Available on line at

Association of the Chemical Engineers of Serbia AChE

Chemical Industry & Chemical Engineering Quarterly www.ache.org.rs/CICEQ

Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016) CI&CEQ

MARIJA R. MILADINOVI1 FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING

MARIJA B. TASI1 OF SUNFLOWER OIL METHANOLYSIS
OLIVERA S. STAMENKOVI1
CATALYZED BY CALCIUM-BASED
VLADA B. VELJKOVI1
DEJAN U. SKALA2
CATALYSTS
1
University of Ni, Faculty of Article Highlights
Technology, Leskovac, Serbia Kinetics of methanolysis reaction catalyzed by calcium-based catalysts
2
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Kinetic model involves TAG mass transfer and chemically controlled regions
Technology and Metallurgy, Effects of reaction conditions on parameters of the kinetic models are analyzed
Belgrade, Serbia
Abstract
SCIENTIFIC PAPER The kinetic model, which was originally developed for sunflower oil methanol-
ysis catalyzed by CaOZnO, was examined for several other calcium-based
UDC 662.756.3:544.4:663:66:546.41
catalysts like neat CaO, quicklime and Ca(OH)2. This model including triacyl-
DOI 10.2298/CICEQ150618027M glycerols mass transfer- and chemically-controlled regimes demonstrated a
good agreement with the experimental data in terms of a high coefficient of
determination (0.9710.022) and acceptable mean relative percentage devi-
ation (15.9%). Hence, this model is recommended for modeling the kinetics of
sunflower oil methanolysis over calcium-based catalysts under widely ranging
reaction conditions.
Keywords: biodiesel; calcium-based catalysts; kinetics; methanolysis;
modeling.

Biodiesel, which is commonly produced from
plant oils and animal fats by alcoholysis (usually
methanolysis), is an alternative fuel for diesel engines
as being based on renewable raw materials, easily
available, technically appropriate, economically com-
petitive and environmentally beneficial. Although the
current production of biodiesel is mainly carried out by
homogeneous base-catalyzed methanolysis of edible
vegetable oils, it is expected that it will soon be rep-
laced by heterogeneous catalysis based on the use of
basic solid metal oxides, hydroxides and complexes,
zeolites, hydrotalcites or supported catalysts. Because
of high basicity, mild reaction condition, high biodiesel
yield, low cost and easy preparation, calcium com-
pounds, such as oxide [13], hydroxide [4] or meth-
oxide [5], are increasingly used in biodiesel pro-
duction from various oily or fatty feedstocks. Calcium
oxide (CaO) is used as neat [13,6], doped [7,8],
supported [9] or mixed [10,11]. Its great advantage is
Correspondence: V.B. Veljkovi, University of Ni, Faculty of
Technology, 16000 Leskovac, Bulevar osloboenja 124, Serbia.
E-mail: veljkovicvb@yahoo.com
Paper received: 18 June, 2015
Paper revised: 12 July, 2015
Paper accepted: 12 July, 2015
the possibility of preparation from natural [12,13] or
waste [14,15] sources.
The kinetic models that have been used so far
for methanolysis reaction over calcium-based catal-
ysts suppose zero [16,17] or first [2,3,5,10,11] order
with respect to triacylglycerols (TAGs). Some
researchers suppose [2,13] that the order of this
reaction varies from the zeroth order in the beginning
to the first one in the later period of methanolysis.
Also, separate correlations for mass transfer- and
reaction rate-controlled stages of the methanolysis
reaction of the first order with respect to TAGs are
reported [3,4]. Luki et al. [10,11] have recently com-
bined these two correlations into a single one that
predicts the reaction rate during the whole course of
methanolysis of refined and used sunflower oil over
CaO.ZnO. Moreover, this model has successfully
been employed by Snchez et al. [15] for describing
the kinetics of jojoba oil methanolysis over mussel
shell-CaO. Hence, this model might be powerful for
modeling the kinetics of methanolysis of different
feedstocks over various calcium-based catalysts.
Therefore, the present work focuses on the ade-
quacy, reliability and accuracy of the kinetic model of

137
M.R. MILADINOVI et al.: FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING
Luki et el. [10] for the sunflower oil methanolysis
catalyzed by several solid calcium-based catalysts
like neat CaO, quicklime and Ca(OH)2. This work was
aimed at testing the generalization capability of this
kinetic model under widely ranging reaction con-
ditions in the presence of the above-mentioned cal-
cium-based catalysts on the basis of statistical eval-
uation. In addition, this model was compared with the
model of Miladinovi et al. [13] that has recently been
verified for several calcium-based catalyst [18].
Theoretic background
The accepted kinetic model is based on several
common assumptions [10]:
1. The overall methanolysis reaction is repre-
sented by the following stoichiometric equation:
Catalyst
A + 3B 3R + S
(1)
where A is TAG, B is methanol, R is fatty acid methyl
esters (FAMEs), i.e., biodiesel and S is glycerol. In
fact, this reaction is a complex one that occurs via
three consecutive reversible reactions where mono-
and diacylglycerols (MAGs and DAGs, respectively)
are formed as intermediates. Since concentrations of
MAGs and DAGs are too small because of their much
faster consumption rates, compared to that of TAGs,
Eq. (1) can represent the complex methanolysis
reaction:
1, The reaction mixture is perfectly mixed, so its
composition and the catalyst space distribution are
uniform.
2. The methanolysis occurs at the catalyst par-
ticles surface between methoxide ions adsorbed on
the active centers and TAG molecules in the liquid
phase close to the active centers.
3. The rate of methanol mass transfer towards
catalytically active sites, the reverse reaction rate as
well as the adsorption/desorption rates of methanol,
FAME and glycerol do not limit the overall process
rate.
4. The methanolysis process is controlled by
TAG mass transfer limitation in the initial reaction
period and by the chemical reaction in the latter
period. The mass transfer limitation, caused by the
small available active specific catalyst surface [3,4],
depends on the formation of fine emulsion of meth-
anol into the oil. In addition, FAMEs act as a cosol-
vent, enhancing the miscibility of the reactants and
increasing the TAG mass transfer rate and the meth-
anolysis reaction rate. The first order reaction rate law
with respect to TAG is adopted:
138
Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016)
dx A k ( k mt,A )0 1+ x A
= (1 x A ) (2)
dt k + ( k mt,A ) 1+ x A
0
where xA is the TAG conversion degree, t is time, k is
the pseudo first-order reaction rate constant, (kmt,A)0 is
the overall TAG volumetric mass transfer coefficient
at the beginning of the process, and and are fitting
parameters. Thus, the model includes four para-
meters: , , k and (kmt,A)0. The detailed derivation of
Eq. (2) can be found elsewhere [3,10].
The homogeneously catalyzed methanolysis
reaction is ignorable due to negligible leaching of the
catalyst. This is experimentally verified for neat CaO
[19], a CaO-based catalyst [20] and Ca(OH)2 [4] in
batch stirred reactors. Since CaO.ZnO is practically
insoluble in methanol, homogeneous catalysis is also
considered as negligible [10]. According to Granados
et al. [1], the contribution of the homogeneous meth-
anolysis arising from the leached calcium species is
negligible if the catalyst loading is larger than 1% to
the oil, this condition being fulfilled in the above-men-
tioned studies.
The internal diffusion rate inside catalyst par-
ticles does not influence the methanolysis reaction
rate. This assumption is verified for neat CaO [3] and
Ca(OH)2 [4]. Also, powdered quicklime is a meso-
porous material with pores significantly greater than
the diameter of a typical TAG molecule which mini-
mizes internal diffusion limitations [13]. In addition,
CaOZnO is characterized as a catalyst with small
surface area and low porosity [10].
The neutralization of free fatty acids is negligible
because of their very small content in the oil used
(acid value of 0.24-0.29 mg KOH/g) [3,4,10,13]. Also,
the saponification reaction is ignorable and conse-
quently, the catalyst amount remains constant during
the methanolysis.
EXPERIMENTAL
Experimental data
The experimental data for the sunflower oil
methanolysis reactions catalyzed by neat CaO [3],
quicklime [13], Ca(OH)2 [4] and CaO.ZnO [10] in
batch stirred reactors were taken from the earlier
investigations. Median particle size, median pore dia-
meter, specific surface area, basic strength and
basicity of the used catalysts are presented in Table
1. The reaction conditions (type and volume of reac-
tor, methanol-to-oil mole ratio, catalyst loading, tem-
perature and stirring speed) applied in the above-
mentioned studies are given in Table 2.
M.R. MILADINOVI et al.: FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016)

Table 1. Textural properties, basic strength and basicity of used catalyst; Dmed, particle - median particle size, Dmed, pore median pore
diameter and SBET specific surface area

Sample Dmed, particle / m Dmed, pore / nm SBET / m2 g1 Basic strength H_ Basicity, mmol/g Reference
CaO 2.8 15.2 13.7 15<H_<18.4 2.46 [21]
Qucklime <500 18.8 9.5 15<H_<18.4 2.16 [13]
Ca(OH)2 2.0 - - - - [4]
CaOZnO 4.3 - 3.1 9.3<H_<10 0.58 [11]

Modeling techniques and computer software RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Kinetic parameters of Eq. (2) were obtained by
fitting the sets of experimental data using the Mathe-
matica v.9 (trial version). A demonstration [22] which
generated realistic-looking curves was modified and
rewritten using Eq. (2) in order to provide both good
initial value guessing and computing of each kinetic
parameter.
TAG and FAME concentrations, cA and cR, were
calculated from values of TAG conversion degree as
follows:
c A = c A0 (1 x A )
c R = 3c A0 x A
Statistical estimation of kinetic models
The significance of the models was statistically
evaluated from the coefficient of determination (R2)
and the mean relative percent deviation (MRPD),
respectively:
n
(y )
2
y a,i
p,i
Kinetic modeling of sunflower oil methanolysis
Predicted values of parameters of the kinetic
model, Eq. (2), as well as R2- and MRPD-values as
the statistical measures of their adequacy, reliability
and accuracy, are presented in Table 3. The kinetic
model shows very high R2 (0.9710.022) for all four
catalysts, showing that it predicts the time variation of
TAG conversion degree within the ranges of the reac-
tion conditions applied reliablly. In addition, the
MRPD of 15.9% (based on a set of 240 data) shows
(3) a good agreement between the predicted and expe-
(4) rimental values of TAG conversion degree. Thus, the
kinetic model is reliable and accurate not only for
CaOZnO but also for neat CaO, quicklime and
Ca(OH)2.
Recently, Tasi et al. [16] have recommended
the kinetic model of Miladinovi et al. [13] as general
for describing the kinetics of sunflower oil methanol-
ysis over calcium-based catalyst. This is a three-para-
meter model:

R2 = i =1
n
(5) dx A (1 x A )(c C0 + 3c A0 x A )
= km (7)
( y p,i y m )
2
dt K + c A0 (1 x A )
i =1

100
n
y p,i y a,i where xA is the conversion degree of TAG, t is time,
MRPD =
n
i =1
y a,i
(6) cA0 is the initial TAG concentration, K is the model
parameter defining the TAG affinity for the catalyst
where yp and ya are predicted and experimental active sites, cC0 is the hypothetic initial FAME concen-
values of the TAG conversion degree (%), ym is the tration corresponding to the initial available active cat-
mean value of the TAG conversion degree (%), and n alyst surface and km is the apparent reaction rate
is the number of experimental runs. constant:

Table 2. Reaction conditions (type and volume of reactor, methanol-to-oil molar ratio, catalyst loading, temperature and stirring speed)
applied in the studies of sunflower oil methanolysis catalyzed by the calcium compounds; BSR batch stirred reactor

Reaction conditions
Catalyst Catalyst amount Temperature Stirring intensity Reactor volume Reference
MeOH/oil mole ratio Reactor type
% C rpm mL
CaO 1-10 60 6:1 900 BSR 250 [3]
Quicklime 1-10 60 6:1 - 18:1 900 250 [13]
Ca(OH)2 1-10 60 6:1 900 250 [4])
CaOZnO 2 60-96 10:1 300 300 [10]
0.5, 1, 2 60 6:1, 10:1 300, 1000 1000 [11]

139
M.R. MILADINOVI et al.: FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016)

Table 3. Parameters and statistical estimation of kinetic models for methanolysis of sunflower oil

Catalyst Temperature Methanol-to-oil Parameters Statistical evaluation

Type Amount C mole ratio k / min-1 (kmt,A)010
4
R2 MRPD
mass% min
-1 %

CaO 1.0 60 6:1 1.00 0.067 3.480 200 0.990 11.5

2.5 10.600 120 0.991 11.7
5.0 20.750 80 0.991 10.0
10.0 20.800 78 0.992 19.2
Quicklime 1.0 60 6:1 1.00 0.042 6.219 200 0.975 15.2
2.5 10.331 120 0.927 16.0
5.0 18.993 80 0.958 16.2
10.0 19.474 78 0.989 10.5
1.0 12:1 0.047 6.219 200 0.977 17.4
2.5 9.183 120 0.933 34.0
5.0 13.718 80 0.938 25.8
10.0 14.065 78 0.903 28.6
1.0 18:1 0.048 4.523 200 0.969 15.3
2.5 10.331 120 0.988 9.6
5.0 13.717 80 0.954 33.3
10.0 14.892 78 0.929 18.9
Ca(OH)2 1.0 60 6:1 1.00 0.021 1.440 213 0.979 17.8
2.5 0.042 5.100 177 0.998 5.5
5.0 0.064 10.200 95 0.996 11.1
10.0 0.077 10.200 95 0.995 15.8
. a
CaO ZnO 2.0 60 10:1 1.37 0.043 2.100 378 0.960 21.7
70 1.75 0.051 24.400 167 0.989 11.4
84 1.27 0.083 28.500 192 0.992 2.8
96 2.90 0.120 326.000 215 0.994 1.8
b -6 -5 c d
Mussel shell CaO 6-10 45-65 6:1-12:1 0.23 6.5910 -1.6810 - 59.7 na na
a
Values of parameters were taken from Luki et al.[10]; values of parameters were taken Snchez et al. [15] for the jojoba oil methanolysis; cthe parameter
b

is a function of methanol concentration; dnot available

k m = kc B0c cat
where k is the actual reaction rate constant, while cB0
and ccat are initial concentrations of methanol and
catalyst, respectively. Equation (7) is shown as a
reliable predictor of the time variation of TAG con-
version degree in the sunflower oil methanolysis over
the same calcium-based catalysts used in the present
study within the ranges of the reaction conditions
applied as indicated by high coefficient of determin-
ation (R2 > 0.93) and relatively small MRPD (9.1%)
[18]. Based on the MRPD, the model of Miladinovi et
al., Eq. (7), is better for CaO, quicklime and CaO.ZnO,
while the model of Luki et al., Eq. (2), is more
adequate for Ca(OH)2.
The kinetic model of Luki et al., Eq. (2), was
used for calculation of TAG and FAME concentrations
during the sunflower oil methanolysis over the cal-
cium-based catalysts. The accuracy of the kinetic
models was examined by comparing the predicted
and experimental values of FAME and TAG concen-
(8) trations. Figures 1 and 2 show the variation of TAG
and FAME concentrations with the progress of the
sunflower oil methanolysis catalyzed by neat CaO,
quicklime and Ca(OH)2. As it can be seen, the calcul-
ation of FAME and TAG concentrations obtained by
Eq. (2) agree quite well with the experimental concen-
trations independently of methanol-to-oil molar ratio
and catalyst amount.
So far, different mechanisms of methanolysis
reaction catalyzed by calcium-based catalysts have
been proposed in the literature [2,3,23], but the exact
nature of any of them has not been confirmed yet.
The results of the present kinetic analysis might indi-
cate the possible reaction mechanism of methanol-
ysis reaction catalyzed by calcium-based catalysts.
Probably, methanolysis reaction proceeds through the
simplified Eley-Rideal mechanism when the chemical
reaction at the catalyst surface controls the reaction
rate [10]. According to this mechanism, the adsorbed
molecules of methanol react with TAG molecules

140
M.R. MILADINOVI et al.: FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING
located near the catalyst surface. In the initial reaction
period the overall methanolysis process rate is limited
by the TAG mass transfer to active sites on the cat-
alyst surface. In the later period of reaction, the reac-
tion rate at the catalyst surface becomes slower than
the TAG mass transfer rate toward the catalyst sur-
face as a consequence of FAME formation and better
oil dispersion, so TAG consumption at catalyst sur-
face begins to control the overall rate of reaction.
Figure 1. The comparison of TAG and FAME concentrations
calculated by Eq (2) with the experimental data (TAG: solid
symbols and FAME: open symbols) at the methanol-to-oil mole
ratio of 6:1 (catalyst amount, %: 1 , 2.5 , 5 and 10 - )
(a) neat CaO, (b) quicklime and (c) Ca(OH)2 (TAG: straight line
and FAME: dashed line).
Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016)
Influence of reaction conditions on kinetic parameters
Values of the parameters of Eq. (2), , , k and
(kmt,A)0, for the methanolysis reaction over CaOZnO
were taken from the works of Luki et al. [10], while
values for the catalytic reaction systems using neat
CaO, quicklime and Ca(OH)2 were calculated by fit-
ting the experimental data (20 data sets).
In general, the reaction rate constant, k, seems
to depend on type and amount of catalyst, methanol-
to-oil molar ratio and reaction temperature, as it can
be concluded from Table 3. The catalyst amount does
not affect the reaction rate constant in the case of
neat CaO and quicklime, as well as CaOZnO [11].
However, in the case of Ca(OH)2 it increases expo-
nentially with increasing the catalyst amount, which is
attributed to the enhanced possibility of adsorbed
molecules for the reaction at higher catalyst amount
[4]. For three CaO-based catalysts the reaction rate
constant k reduces with decreasing their basicity in
the following order: neat CaO > quicklime > CaO.ZnO.
It seems that the methanol-to-oil molar ratio does not
or very slightly affect the reaction rate constant for
quicklime (Table 3) and CaOZnO [11]. As expected,
the reaction rate constant increases with increasing
the reaction temperature in the CaOZnO reaction
system [10]. The k-value depends on temperature in
accordance to the Arrhenius equation, as shown by
Snchez et al. [15] for the jojoba oil methanolysis
over mussel shell CaO with the activation energy of
55.09 J/mol. However, the k-value for this process is
much lower than those for the sunflower oil methanol-
ysis, as it can be seen in Table 3, because of the
difference in the chemical composition of the two oils.
While sunflower oil consists of TAGs predominantly,
jojoba oil has no TAGs in their structure but long
straight ester chains [15], which slows down the
methanolysis reaction.
-Values for the CaOZnO reaction system
range between 1.37 and 2.90 [10], and no obvious
dependence on temperature is observed. However,
the constant -value of 1.000.01 is determined for
other three reaction systems using neat CaO, quick-
lime and Ca(OH)2 at a constant temperature (60 C).
Snchez et al. [15] reported much lower -value
(0.23) for the jojoba oil methanolysis over mussel
shell CaO that was not dependent on reaction tem-
perature and methanol-to-oil molar ration in the
ranges of 45 to 65 C and 6:1 to 12:1, respectively.
The fitting parameter appears to depend on
the type and amount of catalyst. For the same other
conditions, its value increases in the following order:
CaOZnO, then Ca(OH)2 and finally neat CaO and
quicklime that have the same -value. The -value of
141
M.R. MILADINOVI et al.: FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING
Figure 2. The influence of methanol-to-oil mole ratio on the FAME concentration calculated by Eq. (2) (straight line) at various quicklime
amounts: a) 1, b) 2.5, c) 5 and d) 10% (methanol-to-oil mole ratio: 6:1 - ; 12:1 - and 18:1 - ; reaction temperature: 60 C).
59.7 for mussel shell CaO in the range of catalyst
amount of 6 to 10% [15] is close to those for neat
CaO and quicklime in the range of catalyst amount of
5 to 10%. For CaOZnO [11], neat CaO, quicklime
and Ca(OH)2 the parameter decreases with inc-
reasing the catalyst amount according to a power law
function. The value of this parameter depends on the
time when the critical TAG conversion is achieved
and the change of the limiting reaction regime occurs
[11]. At lower catalyst amounts a longer reaction time
is required for achieving the critical TAG conversion
at which the reaction rate is enhanced. For the cat-
alyst amount of 1%, the -value is 1300 for CaOZnO
[11], while only 200-213 for neat CaO, quicklime and
Ca(OH)2. This difference could be attributed to differ-
ent values of -parameter for CaOZnO ( = 2.01), on
one hand and neat CaO, quicklime and Ca(OH)2
( = 1.00), on the other hand. Methanol-to-oil mole
ratio does not influence the -value in the quicklime
reaction system. In the case of CaOZnO, the depen-
dence of on reaction temperature is not obvious.
142
Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016)
The mass transfer coefficient, (kmt,A)0, is depen-
dent on the type and amount of catalyst, methanol-to-
-oil mole ratio and reaction temperature. Figure 3
shows the dependence of (kmt,A)0 on the amount of
various catalysts. The same value of (kmt,A)0 is obs-
erved for the neat CaO and quicklime reaction sys-
tems, which is higher than that for the Ca(OH)2 reac-
tion system. For all reaction systems, (kmt,A)0 inc-
reases with increasing the catalyst amount, reaching
a plateau approximately at the catalyst amount of 5%.
This means that the increase of the catalyst amount
above 5% had no significant effect on the overall pro-
cess rate in the initial reaction period. For the
CaOZnO reaction system, (kmt,A)0 increases with inc-
reasing the catalyst amount in the range from 0.5 to
2.0% [11].
In the quicklime reaction system at a constant
catalyst amount, (kmt,A)0 decreases with the increase
of methanol-to-oil molar ratio from 6:1 to 12:1, but it
remains almost constant with further increase of
methanol-to-oil mole ratio (Table 3). This observation
M.R. MILADINOVI et al.: FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016)

means that the mass transfer rate is enhanced at Nomenclature

higher methanol amount due to higher oil-methanol cA Concentration of TAG, mol/dm3
interfacial area because of the lower density of the cA0 Initial concentration of TAG, mol/dm3
reaction mixture enabling more efficient mixing. As cB0 Initial concentration of TAG, mol/dm3
expected, (kmt,A)0 increases with increasing the reac- cR Concentration of FAME, mol/dm3
tion temperature in the CaOZnO reaction system k Reaction rate constant, Eq. (2), min-1
probably because of a faster formation of emulsifying (kmt,A)0
Overall TAG volumetric mass transfer coef-
agents stabilizing the emulsion [10]. However, Sn- ficient at the beginning of the process, min-1
chez et al. [15] noticed no effect of catalyst amount MRPD Mean relative percent deviation, %
and reaction temperature on the (kmt,A)0 for mussel n Number of experimental runs
shell CaO and its increase with increasing the meth- R 2
Coefficient of determination
anol concentration in the range of methanol-to-jojoba t Time, min
oil molar ratio from 6:1 to 12:1. xA Degree of TAG conversion
ya Experimental values of the TAG conversion
degree, %
ym Mean value of the TAG conversion degree, %
yp Predicted values of the TAG conversion deg-
ree, %
Greek symbols
, Fitting parameters

REFERENCES

[1] M.L. Granados, M.D.Z. Poves, D.M. Alonso, R. Mariscal,

Figure 3. Dependence of (kmt,A)0 on catalyst amount:
neat CaO - , quicklime - and Ca(OH)2 - (methanol-to-oil
mole ratio: 6:1; reaction temperature: 60 C).
CONCLUSIONS
The kinetics of sunflower oil methanolysis catal-
yzed by neat CaO, quicklime, Ca(OH)2 and CaOZnO
was tested using the recently reported kinetic model
involving the initial region controlled by the TAG mass
transfer followed by the chemically controlled region.
This model adopts the pseudo-first order reaction rate
law or both the mass transfer and the chemical reac-
tion. The model demonstrates a good agreement with
the experimental data and can be recommended for
describing the time variations of TAG and FAME con-
centrations during methanolysis of sunflower, used
vegetable and jojoba oil. However, its generalization
capability could be verified entirely after the analysis
of experimental data obtained with other solid base
catalysts and vegetable oils as it has been done for
calcium-based catalysts in the present study.
Acknowledgments
This work has been funded by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technological Development
of the Republic of Serbia (Project III 45001).
F.C. Galisteo, R. Moreno-Tost, J. Santamara, J.L.G.
Fierro, Appl. Catal. B Environ. 73 (2007) 317326
[2] M. Kouzu, T. Kasuno, M. Tajika, Y. Sugimoto, S. Yama-
naka, J. Hidaka, Fuel 87 (2008) 27982806
[3] V.B. Veljkovi, O.S. Stamenkovi, Z.B. Todorovi, M.L.
Lazi, D.U. Skala, Fuel 88 (2009) 15541562
[4] O.S. Stamenkovi, V.B. Veljkovi, Z.B. Todorovi, M.L.
Lazi, I.B. Bankovi-Ili, D.U. Skala, Bioresour. Technol.
101 (2010) 44234430
[5] V.G. Deshmane, Y.G. Adewuyi, Fuel 107 (2013) 474482
[6] M. Verziu, S.M. Coman, R. Richards, V.I. Parvulescu,
Catal. Today 167 (2011) 6470
[7] D.M. Alonso, R. Mariscal, M.L. Granados, P. Maireles-
Torres, Catal. Today 143 (2009) 167171
[8] C.S. MacLeod, A.P. Harvey, A.F. Lee, K. Wilson, Chem.
Eng. J. 135 (2008) 6370
[9] M.C.G. Albuquerque, I. Jimnez-Urbistondo, J. Santa-
mara-Gonzlez, J.M. Mrida-Robles, R. Moreno-Tost, E.
Rodrguez-Castelln, et al., Appl. Catal., A: Gen. 334
(2008) 3543
[10] I. Luki, . Kesi, S. Maksimovi, M. Zduji, H. Liu, J.
Krsti, D. Skala, Fuel 113 (2013) 367378
[11] I. Lukic, Z. Kesic, S. Maksimovic, M. Zdujic, J. Krstic, D.
Skala, Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 20 (2014) 425439
[12] M. Kouzu, J. Hidaka, Y. Komichi, H. Nakano, M. Yama-
moto, Fuel 88 (2009) 19831990
[13] M.R. Miladinovi, J.B. Krsti, M.B. Tasi, O.S. Stamen-
kovi, V.B. Veljkovi, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 92 (2014)
17401752

143
M.R. MILADINOVI et al.: FURTHER STUDY ON KINETIC MODELING Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 22 (2) 137144 (2016)

[14] P.L. Boey, G.P. Maniam, S.A. Hamid, Bioresour. Technol. [20] A. Bazargan, M.D. Kosti, O.S. Stamenkovi, V.B. Velj-
100 (2009) 63626368 kovi, G. McKay, Fuel 150 (2015) 519525
[15] M. Snchez, J.M. Marchetti, N. El Boulifi, J. Aracil, M. [21] Z.B. Todorovic, O.S. Stamenkovic, I.S. Stamenkovic, J.M.
Martnez, Chem. Eng. J. 262 (2015) 640647 Avramovic, A. V. Velickovic, I.B. Bankovic-Ilic, et al., Fuel
[16] P. Patil, V.G. Gude, S. Pinappu, S. Deng, Chem. Eng. J. 107 (2013) 493502
168 (2011) 12961300 [22] M.D. Normand, M. Peleg, Wolfram Demonstr. Proj.
[17] A.K. Singh, S.D. Fernando, Chem. Eng. Technol. 30 (2012). http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SurvivalCur-
(2007) 17161720 vesOfBacilliSporesWithAnActivationShoulder/ (accessed
[18] M.B. Tasi, M.R. Miladinovi, O.S. Stamenkovi, V.B. September 5, 2014)
Veljkovi, D.U. Skala, Chem. Eng. Technol. 38(9) (2015) [23] L.S. Hsieh, U. Kumar, J.C.S. Wu, Chem. Eng. J. 158
1550-1556 (2010) 250256.
[19] O.S. Stamenkovi, pHD Thesis, Faculty of Technology,
University of Ni, 2008 (in Serbian)

MARIJA R. MILADINOVI1 DALJE PROUAVANJE KINETIKOG

MARIJA B. TASI1 MODELOVANJA METANOLIZE SUNCOKRETOVOG
OLIVERA S. STAMENKOVI1
ULJA KATALIZOVANE NEKIM KALCIJUMOVIM
VLADA B. VELJKOVI1
DEJAN U. SKALA2
JEDINJENJIMA
1
Univerzitet u Niu, Tehnoloki fakultet, Kinetiki model, koji je prvobitno razvijen za metanolizu suncokretovog ulja katalizovanog
Leskovac, Srbija CaOZnO, primenjen je na nekoliko drugih katalizatora na bazi kalcijuma, kao to su ist
2
Univerzitet u Beogradu, Tehnoloko- CaO, negaeni kre i Ca(OH)2. Ovaj model, koji ukljuuje reime kontrolisane prenosom
-metalurki fakultet, Beograd, Srbija
mase triacilglicerola i hemijskom reakcijom, pokazao je dobro slaganje sa eksperimen-
NAUNI RAD talnim podacima, to je potvreno visokim koeficijentom determinacije (0,9710,022) i
prihvatljivim srednjim relativnim procentim odstupanjem (15,9%). Stoga se ovaj model
preporuuje za modelovanje kinetike metanolize suncokretovog ulja u prisustvu kataliza-
tora na bazi kalcijuma u irokom opsegu reakcionih uslova.
Kljune rei: biodizel, katalizatori na bazi kalcijuma, kinetika, metanoliza, mode-
lovanje

144