Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373

www.fuelfirst.com

Review article

Advancements in development and characterization

of biodiesel: A review
Y.C. Sharma a,*, B. Singh a, S.N. Upadhyay b
a
Environmental Engineering and Research Laboratories, Department of Applied Chemistry, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, UP 221 005, India
b
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP 221 005, India

Received 7 November 2007; received in revised form 21 January 2008; accepted 22 January 2008
Available online 20 February 2008

Abstract

An ever increasing demand of fuels has been a challenge for today’s scientific workers. The fossil fuel resources are dwindling day by
day. Biodiesel seems to be a solution for future. Biodiesel is an environmentally viable fuel. Out of the four ways viz. direct use and blend-
ing, micro-emulsions, thermal cracking and transesterification, most commonly used method is transesterification of vegetable oils, fats,
waste oils, etc. Latest aspects of development of biodiesel have been discussed in this work. Yield of biodiesel is affected by molar ratio,
moisture and water content, reaction temperature, stirring, specific gravity, etc. Biodegradability, kinetics involved in the process of bio-
diesel production, and its stability have been critically reviewed. Emissions and performance of biodiesel has also been reported.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biodiesel; Transesterification; Catalyst; Stability; Biodegradation

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2356
1.1. Various raw materials used as feedstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2357
2. Production of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2360
2.1. Acid esterification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2360
2.2. Alkaline transesterification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2360
3. A special reference to karanja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2362
4. Effect of different parameters on production of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2363
4.1. Effect of molar ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2363
4.2. Effect of moisture and water content on the yield of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2363
4.3. Effect of free fatty acids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2364
4.4. Effect of temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2364
4.5. Effect of stirring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2364
4.6. Effect of specific gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2365
5. Biodegradability of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2365
6. Stability of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2365
7. Kinetics of the reaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2366
8. Diesel engine emissions and performance of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2366

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 542 2307025 (O), +91 9935616119 (M); fax: +91 542 2316428.
E-mail address: y_sharma_2002@rediffmail.com (Y.C. Sharma).

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2008.01.014
2356 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373

9. Indian scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2368

10. Cost of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2368
11. Instrumentation involved in biodiesel production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2370
12. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2370
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2370

1. Introduction the conversion of monoglycerides to glycerol. In each step

Whenever I think of fuel, a picture of villages of devel-
oping nations eclipsed in darkness, full of poverty, no
planned mechanization, agriculture depending on rain
God for irrigation comes before my eyes. Be it lighting
the house, agriculture, or cooking, each process requires
energy. Energy, most countries do not have energy even
to light the cities! Superconductivity and hydrogen energy
reflected some promise but these were completely short-
lived. Biodiesel, yes, probably biodiesel is the FUEL of
future.
Biodiesel is derived from vegetable oils and hence is a
renewable fuel. Gasoline and diesel come in the category
of non-renewable fuel and will last for a limited period of
time. These non-renewable fuels also emit pollutants in
the form of oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulphur, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, hydrocarbons, etc. during
their processing and use. A renewable fuel such as biodie-
sel, with lesser exhaust emissions, is the need of the day.
Hence, researchers and scientific community worldwide
have focused on development of biodiesel and the optimi-
zation of the processes to meet the standards and specifica-
tions needed for the fuel to be used commercially without
compromising on the durability of engine parts. The inter-
est in the use of renewable fuel started with the direct use of
vegetable oils as a substitute for diesel. However, their
direct use in compression ignition engines was restricted
due to high viscosity which resulted in poor fuel atomiza-
tion, incomplete combustion and carbon deposition on
the injector and the valve seats causing serious engine foul-
ing [1]. Other constraints of the direct application of vege-
table oil were its low volatility and polyunsaturated
character. To overcome these constraints, the processes like
pyrolysis, micro-emulsification, transesterification, etc.
were especially developed. Pyrolysis of the vegetable oil
resulted in products with low viscosity, high cetane num-
ber, accepted amounts of sulphur, water and sediments,
accepted copper corrosion values but were unacceptable
in the terms of their ash contents, carbon residues, and
pour points. Similarly, micro-emulsion of vegetable oil
lowered the viscosity of the oil but resulted in irregular
injector needle sticking, heavy carbon deposits and incom-
plete combustion during 200 h laboratory screening endur-
ance test [2]. Transesterification is a chemical reaction
between triglyceride and alcohol in the presence of a cata-
lyst. It consists of a sequence of three consecutive reversible
reactions where triglycerides are converted to diglycerides,
diglycerides are converted to monoglycerides followed by
an ester is produced and thus three ester molecules are pro-
duced from one molecule of triglyceride [3]. Out of these
three methods, transesterification is the most viable process
adopted known so far for the lowering of viscosity. It also
gives glycerol as a by-product which has a commercial
value.
Stoichiometrically, three moles of alcohol are required
for each mole of triglyceride, but in general, a higher molar
ratio is often employed for maximum ester production
depending upon the type of feedstock, amount of catalyst,
temperature, etc. Commonly used alcohols include metha-
nol, ethanol, propanol and butanol. However, the yield of
biodiesel is independent of the type of the alcohol used and
the selection of one of these depends on cost and perfor-
mance. Methanol is preferred over others due to its low
cost [1]. The conventional catalysts used are acid and alkali
catalysts depending upon the nature of the oil used for bio-
diesel production. Another catalyst being studied is lipase.
Lipase has advantage over acid and alkali catalysts but its
cost is a limiting factor for its use in large scale production
of biodiesel. Choice of acid and alkali catalysts depends on
the free fatty acids (FFA) content in the raw oil. FFA
should not exceed a certain amount for transesterification
to occur by an alkali catalyst. Invariably, on all aspects
of development of biodiesel, Ma and Hanna [4] have done
significant work. Canakci and Van Gerpan [5,6] reported
that transesterification was not feasible if FFA content in
the oil was about 3%. Ramadhas et al. [1] and Veljkovic
et al. [7] used rubber seed oil and tobacco seed oil, respec-
tively, with higher free fatty acid content (17%). The
authors reduced the FFA value to more than 2.0%, which
corresponds to 4.0 mg KOH/g, by acid esterification using
H2SO4 as a catalyst. Sahoo et al. [8] used zero catalyzed
transesterification (using toluene) and acid esterification
(using H2SO4) prior to alkaline esterification to reduce
the acid value from 22.0% to 2.0%. Sharma and Singh [3]
also favored acid esterification prior to alkaline transesteri-
fication with karanja oil as feedstock having FFA of 2.53%
(5.06 mg KOH/g) using H2SO4. In the same manner, the
acid value of jatropha which corresponds to 14% FFA
was reduced to less than 1% by using H2SO4 [9]. Table 1
depicts the values of initial FFA of the feedstock, the level
reached after acid esterification and the amount of H2SO4
used. After treatment with acid catalyst, H2SO4, the free
fatty acid (FFA) value is reduced to less than 2.0% to make
transesterification reaction feasible. Table 2 depicts the
yield/conversion of biodiesel with different oils taken.
The yield of biodiesel ranged from 56% from Chlorella
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373 2357

Table 1
Values of initial FFA content of different feedstock
Feedstock Initial FFA (%) FFA after treatment (%) Amount (%) and catalyst used Reference
Rubber oil 17.0 <2.0 0.5, H2SO4 [1]
Karanja oil 2.53 0.95 0.5, H2SO4 [3]
Tobacco oil 35.0 <2.0 1.0/2.0, H2SO4 [7]
Polanga oil 22.0 <2.0 0.65, H2SO4 [8]
Jatropha oil 14.0 <1.0 1.43, H2SO4 [9]
Mahua oil 19.0 <1.0 1.0, H2SO4 [10]
Karanja oil 2.53 0.3 KOH (appropriate amount) [11]
– 37.96 ± 0.018 1.05 ± 0.018 2.0 Fe2SO4 [16]
– 40.0 <1.0 – [18]

Table 2 higher molar ratio (7:1, methanol/UFO), and more amount

Yield of biodiesel with different feedstock of catalyst (1.1 wt% NaOH) was needed when compared to
Oil taken for study Yield Conversion Reference edible canola oil where optimal conditions were 315–
(%) (%) 318 K, 6:1 methanol/oil molar ratio and 1.0 wt% NaOH.
Karanja (Pongamia pinnata) 89.5 – [3] However, comparatively a less time (20 min) was needed
Tobacco (Nicotina tabacum) 91 – [7] in UFO for completion of reaction in comparison to canola
Polanga (Calophyllum inophyllum) – 85 [8] oil where reaction time took 60 min. Non-edible oils used
Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) 99 – [9]
Mahua (Madhuca indica) 98 – [10]
for transesterification mostly are the oils with higher free
Karanja (Pongamia pinnata) 97–98 – [11] fatty acids such as rubber (Ficus elastica), jatropha (J. cur-
Karanja (Pongamia pinnata) – 92/95 [14] cas), karanja (Pongamia pinnata), mahua (Madhuca indica),
Soybean (Glycine max) – 98.4 [15] polanga (Calophyllum inophyllum), tobacco (Nicotina taba-
Waste cooking oil 97.02 – [16] cum), etc. In an attempt to reduce the cost of biodiesel, mic-
Canola oil (Brassica napus) 90.04 98 [19]
Used frying oil 87.5 94 [19]
roalgal oils have also been tried by researchers as a source
Sunflower oil (Helianthus annuus) – Nearly [20] of feedstock for the production of biodiesel due to their
complete higher photosynthetic efficiency, higher biomass produc-
Chlorella protothecoides 56 – [21] tion and faster growth as compared to other energy crops
Chlorella protothecoides – >80 [22] [32–35]. Miao and Wu [21] reported production of biodie-
sel from microalga C. protothecoides using 100% catalyst
quantity (based on oil weight) with 56:1 molar ratio of
protothecoides to 99% from Jatropha curcas. The conver-
methanol to oil at temperature of 303 K in 4 h of reaction
sion of biodiesel ranged from more than 80% from
time. The specific gravity of biodiesel produced reduced
C. prothecoides to 98.4% from soybean oil.
from initial value of 0.91 to a final value of 0.86. Xu
Various oils have been in use in different countries as
et al. [22] obtained high quality and low cost biodiesel from
raw materials for biodiesel production owing to its avail-
microalgae C. protothecoides of heating value 41 MJ kg1,
ability. Soybean oil is commonly used in United States density 0.864 kg L1 and viscosity 5.2  104 Pa S at
and rapeseed oil is used in many European countries for 313 K. C. protothecoides have earlier been reported as a
biodiesel production, whereas, coconut oil and palm oils feedstock for aquaculture feeds, human food supplements
are used in Malaysia for biodiesel production [10–13].
and pharmaceuticals [36–39].
Transesterification of edible oils has also been carried out
Attributing to its low cost, waste cooking oil has also
from the oil of canola and sunflower. Other edible and
been tried by researchers to develop biodiesel. The idea
non-edible oils, animal fats, algae and waste cooking oils
comes from the fact that triglycerides comprise of greases
have also been investigated by researchers for the develop-
and oil. Oils are generally in liquid state at room tempera-
ment of biodiesel [14–31]. Table 3 depicts the work carried ture, whereas greases and fats are in solid state at room
out for biodiesel production from various feedstocks under temperature. Recycled grease is termed as waste grease
different conditions. Type and amount of variables such as and is classified as yellow and brown grease depending
feedstock, alcohol, molar ratio, catalyst, reaction tempera-
on free fatty acid composition [17]. The price of yellow
ture, time duration, rate and mode of stirring affects the
grease (FFA < 15%) ranges from $0.04 to $0.09 kg1 while
yield and conversion of biodiesel.
the price of brown grease (FFA > 15%) ranges between
0.004 and $0.014 kg1 [40]. Biodiesel development from
grease can reduce its production cost. In United States,
1.1. Various raw materials used as feedstock
an estimate reveals that biodiesel production from 5.2 bil-
lion kg/year of greases and animal fats could replace 1.5
Leung and Guo [19] compared the transesterification
million gallons of diesel fuel. The major constraint of direct
reaction conditions of neat canola oil with used frying oil
application of waste frying oil lies in its higher amount of
(UFO). A comparatively higher temperature (333 K),
 2358
Table 3
Biodiesel production from different feedstock
Year Feedstock Transesterification Alcohol Molar Catalyst Reaction Duration Stirring Conversion/yield Reference
Ref stages ratio temperature

Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373

(methanol (K)
to oil)
2004 Sunflower oil Single step Supercritical 40:1 No catalyst 473–673 10– – 78–96% [20]
methanol (pressure 40 min conversion with
Supercritical 200 bar) increase in
ethanol temperature
Methanol 5:1 Supercritical 318 6h 23% conversion
Ethanol CO2 + lipase (Novozym 27% conversion
435) 30 wt% of oil
2005 Pongamia pinnata Single step Methanol 10:1 KOH (1% by wt) 378 1.5 h – 92% conversion [14]
ZnO 83% conversion
Hb-Zeolite 393 24 h 59% conversion
Montmorillonite 47% conversion
2005 Madhuca indica Two step Methanol 0.30–0.35 1% v/v H2SO4 333 1h – 98% yield [10]
v/v
0.25 v/v 0.7% w/v KOH – 1h –
2005 Rubber seed oil Two step Methanol 6:1 H2SO4 0.5% by volume 318 ± 5 20– Magnetic stirrer – [1]
30 min
9:1 NaOH 0.5% by volume 318 ± 5 30 min
2006 Chlorella Methanol 56:1 Acid catalyst 303 More than 80% [22]
protothecoides conversion
2006 Chlorella Methanol 56:1 H2SO4 (100%) on the 303 4h – 63% yield [21]
protothecoides basis of oil weight
2006 Neat canola oil Single step Methanol 6:1 NaOH 1.0 wt% 318 15 min Magnetic stirring 1100 rpm in Ester content [19]
the first stage (10 min) and 98 wt%
Used frying oil 7:1 NaOH 1.1 wt% 333 20 min 600 rpm in second stage Ester content
94.6 wt%
2006 Nicotiana Two step Methanol 18:1 H2SO4 (1% with lower 333.0 ± 0.1 25 min Magnetic stirrer 400 rpm Yield 91% in [7]
tabacum L. molar ratio) (2% with 30 min
(tobacco) higher molar ratio)
6:1 KOH (1% based on the 30 min
oil wt.)
2006 Pongamia pinnata Single step Methanol 6:1 KOH (1% by weight) 338 2h Mechanical stirrer 360 rpnm Yield 97–98% [11]
12:1 1h
2006 Soybean oil Methanol 4.5:1 TiO2/ZrO2 (11 wt% Ti) 448 2h Conversion over [23]
Al2O3/ZrO2 (2.6 wt% Al) 95%
K2O/ZrO2 (3.3 wt% K) Conversion 100%
2006 Monosodium Two step Methanol 0.5 M 1 ml KOH (0.5 M) 333 10 min – Yield [24]
glutamate 12.5%, v/v 1 ml BF3 (12.5%, v/v) 353 5 min 92.54 ± 2.00%
wastewater
2006 Soybean oil Single step alkali Methanol 6:1 NaOH 318 10– Mechanical stirrer 900 rpm Yield 100% [25]
catalyzed 20 min Power ultrasonic (frequency
19.7 KHz, power 150 W)
Hydrodynamic cavitation
(operation pressure 0.7 MPa)
2007 Jatropha, Single step Methanol 3:1 NaOH/KOH (1 wt% of – 2–4 h Stirring – [12]
pongamia, oil)
sunflower,
soybean, palm
2007 Calophyllum Three step zero Methanol 6:1 Anhydrous H2SO4 338 2h Mechanical stirring 450 rpm 85% yield in [8]

Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373

inophyllum catalysed (98.4%) 0.65% by volume 90 min
Acid catalysed 4h Complete in 4 h
Alkali catalysed 9:1 KOH 1.5% by weight 4h reaction
2007 Jatropha curcas Two step acid Methanol 0.28 v/v H2SO4 1.43% v/v 333 88 min >99% yield [9]
catalysed (3.5 + acid value, w/v
KOH)
Alkali catalysed 0.16 v/v 24 min
2007 Triolein Single step Ethanol 10:1 Anion exchange resin 323 60 min – 98.8% purity [26]
Cation exchange resin
(heterogeneous catalyst)
2007 Sunflower oil Single step Methanol 13:1 Activated CaO (1 wt%) 333 100 min Helix stirrer 1000 rpm – [27]
2007 Waste cooking oil Two step Methanol 10:1 Fe2SO4 368 4h No stirring because boiling was 97.02% conversion [16]
6:1 KOH 338 1h sufficient
2007 Karanja Two step Methanol 8:1 H2SO4 318 ± 2 30 min Magnetic/mechanical 89.5% yield with [3]
mechanical
9:1 NaOH/KOH 30 min 85% yield with
magnetic

2359
2360 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373
Fig. 1. Basic scheme for biodiesel production.
FFA. The FFA level of fresh soybean oil has been reported
to change from 0.04% to 1.51% after 70 h of frying at
463 K [41]. Hence, due to higher FFA, direct conversion
of waste restaurant oil and animal fats to biodiesel via
alkaline catalyst is not possible. The level of FFA, there-
fore, is reduced by an acid catalyst.
Following this advantage, researchers have advocated
the use of rendered animal fats and restaurant waste oils
as biodiesel feedstocks [18,42–47]. A major limiting factor
of biodiesel is its inverse relationship between its oxidation
stability and its cold flow properties. Saturated compounds
have good oxidation stability but poor cold temperature
properties. Unsaturated compounds have better low tem-
perature properties but fail in oxidation stability [12,17].
Here, the waste oil product can be of advantage over the
neat vegetable oil as they have a higher proportion of sat-
urated fatty acids [17] and hence can provide better oxida-
tive stability. Wang et al. [16] have achieved 97.02% yield of
biodiesel from waste cooking oil of high acid value i.e.
75.92 ± 0.036 mg KOH/g, by a two step catalysis process.
A novel method has been developed by Xue et al. [24]
for the production of biodiesel from monosodium gluta-
mate wastewater having COD of 10,000 mg/L. After treat-
ment the COD removal was 85% with 10% formation of
crude lipid. The crude lipid was biosynthesized by rhodo-
torula glutinis by transesterification reaction with methyl
ester yield of 92.54 ± 2.0%. Biodiesel has also been synthe-
sized using triolein as a feedstock [26]. Fig. 1 depicts the
basic scheme for biodiesel production [48].
2. Production of biodiesel
2.1. Acid esterification
The acid value is a measure of the number of acidic
functional groups in a sample and is measured in terms
of the quantity of potassium hydroxide required to neutral-
ize the sample. Acid value of the feedstock for alkaline
transesterification has to be reduced to less than 2.0 mg
KOH/g [15,49–51]. However, other authors advocate it to
be less than 4.0 mg KOH/g [1,3]. The commonly used cat-
alyst during acid esterification of neat oil is sulphuric acid
(H2SO4) [1,3,7–10]. Nevertheless, this process too has a
drawback as water is produced along with ester from the
reaction of FFA with alcohol which inhibits the transeste-
rification of glycerides [17]. For waste cooking oil too the
acid employed is sulphuric acid [29–31]. But in this case,
the conversion reported is low (82%) and the alcohol
required for the reaction is high (200% excess of ethanol)
[16]. Wang et al. [16] have, therefore, tried a new catalyst
Fe2(SO4)3 (ferric sulphate) as an alternate to sulphuric acid
and have reported much better conversion (97.02%). As,
ferric sulphate is insoluble in oil, it was centrifuged from
the liquid after acid esterification and reused for the next
batch. High temperature and high concentration of
H2SO4 as catalyst could burn some of the oil which will
then cause low yield of biodiesel product.
2.2. Alkaline transesterification
For oil samples with FFA below 2.0%, alkaline transe-
sterification is preferred over the acid catalyzed transesteri-
fication as the former is reported to proceed about 4000
times faster than the latter [2]. The common catalyst
employed during alkaline transesterification at industrial
level application includes the homogeneous catalysts
sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, etc.
The use of homogeneous catalyst such as sodium
hydroxide and potassium hydroxide has been successful
at industrial level for production of biodiesel. However,
the biodiesel and glycerin produced have to be purified to
remove the basic catalyst and need its separation by wash-
ing with hot distilled water twice or thrice. Thus, heteroge-
neous catalyst has also been tried by researchers to
overcome this drawback of time consumption and colossal
consumption of water. The heterogeneous catalyst can be
separated from the final product by filtration which checks
time consumption and prevents the consumption of large
volume of water. The filtered solid then can be reused.
The application of a heterogeneous catalyst, CaO has been
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373
tested by Grandos et al. for its feasibility [27]. The experi-
ments confirmed that CaO could be used as a catalyat for
the transesterification reaction without significant deactiva-
tion up to eight runs with significant amount of CaO.
Leung and Guo [19] tried three different homogeneous
catalysts i.e. sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium
hydroxide (KOH), and sodium methoxide (CH3ONa).
The optimum requirement of the catalyst were 1.1, 1.3
and 1.5 wt% for NaOH, CH3ONa, and KOH respectively
for the maximum ester content. The amount of NaOH
required was less than the amounts of both the CH3ONa
or KOH for the same conversion of fatty acid methyl ester
as NaOH has lower molar mass (40 g/mol), compared to
CH3ONa (54 g/mol) and KOH (56 g/mol).
However, in terms of yield, CH3ONa proved to be a bet-
ter catalyst than NaOH and KOH because CH3ONa disso-
ciates into CH3 O and Na+ and does not form any water
as side product. On the other hand, NaOH and KOH
forms sodium (or potassium) methoxide when dissolved
in methanol and produces water. This water then reacts
with Na+ (or K+) to form sodium (or potassium) soaps.
Potassium methoxide (KOCH3) has also been used as an
alkali catalyst by dissolving potassium hydroxide in meth-
anol [52]. Sharma and Singh [3] reported better yield with
NaOH as a catalyst over KOH while using magnetic stir-
rer. Whereas, when mechanical stirrer was adopted the
yield was same with equal amount of NaOH and KOH
(0.5 wt%). However, during the separation of the final
products from glycerol, KOH was more convenient. Potas-
sium soaps being softer than sodium soaps did not block
the bottom of separating funnel unlike latter and were
removed easily. Hence, KOH as catalyst is preferred over
NaOH at industrial level application [3,19].
The base catalyzed reaction is reported to be very sensi-
tive to the purity of the reactant. FFA content should not
exceed beyond a certain limit. The efficiency of the reaction
was affected to some extent when FFA content exceeded
0.5 wt% [28]. However, when the feedstock is waste cook-
ing oil, the limit of FFA is a bit relaxed and FFA content
a little beyond 1.0 wt% did not have any effect on the
methyl ester conversion [16,53]. The amount of catalyst
(KOH) required was 1.0 wt% to reach 97.02% conversion
of biodiesel.
Ramadhas et al. [1] have reduced the acid value to less
than 2.0% through acid catalyst followed by alkaline
transesterification. The amount of catalyst used for alka-
line transesterification ranged between 0.3% and 1.0%.
The maximum conversion efficiency was reported at 0.5%
of NaOH during alkaline transesterification. Excess
amount of catalyst gave rise to formation of an emulsion.
This increased the viscosity and led to the formation of
gels. Conversion efficiency decreased to 60% when the cat-
alyst amount was increased to 0.8% (wt of NaOH/wt of
oil). However, esterification also did not take place without
sufficient amount of the catalyst.
Srivastava and Verma [54] used sodium methoxide solu-
tion prepared by dissolving NaOH (28.5 g) and methanol
2361
(2.0 kg) as an alkaline catalyst for transesterification.
Sahoo et al. [8] used alkaline transesterification after reduc-
ing the free fatty acid value from 44 mg KOH/g (i.e. 22%)
to less than 4 mg KOH/g (i.e. <2%) through zero catalyzed
and acid catalyzed transesterification. 1.5% by weight of
potassium hydroxide was found sufficient for the maximum
yield of ester. Sarin et al. [12] prepared a series of biodiesel
from the edible oils such as sunflower, soybean, palm and
non-edible oils such as jatropha and karanja. The catalyst
used was either NaOH or KOH with 1 wt % of oil.
The amount of alkali catalyst was calculated on the
basis of the amount needed to neutralize the unreacted
acids plus 0.35% for virgin oil which came out to be
0.55% w/v KOH [9]. 1.0% KOH was reported as the opti-
mal amount for alkaline transesterification reaction of
karanja oil by Meher et al. [11] and Karmee and Chadha
[14]. Karmee and Chadha also tried Hb-Zeolite, montmo-
rillonite K-10 and ZnO but the conversion of fatty acid
methyl ester was less. Around 83% conversion with ZnO
was possible only with a longer reaction time of 24 h. Even
lesser conversions of 59% and 47% were achieved with Hb-
Zeolite and montmorillonite K-10, respectively, in compar-
ison to 92% achieved by KOH.
While using the refined karanja oil, the conversion
reached to 99% with 0.5% of NaOH or CH3ONa [14].
1% KOH was optimum amount of catalyst even with used
frying oil reported by Marinkovic and Tomasevic [55].
Ghadge and Raheman [10] calculated the amount of cata-
lyst to be 0.7% w/v KOH as the cumulative sum of 0.5% for
catalyst plus the amount needed to neutralize the unreacted
acids (2 mg KOH/g) i.e. 0.2%. NaOH was used as a cata-
lyst by Ji et al. [25] with power ultrasonic and hydrody-
namic cavitation methods and found the methods
superior as compared to mechanical stirring. The amount
of KOH used for the transesterification of tobacco (Nicoti-
ana tabacum) oil after acid esterification as reported by Vel-
jkovic et al. [7] is 1.0% (based on oil weight) with a yield of
91%. Using the same oil Usta got a yield of 86%. Hence,
the two step process of acid and alkaline esterification
can be expected to yield a better result when compared to
one step base catalyzed transesterification [56]. In an
attempt to find a new catalyst, Furuta et al. [23] tested
amorphous zirconia solid catalysts, TiO2/ZrO2 (11 wt%
Ti) and Al2O3/ZrO2 (2.6 wt% of Al) and reported more
than 95% conversion. The reason for this is the amphoteric
nature of zirconia. However, the temperature required was
quite high i.e. 448–473 K.
The homogeneous catalysts require neutralization and
separation steps from the reaction mixture. To accomplish
this, water, solvents and energy are needed. To overcome
these, heterogeneous based catalysts have been tested by
researchers, where separation is possible without using
solvent and shows easy regeneration. The nature of the
final product has been less corrosive in character and the
whole process is termed safer, cheaper and more environ-
ment friendly [57]. The heterogeneous catalyst being used
by researchers include alkaline–earth oxides, zeolites,
2362 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373

hydrotalcites, MgO and CaO [27,57–62]. In addition, reac-
tor heating was not needed when MgO was used as a cat-
alyst in batch process [57].
Another method where neither acid nor base catalyst is
required is non-catalytic transesterification where super-
critical methanol is used instead of methanol and nearly
complete conversion is achieved. The reason is that, the
oil and supercritical methanol exist in the single phase
[20,63–67]. The advantage with supercritical methanol is
that the conversion gets 95% complete in 10 min. But at
the same time, higher molar ratio (40:1) is employed. The
supercritical condition is based on the effect of relationship
between pressure and temperature upon the thermophysi-
cal properties of the solvent, such as dielectric constant,
viscosity, specific weight and polarity. There is a decrease
in the dielectric constant of methanol in supercritical state.
Fig. 2 depicts the influence of temperature and alcohol used
in the synthesis of biodiesel. In methanol, conversion
increased from 78% to 96% with increase in temperature.
The conversion was even higher with supercritical ethanol
as the solubility parameter of ethanol is closer to the solu-
bility parameter of the oil. But, high temperature and high
pressure conditions i.e. 573 K and 20 MPa are needed for
the reaction to proceed and complete. [13,20]. Another
added advantage with heterogeneous based catalyst is the
lesser consumption of catalyst. As per the study by Zhang
et al. [29] annually 88 tonnes of sodium hydroxide is
needed for 8000 tonnes of biodiesel production. While as
per the simulation study by Dossin et al. [57] the require-
ment of MgO will be only 5.7 tonnes for 100,000 tonnes
production of biodiesel.
3. A special reference to karanja
Among the several indigenous plant species, karanja is
one of the medium sized plants found in several parts of
India. The plant is also said to be highly tolerant to salinity
and is reported to be grown in various soil textures viz.
stony, sandy and clayey. Karanja can grow in humid as
well as subtropical environments with annual rainfall rang-
ing between 500 and 2500 mm. This is one of the reasons
for wide availability of this plant species. The constituents
of karanja oil viz. furanoflavones, furanoflavonols, chro-
menoflavones, flavones and furanodiketones make the oil
non-edible and hence the oil is underutilized. The presence
of these constituents, however, gives the oil antifungal
characteristics and enhances its application in medicinal
ointments. The woody part of the tree is still in use by tri-
bal people where the plant is locally available such as
brushing of teeth. The oil expelled from the seeds is also
burned during the festival of lighting to purify the environ-
ment. All these applications are at local or regional level
and 94% of the oil from plant is still underutilized. The
present production of karanja oil approximately is 200 mil-
lion tons per annum [11]. However, its production poten-
tial is much more i.e. 135,000 million tones per annum
[8]. The time needed by the tree to mature ranges from 4
to 7 years and depending on the size of the tree the yield
of kernels per tree is between 8 and 24 kg. The oil content
extracted by various authors ranges between 30.0 to 33%
[3,14]. The oil is used by common people due to its low cost
and easy availability. The fatty acid composition of karanja
oil has been reported in Table 4. Karanja oil comprises of

Table 4
Different fatty acids present in karanja oil [107]
Fatty acid Systematic name Formula Structure wt%
(common
name)
Palmitic Hexadecanoic C16H32O2 16:0 10.6
Stearic Octadecanoic C18H36O2 18:0 6.8
Oleic cis-9-octadecenoic C18H34O2 18:1 49.4
Linoleic cis-9, cis-12-octadecadienoic C18H32O2 18:2 19.0
Arachidic Eicosanoic C20H40O2 20:0 4.1
Gadoleic 11-eicosenoic C20H38O2 20:1 2.4
Fig. 2. Synthesis of biodiesel at various temperatures in supercritical (a)
Behenic Docosanoic C22H44O2 22:0 5.3
methanol, (b) ethanol (j) 473 K, () 523 K, (N) 573 K, (.) 623 K, ()
Lignoceric Tetracosanoic C24H48O2 24:0 2.4
673 K.
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373 2363

Table 5
Test method and limits of biodiesel along with its comparison with karanja oil methyl ester [12]
Property (units) ASTM 6751 test method ASTM 6751 limits IS 15607 test method IS 15607 limits Karanja oil methyl ester
Flash point (°C) D-93 Min. 130 IS 1448 P:21 Min. 120 141
Viscosity at 40 °C (cSt) D-445 1.9–6.0 IS 1448 P:25 2.5–6.0 4.16
Sulphated ash (mass%) D-874 Max. 0.02 IS 1448 P:4 Max. 0.02 0.002
Sulphur (mass%) D-5453 Max. 0.05 ASTM D 5453 Max. 0.005 0.003
Cloud point (°C) D-2500 NA IS 1448 P:10 NA 4
Copper corrosion D-130 Max. 3 IS 1448 P:15 Max. 1 1
Cetane number D-613 Min. 47 IS 1448 P:9 Min. 51 55.1
Water and sediment (vol. %) D-2709 Max. 0.05 D-2709 Max. 0.05 0.03
CCR 100% (mass%) D-4530 Max. 0.05 D-4530 Max. 0.05 <0.01
Neutralization value (mg, KOH/gm) D-664 Max. 0.80 IS 1448 P:1/Sec. 1 Max. 0.50 0.10
Free glycerin (mass%) D-6584 Max. 0.02 D-6584 Max. 0.02 0.01
Total glycerin (mass%) D-6584 Max. 0.24 D-6584 Max. 0.25 0.01
Phosphorus (mass%) D-4951 Max. 0.001 D-4951 Max. 0.001 <0.001
Distillation temperature D-1160 90% at 360 °C Not under spec. – 90%
Oxidation stability, h NA NA EN 14112 Min. 6 h 2.35

29.2% saturated fatty acids and 70.8% unsaturated fatty
acids. The maximum proportion comprises of oleic acid
(cis-9-octadecenoic) i.e. 49.4%, whereas, gadoleic acid
(11-eicosenoic, 2.4%) and linoceric acid (tetracosanoic,
2.4%) are in traces. Table 5 depicts the ASTM 6751 and
IS 15607 test methods and limits for biodiesel. In respect
of karanja, it is observed that it meets all the specification
of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
and Indian Standards but fails in oxidation stability test.
Hence, appropriate methods have to be devised to make
the karanja oil methyl ester fit for commercialization.
For the transesterification reaction, Sharma and Singh
[3] advocated for 8:1 molar ratio during acidic esterification
so as to reduce the acid value below 2 mg KOH/g i.e. 1.0%
FFA. For the alkaline transesterification reaction, the
authors advocate 9:1 molar ratio for the completion of
the reaction. Mechanical stirrer produced better results
than magnetic stirrer and resulted in higher yield (89.5%)
in 1 h with 0.5% H2SO4 and 0.5% NaOH at 318 ± 2 K.
Meher et al. [11] have neutralized the oil by using potas-
sium hydroxide to reduce the acid value of the oil from
5.06 mg KOH/g to 0.6 mg KOH/g. The yield of 97.0–
98.0% was achieved in 2 h with 6:1 molar ratio (metha-
nol:oil); and in 1 h with 12:1 molar ratio. The optimum
temperature was 338 K with the rate of stirring 360 rpm
and 1% KOH as catalyst. Karmee and Chadha [14] have
reported 92% conversion with karanja oil using 10:1
molar ratio (methanol:oil) at 333 K with 1.0% KOH by
weight.
4. Effect of different parameters on production of biodiesel
4.1. Effect of molar ratio
Singh [3] used similar two step transesterification and took
8:1 molar ratio for acid esterification and 9:1 molar ratio
for alkaline esterification for optimum yield of biodiesel
production from karanja oil. Veljkovic et al. [7] used 18:1
molar ratio during acid esterification and 6:1 molar ratio
during alkaline esterification. Meher et al. [11] carried out
investigation with 6:1 molar ratio during acid esterification
and 12:1 molar ratio during alkaline esterification. Instead
of taking molar ratio, Tiwary et al.[9] and Ghadge and
Raheman [10] used volume as a measure of ratio. While
Tiwary et al. used 0.28 v/v (methanol/oil) during acid
esterification and 0.16 v/v (methanol/oil) during alkaline
esterification, Ghadge and Raheman used 0.30–0.35 v/v
(methanol/oil) during acid esterification and 0.25 v/v
(methanol/oil) during alkaline esterification. Karmee and
Chadha [14] used a single step transesterification and
have achieved 92% conversion by taking 10:1 molar
ratio.
Presence of sufficient amount of methanol during the
transesterification reaction is essential to break the glycer-
ine-fatty acid linkages [68]. But excess of methanol should
be avoided. Increasing the molar ratio of methanol/oil
beyond 6:1 neither increases the product yield nor the ester
content, but rather makes the ester recovery process com-
plicated and raised its cost. Leung and Guo [19] suggested
that methanol has polar hydroxyl group which can act as
an emulsifier causing emulsification. Thus separation of
the ester layer from the water layer becomes difficult. Miao
and Wu [21] have reported that addition of large quantity
of methanol, i.e. 70:1 and 84:1 molar ratio slowed down the
separation of the ester and glycerol phases during the pro-
duction of biodiesel. 56:1 molar ratio was reported to be
optimum for transesterification of microalgal oil.

Ramadhas et al. [1] and Sahoo et al. [8] reported 6:1
molar ratio during acid esterification and 9:1 molar ratio
(alcohol:oil) during alkaline esterification to be the opti-
mum amount for biodiesel production from high FFA rub-
ber seed oil and polanga seed oil respectively. Sharma and
4.2. Effect of moisture and water content on the yield of
biodiesel
Kusdiana and Saka [69] observed that water could
pose a greater negative effect than presence of free fatty
2364 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373

Fig. 3. Plots for yields of methyl esters as a function of water content in Fig. 4. Effect of FFA on the yield of methyl ester during alkali catalyzed
transesterification of triglycerides. transesterification.

4.4. Effect of temperature

acids and hence the feedstock should be water free.
Romano [70] and Canakci and Van Gerpen [5] insisted The temperature maintained by the researchers during
that even a small amount of water (0.1%) in the transeste- different steps range between 318 and 338 K. The boiling
rification reaction would decrease the ester conversion point of methanol is 333.7 K. Temperature higher than this
from vegetable oil. Demirbas [13] too reported a decrease will burn the alcohol and will result in much lesser yield. A
in yield of the alkyl ester due to presence of water and study by Leung and Guo [19] showed that temperature
FFA as they cause soap formation, consume catalyst higher than 323 K had a negative impact on the product
and reduce the effectiveness of catalyst. Srivastava and yield for neat oil, but had a positive effect for waste oil with
Verma [54] removed the moisture content from the vege- higher viscosities.
table oil by heating in oven for 1 h at 383 K. Meher et al.
[11] too reported a precautionary step to prevent moisture
absorbance and maintenance of catalytic activity by pre- 4.5. Effect of stirring
paring the fresh solution of potassium hydroxide and
methanol. Ellis et al. [52] found that even a small amount Stirring can play an important role in the yield of biodie-
of water in the feedstock or from esterification reaction sel production. Meher et al. [11] conducted the transesteri-
producing water from FFA might cause reduction in con- fication reaction with 180, 360 and 600 revolutions per
version of fatty acid methyl ester and formation of soap minute (rpm) and reported incomplete reaction with
instead. At the same time the presence of water had a 180 rpm. The yield of methyl ester was same with 360
positive effect in the yield of methyl esters when methanol
at room temperature was substituted by supercritical
methanol. However, no explanation for this has been pro-
vided. [13]. Fig. 3 depicts the influence of water content
on yield of methyl esters. It is observed that acid catalyst
is most prone to presence of water followed by alkaline
catalyst. No effect on ester content was observed when
supercritical methanol was used. The presence of water
had negligible effect on the conversion while using lipase
as a catalyst [20,71].

4.3. Effect of free fatty acids

Free fatty acids (FFAs) content after acid esterification

should be minimal or otherwise less than 2% FFAs. These
FFAs react with the alkaline catalyst to produce soaps
instead of esters. Fig. 4 depicts the effect of FFAs on the
yield of methyl ester during alkali catalysed transesterifica- Fig. 5. The variation of product specific gravity with reaction time under
tion. There is a significant drop in the ester conversion different molar ratio of methanol to oil. Reaction conditions: 303 K,
when the free fatty acids are beyond 2% [72]. 160 rpm, 100% catalyst quantity based on oil weight.
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373 2365

Table 6
Comparison of different technologies to produce biodiesel
Variable Alkali catalysis Lipase catalysis Supercritical alcohol Acid catalysis
Reaction temperature (K) 333–343 303–313 512–658 328–353
Free fatty acid in raw materials Sapanofied products Methyl esters Esters Esters
Water in raw materials Interference with reaction No influence – Interference with reaction
Yield of methyl esters Normal Higher Good Normal
Recovery of glycerol Difficult Easy – Difficult
Purification of methyl esters Repeated washing None – Repeated washing
Production cost of catalyst Cheap Relatively expensive Medium Cheap

and 600 rpm. Sharma and Singh [3] reported that mode of
stirring too plays a vital role in the transesterification reac-
tion. The yield of biodiesel increased from 85% to 89.5%
when magnetic stirrer (1000 rpm) was replaced with
mechanical stirrer (1100 rpm). A plausible explanation
may be a thorough mixing of the reactants by mechanical
stirrer.
4.6. Effect of specific gravity
Lower value of the specific gravity of the final product is
an indication of completion of reaction and removal of
heavy glycerine. The influence of molar ratio, temperature
and catalyst quantity on the specific gravity of the biodiesel
was studied by Miao and Wu [21]. The specific gravity of
the product decreased sharply up to 2 h of reaction time
using 30:1 molar ratio and up to 4 h of reaction time using
45:1 and 56:1 molar ratio after which it was almost con-
stant. The best process combination reduced the product
specific gravity from 0.912 to 0.864 with 100% catalyst,
56:1 molar ratio at 303 K in 4 h of reaction time. Fig. 5
depicts the change in specific gravity with reaction time
under different molar ratio of methanol to oil. A compari-
son of different technologies to produce biodiesel is shown
in Table 6 [48].
5. Biodegradability of biodiesel
Biodiesel is reported to be highly biodegradable in fresh-
water as well as soil environments. 90–98% of biodiesel is
mineralized in 21–28 days under aerobic as well as anaero-
bic conditions [73–75]. Biodiesel has been reported to
remove twice the amount of crude oil from sand as conven-
tional shoreline cleaners [76]. Biodiesel increases the biode-
gradability of crude oil by means of cometabolism. More
Table 7
Biodegradability of fossil diesel
% No. of
degradation days
Artificially contaminated soils 67 109
Using soil columns 81 310
Fuel contaminated soil in the arctic 90–95 365
Under aerobic conditions 42 30
Under anaerobic conditions 18 50
than 98% degradation of pure biodiesel after 28 days is
reported by Pasqualino et al. [73] in comparison to 50%
and 56% by diesel fuel and gasoline respectively. Also,
the time taken to reach 50% biodegradation reduced from
28 to 22 days in 5% biodiesel mixture and from 28 to 16
days in case of 20% biodiesel mixture at room temperature.
The biodegradability of the mixture was reported to
increase with addition of biodiesel. Table 7 depicts the bio-
degradability of fossil diesel under different conditions [77–
80].
6. Stability of biodiesel
Biodiesel, chemically is fatty acid methyl ester if alcohol
used during transesterification is methanol or fatty acid
ethyl ester in case of ethanol. This ester molecule will get
hydrolyzed to alcohol and acid in the presence of air. Con-
version of ester into alcohol will lead to reduction in flash
point whereas conversion of ester into acid will increase the
total acid number. This makes the biodiesel unstable on
storage [12]. The stability of biodiesel also depends on
the feedstock used for the biodiesel production. The feed-
stock with larger proportion of saturated fatty acids will
be more stable than those having larger proportion of
unsaturated fatty acids. But again, higher portion of satu-
rated fatty acid lowers the low temperature properties such
as cloud and pour points. Hence, a major drawback of bio-
diesel lies in its tradeoff between the level of saturation of
biodiesel and its cold flow properties [12,17]. The oxidation
stability of biodiesel is not dependent on the total number
of double bonds but on the total number of bis-allylic sites
(the methylene CH directly adjacent to the two double
bonds). These esters undergo auto-oxidation which is
dependent on the number and position of the double bonds
and forms by-product such as acids, esters, aldehydes,
ketones, lactones, etc. [12,81–83].
Fatty acid methyl esters form a radical next to the dou-
ble bond during the oxidation process. This radical binds
with the oxygen in air, which is a biradical to form peroxide
Reference
radical. A new radical is created from the fatty acid methyl
ester by this peroxide radical which binds with oxygen in
[77]
air. This augments the auto-oxidation cycle at an exponen-
[78] tial rapid rate whereby 100 new radicals are created quickly
[79] from one single radical resulting in the formation of a series
[80] of by-products. The fuel thus gets deteriorated as there is
[80] formation of sediment and gum. Peroxide formation
2366 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373
through this route leads to obligomerization even at ambi-
ent temperature. As the deterioration of biodiesel is attrib-
uted to the formation of peroxide in the initial step, the
remedy suggested is to prevent peroxide formation during
the stages of biodiesel manufacture and throughout its dis-
tribution chain [12,81]. As biodiesels are primarily made
from vegetable oils which do contain naturally occurring
antioxidants such as tocopherols, sterols and tocotrienols
and these remain in the biodiesel during the process of
manufacture. However, the distillation and purification
step destroys these natural antioxidants and hence becomes
prone to oxidation. Synthetic antioxidants such as phenolic
types or aminic types have to be added to make it stable
and hence acceptable in market [12,81,83–85]. Sarin et al.
[12] suggested blending jatropha biodiesel with palm bio-
diesel to reduce the antioxidant dosage by 80–90% to main-
tain good oxidation stability.
7. Kinetics of the reaction
Transesterification reaction consists of a sequence of
reversible reactions [52].
In the first step, triglycerides are converted to diglycerides
which get converted to monoglycerides in the next
step. In the third and last step, monoglycerides are
Fig. 6. Simulated concentration profile of glycerol (G), tri-glyceride (TG),
di-glyceride (DG), mono-glyceride (MG) and fatty acid methyl ester
(FAME) during transesterification.
converted to glycerol. In each of the steps an ester is
formed. Thus three esters are obtained from one triglycer-
ides molecule.
K1
TG þ M $ DG þ FAME ð2Þ
K4
K2
DG þ M $ MG þ FAME ð3Þ
K5
K3
MG þ M $ G þ FAME ð4Þ
K6
where, TG, triglycerides; DG, diglycerides; MG, mono-
glycerides; M, methanol and FAME, fatty acid methyl
esters.
The values of rate constants for forward reactions, K1,
K2 and K3, are found to be 5.00, 4.93 and 29.67 dm3 mol1
min1 and the values of the rate constants of backward
reactions involved in the kinetics of biodiesel development,
K4, K5, and K6 are reported to be 3.54, 2.99 and
0.79 dm3 mol1 min1. A software MATLAB 6.1 was used
to generate concentration profile of glycerol, tri-,di-, and
monoglycerides and fatty acid methyl ester. Fig. 6 shows
the concentration profiles of all components in which a pla-
teau is reached at equilibrium [52].
ð1Þ
8. Diesel engine emissions and performance of biodiesel
Researchers worldwide are on a consensus that biodie-
sel, irrespective of the feedstock used results in a decrease
in the emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide
(CO), particulate matter (PM) emissions and sulphur diox-
ide (SO2). Only oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are reported to
increase which is due to oxygen content in the biodiesel
[86–94]. It is also said to be carbon neutral as it contributes
no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere [95–97]. However,
in a study conducted by Sahoo et al. [8] the NOx emission
from 100% biodiesel lowered to 4% for polanga seed oil.
This is attributed by the authors to difference in engine
geometry, compression ratio, less reaction time and tem-
perature. A remarkable decrease in the emission of unburnt
hydrocarbon was observed. 40% reduction of CO2 emis-
sions was observed for B20 and B100 biodiesel. Thermal
efficiency of the engine also improved by 0.1%. Smoke
emissions reduced by 35% in the case of B60 biodiesel.
The results were obtained without any engine hardware
modifications. Other authors have suggested various strat-
egies to eliminate the NOx emission. Szybist et al. [98] sug-
gested to change the chemical composition of feedstock by
increasing the methyl oleate and addition of cetane improv-
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373 2367

Table 8 be safe above which it would cause maintenance problem

Emission impact of 20 vol% biodiesel for soybean based biodiesel added to
an average base diesel fuel
Percent change in emissions
NOx (nitrogen oxides) +2.0
PM (particulate matter) 10.1
HC (hydrocarbons) 21.1
CO (carbon monoxides) 11.0
ers. This reduces the iodine value. Boehman et al. [99] and
Kegl [100] recommended to retard the injection timing
which could lead to decrease in NOx emission. Nabi
et al. [101] advocated for the exhaust gas recirculation to
reduce the NOx emission.
Kegl [102] stressed on the importance of fuel injection
system to reduce the engine emissions as well as fuel con-
sumption. Author suggests that pressure squareness (ratio
of mean to maximum injection pressure) should be at max-
imum and fuelling in the first part of injection has to be less
to reduce NOx emission. Simultaneously, the fuelling in the
last part of injection should be less to reduce the smoke
emissions. Shahid and Jamal [103] reported that blend of
biodiesel till B20 (20% biodiesel and 80% diesel) would
and might damage the engine. A study on comparison of
carbonyls emissions from diesel and biodiesel blend was
carried by Correa and Arbilla [104]. Higher emission of
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, propional-
dehyde, and butyraldehyde was observed from B2, B5,
B10 and B20 blends than neat diesel. However, significant
reduction in emission in terms of benzaldehyde was
observed from biodiesel blends.
Srivastava and Verma [54] have reported the HC, CO
and NO emissions from karanja oil methyl ester to be
slightly higher as compared with petrodiesel. HC emission
of diesel at maximum load was 85 ppm, while that of bio-
diesel was 120 ppm due to poor mixing with air. CO emis-
sion of diesel at maximum load was reported to be 0.18%
as compared to 0.21% of biodiesel and NO emission was
reported to be 12% higher than that of biodiesel. Maximum
thermal efficiency of methyl ester and brake specific fuel
consumption of the biodiesel were quite close to that of die-
sel and hence the authors were of the view that karanja oil
methyl ester can replace diesel as an alternative fuel. Table
8 depicts emission impact of 20 vol% for soybean based
biodiesel. It can be seen that there is a significant reduction

Table 9
List of 26 indigenous plant meeting US, Germany and European standards (a oil from kernel, b oil from seeds, osa: other saturated acids, uk: unknown) [107]
Sources Oil SN IV CN Fatty acid composition (%)
Rhus succedanea Linn 39.5a 204.0 92.6 52.22 16:0 (25.4); 18:1 (46.8); 18:2 (27.8)
Annona reticulate Linn 42.0b 203.6 87.2 53.47 14:0 (1.0); 16:0 (17.2); 16:1 (4.2); 18:0 (7.5); 18:1 (48.4); 18:2 (21.7)
Ervatamia coronaria 41.6b 201.1 76.0 56.33 16:0 (24.4); 16:1 (0.2); 18:0 (7.2); 18:1 (50.5); 18:2 (15.8); 18:3 (0.6); 20:0 (0.7); 20:1 (0.2); 22:0
Stapf (0.2); uk (0.2)
Thevetia peruviana 67.0a 201.5 84.0 57.48 16:0 (15.6); 18:0 (10.5); 8:1 (60.9); 18:2 (5.2); 18:3 (7.4); 20:0 (0.3); 22:0 (0.1)
Merrill
Basella rubra Linn 36.9b 202.9 85.3 54.00 14:0 (0.4); 16:0 (19.7); 16:1 (0.4); 18:0 (6.5); 18:1 (50.3); 18:2 (21.6); 18:3 (0.4); 20:4 (0.7)
Canarium commune Linn 73.0a 204.6 77.3 55.58 16:0 (29.0); 18:0 (9.7); 18:1 (38.3); 18:2 (21.8); 18:3 (1.2)
Celastrus paniculatus 52.0a 236.6 77.5 51.9 1:0 (2.0); 2:0 (1.7); 16:0 (25.1); 18:0 (6.7); 18:1 (46.1); 18:2 (15.4); 18:3 (3.0)
Linn
Terminalia bellirica Roxb 40.0b 198.8 77.8 56.24 16:0 (35.0); 18:1 (24.0); 18:2 (31.0); osa (10.0)
Vernonia cinerea Less 38.0a 205.2 68.5 57.51 14:0 (8.0); 16:0 (23.0); 18:0 (8.0); 18:1 (32.0); 18:2 (22.0); 20:0 (3.0); 22:0 (4.0)
Corylus avellana 57.5a 200.5 84.51 54.50 14:0 (3.2); 16:0 (3.1); 18:0 (2.6); 18:1 (88.0); 18:2 (2.9); uk (0.2)
Jatropa curcas Linn 40.0b 202.6 93.0 52.31 14:0 (1.4); 16:0 (15.6); 18:0 (9.7); 18:1 (40.8); 18:2 (32.1); 20:0 (0.4)
Putranjiva roxburghii 41.8a 199.6 82.9 54.99 16:0 (8.0); 18:0 (15.0); 18:1 (56.0); 18:2 (18.0); 20:0 (3.0)
Calophyllum apetalum 47.5a 200.4 97.6 51.57 16:0 (8.0); 18:0 (14.0); 18:1 (48.0); 18:2 (30.0)
Wild
Calophyllum inophyllum 65.0a 201.4 71.5 57.3 16:0 (17.9); 16:1 (2.5); 18:0 (18.5); 18:1 (42.7); 18:2 (13.7); 18:3 (2.1); 24:0 (2.6)
Linn
Mesua ferrea Linn 68.5a 201.0 81.3 55.10 14:0 (0.9); 16:0 (10.8); 18:0 (12.4); 18:1 (60.0); 18:2 (15.0); 20:0 (0.9)
Azadirachta indica 44.5a 201.1 69.3 57.83 16:0 (14.9); 18:0 (14.4); 18:1 (61.9); 18:2 (7.5); 20:0 (1.3)
Moringa concanensis 35.5b 199.7 76.0 56.32 16:0 (9.7); 18:0 (2.4); 18:1 (83.8); 18:2 (0.8); 20:0 (3.3)
Nimmo
Moringa oleifera Lam 35.0a 199.7 75.4 56.66 16:0 (9.1); 16:1 (2.1); 18:0 (2.7); 18:1 (79.4); 18:2 (0.7); 18:3 (0.2); 20:0 (5.8)
Pongamia pinnata Pierre 33.0b 196.7 80.9 55.84 16:0 (10.6); 18:0 (6.8); 18:1 (49.4); 18:2 (19.0); 20:0 (4.1); 20:1 (2.4); 22:0 (5.3); 24:0 (2.4)
Ziziphus mauritiana Lam 33.0b 198.6 81.8 55.37 16:0 (10.4); 18:0 (5.5); 18:1 (64.4); 18:2 (12.4); 20:0 (1.8); 20:1 (2.6); 22:0 (1.2); 22:1 (1.7)
Sapindus trifoliatus Linn 45.5a 195.0 64.5 59.77 16:0 (5.4); 18:0 (8.5); 18:1 (55.1); 18:2 (8.2); 20:0 (20.7); 22:0 (2.1)
Schleichera oleosa Oken 40.0b 193.0 57.9 61.55 16:0 (1.6); 16:1 (3.1); 18:0 (10.1); 18:1 (52.5); 20:0 (19.7); 22:0 (4.0); 22:1 (0.9); gadolic acid (8.4)
Madhuca indica JF Gmel 40.0b 202.1 74.2 56.61 14:0 (1.0); 16:0 (17.8); 18:0 (14.0); 18:1 (46.3); 18:2 (17.9); 20:0 (3.0)
Mimusops hexendra 47.0a 202.0 62.2 59.32 16:0 (19.0); 18:0 (14.0); 18:1 (63.0); 18:2 (3.0); 20:0 (1.0)
Robx
Pterygota alata Rbr 35.0b 202.6 98.4 51.09 16:0 (14.5); 18:0 (8.5); 18:1 (44.0); 18:2 (32.4); uk (1.0)
Holoptelia integrifolia 37.4b 208.7 49.9 61.22 14:0 (3.5); 16:0 (35.1); 16:1 (1.9); 18:0 (4.5); 18:1 (53.3); 20:0 (1.1); uk (1.4)
2368 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373

Table 10
List of 11 species meeting the US biodiesel standards on the basis of fatty acid composition, SN, IV and CN (a oil from kernel, b oil from seeds, osa: other
saturated acids, uk: unknown) [107]
Sources Oil SN IV CN Fatty acid composition (%)
Vallaris solanacea 33.0b 198.3 104.7 50.26 16:0 (7.2); 18:0 (14.4); 18:1 (35.3); 18:2 (40.4); 20:0 (1.8); 22:0 (0.4); 24:0 (0.5)
Kuntze
Balanites roxburghii 43.0a 188.9 109.9 50.46 16:0 (17.0); 16:1 (4.3); 18:0 (7.8); 18:1 (32.4); 18:2 (31.3); 18:3 (7.2)
Planch
Croton tiglium Linn 45.0b 203.9 102.9 49.9 14:0 (11.0); 16:0 (1.2); 18:0 (0.5); 18:1 (56.0); 18:2 (29.0); 20:0 (2.3)
Hydnocarpus wightiana 63.0a 210.5 102.1 49.25 16:0 (1.8); 18:1 (6.9); hydnocarpic acid (48.7); gorlic acid (12.2); chaulmoogric acid (27.0);
Blume chaulmoogtic homolog (3.4)
Mappia foetida Milers 48.0b 200.7 101.3 50.70 16:0 (7.1); 18:0 (17.7); 18:1 (38.4); 18:3 (36.8)
Perilla frutescens 40.5b 199.0 193.9 30.09 18:1 (9.8); 18:2 (47.5); 18:3 (36.2); osa (6.5)
Britton
Aphanamixis 35.0a 203.8 109.1 48.52 16:0 (23.1); 18:0 (12.8); 18:1 (21.5); 18:2 (29.0); 18:3 (13.6)
polystachya Park
Princeptia utilis Royle 37.2a 201.9 108.4 48.94 14:0 (1.8); 16:0 (15.2); 18:0 (4.5); 18:1 (32.6); 18:2 (43.6); 24:0 (0.9) uk (1.4)
Meyna laxiflora Robyns 38.5b 202.8 101.3 50.42 16:0 (18.8); 18:0 (9.0); 18:1 (32.5); 18:2 (39.7)
Aegle marmelos correa 34.0b 202.5 114.9 48.30 16:0 (16.6); 18:0 (8.8); 18:1 (30.5); 18:2 (36.0); 18:3 (8.1)
Roxb
Tectona grandis Linn 44.5a 200.9 111.3 48.31 14:0 (0.2); 16:0 (11.0); 18:0 (10.2); 18:1 (29.5); 18:2 (46.4); 18:3 (0.4); 20:0 (2.3)

in HC (21%), CO (10%), PM (11%) and 2.0% increase in
NOx emission [105].
9. Indian scenario
India imports more than 40% of its edible oil require-
ment and hence non-edible oils are used for the develop-
ment of biodiesel. India is a agrarian nation and has rich
plant biodiversity which can support the development of
biodiesel. India also has a vast geographical area with agri-
cultural lands as well as wastelands on which oil bearing
plants can be planted. Common non-edible oil bearing
plants and trees include neem, karanja, mahua, jatropha,
etc. The oil yields from these species at present are insuffi-
cient to meet the demand for raw material on large scale
production of biodiesel. Hence, there has been government
initiatives and interest from few private firms to enhance
the production and distribution facilities of biodiesel
throughout the country. The Petroleum Ministry has set
a target for biodiesel to meet 20% of India’s diesel demand.
Government’s initiative has resulted in large scale planta-
tion of J. curcas in the state Andhra Pradesh. Oil and Nat-
ural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has planned to build an
export oriented refinery at kakinada in Andhra Pradesh
which will have a annual production capacity of 5.5–7.5
million tonnes [106].
Azam et al. [107] have studied the profile of 75 indige-
nous plant species of India containing 30% or more oil in
their seed, fruit or nut. Out of these plants, based on sapon-
ification number, iodine value, cetane number and fatty
acid composition, 26 species were found to be most suitable
for use as biodiesel and they met the biodiesel standards of
USA (ASTM D 6751-02, ASTM PS 121-99), Germany
(DIN V 51606) and European Standard Organization
(EN 14214). Another 11 plant species met the specifications
of US biodiesel standards. Authors predicts that cultiva-
tion of Azardirachta indica or P. pinnata on 40.09 million
and 19.9 million ha, respectively, will meet the target of
100% replacement of imported biodiesel which amounted
to 87.5 million tons in 2003–2004. These 37 species are
listed in Tables 9 and 10. Among these species, jatropha
(Jatropha curcas), karanja (P. pinnata), neem (A. indica),
mahua (Madhuca indica) and polanga (Calophyllum
inophyllum) have catched the attention of researchers and
biodiesel manufacturer in India and feasibility of rest of
the plant species still remains unexplored.
10. Cost of biodiesel
Various factors contributing to the cost of biodiesel
include raw material, other reactants, nature of purifica-
tion, its storage, etc. However, the major factor which con-
tributes the cost of biodiesel production is the feedstock,
which is about 80% of the total operating cost [108]. Cost
of biodiesel reported by Zhang et al. [29] is US $0.5 l1
as compared to US $0.35 for normal diesel. Bender in his
review has reported the cost of biodiesel to be US
$0.30 l1 and US $0.69 l1 when the fuel was produced
from soybean and rapeseed respectively. The intact oilseed
was taken as starting material while calculating the cost.
Canakci and Van Gerpen while using a small pilot scale
plant in a batch process estimated the cost to be US
$0.42 l1 while using refined, bleached and deodorized soy-
bean oil. The profits from glycerol and capital cost for
operation was not included [109,110].
Haas et al. [111] in a study of review on biodiesel pro-
duction cost found the feedstock to contribute a substantial
portion in production cost. A process model was prepared
by the author to estimate biodiesel production costs. Tak-
ing all the factors into account viz. raw material (vegetable
oil, methanol, catalysts), utilities (electricity, etc.), labour,
supplies, general works and depreciation, the cost of bio-
diesel was estimated to be US $0.561 l1. The coproduct
glycerol as 80% w/w aqueous solution was valued to be
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373 2369

US $0.034 l1 and reduced the production cost of biodiesel
by 6% on deduction of this value from original cost. Hence,
the gross operating cost of biodiesel was estimated to be
US $0.527 l1, of which the feedstock comprised 87.36%
of the overall cost of biodiesel production.
Nas and Berktay [112] too concluded that feedstock cost
is the major component contributing to the cost of biodie-
sel production. In a comparison of feedstock viz. soybean
oil and yellow grease (recycled cooking oil from restau-
rants), it was estimated that yellow grease is quite less
expensive that soybean oil. On the contrary, the supply
of yellow grease is limited and has other applications and
hence it cannot be used on a large scale production. An
eight year comprehensive study (from 2004–2005 to
2012–2013), on the price rise of petroleum diesel, yellow
grease and soybean oil is reported. Cost of petroleum has
been estimated to rise from 0.67 to 0.75 (i.e. 11.94%
increase). Biodiesel fuel obtained from yellow grease is esti-
mated to rise from 1.41 to 1.55 (i.e. 9.93% increase). Biodie-
sel fuel from soybean oil will rise from 2.54 to 2.80 (i.e.
10.24% increase). Author is of opinion that biodiesel will
not be produced at a cost comparable with that of petro-
diesel unless the soybean oil price decline.
Biodiesel comprises of 11% oxygen by weight which
improve the combustion process and hence has reduced
emissions in terms of hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and
particulate emissions but increases nitrogen oxide emis-
sions. Nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel can be
reduced by adding cetane enhancers that are di-tert-butyl
peroxide at 1% or 2-ethylhexyl nitrate at 0.5%. However,
addition of these enhancers will increase the cost of biodiesel
production. Nevertheless, reduction in emission of oxides of
nitrogen is desired as they are ozone precursors and after
reaching stratosphere it will result in ozone layer depletion.
In Indian context, the government has fixed the price of
biodiesel delivered at refineries to be Rs. 26.50 l1. This
rate of biodiesel has been fixed after the Indian government
has provided subsidies in order to encourage its application
[113].
The cost of biodiesel after blending with petrodiesel will
reduce as the cost of biodiesel becomes less significant in
blended form. At present, biodiesel can be blended with
80% petrodiesel (B20) without any engine modification. B
100 (100% biodiesel) costed US $3.76 per gallon of biodie-
sel in USA in June 2006, whereas, B 20 (20% biodiesel and
80% petrodiesel) costed US $2.98 per gallon of biodiesel.

Table 11
Instrumentation involved in characterization of biodiesel
Feedstock Instrument involved for characterization Reference
Tobacco High performance liquid chromatograph [7]
Polanga seed oil High performance liquid chromatograph [8]
Pongamia pinnata (i) HPLC (Perkin-Elmer series 200) equipped with refractive index detector (shodex RI 71) [11]
(ii) H NMR Bruker DPX 300 spectrometer (Bruker, Rheinstetten, Germany)
(iii) Gas chromatograph (for analysis of fatty acid composition of karanja oil)
Jatropha, Pongamia, sunflower, (i) GC (Model HR/GC/5300) [for fatty acid composition of vegetable oils) [12]
soybean, palm (ii) Thin layer chromatography (TLC)
Pongamia pinnata Gas chromatography (Nucon, India) equipped with a FID detector [14]
Waste cooking oil Gas chromatography (GC) equipped with a capillary column (SPBTM-5, 30 m  0.32 mm  0.25 [16]
lm) and a FID
Neat and used frying oil (i) HP 6890 series II Gas Chromatograph with a 3365/II GC-chemstation and a FID [19]
(ii) Thin layer chromatography (TLC)
Sunflower oil (i) Gel permeation chromatograph (GPC) [20]
(ii) Gas chromatograph (GC), Nucon 5765, India
Microalgal oil CE-440 elemental analyzer (for determining elemental composition of biodiesel) [21]
Microalga chlorella protothecoides Gas Chromatography–mass spectrometric analysis [22]
Soybean oil (i) X-ray diffractometer [23]
(ii) GPC with an RI (refractive index) detector, (carrier: THF)
(iii) Gas chromatography–mass spectrometer
Lipid extracted from the cell of R. Gas chromatograph [24]
glutinis
Triolein HPLC system (Hitachi, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan, D-7000 interface, L-7100 [26]
Sunflower oil For FAME determination Agilent 6890 GC with a HP INNOwax capillary column [27]
For catalyst characterization
(i) Balzer Prisma quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMS 200)
(ii) Seifert 3000 XRD diffractometer (equipped with a PW gonimeter)
(iii) VG Escalab 200 R spectrometer (equipped with a hemispherical electron analyzer)
(iv) Nicolet 5700 Fourier transform spectrophotometer (equipped with an Hg-col-Te
cryodetector)
Biopiles Gas chromatography–mass spectrometer [79]
Canola, corn, peanut, olive, waste Gas chromatography [85]
vegetable
Castor oil (i) Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) [104]
(ii) Fourier-transformed infrared spectroscopy
2370 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373
11. Instrumentation involved in biodiesel production
For production of biodiesel, there are some primary
steps. If kernel or seeds are taken as starting materials, in
first step the raw oil is to be expelled from the kernel by
mechanical crusher. This raw oil is in fact feedstock for
development of biodiesel. After feedstock is obtained,
beakers, measuring flasks, test tubes, separating funnels,
etc. are needed up to development of biodiesel. Practically
no instruments are needed till its development. Most of the
instruments are used for characterization of the biodiesel
product. Further, the instruments used for characterization
can be divided into the categories of minor and major
equipments. Viscometer, cetane number analyzer, etc. are
minor equipments. Flash point, cloud point, pour point,
etc. are also determined by minor instruments. Major
instruments are however, needed for chemical characteriza-
tion of biodiesel product. Gas chromatograph, gas chro-
matograph–mass spectrometer, high performance liquid
chromatograph, fourier transformed infrared spectrome-
ter, elemental analyzer etc. are the major instruments used
for chemical characterization of the product. The major
instruments are listed in Table 11.
12. Conclusions
Biodiesel is derived from a varied range of vegetable oil
(edible and non-edible), animal fats, used frying oil, waste
cooking oil and wastewater. The edible oil in use at present
is soybean, sunflower, canola, palm. The non-edible oil used
as feedstock for biodiesel production includes J. curcas, P.
pinnata, M. indica, F. elastica, A. indica, C. inophyllum,
etc. The main advantage in its usage is attributed to lesser
exhaust emissions in terms of carbon monoxide, hydrocar-
bons, particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
compounds and nitrited polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
compounds. Biodiesel is said to be carbon neutral as more
of carbon dioxide is absorbed by the biodiesel yielding
plants than what is added to the atmosphere when used as
fuel. Exhaust emissions of NOx can be controlled by adopt-
ing certain strategies such as change in composition of feed-
stock, addition of cetane improvers, retardation of injection
timing, exhaust gas recirculation, etc.
Transesterification is the process successfully employed
at present to reduce the viscosity of biodiesel and improve
other characteristics. Methanol being cheaper is the com-
monly used alcohol during transesterification reaction.
Among the catalysts, homogeneous catalysts such as sul-
phuric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide are
commonly used at industrial level production of biodiesel.
Heterogeneous catalysts such as calcium oxide, magnesium
oxide and others are also being tried to decrease the cata-
lyst amount and production cost of biodiesel. Transesteri-
fication reaction can be completed even without catalyst
by using supercritical methanol but it will increase the pro-
duction cost of biodiesel as it is energy intensive. The molar
ratio of alcohol to oil required is 3:1 by stoichiometry, but
excess molar ratio has been used for biodiesel production
for better yield in lesser time. The molar ratio employed
during acid esterification is between 6:1 and 18:1 whereas
the molar ratio used alkaline transesterification ranges
between 5:1 and 12:1 after reducing the acid value to less
than 2.0% approximately. The temperature ranges between
318 and 338 K as the boiling point of methanol is 337.7 K
and heating beyond this temperature would burn metha-
nol. However, higher temperature is employed while using
supercritical methanol (473–573 K). Depending on the
feedstock taken; amount and type of alcohol and catalyst;
temperature employed; mode and rate of stirring; there is
difference in the yield of biodiesel which varied from 80
to 100%. The percent conversion of biodiesel also ranged
between 80% and 100%.
Another added advantage of biodiesel is that it is biode-
gradable in nature. When used as blend along with diesel
fuel, it shows positive synergic effect of biodegradation by
means of cometabolism. Major disadvantage of biodiesel
is the inverse relationship of oxidation stability of biodiesel
with its low temperature properties which includes cloud
point and pour point. Higher composition of saturated fatty
acids in feedstock will increase the oxidation stability of bio-
diesel but will lower its cloud and pour points. Whereas,
higher composition of unsaturated fatty acids will enhance
the cloud point and pour point of biodiesel but will have a
poor oxidation stability. Hence, a balance has to be main-
tained between the ratio of saturates and unsaturates for
the oil to be used as a feedstock for biodiesel production.
Edible oils are in use in developed nations such as USA
and European nations but developing nations are not self
sufficient in the production of edible oils and hence have
emphasized in the application of a number of non-edible
oils. In a country like India, which is rich in plant biodiver-
sity, there are many plant species whose seeds remain
unutilized and underutilized have been tried for biodiesel
production. These species have shown promises and fulfills
various biodiesel standards. However, there still is paucity
in terms of all the standards which should be fulfilled for
the large commercial application and its acceptance from
public and governing bodies.
References
[1] Ramadhas AS, Jayaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Biodiesel production
from high FFA rubber seed oil. Fuel 2005;84:335–40.
[2] Fukuda H, Kondo A, Noda H. Biodiesel fuel production by
transesterification of oils. J Biosci Bioeng 2001;92:405–16.
[3] Sharma YC, Singh B. Development of biodiesel from karanja, a tree
found in rural India. Fuel 2007. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2007.08.001.
[4] Ma F, Hanna MA. Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresour
Technol 1999;70:1–15.
[5] Canakci M, Gerpan JV. Biodiesel production via acid catalysis.
Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 1999;42(5):1203–10.
[6] Canakci M, Gerpan JV. Biodiesel production from oils and fats with
high free fatty acids. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 2001;44:1429–36.
[7] Veljkovic VB, Lakicevic SH, Stamenkovic OS, Todorovic ZB, Lazic
ML. Biodiesel production from tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) seed
oil with a high content of free fatty acids. Fuel 2006;85:2671–5.
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373
[8] Sahoo PK, Das LM, Babu MKG, Naik SN. Biodiesel development
from high acid value polanga seed oil and performance evaluation in
a CI engine. Fuel 2007;86:448–54.
[9] Tiwari AK, Kumar A, Raheman H. Biodiesel production from
jatropha oil (Jatropha curcas) with high free fatty acids: an
optimized process. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:569–75.
[10] Ghadge SV, Raheman H. Biodiesel production from mahua
(Madhuca indica) oil having high free fatty acids. Biomass Bioenergy
2005;28:601–5.
[11] Meher LC, Dharmagadda VSS, Naik SN. Optimization of alkali-
catalyzed transesterification of Pongamia pinnata oil for production
of biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 2006;97:1392–7.
[12] Sarin R, Sharma M, Sinharay S, Malhotra RK. Jatropha-palm
biodiesel blends: an optimum mix for Asia. Fuel 2007;86:1365–71.
[13] Demirbas A. Biodiesel production via non-catalytic SCF method
and biodiesel fuel characteristics. Energy Conservat Manage
2006;47:2271–82.
[14] Karmee SK, Chadha A. Preparation of biodiesel from crude oil of
Pongamia pinnata. Bioresour Technol 2005;96:1425–9.
[15] Canakci M, Gerpen JV. Biodiesel production via acid catalysis.
Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 1999;42:1203–10.
[16] Wang Y, Ou S, Liu P, Zhang Z. Preparation of biodiesel from waste
cooking oil via two-step catalyzed process. Energy Conservat
Manage 2007;48:184–8.
[17] Canakci M. The potential of restaurant waste lipids as biodiesel
feedstocks. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:183–90.
[18] Canakci M, Gerpen JV. A pilot plant to produce biodiesel from
high free fatty acid feedstocks. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 2003;46:
945–54.
[19] Leung DYC, Guo Y. Transesterification of neat and used frying
oil:Optimization for biodiesel production. Fuel Process Technol
2006;87:883–90.
[20] Madras G, Kolluru C, Kumar R. Synthesis of biodiesel in
supercritical fluids. Fuel 2004;83:2029–33.
[21] Miao X, Wu Q. Biodiesel production from heterotrophic microalgal
oil. Bioresour Technol 2006;97:841–6.
[22] Xu H, Miao X, Wu Q. High quality biodiesel production from a
microalga Chlorella protothecoides by heterotrophic growth in
fermenters. J Biotechnol 2006;126:499–500.
[23] Furuta S, Matsuhashi H, Arata K. Biodiesel fuel production with
solid amorphous-zirconia catalysis in fixed bed reactor. Biomass
Bioenergy 2006;30:870–3.
[24] Xue F, Zhang X, Luo H, Tan T. A new method for preparing raw
material for biodiesel production. Process Biochem 2006;41:
1699–702.
[25] Ji J, Wang J, Li Y, Yu Y, Xu Z. Preparation of biodiesel with the
help of ultrasonic and hydrodynamic cavitation. Ultrasonics
2006;44:411–4.
[26] Kitakawa NS, Honda H, Kuribayashi H, Toda T, Fukumura T,
Yonemoto T. Biodiesel production using anionic ion-exchange resin
as heterogeneous catalyst. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:416–21.
[27] Granados ML, Poves MDZ, Alonso DM, Mariscal R, Galisteo FC,
Tost RM, et al. Biodiesel from sunflower oil by using activated
calcium oxide. Appl Catal B: Environ 2007;73:317–26.
[28] Freedman B, Butterfield RO, Pryde EH. J Am Oil Chem Soc
1986;63:1375–80.
[29] Zhang Y, Dube’ MA, McLean DDl. Biodiesel production from
waste cooking oil: 1. Process design and technological assessment.
Bioresour Technol 2003;89:1–16.
[30] Al-Widyan MI, Al-Shyoukh AO. Experimental evaluation of the
transesterification of waste palm oil into biodiesel. Bioresour
Technol 2002;85:253–6.
[31] Tashtoush GM, Al-Widyan MI, Al-Shyoukh AO. Experimental
study on evaluation and optimization of conversion of waste animal
fat into biodiesel. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:2697–711.
[32] Milne TA, Evans RJ, Nagle N. Catalytic conversion of microalgae
and vegetable oils to premium gasoline, with shape-selective zeolites.
Biomass 1990;21:219–32.
2371
[33] Ginzburg BZ. Liquid fuel (oil) from halophilic algae: a renewable
source of non-polluting energy. Renew Energy 1993;3:249–52.
[34] Dote Y, Sawayama S, Inoue S, Minowa T, Yokoyama S. Recovery
of liquid fuel from hydrocarbon-rich microalgae by thermochemical
liquefaction. Fuel 1994;73:1855–7.
[35] Minowa T, Yokoyama SY, Kishimoto M, Okakurat T. Oil
production from algal cells of Dunaliella tertiolecta by direct
thermochemical liquefaction. Fuel 1995;74:1735–8.
[36] Kyle DJ. Production and use of lipids from microalgae. Lipid
Technol 1992;4(3):59–64.
[37] Running JA, Huss RJ, Olson PT. Heterotrophic production of
ascorbic acid by microalgae. J Appl Phycol 1994;4:99–104.
[38] Borowitzka MA. Microalgae source of pharmaceuticals and other
biologically active compounds. J Appl Phycol 1995;7:3–15.
[39] Chen F. High cell density culture of microalgae in heterotrophic
growth. Trends Biotechnol 1996;14:421–6.
[40] Simenson J. Personal communication. Simenson Rendering. Qui-
mby, 2000, IA, USA.
[41] Tyagi VK, Vasishtha AK. Changes in the characteristics and
composition of oils during deep-fat frying. JAOCS 1996;73(4):
499–506.
[42] Engelman HW, Guenther DA, Silvis TW. Vegetable oil as a diesel
fuel. SAE Paper 1978, 78-DGP-19.
[43] Lague CM, Lo KV, Staley LM. Waste vegetable oil as a diesel fuel
extender. Canadian Agric Eng 1988;30(1):27–32.
[44] Kouremenos DA, Rakopoulos CD, Kotsiopoulos PN, Yfantis EA.
Experimental investigation of waste olive oil utilization as a fuel
supplement in a diesel engine. In: Energy and the environment into
the 1990s-proceedings of the first world renewable energy congress,
Reading, UK, 1990. p. 2118–22.
[45] Karaosmanoglu F, Isigigur A, Hamdullahpur F, Gulder OL,
Aksoy HA. Used Canola oil as a diesel fuel alternative. In:
Renewable energy, technology and the environment-proceedings of
the second world renewable energy congress, Reading, UK, 1992.
p. 1455–9.
[46] Cigizoglu KB, Ozaktas T, Karaosmanoglu F. Used Sunflower oil as
an alternative fuel for diesel engines. Energy Sources 1997;19(6):
559–66.
[47] Ozbay N, Oktar N, Tapan NA. Esterification of free fatty acids in
waste cooking oils (WCO): role of ion-exchange resins. Fuel 2008.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2007.12.010.
[48] Marchetti JM, Migual VU, Errazu AF. Possible methods for
biodiesel production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:1300–11.
[49] Freedman B, Pryde EH. Fatty esters from vegetable oils for use as a
diesel fuel. In: Vegetable oils fuels-proceedings of the international
conference on plant and vegetable oils as fuels. ASAE Publication 4-
82, Fargo, ND, USA, 1982. p. 117–22.
[50] Liu K. Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters for gas-chromato-
graphic analysis of lipids in biological materials. J Am Oil Chem Soc
1994;71(11):1179–87.
[51] Mittelbach M, Pokits B, Silberholz A. Production and fuel
properties of fatty acid methyl esters from used frying oil. In:
Liquid fuels from renewable resources. Proceedings of an alternative
energy conference. ASAE Publication Nashville, TN, USA, 1992. p.
74–8.
[52] Ellis N, Guan F, Chen T, Poon C. Monitoring biodiesel production
(transesterification) using in situ viscometer. Chem Eng J 2007.
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2007.06.034.
[53] Cetinkaya M, Karaosmanoglu F. Optimization of base-catalyzed
transesterification reaction of used cooking oil. Energy Fuels
2004;18(6):1888–95.
[54] Srivastava PK, Verma M. Methyl ester of karanja oil as an
alternative renewable source energy. Fuel 2007. doi:10.1016/
j.fuel.2007.08.018.
[55] Marinkovic SS, Tomasevic A. Methanolysis of used frying oil. Fuel
Process Technol 2003;81:1–6.
[56] Usta N. Use of tobacco oil methyl ester in turbocharged indirect
injection diesel engine. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;28:77–86.
2372 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373
[57] Dossin TF, Reyniers MF, Berger RJ, Marin GB. Simulation of
heterogeneously MgO-catalyzed transesterification for fine-chemical
and biodiesel industrial production. Appl Catal B: Environ
2006;67:136–48.
[58] Meyer U, Hoelderich WF. Transesterification of methyl benzoate
and dimethyl terephthalate with ethylene glycol over basic zeolites.
Appl Catal A: General 1999;178:159–66.
[59] Corma A, Iborra S, Miquel S, Primo J. Catalysis for the production
of fine chemicals: production of food emulsifiers, monoglycerides,
by glycerolyis of fats with solid base catalysis. J Catal 1998;173:
315–21.
[60] Grylewicz S. Alkaline–earth metal compounds as alcoholysis
catalysis for ester oils synthesis. Appl Catal A: General 2000;192:
23–8.
[61] Hattori H, Shima M, Kabashima H. Alcoholysis of ester and
epoxide catalyzed by solid bases. Stud Surface Sci Catal
2000;130:3507–12.
[62] DiSerio M, Tesser R, Ferrara A, Santacesaria E. Heterogeneous
basic catalysts for the transesterification and the polycondensation
reactions in PET production from DMT. J Mol Catal A: Chem
2004;212:251–7.
[63] Schuchardt U, Sercheli R, Vargas RM. Transesterification of
vegetable oils: a review. J Braz Chem Soc 1998;9(1):199–210.
[64] Diasakov M, Loulodi A, Papayannakos N. Kinetics of the non-
catalytic transesterification of soybean oil. Fuel 1998;77:1297–302.
[65] Barton AFM. Handbook of solubility and other cohesion param-
eters. Florida: CRC Press; 1985.
[66] Saka S, Dadan K. Biodiesel fuel from rapeseed oil as prepared in
supercritical methanol. Fuel 2001;80:225–31.
[67] Kusdiana D, Saka S. Kinetics of transesterification in rapeseed oil
to biodiesel fuel as treated in supercritical methanol. Fuel 2001;80:
693–8.
[68] Al-Widyan MI, Al-Shyoukh AO. Experimental evaluation of the
transesterification of waste palm oil into biodiesel. Bioresour
Technol 2002;85:253–6.
[69] Kusdiana D, Saka S. Effects of water on biodiesel fuel production by
supercritical methanol treatment. Bioresour Technol 2004;91:
289–95.
[70] Romano S. Vegetable oils-a new alternative. In: Vegetable oils fuels—
proceedings of the international conference on plant and vegetable oils
as fuels. ASAE Publication 4-82. Fargo, ND, USA, 1982. p. 101–16.
[71] Demirbas A. Recent developments in biodiesel fuels. Int J Green
Energy 2007;4:15–26.
[72] Naik M, Meher LC, Naik SN, Das LM. Production of biodiesel
from high free fatty acid Karanja (Pongamia pinnata) oil. Biomass
Bioenergy 2007. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.10.006.
[73] Pasqualino JC, Montane D, Salvado J. Synergic effects of biodiesel
in the biodegradability of fossil-derived fuels. Biomass Bioenergy
2006;30:874–9.
[74] Zhang X, Peterson C, Reece D, Moller G, Haws R. Biodegradability
of biodiesel in the aquatic environment. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng
1998;41:1423–30.
[75] Makareviciene V, Janulis P. Environmental effect of rapeseed oil
ethyl ester. Renew Energy 2003;28(15):2395–403.
[76] Pereira G, Mudge SM. Cleaning oiled shores: laboratory experi-
ments testing the potential use of vegetable oil biodiesels. Chemo-
sphere 2004;54(3):297–304.
[77] Molina-Barehona L, Rodrı́guez-Vázquez R, Hernández-Velasco M,
Vega-Jarquı́n C, Zapata-Pérez O, Mendoza-Cantú A, et al. Appl
Soil Ecol 2004;27(2):165–75.
[78] Boopathy R. Anaerobic biodegradation of no. 2 diesel fuel in soil: a
soil column study. Bioresour Technol 2004;94:143–51.
[79] Mohn WW, Radziminski CZ, Fortin MC, Reimer KJ. On site
bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated arctic tundra soils in
inoculated biopiles. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2001;57:242–7.
[80] Mukherji S, Jagadevan S, Mohopatra G, Vijay A. Biodegradation of
diesel oil by an arabian sea sediment culture isolated from the
vicinity of an oil field. Bioresour Technol 2004;95(3):281–6.
[81] McCormick RL, Ratcliff M, Moens L, Lawrence R. Several factors
affecting the stability of biodiesel in standard accelerated tests. Fuel
Process Technol 2007;88:651–7.
[82] Frankel EN. Lipid oxidation. 2nd ed. Bridgewater: The Oily Press;
2005.
[83] Waynick JA. Characterization of biodiesel oxidation and oxidation
products: CRC Project no. AVFL-2b. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, NREL/TP-540-39096.2005.
[84] Tatandjiiska RB, Marekov IN, NikilovaDamyanova BM. Determi-
nation of triacylglycerol classes and molecular species in seed oils
with high content of linoleic and linolenic acids. J Sci Food Agric
1996;72:403–10.
[85] VanGerpen JH, Hammond EG, Yu L, Monyem A. Determining the
influence of contaminants on biodiesel properties, SAE Technical
Paper No. 971685, 1997.
[86] Dorado MP, Ballesteros E, Gomez JM, Lopez FJ. Exhaust
emissions from a diesel engine fueled with transesterified waste
olive oil. Fuel 2003;82:1311–5.
[87] Senda J, Okui N, Tsukamoto T, Fujimoto H. On board measure-
ment of engine performance and emissions in diesel vehicle operated
with biodiesel fuel. SAE; 2004. 2004-01-0083.
[88] Dorado MP, Ballesteros E, Arnal JM, Gomez J, Gimenez FJL.
Testing waste olive oil methyl ester as a fuel in a diesel engine.
Energy Fuels 2003;17:1560–5.
[89] Usta N. An experimental study on performance and exhaust
emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with tobacco seed oil methyl
ester. Energy Conservat Manage 2005;46:2373–86.
[90] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S. The effect of rapeseed oil methyl ester on
direct injection Diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions.
Energy Conservat Manage 2006;47:1954–67.
[91] Sinha S, Agarwal AK. Performance evaluation of a biodiesel fuelled
transport diesel engine. SAE 2005; 2005-01-1730.
[92] Turrio-Baldassarry L. Emissions comparison of urban bus engine
fuelled with diesel oil and biodiesel blend. Sci Total Environ
2004;327:147–62.
[93] Monyem A, Gerpen JH. The effect of biodiesel oxidation on engine
performance and emission. Biomass Energy 2001;20:
317–25.
[94] Canakci M, Erdil A, Arcaklioglu E. Performance and exhaust
emission of a biodiesel engine. Appl Energy 2006;83:
594–605.
[95] Lang X, Dalai AK, Bakhshi NN, Reaney MJ, Hertz PB. Prepara-
tion and characterization of bio-diesels from various bio-oils.
Bioresour Technol 2001;80:53–62.
[96] Antolin G, Tinaut FV, Briceno Y, Castano V, Perez C, Ramirez AL.
Optimization of biodiesel production by sunflower oil transesterifi-
cation. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:111–4.
[97] Vicente G, Martinez M, Aracil J. Integrated biodiesel production: a
comparison of different homogeneous catalysis systems. Bioresour
Technol 2004;92:297–305.
[98] Szybist JP, Boehman AL, Taylor JD, McCormick RL. Evaluation of
formulation strategies to eliminate the biodiesel NOx effect. Fuel
Process Technol 2005;86:1109–26.
[99] Boehman AL, Morris D, Szybist J. The impact of the bulk modulus
of diesel fuels on fuel injection timing. Energy Fuels 2004;18:
1877–82.
[100] Kegl B. Experimental investigation of optimal timing of the diesel
engine injection pump by using biodiesel fuel. Fuels Energy
2006;20:1460–70.
[101] Nabi N, Akhter S, Shahadat MZ. Improvement of engine emissions
with conventional diesel fuel and diesel–biodiesel blends. Bioresour
Technol 2006;97:372–8.
[102] Kegl B. Biodiesel usage at low temperature. Fuel 2007. doi:10.1016/
j.fuel.2007.06.023.
[103] Shahid EM, Jamal Y. A review of biodiesel as vehicular fuel. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2007. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.06.001.
[104] Correa SM, Arbilla G. Carbonly emissions in diesel and biodiesel
exhaust. Atmos Environ 2008;42:769–75.
 Y.C. Sharma et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 2355–2373
[105] Demirbas A, Karslioglu S. Biodiesel production facilities from
vegetable oils and animal fats. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, Environ Effects 2007;29(2):133–41.
[106] www.re-focus.net.
[107] Azam MM, Waris A, Nahar NM. Prospects and potential of fatty
acid methyl esters of some non-traditional seed oils for use as
biodiesel in India. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;29:293–302.
[108] Demirbas A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy
Policy 2007;35:4661–70.
[109] Bender M. Economic feasibility review for community-scale farmer
cooperatives for biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 1999;70:81–7.
2373
[110] Canakci M, Van Gerpen J. A pilot plant to produce biodiesel from
high free fatty acid feedstocks. Paper No. 016049, 2001 ASAE
Annual International Meeting, Sacramento, CA.
[111] Haas MJ, McAloon AJ, Yee WC, Foglia TA. A process model to
estimate biodiesel production costs. Bioresour Technol
2006;97:671–8.
[112] Nas B, Berktay A. Energy potential of biodiesel generated from
waste cooking oil: an environmental approach. Energy Sources, Part
B: Econ Plan Policy 2007;2:63–71.
[113] Business Line, Business Daily from The Hindu group of publica-
tions, December 5, 2007.