ArticleWater research X2020
Microfluidic testing of flocculants for produced water treatment: Comparison with other methodologies.
Article in Water research X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flocculants are often added during produced water treatment to improve the crude oil droplet growth and separation from the water phase. Prior to use in the field, their performance is tested in laboratory conditions, typically with jar tests that require quite large volumes of sample. In this paper we present a microfluidic method as an alternative to study the efficiency of flocculants on enhancing coalescence between oil droplets. Two crude oil emulsions and four flocculants at different concentrations were tested. The new method is also compared to the more traditional techniques. An anionic flocculant showed the biggest improvement in separation for almost all systems. What is more, marked differences were observed between methods with static (bottle and turbidity tests) and dynamic test conditions (light scattering and microfluidics), where stabilization and dispersion effects were observed for the latter. The microfluidic methodology, with added benefits such as visualization, lower sample volumes and shorter measurement times, yielded similar trends as compared to other techniques. Overall, it was shown that microfluidics is a viable alternative to the standard tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.