Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Combustion of biodiesel fuel produced from hazelnut

soapstock/waste sunflower oil mixture in a Diesel engine
N. Usta a,* € urk b, O.
, E. Ozt€ € Can b, E.S. Conkur a, S. Nas c, A.H. C
ß on c,
a a
A.C
ß . Can , M. Topcu
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Pamukkale University, Denizli 20020, Turkey
b
Automotive Department, Pamukkale University, Denizli 20020, Turkey
c
Food Engineering Department, Pamukkale University, Denizli 20020, Turkey
Received 12 January 2004; received in revised form 6 April 2004; accepted 25 May 2004
Available online 3 July 2004

Abstract
Biodiesel is considered as an alternative fuel to Diesel fuel No. 2, which can be generally produced from
different kinds of vegetable oils. Since the prices of edible vegetable oils are higher than that of Diesel fuel
No. 2, waste vegetable oils and non-edible crude vegetable oils are preferred as potential low priced bio-
diesel sources. In addition, it is possible to use soapstock, a by-product of edible oil production, for cheap
biodiesel production.
In this study, a methyl ester biodiesel was produced from a hazelnut soapstock/waste sunflower oil
mixture using methanol, sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide in a two stage process. The effects of the
methyl ester addition to Diesel No. 2 on the performance and emissions of a four cycle, four cylinder,
turbocharged indirect injection (IDI) Diesel engine were examined at both full and partial loads. Experi-
mental results showed that the hazelnut soapstock/waste sunflower oil methyl ester can be partially
substituted for the Diesel fuel at most operating conditions in terms of the performance parameters and
emissions without any engine modification and preheating of the blends.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biodiesel; Diesel engine; Hazelnut soapstock; Waste sunflower oil

*
Corresponding author: Tel.: +90-258-212-5532; fax: +90-258-212-5538.
E-mail address: n_usta@pamukkale.edu.tr (N. Usta).

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2004.05.001
742 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

1. Introduction

Biodiesel produced from different kinds of vegetable oils has been studied as an alternative fuel
for compression ignition engines. Detailed reviews about biodiesel production processes are
available in the literature [1–3]. Since the prices of edible vegetable oils are higher than that of
Diesel fuel No. 2, waste vegetable oils [4–9] and non-edible crude vegetable oils [10–12] take
priority over the edible vegetable oils in biodiesel production. In addition, soapstock, a by-
product of edible oil production, may be considered as a cheap source of biodiesel production. To
the authors’ best knowledge, apart from Haas and co-workers [13–16] and Graboski et al. [17], no
study has been reported on soapstock as a biodiesel source in the literature. This was the basic
motivation behind the research in this paper.
Soapstock contains large amounts of free fatty acids (45–50%). It was reported that oils con-
taining high free fatty acids cannot be effectively converted to biodiesel using only an alkaline
catalyst [3,18]. Canakci and Van Gerpen [18] described that it is required to reduce the free fatty
acids of the feedstock using an acid catalysed pre-treatment to esterify the free acids before
transesterifying the triglycerides with an alkaline catalyst to complete the reaction.
Haas et al. [13] produced fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) from soybean soapstock in a two
stage process that involves alkaline hydrolysis of all lipid linked fatty acid ester bonds and acid
catalysed esterification of the resulting fatty acid sodium salts. It was reported that the specifi-
cations of the FAME met the current specifications for biodiesel. In addition, Haas et al. [14]
tested the biodiesel produced from soybean soapstock in a Diesel engine. They determined
reductions in the emissions of total hydrocarbons, particulates and carbon monoxide by means of
the combustion of the neat soapstock biodiesel. Haas et al. [16] also produced FAME from
soapstock using only acid catalysed esterification. It was reported that maximum esterification
occurred at 65 °C and 26 h reaction at a molar ratio of total fatty acid (FA)/methanol/sulphuric
acid of 1:15:1.5.
Graboski et al. [17] tested a Diesel engine using a methyl ester biodiesel that was produced from
soybean soapstock by Haas et al. [13]. They found that 20% (in volume) biodiesel addition de-
creased PM emissions approximately 30% and slightly increased NOx (2.8%). Also, 100% bio-
diesel decreased PM 59%, while it increased NOx (10.6%).
Biodiesel containing 10–12% oxygen on weight basis causes reductions in engine torque and
power due to its lower energy content [19–22]. However, some studies reported that biodiesel can
cause a slightly higher engine power than conventional Diesel fuel. This is because of complete
combustion with the fuel oxygen in the fuel rich flame zone [4,10,23]. The complete combustion
also reduces exhaust emissions such as HC, smoke and CO [23–29]. A significant reduction in SO2
emission was determined due to less sulphur content in biodiesel compared to Diesel fuel [5]. Two
diverse interpretations for NOx emissions are available in the literature. First, higher temperatures
of combustion using biodiesel cause higher NOx emissions [4]. Higher exhaust temperatures from
biodiesel fuelled engines may indicate higher NOx [10]. However, some researches reported lower
NOx emissions [5,23,30] in biodiesel fuelled engines. Increasing oxygen content in the blend
shortens the ignition delay and reduces the amount of premixed fuel and peak burning temper-
ature, which mean a reduction in NOx emissions [31].
In this study, biodiesel from a hazelnut soapstock/waste sunflower oil mixture was produced
using methanol, sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide in a two stage process. Then, the specifi-
 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755 743

cations of the methyl ester were determined. The effects of the methyl ester addition in different
proportions to Diesel No. 2 on the performance and emissions of a four cycle, four cylinder,
turbocharged indirect injection (IDI) Diesel engine were investigated at full and partial loads. It
was found that 17.5% biodiesel addition satisfied the best power and thermal efficiency. To the
authors’ best knowledge, this is the first time for production of a biodiesel from hazelnut soap-
stock/waste sunflower oil mixture and for testing it in a Diesel engine. All the experiments were
performed without any modification on the engine.

2. The methyl ester production and specifications

Hazelnut soapstock and waste sunflower oil were mixed in approximately equal volume pro-
portions. The soapstock contains approximately 45–50% free fatty acids. The free fatty acid
content of the soapstock was decreased by adding used sunflower oil. However, the free fatty acid
content of the mixture was above 20%. When a base catalysed transesterification process is di-
rectly applied to the mixture, this high free fatty acid content causes fairly high soap formation,
which diminishes the ester yield [18]. Therefore, it was necessary to reduce the free fatty acid
content of the mixture using an acid catalysed pre-treatment at 35 °C to esterify the free acids
before transesterifying the triglycerides with an alkaline catalyst to complete the reaction at 55 °C.
One millilitre of sulphuric acid and 3.5 g of sodium hydroxide were used for 1 l of the mixture in
the process.
The process is summarised as follows. First of all, the hazelnut soapstock/waste sunflower oil
mixture was heated to 100 °C to remove the water. Then, the mixture was left to cool to 35 °C.
Methanol (8% of the mixture in volume) was added to the mixture at 35 °C, and it was stirred for
5 min. One millilitre of 95% sulphuric acid (H2 SO4 ) was added to the mixture. The stirring was
continued for 1 h, keeping the temperature constant at 35 °C and for 1 h without any heating.
Then, the mixture was settled overnight. In the second stage, 3.5 g NaOH per litre of the mixture
was dissolved in methanol (12% of the mixture) to produce methoxide. Half of the prepared
methoxide was poured into the unheated mixture and mixed for 5 min. The mixture was heated to
55 °C, and the rest of the methoxide was added to the heated mixture. The stirring was continued
for approximately 90 min. The mixture was allowed to form two layers overnight. The bottom
layer was glycerine, while the upper layer was the ester. The glycerine was removed at the end of
the settling. The ester was washed with pure water three times. A small amount of phosphoric acid
(2.5 ml per litre of the oil) was used in the first washing. At the end of the process, the oil was
heated to 100 °C to remove any water from the oil left in the ester. The pH value of the final
methyl ester was measured as 6.7. A similar process was practically applied by Kac [32] for
biodiesel production from waste vegetable oils.
The dynamic viscosity values of the methyl ester and the Diesel fuel used in the experiments
were measured at various temperatures using Brookfield Rotary viscometers RVDVII+. Fig. 1
shows the variations of the dynamic viscosities over the temperature range from 15 to 45 °C. It is
shown in the figure that the viscosity of biodiesel is significantly higher than that of the Diesel fuel,
especially at low temperatures. This means that the biodiesel cannot be used directly, especially at
low temperatures. The biodiesel was mixed in different proportions on a volume basis. The effect
744 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

60
BIODIESEL
50 DIESEL

….
Dynamic Viscosity (mPa s)
40

30

20

10

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Temperature (˚C)

Fig. 1. The change of dynamic viscosities of the biodiesel and Diesel fuel No. 2 with temperature.

30
Kinematic Viscosity (mm /s)...

25
2

20

15

10
ASTM D975 for Diesel Fuel No.2
5 Max.
Min
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Biodiesel content (% in volume)

Fig. 2. Effect of biodiesel addition on kinematic viscosity of the blends at 40 °C.

of biodiesel addition to Diesel fuel No. 2 on the kinematic viscosity of the blends at 40 °C is shown
in Fig. 2. As is expected, the addition of the biodiesel increased the viscosities of the blends.
The heating values of the biodiesel and Diesel fuel No. 2 were measured by using an IKA C
4000 calorimeter. The lower heating value (LHV) of the biodiesel was 39492.8 kJ/kg, which is
approximately 11.5% less than that of Diesel fuel No. 2. The specific gravities of the biodiesel and
the Diesel fuels were measured using a picnometer. The density of the biodiesel was found to be
915.3 kg/m3 , which is approximately 9.1% higher than that of Diesel fuel No. 2 at 15 °C.

3. Experimental apparatus and test procedure

The experimental setup consists of a Diesel engine, an engine test bed, a gas analyser and a
sound level meter. The schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 3.
The experiments were performed with a 1753 cm3 displacement, four cylinder, four stroke,
water cooled, 21.5:1 compression ratio, turbocharged, indirect injection Diesel engine, Ford XLD
 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755 745

Fig. 3. Experimental rig (1––engine chassis, 2––hydrokinetic dynamometer, 3––engine tank, 4––engine cooling unit,
5––air tank, 6––control unit, 7––main fuel tank, 8––alternative fuel tank, 9––biodiesel control valve, 10––diesel control
valve, 11––exhaust gas analyser).

418T. The maximum torque was 152 Nm at 2200 rpm, and the maximum engine power was 55
kW at 4500 rpm. The engine test bed (Cussons-P8651) consists of a control panel, measurement
instruments and a hydraulic dynamometer, which is water cooled and rated for 112 kW (150 bhp)
power absorption at 9000 rpm maximum operating speed. The load on the dynamometer was
measured using a strain gauge load sensor. An inductive pickup speed sensor was used to measure
the speed of the engine. The fuel consumption was measured with a burette (50 and 100 ml
volumes) and a stopwatch. A mechanical actuator incorporating an over-travel device was used
for control of the throttle position. The exhaust gas, lubricating oil, air–fuel inlets and engine
coolant inlet–outlet temperatures were measured by K type thermocouples. An extra fuel tank
was fixed to the system to be used for biodiesel fuel storage. A fuel switching arrangement was
installed to be able to change over from the Diesel fuel to the diesel/biodiesel blend while the
engine was running. A MRU 95/CD gas analyser having electrochemical sensors was used to
measure the CO, CO2 , NOx and SO2 emissions. A Castle GA210 sound level meter was used to
measure sound level (dB) in the engine room. The device was placed approximately 1 m away
from the engine. The accuracies of the measurements and the uncertainties in the calculated re-
sults are shown in Table 1.
The six fuels tested in the experiments were Diesel fuel No. 2 and blends containing the bio-
diesel in 5%, 10%, 15%, 17.5% and 25% proportions by volume. Experiments were conducted at
different engine loads (Full––100%, 75% and 50%). The blends were prepared just before the
experiments. The fuels were tested in the engine running at 150 bar original fuel injection pressure.
The general testing procedure for the Diesel fuel experiments is as follows. After completion of
a standard warm-up procedure, the engine speed was increased to 3000 rpm. The tests and data
collection were performed at five different engine speeds, namely 3000, 2500, 2200, 2000 and 1500
rpm. At each speed, the engine was stabilised for 4 min, and then the measurement parameters
were recorded at the fifth minute. For the biodiesel blends experiments, the engine was warmed up
with Diesel fuel. Then, the Diesel fuel valve was shut down and the blend valve was opened to run
the engine with the biodiesel blends.
746 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

Table 1
Accuracies of the measurements and the uncertainities in the calculated results
Measurements Accuracy
Load «2 N
Speed «2 rpm
Time «0.5%
Temperatures «1 °C
CO «20 ppm
CO2 «0.2%
NOx «20 ppm
SO2 «20 ppm
Dynamic viscosity «1%
Heating value «1%
Specific gravity «1%
Calculated results Uncertainty
Kinematic viscosity «1.4%
Torque «2%
Power «2%
bsfc «2.3%
Thermal efficiency «2.5%

4. Experimental results and discussion

Initially, three blends containing the biodiesel in 5%, 15% and 25% proportions by volume were
tested in the engine. In this study, the legend D100 represents 100% Diesel fuel No. 2, while DXX/
BYY indicates XX% Diesel fuel with YY% biodiesel. For example, D82.5/B17.5 indicates that
82.5% diesel fuel is mixed with 17.5% biodiesel. The power variation depending on the biodiesel
content in the blend is shown in Fig. 4 at full load and 2500 rpm engine speed. As it is shown in the
figure, the power initially increases with the addition of biodiesel, reaches a maximum value, and
then decreases with further increase of the biodiesel content.

1.5
Power Increase (%)

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Biodiesel Content (% in volume)

Fig. 4. Effect of biodiesel content on engine power (full load-2500 rpm).

 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755 747

As mentioned before, even if addition of the biodiesel to the Diesel fuel decreases its heating
value, higher power was obtained in the experiments. There are several reasons for this. First of
all, the biodiesel contains approximately 10% (in weight) oxygen that can be used in combustion,
especially in the fuel rich zone. This is a possible reason for more complete combustion, thereby
increasing the torque and power [4,10,23]. Second, the Diesel fuel is pumped to the Diesel engine
cylinder on a volumetric basis and the density of the biodiesel blend is higher than that of Diesel
fuel. Therefore, a larger mass flow rate for the same fuel volume is pumped to the engine, resulting
in the increase in torque and power. Meanwhile, the more viscous blend means less internal
leakage in the fuel pump [33,34]. Again, this results in an increase in the torque and power.
Although the power of the D75/B25 blend was higher than that of Diesel fuel, when the bio-
diesel content continues to increase in the blend, the power will decrease below that of the Diesel
fuel (Fig. 4) due to the lower heating value and the higher viscosity, which results in slightly
poorer atomisation and poorer combustion. This result is in harmony with the ones presented in
[23]. A similar trend was also obtained for the thermal efficiency. Therefore, the biodiesel content
was not increased further.
The mathematical equation developed for the trend shown in Fig. 4 indicated that the maxi-
mum power can be obtained with approximately 17.5% biodiesel addition. Therefore, the D82.5/
B17.5 blend was also tested at different loads and compared with the Diesel fuel results. In this
paper, only the results for Diesel fuel and the D82.5/B17.5 blend are presented for the sake of
clarity.
The addition of biodiesel as an oxygenated fuel was most effective in rich combustion at full
load. At partial loads, the amount of fuel supplied to the engine was decreased, and the overall
mixture was further leaned out. Therefore, the biodiesel addition resulted in different effects on the
performance and the emissions of the engine at partial loads with respect to full load.
The effects of the biodiesel on the engine torque and power between 1500 and 3000 rpm engine
speeds are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 at both full and partial loads, respectively. In general, the blend
power was slightly higher than the Diesel power at all loads in the test speed range due to some
reasons mentioned above. Even though the beneficial effect of the biodiesel as an oxygenated fuel
on the combustion decreased due to the leaner overall mixture at partial loads, a slightly higher
power was found with the blend, similar to the increase at full load.

170
D100
150 D82.5 / B17.5

130
100 %
110
Torque (Nm)

90

70 75 %

50

30 50 %

10
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 5. Effect of biodiesel addition on engine torque at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.
748 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

40
D100
100 %
D82.5 / B17.5

30

Power (kW)
75 %
20

10 50 %

0
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 6. Effect of biodiesel addition on engine power at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.

Fig. 7 shows the brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) variation of the Diesel fuel and the
blend with respect to engine speed at different loads. In general, the bsfc values of the blend were
slightly higher than those of the Diesel fuel at both full and partial loads as in [21,23,35–37]. The
brake specific fuel consumption of a Diesel engine depends on the relationship among volumetric
fuel injection system, fuel specific gravity, viscosity and heating value [23]. More blend is needed
to produce the same amount of energy due to its higher specific gravity and lower heating value in
comparison to Diesel fuel. Also, it was determined that the increase in bsfc values at full load is
higher than those at partial loads. This is revealed by the higher absolute amount of biodiesel at
full load. At partial loads, the absolute amount of biodiesel was decreased with respect to that at
full load, and the bsfc values of the blend were fairly close to those of the diesel, especially at 50%
load between 2000 and 2500 rpm.
The thermal efficiency distribution is shown in Fig. 8 for both fuels. The thermal efficiency of a
Diesel engine is inversely proportional to its bsfc and the heating value of the fuel. Since the bsfc
values of the blend were slightly higher than those with Diesel fuel, the lower thermal efficiency
with the blend was an expected result, which was seen for full load. Although the bsfc values of the
blend at partial loads were slightly higher than those with the Diesel fuel, the thermal efficiencies

500
D100
D82.5 / B17.5 50 %
450
bsfc (g/kW-h)

400

350

75 %
300
100 %

250
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250

Speed (rpm)

Fig. 7. Effect of biodiesel addition on bsfc values at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.
 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755 749

0.31
100 %
0.29

0.27

….
75 %

Thermal Efficiency
0.25

0.23

0.21

0.19 D100
D82.5 / B17.5 50 %
0.17
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 8. Effect of biodiesel addition on thermal efficiency at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.

were slightly higher than those with the diesel fuel due to the lower heating value of the blend.
However, the differences were very small for both fuels at all loads.
The exhaust gas temperature is affected by the changes in ignition delay. Higher ignition delay
results in a delayed combustion and higher exhaust gas temperature. Nwafor et al. [20] reported
that biodiesel, having a slightly lower cetane number, may exhibit longer delay periods and a
slower burning rate, hence resulting in late combustion in the expansion stroke and higher exhaust
and lubrication oil temperatures. Also, Yu et al. [38] pointed out that biodiesel usually includes
some constituents having higher boiling points. They are not adequately evaporated during the
main combustion phase and continue to burn in the late combustion phase, resulting in a higher
exhaust temperature and a lower thermal efficiency. In this study, the blend resulted in higher
exhaust temperatures at full load (Fig. 9). The highest value of exhaust gas temperature was
observed at 2000 rpm with Diesel fuel (601 °C) at full load, whereas the corresponding value with
the D82.5/B17.5 blend was found to be 633 °C. However, the exhaust gas temperatures of the
blend were very close to those of the Diesel fuel, and the differences were not significant at partial
loads (Fig. 9). This result implied that, although the mass of the blend injected into the engine was
slightly higher than that of the Diesel fuel at partial loads, the ignition delay was not considerably

700
D100
D82.5 / B 17.5
Exhaust Gas Temperature (˚C)...

600

500 100 %

400

300 75 %

50 %
200
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 9. Effect of biodiesel addition on exhaust gas temperature at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.
750 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

affected with the biodiesel addition. Since the amount of fuel supplied to the engine at partial
loads was smaller than that at full load and the overall mixture was further leaned out, the
combustion of the blend was completed without any delay. So, the difference became fairly small
at partial loads, in particular at 50% load.
There was no significant difference in the lubrication oil temperatures due to the biodiesel
addition (Fig. 10). There is approximately «4 °C temperature variation. This means that the
combustion with the blend containing 17.5% biodiesel did not significantly affect the lubrication
oil. This was supported with the measurements of cooling water inlet and exit temperatures. It was
determined that the difference between the water inlet and outlet temperatures of the engine
cooling system was not affected by the biodiesel addition. Both the exhaust gas and lubrication oil
temperatures were reduced with lower loads as expected [36].
Fig. 11 shows the variations of CO emissions for both fuels at full and partial loads. The CO
emissions of the blend were higher than those of Diesel fuel between 1500 and 2200 rpm speeds at
full and 75% loads, while they were lower than those of Diesel fuel at higher speeds. The air–fuel
mixing process was affected by the difficulty in atomisation of the blend at low speeds due to its
higher viscosity. Also, the resulting locally rich mixtures of the blend caused more CO to be
produced during combustion [36,38]. The turbocharged Diesel engine used in the experiments
provided more air at higher speeds, and the higher speeds resulted in an increase of turbulence
intensity in the combustion chamber, which affects the air–fuel mixing process [36]. This led to
more complete combustion. Therefore, the CO emissions decreased at higher speeds. At partial
loads, the biodiesel fuel blend had only a slight effect on the CO emissions due to the dominant
premixed lean combustion with excess oxygen under these conditions. The differences between the
CO emissions of the Diesel fuel and the blend were fairly small. As it is expected, minimum CO
emissions were obtained at 50% load due to higher air–fuel ratio [36]. At this load, no significant
differences between the emissions of the fuels were determined in the test speed range [36,39].
Fig. 12 shows the variation of CO2 emissions with respect to engine speed. As it is known, the
amount of carbon dioxide is proportional to the amount of fuel burned. The rich fuel mixture in
the cylinders at a fixed throttle position brings about the production of more CO2 at low speeds
[34]. The CO2 emissions decrease with increasing engine speed. In addition, at full load, the CO2

110
D100
D82.5 / B17.5
…....

100
Lubrication Oil Temperature (˚C)

100 %
90

80 75 %

70
50 %

60
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 10. Effect of biodiesel addition on lubricating oil temperature at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.
 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755 751

3000
D82.5 / B17.5
D100
2500 100 %

2000

CO (ppm)
1500
75 %
1000

500

50 %
0
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 11. Effect of biodiesel addition on CO emission at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.

16
D100
14 D82.5 / B17.5

12
CO 2 (%)

10
100 %
8

6 75 %

4
50 %

2
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 12. Effect of biodiesel addition on CO2 emission at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.

emissions of the blend were higher than those of the Diesel fuel due to the increase in the mass of
fuel injected using the blend and better combustion with the fuel borne oxygen. At partial loads,
the absolute mass difference between the blend and the Diesel fuel injected into the engine was
relatively small, and there was more oxygen supplied with the air. Therefore, the CO2 emissions of
the fuels were very close to each other.
The SO2 emissions are shown in Fig. 13. Since the biodiesel contains fairly low sulphur
compared to Diesel fuel [40], the SO2 emissions of the blend were lower than those of the Diesel
fuel. The reduction in the percentage of SO2 was higher than the percentage of biodiesel addition.
Although 17.5% biodiesel was added to the Diesel fuel, the experimental results showed
a significant reduction in SO2 (up to 49%), similar to the result found by Dorado et al. [5]. At all
loads, the blend resulted in similar SO2 emission trends with Diesel fuel.
The NOx emissions of the blend were slightly higher than those of the Diesel fuel at both full
and partial loads (Fig. 14). The NOx variation of the blend with respect to engine speed showed
similar trends with that of the Diesel fuel. The higher temperatures of combustion and the
presence of fuel oxygen with the blend combustion caused higher NOx emissions, especially at full
752 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

300
D100
D82.5 / B17.5
250

200

SO 2 (ppm)
100 %
150
75 %
100

50
50 %

0
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 13. Effect of biodiesel addition on SO2 emission at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.

600
D100
D82.5 / B17.5
500 100 %
NO x (ppm)

400
75 %

300

200
50 %

100
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
Speed (rpm)

Fig. 14. Effect of biodiesel addition on NOx emission at 100%, 75% and 50% loads.

load [4,5,38]. Higher exhaust temperatures with the blend at full load supported the increase in
NOx emissions [10]. The results showed that the increase was around 3–6% at full load. However,
this increase was not measured at partial loads. The difference is negligible, especially at 50% load.
There are mainly three factors affecting the NOx emission, oxygen concentration, combustion
temperature and time. Although the oxygen concentration is higher at partial loads, the com-
bustion temperature and time decrease, leading to low NOx . This is consistent with the exhaust
temperature distribution. Also, it is known that the external oxygen supplied with the air is less
effective than the fuel borne oxygen in the production of NOx .

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a procedure for biodiesel production from the mixture of hazelnut oil soapstock/
waste sunflower oil was presented. Furthermore, the effects of the biodiesel addition to the diesel
fuel on the performance and emissions of a turbocharged Diesel engine were investigated. The
experimental results are described as follows:
 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755 753

1. A methyl ester biodiesel was produced from hazelnut oil soapstock/waste sunflower oil mix-
ture that includes high free fatty acid content via acid (H2 SO4 ) and base (NaOH) cataly-
sers in two steps. Although the process provided some reduction in viscosity of the
mixture, the viscosity of the biodiesel was significantly higher than that of Diesel fuel,
especially at low temperatures. Therefore, the pure biodiesel could not be used in the Diesel
engine.
2. Although the heating value of the biodiesel is lower than that of the Diesel fuel, biodiesel blends
(5%, 10%, 15%, 17.5% and 25% biodiesel addition) produced a slightly higher torque and power
at both full load and partial loads. It was found that 17.5% biodiesel addition gave the maxi-
mum power and thermal efficiency.
3. The exhaust temperatures of the blend at full load were higher than those of Diesel, while the
differences were fairly small at partial loads. The use of the biodiesel blend did not affect signif-
icantly the lubrication oil temperature. There was a «4 °C variation in the lubrication oil tem-
peratures.
4. At full load, the CO emissions of the blend were higher at low speed and lower at high speeds
than those of Diesel fuel, while the blend resulted in higher CO2 emissions in the experimental
speed range. At partial loads, it was found that the blend did not cause significant changes in
the CO and CO2 emissions. This may be due to the overall leaner mixture. There was a signif-
icant SO2 reduction with the blends due to the lower sulphur content of the biodiesel. NOx
emissions slightly increased due to the higher combustion temperature and the presence of fuel
oxygen with the blend at full load. However, the increasing amount of NOx emission slowed
down with decreasing load.
5. The noise measurements were taken 1 m away from the engine in the engine room by using a
sound level meter. The biodiesel addition slightly decreased the noise. The reduction amount
was less than 1 dB in the range of engine speeds tested. In these short-term experiments,
no obvious wear or effect on the Diesel engine components has been observed. However, the
effects of biodiesel on engine components and oil are the subject of an ongoing project in the
university.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Pamukkale University Scientific Research Council for sup-
porting this study under Project Contract No. 2003MHF003. They are also very grateful to
Dr. Murat G€ uler for preparation of the biodiesel.

References

[1] Demirbasß A. Biodiesel fuels from vegetable oils via catalytic and non-catalytic supercritical alcohol transesteri-
fications and other methods: a survey. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44(13):2093–109.
[2] Demirbasß A. Biodiesel from vegetable oils via transesterification in supercritical methanol. Energy Convers
Manage 2002;43:2349–56.
[3] Ma F, Hanna MF. Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresour Technol 1999;70:1–15.
754 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755

[4] Gonzalez Gomez ME, Howard-Hildige R, Leahy JJ, O’Reilly T, Supple B, Malone M. Emission and performance
characteristics of a 2 litre Toyota Diesel van operating on esterified waste cooking oil and mineral Diesel fuel.
Environ Monitor Assessment 2000;65:13–20.
[5] Dorado MP, Ballesteros E, Arnal JM, G
omez J, L
opez FJ. Exhaust emissions from a Diesel engine fuelled with
transesterified waste olive oil. Fuel 2003;82(11):1311–5.
[6] Ozaktas T. Compression ignition engine fuel properties of a used sunflower oil–Diesel fuel blend. Energy Sour
2000;22(4):377–82.
[7] Alcantara R, Amores J, Canoira L, Fidalgo E, Franco MJ, Navarro A. Catalytic production of biodiesel from
soybean oil, used frying oil and tallow. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18(6):515–27.
[8] Al-Widyan MI, Al-Shyoukh AO. Experimental evaluation of the transesterification of waste palm oil into
biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 2002;85(3):253–6.
[9] Tomasevic AV, Siler-Marinkovic SS. Methanolysis of used frying oil. Fuel Process Technol 2003;81(1):1–6.
[10] Agarwal AK, Das LM. Biodiesel development and characterization for use as a fuel in compression ignition
engines. J Eng Gas Turbines Power, Trans ASME 2001;123:440–7.
[11] Crabbe E, Nolasco-Hipolito C, Kobayashi G, Sonomoto KIA. Biodiesel production from crude palm oil and
evaluation of butanol extraction and fuel properties. Process Biochem 2001;37(1):65–71.
[12] Pramanik K. Properties and use of jatropha curcas oil and Diesel fuel blends in compression ignition engine.
Renew Energy 2003;28(2):239–48.
[13] Haas MJ, Bloomer S, Scott K. Simple, high-efficiency synthesis of fatty acid methyl esters from soapstock. JAOCS
2000;77(4):373–9.
[14] Haas MJ, Scott KM, Alleman TL, McCormick RL. Engine performance of biodiesel fuel prepared from
soybean soapstock: a high quality renewable fuel produced from a waste feedstock. Energy Fuels 2001;15(5):1207–
12.
[15] Haas MJ, Foglia TA. Cheaper feedstocks for biodiesel. Indust Bioprocess 2002;24(5):4–5.
[16] Haas MJ, Michalski PJ, Runyon S, Nunez A, Scott KM. Production of FAME from acid oil, a by-product of
vegetable oil refining. JAOCS 2003;80(1):97–102.
[17] Graboski MS, McCormick RL, Alleman TL, Herring AM. The effect of biodiesel composition on engine emissions
from a DDC Series 60 Diesel engine. Final Report February 2003, NREL/SR-510-31461, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
[18] Canakci M, Van Gerpen J. Biodiesel production from oils and fats with high free fatty acids. Trans ASAE
2001;44(6):1429–36.
[19] Altin R, C ß etinkaya S, Y€ucesu HS. The potential of using vegetable oil fuels as fuel for Diesel engines. Energy
Convers Manage 2001;42(5):529–38.
[20] Nwafor OMI, Rice G, Ogbonna AI. Effect of advanced injection timing on the performance of rapeseed oil in
Diesel engines. Renew Energy 2000;21:433–44.
[21] Bari S, Lim TH, Yu CW. Effects of preheating of crude palm oil (CPO) on injection system, performance and
emission of a Diesel engine. Renew Energy 2002;27:339–51.
[22] Antol
ın G, Tinaut FV, Brice~ no Y, Casta~ no V, P
erez C, Ram
ırez AI. Optimisation of biodiesel production by
sunflower oil transesterification. Bioresour Technol 2002;83(2):111–4.
[23] Kalam MA, Husnawan M, Masjuki HH. Exhaust emission and combustion evaluation of coconut oil-powered
indirect injection Diesel engine. Renew Energy 2003;28:2405–15.
[24] Kalligeros S, Zannikos F, Stournas S, Lois E, Anastopoulos G, Teas CH, et al. An investigation of using biodiesel/
marine Diesel blends on the performance of a stationary Diesel engine. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;24(2):141–9.
[25] Ozaktas T, Cigizoglu KB, Karaosmanoglu F. Alternative Diesel fuel study on four different types of vegetable oils
of Turkish origin. Energy Sour 1997;19(2):173–81.
[26] Ergeneman M, Ozaktas T, Cigizoglu KB, Karaosmanoglu F, Arslan E. Effect of some Turkish vegetable oil–Diesel
fuel blends on exhaust emissions. Energy Sour 1997;19(8):879–85.
[27] Marshall W, Schumacher LG, Howell S. Engine exhaust emissions evaluation of a Cummins l10e when fueled with
a biodiesel blend. Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 952363, SAE, Warrendale, PA, 1995.
[28] Chang DYZ, Van Gerpen JH. Fuel properties and engine performance for biodiesel prepared from modified
feedstocks. Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 971684, SAE, Warrendale, PA, 1997.
 N. Usta et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 46 (2005) 741–755 755

[29] Monyem A, Van Gerpen JH. The effect of biodiesel oxidation on engine performance and emissions. Biomass
Bioenergy 2001;20:317–25.
[30] Kalam MA, Masjuki HH. Biodiesel from palm oil––an analysis of its properties and potential. Biomass Bioenergy
2002;23:471–9.
[31] Lin CY, Huang JC. An oxygenating additive for improving the performance and emission characteristics of marine
Diesel engines. Ocean Eng 2003;30:1699–715.
[32] Kac A. Free fatty acid to ester conversion––Foolproof Method 2002. Available from: http://journeytoforever.org/
biodiesel_aleksnew.html.
[33] Wagner L, Clark S, Schrock M. Effects of soybean oil esters on the performance, lubricating oil, and wear of Diesel
engines. Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 841385, SAE, Warrendale, PA, 1984.
[34] Al-Widyan MI, Tashtoush G, Abu-Qudais M. Utilization of ethyl ester of waste vegetable oils as fuel in Diesel
engines. Fuel Process Technol 2002;76:91–103.
[35] Nwafor OMI. The effect of elevated fuel inlet temperature on performance of Diesel engine running on neat
vegetable oil at constant speed conditions. Renew Energy 2003;28:171–81.
[36] de Almeida SCA, Belchiora CR, Nascimentob MVG, Vieirab LDSR, Fleuryb G. Performance of a Diesel
generator fuelled with palm oil. Fuel 2002;81:2097–102.
[37] Machacon HTC, Shiga S, Karasawa T, Nakamura H. Performance and emission characteristics of a Diesel engine
fuelled with coconut oil–Diesel fuel blend. Biomass Bioenergy 2001;20:63–9.
[38] Yu CW, Bari S, Ameen A. A comparison of combustion characteristics of waste cooking oil with Diesel as fuel in a
direct injection Diesel engine. Proc Instn Mech Engrs D: J Automobile Eng 2002;216:237–43.
[39] Choi CY, Reitz RD. An experimental study on the effects of oxygenated fuel blends and multiple injection
strategies on DI Diesel engine emissions. Fuel 1999;78:1303–17.
[40] Chang DYZ, Van Gerpen JH, Lee I, Johnson LA, Hammond EG, Marley SJ. Fuel properties and emissions of
soybean oil esters as Diesel fuel. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1996;73:1549–55.