Fuel 274 (2020) 117825

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Gasoline engine fueled with bioethanol-bio-acetone-gasoline blends: T

Performance and emissions exploration
⁎
Ashraf. Elfasakhanya,b,
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Taif University, PO Box 888, Taif, Saudi Arabia
b
Pyramids Higher Institute for Engineering and Technology, Giza, Egypt

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: High environmental pollutants and depleted fossil fuels forced researchers to investigating renewable and low
Bioethanol emission fuels. In this study, renewable bioethanol and bio-acetone are mixed together and examined as a new
Bio-acetone fuel for SI engine for the first time. Three different blend rates are applied (3, 7, and 10 vol% of dual bio-acetone
Gasoline and bioethanol in gasoline) and compared with each other and the pure gasoline. Results of engine performance
Blends
and pollutant emissions of different blends confirmed that the utmost blend rate (10 vol% of bioethanol and bio-
Performance
acetone in gasoline) introduced the greatest volumetric efficiency, brake power, and output torque and the
Emissions
lowest CO and UHC emissions, compared to other fuel blends and pure gasoline. Besides, all fuel blends showed
higher performance and lower emissions than the pure gasoline.
The ternary blended fuels (bioethanol-bio-acetone-gasoline, ACE) are also compared with dual ones (bioe-
thanol-gasoline blends, E, and bio-acetone-gasoline blends, AC), for the first time in the literature. Results
showed that the lowest emissions (CO, CO2, and UHC) are introduced by ACE blends, while the best performance
(volumetric efficiency and engine power) is partly introduced by E blends. The ACE shared also the best per-
formance (output torque) from the SI engine. The AC blends, however, introduced a moderate performance and
emissions among all biofuel blends (ACE and E). The E blends, on the other hand, introduced the highest green
unsuitability emissions, even higher than the pure gasoline.

1. Introduction combustion and emissions between methanol direct-injection, me-

Fossil fuels have become one of the main causes of increased pol-
lution in our world, in addition to the possibility of their depletion/
decay in the nearby future [1–3]. This led to searching for renewable
and less polluting alternative fuels [4–6]. Based on such a view, re-
searchers began searching and testing alternative and renewable fuels
[7–9]. Research on the use of bioethanol and/or bio-methanol blended
in gasoline, with the main aim of improving performance of engines
and reducing pollutant emissions, has been published in several papers
[10–16]. In precise, Gong et al. [10] studied spark-ignition under extra-
lean burn characteristics and fueled with methanol using different
compression ratios. Results showed that methanol can significantly
increase thermal efficiency, but soot and CO emissions increased as
well. Gong et al. [11,12] in more studies applied a comparative of
thanol port injection engine, and engine with hydrogen-enriched port-
injection under lean-burn conditions. Results indicated that the hy-
drogen can extend the lean-burn limits of SI engines and, in turn,
achieving high indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP). Hydrogen
addition also showed to decrease CO2 emission at the same excess air
condition. The UHC and CO emissions of port-injection engines were
lower than those of direct-injection engines, but the soot emission was
higher. Zhen and Wang [13] applied numerical analysis (based on de-
tailed chemical kinetics) on emissions of SI engine fueled with me-
thanol. The study examined output emissions under different engine
operating conditions, spark timings, engine speeds, mixture con-
centrations, and combustion chamber shapes. The results showed that
CO emission and formaldehyde (CH2O) could be decreased by retarding
ignition timing or increasing engine compression ratio. With the

Abbreviations: E, bioethanol-gasoline blends; AC, bio-acetone-gasoline blends; ACE, bioethanol-bio-acetone-gasoline blends; ACE3, bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline
blends in rates 3 vol% (1.5 vol% bio-acetone and 1.5 vol% bioethanol). ACE7, Bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends in rates 7 vol% (3.5 vol% bio-acetone and
3.5 vol% bioethanol); ACE10, bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends in rates 10 vol% (5 vol% bio-acetone and 5 vol% bioethanol). AC0, Neat gasoline; Tq, output
torque; BP, brake power; VE, volumetric efficiency
⁎
Address: Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Taif University, PO Box 888, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail address: ashr12000@yahoo.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117825
Received 31 December 2019; Received in revised form 6 April 2020; Accepted 8 April 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Elfasakhany
increase of equivalence ratio, the CO increased, but in lean working
conditions, the CO could stumpy. The combustion chamber shape has
no influence on emissions. Zhen and Wang [14] in another study pre-
sented an overview of using methanol as a fuel in internal combustion
engines. The study discusses the different methods of methanol pro-
ductions and methanol blended with different fuels. The work high-
lighted that methanol can reduce emissions form engine, compared to
fossil fuels. Overall, the early studies [10–16] revealed a significant
improvement in engine performance and a reduction in pollutant
emissions of blended biofuel compared to pure gasoline. However, re-
searchers, afterward, found that the chemical structure of butanol has a
number of benefits compared to bioethanol and bio-methanol, con-
taining its minor vapor pressure, which diminishes the possibility of
vapor locking, its ability to use existing gasoline fuel pipelines, its
ability to blend with gasoline at upper concentrations without (or with
a minor) readjusting of vehicles, and its higher energy efficiency. Re-
searchers examined butanol fuel blended in gasoline in planetary of
publications and results demonstrated some advantages of butanol fuel
blends than that of gasoline fuel, especially in pollutant emissions
[17–21]. Comparisons between bioethanol, bio- methanol, and butanol
isomers (i-butanol and n-butanol) fuel blends showed some advantages
for bioethanol and bio-methanol in terms of engine performance and
pollutants than those of i-butanol and n-butanol biofuels. But still,
butanol has some advantaged like blending in gasoline without retro-
fitting engine and low vapor lock chance, as demonstrated early.
Newly, researchers moved to examine ternary biofuel blends in
some publications. Gong et al. [22] investigated hydrogen/methanol
dual blends in spark-ignition engine using late-injection strategy for
methanol. The results showed a decrease in soot emission for fuel
blends. Hydrogen can also accelerate the combustion rate of fuel
blends. The hydrogen addition to methanol can expand the lean-burn
limits of methanol fuel combustion and afford more stable flame con-
ditions. Elfasakhany [23] investigated bioethanol-bio-methanol-gaso-
line blends and results reported an improvement in emissions and
performance for the fuel blends than those of pure gasoline. Elfasa-
khany et al. [24] applied n-butanol-bio-methanol-gasoline and results
demonstrated a decrease in engine performance for fuel blends. Elfa-
sakhany [25] examined n-butanol-i-butanol-gasoline blends and the
results recommended biofuel blends than pure gasoline. Elfasakhany
[26] investigated bioethanol-i-butanol-gasoline blends and results
showed enhancement in engine pollutant emissions for fuel blends.
Elfasakhany [27] applied, for the first time in spark-ignition engines, a
couple of ternary blends, i-butanol-bio-methanol-gasoline and n-bu-
tanol-bioethanol-gasoline. Results reported advantages of both ternary
blended fuels; however, i-butanol-bio-methanol-gasoline showed
greater engine performance than the n-butanol-bioethanol-gasoline.
Only just, researchers suggested an innovative alternative fuel by
investigating bio-acetone in the internal combustion engines. Firstly,
bio-acetone is examined in compression ignition engines in a few
publications. Bio-acetone was blended with diesel at 1–3 vol% and
results showed it is a promising fuel, e.g., can enhance combustion ef-
ficiency and emissions, compared to pure diesel fuel [28]. Bio-acetone
was also examined in a gasoline engine and the study concluded that
bio-acetone-gasoline blends are very promising alternative and can
introduce better performance and emissions than pure gasoline; the fuel
blends enhanced emissions by nearly 33% UHC, 43% CO, and 32% CO2
[29].
Comparisons between bio-acetone fuel blends and other proposed
biofuel were introduced in one unique study by the author. Elafsakhany
[30] compared bio-acetone with bioethanol, bio-methanol, i-butanol
and n-butanol biofuels in some blend rates with gasoline and engine
operating conditions. The study demonstrated that bio-acetone is a
promising alternative and can enhance performance and emissions ra-
ther than others. The author strongly recommended bio-acetone as a
supplement of gasoline in transportations shortly, especially, bio-
acetone showed a recent possibility to be generated in huge quantities
2
Fuel 274 (2020) 117825
throughout biomass/wood fermentation processes from numerous
biomass/wood kinds such as palm oil waste, domestic waste, wood
residues, and plentiful agricultural harvests [31–36]. Additionally, bio-
acetone is one of the major biofuels produced from the biomass con-
version process [37,38] as well as in along with cracking development
process [39,40]. Bio-acetone also showed advantages in its high octane
number because of its aromatic content, which makes it suitable in
combustion engines [41–44].
The above discussions make it clear that bio-acetone is very en-
couraging fuel for internal combustion engines and, accordingly, re-
searchers investigated bio-acetone blended with gasoline fuel in SI
engines and diesel fuel in CI engines. In addition to bio-acetone dual
blends, bio-acetone also was investigated in a ternary blend basis in
diesel engines. Chang et al. [45,46] examined bio-acetone-bioethanol-
diesel blends and results recognized greater performance and lower
emissions for the fuel blends; additionally, the study concluded that
bio-acetone ternary blended fuel is a promising green alternative in the
coming future. On the other hand, a similar study for ternary bio-
acetone blends in spark-ignition engines was practically not in-
vestigated. Henceforward, there is a necessity for fundamental under-
standing of the likelihood of bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends in
SI engine. One more motivation for investigating bio-acetone and
bioethanol is that they have advantage as being byproducts during bio-
butanol production, so using bio-acetone and bioethanol as biofuels has
economic benefits [47]. Besides, they are generated in large quantities
from biofuel fermentation; in biofuel fermentation, acetone-butanol-
ethanol blends are produced and gained a lot of attention as alternative
fuels; however, bio-acetone-bioethanol blends have not been likely
studied by researchers in SI engines. The goal of this study is to fill this
gap by investigating the addition of dual bio-acetone and bioethanol to
gasoline fuel blends in SI engines. This new ternary blended fuel is
practically examined for the first time in spark-ignition engines and,
additionally, it is compared with dual blended ones (bio-acetone-ga-
soline and bioethanol-gasoline blended fuels) with aiming to demon-
strate the most encouraging one(s) as an alternative to fossil fuel.
2. Experimental setup and procedure
The engine used for this research is a spark-ignition engine with LRB
(laboratory research basis) manufactured by GUNT Company, located
in Hamburg, Germany. The engine design benefits of its versatility and
robustness of construction, which is important for studies of combus-
tion of different biofuels. Characteristics of the engine are listed in
Table 1. As realized, the engine is one cylinder, four-stroke and a couple
Table 1
Gasoline engine and pollutant gas analyzer specifications.
Engine specifications
Cylinder(s) 1
Valves 2
Bore (mm) 65.1
Stroke (mm) 44.4
Compression ratio 7:1
Displacement (cm3) 147.1
Maximum power (KW) 1.5
Weight (Kg) 17 Kg
Type spark-ignition
Gas analyzer specifications
Warm-up period 10 min
Weight 9 kg
Exhaust gas temperature 5–45 °C
Measurement Ranges CO2 0–20 vol%
UHC 0–2000 ppm vol. (as C6H14)
Voltage 230 V (+10%/−15%)
Frequency 50 ± 1 Hz
Power consumption Max. 45 VA
Range of apparatus heating 0–130 °C, resolution ± 1 °C
Accuracy OIML class 1 and 0 ± 1 °C, ± 0.05 vol%, ± 10 ppm
A. Elfasakhany
Table 2
Fuel properties [29,30,48].
Property Gasoline
Chemical formula C8H15
Composition (C, H, O) (mass %) 86,14,0
Octane number 90–99
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 43.5
Heat of evaporation (kJ/kg) 223.2
Stoichiometric A/F ratio 14.6
Oxygen content, mass % 0.0
Density (kg/m3) 760
Saturation pressure at 38 °C (kPa) 31
Flash point (°C) –45 to –38
Auto-ignition temperature (°C) 420
Boiling point (°C) 25–215
Solubility in water (ml/100 ml H2O) < 0.1
Vapor toxicity Moderateirritant
Flammability limits (vol.%) 0.6–8
of valves type. The compression ratio is 7 and the displacement volume
is 147.7 cm3. The engine is not modified during testing of the different
biofuels; this includes no changes in the compression ratio, air/fuel
ratio, ignition timing, etc. The experiments were conducted at constant
net indicated loads and different engine speeds of the range from 2600
to 3400 rpm. Three different fuels in different blend rates were applied
to the fuel feeding system, include bio-acetone and bioethanol. The first
tested fuel was a blend of bioethanol with gasoline in rates 3, 7, and
10 vol% bioethanol. The second tested fuel was a blend of bio-acetone
and gasoline in blend rates 3, 7, and 10 vol% bio-acetone. The third
tested fuel was a mixture of bioethanol and bio-acetone in gasoline in
blend rates 3, 7, and 10 vol% bio-acetone and bioethanol. And finally,
pure gasoline with octane number (ON) 95 was applied as a reference
fuel to be compared with other biofuels blends. The characteristics of
the tested fuels were presented in Table 2 [29,30,48].
During the tests, environment working parameters were as follows:
intake temperature was 30 °C and fuel temperature was 29 °C. Engine
control and monitoring process were performed using electronic sensors
and actuators installed along with the engine, as shown in Fig. 1. En-
gine performance measurement’s sensors/actuators include engine
brake power, volumetric efficiency, in-cylinder pressure, and output
torque. Exhaust gas analyzer was connected via engine exhaust system
to measure the exhaust pollutants of UHC (unburned hydrocarbons),
CO and CO2 concentrations within a measuring range of 1–2000 ppm
for UHC, 0–10% for CO, and 0–20% for CO2. The UHC is measured in
the gas analyzer as C6H14. Characteristics of the gas analyzer are
presented in Table 1. The accuracy/error of the gas analyzer as well as
engine test sensors/actuators are calibration before used and it is found
in acceptable limit (in the range ± 2%). The thermocouple has an ac-
curacy of ± 0.5%. The accuracy of the pressure sensor is about
0.0001 MPa. The accuracy of gas analyzer is about ± 1 °C, ± 0.05 vol
%, and ± 10 ppm, as shown in Table 1. Further detail descriptions of
experimental setup and procedure could be shown in the early pub-
lications [49–51].
3. Results and discussions
Performance and emissions results of gasoline engine fueled with
bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends are presented and discussed in
this section. In the results, bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends in
rates 3, 7, and 10 vol% are denoted as ACE3, ACE7, and ACE10, re-
spictively, and neat gasoline is denoted as AC0. Fig. 2 shows the vo-
lumetric efficiency against engine speeds for the tested fuels. As ex-
pected, ACE10 introduced the greatest efficiency followed by ACE7 and
ACE3; the lowest efficiency is introduced via neat gasoline fuel (AC0).
The tested fuel showed averagely volumetric efficiency by about
42.46%, 42%, 41.6%, and 41% for ACE10, ACE7, ACE3, and AC0,
3
Fuel 274 (2020) 117825
Bio-acetone Bioethanol
C3H6O C2H5OH
62,10.5,27.5 52,13,35
110 110
29.6 27.0
501.7 725.4
9.54 9.0
27.5 34.7
791 790
53.4 13.8
17.8 21.1
560 434
56.1 78.4
Miscible Fully miscible
Low acute toxicity Toxic even in small doses
2.6–12.8 3.3–19
respectively. Consequently, fuel blends are greater than the pure ga-
soline by about 1.5%, 1%, and 0.6% for ACE10, ACE7, and ACE3, re-
spectively.
The engine brake power against engine speeds is investigated for the
fuel blends and gasoline, as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 shows output torque
against engine speeds. Fig. 5 presented the pressure in cylinder mea-
sured at a moderate engine speed of 3000 r/min for all tested fuels. As
shown in Figs. 3–5, the greatest power/torque/pressure are introduced
via ACE10 followed by ACE7 and ACE3, while the lowest power/
torque/pressure is showed via AC0. In particular, the ACE10 introduced
higher BP and Tq than the gasoline fuel by 4.5% and 3%, respectively;
the ACE7 introduced higher BP and Tq than the gasoline fuel by 3.2%
and 2.1%, respectively; the ACE3 introduced higher BP and Tq than the
gasoline fuel by 2% and 1.5%, respectively. In summary, the highest
blend rate (ACE10) introduced the best engine performance and as the
blend rate decreases, the performance decreases consequently; how-
ever, the pure gasoline showed the slightest engine performance out-
come. This may refer to that both bio-acetone and bioethanol contain
oxygen in their structure and that, without adopt, enhances fuel com-
bustion leading to higher engine performance for all performance
parameters. Moreover, our results are in consistence with the early
studies of bio-acetone-gasoline and bioethanol-gasoline blends, which
announced higher performance of fuel blends than the pure gasoline
[15,29,30]. A comparison between performance of ternary bio-acetone-
bioethanol-gasoline blends and both dual bio-acetone-gasoline and
bioethanol-gasoline blends is carried out in the study, as discussed later.
The pollutant emissions of bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline are in-
vestigated in the study via three emissions, unburned hydrocarbon,
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Fig. 6 shows unburned hydro-
carbon (UHC) against engine speeds for fuel blends (ACE10, ACE7, and
ACE3) and neat gasoline (AC0). As expected, ACE10 introduced the
lowest UHC emission followed by ACE7 and then ACE3; the highest
UHC is introduced via neat gasoline fuel (AC0). The tested fuel showed
averagely UHC as about 238.5, 259, 291, and 341 ppm (part per mil-
lion) for ACE10, ACE7, ACE3, and AC0, respectively, in speed 3000 r/
min. Accordingly, fuel blends are lower in percentage than the neat
gasoline by about 30%, 24%, and 14% for ACE10, ACE7, and ACE3,
respectively.
Fig. 7 shows carbon monoxide against engine speeds for fuel blends
(ACE10, ACE7, and ACE3) and neat gasoline (AC0). Similar to UHC
emissions, ACE10 introduced the lowest CO followed by ACE7 and then
ACE3; the highest CO is introduced via neat gasoline fuel (AC0). The
tested fuel showed averagely CO as about 3.83%, 5%, 5.5%, and 6.98%
for ACE10, ACE7, ACE3, and AC0, respectively, in speed 3000 r/min.
Consequently, fuel blends are lower than the neat gasoline by about
45%, 28%, and 21% for ACE10, ACE7, and ACE3, respectively.
Fig. 8 shows carbon dioxide against engine speeds for fuel blends
A. Elfasakhany Fuel 274 (2020) 117825

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup.

Fig. 2. Volumetric efficiency against engine speeds for bio-acetone-bioethanol blended at rates 3, 7, and 10 vol% in gasoline (ACE3, ACE7 and ACE10) and pure
gasoline (AC0).

4
A. Elfasakhany Fuel 274 (2020) 117825

Fig. 3. Brake power against engine speeds. Captions are realized in Fig. 2.

(ACE10, ACE7, and ACE3) and neat gasoline (AC0). As seen, similar to
CO and UHC emissions, the CO2 emissions of all blended fuels are lower
than the neat gasoline; however, higher fuel blends (ACE10) shows
greater CO2 than the low blend rate (ACE7 and ACE3). This is con-
sistence with the CO and UHC emissions, e.g., the CO and UHC for
ACE10 showed lower values, which means more combustion of ACE10
and, in turn, higher its CO2 emission. The CO2 of ACE10, ACE7, ACE3,
and AC0 are about 6.71, 6, 5.6, and 10.2%, respectively, at a moderate
engine speed of 3000 r/min. This means that the fuel blends are lower
than the gasoline fuel by about 34%, 41%, and 45%, for ACE10, ACE7,
ACE3, respectively.
The emission results are reasonable since the fuel blends contain
oxygen in its structure, as shown in Table 2, and, in turn, they provide
lower emissions than the pure gasoline. As well, ACE10 contains the
highest oxygen content and in turn, it introduced the lowest CO and
UHC emissions, and consequently the highest CO2, among all fuel
blends. The emission results in the current study come consistent with
our early studied of bio-acetone-gasoline and bioethanol-gasoline fuel
blends [15,29,30].
Comparisons between engine performance of ternary bio-acetone-
bioethanol-gasoline blends and dual blends of both bio-acetone-gaso-
line and bioethanol-gasoline are carried out to demonstrate the most
encouraging one(s) in engine performance. Fig. 9 shows comparisons of
brake power (BP), torque (Tq), and volumetric efficiency (VE) for bio-

Fig. 4. Output torque against engine speeds. Captions are realized in Fig. 2.

5
A. Elfasakhany Fuel 274 (2020) 117825

Fig. 5. Pressure in cylinder at a moderate engine speed 3000 r/min. Captions are realized in Fig. 2.

acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends (ACE), bio-acetone-gasoline blends
(AC), bioethanol-gasoline blends (E), and neat gasoline (base line) in
average basis for all blend rates and engine speeds. As realized, the
greatest VE and BP are introduced via E blends; but, E showed lower Tq.
The greatest Tq among all blended fuels is displayed by ACE blends. The
AC blends introduced, however, moderate performance results between
E and ACE blends. In numbers, the E showed higher performance than
the pure gasoline by 6.5%, 1.5%, and 25% for BP, Tq, and VE, re-
spectively. The ACE showed higher performance than the pure gasoline
by 2.51%, 2.3%, and 1.5% for BP, Tq, and VE, respectively. The AC
showed higher performance than the pure gasoline by 3%, 1.4%, and
1.5% for BP, Tq, and VE, respectively. In comparison between ternary
and dual fuel blends, the E showed higher performance than the AC by
3.5%, 0.1%, and 23.5% for BP, Tq, and VE, respectively; additionally,
the E showed higher performance than the ACE by 4 and 23.5 for BP
and VE, respectively. The ACE showed higher torque than the E and AC
blends by 0.8% and 0.9%, respectively. The AC showed higher Bp than
the ACE by 0.5%. One may refer such trends to that the utmost VE of E
blend is due high heat of evaporation of bioethanol, compared to bio-
acetone and gasoline (725.4 kJ/kg, 501.7 kJ/kg and 223.2 kJ/kg for

Fig. 6. Unburned hydrocarbon (UHC) against engine speeds. Captions are realized in Fig. 2.

6
A. Elfasakhany Fuel 274 (2020) 117825

Fig. 7. Carbon monoxide against engine speeds. Captions are realized in Fig. 2.

bioethanol, bio-acetone and gasoline, respectively, as shown in
Table 2). The greatest BP of E blend is due to the high oxygen content of
bioethanol, which enhances fuel combustion and in turn engine power
(34.7% for bioethanol, 27.5% for bio-acetone, and 0% for gasoline, as
shown in Table 2). However, the highest output torque introduced by
the ACE is probably due to the mixing properties of bio-acetone with
bioethanol, which may behave differently from individual combustion
of bioethanol and/or bio-acetone, as it will be discussed far ahead.
Comparison between engine pollutant emissions of ternary bio-
acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends and dual blends of both bio-
acetone-gasoline and bioethanol-gasoline is carried out, similar as in
performance. Fig. 10 shows comparisons of CO, CO2, and UHC emis-
sions for bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends (ACE), bio-acetone-
gasoline blends (AC), bioethanol-gasoline blends (E), and neat gasoline
(base line) in average basis for all blend rates and engine speeds. As
realized, the best/lowest emissions for CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions are
showed via ACE blends, while the greatest emissions are introduced by
E fuel blends; AC showed moderate emissions between other fuel blends
(ACE and E). Additionally, all fuel blends introduced lower emissions
than the neat gasoline, except for CO2 for E blends where it is higher
than the neat gasoline. In numbers, ACE is lower than the pure gasoline
by 45%, 27%, and 38% for CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions, respectively.

Fig. 8. Carbon dioxide against engine speeds. Captions are realized in Fig. 2.

7
A. Elfasakhany Fuel 274 (2020) 117825

Fig. 9. Comparisons of engine performance of output torque (Tq), brake power (BP), and volumetric efficiency (VE) for bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends
(ACE), bio-acetone-gasoline blends (AC), bioethanol-gasoline blends (E), and pure gasoline (base line).

Fig. 10. Comparisons of CO2, CO, and UHC emissions for bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends (ACE), bio-acetone-gasoline blends (AC), bioethanol-gasoline
blends, and pure gasoline (base line).

AC is lower than the pure gasoline by 32%, 20%, and 25% for CO, UHC,
and CO2 emissions, respectively. The E blends are lower than the pure
gasoline by 20% and 10% for CO and UHC emissions and higher CO2
emission than the pure gasoline by 4.6%. More attractively, the emis-
sions of ternary ACE are lower than the dual AC fuel blends by 13%,
7%, and 13%, for CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions, respectively. Ad-
ditionally, the ternary ACE blends is lower than the dual E fuel blends
by 25%, 17%, and 42%, for CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions, respectively.
On the other hand, the emissions of dual AC blends are lower than the
dual E fuel blends by 12%, 10%, and 29%, for CO, UHC, and CO2
emissions, respectively. One may refer such trends to combustion
properties of different biofuels as discussed subsequently.
One may conclude that the addition of bio-acetone to bioethanol
enhances the fuel combustion of individual combustion of each biofuel
(bio-acetone and/or bioethanol). This means that the higher the rate of
bioethanol in the ternary blended fuel, the more it unconstrained the
positive effects of bio-acetone and vice versa for the addition of bio-
acetone to the bioethanol. Besides, when inert bio-acetone and bioe-
thanol in the fuel tank, under certain temperature and pressure in the
combustion chamber, bio-acetone and bioethanol are likely to react to
form a third product (most probably a ketone). Such a third product
reacts in the engine and introduces better combustion than the in-
dividual bioethanol and bio-acetone. Moreover, the properties of the
third product, like heating value, flammability limits and stoichiometric

8
A. Elfasakhany
A/F ratio, are probably different from both bioethanol and bio-acetone,
and even not located between the propertied of bioethanol and bio-
acetone. This may explain the reason(s) of obtaining lower emissions
for ACE than the E and AC dual blends and also higher output torque of
ACE than the E and AC dual blends. Finally, in conclusion, ACE ternary
biofuel blends are recommended for enhancing all pollutant emissions
from SI engines and some extent performance.
For further identifying/analyzing the causes of unlike performance
and emission results for different biofuel blends, combustion char-
acteristics, such as flame propagation, ignition delay, combustion
duration, flame instabilities, and spark timing, are needed to be speci-
fied and compared for the tested fuel blends. In fact, flame propagation
is the most important property of premixed flame in SI engines. Flame
propagation plays vital roles in scheming numerous important aspects
of the combustion process, such as minimum ignition energy, ignition
delay, heat release rate, thickness of the wall quench layer, and
flammability limit. Additionally, flame propagation is one of the key
parameters for understanding diffusivity and reactivity of biofuels.
Comparing the flame propagation of different biofuel blends shows
that bioethanol has the highest flame speed while bio-acetone has the
lowest one and gasoline is in between. The reason(s) of alert flame
propagation (laminar burning velocity) of different biofuels is/are
mainly due to dissimilar molecular structures and combustion me-
chanisms for each biofuel, e.g., types and concentrations of inter-
mediate species generated during biofuel combustion [52]. Bio-acetone
forms high concentration of methyl radical (CH3), which enhances the
chain termination reaction and results in reducing reactivity of bio-
acetone; bio-acetone has lower flame speeds as a consequence. On the
other hand, the premixed combustion of bioethanol containing a hy-
droxyl group takes place in three zones. In the first zone, the dis-
sociation of C–C and C–OH bonds occurs in the preheat zone due to low
bonding energy. In the second zone, the C–H bond dissociates in the
partial preheat zone due to high bonding energy; and in the third zone
the reaction of H with OH to produce H2O takes a place and releases
heat/energy. This makes the burning velocity of bioethanol higher than
that of bio-acetone [53]. For such reason(s), the power of bioethanol is
greater than the bio-acetone.
The flame propagation influenced by some factors for the same
biofuel; in particular, flame propagation of fuel blends increases bor-
ingly with the increasing volume fraction of biofuels (bio-acetone and/
or bioethanol) [54]. Accordingly, the high rate of blended fuel (ACE10)
showed better combustion and lower emissions than the low blend
rates. The flame propagation is also strongly linked with the compres-
sion ratio, e.g., the greater the compression ratio is, the higher the flame
propagation speed [55]. Accordingly, using biofuel may allow to in-
crease the compression ratio of SI engine without knocking problems
and, in turn, speeds up the flame propagation. On the other hand, flame
propagation is not influenced by the ignition methods, which is an in-
herent characteristic of a biofuel-air mixture [56].
The ignition delay and combustion duration could typically influ-
ence on characteristics of biofuel combustion. The ignition delay and
combustion duration decreased as the compression ratio increased at
high equivalence ratio, and vice versa at low equivalence ratio [10].
Additionally, the indicated thermal efficiency increased with increasing
compression ratio at high equivalence ratio, and vice versa at low
equivalence ratio [10]. This means that increasing the compression
ratio leads to increasing thermal efficiency and decreasing ignition
delay and combustion duration at high equivalence ratio condition;
since the addition of biofuels allows for operating at high compression
ratio, the engine performance is improved for biofuel combustions be-
cause of decreasing the ignition delay and combustion duration and
increasing the thermal efficiency.
Flame instabilities may also play a role in the performance and
emission results. Gasoline has the smallest Markstein lengths and its
flame front is the most unstable one [57] and that may cause a de-
bauched in performance and emissions. However, bioethanol has the
9
Fuel 274 (2020) 117825
largest Markstein lengths and its flame front is very stable [57]. The
additions of bioethanol and/or bio-acetone into gasoline can make
gasoline-air flames stable [58]; and in turn, biofuel enhanced perfor-
mance and emissions of gasoline.
Spark timing may also influence on biofuel combustion, perfor-
mance, and emissions. Spark timing should be compatible with ignition
delay and combustion duration of biofuels. Advancing spark timing, for
example, increases engine UHC emission, while it decreases engine CO
emission [59]. So one can retard ignition timing with increasing engine
compression ratio to decrease both UHC and CO emissions. The CO
emission could also be decreased by extra-lean burn of biofuel [13].
In summary, the best emissions are introduced by ACE blends, while
the best performance is introduced by E blends for volumetric efficiency
and engine power, but the ACE introduced the best torque from engine.
The AC blends introduced a moderate performance and emissions
among all biofuel blends. The E blends introduced the highest green
unsuitability emissions, even higher than the pure gasoline. Therefore,
if you are interested in the best volumetric efficiency and engine power,
you should use the E dual blends, but the atmosphere would suffer from
the CO2 emissions of the E blends. In the event of an interested in the
best/lowest emissions and the maximum engine performance torque,
ACE ternary fuel blends should be used. In occasion of interest in
moderately high performance and low emissions, better than pure ga-
soline, the dual AC blends should be used. Finally, in conclusions, ACE
ternary fuel blends are recommended for engine pollutant emissions
and record engine performance, rather than the AC and E dual blends.
Additionally, the ACE ternary fuel blends could be used in higher blend
rates without any modifications in commercial engines; the addition of
bio-acetone to the blends can retard the blend phasing, compared to
bioethanol-gasoline blends, which implies narrow the blend properties
to the pure gasoline, e.g., increasing the blend rates without adjust-
ments on gasoline engines. The addition of bio-acetone to the blends
also plays an important role in improving the combustion performance
and emissions of the blends, owing to its higher volatility.
4. Conclusions
Gasoline fuel was blended with 3, 7, and 10 vol% of dual bio-
acetone and bioethanol by volume in SI engine. The effects of such
ternary blended fuels on engine performance (volumetric efficiency,
output torque, and brake power) and emissions (CO, UHC, and CO2)
were examined experimentally, for the first time in spark-ignition en-
gines. Results of fuel blends in all rates are compared to each other as
well as with pure gasoline. Results showed that all blended fuel (ACE10,
ACE7, and ACE3) introduced higher performance and lower emissions
than the pure gasoline. Specifically, ACE10 showed the best perfor-
mance and emissions (CO and UHC) among the other two blends (ACE7
and ACE3).
Comparisons between engine performance and pollutant emissions
of ternary bio-acetone-bioethanol-gasoline blends with a couple of dual
blends (bio-acetone-gasoline and bioethanol-gasoline) are carried out in
the study. Results showed that the emissions of ACE are lower than the
AC fuel blends by 13%, 7%, and 13%, for CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions;
while ACE blends is lower than the dual E fuel blends by 25%, 17%, and
42%, for CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions. The ACE showed higher torque
than the E and AC blends by 0.8% and 0.9%. However, the E showed
higher performance than the ACE by 4 and 23.5 for BP and VE, re-
spectively.
The study may conclude that in case of interested in best volumetric
efficiency and engine power, one should use E blends, but the en-
vironment will suffer from CO2 emissions of E blends. In case of in-
terested in best emissions and engine output torque, one should use
ACE fuel blends in the engine. The AC blends introduced a moderate
performance and emissions among all biofuel blends. In conclusion, the
ACE ternary fuel blends are recommended for perfect engine pollutant
emissions and record engine performance, rather than the AC and E
A. Elfasakhany
dual blend. The study may emphasize that, in ternary ACE fuel blends,
the mixing of bioethanol with bio-acetone seems enhancing the com-
bustion of individual bio-acetone and/or bioethanol biofuel. Finally,
the author expected that, as an outlook on future research work of
biofuel blends, the ternary bio-acetone-bio-methanol-gasoline blends
would give comparative (or even enhanced) results as ACE and, ac-
cordingly, such blends are necessitate to be investigated.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Elfasakhany A. Modeling of pulverised wood flames. [Ph.D. thesis]. Fluid Mechanics
Dept., Lund Univ.: Lund, Sweden; 2005. ISBN-13/EAN: 9789162864255.
[2] Elfasakhany A, Bai XS. Modeling of pulverised wood combustion: a comparison of
different models. Prog Comp Fluid Dyn 2006;6:188–99.
[3] Elfasakhany A, Klason T, Bai XS. Modeling of pulverised wood combustion using a
functional group model. Combust Theory Model 2008;12:883–904.
[4] Elfasakhany A, Bai XS, Espenas B, Tao L, Larfeldt J. Effect of moisture and volatile
releases on motion of pulverised wood particles. 7th Int. Conf. on Energy for a Clean
Environment, Lisbon, Portugal. 2003. p. 167.
[5] Elfasakhany A, Bai XS. Numerical and experimental studies of irregular-shape
biomass particle motions in turbulent flows. Eng Sci Tech JESTECH
2019;22:249–65.
[6] Elfasakhany A. Powder biomass fast pyrolysis as in combustion conditions: nu-
merical prediction and validation. Renew Energy Focus 2018;27:78–87.
[7] Elfasakhany A, Bassuoni M, Saleh B, Alsehli M, Aly AA. Biomass powder as a re-
newable fuel for internal combustion engines. Arctic J 2018;71:42–52.
[8] Elfasakhany A, Tao LX, Bai XS. Transport of pulverized wood particles in turbulent
flow: numerical and experimental studies. Energy Proc 2014;61:1540–3.
[9] Elfasakhany A, Tao L, Espenas B, Larfeldt J, Bai XS. Pulverised wood combustion in
a vertical furnace: experimental and computational analyses. Appl Energy
2013;112:454–64.
[10] Gong CM, Yi L, Zhang Z, Sun J, Liu F. Assessment of ultra-lean burn characteristics
for a stratified-charge direct injection spark-ignition methanol engine under dif-
ferent high compression ratios. Appl Energy 2020;261:114478.
[11] Gong CM, Li ZH, Yi L, Liu FH. Comparative study on combustion and emissions
between methanol port injection engine and methanol direct-injection engine with
H2-enriched port-injection under lean-burn conditions. Energy Convers Manage
2019;200:112096.
[12] Gong CM, Li ZH, Chen YL, Liu JJ, Liu FH, Han YQ. Influence of ignition timing on
combustion and emissions of a spark-ignition methanol engine with added hy-
drogen under lean-burn conditions. Fuel 2019;235:227–38.
[13] Zhen X, Wang Y. Numerical analysis on original emissions for a spark ignition
methanol engine based on detailed chemical kinetics. Renew Energy
2015;81:43–51.
[14] Zhen X, Wang Y. An overview of methanol as an internal combustion engine fuel.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:477–93.
[15] Elfasakhany A. The effects of ethanol–gasoline blends on performance and exhaust
emission characteristics of spark ignition engines. Int J Automotive Eng
2014;4:608–20.
[16] Elfasakhany A. Investigation on performance and emissions characteristics of an
internal combustion engine fuelled with petroleum gasoline and a hybrid metha-
nol–gasoline fuel. Int J Eng Tech 2013;13:24–43.
[17] Alasfour FN. Nox emission from a spark ignition engine using 30% iso-butanol/
gasoline blend: part 2 – ignition timing. Appl Therm Eng 1998;18(8):609–18.
[18] Dernotte J, Rousselle CM, Halter F, Seers P. Evaluation of butanol–gasoline blends
in a port fuel–injection, spark–ignition engine. Oil Gas Sci Technol Rev
2010;65:345–51.
[19] Balaji D, Govindarajan P, Venkatesan J. Influence of isobutanol blend in spark ig-
nition engine performance operated with gasoline and ethanol. Int J Eng Sci
Technol 2010;2:2859–68.
[20] Elfasakhany A. Experimental investigation on SI engine using gasoline and a hybrid
iso-butanol/gasoline fuel. Energy Convers Manage 2015;95:398–405.
[21] Elfasakhany A. Experimental study on emissions and performance of an internal
combustion engine fueled with gasoline and gasoline/n-butanol blends. Energy
Convers Manage 2014;88:277–83.
[22] Gong CM, Li Z, Yi L, Huang K, Liu F. Research on the performance of a hydrogen/
methanol dual-injection assisted spark-ignition engine using late-injection strategy
for methanol. Fuel 2020;260:116403.
[23] Elfasakhany A. Investigations on the effects of ethanol–methanol–gasoline blends in
a spark–ignition engine: performance and emissions analysis. Eng Sci Tech
JESTECH 2015;18:713–9.
[24] Elfasakhany A, Mahrous AF. Performance and emissions assessment of n-buta-
nol–methanol–gasoline blends as a fuel in spark–ignition engines. Alexandria Eng J
2016;55:3015–24.
10
Fuel 274 (2020) 117825
[25] Elfasakhany A. Experimental study of dual n-butanol and iso-butanol additives on
spark–ignition engine performance and emissions. Fuel 2016;163:166–74.
[26] Elfasakhany A. Engine performance evaluation and pollutant emissions analysis
using ternary bio-ethanol–iso-butanol–gasoline blends in gasoline engines. J Clean
Prod 2016;139:1057–67.
[27] Elfasakhany A. Exhaust emissions and performance of ternary iso-butanol–bio-
methanol–gasoline and n-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline fuel blends in spark-igni-
tion engines: assessment and comparison. Energy 2018;158:830–44.
[28] Lin SL, Lee WJ, Lee CF, Chen SJ. Energy savings and emission reduction of nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by adding water-
containing acetone and neat soybean oil to a diesel-fueled engine generator. Energy
Fuels 2010;24:4522–33.
[29] Elfasakhany A. Performance and emissions analysis on using acetone–gasoline fuel
blends in spark ignition engine. Eng Sci Tech JESTECH 2016;19:1224–32.
[30] Elfasakhany A. Investigations on performance and pollutant emissions of spar-
k–ignition engines fueled with n-butanol–, iso-butanol–, ethanol–, methanol–, and
acetone–gasoline blends: a comparative study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;71:404–13.
[31] Lee TM, Ishizaki A, Yoshino S, Furukawa K. Production of acetone, butanol, and
ethanol from palm oil mill effluent using C. saccharoperbutylacetonicum N1–4.
Biotechnol Lett 1995;17:649–54.
[32] Lopez-Contreras AM, Claassen PAM, Mooibroek H, De-Vos WM. Utilisation of sac-
charides in extruded domestic organic waste by Clostridium acetobutylicum ATCC
824 for production of acetone, butanol and ethanol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
2000;54:162–7.
[33] Madihah MS, Ariff AB, Khalil MS, Suraini AA, Karim MIA. Anaerobic fermentation
of gelatinized sago starch-derived sugars to acetone–1-butanolethanol solvent by
clostridium acetobutylicum. Folia Microbiol 2001;46:197–204.
[34] Qureshi N, Meagher MM, Huang J, Hutkins RW. Acetone butanol ethanol (ABE)
recovery by pervaporation using silicalite-silicone composite membrane from fed-
batch reactor of clostridium acetobutylicum. J Memb Sci 2001;187:93–102.
[35] Ishizaki A, Michiwaki S, Crabbe E, Kobayashi G, Sonomoto K, Yoshino S. Extractive
acetone–butanol–ethanol fermentation using methylated crude palm oil as ex-
tractant in batch culture of clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum N1–4 (ATCC
13564). J Biosci Bioeng 1999;87:352–6.
[36] Ozcan M, Öztürk S, Oguz Y. Potential evaluation of biomass-based energy sources
for Turkey. Eng Sci Tech JESTECH 2015;18:178–84.
[37] Holzinger R, Williams J, Salisbury G, Kulpfel T, de-Reus M, Traub M, et al.
Oxygenated compounds in aged biomass burning plumes: evidence for production
of methanol and acetone. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 2004;4:6321–40.
[38] Gallezot P. Conversion of biomass to selected chemical products. Chem Soc Rev
2012;41:1538–58.
[39] Fulmer JW, Vernon M. Process for preparing of phenol and acetone from cumene.
US Patent 4480134; 1984.
[40] Trejo F, Rana MS, Ancheyta J. Genesis of acid base support properties with varia-
tions of preparation condition: cumene cracking and its kinetics. Ind Eng Chem Res
2011;50:2715–25.
[41] De-Lucas A, Canizares P, Durhn A, Carrero A. Dealumination of HZSM-5 zeolite:
effect of steaming on acidity and aromatization activity. Appl Catal A Gen
1997;154:221–40.
[42] Setiadi S, Kojima T, Tsutsui T. Conversion of acetone to aromatic chemicals with
HZSM-5. J Jpn Inst Energy 2003;82(926):32.
[43] Zhang PQ, Wang XS, Guo HC, Zhu WL, Zhao LP. Performance of modified nano
ZSM-5 for removing olefins in gasoline. Chin J Catal 2003;24:585–9.
[44] Tago T, Konno H, Sakamoto M, Nakasaka Y, Masuda T. Selective synthesis for light
olefins from acetone over ZSM-5 zeolites with nano and macro crystal sizes. Appl
Catal A: Gen 2011;403:183–91.
[45] Chang YC, Lee WJ, Lin SL, Wang LC. Green energy: Water-containing acet-
one–butanol–ethanol diesel blends fueled in diesel engines. Appl Energy
2013;109:182–91.
[46] Chang YC, Lee WJ, Wu TS, Wu CY, Chen SJ. Use of water containing acet-
one–butanol–ethanol for NOx-PM (nitrogen oxide-particulate matter) trade-off in
the diesel engine fueled with biodiesel. Energy 2014;64:678–87.
[47] Meng L, Zeng C, Li Y, Nithyanandan K, Lee TH, Lee CF. An experimental study on
the potential usage of acetone as an oxygenate additive in PFI SI engines. Energies
2016;9:256–76.
[48] Elfasakhany A. Alcohols as fuels in spark ignition engines: second blended gen-
eration. Book, Germany. ISBN: 978-3-659-97691-9; 2017.
[49] Elfasakhany A. Benefits and drawbacks on the use biofuels in spark ignition engines.
Book, Mauritius, ISBN: 978-620-2-05720-2; 2017.
[50] Elfasakhany A. Reducing automobile pollutant emissions and reusing some of such
emissions as a fuel. Ciência e Técnica J 2017;32:160–76.
[51] Elfasakhany A. Performance and emissions of spark–ignition engine using etha-
nol–methanol–gasoline, n-butanol–iso-butanol–gasoline and iso-butanol–etha-
nol–gasoline blends: a comparative study. Eng Sci Tech JESTECH 2016;19:2053–9.
[52] Gu X, Huang Z, Wu S, Li Q. Laminar burning velocities and flame instabilities of
butanol isomers-air mixtures. Combust Flame 2010;157(12):2318–25.
[53] Kustanto1 MN, Wardana NG, Sasongko MN, Yuliati L. Laminar burning velocity of
ethanol premixed combustion enriched with liquefied petroleumgas (LPG).
Energetika 2017;63:16–22.
[54] Li Q, Jin W, Huang Z. Laminar flame characteristics of C1–C5 primary alcohol-
isooctane blends at elevated temperature. Energies 2016;9(7):511.
[55] Mello P, Wildner F, De-Andrade GS, Cataluna R, Da Silva R. Combustion time of the
oxygenated and non-oxygenated fuels in an Otto cycle engine. J Braz Soc Mech Sci
Eng 2014;36:403–10.
[56] Xu C, Zhong A, Wang C, Jiang C, Li X, Zhou K, et al. Combustion characteristics and
A. Elfasakhany
laminar flame speed of premixed ethanol-air mixtures with laser-induced spark
ignition. Biofuels Eng 2017;2:63–72.
[57] Hu E, Ku J, Yin G, Li C, Lv X, Huang Z. Laminar flame characteristics and kinetic
modeling study of ETBE compared with MTBE, ethanol, iso-octane and gasoline.
Energy Fuels 2018;23(3):3934–45.
[58] Wu Y. Experimental investigation of laminar flame speeds of kerosene fuel and
11
Fuel 274 (2020) 117825
second generation biofuels in elevated conditions of pressure and preheat tem-
perature. [Ph.D. thesis]. Chemical Physics, Normandie Univ. INSA de Rouen, NNT:
2016ISAM0011, Fréderic GRISCH, CORIA, 2016.
[59] Gu X, Huang Z, Cai J, Gong J, Lee CF. Emission characteristics of a spark-ignition
engine fuelled with gasoline-n-butanol blends in combination with EGR. Fuel
2012;93:611–7.