Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and

Environmental Effects

ISSN: 1556-7036 (Print) 1556-7230 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Study on the viscosity of jojoba oil blends with

biodiesel or petroleum diesel

Khalid Rawajfeh & Zayed Al-Hamamre

To cite this article: Khalid Rawajfeh & Zayed Al-Hamamre (2016) Study on the viscosity of jojoba
oil blends with biodiesel or petroleum diesel, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, 38:22, 3290-3299, DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2016.1154901

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2016.1154901

Published online: 17 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20

Download by: [Fudan University] Date: 27 April 2017, At: 06:14

ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
2016, VOL. 38, NO. 22, 3290–3299
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2016.1154901

Study on the viscosity of jojoba oil blends with biodiesel or

petroleum diesel
Khalid Rawajfeh and Zayed Al-Hamamre
Chemical Engineering Department, School of Engineering and Technology, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this study, generalized equations for predicting temperature-dependent Biodiesel; diesel; fuel blends;
viscosities of jojoba oil/biodiesel (JO-BD) and jojoba oil/diesel blends are jojoba oil; viscosity
given and a Buddenbrerg–Wilke mixing equation for predicting the viscosities correlations
of the blends is used. For JO-BD blends, the maximum overall absolute average
deviation obtained using the proposed models is 1.85% and it is comparable
with that obtained using Tat and Van Gerpen (1.96%) model and at the same
time lower than those obtained using Walther model (4.61%) and Wang–
Briggs model (4.68%). The results obtained using Buddenbrerg–Wilke mixing
equation are in agreement with those obtained using Arrhenius and Cragoe
mixing models.

1. Introduction
Several oils (edible and non-edible) and their derivatives (biodiesel (BD) and biodiesel-oil blends)
have considerable potential for being alternative renewable sources of energy that can replace
petroleum diesel (PD) in industrial furnaces, boilers, car engines power generation stations, and
household heating devices.
Jojoba oil has been receiving increasing attention as a fuel for diesel engines (Huzayyin et al.,
2004; Al-Widyan and Al-Muhtaseb, 2010) and as a crude oil for BD production (Shah et al., 2010). It
has several characteristics that make it a promising renewable energy source. The calorific value of
JO is 45.5 MJ/kg (Al-Hamamre and Rawajfeh, 2015) and it is higher than that of waste frying
sunflower oil BD (35.66 MJ/kg (Al-Hamamre and Yamin, 2014)). At the same time, it is 1.2 times
higher than the calorific value of sunflower oil (39.52 MJ/kg and rapeseed oil (37.62 MJ/kg (Altin
et al., 2001)). In contrast with other vegetable or non-edible oils, which are composed mainly of
triglycerides-branched esters based on the molecule glycerol, jojoba oil has a structure consisting of
long straight chain monoesters of fatty acids with straight chain fatty alcohols (Canoira et al., 2006),
which is similar to that of BD. Moreover, the oil has low iodine value (48.97 gI2/100g oil (Al-
Hamamre and Rawajfeh, 2015) and 80–83 gI2/100 g (Al-Widyan and Al-Muhtaseb, 2010)) which
helps it to combust completely. Further, its ash content was estimated at 0.064% (Al-Hamamre and
Rawajfeh, 2015).
However, the relatively high viscosity of JO in comparison with BD and PD represents a major
obstacle for using the oil in diesel engine (Demirbas, 2008). In the work presented in Al-Hamamre
and Al-Salaymeh (2014), the viscosity of the different JO-PD and JO-BD blends were estimated
based on correlations used previously for calculating the viscosity of mixed oil and/or hydrocarbon
mixtures. The purpose of this work is to find suitable viscosity–temperature correlations for JO-PD
and JO-BD blends in the temperature range (20 to 80°C), and to investigate the validity of

CONTACT Zayed Al-Hamamre z.hamamre@ju.edu.jo Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, The
University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueso.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3291

Buddenbrerg–Wilke mixing equation for predicting the viscosities of the different blends. The
proposed models are also compared with those previously tested in Al-Hamamre and Al-Salaymeh
(2014).

2. Experiments and analysis method

2.1 Experiments
The experimentally measured dynamic viscosity of the different fuel blends (JO-BD and JO-PD) reported
in Al-Hamamre and Al-Salaymeh (2014) are used to investigate the validity of the proposed equations for
predicting the viscosity of JO-BD and JO-PD blends. The JO volume fractions in the blends varied
between 0 and 1.0 and for the temperature range 20–80°C. For the present analysis, the experimental
kinematic viscosity values of fuel blends are calculated based on the experimentally measured viscosity
and density of the different fuel blends. The complete characteristics of the BD and JO are available in Al-
Hamamre and Yamin (2014) and Al-Hamamre and Rawajfeh (2015), respectively.

2.2 Viscosity correlations

Viscosity measurements are obtained between 20 and 80°C. Four relationships of dependence of
dynamic viscosity of JO and its blends with PD and BD on temperature are investigated:

(1) Inverse third-order correlation

a b c
μ ¼ yo þ
þ 2þ 3 (1)
T T T
(2) Hyperbolic three-parameter decay-correlation

ab
μ ¼ yo þ (2)
bþT
(3) Rational polynomial correlation

aT
μ¼ (3)
b þ cT
(4) Single exponential decay three-parameter equation

μ ¼ yo þ a expðbT Þ (4)
In the above equations, μ is the dynamic viscosity (cP); yo, a, b, and c are equation coefficients;
and T is the temperature in °C. The constants yo, a, b, and c are determined using standard
parameter estimation techniques.
To predict the viscosity of fuel blends, a semiempirical model based on the model proposed by
Buddenbrerg and Wilke (1949) for the prediction of the viscosity of gas mixtures is used.
x1 μ1 x2 μ2
μmix ¼ þ (5)
x1 þ x2 φ12 x1 φ21 þ x2
where μmix is the dynamic viscosity of the blend (cP), μ1 and μ2 are the dynamic viscosity of
component 1 and component 2, respectively, x1 and x2 are the volume fractions of components 1
and 2, respectively. φ 12 and φ 21 represent a form of the interaction parameters. The values of these
parameters are estimated using regression analysis and by minimizing the sum of squared deviations
between measured and calculated values.
3292 K. RAWAJFEH AND Z. AL-HAMAMRE

The predictive ability of the various correlations is investigated by determining the absolute
relative deviations (ARDs) of the predicted viscosities for each JO-BD and JO-PD mixture. The ARD
(%) is estimated according to







μexp  μcalc

ARDð%Þ ¼  100 (6)
μexp
where μ is the dynamic viscosity in cP. The average ARD (AARD) (Moradi et al., 2013) and the
overall ARD (OARD) are calculated as follows:
X
n
ARDi ð%Þ
AARDð%Þ ¼ (7)
i¼1
n
1 X
OARDð%Þ ¼ AARDð%Þ (8)
Ns n
where n is the number of experimental data points of a given blend at various temperatures (n = 6)
and Ns is the number of systems being investigated (Ns = 11).

3. Results and discussion

The measured viscosities of the various blends (JO-BD and JO-PD) as a function of temperature
are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for seven different blends, respectively. At 20°C, the viscosity of
JO is detected at 37.71 cP which is 4.51 times higher than the measured viscosity of BD and
approximately an order of magnitude higher than that of PD. Therefore, high jojoba content
blends are highly viscous as compared to BD or petroleum PD. However, the reported measured
viscosity of neat JO at 100°C is 5.23 cP (Al-Hamamre and Rawajfeh, 2015), which is similar to
the viscosity value of waste frying oil BD at 50°C (5.14 cP) (Al-Hamamre and Yamin, 2014). This
low viscosity of JO suggests the use of jojoba oil as neat oil in diesel engines. However, the
viscosity values of the JO-PD blends are lower than those of JO-BD blends at a given blending
ratio and/or specified temperature. Therefore blending JO with PD could have a better potential
than JO-BD blends.
The experimental viscosity data of all fuel blends are used to verify the calculated viscosity values
obtained by (Eqs. (1)–(5)). The coefficients involved in these equations are obtained from regression
analysis. The viscosity data resulting from Eqs. (1) to (5) for the different blends and the estimated
absolute relative deviation (ARD%) are also presented in Tables 1 and 2. The equation coefficients
for the different fuel blends and the coefficient of determination values, R2, for Eqs. (1)(5) are shown
in Tables 3–5. The calculated AARDs and the OARDs obtained for the different correlations are
presented in Table 6.
The data of the individual mixtures ARDs obtained from the inverse third-order correlation (Eq.
1) show that the equation can satisfactorily predict the viscosity variation with temperature for the
different blends. The maximum ARDs obtained with the equation is 5.67% for JO-BD blends and
3.45% for JO-PD blends. The AARD values vary between 0.49 and 2.29% for JO-BD blends and
between 0.36 and 1.78% for JO-PD blends. The equation has the lowest OARD of 1.19% for JO-BD
blends and 1.02% for JO-PD blends. At the same time, and as it is shown in Table 3, the mean values
of the goodness of fitting parameters, R2, are equal to 0.9993 and 0.9990 for JO-BD and JO-PD
blends, respectively. Data of AARD, OARD, and R2 clearly show that Eq. (1) is the most suitable
correlation for the prediction of viscosity for fuel blends with temperature. The results also reveal
that Eqs. (2) and (3) have similar predictive capabilities. The OARDs of the JO-BD and JO-PD data
are 1.76 and 1.63%, respectively. Moreover, minimum and maximum AARD’s obtained with these
equations for JO-BD blends are 1.03 and 3.19%, respectively. For JO-PD, the values are 0.39 and
3.38%. The two equations have approximately similar values of coefficient of determination of
Table 1. The measured dynamic viscosity values and the calculated values from regression analysis using Eq.s (1) to (5), and the estimated absolute relative error (ARD%) obtained for JO-BD fuel
blends.
JO μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD
fraction Measured Eq. 1 (%) Eq. 2 (%) Eq. 3 (%) Eq. 4 (%) Eq. 5 (%) Measured Eq. 1 (%) Eq. 2 (%) Eq. 3 (%) Eq. 4 (%) Eq. 5 (%)
Temp. 20 30
(°C)
0 8.37 8.37 0.00 8.36 0.07 8.36 0.06 8.34 0.31 8.34 0.38 6.76 6.75 0.08 6.78 0.30 6.78 0.31 6.79 0.47 6.81 0.23
0.1 10.16 10.16 0.01 10.17 0.07 10.17 0.06 10.15 0.05 10.17 0.12 8.21 8.22 0.13 8.21 0.04 8.21 0.03 8.25 0.52 8.24 0.63
0.2 11.13 11.14 0.09 11.10 0.24 11.10 0.25 11.07 0.58 10.93 1.84 9.27 9.17 1.11 9.23 0.42 9.23 0.43 9.25 0.24 9.27 3.87
0.3 12.74 12.75 0.09 12.65 0.71 12.65 0.71 12.60 1.10 12.41 2.57 10.32 10.20 1.18 10.42 0.95 10.42 0.94 10.46 1.34 10.48 4.51
0.4 14.39 14.40 0.05 14.51 0.84 14.51 0.84 14.50 0.79 14.55 1.14 12.12 12.05 0.60 11.74 3.14 11.74 3.14 11.81 2.54 11.74 1.77
0.5 16.30 16.30 0.02 16.45 0.91 16.45 0.92 16.44 0.84 16.54 1.49 13.80 13.75 0.35 13.36 3.16 13.36 3.16 13.43 2.67 13.34 1.11
0.6 18.18 18.19 0.03 18.25 0.39 18.25 0.40 18.21 0.16 18.30 0.66 14.50 14.44 0.39 14.21 1.99 14.21 1.98 14.36 0.94 14.20 1.32
0.7 22.54 22.56 0.07 22.65 0.50 22.65 0.49 22.60 0.28 22.73 0.86 17.54 17.37 0.98 16.99 3.16 16.98 3.17 17.21 1.88 16.94 3.13
0.8 26.74 26.75 0.03 26.85 0.40 26.85 0.41 26.77 0.10 26.97 0.86 20.22 20.13 0.47 19.71 2.53 19.71 2.53 20.00 1.09 19.65 1.67
0.9 31.40 31.40 0.00 31.52 0.38 31.52 0.39 31.42 0.07 31.67 0.87 23.65 23.64 0.04 23.17 2.02 23.17 2.02 23.50 0.62 23.10 0.03
1.0 37.71 37.73 0.05 38.00 0.78 38.00 0.76 37.99 0.73 38.42 1.87 28.33 28.14 0.68 26.98 4.78 26.97 4.79 27.42 3.23 26.70 2.60
Temp. 40 60
(°C)
0 5.50 5.50 0.07 5.49 0.18 5.49 0.17 5.49 0.17 5.51 0.23 3.56 3.50 1.62 3.52 1.24 3.52 1.22 3.49 2.01 3.49 1.98
0.1 6.74 6.72 0.25 6.70 0.64 6.70 0.65 6.72 0.33 6.70 0.63 4.57 4.48 1.98 4.50 1.56 4.50 1.57 4.48 2.03 4.47 2.26
0.2 7.53 7.62 1.17 7.72 2.50 7.72 2.49 7.73 2.62 7.82 3.87 5.64 5.41 4.02 5.42 3.85 5.42 3.86 5.39 4.37 5.45 3.33
0.3 8.43 8.55 1.41 8.67 2.84 8.67 2.83 8.70 3.24 8.81 4.51 6.43 6.16 4.25 6.11 5.01 6.11 5.02 6.09 5.36 6.15 4.38
0.4 9.56 9.75 2.02 9.77 2.16 9.77 2.16 9.78 2.31 9.73 1.77 7.14 7.02 1.66 7.15 0.09 7.15 0.09 7.09 0.64 7.12 0.34
0.5 10.98 11.22 2.22 11.18 1.80 11.18 1.80 11.18 1.78 11.10 1.11 8.16 8.13 0.38 8.28 1.51 8.28 1.51 8.21 0.63 8.24 1.01
0.6 11.64 11.78 1.16 11.84 1.72 11.84 1.73 11.83 1.64 11.79 1.32 9.15 9.08 0.74 9.18 0.31 9.18 0.32 9.07 0.91 9.16 0.11
0.7 13.45 13.77 2.41 13.95 3.75 13.95 3.73 13.90 3.32 13.87 3.13 11.01 10.61 3.61 10.78 2.13 10.77 2.14 10.61 3.63 10.76 2.31
0.8 15.64 15.85 1.37 16.01 2.39 16.01 2.39 15.93 1.87 15.90 1.67 12.33 12.05 2.27 12.23 0.82 12.23 0.82 12.02 2.54 12.21 1.00
0.9 18.55 18.55 0.01 18.70 0.78 18.70 0.79 18.62 0.38 18.56 0.03 13.89 13.80 0.67 14.00 0.77 14.00 0.78 13.75 1.02 13.96 0.51
1.0 20.44 21.01 2.81 21.33 4.33 21.32 4.32 21.16 3.50 20.97 2.60 15.32 15.07 1.60 15.58 1.69 15.58 1.67 15.26 0.42 15.53 1.38
Temp. 70 80
(°C)
0 2.65 2.73 3.09 2.74 3.54 2.74 3.55 2.72 2.78 2.73 2.84 2.12 2.09 1.55 2.08 2.07 2.08 2.05 2.08 1.74 2.10 0.97
0.1 3.52 3.67 4.15 3.68 4.44 3.68 4.42 3.67 4.24 3.66 4.11 3.07 3.00 2.36 2.98 2.90 2.98 2.91 3.02 1.73 3.02 1.76
0.2 4.67 4.53 3.08 4.53 2.97 4.53 2.97 4.51 3.53 4.50 3.58 3.58 3.78 5.68 3.76 5.13 3.76 5.12 3.76 5.09 3.69 3.04
0.3 5.17 5.14 0.58 5.14 0.56 5.14 0.57 5.12 0.98 5.10 1.31 4.12 4.28 3.76 4.32 4.87 4.32 4.86 4.33 5.03 4.21 2.28
0.4 6.34 6.23 1.74 6.23 1.71 6.23 1.71 6.22 1.84 6.24 1.60 5.50 5.64 2.51 5.48 0.29 5.48 0.29 5.57 1.20 5.54 0.77
0.5 7.27 7.27 0.04 7.28 0.08 7.28 0.08 7.26 0.16 7.29 0.33 6.61 6.64 0.47 6.45 2.36 6.45 2.36 6.54 1.02 6.54 1.01
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

0.6 8.45 8.37 0.97 8.36 1.11 8.36 1.10 8.34 1.26 8.37 0.92 7.76 7.86 1.27 7.72 0.51 7.72 0.50 7.87 1.39 7.77 0.18
0.7 9.99 9.87 1.22 9.84 1.51 9.84 1.52 9.84 1.49 9.87 1.21 9.11 9.38 2.97 9.13 0.20 9.13 0.19 9.37 2.85 9.21 1.10
0.8 11.11 11.17 0.52 11.13 0.19 11.13 0.19 11.13 0.21 11.18 0.59 10.50 10.59 0.84 10.30 1.87 10.30 1.87 10.60 0.97 10.41 0.81
0.9 12.76 12.65 0.88 12.61 1.16 12.61 1.15 12.60 1.24 12.66 0.76 11.77 11.87 0.84 11.56 1.78 11.56 1.78 11.89 1.06 11.70 0.59
1.0 14.32 14.02 2.08 13.92 2.80 13.92 2.82 13.96 2.54 14.06 1.84 13.12 13.47 2.67 12.67 3.44 12.67 3.46 13.19 0.50 12.98 1.07
3293
Table 2. The measured dynamic viscosity values and the calculated values from regression analysis using Eq.s (1) to (5), and the estimated absolute relative error (ARD%) obtained for JO-PD fuel
3294

blends.
JO μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD μ (cp) ARD
fraction Measured Eq. 1 (%) Eq. 2 (%) Eq. 3 (%) Eq. 4 (%) Eq. 5 (%) Measured Eq. 1 (%) Eq. 2 (%) Eq. 3 (%) Eq. 4 (%) Eq. 5 (%)
Temp. 20 30
(°C)
0 4.38 4.38 0.07 4.51 2.88 4.51 2.88 4.55 3.96 4.73 8.01 3.96 3.92 0.90 3.67 7.28 3.67 7.28 3.69 6.88 3.67 7.29
0.1 6.57 6.57 0.02 6.52 0.69 6.52 0.69 6.48 1.34 6.25 4.80 4.87 4.86 0.20 4.98 2.25 4.98 2.25 5.03 3.35 5.06 3.84
0.2 7.57 7.57 0.02 7.54 0.43 7.54 0.44 7.50 0.90 7.44 1.70 5.73 5.71 0.35 5.80 1.27 5.80 1.26 5.85 2.09 5.85 2.17
0.3 9.25 9.25 0.01 9.24 0.08 9.24 0.07 9.20 0.56 9.20 0.54 6.89 6.90 0.08 6.92 0.38 6.92 0.38 6.99 1.49 6.96 1.04
0.4 11.07 11.07 0.00 11.06 0.08 11.06 0.09 11.02 0.46 11.00 0.61 8.42 8.42 0.02 8.45 0.35 8.45 0.34 8.54 1.37 8.50 0.97
0.5 13.29 13.29 0.01 13.29 0.02 13.29 0.02 13.24 0.36 13.24 0.34 10.17 10.19 0.17 10.19 0.22 10.19 0.22 10.29 1.14 10.25 0.75
0.6 15.86 15.86 0.01 15.92 0.37 15.92 0.38 15.87 0.07 15.98 0.78 12.15 12.17 0.17 11.99 1.31 11.99 1.31 12.11 0.37 12.01 1.16
0.7 19.07 19.08 0.03 19.14 0.39 19.14 0.39 19.10 0.15 19.17 0.51 14.44 14.39 0.37 14.15 1.98 14.15 1.98 14.35 0.64 14.19 1.75
0.8 26.64 26.65 0.04 26.65 0.02 26.65 0.02 26.49 0.55 26.46 0.66 17.76 17.64 0.70 17.66 0.56 17.66 0.56 18.11 1.98 17.85 0.53
0.9 31.32 31.33 0.02 31.38 0.20 31.39 0.21 31.23 0.30 31.43 0.36 21.11 21.05 0.29 20.78 1.58 20.78 1.57 21.26 0.73 20.81 1.43
K. RAWAJFEH AND Z. AL-HAMAMRE

1.0 37.71 37.73 0.05 38.00 0.78 38.00 0.76 37.99 0.73 38.42 1.87 28.33 28.14 0.68 26.98 4.78 26.97 4.79 27.42 3.23 26.70 5.77
Temp. 40 60
(°C)
0 3.04 2.96 2.75 2.96 2.76 2.96 2.75 2.95 3.11 2.84 6.49 1.75 1.69 3.40 1.79 2.45 1.79 2.46 1.76 0.79 1.69 3.29
0.1 3.86 3.87 0.31 3.85 0.38 3.85 0.37 3.89 0.67 4.00 3.59 2.35 2.33 0.94 2.29 2.42 2.29 2.42 2.26 3.98 2.30 1.99
0.2 4.53 4.59 1.43 4.57 0.93 4.57 0.93 4.59 1.40 4.63 2.19 2.99 2.97 0.62 2.94 1.56 2.94 1.56 2.91 2.61 2.94 1.80
0.3 5.43 5.43 0.06 5.42 0.20 5.42 0.20 5.43 0.05 5.44 0.19 3.55 3.61 1.73 3.61 1.56 3.61 1.57 3.55 0.07 3.59 1.05
0.4 6.73 6.72 0.12 6.71 0.28 6.71 0.28 6.74 0.09 6.74 0.21 4.52 4.55 0.65 4.54 0.50 4.54 0.49 4.49 0.73 4.53 0.11
0.5 8.14 8.10 0.54 8.09 0.64 8.09 0.65 8.11 0.33 8.11 0.37 5.36 5.41 0.84 5.41 0.91 5.41 0.90 5.34 0.32 5.38 0.39
0.6 9.42 9.39 0.36 9.42 0.04 9.42 0.05 9.43 0.09 9.37 0.53 6.12 6.20 1.29 6.27 2.50 6.27 2.50 6.17 0.84 6.22 1.67
0.7 10.95 11.05 0.92 11.12 1.52 11.12 1.52 11.13 1.65 11.08 1.19 7.65 7.51 1.86 7.60 0.61 7.60 0.61 7.48 2.24 7.56 1.16
0.8 13.12 13.37 1.88 13.36 1.80 13.36 1.80 13.29 1.29 13.42 2.31 9.47 9.18 3.05 9.17 3.17 9.17 3.17 8.92 5.80 9.13 3.63
0.9 15.64 15.68 0.25 15.80 1.04 15.80 1.05 15.66 0.11 15.71 0.47 11.11 10.91 1.80 11.03 0.69 11.03 0.69 10.73 3.44 10.99 1.12
1.0 20.44 20.86 2.08 21.33 4.33 21.32 4.32 21.16 3.50 20.97 2.60 15.32 15.07 1.60 15.58 1.69 15.58 1.67 15.26 0.42 15.53 1.38
Temp. 70 80
(°C)
0 1.30 1.29 0.41 1.31 1.06 1.31 1.07 1.30 0.28 1.30 0.09 0.95 0.98 3.44 0.89 6.55 0.89 6.54 0.90 5.73 1.00 5.05
0.1 1.78 1.74 2.48 1.74 2.33 1.74 2.33 1.69 5.28 1.66 6.68 1.20 1.24 3.20 1.28 6.69 1.28 6.70 1.23 2.85 1.15 4.39
0.2 2.33 2.37 1.87 2.38 1.99 2.38 1.98 2.36 1.27 2.35 1.06 1.89 1.88 0.61 1.91 1.25 1.91 1.24 1.94 2.63 1.90 0.35
0.3 3.04 3.01 0.89 3.01 0.83 3.01 0.83 2.99 1.48 3.00 1.19 2.54 2.54 0.08 2.55 0.27 2.55 0.28 2.60 2.52 2.56 0.69
0.4 3.87 3.82 1.33 3.82 1.28 3.82 1.28 3.80 1.76 3.81 1.65 3.21 3.23 0.74 3.24 1.04 3.24 1.03 3.31 2.98 3.25 1.20
0.5 4.53 4.50 0.65 4.50 0.58 4.50 0.59 4.48 1.09 4.49 0.88 3.78 3.78 0.06 3.78 0.13 3.77 0.14 3.85 1.77 3.80 0.50
0.6 5.22 5.24 0.34 5.24 0.31 5.24 0.32 5.21 0.21 5.24 0.48 4.55 4.51 0.94 4.41 3.03 4.41 3.03 4.52 0.56 4.50 1.08
0.7 6.57 6.51 0.98 6.50 1.12 6.50 1.13 6.48 1.36 6.50 1.01 5.66 5.77 1.86 5.63 0.49 5.63 0.50 5.80 2.55 5.71 0.80
0.8 8.14 7.99 1.81 8.00 1.78 8.00 1.78 8.00 1.68 7.96 2.20 6.87 7.10 3.39 7.12 3.65 7.12 3.64 7.48 8.81 7.12 3.57
0.9 10.08 9.74 3.40 9.71 3.72 9.71 3.71 9.73 3.48 9.73 3.43 8.63 8.93 3.45 8.72 1.04 8.72 1.05 9.17 6.22 8.83 2.32
1.0 14.32 14.02 2.08 13.92 2.80 13.92 2.82 13.96 2.54 14.06 1.84 13.12 13.47 2.67 12.67 3.44 12.67 3.46 13.19 0.50 12.98 1.07
Table 3. Coefficients for Eqs. (1) and (2).
JO–BD blends JO–PD blends
JO fraction yo a b c R2 JO fraction yo a b c R2
Coefficients for Eq. (1)
0 −4.3436 6.6772E+02 −1.3592E+04 1.0646E+05 0.9998 0 −1.1489 1.6513E+02 1.0160E+03 −4.2116E+04 0.9908
0.1 −3.3281 6.3579E+02 −1.1398E+04 8.1547E+04 0.9995 0.1 −4.3063 5.8546E+02 −1.3253E+04 1.1791E+05 0.9996
0.2 −3.6507 7.7376E+02 −1.5912E+04 1.2706E+05 0.9980 0.2 −2.9596 4.9797E+02 −9.9165E+03 8.3390E+04 0.9998
0.3 −4.8229 9.7591E+02 −2.2299E+04 1.9621E+05 0.9982 0.3 −1.5175 3.8140E+02 −4.9696E+03 3.2966E+04 0.9999
0.4 1.7998 2.6961E+02 4.1107E+03 −8.9281E+04 0.9994 0.4 −1.8803 4.8914E+02 −7.0019E+03 4.7984E+04 1.0000
0.5 2.8260 2.4080E+02 6.6785E+03 −1.2207E+05 0.9998 0.5 −2.5023 5.9710E+02 −8.2269E+03 5.2024E+04 0.9998
0.6 5.2502 1.2116E+02 8.4154E+03 −1.1329E+05 0.9998 0.6 −0.7082 4.1549E+02 7.4564E+02 −4.8581E+04 1.0000
0.7 8.2793 −1.1252E+02 1.8745E+04 −2.1568E+05 0.9985 0.7 1.1648 3.1002E+02 5.8700E+03 −9.8122E+04 0.9998
0.8 9.2119 −1.2067E+02 2.1470E+04 −2.4084E+05 0.9997 0.8 0.8418 5.0576E+02 −5.9058E+02 1.5990E+04 0.9996
0.9 9.1923 −2.7344E+01 2.2612E+04 −2.6363E+05 0.9999 0.9 5.4418 9.7248E+01 1.6571E+04 −1.6323E+05 0.9996
1.0 17.3566 −9.7377E+02 6.1503E+04 −6.7758E+05 0.9998 1.0 17.3566 −9.7377E+02 6.1503E+04 −6.7758E+05 0.9999
Coefficients for Eq. (2)
0 −7.1206 20.0558 67.7542 – 1 0 −6.0501 12.8630 93.3197 – 0.9896
0.1 −5.3007 21.7622 49.1485 – 0.9995 0.1 −4.0258 15.8818 39.4506 – 0.9989
0.2 −6.5455 23.1392 64.2823 – 0.9983 0.2 −2.6570 17.2820 28.7659 – 0.9995
0.3 −5.7087 25.3850 52.2527 – 0.9994 0.3 −1.4798 24.0589 16.0810 – 0.9999
0.4 −1.9429 27.6567 29.3715 – 0.9981 0.4 −1.9397 26.1464 19.7793 – 0.9999
0.5 −1.6597 30.7253 28.7055 – 0.998 0.5 −2.9643 30.6932 22.5083 – 1
0.6 2.7335 52.4137 8.4118 – 0.9991 0.6 −2.8159 39.9213 17.6863 – 0.9996
0.7 3.9376 142.2870 3.0290 – 0.9978 0.7 −1.3782 57.4121 11.1269 – 0.9994
0.8 4.3841 328.9107 1.4661 – 0.9992 0.8 1.1363 −291.0493 −1.6117 – 0.9996
0.9 3.8682 204.8239 3.1215 – 0.9991 0.9 2.0524 −220.4629 −2.3484 – 0.9993
1.0 3.7870 696.6052 1.0331 – 0.9962 1.0 3.7870 696.6052 1.0331 – 0.9962
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
3295
3296 K. RAWAJFEH AND Z. AL-HAMAMRE

Table 4. Coefficients for Eqs. (3) and (4).

JO–BD blends JO–PD blends
JO fraction yo a b c R2 JO fraction yo a b c R2
Coefficients for Eq. (3)
0 – −123.0819 −9.5153 −0.1404 1 0 – −105.1395 −15.7541 −0.1570 0.9896
0.1 – −152.6333 −9.2721 −0.1887 0.9995 0.1 – −121.6764 −9.9269 −0.2828 0.9989
0.2 – −162.9645 −9.8208 −0.1528 0.9983 0.2 – −158.3340 −10.8263 −0.3764 0.9995
0.3 – −180.1004 −9.1532 −0.1752 0.9994 0.3 – −245.3600 −10.8667 −0.6757 0.9999
0.4 – −388.7295 −15.1175 −0.5147 0.9981 0.4 – −246.8415 −10.1972 −0.5156 0.9999
0.5 – −502.7178 −17.2960 −0.6025 0.998 0.5 – −210.5526 −7.5932 −0.3374 1.0000
0.6 – 169.7065 3.0773 0.3658 0.9991 0.6 – −233.0564 −6.2809 −0.3551 0.9996
0.7 – 112.4819 0.7692 0.2540 0.9978 0.7 – −452.3874 −8.0735 −0.7256 0.9994
0.8 – 111.4615 0.3344 0.2281 0.9992 0.8 – 411.2305 −1.4185 0.8801 0.9996
0.9 – 168.4047 0.8070 0.2585 0.9991 0.9 – 249.9110 −1.1442 0.4872 0.9993
1.0 – 191.0716 0.2728 0.2641 0.9962 1.0 – 191.0716 0.2728 0.2641 0.9962
Coefficients for Eq. (4)
0 −1.2258 13.6344 0.0177 – 0.9998 0 −1.5119 8.2529 0.0154 – 0.9903
0.1 0.2833 15.1443 0.0214 – 0.9995 0.1 −0.4881 11.1076 0.0233 – 0.9983
0.2 −0.0277 15.8686 0.0179 – 0.9980 0.2 0.6078 11.9255 0.0274 – 0.9990
0.3 0.7307 17.6718 0.0199 – 0.9980 0.3 1.6582 15.0625 0.0346 – 0.9996
0.4 3.5487 19.2553 0.0282 – 0.9973 0.4 1.9991 17.1744 0.0322 – 0.9996
0.5 4.3894 21.3885 0.0287 – 0.9985 0.5 2.0899 20.6476 0.0308 – 0.9968
0.6 6.9515 25.9723 0.0418 – 0.9995 0.6 2.8403 25.7712 0.0341 – 1.0000
0.7 8.6164 37.0420 0.0487 – 0.9979 0.7 4.3875 32.0912 0.0390 – 0.9996
0.8 9.8020 46.9543 0.0509 – 0.9994 0.8 6.7602 59.6390 0.0553 – 0.9984
0.9 10.7551 54.2975 0.0483 – 0.9998 0.9 8.4439 71.9545 0.0575 – 0.9992
1.0 12.0688 73.9128 0.0524 – 0.9983 1.0 12.0688 73.9128 0.0524 – 0.9983

Table 5. Correlation coefficients for Eq. (5).

JO–BD blends JO–PD blends
Temp., °C φ12 φ21 φ12 φ21
20 2.260 0.697 2.218 1.283
30 2.312 0.432 3.121 0.320
40 1.855 0.539 2.751 0.364
50 1.610 0.621 2.858 0.350
60 1.694 0.341 3.075 0.325
70 1.461 0.685 3.459 0.289
80 1.814 0.129 3.888 0.257

0.9980. On the other hand, Eq. (4) shows an OARD of 1.53 and 1.82% for JO-BD and JO-PD blends,
respectively. This indicates that Eq. (4) can estimate the variation of viscosity with temperature for
the JO-BD blends more precisely than predicting the JO-PD data. As shown in Table 6, the OARDs
of the JO-BD and JO-PD data are 1.63 and 1.85%, respectively.
The AARD and OARD values for the correlations previously used in Al-Hamamre and Al-
Salaymeh (2014) are also shown in Table 6. The models are as follows:
Walther model (1931)

log ðlog ðμ þ 0:7ÞÞ ¼ A þ B log ðT Þ (9)

where μ is the dynamic viscosity and T is the temperature in Fahrenheit.

Wang and Briggs model (2002)

1
lnðμÞ ¼ A þ B (10)
T
Tat and Van Gerpen model (1999):
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3297

Table 6. Absolute average relative average deviations (AARD) and the overall relative average deviations (OARD) of the different
correlations.
AARD (%) for the temperature range between 20 and 80°C
JO–BD fuel blends JO–PD fuel blends
Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.
JO % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9) (10) (11) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9) (10) (11)
0 0.93 1.09 1.09 1.16 0.00 10.99 4.34 3.44 1.74 3.83 3.83 3.34 0.00 14.28 13.41 3.68
0.1 1.35 1.47 1.47 1.35 4.88 7.53 2.12 1.67 1.14 2.26 2.26 2.65 6.18 14.83 6.71 6.30
0.2 2.29 2.27 2.27 2.43 4.26 7.28 3.21 4.40 0.93 1.46 1.46 2.02 5.78 8.10 2.03 3.28
0.3 1.64 2.32 2.32 2.62 3.54 6.32 3.03 3.76 0.51 0.62 0.62 1.18 5.54 4.11 1.85 0.96
0.4 1.23 1.48 1.48 1.56 1.23 2.70 2.13 0.99 0.42 0.52 0.53 1.18 6.98 4.18 1.40 1.07
0.5 0.64 1.58 1.58 1.10 1.96 2.05 2.34 0.73 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.79 5.56 4.59 0.95 0.48
0.6 0.69 1.03 1.03 0.91 3.59 1.51 4.18 0.61 0.52 1.20 1.21 0.35 2.69 3.57 2.16 1.04
0.7 1.66 1.98 1.97 2.04 1.37 2.92 5.36 2.17 0.94 1.18 1.18 1.35 1.76 2.04 3.36 0.91
0.8 0.80 1.49 1.49 1.01 0.76 2.69 5.65 1.11 1.64 1.63 1.63 3.22 2.27 2.19 6.20 2.51
0.9 0.48 1.42 1.42 0.78 1.31 2.43 5.62 1.08 1.61 1.72 1.72 2.10 6.09 2.62 7.64 2.19
1.0 1.46 3.19 3.19 1.84 0.00 4.34 7.80 1.57 1.36 3.19 3.19 1.84 0.00 4.22 7.80 1.57
OARD 1.20 1.76 1.76 1.53 2.09 4.61 4.16 1.96 1.02 1.64 1.64 1.82 3.9 5.89 4.86 2.18
(%)

B C
lnðηÞ ¼ A þ þ (11)
T T2

where μ is the dynamic viscosity, η is the kinematic viscosity in mm2/s, T is the temperature in K and
A, B, and C are constants.
Walther model (1931) shows OARD of 4.61% for JO-BD blends and 5.89% for JO-PD blend. The
AARD values and OARDs obtained from Wang and Briggs model (2002) (Eq. (10)) are lower than
those calculated from Walther model (Eq. (9)) but higher than the values obtained from the
correlations tested in this work. On the other hand, the AARD and OARD values obtained from
the kinematic viscosity calculation using Tat and Van Gerpen (1999) (Eq. (11)) model are similar to
those obtained from the temperature–viscosity correlations proposed and investigated in the recent
work and indicate an excellent agreement with the experimental data.
The measured viscosity values of pure JO, BD, and PD are used to estimate the viscosity values of
the different blends according to the relation demonstrated in Eq. (5). The maximum absolute error
between the measured and calculated values comes from are 6.91 for JO-BD blends at 20% jojoba
content and 60°C and 14.91 at 40% jojoba content and 80°C. The OARDs of the JO-BD and JO-PD

40.0 Measured Viscosity

40.0 Measured Viscosity
Eq. (5) 35.0 Eq. (5)
35.0
Eq. (12) Eq. (12)
30.0 30.0 Eq. (13)
Eq. (13)
Viscosity, cP
Viscosity, cP

25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
15.0 15.0
10.0 10.0
JO-BD mixture
5.0 5.0 JO-PD mixture

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
JO Vol. % JO Vol. %
(a) (b)

Figure 1. The viscosity values as a function of mixture composition. Dots represented the measured values and lines represent
values calculated using Eq. (5), Eq. (12) and Eq. (13) for (a) BD- JO blends, (b) JO-PD blends.
3298 K. RAWAJFEH AND Z. AL-HAMAMRE

viscosity values are 2.09 and 3.90%, respectively. The regression constants of the equation (φ12 and
φ21) are shown in Table 5 for different temperatures. The viscosity values predicted with this model
are consistent with those predicted by Arrhenius model (Arrhenius, 1887) (Eq. (12)) and Cragoe
model (Cragoe, 1933) (Eq. (13)) as shown in Figure 1. In these models, the viscosity of the blends
related to the volume fraction of the different components is represented as follows:
Arrhenius model (Arrhenius, 1887)
   
lnðμÞ ¼ x1 ln μ1 þ x2 ln μ2 (12)
Cragoe models (Cragoe, 1933)
1 x1 x
¼  þ  2  (13)
lnð2000μÞ ln 2000μ1 ln 2000μ2
where μ is the dynamic viscosity of the blend (cP), μ1 and x1 are the dynamic viscosity of component
1 and its fraction, respectively, and μ2 and x2 are the dynamic viscosity of component 2 and its
fraction, respectively.

4. Conclusion
In the present work, the dynamic viscosities of jojoba oil and its blends with BD and PD are
measured as function of temperature and mixture composition. Four viscosity–temperature correla-
tions are suggested to predict the viscosity variation with temperature for different JO-BD and JO-
PD blends: An inverse third-order correlation (Eq. (1)), a hyperbolic three-parameter decay-correla-
tion (Eq. (2)), a rational polynomial correlation (Eq. (3)) and a single exponential decay three-
parameter equation (Eq. (4)). The predictive ability of the proposed correlations is evaluated based
on the experimentally obtained viscosities. The analysis results show that Eqs. (1)–(5) have accep-
table accuracy for predicting the dynamic viscosity of JO-BD and JO-PD blends. The maximum
OARDs for Eqs. (1)–(5) are 1.2, 1.76, 1.76, 1.82, and 2.09%, respectively. Equation (1) also shows the
lowest OARD at 1.02% for JO-PD blends and hence represents the most suitable correlation for the
prediction of kinematic viscosity for JO-BD and JO-PD blends.

References
Al-Hamamre, Z., and Rawajfeh, K. 2015. Investigating the energy value of jojoba as an alternative renewable energy
source. Int. J. Green Energy 12:398–404
Al-Hamamre, Z., and Yamin, J. 2014. Parametric study of the alkali catalyzed transesterification of waste frying oil for
Biodiesel production. Energy Convers. Manage. 79:246–254
Al-Hamamre, Z., and Al-Salaymeh, A. 2014. Physical properties of (jojoba oil + biodiesel), (jojoba oil + diesel) and
(biodiesel + diesel) blends. Fuel 123:175–188
Altin, R., Çetinkaya, S., and Yucesu, H. S. 2001. The potential of using vegetable oil fuels as fuel for diesel engines.
Energy Convers. Manage. 42:529–538
Al-Widyan, M. I., and Al-Muhtaseb, M. A. 2010. Experimental investigation of jojoba as a renewable energy source.
Energy Convers. Manage. 51:1702–1707
Arrhenius, S. A. 1887. Uber die Dissociation der in Wasser gelosten Stoffe. Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie 1:631–
48.
Buddenbrerg, J. W., and Wilke, C. R. 1949. Calculation of gas mixture viscosities. Ind. Eng. Chem. 41:1345–1347.
Canoira, L., Alcantara, R., Garcia-Martinez, M. J., and Carrasco, J. 2006. Biodiesel from Jojoba oil–wax:
Transesterification with methanol and properties as a fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 30:76–81
Cragoe, C. S. 1933. Changes in the viscosity of liquids with temperature, pressure and composition, 2, 1st World
Petroleum Congress, London, UK July 18–24, pp. 529–41.
Demirbas, A. 2008. Relationships derived from physical properties of vegetable oil and Biodiesel fuels. Fuel 87:1743–
1748.
Huzayyin, A. S., Bawady, A. H., Rad, y. M. A., and Dawood A. 2004. Experimental evaluation of diesel engine
performance and emission using blends of Jojoba oil and diesel fuel. Energy Convers. Manage. 45:2093–2112
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3299

Moradi, G. R., Karami, B., and Mohadesi, M. 2013. Densities and kinematic viscosities in biodiesel−diesel blends at
various temperatures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 58:99−105
Shah, S. N., Sharma, B. K., Moser, B. R., and Erhan, S. Z. 2010. Preparation and evaluation of jojoba oil methyl esters
as biodiesel and as a blend component in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Bioenergy Res. 3:214–223
Tat, M. E., and Van Gerpen, J. H. 1999. The kinematic viscosity of Biodiesel and its blends with diesel fuel. J. Am. Oil
Chem. Soc. 76:1511–1513.
Walther, C. 1931. The evaluation of viscosity data. Erdol Teer 7:382.
Wang, T., and Briggs, J. 2002. Rheological and thermal properties of soybean oils with modified fatty acid composi-
tions. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 79:831–836