Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018 www.renewableenergyfocus.

com

Study of oxidation behavior of Jatropha

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

oil methyl esters and Karanja oil methyl
esters blends with EURO-IV high speed
diesel
Bhawna Yadav Lamba*, Girdhar Joshi, Devendra Singh Rawat, Sapna Jain and
Sanjeev Kumar
Department of Chemistry, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun, India

Poor oxidation stability of methyl esters is the major problem associated with its worldwide acceptance.
As per the standards EN 14214 and prEN16091; and ASTM-D 7545-09 the oxidation stability limit should
be 20 h for the blends and 8 h for neat methyl ester. One approach for increasing resistance of fatty acid
methyl ester derivatives against autoxidation is to treat them with oxidation inhibitors known as
antioxidants. This study examines the effectiveness of five such commercial antioxidants [viz. tert-
butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), propyl
gallate (PrG) and pyrogallol (PY)] on the storage stability of Jatropha methyl ester (JOME), Karanja
methyl ester (KOME), and their 5%, 10%, 20% and 40% blends with low sulphur EURO-IV High speed
Diesel (HSD) using Petrotest PetrOxymeter. The impact of the antioxidants strongly depends on the feed-
stock used for biodiesel production. PY was found to be the most effective antioxidant for JOME and its
EURO-IV blends; however, PrG has shown maximum effectiveness with KOME and its EURO-IV HSD
blends. 500 ppm was found to be the most optimum concentration for both the antioxidants.

Introduction
In the recent past, increase in energy demand, rise in petroleum
prices, and stiff environmental regulations necessitates the search
of renewable energy resources [1,2]. Among the renewable energy
sources, biodiesel has emerged as a clean burning alternative fuel
that can be used in existing engine with little or no modification
[3]. Biodiesel is non-flammable, nonexplosive, biodegradable,
non-toxic, and can be produced from locally available feedstock
[4]. It has comparable fuel characteristics to that of petrodiesel
[5–9] and can improve the lubricity and anti-wear properties
when blended with petrodiesel [10].
Besides various advantages of biodiesel over conventional diesel,
its long-term instability is a major problem. The chief process
contributing to the instability of biodiesel and its blends is oxida-
tion [11,12].
These oxidation processes are less pronounced in the parent oil
due to the presence of natural antioxidants which get partially lost
*Corresponding author Lamba, B.Y. (byadav@ddn.upes.ac.in)
during refining [13] making the oil more prone to oxidation. This
leads to increased acid value, density and viscosity and decreased
iodine value of biodiesel [14]. In addition to this, oxidation also
results in the formation of sediment and gum along with the fuel
darkening, which causes filter plugging, injector fouling, deposi-
tions in the engine combustion chamber and malfunctions in
various components of the fuel system [15]. Therefore, the oxida-
tion stability characteristic of biodiesel and its blends is very
important property in determining the suitability of biodiesel as
a substitute for petro diesel in diesel engines, boilers, electricity
generators, and other combustion equipment [16].
The use of commercial additives (i.e. antioxidants) improves the
fuel stability by intercepting the reaction of active oxygen and
fatty acid, which reduces the oxidation process of biodiesel [17].
In developed countries like United States, the major source of
biodiesel is edible oil however, in the growing and overpopulated
countries like China and India, the biodiesel production from
edible oil resources is not possible. Therefore, non-edible oils
(e.g. Jatropha, Pongamia (Karanja), Mahua, Sal, bitter almond oil, date

1755-0084/ã 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2018.09.002

59
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
palm oil) seems to be the only possible source of biodiesel [18–20].
Several reports have been found on the stabilities of biodiesel
blends with EURO-III HSD [21–31] However; limited reports are
available on the impact of various antioxidants on oxidation
behavior of biodiesel and its blends with EURO-IV HSD [32–39].
The main objective of this experimental study is to compare the
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
oxidation behavior of 5%, 10%, 20% and 40% blends of Jatropha
methyl ester (JOME) + EURO-IV HSD (JB-5, JB-10, JB-20, JB-40)
Karanja oil methyl ester KOME) + EURO-IV HSD (KB-5, KB-10,
KB-20, KB-40) with and without antioxidants.
Experimental section
Jatropha and Karanja oil methyl esters
Preparation
Jatropha curcas oil and Karanja oil were purchased from local
market and used after vacuum distillation. Methanol and catalyst
(KOH) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich India. JOME and KOME
used, as blending stock were prepared through alkali (KOH) cata-
lyzed transesterification of respective crude oils with Methanol.
3000 mL of Jatropha curcas oil was tranesterified by using 600 mL
methanol and 1 wt% KOH (w.r.t oil) in a four neck round bottom
flask (cap. 5 L) equipped with an overhead stirrer, PID controlled
thermo-couple and water condenser. The reaction mixture was
stirred at 300 rpm for 3 h at 60  C. After the reaction, the reaction
mass was transferred to separating funnel and the biodiesel (upper
layer) was separated from the glycerol (lower layer). Alcohol from
both the phases was distilled off under reduced pressure. The
biodiesel thus obtained was washed with the lukewarm distilled
water to remove residual glycerol, unreacted catalyst and soap
formed during the transesterification. The biodiesel obtained was
again distilled off under vacuum and then kept under reduced
pressure to make it completely moisture free.
For preparation of KOME, prior to transesterification, degum-
ming experiment was done to reduce the high FFA value. Degum-
ming of Karanja oil was done using 0.5 wt% H2SO4 in methanol at
60  C until the required acid value was attained. Then the similar
procedure, used for the preparation of JOME was adopted for the
transesterification of Karanja oil.
Fatty acid composition
The JOME and KOME prepared, were analyzed using QP-2010 gas
chromatography mass spectrometer (GC-2010 coupled with GC–
MS QP-2010) equipped with an auto sampler (AOC-5000) from
OH HO
HO OH
O
HO
O OH
propyl 3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoate 2-tert-butylbenzene-1,4-diol
(PY) (PrG)
OH
2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol
FIGURE 1
Antioxidants tested.
60
Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018
Shimadzu (Japan) using a RTX-5 fused silica capillary column,
30 m  0.25 mm  0.25 mm (Rastek). Helium gas (99.9% purity)
was used as the carrier gas with a column flow rate of 1 ml/min
and a pre-column pressure of 49.7 kPa. The column temperature
regime was 40  C for 3 min, followed by a 5  C/min ramp up to
230  C, followed by 40 min at 230  C. The injection volume and
temperature were 0.2 ml and 240  C and the split ratio was 1/30.
The mass spectrometer was operated in electron compact mode
with electron energy of 70 eV. Both the ion source temperature
and the interface temperature were set at 200  C. Peaks were
identified by comparison of their retention times with authentic
standards by GC–MS post run analysis and quantified by area
normalization.
EURO-IV high speed diesel (HSD)
A 50 L lot of Euro-IV HSD was purchased from retail outlet and
used to prepare 5%, 10%, 20% and 40% blends with JOME and
KOME.
Antioxidants
The additives used in the present study are Butylated hydroxy toluene
(BHT), Butylated hydroxy anisole (BHA), tert-Butylhydroxyquinone
(TBHQ), Propyl-gallate (PrG) and Pyrogallol (PY) (Figure 1). These
analytical grade additives were procured from Sigma Aldrich.
The effect of various antioxidants on the oxidation stability of
the neat JOME, KOME and their blends with EURO-IV HSD were
carried out by adding 300 ppm, 400 ppm and 500 ppm of each
antioxidant in 500 mL of neat JOME, KOME and various blended
samples.
Blend preparation
Different techniques are available for blending of biodiesel with
HSD such as splash blending, in-tank blending and in-line blend-
ing. For present study, we have used splash blending to prepare
blends, because it is commonly used and is an effective and
efficient technique. The measured amounts of methyl ester were
splash-blended in a 500 mL beaker with EURO-IV HSD under
continuous stirring at room temperature for 30 min to ensure
uniform mixing.
Biodiesel and its diesel blend samples of volume 500 mL were
stored in closed Borosil glass bottles of 1 L capacity for 90 days and
were kept indoors, at a room temperature ranging from 18  C to
28  C. 500 mL space in the bottle was occupied by air. Samples were
O
(TBHQ) (BHA)
Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

TABLE 1
Physico-chemical characterization of JOME and KOME.
S. no. Property (unit) Jatropha oil Karanja oil Std. limits Test method
methyl ester methyl ester
1 Specific gravity 0.8811 0.892 0.820–0.845 ASTM-D 4052
2 Viscosity (cSt) 4.7138 4.92 1.9–6.0 ASTM-D 445; IS 1448, P:25

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

3 Cloud Point ( C) +12 +6 ————————— ASTM D 2500; IS 1448, P:10
4 Pour point ( C) +3 +3 —————————— ASTM D 97; IS 1448, P:10
5 Flash point ( C) 161.5 148.3 Min 100 ASTM D 93; IS 1448, P:20
6 Moisture content 0.041% 0.039% Max. 0.05% ASTM-D 2709; IS1448, P:40
7 Calorific value (KJ/kg) 39071 36871 —————————— ——————————
8 Oxidation stability (at 140  C) 4.8 2.98 8h EN14214, prEN16091and IS 15607

taken out periodically after every 10 days to study the additive
effects.
The blends prepared were B5 (5% biodiesel and 95% HSD diesel),
B10 (10% biodiesel and 90% HSD diesel), B20 (20% biodiesel and
80% HSD diesel) and B40 (40% biodiesel and 60% HSD diesel). In
addition, B100 (pure biodiesel) was also prepared for comparison
purposes.
Oxidation stability
The oxidation stability measurement (induction period i.e. IP) of
the samples were done using Petrotest ‘‘Petro- OXY(e)-VERSION:
10.08.2011’’ instrument made in Germany in accordance with
ASTM-D 7545-09 and prEN 16091. IP of the samples were calcu-
lated in hermetically sealed test chamber by taking 5 ml of the
sample. To initiate a fast oxidation process the chamber was
automatically pressurized with oxygen up to 700 kPa (7 bar/
101.5 psi) and heated to a temperature of 140  C. The fuel con-
sumes oxygen and gets oxidizes resulting in 10% pressure drop.
The length of the induction period gives the measure of time, that
for how long the antioxidant will protect the samples from oxida-
tion. The obtained IP values were converted to the corresponding
Rancimat time. All the determinations were performed in dupli-
cate and the mean value is reported [38].
Results and discussion
Physicochemical properties of JOME and KOME
The main physicochemical properties of prepared JOME and
KOME were determined and represented in Table 1. All the prop-
erties are in agreement to that reported in the literature.
Composition of JOME and KOME
The GC–MS analysis revealed that JOME biodiesel contains mainly
Octanoic acid methyl ester 0.21%, 9-Hexadecenoic acid methyl
ester 0.74%, Hexadecanoic acid methyl ester 17.52%, 9,12-Octa-
decadienoic acid (Z,Z)-methyl ester 31.13%, 9-Octadecenoic acid
(Z)-methyl ester 41.78%, Octadecanoic acid methyl ester 8.62%.
The results obtained in the study are in agreement with those
reported by other workers [40,41].
Similarly, the GC–MS Analysis of KOME revealed that the
prepared methyl ester contains Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester
2.21%,Octadecanoic acid methyl ester 4.81%, 9-Octadecenoic
acid methyl ester 56.09%, Octadecenoic acid methyl ester
3.81%, 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid methyl ester 25.21%, 9-Octa-
decenoic acid (Z)- methyl ester 1.34%, 11-Eicosenoic acid methyl
ester 1.25%, Eicosenoic acid methyl ester 0.89%, Docosanoic acid
methyl ester 2.83%, Tetracosanoic acid methyl ester 1.44%. The
GC–MS results obtained were also supported by the existing
literature [34,42].
Physicochemical analysis of EURO-IV HSD
The key physicochemical characteristic of EURO-IV HSD is pre-
sented in Table 2.
Oxidation stability analysis
The obtained induction period of neat JOME and KOME indicates
that, the neat methyl esters have very low oxidation stability.
However, improvement in induction period of both the JOME and
KOME could be achieved by using commercially available anti-
oxidants PY and PrG are found more effective that BHT, BHA,
which is in agreement with the result obtained by Jhou [43]. The
results obtained are shown in Figure 2(a & b).
A significant difference in the efficiencies of tested antioxidants
were observed. Screening study has revealed that the 500 ppm
concentration of additive was the optimum concentration at
which maximum oxidation stability of JOME and KOME was
achieved. Therefore, for further studies of oxidation stability of

TABLE 2
Physicochemical characterization of Euro-IV high speed diesel.
S. no. Characteristics Unit Value obtained Euro-IV ASTM
for HSD requirement
1 Flash point 
C 58 66 ASTM D 93; IS 1448, P:20
2 Pour point 
C 9 3–15 ASTM D 97; IS 1448, P:10
3 Kinematic viscocity @ 40  C cSt 3 2.0–4.5 ASTM D445/ISO 3104
4 Cetane index (CI) 47 52 ASTM D 4737; ISO 4264
5 Oxidation stability (at 140  C) h – 25 max ISO 12205, ASTM D 2774
6 Total sulphur ppm 40 50 ASTM D 1266 & IP 336
ISO 20884

61
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018

18.0
16.0

Rancimat Period (h)

14.0
12.0
10.0
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

AnƟoxidant ConcentraƟon (ppm)

(a)

Day 0 Day 10 Day 20 Day 30 Day 40 Day 50 Day 60 Day 70 Day 80

20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

AnƟoxidant ConcentraƟon (ppm)

FIGURE 2
Effect of various concentration of antioxidants on Oxidation Stability of (a) Jatropha Oil Methyl Esters; (b) Karanja Oil Methyl Esters.

JOME + EURO-IV HSD and KOME EURO-IV HSD blends, 500 ppm
and one higher concentration i.e. 600 ppm was preferred.
JOME- EURO-IV HSD blends
To investigate the best antioxidant concentration required to
achieve the maximum IP of Methyl esters-EURO-IV HSD blends,
we have selected two concentrations i.e. 500 and 600 ppm of the
five antioxidants for further study.
Figs. 2–5 show the effect of the five commercial antioxidants in
500 ppm and 600 ppm concentration on the oxidation stability of
5%, (JB-5) 10% (JB-10), 20% (JB-20) and 40% (JB-40) blends of
JOME with Euro–IV HSD. It was observed that JB-5 with EURO IV
HSD could not meet the minimum required IP (i.e. 20 h; EN 14214
and prEN16091) however in previous studies involving EURO-III
HSD, we found that even neat JB-5 blend (JOME + EURO-III HSD)
was quite stable and has shown the IP more than 20 h [38]. This

0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

FIGURE 3
Variation of Rancimat period of JB-5 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

62
Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

60.0

Rancimat Period (h)

50.0

40.0

30.0

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

20.0

10.0

0.0

FIGURE 4
Variation of Rancimat period of JB-10 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

50.0
45.0
Rancimate Period (h)

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

FIGURE 5
Variation of Rancimat period of JB-20 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

FIGURE 6
Variation of Rancimat period of JB-40 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

63
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018

60

50

Rancimat Period (h)

40

30
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

20

10

FIGURE 7
Variation of Rancimat period of KB-5 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

may be because of the loss of natural antioxidants from diesel
during its hydrotreating to lower the sulphur concentration.
In the present investigation it has been observed that without
additives no blends of JOME-EURO-IV HSD was found to be in the
acceptable range (20 h; EN 14214 and prEN16091) even on the first
day (Figure 3). However with additive, promising results were
obtained. In case of JB-5 blends, PY, PrG and TBHQ in both the
concentrations were found to be highly effective and were stable
during the course of study. However, with BHA and BHT involving
both 500 ppm and 600 ppm, JB-5 blends were found stable for a
period of <4 weeks and <2 weeks, respectively (Figure 3). JB-10
blends were found stable with both the concentrations (i.e. 500
and 600 ppm) of TBHQ, PrG and PY, BHA and BHT were unable to
show their effectiveness at all (Figure 4). However, for JB-20 blends
only PY and PrG in both the concentration were found effective
during experimental duration (Figure 5). However, rest of the
antioxidants were found ineffective. PY both in 500 ppm and
600 ppm was the only antioxidant, which has shown its effective-
ness for JB-40 during experimental storage duration (Figure 6).
Thus out of the five antioxidants tested with JOME-EURO-IV
HSD blends, the overall trend of effectiveness was observed as
PY > PrG > TBHQ > BHA > BHT. Earlier, similar trend of antioxi-
dant effectiveness was also observed with the Jatropha biodiesel
blends with Euro III HSD and conventional diesel sold at retail out-
lets of Northern India [37,38]. The phenolic antioxidants are
found to be more effective in comparison to non-phenolic anti-
oxidants [44,45]. The antioxidant capability depends on the num-
ber of hydroxy group occupying 1,2 and 1,4 position in aromatic
ring as well as the volume and electronic characteristic of the
groups present in the antioxidants. The Higher effectiveness of PY
over PrG may be due to their more stable Quinoid form. Also like
earlier reports, the stability of Jatropha biodiesel blends with Euro-
IV have shown the dependence on the biodiesel concentration.
KOME-EURO-IV HSD blends
Similar study was extended to evaluate the effect of selected
antioxidants (i.e. PY, PrG, TBHQ, BHA and BHT) in both
(500 ppm and 600 ppm) concentration on KOME-EURO-IV HSD

60

50
Rancimat Period (h)

40

30

20

10

FIGURE 8
Variation of Rancimat period of KB-10 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

64
Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

50
45
40

Rancimat Period (h)

35
30
25

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

20
15
10
5
0

FIGURE 9
Variation of Rancimat period ofKB-20 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

45
40
35
Rancimat Period (h)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

FIGURE 10
Variation of Rancimat period of KB-40 + EURO-IV HSD with various antioxidants.

blends. The results obtained for the prepared blends 5% (KB-5),
10% (KB-10), 20% (KB-20) and 40% (KB-40) are presented in
Figures 7–10. As in case of JOME-Euro-IV HSD blends, no neat
blend of KOME-EURO-IV HSD was found to be in acceptable range
(i.e. 20 h; EN 14214 and prEN16091) even on the first day (Figure 7).
In case of KB-5 blend, PrG, PY and BHA in both the concentrations
(500 and 600 ppm) were found to maintain the oxidation stability
during period of investigation. However, TBHQ and BHT in both
the concentration were found ineffective (Figure 7). In case of KB-
10, PrG and PY in both the concentrations (500 and 600 ppm) and
BHA in 600 ppm were found suitable among all other additives
tested and have shown their effectiveness during 90 days storage
duration. However, BHA-500 ppm was effective only up to 80 days.
Rest were found ineffective (Figure 8). For KB-20 blend, only PY
and PrG antioxidants in both the concentration were found stable
during 90 days experimental storage duration (Figure 9). Other
antioxidants could not be found effective. However, PrG (500 ppm
and 600 ppm) was the only antioxidant that could stabilize KB-40
blend for 90 days (Figure 10). Besides, PY 600 ppm and 500 ppm
were found effective up to 50 day and 30 days, respectively.
The order of effectiveness of antioxidants for KOME and its Euro-
IV HSD blends was found to be PrG > PY > BHA > BHT > TBHQ,
this may be attributed to more unsaturated acid content in fatty
acid compositions of KOME as compared to JOME.
Conclusion
The study reveals that as the biodiesel concentration increases the
stability of blends decreases. The impact of the antioxidants strongly
depends on the feed-stock used for biodiesel production. For example in
case of JOME blends with Euro-IV HSD, PY produced the best effect in
biodiesel stabilization because of its higher number of labile hydrogen
however in KOME blends with Euro-IV HSD, PrG was found to be highly
effective which may be due to the different chemical structure of KOME
w.r.t JOME and different level of molecular interaction. The study also
revealed that for all the five antioxidants 500 ppm is the optimized
concentration and increasing the antioxidants concentration to

65
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
600 ppm does not makes much difference and unnecessary increases
the cost of the fuel.
The study can further be extended to fully evaluate the actual
mechanisms that may affect the oxidation stability of diesel/
biodiesel blends.
The experimental data provides the basis for future work regard-
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
ing the detailed investigation on the impact of diesel fuel compo-
sition on the stability of the blends, a more in depth evaluation of
biodiesel chemical structure on the oxidation stability, molecular
interaction with additives and the synergistic effect of various
synthetic antioxidants on the oxidation behavior of diesel/bio-
diesel blends is needed.
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgment
We would also like to express our deep sense of gratitude to the
Chancellor Dr. S. J. Chopra, Vice Chancellor Dr. Deepender Jha,
Dean COES, Dr. Kamal Bansal, and team R&D UPES for their
continuous support encouragement.
References
[1] J. Werther, J. Environ. Eng. Manage. 19 (2009) 135–144.
[2] K.S. Chen, Y.C. Lin, L.T. Hsieh, L.F. Lin, C.C. Wu, Energy 36 (2010) 2043–2048.
[3] P.K. Sahoo, L.M. Das, M.K.G. Babu, P. Arora, V.P. Singh, N.R. Kumar, T.S. Varyani,
Fuel 88 (2009) 1698–1707.
[4] Ashok Pandey, Handbook of Plant-Based Biofuels, CRC Press Taylor & Francis
Group, 2009.
[5] S. Jain, M.P. Sharma, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 667–678.
[6] S. Jain, M.P. Sharma, Fuel 90 (2011) 3014–3020.
[7] J. Pullen, K. Saeed, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 5924–5950.
[8] A.C. Pinto, L.L.N. Guarieiro, M.J.C. Rezende, N.M. Ribeiro, E.A. Torres, W.A.
Lopes, P.A.P. Pereira, J.B. de Andrade, J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 16 (2005) 1313–1330.
[9] M.F. Pimentel, G.M.G.S. Ribeiro, R.S. Cruz, L. Stragevitch, J.G.A. Pacheco Filho, L.
S.G. Teixeira, Microchem. J. 82 (2006) 201–206.
[10] Gerhard Knothe, Kevin R. Steidley, Energy Fuels 19 (2005) 1192–1200.
[11] M.S. Peer, R. Kasimani, S. Rajamohan, P. Ramakrishnan, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 31
(2017) 455–463.
[12] A. Bouaid, M. Martinez, J. Aracil, Fuel 86 (2007) 2596–2602.
[13] Amit Sarin, Biodiesel Production and Properties, RSC Publishing, 2012.
[14] I.M.R. Fattah, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, M. Mofijur, M.J. Abedin, Energy
Convers. Manage. 79 (2014) 265–272.
[15] M. Shahabuddin, M.A. Kalam, H.H. Masjuki, M.M.K. Bhuiya, M. Mofijur, Energy
44 (2012) 616–622.
66
Renewable Energy Focus  Volume 27, Number 00  December 2018
[16] Y.-H. Chen, J.-H. Chen, Y.-M. Luo, N.-C. Shang, C.-H. Chang, C.-Y. Chang, et al.
Energy 36 (2011) 4415–4421.
[17] D. Chandran, Hoon Kiat Ng, Harrison Lik Nang Lau, Suyin Gan, Yuen May Choo,
Energy 120 (2017) 854–863.
[18] S. Jain, M.P. Sharma, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2) (2010) 763–771.
[19] Emaad T.B. Al-Tikrity, Abdelrahman B. Fadhil, Khalid K. Ibraheem, Energy Source
Part A: Recovery Util. Environ. Effects 39 (7) (2017) 649–656.
[20] Abdelrahman B. Fadhil, Mohammed A. Alhayali, Liqaa I. Saeed, Fuel 210 (2017)
165–176.
[21] H. Tang, R.C. De-Guzman, S.O. Salley, K.Y. Simon-Ng, Lipid Technol. 20 (2008)
249–252.
[22] Z. Yang, B.P. Hollebone, Z. Wang, C. Yang, C. Brown, M. Landriault, Fuel 115
(2014) 366–377.
[23] Z. Yang, B.P. Hollebone, Z. Wang, C. Yang, M. Landriault, Fuel Process Technol.
106 (2013) 366–375.
[24] M.R. Jakeria, M.A. Fazal, A.S.M.A. Haseeb, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30 (2014)
154–163.
[25] M. Serrano, A. Bouaid, M. Martı́nez, J. Aracil, Fuel 113 (2013) 50–58.
[26] G. Karavalakis, D. Hilari, L. Givalou, D. Karonis, S. Stournas, Energy 36 (2011) 369–
374.
[27] L.P.F. Carvalho Galvao, A.G. Dias Santos, A.D. Gondim, M.N. Barbosa, A.S. Araujo,
L. Di-Souza, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 106 (2011) 625–629.
[28] Zeyu Yanga, Bruce P. Hollebone, Zhendi Wang, Chun Yang, Carl Brown, Mike
Landriault, Fuel 115 (2014) 366–377.
[29] Zeyu Yanga, Bruce P. Hollebone, Zhendi Wang, Chun Yang, Mike Landriault, Fuel
104 (2013) 342–350.
[30] Marta Serrano, Mercedes Martı́nez, José Aracil, Fuel Process. Technol. 116 (2013)
135–141.
[31] Elaine Cristina R. Maia, Dionı́sio Borsato, Ivanira Moreira, Kelly Roberta Spacino,
Paulo Rogério P. Rodrigues, André Lazarin Gallina, Fuel Process. Technol. 92
(2011) 1750–1755.
[32] A. Sarin, R. Arora, N.P. Singh, R. Sarin, R.K. Malhotra, Energy 35 (2010) 3449–3453.
[33] A. Sari, R. Arora, N.P. Singh, R. Sarin, R.K. Malhotra, K. Kundu, Energy 34 (2009)
2016–2021.
[34] A. Obadiah, R. Kannan, A. Ramasubbu, V.K. Samuel, Fuel Process. Technol. 99
(2012) 56–63.
[35] L.M. Das, D.K. Bora, S. Pradhan, M.K. Naik, S.N. Naik, Fuel 88 (2009) 2315–2318.
[36] A.K. Agarwal, D. Khurana, Fuel Process. Technol. 106 (2013) 447–452.
[37] G. Joshi, B.Y. Lamba, D.S. Rawat, S. Mallick, K.S.R. Murthy, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
52 (22) (2013) 7586–7592.
[38] B.Y. Lamba, G. Joshi, A.K. Tiwari, D.S. Rawat, S. Mallick, Energy 60 (2013) 222–
229.
[39] D.S. Rawat, G. Joshi, B.Y. Lamba, A.K. Tiwari, S. Mallick, Fuel 120 (2014) 30–37.
[40] J.S. de Oliveira, P.M. Leite, L.B. de Souza, V.M. Mello, E.C. Silva, J.C. Rubim, et al.
Biomass Bioenergy 33 (2009) 449–453.
[41] S.P. Singh, D. Singh, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 200–216.
[42] K.V. Thiruvengadaravi, J. Nandagopal, S.S.B.P.V. Baskaralingam, S. Sivanesan,
Fuel 98 (2012) 1–4.
[43] J. Zhou, Y. Xiong, S. Xu, Fuels 18 (2016) 808–814.
[44] B. Moser, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 86 (2009) 699.
[45] A.M. Ashraful, M. Hj Hassan, Kalam Md. Abul, S.M. Ar Rahman, M. Habibullah, M.
Syazwan, Energy Fuels 28 (2) (2014) 1081–1089.