IntechOpen
IntechOpen

Open access peer-reviewed article

Investigation of Effects of Kerosene Variation on a Tertiary Blended Biodiesel Powered Internal Combustion Engine Performance and Emission

Elijah Eferoghene Onojowho
Godwin E. Sadjere

This Article is part of Renewable Energies Section

aligned with united nations sdgs

UN SDGs
Related Goals:

aligned with united nations sdgs

Article metrics overview

108 Article Downloads

View Full Metrics

Article Type: Research Paper

Date of acceptance: October 2024

Date of publication: November 2024

DoI: 10.5772/geet.20230106

copyright: ©2024 The Author(s), Licensee IntechOpen, License: CC BY 4.0

Download for free

Table of contents

Graphical Abstract
Introduction
Materials and methods
Results and discussion
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author’s contribution
Funding
Ethical statement
Data availability statement
Conflict of interest
Nomenclature

Abstract

Blended fuel performance and emissions have been suggested as a surrogate for pure conventional diesel. Few countries have adopted 15% and lower biodiesel blending. Yet, lower emission levels than at present remains elusive. This study investigated the tertiary blends of Khaya senegalensis (African Mahogany) biodiesel and conventional diesel with varied kerosene proportion in a direct injection compression ignition engine to improve engine performance and reduce emissions. It is an experimental-based methodology process involving ASTM standard characterizations for 5% kerosene to biodiesel-diesel (BDK5), 15% kerosene to biodiesel-diesel (BDK15), 25% kerosene to biodiesel-diesel (BDK25), pure diesel (D100), pure biodiesel (B100) blends at constant 10% biodiesel proportion in each tertiary blend. Results showed significant decrease in viscosity and density leading to good atomization of the tertiary blends. Furthermore, the rich mixture combustion of blends indicated BDK15 and BDK5 to be comparatively better than D100 in air-fuel ratio with 12.28, 10.3 and 8.99 (BDK15); 11.32, 11.49 and 10.6 (BDK5) as against 14.35, 9.81 and 8.39 (D100). The brake mean effective pressure effects were 2.117 bar, 2.752 bar and 3.37 bar (BDK15); 2.122 bar, 2.527 bar, and 3.255 bar (BDK5); 2.058 bar, 2.377 bar and 3.355 bar (D100) at 3.4 N m, 4.35 N m and 5.3 N m, respectively. Similarly, brake thermal efficiency significantly improved with BDK15 and BDK5 over D100 on progressive torque increments whereas the energy liberated performance of BDK15 was comparatively better. All tertiary blends emitted lower CO2 than D100. However, D100 had the lowest exhaust gas temperature. There is a significant kerosene blended fuel effect on compression ignition engine performance and emissions.

Keywords

  • tertiary blend performance

  • kerosene blended fuel combustion

  • air-fuel ratio

  • Khaya senegalensis biodiesel emission

  • mass flow rate

Author information

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Heat energy liberation from fuel demands combustion processes in an internal combustion engine to enhance energy conversion. This activity is usually associated with emission of byproducts that need to be addressed. Micro-level emission reduction study approaches considered so far are based on these variables; specific vehicle brands, location based, conventional fuel based, data based, and revised or localized emission models [1–5]. Quite a few studies are also simulation dependent. Fuel blending has been a major technique to reduce emission of byproducts during combustion and improving or maintaining engine performance simultaneously. Blending originated with a secondary or binary combination state with a parent fuel and an additive in minor proportions. Biodiesel-diesel binary blending has been investigated for engine and auxiliary components’ performance enhancement, combustion and emissions reduction from waste oil, edible and non-edible seed based biodiesel substrates [6–11]. These performance and emission studies are now exposed to artificial intelligence optimization [12] of the engine and its components in determining factors at various blending levels. Computational fluid dynamics has also gained a lot of relevance in engine performance and emissions with biodiesel blending [13, 14].

Still, in a quest for better outcomes, tertiary diesel blending was explored with biodiesel, alcohol, compressed natural gas, kerosene, oil and water [15–20]. Alcohol sourced from biomass [21, 22] or synthetized are the major fuels explored so far on biodiesel-diesel blending despite solubility challenges. Kwanchareon et al. [23] and He et al. [24] focused on ethanol solubility and homogeneous blending techniques to determine the best blending ratio of 10% to 30% ethanol volume. Building on this, Xiaoyan et al. [25] expanded the base to ethanol-selective catalytic reduction through Ag/Al2O3 introduction as a catalyst to improve emission reduction and an extension of alumina, zinc and other nanoparticle technologies were also employed [26–30]. With compressed natural gas inclusion, the engine is operated as a dual-fuel injection mode, occasionally in a compressed natural gas flow rate variation [19] mode.

A post-tertiary blending level report has also been published where vegetable oil is added to the ethanol-biodiesel-diesel blend [31]. Acetone-butanol-ethanol containing water [32] and nanoparticles added to ethanol-isopropanol-diesel-biodiesel [26] has been tested for better engine performance and reduced emissions.

Blended Kerosene Combustion

Kerosene combustion has gained more ground in aviation jet and aircraft engines in contrails and cruise states [33–37] than in internal combustion engine applications. Even in the pursuit of alternative fuels towards emission reduction in industrial gas turbines and the aforementioned engines, kerosene blending has received considerable attention. Physico-chemical properties contrast kerosene, its blends and diesel [38] stimulated hydrocarbon compounds which are studied using chromatography and magnetic resonance approaches to determine the abundance of n-alkanes and aromatics in the fuels [39]. Combustion studies involving kerosene-diesel and alcohol-diesel blends in flow combustors have shown that the hydrogen-carbon ratio influences the combustion process, emissions and efficiencies through blending, although kerosene blending increases heat transfer rate [40]. Ignition, oxidation, kinetics and detailed review of kerosene combustion [41] are the predominant focal points of these studies. The combustor kerosene-diesel study based on 25% diesel blend of kerosene showed improved combustion efficiency and better fuel consumption than K100 or D100 due to high volatility of K100 [42, 43] predominantly under lean mixture conditions. Effects of K100 concentration on flame temperature and velocity of a turbulent premixed mixture [44] revealed that K100 blending for lean and rich combustion flame does not have linear dependent relations with the abovementioned characteristics.

With compression ignition engine, pure mustard oil-kerosene [10] and diesel-kerosene [45] binary blends were tested while tertiary blending with biodiesel variation [46] was conducted, in the interest of determining better engine performance with lower emissions.

In this experimental study, the effect of varying kerosene concentrations in a tertiary biodiesel-diesel blended fuel on engine performance and emissions was investigated. The study focuses on reducing emissions during the operation of a high-speed fuelled-engine. In this regard, the K100 variations with blends between 5% to 25% at constant volume concentration of B100 and D100 as well as in parent fuel under engine load or torque variable during combustion were developed. This K100 variation effect investigation was the gap-bridging goal proving this study’s originality.

Materials and methods

Samples of conventional diesel and kerosene were obtained from a local filling station in Ile-Ife, Osun state, Nigeria. Biodiesel produced from Khaya senegalensis oil seeds of 2.2 kg net weight was obtained from the Forest Research Institute in Ibadan, Nigeria. Plantain peels were used to produce a catalyst for transesterification. The specifications and setup of the test rig fitted with hydraulic dynamometer are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively. The gas analyser specifications for emission quantification are listed in Table 2. Soxhlet extraction was used to obtain oil extracts using n-hexane (BDH Chemicals Ltd, England) as an organic and cost-effective extracting solvent.

ParametersValues
1.Dynamometer const. head1 bar @ 5 L/min (min.)
2.Dynamometer max. power and speed rating7.5 kW and 7000 rpm
3.Engine cylinder, capacity and strokeSingle, 0.232 L and 4
4.Engine max. rating3.5 kW @ 3600 rpm
5.Bore, stroke and crank radius69 /62 /31 mm
6.Connecting rod length104 mm
7.Compression ratio22:1
8.ThermocoupleType-k
9.Engine modelTD212, TQ182785-002

Table 1

Engine test rig specification.

Figure 1.

Engine test rig experimental setup.

S/NParametersMeasuring rangeAccuracyResolution
1.Combustion Efficiency0–120%–0.1%
2.Flue gas loss−20–99.9–0.1%
3.Temperature−40–1200 °C±0.5 °C @ 0–100 °C0.1 °C @ −40–999 °C
±0.5% of range reading1 °C @ 1000–1600 °C
4.Oxygen0–21 vol.%±0.2 vol.%0.1 vol.%
5.CO20–10000 ppm±5% of reading @ 40.1–300 ppm1 ppm
±50 ppm +2% @ 0–5000 ppm
±100 ppm +3% of reading @ 5001–10000 ppm

Table 2

Testo 330-2LL gas analyser specification.

After the oil extracts were obtained by Soxhlet method, biodiesel production was optimized using a central composite design experiment (Table 3) using Design-Expert (Stat-Ease Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) as detailed in the work by Onojowho et al. [47]. Analytical grade reagents used in the experiments were obtained from BDH Chemicals Ltd., Poole, England, and GFS Chemicals, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. The blending and characterization of samples were performed using the ASTM and AOAC standard testing methods, as presented in Table 4. Mixing proportions of 10% constant B100, 65%, 75%, and 85% of D100 to 5%, 15%, and 25% K100 by volume and IKA C-MAG HS 4 magnetic stirrer were used to prepare three homogenous blend samples in addition to B100 and D100. During combustion, the gas analyser determined the combustion efficiency of all five blends from the captured flue gas properties. The engine operating torque variables for this study are 1.5 N m, 2.45 N m, 3.4 N m, 4.35 N m, and 5.3 N m.

Factor UnitCoded factor levels
−𝛼−10+1+ 𝛼
Methanol: Oil (X1)vol./vol.4.7574691213.2426
Catalyst loading (X2) wt%1.08581.52.53.53.9142
Reaction time (X3) min 11.715720406068.2843

Table 3

Biodiesel optimized production plan.

Theory/calculations of engine performance parameters

The complexity of combustion involves turbulence, species transportation, and ignition phenomena, among others. However, a few fundamentals are mentioned, in this study such as touching the CI engine performance quantification. Equation (1) represents the basic stoichiometric combustion with 100% complete combustion. For rich or excess air combustion with 100(x −1) % at an equivalent ratio x ≥ 1, see Equation (2). The mass flow rates of air and fuel are expressed in Equations (3) and (4), respectively. Furthermore, Equation (5) calculates the brake power, and the brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) is given in Equation (6), as determined by the built-in pressure pickup to TecQuipment software.

The engine fuel consumption rate, brake thermal efficiency, brake volumetric efficiency, heat of combustion, and combustion efficiency were determined using Equations (7)–(11), respectively: The land size cultivation requirement for Khaya senegalensis seed biodiesel production in hectares was obtained using Equation (12). The overall uncertainty of all parameters was estimated from the uncertainty of each parameter at the measurement determination, as presented in Equation (13) using the root sum squared approach [48].

Results and discussion

Engine performance parameters

Fuel mass flow rate

As shown in Table 4, the density and viscosity of the BDK blend decreases with increasing kerosene content. This improves the low-temperature fluidity of the fuel blends. This kinematic viscosity decrease with respect to the kerosene proportion has been reported in literature [49]. This implies that BDK blends provide smaller droplets at atomization than the B100 and D100 blends. These influencing properties of kerosene were significant for the blend flow rate, as shown in Figure 2. A quasi-steady flow rate was almost maintained with BDK5 up to 75% loading condition of the engine, whereas BDK15 maintained a good fuel flow rate that could even replace D100 in performance. This presents a quasilinear response and presents a potentially significant effect on blend injector atomization for proper combustion.

Figure 2.

Fuel flow rating of blends.

Air-fuel ratio

Diesel engines have typical air-fuel ratios ranging between 18–70 for combustion mixtures [50]. Mixtures below ratios of 18 are too rich, while above 70 are too lean. A general trend of an overly rich air-fuel mixture was observed for all blends. That is, all fuel blends were mixed with excess air as detailed in literature [46]. These performances were good translations of the corresponding fuel flow rates. The higher the torque or load, the lower is the mixture ratio, as shown in Figure 3, which implies that the engine has a high capacity to ensure complete combustion. BDK5 was maintained next to the richest mixture from the idling position until approximately 50% loading after B100. A linear relation response is presented by the BDK15 blend, which yields the best blending mixture above 75% engine load.

Figure 3.

Combustion mixture quality of fuel blends.

Brake mean effective pressure (BMEP)

There was a progressive increase in the in-cylinder combustion pressure with engine torque for all blends, as shown in Figure 4. The experiment shows that BDK15 is generally stable and comparable to D100. Engine performances with blends are closely related to each other, similar to the diesel-biodiesel-alcohol-nanoparticle trend result [26], and with 70 to 100% load performance of Jamrozik et al. [51].

SamplesASTM
PropertiesBDK5BDK15 BDK25 B100 D100 K100 MethodB6−20 (D 7467)B100 (D 6751)K100
GradesB10 D85K5B10 D75 K15 B10 D65 K25 B100 D100 1-k∗ ––––
Density @ 15 °C (kg/m2)860.2857.1852.6874852.8790AOAC+ – –780–810
Kinematic viscosity @ 40° (mm2/s)4.4173.9203.6835.8624.6351.612D 4451.9–4.1 1.9–6–
Saponification value (mg KOH/g) 29.7365.0860.59121.74108.7890.13AOAC+ – ––
Iodine value (g iodine/100 g) 181.21171.06179.562.78182.11265.14AOAC+ – ––
Cetane number 189.11491.6895.9977.0155.547D 61340 min 47 min–
Sulphur ––––0.082‡–D 54530.0015 max. (% mass)0.0015 max. (% mass)0.04%w
Cloud point (°C)−0.3−0.5−0.88.30.2< −1.5D 2500ReportReport−40
Pour point (°C) < −1.5< −1.5< −1.52< −1.5< −1.5D 97–96a––−47
Smoke point (°C) 62605689.36735D 93– ––
Flash point (°C) 8584821248350D 93125 min 130 min37–65
Calorific value- LHV (MJ/kg) 39.9940.3240.6537.4435.6541.25AOAC+ – –43.25

Table 4

Properties of fuel blends.

∗Grade is based on Sulphur proportion present in K100 Grade 2-k is 0.3 wt%. While grade S15 (0.0015% mass) and S500 (0.05% mass) are for biodiesel blends and D100. +AOAC [52] (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). ‡See reference [53].

Figure 4.

Engine combustion pressure of blends.

Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC)

Kerosene increments in blends significantly reduce the fuel consumption rate lower than B100 and is similar to D100 in this study. The results obtained by Kumar et al.  [46] showed similarities with results presented in Figure 5, however, the variation of diesel and constant biodiesel percentage proportions could be responsible for the significant reduction in consumption than D100 at 50% to 75% load (5.3 N m) of the engine performance. This can be maintained even at full load.

Figure 5.

Engine fuel consumption index.

Power development

The brake power developed from D100 exhibited the lowest performance. The B100 blend is the highest, whereas BDK15 is steadily reliable owing to its quasi-linear nature (Figure 6). This performance can easily be deduced from the fact that D100 possesses the lowest caloric value. The tertiary blend of water in diesel-alcohol in a CI engine also exhibited an increasing power trend, but with engine speed [16] while a decreasing power trend was presented by Akar [54].

Figure 6.

Power developed from blended mixtures.

Efficiencies: brake volumetric efficiency (BVE), brake thermal efficiency (BTE)

The actual air intake to stoichiometric air volume ratio describes the volumetric efficiency of an engine in mixture quality indexing. The experiment showed that the brake volumetric efficiency had an inverse relationship with engine torque. That is, the BVE decreased in response to increasing torque. The engine air-fuel mixing ability is represented as BVE in Figure 7, where B100 gives the best response with BDK25 as runner-up in volumetric efficiency. Blends BDK5 and BDK15 performed better than blend D100. Hence, introducing 5–25% of K100 is significant in the rich air-fuel mixture, enhancing better combustion with reference to D100.

Figure 7.

Engine efficiencies at loading capacities.

BTE is another level of engine performance efficiency that indexes engine energy conversion strength. Thermal energy liberated from fuel is usually converted into mechanical energy. Figure 7 shows the positive BTE presentation of the rising torque, i.e., the engine converts more thermal energy in response to increasing load demand. Lower heat of combustion is expected to promote a high BTE for higher mechanical energy harvesting. From idling, D100 appears to perform better; however, the K100 tertiary blending effect reveals the potential of BDK5, BDK15, and BDK25 to perform better than D100 from 4.35 N m (50% loading) and above. Conversion from BDK25 offers the highest BTE with BDK5 following a contributive effect of K100 proportion. The BVE and BTE results conform to those of existing works [16, 46, 51].

Combustion performance

Heat of combustion

The fuel flow rate and calorific value are the determining variables. All blends followed an increasing trend of liberated heat at torque increase during combustion. However, BDK5 was an exception to steady heat liberation irrespective of torque or load variation owing to the constant fuel flow rate. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 8, BDK15 had the most stable and highest heat liberation, although this was not visible in the energy conversion process. The lowest value was observed for D100, which has risen from its low calorific value. It can be observed that Hf and power uncertainties are high, as shown in Table 5, owing to the Watt unit presentation. The individual uncertainties obtained in the measurement and instrumentation process for each parameter indicate a high accuracy level to meet the design accuracy for each parameter. The plots indicate the standard error of each measurement.

Figure 8.

Energy liberation profile of fuel blends.

S/N ParametersAccuracyUncertainty
1. BMEP–±0.0377 bar
2. BSFC–±0.002546 kg⋅ kW/h
3. Power±3%±21.9151 W
4. BVE–±0.8793%
5. BTE–±0.4592%
6. A-F±0.5±0.4548
7.mf–±2.1915 × 10−5 kg/s
8.Hf–±490.8238 W
9.𝜂–±1.489%
10.CO2+3%±0.2438%
11. O2±0.2 vol.%±0.1223%
12. EQT±0.5%±0.7971 °C

Table 5

Uncertainty and sensitivity of equipment’s and measurements.

Combustion efficiency

Flue gas analysis of the engine combustion process of Figure 9 defines how well fuel burns. It can be seen that all fuel blends burned well above 70% and were higher than diesel-kerosene blends [42]. The increasing effect of K100 proportion in blends translated into the same order of increasing efficiency well above B100 as engine torque rises. D100 had the best combustion efficiency than others. Perhaps the air-fuel mixture of other blends was excessively richer based on the ratio presented above.

Figure 9.

Engine burning efficiency of blended mixtures.

Emission

Carbon (IV) oxide (CO2)

Figure 10(a) depicts that the percentage of CO2 emissions increases as engine torque increases, as previously stated [16, 26, 54], including the relationship with speed increase. Emissions from B100 from no-load state to 75% load maintained emissions within a minimum range of 6.06 to 12.44% lower than D100. Tertiary blends vividly followed suit, with BDK5 at 22.882%, BDK15 at 26.375%, and BDK25 at 15.375% lower than D100. Therefore, the BDK15 profile shows the lowest CO2 emissions. These effects on emissions can be traced back to lower carbon atoms existing in K100 [42, 44].

Figure 10.

Engine fuel combustion gas emissions.

Oxygen (O2)

The oxygen emissions shown in Figure 10(b) indicate that the experiment validated the excessively rich stoichiometric combustion with all blends resulting in complete combustion. The oxygen content in flue gas increased with increasing torque or load, in contrast to ethanol tertiary blend [49] and waste oil binary blend [55] which showed incomplete combustion. The oxygen constituent of B100 favored its emission.

Exhaust gas temperature

Flue gas temperature loss in this study points out that BDK15 blends to be the maximum among BDK5, BDK25 and B100 between closer range temperature losses, whereas D100 has the least. This energy loss from the heat of combustion with blends in Figure 11 is undesirable, even though it has similarities with others [46], including tertiary blend studies with ethanol [18]. Systems with exhaust recirculation [56] may help minimize this loss in utilization.

Figure 11.

Engine energy conversion losses potential from fuel combustion emissions.

Land use and resource depletion footprint

Assuming maturity, spacing, climate and soil quality factors are favourable for the 50.15% oil yield and 75.6–97.93% biodiesel yield reported in Onojowho et al. [47], it may be necessary to mass produce biodiesel, since it is a non-edible substrate. The land use requirement for this is estimated by Equation (12) to be 10 hectares for 10 tonnes of seeds. The impact of converting a natural land habitat into a mahogany plantation is socioeconomically profitable. Food production can even gain promotion simultaneously if appropriate mixed cropping is practised with the plantation. The risk of water and energy consumption at cultivation and processing, together with chemical usage could be well managed for minimal environmental impact.

Conclusions

The study results revealed the significant effect of the varying proportion of kerosene on biodiesel-diesel blending for compression ignition engine. Significant levels are observed vividly in the K100, increasing proportion of engine performance, combustion and emissions powered by blends.

  • The A–F ratio decreased with increasing torque and increasing K100 blend proportions. The BDK15 blend presented the best mixture ratio compared to others, including D100. It also appears to be the most economical blend for fuel consumption, harmonizing with BSFC results as torque increases.

  • The average in-cylinder pressure required to keep maximum and stable power output performance of the engine is obtained with BDK15 than D100 and other blends.

  • Fuel heat energy conversion to mechanical energy usually indexed with BTE is directly and indirectly proportional to power and combustion heat released respectively. BDK15 and BDK5 blends are readily converted compared with D100. Power developed with all blends was increasing with corresponding increasing load.

  • Observations on all blends reveal that increasing load translated into combustion efficiency improvement. However, the efficiency of D100 is better than all other blends. It has a 2.14% difference between D100 and the highest efficiency of the runner-up blend. CO2 emission of BDK15 is least compared to all other blends, with an advantage of at least 0.087% difference at 5.3 N m. Further studies could be based on reducing the mature age of mahogany seeds and also on the fuel stability of a tertiary blend with nanoparticle effect.

Acknowledgments

Authors sincerely appreciate the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Benin for granting access to their equipments and laboratory. Worthy of thanks are the contributions of Dr. C. A. Wojuade of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology Ogbomosho, Prof. F. S. Olise and Prof. O. K. Owoade of the Department of Physics and Engineering Physics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.

This research did not receive grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or non-profit organization/sectors.

Author’s contribution

Onojowho, Elijah: Conceptualization, Writing- original draft, Sadjere, Godwin: Writing- review and editing.

Funding

This research did not receive external funding from any agencies.

Ethical statement

Not Applicable.

Data availability statement

Source data is not available for this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

BMEP

Brake mean effective pressure (bar)

A

Constant 0.68

mf

Fuel flow rate (kg/s)

BSFC

Brake specific fuel consumption (Kg⋅kW/h)

B

Constant 0.007

ma

Air flow rate (kg/s)

BTE

Brake thermal efficiency (%)

𝜂

Combustion efficiency (%)

𝛥P

Pressure differential

BVE

Brake volumetric efficiency (%)

𝜏

Engine torque (N m)

𝛥𝜃

Injection crank angle

LHV

Lower heating value (MJ/kg)

N

Engine speed (rpm)

An

Orifice area (m2)

ICE

Internal combustion engine

R

Gas constant (287 J⋅K/kg)

𝜌f

Fuel density (kg/m3)

CI

Compression ignition

P

Power (W)

Cd

Flow factor

BDK5

5% volume kerosene blend sample

K

Dew point heat condensate

d

Orifice diameter (m)

BDK15

15% volume kerosene blend sample

Ta

Ambient temperature (°C)

π

3.142 constant

BDK25

25% volume kerosene blend sample

Pa

Ambient pressure (bar)

L

Piston stroke (mm)

B100

Pure biodiesel sample

Vc

Engine capacity (cc)

Om

Stack flue measure O2

D100

Pure diesel sample

Tf

Stack flue temperature (°C)

Hf

Heat of combustion (W)

K100

Pure kerosene sample

O21

21% atmospheric O2 value

A–F

Air to fuel ratio

EQT

Exhaust gas temperature

Ur

Overall Uncertainty

References

  1. 1.
    Lyu P, Wang P (Slade), Liu Y, Wang Y. Review of the studies on emission evaluation approaches for operating vehicles. J Traffic Transp Eng (English Edition). 2021;8(4):493–509.
  2. 2.
    Suhara A, Karyadi , Herawan SG, Tirta A, Idris M, Roslan MF, Biodiesel sustainability: review of progress and challenges of biodiesel as sustainable biofuel. Clean Technol. 2024;6(3):886–906.
  3. 3.
    Igwebuike CM. Biodiesel: analysis of production, efficiency, economics and sustainability in Nigeria. Clean Technol Recycl. 2023;3(2):92–106.
  4. 4.
    Masudi A, Muraza O, Jusoh NWC, Ubaidillah U. Improvements in the stability of biodiesel fuels: recent progress and challenges. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30: 14104–14125.
  5. 5.
    Adepoju TF, Ukanwa KS, Eyibio UP, Etim V, Amabogha B, Eloka-Eboka AC, Biodiesel production from renewable biosources ternary oil blends and its kinetic-thermodynamic parameters using eyring polanyi and Gibb’s-Duhem Equations. S Afr J Sci. 2023;44: 103–112.
  6. 6.
    Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Ong HC, Mahlia TM, Masjuki HH, Badruddin IA, Non-edible vegetable oils: a critical evaluation of oil extraction, fatty acid compositions, biodiesel production, characteristics, engine performance and emissions production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2013;18: 211–245.
  7. 7.
    Verma P, Sharma M. Performance and emission characteristics of biodiesel fueled diesel engines. Int J Renew Energy Res. 2015;5(1):245–250.
  8. 8.
    Chasos CA, Karagiorgis GN, Christodoulou CN. Diesel internal combustion engine emissions measurements for methanol-based and ethanol-based biodiesel blends. In: Power options for the eastern mediterranean region. Limassol, Cyprus: Hindawi Publishing Corporation; 2013. p. 1–8.
  9. 9.
    Chaurasiya PK, Singh SK, Dwivedi R, Choudri RV. Combustion and emission characteristics of diesel fuel blended with raw jatropha, soybean and waste cooking oils. Heliyon. 2019;5(5):e01564.
  10. 10.
    Uddin SMA, Azad AK, Alam MM, Ahamed JU. Performance of a diesel engine run with mustard-kerosene blends. Procedia Eng. 2015;105: 698–704.
  11. 11.
    Raheman H, Jena PC, Jadav SS. Performance of a diesel engine with blends of biodiesel (from a mixture of oils) and high-speed diesel. Int J Energy Environ Eng. 2013;4(6):1–9.
  12. 12.
    Caligiuri C, Bietresato M, Renzi M. The effect of using diesel-biodiesel-bioethanol blends on the fuel feed pump of a small-scale internal combustion engine. Energy Procedia. 2019 Feb;158: 953–958.
  13. 13.
    Onojowho EE, Betiku E, Asere AA. Performance and CO2 emission of a single cylinder compression ignition engine powered by Khaya senegalensis non-edible seeds fuel blends. Heliyon. 2024;10(7):e28380.
  14. 14.
    Onojowho EE, Asere AA. Effects of fuel blends flow rate on engine combustion performance. Front Energy Res. 2024;12: 1335507.
  15. 15.
    Shi X, Pang X, Mu Y, He H, Shuai S, Wang J, Emission reduction potential of using ethanol–biodiesel–diesel fuel blend on a heavy-duty diesel engine. Atmos Environ. 2006;40: 2567–2574.
  16. 16.
    Akasyah MK, Yusri IM, Mamat R, Jamlos MF, Abdul Majeed APP. Experimental evaluation of tertiary blends of water in diesel with butyl alcohol using compression ignition engine. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2021;1092(1):1–13.
  17. 17.
    Zhang ZH, Balasubramanian R. Influence of butanol addition to diesel–biodiesel blend on engine performance and particulate emissions of a stationary diesel engine. Appl Energy. 2014;119: 530–536.
  18. 18.
    Yilmaz N, Vigil FM, Donaldson BA, Darabseh T. Investigation of CI engine emissions in biodiesel–ethanol–diesel blends as a function of ethanol concentration. Fuel. 2014;115: 790–793.
  19. 19.
    Parthasarathy M, Ramkumar S, Isaac Joshua Ramesh Lalvani J. Influence of various flow rates of CNG in CI engine with blend of tamanu methyl ether and ethanol. Int J Vehicle Struct Syst [Internet]. 2019 Aug 12; [cited 2022 Jul 11];11(2):144–148. Available from: http://maftree.org/eja/index.php/ijvss/article/view/1212.
  20. 20.
    Ferreira VP, Martins J, Torres EA, Pepe IM, De Souza JMSR. Performance and emissions analysis of additional ethanol injection on a diesel engine powered with A blend of diesel-biodiesel. Energy Sustain Dev. 2013;17: 649–657.
  21. 21.
    Mofijur M, Rasul MG, Hyde J. Recent developments on internal combustion engine performance and emissions fueled with biodiesel-diesel-ethanol blends. In: 6th BSME International Conference on Thermal Engineering. Elsevier B.V.; 2015. p. 658–664.
  22. 22.
    Liang MS. Assessing emission and power tadeoffs of biodiesel and n-Butanol in diesel blends for fuel sustainability. Fuel. 2021;283: 1–16.
  23. 23.
    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: 1053–1061.
  24. 24.
    He BQ, Shuai SJ, Wang JX, He H. The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on emissions from a diesel engine. Atmos Environ. 2003;37: 4965–4971.
  25. 25.
    Shi X, Yu Y, He H, Shuai S, Dong H, Li R. Combination of biodiesel-ethanol-diesel fuel blend and SCR catalyst assembly to reduce emissions from a heavy-duty diesel engine. J Environ Sci. 2008;20: 177–182.
  26. 26.
    Shaafi T, Velraj R. Influence of alumina nanoparticles, ethanol and isopropanol blend as additive with diesel-soybean biodiesel blend fuel: Combustion, engine performance and emissions. Renew Energy. 2015;80: 655–663.
  27. 27.
    Rajak U, Nageswara Reddy V, Ağbulut Ü, Sarıdemir S, Afzal A, Nath Verma T. Modifying diesel fuel with nanoparticles of zinc oxide to investigate its influences on engine behaviors. Fuel. 2023;345: 128196.
  28. 28.
    Rajak U, Panchal M, Nashine P, Nath Verma T, Kumar R, Pugazhendhi A. Sustainability evaluation of green microalgae biofuel production and reducing the engine emissions in a common rail direct engine. Fuel. 2023;350: 128687.
  29. 29.
    Abishek MS, Kachhap S, Rajak U, Verma TN, Giri NC, AboRas KM, Exergy-energy, sustainability, and emissions assessment of Guizotia abyssinica (L.) fuel blends with metallic nano additives. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):3537.
  30. 30.
    Abishek MS, Kachhap S, Rajak U, Verma TN, Singh TS, Shaik S, Alumina and titanium nanoparticles to diesel–Guizotia abyssinica (L.) biodiesel blends on MFVCR engine performance and emissions. Sustain Energy Technol Assess. 2024;61: 103580.
  31. 31.
    Yilmaz N, Vigil FM. Potential use of a blend of diesel, biodiesel, alcohols and vegetable oil in compression ignition engines. Fuel. 2014;124: 168–172.
  32. 32.
    Chang YC, Lee WJ, Wu TS, Wu CY, Chen SJ. Use of water containing acetone-butanol-ethanol for NOx-PM (nitrogen oxide-particulate matter) trade-off in the diesel engine fueled with biodiesel. Energy. 2014;64: 678–687.
  33. 33.
    Petzold A, Döpelheuer A, Brock CA, Schröder F. In situ observations and model calculations of black carbon emission by aircraft at cruise altitude. J Geophys Res. 1999;104(D18):22171–22181.
  34. 34.
    Anderson BE, Beyersdorf AJ, Hudgins CH, Ziemba LD, Howard R, Corporan E, Alternative aviation fuel experiment (AAFEX) [Internet]; 7115 Standard Drive Hanover, MD 21076-1320: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 2011 p. 1–408. Report No.: NASA/TM–2011-217059. Available from: http://www.sti.nasa.gov.
  35. 35.
    Blakey S, Rye L, Wilson CW. Aviation gas turbine alternative fuels: A review. Proc Combust Inst. 2011;33(2):2863–2885.
  36. 36.
    Gierens K, Braun-Unkhoff M, Le Clercq P, Plohr M, Schlager H, Wolters F. Condensation Trails from Biofuels/Kerosene Blends Scoping Study. European Commission: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR); 2016 p. 1–78. Report No.: ENER/C2/2013-627.
  37. 37.
    Moore RH, Shook M, Beyersdorf A, Corr C, Herndon S, Knighton WB, Influence of jet fuel composition on aircraft engine emissions: a synthesis of aerosol emissions data from the NASA APEX, AAFEX, and ACCESS missions. Energy Fuels. 2015;29(4):2591–2600.
  38. 38.
    Shyam M. Physico-chemical properties of plant oils and blends in diesel and kerosene oils. Energy. 1987;12(7):589–598.
  39. 39.
    Cookson DJ, Smith BE, Shaw IM. Determination of hydrocarbon compound class abundances in kerosine and diesel fuels: Chromatographic and nuclear magnetic resonance methods. Fuel. 1987;66(6):758–765.
  40. 40.
    Asfar KR, Hamed H. Combustion of fuel blends. Energy Convers Manag. 1998;39(10):1081–1093.
  41. 41.
    Dagaut P, Cathonnet M. The ignition, oxidation, and combustion of kerosene: A review of experimental and kinetic modeling. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2006;32(1):48–92.
  42. 42.
    Akash BA. Combustion and emission investigation of diesel fuel and kerosene blends. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2015;10(6):618–622.
  43. 43.
    Akash BA. Combustion of diesel and kerosene in water jacketed horizontal cylinder combustion unit. In: Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Thermal Engineering Theory and Applications, United Arab Emirates, AlAin. 2006.
  44. 44.
    Shehata MS, Elkotb MM, Salem H. Combustion characteristics for turbulent prevaporized premixed flame using commercial light diesel and kerosene fuels. J Combust. 2014;2014: 1–17, 363465.
  45. 45.
    Azad AK, Ameer Uddin SM, Alam MM. Experimental study of DI diesel engine performance using biodiesel blends with kerosene. Int J Energy Environ. 2013;4(2):265–278.
  46. 46.
    Kumar R, Mishra MK, Kumar A, Singh SK. Experimental comparison of performance characteristics of a single cylinder diesel engine fueled with jatropha biodiesel-diesel and kerosene oil-jatropha biodiesel-diesel blends. Int J Mech Eng Technol. 2016;7(5):321–329.
  47. 47.
    Onojowho EE, Obayopo SO, Asere AA. Optimization of biodiesel production from khaya senegalensis oil using heterogeneous catalyst. In: Diversification of developing economies: imperatives for sustainable environment and technological innovations [Internet]. African Centre of Excellence, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. Ile-Ife: OAU Printing Press; 2019. 388 p, Available from: www.oautekconf.org.
  48. 48.
    Figliola RS, Beasley DE. Theory and design for mechanical measurements. 5th ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2011. 605 p.
  49. 49.
    Bhale PV, Deshpande NV, Thombre SB. Improving the low temperature properties of biodiesel fuel. Renew Energy. 2009;34: 794–800.
  50. 50.
    Pulkrabek WW. Engineering fundamentals of the internal combustion engine. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1999. p. 1–425.
  51. 51.
    Jamrozik A, Tutak W, Pyrc M, Sobiepanski M. Effect of diesel-biodiesel-ethanol blend on combustion performance and emissions characteristics on a direct injection diesel engine. Therm Sci. 2017;21(1B):591–604.
  52. 52.
    AOAC. Official methods of analysis, 14th ed. vol. 67, Arlington: Association of Official Analytical Chemist; 1995. p. 1–45.
  53. 53.
    Olatunji OS, Jimoda LA, Fakinle BS, Adeniran JA, Sonibare JA. Total sulfur levels in refined petroleum products of Southwestern Nigeria using UV/VIS spectrophotometer. Pet Sci Technol. 2015 Jan 2;33(1):102–109.
  54. 54.
    Akar MA. Performance and emission characteristics of compression ignition engine operating with false flax biodiesel and butanol blends. Adv Mech Eng. 2016;2(8):1–7.
  55. 55.
    Yilmaz N, Morton B. Comparative characteristics of compression ignited engines operating on biodiesel produced from waste vegetable oil. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35(5):2194–2199.
  56. 56.
    Raza M, Chen L, Ruiz R, Chu H. Influence of pentanol and dimethyl ether blending with diesel on the combustion performance and emission characteristics in a compression ignition engine under low temperature combustion mode. J Energy Inst. 2019;92(6):1658–1669.

Written by

Elijah Eferoghene Onojowho and Godwin E. Sadjere

Article Type: Research Paper

•

Date of acceptance: October 2024

Date of publication: November 2024

•

DOI: 10.5772/geet.20230106

Copyright: The Author(s), Licensee IntechOpen, License: CC BY 4.0

Download for free

© The Author(s) 2024. Licensee IntechOpen. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Impact of this article

108

Downloads

135

Views

Share this article

Join us today!

Submit your Article