Industrial Crops and Products 53 (2014) 7884

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Crops and Products
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ i ndcr op
Comparative evaluation of performance and emission characteristics
of Moringa oleifera and Palm oil based biodiesel in a diesel engine
M. Mojur

, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, A.E. Atabani, I.M. Rizwanul Fattah, H.M. Mobarak
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 August 2013
Received in revised form
26 November 2013
Accepted 3 December 2013
Keywords:
Global energy consumption
Edible oil feedstock
Non-edible oil feedstocks, Moringa oleifera
methyl ester
Engine performance and emissions
a b s t r a c t
Biodiesels, which are made from various crops, as well as animal fat, are renewable, bio-degradable, and
non-toxic and are eco-friendly compared with fossil fuels. Currently, there are more than 350 oil-bearing
crops identied as potential sources for biodiesel production. In this study, the potential of biodiesel
obtained from a non-edible oil source (Moringa oleifera) was explored and compared with that of palm
biodiesel and diesel fuel. The physico-chemical properties of M. oleifera methyl ester were determined,
and the properties of 5% and 10% (by volume) blends thereof (MB5 and MB10, respectively) were com-
pared with those of palm-oil blends (PB5 and PB10) and diesel fuel (B0). The performance of these fuels
was assessed in a multi-cylinder diesel engine at various engine speeds and under the full-load condition
whereas emissions were assessed under the both full-load and half load condition. The properties of
palmand M. oleifera biodiesels and their blends meet the ASTM D6751 and EN 14214 standards. Engine
performance test results indicated that the PB5 and the MB5 fuels produced slightly lower brake pow-
ers and higher brake specic fuel consumption values compared to diesel fuel over the entire range of
speeds examined. Engine emission results indicated that the PB5, MB5, PB10 and MB10 fuels reduced the
average emissions of carbon monoxide by 13.17%, 5.37%, 17.36%, and 10.60%, respectively, and reduced
those of hydrocarbons by 14.47%, 3.94%, 18.42%, and 9.21%, respectively. However, the PB5, MB5, PB10,
and MB10 fuels slightly increased nitric oxide emissions by 1.96%, 3.99%, 3.38%, and 8.46%, respectively,
and increased carbon dioxide emissions by 5.60%, 2.25%, 11.73%, and 4.96%, respectively, compared to
the emissions induced by B0. M. oleifera oil is a potential feedstock for biodiesel production, and the
performance of MB5 and MB10 biodiesel is comparable to that of PB5 and PB10 biodiesel and diesel
fuel. Because the MB5 and MB10 fuels produce lower exhaust emissions than diesel fuel, these fuels can
replace diesel fuel in unmodied engines to reduce the global energy demand and exhaust emissions to
the environment.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Most energy consumed (87%) is derived from fossil fuels, to
which crude oil contributes 33.06%, coal 30.34%, and natural gas
23.67% (BP, 2012). The dominance of fossil fuels is primarily due to
the fuels adaptability, highcombustionefciency, availability, reli-
ability, andhandling facilities (de Vries, 2008; Mojur et al., 2013a).
However, the reserves of fossil fuels are diminishing; meanwhile,
their demand increases every day. However, emissions produced
by the combustion of fossil fuels have adverse effects on the envi-
ronment and human health. It is predicted that greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from fossil fuels will increase by 39% in 2030 if
no signicant efforts are undertaken to alleviate them. Numerous

Corresponding author. Tel.: +6 3 79674448; fax: +6 3 79674448.

E-mail addresses: mojduetme@yahoo.com, mojduetme@gmail.com
(M. Mojur).
factors such as the depletion of petroleum-derived fuels, the threat
of climatechange, andincreasingprices of petroleumproducts have
motivated researchers to seek alternative energy sources (Limand
Teong, 2010; Jayed et al., 2011; Atabani et al., 2012). Therefore, for
several decades, manyresearchers havebeendevelopingnewalter-
nativeenergysources that arereadilyavailable, technicallyfeasible,
economically viable, and environmentally friendly. Biofuel is a fea-
sible, clean alternative energy source that does not contain any
harmful substances and produces fewer harmful emissions than
diesel fuel (Mojur et al., 2013b; Silalertruksa et al., 2012). Biodiesel
is one of the best biofuels that can reduce the global dependency on
fossil-based diesel fuels and the emissions of environmental pol-
lutants without requiring the modication of vehicles. Biodiesel
is non-explosive, biodegradable, non-ammable, renewable, non-
toxic, and environmentally friendly, and it has properties that
are similar to those of diesel fuel (vila and Sodr, 2012; Amani
et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2013). Biodiesel can be obtained by
applying transestericationprocesses to vegetable oils, animal fats,
0926-6690/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.12.011
M. Mojur et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 53 (2014) 7884 79
Nomenclature
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BP brake power
BSFC brake specic fuel consumption
CMOO crude Moringa oleifera oil
CPO crude palmoil
CO carbon monoxide
CO
2
carbon dioxide
HC hydrocarbon
POME palmoil methyl ester
mm millimeter
MJ/kg megajoule/kg
MOME Moringa oleifera methyl ester
NO nitric oxide
NO
x
oxides of nitrogen
PM particulate matter
rpm revolution per minute
used cooking oil, and waste grease from restaurants (Vedaraman
et al., 2012; Wazilewski et al., 2013). The most common sources
of biodiesel are edible oils (palm, rapeseed, sunower, coconut,
peanut, soybeanetc.). It has beenreportedthat edible-oil biodiesels
are limited in their ability to contribute to climate change mitiga-
tion and economic growth and serve as a substitute for petroleum
production. The mass production of edible-oil biodiesels would
leads to food price increases and would create pressure on land
use, making it unsustainable. Recently, non-edible-oil feedstocks
such as Jatropha curcas, Moringa oleifera, Pongamia pinnata, rubber
oil, and cotton-seed oil have attracted world-wide attention for the
production biodiesel.
1.1. Botanical description of palmand Moringa oleifera feedstocks
The palm tree reaches an average height of 20m or more at
maturity. The biophysical limits of the tree are as follows: altitude:
upto 900m, meanannual temperature: 2735

C, andmeanannual
rainfall: 20003000mm. The root system consists of primary and
secondary roots in the top 140cmof soil. Leaves can reach 35min
adult trees. Leaf blades havenumerous (100160pairs) longleaets
with prominent midribs that taper to a point; these leaets are
arranged ingroups or singly along the midrib, sometimes occurring
in different planes.
M. oleifera, a member of the Moringaceae family, grows mainly
in tropical countries and is a drought-tolerant species. The seeds of
M. oleifera are triangular in shape and contain approximately 40%
oil by weight (Atabani et al., 2013a,b). The oil produced from the
seed kernel of M. oleifera is golden yellow in color. Recent studies
have indicated that M. oleifera is native to Malaysia.
1.2. Objectives of the paper
Recently, many studies (Kalam and Masjuki, 2008; Patil and
Deng, 2009; Saeddin Ardebili et al., 2011) concerning the pro-
duction of biodiesel from edible oil and its use as a fuel for diesel
engines have been published. In addition, a few authors (Rashid
et al., 2008; da Silva et al., 2010; Kafuku et al., 2010; Rashid et al.,
2011) have discussed the potential production of biodiesel from
non-edible oils such as palm and M. oleifera oil. However, there
is no report that provides a comparative evaluation of the perfor-
mance of palm and M. oleifera biodiesel blends in diesel engines
(Rahman et al., 2013). Only Rajaraman et al. (2009) has reported on
the performance and emission characteristics of M. oleifera methyl
ester andits blends (B20-B100) inadiesel engineunder various load
Table 1
Properties of crude Palmoil (CPO) and Crude Moringa Oleifera oil (CMOO).
Properties Units Standards CPO CMOO
Dynamic viscosity mPa s ASTMD445 36.30 38.90
Kinematic viscosity at 40

C mm
2
/s ASTMD445 40.40 43.33
Kinematic viscosity at 100

C mm
2
/s ASTMD445 8.43 8.91
Viscosity Index N/A 192.1 193.1
Density kg/m
3
ASTMD4052 898.4 897.5
Flash point

C ASTMD93 165 268.5
Pour point

C ASTMD97 9 11
Cloud point

C ASTMD2500 8 10
Caloric value MJ/kg ASTMD240 39.44 38.05
Acid value mgKOH/g oil ASTMD664 3.47 8.62
conditions. The authors reported that, compared to diesel fuel, M.
oleifera methyl ester blends exhibit lower brake thermal efciency
(BTE) because of their lower heating value and higher viscosity
and density than diesel fuel. With respect to engine emissions, M.
oleifera methyl ester blends produce lower HC, CO, and PM emis-
sions but higher NO
x
emissions compared to diesel fuel. Therefore,
the primary objective of this study was to examine non-edible oil
sources, such as M. oleifera, as a potential feedstock for biodiesel
production. In this investigation, a mixture of 5% palm and 5% M.
oleifera oil with95%diesel fuel was selectedas a B5reference fuel to
improve its physic-chemical properties and assess its performance
in a diesel engine, as is suggested by the Malaysian government.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Crude palm oil (CPO) was collected from the Forest Research
Institute, Malaysia (FRIM), and M. oleifera oil (CMOO) was gener-
ously supplied by a colleague (personal communication). All other
chemicals, reagents, and accessories were purchased from local
markets. Table 1 shows the properties of CPO and CMOO.
2.2. Production of palmand Moringa oleifera methyl esters
Palmand M. oleifera methyl esters were produced at the energy
laboratory of the University of Malaya using a 1-L batch reactor, a
reux condenser, a magnetic stirrer, a thermometer, and a samp-
ling outlet. To produce palmbiodiesel, crude palmoil was reacted
with 25% (v/v oil) methanol and 1% (m/m oil) potassium hydrox-
ide (KOH) and maintained at 60

C for 2h and a stirring speed

of 400rpm. After the completion of the reaction, the produced
biodiesels were deposited in a separation funnel for 15h to sep-
arate glycerol from biodiesel. The lower layer, which contained
impurities and glycerol, was drawn off. M. oleifera methyl ester
was produced using an acid-base catalyst process. Before initiat-
ing the esterication process, the crude M. oleifera oils were heated
to 60

C using a temperature-controlled rotary evaporator (IKA)

under vacuumto remove moisture. For the esterication process, a
12:1 molar ratio of methanol to crude oil and 1% (v/v) sulfuric acid
(H
2
SO
4
) were added to the preheated oil and stirred at 600rpm
and 60

C for 3h. Then, the esteried oil was separated from the
excess alcohol, sulfuric acid, and impurities using a separator fun-
nel. The separated esteried oil was then heated to 60

C in the
rotary evaporator for 1h to remove the methanol and water. For
the transesterication reaction, a 6:1 molar ratio of methanol to oil
and 1% (m/moil) potassiumhydroxide (KOH) were mixed with the
preheated esteried oil and stirred at a constant speed of 600rpm
at 60

C temperature for 2h. After the reaction was complete, the

methyl ester was kept in a separation funnel for 24h. Then, the
glycerol in the lower layer was drained out, and the methyl ester
was washedwithwarmdistilledwater (3 times), driedinthe rotary
80 M. Mojur et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 53 (2014) 7884
Table 2
Equipment list.
Property Equipment Manufacturer Test method
Kinematic viscosity SVM3000 (Anton Paar, UK) ASTMD445
Density SVM3000 (Anton Paar, UK) ASTMD1298
Oxidation stability 873 Rancimat (Metrohm, Switzerland) EN ISO 14112
Flash point Pensky-martens ash pointautomatic NPM440 (Norma lab, France) ASTMD93
Cloud and pour point Cloud and Pour point testerautomatic NTE 450 (Norma lab, France) ASTMD2500, ASTMD97
Cold lter plugging point Cold lter plugging point testerautomatic NTL 450 (Norma lab, France) ASTMD6371
Caloric value C2000 basic calorimeter (IKA, UK) ASTMD240
Viscosity index SVM3000 (Anton Paar, UK) N/A
Fig. 1. Engine test bed.
evaporator, and ltered using qualitative lter paper to collect the
nal product.
2.3. Analysis of fuel properties
The physico-chemical properties of the palm and M. oleifera
methyl esters were characterized according to the ASTM D6751
standardmethod. Table 2 displays the equipment usedinthis study
to analyze the relevant physical and chemical properties of the
esters and the test methods used to performthe analysis according
to the ASTMD6751 standard.
2.4. Biodiesel-diesel blending
The test fuels (POME and MOME) were blended with diesel
for 20min using a homogenizer operated at 2000rpm. The height
of the homogenizer, which was clamped to a vertical stand, was
adjustable. The fuels were mixed by homogenizing at the appro-
priate speed.
2.5. Engine tests
This experimental investigation was carried out using ve fuel
samples: diesel fuel (B0), the MB5 (95% diesel and 5% M. oleifera
methyl ester) blend, the PB5 (5% Palm oil methyl ester and 95%
diesel) blend, the MB10 (90% diesel and 10% M. oleifera methyl
ester) blend, and the PB10 (10% Palm oil methyl ester and 90%
diesel) blend. The test engine was a Mitsubishi Pajero (model
4D56T) multi-cylinder diesel engine. Fig. 1 shows the engine test
rig. The detailed specications of the engine are listed in Table 3.
The engine was run with diesel fuel for several minutes to warm
it up before the biodiesel fuels were tested. Likewise, the engine
was operated with diesel fuel before it was shut down. The same
procedure was used for each fuel test. To carry out engine
performance and emission tests, the engine was run fully loaded at
various speeds between 1000 and 4000rpmand followed the SAE
J1515 MAR88 procedure. The engine test conditions were mon-
itored by an REO-DCA controller connected through a desktop
computer to the engine test bed (Fig. 1). A BOSCH exhaust gas ana-
lyzer (model BEA-350) was used to measure the NO, HC, CO, and
CO
2
emissions. The specications of this gas analyzer are presented
inTable 4. Every test was repeatedthree times, andthe results were
averaged.
2.6. Error analysis
Errors and uncertainties in experiments can arise from instru-
ment selection, condition, calibration, environment, observation,
reading, and test planning. Uncertainty analysis is needed to deter-
mine the accuracy of experiments. In this study, the accuracies of
thespeed, fuel, brakepower, andtimemeasurements was 10rpm,
1% of the reading, 0.07kW, and 0.1s, respectively. The rel-
ative uncertainty in BSFC was determined using the linearized
approximation method of uncertainty. Table 5 summarizes the val-
ues of the measurement accuracy and the relative uncertainty of
Table 3
Details specication of the engine.
Engine type 4 cylinder inline
Displacement (L) 2.5
Cylinder bore stroke (mm) 91.195
Compression ratio 21:1
Maximumengine speed (rpm) 4200
Maximumpower (kW) 78
Fuel system Distribution type jet pump (indirect injection)
Lubrication system Pressure feed
Combustion chamber Swirl type
Cooling system Radiator cooling
M. Mojur et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 53 (2014) 7884 81
Table 4
Details of the exhaust gas analyzer.
Equipment Method Measurement Upper limit Accuracy
BOSCH gas analyser Non-dispersive infrared CO 10.00vol% 0.001vol%
Non-dispersive infrared CO
2
18.00vol% 0.01vol %
Flame ionization detector HC 9999ppm l ppm
Electro-chemical transmitter NO 5000ppm 1ppm
Table 5
Summary of measurements uncertainty.
Measurements Accuracy Relative uncertainty
BP 0.07kW 0.243
BSFC g/kWh 0.013
CO 0.001vol% 0.003
NO 1ppm 0.005
HC 1ppm 0.090
CO
2
0.01vol% 0.001
various parameters, including BP, BSFC, CO, HC, NO, and CO
2
emis-
sions.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of palmand Moringa oleifera methyl ester
and their blends
To characterize the pure palm and M. oleifera methyl esters
(B100), properties such as the density, ash point, kinematic vis-
cosity, viscosity index, caloric value, the cold lter plugging point,
cloud and pour points, and oxidation stability were examined
and compared with the ASTM D6751 standards. Table 6 shows
the detailed physico-chemical characteristics of the palm and M.
oleiferamethyl esters andtheir 5%byvolumeblends (PB5andMB5).
All of the physico-chemical properties of the palm and M. oleifera
methyl esters met the ASTMD6751 and EN14214 standards. Thus,
the palm and M. oleifera methyl esters can be used in unmodied
diesel engines.
3.2. Engine performance
In this study, engine performance was evaluated in terms of the
brake power (BP) and the brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC).
Thedetails of this evaluationarediscussedinthefollowingsections.
3.2.1. Brake power (BP)
Fig. 2 shows the engine brake power (BP) output of the palm
and M. oleifera methyl ester blends at different engine speeds. For
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
B
r
a
k
e

p
o
w
e
r

[
k
W
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
PB5
MB5
PB10
MB10
Fig. 2. Variation in the brake power with respect to the engine speed.
all tested fuels, the brake power increased steadily with the engine
speedupto3500rpmandthendecreaseddue tothe increasing fric-
tional force. At all test speeds, the average brake powers of the B0,
PB5, MB5, PB10, andMB10fuels were28.72, 28.32, 28.07, 27.81, and
27.51kW, respectively. Compared to the brake power of diesel fuel,
the PB5 and MB5 fuels produced lower brake powers (1.38, 2.27,
3.16, and 4.22%, respectively) due to their lower caloric values
and higher viscosities (Table 6), which affected their combustion.
The uneven combustion characteristics of biodiesel fuel reduced
the engine brake power (Muralidharan and Vasudevan, 2011).
3.2.2. Brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC)
Fig. 3 illustrates the variation in the BSFC values for all fuels
at different engine speeds. Each biodiesel blended fuel exhibited
a higher BSFC value than that of diesel fuel. This observation is
consistent with the results reported in the literature (Kalamet al.,
2011; Chauhan et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013). Factors such as the
volumetric fuel injection system, fuel density, viscosity, and lower
heating value affect the BSFC of diesel engines (Qi et al., 2010a). At
all speeds, the average BSFCs for the B0, PB5, MB5, PB10, and MB10
blends were 385.71, 388.4, 395.40, 393.54, and 405.51g/kWh,
respectively. Per kW of power produced, more biodiesel blend is
consumed than diesel fuel because the caloric value of biodiesel
is lower than that of diesel fuel. Compared to the BSFC of diesel fuel,
the BSFCs were 0.69, 2.56, 2.02, and 5.13% higher for the PB5, MB5,
PB10, andMB10blends, respectively. Theblends BSFCs werehigher
because their densities and viscosities are higher and their energy
densities are lower than those of diesel fuel (Mojur et al., 2013c).
Both the viscosity and the BSFC of the MB5 blend were higher than
those of the PB5 blend (Table 6).
3.3. Emissions analysis
3.3.1. CO emissions
The incomplete combustion of a fuel and the emission of CO are
due to insufcient molecular oxygen content in the fuel. Generally,
factors such as the air-fuel ratio, engine speed, injection timing and
pressure, and fuel type affect CO emissions (Gumus et al., 2012).
The variation in CO emissions with the type of fuel used is shown
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
B
S
F
C

[
g
/
k
W
h
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
PB5
MB5
PB10
MB10
Fig. 3. Variation in the brake specic fuel consumption with respect to the engine
speed.
82 M. Mojur et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 53 (2014) 7884
Table 6
Physico-chemical properties of Palmand Moringa oleifera methylester and their blend.
Properties Units B0 MOME POME PB5 PB10 MB5 MB10 ASTMD6751 EN 14214
Dynamic viscosity Pa s 2.69 4.34 4.09 2.77 2.84 2.81 2.94
Kinematic viscosity at 40

C mm
2
/s 3.23 5.05 4.73 3.31 3.39 3.39 3.55 1.96 3.55
Kinematic viscosity at 100

C mm
2
/s 1.24 1.84 1.81 1.29 1.33 1.30 1.36
Density kg/m
3
827.2 869.6 865.7 828.7 837.9 829.6 830.6 860900
Flash point

C 68.5 150.5 184.5 74.5 77.5 74 79.5 130min 120min
Cloud point

C 8 19 3 8 8 7 7
Pour point

C 0 19 3 0 1 3 3
Cold lter plugging point

C 5 18 10 5 6 6 6
Caloric value MJ/kg 45.30 40.05 39.82 44.70 44.50 45.03 44.75
Iodine value g I/100g 77.5 99 120 max
Saponication value 199 202
Oxidation stability h 26.2 3.02 3 6
Cetane number 48 56.3 51 47min 51min
inFig. 4. Over the entire range of engine speeds, the PB5, MB5, PB10,
and MB10 blends showed 13.17%, 5.37%, 17.36%, and 10.60% lower
CO emissions than B0, respectively. This result is consistent with
the literature ( Lapuerta et al. (2008); Kimand Choi, 2010; Hirkude
and Padalkar, 2012). This reduction in COemissions is attributed to
the higher oxygen content and cetane number of biodiesel fuel.
The higher oxygen content of biodiesel allows for more carbon
molecules to burn and thus complete fuel combustion. Thus, CO
emissions are lower when diesel engines burn biodiesel fuel. In
addition, at half load condition biodiesel blended fuels lowered CO
emissions by (1023.5%) than B0 fuel.
3.3.2. HC emissions
Unburned HC is the result of the incomplete combustion of
fuels and ame quenching. The variation in HC emissions for the
diesel and biodiesel blend fuels is shown in Fig. 5. For the PB5 and
MB5 blends, the unburned HC emissions were lower than those for
diesel fuel. Over the entire range of speeds, the average reductions
(a)
(b)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
C
O

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

[
v
o
l

%
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
MB5
PB5
MB10
PB10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
C
O

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

[
v
o
l
%
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
MB5
MB10
PB5
PB10
Fig. 4. Variation in COemissions with respect to the engine speed (a) at full load (b)
at half load.
in HC emission for the PB5, MB5, PB10, and MB10 were 14.47%,
3.94%, 18.42%, and 9.21% relative to B0, respectively. These reduc-
tions are attributed to the high oxygen contents of these biodiesel
fuels. Biodiesel contains more oxygen and less carbon and hydro-
gen than diesel fuel, which guarantees more complete combustion
(Lin et al., 2009; Qi et al., 2010b). On the other hand, HC emission
was decreased with increasing the load of the engine.
3.3.3. NO emissions
The variation in the NO emissions for the diesel and biodiesel
blend fuels is shown in Fig. 6. The NO values were higher for
the biodiesel blends than for the diesel fuel. This result is con-
sistent with studies published by other researchers (El-Kasaby
and Nemit-allah, 2013). On average, the PB5, MB5, PB10, and
MB10 blends produced 1.96%, 3.99%, 3.38%, and 8.46% higher NO
emissions, respectively, than the diesel fuel over the entire range
of speeds. Also, at half load condition biodiesel blended fuels
increased NOemissions by (10.3816.50%) than B0 fuel. This result
(a)
(b)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
H
C

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

[
p
p
m
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
MB5
PB5
MB10
PB10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
H
C

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

[
p
p
m
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
MB5
MB10
PB5
PB10
Fig. 5. Variation in HC emissions with respect to the engine speed (a) at full load (b)
at half load.
M. Mojur et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 53 (2014) 7884 83
(a)
(b)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
N
O

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

[
p
p
m
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
PB5
MB5
PB10
MB10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
N
O

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

[
p
p
m
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
MB5
MB10
PB5
PB10
Fig. 6. Variation in NO emissions with respect to the engine speed (a) at full load
(b) at half load.
(a)
(b)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

[
v
o
l
%
]
Engine speed [rpm]
B0
MB5
PB5
MB10
PB10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

[
v
o
l
%
]
Engine spped [rpm]
B0
MB5
MB10
PB5
PB10
Fig. 7. Variation in CO
2
emissions with respect to the engine speed (a) at full load
(b) at half load.
canbe attributedto the leaner air/fuel ratio of the blendsbiodiesel
is an oxygenated fuel that contains 12% more molecular oxygen
than dieselwhich raises the chamber temperature and improves
combustion (Devan and Mahalakshmi (2009)). Thus, NO emissions
were higher for the biodiesel blends than for the diesel fuel. More-
over, the higher NO emissions may be attributed to the higher
adiabatic ame temperature of the blends. Biodiesel fuels that con-
tain more unsaturated fatty acids exhibit higher adiabatic ame
temperatures, which cause higher NO emissions (El-Kasaby and
Nemit-allah, 2013).
3.3.4. CO
2
emissions
The variation in CO
2
emissions for all of the fuel samples at var-
ious speeds are shown in Fig. 7. When the engine speed increased,
the CO
2
emissions also increased. The biodiesel fuel blends PB5,
MB5, PB10, and MB10 on average produced 5.60%, 2.25%, 11.73%,
and 4.96% more CO
2
emissions than the diesel fuel, respectively.
It was also found that at half load condition biodiesel blended fuel
increased CO
2
emission by (615%) than diesel fuel. The produc-
tion of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels causes
many environmental problems such as the accumulation of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. Although biofuel combustion produces
carbon dioxide, absorption by crops helps to maintain CO
2
levels
constant (Ramadhas et al. (2005)).
4. Conclusions
In this study, biodiesel was produced from crude palm and M.
oleifera oils, and the performance of 5% and 10% biodiesel blends by
volume in a diesel engine was evaluated. Based on this experimen-
tal study, the following conclusions are drawn:

The physico-chemical properties of the Palm and M. oleifera

methyl esters and their blends meet the ASTM D6751 and EN
14214 standards.

Over the entire range of engine speeds examined, the PB5, MB5,
PB10, and MB10 biodiesels yielded average brake powers of
28.32, 28.07, 27.81, and 27.51kW, which were 1.38, 2.27, 3.16,
and 4.22% lower than the average brake power of the B0 fuel,
respectively. The average brake specic fuel consumption values
were 388.4, 395.40, 393.54, and 405.51g/kWh for the PB5, MB5,
PB10, and MB10 blends, respectively, which were slightly higher
(0.69, 2.56, 2.02, and 5.13%) than the average BSFC of the B0 fuel.
These results are attributed to the higher viscosity and density
and the lower energy content of these biodiesel blends.

As diesel fuel substitutes, the PB5, MB5, PB10, and MB10 blends
reduced the average COemissions of diesel fuel by 13.17%, 5.37%,
17.36%, and 10.60%, respectively, and reduced the HC emissions
of diesel fuel by 14.47%, 3.94%, 18.42% and 9.21%, respectively.
However, the PB5 and MB5 blends slightly increased the NO
emissions of diesel fuel by 1.96%, 3.99%, 3.38%, and 8.46%, respec-
tively. Moreover, the PB5, MB5, PB10, and MB10 increased the
CO
2
emissions of diesel fuel (by 5.60%, 2.25%, 11.73%, and 4.96%,
respectively). These results are attributed to the higher oxygen
contents and cetane numbers of the biodiesel blended fuels.
In conclusion, M. oleifera oil is a potential feedstock for biodiesel
production, and the performances of the MB5 and MB10 biodiesel
blends are comparable with those of the PB5 and PB10 biodiesel
blends and diesel fuel. Because the MB5 and MB10 blends reduced
the exhaust emissions of diesel fuel, these blends can replace diesel
fuel inunmodiedengines to reduce the global energy demandand
exhaust emissions into the environment.
84 M. Mojur et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 53 (2014) 7884
Acknowledgments
The authors wouldlike to acknowledge the University of Malaya
for providing nancial support through the High Impact Research
Grant UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/07.
References
Amani, M.A., Davoudi, M.S., Tahvildari, K., Nabavi, S.M., Davoudi, M.S., 2013. Biodiesel
production from Phoenix dactylifera as a new feedstock. Ind. Crops Prod. 43,
4043.
Atabani, A.E., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Badruddin, I.A., Yussof, H.W., Chong, W.T.,
Lee, K.T., 2013a. A comparative evaluation of physical and chemical properties
of biodiesel synthesized fromedible and non-edible oils and study on the effect
of biodiesel blending. Energy 58, 296304.
Atabani, A.E., Silitonga, A.S., Badruddin, I.A., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Mekhilef,
S., 2012. A comprehensive reviewon biodiesel as an alternative energy resource
and its characteristics. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16, 20702093.
Atabani, A.E., Silitonga, A.S., Ong, H.C., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Badruddina,
I.A., Fayaz, H., 2013b. Non-edible vegetable oils: a critical evaluation of oil
extraction, fatty acid compositions, biodiesel production, characteristics, engine
performance and emissions production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 18,
211245.
vila, R.N.d.A., Sodr, J.R., 2012. Physicalchemical properties and thermal behavior
of fodder radish crude oil and biodiesel. Ind. Crops Prod. 38, 5457.
BP, 2012. Statistical Review of World Energy, http://www.bp.com/assets/
bp internet/globalbp/globalbp uk english/reports and publications/
statistical energy review 2011/STAGING/local assets/pdf/statistical
review of world energy full report 2011.pdf (cited on 01/07/2013).
Chauhan, B.S., Kumar, N., Cho, H.M., 2012. A study on the performance and emission
of a diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends. Energy 37,
616622.
da Silva, J.P.V., Serra, T.M., Gossmann, M., Wolf, C.R., Meneghetti, M.R., Meneghetti,
S.M.P., 2010. Moringa oleifera oil: studies of characterization and biodiesel pro-
duction. Biomass Bioenergy 34, 15271530.
de Vries, S.C., 2008. The bio-fuel debate and fossil energy use in palmoil production:
a critique of Reijnders and Huijbregts 2007. J. Clean Prod. 16, 19261927.
Devan, P.K., Mahalakshmi, N.V., 2009. A study of the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a compression ignition engine using methyl ester
of paradise oil-eucalyptus oil blends. Appl. Energy 86, 675680.
El-Kasaby, M., Nemit-allah, M.A., 2013. Experimental investigations of ignitiondelay
period and performance of a diesel engine operated with Jatropha oil biodiesel.
Alexandria Eng. J. 52, 141149.
Gumus, M., Sayin, C., Canakci, M., 2012. The impact of fuel injection pressure on the
exhaust emissions of adirect injectiondiesel enginefueledwithbiodieseldiesel
fuel blends. Fuel 95, 486494.
Hirkude, J.B., Padalkar, A.S., 2012. Performance and emission analysis of a compres-
sion ignition: Engine operated on waste fried oil methyl esters. Appl. Energy 90,
6872.
Jayed, M.H., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., Mahlia, T.M.I., Husnawan, M., Liaquat,
A.M., 2011. Prospects of dedicated biodiesel engine vehicles in Malaysia and
Indonesia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15, 220235.
Kafuku, G., Lam, M.K., Kansedo, J., Lee, K.T., Mbarawa, M., 2010. Heterogeneous cat-
alyzed biodiesel production fromMoringa oleifera oil. Fuel Process. Technol. 91,
15251529.
Kalam, M.A., Masjuki, H.H., 2008. Testing palmbiodiesel and NPAA additives to con-
trol NOx andCOwhile improving efciency indiesel engines. Biomass Bioenergy
32, 11161122.
Kalam, M.A., Masjuki, H.H., Jayed, M.H., Liaquat, A.M., 2011. Emission and perfor-
mance characteristics of an indirect ignition diesel engine fuelled with waste
cooking oil. Energy 36, 397402.
Kim, H., Choi, B., 2010. The effect of biodiesel and bioethanol blended diesel fuel
on nanoparticles and exhaust emissions from CRDI diesel engine. Renewable
Energy 35, 157163.
Lapuerta, M., Armas, O., Rodrguez, F.J., 2008. Effect of biodiesel fuels ondiesel engine
emissions. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 34, 198223.
Lim, S., Teong, L.K., 2010. Recent trends, opportunities and challenges of biodiesel
in Malaysia: an overview. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 14, 938
954.
Lin, B.-F., Huang, J.-H., Huang, D.-Y., 2009. Experimental study of the effects of veg-
etable oil methyl ester on DI diesel engine performance characteristics and
pollutant emissions. Fuel 88, 17791785.
Mojur, M., Atabani, A.E., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., Masum, B.M., 2013a. A study
on the effects of promising edible and non-edible biodiesel feedstocks on engine
performance and emissions production: a comparative evaluation. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev. 23, 391404.
Mojur, M., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., Atabani, A.E., Shahabuddin, M., Palash, S.M.,
Hazrat, M.A., 2013b. Effect of biodiesel fromvarious feedstocks on combustion
characteristics, engine durability and materials compatibility: a review. Renew-
able Sustainable Energy Rev. 28, 441455.
Mojur, M., Masjuki, H.H., Kalam, M.A., Atabani, A.E., 2013c. Evaluation of biodiesel
blending, engine performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha curcas
methyl ester: Malaysian perspective. Energy. 55, 879887.
Muralidharan, K., Vasudevan, D., 2011. Performance, emissionandcombustionchar-
acteristics of a variable compression ratio engine using methyl esters of waste
cooking oil and diesel blends. Appl. Energy 88, 39593968.
Patil, P.D., Deng, S., 2009. Optimization of biodiesel production fromedible and non-
edible vegetable oils. Fuel 88, 13021306.
Qi, D.H., Chen, H., Geng, L.M., Bian, Y.Z., 2010a. Experimental studies on the com-
bustion characteristics and performance of a direct injection engine fueled with
biodiesel/diesel blends. Energy Convers. Manage. 51, 29852992.
Qi, D.H., Chen, H., Geng, L.M., Bian, Y.Z., Ren, X.C., 2010b. Performance and combus-
tion characteristics of biodieseldieselmethanol blend fuelled engine. Appl.
Energy 87, 16791686.
Rahman, M.M., Hassan, M.H., Kalam, M.A., Atabani, A.E., Memon, L.A., Rahman,
S.M.A., 2013. Performance and emission analysis of Jatropha curcas and Moringa
oleifera methyl ester fuel blends in a multi-cylinder diesel engine. J. Cleaner
Prod..
Rajaraman, S., Yashwanth, G.K., Rajan, T., Kumaran, R.S., Raghu, P., 2009. Experi-
mental investigations of performance and emission characteristics of Moringa
oil methyl ester and its diesel blends in a single cylinder direct injection diesel
engine. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress & Exposition, November 13-19, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA.
Ramadhas, A.S., Muraleedharan, C., Jayaraj, S., 2005. Performance and emissioneval-
uation of a diesel engine fueled with methyl esters of rubber seed oil. Renewable
Energy 30, 17891800.
Rashid, U., Anwar, F., Ashraf, M., Saleem, M., Yusup, S., 2011. Applica-
tion of response surface methodology for optimizing transesterication of
Moringa oleifera oil: biodiesel production. Energy Convers. Manage. 52,
30343042.
Rashid, U., Anwar, F., Moser, B.R., Knothe, G., 2008. Moringa oleifera oil: a possible
source of biodiesel. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 81758179.
Saeddin Ardebili, M., Ghobadian, B., Naja, G., Chegeni, A., 2011. Biodiesel produc-
tion potential fromedible oil seeds in Iran. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
15, 30413044.
Silalertruksa, T., Bonnet, S., Gheewala, S.H., 2012. Life cycle costing and externalities
of palmoil biodiesel in Thailand. J. Cleaner Prod. 28, 225232.
Thomas, T.P., Birney, D.M., Auld, D.L., 2013. Optimizing esterication of saf-
ower, cottonseed, castor and used cottonseed oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 41,
102106.
Vedaraman, N., Puhan, S., Nagarajan, G., Ramabrahmam, B.V., Velappan, K.C., 2012.
Methyl ester of Sal oil (Shorea robusta) as a substitute to diesel fuela study on
its preparation, performance andemissions indirect injectiondiesel engine. Ind.
Crops Prod. 36, 282288.
Wang, D., Ling, X., Peng, H., Liu, L., Tao, L., 2013. Efciency and optimal performance
evaluation of organic Rankine cycle for lowgrade waste heat power generation.
Energy 50, 343352.
Wazilewski, W.T., Bariccatti, R.A., Martins, G.I., Secco, D., Souza, S.N.M.d., Rosa, H.A.,
Chaves, L.I., 2013. Study of the methyl crambe (Crambe abyssinica Hochst) and
soybean biodiesel oxidative stability. Ind. Crops Prod. 43, 207212.