Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/thermal-science-and-engineering-progress

A comparative review on evaluation of performance, combustion, and

emission characteristics of biodiesel blends enriched with hydrogen,
additives and their combined effect
Deepalika, Vijay Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur 177005, India

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

Keywords: As the energy demand continues to rise, there is an urgent need for sustainable energy resources. Various sectors
Hydrogen consume a significant portion of the available energy, and the huge consumption of conventional fuels is an
Biodiesel alarming situation. Biofuels have emerged as a promising sustainable substitute. Among them, biodiesel has
Additives
gained considerable attention due to the availability and affordability of feedstock. Biodiesel can be extracted
Performance
Emission
from vegetable oils through the widely used transesterification process. The injection of biodiesel blends as a
Diesel Engine direct substitute in diesel engines can lead to a reduction in hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions and an
increase in oxides of nitrogen. However, the impact of biodiesel blends on engine performance parameters can
vary depending on the blend type and calorific value. This review aims to present a comparative study of the
performance, combustion and emission characteristics of various blends like biodiesel blends enriched with
hydrogen, biodiesel blends with additives and the combined effect of additives and hydrogen inclusion on the
biodiesel blends. Research has shown that the inclusion of hydrogen can enhance combustion, leading to
increased Brake Thermal Efficiency and reduced Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. Similarly, the inclusion of
additives can reduce the production of oxides of nitrogen during combustion. In conclusion, biodiesel blends
enriched with hydrogen and additives can offer improved performance, combustion, and emission characteris­
tics, making them a promising sustainable energy source. However, further research is necessary to ensure the
long-term viability of biodiesel as a sustainable energy source.

1. Introduction high percentage share of conventional fuels such as Coal (160.1EJ),

Amidst development and globalization, countries across the globe
are facing a global energy crisis and its impact will be felt over the
coming years. In recent years, technological development and indus­
trialization, infrastructure growth, agricultural revolution, commer­
cialization, transportation, and population growth have greatly
increased worldwide energy consumption [1]. In 2021, an increase of
5.8% in primary energy demand (595.15EJ) has been seen across the
globe and will increase over the coming years. Global energy mix has a
crude oil (184.21EJ) and natural gas at around 80% [2]. It is inevitable
to use energy to meet needs, such as heating, power generation, trans­
portation and production. Heavy consumption of non-renewable fuels
generates an alarming situation of depletion of reserves as consumption
exceeds the rate at which it can be replenished in the global carbon
cycle. Massive industrialization has engendered severe environmental
conditions like the production of greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) which leads to
global warming, air pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and

Abbreviations: CO, Carbon monoxide; PM, Particulate matter; NOx, Oxides of Nitrogen; FAME, Fatty Acid Methyl Ester; BSFC, Brake specific fuel consumption;
BMEP, Brake Specific Energy Consumption; EGT, Exhaust Gas Temperature; NHRR, Net Heat release rate; FIP, Fuel Injection Pressure; CR, Compression ratio; D,
Diesel; EGR, Exhaust Gas Recirculation; BHT, Butylated Hydroxyl Toluene; BHA, Butylated Hydroxyl anisole; PL, Pyrogallol; TBHQ, Tert-Butyl Hydroxyquinone;
GHGs, Greenhouse gases; KOH, Potassium hydroxide; FFA, free fatty acids; TPI, Time port injection; HHO, Hydrogen-Hydrogen-Oxygen; HC, Hydrocarbon; UHC,
Unburnt hydrocarbon; CO2, Carbon Dioxide; BTHE, Brake thermal efficiency; BP, Brake power; CPMax, Peak Cylinder pressure; FIT, Fuel Injection Timing; Gr,
Graphene nano-particles; H2, Hydrogen; AL2O3, Alumina; TiO2, Titanium dioxide; CuO, Copper oxide; FeO2, Iron oxide; CeO2, Cerium oxide; CNT, Carbon Nano­
tubes; DPA, Di-Phenyl Amine; PG, Propyl gallate; CH4, Methane; NaOH, sodium hydroxide; PEM, Proton exchange membrane; ID, ignition delay.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mehra.deepalika67@gmail.com (Deepalika), vijay@nith.ac.in (V. Kumar), akhilesh@nith.ac.in (A.K. Choudhary).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2023.102185
Received 31 July 2023; Received in revised form 26 September 2023; Accepted 4 October 2023
Available online 7 October 2023
2451-9049/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Deepalika et al.
hydrocarbon (HC) and toxic effluents that pollutes natural water sources
[3,4]. Energy-related CO2 emissions rebounded to 36.6 Gt in 2021. To
overcome severe environmental issues there is a need for a transition
toward sustainable sources of energy production. Currently, a minor
share of 39.91EJ of the total energy supply is derived from renewable
sources. Recent events have disturbed global energy systems leading to
disruption of supply and demand patterns. Ongoing energy crises have
disturbed the global energy systems fuelling energy insecurity, inflation
and food insecurity. Globally, an abrupt increase in prices prompted
more development in research and technology for renewable alterna­
tives to achieve greater energy efficiency to reduce overall energy
consumption. The current contribution of different renewable sources is
limited i.e. wind (6.702EJ), solar (3.717EJ) and other renewable [2].
There is a requirement for significant changeover to renewable re­
sources like solar, wind, hydrogen and bio-energy. Biomass is available
in abundance and proves to be one of the promising sources to gain
energy security and sustainable goals of a clean environment. Among
conventional fuels, crude oil has a high calorific value and higher fuel
efficiency making it highly prominent across various sectors which leads
to an imbalance in the supply chain and creates price fluctuation. One of
the major cornerstones in mitigating CO2 emissions and reducing energy
dependence is the use of biofuels in engines. To maintain the balance
between demand and supply, it is necessary to replace petroleum
products with replenishable products like bio-ethanol, biodiesel, bio-
CNG, and bio-oil. Biofuels are sustainable and “Eco recycling” tech­
niques can help reduce their carbon footprint [5]. (Fig. 1 shows the total
energy supply across various sectors, Fig. 2 shows the variety of feed­
stock available for biofuel generation and its application, Fig. 3 shows
the different energy sources for energy extraction, Fig. 4 shows the
different Sources of hydrogen production and Fig. 5 shows the schematic
Representation of Fuel Utilisation in diesel Engine. Table 1 shows the
Different types of biofuels and their advantages and disadvantages)
Biofuels can be produced through different sources i.e. edible or non-
edible. Different feedstocks for biofuel generation have evolved from 1st
generation biofuels are corn, wheatgerm, sunflower, mustard, rapeseed,
potato, barley and sugarcane to second and third-generation sources i.e.
lignocellulosic biomass such as hemp, cassava, elephant grass, non-
edible seeds like jatropha, cottonseed, Jamun, neem, pine and from
waste i.e. algae respectively [6,7]. Biofuels hold a very less proportion of
11.24TJ in the current energy market share which needs to be elevated
Fig. 1. Total Energy Supply across various sectors [1–3].
2
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
[2]. Different biofuels such as bio-gasoline, biodiesel, bio-ethanol, bio-
methanol, and bio-CNG are under research due to the increasing de­
mand for sustainable fuels. Among different biofuels, biodiesel and bio-
ethanol are gaining momentum as they can be used directly in the CI or
SI engine. Biodiesel can be produced from vegetable oil through various
feedstocks. Fuel performance can be evaluated by certain characteristics
such as brake thermal efficiency (BTHE), brake specific fuel consump­
tion (BSFC), brake mean effective pressure (BMEP), exhaust gas tem­
perature (EGT) and brake power (BP) through which it can be compared
to conventional fuels. In comparison to conventional fuels, biodiesel
emits lesser CO, HC and CO2 while the upsurge in NOx can be observed
in the majority of the research work [8]. Biodiesel has certain favorable
properties over petroleum products allowing it to be a suitable alter­
native but has some shortcomings which lower the performance and it
can be subsidized with various techniques such as a induction of
hydrogen and mixing additives with biodiesel blends [9–11]. Hydrogen
has a high calorific value and wide range of flammability allowing it to
run on a lean mixture with around 4–75% air by volume which helps in
the improvement of performance characteristics or even produces
equivalent performance as compared to conventional fuels [12]. Usage
of hydrogen in single mode turns out challenging due to higher self-
ignition temperature hence the operation of hydrogen must be done in
dual mode. Hydrogen induction with primary fuel allows better com­
bustion because of higher flame speed. Recent research shows that
hydrogen induction along with biodiesel blends improves performance
while the NOx level increases [13]. To counterbalance between per­
formance and emissions advancement has been done with additives.
Usage of additives help in alteration of fuel properties and allows to use
it in diesel engine without modification. Fuel properties can be modified
by using additives, which can improve the combustion, performance,
and emission parameters of the biodiesel blend. These additives are cost-
effective and play an important role in meeting fuel specification stan­
dards that would otherwise be difficult to achieve. Metal additives,
oxygenated additives, antioxidants, cetane number improvers, and cold
flow improvers are examples of additives that can be used to alter spe­
cific fuel properties [14–16].
The review paper is based on numerous research journals and energy
reports which comprise recent trends used to mitigate high emissions
and improved performance in diesel engines. Recently few articles have
been published on hydrogen induction in biodiesel blends mixed with
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Fig. 2. Variety of feedstock available for biofuel generation and its application.

Fig. 3. Different energy sources for energy extraction [18,19].

3
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Fig. 4. Sources of Hydrogen Production [42–46].

Fig. 5. Schematic Representation of Fuel Utilisation in diesel Engine.

additives which focussed on observing the trend of performance, com­ performance, combustion and emission parameters. It also concentrates
bustion and emission characteristics. Nevertheless, this review article on various feedstocks available for the production of biofuels via
focuses on all the aspects of techniques used for the improvement of different processing techniques.

4
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Table 1
Different types of biofuels and their advantages and disadvantages.
Biofuel Feedstock Processing Types of catalyst Advantages of Disadvantages of References
Technique biofuel Biofuel

1st Generation (Edible)

Bio-Ethanol Corn, Wheat, Rice, Potato, Fermentation Amylase, Pullulanase Easy to process Lower energy content Ferreira
Sugarcane, Barley, Sugarbeet, Glycoamylase, Yeast Renewable fuel than gasoline et al. [20]
Sorghum, Cassava Cheap and easy feedstocks.
availability
Less toxic than Impact on the
gasoline biodiversity and food
supply.
Biodiesel Sunflower, Mustard, Transesterification KOH/NaOH Feedstock easily Monoculture land Alawan et al.
Rapeseed, Soybean, Peanut, available clearing harms [17]
Castor, Jojoba, Mahua,Corn, CO2 entrapment. biodiversity.
Less emission than Not Suitable for
diesel. colder terrain.
Higher lubricity.
2nd Generation (Non-Edible)
Bio-Ethanol Switchgrass, corncob, Enzymatic Clostridium, No threat to food Time consuming Vohra et al.
(Lignocellulosic Miscanthus, Wheat straw/rice hydrolysis Thermomonospora, supply. Processing. [21]
biomass) straw/barley straw, Pine Trichoderma, Aspergillus, Feedstock available in Initial set-up cost is
sawdust, Baggasse, Coconut Co-fermentation Yeast abundance. higher.
coir, Residues and peels of Lower greenhouse gas
fruits, Hemp, Cotton stalk Distillation emissions during their
life cycle.
Biodiesel Jatropha oil, Palm oil Karanja Transesterification KoH/NaOH/CaO Competence to adapt Non-edible because Alawan et al.
oil, Macaw oil, Eucalyptus, and adjust to various some sources are [17]
Neem oil, Stone fruit kernel environmental toxic.
oil, Waste cooking oil conditions for Higher emission of
Waste animal oil, Simraubha cultivation; NOx.
oil, Papaya seed oil, sustainable source.
Callophylum inophyllum No fluctuation in
agricultural product
or food demand.
Improved quality and
production rate.
Generation of useful
by-products.
Bio-methane Seed cakes, Cow dung, Anaerobic digestion/ Lipases, proteases, cellulases, Cheap method for Highly inflammable Molino et al.
Lignocellulosic biomass, Methanation amylases, syntrophobacter energy production. Leakage issues [22]
Organic waste wolinii, sytrophomonos Produced from food
wolfei, methanobacterium, residues and animal
methanobacillus, waste.
Methanococcus ,
methanosarcina
Bio-Hydrogen Rice bran Dark fermentation Enterobacter ludwigii Sustainable and eco- Less specific and Junggrenn
wheat Thermochemical Clostridium sp. IODB-O friendly require high et al. [23]
Barley hulls reaction- C. thermocellum ATCC less energy intensive. temperature input. Bhatia et al.
Sorghum rusk Gasification, 27405 Produces high energy Biological methods of [24]
Cassava residues Pyrolysis and C. beijerinckii KCTC 1785 density. hydrogen production
Grass+ Biochar + iron Hydrothermal Clostridium lentocellum Eco-friendly bio- require long reaction
nanoparticles liquefaction Cel10 hydrogen using the time and result in
Sewage treatment plant dark fermentation lower productivity
sludge process
The main
disadvantage
associated with
biomass is its
recalcitrant nature
due to its complex
structure and
presence of lignin,
which hinders the
access of enzymes to
hydrolyzable sugars.
Bio-Oil Palm shell, Rice straw, Pine Fast pyrolysis Zeolite Diverse, cheap Soil degradation and Kabir et al.
wood, Wheat shell, Elephant (ZSM-5, HZSM-5 and FCC), and abundant non- water scarcity [25]
grass, Jatropha seed shell and alkaline (Na2CO3/ food biomass.
γ-Al2O3, Better fuel quality
K2CO3, Ca(OH)2 and MgO)
3rd Generation (Waste or Aquatic Waste)
Ethanol Algae Fermentation C. saccharoperbutyl Cultivation of algae High fuel Jambo et al.
Water hyacinth acetonicum can entrap CO2 in concentrations [26]
Seaweed parallel with oil require vehicle engine
duckweed, kelp, and salvinia production. modification.
Algal oil is rich in
(continued on next page)

5
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Table 1 (continued )
Biofuel Feedstock Processing Types of catalyst Advantages of Disadvantages of References
Technique biofuel Biofuel

triglycerides and fatty

acids.
De-oiled algae can be
used as livestock.
Biodiesel Algae Pre-treatment Titanium iso-propoxide Higher calorific value. Higher production Jacob et al.
Lignocellulosic biomass Lipid extraction (TiO2) +Graphene oxide Good quality fuel. cost [27]
Sludge Transesterification (GO), Calcium diglyceroxide
Organic waste CaO/MgO, Biomass fly ash
Bio-Hydrogen Green algae-C. Reinhardtii Biophotolysis [FeFe]-Hydrogenase, Photon energy from Bioreactor design
Purple non sulphur- Photo-fermentation Nitrogenases sunlight converts challenges a lot of by-
Rhodospirillum rubrum Water-gas shift Oxidoreductase, organic acids or waste products, separation
Photoheterotrophic bacteria- reaction Dehydrogenases, (fumarate), organic molecules to of biogas to capture Pathy et al.
Rubrivivax gelatinosus Dark fermentation Reductases,Hydrogenases H2 and CO2 with no H2. [28]
Enterobacter, Bacillus, by-products. Partial utilisation of
Clostridium. High production substrate/Low yield.
rate of hydrogen, use
of waste streams, and
compatibility with
mixed cultures
Bio-Methane Algae, Food waste, Anaerobic digestion/ Lipases, proteases, cellulases, Eco-friendly Leakage detection is Allen et al.
Agricultural waste Methanation amylases, syntrophobacter cumbersome [29]
wolinii, sytrophomonos
wolfei, methanobacterium,
methanobacillus,
Methanococcus ,
methanosarcina
Bio-Oil Pyrolysis Higher oxygen The heating value and
Algae Liquefaction content the flame temperature
Algae Hydrogenation Higher water content are lower. Latif et al.
leads to more fluidity. [30]

1.1. Types of biomass feedstock for biofuel generation 1.3. Biodiesel

Biofuels are being developed as a renewable substitute for petroleum
since they are sustainable, non-toxic, and biodegradable and are free
from sulfur. There are four distinct forms of biofuels i.e. first, second,
third, and fourth generations distinguished by the feedstock [17].
1.2. Biofuels
Biofuels are sustainable energy sources that are extracted from the
organic material produced by plants and other living organisms that
may be cultivated and harvested repeatedly. Agricultural and essential
harvesting, woods, and residual streams are the primary origins of
biofuels used to replace non-renewable energy fuels. Biodiesel, bio­
ethanol, and biogas are the three typical forms of biofuels. The first-
generation feedstock used for biofuel generation is edible biomass
such as starch (from potato, wheat, barley, and corn) or sugars (from
sugar- cane and sugar beet), seeds (rapeseed, sunflower and mustard)
believe to be a promising substitute against fossil fuels. It also lowers
atmospheric levels of CO2 which are consumed by crops as they grow
[17,31]. Second-generation biofuel has been developed as a more sus­
tainable protocol to address the shortcomings of the first-generation.
Second-generation biofuel uses waste biomass or non-edible crops as
feedstock, forest residues and woody biomass (Lignocellulosic biomass)
such as Jatropha, Cassava, Karanja, Eucalyptus, Miscanthus, Switch­
grass and waste cooking oil for the production of biofuels, eliminates the
need to grow and cultivate and produces fewer GHGs. To overcome the
shortcomings of the Second-generation biofuels, new sources have been
explored which are sustainable and have a negative carbon footprint
[32,33]. Third-generation biofuels such as macroalgae, microalgae,
aquatic waste and sewage sludge are promising alternatives for biofuel
production. The rich presence of triglycerides, fatty acids and lipids
because of the high photosynthetic ability of algae prompt it as an
emerging substitute for biofuel production [34,35].
Biodiesel is an alternative clean burning fuel consists of long chains
of fatty acids and high oxygen content derived from edible and non-
edible feedstock. Production of biodiesel often utilizes non-edible
feedstock such as Jatropha, Rapeseed, Karanja, Jojoba, Castor, Neem,
Waste cooking oil, etc., more prominantly rather than edible plant
sources such as Corn, Coconut, Soybean, Sunflower, Rapeseed, Peanut
oils, etc. Some oils are not edible but could be used to make biofuels
including rice bran oil and microalgae oil. Beef, tallow, lard, and fish oil
are only some of the low-value byproducts of the livestock and fishery
industries that are employed as alternative feedstock. Biodiesel is a clear
pale-yellow liquid, biodegradable, non-flammable, non-explosive and
have quite similar properties to diesel. Unlike petroleum diesel, bio­
diesel is a biodegradable and sulphur free fuel, and it significantly re­
duces toxic and other emissions when burnt as a fuel. Biodiesel is
perfectly miscible with mineral diesel and so can be used in compression
ignition engines without significant modification. Vegetable oils have
more fatty acids, water vapors and impurities responsible for the change
in properties like high viscosity, low heating value, higher cloud point,
high flash point and lower volatility as compared to conventional fuel
which results in low thermal efficiency, high smoke, and carbon residue.
Besides these shortcomings, it has high oxygen content which results in
lower emissions of CO, HC and smoke. Biodiesel extracted from non-
edible feedstocks has more advantages in comparison to edible feed­
stock. Biodiesel emits more emissions when used in CI engines, on the
other side performance can be lower than diesel because of its low
heating value and higher viscosity [36,37].
2. Production of biodiesel
2.1. Extraction of oil
The first step in the preparation of biodiesel is the extraction of oil

6
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Table 2
Different types of Additives [53–61].
Additives types
Nanoparticles
Name of Nanoparticles Size & Synthesis Method Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Metal-based Size:10-100nm Hydrothermal, Lithography, carbon arc Enhances the combustion Nanoparticle
Cerium oxide, alumina, TiO2, ZnO, MnO, CuO discharge, sol-gel method, photochemical efficiency, cetane number, aggregation, settling
Magnetic nano-fluid: Concentration: deposition, Chemical vapor deposition, calorific value and reduce and Erosion.
Fe3O4/ZnMg(Al)O 20-1000ppm Sputtering, Sonochemical reduction, green viscosity. Safety concerns
Organic Nano additives: synthesis Better fuel atomization due Production cost
Glycerin, poly ethoxy- ester to increased surface tension
Carbon nanotube additives leads to better oxidation.
Mixed Nano-additives Enhance the mixing of
blended fuel with air
Antioxidant
Name of Antioxidant Size & Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Phenolic Upto 1000ppm Prevents oxidation. The presence of OH
Butylated hydroxyl anisole (BHA), butylated Preserves the quality of radicals increase CO
hydroxyl toluene (BHT), pyrogallol (PL), biodiesel in long term. Emissions.
diphenylamine (DPA), tert butyl hydroxyl Prevents the formation of Lesser calorific value.
quinine (TBHQ) and propyl-gallate (PG) peroxyl and suppresses the
Natural NOx formation
Melia azedarach and Psidium guajava, potato
peel extract, Thuja oreantalis L, Pistachia vera,
clove and thyme
Secondary aromatic amine
butyl octyl diphenylamine, tertiary-octyl
diphenylamine, N-p-methyl phenyl-alpha
naphthylamine, di-sec-butyl diphenylamine and
N-phenylalpha-naphthylamine
Secondary antioxidant
Ethylene di-amine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA), Di-
ethylene tri-amine penta acetic acid (DTPA),
Sodium tripolyphosphate, and N, N-
disalicylidene-1,2-diaminopropane

Metal-based additives
Name of Metal-based additives Size & Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Platinum (Pt), Copper sulphate (CuSO4), Improves combustion and lowers Unable to dissolve when added in small
Platinum-cerium (Pt-Ce), Iron chloride emissions of HC, CO and smoke quantity.
(FeCl3), Cerium (Ce), Cerium-iron (Ce-Fe), More power and improved fuel Increases in NOx emission.
Iron (Fe), barium, Cobalt chloride (CoCl2), consumption.
Calcium (Ca), manganese (Mn) and Copper
(Cu), copper chloride (CuCl2), copper oxide
(CuO nano structured), and, Silicon oxide
(SiO2), Alumina (Al2O3), Cerium Oxide
(CeO2)
Oxygenated
Name of Metal-based additives Size & Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Alcohol (ethanol, methanol, butanol and . Cracking, Improves energy efficiency. Decreased calorific value.
propanol, etc.), Ether (ethyl tertiary butyl Upto 100 ppm reactive Reduces toxic exhaust emissions Economically unaffordable.
ether, methyl tert-butyl ether, Disopropyl distillation and GHG.
ether, Dimethyl ether, Diethyl ether, etc.) and
Ester (dicarboxylic, dimethyl carbonate
esters acid esters and acetoacetic esters)
Water Based Emulsion
Name of water-based emulsion Size & Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Water biodiesel emulsion Reduces the viscosity. High cost-implementation of water-based
Reduce the local temperature in the emulsion injection system is costly.
burning region, which consequently
reduce the pollutant formation,
especially PM and NOx.
Non-metal based-Carbon and boron
Name of Carbon-based additives Size & Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Graphene and graphene oxide, acetylene black Pyrolysis Performance characteristics
carbonisation improve.
Hydrothermal
carbonisation
Chemical vapor
deposition
Arch discharge
(continued on next page)

7
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Table 2 (continued )
method

Lubricity improver
Name of Lubricity improver additives Size & Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Methyl and Ethyl esters To enhance fuel solubility, a The high cloud point of certain lubricity
protective film is formed on the improver additives can cause them to
surfaces of moving metals to precipitate during typical winter temperatures,
prevent wear and tear. necessitating either dilution or storage at
Loss of lubricating properties can be elevated temperatures.
restored and permits smooth engine At low temperatures, some e lubricity improver
operation. additives have limited solubility in fuel after
prolonged storage.
Cetane number improver
Name of cetane number improver Size and Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
concentration
Peroxides nitrates-Di-tertiary butyl peroxide Accelerating ignition in combustion Increases in diffusion combustion in rich
(DTBP), aldehydes and tetra-azoles, Alkyl chamber which results in shorter fuel–air regions leading to increased CO
nitrates such as hexyl-nitrates, mixed octyl- ignition delay time and, thus emissions.
nitrates, 2-Ethylhexyl nitrate and amylnitrate decreased NOx formation. Decreased cooling effect inside the cylinder
nitries, peroxides nitrates, aldehydes and Higher engine stability, better leading to increased HC emissions.
tetra-azoles, Alkyl nitrates such as hexyl- combustion efficiency, and lower
nitrates, mixed octyl-nitrates and amyl- release of emissions.
nitrate,2-Ethylhexyl nitrate, More efficient cold start in addition
Di-tertiary butyl peroxide (DTBP). to lower combustion noise and long
life of the engine
Improvements in fuel viscosity
Provides a cost-effective increase in
biodiesel cetane quality
Cold flow improver
Name of Cold flow improvers Size and Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
Alkyl acrylate-vinyl acetate-maleic anhydride Inhibits crystal growth. The increased density of paraffin crystals due to
terpolymers Pour point of biodiesel blend the presence of these additives can cause them
reduces. to precipitate and settle at the bottom of the
tank during storage, resulting in the formation
of a layer rich in paraffin.
Waste plastic additive
Name of Cold flow improvers Size and Synthesis Advantages Disadvantages
Concentration
EPS, PP, PE, HDPE, PS Improves performance
characteristics.

from the feedstock. Feedstocks available from first and second feedstock
can be directly processed, but third and fourth-generation feedstock
must be pre-treated before being subjected to oil extraction. The three
efficacious techniques used in oil extraction are mechanical extraction
(hydraulic pressing, screw pressing), solvent extraction and enzymatic.
The ability to scale the process will determine which extraction method
is chosen. On a smaller scale, mechanical extraction is utilized, but
solvent extraction is the norm in the industry [38].
2.2. Preparation of biodiesel from oil/fatty acids
There are four different production methods used for biodiesel pro­
duction i.e. pyrolysis, micro-emulsification, dilution, and trans­
esterification which have different properties due to different operating
conditions [38,39].
be used to reduce FFA levels before alkaline transesterification. Trans­
esterification can be achieved via various processes such as acid or
alkaline catalysis, supercritical reaction with alcohol, and enzymatic
reaction using lipase. In this process, alcohol reacts with the oil in the
presence of a suitable catalyst, yielding ester and glycerol. Factors
affecting the transesterification process include reaction temperature,
time, pressure, catalyst concentration, mixing intensity, and the ratio of
alcohol to oil. Methanol and ethanol are the commonly used alcohols,
with methanol being preferred due to its lower cost and other advan­
tages. The yield of biodiesel is unaffected by temperature, but the re­
action rate increases with an increase in temperature.
Transesterification is a widely accepted and efficient technique for
producing biodiesel, with low production costs [40,41].
2.4. Hydrogen

2.3. Transesterification
Transesterification is a popular and economically effective method
for producing biodiesel from triglycerides, involving either catalytic or
non-catalytic means. The most commonly used catalyst for catalytic
transesterification is alkaline, with sodium hydroxide (NaOH), Potas­
sium hydroxide (KOH) and others as catalysts. However, the free fatty
acids (FFA) level should be kept below a certain limit for alkaline
catalysis to be effective, as high FFA levels can cause soap formation.
Acid catalysts are more tolerant of high FFA and water content and can
Hydrogen is a light, colorless, and odorless gas that produces zero
(harmful) emissions when combusted with oxygen. The combination
and reaction of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom led to energy
release and water formation only. Hydrogen can be categorized as grey
hydrogen, blue hydrogen, turquoise hydrogen, green hydrogen, violet
hydrogen and yellow hydrogen based on production routes. Hydrogen
production from fossil fuels i.e., coal, natural gas, and oil through steam
reforming with a higher amount of CO2 production can be termed as
grey hydrogen. Hydrogen production produced from fossil fuels i.e.,
coal, and natural gas, with carbon capturing through conventional

8
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Table 3
Physio-chemical properties of different biodiesel blends with various additives.
Properties Kinematic Density Cetane Flash Fire Cloud Pour Calorific Oxygen References
viscosity Number point Point point point value (MJ/ Stability
(C◦ ) (C◦ ) (C◦ ) (C◦ ) kg)

Fuel
Palm þ BHA & BHT
Diesel 3.6 829 47 69 8 7 44.8 58 Fateh et al. [62]
P100 4.91 875 61.15 152 12 13 39.9 7.2
Palm(P20) 4.05 838 78.5 7 5 43.92 20.6
P20 + BHA 4.06 840 79.5 7 5 43.79 30.9
P20 + BHT 4.06 840 79.5 7 5 43.82 29.6
Jatropha þ zinc oxide
J100 5.48 849 51 172 − 2.9 − 13.1 38.467 Javed et al. [63]
J10-ZnO20nm 2.742 831.4 51 58 − 9.8 − 25.9 43.762
J20-ZnO20nm 2.903 834.1 46 54 − 8.9 − 24.5 42.65
J30-ZnO20nm 3.114 838.7 44 51 − 3.4 –22.6 41.74
J10-ZnO40nm 2.969 832 45 54 − 9.4 − 29.1 42.49
J20-ZnO40nm 3.17 833.3 45 56 − 8.1 − 26.3 41.205
J30-ZnO40nm 3.327 838.1 46 55 − 4.2 − 24.1 40.262
Jatropha þ N, N0-diphenyl-
1,4-phenylenediamine
(DPPD)
Diesel 3.069 828 72.5 8 6 45.265 Palash et al.
[64]
JB100 3.069 865 182.5 5 3 39.827 0.05
JB100 + 15%DPPDO 4.723 865.3 184.5 3 3 39.813 35.7
JB5 3.138 829.2 82.5 6 0 45.023
JB5 + 15%DPPDO 3.204 829.7 87.5 6 0 45.253
JB10 3.191 831.5 85.3 6 1 44.72 45.4
JB10 + 15%DPPDO 3.2185 831.2 85.5 6 0 44.935
JB15 3.229 832.7 83.5 6 0 44.709 37.8
JB15 + 15%DPPDO 3.269 833.7 94.5 6 0 44.583
JB20 3.288 834.6 87.5 6 0 44.191 18.83
JB20 + 15%DPPDO 3.276 833 88.5 5 0 44.466 57.2
Rice bran þ cerium oxide/
zirconium oxide (CeO2/
ZrO2)
D100 2.72 820 48 56 62 45 Selvabharathi
et al. [65]
RB100 5.03 868 57 165 182 39.454
RB30 3.47 846 49 78 81 42.886
RB30 + 50CeO2 3.54 851 51 62 70 43.987
RB30 + 50ZrO2 3.52 850 50 65 72 43.732
RB30 + 25CeO2 + 25ZrO2 3.51 849 53 60 68 44.198
Rice bran þ Graphene oxide
D100 2.8 840 46 56 46 Nagaraja et al.
[66]
B100 5.6 880 42 170 35
B5D95GO30 3.8 865 38 160 36.23
B15D85GO 3.8 871 38 158 36.76
Rice bran þ BHA
D100 3.25 828 48 68 8 7 43.35 Alagu et al. [67]
B100 4.54 885 58 162 3.3 2.5 37.054
B20 3.92 839 52 88 3 2.2 41.776
B20 + BHA 3.93 841 54 90 3 2.2 41.676
B20 + BHT 3.94 841 53 92 3 2.2 41.646
Eucalyptus þ zirconium
oxide
Diesel 2.47 820 51 65 45.5 Kumar et al.
[68]
Eu20 2.376 835 45 54 44.854
Eu20 + ZrO2 2.51 841.5 50.1 62.8 44.982
Eu20 + ZrO2 2.58 847.3 51.6 63.4 45.093
Eucalyptus þ n-butanol
Diesel 2.5 830 48 58 45.6 Singh et al. [69]
B100 2.2 875 55 100 44.1
B20 2.4 868 50 76 43.6
B20 + 5Bu 2.7 856 48 72 42.9
B20 + 10Bu 2.9 848 47 69 42.4
B20 + 15Bu 2.2 840 46 65 42.1
Calophyllum inophylum
Diesel 2.3 815 53 65 42.5 Ashok et al. [70]
CIME 5.58 864 160 178 39.8
CIME + ethanox
(200 ppm) 5.72 875.4 162 180 38.7
CIME + ethanox
(continued on next page)

9
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

Table 3 (continued )
Properties Kinematic Density Cetane Flash Fire Cloud Pour Calorific Oxygen References
viscosity Number point Point point point value (MJ/ Stability
(C◦ ) (C◦ ) (C◦ ) (C◦ ) kg)

(500 ppm) 5.81 881.8 164 182 38.5

CIME + ethanox
(100 ppm) 5.95 883.4 167 185 38.2
CIME + BHT
(200 ppm) 5.75 901.4 164 180 38.6
CIME + BHT
(500 ppm) 5.84 906.8 168 184 38.3
CIME + BHT
(1000 ppm) 6.02 912.8 172 188 37.9
Waste cooking oil þ titanium
oxide þ alumina þ carbon
nanotube
Diesel 3.5 835 49 42 Gad et al. [71]
B100 5.1 883 52 39.5
B20 3.7 840 50 40.5
B20T100 3.9 843 51 40.8
B20A100 3.84 842 51 41
B20C100 3.75 841.5 51 41.2
Pine biodiesel þ 1–4 dioxane
B20 3.24 834 47 62 42.9 Samuel et al.
[72]
B20 + 5 ml 3.16 838 47.4 61 42.7
B20 + 10 ml 3.04 845 48 59 42.5
B40 2.86 848 42 60 42.5
B40 + 5 ml 2.81 853 42.2 59 42.2
B40 + 10 ml 2.78 856 42.0.5 57 41.9
Karanja
Diesel 3.1 750 47 75 42.5 Devarajan et al.
[73]
KBD/D 3.4 780 54 88 41.6
KBD/D/1-DEC 3.2 770 57 92 41.75
KBD/D/DTBP 3.1 750 59 95 41.9
Algae þ CuO2
B20 4.73 830 58 176 − 1 − 4 43.54 Kalaimurugan
et al. [74]
B20 + 25 5.1875 831 54.75 176.5 − 4 − 4 44.51
B20 + 50 5.6449 831.7 51.5 177 − 4 − 4 45.48
B20 + 75 5.6671 831.8 51.75 177.5 − 4 − 4 45.501
B20 + 100 5.6894 831.9 52 178 − 4 − 4 45.519
Microalgae spirullina þ n-
butanol
MSB 5.66 860 52 130 41.36 Rajak et al. [75]
MSB20 4.11 845.99 53.81 82 42.921
n-Butanol 2.2 810 25 36 34
MSB40 + nB10 4.366 840.87 48.6 90.66 41.21
MSB30 + NB20 4.266 840.57 44.706 78.6 40.573
MSB20 + NB30 4.166 840.27 40.806 66.6 39.937
Coconut biodiesel þ phenolic
antioxidants
Diesel 3.0738 829.6 52 69.5 8 7 45.395 Rizwanul et al.
[76]
CME 3.074 858.1 64.7 122.5 − 5 − 4 38.026
B20 2.975 834.8 80.5 7 − 15 43.813
B20 + BHA 2.983 835.2 81.5 7 − 15 43.781
B20 + BHT 2.995 835 81.5 7 − 15 43.776
Neem biodiesel þ nano
additives
Diesel 2.4 820 48 50 42.957 Devrajan et al.
[77]
BD100 4.28 844 55 140 37.51
BD100 + Ag2O (5 ppm) 4.32 856 56 138 37.854
BD100 + Ag2O (10 ppm) 4.35 862 57 136 38.112

techniques can be termed as blue hydrogen. Green Hydrogen can be 2.5. Production techniques
termed as production through sustainable sources such as wind, solar
and hydro by sustainable techniques i.e., electrolysis. Another form of Hydrogen can be extracted through different renewable or non-
hydrogen production through nuclear energy can be termed yellow renewable sources. Hydrogen is categorized into different types based
hydrogen. This is hydrogen produced using purple phototrophic bacte­ on the sources used for production and the techniques involved [42].
ria through a process called photosynthesis. It is a promising but still
experimental method of hydrogen production that uses renewable en­
ergy sources [42].

10
 Table 4

Deepalika et al.
Performance, Combustion and Emission characteristics of different biodiesel blends.
Engine specifications Biofuel and its blends Operating Parameters Performance Combustion Emissions References
Parameters Parameters
Fuel Additives

BP BTHE BSFC CPMax NHR HC CO NOx

1st Generation biodiesel

Palm + Hydrogen @90% load for P20 + 10lpm ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Das et al. [85]
1-C, 4-S, CR-18, 3.5kw @ D, D + 7lpm, D + 10lpm, P20, P20 + 7lpm, H2
1500RPM P20 + 10lpm
Palm Graphene nano-particles @1900RPM for ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Razzak et al.
CR-18.5:1, 7.5 kW@1500–2400 B30GNP40DMC10, B30GNP80DMC10, (GNP), Dimethyl B30GNP40DMC10 [134]
rpm, FIP 240–500 bar B30GNP120DMC10 carbonate (DMC)
4-C,4-S, CI engine CR-22.5:1; Rated Soyabean + H2 Nanoparticles (Alumina) @2400 rpm for H + B20 + A ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Tosun et al.
power 89 kW at 3200 rpm B20, B100, B20 + A, H + B20 + A, B100, B100 Al2O3 [133]
+ A, B100 + H + A
Sunflower Natural antioxidants @2500 rpm for ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Dueso et al.
4-S,5.2 kW @ 1500 RPM D, CB, SB, CB, DSB, CB10, SB10 [135]
Jojoba CuO nanoparticles @5.2KW for JB20CN75 ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Rastogi et al.
JB20, JB20CN25, JB20CN50, JB20CN75 [136]
4-S,5.2 kW @ 1500 RPM
1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Sunflower + Soybean Biodiesel + silver At 6Kw load D50B50ST200 ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Elkeway et al.
power 6 kW @ 1400 rpm thiocyanate nanoparticles + hydrogen + 4%H2O2 [114]
peroxide
PD, D50B50ST0, D50B50ST200,
D50B50ST200 + 2%H2O2, D50B50ST200 +
4%H2O2
2-C,4-S; CR-18.5:1 Rated Power-21 Corn oil Speed-700 to 1500 RPM BT100 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ Manigandan
kW @2000 rpm; FIT-23CA bTDC; B20H 210Z50; B20H 210Z100; et al. [97]
11

FIP-200 bar B20H210T50; B20H2T100

2nd Generation Biodiesel
1-C, CR-17.5:1, 7.5 KW at 1500 to Cottonseed + octanol + MWCNTB20(O5, O10, @75% Load for B40 + O15 ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Soudagar et al.
3000 rpm O20), B40(O5, O10, O20), B60(O5, O10, O20), [137]
B100
(O5, O10, O20)
B20(O5, O10, O20) + MWCNTB40 @100% Load for B20 + O15 ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑
(O5, O10, O20) + MWCNTB60 + MWCNT
(O5, O10, O20) + MWCNTB100
(O5, O10, O20) + MWCNT
Single cylinder,Four stroke (4-S,1- Cottonseed biodiesel + H2O2 + Kerosene CR (17.5:1) ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Gad et al. [132]

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

C);Rated power 5.775 at 1500 rpm
CR-17.5:1; Rated power-5.2KW Waste cooking oil biodiesel + H2 + CeO2 B20H1.5C80 ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Mohan and
@1500 B20H0.5C40, B20H1.0C40, B20H1.5C40, Dinesha [98]
B20H0.5C80, B20H1.0C80, B20H1.5C80
4-S,2-C, CR18.5:1, Rated power 4.2 Neem oil Silver oxide @5.5Kw for B100 + ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Devarajan et al.
kW @ 1500 rpm B100, B100 + AgO2(5 ppm), B100 + AgO2(10 AgO2 AgO2(10 ppm) [77]
ppm)
4-S,1-C, CR-17.5:1 Neem biodiesel + n-Decanol n-Decanol ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Kumar et al.
Rated Power 5.2 kW @ 1500 rpm NB20; NB20DI10; NB20DI30; NB [92]
2-C,4-S; CR-18:1; Rated Power 3.5 Karanja + Rice bran oil Speed-700 to 1500 RPM for ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Kanth et al. [8]
kW@1500 rpm; FIT-23CA bTDC; KB20 + H2; KB10 + H2; RB10 + H2: RB20 + KB20
FIP-240 bar H2: D:D + H2

1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Karanja and roselle oil At full load for KB20 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Srivastav et al.
power 4.5 kW @ 1500 rpm D, KB10, KB20, KB100, LA10, LA20, LA100 [79]
1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Eucalyptus biodiesel and natural gas-Diesel; Engine load-80% ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Tarabet et al.
power 4.5 kW @ 1500 rpm EB/100NG; EB/85NG-15H2, EB/75NG-25H2; BMEP-4.57 bar for EB/70NG- [138]
EB/70NG-30H2 30H2
(continued on next page)
 Deepalika et al.
Table 4 (continued )
Engine specifications Biofuel and its blends Operating Parameters Performance Combustion Emissions References
Parameters Parameters
Fuel Additives

BP BTHE BSFC CPMax NHR HC CO NOx

1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-18:1; Rated Eucalyptus + n-butanol n-butanol At full load for B20 + 15bu ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ Singh et al.
power 5.2 kW @ 1500 rpm B20, B100, B20-5Bu, B20-10Bu, and B20-15Bu [69]
1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Pine + Rice husk nanoparticles Rice husk ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Panithasan et al.
power 5.2 kW @ 1500 rpm B10, B10–0.1% RH, B20, B20–0.1% RH [139]
1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Pine + 1,4- dioxane 1,4-Dioxane @5.2Kw for P20 + 20 ml ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Samuel et al.
power 5.2 kW @ 1500 rpm P20, P20 + 5 ml, P20 + 10 ml, P40, P40 + 5 [72]
ml, P40 + 10 ml
1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Rice bran + hydrogen At 24 deg bTDC, IP @240 bar ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Kanth et al.
power 3.5 kW @ 1500 rpm RB10 + H2, RB20 + H2 for RB10 + H2 [10]

1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Rice bran Graphene oxide + IT@23 deg for B15D85GO30 ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Nagaraja et al.
power 3.7 kW @ 1500 rpm B5D95GO30 and B15D85GO30 nanoparticles [66]
1-C,4-S, CI engine CR-17.5:1; Rated Castor + hydrogen + alumina Alumina @100% Load for C50H ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Xia et al. [94]
power 5.7 kW @ 1500 DH, CH, C25H, C50H (castor blend with 50 ppm
alumina)
1-C,4-S, CI engine, CR − 17.5:1, Calophyllum Inophyllum B20 + 10H2 ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Algafis et al.
Speed 1500 rpm@5.2 D; B20; B20 + 5H2; B20 + 10H2; B20 + 15H2 [140]
kW
Calophyllum Inophyllum Hexanol and decanol @6.2barfor D50B10DE40 ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ Ashok et al.
1-C,4-S, CI engine, CR − 17.5:1, D100, B100, D50B50, D50B10H40, [112]
Speed 1500 rpm@5.2 D50B20H30, D50B10DE40, D50B20DE30
12

kW
CR-22.1:1, Rated power output (kW/ Papaya seed Diglyme and butanol At full load for 1400 rpm for ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ Anwar et al.
rpm) 53.90/2600 PB, SFB, PB20, PB20 + DG5, PB20 + BT5, P20DG5 [112]
PSFO20 At full load for 2400 rpm ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓
1-C,4-S, Maximum power 5.2 kW @ Hemp biodiesel + hydrogenDeccan hemp @5.2 KW for DHOME + H2 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Jayaraman et al.
1500 rpm, CR-17.5:1 biodiesel (DHOME) [141]
, DHOME + H2
1-C,4-S, Maximum power 5.775 kW Waste cooking oil Titanium oxide, Alumina @3KW for B20C100 ↓ ↑ Gad et al. [71]
@ 1500 rpm, CR-17.5:1 B20, B20T25, B20T50, B20T100, B20A25, and CNTs
B20A50, B20A100, B20C25, B20C50,
B20C100

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

1-C,4-S, CI engine, VCR, Rated Mango seed oil At 75% load B20H10AP75 ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Reddy and
power 3.5 kw at 1500 rpm D, B100, B20H10AT25, B20H10AP50, Sarangi [142]
B20H10AP75
3rd Generation
1-C,4-S, CI engine, CR − 17.5:1, Algae Graphene oxide ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ Murugesan et al.
Speed1500rpm@5.2 kW ES20D80 + GO20 + 3lpm, ES20D80 + GO40 [100]
+ 3lpmES20D80 + GO60 + 3lpm, ES20D80 +
GO80 + 3lpm
CR-17.5:1; Rated power − 3.2KW Spirullina biodiesel + H2 + TiO2/CeO2 ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Rajshree et al.
@1500 D, B30, B30T, B30C, B30TH, B30CH [102]
Power rated (kW) − 3.7, CR- AlgaeB1 n-butanol At full load ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ Rajak et al.
17.5:1@ 1500 rpm (MSB40 + nB10 + D50),B2 [75]
(D50 + nB20 + MSB30), B3(D50 + MSB +
(continued on next page)
Deepalika et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185

2.6. Production of hydrogen from fossil fuels

Various techniques are widely used for hydrogen generation namely

References

Alagu et al.

Suhel et al.
Steam reforming, Coal gasification and autothermal reforming.

[143]
[67]
2.7. Steam reforming

NOx Steam reforming is a widely used method for hydrogen production,

↑
which involves the reaction of steam and hydrocarbons at high tem­
Emissions

CO

peratures to produce hydrogen and carbon oxides. Firstly, it produces

↓

↓
carbon monoxide with hydrogen, giving rise to synthesis gas, and then
HC

through the water–gas shift reaction, carbon monoxide is converted to

↓

↓ carbon dioxide and additional hydrogen. The process requires high

NHR

temperatures and is carried out in a catalyzed reactor, which can cause

Combustion

↑
Parameters

coke formation and temperature profiles in the catalyst bed. However,

once the aspects are considered and minimized, the methane steam
CPMax

reforming produces a hydrogen-rich gas and fewer amounts of carbon

↓

dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane. The emissions are also lower
than other methods like coal, diesel, and gasoline [43].
BSFC

2.8. Coal gasification

Performance

BTHE
Parameters

It is a multi-step conventional procedure for production of hydrogen

which involves first step as air separation, where oxygen is separated
BP

from the air and supplied to the gasifier using membrane separation,
cryogenic air separation, or pressure swing adsorption. Coal pyrolysis is
the next step, which requires coal, steam, and oxygen. The pyrolysis
Operating Parameters

reaction breaks down coal into volatile matter which contains moisture,
@ full load for B10

tar, and C6H6. The gasification step is followed by rapid cooling through
quenching, and heat recovery in the syngas cooling unit. The water–gas
B20M100H15

shift reaction follows, converting CO to CO2. The acid gas removal unit
removes H2S and CO2, followed by hydrogen purification through
pressure swing adsorption. Steam input is required for gasification and
water–gas shift reactions, and the recovered heat can be used to generate
power, hot water, or space heating [44].

2.9. Autothermal reforming

Hydrogen production using an autothermal reactor, high and low

Additives

Magnetite

temperature water–gas shift reactors, syngas purification, CO2

compression, transportation, sequestration, hydrogen storage, and an
air separation unit (ASU). The process involves the reaction of oxygen,
steam, and methane over a nickel catalyst in the advanced test reactor
B20M150H15, B20, B20M50H10, B20M100,
Chicken fat methyl ester + H2 + Magnetite

(ATR) reactor to produce syngas. The syngas undergoes water–gas shift

reactions in the WGS reactors to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
PD, B20M50, B20M50H15, B20M150,

The hydrogen-rich gas is purified in the amine unit, while the carbon
dioxide is compressed and stored. The pressure swing adsorption (PSA)
B20M100H15, B20M100H10

unit separates 90% of the hydrogen at a purity of 99.9%, while the

B10, B20, B30, B40, B100

remaining gases are used as fuel. In the case without carbon capture and
Biofuel and its blends

storage, the effluents from the water gas shift (WGS) reactors are directly
sent to the PSA unit, and the produced CO2 is released into the atmo­
Water hyacinth

nanoparticles

sphere [43].
nB30)

3. Renewable resources
Fuel

3.1. Water electrolysis through Solar, wind

1-C,4-S, CI engine, CR − 17.5:1,

Water electrolysis uses electricity to split water into oxygen and

1-C,4-S, CI engine, VCR, Rated
power 3.5 kw at 1500 rpm

hydrogen. Three main types of electrolyzers are used: proton exchange

Speed 1500 rpm@4.4

membrane (PEM), solid oxide (SO), and alkaline (ALK). By integrating

Engine specifications
Table 4 (continued )

renewable energy sources such as solar and wind with water electrolysis,
clean and environmentally-friendly hydrogen can be produced. PEM
electrolysis is advantageous over other electrolysis technologies due to
its higher hydrogen production rate, better energy efficiency, and more
kW

compact design. It can quickly respond to fluctuations, making it easy to

integrate with intermittent renewable energy sources. PEM electrolysis

13
Deepalika et al.
also delivers high-quality gas and requires less maintenance, making it
suitable for use in distributed systems [47].
3.2. Biological process
The biological processes used for the production of hydrogen can be
categorized as fermentation and bio-photolysis. The biochemical pro­
cess that can be performed with or without the presence of oxygen, uses
photosynthetic bacteria to decompose biomass such as microalgae in the
presence of sunlight to produce hydrogen, organic acids alcohols, etc. is
known as bio-fermentation. Another process i.e., bio-photolysis process
occurs via reduction and oxidation reactions in the presence of sunlight
in the presence of cyanobacteria and green algae. Microalgae and cya­
nobacteria can produce enzymes via nitrogen fixation that catalyze the
hydrogen production from stored glycogen and starch in an indirect bio-
photolysis process [48].
3.3. Hydrogen induction
Through various research journals, it is observed that the hydrogen
was supplied from the high-pressure cylinder into the intake manifold.
The pressure can be regulated from 150 bar to 2 bar through a regulator.
There are two methods for enriching fuel with hydrogen, which includes
using a gas carburetor or implementing time port injection (TPI).
Hydrogen induction can be achieved via continuous induction into the
inlet manifold, indirect induction to the intake manifold, or direct in­
jection into the combustion chamber. Among these methods, induction
through the intake manifold is the most appropriate method for
hydrogen enrichment in a duel fuelled CI engine [13]. Due to its in­
duction through the intake manifold, hydrogen forms a homogeneous
mixture with air inside the combustion chamber. To maintain a volume
flow rate of hydrogen ranging from 0 to 30lpm, the needle valve and
rotameter are employed. Hydrogen is a colorless and invisible gas with a
high calorific value of 120 mJ/kg. Hydrogen has lower ignition energy
which causes pre-ignition which creates a flashback i.e. flame travels
back to the cylinder and can be prevented through a flashback arrestor.
It has a rapid flame velocity and a shorter quenching distance, which
also increases the risk of backfire. To prevent this, a flame trapper is
utilized to inhibit explosions and prevent backfires in the supply line.
Additionally, a flashback arrestor is installed to halt or shut off gas flow
and extinguish the flame before it reaches the gas source in the event of
undesirable combustion [49]. To prevent gas backflow to the engine
cylinder, various non-reverse control valves are integrated into the fuel
supply line. Safety equipment, such as the non-return valve, ensures the
prevention of hydrogen backflow at various locations. The flame trapper
prevents direct contact between the flame and hydrogen, and it sup­
presses the fire in the intake manifold. To suppress backfire, hydrogen
gas is quenched in water through a flame arrester [50].
3.4. Hydrogen in CI engine
The carbon-free chemical substance of hydrogen and its unique
characteristics shape an excellent fuel for the clean and efficient oper­
ation of internal combustion engines. Hydrogen when used in dual fuel
mode performs well instead of using it as a primary fuel because of the
high resistance of hydrogen fuel to auto-ignition. The minimum ignition
energy levels of hydrogen are low but have high burning rates which
make it suitable for high-speed and cold starting engine operating con­
ditions [51]. For dual fuel combustion, if the concentration of combus­
tible gas exceeds the lower limit of flammability i.e. (about 10% for
hydrogen by volume) results in rapid flame propagation and uncon­
trollable combustion when the liquid fuel ignites which ultimately leads
to backfiring and rapid heat release rate. Thus, the capability of the
engine to convert this high amount of energy into useful work leads to
losses in the form of heat dissipation, frictional, vibrational and
knocking losses. While at a concentration below the lower flammability
14
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
limit a significant proportion of the gas does not react and participates in
the combustion process [52].
4. Additives
The main purpose of using additives in the fuel is to modify the fuel
properties such as density, viscosity, cetane number and volatility,
which affects the combustion phenomenon. Various additives have been
under development to study their impact on properties as shown in
Table 2 [14,53–55].Table 3. shows the physio-chemical properties of
different biodiesel blends with various additives. Table 4. shows the
performance, combustion and emission characteristics of different bio­
diesel blends
4.1. Nano-additives
Nano-additives can be categorized based on their shape, properties
and synthesis method. It can be metal, organic, magnetic and carbon-
based. These nano-sized materials are known for their unique proper­
ties, i.e., mechanical and physical properties, including. The metal ox­
ides of Cu, Fe, Ce, Pt, B, Al, and Co, magnetic additives such as Fe3O4/
ZnMg(Al)O and carbon nanotubes have been widely used. It has been
observed that nanoparticles have increased surface-to-volume ratio and
higher catalytic activity which improves atomization and leads to
reduced ignition delay, prolonged flame sustenance and higher flame
temperature, increased viscosity and flash point. The presence of oxides
in nanoparticles provides oxygen in abundance which leads to lesser
carbon deposits and emissions [56,57].
4.2. Metal additives
To minimize harmful exhaust emissions, metal-based additives are
frequently added to fuel. Platinum, cerium, iron, barium, calcium,
manganese, copper, and platinum-cerium are examples of these addi­
tives. The addition of these metals to fuel improves combustion effi­
ciency, which reduces fuel consumption. When metal-based additives
react with water vapor, they produce hydroxyl radicals, which enhance
soot oxidation and minimize soot emissions. In addition, metals catalyze
the reaction between carbon and oxygen, which reduces the oxidation
temperature and helps in the conversion of CO to CO2 by supplying
oxygen. Metallic oxide catalysts can minimize pollutant species forma­
tion by acting as oxygen donors for CO oxidation and oxygen absorbers
for NOx reduction. Metallic nanoparticles have a high energy density,
strong catalytic effects, and low sintering temperatures. They can store
energy, increasing energy content and reducing fuel consumption for the
same power output [54].
4.3. Antioxidants
Biodiesel contains high content of oxygen due to which it easily gets
oxidized and form leads to the deterioration of fuel such as gum for­
mation, darkening, sedimentation and formation of caustic carboxylic
acids. Antioxidants absorb excess oxygen and improve fuel stability by
inhibiting the formation of free radicals. The formation of gum and acids
leads to the clogging of the fuel filters and injectors as well corrosion of
engine components respectively. To minimize gum formation and
sedimentation, various types of antioxidants such as natural antioxi­
dants (clove, melia azadirachta, thyme), phenolic antioxidants (butya­
tedhydroxyl toluene, butylated hydroxyl anisole and tert-butyl
hydroxylquinoline) and aromatic amines such as (butyl octyl diphe­
nylamine, N-p-methyl phenyl-alpha naphthylamine, N-phenylalpha-
naphthylamine) [58].
4.4. Oxygenated
Oxygenated additives are crucial for diesel and gasoline engines as
Deepalika et al.
they contain at least one oxygen atom in their molecules, which en­
hances combustion and improves octane rating. They can be blended
with various diesel and biodiesel fuels and must be able to mix without
separating into two phases. Commonly used oxygenated additives
include alcohols, ethers, and esters. These additives help reduce emis­
sions of harmful materials like NOx and minimize the ignition temper­
ature of biodiesel, leading to a reduction in smoke emissions from diesel
engines. They also directly affect fuel properties such as cetane number,
density, viscosity, volatility, flash point, and calorific value. By pro­
moting more efficient fuel ignition, oxygenated additives reduce envi­
ronmental pollution and enable fuels to burn more completely [58].
4.5. Carbon-based
Carbon-based additives have the potential to improve the combus­
tion characteristics of liquid biofuels. Graphene-based nanoparticles and
carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are two types of carbon-based additives that
have been studied. Graphite or graphite oxide, which is metal-free and
non-toxic, has high energy density and thermal conductivity. They
enhance the combustion process by increasing the burning rate and
reducing the ignition delay (ID). CNTs have a large surface-to-volume
ratio and high thermal conductivity, which promote better air–fuel
mixing and accelerate the thermal exchange process. Acetylene black,
another carbon-based additive, has a high surface-to-volume ratio and
combustibility. It also possesses high thermal and electrical conductiv­
ity. These properties increase the combustion efficiency of the fuel
blends [14].
4.6. Other additives
Water addition to biofuels is a strategy employed to reduce pollutant
emissions during combustion. The addition of water to liquid biofuels
decreases the local temperature in the burning region, leading to a
reduction in pollutant formation such as particulate matter (PM) and
NOx. The introduction of water also promotes the micro explosion
phenomenon, improving fuel atomization and combustion efficiency.
Surfactants play a vital role in stabilizing the water-biodiesel emulsion,
which is a challenge in the water-biodiesel emulsion strategy. Water
content in ethanol fuel is also critical in reducing pollutant formation.
While adding water to ethanol reduces the heating value of the fuel, it
increases the total net energy gain and improves combustion efficiency.
The presence of water in ethanol fuel increases ionization processes,
accelerating the rate of radical production, and enhancing oxidation
reactions and combustion efficiency. The cetane number is a crucial
indicator of fuel quality in diesel engines, as it affects combustion effi­
ciency and can lead to issues such as increased fuel consumption, engine
noise, and emissions if the number is too low. To improve the cetane
number of diesel/biodiesel blends, additives such as nitrites, peroxides,
nitrates, aldehydes, and tetra-azoles can be used to reduce the delay
period and promote better ignition. Cold flow properties, including
cloud point, cold filter plugging point, and pour point, can also impact
fuel flow behaviour at low temperatures, which can be problematic for
biodiesel blends. Cold flow improver additives have been developed to
address this issue by preventing crystal growth and improving overall
crystallization behaviour. Lubricity is another important factor in fuel
performance, as low-sulfur fuels can cause mechanical wear in fuel-
injection equipment due to insufficient lubrication. Lubricity im­
provers containing polar head groups and fuel-soluble hydrocarbon tails
can be added to improve engine performance and prevent reduced en­
gine lifetime. Biodiesel is also an effective lubricity improver due to its
identical fuel properties to diesel [14,58].
15
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
5. Performance parameters
5.1. Performance characteristics of biodiesel blends
Devan et al. [78] has evaluated a blend of paradise and eucalyptus
biodiesel. The Me50-Eu50 blend demonstrated better BTHE in com­
parison to other blends. This may be attributed to several factors,
including improved fuel atomization, vaporization, and combustion
resulting from the blend’s reduced viscosity. At full load, the Me50-Eu50
blend showcased an efficiency of 31.42%. Srivastava et al. [79] have
investigated diesel, Karanja blends (K20 and K30) and roselle biodiesel
(R20 and R30) blends. Diesel fuel consistently exhibited the highest
thermal efficiency across all loading conditions. Diesel fuel has shown a
full-load thermal efficiency of roughly 32.8%, and RB10 and RB20 have
demonstrated thermal efficiencies of roughly 32.3% and 32.1%,
respectively. The BSFC values for RA10 and RA20 were observed to be
higher than diesel by 5.40% and 6.48%, respectively. Kurczyński et al.
[80] has shown that the engine powered by BBuE biofuel has shown an
average BTHE reduction of 2.3% and 5.6% concerning RME biofuel at
1400 and 2200 rpm, respectively. Verma et al. [81] have reported that
adding eucalyptus biodiesel to pure diesel has been shown to increase
BTHE, even though biodiesel and its blends have higher BSFC compared
to diesel. BTHE for 10% biodiesel blends is comparable to diesel fuel.
Full load tests showed BTHE values for eucalyptus biodiesel were
26.34% for B10, 26.21% for B30, 26.02% for B50, and 25.51% for B100.
Corresponding to the same load conditions, BSFC was 269 g/kW-hr for
diesel whereas it was 276.9 g/kW-hr for B10B, 288.4 g/kW-hr for B30B,
301.4 g/kW-hr for B50B, 330.4 g/kW-hr for B100B respectively. Ong
et al. [82] has found that the BTHE of all biodiesel blend fuels (Jatropha
curcas, Ceiba pentandra and Calophyllum inophyllum) have demon­
strated comparable trends with diesel. Notably, CPB10 and CIB10 have
exhibited suboptimal BTHE, with a maximum of 28.82% and 25.66%,
respectively, which is lower than diesel i.e., 30.62%, except for JCB10,
which has shown a higher BTHE of 31.53%. Similarly, desired minimum
BSFC was observed for JCB10 i.e., 261 g/kW-hr at 1900 rpm. Saravana
et al. [83] has found that BTHE for blends of Rapeseed biodiesel (RB20)
was 2.77% lower and BSFC was 57.78% higher than D100 due to lower
heating value, higher viscosity and oxygen content. Baweja et al. [84]
observed maximum BTHE for diesel and B20 (mustard biodiesel) blends
showed 4.97% lower BTHE than diesel at 100% load, however, the B20
blend at 100% load. At the same operating condition, BSFC for B20 was
nearly close to diesel.
5.2. Effect of hydrogen on performance parameters
Various researchers mentioned that a higher range of hydrogen in­
clusion results in reduction of BTHE because of charge dilution and less
availability of oxygen which leads to poor combustion. Das et al. [85]
tested different fuel blends i.e. D + 7H2, D + 10H2, P20, P20 + 7H2, and
P20 + 10H2 for different load conditions and found that for D + 7H2,
there is an increase of 19.95% at 90% loading while BTHE reduced for
10lpm concentration which may be due to less oxygen availability and
poor combustion. P20 + 10H2 has lower BTHE as compared to D100
because of the higher burning velocity of hydrogen, which results in the
quick combustion of accumulated fuel. Rahman et al. [13] tested BTHE
for spirulina maxima algae biodiesel and observed an increase in BTHE
due to better combustion of the fuel as compared to diesel. Kanth et al.
[7] observed blend like D, D + H2, KB10 + H2, KB20 + H2, RB10 + H2
and RB20 + H2. With a lower percentage of biodiesel, BTHE improves
because of higher flame propagation of hydrogen which improves the
combustion process. Further, the higher burning value of hydrogen and
proper mixing with air also attributes to the rapid combustion charac­
teristics which help to increase BTHE. While for a higher percentage
(20%) it decreases due to the significant dominance of physiochemical
properties like higher viscosity and mass density of biodiesel. Blends of
RB10 + H2 and KB10 + H2 have 3–4% lower specific fuel consumption
Deepalika et al.
compared to diesel due to enhanced combustion from burning
hydrogen. Kanth et al. tested Karanja biodiesel with hydrogen and
observed either increased or similar BTHE for KB + H2 blend for all sets
of FIP and FIT as compared to the KB and D100 due to the high heating
value and swift-burning that provides intense and accelerated combus­
tion. Kanth et al. [10] has evaluated rice bran biodiesel with hydrogen.
At full load, the SFC for RB10 + H₂ at 240 bar and 24 bTDC was recorded
as the lowest, with a value of 0.29 kg/kW-hr. This is 17% and 12% lower
than RB20 + H₂ and diesel, respectively. Kumar et al. [86] mentioned
that the B100 + H2 blend has 8.46% higher BTHE than the base diesel
and 11.36% higher than pure biodiesel at 17_bTDC FIT and 1500 bar
FIP.
Praveena et al. [12] has investigated the impact of hydrogen inclu­
sion on the performance of safflower biodiesel (B100) in comparison
with D100. The results mentioned that at maximum load condition
BTHE of B100 with 4%, 8%, and 12% hydrogen induction was 1.15%,
2.4%, and 2.73%, respectively, which was higher than that of B100
alone. The improved BTHE was attributed to better diffusivity and
higher flame speed, which enhanced the combustion process. The
accumulation of more fuel in the engine cylinder after a prolonged delay
period due to hydrogen induction resulted in an improved combustion
rate leading to higher BTHE. Akar et al. [49] have observed that
maximum BTHE was achieved by adding WOB and H12 hydrogen to B10
fuel, resulting in a BTHE value that is 0.3% higher than diesel. BSFC for
B10 + H12 was 2.26% lower than B10. Kanth et al. [8] has evaluated
honge biodiesel with hydrogen and observed that induction of 10 and
13 lm of hydrogen in B10 led to an increase in BTHE and reduction in
BSFC as compared to diesel. Rajak et al. [87] has evaluated that BTHE
for BD95 + 5H2 was higher than D95 + 5H2 at 26.5 degrees and the
lowest BSFC is consistently provided by BD95 + 5H2.
5.3. Effect of additives on performance parameters
Rajak et al. [88] found that BTHE for D50 + MB30 + nB20 (micro­
algae biodiesel with butanol) was 4.02% higher as compared to pure
diesel because of the higher percentage of oxygen. The addition of low
cetane number n-butanol rises the ignition-delay period of the blends
during combustion which helps in fuel–air mixing hence increasing the
efficiency. BSFC of the same blend was 260.69 g/kW-hr i.e., 3.44%
higher than diesel. However, the blend had higher SFC than low sulfur
diesel fuel due to its lower energy content, resulting in increased fuel
consumption. Sharma et al. [89] evaluated waste cooking oil biodiesel
by adding graphene and graphite nanoparticles to different blends
(D100, W100, B40, B40NGn, and B40Gt). The results showed that the
BTHE values were 10% and 8% higher for B40NGn and B40Gt than
D100 at full load. Additionally, at full load BSFC values for B40Gn and
B40Gt were decreased by 2.8% and 3.2% in comparison to diesel fuel,
and 8% and 8.4% lower than W100. These findings suggested that
blends with additives had lower BSFC values than W100 due to factors
such as lower viscosity, higher calorific value, and improved combustion
efficiency. Kalyani et al. [90] has observed with the addition of 4%
oxygenated additive i.e. triacetin in biodiesel, BTHE was found as 7.23%
lesser than D100 (32.76%) at 100 % loads and BSFC was attained as 7.69
% higher than D100.
Padmanabha et al. [91] has evaluated the effect of ethylene glycol
diacetate in Karanja-Jatropha dual biodiesel blends (77JK20EA3) and
observed an increase of 5.85% in comparison to D100. Fuel consump­
tion of the same blend was equal to diesel. Authors has evaluated cal­
ophyllum inophyllum biodiesel with thermol-D and observed higher
BTHE with 1 and 2 ml of additive as compared to diesel at full load. The
addition of thermol-D to the fuel molecules causes homolytic fission or
cleavage, which breaks down longer hydrocarbon chains into smaller
ones before the fuel is burnt. This leads to a greater breaking down of the
complex long chain structure, allowing oxygen from the air to react
more readily with the hydrocarbon molecules and produce more heat
and energy during combustion, resulting in a higher BTHE. In
16
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
comparison, when longer hydrocarbon chains are burned, the oxygen
requires more effort to react with them, leading to energy dissipation
and lower heat output. thermol-D contains 2-Ethyl-Hexyl Nitrate (EHN),
which may speed up the combustion process. Fuel consumption was
observed to be decreased by 6.6% because of the presence of a cetane
improver and combustion catalyst in thermol-D. Suraj Verma has
investigated BTHE for microalgae biodiesel blend mixed with TiO2 and
butanol and observed that BTHE was increased from 0.48% to 12% for
different concentrations of additives in comparison to diesel (31.99%).
On the other side, BSFC was observed to be increased for all the blends.
Kumar and Karthikeyan [92] has evaluated the BSFC for diesel, NB20,
NB20DI10, NB20DI20, and NB20DI30 (Neem biodiesel and n-butanol)
are 0.25, 0.32, 0.29, 0.28, and 0.26, respectively and reveals that diesel
has the lowest BSFC. Of the fuels tested with manifold injection,
NB20DI30 had the lowest BSFC due to its improved homogeneity that
promoted faster combustion. On the other side, BTHE was observed to
be higher for diesel than other blends. It was 1.29% lower for a blend
with 30% n-decanol. Bhattad and Patel [93] has investigation the effect
of titanium nanoparticles on the BTHE of mahua biodiesel. The results
showed that as the engine load increased from 0% to 75%, the BTHE
increased, but at 100% load, it decreased due to the requirement of more
fuel for stable engine operation. BTHE values were increased with
titania nanoparticles and a reduction was observed in fuel consumption
in comparison to diesel.
5.4. Combined effect of hydrogen and additives on performance
parameters
Xia et al. [94] examined the influence of various fuel types on BTHE
in an engine. Diesel and castor oil blended with hydrogen and alumina
nanoparticles were used as fuel sources. BTHE increased at low loads but
decreased at high loads due to faster combustion reactions. Pure bio­
diesel blends showed lower BTHE values due to higher viscosity, but
adding oxygen improved BTHE by promoting premixing combustion.
Adding hydrogen and alumina nanoparticles increased BTHE due to
their high HRR, but hydrogen-rich diesel blends performed better due to
less heat generation and quicker combustion processes at high loads.
The blends with 25 and 50 ppm alumina showed the maximum reduc­
tion in fuel consumption in comparison to diesel. Ramalingam et al. [95]
has investigated the effect of hydrogen flow rate on the BTHE of juliflora
biodiesel (B20) and diesel fuels. Results showed that the hydrogen
enrichment at 16lpm and 20lpm flow rates improved BTHE, with higher
flow rates providing even greater enhancement due to the high calorific
value, rapid combustion and efficient air mixing of hydrogen. Gad and
Jayaraj [96] evaluated the BTHE of diesel, cottonseed oil biodiesel, and
their blends enriched with HHO and kerosene additives were investi­
gated. However, the BTHE of biodiesel was lower than that of diesel due
to factors such as lower heating value, atomization problems, improper
fuel mixture, and partial combustion. To improve the fuel properties,
Hydrogen-Hydrogen-Oxygen (HHO) was added, which resulted in a
higher calorific value. Kerosene additives were also found to be effective
in reducing biodiesel viscosity and improving combustion characteris­
tics. At 90% of load, the BTHE for D100, B20, B20 + HHO, B20 + HHO
+ 5 K, and B20 + HHO + 10 K were 37%, 28.6%, 33.5%, 32.5%, and
36.9%, respectively. The BSFC for B20 + HHO + K10 has been found as
15.8% lower in comparison to B20 while it is 1.25% higher than diesel.
Manginadan et al. [97] has evaluated corn biodiesel with hydrogen
and additives (TiO2 and ZnO). BT100 exhibits a BTHE almost 11%
higher than diesel efficiency because of its better heating values and
lower fuel consumption. The high premixing of corn fuel results in lower
BTHE values, and the blend CZ100 performs poorly due to lack of air in
the combustion chamber. At 50% load, the BTHE values are similar for
all tested fuels. The inclusion of hydrogen and nanoparticles like ZnO
and TiO2 increases BTHE due to their catalytic effect and lower volatility
as the load increases. However, the surface area of nanoparticles has
high energy but cannot help to improve BTHE due to less cetane value.
Deepalika et al.
Although the addition of hydrogen increases the cetane number, it is not
sufficient to compete with the diesel performance and efficiency. Cetane
value plays a crucial role in the fuel combustion and ignition delay. At
1500 rpm and 80% load, a positive effect is observed, which is possible
due to reduced viscosity and specific fuel consumption. Mohan and
Dinesha [98] have achieved maximum BTHE at 75% load, followed by a
slight reduction at 100% load for waste cooking oil biodiesel (B20).
Notably, the BTHE is enhanced for H2O2 emulsified blends with CeO2
nanoparticles, as compared to neat B20 fuel. Increasing the concentra­
tion of H2O2 has led to a corresponding increase in the BTHE, with CeO2
nanoparticle concentrations of 40 ppm and 80 ppm resulting in im­
provements of 0.71% and 0.65%, respectively. The minimum BSFC was
achieved at 75% load, while the highest is observed for neat B20 fuel.
The incorporation of H2O2 has led to a reduction in the BSFC of the
engine, 2.07% and 1.88% reduction was observed for 40 ppm and 80
ppm nanoparticle concentrations, respectively, when the H2O2 con­
centration was increased from 0.5% to 1.5% at 75% load. It is note­
worthy that the thermal conductivity of CeO2 nanoparticles has played a
pivotal role in augmenting the heat transfer rate, ultimately leading to
improved BTHE and BSFC values.
Zhang et al. [99] studied the Waste cooking oil blend (WB100) with
hydrogen and titanium dioxide nano-additives and observed that the
BTHE values for D100, WB10, WB20, DT100, WB10T100H and
WB20T100H, have decreased at distinct engine speeds. For fuel blends
containing nanoparticles and hydrogen, such as DT, WB10TH and
WB20TH, the BTHE values at 1800 rpm have been 24.2%, 22% and
21.6%, respectively which is 0.2–0.6% higher than blends without
nanoparticles and hydrogen. Murugesan et al. [100] have evaluated
Euglena Sanguinea biodiesel blend (B20) with graphite nano-particles
and 3lpm hydrogen supply and have found that BTHE increased for
B20D80 + GO20, B20D80 + G40, B20D80 + G60, and B20D80 + G80 i.
e. 28.4%, 29.1%, 29.8%, and 30.8%, respectively, compared to B20D80
at 30.53%. BSFC was significantly reduced for B20D80 + G80. Mohan
et al. [101] evaluated waste cooking oil biodiesel with MWCNT and
emulsification of H2O2 and found that an increase in the emulsification
of H2O2 from 0.5 to 1.5% leads to an elevation of 1.3% in the BTHE and
a decline of 4.3% in the BSFC has been observed. Rajshree et al. [102]
has evaluated hydrogen-enriched microalgae biodiesel with TiO2 and
Ce2O3 nanoparticles and observed that BTHE for a blend with TiO2 and
hydrogen was 4.84% lower than diesel. Fuel consumption for the same
blend was the same as diesel. The primary reason for higher BSFC was
the poor calorific value and viscosity of the fuel. However, adding
hydrogen and nanoparticles to the fuel can increase its calorific value
and cetane number, as shown by previous studies. Furthermore, the
nanoparticles increase the catalytic activity of the combustion process,
resulting in reduced BSFC.
Reddy et al. [103] has observed that higher load conditions lead to
an improvement in BTHE up to a certain point, after which the BTE
begins to decrease, particularly at 75% load. This decrease is due to the
concentration of nanoparticles in the emulsified fuel, which can lead to
improper combustion in the air/fuel mix. However, compared to diesel
fuel, biodiesel with added nanoparticles shows an increase in BTE. The
addition of nanoparticles helps to reduce combustion time and ignition
delay, leading to an enhancement in thermal efficiency of up to 32%.
The lowest BSFC was found at 1800 rpm and maximum load conditions,
due to improved brake power and complete combustion with more ox­
ygen. The addition of 25 ppm of nanoparticles and water content
reduced BSFC to 0.4 kg/kW-hr and further to 0.204 kg/kW-hr respec­
tively, due to better combustion and increased oxygen content. The
nanoparticles also increased fuel quality by lowering viscosity and
increasing oxygen content, resulting in more efficient energy use. Tha­
nigaivelan et al. [104] has evaluated cashew nut shell biodiesel along
with hydrogen and ethanol. The thermal efficiency of B20 + 8H2 with
10% ethanol was observed to increase at a much higher rate of 37.9%. A
significant reduction in BSFC was observed for the same blend. Authors
has evaluated hydrogen-enriched chicken fat methyl ester with
17
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
magnetite nanoparticles and found that CB20M100H15 showed a BTHE
value of 37.15% at maximum power because of the high diffusivity of
hydrogen with air. However, BSFC was decreased by hydrogen enrich­
ment and at the higher load it was observed to be 242.98 g/kW-hr. The
addition of hydrogen to the air–fuel mixture leads to improved com­
bustion quality, resulting in a reduction in BSFC across all engine load
conditions. This is attributed to the superior flame speed and shorter
quenching distance of hydrogen, which enhance the combustion rate
and reduce BSFC. Das and Das [105] evaluated waste cooking palm
biodiesel with hydrogen provided BTHE lower than diesel by 8.1% at
full load conditions. With the addition of INP nanoparticles along with
waste biodiesel BTHE was observed as 5.7% lower than diesel. The
combined effect of additive and hydrogen increased BTHE by 2.6% in
comparison to diesel. Because of its fast flame speed and short
quenching distance, hydrogen can spread to every corner and crevice of
the cylinder, improving combustion and, thus, the greater BTE.
6. Combustion parameters
6.1. Cpmax for biodiesel blends
Perumal and Ilangkumaran [106] concluded that pongamia
biodiesel-diesel blends showed similar cylinder pressure to diesel fuel.
The B20 blend showed a higher peak pressure due to shorter ignition
delay and rapid combustion, which may be attributed to the inherent
oxygen in biodiesel supporting complete combustion and the lower
viscosity of diesel fuel promoting homogeneous mixing. Hossamani et al.
[107] investigated the variation in cylinder pressure for simroubha and
Jatropha biodiesel and diesel at CR of 18 for 100% load. The results
indicated that the cylinder gas pressure for biodiesel blends followed a
similar trend as D100. Blends with higher bulk modulus and cetane
number showed advanced start of injection and ignition, resulting in
higher CPMax as compared to diesel. Researchers have found that bio­
diesel, with its inherent oxygen molecule, can improve reaction rates
and accelerate ignition and combustion of blends, resulting in higher
cylinder pressure. In contrast, diesel fuel may have lower cylinder
pressure due to increased ignition delay. When comparing biodiesel
blends such as B20, B40, and B60 with diesel, the maximum cylinder
pressure was found to be higher, but B100 (pure biodiesel) showed
lower cylinder pressure due to factors such as lower energy content,
lower volatility, and higher viscosity. Furthermore, during the after-
burning stage, diesel fuel exhibited higher in-cylinder pressure
compared to biodiesel blends due to increased ignition delay. These
findings align with previous research that has also reported either higher
or similar cylinder pressure for biodiesel blends when compared to
diesel, depending on the specific blend and conditions of the combustion
process [108,109].
6.2. Effect of hydrogen on CPMax
Kanth et al. [10] observed that the presence of hydrogen in the rice
bran and Karanja fuel mixture advances the ignition process and in­
creases cylinder pressure, while biodiesel improves combustion but with
lower maximum pressure due to its lower calorific value. Higher resid­
ual/cylinder temperatures result in shortened ignition delay, causing a
rise in pressure during premixed combustion, which is further boosted
by hydrogen enrichment, resulting in a shorter combustion duration and
faster flame propagation. Kanth et al. [110] found the use of KB20H10
biodiesel blend results in 5.55% higher peak pressure than diesel, while
KB20 leads to 7.35% lower peak pressure due to better atomization and
shorter ignition delay. Hydrogen enrichment also increases peak pres­
sure, while a higher injection pressure results in lower in-cylinder
pressure for D100, KB20, and KB20H10 due to reduced spray mo­
mentum. Chaurasiya et al. [111] has evaluated spirullina microalgae
with hydrogen and cylinder pressure was found as 111.49 bar for 5%
H95%SMA (95% spirullina microalgae biodiesel + 5% Hydrogen) as
Deepalika et al.
compared to diesel with 5% hydrogen i.e. 146.25 bar.
6.3. Effect of additives on CPMax
Ashok et al. [112] has evaluated the combustion characteristics of
diesel engine by monitoring in-cylinder gas pressure and. observed
higher peak cylinder pressure for diesel compare to calophyllum ino­
phyllum biodiesel. BHT 500 ppm with CIME showed the lowest peak
cylinder pressure. Authors evaluated that the addition of ZrO2 nano­
particles at concentrations of 50 and 100 ppm with Eu20 fuel increases
cylinder pressure compared to Eu20 due to the lower cetane number
which delays the start of combustion, and increasing the addition of
ZrO2 nanoparticles causes rapid evaporation and better air–fuel mixing,
which advances the start of combustion and increases the cylinder
pressure. Diesel fuel demonstrated higher in-cylinder pressure due to its
better auto-ignition properties and higher net calorific value. However,
the addition of higher alcohols, such as hexanol and decanol, to the fuel
blends had interesting effects on the in-cylinder pressure profiles.
Ternary blends with 30% and 40% volume of hexanol showed increased
in-cylinder pressure due to excessive oxygen content and decreased
viscosity, while decanol had lower oxygen content and higher in-
cylinder pressure due to better fuel atomization properties. Decanol
40% blend demonstrated the highest in-cylinder pressure other than
diesel among the tested fuel blends at 100% load. Solmaz et al. [113] has
incorporated MWCNT into waste cooking oil biodiesel (B20) and
increased cylinder pressure of B20MWCNT25, B20MWCNT50,
B20MWCNT75, and B20MWCNT100 fuels as 59.3, 59.6, 60.1, and 60.6
bar, respectively as compared to B20 i.e. 59.1 bar due to enhanced fuel
atomization and combustion. MWCNT also shortened ignition delay by
increasing fuel droplet evaporation. Experimental results showed higher
peak pressure values for B20MWCNT fuels compared to B20 fuel.
6.4. Combined effect of hydrogen and additives on CPMax
Shanmugathan et al. [102] has evaluated different blends of spir­
ulina microalgae biodiesel, and nanoparticles (TiO2 and CeO2) and
found that adding hydrogen and nanoparticles increased cylinder pres­
sure significantly. Higher viscosity of the blends resulted in larger
combustion droplets and delayed vaporization, leading to increased
pressure. Adding extra oxygen in the combustion chamber also delayed
combustion and increased cylinder pressure. Self-ignition temperature
was also a factor in increased pressure. Diesel blends showed a reduction
in cylinder pressure compared to blends with nanoparticles. TiO2 pro­
duced higher cylinder pressure than CeO2, and the combination of TiO2
and hydrogen resulted in the highest peak cylinder pressure. Murugesan
et al. [100] has evaluated the impact of Euglena Sanguinea blends on
CPMax in a CI engine. CPMax gradually increases with an increase in
brake power due to enhancement in the cylinder temperature.
Hydrogen-enriched nano-additive blends exhibited higher CPMax
values, and ES20D80 + GO80 had the maximum value of 58.9 bar. Das
and Das [105] have measure the addition of hydrogen and INP to WCB
fuel has shown a significant improvement in peak ICP, with a 4.3% in­
crease compared to using WCB alone. This improvement is due to the
better atomization of fuel resulting from the addition of INP, which also
improves heat transfer among fuel molecules, reducing ignition delay
and accelerating combustion. The implementation of both hydrogen and
INP further enhances the peak ICP, resulting in a maximum value of
80.1 bar, which is 5.3% greater than diesel. This synergistic effect is
caused by the rapid burning potential of hydrogen and the catalytic
activity of INP, which promote and accelerate combustion. INP addition
causes micro-explosion within the cylinder, increasing fuel evaporation
rate and resulting in better air–fuel mixing, ultimately leading to
improved combustion.
Kalyani et al. [90] has evaluated algae biodiesel running at full ca­
pacity, the highest combustion pressures recorded as 69.27 bar for DF,
68.99 bar for ABD40, 68.53 bar for ABD40 + 2%T, 69.46 bar for ABD40
18
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
+ 4%T, 68.34 bar for ABD40 + 6%T, and 68.84 bar for ABD40 + 8%T.
Algae biodiesel with a 4% additive is observed as having the highest
combustion pressure, resulting in a 0.27% improvement compared to
DF. Conversely, biodiesel with a 6% additive is observed as having the
lowest combustion pressure. At lower loads (half and three-fourths),
biodiesel with a 4% additive achieves higher combustion pressure
than biodiesel with 2%, 6%, and 8% additives. High combustion pres­
sures aid in achieving better torque conversion, and the combustion
propensity can be enhanced by adding triacetin as an oxygenated ad­
ditive. Elkelawy et al. [114] studied different fuels at a high engine load
of 6 kW and evaluated cylinder pressure variation and the results
showed a similar trend for all fuels, representing the common combus­
tion pattern of the diesel engine. However, biodiesel blend D50B50 had
a slightly lower maximum cylinder pressure than pure diesel due to its
low self-ignition characteristics and heating content. The presence of
200 ppm silver thiocyanate nanoparticles (SCP1) enhanced the fuel
properties and increased the combustion pressure. The study also
showed the impact of nano-emulsified fuel with different volumetric
percentages of hydrogen peroxide on cylinder pressure. The results
indicated that the maximum cylinder pressure of D50B50N200 with 2%
H2O2 was higher than pure diesel, with the maximum value recorded by
D50B50N200 with 4% H2O2. This improvement is due to the enhanced
atomization process inside the combustion chamber, leading to a pro­
nounced enhancement in air–fuel mixture preparation and utilization,
ultimately causing a significant increase in-cylinder pressure.
6.5. HRR for biodiesel blends
Parida et al. [115] has observed variation of net heat release rate
with crank angle for different blends of Argemone Mexicana biodiesel
and standard diesel. For blends with lower percentages of biodiesel, the
heat release rate increases due to the oxygen content in the biodiesel that
enhances the premixed combustion phase. As the percentage of biodiesel
in the blend increases, the heat release rate decreases due to the lower
calorific value of the fuel. BR Hossamani and Katti [107] has observed
the combustion characteristics of different fuel blends depend on their
properties such as viscosity, density, volatility, and heating value. Diesel
fuel exhibits higher HRR due to its properties leading to better spray
formation. Biodiesel blends (Jatropha and simroubha biodiesel) have
lower HRR due to their lower heating value and higher viscosity, which
may influence mixing of fuel–air and hence combustion. The HRR values
of the blends decrease with increasing biodiesel content, and the ignition
and combustion of biodiesel blends start earlier than diesel due to their
properties. Asokan et al. [112] has observed that diesel has a higher
maximum HRR than juliflora biodiesel blends. B40 has the second-
highest heat release rate after diesel. Juliflora biodiesel has a lower
peak heat release rate due to its shorter ignition delay and longer
combustion duration. Diesel has slightly higher peak HRR than biodiesel
and its blends at high engine loads. The heat release rate curves are a
useful tool for evaluating fuel efficiency during combustion.
6.6. Effect of hydrogen on HRR
Praveena et al. [12] has measured the HRR as 65.88 J/◦CA, 52.19 J/
◦CA, 60.71 J/◦CA, 64.9 J/◦CA and 68.5 J/◦CA for D100, (B100), B100
+ 4%, B100 + 8%, and B100 + 12% H2. Biodiesel with 12% energy
share had a higher HRR due to improved flame velocity and instanta­
neous burning of hydrogen, which maximizes the HRR during the pre­
mixed phase of combustion. In comparison, diesel fuel has a slower
combustion process and a higher air fuel ratio, resulting in a lower
maximum HRR. The diesel flame propagates faster, and peak HRR oc­
curs earlier than TDC. It was also found that adding 40% H2 and 75% H2
to the biodiesel increased the HRR max from 42.61 to 47.25 J/◦CA and
53.11 J/◦CA, respectively. Thanivaigelan et al. [104] has conducted a
study and found that the B20 CNSL blend with 8 lpm hydrogen com­
bustion had the highest heat release rate of 137.85 J/◦ CA, compared to
Deepalika et al.
neat fossil diesel which gave a value of 121.36 J/◦ CA. This increase in
heat release rate is attributed to the faster burning rate of hydrogen-
blended CSNL biofuel. The premixed fuel ignites quickly, releasing a
large amount of heat, and then transitions into a controlled heat release
rate. The maximum peak heat release rate in the case of B20 CSNL + 8
lpm H2 is due to the higher heat release in premixed combustion. Prabhu
et al. [116] has conducted an assessment of peak heat release rate (HRR)
for diesel, grapeseed, coconut, and wheatgerm biodiesel, as well as
diesel fuel, without hydrogen induction was found to be 63.2 J/CAD,
60.9 J/CAD, 59 J/CAD, and 43.4 J/CAD. In dual-fuel operation, the
peak HRR increased to 79.2 J/CAD, 76.8 J/CAD, 72.6 J/CAD, and 56.7
J/CAD for these fuels, respectively, at the maximum HES. The increased
combustion efficiency and subsequent heat release can be attributed to
the higher calorific value of hydrogen and the greater oxygen concen­
tration. The combustion of less unsaturated CB was found to result in the
highest heat release rate, followed by GSB. On the other hand, due to
lower temperature and air–fuel ratio, the combustion of WGB resulted in
a lower heat release rate.
6.7. Effect of additives on HRR
Nanthagopal et al. [109] found that the higher cetane index and
shorter ignition delay of pure CIME led to a lower heat release rate
compared to diesel. When biodiesel, D50-B50, and ternary blends were
added to diesel, their heat release rates were also lower. When DEE was
added to diesel-CIME blends, it caused longer ignition delay periods and
lower peak heat release rates due to its lower latent heat of vaporization.
Previous studies have shown that DEE blends decrease heat release rates
due to their bulk effect and higher latent heat. However, when DEE was
added to diesel-CIME blends at concentrations of 5%, 7.5%, 10%, and
12.5%, it could react with the diesel’s aromatic content, resulting in
lower viscosity, density, and bulk modulus. This, in turn, retarded the
ignition timing and led to longer ignition delay periods. Bayindirli et al.
[117] has showed that the HRR increased with increasing load and the
addition of graphene oxide (Gn) and graphite(Gt) nanoparticles in the
cottonseed methyl ester. The highest HRR observed for fuels containing
CGt50, CGt75, CGn50 and CGn75 as 0.2136, 0.2230, 0.2301 and
0.02385 kJ/◦ CA at full load. This improvement in HRR was attributed to
the improved fuel–air mixture properties and faster burning speed.
Overall, enhancing atomization properties led to an increase in com­
bustion quality. Oni et al. [118] has conducted a study and found that
Juliflora biodiesel and diesel fuel had lower heat release rates (HRR)
compared to Jnano-additives mixed juliflora biodiesel. The addition of
nanoadditives to Juliflora biodiesel increased its HRR compared to
diesel fuel, resulting in improved combustion and peak pressures. The
peak HRR at full load for diesel and Juliflora biodiesel fuels were 68 J/
deg and 66 J/deg, respectively. In contrast, the Juliflora biodiesel-
nanoadditive fuels had higher peak HRRs, ranging from 73 J/deg to
78 J/deg for fuels containing JB + CeO2 + CuO (2:1), JB + MnO2 +
Al2O3 (1:1), JB + ZnO + TiO2 (1:2), and JB + TiO2 + Al2O3 (1:3). This
was due to improved combustion and shorter ignition delay periods in
these fuels. Sharma et al. [89] found that B40Gn and B40Gt blends had
higher HRR max compared to D100 and W100 fuels at 20% engine load.
The longer ignition delay in these blends allowed for more fuel to burn in
the premixed combustion phase, resulting in a sudden explosion and
higher heat release. However, at full load, B40Gn had 9% and 7% higher
HRR max compared to D100 and W100, while B40Gt had lower HRR
max by 1.7% and 4%. The reduced heat release rate (HRR) observed in
full engine load of B40Gn was attributed to the shorter ignition delay,
which led to a reduced fuel burn during the premix combustion phase,
and consequently, a prolonged diffusion combustion phase. The blends
containing NP additives exhibited a higher HRR due to a longer ignition
delay. On the other hand, the total ignition delay period increased with
higher viscosity, resulting in more fuel burned during the premixed
combustion phase.
19
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
7. Emission parameters
7.1. Effect of biodiesel blends on emission parameters
Hydrocarbons are formed due to incomplete combustion and lower
HC emission is associated with oxygen molecules available in biodiesel
structure. Aatia et al. [119] has observed HC emissions for biodiesel
blend as compared to diesel. For B10, the HC formation was lower than
those of pure diesel fuel by 40% because the oxygen content in CME
counteracts the negative effect of its high viscosity. On the other hand,
for higher biodiesel blends, such as B20 and B30, HC emissions are
higher than those of B10, with the highest value observed for B30, which
is about 45% higher. CO emissions were reduced by an average rate of
13–17%. A reduction of 2% was observed for low concentration bio­
diesel blend (10 and 20%) while it was found to increase for higher
blends (30 and 40%). Ong et al. [82] has conducted experiments and
measured HC emissions of different fuel blends in an engine. The HC
emissions for three types of biodiesel blends (JCB50, CPB50, and CIB50)
were found to be 30.73 ppm, 30.86 ppm, and 31.96 ppm, respectively,
while petrol diesel had emissions of around 27.56 ppm at 1900 rpm.
However, when a 10% biodiesel blend was used, the HC generation were
lower than D100. Specifically, the HC formation for JCB10, CPB10, and
CIB10 were 18.66 ppm, 19.03 ppm, and 19.08 ppm, respectively, at
1900 rpm. NOx emissions were increased in comparison to the diesel.
Tyari et al. [120] has noticed improvement in HC formation achieved by
using different biodiesel blends in an engine. The blend that showed the
greatest improvement in HC emissions was MCV-B20, with a reduction
of 51.1%. This was followed by MCV-B10 with a reduction of 44.3%, and
WB20 with a reduction of 42.7%. Compared to pure diesel, the average
HC formation for ES-B10, ES-B20, and WB10 were respectively 28.2%,
38.2%, and 36.6% lower. The experiment found that microalgae bio­
diesel had significantly lower HC emissions compared to other feed­
stocks, likely due to its long-chain fatty acids and high oxygen content.
The average lowest amount of CO generation was produced by MCV-
B20, which was 47.4% lower than B0. The average reduction in CO
formation for ES-B10, ES-B20, WB10, WB20, and MCV-B10 compared
with diesel was 22.1%, 30.9%, 29.9%, 38.0%, and 41.7%, respectively.
Mathimani et al. [121] has examined diesel and chlorella vulgaris
biodiesel blends and observed that the formation of HC and CO was
highest at 100% load for diesel fuel and all biodiesel blends, except for
B50 and B60, which emitted 105 and 104 ppm of HC, respectively,
approximately 17 ppm less than diesel fuel’s emission of 122 ppm and
0.13% and 0.12% CO emission at 1500 rpm. NOx emissions for the
blends were nearly equal to the diesel. Atakan et al. [49] has evaluated
waste cooking oil biodiesel blends and found CO emissions dropped by
2.5% and 3.67%, respectively for B10 and B20 as compared to diesel.
Bhardwaj et al. [122] has evaluated CO emissions for B30 (rubber seed
biodiesel) and observed a significant reduction. This is due to the
complete oxidation with biodiesel blends when compared to conven­
tional diesel. HC emissions were observed to decrease for all the blends
while a trend of increment with BMEP was observed. NOx emissions
increased due to presence of oxygen content and higher temperature.
Agarwal et al. [123] has analysed Karanja biodiesel blend and found
lower production of CO and HC in comparison to diesel. At high engine
load, CO and HC emissions were observed to increase. Contrary, NOx
was observed to increase for biodiesel blend. Thangaraj et al. [124] has
investigated that NOx formation were found to be higher for Karanja
biodiesel while CO and HC formation were noted to be lower in com­
parison to diesel.
7.2. Effect of hydrogen on emission parameters
Ramalingam et al. [95] has analysed diesel, juliflora biodiesel with
hydrogen (B20 + 16lpm, and B20 + 20lpm) blends hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions, which were found to be 115 ppm, 75 ppm, and 80 ppm,
respectively. The addition of 16lpm and 20lpm to B20 resulted in a
Deepalika et al.
decrease in HC emissions by 34.7% and 30.1%, respectively, with B20 +
16lpm showing the highest reduction. At maximum load, there was a
significant increase in HC emissions due to prolonged injection, which
can cause partially burnt hydrocarbon emissions to freeze upon opening
of the exhaust valve. Praveena et al. [12] has evaluated biodiesel with
4%, 8%, and 12% H2 exhibit reduced HC emissions, with levels
measuring at 51 ppm, 49 ppm, and 45 ppm, respectively. The lower HC
emissions can be attributed to the wider flammable regions and the
higher heating value of hydrogen when compared to diesel. Addition­
ally, in the diffusion phase, the higher temperatures facilitate the com­
plete combustion of most of the biodiesel. Optimal atomization and the
correct air–fuel mixture contribute to the maximum burning of the hy­
drocarbon content during the combustion process. Biodiesel with 12%
H2 share reports a 15.09% decrease in HC emissions compared to pure
biodiesel combustion. At full load condition diesel and safflower oil
biodiesel fuels emit 0.123% and 0.153% of CO, respectively. Moreover,
as the hydrogen energy share increases, the CO formation for biodiesel
with 4%, 8%, and 12% H2 are 0.14%, 0.12%, and 0.1%, respectively at
full load condition. Prabu et al. [116] has evaluated the CO and HC
production for biodiesel blends along with inclusion of hydrogen and
observed that HC reduced by 42%,29% for coconut and grapeseed bio­
diesel respectively in comparison to diesel. However, HC emissions for
wheatgerm biodiesel were same as diesel. Similarly, CO reduced by
57.6%,44.23% and 32.7% for coconut, grapeseed, and wheatgerm bio­
diesel respectively. On the other hand, NOx increased by 73.7%, 68.4,
59.2% for coconut, grapeseed, and wheatgerm biodiesel respectively.
Tuccar et al. [125] has conducted an investigation on pomegranate seed
oil biodiesel with hydrogen and found that the addition of 5 l/min
hydrogen leads to 6% decrease in CO emissions. This reduction in CO
emissions may be due to the formation of OH molecules resulting from
the reaction between added hydrogen and oxygen present in the air. The
OH molecules initiated the CO and O2 kinetics, thereby reducing CO
formation.
Serin et al. [126] has found that CO emissions with inclusion of H2
reduced it up to 36.13%, respectively. Contrary, a significant increment
of up to 75.51% was observed for NOx. Akar et al. [49] has analysed B10
and B20 test fuels enriched with hydrogen. Comparing to pure diesel,
reduced CO pollutants about 62.5% for B20 blend with 12H2 fuel in­
duction to engine. On the other hand, NOx emissions were raised up to
51.8% in comparison to pure diesel. Kanth et al. [10] has measured HC
formation for honge biodiesel enriched with hydrogen and results
showed 17% and 24% reduction in HC with 10lpm and 13lpm H2
respectively in comparison with D100. Similarly, the CO formation were
observed to reduce about 14.2% and 21%, respectively. However, Nox
emissions were 13.5% and 17.5% higher as compared to D100. Kumar
et al. [86] has evaluated Jatropha with hydrogen Using a 50bTDC pilot
injection reduces NOx emissions, but increasing injection pressure and
hydrogen participation increases them. Advancing the injection angle
increases NOx emissions in hydrogen operations. Higher injection
pressure and advanced injection angle improve UHC, CO, and soot
emissions, but introducing hydrogen is more effective. Using hydrogen-
biodiesel with 9lit/min and 1500 bar reduces UHC by 59.52%, CO by
77.62%, and soot by 46.15%. Zhang et al. [99] has found that the
addition of hydrogen to fuel can enhance fuel combustion, leading to
decreased HC and CO emissions. However, this can also increase cyl­
inder temperature and result in higher NOx emissions. In comparison to
CSME and RME, the use of 6% hydrogen in these fuels can significantly
reduce HC emissions at 100% load by 70.97% and 72.22%, respectively.
However, this also leads to an increase in maximum NOx emissions of
31.2% for CSME-6%H2 at 100% load. Furthermore, using more satu­
rated biodiesel can reduce HC and CO emissions, but this may also in­
crease NOx emissions. The optimal approach for marine diesel engines is
to use a mixed fuel of CSME-6%H2 to achieve the best overall perfor­
mance. Rahman et al. [13] has evaluated that the addition of hydrogen
to the waste cooking oil biodiesel resulted in a notable decrease in CO
emissions, which can be attributed to the reduced oxygen concentration
20
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
in the air intake manifold. Additionally, the use of carbon-free fuel, such
as hydrogen, could be another contributing factor to the reduction in CO
emissions during hydrogen enhancement. At full load condition, the
UHC emission of DF, BD40, BD40 + H2 were recorded as 15 ppm, 12
ppm and 6 ppm respectively. At 100% load, UHC emissions were
reduced by 40% for BD40 compared to DF with inclusion of hydrogen.
NOx emissions were observed to be 500 ppm.
7.3. Effect of additives on HC
Padmanabha et al. [91] has observed that the emissions of hydro­
carbon for D100EA1, D100EA2 and D100EA3 were 44.1, 42.3 and 41.5
ppm respectively compared to 47.2 ppm for D100 at full load condition.
For biodiesel blend D89JK10EA1, D88JK10EA2 and D87JK10EA3 the
HC generation decreased to 39.2, 37.1 and 35.2 ppm, respectively when
compared to 40.1 ppm for D90JK10 fuel. Similarly, the HC production
decreased to 28.4, 27.3 and 26.1 ppm for D79JK20EA1, D78JK20EA2
and D77JK20EA3 respectively when compared to 33.2 ppm with
absence of additive for D80JK20 fuel. Bayindirli et al. [117] has con­
ducted a study on the effect of nanoparticles (NPs) inclusion in biodiesel
on the reduction of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. The results showed
that at 8 Nm load, HC emissions were 137 ppm in regular biodiesel (C0)
and 178 ppm at full load. However, by adding NPs to the biodiesel, HC
emissions decreased by 8.98%, 11.79%, 14.04%, and 15.73% in fuels
with different ratios of NPs. Specifically, rGO and graphite NPs additives
were found to improve oxidation, promote complete combustion, and
increase in-cylinder temperature, resulting in even better reduction of
HC emissions at full load compared to C0 fuel. Verma et al. [127] has
conducted an experiment to investigate the effect of engine load,
butanol, and TiO2 nano-additives on hydrocarbon (HC) emissions in a
diesel engine. The results showed that as the engine load increased, HC
emissions decreased. However, at a particular load, the addition of
butanol and TiO2 nano-additives resulted in an increase in HC emissions.
At full load, the experiment recorded HC emissions of 115, 122, 126, and
131 for B20But30TiO2 (25 ppm), B20But30TiO2 (50 ppm), B20But30­
TiO2 (75 ppm), and B20But30TiO2 (100 ppm), respectively. The impact
of different biodiesel blends, including P20, P20BHT5, and P20BHT10,
on hydrocarbon (HC) emissions in diesel engines at maximum braking
power. The results showed that P20 had the lowest HC generation, with
values of 60 ppm. In contrast, the HC emissions from P20BHT5 and
P20BHT10 were considerably higher at all braking powers, with values
of 53, 55, and 58 ppm, respectively.
Solmaz et al. [113] has evaluated the influence of MWCNT additive
on the atomization properties of fuel was evaluated. The results showed
that the addition of MWCNT improved the surface area/volume ratio,
leading to proper air–fuel mixing and accelerated oxidation reactions,
resulting in further reduction of HC emissions. At full load conditions,
B20MWCNT25, B20MWCNT50, B20MWCNT75, and B20MWCNT100
fuels showed a significant decrease in HC formation compared to pure
diesel, with reductions of 19.67%, 28.69%, 33.6%, and 41%, respec­
tively. B20 fuel also showed a reduction in HC emissions of 17.2%.
Sharma et al. [89] has evaluated blends with graphite, graphene and
butanol additives. CO emissions were observed as 11% and 0.1% higher
than diesel for B40Gn and B40Gt were higher by at full engine load as
compared to D100 NO emissions for B40Gn and B40Gt were found as 5%
and 0.3% lower at full engine load than D100, respectively. Additives
resulted in improved fuel spray and vaporisation characteristics because
of low viscosity. The increase in the in-cylinder temperature results in
higher NO emissions. Kumar et al. [128] has investigated mahua bio­
diesel with CeO2 nanoparticles and a reduction of 19.4–55.6%,
6.5–52.8% and 23.2–41.5% was observed for HC, CO and NOx forma­
tion, respectively, in comparison to D100. Ellapan et al. [129] has
examined eucalyptus biodiesel with diethyl ether (B20Eu70DEE10)
Compared to other fuel blends and pure diesel, B20Eu70DEE10 emits
lower levels of CO, HC with an emission rate of 0.18% and 20%. This
blend also achieves a 10% reduction in CO emissions when compared to
Deepalika et al.
pure diesel. The increased presence of oxygen in the fuel-rich combus­
tion zone is thought to promote more complete burning, leading to lower
levels of CO in the exhaust emissions. A higher amount of NOx was
released with the blend.
7.4. Combined effect of hydrogen and additives on HC
Yi et al. [130] reported that HC levels were reduced to 28 ppm, 25
ppm, 22 ppm, and 18 ppm, at 2000 rpm for CFB10CT80, CFB20CT80,
CFB30CT80 with 5lpm H2 respectively. CO for diesel, CFB10N, CFB20N,
and CFB30N fuel blends at 1200 rpm and were found as 5.2 %vol, 4.9 %
vol, 4.4 %vol, and 3.75 %vol, respectively. At 2000 rpm, blends
CFB10N, CFB20N, and CFB30N showed 11%, 32% and 50% decrease in
CO formation as compared to diesel. Higher combustion was possible by
the addition of hydrogen blends to the engine. The results indicated that
the emission of NOx varied from 940 ppm to 1005 ppm, with diesel
showing lower NOx emissions compared to CB30CT80 (5lpmH2), which
exhibited the highest NOx emissions. Loganathan et al. [131] has eval­
uated the addition of DEE to the cashew nut shell biodiesel (B20) and H2
blended dual fuel has resulted in a decrease in HC formation. Hydro­
carbons are the by-product of incomplete combustion in the cylinder and
also with increasing load fuel accumulation happens which ultimately
leads to higher HC emissions. The reduction in the percentage of HC was
reported as 43% for 6% DEE supply when compared to B20. The
reduction in the percentage of CO was reported as 50%, for 6% DEE
supply when compared to B20. In increased NOx generation upon the
addition of oxygen rich DEE to the B20 and H2, which has reduced the
C–H ratio, thereby improving fuel mixing. The percentage increase in
NOx emission for 6% DEE was 31% compared to B20. Mohan and
Dinesha [98] has evaluated the production of for waste cooking oil
biodiesel (B20) with inclusion of hydrogen and CeO2 which significantly
decreased at higher loads, lower emissions were observed for 1.5% H2O2
at 75% load. An average reduction of 41–48% was achieved in HC for­
mation. An average reduction of 56–60% was achieved in CO through
1.5% H2O2 emulsification over B20. The average decrease in NOx, for
H2O2 concentrations of 0.5%, 1%, and 0.5%, as compared to B20, was
observed as 5.6%, 16.1%, and 22.7%, respectively.
Murugesan et al. [100] has investigated the trend of CO emissions for
hydrogen-boosted euglena sanguinea biodiesel blends (B20) blends
enriched with graphene nanoparticles such as B20D80 + G20, B20D80
+ G40, B20D80 + G60, and B20D8 + G80. The NOx emissions for
B20D80 + G20, B20D80 + G40, B20D80 + G60, and B20D80 + G80
were found as 124, 118, 108, and 101 ppm, respectively, compared to D
(615 ppm). The emissions like CO and HC produces after incomplete
combustion of fuel and air in the cylinder. Due to a lack of air or low gas
temperature, the reaction remains incomplete and generates CO instead
of CO2. At the rated BP condition, B20D80 + G20 have the maximum
values for UBHC, CO i.e., 102 ppm 0.139% vol., while B20D80 + G80
has exhibited the least UHC, CO emissions of about 84.15 ppm, 0.122%
vol., under same operating condition. Moreover, the CO emissions for
B20D80 + G20, B20D80 + G40, and B20D80 + G60 were found to in­
crease by 12.2%, 10.2%, and 7.5%, respectively, as compared to
B20D80 + G80. However, as the concentration of nano-additives in the
blend increased from 20 ppm to 80 ppm, a gradual reduction in CO
emissions was observed, attributed to the synergistic effect of hydrogen
enrichment and superior O2 content. This resulted in an enhanced CO2
conversion rate. UBHC emissions were noted as 12.9% and 23.5% for
B20D80 + G60 and B20D80 + G80, respectively. The addition of a nano-
additive to the fuel along with hydrogen induction led to the shortening
of the ignition delay, resulting in lower UBHC formation. Zhang et al.
[99] has evaluated, the emission of NOx increased due to the corre­
sponding increase in combustion temperature. Furthermore, the addi­
tion of hydrogen to the fuel blends led to a higher cylinder temperature,
increased NOx emission, owing to the higher heating value of hydrogen.
The NOx emissions for blends were D100 (220 ppm), WB10 (350 ppm),
and WB20 (560 ppm). However, the fuel blends of WB10TH and
21
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
WB20TH, which include hydrogen and nanoparticles, reported a
reduction in NOx emission by 20 ppm and 30 ppm, respectively,
compared to WB10 and WB20. CO emissions of waste cooking oil fuel
blends enriched with hydrogen and TiO2, namely D100, WB10, WB20,
DT, WB10TH, and WB20TH, at 1800 rpm. The CO levels for these blends
were 0.081, 0.045, 0.063, 0.08, 0.046, and 0.39 %vol, respectively. In
contrast, B20TH showed a 25% reduction in CO generation compared to
B20, which was attributed to complete burning. The reduction in CO
emissions has more significant at higher concentrations of biodiesel. On
average, there has been a 26% reduction in CO emissions when
hydrogen is added to both biofuel blends and pure diesel. It is observed
that as the engine speed increases, the emission of NOx increased due to
the corresponding increase in combustion temperature.
Gad et al. [132] has evaluated the cotton seed biodiesel with HHO
and kerosene as an additive and observed that the NOx emissions
experienced the highest increase with B20 + HHO, B20 + HHO + 5 K,
and B20 + HHO + 10 K, with values of approximately 17.40%, 14%, and
11.90%, respectively, as compared to B20. The blends B20 + HHO + 5 K
and B20 + HHO + 10 K have demonstrated the maximum reduction in
CO emissions, with reductions of 11% and 32.65%, respectively, while
B20 + HHO has shown a reduction of 9.6% as compared to the biodiesel
blend. Xia et al. [94] has evaluated the castor biodiesel blend.
Furthermore, the inclusion of hydrogen and alumina nanoparticles (25
and 50 ppm) has resulted in a notable reduction in NOx when compared
to D100. A reduction in CO emission of 0.14% vol and 0.13% vol,
respectively, for C25H and C50H blends as compared to the use of diesel.
Mohan et al. [101] found that the induction of H2O2 (1.5%) and MWCNT
nanoparticles (40 ppm) in waste cooking oil biodiesel resulted in an
increase in NOx formation (10.2%). Alternatively, the higher concen­
tration of H2O2 led to a decrease in NOx, with the lowest level of 623
ppm reported at 50% load for 1.5% H2O2. The favourable influence of
H2O2 emulsification outweighs the negative impact created by MWCNT
nanoparticles. A significant reduction was observed in CO emissions
(52%), HC emissions (30.2%), and smoke emissions (16.1%). Tosun
et al. [133] has evaluated soybean biodiesel with hydrogen and alumina
nanoparticles and found H-B20-A has resulted in a substantial increase
of 37.68% in NOx emissions compared to B20. A reduction in CO for­
mation by 10.3%, has a substantial increase in NOx formation by
20.25% compared to B20. The use of H-B100-A has shown the highest
reduction in CO emissions by 15.91%.
8. Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to examine how combining hydrogen and
additives with biodiesel fuel affects the performance, combustion, and
exhaust characteristics of a compression-ignition engine, both as a
whole and in terms of their individual effects. Building upon the findings
of this research:
• Most research suggests that when biodiesel fuel is injected into CI
engines, it tends to reduce BTHE because biodiesel’s higher viscosity
hinders its atomization, leading to less effective combustion
compared to diesel fuel. However, the introduction of hydrogen has
demonstrated an increase in BTHE due to its higher heating value.
Similarly, the inclusion of additives has yielded similar positive ef­
fects by improving the atomization and vaporization processes,
resulting in better fuel–air mixing. This improvement is attributed to
the high surface-to-volume ratio of nanoparticles and their height­
ened chemical reactivity. Furthermore, the combined effect of
hydrogen and additives has substantially enhanced BTHE.
• Researchers have noted that the BSFC of biodiesel and its blends
tends to be higher compared to diesel. This occurs because biodiesel
has a different heating or calorific value, which necessitates the in­
jection of a greater amount of fuel to generate the same power
output. However, the introduction of hydrogen can mitigate this
issue by lowering BSFC due to its high calorific value, rapid flame
Deepalika et al.
propagation, broad flammability range, and other attributes that
enhance fuel efficiency. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated
that when additives are used in conjunction with hydrogen, they can
enhance fuel atomization, vaporization, and combustion, resulting in
an even greater reduction in BSFC
• The combustion behavior of various fuel blends relies on their spe­
cific properties like viscosity, density, volatility, and heating value.
Diesel fuel, because of its inherent properties, produces higher HRR
and combustion pressure, contributing to improved spray formation.
When hydrogen and additives are introduced, combustion charac­
teristics see improvements due to advanced ignition process, result­
ing in a shorter combustion duration and quicker flame spread. This
enhanced HRR is attributed to better fuel–air mixture properties and
a swifter burning rate. In summary, the enhancement of atomization
properties ultimately leads to an improvement in the quality of
combustion
• Most research studies indicate a significant reduction in the forma­
tion of HC and CO when using biodiesel compared to diesel fuel. This
reduction is attributed to biodiesel’s higher oxygen content and
lower aromatic compounds. Furthermore, researchers have observed
that when hydrogen and additives are introduced, HC and CO
emissions decrease even further. However, when it comes to NOx
emissions, biodiesel tends to produce higher levels due to its elevated
combustion temperature, longer combustion duration, and increased
oxygen concentration. The inclusion of hydrogen can raise cylinder
temperature and extend combustion time, resulting in higher NOx
emissions. Interestingly, when hydrogen and additives are used
together, researchers have found that NOx emissions are reduced.
This reduction has been addressed and confirmed by various studies.
Funding statement
No funds, grants, or other support was received.
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
[1] D. Singh, et al., A comprehensive review of physicochemical properties,
production process, performance and emissions characteristics of 2nd generation
biodiesel feedstock: Jatropha curcas, Fuel 285 (2021), 119110.
[2] L. Pérez-Lombard, J. Ortiz, C. Pout, A review on buildings energy consumption
information, Energy Build. 40 (3) (2008) 394–398.
[3] M. Vijayaragavan, B. Subramanian, S. Sudhakar, L. Natrayan, Effect of induction
on exhaust gas recirculation and hydrogen gas in compression ignition engine
with simarouba oil in dual fuel mode, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (88) (2022)
37635–37647, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.11.201.
[4] A. Singh, A.K. Choudhary, S. Sinha, An investigation of performance and
emissions of diesel engine using heterogeneous catalyst Jatropha biodiesel: a
sustainable model using Taguchi and response surface methodology, J. Energy
Resour. Technol. 145 (2) (2023) 22301.
[5] N.N.A.N. Yusuf, S.K. Kamarudin, Z. Yaakub, Overview on the current trends in
biodiesel production, Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (7) (2011) 2741–2751, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.12.004.
[6] S. Nanda, R. Rana, P.K. Sarangi, A.K. Dalai, J.A. Kozinski, A broad introduction to
first-, second-, and third-generation biofuels, Recent Adv. biofuels bioenergy Util.
(2018) 1–25.
[7] S. Kanth, S. Debbarma, Comparative performance analysis of diesel engine
fuelled with hydrogen enriched edible and non-edible biodiesel, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 46 (17) (2021) 10478–10493, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2020.10.173.
[8] S. Kanth, S. Debbarma, B. Das, Effect of hydrogen enrichment in the intake air of
diesel engine fuelled with honge biodiesel blend and diesel, Int. J. Hydrogen
22
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
Energy 45 (56) (2020) 32521–32533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2020.08.152.
[9] H. Venu, L. Subramani, V.D. Raju, Emission reduction in a DI diesel engine using
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) of palm biodiesel blended with TiO2 nano
additives, Renew. Energy 140 (2019) 245–263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.03.078.
[10] S. Kanth, T. Ananad, S. Debbarma, B. Das, Effect of fuel opening injection
pressure and injection timing of hydrogen enriched rice bran biodiesel fuelled in
CI engine, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (56) (2021) 28789–28800, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.06.087.
[11] A. Singh, S. Sinha, A.K. Choudhary, H. Chelladurai, Biodiesel production using
heterogeneous catalyst, application of Taguchi robust design and response surface
methodology to optimise diesel engine performance fuelled with Jatropha
biodiesel blends, Int. J. Ambient Energy 43 (1) (2022) 2976–2987.
[12] V. Praveena, F.J.J. Shobana Bai, D. Balasubramanian, Y. Devarajan, F. Aloui, E.
G. Varuvel, Experimental assessment on the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a safflower oil fueled CI engine with hydrogen gas
enrichment, Fuel 334 (P2) (2023), 126682, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2022.126682.
[13] M.A. Rahman, A.M. Ruhul, M.A. Aziz, R. Ahmed, Experimental exploration of
hydrogen enrichment in a dual fuel CI engine with exhaust gas recirculation, Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (8) (2017) 5400–5409, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.11.109.
[14] M.V. Kumar, A.V. Babu, P.R. Kumar, The impacts on combustion, performance
and emissions of biodiesel by using additives in direct injection diesel engine,
Alexandria Eng. J. 57 (1) (2018) 509–516, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aej.2016.12.016.
[15] A. Singh, S. Sinha, A.K. Choudhary, Optimization of operating parameters of
diesel engine powered with Jatropha oil diesel blend by employing response
surface methodology, Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 11 (2) (2021) 504–513.
[16] A. Singh, S. Sinha, A.K. Choudhary, D. Sharma, H. Panchal, K.K. Sadasivuni, An
experimental investigation of emission performance of heterogenous catalyst
jatropha biodiesel using RSM, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 25 (2021), 100876.
[17] H.A. Alalwan, A.H. Alminshid, H.A.S. Aljaafari, Promising evolution of biofuel
generations. Subject review, Renew. Energy Focus 28 (March) (2019) 127–139.
[18] A.K. Choudhary, Effect of bioethanol-diesel blends on the vibrations of diesel
engine, in: International Conference on Recent Advancements in Mechanical
Engineering, 2020, pp. 407–418.
[19] A.K. Choudhary, H. Chelladurai, C. Kannan, Performance analysis of bioethanol
(Water Hyacinth) on diesel engine, Int. J. Green Energy 13 (13) (2016)
1369–1379.
[20] J.A. Ferreira, P. Brancoli, S. Agnihotri, K. Bolton, M.J. Taherzadeh, A review of
integration strategies of lignocelluloses and other wastes in 1st generation
bioethanol processes, Process Biochem. 75 (July) (2018) 173–186, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procbio.2018.09.006.
[21] M. Vohra, J. Manwar, R. Manmode, S. Padgilwar, S. Patil, Bioethanol production:
feedstock and current technologies, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2 (1) (2014) 573–584.
[22] A. Molino, F. Nanna, Y. Ding, B. Bikson, G. Braccio, Biomethane production by
anaerobic digestion of organic waste, Fuel 103 (2013) 1003–1009, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.07.070.
[23] M. Ljunggren, O. Wallberg, G. Zacchi, Bioresource Technology Techno-economic
comparison of a biological hydrogen process and a 2nd generation ethanol
process using barley straw as feedstock, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (20) (2011)
9524–9531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.096.
[24] S.K. Bhatia, et al., Renewable biohydrogen production from lignocellulosic
biomass using fermentation and integration of systems with other energy
generation technologies, Sci. Total Environ. 765 (2021), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144429.
[25] G. Kabir, B.H. Hameed, Recent progress on catalytic pyrolysis of lignocellulosic
biomass to high-grade bio-oil and bio-chemicals, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70
(January) (2017) 945–967, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.001.
[26] S.A. Jambo, R. Abdulla, S.H.M. Azhar, H. Marbawi, J.A. Gansau, P. Ravindra,
A review on third generation bioethanol feedstock, Renew. Sustain. energy Rev.
65 (2016) 756–769.
[27] A. Jacob, B. Ashok, A. Alagumalai, O.H. Chyuan, P.T.K. Le, Critical review on
third generation micro algae biodiesel production and its feasibility as future
bioenergy for IC engine applications, Energy Convers. Manag. 228 (2021),
113655.
[28] A. Pathy, K. Nageshwari, R. Ramaraj, G.P. Maniam, N. Govindan,
P. Balasubramanian, Biohydrogen production using algae: Potentiality,
Economics and Challenges, Bioresour. Technol. (2022), 127514.
[29] E. Allen, D.M. Wall, C. Herrmann, J.D. Murphy, A detailed assessment of resource
of biomethane from first, second and third generation substrates, Renew. Energy
87 (2016) 656–665.
[30] N.S. Abdul Latif, M.Y. Ong, S. Nomanbhay, Hydrothermal liquefaction of
Malaysia’s algal biomass for high-quality bio-oil production, Eng. Life Sci. 19 (4)
(2019) 246–269.
[31] S. Rezania, et al., Review on transesterification of non-edible sources for biodiesel
production with a focus on economic aspects, fuel properties and by-product
applications, Energy Convers. Manag. 201 (October) (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112155.
[32] N.S. Mat Aron, K.S. Khoo, K.W. Chew, P.L. Show, W.H. Chen, T.H.P. Nguyen,
Sustainability of the four generations of biofuels – a review, Int. J. Energy Res. 44
(12) (2020) 9266–9282, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5557.
[33] A. Singh, S. Sinha, A.K. Choudhary, Response surface methodology approach for
combustion analysis of compression ignition engine fueled with Jatropha
Deepalika et al.
biodiesel produced by using heterogeneous catalyst, Optim. Ind. Syst. (2022)
173–184.
[34] J.T. Ellis, N.N. Hengge, R.C. Sims, C.D. Miller, Acetone, butanol, and ethanol
production from wastewater algae, Bioresour. Technol. 111 (2012) 491–495.
[35] A.K. Choudhary, H. Chelladurai, C. Kannan, Optimization of combustion
performance of bioethanol (water hyacinth) diesel blends on diesel engine using
response surface methodology, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 40 (12) (2015) 3675–3695,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1810-y.
[36] A.A. Babadi, et al., Emerging technologies for biodiesel production: processes,
challenges, and opportunities, Biomass Bioenergy 163 (2022), 106521.
[37] V. Kumar, A.K. Choudhary, Assessment and usability of Jatropha biodiesel blend
with phenolic antioxidant to control NOx emissions of an unmodified diesel
engine, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 0123456789 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-023-29995-4.
[38] P.R. Yaashikaa, P.S. Kumar, S. Karishma, Bio-derived catalysts for production of
biodiesel: a review on feedstock, oil extraction methodologies, reactors and
lifecycle assessment of biodiesel, Fuel 316 (January) (2022), 123379, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123379.
[39] A.E. Atabani, A.S. Silitonga, I. Anjum, T.M.I. Mahlia, H.H. Masjuki, S. Mekhilef,
A comprehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy resource and its
characteristics, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (4) (2012) 2070–2093, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.003.
[40] F. Moazeni, Y.-C. Chen, G. Zhang, Enzymatic transesterification for biodiesel
production from used cooking oil, a review, J. Clean. Prod. 216 (2019) 117–128.
[41] A.K. Choudhary, H. Chelladurai, C. Kannan, Performance analysis of diesel engine
using bio ethanol (water hyacinth) by response surface methodology (RSM),
Appl. Mech. Mater. 737 (2015) 53–59.
[42] Y.H. Tan, M.O. Abdullah, C. Nolasco-Hipolito, The potential of waste cooking oil-
based biodiesel using heterogeneous catalyst derived from various calcined
eggshells coupled with an emulsification technique: a review on the emission
reduction and engine performance, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47 (2015)
589–603, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.048.
[43] S.F. Ahmed, et al., Sustainable hydrogen production: Technological
advancements and economic analysis, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (88) (2022)
37227–37255.
[44] H. Ishaq, I. Dincer, C. Crawford, A review on hydrogen production and
utilization: challenges and opportunities, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (62) (2022)
26238–26264.
[45] Niketan, V. Kumar, A.K. Choudhary, ‘A review on hydrogen and microalgae
biodiesel fuel in IC engine’, in AIP Conference Proceedings, 2023, vol. 2863, no. 1.
[46] N. Sonkar, A.K. Choudhary, ‘A review of performance and emission parameters of
diesel engines using bio-diesel fuel blended with hydrogen’, in AIP Conference
Proceedings, 2023, vol. 2745, no. 1.
[47] C. Acar, I. Dincer, Review and evaluation of hydrogen production options for
better environment, J. Clean. Prod. 218 (2019) 835–849, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.046.
[48] N. Akhlaghi, G. Najafpour-Darzi, A comprehensive review on biological hydrogen
production, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45 (43) (2020) 22492–22512, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.06.182.
[49] M.A. Akar, E. Kekilli, O. Bas, S. Yildizhan, H. Serin, M. Ozcanli, Hydrogen
enriched waste oil biodiesel usage in compression ignition engine, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 43 (38) (2018) 18046–18052, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2018.02.045.
[50] S. Tayari, R. Abedi, ‘Effect of Chlorella vulgaris methyl ester enriched with
hydrogen on performance and emission characteristics of CI engine’, vol. 256, no.
July, 2019.
[51] L.M. Das, Fuel induction techniques for a hydrogen operated engine, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 15 (11) (1990) 833–842, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199
(90)90020-Y.
[52] D. Mehra, V. Kumar, A.K. Choudhary, M. Awasthi, Performance and emission
characteristics of CI engine using hydrogen enrichment in biodiesel blend with
additives—a review, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 15 (3) (2023) 1–17.
[53] H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, et al., Biodiesel antioxidants and their impact on the
behavior of diesel engines: a comprehensive review, Fuel Process. Technol. 232
(March) (2022), 107264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2022.107264.
[54] C.C. Lee, M.-V. Tran, B.T. Tan, G. Scribano, C.T. Chong, A comprehensive review
on the effects of additives on fundamental combustion characteristics and
pollutant formation of biodiesel and ethanol, Fuel 288 (2021), 119749.
[55] K. Varatharajan, D.S. Pushparani, Screening of antioxidant additives for biodiesel
fuels, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (February) (2018) 2017–2028, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.020.
[56] S. Kumar, P. Dinesha, I. Bran, Experimental investigation of the effects of
nanoparticles as an additive in diesel and biodiesel fuelled engines: a review,
Biofuels 10 (5) (2019) 615–622, https://doi.org/10.1080/
17597269.2017.1332294.
[57] A. Murugesan, A. Avinash, E.J. Gunasekaran, A. Murugaganesan, Multivariate
analysis of nano additives on biodiesel fuelled engine characteristics, Fuel 275
(April) (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117922.
[58] H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, M. Tabatabaei, M. Aghbashlo, M. Khanali,
A. Demirbas, A comprehensive review on the environmental impacts of diesel/
biodiesel additives, Energy Convers. Manag. 174 (2018) 579–614.
[59] V. Kumar, A.K. Choudhary, A hybrid response surface methodology and multi-
criteria decision making model to investigate the performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with phenolic antioxidant additive and
biodiesel blends, J. Energy Resour. Technol. 145 (9) (2023) 1–22.
23
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
[60] M.K. Sinha, K. Kishore, P. Sharma, Surface integrity evaluation in ecological
nanofluids assisted grinding of Inconel 718 superalloy, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part
E J. Process Mech. Eng. (2023), 09544089231171042.
[61] A.S. Rajpoot, H. Chelladurai, A.K. Choudhary, B. Ambade, T. Choudhary, Thermal
and environmental assessment of Botryococcus braunii green biodiesel with
nanoparticles using energy-exergy-emission-sustainability (3ES) analysis in a
diesel engine, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 60 (2023), 103473.
[62] I.M.R. Fattah, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, M. Mofijur, M.J. Abedin, Effect of
antioxidant on the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine
fueled with palm biodiesel blends, Energy Convers. Manag. 79 (2014) 265–272.
[63] S. Javed, Y.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, M.R.S. Satyanarayana, R. Rajeswara
Reddy, K. Rajagopal, Effect of a zinc oxide nanoparticle fuel additive on the
emission reduction of a hydrogen dual-fuelled engine with jatropha methyl ester
biodiesel blends, J. Clean. Prod. vol. 137, no. x (2016) 490–506, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.125.
[64] S.M. Palash, M.A. Kalam, H.H. Masjuki, M.I. Arbab, B.M. Masum, A. Sanjid,
Impacts of NOx reducing antioxidant additive on performance and emissions of a
multi-cylinder diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel blends, Energy
Convers. Manag. 77 (x) (2014) 577–585, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2013.10.016.
[65] R. Selvabharathi, M. Selvam, S.K. Palani, Investigation of performance,
combustion, and emission characteristics of diesel engine equipped with exhaust
gas recirculation using ceria and zirconia nanoparticles-blended rice bran
biodiesel, Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 44 (2) (2022)
5508–5526.
[66] S. Nagaraja, D. Dsilva Winfred Rufuss, A.K. Hossain, Microscopic characteristics
of biodiesel – graphene oxide nanoparticle blends and their Utilisation in a
compression ignition engine, Renew. Energy 160 (2020) 830–841, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.07.032.
[67] K. Alagu, B. Nagappan, J. Jayaraman, A. Arul Gnana Dhas, Impact of antioxidant
additives on the performance and emission characteristics of CI engine fuelled
with B20 blend of rice bran biodiesel, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (2018)
17634–17644.
[68] T.S. Kumar, et al., Enhancement of engine characteristics through zirconium nano
particle addition and split injection parameter optimization for the adaptability of
eucalyptus biofuel in diesel engine, Fuel 323 (2022), 124425.
[69] R. Singh, S. Singh, M. Kumar, Impact of n-butanol as an additive with eucalyptus
biodiesel-diesel blends on the performance and emission parameters of the diesel
engine, Fuel 277 (April) (2020), 118178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2020.118178.
[70] B. Ashok, K. Nanthagopal, A.K. Jeevanantham, P. Bhowmick, D. Malhotra,
P. Agarwal, An assessment of calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel fuelled diesel
engine characteristics using novel antioxidant additives, Energy Convers. Manag.
148 (2017) 935–943.
[71] M.S. Gad, M.M.A. Aziz, H. Kayed, Impact of different nano additives on
performance, combustion, emissions and exergetic analysis of a diesel engine
using waste cooking oil biodiesel, Propuls. Power Res. 11 (2) (2022) 209–223.
[72] P. Mebin Samuel, G. Devaradjane, V. Gnanamoorthi, Performance enhancement
and emission reduction by using pine oil blends in a diesel engine influenced by 1,
4-dioxane, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17 (3) (2020) 1783–1794, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13762-019-02455-8.
[73] Y. Devarajan, D. Munuswamy, B. Nagappan, S. Ganesan, Detailed study on the
effect of different ignition enhancers in the binary blends of diesel/biodiesel as a
possible substitute for unaltered compression ignition engine, Pet. Sci. 17 (4)
(2020) 1151–1158, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-020-00463-9.
[74] K. Kalaimurugan, S. Karthikeyan, M. Periyasamy, T. Dharmaprabhakaran,
Combustion analysis of CuO2 nanoparticles addition with neochloris
oleoabundans algae biodiesel on CI engine, Mater. Today Proc. 33 (2020)
2573–2576.
[75] U. Rajak, P. Nashine, T.N. Verma, Characteristics of microalgae spirulina
biodiesel with the impact of n-butanol addition on a CI engine, Energy 189 (X)
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116311.
[76] I.M.R. Fattah, M.H. Hassan, M.A. Kalam, A.E. Atabani, M.J. Abedin, Synthetic
phenolic antioxidants to biodiesel: path toward NOx reduction of an unmodified
indirect injection diesel engine, J. Clean. Prod. 79 (2014) 82–90.
[77] Y. Devarajan, D.B. Munuswamy, A. Mahalingam, Influence of nano-additive on
performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine running on neat neem
oil biodiesel, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (26) (2018) 26167–26172, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-018-2618-6.
[78] P.K. Devan, N.V. Mahalakshmi, A study of the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a compression ignition engine using methyl ester of
paradise oil-eucalyptus oil blends, Appl. Energy 86 (5) (2009) 675–680, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.07.008.
[79] P. Shrivastava, T.N. Verma, O. David Samuel, A. Pugazhendhi, An experimental
investigation on engine characteristics, cost and energy analysis of CI engine
fuelled with Roselle, Karanja biodiesel and its blends, Fuel 275 (January) (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117891.
[80] D. Kurczyński, P. Łagowski, G. Wcisło, Experimental study into the effect of the
second-generation BBuE biofuel use on the diesel engine parameters and exhaust
composition, Fuel 284 (March) (2020) 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2020.118982.
[81] P. Verma, M.P. Sharma, G. Dwivedi, Potential use of eucalyptus biodiesel in
compressed ignition engine, Egypt. J. Pet. 25 (1) (2016) 91–95, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.03.008.
[82] H.C. Ong, H.H. Masjuki, T.M.I. Mahlia, A.S. Silitonga, W.T. Chong, T. Yusaf,
Engine performance and emissions using Jatropha curcas, Ceiba pentandra and
Deepalika et al.
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel in a CI diesel engine, Energy 69 (2014)
427–445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.035.
[83] A. Saravanan, M. Murugan, M. Sreenivasa Reddy, S. Parida, Performance and
emission characteristics of variable compression ratio CI engine fueled with dual
biodiesel blends of Rapeseed and Mahua, Fuel 263 (July) (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116751.
[84] S. Baweja, A. Trehan, R. Kumar, Combustion, performance, and emission analysis
of a CI engine fueled with mustard oil biodiesel blended in diesel fuel, Fuel 292
(November) (2020) 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120346.
[85] S. Das, S. Kanth, B. Das, S. Debbarma, Experimental evaluation of hydrogen
enrichment in a dual-fueled CRDI diesel engine, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (20)
(2022) 11039–11051.
[86] M. Kumar, S. Bhowmik, A. Paul, Effect of pilot fuel injection pressure and
injection timing on combustion, performance and emission of hydrogen-biodiesel
dual fuel engine, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (68) (2022) 29554–29567, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.06.260.
[87] U. Rajak, P. Nashine, T.N. Verma, A. Pugazhendhi, Performance and emission
analysis of a diesel engine using hydrogen enriched n-butanol, diethyl ester and
Spirulina microalgae biodiesel, Fuel 271 (March) (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117645.
[88] U. Rajak, T.N. Verma, Effect of emission from ethylic biodiesel of edible and non-
edible vegetable oil, animal fats, waste oil and alcohol in CI engine, Energy
Convers. Manag. 166 (2018) 704–718.
[89] V. Sharma, A. Kalam Hossain, A. Ahmed, A. Rezk, Study on using graphene and
graphite nanoparticles as fuel additives in waste cooking oil biodiesel, Fuel 328
(July) (2022), 125270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125270.
[90] T. Kalyani, L.S.V. Prasad, A. Kolakoti, Effect of triacetin as an oxygenated additive
in algae biodiesel fuelled CI engine combustion, performance, and exhaust
emission analysis, Fuel 338 (January) (2023), 127366, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2022.127366.
[91] H.S.A. Padmanabha, D.K. Mohanty, Impact of additive ethylene glycol diacetate
on diesel engine working with jatropha-karanja dual biodiesel, Renew. Energy
202 (2023) 116–126.
[92] V. Vinodkumar, A. Karthikeyan, Effect of manifold injection of n-decanol on neem
biodiesel fuelled CI engine, Energy vol. 241, no. X (2022), 122856, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122856.
[93] A. Bhattad, K.S. Patel, Performance analysis of diesel engine using Madhuca
longifolia blended biodiesel with nano-additive for variable parameters, Int. J.
Ambient Energy (2023) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01430750.2023.2171482.
[94] C. Xia, K. Brindhadevi, A. Elfasakhany, M. Alsehli, S. Tola, Performance,
combustion and emission analysis of castor oil biodiesel blends enriched with
nanoadditives and hydrogen fuel using CI engine, Fuel 306 (2021), 121541.
[95] S. Ramalingam, M. Dhakshinamoorthy, Effect of natural antioxidant additive on
hydrogen- enriched biodiesel operated compression ignition engine, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 47 (48) (2022) 20771–20783, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2022.04.207.
[96] M.S. Gad, S. Jayaraj, A comparative study on the effect of nano-additives on the
performance and emissions of a diesel engine run on Jatropha biodiesel, Fuel 267
(October) (2019) 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117168.
[97] S. Manigandan, P. Gunasekar, J. Devipriya, S. Nithya, Emission and injection
characteristics of corn biodiesel blends in diesel engine, Fuel 235 (October)
(2019) 723–735, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.08.071.
[98] S. Mohan, P. Dinesha, Performance and emissions of biodiesel engine with
hydrogen peroxide emulsification and cerium oxide (CeO2) nanoparticle
additives, Fuel 319 (2022), 123872.
[99] X. Zhang, et al., Assessment of hydrogen and nanoparticles blended biodiesel on
the diesel engine performance and emission characteristics, Fuel 307 (June)
(2021) 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121780.
[100] P. Murugesan, A.T. Hoang, E.P. Venkatesan, D.S. Kumar, D. Balasubramanian, A.
T. Le, Role of hydrogen in improving performance and emission characteristics of
homogeneous charge compression ignition engine fueled with graphite oxide
nanoparticle-added microalgae biodiesel/diesel blends, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
47 (88) (2022) 37617–37634.
[101] S. Mohan, P. Dinesha, V. Aiswarya, Synergetic influence of hydrogen peroxide
emulsification and MWCNT nanoparticles to reduce engine exhaust emissions
using B20 biodiesel blend, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (51) (2022) 21863–21877.
[102] R. Shanmuganathan, et al., Spirulina microalgae blend with biohydrogen and
nanocatalyst TiO2 and Ce2O3 as step towards emission reduction: Promoter or
inhibitor, Fuel 334 (2023), 126791.
[103] S.R. Reddy, S.K. Sarangi, Optimizing the effect of using novel hydrogen enriched
nano particles added emulsified waste mango seed biodiesel in diesel engine, Fuel
342 (2023), 127783.
[104] V. Thanigaivelan, M. Loganathan, M. Vikneswaran, S. Venkatramanan,
M. Manickam, Effect of hydrogen and ethanol addition in cashew nut shell liquid
biodiesel operated direct injection (DI) diesel engine, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47
(8) (2022) 5111–5129.
[105] S. Das, B. Das, The characteristics of waste-cooking palm biodiesel-fueled CRDI
diesel engines: effect hydrogen enrichment and nanoparticle addition, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy (2023).
[106] V. Perumal, M. Ilangkumaran, Experimental analysis of engine performance,
combustion and emission using pongamia biodiesel as fuel in CI engine, Energy
129 (2017) 228–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.120.
[107] B.R. Hosamani, V.V. Katti, Experimental analysis of combustion characteristics of
CI DI VCR engine using mixture of two biodiesel blend with diesel, Eng. Sci.
24
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
Technol. an Int. J. 21 (4) (2018) 769–777, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jestch.2018.05.015.
[108] A.N. Ozsezen, M. Canakci, A. Turkcan, C. Sayin, Performance and combustion
characteristics of a DI diesel engine fueled with waste palm oil and canola oil
methyl esters, Fuel 88 (4) (2009) 629–636.
[109] K. Nanthagopal, B. Ashok, R.S. Garnepudi, K.R. Tarun, B. Dhinesh, Investigation
on diethyl ether as an additive with Calophyllum Inophyllum biodiesel for CI
engine application, Energy Convers. Manag. 179 (September) (2019) 104–113,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.064.
[110] S. Kanth, S. Debbarma, B. Das, Experimental investigations on the effect of fuel
injection parameters on diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel blend in diesel with
hydrogen enrichment, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (83) (2022) 35468–35483,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.08.095.
[111] P.K. Chaurasiya, U. Rajak, I. Veza, T.N. Verma, Ü. Ağbulut, Influence of injection
timing on performance, combustion and emission characteristics of a diesel
engine running on hydrogen-diethyl ether, n-butanol and biodiesel blends, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 47 (41) (2022) 18182–18193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2022.03.268.
[112] B. Ashok, et al., Comparative assessment of hexanol and decanol as oxygenated
additives with calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel, Energy 173 (2019) 494–510,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.077.
[113] H. Solmaz, A. Calam, E. Yılmaz, F. Şahin, S.M.S. Ardebili, F. Aksoy, Evaluation of
MWCNT as fuel additive to diesel–biodiesel blend in a direct injection diesel
engine, Biofuels 14 (2) (2023) 147–156, https://doi.org/10.1080/
17597269.2022.2122154.
[114] M. Elkelawy, S.E.H. Etaiw, H.-A.-E. Bastawissi, M.I. Ayad, A.M. Radwan, M.
M. Dawood, Diesel/biodiesel/silver thiocyanate nanoparticles/hydrogen peroxide
blends as new fuel for enhancement of performance, combustion, and Emission
characteristics of a diesel engine, Energy 216 (2021), 119284.
[115] M.K. Parida, H. Joardar, A.K. Rout, I. Routaray, B.P. Mishra, Multiple response
optimizations to improve performance and reduce emissions of Argemone
Mexicana biodiesel-diesel blends in a VCR engine, Appl. Therm. Eng. 148
(August) (2019) 1454–1466, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2018.11.061.
[116] C. Prabhu, B.N. Krishnan, T. Prakash, V. Rajasekar, Biodiesel unsaturation and the
synergic effects of hydrogen sharing rate on the characteristics of a compression
ignition engine in dual-fuel mode, Fuel 334 (November) (2023) 2022.
[117] C. Bayindirli, M. Celik, R. Zan, Optimizing the thermophysical properties and
combustion performance of biodiesel by graphite and reduced graphene oxide
nanoparticle fuel additive, Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J. 37 (2023), 101295.
[118] B.A. Oni, S.E. Sanni, D.O. Orodu, T.F. Ogunkunle, Comparing the effects of
Juliflora biodiesel doped with nano-additives on the performance of a
compression ignition (CI) engine: Part A, Energy 244 (2022), 122635.
[119] A.M.A. Attia, A.R. Kulchitskiy, M. Nour, A.I. El-Seesy, S.A. Nada, The influence of
castor biodiesel blending ratio on engine performance including the determined
diesel particulate matters composition, Energy 239 (2022), 121951.
[120] S. Tayari, R. Abedi, A. Rahi, Comparative assessment of engine performance and
emissions fueled with three different biodiesel generations, Renew. Energy 147
(2020) 1058–1069, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.09.068.
[121] T. Mathimani, T. Senthil Kumar, M. Chandrasekar, L. Uma, D. Prabaharan,
Assessment of fuel properties, engine performance and emission characteristics of
outdoor grown marine Chlorella vulgaris BDUG 91771 biodiesel, Renew. Energy
105 (2017) 637–646, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.12.090.
[122] S.B. Avsl, N. Subramaniapillai, M.S.B.K. Mohamed, A. Narayanan, Effect of rubber
seed oil biodiesel on engine performance and emission analysis, Fuel 296 (2021),
120708.
[123] A.K. Agarwal, et al., Effect of fuel injection pressure and injection timing of
Karanja biodiesel blends on fuel spray, engine performance, emissions and
combustion characteristics, Energy Convers. Manag. 91 (2015) 302–314.
[124] S. Thangaraj, N. Govindan, ScienceDirect Evaluating combustion, performance
and emission characteristics of diesel engine using karanja oil methyl ester
biodiesel blends enriched with HHO gas, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (12) (2018)
6443–6455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.02.036.
[125] G. Tüccar, E. Uludamar, Emission and engine performance analysis of a diesel
engine using hydrogen enriched pomegranate seed oil biodiesel, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 43 (38) (2018) 18014–18019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2017.11.124.
[126] H. Serin, Ş. Yıldızhan, Hydrogen addition to tea seed oil biodiesel: Performance
and emission characteristics, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (38) (2018)
18020–18027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.12.085.
[127] S. Verma, R. Upadhyay, R. Shankar, S.P. Pandey, Performance and emission
characteristics of micro-algae biodiesel with butanol and TiO2 nano-additive over
diesel engine, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 55 (December) (2023),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102975.
[128] N. Kumar, H. Raheman, Production, characterization and utilization of second
generation biodiesel blend in diesel engine using water and nanoparticles as
additives, Fuel 308 (July) (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122063.
[129] S. Ellappan, S. Rajendran, A comparative review of performance and emission
characteristics of diesel engine using eucalyptus-biodiesel blend, Fuel 284 (April)
(2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118925.
[130] L. Yi-Chia, et al., Role of chicken fat waste and hydrogen energy ratio as the
potential alternate fuel with nano-additives: Insights into resources and
atmospheric remediation process, Environ. Res. 216 (2023), 114742.
[131] M. Loganathan, V.M. Madhavan, K.A. Balasubramanian, V. Thanigaivelan,
M. Vikneswaran, A. Anbarasu, Investigation on the effect of diethyl ether with
Deepalika et al.
hydrogen-enriched cashew nut shell (CNS) biodiesel in direct injection (DI) diesel
engine, Fuel 277 (2020), 118165.
[132] M.S. Gad, M.K. El-Fakharany, E.A. Elsharkawy, Effect of HHO gas enrichment on
performance and emissions of a diesel engine fueled by biodiesel blend with
kerosene additive, Fuel 280 (2020), 118632.
[133] E. Tosun, M. Özcanlı, Hydrogen enrichment effects on performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine operated with diesel-soybean biodiesel blends
with nanoparticle addition, Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J. 24 (3) (2021) 648–654.
[134] L. Razzaq, et al., Engine performance and emission characteristics of palm
biodiesel blends with graphene oxide nanoplatelets and dimethyl carbonate
additives, J. Environ. Manage. 282 (December) (2021) 1–10, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111917.
[135] C. Dueso, et al., Performance and emissions of a diesel engine using sunflower
biodiesel with a renewable antioxidant additive from bio-oil, Fuel 234 (2018)
276–285.
[136] P.M. Rastogi, A. Sharma, N. Kumar, Effect of CuO nanoparticles concentration on
the performance and emission characteristics of the diesel engine running on
jojoba (Simmondsia Chinensis) biodiesel, Fuel 286 (P1) (2021), 119358, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119358.
[137] M.E.M. Soudagar, N.N. Nik-Ghazali, M. Abul Kalam, I.A. Badruddin, N.
R. Banapurmath, N. Akram, The effect of nano-additives in diesel-biodiesel fuel
blends: a comprehensive review on stability, engine performance and emission
characteristics, Energy Convers. Manag. 178 (October) (2018) 146–177, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.019.
25
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 46 (2023) 102185
[138] L. Tarabet, M.S. Lounici, K. Loubar, K. Khiari, R. Bouguessa, M. Tazerout,
Hydrogen supplemented natural gas effect on a DI diesel engine operating under
dual fuel mode with a biodiesel pilot fuel, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (11) (2018)
5961–5971, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.09.045.
[139] M.S. Panithasan, D. Gopalakichenin, G. Venkadesan, S. Veeraraagavan, Impact of
rice husk nanoparticle on the performance and emission aspects of a diesel engine
running on blends of pine oil-diesel, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (1) (2019)
282–291, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3601-y.
[140] A. AlGhafis, M.S. Basha, S. Raghavendra, S.A. Pasha, Evaluation of vital factors
effecting 4S CI engine with altered IT using calophyllum inophyllum blends with
H2 enrichment, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 46 (8) (2021) 7623–7634, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13369-021-05506-w.
[141] K. Jayaraman, G.N. Babu, G. Dhandapani, E.G. Varuvel, Effect of hydrogen
addition on performance, emission, and combustion characteristics of Deccan
hemp oil and its methyl ester–fuelled CI engine, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (9)
(2019) 8685–8695, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04286-z.
[142] S.R. Reddy, G. Murali, A.A. Shaik, V.D. Raju, M.B.S.S. Reddy, Experimental
evaluation of diesel engine powered with waste mango seed biodiesel at different
injection timings and EGR rates, Fuel 285 (2021), 119047.
[143] A. Suhel, N.A. Rahim, M.R.A. Rahman, K.A. Bin Ahmad, Engine’s behaviour on
magnetite nanoparticles as additive and hydrogen addition of chicken fat methyl
ester fuelled DICI engine: a dual fuel approach, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (27)
(2021) 14824–14843.