Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

A review on parameters affecting nanoparticles stabilized foam

performance based on recent analyses
Shahrul Aida Ab Rasid a, b, *, Syed M. Mahmood b, Nor Idah Kechut a, Saeed Akbari b
a
PETRONAS Research Sdn. Bhd., 43000, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In recent years, much attention has been paid to the addition of nanoparticles (NPs) into the surfactant foam
nanoparticles Stabilized foam structure to form durable foams. Although surfactant foam as an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique
Foam stability significantly increases the viscosity of the injected fluid compared to gas injection, it has been observed that the
Retention
foam structure does not have the required stability in cases such as high temperatures and high salinity. Although
Concentration
Salinity
NP addition increases stability, the extent of this increase depends on several parameters, including NP prop­
Flow velocity erties (i.e., size, type, surface wettability) and reservoir properties (i.e., salinity of formation water, presence of
Size oil, reservoir temperature), process parameters (i.e., NP concentration and flow rate), synergistic effects between
Type the surface charge of NPs and the net charge of surfactant, and NP loss in the porous medium. This study aims to
Wettability review and summarize the findings of previous studies to conclude the effects of each of the parameters above on
foam stability, identify differences, and determine gaps for future studies. Throughout this report, a study
background is provided, followed by the concept of stability and how to determine it in different tests for NP-
surfactant foam. Next, the mechanisms of increasing stability by NP addition are briefly presented. Lastly,
previous findings related to the effect of each parameter on NP foam stability are presented and discussed.
Although several detailed reviews of NP-stabilized foam have been published previously, the present study
differs from them in that the effects of additional parameters were investigated by reviewing new findings.
Moreover, an attempt has been made to discuss the effects of parameters from different angles and according to
their role in the mechanisms of NP-stabilized foam, such as particle detachment energy and maximum capillary
pressure. The findings of this review show that i) oil presence lowers foam stability, ii) increasing NP concen­
tration as well as decreasing NP size, temperature, NP retention, and salinity lead to increased stability, and iii)
for parameters including NP surface wettability, NP types, and shear rate/flow velocity there are optimum points
that result in the best foam performance. NP loss in a porous medium is an economically damaging process that
occurs through mechanisms including adsorption, mechanical entrapment and log-jamming, and particles
settling due to gravity. Depending on the type of mechanism, the strategy for minimizing or removing the in­
fluence of these mechanisms differs. However, there is currently no way to determine and measure the contri­
bution of each of these mechanisms to the total retention in dynamic tests, which could be a specific topic for
future research.

1. Introduction
A combination of three different methods can achieve maximum oil
recovery from petroleum reservoirs. The conventional methods of pro­
ducing oil from a reservoir involve primary and secondary methods
(Satter and Iqbal, 2015). The primary production of an oil or gas
reservoir at the expense of the reservoir’s inherent energy might
originate from various causes, including rock and fluid expansion, dis­
solved gas release, water influx from neighboring aquifers, and gravity.
Secondary oil production involves the injection of fluids into a reservoir,
such as water or gas (into the gas cap), to maintain reservoir pressure
and preserve the pressure difference required to displace the oil toward
the production well. A succession of both production stages can extract
roughly a third of the original oil in place (Gbadamosi et al., 2019).

* Corresponding author. PETRONAS Research Sdn. Bhd., 43000, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia & Department of Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS, 32610, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
E-mail addresses: shahrul.aida.abrasid@gmail.com, aida.rasid@petronas.com (S.A. Ab Rasid).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109475
Received 2 February 2021; Received in revised form 16 August 2021; Accepted 4 September 2021
Available online 8 September 2021
0920-4105/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Tertiary recovery is a stage in which Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
techniques are usually applied to recover the remaining trapped or
by-passed oil by altering the reservoir properties (Akbari et al., 2019a).
Among the various techniques available for EOR, such as chemical
injection, gas injection, and thermal oil recovery, the gas injection
technique is particularly important, with an application rate of about
39% in global EOR projects (AlYousef et al., 2017). Gas injection in­
volves injecting hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon gases such as
methane, air, carbon dioxide, natural gas, and nitrogen into reservoirs,
improving oil displacement and volumetric sweep efficiency by
reducing oil viscosity, capillary forces, and interfacial tension. However,
the high mobility and low density of gas limit the oil recovery from this
technique. The tendency of a gas to channel through the high perme­
ability zone and separation of gas and liquid due to density difference
and gravity segregation results in low sweep efficiency in the oil reser­
voir (Lake, 1989), see Fig. 1.
For reservoirs with poor macroscopic sweep efficiency in the Gas
EOR projects, surfactant foam injection was proposed as an alternative
method in the 1950s (Boud and Holbrook, 1958). Surfactant foam is
produced by injecting gas into a liquid phase containing surfactant,
forming a dispersion of gas bubbles in the liquid separated by a thin film
called lamellae, see Fig. 2. There are three (3) foam generation mech­
anisms: snap-off, lamellae division, and leave behind mechanism
(Alcorn et al., 2020; Yekeen et al., 2018b); see Fig. 3. The snap-off
mechanism is a process where a gas bubble is generated when the gas
moves through a pore throat (Gugl, 2020). It is highly dependent on the
local dynamic capillary pressure at the pore throat (Rossen, 2017).
Therefore, the capillary pressure at the pore throat must be greater than
the capillary pressure at the front of the interface for snap-off to occur.
The foam generation through lamellae division occurs when a foam
bubble approaching a “branch point” in the pore, causing the lamellae to
split and formed individual bubbles (Ibrahim and Nasr-El-Din, 2019).
This mechanism is only possible when the existing foam bubbles are
bigger than the pore’s size and a sufficient pressure gradient exists to
displace the lamellae in the pore throat. Lastly, the leave behind
mechanism creates continuous gas bubbles from the gas front into a
saturated liquid medium (Sagbana and Abushaikha, 2021). In this
condition, the continuous gas bubbles accumulated and block the pas­
sage, thus resulting to a dead-end pathway. The foam generated through
this mechanism is reported to generate less stable foam and low flow
resistance as the bubble generated are parallel to the direction of flow
during the drainage process (Zeng et al., 2016; Hamza et al., 2017).
For two principal reasons, foam consisting of gas trapped in a
continuous liquid phase has much less mobility (M) than a displacing
fluid consisting only of gas. First, the relative permeability of the gas
phase is considerably reduced by confinement in the foam bubbles, and
second, the apparent viscosity of the displacing fluid is considerably
increased by the drag forces exerted on the pore walls by the moving
bubbles. The high mobility observed with gas injection leads to several
problems, including an early breakthrough. The foam resistance to easy
flow, which in some cases has increased the apparent viscosity 1000-fold
Fig. 1. Gas channeling in high permeability reservoirs and gas segregation due
to gravity.
2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
compared to the viscosity of the single gas phase, causes the displacing
fluid to be diverted from the high-permeability layer to the low-
permeability layers, resulting in more oil being produced from the
bypass layers, leading to a significant increase in oil recovery (Zhu et al.,
2004).
The above advantages come into play if the surfactant foam has the
required stability under reservoir conditions, which is not always the
case. Foam stability is the foam’s ability to remain in bubble structure
against the process of film thinning and coalescence at which the thin
film ruptures (Schramm and Wassmuth, 1994). In the reservoir, the
injected surfactant foam is in a porous medium in contact with oil, brine,
and possibly high temperature, which may adversely affect the stability
of the surfactant foam. The chemical structure of many surfactants is not
designed for high-temperature applications and does not have the
required stability. By a process such as hydrolysis, which is enhanced at
high temperatures and in the presence of ions in formation water, the
surfactants readily precipitate and lose their function in the foam
structure, accelerating the destruction of the lamella (Kalam et al.,
2019). Previous research has demonstrated that oil in a phenomenon
known as hindered generation inhibits the effective generation of
lamella in porous media. On the other hand, depending on the surfactant
type and the mineralogy of the reservoir rock, the injected surfactant
may be highly absorbed, resulting in a significant reduction of the sur­
factant concentration in the lamella, which significantly reduces the
foam stability.
Various methods have been proposed to increase the stability of
surfactant foam, of which the addition of nanoparticles (NPs) to sur­
factant foam is one of the most successful methods for several reasons.
First, because NPs are solid, their performance is not dependent on
conditions such as high temperatures and the presence of oil and brine.
Second, because of their nano size, they are retained very little when
moving in a porous medium, and therefore the permeability of the rock
remains largely unaffected. Third, their adsorption on the reservoir rock
is negligible. Fourth, NPs are inexpensive because they may be obtained
from various low-cost sources, such as coal fly-ash. Finally, since they
can be grafted, their wettability is easily adjustable to obtain a foam with
acceptable stability.
The extent and durability of foam stability due to the addition of NP
depends on several factors such as NP size, NP surface wettability, NP
concentration, a synergistic effect between the surface charge of NPs and
the net charge of surfactant, salinity of formation water, presence of oil,
reservoir temperature, flow rate, NP loss in the porous medium, and NP
type. This paper aims to investigate how and to what extent the various
parameters mentioned affect the foam stability created by the addition
of NP by reviewing recent studies in this field. This article goes on to
define and explain how stability is measured in various experiments
performed on foam. In the following, mechanisms will be discussed that
explain how foam stability increases due to NP addition. In the next
section, the effect of various factors on foam stability formed by the
addition of NP will be explained. NP retention studies will be reviewed.
Although several detailed reviews of NP-stabilized foam have been
published previously (Yekeen et al., 2018a; Zhang et al., 2021), the
present study differs from them in that the effects of additional param­
eters were investigated by reviewing new findings. Moreover, an
attempt has been made to discuss the effects of parameters from
different angles and according to their role in the mechanisms of
NP-stabilized foam, such as particle detachment energy and maximum
capillary pressure. Throughout this article, parameters that require
additional investigation are highlighted, and further analysis is
suggested.
2. Experimental techniques for evaluating the performance of
nanoparticle-surfactant foam
The potential use of NPs as a foam stabilizer has been assessed in
recent studies through bulk scale, bubble scale, and pore-scale stability
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Fig. 2. A typical foam structure.
experiments similar to the method used for conventional surfactant
foam (Eftekhari et al., 2015; Farhadi et al., 2016; Guo and Aryana, 2016;
Prigiobbe et al., 2015).
In bulk-scale stability experiments, a liquid containing a surfactant
and an NP comes into contact with the gas, and there is sufficient me­
chanical energy for the gas and liquid to generate foam. The container
used can be a calibrated cylinder, a high-pressure viewing cell, or a
foamscan instrument. Mechanical energy can be supplied from sources
such as shearing stirring by laboratory blender or shaking stirring
(Razali et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Bubbling by gas sparging can be
employed, especially if the gas being used is not air. The most important
parameters measured in this type of test are foamability, foam half-life,
and drainage half-life. The maximum height that occurs after foaming,
often when there is no separate liquid phase in the container, is foam­
ability. The foam half-life is defined as the time required for the foam to
shrink to half its original volume at a given temperature and pressure
(see Fig. 4a for the determination of the foam half-life.) Drainage
half-life is defined as the time required to drain half of the liquid used to
form a foam (see Fig. 4b.) In bulk-scale stability experiments, the foam
half-life and the drainage half-life are the most important indicators for
evaluating foam stability.
Observations and results of bulk scale stability tests are often insuf­
ficient to fully understand the stabilized foam NPs’ performance.
Therefore, it is needed to examine foam texture, bubble morphology,
and thin liquid to understand the mechanisms involved in foam pro­
duction, stability, and decay. Such studies are performed in the context
of bubble-scale stability experiments in which foam microbubbles were
allowed to stabilize, and the bubble suspension is placed on a micro­
scope slide (AlYousef et al., 2018). Fig. 5 shows an experimental setup
for the bubble scale stability test. The number of lamellae per unit vol­
ume is used to describe foam texture in these tests. Image analysis
software (e.g., Image-J) is typically used to determine bubbles’ size
distribution and average diameter.
Although bulk and bubble-scale stability tests can be employed for
qualitative analyses of NP-stabilized foams, experiments in porous
media and dynamic mode are unavoidable requirements for quantitative
evaluation of NP-stabilized foams’ performance. In dynamic studies in a
porous medium, either pre-generated foam is injected or the foam is
generated in situ by simultaneous gas and liquid injection. Another way
to create foam in situ is to inject alternating gas and liquid into the
porous medium in a water-alternating-gas (WAG) process. The porous
media in these types of tests can be any of the glass bead packs (Risal
et al., 2018), sand packs (Sun et al., 2015), sandstone, or carbonate
reservoir cores (Rognmo et al., 2017; Eftekhari et al., 2015). Because the
development of foam increases the viscosity of the displacing fluid
3
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
significantly, calculating the fluid’s viscosity in the porous medium can
be a reliable indicator of foam production and penetration. The foam
stability is represented by the pressure drop across the sample or the
corresponding gas apparent viscosity measured. After reaching a
steady-state, the apparent viscosity can be calculated using Darcy’s law
(Equation (1)).
AK Δp
μ= . (1)
Q L
where μ represents the apparent foam viscosity, K stands for perme­
ability, Δp is the pressure drop, L is the length, A is the cross-sectional
area, while Q is the volumetric flow rate. In this equation, the pres­
sure difference between the inlet and outlet of the core plays a vital role
in calculating viscosity, which must be carefully measured and recorded.
In foam dynamics studies, the mobility reduction factor (MRF) is
another crucial parameter obtained by dividing the apparent foam vis­
cosity by the apparent viscosity of the single-phase gas flow. Foam sta­
bility measured at the core scale is assumed to be imitating the foam
behavior in the reservoir due to its similar condition.
3. Nanoparticle-mediated foam stabilization mechanisms
The foam structure is not stable over time and therefore changes.
These changes are happened due to coalescence, coarsening, and foam
drainage, see Fig. 6. In the bubbles coalescence, the instability of the
inter-bubbles films results in bubble breakage and merging of the two
smaller bubbles to form larger bubbles due to rupture of liquid films
between bubbles (Yekeen et al., 2018a). During foam coarsening, gas
diffuses from tiny bubbles to larger bubbles because of the greater
pressure difference (known as Laplace pressure) between the inner and
exterior of smaller bubbles; as a result, the smaller bubbles fade over
time, increasing in average bubble size. Foam drainage is the process of
liquid draining through networks of plateau borders in a fresh foam due
to combined gravitational and capillary forces (Sun et al., 2008).
Four main reasons are suggested to explain why these phenomena (i.
e., coalescence, coarsening, and drainage) occurred (Binks et al., 2008;
Horozov, 2008; Kaptay, 2006). The first reason is the low energy
required to remove the surfactant from the gas-liquid interface. If this
energy is provided, the surfactant (or foaming agent) is readily removed
from the interface, eventually leading to foam instability. The second
factor is the pressure difference (known as capillary pressure) that exists
along with the gas-liquid interface, and as this pressure difference in­
creases, coalescence occurs more rapidly. The third reason is the low
energy required to rupture the thin film and reduce the distance between
gas bubbles in the surfactant foam structure to zero. The fourth issue is
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Fig. 3. Foam generation mechanisms in porous media, (a) leave behind, (b) snap-off, and (c) lamella mobilization and division. Adapted from Almajid and Kovs­
cek (2020).
the low viscosity of the liquid phase in the surfactant foam structure,
which increases the speed of liquid drainage from the liquid film. Adding
NPs to the surfactant foam structure will weaken these four destructive
phenomena and thus make the structure more stable. The following
paragraphs explain how the addition of NP improves the
surfactant-foam stability.
NP adsorption in the gas-liquid interface is an almost irreversible
process that results in the long-term stability of the foam structure. This
is because removing NP from the gas-liquid surface requires high energy
called particle detachment energy (Binks and Lumsdon, 2000), which is
almost impossible to supply under reservoir conditions. Equation (2)
shows the method for calculating the particle detachment energy (Wr )
4
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
required for NP with the radius of the particle, R, the interface/surface
tension γ αβ and the particle contact angle at the interface, θ (Gbadamosi
et al., 2019).
W r = πR2 γαβ (1 ± cos θ)2 (2)
The sign "+" denotes particle removal into the gas phase, while the
sign "-" denotes particle removal into the liquid phase. Under similar
conditions, it has been observed that removing NP with a size of 10 nm
and a contact angle close to 90◦ from an NP foam structure takes 1000
times more force than removing surfactant from a surfactant foam
structure. Hence the addition of NP to the surfactant foam structure
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Fig. 4. Foam stability determination using a) the average half-life of foam. Adapted from (Osei-Bonsu et al., 2017), b) The drainage half-life of SDS-foam in the
presence of oil. Adapted from (Yekeen et al., 2016).
Fig. 5. Investigation of CO2 foam stability at bubble-scale. Reproduced from
(Yekeen et al., 2017a).
results in a durable structure.
Moreover, the presence of solid NP in the film’s structure will create
a barrier that prevents gas interface diffusion and will significantly
reduce the rate of coalescence, coarsening, and liquid drainage.
Depending on the wettability, the arrangement of the NPs in the liquid
film varies (Horozov, 2008); see Fig. 7. Comparing the stability created
for the three known arrangements shows that the network structure and
the monolayer structure will provide the most and the least stability,
respectively. This arrangement mechanism delays the possibility of foam
film rupturing as the particles continuously re-arrange themselves until
the lamellae reach a thickness that will break. On the other hand, the
presence of NP in the liquid film will increase the fluid viscosity, which
will reduce the speed of liquid drainage, resulting in more durable foam.
The pressure difference that forms around the gas-liquid interface,
known as capillary pressure (Pc ), plays a decisive role in determining
foam stability. High-pressure difference results in low foam stability.
Adding NP reduces Pc . Equation (3) shows how foam properties affect Pc
(Alzobaidi et al., 2017). R is inversely related to Pc , and as R increases, Pc
will decrease. Equation (4) depicts how Pc affecting the drainage
velocity.
/
Pc = γ R(1 − ∅)0.5
2h3f
V= (Pc − πd )
3μe R2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
where V is the drainage velocity, hf is the thin film (lamellae) thickness,
R is the foam film radius while μe is the viscosity of the aqueous phase, πd
is the disjoining pressure. As Equation (4) shows, Pc plays a decisive role
in the liquid drainage velocity equation. The direct effect of Pc reduction
on drainage velocity reduction is noticeable. Although the addition of
NP will increase the hf , it will also increase the viscosity and R at the
same time, which will result in a decrease in the drainage velocity.
The increase in stability due to the increase in the maximum capil­
lary pressure of coalescence (PMax
c ) is another significant effect of adding
NP to surfactant foam. PMax
c is the pressure that causes the gap between
the bubbles to be zero, resulting in the rupture of the liquid film. In
2006, the relation given in Equation (5) was developed for PMax c by
Kaptay (2006), which explains the relationship between this parameter
and the properties of NP and foam.
2γaw
PMax
c =β (cos θ + z) (5)
R
where γaw , θ, R, and β are air-water interfacial tension, particles contact
angle, particle radius, and a theoretical packing parameter, respectively.
Z is a constant and depends on the arrangement of particles in the thin
liquid film, which is zero for a single layer of particles. In this equation,
increasing (particle parking at the air-water interface of the foam) and
decreasing R will increase PMax
c and thus increase stability.
4. Critical parameters affecting nanoparticles stabilized foam
performance
Several parameters have been identified to affect the stability of NP-
stabilized foam. These parameters include NP size, NP surface wetta­
bility, NP concentration, a synergistic effect between the surface charge
of NPs and the net charge of surfactant, salinity of formation water,
presence of oil, reservoir temperature, flow rate, NP loss in the porous
medium, and NP type. The effect of each parameter toward NP-
stabilized foam stability is discussed in the following subsections.
4.1. Effect of particles size
(3)
The stability of NP-stabilized foam is highly dependent on NP size at
the same surface characteristics (Kim et al., 2016). Summary of findings
(4) related to the NP size effect on foam stability is presented in Table 1. Hu
et al. (2018) generated the bulk foam using a shaker (150 rpm) for 12 h
5
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Fig. 6. Scheme of the three main foam destabilization mechanisms. (a) Drainage of the liquid due to gravity, (b) coalescence of two bubbles, and (c) coarsening of the
bubbles due to the Laplace pressure. Adapted from (Fameau and Salonen, 2014).
Fig. 7. Nanoparticle arrangement at the thin liquid film: (a) a monolayer of
bridging particles, (b) a bilayer of closed-packed particles, and (c) a network of
particle aggregates inside the film. Adapted from (Massarweh and Abush­
aikha, 2021).
to ensure adsorption equilibrium and they observed that foam stability
was inversely proportional to particle size, as presented by Fig. 8. In
addition, Kim et al. (2016) observed that apparent foam viscosity in­
creases with decreasing NP size from their sand pack and core flooding
experiments.
In a study by Rafati et al. (2016), foam half-life measurements were
conducted using barium sulfate NP (1.38 μm), calcium sulfate NP (7.61
μm), calcium carbonate NP (12.16 μm), strontium sulfate NP (64.14
μm), and iron oxide NP (131.04 μm). The results of this study show that
the addition of NPs including barium sulfate, calcium carbonate, and
strontium sulfate into the structure of surfactant foam at concentrations
of 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, and 0.1 wt% and at surfactant concentrations of 200,
6
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
500, 1000, and 5000 ppm improved foam half-life and thus increased
stability. However, these results were not true for NPs calcium sulfate
and iron oxide under all the above conditions and decreased the time of
the foam half-life and hence the foam stability. As a result, depending on
the type of surfactant foam, there are NPs in micro size that can be used
to enhance stability.
In fact, small-size NPs can readily be adsorbed to the gas-liquid
interface due to greater diffusivity and a higher number of NPs avail­
able in situ (Kim et al., 2016). On the other hand, it has also been
observed that large size NPs can also exist in the lamellae and at the
plateau border depending on the lamellae thickness, thus improved the
foam stability by delaying the liquid drainage process (Fameau and
Salonen, 2014). When Equations (2) and (5) are compared, it is obvious
that reducing particle size, R, has the opposite effect on particle
detachment energy and maximum capillary pressure as raising particle
detachment energy and decreasing maximum capillary pressure. Even if
the rest of the key parameters such as NP wettability, surface coating etc.
is kept constant, it seems that an optimal NP size exists which is favor­
able for foam stability. Therefore, further studies are recommended to
experimentally prove whether such an optimal particle size exists for a
given NP surfactant foam system.
4.2. Effect of nanoparticle surface wettability
The surface wettability of NPs has been described as one of the pa­
rameters involved during the NPs’ foam stabilization mechanism (Binks
and Lumsdon, 2000). Table 2 provides a summary of the influence of NP
surface wettability on foam stability. The NP surface wettability is
determined through the contact angle between the particles with the
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Table 1
Table summary of the influence of nanoparticles size on foam stability.
Authors Nanoparticle Types Nanoparticle Surfactant Main Findings Related to Particle Size
Size (nm)

Kim et al. SiO2 5 1. The smaller NPs can be more easily adsorbed at the decane/brine or CO2/
(2016) 12 brine interface due to the greater diffusivity and the higher number
25 concentration.
80 2. For NPs with the same surface wettability, the internal structure, and
consequently stability and apparent viscosity of NP-stabilized emulsions/foams
is strongly dependent on NP size.
Rafati et al. CaCO3, CaSO4, BaSO4, SrSO4, 12,000, AOS (anionic) 1. SrSO4 showed less stable foam compared to BaSO4 and CaCO3 as the particles
(2016) Fe2O3 7600, are much larger and make monolayer bridges which induce disjoining pressure
1300, in the lamellae and destabilizes foam by dewetting and film rupture.
64,000,
131,000,
Guo and Fumed SiO2 T30, 179–223, AOS (anionic), 1. Larger size NPs generated foams with slightly lower formability and stability
Aryana Nano clay 356-419, SDS (anionic), LAPB compared to SiO2 NPs, which is in large part due to its particle size
(2016) (amphoteric)
Hu et al. SiO2 NPs (SNPs) 20, 100, 500 CTAB (cationic), SDS 1. Among the three SNPs (20 nm, 100 nm, and 500 nm), 20 nm SNP exhibited
(2018) (anionic) the most effective improvement for foam stability. Smaller SNP was able to
create a more compact solid-like layer, which might effectively prevent both
coarsening and coalescence.
Razali et al. SiO2 A300 (hydrophilic), SiO2 7, 12, <100, 25 MFOMAX 1. The highest effect of catalytic behavior on the foam stability of MFOMAX can
(2018) R816 (hydrophobic), ZnO, TiO2 (zwitterionic) be seen when A300 was used as the foam stabilizer. This may be due to the large
surface area/smaller particle size of A300 as compared to other NPs.
2. Larger surface area/smaller particle size provides more spaces for the
surfactant to attach to the NP’s surface and promotes catalytic behavior.

not firmly adhere to the gas-liquid interface (Horozov, 2008; Kruglyakov

Fig. 8. Half-lives versus cationic cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)
concentration for CTAB solution and CTAB/silica nanoparticles (SNPs) disper­
sions. Data has been extracted from (Hu et al., 2018).
gas-liquid surface. Hydrophilic particle has a contact angle of less than
90◦ ; therefore, a significant portion of it is in the liquid phase. A particle
with the opposite characteristics is known as a hydrophobic NP, as
shown in Fig. 9 (Binks et al., 2008).
Hydrophilic NPs improve foam stability, although the particles do
et al., 2011). Singh and Mohanty (2015) visually observed the retarding
process of liquid draining from foam lamellae consisting of hydrophilic
NPs in anionic surfactant using a confocal microscopy image. Their re­
sults show that the lamellae thickness was thicker in the presence of NPs,
indicating slow liquid drainage. The foam film became planar after the
critical film thickness is achieved, and further draining of liquid in the
lamellae caused the liquid to be drawn toward the particles. The NP
packing and rearrangement in the lamellae stabilize the film. The NPs
may transition from a bilayer to a monolayer arrangement, as shown in
Fig. 10. Most importantly, hydrophilic NPs in a similar charge surfactant
do not deteriorate foamability. Instead, it promotes the surfactant
adsorption onto the gas-liquid interface through electrostatic repulsion,
thus effectively reducing the solution’s interfacial tension (Vatanparast
et al., 2018).
Partially hydrophobic NPs were found to enhance foam stability by
adhering to the gas-liquid interface. These NPs can achieve the
maximum attachment energy with a contact angle close to 90◦ , thus
improve foam stability (Binks and Lumsdon, 2000; Denkov et al., 1992;
Horozov, 2008; Kaptay, 2006). Arriaga et al. (2012) reported that bulk
foam stability increased as NPs become partially hydrophobic in the
presence of negatively charged silica NPs with a cationic surfactant. As

Table 2
Table summary of the influence of nanoparticles’ surface wettability on foam stability.
Authors Nanoparticle Types Nanoparticles Surfactant Main Findings
Wettability

Kruglyakov et al. Aerosil SiO2 Hydrophobic 1. Increasing the concentration of hexylamine led to the increasing of
(2011) hydrophobicity of the particle aggregates and the increasing of the contact
angle. The increase of the stability agrees well with the increase of the contact
angle (θ = 26–56◦ ).
Arriaga et al. SiO2 NP Hydrophilic n-amylamine 1. Without the addition of amine, the particles are too hydrophilic to stabilize
(2012) (cosurfactant) foams. With increasing ca the particles are rendered increasingly hydrophobic
cationic) and therefore act as foam stabilizers.
Singh and SiO2 NPs Nyacol DP Hydrophilic AOS (anionic) 1. The present case of hydrophilic NPs, after initial drainage, a critical film
Mohanty 9711, SiO2, PEG coating thickness is achieved, and the film becomes planar. Further drainage causes the
(2015) capillary pressure to draw liquid toward the particle, thus stabilizing the film by
a bridging mechanism
Zargartalebi et al. SiO2 AEROSIL816 Partially SDS (anionic) 1. The improvement in surfactant flooding efficiency was more considerable for
(2015) Fumed SiO2 AEROSIL300 hydrophobic, slightly hydrophobic NP-augmented surfactant solutions with respect to
Hydrophilic hydrophilic ones.
Choi et al. (2020) SiO2 Hydrophilic CTAB (cationic) 1. SiO2 NP modified with ICP (increasing contact angle from 62◦ to 82◦ )
improved foam stability compared with un-modified SiO2.

7
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Fig. 9. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanoparticles at their respective contact angle. Adapted from Binks et al. (2008).

Fig. 10. Hydrophilic nanoparticles stabilization mechanism against film rupture as liquid continuously drained from the foam film or lamellae. Adapted from
(Vatanparast et al., 2018).

the NPs become partially hydrophobic, the contact angle increases along
with the foam stability. However, an increase of contact angle beyond
90◦ could form large aggregates. Thus reducing the foam stability as NPs
cannot “be attached” at the gas-liquid interface due to gravitational
force (Kruglyakov et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the enhancement of foam
stability was more considerable for partially hydrophobic NPs (Zargar­
talebi et al., 2015). Therefore, identifying the contact angle of NPs used
to maximize foam stability is crucial as it corresponds to different NP
stabilization mechanisms of foam.
In relation to the contact angle, θ, and how it affects foam stability,
both mechanisms, PMax c and particle detachment energy must be
considered simultaneously. A detailed explanation can be found else­
where (Kaptay, 2006), but here is a summary of such analysis. Although
both detachment energy and maximum capillary pressure should pro­
vide as high (positive) values as possible to ensure foam stability, it can
be seen that the conclusions made after detachment energy and
maximum capillary pressure are partly excluding each other. The
following conclusions can be drawn from detachment energy: (i) the
particle will be stable only at the gas-liquid interface if the contact angle
is significantly greater than 0◦ but significantly less than 180◦ , and (ii)

Fig. 11. The probability (PRGLi ) that the particles are stabilized at the gas-liquid interface (black curve). The probability (PRTLf ) that the liquid films are stabilized by
a single layer of particles (red curve), and the complex probability (PRfoam : PRGLi × PRTLf ) that the foams are stabilized at a liquid volume ratio of 0.5 (blue curve).
Adapted from (Kaptay, 2006). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

8
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

the particle will be most stable at the gas/liquid interface when the
contact angle equals 90◦ , and (iii) according to numerous writers, once
particles are stabilized at the gas/liquid interface, they will inevitably
stabilize foams. As a result, it is critical to emphasize that this conclusion
does not follow from detaching energy. Maximum capillary pressure, on
the other hand, can be used to draw the following conclusions: (i) a
higher positive value of PMax
c ensures that a thin liquid film between the
bubbles of a foam can withstand a higher pressing force; and (ii) from
maximum capillary pressure, one can conclude that the film’s stability is
greatest at 0◦ and decreases to zero at 90◦ .
Let us examine the PRGLi the probability that the solid particles are
stabilized by the detachment energy under the same other conditions at
the gas-liquid interface. Fig. 11 shows the probability as a function of
contact angle (black colored curve). The particles will be most likely to
be at the gas-liquid interface at θ = 90◦ , as shown in the figure. From the
maximum capillary pressure, PRTLf the probability (cos θ) that the thin
liquid film between the gas bubbles is stabilized by a single particle
layer. Fig. 11 shows this probability as a function of contact angle (curve
with red color). The thin liquid film between the gas bubbles is most
stable at θ = 0◦ . Now let us consider PRfoam as the probability of the
complex event that both the particles at the interface and the thin liquid
films will be stable under the same conditions. This complex probability
will be proportional to the probability that a given type of foam under
given circumstances is stable. Consequently, the stability of foams will
be proportional to PRGLi × PRTLf . This complex probability is shown in
Fig. 11 (blue curve) as a function of contact angle. The ideal contact
angle for the formation of foams is about 70◦ , as shown in the figure.
This has been reported to be in complete agreement with the experi­
mental results.
4.3. Effects of hydrophilic nanoparticles concentration
The influence of NP concentration on foam stability has been
demonstrated experimentally by previous researchers. Table 3 summa­
rizes the previous findings related to the influence of NPs concentration
on foam stability. Apart from the enhancement of bulk foam stability,
the increased average pressure drop, apparent viscosity, and the addi­
tional oil recovery in flooding experiments were also reported (Zargar­
talebi et al., 2015; Karakashev et al., 2011; Maurya and Mandal, 2018; Li
et al., 2019; Singh and Mohanty, 2018; Rognmo et al., 2018; Sun et al.,
2020; Hu et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017b; Yekeen et al., 2017a).
Karakashev et al. (2011) conducted an experimental study of foam

Table 3
Table summary of the influence of nanoparticles concentration on foam stability.
Reference Nanoparticle Surfactant Main Findings

Karakashev et al. Sepiolite NPs, High purity SiO2 SDS (anionic) 1. The silica micro-spheres slightly increased the foamability at 1 wt%, 2 wt
(2011) %, and 4 wt% (with increasing NP concentration).
Kumar and Al2O3, ZrO2, CaCO3, BN, SiO2 SDS (anionic), CTAB (cationic), Polysorbate 1. The presence of NP in the surfactant solution has the strong ability to
Mandal (2017) 80 (nonionic) increase the accumulation of surface active species near the interface,
hence stable foam was obtained at optimum concentration of NPs.
Yang et al. Alumina sol (hydrophilic) SDS (anionic) 1. Foam stability was enhanced at an appropriate SDS/AlOOH
(2017b) concentration ratio.
2. Foam generated from SDS/AlOOH dispersions with higher NP
concentrations exhibited lower foamability because of increases in SDS
adsorption and viscosity.
Yekeen et al. SiO2 (hydrophilic), Modified SDS (anionic) 1. In the presence of hydrophilic SiO2 and Al2O3 NPs, foam stability (half-
(2017a) Al2O3 hydrophilic life) increased with increasing NP concentration from 0.05 wt% to 1 wt%.
Beyond 1 wt%, foam stability started to decrease with the increasing NP
concentration. This behavior can be attributed to the excessive
agglomeration of the NPs at the foam interface and bulk structure.
2. For the modified SiO2–SDS CO2 and air-foam, foam stability (half-life)
increases with the increasing NP concentration.
Maurya and SiO2 NPs SDS (anionic), CTAB (cationic) 1. The emulsion viscosity increased with the increase in silica NP
Mandal (2018) concentration.
Alyousef et al. NexSil 20 non-modified SiO2) Alcohol Ethoxylate (nonionic) 1. Increasing NP concentration does not necessarily generate a more stable
(2018) foam/emulsion. The addition of excessive solid particles or surfactants
might decrease foam stability and reduce the maximum capillary pressure
of coalescence as a result of forming large and dense aggregates.
Singh and LN1 - PEG surface coat SiO2, Anionic surfactant with a sulfonate head 1. These results show that emulsion stability can be tuned by varying the
Mohanty (2018) LN2 - GLYMO surface coat group concentration of surfactant and NPs from ultra-stable (half-life order of
SiO2 years) to moderately stable (half-life order of minutes).
2. A clear synergy between surfactant and Si-NP2 in stabilizing foam under
high-salinity conditions was observed with foam resistance factor
increasing from 1.84 (surfactant case) to 5.66 (surfactant+0.5 wt% Si-
NP2). Average pressure drops increase as the NPs concentration increases.
Rognmo et al. SiO2 A - 23.3 nm,B - 20.3 nm Linear alcohol ethoxylate 1. An increase in NP A concentration increased the oil recovery further.
(2018)
Hu et al. (2018) SiO2 NPs (SNPs) hydrophilic CTAB (cationic), SDS (anionic) 1. The initial foam volume decreases to some extent in the presence of SNP,
because the adsorption of CTAB onto SNPs reduced the number of free
CTAB molecules, and the surface tension increased.
2. CTAB molecules adsorbed on the negatively charged SNPs surface via
electrostatic interaction. This adsorption not only reduced their surface
charges but also rendered them to be more hydrophobic than the bare
surface.
Li et al. (2019) Hydrophilic SiO2 NPs (SC) HHSB 1. The coalescence rate of SC-CO2 foam gradually became very slow with
the increasing NP concentration.
2. With an increase in NP concentration, the apparent viscosity of SC-CO2
foam increased greatly.
Majed Almubarak Surface modified SiO2 Tallowtrimethylammoniumchlodride 1. The surfactant and NPs concentrations are a crucial parameter for foam
et al (2020) (cationic) stability where, an optimal concentration of NPs for strong foam
generation.
Xuezhen and Ethyl cellulose (ECNP) CH3 70PO-100EOH (nonionic) 1. The synergy between the surfactant and ECNP dramatically improved the
Mohanty (2020) foamability and stability when their concentrations were optimized.

9
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Fig. 12. Foamability reduction observed with decreasing cationic cetyl­
trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) surfactant concentration at fixed silica
nanoparticles (SNPs) concentration of 0.1 wt%. Adapted from Hu et al. (2018).
stability using sepiolite NPs mixed in sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)
surfactant using a foam tester. Their results show that sepiolite NPs
significantly increase the foam half-life with increasing NP concentra­
tion at fixed surfactant concentrations. Similar bulk foam stability re­
sults in decane were observed by Maurya and Mandal (2018). Increasing
NP concentration has been shown to improve dynamic foam stability
and apparent foam viscosity (Li et al., 2019) and improve fluid diversion
during the Berea core flooding experiment (Singh and Mohanty, 2018)
and at reservoir conditions (Rognmo et al., 2018).
However, a previous study by Hu et al. (2018) has also reported a
reduction in foamability when NPs and surfactant used does not have a
similar charge, as presented in Fig. 12. As NP concentration increases,
more surfactant molecules are adsorbed on NP surfaces; consequently,
zeta potential reduction was observed experimentally (Yang et al.,
2017b). Zeta potential is an exponential difference between the outer
boundary, an immobile stern layer of the NP, and bulk solution.
Reduction in zeta potential or zero zeta potential is achieved when there
is a balance between the concentration of ions attached to the surface
and the surface charge of the NPs (Ahmadi et al., 2011). Since fewer
surfactant molecules are available in the solution, the foamability of
NP-stabilized foam decreases with an increase in NP concentration
(Yekeen et al., 2017a; Yang et al., 2017b). Similar findings were
observed by Alyousef et al. (2018) using hydrophilic silica in three
non-ionic surfactants.
In summary, it has been proven that increasing NP concentration
may enhance foam stability. However, it may also decrease its foam­
ability depending on the NPs and surfactant type used. Therefore, it is
crucial to identify an optimum NP concentration to achieve optimum
foamability and foam stability in combination with the surfactant used
before any NP-surfactant foam real application.
4.4. Synergy effect between nanoparticles surface charge and surfactant
net charge
The interaction between NP surface charge and surfactant net
charges critically affects NP-assisted foam stability as demonstrated by
the main findings in Table 4. It may be an electrical attraction between
oppositely charged NPs and surfactant net charge or an electrical
repulsion between similar charges of the two. NPs and surfactant
mixture of similar and opposite charge has been observed to enhance
foam stability compared to conventional surfactant foam (Hu et al.,
2018). The synergy effect can be observed through NP dispersion in a
10
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
mixture, reduction of zeta potential, particle aggregation, and foam
stability.
In a positive-charge NP and anionic surfactant mixture, an electrical
attraction interaction exists. The electrical attraction between the
oppositely charged surfactant and NP causes the surfactant monomers to
be adsorbed on the NPs’ surface (Veyskarami and Ghazanfari, 2018).
Thus, an in-situ modification of NPs’ wettability from hydrophilic to
partially hydrophobic and vice versa may occur (Arriaga et al., 2012;
Llamas et al., 2019) as the opposite-charge surfactant forms a monolayer
at the NP surface (Farhadi et al., 2016; Panahpoori et al., 2019). Further
increase of NP hydrophobicity may increase contact angle above 90◦ ,
resulting in the coagulation of solid NPs (Kruglyakov et al., 2011).
Therefore, it is necessary to determine the optimum NPs and surfactant
concentration to avoid NPs becoming extremely hydrophobic, thereby
avoiding flocculation (Binks and Rodrigues, 2007).
In a similar-charge NP and surfactant system where electrical
repulsion exists, the nanofluid dispersion’s zeta potential can either
remain the same or further increase (Guo and Aryana, 2016; Vatan­
parast et al., 2018; Maurya and Mandal, 2018). A more significant
positive or negative value of zeta potential usually corresponds to
smaller average particle size and less agglomeration, as shown in Fig. 13
(Panahpoori et al., 2019). Therefore, NPs remained in the lamellae, thus
stabilizing the foam through the particle arrangement mechanism by
slowing liquid drainage (Hu et al., 2018). According to Vatanparast et al.
(2018), the zeta potential of hydrophilic silica NPs in the diluted
nanofluid dispersion nearly remained constant by adding SDS, implying
that the surfactant molecules do not modify the surface charges of the
NPs. This result was somewhat predictable because of the same elec­
trical charge on the NPs’ surface and the surfactant’s head. However, in
the presence of NPs, the surfactant performs better in terms of lowering
IFT. The electrostatic repulsion between SDS molecules and NPs is
responsible for this behavior.
Although both charges interaction between NPs and surfactants
enhance foam stability based on a different mechanism, it has been re­
ported that a longer foam half-life is achievable between oppositely
charged NPs and surfactants (Hu et al., 2018; Yekeen et al., 2019a).
Thus, confirming that the electrostatic attraction is more prominent in
enhancing foam stability. However, identifying the optimum concen­
tration of oppositely charged NPs and the surfactant is crucial to avoid
particle aggregation and precipitation in solution as the particles’ total
net charge at the NP surface is being neutralized (Esmaeilzadeh et al.,
2014; Veyskarami and Ghazanfari, 2018).
4.5. Effect of salinity
To date, some researchers had observed a detrimental effect of
salinity toward NP-stabilized foam performance, see Table 5. Noor et al.
(2019) investigated foam stability at varying Alpha Olefin Sulfonate
(AOS) surfactant, silica NP, and brine concentrations by observing foam
half-life and bubble size analysis at standard conditions. Their result
shows that adding 1.0 wt% of sodium chloride (NaCl) reduced the NPs
stabilized foam stability as larger foam bubbles were created, causing
faster foam collapse. A similar outcome was observed by Xiao et al.
(2016) through dynamic foam stability measurement. Their results show
that the maximum foam apparent viscosity was achieved at a lower foam
quality, indicating that the salt ions in the solution reduce NP-stabilized
foam’s stability.
On the contrary, Li et al. (2019) reported from their experiments
involving salinities between 2 wt% to 10 wt%; foam half-life signifi­
cantly improved with increasing salinity, although the foamability was
slightly decreased. Similar results were also observed by Xu et al. (2018)
and Qian et al. (2019) up to 5 wt% salinity.
Different results may be due to different ionic interactions between
salt, NPs, and surfactant. Several researchers observed that increasing
the salinity resulted in aggregation due to a reduction in surface tension
and zeta potential, as shown in Fig. 14, thus decreasing foam stability
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Table 4
Table summary of synergy effect between nanoparticles surface charge and surfactant net charge on foam stability.
Reference Nanoparticle Surfactant Main Findings

Binks and Rodrigues SiO2 CTAB (cationic) 1.A synergism exists between particles and surfactants, thus enhancing emulsion stability, in
(2007) contrast to complete instability of emulsion with particles or surfactant alone.
Arriaga et al. (2012) SiO2 n-amylamine (cosurfactant 1.The results (bulk behavior of mixed silica NPs-n-amylamine dispersion) confirm that n-
cationic) amylamine adsorb at the particle surface through electrostatic binding, producing in situ
particle hydrophilization, which is responsible for the observed foam stabilization.
Farhadi et al. (2016) SiO2 Ethyl hexadecyl dimenthyl 1.NPs and opposite charge surfactants have less interfacial tension. Thus, generate smaller
ammonium bromide (cationic) foam with uniform bubbles. With higher NPs concentration, more NPs can participate at the
interface and prevents coalescence. Since more aggregates are available in aqueous film, it
reduces drainage velocity, which increased bulk viscosity.
Guo and Aryana Fumed SiO2 T30, AOS (anionic), 1. It is proposed that particle size and distribution affect NP-assisted foam stability and the
(2016) Nano clay (by Sigma SDS (anionic), particle surface charge neutralization leads to particle aggregation.
Aldrich) LAPB (amphoteric) 2. Addition of surfactant leads to its physical adsorption on NPs’ surface, reducing surface
energy of NPs and particle-particle interactions. It increases the colloidal stability of the NPs
in suspension, and the layer of surfactant helps prevent the particles from aggregating.
Hu et al. (2018) SiO2 (SNPs) CTAB (cationic), SDS (anionic) 1. SNPs-CTAB adsorbed at the air–water interface and formed a thick, compact, NP-enhanced
bubble film, which significantly slowed drainage, gas diffusion, and coalescence and then
increased the foam stability.
2. Even if the SNPs in the existence of SDS were hydrophilic, the foam stability was still
enhanced since these particles presented in the aqueous phase of the foam film and slowed
down the drainage.
Veyskarami and SiO2 SDS (anionic), CTAB (cationic) 1. Opposite-charged surfactant could make an in-situ modification on silica NP surface
Ghazanfari (2018) through adsorption of surfactant monomers on NP surface. Linking opposite-charged NP and
surfactant can cause aggregation and precipitation of NPs in the bulk solution.
2. No interaction between like-charged surfactant and NP was observed.
Vatanparast et al. SiO2 (9 nm & 30 SDS (anionic), 1. In the presence of NPs, the surfactant behaves more efficient in reducing the IFT. This
(2018) nm) DBSA (anionic) behavior is attributed to the electrostatic repulsion between SDS molecules and NPs,
promoting surfactant adsorption.
Maurya and Mandal SiO2 SDS (anionic), 1. It has been found that cationic surfactant forms highly stable emulsion due to the electric
(2018) CTAB (cationic) attraction between the CTAB and SiO2.
2. Whereas, in the case of anionic surfactant, emulsion stability depends on the relative
concentration of SDS and SiO2 NP due to electrostatic repulsion between SDS and SiO2. In
NP–surfactant solution, the interfacial tension (IFT) may change if there is electrostatic
repulsion between similar-charged NP and surfactant.
Llamas et al. (2019) TiO2, SiO2 CTAB (cationic) 1. When both types of NP are made amphiphilic, synergetic effects have been observed due to
the formation of mixed NP layers at the liquid-air interface. These synergetic effects on the
surface properties of these mixed dispersions have been then exploited to obtain foams,
characterized by excellent stability features.
Panahpoori et al. TiO2 CTAB (cationic) 1. Absorbance spectrum analysis for nanofluids and NP-CTAB solutions proved the role of
(2019) CTAB molecules in NPs stabilization, possibly by the development of repulsive forces between
surface-modified NPs.
Yekeen et al. (2019a) Al2O3, CuO, SDS (anionic), 1. The result confirmed that the influence of electrostatic attraction between the anionic
TiO2, ZnO, SDBS (anionic), surfactant and opposite charge NPs could be dominant over the influence of electrostatic
ZrO2, SiO2 CTAB (cationic) repulsion (similar charge surfactant and NPs) in promoting foam stability.
Fu and Liu (2020) SiO2 SDS (anionic), 1. Anionic surfactant yielded the most stable foam (highest apparent viscosity) compared to
CTAB (cationic), the cationic and nonionic surfactant.
Ecosurf EH-9 (nonionic)
Zhao et al. (2021) SiO2 A (NPA), SiO2 AOT (anionic) 1. Hydrophilic NPA can enhance the surface activity of AOT surfactants due to electrostatic
B (NPB) repulsion force and the increase of ionic strength.
2. Partially hydrophobic NPB has synergistic effects with AOT for stabilizing CO2 foam when
they are mixed in proper proportions.

(Vatanparast et al., 2018; Eide et al., 2018). It is difficult to assume that
the aggregation of NPs in the presence of salts necessarily leads to the
formation of unstable foams. Although a high accumulation of NP par­
ticles in the foam structure and at locations other than the plateau in­
terfaces and the gas-liquid interface leads to foam instability because NP
hinders the presence of particles in the interface, a moderate accumu­
lation of NP particles in the gas-liquid interface leads to higher foam
stability, even in the presence of salts.
The monovalent salt ions have been reported to have a lesser impact
on foam stability as compared to divalent salt ions, as exhibited in
Fig. 15(Yekeen et al., 2017b). This is due to the effectiveness of divalent
cations screening NP charges being higher than monovalent cations
(Jafari Daghlian Sofla et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017b; Yekeen et al.,
2017b; Eftekhari et al., 2015; Eide et al., 2018). When divalent salt ions
completely shield the electrical double layer of NPs, they can destabilize
the NPs due to aggregation of the particles. When this happens, fewer
NPs are available in the lamellae when the foam is generated, resulting
in poor foam stability. Although the NPs’ actual interaction with cations
salt was unclear, laboratory analysis had successfully created a highly
stabilized foam by NPs at high salinity conditions. Therefore, further
research may be conducted to understand the actual mechanism be­
tween NPs and salt ions in the presence of surfactant molecules and their
effect on NP fluid mixture stability and the stabilized foam performance.
4.6. Effect of oil
Oil is destructive toward conventional surfactant foam and can cause
them to break down instantly (Eftekhari et al., 2015). However, the
addition of NP to the surfactant foam was able to reduce the detrimental
impact of oil on foam stability (Eftekhari et al., 2015; Razali et al., 2018;
Rognmo et al., 2018; Qian et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017b; Veyskarami
and Ghazanfari, 2018; Noor et al., 2019; Singh and Mohanty, 2017b).
Table 6 provides a summary of previous studies related to the influence
of oil on foam stability.
Yang et al. (2017b) conducted an experimental investigation on
foam stability in the presence of kerosene oil at room temperature by
observing the foam half-life of Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (SDS) anionic
surfactant stabilized by alumina NPs. Their results show that the foam

11
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Fig. 13. Zeta potential and corresponding average particle size of 0.03 wt% TiO2 nanofluid at variable pH reproduced from Panahpoori et al. (2019).
half-life in the presence of NPs was longer, indicating better foam sta­
bility. Similar results were also reported by other researchers using a
wide range of oils viscosities from light to heavy oils having viscosity up
to 508 cp (Eftekhari et al., 2015; Qian et al., 2019; Veyskarami and
Ghazanfari, 2018; Noor et al., 2019) and even at high-temperature
conditions of 110 ◦ C (Razali et al., 2018). The stability improvement
of NP-stabilized foam in the presence of oil was also observed in flow
experiments by showing higher apparent viscosity and additional oil
recovery (Risal et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017a; Xuezhen and Mohanty,
2020). Interestingly, Singh and Mohanty (2017b) reported a complete
blocking by NPs stabilized foam during flow experiments indicating that
the oil being swept does not break the stabilized foam generated.
Furthermore, in a study by Xu et al. (2020) the oil washing efficiency of
the foam was greatly increased after the addition of NPs. This is due to
the fact that the NPs can be irreversibly adsorbed onto the liquid film of
the bubble interface, and a dense layer is formed at the interface via
flocculation, increasing the viscoelasticity of the surfactant-NP foam’s
liquid film.
Furthermore, a study by Veyskarami and Ghazanfari (2018) clearly
reveals that the presence of oil significantly reduces foam stability of
silica NP–CTAB and silica NP–SDS see Fig. 16. However, increasing the
concentration of silica NP in the foam structure enhances stability in the
presence of oil substantially. As a result, it can be stated that if the NP is
suitably selected for addition to an surfactant foam structure, the foam
stability at particular NP concentrations will be greatly enhanced.
However, similar to conventional foam, lighter oil, either synthetic or
crude oil, is more detrimental to foam stability than heavier oil (Singh
and Mohanty, 2015; Maurya and Mandal, 2018; Yekeen et al., 2016). In
addition, NPs stabilized foam was reported to collapse faster as more oil
is available (Bashir et al., 2019).
Besides, Veyskarami and Ghazanfari (2018) reported contradicting
foam stability performance between static stability test and foam flow
test when identifying a suitable combination of NPs and surfactants in
the presence of oil. His findings show that like-charge NPs and surfac­
tants exhibit better half-life in the presence of kerosene oil with a vis­
cosity of 1.6 cP. Remarkably, the opposite behavior is observed during
foam flow in the Hele-Shaw cell, as the opposite-charge NPs and sur­
factants display higher differential pressure in the presence of the same
oil. It indicates how dynamic stability analysis is necessary to distinguish
ideal parameters or various NPs and surfactants to be used in conjunc­
tion with oil type for field application. There is still a lack of under­
standing of this phenomenon due to limited references available.
12
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
Further investigation may be conducted to understand the effect of oil
and the NP stabilization mechanism involved during static stability and
dynamic stability test.
4.7. Effect of temperature
The foam stability in the presence of NPs has been reported to
decrease with increasing temperature, see Table 7. Chea et al. (2018)
investigated the foamability and stability of silica and alumina NPs
stabilized foam at temperatures ranging from 25 ◦ C to 90 ◦ C in the
presence of anionic surfactant. They observed that foam half-life de­
creases as temperature increases at constant NP and surfactant con­
centration and salinity. Similar results were observed when silica and
alumina NPs were used, which is also in agreement with findings by
Emrani et al. (2017) for tests with silica and anionic surfactant and Singh
and Mohanty (2017a, 2017b) using surface-modified silica in anionic
surfactant at 80 ◦ C. Likewise, several investigations on NPs stabilized
foam core flooding experiments reported that the mobility resistance
factor significantly decreased at 50 ◦ C (Alyousef et al., 2017) and 80 ◦ C
(Wang et al., 2017), indicating weaker foam at the higher temperature.
Mo et al. (2014b) found a decrease in oil recovery by NP-stabilized
foam as temperature increased in an investigation of the temperature
effect on residual oil recovery by CO2 foam in the presence of silica NPs
in sandstone cores. Their findings show that silica-stabilized foam’s oil
recovery decreases by almost 5% as the temperature increased from
25 ◦ C to 60 ◦ C. Similar outcomes were reported by Fu et al. (2018) using
Berea sandstone core at 2 wt% NaCl.
Temperature influences the diffusion rate, surfactant adsorption at
the gas/water interface and rock surface, and liquid viscosity, all of
which contribute to foam stability. As temperature increases, surfactant
molecules’ mobility increases; therefore, fewer surfactant molecules are
adsorbed at the gas-liquid interface (Yang et al., 2017b; Zhu et al.,
2019). This finding was confirmed by a laboratory experiment where
Emrani and Nasr-El-Din (2015) observed that the surface tension of AOS
surfactant increases at higher temperature conditions above 100 ◦ C.
Since CO2 gas has a lower solubility in liquid at a higher temperature, it
further elevates the increasing behavior of surface tension. In addition,
NPs’ mobility also increases as temperature increases; thus, particles
were inhibited from being adsorbed onto the gas-liquid interface, thus
decreasing foam stability (Yu et al., 2012b). It has also been discovered
that a decrease in liquid viscosity caused by an increase in temperature
reduces the drainage half-life (Emrani et al., 2017).
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Table 5
Table summary of the influence of salinity on foam stability.
Reference Nanoparticle Surfactant Salt Main Findings

Xiao et al. (2016) SiO2 ANS (anionic) NaCl 1. The salinity significantly negatively affected the apparent viscosity of foams
generated with NP + ANS systems.
2. In the presence of salt, maximum apparent viscosity is achieved at lower
foam quality.
Yekeen et al. Hydrophilic SiO2, SDS (anionic) NaCl, 1. There is a transition NaCl, CaCl2, and AlCl3 salt concentration for foam
(2017b) Hydrophilic Al2O3 CaCl2, stabilized by NPs and surfactant, beyond which the foam stability increased
AlCl3, with increasing salt concentrations. The presence of salt improved the foam
stability due to the increased NPs hydrophobicity and the reduced
electrostatic repulsion between the particles, which resulted in particles
aggregation at the gas-liquid interface of the foam.
2. The rate of bubble coalescence was significantly lower in monovalent salt
ions than the divalent and trivalent salt ions.
Eide et al. (2018) Modified SiO2 (Levasil NaCl 1. Divalent salt ions are more detrimental to NP stability than monovalent
CC301) ions, most likely due to a reduction in zeta-potential that causes aggregation
Jafari Daghlian Hydrophilic SiO2 NaCl, Na2SO4, 1. Divalent salt ions screen the charge of silica NPs more effectively than
Sofla et al. (2018) MgCl2, MgSO4 monovalent ions where divalent ions in the electrical double layer of NPs can
destabilize the NPs in the solution.
Xu et al. (2018) SiO2( AES (anionic-nonionic NaCl, 1. High salinity (≥50,000 mg/L) is conducive to the stability of S-AK/AES
S-AK) surfactant), SDS (anionic) CaCl2 natural gas foams at a high temperature of 50 ◦ C.
2. The addition of NaCl or CaCl2 promotes the interaction between S-AK and
AES, improving the structural strength of the foaming agent.
Vatanparast et al. Hydrophilic SiO2 SDS (anionic), NaCl 1. The impact of NPs on the interfacial tension of the surfactant solution
(2018) 9 nm & 30 nm DBSA (anionic) weakens in the presence of NaCl, and it completely vanishes at a high
concentration. Therefore, at the high salt concentration, the electrostatic
repulsion almost disappears due to the entire surface screening of the
negatively charged NPs’ by Na+ ions.
Qian et al. (2019) Alumina-coated SiO2, AES (anionic-nonionic NaCl 1. Salinity increased the performance of partial monolayer coverage NP-
SNOWTEX-AK (ST-AK) surfactant) surfactant foam but decreased the performance of surfactant-only foam. The
synergistic interaction between NPs and surfactants is responsible for this
difference.
Noor et al. (2019) SiO2 (SNP) AOS (anionic) NaCl 1. Adding brine to the solution with dispersed SNP can reduce the foam
stability due to a decrease in the particles’ electrostatic repulsion.
Li et al. (2019) Hydrophilic SiO2 HHSB (amphoteric) NaCl, 1. The stability of super critical-CO2 foam improved with the increase in
CaCl2 salinity due to the screened electrostatic repulsion between negatively
charged silica NPs.
2. The super critical-CO2 foam volume decreased slightly with an increase in
salinity, and the increased foam’s half-life.
Wang et al. (2020b) SiO2 (Ludox CL) Sulfobetaine (LHSB) NaCl, 1. High concentration of NaCl and CaCl2 reduce the adsorption of LHSB on NP.
CaCl2 2. Significant adsorption reduction is observed in CaCl2, thus less NP can be
adsorbed at the gas-liquid interface.

Although the increasing temperature has a detrimental effect on
foam stability in the presence of NPs, experimental studies have proven
that NPs still have significantly enhanced foam stability as compared to
conventional surfactant foam (Bashir et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017b;
Zhu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). Bashir et al. (2019) experimental results
show that the NPs can extend foam half-life and improve foam stability
compared to surfactant foam at an optimum NP concentration at 85 ◦ C.
Similar results were observed by Yang et al. (2017b) in the presence of
NPs as the temperature increased from 22.5 ◦ C to 80 ◦ C. At an optimum
NP concentration, an optimal amount of NPs can be adsorbed at the
gas-liquid interface to enhance the disjoining pressure, thus slowing
down foam collapse at high temperatures (Li et al., 2019). Surfactants,
on the other hand, can decompose at high temperatures, rendering them
ineffective for foam stabilization. Protecting surfactants from degrada­
tion and improving foam stability are critical factors that can be ach­
ieved by adding NPs to the solution (Emrani et al., 2017).
In summary, NP-stabilized foam stability decreases with increasing
temperature, similar to surfactant foam behavior. However, it has been
reported that NPs improve the foam stability compared to surfactant
foam at high-temperature conditions, at the optimum concentration.
However, limited research is available in studying the foam stability
effect at a temperature above 90 ◦ C. As a result, additional research and
studies are required to improve the understanding of foam stability for
those high-temperature field applications.
4.8. Effect of flow velocity
The effect of flow velocity or injection velocity toward foam stability
is commonly measured during foam flow experiments using a capillary
tube (Xiao et al., 2016) or flowing in a porous media (Rognmo et al.,
2017; Yekeen et al., 2017b). Table 8 summarizes the effect of flow ve­
locity on foam stability. Apparent foam viscosity is considered to
represent the foam stability in this condition. The flow velocity in­
fluences the NPs-stabilized foam stability and describes the rheological
behavior of the foam flow. A condition in which apparent foam viscosity
decreases with increasing velocity describes the shear-thinning flow
behavior (Rognmo et al., 2017). On the contrary, the condition at which
apparent foam viscosities increase with increasing flow velocity is
known as shear-thickening flow behavior.
Several studies have experimentally reported a decrease in apparent
foam viscosity with increasing flow velocity during foam flow experi­
ments. Through co-injection flow experiments, Yekeen et al. (2017b)
reported that the apparent foam viscosity reduces with increasing in­
jection flow rates. The results obtained can attribute to shear-thinning
behavior similar to conventional surfactant foam.
Xiao et al. (2016) studied the effect of shear rates on foam rheology
at different foam qualities and salinities in the presence of silica NPs
using the flow loop apparatus at 1140 psi and temperature of 40 ◦ C.
They reported that the foam exhibited shear thinning behavior at
all-foam qualities. However, different rheology behavior was observed
at high salinity conditions (5 wt%), whereby foam exhibits pure shear
thickening behavior at all-foam qualities in the absence of oil. In addi­
tion to that, they also identified a critical shear rate at which
NP-surfactant foam was stable in high salinity conditions.
Based on the discussed findings, it can be deduced that the shear rate
is not the only parameter affecting phenomenon characteristics (shear-

13
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
thinning or shear-thickening) and precisely the magnitude of the
apparent viscosity. The foam rheology behavior may differ at different
NPs or surfactant concentrations (Maurya and Mandal, 2018) and
different salinity (Xiao et al., 2016). It is commonly understood that
foam without NPs exhibits shear thinning behavior, but there is still a
lack of understanding of the extent of shear thickening behavior in
NP-stabilized foam, which requires in-depth investigation.
4.9. Effect of nanoparticles retention
NPs retention in porous media indirectly reduces foamability and
foam strength (Rognmo et al., 2017). A summary of the findings related
to the influence of NPs retention on foam stability is provided in Table 9.
NPs are retained in porous media via three different mechanisms;
attachment to rock surface due to electrostatic interaction results in
particle adsorption, mechanical entrapment and log-jamming result in
pore channel plugging, and particles settling due to gravitational effect
caused by large density differences between particles and aqueous
phase, see Fig. 17. The retention mechanism is a function of NPs
adsorption to either the rock surface or the liquid interface (Metin et al.,
2012). It is preferable to have NPs adsorbed at the liquid interface rather
than the rock surface in a system. Excessive NP retention can negatively
affect the reservoir’s porosity, permeability, wettability, and flow ca­
pacity (Rognmo et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2012a). The
degree of retention should be minimized to maintain in-depth foam­
ability and keep costs low. Therefore, knowledge of nanofluid retention
characteristics in the porous media is essential when implementing
NP-surfactant foam flow strategies.
Adsorption of surface-active agents, like surfactants and NPs, occurs
when surface-active agents dissolved in an aqueous phase are injected
into a porous media and attract the pore wall instead of migrating to the
gas-liquid interface. Adsorption adversely affects the foaming process
and may result in ineffective and uneconomical use of foam stabilizers as
the amount of surface-active agents available for stabilization decreases
with an increasing degree of adsorption. The adsorption of NPs onto rock
surfaces may vary between different rock types and minerals due to
electrostatic interaction bet ween the NPs and the rock surface. Yu et al.
(2012a) study the silica NPs adsorption on sandstone, limestone, and
dolomite. The equilibrium adsorption results show that NPs adsorption
is highest on limestone, which mainly consists of calcite (5.501 mg/g)
compared to sandstone (1.272 mg/g) and dolomite (0 mg/g). The author
highlights that the low adsorption of nano-silica with sandstone may be
due to similar composition, while the high adsorption observed with
limestone is due to high electrostatic force between the two surfaces.
Additionally, Metin et al. (2012) conducted adsorption experiments
using calcite and quartz sand. The author extended the analysis to
observe the effect of different surface coat particles (unmodified SiO2,
sulfonate-modified, and PEG-modified SiO2), NPs concentration (0.04
Fig. 14. Schematic of electrostatic repulsion behavior in the absence (left) and presence of salt ions (right). Adapted from Vatanparast et al. (2018).
14
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
wt%, 0.2 wt% and 1.0 wt%), and particle sizes (5 nm and 25 nm).
However, their observation shows that all NPs tested, regardless of
particles concentration and particles sizes, do not significantly adsorb
onto the mineral surfaces.
Based on previous researches, NP retention via mechanical trapping
is insignificant as the NPs’ size is several magnitudes smaller than the
pore throat size (Sun et al., 2021). The trapping of NPs is commonly
examined through flooding experiments and analyzed based on differ­
ential pressure, produced NPs concentration, and permeability of the
media pre- and post-flooding. Rognmo et al. (2017) observed that the
silica NPs breakthrough at approximately one pore injection volume
during the NPs flooding experiments. The author obtained an average
NPs retention of 401 μg/g from four core flood experiments permeability
ranging between 1506md and 2447md. In addition to that, no change in
the differential pressure measurements during NPs flooding indicating
that NP retention is not due to mechanical trapping. However, Sun et al.
(2021) observed that the NPs retention decreases from 12.1% to 4.1%
with increasing sand pack permeability ranging between 231md and
4320md. The author also reported that a 10.2% decrease of permeability
was observed a post-brine flooding in the 231md sand pack.
On the other hand, Yu et al. (2012a) observed no change in differ­
ential pressure and permeability during silica NPs flooding using sand­
stone core with 33md and 57.6md permeability. With no permeability
impairment, a slight change in differential pressure during limestone
(132md) core flooding was observed. Therefore, the NPs were adsorbed
due to their electrostatic interaction with rock surfaces instead of me­
chanical trapping. Interestingly, although the silica NPs breakthrough
immediately during the dolomite core flooding, differential pressure
during brine flooding after NP flooding continuously increases. This
response indicates that particle plugging occurred and permeability is
changed. The result obtained may be due to enhanced interaction be­
tween the nano-silica and pore surface in the extremely low perme­
ability (5.29md) dolomite core. This low permeability may result in
higher interactions between moving particles and pore surfaces that
promote pore-surface processes like a deposition and pore-throat pro­
cesses like plugging, screening, and bridging.
The NPs retention via particle adsorption and mechanical trapping is
minimal based on the reviewed literature. Different rock types and
mineral compositions play a vital role in the adsorption of NPs onto rock
surfaces due to electrostatic interaction. Interestingly, different surface
coat nanosilica, NPs concentration, and particle size do not significantly
affect the adsorption of NPs onto the rock surface. Since the reviewed
researchers utilize silica NPs in their study, the degree of NP adsorption
may differ using other types of NPs.
Currently, only the total amount of retention can be calculated from
the analysis of dynamic test results without determining the contribu­
tion of each retention mechanism to the total amount of NPs lost in the
porous medium. It is essential to differentiate the contribution of each of
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Fig. 15. Effect of (a) monovalent salt ions (Na⁺) and (b) divalent salt ions (Ca2⁺)
concentration on the foamability of the nano-ash-AOS mixture. Reproduced
from Eftekhari et al. (2015).
these mechanisms in retention because if they are the significant amount
and needed to be treated, the method of reducing or eliminating the
impact of these mechanisms varies depending on their type. Mechanical
entrapment, for example, can be minimized or even eliminated by
reducing the NP size, whereas adsorption can be reduced by altering the
NP or coating the NP’s surface with chemicals that repel the NP from the
rock surface. The findings of polymer flooding dynamics research
(Akbari et al., 2019b; Al-Hajri et al., 2018), for which such a separation
of mechanisms has been done, can be used to design such a method,
which could be the focus of future investigations. It should be noted that
while static tests can provide a general and qualitative overview of the
amount of adsorption on the rock surface, the quantitative use of static
test results to evaluate adsorption in the dynamic state is associated with
a high risk of error for three main reasons. First, exposed surfaces may
not have similarities to the initially consolidated surface surfaces during
the disaggregation of consolidated rock. Second, the static test does not
measure the loss of mechanical entrapment in porous media. Third, the
disaggregated rock’s wettability may differ from the wettability of the
reservoir rock (Manichand and Seright, 2014; Dang et al., 2014).
Due to the strong electrostatic adsorption between opposite charge
NP and surfactant molecules, competitive adsorption of surfactant
molecules with NPs and rock surface exists (Yekeen et al., 2017b).
Insignificant loss of surfactant molecules onto the rock is reported
through several experimental investigations, see Table 10. Yekeen et al.
(2019b) observed that the amount of free surfactant molecules decreases
in the presence of NPs. The silica NPs were more effective in reducing
cationic surfactant adsorption onto surface samples (clay-rich shale and
quartz-rich shale) compared to anionic and non-ionic surfactants. In
addition to that, Saxena et al. (2019) observed that the surfactant
15
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
adsorption onto the surface sample (sandstone, carbonate, and
bentonite) decreases with increasing silica NPs concentration at fixed
surfactant concentration. The author pointed that the observed behavior
was due to stronger hydrogen bonding between surfactant and NP
(Ahmadi and Shadizadeh, 2013; Saxena et al., 2019). Since competitive
adsorption exists between NPs and rock surface, higher surfactant
molecules adsorption onto NPs surface will lead to lesser surfactant
adsorption onto the rock surface. Therefore, more surfactant molecules
will be available in the bulk liquid, thus reduce the loss of surfactant
onto rock surface and improving foam performance.
4.10. Effect of nanoparticle types
The use of NPs to enhance the stability of foam is not limited to SiO2.
Several researchers have studied the effect of metal oxides NPs (Yekeen
et al., 2019a), fly-ash NPs (Wang et al., 2020a; Lee et al., 2017; Phong
et al., 2020), and carbon nanotubes (Raja Ramanathan and Nasr-El-Din,
2020). A summary of findings related to the influence of NPs type on
foam stability is provided in Table 11. Overall, all the NPs used exhibit
enhancement of foam stability compared to surfactant foam. The
enhancement of foam stability is a function of NPs’ characteristics such
as density, size, shape, wettability, and surface charges that contribute
to the stabilization mechanism (Rafati et al., 2016).
Yekeen et al. (2019a) conducted extensive research on the effect of
surfactant (anionic, cationic, and nonionic) and NP types (Al2O3, ZrO2,
SiO2, TiO2, ZnO, CuO, and carbon nanotubes). It was observed that the
electrostatic attraction between the NPs surface charge and surfactant
head-groups play a vital role in stabilizing the foam. The interaction
allows better NP adsorption at the gas-liquid interface and tighter
packing at the lamellae, thus slowing down the liquid drainage and
enhancing foam stability. In a foam half-life measurement using fly ash
NPs combined with MFOMAX surfactant, Phong et al. (2020) emphasize
that any NPs can be used to stabilize surfactant foam. It is because of the
characteristic of irreversible NPs adsorption at the gas-liquid interface
by acting as a barrier between the fluid to reduce the liquid drainage and
inhibit bubble coalescence. A similar observation was made by Wang
et al. (2020a) using fly ash combined with AOS and SDS surfactant.
Recent studies have evaluated the ability of carbon nanotubes in
enhancing foam stability. Raja Ramanathan and Nasr-El-Din (2020)
compares the foam performance between silica and concentration
multiwalled carbon tube (MWCNT) combined with AOS surfactant
through foam half-life measurements. The results show that MWCT
exhibit 4.6 times foam stability compared to silica NPs (2.9 times).
Concurrently, the MWCNT exhibits a higher mobility reduction factor
(5.5) than silica (3.5) during the foam flooding experiments. The author
emphasize that the different performance observed were attributed by
the MWCNT’s characteristic (rod-like structure, size, zeta potential, and
partial hydrophobicity) compared to silica NPs.
The NP’s characteristics mainly contribute to the improvement of
foam stability in the presence of NPs. The potential use of other NPs,
especially the abundant by-product particles such as fly ash, should be
further explored and studied for potential low-cost products and
sustainability.
5. Conclusion
After reviewing the effects of the main parameters involved in the
surfactant foam stabilization by NP, the general conclusion of this paper
is that increasing the stability of the surfactant by adding NP is possible
in almost every situation. However, the degree of stability enhancement
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Table 6
Table summary of the influence of oil on foam stability.
Reference Nanoparticle Surfactant Oil Type Main Findings

Eftekhari et al. Fly ash coal AOS (anionic) Shell Ondina 1.Bulk NP-foam shows higher stability in the presence of hexadecane and Ondina
(2015) 919, 919 compared to surfactant foam.
Hexadecane 2. NP can be used to stabilize foam in the presence of crude oil at high
temperatures and pressure.
3.The mechanism of the nano ash foam stability in the presence of oil is not clear. It
may be due to the presence of NPs at the gas− liquid interface preventing the oil
droplets from entering and breaking the lamellae.
Singh and Mohanty SiO2 α-olefin sulfonate Crude oil: 1.The foam volume decreased drastically in crude oil A, indicating that the foam
(2015) Nyacol DP 9711, (anionic) A (9cp), (with and without NP) unstable.
SiO2 B (382cp), 2. The foam half-life increased with crude oil B and C.Higher foam stability was
PEG coating, C (36.2cp) observed in surfactant− NP blends compared to surfactant foam.
3.With and without NP, lighter crude oils are more destabilizing to foams than
heavier oils.
Yang et al. (2017b) AlOOH CTAB (cationic) Kerosene 1.The SDS/AlOOH foam exhibited better stability than the SDS foam at high
temperatures and in the presence of oil.
Yekeen et al. (2016) unmodified SiO2, SDS (anionic) Hexadecane 1.The bubble size distribution of SiO2-SDS-foam in the presence of paraffin oil and
modified SiO2 NP (3.3cp), hexadecane oil shows that foam bubble size increases with decreasing of oil
Decane (0.9cp), viscosity and density.
Paraffin oil 2.Oils with low viscosity and density are more detrimental to foams and the rate of
(20.8cp) coalescence and coarsening reduces in the presence of NPs.
3.The addition of SiO2 NPs into the surfactant solution could improve foam
stability in the presence of oil.
Razali et al. (2018) SiO2 A300 MFOMAX Light crude oil 1. Hydrophilic SiO2 has significantly improved the foam half-life by 2 times longer
Hydrophilic, zwitterionic) (45◦ API) than the surfactant alone in the presence of light crude oil.
SiO2 R816 2.The SiO2 (hydrophilic) NPs have significantly reduced the detrimental effects of
Hydrophobic, light crude oil and strengthen the foam. The foam generated is more wet and stable
ZnO, TiO2 in the presence of light crude oil.
Rognmo et al. (2018) SiO2 (23.3 nm & 20.3 Linear alcohol Crude oil (7.6cp) 1. The pressure gradients of SiO2 NPs stabilize foam in the presence of oil and
nm) ethoxylate remain stable during oil displacement.
Maurya and Mandal SiO2 SDS (anionic) Decane 1.The emulsion containing paraffin oil shows better stability as compared with
(2018) (0.859cp), decane oil after 10 days.
Paraffin (56cp) 2.Paraffin oil provides a higher viscosity to the stabilized emulsion. The increase in
viscosity is mainly due to an increase in the viscosity of the dispersed phase.
Veyskarami and SiO2 (SNP) SDS (anionic), Kerosene (1.6cp) 1. Static stability analysis revealed that both in situ modified and unmodified SNP
Ghazanfari (2018) CTAB (cationic) slightly improved foam stability in the absence and presence of oil.
2. In foam static stability analysis, the like-charged NP and surfactant system gave
a better performance than the opposite-charged one in the absence and presence of
oil.
3. Foam flow in Hele–Shaw cell shows that the foam of SiO2 NP and like-charged
surfactant showed lower mobility in the absence of oil, and opposite-charged
surfactant–NP foam lowers mobility in the presence of oil.
4. Foam flow analysis suggest opposite-charged NP and surfactant systems are
more attractive than like-charged ones for EOR application.
Singh and Mohanty Polyethylene glycol- Amphoam (anionic) Crude oil (32cp) 1. Significant crossflow of oil from low-permeability to high-permeability was
(2018) coated SiO2 NP1, observed for the case of surfactant foam flood. Conversely, the Si-NP2 resulted in
GLYMO-coated SiO2 no crossflow with complete blocking of the high-permeability region due to the
NP2 formation of an in-situ emulsion. Such selective plugging of high-permeability
channels via NPs with optimum surface coating could potentially recover oil from
heterogeneous reservoirs.
Noor et al. (2019) SiO2 SDS (anionic) White mineral oil 1. Adding NPs at specific concentrations to synthetic saltwater and oil shows
promise when it comes to increasing the half-time of foam. It might help slow the
drainage of thin aqueous film and, therefore, produce a more stable foam.
Qian et al. (2019) Alumina-coated silica, AES (anionic- Mineral oil 1. NP-surfactant foam is highly stable at partial monolayer coverage and uniquely
SNOWTEX-AK (ST-AK) nonionic surfactant) (18cp), stable when contacting an oil phase.
Heavy oil 2. NPs present in the foam structure prevented oil from entering the foam
(508cp) structure.
Bashir et al. (2019) Fumed SiO2, AOS (anionic) North Sea oil 1. CO2-foam can show better stability in the presence of oil when the optimum
Rice husk ash (RHA) (54.71cp) concentrations of SiO2/RHA NPs (0.2 wt%) and xanthan gum (0.3 wt%) were
added.

depends on several parameters and covers a wide range from low to
high. The parameters studied in this work include NP properties (i.e.,
size, type, surface wettability) and reservoir properties (i.e., salinity of
formation water, presence of oil, reservoir temperature), process pa­
rameters (i.e., NP concentration and flow rate), synergistic effects be­
tween the surface charge of NPs and the net charge of surfactant, and NP
loss in the porous medium. The key findings are summarized below:
1. The NPs stabilized foam stability is inversely proportional to NP
size. The NP size, which has been proven to improve foam half-
life, ranges between 7 nm and 10 μm.
2. Both hydrophilic and partially hydrophobic NPs can improve
foam stability. However, the improvement is more considerable
with partially hydrophobic NPs.
3. Increasing NP concentration does not necessarily improve foam
stability. This behavior is highly dependent on the types of NPs
and surfactant used due to their complex synergic interaction.
Preliminary NPs and surfactant type and concentration screening
are crucial to achieving optimum enhancement of foam stability.
4. Similar charges lead to repulsion between the surfactant and the
NP, causing the surfactant to move toward the gas-liquid inter­
face and decrease the interfacial tension. When surfactant and NP

16
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Fig. 16. Effect of nanoparticles concentration on foam stability of silica nanoparticle–CTAB and silica nanoparticle–SDS a) in the absence of oil, and b) in the
presence of oil at different surfactant concentrations. Adapted from Veyskarami and Ghazanfari (2018).

Table 7
Table summary of the influence of temperature on foam stability.
Reference Surfactant Temp (◦ C) Main Findings

Yu et al. (2012b) SiO2 25, 45, 60 The height of SiO2–CO2 foam decrease with increasing temperature. As the temperature
reaches 60 ◦ C, no CO2 foam was observed in the sapphire tube.
Mo et al. (2014a) SiO2 25, 45, 60 1.The residual oil recovery by CO2/SiO2 flooding decreased from 62.6% to 52.1% when
the temperature increased from 25 ◦ C to 60 ◦ C.
Emrani and SiO2, Fe2O3 AOS (anionic) Ambient to 1.At ambient temperature, NPs promote CO2-foam formation in AOS solutions. Adding a
Nasr-El-Din 150 small amount of NPs (0.1 wt%) to AOS solutions could improve the CO2-foam stability.
(2015) 2. NPs can help to stabilize the system faster at 150 ◦ C.
Yang et al. (2017b) AlOOH SDS (anionic) 22.5, 80 1.The SDS/AlOOH foam exhibited much better stability than the SDS foam at high
temperatures and in the presence of oil.
2.Increasing temperature accelerate the drainage rate.
Emrani et al. (2017) SiO2 AOS (anionic) 25, 65.5 1.The results of this work show that foam half-life decreases as the temperature increases
from 25 to 65.5 ◦ C.
2. NP-based foams are more stable over time compared to surfactants foam. Adding SiO2
NPs to the AOS solution improves the foam stability and increases the MRF eight-fold.
3. NP solutions can be used to improve CO2 foam stability.
Singh and Mohanty PEG surface coat Anionic surfactant 25, 80 1.The aqueous stability and salt tolerance of both NPs decreased with an increase in the
(2017a) SiO2, (sulfonate head group) temperature.
GLYMO surface 2.The decay of foam was increased significantly at the higher temperature of 80 ◦ C as
coat SiO2 compared to 25 ◦ C.
Alyousef et al. Surface-modified CNF (anionic) 25, 50 1.The foamability tests showed that the rise in temperature reduces the pressure drop in
(2017) SiO2 the core flood experiment, which can be attributed to the reduction in foam stability and
strength.
Wang et al. (2017) Fumed SiO2, DDAB, 40, 80 1.The amphiphilic particles foam system can stabilize the foam better under two
T30 SiO2, H34 CAB temperatures.
SiO2 2.The resistance factors of surfactants and the mixture of NPs and surfactants decreased
significantly at 80 ◦ C as compared to those at 40 ◦ C.
Chea et al. (2018) SiO2, Al2O3 AOS (anionic) 25, 40, 60, 1.Generally, the presence of NPs does not significantly enhance the foamability in both
90 neutral and alkaline base fluids with increasing temperature.
2.Foam half-life degraded with increasing temperature, the presence of NPs did enhance
its half-life at that temperature.
3. Al2O3 possessed a better stabilizing effect than SiO2 at all temperatures regardless of
the system pH.
4.Adding NPs in foam does not change the bubble’s shape at any time and in any
condition.
5. The presence of NPs in the foam could retard its liquid drainage rate and thus slowing
down the bubble coalescence process that will eventually increase foam half-life and
stability at any temperature.
Fu et al. (2018) SiO2 25, 60 1.The residual oil recovery by CO2/SiO2 flooding decreased as the temperature increased.
Zhu et al. (2019) AlOOH CTAB (anionic) 30, 50, 70 1.Stability enhancement was observed by NPs addition under high-temperature
EAPB (amphoteric) conditions, though temperature would accelerate the liquid drainage and gas diffusion.
Bashir et al. (2019) Fumed SiO2, AOS (anionic) 25, 85 1. Using optimum concentrations of additives (e.g. NPs) can enhance the stability of the
Rice husk ash foam structure at high-temperature conditions.
(RHA)
Li et al. (2019) Hydrophilic SiO2 HHSB 70 1.The improved foam stability at high temperature was attributed to the enhanced
disjoining pressure with the addition of NPs, thereby preventing film thinning.

17
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Table 8
Table summary of the influence of flow velocity on foam stability.
Reference Nanoparticle Surfactant Shear Rate/Flow rate/ Main Findings
Measurement

Xiao et al. SiO2 ANS 5950− 17,850 1/s, 1.The non-Newtonian foam rheology is significantly affected by shear rate. The
(2016) (anionic) Flow Loop apparatus foams generated with NP, NP + NaCl, and NP + ANS systems exhibited shear-
thinning behavior at all qualities, with maximum foam viscosity at the lowest shear
rate.
2.At lower salinity, systems exhibited a transition from shear-thinning at the low
quality (50%) to shear-thickening behavior at the high quality (60, 70, 80%).
3.At higher salinity, systems exhibited a shear-thickening behavior at all qualities.
4.The critical shear rate for foam generation starts at 8925 1/s⫺1 (9 ml/min) in high
salinity environments.
Yekeen et al. Hydrophilic SiO2, SDS 0.1–0.5 ml/s, 1.Generally, the foam (with or without NPs) apparent viscosity decreased with
(2017b) Hydrophilic Al2O3 (anionic) Etched glass micromodel increasing flow rate. This can be attributed to the shear-thinning effect.
2.Shear thinning behavior is expected in this low-quality regime. Hence, the
bubbles rheology decreases with the increasing flow rate.
3.At the lowest flow rate, the apparent viscosity of the SDS-foam increases from
20.34 cp to 44.91 cp during the flow process of Al2O3-SDS foam and 56.73 cp during
the flow process of SiO2-SDS foam.
Rognmo et al. Silane modified colloidal AOS 120–240 ml/h, Co- 1. Surfactant-stabilized foam demonstrates a shear-thinning behavior, with a
(2017) SiO2 (anionic) injection in sandstone core significant reduction in apparent viscosity with an increase in superficial velocity,
whereas NP-stabilized foam exhibits no changes in apparent viscosity with changes
in superficial velocities.
Rahim Risal Bare SiO2, Surface SDS 0.5–2.0 cc/min, Capillary 1. The apparent viscosity is decreasing as the shear rate decreasing indicates a
et al. (2018) modified SiO2-A and (anionic) viscometer, pseudoplastic behavior of power law fluid.
SiO2–B Glassbead pack 2. At low shear rate, the apparent viscosity for surface-modified SiO2-stabilized
foams are higher than the conventional foam.

Table 9
Table summary of the influence of nanoparticles retention on foam stability.
Reference Nanoparticle Rock or mineral types Main Findings

Helene F. Fullerol, Single-wall carbon nanotubes Silicate beads 1. High mobility index calculated for Fullerol and SWNT agrees as their low value
Lecoanet et al. (SWNT), SiO2, Alumoxane, n-C60, Anatase, for attachment efficiency and rapid breakthrough.
(2004) Feroxane 2. A saturation or blocking of deposition sites observed in the porous medium
except for metal oxane. This suggests that mobility of these NPs may increase over
time as deposition sites become saturated over progressively larger distances within
the porous medium.
Yu et al. (2012a) SiO2 Sandstone #1 (33md), Static test:
Sandstone #2 1. Static adsorption test: limestone (5.501 mg/g) > sandstone (1.272 mg) >
(57.6md), dolomite (0 mg/g)
Limestone (132md), 2. Low adsorption of SiO2 in sandstone may be due to similar composition and
Dolomite (5.29md) probably due to the clay content
3. Higher adsorption in limestone may be due to high electrostatic attraction force
between NPs and limestone surface.
4. All static adsorption test reach equilibrium in less than 12 h.
Dynamic test:
1. The resulted recovered NPs is in alignment with static test.
2. Low perm (33mD) sandstone recovered 23% injected np while high perm
(57.6mD) recovered 86% NPs, with almost zero np during post flush at no change in
pressure & permeability.
3. NP breakthrough occurs after 2 PV np injection in limestone core, 32.6%
recovered NP and no change in pressure and perm.
4. NP breakthrough immediately in dolomite. When 2 PV particle dispersion were
injected, silica concentration in the effluent is reached to the injection
concentration. 95.8% np recovery after 1.5 PV brine. However, the pressure
continuously increases even after brine injection, indicating plugging and change in
perm.
Metin et al. (2012) Unmodified SiO2, Calcite mineral, 1. Insignificant adsorption of unmodified, sulfonate, and PEG-modified SiO2 NPs
Sulfonate-modified SiO2, Quartz sand observed on quartz and calcite surfaces.
Quat-modified SiO2, 2.Increase in particle size from 5 to 25 nm or the addition of NaCl less than CSC
PEG-modified SiO2 (critical salt concentration) does not promote the adsorption of NPs onto mineral
surface.
Rognmo et al. SiO2 Bentheimer sandstone 1. NP breakthrough occurred after + - 1 PV; less 1 PV indicating poor volumetric
(2017) sweep efficiency and more 1 PV indicating better volumetric sweep efficiency
2. Satisfaction of retention were observed between 2.6 and 3.8 PV.
3. Average retention for all cores (4) was 401 μg/g.
4. NP elusion was calculated to 79 μg/g. Hence 19.6% of retained NP were
mobilized during the post-flood.
5. Differential pressure during flooding remained constant; no plugging or increase
in viscosity. Hence the mechanical trapping was unlikely.
Sun et al. (2021) SiO2 Silica sand pack system 1. The NPs can flow through the sand pack easily because of the big difference
(231–4320 md) between particles size and pore throat size.
2. The permeabilities for all sand packs decrease after nanofluid injection; however,
the permeability loss rate is about 1.3% when the sand pack is 4320mD.
3. The relatively high permeability formation is suitable choice when injecting
nanofluid, which will cause less damage and recover more particles from the
effluent.
18
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

7. The shear-thinning behavior of foam in the presence of NPs is not

Fig. 17. Mechanisms of nanoparticles’ retention in porous media.
10. Regardless of the type of NPs used, several studies show that the
have opposite charges, adsorption of the surfactant on the NP’s
surface improves the surface properties of the NP from hydro­
philic to partially hydrophobic and leads to higher foam stability.
However, an excessive increase in hydrophobicity may lead to
particle aggregation resulting in NP deposition and reduced foam
stability. Therefore, the concentrations of NPs and surfactants
that have opposite charges must be optimally determined.
5. In most laboratory studies, increasing salinity decreased the sta­
bility of NP-surfactant foam. However, in a few cases, depending
on the NP and surfactant used, an increase in stability was
observed due to the shielding effect of the salt ions.
6. The presence of oil and the temperature rise lower the stability of
the foam even in the presence of the NP, however this reduction
in stability is much less than if the NP had not been added to the
structure of the surfactant foam.
always seen; in certain circumstances, shear-thickening phe­
nomenon has been reported. The behavior of the NP-surfactant
foam appears to be determined by a combination of factors
such as NP, surfactant, and salt concentrations, as well as shear
rate/flow velocity. However, there is still a lack of understanding
on the extend of shear-thickening behavior observed. Therefore,
in-depth investigation is recommended to improve the under­
standing on the NPs stabilized foam behavior.
8. NP loss in porous media is unavoidable. However, by selecting
the correct type and size of NPs, the retention can be minimized.
9. NP reduced surfactant adsorption on the rock surface because the
surfactant favored adsorption on the NP surface over adsorption
on the rock surface. Such a preference has resulted in the
continued presence of surfactant in the foam structure and
consequently the longer stability of that structure.
presence of NPs increased the stability of surfactant foam. How­
ever, the degree of stability enhancement varied depending on
the properties of the NPs (i.e., density, size, shape, wettability,
and surface charge).
In terms of future studies, five points should be considered:
i) Even if the rest of the key parameters such as NP wettability,
surface coating etc. is kept constant, it seems that an optimal NP
size exists which is favorable for foam stability. Therefore, further
studies are recommended to experimentally prove whether such
an optimal particle size exists for a given NP surfactant foam
system.
ii) NP loss in a porous medium is an economically damaging process
that occurs through mechanisms including adsorption, mechan­
ical entrapment and log-jamming, and particles settling due to

Table 10
Summary of findings related to competitive adsorption of surfactant molecules in the presence of nanoparticles and rock surface.
Reference Surfactant Rock surface Main Findings

Ahmadi and Hydrophilic Saponin (zizyphus Shale sandstone 1. Mechanism of adsorption of saponin onto hydrophilic SiO2 is hydrogen bonding
Shadizadeh SiO2, spina-chriti) rock between hydroxyl groups of SiO2 and saponin.
(2013) Hydrophobic 2. Hydrophobic SiO2 is more effective than hydrophilic SiO2 to inhibit adsorption losses
SiO2 onto shale sandstone.
Yekeen et al. SiO2, Al2O3 SDS (anionic) Kaolinite . Surface tension of surfactant increases in the presence of NPs; attributed by the surfactant
(2017b) adsorption on the NPs’ surfaces which reduced the concentration of free surfactant in the
bulk solution.
2. Competitive adsorption of the surfactant molecules on the NP and kaolinite surface
exists; as more surfactant adsorbed on NP then less will be adsorbed on kaolinite.
3. NP and adsorbed surfactant molecule formed a negative charge cluster that resides in
bulk solution rather than being adsorbed onto kaolinite.
Saxena et al. (2019) SiO2, Al2O3 Soapnut fruit Sandstone 1. As the surfactant concentration increases, more amount of surfactant was adsorbed onto
(anionic) (negative charge), the sample surface
negative charge), 2. When NPs are added to the system, they also act as an adsorbent leading to competitive
Bentonite adsorption of surfactant molecules
(negative charge) 3. It was observed that the adsorption of surfactant molecules on the NP surface was higher
due to stronger hydrogen bonding. Thus, less amount surfactant molecule available to be
adsorbed onto the rock surface.
4. The bonded NP and surfactant molecule stays in the bulk solution reduces of surfactant
adsorption onto the rock surface
5. The adsorption reduction capability of SiO2 is greater than the reduction capacity of
Al2O3 can be explained by the almost rounded structure compared to Al2O3.
Yekeen et al. SiO2 CTAB (cationic), organic-rich shale, 1. A threshold surfactant concentration exists, below which there is a complete adsorption
(2019b) SDS (anionic), Quartz rich shale of surfactant monomers on the adsorbent surface (shale) - in the absence of NP.
Triton-X-100 (non- 2. The amount of surfactant adsorbed on the adsorbent (shale) surface decrease with
ionic) increasing temp - in the absence and presence of NP.
3. The surfactant adsorption on the shale increase as the salinity concentration increases.
4. The maximum adsorption capacity of surf onto KPK shale decrease in the presence of
SiO2 NP.
5. NP also serves as an adsorbent; consequently, there is a competition for the adsorption of
surf molecules between np and the shale surface.
6. In the presence of NP, the concentration of free surfactant molecules in the bulk solution
reduces due to the high adsorption on the surface of NPs.

19
S.A. Ab Rasid et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475

Table 11
Table summary of the influence of nanoparticles type on foam stability.
Authors Nanoparticle Surfactant Main Findings

Yekeen et al. (2019a) Al2O3, CuO, SDS (anionic), 1.Considerable reduction in n-decane-water interfacial tension and improvement in
TiO2, ZnO, SDBS (anionic), foam stability was observed at 80 ◦ C, due to electrostatic attraction between the charges
ZrO2, SiO2 CTAB (cationic) on NPs surfaces and surfactant head-groups.
Phong et al. (2020) Fly ash, MFOMAX (zwitterionic) 1.Surfactant with NPs is able to improve foam stability regardless of the type and
Fabricated fly ash concentration of NPs. The irreversible adsorption of the NPs at the gas-liquid interface
improves the foam stability by reducing the direct contact between the fluids, thus
reducing the effect of liquid drainage, bubble coalescence, and bubble coarsening.
2. As the concentration of NPs increases, the foam stability also increases due to the
increase of NPs in the gas-liquid interface, which helps form an aggregate particle layer
to reduce liquid drainage.
3. The larger NPs size, the higher the tendency to aggregate and causes liquid drainage.
The increase in gravitational force also causes the film thinning and bubble coalescence.
Rossen and Wang (1999), Fly ash AOS (anionic), 1. The adsorption of fly ash particles on the surface of the liquid film can improve the
Wang et al. (2020a) SDS (anionic), alkylphenol viscoelasticity of the bubbles, thus prevent the drainage of the liquid layer and gas
ethoxylates (nonionic) diffusion between bubbles effectively, delay the aggregation and rupture speed of foam
and improve the foam stability.
2. The surface tension decreases with the increase in fly ash content. The adsorption of
fly ash particles on the surface of the liquid film reduces surface tension, thus improve
the foam stability.
3. Fly ash particles can form a dense shell-like structure on the liquid film’s surface, thus
preventing the liquid drainage, the gas diffusion between bubbles, and delayed thinning
the foam film.
Raja Ramanathan and SiO2, multiwalled carbon AOS (anionic) 1. NP aggregation yielded poor foam stability at high concentrations.
Nasr-El-Din, 2020 tube (MWCNT) 2. The MWCNT and SiO2 NPs enhanced the foam half-life of the AOS by 4.6 and 2.9
times, respectively.
3. The SiO2 NPs and MWCNT started to aggregate upon the addition of salt due to
increased Van der Waals attraction forces. MWCNT was found to be more stable than the
SiO2 NPs at the same salinity.
4. Core flood experiments showed an increase in the pressure drop across the core during
the foam injection stage.
5. AOS/MWCNT foam performed better over AOS/SiO2 NPs was attributed to its rod-like
structure, size, zeta potential, and partial hydrophobicity.

gravity. Depending on the type of mechanism, the strategy for References

minimizing or removing the influence of these mechanisms dif­
fers. However, there is currently no way to determine and mea­
sure the contribution of each of these mechanisms to the total
retention in dynamic tests, which could be an interesting topic for
future research.
iii) Further research may be conducted to understand the actual
mechanism between NPs and salt ions in the presence of surfac­
tant molecules and their effect on NP fluid mixture stability and
the stabilized foam performance.
iv) Field applications of NP-stabilized foam and challenges encoun­
tered in field implementation are essential issues that must be
addressed in future studies.
v) Modifications of NP’s wettability for foam stabilization is one of
the major controlling parameters of foam stabilization by NPs
and should be discussed in future review papers. The authors may
explain the mechanisms of NPs modifications through chemi­
sorption and physisorption, comparing the applications, advan­
tages and disadvantages of surface wettability modification using
polymers and surfactants.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the PETRONAS Research Sdn. Bhd.,
Malaysia; Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia for supporting this
research through research management grants.
Ahmadi, M.A., Shadizadeh, S.R., 2013. Induced effect of adding nano silica on adsorption
of a natural surfactant onto sandstone rock: experimental and theoretical study.
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 112, 239–247.
Ahmadi, M., Habibi, A., Pourafshry, P., Ayatollahi, S., 2011. Zeta Potential Investigation
and Mathematical Modeling of Nanoparticles Deposited on the Rock Surface to
Reduce Fine Migration. In: SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 25-28
September 2011 2011 Manama. Bahrain,. SPE.
Akbari, S., Mahmood, S.M., Ghaedi, H., Al-hajri, S.J.P., 2019a. A new empirical model
for viscosity of sulfonated polyacrylamide polymers, 11, 1046.
Akbari, S., Mahmood, S.M., Nasr, N.H., Al-Hajri, S., Sabet, M., 2019b. A critical review of
concept and methods related to accessible pore volume during polymer-enhanced oil
recovery. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 182, 106263.
Al-Hajri, S., Mahmood, S.M., Abdulelah, H., Akbari, S., 2018. An overview on polymer
retention in porous media. Energies 11, 2751.
Alcorn, Z.P., Foyen, T., Gauteplass, J., Benali, B., Soyke, A., Ferno, M., 2020. Pore- and
core-scale insights of nanoparticle-stabilized foam for CO2-enhanced oil recovery.
Nanomaterials (Basel) 10.
Almajid, M.M., Kovscek, A.R., 2020. Pore network investigation of trapped gas and foam
generation mechanisms. Transport Porous Media 131, 289–313.
Alyousef, Z., Almobarky, M., Schechter, D., 2017. Enhancing the stability of foam by the
use of nanoparticles. Energy Fuel. 31, 10620–10627.
Alyousef, Z.A., Almobarky, M.A., Schechter, D.S., 2018. The effect of nanoparticle
aggregation on surfactant foam stability. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 511, 365–373.
Alzobaidi, S., Lotfollahi, M., Kim, I., Johnston, K.P., Dicarlo, D.A., 2017. Carbon dioxide-
in-brine foams at high temperatures and extreme salinities stabilized with silica
nanoparticles. Energy Fuel. 31, 10680–10690.
Arriaga, L.R., Drenckhan, W., Salonen, A., Rodrigues, J.A., Íñiguez-Palomares, R., Rio, E.,
Langevn, D., 2012. On the long-term stability of foams stabilised by mixtures of
nano-particles and oppositely charged short chain surfactants. Soft Matter 8.
Bashir, A., Sharifi Haddad, A., Rafati, R., 2019. Nanoparticle/polymer-enhanced alpha
olefin sulfonate solution for foam generation in the presence of oil phase at high
temperature conditions. Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 582.
Binks, B.P., Lumsdon, S.O., 2000. Influence of particle wettability on the type and
stability. Langmuir 16, 8622–8631.
Binks, B.P., Rodrigues, J.A., 2007. Synergistic interaction in emulsions stabilized by a
mixture of silica nanoparticles and cationic surfactant. Langmuir 23, 3626–3636.
Binks, B.P., Kirkland, M., Rodrigues, J.A., 2008. Origin of stabilisation of aqueous foams
in nanoparticle–surfactant mixtures. Soft Matter 4.
Boud, D.C., holbrook, O.C., 1958. Gas Drive Oil Recovery Process. Google Patents.
Chea, T.B., Akhir, N.A.M., Idris, A.K., 2018. Investigation on the effect of types of
nanoparticles and temperature on nanoparticles-foam stability. In: International

20
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. IEOM Society
International, Bandung, Indonesia.
Choi, M., Choi, W.K., Jung, C.H., Kim, S.B., 2020. The surface modification and
characterization of SiO2 nanoparticles for higher foam stability. Sci. Rep. 10, 19399.
Dang, T.Q.C., Chen, Z., Nguyen, T.B.N., Bae, W., 2014. Investigation of isotherm polymer
adsorption in porous media. Petrol. Sci. Technol. 32, 1626–1640.
Denkov, N.D., Ivanov, I.B., Kralchevsky, P.A., Wasan, D.T., 1992. A possible mechanism
of stabilization of emulsions by solid particles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 150, 589–593.
Eftekhari, A.A., Krastev, R., Farajzadeh, R., 2015. Foam stabilized by fly ash
nanoparticles for enhancing oil recovery. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54, 12482–12491.
Eide, Ø., Føyen, T., Skjelsvik, E., Rognmo, A., Fernø, M., 2018. Nanoparticle stabilized
foam in harsh conditions for CO2 EOR. In: Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition & Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Emrani, A.S., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., 2015. Stabilizing CO2-Foam Using Nanoparticles. SPE
European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition, Budapest, Hungary: SPE.
Emrani, A.S., Ibrahim, A.F., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., 2017. Evaluation of mobility control with
nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam. In: SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference.
Esmaeilzadeh, P., Hosseinpour, N., Bahramian, A., Fakhroueian, Z., Arya, S., 2014. Effect
of ZrO2 nanoparticles on the interfacial behavior of surfactant solutions at air–water
and n-heptane–water interfaces. Fluid Phase Equil. 361, 289–295.
Fameau, A.-L., Salonen, A., 2014. Effect of particles and aggregated structures on the
foam stability and aging. Compt. Rendus Phys. 15, 748–760.
Farhadi, H., Riahi, S., Ayatollahi, S., Ahmadi, H., 2016. Experimental study of
nanoparticle-surfactant-stabilized CO2 foam: stability and mobility control. Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 111, 449–460.
Fu, C., Liu, N., 2020. Study of the synergistic effect of the nanoparticle-surfactant-
polymer system on CO2 foam apparent viscosity and stability at high pressure and
temperature. Energy Fuel. 34, 13707–13716.
Fu, C., Yu, J., Liu, N., 2018. Nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam for waterflooded residual
oil recovery. Fuel 234, 809–813.
Gbadamosi, A.O., Junin, R., Manan, M.A., Agi, A., Yusuff, A.S., 2019. An overview of
chemical enhanced oil recovery: recent advances and prospects. Int. Nano Lett. 9,
171–202.
Gugl, R., 2020. Modelling and Simulation of Foam-Assisted Water-Alternating-Gas
Injection in Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs. University of Leoben.
Guo, F., Aryana, S., 2016. An experimental investigation of nanoparticle-stabilized CO 2
foam used in enhanced oil recovery. Fuel 186, 430–442.
Hamza, M.F., Sinnathambi, C.M., Aljunid Merican, Z.M., Soleimani, H., Karl D, S., 2017.
An overview of the present stability and performance of EOR-foam. Sains Malays. 46,
1641–1650.
Horozov, T., 2008. Foams and foam films stabilised by solid particles. Curr. Opin. Colloid
Interface Sci. 13, 134–140.
Hu, N., Li, Y., Wu, Z., Lu, K., Huang, D., Liu, W., 2018. Foams stabilization by silica
nanoparticle with cationic and anionic surfactants in column flotation: effects of
particle size. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 88, 62–69.
Ibrahim, A.F., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., 2019. CO 2 Foam for Enhanced Oil Recovery
Applications. Foams-Emerging Technologies. IntechOpen.
Jafari Daghlian Sofla, S., James, L.A., Zhang, Y., 2018. Insight into the stability of
hydrophilic silica nanoparticles in seawater for Enhanced oil recovery implications.
Fuel 216, 559–571.
Kalam, S., Kamal, M.S., Patil, S., Hussain, S.J.P., 2019. Role of counterions and nature of
spacer on foaming properties of novel polyoxyethylene cationic gemini surfactants,
7, 502.
Kaptay, G., 2006. On the equation of the maximum capillary pressure induced by solid
particles to stabilize emulsions and foams and on the emulsion stability diagrams.
Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 282–283, 387–401.
Karakashev, S.I., Ozdemir, O., Hampton, M.A., Nguyen, A.V., 2011. Formation and
stability of foams stabilized by fine particles with similar size, contact angle and
different shapes. Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 382, 132–138.
Kim, I., Worthen, A.J., Johnston, K.P., Dicarlo, D.A., Huh, C., 2016. Size-dependent
properties of silica nanoparticles for Pickering stabilization of emulsions and foams.
J. Nanoparticle Res. 18.
Kruglyakov, P.M., Elaneva, S.I., Vilkova, N.G., 2011. About mechanism of foam
stabilization by solid particles. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 165, 108–116.
Kumar, S., Mandal, A., 2017. Investigation on stabilization of CO 2 foam by ionic and
nonionic surfactants in presence of different additives for application in enhanced oil
recovery. Appl. Surf. Sci. 420, 9–20.
Lake, L.W., 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Prentice Hall.
Lecoanet, Helene F., Bottero, Jean-Yves, Wiesner, M.R., 2004. Laboratory assessment of
the mobility of nanomaterials in porous media. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38,
5164–5169.
Lee, J.K., Ko, J., Kim, Y.S., 2017. Rheology of fly ash mixed tailings slurries and
applicability of prediction models. Minerals 7.
Li, W., Wei, F., Xiong, C., Ouyang, J., Shao, L., Dai, M., Liu, P., Du, D., 2019. A novel
supercritical CO2 foam system stabilized with a mixture of zwitterionic surfactant
and silica nanoparticles for enhanced oil recovery. Front Chem. 7, 718.
Llamas, S., Ponce Torres, A., Liggieri, L., Santini, E., Ravera, F., 2019. Surface properties
of binary TiO2 - SiO2 nanoparticle dispersions relevant for foams stabilization.
Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 575, 299–309.
Majed Almubarak, Z.A., Almajid, Muhammad, Almubarak, Tariq, Ng, Jun Hong, 2020.
Enhancing Foam Stability through a Combination of Surfactant and Nanoparticles.
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. Abu Dhabi, UAE).
Manichand, R.N.N., Seright, R.S.S., 2014. Field vs. Laboratory polymer-retention values
for a polymer flood in the tambaredjo field. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 17, 314–325.
21
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
Massarweh, O., Abushaikha, A.S., 2021. A Review of Recent Developments in CO2
Mobility Control in Enhanced Oil Recovery. Petroleum.
Maurya, N.K., Mandal, A., 2018. Investigation of synergistic effect of nanoparticle and
surfactant in macro emulsion based EOR application in oil reservoirs. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 132, 370–384.
Metin, C.O., Baran JR., J.R., Nguyen, Q.P., 2012. Adsorption of surface functionalized
silica nanoparticles onto mineral surfaces and decane/water interface. J. Nano Res.
14, 1246.
Mo, D., Jia, B., Yu, J., Liu, N., Lee, R., 2014a. Study nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam for
oil recovery at different pressure, temperature, and rock samples. In: SPE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Mo, D., Jia, B., Yu, J., Liu, N., Lee, R.L., 2014b. Study nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam
for oil recovery at different pressure, temperature, and rock samples. In: SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. SPE, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Noor, M.Z.B.M., Teng, W.Y., Irawan, S., 2019. Stabilization of silicone dioxide
nanoparticle foam in tertiary petroleum production. Indonesian J. Chem. 19.
Osei-Bonsu, K., Grassia, P., Shokri, N., 2017. Relationship between bulk foam stability,
surfactant formulation and oil displacement efficiency in porous media. Fuel 203,
403–410.
Panahpoori, D., Rezvani, H., Parsaei, R., Riazi, M., 2019. A pore-scale study on
improving CTAB foam stability in heavy crude oil− water system using TiO2
nanoparticles. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 183.
Phong, G.M., Pilus, R.M., Mustaffa, A., Thangavel, L., Mohamed, N.M., 2020.
Relationship between Fly Ash Nanoparticle-Stabilized-Foam and Oil Production in
Core Displacement and Simulation Studies. Fuel, p. 266.
Prigiobbe, V., Worthen, A.J., Johnston, K.P., Huh, C., Bryant, S.L., 2015. Transport of
nanoparticle-stabilized CO $$_2$$ 2 -foam in porous media. Transport Porous Media
111, 265–285.
Qian, C., Telmadarreie, A., Dong, M., Bryant, S.L., 2019. Synergistic Effect between
Surfactant and Nanoparticles on the Stability of Foam in EOR Processes. SPE Western
Regional Meeting, San Jose, California, USA: SPE.
Rafati, R., Haddad, A.S., Hamidi, H., 2016. Experimental study on stability and
rheological properties of aqueous foam in the presence of reservoir natural solid
particles. Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 509, 19–31.
Rahim Risal, A., Manan, M.A., Yekeen, N., Mohamed Samin, A., Azli, N.B., 2018.
Rheological properties of surface-modified nanoparticles-stabilized CO2 foam.
J. Dispersion Sci. Technol. 39, 1767–1779.
Raja Ramanathan, O.A., Nasr-El-Din, Hisham A., 2020. A New Effective Multiwalled
Carbon Nanotube-Foam System for Mobility Control. Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Razali, N., Chai, I.C.H., Zainal, S., A Manap, A.A., 2018. Nano-sized particles as foam
stabiliser designed for application at thigh temperature and light crude oil condition
for EOR - a fluid-fluid case study. Offshore Technology Conference Asia. Kuala Lumpur.
Risal, A.R., Manan, M.A., Yekeen, N., Azli, N.B., Samin, A.M., Tan, X.K., 2018.
Experimental investigation of enhancement of carbon dioxide foam stability, pore
plugging, and oil recovery in the presence of silica nanoparticles. Petrol. Sci. 16,
344–356.
Rognmo, A.U., Horjen, H., Fernø, M.A., 2017. Nanotechnology for improved CO 2
utilization in CCS: laboratory study of CO 2 -foam flow and silica nanoparticle
retention in porous media. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 64, 113–118.
Rognmo, A.U., Heldal, S., Fernø, M.A., 2018. Silica nanoparticles to stabilize CO2-foam
for improved CO2 utilization: enhanced CO2 storage and oil recovery from mature
oil reservoirs. Fuel 216, 621–626.
Rossen, W.R., 2017. Foams in Enhanced Oil Recovery. Foams. Routledge.
Rossen, W.R., Wang, M.W., 1999. Modeling foams for acid diversion. SPE J. 4 (2), 9.
Sagbana, P.I., Abushaikha, A.S., 2021. A comprehensive review of the chemical-based
conformance control methods in oil reservoirs. J. Petrol. Explor. Prod. Technol. 11,
2233–2257.
Satter, A., Iqbal, G.M., 2015. Reservoir Engineering: the Fundamentals, Simulation, and
Management of Conventional and Unconventional Recoveries. Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Saxena, N., Kumar, A., Mandal, A., 2019. Adsorption analysis of natural anionic
surfactant for enhanced oil recovery: the role of mineralogy, salinity, alkalinity and
nanoparticles. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 173, 1264–1283.
Schramm, L.L., Wassmuth, F., 1994. Foams: basic principles. In: SCHRAMM, L.L. (Ed.),
Foams: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. United States of
America.
Singh, R., Mohanty, K.K., 2015. Synergy between nanoparticles and surfactants in
stabilizing foams for oil recovery. Energy Fuel. 29, 467–479.
Singh, R., Mohanty, K.K., 2017a. Nanoparticle-stabilized foams for high-temperature,
high-salinity oil reservoirs. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (San
Antonio, Texas, USA).
Singh, R., Mohanty, K.K., 2017b. SPE-187165-MS nanoparticle-stabilized foams for high-
temperature, high-salinity oil Reservoirs.pdf>. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Singh, R., Mohanty, K.K., 2018. Study of nanoparticle-stabilized foams in harsh reservoir
conditions. Transport Porous Media 131, 135–155.
Sun, Q., Tan, L., Wang, G. J. I. J. O. M. P. B., 2008. Liquid foam drainage: an overview,
22, 2333–2354.
Sun, Q., Li, Z., Wang, J., Li, S., Li, B., Jiang, L., Wang, H., Lü, Q., Zhang, C., Liu, W., 2015.
Aqueous foam stabilized by partially hydrophobic nanoparticles in the presence of
surfactant. Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 471, 54–64.
Sun, S., Wang, Y., Yuan, C., Wang, H., Wang, W., Luo, J., Li, C., Hu, S., 2020. Tunable
stability of oil-containing foam systems with different concentrations of SDS and
hydrophobic silica nanoparticles. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 82, 333–340.
S.A. Ab Rasid et al.
Sun, Q., Liu, W., Li, S., Zhang, N., Li, Z., 2021. Interfacial rheology of foam stabilized by
nanoparticles and their retention in porous media. Energy Fuel. 35, 6541–6552.
Vatanparast, H., Shahabi, F., Bahramian, A., Javadi, A., Miller, R., 2018. The role of
electrostatic repulsion on increasing surface activity of anionic surfactants in the
presence of hydrophilic silica nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 8, 7251.
Veyskarami, M., Ghazanfari, M.H., 2018. Synergistic effect of like and opposite charged
nanoparticle and surfactant on foam stability and mobility in the absence and
presence of hydrocarbon: a comparative study. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 166, 433–444.
Wang, K., Wang, G., Lu, C., Pei, C., Wang, Y., 2017. Preparation and investigation of
foaming amphiphilic fluorinated nanoparticles for enhanced oil recovery. Materials
(Basel) 10.
Wang, T., Fan, H., Yang, W., Meng, Z., 2020a. Stabilization mechanism of fly ash three-
phase foam and its sealing capacity on fractured reservoirs. Fuel 264.
Wang, Y., Wang, J., Fan, H., Du, F., Zhou, W., Yang, J., 2020b. Effect of inorganic salt on
foam properties of nanoparticle and surfactant systems %. J Tenside Surfactants
Detergents 57, 382–388.
Xiao, C., Balasubramanian, S.N., Clapp, L.W., 2016. Rheology of supercritical CO2 foam
stabilized by nanoparticles. In: SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference (Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA).
Xu, L., Rad, M.D., Telmadarreie, A., Qian, C., Liu, C., Bryant, S.L., Dong, M., 2018.
Synergy of surface-treated nanoparticle and anionic-nonionic surfactant on
stabilization of natural gas foams. Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 550,
176–185.
Xu, Z., Li, B., Zhao, H., He, L., Liu, Z., Chen, D., Yang, H., Li, Z., 2020. Investigation of the
effect of nanoparticle-stabilized foam on EOR: nitrogen foam and methane foam.
ACS Omega 5, 19092–19103.
Xuezhen, W., Mohanty, K., 2020. Nanoparticle-Stabilized Strong Foam for EOR in
Fractured Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, USA.
Yang, W., Wang, T., Fan, Z., 2017a. Highly stable foam stabilized by alumina
nanoparticles for EOR: effects of sodium cumenesulfonate and electrolyte
concentrations. Energy Fuel. 31, 9016–9025.
Yang, W., Wang, T., Fan, Z., Miao, Q., Deng, Z., Zhu, Y., 2017b. Foams stabilized by in
situ-modified nanoparticles and anionic surfactants for enhanced oil recovery.
Energy Fuel. 31, 4721–4730.
Yekeen, N., Idris, A.K., Manan, M.A., Samin, A.M., 2016. Experimental study of the
influence of silica nanoparticles on the bulk stability of SDS-foam in the presence of
oil. J. Dispersion Sci. Technol. 38, 416–424.
Yekeen, N., Idris, A.K., Manan, M.A., Samin, A.M., Risal, A.R., Kun, T.X., 2017a. Bulk and
bubble-scale experimental studies of influence of nanoparticles on foam stability.
Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 25, 347–357.
Yekeen, N., Manan, M.A., Idris, A.K., Samin, A.M., Risal, A.R., 2017b. Experimental
investigation of minimization in surfactant adsorption and improvement in
22
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109475
surfactant-foam stability in presence of silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide
nanoparticles. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 159, 115–134.
Yekeen, N., Manan, M.A., Idris, A.K., Padmanabhan, E., Junin, R., Samin, A.M.,
Gbadamosi, A.O., Oguamah, I., 2018a. A comprehensive review of experimental
studies of nanoparticles-stabilized foam for enhanced oil recovery. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
164, 43–74.
Yekeen, N., Manan, M.A., Idris, A.K., Samin, A.M., Risal, A.R., 2018b. Mechanistic study
of nanoparticles–surfactant foam flow in etched glass micro-models. J. Dispersion
Sci. Technol. 39, 623–633.
Yekeen, N., Padmanabhan, E., Idris, A.K., 2019a. Synergistic effects of nanoparticles and
surfactants on n-decane-water interfacial tension and bulk foam stability at high
temperature. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 179, 814–830.
Yekeen, N., Padmanabhan, E., Idris, A.K., Ibad, S.M., 2019b. Surfactant adsorption
behaviors onto shale from Malaysian formations: influence of silicon dioxide
nanoparticles, surfactant type, temperature, salinity and shale lithology. J. Petrol.
Sci. Eng. 179, 841–854.
Yu, J., An, C., Mo, D., Liu, N., Lee, R., 2012a. Study of adsorption and transportation
behavior of nanoparticles in three different porous media. In: Eighteenth SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium (Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA).
Yu, J., Liu, N., Li, L., Lee, R.L., 2012b. Generation of Nanoparticle-Stabilized
Supercritical CO2 Foams. Carbon Management Technology Conference, Orlando,
Florida, USA: SPE.
Zargartalebi, M., Kharrat, R., Barati, N., 2015. Enhancement of surfactant flooding
performance by the use of silica nanoparticles. Fuel 143, 21–27.
Zeng, Y., Muthuswamy, A., Ma, K., Wang, L., Farajzadeh, R., Puerto, M., Vincent-
Bonnieu, S., Eftekhari, A.A., Wang, Y., Da, C., Joyce, J.C., Biswal, S.L., Hirasaki, G.J.,
2016. Insights on foam transport from a texture-implicit local-equilibrium model
with an improved parameter estimation algorithm. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55,
7819–7829.
Zhang, Y., Liu, Q., Ye, H., Yang, L., Luo, D., Peng, B., 2021. Nanoparticles as foam
stabilizer: mechanism, control parameters and application in foam flooding for
enhanced oil recovery. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 202.
Zhao, J., Torabi, F., Yang, J., 2021. The Synergistic Role of Silica Nanoparticle and
Anionic Surfactant on the Static and Dynamic CO2 Foam Stability for Enhanced
Heavy Oil Recovery: an Experimental Study. Fuel, p. 287.
Zhu, T., Ogbe, D., Khataniar, S.J.I., Research, E.C., 2004. Improving the foam
performance for mobility control and improved sweep efficiency in gas flooding, 43,
4413–4421.
Zhu, J., Yang, Z., Li, X., Hou, L., Xie, S., 2019. Experimental study on the microscopic
characteristics of foams stabilized by viscoelastic surfactant and nanoparticles.
Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 572, 88–96.