Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: McDonald, Kieran, Carroll, Kenneth C., Brusseau, Mark L.
Other Authors: Univ Arizona, Soil Water & Environm Sci Dept
Language:en
Published: AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION 2016
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10150/622505
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/622505
id ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-622505
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-6225052017-02-11T03:01:00Z Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples McDonald, Kieran Carroll, Kenneth C. Brusseau, Mark L. Univ Arizona, Soil Water & Environm Sci Dept Univ Arizona, Hydrol & Water Resources Dept Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department; University of Arizona; Tucson Arizona USA Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences; New Mexico State University; Las Cruces New Mexico USA Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department; University of Arizona; Tucson Arizona USA 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 similar to 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. 2016-07 Article Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples 2016, 52 (7):5393 Water Resources Research 00431397 10.1002/2016WR018775 http://hdl.handle.net/10150/622505 http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/622505 Water Resources Research en http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2016WR018775 © 2016. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved. AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
collection NDLTD
language en
sources NDLTD
description 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 similar to 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.
author2 Univ Arizona, Soil Water & Environm Sci Dept
author_facet Univ Arizona, Soil Water & Environm Sci Dept
McDonald, Kieran
Carroll, Kenneth C.
Brusseau, Mark L.
author McDonald, Kieran
Carroll, Kenneth C.
Brusseau, Mark L.
spellingShingle 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
author_sort McDonald, Kieran
title Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples
title_short Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples
title_full Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples
title_fullStr Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with X-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples
title_sort comparison of fluid-fluid interfacial areas measured with x-ray microtomography and interfacial partitioning tracer tests for the same samples
publisher AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
publishDate 2016
url http://hdl.handle.net/10150/622505
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/622505
work_keys_str_mv AT mcdonaldkieran comparisonoffluidfluidinterfacialareasmeasuredwithxraymicrotomographyandinterfacialpartitioningtracertestsforthesamesamples
AT carrollkennethc comparisonoffluidfluidinterfacialareasmeasuredwithxraymicrotomographyandinterfacialpartitioningtracertestsforthesamesamples
AT brusseaumarkl comparisonoffluidfluidinterfacialareasmeasuredwithxraymicrotomographyandinterfacialpartitioningtracertestsforthesamesamples
_version_ 1718413637797806080