Oil On Water Movie Download

Dec 14, 2016 - A video by Harvard physicist, Dr Greg Kestin, shows that just one tablespoon of olive oil poured over water can spread out within minutes,. Oct 12, 2007  Share this Rating. Title: Oil on Water (2007) 4.4 /10. Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below. Share this Rating. Title: Oil on Water (2007) 4.4 /10. Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below. May 27, 2015 - The relative wettability of oil and water on solid surfaces is generally governed by a complex competition of molecular. Light blue: water film thickness in decane before adding aqueous drop. Download references.

  1. Oil On Water
  2. Oil On Water Movie Download Mkv
- [Voiceover] Let's talkabout thin film interference. What does this mean? Well, it's kind of redundant, film already means something really thin, a thin amount of substance. And thin film means really, really thin. So, how does this happen? It can happen naturally. When it rains outside, therewill be puddles of water. And because there's oilleft over on the road, sometimes some oil willfloat on top of the water, and it's often a verythin, small amount of oil. In other words, the thickness of the oil floating on the water is extremely thin. So, we'll call this thickness t. How do we know it's thin and how do we know it'sthere, if we can't see it? We know it's there, becauseif you look down at it, if you look down at thewater, you'll sometimes see a colorful pattern in here,and that colorful pattern on the top of the water, streaks of red and blueand orange and green, happen because of thin film interference. It also happens in bubbles. If you blow a bubble and youhold it on a bubble wand, you will see that there'sthese colors in there. And those are coming fromthin film interference. How does it happen? Well, light comes in, so,this might be from the sun or whatever, some source of light. Comes in here; that's only one light ray. We need multiple lightrays to get interference. So, what happens when it hits the oil? Part of it is gonna reflectoff the top of the oil. So, it's gonna reflectright back on top of itself, but if I already draw itright back on top of itself, this would get messy really fast. So I'm gonna draw it over here, but know, this light really reflects right back on top of itself,if it was coming straight in. We'll call that light ray one. But that's not all the light does. Part of it reflects, but part of it continues through the oil. So, in order to get thin film interference the thin film has to be translucent, it has to let light through. Not just reflect it,but let light through. So, some of this light rayis gonna continue on through. Like that. But what does it do? It meets another interface. And every time light meets aninterface between two medium it's gonna reflect and some of it is gonna pass through, refract. In this case, some of itreflects off of this interface. So, we have a reflection here and we have a reflection up here. Both of these were reflections. Some of this light comes back up again. I'm not gonna try to draw itright back on top of itself. I'll draw it over here,so that we can see them. So, it comes up. Now these overlap. Look, now that these areoverlapping, wave one and wave two, now my eye can experience interference, 'cause these two wavesare gonna hit my eye. They might be constructive,they might be destructive. And I might see different colors in here depending on the wavelength. That's what we want to try to figure out. How does the thickness of this oil and the wavelength of the light determine, whether this is gonna be constructive, destructive, or neither. Here's what we're gonna do. We are not gonna stray from what we know. What we know, is that to getconstructive interference we have two light rays. What matters is thepath length difference. If the path lengthdifference is zero, lambda... Right, any integer lambda. You can just call thism lambda, if you want. That's gonna be constructive. And any time the path length difference is gonna be half integerof what lambda is. So, half lambda, threehalves lambda, and so on. If you wanted to, you can callthis m plus a half lambda. These are gonna be destructive. I guess, it doesn't equal constructive, it implies constructive and destructive. But, remember, gotta becareful, it can be weird here. These are flip-flopped, ifthere's a pi shift between them. If one of these gets pishifted and the other does not. If one of the waves is pishifted and the other is not, remember, if this was this thing with the back of the speakers,if you flipped the wires on the back of the speakers,now instead of the speaker wave coming out like that, speakerwave comes out like this. Now, if you overlap these, thiscondition gets flip-flopped. If you forgot why, go back and watch that video on wave interference. So, this is the condition. Integer wavelengths give us constructive, half integer wavelengthsgive us destructive, unless one is pi shifted. If they're both pi shifted,then this condition still holds. But if only one is pi shifted, you flip-flop these relations, and the half integer wavelengthsgive you constructive. And the whole integerwavelengths give you destructive. So, does that happen here? Do we have to worry about pi shifts? We didn't with double slit. Remember, with double slit, shoot, we didn't worryabout any pi shifts. That was because one wave came in. And now these were bothfrom the exact same wave, so now we know they started off in phase. How about these waves for thin film? Could there be any shift in pi? Well, there can. Every time there's a reflection,there can be a pi shift. I repeat, every time light reflects, there may be a pi shift. How do you know? It depends on the speed ofthe wave in those materials. Let's say we had air out here. Light has some speed in the air. Turns out the speed inair is about the same as the speed in vacuum. Three times 10 to theeighth meters per second. But I'm just gonna writeit as V air out here. And then you have acertain speed of the light. Light will travel atcertain speed in the oil. So, V oil in here is gonna be less. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, V oil, the speed of thelight wave in the oil, is less, it's gotta beless, let's just say it's 2.7 times 10 to theeighth meters per second. And in water, again, it's gonna have a speed of light in the water. Let's say, the speedof light in the water, well, we don't have to say, we know that's about 2.25 times 10 tothe eighth meters per second. So, how do we determine,knowing these speeds, whether there's goingto be a pi shift or not? Here's how we tell. Every time light reflectsoff of a slow substance, there's a pi shift. So, what do I mean by that? The light here has startedoff in this material. And did it reflect offof a slow substance? It was in air, that's pretty fast, three times 10 to the eighth. It reflected off of oil, itreflected off of a medium, where it would have traveled slower. So, this reflection righthere does get a pi shift. There's a pi shift for this reflection. The light wave that came in. If it came in at a peak, then it's getting sentback out as a valley. And if it came in as this point going up, it'll leave as this point going down. It's gonna get shiftedby 180 degrees, or pi. How about this one down here, did it reflect off of a slow medium? It did, it was in oil. It would have traveled into water, which is slower than the oil. So, this one also gets a pi shift. And same thing, if it came in as a peak, it'll leave as a valley. What does that mean forthis condition up here? If both are pi shifted, it's as if neither of them gets shifted. If we flipped both of them upside down, well, everything is cool again. We just made everythingback to where it was. So, we would not swap theseconditions in this case. If, for some reason, we usesomething besides water, we use some other liquid here, and this liquid had aspeed of, instead of 2.25, let's say the speed here was2.85 times 10 to the eighth. Now, that doesn't change anything up here. This is still getting a pi shift. It was in air, it reflectedoff of something slower, oil. And by slower I mean, ifthe light traveled into it, it would travel slower,so that gets a pi shift. But now this one down here, this light ray that was in the oil, wouldhave gone through water, sorry, this isn't water anymore,this is some new liquid. It reflected off of this liquid that it would havetraveled faster through. So, does it get a pi shift? Nope, there would be nomore pi shift down here, only one of these reflectedlight rays get a pi shift. And if that ever happens,if one of the light rays gets pi shifted and the other does not, then we would swap these conditions, and it'd be the half integer wavelengths that would give us constructive, and the whole integer wavelengths that would give us destructive. Let me just be clear here, let me show you what I'm talking about. Let me clear this off. If I had material, andright here it's slow compared to this one. If it reflects off of afast material, no pi shift. No 180 degree shift. But if it's in a fast material and it reflects off of a slow material, then yes, this gets a pi shift. This gets a 180 degree shift. That's how you determine it,is whether it reflects off of a fast material or if itreflects off of a slow material. For both sides, the top two up here, you gotta ask the same question: did it go from slow tofast, reflect off of a fast, or did it reflect off of a slow. That's how you determine. If it reflects off of a fast, no pi shift. If it reflects off of a slow material, then it does get a pi shift. Okay, so that's how youdeal with pi shifts. Let's go back to this one. There's a few more details here. People have a lot of troublewith thin film, to be honest. That's one problem, is theydon't like figuring out whether it was pi shifted or not. It's actually not that hardonce you know the rule. But there's another problemhere, what's delta x? We never even said what delta x is. It's gotta be related to the thickness. Imagine these both waves come in, imagine both waves are combinedin this big wave coming in. They were both in there to start off with. They both travel that distance. Wave one reflects off andjust travels this distance. Wave two also travels that distance, but only after wave two traveled this extra distance within the thin film. So, the extra path lengththe wave two traveled compared to wave onewas not the thickness t. Here's where people make the mistake, people think that deltax for thin film is t. No, the wave two had totravel down and then back up. So it's two t. This is the key forthin film interference. The path length differencewill always be two t. I'd just have to come uphere, I know what delta x is. For thin film it's alwaysgonna just be equal to two times the thicknessof the thin film. So I'm gonna put two t here. This is my condition,this is how I change this to make it relevant for thin film. For double slit delta x was d sin theta. For the thin film delta x,the path length difference, is just two times t, soit's kind of simpler. You've got these pi shifts to worry about, but the delta x is simpler. All right, so that's not too bad. Anything left to worry about? Yes, one more thing to worry about.

Abstract

Oil on Water Movie in Full HD With Subtitles, A loving young creative couple, Max and Anna, experience inexplicable difficulties which tears their relationship apart. Watch HD Movies Online For Free and Download the latest movies. For everybody, everywhere, everydevice, and everything;) Login in with google You are welcome. When becoming. Limetorrents.cc Oil-On-Water-2007-DVDRip-XviD-VoMiT Movies 4 days bittorrent.am Oil.On.Water.2007.DVDRip.XviD-VoMiT. Movies 16 hours torrentdownload.ch. Www.torrentfive.com] 2 months. Using BitTorrent is legal, downloading copyrighted material isn’t. Be careful of what you download or face the consequences. Torrent Trackers hash.

The relative wettability of oil and water on solid surfaces is generally governed by a complex competition of molecular interaction forces acting in such three-phase systems. Herein, we experimentally demonstrate how the adsorption of in nature abundant divalent Ca2+ cations to solid-liquid interfaces induces a macroscopic wetting transition from finite contact angles (≈10°) with to near-zero contact angles without divalent cations. We developed a quantitative model based on DLVO theory to demonstrate that this transition, which is observed on model clay surfaces, mica, but not on silica surfaces nor for monovalent K+ and Na+ cations is driven by charge reversal of the solid-liquid interface. Small amounts of a polar hydrocarbon, stearic acid, added to the ambient decane synergistically enhance the effect and lead to water contact angles up to 70° in the presence of Ca2+. Our results imply that it is the removal of divalent cations that makes reservoir rocks more hydrophilic, suggesting a generalizable strategy to control wettability and an explanation for the success of so-called low salinity water flooding, a recent enhanced oil recovery technology.

Introduction

The relative wettability of oil and water on porous solids is crucial to many environmental and technological processes including imbibition, soil contamination/remediation, oil-water separation, and the recovery of crude oil from geological reservoirs1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Good wettability of a porous matrix to one liquid generally implies stronger retention of that fluid and simultaneously easier displacement of the other. In standard ‘water flooding’ oil recovery, (sea) water is injected into the ground to displace oil from the porous rock, typically at an efficiency <50%. For decades, oil companies have explored adding chemicals such as surfactants and polymers to the injection water to improve the process8,9. More recently, it was discovered that the efficiency can also be improved by reducing the salinity of the injection water10, i.e. without adding expensive and potentially harmful chemicals, known as low salinity water flooding (LSWF). Yet, reported increases in recovery vary substantially and the microscopic mechanisms responsible for the recovery increment remain debated9,11,12,13. A wide variety of mechanisms has been proposed to explain the effect, including the mobilization of fines, interfacial tension variations, multicomponent ion exchange, and double layer expansion10,11,12,14. Many of these mechanisms are interrelated and may ultimately result in improved water wettability of the rock but evidence discriminating between them is scarce. The key challenge in identifying the reasons for the success of LSWF lies in the intrinsic complexity of the system and the lack of direct access to its microscopic properties. Here, we experimentally demonstrate for a well-defined model system a consistent scenario leading from ion adsorption at the solid-liquid interface to charge reversal and from there to wettability alteration. We also derive a model that provides quantitative predictions of the experimentally observed contact angles. Our results clarify many previous observations in core flooding experiments, including in particular the relevance of divalent cations, clays, pH, and polar organic species.

Results & Discussions

Wettability alteration

The rock of common sandstone reservoirs consists of highly polar materials such as quartz and clays that in ambient air are completely wetted by both water and oil. To analyze the competitive wetting of oil and water on these substrates, we measured the macroscopic contact angle of water of variable salt content against decane. We chose flat, freshly cleaved mica and freshly cleaned silica surfaces as model materials, to represent the basic components of sandstone reservoirs. The macroscopic contact angle of water as observed in side view images, Fig. 1a, on mica and silica in ambient decane was found to depend strongly on the composition of the aqueous phase. We varied pH between 3 and 10 and concentrations of NaCl, KCl and CaCl2 from 1 mM to 1 M (see Methods). Aqueous drops containing monovalent cations invariably spread to immeasurably small contact angles (<2°); in contrast, drops containing divalent cations displayed finite contact angles on mica for concentrations above ≈50 mM and pH > 4 (Fig. 1; see also Supplementary Material, movies S1 and S2). On silica, negligible contact angles were found for all pH’s and concentrations of all salts investigated, i.e. including the ones with divalent cations.

Proposed adsorption mechanism

To identify the origin of the wetting transition on mica, we analyzed the force balance between the decane-water (γ), solid-decane (γso) and solid-water (γsw) interfacial tension at the three phase contact line. Under partial wetting conditions, the spreading pressure is negative and the equilibrium contact angle θ (measured through the aqueous phase) is given by Young’s equation (Fig. 2a), 15. For water in contact with non-polar oils, γ depends very weakly on pH and salt content (Supplementary Figure 1) and hence has a negligible influence on the wettability16. γsw usually decreases as salt content increases due to the spontaneous formation of an electric double layer at the solid-water interface17. Because any reduction of γsw can only induce a decrease of θ , the observed increase upon addition of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions must be caused by an even stronger decrease of γso. The latter is plausible if the system forms a nanometer thin aqueous film next to the macroscopic drop with a salinity-dependent thickness h0 (Fig. 2a). Using imaging ellipsometry we indeed detected such a film, as shown in Fig. 2c. Upon increasing the CaCl2 concentration, h0 decreased from approximately 8 nm to less than 1 nm. For pure water and for NaCl solutions, ellipsometry measurements revealed that θ is very small but finite despite the apparent spreading in side view images; h0 was found to be ≈ 10 nm. Given the existence of this nanofilm, we can write the equilibrium tension γso in terms of oil-water and solid-water interfacial tensions plus an effective interface potential Φ(h) representing the molecular interactions between the solid-water and the water-oil interface as15 . Here, Φ(h0) is the equilibrium value of Φ(h) corresponding to the equilibrium film thickness h = h0, such that

The ion-induced wettability alteration thus reflects the salt-dependence of Φ(h), Fig. 2b.

Interfacial charge reversal

We decomposed into contributions from short-range chemical hydration forces , van der Waals forces , and electrostatic forces Φel(h). While the amplitude and the decay length λ of the repulsive hydration forces as well as the Hamaker constant A generally vary weakly with pH and salt concentration, they are not expected to change sign for the conditions of our experiments18. Hence, we conclude that the observed wettability alteration is driven by Φel(h). The latter is repulsive and thus favors complete wetting if the charge densities σsw and σow of the solid-water and the oil-water interface, respectively, carry the same sign. Vice versa, surface charges of opposite signs result in attraction and partial wetting. σsw and σow are thus key parameters controlling wettability, as recently recognized in the context of wetting transitions with electrolyte solutions19,20.

For oil-water interfaces, σow is negative for pH > 3. The adsorption of ions is rather weak21,22, as we corroborated using streaming potential measurements with solid eicosane mimicking decane. In streaming potential measurements for NaCl and KCl solutions, negative surface charges prevailed on mica for all conditions investigated, in agreement with surface force measurements17,23. For CaCl2, however, a much stronger adsorption was found, Fig. 3a, leading to charge reversal at concentrations beyond ~ 50 mM24. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) confirmed this distinct difference between monovalent and divalent cations. While AFM images in pure water and aqueous NaCl and KCl solutions displayed the intrinsic hexagonal appearance of bare mica, a transition to a rectangular pattern was found for ambient CaCl2 solutions, Fig. 3b25. Similar to gibbsite-water interfaces26, we attribute this pattern to a layer of strongly adsorbed, possibly hydrated, divalent cations that reverse the sign of σsw.

Interaction between interfaces

To quantitatively assess this suggested mechanism, we explicitly calculate the various contributions to the disjoining pressure discussed in the previous section. Φh(h) is characterized by an amplitude and a decay length 25,27. For ΦvdW(h) we use a Hamaker constant limited by the experimental constraint that the finite contact angle of NaCl and KCl solutions must not exceed 2°. This negative Hamaker constant implies long range partial wetting, which arises from the fact that water has a lower refractive index than both mica and oil. We obtain the electrostatic contribution Φel to the disjoining pressure by solving the Poisson-Boltzmann equation for the electrostatic potential inside the thin film, which reads . In the equation, is the elementary charge, and are the vacuum and relative permittivity of the medium and is the thermal energy in the system. The sum runs over the ions in the solution, with representing the valence and the bulk concentration of the i-th specie. Here, we have used the full Poisson Boltzmann expression instead of classical examples28,29 of a reduced equation, since the zeta potentials in our system are clearly beyond 25 mV. We apply constant charge (CC) boundary conditions, where the surface charges σsw (at the solid-water interface) and σow (at the oil-water interface) are determined from the corresponding surface complexation model (see Methods), by fitting to experimentally measured streaming potentials. Once the electrostatic potential is known, we find the contribution to the disjoining pressure Φel by evaluating the standard expression 18.

Adding up all the contributions to the disjoining pressure, we find that for sufficiently high Ca2+ concentrations, Φ(h) indeed develops a pronounced minimum at small h0, corresponding to water contact angles up to 10°, as depicted in Fig. 2b. For Na+ and K+, however, a very shallow minimum corresponding to a small but finite contact angle appears, due of the dominance of attractive van der Waals interactions (i.e. ) for large film values of h.

Using eq. (1), we extracted the contact angle θ from the minima of Φ(h) for all fluid compositions, Fig. 3c,top. Comparison to the experimental results, Fig. 3c,bottom, shows that the model indeed captures all salient features of the experiments, including in particular the transition from near zero contact angles at low divalent ion concentration and pH to values of at high Ca concentration and pH. For monovalent cations on mica and for all salts on silica, the same calculation invariably results in repulsive electrostatic forces and hence negligibly small contact angles (<2°).

Oil On Water Movie DownloadOil

Synergistically enhanced wettability alteration

Most crude oils contain small proportions of surface-active polar components in addition to alkanes. We investigated the impact of these components on the wettability by adding small amounts of stearic acid (S.A.) to the decane. Water drops containing divalent cations, when deposited on mica under decane/S.A. mixture, initially assumed , as in absence of S.A. Within seconds, however, θ increased to values of up to 70° (Fig. 4a,b; Movie S3). For drops containing NaCl, θ slightly increased, too, but never exceeded 10°. AFM imaging of the mica surface after removal from all liquids revealed the origin of this strong autophobic behavior: the surface was covered by a stearate monolayer very similar to partially decomposed Langmuir-Blodgett films of the same material reported earlier30. Close to the original contact line of the droplet, this layer was dense with occasional holes; farther away, bare mica was seen with occasional islands of monolayer stearate. Ca2+ and S.A. thus synergistically enhance the wettability alteration by promoting the self-assembly of hydrophobic Ca stearate monolayers.

In conclusion, these findings demonstrate how divalent cations in combination with clays and acidic components in the oil can control the wettability of oil-water-rock systems in water flooding oil recovery. The observed reduction in the water-mica contact angle in ambient decane of approximately 10°, as a result of removing divalent ions from the water, is itself sufficient to result in several percent of incremental oil recovery31. More generally, our results suggest a universal strategy to manipulate wettability by controlling the adsorption of ions to solid-liquid interfaces.

Methods

Experimental System

Anhydrous n-decane (>99%, Sigma Aldrich) is passed five times through a vertical column of Alumina powder (Al2O3, Sigma Aldrich, Puriss grade > 98%) to remove any surface-active impurities. The ultrapure water (resistivity 18 MΩ) used to prepare the salt solutions is obtained from a Millipore water treatment system (Synergy UV Instruments). Solutions of various concentration (between 1 mM to 1 M cation concentration) are prepared for NaCl, KCl or CaCl2 salts (Sigma Aldrich). The pH of the solution is adjusted between 3 and 10 using HCl/HNO3 and NaOH (0.1 M, Sigma Aldrich). Muscovite mica (B&M Mica Company Inc., USA; initial thickness 340 μm) and oxidized silicon wafers with an amorphous silicon oxide layer (thickness: 30 nm) mimicking silica represent the surface of a solid rock. Mica sheets are cleaved inside the oil phase to obtain a pristine surface during the experiment. Silica surfaces are cleaned using a combination of Piranha solution (followed by extensive rinsing with ultrapure water) and plasma treatment.

Contact angle measurements

The wetting of aqueous drops on mica is characterized using a commercial contact angle goniometer (OCA 20L, Dataphysics Inc.). The measurement is based on sessile-drop method using aqueous drops with a volume of 2 μL placed on solid substrate. The contact angle of the drops is extracted from video snapshots using the tangent-fitting method in data analysis software (SCA 22) provided with the instrument. Contact angles can be determined with a relative accuracy of ±1°. The minimum contact angle that can be determined on reflective surfaces is approximately 1.5°. Before placing the aqueous drops on the substrates, pendant drop measurements are performed to determine the oil/water interfacial tension (IFT). Constancy of the IFT over time ensures that the oil is devoid of residual surface active contaminants after passing the alumina powder column.

Ellipsometry

Thickness measurements of ultrathin wetting films were performed using an imaging ellipsometer (Accurion). The ellipsometer is equipped with custom-built quartz tubes attached to both the source (laser) and the detector arm to enable measurements under liquid at variable angle of incidence. In the case of mica, the bottom side of the substrate was roughened and coated with an index matched epoxy resin to suppress interference. Null ellipsometry experiments were performed. The thickness h0 of the potentially adsorbed water layer is extracted from the ellipsometric angles Ψ and Δ assuming the bulk refractive index of the adjacent aqueous drop using standard Fresnel coefficients for a three layer system (substrate –water–oil).

Zeta Potential measurement

Surface charge and surface potential of solid/water (or oil/water) interfaces were determined by streaming potential measurements using a ZetaCAD instrument (CAD Instruments, France). The measurement cell consists of two substrates of the solid under investigation (50 mm x 30 mm) at a separation of 100 μm. Measured ζ potentials are converted to (diffuse layer) surface charges using Grahame’s equation.

Surface complexation modeling

The surface charge of solid-water interfaces is modelled using standard surface complexation models involving adsorption/desorption reactions of cations Xi (i = H+, Na+, Ca2+) to surface sites S following the scheme . Each reaction is characterized by an equilibrium constant K with a corresponding value . The law of mass action relates the cation concentration [Xi]s at the surface and the surface concentrations {SX} and {S-} to the equilibrium constant: . Local concentrations at the surface are related to the corresponding bulk concentrations by a Boltzmann factor , where Ψ0 is the potential at the surface and Zi the valency of species i. For the oil-water interface, the primary charge generation mechanism is assumed to be the autolysis of water 21 . Additional weak cation adsorption reactions are included, too. The surface charge is then given by the relation , where represent the activity of the ions considered. At large separation, the implicit dependence on is solved equating this value to the one predicted by the Grahame Equation for monovalent and divalent salts, respectively. We use this procedure to extrapolate the value of the surface charges for all pH and salt concentrations considered. Our choice of the equilibrium constants is based on values from literature: a complete overview of all surface reactions and pK values is provided in the supplementary information, Table S1. In Fig. 3a we observe a good agreement between the values obtained by this approach (full lines) and several experimental measurements of the surface charge of Mica for monovalent and divalent salts.

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Mugele, F. et al. Ion adsorption-induced wetting transition in oil-water-mineral systems. Sci. Rep.5, 10519; doi: 10.1038/srep10519 (2015).

References

  1. 1.

    Yuan, J.et al.Superwetting nanowire membranes for selective absorption. Nat. Nanotechnol.3, 332–336 (2008).

  2. 2.

    Berg, S.et al.Real-time 3d imaging of haines jumps in porous media flow. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.110, 3755–3759 (2013).

  3. 3.

    Murison, J.et al.Wetting heterogeneities in porous media control flow dissipation. Phys. Rev. Appl.2, 034002; 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.2.034002 (2014).

  4. 4.

    Tian, X., Jin, H., Sainio, J., Ras, R. H. A. & Ikkala, O.Droplet and fluid gating by biomimetic Janus membranes. Adv. Funct. Mater.24, 6023–6028 (2014).

  5. 5.

    Wong, T.-S.et al.Bioinspired self-repairing slippery surfaces with pressure-stable omniphobicity. Nature477, 443–447 (2011).

  6. 6.

    Kovscek, A. R., Wong, H. & Radke, C. J.A pore-level scenario for the development of mixed wettability in oil-reservoirs. AIChE Jour. 39, 1072–1085 (1993).

  7. 7.

    Zhao, X., Blunt, M. J. & Yao, J.Pore-scale modeling: Effects of wettability on waterflood oil recovery. Jour. Pet. Sci. Engg.71, 169–178 (2010).

  8. 8.

    Lake, L. W.Enhanced oil recovery. (Prentice Hall 1989).

  9. 9.

    Muggeridge, A.et al.Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits. Philos. T. Roy. Soc.A372, 20120320; 10.1098/rsta.2012.0320 (2014).

  10. 10.

    Tang, G. Q. & Morrow, N. R.Influence of brine composition and fines migration on crude oil/brine/rock interactions and oil recovery. Jour. Pet. Sci. Engg.24, 99–111 (1999).

  11. 11.

    Aksulu, H., Hamso, D., Strand, S., Puntervold, T. & Austad, T.Evaluation of low-salinity enhanced oil recovery effects in sandstone: Effects of the temperature and pH gradient. Energ. Fuel26, 3497–3503 (2012).

  12. 12.

    Sheng, J. J.Critical review of low-salinity waterflooding. Jour. Pet. Sci. Engg.120, 216–224 (2014).

  13. 13.

    Matthiesen, J.et al.How naturally adsorbed material on minerals affects low salinity enhanced oil recovery. Energ. Fuel28, 4849–4858 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Lager, A., Webb, K. J., Black, C. J. J., Singleton, M. & Sorbie, K. S.Low salinity oil revoery - an experimental investigation. Petrophysics49, 28–35 (2006).

  15. 15.

    deGennes, P. G. Wetting: Statics and dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys.57, 827–863 (1985).

  16. 16.

    Liu, M., Xue, Z., Liu, H. & Jiang, L.Surface wetting in liquid–liquid–solid triphase systems: Solid-phase-independent transition at the liquid–liquid interface by lewis acid–base interactions. Angew.Chem.51, 8348–8351 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Pashley, R. M. & Israelachvili, J. N.DLVO and hydration forces between mica surfaces in Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+ chloride solutions. Jour. Coll. Int. Sci. 97, 446–455 (1984).

  18. 18.

    Butt, H. J. & Kappl, M.Surface and interfacial forces. (Wiley CH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2010).

  19. 19.

    Ibagon, I., Bier, M. & Dietrich, S.Wetting in electrolyte solutions. J Che. Phys.138, 214703; 10.1063/1.4807760 (2013).

  20. 20.

    Ibagon, I., Bier, M. & Dietrich, S.Order of wetting transitions in electrolyte solutions. J Che. Phys.140 (17), 174713; 10.1063/1.4873712 (2014).

  21. 21.

    Beattie, J. K.The intrinsic charge on hydrophobic microfluidic substrates. Lab Chip6, 1409–1411 (2006).

  22. 22.

    Luetzenkirchen, J., Preocanin, T. & Kallay, N.A macroscopic water structure based model for describing charging phenomena at inert hydrophobic surfaces in aqueous electrolyte solutions. Phy. Chem. Chem. Phys.10, 4946–4955 (2008).

  23. 23.

    Scales, P. J., Grieser, F. & Healy, T. W.Electrokinetics of the muscovite mica aqueous-solution interface. Langmuir6, 582–589 (1990).

  24. 24.

    Kekicheff, P., Marcelja, S., Senden, T. J. & Shubin, V. E.Charge reversal seen in electrical double-layer interaction of surfaces immersed in 2:1 calcium electrolyte. J Che. Phys.99, 6098–6113 (1993).

  25. 25.

    Loh, S.-H. & Jarvis, S. P.Visualization of ion distribution at the mica-electrolyte interface. Langmuir26, 9176–9178 (2010).

  26. 26.

    Siretanu, I.et al.Direct observation of ionic structure at solid-liquid interfaces: A deep look into the stern layer. Sci. Rep.4, 4956; 10.1038/srep04956 (2014).

  27. 27.

    Kilpatrick, J. I., Loh, S.-H. & Jarvis, S. P.Directly probing the effects of ions on hydration forces at interfaces. J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 2628–2634 (2013).

  28. 28.

    Hogg, R., Healy, T. W. & Fuerstenau, D. W.Mutual coagulation of colloidal dispersions. T. Faraday Soc.62, 1638–1651 (1966).

  29. 29.

    Parsegian, V. A. & Gingell, D.On the Electrostatic Interaction across a Salt Solution between Two Bodies Bearing Unequal Charges. Biophys. J.12, 1192–1204 (1972).

  30. 30.

    Kumar, N., Wang, L., Siretanu, I., Duits, M. & Mugele, F.Salt dependent stability of stearic acid langmuir-blodgett films exposed to aqueous electrolytes. Langmuir29, 5150–5159 (2013).

  31. 31.

    Herminghaus, S.Universal phase diagram for wetting on mesoscale roughness. Physical Review Letters109, 236102; 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.236102 (2012).

  32. 32.

    Zembala, M. & Adamczyk, Z.Measurements of streaming potential for mica covered by colloid particles. Langmuir16, 1593–1601 (2000).

Acknowledgements

We thank Ann Muggeridge for comments on the manuscript. We acknowledge financial support by the ExploRe research program of BP plc.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, MESA+ Institute for Nanotechnology, Physics of Complex Fluids, P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede (The Netherlands)

    • Frieder Mugele
    • , Bijoyendra Bera
    • , Andrea Cavalli
    • , Igor Siretanu
    • , Armando Maestro
    • , Michel Duits
    • , Martien Cohen-Stuart
    • & Dirk van den Ende
  2. BP Exploration Operation Company Ltd., Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, TW16 7LN, (United Kingdom)

    • Isabella Stocker
    • & Ian Collins

Authors

    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed
    • Nature Research journals
    • PubMed

Contributions

F.M., I.St. and I.C. designed the experiments; B.B., A.M. and I.Sir. carried out experiments; B.B., I. Sir., A.C., M.D., M.C.S. and D.v.d.E. analysed the experiments; F.M. wrote the manuscript with contributions from all other authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frieder Mugele.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

Videos

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Movie 1

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Movie 2

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Movie 3

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

About this article

Publication history

Accepted

DOI

Oil On Water

Further reading

  • An overview of the oil-brine interfacial behavior and a new surface complexation model

    Scientific Reports (2019)

  • Oil Contact Angles in a Water-Decane-Silicon Dioxide System: Effects of Surface Charge

    Nanoscale Research Letters (2018)

  • The Water-Alkane Interface at Various NaCl Salt Concentrations: A Molecular Dynamics Study of the Readily Available Force Fields

    Scientific Reports (2018)

  • Spotlight on the New Natural Surfactant Flooding in Carbonate Rock Samples in Low Salinity Condition

    Scientific Reports (2018)

  • Organic-Silica Interactions in Saline: Elucidating the Structural Influence of Calcium in Low-Salinity Enhanced Oil Recovery

    Scientific Reports (2017)

Oil On Water Movie Download Mkv

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Article Tools