Experimental assessment of catalytic biofuel effect on performance and exhaust emission of diesel engine

Abstract

The present experiment is to analyze the effect of blended biodiesel of chicken fat CF10 (10% chicken fat and 90% diesel), waste cooking oil WC10 (10% waste cooking oil and 90% diesel), and combined chicken fat with waste cooking oil CF&WC10 (5% chicken fat + 5% waste cooking oil and 90% diesel) on the performance of diesel engine. The experiment is conducted at a constant compression ratio of 17, mixing 50 ppm alumina alfa (Al₂O₃-α) catalyst nanoparticles in each blend. The performance of biodiesel is analyzed at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% load conditions and is compared with pure diesel. The results show that the brake torque (BT) and brake power of CF&WC10 were found to be 22.48 Nm and 3.58 kW at full load conditions. However, the indicated thermal efficiency and BTE of CF&WC10 are at full loading conditions of 52.45% and 26.78% respectively. Because the supply of A/F ratio is 18.81, at full load condition and also lowering the brake specific fuel consumption up to 0.32 kg/kWh. Therefore, optimization of both performance and exhaust emission of an engine depends on BTE and NO_x as well as HC emissions. Hence, from the emissions reduction point of view, CF&WC10 has lower emissions while achieving brake thermal efficiency similar to diesel fuel. The novelty of research shows CF&WC10 leads to enhanced performance of diesel engine compared to pure diesel fuel.

Keywords

waste cooking oil chicken fat energy efficiency exhaust emission

Introduction

Biodiesel is a mixture of fatty acid alkyl esters. It is prepared by transesterification process of alternate renewable vegetable such as waste cooking oil,¹ palm oil,² sunflower oil,³ soyabean oil,⁴ nahor oil,⁵ palm kernel oil,⁶ animal fats or recycled greases. The blended biodiesel fuel properties meet American Standard for Testing and Materials (ASTM) diesel fuel standards and can be used as a sustainable fuel in compression ignition (CI) engine. Generally, biodiesel is used for, reducing exhaust emissions (CO, HC, NO_x, etc.) with similar thermal performance of diesel,⁷ and also used in reducing the friction coefficient in IC engines.⁸

The NO_x and other carbon content pollutants from diesel engines have profound severe implications for global warming.^9–11 Among biomass-based biofuels, waste cooking oil and chicken fat blended biodiesel is the most sustainable alternative fuel.^12–16 The transesterification process reduces waste oil's viscosity to a range of 4–5 mm²/s, which is closer to that of petro-diesel. Rising poultry production worldwide is leading to increasing waste generated from poultry farming.^17–20 This poultry waste can be utilized in biofuel production and minimizing the waste ending up in landfills.^21–24 Hence, waste chicken fat has received attention as feed-stock for biodiesel production.²⁵

Kumar et al.²⁶ experimentally investigated the effect of waste cooking oil blended biodiesel of B20, B30, and B40 on the performance of diesel engines. They have observed that blend B40 has maximum thermal efficiency with lower specific fuel consumption at a compression ratio of 16:1. Kadam et al.²⁷ examined the performance of methyl or ethyl esters of chicken fat blended biodiesel. They observed that the engine emissions are reduced for all blends under all operating conditions. Hariram et al.²⁸ focused on chicken fat conversion into chicken fat methyl ester and its effect on diesel engine emission characteristics. They used up to 20% ethanol additive in chicken fat blended biodiesel and observed that it reduced the emissions while increasing brake thermal efficiency (BTE). Rao et al.²⁹ studied the impact of preheated chicken fat biodiesel on the combustion performance using direct injection compression ignition (DI-CI) in the engine's combustion performance using direct DI-CI. The preheating reduces the viscosity of blended fuel, which causes a reduction in emission gas temperature. Kul and Kahraman³⁰ investigated the energy and exergy of four different bioethanol blended fuels at various engine speeds. It was observed that the D92B3E5 (92% diesel, 3% biodiesel, and 5% bioethanol) blended fuel leads to thermal efficiency similar to that of pure diesel fuel. Ge et al.³¹ analyzed the performance of chicken fat blended fuels (B10, B30, and B50) with eggshell catalyst (CaO) at different engine speeds varying from 1800 to 2600 r/min. The eggshell catalyst increases the quality of blended fuel, which results in the brake torque and brake power of B10 being equal to that of the diesel fuel. Pugazhvadivu and Jeyachandran³² experimentally investigated the combustion performance of waste frying oil (WFO) with and without preheating. The WFO at 135°C maximum reduced CO and smoke emissions compared to WFO at 75°C and also improved the BTE at high temperatures. Shirneshan and Nedayali³³ investigate the effect of biodiesel of waste cooking oil and its blends with diesel fuel (B0, B20, B50, B80, and B100) on the performance and emission characteristics. They conducted experiments at a constant engine speed of 1530 r/min and with various engine loads. The results showed an increase in brake power (BP), brake torque (BT), BTE, and NO_x emission and a reduction in brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and CO emission and an increase in BP, BT, BTE, and NO_x emissions and a reduction in BSFC and CO emissions at full loads for all the biodiesel blends. The blends B20 and B50 indicated the power generator's potential performance and emission characteristics. Elkelawy et al.³⁴ reported that nanoparticle additives in blended diesel fuel increased the contact surface area of the oxidant, which caused reduced engine emissions and improved performance. Elkelawy et al.³⁵ investigated the performance characteristics of cyclohexane micro additive used in waste cooking oil (WCO) diesel blend (B60D40) for different injection pressures of 150 and 250 bar. The results show that the additives improved the thermal performance of the engine and reduced the emissions. Behera and Hotta³⁶ investigated the performance, emission, and combustion characteristics of 30% blended biofuels of WCVOs (Ground Nut (GDN), Palm (PM), and Sunflower (SF)). They observed BTE of Palm oil (PM) to be 5% more compared to Diesel and other blended fuels and exhaust emissions also reduced significantly by 12–15%. Gülüm³⁷ investigated performance and emission characteristics of Corn oil biodiesel (B20, B40, and B60) at compression ratios ε = 17, 19, and 21. It was found that the B20 and B40 at ε = 17 improved brake effective power and brake effective efficiency with lowering the CO, HC and smoke but higher CO₂ and NO_x emissions. All test fuels show a drop in BSFC, brake specific energy consumption, CO, HC, and smoke as the compression ratio is raised, but an increase in brake effective power, brake effective efficiency, NO_x and CO₂. Chatur et al.³⁸ examined the performance and emissions of diesel engine by using waste cooking oil methyl ester blend mixed with copper oxide nanoadditives. Results show the nano-sized additives enhanced the thermal efficiency and reduced fuel consumption rates by 6.3% and 4.9%, respectively. Additionally, the engine's CO and HC emissions decreased by 4.3% and 26.1%, respectively. Galande et al.³⁹ experimentally analyzed the performance of microalgae-based biodiesel blend of B20 at different compression ratios (CRs) of 17, 19, and 21 with varying fuel injection timing (FIT) of 21°, 23°, and 25° before top dead center (bTDC). They observed that for CR21 and FIT23, the B20 blend's CO, HC, and smoke opacity emissions reduced by 30.52%, 33.33%, and 32.96%, respectively.

From the literature survey presented above reveals that even though numerous papers have been published on the said work (blends of chicken fat methyl ester and waste cooking oil on the performance of diesel engine), the effect of combined blends with catalyst has not been reported yet. Therefore, in the present work, experiments have been conducted on CF10, WC10 and combined chicken fat oil and waste cooking oil 10 (CF&WC10) with mixing of 50 ppm of size 20–30 nm alumina alfa (Al₂O₃-α) catalyst with each blend. The performance parameters such as BTE, BSFC, brake power, torque and exhaust emissions, NO_x and CO₂ pollutants are analyzed at different load conditions of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%.

Methodology

Transesterification process

Triacylglycerides (from poultry fats) and alcohol can be transesterified to create biodiesel with the help of the NaOH catalyst as shown in Figure 1. Alkali-catalyzed transesterification is a common method for producing biodiesel. Usually, triglycerides and methanol combine to produce glycerol and fatty alkyl methyl esters.^40–43 The waste cooking oil is heated between 50 °C and 60 °C with sulfuric acid and NaOH. Whereas chicken fat is heated up to 140 °C for 90 min to drive derive fatty oil and then filtration process occurs. At higher temperatures, the conversion is faster for the same reaction time. Further, both bio oils pass through three transesterification processes. Emulsions frequently develop during the course of the reaction; methanol, as opposed to ethanol, makes it much simpler and faster to destabilize these emulsions. The ethanol is used in the process for phase separation and biodiesel purification as more stable emulsions create more difficulty in separation and purification. Hence, acid reacts as catalyst and reduces the free fatty acid content of waste cooking oil during esterification process. After esterification, oil is again heated to 100 °C to remove moisture from the esterified oil. Thereafter, transesterification (stirring) process is allowed to happen at 500 rpm with NaOH for one hour. Finally, fuel and glycerol are separated from the solution. Then oil is again heated up to 120 °C to remove moisture and get maximum yield of 98% pure bio fuel. The properties of the biodiesel (acid value, saponification value, viscosity) conformed to ASTM standards.

Figure 1.

Experimental setup for biodiesel production.

The properties of the blends B10 (10% biodiesel, 90% petro diesel) of different oils (WC, CF and combination of WC&CF) are prepared and compared with ASTM as shown in Table 1. The cetane number of 10% blends can be calculated by the Equation (1);

C N_{b l e n d s} = 0.10 \times C N_{C F} + 0.90 C N_{D i e s e l}

(1)

Table 1.

Properties of different biodiesel blends.

Test descri ption	Ref. STD 6751	Reference		Dies el	Biodiesel blends
Test descri ption	Ref. STD 6751	Unit	Limit	B00%	CF10	WC10	WC&CF10
Density	D1448	g/cc	0.800–0.900	0.830	0.836	0.832	0.837
Calorific value	D6751	MJ/kg	34–45	43.50	42.80	42.99	42.11
Moisture	D2709	%	0.05%	–	–	–	–
Flash point	D93	°C	–	64	78.00	67.00	78.00
Cetane number	D975	–	40–55	50	50.5	49.8	50.15

Test setup

The experiment is carried out with a VCR single-cylinder four-stroke diesel engine shown in Figure 2. The compression ratio (CR = 17) of the CI engine is constant. The technical specifications of the diesel engine are listed in Table 2. The unburnt hydrocarbons and other exhaust emissions are measured by using AVL437 gas analyzer and smoke meter.

Figure 2.

Experimental setup for biodiesel production.

Table 2.

VCR single cylinder four stroke engine specifications.

Diesel engine	Kirloskar
No of cylinders	1
No of strokes	4
Fuel	Diesel
Rated power	3.5 kW
Cylinder diameter	87.5
Stroke length	110
Compression ratio	12 to 18
Connecting rod length	234 mm
Orifice diameter	20 mm

Analytical formulation

Fuel consumption

F C = \frac{volume of flow (25 ml)}{Time required in \sec (m^{3} / s)}

Heat supplied by the fuel

H . S . = Fuel consumption \times Calorific value of fuel in kJ / s

Brake power

B . P . = \frac{2 Π N (W L) \times 9.81}{60 \times 1000} k W

(2)

where L = length of the arm of dynamometer (m), N = engine speed (r/min), W = weight applied (N)

Brake torque

T = \frac{B . P \times 60}{2 Π N} Nm

(3)

Brake thermal efficiency

η_{bth} = {\frac{(Brake power in kW)}{(Heat supplied in kJ / s)}} \times (100)

Brake specific fuel consumption:

B S F C = {\frac{(Fuel consumption in (kJ / s) \times 3600)}{Brake power in (kW)}} in kJ / kWhr

(4)

Uncertainty analysis

The experimental procedure involves errors in calibrating data, which results in uncertainty in calculating the thermal performance of diesel engines. The uncertainty in the performance parameters such as airflow rate into the engine, air–fuel ratio, brake mean effective pressure (BMEP), BSFC, brake thermal efficiency, $η_{b t h}$ and indicative mean effective pressure are calculated through measured variables.

BTE and uncertainty therein can be expressed in Table 3, and calculated by Equations (5) and (6):

η_{B T H} = \frac{B P}{I P} \times 100

(5)

Δ η_{B T H} = \sqrt{{(\frac{Δ B P}{B P} η_{B T H})}^{2} + {(\frac{Δ I P}{I P} η_{B T H})}^{2}}

(6)

Table 3.

Uncertainty values in diesel engine performance.

Parameters	Unit	Uncertainty (%)
Temperature	°C	± 0.05
Mass flow	g/s	± 0.01
Torque	Nm	± 2.00
Engine speed	rev/min	± 1.00
Brake power	kW	± 0.70
Brake thermal efficiency $(η_{B T H})$	%	± 1.25

Results and discussion

The combustion of blended biofuels with 50 ppm of Al₂O₃-α catalyst has significant impact on the engine performance. The nanoparticles of Al₂O₃-α catalyst in biodiesel, enhances the calorific value of the blended fuel. The fuel property of the biodiesel studied in present work reaches very close to that of pure diesel. The parametric study of diesel engine has been discussed in the following sections.

Engine performance characteristics

Brake power

The brake power of various blended biodiesels was estimated at different load conditions as shown in Figure 3. The Al₂O₃-α nanoparticles enhance the heating value of biodiesel, which allowed complete combustion of biodiesel and developed more brake power. The BP of waste cooking oil biodiesel is developed to 0.94 kW at 25% load condition. As load increases, the BP of engine also increases simultaneously. At full load (100%) condition, the BP of pure diesel is 3.57 kW, which is comparatively less than the blended biodiesel. The CF10 has maximum brake power of 3.62 kW at full load, which is 0.5% more than the WC10, and 1.1% more than the combined WC&CF10 biodiesel. Therefore, at 100% load condition, diesel has lower brake power than the blended fuels.

Figure 3.

Brake power variation of different blends of biodiesel with load.

Brake torque

The brake torque developed by pure diesel and all blended biodiesels at different load conditions are shown in Figure 4. Initially, at 25% load condition, WC10 has brake torque of 5.69 Nm, which is more compared to the pure diesel and other blends of biodiesel. The calorific value of all blends is slightly less than that of pure diesel. But flash point of WC10 and CF&WC10 at 78°C is more than the diesel fuel. The Al₂O₃-α catalyst nanoparticles enhance the heat release rate from the burning of blended biodiesel. Hence, as load increases, the brake torque also increases. At full load condition BT of diesel, CF10, WC10, and CF&WC10 were found to be 22.33 Nm, 22.42 Nm, 22.48 Nm, and 22.48 Nm respectively.

Figure 4.

Brake torque variation of different blends of biodiesel with load.

Frictional power

Frictional power is the difference between indicated power (IP) and power available at engine shaft (i.e., brake power). Friction power losses are proportional to mean piston speed and less at lower engine speeds. The maximum frictional power of CF10 is 4.37 kW at 25% load as shown in Figure 5. As the load increases to 50%, the frictional power (FP) of diesel is found to be similar to that of CF10. However, at 75% and 100% load conditions, CF10 has maximum and WC10 has same friction power as diesel. The FP of combined CF&WC10 is minimum at each loading condition. Hence, lowering of FP leads to more BP, which enhances the BTE.

Figure 5.

Frictional power variation of different blends of biodiesel with load.

Brake-specific fuel consumption

The variation in BSFC of diesel and other blended biodiesel fuels are shown in Figure 6. The BSFC is measured in terms “fuel efficiency of diesel engine” that burns fuel and produces rotational output shaft power. The value of BSFC indicates how efficiently an engine converts supplied fuel into useful work. The BSFC of diesel is less compared to different blends of biodiesel at starting stage of 25% loading condition. The results show that the BSFC of biodiesel decreases as load increases due to high calorific value fuels. At 50% loading, the BSFC of diesel, CF10, WC10, and CF&WC10 are 0.44 kg/kWh, 0.44 kg/kWh, 0.39 kg/kWh and 0.42 kg/kWh respectively, which are closer to the pure diesel. It is due to the fact that the ethanol releases free oxygen for complete combustion and releases maximum energy. Therefore, at full load condition, BSFC of CF10 has a minimum value of 0.32 kg/kWh as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6.

BSFC of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

Indicated thermal efficiency

The indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) is directly proportional to the IP developed by the diesel engine. The ITE of diesel is maximum at 78.29% and CF&WC10 blend has minimum ITE of 59.84% at 25% load condition as shown in Figure 7. However, at 50% load WC10 has maximum ITE of 72.53%. At 75% and 100% loading conditions CF10 has maximum ITE of 75.91% and 67.79%, respectively. Whereas, diesel, WC10 and CF&WC10 blends have ITE of 58.34%, 58.21%, and 54.31% respectively at 75% loading condition. At 100% loading condition, diesel, WC10 and CF&WC10 blends have ITE of 57.6%, 53.35%, and 52.45% respectively.

Figure 7.

ITE of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

Mechanical efficiency

The mechanical efficiency (ME) is proportional to the brake power developed by the engine. Hence, ME for all fuels increases with increase of loading on engine as shown in Figure 8. The ME of CF&WC10 is recorded to be maximum of 20.1%, 31.88%, 41.98%, and 51.05% at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of loading conditions as shown in Figure 8. Whereas, ME of CF10 at each loading condition at 17.3%, 30.1%, 35.81%, and 43.74%, respectively is minimum compared to the diesel and other blended fuels. Therefore, ME of CF&WC10 is maximum of 51.05% at full load condition.

Figure 8.

Mechanical efficiency of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

Brake thermal efficiency

The BTE of diesel, CF10, WC10 and CF&WC10 blended biodiesels with catalytic nanoparticle are illustrated at different load conditions in Figure 9. The doping of 30 nm nanoparticles, improves its radiation and heat transfer performance, which causes complete combustion and higher thermal efficiency. The BTE of pure diesel is 14.39% higher at initial load condition of 25%. As the load on engine increases, the BTE also increases. At 50% load WC10 has maximum BTE of 22.25%. However, at 75% and 100% load conditions, CF10 has maximum BTE of 27.18% and 29.65%, respectively. At full load condition, CF&WC10 blended biodiesel has BTE of 26.78%, which is similar to the pure diesel fuel case and 9.6% lower than the BTE of CF10. A large BTE indicates complete combustion of blended biodiesel, which causes reduction in exhaust emissions.

Figure 9.

Brake thermal efficiency of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

Volumetric efficiency (VE)

The volumetric efficiency of an engine depends on charge of fuel and air into and out of the cylinders or a ratio of actual engine swept volume to displacement. The VE also depends on the clearance volume, and at increased compression ratio, the volumetric efficiency decreases. Therefore, at the constant compression ratio of 17, volumetric efficiency of diesel and all blended biodiesels have approximately similar values at each loading condition as shown in Figure 10. Therefore, at initial 25% loading, CF10 shown volumetric efficiency of 61.93% and at full load condition it was 60.97%.

Figure 10.

Volumetric efficiency of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

Brake mean effective pressure

The BMEP is the inside cylinder pressure which helps run the engine uniformly. BMEP is the ratio of work done by the engine during power stroke to the engine displacement. Figure 11 illustrates the variation of brake mean effective pressure for different load conditions. At starting stage of 25% loading, WC10 has 1.08 bar and other combinations have same 1.05 bar for all the biodiesel blends. As load on engine increases, the brake mean effective pressure also increases. At full load, brake mean effective pressure of diesel, CF10, WC10, and CF&WC10 are 4.24 bar, 4.26 bar, 4.27 bar and 4.27 bar, respectively.

Figure 11.

Brake mean effective pressure of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

A/F ratio

The variation of A/F ratio of blended biodiesels at different loading conditions is shown in Figure 12. It shows that the A/F ratio of all fuels decreases as loading on engine increases. Initially, A/F ratio of pure diesel is maximum of 41.45 compared to biodiesel. At 50% loading CF&WC10 has A/F ratio of 29.86 and WC10 has A/F of 22.29, while CF10 and diesel have approximately similar A/F ratio of 28.22. At 75% loading CF10 has maximum A/F ratio of 26.19 compared to others. At full loading condition, the volume of air increases, which results in CF&WC10 having minimum A/F ratio of 18.81.

Figure 12.

A/F ratio of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

Emission performance characteristics

Exhaust gas temperature

The variation in exhaust gas temperature (EGT) of different blends of biodiesel is shown in Figure 13. As aluminum oxide nanoparticles increase the heating value of biodiesel and help in complete combustion of the A/F mixture, the EGT of diesel and its blended fuels also increases with increase of loading. At 25% loading, EGT of diesel, CF10, WC10 and CF&WC10 are found to be 394.73 K, 407.91 K, 412.04 K and 419.43 K, respectively. At each loading condition (50%, 75%, and 100%) exhaust temperature of diesel is minimum of 415.15 K, 446.02 K, 483.73 K, respectively. Whereas, CF&WC10 have comparatively higher EGT of 419.43 K, 432.24 K, 457.29 K and 489.07 K, respectively at same loading condition.

Figure 13.

Exhaust gas temperature of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

No_x emission

The formation of nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emission is one of the major pollutant in exhaust gases produced by diesel engines. This is mainly formed by the interaction between nitrogen with oxygen at high temperatures during the combustion process. The formation of NO_x emissions by the different blends of biodiesel is shown in Figure 14. It is observed that as A/F ratio decreases with increase of load shown in Figure 13, the oxidation agents (O₂+ N₂) with nanoparticles improve the oxidation process during combustion causing increased NO_x emissions. The combined blended biodiesel (CF&WC10) has very low NO_x emission of 12 ppm compared to other biodiesels at 25% loading. At 50% loading condition, diesel, CF10, WC10, and CF&WC10 have NO_x emission of 231 ppm, 205 ppm, 286 ppm and 64 ppm, respectively. It indicates the CF&WC10 has 72% lower NO_x emission compared to pure diesel. At increased load of 75%, NO_x emission also increases to about 414 ppm, 423 ppm, 442 ppm, and 243 ppm by diesel, CF10, WC10 and CF&WC10, respectively. But again CF&WC10 produces 41.3% lower NO_x emissions than the diesel fuel. However, at full load condition, WC10 produces maximum NO_x emission of 553 ppm and diesel, CF10 and CF&WC10 produces NO_x emissions of 514 ppm, 518 ppm and 493 ppm, respectively. But at full load condition CF&WC10 has only 4.2% NO_x emission difference with diesel.

Figure 14.

No_x emission of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

CO₂ emission

The variation in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions of diesel, CF10, WC10, and CF&WC10 at different load conditions is as shown in Figure 15. The CO₂ emission also increases as load increases and catalytic nanoparticles have no significant effect on CO₂ formation. Therefore, carbon dioxide emissions indicate the extent of combustion, that is complete combustion generates less CO₂ emissions. Due to more oxygen availability, CO is converted to CO₂ for the reduction of toxic CO emissions. The carbon dioxide emissions at 25% load for diesel, CF10, WC10, and CF&WC10 are 2.4%, 3%, 2.9%, and 2.7% of volume, respectively. However, at full load condition CF&WC10 produces CO₂ of 22.58% more compared to diesel fuel.

Figure 15.

CO₂ emission of different blended biodiesel varying with load.

Limitations of biofuel blends

The combustion experiments have been conducted to analyze the effect of 10% concentrated waste chicken fat and waste cooking biofuel, and also mixing of both biofuel together on the reduction of NO_x emission and impact on engine performance. It was observed that the BTE of mixed biofuel blends with minimum specific fuel consumption was similar to the diesel fuel, with reduced exhaust emissions. However, CO₂ emission increases as load increases because blended biodiesel carries more carbon atoms compared to pure diesel. Therefore, mixing of biofuel with diesel fuel is limited for minimizing CO₂ emission.

Conclusions

The performance of waste chicken fat CF10, waste cooking oil WC10 and combination of chicken fat and cooking oil CF&WC10 blended biodiesel are measured and compared with pure diesel fuel. The catalyst Al₂O₃-α nanoparticles are added to enhance the combustion performance of the engine which reduces the unburnt hydrocarbons in the engine exhaust. From the experimental findings, it is observed that the BT and BP of CF&WC10 were found to be 22.48 Nm and 3.58 kW at full load condition. However, the ITE and BTE of CF&WC10 are at full loading conditions of 52.45% and 26.78% respectively. Because of supply of A/F ratio is 18.81, at full load condition and also lowering the BSFC up to 0.32 kg/kWh. The BMEP of WC10 and CF&WC10 is developed 4.27 bar at full load. Also, CF&WC10 has comparatively lower NO_x emission and CF10 has minimum unburnt hydrocarbon emission compared to the diesel fuel and other blends of biodiesel. Therefore, optimization of both performance and exhaust emission of engine depends on BTE and NO_x emission of an engine. From the emission reduction point of view, CF&WC10 has lower emission while achieving similar BTE as the diesel fuel. Therefore, present experimental results have good implications on economics as well as environment.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Department of Mechanical Precision Engineering, Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia, for providing lab facilities to carry out the experimental research work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Noor Alam

Noor Alam working as a postdoctoral fellow at MJIIT, UTM Malaysia. He received his MTech, PhD and degree in Thermal Engineering Specialization from N.I.T. Silchar, Assam, India. He has published and presented several papers in international journals and conferences.

Zahir Hasan working as a principal and professor in the Department of Mechanical Precision Engineering, Ghousia College of Engineering, Ramanagara, Karnataka, India. He holds PhD from prestigious Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. He has national and international academic experience, and contribution in academic through his research publication, workshops and conducting conference.

Nabi Hasan was an ex-associate professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, BRCM College of Engg. & Tech, Bahal, Dist. Bhiwani Haryana, India. He was also a member of the Board of Studies for UG and PG courses at AFSET, Faridabad, India.

Najmur Rahman teaches as an assistant professor in Mechanical Engineering at Taibah University, Madinah, KSA. He taught at TERI School of Advanced Studies Delhi (earlier known as TERI University) in the Department of Energy and Environment. He has completed his master's and PhD studies at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee and the Indian Institute of Delhi, respectively. His research interests include drying, heat and mass transfer, solar energy, and energy-efficient buildings.

Sheikh Ahmad Zaki works as a professor in the Department of Mechanical Precision Engineering, Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. He obtained his Doctorate in Energy and Environment in 2011 from Kyushu University, Japan. His research and work experience focuses on Urban climatology, Building environmental engineering, Wind engineering, and Urban environment.

Nor'azizi Bin Othman working as an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical Precision Engineering, Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. With a Doctor of Environmental Engineering from Kyushu University, Japan, he specializes in environment, renewable energy, biomass, and biochar technology. His research extends to the development of temperate crops in tropical climates, addressing critical agricultural challenges.

References

Wong

Ang

. Study of calcined eggshell as potential catalyst for biodiesel formation using used cooking oil. Open Chem 2018; 16: 1166–1175.

Muthu

Viruthagiri

. Study on solid base calcium oxide as a heterogeneous catalyst for the production of biodiesel. J Adv Chem Sci 2015; 1: 160–163.

El-Gendy

Deriase

Hamdy

, et al. Statistical optimization of biodiesel production from sunflower waste cooking oil using basic heterogeneous biocatalyst prepared from eggshells. Egypt J Pet 2015; 24: 37–48.

Boro

Konwar

Deka

. Transesterification of nonedible feedstock with lithium incorporated egg shell derived CaO for biodiesel production. Fuel Process Technol 2014; 122: 72–78.

Danlin

Zhang

Chen

, et al. Preparation and characterization of a strong solid base from waste eggshell for biodiesel production. J Environ Chem Eng 2015; 3: 560–564. e227.

Ajala

Ayinla

, et al. Nano-synthesis of solid acid catalysts from waste iron filings for biodiesel production using high free fatty acid waste cooking oil. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 13256.

Scharff

Asteris

Fédou

. Catalyst technology for biofuel production: conversion of renewable lipids into biojet and biodiesel. OCL 2013; 20: D502.

Barsari

MAN

Shirneshan

. An experimental study of friction and wear characteristics of sunflower and soybean oil methyl ester under the steady-state conditions by the four-ball wear testing machine. ASME J Tribol 2019; 141: 044501.

Hoseini

Najafi

Ghobadian

, et al. The effect of combustion management on diesel engine emissions fueled with biodiesel-diesel blends. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2017; 73: 307–331.

10.

Reşitoğlu

İA

Altinişik

Keskin

. The pollutant emissions from diesel-engine vehicles and exhaust after-treatment systems. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2015; 17: 15–27.

11.

Sydbom

Blomberg

Parnia

, et al. Health effects of diesel exhaust emissions. Eur Respir J 2001; 17: 733–746.

12.

Sitepu

Garay

Sestric

, et al. Oleaginous yeasts for biodiesel: current and future trends in biology and production. Biotechnol Adv 2014; 32: 1336–1360.

13.

Knothe

. Biodiesel and renewable diesel: a comparison. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010; 36: 364–373.

14.

Guo

Cordes

Farese

, et al. Lipid droplets at a glance. J Cell Sci 2009; 122: 749–752.

15.

Kumar

Singh

Mishra

, et al. Re-cent advances in production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. Chem Eng Technol 2009; 32: 517–526.

16.

Sajid

Khan

Zhang

. Process simulation and life cycle analysis of biodiesel production. Renew Energy 2016; 85: 945–952.

17.

Cho

Seo

. High activity of acid-treated quail eggshell catalysts in the transesterification of palm oil with methanol. Bioresour Technol 2010; 101: 8515–8519.

18.

Ferreira

Kunh

Cremonez

, et al. Brazilian poultry activity waste: destinations and energetic potential. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018; 81: 3081–3089.

19.

Hanafi

Elmelawy

Shalaby

, et al. Hydrocracking of waste chicken fat as a cost effective feedstock for renewable fuel production: a kinetic study. Egypt J Pet 2016; 25: 531–537.

20.

Jazie

Pramanik

Sinha

ASK

. Egg shell as eco-friendly catalyst for transesterification of rapeseed oil: optimization for biodiesel production. Int J Sustain Dev Green Econ 2013; 2: 27–32.

21.

Foroutan

Mohammadi

Ramavand

. Waste glass catalyst for biodiesel production from waste chicken fat: optimization by RSM and ANNs and toxicity assessment. Fuel 2021; 291: 120151.

22.

Gameiro

Lisboa

Paiva

, et al. Supercritical carbon dioxide-based integrated continuous extraction of oil from chicken feather meal, and its conversion to biodiesel in a packed-bed enzymatic reactor, at pilot scale. Fuel 2015; 153: 135–142.

23.

Khemthong

Luadthong

Nualpaeng

, et al. Industrial eggshell wastes as the heterogeneous catalysts for microwave-assisted biodiesel production. Catal Today 2012; 190: 112–116.

24.

Reddy

. Non-food industrial applications of poultry feathers. Waste Manag 2015; 45: 91–107.

25.

Odetoye

Amusan

. Cocoa pod ash as bio-based catalyst for biodiesel production from waste chicken fat. Agric Eng Int CIGR Ej 2019; 21: 144–151.

26.

Kumar

Annigeri

Gowreesh

, et al. Performance analysis of biodiesel derived from waste cooking oil on four stroke CI engine. Int J Eng Tech Res 2017; 6: 504–508.

27.

Kadam

Gangavane

Manjarekar

, et al. Emission and performance analysis of chicken fat methyl ester on diesel engine. Int Eng Res J 2017: 77–80.

28.

Hariram

John

Rao

, et al. Biodiesel extraction from chicken fat and its effect on the performance and emission characteristics of the diesel engine. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 2021; 20: 1757–1763.

29.

Srinivasa Rao

Ramakrishna

Rao

. Performance and emission characteristics of DI-CI diesel engine with preheated chicken fat biodiesel. Int J Mech Eng Technol 2013; 4: 177–190.

30.

Kul

Kahraman

. Energy and exergy analyses of a diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel-diesel blends containing 5% bioethanol. Entropy 2016; 18: 387.

31.

Brindhadevi

Xia

, et al. Egg shell catalyst and chicken waste biodiesel blends for improved performance, combustion and emission characteristics. Fuel 2021; 306: 121633.

32.

Pugazhvadivu

Jeyachandran

. Investigations on the performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine using preheated waste frying oil as fuel. Renewable Energy 2005; 30: 2189–2202.

33.

Shirneshan

Nedayali

. Investigation of the effects of biodiesel-diesel fuel blends on the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine. Jurnal Teknologi 2016; 78: 5–30.

34.

Elkelawy

El Shenawy

Alm-Eldin Bastawissi

, et al. A comprehensive review on the effects of diesel/biofuel blends with nanofluid additives on compression ignition engine by response surface methodology. Energy Convers Manag: X 2022; 14: 100177.

35.

Elkelawy

El Shenawy

Abd Almonem

, et al. Experimental study on combustion, performance, and emission behaviours of diesel/WCO biodiesel/cyclohexane blends in DI-CI engine. Process Saf Environ Prot 2021; 149: 684–697.

36.

Behera

Hotta

. Experimental investigation of performance, emission, and combustion characteristics of a variable compression ratio engine using waste cooking vegetable oils blended with diesel. Case Stud Therm Eng 2024; 58: 104394.

37.

Gülüm

. Effects of compression ratio, blending ratio and engine speed on fuel cost, performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fueled with bio-derived alternative fuels. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2022; 53(Part A): 102464.

38.

Chatur

Maheshwari

Campli

. Investigation of waste cooking oil–diesel blend with copper oxide additives as fuel for diesel engine under variations in compression ratio. Int J Energy Environ Eng 2023; 14: 791–802.

39.

Galande

Pangavhane

Campli

. Effect of compression ratio and injection timing on the performance of microalgae-based biodiesel blend. Heat Transfer 2024; 53: 1136–1155.

40.

Raheman

Phadatare

. Diesel engine emissions and performance from blends of karanja methyl ester and diesel. Biomass Bioenergy 2004; 27: 393–397.

41.

Meher

Naik

Das

. Methanolysis of Pongamia pinnata (Karanja) oil for production of biodiesel. J Sci Ind Res 2004; 63: 913–917.

42.

Sanz

Nogh

Rozita

. An overview on transesterification of natural oils and fats. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 2010; 15: 891–904.

43.

Gerpen

. Biodiesel production and fuel quality. Moscow: University of Idaho, 2003, pp.1–12.

Experimental assessment of catalytic biofuel effect on performance and exhaust emission of diesel engine

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methodology

Transesterification process

Test setup

Analytical formulation

Fuel consumption

Heat supplied by the fuel

Brake power

Brake torque

Brake thermal efficiency

Brake specific fuel consumption:

Uncertainty analysis

Results and discussion

Engine performance characteristics

Brake power

Brake torque

Frictional power

Brake-specific fuel consumption

Indicated thermal efficiency

Mechanical efficiency

Brake thermal efficiency

Volumetric efficiency (VE)

Brake mean effective pressure

A/F ratio

Emission performance characteristics

Exhaust gas temperature

Nox emission

CO2 emission

Limitations of biofuel blends

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

No_x emission

CO₂ emission