Colloids and Surfaces A 553 (2018) 432–438

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Colloids and Surfaces A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/colsurfa

Foaming of crude oil: Effect of acidic components and saturation gas T

⁎
Jianping Chen, Limin He , Xiaoming Luo, Chunying Zhang
College of Pipeline and Civil Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266580, PR China

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Foaming tendency of crude oil is diverse due to the variance in crude oil components. Crude oil viscosity,
Crude oil foam asphaltene, and resin contents have been studied in general, but the specific surfactant molecules that stabilize
Foamability crude oil foam are not identified. Carbon dioxide oftentimes accompanies hydrocarbon gases in reservoirs rich in
Foaminess natural CO2 and fields where CO2 enhanced recovery is implemented. Crude oil acidic components and carbon
Depressurization foam
dioxide may have considerable significance to foam formation and defoaming kinetics. We studied the effect of
acidic components and saturation gas on foaming of crude oils with pneumatic and depressurization tests re-
spectively. Foaminess, foamability and time to half collapse are used to characterize foaming of oils. We present
a new piecewise model that can be divided into two segments with almost equal timescales to fit the collapse
curve and we use parabola function and expdec1 function to model the two segments respectively. The t values
at the intersection of two segments are approximately the same as time to half collapse. Model parameter A is
close to foamability. Increase in the rigidity of the interface and viscosity of the bulk liquid may account for
excellent foam stability of some acids/oil systems. Some acidic crude oil components, for example, naphthenic
acids, long-chain fatty acids, increase foaminess significantly, suggesting that crude oil antifoams combined with
reagents that will react with some acidic components may have better performance.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: upcmpfs@163.com (L. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.05.097
Received 20 March 2018; Received in revised form 31 May 2018; Accepted 31 May 2018
Available online 31 May 2018
0927-7757/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Chen et al.
1. Introduction
In the petroleum industry, the occurrence of foams can be beneficial
as gas injection and especially CO2 flooding can be used for the en-
hancement of oil recovery [1]. Foam-oil interactions, foam-particle
interactions, propagation of foam front in porous media and compar-
ison of surfactant performance at varying scales are some central issues
raised by researchers [2–6]. However, foaming of crude oils may pose
difficult problems in some other stages of petroleum production [7]. An
unfavorable result of crude oil foaming is the decrease in separator
capacity due to the increased residence time for foam breaking. Another
disadvantageous result is inaccurate level measurement. Foaming can
cause liquid carry-over through the gas line, which further causes
contamination of solvents and damage to scrubbers and compressors
[8]. Furthermore, foaming can lead to unwanted gas carry-over in the
oil line, resulting in dangerous degassing and damage to pumps. Foam
inhibition provides better process control over crude oil separation and
distillation and thus lab test of crude oil foaming and antifoam per-
formance is necessary [9,10].
The attempts to identify the factors affecting foamability of various
crude oils have produced some acceptable results. Bulk viscosity, film
elasticity, asphaltene content, the ratio of asphaltene to resin were
found to affect foamability [11,12]. Previous studies reported that
chemical-free crude oils from which organic acids were extracted have
much lower foaminess compared to whole oil. These acidic extracts
were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and the
presence of straight-chain saturated carboxylic acids, cyclic carboxylic
acids and benzoic acids in extracts was identified, which had all been
well defined in petroleum [13]. Such conclusion is unsatisfactory be-
cause the extremely complicated procedure for separation and analysis
of acidic surfactants from crude oil may have altered the components of
crude oil in the first place. Until recently, there has been no reliable
evidence that natural acidic compounds in crude oils are the reason that
some crude oils have high foaming tendencies.
Much work has been dedicated to the design of the experimental
program for testing foaming tendencies of crude oils. Several re-
searchers developed their experiments based on the idea of decom-
pression or depressurization [14–17]. Since depressurization has been
considered the main reason why foaming of crude oil mainly occurs in
onshore, offshore and subsea environments, these apparatus seems to
be reasonably acceptable. We have performed similar depressurization
test of crude oils both inside and outside the pressurized vessel our-
selves. However, we only successfully performed tests on mineral oils
because crude oils we obtained had low foamability under low sa-
turation pressure. Thus, we performed pneumatic tests on oils with
different additives. Our study aims to identify some acidic components
in crude oil that are responsible for foaming. This study will help to
address vital issues about the foam formation and defoaming kinetics
regarding gas types and acidic oil components. Thus, the results could
be beneficial for foam control in oil and gas industry.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
We employed two crude oils as well as a mineral oil of different
components as foaming systems. A third crude oil was created by
mixing the two crude oils in 1:1 ratio. Signs of incompatibility, such as
the apparition of solid deposits or the desolubilization of some as-
phaltene or resin components, were not found when we mixed the two
crude oils. The properties of four oils are listed in Table 1. Viscosity was
characterized by the rheometer (Anton Paar MCR302, concentric cy-
linder measuring system) at 20 ℃. Oil sample 1# was light crude oil
from Murban region. Sample 3# was slightly heavy crude oil from
Changqing, China. We used paraffinic mineral oil in some tests as the
oil phase to compare and contrast different result patterns. All crude
433
Colloids and Surfaces A 553 (2018) 432–438
Table 1
Oil Properties: Density, API Gravity, and Viscosity.
oil ρ at 20 ℃ API gravity μ at 20 ℃
(kg/m3) (deg) (mPa·s)
1#Murban 740 59.7 16
2#Murban/Changqing 799 45.6 65
3#Changqing 838 37.4 450
4#Mineral oil 851 34.8 17
oils showed Newtonian behavior when we measured the viscosity of the
fluids except oil sample #3. Oil samples were stored in airtight con-
tainers to decelerate the alteration of the physicochemical properties of
oils throughout the tests. CO2 and CH4 gases of 99.99% purity supplied
by Tianyuan were used throughout. The acids and phenol are decanoic
acid, octadecanoic acid, cyclohexanecarboxylic acid, 4-methylbenzoic
acid and 4-methylphenol (analytical reagents, supplier Aladdin). The
reagent bottles containing decanoic acid, cyclohexanecarboxylic acid
and 4-methylphenol (melting point below 35 ℃) were heated in the
water bath at 40 ℃. Then, the reagent fluids were added to the oils with
the plastic dropper to the desired concentration. The granular octade-
canoic acid or 4-methylbenzoic acid (melting point 69.6 ℃ and 180 ℃)
were added into the oil #4 directly. Then, the solid/liquid mixture was
subjected to an agitating heater (60 ℃ and 95 ℃) until the visible solid
particles entirely dissolved. After the oil 4# with these two acid ad-
ditives cooled, crystal particles were observed as the fluid changed from
transparent to opaque.
2.2. Apparatus and procedures
We performed the depressurization test and pneumatic test with the
apparatus illustrated in Fig. 1. The principle behind the depressuriza-
tion test is the nucleation of bubbles from the entrapped gas inside the
liquid phase. 250 mL of mineral oil was placed into the pressurized cell
and saturated at 5 bar of saturation gas (CO2, CH4 or 1:1 mixture of CO2
and CH4) with the stirrer. The tightness of the pressurized cell was
checked before the test and the typical saturation time was 120 min.
Saturation temperature was kept at 30 ℃. The cell was connected to a
100 mL graduated glass cylinder with detachable stainless steel tubing
of inner diameter 3 mm. The first ball valve was to seal the liquid inside
the saturation cell during the saturation. The needle valve at fixed
position created a sufficient pressure drop to the flow of gas saturated
oil to ensure comparability and reproducibility of the tests. Foam flow
was abruptly cut off by the second ball valve when foam volume
reached 40 mL ± 5 mL (shown in Fig. 2). The opening of the needle
valve was predetermined to keep foam flow rate moderate so that both
drained liquids from foam and shock against existing foam in the cy-
linder were avoided. The whole foam collapsing process was recorded
with Canon digital camera at 1080p, 30 fps. All experiments were
conducted at room temperature. Foam characterization parameters
were calculated by averaging results of three consecutive runs for dif-
ferent saturation gases. The video was edited and processed to obtain
the batch snapshots, which were then processed by self-written MA-
TLAB code to output the evolution of foam and liquid volume over time
in an Excel file. The algorithm for data manipulation uses the scale on
the glass cylinder to calculate the scale of one pixel to the unit length of
the foam column. Then, the code plots a bounding box around the
contiguous foam region of the binary image. With this bounding box,
both foam and liquid volume can be determined. Foamability Π is de-
fined the same as Blazquez’s article (Eq. (1)), where vf0 is the maximum
quantity of foam that the system can create at the test conditions and
vlinf is the total liquid volume when foam completely drains [16].
vf0
Π=
vlinf (1)
J. Chen et al.
Fig. 1. Apparatus for depressurization test and pneumatic test of crude oil foaming.
We first carried the depressurization test on 4# mineral oil with
different dissolved gases. The attempt to repeat the depressurization
test on 1#, 2# and 3# oil was unsuccessful because they flow into the
cylinder without showing any foam formation by depressurization. This
phenomenon suggests that depressurization cannot be applied to all
foaming oils as chemical free 1# oil shows good foaming ability with
the pneumatic test. We then performed the pneumatic tests on oil
samples with acids and phenol because impurities brought in by the
previous experiments could not be easily cleaned thoroughly if we
carried depressurization test. Oil samples 1# and 4# were good natural
foaming liquids while 2# and 3# oils were not, so oil samples 2# and
3# were homogenized with 3 vol% sodium abietate of 30% purity in
pneumatic tests. The change in oil viscosity after the homogenization
with sodium abietate is ignorable.
We also developed an apparatus based on the principle illustrated
by Bikerman [18]. The method is termed as the pneumatic method. The
production of foam for stability determination was regulated with a
micro air pump, rotameter, and sintered glass sparger. The rotameter
range was 30–300 mL/min and the mean pore size of the sparger was
50 μm. The rotameter was fitted with a needle valve to control the gas
flow rate. The inner diameter of the graduated PMMA cylinder was
18 mm. The height was 200 mm. The gas flow rate was kept at 150 mL/
min until foam height was steady. A column of static foam collapsed to
half of its constant volume after a time. The constant foam height and
time to half collapse were collected. Before each test, the graduated
cylinder was washed in an ultrasound cleaner to ensure that impurities
would not block the pores or contaminate the foaming liquid. Foam-
ability Π of a pneumatic test is the constant foam volume vfc at a gas
flow rate divided by total liquid volume vlinf when foam completely
drains (Eq. (2)). According to Bikerman, foaminess Σ is the ratio of the
constant foam volume vfc to the gas flow rate Qg (Eq. (3)) [18].
Fig. 2. Foam evolution for 4# oil with 5 bar of CO2 at 30 ℃. Foam volume was maximum at time 0, then reduced to half, finally decreased to zero.
434
Colloids and Surfaces A 553 (2018) 432–438
vfc
Π=
vlinf (2)
vfc
Σ=
Qg (3)
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of saturation gas
Saturation gas has a strong influence on the defoaming kinetics.
Foamability is closely related to gas solubility for depressurization
foams. With the help of the flowmeter in the upstream gas line, we
found that solubility of CO2 in oil 4 is approximately twice as much as
CH4. Higher gas solubility correlates directly with bigger foamability in
Table 2. As the ratio of CO2 to CH4 increases from 0 to 1, foamability
almost doubles. For the same volume of foam, an increasing amount of
gas entrapped in liquid results in a decrease in the liquid volume
drained from foam. Thus, the ratio of initial foam volume to total vo-
lume of liquid increases. Generally speaking, foamability tends to in-
crease with gas solubility in the oil.
Time to half collapse of foam can be seen as the ability of the foam
to withstand structural destruction brought about by drainage, dis-
proportionation, and coalescence. Drainage is driven by gravity, surface
tension, and viscous forces [19]. Interfacial rheological properties, bulk
viscosity, and foam geometry impact drainage profiles. Gas diffusion
coefficient plays an important role in coarsening [20]. Besides, dis-
proportionation or Ostwald ripening is affected by high-viscosity bulk
phase and surfactants (including macromolecules or particles) absorbed
around the bubble [21,22]. Coalescence results from film thinning and
film rupture. As the film reaches equilibrium thickness, fluctuations in
thickness and density and external perturbations (such as grease, dust,
J. Chen et al.
Table 2
Foam characterization parameters for 4# oil foam with depressurization test at
5 bar of saturation gas and 30 ℃.
saturation gas foamability time to half collapse
(Π) (t, s)
CO2 3.72 ± 0.10 125.5 ± 8.0
CO2/CH4 3.20 ± 0.20 147.0 ± 4.0
CH4 2.06 ± 0.06 108.5 ± 8.0
and evaporation of liquid) stimulate film rupture [23]. And without the
resistance to rupture and coalescence, the instable foam finally dis-
appears.
As the ratio of CO2 to CH4 increases from 0 to 1, time to half collapse
of foam ascends first, then descends. This suggests that CO2 combined
with CH4 may have a synergistic effect increasing halftime of foam
collapse. CO2 combined with CH4 possesses a higher level of foam
stability than CO2 or CH4 alone.
We find that no direct relationship can be established between
foamability and time to half collapse. When CO2 was combined with
CH4, time to half collapse increased while foamability decreased com-
pared to CO2. Surface tension, interfacial rheological properties, com-
ponents of the bulk liquid are closely linked to the defoaming kinetics.
And these properties change when oil is saturated with different gases.
Thus, time to half collapse cannot be connected with foamability.
In Fig. 3, the evolution of foam volume to initial foam volume
against time is shown when different proportions of carbon dioxide and
methane are dissolved. Previous work on depressurization foam that
handles defoaming kinetics experimentally shows that defoaming
curves take quasi-linear or exponential shape [14,15]. Blazquez showed
the sigmoidal shapes of the defoaming kinetics and has proposed that
logistic model is the best empirical model for experimental data [16].
However, we are unable to obtain satisfactory results with the logistic
model. Here, we present a new piecewise model to fit the collapse
curve. Curves are divided into two segments and we use parabola
function and expdec1 function to model the two segments respectively.
Functions are expressed in Eqs. (4) and (5), where t is time, v is relative
Fig. 3. Experimental data and fitted curves for the collapse of 4# oil foam with
depressurization test at 5 bar of saturation gases and 30 ℃. Black, red and blue
lines: piecewise fitting curves. The definition of curve 1 is given in Table 3.
Function for the first segment is parabola and function for the second segment is
expdec1. Function parameters can be referred in Table 3. Black square: ex-
perimental data for 4# oil saturated with carbon dioxide; red circle: 4# oil
saturated with 1:1 carbon dioxide and methane; blue triangle: 4# oil saturated
with methane. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure le-
gend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
435
Colloids and Surfaces A 553 (2018) 432–438
Fig. 4. Experimental data and fitted curves for the collapse of 4# oil foam with
depressurization test at 5 bar of carbon dioxide and 30 ℃. Black, red and blue
lines: piecewise fitting curves. Function for the first segment is parabola and
function for the second segment is expdec1. Function parameters can be re-
ferred to in Table 3. Black square: experimental data for curve2; red circle:
experimental data for curve3; blue triangle: experimental data for curve4.
Curves are defined the same as Table 3. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
volume, A–D, t0 and v0 are model parameters. The value t0.5 is the t value
at the intersection of two segments and tend =176 s is the end of a test
period.
v = A + Bt + Ct 2, if 0 ≤ t ≤ t0.5 (4)
−t
v = De t0 + v0, ift0.5 < t ≤ tend (5)
In Fig. 4, both experimental data and fitted curves are given to show
the evolution of foam, liquid and total volume to initial liquid volume
against time for oil sample 4# with 5 bar of CO2. The model parameters
are gathered in Table 3. The model for the evolution of liquid volume
can be seen as special piecewise function, where parameters for the first
segment are zero. Interestingly, t value at the intersection of two seg-
ments is approximately the same as time to half collapse. The first half
of the curves for the evolution of foam volume and total volume fits a
parabolic shape, while the second half fits an exponential shape. Vo-
lume is almost a linear function of time at the first stage of foam col-
lapse because the decrease in foam volume is mainly caused by drai-
nage and disproportionation. When foam collapses to almost half of its
original volume, film thins and reaches critical thickness. Films become
unstable and susceptible to external perturbations, causing film rup-
ture. Thus, the relationship between volume and time shifts from
parabolic to exponential. Model parameter A for the parabolic equation
of the first segment of curve 2 (the definition of curve 2 is given in
Table 3) equals v value at the intersection with the v-axis. This value
represents the ratio of maximum foam volume to the liquid volume by
definition of parameter A for curve 2. Thus, model parameter A for
curve 2 is close to foamability.
3.2. Effect of acidic components
The effect of acids and phenol on foam characterization parameters
is highly complex due to the variation of oil compositions. Foaminess of
these compounds is gathered in Table 4. Foaminess of octadecanoic
acid and 4-methylbenzoic acid was not tested for oil samples 1#, 2#
and 3# because their dissolution in oil must be enhanced by heating,
which was not suitable for crude oil. The foaminess of 4-methylphenol
J. Chen et al. Colloids and Surfaces A 553 (2018) 432–438

Table 3
Model parameters for the collapse of 4# oil foam with depressurization test at 5 bar of saturation gas and 30 ℃. Curve 1: evolution of foam volume to constant foam
volume against time; curve 2: evolution of foam volume to total liquid volume against time; curve 3: evolution of liquid volume to total liquid volume against time;
curve 4: evolution of total volume of foam and drained liquid to total liquid volume against time. The value t0.5 is the t value at the intersection of two segments. Other
parameters are set in Eqs. (4) and (5).
gas curve A B C D t0 t0.5 v0

−3
CO2 1 100.40 −0.56 1.33 × 10 2.20 × 10 5
13.44 111.70 0.32
2 375.19 −2.09 4.97 × 10−3 8.22 × 105 13.44 111.70 1.19
3 0 0 0 −1.17 × 102 73.20 0 113.55
4 373.77 −0.72 −1.80 × 10-4 1.42 × 106 12.52 111.82 103.19

CO2/CH4 1 98.21 −0.51 1.11 × 10−3 9.56 × 106 11.97 146.47 1.55
2 324.96 −1.68 3.68 × 10−3 3.17 × 107 11.97 146.47 5.13
3 0 0 0 −1.14 × 102 74.55 0 112.97
4 325.97 −0.42 −4.20 × 10-4 2.85 × 1011 6.85 147.43 124.85

CH4 1 109.66 −0.61 1.30 × 10−4 8.58 × 103 18.97 101.67 8.44
2 239.06 −1.33 2.83 × 10−4 1.87 × 104 18.96 101.67 18.40
3 0 0 0 −1.08 × 102 53.05 0 107.48
4 243.37 0.13 −5.30 × 10-3 1.76 × 104 19.00 101.47 118.50

Table 4
Foam characterization parameters for oil sample with 1% of additives by performing the pneumatic method at an air flow rate of 150 mL/min and initial oil sample of
8 mL. None denotes that oil sample was tested without additives.
oil additives foaminess foamability time to half collapse
(Σ, s) (Π) (t)

1# none 8.13 ± 0.20 4.00 ± 0.10 22.00 ± 0.50 s

decanoic acid 9.16 ± 0.20 4.50 ± 0.10 29.50 ± 1.00 s
cyclohexanecarboxylic acid 10.17 ± 0.30 5.00 ± 0.15 30.50 ± 1.00 s
4-methylphenol 12.21 ± 0.40 6.00 ± 0.20 31.50 ± 1.50 s

2# none 13.74 ± 0.20 2.70 ± 0.10 79.50 ± 2.50 s

decanoic acid 7.63 ± 0.10 1.50 ± 0.05 65.50 ± 2.50 s
cyclohexanecarboxylic acid 17.81 ± 0.40 3.50 ± 0.20 70.00 ± 2.00 s
4-methylphenol 11.71 ± 0.30 2.30 ± 0.15 94.50 ± 3.50 s

3# none 8.65 ± 0.10 1.70 ± 0.05 73.00 ± 2.50 s

decanoic acid 6.62 ± 0.10 1.30 ± 0.05 > 30 min
cyclohexanecarboxylic acid 13.23 ± 0.40 2.60 ± 0.20 > 30 min
4-methylphenol 5.60 ± 0.10 1.10 ± 0.05 > 30 min

4# none 8.70 ± 0.10 1.71 ± 0.05 11.31 ± 0.50 s

decanoic acid 6.57 ± 0.10 1.29 ± 0.05 9.58 ± 0.50 s
octadecanoic acid 11.86 ± 0.20 2.33 ± 0.10 > 30 min
cyclohexanecarboxylic acid 10.03 ± 0.20 1.97 ± 0.10 14.23 ± 0.50 s
4-methylbenzoic acid 8.75 ± 0.10 1.72 ± 0.05 13.96 ± 0.50 s
4-methylphenol 15.68 ± 0.30 3.08 ± 0.15 37.06 ± 1.00 s

was greater than other additives for oil samples 1# and 4#, while
foaminess was greatest for oil sample 2# and 3# with cyclohex-
anecarboxylic acid. Actually, cyclohexanecarboxylic acid increased
foaminess of all oil samples in this experiment to some extent (shown in
Fig. 5. Percentage increase in foaminess caused by cyclohexanecarboxylic acid
for oil samples.
Fig. 5). This result may contribute to the enhancement of crude oil
antifoam performance by combining antifoams with reagents that will
react with some crude oil components, such as cyclohexanecarboxylic
acid. The results we achieved strongly support the idea that naphthenic
acids can be attributed to being stabilizers of crude oil foam apart from
asphaltenes, and resins [24]. Additionally, oil quality can be improved
by the separation of naphthenic acids because we may encounter other
problems, such as emulsification, scaling, corrosion, as well as foaming
[24,25].
For oil sample 3# with additives, it is noteworthy that foaminess
seems to be unrelated to time to half collapse as all additives have in-
creased the time to half collapse dramatically while only one additive
has increased foaminess. This phenomenon suggests that foaminess and
time to half collapse are controlled by different mechanisms. Better
foaminess is not necessarily connected with better foam stability be-
cause growth in viscosity causes the system to form larger bubbles. The
effect of disproportion among large bubbles is significantly stronger,
reducing the foaminess.
For fatty acids, it seems that when the length of fatty acid chain
increases, its effect on foam changes from destabilization to stabiliza-
tion. Foaminess of oil sample 4# with medium-chain decanoic acid is
lower than that of chemical-free oil sample 4#, while foaminess of oil

436
J. Chen et al.
Fig. 6. Stable foaming of octadecanoic acid/mineral oil system.
sample 4# with long-chain octadecanoic acid is higher than that of
chemical-free oil sample 4#. Stabilizing oil foam by long-chain fatty
acids has been reported in recent literature [26,27]. With a simple
apparatus, we were able to show that stability of mineral oil foam grew
significantly by stearic acid (octadecanoic acid).
It is notable that time to half collapse of octadecanoic acid on oil
sample 4# tremendously increased from 11.31 s to more than 30 min.
Stable foaming of octadecanoic acid/mineral oil system (shown in
Fig. 6) could be attributed to the formation of solid or liquid crystal
particles [28–33]. Hydrophobicity, particle size, and particle shape are
likely to affect the tendency of particles to absorb at the air-liquid in-
terface. After the addition of octadecanoic acid, viscosity increased
from 17 m Pa·s to 29 m Pa s. Increase in the rigidity of the interface and
viscosity of the bulk liquid may cause the excellent stability of octa-
decanoic acid/mineral oil foam. It should be noted that although the
type of hydrocarbon surfactant with the carboxyl group has been dis-
cerned to cause non-aqueous foam formation [34–36]. It remains un-
resolved that stabilization effect in this test was directly caused by or-
ganic acids because the chemical reactions at foam lamella and plateau
borders are difficult to analyze due to the highly complex oil chemistry.
The result of this homogenization with acids can lead to the formation
of acid derivatives, such as amides and esters, etc. The importance of
acid derivatives as surfactants have been recognized for a long time and
this is an important issue for future research [37].
4. Conclusion
We have studied the defoaming kinetics of mineral oil with different
saturation gases. Higher gas solubility correlates directly with bigger
foamability for depressurization foams. CO2 combined with CH4 may
have a synergistic effect increasing halftime of foam collapse.
Foamability cannot be connected with time to half collapse. We present
a new piecewise model to fit the collapse curve. Curves are divided into
two segments which almost have the same timescales and we use
parabola function and expdec1 function to model the two segments
respectively. The t values at the intersection of two segments are ap-
proximately the same as time to half collapse. Model parameter A for
curve 2 is close to foamability.
The effect of acidic components of crude oil is investigated.
Cyclohexanecarboxylic acid increased foaminess of all oil samples in
this experiment to some extent, suggesting that crude oils rich in this
component may have high foaming tendency. Better foaminess is not
necessarily connected with better foam stability because they are con-
trolled by different mechanisms. We have observed stable foaming of
octadecanoic acid/mineral oil system, which may be caused by the
437
Colloids and Surfaces A 553 (2018) 432–438
formation of solid or liquid crystal particles. Increase in the rigidity of
the interface and viscosity of the bulk liquid may lead to excellent foam
stability.
Acknowledgments
The work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 51574273) and the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. 15CX08008A).
References
[1] R. Rafati, H. Hamidi, A.K. Idris, M.A. Manan, Application of sustainable foaming
agents to control the mobility of carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery, Egypt. J.
Pet. 21 (2) (2012) 155–163.
[2] D.T. Wasan, K. Koczo, A.D. Nikolov, Mechanisms of aqueous foam stability and
antifoaming action with and without oil, Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in
the Petroleum Industry vol. 242, American Chemical Society, 1994 pp 47–114.
[3] R. Rafati, A.S. Haddad, H. Hamidi, Experimental study on stability and rheological
properties of aqueous foam in the presence of reservoir natural solid particles,
Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 509 (2016) 19–31.
[4] K. Osei-Bonsu, N. Shokri, P. Grassia, Fundamental investigation of foam flow in a
liquid-filled Hele-Shaw cell, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 462 (2016) 288–296.
[5] S. Xiao, Y. Zeng, E.D. Vavra, P. He, M. Puerto, G.J. Hirasaki, S.L. Biswal,
Destabilization, propagation, and generation of surfactant-stabilized foam during
crude oil displacement in heterogeneous model porous media, Langmuir 34 (3)
(2018) 739–749.
[6] K. Osei-Bonsu, P. Grassia, N. Shokri, Relationship between bulk foam stability,
surfactant formulation and oil displacement efficiency in porous media, Fuel 203
(2017) 403–410.
[7] L.L. Schramm, F. Wassmuth, Foams: basic principles, Foams: Fundamentals and
Applications in the Petroleum Industry vol. 242, American Chemical Society, 1994
pp 3–45.
[8] N.N. Zaki, M.K. Poindexter, P.K. Kilpatrick, Factors contributing to petroleum
foaming. 2. Synthetic crude oil systems, Energy Fuel 16 (3) (2002) 711–717.
[9] L.Z. Pillon, Interfacial Properties of Petroleum Products, CrC Press, 2007.
[10] P.R. Garrett, The Science of Defoaming: Theory, Experiment and Applications, CRC
Press, 2016.
[11] M.K. Poindexter, N.N. Zaki, P.K. Kilpatrick, S.C. Marsh, D.H. Emmons, Factors
contributing to petroleum foaming. 1. Crude oil systems, Energy Fuel 16 (3) (2002)
700–710.
[12] C. Blazquez, E. Emond, S. Schneider, C. Dalmazzone, V. Bergeron, Non-aqueous and
crude oil foams, Oil Gas Sci. Technol.-Revue D Ifp Energies Nouvelles 69 (3) (2014)
467–479.
[13] I. Callaghan, A. McKechnie, J. Ray, J. Wainwright, Identification of crude oil
components responsible for foaming, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 25 (02) (1985) 171–175.
[14] A. Fraga, D. Rezende, R. Santos, C. Mansur, Method to evaluate foaming in petro-
leum, Braz. J. Pet. Gas 5 (1) (2011).
[15] J. Sheng, B. Maini, R. Hayes, W. Tortike, Experimental study of foamy oil stability,
J. Can. Pet. Technol. 36 (04) (1997).
[16] C. Blazquez, C. Dalmazzone, E. Emond, S. Schneider, Crude oil foams. Part 1–a
novel methodology for studying non-aqueous foams formed by depressurization,
Fuel 171 (2016) 224–237.
[17] C. Blázquez, C. Dalmazzone, E. Emond, S. Schneider, Crude oil foams: testing and
ranking of antifoams with the depressurization test, Energy Fuel 31 (2) (2017)
1285–1294.
[18] J.J. Bikerman, Foams. Springer Science & Business Media vol. 10, (2013).
[19] S. Koehler, H. Stone, M. Brenner, J. Eggers, Dynamics of foam drainage, Phys. Rev.
E 58 (2) (1998) 2097.
[20] S.A. Koehler, S. Hilgenfeldt, H.A. Stone, A generalized view of foam drainage: ex-
periment and theory, Langmuir 16 (15) (2000) 6327–6341.
[21] E. Dickinson, R. Ettelaie, B.S. Murray, Z. Du, Kinetics of disproportionation of air
bubbles beneath a planar air–water interface stabilized by food proteins, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 252 (1) (2002) 202–213.
[22] W. Kloek, T. van Vliet, M. Meinders, Effect of bulk and interfacial rheological
properties on bubble dissolution, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 237 (2) (2001) 158–166.
[23] I. Cantat, S. Cohen-Addad, F. Elias, F. Graner, R. Höhler, O. Pitois, F. Rouyer,
A. Saint-Jalmes, Foams: Structure and Dynamics, OUP Oxford, 2013.
[24] J. Peng, G.Q. Tang, A.R. Kovscek, Oil chemistry and its impact on heavy oil solution
gas drive, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 66 (1–2) (2009) 47–59.
[25] C.A. Carbonezi, L.C. de Almeida, B.C. Araujo, E.F. Lucas, G. Gonzalez, Solution
behavior of naphthenic acids and its effect on the asphaltenes precipitation onset,
Energy Fuel 23 (3-4) (2009) 1249–1252.
[26] B.P. Binks, E.J. Garvey, J. Vieira, Whipped oil stabilised by surfactant crystals,
Chem. Sci. 7 (4) (2016) 2621–2632.
[27] A.-L. Fameau, S. Lam, O.D. Velev, Multi-stimuli responsive foams combining par-
ticles and self-assembling fatty acids, Chem. Sci. 4 (10) (2013) 3874–3881.
[28] P. Stevenson, Foam Engineering: Fundamentals and Applications, John Wiley &
Sons, 2012.
[29] S. Friberg, S. Ahmad, Liquid crystals and the foaming capacity of an amine dis-
solved in water and p-xylene, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 35 (1) (1971) 175.
[30] G. Jederström, L. Rydhag, S. Friberg, Liquid crystalline phases in aerosol formation
J. Chen et al.
II: influence of liquid crystalline phases on foam stability, J. Pharm. Sci. 62 (12)
(1973) 1979–1982.
[31] S.E. Friberg, C.S. Wohn, B. Greene, R. Van Gilder, A nonaqueous foam with ex-
cellent stability, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 101 (2) (1984) 593–595.
[32] S.E. Friberg, I. Blute, H. Kunieda, P. Stenius, Stability of hydrophobic foams,
Langmuir 2 (5) (1986) 659–664.
[33] S.E. Friberg, I. Blute, P. Stenius, Foam stability in a glycerol system, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 127 (2) (1989) 573–582.
438
Colloids and Surfaces A 553 (2018) 432–438
[34] A.-L. Fameau, A. Saint-Jalmes, Non-aqueous foams: current understanding on the
formation and stability mechanisms, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 247 (2017)
454–464.
[35] R.J. Pugh, Bubble and Foam Chemistry, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
[36] P.A. Sanders, Stabilization of aerosol emulsions and foams, J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem.
21 (6) (1970) 377–391.
[37] H. Maag, Fatty acid derivatives: important surfactants for household, cosmetic and
industrial purposes, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 61 (2) (1984) 259–267.