Fuel 89 (2010) 3833–3839

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Optimization of supercritical dimethyl carbonate (SCDMC) technology

for the production of biodiesel and value-added glycerol carbonate
Kok Tat Tan *, Keat Teong Lee, Abdul Rahman Mohamed
School of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, Seri Ampangan, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, biodiesel has been successfully produced from triglycerides and dimethyl carbonate,
Received 1 April 2010 instead of the conventional alcohol. In this non-catalytic supercritical dimethyl carbonate (SCDMC) tech-
Received in revised form 9 July 2010 nology, valuable compound of glycerol carbonate is obtained as side product, rather than the undesirable
Accepted 9 July 2010
glycerol. Glycerol carbonate has higher commercial value compared to glycerol and its application in
Available online 23 July 2010
industries is enormous. In this optimization study, the effects of important parameters including reaction
temperature, molar ratio of dimethyl carbonate to oil and reaction time were investigated and optimized
Keywords:
by employing response surface methodology (RSM) analysis. It was found that the mathematical model
Biodiesel
Optimization
developed was statistically significant and adequate to predict the optimum yield. The optimum condi-
Response surface methodology tions for SCDMC process was found to be 380 °C for reaction temperature, 39:1 mol/mol of dimethyl car-
Dimethyl carbonate bonate to oil molar ratio and 30 min of reaction time to obtain 91% optimum yield of biodiesel.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction glycerol is produced as side product in this reaction and the

The demand for renewable energy has been escalating in the
past few years due to increased awareness regarding global warm-
ing and energy security. With heavy reliance on fossil fuels as en-
ergy sources and amid concern that these exhaustible fuels emit
enormous amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) and will be depleted
in the near future, the quest to produce an environment-friendly
and sustainable source of renewable energy has been the top agen-
da for all countries throughout the world [1]. At present, biofuels
such as biodiesel and bioethanol are the most promising renewable
energy with high potential to replace petroleum-derived diesel and
gasoline, respectively, owing to similarity in physico-chemical
properties between them [1,2]. In addition, biodiesel is also supe-
rior to diesel in terms of GHG emission and biodegradability which
is attributed to biodiesel being a carbon ‘neutral’ fuel [3].
At present, alkaline-based homogeneous catalysis process is the
most common technology used in the industry to produce fatty
acid methyl esters (FAME) or biodiesel from refined vegetable oils
and methanol [4]. Although this process is relatively simple, the
presence of catalysts such as sodium hydroxide makes the process
substantially sensitive to the presence of water and free fatty acids
which are usually found in oils/fats [5]. Thus, high quality and
refined oil must be used in this process to avoid side reaction be-
tween catalyst and the impurities which leads to higher processing
cost and complicated purification procedures [6,7]. In addition,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 4 5996467; fax: +60 4 5941013.
E-mail address: koktat@hotmail.com (K.T. Tan).
increasing production of biodiesel worldwide has lead to oversup-
ply of glycerol in the market [8]. Consequently, the price of glycerol
has plummeted significantly and subsequently generates lower
side income for biodiesel producer [9]. Hence, the total
production costs of biodiesel at present are uneconomical and
unattractive compared to petroleum-derived diesel, leading
researchers to find alternative methods to revalorize glycerol into
value-added commodities [10].
For instance, there are several reported studies on revalorizing
glycerol into higher value derivatives such as glycerol carbonate
(GC) which is a versatile compound with enormous applications.
It is useful in producing polymers such as polyesters, polyure-
thanes and polyamides which have higher market value than glyc-
erol [11]. Apart from that, GC is also a valuable compound for the
production of glycidol which is widely utilized in pharmaceutical,
cosmetics and plastics production [12]. Besides, GC is a potential
renewable substitute for petroleum-based chemicals such as ethyl-
ene carbonate or propylene carbonate which are novel components
for carbon dioxide separation membrane [13]. Currently, there are
several different routes to produce GC from glycerol and com-
monly used methods include phosgenation reaction, direct carbox-
ylation with carbon dioxide and transesterification with dimethyl
carbonate [11,14,15]. However, phosgene is a toxic compound
while carboxylation reaction suffers from low yield of GC [14,16].
Hence, dimethyl carbonate has been receiving extensive attention
since it can be produced from syngas, a mixture of gases obtained
via gasification of biomass. Consequently, numerous studies on
producing GC from dimethyl carbonate and glycerol have been

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.07.010
3834 K.T. Tan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 3833–3839

reported in the literature. For instance, Kim and co-workers have od will be employed to obtain the optimum yield of SCDMC
successfully produced GC from glycerol and dimethyl carbonate reaction.
with immobilized lipase from Candida antarctica (Novozym 435)
which could achieve 100% conversion [13]. Although immobilized 2. Methods
enzyme could possibly enhance the lifespan of catalyst, the long
reaction time needed in the process (30 h) is the main limitation 2.1. Materials
of this method. On the other hand, Ochoa-Gómez and co-workers
reported an optimization study to produce GC by using heteroge- Purified palm oil was purchased from Yee Lee Edible Oils Sdn.
neous catalyst calcium oxide (CaO) which could achieve 100% con- Bhd., Malaysia. Dimethyl carbonate (99%) was used as the solvent
version and yield of 95% in just 90 min of reaction time [11]. (Tc = 275 °C, Pc = 4.63 MPa) and obtained from Merck Sdn Bhd
However, the catalyst was found to suffer from adverse deactiva- (Malaysia). Methyl heptadecanoate was used as internal standard
tion when it is subjected to repeated reactions due to exposure and standard references for FAME analysis which include methyl
to air and degraded surface area. myristate, methyl palmitate, methyl stearate, methyl oleate,
With these numerous weaknesses surrounding GC production, methyl linoleate were obtained from Fluka Chemie.
an innovative process needs to be proposed which could over-
come these limitations. Consequently, Fabbri et al. [17] carried
2.2. SCDMC transesterification
out a novel attempt by utilizing soybean oil and dimethyl carbon-
ate to produce biodiesel and GC simultaneously. In this process,
SCDMC transesterification reaction was carried out by using a
dimethyl carbonate is utilized as methylating agent instead of
batch-type tube reactor (12 mL) made of Stainless Steel Super
methanol and GC is obtained as side product rather than the low-
DuplexÒ which can sustain high temperature and pressure needed
er-valued glycerol. This process is beneficial because GC and bio-
in supercritical treatment as reported by Tan and co-workers [5].
diesel can be produced concurrently in a simple one-step
SCDMC reaction proceeds by reacting dimethyl carbonate with tri-
reaction, instead of the conventional two-step reactions involving
glycerides (oil) to produce FAME and GC as reported by Ilham and
transesterification with methanol and subsequently glycerol
Saka [12]. Initially, dimethyl carbonate and oil were charged into
revalorization with dimethyl carbonate. In their works, Fabbri
the tube reactor without any prior mixing and subsequently
and co-workers successfully produced biodiesel and GC by using
immersed in a furnace heated at pre-determined temperature. A
homogeneous catalyst of sodium methoxide. In addition, the
thermocouple and a pressure gauge were employed to monitor
properties of biodiesel produced were found to be comparable
the reaction temperature and pressure, respectively. The working
with those produced from conventional methanol-based reaction
temperature and pressure employed in this study ranged from
but suffers from long reaction time (5 h) and the presence of cat-
320–400 °C and 15–25 MPa, respectively. After a fixed reaction
alyst necessitates tedious separation and purification procedures.
period, the reaction tube will be transferred into the water bath
Consequently, Ilham and Saka [12] conducted a non-catalytic
to quench the reaction immediately. Then, the products mixture
supercritical dimethyl carbonate (SCDMC) process to produce bio-
will be allowed to settle and subjected to evaporation at 90 °C
diesel and GC by applying single-factor experimental design. In
for 15 min by using rotary evaporator to recover excessive di-
their results, it was reported that SCDMC process can decrease
methyl carbonate. Subsequently, the remaining solution will be al-
the reaction time substantially and only simple separation steps
lowed to settle in a decanter where two layers of solution will be
are required due to the absence of catalyst. Hence, SCDMC pro-
formed which consists of biodiesel (upper portion) as well as GC
cess has been proven to be a promising route to produce biodiesel
and unreacted oil (lower portion). Hence, pure biodiesel solution
and GC which could overcome the issues of glycerol glut and
can be obtained and in order to separate GC from unconverted
uneconomical production costs of biodiesel.
oil, the lower portion was subjected to evaporation at 140 °C for
However, to the best of our knowledge there is still no optimi-
15 min to recover the valuable GC.
zation study of SCDMC process reported in the literature. Optimi-
zation study such as response surface methodology (RSM)
2.3. Product analysis
analysis is crucial to allow researchers to understand the process
comprehensively by taking into account interactions between
The analysis of FAME content in sample was carried out by
experimental variables rather than the conventional single-factor
using gas chromatography (PerkinElmer, Clarus 500) with Nukol™
experimental design. Furthermore, detailed knowledge and under-
capillary column (15 m (length)  0.53 mm (column ID)  0.5 lm
standing of the process is vital for scale-up and commercialization
(film thickness)) and Flame Ionization Detector (FID) as the detec-
purposes in the future. For instance, information obtained from
tor. Detailed analytical procedures have been reported previously
RSM analysis is important to optimize the yield of biodiesel in
[5] and the yield of FAME was calculated by the following Eq. (1).
SCDMC reaction. In addition, the number of experiments required
in RSM to develop statistically-validated results is reduced sub- Total weight of methyl esters
stantially compared to single-factor design [18]. Previously, our re- Yield of FAME; % ¼  100%
Total weight of oil in the sample
search team has successfully employed RSM analysis in optimizing ð1Þ
biodiesel production from supercritical methyl acetate technology
and the knowledge acquired from the analysis has been proven
useful [19]. Consequently, in this study optimization of SCDMC 2.4. Design of experiments
process by utilizing RSM analysis will be carried out with three
independent variables including reaction temperature (A), di- In this study, RCCD was employed to design and determine the
methyl carbonate/oil molar ratio (B) and reaction time (C). These experiments for SCDMC reactions. Generally, transesterification
variables will be studied in a rotatable central composite design reaction involved 4 important variables which include reaction
(RCCD) to investigate their effects on the yield of biodiesel (re- temperature, molar ratio of solvent to oil, reaction time and cata-
sponse) and subsequently an empirical mathematical model will lyst loading. However, as SDCMC process is a non-catalytic reac-
be developed and thoroughly discussed. Furthermore, effects of tion, only three independent parameters will be investigated in
individual parameters and their interactions on the yield of biodie- this study, comprising of reaction temperature (A), dimethyl car-
sel will be examined as well. Finally, numerical optimization meth- bonate/oil molar ratio (B) and reaction time (C). Table 1 summa-
 K.T. Tan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 3833–3839 3835

Table 1 is the quadratic coefficient for the variable i and bij is the linear
Constraints of process variables and the respective levels for RCCD. model coefficient for the interaction between variables i and j. Sub-
Variables Symbols Levels sequently, the quality of the proposed model was evaluated based
(2) (1) (0) (+1) (+2)
on the correlation coefficient (R2) while analysis of variance (ANO-
VA) was employed to evaluate the statistical significance of the
Reaction temperature (°C) A 320 340 360 380 400
Molar ratio (mol/mol) B 20 30 40 50 60
model and ‘Lack of Fit’ test.
Reaction time (min) C 15 20 25 30 35

3. Results and discussion

rizes the range and levels of variables studied in this study. For a
3.1. Development of quadratic polynomial equation
RCCD with three independent variables (n) and 5 levels, the total
number of experiments required will be determined as following:
Table 2 summarizes the yields of SCDMC reaction, ranging
8 factorial points (2n = 8), 6 axial points (2n = 6) and 6 central
from 13% to 97% which were obtained from the designated
points (nc = 6), accumulating to 20 individual experiments. In addi-
experiment conditions. The results were arranged according to
tion, the rotatability of the experiment design (a) was fixed at two
their point types such as axial, factorial or center points to allow
to ensure that responses are valid at all rotatable positions from
flexible data interpretation. For instance, the repeatability or reli-
the centre point. The complete experiments design with the corre-
ability of the experiments conducted can be assessed by the
sponding yields obtained from the study is summarized in Table 2.
yields obtained for the repeated conditions in center points. In
Centre points represent runs with zero level (0) of reaction condi-
this context, the values ranged from 71% to 78% with an average
tions while experiments with one of the extreme conditions, either
of 73.5%. Consequently, the average experimental error for this
lowest (2) or highest (+2) constitute the axial points.
study is only a mere ± 5%, which is within the acceptable range.
Table 3 shows the results of the ANOVA analysis which includes
2.5. Statistical Analysis F-values for model, individual terms and ‘Lack of Fit’ test. From
the table, it can be seen that the model is significant with F-va-
There are several calibration methods to analyze biofuels prop- lue of 114.07, implying that there is only 0.01% possibility that
erties such as linear partial least square regression (PLS) and artifi- the model would occur due to noise factors in the experiments.
cial neural networks (ANN) [20–22]. In this study, statistical
analysis was performed by employing Design Expert software ver-
sion 6.0.6 (STAT–EASE Inc., Minneapolis, USA) and used for regres- Table 3
Result of ANOVA for response surface quadratic model.
sion analysis of the experiments conducted. The responses (Y) or
the yields of biodiesel obtained in all experiments were utilized Source Sum of Degree of Mean F-value Prof > F
to develop a quadratic polynomial equation which correlates the square freedom square

response as a function of the parameters. The quadratic polynomial Model 10351.71 9 1150.19 114.07 <0.0001 Significant
equation allows researchers to find the desired optimum yield of A 7439.06 1 7439.06 737.74 <0.0001
B 1040.06 1 1040.06 103.14 <0.0001
the SCDMC process. The following Eq. (2) shows the general qua-
C 564.06 1 564.06 55.94 <0.0001
dratic equation for three independent variables. A2 561.87 1 561.87 55.72 <0.0001
B2 349.30 1 349.30 34.64 0.0002
X
3 X
3 X
2 X
3
C2 139.12 1 139.12 13.80 0.0040
Y ¼ b0 þ b i xi þ bii x2i þ bij xi xj ð2Þ AB 528.13 1 528.13 52.38 <0.1358
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 j¼iþ1 AC 1.13 1 1.13 0.11 0.7453
BC 3.13 1 3.13 0.31 0.5900
where Y is the predicted yield of biodiesel, xi is the ith independent Residual 100.84 10 10.08
variable, b0 is the intercept, bi is the first order model coefficient, bii Lack of fit 67.34 5 13.47 2.01 0.2309 Not
significant
Table 2 Pure error 33.50 5 6.70
Experimental design matrix and the respective biodiesel yield. Cor. Total 10452.55 19

Design Point type Coded process variables Yield

points (%)
Temperature (°C) Molar ratio Time (min)
(mol/mol)
97.51
1 Fact 1 +1 1 50
2 Fact 1 +1 +1 60
3 Fact 1 1 +1 28
Biodiesel yield, % (Predicted)

4 Fact 1 1 1 21 75.95
2
5 Fact +1 1 1 78
6 Fact +1 +1 1 80
7 Fact +1 +1 +1 86
8 Fact +1 1 +1 92 54.39
9 Axial 0 2 0 41
10 Axial 0 0 2 50
11 Axial 0 +2 0 77
32.82
12 Axial 2 0 0 13
13 Axial 0 0 +2 79
14 Axial +2 0 0 97
15 Center 0 0 0 73
11.26
16 Center 0 0 0 72
17 Center 0 0 0 78
11.26 32.82 54.39 75.95 97.51
18 Center 0 0 0 75
Biodiesel yield, % (Experimental)
19 Center 0 0 0 72
20 Center 0 0 0 71
Fig. 1. Predicted versus experimental yield of biodiesel.
3836 K.T. Tan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 3833–3839

For individual terms, only those with Prob > F less than 0.05 are
deemed as significant. Hence, the terms AC and BC are not signif-
icant and can be omitted from the model. On the other hand, the
‘Lack of Fit’ F-value of 2.01 implies that it is not significant rela-
tive to pure error. Therefore, the model proposed is valid and sta-
tistically significant. Subsequently, the results were utilized to fit
into a second order quadratic model of coded units as given in
Eq. (3).
Y ¼ 73:30 þ 21:56A þ 8:06B þ 5:94C  4:73A2  3:73B2
 2:35C 2  8:13AB
In this polynomial equation, only terms with Prob > F less than
0.05 are included while those insignificant terms are negligible
and can be excluded from the model. From the equation, it can
be seen that the model consists of single, quadratic and interac-
tion terms with their respective coefficient values. For the coeffi-
cient, positive sign in front of the terms indicates synergistic
effect while negative sign indicates antagonistic effect. In addi-
tion, the influence of a term in the model is also indicated by
the coefficient value as well. For instance, in this model reaction
temperature (A) has the biggest coefficient value among the three
ð3Þ independent variables, implying that the yield of biodiesel is

82

75

69

62
Yield (% )

56

30.00
50.00
27.50
45.00
25.00
40.00
Reaction time (Minute) 22.50 35.00
Molar ratio (Mol/Mol)
20.00 30.00

Fig. 2. Effect of reaction time and molar ratio on the yield of biodiesel in three-dimensional response surface.

94

80

67

53
Yield (% )

39

30.00
380.00
27.50
370.00
25.00
360.00
Reaction time (Minute) 22.50 350.00
Reaction temperature (Celsius)
20.00 340.00

Fig. 3. Effect of reaction temperature and reaction time on the yield of biodiesel in three-dimensional response surface.
 K.T. Tan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 3833–3839 3837

highly influenced by this parameter. On the other hand, the cor-
relation coefficient (R2) of the model was found to be 0.9904,
indicating that 99.04% of the variation in the results was attrib-
uted to the three variables studied in this process. Ideally, the va-
lue of R2 is unity, representing a complete agreement between
predicted and experimental responses. Hence, for this model the
R2 is relatively high and near to unity which indicates an excel-
lent regression model for the yield of biodiesel. Fig. 1 shows the
correlation between experimental yields against predicted values
by using the proposed model.
3.2. Interaction between process variables
One of the advantages of employing RSM in optimization
study is the inclusion of interaction between parameters which
might influence significantly the response of a process. In this
context, the effect of interaction between the parameters involved
is important as the presence of a variable could influence the
reactivity or performance of other parameters and subsequently
affected the overall yield of biodiesel. Conventional single-factor
experimental design does not take into account these interactions
and their respective effects which might be insufficient to under-
stand the process comprehensively. Consequently, in this study,
interaction between parameters was highlighted and discussed
thoroughly. Fig. 2 shows the interaction between molar ratio (B)
and reaction time (C) on the yield of biodiesel for SCDMC process.
From the figure, it is obvious that at any designated molar ratio,
the yield increase proportionally with increment of reaction time
until the optimum of 30 min. Prolonging the reaction time allows
transesterification reaction between triglycerides and dimethyl
carbonate to reach higher yield until the reaction is limited by
the reversible nature of the reaction. Similarly, the yield also aug-
mented steadily when the molar ratio is enhanced from 30 to 50.
In this case, high concentration of dimethyl carbonate improves

a
90

74

59

43
Yield (% )

27

50.00
380.00
45.00
370.00
40.00
360.00
Molar ratio (Mol/Mol) 35.00
350.00
Reaction temperature (Celsius)
30.00 340.00

b
97

High (+1)
76
Yield (%)

Low (-1)
55

34

13

340.00 350.00 360.00 370.00 380.00

Reaction temperature (Celsius)

Fig. 4. Effect of reaction temperature and molar ratio on the yield of biodiesel in (a) three-dimensional response surface (b) two-dimensional plot {high (+1) = 50:1 mol/mol
and low (1) = 30:1 mol/mol}.
3838 K.T. Tan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 3833–3839
the reactivity and pushes the reaction to producing more FAME
and GC. On the other hand, the trend shown by methyl acetate-
based supercritical reaction contradicts with this finding as any
increment of molar ratio of methyl acetate to oil decreases the
yield of biodiesel [19]. It was reported that excessive concentra-
tion of methyl acetate required tedious separation processes
which leads to lower yield. The disagreement between these
two processes might be attributed to the difference in reaction
rate as the optimum reaction time for SCDMC and supercritical
methyl acetate are 30 and 60 min, respectively [19]. Conse-
quently, the high reactivity of SCDMC reaction favours elevated
concentration of solvent which could effectively pushes the reac-
tion to higher yield but in the case of methyl acetate, the kinetic
of the reaction is too long and the high concentration of solvent
induces difficulties in separation of FAME, leading to lower over-
all yield.
On the other hand, the effect of reaction temperature (A) and
reaction time (C) on the yield of biodiesel is shown in Fig. 3. As
can be seen from the figure, the yield is only slightly influenced
by the reaction time at low reaction temperature of 340 °C as the
increment is only marginal. However, at higher reaction tempera-
ture of 380 °C the yield increases substantially to achieve optimum
of 94%. Temperature is an important parameter as it influences the
reaction rate of transesterification reaction significantly and subse-
quently the yield of biodiesel [23]. At low reaction temperature,
the reaction rate is too low to affect the yield although the reaction
time is extended to 30 min. On the other hand, high temperature
induces faster reaction rate compared to lower temperature and
subsequently leads to higher yield of biodiesel. Hence, the opti-
mum reaction temperature for SCDMC process is 380 °C as shown
in the figure.
Fig. 4(a) shows the three-dimensional plot of reaction temper-
ature (A) and molar ratio (B) on the yield of biodiesel. From the
figure, it is obvious that interaction between these two parame-
ters leads to different trends of yield at various reaction condi-
tions and can be easily interpreted by two-dimensional graph
as shown in Fig. 4(b). For instance, at low molar ratio, the yield
increases substantially when the temperature was raised from
340 to 380 °C. However, the yield only increases gradually at
higher molar ratio of 50. Reaction rate at low temperature is usu-
ally very slow due to the poor solubility between oil and di-
methyl carbonate which forms a two-phase solution. Hence,
when lower ends of temperature and molar ratio were employed,
an insignificant yield of 27% was obtained but when the molar ra-
tio was increased to 50, the yield augmented to more than 59%. In
this phenomenon, the elevated concentration of dimethyl carbon-
ate increases the reactivity and pushes this reversible reaction to
producing more FAME and GC even though the reaction temper-
ature is relatively low [23]. However, when the reaction temper-
ature is increased to 380 °C, both molar ratios converge at 86%
yield. This implies that the influence of high reaction temperature
on the yield is so significant that increment in molar ratio from
30 to 50 would not contribute to higher biodiesel yield. As high
temperature promotes enhanced mutual solubility and subse-
quently forming a single-phase between oil and dimethyl carbon-
ate, the reactivity also increases drastically with the increment of
temperature, leading to negligible effect of escalating dimethyl
carbonate concentration.
Table 4
Optimization constraints employed to obtain the optimum yield of biodiesel.
Criteria Goal Lower limit Upper limit
Reaction temperature, A (°C) Is in range 340 380
Molar ratio, B (mol/mol) Is in range 30 50
Reaction time, C (min) Is in range 20 30
Yield, Y (%) Maximize 13 97
Table 5
Biodiesel yield of the three independent experiments to validate model adequacy.
Run A (°C) B (mol/mol) C (min) Predicted (%) Experimental (%)
1 380 39 30 94 90
2 380 39 30 94 93
3 380 39 30 94 89
3.3. Process optimization
Optimization studies of transesterification reaction by employ-
ing RSM analysis have been reported by several researchers
[19,24–26]. In this study, numerical optimization was carried out
to find the optimum conditions of the three independent variables
which resulted in optimum yield of biodiesel. In numerical optimi-
zation, the independent parameters which include reaction tem-
perature, molar ratio and reaction time were set to ‘within the
range’ between low (1) and high (+1) while the yield was set to
‘maximum’ value as shown in Table 4. Subsequently, solutions
were generated by the software and the solution with the highest
desirability was selected and the validity of the optimum results
was verified by three independent runs of experiment. Table 5
summarizes the optimum conditions of experiments, predicted
and experimental yields. From the table, it can be seen that the
experimental values are well in agreement with the predicted va-
lue of 94%. Averagely, the experiments obtained biodiesel yield of
91%, implying that the experimental error is only 3.3% which is less
than the acceptable range of ± 5%. Consequently, it is proven that
the developed model is adequate to predict the yield of biodiesel
in SCDMC process. In addition, the optimum conditions generated
by the optimization study are adequate to obtain the average opti-
mum yield of 91%.
4. Conclusion
This study has shown that SCDMC process is a promising alter-
native route to produce biodiesel. The valuable and versatile com-
pound of glycerol carbonate produced in SCDMC reaction allow
biodiesel producer to generate higher side income and subse-
quently leads to overall cost-effective biodiesel production. Be-
sides, optimization study by using RSM analysis was successfully
carried out with the optimum yield of 91%. In addition, the math-
ematical model developed was also validated and found to be ade-
quate to predict biodiesel yield with an insignificant error. Hence,
this optimization study has shown that SCDMC reaction has a huge
potential to produce biodiesel economically.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Universiti Sains
Malaysia (Research University Grant No. 1001/PJKIMIA//814047
and USM Fellowship) for the financial support given.
References
[1] Tan KT, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. Role of energy policy in renewable energy
accomplishment: the case of second-generation bioethanol. Energy Policy
2008;36:3360–5.
[2] Demirbas A. Studies on cottonseed oil biodiesel prepared in non-catalytic SCF
conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:1125–30.
[3] Ramos MJ, Fernández CM, Casas A, Rodríguez L, Pérez A. Influence of fatty acid
composition of raw materials on biodiesel properties. Bioresour. Technol.
2009;100:261–8.
[4] Hawash S, Kamal N, Zaher F, Kenawi O, Diwani GE. Biodiesel fuel from Jatropha
oil via non-catalytic supercritical methanol transesterification. Fuel
2009;88:579–82.
[5] Tan KT, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. Production of FAME by palm oil
transesterification via supercritical methanol technology. Biomass Bioenergy
2009;33:1096–9.
 K.T. Tan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 3833–3839
[6] Bautista LF, Vicente G, Rodríguez R, Pacheco M. Optimisation of FAME
production from waste cooking oil for biodiesel use. Biomass Bioenergy
2009;33:862–72.
[7] Lou WY, Zong MH, Duan ZQ. Efficient production of biodiesel from high free
fatty acid-containing waste oils using various carbohydrate-derived solid acid
catalysts. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:8752–8.
[8] Galan MI, Bonet J, Sire R, Reneaume JM, Plesu AE. From residual to useful oil:
Revalorization of glycerine from the biodiesel synthesis. Bioresour. Technol.
2009;100:3775–8.
[9] Sabourin-Provost G, Hallenbeck PC. High yield conversion of a crude glycerol
fraction from biodiesel production to hydrogen by photofermentation.
Bioresour. Technol. 2009;100:3513–7.
[10] García E, Laca M, Pérez E, Garrido A, Peinado J. New class of acetal derived from
glycerin as a biodiesel fuel component. Energy Fuels 2008;22:4274–80.
[11] Ochoa-Gómez JR, Gómez-Jiménez-Aberasturi O, Maestro-Madurga B,
Pesquera-Rodríguez A, Ramírez-López C, Lorenzo-Ibarreta L, et al. Synthesis
of glycerol carbonate from glycerol and dimethyl carbonate by
transesterification: Catalyst screening and reaction optimization. Appl. Catal.
A: General 2009;366:315–24.
[12] Ilham Z, Saka S. Dimethyl carbonate as potential reactant in non-catalytic
biodiesel production by supercritical method. Bioresour. Technol. 2009;100:
1793–6.
[13] Kim SC, Kim YH, Lee H, Yoon DY, Song BK. Lipase-catalyzed synthesis of
glycerol carbonate from renewable glycerol and dimethyl carbonate through
transesterification. J. Mol. Catal. B: Enzymatic 2007;49:75–8.
[14] Climent MJ, Corma A, De Frutos P, Iborra S, Noy M, Velty A, et al. Chemicals
from biomass: Synthesis of glycerol carbonate by transesterification and
carbonylation with urea with hydrotalcite catalysts. The role of acid–base
pairs. J. Catal. 2010;269:140–9.
[15] Aresta M, Dibenedetto A, Nocito F, Ferragina C. Valorization of bio-glycerol:
New catalytic materials for the synthesis of glycerol carbonate via glycerolysis
of urea. J. Catal. 2009;268:106–14.
3839
[16] Aresta M, Dibenedetto A, Nocito F, Ferragina C. A study on the carboxylation
of glycerol to glycerol carbonate with carbon dioxide: the role of the
catalyst, solvent and reaction conditions. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chemical
2006;257: 149–53.
[17] Fabbri D, Bevoni V, Notari M, Rivetti F. Properties of a potential biofuel
obtained from soybean oil by transmethylation with dimethyl carbonate. Fuel
2007;86:690–7.
[18] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 5th ed. John Wiley &
Sons; 2001.
[19] Tan KT, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. A glycerol-free process to produce biodiesel by
supercritical methyl acetate technology: an optimization study via response
surface methodology. Bioresour. Technol. 2010;101:965–9.
[20] Balabin RM, Safieva RZ, Lomakina EI. Comparison of linear and nonlinear
calibration models based on near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy data for gasoline
properties prediction. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2007;88:183–8.
[21] Balabin RM, Safieva RZ, Lomakina EI. Wavelet neural network (WNN) approach
for calibration model building based on gasoline near infrared (NIR) spectra.
Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2008;93:58–62.
[22] Balabin RM, Safieva RZ, Lomakina EI. Gasoline classification using near infrared
(NIR) spectroscopy data: Comparison of multivariate techniques. Anal. Chim.
Acta 2010;67:27–35.
[23] Kusdiana D, Saka S. Kinetics of transesterification in rapeseed oil to biodiesel
fuel as treated in supercritical methanol. Fuel 2001;80:693–8.
[24] Ghadge SV, Raheman H. Process optimization for biodiesel production from
mahua (Madhuca indica) oil using response surface methodology. Bioresour.
Technol. 2006;97:379–84.
[25] Shieh CJ, Liao HF, Lee CC. Optimization of lipase-catalyzed biodiesel by
response surface methodology. Bioresour. Technol. 2003;88:103–6.
[26] Ferella F, Mazziotti Di Celso G, De Michelis I, Stanisci V, Vegliò F. Optimization
of the transesterification reaction in biodiesel production. Fuel 2010;89:
36–42.