize chemical additives and to engineer formulations based on science and engineering.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Chemicals

Sorbitan monooleate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan trioleate, dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt, di(propylene glycol) butyl ether (mixture of isomers), and sea salts were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). 1,2-propanediol, sodium benzoate, and kerosene (low odor) were purchased from Alfa Aesar (Ward Hill, MA, USA). Polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate was acquired from VWR International (West Chester, PA, USA). Mineral oil (white, light) was obtained from Avantor Performance Materials (Phillipsburg, NJ, USA). All chemicals were used without further purification.

2.2 Experimental setup

The experimental setup is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. Dispersant, mineral oil, and seawater were delivered into a 6-μl microfluidic chip (0.15×0.15×340 mm; Micronit Microfluidics, Enschede, The Netherlands) using three syringe pumps (PHD 2000, Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, MA, USA), one 0.5-ml glass syringe, and two 5-ml glass syringes (SEG Analytical Science, Austin, TX, USA). The syringes and the microfluidic chip were connected using fluidic Connect 4515 (Micronit Microfluidics), 150-μm ID tubing (Perkinelmer, Waltham, MA, USA), 500-μm ID tubing (Idex Heath & Science, Oak Harbor, WA, USA), and PEEK ferrules (Idex Heath & Science, Oak Harbor, WA, USA). A StereoZoom Microscope (VWR International) with a USB digital camera (DV-500) was used for imaging. The camera was linked to a computer.

Figure 1 (A) Schematic flow diagram of the experimental setup used to study the stability of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows in the presence of model dispersants. Photographs of (B) the enlarged 6-μl microfluidic chip and (C) the packaged system with fluid delivery and exiting connections are also provided.
Figure 1

(A) Schematic flow diagram of the experimental setup used to study the stability of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows in the presence of model dispersants. Photographs of (B) the enlarged 6-μl microfluidic chip and (C) the packaged system with fluid delivery and exiting connections are also provided.

2.3 Reagent preparation

Seawater was prepared by dispersing 3.5 wt% sea salts into deionized water. Using commercial sea salts provides a reproducible solution of known composition, and it minimizes biological effects. Table 1 shows the typical composition of seawater. Model dispersant was also prepared by first mixing the components according to the molar fractions shown in Table 2. Kerosene was then added to the mixture. Samples were named based on their kerosene contents: Model Dispersant I, 75 wt% kerosene; Model Dispersant II, 50 wt% kerosene; and Model Dispersant III, 25 wt% kerosene.

Table 1

Typical composition of seawater (salinity=35).

ComponentConcentration (mmol/kg)
H2O53,600
Cl-546
Na+469
Mg2+52.8
SO42-28.2
Ca2+10.3
K+10.2
HCO3-2.06
Br-0.844
BO33-0.416
Sr2+0.091
F-0.068
Table 2

Molar composition of model dispersant less kerosene.

Chemical nameMolecular structureMolar content (mol %)
Sorbitan monooleate
18.0
Polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate
9.5
Polyoxyethylene sorbitan trioleate
3.1
Dioctyl sulfosuccinate sodium salt
8.7
Di(propylene glycol) butyl ether, mixture of isomers
10.1
1,2-Propanediol
50.6

2.4 Residence time distribution measurements

The residence time distributions (RTDs) of the seawater single-phase and seawater-oil-dispersant multiphase were measured using an inline UV-vis setup, as shown in Figure 2. Syringe pumps and 5-ml SGE glass syringes were used to refill seawater and oil into the microfluidic chip. Sodium benzoate with a concentration of 0.04 wt% in seawater was used as the tracer and was injected into the seawater phase by a microscale injector before the two phases contact. The distribution of tracer was measured using the UV-vis setup at the outlet of the microfluidic chip. The microfluidic chip, microscale injector, and the UV-vis setup were connected by 0.005” tubing to reduce the dead volume. Both lamps on the light source were allowed to warm up for at least 20 min before operating the experiments.

Figure 2 (A) Schematic diagram of continuous inline UV-vis spectroscopy used for RTD measurements. (B) Microscale injector with a 0.75-µl sample loop (6 cm of 0.005” ID red tubing) and (C) flow cell with integrated 400-µm ID quartz capillary.
Figure 2

(A) Schematic diagram of continuous inline UV-vis spectroscopy used for RTD measurements. (B) Microscale injector with a 0.75-µl sample loop (6 cm of 0.005” ID red tubing) and (C) flow cell with integrated 400-µm ID quartz capillary.

3 RTD theory and dispersion models

RTD measurements can be used for characterizing laminar flow profiles [35–43], and the measurements elucidate the dispersion properties of single-phase and multiphase flow in microfluidic systems [44–46]. Although segmented flow formed by immiscible liquids is a well-known phenomenon to reduce the unwanted axial dispersion [47], how organic dispersants influence the axial dispersion of multiphase systems is not fully understood. Better understanding of the effects of dispersants on axial dispersion is critically important for the study of material synthesis, chemical reaction, and environmental protection.

RTDs [35, 36] are described first to best understand the multiphase flows. For the pulse injection of a tracer molecule (e.g., sodium benzoate), the tracer′s residence time, τ, and its variance, σ2, were obtained by [36]

and

where the dimensionless time, θ, is calculated from the ratio of the real time, t, to the residence time, τ, defined as

The dimensionless RTD function, E(θ), calculated from pulse tracer experiments, offers the direct comparison of the experimental results for different flow rate conditions [36],

The ratio of convection to molecular diffusion, the Bodenstein number (Bo) [36],

yields principle understanding of the dominant forces that govern hydrocarbon, seawater, and dispersant phase behavior in multiphase microfluidics. Here, is the molecular diffusivity, u is the fluid velocity, and dE is the effective microchannel diameter. Principle understanding of convective forces to axial dispersion is also available when considering the vessel dispersion number, D*/uL, where D* is the dispersion coefficient and L is the microchannel length. When (D*/uL)<0.01 in the single-phase flow, the system emulates plug flow, and [36]

and

When (D*/uL)>0.01, the system is open and far from plug flow, which gives [36]

and

The maximum peak heights of either E(θ) curves yield estimations of D*, and hence, Bo is estimated for known L/dE ratios of 103 by combining [36]

into Equation (5). The subsequent Bo values provide useful knowledge on the role of molecular diffusion on mineral oil-seawater phase behavior in the presence of dispersants.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Mineral oil-seawater microfluidic slug-length distribution

Mineral oil and seawater were delivered into the 6-μl microfluidic chip at identical flow rates ranging from 1 to 10 μl/min. No model dispersant was injected in the initial set of experiments. Depending on the flow rates of mineral oil and seawater, different slug length distributions of two phases were estimated, which is consistent with the work of others [48, 49]. Figure 3A illustrates an example of the mineral oil slug length images obtained using the StereoZoom Microscope, and the mineral oil slug length number distribution calculated is shown in Figure 3B. Here, samples of 100 consecutive mineral oil slugs for each flow rate were chosen to estimate their distributions. As the slug length analysis shows, the flow rate has a strong influence on the slug length distribution. Increasing the flow rate decreases the slug lengths of both the mineral oil and the seawater phases, as depicted in Figures 3A and 3B. Larger flow rates result in larger rates of pressure buildup and, therefore, more rapid insertion of one phase into the other. As a consequence, both phases segment into a greater number of slugs [49, 50]. One observes that the mineral oil slugs are a fraction larger than the water slugs, which results from the hydrophilic microfluidic channel surface. There exists a thin water film between the mineral oil slugs and the microchannel wall. That is, the thin water film connects all the water slugs while all the mineral oil slugs are discrete. The corresponding film thickness, h, is estimated using Bretherton′s Law [51]:

Figure 3 Characterization of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow through a microfluidic device in the absence of dispersants. (A) Photographs of mineral oil slug lengths obtained using a StereoZoom Microscope. (B) Estimation of the mineral oil slug length number distribution at different injection rates. (C) Dimensionless characterization of the mean capillary and the mean Reynolds numbers.
Figure 3

Characterization of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow through a microfluidic device in the absence of dispersants. (A) Photographs of mineral oil slug lengths obtained using a StereoZoom Microscope. (B) Estimation of the mineral oil slug length number distribution at different injection rates. (C) Dimensionless characterization of the mean capillary and the mean Reynolds numbers.

where the Capillary number Ca=μu/γ, μ is the viscosity of the liquid, and γ is the interfacial tension of the liquid. In our system, the mean Capillary number is in the order of 10-3 (see Table 3) and the water film thickness estimated by Equation (11) is 0.68 to 3.14 μm. The mean Capillary number is below the critical value (10-2), so the shear stress alone is not sufficient to break up the slugs. The slug length is determined by the flow rate of mineral oil and the seawater in our model system [52]. Plotting Camean as a function of Remean yields Figure 3C. The slope, Camean/Remean2/(dEργ), is estimated to be 3.0×10-3. Previously reported values of 0.47×10-4(for a T-shaped junction) and 0.63×10-4 (for a Y-shaped junction) estimated for toluene dispersed in deionized water [48] are indications of the characteristic difference of the seawater-mineral oil viscous forces. Increasing viscous forces increases the Camean/Remean ratio [48].

Table 3

Experimental conditions and dimensionless quantity estimates.

(a)(b)(c)(d)
Total flow rate, FT (μl/min)2.004.0010.0020.00
Mean velocity, u (×10-2 m/s)0.1880.3760.9401.88
Remean0.1850.3690.9241.85
Camean (×10-3)0.5481.102.745.48
Wemean (×10-4)0.1130.4522.8311.3
τ (min)3.001.500.600.30

Table 3 further summarizes the experimental conditions achieved in the 6-μl microfluidic chip and the corresponding dimensionless quantities. Reynolds number ranged from 0.19 to 1.8, and thus, laminar was established for residence times ranging from 0.30 to 3.0 min. For mineral oil and seawater flow rates of 5.00 μl/min each (total flow rate of 10.00 μl/min), the equivalent mean residence time is 0.60 min and the mean mineral oil slug length is approximately 900 μm. The Weber number, We=dEρu2, where ρ is the density of the liquid, ranges from 0.11 to 11.3 (×10-4). Therefore, the liquid-liquid surface tension dominates over the inertial forces, and again, slug flow is expected [48, 53]. Spilled crude oil on the ocean surface forms a thin film influenced by interfacial tension, viscous, and gravitational forces [54]. In stormy seas, the near-surface turbulence of waves generates oil droplets through natural dispersion [55], and We values >10 predict natural droplet break-ups [53, 56]. When one considers calm seas, the thin crude oil film velocity on the ocean surface is approximately 3.5% of wind speeds [57], ranging from 1.0 to 9.0 m/s [58]. Suspended crude oil droplets can exhibit broad size distributions in thin films (e.g., 1 to 1000 μm) [55]. Estimations of the corresponding We values based on previously reported data give maximum and minimum values of 1.9×10-3 and 2.4×10-5, respectively, for droplet sizes of 1 μm. Maximum and minimum We values of 1.9 and 2.4×10-2, respectively, correspond to 1000-μm droplets. As a consequence, interfacial forces govern, both our laboratory scale study and calm sea conditions, over inertial forces. As we will soon learn, introducing model dispersants into the mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow has a profound impact on the stability of the phase behavior and on the molecular dispersion.

4.2 Influence of model dispersants on the slug length

The influence of dispersant on the slug size distribution was evaluated in the next set of experiments. Seawater, analogous to the base case, was injected into the 6-μl microfluidic chip at a flow rate of 5 μl/min. Each model dispersant was also injected separately at flow rates ranging from 0.02 to 1.0 μl/min. The combined flow rate of the mineral oil and the dispersant was 5 μl/min in each test. Microscope photographs of the mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows for different injection rates of Model Dispersant I are shown in Figure 4. Interestingly, one observes in the figure a transition in the stability as the flow rate of the model dispersant increased from 0.02 μl/min (Figure 4A) to 0.04 μl/min (Figure 4B) to 0.06 μl/min (Figure 4C). For Model Dispersant I flow rates <0.04 μl/min, uniform mineral oil slugs were observed. At flow rates >0.04 μl/min, mineral oil slug lengths became stochastic. Increasing the flow rate to 0.20 μl/min dispersed mineral oil droplets in the continuous seawater phase, and thus, the mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow took a form of bubbly flow as shown in Figures 4D, 5A, and 5B for flow conditions. A stop-flow technique was applied to estimate the static droplet diameters, ranging from 7 to 70 μm, for the bubbly flow regime (see Figure 5C) for dispersant injection rates of 0.30 μl/min. Increasing the injection rate to 1.0 μl/min further reduced the droplet diameters, as shown in Figure 5D. The transition to bubbly flow, a significant discovery, is preliminary indication of a critical dispersant concentration necessary to achieve high interfacial surface areas. To facilitate better understanding of the transition, we define the dimensionless dispersant flow rate, ΘD, as

Figure 4 Microscope photographs of the mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow through a microfluidic device for different injection rates of Model Dispersant I: (A) FD=0.02 μl/min, (B) FD=0.04 μl/min, (C) FD=0.06 μl/min, and (D) FD=0.20 μl/min (FW=5 μl/min; FO+FD=5 μl/min for all tests).
Figure 4

Microscope photographs of the mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow through a microfluidic device for different injection rates of Model Dispersant I: (A) FD=0.02 μl/min, (B) FD=0.04 μl/min, (C) FD=0.06 μl/min, and (D) FD=0.20 μl/min (FW=5 μl/min; FO+FD=5 μl/min for all tests).

Figure 5 Photographs of mineral oil-seawater phase separation (with Model Dispersant I) through a microfluidic device under flow, (A) FD=0.30 μl/min and (B) FD=1.0 μl/min, and static conditions, (C) FD=0.30 μl/min and (D) FD=1.0 μl/min, where FW=5 μl/min and FO+FD=5 μl/min for all tests.
Figure 5

Photographs of mineral oil-seawater phase separation (with Model Dispersant I) through a microfluidic device under flow, (A) FD=0.30 μl/min and (B) FD=1.0 μl/min, and static conditions, (C) FD=0.30 μl/min and (D) FD=1.0 μl/min, where FW=5 μl/min and FO+FD=5 μl/min for all tests.

where the total flow rate, FT, is the sum of the mineral oil (FO), dispersant (FD), and seawater (FW) flow rates.

Estimation of the mean slug length (Lmean) for different ΘD values (Figure 6) elucidates the mass of dispersant needed to destabilize the mineral oil slugs. As can be seen in Figure 6, increasing ΘD values from 0 to approximately 0.003 has no influence on Lmean values for Model Dispersant I. However, Lmean values for Model Dispersants I, II, and III began to decrease for ΘD values of 0.003, 0.0015, and 0.001, respectively. By ΘD values of 0.010, the Lmean of mineral oil droplets was 0.126 mm (I), 0.108 mm (II), and 0.064 mm (III). The plateau values illustrated in Figure 6 reveal that the mineral oil slug is stable until the concentration of the model dispersants is greater than a critical concentration. The critical concentrations of Model Dispersant I, II, and III are observed for dispersant flow rates of 0.012, 0.02, and 0.04 μl/min, respectively. The corresponding dimensionless mass ratios of each model dispersant to the mineral oil are 7.7×10-3 (I), 4.1×10-3 (II), and 2.6×10-3 (III). The resultant ratios undergird that increasing the kerosene mass fraction increases the critical mass ratio whereby emulsion formation is expected.

Figure 6 Mean mineral oil slug length (Lmean) as a function of the dimensionless dispersant injection rate (ΘD×103) measured by analyses of microscope images. The transition from stable, well-characterized slug flows to the bubbly microfluidic regime is illustrated each for Model Dispersant I, II, and III.
Figure 6

Mean mineral oil slug length (Lmean) as a function of the dimensionless dispersant injection rate (ΘD×103) measured by analyses of microscope images. The transition from stable, well-characterized slug flows to the bubbly microfluidic regime is illustrated each for Model Dispersant I, II, and III.

The mineral oil slugs remain stable prior to achieving the critical concentration of dispersant as the surface tension decreases and the dispersant molecules construct a monolayer at the liquid-liquid interfaces. Dispersant molecules accumulate at the interface until the critical concentration is achieved, whereby the surface tension decreases to its minimum limit and the slugs start to break up. As ΘD values increase beyond the critical values, the dispersant molecules need additional mineral oil-water interface to occupy, which results in the transformation of mineral oil slugs into dispersed mineral oil droplets (i.e., an emulsion). In marine environments, wave motions govern the phase behavior of crude oil slicks. Identifying the critical mass addition of dispersants that effectively break up oil slicks into dispersed droplets is key to minimizing environmental risks and to maximizing the crude oil surface-to-volume ratio (i.e., maximizing the bacteria consumption rate) before crude oil slicks have enough time to reach coastal shorelines.

4.3 RTDs of single-phase and multiphase flows

Experimental analysis of dispersion in multiphase microfluidics, which builds on the classical RTD theory previously derived, offers additional insights on the mineral oil-seawater system. As a first step, the dispersion in single-phase seawater within the microfluidic device was investigated. A tracer molecule, 0.04 wt% sodium benzoate in seawater, was injected into the carrier seawater solvent. Figure 7 shows the absorbance of sodium benzoate in seawater at different concentrations. The maximum absorbance wavelength of 225 nm was chosen to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, which improves the precision of the measurements especially at low absorbance. Flow rates of seawater single-phase flow of 2.00, 4.00, 10.00, and 20.00 μl/min were studied. Estimations of the dimensionless RTD function, E(θ), by Equation (4) were made, and the results are reported in Figures 8A and 8B. The corresponding parameters were calculated using Equations (5) through (7) and (10), and they are reported in Table 4. As the flow rate increased from 2.00 to 20.00 μl/min, the mean residence time decreased from 8.35±0.19 to 0.85±0.003 min (see Table 4), and the peak width of the absorbance decreased (Figure 8A) while the peak width of E(θ) curves increased (Figure 8B). Furthermore, Table 4 confirms that increasing the flow rate increases the vessel dispersion number and Bo because differences between the centerline fluid velocity and the zero wall velocity (i.e., the no-slip boundary condition at the microchannel wall) are greater.

Figure 7 UV-vis absorbance of sodium benzoate in seawater.
Figure 7

UV-vis absorbance of sodium benzoate in seawater.

Figure 8 RTD measurements of mineral oil and seawater flows. (A) Absorbance as a function of time for seawater injections and (B) their corresponding E(θ) values as a function of dimensionless time (θ). (C) Absorbance as a function of time for mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows and (D) their corresponding E(θ) values as a function of dimensionless time (θ).
Figure 8

RTD measurements of mineral oil and seawater flows. (A) Absorbance as a function of time for seawater injections and (B) their corresponding E(θ) values as a function of dimensionless time (θ). (C) Absorbance as a function of time for mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows and (D) their corresponding E(θ) values as a function of dimensionless time (θ).

Table 4

Comparison of dispersion for single-phase RTDs at different flow rates.

FT (μl/min)u (×10-2 m/s)τ (min)σ2 (min2)σθ2D*/uLD* (×10-5m2/s)Bo
2.000.1888.35±0.193.560.01660.00830.88400
4.000.3764.18±0.051.680.01880.00942.00800
10.000.9401.68±0.0060.480.02750.01326.971990
20.001.8800.85±0.0030.170.03870.018219.33980

Dispersion of the tracer molecule in multiphase flow was evaluated next under the same flow rate conditions and using Equations (4), (5), and (8) through (10). Figures 8C and 8D illustrate the absorbance and the resulting E(θ) curves for total flow rates of 2.00, 4.00, 10.00, and 20.00 μl/min. As shown in Figure 8D and Table 5, (D*/uL) values are independent of the flow rate, which is not surprising in well-mixed segmented flow. Values of (D*/uL)~0.003, significantly less than those reported in Table 4 for single-phase flow, confirm that segments of mineral oil dispersed in seawater confine the tracer molecule. The result is in agreement with previously reported observations for gas-liquid flows [46, 59]. Values of Bo ranging from 400 to 4000 in both the single-phase and multiphase flows confirm the convective flux to dominate the diffusive flux in the radial direction. Eliminating the diffusive and the convective communication between segments in the axial direction, as we will soon see, creates an ideal microfluidic condition that can be exploited to identify when the addition of dispersants breaks up the slugs into dispersed droplets (i.e., an emulsion).

Table 5

Comparison of dispersion for multiphase RTDs at different flow rates.

FT (μl/min)u (×10-2 m/s)τ (min)σ2 (min2)σθ2D*/uLD* (×10-5m2/s)Bo
2.000.18812.1±0.21.690.00590.00300.31420
4.000.3765.83±0.090.710.00630.00320.66850
10.000.9402.51±0.040.210.00600.00301.572120
20.001.8801.22±0.020.040.00620.00313.224240

Analyses of the tracer molecule′s absorbance in liquid-liquid mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow offer additional insight on the influence of the model dispersants. As shown in Figure 9A, the tracer molecule absorbance injected into the seawater carrier solvent (in the absence of any model dispersant) generates a histogram distribution with alternating absorbance from one immiscible phase to the other. Figures 9B, 9C, and 9D illustrate the destabilization of the multiphase segmented flow as ΘD values increase from 0.5×10-3 to 4×10-3 to 10×10-3. Not only does the maximum absorbance increase with increasing ΘD values but also stochastic peaks outside the distribution function appear as the droplets are dispersed. Replotting the E(θ) curves by substituting data of Figures 9A, 9C, and 9D into Equation (4) yields Figure 10. The maximum of the dimensionless distribution function E(θ) decreases as ΘD values increase from 0 to 0.004 to 0.010, which signifies axial communication between the immiscible liquid-liquid segments. Recall that axial dispersion was observed neither in Figures 8C and 8D nor in the results of Table 5. As the slugs break up into dispersed droplets, via the addition of Model Dispersant I, axial dispersion is made possible. Table 6 further exemplifies the observation as the resulting calculated (D*/uL) and Bo values increase from 3.0×10-3 to 4.0×10-3 and from 2100 to 2800, respectively, with increasing ΘD values in the range from 0 to 0.010. Our general observations support that changes in the Bodenstein number measured in immiscible liquid-liquid segmented flows indicate the dispersant-induced transition from stable slug flow to the bubbly flow regime. Understanding the criteria, as previously stated, is key to minimizing environmental risks and to maximizing the crude oil surface-to-volume ratio before crude oil slicks have enough time to reach coastal shorelines.

Figure 9 RTDs of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows with (A) no dispersant (Fw=FO=5 μl/min; FD=0; ΘD(×103)=0) and for varying dimensionless injection rates of Model Dispersant I: (B) ΘD(×103)=0.5, (C) ΘD(×103)=4, and (D) ΘD(×103)=10.
Figure 9

RTDs of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows with (A) no dispersant (Fw=FO=5 μl/min; FD=0; ΘD(×103)=0) and for varying dimensionless injection rates of Model Dispersant I: (B) ΘD(×103)=0.5, (C) ΘD(×103)=4, and (D) ΘD(×103)=10.

Figure 10 Dimensionless E(θ) curves of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow for different dimensionless dispersant injection rates.
Figure 10

Dimensionless E(θ) curves of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flow for different dimensionless dispersant injection rates.

Table 6

Comparison of dispersion for varying dimensionless dispersant concentrations.

ΘD (×103)FT (μl/min)u (×10-2 m/s)τ (min)σθ2D*/uLD* (×10-5m2/s)
(×10-10m2/s)
Bo
010.000.9402.51±0.040.00600.00301.576.682120
410.000.9402.17±0.030.00710.00351.835.732480
1010.000.9402.04±0.030.00800.00402.095.022830

5 Conclusions

Chemical dispersants reduce the mass of crude oil that contaminates coastal shorelines during oil spill catastrophe, which protects the wetlands and the beaches from the spreading oil. Quantifying the mass of dispersants needed is crucial to minimizing the mass released into the environment. Microfluidic analysis of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows elucidates that a critical concentration of dispersant exists to transform stable slug flows into the bubbly flow regime. Our analysis of the mean slug size for different dimensionless model dispersant injection rates yields the mass ratio of dispersant to mineral oil that generates emulsions. The dimensionless mass ratio values are key to scaling up from the laboratory to full-scale systems that operate in calm seas (i.e., We<1). Additional knowledge on the dimensionless mass ratios for real crude oil systems could potentially identify the critical mass of dispersant needed during emergency oil spill remediation.

Measurements of the RTDs of seawater single-phase and mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows, laden with dispersants, also provide insight on the influence of model dispersants. Increasing the dimensionless dispersant injection rate was observed to increase convective dispersion, which was confirmed by estimations of the vessel dispersion number, the molecular diffusivity, and the Bodenstein number. The observations undergird that microfluidics are useful laboratory techniques to identify the transition to bubbly flow where bacteria consumption rates could potentially be enhanced while minimizing the dispersant mass introduced into calm-sea marine environments. Classical reactor design analogies are omnipresent toward the discovery of global knowledge that mitigates the severity of environmental disasters.


Corresponding author: Ryan L. Hartman, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA, e-mail:

About the authors

Chuntian Hu

Chuntian Hu received his BS in chemical engineering and technology from Shandong University of Technology (2005) and his MS in chemical technology from China University of Petroleum (Beijing) (2009). Currently, he is a PhD candidate at The University of Alabama, with special interests in the study of petroleum and natural gas production using microchemical systems.

Carina Herz

Carina Herz obtained her BS in chemical engineering in 2012 from The University of Alabama, where she studied microfluidic devices to understand mineral oil-seawater interactions in the presence of model dispersants. Ms. Herz subsequently joined Mercedes-Benz US International as paint engineer.

Ryan L. Hartman

Ryan L. Hartman is assistant professor and Reichhold-Shumaker Fellow of Chemical and Biological Engineering at The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Dr. Hartman completed his postdoctoral studies in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, his PhD in chemical engineering at the University of Michigan, and his BS in chemical engineering at Michigan Technological University. His research interests revolve around the use of classical chemical engineering first principles to investigate water and natural gas science and engineering for societal applications of energy, sustainability, and chemicals processing. A major theme in his research is the engineering of microchemical systems to discover translational science that advances full-scale systems.

Financial support from the Dauphin Island Sea Lab MESC BP-GRI is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Kujawinski EB, Soule MCK, Valentine DL, Boysen AK, Longnecker K, Redmond MC. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1298–1306.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Clayton JR, Payne JR, Farlow JS. Oil Spill Dispersants: Mechanisms of Action and Laboratory Tests, 1st ed., CRC Press: Florida, 1993.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Lessard RR, Demarco G. Spill Sci. Technol. B. 2000, 6, 59–68.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Fiocco RJ, Lewis A. Pure Appl. Chem. 1999, 71, 27–42.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Guyomarch J, Le Floch S, Merlin FX. Spill Sci. Technol. B. 2002, 8, 95–100.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Chandrasekar S, Sorial GA, Weaver JW. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2006, 63, 1418.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Hessel V, Angeli P, Gavriilidis A, Lowe H. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005, 44, 9750–9769.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Jensen KF. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2001, 56, 293–303.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Gunther A, Jensen KF. Lab Chip 2006, 6, 1487–1503.10.1039/B609851GSearch in Google Scholar

[10] Losey MW, Schmidt MA, Jensen KF. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 2555–2562.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Hartman RL, Jensen KF. Lab Chip 2009, 9, 2495–2507.10.1039/b906343aSearch in Google Scholar

[12] Hartman RL, Naber JR, Buchwald SL, Jensen KF. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 899–903.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Hartman RL, Sahoo HR, Yen BC, Jensen KF. Lab Chip 2009, 9, 1843–1849.10.1039/b901790aSearch in Google Scholar

[14] Yen BKH, Gunther A, Schmidt MA, Jensen KF, Bawendi MG. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 5447–5451.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Marre S, Park J, Rempel J, Guan J, Bawendi MG, Jensen KF. Adv. Mater. 2008, 20, 4830.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Watts P, Wiles C. Chem. Commun. 2007, 443–467.10.1039/B609428GSearch in Google Scholar

[17] Roberge DM, Ducry L, Bieler N, Cretton P, Zimmermann B. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2005, 28, 318–323.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Pennemann H, Watts P, Haswell SJ, Hessel V, Lowe H. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2004, 8, 422–439.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Kockmann N, Gottsponer M, Zimmermann B, Roberge DM. Chem. Eur. J. 2008, 14, 7470–7477.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Jensen KF. MRS Bull. 2006, 31, 101–107.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Jahnisch K, Hessel V, Lowe H, Baerns M. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 406–446.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Fletcher PDI, Haswell SJ, Pombo-Villar E, Warrington BH, Watts P, Wong SYF, Zhang XL. Tetrahedron 2002, 58, 4735–4757.10.1016/S0040-4020(02)00432-5Search in Google Scholar

[23] Geyer K, Codee JDC, Seeberger PH. Chem. Eur. J. 2006, 12, 8434–8442.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Geyer K, Gustafsson T, Seeberger PH. Synlett 2009, 15, 2382–2391.10.1055/s-0029-1217828Search in Google Scholar

[25] Haswell SJ, Middleton RJ, O′Sullivan B, Skelton V, Watts P, Styring P. Chem. Commun. 2001, 391–398.10.1039/b008496oSearch in Google Scholar

[26] Hessel V, Lowe H. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2005, 28, 267–284.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Haswell SJ, Watts P. Green Chem. 2003, 5, 240–249.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Song H, Tice JD, Ismagilov RF. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 768–772.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Hatakeyama T, Chen DL, Ismagilov RF. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 2518–2519.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Zheng B, Ismagilov RF. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 2520–2523.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Gerdts CJ, Sharoyan DE, Ismagilov RF. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 6327–6331.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Cubaud T, Ho CM. Phys. Fluids 2004, 16, 4575–4585.10.1063/1.1813871Search in Google Scholar

[33] Triplett KA, Ghiaasiaan SM, Abdel-Khalik SI, Sadowski DL. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1999, 25, 377–394.10.1016/S0301-9322(98)00054-8Search in Google Scholar

[34] Zhao TS, Bi QC. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 2001, 27, 765–782.10.1016/S0301-9322(00)00051-3Search in Google Scholar

[35] Fogler HS. Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, 4th ed., Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Levenspiel O. Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3rd ed., Wiley: New York, 1999.Search in Google Scholar

[37] Lohse S, Kohnen BT, Janasek D, Dittrich PS, Franzke J, Agar DW. Lab Chip 2008, 8, 431–438.10.1039/b714190dSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[38] Adeosun JT, Lawal A. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2009, 64, 2422–2432.Search in Google Scholar

[39] Gunther M, Schneider S, Wagner J, Gorges R, Henkel T, Kielpinski M, Albert J, Bierbaum R, Kohler JM. Chem. Eng. J. 2004, 101, 373–378.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Amador C, Wenn D, Shaw J, Gavriilidis A, Angeli P. Chem. Eng. J. 2008, 135, S259–S269.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Debling JA, Zacca JJ, Ray WH. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1997, 52, 1969–2001.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Zacca JJ, Debling JA, Ray WH. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1996, 51, 4859–4886.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Zacca JJ, Debling JA, Ray WH. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1997, 52, 1941–1967.Search in Google Scholar

[44] Aris R. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Mat. 1956, 235, 67–77.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Commenge JM, Obein T, Genin G, Framboisier X, Rode S, Schanen V, Pitiot R, Matlosz M. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 597–604.Search in Google Scholar

[46] Trachsel F, Gunther A, Khan S, Jensen KF. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005, 60, 5729–5737.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Thiers RE, Reed AH, Delander K. Clin. Chem. 1971, 17, 42–48.Search in Google Scholar

[48] Dessimoz AL, Cavin L, Renken A, Kiwi-Minsker L. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 63, 4035–4044.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Khan SA. Microfluidic synthesis of colloidal nanomaterials. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Kashid MN, Agar DW. Chem. Eng. J. 2007, 131, 1–13.Search in Google Scholar

[51] Kashid MN, Gerlach I, Goetz S, Franzke J, Acker JF, Platte F, Agar DW, Turek S. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005, 44, 5003–5010.Search in Google Scholar

[52] Garstecki P, Fuerstman MJ, Stone HA, Whitesides GM. Lab Chip 2006, 6, 437–446.10.1039/b510841aSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] Zhao YC, Chen GW, Yuan Q. AIChE J. 2006, 52, 4052–4060.Search in Google Scholar

[54] Li M, Garrett C. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1998, 36, 961–970.Search in Google Scholar

[55] Delvigne GA. International Oil Spill Conference, 1991, 501–506.10.7901/2169-3358-1991-1-501Search in Google Scholar

[56] Hinze J. AIChE J. 1955, 1, 289–295.Search in Google Scholar

[57] Delvigne GA. Oil Spill Conference, 1985, 507–514.10.7901/2169-3358-1985-1-507Search in Google Scholar

[58] Milgram JH, Donnelly RG, Van Houten RJ, Camperman JM. Report: CG-D-64-78, Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, 1978.Search in Google Scholar

[59] Kreutzer MT, Gunther A, Jensen KF. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 1558–1567.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2013-9-16
Accepted: 2013-10-30
Published Online: 2013-12-02
Published in Print: 2013-12-01

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Masthead
  2. Masthead
  3. Graphical abstracts
  4. In this issue
  5. Editorial
  6. Do modern times allow for pleasure? … it depends only on us
  7. IMTB 2013
  8. Implementation of Microreactor Technology in Biotechnology (IMTB) 2013 Conference: a new community for new perspectives
  9. Multiphase biotransformations in microstructured reactors: opportunities for biocatalytic process intensification and smart flow processing
  10. Integrated lipase-catalyzed isoamyl acetate synthesis in a miniaturized system with enzyme and ionic liquid recycle
  11. NADH oxidation in a microreactor catalysed by ADH immobilised on γ-Fe2O3 nanoparticles
  12. A comparative study of ultrasound-, microwave-, and microreactor-assisted imidazolium-based ionic liquid synthesis
  13. Investigation of mixture toxicity of widely used drugs caffeine and ampicillin in the presence of an ACE inhibitor on bacterial growth using droplet-based microfluidic technique
  14. Review
  15. Magnetic nanoparticle-supported organocatalysis
  16. Original article
  17. Microfluidic dispersion of mineral oil-seawater multiphase flows in the presence of dialkyl sulfonates, polysorbates, and glycols
  18. Conference announcements
  19. 4th International Congress of the Flow Chemistry Society (Barcelona, Spain, February 18–19, 2014)
  20. Molecules and Materials for Artificial Photosynthesis (Cancun, Mexico, February 6–9, 2014)
  21. Oxide Thin Films for Advanced Energy and Information Applications: Materials Chemistry of Thin Film Oxides (Bloomingdale, Chicago, MI, USA, July 13–16, 2014)
  22. Conferences 2014–2017
  23. Book reviews
  24. Improving profitability through green manufacturing: creating a profitable and environmentally compliant manufacturing facility
  25. Bioprocessing technologies in biorefinery for sustainable production of fuels, chemicals, and polymers
Downloaded on 30.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/gps-2013-0085/html
Scroll to top button