Seawater-resistant emulsified epoxy resin for effective sand control in unconsolidated sandstone oil reservoir

Chenyang Tang; Wei Zheng; Yufei He; Shaobing Cai; Juanzhe Jiang; Yue Pan; Ke Li; Xiaoxia Shang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335819

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 27, 2025
27 Jul 2025 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335819.r001
18 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - S. Shanmugan, Editor Dear Dr. Shang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, S. Shanmugan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide 6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Additional Editor Comments : Reviewer #1: Preparation and Evaluation of A New Sand Consolidation Agent: Emulsified Epoxy Resin In this article titled Preparation and Evaluation of A New Sand Consolidation Agent: Emulsified Epoxy Resin,” the authors presented a study for development of new type of emulsified epoxy resin with a nonionic emulsified curing agent, fatty amine poly(epoxy ethyl ether), which is able to minimize the effect of salinity. The structure of the emulsified resin and the stability of the curing body were tested, and the effects of curing temperature, time, quartz sand mesh and control agent dosage on compressive strength and permeability were studied. This study seems to be a useful contribution to the literature, and it can be accepted after addressing the following minor issues [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Article Review Preparation and Evaluation of A New Sand Consolidation Agent: Emulsified Epoxy Resin In this article titled Preparation and Evaluation of A New Sand Consolidation Agent: Emulsified Epoxy Resin,” the authors presented a study for development of new type of emulsified epoxy resin with a nonionic emulsified curing agent, fatty amine poly(epoxy ethyl ether), which is able to minimize the effect of salinity. The structure of the emulsified resin and the stability of the curing body were tested, and the effects of curing temperature, time, quartz sand mesh and control agent dosage on compressive strength and permeability were studied. This study seems to be a useful contribution to the literature, and it can be accepted after addressing the following minor issues: 1. The abstract should be improved to enhance flow and to provide the literature gap and the importance of this study. It should be more self-explanatory, especially about the major types of architecture and their relative strengths and weaknesses. It should introduce the field at least in one line and mention the research gap to establish the novelty of this study. 2. The Keywords should be revised to include more relevant keywords and should not include words already mentioned in the title to improve the searchability of the article. For better Search Engine Optimization and searchability, more focused keywords should be included while omitting the generic ones. 3. The English language in this manuscript should be improved. It should also be more elaborate. 4. The methodology section need more explanation. 5. The article should include more relevant literature; it currently consists of very few references to successfully establish the need for the current study. 6. The motivation behind this study should be included with more detail, it should be in proper flow, introducing the gap and research question. 7. The suppositions and boundary conditions should be explicitly declared. 8. The overall flow of language is incoherent, and there are various grammatical and spelling mistakes. These issues should be resolved. The End ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Ali Raza Shafqat ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 250816 Review Report.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335819.r002
Revision 1
23 Sep 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Ali Raza Shafqat, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled“ Seawater-Resistant Emulsified Epoxy Resin for Effective Sand Control In Unconsolidated Sandstone Oil Reservoir” (ID: PONE-D-25-36037). We are also grateful to the reviewers for their time, effort, and insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered all the comments and have made extensive revisions to the manuscript accordingly. The point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed below. Reviewer’s Comments: Comment 1: The abstract should be improved to enhance flow and to provide the literature gap and the importance of this study. It should be more self-explanatory, especially about the major types of architecture and their relative strengths and weaknesses. It should introduce the field at least in one line and mention the research gap to establish the novelty of this study. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the abstract to improve its flow and clarity. Specifically, we have: Added an introductory sentence to establish the research field. Clearly stated the research gap and the motivation for this study. Provided a concise explanation of the major architectural types discussed, along with their relative strengths and weaknesses. Emphasized the novelty and importance of our work in addressing the identified gap. We believe the revised abstract is now more comprehensive and self-explanatory. “Abstract Sand production in oil wells is recognized as a persistent challenge during oilfield development, adversely affecting well productivity and operational stability. Chemical sand control methods, particularly resin-based sand consolidation, are considered a promising solution due to their operational simplicity and effectiveness. However, conventional emulsified resins are known to be highly sensitive to high-salinity environments, which can lead to emulsion destabilization and reduced consolidation strength. To address this limitation, a novel emulsified epoxy resin system was developed in this study using a nonionic emulsifying curing agent—fatty amine poly(epoxy ethyl ether)—by which salinity tolerance is significantly enhanced, supporting dilution water salinity up to 3.8×10⁴ mg/L. Through single-factor experiments, an optimal formulation was identified as 16% epoxy resin, 24% emulsified curing agent, 1% coupling agent, and 5.6% stabilizer. The molecular structure of the emulsified resin and the stability of the cured matrix were thoroughly characterized. The effects of curing temperature, time, sand particle size, and stabilizer dosage on compressive strength and permeability were systematically evaluated. It was demonstrated that after being cured at 80 °C for 12 hours, the consolidated cores achieved a compressive strength exceeding 3 MPa with permeability retention above 75%. Furthermore, the consolidated cores were shown to exhibit excellent long-term stability, maintaining their mechanical and flow properties after 30-day immersion in kerosene, 10% HCl, and formation water. This study bridges a critical research gap in high-salinity applications of water-based resin emulsions and provides a robust technical solution for sand control in challenging reservoir environments.” Comment 2: The Keywords should be revised to include more relevant keywords and should not include words already mentioned in the title to improve the searchability of the article. For better Search Engine Optimization and searchability, more focused keywords should be included while omitting the generic ones. Response: We appreciate this helpful suggestion. We have revised the keywords section by: Removing words that already appear in the manuscript title. Adding more specific and relevant keywords that accurately represent the core content of our study and are likely to be used in literature searches. Ensuring the new keywords are focused and appropriate for improving the article's discoverability. “Keywords chemical sand control; nonionic emulsifier; high-salinity tolerance; permeability retention; long-term stability; sand fixing properties” Comment 3: The English language in this manuscript should be improved. It should also be more elaborate. Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The manuscript has been extensively revised to improve the English language and clarity. We have carefully polished the language throughout the paper, corrected grammatical errors, and elaborated on key points to enhance readability and comprehensiveness. Comment 4: The methodology section need more explanation. Response: We agree with the reviewer that a more detailed methodology was needed. We have significantly expanded the methodology section to provide a clearer, step-by-step explanation of the research design, data sources, analytical procedures, and computational methods employed. This added detail will ensure the study is reproducible and its rigor is clearly communicated. The modifications can be found in the manuscript from line 131 to line 203. Comment 5: The article should include more relevant literature; it currently consists of very few references to successfully establish the need for the current study. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We have conducted a thorough review of the recent and relevant literature and have added numerous citations throughout the introduction and background sections. These new references better contextualize our study within the existing body of knowledge and more effectively establish the research gap that our work aims to address. The modifications can be found in the manuscript from line 37 to line 110. Comment 6: The motivation behind this study should be included with more detail, it should be in proper flow, introducing the gap and research question. Response: We appreciate this suggestion. The introduction has been restructured and rewritten to provide a more logical narrative flow. We have elaborated on the motivation for the study, clearly leading the reader from the general background to the specific research gap, and then to the research questions and objectives that our study tackles. Comment 7: The suppositions and boundary conditions should be explicitly declared. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important feedback. We have now explicitly stated the key assumptions and boundary conditions underlying our research in a dedicated subsection within the methodology. This clarification ensures transparency and helps readers understand the scope and limitations of our study. The modifications can be found in the manuscript from line 188 to line 203. “Experimental Assumptions and Boundary Conditions The experimental investigation and subsequent analysis in this study were conducted under the following explicit assumptions and boundary conditions: Sand Grain Composition: The consolidation experiments primarily assume quartz sand as the representative formation sand. The presence of significant clay minerals or other highly reactive minerals may alter the chemical interaction and consolidation effectiveness. Formation Homogeneity: The laboratory-prepared sand packs assume a relatively homogeneous and unconsolidated formation model. Complex heterogeneities, natural fractures, or pre-existing stresses in real reservoirs are not accounted for. Curing Conditions: The curing process is assumed to be primarily thermally driven at the specified temperatures (e.g., 80°C). The potential influences of downhole pressure on curing kinetics and final properties were not investigated in this phase of study. Fluid Compatibility: The assessment of chemical resistance assumes exposure to the specified fluids (formation water, 10% HCl, kerosene) under static conditions. Dynamic flow conditions or interactions with mixed/complex wellbore fluids are beyond the current scope. Scale: The experiments are conducted on a laboratory scale. Scaling effects for field application, including placement efficiency, radial flow effects, and large-volume mixing, are not considered. These boundaries define the specific context within which the results and conclusions of this study are valid.” Comment 8: The overall flow of language is incoherent, and there are various grammatical and spelling mistakes. These issues should be resolved. Response: We sincerely apologize for these issues. We have performed a comprehensive line-by-line edit of the entire manuscript to rectify grammatical and spelling errors. Furthermore, we have restructured sentences and paragraphs to improve the overall coherence, logical flow, and readability of the text. Once again, we thank you and the reviewers for these constructive comments. We have addressed all the points raised and believe the revisions have substantially improved the manuscript. We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Sincerely, Xiaoxia Shang Shangxx27@163.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335819.r003
17 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - S. Shanmugan, Editor Preparation and Evaluation of A New Sand Consolidation Agent: Emulsified Epoxy Resin PONE-D-25-36037R1 Dear Dr. Xiaoxia Shang We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally updated Reviewer 1 comments for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, S. Shanmugan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Process Reviewers' comments: Follow up Reviewer 1 comments https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335819.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - S. Shanmugan, Editor PONE-D-25-36037R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. S. Shanmugan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335819.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .