Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Performance and emission characteristics of biodiesel–diesel blend and MARK

environmental and economic impacts of biodiesel production: A review
⁎
M.M. Hasana, M.M. Rahmana,b,
a
Automotive Engineering Research Group, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
b
Automotive Engineering Centre, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The objective of this review is to illustrate the properties, engine performance, and emission characteristics of
Biodiesel biodiesel–diesel blends employed in CI engines under different conditions worldwide as well as the
Blend environmental and economic impacts of biodiesel production, and the effects of this blend on engine durability
CI engines are also discussed. Biodiesels are gaining more importance as a promising alternative energy resource due to the
Combustion
global fossil fuel crisis and emission problems. However, it was realized that extensive utilization of biodiesel
Performance
would tax the food chain and could lead to food shortages. Thus, the use of a blend of biodiesel with
Emission
conventional fuel was suggested to balance its usage, which could still provide a beneficial greenhouse effect.
From the results of the investigation, it is reported that blends containing up to 30% biodiesel have almost the
same properties as diesel. Most investigation results have shown that, compared to diesel, biodiesel–diesel
blend provides shorter ignition delay and a reduced heat release rate as well as a slightly higher efficiency by
sacrificing a small amount of fuel. The HC, CO, and PM emissions are reduced to a great extent but the NOx
emission becomes slightly higher. Biodiesels are expected to reduce the dependence on imported petroleum
with the associated economic vulnerability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, and
revitalize the economy by increasing demand and prices for agricultural products. From the review, it can be
said that blends of biodiesel with a small content by volume can be used in existing CI engines without any
major modifications.

1. Introduction engines, especially because it is biodegradable, oxygenated, non-toxic,

The world demand for energy is increasing at a fast rate with the
increasing trend of modernization and industrialization. Most of the
developing countries import crude oil to meet their increasing energy
demands. For this reason, a major portion of their hard earnings is
spent on purchasing petroleum products. Awareness of the acute
shortages of crude oil started from the worldwide fuel crisis in the
1970s. After that, significant attention was drawn to the improvement
of alternative fuel sources. Besides this attention towards the energy
crisis, today another important concern for us is the degradation of the
environment due to fossil fuel combustion. Exhaust gases such as
carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) are responsible for the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere,
which in turn causes global warming. That is why it is essential to
develop alternative fuels with low emissions for use in diesel engines.
Efficient sourcing of fuels from renewable sources is an option for
meeting these challenges. Due to its availability in large volume, among
all the renewable fuel sources, biodiesel can be a good option for diesel
and environmentally friendly [1,2]. A number of researchers [3–7]
have found similar physical and chemical properties of biodiesel and
diesel fuel and that biodiesel has some advantages over diesel fuel such
as having a higher cetane number (CN), almost no sulphur, and no
aromatics and containing 10–11% oxygen by weight. These character-
istics of the fuel help to reduce the emissions of hydrocarbon (HC),
carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter [8] in the exhaust gas
compared to diesel fuel [9–11]. But there are some disadvantages of
biodiesel which hinder its use as a complete replacement for diesel,
such as its higher kinematic viscosity and density as well as its low
calorific value. That is why many scientists and investigators [12–21]
have studied blends of biodiesel with diesel by varying the proportions
of biodiesel and diesel to investigate their suitability as a fuel in existing
diesel engines. They reported that problems associated with biodiesel
can be overcome by using biodiesel–diesel blends. They observed
better thermal efficiency as well as reduced PM, HC, CO, and NOX
emissions. Some researchers [15,19–21] suggested that B20 (20%
biodiesel in a biodiesel–diesel blend) gives better engine performance

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mustafizur@ump.edu.my (M.M. Hasan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.045
Received 12 October 2014; Received in revised form 9 February 2017; Accepted 8 March 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
compared to diesel fuel alone. They found that B20 has an improved
density, viscosity, and flash point as well as a calorific value close to
diesel which led to better engine performance.
Due to the significance of biodiesels which can partially replace
conventional diesel fuel, there is a need to report on the recent
advances in this research. Thus, the aim of this review is to investigate
the different fuel properties and engine performances of biodiesel–
diesel blends by varying the biodiesel proportion in the blend, which
has been investigated by many researchers. In this study, peer-
reviewed articles published mostly in the last decade on commonly
used fuels (diesel and biodiesel–diesel blend) in CI engines have been
reviewed. This report focuses on the fuel properties, combustion,
performance, and emission characteristics of biodiesel–diesel blends
and compares the data with those of ordinary diesel fuel. Each of them
is discussed in detail in different sections. Finally, different research
results are presented in tabular form in order to provide an easy
comparison among them. In addition, the impacts of biodiesel produc-
tion on the environment and economy are briefly discussed. The paper
consists of nine sections, where Section 2 presents the fuel properties of
biodiesel–diesel blend, Sections 3–5 present the comparison of com-
bustion, performance, and emission characteristics between diesel and
biodiesel–diesel blends, Sections 6 and 7 present the environmental
and economic impacts of biodiesel production respectively. Section 8
discusses the problems associated with engine durability for using
higher percentages of biodiesel and possible means of overcoming
these. The review concludes with Section 9.
2. Blend properties
The proper operation of an engine depends on a number of fuel
properties. Viscosity, density, CN, heating value, flash point, pour
point, and so on are the most significant properties of the fuel. Engine
combustion, performance, and emission are directly related to these
[22]. Before being used, a fuel should meet the limits defined by various
standards like ASTM, EN, ISO, and so on. Among them, ASTM is
widely used [23]. Fuels whose properties’ values lie within the standard
limits provide smooth engine performance and emissions. At present,
the blending of two or more fuels has become very popular because it
improves the fuel properties [4,24–27]. In this section, the properties
of diesel and the most widely used diesel blend, that is, biodiesel–diesel
blend, in CI engines are discussed. Biodiesel can be blended with diesel
in any proportion to improve the qualities of the fuel. However, with
regard to the differences in the physical and chemical properties of
various types of biodiesel, biodiesel–diesel blends may have different
physicochemical properties, which in turn affect the engine perfor-
mance and pollutant emissions produced [28–31]. Therefore, the
researchers analysed and studied the quality of biodiesel–diesel blends
with regard to several aspects such as properties of the blend, blending
ratio, and storage time [25,26,30]. Table 1 lists the fuel properties of
the discussed fuel and blends.
2.1. Kinematic viscosity
The kinematic viscosity should be lower in order to give a better
performance of engines because higher viscosity is responsible for
Table 1
Fuel properties of ordinary diesel and biodiesel–diesel blend.
Properties Kinematic viscosity at Density (kg/
40 °C (cSt) m³)
ASTM limit 1.9–6 – 47 minimum
Diesel 2.5–5.7 816–840
Biodiesel–diesel blend (up to 2.77–4.80 835–896
30% blend)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
higher fuel pump power consumption as well as poor spray and
atomization [25,32,33] and also increases fuel consumption [34].
Generally, diesel fuel is less viscous than biodiesel. So, when diesel is
blended with biodiesel, the blend has a higher viscosity than diesel. But
by using up to 30% biodiesel in a biodiesel–diesel blend, this viscosity
can be lowered and can reach a similar range to that of diesel, as shown
in Table 1. This statement agrees with the analyses of Benjumea et al.
[26] and Tat and Gerpen [35], who observed kinematic viscosities of
3.0–4.5 mm2/s for palm oil biodiesel–diesel blend and 2.8–4.10 mm2/
s for soybean biodiesel–diesel blend. The viscosities of each blend level
among the JCB, CPB, CIB, HBB, CMB, and RPMEB blends did not vary
significantly. For example, the kinematic viscosities of the B30 blends
of CPME, CIME, HBME, CMME, and RPME were 3.66, 3.78, 3.59,
3.55, and 3.68 mm2/s respectively. Moreover, JCMEB30 has a slightly
higher viscosity of 4.02 mm2/s, while that of SFME is the highest, by a
considerable margin, at 4.60 mm2/s [36]. All of the blends’ kinematic
viscosities satisfied the criteria presented by petro diesel-biodiesel
blend (ASTMD7467) standards.
2.2. Density
Higher density increases the energy concentration of fuel [37], and
the fuel atomization efficiency is also influenced by its density [25]. But
higher density causes higher viscosity, which ultimately leads to poor
combustion and affects engine performance and emissions [23]. The
range of densities shown in Table 1 reveals that biodiesel–diesel blend
has a higher density than ordinary diesel. This result is in agreement
with those of Zayed and Ahmed [38], who mentioned that the density
of biodiesel–diesel blend varied from 838 to 896 kg/m3 when different
percentages of biodiesel were used at different temperatures. Alptekin
and Canakci [25] analysed the densities of six biodiesels (sunflower,
canola, soybean, cottonseed, corn oils and waste palm oil). They found
that blends of up to 20% with diesel provide a density very close to that
of petrol diesel. The maximum differences were about 0.97% and
1.24% of the density of the biodiesel–diesel blends. The densities of all
the biodiesel–diesel blends were within the recommended limits for
biodiesel fuels specified by ASTMD6751 (875–900 kg/m3) and
EN14214 (860–900 kg/m3) in the review by Hoekman et al. [39].
2.3. Cetane number
The CN has a close relation with ignition delay [40]. A higher CN
shortens the ignition delay period. In this regard, a higher CN is
expected. In general, biodiesel has a higher CN than petro-diesel. This
is because biodiesel is largely composed of long-chain HC groups (with
virtually no branching or aromatic structures). For this reason, with
increases in the biodiesel percentage in a biodiesel–diesel blend, the
CN of the blend increases [41,42]. Table 1 shows that the CN of
biodiesel–diesel blend is similar to that of diesel fuel. The CN of
biodiesel ranges from 46.9 to 49.9, which is slightly lower than that of
ordinary diesel, which ranges from 45 to 55. The reason for this is that
the articles reviewed here investigated the CN of biodiesel–diesel
blends with up to 30% biodiesel in the blend. When the percentage
of diesel in the blend is higher, the blend has a lower CN than pure
diesel.
Cetane Calorific value Flash point Reference
number (MJ/kg) (°C)
– 130 minimum
45–55 43–47 50–98 [52–54]
46.9–49.9 35.6–44.16 75.5–140 [26,34,35,38,47,50,55–57]
939
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
2.4. Calorific value
Engine combustion characteristics and performance are influenced
by the calorific value, which facilitates heat release during combustion
and improves the power output [43–46]. The calorific value of
biodiesel–diesel blends is generally slightly higher than that of
biodiesel but lower than that of diesel fuel. With a reduction in the
biodiesel percentage in the blend, the calorific value of the biodiesel
increases. From the results presented in Table 1, it can be seen that the
calorific value of biodiesel–diesel blend ranges from 35.6 to 44.16 MJ/
kg, which is slightly lower than that of ordinary diesel, which ranges
from 43 to 47 MJ/kg. This result is in agreement with the results of
Zayed and Ahmed [38], who observed a heating value of biodiesel–
diesel blend that varied from 35.6 to 41.2 MJ/kg. Chen et al. [47] also
found that the calorific value of biodiesel–diesel blend was lower than
that of diesel. They investigated the calorific value of jatropha methyl
ester (JTME) biodiesel blended with diesel in different percentages and
found a value of 39.4 MJ/kg by using the lowest percentage of
biodiesel.
2.5. Flash point
The flash point has great importance because it directly affects the
transportation, storage, and handling of fuel. Fuel which has a higher
flash point provides greater safety during storage and transport [48].
The flash point of biodiesels is 50% higher than that of diesel, which
represents an important safety asset for biodiesel [49]. Table 1 shows
that the flash points of biodiesel–diesel blends are higher than that of
ordinary diesel. The articles reviewed here revealed that the average
flash points for all biodiesel–diesel blends are about 107.75 °C,
showing a tremendous increase of 68.67% compared to diesel fuel.
Shang et al. [50] also obtained similar results when analysing the flash
point of tung oil biodiesel blends. In recent scientific investigations, it
was found that B20 (a mix of 20% biodiesel with 80% diesel fuel) is the
most common blend. However, in Europe, the current regulation
prescribes a maximum of 5.75% biodiesel [51].
3. Combustion characteristics
Combustion characteristics are an important distinction of a fuel,
on which the engine performance and emission characteristics are
strongly dependent [58]. The effectiveness of the combustion process
can be explained based on a few parameters such as in-cylinder
pressure, ignition delay, combustion duration, heat release, and
cumulative heat release rate [59,60]. In this section, a review of the
combustion characteristics in terms of ignition delay, cylinder pressure,
and the heat release rate of biodiesel–diesel blends used in diesel
engines is presented with some brief discussion. The comparative
results of each investigation related to the combustion characteristics
of biodiesel–diesel fuel blends with diesel fuel alone in different
engines are summarized in Table 2.
3.1. Ignition delay
Most researchers [61–65] observed that biodiesel–diesel blend
provides a shorter ignition delay than diesel fuel. Rao et al. [61]
investigated the combustion, performance, and emission characteris-
tics of neat diesel, neat jatropha methyl ester (JTME) biodiesel, and a
blend of JTME and diesel in a single-cylinder, four-stroke, naturally
aspirated, direct-injection diesel engine. They observed that the igni-
tion delay of the JTME and its blends was smaller than that of diesel
under all loads and that the ignition delay decreased with increases in
the amount of JTME in the blend under all loads. This is because of the
oxygen content of JTME, which improves the ignitibility as well as
splitting the heavier compounds of fatty acid present in JTME into
smaller compounds, which produces more volatile matter, which in
940
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
turn causes earlier ignition. A similar result was observed by Orkun
Ozener et al. [62]. They analysed the combustion characteristics of
soybean biodiesel and a blend of it with diesel in a single-cylinder, four-
stroke, naturally aspirated, direct-injection diesel engine and found
that the ignition delay was shorter than that of diesel.
Chemical properties of fuel such as the CN, engine speed, and
engine load have an effect on the ignition delay of CI engines [66].
Fuels which have higher CNs usually have shorter ignition delay.
Canakci [3] found the CNs of No. 1 diesel fuel, No. 2 diesel fuel, and
B100 to be 45.3, 42.6, and 51.5, respectively. He further investigated
the ignition delay for each fuel and reported that the ignition delays of
B100 and No. 1 diesel fuel were shorter than that of No. 2 diesel fuel.
Other authors in the literature [63] observed the ignition delays of pure
biodiesel and diesel against engine speed. They found that when the
engine speed increased, the ignition delay also increased. The ignition
delay for biodiesel and its blends containing 5%, 20%, and 50%
biodiesel blend increased with increases in the engine speed [64]. In
the case of load, a shorter ignition delay was observed with increasing
load according to the authors of [67–69]. A higher combustion
chamber wall temperature and reduced exhaust gas dilution at higher
loads may be reasons for this.
3.2. Cylinder pressure
Qi et al. [70] investigated the combustion, performance, and
emission characteristics of neat diesel and neat biodiesel as well as
different percentages of biodiesel (30%, 50%, and 80%) with diesel in a
single-cylinder, four-stroke, naturally aspirated, direct-injection diesel
engine under variable load conditions. They found that the peak
cylinder pressure was higher for biodiesel and its blends at low engine
loads, but at high engine loads the peak cylinder pressures were almost
the same for all tested fuels. The peak cylinder pressure of biodiesel
was 5.89 MPa, and that of diesel fuel was 5.73 MPa at 15% of full
engine load. At 90% of full engine load, the peak cylinder pressures
were 8.12 and 8.11 MPa for biodiesel and diesel fuels, respectively. The
increases in the ignition delay with decreasing engine load may be a
reason for this. Due to the longer ignition delay period, combustion
starts later with diesel fuel than with biodiesel and its blends.
Ultimately, the cylinder pressure attains a lower value.
Rao et al. [67] analysed the combustion characteristics of used
cooking oil methyl ester (UCME) biodiesel and a blend of it with diesel
in a single-cylinder, direct-injection CI engine coupled with a swinging
field electrical dynamometer. The combustion performance was mea-
sured using AVL Indimeter software, which was interfaced with the
engine. The experimental results showed that the peak cylinder
pressure for UCME and blends of it was 2.2–4.4% higher than that
of diesel. A similar type of study was presented by Sahoo and Das [65],
in which blends of three different types of biodiesel – polanga,
jatropha, and karanja – were used as fuel. The authors of this study
found that the cylinder pressure of every blend was higher than that of
diesel under every engine load condition. A slight decrease in cylinder
pressure for biodiesel–diesel blend was observed by the authors of
[62]. They tested the combustion phenomena of soybean biodiesel and
a blend of it with diesel, as well as comparing the results with those for
standard diesel fuel. They found an opposite trend in the case of
cylinder pressure. The ignition delay for diesel fuel in this study was
longer than those for other fuels, which allowed more air and fuel to
mix properly. Ultimately this results in a high peak pressure for diesel.
The percentage of biodiesel in biodiesel–diesel blend has an significant
influence on the cylinder pressure of engines [67,71]. The use of
biodiesel–diesel blend in different proportions and pure UCME
biodiesel [67], and pure hydrogenated soy ethyl ester (HySEE)
biodiesel [71], observed a obvious variation of the peak cylinder
pressure with increasing biodiesel content.
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948

Table 2
Different experimental engine performance and emission results using biodiesel–diesel blends compared to diesel fuel in CI engines.

Engine Test condition Biodiesel (%) Reference fuel Combustion Performance Emission Reference

One-cylinder, 4S, WC, CI, DI, Constant speed 10 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↓: ↑: Smoke, CO, [100]
CR: 17.5:1, RP: 7.5 kW, and different loads 50 75 BTE HC
RS: 1500 rpm

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, CI, DI Different loads 2.6 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: Power, BTE ↑: CO [101]
50 ↓: BSFC

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, CI, DI, Constant speed 5 10 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↓: ↑: NOx ↓: [102]
CR: 17.5:1, RP: 7.4 kW, and different loads 20 30 BTE HC, CO
RS: 1500 rpm

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, NA, CI, Constant speed 20 40 Diesel ↑: Cylinder pressure ↑: BSFC ↓: ↑: NOx ↓: [61]
DI, CR: 17.5:1, RP: 4.4 kW, and different loads 60 80 ↓: Ignition delay, HRR BTE HC, CO, soot
RS: 1500 rpm

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, CI, DI, Variable speed and 5 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: Power ↑: NOx, HC [76]
CR: 18:1, RP: 8 kW, RS: different loads 50 ↓: CO, soot
3600 rpm

Four-cylinder, 4S, WC, CI, DI, Variable speed and 10 20 Diesel ↑: Cylinder pressure ↑: BSFC ––––– [58]
CR: 18.3:1, RS: 1900 rpm different loads 50 ↓: HRR

One-cylinder, CI, IDI, CR: Constant speed 10 20 Marine diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↓: NOx, HC, CO, [103]
19:1, RP: 3.8 kW RS: and different loads PM
1500 rpm 50

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, NA, CI, Variable speed and 10 20 Diesel ↓: Ignition delay, cylinder ↑: BSFC ↑: NOx ↓: [62]
DI, CR: 17.5:1, RP: 8.1 kW, different loads 50 pressure, HRR Smoke
RS: 3000 rpm

One-cylinder, 4S, WC, NA, CI, Constant speed 30 50 Diesel ↑: Cylinder pressure ↑: BSFC ↓: ↑: NOx [70]
DI, CR: 16.5:1, RP: and different loads
11.03 kW, RS: 2000 rpm 80 ─: HC
↓: HRR BTE ↓: CO, smoke

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, CI, DI, Constant speed 20 50 Diesel ↑: Cylinder pressure ––––– ––––– [65]
CR: 17.5:1, RP: 6 kW, RS: and different loads ↓: Ignition delay, HRR
1500 rpm

Six-cylinder, 4S, WC, CI, DI, Variable speed and 10 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↑: NOx, HC [104]
CR: 18:1, RP: 177 kW, RS: different loads ─: BTE ↓: CO, soot
2600 rpm

Four-cylinder, 4S, CI, DI, CR: Variable speed and 30 70 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↑: NOx, HC, [77]
18:1, RP: 82 kW, RS: different loads ─: Power, BTE smoke, PM
4000 rpm

One-cylinder, 4S, WC, NA, CI, Variable speed and 10 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ─: HC [2]
DI, CR: 19.8:1, RS: different loads ─: BTE ↓: NOx, CO,
4500 rpm smoke

One-cylinder, 4S, NA, CI, DI, Variable speed and 10 30 Diesel ––––– ─: BTE ↑: NOx ↓: [5]
CR: 20.3:1, RP: 18 kW, RS: different loads 50 ↓: Power CO
3450 rpm

Four-cylinder, 4S, WC, NA, CI, Variable speed and 5 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↓: ↑: NOx ↓: [78]
IDI, CR: 21.47:1, RP: fixed load 50 Torque, BTE HC, CO, smoke
38.8 kW, RS: 4250 rpm

Four-cylinder, 4S, WC, CI, DI, Variable speed and 10 20 Diesel ↓: HRR ↑: BSFC ↓: ↑: CO [72]
CR: 18.5:1, RP: 75 kW, RS: part load
3600 rpm 50 Torque, BTE ─: NOx
↓: HC

Four-cylinder, 4S, WC, CI, IDI, Variable speed and 5 20 Diesel ↓: Ignition delay ↑: BSFC ↓: ↑: NOx ↓: [63]
CR: 21.47:1, RP: 38.8 kW, fixed load 50 Torque CO, HC, smoke
RS: 4250 rpm

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, CI, DI, Variable speed and 5 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↓: ↓: NOx, CO, [105]
CR: 18:1, RP: 7.5 kW, RS: fixed load 50 75 Torque smoke
3600 rpm

Six-cylinder, 4S, WC, CI, DI, Variable speed and ––––– Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↑: NOx, HC [106]
CR: 18:1, RP: 177 kW, RS: different loads ─: BTE ↓: CO,
(continued on next page)

941
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948

Table 2 (continued)

Engine Test condition Biodiesel (%) Reference fuel Combustion Performance Emission Reference

2600 rpm

Four-cylinder, 4S, NA, CI, DI, Fixed load 5 20 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC, BTE ↑: NOx ↓: [107]
CR: 16.8:1, RS: 2400 rpm 50 ↓: Power CO, smoke

One-cylinder, 4S, AC, NA, CI, Fixed load 20 50 Diesel ––––– ––––– ↓: NOx, CO, HC [108]
DI, RP: 2 kW, RS:
3600 rpm 75

Four-cylinder, CI, DI, CR: Variable speed and ––––– Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC ↑: CO ↓: [109]
19.5:1, RP: 66 kW RS: different loads ─: BTE NOx
4200 rpm

Two-cylinder, CI, DI, CR: 18:1, Variable speed 25 50 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC, BTE ↓: Smoke [110]
RS: 3000 rpm 75 ↓: Power

Four-cylinder, 4S, WC, CI, DI, Variable speed 5 10 Diesel ––––– ↑: BSFC, BTE ↓: NOx, HC, CO, [111]
CR: 16:1, RP: 59 kW 20 35 smoke
One-cylinder, 4S, CI, DI, CR: Constant speed ––––– Diesel ––––– ↓: Power, BTE ↓: HC, CO, smoke [112]
19.9:1 and fixed load

4S=four-stroke, WC=water-cooled, AC=air-cooled, NA=naturally aspirated, CI=compression ignition, DI=direct injection, IDI=indirect ignition, CR=compression ratio, RP=rated
power, RS=rated speed, ↑: increase, ↓: decrease, ─: no change.

3.3. Heat release rate 4. Performance characteristics

The biodiesel–diesel blend from biodiesels of different origins
provided a lower peak heat release than diesel fuel
[58,61,62,65,70,72]. The authors of [61] also investigated the heat
release rate of JTME biodiesel–diesel blend in their combustion
characteristics analysis, as well as comparing the results with those
for neat diesel fuel. They observed that the value of maximum heat
release rate decreased with increases in the proportion of JTME in the
fuel. In this study, the ignition delay was longer for diesel fuel than for
biodiesel–diesel blend, which allowed more air and fuel to mix
properly. Ultimately, this resulted in a higher heat release rate for
diesel. Similarly, Sahoo and Das [65] reported that the values of the
maximum heat release rate were higher for biodiesel–diesel blends
than for diesel fuel. Tesfa et al. [58] investigated the effects of biodiesel
types and blend fractions on the combustion characteristics in a four-
cylinder, four-stroke, water-cooled, direct-injection diesel engine. They
depicted the heat release rates for different biodiesel blends and
normal diesel at a speed of 1300 rpm and at different load values of
105, 210, 315, and 420 N m. With increasing load, the peak heat
release rate was shifted from diesel to biodiesel. The opposite result
was found by Qi et al. [70]. They reported that the peak heat release
rate of biodiesel is higher than that of diesel fuel under low engine
loads (15% of full engine load), but the inverse is true under high
engine loads (90% of full engine load). Moreover, Dhar and Agarwal
[73] as well as Gautam and Agarwal [74] also reported the same finding
[70].
Engine speed, engine load, and the oxygen content of fuels have an
effect on the heat release pattern [64,67,75]. Abu-Jrai et al. [75]
compared the heat release rate for biodiesel–diesel blend and diesel at
25%, 50%, and 75% of full engine load. The maximum heat release rate
increases with the increase of load from low to medium, however, the
opposite phenomenon occurs under high load. The maximum heat
release rate occurs with increasing engine load slightly closer to the top
dead centre (TDC). An increase in the maximum heat release rate and
the fraction of fuel burned in the premixed combustion phase with an
increase in the oxygen fraction of the injected fuel at high engine speed
[64]. The maximum heat release rate decreased, and advanced crank
angle with the percentage of biodiesel in the blend increased [67].
Engine performance is the next parameter that indicates whether or
not an engine is widely acceptable. Brake power, brake specific fuel
consumption (BSFC), and brake thermal efficiency (BTE) are the
performance indicators for engines. In this section, which reviews the
performance characteristics in terms of power, the BSFC and BTE of
diesel engines using biodiesel–diesel blends are presented along with
some brief discussion and a performance comparison between diesel
and biodiesel–diesel blends is also shown in tabular form in Table 2.
4.1. Power
Greater or smaller reductions in engine power when using biodie-
sel–diesel blends with biodiesel of different origins are reported in
most research [5,63,72,76–79]. For example, Murillo et al. [5]
investigated the engine performance characteristics of neat diesel and
neat biodiesel as well as different percentages of biodiesel (10%, 30%,
and 50%) with diesel in a single-cylinder, four-stroke, naturally
aspirated, direct-injection diesel engine under variable load conditions.
They reported that with increasing biodiesel percentage in the blend,
the engine power output decreased. They also observed that when the
engine was coupled to a specific propeller, the direct substitution of the
fuel led to a reduction in the propeller speed, and therefore to a further
reduction in the system’s output. The waste cooking oil was compared
with that for ultra-low sulphur diesel on a single-cylinder, four-stroke,
water-cooled, direct-injection diesel engine under part load conditions
[72]. They reported that the average reduction from 1600 to 3600 rpm
was 12.2% for B100. However, the maximum brake power with
traditional diesel was found to be 25% higher than biodiesel from
waste cooking oil and 52% higher than biodiesel with glycerin at
2500 rpm [80]. On the other hand, Al-Widyan et al. [81] observed
higher brake power output for 25%, 50%, and 75% biodiesel–diesel
blends, relative to ordinary diesel fuel. They carried out tests on a
single-cylinder, naturally aspirated, water-cooled, direct-injection en-
gine coupled to an electric dynamometer. It had higher fuel mass flow
in larger mass flow, and used more viscous blends in less internal
leakage in the fuel pump. Usta et al. [82] also observed higher power
for a hazelnut soap stock/waste sunflower oil mixture and blends
(100%, 75%, and 50%) in a four-cylinder, turbocharged, indirect-
ignition diesel engine. Although the addition of the biodiesel to the
diesel fuel decreases its heating value, the existence of a higher oxygen

942
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
level (10%) for blends leads to complete combustion, a larger mass flow
rate for blends, and higher viscosity for blends, meaning there is less
internal leakage in the fuel pump. The engine speed, engine load, and
percentage of biodiesel–diesel blends ensure influences on the engine
power output [5,63,64,72,78,81,82]. It is observed that the engine
power decreases with increases in the percentage of biodiesel in a blend
and increasing load. Similarly, the same trend in the effect of engine
speed on engine power, apart from rare exceptions.
4.2. Brake-specific fuel consumption
According to most researchers [63,64,71,78,83–89], BSFC in-
creases with an increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the
biodiesel–diesel blends when it is used as a fuel in conventional CI
engines compared to diesel. For example, Cetinkaya and
Karaosmanoglu [86] investigated the performance of a diesel engine
with various percentages of biodiesel in a biodiesel–diesel blend. They
found that with increases in the biodiesel percentage, the BSFC
increased; for example, a 4% increase was found for B20 and a 10%
increase was found for B100 compared to neat diesel. Stringer et al.
[64] found 2.17%, 5.78%, 9.42%, and 16.76% increases in BSFC for B5,
B20, B50, and B100, respectively, compared to diesel. In [88], the
authors used neat diesel, four different percentages of biodiesel in
biodiesel–diesel blend, and neat biodiesel. They found the same trend
as before; that is, BSFC increased with increasing biodiesel percentage
in the biodiesel–diesel blend. Lertsathapornsuk et al. [87] observed
increases of 5.60% for B50 and 12.73% for B100 in their experiment. A
different trend was observed by Liu [83], who found that the mean
values of BSFC of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% blends for various
engine speeds were 4.0, 0.8, 0.6, –2.2%, and 1.4% higher respectively
than that of diesel fuel. Researchers [63,64,82,90–94] found several
reasons for the higher BSFC when using biodiesel–diesel blend, such as
the lower heating value, higher viscosity, and higher density of
biodiesel compared to diesel. On the other hand, other researchers
[69,95,96] found decreased values of BSFC for biodiesel–diesel blends.
Pramanik [95] investigated the performance of a diesel engine fuelled
by jatropha biodiesel and a blend of it with diesel. He observed
improved engine performance, such as a decrease in the BSFC for
biodiesel–diesel blend compared to neat vegetable oil. The author
concluded that the decrease in viscosity of jatropha oil was the reason
for the reduction in the BSFC. Ramadhas et al. [96] found that blends
containing up to 80% biodiesel can give reduced values of BSFC when
tested in a single-cylinder, direct-injection diesel engine. Engine speed,
engine load, and biodiesel containing some residues such as glycerin,
acid, or water have impacts on BSFC [80,83,84,87,88,97–99]. Most
researchers agreed that as the speed and load increase, the BSFC
decreases and those residues have a negative impact on BSFC.
4.3. Brake thermal efficiency
The BTE for biodiesel–diesel blend decreases slightly or remains
the same compared to diesel fuel according to the authors of
[2,5,64,87,100,102,113,114]. Agarwal et al. [100] investigated the
combustion, performance, and emission characteristics of neat diesel
and neat biodiesel as well as different percentages of biodiesel (10%,
20%, 50%, and 75%) with diesel in a single-cylinder, four-stroke,
water-cooled, direct-injection diesel engine under variable load condi-
tions. They found that with increases in the biodiesel percentage in the
biodiesel–diesel blend, the BTE of the engine decreased. Stringer et al.
[64] investigated the BTE for PBDF, B100, B50, B20, and B5 under full
load conditions and found that it decreased when biodiesel–diesel
blend was used compared to diesel. Rakopoulos et al. [2] and Murillo
et al. [5] found similar results for the BTE when biodiesel–diesel blend
was employed. Researchers have observed some properties of biodiesel
which are responsible for the lower BTE, such as higher viscosity
[99,115], lower cetane index [115], smaller ignition delay [67], lower
943
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
heating value [82,92], higher lubricity [88], and higher BSFC [92].
However, very few works [88,90] have reported a higher BTE for
biodiesel blend compared to diesel. Using experimental data, Di et al.
[88] explained that the BTE of biodiesel and its blends is increased
compared to diesel under test loads of 0.08, 0.20, 0.38, 0.55, and
0.67 MPa. It was observed in [90] that ultra-low sulphur diesel, had the
lowest BTE compared to pure biodiesel, biodiesel with 10% blended
methanol and biodiesel with 10% fumigation methanol at constant
speed and variable load. The maximum BTEs obtained were 37.2%,
39.1%, 39.6%, and 37.5%, respectively, for the ultra-low sulphur diesel,
biodiesel, biodiesel with 10% fumigation methanol, and biodiesel with
10% blended methanol. According to the opinions of scientists [88,90],
biodiesel’s higher oxygen content improves combustion, and higher
lubricity reduces friction loss due to the higher BTE. Engine speed,
engine load, and percentages of biodiesel–diesel blends have both
positive and negative impacts on BTE, as shown by the authors of
[67,87,88,90,99].
5. Emission characteristics
Emissions in CI engines consist of hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon
monoxide (CO), NOx, and particulate matter (PM) [8]. The use of
biodiesel–diesel blends in CI engines has been proven to lead to low
emissions of PM, HC, and CO as well as higher emissions of NOx
compared to diesel fuel. However, the emissions level varies from one
engine to another and is dependent on the operating conditions of the
engine, fuel quality, and engine design [116]. In this section, a review
of emission characteristics in terms of the HC, CO, NOx, and PM
emissions of diesel engines using biodiesel–diesel blend is presented
along with some brief discussion. The comparative results of each
investigation related to the emission characteristics of biodiesel–diesel
fuel blends with diesel fuel alone in different engines are documented
in Table 2.
5.1. HC emission
The predominant viewpoint is that HC emissions decrease when
biodiesel–diesel blend is used as fuel instead of diesel
[61,63,72,78,87,92,102,103,108,111,112,117]. For example, Ozsezen
et al. [63] reported that unburned hydrocarbon emissions were about
40.3% lower for fresh oil biodiesel and biodiesel–diesel blends opera-
tion compared to baseline petroleum diesel fuel operation due to the
improvement of the cetane value of the mixture. The increasing
biodiesel percentage in the blend shortens the ignition delay, promotes
reaction timing of the blends, and eventually reduces the level of
unburned HC emission [61,78]. An et al. [72] observed the HC
emission in a Euro IV common-rail fuel-injection diesel engine fuelled
by biodiesel–diesel blends with different percentages (10%, 20%, and
50%) of biodiesel. They found a lower level of HC emission under any
load condition. The authors of [92] used two different types of
biodiesel, waste palm oil methyl ester (WPOME) and canola oil methyl
ester (COME), in different percentages with diesel. They reported that
the HC emission was decreased by 14.29% for WPOME and 72.68% for
COME. Similarly, Lertsathapornsuk et al. [87] observed a decrease of
25.11% in HC emission compared to diesel No. 2. The authors of
[61,63,67,78,83] found that properties of biodiesel such as the higher
oxygen content are the reason for the lower level of HC emission.
Engine load [76,100,104] and engine speed [63,78] have an impact on
the HC emission of biodiesel–diesel blends. Gumus and Kasifoglu [76]
observed the HC emission in a single-cylinder, four-stroke, direct-
injection diesel engine fuelled by biodiesel–diesel blend with different
percentages (5%, 20%, and 50%) of biodiesel. They found that with an
increase in the load, the amount of HC increases. Agarwal et al. [100]
observed that HC emissions were lower under partial load but tended
to increase under higher loads for all fuels due to a lack of oxygen at the
time of engine operation. The HC emission of biodiesel–diesel blend
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
increased with increase in the engine speed from 1000 to 1500 rpm
[78]. However, above 1500 rpm the HC emission decreased steadily
with the increase in engine speed due to increased inlet air flow speed
or turbulence, which increases the effect of atomization of the fuel in
the cylinder, makes the mixture more homogeneous, and reduces HC
emission.
5.2. CO emission
It is a common conclusion that CO emissions decrease when diesel
is replaced by biodiesel–diesel blend [2,5,61,63,76,78,102–108,111–
113,118]. Rakopoulos et al. [2] investigated the emission character-
istics of pure diesel as well as blends of diesel with vegetable oils and
biodiesels of different origins. They found that the CO emission was
lower than that of diesel fuel, and the reduction became larger as the
percentage of biodiesel in the blend increased. Ozsezen and Canakci
[63] found a significant difference in CO emissions of approximately
57% between biodiesel–diesel blend and mineral diesel fuel when tests
were executed in a four-cylinder, four-stroke, water-cooled, indirect-
ignition diesel engine. Gumus and Kasifoglu [76] observed the CO
emission in a single-cylinder, four-stroke, direct-injection diesel engine
fuelled by biodiesel–diesel blend in different percentages (5%, 20%,
and 50%) of biodiesel at a constant speed of 2200 rpm under various
loads. They found a significant reduction in CO emission compared to
diesel fuel. A similar trend was observed by [102,113]. Researchers
[61,63,67,78,84,119] have found that properties of biodiesel such as
higher oxygen content and higher CN are the reasons for the lower level
of CO emission. It is surprising that a significant increase in CO
emissions was demonstrated for biodiesel–diesel blend in [100,101].
The authors concluded that poor combustion quality was the reason for
the higher CO emission compared to diesel. Engine load [5,82,119],
engine speed [81,82,120], biodiesel percentage in the biodiesel–diesel
blend, and engine model [121–123] have impacts on CO emission in CI
engines. Most researchers agreed that with increasing engine load, CO
emission decreases, and with increasing engine speed, CO emission
increases. Similarly, an increasing percentage of biodiesel in the blend
decreases the CO emission.
5.3. NOx emission
Most researchers agreed that the NOx emission of biodiesel–diesel
blend is higher than that of ordinary diesel fuel [5,43,61–63,70,76–
78,102,104,106,107,124,125]. For example, Murillo et al. [5] investi-
gated the performance and emissions of neat diesel, neat biodiesel, and
biodiesel–diesel blend in marine outboard diesel engines without
major modification to the engines. They found that blend containing
up to about 25% biodiesel gave a lower NOx emission than neat diesel.
When the biodiesel percentage increased above 25%, the NOx emission
increased, and for B100, it was found to be 16% higher than that of
conventional diesel. Qi et al. [70] employed biodiesel–diesel blends
with different percentages of biodiesel in a single-cylinder, four-stroke,
water-cooled, naturally aspirated, direct-ignition diesel engine and
found that the difference in the NOx emissions of diesel and blend
was no more than 100 ppm. Chauhan et al. [102] found that when the
percentage of biodiesel in the blend increases, the emission of NOx
increases. Gokalp et al. [107] found 4.5%, 10%, and 15.5% increases in
NOx emission for B20, B50, and pure biodiesel, respectively, when tests
were carried out on a diesel tractor fuelled by marine diesel, soybean
methyl ester, and blends of them. Similar trends were observed by the
authors of [43,124,125]. Some work [103,108,111] reported that NOx
emission decreased when biodiesel–diesel blend was used. Kalligeros
et al. [103] investigated the exhaust emission of blends of sunflower
and olive oil with diesel in a stationary diesel engine and found that
NOx emission was reduced in all cases. They concluded that the higher
CN of biodiesel compared to marine diesel was the reason for this
reduction. Pereira et al. found NOx emissions of 420, 452, 450, 419,
944
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
and 460 ppm for B20, B50, B75, B100, and pure diesel, respectively.
Engine load, engine speed, higher oxygen content and higher CN, and
advances in injection and combustion have significant effects on NOx
emissions for biodiesel [5,67,82,92,97,98,102,119,126].
5.4. Particulate matter
The use of biodiesel–diesel blends in a reduction of PM emissions
compared to diesel [2,61–63,76,78,103–105,107,110–113]. For ex-
ample, Rakopoulos et al. [2] investigated the emission characteristics of
pure diesel as well as blends of diesel with vegetable oils and biodiesels
from different origins. PM emission was lower than that of diesel fuel,
and the reduction became larger when the percentage of biodiesel in
the blend increased. Ozsezen et al. [63] reported that the smoke opacity
was approximately 22.5% lower for operation with fresh oil biodiesel
and biodiesel–diesel blend compared to baseline petroleum diesel fuel.
Similar trends were observed by Lakshmi et al. [61] and Canakci et al.
[78]. Gokalp et al. [107] found 28.6%, 50%, 62%, and 74% reductions
in PM emission for B10, B20, B50, and pure biodiesel respectively
when testing in a diesel tractor fuelled by marine diesel, soybean
methyl ester, and blends of them. Researchers
[63,77,78,94,97,126,127] have found several reasons for the reduction
in PM emission, such as the higher oxygen content, lower or no sulphur
content, lower or no aromatics, and lower carbon content of biodiesel
compared to diesel fuel. Unexpectedly, Agarwal et al. [100] observed
that the PM concentration of pure jatropha oil and blends of it with
diesel is higher than that of baseline diesel fuel, especially under higher
loads. They explained that poor atomization of the jatropha oil caused
by bulky fuel molecules and the higher viscosity of jatropha oil is the
reason for its higher PM concentration. Engine load [67,77,88,119]
and engine speed [63,81,97,128] have a significant influence on PM
emission for biodiesel–diesel blends. The PM emission of biodiesel–
diesel blend increases with engine speed and decreases with engine
load [88]. A high level of smoke opacity at high engine speeds,
especially at 2500 and 3000 rpm, because of the increased cylinder
gas temperature that occurs under high engine speed conditions [63].
6. Environmental impacts of biodiesel production
Life cycle analysis is a very useful tool to evaluate the net impact on
greenhouse gas emissions of replacing conventional fuel by biodiesel.
This tool compares a particular biodiesel with a reference fuel - in most
cases petrol [129]. There are several factors which contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions. Among them, the most significant factor is
the amount of fossil energy used for feedstock production and
transport, including for fertilizer and pesticide manufacture, for
cultivation and harvesting of crops, and/or in the biodiesel production
plant itself. Other factors are NOx emissions, of which the greenhouse
effect is about 300 times stronger than carbon dioxide emissions, and
by-products from biodiesel production such as proteins for animal feed
which positively contribute to relieve environmental change. Most
researchers have found that production of the first generation of
biodiesel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 60%, while
second-generation biodiesel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up
to 90%, excluding carbon dioxide emissions from changes in land use
[130,131]. However, changes in land use can have dramatic impacts on
greenhouse gas emissions. The impacts can be so great that they negate
the advantages of biodiesels.
At the point when harvests for biodiesel production require a
watering system, this puts pressure on local water resources [132–
134]. Moreover, water quality can be influenced by soil disintegration
and spillover containing composts and pesticides. Changes in land use
and strengthening of farming generation might harm soils. The effects
depend upon the way the land is cultivated. Different strategies and the
utilization of certain plant species can decrease harmful effects or even
enhance soil quality [135]. In addition, biodiesel production can
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
influence biodiversity. As a case in point, living space is lost when
traditional landscapes are changed over into energy-crop plantations or
peat lands are depleted [136]. In a few cases, nevertheless, biodiesel
production can have a positive effect, such as when it is utilized to
restore degraded lands.
With a specific end goal to guarantee a naturally sustainable
biodiesel production, it is imperative that good rural practices are
observed, and measures to guarantee sustainability ought to be
connected reliably to all harvests. The conservation of agricultural
land and forest can reduce the adverse environmental impacts of
biodiesel production. Sustainability criteria or measures ought to be set
up, supported by the dynamically coordinated effort of fellow develop-
ing nations and run as an inseparable unit with preparation and
backing for execution [137,138]. Finally, for bioenergy to be estab-
lished economically, national policies should recognise the global
outcomes of biodiesel advances.
7. Economic impacts of biodiesel production
Numerous economic factors are involved in the production of
biodiesel, such as capital cost, plant capacity, process technology, raw
material cost and chemical costs [139]. Among them, the cost of the
feedstock is considered to be the major economic factor, accounting for
up to 80% of the total operating cost, while the costs of labour,
methanol and catalyst are also significant in the production of biodiesel
[140]. It was estimated in the literature [141] that to produce biodiesel,
US$ 0.158/l is needed for feedstock and US$ 0.70/l is needed for the
production of soy-based biodiesel. Biodiesel production consists of
three processes, namely oil extraction, oil refining, and transesterifica-
tion. The cost of biodiesel production can be reduced by developing
new technology and finding alternative ways of utilizing by-products
such as glycerol [142]. The production cost of biodiesel is higher in
developed countries while it is lower and almost the same as the
international market price of petroleum fuel in developing countries
[143]. Proper selection of feedstock may reduce the cost of biodiesel
production. For example, the price of waste cooking oil is 2.5–3.5 times
less than virgin vegetable oils [142], and can thus significantly reduce
the total manufacturing cost of biodiesel. Above all, the biodiesel
production industries play a significant role in the economy by creating
new employment opportunities for the rural population, increasing
income tax revenues, investing in plants and equipment, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and reducing a country’s reliance on crude
oil imports. In recent years, the importance of non-food crops has
increased significantly. The opportunity to grow non-food crops under
compulsory set-aside schemes is one option to increase biofuel
production.
From the point of view of the socio-economic aspect, renewable
liquid fuels like biodiesel such as ethanol, green diesel and green
gasoline are very important because these are the replacements for
petroleum fuels as well as having various advantages like sustainability,
reduction of greenhouse emissions, promoting regional development,
social structure and agriculture, and security of supply [144]. Providing
power through renewable resources helps to improve the local econ-
omy. For example, the construction and operation of a power plant
based on renewable fuel can employ a large number of workers and
local goods and services may need to be purchased and utilized. In
addition to these economic benefits, the development of renewable
resources will have environmental, health, safety and other benefits.
8. Engine durability
Durability testing of the engine utilizing the biodiesel is very
significant. A couple of scientists have carried out engine durability
tests utilizing biodiesel. Actually, a few scientists are most certainly not
concentrating on durability testing because of a number of variables,
including the fact that it is more difficult and costly than the testing of
945
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
engine power, economy and emissions [145]. In this section, problems
created by using higher percentages of biodiesel in biodiesel–diesel
blends, like corrosion and maintenance problems in the engine, as well
as possible means to overcome them, are presented along with some
brief discussion.
Hansen et al. [146], Hashimoto et al. [147] and Meiring et al. [148]
found no abnormal wear when using less than 15% biodiesel in
biodiesel–diesel blends. To use more than 15% biodiesel, they sug-
gested that a small retardation of injection timing reduces the rate of
pressure rise, which ultimately helps to reduce piston erosion. Several
durability tests have been performed by researchers at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Energy. Among them, Barnitt et al. [149] carried out durability testing
of bus engines using 20% of biodiesel blends with diesel for a period of
two years. They found that there was no additional metal wear, but
there was fuel filter plugging. Finally, they concluded that the engine
and fuel system as concerned maintenance was almost identical for
both diesel and biodiesel blends. Another experimental study was
carried out by Fraer et al. [150] on four vans and four tractors using
B20 and diesel for a period of four years. They observed that fuel filter
and injector nozzle replacements were very frequently needed for B20
compared to diesel. Humburg et al. [151] reported that state trans-
portation agencies using B20 experience more filter plugging compared
to diesel. Sanchez et al. [152] reported on the use of high biodiesel
blends in conventional diesel engines for electricity generation in
isolated rural communities. They recommended three technologies
including conversion kits, AMS-Elsbett engines, and engines with a
pre-combustion chamber for the use of high biodiesel blends or even
straight vegetable oils. Some researchers [153,154] suggested using
fuel additives to alleviate the associated problems.
9. Conclusions
The biodiesel–diesel blends made with biodiesel from different
origins have been reviewed to summarize the properties of biodiesel–
diesel blends and the effects on combustion characteristics, engine
performance, and emissions. Unpredictable trends were found accord-
ing to the different engines tested, various operating conditions,
different biodiesel, reference diesel fuels tested, various measurement
techniques, and so on. However, the following conclusions can be
drawn.
1) The kinematic viscosity and CN of biodiesel–diesel blend where up
to 30% biodiesel is blended with diesel are almost the same as or
slightly higher than those of diesel. The density and flash point are
higher than those of diesel. However, the calorific value of blends is
lower than that of diesel fuel.
2) The ignition delay period is shortened when biodiesel–diesel blend
is used compared to diesel fuel. A decrease in the maximum heat
release rate was observed for biodiesel–diesel blend compared to
diesel. The peak cylinder gas pressure is slightly higher than that of
ordinary diesel fuel.
3) Most researchers reported a greater or lesser reduction in power
performance and an increase in fuel consumption as well as thermal
efficiency with biodiesel–diesel blend.
4) Almost all researchers agreed that decreasing trends in PM, HC,
and CO emissions and an increasing trend in NOx emissions are
established when biodiesel–diesel blend is used as a fuel in CI
engines.
5) Biodiesel production has become more attractive because of its
tremendous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Although,
biodiesel production may affect water resources, soil, and biodi-
versity, a proper policy can help to produce a naturally sustainable
biodiesel.
6) Among the various costs of biodiesel production, the cost of the
feedstock accounts for the maximum cost which is about 80% of the
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
total. The cost of biodiesel production can be reduced by developing
new technology, utilizing by-products properly and by proper
selection of feedstock. In addition, biodiesel production industries
play a significant role in the economy in various ways.
7) During durability testing, common problems identified by the
researchers are a failure of the fuel pump, filter plugging, injector
coking, moving parts sticking etc. Without any change to the oil or
engine, only short-term use is likely to be successful. To use a
higher percentage of biodiesel or for long-term use, a few modifica-
tions are needed to the engines.
It can be concluded that blends of biodiesel with a small content by
volume can be used in existing CI engines without any major
modifications and the most significant result of using these blends is
the lower emission with almost the same performance as that achieved
when using diesel fuel alone.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Universiti Malaysia Pahang for its
financial support under project no. RDU130136 and postgraduate
research grant scheme (GRS 130121).
References
[1] Basha SA, Gopal KR, Jebaraj S. A review on biodiesel production, combustion,
emissions and performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1628–34.
[2] Rakopoulos C, Antonopoulos K, Rakopoulos D, Hountalas D, Giakoumis E.
Comparative performance and emissions study of a direct injection Diesel engine
using blends of Diesel fuel with vegetable oils or bio-diesels of various origins.
Energy Convers Manag 2006;47:3272–87.
[3] Canakci M. Combustion characteristics of a turbocharged DI compression ignition
engine fueled with petroleum diesel fuels and biodiesel. Bioresour Technol
2007;98:1167–75.
[4] Alptekin E, Canakci M. Determination of the density and the viscosities of
biodiesel–diesel fuel blends. Renew Energy 2008;33:2623–30.
[5] Murillo S, Míguez JL, Porteiro J, Granada E, Morán JC. Performance and exhaust
emissions in the use of biodiesel in outboard diesel engines. Fuel
2007;86:1765–71.
[6] Nabi MN, Akhter MS, Zaglul Shahadat MM. Improvement of engine emissions
with conventional diesel fuel and diesel–biodiesel blends. Bioresour Technol
2006;97:372–8.
[7] Sharma D, Soni SL, Pathak SC, Gupta R. Performance and emission characteristics
of direct injection diesel engine using neem-diesel blends. J Inst Eng (India): Mech
Eng Div 2005;86:77–83.
[8] Laurens N, Koolwijk P, De Maat M. Fibrin structure and wound healing. J Thromb
Haemost 2006;4:932–9.
[9] Sundaresan M, Chandrasekaran S, Porai PT. Analysis of combustion, performance
and emission characteristics of blends of methyl esters of jatropha oil (MEJ) in DI
diesel engine. SAE Tech Pap 2007.
[10] Graboski MS, McCormick RL. Combustion of fat and vegetable oil derived fuels in
diesel engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1998;24:125–64.
[11] Monyem A, Van Gerpen JH. The effect of biodiesel oxidation on engine
performance and emissions. Biomass- Bioenergy 2001;20:317–25.
[12] Krahl J, Munack A, Bahadir M, Schumacher L, Elser N. Review: utilization of
rapeseed oil, rapeseed oil methyl ester or diesel fuel: exhaust gas emissions and
estimation of environmental effects. SAE Tech Pap 1996.
[13] Rao PS, Gopalakrishnan KV. Vegetable oils and their methyl esters as fuels for
diesel engines. Indian J Technol 1991;29:292–7.
[14] Rakopoulos C, Hountalas D, Rakopoulos D, Giakoumis E. Experimental heat
release rate analysis in both chambers of an indirect injection turbocharged diesel
engine at various load and speed conditions. SAE Tech Pap 2005.
[15] Agarwal AK, Das L. Biodiesel development and characterization for use as a fuel in
compression ignition engines. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2001;123:440–7.
[16] Rosca R, Rakosi E, Manolache G, Niculaua M. Fuel and injection characteristics
for a biodiesel type fuel from waste cooking oil. SAE Tech Pap 2005.
[17] Kumar MS, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. Experimental investigations on a jatropha
oil methanol dual fuel engine. SAE Tech Pap 2001.
[18] Rao G, Prasad A, Mohan PR. Performance evaluation of DI and IDI engines with
jatropha oil based biodiesel. J Inst Eng (India), Part MC, Mech Eng Div
2005;86:72–6.
[19] Sharp CA, Ryan TW, Knothe G. Heavy-duty diesel engine emissions tests using
special biodiesel fuels. SAE Tech Pap 2005.
[20] Suryawanshi J, Deshpande N. Overview of EGR, injection timing and pressure on
emissions and performance of CI engine with pongamia methyl ester. SAE Tech
Pap 2005.
[21] Sirman MB, Owens EC, Whitney KA. Emissions comparison of alternative fuels in
an advanced automotive diesel engine. SAE Tech Pap 2000.
946
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
[22] Bamgboye A, Hansen A. Prediction of cetane number of biodiesel fuel from the
fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) composition. Int Agrophysics 2008;22:21.
[23] Arbab M, Masjuki H, Varman M, Kalam M, Imtenan S, Sajjad H. Fuel properties,
engine performance and emission characteristic of common biodiesels as a
renewable and sustainable source of fuel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;22:133–47.
[24] Kim SY, Lee B. A prediction model for the flash point of binary liquid mixtures. J
Loss Prev Process Ind 2010;23:166–9.
[25] Alptekin E, Canakci M. Characterization of the key fuel properties of methyl ester–
diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2009;88:75–80.
[26] Benjumea P, Agudelo J, Agudelo A. Basic properties of palm oil biodiesel–diesel
blends. Fuel 2008;87:2069–75.
[27] Jain S, Sharma MP. Oxidation stability of blends of Jatropha biodiesel with diesel.
Fuel 2011;90:3014–20.
[28] Dantas MB, Albuquerque AR, Soledade LEB, Queiroz N, Maia ASI, Santos IMG,
et al. Biodiesel from soybean oil, castor oil and their blends: oxidative stability by
PDSC and rancimat. J Therm Anal Calorim 2011:106607–11.
[29] Teixeira LSG, Couto MB, Souza GS, Filho MA, Assis JCR, Guimarães PRB, et al.
Characterization of beef tallow biodiesel and their mixtures with soybean biodiesel
and mineral diesel fuel. Biomass- Bioenergy 2010;34:438–41.
[30] Kwanchareon P, Luengnaruemitchai A, Jai-In S. Solubility of a diesel–biodiesel–
ethanol blend, its fuel properties, and its emission characteristics from diesel
engine. Fuel 2007;86:1053–61.
[31] Hasan MM, Rahman MM, Kadirgama K. A review on homogeneous charge
compression ignition engine performance using biodiesel–diesel blend as a fuel.
Int J Automot Mech Eng 2015;11:2199–211.
[32] Kuti OA, Zhu J, Nishida K, Wang X, Huang Z. Characterization of spray and
combustion processes of biodiesel fuel injected by diesel engine common rail
system. Fuel 2013;104:838–46.
[33] Tesfa B, Mishra R, Gu F, Powles N. Prediction models for density and viscosity of
biodiesel and their effects on fuel supply system in CI engines. Renew Energy
2010;35:2752–60.
[34] Ramírez-Verduzco LF, García-Flores BE, Rodríguez-Rodríguez JE, del Rayo ,
Jaramillo-Jacob A. Prediction of the density and viscosity in biodiesel blends at
various temperatures. Fuel 2011;90:1751–61.
[35] Tat ME, Van Gerpen JH. The kinematic viscosity of biodiesel and its blends with
diesel fuel. J Am Oil Chem' Soc 1999;76:1511–3.
[36] Silitonga A, Masjuki H, Mahlia T, Ong H, Chong W, Boosroh M. Overview
properties of biodiesel diesel blends from edible and non-edible feedstock. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:346–60.
[37] Lee SB, Han KH, Lee JD, Hong IK. Optimum process and energy density analysis
of canola oil biodiesel synthesis. J Ind Eng Chem 2010;16:1006–10.
[38] Al-Hamamre Z, Al-Salaymeh A. Physical properties of (jojoba oil+biodiesel),
(jojoba oil+diesel) and (biodiesel+diesel) blends. Fuel 2014;123:175–88.
[39] Hoekman SK, Broch A, Robbins C, Ceniceros E, Natarajan M. Review of biodiesel
composition, properties, and specifications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:143–69.
[40] Siebers DL. Ignition delay characteristics of alternative diesel fuels: implications
on cetane number. SAE Tech Pap 1985.
[41] Harrington KJ. Chemical and physical properties of vegetable oil esters and their
effect on diesel fuel performance. Biomass 1986;9:1–17.
[42] Knothe G. Cetane numbers–heat of combustion–why vegetable oils and their
derivatives are suitable as a diesel fuel. In: Knothe G, Van Gerpen J, Krahl J,
editors. The Biodiesel Handbook. Champaign, IL: AOCS Press; 2005. p. 4–16.
[43] De Almeida SC, Belchior CR, Nascimento MV, Vieira LdS, Fleury G. Performance
of a diesel generator fuelled with palm oil. Fuel 2002;81:2097–102.
[44] Machacon HT, Shiga S, Karasawa T, Nakamura H. Performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with coconut oil–diesel fuel blend.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2001;20:63–9.
[45] Bari S, Lim T, Yu C. Effects of preheating of crude palm oil (CPO) on injection
system, performance and emission of a diesel engine. Renew Energy
2002;27:339–51.
[46] Nwafor O. The effect of elevated fuel inlet temperature on performance of diesel
engine running on neat vegetable oil at constant speed conditions. Renew Energy
2003;28:171–81.
[47] Chen L-Y, Chen Y-H, Hung Y-S, Chiang T-H, Tsai C-H. Fuel properties and
combustion characteristics of jatropha oil biodiesel–diesel blends. J Taiwan Inst
Chem Eng 2013;44:214–20.
[48] Pinto AC, Guarieiro LL, Rezende MJ, Ribeiro NM, Torres EA, Lopes WA, et al.
Biodiesel: an overview. J Braz Chem Soc 2005;16:1313–30.
[49] Jayed M, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Mahlia T, Husnawan M, Liaquat A. Prospects of
dedicated biodiesel engine vehicles in Malaysia and Indonesia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15:220–35.
[50] Shang Q, Jiang W, Lu H, Liang B. Properties of Tung oil biodiesel and its blends
with diesel. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:826–8.
[51] Demirbas A. Progress and recent trends in biodiesel fuels. Energy Convers Manag
2009;50:14–34.
[52] Amini-Niaki SR, Ghazanfari A. Comparison of fuel and emission properties of
petro diesel and sunflower biodiesel prepared by optimized production variables.
Fuel 2013;109:384–8.
[53] Srivastava A, Prasad R. Triglycerides-based diesel fuels. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2000;4:111–33.
[54] Martínez PE. Termodinámica básica Y Apl 1984.
[55] Sahoo P, Das L, Babu M, Naik S. Biodiesel development from high acid value
polanga seed oil and performance evaluation in a CI engine. Fuel
2007;86:448–54.
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
[56] Rashid U, Anwar F, Moser BR, Knothe G. Moringa oleifera oil: a possible source of
biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:8175–9.
[57] Joshi RM, Pegg MJ. Flow properties of biodiesel fuel blends at low temperatures.
Fuel 2007;86:143–51.
[58] Tesfa B, Mishra R, Zhang C, Gu F, Ball AD. Combustion and performance
characteristics of CI (compression ignition) engine running with biodiesel. Energy
2013;51:101–15.
[59] Gumus M. A comprehensive experimental investigation of combustion and heat
release characteristics of a biodiesel (hazelnut kernel oil methyl ester) fueled direct
injection compression ignition engine. Fuel 2010;89:2802–14.
[60] Benjumea P, Agudelo J, Agudelo A. Effect of altitude and palm oil biodiesel
fuelling on the performance and combustion characteristics of a HSDI diesel
engine. Fuel 2009;88:725–31.
[61] Lakshmi Narayana Rao G, Durga Prasad B, Sampath S, Rajagopal K. Combustion
analysis of diesel engine fueled with jatropha oil methyl ester – diesel blends. Int J
Green Energy 2007;4:645–58.
[62] Özener O, Yüksek L, Ergenç AT, Özkan M. Effects of soybean biodiesel on a DI
diesel engine performance, emission and combustion characteristics. Fuel
2014;115:875–83.
[63] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. The emission analysis of an IDI diesel engine fueled with
methyl ester of waste frying palm oil and its blends. Biomass- Bioenergy
2010;34:1870–8.
[64] Stringer F, Clarke AE, Clarke JS. The spontaneous ignition of hydrocarbon fuels in
a flowing system. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Conference: SAGE Publications. 1969;184(10); pp. 212–25.
[65] Sahoo P, Das L. Combustion analysis of Jatropha, Karanja and Polanga based
biodiesel as fuel in a diesel engine. Fuel 2009;88:994–9.
[66] Hasan MM, Rahman MM. Homogeneous charge compression ignition combus-
tion: advantages over compression ignition combustion, challenges and solutions.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:282–91.
[67] Rao GLN, Sampath S, Rajagopal K. Experimental studies on the combustion and
emission characteristics of a diesel engine fuelled with used cooking oil methyl
ester and its diesel blends. Int J Appl Sci Eng Technol 2008;4:64–70.
[68] Kannan G, Anand R. Effect of injection pressure and injection timing on DI diesel
engine fuelled with biodiesel from waste cooking oil. Biomass- Bioenergy
2012;46:343–52.
[69] Muralidharan K, Vasudevan D, Sheeba K. Performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of biodiesel fuelled variable compression ratio engine. Energy
2011;36:5385–93.
[70] Qi DH, Chen H, Geng LM, Bian YZ. Experimental studies on the combustion
characteristics and performance of a direct injection engine fueled with biodiesel/
diesel blends. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:2985–92.
[71] Peterson C, Thompson J, Taberski J. One-thousand-hour engine durability test
with HySEE and using a 5X-EMA test cycle. Trans ASAE 1999;42:23–30.
[72] An H, Yang W, Chou S, Chua K. Combustion and emissions characteristics of
diesel engine fueled by biodiesel at partial load conditions. Appl Energy
2012;99:363–71.
[73] Dhar A, Agarwal AK. Performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of
Karanja biodiesel in a transportation engine. Fuel 2014;119:70–80.
[74] Gautam A, Agarwal AK. Experimental investigations of comparative performance,
emission and combustion characteristics of a cottonseed biodiesel-fueled four-
stroke locomotive diesel engine. Int J Engine Res 2012;14:354–72.
[75] Abu-Jrai A, Yamin JA, Al-Muhtaseb AaH, Hararah MA. Combustion character-
istics and engine emissions of a diesel engine fueled with diesel and treated waste
cooking oil blends. Chem Eng J 2011;172:129–36.
[76] Gumus M, Kasifoglu S. Performance and emission evaluation of a compression
ignition engine using a biodiesel (apricot seed kernel oil methyl ester) and its
blends with diesel fuel. Biomass- Bioenergy 2010;34:134–9.
[77] Lapuerta M, Herreros JM, Lyons LL, García-Contreras R, Briceño Y. Effect of the
alcohol type used in the production of waste cooking oil biodiesel on diesel
performance and emissions. Fuel 2008;87:3161–9.
[78] Canakci M, Ozsezen AN, Arcaklioglu E, Erdil A. Prediction of performance and
exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fueled with biodiesel produced from waste
frying palm oil. Expert Syst Appl 2009;36:9268–80.
[79] Azad AK, Rasul MG, Giannangelo B, Islam R. Comparative study of diesel engine
performance and emission with soybean and waste oil biodiesel fuels. Int J
Automot Mech Eng 2015;12:2866–81.
[80] Özkan M, Ergenç AT, Deniz O. Experimental performance analysis of biodiesel,
traditional diesel and biodiesel with glycerine. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 2005:29.
[81] Al-Widyan MI, Tashtoush G, Abu-Qudais M. Utilization of ethyl ester of waste
vegetable oils as fuel in diesel engines. Fuel Process Technol 2002;76:91–103.
[82] Usta N, Öztürk E, Can Ö, Conkur E, Nas S, Con A, et al. Combustion of biodiesel
fuel produced from hazelnut soapstock/waste sunflower oil mixture in a Diesel
engine. Energy Convers Manag 2005;46:741–55.
[83] Liu Y. Used cooking oil promises to fuel China's rapidly expanding car fleet. World
Watch Inst 2006;10:12.
[84] Cheng C, Cheung C, Chan T, Lee S, Yao C, Tsang K. Comparison of emissions of a
direct injection diesel engine operating on biodiesel with emulsified and fumigated
methanol. Fuel 2008;87:1870–9.
[85] Canakci M, Van Gerpen JH. Comparison of engine performance and emissions for
petroleum diesel fuel, yellow grease biodiesel, and soybean oil biodiesel. Trans
ASAE 2003;46:937–44.
[86] Çetinkaya M, Karaosmanoglu F. A new application area for used cooking oil
originated biodiesel: generators. Energy Fuels 2005;19:645–52.
[87] Lertsathapornsuk V, Pairintra R, Aryusuk K, Krisnangkura K. Microwave assisted
in continuous biodiesel production from waste frying palm oil and its performance
947
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
in a 100 kW diesel generator. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89:1330–6.
[88] Di Y, Cheung C, Huang Z. Experimental investigation on regulated and unregu-
lated emissions of a diesel engine fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel blended
with biodiesel from waste cooking oil. Sci Total Environ 2009;407:835–46.
[89] Patil K, Thipse S. Characteristics of performance and emissions in a direct-
injection diesel engine fuelled with kerosene/diesel blends. Int J Automot Mech
Eng 2014;10:2102–11.
[90] Meng X, Chen G, Wang Y. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil via alkali
catalyst and its engine test. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89:851–7.
[91] Ramesh P, Murughan M. Edible oil consumption in India. Asia Middle East Food
Trade J 2008;3:8–9.
[92] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M, Turkcan A, Sayin C. Performance and combustion
characteristics of a DI diesel engine fueled with waste palm oil and canola oil
methyl esters. Fuel 2009;88:629–36.
[93] Hossain AK, Ouadi M, Siddiqui S, Yang Y, Brammer J, Hornung A, et al.
Experimental investigation of performance, emission and combustion character-
istics of an indirect injection multi-cylinder CI engine fuelled by blends of de-
inking sludge pyrolysis oil with biodiesel. Fuel 2013;105:135–42.
[94] Karavalakis G, Bakeas E, Stournas S. Influence of oxidized biodiesel blends on
regulated and unregulated emissions from a diesel passenger car. Environ Sci
Technol 2010;44:5306–12.
[95] Pramanik K. Properties and use of Jatropha curcas oil and diesel fuel blends in
compression ignition engine. Renew Energy 2003;28:239–48.
[96] Ramadhas A, Jayaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Characterization and effect of using
rubber seed oil as fuel in the compression ignition engines. Renew Energy
2005;30:795–803.
[97] Lin C-Y, Li R-J. Engine performance and emission characteristics of marine fish-
oil biodiesel produced from the discarded parts of marine fish. Fuel Process
Technol 2009;90:883–8.
[98] Lin C-Y, Lin H-A. Engine performance and emission characteristics of a three-
phase emulsion of biodiesel produced by peroxidation. Fuel Process Technol
2007;88:35–41.
[99] Sharma M Evaluation of engine performance on biodiesel from waste cooking oil.
[100] Agarwal D, Agarwal AK. Performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha
oil (preheated and blends) in a direct injection compression ignition engine. Appl
Therm Eng 2007;27:2314–23.
[101] Forson F, Oduro E, Hammond-Donkoh E. Performance of Jatropha oil blends in a
diesel engine. Renew Energy 2004;29:1135–45.
[102] Chauhan BS, Kumar N, Cho HM. A study on the performance and emission of a
diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends. Energy
2012;37:616–22.
[103] Kalligeros S, Zannikos F, Stournas S, Lois E, Anastopoulos G, Teas C, et al. An
investigation of using biodiesel/marine diesel blends on the performance of a
stationary diesel engine. Biomass- Bioenergy 2003;24:141–9.
[104] Rakopoulos C, Rakopoulos D, Hountalas D, Giakoumis E, Andritsakis E.
Performance and emissions of bus engine using blends of diesel fuel with bio-
diesel of sunflower or cottonseed oils derived from Greek feedstock. Fuel
2008;87:147–57.
[105] Aydin H, Bayindir H. Performance and emission analysis of cottonseed oil methyl
ester in a diesel engine. Renew Energy 2010;35:588–92.
[106] Rakopoulos D, Rakopoulos C, Giakoumis E, Dimaratos A, Founti M. Comparative
environmental behavior of bus engine operating on blends of diesel fuel with four
straight vegetable oils of Greek origin: sunflower, cottonseed, corn and olive. Fuel
2011;90:3439–46.
[107] Gokalp B, Buyukkaya E, Soyhan H. Performance and emissions of a diesel tractor
engine fueled with marine diesel and soybean methyl ester. Biomass- Bioenergy
2011;35:3575–83.
[108] Pereira RG, Oliveira CD, Oliveira JL, Oliveira PCP, Fellows CE, Piamba OE.
Exhaust emissions and electric energy generation in a stationary engine using
blends of diesel and soybean biodiesel. Renew Energy 2007;32:2453–60.
[109] Han M, Cho K, Sluder CS, Wagner RM. Soybean and coconut biodiesel fuel effects
on combustion characteristics in a light-duty diesel engine. SAE Tech Pap 2008.
[110] Suryawanshi J. Performance and emission characteristics of CI engine fueled by
coconut oil methyl ester. SAE Tech Pap 2006.
[111] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S. The effect of rapeseed oil methyl ester on direct
injection diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions. Energy Convers
Manag 2006;47:1954–67.
[112] Soma Y, Nakajima M, Yoshida K, Shoji H, Iijima A. The application of coconut-oil
methyl ester for diesel engine. SAE Tech Pap 2007.
[113] Qi D, Chen H, Geng L, Bian Y. Experimental studies on the combustion
characteristics and performance of a direct injection engine fueled with biodiesel/
diesel blends. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:2985–92.
[114] Hoque N, Mourshed M, Das BK. Performance and emission comparison of
Karanja (pongamia pinnata), Pithraj (Aphanamixis polystachya), Neem (azadira
chtaindica) and Mahua (madhuca longofolia) seed oil as a potential feedstock for
biodiesel production in Bangladesh. Int J Automot Mech Eng 2015;12:2967–82.
[115] Sudhir C, Sharma N, Mohanan P. Potential of waste cooking oils as biodiesel
feedstock. Emir J Eng Res 2007;12:69–75.
[116] Rizvi SQ. Lubricant Chemistry, Technology, Selection, and Design. West
Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2009.
[117] Nayak C, Pattanaik B, Nayak S. Effect of preheated jatropha oil and jatropha oil
methyl ester with producer gas on diesel engine performance. Int J Automot Mech
Eng 2014;9:1709–22.
[118] Khalid A, Jaat N, Sapit A, Razali A, Manshoor B, Zaman I, et al. Performance and
emissions characteristics of crude jatropha oil biodiesel blends in a diesel engine.
Int J Automot Mech Eng 2015;11:2447–57.
M.M. Hasan, M.M. Rahman
[119] Wu F, Wang J, Chen W, Shuai S. A study on emission performance of a diesel
engine fueled with five typical methyl ester biodiesels. Atmos Environ
2009;43:1481–5.
[120] Lin Y-F, Wu Y-G, Chang C-T. Combustion characteristics of waste-oil produced
biodiesel/diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2007;86:1772–80.
[121] Chhetri AB, Watts KC, Islam MR. Waste cooking oil as an alternate feedstock for
biodiesel production. Energies 2008;1:3–18.
[122] Roskilly A, Nanda S, Wang Y, Chirkowski J. The performance and the gaseous
emissions of two small marine craft diesel engines fuelled with biodiesel. Appl
Therm Eng 2008;28:872–80.
[123] Durbin TD, Norbeck JM. Effects of biodiesel blends and Arco EC-diesel on
emissions from light heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Environ Sci Technol
2002;36:1686–91.
[124] Marshall W, Schumacher LG, Howell S. Engine exhaust emissions evaluation of a
Cummins L10E when fueled with a biodiesel blend. SAE Tech Pap 1995.
[125] Nwafor O, Rice G, Ogbonna A. Effect of advanced injection timing on the
performance of rapeseed oil in diesel engines. Renew Energy 2000;21:433–44.
[126] Karavalakis G, Tzirakis E, Stournas S, Zannikos F, Karonis D. Biodiesel emissions
from a diesel vehicle operated on a non-legislative driving cycle. Energy Sources,
Part A: Recovery, Util, Environ Eff 2009;32:376–83.
[127] Lue Y-F, Yeh Y-Y, Wu C-H. The emission characteristics of a small DI diesel
engine using biodiesel blended fuels. J Environ Sci Health, Part A
2001;36:845–59.
[128] Gomez Gonzales M, Howard-Hildige R, Leahy J, O’Reilly T, Supple B, Malone M.
Emission and performance characteristics of a 2 L Toyota van operating on
esterified waste cooking oil and mineral diesel fuel. Environ Monit Assess
2000;65:13–20.
[129] FAO . The State of Food and Agriculture 2008. Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and
Opportunities. Food & Agriculture Org; 2008.
[130] Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008;319:1235–8.
[131] Righelato R, Spracklen DV. Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by saving and
restoring forests?. Science 2007;317(5840):902.
[132] Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D. Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 2006;103:11206–10.
[133] Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-
diversity grassland biomass. Science 2006;314:1598–600.
[134] Molden D. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan, and Colombo: International
Water Management Institute; 2007.
[135] Fresco LO, Dijk D, de Ridder W. Biomass, Food & Sustainability: Is There a
Dilemma?. Amsterdam,The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam; 2007.
[136] Groom MJ, Gray EM, Townsend PA. Biofuels and biodiversity: principles for
creating better policies for biofuel production. Conserv Biol 2008;22:602–9.
948
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 938–948
[137] Doornbosch R, Steenblik R. Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?. Rev
Virtual REDESMA 2008;2:63.
[138] Zarrilli S. Making Certification Work for Sustainable Development: the Case of
Biofuels. New York and Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTD); 2008.
[139] Zhang Y, Dube M, McLean D, Kates M. Biodiesel production from waste cooking
oil: 2. Economic assessment and sensitivity analysis. Bioresour Technol
2003;90:229–40.
[140] Haas MJ, McAloon AJ, Yee WC, Foglia TA. A process model to estimate biodiesel
production costs. Bioresour Technol 2006;97:671–8.
[141] Dene T, Hole J. Enabling biofuels: biofuel economics [Final report]. Auckland,
New Zealand: Minister of Transport, Covec Ltd; 2006.
[142] Demirbas A. Economic and environmental impacts of the liquid biofuels. Energy
Educ Sci Technol 2008;22:37–58.
[143] Zarrilli S. The emerging biofuels market: regulatory, trade and development
implications, UN; 2006.
[144] Demirbas A, Dincer K. Sustainable green diesel: a futuristic view. Energy Sources,
Part A 2008;30:1233–41.
[145] Mofijur M, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Atabani A, Shahabuddin M, Palash S, et al. Effect
of biodiesel from various feedstocks on combustion characteristics, engine
durability and materials compatibility: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;28:441–55.
[146] Hansen A, Vosloo A, Lyne P, Meiring P. Farmscale application of an ethanol–
diesel blend. Agric Eng S Afr 1982;16:50–3.
[147] Hashimoto I, Nakashima H, Komiyama K, Maeda Y, Hamaguchi H, Endo M, et al.
Diesel-ethanol fuel blends for heavy duty diesel engines-a study of performance
and durability. SAE Tech Pap 1982.
[148] Meiring P, Allan R, Hansen A, Lyne P. Tractor performance and durability with
ethanol-diesel fuel. Trans ASAE 1983;26:59–62.
[149] Barnitt R, Hayes RR, Ratcliff M, McCormick RL, Ha L, Fang HL. 100,000-mile
evaluation of transit buses operated on biodiesel blends (B20). SAE Tech Pap
2006.
[150] Fraer R, Dinh H, McCormick RL, Chandler K, Buchholz B. Operating experience
and teardown analysis for engines operated on biodiesel blends (B20). SAE Tech
Pap 2005.
[151] Humburg DS, Hansen TJ, Schumacher LG, Mahapatra AK, Taylor GL, Adams BT.
Biodiesel use and experience among state DOT agencies. Appl Eng Agric
2006;22:117–84.
[152] Sánchez A, Torres E, Kalid R. Renewable energy generation for the rural
electrification of isolated communities in the Amazon Region. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;49:278–90.
[153] Silva PH, Gonçalves VL, Mota CJ. Glycerol acetals as anti-freezing additives for
biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:6225–9.
[154] Bhale PV, Deshpande NV, Thombre SB. Improving the low temperature properties
of biodiesel fuel. Renew Energy 2009;34:794–800.