Measurement of Specific Fluid−Fluid Interfacial Areas of Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media

Saripalli, K. Prasad; Kim, Heonki; Rao, P. Suresh C.; Annable, Michael D.

doi:10.1021/es960652g

Cited by 107 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge there are no experimental systems which gives data on average velocity of interfaces, although Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) may potentially be used to give such data, see for example Johns and Gladden [31] for results in this direction. However, over the last decade several groups have provided data on interfacial areas, in particular related to research on NAPL, see for example [5,10,11,6] We have chosen to use experimental results obtained by Schaefer et.al. [6], as a validation experiment for our network code.…”

Section: Validation Of Network Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While interfaces control many important properties of multi-phase systems, quantitative characterization of these interfaces has received relatively little attention in the porous media literature. Recent theoretical work of Gray and Hassanizadeh [1][2][3], and computational work of Miller and coworkers [4], Blunt and coworkers [5,6], Reeves, Held, and Celia [7][8][9], and Saripalli and coworkers [10,11], among others, have provided initial efforts to quantify bulk interfacial area, and to explore possible functional relationships between interfacial area, saturation, and capillary pressure. However, there has been very little work to quantify dynamical aspects of interfacial area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A pore network model for calculation of interfacial velocities

Nordhaug

Celia

Dahle

2003

Advances in Water Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-phase flow in porous media is characterized by fluid-fluid interfaces that separate fluid phases at the pore scale. These interfaces support pressure differences between phases, and their dynamics lead to changes in phase saturation within the porous medium. Dynamic pore-scale network models mathematically track the dynamic position of each fluid-fluid interface through a pore network, based on imposed boundary conditions, fluid and solid properties, and geometric characteristics of the network. Because these models produce a detailed description of both phase and interface dynamics, results from these models can be volume-averaged to provide values for many macroscopic variables. These include traditional variables such as saturation and macroscopic capillary pressure, as well as non traditional variables such as amount of interfacial area in the averaging volume. With appropriate geometric definitions in the dynamic pore-scale model, a new algorithm may be included in the pore-scale network model to calculate a new variable: average interfacial velocity. This algorithm uses local information in any pore that contains a fluid-fluid interface to estimate the velocity of that interface over a time step. Summation over all interfaces in the network provides a measure of average velocity. Computations for dynamic drainage experiments indicate that this average interfacial velocity is well-defined and exhibits distinct behavior for stable and unstable displacements. Comparison of calculated interfacial velocities to a theoretical conjecture on the functional dependence of this macroscopic variable demonstrates another important use of pore-scale model, namely testing of new theories involving non traditional variables.

show abstract

Section: Validation Of Network Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pore network model for calculation of interfacial velocities

Nordhaug

Celia

Dahle

2003

Advances in Water Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, the use of partitioning and interfacial tracers for determination of the degree of NAPL saturation and the specific NAPL-water interfacial area has attracted attention (1)(2)(3)(4). An advantage of the use of tracers over traditional methods is that it is noninvasive and yields an average value that refers to the entire flow field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surfactants such as linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (LAS, also known as sodium dodecyl benzenesulfonate, SDBS) tend to partition between the water-air or water-NAPL interface and bulk water and can thus be used as interfacial tracers (3,4,11,12). The retardation of these tracers gives information on the NAPL-water (or air-water) interfacial area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The retardation of these tracers gives information on the NAPL-water (or air-water) interfacial area. Interfacial tracers have also been applied in both laboratory (4,11,12) and field experiments (3). Verification of the relation between tracer retardation and interfacial area is complicated since the interfacial area is difficult to determine independently.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of the Use of Partitioning and Interfacial Tracers To Determine the Content and Mass Removal Rates of Nonaqueous Phase Liquids

Noordman

Boer

Wietzes

et al. 2000

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was assessed whether partitioning and interfacial tracers can be used to determine the content and mass removal rate of nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in porous media. Retardation factors for these tracers were determined for five different model matrices contaminated with hexadecane as NAPL. The retardation of the partitioning tracer 2,4-dimethyl-3-pentanol was correlated with the degree of NAPL saturation for four of the five matrices (r 2 = 0.93, n = 8). The observed retardation factors matched the retardation factors predicted with the independently determined hexadecane−water partitioning constant and the degree of NAPL saturation, indicating that this tracer may be used to estimate the degree of NAPL saturation of porous media. The mass removal rates of NAPL from columns packed with different matrices were determined by measuring the amount of hexadecane in the column effluent during elution with electrolyte solution. These removal rates differed over 3 orders of magnitude, dependent on the matrix used. The retardation of the interfacial tracer alkylbenzenesulfonate was higher for matrices with higher NAPL mass removal rates but was not correlated to the degree of NAPL saturation. This indicates that the retardation factors of alkylbenzenesulfonates in NAPL-contaminated media contain information related to the NAPL mass removal rates.

show abstract

Comparison of fluid‐fluid interfacial areas measured with X‐ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples

McDonald

Carroll

Brusseau

2016

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two different methods are currently used for measuring interfacial areas between immiscible fluids within 3‐D porous media, high‐resolution microtomographic imaging and interfacial partitioning tracer tests (IPTT). Both methods were used in this study to measure nonwetting/wetting interfacial areas for a natural sand. The microtomographic imaging was conducted on the same packed columns that were used for the IPTTs. This is in contrast to prior studies comparing the two methods, for which in all cases different samples were used for the two methods. In addition, the columns were imaged before and after the IPTTs to evaluate the potential impacts of the tracer solution on fluid configuration and attendant interfacial area. The interfacial areas measured using IPTT are ∼5 times larger than the microtomographic‐measured values, which is consistent with previous work. Analysis of the image data revealed no significant impact of the tracer solution on NAPL configuration or interfacial area. Other potential sources of error were evaluated, and all were demonstrated to be insignificant. The disparity in measured interfacial areas between the two methods is attributed to the limitation of the microtomography method to characterize interfacial area associated with microscopic surface roughness due to resolution constraints.

show abstract

Measurement of Specific Fluid−Fluid Interfacial Areas of Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media

Cited by 107 publications

References 18 publications

A pore network model for calculation of interfacial velocities

A pore network model for calculation of interfacial velocities

Assessment of the Use of Partitioning and Interfacial Tracers To Determine the Content and Mass Removal Rates of Nonaqueous Phase Liquids

Comparison of fluid‐fluid interfacial areas measured with X‐ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About