energies

Article
Effect of Diesel Fuel-Coconut Oil-Butanol Blends on
Operational Parameters of Diesel Engine
Jakub Čedík 1, * , Martin Pexa 1 , Michal Holúbek 1 , Zdeněk Aleš 1 , Radek Pražan 2
and Peter Kuchar 3
1 Department for Quality and Dependability of Machines, Faculty of Engineering, Czech University of Life
Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague, Czech Republic; pexa@tf.czu.cz (M.P.);
holubekm@tf.czu.cz (M.H.); ales@tf.czu.cz (Z.A.)
2 Research Institute of Agriculture Engineering, Drnovská 507, 161 01 Prague, Czech Republic;
radek.prazan@vuzt.cz
3 Department of Building Equipment and Technology Safety, Faculty of Engineering, Slovak University of
Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia; peter.kuchar@uniag.sk
* Correspondence: cedikj@tf.czu.cz




Received: 1 July 2020; Accepted: 23 July 2020; Published: 24 July 2020


Abstract: The global concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is increasing as well
as the emissions of harmful pollutants. Utilization of liquid biofuels in combustion engines helps
to reduce these negative effects. For diesel engines, the most common alternative fuels are based
on vegetable oils. Blending neat vegetable oils with diesel and/or alcohol fuels is a simple way to
make them suitable for diesel engines. In this study, coconut oil was used in ternary fuel blends
with diesel and butanol. Coconut oil is a potentially usable source of renewable energy, especially
in the Pacific, where it is a local product. Diesel fuel-coconut oil-butanol fuel blends were used in
concentrations of 70%/20%/10% and 60%/20%/20%, and 100% diesel fuel was used as a reference.
The effect of the fuel blends on the production of harmful emissions, engine smoke, performance
parameters, fuel consumption and solid particles production was monitored during the measurement.
The engine was kept at a constant speed during the measurement and the load was selected at 50%,
75% and 100%. From the results, it can be stated that in comparison with diesel fuel, specific fuel
consumption increased with a positive effect on the reduction of engine smoke.

Keywords: engine; diesel fuel; coconut oil; butanol; emissions; performance; fuel consumption

1. Introduction
Considering the globally rising energy consumption and greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions in
the agricultural sector [1,2], the utilization of renewable energy sources seems a good alternative to
fossil fuels. One of the most common energy sources in the agricultural sector is the diesel engine,
in which products or side-products of agricultural production can be used as alternative fuels. For a
compression ignition (CI) engine, fuels based on a variety of edible or non-edible vegetable oils were
tested as an alternative to diesel fuel [3–8].
A variety of vegetable oils were tested as an alternative fuel for CI engines. Vegetable oils, from
the viewpoint of a CI engine, differ mainly in physical and chemical parameters, such as cetane number,
viscosity, density, calorific value, compositions of fatty acids, miscibility with fossil fuels and many
more. Therefore, the effect of different kinds of vegetable oil on the operational parameters of the
combustion engine is also different. In general, utilization of vegetable oils in a compression ignition
engine requires modification of the fuel properties, especially the viscosity. This can be done by
chemical modification, such as transesterification [9–11] or hydrotreatment [12–15], which require a

Energies 2020, 13, 3796; doi:10.3390/en13153796 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 3796 2 of 16

non-negligible amount of additional energy, preheating of the fuel before entering the engine [5] or
blending the oil with fuel with lower viscosity, such as diesel fuel or alcohols [3,16–19].
Coconut oil is extracted from the kernel of coconut or copra (flesh from a coconut) and it is an
edible vegetable oil. Its energy potential lies in the utilization outright in the location of its origin,
such as the Pacific Islands or Indonesia, where it is used for transport and electricity generation due
to its relatively low local price [20,21]. Further, its economic benefits could decrease the transport
costs during coconut flesh production, however, it would not dramatically increase the income [22].
From the viewpoint of storability, coconut oil has a high content of saturated fat, which slows down its
oxidation process and makes it resistant to acidification for up to two years [23]. The main advantage
of coconut oil is its relatively high cetane number in comparison with other vegetable oils, such as
rapeseed oil (one of the most cultivated energy crops in Europe [24,25]) or oil from Jatropha curcas,
as can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Cetane number of vegetable oils.

Oil Cetane Number

Coconut oil 50.3 1
Rapeseed oil 41.6 2
Croton oil 40.7 1
Jatropha curcas oil 41.8 1
1 Data obtained from [26]. 2 Data obtained from [27].

Preheated neat coconut oil in comparison with diesel fuel decreases engine performance, engine
efficiency, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC), and increases brake specific
fuel consumption (BSFC) and engine smoke, especially at higher engine loads [28,29].
An increasing concentration of coconut oil in a blend with diesel fuel decreases engine smoke,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX ), CO, HC, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), brake power
and exhaust gas temperature, and increases BSFC and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) in comparison
with diesel fuel [21,23,30–32]. However, Machacon et al. [32] found increased HC and CO with an
increasing proportion of coconut oil in comparison with diesel fuel. How et al. [21] found an increasing
trend of smoke and CO emissions at high engine load and 50% coconut oil concentration in diesel fuel
in comparison with lower concentrations.
For blending vegetable oils with alcohols, lower alcohols such as methanol or ethanol were
tested [33,34]. However, fuel properties of higher alcohols, such as butanol, are closer to diesel fuel,
especially regarding the higher C/H ratio and cetane number, lower affinity to water, higher calorific
value and better miscibility with fossil fuels [3,16,35–41]. According to Lujaji et al. [26], the cetane
number, density, kinematic viscosity and thermal characteristics of a fuel blend containing 10%
vegetable oil, 10% butanol and 80% diesel fuel are more comparable with diesel fuel than methyl esters.
The ternary blends of vegetable oil, diesel fuel and butanol increase emissions of CO and BSFC,
and decrease emissions of CO2 , brake power, engine efficiency and engine smoke in comparison with
diesel fuel [16,38,42–46]. However, Atmanli et al. [47] found lower emissions of CO in comparison
with diesel using a diesel fuel-butanol-cotton oil fuel blend. Emissions of NOX were found increased
in some studies [42–45] and decreased in other studies [38,46,47]. Emissions of HC were also found
increased in a few studies [38,46] and decreased in other studies [42,43,45,47] in comparison with
diesel fuel.
Coconut oil in a blend with ethanol and butanol in comparison with diesel fuel increases BSFC and
emissions of CO and decreases emissions of NOX and SO2 . Engine efficiency is increased in lower loads
and decreased in higher engine loads. Emissions of CO2 increased with the coconut oil proportion and
decreased with the alcohol proportion in a fuel blend [48]. In comparison with diesel fuel, coconut oil
in a blend with methanol and its biodiesel increases the brake thermal efficiency, especially in higher
engine loads, and BSFC, and decreases emissions of NOX . Higher concentrations of methanol and
biodiesel increase emissions of CO and unburned hydrocarbons (UHC). Higher proportions of coconut
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 3 of 16

oil decrease emissions of CO, UHC and CO2 and increase engine smoke in comparison with diesel
fuel [49].
The aim of the paper was to experimentally determine the influence of coconut oil and n-butanol in
ternary blends with diesel fuel on the emissions of CO2 , NOX , CO and HC, engine smoke, performance
parameters, BSFC and production of solid particles. Butanol in fuel blends is used to improve the fuel
properties, especially the viscosity, and to increase the bio-content in the fuel.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tested Fuels

As tested fuels, blends of diesel fuel, coconut oil and n-butanol were used. One hundred percent
diesel fuel (D100) with no bio-components was used as a reference fuel. For the measurement, refined
coconut oil was used (without taste and smell), and no other chemical modification of the oil was
performed. The coconut oil, used for the measurement, came from the Philippines and the butanol
came from local sources in the EU. The basic fuel properties of the used fuels are shown in Table 2.
The tested fuel blends were used in the following concentrations:

• 70% diesel fuel, 20% coconut oil and 10% n-butanol (C20B10);
• 60% diesel fuel, 20% coconut oil and 20% n-butanol (C20B20).

Table 2. Basic fuel properties of tested fuel blends and their components.

Kinematic Viscosity at 40 ◦ C Density at 15 ◦ C Latent Heat of

Fuel Cetane Number
(mm2 s−1 ) (kg m−3 ) Evaporation (kJ kg−1 )
D100 2.722 837.5 50 1 250 2
Coconut oil 28.029 919.67 50.3 3
N-butanol 2.266 815.27 17 4 –25 5 585 2
C20B10 3.739 852.8
C20B20 3.397 848.9
1 Data obtained from [50]; 2 data obtained from [51]; 3 data obtained from [26]; 4 data obtained from [43]; 5 obtained
at 40◦ C.

The kinematic viscosity and density of the fuels were determined by means of a Stabinger
Viscometer SVM 3000 made by Anton Paar GmbH (measurement accuracy <1%, repeatability = 0.1%).
As can be seen from Table 2, the values of the kinematic viscosity and density of the tested fuel blends
meet the standard for diesel fuel EN 590 [50].
The fuel blends were prepared at room temperature (approximately 25 ◦ C) on a volumetric basis,
and only the coconut oil was preheated at approximately 35 ◦ C in order to keep the liquid phase
of the oil. After mixing, the fuel blends were stable, and no phase separation occurred. During the
measurement, the blends were kept in a stable tank with no stirring. No signs of emulsions forming
was observed.

2.2. Equipment Used

The measurement was performed using the tractor engine Zetor 1204, mounted in the tractor
Zetor Forterra 8641 (Table 3). The engine was in factory settings (unmodified) and the overall operating
time of the engine did not exceed 170 h. The opening pressure of injectors, given by the manufacturer,
was checked on the manual testing device before conducting the measurement.
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 4 of 16

Table 3. Engine specification (power take off—PTO).

Parameter Specification
Manufacturer and type Zetor, 1204
Cylinders 4, in-line
Air fill Turbocharged
Rated power 60 kW at 2200 rpm (53.4 kW on PTO) 1
Maximum torque 351 Nm (1105 Nm on PTO) 1
Engine displacement volume 4.156 l
Cylinder bore × stroke 105 × 120 mm
Compression ratio 17
Combustion chamber Bowl-in-piston
Fuel supply Mechanical in-line injection pump
Injection type Direct injection
Start of injection (SOI) 12◦ BTDC
Injection pressure (injector opening pressure) 22 MPa
Injector nozzle Multi-hole
Valve mechanism OHV
Valves per cylinder 2
Cooling system Liquid cooled
1 According to Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft.

The load of the engine was done by means of the mobile dynamometer MAHA ZW 500 (Table 4),
connected to the tractor’s PTO shaft (PTO gear ratio = 3.543). Transmission losses have no effect
on comparative measurements and therefore they were not taken into account. For data recording,
a data acquisition unit, provided by the manufacturer, was used and the data were recorded with the
frequency of 10 Hz.

Table 4. Dynamometer specification.

Parameter Specification
Manufacturer and type Maha ZW 500
Maximum power 500 kW
Maximum torque 6600 Nm
Maximum speed 2500 rpm
Torque inaccuracy <1% over the full speed range 1
1 According to Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft.

Along with the performance parameters, the fuel consumption, harmful exhaust gas emissions,
solid particles production, amount of intake air, exhaust gas temperature and ambient conditions
(atmospheric pressure, temperature and humidity) were monitored during the measurement.
Fuel consumption was measured by means of the laboratory scale Vibra AJ 6200 (range = 0–6200 g,
accuracy = 0.1 g, readability = 0.01 g). On the laboratory scale, the external fuel tank was placed. Data
from the scale were recorded with the frequency of 1 Hz using the RS232 interface.
Exhaust gas emissions were monitored by means of the emission analyzer BrainBee AGS 200.
Engine smoke was measured by means of the opacimeter BrainBee OPA 100. Resolutions and accuracies
for individual emission components and opacity are listed in Table 5. Data from the emission analyzer
were recorded to a hard drive of a PC with the frequency of 1 Hz.
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 5 of 16

Table 5. Specifications of the emission analyzer and opacimeter BrainBee.

Component Resolution Accuracy

CO 0.01% volumetric 0.03% volumetric or ±5%
CO2 0.1% volumetric 0.5% volumetric or ±5%
HC 0.0001% volumetric 0.001% volumetric or ±5%
O2 0.01% volumetric 0.1% volumetric or ±5%
NO 0.0001% volumetric 0.001% volumetric or ±5%
Opacity 0.1% 2%
Temperature 1 ◦C 2.5 ◦ C

From the measured volumetric concentrations, the mass concentrations were calculated using
molar masses of the individual emission components. From the mass concentration, mass air flow and
fuel consumption, the mass production of individual emission components was calculated. Values of
opacity were converted into units of (mg m−3 ) using a table, given by the manufacturer.
The production and size distribution of solid particles, produced by the engine, was monitored by
means of the Engine Exhaust Particle Sizer (EEPS) spectrometer model 3090 made by TSI, Inc. Before
entering the EEPS, the exhaust gas was diluted (dilution factor = 99.2667, dilution ratio = 0.01007).
The basic specification of the EEPS can be seen in Table 6. EEPS data were recorded with the frequency
of 1 Hz.

Table 6. Engine Exhaust Particle Sizer (EEPS) specification.

Parameter Specification
Particle Size Range 5.6–560 nm
Particle Size Resolution 16 channels per decade (32 total)
Electrometer Channels 22
Charger Mode of Operation Unipolar diffusion charger
Inlet Cyclone 50% Cutpoint 1 µm
Time Resolution 10 size distributions s−1

The mass air flow (MAF) sensor Sierra FastFlo 620S (accuracy = ±1% of full scale, repeatability = ±0.2%
of full scale) was used for the monitoring of MAF. Values of MAF were recorded to the hard drive of a
PC with a frequency of 10 Hz.
Exhaust gas temperature was measured by means of a thermocouple type K in the exhaust muffler.
The thermocouple was connected to the MAHA data acquisition unit and recorder with a frequency of
10 Hz.

2.3. Measurement Methodology

The measurement was carried out in steady-state operating conditions. The rotation speed of
the engine was kept constant during the measurement. The speed of the engine was set to 1950 rpm,
since at this engine speed, the PTO shaft reaches its nominal speed, which is necessary for the proper
function of the connected equipment. For that reason, it can be presumed that the engine spends the
main part of its working time at this speed. The load of the engine was selected at 50%, 75% and 100%.
Engine load (in percentage) was calculated from maximum brake torque at the respective engine speed,
reached using the reference fuel D100, as can be seen in Table 7. For 100% engine load with the use
of the blended fuels, it was not possible to calculate the maximum engine performance before the
measurement, due to different calorific values of the fuels.
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 6 of 16

Table 7. Brake torque, calculated for individual measurement points.

Calculated Brake Torque (Nm)

Fuel
50% Engine Load 75% Engine Load 100% Engine Load
D100 488 732 976
C20B10 488 732 Full
C20B20 488 732 Full

After the respective torque and speed were set, the engine operational parameters were stabilized
for approximately 1 min. Once the steady-state operating conditions were reached, the recording of the
data was started. Then, the data were recorded for approximately 80 s with the respective frequencies.
The scheme of the measurement setup can be seen in Figure 1.
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

3
10
5 8 12
4 9 11

1 2 7 rpm
M (Nm)
P (kW)

FigureFigure 1. Measurement
1. Measurement scheme:
scheme: (1)—sensorofofpressure
(1)—sensor pressure and
and temperature
temperatureofof
intake air,air,
intake (2)—mass air air
(2)—mass
flow sensor, (3)—exhaust gas temperature sensor, (4)—turbocharger, (5)—opacimeter BrainBee OPA
flow sensor, (3)—exhaust gas temperature sensor, (4)—turbocharger, (5)—opacimeter BrainBee OPA
100, (6)—dynamometer MAHA ZW 500, (7)—fuel pump, (8)—emission analyzer BrainBee AGS 200,
100, (6)—dynamometer MAHA ZW 500, (7)—fuel pump, (8)—emission analyzer BrainBee AGS 200,
(9)—A/D converter LabJack U6, (10)—EEPS, (11)—PC for control and data record, (12)—laboratory
(9)—A/D converter LabJack U6, (10)—EEPS, (11)—PC for control and data record, (12)—laboratory
scale with external fuel tank.
scale with external fuel tank.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
In Figure 2, the emissions of CO for all tested fuels at all engine loads can be seen. It is evident
In Figure 2, the emissions of CO for all tested fuels at all engine loads can be seen. It is evident that
that both of the tested fuel blends decreased the production of CO at full engine load (fuel blend
both of the tested
C20B10 fueland
by 20.6% blends decreased
C20B20 by 5.3%)the productionwith
in comparison of CO at full
D100. engine
At 50% and load (fuel blend
75% engine loads,C20B10
the
by 20.6% and C20B20
fuel blend by 5.3%)
C20B10 reached in comparison
approximately withproduction
the same D100. At of 50%
CO and
as D10075%(differences
engine loads, the fuel
are under
blend the
C20B10 reachedaccuracy).
measurement approximatelyOn thethe same compared
contrary, production withof D100,
CO asthe D100fuel(differences
blend C20B20 are under the
reached,
measurement accuracy).
at the engine loads ofOn 50%theandcontrary, compared
75%, a higher with of
production D100,
CO bythe90.9%
fuel blend
and 97%, C20B20 reached, at the
respectively.
engine loadsIn Figure
of 50%3,and the production
75%, a higher of CO 2 at all engine
production of COloadsbyusing
90.9%alland
tested
97%,fuels is shown. As can be
respectively.
seen from the figure, at engine loads of 50% and 75%, the differences in CO 2 production are relatively
In Figure 3, the production of CO2 at all engine loads using all tested fuels is shown. As can be
smallthe
seen from (forfigure,
C20B10atunder
engine 1%loads
and for
of C20B20
50% and under
75%,4%).
theAt full enginein
differences load,
CO2the differencesare
production are relatively
more
significant. When using the fuel blend C20B10, the production of CO2 decreased by approximately
small (for C20B10 under 1% and for C20B20 under 4%). At full engine load, the differences are more
6.2% and C20B20 by approximately 8.8% in comparison with D100. The higher differences at full
significant. When using the fuel blend C20B10, the production of CO2 decreased by approximately
engine load may be caused by the lower carbon content of fuels containing coconut oil and n-butanol
6.2% and C20B20 by
and therefore theirapproximately 8.8%asinthe
lower calorific value comparison
volume of fuel with D100.into
injected Thethehigher
cylinder differences
is the same at at full
engine100%
loadengine
may be caused by the lower carbon content of fuels containing coconut
load for all tested fuels. Further, it is evident that with an increasing proportion of n- oil and n-butanol
and therefore their
butanol, the lower calorific
emissions value as
of CO2 decrease. the
This volume
is caused byof
thefuel
lowinjected into the
cetane number cylinder is
of n-butanol, the same
causing
at 100%
theengine load
later start of for all tested
combustion andfuels. Further,
therefore it is evident
ineffective oxidationthat
of with
CO toan COincreasing
2. This is alsoproportion
evident of
from Figure
n-butanol, 2, where aof
the emissions significant increase This
CO2 decrease. in COisforcaused
the fuelby blend
theC20B20
low cetaneat loads 50% and
number of75% can
n-butanol,
be seen.
causing At full
the later engine
start load, the production
of combustion of CO when
and therefore using C20B20
ineffective is still of
oxidation higher
CO thanto CO with . C20B10,
This is also
2
which confirms the ineffective oxidation caused by n-butanol. Similar results concerning emissions
evident from Figure 2, where a significant increase in CO for the fuel blend C20B20 at loads 50% and
of CO2 and CO were reached also in other studies dealing with ternary blends of vegetable oil, diesel
fuel and butanol in comparison with diesel fuel [38,42,44–46]. The increasing amount of produced
emissions of CO was also found in studies focusing on coconut oil-diesel fuel blends [32], in which it
was explained by the worse atomization of the fuel, due to the higher viscosity, and coconut oil-
ethanol-butanol blends [48].
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 7 of 16

75% can be seen. At full engine load, the production of CO when using C20B20 is still higher than
with C20B10, which confirms the ineffective oxidation caused by n-butanol. Similar results concerning
emissions of CO2 and CO were reached also in other studies dealing with ternary blends of vegetable
oil, diesel fuel and butanol in comparison with diesel fuel [38,42,44–46]. The increasing amount of
produced emissions of CO was also found in studies focusing on coconut oil-diesel fuel blends [32],
in which it was explained by the worse atomization of the fuel, due to the higher viscosity, and coconut
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR
oil-ethanol-butanol PEER REVIEW
blends [48]. 7 of 17

0.08
0.08
))
-1-1

0.07
(kghh

0.07
0.06
CO(kg

0.06
0.05
EmissionsofofCO

0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
Emissions

0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
0
50 75 100
50 75 100
Engine load (%)
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 2. Emissions
2. Emissions of
of of
COCO in relationtoto engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
Figure
Figure 2. Emissions COininrelation
relation to engine loadfor
engine load forall
alltested
tested fuels
fuels (error
(error barsbars represent
represent the the
standard
standard deviation).
deviation).
standard deviation).

50
))

50
-1-1

45
(kghh

45
40
2 2(kg

40
35
35
CO

30
EmissionsofofCO

30
25
25
20
20
15
Emissions

15
10
10
5
5
0
0
50 75 100
50 75 100
Engine load (%)
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

D100 C20B10 C20B20
Figure 3. Emissions of CO2 in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
Figure 3. Emissions of CO2 in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
Figure
standard 3. Emissions of CO2 in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
deviation).
standard deviation).
standard deviation).
In Figure 4, the production of emissions of HC using all tested fuels at all tested engine loads is
In Figure 4, the production of emissions of HC using all tested fuels at all tested engine loads is
shown. In Figure
All the 4, the production
differences and evenof emissions of HC using all tested fuels at all tested engine loads is are
shown. All the differences and eventhe
theabsolute
absolute measured
measured valuesvaluesof of volumetric
volumetric concentrations
concentrations are
shown. All the differences and even the absolute measured values of volumetric concentrations are
underunder
the measurement
the measurement accuracy.
accuracy.However,
However,from fromthethefigure,
figure, anan increasing trendofofHC
increasing trend HCproduction
production at
under the measurement accuracy. However, from the figure, an increasing trend of HC production
engine loads of
at engine 50%
loads ofand
50% 75% with
and 75% thethe
with blended
blendedfuels
fuelsin
in comparison
comparison with with diesel
diesel fuelfuel
can can be observed,
be observed,
at engine loads of 50% and 75% with the blended fuels in comparison with diesel fuel can be observed,
which which also
also also confirms
confirms worsened oxidation since
worsened since the
the HC emissions are products of the incomplete
which confirms worsenedoxidation
oxidation since the HCemissions
HC emissions areare products
products of the
of the incomplete
incomplete
oxidation
oxidation process.
process. At At 100%engine
100% engine load,
load, the
the trend
trend isis decreasing
decreasing which
whichmight
mightbe also
be expected
also expected
oxidation process. At 100% engine load, the trend is decreasing which might be also expected
considering
considering the
the the decreased
decreased CO CO 2 and CO emissions due to the lower carbon content of the fuel blends.
considering decreased 2 and
CO 2 andCO COemissions
emissions due duetotothe thelower
lower carbon
carbon content
content of theoffuel
the blends.
fuel blends.
A similar trend in the emissions of HC was also found in other studies focused on vegetable oil-diesel
A similar trend
A similar in the
trend emissions
in the emissions ofofHCHCwaswasalso
also found
found in inother
otherstudies
studies focused
focused on vegetable
on vegetable oil-diesel
oil-diesel
fuel-butanol blends [38,44,46]. Sharon et al. [44,46] explained higher HC emissions, especially in
fuel-butanol
fuel-butanol blends blends [38,44,46].
[38,44,46]. Sharon
Sharon et [44,46]
et al. al. [44,46] explained
explained higher
higher HC HC emissions,especially
emissions, especiallyininlower
lower and moderate engine loads, by higher hydrogen content and higher viscosity resulting in poor
lower and moderate
and moderate engine
engine loads, byloads,
higherby hydrogen
higher hydrogen
content content and higher
and higher viscosity
viscosity resulting
resulting ininpoor
poorspray
spray characteristics in combination with the presence of butanol, causing poor combustion
spray characteristics
characteristics in combinationin combination with the presence of butanol, causing poor combustion
characteristics. Machacon etwith the presence
al. [32] also found of increasing
butanol, causing
emissions poor
of combustion
HC with an characteristics.
increasing
characteristics. Machacon et al. [32] also found increasing emissions of HC with an increasing
Machacon et al. [32] also found increasing emissions
proportion of coconut oil in a diesel fuel–coconut oil blend. of HC with an increasing proportion of coconut
proportion of coconut oil in a diesel fuel–coconut oil blend.
oil in a diesel fuel–coconut oil blend.
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

0.005
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 8 of 16
0.0045

Emissions of HC (kg h-1)

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
0.004
0.005
0.0035
0.0045

Emissions of HC (kg h-1)

0.003
0.004
0.0025
0.0035
0.002
0.003
0.0015
0.0025
0.001
0.002
0.0005
0.0015
0
0.001
0.0005 50 75 100
0 Engine load (%)
50 75 100
D100 Engine load
C20B10 (%)
C20B20

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 4. Emissions of HC in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
standard
Figure 4. deviation).
Emissions of HC in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
Figure 4. Emissions of HC in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
standard deviation).
standard deviation).
In Figure 5, the production of emissions of NOX for all tested fuels at all measured engine loads
In Figure
is shown. In 5, the
AtFigure
50% andproduction
5, the75% engine
production of of
emissions
load, ofofNONOXXfor
the differences
emissions all
forof testedfuels
allblended
tested fuels
fuelsatatin
allcomparison
all measured
measured engine
enginewithloadsloadsare
D100 is
shown.
relatively Atsmall.
is shown. 50% At and
50%
Using 75%
andfuelengine
75% engine
blend load,
load,
C20B10,the thedifferences
differences
the emissions of
of blended
blended
of NOXfuels fuelsinin
increased comparison
comparison
by 2.4%with at with D100
D100load
50% are andare
relatively small.
relatively Using
small. fuel
Using blend
fuel blendC20B10,
C20B10,
by 2.9% at 75% engine load and using fuel blend C2B20 by 0.9% thetheemissions
emissions of
of NONO XX increased
at 50% engine load and by 2.1% by
increased byby 2.4%
2.4% atat 50%
50% load
load andand at
2.9% by
at 2.9%
75% at 75%
engine engine
load load
and and
using using
fuel fuel
blend
75% engine load in comparison with D100. At full engine load, blend
C2B20 C2B20by by
0.9% 0.9%at at
50% 50% engine
engine
the more load
load and by
and
significant by 2.1%
2.1% at
at 75%
difference
engine75% engine load in comparison withAt D100.
full At full engine load, the more significant difference
betweenload in comparison
blended fuels andwith D100D100.was observed. engine load,fuel
Using the more
blendsignificant
C20B10, the difference between
NOX emissions
between
blended fuels blended
and D100 fuels
was and D100
observed. was
Using observed.
fuel Using
blend fuel
C20B10, blend
the NOC20B10, the
emissions NO X emissions
decreased by NO
5.9%X
decreased by 5.9% and C20B20 by 7.4% in comparison with D100. It can X be observed that the
decreased by 5.9% and C20B20 by 7.4% in comparison with D100. It can be observed that the NO X
and C20B20
emissions by 7.4% in
decreased comparison
with with D100. It can
thetheincreasing be observed that the NOdespite
X emissions decreased
emissions decreased with increasing content
content of of n-butanol
n-butanol ininthethe blend
blend the increasing
despite the increasing
with
oxygenthe increasing
content. content
This of n-butanol
cancanbebeexplained in the blend despite the increasing oxygen content. This can be
oxygen content. This explained by by the higher latent
the higher latentheat heatof of evaporation
evaporation of n-butanol,
of n-butanol,
explained
contributing by
contributing the higher
to the
to the latent
lower heat
lowercombustion of evaporation
combustion temperature, of
temperature, in n-butanol, contributing
in combination
combination withwith to the lower
a lower
a lower combustion
combustion
combustion
temperature,
efficiency. This
efficiency. in combination
can
This be be
can alsoalso with aby
verified
verified lower
by the combustion
theexhaust
exhaust efficiency.inThis
gastemperature
gas temperature in can
Figure
Figure be6, also
6, which whichis verified by the
is decreasing
decreasing
exhaust
with gas
the temperature
increasing in Figure
proportion of 6, which
n-butanol is
atdecreasing
all tested with
engine the
loads. increasing
with the increasing proportion of n-butanol at all tested engine loads. Sharon et al. [38] found similarSharon et proportion
al. [38] found of n-butanol
similar
at allresults
resultstested engine lower
concerning
concerning loads.
lower Sharon
emissions et of
emissions al. [38]
NOXXfound
ofNO similar
and exhaust
and exhaust results
gas
gas concerning
temperature
temperature whenwhen lower
using emissions
used
using palmpalm
used of NO
oil– oil–
X
and
dieseldiesel
exhaust fuel–butanol
gas temperature
fuel–butanol blends. Lujaji et
whenetusing
blends. Lujaji al. [44,46]
used palm
al. [44,46] reached
reached lower
oil–diesel emissions
fuel–butanol
lower emissions of NO at
blends.
of NOX low
X at low
and
Lujaji moderate
and et moderate
al. [44,46]
engine
reached loads.
lower Authors in
emissions the studies [30–32] dealing with dieselloads.
fuel–coconut oil blends also found
engine loads. Authors in of
theNO X at low
studies and moderate
[30–32] dealing with engine
diesel fuel–coconutAuthors in
oilthe studies
blends also[30–32]
found
lower
dealing emissions
with diesel of NO X with increasing concentration of coconut oil up to 100%. A lower emission
fuel–coconut oil blends also found
lower emissions of NO X with increasing concentration of lower
coconut emissions
oil up to of NOXAwith
100%. lowerincreasing
emission
of NOX in comparison with diesel fuel was also reached using coconut oil–ethanol–butanol fuel
concentration
of NO of coconutwith
X in comparison oil updiesel
to 100%.fuelAwas lower alsoemission
reachedofusing NOX in comparison
coconut with diesel fuel was
oil–ethanol–butanol fuel
blends [48].
also reached
blends [48]. using coconut oil–ethanol–butanol fuel blends [48].
Emissions of NOX (kg h-1)

0.4
Emissions of NOX (kg h-1)

0.4
0.35
0.350.3
0.25
0.3
0.250.2
0.15
0.2
0.1
0.15
0.05
0.1 0
0.05 50 75 100
0 Engine load (%)
50 75 100
D100 C20B10
Engine C20B20
load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 5. Emissions of NOX in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
standard deviation).
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17

Figure
Energies 5. 3796
2020, 13, Emissions of NOX in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the9 of 16
standard deviation).

Exhaust gas temperature (°C)

440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
50 75 100
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 6. Exhaust gas temperature in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent
Figure
the 6. Exhaust
standard gas temperature in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent
deviation).
the standard deviation).
In Figure 7, the amount of produced smoke by the engine using all tested fuels at all measured
engineInloads
Figure 7, be
can theseen.
amountIt is of produced
evident smoke smoke
that engine by the engine using alllower
is significantly tested fuelsusing
when at allboth
measured
of the
enginefuel
tested loads can be
blends in seen. It is evident
comparison that engine
with D100. Compared smokewith is significantly
D100, the fuel lower when
blend usingshowed
C20B10 both of
the tested
lower fuelsmoke
engine blends by in comparison
approximately with29.9%
D100.atCompared
50% load,with 23.2% D100, the fuel
at 75% blend
engine loadC20B10 showed
and 40.5% at
lower engine smoke by approximately 29.9% at 50% load, 23.2%
full load. Fuel blend C20B20 showed that engine smoke decreased by approximately 53.9% at 50%at 75% engine load and 40.5% at full
load. 48.2%
load, Fuel blend
at 75% C20B20
load and showed
63.6%that engine
at full engine smokeload.decreased
It is evidentby approximately
that engine smoke 53.9% at 50% load,
decreases with
48.2% at 75%
increasing load and
n-butanol 63.6%
in the fuel at full engine
blend. This canload. It is evident
be explained by athat engine
higher smoke
oxygen decreases
content with
and higher
increasing n-butanol in the fuel blend. This can be explained by a higher
amount of light fractions in the fuel blends in comparison with D100. Light fractions, such as n-butanol,oxygen content and higher
amount
are more of light and
volatile fractions
oxidize inwith
the fuel blends in comparison
less intermediates in comparison with with
D100. Light fractions
heavier fractions,contained
such as in n-
butanol, are more volatile and oxidize with less intermediates in comparison
diesel fuel. Moreover, the oxygen content in coconut oil may contribute to the improved fuel oxidation with heavier fractions
contained
even in diesel
in locally rich fuel. Moreover, the
fuel combustion oxygen
zones. Thecontent
increased in coconut
oxygenoil may contribute
concentration in theto the improved
soot-forming
fuel oxidation
region and the evenreducedin locally rich time
residence fuel combustion zones. The
of the fuel element mayincreased oxygenthe
have improved concentration
smoke reduction.in the
Since the production of soot precursor species strongly depends on the amount of available oxygenthe
soot-forming region and the reduced residence time of the fuel element may have improved in
smoke
the reduction.
region, Since the
its increased production
availability of soot
in the rich precursor
premixed speciesreactionstrongly depends
zones results on theproduction
in lower amount of
available
of oxygen species
soot precursor in the region, its increased
and therefore availability
in reduced rates ofinthe thereactions
rich premixed reaction
producing soot,zones results
resulting in
in lower production of soot precursor species and therefore in
lower engine smoke. Further, the lower viscosity of fuel blend C20B20 in comparison with C20B10 reduced rates of the reactions
producing soot,
contributes resulting
to better in lower
atomization andengine smoke.
therefore lowerFurther,
smoke. theThe
lower viscosity
decrease of fuelinblend
in smoke C20B20
comparison
in comparison with C20B10 contributes to better atomization
with diesel fuel occurs often when using fuels with higher amounts of oxygen. Researchers foundand therefore lower smoke. The
decrease in smoke in comparison with diesel fuel occurs often when
lower smoke when using vegetable oil–diesel fuel–butanol blends [38,44,46] and coconut oil-diesel using fuels with higher amounts
of oxygen.
fuel Researchers
blends [30–32] found lower
in comparison withsmoke whenAusing
diesel fuel. decreasedvegetable
amountoil–diesel
of engine fuel–butanol
smoke was blendsfound
Energies 2020,and
[38,44,46] 13, x coconut
FOR PEERoil-diesel
REVIEW fuel blends [30–32] in comparison with diesel fuel. A decreased 10 of 17
also when using other blends containing vegetable oils and/or butanol [52,53].
amount of engine smoke was found also when using other blends containing vegetable oils and/or
butanol [52,53]. 40
35
Smoke (mg m -3)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50 75 100
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 7. Engine smoke in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the accuracy
Figure
of 7. Engine smoke in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the accuracy
the opacimeter).
of the opacimeter).

In Figure 8, the brake torque reached at all measurement points can be seen. The displayed
values were reached on the dynamometer using the PTO shaft (PTO gear ratio = 3.543). At 50% and
75% engine loads, the differences between both of the tested fuel blends and D100 are under 0.6%. At
 0
50 75 100
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Energies 2020, 13, 3796 10 of 16
Figure 7. Engine smoke in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the accuracy
of the opacimeter).
In Figure 8, the brake torque reached at all measurement points can be seen. The displayed values
were reached on the
In Figure dynamometer
8, the brake torque using theat PTO
reached shaft (PTO points
all measurement gear ratio
can be= 3.543).
seen. The Atdisplayed
50% and 75%
engine loads, the differences between both of the tested fuel blends and D100 are under 50%
values were reached on the dynamometer using the PTO shaft (PTO gear ratio = 3.543). At and
0.6%. At full
75% engine loads, the differences between both of the tested fuel blends and D100
engine load, the effect on maximum engine torque at given speeds can be seen. Fuel blend C20B10 are under 0.6%. At
fullaengine
caused load,inthe
decrease effect on maximum
maximum torque by engine torque at given
approximately speeds
3.36% can be seen.
compared withFuel D100blend
and C20B10
fuel blend
caused a decrease in maximum torque by approximately 3.36% compared with D100 and fuel blend
C20B20 by approximately 6.19%. This can be explained by the lower calorific value of blended fuels
C20B20 by approximately 6.19%. This can be explained by the lower calorific value of blended fuels
and worsened efficiency of oxidation. A decrease in engine performance was found when using
and worsened efficiency of oxidation. A decrease in engine performance was found when using
various diesel
various fuel–vegetable
diesel fuel–vegetable oil–butanol
oil–butanol blends [42,43,45].Machacon
blends [42,43,45]. Machacon et [30]
et al. al. [30] reported
reported decreased
decreased
brakebrake
mean effective pressure when using coconut oil–diesel fuel blends, where it is
mean effective pressure when using coconut oil–diesel fuel blends, where it is explained only explained only by
the lower calorific value of the fuel blends in comparison with diesel
by the lower calorific value of the fuel blends in comparison with diesel fuel. fuel.

1200

1000
Brake torque (Nm)

800

600

400

200

0
50 75 100
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 8. Brake
Figure torque
8. Brake torquefor
forall
alltested
tested fuels at all
fuels at all measured
measuredengine
engine loads
loads (error
(error barsbars represent
represent the the
standard deviation).
standard deviation).

In Figure 9, the
In Figure mass
9, the fuelfuel
mass consumption
consumption (FC)
(FC)for
forall
alltested
testedfuels
fuels and
and all
all measured engineloads
measured engine loads can
be seen. From
can be seen.the
From figure, it is evident
the figure, thatthat
it is evident bothboth
of the
of theblended
blendedfuels
fuelscaused an increase
caused an increaseininFCFC at at all
measured engineengine
all measured loads.loads.
In comparison
In comparison with D100,
with D100,thethefuel
fuelblend
blendC20B10 causedan
C20B10 caused anincrease
increase
in in
FCFC of
of approximately
approximately 4.72%,4.72%,
3.81%3.81% and 1.93%
and 1.93% at 50%,
at 50%, 75%75%andand 100% 100% engine
engine loads,
loads, respectively.When
respectively. Whenusing
fuel blend C20B20, the increase in FC was approximately 6.17%, 6.79% and 1.29% at 50%, 75%
using fuel blend C20B20, the increase in FC was approximately 6.17%, 6.79% and 1.29% at 50%, 75% and
100%and 100%
engine
Energies engine
loads,
2020, 13, x FORloads, respectively. The increase in FC can be explained above all by the lower
respectively.
PEER REVIEW The increase in FC can be explained above all by the lower calorific
11 of 17
calorific value of the blended fuels and their higher density. At 100% engine load, the main reason
value of the blended fuels and their higher density. At 100% engine load, the main reason for the FC
for the FC increase is the higher density of the blended fuels in comparison with D100, as the
increase is the higher density of the blended fuels in comparison with D100, as the volumetric amount
volumetric amount of fuel injected into the cylinder is the same at 100% engine load for all tested
of fuel injected into the cylinder is the same at 100% engine load for all tested fuel.
fuel.
h-1)

16
14
Fuel consumption (kg

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
50 75 100
Engine load (%)
D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 9. Mass
Figure fuel
9. Mass consumption
fuel consumption in
in relation toengine
relation to engineload
load
forfor
all all tested
tested fuels.
fuels.

In Figure 10, the BSFC for all tested engine loads using all tested fuels can be seen. Concerning the
lower calorific value of the fuel blends in comparison with D100 and worsened efficiency of oxidation,
which is evident from the emissions results, the increased BSFC can be expected. The increase in BSFC
when using fuel blend C20B10 was 5% at 50% load, 4.48% at 75% engine load and 5.54% at full engine
load. When using fuel blend C20B20, the BSFC increased by approximately 7% at 50% engine load, 7.92%
at 75% load and 7.97% at full engine load. The increase in BSFC in comparison with diesel fuel was found
 0

Fue
50 75 100
Engine load (%)
D100 C20B10 C20B20

Energies 2020, 13, 3796 11 of 16

Figure 9. Mass fuel consumption in relation to engine load for all tested fuels.

In
In Figure
Figure 10,
10, the BSFC for all tested engine loads using all tested fuels can be seen. Concerning Concerning thethe
lower
lower calorific
calorific value
value ofof the
the fuel
fuel blends
blends inin comparison
comparison withwith D100
D100 andand worsened
worsened efficiency
efficiency of
of oxidation,
oxidation,
which
which is evident
evident from the emissions results,results, the increased
increased BSFC can be expected. The The increase
increase in
in BSFC
when
when using
using fuel
fuel blend
blend C20B10
C20B10 waswas 5%5% atat 50% load,
load, 4.48%
4.48% atat 75% engine
engine load
load and
and 5.54%
5.54% at full
full engine
engine
load.
load.When
Whenusing usingfuel blend
fuel blendC20B20,
C20B20,thethe
BSFC increased
BSFC by approximately
increased by approximately7% at7%50%atengine load, 7.92%
50% engine load,
at 75% load
7.92% at 75%andload
7.97% at full
and engine
7.97% load.
at full The increase
engine load. Thein BSFC in comparison
increase in BSFC inwith diesel fuelwith
comparison was found
diesel
using vegetable
fuel was found oil–diesel fuel–butanol
using vegetable blends
oil–diesel [38,42,43,45,47],
fuel–butanol blendscoconut oil-diesel fuel
[38,42,43,45,47], blends
coconut [30–32] and
oil-diesel fuel
coconut oil-butanol-ethanol blends [48]. Authors also reported worsened brake
blends [30–32] and coconut oil-butanol-ethanol blends [48]. Authors also reported worsened brakethermal efficiency when
using
thermalvegetable
efficiencyoil-diesel
when using fuel-butanol blends [38,42,43,45]
vegetable oil-diesel or increased
fuel-butanol blends brakeor specific
[38,42,43,45] increasedenergy
brake
consumption
specific energy in the case of coconut
consumption in theoil-diesel fuel blends
case of coconut [30,32].fuel blends [30,32].
oil-diesel

400
350
300
BSFC (g kWh-1)

250
200
150
100
50
0
50 75 100
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 10. Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) in relation to engine load for all tested fuels.
Figure 10. Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) in relation to engine load for all tested fuels.
In Figure 11, the mass air flow (MAF) through the engine for all tested fuels at all measured engine
loadsInisFigure
shown.11, the be
It can mass
seenairthat
flow
the(MAF) through
MAF tends the engine
to decrease withfor all tested
increasing fuels atofalln-butanol
amounts measured in
engine
the fuelloads
blend.is The
shown. It can beare
differences seen that thesmall,
relatively MAFhowever,
tends to the
decrease with
highest increasing
decrease amounts of
in comparison n-
with
butanol
D100 (3.93%in theforfuel blend.
C20B10 andThe
5.3% differences
for C20B20) arecan
relatively small,
be seen at 100%however, the where
engine load, highest
it isdecrease in
connected
Energies 2020, 13,
comparison x FOR
with PEER(3.93%
D100 REVIEWfor C20B10 and 5.3% for C20B20) can be seen at 100% engine12load, of 17
to the lower calorific value of the blended fuels.
where it is connected to the lower calorific value of the blended fuels.
400
350
Mass air flow (kg h-1)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
50 75 100
Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 11. Mass air flow in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
Figure 11. Mass air flow in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the standard
standard deviation).
deviation).

In Figure 12, the total count of solid particles in the size range of 5.6–560 nm for all tested fuels
at all measured engine loads can be seen. In comparison with D100, the total count of solid particles
decreased at 50% engine load by approximately 28.81% using C20B10 and by 33.87% using blend
 Engine load (%)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 11. Mass air flow in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the standard
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 12 of 16
deviation).

In
InFigure
Figure 12,
12, the
the total
total count
count of of solid
solid particles
particles in
in the
thesize
sizerange
rangeofof5.6–560
5.6–560nm nmforforallalltested
testedfuels
fuels
at
atallallmeasured
measuredengine
engineloads
loadscan canbebeseen.
seen. In
In comparison
comparison withwith D100,
D100, the
the total
total count
count ofof solid
solidparticles
particles
decreased
decreasedatat50% 50%engine
engineload
loadby by approximately
approximately28.81%28.81%using
usingC20B10
C20B10and andbyby33.87%
33.87%using usingblend
blend
C20B20,
C20B20, and at 75% engine load by 4.65% using C20B10 and by 31.29% using C20B20. Atfull
and at 75% engine load by 4.65% using C20B10 and by 31.29% using C20B20. At fullengine
engine
load,
load,the thedecrease
decreasewaswasapproximately
approximately34.12% 34.12%using
usingthe
thefuel
fuelblend
blendC20B10
C20B10andand13.7%
13.7%when
whenusing usingfuel
fuel
blend C20B20. The decrease in solid particles was caused, similarly as in the case
blend C20B20. The decrease in solid particles was caused, similarly as in the case of engine smoke, of engine smoke,
mainly
mainlyby bythe
thehigher
higheroxygen
oxygencontent
contentin inthe
thefuel
fuelblends
blendsand
andthethehigher
higherproportion
proportionof oflight
lightfractions
fractionsinin
the fuel blends, causing higher volatility and a faster oxidation
the fuel blends, causing higher volatility and a faster oxidation process. process.

700,000
Total particles count (cm -3)

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
50 75 100
Engine load (%)

Figure 12. Total count of particles in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent the
Figure 12.deviation).
standard Total count of particles in relation to engine load for all tested fuels (error bars represent
the standard deviation).
The mean size of the solid particles was calculated as the weighted average and it is shown in
Table The mean
8. As cansize of theboth
be seen, solidofparticles
the testedwas
fuelcalculated
blends tendsas the weightedthe
to decrease average
size ofand
the itsolid
is shown in
particles
Table 8. As can be seen, both of the tested fuel blends tends to decrease the size of the
(except C20B10 at full engine load). The example of the size distributions of the solid particles for all solid particles
(except C20B10
tested fuels at full
at 50% engine
engine load).
load The example
is shown in Figure of 13.
the It
size distributions
is evident of the
that the solid particles
maximum for all
concentration
tested fuels at 50% engine load is shown in Figure 13. It is evident that the maximum
is reached approximately in the size range of 52–70 nm, however, from the size distribution curves, concentration
isit reached approximately
can be seen in the size
that the differences arerange
higherof at
52–70 nm, however,
the bigger from the (from
sizes of particles size distribution
52 nm and curves,
higher).
itGeng
can be
et seen that
al. [54] the differences
reported are higher
a lower amount at the bigger
of particles sizes smaller
and their of particles
mean (from 52 nminand
diameter higher).
comparison
with diesel fuel with increasing proportions of n-butanol using waste cooking oil biodiesel-n-butanol
blends. A lower concentration of solid particles in the range of 5.6–560 nm, except in idle engine mode,
was also found using sunflower oil-diesel fuel blends and rapeseed oil–diesel fuel blends [55].

Table 8. Mean size of the produced solid particles.

Mean Particle Size (nm)

Engine Load
D100 C20B10 C20B20
50% 79.06 78.58 72.89
75% 84.51 74.1 76.29
100% 86.07 87.55 68.48
 Mean Particle Size (nm)
Engine Load
D100 C20B10 C20B20
50% 79.06 78.58 72.89
75% 84.51 74.1 76.29
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 100% 86.07 87.55 68.48 13 of 16

30,000

25,000
Particles count (cm -3)
20,000

15,000

10,000

5000

0
5 50 500
Mean particle size (nm)

D100 C20B10 C20B20

Figure 13. Size distribution of solid particles at 50% engine load (error bars represent the
Figure 13.
standard Size distribution of solid particles at 50% engine load (error bars represent the standard
deviation).
deviation).
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The article is focused on harmful emissions production, engine smoke, BSFC, performance
The article
parameters is focused of
and production onsolid
harmful emissions
particles. Fromproduction,
the obtainedengine
results,smoke, BSFC, performance
the following conclusions
parameters
were made: and production of solid particles. From the obtained results, the following conclusions
were made:
• Emissions of CO were increased, and emissions of CO2 were decreased. This fact, in combination
 with
Emissions of CO were
the increased increased,
emissions of HCand emissions
(except of CO
the full 2 were
engine decreased.
load), points This fact, in combination
to a worsened oxidation
with the increased
efficiency, caused by emissions
the low of HC (except
cetane number theoffull engine load),
n-butanol in thepoints
blendtoasa the
worsened oxidation
effect was more
efficiency, caused by the low cetane number of n-butanol
significant with the increasing amount of n-butanol in the blend; in the blend as the effect was more
• significant with the increasing amount of n-butanol in the blend;
Emissions of NOX were approximately at the same level at 50% and 75% engine loads. At full
 engine
Emissions
load,ofthe
NO X were approximately at the same level at 50% and 75% engine loads. At full
emissions of NOX were decreased as the exhaust gas temperature also decreased.
engine load, the
This can be explained emissions of NO
by the lower X were decreased as the exhaust gas temperature also
calorific value of the fuel blends and relatively high heat of
decreased. This can
evaporation of n-butanol; be explained by the lower calorific value of the fuel blends and relatively
• high heat of evaporation of n-butanol;
Engine smoke was decreased mainly due to the increased oxygen content in the fuel blends in
 comparison
Engine smoke with was decreased mainly due to the increased oxygen content in the fuel blends in
D100;
comparison with D100;
• Maximum brake torque was decreased by approximately 3.36% when using the fuel blend C20B10
 Maximum brake torque was decreased by approximately 3.36% when using the fuel blend
and by 6.19% when using the fuel blend C20B20 in comparison with D100. BSFC was increased at
C20B10 and by 6.19% when using the fuel blend C20B20 in comparison with D100. BSFC was
all measurement points because of the lower calorific value and worsened oxidation efficiency;
increased at all measurement points because of the lower calorific value and worsened oxidation
• The amount of produced solid particles in the size range of 5.6–560 nm during the engine operation
efficiency;
was lower. This can be explained, similarly to engine smoke, mainly by the higher oxygen content
 The amount of produced solid particles in the size range of 5.6–560 nm during the engine
in the fuel blends in comparison with D100. Both of the tested fuel blends were found to decrease
operation was lower. This can be explained, similarly to engine smoke, mainly by the higher
the mean size of the produced solid particles.

From the results of the measurement, it can be stated that the engine can be operated by both of
the fuel blends on a short time scale, however, there are very few studies regarding long-term tests
using biofuels. From general experience [56,57], it can be presumed that the presence of vegetable oil
will increase the formation of carbon in the combustion chamber and the presence of butanol could
have a negative effect on the sealing elements and other elastomer parts of the engine.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, investigation, writing—review and editing,

J.Č., M.P. and M.H.; formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, J.Č.; validation, supervision,
project administration, M.P., Z.A., R.P. and P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 14 of 16

Funding: This research was funded by Internal Grant Agency of Czech University of Life Sciences Prague,
Faculty of Engineering—IGA CULS—2018:31190/1312/3117 and IGA CULS—2019:31190/1312/3101.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. Garnier, J.; Le Noë, J.; Marescaux, A.; Sanz-Cobena, A.; Lassaletta, L.; Silvestre, M.; Thieu, V.; Billen, G.
Long-term changes in greenhouse gas emissions from French agriculture and livestock (1852–2014):
From traditional agriculture to conventional intensive systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 1486–1501.
[CrossRef]
2. Zhang, L.; Pang, J.; Chen, X.; Lu, Z.; Gan, J. Carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth:
Evidence from the agricultural sector of China’s main grain-producing areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,
665, 1017–1025. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Mat, S.C.; Idroas, M.Y.; Hamid, M.F.; Zainal, Z.A. Performance and emissions of straight vegetable oils and
its blends as a fuel in diesel engine: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 808–823. [CrossRef]
4. Jindra, P.; Kotek, M.; Mařík, J.; Vojtíšek, M. Effect of different biofuels to particulate matters production.
Agron. Res. 2016, 14, 783–789.
5. Dabi, M.; Saha, U.K. Application potential of vegetable oils as alternative to diesel fuels in compression
ignition engines: A review. J. Energy Inst. 2019, 92, 1710–1726. [CrossRef]
6. Gui, M.M.; Lee, K.T.; Bhatia, S. Feasibility of edible oil vs. non-edible oil vs. waste edible oil as biodiesel
feedstock. Energy 2008, 33, 1646–1653. [CrossRef]
7. Agarwal, A.K.; Dhar, A. Experimental investigations of performance, emission and combustion characteristics
of Karanja oil blends fuelled DICI engine. Renew. Energy 2013, 52, 283–291. [CrossRef]
8. Agarwal, A.K.; Rajamanoharan, K. Experimental investigations of performance and emissions of Karanja oil
and its blends in a single cylinder agricultural diesel engine. Fuel 2008, 86, 106–112. [CrossRef]
9. Gebremariam, S.N.; Hvoslef-Eide, T.; Terfa, M.T.; Marchetti, J.M. Techno-economic performance of different
technological based bio-refineries for biofuel production. Energies 2019, 12, 3916. [CrossRef]
10. Zahan, K.A.; Kano, M. Biodiesel production from palm oil, its by-products, and mill effluent: A review.
Energies 2018, 11, 2132. [CrossRef]
11. Tesfa, B.; Gu, F.; Mishra, R.; Ball, A. Emission characteristics of a ci engine running with a range of biodiesel
feedstocks. Energies 2014, 7, 334–350. [CrossRef]
12. Birzietis, G.; Pirs, V.; Dukulis, I.; Gailis, M. Effect of commercial diesel fuel and hydrotreated vegetable oil
blend on automobile performance. Agron. Res. 2017, 15, 964–970.
13. Gailis, M.; Rudzitis, J.; Kreicbergs, J.; Zalcmanis, G. Experimental analysis of hydrotreated vegetable oil
(HVO) and commercial diesel fuel blend characteristics using modified CFR engine. Agron. Res. 2017,
15, 1582–1601. [CrossRef]
14. Douvartzides, S.L.; Charisiou, N.D.; Papageridis, K.N.; Goula, M.A. Green diesel: Biomass feedstocks,
production technologies, catalytic research, fuel properties and performance in compression ignition internal
combustion engines. Energies 2019, 12, 809. [CrossRef]
15. Rimkus, A.; Žaglinskis, J.; Stravinskas, S.; Rapalis, P.; Matijošius, J.; Bereczky, Á. Research on the combustion,
energy and emission parameters of various concentration blends of hydrotreated vegetable oil biofuel and
diesel fuel in a compression-ignition engine. Energies 2019, 12, 2978. [CrossRef]
16. Babu, V.M.; Murthy, M.K.; Prasad Rao, A.G. Butanol and pentanol: The promising biofuels for CI engines—A
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 1068–1088. [CrossRef]
17. Kotek, M.; Mařík, J.; Zeman, P.; Hartová, V.; Hart, J.; Hönig, V. The impact of selected biofuels on the Skoda
Roomster 1.4tDi engine’s operational parameters. Energies 2019, 12, 1388. [CrossRef]
18. Pexa, M.; Čedík, J.; Hönig, V.; Pražan, R. Lignocellulosic biobutanol as fuel for diesel engines. BioResources
2016, 11, 6006–6016. [CrossRef]
19. Čedík, J.; Pexa, M.; Peterka, B.; Holubek, M.; Mader, D.; Pražan, R. Effect of biobutanol-sunflower oil-diesel
fuel blends on combustion characteristics of compression ignition engine. Acta Technol. Agric. 2018,
21, 130–135. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 15 of 16

20. Cloin, J. Coconut oil as a biofuel in Pacific Islands. Refocus 2005, 6, 45–48. [CrossRef]
21. How, H.G.; Teoh, Y.H.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A. Impact of coconut oil blends on particulate-phase PAHs
and regulated emissions from a light duty diesel engine. Energy 2012, 48, 500–509. [CrossRef]
22. Parry, D. Coconut Oil Biofuel in the Pacific. Available online: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/
parry1/ (accessed on 17 January 2020).
23. Vara Prasad, V. Performance of 4 stroke diesel engine using coconut oil as biofuel material. Mater. Today Proc.
2017, 4, 5312–5319. [CrossRef]
24. Viccaro, M.; Cozzi, M.; Rocchi, B.; Romano, S. Conservation agriculture to promote inland biofuel production
in Italy: An economic assessment of rapeseed straight vegetable oil as a self-supply agricultural biofuel.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 153–161. [CrossRef]
25. Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Rudnicki, R.; Kluba, M. Development of energy crops cultivation for biomass production
in Poland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 534–545. [CrossRef]
26. Lujaji, F.; Bereczky, A.; Janosi, L.; Novak, C.; Mbarawa, M. Cetane number and thermal properties of vegetable
oil, biodiesel, 1-butanol and diesel blends. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2010, 102, 1175–1181. [CrossRef]
27. Laza, T.; Bereczky, Á. Basic fuel properties of rapeseed oil-higher alcohols blends. Fuel 2011, 90, 803–810.
[CrossRef]
28. Sunnu, A.K.; Ayetor, G.K.; Gaye, J.M. Straight vegetable oil fuel performance and exhaust emissions under
turbocharged and naturally aspirated conditions. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2019,
in press. [CrossRef]
29. Pham, X.; Noor, M.; Hoang, A. Comparative analysis on performance and emission characteristic of diesel
engine fueled with heated coconut oil and diesel fuel. Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng. 2018, 15, 5110–5125.
[CrossRef]
30. Machacon, H.T.C.; Shiga, S.; Karasawa, T.; Nakamura, H. Performance and emission characteristics of a
diesel engine fueled with coconut oil-diesel fuel blend. Biomass Bioenergy 2001, 20, 63–69. [CrossRef]
31. Kalam, M.A.; Husnawan, M.; Masjuki, H.H. Exhaust emission and combustion evaluation of coconut
oil-powered indirect injection diesel engine. Renew. Energy 2003, 28, 2405–2415. [CrossRef]
32. Machacon, H.T.C.; Matsumoto, Y.; Ohkawara, C.; Shiga, S.; Karasawa, T.; Nakamura, H. The effect of coconut
oil and diesel fuel blends on diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions. JSAE Rev. 2001, 22, 349–355.
[CrossRef]
33. Tutak, W.; Lukács, K.; Szwaja, S.; Bereczky, Á. Alcohol–diesel fuel combustion in the compression ignition
engine. Fuel 2015, 154, 196–206. [CrossRef]
34. Campos-Fernández, J.; Arnal, J.M.; Gómez, J.; Dorado, M.P. A comparison of performance of higher
alcohols/diesel fuel blends in a diesel engine. Appl. Energy 2012, 95, 267–275. [CrossRef]
35. Hönig, V.; Smrčka, L.; Ilves, R.; Küüt, A. Adding biobutanol to diesel fuel and impact on fuel blend parametres.
Agron. Res. 2015, 13, 1227–1233.
36. Lapuerta, M.; Garciía-Contreras, R.; Campos-Fernaández, J.; Dorado, M.P. Stability, lubricity, viscosity,
and cold-flow properties of alcohol-diesel blends. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 4497–4502. [CrossRef]
37. Müller, M.; Šleger, V.; Pexa, M.; Mařík, J.; Mizera, Č. Evaluation of stability of elastomer packing exposed to
influence of various biofuels. Agron. Res. 2015, 13, 604–612.
38. Sharon, H.; Jai Shiva Ram, P.; Jenis Fernando, K.; Murali, S.; Muthusamy, R. Fueling a stationary direct
injection diesel engine with diesel-used palm oil–butanol blends—An experimental study. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2013, 73, 95–105. [CrossRef]
39. Kumar, S.; Cho, J.H.; Park, J.; Moon, I. Advances in diesel-alcohol blends and their effects on the performance
and emissions of diesel engines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 22, 46–72. [CrossRef]
40. Rakopoulos, D.C.; Rakopoulos, C.D.; Giakoumis, E.G. Impact of properties of vegetable oil, bio-diesel,
ethanol and n-butanol on the combustion and emissions of turbocharged HDDI diesel engine operating
under steady and transient conditions. Fuel 2015, 156, 1–19. [CrossRef]
41. Niculescu, R.; Clenci, A.; Iorga-Siman, V.; Niculescu, R.; Clenci, A.; Iorga-Siman, V. Review on the use of
diesel–biodiesel–alcohol blends in compression ignition Engines. Energies 2019, 12, 1194. [CrossRef]
42. Atmanli, A.; Ileri, E.; Yuksel, B.; Yilmaz, N. Extensive analyses of diesel-vegetable oil-n-butanol ternary
blends in a diesel engine. Appl. Energy 2015, 145, 155–162. [CrossRef]
43. Atmanli, A.; Ileri, E.; Yüksel, B. Effects of higher ratios of n-butanol addition to diesel-vegetable oil blends on
performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine. J. Energy Inst. 2015, 88, 209–220. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 3796 16 of 16

44. Lujaji, F.; Bereczky, A.; Mbarawa, M. Performance evaluation of fuel blends containing croton oil, butanol,
and diesel in a compression ignition engine. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 4490–4496. [CrossRef]
45. Atmanli, A.; Ileri, E.; Yüksel, B. Experimental investigation of engine performance and exhaust emissions of
a diesel engine fueled with diesel-n-butanol-vegetable oil blends. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 81, 312–321.
[CrossRef]
46. Lujaji, F.; Kristóf, L.; Bereczky, A.; Mbarawa, M. Experimental investigation of fuel properties, engine
performance, combustion and emissions of blends containing croton oil, butanol, and diesel on a CI engine.
Fuel 2011, 90, 505–510. [CrossRef]
47. Atmanli, A.; Ileri, E.; Yilmaz, N. Optimization of diesel-butanol-vegetable oil blend ratios based on engine
operating parameters. Energy 2016, 96, 569–580. [CrossRef]
48. Singh, P.J.; Khurma, J.; Singh, A. Preparation, characterisation, engine performance and emission
characteristics of coconut oil based hybrid fuels. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2065–2070. [CrossRef]
49. Murray, R.; Wyse-Mason, R. Investigation of methanol-biodiesel-coconut oil ternary blends as an alternative
fuel for CI engines. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2018, 21, 1056–1066. [CrossRef]
50. SS-EN 590. Automotive Fuels. Diesel. Requirements and Test Methods; European Committee for Standardization:
Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
51. Rakopoulos, D.C.; Rakopoulos, C.D.; Giakoumis, E.G.; Dimaratos, A.M.; Kyritsis, D.C. Effects of butanol–diesel
fuel blends on the performance and emissions of a high-speed DI diesel engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010,
51, 1989–1997. [CrossRef]
52. Pexa, M.; Čedík, J.; Pražan, R. Smoke and NOX emissions of combustion engine using biofuels. Agron. Res.
2016, 14, 547–555.
53. Sharzali, M.C.; Mohamad, I.Y.; Yew, T.H.; Hamid, M.F. Physicochemical, performance, combustion and
emission characteristics of melaleuca cajuputi oil-refined palm oil hybrid biofuel blend. Energies 2018,
11, 3146. [CrossRef]
54. Geng, L.; Chen, Y.; Chen, X.; Chia-fon, L.F.L. Study on combustion characteristics and particulate emissions
of a common-rail diesel engine fueled with n-butanol and waste cooking oil blends. J. Energy Inst. 2019,
92, 438–449. [CrossRef]
55. Čedík, J.; Pexa, M.; Holůbek, M.; Mader, D.; Pražan, R. Effect of sunflower and rapeseed oil on production of
solid particles and performance of diesel engine. Agron. Res. 2018, 16, 985–996. [CrossRef]
56. Holúbek, M.; Pexa, M.; Čedík, J.; Mader, D. Effect of long-term operation of combustion engine running on
n-butanol-rapeseed oil-diesel fuel blend. Agron. Res. 2019, 17, 1001–1012. [CrossRef]
57. Pexa, M.; Čedík, J.; Peterka, B.; Holůbek, M. The operational parameters and emissions of portable generator
after long-term operation on n-butanol. Agron. Res. 2018, 16, 1190–1199. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).