Premium
Waste glycerol derived bio‐propanol as a potential extender fuel for compressed ignition engine
Author(s) -
Tomar Mukul,
Sonthalia Ankit,
Kumar Naveen,
Dewal Hansham
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
environmental progress and sustainable energy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.495
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1944-7450
pISSN - 1944-7442
DOI - 10.1002/ep.13526
Subject(s) - diesel fuel , cetane number , biodiesel , pulp and paper industry , waste management , gasoline , thermal efficiency , diesel engine , brake specific fuel consumption , biofuel , environmental science , materials science , combustion , chemistry , organic chemistry , engineering , automotive engineering , catalysis
In recent years there has been a significant rise in crude glycerol generation due to the booming biodiesel industries. Despite having immense benefits, the presence of poisonous methanol and fatty acids, glycerol is treated as a waste by‐product of biodiesel. In the present study, investigations have been carried out on utilizing the potential of glycerol derived bio‐propanol as an extender fuel with diesel/gasoline blends. Test fuels containing ternary blends of diesel/gasoline/bio‐propanol in different volume concentrations were prepared. The crude glycerol was procured from transesterified Kusum ( Schleichera oleosa ) oil. The physicochemical properties, along with stability and homogeneity of the test fuels were evaluated as per ASTM/EN standards and compared with the neat diesel. To study the effect of fuel properties on atomization process, the sauter mean diameter of the test fuels were observed using Malvern spraytec test. The engine performance, combustion and emission characteristics of a single‐cylinder diesel engine fuelled with different test fuels were also conducted. Due to the enhancement in mixing rate promoted by low cetane fuels, the ignition delay and heat release rate was higher than diesel. Moreover, the results also reveal upto 5% increase in brake thermal efficiency and a significant reduction in harmful exhaust emission with an increase in the gasoline and bio‐propanol share in the blend. The oxide of nitrogen (NO x ) emissions was also lower than diesel for all the fuel blends. In comparison to diesel, the maximum reduction in NO x , HC, CO and smoke emissions is 7.4%, 33.3%, 55.7%, and 17.2%, respectively, for D40:G30:P30 fuel blend.