Fuel 209 (2017) 232–237

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Potential of oxymethylenether-diesel blends for ultra-low emission engines MARK

⁎
Ahmad Omari , Benedikt Heuser, Stefan Pischinger
Institute for Combustion Engines, RWTH Aachen University, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the race to counteract global warming, fossil fuel dependency and urban air pollution, it is clear that vehicle
Oxymethylenether emissions have to be reduced considerably. A pathway out of today’s limitations in engine technology is syn-
OME thetic fuel. In particular, oxymethylenether (OME) is an attractive candidate due to its soot free combustion. In
Dimethoxymethane this work, OME1 – diesel blends are considered aiming to outline their potential as a near future alternative fuel.
DMM
Various blends ranging from 0% to 80% vol OME1 in diesel fuel were investigated in a single cylinder research
Methylal
engine. Results show that tradeoffs of NOx-soot and NOx-HC/CO are in general retarded with increasing OME1
E-fuels
content in the fuel. With 50% (vol) OME1 in diesel, the NOx-soot tradeoff is completely eliminated up to the
higher end of moderate loads ∼10 bar. Furthermore, with increasing content of OME1 in the blend, exhaust gas
temperatures reduce down to −7% (°K) and indicated thermodynamic efficiency increases up to +2% with
respect to pure diesel. Due to the lower cetane number (CN) of blends containing OME1, the combustion noise
level increase at lower loads compared to diesel combustion. At higher loads, the lower heating value of the
OME1-containing blends results in a reduction of combustion noise. To identify an optimal blending range for
OME1 in diesel, the soot reduction potential is systematically analyzed by a Gaussian process regression analysis
at the higher load points. From the analysis an optimal blend ratio of 35% OME1 in diesel is suggested, being the
best compromise between soot reduction (∼90%) and the deterioration of fuel properties like heating value
(−15%) and cetane number. With a CN of 51, the 35% OME1-diesel blend still complies with the CN lower limit
in the current EN590 Norm. Finally, we conclude that from the combustion and emission point of view, OME1 is
a superior diesel fuel substitutive, in particular when higher blending ratios (20–40%) are considered.

1. Introduction volatility and a low reactivity contribute to soot suppression as well. In

Aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emission, fossil fuel dependency
and mitigation of urban air pollution, upper limits for vehicle emissions
are continuously reduced by the legislation authorities [1]. Upcoming
Real Driving Emission (RDE) legislations are expected to confront en-
gine developers with new challenges mostly leading to complex and
costly exhaust aftertreatment systems [2,3]. Consequently, alternative
fuels tend to become a vital pathway for the future. For diesel engines,
such fuels must not only reduce the carbon footprint, e.g. biofuels, but
also have the potential for drastic soot reduction. Thereby, new flex-
ibilities are created to comply with strict limits for Nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emissions. In this regard, oxygenated fuels are considered very
promising [4–8]. In particular, the synthetic fuel oxymethylenether
(OME1), which was already recognized within the last two decades
[9,10], has recently drawn new attention [4,11–19]. Pure OME1 com-
bustion shows no soot formation at all [20], not only because of the
high amount of oxygen bounded in the molecule (42%), but also due to
the lack of C-C bonds (CH3-O-CH2-O-CH3) [16]. In addition, a high
a recent work of Härtl et al. [4] OME1 was identified to have the highest
soot reduction potential among a broad range of oxygenated fuels.
From the availability point of view, OME1 can be easily synthesized
from methanol [14,21] thus having the potential for near future im-
plementation as a pollution mitigating blending component in diesel
fuel. In a long term view, OME1 might be produced via direct synthesis
routes with recaptured carbon dioxide (CO2) and renewable hydrogen
[22,23], making it a sustainable alternative fuel candidate for the fu-
ture. In a recent work of Schmitz et al. [14] the production costs of
OME1 out of methanol were predicted for a large scale production
scenario. A conservative synthesis route was chosen with methanol and
water as feedstock and formaldehyde as an intermediate step towards
OME1. With this route, 1.33 kg of methanol is needed to synthesize 1 kg
of OME1. The OME1 cost was varied over a wide range of methanol cost
leading to the finding that the feedstock price is the major factor
dominating the OME1 price. In an exemplary case it is shown that a
methanol cost of 300US$/t leads to an OME1 price of 559US$/t, cor-
responding to an increase of 86% [14]. However, when accounting for

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Omari@vka.rwth-aachen.de (A. Omari).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.107
Received 23 May 2017; Received in revised form 24 July 2017; Accepted 26 July 2017
0016-2361/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Omari et al. Fuel 209 (2017) 232–237

the lower heating value of methanol compared to OME1, the cost of Table 1
1 MJ OME1 exceeds the cost of 1 MJ methanol by 60%. Considering an Fuel properties.
exemplary diesel fuel price of 0.5US$/liter at the refinery in compar-
Property unit diesel (B7) OME1-diesel blends OME1
ison with the above mentioned OME1 price, the OME1 cost exceeds
diesel by 70% per energy unit. The latter cost penalty can be further OME1 content vol% 0 20 35 50 80 100
reduced when synthesis routes are optimized for OME1 production. Oxygen w.% 0.8 9.3 15.6 21.8 34.1 42.1
content
Deutz et al. [24] have compared the environmental impact and the
Hydrogen w.% 13.5 12.9 12.4 12.0 11.1 10.5
exergy balance of two OME1 synthesis routes (formaldehyde route vs. content
novel direct route according to [22]) and found that the exergy effi- Carbon w.% 85.8 77.9 72.0 66.2 54.8 47.4
ciency from H2 to OME1 could be improved from 74% to 86%. content
An additional concerning aspect of OME1 is the high vapor pressure. Density kg/L 0.835 0.836 0.840 0.845 0.853 0.859
Lower heating MJ/kg 42.8 38.8 35.9 33 27.2 23.4**
Vertin et al. [9] reported a Reid vapor pressure of ∼1 bar (at 37.8 °C)
value
for pure OME1 in a closed tank. At 71 °C, ∼2.75 bar was measured. The Cetane number – 55 53 51 48 37 24
consequence would be high fugitive emissions when opening the tank Lubricity μm < 460 – – – – 759 [4]
in addition to a flammability hazard. Hence, a sealed fuel tank to (HFRR)
Kinematic mm2/s 2–4 – – – – 0.36 [11]
contain the fuel vapors and a quick-disconnect dispensing nozzle was
viscosity
proposed in their work. To evaluate the flammability hazard of the Flashpoint °C > 55 – −25* – – −32 [25]
trapped fuel vapors in the tank, Vertin et al. [9] measured the upper
and lower temperatures at which a self-propagating flame could be *DIN EN ISO 3679, **DIN 51900–2 mod.
maintained in the tank. For blending rations in the range of 20% to 50%
OME1 in diesel, the flammability region was found to be within −30 °C Table 2
to +6 °C. Above 6 °C, the vapor-air mixture was too rich for flame Specification of single cylinder engine.
propagation.
Feature Value
Nevertheless, OME1 properties are not optimal to be used as a pure
fuel, not only due to its low boiling point which imposes handling and Bore/Stroke 75 mm/88.3 mm
storage issues similar to those of gaseous fuels. The low reactivity and Displacement 0.39liter
lubricity are further shortcomings although they might be overcome Number of valves 4
Compression ratio 15
with proper additives [4]. Finally, the low heating value (20.1 MJ/l)
Maximum boost press. 4 bar (abs)
may put dedicated OME1 vehicles in an unattractive perspective com- Peak firing pressure 220 bar
pared to electric vehicles. Considering the above, the vision followed in Piston bowl geometry ω-shaped reentrant
this work is the partial substitution of OME1 in diesel fuel. Such an
approach provides several benefits over the use of pure OME1 as a fuel.
For example, small amounts (∼5%) of OME1 could be considered al- Table 3
Emission measurement devices.
ready nowadays thereby enhancing it’s the large-scale production and
market introduction. In a future scenario, where the production capa- Emission Device Accuracy
cities of OME1 by re-captured CO2 and renewable hydrogen have in-
creased, higher blend ratios shall be considered. In such a scenario, Soot AVL 415s (Filter paper method) 2%
NOx Chemiluminescence detector* 1%
OME1 availability is still limited, and the question arises whether it
HC, as C3H8 equiv. Flame ionization detector** 1%
would be preferable to use the given amount of OME1 as a pure fuel or CO, CO2 Non dispersive infrared** 1%
as a blend with diesel. It is anticipated by the authors that by utilizing O2 Paramagnetic detector** 1%
the OME1 as a blend, a higher pollutant emission reduction can be
achieved. In other words, running one vehicle on pure OME1 and one *EcoPysics CLD 700 EL **Rosemount – NGA 2000 Series.
on diesel is anticipated to give less pollutant reduction potential than
running two vehicles with a 50:50 OME1-diesel blend. Considering the recirculation (EGR) rate is determined by the CO2 concentration in the
latter, the fundamental question arises: What blend ratio would be the intake plenum. The in-cylinder pressure is measured by a water cooled
optimal one? This question is investigated in this work. In addition, a piezo electric pressure transducer (Kistler 6041A) and logged at a 0.1°
combustion and emission characterization was performed for several crank angle resolution. Subsequently, cylinder pressure traces were
OME1-diesel blends on a single cylinder engine. processed with FEV’s “Combustion Analysis System”. Combustion and
emission characteristics of the OME1-diesel blends were obtained at
2. Methodology predefined screening load points (LP) given in Table 4. The boundary
conditions were determined based on data from the equivalent four
Four OME1-diesel blends in addition to EN590 diesel (B7) as a re- cylinder engine. The center of combustion was set constant for a given
ference were investigated on a single cylinder engine. Furthermore, the load point. Thus, changes in combustion and emission characteristics
cetane number (CN) was measured for various blend ratios with the could be related to the fuel only. Finally, the screening data were
advanced fuel ignition delay analyzer AFIDA 2805. The properties of evaluated by a Gaussian process regression analysis method. Here the
the considered fuels are given in Table 1. Except for CN, blend prop-
erties are calculated according to the mass fractions of OME1 and diesel Table 4
in the blend. Being a solvent, no miscibility issues of OME1 in diesel Engine load points and boundary conditions.
were observed in the complete blending range. Due to the low boiling
Name IMEP Speed MFB50* [°C Boost Rail press.
temperature of OME1, a pressurized fuel tank was used to avoid possible [bar] [min−1] AaTDC] [bar] [bar]
cavitation in the supply fuel pump. Also, the fuel tank was hermetically
sealed to prevent fumigation of OME1 out of the blend. LP1 4.3 1500 6.6 1.07 720
LP2 6.8 1500 5.8 1.5 900
Specifications of the single cylinder engine and emission measure-
LP3 9.4 2280 9.2 2.29 1400
ment system are given in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively. In order to LP4 14.8 2400 10.8 2.6 1800
measure the fuel consumption a Coriolis flow meter is used. For the
intake air flow an ultrasonic gas meter is used. The exhaust gas *MFB50: degree crank angle where 50% of the fuel mass has burned.

233
A. Omari et al. Fuel 209 (2017) 232–237

Fig. 1. Cetane numbers for OME1-diesel blends as dependent on the blending ratio.

soot reduction potential with respect to diesel was modeled as function

of the OME1 content in the blend. In this way, tradeoff plots of soot
reduction versus fuel properties could be generated allowing the iden-
tification of an optimal blending ratio.

3. Results

3.1. Derived cetane numbers

With the advanced fuel ignition delay analyzer (AFIDA 2805) the
derived cetane number for various OME1-diesel blends were measured.
The CN is derived based on the measured ignition delay in a constant
volume combustion chamber and a subsequent correlation to an
equivalent mixture of cetane and 1-methylnaphthalin having a CN of
100 and 0 respectively. As can be seen in Fig. 1, pure OME1 shows a
very low CN of 24. Thus, the addition of OME1 to diesel lowers the CN
of the blend. However, it is remarkable to see that up to a blending ratio
of 35% (vol) OME1, the CN remains above 51, which is the lower limit
of the EN 590 norm for diesel fuel.

3.2. Thermodynamic combustion characteristics

Indicated thermodynamic efficiency and exhaust gas temperatures

are presented in Fig. 2 for the investigated load points at predefined
NOx levels representative for EU6d. A clear reduction in exhaust gas
temperature and increase in efficiency can be seen with increasing
OME1 content in the blend.
In particular at lower loads, the increase in thermodynamic effi-
ciency shows a clear monotonic trend with the OME1 fraction in the
Fig. 2. Indicated thermodynamic efficiency and exhaust gas temperature for LP 1,2,3 and
4 at NOx levels of 0.2, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 g/kWh respectively.
Fig. 3. Cylinder pressure traces for OME1-diesel blends at LP 1, 2, 3 and 4.
blend, reaching a +3% efficiency increase for the 80:20 OME1-diesel
blend. Consequently, exhaust gas temperature reduces by ∼7% (in °K).
For further understanding of this phenomenon, a combustion analysis
was performed. In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 the pressure traces and the burned
mass fraction traces are shown for LP 1, 2, 3 and 4 at NOx levels of 0.2,
0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 g/kWh respectively. For the readers convenience, we
remind that the injection timing was adjusted for each fuel to have the
50% mass fraction burned (MFB50) at the same degree crank angle - see
Table 4. As can be seen in Fig. 3, LP2 clearly shows that with increasing
OME1 content in the blend, peak pressures and pressure in the begin-
ning of the expansion stroke (> 15 °C AaTDC) are increased. With in-
creasing load, the peak pressure is reduce for the blends with higher
OME1 content but the pressure trace at start of expansion remains
higher. This behavior can be understood when considering the burned
mass fraction traces presented in Fig. 4. Here it can be seen that with an
increased OME1 content in the blend, a higher fraction of the fuel’s
energy is released close to top dead center (TDC), i.e. the combustion
process is more of an isochoric nature. Subsequently, less energy is
released within the burn out phase (15 to 40 °C AaTDC) and thus ex-
pansion occurs effectively over a larger expansion ratio. The latter is in
agreement with the observed trend for the indicated efficiency and
exhaust gas temperatures in Fig. 2.
The observed reduction of peak pressure with increasing OME1
content at LP4 can be referred to the almost overlapping location of

234
A. Omari et al. Fuel 209 (2017) 232–237

Fig. 5. Average in-cylinder gas temperature trace at LP 1, 2, 3 and 4 with NOx levels of
0.2, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 g/kWh, resp.

Fig. 4. Burned mass fraction curves for OME1-diesel blends at LP 1, 2, 3 and 4.

peak pressure and MFB50 (for LP4: MFB50 = 10.8 °C AaTDC). Bearing
in mind that with increasing OME1 content the efficiency increases, less
heat is released in total. Hence, at the time of MFB50, less heat is re-
leased and consequently a lower peak pressure occurs.
The shortcoming of a completer combustion close to TDC is a higher
average in-cylinder temperature as can be seen in Fig. 5. This con-
tributes to higher NOx formation. Consequently, slightly increased EGR
Fig. 6. Exhaust gas recirculation rates at LP 1, 2, 3 and 4 with NOx levels of 0.2, 0.2, 0.4
rates are necessary to maintain a certain NOx level. The latter behavior
and 0.6 g/kWh, respectively.
was clearly captured by the measured EGR rates at LP2 3 and 4 as
shown in Fig. 6. In contrast, for LP1 the EGR rates show a strong de-
crease towards the 80:20 OME1-diesel blend. This may be referred to 3.3. Emission characteristics
fact that at low loads the CN dominates the mixture formation. Hence,
the low CN numbers of the 50:50 and 80:20 OME1-diesel blends con- For the investigated load points, EGR variations are shown in terms
tribute to a significantly higher premixed combustion share. Thereby, of tradeoff plots of NOx versus particulate matter (PM), carbon mon-
lower local temperatures occur and thus less EGR is needed to maintain oxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), and combustion sound level
a given NOx level. The high share in premixed combustion at LP1 with (CSL) [26]. All load points are considered in the discussion. However,
the 50:50 and 80:20 OME1–diesel blends is further reflected in the high the figures present only emissions at the “emission-relevant load
carbon monoxide emission as will be shown below. points”, i.e. moderate to high load for PM (LP3 & LP4), moderate loads
for CSL (LP2 & LP3) and low loads for HC and CO emissions (LP1 &
LP2). From Fig. 7, a clear PM reduction can be seen for LP3 and LP4. In
both load points, the 80:20 OME1–diesel blend shows filter smoke

235
A. Omari et al.
Fig. 7. Particulate matter emissions at higher loads for OME1-diesel blends.
number (FSN) values within the detection limit of the AVL415s smoke
meter (0 ≤ FSN ≤ 0.01), even at very low NOx levels. At LP3 and very
low NOx levels, the 50:50 OME1-diesel blend show PM amounts slightly
above the detection limit. For LP4, a typical NOx-soot tradeoff then
becomes visible for the 50:50 OME1-diesel blend as well. The strong PM
reduction is attributed majorly by the high amount of oxygen bounded
in the fuel and the lack of C-C bonds. Furthermore, the high volatility
and low reactivity of OME1 contributes to improved mixture formation
and air utilization, thereby reducing the local equivalence ratios. Also,
the relative reduction of aromatics with increasing OME1 content in the
blend contributes to a further suppression of PM formation.
Fig. 8 shows the HC and CO emissions at low to moderate loads.
Here, different trends are observed. For LP2, HC and CO emissions are
on a comparable level to diesel for the 20:80 and 35:65 OME1-diesel
blends. Then, for higher blending ratios, HC and CO emissions are
continually reduced. This behavior is very surprising considering the
Fig. 8. HC and CO emissions at lower loads for OME1-diesel blends.
236
Fuel 209 (2017) 232–237
Fig. 9. Combustion sound level (CSL) at moderate loads.
decreasing CN with higher OME1 content in the blend and that the
OME1 molecule is in fact a CO-chain. For LP1, HC emissions are con-
tinuously reduced with increasing blending ratio similar to LP2. In
contrast, CO emissions are slightly reduced only for the 20:80 OME1-
diesel blend, but then increase with higher OME1 blending ratios. This
might be referred to the fact that at very low loads the low cetane
numbers becomes more dominant in increasing the share of premixed
combustion, thereby increasing CO emissions. The behavior of LP3 and
LP4 at the EU6d relevant NOx level is similar to LP2, i.e. the HC and CO
emissions reduce with increasing content of OME1 in the blend. That is
in agreement with the observed completer combustion close to TDC
shown in Fig. 4. Härtel et al. have found similar results for pure OME1
[4].
Combustion sound levels are presented in Fig. 9 for LP2 and LP3. At
lower loads, CSL is majorly controlled by the cetane number of the fuel.
Thus, it can be seen in Fig. 9 that for LP2, CSL continually increases
with increasing OME1 content in the blend.
In contrast to low loads, at higher loads the heating value of the fuel
becomes more dominant in determining the combustion sound level. In
fact, with a lower volumetric heating value, longer injection durations
occur leading to a reduced energy supply rate to the cylinder and thus
to a lower heat release rate during combustion. That is captured at LP3,
where the CSL values decrease as the OME1 content in the blend in-
creases, with the exception of the 80:20 OME1-diesel blend. For the
latter, the cetane number is at such a low level (CN = 37) that CSL
remains higher than diesel. LP4 (not shown in the figure above) shows a
similar behavior to LP3.
3.4. Optimal blending ratio for OME1-diesel blends
For the identification of an optimal blending ratio, the soot reduc-
tion potential is considered with respect to the deterioration of im-
portant fuel properties. Because LP1 and LP2 produce no considerable
amounts of soot, only LP3 and LP4 were used here for the Gaussian
process regression analysis. Fig. 10 shows the particulate matter re-
duction for LP3 and LP4 as well as the cetane number as function of
heating value, oxygen content and OME1 content. As can be seen, the
major PM reduction occurs up to blending ratios of 40% OME1 in diesel.
Beyond 40%, the heating value and CN are deteriorated without a
worth improvement in PM reduction. Also, it is interesting to see that
the major part of PM reduction is achieved for blends having CN > 50.
Considering the results above and the fact that an acceptable lower
heating value should be > 30 MJ/l, a 35% (vol) OME1 in diesel was
identified as an optimal blending ratio. For that blending ratio, a soot
reduction of ∼90% is achieved with only 10% and 15% deterioration in
CN and heating value respectively.
A. Omari et al.
Fig. 10. Modeled PM reduction as function of OME1 content in the blend at LP3 and LP4.
4. Summary and conclusions
Four OME1-diesel blends and diesel as a reference were investigated
in a single cylinder research engine. Thermodynamic combustion ana-
lysis showed that with increasing OME1 content in the blend, a com-
pleter combustion was achieved closer to TDC. The latter resulted in a
higher thermodynamic efficiency, lower exhaust gas temperatures and
in general lower HC and CO emissions. Combustion sound level (CSL)
did not show a consistent trend for all load points. CSL increased with
higher OME1 content in the blend at the lower load points (LP1 & LP2).
Here, the lower cetane number of the OME1 containing blends dom-
inates the mixture formation resulting in a higher share of premixed
combustion. Hence higher CSL are observed with respect to diesel. For
higher loads, the lower heating value of the OME1-diesel blends be-
comes more dominant in reducing combustion sound level. Here the
longer injection duration contributes to a reduction in heat release rate.
The latter is with exception of the 80:20 OME1-diesle blend due to the
very low cetane number of 37 which resulted in a higher CSL even at
higher loads.
A strong reduction of PM emissions was observed with increasing
OME1 content in the blend. The major reason for the PM reduction is
the increasing oxygen content in the fuel with increasing OME1 content
in the blend. Furthermore, the lack of C-C bonds in OME1, the reduced
aromatic content in the blend, the higher volatility and the lower re-
activity with increasing OME1 content are contributing to the PM re-
duction as well. However, despite of the very low PM levels achievable
with OME1 diesel blends, it is clear that vehicles fueled with such
blends will still be equipped with a diesel particulate filter (DPF)
system. Therefore, the main advantage of the low PM emissions is the
possibility for a significant NOx reduction by increasing EGR rates,
while still having low PM levels ensuring extended active regeneration
intervals.
Finally, the soot reduction potential was modeled by a Gaussian
process regression analysis as function of OME1 content in the blend.
From the model an optimal blending ratio of 35% (vol) OME1 in diesel
237
Fuel 209 (2017) 232–237
was identified to give the best compromise between PM reduction and
deterioration of fuel properties. Also, it was found that the percentage
in PM reduction exceeds by far the percentage of OME1 in the blend.
Hence, the author’s anticipation regarding whether by blending more
emission reduction can be achieved compared to the use of OME1 as a
pure fuel, was justified.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to this contribution was funded by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant
number 03SFK2A (Kopernikus “Power-to-X). The responsibility for the
content lies with the authors.
References
[1] European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 459/2012 of 29 May 2012.
Official Journal of the European Union, 2012.
[2] Blanco-Rodriguez D, Vagnoni G, Holderbaum B. EU6C-Segment diesel vehicles, a chal-
lenging segment to meet RDE and WLTP requirements. In: IFAC symposium “Advances in
Automotive Control” Norköping Schweden, 2016.
[3] Timothy VJ. Review of vehicular emission trands. SAE Int J Eng 2015. 2015-01-0993.
[4] Härtl M, Seidenspinner P, Jacob E, Wachtmeister G. Oxygenate screening on a heavy-duty
diesel engine and emission characteristics of highly oxygenated oxymethylene ether fuel.
Fuel 2015;153:328–35.
[5] Kozak M, Merkisz J, Bielaczyc P, Szczotka A. The Influence of Oxygenated Diesel Fuels on
a Diesel Vehicle PM/NOx Emission Trade-Off. SAE Technical Paper 2009(2009–01-2696).
[6] Cheng AS, Dibble RW, Buchholz BA. The Effect of oxygenates on diesel engine particulate
matter//The effect of oxygenates on diesel engine particulate matter. SAE Technical
Paper (2002–01-1705).
[7] Janssen A, Muether M, Pischinger S, Kolbeck A, Lamping M. Tailor-Made Fuels: The
potential of oxygen content in fuels for advanced diesel combustion systems//Tailor-
made fuels: the potential of oxygen content in fuels for advanced diesel combustion
systems. SAE Technical Paper (2009–01-2765).
[8] Ren Y, Huang Z, Miao H, Di Y, Jiang D, Zeng K, et al. Combustion and emissions of a DI
diesel engine fuelled with diesel-oxygenate blends. Fuel 2008;87(12):2691–7.
[9] Vertin KD, Ohi JM, Naegeli DW, Childress KH, Hagen GP, McCarthy CI et al. Methylal and
methylal-diesel blended fuels for use in compression-ignition engines. SAE Technical
Paper 1999(1999–01-1508).
[10] Kocis D, Song K, Lee H, Litzinger T. Effects of dimethoxymethane and dimethylcarbonate
on soot production in an optically-accessible DI diesel engine. SAE Technical Paper
2000;2000(2000–01-2795).
[11] Lautenschütz L, Oestreich D, Seidenspinner P, Arnold U, Dinjus E, Sauer J. Physico-
chemical properties and fuel characteristics of oxymethylene dialkyl ethers. Fuel
2016;173:129–37.
[12] Zhu R, Wang X, Miao H, Yang X, Huang Z. Effect of dimethoxy-methane and exhaust gas
recirculation on combustion and emission characteristics of a direct injection diesel en-
gine. Fuel 2011;90(5):1731–7.
[13] Burger J, Siegert M, Ströfer E, Hasse H. Poly(oxymethylene) dimethyl ethers as compo-
nents of tailored diesel fuel: properties, synthesis and purification concepts. Fuel
2010;89(11):3315–9.
[14] Schmitz N, Burger J, Ströfer E, Hasse H. From methanol to the oxygenated diesel fuel poly
(oxymethylene) dimethyl ether: an assessment of the production costs. Fuel
2016;185:67–72.
[15] Kopernikus-Projekte. https://www.kopernikus-projekte.de/projekte/power-to-x [ac-
cessed 05.05.17].
[16] Feiling A, Münz M, Beidl C. Potential of the synthetic fuel OME1b for the soot-free diesel
engine. MTZ 2016;02.2016.
[17] Jacob E, Maus W. Oxymethylenether als potenziell CO2-neutraler Kraftstoff für saubere
Dieselmotoren Teil 2: Erfüllung des Nachhaltigkeitsanspruchs. MTZ 2017;78. 03.
[18] Härtl M, Gaukel K, Pélerin D, Wachtmeister G. Oxymethylenether als potenziell CO2-
neutraler Kraftstoff für saubere Dieselmotoren Teil 1: Motorenuntersuchungen. MTZ
2017;78. 02.
[19] Härtl M, Seidenspringer P, Wachtmeister G, Jakob E. Synthetic diesel fuel ome1 a
pathway out of the soot-nox trade-off. MTZ 2014;2014(75):07–8.
[20] Svensson KI, Richards MJ, Mackrory AJ, Tree DR. Fuel composition and molecular
structure effects on soot formation in direct-injection flames under diesel engine condi-
tions. SAE Technical Paper 2005; 2005(2005–01-0381).
[21] Weidert J-O, Burger J, Renner M, Blagov S, Hasse H. Development of an integrated re-
action-distillation process for the production of methylal. Ind Eng Chem Res
2017;56(2):575–82.
[22] Thenert K, Beydoun K, Wiesenthal J, Leitner W, Klankermayer J. Ruthenium-catalyzed
synthesis of dialkoxymethane ethers utilizing carbon dioxide and molecular hydrogen.
Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2016;55(40):12266–9.
[23] Zhang Q, Zhao H, Lu B, Zhao J, Cai Q. A novel strategy for conversion of methanol and
CO2 into dimethoxymethane in a basic ionic liquid. J Mol Catal A: Chem
2016;421:117–21.
[24] Deutz S, Bongartz D, Heuser B, Kätelhön A, Omari A, Schulze Langenhorst L et al. Cleaner
production of cleaner fuels: wind-to-wheel – environmental assessment of CO2-based
oxymethylene ether as drop-in fuel: (submitted - in review process). Energy Environ Sci.
[25] Lide DR. CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. Taylor & Francis; 93rd ed.
[26] Alt N, Nehl A, Heuer S, Combustion sound prediction within combustion system devel-
opment. SIA “Vehicle Comfort”, 2004.