Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Comparative study of emissions from stationary engines using biodiesel

made from soybean oil, palm oil and waste frying oil
⁎
Márcio de Almeida D´Agostoa, Marcelino Aurélio Vieira da Silvaa, Luíza Santana Francaa, ,
Cíntia Machado de Oliveiraa, Manuel Oliveira Lemos Alexandrea,
Luiz Guilherme da Costa Marquesb, Aurélio Lamare Soares Murtab,
Marcos Aurelio Vasconcelos de Freitasb
a
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Transport Engineering Program (PET/COPPE), Av. Horácio de Macedo, 2030 - Bloco H- Sala 106. Cidade
Universitária, Rio de Janeiro 21941-914, RJ, Brazil
b
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, International Virtual Institute of Climate Change (IVIG), Av. Pedro Calmon, s/n, Anexo ao Centro de Tecnologia – Ilha
do Fundão, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro 21941-596, RJ, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: This article examines the CO2 emissions from the combustion of a biodiesel-diesel blend in stationary internal
Biodiesel combustion engines to generate electricity. Emissions were analyzed according to the feedstock used for
Biodiesel blends biodiesel production – soybean oil, palm oil, waste frying oil – through the methyl and ethyl routes. The chosen
CO2 emission blends were composed of petroleum diesel and biodiesel, with the latter accounting for 20% or 50% of the blend.
Energy generation
The results were analyzed using the Tukey test and showed, in general, that higher engine loads led to a decrease
Internal combustion engine
in CO2 emissions in comparison with the standard B4 (4% biodiesel) blend mandated in Brazil. Therefore, this
paper provides an original and complete approach to analyze and compare in pairs the results of CO2 emissions
of different biodiesel production routes, feedstocks and engine loads in order to find the best blend option for
each load level.

1. Introduction
Petroleum derived fuels play an important role in industrial
development, transport, agriculture and electricity generation. As this
type of fuel becomes increasingly scarce, the discovery of alternative
fuels is fundamental to satisfy global energy demand. In addition, the
use of fossil fuels leads to a increasing of environmental problems,
especially greenhouse gas emissions [1]. In this context, biodiesel can
be an interesting alternative option to meet energy demand.
Brazil is among the largest producers and consumers of biodiesel in
the world – its annual production was 2.7 billion liters in 2012, with
estimated capacity of 5.8 billion liters that same year. Soybean oil is the
most common feedstock for biodiesel production, accounting for more
than 80% of demand [2].
Recent studies of the use of biodiesel in stationary engines show the
importance of analyzing atmospheric emissions caused by the combus-
tion of a biodiesel-diesel blend e. g., [3–5,7,12,14,29,82–84]. These
studies present emission variations for different feedstocks and differ-
ent biodiesel concentrations in the blend, but they do not discuss, by
the same time, the relevant variations caused by the different transes-
terification routes and by the different power applied to the engine
during the process of biodiesel production, which is the main motiva-
tion behind this study.
As a result, the purpose of this article is to analyze CO2 emissions
from the burning of a diesel-biodiesel blend in stationary engine to
generate electric power. Emissions are analyzed according to the
feedstock used for biodiesel production – soybean oil, palm oil, waste
frying oil – through methyl and ethyl routes. The chosen blends were
composed of petroleum diesel and biodiesel, with the latter accounting
for 20% or 50% of the blend. The results were analyzed using the Tukey
test, which allows the comparison of contrasts between two means of a
variable.
The article is divided into six sections, the first being this
introduction. Section two provides an overview of stationary engine
emissions. The materials and methods used in the research are
discussed in section three. Section four presents the results found
and section five analyzes them. Lastly, section six presents conclusions,
limitations and suggestions for new studies.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: luizasfranca@poli.ufrj.br (L.S. Franca).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.040
Received 3 September 2014; Received in revised form 18 November 2016; Accepted 6 December 2016
1364-0321/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: de Almeida D´Agosto, M., Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.040
 Table 1
Use of biodiesel-diesel blends made from soybean oil, palm oil and waste frying oil and their application in stationary engines.

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

Saravanan et al. Waste B20 Methyl Constant:1500 rpm 0/1,3/2,6/ ↑ – – – – Diesel

[27] frying oil 3,9/5,2
bmep (bar)

Ozsezen et al., Waste B100 Methyl Constant:1500 rpm Full load ↑ (6,48– – ↓ (9,52–14,29%) ↓(72,68–86,89%) (-) 1,74 - Diesel
2009 frying palm 22,13%) (+) 1,74%
oil
Canola oil ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑

Abu-Hamdeh and Almond oil B10, B30 e B50 Methyl Constant:1500 rpm Torque: 4, 8, ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ – Diesel
Alnefaie [28] Palm 12, 16 e ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
20 N m
Alptekin et al. Waste B100 e B20 Methyl Constant:1400 rpm 150 Nm, ↑ (B20 has – ↓ (9,2%) ↓ (17–23%) ↑ (0,1– Diesel
[29] frying oil Medium - smaller 2,5%)
300 Nm, 450 increase)
Nm and
High - 600
Nm
Chauhan, Kumar Jatropha B5, B10, B20, Methyl 0%, 20%, ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Diesel
and Cho [30] B30 e B100 40%, 60%,
80% and
100%
Ramadhas, Rubber B10, B20, B50, Methyl Constant:1500 rpm Various ↑ ↓ – ↓ ↑ B100 –

2
Muraleedhara- seed oil B75 e B100 loads
n, and Jayaraj
[31]
Nabi, Rahman Cotton B10, B20 e B30 Methyl Constant:850 rpm Torque: ↑ (B30– ↓ (B20– – ↓ (B30–24%) – Diesel
and Akhter seed oil entre 5 e 10%) 24%)
[32] 25 N m
Qi et al. [33] Soybean B30, B50, B80 e Methyl – 15–90% ↑ – – ↓ – Diesel
crude oil B100 rated engine
load

Karavalakis et al. Palm Methyl – – Driving cycles: NEDC, UDC and ADC ↑ ↓ (B20– ↑NEDC ↓ (B40–26,47%) ↑ (B40– Diesel
[34] (blended B5, B20 e B40 18,75%, ↓ ADC 0,71%)
with B40–50%)
coconut
oil)

Ng, Ng and Gan Palm oil B50 e B100 Methyl 1800–2800 rev/min 0.5–2.5 kw Fase 1: 35 combinations of speed and – – – – –
[35] load
Palm oil B10, B20, B30, Methyl Constante Constante Fase 2: constant speed and load ↓ ↓ ↓ – – Diesel
B40, B50, B60, values
B70, B80, B90 e
B100

Kalam et al. [36] Waste B5 (P5 = Palm 1500–3500 rpm Constant 85% throttle position. C5 ↓ ↓ ↓ (17–23%) ↓ C5 ↑ No. 2
cooking oil oil; C5 = coconut (7,94%) diesel.
from Palm oil) P5 ↑ P5 ↓
oil and (7,89%)
Coconut oil

(continued on next page)

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

Leevijit and Mixed B20 Methyl 1. Constant speed 1. Loads in ↑ ↓ – ↓ – Diesel

M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

Prateepchaikul crude palm test at 2400 rpm the range of

[37] oil (MCPO) 5–37.5 kw

B30 2.varying between 2100% ↑ ↓ – ↑ –

B40 2000–2800 rpm. ↑ ↓ ↑
Usta [38] Tobacco B17.5 Methyl 3000, 2500, 2200, 50%, 75% e ↑ (5%) – – ↓ (between 1500– – Diesel
seed oil 2000 and 1500 rpm 100% 2500 rpm)

Godiganur, Mahua oil B20, B40, B60 e Methyl Constant Variable ↑ – ↓ ↓ – Diesel
Murthy, and B100 1500 rpm loads
Reddy [39]

Lahane and Karanja B5, B10, B15, Methyl Constant 50%, 75%, ↑ (up to ↓ ↓ ↓ – Diesel
Subramanian B20, B25, B50 1500 rpm 90% e 100% B20)
[40] and B100

Puhan et al. [41] Mahua oil B100 Ethyl Constant Different ↓ (4%) ↓ ↓ (35%) ↓ (30%) ↑ Diesel
1500 rpm BMEP

Puhan et al. [42] Mahua oil B100 Methyl Constante Entre 0 e – ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ – No. 2
1500 rpm 4 kw diesel.
Armas, Yehliu and Soybean B100 Methyl 2400 rpm 64 n m 2° before and after the baseline start ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ – Ultra low
Boehman [43] of injection sulfur

3
diesel
(BP15)
Sahoo et al. [44] Polanga oil B20, B40, B60, Methyl – 0%, 20%, – ↓ (4%) – ↓ – ↑ High speed
B80 e B100 40%, 60%, diesel
80%, and (HSD)
100%
Raheman and Mahua oil B20, B40, B60, Methyl Constant:1500 rpm 25%, 50%, – ↑ – – ↓ – High speed
Ghadge [45] B80 e B100 75%, and diesel
100% (HSD)
Saravanan et al. Rice bran B20 Methyl – 0%,25%, – ↑ (18% – – – – No. 2
[46] oil 50%, 75% e between diesel.
100%. 25% and
75% rated
load)

Serrano et al. [47] Soybean B7 Methyl – – Different driving cycles ↑(5%) – – – – Diesel
(84%) and B20 Methyl – – – ↓ (20%) – – – – –
palm (16%)

Paul, Datta and Jatropha B100 Methyl Constant 0–6 kw Water pressure constant at 1.5 kg/ ↑ ↓ – – ↑ Diesel
Mandal [48] oil 1500 rpm cm2
Fattah et al. [49] Palm oil B20 e B100 Methyl Entre 1000– Constante – ↑ (B20– – ↓ (B20–22,5%) ↓ (B20–29,87%, – Diesel
4000 rpm, a cada 100% 16,9%; B100–36,79%)
500 rpm B100–
25,5%)

Makareviciene Rapeseed B25, B50 Methyl – – – ↓ – ↓ ↓ ↓ Diesel

and Janulis oil B75 e B100 – – – ↑ (10,3%) – ↓ ↓ (5,7%) ↓ Diesel
[50]
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

B25, B50 Ethyl – – – ↓ – ↓ ↓ ↑ Diesel

M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

B75 e B100 ↑ (8,3%) – ↓ (53%) ↓ (7,2%) ↑ Diesel

Tan et al. [51] Jatropha B5, B10, B20, Methyl Peak torque speed of Bmep = 0.10 – ↑ (B5– – ↓ (B100: 26,5– ↑ (between – Diesel
oil B50 and B100 2000 rpm mpa (10% 1,02%, 46,7%) 0.10 MPa and
load), 0.26 B10–2,06%, 0.26 MPa - 2,38%
mpa (25% B20–4,74%, to 17,3%), ↓
load), 0.51 B50–5,71%, (between 0.51 MPa
mpa (50% B50–13,9%) and 0.77 MPa -
load) and 15% to 23,1%
0.77 mpa
(75% load)

Nayak and Mahua oil B85, B90, B95e Methyl Constant 1500 rpm 0%, 20%, – ↑ – ↓ ↓ (B100–0,88%, – Diesel
Pattanaik [52] B100 40%, 60%, B95–0,38%, B90–
(com aditivo 80% e 100% 0,57% and B85–
Di-methyl 0,48%)
carbonate)
Kalligeros et al. Sunflower B10, B20, B50 Methyl Speed: 1500 rpm 0,01; 0,95; Compression ratio: 19=1 Total ↓: 0,9–5,2% ↓: 2,3– ↓: 25,0–41,5% (B10 ↓: 11,0–56,8% (B10 – Diesel
[53] and olive 1,90; 2,85; displacement: 553 cm3 Maximum (B10 69,3% (B10 sunflower), 32,0– sunflower), 17,2–
oil 3,80 kW output: 3:8 kW (5 hp) sunflower), sunflower), 52,3% (B10 oilive), 43,4% (B10 oilive),
2,3–8,1% 10,1– 27,3–50,0% (B20 13,1–35,9% (B20
(B10 oilive), 66,4% (B10 sunflower), 29,5– sunflower), 33,5–
5,2–8,0% oilive), 50,0% (B20 olive), 50,5% (B20 olive),
(B20 12,3– 29,5–54,3% (B50 22,3–54,2% (B50

4
sunflower), 68,0% (B20 sunflower), 49,1– sunflower), 17,5–
9,9–14,7% sunflower), 52,3% (B50 olive) 40,6% (B50 olive)
(B20 olive), 12,3–
6,1–15,2% 76,8% (B20
(B50 olive),
sunflower), 25,4–
12,5–22,3% 65,6% (B50
(B50 olive) sunflower),
18,1–
72,4% (B50
olive)
Lee et al. [54] – BD05, B10, B15, – Rated engine speed: 1,6 e 3,2 kW Bore×Stroke: 88×96 mm, Output – ↑: 1,6 kW - – ↑: 0,6; 3,9; 8,4; – Diesel
B20 e B30 2400 rpm power: 4,0 kW Torque: 1,63 kgm Fuel 5,8%, 15,1; 18,4 (%)
consumption: 2,93 L/h 12,6%,
15,6%,
20,5%,
22,1%.
3,2 kW -
5,0%,
20,1%,
36,6%,
45,4%,
47,9%
Lin et al. [10] Waste B20, B50, B80, Methyl Engine speed (rpm): – Bore×Stroke: 83×100 mm Piston ↑ B100 ↑ B100 ↑ B80, B100 ↓ B20 ↓ B80, Diesel
frying oil B100 1000, 1200, 1400, displacement: 2164 c.c. Compression (speeds B100; ↑
1600, 1800, 2000 ratio: 21.6:1 higher than B20, B50
1200 rpm),
B20 (speeds
of 1000 and
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

1200 rpm)
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

Betha et al. [11] Waste B50, B100 – – 30; 70; 70; The Compression ratio, bore stroke, – – – – – –
frying oil 100 (%) displacement of the diesel engine are
20, 78 mm 62 mm, and 296 cc
respectively
Ghorbani et al. Sunflower B5, B10, B20, Methyl – – – ↑ – – ↑ B10 ↑ B10 Diesel
[12] and B50, B80, B100
soybean oil
Huang et al. [55] pistache B100 – rated speed 2000 r/ 0–8 kW The bore of the engine is 95 mm, the ↓ – ↓ ↓ – Diesel
and min stroke is 115 mm, compression ratio
jatropha oil 1:17, swept volume 815 cm3, rated
power 8.82 kW
Cheng et al. [7] Waste B100 Methyl – 0.08 MPa, Maximum power (kW/rpm): 88/3200 ↓ ↓ (40,3%) ↓ ↓ ↑ (0,5%) Diesel
frying oil 0.19 MPa, Maximum torque (Nm/rpm): 285/
0.38 MPa, 1800 Bore/stroke (mm): 112/110
0.56 MPa Displacement (cm3): 4334
and Compression ratio: 19.0:1
0.67 MPa
Al-Shemmer and – B0, B25, B50, – Speed fixed [rpm] 0, 25, 50, 75, Swept volume [cc] 1270. ↑ – – – – Diesel
Oberweis [56] B75, B100 1500 100% load Compression ratio 15.9:1. Bore [mm]
95.3. Stroke [mm] 88.9.
Altun [13] palm, B20, B100 Methyl Rated speed – Bore stroke 80 mm 90 mm. ↑ – ↑ ↓ – Ultra low
cotton and 1500 rpm. Compression ratio 22.5:1. Rated unsaturated sulfur
anchovy oil power 12.5 kW. After treatment biodiesel diesel

5
None. Power output 9.6 kW. (ULSD)
Frequency 50 Hz. Tension 230/400 V
Buyukkaya [57] Rapeseed B5, B20, B70, – Engine speed (rpm): – Compression ratio 17/1. Maximum ↑ – ↓ ↓: 12% (B5), 25% – Diesel
oil B100 1000 1200 1400 engine power 164 kW at 2100 rpm. (B20), 31% (B70)
1600 1800 2000 Maximum engine torque 819 Nm at and 35% (B100)
2100 1600 rpm. Injection advance 22
BTDC. Injection pump Mechanically
controlled in-line type. Injector
opening pressure 220 bar. Type of
fuel injection Pump-line-nozzle
injection system. Nozzle hole
diameter 0.3 mm. Nozzle type Multi
hole. Nozzle hole number 4
Özener et al., soybean oil B10, B20, B50 – Engine speed (rpm): – Aspiration Natural. Bore (mm) 85. ↑: 6.95% – ↓: 20% (B10), 23% ↓: 28% (B10), 31% – Diesel
2014 1300, 1500, 2000, Stroke (mm) 80. Displacement (cm3) (B10), (B20), 31% (B50), (B20), 38% (B50)
2500, 3000 454. Compression ratio 17.5:1. Max. 10.66% and 44% (B100) and 46% (B100)
power (kW) 8.1 kW@3000 rpm (DIN (B20),
6270). Max. torque (Nm) 28Nm@ 12.43%
1800–2000 rpm. Injection (B50) and
configuration. Mechanical pump with 17.62%
single injection (B100)
Karabektas [58] Canola oil B100 Methyl Engine speed (rpm): – Bore (mm) 100. Stroke (mm) 100. ↑ – – ↓ – Diesel
1200 1400 1600 Compression ratio 16.8:1. Rated
1800 2000 2200 power 51 kW at 2400 rpm. Maximum
2400 torque 215 Nm at 1400 rpm.
Charging Naturally aspirated.
Injection pressure (bar) 215. Injection
timing 12 BTDC
Tsai et al. [15] Waste B0 - B75, 5 em 5 Methyl 1800 rpm. – The power generator (Model: YSG – ↓ (B1, B3, – – – Diesel
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

frying oil −5SEN, YANMAR) had a 100/110 V B5, B10,

M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

(50/60 Hz) AC output (singlephase, B20, B30,

two-wire type), with a maximum B50 and
output of 4 kW B70)
Muralidharan Waste B20, B40, B60, Methyl Speed 1500 rpm 0, 25, 50, 75, Rated power 3.7 kW at 1500 rpm. ↑ (except – ↑ (except B20) ↑ medium loads – Diesel
et al. [59] frying oil B80 (constant). 100% load Number of cylinder Single cylinder. B40 at lower
Compression ratio 5:1 to 22:1 loads)
(variable) Bore 80 mm. Stroke
110 mm.
Guarieiro et al. soybean diesel/ ethanol/ Methyl – 2, 4, 6, and Maximum torque (NBRISO 1585) – – – – – –
[16] oil, castor soybean biodiesel 8 kW (daNm rpm 1). 7.0/2500. Number of
oil and – 80/15/5%, cylinders 2 verticals. Cylinder
residual diesel/ethanol/ diameter (mm) 90. Swept volume
frying oil castor biodiesel – (cm3) 1272 Piston displacement
80/15/5%, (mm) 100. Carter capacity (L) 6
diesel/ethanol/ Compression rate 18:1. Fuel
residual biodiesel consumption (g kWh 1)
– 80/15/5%,
diesel/ethanol/
soybean oil – 90/
7/3%, and diesel/
ethanol/castor oil
– 90/7/3%.
Shehata [60] cotton, B100 – Engine speed (rpm): – Number of cycles 4. Bore (mm) 100 ↑ – – ↓ – Diesel

6
palm and 800 1000 1200 1400 Stroke (mm) 105. Compression ratio
flax oil 1600 17:1. Rated brake power (Kw) 5.775
at 1500 rpm. Fuel injection advance
angle 24 BTDC. Injector opening
pressure (bar) 175. Number of nozzle
holes 1
Betha et al. [17] Waste B50, B100 – Maximum power 0, 30, 70, Model Yanmar L70AE. Year 2007. – ↓ – – – Ultra low
frying oil 4.5 kW/3000 rpm. 100% load Type 4-cycle single cylinder. Bore sulfur
stroke 78 mm 62 mm. Displacement diesel
296 cc. (ULSD)
Xue [61] Waste any – – – – ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Diesel
frying oil
Pereira et al. [8] soybean oil B20, B50, B75 Methyl Speed 3600 rpm – Displacement volume 0.211 L. ↓ – ↓ ↓ ↑ Diesel
Maximum output 2.0 kW. Nominal
power 1.8 kW. Fuel capacity 2.5 L.
Weight 47 kg
Valente et al., Waste B25, B50, B75 Methyl – load power Engine bore, stroke and displaced ↑ – – – ↑ Diesel
2012 frying oil (kW): 5, 10, volume were 0.102 m, 0.120 m and
15, 20, 25 3.922 × 10−3 m3, respectively. The
rated three-phase power of the four-
pole generator was 55 kW, operated
at 60 Hz, 220 V.
Agarwala et al. Rice bran B10, B20, B50 Methyl Rated speed 0 20 40 60 Bore/stroke 87.3/110 mm. Rated ↓ – ↓ ↓ – Diesel
[62] oil 1500 rpm. 80 100% power 9 kW. Compression ratio
load 16.5:1. Total displacement volume
1318 L. Fuel injection release
pressure 210 bar.
Singh et al. [63] – B20, B40 – Power output/rpm Load (λ): 5.6 Compression ratio 16.5:1. ↓ – ↑ (small) ↑ (small) – Diesel
5.85 kW/1500 rpm. 3.7 2.7 2.1 Displacement per cylinder 659 cc.
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

Fuel injection timing (SOI) 24 bTDC.

M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

Fuel injection pressure 210 kg/cm2 @

1500 rpm. Oil sump capacity 6.8 L
Valente et al., soybean B5, B20, B35, – – 0, 10, 20, 30, Bore stroke 0.102 m 0.120 m. Total – – ↑ ↑ ↓ Diesel
2010 and castor B50, B85 - soja / 37.5 kW displacement 3.922 10 3 m3. Power
bean oil B5, B20, B35 - generator details. Number of poles 4.
mamona Tension 220 V Number of phases 3.
Rated power 55 kW. Frequency 60 Hz
Murtonen and Canola oil B5 e B30 Methyl – – – 0 – ↑ (60%) ↑ (85%) – Diesel
Nylund [64]
Shahabuddin – B20, B100 – 1400-rpm engine – – ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ – Diesel
et al. [65] speed
Fattah et al., 2013 soybean any – – – – ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ – Diesel
and canola
oil
Gopal et al. [19] Waste B20, B40, B80, Methyl Rated speed 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, Compression ratio 17.5:1. Rated ↑ – ↓ ↓ – Diesel
frying oil B100 1500 rpm 5 kW power 4.4 kW. Injection timing 23.
Injection pressure 200 bar
Lertsathapornsuk Waste B50, B100 Ethyl 1500 RPM 25, 50, Compression ratio 15.5:1. Rated ↑ – ↓ (25.11 ± 0.03%) ↓ (17.96 ± 0.12%) – Diesel
el al. [20] frying oil 75 kW speed 1500/1800. Power rating
continuous 127 kW (170 HP).
Electrical rating 125 kVA (100 kW).
Voltage 380 V. Ampere 190 A.
Frequency 50 Hz

7
Atabani et al. [66] non-edible várias – – – – – – – – – –
oils
Mohan et al. [67] Madhuca B20 Methyl 1500 rpm 0, 20, 40, 60, Bore 87.5 mm. Stroke 110 mm. ↓ (11,8– – 0 – – Diesel
Indica 80, 100% Compression ratio 17.5:1. Rated 28,0%:
load power 5.2 Kw retarding
injection
time)
Abuhabay et al. sunflower B5, B10, B15, Methyl Engine speed (rpm): – The general specification was Bore = ↑ – ↓ ↓ ↓ Diesel
[68] oil B20 1500, 2600, 3300 89.9 mm, stroke = 94.6 mm, engine
capacity = 2402 cm3, compression
ratio = 17.5:1, fuel injection release
pressure = 135 bar, max power =
130 kW at 3500 rpm, max torque =
375.0 Nmat 2000–2250.
Lin et al. [21] palm oil B10, B20, B30, Methyl 1950 rpm – Type: direct injection, Number of – ↓: 51,0% – – – Diesel
B50, B75, B100 cylindre: 4, borexstroke: 95×105 mm, (B10),
Displacement: 2976 c.c., Max. Power: 21,4%
40 kW@2600 rpm, Max. Torque: 169 (B20),
Nm 4,60%
(B30),
10,9%
(B50),
26,9%
(B75), and
29,3%
(B100)
Sadiktsis et al. Canola oil B30, B100 Methyl Speed (RPM): 3000 – Cooling: Air, Continuous power (kV ↑ – – ↓ – Diesel
[69] A): 6.5, Standby power (kV A): 6.6
Size frame (L W H [cm]): 87×57×56,
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

Weight (kg):105 Diesel tanka (L):20

M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

Chung et al. [70] – B100 – – 30, 60, 90, 4.8-kW diesel generator (L70V6, – – – – – –
100% load Yanmar Corporation) within its first
100 h of operation.
Kumar et al., 2013 review review Methyl – – – ↑ (Shorter – – – – Diesel
chain length
saturated
esters)
Yilmaz [71] – biodiesel (85%)– – – 0, 20, 40, 60, Rated output (kW) 6. Engine cooling ↑ – ↓ ↓ – Diesel
methanol (15%) 80, 100% Horizontal liquid-cooled. No of cycles
E biodiesel load 4-Cycle. Model Z482 Rated output
(85%)–ethanol (kW/rpm) 8.95/3000.
(15%)
Behçet [72] anchovy oil B25, B50, B75 Methyl Engine speed (rpm): – Cooling system Air cooling. Injection ↑ (29.37%) – ↓ (33.42%) ↓ (21.35%) ↓ (4.57%) Diesel
1000 1250 1500 pressure 19.6 ± 0.49 MPa (200 ±
1750 2000 2250 5 kgf/cm2). Mean effective
2500 pressure (Mep) 561.6 kPa. Medium
piston speed 7.0 m/s (at 3000 rpm)
Koc and Abdullah – Biodiesel Engine speed (rpm): – Air intake Naturally aspirated, ↓ B5 and – – ↓ – Diesel
[73] nanoemulsions 1000, 1200, 1400, Bore×stroke 96 mm×115 mm, Rated B20
containing 5%, 1600, 1800, 2000, power 60 kW(80 HP)
10% and 15% 2200, 2400, 2600, @2200 rpm, Maximum torque 371
water - B5, B20 2800 Nm @1400 rpm,
Swaminathan and fish oil B100 Methyl Speed 1500 rpm 0, 0.5, 1.0, Bore/Stroke 80 mm/110 mm, ↑ – – ↓(about 60% in no – Diesel

8
Sarangan [74] 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, Compression Ratio 16.5: 1, Total load and 81% in
3.0 kW Displacement Volume 0.553 L, maximum load)
Specific Fuel Consumption 245g/kW
eh
Hulwan and Joshi Jatropha D70/E20/B10 Methyl 1500 RPM BMEP Borexstroke 110 mm×116 mm, ↓ (at lowest – – ↑ (low loads), ↓ – Diesel
[75] oil (blend A), D50/ (MPa): 0, Displacement 3300 CC, Compression load of (high loads)
E30/ B20 (blend 0.1, 0.20, ratio 18:1, Power 27.9 kW (38 BHP) 0.1 MPa
B) D50/E40/B10 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, at 1500 RPM, Nozzle diameter BMEP), ↑
(blend C) 0.6, 0.7 0.2 mm, Number of holes in nozzle 5, (except
Original injection timing 13 CA 1600 rpm
BTDC, Fuel injection pressure and 21 and
500 bar 13 Injection
timing)
Tsaia et al. [22] soybean oil B10, B20, B50 – 2600 rpm unload ne cylinder, four strokes, direct – ↓ (except – – – Diesel
(0 kW), low injection, water-cooled, bore and for the
(5 kW), stroke of 113 mm×115 mm, total 5 kW, B10
medium displacement volume of 1153.3 mL, was the
(7 kW), and and maximum horsepower of lower)
high 11.5 kW at 2600 rpm.
(10 kW)
He et al. [23] soybean oil B20, B100 – – 10, 50, 75, bore and stroke of 110 125 mm; total – – – – – –
100 kW displacement of 4.75 L; compression
ratio of 16.8; rated power of 117 kW
at 2300 r/min; maximum torque of
580 Nm at 140 r/min; traditional
mechanical injection system; and
without EGR (exhaust gas
recirculation) or any other after-
treatments
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Author Feedstock Biodiesel blend Route Engine Pollutant emissions Reference

Speed Load Specifications NOx MP HC CO CO2

Kwanchareon palm oil 85%D/15%B/0% Methyl – 0, 20, 40, 60, commercial single-cylinder, vertical, ↑ (high ↓ (high engine load) ↓ (high engine load)
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.

et al. [24, 76] E 85%D/10%B/ 80, 100, 4-stroke, air-cooled, direct injection engine load)
5%E 85%D/5%B/ 120% load diesel engine.
10%E 85%D/0%
B/15%E
Yung-Sung Lin castor bean B100 Methyl 3000 rpm – Displacement volume 0.2 L, ↑ – – – – Diesel
and Hai-Ping oil Maximum output 2.2 kW, Nominal
Lin [77] power 2.0 kW, Fuel capacity 7.2 L,
Weight 54 kG
Yang et al. [78] sewage B30, B50 – Rated speed (rpm) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Compression ratio 18:1, Cooling ↓ B30, ↑B50 – – ↓ B30, ↑ B50 (lower – Diesel
sludge oil 950e1000 8, 9, 10, 11, system Water cooling, Injection (low and at high load)
12 kW system Pump-line-nozzle, Fuel medium
injection Direct injection, Aspiration loads)
Nature, Maximum power (kW) 15,
Pereira et al. [79] beef tallow B5, B10, B15, Ethyl 3600 rpm 0, 10, 20, 30, four-stroke; direct injection; one ↑:13,7% – – ↓: 8,8% (B5), 28,5% ↑ Diesel
B20, B50, B75 40, 50, 60, cylinder; air cooling system; 0.211 L (B15) (B100)
70, 80, 90, displacement volume; 2.0 kW ↓:7,9%
100% load maximum output; 1.8 kW nominal (B100)
power; 2.5 L fuel capacity and 47 kg
weight.
Gumus et al. [80] – B20, B50, B100 – 2200–3600 rpm 12.5, 25, Bore (mm) 86, Stroke (mm) 68, Total ↑ – ↓ ↓ ↑ Diesel
37.5, 50 kPa cylinder volume (cm3) 395, Injector
opening pressure (MPa) 20, Number
of nozzle hole 4, Start of injection

9
timing 20 CA BTDC, Compression
ratio 18:1, Maximum torque (kPa) 52
at 2200 rpm, Maximum power (kW) 8
at 3600 rpm
Chai et al. [81] – B50, B100 Methyl 1800 rpm. 0, 25, 50, The generator is direct-injection, – – – – – –
75 kW turbocharging, 4 cylinders with a
displacement of 4.5 L, rated at 80 kW
with a normal engine speed of 1800
revolutions per minute (rpm) and
compression ratio 17.5:1, and
equipped with a diesel muffler and
exhaust sampling stack.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 2
Pollutant emissions by route and feedstock.

Methyl

NOx PM HC CO CO2

reduction increase NE reduction increase NE reduction increase NE reduction increase NE reduction increase NE

Almond 100% – 100% – 100% – 100% – – – 100%

Anchovy – 100% – – – 100% 50% 50% – 100% – – 50% – 50%
Canola – 67% – – – 100% – 33% 67% 67% 33% – – – 100%
Castor – 50% 50% – – 100% – – 100% – – 100% – – 100%
bean
Palm 11% 67% 22% 44% – 56% 33% 22% 44% 56% – 44% – 11% 89%
Cotton – 100% – 50% – 50% – 50% 50% 100% – – – – 100%
seed
Fish – 100% – – – 100% – – 100% 100% – – – – 100%
Jatropha 25% 75% – 50% – 50% 50% – 50% 25% 50% 25% – 50% 50%
Karanja – 100% – 100% – – 100% – – 100% – – – – 100%
Madhuca 100% – – – – 100% – – 100% – – 100% – – 100%
Indica
Mahua 25% 75% – 25% – 75% 75% – 25% 100% – – – – 100%
Polanga 100% – – – – 100% 100% – – – – 100% – 100% –
Rapeseed 100% – – – – 100% 100% – – 100% – – 100% – –
Rice bran 50% 50% – – – 100% 50% – 50% 50% – 50% – – 100%
Rubber – 100% – 100% – – – – 100% 100% – – – 100% –
seed
Soybean 33% 50% 17% – 17% 83% 33% – 67% 50% 17% 33% – 33% 67%
Olive 100% – – 100% – – 100% – – 100% – – – – 100%
Sunflower 33% 67% – 33% – 67% 67% – 33% 67% 33% – 33% 33% 33%
Tabacco – 100% – – – 100% – – 100% 100% – – – – 100%
Waste 10% 70% 20% 20% 10% 70% 40% 20% 40% 50% 10% 40% 20% 30% 50%
frying
oil
Total of 25% 63% 12% 27% 4% 69% 42% 10% 48% 60% 10% 31% 10% 19% 71%
the
stu-
dies
Ethyl
NOx PM HC CO CO2
reduction increase NE reduction increase NE reduction increase NE reduction increase NE reduction increase NE

Beef – 100% – – – 100% – – 100% 100% – – – 100% –

tallow
Mahua 100% – – 100% – – 100% – – 100% – – – 100% –
Waste – 100% – – – 100% 100% – – 100% – – – – 100%
frying
oil
Total of 50% 50% – 25% – 75% 75% – 25% 100% – – – 75% 25%
the
stu-
dies

NE = non evaluation.

2. Stationary engine emissions
This bibliographical review is based on a selection of 75 papers
from international journals discussing the use of biodiesel-diesel
blends produced from different feedstocks and their application in
stationary engines. These articles were found using the Science Direct
journal database for the last 10 years and they analyze the pollutant
emissions from the combustion of biodiesel-diesel blends. Thirty-three
of these articles discussed tests with biodiesel made from soybean oil,
palm oil and waste frying oil. The results and an overview of the main
characteristics of the tests are shown in Table 1.
From this analysis, the studies were grouped by the type of
transesterification route, as shown in Table 2. The values are the
percentage of the studies which observed increases, decreases or non
evaluation of each pollutant emission compared to the emissions from
petroleum diesel use. According to this literature review, when a
biodiesel-diesel blend is used in stationary engines, the emissions of
atmospheric pollutants usually increase when larger loads are applied
to the engine [6]. Nevertheless, in some cases emissions were reported
to decrease when biodiesel concentration in the blend remained the
same [7].
The majority of the studies (70%) describing experiments of
biodiesel produced by the methyl route showed reductions of PM,
HC and CO, when they presented values. The same was observed for
experiments involving biodiesel from the ethyl route.
In case of CO emissions specifically, reductions were reported for
biodiesel from canola, jatropha, waste frying, soybean and sunflower
oil. On the other hand, increases of HC emission were observed in the
case of biodiesel made from anchovy, canola, palm, cotton seed and
waste frying oil while an increase of MP emission was found for
biodiesel from waste frying oil and soybean oil. Also, biodiesel made
from waste frying oil and canola can show either increase or decrease in
CO, HC and MP emissions in comparison to the use of diesel.
Regarding CO2 emissions, all the studies which evaluate biodiesel
produced through the ethyl route show an increase, while for biodiesel
from the methyl route, 67% of the studies found an increase and 33% a
reduction of emissions. This variability can be explained by the fact that
ethanol has a large chemical structure, with more carbon atoms. In

10
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.
Fig. 1. - 1A- The bench test, 1B- Stationary internal combustion engine, 1C- Measuring Equipment, 1D- Biodiesel sampling.
addition, [5] reported that the CO2 emissions from biodiesel were
higher compared to diesel due to oxygen's presence in the biodiesel
structure, which could lead to a complete combustion. However, the
CO2 emissions can be significantly reduced when the biodiesel is from
renewable sources and the entire life cycle is considered in the analysis.
Finally, emissions of NOx, which is an important pollutant respon-
sible for acid rain and serious negative impacts on human health,
structures and water sources, were also analyzed by one of the studies
[73]. The majority (63%) of studies presented larger values when using
biodiesel-diesel blends from the methyl route. Meanwhile, some show
reductions when the feedstocks almond, palm, jatropha, madhuca
indica, mahua, waste frying, polanga, rapeseed, rice bran, soybean,
olive and sunflower oil were adopted. For biodiesel from the ethyl
route, the results were more balanced, with half of them present
reductions of NOx emissions.
According to [28] and [5], a correlation between the NOx emissions
and combustion temperature exists, where temperature is directly
related to the engine load. Thus, an increase in engine load would
lead to a rise in pollutant emission. Of the selected studies, 71% present
an increase of NOx emissions when the engine load is increased, 6%
report reduction and the rest do not evaluate this parameter. In
addition, the percentage of biodiesel in the blend can influence the
NOx emissions too. According to [5], this could be observed because of
Table 3
Levels of factors considered in the experiment and used abbreviations.
Feedstock
Soybean oil Palm oil Frying oil
B20SE B20PE B20FE
B20SM B20PM B20FM
B50SE B50PE B50FE
B50SM B50PM B50FM
Note: For each blend, experiments were carried out for generator load levels of 18 kW, 33 kW, 48 kW and 65 kW.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
the higher oxidation of the fuel. However, we do not find this
conclusion in any of the other studies.
Considering the feedstocks analyzed here, the use of soybean oil for
biodiesel production showed lower concentrations of PM, CO, HC and
CO2 in exhaust gases. An exception was found for PM concentrations
when combustion temperature and biodiesel percentage in the blend
were increased [3].
Palm oil biodiesel has similar emissions of PM, CO and HC in
comparison to soybean oil biodiesel. However, PM concentrations are
higher for lower biodiesel concentrations in the blend, as well as for a
higher engine loads or speeds. The concentration of HC increases only
when the percentage of biodiesel in the blend is lower. As for NOX
emissions, most studies found that the concentration of this pollutant
increases in the engine combustion and decreases when using the B20
blend, as well as when the engine load or speed is increased and/or
decreased [3]. Lastly, for waste frying oil, the use of the B50 blend (50%
diesel and 50% biodiesel) and an increase in the angular velocity of the
engine led to higher CO2 and NOX concentrations and lower HC and
smoke concentrations in the studies chosen. When engine load is
increased, the blend causes a decrease in CO and HC (B10-B50 blends)
and NOX (preheated biodiesel). In this latter case, CO concentrations
became higher [4]. According to Xue [5], the using of this biodiesel
with diesel causes lower emissions of PM, HC and CO, although a
Factors / Levels
Biodiesel 20% Production Ethyl
percentage route Methyl
in the blend 50% Ethyl
Methyl
11
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 4
Physical and chemical characteristics of different B100 produced.

ANALYZED ITEM STANDARDS LIMITS B100SM B100SE B100PM B100PE B100FM B100FE

Density (g/mL) ASTM D4052 0.85 and 0.90 0.8819 0.8764 0.8716 0.8767 0.8871 0.8838
Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) ASTM D445 3.00 and 6.00 4.208 4.434 4.454 4.624 4.912 –
Acidity index (mgKOH/g) ASTM D664 Max. 0.50 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4
Flash point (°C) ASTM D93 Min. 100.0 169.0 179.0 179.0 166.0 178.0 177.0
Sulphated ashes (mass %) ASTM D874 Max. 0.20 0.016 0.0021 0.0027 0.0004 0.0057 0.0044
Total Sulfur (mg/kg) ASTM D5453 Max. 50.0 9.15 9.54 4.16 – 34.1 30.0
Iodine value EM 14111 Anotar1 117.7 110.6 51.4 – 111.7 –
Flash point (°C) ASTM D664 Max. 19.0 −3 −24 11.2 6 0 −6
Potassium (mg/kg) INTERNAL STANDARD2 Max. 5.0 0.2 0.8 < 0.05 0.11 < 0.05 –
Carbon residue (mass %) ASTM D4530 Max. 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05
Corrosiveness to Copper (3 h/50 °C) ASTM D130 Max. 1 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st

Legend: 1) This item does not have a standard for specification. The laboratory experiments from COPPE/UFRJ were used to define acceptance limits. 2) This item has no limits.

higher concentration is observed for NOX. 3.1. Analyzed factors

We analyze the influence of production route, biodiesel percentage

3. Materials and methods
in the blend, load applied to the generator and type of feedstock on the
performance of a biodiesel-diesel blend, as shown in Table 3.
We analyzed the performance of biodiesel blends in an engine-
Considering that the generator has maximum power of 80 kW (total
generator set composed of a diesel engine and a generator. The diesel
power x power factor) and that the bank loads are multiples of 15 kW,
engine had the following characteristics: brand – Perkins; model –
the following nominal loads were initially chosen: 15 kW, 30 kW,
1104; engine displacement – 4 cylinders and 4.4 l; direct injection
45 kW, 60 kW and 75 kW. However, the load bank has a forced
combustion system. The characteristics of the generator were: max-
ventilation system to dissipate generated heat, which increases with
imum power – 100 kVA; voltage – 200 V; three-phase; frequency –
higher loads. Therefore, the total load (resistance + ventilator activa-
60 Hz; rotational speed – 1800 rpm. The power factor used was 0.8.
tion) for each level was 18 kW, 33 kW, 48 kW, 65 kW and 82 kW. In
Fig. 1 shows the bench test, the engine-generator set and the biodiesel
this last level, the load was rejected for being over 80 kW. As a result,
sampling.
the tests were performed with levels 18 kW, 33 kW, 48 kW and 65 kW.
A fixed (electrical) load bank is needed to maintain uniform test
The B50 blend was chosen because 50% biodiesel is an intermediate
conditions, allowing different fuels to be compared. It has the following
option between the fuel used as reference and B100. In this case, the
characteristics: maximum power – 500 kW; voltage – 220 V; three-
fuel used as reference had 4% biodiesel (B4), since sale of B4 was
phase; nine circuit breakers selecting the resistive loads, each load
mandatory in the country at the time of the experiment. In order to
causing a 15 kW increase or decrease.

Statistical measure B20FE B20FM B20PE B20PM B20SE B20SM B50FE B50FM B50PE B50PM B50SE B50SM B4
Points 6 6 8 7 8 6 10 6 6 3 6 9 9
Mean 4.45 4.58 4.50 4.44 4.40 4.50 4.46 4.58 4.58 4.60 4.57 4.52 4.51
Standard deviation 0.05 0.04 4.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.03
Maximum 4.50 4.60 4.50 4.50 4.40 4.50 4.50 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60
Minimum 4.40 4.50 4.50 4.40 4.40 4.50 4.40 4.50 4.50 4.60 4.50 4.50 4.50

Fig. 2. CO2 emissions for 18 kW load level.

Fig. 3. CO2 emissions for 33 kW load level.

12
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 4. CO2 emissions for 49 kW load level.

analyze the behavior between 4% and 50%, we chose an additional presents the application of the Tukey method, where the least
biodiesel level (20%) for testing as well. significant difference (LSD) is used to compare the studied means.

⎛1 1 ⎞ QMR
3.2. Characteristics of each biodiesel DMS = qδ, k , α⋅ ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟⋅ ,
⎝ ri rj ⎠ 2 (1)
For the combinations between the factors feedstock and route, the
abbreviations shown in Table 3 were used. The physical and chemical where:qδ, α is a tabulated value which varies according to the residual
properties of each biodiesel (B100) are presented in Table 4. degrees of freedom (δ ), the number of treatments (k ) and significance
level (∝); RMS is the residual mean square; and r is the number of
repetitions for each treatment.
3.3. Response variable
4. Results
In order to analyze the efficiency of the internal combustion engine
regarding electricity generation, specific consumption (g/kWh) was
For data interpretation, we performed statistical analyses sepa-
chosen as the response variable. To determine consumption, a weight-
rately for each load level since the factors related to the production of
ing scale with the following characteristics was used: brand - Lider;
the final biodiesel blend were type of feedstock, route and biodiesel
model B-520; 100 kg capacity; 10 g readability.
percentage in the blend. The results below show the variations and the
values which is found for the response variable of the experiment.
3.4. Comparison test between means
Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the values which is found for CO2 emission
(%) for each load level, and Tables 5–8 present the p-values which is
An experiment can be characterized as single-factor or factorial (if
found using the Tukey test for a comparison between the means of the
more than one factor is considered). Factors can be classified into
blends. Values higher than 0.05 indicate it is not possible to reject the
qualitative and/or quantitative, and qualitative factors can be divided
null hypothesis of equality between the means.
into structured and unstructured [25]. Factors with levels which can be
When comparing means for the 18 kW load level (Fig. 2 and
classified into groups are defined as structured qualitative factors. For
Table 5) with 5% significance level, the following observations are
unstructured factors, group classification is not carried out and the goal
made:
is to compare all factor levels. According to Bertoldo et al. [25], this
experiment presents more than one factor with unstructured qualita-
a) The B50FM, B50PE, B20FM, B20PM and B20SE blends do not
tive variables, therefore the Tukey, Sheffé and Bonferroni methods are
show considerable differences from the B4 blend used for reference.
most suitable. We chose the Tukey method to compare the experi-
b) The modulus increase regarding B4 is 2.5% at the most.
mental means.
c) The standard deviation values for each blend are 0.05 at most for
The Tukey method is more accurate, with 95% probability of not
means close to 4.5.
indicates a null difference between variables as being significant. When
d) Table 5 shows a pairwise comparison with the purposes of verifying
comparing the contrasts between two means, Tukey's test is used to
the difference between the means and providing more information
analyze variance as well. Tukey's method is the most used test for
for Fig. 2.
experiments due to its precision and easy application [26]. Formula (1)

Statistical measures B20FE B20FM B220PE B20PM B20SE

B B20SM B
B50FE B50FM B50PE B50PM B50SE B50SM B4
Points 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 9 6 7 9
Mean 9.17 8.90 99.37 8.90 9.45 9.17 9.13 9.23 9.45 9.22 9.18 9.30 9.54
Standard deviation 0.12 0.11 00.15 0.35 0.16 0.05 0.23 0.19 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.32 0.07
M
Maximum 9.30 9.00 99.50 9.20 9.60 9.20 9.40 9.40 9.50 9.40 9.40 9.60 9.60
M
Minimum 9.00 8.80 99.20 8.30 9.30 9.10 8.80 9.00 9.40 9.00 9.00 8.90 9.40

Fig. 5. CO2 emissions for 65 kW load level.

13
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 5
Values of p-value from Tukey's test with a 18 kW load level.

B20FE B20FM B20PE B20PM B20SE B20SM B4 B50FE B50FM B50PE B50PM B50SE

B20FM 0.000
B20PE 0.485 0.011
B20PM 1.000 0.000 0.219
B20SE 0.485 – 0.000 0.659
B20SM 0.592 0.024 1.000 0.320 0.001
B4 0.162 0.041 1.000 0.046 0.000 1.000
B50FE 1.000 0.000 0.632 1.000 0.085 0.748 0.210
B50FM 0.000 1.000 0.011 0.000 – 0.024 0.041 0.000
B50PE 0.000 1.000 0.011 0.000 – 0.024 0.041 0.000 1.000
B50PM 0.000 1.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.054 0.000 1.000 1.000
B50SE 0.000 1.000 0.103 0.000 0.000 0.166 0.282 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.992
B50SM 0.041 0.162 0.994 0.008 0.000 0.997 1.000 0.046 0.162 0.162 0.155 0.632

When comparing means for the 33 kW load level (Fig. 3 and
Table 6) with 5% significance level, the following observation is made:
a) The hypothesis of equality could not be discarded for the blends and
B4 despite the larger dispersion observed for the results of the
B20SE blend.
When comparing means for the 49 kW load level (Fig. 4 and
Table 7) with 5% significance level, the following observations are
made:
a) Except for the B20SE blend, all blends show decreases of up to 4%
b) The B20SE blend shows an increase of about 12% in comparison
with B4.
When comparing means for the 65 kW load level (Fig. 5 and
Table 8) with 5% significance level, the following observations are
made:
a) All blends present a CO2 emission decrease of up to 6% in
comparison with B4.
b) The hypothesis of equality is rejected for the B20FE, B20FM,
B20PM, B20SM, B20FE, B50PM and B50SE blends in comparison
with the B4 blend.
5. Discussion
For the 18 kW load level, six blends (B20FE, B20PE, B20PM,
B20SE and B50FE) present lower CO2 emissions than the B4 blend
used as reference. Nevertheless, with Tukey's test we are able to reject
the hypothesis of equality only for the B20PM and B20SE blends. The
blend with lowest CO2 emission is B20SE (20% biodiesel produced
from soybean oil through ethyl route).
For this same load level, six blends (B20FM, B50FM, B50PE,
B50PM, B50SE and B50SM) present higher CO2 emission means than
the B4 blend used as reference. However, Tukey's test discards the
hypothesis of equality for the B20FM and B50PE blends.

Table 6
Values of p-value from Tukey's test with a 33 kW load level.

B20FE B20FM B20PE B20PM B20SE B20SM B4 B50FE B50FM B50PE B50PM

B20FM 0.884
B20PE 0.992 1.000
B20PM 1.000 0.917 0.995
B20SE 0.010 0.705 0.436 0.020
B20SM 0.953 1.000 1.000 0.968 0.661
B4 0.480 1.000 0.998 0.564 0.961 1.000
B50FE 1.000 0.992 1.000 1.000 0.028 0.999 0.793
B50FM 1.000 0.998 1.000 1.000 0.120 1.000 0.914 1.000
B50PE 0.261 0.999 0.976 0.336 0.997 0.997 1.000 0.534 0.745
B50PM 0.884 1.000 1.000 0.917 0.705 1.000 1.000 0.992 0.998 0.999
B50SE 0.860 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.649 1.000 1.000 0.989 0.997 0.999 1.000
B50SM 1.000 0.941 0.998 1.000 0.014 0.981 0.582 1.000 1.000 0.335 0.941

Table 7
Values of p-value from Tukey's test with a 49 kW load level.

B20FE B20FM B20PE B20PM B20SE B20SM B4 B50FE B50FM B50PE B50PM B50SE

B20FM 1.000
B20PE 0.447 0.125
B20PM 1.000 1.000 0.125
B20SE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
B20SM 0.988 0.803 0.996 0.803 0.000
B4 0.000 0.000 0.147 0.000 0.000 0.008
B50FE 0.998 0.868 0.893 0.868 0.000 1.000 0.000
B50FM 0.980 0.725 0.992 0.725 0.000 1.000 0.003 1.000
B50PE 0.003 0.000 0.764 0.000 0.000 0.141 0.997 0.011 0.078
B50PM 0.601 0.216 1.000 0.216 0.000 0.999 0.141 0.961 0.998 0.725
B50SE 0.999 1.000 0.042 1.000 0.000 0.575 0.000 0.626 0.459 0.000 0.089
B50SM 1.000 1.000 0.447 1.000 0.000 0.988 0.000 0.998 0.980 0.003 0.601 0.999

14
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 8
Values of p-value from Tukey's test with a 65 kW load level.

B20FE B20FM B20PE B20PM B20SE B20SM B4 B50FE B50FM B50PE B50PM B50SE

B20FM 0.411
B20PE 0.818 0.003
B20PM 0.411 1.000 0.003
B20SE 0.317 0.000 1.000 0.000
B20SM 1.000 0.411 0.818 0.411 0.317
B4 0.015 0.000 0.843 0.000 0.999 0.015
B50FE 1.000 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.088 1.000 0.001
B50FM 1.000 0.119 0.990 0.119 0.727 1.000 0.101 0.998
B50PE 0.317 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.317 0.999 0.088 0.727
B50PM 1.000 0.076 0.960 0.076 0.519 1.000 0.026 0.998 1.000 0.519
B50SE 1.000 0.317 0.890 0.317 0.411 1.000 0.025 1.000 1.000 0.411 1.000
B50SM 0.986 0.015 1.000 0.015 0.964 0.986 0.334 0.860 1.000 0.964 1.000 0.996

For the 33 kW load level, ten blends present lower CO2 emission where the hypothesis of equality could not be rejected. Related to the
levels than the B4 blend: B20FE, B20FM, B20PE, B20PM, B20SM, other combinations, the biodiesel from soybean oil shows higher values
B50FE, B50FM, B50PM, B50SE and B50SM. Tukey's test do not reject of CO2 emissions than that from waste frying oil. The exceptions are for
the hypothesis of equality for any of them. The blends with lowest CO2 biodiesel from methyl and ethyl routes, which are burned with a 49 kW
emissions are B20FE, B20PM and B50SM, but due to the variations it engine load.
is not possible to state that they are indeed lower. Table 11, in turn, shows the comparison of CO2 emissions between
For the 49 kW load level, eleven blends present lower CO2 emis- biodiesel from palm oil and waste frying oil. There are fewer cases of
sions than the B4 reference blend, B20SE being the only exception. rejection of the hypothesis of equality for biodiesel blends made from
However, Tukey's test discards the hypothesis of equality for eight the methyl route. Biodiesel from palm oil shows higher concentrations
blends: B20FE, B20FM, B20PM, B20SM, B50PE, B50FM, B50SE and for a blend with 50% biodiesel made by the methyl route and with
B50SM. The blend with the lowest mean was B50SE, which is 33 kW engine load and the reductions of CO2 emissions are found for
composed of 50% soybean biodiesel produced through the ethyl route. combinations of 20% biodiesel made by the methyl route with engine
For the 65 kW load level, all blends present lower CO2 emission loads of 18 and 33 kW. For the ethyl route, all the combinations show
means than the reference blend. However, it is not possible to reject the results rejecting the hypothesis of equality and show an increase of
hypothesis of equality for seven blends: B20FE, B20FM, B20PM, emissions.
B20SM, B50FE, B50PM and B50SE. The B20FM and B20PM blends Table 12 shows another comparison between the CO2 emissions of
present the lowest emissions. the biodiesel-diesel blends from the methyl and ethyl routes. The table
For more thorough analysis, we perform a comparison between reports three cases where the hypothesis of equality could not be
pairs for the CO2 emissions from the combustion of the biodiesel rejected between the blends. The increase of CO2 emissions from fuel
blends. Tables 9, 10 present a comparison between biodiesel from made through the methyl route in comparison to the ethyl route is
soybean oil, which is the most popular in Brazil, in relation to biodiesel observed for seven situations and a decrease on fourteen cases.
from palm oil and waste frying oil, respectively. It can be seen that for Finally, Table 13 shows the blends with the lowest CO2 emission
the major combinations, biodiesel from soybean oil is different from values for each load level. The blend show no pattern for different load
that made from palm oil. The increase or decrease of CO2 emissions levels.
depends of the type of route and engine load used in the experiments, We observed that in general higher loads applied to the engine lead
as presented in Table 9. to lower CO2 emission values in comparison to the B4 blend. For each
On the other hand, Table 10 shows a higher number of the results feedstock used in biodiesel production, we observed different behavior.
For biodiesel from waste frying oil or palm oil, the lowest CO2
Table 9 emissions are found for lower biodiesel percentages in the blend
Comparison between biodiesel from soybean oil and palm. (B20) and for biodiesel produced through the methyl route. With
regards to soybean oil biodiesel, the lowest CO2 emissions are observed
Route % biodiesel in the blend 18 kW 33 kW 49 kW 65 kW for higher biodiesel concentrations and for biodiesel produced through
M 20 NR ↑ NR ↑ the methyl route.
50 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ On that account, the comparison of these results with those in the
bibliographical review shows a different pattern in general, without
E 20 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ considering the engine load and the concentration of biodiesel in the
50 NR ↓ ↓ ↓
blend. In all the reference articles, for biodiesel made either by the
Note: M: Methyl; E: Ethyl; NR: Non- reject the hypothesis of equality. methyl or ethyl route, the tendency is for higher CO2 emissions when
compared to petroleum diesel. When this parameter is evaluated for
Table 10 biodiesel from palm oil, 11% of the selected studies showed higher
Comparison between biodiesel from soybean oil and waste frying oil. emissions than for diesel, 33% reported higher emissions for soybean
oil biodiesel and 30% reported the same for waste frying oil biodiesel.
Route % biodiesel in the blend 18 kW 33 kW 49 kW 65 kW However, considering the specific characteristics of the present
M 20 NR NR NR ↑ paper, the conclusions are very similar to those presented by Valente
50 NR NR ↓ ↑ et al. [9] and Valente et al. [18]. The first states that for soybean oil
biodiesel, CO2 emission decreases with higher loads, as also stated in
E 20 NR ↑ ↑ ↑ the second, which evaluated the performance of waste frying oil
50 ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑
biodiesel. Also, in the case of waste frying oil, Valente et al. [18] and
Note: M: Methyl; E: Ethyl; NR: Non- reject the hypothesis of equality. Lin et al. [10] found that higher percentages, which are used in diesel-
biodiesel blends, lead to increase in CO2 emissions, which were

15
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 11 2013;21:633–58.
Comparison between biodiesel from waste frying oil and palm oil. [5] Xue J. Combustion characteristics, engine performances and emissions of waste
edible oil biodiesel in diesel engine. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:350–65.
[6] Muralidharan K, Vasudevan D, Sheeba KN. Performance, emission and combustion
Route % biodiesel in the blend 18 kW 33 kW 49 kW 65 kW
characteristics of biodiesel fuelled variable compression ratio engine. Energy
2011;36:5385–93, [2011].
M 20 ↓ ↓ NR NR
[7] Cheng CH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Lee SC, Yao CD, Tsang KS. Comparison of
50 NR ↑ NR NR emissions of a direct injection diesel engine operating on biodiesel with emulsified
and fumigated methanol. Fuel 2008;87:1870–9.
E 20 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ [8] Pereira RG, Oliveira CD, Oliveira JL, Oliveira PCP, Fellows CE, Piamba OE. Exhaust
50 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ emissions and electric energy generation in a stationary engine using blends of
diesel and soybean biodiesel. Renew Energy 2007;32:2453–60.
Note: M: Methyl; E: Ethyl; NR: Non- reject the hypothesis of equality. [9] Valente OS, Silva MJ, Pasa VMD, Belchior CRP, Sodré JR. Fuel consumption and
emissions from a diesel power generator fuelled with castor oil and soybean
biodiesel. Fuel 2010;89:3637–42.
Table 12 [10] Lin Y, Wu YG, Chang C. Combustion characteristics of waste-oil produced
Resume of the comparison between biodiesel from methyl and ethyl route. biodiesel/diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2007;86:1772–80.
[11] Betha R, Pavagadhi S, Sethu S, Hande MP, Balasubramanian R. Comparative in
18 kW 33 kW 49 kW 65 kW vitro cytotoxicity assessment of airborne particulate matter emitted from stationary
engine fuelled with diesel and waste cooking oil-derived biodiesel. Atmos Environ
F 20 ↑ ↑ NR ↓ 2012;61:23–9.
50 ↑ NR ↓ ↑ [12] Ghorbani A, Bazooyar B, Shariati A, Jokar SM, Ajami H, Naderi A. A comparative
study of combustion performance and emission of biodiesel blends and diesel in an
P 20 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ experimental boiler. Appl Energy 2011;88:4725–32.
50 NR ↓ ↓ ↓ [13] Altun S. Effect of the degree of unsaturation of biodiesel fuels on the exhaust
emissions of a diesel power generator. Fuel 2014;177:450–7.
[14] Ozener O, Yuksek L, Ergenc AT, Ozkan M. Effects of soybean biodiesel on a DI
S 20 ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓
diesel engine performance, emission and combustion characteristics. Fuel
50 ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ 2014;115:875–83.
[15] Tsai JH, Chen SJ, Huang KL, Lin WY, Lee WJ, Lin CC, Hsieh LT, Chiu JY, Kuo WC.
NR: Non- reject the hypothesis of equality; F: Waste frying oil; P: Palm oil; S: Soybean Emissions from a generator fueled by blends of diesel, biodiesel, acetone, and
oil. isopropyl alcohol: analyses of emitted PM, particulate carbon, and PAHs [466–46].
Sci Total Environ 2014;195–202.
[16] Guarieiro LLN, Souza AF, Torres EA, Andrade JB. Emission profile of 18 carbonyl
Table 13 compounds, CO, CO2, and NOx emitted by a diesel engine fuelled with diesel and
Best blend option for each load level. ternary blends containing diesel, ethanol and biodiesel or vegetable oils. Atmos
Environ 2009;43:2754–61.
Load level 18 kW 33 kW 49 kW 65 kW [17] Betha R, Balasubramanian R. Emissions of particulate-bound elements from
stationary diesel engine: characterization and risk assessment. Atmos Environ
Blends B20FE, B20FE, B20PM and B50SE B20FM and 2011;45:5273–81.
B20PM B50SM B20PM [18] Valente OS, Pasa VMD, Belchior CRP, Sodré JR. Exhaust emissions from a diesel
power generator fuelled by waste cooking oil biodiesel. Sci Total Environ
2012;431:57–61.
[19] Gopal KN, Pal A, Sharma S, Samanchi C, Sathyanarayanan K, Elango T.
Investigation of emissions and combustion characteristics of a CI engine fueled
observed in this study as well. with waste cooking oil methyl ester and diesel blends. Alex Eng J 2014.
Therefore, this paper provides an original approach by calculating [20] Lertsathapornsuk V, Pairintra R, Aryusuk K, Krisnangkura K. Microwave assisted
in continuous biodiesel production from waste frying palm oil and its performance
CO2 emissions for different biodiesel production routes, feedstocks and in a 100 kW diesel generator. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89:1330–6.
engine loads. Furthermore, this study is very comprehensive by [21] Lin YC, Lee WJ, Hou HC. PAH emissions and energy efficiency of palm-biodiesel
applying a comparison analysis by pairs to find to best blend option blends fueled on diesel generator. Atmos Environ 2006;40:3930–40.
[22] Tsai JH, Chen SJ, Huang KL, Lin YC, Lee WJ, Lin CC, Lin WY. PM, carbon, and
for each load level. PAH emissions from a diesel generator fuelled with soy-biodiesel blends. J Hazard
Mater 2010;179:237–43.
6. Conclusion [23] He C, Ge Y, Tan J, You K, Han X, Wang J. Characteristics of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons emissions of diesel engine fueled with biodiesel and diesel. Fuel
2010;89:2040–6.
The experiment allowed analysis of the variations in CO2 emissions [24] Kwanchareon P, Luengnaruemitchai A, Jai-In S. Solubility of a diesel–biodiesel–
in function of the factors discussed in this article, and results were ethanol blend, its fuel properties, and its emission characteristics from diesel
obtained with a statistical reliability of 95%. engine. Fuel 2007;86:1053–61.
[25] Bertoldo JG, Coimbra JLM, Guidolin AF, Mantovani A, Vale NM. Problems related
The factors chosen have a noticeable influence on CO2 emission to the use of average comparison tests in scientific articles. Biothemes Mag
variation. Each load level affected the data behavior. Since feedstock 2008;21(2).
and production route influenced the final emission values, they are [26] Souza AM, Ethur ABM, Lopes LFD, Zanini RR. Introduction to Design of
Experiments. Santa Maria: Federal University of Santa Maria, Center of Natural
important variables to take into account when discussing biodiesel and Exact Sciences, Department of Statistics; 2002.
performance. [27] Saravanan S, Nagarajan G, Lakshmi Narayana Rao G, Sampath S. Theoretical and
As a recommendation, further tests can be made for similar load experimental investigation on effect of injection timing on NOx emission of
biodiesel blend. Energy 2014;66:216–21.
levels or levels close to 33 kW due to the significant data variation [28] Abu-Hamdeh Nidal H, Alnefaie A Khaled. A comparative study of almond and palm
observed for blends with 20% biodiesel. We also recommend testing oils as two bio-diesel fuels for diesel engine in terms of emissions and performance.
blends with more than 50% biodiesel, for the purpose of studying Fuel 2015;150:318–24.
[29] Alptekin E, Canakci M, Ozsezen A, Turkcan A, Sanli H. Using waste animal fat
emission behavior when biodiesel percentage in the blend increases. based biodiesels–bioethanol–diesel fuel blends in a DI diesel engine. Fuel
2015;157:245–54.
References [30] Chauhan B, Kumar N, Cho H. A study on the performance and emission of a diesel
engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends. Energy 2012;37:616–22.
[31] Ramadhas AS, Muraleedharan C, Jayaraj S. Performance and emission evaluation
[1] Basha SA, Gopal KR, Jebaraj S. A review on biodiesel production, combustion, of a diesel engine fueled with methyl esters of rubber seed oil. Renew Energy
emissions and performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1628–34. 2005;30:1789–800.
[2] ANP. Brazilian Statistical Yearbook, 2013a. [see: 〈http://www.anp.gov.br〉], 2013. [32] Nabi M, Rahman M, Akhter S. Biodiesel from cotton seed oil and its effect on
[3] Fattah IMR, Masjuki HH, Liaquat AM, Ramli R, Kalam MA, Riazuddin VN. Impact engine performance and exhaust emissions. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2265–70.
of various biodiesel fuels obtained from edible and non-edible oils on engine [33] Qi D, Chen H, Geng L, Bian Y. Experimental studies on the combustion
exhaust gas and noise emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:552–67. characteristics and performance of a direct injection engine fueled with biodiesel/
[4] Kumar N, Varun , Chauhan SR. Performance and emission characteristics of diesel blends. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:2985–92.
biodiesel from different origins: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [34] Karavalakis G, Alvanou F, Stournas S, Bakeas E. Regulated and unregulated

16
M.d.A. D´Agosto et al.
emissions of a light duty vehicle operated on diesel/palm-based methyl ester blends
over NEDC and a non-legislated driving cycle. Fuel 2009;88:1078–85.
[35] Ng J, Kiat H, Gan S. Characterization of engine-out responses from a light-duty
diesel engine fuelled with palm methyl ester (PME). Appl Energy 2012;90:58–67.
[36] Kalam M, Masjuki H, Jayed M, Liaquat A. Emission and performance character-
istics of an indirect ignition diesel engine fuelled with waste cooking oil. Energy
2011;36:397–402.
[37] Leevijit T, Prateepchaikul G. Comparative performance and emissions of IDI-turbo
automobile diesel engine operated using degummed, deacidified mixed crude palm
oil–diesel blends. Fuel 2011;90:1487–91.
[38] Usta N. An experimental study on performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel
engine fuelled with tobacco seed oil methyl ester. Energy Convers Manag 2005;v.
46:2373–86.
[39] Godiganur S, Murthy C, Reddy R. 6BTA 5.9 G2-1 Cummins engine performance
and emission tests using methyl ester mahua (Madhuca indica) oil/diesel blends.
Renew Energy 2009;34:2172–7.
[40] Lahane S, Subramanian K. Effect of different percentages of biodiesel–diesel blends
on injection, spray, combustion, performance, and emission characteristics of a
diesel engine. Fuel 2015;139:537–45.
[41] Puhan S, Vedaraman N, Sankaranarayanan G, Ram B. Performance and emission
study of Mahua oil (madhuca indica oil) ethyl ester in a 4-stroke natural aspirated
direct injection diesel engine. Renew Energy 2005;30:1269–78.
[42] Puhan S, Vedaraman N, Rama B, Sankarnarayanan G, Jeychandran K. Mahua oil
(Madhuca indica seed oil) methyl ester as biodiesel-preparation and emission
characterstics. Biomass- Bioenergy 2005;28:87–93.
[43] Armas O, Yehliu K, Boehman A. Effect of alternative fuels on exhaust emissions
during diesel engine operation with matched combustion phasing. Fuel
2010;89:438–56.
[44] Sahoo P, Das L, Babu M, Naik S. Biodiesel development from high acid value
polanga seed oil and performance evaluation in a CI engine. Fuel 2007;86:448–54.
[45] Raheman H, Ghadge S. Performance of compression ignition engine with mahua
(Madhuca indica) biodiesel. Fuel 2007;86:2568–73.
[46] Saravanan S, Nagarajan G, Rao G, Sampath S. Combustion characteristics of a
stationary diesel engine fuelled with a blend of crude rice bran oil methyl ester and
diesel. Energy 2010;35:94–100.
[47] Serrano L, Lopes M, Pires N, Ribeiro I, Cascao P, Tarelho L, Monteiro A, Nielsen O,
Gameiro da Silva M, Borrego C. Evaluation on effects of using low biodiesel blends
in a EURO 5 passenger vehicle equipped with a common-rail diesel engine. Appl
Energy 2015;146:230–8.
[48] Paul G, Datta A, Kumar B. An experimental and numerical investigation of the
performance, combustion and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled
with Jatropha biodiesel. Energy Procedia 2014;54:455–67.
[49] Fattah I, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Mofijur M, Abedin M. Effect of antioxidant on the
performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with palm
biodiesel blends. Energy Convers Manag 2014;79:265–72.
[50] Makareviciene V, Janulis P. Environmental effect of rapeseed oil ethyl ester. Renew
Energy 2003;28:2395–403.
[51] Tan P, Hu Z, Lou D, Li Z. Exhaust emissions from a light-duty diesel engine with
Jatropha biodiesel fuel. Energy 2012;39:356–62.
[52] Nayak S, Pattanaik B. Experimental investigation on performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine fuelled with mahua biodiesel using additive.
Energy Procedia 2014;54:569–79.
[53] Kalligeros S, Zannikos F, Stournas S, Lois E, Anastopoulos G, Teas C,
Sakellaropoulos F. An investigation of using biodiesel/marine diesel blends on the
performance of a stationary diesel engine. Biomass- Bioenergy 2003;24:141–9.
[54] Lee W, Liu Y, Mwangi F, Chen W, Lin S, Fukushima Y, Liao C, Wang L. Assessment
of energy performance and air pollutant emissions in a diesel engine generator
fueled with water-containing ethanol-biodiesel-diesel blend of fuels. Energy
2011;36:5591–9.
[55] Huang J, Wang Y, Qin J, Roskilly A. Comparative study of performance and
emissions of a diesel engine using Chinese pistache and jatropha biodiesel. Fuel
Process Technol 2010;91:1761–7.
[56] AL-Shemmeri T, Oberweis S. Correlation of the NOx emission and exhaust gas
temperature for biodiesel. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:1682–8.
[57] Buyukkay E. Effects of biodiesel on a DI diesel engine performance, emission and
combustion characteristics. Fuel 2010;89:3099–105.
[58] Karabektas M. The effects of turbocharger on the performance and exhaust
emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel. Renew Energy 2009;34:989–93.
[59] Muralidharan K, Vasudevan D, Sheeba K. Performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of biodiesel fuelle variable compression ratio engine. Energy
2011;36:5385–93.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
[60] Shehata M. Emissions, performance and cylinder pressure of diesel engine fuelled
by biodiesel fuel. Fuel 2013;112:513–22.
[61] Xue J. Combustion characteristics, engine performances and emissions of waste
edible oil biodiesel in diesel engine. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;2:350–65.
[62] Agarwal D, Sinha S, Agarwal A. Experimental investigation of control of NOx
emissions in biodiesel-fueled compression ignition engine. Renew Energy
2006;31:2356–69.
[63] Singh G, Singh A, Agarwal A. Experimental investigations of combustion, perfor-
mance and emission characterization of biodiesel fuelled HCCI engine using
external mixture formation technique. Sustain Energy Technol Assess
2014;6:116–28.
[64] Murtonen T, Nylund N. Fuel Effects on Emissions from Non-Road Engines. Partial
Report for Public Use. IEA-AMF; 2003.
[65] Shahabuddin M, Liaquat A, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Mofijur M. Ignition delay,
combustion and emission characteristics of diesel engine fueled with biodiesel.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:623–32.
[66] Atabani A, Silitonga A, Ong H, Mahlia T, Masjuki H, Badruddin I, Fayaz H. Non-
edible vegetable oils: a critical evaluation of oil extraction, fatty acid compositions,
biodiesel production, characteristics, engine performance and emissions produc-
tion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:211–45.
[67] Mohan B, Yang W, Raman V, Sivasankaralingam V, Chou S. Optimization of
biodiesel fueled engine to meet emission standards through varying nozzle opening
pressure and static injection timing [Article in press]. Appl Energy 2014, [Article in
press].
[68] Abuhabaya A, Fieldhouse J, Brown D. The optimization of biodiesel production by
using response surface methodology and its effect on compression ignition engine.
Fuel Process Technol 2013;113:57–62.
[69] Sadiktsis I, Koegler J, Benham T, Bergvall C, Westerholm R. Particulate associated
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exhaust emissions from a portable power gen-
erator fueled with three different fuels – A comparison between petroleum diesel
and two biodiesels. Fuel 2014;115:573–80.
[70] Chung1 A, Lall A, Paulson S. Particulate emissions by a small non-road diesel
engine: biodiesel and diesel characterization and mass measurements using the
extended idealized aggregates theory. Atmos Environ 2008;42:2129–40.
[71] Yilmar N. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fuelled with
biodiesel–ethanol and biodiesel–methanol blends at elevated air temperatures.
Fuel 2012;94:440–3.
[72] Behçet R. Performance and emission study of waste anchovy fish biodiesel in a
diesel engine. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92:1187–94.
[73] Koc A, Abdullah M. Performance and NOx emissions of a diesel engine fueled with
biodiesel-diesel-water nano emulsions. Fuel Process Technol 2013;109:70–7.
[74] Swaminathan C, Sarangan J. Performance and exhaust emission characteristics of a
CI engine fueled with biodiesel (fish oil) with DEE as additive. Biomass- Bioenergy
2012;39:168–74.
[75] Hulwan D, Joshi S. Performance, emission and combustion characteristic of a
multicylinder DI diesel engine running on diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends of high
ethanol content. Appl Energy 2011;88:5042–55.
[76] Kwanchareon P, Luengnaruemitchai A, Jai-In S. Solubility of a diesel–biodiesel–
ethanol blend, its fuel properties, and its emission characteristics from diesel
engine. Fuel 2007;86:1053–61.
[77] Lin Y, Lin H. Spray characteristics of emulsified castor biodiesel on engine
emissions and deposit formation. Renew Energy 2011;36:3507–16.
[78] Yang Y, Brammer J, Samanya J, Hossain A, Hornung A. Investigation into the
performance and emissions of a stationary diesel engine fuelled by sewage sludge
intermediate pyrolysis oil and biodiesel blends. Energy 2013;62:269–76.
[79] Pereira R, Tulcan O, Fellowsc C, Lameira V, Quelhas O, Elias de Aguiar M, Filho D.
Sustainability and mitigation of greenhouse gases using ethyl beef tallow biodiesel
in energy generation. J Clean Prod 2012;29–30:269–76.
[80] Gumus M, Sayin C, Canakci M. The impact of fuel injection pressure on the exhaust
emissions of a direct injection diesel engine fueled with biodiesel–diesel fuel
blends. Fuel 2012;95:486–94.
[81] Chai M, Lu M, Liang F, Tzillah A, Dendramis N, Watson L. The use of biodiesel
blends on a non-road generator and its impacts o ozone formation potentials based
on carbonyl emissions. Environ Pollut 2013;178:159–65.
[82] Basha SA, Gopal KR, Jebaraj S. A review on biodiesel production, combustion,
emissions and performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1628–34.
[83] Enweremadu CC, Rutto HL. Combustion, emission and engine performance
characteristics of used cooking oil biodiesel - A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:2863–73.
[84] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Rodriguez-Fernandez J. Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel
engine emissions. Prog Energy Combust 2008;34:198–223.