skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples: COMPARISON OF FLUID-FLUID INTERFACIAL AREAS

Abstract

Two different methods are currently used for measuring interfacial areas between immiscible fluids within 3-D porous media, high-resolution microtomographic imaging and interfacial partitioning tracer tests (IPTT). Both methods were used in this study to measure nonwetting/wetting interfacial areas for a natural sand. The microtomographic imaging was conducted on the same packed columns that were used for the IPTTs. This is in contrast to prior studies comparing the two methods, for which in all cases different samples were used for the two methods. In addition, the columns were imaged before and after the IPTTs to evaluate the potential impacts of the tracer solution on fluid configuration and attendant interfacial area. The interfacial areas measured using IPTT are ~5 times larger than the microtomographic-measured values, which is consistent with previous work. Analysis of the image data revealed no significant impact of the tracer solution on NAPL configuration or interfacial area. Other potential sources of error were evaluated, and all were demonstrated to be insignificant. The disparity in measured interfacial areas between the two methods is attributed to the limitation of the microtomography method to characterize interfacial area associated with microscopic surface roughness due to resolution constraints.

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department, University of Arizona, Tucson Arizona USA
  2. Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces New Mexico USA
  3. Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department, University of Arizona, Tucson Arizona USA; Hydrology and Water Resources Department, University of Arizona, Tucson Arizona USA
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States). Advanced Photon Source (APS),
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) (SC-23)
OSTI Identifier:
1337184
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Water Resources Research; Journal Volume: 52; Journal Issue: 7
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
ENGLISH
Subject:
46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Citation Formats

McDonald, Kieran, Carroll, Kenneth C., and Brusseau, Mark L. Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples: COMPARISON OF FLUID-FLUID INTERFACIAL AREAS. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1002/2016WR018775.
McDonald, Kieran, Carroll, Kenneth C., & Brusseau, Mark L. Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples: COMPARISON OF FLUID-FLUID INTERFACIAL AREAS. United States. doi:10.1002/2016WR018775.
McDonald, Kieran, Carroll, Kenneth C., and Brusseau, Mark L. Fri . "Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples: COMPARISON OF FLUID-FLUID INTERFACIAL AREAS". United States. doi:10.1002/2016WR018775.
@article{osti_1337184,
title = {Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples: COMPARISON OF FLUID-FLUID INTERFACIAL AREAS},
author = {McDonald, Kieran and Carroll, Kenneth C. and Brusseau, Mark L.},
abstractNote = {Two different methods are currently used for measuring interfacial areas between immiscible fluids within 3-D porous media, high-resolution microtomographic imaging and interfacial partitioning tracer tests (IPTT). Both methods were used in this study to measure nonwetting/wetting interfacial areas for a natural sand. The microtomographic imaging was conducted on the same packed columns that were used for the IPTTs. This is in contrast to prior studies comparing the two methods, for which in all cases different samples were used for the two methods. In addition, the columns were imaged before and after the IPTTs to evaluate the potential impacts of the tracer solution on fluid configuration and attendant interfacial area. The interfacial areas measured using IPTT are ~5 times larger than the microtomographic-measured values, which is consistent with previous work. Analysis of the image data revealed no significant impact of the tracer solution on NAPL configuration or interfacial area. Other potential sources of error were evaluated, and all were demonstrated to be insignificant. The disparity in measured interfacial areas between the two methods is attributed to the limitation of the microtomography method to characterize interfacial area associated with microscopic surface roughness due to resolution constraints.},
doi = {10.1002/2016WR018775},
journal = {Water Resources Research},
number = 7,
volume = 52,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}