Study on the Dual Enhancement Effect of Nanoparticle–Surfactant Composite Systems on Oil Recovery Rates
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Component Selection and Performance Evaluation of Composite Systems
2.1. Selection and Characterization of Nanoparticles
2.2. Surfactant Screening
2.3. Formulation Optimization of Composite System
3. Dual Mechanism of Enhanced Oil Recovery by Composite System
3.1. Oil Displacement Mechanism of Nanoparticles
3.2. Mechanism of Action of Surfactants
3.3. Synergistic Effects of Composite System
4. Experimental Study on Oil Displacement Performance of Composite System
4.1. Experimental Materials and Methods
4.2. Interfacial Performance Testing
4.3. Core Displacement Experiments
4.4. Effect of Compounding Ratio on Oil Displacement Efficiency
5. Adaptability of the Composite System Under Different Reservoir Conditions
5.1. Effect of Reservoir Permeability
5.2. Effects of Temperature and Salinity
5.3. Effect of Crude Oil Properties
6. Field Application Potential Analysis
6.1. Economic Benefit Assessment
- (1)
- Sweep efficiency correction: Core-scale recovery improvements of ~40% are corrected to field-scale estimates of ~20% incremental recovery based on typical sweep efficiency factors of 0.5–0.6 for chemical flooding in low-permeability reservoirs;
- (2)
- Well pattern geometry: A five-spot pattern with 500 m well spacing is assumed, representing standard practice for tight oil development in the Ordos Basin;
- (3)
- Oil price: Current domestic oil price of 600 yuan/ton (approximately $85/barrel) is used, with sensitivity analysis for price fluctuations;
- (4)
- Agent costs: Current commercial prices are used (SiO2 nanoparticles: 8000 yuan/ton; OP-10: 12,000 yuan/ton), though bulk procurement may reduce costs by 15–20%;
- (5)
- Optimal ratio stability: The laboratory-determined 3:2 ratio is assumed to remain optimal at field scale; however, field conditions including reservoir heterogeneity, temperature gradients, and mixing effects may require ratio adjustment during pilot testing.
6.2. Environmental Impact Assessment
6.3. Field Implementation Recommendations
- (1)
- Reservoir heterogeneity: Natural reservoirs exhibit spatial variations in permeability, porosity, and mineralogy that cannot be fully captured in core-scale experiments. The optimal nanoparticle–surfactant ratio of 3:2 determined in laboratory studies may require adjustment based on specific formation characteristics. Pilot testing should include ratio sensitivity studies with variations of ±20% around the optimum;
- (2)
- Residence time and flow paths: Field-scale flooding involves much longer transport distances and residence times compared to 25 cm cores. Extended contact time may enhance surfactant adsorption on rock surfaces, potentially requiring higher surfactant concentrations. Tracer tests during pilot operations are recommended to characterize flow paths and breakthrough behavior;
- (3)
- Temperature and pressure gradients: Unlike isothermal laboratory conditions, reservoirs exhibit temperature and pressure gradients that may affect composite system stability and performance. Thermal stability testing at temperatures 10–20 °C above reservoir temperature is recommended;
- (4)
- Mixing and dilution: Injection system mixing efficiency and in situ dilution by formation water may alter the effective concentration and ratio of components reaching the displacement front. Pre-flush with treated water matching the composite system salinity is recommended.
7. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wen, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, G.; Wang, J.; Taqi, A.A.M.; Liang, T. Combined Effects of Nanofluid and Surfactant on Enhanced Oil Recovery: An Experimental Study. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 52375–52386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumbere, W.; Sagala, F.; Gupta, U.; Bbosa, D. Reservoir Potential Unlocked: Synergies Between Low-Salinity Water Flooding, Nanoparticles and Surfactants in Enhanced Oil Recovery—A Review. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 31216–31261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souvik, L.; Nanigopal, B.; Kiran, P.N.; Sarkar, N. Insights into the Strong Emission Enhancement of Molecular Rotor Thioflavin T in Aqueous Cellulose Nanocrystal Dispersion: White Light Generation in Protein and Micellar Media. Langmuir ACS J. Surf. Colloids 2023, 39, 8083–8090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duman, O.; Aksoy, Ç.; Tunç, S. Synthesis, characterization and application of oxidized multiwalled carbon nanotube/Fe3O4 nanocomposite for the magnetic solid phase micro-extraction of new synthetic ADB-FUBINACA and 5F-AB-FUPPYCA cannabinoids from various water samples. Microchem. J. 2025, 219, 116005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalczyk, I.; Szulc, A.; Brycki, B. Gemini Surfactants: Advances in Applications and Prospects for the Future. Molecules 2025, 30, 4599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, C.; Jinpan, Z.; Ruifeng, Y.; Yangwen, Z.; Junbin, C. Numerical Simulation Study on CO2 Injection to Enhance Oil Recovery in Tight Reservoirs. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 2025, 61, 1103–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Wan, X.; Ren, J.; Zhu, G.; Xu, W.; Hu, Y. Chemical incompatibility between formation and injection water: Implications for oil recovery in porous media. Front. Chem. 2025, 13, 1621714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Ge, J.; Chen, P. Hydroxysulfobetaine foamer for potential mobility control application in high-temperature and ultra-high salt reservoirs. Geoenergy Sci. Eng. 2024, 241, 213167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, T.R.; Feu, S.K.; Dalmaschio, J.C.; Nascimento, A.; Lacerda, V. Oil Recovery Improvements Based on Pickering Emulsions Stabilized by Cellulose Nanoparticles and Their Underlying Mechanisms: A Review. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 3262–3281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gholamzadeh, Y.; Sarapardeh, H.A.; Sharifi, M. Interfacial tension reduction using nitrogen graphene quantum dots with various precursors, molar ratios, and synthesis durations for enhanced oil recovery. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 31863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rezaei, A.; Abdi-Khangah, M.; Mohebbi, A. Using surface modified clay nanoparticles to improve rheological behavior of Hydrolized Polyacrylamid (HPAM) solution for enhanced oil recovery with polymer flooding. J. Mol. Liq. 2016, 222, 1148–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehdari, B.; Parsaei, R.; Riazi, M.; Niakousari, M. Dimensionless analysis of foam stability for application in enhanced oil recovery. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 29842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, C.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L. Effect of salt ions (Na+, Ca2+ and Mg2+) and EOR anionic and nonionic surfactants on the dispersion stability of cellulose nanocrystals. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 282, 136761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, K.; Liang, Z.; Ding, X. Synergistic mechanism between nanoparticles and surfactants: Insights into nanoparticle-surfactant interactions. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 913360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebrahimi, M.; Ghalenavi, H.; Schaffie, M.; Ranjbar, M.; Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A. Experimental investigation of wettability alteration in sandstone rock by nanoparticles, gelatin biopolymer, salt ions, and synthesized Fe3O4/gelatin nanocomposite for EOR applications. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 33260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, M.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J.; Yan, L.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, Q. Optimization of flooding parameters and enhanced-efficiency development for surface-modified nano-SiO2 emulsion in low-permeability sandstone reservoirs. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0326805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ebrahimi, M.; Ghalenavi, H.; Schaffie, M.; Ranjbar, M.; Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A. Toward mechanistic understanding of wettability alteration in carbonate rocks in the presence of nanoparticles, gelatin biopolymer, and core-shell nanocomposite of Fe3O4@gelatin. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 31679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ulasbek, K.; Hashmet, M.R.; Pourafshary, P.; Muneer, R. Laboratory Investigation of Nanofluid-Assisted Polymer Flooding in Carbonate Reservoirs. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 4258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoud, B.; Ehsan, K.; Mehdi, S. Comprehensive experimental investigation of the effective parameters on stability of silica nanoparticles during low salinity water flooding with minimum scale deposition into sandstone reservoirs. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baig, U.; Faizan, M.; Dastageer, M.A.; Gondal, M.A. Customization of surface wettability of nano-SiO2 by coating Trimethoxy(vinyl)silane modifier for oil-water separation: Fabrication of metal-based functional superwetting nanomaterial, characterizations and performance evaluation. Chemosphere 2022, 308, 136405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Sng, A.; Daniel, D.; Lau, H.C.; Torsæter, O.; Stubbs, L.P. Visualizing and Quantifying Wettability Alteration by Silica Nanofluids. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 41182–41189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martínez, M.A.; Fernández, G.T.; Fuentes, M.A.A.M.; Sánchez-Aké, C. Mapping nanoparticle formation and substrate heating effects: A fluence-resolved approach to pulsed laser-induced dewetting. Nanotechnology 2024, 36, 065301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]







| Nanoparticle Type | Average Particle Size/nm | Zeta Potential/mV | Interfacial Tension/mN·m−1 | Contact Angle/° | Dispersion Stability Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SiO2 | 20 | −38 | 8.3 | 86 | Excellent |
| Al2O3 | 50 | +25 | 15.7 | 68 | Medium |
| TiO2 | 30 | −18 | 12.4 | 92 | Medium |
| Fe3O4 | 25 | −15 | 18.6 | 105 | Poor |
| Blank control | - | - | 26.5 | 128 | - |
| Ratio (Nanoparticles: Surfactant) | Nanoparticle Concentration/mg·L−1 | Surfactant Concentration/mg·L−1 | Interfacial Tension/mN·m−1 | Contact Angle/° | Stability Time/d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4:1 | 2000 | 500 | 0.025 | 65 | 15 |
| 3:1 | 1875 | 625 | 0.012 | 58 | 22 |
| 3:2 | 1500 | 1000 | 0.005 | 42 | 30 |
| 1:1 | 1250 | 1250 | 0.008 | 48 | 28 |
| 2:3 | 1000 | 1500 | 0.015 | 35 | 25 |
| 1:4 | 500 | 2000 | 0.052 | 40 | 20 |
| Salinity/mg·L−1 | Interfacial Tension/mN·m−1 | Contact Angle/° | Zeta Potential/mV | Stability Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.004 | 40 | −45 | Excellent |
| 5000 | 0.005 | 42 | −38 | Excellent |
| 10,000 | 0.007 | 46 | −32 | Excellent |
| 15,000 | 0.008 | 48 | −28 | Good |
| 20,000 | 0.012 | 52 | −22 | Good |
| 25,000 | 0.018 | 58 | −18 | Medium |
| Displacement Scheme | Core No. | Permeability/mD | Porosity/% | Initial Oil Saturation/% | Maximum Injection Pressure/MPa | Stable Injection Pressure/MPa | Oil Displacement Efficiency/% | Recovery Rate Improvement/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water flooding | H-1 | 0.48 | 10.1 | 70.2 | 4.15 | 2.75 | 31.8 | - |
| Water flooding | H-2 | 0.52 | 10.3 | 69.5 | 4.28 | 2.84 | 32.9 | - |
| Nanoparticle flooding | H-3 | 0.49 | 10.2 | 70.8 | 3.85 | 2.15 | 45.6 | 13.5 |
| Nanoparticle flooding | H-4 | 0.51 | 10.4 | 69.2 | 3.92 | 2.22 | 48.0 | 15.6 |
| Surfactant flooding | H-5 | 0.50 | 10.1 | 71.3 | 3.55 | 1.85 | 51.4 | 19.5 |
| Surfactant flooding | H-6 | 0.48 | 10.3 | 68.9 | 3.62 | 1.92 | 53.2 | 20.8 |
| Composite system flooding | H-7 | 0.49 | 10.2 | 70.5 | 2.98 | 1.32 | 70.3 | 38.2 |
| Composite system flooding | H-8 | 0.51 | 10.4 | 69.8 | 3.05 | 1.38 | 72.7 | 40.1 |
| Permeability/mD | Porosity/% | Water Flooding Oil Displacement Efficiency/% | Composite System Oil Displacement Efficiency/% | Recovery Rate Improvement/% | Stable Injection Pressure/MPa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.10 | 8.2 | 18.5 | 56.3 | 37.8 | 5.85 |
| 0.30 | 9.5 | 28.3 | 68.7 | 40.4 | 2.32 |
| 0.50 | 10.2 | 32.3 | 71.5 | 39.2 | 1.35 |
| 1.00 | 12.1 | 38.6 | 75.2 | 36.6 | 0.68 |
| 3.00 | 15.3 | 48.2 | 81.8 | 33.6 | 0.15 |
| Salinity/mg·L−1 | Interfacial Tension/mN·m−1 | Contact Angle/° | Oil Displacement Efficiency/% | Improvement Over Water Flooding/% | Emulsion Stability/d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5000 | 0.004 | 40 | 73.5 | 42.8 | 35 |
| 10,000 | 0.007 | 46 | 71.8 | 41.2 | 32 |
| 15,000 | 0.008 | 48 | 71.5 | 39.2 | 30 |
| 20,000 | 0.012 | 52 | 68.3 | 35.5 | 25 |
| 25,000 | 0.018 | 58 | 64.2 | 30.8 | 20 |
| Temperature/°C | Oil Viscosity/mPa·s | IFT/mN·m−1 | Contact Angle/° | Recovery Efficiency/% | Improvement over Water Flooding/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 18.2 | 0.008 | 52 | 65.8 | 35.2 |
| 60 | 14.6 | 0.007 | 47 | 69.2 | 37.8 |
| 70 | 12.5 | 0.005 | 42 | 71.5 | 39.2 |
| 80 | 9.8 | 0.005 | 38 | 74.1 | 40.8 |
| 90 | 6.8 | 0.004 | 35 | 76.3 | 42.1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Li, G.; Huang, B.; Yuan, Y.; Fu, C.; Wang, K. Study on the Dual Enhancement Effect of Nanoparticle–Surfactant Composite Systems on Oil Recovery Rates. Nanomaterials 2026, 16, 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano16020102
Li G, Huang B, Yuan Y, Fu C, Wang K. Study on the Dual Enhancement Effect of Nanoparticle–Surfactant Composite Systems on Oil Recovery Rates. Nanomaterials. 2026; 16(2):102. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano16020102
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Gen, Bin Huang, Yong Yuan, Cheng Fu, and Keliang Wang. 2026. "Study on the Dual Enhancement Effect of Nanoparticle–Surfactant Composite Systems on Oil Recovery Rates" Nanomaterials 16, no. 2: 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano16020102
APA StyleLi, G., Huang, B., Yuan, Y., Fu, C., & Wang, K. (2026). Study on the Dual Enhancement Effect of Nanoparticle–Surfactant Composite Systems on Oil Recovery Rates. Nanomaterials, 16(2), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano16020102

