J. Chem. Eng.

Data 2010, 55, 3983–3990 3983

Densities and Viscosities of Fatty Acid Methyl and Ethyl Esters

Maria Jorge Pratas,† Samuel Freitas,† Mariana B. Oliveira,† Sı´lvia C. Monteiro,‡ Alvaro S. Lima,§ and
Joa˜o A. P. Coutinho*,†
CICECO, Chemistry Department, University of Aveiro, Campus de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal, Polytechnic Institute
of Leiria, Leiria, Morro do Lena - Alto Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal, and Universidade Tiradentes, Av. Murilo Dantas 300,
Farolaˆndia, Aracaju-SE, Brasil

To develop reliable models for the densities and viscosities of biodiesel fuel, reliable data for the pure fatty
acid esters are required. Densities and viscosities were measured for seven ethyl esters and eight methyl
esters, at atmospheric pressure and temperatures from (273.15 to 363.15) K. A critical assessment of the
measured data against the data previously available in the literature was carried out. It is shown that the
data here reported presents deviations of less than 0.15 % for densities and less than 5 % for viscosities.
Correlations for the densities and viscosities with temperature are proposed. The densities and viscosities of
the pure ethyl and methyl esters here reported were used to evaluate three predictive models. The GCVOL
group contribution method is shown to be able to predict densities for these compounds within 1 %. The
methods of Ceriani and Meirelles (CM) and of Marreiro and Gani (MG) were applied to the viscosity data.
It is shown that only the first of these methods is able to provide a fair description of the viscosities of fatty
acid esters.

Introduction materials used on the biodiesel fuel production and in conse-
quence on the profile of methyl or ethyl esters of the biodiesel
In consequence of environmental, economical, and also fuel.6
political turmoil, caused by the excessive use and dependency Density data are relevant because injection systems, pumps,
of conventional petroleum-based fuels, the attention of several and injectors must deliver the amount of fuel precisely adjusted
countries has been addressed toward the development of to provide proper combustion.9 Boudy and Seers show that fuel
alternative fuels from renewable resources.1,2 density is the main property that influences the amount of mass
Among those alternatives, biodiesel fuel, along with bioet- injected.10,11 The viscosity is required not only for the design
hanol fuel, is in the forefront of the substitutes to petroleum- of pipes, fittings, and equipment to be used in industry of oil
based fuels in the transportation sector, being considered as an and fuel,12 but also for monitoring the quality of fuel itself to
important short-time option, as its prices can be similar to be used in diesel engines. A viscous fuel, causing a poorer
petroleum-based fuels and no motor changes are required.3 atomization, which is the first step of combustion, is responsible
for premature injector cooking and poor fuel combustion.10,13
Biodiesel is a fuel comprised of monoalkyl esters of long
Many studies have been devoted to the measurement and
chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils, animal fats, or
prediction of the density and viscosity of biodiesel fuel as a
mixtures of them. It is produced by the transesterification of
function of temperature. Being able to predict those properties
triglycerides with a short chain alcohol, usually methanol or
is of high relevance for the correct formulation of an adequate
ethanol, in the presence of a catalyst, leading to the formation blend of raw materials that optimize the cost of biodiesel fuel
of mixtures of fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) or fatty acid production while allowing the fuel to meet the required quality
ethyl esters (FAEEs), respectively.3,4 The main components of standards. In fact, in process operation and optimization the use
biodiesel fuel are palmitate, stearate, oleate, and linoleate esters.5 of correlative and predictive models for biodiesel fuel properties
However, depending on the raw materials used, a larger range could be a most useful tool.
of esters can be present.6 Several models have been proposed in the literature to
The biodiesel fuel has to fulfill a number of quality standards. calculate biodiesel fuel density. The most important among them
In Europe the biodiesel fuel standards are compiled in the Norm rely on the accurate knowledge of the properties of the pure
CEN EN 142147 and in United States of America in the Norm compounds. Tat and Van Gerpen14 and Clements15 used a linear
ASTM D6751.8 Norms specify minimum requirements and test mixing rule of pure densities based on the empirical equation
methods for biodiesel fuel to be used in diesel engines and for proposed by Janarthanan.15 Huber16 et al. also use density
heating purposes, to increase the biodiesel fuel quality and its mixing rule to develop preliminary thermodynamic model for
acceptance among consumers. Viscosities and densities are two biodiesel fuel fuel. Similarly, for the viscosities the approaches
of the main properties evaluated which will depend on the raw proposed by Krisnangkura et al.17 and Yuan et al.18 allow the
estimation of the viscosity of biodiesel fuel using the Grunberg-
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jcoutinho@ua.pt. Nissan equation that requires accurate values of the viscosities
Phone: +351 234401507. Fax: +351 234370084. of pure FAMEs or FAEEs.19

University of Aveiro.

Polytechnic Institute of Leiria. For the higher FAEEs and FAMEs, the density and viscosity
§
Universidade Tiradentes. data for a wide range of temperatures available in the literature
10.1021/je100042c  2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 07/19/2010

15 864.1 855.2 865.12 (CM) and Marrero and Gani21.7 842.7 333.1 844.1 850.3 823.5 830. methyl ester methyl myristate 98 SAFC 124-10-7 hexadecanoic acid.3 862.3 868.1 857.15 to 358.4 819.1 830.9 837.1 363.5 876.0 838.7 density were performed in the temperature range of (273.6 868.5 834.15 875.6 808.15 867.2 Compound purity was confirmed by gas chromatography/flame 338. ethyl ester ethyl stearate 99 Fluka 111-61-5 (Z)-9-octadecenoic acid.9 859.0 831.0 846. and CAS number of each compound used in this study.15 880.2 825. ethyl ester ethyl caprate 99 Fluka 110-38-3 dodecanoic acid.3 328.9 867.15 872. ethyl ester ethyl caprylate 99 Aldrich 106-32-1 decanoic acid.2 826. These eddy currents the multicomponent models are based.7 819.0 848.2 854.4 864.9 822. 55.2 850.1 837.9 856.8 812.2 858. the rotor is centered in the heavier liquid by buoyancy To address this limitation.8 835.3 842. methyl ester methyl caprate 99 Acros Org. and the Vogel-Tamman-Fulcher torque on the rotor.15 837.9 323.4 893.3 864. Experimental Density.7 860.15 837.3 834.1 852. ethyl ester ethyl laurate 99 Sigma 106-33-2 tetradecanoic acid.9 supplier.9 850.6 ionization detection (GC-FID).0 860.4 808.7 841.15 859. density.1 835.15 881.15 828.4 828.5 838.15 841.0 841. which interacts with a soft iron ring.8 847.0 857.3 845.4 852.4 847.8 859.4 861.5 328. Measurements of viscosity and 348. ethyl ester ethyl palmitate 99 Sigma 628-97-7 octadecanoic acid.6 863. 9.3 815.2 Experimental Section 308. at the equilibrium.5 857.8 855.8 839.0 854.15 806.9 880.2 812.3 823.3 353.1 834.8 821.8 874.3984 Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data. for Methyl Esters methyl T/K caprylate caprate laurate myristate palmitate stearate oleate linoleate 278.15 841.7 856. Experimental Density.1 875.9 826.15 824.1 832.8 839.7 830.6 842.8 863.9 866. Consequently.1 353. a measuring gap is formed between the ties of seven ethyl esters and eight methyl esters.4 819.9 293.5 303.8 874.4 843.9 852.2 881.5 819.15 846.1 . 110-42-9 dodecanoic acid. the two torques are Table 3. purity.8 831.4 815. in kg · m-3.8 859.7 877. No. Seven ethyl ester and eight methyl 318.6 856.15 824. methyl ester methyl linoleate 99 Sigma 112-63-0 Table 2. from C8 to rotor and the tube.5 835.8 348.5 827.9 842.9 303.6 853.15 850.15 833. for Ethyl Esters The densities and viscosities of the pure ethyl and methyl ethyl esters here measured were also used to evaluate the performance T/K caprylate caprate laurate myristate palmitate stearate oleate of three predictive models.15 871.0 870. Because of its low models to predict those properties for biodiesels.4 827.8 846.22 288. magnetic field delivers the speed signal and induces eddy tions of these experimental data using the equations on which currents in the surrounding copper casing.5 358.3 841.2 819.1 823.1 872.5 813. Vol. in kg · m-3.6 838.9 826. 343.0 Experimental Measurements. in this work densities and viscosi.5 871.9 826.15 854. methyl ester methyl stearate 99 Fluka 112-61-8 (Z)-9-octadecenoic acid.0 820.4 873.15 868. Table 1 reports the name.15 885.8 868. The group contribution method 278.4 839. methyl ester methyl oleate 99 Aldrich 112-62-9 (Z.4 864.3 821.15 855.1 831.0 848.5 824.5 830.5 870.8 878.15 858. while 283.5 288.3 817.9 the models of Ceriani et al.2 851.0 826. The viscometer is based on a tube filled with the sample in are sometimes scarce or contradictory.15 832.6 813. limiting the use of these which floats a hollow measuring rotor.2 833.5 841.7 824. 298.7 843.0 846. Methyl and Ethyl Esters Studied in This Work compound common name purity m/m% source CAS octanoic acid.5 313.9 815. Correla.1 861.1 834.15 810.8 845.7 849.5 834.7 870.15 884.7 897.9 842.6 843.2 837.15 815.3 864.5 848. methyl ester methyl laurate 98 Sigma 111-82-0 tetradecanoic acid.15) K.3 838.2 esters were used in this study.9 844.15 828.4 866. The rotor is forced to rotate by shear stresses C18.7 819. 323.6 815.2 313.8 308. ethyl ester ethyl myristate 99 Aldrich 124-06-1 hexadecanoic acid.0 338.7 877.7 835.1 823.3 846. Two different torques influence the speed (VTF) equation for the viscosities were carried and reported.0 853.5 863.5 318.8 Materials and Procedure.2 866.2 298.15 845.2 830. ethyl ester ethyl oleate 98 Aldrich 111-62-6 octanoic acid.15 877.Z)-9.2 823.15 814. methyl ester methyl caprylate 99 Fluka 111-11-5 decanoic acid.1 837.9 872.15 to 363. A comparison with the experimental magnet.1 840.0 860. of the measuring rotor.7 881. were measured at atmospheric pressure and temperatures in the liquid and is guided axially by a built-in permanent from (273.5 827.9 830.4 343.7 363.2 844.15) K at atmospheric pressure using an automated SVM 363.5 3000 Anton Paar rotational Stabinger viscometer-densimeter.9 849.0 835.15 818.1 815.1 886.7 889.6 848.7 817.7 837.6 831.2 833.7 835. 2010 Table 1.0 822.5 (MG) were evaluated for the viscosity.3 828.15 863.5 852.2 283. methyl ester methyl palmitate 99 SAFC 112-39-0 octadecanoic acid.3 869.1 293.2 829.4 852.15 819.12-octadecadienoic acid.5 GCVOL20 was evaluated for the prediction of densities.4 823. forces. 333.6 877.9 848. a linear correlation of are proportional to the speed of the rotor and exert a retarding the densities with temperature.4 882.8 849.15 850.8 845.5 853. The rotating data available and its critical evaluation is performed.9 839.

methyl caprate.0021 1121. (. ethyl myristate. and 4.0018 1114.7209 ( 0. The SVM 3000 uses Peltier elements for fast and Table 4. Relative deviations for methyl ester density data available in the literature28-32.25 methyl palmitate -0.0005 g · cm-3.0017 1091.0012 1075.7209 ( 0.7832 ( 0.15) K and K from (288.5 ( 0.4 was measured with temperature and presents a maximum ethyl laurate -0. ethyl palmitate.8244 ( 0.0013 1104. The temperature uncertainty is 0. methyl oleate.4 Results and Discussion methyl oleate -0.0009 1101.9 ( 0.0015 1086.1 ( 0. No. methyl caprylate.3 viscosity range for the same temperature range. The absolute uncertainty of the Corresponding 95 % Confidence Limitsa density is 0. Density Correlation Constants for Pure Methyl and Ethyl efficient thermostability. methyl linoleate.0012 1100.0014 1083. in the range of ethyl caprylate -0.5 ( 0. palmitate. 4. Also the ethyl stearate -0. The repeatability of the equipment ethyl caprate -0.02 Esters over the Temperature Range (278.7629 ( 0.8194 ( 0. (.0011 1077. 9.4 Density.35.5 methyl linoleate -0.0 ( 0. 9.15 % in the studied ethyl myristate -0.0 ( 0.0 ( 0. methyl stearate.3 methyl myristate -0. 0. and O.24 This viscom. ). .7576 ( 0.1 ( 0.5 % for the standard kg · m-3 · K-1 ( t · sb kg · m-3 ( t · sA fluid SHL120 (SH Calibration Service GMbH).7 ( 0.7912 ( 0. Zero line is this work’s experimental data.0012 1070.5 ( 0.8 equipment and method can be found elsewhere.5 a very good reproducibility.7438 ( 0. 2. 9.7 ( 0. methyl palmitate.4 ethyl palmitate -0.5 methyl stearate -0.2 ( 0.0027 1136.3 standard deviation relative value of 0.40-47 as a function of temperature: b.4 presents a maximum of 0.6 eter was previously tested for other compounds and presented methyl laurate -0. 2010 3985 Figure 1. 55. equal.4 reproducibility of the equipment was evaluated with time and ethyl oleate -0.7236 ( 0. Figure 2. and the relative uncertainty of the b a dynamic viscosity obtained is less than 1. ethyl laurate.7 the studied temperatures. Zero line is this work’s experimental data.1 ( 0. Vol.7294 ( 0. ).0015 1083.8832 ( 0.4 0. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data. methyl myristate. methyl caprate -0.7334 ( 0.7209 ( 0. ethyl caprate. The experimental data obtained are reported in a Tables 2 and 3.15 to 378.25 %.23 Further details about the methyl caprylate -0.15 to 363. Relative deviations for ethyl ester density data available in the literature32.15) K. and the viscosity can be traced back to a single speed measurement.34-39 as a function of temperature: b. ethyl caprylate. and stearate s: standard deviation. 0. methyl laurate.0013 1084.8668 ( 0. For methyl myristate. ethyl stearate.0009 1092.5 ( 0.

methyl caprylate. 2. ethyl caprate.3986 Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data. ethyl caprylate.30-32 in acid side chain. The density values for methyl palmitate reported in increasing alkyl chain length and increases with the level of this work were repeated using samples from various suppliers unsaturation. molecules in the liquid state akin to what can be observed in the crystal structures of methyl stearate and ethyl stearate. 4. the same happening with FAEEs. This comparison shows a good agreement with a The GCVOL model20 was used to predict the densities of relative average deviation of lower than 0. ethyl myristate. decreasing density. and O. (. methyl caprate. methyl stearate.15 approach. respectively. methyl palmitate.28 that carried at temperatures above the melting point of these presents a deviation below 0. measured by Ott et al. 9. and 2. methyl myristate. with the exception of methyl Figure 3 show that the densities of FAMEs can be predicted . 0. 9. Surprisingly the with a good agreement among them and with the data previously FAMEs present a much higher value for density than the reported in the literature by other authors for this com- corresponding FAEEs with the same number of carbon atoms pound.25 % and methyl palmitate compounds.29 that present a relative deviation of Data shows that the density of FAMEs decreases with -0.15 % for FAMEs.25 %. et al. 55.10 % for FAEEs and the compounds studied in this work. ). Relative deviations between the density of ethyl esters predicted by GCVOL and this work’s experimental data as a function of temperature: b. ethyl laurate. Relative deviations between the density of methyl esters predicted by GCVOL and this work’s experimental data as a function of temperature: b.28. 2010 Figure 3.27 and the parameter values along with their confidence limits are Figures 1 and 2 present the relative deviations between this reported in Table 4. ethyl palmitate. and ethyl palmitate and stearate the measurements were only stearate measured by Gaikward and Subrahmanyan. This difference is higher than what would The experimental density data here measured were correlated be expected from the addition of a methylene (CH2) group to using a linear temperature dependency using an optimization the molecule. ). ethyl stearate. 4. methyl linoleate. 9. ethyl oleate. methyl laurate. Figure 4. No. Vol. 0. These correlations can be used for the work’s experimental data and density data available in the estimation of the densities of biodiesels using the Janarthanan literature as a function of temperature for FAEEs and FAMEs. This results from a change in the ordering of the algorithm based on the least-squares method.26 It was also previously observed for other light esters that the F/g · cm-3 ) b · T/K + a (1) addition of CH2 group into the alcohol moiety induces a lower molecular packing efficiency. The results reported in lower than 0. (. methyl oleate.

74207 1.0152 4.15 1.4160 2. and an overestimation of between ( µ/mPa · s ) exp A + B (T/K .1360 3. The ethyl esters also present a higher viscosity 303.003 be a constant for the studied compounds within the temperature methyl oleate 0. 9.79980 1.5083 3.15 2. a group contribution model cannot produce an adequate description of the densities.4664 283.929 ( 0. ethyl caprylate 1.8038 353.4399 4.1781 1. that Rp decreases with the increment of carbons in alkyl acid side chain and also decreases with the unsaturation level for Table 6. Isobaric Expansivities.71014 0. 313.7453 2.3682 4.6377 2.0072 2.1073 2.2601 9.9498 2.3733 3.T0) ) (3) Table 7.7932 2.7960 2.0434 358.1675 1.6091 2. The isobaric expansivities estimated from methyl linoleate 0.5703 2.6550 293.5593 2.0549 2.003 ethyl stearate ethyl oleate 0.9777 1.1695 1.4233 1.15 0.3613 1.6724 2.2122 4. Again.15 2.1002 1.67130 0.15 1.9217 . for FAMEs methyl T/K caprylate caprate laurate myristate palmitate stearate oleate linoleate 278.15 10.4275 2.5948 2.0391 2.0133 1.003 0.1295 2.4773 2.8447 3.009 The isobaric expansivity coefficient at constant pressure (Rp) ethyl caprate 0.859 ( ( 0.4477 2.6822 328.4518 5.15 2. in mPa · s.3343 3.872 0.7492 6.15 1. 55.3132 2.0240 2.845 ( 0.4275 303.3353 6.0934 343. for FAEEs both ethyl and methyl esters.7103 2.1668 6.6233 1.9822 298.0823 4.4714 1. 2010 3987 Table 5.971 ( 0.9615 308.8944 2.008 methyl laurate 0.6659 2.3263 3.9516 1. although Rp · 103/K-1 ( t · sRp · 103 in this case it contributes to minimize the model deviations.003 Rp ) .2198 2.007 is defined as ethyl laurate 0.8367 are presented in Figures 5 and 6.1892 2.33 at high temperatures that show 348.15 0.15 1.4012 3.5666 313. within an uncertainty of ( 0.1102 333.9335 2.4499 4.3486 1.6000 2.9888 7.7601 2.5882 3.2893 3.8237 3.4986 1.2120 1.90926 1. As expected.9421 2. Vol.0678 8.5356 3.0499 1.5499 1.028 ( 0.15 0.2594 1.905 ( 0.5988 are within ( 4 % of the literature data with the exception of 343.9558 5.892 ( 0.0892 1.1973 4.9303 3.4247 systems.15 1. for the Studied Fatty Acid (1 and 1.8531 2. but in spite of being more than 50 years old it is in good agreement with the viscosities here reported with relative deviations of less than 1 %.900 ( 0.1355 1.9862 3.15 1.3127 1.1708 1.1029 3.0864 1. Experimental Viscosities.15 1.78595 1.2065 large deviations when compared with both our data and data 353.7464 2. 288.4455 3.15 0. in mPa · s.8929 1.3901 the data by Meirelles et al.0171 1.5771 7.15 1.9358 323.15 1.842 ( 0.2140 2.0762 363.15 1.5684 2.9928 3.85178 1.1651 4.8944 2.004 methyl palmitate 0. rp.3073 2.7540 3.7432 2.7347 2.83420 1.15 0.7056 3.2660 338.7156 than the corresponding methyl ester of the equivalent fatty acid.8974 1.15 1. For the FAEEs the data available are far 363. The value of Rp will thus methyl stearate 0.1880 6.2423 2.7073 3.4529 1.9111 2.0574 3.8906 with the ester chain length and decreases with its level of 298.8135 5.15 1.0444 1.9421 respectively.0776 2.15 2.0236 unsaturation.7439 2.1233 1.0378 3.2543 1.5153 2.9645 3.88860 1.003 range investigated.5472 4.2270 318.3797 4.2252 2.7207 5.2947 2.15 1.5321 1.9403 348.2504 1.005 ethyl myristate 0.7037 2.15 1.4579 3.6549 2.3094 308.15 1.5306 2.8842 2.2216 1.15 0. 278.94770 1.2651 1.4121 3.009 methyl caprate 0.7683 more scarce.6535 3.3278 4.97334 1.7876 viscosity data previously reported in the literature for the same 323.15 1. No.931 ( 0. ( ∂ ∂Tln F )p (2) methyl caprylate 1.004 the experimental data are reported in Table 5. Experimental Viscosities. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data.005 In the studied temperature range the logarithm of density exhibits methyl myristate 0.6336 4.4729 2. For the FAMEs the deviations 338.8960 4.9821 5.5430 4.003 a linear behavior with temperature.63589 0. Because of the different effect of the introduction of a methylene group in the acid or alcohol moieties discussed above.75279 1.15 0.3621 1.15 2.5285 3. The isobaric expansivities are ethyl identical for the FAMEs and FAEEs within the experimental T/K caprate laurate myristate palmitate stearate oleate uncertainty of the data here reported. It is observed a s: standard deviation.971 ( 0.033 ( 0.6139 2. The relative deviations for the FAMEs and FAEEs 328.5709 3.6543 4.5) % of the experimental densities is obtained.4605 333.5 % with exception of methyl The experimental viscosities here measured were correlated linoleate due to a poor model description of the unsaturation using the VTF equation: effect on the densities.15 1.0107 5.8969 3.15 0.15 0.2589 1.9040 Viscosity.8891 2. The experimental data of viscosity of the ethyl and 283.867 ( 0.6373 3.3599 1.9612 3.4348 3.7551 4.883 ( 0.6987 6.2553 methyl esters here studied are reported in Tables 6 and 7.2137 The experimental data here measured were compared with 318.15 1.6816 358.4658 288.15 0.15 0.8978 from other authors.15 0.9293 2.003 ethyl palmitate 0. Esters and Corresponding 95 % Confidence Limitsa a problem associated to the unsaturation is observed. the viscosity of all esters increases 293.4303 7. In Figure 4 the deviations for the FAEEs are reported.

010 viscosity models.676 2.92 % with maximum deviations of 14. and T0 are fitting parameters whose values were Methyl Esters over the Temperature Range (278.641 3.6 0.096 data.7 122. ethyl caprylate.65 0. methyl myristate.9 0. methyl oleate. As can be seen.11 models were used to estimate the dynamic viscosity of the fatty methyl caprylate -3.2 112. and Corresponding 95 % Confidence Limitsa squares method.539 22.015 methyl oleate -2.5 127. ethyl myristate -2.8 0.054 859. meaning that the inclusion of a methyl group . The CM33 and the MG21.056 746. and 4. methyl caprylate.267 2.086 883. methyl stearate.388 21.09 0.22 group contribution ethyl oleate -2.674 30.034 876.7 93.36.084 ethyl palmitate -3. the deviations for the FAEEs are clearly superior 54. The CM method predicts methyl palmitate -2. A t · sA B/K t · sB T0/K-1 t · sT0 AAD (%) tainty and the average absolute deviations (AAD %) of the ethyl caprylate -3.8 0.3 0.0 % and 23.0 129. ethyl laurate. and O.98 0.943 5.184 16.019 CM and MG are shown in Table 9. 2. While the CM method provides a good description of than for FAMEs. (.036 837.97 0.15 0.3 119. Table 8.323 15.046 The measured data were also used to test two predictive ethyl stearate -3. The average deviations methyl laurate -3.50 %.040 759.32 1.873 22.0 0.8 85.6 %.7 0.00 0.12 for FAEEs the average deviations are of 7. ethyl stearate. ethyl myristate.5 % for FAMEs and FAEEs.8 0.53 % for FAMEs with maximum deviations of 9. Viscosity Correlation Constants for Pure Ethyl and where A. 4.2 0. AAD ) (1/Np)∑i)1 Np ABS[(expi .948 3.070 814.48 Zero line is this work’s experimental data.070 4.41.15) K estimated using an optimization algorithm based on the least.053 854. (.9 0.8 115. and maximum deviations of 25.13 acid esters as a function of temperature.12 0.358 1. methyl laurate.liti)/liti] · 100. while methyl linoleate -2. ). The MG method is far less accurate with a s: standard deviation.10 equation provides a very good description of the experimental ethyl laurate -3.701 2.058 793.2 63.3988 Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data.317 4.282 15.650 2.70 0.48 0.827 3.4 0.528 22.41.58 0.295 39. Relative deviation of ethyl ester viscosity vs temperature: b. 0.068 733. 9.5 % and the viscosities.31.9 0.076 30.174 10.32. average deviations of 12.5 132.055 926.4 112.62 0.8 %. 0.0 117.054 767.236 26. methyl linoleate. 9.42 0. No. ).049 the experimental data here measured with a global deviation of methyl stearate -2. 2010 Figure 5.7 117.073 818. methyl palmitate. B.303 26.8 0.1 68.5 105.2 0.30. methyl caprate. 9. respectively.15 to 363.249 2.962 1.025 920.043 748.81 0.963 28.303 1.32 0.078 correlation are reported in Table 8.493 3. ethyl caprate.48 Zero line is this work’s experimental data. ethyl palmitate.9 0. Relative deviation of methyl ester dynamic viscosity vs temperature: b. Vol. The parameter values along with their uncer. the VTF ethyl caprate -3.075 of viscosity between the measured data and those estimated by methyl myristate -3.046 methyl caprate -3. 55.221 14.04 0. Figure 6.

J. G.: New York. 2000–2006. Caruso. D. ethyl palmitate 7.. T. Eng. Regueira. A.4 54. M. Hansen. Soc. C. M..03 8. Althouse. F. 55.Requirements Cavaleri. Density and Speed of Sound 2852.6 A. “Designer” Biodiesel: Optimizing fatty ester composition Esters.40 atomization of biodiesels and their blends in a typical injector: Surface tension and viscosity effects. 2850– (29) Ott.. D. Fuel 2008. This time it’s different .0 18. Thermodyn.68 24. Brussels. Temperatures from (278. Amirfazli. J. New experimental data for the density and viscosity of pure (21) Marrero. E. Viscosity data Middle Distillate Fuels. present. R. M. Physical Properties of Fatty Acid Methyl (5) Knothe.. J. Chem. Combined Group- Contribution and Atom Connectivity Index-Based Methods for are presented. The experimental data here reported were used to test (24) Paredes. J. Meirelles. C. TN. 52. 183. The liquid densities were Fernandez. ASTM: West Conshohocken. 78. Fandino. (33) Ceriani. Nashville. Matos. Rosslein. Shapiro. 86. Physical properties of n- in world petroleum production will keep oil product prices high. Am. Occurring Fatty Acids . Study of the effects of pressure on the viscosity and compared with GCVOL model predictions to show that it is density of diisodecyl phthalate.. Sci. A. B. Fuel 2006. 2005. M. Oil Chem. Pegg.72 10. G. Saturated Higher Fatty Alcohols in Liquid State. I. Measurements on Five Fatty Acid Methyl Esters at 83 kPa and (2) Hallock. Soc. Analytical study for methyl caprate 4.. Eng. 3790–3797. Energy Fuels 2009. R. O. methyl palmitate 2. Eurachem/CITAC: Teddington. C. Ou. 87. Bruno. L. conventional oil supply. S. Data 2007.. methyl caprylate 4. Ackman. M. Oligomers. J.27 (13) Ejim.. of organic liquids. J. Oxford with viscosity predictions with an average deviation of 4..50 25. D. M. Chem. Surface and Interfacial Tensions. 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium Dicyanamide and 1-Butyl-3-methylimi- dazolium Tricyanomethane at Atmospheric Pressure. A. A. D. Martinho. P. M. 1964.. Fluid Phase Equilib. Comunas. W. Isopropyl Esters of C-6 to C-18 Saturated Fatty Acids.. Fuel 2009. (4) Pandey. N. Zhang. authors.. 107–113. A. Esters of Naturally (3) Knothe. Numerical expressions (32) Gros. A. T. Goncalves. 50. E. Soc. F.8 53. F. N. Oil Chem. Chem. 85. Triebold.8 (12) Goncalves. S. Chem... this model also in predicting biodiesel viscosity at various temperatures. 77. S. A. Density + Molar Volume. R. Proceedings methyl oleate 3.5 (16) Huber. Energy Fuels 2008. ethyl laurate 3. Blending rules for formulating biodiesel fuel. S. A. C. Huber. J. 47. I. P. Indian Chem.5 %. Chem.. 1996. Res. Manage. 2009. P. Q. available in the literature. Belgium. R. quality data among the often conflicting data previously (23) Ellison. 115–119. Cunha. Energy ethyl caprylate 14. Francis Group: Boca Raton. T. B. Data 2007.S. C. S. E.15) K. B.. 1673–1696. Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) for diesel engines . M. Viscosities. causing military conflicts and shifting wealth and power from 1988. 2010 3989 Table 9.. L. N.. Eng. AutomotiVe fuels . H. 2905–2912. (20) Elbro. C. T. Vlugter. Van Gerpen. (25) Carvalho. Chem. 41. 88. K.4 of the Third Liquid Fuel Conference. ethyl caprate 13. Literature Cited 737–751.An inevitable decline (28) Subrahmanyan. Prusakiewiez.. Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement.. The effect of temperature and pressure Pure Ethyl and Methyl Esters over the Temperature Range (278.. V. P.9 Density of palm oil-based methyl ester.35 18. Soc. Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for (34) Boelhouwer. B. 46. 877–880.E. Eds. T. Liq. 41. 965–972. Kazakov. Williams. C. W.. Data 2008. Eng. J. R. . G. J. P. 2412–2416. C. 7940–7954. J. Oil Chem.88 10.. A. Gani.. C. C. for these systems was carried out to identify spurious or poor 2008. In Liquid methyl stearate 4. et al. Riveros. ethyl myristate 6. Am.. X.. Impact of physical properties of biodiesel on the CM (%) MG (%) injection process in a common-rail direct injection system. 65.53 % Science Press Inc. Propyl. (6) Blangino. 2009.Physical Properties of Methyl. J. Eng.. J.. Am. 29. H. Crystallography of the polymethylene chain.8 Prediction. predictive models for these properties. L. J. J. Aroua. R.. 266–268. C. M. P. A. Gaikwad. K. (1) Leder.15 on the physicochemical properties of petroleum diesel oil and biodiesel to 363. 2001. G. FL. E. Maffia. 645–652. Energy Policy 2008. 1991. Group Contribution Method for the Prediction of Liquid Densities as a Function of Conclusions Temperature for Solvents.. Seers.. Gani. L.. 9. M. W. Yimsuwan. C. O. E. 2000. Batista. 1952. J. Vaz. Gerpen. for FAMEs and 7. L. Effect of Water on the Viscosities and Densities of FAEEs densities and GCVOL model predicted values. IL. Fonseca. A. J. A. M.33 data on the estimation of the model parameters that. A. provides poor estimates for the viscosities of unsaturated esters (18) Yuan. G. M. Average Deviation between the Measured Viscosity of (9) Dzida. Feuge. 52. S. 2000.. 40. Data 2007. Watts. Raman. 55. Ind. W. 2009. D. J. 22. Johnson. Vol... 2. J. Fernandez. A. P. L. Viscosities of Fatty Mixtures: Experimental Data and ethyl oleate 8. ethyl stearate 12. A. A. Ceriani. M. Moreover.4 ConVers. 2379–2384. A. This may be related with the use of Ceriani dependent viscosity of biodiesel fuels. H.. W. Krahl. Hall. J. G. L. J. 527–547. Eng. The Biodiesel Handbook. Handbook of Plant-based Biofuels. However. Eng. Lemmon. to improve fuel properties. 1950.32 19. N. Eng. 1941–1948.. Ferreira. O. methyl linoleate 9. J. Fuel 1999. R. J. Rasmussen. K. 2009. R. J. 1007– 1015.6 (11) Baroutian.. CRC Press Taylor & 1948. (30) Bonhorst. (27) Gardas. A.... A.85 methyl myristate 2. methyl laurate 3. (31) Gouw. H. The specific gravity of biodiesel and its blends with diesel fuel. 142–145. Fleck. UK. Eng. Wu. J. A. Pensado.15 to 338. 52. 29. able to describe the FAMEs with deviations smaller than 1 %. M. Verberg. as (19) Allen. S. V. W. Model for the Thermodynamic Properties of a Biodiesel Fuel. 1319–1326.64 (14) Tat. And AOCS Press: Champaign. Romano. B.24 7. 30. Sulaiman..61 20. M. Santos.. Fredenslund. Group and test methods. Res. A. Group-contribution based estimation of pure saturated and unsaturated methyl and ethyl esters in the component properties. M. ing a maximum deviation from the experimental data of 1. R.66 7.. for viscosity. 2005. (10) Boudy. An extensive critical review of the data available Estimation of Surface Tension and Viscosity. larger deviations were found for the correlation of Coutinho. J. Phys. 23.3 Fuels and Industrial Products from Renewable Resources..92 % for FAEEs.. J. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data. Nederbragt. A. Rabelo. (7) CEN.. Chem. L.. H. M. W. Chem. 2003.8 16. P.. Forecasting the limits to the availability and diversity of global 53.. EN 14214. A. Energy 2004. F.. Res.. An empirical approach also observed for the densities. Rabelo... 1358–1364. Data 2010. Ind. C.15) K and Those Estimated by CM and MG Models fuel. W.. Data 2008. Contribution Model for Predicting Viscosity of Fatty Compounds. S. J. No. J. Methyl and Ethyl Esters.. R. European Committee for Standardization. E. F. 36. Chem. J. E. T. 2576–2582.. Appl. 249–268. affects the viscosities differently depending on its location as (17) Krisnangkura. 183–208..47 20. Predicting the temperature at high temperatures. 1120–1126. J.. Bruno. Fuel 2007. I... J.1 (15) Clements. L. L.... PA. 2nd ed. (8) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6751. PVT property measurements for some aliphatic esters from (298 to 393) K and up to 35 MPa. temperature range (273 to 363) K and at atmospheric pressure (22) Conte.. A. R. Chem.. J. and Polymers. Pairintra. A. The CM method is shown to be superior to the MG method (26) Dorset.. 1534–1544.. Jefferson. M. Tharakan. democracies to authoritarian regimes. 2008.. Chem. Predicting discussed above. 313. Meirelles.67 6. Ind.. present large deviations from the data of other the viscosity of biodiesel fuels from their fatty acid ester composition. surface tension and density of biodiesel: analysis and and Other Physical Properties of Some n-Aliphatic Acids and their experimental validation.

15 K. H. L. Y. CRC Press: Boca Raton. Cheng.. Viscosities and Densities of the the solid forms of cetyl alcohol and three long-chain ethyl esters. K. Chem. Am. Chen.15.D. P. G. Oil Chem. 207– atures. C.15. 16. W. Tang. 43.. Oil Chem. the Double Bond in Methyl Oleate during Hydrogenation. H. Fundac¸a˜o Oriente and also financial support from the University of (42) Hwu. Am. 40.. 2010. M. (45) Francesconi. Soc.. E. 1931. Y.. Fuel 2007. Y.15 Volumes of Binary-Mixtures Containing a Methyl-Ester (Ethanoate K.. J. Liang. Chem. J. Tardajos. H.F. Chen. W. H. Boelhouwer.15 K.. 213–215. Comelli. and M. J. J. M. equilibrium of carbon dioxide with ethyl caproate. 86.B. G. H. Soc. 734– liquids in water. Garcia.. Molal Volumes of Some N-Fatty Acids and (43) Sobotka. No. Excess molar enthalpies of binary mixtures (37) Postigo. Triebold.P. P. ethyl caprylate and ethyl caprate at elevated pressures. Handbook of chemistry and physics. E.. Am. Oil Soap 1939. D. P. aknowledges a Ph. Frederikse. 32. E. Methyl-Esters of Some N-Alkanoic Acids.. Physical Cieˆncia e a Tecnologia through their Ph. P. A. to Tetradecanoate) with Odd N-Alkanes at 298. Seng. 336–337. 28. The Preparation and nents (fatty acid alkyl esters) and related compounds at low temper- Properties of Highyl Purified Methyl Oleate. R. H.. Soc. Fluids 2004. Accepted July 5. (40) Liau. P.. 1–9. C. 63–68. 53. Ortega.3990 Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data.. 2010 (35) Liew. J. 9.. 1938.. W. C. 60. J. Chem. S. Chem. C. 283–289. J. 826–829. A group of isomeric esters. J. Kahn.. Reid. F. Vol. 1955. 209. 1999. Oil Soc. J. JE100042C . (46) Lide. Steidley. 740.. Eng. Supercrit. Riemenschneider. 69.. 69. 34. Soc. P. R. J. K.J. K. grants (SFRH/BD/28258/ characterization of a) a series of ethyl esters and b) a series of ethanoate 2006. Althouse. 3825–3828. Eng. Seng. grant from esters. Data 1998. and 313. W. Tels. 155–158. acknowledge the financial support from Fundac¸a˜o para a (41) Shigley. Vapor-liquid Aveiro. 55. Cheng. 303. S. T.. 322.. R. Chem. 1992. Chem. L. C. 1957. 80th ed. (38) Knegtel. 1933. Determination of solubility of sparingly soluble Their Methyl and Ethyl-Esters.. Soc. Soc. 2560–2567. Am. Smyth. M.D. Am. J. Acta 1998. Oh. Kinematic viscosity of biodiesel compo- (39) Wheeler. Am. J. 1229–1236. H. 1992. SFRH/BD/29062/2006). FL. Y. K. 55. M.. E. J. Excess Molar containing acetic or propionic acid plus eight ethyl alkanoates at 298. W. Thermochim. Oil Chem.. 2010. O. J. D. Waterman. Data 1995. Am.. (48) Knothe. Bonhorst. J. R. J.. R.O.. The possibility of molecular rotation in (36) Liew. Shifting of (47) Ruhoff. 2935–2938. (44) Baker. Received for review January 13. Densities and viscosities of butyl acrylate plus 1-butanol and ethyl laurate plus 1-butanol at 293. I.