Viscosity surfactant effects

Dialkyl tetralins in LAB feedstocks are readily sulphonated and act as hydrotropes. High DAT levels give surfactants with high solubility and low viscosity. This effect is very significant in formulations. For example the salt curve of 15% active H2P LAS with 3% cocodi-ethanolamide (a common thickener and foam stabiliser) can give a maximum viscosity of 600 cPs with a high DAT LAB, but over 1300 cPs with a low DAT LAB. 

This section further discusses the effects of k, curves, optimum phase type, and phase viscosity. The effect of negative salinity gradient is further discussed under conditions where different relationships between optimum salinity and surfactant concentrations occur. 

FIGURE 9.1 Surfactant effect on HPAM viscosity. Source Kang (2001). 

FIGURE 9.2 Surfactant effect on polymer viscosity. Source Li (2007). 

In ASP flooding, alkaline, surfactant, and polymer have different effects on relative permeabilities. Table 13.2 shows our attempt to summarize these effects compared with waterflood. From Table 13.2, we can see that the effect of alkaline flood in terms of emulsification is similar to the polymer effect, whereas its effect in terms of IFT is similar to the surfactant effect. Less rigorously, we may say that only polymer reduces k, and only surfactant reduces IFT. In ASP flooding, the viscosity of the aqueous phase that contains the polymer is multiplied by the polymer permeability reduction factor in polymer flooding and the residual permeability reduction factor in postpolymer water-flooding to consider the polymer-reduced k effect. Then we can use the k curves (water, oil, and microemulsion) from surfactant flooding or alkaline-surfactant flooding experiments without polymer. 

The viscosity-building effect of the long-chain amides is a result of the building of ordered structures between detergent and amide molecules. This effect is promoted by the linear alkyl chain in the surfactant, which lines up easily to form ordered arrangements [1,3]. 

Finally, models were developed where the condition of infinite surface viscosity was relaxed. This allowed the analysis of surfactant effects on film drainage, in particular surface viscosity and surface transport. Specifically, the model predicted the decrease in drainage rate as surface viscosity increases, as expected from the qualitative models and measured experimentally. The effect of surface transport was significantly less than that of surface viscosity. 

In general, the surfactant formulations used for enhanced oil recovery contain a short chain alcohol. The addition of alcohol can influence the viscosity, IFT and birefringent structures of micellar solutions as well as coalescence rate of oil ganglia. The present paper reports the effect of addition of isobutanol to a dilute petroleum sulfonate (< 0.1% cone) solution on IFT, surface shear viscosity, surfactant partitioning, the rate of change of IFT (or flattening time) of oil drops in surfactant solutions and oil displacement efficiency. The two surfactant systems chosen for this study indeed exhibited ultralow IFT under appropriate conditions of salinity, surfactant concentration and oil chain length (11,15,19). 

PART II PARTIALLY HYDROLYZED POLYACRYLAMIDE, 622 Polymer Viscosity in Deionized Water, 623 Effect of Sodium Chloride on the Viscosity of HP AM, 624 Effect of Cation Type on Polymer Viscosity, 627 Effect of Alkali Type on Polymer Viscosity, 629 Effect of Surfactants on Polymer Viscosity, 634 Effect of Surfactants and Alkalis on Polymer Viscosity, 635... 

One of the earliest methods for reducing coalescence is to use mixed surfactant films. These will increase the Gibbs elasticity and/or interfacial viscosity. Both effects reduce film fluctuations and, hence, reduce coalescence. In addition, mixed surfactant films are usually more condensed and hence diffusion of the surfactant molecules from the interface is greatly hindered. An alternative explanation for enhanced stability using surfactant mixture was introduced by Friberg and coworkers [67] who considered the formation of a three-dimensional association structure (liquid crystals) at the oil/water interface. These liquid crystalline structures prevent coalescence since one has to remove several surfactant layers before droplet-droplet contact may occur. 

Table 1 gives a information about influence of polymer and surfactant concentrations on the main parameters of mathematical model of oil displacement process by polymer and surfactant solutions. The table shows that both polymer and surfactant effect viscosities of the both phases and do not effect the relative permeabilities. Capillary pressure takes into account the influence of surfactant concentration and the absolute permeability of rock decreases during injection of the polymer. 

This provides for interesting applications because, in contrast to fatty alcohol ethoxylates, temperature-stable microemulsions can be formed with alkyl polyglycosides. By varying the surfactant content, the type of surfactant used, and the oil/water ratio, microemulsions can be produced with custom-made performance properties, such as transparency, viscosity, refatting effect, and foaming behavior. In mixed systems of, say, alkyl ether sulfates and nonionic coemulsifiers (alkyl polyglycoside), extended microemulsion areas... 

The energetics and kinetics of film formation appear to be especially important when two or more solutes are present, since now the matter of monolayer penetration or complex formation enters the picture (see Section IV-7). Schul-man and co-workers [77, 78], in particular, noted that especially stable emulsions result when the adsorbed film of surfactant material forms strong penetration complexes with a species present in the oil phase. The stabilizing effect of such mixed films may lie in their slow desorption or elevated viscosity. The dynamic effects of surfactant transport have been investigated by Shah and coworkers [22] who show the correlation between micellar lifetime and droplet size. More stable micelles are unable to rapidly transport surfactant from the bulk to the surface, and hence they support emulsions containing larger droplets. 

It has been shown (16) that a stable foam possesses both a high surface dilatational viscosity and elasticity. In principle, defoamers should reduce these properties. Ideally a spread duplex film, one thick enough to have two definite surfaces enclosing a bulk phase, should eliminate dilatational effects because the surface tension of an iasoluble, one-component layer does not depend on its thickness. This effect has been verified (17). SiUcone antifoams reduce both the surface dilatational elasticity and viscosity of cmde oils as iUustrated ia Table 2 (17). The PDMS materials are Dow Coming Ltd. polydimethylsiloxane fluids, SK 3556 is a Th. Goldschmidt Ltd. siUcone oil, and FC 740 is a 3M Co. Ltd. fluorocarbon profoaming surfactant. 

Both high bulk and surface shear viscosity delay film thinning and stretching deformations that precede bubble bursting. The development of ordered stmctures in the surface region can also have a stabilizing effect. Liquid crystalline phases in foam films enhance stabiUty (18). In water-surfactant-fatty alcohol systems the alcohol components may serve as a foam stabilizer or a foam breaker depending on concentration (18). 

Use of Surfa.cta.nts, Although the use of steam to improve dewatering is consistently beneficial, the effects of surfactants on residual moisture are highly inconsistent. Additions of anionic, nonionic, or sometimes cationic surfactants of a few hundredths weight percent of the slurry, 0.02—0.5 kg/1 of soHds (50), are as effective as viscosity reduction in removing water from a number of filter cakes, including froth-floated coal, metal sulfide concentrates, and fine iron ores (Table 2). A few studies have used both steam and a surfactant on coal and iron ore and found that the effects are additive, giving twice the moisture reduction of either treatment alone (44—46,49). 

Additives can alter the rate of wet ball milling by changing the slurry viscosity or by altering the location of particles with respect to the balls. These effects are discussed under Tumbhng Mills. In conclusion, there is still no theoretical way to select the most effective additive. Empirical investigation, guided by the principles discussed earlier, is the only recourse. There are a number of commercially available grinding aids that may be tried. Also, a Idt of 450 surfactants that can be used for systematic trials (Model SU-450, Chem Service... 

The effective surface viscosity is best found by experiment with the system in question, followed by back calculation through Eq. (22-55). From the precursors to Eq. (22-55), such experiments have yielded values of [L, on the order of (dyn-s)/cm for common surfactants in water at room temperature, which agrees with independent measurements [Lemhch, Chem. Eng. ScL, 23, 932 (1968) and Shih and Lem-lich. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J., 13, 751 (1967)]. However, the expected high [L, for aqueous solutions of such sldn-forming substances as saponin and albumin was not attained, perhaps because of their non-newtonian surface behavior [Shih and Lemhch, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fun-dam., 10, 254 (1971) andjashnani and Lemlich, y. Colloid Inteiface ScL, 46, 13(1974)]. 

---