Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect
ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Experimental Analysis of Scale Inhibitors Retention in Carbonate Formations for Application in Squeeze Treatments
My Activity
  • Open Access
Fossil Fuels

Experimental Analysis of Scale Inhibitors Retention in Carbonate Formations for Application in Squeeze Treatments
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Khosro Jarrahian*
    Khosro Jarrahian
    Flow Assurance and Scale Team (FAST), Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering (IGE), Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, U.K.
    *Email: [email protected]. Tel.: +44 (0) 131 451 4583.
  • Morteza Aminnaji
    Morteza Aminnaji
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M1 3AL, U.K.
  • Alexander Graham
    Alexander Graham
    Flow Assurance and Scale Team (FAST), Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering (IGE), Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, U.K.
  • Kenneth Sorbie
    Kenneth Sorbie
    Flow Assurance and Scale Team (FAST), Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering (IGE), Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, U.K.
Open PDF

Energy & Fuels

Cite this: Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 4, 1776–1791
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c02691
Published February 4, 2022

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this work, static adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) experiments were conducted for two widely used scale inhibitors (DETPMP and VS-Co) using two different size fractions of Moroccan calcite (315–500 and 125–250 μm) to study the effect of particle size on the “apparent adsorption” of these SIs onto carbonate. The reason for performing these experiments at two particle size ranges was to determine whether the relative surface area to volume ratios (as presented as particle size) would affect whether the precipitating SI–Ca complex forms as a “skin” on the mineral surface and, if so, to determine whether this “skin” could affect the further interaction between the SI and the carbonate mineral by a “surface poisoning” effect. The results of both environmental scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray analysis (ESEM/EDX) and direct particle size analysis (PSA) clearly showed that no (or very little), such surface deposition or coating around calcite grains occurred for either of these SIs. Essentially, the results for both particle sizes were qualitatively the same for each of the SIs. The DETPMP retention showed coupled Γ/Π behavior, which was predominantly precipitation at [DETPMP] > 100 ppm and was quantitatively almost the same for both calcite particle sizes. Likewise, the results for VS-Co were quantitatively almost identical for both particle sizes and the retention was predominantly via adsorption up to [VS-Co] ≈ 3000 ppm, with some small degree of precipitation at higher concentration observed. The rather different behavior of DETPMP and VS-Co may be ascribed to different functional groups having different pKa values and strengths of SI–Ca binding. Both sets of static adsorption/precipitation experimental results for DETPMP and VS-Co on each calcite particle size fraction were also predicted using a previously published model.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

One of the common problems in oil production systems is the deposition and buildup of various inorganic scale precipitates (e.g., BaSO4, CaCO3, etc.). (1−7) These scale deposits can have a highly damaging effect on production performance if they are not properly treated and can be formed in the oil/gas reservoir itself or anywhere in the production system, including upstream, midstream, and downstream, for example, production tubing, pumps, heat exchangers, chokes, and valves. (8−11) One of the most common ways of preventing mineral scale deposition is by the deployment of chemical SIs in a process called a “squeeze” treatment. (12−17) In general, the squeeze process (Figure 1) involves the cessation of flow at a production well and the pumping of a preflush solution (0.1% v/v inhibitor in KCl or injection quality seawater, also containing 20% v/v of a mutual solvent in some applications), followed by the selected scale inhibitor (normally in the concentration range of 5% to 20% v/v in KCl or injection quality seawater), and finally, an overflush stage (using inhibited seawater or KCl) into the well. (18,19)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Schematic of the three principal scale squeeze treatment stages. Reproduced with permission from ref (18). Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.

When the SI is injected into the formation rock near the wellbore, it is retained within the porous medium. Once the well is brought back onto production, the retained SI is desorbed/redissolved, depending on the retention mechanism, into the stream of produced water. To avoid consuming high volumes of chemical, the SI must prevent or reduce scale formation at substoichiometric levels, that is, at the operating threshold concentration of the SI, which is known as the minimum inhibitor concentration (MIC). As a general rule, the greater the SI retention in the near-wellbore region, the longer the potential squeeze lifetime (measured in the volume of water produced with a [SI] ≥ MIC) that can be achieved. (10,20−26) In scale inhibitor squeeze treatments, the main mechanisms of SI retention within the reservoir formation are through adsorption, (27−30) precipitation, (31,32) or a combination of these two, that is, coupled adsorption/precipitation (denoted Γ/Π).
Adsorption occurs through an electrostatic attraction or physical adsorption between the inhibitor and formation mineral surface. This process is described by an adsorption isotherm, Γ(C), and this governs the squeeze lifetime in an adsorption squeeze treatment. Recently “precipitation” squeezes have been proposed and trialed in the field to increase squeeze lifetimes beyond that attained by pure adsorption. (33−35)
The mechanisms of adsorption (Γ), precipitation (Π), and coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) have been investigated using various modeling approaches by many researchers. (36−42) The early mechanistic investigation on SI retention was performed by Vetter, (36) who concluded that the “adsorption isotherms” of SI on sand particles at various pH values and low temperature were more or less indistinguishable, and that there was a small increase in the amount of adsorption as the solution pH was raised. Sorbie et al. (43) studied the effect of pH, temperature, and [Ca2+] on the retention of phosphonate SIs in both crushed and consolidated sandstone. They observed an increasing of SI adsorption on the crushed rock with temperature. In addition, the adsorption of inhibitor was shown to clearly depend on both the [Ca2+] and the solution pH, since the adsorption of diethylene tetra-amine penta(methylene-phosphonic acid) (DETPMP) depends both on the state of SI dissociation and Ca2+-bridging. Tantayakom et al. (44) studied a Ca-ATMP (a phosphonate scale inhibitor) precipitation in the presence of magnesium ion. They concluded that the molar ratio of divalent cations to ATMP molecules in the precipitate increased with increasing pH of the precipitating solution. In addition, they found that squeezing pH0 7 brines containing ATMP and high Ca ions would generate a desirable precipitated product, but precipitation likely would occur faster than desired.
Tomson et al. (39) presented results on the interactions between SI and carbonate-rich formation rocks in which they described the two main mechanisms governing the SI retention in carbonate reservoirs: (a) the precipitation of SI–Ca2+ because of the increase/decrease in [Ca2+] generated through calcite dissolution and (b) the formation of a surface “skin” of the SI–Ca complex, which then led to a reduction in carbonate dissolution. Kahrwad et al. (23) developed a model that shows the dependence on the m/V ratio if coupled adsorption/precipitation is occurring in the sandstone/DETPMP system and showed that apparent adsorption increases as the pH of DETPMP solutions increases. At pH0 4, only pure adsorption is observed, whereas, at pH0 6, coupled adsorption/precipitation is the dominant mechanism of DETPMP retention. Ibrahim et al. (34) carried out a series of static adsorption/compatibility experiments for a range of phosphonate SIs on various mineral substrates present in sandstones, for example, quartz, kaolinite, siderite, etc. They showed that pure adsorption occurred at low [SI] and the “adsorption isotherm” could be used to correctly describe the SI/mineral retention mechanism, while the coupled Γ/Π retention mechanism was dominant at high [SI] (and elevated Ca2+ concentrations) and a coupled Γ/Π model would be used for most phosphonate SI/mineral systems.
Carbonate rocks provide a much more chemically reactive substrate than sandstone reservoirs and so the scale inhibitor retention mechanism can be more complex than simple adsorption. (9,33,45,46) In carbonate formations, scale inhibitors such as DETPMP (which are often deployed in an acidic form) may react with the formation and form precipitated complexes, that is, as sparingly soluble calcium salts of the SI as reported by Tomson et al. (39) Precipitating of the SI in this way can result in longer scale squeeze lifetimes and, hence, can give an improved efficiency of SI deployment. Indeed, even fully neutralized inhibitors react with carbonates to form precipitates since the SI species are generally strong chelators for divalent ions, such as Ca2+. Baraka-Lokmane and Sorbie (9) studied scale inhibitor/carbonate systems by performing a series of core floods in carbonate cores with DETPMP as the SI. They concluded that the higher the concentration of SI and lower the pH, the more calcium dissolution was observed (from the [Ca2+] effluents), and there was a decrease in the [Mg2+] effluent concentration corresponding directly to the increase in the [Ca2+]. In addition, the core permeability (k ∼ 600 mD) increased in all cases indicating that the stimulation effect through calcite dissolution was greater than the permeability reducing effect induced by the deposition of (Ca and Mg) phosphonate salts and finally the lowering of the injected SI solution pH was more important than an increase in the SI concentration for improving the SI adsorption in the core. Jarrahian et al. (46) carried out coupled Γ/Π experiments for two types of widely used polymeric SI on two common carbonate rocks (calcite and dolomite). It was found that poly phosphino carboxylic acid (PPCA) retained more on calcite than on dolomite and that the PPCA retention reduced as the solution pH was lowered. In the P-functionalized copolymer (PFC)/carbonate system the behavior was the opposite to that for PPCA, that is, PFC showed higher retention on dolomite than calcite. Jarrahian et al. (33) summarized the Γ/Π experimental results for 5 widely used SIs (DETPMP, PPCA, PFC, polyhydric alcohol phosphate ester (PAPE), and sulfonated polyacrylic acid copolymer (VS-Co)) on three common carbonate mineral substrates (calcite, dolomite, and limestone). The findings from this work were as follows: (a) in the polymeric SI (PPCA, PFC, and VS-Co) cases, greater retention was observed for all 3 carbonates at lower solution pH values. This was because of the increase in divalent cations concentration (Ca2+ and Mg2+) generated in situ through rock dissolution, which enhanced the complexation process of SI with divalent cations (SI-M2+ complex), and (b) for phosphonate (DETPMP) and a phosphate ester (PAPE) SIs, a higher retention of SI was found at higher solution pH levels. This was due to the greater level of SI dissociation and also more functional groups available for precipitation of SI with M2+. (c) The polymer VS-Co/dolomite system mostly showed pure adsorption with only a very low amount of precipitation; this was attributed to the presence of sulfonate groups (low pKa), and (d) polymeric inhibitors retained at their highest level on calcite (highest relative calcium content), followed by limestone and then dolomite; (e) for the phosphonate and phosphate ester SIs cases, the highest retention levels were observed on dolomite (higher final solution pH and more SI dissociated), followed by limestone and calcite. (f) For all SI types, higher retention (more precipitation, Π) was observed at elevated temperatures. At lower temperatures, the pure adsorption region was larger for all SIs.
Extensive research has been conducted on the apparent adsorption of scale inhibitors under different operational conditions (temperature and pH) and mineralogy compositions (sandstones and carbonates). However, there is still a gap in our knowledge on the effect of particle size of the carbonate mineral fractions on the retention of scale inhibitors. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of particle size on the retention of different scale inhibitors (DETPMP and VS-Co as representatives of phosphonate and polymeric scale inhibitors, respectively) in carbonate porous media. This has been done by performing a range of “apparent adsorption” experiments, where we plot the apparent adsorption (Γapp) versus final SI concentration (Cf). (23) It has been shown here conclusively where the system is in pure adsorption (Γ) and where it is coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π). (47−50) When the apparent adsorption results (Γapp) are plotted versus final scale inhibitor concentration (Cf) as a function of mass/volume ratio (m/V, where m is the mass of substrate (carbonate mineral) and V is the solution volume), at low concentrations, scale inhibitor is retained dominantly by pure adsorption and the adsorption results simply “move along” the adsorption isotherm and do not depend on the (m/V) ratio. However, at higher concentrations, the adsorption results are clearly deviating from the adsorption isotherm, the inhibitor is retained mostly by precipitation. In other words, the scale inhibitor interacts with divalent cations, mainly Ca2+, and the SI_Ca complex is precipitated out. This method was applied in this work to analyze such apparent adsorption experiments. (23,33,34) The current experiments in this paper are carried out deliberately in the “initial stages” of a squeeze to determine the precise balance of adsorption (Γ) and precipitation (Π), which cannot be determined directly in flow experiments.
A range of apparent adsorption results (Γapp vs Cf as functions of m/V) is presented for two SIs (DETPMP and VS-Co) on calcite substrates with different particle sizes. These results also show the corresponding levels of final [Ca2+] and pH for every apparent adsorption experiment. This information is supplemented by the study of the formed precipitates using ESEM/EDX and particle size analysis (PSA). (46) These techniques revealed direct information on the morphology of any precipitates formed, that is, whether they are formed as free crystalline (or amorphous) precipitates or whether they form as “coated structures” on the surface of the calcite grains. The EDX measurements also yield an approximate chemical composition of the precipitates; for example, establishing the presence of phosphorus (P from the SI) and Ca, and in what approximate (P/Ca) atomic ratios. (33,45)

2. Experimental Methods and Materials

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Experimental Procedure

Static adsorption/compatibility experiments were carried out to differentiate between the pure adsorption (Γ) and coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) behavior of SIs on carbonate mineral in a North Sea seawater (NSSW) brine. A stock solution of SI with 10 000 ppm was initially prepared and used to make the different SI concentrations in the experiments. Initial SI concentrations of 50, 100, 500, 2000, and 4000 ppm were used in all the experiments for DETPMP. Higher initial concentrations of VS-Co were used at 1000, 2500, 5000 and 10 000 ppm; this was done since the VS-Co was analyzed by a matrix-matched Hyamine method using an ultraviolet spectrophotometer that requires higher concentrations for better accuracy. The pH was measured for all the stock solutions and while it was later adjusted to an initial pH of 4 for the solution with DETPMP, the experiment with VS-Co was conducted at natural pH (no pH adjustment to specific value) of the [VS-Co] solution.
For the static apparent adsorption tests, the experiments were conducted using two different masses of carbonate mineral (Moroccan calcite) (m = 5 and 10 g) for a fixed volume of solution (V = 0.04 L), which result in two different values of the m/V ratio. Corresponding compatibility experiments (with no mineral present) were carried out to establish whether the inhibitor is fully compatible with the test brine (in this case, with NSSW). Thus, any reduction in SI concentration for this test is due to the incompatibility between SI and NSSW, that is, it results in the formation of SI/Ca2+ precipitation. (32,34,45)
While Figure 2 presents a simple schematic of the static adsorption/compatibility test, the main steps with their details in the experimental procedure are as follows:
1.

Prepare NSSW brine by dissolving the relevant salts in distilled water, and subsequently, filter this brine through a 0.45 μm filter paper.

2.

Prepare a 10 000 ppm of SI stock solution in the test brine and further dilute to appropriate SI concentrations for the apparent adsorption test in the same test brine in which result in initial concentrations of 50, 100, 500, 2000, and 4000 ppm for DETPMP, and 1000, 2500, 5000, and 10 000 ppm for VS-Co.

3.

Record the pH and then adjust the pH of all stock solutions (blanks and SI/SW samples) to the required initial test pH value: that is, pH0 4 for DETPMP and leave VS-Co at its natural solution pH.

4.

Prepare two sets of plastic bottles: one for apparent adsorption (contains mineral substrate, calcite) and the other set for compatibility testing (no mineral present). Prepare duplicate sample bottles for each test condition for adsorption but only one for compatibility.

5.

Weigh samples of mineral substrate into appropriately labeled bottles (m = 5 and 10 g) for each size fraction (125–250 μm and 315–500 μm).

6.

Pipette 40 cm3 of the appropriate SI solution into each bottle (V = 0.04 L) slowly.

7.

Cap the bottles and shake for 5 s thoroughly, to ensure the system was mixed properly, before placing in an oven at a test temperature (95 °C) and atmospheric pressure.

8.

Check the bottle caps for tightness after 1 h and tighten if loose, to avoid evaporation.

9.

After 24 h in the oven, remove the test bottles and immediately filter through individual 0.22 μm membrane filters; keep the labeled mineral/precipitate on their filter papers and the separate supernatant solutions.

10.

Leave the filtered supernatant solution to cool to room temperature for approximately 24 h.

11.

Measure the post-test pH.

12.

Sample the filtered supernatant using a pipet and dilute the sample volume in a known matrix volume ready for analysis alongside the associated stock solutions by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) for [DETPMP], [Ca2+], and [Mg2+]. Analyze the [SI] of the VS-Co samples by the wet chemical matrix-matched Hyamine technique instead of ICP-OES. (51)

13.

Perform ESEM/EDX analysis and PSA on the collected and dried solid phases (precipitate/mineral combined and separate) to analyze the morphology and particle size of the mineral-substrate grains and any bulk precipitate formed.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Scheme of static adsorption and compatibility experiment.

It should be mentioned that, in the environment in which the experiment was performed (our laboratory), the carbon dioxide concentration was negligible. So, there is no need to control the small amount of CO2. Moreover, the plastic bottles were capped tightly, so CO2 could not get out of the system. When the bottles were put in the oven, the caps were checked after an hour to ensure no evaporation (CO2 liberation) happens during the experiment. Li+ was also added as an inert element into the solution and [Li+] was analyzed before and after the static adsorption test. This is the way we trace the evaporation of solution (CO2 liberation) at high temperatures and consequently the error of our experiment.
In the bulk compatibility tests, no mineral was present, and all test and stock solutions were analyzed by ICP-OES to measure the difference in ionic compositions. Any difference in concentrations between the test and stock values were assumed to be related to pure precipitation at this stage (Π only). In the presence of mineral substrate, the apparent adsorption of SI retained by the mineral, Γapp (in mg SI/g substrate), was calculated using the following equation: (45)
(1)
where C0 and Cf are the initial and final SI concentrations, respectively, V is the volume of SI solution, and m is the mass of mineral substrate. In these experiments, the results were plotted as Γapp versus Cf. Note that apparent adsorption is used because both adsorption (Γ) and precipitation (Π) may be occurring simultaneously, and thus the apparent adsorption is a combination of both mechanisms (Γ/Π). It should be noticed that the adsorption is expressed as mg SI/g substrate here, as mentioned above. Because the surface area of the mineral substrate (i.e., in m2/g) in this reactive system is actually changing since there is some degree of preferential dissolution of the smaller fraction of the carbonate mineral which has the higher area/mass ratio. Moreover, the mass of substrate at all times is actually an absolute value, even in this chemically reacting system (SI/carbonate systems). (45) Finally, our mathematical model, on which the entire (Γ/Π) theory is based, (23,52−54) directly uses the mass/mass formulation; hence, the first part of the analysis if we expressed Γapp in mol/area or mg/area would be to convert to mass/mass.

2.2. Analysis Methods

2.2.1. Inductively Coupled Plasma–Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES)

ICP-OES was used to analyze for the specific ions of interest (phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and lithium) in the supernatant, before and after filtration, using a Thermofisher dual view iCAP 6500 system. (45)

2.2.2. Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy–Energy Dispersive X-ray (ESEM-EDX)

ESEM-EDX analysis was used to examine the surface of the crushed calcite before and after the apparent adsorption experiments. This was performed to investigate the possible morphology of the precipitated complex in the presence of calcite substrate and, in particular, to establish if the precipitate was formed as a grain coating around the calcite particles or whether it formed independently as a bulk precipitate. Therefore, after filtration, all the filter papers containing calcite substrate and (in some cases) the precipitated complex for each of the SI concentrations tested were dried and examined by ESEM-EDX analysis. For this study, a Philips XL30 ESEM system, with an Oxford Instruments cryo-stage and an EDX detector, was used for the analysis. (34,45)

2.2.3. Particle Size Analysis (PSA)

Particle size distributions (PSDs) were measured for all precipitates using a Malvern Instruments MasterSizer for all precipitates that formed in the apparent adsorption experiments. The PSD for the SI-divalent cation precipitate (SI/M2+) (size fractions of 1 μm and larger) was obtained using a 45 mm lens (size range from 0.1 to 80 μm). PSA was further used to explain the apparent adsorption results by confirming the formation of the SI/M2+ complex in the mixtures. (46)

2.3. Materials

2.3.1. Scale Inhibitors

Two scale inhibitors were used in this work, which are (1) diethylene triamine penta (methylene phosphonic acid) or DETPMP, DETA-phosphonate, and (2) sulfonated polyacrylic acid copolymer or VS-Co. These SIs are commercial chemicals, which are commonly used in oilfield applications, and the structures of these SIs are presented in Figure 3. (45,55) DETPMP and VS-Co were supplied by Italmatch and ChampionX (previously Nalco Champion) companies, respectively. In the case of VS-Co, the chemical supplier did not provide us with the specifications of the inhibitors, including molecular weight and the percentage of sulfonation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Specifications of the scale inhibitors (SI) used in this work. Reproduced with permission from ref (45). Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.

2.3.2. Substrate

The substrate used was Moroccan calcite, which was sourced from the UK Geology Company (UKGE). This rock was crushed and sieved down to the desired size fractions (125–250 and 315–500 μm), before being washed with distilled water to remove any fines. Prior to use, the materials were allowed to air-dry. We have checked the effect of particle size (i.e., specific surface area) of the crushed carbonate, and results are not dependent on this, indicating that the effect is controlled by the extent of chemical reaction rather than surface effects (although the kinetics is a little faster for the smaller particle size). (18,32,45) ESEM/EDX analysis was used to characterize the morphology and elemental compositions of the pure calcite, (32,46) as shown in Figure 4 and Table 1. The elements detected by EDX analysis were calcium, oxygen, and carbon, confirming the composition of the substrates (three different parts of the examined surface were analyzed to make sure that the EDX results are precise and accurate).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Morphology of pure calcite on ESEM photographed sample.

Table 1. EDX Signals on the Pure Calcite from ESEM
elementpure calcite (weight %)pure calcite (atomic %)
C1725
O5763
Ca2612
This carbonate rock was further characterized by dissolving them in 100 mL of 10% HCl solution, and the solutions were analyzed by ICP-OES to determine cation concentrations (Ca, Mg, and Fe); the results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Characterization of the Carbonate Substrates
carbonate typecalcium (mole)magnesium (mole)iron (mole)Mg/Ca ratio
Moroccan calcite9 × 10–63 × 10–92.5 × 10–83.3 × 10–4
For the Moroccan calcite studied, there was negligible magnesium impurity observed, and the chemical formula was confirmed as CaCO3.

2.3.3. Brine

The brine solution used was synthetic North Sea seawater (NSSW). This brine was made by dissolving the appropriate salts in distilled water as listed in Table 3. The brine solution was filtered through a 0.45 μm filter to remove any undissolved solids before use, in accordance with normal industry practice. 50 ppm lithium (Li+) was added as an inert tracer to determine whether any evaporation occurred during static adsorption and compatibility tests.
Table 3. Synthetic NSSW Composition
ionconcentration (ppm)salt usedmass of salt(g/L)
Na+10 890NaCl24.08
Ca2+428CaCl2·6H2O2.34
Mg2+1368MgCl2·6H2O11.44
K+460KCl0.88
SO42–2960Na2SO44.38
Li+50LiCl0.3055
Cl19 766  
As shown in Table 3, Iron was not added into the NSSW water sample because iron is easily oxidized and is used up in the system instantly. In addition, silica was not also included in the synthetic NSSW. Because the aqueous fluid typically had less than 2 ppm, which would have no effect on the results. So, silica plays a negligible role in this system.

3. Coupled Adsorption/Precipitation Model

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

A coupled adsorption/precipitation model reported by Kahrwad et al. (23) was used to predict the experimental results of coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) processes. Kahrwad et al. (23) used this model for similar DETPMP Γ/Π processes but on different substrates: sand, clays, and siderite, which are much less chemically reactive than calcium carbonate.
As discussed, the apparent adsorption of SI (Γapp) retained by the mineral is described using eq 1 and it is shown schematically in Figure 5, where the precipitation is shown to occur by the formation of the calcium salt of the SI, that is, by precipitation of SI_Can. In general, the stoichiometry of this precipitation reaction is as follows:
(2)
where n Ca ions may bind to a single SI molecule. The solubility of this sparingly soluble salt would be described by an equilibrium solubility product, Ksp, of the form:
(3)

Figure 5

Figure 5. Schematic showing how both coupled adsorption and precipitation can occur showing how this could be interpreted as an “apparent adsorption”, Γap.

In fact, eq 3 is just a parametrized “solubility model”, which tries to capture the fact that the higher the [SI] or [Ca] then the more precipitate that is formed.
Some additional notation is introduced in Figure 5 as follows:
  • C1,0 and C1,f─initial (t = 0) and final equilibrium (t → ∞) of SI with the unit of molar concentration (M)

  • C2,0 and C2,f─initial (t = 0) and final equilibrium (t → ∞) of Ca with the unit of molar concentration (M)

  • Γ─the adsorption, which depends on C1,f, Γ = Γ(C1,f) (mg/g)

  • Π─is the precipitation process depending on both C1,f (SI concentration) and C2,f (Ca concentration) through Ksp as Ksp = (C1,f). (C2,f)n in this notation when the system is in equilibrium; units of KspMn+1

  • mp─the actual mass of precipitate that forms

According to the definition of the parameters, the coupled adsorption/precipitation model reported by Kahrwad et al. is as follows:
(4)
where, at equilibrium adsorption/precipitation, one must solve this equation for C1,fthat is, find the root of F(C1f) = 0. Note that the term describes precipitation, where n is the stoichiometry of Ca2+ ions involved in precipitation reaction (eq 2) or precipitation factor.
Note: The SI adsorption isotherm is based on Freundlich isotherm (the adsorbate (SI) forms a monomolecular layer on the surface of the adsorbent (calcite in this case)). Here, the Freundlich form is assumed, as follows:
(5)
where α and β are constants. In this work, these constants are determined based on the experimental results of SI–calcite system with 5 g of calcite, that is, a trial-and-error process for α and β was performed to achieve the optimal match with the experimental results. Once the best constants have been chosen, the adsorption isotherm could be predicted for other amounts of substrate, that is, in this work, the results of adsorption isotherm for the SI–calcite system with 10 g of calcite were predicted and compared with the experiments as reported in the next section.

4. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

4.1. DETPMP–Calcite

4.1.1. Adsorption/Compatibility Test

The scale inhibitor DETPMP was used at initial concentrations of 50, 100, 500, 2000, and 4000 ppm for the compatibility and apparent adsorption experiments. Figure 6 shows the apparent adsorption of scale inhibitor, Γapp (mg SI/g rock), as a function of final SI concentration, Cf (ppm), for two different masses of calcite with size fractions of 125–250 and 315–500 μm in synthetic NSSW at pH0 4 at 95 °C.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Apparent adsorption (Γapp vs Cf,) for DETPMP onto 2 masses (m = 5 and 10 g) of calcite for two size fractions of calcite (315–500 μm and 125–250 μm) at pH0 4 and T = 95 °C. Solid lines are matched to calculate β and n in eqs 4 and 5. Dashed lines are predicted using the model. Inset: Pure adsorption region.

The regions of both pure adsorption (Γ) and coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) are observed at lower and higher initial SI concentrations respectively as shown in Figure 6. Only pure adsorption (Γ) is seen for [SI] up to ≈100 ppm DETPMP, i.e., before the curves with different (m/V) start to deviate from each other due to coupled adsorption/precipitation occurring. (18,34) The pure adsorption region is shown in the inset of Figure 6 with much higher resolution. In this pure adsorption region, all curves almost overlap and locally plateau at a level of Γ ∼0.09–0.16 mg/g; this is a reasonable level if the mechanism is purely adsorption. However, above ca. 100 ppm of DETPMP, not only do the curves with different (m/V) diverge, but also, they lead to levels of apparent adsorption of Γapp ∼ 1–22 mg/g. Therefore, both the divergence of the Γapp vs Cf curves and the levels of “apparent” adsorption indicate that both pure adsorption (Γ) and precipitation (Π) mechanisms are involved above ca. 100 ppm of DETPMP, indicating coupled adsorption/precipitation. It is also noted that, within experimental accuracy, there was very little quantitative difference between the two size fractions of calcite 125–250 μm and 315–500 μm. That is, the coupled Γ/Π effect is driven by the DETPMP/calcite chemistry and, the particle size range does not affect the coupled Γ/Π results. In other words, the particle size does not affect the final (equilibrium) amount of apparent adsorption, although it has an impact on the kinetics of system (the smaller particles in the system, the quicker interaction they have with the scale inhibitors), and the SIs chemistry has governed the interaction of SI with calcite grains.
Figure 6 also shows that there was a reasonable match between experimental results and prediction using the model described in Section 3. As discussed, the data both for the pure adsorption and coupled Γ/Π regions for m = 5 g was used to tune the model to find α, β, and n which are 245, 0.85, 0.17 and 230, 0.82, 0.195 for the size fraction of 315–500 μm and 125–250 μm, respectively. Having these parameters, as shown in Figure 6, the results for the case with m = 10 g could be predicted without any additional parameters. As expected, for pure adsorption, the data for m = 5 and 10 g fall on the same adsorption isotherm, which is described here very well by the Freundlich form (Γ(C1f) = α (C1f)β). (23)
To support the results of static apparent adsorption/compatibility test in Figure 6, the results of pH and final [Ca2+] were investigated as shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Changes in the final solution pH can be attributed to the loss of [Ca2+] and [Phosphorus] because of the precipitate formed. Figure 7 shows the pH changes versus final [DETPMP] for each of the points in Figure 6.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Comparison of pH trend for different masses of calcite (315–500 and 125–250 μm) versus final [DETPMP]

Figure 8

Figure 8. Normalized [Ca2+] (C/C0) versus final [DETPMP] for the size fractions of 315–500 and 125–250 μm.

As shown in Figure 7, no significant change in pH was observed in the compatibility test (the test without calcite). (18,45) Therefore, DETPMP could be considered as a fully compatible SI with NSSW in the solution without mineral and at pH0 4. However, when the calcite substrate was added into the solution, the pH increased from pH0 4 to around pH 8. This was attributed to the dissolution of calcite in the scale inhibitor solution and the consequent generation of in situ calcium. As the initial [SI] was increased, the in situ calcium generated will interact with the phosphonate groups in the DETPMP and a sparingly soluble Ca-DETPMP complex will be formed. This, in turn, will result in loss of calcium and phosphorus from the solution (by Ca-DETPMP precipitation) with a consequent decline in solution pH from pH ∼8 to pH ∼ 5. This reduction in pH starts just above 100 ppm is consistent with the onset of the coupled adsorption/precipitation region for both size fractions as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 8 shows the normalized [Ca2+] (relative to the initial value of [Ca2+] in NSSW which is 428 ppm) for both compatibility and adsorption tests in calcite for the two size fractions of 315–500 and 125–250 μm. As shown in Figure 8, no noticeable change in normalized [Ca2+] was observed for the compatibility test, implying no precipitation in the absence of calcite substrate. This particularly shows that DETPMP is compatible with NSSW at pH0 4. (18,45)Figure 8 shows that, in the presence of calcite substrate, the normalized [Ca2+] increases by 20% (Δ[Ca2+] ≈ 100 ppm) in which reaches a plateau in the adsorption/precipitation region. While the precipitation of the Ca2+-DETPMP complex occurs, an increased normalized [Ca2+] is observed due to calcite dissolution as shown in Figure 8, that is, the final effect is a net increase of Ca2+ in the solution. Similar to pH analysis, Figure 8 indicates analogous results for both size fractions of calcite. An interim conclusion from the apparent adsorption results (Γapp vs Cf) and the supporting [Ca2+] and the pH analysis is the calcite particle size has no effect and that the DETPMP–calcite interaction is governed by the chemistry.

4.1.2. ESEM/EDX Analysis for DETPMP–Calcite

ESEM/EDX analysis was used to examine the surface of the crushed calcite before and after SI treatment in all apparent adsorption experiments. (18,32,45) ESEM images for the 315–500 μm size fraction are presented in Figure 9 and the corresponding EDX analysis is presented in Table 4 (the ESEM/EDX analysis for the 125–250 μm size fraction is almost the same). The ESEM/EDX analysis was utilized to explore the nature of the SI–M2+ complex precipitated in the presence of calcite. In particular, this analysis is used to establish whether the SI–M2+ complex was formed as a grain coating around the calcite particles or whether it formed separately as a bulk precipitate. (18,32) Hence, after filtration, all the filter papers containing calcite grain and, in some cases, the precipitated complex for each of the SI concentrations tested were dried and examined by ESEM/EDX analysis.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Morphology of samples for pure calcite, 100, 500, and 2000 ppm DETPMP for 315–500 μm calcite from ESEM photographed samples.

Table 4. EDX Analysis of the Samples for Pure Calcitea
 calcite grains pure samplecalcite 100 ppmcalcite grains 500 ppmbulk precipitate, 500 ppmcalcite grains 2000 ppmbulk precipitate, 2000 ppm
element% weight% atomic% weight% atomic% weight% atomic% weight% atomic% weight% atomic% weight% atomic
C14211324172617263744  
Na  123232  32
Mg    2222  54
P    535311149
Cl  126363  63
Ca29133113211021101772118
O576654594654465445485164
a

100, 500, and 2000 ppm DETPMP for 100–315 μm of calcite at pH0 = 4 and T = 95 °C.

As shown in Figure 9 and Table 4, for pure calcite, most elements detected by EDX analysis are calcium, oxygen, and carbon, indicating the substrate is mainly calcite. For the 100 ppm DETPMP case, which is in the pure adsorption region, there are no traces of phosphorus (P) on the calcite grains and no significant changes in the elements compared with pure calcite. The Na and Cl detected here have come from seawater deposited on the filter paper. Pieces of evidence form the results of Figure 9 and Table 4 confirm that phosphorus is clearly detected at a high level (∼14% by weight) in the finer precipitate which forms mainly in the bulk phase. However, there is a small but detectable amount of phosphorus (∼0.39% by weight) on the calcite grains themselves for the 2000 ppm DETPMP case (no P can be detected on the calcite at 500 ppm DETPMP). This lower amount is possibly some of the SI/Ca precipitate adhering to the calcite surface or is part of the adsorbed SI. As the concentration of DETPMP increases from 500 to 2000 ppm, the amount of phosphorus detected clearly increases. (33,34) No “surface coating” of the SI/Ca complex around calcite grains was observed in these experiments, even for the highest concentration of SI. Thus, we see no evidence for the hypothesis of “surface poisoning” by the Ca-DETPMP complex.

4.1.3. Particle Size Analysis for DETPMP–Calcite

Particle size distribution (PSD) of the SI/Ca2+ complex was measured using a 45 mm lens (to see small particles (from ∼1–20 μm) and the results are presented in Figure 10. The PSD results indicate the absence of any fine particles in the Blank and 100 ppm cases, as no fine particles (precipitate of SI with Ca2+) of this size are formed in the pure adsorption region. However, for the cases with higher DETPMP concentration (500 and 2000 ppm), where the system was in a region of coupled adsorption/precipitation, the peaks of PSD was observed between ∼1–10 μm. (31,51) Clearly, these populations of smaller particles are the SI/Ca precipitated material which forms as this finer material. These observations agree very well with the direct visual results observed in the ESEM (e.g., Figure 9) and confirm that both retention mechanisms (pure adsorption and precipitation) are occurring in the DETPMP/calcite system.

Figure 10

Figure 10. Particle size distribution for precipitate deposited on filter paper in different concentrations of DETPMP using 45 mm lens.

4.2. VS-Co–Calcite

4.2.1. Adsorption/Compatibility Test

Another set of static adsorption/compatibility test was carried out for VS-Co as a polymeric SI at the natural pH (no pH adjustment) and temperature of 95 °C, that is, the scale inhibitor was used at different concentration of 1000, 2500, 5000, and 10000 ppm. Figure 11 shows the “apparent adsorption” results (Γapp vs Cf) of VS-Co (mg SI/g rock) for two different masses of calcite with size fractions of 125–250 and 315–500 μm in synthetic brine solution (NSSW).

Figure 11

Figure 11. Apparent adsorption (Γapp vs Cf) for VS-Co onto 2 masses (m = 5 and 10 g) of calcite for two size fractions of calcite (315–500 μm and 125–250 μm) at natural pH and T = 95 °C. Solid lines are matched to calculate n, α, and β in eqs 1 and 2. Dashed lines are predicted using the model. Inset: Pure adsorption region.

In contrast to DETPMP, the results of apparent adsorption for VS-Co show an extensive region of pure adsorption (Γ only) up to the concentration of ∼3000 ppm for both size fractions. Similar to DETPMP, beyond the pure adsorption region, the apparent adsorption curves for VS-Co diverge ([VS-Co] > 3000 ppm), indicating coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π). (33) The pure adsorption region is much more significant than was observed for DETPMP, and this is clearly evidenced by both the clear shape of the adsorption isotherm (Γ (C)) and the reasonable level of adsorption (i.e., Γmax plateaus at a level of up to Γ ∼0.40–0.47 mg/g which is a very typical value for this SI). It should be noticed that the Freundlich isotherm does not have a plateau. This was referring to the apparent behavior of the experimental adsorption data. All that was meant was that it was showing adsorption type behavior rather that the rapidly rising characteristics of precipitation.
At higher concentrations of VS-Co (Final [SI] > 3000 ppm), there was clearly a coupled adsorption/precipitation region which was confirmed by the direct observation of a precipitate using ESEM analysis, discussed in the next section. Although precipitation does occur in the VS-Co/calcite system, it is much lower than in the DETPMP/calcite system (Γapp ∼ 1–4 mg/g for VS-Co and Γapp ∼ 4–20 mg/g for DETPMP). Therefore, these two SI–calcite systems both show qualitatively similar regions of pure adsorption (Γ) and coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π), however, the extent and importance of these two regions differ. (33) The effect of precipitation is expected to be much more important than adsorption for DETPMP (and other phosphonates) as discussed in the previous section. In contrast, the results for VS-Co indicate that although some precipitation does occur, adsorption is more important. As shown in Figure 11, the results of apparent adsorption for VS-Co for both calcite size fraction are quite similar qualitatively and almost quantitatively. In this respect, the results for VS-Co/calcite system are quite similar to those for the DETPMP/calcite system (i.e., identical quantitative results are observed for both size fractions). Conclusively, it confirms that particle size does not have any significant effect on the equilibrium apparent adsorption results.
Like DETPMP, the coupled adsorption-precipitation model was used to predict the results of VS-Co/calcite apparent adsorption experiment. The data, both for the pure adsorption and coupled Γ/Π regions in VS-Co/calcite system for m = 5 g, was used to tune the model to find α, β, and n, which are 680, 0.88, 0.01077 and 690, 0.86, 0.01077 for the size fractions of 315–500 and 125–250 μm, respectively. As shown in Figure 11, apparent adsorption could be well predicted (based on above coefficients) for the VS-Co/calcite systems with 10 g of calcite for both size fraction.
The prediction results of these two scale inhibitors (DETPMP and VS-Co) shows that the model for analyzing apparent adsorption experiments which includes both pure adsorption (Γ) and coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) regions works reasonably well for SIs on carbonate (calcite) mineral substrates. Therefore, this model could predict the apparent adsorption for both DETPMP/calcite and the VS-CO/calcite systems, although the former is hugely dominated by precipitation (Π) and the latter is mostly dominated by pure adsorption (Γ).
Final pH values as a function of final concentration of VS-Co have also been measured which are shown in Figure 12. As shown in Figure 12, the blank sample (no scale inhibitor) has a pH value of 5.89 and it decreases to pH 4.69 at 10000 ppm of VS-Co SI. This reduction of pH is due to the acidic nature of VS-Co scale inhibitor, that is, the pH value of VS-Co decreases as [VS-Co] increases. So, the nature pH of solution means that the pH of solution has not been adjusted and it varies from 5.89 to 4.69 depending on the [VS-Co]. The results show that the final pH tends to flatten out around pH ≈ 8, which is due to the calcite. (33) The presence of calcite in the brine solution leads to being buffer of solution at final pH ≈ 8. Moreover, the VS-Co (initial pH ∼ natural pH (no pH adjustment)) like DETPMP (initial pH ∼ adjusted pH ∼ 4) is fully compatible with NSSW without mineral in the solution. So, we conclude these two types of scale inhibitors do not have incompatibility issue with NSSW. (31)

Figure 12

Figure 12. Comparison of pH trend for different masses of calcite (315–500 and 125–250 μm) versus final concentration of VS-Co.

Figure 13 shows the changes of normalized [Ca2+] (C/C0) in solution before and after the experiments for both adsorption and compatibility tests for both size fractions of calcite. As shown in Figure 13, the normalized [Ca2+] increased gradually up to ∼2.2 (normalized [Ca2+] in NSSW is 428 ppm) for the VS-Co/calcite system. This behavior contrasts with the DETPMP/calcite system, that is, the normalized [Ca2+] does not change significantly and remains at the level of ∼1.1–1.2 (Figure 8). This different behavior implies that for the VS-Co/calcite system, the increase of [VS-Co] does indeed leach more Ca2+ from the calcite into the solution, but this is not all precipitated, as is the case for the DETPMP/calcite system. It is well-known that the acidic (high dissociation constant (Ka) or low pKa) sulfonate groups in the VS-Co structure are very tolerant to high levels of divalent ions such as Ca2+. In contrast, the phosphonate groups in DETPMP bind very much more strongly to Ca2+ and the complex formed has a lower solubility. (33,56)

Figure 13

Figure 13. Normalized [Ca2+] (C/C0) vs final [VS-Co] for the size fractions of 315–500 and 125–250 μm.

4.2.2. ESEM/EDX Analysis for VS-Co–Calcite

Similar to DETPMP/calcite system, all solids which were collected from the static adsorption test for the VS-Co/calcite system have been examined using ESEM/EDX analysis. The ESEM results for the VS-Co/Calcite system with the size fraction of 315–500 μm for pure sample, 2500, 1000, and 10 000 ppm VS-Co are shown in Figure 14 and the corresponding EDX analysis is presented in Table 5.

Figure 14

Figure 14. Morphology of samples for (a) pure calcite, (b) 2500, (c) 1000, and (d)10 000 ppm VS-Co for 315–500 μm calcite from ESEM photographed samples.

Table 5. EDX Analysis of Pure Sample, 2500, 1000, and 10000 ppm VS-Co Samples for 315–500 μm Calcite at Natural pH, T = 95 °C from ESEM
 pure samplecalcite grains 2500 ppmcalcite grains 10 000 ppmbulk precipitate 10 000 ppm
element% weight% atomic% weight% atomic% weight% atomic% weight% atomic
N      1722
C152619242738  
Na11  1143
Mg      11
S      11
Cl    1174
K      11
Ca432229272210104
O4151524949505964
The results of pure calcite are similar to those reported in the previous section for DETPMP. The results in Table 5 also indicate that there was no S (Sulfur) signal in the pure calcite, that is, sulfur was not observed on the surface or precipitate. As discussed, the evidence shows coupled adsorption/precipitation, as shown in Figure 11. In this region, some small amount of sulfur on the calcite grain was detected, however, these results cannot specify certainly whether it is related to VS-Co, because there are two sources of sulfur, which are seawater (SO42–) and VS-Co.

4.2.3. Particle Size Analysis for VS-Co–Calcite

Particle size analysis (PSA) has been carried out for all the VS-Co apparent adsorption experiments using the smaller (45 mm) lens to detect smaller particles if they are present, as shown in Figure 15. Note that smaller particles are in the size range of 1–20 μm and are only detected for the highest concentration of VS-Co (10 000 ppm) case. For this case, these particles could be identified visually in the ESEM micrographs as shown in Figure 14d. No such particulates were observed in the pure adsorption region, as we expect.

Figure 15

Figure 15. Particle size analysis for 5 g of 125–250 μm calcite residue in different concentrations with 45 mm lens.

5. Analysis of Key Observations

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

To understand the details and characteristics of the above results, it is necessary to investigate the various stages of the chemical processes which are involved. This can be approached by considering the SIs as weak polyacids of the form (HnA). (45,57) The dissociation and speciation of the SI are governed by pH, which the inhibitor determines, although an initial pH can be set experimentally, as was done here (pH0 4) for DETPMP. When the SI solution contacts the carbonate mineral substrate (calcite here), a chemical reaction occurs between them, generally dissolving/chelating some Ca2+ into the solution. The SI can then form an SI/Ca (and SI/Mg) complex that is sparingly soluble, and this may precipitate, which also affects the final pH of the solution. Thus, the SI/carbonate system comprises the three parts of the equilibrium system as follows: (45)
(I)

Dissociation of scale inhibitor as a weak polyacid: SI dissociates like weak polyacid (HnA) to form dissociated species, such as Hn–1A up to An at very high pH values

(II)

These dissociated SI species, which are very strong chelating agents, then bind with Ca2+ (and Mg2+) to form SI/Ca complexes that are barely soluble. The stoichiometry, shown by parameter n here, is the ratio of Ca ions to SI molecules. The chelation process of SI with divalent cations, mostly Ca2+, is described as (45)

(III)

The above reactions must be coupled to the carbonate system. That is, the CO2/bicarbonate/carbonate coupled aqueous and the rock dissolution of the calcite as

A model describing this overall process is currently under development to perform this program, (58) although we could get a good match between experimental results and the model described above in section 3. This new model requires knowing the pH of the solution and quantities of Ca2+ generated by rock dissolution, for example, how much is involved in complexation (to form SI–Can) and how much remains in solution (as free Ca2+ or as soluble SI–Can complex). (46) With this understanding of the mechanisms involved in the carbonate/SI/Ca/Mg systems, an outline of the mechanistic schematic of the coupled processes (adsorption and precipitation) is presented for DETPMP and VS-Co.

5.1. Mechanistic Process in DETPMP/Carbonate System

As shown in Figure 16, at the first stage, the calcite substrate is dissolved in seawater and Ca2+ and CO32– are released out of the system. Thus, the pH of solution raised from the initial pH, in this DETPMP case pH0 4, to around 7. (46) In addition, Ca2+ is also increased. As it was mentioned, this carbonate system is governed by the carbonate equilibrium equations.

Figure 16

Figure 16. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for calcite substrate, which is dissolved in seawater.

At the second stage, the adsorption of DETPMP on the calcite substrate occurs. Figure 17 illustrates the schematic diagram of the mechanistic for DETPMP adsorption on calcite. The SI (DETPMP in this case) dissociates as the pH increases which is due to calcite dissolution. DETPMP has five phosphonate functional groups which are susceptible to pH and they are easily deprotonated due to higher pKa (pKa ≈ 0.5–1.5). (59) When deprotonation (dissociation) occurs, the negatively charged species are produced and they adsorb on the positive charge surface of calcite through electrostatic interaction. This retention mechanism of SI happens at low [SI] ([DETPMP] ∼ 100 ppm). It is worth to mention that DETPMP also reacts with calcite substrate as it has acidic pH (≈4) and calcium and bicarbonate are leached out.

Figure 17

Figure 17. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for DETPMP dissociation which results in adsorption of DETPMP on calcite substrate (at lower concentration, for example, [DETPMP] < 100 ppm) because of the increasing pH in seawater.

At higher concentration of DETPMP ([DETPMP] > 100 ppm), Ca2+ from solution is chelated by DETPMP and the SI/Ca complex precipitates out, that is, in other words, Ca2+ binds with dissociated DETPMP. The schematic diagram of the mechanistic for this process is shown in Figure 18. As Ca2+ and DETPMP are eliminated from the solution, the final pH of solution decreases, as shown in Figure 7. It should be noticed that Mg2+ may be chelated by DETPMP but the solubility product (Ksp) of DETMPM–Mgn is higher (more soluble) than that of DETPMP–Can. (60)

Figure 18

Figure 18. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for DETPMP dissociation which results in adsorption/precipitation of DETPMP on calcite substrate (at higher concentration, e.g., [DETPMP] > 100 ppm) in seawater.

5.2. Mechanistic Process in VS-Co/Carbonate System

In VS-Co/carbonate system, like the DETPMP/carbonate system, calcite is dissolved in NSSW and calcium concentration and pH of the solution is increased due to carbonate release as shown in Figure 16 (the first stage in carbonate equilibrium equations).
In the presence of VS-Co, the SI dissociates and the negatively charged species is generated. The VS-Co has been synthesized from a 50/50% mix of vinyl sulfonate and acrylic acid monomers. Sulfonated polymers, for example, VS-Co, are least affected by changing of pH because an extremely low pH (e.g., pH < 1) is required to associate the highly acidic sulfonate functional groups. So, the VS-Co has a higher tolerance to chelate Ca2+ from solution (lower stability constants between SO3H group and Ca2+ and Mg2+). (56) However, it has also a carboxylic acid functional group which pH has much more effect on its speciation than that of the sulfonic acid functional group. So, carboxylic acid functional group dissociates, and the negative charge species is generated. (61) As a result of this negative charge species, electrostatic attraction causes the physical adsorption of VS-Co on the calcite substrate. This mechanistic of VS-Co dissociation and adsorption on calcite substrate is illustrated in Figure 19.

Figure 19

Figure 19. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for VS-Co dissociation which results in adsorption of VS-Co on calcite substrate (at lower concentration, e.g., [VS-Co] < 3000 ppm) in seawater.

As the concentration of VS-Co increases, the dissociated R-COO group chelates Calcium from the solution and the precipitate of VS-Co/Ca2+ forms. This Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for VS-Co precipitation is shown in Figure 20. It should be mentioned that VS-Co forms a polyanionic species after it dissociates as it is a polymeric scale inhibitor. Thus, it can adsorb on the positive surface charge calcite much better than DETPMP. This claim is confirmed by the apparent adsorption results presented in Figures 6 and 11, that is, dominant retention mechanism for VS-Co is pure adsorption (Γ), whereas for DETPMP is precipitation (Π), although both (Γ/Π) mechanisms were observed for both SIs.

Figure 20

Figure 20. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for VS-Co dissociation which results in adsorption/precipitation of VS-Co on calcite substrate (at higher concentration, e.g., [VS-Co] > 3000 ppm) in seawater.

To sum up, we can point out that the change of the Gibbs free energy from the metastable condition to the stable (equilibrium) condition is defined as the thermodynamic driving force, that is, the system is prone to go to the state with the minimum Gibbs free energy. In terms of chemical potential, which is defined as molar Gibbs free energy (Gibbs free energy per mole of substance), a difference in chemical potential between two conditions is also defined as driving force. In the scale inhibitor retention processes (pure adsorption and precipitation) on the rock surface, (62) those inhibitors (DETPMP and VS-Co) have different chemistries and hence different adsorption behavior on the reservoir rocks. As mentioned above, phosphonate functional groups in DETPMP SI are susceptible to pH and they are easily deprotonated due to higher pKa. When deprotonation (dissociation) occurs, the negatively charged species are produced and they adsorb on the positive charge surface of calcite through electrostatic interaction. But this pure adsorption region is negligible somehow in the DETPMP/calcite system, as DETPMP actively reacts with calcite substrate and easily chelate Ca2+ in situ produced through rock dissolution. While, in the VS-Co/calcite system, sulfonated functional groups are least affected by changing of pH because of an extremely low pH (e.g., pH < 1). So, the VS-Co has a higher tolerance to chelate Ca2+ from solution (lower stability constants between SO3H group and Ca2+ and Mg2+). Thus, the pure adsorption region is more extended to higher [VS-Co] in comparison with [DETPMP]. It confirms that the adsorption driving force in VS-Co (greater difference in chemical potential) is higher than in DETPMP.

6. Summary and Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The “apparent adsorption” behavior (Γapp vs Cf) of two common commercially available scale inhibitors (SI = DETPMP and VS-Co) on the carbonate mineral substrate, calcite, has been studied. This extends earlier work by including calcium carbonate (calcite) mineral substrate which is much more chemically reactive than sandstone minerals which we have studied in previous work (e.g., quartz, siderite, and clays). (23,33) A systematic study has been carried out of the effects of particle size of the calcite to test between two possible effects of the reaction of the SI with the calcite surface, namely, does the interaction occurs by (i) forming a coating on the calcite grain which “poisons” the continuing reaction or (ii) is it simple dominated by the bulk chemistry. In addition to the direct measurement of the (Γapp vs Cf) curves, ancillary measurement of final pH and solution [Ca2+] are also presented, along with corresponding detailed ESEM/EDX and particle size analysis (PSA) of the calcite/precipitated complex.
The specific conclusions from this work are as follows:
1.

For the DETPMP/calcite system, a domain of pure adsorption (Γ) is observed at lower SI concentration of [DETPMP] ≤ 100 ppm, as well a much more extensive region of coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) behavior at [DETPMP] > 100 ppm. Qualitatively similar regions (i.e., pure Γ and coupled Γ/Π) were found for the VS-Co/calcite system, but in this case, the pure adsorption mechanism dominated up to [VS-CO] ≈ 2000 ppm, and only above this did some smaller amount of precipitate appear. For both SI/calcite systems, the calcite substrate is much more reactive than say quartz or clays since much more Ca2+ is leached into solution by the scale inhibitor. These differences between DETPMP and VS-Co in their behavior with calcite are due to the different SI–Ca binding strengths of the different functional groups present in each of these SIs.

2.

When different particle size ranges of calcite were used (315–500 and 125–250 μm in this work) in the apparent adsorption experiments for each SI (DETPMP and VS-Co), the overall behavior for each SI was broadly the same. That is, there was no strong effect of particle size and the Γapp versus Cf plots were very similar. The Γapp vs Cf plots for VS-Co were rather more closely reproduced quantitatively than those of DETPMP probably because the latter system was much more reactive and so was a little more difficult experimentally to reproduce exactly. This indicates that it is the fundamental SI–calcite chemistry that governs the Γapp versus Cf behavior (i.e., the regions of pure Γ and coupled Γ/Π) and not a surface deposition reaction (see 3 below).

3.

The experimental finding that the particle size was not of major importance in governing the Γapp versus Cf behavior, indicated that a possible poisoning reaction was not occurring at the calcite grain surface. This was further confirmed experimentally by carrying out ESEM/EDX analysis along with particle size analysis (PSA) of the calcite and the SI/Ca complex precipitates. No significant surface precipitation/coating of the SI/Ca complex on the calcite was observed by ESEM. Instead, a clear SI/Ca complex could be observed in ESEM for all DETPMP cases for [DETPMP] ≥ 500 ppm; this was shown by EDX to contain a significant amount of phosphorus (P) and Ca and particle size analysis showed that it consisted of a much finer particulate precipitate with size ∼1–20 μm. Likewise, a precipitate of VS-Co/Ca was also observed but only for high concentrations of [VS-Co] ≈ 10 000 ppm in which sulfur (S) was detected, although this S could be from the seawater (sulfate) or the sulfonate groups in the VS-Co polymer. We note that no finer precipitate was observed for either SI (DETPMP or VS-Co) in the pure adsorption region of the Γapp versus Cf curves.

4.

All of the Γapp versus Cf, experimental results were modeled using a model developed and published some time ago. (21) Apparent adsorption plots were constructed for various values of (m/V) ratio; m = mass of calcite substrate and V = scale inhibitor solution fluid volume. If these plots coincide for different (m/V) ratios over a range of final SI concentration values, then this indicates pure adsorption (Γ). Alternatively, if the Γapp curves diverge for different (m/V) ratios, then this shows that coupled adsorption/precipitation (Γ/Π) is occurring. The procedure in applying this model involves matching the Γapp versus Cf curve for a given (m/V) value (the m = 5 g case in this work) and then predicting the results for the other (m/V) ration (m = 10 g here). If both the match and prediction agree well with the experimental data, then our analysis of the retention mechanism (pure Γ, or coupled Γ/Π) is certainly correct both qualitatively and quantitatively. Very good agreement between the model and the experimental results was observed for both the DETPMP/calcite and the VS-Co/calcite systems. Thus, the model can capture the main features of coupled adsorption/precipitation in a reactive system such as in the SI/calcite cases for both DETPMP and VS-Co.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Morteza Aminnaji - Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M1 3AL, U.K.Orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5837-1336
    • Alexander Graham - Flow Assurance and Scale Team (FAST), Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering (IGE), Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, U.K.
    • Kenneth Sorbie - Flow Assurance and Scale Team (FAST), Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering (IGE), Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, U.K.
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The following are thanked for their support of the FAST 6 Joint Industry Project at Heriot-Watt University: Halliburton Multi-Chem, Nalco Champion, Petronas, Repsol Sinopec, Schlumberger MI Swaco, Shell, Statoil, Total, and Wintershall. We also appreciate the Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering, Heriot-Watt University for support with the ESEM/EDX facility, and our colleague Wendy McEwan in the FAST Analytical Team at Heriot-Watt University for conducting the ICP-OES analysis. Finally, Italmatch and Nalco Champion Companies are gratefully acknowledged for providing the DETPMP and VS-Co scale inhibitors, respectively.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 62 other publications.

  1. 1
    Kelland, M. A. Effect of Various Cations on the Formation of Calcium Carbonate and Barium Sulfate Scale with and without Scale Inhibitors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (9), 58525861,  DOI: 10.1021/ie2003494
  2. 2
    Maffra, D. A.; Freitas, T. C.; da Cruz, G. F.; de Siqueira, F. D.; do Rosário, F. F. Evaluation of Barium Sulfate Scale Inhibition Using Relative Permeability Modifier Polymers as Adsorption Enhancer for Mature Offshore Well Treatments in Campos Basin, Brazil. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57 (34), 1149311504,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.8b01828
  3. 3
    He, S.; Kan, A. T.; Tomson, M. B. Mathematical Inhibitor Model for Barium Sulfate Scale Control. Langmuir 1996, 12 (7), 19011905,  DOI: 10.1021/la950876x
  4. 4
    Mady, M. F.; Rehman, A.; Kelland, M. A. Synthesis and Study of Modified Polyaspartic Acid Coupled Phosphonate and Sulfonate Moieties As Green Oilfield Scale Inhibitors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8331,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01473
  5. 5
    Dietzsch, M.; Barz, M.; Schüler, T.; Klassen, S.; Schreiber, M.; Susewind, M.; Loges, N.; Lang, M.; Hellmann, N.; Fritz, M.; Fischer, K.; Theato, P.; Kühnle, A.; Schmidt, M.; Zentel, R.; Tremel, W. PAA-PAMPS Copolymers as an Efficient Tool to Control CaCO3 Scale Formation. Langmuir 2013, 29 (9), 30803088,  DOI: 10.1021/la4000044
  6. 6
    Mirzaalian Dastjerdi, A.; Kargozarfard, Z.; Najafi, B.; Taghikhani, V.; Ayatollahi, S. A Microscopic Insight into Kinetics of Inorganic Scale Deposition during Smart Water Injection Using Dynamic Quartz Crystal Microbalance and Molecular Dynamics Simulation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 609,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b05236
  7. 7
    Chao, Y.; Horner, O.; Vallée, P.; Meneau, F.; Alos-Ramos, O.; Hui, F.; Turmine, M.; Perrot, H.; Lédion, J. In Situ Probing Calcium Carbonate Formation by Combining Fast Controlled Precipitation Method and Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering. Langmuir 2014, 30 (12), 33033309,  DOI: 10.1021/la500202g
  8. 8
    Hasson, D.; Shemer, H.; Sher, A. State of the Art of Friendly “Green” Scale Control Inhibitors: A Review Article. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (12), 76017607,  DOI: 10.1021/ie200370v
  9. 9
    Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. S. Effect of PH and Scale Inhibitor Concentration on Phosphonate–Carbonate Interaction. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2010, 70 (1–2), 1027,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2009.05.002
  10. 10
    Khormali, A.; Petrakov, D. G.; Nazari Moghaddam, R. Study of Adsorption/Desorption Properties of a New Scale Inhibitor Package to Prevent Calcium Carbonate Formation during Water Injection in Oil Reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 153, 257267,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2017.04.008
  11. 11
    Liu, C.; Zeng, X.; Yan, C.; Zhou, C.; Li, M.; Wang, Z. Effects of Solid Precipitation and Surface Corrosion on the Adhesion Strengths of Sintered Hydrate Deposits on Pipe Walls. Langmuir 2020, 36, 15343,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c02818
  12. 12
    Heath, S. M.; Juliussen, B.; Chen, P.; Chen, T.; Benvie, R. Novel Scale Squeeze Technology and Treatment Designs for Improving Scale Inhibitor Retention and Treatment Lifetimes-Use of Ionic Polymers in the Overflush. In SPE International Conference on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2012.
  13. 13
    Jordan, M. M.; Mackay, E. J.; Vazquez, O. The Influence Of Overflush Fluid Type On Scale Squeeze Life Time-Field Examples And Placement Simulation Evaluation. In CORROSION 2008; NACE International, 2008.
  14. 14
    Zhang, P.; Liu, Y.; Kan, A. T.; Tomson, M. B. Laboratory Evaluation of Synergistic Effect of Transition Metals with Mineral Scale Inhibitor in Controlling Halite Scale Deposition. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 175, 120128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.12.036
  15. 15
    Zhang, P.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Ip, W. F.; Kan, A. T.; Tomson, M. B. A Novel Attach-and-Release Mineral Scale Control Strategy: Laboratory Investigation of Retention and Release of Scale Inhibitor on Pipe Surface. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2019, 70, 462471,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jiec.2018.11.009
  16. 16
    Yan, F.; Zhang, F.; Bhandari, N.; Wang, L.; Dai, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Ruan, G.; Kan, A.; Tomson, M. Adsorption and Precipitation of Scale Inhibitors on Shale Formations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 136, 3240,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.11.001
  17. 17
    Pairat, R.; Sumeath, C.; Browning, F. H.; Fogler, H. S. Precipitation and Dissolution of Calcium– ATMP Precipitates for the Inhibition of Scale Formation in Porous Media. Langmuir 1997, 13 (6), 17911798,  DOI: 10.1021/la9608425
  18. 18
    Jarrahian, K.; Sorbie, K. S. Mechanistic Investigation of Adsorption Behaviour of Two Scale Inhibitors on Carbonate Formations for Application in Squeeze Treatments. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 4484,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00326
  19. 19
    Patterson, D.; Kendrick, M.; Williams, W.; Jordan, M. M. Squimulation”--Simultaneous Well-Stimulation and Scale-Squeeze Treatments in Deepwater West Africa. SPE Prod. Oper. 2013, 28 (01), 5566,  DOI: 10.2118/151863-PA
  20. 20
    Paukert Vankeuren, A. N.; Hakala, J. A.; Jarvis, K.; Moore, J. E. Mineral Reactions in Shale Gas Reservoirs: Barite Scale Formation from Reusing Produced Water as Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (16), 93919402,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01979
  21. 21
    Kan, A. T.; Fu, G.; Tomson, M. B.; Al-Thubaiti, M.; Xiao, A. J. Factors Affecting Scale Inhibitor Retention in Carbonate-Rich Formation during Squeeze Treatment. Spe J. 2004, 9 (03), 280289,  DOI: 10.2118/80230-PA
  22. 22
    Vazquez, O.; Fursov, I.; Mackay, E. Automatic Optimization of Oilfield Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatment Designs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016, 147, 302307,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2016.06.025
  23. 23
    Kahrwad, M.; Sorbie, K. S.; Boak, L. S. Coupled Adsorption/Precipitation of Scale Inhibitors: Experimental Results and Modeling. SPE Prod. Oper. 2009, 24 (03), 481491,  DOI: 10.2118/114108-PA
  24. 24
    Park, W. K.; Ko, S.-J.; Lee, S. W.; Cho, K.-H.; Ahn, J.-W.; Han, C. Effects of Magnesium Chloride and Organic Additives on the Synthesis of Aragonite Precipitated Calcium Carbonate. J. Cryst. Growth 2008, 310 (10), 25932601,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2008.01.023
  25. 25
    Tomson, M. B.; Kan, A. T.; Fu, G. Control of Inhibitor Squeeze Through Mechanistic Understanding of Inhibitor Chemistry. SPE J. 2006, 11 (03), 283293,  DOI: 10.2118/87450-PA
  26. 26
    Vazquez, O.; Thanasutives, P.; Eliasson, C.; Fleming, N.; Mackay, E. Modeling the Application of Scale-Inhibitor-Squeeze Retention-Enhancing Additives. SPE Prod. Oper. 2011, 26 (03), 270277,  DOI: 10.2118/141384-PA
  27. 27
    Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. S. Scale Inhibitor Core Floods in Carbonate Cores: The Influence of PH on Phosphonate-Carbonate Interactions. In SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2004.
  28. 28
    Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. S. Scale Inhibitor Core Floods in Carbonate Cores: Chemical Interactions and Modelling. In SPE International Oilfield Scale Symposium; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2006.
  29. 29
    Kan, A. T.; Fu, G.; Tomson, M. B. Adsorption and Precipitation of an Aminoalkylphosphonate onto Calcite. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 281 (2), 275284,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2004.08.054
  30. 30
    Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. The Role of Calcium and Magnesium in the Mechanism of the Scale Inhibitor Retention in Carbonate Systems. In AAPG European Region Energy Conference and Exhibition ; 2007.
  31. 31
    Sorbie, K. S.; Wat, R. M. S.; Todd, A. C. Interpretation and Theoretical Modeling of Scale-Inhibitor/Tracer Corefloods. SPE Prod. Eng. 1992, 7 (03), 307312,  DOI: 10.2118/20687-PA
  32. 32
    Jarrahian, K.; Boak, L. S.; Graham, A. J.; Singleton, M. A.; Sorbie, K. S. Experimental Investigation of the Interaction between a Phosphate Ester Scale Inhibitor and Carbonate Rocks for Application in Squeeze Treatments. Energy Fuels 2019, 33 (5), 40894103,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00382
  33. 33
    Jarrahian, K.; Sorbie, K.; Singleton, M.; Boak, L.; Graham, A. Building a Fundamental Understanding of Scale-Inhibitor Retention in Carbonate Formations. SPE Prod. Oper. 2019,  DOI: 10.2118/193635-MS
  34. 34
    Ibrahim, J. M.; Sorbie, K.; Boak, L. S. Coupled Adsorption/Precipitation Experiments: 1. Static Results. In SPE International Conference on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2012.
  35. 35
    Browning, F. H.; Fogler, H. S. Effect of Precipitating Conditions on the Formation of Calcium– HEDP Precipitates. Langmuir 1996, 12 (21), 52315238,  DOI: 10.1021/la9603277
  36. 36
    Vetter, O. J. Oilfield Scale---Can We Handle It?. J. Pet. Technol. 1976, 28 (12), 1402,  DOI: 10.2118/5879-PA
  37. 37
    Jordan, M. M.; Sorbie, K. S.; Jiang, P.; Yuan, M. D.; Todd, A. C.; Thiery, L. The Effect of Clay Minerals, pH, Calcium and Temperature on the Adsorption of Phosphonate Scale Inhibitor onto Reservoir Core and Mineral Separates; NACE International: Houston, TX, United States, 1994.
  38. 38
    Sorbie, K. S.; Gdanski, R. D. A Complete Theory of Scale Inhibitor Transport, Adsorption/Desorption and Precipitation in Squeeze Treatments. In SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2005.
  39. 39
    Tomson, M. B.; Kan, A. T.; Fu, G.; Shen, D.; Nasr-El-Din, H. A.; Al-Saiari, H.; Al-Thubaiti, M. Mechanistic Understanding of Rock/Phosphonate Interactions and Effect of Metal Ions on Inhibitor Retention. SPE J. 2008, 13 (03), 325336,  DOI: 10.2118/100494-PA
  40. 40
    Von Wandruszka, R. Phosphorus Retention in Calcareous Soils and the Effect of Organic Matter on Its Mobility. Geochem. Trans. 2006, 7 (1), 6,  DOI: 10.1186/1467-4866-7-6
  41. 41
    Matar, A.; Torrent, J.; Ryan, J. Soil and Fertilizer Phosphorus and Crop Responses in the Dryland Mediterranean Zone. In Advances in Soil Science; Springer, 1992; pp 81146.
  42. 42
    Tunesi, S.; Poggi, V.; Gessa, C. Phosphate Adsorption and Precipitation in Calcareous Soils: The Role of Calcium Ions in Solution and Carbonate Minerals. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 1999, 53 (3), 219227,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1009709005147
  43. 43
    Sorbie, K. S.; Jiang, P.; Yuan, M. D.; Chen, P.; Jordan, M. M.; Todd, A. C. The Effect of PH, Calcium, and Temperature on the Adsorption of Phosphonate Inhibitor onto Consolidated and Crushed Sandstone. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1993.
  44. 44
    Tantayakom, V.; Fogler, H. S.; Charoensirithavorn, P.; Chavadej, S. Kinetic Study of Scale Inhibitor Precipitation in Squeeze Treatment. Cryst. Growth Des. 2005, 5 (1), 329335,  DOI: 10.1021/cg049874d
  45. 45
    Jarrahian, K.; Singleton, M.; Boak, L.; Sorbie, K. S. Surface Chemistry of Phosphonate Scale Inhibitor Retention Mechanisms in Carbonate Reservoirs. Cryst. Growth Des. 2020, 20 (8), 53565372,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.0c00570
  46. 46
    Jarrahian, K.; Sorbie, K. S.; Singleton, M. A.; Boak, L. S.; Graham, A. J. The Effect of pH and Mineralogy on the Retention of Polymeric Scale Inhibitors on Carbonate Rocks for Application in Squeeze Treatments. SPE Prod. Oper. 2019, 34 (02), 344360,  DOI: 10.2118/189519-PA
  47. 47
    Rietra, R. P. J. J.; Hiemstra, T.; van Riemsdijk, W. H. Interaction between Calcium and Phosphate Adsorption on Goethite. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (16), 33693374,  DOI: 10.1021/es000210b
  48. 48
    Karthikeyan, K. G.; Elliott, H. A.; Chorover, J. Role of Surface Precipitation in Copper Sorption by the Hydrous Oxides of Iron and Aluminum. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1999, 209 (1), 7278,  DOI: 10.1006/jcis.1998.5893
  49. 49
    Wang, X.; Hu, Y.; Tang, Y.; Yang, P.; Feng, X.; Xu, W.; Zhu, M. Phosphate and Phytate Adsorption and Precipitation on Ferrihydrite Surfaces. Environ. Sci. Nano 2017, 4 (11), 21932204,  DOI: 10.1039/C7EN00705A
  50. 50
    Li, L.; Stanforth, R. Distinguishing Adsorption and Surface Precipitation of Phosphate on Goethite (α-FeOOH). J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2000, 230 (1), 1221,  DOI: 10.1006/jcis.2000.7072
  51. 51
    Boak, L. S.; Sorbie, K. New Developments in the Analysis of Scale Inhibitors. SPE Prod. Oper. 2010, 25 (04), 533544,  DOI: 10.2118/130401-PA
  52. 52
    Cooney, D. O. Adsorption Design for Wastewater Treatment; CRC Press, 1998.
  53. 53
    Xu, N.; Chen, M.; Zhou, K.; Wang, Y.; Yin, H.; Chen, Z. Retention of Phosphorus on Calcite and Dolomite: Speciation and Modeling. RSC Adv. 2014, 4 (66), 3520535214,  DOI: 10.1039/C4RA05461J
  54. 54
    Wei, H.; Han, L.; Tang, Y.; Ren, J.; Zhao, Z.; Jia, L. Highly Flexible Heparin-Modified Chitosan/Graphene Oxide Hybrid Hydrogel as a Super Bilirubin Adsorbent with Excellent Hemocompatibility. J. Mater. Chem. B 2015, 3 (8), 16461654,  DOI: 10.1039/C4TB01673D
  55. 55
    Spinthaki, A.; Demadis, K. D. Chemical Methods for Scaling Control. In Corrosion and Fouling Control in Desalination Industry; Springer, 2020; pp 307342.
  56. 56
    Shaw, S. S. Investigation into the Mechanisms of Formation and Prevention of Barium Sulphate Oilfield Scale; Heriot-Watt University, 2012.
  57. 57
    Shaw, S. S.; Sorbie, K. S. Structure, Stoichiometry, and Modeling of Calcium Phosphonate Scale-Inhibitor Complexes for Application in Precipitation-Squeeze Processes. SPE Prod. Oper. 2014, 29 (02), 139151,  DOI: 10.2118/164051-PA
  58. 58
    Silva, D. Thermodynamic Modelling of the Precipitation Chemistry of Scale Inhibitors and Divalent Cations (Ca and Mg). In Chemistry in the Oil Industry XVI: New Chemistries for Old Problems; Manchester, United Kingdom, 2019.
  59. 59
    Viveros-Ceballos, J. L.; Ordóñez, M.; Sayago, F. J.; Cativiela, C. Stereoselective Synthesis of α-Amino-C-Phosphinic Acids and Derivatives. Molecules 2016, 21 (9), 1141,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules21091141
  60. 60
    Valiakhmetova, A.; Sorbie, K. S.; Boak, L. S.; Shaw, S. S. Solubility and Inhibition Efficiency of Phosphonate Scale Inhibitor_calcium_magnesium Complexes for Application in a Precipitation-Squeeze Treatment. SPE Prod. Oper. 2017, 32 (03), 343350,  DOI: 10.2118/178977-PA
  61. 61
    Sorbie, K. S.; Laing, N. How Scale Inhibitors Work: Mechanisms of Selected Barium Sulphate Scale Inhibitors across a Wide Temperature Range. In SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2004.
  62. 62
    Pourmohammadbagher, A.; Shaw, J. M. Probing Contaminant Transport to and from Clay Surfaces in Organic Solvents and Water Using Solution Calorimetry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (18), 1084110849,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02416

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 2 publications.

  1. Shuchi Liao, Simin Akbariyeh, Xiongyu Chen, Craig Klevan, Caroline Greenley, Keith P. Johnston, Linda M. Abriola, Kurt D. Pennell. Evaluation of Polyelectrolyte Complex Nanoparticles for Prolonged Scale Inhibitor Release in Porous Media. Energy & Fuels 2023, 37 (6) , 4515-4523. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c04078
  2. Leila Mahmoodi, M. Reza Malayeri, F. Farshchi Tabrizi, H. Aghaei. Mitigation of Mineral Deposition in Carbonate and Sandstone Rocks Using Green Scale Inhibitors. Langmuir 2022, 38 (5) , 1797-1810. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c02911
Open PDF

Energy & Fuels

Cite this: Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 4, 1776–1791
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c02691
Published February 4, 2022

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

1496

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Schematic of the three principal scale squeeze treatment stages. Reproduced with permission from ref (18). Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Scheme of static adsorption and compatibility experiment.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Specifications of the scale inhibitors (SI) used in this work. Reproduced with permission from ref (45). Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Morphology of pure calcite on ESEM photographed sample.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Schematic showing how both coupled adsorption and precipitation can occur showing how this could be interpreted as an “apparent adsorption”, Γap.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Apparent adsorption (Γapp vs Cf,) for DETPMP onto 2 masses (m = 5 and 10 g) of calcite for two size fractions of calcite (315–500 μm and 125–250 μm) at pH0 4 and T = 95 °C. Solid lines are matched to calculate β and n in eqs 4 and 5. Dashed lines are predicted using the model. Inset: Pure adsorption region.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Comparison of pH trend for different masses of calcite (315–500 and 125–250 μm) versus final [DETPMP]

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Normalized [Ca2+] (C/C0) versus final [DETPMP] for the size fractions of 315–500 and 125–250 μm.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9. Morphology of samples for pure calcite, 100, 500, and 2000 ppm DETPMP for 315–500 μm calcite from ESEM photographed samples.

    Figure 10

    Figure 10. Particle size distribution for precipitate deposited on filter paper in different concentrations of DETPMP using 45 mm lens.

    Figure 11

    Figure 11. Apparent adsorption (Γapp vs Cf) for VS-Co onto 2 masses (m = 5 and 10 g) of calcite for two size fractions of calcite (315–500 μm and 125–250 μm) at natural pH and T = 95 °C. Solid lines are matched to calculate n, α, and β in eqs 1 and 2. Dashed lines are predicted using the model. Inset: Pure adsorption region.

    Figure 12

    Figure 12. Comparison of pH trend for different masses of calcite (315–500 and 125–250 μm) versus final concentration of VS-Co.

    Figure 13

    Figure 13. Normalized [Ca2+] (C/C0) vs final [VS-Co] for the size fractions of 315–500 and 125–250 μm.

    Figure 14

    Figure 14. Morphology of samples for (a) pure calcite, (b) 2500, (c) 1000, and (d)10 000 ppm VS-Co for 315–500 μm calcite from ESEM photographed samples.

    Figure 15

    Figure 15. Particle size analysis for 5 g of 125–250 μm calcite residue in different concentrations with 45 mm lens.

    Figure 16

    Figure 16. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for calcite substrate, which is dissolved in seawater.

    Figure 17

    Figure 17. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for DETPMP dissociation which results in adsorption of DETPMP on calcite substrate (at lower concentration, for example, [DETPMP] < 100 ppm) because of the increasing pH in seawater.

    Figure 18

    Figure 18. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for DETPMP dissociation which results in adsorption/precipitation of DETPMP on calcite substrate (at higher concentration, e.g., [DETPMP] > 100 ppm) in seawater.

    Figure 19

    Figure 19. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for VS-Co dissociation which results in adsorption of VS-Co on calcite substrate (at lower concentration, e.g., [VS-Co] < 3000 ppm) in seawater.

    Figure 20

    Figure 20. Schematic diagram of the mechanistic for VS-Co dissociation which results in adsorption/precipitation of VS-Co on calcite substrate (at higher concentration, e.g., [VS-Co] > 3000 ppm) in seawater.

  • References


    This article references 62 other publications.

    1. 1
      Kelland, M. A. Effect of Various Cations on the Formation of Calcium Carbonate and Barium Sulfate Scale with and without Scale Inhibitors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (9), 58525861,  DOI: 10.1021/ie2003494
    2. 2
      Maffra, D. A.; Freitas, T. C.; da Cruz, G. F.; de Siqueira, F. D.; do Rosário, F. F. Evaluation of Barium Sulfate Scale Inhibition Using Relative Permeability Modifier Polymers as Adsorption Enhancer for Mature Offshore Well Treatments in Campos Basin, Brazil. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57 (34), 1149311504,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.8b01828
    3. 3
      He, S.; Kan, A. T.; Tomson, M. B. Mathematical Inhibitor Model for Barium Sulfate Scale Control. Langmuir 1996, 12 (7), 19011905,  DOI: 10.1021/la950876x
    4. 4
      Mady, M. F.; Rehman, A.; Kelland, M. A. Synthesis and Study of Modified Polyaspartic Acid Coupled Phosphonate and Sulfonate Moieties As Green Oilfield Scale Inhibitors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8331,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01473
    5. 5
      Dietzsch, M.; Barz, M.; Schüler, T.; Klassen, S.; Schreiber, M.; Susewind, M.; Loges, N.; Lang, M.; Hellmann, N.; Fritz, M.; Fischer, K.; Theato, P.; Kühnle, A.; Schmidt, M.; Zentel, R.; Tremel, W. PAA-PAMPS Copolymers as an Efficient Tool to Control CaCO3 Scale Formation. Langmuir 2013, 29 (9), 30803088,  DOI: 10.1021/la4000044
    6. 6
      Mirzaalian Dastjerdi, A.; Kargozarfard, Z.; Najafi, B.; Taghikhani, V.; Ayatollahi, S. A Microscopic Insight into Kinetics of Inorganic Scale Deposition during Smart Water Injection Using Dynamic Quartz Crystal Microbalance and Molecular Dynamics Simulation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 609,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b05236
    7. 7
      Chao, Y.; Horner, O.; Vallée, P.; Meneau, F.; Alos-Ramos, O.; Hui, F.; Turmine, M.; Perrot, H.; Lédion, J. In Situ Probing Calcium Carbonate Formation by Combining Fast Controlled Precipitation Method and Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering. Langmuir 2014, 30 (12), 33033309,  DOI: 10.1021/la500202g
    8. 8
      Hasson, D.; Shemer, H.; Sher, A. State of the Art of Friendly “Green” Scale Control Inhibitors: A Review Article. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50 (12), 76017607,  DOI: 10.1021/ie200370v
    9. 9
      Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. S. Effect of PH and Scale Inhibitor Concentration on Phosphonate–Carbonate Interaction. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2010, 70 (1–2), 1027,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2009.05.002
    10. 10
      Khormali, A.; Petrakov, D. G.; Nazari Moghaddam, R. Study of Adsorption/Desorption Properties of a New Scale Inhibitor Package to Prevent Calcium Carbonate Formation during Water Injection in Oil Reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 153, 257267,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2017.04.008
    11. 11
      Liu, C.; Zeng, X.; Yan, C.; Zhou, C.; Li, M.; Wang, Z. Effects of Solid Precipitation and Surface Corrosion on the Adhesion Strengths of Sintered Hydrate Deposits on Pipe Walls. Langmuir 2020, 36, 15343,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c02818
    12. 12
      Heath, S. M.; Juliussen, B.; Chen, P.; Chen, T.; Benvie, R. Novel Scale Squeeze Technology and Treatment Designs for Improving Scale Inhibitor Retention and Treatment Lifetimes-Use of Ionic Polymers in the Overflush. In SPE International Conference on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2012.
    13. 13
      Jordan, M. M.; Mackay, E. J.; Vazquez, O. The Influence Of Overflush Fluid Type On Scale Squeeze Life Time-Field Examples And Placement Simulation Evaluation. In CORROSION 2008; NACE International, 2008.
    14. 14
      Zhang, P.; Liu, Y.; Kan, A. T.; Tomson, M. B. Laboratory Evaluation of Synergistic Effect of Transition Metals with Mineral Scale Inhibitor in Controlling Halite Scale Deposition. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 175, 120128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.12.036
    15. 15
      Zhang, P.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Ip, W. F.; Kan, A. T.; Tomson, M. B. A Novel Attach-and-Release Mineral Scale Control Strategy: Laboratory Investigation of Retention and Release of Scale Inhibitor on Pipe Surface. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2019, 70, 462471,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jiec.2018.11.009
    16. 16
      Yan, F.; Zhang, F.; Bhandari, N.; Wang, L.; Dai, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Ruan, G.; Kan, A.; Tomson, M. Adsorption and Precipitation of Scale Inhibitors on Shale Formations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 136, 3240,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.11.001
    17. 17
      Pairat, R.; Sumeath, C.; Browning, F. H.; Fogler, H. S. Precipitation and Dissolution of Calcium– ATMP Precipitates for the Inhibition of Scale Formation in Porous Media. Langmuir 1997, 13 (6), 17911798,  DOI: 10.1021/la9608425
    18. 18
      Jarrahian, K.; Sorbie, K. S. Mechanistic Investigation of Adsorption Behaviour of Two Scale Inhibitors on Carbonate Formations for Application in Squeeze Treatments. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 4484,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00326
    19. 19
      Patterson, D.; Kendrick, M.; Williams, W.; Jordan, M. M. Squimulation”--Simultaneous Well-Stimulation and Scale-Squeeze Treatments in Deepwater West Africa. SPE Prod. Oper. 2013, 28 (01), 5566,  DOI: 10.2118/151863-PA
    20. 20
      Paukert Vankeuren, A. N.; Hakala, J. A.; Jarvis, K.; Moore, J. E. Mineral Reactions in Shale Gas Reservoirs: Barite Scale Formation from Reusing Produced Water as Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (16), 93919402,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01979
    21. 21
      Kan, A. T.; Fu, G.; Tomson, M. B.; Al-Thubaiti, M.; Xiao, A. J. Factors Affecting Scale Inhibitor Retention in Carbonate-Rich Formation during Squeeze Treatment. Spe J. 2004, 9 (03), 280289,  DOI: 10.2118/80230-PA
    22. 22
      Vazquez, O.; Fursov, I.; Mackay, E. Automatic Optimization of Oilfield Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatment Designs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016, 147, 302307,  DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2016.06.025
    23. 23
      Kahrwad, M.; Sorbie, K. S.; Boak, L. S. Coupled Adsorption/Precipitation of Scale Inhibitors: Experimental Results and Modeling. SPE Prod. Oper. 2009, 24 (03), 481491,  DOI: 10.2118/114108-PA
    24. 24
      Park, W. K.; Ko, S.-J.; Lee, S. W.; Cho, K.-H.; Ahn, J.-W.; Han, C. Effects of Magnesium Chloride and Organic Additives on the Synthesis of Aragonite Precipitated Calcium Carbonate. J. Cryst. Growth 2008, 310 (10), 25932601,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2008.01.023
    25. 25
      Tomson, M. B.; Kan, A. T.; Fu, G. Control of Inhibitor Squeeze Through Mechanistic Understanding of Inhibitor Chemistry. SPE J. 2006, 11 (03), 283293,  DOI: 10.2118/87450-PA
    26. 26
      Vazquez, O.; Thanasutives, P.; Eliasson, C.; Fleming, N.; Mackay, E. Modeling the Application of Scale-Inhibitor-Squeeze Retention-Enhancing Additives. SPE Prod. Oper. 2011, 26 (03), 270277,  DOI: 10.2118/141384-PA
    27. 27
      Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. S. Scale Inhibitor Core Floods in Carbonate Cores: The Influence of PH on Phosphonate-Carbonate Interactions. In SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2004.
    28. 28
      Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. S. Scale Inhibitor Core Floods in Carbonate Cores: Chemical Interactions and Modelling. In SPE International Oilfield Scale Symposium; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2006.
    29. 29
      Kan, A. T.; Fu, G.; Tomson, M. B. Adsorption and Precipitation of an Aminoalkylphosphonate onto Calcite. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 281 (2), 275284,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2004.08.054
    30. 30
      Baraka-Lokmane, S.; Sorbie, K. The Role of Calcium and Magnesium in the Mechanism of the Scale Inhibitor Retention in Carbonate Systems. In AAPG European Region Energy Conference and Exhibition ; 2007.
    31. 31
      Sorbie, K. S.; Wat, R. M. S.; Todd, A. C. Interpretation and Theoretical Modeling of Scale-Inhibitor/Tracer Corefloods. SPE Prod. Eng. 1992, 7 (03), 307312,  DOI: 10.2118/20687-PA
    32. 32
      Jarrahian, K.; Boak, L. S.; Graham, A. J.; Singleton, M. A.; Sorbie, K. S. Experimental Investigation of the Interaction between a Phosphate Ester Scale Inhibitor and Carbonate Rocks for Application in Squeeze Treatments. Energy Fuels 2019, 33 (5), 40894103,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00382
    33. 33
      Jarrahian, K.; Sorbie, K.; Singleton, M.; Boak, L.; Graham, A. Building a Fundamental Understanding of Scale-Inhibitor Retention in Carbonate Formations. SPE Prod. Oper. 2019,  DOI: 10.2118/193635-MS
    34. 34
      Ibrahim, J. M.; Sorbie, K.; Boak, L. S. Coupled Adsorption/Precipitation Experiments: 1. Static Results. In SPE International Conference on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2012.
    35. 35
      Browning, F. H.; Fogler, H. S. Effect of Precipitating Conditions on the Formation of Calcium– HEDP Precipitates. Langmuir 1996, 12 (21), 52315238,  DOI: 10.1021/la9603277
    36. 36
      Vetter, O. J. Oilfield Scale---Can We Handle It?. J. Pet. Technol. 1976, 28 (12), 1402,  DOI: 10.2118/5879-PA
    37. 37
      Jordan, M. M.; Sorbie, K. S.; Jiang, P.; Yuan, M. D.; Todd, A. C.; Thiery, L. The Effect of Clay Minerals, pH, Calcium and Temperature on the Adsorption of Phosphonate Scale Inhibitor onto Reservoir Core and Mineral Separates; NACE International: Houston, TX, United States, 1994.
    38. 38
      Sorbie, K. S.; Gdanski, R. D. A Complete Theory of Scale Inhibitor Transport, Adsorption/Desorption and Precipitation in Squeeze Treatments. In SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2005.
    39. 39
      Tomson, M. B.; Kan, A. T.; Fu, G.; Shen, D.; Nasr-El-Din, H. A.; Al-Saiari, H.; Al-Thubaiti, M. Mechanistic Understanding of Rock/Phosphonate Interactions and Effect of Metal Ions on Inhibitor Retention. SPE J. 2008, 13 (03), 325336,  DOI: 10.2118/100494-PA
    40. 40
      Von Wandruszka, R. Phosphorus Retention in Calcareous Soils and the Effect of Organic Matter on Its Mobility. Geochem. Trans. 2006, 7 (1), 6,  DOI: 10.1186/1467-4866-7-6
    41. 41
      Matar, A.; Torrent, J.; Ryan, J. Soil and Fertilizer Phosphorus and Crop Responses in the Dryland Mediterranean Zone. In Advances in Soil Science; Springer, 1992; pp 81146.
    42. 42
      Tunesi, S.; Poggi, V.; Gessa, C. Phosphate Adsorption and Precipitation in Calcareous Soils: The Role of Calcium Ions in Solution and Carbonate Minerals. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 1999, 53 (3), 219227,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1009709005147
    43. 43
      Sorbie, K. S.; Jiang, P.; Yuan, M. D.; Chen, P.; Jordan, M. M.; Todd, A. C. The Effect of PH, Calcium, and Temperature on the Adsorption of Phosphonate Inhibitor onto Consolidated and Crushed Sandstone. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1993.
    44. 44
      Tantayakom, V.; Fogler, H. S.; Charoensirithavorn, P.; Chavadej, S. Kinetic Study of Scale Inhibitor Precipitation in Squeeze Treatment. Cryst. Growth Des. 2005, 5 (1), 329335,  DOI: 10.1021/cg049874d
    45. 45
      Jarrahian, K.; Singleton, M.; Boak, L.; Sorbie, K. S. Surface Chemistry of Phosphonate Scale Inhibitor Retention Mechanisms in Carbonate Reservoirs. Cryst. Growth Des. 2020, 20 (8), 53565372,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.0c00570
    46. 46
      Jarrahian, K.; Sorbie, K. S.; Singleton, M. A.; Boak, L. S.; Graham, A. J. The Effect of pH and Mineralogy on the Retention of Polymeric Scale Inhibitors on Carbonate Rocks for Application in Squeeze Treatments. SPE Prod. Oper. 2019, 34 (02), 344360,  DOI: 10.2118/189519-PA
    47. 47
      Rietra, R. P. J. J.; Hiemstra, T.; van Riemsdijk, W. H. Interaction between Calcium and Phosphate Adsorption on Goethite. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (16), 33693374,  DOI: 10.1021/es000210b
    48. 48
      Karthikeyan, K. G.; Elliott, H. A.; Chorover, J. Role of Surface Precipitation in Copper Sorption by the Hydrous Oxides of Iron and Aluminum. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1999, 209 (1), 7278,  DOI: 10.1006/jcis.1998.5893
    49. 49
      Wang, X.; Hu, Y.; Tang, Y.; Yang, P.; Feng, X.; Xu, W.; Zhu, M. Phosphate and Phytate Adsorption and Precipitation on Ferrihydrite Surfaces. Environ. Sci. Nano 2017, 4 (11), 21932204,  DOI: 10.1039/C7EN00705A
    50. 50
      Li, L.; Stanforth, R. Distinguishing Adsorption and Surface Precipitation of Phosphate on Goethite (α-FeOOH). J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2000, 230 (1), 1221,  DOI: 10.1006/jcis.2000.7072
    51. 51
      Boak, L. S.; Sorbie, K. New Developments in the Analysis of Scale Inhibitors. SPE Prod. Oper. 2010, 25 (04), 533544,  DOI: 10.2118/130401-PA
    52. 52
      Cooney, D. O. Adsorption Design for Wastewater Treatment; CRC Press, 1998.
    53. 53
      Xu, N.; Chen, M.; Zhou, K.; Wang, Y.; Yin, H.; Chen, Z. Retention of Phosphorus on Calcite and Dolomite: Speciation and Modeling. RSC Adv. 2014, 4 (66), 3520535214,  DOI: 10.1039/C4RA05461J
    54. 54
      Wei, H.; Han, L.; Tang, Y.; Ren, J.; Zhao, Z.; Jia, L. Highly Flexible Heparin-Modified Chitosan/Graphene Oxide Hybrid Hydrogel as a Super Bilirubin Adsorbent with Excellent Hemocompatibility. J. Mater. Chem. B 2015, 3 (8), 16461654,  DOI: 10.1039/C4TB01673D
    55. 55
      Spinthaki, A.; Demadis, K. D. Chemical Methods for Scaling Control. In Corrosion and Fouling Control in Desalination Industry; Springer, 2020; pp 307342.
    56. 56
      Shaw, S. S. Investigation into the Mechanisms of Formation and Prevention of Barium Sulphate Oilfield Scale; Heriot-Watt University, 2012.
    57. 57
      Shaw, S. S.; Sorbie, K. S. Structure, Stoichiometry, and Modeling of Calcium Phosphonate Scale-Inhibitor Complexes for Application in Precipitation-Squeeze Processes. SPE Prod. Oper. 2014, 29 (02), 139151,  DOI: 10.2118/164051-PA
    58. 58
      Silva, D. Thermodynamic Modelling of the Precipitation Chemistry of Scale Inhibitors and Divalent Cations (Ca and Mg). In Chemistry in the Oil Industry XVI: New Chemistries for Old Problems; Manchester, United Kingdom, 2019.
    59. 59
      Viveros-Ceballos, J. L.; Ordóñez, M.; Sayago, F. J.; Cativiela, C. Stereoselective Synthesis of α-Amino-C-Phosphinic Acids and Derivatives. Molecules 2016, 21 (9), 1141,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules21091141
    60. 60
      Valiakhmetova, A.; Sorbie, K. S.; Boak, L. S.; Shaw, S. S. Solubility and Inhibition Efficiency of Phosphonate Scale Inhibitor_calcium_magnesium Complexes for Application in a Precipitation-Squeeze Treatment. SPE Prod. Oper. 2017, 32 (03), 343350,  DOI: 10.2118/178977-PA
    61. 61
      Sorbie, K. S.; Laing, N. How Scale Inhibitors Work: Mechanisms of Selected Barium Sulphate Scale Inhibitors across a Wide Temperature Range. In SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2004.
    62. 62
      Pourmohammadbagher, A.; Shaw, J. M. Probing Contaminant Transport to and from Clay Surfaces in Organic Solvents and Water Using Solution Calorimetry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (18), 1084110849,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02416