Wettability Alteration of Limestone Carbonate Cores Using Methylene Blue and Alumina-Based Nanofluid: Implications for EOR
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review of the manuscript entitled: “Wettability alterations of Sui Main Limestone carbonate rocks using methylene blue and alumina based nanofluids: Implications for EOR”. The work is interesting and well-written about nanofluid application and processes after this operation to improve the production rate by experimental investigations. By responding to the following comments and questions, the work can be ready for publication:
1. Please remove general statements in the abstract, and focus on the main findings with mechanisms of wettability alteration in the reservoirs for production improvement in various stages of field development.
2. Also, the abstract requires modification to enhance its conciseness and emphasize the novelty of the work.
3. Why the study is limited to temperatures of 25 and 50 C? How can we relate the results for the high temperature conditions?
4. It is recommended to add a sentence about asphaltene control for productivity improvement. For this purpose, the next reference can be used in the revision stage: “Khormali, A. (2022). Effect of water cut on the performance of an asphaltene inhibitor package: experimental and modeling analysis. Petroleum Science and Technology, 40(23), 2890-2906.”
5. Please check the English language. For example: “Among all above mentioned parameters wettability is one of the more desirable to evaluate the flow behavior such rocks”.
6. Please explain more about the aim of the study at the end of the introduction section.
7. What was the average initial permeability?
8. What were the criteria for the selection of various wt. of Al2O3?
9. Please highlight practical applications and demonstrate the usefulness of the study's results to the industry, specifying how and where they can be applied.
Please check the English language
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors report Wettability alterations of Sui Main Limestone carbonate rocks using methylene blue and alumina based nanofluids: Implications for EOR. This paper investigate systematically, the impact of methyl blue, alumina nanoparticles over wide range of experimental conditions on wettability alteration as well as improving the enhanced recovery. After evaluating this manuscript, I think this article should be overhauled before publication. My comments are as follows:
1. In the Abstract, "Therefore, it is extremely important to modify their wettability from an oil-wet rock behavior to a water-wet so that the residual oil can be produced efficiently." This sentence may seem ambiguous to read.
2. Throughout the text, some symbols are not standardized, for example, line 24 "0. 0.05", line 27 "(25 and 50 0C)", line 76 "TiO2 [30] SiO2", line 142" (Al2O3), line 272 "870 to 530", line 274 "83.70" and many other writing irregularities, please correct the author.
3. On line 235, the unit should be added after "1795", cm-1.
4. In line 257, "CO-3", and "0C" in lines 305 and 307, there is a typo in writing, which should be corrected. The author should correct his writing attitude.
5. In section 5.3, the article says, "The reversal of wettability from oil-wet to water will help in increasing the oil recovery and use of MB simultaneously will helps in mitigating the environmental concerns." How to prove it? Should the contact angle of oil be mentioned in the text?
6. It is suggested that the author design a simple experimental device to simulate the actual application to increase the persuasiveness.
7. In the 307th line of the article, the author said, "Subsequently, we noticed that as the concentrations of aluminum nanofluid increased to 0.30 wt. % the contact angle values reduced (i.e. the wettability modified from hydrophobic to hydraulic)." The water contact angle must be greater than 90° Call it hydrophobic, the text does not mention and show hydrophobicity.
8. The authors can simply draw the flow chart of their preparation, and besides, the authors should illustrate the mechanism through some chemical equations/interaction diagrams between chemical bonds.
9. Authors are advised to compare existing data with data from similar work in the literature. What is the novelty of this work compared to other studies? Authors need to make certain clarifications in the introduction.
10. Finally, the conclusions should not only describe the intuitive phenomena; the authors should also present the key parameters obtained.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The work was revised based on the comments. So it is ready for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
This version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences.
