ArticleUltrasonics sonochemistry2023
Techno-economic comparative assessment of the ultrasound, electrostatic and microwave supported coalescence of binary water droplets in crude oil.
Article in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A synergistic demulsification method based on electric-field polarization and ultrasonic cavitation/mechanical effects: Theory and experiment.Ultrasonics sonochemistry · 2026Article
- Lattice Boltzmann simulation for phase separation with chemical reaction controlled by ultrasound field.PloS one · 2025Article
- Recent advances of ultrasound applications in the oil and gas industry.Ultrasonics sonochemistry · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, comparative assessment of the technical performance, energy usage and economic impact of ultrasound, electrostatics and microwave on the coalescence of binary water droplets in crude oil was conducted. The effect of different oil properties such as crude oil viscosity (10.6-106 mPa s) and interfacial tension (IFT) (20-250 mN/m) on the coalescence time and energy consumption was examined. In addition, operation conditions such as inlet emulsion flow velocity (10-100 mm/s), electric field type, ultrasound frequency and applied voltage amplitude (0-30 kV) were evaluated. The numerical models showed good agreement with experimental findings in the literature. Moreover, the process time of the dewatering process increased with rising inlet flow velocities. The elevation of the coalescence time with velocity can be attributed to the increasing effect of flow disturbance, and the reduction of the emulsion residence time. As regards the IFT, the coalescence time reduced as the IFT was increased. This can be associated with the improved stability of emulsions formed at lowered IFT. As the maximum droplet size is directly proportional to the IFT, lowering the IFT reduces the peak diameter of the droplets that are present in the emulsion. Moreover, the coalescence time followed the order: ultrasound < microwave < electrostatics approaches under varying IFT. The coalescence energy increased from ∼15 J, ∼90 J and ∼25 mJ to ∼61 J, ∼235 J and ∼26 mJ for microwave, electrostatics and ultrasound techniques, respectively, as the viscosity was raised from 10.6 to 106 mPa s. Ultrasound coalescence showed significant energy and economic savings in comparison to microwave and electro-coalescence. Hence, ultrasound coalescence would be a potential method for standalone or integrated demulsification over the two other techniques. However, there are indications that beyond a viscosity of 300 mPa s, the effect of ultrasound becomes weak with significant hindrance to droplet movement and accumulation. This analysis provides fundamental insights on the comparative behavior of the three emulsion separation techniques.
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.