Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Crops & Products

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

Process optimization of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel production and

study the effect of blends on CI engine characteristics for variation of
engine parameters
Sushanth H. Gowda a, *, Joel Dmello a, Santhosh Poojary b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, St Joseph Engineering College, Mangaluru 575028, India
b
Nitte (Deemed to be University), NMAM Institute of Technology (NMAMIT), Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Nitte, 574110, India

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

Keywords: Intense and continuous research from past decade efforts on biodiesel yield. Adding to this presently the Indian
Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel government has taken measures to introduce the biodiesel blends in transport sector which is attracting more
Yield optimization research in biofuel’s field. This research article presents the influence of injection pressure, injection timing and
Injection pressure
compression ratio for different blend variation on performance, combustion, and emissions characteristics of
Compression ratio
Injection timing
diesel engine. The biodiesel yielded from Scleropyrum pentandrum seeds is subsequently optimized through
Performance response surface methodology (RSM). The optimized parameter levels temperature 65 ◦ C, catalyst amount 1%
Emissions (w/v oil), reaction time 91 min and methanol to oil ratio 37% (v/v oil) yielded biodiesel of 92.9%. B5(95% diesel
Combustion + 5% biodiesel), B10(90% diesel + 10% biodiesel), B20(80% diesel + 20% biodiesel) & B30(70% diesel + 30%
biodiesel) were four blends opted to study fuel characteristics on CI engine with variation of injection pressure,
compression ratio and injection timing. The performance study reported higher brake specific fuel consumption
and lower brake thermal efficiency in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends in comparison to diesel. The carbon monoxide,
unburnt hydrocarbons and Smoke emissions were comparatively less and same was true for rise in injection
pressure to 220 & 240 bar from 200 bar. The increase of compression ratio to 20:1 and injection timing to
25.5◦ BTDC facilitated in control of carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons, and Smoke emissions other than
NOx. The B20 blend with injection pressure 220 bar and maintaining the compression ratio and injection timing
to standard setting is suggested to be the feasible blend considering the performance and emissions.

people rely on the vegetative supplements for daily consumption and

1. Introduction
Government of India is in its firm stand towards implementing the
use of biodiesel to fuel the engines mainly in transportation sectors.
India being a fast-developing nation relies on several transportation
means and amongst them the road transport and rail transport system is
primarily in demand. Here, the main source of prime mover being the
diesel engine (CI) due to the better torque characteristics at lower engine
speed. Adding to this, the other concern is the pollution levels and also
the availability of fossil fuel (Velasco-Fernández et al., 2015). The fossil
fuel is basically imported from Arab countries where huge investment is
done to procure the fuel. From few decades good research is going on
concerning the extraction of the biofuel from the vegetative and animal
stock. Opting for the vegetative feedstock there are categories like edible
and non-edible feedstock (Chakravarty and Mallick, 2022). In India,
also the amount of portable water required to grow the vegetative
feedstock is an alarming concern. Hence the search for non-edible
feedstock or resources available naturally in forest which grow at
normal rains is surely a best solution. Exploring the forest areas at
coastal region of south India Scleropyrum pentandrum is one vegetative
feedstock possessing 60–65% oil content (Poojary et al., 2017). Current
study efforts on the extraction of the bio-oil from Scleropyrum pentan­
drum seeds by investigating the optimum way among the parameters
associated for maximum yield. Scleropyrum pentandrum falls on unex­
plored type of seed by the researchers to know the oil yield quantity to
further use as biodiesel in diesel engines. These trees grow swiftly and
are basically used as firewood source by the locals. Intense research is
carried by the researchers in support to production of the bio-oil and
processing it as bio diesel. The biodiesel is later analyzed to study the
engine performance at various levels. Due to the high gradients and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sushanthg@sjec.ac.in (S.H. Gowda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116306
Received 17 November 2022; Received in revised form 12 January 2023; Accepted 17 January 2023
Available online 23 January 2023
0926-6690/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.H. Gowda et al.
Nomenclature
RSM response surface methodology
B5 95% diesel + 5% biodiesel
B10 90% diesel + 10% biodiesel
B20 80% diesel + 20% biodiesel
B30 70% diesel + 30% biodiesel
BTE brake thermal efficiency
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption
CO carbon monoxide
UBHC unburnt hydrocarbons
NOx oxides of nitrogen
CI compression ignition
HC hydrocarbons
CR compression ratio
CO2 carbon dioxide
PM particulate matter
H2SO4 sulfuric acid
STD standard
uneven road surfaces observed in various localities here, it is difficult to
compromise with engine performance when the biodiesel is used as the
fuel. It is evident to note that pollution control too stands vital while
taking the decision on usage of bio diesel in CI engines.
Biofuel being suggested as a useful alternative fuel by researchers
from past two decades and to substantiate the present work, the further
discussed literature has been reviewed. On the grounds of food security,
considering the edible vegetative feedstock is a sensitive issue example
soybean, palm etc. (Naylor and Higgins, 2018). Also, it is right to
mention here that, the developing countries rely on industry and
transportation sector which draws energy from fuels. To meet this de­
mand of fuel is a challenging task (Bui et al., 2020). The biodiesel plugs
in with the advantage to be used in blends with diesel fuel with the
compromise of emissions (Hoang et al., 2021a) mainly the NOx emis­
sions are observed to be high and the other concern being the food chain
(Hoang et al., 2021b). To compromise the situation of demand and
supply, yield of biodiesel without disturbing the food chain the selection
of non-edible feedstock is the right choice as done in this study. The
application of biodiesel in compression ignition (CI) engines there are
identified shortcomings by the researchers. For example, the reduction
of the fuel economy, difficulties of fuel atomization which give rise to
the combustion issues (Mofijur et al., 2013a) and maintaining the
emission levels mainly NOx levels (Mofijur et al., 2013b). Challenges
which being faced by researchers on use of biodiesel are reported in
concern to the sticky valves, obstruction at fuel lines, corrosion of metal
components in engines (Hoang et al., 2020) and also the cold starting
difficulties (Hoang and Le, 2019). It is interesting to learn that a few
problems discussed previously are tackled by the supplement of fuel
additives (Likhanov et al., 2020), hybrid fuels which ensued better en­
gine performance (Kadarohman et al., 2010) and reduced emission
levels (Sadhik Basha, 2018). The impact of nano particles as an additive
to the biodiesel has considerably challenged the performance and
emission levels in CI engines (El-Seesy et al., 2018). R D Mishra et.al.
(Debbarma and Misra, 2018) inferred that CI engine exhibited
maximum thermal efficiency (BTE) on usage of 100 ppm alumina with
20% Jatropa biodiesel. The carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of ni­
trogen (NOx) levels dropped on supplement of 50 ppm carbon nano
tubes with 20% Jatropa biodiesel whereas for the same bio diesel the
smoke levels were maximum when blended to titanium oxide 25 ppm
(Debbarma and Misra, 2018). The inclusion of Aluminum oxide nano
particles facilitated in considerable improvement of brake thermal ef­
ficiency and a marginal drop in the emission gases like HC, CO (Aalam
and Saravanan, 2017). The use of nano additives like CNTs, TiO2, and
2
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
ADV advance
NaOH sodium hydroxide
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
FFA free fatty acid
FID flame ionization detector
CCD central composite design
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
P value probability value
F value fisher’s value
3D three-dimensional
DF degrees of freedom
Adj SS adjusted sum of squares
Adj MS adjusted mean squares
IP injection pressure
IT injection timing
NHRR net heat release rate
MFB mass fraction burnt
RTD retard
Al2O3 along with the Jatropha biodiesel improved the engine perfor­
mance along with the emission reductions (Raju et al., 2020). The B20
blend of Tamarind biodiesel with 12% diethyl ether boosted BTE by 4%
with reduction of emissions mainly HC, CO & NOx in comparison to
diesel (Raju et al., 2020). Whereas (Gad and Jayaraj, 2020) reported on
adding 5% and 10% of diethyl ether to Bael biodiesel. The 5% additive
outperformed 10% additive in terms of performance and emission
characteristics. (Krishnamoorthi et al., 2018) by the method of esteri­
fication yielded biodiesel from Calophyllum inophyllum tested with CI
engine for 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 100% biodiesel blends recorded
lower emission for B30 at the compression ratio (CR) level 19:1. The
study also reported an increase of NOx levels as the CR levels and bio­
diesel blends, but reduced CO and HC emissions in comparison to
standard CR for the maximum load. (Miraculas et al., 2016) Through
transesterification produced oil from Crude Karanja and by assessment
run on CI engine noticed rise in BTE as the blend increase up to 70%.
B100 showed very low BTE (Harreh et al., 2018). Likewise, the biodiesel
yielded through Pyrolysis from neem seeds, for the 5% and 10% blends
upshifted the BTE for increased loads with reduction in HC, CO, CO2 &
NOx emissions (Alagu and Ganapathy Sundaram, 2018). For Australian
Pinus radiata wood flour biodiesel conceded through Hydrothermal
liquefaction for 5%, 10% and 20% fuel blends, for 20% blends the
properties of biodiesel were almost in similarity to diesel. But a decrease
in engine performance reported with increase in NOx levels, 33% drop
in particulate matter (PM) in emissions have being examined in 20%
blend (Alagu and Ganapathy Sundaram, 2018). Biodiesel yielded from
Pistacia lentiscus seed by the aid of liquefaction when applied to engine
test for 30% and 50%, the 50% blend offered a decent low NOx emission
in contrast to neat diesel (Khiari et al., 2022). The cylinder pressure,
temperature, and heat release rate (HRR) expressively improved along
with ignition delay as alcohol substitution ratios was increased. The
blend of 80% diesel + 10% methanol + 10% n-butanol blended fuel
facilitated to improve cylinder pressure, prolonging ignition delay, and
shortening combustion duration (Zhang et al., 2022b). The
diesel/ethanol/n-butanol blended fuels compromised the brake power
and improved the brake specific fuel consumption of the CI engine. On
the other side the brake thermal efficiency improved. In addition, the
blend fuels reduced nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and soot emis­
sions (Zhang et al., 2022a). The addition of hydrogen and water was
beneficial to improve the BTE and BSFC. Also, the inclusion of hydrogen
in blended fuel assisted in reduction of HC and CO emissions (Tan et al.,
2023).
The review study gives a brief glimpse on the engine performance
S.H. Gowda et al.
and emissions characteristics where one can note that the bio diesel
blends 10–20% is more suitable. The NOx emissions are noted to raise at
all concentrations in similarity to diesel fuel. On a brief note, it is un­
mistakable to state that the bio diesel ought to take on the international
standards of pollution regulation where NOx levels have to be crucially
examined.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
To yield the oil from Scleropyrum pentandrum seeds the trans­
esterification process is employed which necessitates the chemicals n-
hexane and isopropyl alcohol. For esterification along with methanol,
which is reagent, H2SO4 was used as acid catalyst (Gowda et al., 2019)
and for transesterification NaOH as base catalyst (Saravanan et al.,
2022).
2.2. Extraction of Scleropyrum pentandrum oil
The seeds extracted from the vegetation were of different forms and
sizes. Using the oven set at temperature of 60 ◦ C, the seeds were
completely dried for three days to facilitate removal of outer layer. Hot
air was blown for 12 h for complete dry up. The seeds were pulvarised to
extract the oil by the aid of soxhlet apparatus and n-hexane as the sol­
vent. To extract the oil effectively the process was carried out for 6 h and
after completion solvent was retrieved back by distillation process.
ASTM D974 method was followed to assess the Free Fatty Acid (FFA)
level and ASTM D1298 and ASTM D445 to evaluate the density (density
hydrometer) and kinematic viscosity. Gas Chromatographic method,
where the oven was set at 150–200 ◦ C temperature, Injector, and de­
tector (FID) was set at 250 ◦ C to find the fatty acid profile. The oil yield is
calculated using Eq. (1). The properties and Fatty acid profile of Scle­
ropyrum pentandrum seed oil tabulated in Tables 1 and 2.
Massof oilextracted
%Oil yield = x100
Massof powderedseed
2.3. Production of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel
2.3.1. Transesterification
A 2-liter volume batch reactor, heating setup facilitated with mag­
netic stirrer along with the aid of 3 neck flask formed the setup. The
device facilitated with temperature measuring aid with reflux condenser
on the flask. With constant stirring set at 750 rpm and temperature
maintained at 65 ◦ C, one liter of Scleropyrum seed oil was used. The FFA
level being lower than 4% aided to use direct transesterification (Serin
et al., 2013). Reaction performed by pouring methanol sodium hy­
droxide on the preheated oil. Keeping this for 1 h 30 min, the reaction
was transferred to the separating funnel. In 3 h, duration the glycerol
was separated and by the method of distillation the methanol traces
were removed completely. it was necessary to eliminate the moisture
content which is achieved by heating the oil up to 105 ◦ C for around half
an hour. The oil kept for longer duration that is more than a month the
FFA levels were high. In this context methanol sulfuric acid was used for
the reaction during the transesterification with the reaction time being
an hour. The low level of FFA oil is Transesterified to yield biodiesel
Table 1
Properties of oil.
Property Unit Value
Density kg/m3 908
Viscosity cSt 25
FFA % < 4.5
Acid Value mg KOH/g < 8.2
Iodine Value g I2/100 g oil 130–140
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
Table 2
Free fatty acid profile of extracted oil.
Fatty acid Composition (wt%)
Palmitic acid (C16:0) 2.1
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1) 0.75
Stearic acid (C18:0) 0.5
Oleic acid (C18:1) 16.05
Linoleic acid (C18:2) 14.7
Stearolic acid (C18:1) 5
Arachidic acid (C20:0) 2.4
Saturated fatty acids 6.7
Unsaturated fatty acids 93.3
(Sultana et al., 2014) (Fig. 1).
2.4. Experimental setup
The biodiesel produced from the Scleropyrum pentandrum seeds was
put to test on the computerized aided single cylinder CI engine. The test
rig shown in Fig. 2., is aided with the performance, emission level
measuring devices and combustion analyzer. The engine make is
Kirloskar-AV1 a water-cooled engine with single cylinder powering 5HP
at the output shaft. The injection pressure is varied at three levels
200 bar (STD), 220 bar and 240 bar. Three injectors with the set pres­
sure were employed during the experimentation. The compression ratio
is changed at following range 15:1, 17.5:1 and 20:1 (inserting additional
gasket provided by manufacturers) using the built-in set up on the test
rig. The injection timing is varied at three levels 21.5◦ BTDC, 23.5◦ BTDC
and 25.5◦ BTDC using the shims supplied by the manufactures. The same
were added at the fuel pump seat.
3. Discussion of experiment results
3.1. Optimization of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel
(1) The Central composite design (CCD) gave out 30 trials of experi­
ments as shown in Table 4, possibilities to yield the biodiesel from
Scleropyrum pentandrum seeds. Further, the data is studied over RSM.
The regression model is evaluated by Eq. (2) and it contributed the
predicted yield of biodiesel from the seeds.
%Yield =78.21 + (9.596 ∗ A) − (1.429 ∗ B) + (4.354 ∗ C) + (1.163 ∗ D)
− (2.493 ∗ A ∗ A) − (4.555 ∗ B ∗ B) − (3.83 ∗ C ∗ C)
− (2.58 ∗ D ∗ D) + (1.08 ∗ A ∗ B) + (2.16 ∗ A ∗ C) − (1.43 ∗ A ∗ D)
− (0.47 ∗ B ∗ C) + (0.69 ∗ B ∗ D) − (0.78 ∗ C ∗ D)
(2)
The Table 5 displays the noteworthy influence of parameters on
which the oil yield depends upon, that is the temperature, catalyst
amount, reaction time and methanol to oil ratio. ANOVA depicted in
Table 5 infers the model is significant with 94.12% confidence level as
the P value are considerably low with higher F values. It signifies the
error and its effect of product interaction. The ANOVA study demon­
strates temperature and reaction time being significant over the catalyst
amount and methanol to oil ratio. The process temperature is observed
to be substantial due to the F value being 128.01. under the quadratic
effect the catalyst amount has the noteworthy influence on the oil yield.
3.2. 3D surface plots: yield of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel
The process parameters affecting on bio diesel yield from Scle­
ropyrum pentandrum vegetative feedstock is surveyed through the
response curves in locus to the independent variables with hold of
central levels. This discussion is done based on the plots as they are key
insights to the researcher in regard to the optimum bio diesel yield.
Error! Reference source not found. represents the 3D plots all
3
S.H. Gowda et al. Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306

Fig. 1. Process chart- describing the extraction of Scleropyrum pentandrum oil & biodiesel and characterization.

Fig. 2. Computerized VCR diesel engine test rig schematic representation.

Table 3
Coded levels of optimization parameters.
Factor Unit Coded symbol Coded level and range

-2 -1 0 1 2
0
Temperature C A 45 50 55 60 65
Catalyst amount w/v oil B 0.50% 0.75% 1% 1.25% 1.50%
Reaction time min C 60 70 80 90 100
Methanol to oil v/v oil D 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

interactions of selected parameters (Gowda et al., 2021). The coded
levels and the process parameters for the experimentation are tabulated
in Table 3.
3.2.1. Influence of temperature and catalyst on percentage yield
The contribution of catalyst amount along with temperature towards
bio diesel yield is exhibited in Fig. 3(a). The central hold values being
the reaction time of 80 min and the methanol/oil ratio of 40% (v/v oil).
The increase of temperature from 45 ◦ C in regular intervals along with
the catalyst amount by 0.5 (w/v) to 1.5 in the intervals of 0.5 (w/v) gives
an output of gradual increase of bio diesel yield. From Fig. 3(a) that is at
65 ◦ C and catalyst amount 1.0 (w/v) is momentous as it harvests the
biodiesel of 83% validated by the F value 1.08 (Table 5). The biodiesel
yield lowers beyond the increase of the temperature and the catalyst
amount to 1 and during the yield process soap formation was observed
(Anwar et al., 2018).

4
S.H. Gowda et al. Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306

Table 4
Investigational and predicted percentage of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel yield through CCD.
Sl No. Temperature Catalyst amount Reaction time Methanol to oil % Yield Predicted Residual

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 52.2 52.318 0.118

2 1 -1 -1 -1 67.5 67.89 0.39
3 -1 1 -1 -1 45.3 46.86 1.56
4 1 1 -1 -1 70.2 66.752 -3.448
5 -1 -1 1 -1 58.4 59.206 0.806
6 1 -1 1 -1 86.5 83.418 -3.082
7 -1 1 1 -1 49.5 51.868 2.368
8 1 1 1 -1 76.3 80.4 4.1
9 -1 -1 -1 1 64.2 57.684 -6.516
10 1 -1 -1 1 70.6 67.536 -3.064
11 -1 1 -1 1 52.6 54.986 2.386
12 1 1 -1 1 72.4 69.158 -3.242
13 -1 -1 1 1 58.7 61.452 2.752
14 1 -1 1 1 83.9 79.944 -3.956
15 -1 1 1 1 59.7 56.874 -2.826
16 1 1 1 1 80.5 79.686 -0.814
17 0 0 0 0 78.8 78.21 -0.59
18 0 0 0 0 78.2 78.21 0.01
19 0 0 0 0 78.8 78.21 -0.59
20 0 0 0 0 77.8 78.21 0.41
21 -2 0 0 0 51.6 49.046 -2.554
22 2 0 0 0 83.1 87.43 4.33
23 0 -2 0 0 58.8 62.848 4.048
24 0 2 0 0 59.4 57.132 -2.268
25 0 0 -2 0 50.5 54.182 3.682
26 0 0 2 0 73.5 71.598 -1.902
27 0 0 0 -2 69.2 65.564 -3.636
28 0 0 0 2 64.8 70.216 5.416
29 0 0 0 0 78.8 78.21 -0.59
30 0 0 0 0 78.2 78.21 0.01

This result is well validated by the F-value 4.31 (Table 5) which is

Table 5
satisfactorily high on the interaction influence part. For alkali trans­
ANOVA results for Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel yield.
esterification the favorable temperature is reported to be 65 ◦ C which
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F- P- harvest better percentage of biodiesel oil (Khalil et al., 2017).
Value Value

Model 15 3870.49 258.03 14.95 0.000 3.2.3. Influence of temperature and methanol/oil on percentage yield
Blocks 1 11.53 11.53 0.67 0.428
The interaction of temperature and methanol/oil towards the yield is
Linear 4 2746.39 686.60 39.77 0.000
Temperature 1 2209.92 2209.92 128.01 0.000
presented in Fig. 3(c). Here, central holding factors are catalyst amount
Catalyst amount 1 49.02 49.02 2.84 0.114 1 (w/v oil) and 80 min of reaction time. The methanol/oil ratio is
Reaction time 1 455.01 455.01 26.36 0.000 changed in range of 30 (v/v oil) to 50 (v/v oil) at regular intervals of 10
Methanol to oil 1 32.43 32.43 1.88 0.192 (v/v oil). From the Fig. 3(c) it is evident that the temperature 65 ◦ C and
Square 4 965.72 241.43 13.98 0.000
methanol/oil ratio between 35 and 40 (v/v oil). This level contributes to
Temperature*Temperature 1 170.43 170.43 9.87 0.007
Catalyst amount*Catalyst 1 569.14 569.14 32.97 0.000 the maximum yield of 70% and beyond these levels the percentage oil
amount yield drops. The higher ratio of methanol to oil rises the solubility of
Reaction time*Reaction time 1 402.39 402.39 23.31 0.000 glycerol which drops the yield (Verma et al., 2017).
Methanol to oil*Methanol to 1 182.61 182.61 10.58 0.006
oil
2-Way Interaction 6 146.85 24.48 1.42 0.276
3.2.4. Influence of reaction time(min) & catalyst amount (w/v oil) on yield
Temperature*Catalyst 1 18.71 18.71 1.08 0.316 Holding the temperature to 55 ◦ C and methanol/oil 40% (v/v oil) as
amount depicted in Fig. 3(d) and also stating Table 5 the P value 0.659 for re­
Temperature*Reaction time 1 74.39 74.39 4.31 0.057 action time * catalyst amount interaction infers the less significant effect
Temperature*Methanol to 1 32.78 32.78 1.90 0.190
of parameters on the biodiesel yield. The maximum yield of biodiesel
oil
Catalyst amount*Reaction 1 3.52 3.52 0.20 0.659 observed is 70%. The formation of soap when the catalyst amount is
time either too low or high hinders the biodiesel yield (Hasni et al., 2017).
Catalyst amount*Methanol 1 7.70 7.70 0.45 0.515
to oil 3.2.5. Influence of catalyst and methanol/oil on percentage yield
Reaction time*Methanol to 1 9.77 9.77 0.57 0.464
oil
Interaction between methanol/oil with catalyst volume holding the
Error 14 241.70 17.26 temperature 55 ◦ C & reaction time as 80 min is graphically shown in
Lack-of-Fit 10 240.80 24.08 107.02 0.000 Fig. 3(e). The F value being 0.45 and higher P value i.e., 0.515 from.
Pure Error 4 0.90 0.22 Table 5 depicts less significant contribution on biodiesel yield by the
Total 29 4112.19
interaction parameters. The catalyst amount of 1% (w/v oil) along with
40% methanol/oil (v/v oil) yields 51% biodiesel. The levels of meth­
3.2.2. Influence of temperature and reaction time on percentage yield anol/oil ratio largely impact on the chemical reaction. Lesser and higher
The Fig. 3(b) shows the response of temperature and reaction time levels of methanol to oil ratio subsidizes to partial reaction consequently
impact on yield while the catalyst amount and methanol/oil are locked depletes the biodiesel produced (Hasni et al., 2017).
at 1 (w/v oil) and 40%. The plot infers the temperature of 65 ◦ C in
accordance with the reaction time of 90 min yields the bio diesel of 86%.

5
S.H. Gowda et al. Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306

Fig. 3. Surface plot of oil yield vs catalyst amount, reaction time and temperature.

Fig. 4. Optimized parameter levels for supreme yield of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel.

6
S.H. Gowda et al. Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306

3.2.6. Influence of reaction time and methanol/oil on percentage yield

The Fig. 3(f) gives details of the interaction of methanol/oil (v/v oil)
with reaction time (minutes) taking the temperature 55 ◦ C and catalyst
amount (w/v oil) 1% as the central values. The F value being 0.57 and P
value 0.464 from.
Table 5 portrays, reaction time and methanol/oil has lesser signifi­
cance on biodiesel produced. The 90 min of reaction time together with
35% (v/v oil) of methanol/oil ratio yields 70% of biodiesel oil. Again, as
discussed in previous section, it is inferred the lesser or higher levels of
methanol/oil ratio contributes low chemical reaction (Hasni et al.,
2017).
The data recorded in Table 4 after formulating the optimization on
software the optimized levels of process influential parameters are ob­
tained. The Fig. 3 represents the optimum levels along with the optimum
biodiesel yield. The agreeable levels of temperature, reagent amount,
process time and methanol/oil ratio inferred from Fig. 4 are 65 ◦ C, 1%
(w/v oil), 91 min and 37% (v/v oil). Adhering to the optimized levels
92.9% was the percentage biodiesel yield.
Fig. 6. GC-MS for the Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel.
3.3. GCMS & FTIR

FT-IR analysis of the oil showed in Fig. 5, the absorbance peak at Table 6
1743 cm− 1, characteristic of C–– O stretching, indicates the presence of Physio-chemical properties of diesel and Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel.
carbonyl group in triglycerides and esters. Property S. pentandrum Diesel ASTM
The Biodiesel yield was estimated by GC-MS method as shown in Biodiesel Standard
Fig. 6. In the instrument the quadrupole mass analyzer was directly Density at 320 C 892 kg/m3 830 kg/m3 D1298
connected to capillary column and an electron multiplier detector. He­ Kinematic Viscosity at 5.7 cSt 3.3 cSt D445
lium was used as a carrier gas for GC system. NIST and WILEY are the 400 C
Copper corrosion test Max No.3 - D6751
mass libraries compared for compound identification. GC MS chro­
Acid value (mg KOH/ 0.35 - D6751
matogram showed the highest ester yield for Oleic, Linoleic, and gm)
γ-Linolenic acids with overall methyl ester of 96%. Flash point 1520 C 760 C D93
Fire point 1580 C 790 C D93
Latent heat 260 kJ/kg 356 kJ/kg -
3.4. Physio-chemical properties of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel Surface tension 31.83 dyne/cm 33.03 dyne/ -
cm
Table 6. Higher Calorific value 40.135 MJ/kg 43.5 MJ/ kg D868
Cetane number 53 50 D6751
Pour point -150 C -160 C D97
3.5. Uncertainties and error analysis Specific gravity 0.89 0.83 -

The uncertainty in evaluated factor is assessed by Gaussian distri

Fig. 5. FT-IR Scleropyrum pentandrum oil.

7
S.H. Gowda et al. Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306

Table 7 3.6.1. Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC)

Uncertainties of various instruments and parameters used in experimentation.
Measurement items Range Accuracy Percentage 3.6.1.1. Injection pressure. The Fig. 7(a) shows BSFC levels of biodiesel
uncertainty blends against the Injection Pressure (IP). At IP 200 bar, diesel fuel
Speed measurement 0–2000 rpm ±1 rpm 0.62 resulted in BSFC of 0.28 kg/KWhr. The B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend
Load measurement 0–50Kg ±0.1 Kg 0.58 resulted BSFC 1.7%, 3.5%, 7.1% and 10.7% greater than diesel. As the
Air flow measurement 200 mm of water ±1 mm of water 1.67 fuel injection pressure raised to 220 bar the BSFC of diesel is 0.29 kg/
column column
KWhr. The B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend resulted BSFC 1.7%, 3.4%, 6.8%
Fuel Flow 0–50 cc ±1 cc 1.1
Measurement and 10.3% greater, in contrast to neat diesel. At fuel injection pressure of
NOx emission 0–5000 ppm ±1 ppm 1.9 240 bar the BSFC diesel fuel is 0.3 kg/KWhr. The B5, B10, B20 & B30
HC emission 0–20000 ppm ±1 ppm 2.5 blend resulted BSFC 1.6%, 3.3%, 6.6% and 3.3% greater in contrast to
CO emission 0–10% vol ±0.01% vol 1.98 neat diesel. It is evident to mention that the biodiesel blends possess
Smoke emission 0–100% 0.9
higher density and viscosity as compared to diesel, which influences on
±0.1%

the higher values of BSFC (Rajak et al., 2020). Though the IP is increased
bution method. The associated confidence limit of ± 2σ (95.45% of the percentage increase of BSFC is in proportion among the chosen
measured data should lie in range of ± 2σ of mean). Hence, uncertainty blends of biodiesel. Experiment outcomes it is observed that as the blend
of any measured parameter is given by Eqs. (3) and (4). ratio increases the BSFC also rises due to the influence of high fuel
density and viscosity (Shrivastava and Verma, 2020). The BSFC for B5,
2σ i
wi = ∗ 100 (3) B10, B20 & B30 blends at 220 bar in comparison to standard injection
x pressure (SIP) 200 bar, it observed an increase by 3.5%, 3.4%, 3.3% &
Where, x is the mean in relation to the number experiments (xi) 3.2%. Likewise comparing IP 240 bar with 200 bar SIP B5, B10, B20, &
conducted. B30 blends offered BSFC increase by 7%, 6.8%, 6.6% & 0.1%.
σi = Standard deviation
{( ) 3.6.1.2. Compression ratio. The Fig. 7(b) shows BSFC levels of biodiesel
( )2 ( )2 ( )2 }1/2
∂s ∂x1 2 ∂x2 ∂x3 ∂xn blends against the Compression Ratio (CR). At CR 17.5, the standard
= + + + ⋯⋯⋯ + (4) ratio diesel fuel showed BSFC of 0.28 kg/KWhr. The B5, B10, B20 & B30
s x1 x2 x3 xn
( )( ) blend resulted BSFC 1.7%, 3.5%, 7.1% and 10.7% greater than diesel.
∂x1 ∂x2
are errors in the independent variables. For one step lower CR 15.1, blends B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend resulted
x1 x2
BSFC 1.7%, 3.3%, 6.7% and 7.1% greater than diesel and for the CR 20:1
∂x1 accuracy of the instrument.
blends B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend resulted BSFC 1.8%, 3.6%, 7.1% and
x1 minimum value of the output measured.
10.7% greater than diesel. The compression ratio variation did not play
By use of equation, at standard condition, the uncertainties in the
key role so as to lower the BSFC as the bio diesel blends possess slightly
computed quantities such as mass flow rates of air and fuel, brake power,
higher values of viscosity. At CR 15:1 the blends B5, B10, B20 & B30
brake thermal efficiency are estimated. The Table 7 reports the uncer­
gave BSFC 3.3%, 3.3%, 3.2% & 3.1% more as compared to Standard
tainty of the associated sensors and the attachments fitted to the test rig.
compression ratio of the test engine 17.5. For CR 20:1 the blends B5,
B10, B20 & B30 gave BSFC 3.4%, 3.3%, 3.2% & 3.1% less as compared
3.6. Performance results on CI engine
to CR17:5.
The obtained biodiesel from the feedstock Scleropyrum pentandrum is
3.6.1.3. Injection timing. The Fig. 7(c) displays BSFC levels of biodiesel
out to test its ability in terms of performance, combustion response and
blends against the Injection timing (IT). The variation of IT 21.5◦ BTDC
combustion gases. B5, B10, B20 and B30 blend biodiesel is subjected to
from 23.5◦ BTDC caused more BSFC for B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend by 0%,
performance test and co-related with the diesel. The Physio-chemical
1.9%, 2.9% & 3.8% with respect to diesel. For advanced IT 25.5◦ BTDC
properties of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel & diesel is shown in
the B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends gave BSFC 3% more in relation to diesel.
Table 6. The test rig engine is operated at 1500 rpm. The specification of
The retard resulted in 5%, 5.3%, 2.9% & 0.6% more BSFC for B5, B10,
the diesel engine test rig is shown in Table 8. The result data is recorded
B20 & B30 blends. The advance of injection timing 1.6%, 3.3%, 3.2% &
and analyzed for 80% of engine full load. The standard injection pres­
3.1% lowered BSFC for B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend.
sure of test engine is 200 bar and for the analysis two levels were
selected that is 220 bar and 240 bar.
3.6.2. Brake thermal efficiency (BTE)

3.6.2.1. Injection pressure. The variation of BTE for biodiesel blends as

the fuel injection pressure is varied is highlighted in Fig. 7(d). From the
graph it is evident that the BTE resulted from the biodiesel blends are in
Table 8 well agreeable to match the performance of neat diesel. The diesel
Specifications of The Diesel Engine Test Rig. yielded 30% BTE at 200 bar standard injection pressure. The blends B5,
Particulars Details B10, B20 & B30 blend resulted 0%, 0.3%, 4% and 10% lesser BTE
Make Kirloskar TV1 engine comparing to diesel. For 220 bar IP diesel yielded 30.2% BTE whereas,
Type 4 stroke water cooled the B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend resulted 0.3%, 0.6%, 3.6% and 10.9%
Number of cylinders 1 lesser BTE comparing to diesel. Lastly for 240 bar IP neat diesel yielded
Bore & Stroke [mm] 87.5 & 110
30.2% BTE whereas, the B5, B10, B20 & B30 yielded 0%, 0.6%, 1.98%
Maximum power [kW] 3.73
Dynamometer type Eddy current
and 10.2% lesser BTE comparing to diesel. Brake thermal efficiency
Injector Hole diameter 0.3 µm reveals the ability to liberate the thermal energy from fuel and enhance
Number of holes 3 the engine performance (Shrivastava et al., 2020). The biodiesel pos­
Speed [rpm] 1500 sesses higher viscosity, density as well as low calorific value. As blend
Compression ratio 14:1 – 18:1
ratio rises, due to low calorific value the thermal energy liberated de­
Injection timing 23.5-degree BTDC
Injection pressure 200 bar creases and also due to the high viscosity the difficulty associated in

8
S.H. Gowda et al. Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306

Fig. 7. Effect of (a) IP (b) CR (c) IT on BSFC for biodiesel blends and Effect of (d) IP (e) CR (f) IT on BTE for biodiesel blends.

formation of fine droplets during fuel injection causes lowering of BTE nearly 1% improvement for B5, B10 & B20 blend. B30 showed negligent
(Simsek, 2020). The BTE in the biodiesel blends at 220 bar in compar­ change of BTE as depicted in Fig. 7(f). The higher cetane number, ki­
ison to 200 bar, it is observed that, in B5, B10, B20 & B30 the BTE nematic viscosity and oxygen levels causes the shortened ignition delay
increased by 0.3%, 0.3%, 1% & 0.3% similarly comparing between (Jiaqiang et al., 2018).
240 bar Injection pressure to 200 bar SIP, in B5, B10, B20 & B30 the BTE
increased by 0.6%, 1.6%, 2.7% & 0.6%.
3.7. Combustion characteristics
3.6.2.2. Compression ratio. The BTE of B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend at
The combustion phenomenon of CI engine is intricate in nature, and
standard CR 17:5 is discussed is discussed in section 3.4.2.1. Lowering of
it relies on the pressure development inside cylinder, mass fraction burnt
compression ratio to 15:1 did not exhibit a significant change as the
and net heat release rate per cycle of engine operation. The engine
change in BTE recorded approximately 1% for each blend as same as
performance and emission levels are in relation to the combustion
diesel. The higher CR 20:1 recorded improvement in BTE by 3%, 4.1%,
behavior and calorific value of fuel. In this section the combustion
2% & 2% for B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends as compared to standard
behavior of Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel are discussed and
compression ratio 17.5:1 and the graphical representation is seen in
compared to diesel fuel.
Fig. 7(e).
3.7.1. Cylinder pressure
3.6.2.3. Injection timing. Retarding the injection timing to 21.5◦ BTDC
At 80% of engine load the pressure inside combustion chamber
from 23.5◦ BTDC caused drop in the BTE by 0.3% & 0.6% for the blend
throughout the compression stroke with respect to crank position is
B5 & B10. No influence of retardation is seen in B20 & B30 blend. The
presented in Fig. 8(a, b and c). It is evident from graph; the peak pressure
advance of IT to 25.5◦ BTDC documented less significant change of BTE,
is obtained at 366◦ of crank position and the values of pressure in bar are

9
S.H. Gowda et al.
Fig. 8. Effect of (a) IP (b) CR (c) IT on pressure verses crank angle for biodiesel blends and Effect of (d) IP (e) CR (f) IT on rate of pressure rise verses crank angle for
biodiesel blends.
more for biodiesel in comparison to neat diesel.
Diesel fuel at standard IP 200 bar, compression ratio 17.5:1 and In­
jection Timing 23.5◦ BTDC (before top dead center) the pressure rise
observed is 61.01 bar. At similar engine condition B5, B10, B20 & B30
biodiesel blend the observed cylinder pressure is 62.8, 64.8, 62.5 &
65 bar (Perumal and Ilangkumaran, 2017). At 220 bar, for B5, B10, B20
& B30 biodiesel blend the cylinder pressure was 0.4%, 7.8%, 4% and
0.5% greater to 200 bar and for the injection pressure 240 bar the B5,
B10, B20 & B30 biodiesel blend gave rise to cylinder pressure by 0.9%,
4.3%, 4.2% & 0.04% greater to 200 bar as shown in Fig. 8(a). It is
experiential from results, that for biodiesel blends the cylinder pressure
rise takes place comparing to diesel. The injection pressure rise caused to
develop more combustion pressure. This phenomenon is result of oxygen
presence in biodiesel blends as well as the smaller ignition delay facil­
itating the swift burning of fuel. In all situations the B 30 blends resulted
in high cylinder pressure in relative to other blends (Emiroğlu and Şen,
2018). The lowering of the compression ratio to 15:1 dropped the
in-cylinder pressure to 52.4, 54.1, 55.7 & 57.3 bar for B5, B10, B20 &
B30 biodiesel blend. The rise of CR to 20:1 caused rise in pressure as
68.4, 70.5, 72.6 & 74.8 bar for B5, B10, B20 & B30 biodiesel blend as
10
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
shown in Fig. 8(b). The variation of injection timing to 21.5◦ BTDC
(RTD) caused in drop of in-cylinder pressure to 58.34, 60.7, 60.54 &
62.36 bar and 25.5◦ BTDC (ADV) raised the in-cylinder pressure to 65,
67.7, 68.27 & 70.32 bar for B5, B10, B20 & B30 biodiesel blend
respectively as shown in Fig. 8(c). A proportional trend is observed on
in-cylinder pressure as the IP, CR and IT is varied.
3.7.2. Rate of pressure rise
The rate of pressure rises in accordance to crank position is presented
in Fig. 8(d). At standard injection pressure 200 bar, compression ratio
17.5:1 and injection timing 23.5◦ BTDC, the maximum rate of pressure
rise occurs at 355◦ of crank position for diesel, B5, B10, B20 & B30
blends with values 4.78, 4.73, 4.88, 5, & 4.59 bar/deg. One can note
that the range of values are almost nearer to 5 bar/deg which is well
within the permissible range of rate of pressure rise per crank angle
8 bar/deg (Rao et al., 2019). When the IP is increased to 220 bar and
240 bar depicted less significance of rate of pressure change. The values
recorded are similar to 220 bar IP, i.e., approximately 5 bar/deg. Rate of
pressure rise significantly affects the smooth running of CI engine with
control over engine knock and other noise. Here, the biodiesel blends
S.H. Gowda et al.
perform in comparison to diesel fuel which proves the compatibility of
biodiesel for application in CI engines. Lowering the CR to 15:1 drops
the rate of pressure rise to 2 bar/deg for opted blends and CR 20:1
showed the behavior as similar to standard CR 17.5:1 as shown in Fig. 8
(e). The advance of fuel injection timing to 25.5◦ BTDC maintained the
pressure rise rate similar to standard injection timing whereas the retard
did not facilitate much in the pressure rise rate. The graphical repre­
sentation is done in Fig. 8(f).
3.7.3. Net heat release rate (NHRR)
The NHRR parameter is influential towards the BTE characteristics.
Hence it is essential to analyze the same for biodiesel fuel to confirm its
suitability. The characteristic curve of NHRR verses crank angle is
depicted in Fig. 9(a). The maximum NHRR 42.25 J/deg is recorded at
355◦ crank angle for diesel at standard conditions of engine and 80%
engine load. The B5, B10, B20 & B30 recorded NHRR values 40, 42.2,
43.63, 38.68 J/deg. Here, B20 blend resulted in 3.2% marginal greater
NHRR compared to neat diesel. This is mainly because of oxygen content
which facilitated better combustion initiation in the biodiesel fuel. B30
blend caused 8% drop on NHRR compared to neat diesel. The reason
being as the biodiesel content increases, the higher density and viscosity
Fig. 9. Effect of (a) IP (b) CR (c) IT on net heat release rate verses crank angle for biodiesel blends and Effect of (d) IP (e) CR (f) IT on mass fraction burnt verses crank
angle for biodiesel blends.
11
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
causes hindrance to better fuel atomization during injection of fuel. This
results in improper combustion (Hasan and Rahman, 2017). The IP
220 bar, gave rise to NHRR in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends by 1.2%, 4.4%,
3.5% & 2.5% compared to 200 bar. Similarly, for 240 bar it is observed
for B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends NHRR increase by 1.3%, 1.5%, 0.1% &
2.6% in comparison to 200 bar. The NHRR for biodiesel blends at
240 bar in comparison to 220 bars showed a drop by 1.8%, 2.7% & 5%
for B5, B10 & B30 blend and 3.8% rise for B20 blend. Hence, B20 blend
favors in better NHRR at IP of 200, 220 & 240 bars (Zareh et al., 2017).
As shown in Fig. 9(b) the higher compression ratio is advantageous over
the lowering of CR to 15:1. The high in-cylinder pressure and heat
release rate which is triggered during the CR 20:1 facilitates in better
NHRR. The advance of the injection timing did not influence on the
NHRR. The best NHRR is recorded at the standard IT 23.5◦ BTDC as
shown in Fig. 9(c).
3.7.4. Mass fraction burnt (MFB)
The MFB for diesel and biodiesel blends at 200, 220, 240 bar injec­
tion pressure verses crank angle are shown in Fig. 9(d). The graph data
depicts that Scleropyrum pentandrum biodiesel blends outshine the diesel
fuel at selected three levels of fuel IP. The MFB for B5, B10, B20 & B30
S.H. Gowda et al.
blends go hand in hand with similar response with small percentage of
variations. The MFB in biodiesel is result of high oxygen levels (Prashant
et al., 2016) and shorter ignition delay which leads to good combustion
(Fan et al., 2010). As shown in the Fig. 9(e) and (f) the change of
compression ratio and injection timing did not significantly in fluence on
the change of MFB.
3.7.5. Ignition delay
The ignition delay is one among the vital parameters to decide the
quality of combustion and the control of emissions. It is the interval
measured in degree crank angle from the instant where fuel is injected to
the commencement of combustion. The Fig. 10(a) infers the ignition
delay as the Injection pressure increased. The ignition delay is observed
to get shorter in terms of crank angle. On variation of compression ratio,
the lowering of compression ratio increases the ignition delay as shown
in Fig. 10(b). The ignition delay time is larger in crank angle for the
retard whereas shorter for the advance of fuel injection timing. The
characteristic is highlighted in Fig. 10(c).
3.8. Emission characteristics
The emission characteristic discussed further is for 80% engine load
and, injection pressure levels of 200 bar, 220 bar & 240 bar, Compres­
sion ratio 15:1, 17.5:1 & 20:1 and injection timing 21.5◦ BTDC,
23.5◦ BTDC & 25.5◦ BTDC. AVL 437 C Smoke meter, AVL 444 – DI Gas
analyzer is coupled to test rig with computer interface recorded the
emissions data later accessed to analyze the experimental results.
3.8.1. Carbon monoxide emissions
3.8.1.1. CO emissions at varied injection pressure. The Fig. 11(a) high­
lights the CO emissions (%vol) for diesel and biodiesel blends at three
levels of injection pressure. At standard IP of 200 bar the CO emissions
are less for biodiesel comparing to diesel. Diesel fuel recorded 0.05%vol
followed by B5, B10, B20 & B30 as 0.047, 0.045, 0.035 & 0.02% vol. At
200 bar the CO levels were less in B5, B10, B20 & B30 by 5%, 12%, 29%
& 47% in comparison to diesel. At injection pressure 240 bar the CO
levels dropped in B5, B10, B20 & B30 by 8.5%, 14.8%, 36% & 57.4% in
Fig. 10. Ignition delay with respect to crank angle (a) IP variation (b) CR variation (c) IT variation.
12
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
comparison to diesel. CO emission crucially hinge on the partial com­
bustion due to lack of oxygen levels. In biodiesel the occurrence of ox­
ygen as well as improved cetane number, aids in reduction of CO levels
by converting to CO2 (Chandra Sekhar et al., 2018).
3.8.1.2. CO emissions at varied compression ratio. The variation of CR to
15:1 from standard CR triggered 14.8%, 11%. 14% & 20% more CO
emissions for B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. The rise of CR to 20:1 dropped
the CO emissions by 8.5%, 11.5, 14% & 20% for B5, B10, B20 & B30
blends. The inverse pattern of CO emissions is due to rise in air tem­
perature which cuts the ignition delay enabling the complete burning
(El-Kassaby and Nemit-Allah, 2013). The graphical representation is
depicted in Fig. 11(b).
3.8.1.3. CO emissions at varied injection timing. The retard of ignition to
21.5◦ BTDC increases the CO emissions by 19%, 11%, 31% & 40% in B5,
B10, B20 & B30 blends as shown in Fig. 11(c). The ignition timing when
advanced to 25.5◦ BTDC, decreases the CO emissions by 4.2%, 4.4%,
2.8% & 4% in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. The intensification of in-
cylinder temperature facilitating the rapid combustion start along
with improved chemical reaction is experiential at advance injection
timing (Panneerselvam et al., 2015).
3.8.2. Unburnt hydrocarbons (UBHC)
3.8.2.1. UBHC at varied injection pressure. The UBHC (ppm) levels at
selected levels of injection pressure is highlighted in Fig. 11(d). At
200 bar, standard injection pressure it is evident from Fig. 11(d) that
UBHC emissions are greater for diesel fuel and as the blend ratio in­
creases the UBHC emissions drop. The UBHC emission at 200 bar for
diesel, B5, B10, B20 & B30 are 28, 27, 24, 22 & 18 ppm. Alike to CO the
UBHC emissions rely on the combustion quality. The existence of oxygen
and higher Cetane number in blends of biodiesel cuts on ignition delay
and favors towards improved flame travel thus refining combustion
process (Devarajan et al., 2020). At injection pressure 220 bar it is
experiential that UBHC emissions increased by 3.7%, 4.1%, 4.5% &
5.5% in B5, B10, B20 & B30. At 240 bar IP the UBHC emissions dropped
in B5, B10, B20 & B30 by 10.7%, 12%, 8.6% & 10.5% in contrast to
S.H. Gowda et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of (a) IP (b) CR (c) IT on carbon monoxide emission for biodiesel blends and Effect of (d) IP (e) CR (f) IT on unburnt hydrocarbon emission for
biodiesel blends.
200 bar, IP. Here, it is evident that the higher injection pressure aids in
drop of UBHC emissions thus by facilitating better air to fuel mixture and
providing superior combustion.
3.8.2.2. UBHC at varied compression ratio. The compression ratio 15:1
caused 3%, 4%. 4.5% & 5.5% more UBHC emissions for B5, B10, B20 &
B30 blends. The trend is graphically represented in Fig. 11(e). The rise of
CR to 20:1 dropped the UBHC emissions by 3.3%, 3%, 5% & 5.2% for B5,
B10, B20 & B30 blends.
3.8.2.3. UBHC at varied injection timing. In reference to Fig. 11(f) the
retard of ignition to 21.5◦ BTDC increases the UBHC emissions by 3.7%,
4.1%, 4.5% & 5.5% in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. The ignition timing
when advanced to 25.5◦ BTDC, decreases the UBHC emissions by 11%,
12.5%, 9% & 5% in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. The intensification of in-
cylinder temperature facilitating the rapid combustion start along with
improved chemical reaction is experiential at advance injection timing.
13
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
3.8.3. Oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
3.8.3.1. NOx at varied injection pressure. The Fig. 12(a) portrays NOx
characteristics for neat diesel and biodiesel at opted level of injection
pressure. It is noted that the NOx emissions in the biodiesel are greater in
comparison to diesel. From the test it is recorded that NOx levels for
diesel, B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends at standard IP 200 bar are 910, 940,
945, 990 & 1050 ppm respectively. As discussed in previous sections,
the biodiesel facilitated better combustion due to the presence of high
oxygen content along with favorable cetane number. The present study
reveals that the pressure rises, and heat release rate facilitates high
combustion temperature at 80% engine load. These factors along with
the biodiesel being unsaturated in nature influence on the higher
emission of NOx (Chandra Sekhar et al., 2018). At injection pressure
220 bar the NOx emissions increased in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends by
2.1%, 3.7%, 3.5% & 4.8% in contrast to standard IP 200 bar. Similarly,
at injection pressure 240 bar it is experiential that NOx emissions
increased in B5, B10, B20 & B30 by 5.3%, 5.3%, 8.9%, 8.59% & 8.57%
in comparison to standard IP 200 bar.
S.H. Gowda et al.
Fig. 12. Effect of (a) IP (b) CR (c) IT on nitrogen oxide emission for biodiesel blends and Effect of (d) IP (e) CR (f) IT on smoke opacity for biodiesel blends.
3.8.3.2. NOx at varied compression ratio. The compression ratio 15:1
caused the NOx emissions to lower by 12–13% for blends B5, B10, B20 &
B30 when studied reference to 17.5:1. The trend is graphically repre­
sented in Fig. 12(b). The rise of CR to 20:1 increased the NOx emissions
by 4.1%, 6.0%, 5.8% & 5.4% for B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. The high
cylinder pressure and temperature owing to rise of compression ratio
generates more levels of NOx emissions (Chandra Sekhar et al., 2018).
3.8.3.3. NOx at varied injection timing. From Fig. 12(c) the retard of
ignition timing 21.5◦ BTDC lowers the NOx emissions by 4.1%, 5.6%,
5.3% & 18% in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. The ignition timing when
advanced to 25.5◦ BTDC, increases NOx levels by 5.2%, 9.1%, 9.7% &
6.3% in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends.
3.8.4. Smoke
3.8.4.1. Smoke at varied injection pressure. The Fig. 12(d) depicts the
smoke opacity (% HSU) characteristics for different injection pressure.
At 200 bar, the diesel fuel emitted 48%HSU smoke emissions followed
by B5, B10, B20 & B30 i.e., 47, 46, 43, 41% HSU. Better atomization of
fuel during the injection and oxygen lack critically impact on the smoke
14
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
opacity emissions. This also leads to improper combustion. High oxygen,
less percentage of Sulphur and carbon in biodiesel aided good com­
bustion which helped to drop the smoke emission levels in case of bio­
diesel (Mishra et al., 2020). At injection pressure 220 bar the smoke
emissions decreased in B5, B10, B20 & B30 by 6.4%, 4.3%, 6.9% & 7.3%
comparing to standard IP of 200 bar. Similarly, at injection pressure
240 bar it is experiential that smoke emissions dropped in B5, B10, B20
& B30 by 12.7%, 8.6%, 11.6% & 12.1% in comparison to standard IP of
200 bar. The higher injection pressure aided for the reduction of the
smoke opacity emission levels.
3.8.4.2. Smoke at varied compression ratio. The compression ratio 15:1
increased smoke opacity level by 10.2%, 6.4%, 11.1% & 11.6% for
blends B5, B10, B20 & B30 when studied reference to 17.5:1. The trend
is graphically represented in Fig. 12(e). The rise of CR to 20:1 lowered
the smoke opacity by 9.1%, 6.8%, 7.5% & 5.3% for B5, B10, B20 & B30
blends. Lower compression ratios are not suggested due to the absence of
right temperature which supports good combustion.
3.8.4.3. Smoke at varied injection timing. From Fig. 12(f) the retard of
ignition timing 21.5◦ BTDC strengthens the smoke opacity by 6.4%,
S.H. Gowda et al.
4.3%, 7% & 7.3% in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. The ignition timing
when advanced to 25.5◦ BTDC, decreases the smoke levels by 9.1%,
6.8%, 7.5% & 7.9% in B5, B10, B20 & B30 blends. This is due to the
whole combustion and reduced ignition delay.
4. Conclusions
The following inferences are deduced from the present study.
1. The biodiesel is successfully prepared from Scleropyrum pentandrum
seed oil. The optimized parameters and their levels are temperature
65 ◦ C, catalyst amount 1% (w/v oil), reaction time 91 min and
methanol to oil ratio 37% (v/v oil) which yielded 92.9% biodiesel.
2. At standard injection pressure 200 bar the brake specific fuel con­
sumption in B5, B10, B20 & B30 are 1.7%, 3.5%, 7.1% and 10.7%
greater than the diesel fuel. The brake specific fuel consumption for
B5, B10, B20, B30 at 220 bar increased by 3.5%, 3.4%, 3.3% & 3.2%
similarly for 240 bar, it increased by 7%, 6.8%, 6.6% & 0.1%. The
compression ratio 15:1 increased brake specific fuel consumption
nearly to 3% and 20:1 compression ratio lowered the brake specific
fuel consumption by approximately 3% in B5, B10, B20, B30 blends.
The retard of injection timing was less significant whereas the
advance to 25.5◦ BTDC facilitated in lowering the brake specific fuel
consumption.
3. The B5, B10, B20 & B30 blend at 200 bar resulted 0%, 0.3%, 4% and
10% lesser BTE comparing to neat diesel The 220 bar injection
pressure lowered brake thermal efficiency by 0.3%, 0.6%, 3.6% and
10.9% and 240 bar, lowered brake thermal efficiency by 0%, 0.6%,
1.98% and 10.2% in comparison to diesel. The increase of injection
pressure from 200 to 240 bar in steps of 20 bar increased the brake
thermal efficiency. The influence of injection timing was very small.
Retardation of injection timing caused lowering of brake thermal
efficiency by 0.3% in B5&B10. The advance of injection timing
facilitated in 1% increase of brake thermal efficiency in selected
blends.
4. Change in injection pressure from 200 to 220 bar decreased the
carbon monoxide emissions by 5%, 10%, 12.5% and 16.6%, unburnt
hydrocarbon by 3.7%, 4%, 4.3% and 5.2%, smoke opacity by 6.4%,
4.3%, 6.9% and 7.3%. in B5, B10, B20, and B30 blends. The change
in injection pressure from 200 to 240 bar led to drop in carbon
monoxide emissions by 8.5%, 20%, 25% and 33.3%, unburnt hy­
drocarbon by 10.7%, 12%, 8.6% and10.5%, smoke opacity by
12.7%, 8.6%, 11.6%, and 12.1%. in B5, B10, B20, and B30 blends.
5. The higher compression ratio 20:1 and advancement of injection
timing 25.5◦ BTDC facilitates in lowering of the carbon monoxide,
unburnt hydrocarbon, and smoke opacity levels.
6. The NOx emission levels for diesel, B5, B10, B20 & B30 at standard IP
200 bar are 910 ppm, 940 ppm, 945 ppm, 990 ppm and 1050 ppm
respectively which depicts the NOx emission levels are high in bio­
diesel blends.
7. Change in injection pressure to 220 bar increased NOx emissions in
B5, B10, B20 & B30 by 2.1%, 3.7%, 3.5% & 4.8%, at injection
pressure 240 bar, NOx emissions increased by 5.3%, 8.9%, 8.59%
and 8.57%.
8. Considering the NOx emissions, the increase of the injection pressure
and advancement of injection timing is not advised due to the in­
crease of NOx levels in engine emissions.
9. The B20 blend with injection pressure 220 bar and maintaining the
compression ratio and injection timing to standard setting is sug­
gested to be the feasible considering the performance and emissions.
At this level or engine settings, B20 blend biodiesel in comparison to
diesel the BTE is 4% less, BSFC is 6% more, CO & UBHC emissions
reduced by 2%, smoke opacity dropped by 1.1% and the NOx
emissions were 7.2% more.
The study concludes that the biodiesel yielded from Scleropyrum
15
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
pentandrum seeds, which is nonedible feedstock can be used as alter­
native fuel. The B20 biodiesel blend is best suited considering the per­
formance in match to diesel fuel and control of emissions other than
NOx.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sushanth H. Gowda: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Project administration. Joel
Dmello: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Santhosh
Poojary: Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Aalam, C.S., Saravanan, C.G., 2017. Effects of nano metal oxide blended Mahua biodiesel
on CRDI diesel engine. Ain Shams Eng. J. 8, 689–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2015.09.013.
Alagu, R.M., Ganapathy Sundaram, E., 2018. Preparation and characterization of
pyrolytic oil through pyrolysis of neem seed and study of performance, combustion
and emission characteristics in CI engine. J. Energy Inst. 91, 100–109. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.joei.2016.10.003.
Anwar, M., Rasul, M.G., Ashwath, N., 2018. Production optimization and quality
assessment of papaya (Carica papaya) biodiesel with response surface methodology.
Energy Convers. Manag 156, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.11.004.
Bui, V.G., Tran, V.N., Hoang, A.T., Bui, T.M.T., Vo, A.V., 2020. A simulation study on a
port-injection SI engine fueled with hydroxy-enriched biogas. Energy Sources, Part A
Recover Util. Environ. Eff. 00, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15567036.2020.1804487.
Chakravarty, S., Mallick, N., 2022. Engineering a cultivation strategy for higher lipid
accretion and biodiesel production by the marine microalga Picochlorum
soloecismus. Sustain Chem. Pharm. 26, 100635 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scp.2022.100635.
Chandra Sekhar, S., Karuppasamy, K., Vedaraman, N., Kabeel, A.E., Sathyamurthy, R.,
Elkelawy, M., Alm ElDin Bastawissi, H., 2018. Biodiesel production process
optimization from Pithecellobium dulce seed oil: Performance, combustion, and
emission analysis on compression ignition engine fuelled with diesel/biodiesel
blends. Energy Convers. Manag 161, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.01.074.
Debbarma, S., Misra, R.D., 2018. Effects of iron nanoparticle fuel additive on the
performance and exhaust emissions of a compression ignition engine fueled with
diesel and biodiesel. J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 10, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4038708.
Devarajan, Y., Beemkumar, N., Ganesan, S., Arunkumar, T., 2020. An experimental study
on the influence of an oxygenated additive in diesel engine fuelled with neat papaya
seed biodiesel/diesel blends. Fuel 268, 117254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2020.117254.
El-Kassaby, M., Nemit-Allah, M.A., 2013. Studying the effect of compression ratio on an
engine fueled with waste oil produced biodiesel/diesel fuel. Alex. Eng. J. 52, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2012.11.007.
El-Seesy, A.I., Hassan, H., Ookawara, S., 2018. Effects of graphene nanoplatelet addition
to jatropha Biodiesel–Diesel mixture on the performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine. Energy 147, 1129–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2018.01.108.
Emiroğlu, A.O., Şen, M., 2018. Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of
various alcohol blends in a single cylinder diesel engine. Fuel 212, 34–40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.016.
Fan, X., Wang, X., Chen, F., 2010. Ultrasonically assisted production of biodiesel from
crude cottonseed oil. Int. J. Green. Energy 7, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15435071003673419.
Gad, M.S., Jayaraj, S., 2020. A comparative study on the effect of nano-additives on the
performance and emissions of a diesel engine run on Jatropha biodiesel. Fuel 267,
117168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117168.
Gowda, S.H., Dmello, J., Pavana Kumara, B., Raju, K., 2019. Optimization of oil
extraction from Vateria indica seeds by solvent extraction process using response
surface method. AIP Conf. Proc. 2080. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5092914.
Gowda, S.H., Avinash, A., Raju, K., 2021. Production optimization of Vateria indica
biodiesel and performance evaluation of its blends on compression ignition engine.
Sustain Chem. Pharm. 22, 100475 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2021.100475.
S.H. Gowda et al.
Harreh, D., Saleh, A.A., Reddy, A.N.R., Hamdan, S., 2018. An Experimental Investigation
of Karanja Biodiesel Production in Sarawak, Malaysia. J. Eng. (U. Kingd. ) 2018, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4174205.
Hasan, M.M., Rahman, M.M., 2017. Performance and emission characteristics of
biodiesel–diesel blend and environmental and economic impacts of biodiesel
production: A review. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 74, 938–948. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.045.
Hasni, K., Ilham, Z., Dharma, S., Varman, M., 2017. Optimization of biodiesel production
from Brucea javanica seeds oil as novel non-edible feedstock using response surface
methodology. Energy Convers. Manag 149, 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.07.037.
Hoang, A.T., Le, A.T., 2019. A review on deposit formation in the injector of diesel
engines running on biodiesel. Energy Sources, Part A Recover Util. Environ. Eff. 41,
584–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1520342.
Hoang, A.T., Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., 2020. 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. 42, 2923–2943. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15567036.2019.1623346.
Hoang, A.T., Nižetić, S., Ölçer, A.I., 2021a. 2,5-Dimethylfuran (DMF) as a promising
biofuel for the spark ignition engine application: A comparative analysis and review.
Fuel 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119140.
Hoang, A.T., Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Carlucci, A.P., Ölçer, A.I., Le, A.T.,
Ghassemi, A., 2021b. Rice bran oil-based biodiesel as a promising renewable fuel
alternative to petrodiesel: A review. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 135. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110204.
Jiaqiang, E., Pham, M.H., Deng, Y., Nguyen, T., Duy, V.N., Le, D.H., Zuo, W., Peng, Q.,
Zhang, Z., 2018. Effects of injection timing and injection pressure on performance
and exhaust emissions of a common rail diesel engine fueled by various
concentrations of fish-oil biodiesel blends. Energy 149, 979–989. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.053.
Kadarohman, A., Hernani, Khoerunisa, F., Astuti, R.M., 2010. A potential study on clove
oil, eugenol and eugenyl acetate as diesel fuel bio-additives and their performance
on one cylinder engine. Transport 25, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.3846/
transport.2010.09.
Khalil, I., Aziz, A.R.A., Yusup, S., Heikal, M., El-Adawy, M., 2017. Response surface
methodology for the optimization of the production of rubber seed/palm oil
biodiesel, IDI diesel engine performance, and emissions. Biomass-.-. Convers.
Biorefinery 7, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-016-0221-y.
Khiari, K., Tarabet, L., Awad, S., Loubar, K., Mahmoud, R., Tazerout, M., Derradji, M.,
2022. Optimization of bio-oil production from Pistacia lentiscus seed liquefaction
and its effect on diesel engine performance and pollutant emissions. Biomass-.-.
Convers. Biorefinery 12, 3359–3372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00913-9.
Krishnamoorthi, M., Malayalamurthi, R., Mohamed Shameer, P., 2018. RSM based
optimization of performance and emission characteristics of DI compression ignition
engine fuelled with diesel/aegle marmelos oil/diethyl ether blends at varying
compression ratio, injection pressure and injection timing. Fuel 221, 283–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.070.
Likhanov, V.A., Lopatin, O.P., Yurlov, A.S., 2020. Biofuel based on methanol and methyl
ester of rapeseed oil for diesel engine. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 734. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/734/1/012208.
Miraculas, G.A., Bose, N., Raj, R.E., 2016. Optimization of biofuel blends and
compression ratio of a diesel engine fueled with calophyllum inophyllum oil methyl
ester. Arab J. Sci. Eng. 41, 1723–1733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1942-
0.
Mishra, S., Chauhan, A., Mishra, K.B., 2020. Role of binary and ternary blends of WCO
biodiesel on emission reduction in diesel engine. Fuel 262, 116604. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116604.
Mofijur, M., Atabani, A.E., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., Masum, B.M., 2013a. A study on
the effects of promising edible and non-edible biodiesel feedstocks on engine
performance and emissions production: A comparative evaluation. Renew. Sustain
Energy Rev. 23, 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.009.
Mofijur, M., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., Atabani, A.E., Shahabuddin, M., Palash, S.M.,
Hazrat, M.A., 2013b. Effect of biodiesel from various feedstocks on combustion
characteristics engine durability and materials compatibility: A review. Renew.
Sustain Energy Rev. 28, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.07.051.
Naylor, R.L., Higgins, M.M., 2018. The rise in global biodiesel production: Implications
for food security. Glob. Food Sec 16, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gfs.2017.10.004.
Panneerselvam, N., Murugesan, A., Vijayakumar, C., Kumaravel, A., Subramaniam, D.,
Avinash, A., 2015. Effects of injection timing on bio-diesel fuelled engine
16
Industrial Crops & Products 194 (2023) 116306
characteristics - An overview. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 50, 17–31. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.157.
Perumal, V., Ilangkumaran, M., 2017. Experimental analysis of engine performance,
combustion and emission using pongamia biodiesel as fuel in CI engine. Energy 129,
228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.120.
Poojary, S., Rao, C.V., Venkatesh, K.H., 2017. Scleropyrum pentandrum (Dennst.)
mabb—oil as a feedstock for biodiesel production—engine performance and
emission studies. Int J. Green. Energy 14, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15435075.2016.1254637.
Prashant, G.K., Lata, D.B., Joshi, P.C., 2016. Investigations on the effect of methanol
blend on the combustion parameters of dual fuel diesel engine. Appl. Therm. Eng.
103, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.04.061.
Rajak, U., Nashine, P., Verma, T.N., 2020. Effect of spirulina microalgae biodiesel
enriched with diesel fuel on performance and emission characteristics of CI engine.
Fuel 268, 117305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117305.
Raju, V.D., Venu, H., Subramani, L., Kishore, P.S., Prasanna, P.L., Kumar, D.V., 2020. An
experimental assessment of prospective oxygenated additives on the diverse
characteristics of diesel engine powered with waste tamarind biodiesel. Energy 203,
117821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117821.
Rao, G., Kumar, G.N., Herbert, M., 2019. Effect of injection pressure on the performance
and emission characteristics of the CI engine using Vateria indica biodiesel. Int J.
Ambient Energy 40, 758–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2017.1421575.
Sadhik Basha, J., 2018. Impact of Carbon Nanotubes and Di-Ethyl Ether as additives with
biodiesel emulsion fuels in a diesel engine – An experimental investigation. J. Energy
Inst. 91, 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2016.11.006.
Saravanan, A., Karishma, S., Senthil Kumar, P., Jayasree, R., 2022. Process optimization
and kinetic studies for the production of biodiesel from Artocarpus heterophyllus oil
using modified mixed quail waste catalyst. Fuel 330, 125644. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125644.
Serin, H., Ozcanli, M., Gokce, M.K., Tuccar, G., 2013. Biodiesel production from tea seed
(Camellia sinensis) oil and its blends with diesel fuel. Int J. Green. Energy 10,
370–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2012.655354.
Shrivastava, P., Verma, T.N., 2020. Effect of fuel injection pressure on the characteristics
of CI engine fuelled with biodiesel from Roselle oil. Fuel 265, 117005. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.117005.
Shrivastava, P., Verma, T.N., David Samuel, O., Pugazhendhi, A., 2020. An experimental
investigation on engine characteristics, cost and energy analysis of CI engine fuelled
with Roselle, Karanja biodiesel and its blends. Fuel 275, 117891. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117891.
Simsek, S., 2020. Effects of biodiesel obtained from Canola, sefflower oils and waste oils
on the engine performance and exhaust emissions. Fuel 265, 117026. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117026.
Sultana, S., Khalid, A., Ahmad, M., Zuhairi, A.A., Teong, L.K., Zafar, M., Hassan, F.U.,
2014. The production, optimization, and characterization of biodiesel from a novel
source: Sinapis alba L. Int J. Green. Energy 11, 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15435075.2013.772520.
Tan, D., Wu, Y., Lv, J., Li, J., Ou, X., Meng, Y., Lan, G., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., 2023.
Performance optimization of a diesel engine fueled with hydrogen/biodiesel with
water addition based on the response surface methodology. Energy 263, 125869.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125869.
Velasco-Fernández, R., Ramos-Martín, J., Giampietro, M., 2015. The energy metabolism
of China and India between 1971 and 2010: Studying the bifurcation. Renew.
Sustain Energy Rev. 41, 1052–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.065.
Verma, P., Dwivedi, G., Sharma, M.P., 2017. Comprehensive analysis on potential factors
of ethanol in Karanja biodiesel production and its kinetic studies. Fuel 188, 586–594.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.10.062.
Zareh, P., Asghar, A., Ghobadian, B., 2017. Comparative assessment of performance and
emission characteristics of castor, coconut and waste cooking based biodiesel as fuel
in a diesel engine. Energy 139, 883–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.08.040.
Zhang, Z., Li, J., Tian, J., Dong, R., Zou, Z., Gao, S., Tan, D., 2022a. Performance,
combustion and emission characteristics investigations on a diesel engine fueled
with diesel/ ethanol /n-butanol blends. Energy 249, 123733. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2022.123733.
Zhang, Z., Tian, J., Li, J., Lv, J., Wang, S., Zhong, Y., Dong, R., Gao, S., Cao, C., Tan, D.,
2022b. Investigation on combustion, performance and emission characteristics of a
diesel engine fueled with diesel/alcohol/n-butanol blended fuels. Fuel 320, 123975.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123975.