Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Assessment of performance, emission and combustion characteristics

of palm, jatropha and Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends
I.M. Monirul a,, H.H. Masjuki a, M.A. Kalam a,, M.H. Mosarof a,, N.W.M. Zulkifli a, Y.H. Teoh a,b, H.G. How a
a
b

Center for Energy Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

h i g h l i g h t s

All of biodiesel blends showed almost 7.5% higher BSFC than diesel fuel.

Diesel produces higher BP and BTE compared to biodiesel blends.

JB20 produced 7.49% and 14.90% lower CO and HC emissions compared to diesel.

JB10 produced 31.79% lower amount of smoke opacity than diesel fuel.

PB20 has lower emission and better engine performance than diesel fuel.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 January 2016
Received in revised form 26 March 2016
Accepted 4 May 2016
Available online 9 May 2016
Keywords:
Renewable energy
Diesel engine
Biodiesel
Performance
Emission and combustion

a b s t r a c t
Biodiesel is an alternative diesel fuel that is produced from renewable resources. Energy studies conducted over the last two decades focused on solutions to problems of rising fossil fuel price, increasing
dependency on foreign energy sources, and environmental concerns. Palm oil biodiesel is mostly used
in Malaysia. Engine performance and emission tests were conducted with a single-cylinder diesel engine
fueled with palm, jatropha and Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends (PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10,
and CIB20) and then compared with diesel fuel at a full-load engine speed range of 10002400 rpm.
The average brake specific fuel consumption increased from 7.96% to 10.15% while operating on 10%,
and 20%, blends of palm, jatropha and C. inophyllum biodiesel. The average brake power for PB10 and
PB20 were 9.31% and 12.93% lower respectively compared with that for diesel fuel. JB10 showed higher
amount of brake specific fuel consumption than diesel and other biodiesel blends. PB20 produces comparatively lower CO and HC emissions than diesel and biodiesel blends. JB10 showed 31.09% lower smoke
opacity than diesel fuel. Diesel produces lower amount of NOX emission compared to biodiesel blends.
The higher peak cylinder pressure and heat release rate were found with CIB blends compared to diesel
fuel, palm and jatropha biodiesel blends. Results indicated that PB20 has better engine performance, and
lower emission compared with diesel and biodiesel blends. Thus, PB20 is suitable for use in diesel engines
without the need for any engine modification.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, biodiesel plays an important role in helping overcome oil shortages and mitigating environmental effects in petroleum fuel fields worldwide [1]. Energy consumption has increased
because of the wide use of fossil fuels in power plants, transportation vehicles, electric generators, mining equipment, and locomotives [2,3]. Prices of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, and petroleum,

Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: monirulislam3103@gmail.com (I.M. Monirul), kalam@um.edu.
my (M.A. Kalam), mosarof.hossain.rubel@gmail.com (M.H. Mosarof).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.010
0016-2361/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

are rising day by day [4]. Biodiesel is used as an alternative diesel

fuel in transport vehicles and is produced from edible and nonedible vegetable oils [5]. It is biodegradable, oxygenated, nontoxic,
sulfur-free, sustainable, renewable, and can be used in diesel engines, either in pure form or blended with diesel without any engine
modification [69]. The use of fossil fuels, which produce high
amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, can increase environmental
pollution. Rail and road traffic produce more noise that can affect
human health. In the European Union, 20% of the population suffers from this type of noise [10]. Moreover, many researchers
observed that biodiesel shows low regulated and unregulated
emissions [3,11]. Using biodiesel in diesel engines can reduce

986

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

Nomenclature
BP
BSFC
BTE
CIB
CIME
FAC

brake power
brake specific fuel consumption
brake thermal efficiency
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel
Calophyllum inophyllum methyl ester
fatty acid composition

harmful emissions, such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,

unburned hydrocarbon, and particulate matters [1214]. The
parameters of diesel engine performance, such as brake specific
fuel consumption (BSFC), brake power (BP), brake torque, and
brake thermal efficiency, must be improved to reduce emissions
[13,15,16]. Fuel injection systems have played a vital role in
improving fuel economy and reducing engine emissions. In injection systems, injection timing, injection duration, fueling, and
injection pressure are the most important parameters that
adversely affect engine performance and emissions [17,18]. Low
emissions and high engine performance can be attained by recirculating exhaust gasses [19].
In diesel engines, various sliding engine parts produce more
friction between the metal contact surfaces, which reduces engine
reliability. Lubricity is one of the most important factors in extending engine life [20]. Lubrication is needed to reduce friction and
wear between the engine sliding parts. Generally, fuel lubricity
depends on dynamic viscosity, which is the function of temperature, pressure, density, and viscosity [21]. Engine components such
as fuel pump, pistoncylinder liner, fuel injector, fuel depositors,
and piston rings produce more friction; hence, these components
require lubrication to reduce friction [22]. Carbon particle deposition, high viscosity and density, unsaturated fatty acid composition, corrosive nature, injector coking, and filter plugging are the
main drawbacks of the lubrication effect [23]. Nevertheless, biodiesel provides better engine performance, lubricating performance,
and lower emissions compared with diesel fuel.
Ozsezen and Canakci [24] observed the performance and emission of palm biodiesel that filled a six-cylinder diesel engine. They
observed that BP decreased about 2.5% and BSFC increased about
7.5%. Palm biodiesel had lower HC (14.29%), CO (86.89%), and
smoke (67.65%) emissions but a high amount of NOX (22.13%)
emission compared with diesel fuel. When diesel and palm biodiesel blends fueled in a KIR-LOSKAR TV-1 type four-stroke diesel
engine with varying loads of 20100% at a constant speed
(800 rpm) and full-load condition, BSFC showed for pure palm biodiesel and diesel fuel were 0.2749 and 3.31491 kg/kW h respectively. BSFC of 25%, 50%, and 75% palm biodiesel blends observed
to be 2.59%, 8.93%, and 9.25% higher compared with those of diesel
fuel [25]. Dorado et al. [26] reported that biodiesel blends showed
slightly lower BSFC compared to ordinary diesel fuel. The effects of
injector deposits, filter plugging, corrosion, and piston pump wear
could be caused by oxidation stability in diesel and biodiesel [27].
Liaquat et al. [28], observed exhaust emissions for palm oil biodiesel used in a four-stroke DI diesel engine. The engine exhaust emissions were observed by a BOSCH gas analyzer, and the test was
conducted on a 250 h engine speed at 2000 rpm. CO and CO2 emissions decreased with increasing percentage of biodiesel in the
blend. Diesel was given a higher amount of HC compared with
palm biodiesel at full- and middle-load conditions [29]. Ong et al.
[30], observed single-cylinder diesel engine performance and
exhaust emissions within fueled high free fatty acid Calophyllum
inophyllum biodiesel blends. CIB10 showed highest BTE and good
engine performance. BSFC and EGT of CIB10 showed lower engine
performance compared with diesel fuel. CIB10 reduced CO and

FAME
GC
JB
JOME
PB
POME

fatty acid methyl ester

gas chromatography
jatropha biodiesel
jatropha oil methyl ester
palm biodiesel
palm oil methyl ester

smoke emission, although a slightly higher NOX emission was

observed compared with diesel fuel. Adding some additives with
CI biodiesel blends also reduced NOX emission [12].
Many researchers have investigated and compared palm and
jatropha biodiesel blends with diesel fuel, whereas other studies
compared palm and Calophyllum inophyllum (C. inophyllum) biodiesel blends with diesel fuel [13,31]. However, no study has been
conducted that compares palm, jatropha, and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends with diesel fuel. The aim of this study, to observe the
performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of a diesel
engine by using palm, jatropha, and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends
and also compare them. Finally, evaluating which biodiesel blend
has better engine performance, lower emissions and combustion
characteristics.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Biodiesel production and blends
The crude palm oil collected from a Malaysian local market and
crude C. inophyllum and jatropha oil were collected from a foreign
supplier. The transesterification process was used to produce palm
and CI biodiesel. Crude palm, jatropha and C. inophyllum oil were
mixed with 25% methanol (V/V) and 1% KOH (w/w). In this process,
the chemical reaction was obtained within 2 h by the maintaining
a constant temperature of 60 C and stirring speed of 1000 rpm.
After the first step was completed, biodiesel was poured into a funnel to separate glycerin from biodiesel; the whole separation process took 12 h. After the reaction was completed, the lower layer
was drawn off because it contained glycerin and some impurities.
The methyl ester was washed with distilled water to remove the
impurities. Distilled water (50% V/V) was sprayed over the esters
at 60 C. This process was repeated several times until all impurities from the methyl ester were completely removed. Then, methyl
ester was dried with a rotary evaporator and filtered using filter
paper. After all the steps were completed, the final product was
collected for the experiment. POME, JOME and CIME were mixed
with diesel to produce biodiesel blends. Three types of biodiesel
blends were produced for palm and CI biodiesel, including PB10
(10% POME + 90% diesel), PB20 (20% POME + 80% diesel), JB10
(10% JOME + 90% diesel), JB20 (20% JOME + 80% diesel), CIB10
(10% CIME + 90% diesel), and CIB20 (20% CIME + 80% diesel). A total
of six biodiesel blends and diesel were used in this experiment.
2.2. Fatty acid composition of biodiesel methyl ester
Gas chromatography (GC) was used to measure fatty acid composition of POME, JOME and CIME. This instrument shows fatty
acid composition results in weight percentage. Fatty acid compositions of POME, JOME and CIME are shown in Table 1. For FAC analysis, 0.02 g of biodiesel was diluted with 1.5 ml hexane in a small
vial; the diluted sample was charged with a flame ionization detector within 2 ll, which was connected by Perkin-Elmer GC. Then,
each peak was identified and compared with the standard value

987

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

Table 1
POME, JOME and CIME fatty acid composition by percentage of weight.
FAME name

Carbon structure

Chemical formula

Molecular mass

Methyl laurate
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl palmitoleate
Methyl stearate
Methyl oleate
Methyl linoleate
Methyl linolenate
Methyl archidate
Methyl eicosenoate
Methyl behenate
Methyl lignocerate
Saturated
Mono-saturated
Polyunsaturated

12:00
14:00
16:00
16:01
18:00
18:01
18:02
18:03
20:00
20:01
22:00
24:0

CH3(CH2)10COOCH3
CH3(CH2)12COOCH3
CH3(CH2)14COOCH3
CH3(CH2)5CH@CH(CH2)7COOCH3
CH3(CH2)16CO2CH3
CH3(CH2)7CH@CH(CH2)7COOCH3
CH3(CH2)3(CH2CH@CH)2(CH2)7COOCH3
CH2(CH2CH@CH)3(CH2)7COOCH3
CH3(CH2)18COOCH3
CH3(CH2)16CH@CHCOOCH3
CH3(CH2)20COOCH3
CH3(CH2)22COOCH3

214.34
242.4
270.45
268.43
298.5
296.49
294.47
292.46
326.56
324.54
354.61
382.66

of FAC. The absolute FAC value was calculated by adding the identified peak value, and FAME was also calculated using this value.
POME consists of seven saturated (44.3%), three monounsaturated (44.2%), and two polyunsaturated (11.5%) fatty acid
compositions. JOME consists of four saturated (23.9%), two
monounsaturated (42.8%), and two polyunsaturated (32.9%) fatty
acid composition. By contrast, CIME contains four saturated
(34.6%) and six unsaturated (63.4%) fatty acid compositions.
2.3. Properties of biodiesel and its blends
The physical and chemical properties of palm, jatropha and CI
biodiesel blends, such as viscosity, density, viscosity index, cloud
point, flash point, pour point, oxidation stability, acid value, cetane
index, and calorific value, were measured according to ASTM standard methods. Table 2 shows the synopsis of equipment and test
methods used to determine fuel properties. Physical and chemical
properties of diesel, palm, jatropha and CI biodiesel blends (PB10,
PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and CIB20) are shown in Table 3. Density
(40 C), dynamic viscosity (40 C), and kinematic viscosity (40 C
and 100 C) were measured using Stabinger Viscometer (model
SVM 3000, Anton Paar, UK). A bomb calorimeter (model C2000
basic calorimeter, IKA, UK) was used to measure calorific value.
The Saponification number and Iodine value were needed for calculating cetane number. The cetane number was calculated by
using Eq. (1).

Saponification Number; SN
Iodine Value;
Cetane Number;

P 560Ai
MW i

P
i
IV 254DA
 MWi 5458

CN 46:3 SN  0:225  IV
1

Composition (wt.%)
POME

JOME

CIME

0.3
0.1
38.4
0.2
4.1
44.3
11.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
44.2
44.4
11.4

0
0.1
17.5
0.7
6.2
42.1
32.7
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
23.9
42.8
32.9

0
0
14.7
0.2
17.2
38.2
27.6
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.1
33.6
38.7
27.6

where Ai is the percentage of each component, D is the double

bonds number and MWi is the mass of each component [32]. The
molecular mass of each component are shown in Table 1.

2.4. Experimental setup for engine test

The experimental test was conducted using a single-cylinder
Yammar diesel engine, which is naturally aspirated. The engine
speed varied from 1000 rpm to 2400 rpm at full-load condition.
Engine specification and operating conditions are shown in
Table 4. The schematic diagram of the test engine setup is
shown in Fig. 1. The test engine was directly equipped with
an Eddy current dynamometer (SAJ SE-20). A strain gauge load
cell was used to measure the torque within 0.25 N m accuracy.
Testing oil, engine lube oil, cooling water, inlet air, and exhaust
gas temperatures were measured by K-type thermocouple. A
Kobold ZOD (positive displacement type) flow meter used to
measure the fuel flow rate. Engine performance data were collected using DASTEP8 data acquisition system at a rate of 10
samples per second. Emission parameters such as CO, HC,
NOX, and smoke were measured by AVL (model DiCom 4000)
exhaust gas analyzer. Exhaust gas analyzer details are shown
in Table 5. Initially, the engine was powered with diesel till a
steady-state condition was completed; then, the fuel supply
was changed to biodiesel blends. After running the engine for
5 min, the residual diesel must be completely removed from
the fuel line before data acquisition. This procedure was
repeated for each blend. After completing each test, the engine
was run again with diesel fuel to drain the biodiesel blend from
the fuel line.

Table 2
List of equipments for fuel properties testing.
Property

Equipment

Manufacturer

Model

Accuracy

Density
Dynamic viscosity
Kinematic viscosity
Viscosity index
Flash point
Cloud point
Pour point
Cold filter plugging point
Oxidation stability
Calorific value
Acid value

Stabinger viscometer
Stabinger viscometer
Stabinger viscometer
Stabinger viscometer
Pensky-martens flash point tester
Cloud and pourpoint tester
Cloud and pour point tester
Cold filter plugging point tester
Biodiesel Rancimat
Basic calorimeter
Automated titration system

Anton Paar, UK
Anton Paar, UK
Anton Paar, UK
Anton Paar, UK
Norma lab, France
Norma lab, France
Norma lab, France
Norma lab, France
Metrohm, Switzerland
IKA, UK
Mettler Toledo, Switzerland

SVM 3000
SVM 3000
SVM 3000
SVM 3000
NPM 440
NTE 450
NTE 450
NTL 450
873 Rancimat
C2000
G-20 Rondolino

0.1 kg/m3
0.1 mm2/s
0.1 mm2/s
1
0.1 C
0.1 C
0.1 C
0.1 C
0.01 h
0.1%
0.001 mg KOH/g

988

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

Table 3
Physical and chemical properties of palm, jatropha and Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends.
Property

Units

Density at 40 C
Dynamic viscosity at 40 C
Kinematic viscosity at 40 C
Kinematic viscosity at 100 C
Viscosity index
Oxidation stability
Cetane number
Cloud point
Flash point
Pour point
Cold filter plugging point
Calorific value
Acid number

ASTM method

Diesel

PB10

PB20

PB100

JB10

JB20

JB100

CIB10

CIB20

CIB100

kg/m
mPa s
mm2/s
mm2/s

D4052
D445
D445
D445
D2270
EN15751

C
C
C
C
MJ/kg
mg KOH/g

D2500
D93
D97
D6371
D240
D664

834.7
0.8064
3.4926
1.358
130
35
48
8
68.5
0
5
45.6
0.072

832.6
2.8272
3.3624
1.3261
137
112.48
49
8
76.5
1
6
44.17
0.41

839.5
2.8956
3.4589
1.3479
142
67.36
50
8
77.3
1
7
43.25
0.46

857.6
3.8748
4.3847
1.7656
218
1.03
58
10
181.3
12
11
39.85
0.74

835.8
2.5374
3.7638
1.4371
133
44.8
48
3
87.6
5
5
44.28
0.31

840.5
2.7894
3.8972
1.4822
141
19.20
49
4
93.2
3
4
43.37
0.42

864.6
4.9523
4.7128
1.8025
208
0.06
54
5
183.6
3
3
39.42
0.45

825.6
2.5864
3.7318
1.4485
134
27.70
50
8
72.3
1
7
44.58
0.22

830.3
2.8044
3.7986
1.4786
137
25.19
51
8
73.1
1
6
44.06
0.24

871.8
5.0145
4.9762
1.8314
188
2.53
56
11
92.6
12
9
39.17
0.41

2.5. Error analysis

Table 4
Engine specification and operating conditions.

For statistical analysis, two-tailed paired t-test was used for

independent variables, which showed a significant difference
among the sample set mean values using by Microsoft Excel
2013. Changes among the mean values at a level of p = 0.05 (95%
confidence level) were considered statistically significant. Error
analysis was needed to determine the percentage of uncertainty
and accuracy of experiments. The experimental test results were
included with error and uncertainties, which can arise from the
selection of instruments, environmental conditions, test conditions, test planning, observation, calibration, and reading. The
experimental data were collected at least three times and averaged
among them, which performed in graph plotting and precision
measuring. Table 6 shows the accuracy of instruments and the relative uncertainty of various test parameters for the experiments.
Sample calculations were provided in Appendix A. According to
Mofijur et al. [27], the overall uncertainty was calculated at
3.19% for these experiments. The overall experimental uncertainty was calculated as follows:

Overall uncertainty Square root of uncertainty of fuel flow rate

uncertainty of BSFC

uncertainty of BP uncertainty of BTE

2

uncertainty of CO uncertainty of HC
uncertainty of NOX

2
2

uncertainty of smoke opacity 

Square root of 0:42 1:22 0:72 0:82
1:22 1:92 0:72 1:42 
3:19%

Engine parameter

Conditions

Model
Type

TF 120 M
Horizontal, water cooled, single cylinder, four
stroke diesel engine
92 mm
96 mm
638 cc
2400 rpm at 7.7 kW, 10.5 Ps

Bore length
Stroke length
Displacement volume
Nominal rated power
output
Maximum rated power
output
Size
Cooling system
Lubricating system
Exhaust gas regulation

2400 rpm at 8.8 kW, 12 Ps

695.5 mm  348.5 mm  530 mm
Radiator cooling system
Completed enclosed forced lubricating system
Absence

diesel and other biodiesel blends. PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, and CIB20
exhibited 3.81%, 7.13%, 7.21%, 12.72%, and 0.51% higher BSFC than
diesel fuel, respectively. The average BSFC of the CIB10 blend were
6.98%, 11.60%, and 15.26% lower than diesel, PB10, and JB10,
respectively. This result could be attributed by the lower calorific
value of the fuel with a higher engine power output [34]. From
Fig. 2, when engine was running at low speed, diesel and biodiesel
blends showed higher BSFC. The BSFC of biodiesel blends and diesel fuel decreased with the increase in engine speed because of the
increasing ratio of fuel atomization [35]. Palm biodiesel blends
produced a higher amount of BSFC than jatropha and CI biodiesel
blends, except for JB20. For all of biodiesel blends based on the volumetric efficiency, more amount of fuel supply were needed to
produce the same engine power output. Higher density and lower
calorific value are the main factors for this result. Higher fuel consumption can be caused by the effect of volumetric fuel injection
rate with higher viscosity of biodiesel blends [36]. Therefore,
CIB10 displays lower specific fuel consumption than other biodiesel blends and diesel fuel.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Performance characteristics
3.1.1. Brake specific fuel consumption
Density, viscosity, higher heating value, calorific value, and volumetric fuel injection are the main factors for the BSFC of diesel
engines [33]. Fig. 2 shows the BSFC of biodiesel blends and diesel
with variation in engine speed. The average BSFC of biodiesel
blends was significantly higher than in diesel fuel except for
CIB10. A higher amount of average BSFC was observed in JB20
(0.5915 kg/kW h), the concentrations of which were 4.96% and
10.83% higher than PB20 and CIB20, respectively. A lower amount
of average BSFC (0.488 kg/kW h) was determined in CIB10 than in

3.1.2. Brake power

The engine BP of different biodiesel blends at different engine
speeds are shown in Fig. 3. It was seen from that figure, the engine
BP of all fuels gradually increased; when engine speed reached
2200 rpm, BP decreased. The maximum power output for diesel
fuel was measured at 5.21 kW at a speed of 2200 rpm. The average
BP of diesel were 4.19%, 10.48%, 11.64%, 16.69%, 7.17%, and 11.07%
higher than those of PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and CIB20,
respectively. A lower amount of average BP was found with JB20
at 3.63 kW. The average BP of JB20 were 7.445% and 6.75% lower
than those of PB20 and CIB20, respectively. JB10 also produced a
lower BP than PB10 and CIB10. This result can be caused by the
higher heating value of biodiesel blends [37]. The heating value

989

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for testing engine.

Table 5
Details for AVL gas analyzer.
Parameter

Method

Range

Resolution

Accuracy

CO
HC
NOX
Smoke opacity

Non-dispersive infrared
Non-dispersive infrared
Electromechanical detector
Electromechanical detector

010 vol.%
020,000 ppm
05000 ppm
0100 vol.%

0.01 vol.%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.01 vol.%

0.01 vol.%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.01 vol.%

Table 6
Summary of the relative uncertainty and accuracy of this experiment.
Accuracy

Uncertainty

Fuel flow rate

BSFC
BP
BTE
CO
HC
NOX
Smoke opacity

0.03 l/h
0.05 g/kW h
0.02 kW
0.5
0.01 vol.%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.01 vol.%

0.4
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.9
0.7
1.4

of JB20 was higher than in other biodiesel blends. Lower density

and viscosity of JB20 can affect power loss because of greater leakages in fuel pump compared with other biodiesel blends [38,39].
Fuel containing higher viscosity can reduce fuel pump leakages
[40]. Jatropha biodiesel blends produced lower amounts of engine
BP than palm and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends. However, diesel
fuel showed higher amount of average BP compared with biodiesel
blends.

Diesel

BSFC (Kg/Kwh)

Parameters

0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25

1000

PB10

1200

PB20

1400

JB10

1600

JB20

CIB10

CIB20

1800

2000

2200

2400

Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 2. Brake specific fuel consumption of diesel and biodiesel blends at various
engine loads.

Diesel

PB10

PB20

JB10

JB20

CIB10

CIB20

2000

2200

3.1.3. Brake thermal efficiency

Fig. 4 shows the brake thermal efficiency (BTE) of biodiesel
blends with variations of engine speed compared to diesel fuel.
The maximum amount of BTE was found with CIB10 at 23.2% compared with other biodiesel blends and diesel. The maximum
amount of BTE for diesel fuel was 22%. All test fuels showed higher
BTE at 2000 rpm. When engine speed was increased to more than
2000 rpm, the BTE of biodiesel blends and diesel decreased simultaneously. The average BTE of diesel, PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10,
and CIB20 were 18.25%, 17.695%, 17.17%, 16.80%, 15.98%, 18.68%,
and 17.58%, respectively. Lower amounts of BTE were observed

Brake power (KW)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 3. Engine brake power of diesel and biodiesel blends.

2400

990

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

Diesel

PB10

PB20

JB10

JB20

CIB10

CIB20

24

BTE (%)

22
20
18
16
14
12
1000

1200

1400

1 600

1800

2 000

2200

2 400

Engine Speed (rpm)

Fig. 4. The brake thermal efficiency of diesel and biodiesel blends.

with JB20. The concentrations of JB20 were 7.42% and 10.01% lower
than those of PB20 and CIB20, respectively. JB10 also showed lower
BTE than PB10 and CIB10. The average BTE of diesel was almost
higher than biodiesel blends, except for CIB10. This result can be
attributed to the lower calorific value of biodiesel blends with
higher fuel consumption. The possibility of higher efficiency can
be caused by higher output power and lower BSFC. Lower efficiency of biodiesel blends compared with diesel can be caused by
higher density, viscosity, and heating value of biodiesel. Atomization and vaporization of biodiesel blends decreased because of
higher viscosity and density, producing uneven combustion characteristics compared with diesel [41]. However, jatropha biodiesel
blends showed lower BTE than palm and C. inophyllum biodiesel
blends.
3.2. Emission characteristics
3.2.1. CO emission
The absence of fuel-borne O2 in the molecular structures of fossil fuel has led to the production of CO emissions [42]. In the combustion process, fuel burning with insufficient air supply and lower
temperature could form CO emission. The CO emissions of diesel
and biodiesel blends with variations of engine speed are shown
in Fig. 5. The lowest amount of CO emissions was produced by
PB20 at 1800 rpm and the maximum amount of CO emission was
produced by CIB20 at 2400 rpm. Diesel produces lower CO emissions than CIB10 and CIB20 do, approximately 2.33% and 4.70%
lower respectively. The average CO emissions of diesel fuel were
2.45%, 4.79%, 1.40%, and 4.29% higher than those of PB10, PB20,
JB10, and JB20, respectively. The highest average CO emissions
were produced by CIB20. PB20 produced a lower amount of CO
emissions than the other biodiesel blends. The average CO emissions of PB20 were 2.45%, 3.56%, 0.52%, 7.49%, and 9.97% lower
than those of PB10, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and CIB20, respectively. Palm
biodiesel blends produced lower amounts of CO emissions compared to jatropha and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends. These results
Diesel

PB10

PB20

JB10

JB20

CIB10

can be caused by the fuel atomization difficulty because of higher

viscosity and airfuel mixture. The CO emission of biodiesel blends
was increased with the increased percentage of biodiesel in blend
and engine load. If fuel is burned with a rich amount of airfuel
mixture and higher engine load, higher CO emissions will be produced [43].
3.2.2. HC emission
Fuel properties, fuel injection, and engine operating conditions
caused the formation of HC emissions [44]. HC emissions for diesel
and biodiesel blends are shown in Fig. 6. The average HC emissions
of diesel were 10.23%, 13.27%, 7.38%, 14.90% and 10.91% higher
than those of PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20 and CIB10 respectively. However, the HC emissions of diesel fuel were lower than those of
CIB20 by almost 2.70%. CIB20 showed a higher amount of HC emissions compared to those of diesel and biodiesel blends. JB20 produced lower amount of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions than PB20
and CIB20. The average HC emissions of JB20 were 5.31%, 1.92%,
8.92%, 4.71%, and 18.53% lower than those of PB10, PB20, JB10,
CIB10, and CIB20, respectively. HC emissions of all fuels were
decreased with increases in engine speed. When engine speed
was at the maximum, all fuels showed a lower amount of HC emissions compared to the low engine speed. The average HC emissions
of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends were lower than those of C.
inophyllum biodiesel blends. For palm biodiesel blends, HC emissions were decreased with increases in biodiesel percentage in
the blend. These results could be attributed to the good HC conversion caused by higher cetane number and oxygen content in fuels.
Biodiesel has higher oxygen content, which can complete better
combustion and reduce HC emissions [45,46].
3.2.3. NOX emission
Fig. 7 shows the NOX emissions for different biodiesel blends
with the variations of engine speeds. All biodiesels produce higher
amounts of NOX emission than diesel fuel does. The NOX emissions
of diesel biodiesel blends were gradually increased with the
increases of engine speeds and concentration of biodiesel in blends
[47]. Biodiesel has higher oxygen content than diesel fuel, almost
12% higher [48]. These results can be attributed to NOX formation
in the combustion process [41,49]. The average NOX emissions of
diesel were 4.81%, 8.03%, 1.61%, 5.46%, 6.79%, and 9.42% lower than
those of PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and CIB20 respectively, over
engine speeds. The maximum amount of NOX emissions was found
with CIB20 at approximately 337.2 ppm at 2400 rpm. CIB20 produces a highest NOX emissions compared with other biodiesel
blends. The average NOX emissions of CIB20 were 4.20%, 1.27%,
7.14%, 3.62%, and 2.40% higher than those of PB10, PB20, JB10,
JB20, and CIB10, respectively. The low amount of oxidation stability of CIB20 was the main reason for this result. JB10 produced a
lower amount of NOX emission than PB10 and CIB10. However,
the average NOX emissions of CIB blends were higher than those
of PB and JB blends because CI biodiesel blends have higher oxygen

CIB20
Diesel

0.75
0.7
0.65

PB20

JB10

JB20

CIB10

CIB20

50

0.6

HC (ppm)

CO (% Vol)

PB10

60

0.55
0.5
0.45

40
30
20

0.4
10

0.35
0.3

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Engine Speed (rpm)

Fig. 5. CO emission of diesel and biodiesel blends with variations of engine speed.

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Engine Speed (rpm)

Fig. 6. HC emission of diesel and biodiesel blends with variations of engine speed.

991

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

PB10

PB20

JB10

JB20

CIB10

enrichment of oxygen content in fuel could cause lower smoke

opacity for biodiesel blends. Many researchers reported that biodiesel contains oxygen content that can reduce smoke opacity of
diesel engine [5557]. Biodiesel contains aromatic compounds
and a lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than diesel fuel does, which
reduces smoke opacity. The low carbon molecules and oxygen produce soot in fuel and decrease smoke opacity [58]. Diesel contains
a high amount of sulfur, which could be attributed to its higher
smoke opacity compared with that of biodiesel [59]. Therefore,
smoke opacities of biodiesel and diesel fuel depend on the oxygen
content, aromatic compounds, and sulfur content.

CIB20

NOX (ppm)

400
350
300
250
200
150

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

3.3. Combustion analysis

Engine Speed (rpm)

Fig. 7. NOX emission of diesel and biodiesel blends with variations of engine speed.

content than PB blends, JB blends and diesel fuel did. In biodiesel

blends, NOX emissions were increased because of the increases of
_
biodiesel percentages in dieselbiodiesel blends. Ilkl
and Aydn
[50], reported that higher oxygen content of biodiesel blends could
raise the temperature and increase the rate of NOX emission formation. The pure biodiesel blends can improve engine combustion
because of a higher cetane number of biodiesel, hence forming
NOX. Biodiesel contains higher bulk modulus, which leads to early
nozzle opening and advanced fuel injection compared to diesel fuel
[51,52].
3.2.4. Smoke opacity
Fig. 8 illustrates the variations of smoke opacity for different
biodiesel blends with different engine speeds. The smoke opacity
indirectly indicates the soot content in exhaust gasses. Diesel gives
a higher amount of smoke opacity compared to biodiesel blends,
and it was gradually increased with increases of engine speed.
The average smoke opacities of diesel at approximately
39.6625 ppm, were 27.45%, 26.34%, 31.79%, 22.28%, 28.08%, and
24.29% higher than those of PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and
CIB20, respectively. JB10 produced the lowest average smoke opacity compared with other biodiesel blends at approximately
27.35 ppm. The average smoke opacity of JB10 were 6.38%, 8.01%,
13.96%, 5.45%, and 11.0% lower than those of PB10, PB20, JB20,
CIB10, and CIB20, respectively. Meanwhile, JB20 produced a higher
amount of smoke opacity than PB20 and CIB20. The smoke opacity
of palm biodiesel blends was gradually increased with increases of
engine speed. However, the smoke opacity of jatropha biodiesel
blends gradually decreased until 1800 rpm. These also increased
with engine speed. The average smoke opacities of jatropha biodiesel blends were lower than those of diesel, palm and C. inophyllum
biodiesel blends. These results can be attributed to the presence of
higher oxygen contents in jatropha biodiesel compared to diesel,
palm and C. inophyllum biodiesel [53]. Xue [54] reported that the
Diesel

PB10

PB20

JB10

JB20

CIB10

CIB20

45
40
35
30

TDC

60

Combustion Pressure (bar)

50

Somke opacity

The cylinder combustion pressure and heat release rate of diesel

compared with different types of biodiesel blends under a full load
condition at engine speed of 1600 rpm are shown in Figs. 911 for
palm, jatropha, and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends, respectively. For
combustion analysis, the peak cylinder pressure is closely correlated with the heating value of fuels and ignition delay. Generally,
biodiesel possesses a higher peak cylinder pressure than diesel fuel
because of the long ignition delay and lower calorific value of the
former [60,61]. These figures indicate that diesel exhibited a maximum cylinder peak pressure of 55.118 bar at 13.875 after top
dead center (ATDC), whereas the minimum cylinder peak pressure
was 54.876 bar at 13.875 ATDC with the PB20 blend. Fig. 11 shows
that CIB10 and CIB20 obtained a higher peak cylinder pressure of
55.193 bar (14.01 ATDC) and 55.222 bar (14.125 ATDC), respectively, than that of diesel fuel. Fig. 10 illustrates that the peak cylinder pressure of JB10 and JB20 were 54.913 bar and 54.893 bar,
respectively, and both occurred at 13.875 ATDC. Furthermore, C.
inophyllum biodiesel blends showed higher peak cylinder pressure
than diesel, palm, and jatropha biodiesel blends because of their
high cetane number. The properties of biodiesel, such as high
cetane number, high viscosity, and low volatility, are the main factors for the differences in peak cylinder pressure among the biodiesel blends [62]. Therefore, PB20 showed lower peak cylinder
pressure than diesel, PB10, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and CIB20. The low
calorific value of PB20 is the main reason for this result. A total
of 20% of the biodiesel blends could be decreased the peak cylinder
pressure as a result of the comparatively lower calorific value of
the biodiesel blend than diesel fuel. High biodiesel concentrations
in the blend could increase the peak cylinder pressure in the combustion process [63].
From the heat release rate plot, a negative heat release at the
primary stage of combustion can be observed because of vaporization of the fuel that accumulated during the ignition delay; when
combustion is initiated, the heat release rate rapidly becomes positive [8]. From the heat release rate analysis, the peak heat release
rate was determined at 36.035 J/CA with diesel fuel. Fig. 11 shows

55
50

65

Diesel
PB10
PB20

55
45
35

45
25
40

15

35

25
30
-10

20
1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Heat Release Rate (J/CA)

Diesel
450

-5
-5

10

15

20

25

30

Crank Angle CA

Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 8. Smoke opacity of diesel and biodiesel blends with variations of engine speed.

Fig. 9. Variations in the combustion pressure and heat release rate of diesel and
palm biodiesel blends at engine speed of 1600 rpm.

992

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

TDC

65

Diesel
JB10
JB20

55
50

55
45
35

45
25
40

15

35

30

-5
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

Heat Release Rate (J/CA)

Combustion Pressure (bar)

60

30

Crank Angle CA
Fig. 10. Variations in the combustion pressure and heat release rate of diesel and
jatropha biodiesel blends at engine speed of 1600 rpm.

TDC

65

Diesel
CIB10
CIB20

55
50

55
45
35

45
25
40

15

35

30

Heat Release Rate (J/CA)

Combustion Pressure (bar)

60

-5
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Crank Angle CA
Fig. 11. Variations in the combustion pressure and heat release rate of diesel and
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends at engine speed of 1600 rpm.

that CIB10 exhibited a higher peak heat release rate (36.279 J/CA)
than those of diesel and other biodiesel blends. Fig. 9 shows that
the PB10 and PB20 fuels displayed peak heat release rates of
35.962 J/CA and 35.697 J/CA, respectively; these rates are approximately 1.20% and 1.95% lower, respectively, than the that of the
baseline diesel fuel. Moreover, the recorded peak heat release rates
were determined at 36.088 J/CA and 35.561 J/CA with JB10 and
JB20, respectively (Fig. 10). The highest reduction in the peak heat
release rate for JB20 was determined to be 1.33%, 1.12%, 0.38%,
1.48%, 2.02%, and 1.71% lower than diesel, PB10, PB20, JB10,
CIB10, and CIB20, respectively. These results can be attributed to
the lower calorific value of the biodiesel blends than that of the
baseline diesel fuel. The high viscosity of the biodiesel blend is
another reason for these results. Therefore, this condition may
cause slow vaporization of the biodiesel blend, thereby contributing to less premixed combustion. Another observation is that from

the peak heat release rate during the premixed combustion phase
for the biodiesel blends, the recorded peak was consistently lower
than that of the baseline diesel fuel except for the CIB blends. This
result clearly indicates that 20% of the biodiesel blends can reduce
the peak in the heat release rate during the premixed combustion
phase.
4. Conclusion
This study investigated the engine performance, emission, friction, and wear characteristics of palm and C. inophyllum biodiesel
blends. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the
experimental results.

Average BSFC was increased by 7.9610.15% while operating on
10% and 20%, blends of PB, JB and CIB. Average brake power for
PB20 and JB20 were 9.31% and 12.93% lower than that of diesel
fuel. CIB10 showed higher BTE than diesel and other biodiesel
blends did.

Average CO and HC emissions of palm biodiesel blends were
reduced more than diesel and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends
were, except for CIB10. PB20 produced 13.85% lower CO emissions than diesel fuel did. Average HC emission of PB20 and
JB20 were 9% and 10.81% lower than that of diesel fuel. The
average smoke opacity of CIB blends was lower than that of diesel and PB blends.

Average NOX emissions of diesel were lower than those of biodiesel blends. The maximum amount of NOX emissions was
found from CIB20 at approximately 337.2 ppm at 2400 rpm
engine speed. PB10 and PB20 produced lower amounts of NOX
emissions than other biodiesel blends.

The peak cylinder pressure and peak heat release rate of CIB20
were higher than those of diesel fuel, palm, and jatropha biodiesel blends in the premixed combustion zone. Each fuel type
exhibited a similar behavior for the mixing controlled phase.
In conclusion, these observations and results suggest that PB20
displays the most favorable engine performance; it also has lower
emissions in terms combustion analysis. Therefore, this blend can
be used in automobile engines without aid of any engine
modification.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks University of Malaya, Malaysia
for financial assistance by means of High Impact Research grant
project: Clean Diesel Technology for Military and Civilian Transport Vehicles of grant numbers UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/07 and FP
051-2014B.

Appendix A
A.1. Uncertainty analysis of BSFC at engine speed 2400 rpm
Fuel

Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20

Test 1

0.451
0.455
0.478
0.459
0.506
0.398
0.433

Test 2

0.443
0.462
0.472
0.462
0.514
0.402
0.438

Test 3

0.447
0.457
0.469
0.465
0.51
0.394
0.434

Max.

0.451
0.462
0.478
0.465
0.514
0.402
0.438

Min.

0.443
0.455
0.469
0.459
0.506
0.394
0.433

Accuracy

Avg.

Uncertainty (%)

+0.05

0.05

0.501
0.512
0.528
0.515
0.564
0.452
0.488

0.393
0.447
0.405
0.4585
0.419
0.4735
0.409
0.462
0.456
0.51
0.344
0.398
0.383
0.4355
Uncertainty level

0.894855
0.763359
0.95037
0.649351
0.784314
1.005025
0.574053
0.803046

0.894855
0.763359
0.95037
0.649351
0.784314
1.005025
0.574053
0.803046

993

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

A.2. Uncertainty analysis of BP at engine speed 2400 rpm

Fuel

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Max.

Min.

Accuracy

Avg.

+0.02

0.02

Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20

4.48
4.41
4.18
4.15
3.98
4.16
4.06

4.57
4.32
4.21
4.1
4.04
4.21
4.11

4.51
4.35
4.24
4.08
4.01
4.14
4.07

4.57
4.41
4.24
4.15
4.04
4.21
4.11

4.48
4.32
4.18
4.08
3.98
4.14
4.06

4.59
4.43
4.26
4.17
4.06
4.23
4.13

4.46
4.3
4.16
4.06
3.96
4.12
4.04
Uncertainty level

Uncertainty (%)
+

4.525
4.365
4.21
4.115
4.01
4.175
4.085

0.994475
1.030928
0.712589
0.850547
0.74813
0.838323
0.611995
0.826712

0.994475
1.030928
0.712589
0.850547
0.74813
0.838323
0.611995
0.826712

Avg.

Uncertainty (%)

A.3. Uncertainty analysis of CO emission at engine speed 2400 rpm

Fuel

Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20

Test 1

0.455
0.436
0.434
0.459
0.428
0.482
0.477

Test 2

0.468
0.446
0.421
0.448
0.441
0.471
0.488

Test 3

0.475
0.441
0.432
0.455
0.43
0.466
0.481

Max.

0.475
0.446
0.434
0.459
0.441
0.482
0.488

Min.

0.455
0.436
0.421
0.448
0.428
0.466
0.477

Accuracy
+0.01

0.01

0.485
0.456
0.444
0.469
0.451
0.492
0.498

0.445
0.426
0.411
0.438
0.418
0.456
0.467
Uncertainty level

0.465
0.441
0.4275
0.4535
0.4345
0.474
0.4825

2.150538
1.133787
1.520468
1.212789
1.495972
1.687764
1.139896
1.477316

2.150538
1.133787
1.520468
1.212789
1.495972
1.687764
1.139896
1.477316

Avg.

Uncertainty (%)

A.4. Uncertainty analysis of HC emission at engine speed 2400 rpm

Fuel

Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20

Test 1

24.4
20.7
21.4
22
19.9
21.9
23.8

Test 2

25.4
21.4
20.4
21.8
20.8
21.6
23.2

Test 3

24.6
21.8
20.6
22.5
20.5
20.7
24.1

Max.

25.4
21.8
21.4
22.5
20.8
21.9
24.1

Min.

24.4
20.7
20.4
21.8
19.9
20.7
23.2

Accuracy
+1

1

26.4
22.8
22.4
23.5
21.8
22.9
25.1

23.4
19.7
19.4
20.8
18.9
19.7
22.2
Uncertainty level

24.9
21.25
20.9
22.15
20.35
21.3
23.65

2.008032
2.588235
2.392344
1.580135
2.211302
2.816901
1.902748
2.214243

2.008032
2.588235
2.392344
1.580135
2.211302
2.816901
1.902748
2.214243

Avg.

Uncertainty (%)
+

385.5
398.5
403.5
390
396.5
408
419

0.648508
0.878294
0.619579
0.512821
0.630517
0.490196
0.954654
0.676367

0.648508
0.878294
0.619579
0.512821
0.630517
0.490196
0.954654
0.676367

A.5. Uncertainty analysis of NOX emission at engine speed 2400 rpm

Fuel

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Max.

Min.

Accuracy
+1

1

Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20

383
395
406
388
399
406
416

388
402
401
392
394
410
423

387
397
405
390
395
408
415

388
402
406
392
399
410
423

383
395
401
388
394
406
415

389
403
407
393
400
411
424

382
394
400
387
393
405
414
Uncertainty level

994

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

References
[1] Giakoumis EG. A statistical investigation of biodiesel effects on regulated
exhaust emissions during transient cycles. Appl Energy 2012;98:27391.
[2] Ahmed S, Hassan MH, Kalam MA, Rahman SA, Abedin MJ, Shahir A. An
experimental investigation of biodiesel production, characterization, engine
performance, emission and noise of Brassica juncea methyl ester and its blends.
J Clean Prod 2014;79:7481.
[3] Senthil R, Sivakumar E, Silambarasan R. Effect of di ethyl ether on the
performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine using biodiesel
eucalyptus oil blends. RSC Adv 2015;5:5401927.
[4] Sanjid A, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Rahman SA, Abedin M, Palash S. Production of
palm and jatropha based biodiesel and investigation of palmjatropha
combined blend properties, performance, exhaust emission and noise in an
unmodified diesel engine. J Clean Prod 2014;65:295303.
[5] Gerpen JV. Biodiesel processing and production. Fuel Process Technol
2005;86:1097107.
[6] Shahabuddin M, Liaquat AM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Mofijur M. Ignition delay,
combustion and emission characteristics of diesel engine fueled with biodiesel.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:62332.
[7] Hu Z, Tan P, Yan X, Lou D. Life cycle energy, environment and economic
assessment of soybean-based biodiesel as an alternative automotive fuel in
China. Energy 2008;33:16548.
[8] Qi DH, Geng LM, Chen H, Bian YZ, Liu J, Ren XC. Combustion and performance
evaluation of a diesel engine fueled with biodiesel produced from soybean
crude oil. Renew Energy 2009;34:270613.
[9] Takase M, Zhao T, Zhang M, Chen Y, Liu H, Yang L, et al. An expatiate review of
neem, jatropha, rubber and karanja as multipurpose non-edible biodiesel
resources and comparison of their fuel, engine and emission properties. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:495520.
[10] Oltean-Dumbrava C, Watts G, Miah A. Transport infrastructure: making more
sustainable decisions for noise reduction. J Clean Prod 2013;42:5868.
[11] Palash S, Kalam M, Masjuki H, Arbab M, Masum B, Sanjid A. Impacts of NOx
reducing antioxidant additive on performance and emissions of a multicylinder diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel blends. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;77:57785.
[12] Rizwanul Fattah IM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Wakil MA, Ashraful AM, Shahir
SA. Experimental investigation of performance and regulated emissions of a
diesel engine with Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends accompanied by
oxidation inhibitors. Energy Convers Manage 2014;83:23240.
[13] Abedin MJ, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Sanjid A, Rahman SMA, Fattah IMR.
Performance, emissions, and heat losses of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends
in a diesel engine. Ind Crops Prod 2014;59:96104.
[14] Mosarof MH, Kalam MA, Masjuki HH, Ashraful AM, Rashed MM, Imdadul HK,
et al. Implementation of palm biodiesel based on economic aspects,
performance, emission, and wear characteristics. Energy Convers Manage
2015;105:61729.
[15] Ruhul A, Kalam M, Masjuki H, Alabdulkarem A, Atabani A, Fattah IR, et al.
Production, characterization, engine performance and emission characteristics
of Croton megalocarpus and Ceiba pentandra complementary blends in a singlecylinder diesel engine. RSC Adv 2016;6:2458495.
[16] Monirul I, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Zulkifli N, Rashedul H, Rashed M, et al. A
comprehensive review on biodiesel cold flow properties and oxidation
stability along with their improvement processes. RSC Adv 2015;5:8663155.
[17] Yamane K, Ueta A, Shimamoto Y. Influence of physical and chemical properties
of biodiesel fuels on injection, combustin and exhaust emission characteristics
in a direct injection compression ignition engine. Int J Engine Res
2001;2:24961.
[18] Lahane S, Subramanian K. Effect of different percentages of biodieseldiesel
blends on injection, spray, combustion, performance, and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine. Fuel 2015;139:53745.
[19] Arbab MI, Masjuki HH, Varman M, Kalam MA, 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;22:13347.
[20] Mosarof MH, Kalam MA, Masjuki HH, Alabdulkarem A, Habibullah M, Arslan A,
et al. Assessment of friction and wear characteristics of Calophyllum
inophyllum and palm biodiesel. Ind Crops Prod 2016;83:47083.
[21] Priest M, Taylor C. Automobile engine tribologyapproaching the surface.
Wear 2000;241:193203.
[22] Taylor C. Automobile engine tribologydesign considerations for efficiency
and durability. Wear 1998;221:18.
[23] Fazal M, Haseeb A, Masjuki H. Biodiesel feasibility study: an evaluation of
material compatibility; performance; emission and engine durability. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:131424.
[24] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. Determination of performance and combustion
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with canola and waste palm oil methyl
esters. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:10816.
[25] Sharon H, Karuppasamy K, Soban Kumar DR, Sundaresan A. A test on DI diesel
engine fueled with methyl esters of used palm oil. Renew Energy
2012;47:1606.
[26] Dorado MP, Ballesteros E, Arnal JM, Gmez J, Lpez FJ. Exhaust emissions from
a diesel engine fueled with transesterified waste olive oil. Fuel
2003;82:13115.

[27] Mofijur M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Atabani AE, Shahabuddin M, Palash SM,
et al. Effect of biodiesel from various feedstocks on combustion characteristics,
engine durability and materials compatibility: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;28:44155.
[28] Liaquat AM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Fazal MA, Khan AF, Fayaz H, et al. Impact
of palm biodiesel blend on injector deposit formation. Appl Energy
2013;111:88293.
[29] Ndayishimiye P, Tazerout M. Use of palm oil-based biofuel in the internal
combustion engines: performance and emissions characteristics. Energy
2011;36:17906.
[30] Ong HC, Masjuki HH, Mahlia TMI, Silitonga AS, Chong WT, Leong KY.
Optimization of biodiesel production and engine performance from high free
fatty acid Calophyllum inophyllum oil in CI diesel engine. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;81:3040.
[31] Ashraful A, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Rashedul H, Habibullah M, Rashed M, et al.
Impact of edible and non-edible biodiesel fuel properties and engine operation
condition on the performance and emission characteristics of unmodified DI
diesel engine. Biofuels 2016:114.
[32] Rizwanul Fattah IM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Mofijur M, Abedin MJ. Effect of
antioxidant on the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine
fueled with palm biodiesel blends. Energy Convers Manage 2014;79:26572.
[33] 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 Manage 2010;51:298592.
[34] Kivevele TT, Kristf L, Bereczky , Mbarawa MM. Engine performance, exhaust
emissions and combustion characteristics of a CI engine fuelled with croton
megalocarpus methyl ester with antioxidant. Fuel 2011;90:27829.
[35] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M, Sayin C. Effects of biodiesel from used frying palm oil
on the performance, injection, and combustion characteristics of an indirect
injection diesel engine. Energy Fuels 2008;22:1297305.
[36] Sayin C. Engine performance and exhaust gas emissions of methanol and
ethanoldiesel blends. Fuel 2010;89:34105.
[37] Lin Y-C, Hsu K-H, Chen C-B. Experimental investigation of the performance and
emissions of a heavy-duty diesel engine fueled with waste cooking oil
biodiesel/ultra-low sulfur diesel blends. Energy 2011;36:2418.
[38] Nabi MN, Rahman MM, Akhter MS. Biodiesel from cotton seed oil and its effect
on engine performance and exhaust emissions. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29:226570.
[39] Abedin M, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Sanjid A, Rahman SA, Fattah IR. Performance,
emissions, and heat losses of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends in a diesel
engine. Ind Crops Prod 2014;59:96104.
[40] Gr M, Artukoglu BD, Keskin A, Koca A. Biodiesel production from waste
animal fat and improvement of its characteristics by synthesized nickel and
magnesium additive. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:498502.
[41] Banapurmath N, Tewari P, Hosmath R. Performance and emission
characteristics of a DI compression ignition engine operated on Honge,
Jatropha and sesame oil methyl esters. Renew Energy 2008;33:19828.
[42] Gumus M, Sayin C, Canakci M. The impact of fuel injection pressure on the
exhaust emissions of a direct injection diesel engine fueled with biodiesel
diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2012;95:48694.
[43] Ong HC, Masjuki H, Mahlia T, Silitonga A, Chong W, Leong K. Optimization of
biodiesel production and engine performance from high free fatty acid
Calophyllum inophyllum oil in CI diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2014;81:3040.
[44] Valente OS, Pasa VMD, Belchior CRP, Sodr JR. Exhaust emissions from a diesel
power generator fuelled by waste cooking oil biodiesel. Sci Total Environ
2012;431:5761.
[45] Sanjid A, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Rahman SA, Abedin M, Reza M, et al.
Experimental investigation of palmjatropha combined blend properties,
performance, exhaust emission and noise in an unmodified diesel engine.
Procedia Eng 2014;90:397402.
[46] Ong HC, Masjuki H, Mahlia T, Silitonga A, Chong W, Yusaf T. Engine
performance and emissions using Jatropha curcas, Ceiba pentandra and
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel in a CI diesel engine. Energy
2014;69:42745.
[47] Keskin A, Gr M, Altiparmak D, Aydin K. Using of cotton oil soapstock
biodieseldiesel fuel blends as an alternative diesel fuel. Renew Energy
2008;33:5537.
[48] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. A study of the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a compression ignition engine using methyl
ester of paradise oileucalyptus oil blends. Appl Energy 2009;86:67580.
[49] Celikten I, Mutlu E, Solmaz H. Variation of performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel, rapeseed oil and
hazelnut oil methyl ester blends. Renew Energy 2012;48:1226.
_
[50] Ilkl
C, Aydn H. Determination of performance and exhaust emissions
properties of B75 in a CI engine application. Fuel Process Technol
2011;92:17905.
[51] Palash SM, Kalam MA, Masjuki HH, Arbab MI, Masum BM, Sanjid A. Impacts of
NOx reducing antioxidant additive on performance and emissions of a multicylinder diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel blends. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;77:57785.
[52] Habibullah M, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Fattah IR, Ashraful A, Mobarak H. Biodiesel
production and performance evaluation of coconut, palm and their combined
blend with diesel in a single-cylinder diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2014;87:2507.

I.M. Monirul et al. / Fuel 181 (2016) 985995

[53] Buyukkaya E, Benli S, Karaaslan S, Guru M. Effects of trout-oil methyl ester on a
diesel engine performance and emission characteristics. Energy Convers
Manage 2013;69:418.
[54] Xue J. Combustion characteristics, engine performances and emissions of
waste edible oil biodiesel in diesel engine. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;23:35065.
[55] Chattopadhyay S, Sen R. Fuel properties, engine performance and
environmental benefits of biodiesel produced by a green process. Appl
Energy 2013;105:31926.
[56] Devan P, Mahalakshmi N. Study of the performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of a diesel engine using poon oil-based fuels. Fuel Process
Technol 2009;90:5139.
[57] Sahoo P, Das L, Babu M, Arora P, Singh V, Kumar N, et al. Comparative
evaluation of performance and emission characteristics of jatropha, karanja
and polanga based biodiesel as fuel in a tractor engine. Fuel
2009;88:1698707.
[58] 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;34:1349.

995

[59] Usta N. An experimental study on performance and exhaust emissions of a

diesel engine fuelled with tobacco seed oil methyl ester. Energy Convers
Manage 2005;46:237386.
[60] Gattamaneni RNL, Subramani S, Santhanam S, Kuderu R. Combustion and
emission characteristics of diesel engine fuelled with rice bran oil methyl ester
and its diesel blends. Therm Sci 2008;12:13950.
[61] Wakil M, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Teoh Y, How H, Imtenan S. Influence of engine
operating variable on combustion to reduce exhaust emissions using various
biodiesels blend. RSC Adv 2015;5:10067481.
[62] Rashedul HK, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Teoh YH, How HG, Rizwanul Fattah IM.
Effect of antioxidant on the oxidation stability and combustionperformance
emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with dieselbiodiesel blend.
Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:84958.
[63] Teoh Y, Masjuki H, Noor I, Ali BS, Kalam M, How H. Evaluation of a novel
biofuel from unwanted waste and its impact on engine performance,
emissions, and combustion characteristics in a diesel engine. RSC Adv
2015;5:4243847.