Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Emulsion flooding (EF) is a promising in situ strategy for remediating aquifers contaminated with organic pollutants, yet the pore-scale mechanisms driving its efficiency remain unclear. This study investigates EF at the pore scale using calibrated oil-in-water emulsions in micromodels mimicking pollutant infiltration and removal. The analysis systematically examines how emulsion oil volume fraction ϕ , injection flow rate, and micromodel wettability influence pollutant removal and shape the morphology and connectivity of trapped pollutant ganglia, offering a pore-scale insight largely absent from previous EF investigations. Shear-thinning emulsions with sub-pore droplets achieve ∼ 97% recovery at ϕ = 0.72 by combining piston-like displacement with progressive mobilization and fragmentation of residual blobs, a mechanism not observed in low-viscosity Newtonian emulsions ( ϕ ≤ 0.45), which mainly follow water-saturated channels and exhibit poor sweeping efficiency. Wettability strongly influenced recovery by controlling initial pollutant distribution, connectivity, and pore wall coatings; in oil-wet micromodels, highly connected pollutant ganglia restricted the flow of low-concentrated emulsions. During EF, the average size of pollutant-containing pores decreased in water-wet systems, whereas in oil-wet systems, large pollutant islands were eroded with little pore-size selectivity, highlighting the role of pore structure and wettability in optimizing emulsion-based remediation. Residual pollutant blobs aligned mostly perpendicular to flow at maximum recovery, defining a limit for mechanical displacement of the pollutant. Higher injection rates enhanced pollutant mobilization, while excessive emulsion viscosity increased injection pressure, suggesting potential limits for operational feasibility. These findings provide physics-based guidance for optimizing EF operational parameters and underscore its potential for efficient aquifer remediation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: