Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review article

2,5-Dimethylfuran (DMF) as a promising biofuel for the spark ignition

engine application: A comparative analysis and review
Anh Tuan Hoang a, *, Sandro Nižetić b, Aykut I. Ölçer c
a
Institute of Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH), Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
b
LTEF – Head of Laboratory for Thermodynamics and Energy Efficiency, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of
Split, Split, Croatia
c
Head of Maritime Energy Management Specialization, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

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

Keywords: Being one of the furan-based compounds, 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF) is known as a critical platform substance and
2,5-Dimethylfuran an ideal green solution on the pathway of finding alternative fuels to assuage the ever-increasing shortage of
Spark ignition engine fossil energy as well as to reduce the negative and dangerous impacts on global climate and environment.
Engine performance
Therefore, DMF could be considered as a potential promising biofuel for in-future engines since it was generated
Emission characteristics
Engine knocking
from renewable lignocellulosic biomass. In this review paper, the DMF synthesis process from current biomass
Wear through the catalyst-based reactions was thoroughly analyzed. Furthermore, the spray and flame characteristics
of DMF in comparison to commercial gasoline and ethanol were completely evaluated. More interestingly, the
performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of spark ignition engine running on gasoline, ethanol, and
DMF-based fuels were discussed in detail. Finally, the comparison of the effects of DMF properties on the SI
engine knocking as well as the characteristics of lubrication and wear were also performed. In general, DMF
could become a new-fashioned alternative fuel for spark ignition engines although the optimization strategies on
the DMF production process should be conducted before commercializing and realizing in the near future.

relating to the areas of arable land for crops for the ethanol production,
the lower heating value and Research Octane Number (RON) of ethanol
1. Introduction
compared to gasoline were considered as the barriers for ethanol
becoming an independent “worker” to replace commercial gasoline in
A harsh and undeniable truth is the diminishing worldwide reserve
the existing engine applications. Therefore, next-generation advanced
of fossil energy sources and the rapid increase in global environmental
biofuels without ethanol could be considered as a potential candidate for
pollution [1], resulting in unpredicted and severe consequences for the
the pressing need in near future. A promising approach pointed out is to
future of our next generation [2,3]. Facing these serious problems, the
produce furan-based chemicals from cellulosic biomass like 2,5-dime­
search for new-fashioned energy sources with low cost, environmentally
thylfuran (DMF) [9–11]. Being one of the above-mentioned products
friendly and high safety properties has become the topical issue of in­
derived from furan, DMF is paid significant attention to due to its
terests on the way towards targeting sustainable development and
outstanding advantages, in which DMF could be produced from the
happier life [4,5]. Looking at many decades of research on the alterna­
carbohydrates such as glucose, fructose, starch-containing sources, and
tive energy sources, biofuels have been emerging as a potential candi­
even cellulose [12]. Compared to ethanol, DMF possesses higher energy
date [6]. However, a question was given out that which feedstock would
density, higher RON, greater boiling temperature, and lower aqueous
be suitable for biofuel production without any competitions? Gradually,
solubility [13,14]. More interestingly, blending DMF with commercial
the answer has been revealed as biomass has shown its outstanding
gasoline is also easier than that of bioethanol as well as DMF is immis­
characteristics compared to other feedstock for bio-fuel production.
cible with water [15]. Most studies have demonstrated that no need for
Therefore, the conversion of renewable biomass into liquid biofuels has
much modification for both spark and diesel engines while these engines
been considered as a “hotspot” research field in current years [7].
ran on DMF. These physicochemical properties of DMF have inspired
Indeed, ethanol is currently known as the only commercial biofuel
several researchers to explore highly efficient sustainable and advanced
satisfying renewable fuel requirements [8]. Nonetheless, some issues

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hatuan@hutech.edu.vn (A.T. Hoang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119140
Received 7 June 2020; Received in revised form 26 August 2020; Accepted 28 August 2020
Available online 28 September 2020
0016-2361/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Nomenclature IT Injection timing

ITE Indicated thermal efficiency
ATDC After top dead center Lb Markstein length
BTDC Before top dead center LHV Lower heating value
CA Crank angle LBV Laminar burning velocities
CMF 5-Chloromethylfurfural MAPi Intake manifold absolute pressures
CO Carbon monoxide MBT Maximum Brake Torque
COV Coefficient of variation MFB Mass fraction burned
DI Direct injection NOx Nitrogen oxides
DMF 2,5-Dimethylfuran RON Research octane number
EGT Exhaust gas temperature OR Octane rating
ER Evaporation rate SFC Specific fuel consumption
EOI End of injection PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
FC Friction coefficient PFI Port fuel injection
GDI Gasoline direct injection PM Particulate matter
HC Unburned hydrocarbons Pex_max Maximum in-cylinder pressure
HDO Hydrodeoxygenation PN Particle number
HMF 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural SI Spark ignition
HRR Heat release rate SMD Sauter Mean Diameter
HV Heat of vaporization SOC Start of combustion
ICE Internal combustion engine SOI Start of injection
ID Ignition delay Tex_max Maximum in-cylinder temperature
IMEP Indicated mean effective pressure THF Tetrahydrofuran
ISFCE Indicated specific fuel consumption equivalent UFPS Unstretched flame propagation speed

production technologies for DMF with the primary purpose of utilizing it
as a safe liquid-fuel for the transportation sector.
The leading efforts in producing DMF were suggested by many re­
searchers [16–18], they introduced an approach for synthesizing DMF
based on catalytic from fructose that could be directly gained from
cellulosic biomass or via the glucose-to-fructose isomerization process,
which is a widely-distributed monosaccharide in nature and presented
in Fig. 1. Moreover, DMF is found as a source of sustainable oxygenated
liquid-fuel with insoluble characteristic in water [19,20]. Therefore, it is
becoming an inevitable task to produce monosaccharides as well as
polysaccharides into DMF with high performance to boost environ­
mental issues and maximize the energy-resource structure [21,22].
It could be seen from Fig. 1 that the development of DMF and
traditional derivatives through the biomass conversion pathway have
the mass production ability, it was recorded a process to transform the
plentiful raw material lignocellulosic biomass to DMF [24], the pro­
duction technique of DMF in recent progress aiming to make up DMF
from biomass has achieved high efficiency. Several researchers have
thoroughly studied the synthesis processes, mechanical characteristics
and features, suitable solvent and catalyst type for DMF processing
[25–27], DMF’s physicochemical mechanism and financial performance
[28]. Furthermore, recent researches showed DMF as a promising fuel
used in internal combustion engines (ICE) without modifying engine
structure. Also, several studies on ICE indicated better knock resistance
for the DMF combustion [29], as well as lower unburned hydrocarbons
(HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) compared to
gasoline and ethanol [30,31]. Obviously, the recent studies have clari­
fied the potential in using DMF as a novel alternative fuel in SI engine
when some attributes of DMF were reported to be better than ethanol as
well as DMF could be produced from renewable biomass feedstock.
However, the comparison of the applicability of DMF with ethanol is
necessary since ethanol has become the commercial fuel in many
countries for many years. The main aim of the comparison is to highlight
the strengths and weaknesses of DMF compared to ethanol, aiming to
come up the suggestion and proposal relating to the application of DMF
in the near future. In this review paper, the conversion process of

Fig. 1. DMF production pathway from biomass [23].

2
A.T. Hoang et al.
carbohydrates-based materials into DMF was reviewed aiming to build a
development premise of advanced catalysts for the strategies of
simplifying technology and production process. More importantly, the
spray and flame characteristics of DMF were thoroughly analyzed and
compared to those of gasoline and ethanol. Finally, the performance,
combustion and emission features of spark ignition engines running on
DMF, gasoline, and ethanol were fully evaluated and compared.
2. DMF production and properties
2.1. DMF production
To improve the conversion efficiency of DMF, and to minimize the
byproducts formation, the catalyst is usually put into the reaction pro­
cess with a reasonable concentration, which is optimized to reach the
best efficiency. Therefore, the catalyst systems are believed to play a
central part in the DMF production from various input material sources
such as cellulosic/lignocellulosic biomass, glucose, fructose, 5-hydroxy­
methylfurfural (HMF), and 5-chloromethylfurfural (CMF). Nonetheless,
the DMF synthesis from cellulosic/lignocellulosic biomass, glucose, and
fructose must undergo the intermediate steps, which are to form HMF or
CMF. Finally, HMF or CMF is considered as a precursor to synthesize
DMF through the catalyst pathway [32]. Due to this result, the DMF
synthesis from HMF or CMF is usually more preferable and has higher
selective conversion efficiency than from cellulosic/lignocellulosic
biomass, glucose, and fructose. Indeed, there have been many catalytic
types developed for the conversion process of HMF into DMF through
the selective hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) [33]. Normally, the catalytic
systems based on single transition metals (like Pt, Ru, Mo, Cu) or
bimetallic catalysts (like Ni-Co, Cu-Ru, Pt-Au) were found to be potential
candidates to achieve high DMF yield although catalyst systems origi­
nated from noble metals and bimetal were proven to provide better
catalytic characteristics and stability [34]. Moreover, bifunctional
catalyst systems could also be applied to the DMF production since these
catalyst systems contain both the deoxygenating component and the
hydrogenation metal. For metal/acid-based catalyst systems, the syn­
ergistic effect of acid-metal interaction is thought to be the key for the
Fig. 2. The pathway of DMF production from various feedstock under carbon-supported Cu/Ru-bimetallic catalyst system [37].
3
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
HMF HDO process because Lewis acid sites are easy to be formed,
increasing the activated degree of unsaturated C-heteroatom bonds
through the formation of adducts or via σ-coordination [35]. Indeed, the
chemical reactions based on the mechanism of the carbon-heteroatom
bond, or transition metal-catalyzed carbon–carbon bond, or transition
metal-mediated bond are considered as the most powerful tools in
synthesizing the organic compounds [36]. As a result, the C-O bond is
broken, increasing the dehydration of C-OH groups in fructose or
glucose to form HMF, resulting in higher DMF selective conversion ef­
ficiency. In 2007, Román-Leshkov and co-workers have presented their
effort in the DMF production [37], in which they selected biomass as the
input material to produce fructose that was considered as the interme­
diate substance for DMF synthesis by using the catalyst. As depicted in
Fig. 2, HMF was synthesized from fructose based on the selective
dehydration process under the support of a biphasic reactor with the
presence of HCI as a catalyzer and a solution of NaCl 35%. After that, the
evaporation process of HCl and water has occurred from the solvent
containing HMF. Extracted HMF was converted into DMF by the bime­
tallic catalyst of Cu/Ru supported by carbon. As a result, the conversion
efficiency of DMF was 62% to 70% without byproducts. More impor­
tantly, the authors have detected that it could use glucose for large-scale
production of DMF while fructose has provided higher DMF selectivity.
By inheriting the previous study, recent studies have been focused on
the catalyst development to improve the selective conversion efficiency
of DMF. In the study of Thananatthanachon et al. [19], they have uti­
lized formic acid (HCOOH) as the H2 donor to synthesize DMF from
fructose through the one-pot process. Achieved results have confirmed
that HCOOH could play a catalyst role in the dehydration of fructose to
HMF. More interestingly, an excellent yield (>95%) of DMF was
attained in case of heating HMF in refluxing tetrahydrofuran (THF) with
the support of HCOOH, H2SO4 and Pd/C-based catalyst system. With the
same input source, Li et al. [38] have performed the one-step DMF
production from fructose under the biphasic solvent of [BMIM]Cl/THF
and carbon-supported Ru-based catalyst. However, only 66% of DMF
yield could be obtained. In the case of using glucose for DMF production,
Chidambaram et al. [39] have explored a novel catalyst based on
phosphor–molybdic acid with high conversion efficiency by a two-step
A.T. Hoang et al.
approach in the ionic liquid. In the first step, around 99% of HMF was
formed from glucose. After that, the HMF HDO process with the pres­
ence of Pd/C catalyst and the acetonitrile-based additive has created
DMF with 44–47% selective efficiency. In a recent study of Insyani et al.
[40], they have used a multifunctional Pd/UiO-66@SGO catalyst aiming
to activate the dehydration in HMF formation from glucose for the one-
pot production of DMF. The achieved result has shown that a high yield
of 45.3 mol% for DMF production from glucose, this result was reported
to be much lower than 70.5% DMF yield from fructose under the same
catalyst condition. The combination of Lewis acid (CrCl3) catalyst and
Brønsted acid (HCl) catalyst for the HMF production from glucose has
been confirmed to bring higher efficiency [41]. It was detected that
Lewis CrCl3 acid catalyst has activated the isomerization reaction of
glucose to fructose, while HCl-supported Brønsted acid catalyst has the
obvious effects in dehydration/rehydration reactions, producing around
59% HMF yield. Furthermore, HMF could be produced by lignocellu­
losic biomass by combinational treatments, in which acid/base was used
for the pretreatment process and catalyst was used for HMF synthesis
stage. Nguyen et al. [42] have utilized wood chips for HMF production
through the pretreatment with a diluted solution of 3% NaOH and the
catalyst reaction with CrCl3 in ([BMIM]Cl) solvent at a temperature of
120 ◦ C. After 1 h of reaction time, high conversion efficiency up to 79%
of HMF yield was observed. Similarly, Binder et al. [43] have used raw
corn straw to synthesize DMF through the HMF intermediate substance
by using C-supported Cu/Ru in the solvent of butan-1-ol. Not as ex­
pected, the HMF yield from corn straw was quite low, only 48%
compared to 92% from fructose and 81% from glucose. In general, the
HMF production from raw lignocellulosic biomass was found to provide
a quite low yield, even lower than 5% in some works [44,45]. Indeed, all
production processes of DMF from carbohydrates undergo intermediate
substances such as HMF or CMF. Not surprisingly, it is affirmed that the
conversion efficiency of DMF from HMF or CMF is higher than other
paths. Similar to other catalyst reactions, the catalyst systems in the
DMF synthesis process play a key role in the conversion efficiency as
well as DMF yield. Wang et al. [46] have applied hollow carbon spheres-
supported PtCo@HCS catalyst to the hydrogenolysis reaction of HMF
under the optimized condition such as 180 ◦ C of temperature and 10 bar
of H2 pressure. Surprisingly, the DMF yield was very high, up to 98%.
Also, another experiment using Pt-Co/MWCNTs as bimetallic catalyst
has shown a high DMF yield, corresponding to 92.3% under 160 ◦ C of
temperature and 10 bar of H2 pressure [47]. In addition, some catalyst
types based on Ru such as commercial Ru/C, Ru/C, and Ru/CNTs
(carbon nanotubes-supported Ru) were detected to enhance the selec­
tive hydrogenolysis of HMF. As a result, the DMF yield could be attained
as high as 94.7% for commercial Ru/C catalyst [48], 81% for Ru/C
catalyst [49], and 83.5% for Ru/CNTs catalyst [50]. With another noble
metal, Nishimura et al. [51] have utilized the NaBH4 reduction method
to prepare the catalyst based on Pd-Au/C for the conversion of HMF into
DMF in the solvent of HCl. An excellent DMF yield was reported, up to
96% after 12 h of reaction time. Although non-noble metals were nor­
mally reported to catalyze the HMF conversion to DMF with a lower
yield than with noble metals, they also showed remarkable results in
promoting the HMF HDO. In some case, they even provided high yields.
For instance, Huang et al. [52] have explored a catalyst of 7Ni-30W2C
supported by active carbon for the DMF synthesis from HMF. A quite
high DMF yield of 96% could be observed as conducted at 180 ◦ C of
temperature and 4 MPa of H2 pressure. Alternatively, Ni was found to
have a key role in the hydrogenation of HMF, while W2C has offered a
good ability in the deoxygenation process. The synergistic effect of Ni
and W2C has brought such a high DMF yield. Obviously, the bimetallic
catalyst systems have shown a much higher yield of DMF synthesis than
with a single catalyst system. This was attributed to the synergistic effect
of metals joining in the reaction. In addition to Ru that was considered as
a promoter for Cu-supported catalyst system, Co was found to be a po­
tential candidate for enhancing the DMF yield. Indeed, Guo et al. [53]
have prepared a modified N-graphene-supported nanoparticle
4
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
bimetallic catalyst based on Cu-Co. Unbelievably, around 99% of DMF
yield could be reached under 180 ◦ C of temperature. More interestingly,
the use of Cu-Co catalyst (Cu:Co = 1:3) supported by C has provided
nearly 100% of DMF yield [54]. In study of Nilges et al. [55], electro­
chemical method was first introduced to convert HMF to DMF by using
Cu electrodes. This process was found to undergo a series of reduction
steps of electron/proton for the conversion of HMF to DMF. As a result,
the highest DMF selective conversion efficiency was 35.6% as catalyst
reaction was carried out in H2SO4 solution with the presence of water
and ethanol. Taken as a whole, the production process of DMF from
various precursors such as could be presented in Table 1.
2.2. DMF properties
As analyzed above, the hydrogenolysis of biomass-derived HMF or
direct conversion of carbohydrates to DMF is considered as a core re­
action in the up-gradation of platform compounds originated from car­
bohydrates for extracting potential biofuels, in which DMF is known as
one of the promising liquid fuels used for the transportation means. In
addition, DMF is demonstrated that only one-third of the energy is
consumed in the evaporation stage. Blending DMF with commercial
gasoline is also easier than that of bioethanol as well as DMF is immis­
cible with water. In an experimental study on the use of DMF for a direct-
injection (DI) spark-ignition (SI) engine, it has been indicated that the
performance of the engine fueled with DMF was comparable to gasoline.
Such excellent properties make DMF become a more ideal alternative
fuel in the near future. In brief, DMF properties in comparison with
ethanol and gasoline were in Table 2.
It is clearly seen from Table 2 that lower volatility and comparable
molecular mass compared to gasoline make DMF become a new green
fuel with high value. Higher RON of DMF (RON = 119) compared to
commercial gasoline (RON = 90–100) and ethanol (RON = 110) will
allow DMF to use in spark-ignition engines with higher compression
ratios aiming to improve the fuel economy. More attractively, DMF’s
energy density is higher than that of ethanol, leading to more heat en­
ergy released in the combustion. The boiling point of DMF (93 ◦ C) is
higher than that of ethanol (77 ◦ C), resulting in DMF having proper
gasification efficiency, which is beneficial to impairing engine inlet air
resistance and achieving engine start-up performance at low tempera­
tures. Moreover, latent heat vaporization of DMF is insignificantly
higher in comparison with gasoline but it is much lower than ethanol
fuels, this is useful for DMF storage and transport. Another positive
aspect, the kinematic viscosity of DMF at the same test temperature is
lower than that of ethanol, but insignificantly higher than that of gas­
oline, leading to the helpfulness in ensuring the injection pressure as
well as protecting the fuel supply system. The above-mentioned proof is
sufficient to demonstrate that DMF has enough physicochemical prop­
erties to make it be a credible alternative fuel for combustion engines.
Moreover, it is also worth believing that these qualities bode well for the
safe transport and storage of DMF when considering as a new-fashioned
liquid fuel in the transportation field.
3. Spray and flame characteristics
3.1. Spray characteristics
In addition to the excellent properties of DMF compared to ethanol or
commercial gasoline given in Table 2, DMF must possess other specific
physical properties if DMF is employed as an alternative fuel for com­
mercial engines. Therefore, another issue should be mentioned as the
effects of DMF properties on the spray characteristics because the fuel
spray characteristics are known to play a vital part in the characteristics
of combustion and emissions, and engine performance, they are espe­
cially important for direct injection (DI) engines. In general, some pa­
rameters characterizing the fuel spray characteristics could include
spray penetration, cone injection angle, droplet size, and velocity
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Table 1
Introduced catalyst systems for high-yield DMF synthesis from various feedstock.
Feedstock Catalyst Solvent Condition Time, h Yield, % Ref

HMF Ru/Co3O4 THF T = 403K 24 93.4 [56]

p = 7 bar
RuCo/CoOx 1,4-dioxane T = 473K 2 96.5 [57]
p = 5 bar
Ru/CoFe-LDO THF T = 453K 6 98.2 [58]
p = 10 bar
Ru/Cu DMSO T = 423 K 0.3 91.0 [59]
Ni/Al2O3 1,4-dioxane T = 453 K 3 91.5 [60]
Ni-Co/C THF T = 483 K 24 90.0 [61]
NiZnAl 1,4-dioxane T = 453 K 15 93.6 [62]
Pt3Ni/C 1-propanol T = 473K – 98.0 [63]
p = 33 bar
Pd/C H2O T = 353K 2 100 [64]
p = 10 bar
Ni-OMD3 H2O T = 473K 6 98.7 [65]
p = 30 bar
Ni/perovskite ethanol T = 503 6 98.3 [66]
p = 50 bar
Ni2-Fe/CNTs n-butanol T = 473K 3 91.3 [67]
p = 30 bar
NiCu3/C 1-propanol T = 473K 3 98.7 [68]
p = 33 bar
NC-Cu/MgAlO cyclohexanol T = 493 K 0.5 96.1 [69]
CnZn-2 1,4-dioxane T = 493 K 5 91.8 [70]
p = 15 bar
Glucose 4.8Pd/UiO-66 @SGO THF T = 433 K 3 45.3 [40]
Fructose Cu-Ru/C HCl/KCl/1-butanol T = 343 K 10 73.0 [37]
Pd/C THF T = 343 K 15 51.0 [19]
Ru/C [BMIM]Cl/THF T = 403 K 0.5 50.0 [38]
2.4Pd/UiO-66@SGO THF T = 433 K 3 68.6 [40]
HT-Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 GBL/H2O T = 513 K – 40.6 [62]
Amberlyst15/Ni@WC FA-ethanol T = 383 K – 38.5 [71]

could be considered as the result of the secondary breakup after the

Table 2
downstream of the spray has reached around 24 mm. In the gasoline
Physicochemical properties of DMF in comparison to those of gasoline and
case, it could be seen a slight rise in SMD along the axis, while SMD of
ethanol [23,72–75].
D50 (50% DMF + 50% gasoline) and DMF were greater than for gaso­
Physicochemical properties at Unit DMF Ethanol Gasoline
line. Nonetheless, no remarkable difference was seen in terms of SMD
20 ◦ C
between DMF, D50, and gasoline with a distance of around 40 mm away
Molecular formula – C6H8O C2H6 C4–C12 from the injector. More importantly, they found that ethanol was much
Oxygen content % 16.67 34.78 0
different from DMF, D50, and gasoline. The smallest SMD for ethanol
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio – 10.72 8.95 14.70
Latent heat of vaporization kJ/kg 389 920 351 near the nozzle could be self-evident and it became the highest as 40 mm
Energy density MJ/L 30 18.4–21.2 32–34.8 away from the injector. Indeed, the SMD variation in the range of 16.9
Boiling point (BP) ◦
C 93 77 27–225 μm to 20.2 μm along the axis in the ethanol case was found in com­
Auto-ignition temperature (AIT) C 286 434 420
parison with 16–22.5 μm for gasoline, 14.9–23.4 μm for DMF, and
◦

Research octane number (RON) – 119 110 90–100

Liquid density (ρ) kg/ 890 791 745
m3
Surface tension (σ) N/m 0.0259 0.0223 0.0200
Kinematic viscosity (µ) cSt 0.57 1.50 0.37–0.44
distribution [76]. Spray penetration and cone injection angle depended
much on the injector design are the main parameters affecting signifi­
cantly the shape of the fuel spray. Meanwhile, fuel droplet size and fuel
velocity distribution play the leading role in the breakup of liquid fuel,
the atomization, mixture formation, which have direct influences on the
evaporation and combustion characteristics. As to assess DMF’s spray
behavior, there were several investigations using various techniques.
For instance, Tian et al. [77] have used Phase Doppler Particle Analyzer
to measure the main parameters of DMF’s spray characteristics under
various pressures in comparison to those of ethanol and gasoline. As a
result, the mean velocity of 100% DMF and blends of gasoline with DMF
was found to be slightly lower than that of 100% gasoline, although the
difference of mean velocity is only<10 m/s for most cases (Fig. 3a). The
Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) of DMF and its blend in comparison with
gasoline and ethanol along the axis were plotted in Fig. 3b. For four fuel
samples, the fuel-droplet size was rapidly reduced just after they were
injected out. Fuel-droplet sizes were observed to become stable, which
14.8–22.3 μm for D50. This difference in SMD has resulted from the
difference in triad physical properties of fuels such as viscosity, density,
and surface tension, which could be clearly seen in Table 2 and it was
also demonstrated in some published works on the effects of triad
physical properties of fuels on spray characteristics [78,79]. Moreover,
they detected that ethanol possessed the shortest penetration length in
the primary breakup process, resulting in more break-ups occurring for
the ethanol case than for gasoline, DMF, and D50. Besides, they pointed
out that the increase in injection pressure has reduced the SMDs of DMF
from 8.8 μm at the pressure of 50 bar to 7 μm at the pressure of 150 bar,
while the increase in injection pressure was more beneficial for DMF’s
spray behavior than that of ethanol.
In the study of Li et al. [80], they have employed the Cascade At­
omization Breakup model to predict the droplet sizes of DMF as well as
to investigate the preparation of DMF-air mixture in the combustion
chamber of gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines. They reported the
relatively poor distribution of DMF-air because the mixing time was
insufficient along with spray-wall interaction was significant. Moreover,
when DMF was injected at the end of the compression stroke in GDI
engines, DMF has contributed to forming an extra-rich mixture with a
ratio of around 9.3%, and very-lean mixture with a ratio of around 4.8%
in comparison with the nearly-homogeneous mixture formed from

5
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Fig. 3. Spray characteristics of DMF and its bends compared to other fuels; (a) – Velocity of DMF droplets compared to gasoline, ethanol, and DMF-gasoline blends
from the nozzle [77]; (b) – SMD distribution [77]; (c) – Total volume for DMF/air and gasoline/air mixture under various equivalence ratios [80]; (d) – Rate of
evaporation for DMF compared to gasoline [80]; (e) – DMF spray images at 100 bar of injection pressure [77]; (f) – The spray shape of various fuel blends [81].

6
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

gasoline (extra-rich mixture with a ratio of around 0.5% and very-lean
mixture with a ratio of around 2.3%). It was also found around the
spark plug that the equivalence ratio was leaner than 0.9. More
impressively, they have evaluated the effects of the spray characteristics
of DMF on the quality of DMF-air mixture compared to gasoline under
various equivalence ratios (Φ) (case 1 with Φ < 0.5; case 2 with 0.5 < Φ
< 1.5; case 3 with Φ > 1.5) through the temporal evolution (measured
by crankcase angle) of the local mixture (Fig. 3c). The measurement
based on instantaneous cylinder volume was used to normalize the
evaporation rate (ER) at each position of the crankcase angle. It could be
seen from Fig. 3c that case 2, corresponding to the ratio of ignitable
mixture, was increased after the start of injection (SOI), while the
opposite trend of the ignitable mixture could be observed in case 1 that
was corresponding to the ratio of the very-lean mixture. In the event of
an extra-rich mixture (case 3), its percentage was increased from SOI to
the end of injection (EOI); ER was then steadily reduced in case of
gasoline but ER had an insignificant change for DMF case. More
remarkably, a slow increase in the portion of the case 2 was found, while
a slight rise in the portion of extra-rich mixture (case 3) was also re­
ported for DMF after 210◦ after top dead center (ATDC). Furthermore,
the comparison between DMF and gasoline based on global fuel evap­
oration rate could be observed in Fig. 3d, in which the total amount of
injected fuel was used to normalize the vapor fuel. During the injection
period, the vaporization rate of gasoline was seen to be faster compared
to the DMF case, this result was because of smaller SMD of gasoline and
the difference in vapor pressure of DMF and gasoline [20,82]. More

Fig. 4. Combustion parameters for DMF compared to gasoline and ethanol; (a) – Flame images at engine loads of 3 bar and 4 bar IMEP versus crank case angle,
collected from Xu et al. [86]; (b) – Effects of equivalent ratio on laminar burning velocity [89]; (c) – Effects of initial temperature on LBV of various fuels [90–93]; (d)
– Markstein length at 70 ◦ C of initial temperature [89].

7
A.T. Hoang et al.
interestingly, they found that around 90% of fuel evaporated at
165◦ ATDC for the gasoline case and at 275◦ ATDC for the DMF case,
indicating that the DMF spray has delayed around 90◦ CA to achieve this
vaporization percentage. Furthermore, around 96% of DMF and 98.5%
of gasoline were injected by 340◦ ATDC, implying that it would need
more time for DMF to turn into complete vapor before the start of
combustion (SOC) [80]. For penetration length illustrated in Fig. 3e, it
could be seen the evolution of DMF’ penetration length in the correla­
tion with the time at 100 bar of injection pressure [77]. Compared to
results reported in the literature, the difference in penetration between
DMF, gasoline, and ethanol was around 10%, this was agreed with the
finding in the study of Atsushi et al. [83] and Paolo et al. [84]. Moreover,
an insignificant difference in penetration length between DMF/iso-oc­
tane blends and DMF could also be observed in Fig. 3f, even with a multi-
hole injector of DI spark engine [81]. Absolutely, these results were
suitable for those given in Table 2, where molecular weight, liquid
density, and surface tension of DMF are considerably higher than that of
gasoline and ethanol
3.2. Flame characteristics
Being a novel chemical, the study on DMF combustion characteristics
is very important. Among global parameters characterizing for com­
bustion characteristics, laminar burning velocities (LBV) and
unstretched flame propagation speed (UFPS) were thought to represent
combustion characteristics and to validate the kinetic chemical mech­
anism. Clearly, initial parameters such as temperature, pressure,
equivalence ratio, and mixture composition showed significant effects
on LBV due to the multi-lateral combined influences like reaction
mechanism, or physicochemical properties. Being a key indicator
affecting directly the turbulent simulations, LBV was known as the
burning rate when applied to ICE. Most of the investigations have
concentrated on the use of combustion bombs under isochoric condi­
tions or the heat flux-based method. For flame images and burning ve­
locities of DMF compared to ethanol and gasoline under various
conditions, it could be observed in Fig. 4a and b, respectively. Fig. 4a
showed the flame images of DMF compared to those of ethanol and
gasoline various engine loads of 3 bar and 4 bar IMEP [85]. It could be
seen that the flame images of ethanol (ETH) were increased to twice in
comparison to the original intensity, this result was because the flame
luminance signal of DMF and gasoline were seen to be much stronger
than that of ethanol. Indeed, a considerably brighter flame of DMF in
comparison to gasoline could be observed based on the image sequence
in Fig. 4a. This was absolutely matched with previous research, which
declared a shorter combustion duration of DMF compared to that of
gasoline and ethanol [86–88]. Moreover, the flame images of ethanol
and gasoline have revealed that ethanol had the largest flame areas
caused by the highest laminar burning velocity shown in Fig. 4b.
It is evident that ethanol exhibited the highest LBV among ethanol,
gasoline, and DMF at all initial temperatures. At 323 K, the peak of LBV
was 56 cm/s for ethanol compared to 43 cm/s for gasoline. In the case of
DMF and ethanol, the increase in maximum LBV from 40 cm/s to 49 cm/
s for DMF, and from 56 cm/s to 64 cm/s for ethanol were observed as the
rise of initial temperature was up to 50 ◦ C [89]. This rise of LBV could
exceed this result through the suggestion of Wu et al. [94], who declared
that the LBV of DMF reached 55 cm/s at an initial temperature of 120 ◦ C
and equivalence ratio of 1.2. Achieved results have demonstrated a great
potential of ethanol in fast burning combustion relating to LBV as well as
very high burning magnitude, reporting that the difference of LBV be­
tween ethanol and DMF in the engine application with the range of
equivalence ratio from 0.9 to 1.2 was approximately 30%. At 393 K, the
similarity of LBV of DMF compared to LBV of gasoline were observed at
lower equivalence ratios, although a distinct difference around 10%
between LBV of DMF and LBV of gasoline could be recognized as the
equivalence ratio was changed from 0.9 to 1.1, which was known as the
typical operating conditions of gasoline engines. Similar results were
8
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
also reported in study of Wu et al. [90]. Especially, LBV of gasoline was
significantly higher that of DMF in the case of the equivalence ratio >1.2
[89]. The effects of initial temperature on LBV of DMF at various
equivalent ratios compared to other fuels (such as gasoline, ethanol, and
methyl furan) could be illustrated in Fig. 4c. In addition to the effects of
equivalent ratio and initial temperature on LBV, diluent concentration,
and initial pressure were found to be the parameters affecting LBV;
however, it was found that the effect of initial temperature on LBV was
more considerably [95]. The changing trends of Markstein length (Lb)
were also illustrated in Fig. 4d, where Lb > 0 presented the decrease of
flame speed with increasing the stretch rate [96]. In contrast, Lb <
0 depicted the rise of flame speed with increasing the stretch rate.
Bradley et al. [97] have disclosed that the initial flame could be stable
until the flame radius reached the critical value if Lb > 1.5. Moreover, it
could be seen from Fig. 4d that the reduction of Lb for DMF, ethanol, and
gasoline has occurred along with the increase in equivalence ratio. This
was due to rapid decay, leading to lower Lb at higher equivalence ratios.
In general, the stability of the ethanol flame was the highest among
DMF, ethanol and gasoline because of the highest of Lb value. None­
theless, in the DMF case, the flame was observed to be always below the
ethanol’ and gasoline’s flames, suggesting that the flame of DMF was not
as stable as that of ethanol and gasoline.
3.3. Combustion duration and ignition delay
Normally, the combustion duration was considered as the interval
between the spark timing and the 5% mass fraction burned (MFB) and
was measured by crank angle degrees (CA), in which MFB could be
calculated by the analysis of heat release and using the standard method
[98]. The variation in initial combustion duration could help to clarify
the changing tendency of the maximum pressure in the cylinder. Indeed,
lower combustion duration would result in higher combustion pressures
and the in-cylinder pressure rise could occur earlier in the combustion
stroke. In the study of Daniel et al. [88], they reported that the initial
combustion duration for ethanol was 0.9◦ CA lower compared to that of
DMF, this was due to higher LBV and faster burning rate of ethanol than
for DMF and gasoline [99,100]. It could be seen from Fig. 5a that the
combustion durations of ethanol, DMF, and gasoline in the case of CA50
(10–50% MFB) were higher than the case of (50–90% MFB). Obviously,
the combustion duration for DMF was consistently shorted than for
ethanol, this was attributed to the higher volatility and oxygen content,
and higher cetane number of ethanol compared to DMF [101]. In cases
of 10–50% MFB and 50–90% MFB, the combustion durations of DMF
were 0.12◦ CA and 0.83◦ CA lower than those of ethanol. Moreover, the
decrease of combustion duration in the DMF case after the CA50 location
was found to be 7% and 3% higher compared to ethanol and gasoline,
respectively, indicating higher burning speed for DMF. Achieved results
have highlighted the advantage of the burning speed for DMF in com­
parison with ethanol, although the LBV of the DMF combustion process
was lower than ethanol and gasoline [89].
Ignition delay (ID) is attributed to be a very important factor rep­
resenting the combustion process in the engines. It is a preparatory
duration since the fuels have been injected into the engine cylinder but
the ignition process of fuels has not been initiated yet. In fact, the engine
design and performance are exerted a very great impact by ID, which
was found to be various with different fuels used. Functionally, ID could
be classified into physical ID and chemical ID, in which physical ID is
considered as the duration between the injection start and the time point
of attaining chemical reactions. During physical ID, it occurs the prep­
aration process for fuels such as the atomization, mixing with in-cylinder
air, raising to self-ignition temperature, which depends much on the fuel
properties like viscosity, density. In addition to physical ID, chemical ID
is found to be larger compared to the physical ID. Indeed, chemical ID
has a great dependence on the characteristics of the surroundings such
as temperature, pressure, fuel components. Typically, ignition analysis
based on the sensitivity was performed to explore the critical reactions
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Fig. 5. (a) – Combustion duration of CA50 at 8.5 bar IMEP and KL-MBT timing [88]; (b) – Rate-of-product analysis for the DMF consumption (Left) and sensitivity
analysis of DMF ignition delay (Right) and (c) – Comparison of ignition delay between DMF, ethanol, and gasoline [102].

in the DMF ignition. In the study of Tanaka et al. [102], the OH addition
reaction to the double-bond carbon in DMF (C6H8O) molecular aiming
to form C6H9O2 (dmf252OH3j) was found to be the main pathway in
DMF consumption, this could be seen in Fig. 5b (left). Moreover, the
formation of C6H7O (dmf252j) radicals through the H-abstraction re­
actions from DMF, and the reaction of resonance-stabilized radical
C6H7O with HO2 radical and the decomposition reactions of H2O2 to
produce OH radicals were also detected to be critical for DMF ignition
(Fig. 5b (right)). In contrast, the reactions consuming C6H7O and the
formation reactions of H2O2 were found to have a negative sensitivity
for DMF ignition, indicating the negative effect on the ignition of DMF.
In general, the ignition delay time of DMF was between ethanol and

9
A.T. Hoang et al.
gasoline (Fig. 5c), this result was also reported in references [103,104].
4. Engine performance and emissions
There is no doubt that DMF is suitable for existing commercial en­
gines running on gasoline. To admit this identification, the experimental
and simulation studies must be further carried out on the real engines, in
which the engine performance is known as the key parameter in all tests
related to the use of fuels in engines. In this section, the engine perfor­
mance such as brake thermal efficiency, specific fuel consumption,
exhaust gas temperature, in-cylinder pressure, and output power was
thoroughly analyzed for DMF and its blends in the application to gaso­
line. Moreover, the performance and emissions of engines fueled with
DMF and its blends were also compared to that of other fuels to have an
overall insight into the using strategies of DMF in the future.
4.1. Engine performance
In the SI engine application, spark timing is called as the most vital
parameter to tune and control the combustion phase, which has a
noticeable effect on the engine-out power and emissions, as well as fuel
consumption. The adjustment for spark timing is typical to maximize the
brake thermal efficiency and minimize fuel consumption. Normally for
during the cold start process, the strategies for retarding spark timing are
applied to fast catalyst light-off, which was identified as the temperature
to achieve the efficiency of 50% due to shifting the combustion phase
towards the expansion stroke leading to the increase in the exhaust
temperature [105]. Besides, the fast catalyst light-off was also known as
a paramount need in the cold-start process because around 80–90% of
total emissions in the cold-start could be contributed from the HC
emission source [106]. Therefore, the focus on the spark timing study for
the new-fashioned fuels such as DMF has been considered as an
extremely important work before assessing the engine performance and
other indicators. Indeed, Wang et al. [107] and Daniel et al. [88] have
performed their experiments on the same SI engine, at a speed of 1500
rpm, the range of IMEP (Indicated Mean Effective Pressure) from 3.5 bar
to 8.5 bar under the stoichiometric ratio of fuel/air and various engine
loads in case of utilizing gasoline, DMF, and ethanol as fuels. They found
that the timing for achieving maximum brake torque was retarded by
2◦ CA when the engine knock occurred and the combustion process was
instable with the covariance of IMEP higher 5%. They suggested that the
knock-limited spark advance was represented as the optimum ignition
timing for such cases. At low IMEP, the difference of knock-limited spark
advance and maximum brake torque was negligible for gasoline,
ethanol, and DMF. Nonetheless, the changing trends of both knock-
limited spark advance and maximum brake torque were observed as
increasing the load from 3.5 bar to 4.5 bar IMEP. Indeed, maximum
brake torque and knock-limited spark advance of DMF was more
advanced than that of gasoline, while the spark timing of ethanol was
the most advanced. This trend was seen more clearly at the highest IMEP
of 8.5 bar, corresponding to less advanced 6◦ CA for gasoline than DMF,
while this maximum difference was 5◦ CA between ethanol and DMF.
After the spark timings for all test fuels were optimized, DMF had shorter
combustion duration in comparison with gasoline, around 1◦ CA at 3.5
bar IMEP. Especially at high loads, combustion duration of DMF was
much shorter than that of gasoline, around 4◦ CA at 8.5 bar IMEP. As a
result, such fast burning rate at higher load of 8.5 bar IMEP for DMF
caused maximum in-cylinder temperature that was 393 K higher than
that of gasoline, while maximum in-cylinder pressure of DMF was 14 bar
higher than that of gasoline. Moreover, ethanol has higher latent heat of
vaporization (920 kJ/kg) than DMF (389 kJ/kg), resulting in the in­
crease in the cooling effect of ethanol. Consequently, the maximum in-
cylinder temperature of DMF was about 100 K higher than that of
ethanol at all engine loads. In another scene, the spark timing sensitivity
of DMF has already compared to ethanol and gasoline in the SI engine
application. The retardation of the spark timing was found to reduce
10
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
IMEP for DMF lesser than that of gasoline, while the spark timing
sensitivity of ethanol was the least. Due to this reason, DMF was thus
concluded to have a tuning window for spark timing sensitivity larger
than gasoline. As a result, the factors characterizing the combustion
sensitivity such as the combustion phase and combustion stability was
ordered as gasoline > DMF > ethanol [108]. Indeed, the feasibility of
employing DMF as an alternative fuel in SI engines was highlighted
through the direct comparison of the engine performance running on
DMF, gasoline, and ethanol [109]. All experiments were tested under
internal features (fixed speed at1500 rpm and various engine loads via
changing IMEP) with a stoichiometric ratio of air/fuel and fixed injec­
tion timing (IT) = 280◦ BTDC. However, the throttle was set at different
positions, while spark timing was fixed at 34◦ BTDC for all throttle po­
sitions and test fuels. As a result, the specific fuel consumption (SFC) for
DMF was found to be the most noticeable influence, SFC was considered
as a major factor for the vehicle users because it was directly linked to
the mileage range of those vehicles. When having an insight on the
initial combustion phasing, it was found the similar trend for DMF,
gasoline, and ethanol as increasing IMEP. At all IMEPs, initial combus­
tion duration of DMF was lower than that of gasoline and ethanol, this
parameter was magnified at higher IMEP (around 7.1 bar). However, it
could not confirm that the ignitability of DMF was better than that of
gasoline and ethanol if considering the differences in the pressures and
temperatures in the combustion chamber. Also, the fluctuation trends of
combustion durations for DMF, gasoline, and ethanol were also
revealed, in which combustion duration was considered the time cor­
responding to 10% to 90% of mass fuel burned. Mostly, ethanol has the
longest combustion duration among the test fuels due to the lowest
pressure and temperature in the cylinder. It was worth noting that
relatively more ethanol than DMF and gasoline for a stoichiometric
mixture was the main cause of increasing the combustion duration.
Moreover, the energy density of DMF and gasoline were much higher
than that of ethanol resulting in the rapid heat release, the combustion
duration was thus more rapidly decrease in case of gasoline and DMF as
rising the engine loads. These results were also suitable for the fast flame
propagation rate of DMF and gasoline reported in the above section. In
general, the combustion process under optimized working conditions for
gasoline was also more suitable for DMF than ethanol. More impor­
tantly, the SFC of DMF was reported to be around 30% lower than that of
ethanol but it was similar to gasoline. However, a limited difference for
DMF associated with the spark timing was pointed out in case of the
same spark timing for each individual test fuel. At 7.1 bar of IMEP, the
combustion duration of DMF was 3◦ CA and 4◦ CA shorter than that of
gasoline and ethanol, respectively, leading to a 5 bar higher maximum
pressure in the cylinder compared to ethanol.
In SI engines, the application of injection strategies based on the
simultaneous combination between DI event and port fuel injection
(PFI) was confirmed to blend two fuel types at any blending ratio. This
was found to increase the flexibility of fuel use and the potential for
optimizing the combustion process of engines. By detecting the advan­
tages of combining injection events between DI and PFI, Daniel et al.
[31] have compared the use of DMF-gasoline for a single-cylinder 4-
stroke SI engine operated under DI option and DI-PFI strategy. The
used SI engine was operated at a fixed engine speed of 1500 rpm and
various engine loads (IMEP = 3.5 bar to 8.5 bar) at the stoichiometry of
air–fuel mixture. As a result, the combustion duration of SI engine fueled
with G-DMF25DI was lower than DMF25DI, resulting in lower COV of
IMEP and higher combustion stabilities of G-DMF25DI (Fig. 6a). In
addition, the lowest value of COV of IMEP, corresponding to 1.5%, was
found at an engine load of 6.5 bar IMEP. This COV of IMEP was also
lower than the case of applying individual injection event, PFI, or dual-
DI. Finally, the dual injection was reported as a promising strategy to
optimize the combustion process for a blend of 75% gasoline and 25%
DMF. Similarly, Wu et al. have performed their experiments on an SI
engine combined two injection strategies as DI and PFI under various
intake manifold absolute pressures (MAPi) such as 0.65 bar, 0.8 bar, and
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Fig. 6. Comparison of the effects of used fuels (DMF, gasoline, ethanol) and injection strategies on the combustion characteristics and the engine efficiency; (a) – The
dependence of combustion stability on IMEP under various injection event [31]; (b) – The change of indicated efficiency depending on the start of injection in split-
injection event [13]; (c) – Specific fuel consumption and indicated thermal efficiency at various loads [31,107].

0.95 bar, in which only gasoline was used for PFI event while gasoline,
ethanol or DMF was directly injected into the cylinder for DI event. They
realized that the total input-energies at each MAPi for gasoline, DMF,
and ethanol were slightly increased with the reduction of the gasoline
fraction in the PFI event although these increases were different due to
the differences of the stoichiometric ratio of air–fuel, the mass of
injected fuel, and heating value. At 0.65 bar of MAPi, the DMF provided
slightly higher total input-energies compared to ethanol as rising the
DMF fraction in the DI event. Nonetheless, the opposed trend for ethanol
and DMF occurred at higher MAPi, this was attributed to the cooling
effect of ethanol greater than DMF. The increase in the total input-
energies was believed to offer a greater opportunity to achieve a
higher output power. In addition, the combustion duration for gasoline
was observed to increase when reducing the gasoline fraction in the PFI
event although this increase in combustion duration was decreased with
increased MAPi. After optimizing spark timing, the combustion duration
could be further decreased because of the better quality for the knock
suppression indirect injection event and the octane numbers of fuels
[109]. Theoretically, higher efficiency was thought to be the result of a
shorter combustion duration. Nonetheless, DMF did not meet the afore-
mentioned trend, even at the lowest MAPi. Consequently, the lowest
indicated efficiency for DMF was observed at lower MAPi. At the highest
MAPi of 0.95 bar, the indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) of DMF was
higher than that of gasoline due to the positive effects of shorter com­
bustion duration for DMF [87]. To evaluate the conversion efficiency of
each fuel, the measurement relating to ITE or the indicated specific fuel
consumption equivalent to gasoline (ISFCE) is performed. Normally,
indicated efficiency is inversely proportional to ISFCE. In addition to
indicated efficiency, ISFCE is also a parameter to compare directly the
energy conversion efficiency between as-used fuels. In general, the en­
ergy conversion efficiency of DMF compared to gasoline and ethanol
could be illustrated in Fig. 6 (b&c).
Saying about the relationship between ISFCE and indicated effi­
ciency with IMEP, the study of Daniel et al. [88] have revealed that the

11
A.T. Hoang et al.
peak indicated efficiency for DMF, gasoline, and ethanol was achieved
with the range of IMEP from 7 bar to 7.5 bar. They reported that such a
decrease of indicated efficiency for DMF might be due to higher com­
bustion temperature resulting in rising heat loss and lowering useful
work [88]. Moreover, the higher loss of heat exchange was thought to
compensate for this effect, it was reflected from the result of ISFCE. As a
result, lower efficiency of DMF compared to ethanol although both
ethanol and DMF could be competitive to commercial gasoline, espe­
cially at higher loads. For the split-injection strategy, the changing trend
of indicated efficiency for DMF, ethanol, and gasoline was also depicted
in Fig. 6b. Since the application of a split-injection event was believed to
improve full-load torque, it was utilized in the study of Daniel et al. [13]
to explore the effects of gasoline, ethanol, DMF on the engine perfor­
mance and emissions. They have performed their experiments on a
single-cylinder 4-stroke DISI engine operated at a fixed speed of 1500
rpm under the stoichiometric ratio of air/fuel at two ratios of split-
injection technique as SOI1:SOI2 = 1:1 and SOI1:SOI2 = 2:1 (SOI was
defined as the start of injection). In their study, SOI1 was fixed at
270◦ BTDC while SOI2 was swept in the range of 90oBTDC-240oBTDC
with the step of 30◦ CA. The similar results to the previous works relating
to the achieved maximum IMEP with single-pulse injection event were
reported and explained due to the increased octane index and decreased
stoichiometric ratio of air/fuel for DMF and ethanol, in which this
decrease of stoichiometric ratio of air/fuel was attributed to the oxygen
content in molecular of for DMF and ethanol. In terms of split-injection
event, the higher IMEP compared to single-pulse injection in the case of
DMF and ethanol was found to be more sensitive than with gasoline. The
indicated efficiency of gasoline was found to increase significantly as the
engine was operated under a split-injection strategy. However, the
benefits of ethanol and DMF were seen less clearly. It is worth
mentioning for ethanol and DMF that the utilization of the split-injection
event was only beneficial at SOI1:SOI2 = 1:1 and SOI2 = 210◦ BTDC, at
which the indicated efficiency was increased up to 0.5% for ethanol and
1.2% for DMF compared to the case of single-pulse injection. Further­
more, there was an improvement up to 2.3% for engine-out power in
case of using DMF with the SOI2 = 200–240◦ BTDC, this power
enhancement was mainly attributed to better atomization and the
reduction of piston-wetting phenomenon. In addition, the similarity of
ITE and combustion characteristics of DMF compared to gasoline was
thought to result in the comparable ITE of the engine [107]. However,
the application of different injection strategies was detected to bring the
various brake thermal efficiencies (Fig. 6c). For instance, the use of G-
D25DI (duel-injection with gasoline for PFI and blend of 25% DMF and
75% gasoline for DI) has produced around 0.9–1.4% higher ITE than the
case of D25DI (blend of 25% DMF and 75% gasoline for DI), although
the efficiency of the engine running on G-D25DI condition at higher
loads was influenced by PFI [31]. In general, the use of gasoline under
PFI has reinforced the improvement of combustion chemistry because
gasoline has higher volatility, leading to easily pre-mixing in the cylin­
der and promoting the DMF combustion. More impressively, due to the
inability of mixing with gasoline and the synergetic characteristic of the
separate injecting mechanism, DMF has been demonstrated to bring
higher effectiveness in the application of dual-injection event.
Up to now, most of the studies have been in common through the
evaluation of the combustion characteristics of DMF for the SI engine;
they have affirmed DMF as a promising green fuel as compared to
ethanol and gasoline. In addition to the above-mentioned observation on
indicated efficiency, ISFCE, combustion duration, and COV of IMEP, the
changing progress of in-cylinder pressure, in-cylinder temperature, fuel
consumption, brake thermal efficiency, and exhaust gas temperature
were also measured and determined, although the number of study on
these parameters on the SI engines were limited. Relating to fuel con­
sumption, there is an undeniable fact that the calorific value of DMF was
comparable to gasoline, only lower 7%, while the calorific value of
ethanol was 34% lower than that of gasoline. This means that a
requirement of 1.512 L and 1.073 L of ethanol and DMF, respectively, is
12
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
necessary to get the equivalent energy released from 1 L of gasoline
because the stoichiometric ratios for each fuel are different as the
throttle was posited corresponding to λ = 1.0 at the fixed engine loads.
Therefore, the fuel consumption for DMF was lower than ethanol and
slightly higher than gasoline to achieve the same output power. In the
study of Zhong et al. [109], they reported that the fuel rate of gasoline
was around 33% less than that of ethanol, while this fuel rate for DMF
was only slightly higher than that of gasoline. Moreover, in the study on
the comparison of specific fuel consumption (SFC) between blends of
DMF5G (5% DMF and 95% gasoline), E10G (10% ethanol and 90%
gasoline), and gasoline has also revealed that the SFCs for DMF5G and
E10G were similar to that of gasoline at all engine loads. Nonetheless,
unlike E10G, DMF5G has exhibited a slightly lower SFC compared to
that of gasoline at higher engine loads [110]. Besides, DMF was reported
to provide around 30% lower SFC compared to ethanol [107]. More
importantly, Daniel et al. [31] have detected around 3.2% reduction of
SFC at 7.5 bar of IMEP for D25DI blends. This result was thought to be
extremely promising and counter-intuitive due to the efficiency
improvement offsetting the lower heating value of DMF. Due to this
reason, the synergy between the dual-injection event and the use of
blend DMF-gasoline was further highlighted although SFC of G-D25DI in
case of employing PFI was lower than that of DI when the engine was
operated at IMEPs of below 6.7 bar. Even with the use strategies of
combined fuel such as dual-fuel or PFI, or the application of split-
injection strategy, or the change of injection timings, all studies have
indicated that SFC of DMF was comparable to gasoline, while SFC of
ethanol was much higher than that of gasoline and DMF [13,88]. In a
recent study of Liu et al. [111] on comparing the volumetric fuel con­
sumption (VFC) of a 4-cylinder 4-stroke DISI engine, which ran on
ethanol, n-butanol, DMF in comparison to their blends with various
ratios of 20%, 50%, 75%, and was operated at different speeds of
15–120 km/h with intervals of 25 km/h. An important finding relating
to the use of DMF is that there was an insignificant influence on VFC
relative to gasoline as using blends of DMF/gasoline at various DMF
ratios. The major reason pointed out was that the lower heating value of
DMF was comparable with gasoline but higher than that of ethanol and
n-butanol. The VFCs of ethanol/gasoline blends were highest, similar to
the previous works. At blending ratios of 20% and 50% for blends of
DMF/gasoline and n-butanol/gasoline, their achieved VFCs were similar
to the case of using gasoline. Nonetheless, the blends of DMF/gasoline
and n-butanol/gasoline with>75% of DMF and n-butanol have disclosed
higher VFCs than that of gasoline. In general, VFC as adding DMF was
reported to be better than that of adding n-butanol or ethanol. There­
fore, the use of DMF for SI engines was believed to bring more beneficial
as considering the fuel economy.
The exhaust gas temperature (EGT) is a critical parameter reflecting
the combustion process and fuel conversion efficiency. The EGT was
found to have remarkable effects on the efficiency of the catalyst con­
verter and the performance of the turbine-compressor turbocharger. The
EGT was significantly dominated by the maximum in-cylinder temper­
ature (Tex_max), the focus on determining the maximum in-cylinder
temperature was considered as a common and useful method to assess
the EGT. It could be seen from Fig. 7a that the lowest in-cylinder tem­
perature has resulted from the combustion of ethanol. This result could
be due to, on the one hand, the latent heat of evaporation of ethanol is
higher than that of DMF and gasoline, leading to more heat absorbed in
the compression stroke, while DMF and gasoline were producing more
net heat because of the less required energy for the phase change. On the
other hand, the maximum brake torque timing in the case of ethanol was
observed to be much more advanced compared to both gasoline and
DMF. As a result, more energy was taken off from the released heat in the
combustion to produce useful work, which was compatible with the
explanation in Fig. 6 (b&c). Experimental study of Daniel et al. [88] has
concluded that the Tex_max in case of using DMF was around 30℃ higher
than the case of gasoline at the lowest IMEP based on the fuel-specific
MBT timing but the reducing extent for ethanol was seen to be around
A.T. Hoang et al.
Fig. 7. Changing tendency of engine performance and in-cylinder parameters for SI engine running on gasoline, ethanol, and DMF; (a) – Maximum in-cylinder
temperature at various loads [107,109]; (b)- Maximum in-cylinder pressure at various loads [107,109]; (c) – Evolution of in-cylinder pressure and HRR at the
MAPi = 0.95 bar with various fractions of PFI [87].
100 ◦ C in comparison to DMF at lowest IMEP. At maximum brake torque
timing, a negligible difference of gasoline and DMF was reported.
Nonetheless, the Tex_max for DMF was found to be noticeably higher
relative to gasoline in the case of applying the fuel-specific maximum
brake torque/knock-limited spark advance timing. Namely, the Tex_max
as utilizing DMF was approximately 120 ◦ C higher than that of gasoline
at IMEP = 8.5 bar. Indeed, the Tex_max at these values were in accordance
with the efficient working condition of three-way catalysts. More spe­
cifically, the higher in-cylinder temperature was also more useful for
turbocharger-based engines with a downsized and compact dimension,
leading to more potential to improve the output power. The similar
changing trends of Tex_max for DMF, gasoline, and ethanol were seen in
Fig. 7a, when they have further investigated that the increase in engine
loads was the main cause of raising the Tex_max. Moreover, peak in-
cylinder temperature was found to depend much on ST and combus­
tion duration, this finding was received a good agreement from Wang
et al. [107] and Zhong et al. [109]. In contrast, another study performed
at SR10 (10◦ CA of spark retarded) condition of an SI engine fueled with
DMF compared to gasoline, ethanol, methanol, butanol to evaluate the
effects of as-used fuels on the cold-start state of the engine. A reduction
13
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
of the Tex_max in case of using DMF compared to gasoline, especially at
higher loads, was explored. At the highest load, corresponding to 8.5 bar
of IMEP, the Tex_max in case of DMF was around 100 ◦ C lower than that of
gasoline, while three remaining fuel samples (ethanol, methanol,
butanol) have provided much lower in-cylinder temperature than with
gasoline and DMF [108]. In this situation, the reduction of Tex_max for
DMF compared to gasoline may be due to lower heating value of DMF.
More interestingly, DMF was also demonstrated as suitable alternative
fuel for the cold-start conditions rather than other alcoholic fuels. In
addition maximum in-cylinder temperature, the data relating to the
pressure in the cylinder, in which the in-cylinder pressure was repre­
sented through the maximum in-cylinder pressure (Pex_max) or and heat
release rate (HRR), was believed to be one of key parameters to explain
more clearly the changing trend of performance and efficiency. In the
study of Daniel et al, they indicated that the difference between Pex_max
of three fuel samples (DMF, gasoline, and ethanol) was negligible at low
engine loads. Nonetheless, a significant increase in the Pex_max of ethanol
and DMF compared to gasoline was found. Moreover, the peak in-
cylinder pressure at engine loads >6.5 bar IMEP for the ethanol case
has exceeded the DMF case [31]. Especially, the Pex_max for the ethanol
A.T. Hoang et al.
case was around 7 bar and 20 bar greater than that of DMF and gasoline,
respectively, when the engine was operated at a load of 8.5 bar IMEP.
Additionally, the Pex_max for DMF and ethanol was also measured
through maximum brake torque timing for gasoline, where the marginal
difference between DMF, gasoline, and ethanol was reported and this
difference was due to the difference in the burning speeds. A similar
trend on the change of Pex_max was explored by another study of this
group. They have examined the absolute behavior at fuel-specific
maximum brake torque timings and retarded gasoline knock-limited
maximum brake torque timing timings and evaluated the detrimental
impacts at SR10 [108]. Generally, a sharp reduction in the Pex_max was
caused by the impact of the retardation of ignition timing with load. The
similarity of the decay in Pex_max at low engine loads between as-used
fuels could be illustrated in Fig. 7b, in which the difference range of
Pex_max at 3.5 bar IMEP was lower than 2%. This difference was observed
more self-evidently as increasing the loads, whereby the greatest
changes were come from gasoline at SR10, resulting in a 48% decrease
in Pex_max. A similar reduction in Pex_max in the DMF case to gasoline was
also declared, this was attributed to the similarity of knock suppression
abilities for DMF and gasoline. Absolutely, the findings over maximum
in-cylinder pressure and temperature matched with the in-cylinder
pressure plotted in Fig. 7c, where the in-cylinder pressure and HRR
for the DMF case were higher than those of gasoline and ethanol, even at
low loads [107]. At higher loads, an evident difference in the peak in-
cylinder pressure between DMF and gasoline was recognized. As
mentioned above, the constant ignition timing might induce the engine
knock for the case of using DMF and gasoline although the knock trend
for DMF seemed to be lower than that of gasoline, especially at higher
loads. Due to this reason, the following studies on the engine knock as
employing DMF must play a vital role in the application study of DMF in
SI engines.
Fig. 7c has presented the in-cylinder pressure trace and corre­
sponding HRR for DMF, gasoline, and ethanol in the dependence on the
crank angle at the highest MAPi = 0.95 bar with fixed ignition timing =
7oBTDC [87]. It could be seen the comparison of the in-cylinder pressure
trace and HRR in the case of PFI strategy with 100%, 55%, and 0% of
fuel mass fractions. The slightly earlier and greater peak pressures were
reached as decreasing the PFI mass fractions of fuels, in which DMF and
ethanol were emphasized by this behavior. As reported, DMF possessed
a faster burning velocity than gasoline, it was possibly as a consequence
of higher temperatures in the combustion chamber [88]. The combus­
tion duration for DMF was thus considerably decreased compared to the
ethanol case when DMF was used in 55% PFI case, in which it was
partially introduced by the DI event. As a result, Pex_max was shifted
towards the left (meaning earlier), this could be self-evident with the 0%
PFI case. This achieved result has disclosed and provided further proof to
confirm the negative effects of PFI in combustion efficiency. Moreover, it
could also be seen that the dual-injection event has caused the negligible
effects for all test fuels on HRR in the initial stage. Nonetheless, the peak
HRR reached the new one in the later stages when reducing the mass
fraction in PFI strategy but HRR for the gasoline case showed a marginal
influence by the decrease of PFI fueling. Indeed, HRR in the case of
100% PFI fueling has been proven to peak lower and slightly later than
that of the 100% DI fueling case. The changing tendency of HRR was
similar to the DMF case, however, the peak of HRR in the DMF case was
found to be slightly earlier and higher than that of gasoline because, for
DMF case, the in-cylinder temperature was higher and the LBV was
faster than those of gasoline [89]. In contrast, the peak of HRR for DMF
was reported to be marginally higher compared to the ethanol case
although the LBV of DMF was slower than with ethanol. Perhaps, this
was due to higher heating value and higher DMF mass injected into the
combustion chamber compared to ethanol. One more, the DI strategy
was demonstrated to have more benefits for DMF cases compared to the
PFI event when HRR was enhanced and the combustion duration was
shortened for DMF.
14
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
4.2. Emission characteristics
Either theoretically or practically, emission characteristics of SI en­
gines depend primarily on operating conditions, fuel properties, and
engine design. As mentioned above, the physicochemical properties of
DMF had significant effects on engine performance as the SI engines are
fueled with DMF under various injection strategies. Normally, the
different changing propensity on engine performance is the main cause
of varying engine-out emissions. Better engine efficiency is considered
as having a proportional relation to better combustion and more
completely burnt fuel, resulting in lower pollutant emissions. Emission
characteristics from engines could be evaluated through NOx, PM and
soot, HC, CO, and other compounds.
Being one of the gas emissions characterizing the combustion tem­
perature, NOx is considered as the most concerning emission. Typically,
NOx emissions are formed under the combustion temperature exceeding
1800 K in the case of an oxygen-locally rich mixture [112,113]. More­
over, sensitive are NOx emissions with the engine loads, this means that
NOx emissions are increased with increasing the engine loads [114]. In
recent studies on the emission characteristics of SI engines running on
gasoline, DMF, and ethanol, it was found that NOx emission produced
from ethanol was lower than that of gasoline, however, NOx emissions
from DMF were observed to be higher than gasoline, especially at higher
loads. These results could be due to higher combustion temperatures for
the DMF case [13]. Even with the ignition timing optimized for specific
fuel in the study of Daniel et al. [88], NOx emissions were observed to
increase compared to both gasoline and ethanol, however, at loads
higher than 7.5 bar IMEP, NOx emission in the optimum case was
slightly higher than with gasoline. For the combined injection strategy,
PFI and DI in the study of Wu et al. [87], NOx emissions at all MAPi in
the same working condition and PFI fueling were the highest. Obviously,
the peak in-cylinder pressure for ethanol case was similar to the DMF
case but the peak in-cylinder temperature of DMF was somewhat higher
because of higher heating value and lower cooling effects of DMF than
with ethanol. Furthermore, the H/C ratio was also thought to have an
inversely proportional relation to the relative NOx emissions [115]. The
fact is that the H/C ratio (corresponding to 3) of ethanol is the highest,
followed by gasoline with H/C ratio > 2 and the H/C ratio of DMF is
only = 1.33. In addition to NOx emissions, CO2 emission was also
mentioned in a few studies on the use of DMF for SI engines. It is evident
that CO2 emission was considered as an indication of evaluating the
combustion quality. In general, the authors have reported that the in­
crease in the engine loads and the use of optimum advanced ST appeared
to reduce CO2 emissions. On the one hand, increasing the engine loads
was the main cause of more complete combustion. On the other hand,
the combustion efficiency of gasoline, DMF, and ethanol was higher,
peaking at the range of 6–7 bar IMEP, resulting in the minimal CO2
emission [88]. For the split-injection event, CO2 emission for the DMF
case was also much higher than with ethanol and gasoline [13]. In
contrast, CO2 emission for gasoline was found to higher than with DMF
and gasoline as considering the effects of SR10 (spark retard by 10◦ CA).
As a result, CO2 emissions for gasoline, ethanol, and DMF were increased
to 19.4%, 10.7%, and 5.6%, respectively [108]. For the real test cycles
presented in the study of Liu et al. [111], NOx and CO2 emissions for D20
(20% DMF and 80% gasoline of volume) cases were concluded to be
slightly higher than those of gasoline. The range of NOx increase was
around 2.7% to 5.54% and was around 0.64% to 1.65% for CO2 emission
as applying the UDC, EUDC, and NEDC test cycles. However, the use of
DMF has been found to increase the engine-out CO2 emission compared
to gasoline, DMF has the added benefits for CO2 consuming from the raw
production because DMF was extracted from carbohydrates.
For formaldehyde (CH2O) and acetaldehyde (CH3CHO) emissions,
they were found for the DMF case to be around 50% lower than those of
gasoline and ethanol [14] because CH2O and CH3CHO were generated
during the oxidation of fuels under low temperatures [116]. Nonethe­
less, combustion temperatures for DMF appeared to be higher than with
A.T. Hoang et al.
gasoline and ethanol or, at least, the DMF combustion process has taken
place at greater temperatures in case of optimized ST [88], helping to
inhibit the formation of CH2O and CH3CHO. Moreover, the DMF struc­
ture was also believed to produce a lower concentration of CH2O and
CH3CHO emissions. As presented in the decomposition and oxidation
mechanism, DMF was first consumed by oxidizing CH3 group, leading to
forming ketenyl (HCCO) and propyne (C3H4) [117]. Simultaneously,
toluene (C7H8) was generated from the reaction between benzene
(C6H6) and (CH3) radical during the DMF combustion process. After
that, benzaldehyde was formed by further oxidation of toluene [118]. In
addition to furan and its derivatives, the presence of many intermediates
produced from the combustion such as benzene, oxygenated hydrocar­
bons, hydrocarbons, and free radicals was also reported in the laminar
DMF flame, in which benzene was detected to readily observe in the
DMF-rich flame, when benzene was believed to form based on the
combination of two C3H3 radicals. Moreover, C3H3 was found to be one
of the derivatives of the degradation product of DMF, this could be seen
in the consumption pathways of DMF shown in Fig. 8a [119]. Based on
the mole fraction analysis shown in Fig. 8 (b-d) between DMF, ethanol,
Fig. 8. Mechanism of consumption reaction for DMF and emissions; (a) – Possible consumption pathways of DMF for the formation of soot precursor and emissions
[119]; (b) – Mole fractions of DMF [121]; (c) – Mole fraction of ethanol [122]; (d) – Mole fraction of gasoline [123]; (e) – Ketone emissions; (f) – Aldehyde emissions
[14]; (g) – Emissions of HC, CO, and NO from the cold start combustion [110].
15
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
and gasoline, it could be seen the difference in mole fraction of the major
species such as CO, C4H4, C2H2, CH4, C2H4, C2H6, HCHO, and CH3CHO.
Obviously, CO and C5H8 isomers were produced by the migration of CH3
from C2 to C3 in DMF, while CO, C3H4, and C2H4 were known as the
products of additional ring-opening reaction of DMF [86]. Due to quite
slow H abstraction from the ring, ketone emissions of DMF were seen to
be much higher than that of ethanol, even higher than that of gasoline
[120]; this could be observed in Fig. 8e. In contrast, the HCHO and
CH3CHO species produced from DMF were observed to be lower than
those of gasoline and ethanol. Therefore, emissions of CH2O and
CH3CHO in the DMF case were reduced, this trend could be clearly seen
in Fig. 8f.
Fig. 8e and f showed the emissions of some carbonyl species in
addition to three common aldehydes such as CH2O, CH3CHO, C6H5CHO
produced from the DMF combustion. Overall, the total concentration of
carbonyls shown in Fig. 8e was ordered as followed: ethanol (15.4 ppm)
< DMF (89.6 ppm) < gasoline (115.5 ppm). However, aldehyde emis­
sions for DMF were much lower than gasoline and other alcoholic fuels
(Fig. 8f), this result was also matched with the study of Wang et al.
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Fig. 8. (continued).

[107]. In summary, achieved results relating to HC and carbonyl emis­ In order to evaluate the combustion efficiency, HC and CO emissions
sions were also matched with the achieved results from the combustion are very important indicators. Normally, these emission components are
evolution afore-mentioned. inversely proportional to NOx and CO2 emissions, and they are also

16
A.T. Hoang et al.
Fig. 8. (continued).
sensitive to the fuel properties, engine operating conditions, and engine
design. For the engine operating conditions, the HC and CO emissions
were typically decreased as increasing the engine loads. Alternatively,
the oxygen content in fuels was detected to aid better oxidation. For the
level of HC emissions, all studies have confirmed that HC emission
produced from the DMF combustion lay between gasoline and ethanol,
even with the combined injection strategies or optimized ST
[13,87,109]. However, in the case of spark timing retard, HC emissions
for DMF tended to decrease in comparison with gasoline or ethanol at
lower loads < 5.5 bar IMEP [108]. Generally, HC emissions for DMF was
around 30% lower than that of gasoline in the range of engine loads.
More detailed, the method of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
was used to analyze the emissions of HCs and carbonyl (aldehydes and
ketones) for a DISI engine running on gasoline, DMF, and ethanol.
Shukla et al. [110] have studied the performance and emission charac­
teristics of a small-carbureted SI electrical generator fueled with DMF5G
(5% DMF + 95% gasoline) in comparison to E10 (10% ethanol + 90%
gasoline) and gasoline (Fig. 8g). Surprisingly, DMF5G was found to be
better suited to the cold-start combustion than with E10, this was
because of the similar distillation behavior of DMF to gasoline, leading
to the decrease of cold-start emissions. Similarly to HC emissions, CO
emissions were reported from all experiments to reduce with the
increased engine loads. This tendency appeared to be the inverse of
indicated efficiency, in which the highest efficiency has provided the
lowest CO emissions. The CO emissions were demonstrated to depend
17
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
much on the oxygen content in fuels. In all tests as considering the whole
engine loads, ethanol with around 34.78% of oxygen content produced
the lowest CO emissions, followed by DMF with around 16.67% and
gasoline with non-oxygen. However, the changing trend of CO emission
was different from HC emission. For instance, Zhong et al. [109] re­
ported that the peak value of the parabola curve for CO emission in the
ethanol case was matched with the minimum value of the parabola
curve for DMF and gasoline. The support of oxygen content at lower
loads has been revealed through the maximum difference of CO emis­
sions between DMF and gasoline at these loads, corresponding 7 g/kWh.
Moreover, in the study of Daniel et al. [108], they have indicated that
CO emissions for DMF at loads <5 bar were lower than with gasoline,
ethanol, methanol, and butanol. At higher loads, the fluctuation trends
of CO emissions were observed in the comparison between the
oxygenated fuels although CO emissions for all oxygenated fuels were
consistently lower than with gasoline. In contrast, the application of
split-injection for SI engine running on DMF appeared to bring low ef­
ficiency in the decreasing strategy of CO emissions, especially with early
injection event [13]. This result was due to the lower in-cylinder tem­
peratures when DMF was directly injected into the combustion chamber,
resulting in poorer combustion. In a recent study, a similar tendency was
found when an SI engine has experienced the test cycles such as UDC,
EUDC, and NEDC with various speeds aiming to evaluate the real
emissions [111]. As a result, both HC and CO emissions for D20 for all
test cycles were higher than with gasoline, although this increase was
A.T. Hoang et al.
insignificant. Namely, the maximum increase for HC and CO emissions
in the D20 case was indicated for UDC test cycle with 5.03% (mgHC/km)
and 6.17% (mgCO/km) compared to gasoline. Although various
changing tendencies for emissions could be observed depending on
many factors, better emission trend of HC and CO emissions for DMF
compared to gasoline was an undeniable fact.
It is evident that the emission regulations for vehicles equipped with
DISI engines are more and more stringent to improve air quality. This
could be seen from Euro 5b regulations, in which the PM emissions were
regulated with lower level compared to the previous regulations, and
particle number (PN) emissions were considered as an adding indicator
to control the emissions since Euro 6 regulations were issued. As using
DMF as fuel, it was expected to produce lower PM emissions than gas­
oline because DMF is a partially-oxygenated fuel [12]. It was reported
that, under DI condition, PM emissions, on which composed of solid soot
with condensed hydrocarbon or adsorbed hydrocarbon, were signifi­
cantly decreased in comparison to the gasoline case, even at lower loads.
Indeed, lower PM emissions were demonstrated through the correlation
to HC emissions [124]. This could be explained that lower PM emissions
have caused less soot surface for the condensation and adsorption of HC,
resulting in shifting the HC ratio to nucleated particles, and PN emis­
sions were thus increased in comparison to gasoline. There are typically
two modes such as the accumulation and nucleation mechanism for the
distribution of PM size [125]. The separation between the two afore­
mentioned mechanisms could be observed in previous works [88,109]
although the antagonistic results were also reported as all experiments
were carried out on the same engine. In the study of Daniel et al. [88],
for the accumulation mechanism, PM emission was thought to consist of
solid carbonaceous particles with diameter >50 nm, while the diameter
of particles in the nucleation mechanism was lower than 50 nm. They
found that the size distribution of particles, at lower loads, in the
nucleation mode was slightly less than that of accumulation one.
Namely, the total particles under the accumulation mode were 67.1%,
64.4%, and 62.1% for ethanol, DMF, and gasoline, respectively. Mean­
while, the total particle concentration of DMF was around 21,805 par­
ticles/cm3 lower than with ethanol. This positive result was due to lower
surface tension and viscosity of DMF compared to those of ethanol,
resulting in smaller fuel droplets injected into the combustion chamber
[77]. Furthermore, in-cylinder temperatures for the ethanol case were
much lower compared to the DMF case, causing a greater cooling effect
of ethanol. As a result, the benefits resulted from the ethanol with higher
oxygen content were counteracted by a higher cooling effect. On the
contrary, in the study of Zhong et al. [109], the size distribution of
particles in the nucleation mode for DMF, at lower loads at 3.5 bar IMEP,
Fig. 9. PM emission for different fuels at various operating conditions; (a) – PM size distribution at fixed spark timing of 10oBTDC and load of 8.5 IMEP [88]; (b) –
PM emission for various fuel depending on test cycle [111].
18
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
was around 30% higher than that of ethanol, even higher than that of
gasoline. They believed that PM emissions consisted of accumulation
particles with diameter >100 nm and nucleation particles <100 nm in
diameter (Fig. 9a). As increasing the engine loads (at 5.5 bar IMEP), the
total number of particles in the nucleation mode for DMF was still higher
than that of gasoline and ethanol, although the total number of particles
in the accumulation mode for DMF was much lower than with gasoline.
However, they are in common that total PM emission for DMF was lower
than with gasoline in the low-to-moderate loads. This difference in the
formation mechanism of PM under the accumulation and nucleation
modes might be attributed to the measuring condition and method, and
the surrounding environment. Wang et al. [126], they have concluded
that the major components of PM emissions came from volatile com­
ponents including HCs, lubricants, etc. The achieved results from their
study were matched with the previous studies that soot component
produced from DMF, which was considered as the main component in
PM emissions, were lower than with gasoline but higher than that of
ethanol [107]. Besides, the engine operating conditions were proven to
affect significantly the PM emissions of DISI engines [88,109,126]. Facts
show that the engine operating conditions were proven to affect
significantly the PM emissions. At higher loads (8.5 bar IMEP), there was
a separation between the accumulation and nucleation modes at the
point of about 50 nm in diameter of particles. Indeed, the distribution of
particle size was dominated by the nucleation mode when the particles
with around 25–30 nm in diameter have peaked [88]. At this load
extent, the ratios of accumulation particles of the total concentration of
particles were only 2.1% for ethanol, 1.7% for DMF, and 18.3% for
gasoline.
More specifically, <4000 particles/cm3 was produced from ethanol
and DMF compared to 21,000 particles/cm3 for gasoline. Likely, the
droplet velocity and mean droplet diameter of gasoline were higher than
those of DMF and ethanol, this confirmation could be self-evident in
Fig. 3a&b, causing an increase in the piston impingement. Other reasons
to explain the changing tendency of PM emissions were indicated
thermal efficiency (Fig. 6c) and in-cylinder temperatures (Fig. 7a), in
which higher in-cylinder temperature and higher thermal efficiency
have promoted the pyrolysis of fuel as well as reduced the solid carbo­
naceous emissions. Generally, it is thought that the oxygenated fuels
have significant effects on reducing the formation of the soot precursor,
consequently reducing PM emissions. For DMF20, the combustion
temperature is somewhat higher than that of gasoline and E20, pro­
moting further the oxidation of soot. Thus, a remarkable decline of PM
emissions can be achieved when using DMF20 for the SI engine. In the
case of E20, the latent heat of vaporization of ethanol is the higher than
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

that of DMF but octane number and heating value of ethanol are lower
than DMF, resulting in the lower combustion temperature and the
decrease of oxidized soot rate compared to DMF. As a result, PM emis­
sions from DMF20 were observed to be lower than those of E20 and
gasoline, although DMF has still higher C/O ratio than ethanol [111].
Nonetheless, the opposite tendency has occurred as considering the
nucleation particles at the same loads of 8.5 bar IMEP, the worst
offender with around 122,000 particles/cm3 was found as DMF. This
sharp increase in nucleation particle number was because the ring-
structured DMF was difficult to burn completely, products produced
from the incomplete combustion of DMF were known as soot precursors
[23,127]. Generally, PM emissions in the DMF case at low loads were
found to be comparable to the gasoline case. However, at high loads,
nucleation particles for DMF were much higher than with gasoline,
while accumulation particles for DMF had similar sizes to ethanol and
had lower concentration than gasoline. In addition to traditional influ­
encing factors on PM emissions as mentioned above, PM and PN emis­
sions were found to depend much on the test cycle, which was self-
evident in Fig. 9b. According to the UDC test cycle, the maximum
reduction of PM for DMF20 was 48.06% compared to gasoline although
this reduction extent was smaller based on other test cycles such as
EUDC or NEDC. More specifically, all test cycles also have provided a
spectacular result on lower PM emission for D20 than with E20, Bu20,
and gasoline [111]. Not only that, PN for DMF20 was reported to
decrease for all test cycles, in which the largest reduction extent of PN
for DMF20 was 69.43% for UDC test cycle in comparison with the gas­
oline case. Furthermore, PN for DMF20 was comparable to that of E20
although it was lower than with Bu20.
Somewhat, the flame images showed its velocity of propagation and
its luminance. In general, the oxygenated fuels such as DMF, MF, or

Fig. 10. Soot formation extent depending on various factors; (a) – Impact of fuel on the soot profile based on derivative weight (upper) and activation energy (lower)
in the cases of gasoline, DMF, E25, and ethanol at engine parameters of 8.5 bar IMEP, speed = 1500 rpm, equivalent ratio = 0.9, SOI = 100◦ BTDC [126]; (b) – Effects
of temperature and DMF concentration on sooting tendency [131]; (c) – Effects of engine loads on soot formation [126]; (d) – HRTEM images for gasoline, DMF20,
and E20 soot samples at various resolutions [136].

19
A.T. Hoang et al.
Fig. 10. (continued).
ethanol have brighter flames than with non-oxygen containing fuels
such as iso-octane or gasoline. More importantly, since the flame lumi­
nance was proportional to the in-cylinder combustion temperatures, the
higher the flame luminance was, the greater the soot concentrations
were [128]. It could be reported in reference [129] that the luminance of
the DMF flame was the highest, it was thus believed that the soot con­
centration was considered as leading dominating factor for the DMF
flame luminance and the brighter flame of DMF was the main cause of
higher soot production. Nonetheless, an ever-aforementioned inter­
esting contrast was lower PM emissions for DMF compared to gasoline,
which was because of the oxygen-containing molecule of DMF
[87,107,109]. Therefore, DMF, on the one hand, could generate more
soot than the gasoline case because of the circular structures of molec­
ular; on the other hand, the oxygen content in DMF was also thought to
enhance the oxidization process, resulting in the reduction of the soot
concentration. Finally, this behavior of DMF and gasoline appeared to
generate a low soot emission for DMF [130]. From experimental studies,
it was found that the oxidation of soot generated from DMF was easier
than gasoline, even than gasoline to some extent. This was indicated
through the lowest maximum mass loss rate temperature and lowest
20
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
required activation energies (Fig. 10a), it was also suitable for the
highest in-cylinder temperatures for DMF. It could be seen from Fig. 10a
that the profiles based on the analysis of derivative weight for the soot
production from DMF in comparison to gasoline and ethanol. From the
derivative weight profiles, the activation energy (Ea, KJ/mol) was
shown in the lower figure, in which the integrated area on the diagram
indicated the relationship between temperature and derivative weight
was proportional to the soot weight [126]. Obviously, DMF combustion
has produced less soot than gasoline and E25, although it was higher
than with neat ethanol. Moreover, the activation energy was also
revealed to be highest for soot formation from gasoline, corresponding
to 153 kJ/mol, followed by E25 (124 kJ/mol), DMF (109 kJ/mol), and
ethanol (83 kJ/mol). As a result, the soot reactivity generated from DMF
was much higher than with gasoline. More impressively, four major
factors including (i) – carbon structure, (ii) – primary particle, (iii) –
agglomerated particle size, and (iv) – soot oxidization mode were
explored to explain why DMF was easier to oxidize than with gasoline
[126]. More interestingly, an adding idea was found to perfect the soot
formation mechanism when the activation energy and the combustion
temperature were proportional to the engine loads, this was indicated a
A.T. Hoang et al.
difficulty in the soot oxidation if soot was formed at higher combustion
temperatures, which were illustrated in Fig. 10b&c. It could be the
sooting tendency of DMF depending on the temperature and concen­
tration from Fig. 10b, in which it was self-evident that soot yield (dot)
and soot amount (bar) in the pyrolysis mechanism of DMF were
increased proportionally to the increase in temperature and DMF con­
centration [131]. Alternatively, Fig. 10c has pointed out the correlation
between engine load and the soot oxidization. In general, the profile of
soot oxidization in the gasoline case has shifted to higher temperatures
along with the increase in engine loads. At lower loads (5.5 bar IMEP),
around 80% of soot originated from gasoline was oxidized at a tem­
perature of 700 K, while there was around 85% of soot joining in the
oxidation process for the DMF case at this temperature. However, the
temperature was required to be higher to yield 80% of oxidized soot
when the engine was operated on gasoline at a higher load (8.5 bar
IMEP) [126]. In the DMF case, the profiles of soot oxidization were
negligible shifted as compared to gasoline. The increase in engine loads
has increased the net soot production (including formation-growth-
oxidation for soot) for both DMF and gasoline although a lower extent
for DMF [132]. These results were matched with the calculated activa­
tion energy and maximum mass loss rate temperature for DMF and
gasoline as changing the engine loads. However, it was thought to be
difficult to entirely explain the cause of soot reduction for the blends of
gasoline with DMF or ethanol because of the differences in fuel-bound
oxygen mechanism [133,134]. Moreover, the oxygen atom in DMF or
other oxygenated fuels was believed to promote the formation of CO/
CO2 by decomposing the intermediate species based on oxygenated
hydrocarbons although a different extent was observed because of the
differences in the structure of fuel molecular. Typically, the increase in
the number of oxygenated radicals was the major reason for oxidizing
soot, resulting in the soot reduction [135]. Furthermore, it was also
detected that C2H5O radicals were produced when adding ethanol to
favor the CO/CO2 formation instead of C2H4 or C2H2 aiming to break the
pathways forming soot. However, a lower extent was found with the
presence of DMF because the O/C ratio of DMF (O/C = 0.17) was lower
than with ethanol (O/C = 0.5), resulting in the reduction of the fuel-
bound oxygen effect [136]. Moreover, the DMF combustion process
has produced higher amounts of species, (for instance C6H6, C6H7O,
CH2 = CH-CH = CH2, C5H6O, and C5H6) with larger molecular mass
dominating the soot oxidation reactivity compared to the ethanol case
[137]. In addition, the amounts of C–C bonds in DMF were also much
higher than that of ethanol, favoring the formation of soot precursors.
Furthermore, smaller agglomerated particles from the DMF combustion
mentioned above were also attributed to easy oxidation of DMF because
of a higher ratio of surface to volume, leading to the greater acceleration
of the oxidation for DMF than with gasoline, in which the soot genera­
tion was believed to experience this oxidization. It was proposed that the
utilization of oxygenated fuels could make the after-treatment system
less its function because the concentration of PM emissions was lower as
well as the energy demand for the soot oxidation was lower than the
requirement [138]. In the case of using DMF20 and E20, it was indicated
that slower PAH condensation and soot-growth rates might be the main
cause of the reduction in the size of primary particles for DMF20 and E20
compared to gasoline [136]. From Fig. 10d, it could be seen smaller size
of primary particles in soot from E20 and DMF20 flame compared to that
of gasoline through HRTEM images. This finding showed a good
agreement with previous works, in which less carbon atoms reduced the
formation of soot precursor, and then, soot [135,139]. Moreover, some
ordered stacks of parallel PAH layers and longer fringe lengths from
gasoline soot compared to DMF20 and E20 soot samples could be
observed in Fig. 10d. In addition, amorphous character of E20 and
DMF20 soot samples were seen to be higher than that of gasoline. These
results might be due to poor arrangement of PAHs in E20 and DMF20
soot samples, in which the residence time of E20 and DMF20 soot
samples in flames was detected to be shorter than the gasoline case,
reducing the degree of graphitization [140]. Furthermore, graphite-like
21
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
parallel stacks might be not formed because of a high amount of non-
aromatic hydrocarbons, resulting in the difference in the nano­
structures that have a significant effect on the reactivity of soot particles
towards oxygen [141]. The elemental analysis from FTIR spectra from
the combustion process of gasoline, DMF20, and E20 was added to
clarify the mechanism of soot formation. On the basis of the analysis
from FTIR spectra reported in reference [136], the highest contents of
oxygen and hydrogen came from E20, in which soot samples produced
from E20 and DMF20 were seen to provide aliphatic and oxygenated
functional groups with higher concentrations compared to gasoline, this
finding was also agreed by Conturso et al. [142,143]. However, C–C
functional groups containing soot for the DMF20 and E20 cases were
lower than with gasoline. The FTIR spectra have shown a broad peak in
the range of 3300–3700 cm− 1 for the soot, indicating a stretched vi­
bration from the hydroxyl (OH) group [136]. Facts show that ROH,
C6H5OH, and R-COOH groups, which were arisen from the aforemen­
tioned OH groups, were considered as intermediate substances during
the oxidation process of soot, although the OH peak could not find the
contribution of R-COOH groups because these R-COOH groups were fast
decomposed in flame structures [140].
In general, the presence of functional groups such as aliphatic and
oxygenated groups in the soot was revealed through the FTIR analysis,
in which the amount of aromatic C–C bonds in gasoline soot was highest
but aliphatic and oxygenated group-rich soot were also found for the
DMF20 and E20 cases. However, increasing surface oxygen groups could
have an evident effect [144], or no effect on the soot oxidation [145],
while the enhancement of aliphatic character and the reduction of PAH
sizes were pointed out to influence the soot oxidation more. In order to
have the answer relating to the demonstration of the quantification
ability on the soot formation between DMF and gasoline, Tran et al.
[146] have simulated the flame of DMF in comparison to that of a sur­
rogate mixture (including n-heptane, iso-octane, and toluene with the
ratio of 13.7%:42.9%:43.4% by volume). They found that the mole
fraction of a major product such as C5H6 from the DMF combustion was
around 20 times lower than that of the surrogate mixture. Meanwhile,
the mole fractions of C6H5-C2H5, C8H8, and C6H6 in the surrogate
mixture case were around 30, 6, and 2 times, respectively, greater
compared to the DMF case. These results have shown the significantly
lower mole fractions of PAH components in the DMF flame compared to
the surrogate mixture, affirming DMF as an interesting and promising
ON improver. In general, the obtained study results from the use of DMF
for SI engines were comparable to the existing commercial fuels, even
having some better characteristics. However, the utilization of DMF for
SI engine application should be thoroughly analyzed and evaluated on
other aspects. In summary, the effects of DMF properties on the SI engine
performance, combustion and emission characteristics were given in
Table 3.
5. Engine knocking and noise
By analyzing the reaction kinetics based on the thermal, chemical,
and elemental mechanism of DMF along with associated compounds,
Friese et al. [148] have already calculated the enthalpies and dissocia­
tion energies for the bonds in DMF molecular and related radical species
by employing quantum chemical tools. The highest bond energy was
found to lie on the ring-carbon-H bonds with a value of 120 kcal/mol
compared to 115 kcal/mol for ring-carbon-CH3 bonds and 85 kcal/mol
for the C–H bond of CH3 groups in DMF. This result relating to DMF was
explained due to the strong chemical bond as well as the geometrical
stiffness of a five-carbon membered ring-based DMF, resulting in having
little tendency to react chemically at high temperatures but exhibiting
an excellent knock-inhibitor. Alternatively, a higher RON of DMF
compared to commercial gasoline was considered as an important
parameter to inhibit the engine knocking [149]. Because of this reason,
DMF, as a new-fashioned green fuel, was paid much attention to the
application in engines without any modifications. Indeed, audible
A.T. Hoang et al.
Table 3
Emission and performance characteristics of SI engines running on DMF-based fuels.
Engine parameter Operating condition
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • DI with injection pressure =
S; 15 MPa;
• Compression • Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and
ratio 11.5:1; various loads;
• Single DI with various SOI;
• Split DI with SOI1:SOI2 = 1:1
and 1:2;
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • DI with injection pressure =
S; 15 MPa at SOI = 280oBTDC;
• Compression • Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and
ratio 11.5:1; load of 5.5 bar IMEP;
• Injection timing = 21oBTDC;
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • PFI with injection pressure =
S; 3 bar at SOI = 50oBTDC;
• Compression • DI with injection pressure =
ratio 11.5:1; 150 bar at SOI = 280oBTDC;
• Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and
various loads;
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • Dual-injection with injection
S; pressure = 150 bar at SOI =
• Compression 280oBTDC for DI; injection
ratio 11.5:1; pressure = 3 bar at SOI =
50oBTDC for DI;
• Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and
various MAPi = 0. 65 bar, 0.8
bar, 0.9 bar
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • DI with injection pressure =
S; 15 MPa at SOI = 280oBTDC;
• Compression • Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and
ratio 11.5:1; various loads;
• Optimized spark timings;
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • DI with injection pressure =
S; 15 MPa at SOI = 280oBTDC;
• Compression • Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and
ratio 11.5:1; various loads;
• Optimized spark timings;
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
Fuels Engine performance Emission characteristics Ref
DMF; ULG; ETH 1. For single DI • NOx for ULG < NOx for ETH < [13]
• Optimum IMEP as SOI = 260- NOx for DMF;
280oBTDC; • HC for ETH < HC for ULG < NOx
• Volumetric efficiency (VE): peak VE for for DMF;
ULG = 75.9% at SOI = 210oBTDC < • CO for ETH < CO for ULG < CO
peak VE for DMF = 77.9% at SOI = for DMF; At SOI2 = 90oBTDC, CO
210oBTDC < peak VE for ETH = 77.9% for DMF < CO for ULG;
at SOI = 270oBTDC; • CO2 for ETH < CO2 for ULG < CO2
• CD for ETH < CD for DMF < CD for for DMF;
ULG;
• Peak ITE for ETH = 40.3% > Peak ITE
for DMF = 38.1% > Peak ITE for ULG =
36.2%;
• SFC for ULG < SFC for DMF < SFC for
ETH;
• 2. For split DI with fixed SOI1 =
270oBTDC
• Peak IMEP for SOI1:SOI2 = 2:1 > Peak
IMEP for SOI1:SOI2 = 1:1; IMEP for
ETH > IMEP for DMF > IMEP for ULG;
• Peak VE for ULG < peak VE for DMF <
peak VE for ETH;
• Compared to single DI: ↑ 0.5% ITE for
ETH for SOI1:SOI2 = 1:1; ↑ 1.2% ITE
for DMF for SOI1:SOI2 = 1:1; ↑ 0.8%
ITE for ULG for SOI1:SOI2 = 1:1;
• ↑↓ SFC compared to single DI;
ULG, DMF, ETH – • ↓62% HCHO, ↓ 52% CH3CHO, and [14]
↓ 6% C6H5CHO for DMF
compared to ULG;
• Σ(HCHO and CH3CHO) for DMF <
Σ (HCHO and CH3CHO) for ETH;
• Gasoline for PFI and • ITE for G-D25DI (gasoline for PFI and – [31]
DI; DMF for DI) > 0.9–1.4% of ITE for
• DMF for DI; D25DI (duel-injection blend with 25%
DMF of volume);
• SFC of DDI (DMF for DI) > SFC of
D25DI > SFC of GDI (gasoline for DI) >
SFC of G-D25DI;
• IT of DDI > IT of D25DI ≈ IT of GDI >
IT of G-D25DI;
• Maximum in-cylinder pressure (MiP)
for DDI > MiP for G-D25DI;
• Combustion duration (CD) for DDI <
CD of G-D25DI < CD of (GDI and
D25DI);
DMF, ULG, ETH • ITE for DMF < ITE for ULG < ITE for • HC for ETH < HC for HC for DMF [87]
ETH; < HC for ULG;
• CD for DMF < CD of ETH < CD of ULG; • CO2 for ETH ≈ CO2 for ULG < CO2
• MiP for ULG < MiP for ETH MiP for for DMF;
DMF; • NOx for ETH < NOx for ULG <
NOx for DMF;
MF; DMF; unlead • CD for MF < CD of DMF < CD of ETH < • NOx for ETH < NOx for ULG < [107]
gasoline (ULG); ethanol CD of ULG; NOx for DMF < NOx for MF;
(ETH) • Maximum in-cylinder temperature • HC for ETH < HC for MF < HC for
(MiT) for ETH < MiT for ULG < MiT for DMF < HC for ULG;
DMF < MiT for MF; • CO for ULG < CO for ETH < NOx
• MiP for ULG < MiP for DMF < MiP for for (DMF and MF);
ETH < MiP for MF; • Σ(HCHO and CH3CHO) for ETH >
• ITE for DMF < ITE for ULG < ITE for Σ(HCHO and CH3CHO) for
MF < ITE for ETH at loads < 7.5 IMEP; gasoline > Σ(HCHO and CH3CHO)
ITE for DMF > ITE for ULG at loads > for DMF;
7.5 IMEP;
• SFC for ULG < SFC for DMF < SFC for
MF < SFC for ETH;
DMF, ULG, ETH, • Peak ITE for MTH > Peak ITE for ETH • NOx for MTH < NOx for ETH < [108]
methanol (MTH); butanol > Peak ITE for DMF > Peak ITE for BUT NOx for BUT < NOx for ULG <
(BUT) > Peak ITE for ULG; NOx for DMF;
• EGT for ULG > EGT forDMF > EGT for • HC for (DMF, ULG, ETH) < HC for
ETH and BUT > EGT for MTH; BUT < NOx for MTH;
• ↑↓ CO at loads < 5.5 bar;
(continued on next page)
22
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Table 3 (continued )
Engine parameter Operating condition Fuels Engine performance Emission characteristics Ref

• CO2 for ETH < CO2 for ULG < CO2

for DMF;
• Maximum CO2 for ELG; minimum
CO2 for MTH;
• Maximum CO2 for ELG; minimum
CO2 for MTH;
• PM for DMF > PM for ETH > PM
for ULG; PM diameter for DMF <
PM diameter for ETH < PM
diameter for ULG at SR10 and
load = 8.5 bar IMEP;
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • Various power ULG, DMF5G (5% DMF • ↓ 4% maximum brake power for • ↓ >30% CO for DMF5G and E10G [110]
S; by volume), E10G (10% DMF5G and 16% maximum brake compared to ULG;
• Compression ethanol by volume) power for E10G compared to gasoline; • ↓ HC for DMF5G and E10G
ratio 5.1:1; • SFC for E10G > SFC for DMF5G > SFC compared to ULG;
for ULG; • ↓ NOx for DMF5G and E10G
compared to ULG at power < 0.6
kW; ↑ NOx for DMF5G and E10G
compared to ULG at power > 0.6
kW;
• SI, 4 cylinders, • DI with NECD test cycle; ULG and blends of ULG • ↓ ID (ID of D20 < ID of E20 < ID of B20 • ↑ 2.57% CO for D20; ↑ 32.58% CO [111]
4 S; • Various speed from 2 to 120 with 20% DMF (D20), < ID of ULG); for E20; ↓ 5.19% CO for B20;
• Turbocharged; km/h with intervals of 15 km/ 20% ethanol (E20), 20% • ↑ 0.72% SFC for D20, ↑ 11.87% SFC for • ↑ 3.5% HC for D20; ↑ 2.33% HC
• Compression h; butanol (B20) of volume E20; ↓ 1.94% for B20; for E20; ↓ 2.91% HC for B20;
ratio 10.5:1; • ↑ 3.09% NOx for D20; ↓ 12.15%
NOx for E20; ↓ 13.21% NOx for
B20;
• ↑ 1.18% CO2 for D20, ↑ 2.39%
CO2 for B20; ↓ 5.7% for E20;
• ↓ 46.46% PM for D20; ↓ 19.59%
PM for E20; ↓ 13.43% PM for B20;
• ↓ 65.88% PN for D20; ↓ 72.87%
PN for E20; ↓ 52.88% PN for B20;
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • DI with injection pressure = ULG, DMF, ETH – • Soot and PM for ETH < Soot and [126]
S; 15 MPa at SOI = 280oBTDC; PM for DMF < Soot and PM for
• Compression • Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and ULG
ratio 11.5:1; under fuel-rich condition λ =
0.9;
• SI, 1 cylinder, 4 • DI with injection pressure = ULG, DMF, ETH • ITE for ETH < ITE for ULG < ITE for • ↑↓ HC; ↑ HC for ETH at SOI < [147]
S; 15 MPa at various SOI; DMF; 200oBTDC or SOI > 300oBTDC;
• Compression • Fixed speed at 1500 rpm and λ • Peak ITE for ETH at 270oBTDC; • ↑↓ NOx; ↑ NOx for ETH at SOI >
ratio 11.5:1; = 1; • Peak ITE for ULG and DMF at 325oBTDC; lowest NOx for DMF at
210oBTDC; SOI = 1755oBTDC
• ↑↓ IMEP; • ↓ NOx with retarding SOI;

engine knocking was detected first in an SI engine running on DMF and
gasoline at an engine load of 6 bar IMEP by Zhong et al. [109]. However,
when the engine reached a specific load such as 6.7 bar IMEP for DMF
and 7.2 bar IMEP for gasoline, the engine knocking was the most severe
but the engine knocking magnitude observed from the gasoline com­
bustion was higher than with DMF. As aforementioned, the octane rating
(OR) of each fuel was known as the major factor used to measure the
anti-knock tolerance in the SI engine via the premixed charge supply. In
addition to OR, the history of the combustion pressure and temperature
was considered as other critical factors influencing the engine knocking
[150]. For DI engine, the cooling effect due to the fuel evaporation as
injected into the combustion chamber affected noticeably the combus­
tion efficiency. The cooling effect of each fuel could be determined
through the ratio between the heat of vaporization and the lower
heating value of that fuel. Therefore, this ratio (heat of vaporization
(HV)/lower heating value (LHV)) was around 0.008 for ethanol, 0.01 for
DMF, and 0.032 for gasoline. As a result, ethanol had the highest anti-
knock ability, followed by DMF and gasoline based on the cooling ef­
fect and OR. It was worth mentioning that an SI engine, which was
designed and calibrated to run on gasoline, would show a lower
knocking tendency as fueled with DMF or blends of DMF/gasoline.
Undeniably, Nisbet reported in the year of 1946 that the knock of an SI
engine was decreased as using DMF [151]. More impressively, a com­
mercial company working on the petroleum field such as British Petro­
leum Company has claimed their patent on the potential of DMF as
considered as an octane improver in gasoline [152]. For the combining
injection strategy of PFI and DI reported in the study of Wu et al. [87],
the cooling effect was also found to reduce the charge temperature in the
combustion chamber and to raise the volumetric efficiency, resulting in
suppressing knock. The efficiency of suppressing knock was also indi­
cated as the highest for ethanol, and lowest for gasoline. One more proof
on the anti-knock for DMF compared to gasoline and ethanol was also
investigated by Daniel et al. [88], who used fixed MBT/knock-limited
spark advance timing for gasoline to apply to the cases of DMF and
ethanol.
As evidently illustrated in Fig. 11a for DMF, gasoline, and ethanol,
there was not any difference in the maximum brake torque location at
low engine load, corresponding to 3.5 bar of IMEP. It was seen as a
relatively flat curve based on the relationship between IMEP and spark
advance. Nonetheless, the most advanced ST could be observed for the
ethanol case throughout the remaining engine loads, this result was
believed to result from higher knock resistance and higher LBV of
ethanol. More clearly, the maximum brake torque ST as utilizing DMF
and gasoline was 5◦ CA and 11◦ CA, respectively, less advanced than with
ethanol at the highest load, also leading to lower anti-knock of gasoline
and DMF compared to ethanol, even with spark advance. In the study
Sarathy et al. [153], they indicated that the fuels containing oxygen had
the capability of knock suppression, relating to the relative oxygen
content. Perhaps, there was not surprising when DMF possessed a poorer
anti-knock capacity in comparison with ethanol due to DMF’s lower

23
A.T. Hoang et al.
Fig. 11. The anti-knocking of an SI engine running on various fuels; (a) – Maximum brake torque/knock-limited spark advance timing for DMF, ethanol, and gasoline
at different engine loads [88]; (b) – Cumulative distribution functions (CDF) at 25◦ CA for an 0.08 bar of intake manifold absolute pressures [29].
oxygen content. It could be seen the comparison on the engine knocking
combustion between EEE standard fuel and other fuels such as DMF5,
DMF10, DMF15 (5%, 10%, 15% of DMF in gasoline), E10DMF10 (10%
of ethanol, 10% of DMF in gasoline), E10 (10% of ethanol) from
Fig. 11b. In this study, the knock-limited spark advance timing at
− 20◦ CA was used to evaluate the cumulative distribution functions
(CDF) for all test fuels. With the largest number of cycles for EEE CDF, it
has shown the significant knock, while all cases based on DMF appeared
to work similarly to each other with a lower knocking extent than the
EEE case. However, the knocking tendency of DMF cases was slightly
greater compared to the non-knocking results in the ethanol-containing
cases. Furthermore, they also reported the statistical test by applying the
KS test [29]. As a result, with a confidence of 99%, blends of DMF at
knock-limited spark advance timing have shown negligibly different
behavior. The relative knocking propensity was further investigated as
ST was fixed at − 25◦ CA. The increase in the amount of knocking for all
test fuels was observed at this advanced ST. More importantly, less se­
vere knocking for the ethanol blend (E10, E10DMF10) in comparison
with the DMF blends was recognized. Finally, at the same blending ratio,
the use of ethanol was concluded to reduce engine knock more effec­
tively than with DMF. Nonetheless, DMF was affirmed to be a compet­
itive potential additive due to its high energy and low water solubility. It
was also suggested to employ the blends of gasoline-ethanol-DMF for the
SI engine to bring many benefits.
6. Lubricity and wear
In addition to the performance and emissions of engine fueled with
DMF and its blend, a matter given out is the concern to lubricating
properties and wear of DMF as used in both SI and CI engine. The fact is
said that the oxygen/nitrogen-containing polar compounds were
demonstrated to be key to improving the lubrication capacity for used
fuels in engines [154]. This means the oxygen in DMF might contribute
to the increase in the lubricity. Indeed, Hu et al. [155] have reported that
DMF possessed the better lubricity in comparison to gasoline because
the friction coefficient (FC) of DMF was 0.038, while the gasoline FC was
0.089. Even with DMF/gasoline blends, they were also confirmed to
reduce the FC compared to the case of pure gasoline. Furthermore, the
FC was figured out increasing along with time and the engine loads due
to the rise of the contact area [156].
In a recent study, Dearn et al. [157] have explored that as low as
around 2% DMF by volume in DMF/gasoline blends was considered
enough to reduce significantly the FC, enhancing the antifriction char­
acteristic of the blends. However, the DMF/gasoline blends with more
24
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
than 2% DMF have shown little effect on the reduction of FC, this result
could be observed in Fig. 12a. As compared with ethanol and gasoline
based on the FC under a relative humidity of 35–45%, DMF was also
found to have lower FC (0.271) than with gasoline (0.466) and ethanol
(0.355). Furthermore, the tendency of FC for DMF was observed to be
relatively stable compared to the fluctuating tendency of gasoline and
ethanol [158]. Besides, the viscosity of DMF was also higher than for
gasoline and ethanol, the afore-mentioned factors are why DMF was
proven to have better lubricity compared to gasoline and ethanol. More
interestingly, the mean coverage percentage calculated on the basis of
lubrication film was around 68% for DMF, while this value was only
53% for gasoline and 46% for ethanol [158]. The fact shows that higher
film coverage for the DMF case could be the key factor leading to a
smaller wear scar (Fig. 12b) compared to the cases of gasoline and
ethanol [159]. It could be seen from Fig. 12b that the largest wear scar
has come to gasoline, this was matched with the findings on the FC of
gasoline that was much higher than that of DMF and ethanol. The
spectra of FT–IR of the steel surface before and after being immerging in
DMF could be illustrated in Fig. 12c, in which showed a flex vibration
peak of OH group. This peak was then shifted to the lower wavenumber
due to the association effect originated from hydrogen atoms. Moreover,
other flex vibration peaks for radical groups of CH3, CH2, COOH, C– –O
could be observed, confirming that hydroxyl (OH) and carboxyl (COOH)
groups have promoted the antifriction capacity of DMF as well as DMF/
gasoline blends after adding a reasonable concentration of DMF. It was
also concluded that the presence of (OH) and (COOH) groups after
immersing the sample into DMF was considered as the chemical re­
actions induced by the friction phenomenon of DMF and rubbing pairs
[119]. In addition, thin and slim wear scars in the DMF case were seen in
Fig. 12d, while deep and wide wear scars could be showed for the
gasoline-lubricated specimens. The iron (Fe) elements from the test steel
could react with the active functional groups such as (OH) and (COOH),
resulting in the formation of a robust anti-wear film [160]. Simulta­
neously, higher viscosity fuels were believed to absorb well the pro­
duced components in the friction duration [161]. In general, the anti-
wear and the lubricity of DMF are much higher than gasoline and
ethanol, this aspect is said to be one of the advantages of using DMF as
an alternative fuel.
7. Conclusion
The production of new-fashioned biofuels from lignocellulosic
biomass feedstock is playing a key role in replacing fossil fuels to pro­
duce energy. Many researches have been performed to analyze and
A.T. Hoang et al. Fuel 285 (2021) 119140

Fig. 12. Lubrication and wear characteristics of DMF; (a) – The tendency of changing FC depending on DMF blending ration [157]; (b)- The size of wear scar for
DMF, ethanol, and ethanol [158]; (c) – The spectra of FT-IR for DMF before (black) and after (red) friction [159]; (d) – Images of the steel surface after immerging in
gasoline (upper) and DMF (lower) [159] (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

evaluate the synthesis process of DMF from available and renewable
lignocellulosic biomass feedstock under either a one-step or two-step
process with various catalyst systems and reaction conditions aiming
to achieve a high yield of DMF. In addition, the comprehensive evalu­
ation of the applicability of DMF for existing spark ignition engine with
regards to the characteristics of performance and emissions, knocking
and noise, and wear was also thoroughly reviewed to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of DMF compared with gasoline and ethanol.
Moreover, the comparison of the spray and flame characteristics of DMF
with gasoline and ethanol was also conducted. In general, some specific
conclusions could be withdrawn from this review paper as followed:
• On the catalyst front, bifunctional catalyst systems containing hy­
drogenation metal have provided higher efficiency in the selective
DMF production than with mono-metallic catalysts. Normally, under
the same reaction condition, noble metal-based bifunctional catalyst
systems could produce DMF with the yield > 90%. Some typical
bifunctional catalyst systems such as Ru-Co/SiO2, Pt3Ni/C, and
PdAu4/GC800 were found to bring the high selective yield in the
conversion reaction of HMF to DMF.
• The DMF spray was comparable to gasoline, while penetration length
and SMD of DMF were slightly higher than those of ethanol. More­
over, laminar burning velocity and Markstein length of DMF were
lower compared to ethanol and gasoline, indicating that the DMF
flame was more unstable than that of ethanol and gasoline case
although the burning rate of DMF was found to be higher than with
ethanol and gasoline. More interestingly, DMF had shorter combus­
tion duration comparison to gasoline and ethanol along with the
ignition delay lay between gasoline and ethanol, suggesting that the
improvement of combustion, performance, and emissions of SI en­
gine running on DMF compared to gasoline and ethanol.
• For the SI engine, DMF has shown similar combustion characteristics
to gasoline and ethanol. More specially with optimized spark timing,
burning rate due to the presence of oxygen and high octane number

25
A.T. Hoang et al.
for DMF was found to be faster than with gasoline and ethanol,
leading to higher in-cylinder temperature and pressure compared to
the cases of gasoline and ethanol. Nonetheless, the energy density of
DMF was around 7–15% lower than that of gasoline, lowering
thermal efficiency and increasing specific fuel consumption
compared to gasoline, while the combustion efficiency was assessed
to be higher than with gasoline. Regarding engine-out emissions, the
increase in NOx for DMF in comparison to gasoline was detected,
while the fluctuating trends of CO and HC emissions due to the dif­
ferences in working and experimental conditions such as the cold-
start condition or injection event were also reported. More interest­
ingly, PM emission of the SI engine running on DMF was much lower
than the gasoline case. Due to the energy density of DMF was
29–33% higher than that of ethanol, performance characteristics of
an engine fueled with DMF such as thermal efficiency and specific
fuel consumption were thus improved, while engine-out emissions
were also better than the case of ethanol in some criteria. In general,
the performance and emissions of the SI engine fueled with DMF lay
between gasoline and ethanol, these findings were demonstrated
even with other strategies of DMF use such as port injection or split
injection.
• DMF was detected to have not any influences on the knock since used
for SI engine due to its higher RON and octane number than with
gasoline, this is believed to be an outstanding advantage of DMF in
the SI application. In addition, lubrication and wear characteristics
of DMF were better than those of gasoline and ethanol.
In closing, this review paper on a new-fashioned class of fuels like
DMF has highlighted the pathway from the production process to the
application on the engines. Compared to other alternative fuels, DMF
has shown excellent effects on performance and emission characteristics
of the SI engine, even when SI engines were operated under the
advanced combustion modes. Due to such wide range of applications,
DMF has been considered as one of the potential biofuel and the
promising value-added chemical, which could be synthesized from
lignocellulosic biomass or starch-rich feedstock although the environ­
mental concerns, yield, and selectivity effectiveness were thought to be
the main drawbacks of DMF producing processes. Therefore, as the
global need for DMF is ever-increasing, producing processes and
environment-related concerns as well as the input materials should be
carefully and thoroughly studied to target the low-cost products and
have the minimum impact on the environment. In order to deal with
these issues, finding the input materials and feedstock with available
and low-cost attributes are considered as one of the key factors, in which
biomass waste from agro- and forestry-based industries and
carbohydrate-based waste must be the main selection. In addition, green
and inexpensive catalyst systems for the DMF synthesis process should
be developed, the use of bi-phasic catalyst systems was found to bring
more promising results in terms of DMF yields and selectivity. More
noticeably, the recovery of solvents in the DMF synthesis reactions was
not an easy task, resulting in the challenges in the purification process as
well as the quality of DMF. Although DMF has shown many advantages
as using in existing SI engines, it must admit that DMF could be only
used as an alternative fuel as ethanol once the selling price of DMF is
comparable to gasoline or ethanol. Due to this reason, it is necessary to
optimize the DMF production process and catalyst-based reaction sys­
tems to target the commercialization and realization strategy that
should be addressed. Last but not least important, the support policy for
DMF production should be deployed more synchronously and effectively
to avoid following the same path of failed policies such as ethanol
production in some countries.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
26
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Nguyen HP, et al. The electric propulsion system as a green solution for
management strategy of CO2 emission in ocean shipping: a comprehensive
review. Int Trans Electr Energy Syst 2020;e12580. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2050-7038.12580.
[2] Nižetić S, Djilali N, Papadopoulos A, Rodrigues JJPC. Smart technologies for
promotion of energy efficiency, utilization of sustainable resources and waste
management. J Clean Prod 2019;231:565–91.
[3] Gosovic B. The quest for world environmental cooperation: the case of the UN
Global Environment Monitoring System, vol. 8. Routledge; 2019.
[4] Cheng G, Zhang C, Cao Y, Jiang Z. Review of energy-consumption measuring
techniques for the flotation process. Energy Sources Part A Recover Util Environ
Eff 2018;40(19):2367–77.
[5] Hoang AT, Nguyen TH, Nguyen HP. Scrap tire pyrolysis as a potential strategy for
waste management pathway: a review. Energy Sources, Part A 2020:1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1745336.
[6] Hoang AT, et al. Rice bran oil-based biodiesel as a promising renewable fuel
alternative to petrodiesel: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110204.
[7] Wang X, Liang X, Li J, Li Q. Catalytic hydrogenolysis of biomass-derived 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural to biofuel 2, 5-dimethylfuran. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2019.
[8] Saha B, Bohn CM, Abu-Omar MM. Zinc-assisted hydrodeoxygenation of biomass-
derived 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2, 5-dimethylfuran. ChemSusChem 2014;7
(11):3095–101.
[9] Kumalaputri AJ, Bottari G, Erne PM, Heeres HJ, Barta K. Tunable and selective
conversion of 5-HMF to 2, 5-furandimethanol and 2, 5-dimethylfuran over
copper-doped porous metal oxides. ChemSusChem 2014;7(8):2266–75.
[10] Hu L, Lin L, Wu Z, Zhou S, Liu S. Recent advances in catalytic transformation of
biomass-derived 5-hydroxymethylfurfural into the innovative fuels and
chemicals. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;74:230–57.
[11] Saha B, Abu-Omar MM. Advances in 5-hydroxymethylfurfural production from
biomass in biphasic solvents. Green Chem 2014;16(1):24–38.
[12] Xu H, Wang C. A comprehensive review of 2, 5-dimethylfuran as a biofuel
candidate. Biofuels from Lignocellul Biomass Innov beyond Bioethanol 2016:
105–29.
[13] Daniel R, Wang C, Xu H, Tian G. Split-injection strategies under full-load using
DMF, a new biofuel candidate, compared to ethanol in a GDI engine, SAE
Technical Paper; 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-0403.
[14] Daniel R, Wei L, Xu H, Wang C, Wyszynski ML, Shuai S. Speciation of
hydrocarbon and carbonyl emissions of 2, 5-dimethylfuran combustion in a DISI
engine. Energy Fuels 2012;26(11):6661–8.
[15] Nguyen DC, Hoang AT, Tran QV, Hadiyanto H, Wattanavichien K, Pham VV.
A review on the performance, combustion and emission characteristics of SI
engine fueled with 2,5-Dimethylfuran (DMF) compared to ethanol and gasoline.
J Energy Resour Technol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4048228.
[16] Mhadmhan S, Franco A, Pineda A, Reubroycharoen P, Luque R. Continuous flow
selective hydrogenation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2, 5-dimethylfuran using
highly active and stable Cu–Pd/reduced graphene oxide. ACS Sustain Chem Eng
2019;7(16):14210–6.
[17] Esteves LM, et al. Effect of support on selective 5-hydroxymethylfurfural
hydrogenation towards 2, 5-dimethylfuran over copper catalysts. Fuel 2020;270:
117524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117524.
[18] Guo D, et al. Selective hydrogenolysis of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to produce
biofuel 2, 5-dimethylfuran over Ni/ZSM-5 catalysts. Fuel 2020;274:117853.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117853.
[19] Thananatthanachon T, Rauchfuss TB. Efficient production of the liquid fuel 2, 5-
dimethylfuran from fructose using formic acid as a reagent. Angew Chemie 2010;
122(37):6766–8.
[20] Hoang AT, Nguyen DC. Properties of DMF-fossil gasoline RON95 blends in the
consideration as the alternative fuel. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 2018;8(6):
2555–60.
[21] Caes BR, Teixeira RE, Knapp KG, Raines RT. Biomass to furanics: renewable
routes to chemicals and fuels. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2015;3(11):2591–605.
[22] van Putten R-J, Van Der Waal JC, De Jong ED, Rasrendra CB, Heeres HJ, de
Vries JG. Hydroxymethylfurfural, a versatile platform chemical made from
renewable resources. Chem Rev 2013;113(3):1499–597.
[23] Qian Y, Zhu L, Wang Y, Lu X. Recent progress in the development of biofuel 2, 5-
dimethylfuran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:633–46.
[24] Wang J, Liu X, Hu B, Lu G, Wang Y. Efficient catalytic conversion of
lignocellulosic biomass into renewable liquid biofuels via furan derivatives. Rsc
Adv 2014;4(59):31101–7.
[25] Kong X, et al. Catalytic conversion of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to some value-
added derivatives. Green Chem 2018;20(16):3657–82.
[26] Bhaumik P, Dhepe PL. Solid acid catalyzed synthesis of furans from
carbohydrates. Catal Rev 2016;58(1):36–112.
[27] Iris KM, Tsang DCW. Conversion of biomass to hydroxymethylfurfural: a review
of catalytic systems and underlying mechanisms. Bioresour Technol 2017;238:
716–32.
[28] Gandini A. Furans as offspring of sugars and polysaccharides and progenitors of a
family of remarkable polymers: a review of recent progress. Polym Chem 2010;1
(3):245–51.
A.T. Hoang et al.
[29] Rothamer DA, Jennings JH. Study of the knocking propensity of 2, 5-
dimethylfuran–gasoline and ethanol–gasoline blends. Fuel 2012;98:203–12.
[30] Alexandrino K, Millera A, Bilbao R, Alzueta MU. Interaction between 2, 5-dime­
thylfuran and nitric oxide: Experimental and modeling study. Energy Fuels 2014;
28(6):4193–8.
[31] Daniel R, Xu H, Wang C, Richardson D, Shuai S. Combustion performance of 2, 5-
dimethylfuran blends using dual-injection compared to direct-injection in a SI
engine. Appl Energy 2012;98:59–68.
[32] Wang H, et al. Recent advances in catalytic conversion of biomass to 5-hydrox­
ymethylfurfural and 2, 5-dimethylfuran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;103:
227–47.
[33] Hu L, Lin L, Liu S. Chemoselective hydrogenation of biomass-derived 5-hydrox­
ymethylfurfural into the liquid biofuel 2, 5-dimethylfuran. Ind Eng Chem Res
2014;53(24):9969–78.
[34] Mani CM, Braun M, Molinari V, Antonietti M, Fechler N. A high-throughput
composite catalyst based on nickel carbon cubes for the hydrogenation of 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural to 2, 5-dimethylfuran. ChemCatChem 2017;9(17):
3388–94.
[35] Dou Y, Zhou S, Oldani C, Fang W, Cao Q. 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural production
from dehydration of fructose catalyzed by Aquivion@ silica solid acid. Fuel 2018;
214:45–54.
[36] Wang C, Xi Z. Co-operative effect of Lewis acids with transition metals for organic
synthesis. Chem Soc Rev 2007;36(9):1395–406.
[37] Román-Leshkov Y, Barrett CJ, Liu ZY, Dumesic JA. Production of dimethylfuran
for liquid fuels from biomass-derived carbohydrates. Nature 2007;447(7147):
982.
[38] Li C, et al. Tailored one-pot production of furan-based fuels from fructose in an
ionic liquid biphasic solvent system. Chinese J Catal 2015;36(9):1638–46.
[39] Chidambaram M, Bell AT. A two-step approach for the catalytic conversion of
glucose to 2, 5-dimethylfuran in ionic liquids. Green Chem 2010;12(7):1253–62.
[40] Insyani R, Verma D, Kim SM, Kim J. Direct one-pot conversion of
monosaccharides into high-yield 2, 5-dimethylfuran over a multifunctional Pd/
Zr-based metal–organic framework@ sulfonated graphene oxide catalyst. Green
Chem 2017;19(11):2482–90.
[41] Choudhary V, et al. Insights into the interplay of Lewis and Brønsted acid
catalysts in glucose and fructose conversion to 5-(hydroxymethyl) furfural and
levulinic acid in aqueous media. J Am Chem Soc 2013;135(10):3997–4006.
[42] Van Nguyen C, et al. Combined treatments for producing 5-hydroxymethylfur­
fural (HMF) from lignocellulosic biomass. Catal Today 2016;278:344–9.
[43] Binder JB, Raines RT. Simple chemical transformation of lignocellulosic biomass
into furans for fuels and chemicals. J Am Chem Soc 2009;131(5):1979–85.
[44] Iryani DA, Kumagai S, Nonaka M, Sasaki K, Hirajima T. Production of 5-
hydroxymethyl furfural from sugarcane bagasse under hot compressed water.
Procedia Earth Planet Sci 2013;6:441–7.
[45] Ye X-N, et al. Fast pyrolysis of corn stalks at different growth stages to selectively
produce 4-vinyl phenol and 5-hydroxymethyl furfural. Waste Biomass
Valorization 2019;10(12):3867–78.
[46] Wang G-H, et al. Platinum–cobalt bimetallic nanoparticles in hollow carbon
nanospheres for hydrogenolysis of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural. Nat Mater 2014;13
(3):293–300.
[47] Wang X, Liu Y, Liang X. Hydrogenolysis of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2, 5-
dimethylfuran over supported Pt–Co bimetallic catalysts under mild conditions.
Green Chem 2018;20(12):2894–902.
[48] Hu L, Tang X, Xu J, Wu Z, Lin L, Liu S. Selective transformation of 5-hydroxy­
methylfurfural into the liquid fuel 2, 5-dimethylfuran over carbon-supported
ruthenium. Ind Eng Chem Res 2014;53(8):3056–64.
[49] Jae J, Zheng W, Lobo RF, Vlachos DG. Production of dimethylfuran from
hydroxymethylfurfural through catalytic transfer hydrogenation with ruthenium
supported on carbon. ChemSusChem 2013;6(7):1158–62.
[50] Priecel P, Endot NA, Carà PD, Lopez-Sanchez JA. Fast catalytic hydrogenation of
2, 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2, 5-dimethylfuran with ruthenium on carbon
nanotubes. Ind Eng Chem Res 2018;57(6):1991–2002.
[51] Nishimura S, Ikeda N, Ebitani K. Selective hydrogenation of biomass-derived 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) to 2, 5-dimethylfuran (DMF) under atmospheric
hydrogen pressure over carbon supported PdAu bimetallic catalyst. Catal Today
2014;232:89–98.
[52] Huang Y, Chen M, Yan L, Guo Q, Fu Y. Nickel–tungsten carbide catalysts for the
production of 2, 5-dimethylfuran from biomass-derived molecules.
ChemSusChem 2014;7(4):1068–72.
[53] Guo W, et al. Efficient hydrogenolysis of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2, 5-dime­
thylfuran over a cobalt and copper bimetallic catalyst on N-graphene-modified Al
2 O 3. Green Chem 2016;18(23):6222–8.
[54] Chen B, Li F, Huang Z, Yuan G. Carbon-coated Cu-Co bimetallic nanoparticles as
selective and recyclable catalysts for production of biofuel 2, 5-dimethylfuran.
Appl Catal B Environ 2017;200:192–9.
[55] Nilges P, Schröder U. Electrochemistry for biofuel generation: production of
furans by electrocatalytic hydrogenation of furfurals. Energy Environ Sci 2013;6
(10):2925–31.
[56] Zu Y, et al. Efficient production of the liquid fuel 2, 5-dimethylfuran from 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural over Ru/Co3O4 catalyst. Appl Catal B Environ 2014;146:
244–8.
[57] Gao Z, Fan G, Liu M, Yang L, Li F. Dandelion-like cobalt oxide microsphere-
supported RuCo bimetallic catalyst for highly efficient hydrogenolysis of 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural. Appl Catal B Environ 2018;237:649–59.
27
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
[58] Li Q, Man P, Yuan L, Zhang P, Li Y, Ai S. Ruthenium supported on CoFe layered
double oxide for selective hydrogenation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural. Mol Catal
2017;431:32–8.
[59] Jeong G-Y, Singh AK, Sharma S, Gyak KW, Maurya RA, Kim D-P. One-flow
syntheses of diverse heterocyclic furan chemicals directly from fructose via
tandem transformation platform. NPG asia Mater 2015;7(4):e173.
[60] Kong X, Zheng R, Zhu Y, Ding G, Zhu Y, Li Y-W. Rational design of Ni-based
catalysts derived from hydrotalcite for selective hydrogenation of 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural. Green Chem 2015;17(4):2504–14.
[61] Yang P, Xia Q, Liu X, Wang Y. Catalytic transfer hydrogenation/hydrogenolysis of
5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2, 5-dimethylfuran over Ni-Co/C catalyst. Fuel 2017;
187:159–66.
[62] Kong X, Zhu Y, Zheng H, Zhu Y, Fang Z. Inclusion of Zn into metallic Ni enables
selective and effective synthesis of 2, 5-dimethylfuran from bioderived 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2017;5(12):11280–9.
[63] Luo J, et al. Base metal-Pt alloys: a general route to high selectivity and stability
in the production of biofuels from HMF. Appl Catal B Environ 2016;199:439–46.
[64] Chatterjee M, Ishizaka T, Kawanami H. Hydrogenation of 5-hydroxymethylfur­
fural in supercritical carbon dioxide–water: a tunable approach to dimethylfuran
selectivity. Green Chem 2014;16(3):1543–51.
[65] Goyal R, et al. Studies of synergy between metal–support interfaces and selective
hydrogenation of HMF to DMF in water. J Catal 2016;340:248–60.
[66] Chen M-Y, Chen C-B, Zada B, Fu Y. Perovskite type oxide-supported Ni catalysts
for the production of 2, 5-dimethylfuran from biomass-derived 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural. Green Chem 2016;18(13):3858–66.
[67] Yu L, et al. Robust and recyclable nonprecious bimetallic nanoparticles on carbon
nanotubes for the hydrogenation and hydrogenolysis of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural.
ChemCatChem 2015;7(11):1701–7.
[68] Luo J, et al. Unraveling the surface state and composition of highly selective
nanocrystalline Ni–Cu alloy catalysts for hydrodeoxygenation of HMF. Catal Sci
Technol 2017;7(8):1735–43.
[69] Gao Z, Li C, Fan G, Yang L, Li F. Nitrogen-doped carbon-decorated copper catalyst
for highly efficient transfer hydrogenolysis of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to
convertibly produce 2, 5-dimethylfuran or 2, 5-dimethyltetrahydrofuran. Appl
Catal B Environ 2018;226:523–33.
[70] Zhu Y, Kong X, Zheng H, Ding G, Zhu Y, Li Y-W. Efficient synthesis of 2, 5-
dihydroxymethylfuran and 2, 5-dimethylfuran from 5-hydroxymethylfurfural
using mineral-derived Cu catalysts as versatile catalysts. Catal Sci Technol 2015;5
(8):4208–17.
[71] Braun M, Antonietti M. A continuous flow process for the production of 2, 5-
dimethylfuran from fructose using (non-noble metal based) heterogeneous
catalysis. Green Chem 2017;19(16):3813–9.
[72] An H, Yang WM, Maghbouli A, Chou SK, Chua KJ. Detailed physical properties
prediction of pure methyl esters for biodiesel combustion modeling. Appl Energy
2013;102:647–56.
[73] Hoang AT, Tran QV, Al-Tawaha ARMS, Pham VV, Nguyen XP. Comparative
analysis on performance and emission characteristics of an in-Vietnam popular 4-
stroke motorcycle engine running on biogasoline and mineral gasoline. Renew
Energy Focus 2019;28:47–55.
[74] Dutta S. Deoxygenation of biomass-derived feedstocks: hurdles and opportunities.
ChemSusChem 2012;5(11):2125–7.
[75] Hu L, Jiang Y, Xu J, He A, Wu Z, Xu J. Chemocatalytic pathways for high-
efficiency production of 2, 5-dimethylfuran from biomass-derived 5-
hydroxymethylfurfural. Biomass Biochem Biofuels 2020:377–94.
[76] Hoang AT. Experimental study on spray and emission characteristics of a diesel
engine fueled with preheated bio-oils and diesel fuel. Energy 2019;171:795–808.
[77] Tian G, Li H, Xu H, Li Y, Raj S.M. Spray characteristics study of DMF using phase
doppler particle analyzer, SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars-Mechanical Syst., vol. 3, no.
2010-01–1505, pp. 948–958, 2010.
[78] Hoang AT, Le AT. Trilateral correlation of spray characteristics, combustion
parameters, and deposit formation in the injector hole of a diesel engine running
on preheated Jatropha oil and fossil diesel fuel. Biofuel Res J 2019;6(1):909–19.
[79] Hoang AT. Prediction of the density and viscosity of biodiesel and the influence of
biodiesel properties on a diesel engine fuel supply system. J Mar Eng Technol
2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2018.1532734.
[80] Li H, Ma X, PoWen TU, Xu H, Shuai S-J, Ghafourian A, Numerical study of DMF
and gasoline spray and mixture preparation in a GDI engine, SAE Technical
Paper; 2013.
[81] Tu P, et al., Investigation on the spray characteristics of DMF-isooctane blends
using PDPA, SAE Technical Paper; 2014.
[82] Jężak S, Dzida M, Zorębski M. High pressure physicochemical properties of 2-
methylfuran and 2, 5-dimethylfuran–second generation biofuels. Fuel 2016;184:
334–43.
[83] Matsumoto A, et al. Spray characterization of ethanol gasoline blends and
comparison to a CFD model for a gasoline direct injector. SAE Int J Engines 2010;
3(1):402–25.
[84] Sementa P, Vaglieco BM, Catapano F. Thermodynamic and optical
characterizations of a high performance GDI engine operating in homogeneous
and stratified charge mixture conditions fueled with gasoline and bio-ethanol.
Fuel 2012;96:204–19.
[85] Ma X, Jiang C, Xu H, Richardson S., In-cylinder optical study on combustion of
DMF and DMF fuel blends, SAE Technical Paper; 2012. doi: https://doi.org/1
0.4271/2012-01-1235.
[86] Xu N, Gong J, Huang Z. Review on the production methods and fundamental
combustion characteristics of furan derivatives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;
54:1189–211.
A.T. Hoang et al.
[87] Wu X, Daniel R, Tian G, Xu H, Huang Z, Richardson D. Dual-injection: The
flexible, bi-fuel concept for spark-ignition engines fuelled with various gasoline
and biofuel blends. Appl Energy 2011;88(7):2305–14.
[88] Daniel R, Tian G, Xu H, Wyszynski ML, Wu X, Huang Z. Effect of spark timing and
load on a DISI engine fuelled with 2, 5-dimethylfuran. Fuel 2011;90(2):449–58.
[89] Tian G, Daniel R, Li H, Xu H, Shuai S, Richards P. Laminar burning velocities of 2,
5-dimethylfuran compared with ethanol and gasoline. Energy Fuels 2010;24(7):
3898–905.
[90] Wu X, Huang Z, Jin C, Wang X, Wei L. Laminar burning velocities and Markstein
lengths of 2, 5-dimethylfuran-air premixed flames at elevated temperatures.
Combust Sci Technol 2010;183(3):220–37.
[91] Bhattacharya A, Datta A. Effects of blending 2, 5-dimethylfuran on the laminar
burning velocity and ignition delay time of isooctane/air mixture. Combust
Theory Model 2019;23(1):105–26.
[92] Ma X, Jiang C, Xu H, Ding H, Shuai S. Laminar burning characteristics of 2-
methylfuran and isooctane blend fuels. Fuel 2014;116:281–91.
[93] Hu E, Xu Z, Gao Z, Xu J, Huang Z. Experimental and numerical study on laminar
burning velocity of gasoline and gasoline surrogates. Fuel 2019;256:115933.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115933.
[94] Wu X, et al. Measurements of laminar burning velocities and Markstein lengths of
2, 5-dimethylfuran− air− diluent premixed flames. Energy Fuels 2009;23(9):
4355–62.
[95] Tran L-S, Wang Z, Carstensen H-H, Hemken C, Battin-Leclerc F, Kohse-
Höinghaus K. Comparative experimental and modeling study of the low-to
moderate-temperature oxidation chemistry of 2, 5-dimethylfuran, 2-methylfuran,
and furan. Combust Flame 2017;181:251–69.
[96] Bechtold JK, Matalon M. The dependence of the Markstein length on
stoichiometry. Combust Flame 2001;127(1–2):1906–13.
[97] Bradley D, Hicks RA, Lawes M, Sheppard CGW, Woolley R. The measurement of
laminar burning velocities and Markstein numbers for iso-octane–air and iso-
octane–n-heptane–air mixtures at elevated temperatures and pressures in an
explosion bomb. Combust Flame 1998;115(1–2):126–44.
[98] Benson RS, Whitehouse ND. Internal combustion engines: a detailed introduction
to the thermodynamics of spark and compression ignition engines, their design
and development, vol. 1. Elsevier; 2013.
[99] Aleiferis PG, Malcolm JS, Todd AR, Cairns A, Hoffmann H. An optical study of
spray development and combustion of ethanol, iso-octane and gasoline blends in
a DISI engine, SAE Technical Paper; 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01
-0073.
[100] Cooney C, Worm J, Naber J. The calculation of mass fraction burn of ethanol-
gasoline blended fuels using single and two-zone models, SAE Technical Paper;
2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-0320.
[101] Wei M, Li S, Xiao H, Guo G. A Comparison Study on the Combustion and
Particulate emissions of 2, 5-dimethylfuran/diesel and ethanol/diesel in a diesel
engine. Therm Sci 2018;22(3):1351–61.
[102] Tanaka K, et al. Ignition characteristics of 2, 5-dimethylfuran compared with
gasoline and ethanol. SAE Int J Engines 2016;9(1):39–46.
[103] Eldeeb MA, Akih-Kumgeh B. Investigation of 2, 5-dimethyl furan and iso-octane
ignition. Combust Flame 2015;162(6):2454–65.
[104] Roy S, Zare S, Askari O. Understanding the effect of oxygenated additives on
combustion characteristics of gasoline. J Energy Resour Technol 2019;141(2).
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4041316.
[105] Van Basshuysen R, Schäfer F. Internal combustion engine handbook-basics,
components, systems and perspectives, vol. 345; 2004.
[106] Hu C, Song X, Liu N, Li W. Investigation on cold starting and warming up of
gasoline engines with EFI, SAE Technical Paper; 2007.
[107] Wang C, et al. Combustion characteristics and emissions of 2-methylfuran
compared to 2, 5-dimethylfuran, gasoline and ethanol in a DISI engine. Fuel 2013;
103:200–11.
[108] Daniel R, Tian G, Xu H, Shuai S. Ignition timing sensitivities of oxygenated
biofuels compared to gasoline in a direct-injection SI engine. Fuel 2012;99:72–82.
[109] Zhong S, et al. Combustion and emissions of 2, 5-dimethylfuran in a direct-
injection spark-ignition engine. Energy Fuels 2010;24(5):2891–9.
[110] Shukla MK, Singh E, Singh N, Singal SK. Prospects of 2, 5-dimethylfuran as a fuel:
physico-chemical and engine performance characteristics evaluation. J Mater
cycles waste Manag 2015;17(3):459–64.
[111] Liu H, et al. Investigation on blending effects of gasoline fuel with N-butanol,
DMF, and ethanol on the fuel consumption and harmful emissions in a GDI
Vehicle. Energies 2019;12(10):1845. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12101845.
[112] Hoang AT, Pham VV. A study of emission characteristic, deposits, and lubrication
oil degradation of a diesel engine running on preheated vegetable oil and diesel
oil. Energy Sources Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 2019;41(5):611–25.
[113] Hoang AT, Le AT, Pham VV. A core correlation of spray characteristics, deposit
formation, and combustion of a high-speed diesel engine fueled with Jatropha oil
and diesel fuel. Fuel 2019, 2019,;244(15):159–75.
[114] Hoang AT. “Critical review on the characteristics of performance, combustion and
emissions of PCCI engine controlled by early injection strategy based on narrow-
angle direct injection (NADI)”, Energy Sources. Part A Recover Util Environ Eff
2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1805048.
[115] Bhasker JP, Porpatham E. Effects of compression ratio and hydrogen addition on
lean combustion characteristics and emission formation in a Compressed Natural
Gas fuelled spark ignition engine. Fuel 2017;208:260–70.
[116] Djokic M, Carstensen H-H, Van Geem KM, Marin GB. The thermal decomposition
of 2, 5-dimethylfuran. Proc Combust Inst 2013;34(1):251–8.
[117] Tian Z, et al. An experimental and kinetic investigation of premixed furan/
oxygen/argon flames. Combust Flame 2011;158(4):756–73.
28
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
[118] Murakami Y, Oguchi T, Hashimoto K, Nosaka Y. Theoretical study of the benzyl+
O2 reaction: kinetics, mechanism, and product branching ratios. J Phys Chem A
2007;111(50):13200–8.
[119] Wu X, Huang Z, Yuan T, Zhang K, Wei L. Identification of combustion
intermediates in a low-pressure premixed laminar 2, 5-dimethylfuran/oxygen/
argon flame with tunable synchrotron photoionization. Combust Flame 2009;156
(7):1365–76.
[120] Somers KP, et al. A comprehensive experimental and detailed chemical kinetic
modelling study of 2, 5-dimethylfuran pyrolysis and oxidation. Combust Flame
2013;160(11):2291–318.
[121] Xu N, et al. Experimental study of 2, 5-dimethylfuran and 2-methylfuran in a
rapid compression machine: Comparison of the ignition delay times and reactivity
at low to intermediate temperature. Combust Flame 2016;168:216–27.
[122] Leplat N, Dagaut P, Togbé C, Vandooren J. Numerical and experimental study of
ethanol combustion and oxidation in laminar premixed flames and in jet-stirred
reactor. Combust Flame 2011;158(4):705–25.
[123] Shao C, et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in pyrolysis of gasoline surrogates
(n-heptane/iso-octane/toluene). Proc Combust Inst 2019;37(1):993–1001.
[124] Tian G, Xu H, Daniel R. DMF-a new biofuel candidate. InTech; 2011.
[125] Rönkkö T, Virtanen A, Kannosto J, Keskinen J, Lappi M, Pirjola L. Nucleation
mode particles with a nonvolatile core in the exhaust of a heavy duty diesel
vehicle. Environ Sci Technol 2007;41(18):6384–9.
[126] Wang C, Xu H, Herreros JM, Lattimore T, Shuai S. Fuel effect on particulate
matter composition and soot oxidation in a direct-injection spark ignition (DISI)
engine. Energy Fuels 2014;28(3):2003–12.
[127] Wang F, Zheng ZL, He ZW. A soot precursor formation embedded reaction
mechanism of diesel surrogate fuel. Energy Sources Part A Recover Util Environ
Eff 2015;37(12):1323–31.
[128] X. He, X. Ma, F. Wu, J. Wang, and S. Shuai, “Investigation of soot formation in
laminar diesel diffusion flame by two-color laser induced incandescence,” SAE
Technical Paper; 2008.
[129] Togbé C, et al. Combustion chemistry and flame structure of furan group biofuels
using molecular-beam mass spectrometry and gas chromatography–Part III: 2, 5-
Dimethylfuran. Combust Flame 2014;161(3):780–97.
[130] Ma X, Xu H, Jiang C, Shuai S. Ultra-high speed imaging and OH-LIF study of DMF
and MF combustion in a DISI optical engine. Appl Energy 2014;122:247–60.
[131] Alexandrino K, Salvo P, Millera Á, Bilbao R, Alzueta MU. Influence of the
temperature and 2, 5-dimethylfuran concentration on its sooting tendency.
Combust Sci Technol 2016;188(4–5):651–66.
[132] Donkerbroek AJ, Boot MD, Luijten CCM, Dam NJ, Ter Meulen JJ. Flame lift-off
length and soot production of oxygenated fuels in relation with ignition delay in a
DI heavy-duty diesel engine. Combust Flame 2011;158(3):525–38.
[133] Pepiot-Desjardins P, Pitsch H, Malhotra R, Kirby SR, Boehman AL. Structural
group analysis for soot reduction tendency of oxygenated fuels. Combust Flame
2008;154(1–2):191–205.
[134] Khan O, Yadav AK, Khan ME, Parvez M. Characterization of bioethanol obtained
from Eichhornia Crassipes plant; its emission and performance analysis on CI
engine, Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff., pp. 1–11, 2019.
[135] Jiang B, Wang P, Ying Y, Luo M, Liu D. Nanoscale characteristics and reactivity of
nascent soot from n-heptane/2, 5-dimethylfuran inverse diffusion flames with/
without magnetic fields. Energies 2018;11(7):1698.
[136] Peña GDJG, Hammid YA, Raj A, Stephen S, Anjana T, Balasubramanian V. On the
characteristics and reactivity of soot particles from ethanol-gasoline and 2, 5-
dimethylfuran-gasoline blends. Fuel 2018;222:42–55.
[137] Liu D, et al. Combustion chemistry and flame structure of furan group biofuels
using molecular-beam mass spectrometry and gas chromatography–Part I: Furan.
Combust Flame 2014;161(3):748–65.
[138] Wang L, Song C, Song J, Lv G, Pang H, Zhang W. Aliphatic C-H and oxygenated
surface functional groups of diesel in-cylinder soot: characterizations and impact
on soot oxidation behavior. Proc Combust Inst 2013;34(2):3099–106.
[139] Gogoi B, et al. Effects of 2, 5-dimethylfuran addition to diesel on soot
nanostructures and reactivity. Fuel 2015;159:766–75.
[140] Peña GDJG, et al. Effects of methyl group on aromatic hydrocarbons on the
nanostructures and oxidative reactivity of combustion-generated soot. Combust
Flame 2016;172:1–12.
[141] Peña GDJG, et al. Physicochemical properties of soot generated from toluene
diffusion flames: effects of fuel flow rate. Combust Flame 2017;178:286–96.
[142] Russo C, D’Anna A, Ciajolo A, Sirignano M. Analysis of the chemical features of
particles generated from ethylene and ethylene/2, 5 dimethyl furan flames.
Combust Flame 2016;167:268–73.
[143] Conturso M, Sirignano M, D’Anna A. Effect of 2, 5-dimethylfuran doping on
particle size distributions measured in premixed ethylene/air flames. Proc
Combust Inst 2017;36(1):985–92.
[144] Song J, Alam M, Boehman AL. Impact of alternative fuels on soot properties and
DPF regeneration. Combust Sci Technol 2007;179(9):1991–2037.
[145] Yehliu K, Vander Wal RL, Armas O, Boehman AL. Impact of fuel formulation on
the nanostructure and reactivity of diesel soot. Combust Flame 2012;159(12):
3597–606.
[146] Tran L-S, Sirjean B, Glaude P-A, Kohse-Höinghaus K, Battin-Leclerc F. Influence of
substituted furans on the formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
flames. Proc Combust Inst 2015;35(2):1735–43.
[147] Daniel R, Wang C, Xu H, Tian G. Effects of combustion phasing, injection timing,
relative air-fuel ratio and variable valve timing on SI engine performance and
emissions using 2, 5-dimethylfuran. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 2012;5(2):855–66.
A.T. Hoang et al.
[148] Friese P, Simmie JM, Olzmann M. The reaction of 2, 5-dimethylfuran with
hydrogen atoms–An experimental and theoretical study. Proc Combust Inst 2013;
34(1):233–9.
[149] Wang C, Prakash A, Aradi A, Cracknell R, Xu H. Significance of RON and MON to
a modern DISI engine. Fuel 2017;209:172–83.
[150] Tiunov IA, Kotelev MS, Vinokurov VA, Gushchin PA, Bardin ME, Novikov AA.
Antiknock properties of blends of 2-methylfuran and 2, 5-dimethylfuran with
reference fuel. Chem Technol Fuels Oils 2017;53(2):147–53.
[151] Nisbet HB. The blending octane numbers of 2, 5-dimethylfuran. J Inst Pet 1946;
32:162–6.
[152] B. MT, S. DJH, S. DG, Fuel composition. European Patent 0082689 A2; 1983.
[153] Sarathy SM, Oßwald P, Hansen N, Kohse-Höinghaus K. Alcohol combustion
chemistry. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2014;44:40–102.
[154] Voice AK, Tzanetakis T, Traver M. Lubricity of Light-End Fuels with Commercial
Diesel Lubricity Additives, SAE Technical Paper; 2017.
[155] Hu E, Hu X, Wang X, Xu Y, Dearn KD, Xu H. On the fundamental lubricity of 2, 5-
dimethylfuran as a synthetic engine fuel. Tribol Int 2012;55:119–25.
29
Fuel 285 (2021) 119140
[156] Qiongjie W, Yufu X, Xianguo H, Xifeng Z. Experimental study on friction and wear
characteristics of bio-oil. Trans Chinese Soc Agric Eng 2008;9:2008.
[157] Dearn KD, et al. The tribology of fructose derived biofuels for DISI gasoline
engines. Fuel 2018;224:226–34.
[158] Eslami F, Wyszyński ML, Tsolaskis A, Xu H, Norouzi S, Dearn K. Experimental
investigation on lubricity of 2, 5-dimethylfuran blends. Silniki Spalinowe 2012;
51:3–10.
[159] Hu E, Dearn K, Yang B, Song R, Xu Y, Hu X. Tribofilm formation and
characterization of lubricating oils with biofuel soot and inorganic fluorides.
Tribol Int 2017;107:163–72.
[160] Hoang AT, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M. A review of the effect of biodiesel on the
corrosion behavior of metals/alloys in diesel engines. Energy Sources Part A
Recover Util Environ Eff 2019;42(23):2923–43.
[161] Bekal S, Bhat NR. Bio-lubricant as an alternative to mineral oil for a CI engine—an
experimental investigation with pongamia oil as a lubricant. Energy Sources Part
A Recover Util Environ Eff 2012;34(11):1016–26.