Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Butanol and pentanol: The promising biofuels for CI engines – A review MARK
⁎
Vinod Babu M , Madhu Murthy K, Amba Prasad Rao G
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal 506004, Telangana State, India

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

Keywords: Existing fossil fuels may not be able to meet the energy demand in near future due to rapid increase in oil
Butanol consumption. Fluctuating oil prices, depleting oil reserves and high level of harmful emissions through the use
CI Engines of conventional diesel forced the research community to focus their attention on the use of biofuels in
Combustion compression ignition (CI) engines. Extensive use of biofuels offer multitude of advantages such as social
Emissions
structure, self-sustainability, soil development, effective use of cultivable land and self-employment. Butanol
Pentanol
Performance
and pentanol are the most attractive biofuels, which could relieve energy crisis and reduce carcinogenic
particulate matter (PM) emissions that are customary in CI engines. Research in the recent past has witnessed
the notable amount of study in the use of these alcohols, mainly because of the improved yield through modern
fermentation processes. Present work reviews the literature on the effects of using butanol and pentanol on the
combustion, performance and exhaust emissions of CI engines operating under various test conditions.
Attention is paid towards the review of strategies employed for use of higher alcohols in neat or in blended form
to increase the renewable fraction of fuels in CI engines. The combination of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
rates, delayed injection and the use of higher alcohols can enable low temperature combustion (LTC) strategy in
CI engines, which presents simultaneous reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and soot emissions with
increased efficiency. This paper also summarizes the key findings of earlier researchers contributed for use of
biofuels in CI engines emphasizing higher alcohols. These biofuels are potential and attractive alternatives for
the use in CI engines for improved performance and substantial reduction of harmful emissions.

1. Introduction
Due to increase in population and rapid socio-economic develop-
ment, global energy demand is unceasingly increasing, which headed to
unrestricted energy consumption. Total primary energy consumption
of the world has increased from 10,556.6 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil
equivalent) to 12,928.4 Mtoe in a span of 10 years i.e. from 2004 to
2014 [1]. Among the sectors that involve the energy usage, surface
transportation is the main sector which consumes petroleum fuels.
Majority of oil reserves are limited to some regions only and rest of the
world is depending on them to meet their energy needs. These
traditional fuel reserves are not only limited but also nonrenewable
in nature and as such they may deplete completely or may lead to a
considerable world crisis when the demand exceeds supply. Also, the
use of fossil fuels greatly increase the harmful exhaust emissions which
deteriorate the quality of our environment and human health apart
from increasing the global warming. NOx emissions leads to ground
level ozone formation which is harmful not only to human beings but
also to the vegetation and animal life. Some of the important ill effects
with the use of fossil fuels include: (i) rise in sea levels due to melting of
ice caps, ozone layer depletion caused by carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2) etc., (ii) acidification caused by sulfuric oxides
and NOx etc., (iii) impaired oxygen carrying capacity, heart and central
nervous system disorders caused by CO, (iv) cough, eye irritation and
drowsiness caused by unburnt hydro carbons (UHC), and (v) major
health problems like irritation in respiratory tract, asthma, lung cancer
caused by NOx, particulate matter (PM) [2–6] Oil spills or leaks during
transportation via sea can pose serious impact on aquatic life.
Moreover, all oil dependent countries lose their hard-earned foreign
currency reserves for importing the fossil fuels. In order to minimize
the above mentioned ill effects and to meet the ever increasing fuel
demand, using alternative fuels compatible to the existing engines
seems to be a more appropriate method [7–9].
CI engines emit lesser emissions of UHC, CO and CO2 than SI
engines. Moreover, they have higher thermal efficiency, torque capa-
city, brake power, reliability and durability than petrol engines.
Therefore, diesel engines usage is continued in public transportation,
agricultural and industrial equipment, heavy-duty machinery and
power generation applications. However, diesel fueled vehicles produce
higher NOx and PM emissions which are detrimental to atmosphere

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mvb036@gmail.com (V.B. M), madhumurthyk@gmail.com (M.M. K), ambaprasadrao@gmail.com (A.P.R. G).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.038
Received 20 June 2016; Received in revised form 28 April 2017; Accepted 10 May 2017
Available online 15 May 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.B. M et al.
and human health. Growing concerns over exhaustion of conventional
fuels, oil pricing worries, greenhouse gas emissions, strict emission
regulations, need for better energy diversity and safety are forcing the
research community to explore alternate, renewable biofuels for CI
engines.
Utilization of renewable fuels like biogas, alcohols, vegetable or
seed oils and biodiesel are gaining importance for use in CI engines
because they are environmentally acceptable, locally and abundantly
available, uniformly spread all over the world, technically feasible and
can fulfill the global energy demand. Biogas can be produced domes-
tically from plant and animal wastes and doesn’t have any geographic
boundaries. It is biodegradable, renewable and cost effective. But, the
use of biogas is limited because apart from being hazardous, it requires
high pressure for its use in automobiles [7,10].
1.1. Preparation of biodiesel
Higher density, viscosity and iodine value of vegetable or seed oils
make them unsuitable for long term use in diesel engines. This may
lead to the problems like poor atomization, fouling of injector, piston
ring sticking, lubricating oil contamination, poor pumping, more wear,
poor combustion performance, and higher emission levels. Hence, the
properties of these oils related to combustion must be brought closer to
those of diesel by any of the following methods: (i) blending, (ii) micro-
emulsion, (iii) thermal cracking, and (iv) transesterification (or alco-
holysis). Among these, alcoholysis was found to be the best method
which is defined as the process of converting the triglycerides present
in the seed oils to the fatty acid esters known as biodiesel [11–17].
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) defined biodie-
sel as a domestic, renewable fuel for diesel derived from natural oils
such as soybean and other vegetable oils. It is not a raw vegetable oil: A
biodiesel must be refined so that all natural glycerin is removed from
the oil. Problems like carbonization and engine coking that are usually
encountered with the use of vegetable oils can be avoided with the use
of biodiesel. Biodiesel can be prepared from both edible and nonedible
seed oils, used or recycled oils and animal fats. Biodiesel production
from edible vegetable oils increase the cost of fuel and hence it is
necessary to consider the nonedible oils and waste oils as the feedstock
for biodiesel production. Most of the nonedible oils are produced
abundantly across the world and have not been used to their potential
so far. These issues motivate the research community to concentrate
more on the use of biodiesel from non-edible feedstock in CI engines
[11–14].
The process of biodiesel production from vegetable/seed oils is
outlined in Fig. 1. After extracting the raw vegetable oil from seeds, it
must be pretreated before proceeding to transesterification.
Pretreatment involves heating and purification methods. The refined
vegetable oil is then transesterified using an alcohol (methanol,
ethanol, butanol etc.) and a catalyst (either acid or base). Acids donate
a H+ to the carboxyl group, while bases remove a H+ from alcohol to
catalyze the reaction. The refined vegetable oil is heated to a tempera-
ture of 60 °C before adding the solution of alcohol and catalyst in the
desired proportions. In transesterification, triglycerides of oil react
with an alcohol in the presence of a catalyst and produce crude
biodiesel and glycerol. The crude glycerol thus obtained can be refined
and used for soap making. Crude biodiesel is then subjected to
distillation and water washing for the removal of alcohol, residual
alkali catalyst and glycerol. The alcohol thus obtained can be recycled
and used for transesterification process. The biodiesel thus obtained
must be heated at about 110 °C for 30 min for the removal of moisture
traces and to obtain refined biodiesel which possess properties closer to
that of diesel.
1.2. Suitability and applications of biodiesel in CI engines
Application of biodiesel in CI engines has gained importance owing
1069
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
Fig. 1. Biodiesel production process from vegetable/seed oils.
to its properties like non-toxicity, bio-degradability, higher flash point,
clean burning ability due to its oxygenated nature, about 90% reduction
in cancer risks due to less harmful emissions, zero sulfur content and
its ease of manufacture [15,16]. Biodiesel usually consists of fatty acid
ethyl/methyl esters, which are obtained from triglycerides of oils by
alcoholysis with ethanol/methanol [15–19]. Concept of biodiesel is
introduced by the inventor of diesel engines, Rudolf Christian Karl
Diesel, in 19th century who used neat peanut oil to run the engine [18].
Numerous oils were proposed as an alternative to diesel in due course
of time. More than 350 vegetable oils, animal fats, recycled greases,
used vegetable oils were identified as prospective feedstocks for
preparation of biodiesel [19].
Majority properties of biodiesel are nearer to diesel which enable
blending of these fuels in the desired proportions. A number of
researchers have reported that identical power output, reduced emis-
sions of soot, CO, CO2 and UHC could be obtained using biodiesel in
neat or in blended form against diesel operation. This could be credited
to the oxygen content available with biodiesel that leads to complete
burning [15–17,20–23]. The B20 blend (20% biodiesel and 80% diesel)
is the most common blend which reported early start of combustion,
lower ignition delay, longer combustion duration, lower heat release
rate (both premixed and total) and 30% less engine wear as compared
to diesel operation [11,15,16]. It was also reported that exhaust
contained zero sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, improved polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions and ± 10% NOx emissions
depending on the engines’ combustion characteristics [15].
1.3. Preparation of alcohols
Methanol (CH3OH) and ethanol (C2H5OH) are the simple forms of
alcohols that are produced from a range of renewable sources. Simple
and environmental friendly production processes, local availability and
ability to burn clean have made these alcohols as a good choice for the
use in CI engines. Methanol can be produced from various carbon
sources like biomass, coke oven gas, syngas, coal and natural gas [24–
29]. Fig. 2 demonstrates various steps involved in the production of
methanol.
Ethanol dominates the present-day biofuel market due to its ease of
manufacture and environmental friendliness as compared to methanol
[30]. It can be produced from lignocellulosic materials like agriculture
feedstock, sugar cane residue, waste biomass and forestry biomass
without relying much on food crops. High yields of lignocellulosic
biomass could be obtained from energy crops [31]. Ethanol production
involves hydrolysis (breaking cellulose to glucose) and fermentation
V.B. M et al.
Fig. 2. Preparation of methanol from various carbon sources.
(converting glucose to ethanol) processes. It can be made by separate
hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) or simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation (SSF) processes. Hydrolysis and fermentation processes
will be carried out under distinct optimized parameters in SHF process.
While higher yield and faster hydrolysis rate were observed using SHF,
higher productivity and shorter operating time were observed using SSF
[32–34]. The combined mode of SHF and SSF which possess the
advantages of both the processes (higher yield and productivity) is called
semi-simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. In this process,
hydrolysis is carried out under optimized conditions followed by
fermentation without removing the hydrolysate [33]. Fig. 3 depicts the
production process of ethanol and other higher alcohols.
1.4. Suitability and applications of alcohols in CI engines
Utilization of methanol and ethanol as alternate fuels in CI engines
has been extensively investigated and found that they deteriorate the
engine performance, especially when blending exceeds 10%. Lower
Fig. 3. Production process of ethanol and other higher alcohols.
1070
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
values of cetane number (CN), calorific value (CV) and flash point (FP),
poor miscibility with diesel, higher latent heat of vaporization (LHV),
and high self-ignition temperatures (SIT) limit their application in CI
engines [35,36]. To deal with these limitations, techniques like bi-fuel
injection, fumigation, blending and emulsification were adopted [37].
Further, mixing of these alcohols to diesel make these blends fall under
Class I liquids (with FP less than 37.8 °C) thereby increasing storage
and handling difficulties [38]. The available reviews on some main
biofuels are presented in Table 1 to enable the readers to have an
overview of the literature. Table 2 presents the applications, pros and
cons of main biofuels that were extensively used in CI engines so far.
Higher or long chain alcohols with carbon atoms exceeding three
viz., butanol (C4H9OH), pentanol (C5H11OH) etc. have gathered the
attention of research community in recent years because of their higher
cetane number and energy density, less hygroscopic nature, better
ignition quality and blend stability [35,47,48]. Moreover, these alco-
hols can be used in transesterification and the esters produced through
their use possess good CN, high calorific value and energy density
owing to the increased carbon chain length [7,10]. Comparison of
properties of some alcohols and diesel is presented in Table 3. Long
chain alcohols blend well with diesel owing to their properties like low
polarity, more-carbon fraction and less hygroscopic behavior [49,50].
Other interesting properties of these alcohols are less corrosiveness,
higher FP and lower vapor pressure, which result in safer handling and
lower evaporative emissions [51]. Among these alcohols, butanol and
pentanol are viable alternate biofuels for the use in CI engines. They are
renewable fuels that are produced by alcoholic fermentation of biomass
feed stocks similar to ethanol production [49–51]. The higher oxygen
content available with these alcohols compared with biodiesel results in
additional reduction of soot and the higher LHV leads to poorer
combustion temperature which in turn reduces NOx emissions [52].
This review presents and discusses the studies on the usage of
butanol and pentanol: (i) as neat fuels, (ii) under dual-fuel injection
mode, (iii) as blends with diesel and some popular types of nonedible
biodiesel for partial or complete replacement of conventional diesel
from CI engines with no modifications of engine hardware. Previous
researches and the on-going investigations on the usage of butanol and
pentanol in CI engines were found to be successful because of their
ability to lower the dependency on conventional diesel by increasing
the fraction of renewable fuels.
V.B. M et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088

Table 1
Available reviews on the use of biofuels in CI engines.

Type of biofuel Biofuel Sources/ Sub type Effects/Techniques discussed Reference

Biodiesel i. Edible and nonedible oils i. Cost estimation of feedstock [7]

ii. Animal fats ii. Influence of fatty acid
iii. Waste oil iii. Effect of feedstock
iv. Other oils iv. Effect of biodiesel type
Alcohol i. Propanol i. Combustion characteristics [10]
ii. Butanol ii. Emission characteristics
iii. Pentanol iii. Performance characteristics
iv. Other higher alcohols
Alcohol, Vegetable oil, and Biodiesel i. Methanol i. Environmental and health issues of various pollutants [11]
ii. Ethanol ii. Engine alterations needed and material compatibility
iii. Edible oils iii. Various methods of reducing viscosity of vegetable oils
iv. Nonedible oils iv. Effects of process parameters on biodiesel preparation
v. Engine performance, combustion and emission characteristics
vi. Engine tribology studies
vii. Economic feasibility of biodiesel
Biodiesel i. Edible oils i. Economics of biodiesel production [12]
ii. Nonedible oils ii. Chemical composition, flow, storage and stability properties evaluation
iii. Animal fats iii. Engine performance and endurance issues
iv. Fat oils iv. Regulated and unregulated emissions
Vegetable oil, and Biodiesel i. Edible oils i. Suitability of vegetable oil and its blends [15]
ii. Nonedible oils ii. Problems in using seed oils and its blends
iii. Performance and emission characteristics of seed oils and its blends
iv. Production of biodiesel and its use
v. Engine performance using biodiesel and its blends
vi. Teardown analysis
vii. Biodiesel policy and recommendations for its development in India
Biodiesel Nonedible oils i. Effects of process parameters on biodiesel preparation [16]
ii. Quantification of biodiesel
iii. Engine performance using biodiesel and its blends
iv. Environmental issues and economic feasibility of biodiesel
Biodiesel i. Edible and nonedible oils i. Chemical composition of various oils and their methyl esters [18,19]
ii. Animal fats ii. Various methods of producing biodiesel
iii. Other sources iii. Use of oils, their performance, problems raised and possible solutions
iv. Use of biodiesel, their performance, problems raised and possible solutions
v. Economic viability of biodiesel

Methanol i. Coal i. Methanol production, supply, demand and economics [24]

Ethanol ii. Natural gas ii. Environmental and health issues of methanol
Hydrogen iii. Coke-oven gas iii. Applications of methanol and its blends with conventional and various biofuels in
Biodiesel iv. Hydrogen internal combustion (IC) engines
DMEa v. Biomass
LPGb
Water
Isopropanol
Alcohol i. Methanol i. Renewable sources of alcohols [31]
ii. Ethanol ii. Influence of methanol and ethanol fumigation on engine testing parameters
Alcohol Butanol i. History of n-butanol production [57]
ii. Improvements in butanol production
iii. Alternative hosts for biobutanol synthesis
iv. Progress in the use of n-butanol as a fuel

a
Dimethyl ether.
b
Liquefied petroleum gas.

2. Butanol production and its usage in CI engines
Butanol, a straight chain alcohol with 4-carbon atoms, can be
prepared using same feed stocks as that of ethanol (Fig. 3) but need less
energy [35]. Production capability from both petroleum and non-
petroleum resources, inferior LHV, superior CN and FP, and higher CV
as compared to lower alcohols have made butanol as a viable
alternative to diesel fuel. “ABE (Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol) fermenta-
tion” was the most popular process for the production of butanol since
World War I. The bacteria used, Clostridium, also produce acetone and
ethanol along with butanol. In the earlier days, the efficiency of butanol
production was only about 50% as compared to ethanol production due
to which researchers have not concentrated much on its utilization.
Escalating oil prices, health and environmental concerns in recent
years have made the scientific community to put focus on increasing
the efficiency of fermentation processes. The modern fermentation
processes using genetically improved strains of clostridia species,
E.coli, ionic liquids, gas stripping, supercritical extraction and perva-
poration have considerably increased the butanol yield [37,53–55].
Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) introduced a
new technology known as Butyfix process which can convert 94% of
carbon available in biomass during fermentation [56]. Like ethanol,
butanol can also be used in the transesterification process for the
making of biodiesel [57]. Neat butanol operation, butanol dual-fuel
injection, butanol blends with diesel, biodiesel and vegetable oils will
be focused in the following sections.
2.1. Neat butanol operation
Higher LHV and SIT, lower CN of butanol as compared to diesel
limits its straight usage in CI engines without any engine modifications.
Modifications like replacement of plastic and rubber parts with alcohol
tolerant materials [57], use of elevated injection pressures for direct
injection of butanol with high EGR rates [59], Using fuel cooler,

1071
V.B. M et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088

Table 2
Major applications, pros and cons of some of the main biofuels used in CI engines [7,11,18,19,24,31,39–46].

Biofuel Applications Advantages Disadvantages/Negative impacts

Methanol i. In high compression ratio engines as a
straight fuel (or) under dual fuel mode
(or) in blended form with diesel or
biodiesel.
ii. In transesterifi-cation process for
biodiesel preparation.
Ethanol i. In high compression ratio engines as a
straight fuel (or) under dual fuel mode
(or) in blended form with diesel or
biodiesel.
ii. In transesterifi-cation process for
biodiesel preparation.
Vegetable oils i. In CI engines as a neat fuel or in
blended form with diesel/alcohol in
any proportion.
Biodiesel (Methyl i. As a straight fuel or in blended form
esters of seed with diesel in any proportion with no
oil) engine alterations.
i. Simple, cheap and eco-friendly
production.
ii. Lower ozone forming potential.
iii. Oxygen content available aids in clean
combustion thus produce less PM
emissions.
iv. Local availability reduce fossil fuel
imports.
v. Neat methanol use improves BTE, NOx
and PM emissions.
vi. Methanol improves BTE, soot, CO and
UHC emissions when blended with
diesel.
vii. Methanol fumigation and diesel DI/
biodiesel DI improves CO2, NOx and
PM emissions.
viii. Methanol improves NOx, UHC and PM
emissions when blended with biodiesel.
i. Possible to produce from agricultural and
forestry biomass thus increasing
agriculture based economy and
employment.
ii. Reasonably cleaner, less toxic and less
corrosive than methanol.
iii. Oxygen content available aids in clean
combustion thus produce less PM
emissions.
iv. Local availability reduce fossil fuel
imports.
v. Ethanol fumigation and diesel DI
improves CO2, NOx and PM emissions.
vi. Ethanol/diesel blends improve BTE, soot,
CO and UHC emissions.
vii. Ethanol/biodiesel blends improve NOx
and PM emissions.
i. Making of vegetable oils involve reduced
energy input compared to energy crops.
ii. They possess higher energy content (about
90% of diesel).
i. It possess higher energy content (about
90% of diesel).
ii. It is nontoxic, biodegradable and has high
FP making it safer to store and handle.
iii. It can reduce cancer risks by 90% due to
its lower PM and PAH emissions.
iv. Its inherent lubrication properties reduce
engine wear thereby increase engine life.
v. Its lower C/H ratio, fuel bound oxygen,
higher CN aids in complete combustion
thus producing lower CO, soot and UHC
emissions.
vi. It produce lower NOx emissions (only
with the use of biodiesel derived from
high saturated oils due to their high CN).
vii. It helps in mitigating global warming due
to closed CO2 cycle.
i. Not safe to handle due to their poor FP.
ii. Poor miscibility with diesel necessitates use of blending
agents or emulsifiers.
iii. Poor lubricating properties increase engine wear.
iv. Poses cold starting problems due to its high heat of
vaporization.
v. Lower energy density necessitate large storage
requirements and higher fuel inputs for same engine
power.
vi. It is highly corrosive.
vii. Cause environmental hazards in case of spill due to its
toxicity.
viii. Neat methanol use deteriorates BSFC, and CO, UHC
emissions.
ix. Methanol/diesel blends deteriorate BSFC, and NOx,
aldehyde emissions.
x. Methanol fumigation and diesel DI/biodiesel DI increases
BSFC, CO and UHC emissions.
xi. Methanol/biodiesel blends deteriorate CO, aldehyde and
unburnt methanol emissions.
xii. Higher concentrations of methanol in diesel/biodiesel
blends increase CO, UHC emissions.
i. Not safe to handle due to their poor FP.
ii. Poor miscibility with diesel necessitates use of blending
agents or emulsifiers.
iii. Poor lubricating properties increase engine wear.
iv. More expensive to produce compared to methanol.
v. Poses cold starting problems due to its high heat of
vaporization.
vi. Lower energy density necessitate large storage
requirements and higher fuel inputs for same engine
power.
vii. Ethanol fumigation and diesel DI/biodiesel DI increases
BSFC, CO and UHC emissions.
viii. Ethanol deteriorates BSFC, and NOx, aldehyde emissions
when blended with diesel.
ix. Ethanol increases CO and UHC emissions when blended
with biodiesel.
x. Higher concentrations of methanol in diesel/biodiesel
blends increase CO, UHC emissions.
i. Poses cold starting problems, misfire and extended ignition
delay owing to their high viscosity and low volatility.
ii. Subjected to plugging and gumming of filters, fuel lines and
injectors owing to natural gums and ash content.
iii. Higher CO, UHC and PM emissions paid to higher viscosity
and poor atomization leading to incomplete combustion.
iv. Injector coking, carbon deposits on piston and cylinder
head due to incomplete and poor combustion.
v. Failure of engine lubricating oil and hence excessive engine
wear due to dilution and polymerization lubricating oil.
i. It increases the oxidation of lubricating oil.
ii. It has high viscosity compared to diesel which increase
droplet size and spray penetration.
iii. Biodiesel produced from high unsaturated esters has lower
CN and less oxidation stability.
iv. Biodiesel produced from high saturated esters has poor
cold flow properties.
v. Its lower heating value and higher density increase BSFC.
vi. Higher unsaturation of biodiesel leads to poor long term
storage and deposit formation issues.
vii. Performance and emissions of engines vary largely based
on the type of feedstock selected for biodiesel
production.Generally, the use of shorter carbon chain esters
result in the deterioration of power, BTE and BSFC, and the use
of unsaturated esters lead to higher NOx emissions.
i. Less oxidation stability of biodiesel leads to the formation of
harmful products to engine components.
ii. Higher cost of feedstock and processing cost.

preheated air, high intake boost pressure and port injection of butanol in CI engines due to: (i) its diesel like stoichiometric air/fuel ratio [35],
[60,61], adding a lubricity improver to butanol upto 500 ppm [61] were (ii) its less corrosiveness, low vapor pressure and high flash point,
suggested for using neat butanol in CI engines. By incorporating the which ensure safe storage, handling and transportation [57], (iii) its
above modifications in the existing engines, one can safely use butanol inferior volatility, which reduces cavitation and vapor lock problems

1072
V.B. M et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088

Table 3
Properties of some alcohols and diesel [17,36–38,47,50,51,58,118].

Property/Fuel Diesel Methanol Ethanol Butanol Pentanol

Molecular Formula CXHY CH3OH C2H5OH C4H9OH C5H11OH

Lower Calorific Value [MJ/kg] 42 to 44 19.58 to 20.08 26.78 to 26.83 32.91 to 33.1 34.65 to 34.94
Density at 15° C [kg/m3] 820 to 844 791.3 789 to 790 808 to 811 814.8
Kinematic Viscosity at 40° C [cSt] 2.42 to 4.0 0.58 to 0.74 1.08 to 1.5 2.22 to 2.63 2.89
Oxygen Content (%) – 49.93 34.73 21.59 18.15
LHV [kJ/kg] 260 to 270 1162.64 840 to 918.42 581 to 586 308.05
SIT [°C] 254 to 300 463 420 345 300
Flash Point [(°C] 55 to 88 11 13 to 17 30 to 37 49.1
CFPP [°C] −17 to −5 < −51 < −51 < −51 −40
Lubricity [µm] 315 1100 1057 591 670.5
CN/CCI 40 to 55 2 to 5 8 to 11 17 to 25 18.2 to 20

[57], (iv) its better CN, inferior LHV and SIT as compared to methanol
and ethanol [57], (v) its diesel like kinematic viscosity, which results in
better wear characteristics [58], (vi) its lower boiling point than that of
diesel, which enables faster evaporation and enhanced mixing [61].
Some prominent investigations on the effects of using butanol as a
direct fuel on combustion, emission and performance parameters of CI
engines are presented in the following sections.

2.1.1. Combustion characteristics

Liu et al. [58] investigated spray combustion characteristics of neat
butanol on a constant volume combustion chamber at altered ambient
temperatures and showed that it was more suitable to CI engines. They
observed less flame luminosity for butanol compared to soybean
biodiesel during the tests. The flame propagation and distribution
were found to be less sensitive to temperatures in the range between
700 K and 1000 K.
LTC can be achieved by thoroughly premixing the air-fuel mixture
which oxidizes at a low temperature preceded by an extended ignition
delay period. Uncommon fuels like butanol were found to be more Fig. 4. Comparison of HCCI operating range with IMEP for Butanol and Gasoline [60].

appropriate for LTC operation using direct injection (DI) strategy

under high pressures and port fuel injection (PFI) strategy under low
pressures. Its higher SIT, lower CN and higher volatility are favorable
to accomplish LTC. While lower CN and higher SITs increase the
ignition delay period which helps in better air-fuel mixing, higher
volatility increases vaporization rate [10,57,59–65]. Unlike diesel,
butanol is favorable for achieving homogeneous compression charge
ignition (HCCI) combustion due to its less reactive and high volatile
nature [10,57,59–64].
PFI of butanol into the intake manifold and preheated intake air
were used to achieve homogeneous mixture preparation and auto-
ignition to operate one of the engine cylinders in HCCI mode without
employing EGR and intake boost pressure. It was found that butanol
has good combustion characteristics for HCCI operation with a slightly
smaller HCCI operating range than gasoline throughout the speed
range as shown in Fig. 4. Higher boiling point and LHV of butanol
compared to gasoline led to inferior mixing and evaporation character-
istics, which resulted in lower combustion efficiency than that of
gasoline. However, higher combustion efficiency was observed with
rich mixtures and elevated intake temperatures for both the fuels [60].
Yanai et al. [61] conducted preliminary investigations on a DI CI
engine running under the high loads from 6.5 to 8.0 bar IMEP
(Indicated Mean Effective Pressure) keeping speed constant at
1500 rpm by varying injection timing, EGR rate (intake O2) and intake
boost pressure using butanol and diesel. They reported relatively stable
combustion of butanol using higher intake boost pressure. While the
diesel case showed both premixed and diffusion modes of combustion,
butanol showed almost premixed combustion only. Extended ignition
delay owing to the inferior CN of butanol presented a rapid HRR (Heat
Release Rate) resulting in an excessive high PRR (Pressure Rise Rate)
compared to diesel operation. Attainment of both peak heat release and
peak cylinder pressure were observed at around 6 °CA aTDC (after top
dead center). Drop in in-cylinder pressure rise rates were observed
with retarded injection. However, the operating range of injection
timing was limited to a small window of 5 °CA (−18° to −13° aTDC)
only owing to high PRR and misfire. Reduction in O2 concentration in
the mixture from 20.5% to 19.8% increased the operative range of
injection timing to a 12 °CA window (−26° to −14° aTDC) due to slower
chemical reaction rate. It was concluded that butanol has a very narrow
range of injection timing compared to that of diesel. However, it can be
increased by reducing the intake O2 amounts. Shorter combustion
duration of butanol features in rapid heat release which leads to high
pressure rise rates [59,61–65]. Fig. 5 shows the comparison of
combustion between butanol fueling techniques and baseline diesel
operation with and without EGR. Use of EGR was found to be effective
to postpone the ignition and reduce combustion roughness [61–65].
High EGR requirement with butanol PFI mode was reported to control
the pressure rise rate as compared to butanol DI mode. Whereas,
butanol DI required delay in injection timing to control the pressure
rise rate even without using EGR [63].
2.1.2. Emission characteristics
It is very difficult to accomplish simultaneous drop in NOx and soot
emissions in CI engines owing to their natural trade-off relationship.
LTC is one of the promising strategies which offers drop in NOx and
soot emissions with enhanced efficiency. Most commonly used meth-
ods to achieve LTC are EGR and late injection timing. While high EGR
rates decrease the engine performance by deteriorating combustion
which results in increased UHC and CO emissions, retarded injection
timing results in lower indicated thermal efficiency (ITE) and increase
in smoke opacity. These bad effects can effectively be tackled by using
butanol without using high EGR rates and retarded injection timings
for realizing ultra-low NOx and near zero smoke emissions [59–65].

1073
V.B. M et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of combustion between n-Butanol fueling techniques and baseline
Diesel operation [63].
Liu et al. [58] reported simultaneous decrease in NOx and soot
emissions with prolonged ignition delay in their investigation. Though
there was an increase in soot mass concentration with elevated
temperatures, it was found to be very least for butanol compared to
soybean biodiesel. The renewable nature of butanol decreases the
carbon foot prints, and its oxygen content helps in reducing soot
emissions, especially at elevated load conditions [10,57,59,61,62,65].
Single-shot injection of diesel requires elevated injection pressure, high
intake pressure and very high EGR rates (60–70%) for simultaneous
drop in NOx and soot emissions through LTC [10,57,59,61]. It is
understood that supply of high EGR rates is not practicable except in
the research environment [10,57,59,63].
Drop in both NOx and smoke emissions was observed with
moderate EGR and intake boost using butanol [57,59,62,63]. High
EGR requirement (51–57%) with butanol PFI mode with disabled pilot
diesel DI was reported for achieving very low NOx and smoke
emissions as compared to butanol DI mode [59,63]. Use of double-
shot injection at medium loads and triple-shot injection at higher loads
with moderate boost and EGR presented better heat release pattern
and reduction in NOx and soot emissions simultaneously [59].
Fig. 6. Comparison of various regulated emissions between n-Butanol DI and PFI modes [63].
1074
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
HCCI combustion resulted in simultaneous drop in NOx and PM
emissions with a penalty in CO and UHC emissions against diesel
operation [10,57,59,60,64,67]. It was also found that NOx emissions
are more sensitive to the air-fuel ratio when compared to inlet air
temperatures in HCCI operational range [60]. Compared to gasoline
HCCI, butanol HCCI presented ultra-low NOx emissions and lower CO,
UHC emissions. However, there was a noteworthy increase in CO
emissions and a slight deterioration in UHC emissions with butanol
HCCI operation as compared to diesel operation [60,64,67]. These
could be attributed to an enhanced mixing, drop in in-cylinder gas
temperatures and extended ignition delay.
Increase in IMEP from 6.5 bar to 8 bar presented a significant rise
in NOx emissions and a significant reduction in CO emissions with
almost unchanged soot and UHC emissions [61]. The emissions of NOx
and CO can further be reduced with the use of moderate intake O2 with
a slight penalty on UHC emissions [59,61]. Single-shot injection
strategy of neat butanol in a modern common rail DI CI engine under
medium loads (6–8 bar IMEP) presented ultra-low NOx and soot
emissions even without employing EGR [62]. Both PFI and DI modes
of operation (using butanol as fuel) have reported ultra-low NOx and
soot emissions with deteriorated CO and THC (total hydrocarbon)
emissions against diesel operation without EGR as shown in Fig. 6
[63]. Comparable soot and CO emissions with both butanol fueling
techniques, extremely high NOx emissions with butanol DI mode and
very high THC emissions with butanol PFI mode were also reported
without EGR. It was also observed that butanol DI mode with 25% EGR
presented best emission characteristics compared to butanol PFI mode
with 60% EGR (Fig. 6).
Tests performed on a modified CRDI diesel engine using butanol
proved that the emissions are not sensitive to the intake pressure and
dilution by EGR is not required to achieve ultra-low NOx and soot
emissions at low and middle loads (4–7 bar IMEP) which is not the
same case with the use of diesel [64]. Whereas, both boost and
reasonable levels of EGR are essential for butanol HCCI at higher
loads to control the PRR and to improve the combustion phasing for
improved thermal efficiency [59,63,64]. Zheng et al. [65] suggested
multi-phase injections with medium EGR to overcome the drawbacks
associated with deteriorated combustion and misfires caused by high
rates of EGR.
2.1.3. Performance characteristics
Investigations on a four-cylinder, DI CI engine at high compression
ratios showed that butanol has a promising potential to enable LTC
under high pressure DI due to its diesel-like viscosity [59,61–63].
HCCI combustion helps to achieve higher thermal efficiency due to
reduced heat losses as a result of lesser combustion temperatures and
shorter combustion duration compared to conventional diesel opera-
tion [10,57,59,60,64,66]. Inferior ITE and ISFC (Indicated Specific
Fuel Consumption) were reported with butanol as compared to gaso-
line in HCCI mode, which could be attributed to the lower combustion
V.B. M et al.
Fig. 7. Comparison of ITE and maximum PRR between n-Butanol DI and PFI modes
[63].
efficiency of butanol [60]. However, best efficiency was observed with
rich mixtures and low intake air temperatures for both the fuels.
Efficiency drops significantly with butanol HCCI at lower intake
temperatures for leaner mixtures due to late combustion phasing.
Use of butanol presented similar thermal efficiency with 20.5%
intake O2 and slightly lower thermal efficiency with 19.8% intake O2
compared to diesel operation [61]. There was a gradual deterioration in
thermal efficiency with retarded injection timings later than −16° aTDC
due to the effect of fast burning. High cylinder pressure rise rates
limited the peak load around 8 bar IMEP. Butanol single-shot injection
in a modern CRDI engine at 6–8 bar IMEP presented comparable
efficiency with diesel operation without employing EGR [62].
Introduction of EGR at low levels helped to realize LTC through
delayed ignition which in turn resulted in improved efficiency [62,65].
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of ITE and maximum PRR between
butanol DI and PFI modes. Both techniques using butanol as fuel
without EGR showed slightly higher ITE as compared to diesel
operation, but butanol DI with 25% EGR presented higher ITE as
compared to butanol PFI with 60% EGR for the same rate of pressure
rise [63]. Investigations on a modified CRDI engine using butanol
HCCI proved that the load range can be extended by about 25% (upto
10 bar IMEP) over diesel HCCI with improved performance [64].
Multi-phase injections (two early pilot injections and a reduced main
injection) with medium EGR further improved the efficiency [65].
2.1.4. Summary
The above literature on usage of butanol reveal the following points:
• Neat butanol usage in CI engines results in decrease of soot and NOx
emissions simultaneously without deterioration in efficiency irre-
spective of the type of the engine used.
• Butanol is favorable for the implementation of the HCCI operation.
• Butanol shows stronger soot reduction capability and offers higher
fuel efficiency than biodiesel.
• Its oxygen content helps in suppressing soot formation, while its
greater LHV lowers cylinder temperature and thus reduces NOx
formation.
• Dilution by EGR is not required to achieve ultra-low NOx and smoke
emissions at low and middle loads. Use of moderate EGR further
reduces NOx emissions. Moreover, load range can be extended by
about 25% (upto 10 bar IMEP) over diesel HCCI with improved
performance.
• Huge drops in NOx emissions are obtained with butanol HCCI.
When compared to gasoline, butanol has good HCCI characteristics
but the operating range is slightly smaller.
• Diesel requires higher EGR for lowering NOx emissions but at low/
middle loads, butanol HCCI combustion requires no dilution to
realize very low NOx and smoke emissions.
• Neat butanol operation (under PFI and DI modes) present low NOx
1075
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
and soot emissions against diesel-DI operation.
• Butanol-PFI recorded inferior ITE compared to butanol-DI for the
same NOx and rate of pressure rise in the cylinder.
• High EGR is required with butanol-PFI mode for achieving low NOx
and smoke emissions and to control the PRR. Whereas, butanol-DI
needs late injection timing to regulate the PRR.
• Compared to diesel, butanol single shot injection is good from NOx
and soot emissions point of view but is difficult to control combus-
tion using injection timing. This can be rectified using EGR, but it
increases CO and UHC emissions.
• Pilot-main injections showed deteriorated NOx and smoke emis-
sions as compared to single-shot injection.
• Multiphase injections using medium EGR rates is beneficial to
control the combustion without affecting performance and resulting
in low exhaust emissions.
2.2. Butanol Bi-fuel injection
Bi-fuel injection is a technique available for utilizing low CN fuels
like butanol in the CI engines. In this method, a pre-decided amount of
butanol is injected into the engine inlet manifold by an injector coupled
to an additional fuel tank with separate controls and fuel lines. It has
gathered the attention of researchers as it offers several advantages
over alcohol/diesel blending strategy. High LHV of butanol results in
lowering the charge temperature which increase mixture density. Due
to this, excess charge enters the combustion chamber thus improving
engine power. This excess utilization of butanol increases the energy
share from renewable fuels as compared to its blending technique
[66,67]. It must be observed here that the blends with higher fractions
of butanol (more than 35% v/v) violate European norms-EN 590 owing
to their less lubricity [38]. It is possible to switch the engine operation
from bi-fuel mode to single fuel mode depending on the requirement. It
is also possible to regulate the butanol fraction to be injected based on
engine load conditions [69]. When compared to blends, dual-fuel
injection minimizes the evaporation losses [70].
The summary of the literature based on the effects of using butanol
PFI and diesel DI in multi-cylinder diesel engines [66,67,69,70] and
single-cylinder diesel engines [68] on combustion, emission and
performance parameters is presented below. The effects of butanol
PFI and biodiesel DI on combustion, emission and performance
parameters of a single-cylinder CI engine [71–73] are also discussed.
2.2.1. Combustion characteristics
PFI of butanol promotes premixed combustion phase which
increases with an increase in butanol fraction. This results in rapid
burning and smaller combustion duration, which leads to increased
heat release rates and higher cylinder pressure rise rates [66,67]. The
combination of high EGR ratio and increased butanol PFI percentage
leads to longer ignition delay due to which combustion starts aTDC,
causing slower burning rate and lower combustion pressure [66,68].
However, the locations of the peaks of cylinder pressure and HRR were
advanced with prolonged ignition delay and shortened combustion
duration by using advanced injection timing [68,73].
The combination of single-shot DI of peanut biodiesel and butanol
PFI without EGR was used to achieve LTC at idling speeds (800 rpm)
which decrease the premixed combustion phase drastically. Reduction
in ignition delay compared to baseline ULSD operation, occurrence of
premixed combustion before TDC and diffusion combustion after TDC
were observed. Moreover, higher loads on the engine and increased
butanol content drastically diminishes the premixed combustion phase
[71]. Comparable results were observed by employing combined modes
of butanol PFI and cottonseed bio-diesel DI through reactivity con-
trolled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion [72].
Liu et al. [73] investigated detailed combustion characteristics of
butanol PFI and soybean biodiesel DI dual-fuel-injection system
employing different EGR rates and premixed ratios in a CI engine
V.B. M et al.
using experiments and simulations. They adjusted injection timings to
keep 50% burn point between 2° CA and 10° CA aTDC. Retardation in
combustion phasing and reduction in PRR and cylinder pressure were
observed with an increase in premixed ratios and also with retarded
injection timings. While early injection presented a single-stage HTHR
(High Temperature Heat Release), late injection presented a two-stage
HTHR in which the first-stage HTHR was predominantly due to the
oxidation of biodiesel.
2.2.2. Emission characteristics
Butanol fumigation (50% v/v) presented 73% reduction in NOx
emissions, while butanol/diesel blends (50% v/v) presented only 61%
reduction compared to diesel operation at medium loads. Moreover,
butanol fumigation presented improved trade-off among smoke and
NOx emissions with unaffected efficiency at medium/high loads [67].
The combination of high EGR ratio and increased butanol PFI
percentage results in improved smoke and NOx emissions and
deteriorated UHC and CO emissions. Whereas, medium EGR pre-
sented improved NOx and smoke emissions with no observable change
in CO and UHC emissions as compared to the engine operation without
EGR at all butanol PFI fractions [66,68].
Advanced injection timing exhibited a significant decrease in the
tendency of the deterioration in UHC, CO and NOx emissions with
higher butanol PFI percentage, predominantly at low EGR ratios.
However, reductions in UHC, CO and soot emissions were reported
with a small penalty in NOx emissions using early injection timing at
high EGR ratios [68]. Reduction in particle number concentration
(PNC) and reduced geometric mean diameter (GMD) of particles were
observed with butanol fumigation. Further, it was also found that
butanol fumigation can meet the current emission standards, and all
specific emissions were in good agreement with the literature [70].
Simultaneously improved NOx (74%) and soot (98%) emissions at
3 bar IMEP were achieved by developing a clean idling technology
using single-shot DI of Peanut bio-diesel and low pressure butanol PFI
compared to baseline ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) operation.
However, there was an increase in UHC and CO emissions by 10–20
times owing to partly burned fuel during premixed combustion phase.
Moreover, butanol and biodiesel usage resulted in significantly in-
creased formaldehyde emissions in LTC regimes due to the oxygenated
characteristics of these fuels. This tendency was decreased with the
increase in load [71]. Similar outcomes were found with the arrange-
ment of early butanol PFI and cottonseed bio-diesel DI through RCCI
[72]. They reported reduction in peak temperature by 100 K and also
the drop in both NOx (35%) and soot (90%) emissions at 5.5 bar IMEP
and 1400 rpm when compared to the reference fuel (ULSD 2). Further,
NOx emissions were reduced to a total of 50% by adding 20% cooled
EGR.
Liu et al. [73] investigated the impacts of different pre-mixed ratios
(80%, 85% and 90%) and EGR rates (35% and 45%) at retarded and
advanced injection timings. They reported reduction in NOx emissions
with constant soot emissions at advanced injection compared to
retarded injection. Further, drop in both NOx and soot emissions with
escalated UHC and CO emissions were observed under increased EGR
rates. Higher UHC and CO emissions were also reported with the use of
higher premixed ratios.
2.2.3. Performance characteristics
Butanol fumigation (50% v/v) has worsened thermal efficiency at
low loads due to increased unburned fuel loss and cooling loss.
Whereas, trade-off between thermal efficiency and NOx emissions
was enriched at medium/high loads with butanol fumigation compared
to diesel operation [67]. Deterioration in ISFC and ITE were reported
with higher butanol concentration with low and medium EGR ratios.
However, moderate butanol PFI at high EGR ratio presented better ITE
with lowest ISFC [66,68]. Further improvement in engine performance
was reported with the combination of moderate EGR ratio (20%),
1076
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
moderate butanol PFI fraction (20%) and advanced injection timing (8°
CA BTDC) [68].
Slightly lower efficiency and significantly higher SFC compared to
baseline ULSD operation were observed with the combination of
single-shot DI of peanut biodiesel and butanol PFI without EGR was
at low loads during idling speed (800 rpm). However, comparable
values were obtained at the maximum load point during idling speed,
i.e. at 3 bar IMEP, 800 rpm [71]. Comparable outcomes were observed
with the arrangement of early PFI of butanol and cottonseed bio-diesel
DI through RCCI [72]. Liu et al. [73] explored the impacts of three pre-
mixed ratios at late and early injection timings and observed compar-
able ITE for premixed ratios of 80% and 85% and a reduction of about
0.6% in ITE for a premixed ratio of 90%. Little higher value of ITE was
reported with the early injection compared to that of late injection.
While both 35% and 40% EGR rates presented comparable ITE, 45%
EGR rate presented 1–2% reduction in ITE.
2.2.4. Summary
Based on the studies on butanol bi-fuel injection, the following
information can be inferred:
• There was an improvement in smoke and NOx emissions trade-off
with unaffected thermal efficiency at medium/high loads. Whereas,
unburned fuel loss and cooling loss have worsened thermal effi-
ciency at low loads with butanol fumigation method.
• Using dual-fuel injection, higher volume of butanol (upto 65% v/v)
can be substituted.
• Arrangement of butanol PFI, diesel DI and EGR effectively reduce
both soot and NOx emissions to ultra-low level.
• Higher butanol concentration increases UHC and CO emissions,
which lead to higher ISFC and lower ITE.
• Improved engine performance, slightly inferior NOx emissions and a
reduction in other regulated emissions were observed with advanced
injection of 5°CA before top dead center (bTDC). Use of high butanol
fraction (40% v/v) in combination with high EGR (45% v/v)
produced better emissions and efficiency.
• Deteriorated engine performance and high UHC and CO emissions
are common features with butanol-PFI.
• Though there are many common features between hydrous ethanol
and butanol, the latter can be considered as a better choice for
fumigation.
• Reduction in PNC and reduced GMD of particles were observed with
butanol fumigation.
• Both butanol PFI and butanol bi-fuel modes offered better trade-off
among NOx and soot against butanol/diesel blends. Higher LHV of
butanol depresses the NOx emissions and its oxygen content helps
in lowering smoke emissions through better combustion.
• Combination of biodiesel DI and butanol PFI develops a clean idling
technology for reducing NOx and smoke emissions simultaneously.
While addition of EGR further reduces NOx and smoke emissions, it
increases UHC and CO emissions.
2.3. Butanol and diesel blends
Lower polarity of butanol exhibits better miscibility with diesel and
hence it is best suited for blending with diesel [47]. The density and
viscosity of diesel decrease by adding butanol which affects the spray
characteristics, droplet size, atomization and combustion, injection
timing and injection pressure. Butanol has properties like higher SIT,
inferior CN and greater volatility which are favorable to LTC operation.
Therefore, a partly premixed combustion with low amounts of smoke
and NOx can be realized without using higher EGR rates [74–76].
Poorer volatility and SIT of butanol ensure fewer ignition problems at
low loads [77]. Butanol/diesel blends require no co-solvents or
blending agents due to their less hydrophilic nature. These blends
remain stable for several days owing to stable mixture formation ability
V.B. M et al.
of butanol [78]. The above reasons made the butanol/diesel blending to
be the most practical method and have attracted the research commu-
nity to work on these blends in CI engines.
The summary of the literature based on the effects of using butanol/
diesel blends in single-cylinder CI engines [35,51,52,79–82,85,86,93],
in four-cylinder diesel engines [50,75,76,83,87–90] and in six-cylinder
diesel engines [37,77,78,84,91,92] on combustion, emission and
performance characteristics is presented below. The effects of turbo-
charging [37,50,75,76,78,83,84,86,90–92], variable injection timing
[75–77,81,86,87] and EGR rates [75–77,79–81,86] on combustion,
emission and performance characteristics are also presented here.
2.3.1. Combustion characteristics
The existence of oxygen in butanol/diesel blends allowed the
engines running ‘leaner’ even in locally rich zones. Slightly delayed
fuel injection pressure diagrams, faster burning rates, higher cylinder
pressures, extended ignition delay periods and lesser exhaust gas
temperatures in the late expansion process were observed with these
blends, particularly with higher butanol content. Higher premixed
combustion part was also observed with increased butanol content due
to increased ignition delay, oxygen content of fuel and higher burner
velocities [51,52,79–82].
Increased EGR rates reduce cylinder pressures and increase igni-
tion delay and combustion period of butanol/diesel blend. Ignition
delay increases with excessive butanol fraction at the same EGR rate
due to lower CN and higher LHV [79–81]. The combined effect of high
EGR rate and high butanol fraction is then to increase ignition delay
which also increases the combustion rate. Considering these combined
effects retarded injection timings for lower EGR rates and advanced
injection timings for higher EGR rates were used to achieve LTC by
maintaining a fixed CA50 (50% burn point) timing at 8°CA after TDC.
While PRR and HRR increase with higher butanol fraction, they first
increase and then decrease with increase in EGR rates. It was observed
that butanol can be blended with diesel upto 40% under high EGR rates
upto 54% without combustion noise and engine load problems [80].
It has been reported that the combination of delayed injection
timing by 2° CA bTDC and 30% EGR rate using isobutanol/diesel (40%
v/v) blends further delays the ignition which promote better fuel-air
mixing resulting in late combustion with higher premixed combustion
part. This combined effect resulted in lower HRR and peak cylinder
pressures compared to diesel operation and isobutanol/diesel (40% v/
v) blend with 30% EGR rate at original injection timing [81]. Compared
to diesel operation, increased premixed heat releases and more stable
combustion cycles were reported by using butanol blends (upto 20% v/
v) in a light duty, turbocharged DI CI engine at different injection
timings and varying engine speeds between 1500 rpm to 3500 rpm.
Among all the blends, less combustion stability was observed with 10%
blend [50]. No appreciable change in the shape of HRR and cylinder
pressure diagrams was spotted with butanol/diesel blends compared to
that of diesel (Fig. 8). There was an insignificant upsurge in peak HRR
and peak cylinder pressure for an increase in butanol content due to
accelerated burning. 40% butanol blend caused an increase in peak
pressure by about 4.6% and 4.5% under maximum torque condition
(2000 rpm) and maximum power condition (4000 rpm) respectively.
This demonstrates that higher butanol fraction could be used in high
speed, turbo-charged DI diesel engines without any modifications [83].
Slightly higher peak cylinder pressure and HRR were observed in
contrast to diesel operation with the combination of 20% pilot injection
(varied between 20° and 60° CA bTDC at 10°CA interval) and 80%
main injection (at 3° CA bTDC) of biobutanol/diesel blends at all test
conditions. Retarded peak point crank angles of the cylinder pressure
and HRR were observed with higher butanol fractions [84].
Valentino et al. [75,76] explored the effect of butanol/diesel fuel
blends (upto 40% v/v) on a turbocharged, CRDI engine by changing the
intake oxygen concentration and injection parameters. While the
introduction of EGR extends the delay period, higher injection
1077
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
pressures and early injection provide more time for mixing before
combustion. Extension of ignition delay through better management of
oxygen concentration at intake (19% intake oxygen), lower injection
pressures (100–120 MPa) and earlier injection timing realized the
partial premixed combustion.
A series of tests conducted at 1200 and 1500 rpm and 3.56, 7.04
and 10.52 bar brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) on a turbo-
charged, heavy duty DI (HDDI) CI engine using butanol/diesel (8% and
16% v/v) blends showed slightly displaced injection pressure diagrams
and increased ignition delay against neat diesel operation. Peak
cylinder pressures and temperatures were dropped slightly in initial
combustion phases and got smoothened later [78,84]. On the contrary,
isobutanol blends presented slightly higher peak cylinder pressure and
HRR in contrast to diesel operation in similar engine type [37].
Compared to diesel operation, not much difference was observed in
the in-cylinder pressures for different butanol/diesel blends (upto 15%
v/v) in a common rail HDDI CI engine using multiple injections and
different EGR ratios. Whereas, higher premixed combustion heat
release was observed for higher butanol fraction in the blend [77].
2.3.2. Emission characteristics
Use of butanol/diesel blends (upto 24% v/v) in single-cylinder; high
speed CI engines under variable loads presented significant drop in
PM, a small drop in CO and NOx emissions and a considerable
escalation in UHC emissions at all loads in contrast to diesel operation.
These changes were observed to be higher with increase in butanol
percentage [51,52,82].
Tests conducted on a DI CI engine at full load employing iso-
butanol/diesel blends (upto 20% v/v) at speeds between 1200 and
2800 rpm showed improved NOx emissions and deteriorated UHC
emissions throughout the speed range. However, a slight increase in
CO emissions at lower speeds with higher isobutanol content and
significant reduction in CO emissions for all blended fuels at medium
and higher speeds were observed when compared to baseline operation
[35]. Iso-butanol/diesel blends (40% v/v) with 30% EGR rates in a CI
engine at uniform speed (1500 rpm) under high engine loads (5.3 bar
BMEP) presented simultaneous drop in NOx (from 1284 to 886 ppm)
and soot emissions (from 20.7% to 1.6%) compared to diesel operation.
There was an additional drop in NOx emissions (from 886 to 749 ppm)
with a negligible increase in soot emissions (from 1.6% to 1.9%) when
the injection timing was delayed by 2 °CA bTDC. Increasing trend of
UHC emissions was observed with higher isobutanol content and
higher EGR rates. Whereas, CO emissions deteriorated with high
EGR rates. The combination of 20% EGR rate, retarded injection
timing and 40% blend showed improved trade-off among NOx and soot
with no observable penalty on other regulated emissions [81].
While diesel operation with EGR showed significant drop in NOx
emissions with a great escalation in smoke emissions, butanol blends
with EGR (below its threshold level) presented a drastic reduction in
NOx emissions with no significant changes in smoke, UHC and CO
emissions. Beyond the threshold level of EGR, the values of UHC and
CO deteriorated intensely. Combination of 40% EGR and 40% butanol/
diesel blend was recommended to realize very low NOx and smoke
emissions [79]. Decreased proportion of nitrous oxide (NO) and
increased proportion of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were observed with
the blends (20% and 40% v/v) and this tendency was increased with an
increase in butanol proportion. NO fraction declines initially and then
increases with the increase of EGR rate while NO2 proportion has a
conflicting trend. While addition of butanol to diesel showed minute
impact on CO, UHC and smoke emissions at lower EGR rates,
increased fraction of butanol in the blend caused drop in soot, CO
and UHC emissions at rich EGR rates. The tendency of increased
proportion of methane (CH4) with LTC was found to be lowered with
higher butanol fraction in the blends [80].
The increase in PAH emissions were reported with the blends
containing more than 10% butanol in single-cylinder, high speed DI
V.B. M et al.
Fig. 8. Effect of Butanol fraction on HRR and Cylinder pressure [83].
diesel engines under variable loads. Increased organic carbon (OC),
decreased PM and elemental carbon (EC) emissions were also reported
with high butanol blends (15% and 20% v/v). There was a significant
reduction in the volatile and non-volatile particle concentrations with a
small decrease in geometric mean diameter (GMD) for blended fuels at
all loads compared to baseline ULSD operation. Whereas, 15% and
20% butanol blends presented more number of volatile and non-
volatile particles of diameter less than 15 nm at low loads [85]. The
PAHs are carcinogenic in nature and also the key components of soot
emissions. The formation of smoke particles is heavily influenced by
the reactions that these PAHs undergo. Both formation and final
amounts of smoke precursors reduce with an increase in butanol ratio.
Whereas, early injection timing results in early formation of smoke
precursors which escalates with an increase in intake pressure [86].
Compared to diesel operation, use of butanol 5–20% v/v) blended
with diesel in a turbocharged, DICI engine presented improved
emissions under medium and high loads, particularly at 3000 rpm.
Significant increase in CO and UHC emissions upto 25% loads at
3000 rpm and significant increase in UHC emissions throughout the
load range at 1500 rpm were reported [50]. Investigations on the use of
higher butanol fractions (20% to 40% v/v) in a turbo-charged, high
speed DI CI engine presented slightly different observations at max-
imum torque condition (2000 rpm) and rated power condition
(4000 rpm). There was a noteworthy drop in soot emissions at all
loads with less smoke being with the use of higher butanol blend.
Whereas, the remaining emissions were altered with loads.
Deteriorated CO and UHC emissions and improved NOx emissions
were observed with larger butanol proportion at low loads. On the
contrary, a different trend was observed at higher loads [83].
1078
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
Biobutanol/diesel blends (10% and 20% by mass) with 20% pilot
injection and 80% main injection presented lower NOx, soot, CO
emissions and higher UHC emissions against diesel operation at all test
conditions [87].
Slight decrease in NOx and huge drop in soot emissions were
observed with 20% and 40% butanol/diesel blends compared to neat
diesel mode by enabling partially premixed LTC with early start of
injection (SOI), modest injection pressures (100–120 MPa) and 19%
intake oxygen. High combustion noise was also informed with larger
butanol content (40%) in the blends, which can be reduced by timing
the injection more towards TDC [75,76].
Drive-cycle analysis showed an increase in UHC and CO emissions
with larger butanol content (40%) in the blends for the urban drive
cycles. There was no significant effect on NOx emissions with 20%
isobutanol blend but they decreased with 40% butanol blend. Whereas,
opposite trends in the results were observed for the highway drive
cycle. Further, a reduction of 80% in filter smoke number was also
detected for 40% butanol blend [88]. Ballesteros et al. [89] investigated
the carbonyl emissions of a DI CI engine in four modes of the European
driving cycle using ethanol and butanol blended with diesel (10% and
16% v/v respectively). They found that carbonyl emissions are lesser
with butanol blends compared to that of ethanol blends. Choi et al. [90]
performed European Stationary Cycle (ESC) tests to explore the effect
of butanol fraction (10, 20% v/v) in a turbocharged, common rail CIDI
engine using cooled EGR. It was discovered that 20% blends contribute
toluene, benzene emissions which activate PAH development. Decrease
in NOx at all loads and an increase in NO2 with increased butanol
content was observed. A decrease in total mass of PM in the range of
70–90%, 60–80% and 30–60% was also observed. Formaldehyde
V.B. M et al.
emissions, UHC and CO emissions were increased at low loads for all
blends. 5% blend was suggested by this study for low emissions of PM
and also for low PM mass concentration.
Rakopoulos et al. [78,84] observed higher drop in smoke and NOx
emissions with larger butanol fraction in the blends against neat diesel
operation. Significant decrease in soot and small reduction in NOx
emissions, almost unchanged CO emissions and significant increase in
UHC emissions were also observed. These findings are similar to those
of earlier studies [51,52,82]. Whereas, isobutanol and diesel blends
(upto 15% by volume) in similar engine type presented slightly
different trend. While 5% blend showed a slight reduction in all
regulated emissions, 10% and 15% blends showed significant reduction
in NOx, soot, and CO emissions and a minor increase in UHC
emissions throughout the operation against diesel fuel operation [37].
Yao et al. [77] experimentally studied the effect of butanol quantity
(upto 15% v/v) in a HDDI, common rail CI engine using multiple
injection strategies and different EGR ratios keeping NOx emissions
constant at 2.0 g/kWh and found that butanol addition to diesel has no
major influence on NOx. All injection strategies exhibited prominent
improvement in soot emissions using more butanol fraction in the
blends. Pilot injection showed deterioration in CO emissions with
reduced soot. They observed that triple injection of blended fuel with
more butanol fraction as the best technique for the maximum reduc-
tion of smoke emissions.
During a transient test cycle, starting process contributes most to
overall emissions. The control of these transient emissions is essen-
tial for meeting the strict emission norms. Rakopoulos et al. [91]
examined the establishment of smoke, NO and combustion noise
radiation on a turbo-charged CI engine. They used neat diesel,
biodiesel/diesel blend (30% v/v) and butanol/diesel blend (25% v/
v) for conducting a variety of starting tests. The major findings are: (i)
turbocharger lag was the chief contributor to all preliminary pro-
blems and main source of noxious waste for both blends, (ii) low
cranking speed showed a severe impact on combustion noise devel-
opment, (iii) compared to butanol blend, biodiesel blend mostly
affects the combustion behavior and stability. Also, more stable
combustion was found at higher idling speeds, (iv) while butanol
blend decreases the smoke opacity significantly (−69% in peak value),
biodiesel blend increases it (+40% in peak value), (v) compared to
neat diesel operation, biofuel blends exhibited more NO emissions.
The increase in peak NO values were 51% and 30% for butanol and
biodiesel blends respectively, and (vi) both blends showed insignif-
icant impact on the transient performance and the overall combus-
tion noise radiation. In another study, same research group [92]
investigated NO and smoke formation mechanisms at different
accelerating conditions with the same engine set-up. They reported
improved smoke and NO emissions using butanol blend. The reduc-
tion in smoke opacity was observed with both butanol and biodiesel
blends but the peak values were obtained with the butanol blend.
While NO emissions were increased with biodiesel blends, they were
decreased with butanol blends compared to neat diesel operation.
2.3.3. Performance characteristics
Marginally higher brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), little
hike in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) and slightly lesser exhaust gas
temperatures (EGT) were observed with all butanol blends (upto 24%
v/v) at all loads in contrast to diesel operation. Butanol blends seemed
to be attractive from higher BTE and lower emissions (except UHC)
point of view which could be attributed to higher premixed combustion
part [51,52,82]. Campos-Fernández et al. [36] performed the tests on a
Perkins DI CI engine using butanol/diesel blends (10% to 30% v/v) and
compared the engine performance with that of baseline operation. They
concluded that these blends can safely be used in CI engines with no
modifications. The results showed the fuel-borne oxygen (with butanol
content upto 20%) of the blends offsets the reduced calorific values and
helps in achieving better BSFC throughout the operation as compared
1079
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
to diesel. There was an improvement in BTE with an increase in
butanol content which could be attributed to better combustion
efficiency, rapid HRR, increased premixed combustion phase, and
decreased heat losses owing to the presence of oxygen, inferior CN,
and lower boiling point of butanol.
In contrast to diesel operation, all isobutanol/diesel blends (upto
20% v/v) showed poor efficiency and reduction in engine power at low
and medium speeds. While blends upto 10% isobutanol content
showed slightly higher engine power and efficiency at higher speeds,
blends with more than 10% isobutanol content showed poor perfor-
mance at all speeds. Increase in BSFC and reduction in exhaust gas
temperature for all blends were observed throughout the speed range
(1200 and 2800 rpm) with the lowest change for 5% blends and highest
change for 20% blends which could be attributed to the lower energy
value of isobutanol [35]. Whereas, isobutanol/diesel blends (40% v/v)
presented a poor performance compared to that of diesel when used in
slow speed CI engine at various loads and speeds. It was declared that
isobutanol addition upto 30% helps in accomplishing good perfor-
mance [93]. Investigations on a single-cylinder CI engines at uniform
speed (1500 rpm) and high engine loads (5.3 bar BMEP) also revealed
that all isobutanol/diesel blends (upto 40% v/v) present poor BTE and
lower exhaust temperatures with and without EGR. Delayed injection
timing by 2° CA BTDC further deteriorates the BTE and exhaust
temperatures [81].
While diesel operation with EGR showed significant reduction in
NOx emissions with a great deterioration in ITE, butanol blends with
EGR (below its threshold level) presented an improved ITE. Beyond the
threshold level of EGR, the ITE deteriorated intensely. Combination of
medium EGR rates (about 40%) and 40% butanol/diesel (v/v) blend
was recommended to achieve higher ITE while maintaining very low
NOx and smoke emissions [79]. Gradual decrease in ITE was observed
with increase in EGR rate for all the fuels. Blended fuels present better
ITE as compared to diesel due to reduced combustion period and a
little increase (less than 1%) in ITE was observed with increase in
butanol fraction from 20% to 40% (v/v) [80].
Slightly deteriorated BSFC and a significantly improved BTE were
reported with butanol/diesel blends (20–40% v/v) in four-cylinder,
turbo-charged, high speed DI diesel engines compared to neat diesel
fuel operation under rated power (4000 rpm) and maximum torque
conditions (2000 rpm). Moreover, higher values were observed with
higher butanol content in the blend under maximum torque condition
[83]. These results are in-line with those of single-cylinder and six-
cylinder engines operated with butanol/diesel blends [51,52,84].
Biobutanol/diesel blends with 20% pilot injection and 80% main
injection presented longer ignition delay periods, higher ISFC, higher
BTE and lower EGTs in contrast to baseline operation at all test
conditions [84]. The combined effects of early SOI, modest injection
pressure (100–120 MPa) and 19% intake oxygen concentration in a
CRDI diesel engine using larger butanol fraction in the blends (upto
40% v/v) which gave best NOx and smoke emissions have deteriorated
BSFC and BTE compared to baseline operation [75,76].
Urban drive-cycle analysis on a turbocharged engine showed higher
SFC and decrease in vehicle drivability with higher butanol content.
Whereas, opposite trend in the results were observed for the highway
drive cycle as compared to urban drive cycle [88]. Rakopoulos et al.
[84] observed deteriorated BSFC and improved BTE using higher
butanol quantity in the blends against neat diesel operation at all loads.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of BSFC and BTE with BMEP for two butanol
blends and diesel at two different speeds. These findings are similar to
those of earlier studies [36,51,52,82]. On the contrary, deterioration in
both BSFC and BTE was observed in similar engine with higher
isobutanol quantity in the blends against neat diesel operation [37].
Compared to diesel operation, not much difference was observed in
BSFC for different butanol/diesel blends (upto 15% v/v) in a six-
cylinder, HDDI, common rail CI engine with multiple injections and
different EGR ratios [77].
V.B. M et al.
Fig. 9. Variation of BSFC and BTE with BMEP for Butanol blends and Diesel at different speeds [84].
2.3.4. Summary
Based on the studies mentioned above, the following information
can be inferred:
• It is possible to replace diesel upto 40% v/v (through blending with
butanol) for use in CI engines with no engine alterations.
• Increased butanol content resulted in a lower CN blends which in
turn increase the delay period. This enhances the premixed combus-
tion phase due to which peak HRR and peak in-cylinder pressure
increases slightly.
• Increased butanol quantity in the blends results in improvement of
BTE due to higher burning velocity and deterioration of BSFC owing
to inferior calorific value of butanol.
• Dominance of inferior CV and higher LHV results in low combustion
temperatures during low and medium loads. Whereas, dominance of
premixed combustion results in high combustion temperatures
during full load conditions. So, NOx emissions may shoot up or
drop based on operational parameters and specific engine type.
• Owing to superior oxygen content and lesser carbon content
compared to diesel, soot emissions decreased consistently with
higher butanol quantities. The presence of oxygen in locally rich
zones enhanced diffusion phase combustion thereby lowering soot
emissions.
• Larger LHV of butanol blends results in low temperatures and in
turn unhurried vaporization and poor air-fuel mixing. Lower
viscosity of butanol blends results in amplified spray penetration
1080
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
and hence fuel deposition on walls. Therefore, higher butanol
fractions in the blends increase CO and UHC emissions.
• When blended with diesel, both ethanol and butanol resulted in
higher carbonyl compound emissions compared to diesel. However,
butanol/diesel blends show superior carbonyl compound emissions
compared to ethanol/diesel blends.
• PAH emissions increased with 10% and higher butanol/diesel
blends. Increased butanol content also resulted in lower EC emis-
sions and higher OC emissions.
• The combustion temperature is lowered owing to higher LHV of
butanol and also by using more EGR fraction which in turn
decreases the NOx emissions besides prolonging ignition delay
period.
• Also, ignition delay can be extended by EGR and retarded injection
timing which provide ample time for better mixing of air and fuel.
This results in lowering the overall combustion temperature which
in turn results in suppressing the smoke and NOx formation.
• LTC results in a simultaneous drop of NOx and soot emissions
through thorough premixing of air-fuel mixture which burns at low
temperature.
• High EGR rates decrease the engine performance by deteriorating
combustion which results in increased UHC and CO emissions.
Retarded injection timing effects in decrease of BTE and increase in
smoke concentration. These bad effects can effectively be tackled by
using butanol due to its higher self-ignition temperature, lower
cetane number and higher volatility.
V.B. M et al.
2.4. Butanol and biodiesel/vegetable oil blends
Though vegetable oils have comparable energy content with that of
diesel, their long-term use in diesel engines poses several operational
and durability problems due to their disadvantages like inferior CN,
poorer volatility, higher viscosity and pour point [15–17,94–96].
Biodiesel has several advantages like higher flash point, minimal sulfur
content, good lubricity, oxygen content, higher CN, and higher
aromatic content in contrast to diesel. However, they have some
disadvantages which include lower calorific value, lower oxidation
stability, lower volatility, higher viscosity, higher pour point and
hygroscopic tendency which limit their use to some extent either as
straight fuels or biodiesel/diesel blends in CI engines [11,15–17,95–
97]. On the other hand, butanol has got some good properties like
oxygen content, less hygroscopic tendency, higher miscibility, better-
blending stability, lower viscosity, lower pour point and lower density
rendering it preferable for blending with biodiesel and for use in CI
engines [11,82,95–97]. It has been reported that mixing of renewable
fuels eliminate the dependence on a single fuel and also offer improved
emissions [98]. The summary of the literature based on the effects of
using butanol blended with vegetable oil/biodiesel in single-cylinder DI
diesel engines is presented briefly here.
2.4.1. Combustion characteristics
Improved viscosity and distillation characteristics of rapeseed oil
were observed when butanol was added to it upto 29% by volume [94].
The addition of butanol to neat vegetable oil/biodiesel reduces the CN
and viscosity of the blends which lead to better mixing and higher
premixed combustion [95–97]. Lower peak HRR and cylinder pres-
sures, delayed injection pressure diagrams, higher cylinder pressures
and temperatures during expansion were observed for 20% butanol
blended with biodiesel (or seed oil) compared to neat biodiesel (or seed
oil) operation [96]. Use of neat rapeseed methyl ester (RME) and its
blends with butanol (8% and 16% v/v) resulted in higher peak cylinder
pressures against ULSD operation due to the lower compressibility of
biodiesel, and inferior CN, higher LHV of butanol. The addition of
hydrogen further increased premixed combustion due to its faster
flame speed [97]. Yilmaz et al. [98] explored the effects of cooking oil
biodiesel/butanol blends (5,10% and 20% v/v) in a twin-cylinder,
indirect injection (IDI) CI engine under varying load conditions.
Butanol blended fuels present lower exhaust temperatures at all loads
owing to their inferior CN and lower energy density compared to those
of neat diesel and biodiesel fuels.
2.4.2. Emission characteristics
A linear decline in soot emissions with the increase in oxygen
content of the blend was observed when butanol was added to neat
rapeseed oil upto 29% by volume. Moreover, NOx emissions remain
unaffected at high loads with the addition of butanol [94]. Significant
drop in smoke intensity, a small drop in NOx emissions and a
considerable decline in CO and UHC emissions were observed with
the use of all neem-oil/butanol blends (upto 20% v/v) compared to
those of neat neem-oil. Whereas, a huge reduction in NOx emissions, a
noteworthy growth in UHC emissions, slightly deteriorated CO and
smoke emissions were observed compared to diesel operation [95].
Almost similar results were reported for cottonseed oil/butanol blend
(20% v/v). They reported significantly higher UHC emissions against
neat vegetable oil operation and slightly lower smoke opacity against
neat diesel operation for vegetable oil/butanol blend. Whereas, cotton-
seed biodiesel/butanol blend (20% v/v) presented a significant im-
provement in all regulated emissions compared to those of diesel [96].
Drastic drop in CO and soot emissions with a minor penalty in UHC
emissions were observed with butanol/biodiesel blends. Hydrogen
addition enhanced the combustion and also helped to neutralize the
deterioration in UHC emissions and further reduced the CO and PM
emissions with a penalty in the NOx emissions. It was also shown that
1081
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
use of EGR can effectively control the NOx emissions with no penalty
on PM emissions [97].
Yilmaz et al. [98] reported a decline in CO, UHC emissions, and
upsurge in NOx emissions as load increases for all fuels used. There
was an increase in CO and UHC emissions with higher butanol fraction
upto 50% load. However, a slight change in UHC emissions and
insignificant change in CO emissions were detected beyond 50% load
among the fuels. While 20% butanol blend presented highest CO and
UHC emissions upto 50% load, neat biodiesel presented lowest CO and
UHC emissions at all loads. Moreover, 20% butanol blend showed
similar CO and UHC emissions as those of diesel at medium and high
loads. They also observed a drop in NOx emissions with higher butanol
fraction (upto 20% v/v) at all loads. While neat biodiesel showed
highest NOx emissions at all loads, 20% butanol blend showed a slight
reduction in NOx emissions in contrast to baseline operation except at
high loads.
2.4.3. Performance characteristics
Unchanged values of brake specific energy consumption (BSEC)
were reported with the addition of butanol (upto 29% v/v) to neat
rapeseed oil at high loads compared to baseline operation [94].
Whereas butanol addition to neem oil showed deterioration in BTE
and BSEC compared to those of diesel, but an improvement in BTE and
BSEC compared to those of neat neem-oil. This change in BTE and
BSEC was more evident with the use of high butanol fraction (20% v/v)
in the blends [95]. Both cottonseed oil/butanol and cottonseed
biodiesel/butanol blends with 20% volume fraction of butanol pre-
sented deteriorated BSFC and improved BTE against neat diesel
operation, but they showed improved BSFC and BTE compared to
neat vegetable oil or biodiesel operations [96]. Butanol/RME blends
showed deteriorated ISFC and similar ITE compared to both biodiesel
and ULSD operation. A small reduction in engine efficiency was
reported with the addition of hydrogen due to reduced volumetric
efficiency of the engine [97]. Increased values of BSFC with butanol
blended fuels and biodiesel against diesel operation were witnessed by
Yilmaz et al. [98] which is in good agreement with the literature.
2.4.4. Summary
Based on the research works discussed above, the following
information can be inferred:
• Butanol can be added upto 29% in neat biodiesel without any engine
modifications.
• Butanol addition improves viscosity and distillation characteristics
of biodiesel. This leads to better combustion of the blends which
results in improved BTE, and better emissions of soot, CO and UHC.
• Inferior CN of butanol leads to increased delay period and hence
higher HRR during premixed combustion phase.
• Butanol addition lowers the calorific value of the blends which
deteriorates BSFC.
• Enriched combustion with higher butanol fraction increases the in-
cylinder temperatures which have a negative effect on NOx emis-
sions. Whereas, larger LHV of butanol decreases the in-cylinder
temperatures due to which NOx emissions decrease slightly.
• Butanol addition (upto 20% v/v) to biodiesel results in improved
regulated emissions and higher BTE with a penalty in BSFC
compared to diesel operation.
• Hydrogen addition enhanced the combustion and helped to reduce
UHC, CO and PM emissions with a penalty in the NOx emissions.
Use of EGR can effectively control this increase in NOx emissions
with no penalty on PM emissions.
2.5. Butanol ternary blends
Vegetable oils, biodiesel, and alcohols are very important alter-
native fuels for use in CI engines because they can be produced from
V.B. M et al.
biomass. High viscosities of vegetable oils and biodiesel limit their
direct use in CI engines. The microemulsion is the most commonly
used method to mix vegetable oils or biodiesel with alcohols to reduce
their viscosity. Compared to lower alcohols, butanol is advantageous
for microemulsion as a solvent due to its higher cetane number, lower
corrosion risk, lower polarity and higher calorific value [51,98]. Also, it
is known from literature survey that 20% biodiesel/diesel blends are
most acceptable alternate fuel blends for use in CI engines with no
engine alterations, particularly due to renewable nature of biodiesel
and capability of reducing UHC, CO, and smoke emissions. On the
other hand, the problems like higher BSFC, lower power, and higher
NOx emissions limit their use in CI engines to some extent [15–17]. To
overcome these difficulties and also to increase renewable fuels
fraction, many researchers have worked on using n-butanol as additive
to biodiesel/diesel blends [99–103] and vegetable oil/diesel blends
[104–109]. It was found that more than 50% replacement of diesel is
possible by blending it with different biofuels and these blends could be
a favorable substitute for use in CI engines for improved performance
and emissions without any engine modifications [103,104,106]. The
best advantage of these blends is that the attainment of more similar
properties of diesel fuel by offsetting the disadvantages of the greater
viscosity of biodiesel (or vegetable oil) and the inferior CN of butanol
[100,102]. The summary of the literature based on the effects of using
butanol ternary blends in single-cylinder DI CI engines is presented
briefly here.
2.5.1. Combustion characteristics
While butanol/biodiesel/diesel ternary blends (upto 40% diesel
replacement) presented slightly lower exhaust temperatures compared
to diesel fuel operation, they showed little higher values compared to
B20 operation at a uniform speed of 2000 rpm. Higher exhaust
temperatures were observed with an increase in butanol quantity in
the blends, particularly at higher loads. This could be attributed to the
larger fraction of premixed heat release owing to the better volatility
and smaller CN of butanol [99]. When compared to diesel and B20
blends, ternary blends showed better fuel efficiency owing to their
higher oxygen quantity and lower viscosity. B20 exhibited higher peak
in-cylinder pressure and temperature than diesel owing to its better
CN. However, butanol addition decreases the peak in-cylinder pres-
sures and temperatures because of retarded SOC (Start of Combustion)
and higher LHV [102].
Palm oil is most commonly used for cooking purpose throughout
the world owing to its cheaper cost and is usually dumped outside after
use. It is possible to reuse this used palm oil in CI engines without any
modifications by blending it with butanol and diesel thereby saving a
large amount of diesel without compromising on food security.
Improved fuel properties, smooth operation without knocking, in-
creased HRR, lower peak cylinder pressures and temperatures (at high
loads), and lower exhaust gas temperatures were observed with these
ternary blends against diesel operation. Reduction in EGT and an
increase in heat release rate were more pronounced with the increased
butanol fraction in the blend owing to its high LHV, fuel-borne oxygen
and inferior heating value of butanol [104]. These outcomes are in good
agreement with those of other researchers [35,52,89,102].
Reduction in exhaust gas temperatures was also reported with the
works carried out by researchers using various butanol/vegetable oil/
diesel ternary blends in a four-cylinder, HDDI, turbo-charged CI
engine [105–108]. It was witnessed that the higher butanol proportion
decreases the CN of ternary blends which can be improved by adding
CN improvers like 2-ethylhexylnitrate [106].
2.5.2. Performance characteristics
Butanol/biodiesel/diesel ternary blends (upto 40% diesel replace-
ment) exhibited a slight escalation in BSFC and BTE compared to those
of B20 operation with this increase being more significant with higher
butanol fraction in the blends. The improvement in BTE could be
1082
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
credited to the improved combustion because of more fuel-borne
oxygen in butanol ternary blends compared to B20 fuel. Further, they
presented deterioration in both BSFC and BTE compared to diesel
operation throughout the load range at 2000 rpm. The increase in
BSFC could be attributed to the loss in heating value of the ternary
blends compared to B20 and diesel fuels [99].
Tests conducted under full load condition by varying the engine
speeds between 1200 and 2400 rpm using butanol/biodiesel/diesel
ternary blends (20% diesel replacement) reported almost same brake
power, significant improvement in BSFC and BTE throughout the
operating range against neat diesel operation. Compared to B20 blend,
ternary blend (5% butanol +15% palm biodiesel +80% diesel) exhibited
significantly improved brake power, BSFC and BTE throughout the
operating range. Further, B20 blend showed better BTE, deteriorated
brake power and BSFC throughout the operating range in contrast to
diesel [101]. The edible nature of palm oil forced the same research
group [102] to continue their work using the non-edible nature
biodiesel in a four-cylinder turbocharged IDI CI engine at constant
load and variable speed. They used 20% jatropha biodiesel +80% diesel
(J20D80), 5% n-butanol +15% jatropha biodiesel +80% diesel
(B5J15D80) and 10% n-butanol +10% jatropha biodiesel +80% diesel
(B10J10D80) on volume basis. All the blends showed deteriorated
BSFC and BTE (except at 1000 rpm) against diesel operation. However,
there was an improvement in these values with an increase in butanol
fraction. B10J10D80 blend presented 3.9% reduction in BSFC, 5.3%
increase in BTE on average compared to J20D80 operation.
Po-Ming Yang et al. [103] used the ternary blends of isobutanol
(10% v/v), waste cooking oil biodiesel (upto 40% v/v) and diesel in CI
engine running under idle mode. They reported higher BSFC for all
ternary blends against diesel operation with this increase being more
significant with higher biodiesel fraction.
Sharon et al. [104] used the ternary blends of butanol (5, 10, 15%
v/v), used palm oil (35%, 40% and 45% v/v)and diesel in CI engine
running under variable loads at a uniform speed of 1500 rpm. They
observed deteriorated BSFC and BTE for all ternary blends against
diesel operation. However, there was an improvement in these values
with higher butanol fractions. These outcomes are in good agreement
with the those of other investigators [51,99,102]. Similar observations
were found with the use of other butanol/vegetable oil/diesel ternary
blends in a four-cylinder, HDDI, turbo-charged CI engine [105–108].
Also, increased addition of cotton oil to the blends improved the BTE,
BSFC and EGTs compared to those of n-butanol addition. This could be
credited to the higher CV and lower LHV of cotton oil than butanol
[106].
2.5.3. Emission characteristics
Butanol/biodiesel/diesel ternary blends (upto 40% diesel replace-
ment) exhibited a noteworthy decline in soot, CO and UHC emissions
over the complete range of engine tests against using diesel and B20
fuels. Though there was a reduction in NOx emissions with all ternary
blends throughout the load range in contrast to diesel and B20 fuel
operations, the effect was more significant at high engine loads and also
with higher butanol fraction [99]. Slightly different results were
reported with the use of 5% butanol +15% palm biodiesel +80% diesel
ternary blend in contrast to diesel fuel, and B20 blend under high loads
and varying speeds. There was a substantial drop in CO and NO
emissions throughout the operating range against the remaining two
test fuels. While B20 blend presented significantly improved UHC
emissions throughout the operating range, ternary blend showed
slightly deteriorated UHC emissions at higher speeds as compared to
diesel operation [101].
Ternary blends using non-edible jatropha biodiesel (10%) and
butanol (10%) presented significantly lower CO and soot emissions,
comparable NO emissions and marginally higher UHC emissions as
compared to diesel operation throughout the operating range. However,
this ternary blend showed 8.8% reduction in NO emissions, 30.7% lower
V.B. M et al.
CO emissions, 27% decrease in smoke emissions and 48% increase in
UHC emissions on average compared to B20 operation [102].
Significant reduction in regulated emissions and carbonyl compound
emissions (CBCs) were reported with 10% isobutanol +40% waste
cooking oil biodiesel +50% diesel ternary blend against diesel operation.
This decrease in CBCs could be attributed to the greater CN, larger fuel-
borne oxygen and the greater lubricity of ternary blends [103].
Ternary blends of butanol (5, 10, 15% v/v), used palm oil (35%,
40% and 45% v/v) and diesel were tested in CI engine running under
variable loads at a uniform speed of 1500 rpm. Blends with more than
10% butanol have presented a slight reduction in average CO, NOx
emissions, significantly reduced average soot and CO2 emissions, and a
significant deterioration in UHC emissions against diesel operation.
Use of cetane improvers and catalytic converters were suggested by the
authors to reduce the increased UHC emissions with the use of ternary
blends for making them as better alternatives for partial replacement of
diesel from CI engines [104]. Whereas, 10% butanol +20% cotton oil
+70% diesel ternary blend in a HDDI, turbo-charged CI engine
presented increase in NOx and UHC emissions (5.4% and 45.7%
respectively), reduction in CO2 and CO emissions (1.4% and 18.5%)
on average against diesel operation [105].
It was observed that the addition of cotton oil and butanol to diesel
amplified the formation of NO and NO2 emissions. But, increased
addition of butanol to the ternary blends drastically decreased the
formation of CO and UHC emissions compared to that of cotton oil
addition. Ternary blends of butanol (60%), cotton oil (10, 20%) and
diesel (20, 30%) showed a noteworthy growth in NOx emissions against
diesel operation [106]. Same research group [107,108] explored the
impacts of using equal volume fractions of mixed vegetable oils (20%),
and various crude vegetable oils (20%) in the ternary blends containing
10% butanol and 70% diesel in a four-cylinder, HDDI, turbo-charged
CI engine. They found deterioration in the average CO and NOx
emissions, improvement in CO2 and UHC emissions against diesel
operation.
In order to investigate the optimum ternary blend ratio correspond-
ing to improved BTE and exhaust emissions, Atmanli et al. [109]
recently focused on in-depth mathematical optimization of butanol-
cotton oil-diesel ternary blends based on the engine operational
conditions. Three optimization studies were conducted on a four-
cylinder, turbocharged, DI CI engine at 2200 rpm (which corresponds
to the maximum brake torque) using RSM (Response Surface
Methodology) by keeping the emissions fixed at maximum possible
value as per emission standards. The three optimum blends that were
determined mathematically are: Optimum blend 1 (34.75% butanol
+3.55% cotton oil +61.7% diesel v/v) which correspond to BTE and
exhaust emissions; Optimum blend 2 (28.7% butanol +6.8% cotton oil
+64.5% diesel v/v) which corresponds to BTE, exhaust emissions and
brake power; and Optimum blend 3 (23.1% butanol +11.4% cotton oil
+65.5% diesel v/v) corresponds to BTE, BSFC, BMEP, brake torque,
exhaust emissions and brake power. They reported a substantial drop
in NOx, CO and UHC emissions (4%, 33%, and 79% respectively) for
more or less same engine performance compared to diesel operation.
2.5.4. Summary
The studies discussed above reveal that butanol addition to the
biodiesel/diesel blends (or) vegetable oil/diesel blends leads to the
following effects against neat diesel operation from the view point of
emissions and performance.
• It is possible to use high viscosity biofuels with the blends of diesel
and butanol to replace upto 50% of diesel by blending it with
different biofuels and these blends could be the promising alter-
natives for use in CI engines without any engine modifications.
• The problems like higher BSFC, lower power, and higher NOx
emissions with the use of best possible biodiesel/diesel blends (20%
replacement of diesel) against diesel operation can effectively be
1083
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
tackled with ternary blends through the higher proportion of
renewable nature biofuels (upto 50% replacement of diesel).
• Incremental addition of n-butanol presented a chronological drop in
the viscosity and density of biodiesel/diesel blend. However, n-
butanol addition also decreased the in-cylinder pressures and
temperatures due to retarded SOC and higher LHV.
• While butanol addition to diesel/biodiesel blends showed a positive
effect on performance and emissions of CO, NOx and soot, it showed
a negative effect on UHC emissions.
• 10% isobutanol +40% biodiesel +50% diesel presented higher BSFC
and lower regulated emissions and carbonyl compound emissions
compared to diesel operation at the idling condition.
• 15% butanol +35% used palm oil +50% diesel on volume basis
presented better performance and improved emissions (except UHC
emissions) compared to diesel operation. This increase in UHC
emissions can be tackled by using cetane improvers and catalytic
converters.
• Butanol addition to the vegetable oil/diesel blends improved the
phase stability (upto 60 days) and low-temperature behavior of
ternary blends.
• It is possible to replace 80% of diesel with renewable biofuels (60%
n-butanol +20% cotton oil) which showed a drastic improvement in
CO and UHC emissions with a significant deterioration in NOx
emissions compared to diesel operation.
• Optimization techniques like RSM can be used to find the best blend
ratios for use in engines without any engine modifications for
improved performance and low exhaust emissions.
3. Pentanol usage in CI engines
Pentanol is a straight chain alcohol with 5-carbon atoms. In
contrast to the production of short chain alcohols, pentanol production
involves energy in small quantities [14]. Natural microbial fermenta-
tion of engineered micro-organisms and biosynthesis from glucose are
the common methods employed for the production of pentanol. It can
be preferable to use pentanol in esterification reaction during biodiesel
production due to its superior fat solubility than methanol [110].
Pentanol has a higher energy density (about 80% of diesel) and less
hygroscopic nature against methanol and ethanol. It also has better CN,
lower SIT, and higher FP than methanol, ethanol and butanol [111–
114]. Pentanol is a good corrosion inhibitor and doesn’t affect the fuel
lines [113]. Apart from these, its diesel-like viscosity and LHV, its
closer chemically correct air/fuel ratio to diesel made this fuel as a
potential candidate for blending with diesel (or biodiesel) to be used in
CI engines [111–114,116]. Pentanol/biodiesel blends usually have
lower viscosities, higher oxygen content and better ignition quality
which help in achieving better atomization and combustion [116,117].
Pentanol blends have better blend stability and show no phase
separation [113–115,118]. Also, these blends have CFPP (Cold Flow
Plugging Point) properties within the EN 116 norms [19]. Some
prominent investigations on the impacts of using pentanol as a direct
fuel [111], as a blending component with diesel [36,49,112–115] and
as a ternary blend with diesel/biodiesel [116–118] on combustion,
emission and performance parameters of CI engines are discussed in
the following sections.
3.1. Combustion characteristics
Investigations using single-injection pentanol in a single-cylinder
DI CI engine at constant load and speed (6 bar IMEP and 1600 rpm)
presented declined maximum HRR and lower maximum PRR against
single-injection diesel. A twofold increase in delay period and a
significant decrease in combustion duration were also observed for
constant 50% burn point at 14° CA BTDC. These factors lead to more
steady premixed combustion resulting in moderate, chronological heat
release with better knock resistance against diesel operation [111].
V.B. M et al.
Wei et al. [112] investigated the effect of using pentanol/diesel
blends (upto 30% v/v) in a four-cylinder DI CI engine at low, medium
and high loads and compared the results with baseline operation. All
blended fuels exhibited similar pressure profiles and heat release
curves and increased ignition delay periods at all loads. Retarded
ignition timings and delay in the occurrence of peak pressures, peak
heat release rates (away from TDC) were detected with higher pentanol
fraction owing to the lower CN of pentanol. The slight decrease in peak
cylinder pressure and unchanged CA50 timing (crank angle position at
50% heat release) were observed with an increase in pentanol content
at low engine loads. Whereas, an increase in peak cylinder pressure and
a drop in CA50 timing were detected with an increase in pentanol
content at medium and high loads. Moreover, heat release curves for all
blends shift closer to TDC with an increase in load owing to shorter
delay periods caused by high in-cylinder temperatures at high loads.
The possibility of using higher proportions of pentanol blended
with diesel was investigated by Rajesh Kumar and Saravanan [113,114]
in order to make the best use of renewable fraction in the fuel. They
carried out tests using pentanol/diesel blends (upto 45% by volume) on
a DI CI engine at high load (5.3 bar BMEP) and constant speed
(1500 rpm). Longer ignition delay periods were observed with pentanol
addition to diesel which further increased by using EGR [113,114]. The
combination of low EGR rates (upto 30%), delayed injection timing (by
2° CA) and reformulation of diesel fuel (using 40% isobutanol and
pentanol by volume) presented prolonged ignition delay, lower peak in-
cylinder pressure and higher peak heat release against neat diesel
operation. Also, pentanol blend exhibited poor combustion character-
istics compared to butanol blend owing to its higher boiling point,
lower oxygen quantity and inferior CN with or without using the EGR
and retarded injection timing [114].
Some researchers studied the effects of pentanol addition to neat
vegetable oils for use in CI engines [94,95]. Improved viscosity and
distillation characteristics of rapeseed oil were observed with pentanol
addition upto 29% by volume [94]. The addition of pentanol to neat
vegetable oil/biodiesel reduces the CN and viscosity of the blends
which lead to better mixing and higher premixed combustion [95].
Investigations on the use of pentanol (upto 30% v/v) as a ternary blend
in a single-cylinder CI engine presented improved combustion char-
acteristics than those of neat diesel and diesel/biodiesel blends. Better
fuel-air mixing, advanced CA50 timing, smaller combustion period and
higher maximum heat release rates were observed with all pentanol
blends due to their lower cetane numbers and higher oxygen content
available with them [116,117]. Ternary blends of pentanol exhibited
lower EGTs as compared to butanol ternary blends owing to lower self-
ignition temperature and lesser oxygen content of pentanol [118].
3.2. Emission characteristics
The effects of single-injection pentanol, both pilot-main and single-
injection schemes of diesel were assessed in a DI CI engine at constant
load and speed (6 bar IMEP and 1600 rpm). Late injection timings (1°
to 3° CA BTDC) for single-injection diesel, advanced injection timings
(20° to 26° CA BTDC) for single-injection pentanol, 10% fuel in pilot
injection-90% fuel in main injection with a constant dwell of 16° were
used in the investigation while maintaining constant 50% burn point at
14° CA aTDC. Very low NOx and smoke emissions with better trade-off
between them, and higher CO, UHC emissions were reported using
single-injection pentanol as compared to other two modes [111].
The addition of pentanol to ULSD (upto 20% v/v) showed a
reduction in the EC, PM and a total count of volatile and solid particles
at all loads when tested in a DI CI engine at uniform speed. They also
presented a small reduction in OC emissions and a noteworthy growth
in WSOC (Water Soluble Organic Carbon) emissions as compared to
baseline operation. A substantial decline in particles of size more than
50 nm and a slight increase in particles of less than 50 nm were
observed with these blends. However, there was a significant increase
1084
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
in the particle emissions of less than 20 nm diameter size at low engine
loads for 20% alcohol blends [115].
The addition of pentanol to diesel (upto 30% v/v) resulted in
improved total PNC and particulate mass concentration at all loads
against diesel fuel operation when tested in a four-cylinder DI CI
engine. Significant reduction in these emissions was observed with
higher pentanol fraction in the blend owing to extensive delay period,
leaner gas condition and reduced carbon content. Further, a substantial
deterioration in UHC and CO emissions was observed with all blends
against diesel operation except at high loads. Higher NOx emissions at
medium and high loads and a small drop in UHC emissions were also
observed because of inferior CN of pentanol and improved combustion
at high loads. Also, a noticeable increase in NO2 emissions was
observed with higher pentanol content caused by -OH functional group
[112].
It is possible to use pentanol/diesel blends (upto 45% v/v) in CI
engines without any engine alterations which results in slightly higher
NOx emissions (only at higher loads), near zero smoke emissions and
significantly higher CO and UHC emissions against diesel operation.
Use of cooled EGR (upto 30%) was found to be effective to mitigate the
increased NOx emissions at peak engine loads. Substantial reduction in
NOx and smoke emissions, a slight drop in CO emissions and a
substantial deterioration in UHC emissions were observed for 45%
pentanol blend with 30% EGR compared to baseline operation [113].
Conditions favoring LTC are helpful to realize decrease in soot and NOx
emissions simultaneously. A combination of EGR (30%), retarded
injection timing (by 2° CA) with 40% pentanol-60% diesel blend in a
single-cylinder DI CI engine at high loads and uniform speed of
1500 rpm exhibited a simultaneous drop in NOx (about 39%) and
smoke (about 15%) emissions against baseline diesel operation.
Noticeable increase in UHC emissions and a substantial decline in
CO emissions were also observed [114].
A linear reduction in soot emissions with higher oxygen content of
the blend was observed when pentanol was added to neat rapeseed oil
upto 29% by volume. Moreover, NOx emissions remain unaffected at
high loads with the addition of pentanol [94]. Significant discount in
smoke intensity, a small reduction in NOx, CO and UHC emissions
were detected with all neem-oil/pentanol blends (upto 20% v/v)
compared to those of neat neem-oil. Whereas, a huge reduction in
NOx emissions, noteworthy growth in UHC, CO emissions and an
insignificant deterioration in smoke intensity were experienced com-
pared to diesel operation [95].
Pentanol ternary blends help to increase the utilization of renew-
able fraction of fuel in CI engines. Excellent emission characteristics
were observed with the use of ternary blends in DI CI engine at uniform
speed compared to diesel, biodiesel/diesel, and pentanol/diesel opera-
tions using a double injection strategy. With pilot injection at 17°CA
BTDC (10% of fuel) and main injection at 1°CA BTDC (90% of fuel),
40% diesel +30% pentanol +30% biodiesel blend showed a significant
drop in soot, CO and UHC emissions in contrast to diesel operation.
Improved smoke and NOx emissions at medium, below medium loads
and deteriorated NOx emissions at peak loads were reported against
diesel operation. Comparable NOx emissions, slightly higher soot, CO
and UHC emissions were observed using pentanol/diesel blend (30%
v/v) compared to those of ternary blend [116].
Slightly different results were obtained using ternary blends of
pentanol under varying speeds from 1200 rpm to 2400 rpm at full
throttle opening in a single-cylinder DI CI engine. Substantial im-
provement in soot, CO and UHC emissions and a considerable
deterioration in CO2 and NOx emissions were observed with all ternary
blends (upto 20% pentanol and 20% biodiesel v/v) against those of
diesel and biodiesel (B20) blends throughout the operating range. This
effect was found to be more significant with an increase in the
renewable fraction of the fuel [117].
Alpaslan Atmanli [118] investigated the engine emission para-
meters of a four-cylinder, IDI CI engine at fixed speed of 1800 rpm
V.B. M et al.
using waste fry oil biodiesel (WFB), propanol, n-butanol and pentanol
blended with diesel. Four different blends: 50% diesel +50% WFB, 40%
diesel +40% WFB +20% propanol, 40% diesel +40% WFB +20% n-
butanol and 40% diesel +40% WFB +20% pentanol were used in this
investigation. They reported that pentanol ternary blend was the best
from NOx emissions reduction viewpoint compared to other blends
used in their investigation.
3.3. Performance characteristics
Single-injection of pentanol in DI CI engine under constant load
and speed (6 bar IMEP and 1600 rpm) presented improved ITE and
ISFC against both pilot-main and single-injection of diesel [111].
Blending of 20% pentanol with ULSD presented better BTE and
BSFC compared to diesel operation in a DI CI engine at uniform speed
and variable loads [115]. Whereas, the addition of pentanol to diesel
(upto 30% v/v) resulted in deteriorated BSFC with almost unchanged
BTE and slightly lower EGTs at all loads against neat diesel operation
when tested in a four-cylinder DI CI engine. These effects were more
pronounced with higher pentanol fractions in the blend and also at low
engine loads owing to the poorer energy density of pentanol [112].
In contrast to diesel operation, all pentanol/diesel blends (upto
45%) presented poor BTE and BSFC throughout the load range with/
without EGR. No noticeable change was observed in the values of BTE
and BSFC with the use of EGR for all pentanol blends [113]. The
combination of EGR and delayed injection timing with higher pentanol
fraction in the blend further worsened the BTE and BSFC of the engine
compared to baseline diesel operation [114].
Campos-Fernandez et al. [36,49] performed the tests on a three-
cylinder, Perkins DI CI engine using different fractions of pentanol 10–
25%) blended with diesel and compared the performance of the engine
with that of neat diesel operation. They concluded that these blends can
safely be used in CI engines with no alterations with a slight reduction
in power. The results showed the fuel-borne oxygen of the blends
offsets the reduced calorific values and help in achieving diesel like
BSFC at low and middle loads (upto 4 bar BMEP). However, blends
with higher fractions of pentanol (20, 25%) presented worse BSFC at
higher loads (beyond 4 bar BMEP). There was an improvement in BTE
with an increase in pentanol content which could be attributed to better
combustion efficiency, rapid heat release rate, increased premixed
combustion phase, and reduction of heat losses owing to the presence
of oxygen, inferior CN, and lower boiling point of pentanol.
Unchanged values of BSEC were reported with the addition of
pentanol (upto 29% v/v) to neat rapeseed oil at high loads compared to
baseline operation [94]. Whereas pentanol addition to neem oil showed
deterioration in BTE and BSEC compared to those of diesel, but an
improvement in BTE and BSEC compared to those of neat neem-oil.
This change in BTE and BSEC was more evident with the use of high
pentanol fraction (20% v/v) in the blends [95].
Higher fuel-borne oxygen of biodiesel and pentanol leads to
advanced combustion phase and shorter combustion duration which
result in better combustion efficiency with the use of pentanol ternary
blends. Double injection strategy with 10% of fuel in pilot injection and
90% of fuel in the main injection presented lower heat transfer loss and
negative work during pilot injection combustion period owing to
inferior peak cylinder pressure and longer ignition delay. These effects
resulted in an improvement in ITE and ISFC of a single-cylinder DI CI
engine operating at uniform speed of 1600 rpm using pentanol ternary
blends against diesel operation [116].
Slightly different results were obtained using ternary blends of
pentanol under varying speeds from 1200 rpm to 2400 rpm at full
throttle opening in a single-cylinder DI CI engine. Significantly
improved BTE and BP, and slightly inferior BSFC values were observed
with all ternary blends (upto 20% pentanol and 20% biodiesel v/v)
compared to those of neat diesel throughout the operating range with
better values being with the higher renewable fraction of the fuel.
1085
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
However, all ternary blends showed improved BSFC, BTE and BP
compared to those of biodiesel blend (B20) at all speeds [117].
Alpaslan Atmanli [118] investigated the effects on performance of a
four-cylinder, IDI CI engine at uniform speed of 1800 rpm using waste
fry oil biodiesel (WFB), propanol, n-butanol and pentanol blended with
diesel. Four different blends: 50% diesel +50% WFB, 40% diesel +40%
WFB +20% propanol, 40% diesel +40% WFB +20% n-butanol and 40%
diesel +40% WFB +20% pentanol were used in this investigation. They
reported significant improvement in BTE and a slight deterioration in
BSFC with pentanol ternary blend against diesel operation throughout
the operating range.
3.4. Summary
It is possible to use upto 45% of pentanol in blended form with
diesel (on volume basis) in CI engines safely without any engine
modifications. However, long-term durability investigations are must
to endorse this alcohol as a fuel in CI engines. The effects of using
pentanol in CI engines are:
• With higher pentanol content, delay period of the blend increases
which in turn increase the pre-mixed HRR and helps to attain higher
peak cylinder pressure. This could be attributed to the inferior CN of
pentanol.
• The lower viscosity and more oxygen quantity of the blends result in
improved atomization and combustion. Therefore, the engines
fueled with pentanol/diesel blends offer same or even better BTE
against diesel operation.
• The less energy content of pentanol/diesel blends results in higher
BSFC of the engines fueled with pentanol/diesel blends compared to
that of diesel operation.
• The dominance of inferior CV and greater LHV of pentanol result in
low combustion temperatures during low and medium loads.
Whereas, the dominance of premixed combustion (owing to its
inferior CN) results in high combustion temperatures during full
load conditions. So, NOx emissions may improve or decline based
on working conditions and specific engine type.
• Drop in smoke emissions can be observed using higher pentanol
fraction in the blends, which could be attributed to the oxygenated
nature of pentanol.
• UHC and CO emissions are generally higher with the use of
pentanol, particularly at low and medium loads. However, some
researchers have reported a drop in CO and UHC emissions with
pentanol content upto 20%.
• It is possible to replace 60% of diesel with biofuels (30% biodiesel
+30% pentanol) using double injection strategy. The inferior CN and
high oxygen quantity of these blends presented shorter combustion
and higher heat release rates which resulted in higher ITE compared
to diesel operation. This blend also presented good performance and
emission parameters (except high NOx emissions at peak loads).
• It is possible to reduce total particle number concentration and
particulate mass concentration simultaneously with higher pentanol
content.
• The inferior CN of pentanol resulted in longer delay period which in
turn helped in overcoming the trade-off between NOx and PM. Neat
pentanol use in CI engines presents more stable premixed combus-
tion resulting in moderate, chronological heat release with improved
knock resistance against diesel operation.
• Pentanol is a tremendous future generation biofuel which can be
used in high proportions with the combination of low EGR and late
injection to realize drop in both NOx and smoke emissions through
partially premixed LTC mode.
• Pentanol blends reduce EC and PM emissions, and a total count of
volatile and solid particles at all loads. However, there was a
considerable increase in the particle emissions of less than 20 nm
diameter size at low engine loads for 20% alcohol blends.
V.B. M et al.
4. Future research directions
• The majority of the researchers focused their studies on the
utilization of neat butanol in single cylinder CI engines only.
These studies could be extended to multi-cylinder engines.
• Butanol and pentanol have high volatility, low reactivity and inferior
CN compared to diesel. These properties are favorable to achieve
LTC or HCCI operation in CI engines and the effect of using these
alcohols could be possibly explored.
• Carbon deposits may get accumulated by using EGR when the
engine is operated with neat butanol (or) pentanol which accelerates
the engine wear. It is required to develop advanced materials and
surface technologies so as to improve wear resistance of engines
while using these alcohols along with EGR.
• Long-term engine durability tests under LTC operation using
butanol (or) pentanol should be carried out in collaboration with
engine manufacturers to mitigate the problems like excessive engine
wear, degradation of lubrication oil and carbon deposits on the
piston head.
• Investigations on the use of hydrous butanol under dual-fuel
operation mode are not yet attempted. Hence, it is recommended
to carry out studies on the effect of PFI of hydrous butanol in CI
engines.
• Much literature is not existing on the use of pentanol under dual-
fuel operation mode. The possibility of pentanol fumigation in CI
engines should be attempted and should be optimized for better
performance with low exhaust emissions.
• It is required to carry out further studies to explore the feasibility of
using cetane number improvers with the optimum blends identified
so far to improve the performance with low exhaust emissions.
• Further investigations on engine performance and emissions using
more than 40% of these alcohols with diesel/biodiesel/vegetable oils
(on volume basis) shall be performed.
• Investigations on using butanol (or) pentanol blended with diesel/
biodiesel/vegetable oils (on volume basis) are to be carried out
under transient conditions.
• The Possibility of high-pressure pentanol direct injection in CI
engines should be explored.
• Pentanol ternary blends possess higher CN and oxygen proportion.
The feasible studies of these blends on CI engines should be
explored.
• Although most of the mixed feedstock presented better performance
and exhaust emissions, the influence on long-term usage of this
mixed feedstock needs to be investigated to ascertain engine
deposits.
• Design of experiments techniques like RSM, Taguchi method etc.
should be explored to optimize the fuel blend ratios to be used in CI
engines with no engine alterations for improved performance and
emissions.
5. Conclusions
Butanol and pentanol are the two most important higher alcohols
that come under the category of second/third generation biofuels
which are capable of addressing major issues like environmental
degradation and energy insecurity. The production costs of butanol
and pentanol are high when compared to the production cost of
methanol and existing diesel prices but the benefits with their use
even in small proportions (through blending with diesel/biodiesel)
towards the human health, vegetation and animal life are noteworthy.
Their use in CI engines reduces reliance on food crops while increasing
the renewable fraction of the fuel. Moreover, the available literature
reports that B20 is the optimum blend among all biodiesel/diesel
blends for use in unmodified CI engines. In order to increase non-
dependency on fossil fuels, sustainability and environmental friendli-
ness, it is necessary to increase the fraction of biofuels utilization in CI
1086
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
engines. This can be achieved by adopting the techniques that are
discussed in this review paper. The following conclusions can be drawn
from this extensive literature review:
• It is possible to use upto 40% butanol and 45% pentanol (on the
volume basis) as blending components with diesel for fueling CI
engines.
• It is also possible to use neat butanol (or) pentanol under high-
pressure in DI CI engines for achieving LTC or HCCI combustion.
• The inferior CN of butanol and pentanol extends ignition delay of
the blends. This prolongs the premixed combustion phase due to
which these alcohol/diesel blends present greater peak cylinder
pressures.
• Lower viscosity and density of butanol (or) pentanol improve spray
characteristics of the blends. A higher percentage of premixed heat
release rates and improved spray characteristics of the alcohol/
diesel blends present higher BTE of the engine against diesel
operation.
• The inferior calorific value of butanol and pentanol demands higher
fuel supply when these alcohol/diesel blends are used for obtaining
same engine output. This increases BSFC of the engine.
• The oxygenated nature of alcohols and biodiesel improves local
equivalence ratio of the alcohol/diesel (or) biodiesel/diesel blends
which improves combustion parameters which in turn results in
reduced soot emissions.
• Combination of butanol PFI, diesel DI and EGR results in simulta-
neous drop of soot and NOx emissions to ultra-low level. However,
higher butanol concentration increases UHC and CO emissions
which lead to higher ISFC and lower ITE.
• The higher LHV of butanol blends results in low temperatures and
in turn slower evaporation and poor air-fuel mixing. Lower viscosity
of butanol blends results in increased spray penetration and hence
fuel deposition on the walls. Due to these reasons, CO and UHC
emissions increase with higher butanol fraction.
• UHC and CO emissions are higher with pentanol usage, particularly
at low and medium loads. However, some researchers have reported
a drop in CO and UHC emissions with pentanol content upto 20%.
• While butanol addition to diesel/biodiesel blends showed a positive
effect on performance and emissions of CO, NOx and soot, it showed
a negative effect on UHC emissions.
• EGR followed by late injection is the most preferred technique used
for reducing NOx emissions in engines fueled with butanol (or)
pentanol blends. The combination of high EGR rates, delayed
injection, and high ignition delay helps in achieving LTC in CI
engines. This technique presents a simultaneous drop in NOx and
soot emissions with enhanced efficiency.
• Butanol and pentanol can be blended with biodiesel upto 20% for
complete replacement of diesel from CI engines with no engine
alterations. These blends showed higher BTE and BSFC, drop in the
EC and PM emissions compared to those of biodiesel and diesel
operations.
• While pentanol/biodiesel blends showed a small increase in BSFC
and slightly higher BTE at all tested conditions, butanol/biodiesel
blends showed a better reduction in the EC and PM emissions.
• Butanol and pentanol blends showed lower volatile and solid
particle emissions, lower PAH emissions and also lower carcinogenic
potential.
• Optimization techniques like RSM shall be used to find the best
blend ratios for use in engines without any engine modifications for
improved performance and low exhaust emissions.
References
[1] British Petroleum . Primary energy consumption – leading countries 2014. B S R
W Energy J 2015.
[2] Hosseinpoor AR, Forouzanfar MH, Yunesian M, Asghari F, Naieni KH, Farhood D.
V.B. M et al.
Air pollution and hospitalization due to angina pectoris in Tehran, Iran. Environ
Res 2005;99(1):126–31.
[3] Colvile RN, Hutchinson EJ, Mindell JS, Warren RF. The transport sector as a
source of air pollution. Atmos Environ 2001;35(9):1537–65.
[4] Martonen TB, Schroeter JD. Risk assessment dosimetry model for inhaled
particulate matter: i. Human subjects. Toxicol Lett 2003;138(1–2):119–32.
[5] Amoroso A, Beine HJ, Sparapani R, Nardino M, Allegrini . Observation of
coinciding arctic boundary layer ozone depletion and snow surface emissions of
nitrous acid. Atmos Environ 2006;40(11):1949–56.
[6] Levander T. The relative contributions to the greenhouse effect from the use of
different fuels. Atmos Environ Part A Gen Top 1990;24(11):2707–14.
[7] Kumar N, Varun , Chauhan SR. Performance and emission characteristics of
biodiesel from different origins: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;21:633–58.
[8] Ramadhas AS, Jayaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Theoretical modeling and experi-
mental studies on biodiesel-fueled engine. Renew Energy 2006;31(11):1813–26.
[9] Gubitz GM, Mittelbach M, Trabi M. Exploitation of the tropical oil seed plant
Jatropha curcas L. Bioresour Technol 1999;67(1):73–82.
[10] Rajesh Kumar B, Saravanan S. Use of higher alcohol biofuels in diesel engines: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:84–115.
[11] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal
combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33(3):233–71.
[12] Graboski MS, McCormick RL. Combustion of fat and vegetable oil derived fuels in
diesel engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1998;24(2):125–64.
[13] Bergthorson JM, Kunst L, Levin DB, McVetty PBE, Smith DL, Vessey JK. 4.07-
Biodiesel–an integrated approach for a highly efficient biofuel (In:2nd ed.. Moo-
Young Murray, editor. Comprehen. Biotechnol.). Plant Syst 2011:87–99.
[14] Coniglio L, Bennadji H, Glaude PA, Herbinet O, Billaud F. Combustion chemical
kinetics of biodiesel and related compounds (methyl and ethyl esters): experi-
ments and modeling–Advances and future refinements. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2013;39(4):340–82.
[15] Murugesan A, Umarani C, Subramanian R, Nedunchezhian N. Bio-diesel as an
alternative fuel for diesel engines – A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13(3):653–62.
[16] Murugesan A, Umarani C, Chinnusamy TR, Krishnan M, Subramanian R,
Neduzchezhain N. Production and analysis of bio-diesel from non-edible oils – A
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(4):825–34.
[17] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis EG.
Comparative performance and emissions study of a direct injection diesel engine
using blends of diesel fuel with vegetable oils or bio-diesels of various origins.
Energy Convers Manag 2006;47(18):3272–87.
[18] Singh SP, Singh Dipti. Biodiesel production through the use of different sources
and characterization of oils and their esters as the substitute of diesel: a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(1):200–16.
[19] Balat M, Balat H. A critical review of bio-diesel as a vehicular fuel. Energy Convers
Manag 2008;49(10):2727–41.
[20] Fang T, Lee CF. Bio-diesel effects on combustion processes in an HSDI diesel
engine using advanced injection strategies. Proc Combust Inst
2009;32(2):2785–92.
[21] Fang T, Lin YC, Foong TM, Lee CF. Biodiesel combustion in an optical HSDI diesel
engine under low load premixed combustion conditions. Fuel
2009;88(11):2154–62.
[22] 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(12):2706–13.
[23] Bhale PV, Deshpande NV, Thombre SB. Improving the low temperature properties
of biodiesel fuel. Renew Energy 2009;34(3):794–800.
[24] Zhen X, Wang Y. An overview of methanol as an internal combustion engine fuel.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:477–93.
[25] Inouye J, Kim A, Wong W, Zabala A. Coal-to-methanol conversion: methanol
synthesis, product refining, plant sacle-up. San Diego: Univ California; 2008.
[26] Van der Drift A, Boerrigter H. Synthesis gas from biomass for fuels and chemicals.,
IEA bioenergy Task 33 (biomass gasification). SYNBIOS Conf Stock Swed
2005:1–31.
[27] Pellegrini LA, Soave G, Gamba S, Lange S. Economic analysis of a combined
energy-methanol production plant. Appl Energy 2011;88(12):4891–7.
[28] Bermudez JM, Fidalgo B, Arenillas A, Menendez JA. CO2 reforming of coke oven
gas over a Ni/γ Al2O3 catalyst to produce syngas for methanol synthesis. Fuel
2012;94:197–203.
[29] Olah GA, Goeppert A, Surya Prakash GK. Chemical recycling of carbon dioxide to
methanol and dimethyl ether: from greenhouse gas to renewable, environmentally
carbon neutral fuels and synthetic hydrocarbons. J Org Chem 2009;74(2):487–98.
[30] Serrano-Ruiz JC, West RM, Dumesic J. Catalytic conversion of renewable biomass
resources to fuels and chemicals. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2010;1(1):79–100.
[31] Imran A, Varman M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA. Review on alcohol fumigation on
diesel engine: a viable alternative dual fuel technology for satisfactory engine
performance and reduction of environment concerning emission. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;26:739–51.
[32] Weber C, Farwick A, Benisch F, Brat D, Dietz H, Subtil T, Boles E. Trends and
Challenges in the Microbial Production of Lignocellulosic bioalcohol Fuels. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;87(4):1303–15.
[33] Shen J, Agblevor FA. Modeling semi-simultaneous saccharification and fermen-
tation of ethanol production from cellulose. Biomass- Bioenergy
2010;34(8):1098–107.
[34] Ohgren K, Bura R, Lesnicki G, Saddler J, Zacchi G. A comparison between
simultaneous saccharification and fermentation and separate hydrolysis and
1087
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
fermentation using steam-pretreated corn stover. Process Biochem
2007;42(5):834–9.
[35] Karabektas M, Hosoz M. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel
engine using isobutanol–diesel fuel blends. Renew Energy 2009;34(6):1554–9.
[36] Campos-Fernandez J, Arnal JM, Gomez J, Dorado MP. A comparison of
performance of higher alcohols/diesel fuel blends in a diesel engine. Appl Energy
2012;95:267–75.
[37] Ozsezen AN, Turkcan A, Sayin C, Canakci M. Comparison of performance and
combustion parameters in a heavy-duty diesel engine fueled with isobutanol/
diesel fuel blends. Energy Explor Exploit 2011;29(5):525–41.
[38] Ren Y, Huang Z, Miao H, Yage D, Jiang D, Zeng K, Liu B, Wang X. Combustion
and emissions of a DI diesel engine fuelled with diesel-oxygenate blends. Fuel
2008;87(12):2691–7.
[39] Dhaliwal B, Yi N, Checkel D Emissions effects of alternative fuels in light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles. SAE Tech Pap 2000-01-0692.
[40] Sayin C, Ilhan M, Canakci M, Gumus M. Effect of injection timing on the exhaust
emissions of a diesel engine using diesel–methanol blends. Renew Energy
2009;34(5):1261–9.
[41] Zhang ZH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Yao CD. Experimental investigation on regulated
and unregulated emissions of a diesel/methanol compound combustion engine
with and without diesel oxidation catalyst. Sci Total Environ 2010;408(4):865–72.
[42] Zhang ZH, Tsang KS, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Yao CD. Effect of fumigation methanol
and ethanol on the gaseous and particulate emissions of a direct-injection diesel
engine. Atmos Environ 2011;45(11):2001–8.
[43] Sayin C. Engine performance and exhaust gas emissions of methanol and ethanol–
diesel blends. Fuel 2010;89(11):3410–5.
[44] Cheung CS, Zhu L, Huang Z. Regulated and unregulated emissions from a diesel
engine fueled with biodiesel and biodiesel blended with methanol. Atmos Environ
2009;43(32):4865–72.
[45] Cheng CH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Lee SC, Yao CD, Tsang KS. Comparison of
emissions of a direct injection diesel engine operating on biodiesel with emulsified
and fumigated methanol. Fuel 2008;87(10–11):1870–9.
[46] Zhu L, Cheung CS, Zhang WG, Huang Z. Emissions characteristics of a diesel
engine operating on biodiesel and biodiesel blended with ethanol and methanol.
Sci Total Environ 2010;408(4):914–21.
[47] Lapuerta M, Garcia-Contreras R, Campos-Fernandez J, Dorado MP. Stability,
lubricity, viscosity, and cold-flow properties of alcohol-diesel blends. Energy Fuels
2010;24(8):4497–502.
[48] Koivisto E, Ladommatos N, Gold M. Systematic study of the effect of the hydroxyl
functional group in alcohol molecules on compression ignition and exhaust gas
emissions. Fuel 2015;153:650–63.
[49] Campos-Fernandez J, Arnal JM, Gomez J, Lacalle N, Dorado MP. Performance
tests of a diesel engine fueled with pentanol/diesel fuel blends. Fuel
2013;107:866–72.
[50] Siwale L, Kristof L, Adam T, Bereczky A, Mbarawa M, Penninger A, Kolesnikov A.
Combustion and emission characteristics of n-butanol/diesel fuel blend in a turbo-
charged compression ignition engine. Fuel 2013;107:409–18.
[51] Dogan O. The influence of n-butanol/diesel fuel blends utilization on a small diesel
engine performance and emissions. Fuel 2011;90(7):2467–72.
[52] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Dimaratos AM, Kyritsis DC.
Effects of butanol–diesel fuel blends on the performance and emissions of a high-
speed DI diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51(10):1989–97.
[53] Qureshi N, Blaschek H. Evaluation of recent advances in butanol fermentation,
upstream, and downstream processing. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng
2001;24(4):219–26.
[54] Ezeji TC, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP. Production of acetone butanol (AB) from
liquefied corn starch, a commercial substrate, using Clostridium beijerinckii
coupled with product recovery by gas stripping. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol
2007;34(12):771–7.
[55] Huang W-C, Ramey DE, Yang S-T. Continuous production of butanol by
Clostridium acetobutylicum immobilized in a fibrous bed bioreactor. Appl
Biochem Biotechnol 2004;113(1):887–98.
[56] ITRI introduces ButyFix to make biobutanol from biomass . Focus Catal
2014;2014(1):7.
[57] Jin C, Yao M, Liu H, Lee CF, Ji J. Progress in the production and application of n-
butanol as a biofuel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(8):4080–106.
[58] Liu H, Huo M, Liu Y, Wang X, Wang H, Yao M, Lee CF. Time-resolved spray,
flame, soot quantitative measurement fueling n-butanol and soybean biodiesel in a
constant volume chamber under various ambient temperatures. Fuel
2014;133:317–25.
[59] Han X, Zheng M, Wang J. Fuel suitability for low temperature combustion in
compression ignition engines. Fuel 2013;109:336–49.
[60] Maurya RK, Agarwal AK. Combustion and emission characterization of n-butanol
fueled HCCI engine. J Energy Resour Technol 2014;137(1):0111011–1110112.
[61] Yanai T, Han X, Reader GT, Zheng M, Tjong J. Preliminary investigation of direct
injection neat n-butanol in a diesel engine. J Energy Resour Technol ASME
2015;137(1):1–11.
[62] Han X, Wang M, Zheng M Study of low temperature combustion with neat n-
butanol on a common-rail diesel engine; SAE Tech Pap 2015-01-0003.
[63] Yanai T, Dev S, Han X, Zheng M, Tjong J. Impact of fuelling techniques on neat n-
butanol combustion and emissions in a compression ignition engine. SAE Int J
Engines 2015;8(2):735–46.
[64] Zheng M, Han X, Asad U, Wang J. Investigation of butanol-fuelled HCCI
combustion on a high efficiency diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag
2015;98:215–24.
[65] Zheng M, Li T, Han X. Direct injection of neat n-butanol for enabling clean low
V.B. M et al.
temperature combustion in a modern diesel engine. Fuel 2015;142:28–37.
[66] Chen Z, Liu J, Wu Z, Lee CF. Effects of port fuel injection (PFI) of n-butanol and
EGR on combustion and emissions of a direct injection diesel engine. Energy
Convers Manag 2013;76:725–31.
[67] Michikawauchi R, Tanno S, Ito Y, Kanda M. Combustion improvement of diesel
engine by alcohol addition-investigation of port injection method and blended fuel
method. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 2011;4(1):48–57.
[68] Zhu Y, Chen Z, Liu J. Emission, efficiency, and influence in a diesel n-butanol
dual-injection engine. Energy Convers Manag 2014;87:385–91.
[69] Şahin Z, Durgun O, Aksu ON. Experimental investigation of n-butanol/diesel fuel
blends and n-butanol fumigation – evaluation of engine performance, exhaust
emissions, heat release and flammability analysis. Energy Convers Manag
2015;103:778–89.
[70] Lopez AF, Cadrazco M, Agudelo AF, Corredor LA, Velez JA, Agudelo JR. Impact of
n-butanol and hydrous ethanol fumigation on the performance and pollutant
emissions of an automotive diesel engine. Fuel 2015;153:483–91.
[71] Soloiu V, Duggan M, Harp S, Vlcek B, Williams D. PFI (port fuel injection) of n-
butanol and direct injection of biodiesel to attain LTC (low-temperature com-
bustion) for low-emissions idling in a compression engine. Energy
2013;52:143–54.
[72] Soloiu V, Rivero-Castillo A, Muinos M, Duggan M, Harp S, Peavy W, Vlcek B
Simultaneous reduction of NOx and soot in a diesel engine through RCCI
operation with PFI of n-butanol and DI of cottonseed biodiesel. SAE Tech Pap
2014-01-1322.
[73] Liu H, Wang X, Zheng Z, Gu J, Wang H, Yao M. Experimental and simulation
investigation of the combustion characteristics and emissions using n-butanol/
biodiesel dual-fuel injection on a diesel engine. Energy 2014;74:741–52.
[74] Noehre C, Andersson M, Johansson B, Hultqvist A Characterization of partially
premixed combustion. SAE Tech Pap 2006-01-3412.
[75] Valentino G, Corcione FE, Iannuzzi SE. Effects of gasoline-diesel and n-butanol-
diesel blends on performance and emissions of an automotive direct-injection
diesel engine. Int J Engine Res 2012;13(3):199–215.
[76] Valentino G, Corcione FE, Iannuzzi SE, Serra S. Experimental study on perfor-
mance and emissions of a high speed diesel engine fuelled with n-butanol diesel
blends under premixed low temperature combustion. Fuel 2012;92(1):295–307.
[77] Yao M, Wang H, Zheng Z, Yue Y. Experimental study of n-butanol additive and
multi-injection on HD diesel engine performance and emissions. Fuel
2010;89(9):2191–201.
[78] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC. Combustion heat
release analysis of ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends in heavy-duty DI diesel
engine. Fuel 2011;90(5):1855–67.
[79] Chen Z, Wu Z, Liu J, Lee C. Combustion and emissions characteristics of high n-
butanol/diesel ratio blend in a heavy-duty diesel engine and EGR impact. Energy
Convers Manag 2014;78:787–95.
[80] Zhang Q, Yao M, Zheng Z, Liu H, Xu J. Experimental study of n-butanol addition
on performance and emissions with diesel low temperature combustion. Energy
2012;47(1):515–21.
[81] Rajesh Kumar B, Saravanan S. Effect of isobutanol addition to diesel fuel on
performance and emissions of a DI diesel engine with exhaust gas recirculation.
Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A: J Power Energy 2015:1–14.
[82] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC.
Influence of properties of various common bio-fuels on the combustion and
emission characteristics of high-speed DI (direct injection) diesel engine: vege-
table oil, bio-diesel, ethanol, n-butanol, diethyl ether. Energy 2014;73:354–66.
[83] Chen Z, Liu J, Han Z, Du B, Liu Y, Lee C. Study on performance and emissions of a
passenger-car diesel engine fueled with butanol–diesel blends. Energy
2013;55:638–46.
[84] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Hountalas DT, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis EG,
Papagiannakis RG. Investigation of the performance and emissions of bus engine
operating on butanol/diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2010;89(10):2781–90.
[85] Zhang Z-H, Balasubramanian R. Influence of butanol–diesel blends on particulate
emissions of a non-road diesel engine. Fuel 2014;118:130–6.
[86] Zhou X, Song M, Huang H, Yang R, Wang M, Sheng J. Numerical study of the
formation of soot precursors during low-temperature combustion of a n-butanol–
diesel blend. Energy Fuels 2014;28:7149–58.
[87] Yun H, Choi K, Lee CS. Effects of biobutanol and biobutanol–diesel blends on
combustion and emission characteristics in a passenger car diesel engine with
pilot injection strategies. Energy Convers Manag 2016;111:79–88.
[88] Miers SA, Carlson RW, McConnell SS, Ng HK, Wallner T, Esper JL Drive cycle
analysis of butanol/diesel blends in a light-duty vehicle. SAE Tech Pap 2008-01-
2381.
[89] Ballesteros R, Hernandez JJ, Guillen-Flores J. Carbonyls speciation in a typical
European automotive diesel engine using bioethanol/butanol–diesel blends. Fuel
2012;95:136–45.
[90] Choi B, Jiang X, Kim YK, Jung G, Lee C, Choi I, Song CS. Effect of diesel fuel blend
with n-butanol on the emission of a turbocharged common rail direct injection
diesel engine. Appl Energy 2015;146:20–8.
[91] Rakopoulos CD, Dimaratos AM, Giakoumis EG, Rakopoulos DC. Study of
turbocharged diesel engine operation, pollutant emissions and combustion noise
radiation during starting with bio-diesel or n-butanol diesel fuel blends. Appl
Energy 2011;88:3905–16.
1088
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 1068–1088
[92] Rakopoulos CD, Dimaratos AM, Giakoumis EG, Rakopoulos DC. Investigating the
emissions during acceleration of a turbocharged diesel engine operating with bio-
diesel or n-butanol diesel fuel blends. Energy 2010;35(12):5173–84.
[93] Al‐Hasan MI, Al‐Momany M. The effect of iso‐butanol‐diesel blends on engine
performance. Transport 2008;23(4):306–10.
[94] Yoshimoto Y, Onodera M Performance of a diesel engine fueled by rapeseed oil
blended with oxygenated organic compounds. SAE Tech Pap 2002-01-2854.
[95] Sivalakshmi S, Balusamy T. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel
engine fuelled by neem oil blended with alcohols. Int J Ambient Energy
2011;32(4):170–8.
[96] Rakopoulos DC. Combustion and emissions of cottonseed oil and its bio-diesel in
blends with either n-butanol or diethyl ether in HSDI diesel engine. Fuel
2013;105:603–13.
[97] Sukjit E, Herreros JM, Dearn KD, Tsolakis A, Theinnoi K. Effect of hydrogen on
butanol-biodiesel blends in compression ignition engines. Int J Hydrog Energy
2013;38(3):1624–35.
[98] Yilmaz N, Vigil FM, Benalil K, Davis SM, Calva A. Effect of biodiesel-butanol fuel
blends on emissions and performance characteristics of a diesel engine. Fuel
2014;135:46–50.
[99] Altun S, Oner C, Yasar F, Adin H. Effect of n-butanol blending with a blend of
diesel and biodiesel on performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2011;50(15):9425–30.
[100] Ozcanli Mustafa. Castor-oil methyl ester/butanol/diesel fuel blend as an alter-
native for compression ignition engines. Abstr / J Biotechnol
2015;208(2015):S32.
[101] Imtenan S, Masjuki HH, Varman M, Arbab MI, Sajjad H, Rizwanul Fattah IM,
Abedin MJ, Hasib Abu Saeed Md. Emission and performance improvement
analysis of biodiesel-diesel blends with additives. Proc Eng 2014;90:472–7.
[102] Imtenan S, Masjuki HH, Varman M, Rizwanul Fattah IM, Sajjad H, Arbab MI.
Effect of n-butanol and diethyl ether as oxygenated additives on combustion–
emission-performance characteristics of a multiple cylinder diesel engine fuelled
with diesel–jatropha biodiesel blend. Energy Convers Manag 2015;94:84–94.
[103] Yang Po-Ming, Lin Kuang C, Lin Yuan-Chung, Jhang Syu-Ruei, Chen Shang-
Cyuan. Emission evaluation of a diesel engine generator operating with a
proportion of isobutanol as a fuel additive in biodiesel blends. Appl Therm Eng
2016;100:628–35.
[104] Sharon H, Ram P Jai Shiva, Jenis Fernando K, Murali S, Muthusamy R. Fueling a
stationary direct injection diesel engine with diesel-used palm oil–butanol blends
– an experimental study. Energy Convers Manag 2013;73:95–105.
[105] Atmanli Alpaslan, Yüksel Bedri, Ileri Erol. Experimental investigation of the effect
of diesel–cotton oil–n-butanol ternary blends on phase stability, engine perfor-
mance and exhaust emission parameters in a diesel engine. Fuel
2013;109:503–11.
[106] Atmanli Alpaslan, Ileri Erol, Yüksel Bedri. Effects of higher ratios of n-butanol
addition to diesel-vegetable oil blends on performance and exhaust emissions of a
diesel engine. J Energy Inst 2015;88(3):209–20.
[107] Atmanli Alpaslan, Ileri Erol, Yüksel Bedri. Experimental investigation of engine
performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fueled with diesel–n-
butanol–vegetable oil blends. Energy Convers Manag 2014;81:312–21.
[108] Atmanli Alpaslan, Ileri Erol, Yuksel Bedri, Yilmaz Nadir. Extensive analyses of
diesel–vegetable oil–n-butanol ternary blends in a diesel engine. Appl Energy
2015;145:155–62.
[109] Atmanli Alpaslan, Ileri Erol, Yilmaz Nadir. Optimization of diesel-butanol-
vegetable oil blend ratios based on engine operating parameters. Energy
2016;96:569–80.
[110] Cann AF, Liao JC. Pentanol isomer synthesis in engineered microorganisms. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;85(4):893–9.
[111] Li Li, Wang J, Wang Z, Liu H. Combustion and emissions of compression ignition
in a direct injection diesel engine fueled with pentanol. Energy 2015;80:575–81.
[112] Wei L, Cheung CS, Huang Z. Effect of n-pentanol addition on the combustion,
performance and emission characteristics of a direct-injection diesel engine.
Energy 2014;70:172–80.
[113] Rajesh kumar B, Saravanan S. Effect of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) on
performance and emissions of a constant speed DI diesel engine fueled with
pentanol/diesel blends. Fuel 2015;160:217–26.
[114] Rajesh Kumar B, Saravanan S. Effects of isobutanol/diesel and n-pentanol/diesel
blends on performance and emissions of a DI diesel engine under premixed LTC
(low temperature combustion) mode. Fuel 2016;170:49–59.
[115] Zhang Zhi-Hui, Chua Sue-Min, Balasubramanian Rajasekhar. Comparative eva-
luation of the effect of butanol–diesel and pentanol–diesel blends on carbonac-
eous particulate composition and particle number emissions from a diesel engine.
Fuel 2016;176:40–7.
[116] Li Li, Wang J, Wang Z, Xiao J. Combustion and emission characteristics of diesel
engine fueled with diesel/biodiesel/ pentanol fuel blends. Fuel 2015;156:211–8.
[117] Imdadul HK, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Zulkifli NWM, Alabdulkarem Abdullah,
Rashed MM, Teoh YH, How HG. Higher alcohol–biodiesel–diesel blends: an
approach for improving the performance, emission, and combustion of a light-
duty diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag 2016;111:174–85.
[118] Atmanli Alpaslan. Comparative analyses of diesel–waste oil biodiesel and
propanol, n-butanol or 1-pentanol blends in a diesel engine. Fuel
2016;176:209–15.