| Literature DB >> 36051176 |
Po-Wei Huang1, Bernd Flemisch2, Chao-Zhong Qin3, Martin O Saar1,4, Anozie Ebigbo1,5.
Abstract
Due to spatial scaling effects, there is a discrepancy in mineral dissolution rates measured at different spatial scales. Many reasons for this spatial scaling effect can be given. We investigate one such reason, i.e., how pore-scale spatial heterogeneity in porous media affects overall mineral dissolution rates. Using the bundle-of-tubes model as an analogy for porous media, we show that the Darcy-scale reaction order increases as the statistical similarity between the pore sizes and the effective-surface-area ratio of the porous sample decreases. The analytical results quantify mineral spatial heterogeneity using the Darcy-scale reaction order and give a mechanistic explanation to the usage of reaction order in Darcy-scale modeling. The relation is used as a constitutive relation of reactive transport at the Darcy scale. We test the constitutive relation by simulating flow-through experiments. The proposed constitutive relation is able to model the solute breakthrough curve of the simulations. Our results imply that we can infer mineral spatial heterogeneity of a porous media using measured solute concentration over time in a flow-through dissolution experiment.Entities:
Keywords: Mineral dissolution; Reaction rate law; Reactive transport; Upscaling
Year: 2022 PMID: 36051176 PMCID: PMC9420689 DOI: 10.1007/s11242-022-01817-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transp Porous Media ISSN: 0169-3913 Impact factor: 3.610
Fig. 1This figure shows scatter plots of pore sizes and effective-surface-area ratio. The title of each plot shows the reaction order, n, and Tucker’s congruence coefficient,
Fig. 2This figure shows the probability density functions of the distribution of pore sizes and effective-surface-area ratio. The legends state the essential parameters for generating the probability density functions. The definitions of the probability density functions are defined in Eqs. (38) and (42)
Fig. 3The outlet concentration over time of the low Damköhler-number problem. The orange line shows the part where we apply the least-squares fitting technique Eq. (77). The vertical dashed line indicates the time, , when the injection rate is reduced
Fig. 4The upper part of the figure shows the contours of the log-scaled Jensen–Shannon distance between the observed concentration and the modeled concentration of first-order reactions using the constitutive relation. The red points are the Darcy-scale Damköhler number and the reaction order approximated by the power-series approach (Eqs. (73) and (74)). The legend shows the value of the log-scaled Jensen–Shannon distance using a grayscale, corresponding to the brightness of the colored contour lines. The lower part of the figure shows the concentrations over time and of all pore sizes and effective-surface-area ratios scenarios
Fig. 5The upper part of the figure shows the contours of the log-scaled Jensen–Shannon distance between the observed concentration and the modeled concentration of second-order kinetics using the constitutive relation. The red points are the Darcy-scale Damköhler number and the reaction order approximated by the power series approach [Eqs. (73) and (75)]. The legend shows the value of the log-scaled Jensen–Shannon distance using a grayscale, corresponding to the brightness of the colored contour lines. The lower part of the figure shows the concentrations over time and of all pore sizes and effective-surface-area ratios scenarios
Fig. 6The figures show the concentration (solid lines) and the modeled concentration (dashed lines) of the low Damköhler-number cases on the top panel. The high Damköhler-number cases are summarized in the middle and the bottom panel. The left and right panels show the and the cases, respectively
This table summarizes the Darcy-scale Damköhler number, , the reaction order, n, and the shape factor, f(r), obtained by fitting the concentration-over-time curve using the constitutive relation with the RMSE metric
| Initial | 10 | 4000 | 8000 | 40,000 |
| Direct calculation | ||||
| | 0.1 | 40,000 | ||
| | 1.40 | 1.77 | ||
| | ||||
| Minimum RMSE | ||||
| | 0.1 | 52,528 | 45,154 | 38,464 |
| | 1.57 | 1.57 | 1.66 | 1.30 |
| Minimum RMSE with shape factor fitting | ||||
| | 0.1 | 50,887 | 42,049 | 38,950 |
| | 1.68 | 1.55 | 1.59 | 1.53 |
| | ||||
| Direct calculation | ||||
| | 0.1 | 40,000 | ||
| | 1.74 | 2.60 | ||
| | 1.718 | |||
| Minimum RMSE | ||||
| | 0.13 | 25,376 | 24,691 | |
| | 4.60 | 1.0 | 1.43 | 4.89* |
| Minimum RMSE with shape-factor fitting | ||||
| | 0.12 | 35,791 | 25,025 | 29,111 |
| | 3.87 | 1.56 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| | 16.8 | 2.091 | 1.433 | 0.463 |
The values of the direct calculation are the result of prescribing , the distribution, and the distribution. In the low case, we assumed first-order kinetics. Hence we use Eq. (58) to calculate the reaction order. We assumed second-order kinetics for the high case, and Eq. (68) is used for calculating the reaction order for second-order kinetics. The direct calculation of f(r) uses Eq. (41). The results of the least-squares curve fitting are , for the scenario, and , for the scenario
*The fitting in this case does not yield reasonable results
Fig. 8Comparison of the volume-averaged solute concentration and the modeled concentration. The left panel shows the case of pore size distribution , and the right panel shows the case of pore size distribution
Fig. 7This figure shows the concentration of the pores, C, the averaged concentration, , and the modeled concentration, , of the selected scenarios with shape factor fitting. The left panel shows the solute concentration in the porous domain during fluid injection. The middle panel shows the solute concentration after fluid injection has stopped. The right panel shows the last time step of the simulation, as indicated by the increasing inlet concentration