See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273217504

Alternative jet fuels from vegetable oils

Article · January 2001

DOI: 10.13031/2013.6988

CITATIONS READS
54 246

1 author:

Robert Dunn
United States Department of Agriculture
73 PUBLICATIONS   3,505 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Value-added Bio-oil Products and Processes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Dunn on 09 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ALTERNATIVE JET FUELS FROM VEGETABLE OILS
R. O. Dunn

ABSTRACT. Air quality standards set forth by the Clean Air Act and its amendments have established guidelines for reduction
of harmful ground level emissions from the aviation sector. Biodiesel, defined as the mono–alkyl esters of fatty acids derived
from vegetable oil or animal fat, in application as an extender for combustion in compression ignition (diesel) engines, has
demonstrated a number of promising characteristics including reduction of exhaust emissions. This work examines the fuel
properties of BioJet fuel blends consisting of 0.10–0.30 vol. frac. methyl soyate (SME) in JP–8 and in JP–8+100 jet fuels.
Testing of cold flow properties indicated that blends with as little as 0.10 vol. frac. SME may limit operation of aircraft to
lower altitudes where ambient temperature remains warmer than –295 C. Treatment of SME with cold flow improver additives
may decrease this limit to –375 C. Blends with winterized SME gave the best results, reducing the limit to as low as –475 C,
a value that meets the standard fuel specification for JP–8. Water reactivity studies indicated that SME/JP–8 blends absorbed
very little water from buffered solution following contact with the oil phase. Although interface ratings for blends with up
to 0.50 vol. frac. SME were “1b” (clear bubbles covering not more than 50% of the interface) or better, separation ratings
no better than “(3)” (formation of cloudy suspensions in the oil layer) were observed. Even though fatty derivatives such as
biodiesel undergo oxidative degradation more readily than jet fuels, careful production, transport, and storage of BioJet fuels
should not present a significant problem.
Keywords. Biodiesel, Cloud point, Cold filter plugging point, Flash point, Jet fuels, Kinematic viscosity, Methyl soyate, Oil
stability index, Water reactivity.

T
he effects of ground level emissions from
commercial, military and general aviation on local
air quality have earned considerable national and
international attention in recent years. Although
improvements in technology and stricter regulatory
requirements are predicted to stabilize or decrease harmful
emissions from most transportation sources by 2010, ground
level emissions from commercial and military aircraft are
expected to continue rising. For example, the aircraft
component of mobile source nitrogen oxides emissions are
expected to increase from 0.6–3.6% in 1990 to 1.9–10.5% by
2010 based on forecasted growth in ten major urban areas of
the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 1999).
As early as 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) recognized the need to develop strategies for reducing
ground level emissions from commercial aircraft. One option
is to increase scheduling of low–emissions aircraft to operate
in areas with air quality problems. Aircraft would be ranked
according to their minimum emissions per unit payload or per
unit thrust, each measured with respect to one landing/takeoff
cycle. Another approach is to minimize the number of
engines in operation during taxi–in and taxi–out
(single–engine taxis). Other strategies such as derated–
Article was submitted for review in June 2001; approved for
publication by the Food & Process Engineering Institute of ASAE in
October 2001.
Mention of company or trade names is for description only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The author is Robert O. Dunn, Chemical Engineer, USDA Agricultural
Research Service, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research,
1815 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61604; phone: 309–681–6101; fax:
309–681–6340; e–mail: dunnro@ncaur.usda.gov.
power takeoffs and reducing the use of reverse–thrust upon
landing will generally require longer landing strips (FAA,
1995).
Another approach that has gained recent attention is
development of cleaner, “greener” alternative fuels by
blending jet fuel (JP–5 or JP–8) with biodiesel (hereafter
referred to as BioJet fuels). Biodiesel, defined as fatty acid
mono–alkyl esters derived from vegetable oil, used frying
oil, or animal fat, has a number of potential advantages in
applications such as jet fuel extenders. Biodiesel is produced
domestically and is renewable, nonflammable, and relatively
safe to store and handle. Biodiesel has kinematic viscosity (ν)
and gross heat of combustion characteristics comparable to
those of No. 2 diesel fuel (D2). Biodiesel enhances lubricity
and cetane number of conventional diesel fuels (Goering et
al., 1982; Schwab et al., 1987). Biodiesel reduces harmful
exhaust emissions such as particulate matter, volatile organic
compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and smoke (Clark et al., 1984; Masjuki et al.,
1993; Scholl and Sorenson, 1993; Krahl et al., 1996).
Biodiesel has a negative carbon dioxide balance and a
positive energy balance in excess of 2:1 (Krahl et al., 1996).
Application of biodiesel as a jet fuel extender also raises
several concerns. First, biodiesel increases cloud point (CP)
in blends with No. 1 diesel fuel (D1) and D2 (Dunn and
Bagby, 1995); therefore, BioJet fuel blends will be more
susceptible to operational problems such as clogged fuel
lines than neat jet fuels. Another concern is its reaction to
contact with water. Pumping of fuels through pipelines over
long distances may lead to contact with moisture in the pipes.
In addition, in military applications water pumped into empty
storage tanks to maintain ballast on aircraft carriers may
leave behind aqueous residues when it is removed. A third
concern is reduction in nitrogen oxides emissions because

Transactions of the ASAE

Vol. 44(6): 1751–1757 2001 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0001–2351 1751
biodiesel is generally ineffective on these types of emissions
from compression ignition engines (Clark et al., 1984;
Chang et al., 1996). Finally, biodiesel such as methyl soyate
(SME) typically contains in excess of 80 wt% unsaturated
fatty acid esters, creating concerns with respect to oxidation
during long–term storage.
The work reported herein is a preliminary study
investigating fuel characteristics and their impact on some of
the aforementioned concerns for BioJet fuels. Blends
consisting of 0.10–0.30 vol. frac. SME in JP–8 or JP–8+100
(“+100” referring to addition of thermal stability additives)
were tested for effects on cold flow properties, water
reactivity, flash point, and viscosity with respect to
non–blended jet fuels. Some blends with enhanced cold flow
property–esters were also tested. Oxidative stability of
blends is also discussed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SME samples were from the following two sources:
Interchem (Overland Park, Kansas) through the National
Biodiesel Board (Jefferson City, Mo.), and Ag
Environmental Products (AEP, Lenexa, Kansas). Gas
chromatography (Autosystem GC, Perkin–Elmer, Norwalk,
Conn.; 25 m × 0.32 mm ID BPX70 column from SGE, Austin,
Texas) analyses of the samples showed 10.7 wt% palmitic
(C16 carbons:0 double bonds), 3.6% stearic (C18:0), 22.8%
oleic (C18:1), 55.5% linoleic (C18:2), and 7.5% linolenic
(C18:3) for Interchem–SME. Analysis of AEP–SME gave
similar results (11.2% C16:0, 4.1% C18:0, 24.1% C18:1,
52.6% C18:2, and 7.0% C18:3). JP–8 and JP–8+100 were
from the Air National Guard stationed at Greater Peoria
Regional Airport and used as received. Cold flow improvers
were DFI–200 from DuPont (Wilmington, Del.) and
Winterflow from Starreon Corp. (Englewood, Colo.). These
additives were mixtures of ethylene vinyl acetate
copolymers, naphthenic distillates, and proprietary
compounds designed to improve cold flow properties of
diesel fuels.
Closed–cup flash point (FP), pour point (PP), ν, and CP
data were measured in accordance with corresponding
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standard methods D93, D97, D445, and D2500 (ASTM,
1995a through 1995d). Viscosities were measured at –20°C
in accordance with the standard specification for jet aviation
fuels (U.S. DOD, 1992). Apparatus and procedures for
measuring cold filter plugging point (CFPP) were described
previously (Dunn and Bagby, 1995).
Apparatus and procedures for winterization of biodiesel
(neat) have also been described elsewhere (Dunn et al.,
1997). Winterization was conducted by equilibrating the
sample for approximately 16 hours (h) at 0°C and filtering out
the solid crystals. This process was repeated at –2°C
increments until the remaining solution could withstand a
bath temperature of –10°C for a period of 3 h. Winterization
of neat AEP–SME (without additives) gave a final CP =
–12°C with a relatively poor product yield = 0.32 g
winterized product collected per 1 g starting material.
Winterization of Interchem–SME + 2000 ppm DFI–200 gave
CP = –11°C with yield = 0.87 g/g; winterization of
Interchem–SME + 2000 ppm Winterflow gave CP = –11°C
with yield = 0.80 g/g.
1752
Water reactivity data were measured in accordance with
ASTM method D1094 (ASTM, 1999). Measured quantities
of fuel sample (80 mL) and aqueous buffer solution (20 mL)
were placed in a graduated mixing cylinder and stoppered.
The contents were gently shaken at room temperature for 2
min (±5 s) then immediately placed on a vibration free
surface and allowed to settle undisturbed for 5 min. Water
reactivity was determined with respect to the change in
volume (∆V) of the aqueous layer and appearance of the
oil–water interface following settling of the mixture.
Water penetration into BioJet fuel blends following
long–term contact between oil and aqueous phases was also
measured. Measured quantities of fuel sample and distilled
deionized water (10 mL each) were placed in a mixing
cylinder and equilibrated in a constant temperature bath.
Samples were initially agitated and allowed to settle back
into two layers during equilibration. Following exposure for
28 days (d), the oil layer was separated and tested for total
moisture content by Karl Fischer titration. Samples
equilibrated at 10°C, 20°C, and 30°C were tested for water
penetration.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
COLD FLOW PROPERTIES
In general, aircraft fuel tanks are not insulated. This means
there is only the thin tank wall separating the fuel from air
temperatures that decrease as altitude increases. Jet fuel
specifications require the fuel to resist formation of solid
crystals at temperatures as low as –47°C for JP–8 (U.S. DOD,
1992). This limit corresponds to an altitude of 9500 m
according to standard atmospheric tables used to make
engineering calculations for aircraft (Anon., 2000).
Results from CP and PP measurements for blends with
SME are shown in figures 1 and 2. Both CP and PP
predictably increase with increasing vol. frac. SME. For
blends with at least 0.30 vol. frac., increases in CP and PP
were nearly linear. The PP results show very little increase for
blends up to 0.20 vol. frac., followed by a significant increase
from 0.20 to 0.30 vol. frac. This may be an indication of a
phase transition from a solute (SME)–solvent (jet fuel) type
to a cosolvent type solution. Nevertheless, CP results show
that blends with as little as 0.10 vol. frac. SME increased CP
from –50°C to –30°C. This temperature corresponds to a
maximum standard atmospheric altitude of 7000 m (Anon.,
2000). Unless cold flow properties of biodiesel are
significantly improved, BioJet fuel blends may limit aircraft
operation to lower altitudes where ambient temperatures
exceed the CP.
Effects of treating SME with 1000 ppm cold flow
improvers (before blending) on CP of 0.10 vol. frac. BioJet
fuel blends are shown in figure 3. For both JP–8 and
JP–8+100 based blends, additives decreased CP to the range
–35°C to –37°C, corresponding to a maximum standard
atmospheric altitude of 8000 m (Anon., 2000). Testing of
neat (non–blended) JP–8 and JP–8+100 treated with
1000 ppm of each additive showed no significant effect on
CP. Therefore, the additives appeared to be beneficial with
respect to inhibiting nucleation and crystalline growth of the
methyl ester molecules when blended with jet fuels.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

Figure 1. Cloud point (CP, in 5C) of BioJet fuel blends. Legend: squares =
JP–8 blends; triangles = JP–8+100 blends. Source for methyl soyate
(SME): Ag Environmental Products.
Figure 2. Pour point (PP, in 5C) of BioJet fuel blends. Legend: squares =
JP–8 blends; triangles = JP–8+100 blends. Source for SME: Ag Environ-
mental Products. See Fig. 1 for other abbreviations.
Figure 3. CP (5C) of BioJet fuel blends prepared with 0.10 vol. frac. addi-
tive–treated SME. Additive loading = 1000 ppm (before blending). Source
for SME: Interchem. See figure 1 for abbreviations.
Previous CP studies with SME/D2 blends (Dunn et al.,
1996) showed little or no reduction in CP following treatment
with either DFI–200 or Winterflow. On the other hand, the
same study reported that blends with D1, a fuel that closely
resembles jet fuel with respect to composition and physical
properties, showed decreases in CP of up to 10°C for blend
ratios of 0.10 vol. frac. SME.
Vol. 44(6): 1751–1757
Effects of using winterized SME on CP of 0.10 vol. frac.
BioJet fuel blends are shown in figure 4. AEP–SME was used
for winterization of neat SME and Interchem–SME for
winterization of SME–additive (2000 ppm before
winterization) mixtures. For blends with winterized neat
SME, CP decreased to –47°C in JP–8 and –51°C in
JP–8+100, values that appear to meet freezing point
specifications for jet fuels. For blends with winterized
SME–DFI–200, CP decreased to –40°C and –42°C for JP–8
and JP–8+100, corresponding to maximum standard
atmospheric altitudes of 8900 m (Anon., 2000). For blends
with winterized SME–Winterflow, CP decreased to –36°C
and –40°C for JP–8 and JP–8+100. Comparison with
corresponding results in figure 3 suggests that, while
winterization of SME–DFI–200 offered some benefit for
reducing CP, winterization of SME–Winterflow was only
beneficial for SME/JP–8+100 blends.
Blends with winterized neat SME had CP values that were
lower than those with winterized SME–additive mixtures.
Prior to blending with jet fuel, the winterized SME–additive
mixtures each had CP = –11°C, while winterized neat SME
had CP = –12°C. Given the aforementioned observation that
additives had essentially no effect on CP of non–blended jet
fuels, the results shown in figure 4 were puzzling.
Earlier winterization studies (Dunn et al., 1997) suggested
it is unlikely that fatty acid group profiles for winterized
SME–additives mixtures differed significantly from that of
winterized neat SME. It equally unlikely that the solubility
limits for the additives in jet fuel solvent were exceeded
following blending with winterized SME–additive
component. Assuming no loss of additive during step–wise
winterization, the maximum additive loading for winterized
SME–jet fuel blends was approximately 250 ppm. The
aforementioned observation that additives had essentially no
effect on CP of non–blended jet fuels suggests that the
solubility limit exceeds 1000 ppm unless it was decreased by
presence of SME. If this were the case, results in figure 3
would be similar to those in figure 4. The effects of cold
improver additives on CP of BioJet fuels blended with
winterized as well as non–winterized SME may merit further
investigation.
Figure 4. CP (5C) of BioJet fuel blends prepared with 0.10 vol. frac. win-
terized SME. Additive loading = 2000 ppm (before winterization).
Sources for SME: Ag Environmental Products for winterized SME
(neat); Interchem for winterized SME–additive. See figure 1 for abbrevi-
ations.
1753
 Figure 5 is a plot comparing CFPP and CP results for Table 1. Kinematic viscosities (n) at –205C and closed–
0.10 vol. frac. BioJet fuels blended with untreated, additive– cup flash points (FP) of 0.10 vol. frac. blends.[a]
treated, or winterized SME. Least–squares analysis yielded ν FP
Ester Jet fuel Additive[b] (mm@/s) (_C)
the following regression line:
None JP–8 None 5.0 64.5
CFPP = 0.7719 × (CP) – 10.2 (1) None JP–8+100 None 5.1 56.2
where R2 = 0.92 and standard error of the y–estimate (σ) = SME JP–8 None 5.8 74.6
1.5°C. With respect to the regression line drawn in figure 5, SME JP–8 DFI–200 5.8 59.8
SME JP–8 Winterflow 5.8 56.1
winterized SME/JP–8 + 100 blends appear to show the small-
SME JP–8+100 None 5.8 63.8
est deviation from the regression line. Comparing measured
SME JP–8+100 DFI–200 6.0 55.9
CFPP with corresponding values calculated from equation 1,
SME JP–8+100 Winterflow 6.0 55.9
deviations were in the range ±0.2–3.3°C. Thus, as reported
Winterized SME JP–8 None 5.8[c] –
in earlier studies with biodiesel blends in D2 and D1 (Dunn Winterized SME JP–8 Winterflow 5.8 –
and Bagby, 1995; Dunn et al., 1996), CFPP of BioJet fuels Winterized SME JP–8 DFI–200 5.9 –
may be estimated from CP measurements. Winterized SME JP–8+100 None 6.0[c] –
Cold filter plugging point (CFPP) is a method originally Winterized SME JP–8+100 Winterflow 6.0 –
developed to test the rate at which a fluid passes under Winterized SME JP–8+100 DFI–200 6.0 –
vacuum through a wire filter screen. The minimum operating [a] Source for SME: Interchem, unless noted otherwise. Variances for ν data
temperature for an aircraft should be warmer than the < 0.000027; variances for FP = 1.0–8.3. See figure 1 for other abbrevia-
temperature where solid crystals plug or restrict flow through tions.
[b] Additive loading = 1000 ppm for blends with non–winterized SME (be-
filters in the fuel system. The CFPP–apparatus employed in
this work had a 45 µm wire–mesh screen. Results in figure 5 fore blending); 2000 ppm for blends with winterized SME (before winter-
ization).
and equation 1 indicate that filters this size will allow flow [c] Blended with AEP–SME (neat).
at temperatures equal to or less than CP as long as the CP of
the fuel is –45°C or higher. The CFPP apparatus is designed
7–10°C. On the other hand, treating SME with cold flow im-
to allow varying wire–mesh sizes, making it adaptable to test
provers appears to decrease FP, in some cases to values below
low–temperature filterability for a range of fuel filter types.
those for non–blended jet fuel. In most cases, JP–8+100
based blends yielded results with smaller variances than JP–8
KINEMATIC VISCOSITIES
based blends. This may have been an effect caused by the
The ν of JP–8 should not exceed a value of 8.0 mm2/s presence of thermal stability additives in the JP–8+100 fuel.
when measured at –20°C (U.S. DOD, 1992). Results in Overall, blending 0.10 vol. frac. SME does not offer any sig-
table 1 indicate that 0.10 vol. frac. BioJet fuels blended with
nificant advantages for storage and handling of the blended
untreated, additive–treated, or winterized SME do not fuels with respect to FP.
exceed this limit. Results show that regardless of whether and
how SME was winterized prior to blending, ν values were
WATER REACTIVITY AND PENETRATION
approximately 1 mm2/s greater than those for non–blended
Results from water reactivity determinations for 0.00,
JP–8 or JP–8+100.
0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.50, and 1.00 vol. frac. SME in JP–8 blends
are shown in table 2. Essentially, for blend ratios up to at least
FLASH POINTS
0.50 vol. frac. SME, very little absorption of water into the
Also shown in table 1 are closed–cup FP results for BioJet oil layer takes place (<0.50 mL). In contrast, water reactivity
fuels blended with 0.10 vol. frac. (non–winterized) SME. In of neat SME showed a decrease of 8.50 mL in the aqueous
general, blending jet fuel with biodiesel increases FP by
layer. Similar tests (not shown) on JP–8+100 blends showed

Table 2. Water reactivity of Interchem–SME/JP–8 blends

(measured by ASTM method D1094).[a]
Blend ratio ∆V
(vol. frac. SME) (mL) Interface[b] Separation[c]
0 –0.50 1 (1)
10 0.00 1 (3)
20 –0.10 1b (3)
30 0.00 1 (3)
50 –0.10 1 (3)
100 –8.50 2 (3)
[a] ∆V = change in volume of aqueous layer following contact with oil layer,
shaking for 2 min, and settling for 5 min. See figure 1 for other abbrevia-
tions.
[b] 1 = clear and clean; 1b = clear bubbles covering not more than 50% of
interface, no shreds, lace, or film at interface; 2 = shred, lace, or film, or
Figure 5. Least–squares fit of cold filter plugging point (CFPP, in 5C) ver- scum at interface.
[c] (1) = Complete absence of emulsions and/or precipitates within either
sus CP (5C) data for 0.10 vol. frac. BioJet fuel blends. Legend: squares =
additive–treated SME blends; triangles = winterized SME blends; closed layer or upon fuel layer; (3) = Emulsions and/or precipitates within either
squares and closed triangles = JP–8 blends; open squares and open layer or upon fuel layer, and/or droplets in the water or adhering to cylin-
triangles = JP–8+100 blends. See figure 1 for other abbreviations. der walls, excluding walls above fuel layer.

1754 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

decreases in the aqueous layer of at least 3.80 mL, including
a decrease of 6.00 mL for neat JP–8+100.
According to the fuel specification for JP–8 (U.S. DOD,
1992), qualitative interface rating results should be no worse
than “1b”. With the exception of neat SME, all blends listed
in table 2 met this criterion. On the other hand, each of the
four blends (0.10–0.50 vol. frac. SME in JP–8) yielded a
separation rating of “(3)” due to formation of cloudy
suspension in the oil layer. Similar tests (not shown) on
JP–8+100 blends resulted in formation of emulsions in the
fuel layer, leading to separation ratings no better than “(3)”
for these blends.
Results from water penetration following 28 d exposure of
equivalent volumes of SME/JP–8 blends (0.00, 0.10, 0.20,
0.30, and 1.00 vol. frac. SME) and aqueous phase are shown
in table 3. Only one blend, 0.10 vol. frac. SME at 20°C, gave
a moisture content exceeding the maximum (0.050 wt%)
allowed by the provisional fuel specification for biodiesel,
PS121 (ASTM, 2000c). Neat SME samples also yielded
moisture contents in excess of this maximum limit
(0.142–0.203 wt%) regardless of temperature. These results
show that at low blend levels, exposure of BioJet fuel blends
to a bulk aqueous phase for an extended period results in very
little absorption of moisture into the bulk oil phase.
It is known that oxidation degradation during storage can
increase the acid value of biodiesel, leading to formation of
water–in–oil emulsions. It is likely that a substantial increase
in free fatty acid content in biodiesel would be necessary to
cause formation of emulsions in 0.10–0.30 vol. frac. blends
with jet fuel. Hence, it may be speculated that formation of
emulsions will be checked unless the total acid number of the
blend exceeds the maximum value (0.015 mg KOH/g)
allowable with respect to the fuel specification for JP–8 (U.S.
DOD, 1992). This speculation was confirmed when
long–term exposure to non–buffered aqueous phase resulted
in no visible indications of emulsions for any of the oil
samples studied in this work.
STORAGE STABILITY
Storage stability, particularly with respect to oxidative
degradation, is a concern for long–term storage of biodiesel
blended with petroleum middle distillate fuels including
those used in aviation applications.
When biodiesel is in contact with ambient air for an
extended period of time, it reacts with the oxygen present and
undergoes degradation. Factors that influence oxidative
degradation include temperature, presence or absence of
light, storage container material, and presence of pro– and
antioxidizing contaminants (du Plessis et al., 1985;
Table 3. Karl Fischer titration of Interchem–SME/JP–8 blends
after 28 d exposure to equivalent amount of distilled,
deionized water (10 mL oil + 10 mL H2O).[a]
Percent moisture (wt)[b]
Blend ratio
(vol. frac. SME) 10_C 20_C 30_C
0.00 0.040 0.069 0.035
0.10 0.011 0.060 0.019
0.20 0.014 0.033 0.020
0.30 0.024 0.027 0.022
1.00 0.203 0.152 0.142
[a] See figure 1 for abbreviations.
[b] Data are mean of two replicate measurements.
Vol. 44(6): 1751–1757
Bondioli et al., 1995; Thompson et al., 1998). Extended deg-
radation can positively or negatively affect fuel quality of jet
fuels with respect to total acid number, specific gravity, ce-
tane number, viscosity and heat of combustion.
One earlier study (Dunn, 1998) reported results from oil
stability index (OSI, related to induction period)
measurements of SME and SME/D1 blends. These studies
were performed in accordance with American Oil Chemists’
Society method Cd 12b–92 (AOCS, 1993) modified for a
block temperature of 50°C. For neat SME, OSI = 13.6 hours
(h), while winterization reduced OSI to 6.8–9.5 h. On the
other hand, a 0.20 vol. frac. blend of SME with D1 increased
OSI to 77.0 h, while a 0.30 vol. frac. winterized SME blend
with D1 gave OSI = 51.7 h. Similar testing of non–blended
D1 resulted in OSI values exceeding the limit (500 h)
imposed by the experimental apparatus. Given the
similarities between D1 and jet fuels, BioJet fuel blends may
be expected to have a relatively robust oxidative stability.
COMPARISON OF BIODIESEL AND JP–8 FUEL
SPECIFICATIONS
Although corresponding ASTM fuel specifications for
biodiesel and jet fuels are similar in many respects, there are
several notable differences. With respect to acid
neutralization, the specification for JP–8 (U.S. DOD, 1992)
gives a maximum total acid number of 0.015 mg KOH/g oil
while the provisional specification for biodiesel (ASTM,
2000c) gives a maximum acid number of 0.80 mg KOH/g oil.
Thus, some care should be taken during processing and
storage of biodiesel prior to blending it with jet fuel.
As stated above, jet fuels have a maximum freezing point
measured by ASTM method D2386 (ASTM, 2000b)
requirement of –47°C (U.S. DOD, 1992). Although biodiesel
may be tested for CP by the customer, PS121 (ASTM, 2000c)
specifies no maximum value because this provisional
specification was developed with the philosophy that
biodiesel would be primarily applied as a fuel extender.
Nevertheless, corresponding methods for measuring freezing
point and CP require very different test conditions. For
freezing points, mixtures are stirred constantly and samples
are first tested by cooling in 1°C increments until cloudiness
is observed, then removed from the cooling bath and
re–tested in 0.5°C increments while warming up; the
measured freezing point is taken as the temperature where
cloudiness disappears. For CPs, mixtures remain quiescent
and samples are tested during cooling in 1°C increments; CP
is taken as the temperature where cloudiness is first observed
in the sample.
The third notable difference in ASTM guidelines between
JP–8 and biodiesel lies in how heats of combustion are
measured and reported. For biodiesel as well as D1 and D2,
gross heats of combustion, defined as the heat released by one
unit mass of fuel in a constant volume bomb with
substantially all of the water condensed to the liquid state
(ASTM, 2000a), are quantified. Clark et al. (1984) reported
gross heats of combustion of 39.8 MJ/kg for SME and
45.2 MJ/kg for D2. Given that D1 as a lighter distillate
fraction typically has a smaller heat content than D2,
biodiesel should compare more favorably with jet fuels
because these fuels have composition and physical properties
similar to those of D1. To effectively compare heat contents,
the net heat of combustion of biodiesel should be determined.
Net heat of combustion is defined as the heat released by
1755
combustion of one unit mass of fuel at a constant pressure of
1 atm. (0.1 MPa) with the water remaining in the vapor state
(ASTM, 2000a). Jet fuel specification MIL–T–83133D (U.S.
DOD, 1992) reports a net heat of combustion of 42.8 MJ/kg
for JP–8.
Another deviation between fuel guidelines is in
measurement of Cu–strip corrosion properties (ASTM
D130). For JP–8, samples are tested for 2 h at 100°C (U.S.
DOD, 1992), while biodiesel samples are tested for 3 h at
50°C (ASTM, 2000c).
Finally, with respect to gum formation, the maximum
value for existent gum is 7.0 mg/100 mL for JP–8 (U.S. DOD,
1992). There is no similar maximum value specified for
biodiesel. Clark et al. (1984) have reported a gum number of
16,400 mg/100 mL for SME. Another factor in formation of
gums in biodiesel is the presence of glycerol, a co–product
from transesterification of the parent oil. Glycerol in the fuel
can clog filters. For this reason, PS121 (ASTM, 2000c)
specifies a maximum total glycerol content of 0.240 wt% for
biodiesel. Overall, care should be taken during processing,
transportation, and storage of biodiesel to exclude excessive
amounts of gums and glycerine.
CONCLUSIONS
S BioJet fuel blends with SME will require significant
reduction in freezing point to allow aircraft operation at
higher altitudes. BioJet with 0.10 vol. frac. SME will be
limited to altitudes of 7000 m based on standard
atmospheric conditions.
S BioJet fuels blends with SME–additive mixtures yielded
CP reductions of 6–9°C for 0.10 vol. frac. blends.
Additives (at 1000 ppm) did not significantly affect CP of
neat (non–blended) JP–8 and JP–8+100 fuels.
S BioJet fuel blends with winterized SME yielded
substantial CP reductions. In some cases, BioJet fuels
gave CPs below –47°C, the specified maximum freezing
point for JP–8.
S BioJet fuels blends with winterized SME–additives
showed CP reductions to as low as –42°C. This reduction
might allow aircraft operating altitudes to increase to
8900 m based on standard atmospheric conditions.
S BioJet fuels with up to 0.30 vol. frac. SME may be
formulated without compromising viscosity (measured at
–20°C), with respect to jet fuel specifications.
S BioJet fuels tend to have elevated FPs with respect to
non–blended jet fuels. On the other hand, addition of cold
flow improvers such as DFI–200 or Winterflow decreased
FP.
S BioJet fuels with up to 0.50 vol. frac. SME in JP–8
indicated very little propensity to absorb water from
buffered solutions. Although water reactivity interface
ratings were “1b” or better for blends, separation ratings
were rated at “(3)” due to formation of a cloudy
suspension in the oil layer. Blends in JP–8+100 exhibited
higher degrees of water–absorption and tended to form
emulsions.
S Long–term exposure to an equivalent volume of
non–buffered aqueous phase yielded very little
measurable water penetration in blends with up to
0.30 vol. frac. SME in JP–8.
1756
RECOMMENDATIONS
The studies reported herein are preliminary and should be
followed up with a more extensive evaluation to confirm the
feasibility of applying biodiesel in alternative jet fuel blends.
Examples of future studies within this context include the
following:
S Testing for freezing point (ASTM D2386) of neat
biodiesel and BioJet fuel blends including comparison
with CP and CFPP results such as those reported in this
work.
S Develop low–temperature filterability tests to evaluate
fuels with respect to filter screens common in aircraft fuel
systems.
S Oxidative and thermal stability testing of BioJet fuels to
predict effects of long–term storage degradation. This
may require development of test methods including those
requiring accelerated experimental conditions.
S Testing for Cu–strip corrosion (D 130) of BioJet fuels
under conditions stipulated for aviation fuels (2 h, 100°C).
Completion of these studies should provide a basis for devel-
oping a database on fuel properties of BioJet fuel blends.
Once the database has been established, the next step should
initiation of performance and emissions testing of BioJet fuel
blends in jet turbine engines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
H. Khoury, B. Mernick, A. Callison, and D. Ehmke
provided technical assistance for experimental studies and
analyses. J. Cummings, Naval Air Systems Command
(Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD), provided jet fuel
specification data. L. A. Dockman, Cardinal Aircraft Corp.
(Townsend, MD), provided advice and guidance for
designing the studies behind this work.
REFERENCES
Anon. 2000. Article posted in USA Today Weather News (22 Sept.
2000). Available at:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm.
AOCS. 1993. Cd 12–92. Oxidative stability index (OSI). In Official
Methods and Practices of the AOCS, Vol. 1. Champaign, Ill.:
American Oil Chemists’ Society.
ASTM. 1995a. D93. Standard test method for flash point by
Pensky–Martins closed cup tester. In Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 05. West Conshohocken, Pa.: American Society
for Testing and Materials.
_____. 1995b. D97. Standard test method for pour point of
petroleum products. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
05. West Conshohocken, Pa.: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
_____. 1995c. D445. Standard test method for kinematic viscosity
of transparent and opaque liquides (and the calculation of
dynamic viscosity). In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
05. West Conshohocken, Pa.: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
_____. 1995d. D2500. Standard test method for cloud point of
petroleum oils. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 05.
West Conshohocken, Pa.: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
_____. 1999. D1094. Standard test method for water reaction of
aviation fuels. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 05.
West Conshohocken, Pa.: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
_____. 2000a. D240. Standard test method for heat of combustion
of liquid hydrocarbon fuels by bomb calorimeter. In Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 05. West Conshohocken, Pa.:
American Society for Testing and Materials.
_____. 2000b. D2386. Standard test method for freezing point of
aviation fuels. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 05.
West Conshohocken, Pa.: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
_____. 2000c. PS121. Provisional specification for biodiesel fuel
(B100) blend stock for distillate fuels. In Annual Book of ASTM
Standards. West Conshohocken, Pa.: American Society for
Testing and Materials.
Bondioli, P., A. Gasparoli, A. Lanzani, E. Fedeli, S. Veronese, and
M. Sala. 1995. Stability storage of biodiesel. J. Am. Oil Chem.
Soc. 72(6): 699–702.
Chang, D. Y. Z., J. H. Van Gerpen, I. Lee, L. A. Johnson, E. G.
Hammond, and S. J. Marley. 1996. Fuel properties and
emissions of soybean oil esters as diesel fuel. J. Am. Oil Chem.
Soc. 73(11): 1549–1555.
Clark, S. J., L. Wagner, M. D. Schrock, and P. G. Piennar. 1984.
Methyl and ethyl soybean esters as renewable fuels for diesel
engines. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 61(10): 1632–1638.
Dunn, R. O. 1998. Effect of winterization on fuel properties of
methyl soyate. In Proc. Third Commercialization of Biodiesel
Conference: Producing a Quality Biodiesel Fuel. Ed. C. L.
Peterson, 164–186. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho.
Dunn, R. O., and M. W. Bagby. 1995. Low–temperature properties
of triglyceride–based diesel fuels: Transesterified methyl esters
and petroleum middle distillate/ester blends. J. Am. Oil Chem.
Soc. 72(8): 895–904.
Dunn, R. O., M. W. Shockley, and M. O. Bagby. 1996. Improving
the low–temperature properties of alternative diesel fuels:
Vegetable oil–derived methyl esters. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc.
73(12): 1719–1728.
_____. 1997. Winterized methyl esters from soybean oil: An
alternative diesel fuel with improved low–temperature flow
properties. In SAE Spec. Publ. SP–1274: State of Alternative
Fuel Technologies, Paper No. 971682. 133–142. Warrendale,
Pa.: Society of Automotive Engineers.
du Plessis, L. M., J. B. M. de Villiers, and W. H. Van Der Walt.
1985. Stability studies on methyl and ethyl fatty acid esters of
sunflowerseed oil. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 62(4): 748–752.
Vol. 44(6): 1751–1757
FAA. 1995. Technical data to support FAA’s advisory circular on
reducing emissions from commercial aviation. Report prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration). Arlington, Va.: Energy and Environmental
Analysis, Inc.
Goering, C. E., A. W. Schwab, M. J. Daugherty, E. H. Pryde, and A.
J. Healy. 1982. Fuel properties of eleven vegetable oils. Trans.
ASAE 25(6): 1472–1477, 1483.
Krahl, J., J. Bunger, H.–E. Jeberien, K. Prieger, C. Schutt, A.
Munack, and M. Bahadir. 1996. Analysis of biodiesel exhaust
emissions and determination of environmental and health effects.
In Proc. Third Liquid Fuel Conference: Liquid Fuels and
Industrial Products from Renewable Resources., 149–165. St.
Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Masjuki, H. J., A. M. Zaki, and S. M. Sapuan. 1993. Methyl ester of
palm oil as an alternative diesel fuel. In Proc. of the 2nd Institute
of Mechanical Engineering Seminar: Fuels for Automotive and
Industrial Diesel Engines, 129–137. London, U.K.: Institute of
Mechanical Engineering.
Scholl, K. W. and S. C. Sorenson. 1993. Combustion of soybean oil
methyl esters in a direct injection diesel engine. In SAE Spec.
Publ. SP–958: New Developments in Alternative Fuels and
Gasolines for SI and CI Engines, Paper No. 930936. 211–223.
Warrendale, Pa.: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Schwab, A. W., M. O. Bagby, and B. Freedman. 1987. Preparation
and properties of diesel fuels from vegetable oils. Fuel 66(Oct.):
1372–1378.
Thompson, J. C., C. L. Peterson, D. L. Reece, and S. M. Beck.
1998. Two–year storage study with methyl and ethyl esters of
rapeseed oil. Trans. ASAE 41(4): 931–939.
U.S. DOD. 1992. MIL–T–83133D: Military specification for
turbine fuels, aviation, kerosene types, NATO F–34 (JP–8) and
NATO F–35. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense.
U.S. EPA. 1999. Evaluation of air pollutant emissions from
subsonic commercial jet aircraft. Report EPA420–R–99–013.
Ann Arbor, Mich.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Mobile Sources.
1757
 1758 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

View publication stats