Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A comparative evaluation of physical and chemical properties

of biodiesel synthesized from edible and non-edible oils and study
on the effect of biodiesel blending
A.E. Atabani a, *, T.M.I. Mahlia b, H.H. Masjuki a, Irfan Anjum Badruddin a,
Hazuddin Wan Yussof c, W.T. Chong a, Keat Teong Lee d
a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, 43009 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia
Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
d
School of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, Seri Ampangan, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
b
c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 14 December 2012
Received in revised form
25 April 2013
Accepted 1 May 2013
Available online 1 July 2013

Traditionally, biodiesel has been produced from edible oils due to their low free fatty acids. However,
their use has elevated some issues such as food versus fuel and many other problems that have negatively affected their economic viability. Therefore, exploration of non-edible oils may signicantly reduce
the cost of biodiesel especially in poor countries which can barely afford the high cost of edible oils. This
paper aims to produce biodiesel from several edible and non-edible oils that are readily available in the
South East Asian market. These oils include; Jatropha curcas, Calophyllum inophyllum, Sterculia foetida,
Moringa oleifera, Croton megalocarpus, Patchouli, Elaeis guineensis (palm), Cocos nucifera (coconut),
Brassica napus (canola) and Glycine Max (soybean) oils. This was followed by an investigation of physicochemical properties of the produced biodiesel. This paper also discusses the concept of biodiesel
blending to improve some of the properties of these feedstocks. For instance, blending of SFME and
CoME improves the viscosity of SFME from 6.3717 mm2/s to 5.3349 mm2/s (3:1), 4.4912 mm2/s (1:1) and
3.879 mm2/s (1:3). The properties of other biodiesel blends were estimated using the polynomial curve
tting method.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Crude oil characteristics
Biodiesel production
Physical and chemical properties
Blending effect

1. Introduction
Currently, more than 80% of the worlds energy needs depend on
fossil fuels. However, the declining reserve of fossil fuel and the
growing carbon dioxide emissions are driving the world attention
to reduce dependence on fossil fuel. In turn, this has promoted the
interest in bioenergy, including biodiesel, as one of the prime
renewable energy sources. Biodiesel is gaining worldwide attention. Edible oils are considered as the rst generation of biodiesel
feedstock. Biodiesel has been produced in the US and Europe using
edible oils because they have surplus of them, can achieve high
biodiesel yield and easy processing due to their low free fatty acids.
However, their use has raised many concerns such as food versus
fuel problem and some environmental problems such as serious
destruction of vital soil resources, deforestation and usage of much

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 60 122314659.

E-mail address: a_atabani2@msn.com (A.E. Atabani).
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.040

of the available arable land as can be seen in many countries

especially highly populated countries such as China and India. All of
these factors negatively affected the economic viability of biodiesel
production from edible oils. It is known that the cost of feedstock
alone represents 75% of the cost of biodiesel. Therefore, exploration
of new low-cost agricultural non-edible crops and the utilization of
by-products in the biodiesel production may signicantly reduce
the cost of biodiesel especially in poor countries which can hardly
afford the high cost of edible oils [1e14].
The availability of any feedstock for biodiesel production depends on the regional climate, geographical locations, local soil
conditions and agricultural practices of any country [15]. For
instance, canola oil is mainly used in Europe, palm and coconut oil
in South East Asia and soybean oil and animal fats are used in the
United States. However, the collective supply of these fats and oils is
not adequate to displace fossil fuels. For example, if all U.S. soybean
production were dedicated to biodiesel, an estimated 6% of diesel
demand would be satised. Thus, alternative feedstocks for biodiesel production such as Jatropha curcas, Sterculia foetida, Moringa

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

297

2.3. Biodiesel production procedures

Nomenclature
CIME
CME
CMME
CoME
JCME
MOME
PaME
PME
SFME
SME

Calophyllum inophyllum methyl ester

Canola methyl ester
Croton megalocarpus methyl ester
coconut methyl ester
Jatropha curcas methyl ester
Moringa oleifera methyl ester
Patchouli methyl ester
palm oil methyl ester
Sterculia foetida methyl ester
soybean methyl ester

oleifera, Croton megalocarpus, and Calophyllum inophyllum have

attracted considerable attention. These feedstocks are considered
more sustainable as they can be grown on land that is unsuitable for
other crops [2,3,16e18].
Therefore, it can be understood that the combined supply of
edible and non-edible oils is currently one of the available solutions
to meet the world energy demand and reduce the dependency on
the edible oils.
1.1. Objectives of this study
The main objective of this work is to produce biodiesel from
several edible and non-edible oils that are readily available in the
South East Asian market. These oils include; J. curcas, C. inophyllum,
S. foetida, M. oleifera L., C. megalocarpus, Patchouli, Elaeis guineensis
(palm), Cocos nucifera (coconut), Brassica napus L. (canola) and
Glycine Max (soybean) oils (Fig. 1). Moreover, a detailed investigation of physical and chemical properties of the produced biodiesels
from these feedstocks has been fully presented in this study. This
is very important to assess the quality of these feedstocks. Moreover, this paper also suggests the concept of biodieselebiodiesel
blending from these feedstocks to improve some of the main
properties such as viscosity, cloud, pour and cold lter plugging
point. In this paper, the polynomial curve tting method was suggested to predict the properties of biodiesel blends.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials and chemicals
The crude oils of Palm, Coconut, Canola and Soybean were obtained from local market. M. oleifera and C. megalocarpus oils were
supplied from University Sains Malaysia (USM). J. curcas, C. inophyllum and S. foetida oils were purchased from Ministry of Forestry
of the Republic of Indonesia (Bogor, Indonesia). Patchouli oil was
purchased from Banda Aceh (Indonesia). Other chemicals such as
methanol, H2SO4, KOH and Na2SO4 were obtained from Sigma
Aldrich (Malaysia). Qualitative lter paper (ltres Fioroni) of
150 mm size was supplied from (Metta Karuna Enterprise,
Malaysia). The production of biodiesel was conducted in the laboratory scale using 500 ml batch reactor.
2.2. Structure of the study
This paper aims to produce biodiesel from various edible and
non-edible oils that are readily available in the South East Asian
market. Therefore, the following gure (Fig. 2) gives a summary of
the implemented ow chart of this paper.

2.3.1. Production of biodiesel from palm, coconut, canola and

soybean oils
In this process, crude palm, coconut, canola and soybean oils
were reacted with 25% (v/v oil) of methanol and 1% (m/m oil) of
potassium hydroxide (KOH) and maintained at 60  C for 2 h and
400 rpm stirring speed. After completion of the reaction, the produced biodiesels were deposited in a separation funnel for 12 h to
separate glycerol from biodiesel. The lower layer which contained
impurities and glycerol was drawn off.
2.3.2. Production of biodiesel from J. curcas, C. inophyllum, S.
foetida, M. oleifera, C. megalocarpus and Patchouli oils
2.3.2.1. Esterication process. This process was employed primarily
to reduce the acid value of these feedstocks prior to the second
transesterication step. In this process, the molar ratio of methanol
to rened J. curcas, C. inophyllum, S. foetida, M. oleifera, C. megalocarpus and Patchouli oils was maintained at 12:1 (50% v/v oil). 1%
(v/v oil) of sulphuric acid (H2SO4) was added to the pre-heated oils
at 60  C for 3 h under 400 rpm stirring speed in a glass reactor. On
completion of this reaction, the products were poured into a
separating funnel to separate the excess alcohol, sulphuric acid and
impurities presented in the upper layer. The lower layers were
separated and entered into a rotary evaporator and heated at 95  C
under vacuum conditions for 1 h to remove methanol and water
from the esteried oils. Due to the high acid value of C. inophyllum,
this process has been conducted twice to reduce the acid value of
the oil to less than 4 mgKOH/g oil.
2.3.2.2. Transesterication process. In this process, the esteried
oils of J. curcas, C. inophyllum, S. foetida, M. oleifera, C. megalocarpus
and Patchouli were reacted with 25% (v/v oil) of methanol (6:1
molar ratio) and 1% (m/m oil) of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and
maintained at 60  C for 2 h and 400 rpm stirring speed. After
completion of the reaction, the produced biodiesels were deposited
in a separation funnel for 12 h to separate glycerol from biodiesels.
The lower layers which contained impurities and glycerol were
discarded.
2.3.3. Post-treatment process
The methyl esters formed in the upper layer from the previous
processes were washed with distilled water to remove the
entrained impurities and glycerol. In this process, 50% (v/v oil) of
distilled water at 60  C was sprayed over the surface of the esters
and stirred gently. This process was repeated several times until the
pH of distilled water became neutral. The lower layers were then
discarded and upper layers were poured entered into a rotary
evaporator to remove the excess water and methanol. Methyl esters
were further dried using Na2SO4. Finally, the nal product was
ltered using qualitative lter paper (ltres Fioroni).
2.4. Measurement of physicalechemical properties of crude oils and
biodiesels
In this study, the physical and chemical properties of the crude
oils and their respective biodiesels were tested according to ASTM
D6751. These properties include; viscosity, viscosity index, density,
ash point, CP (cloud point), PP (pour point), CFPP (cold lter
plugging point), CCR, caloric value, oxidation stability, copper
strip corrosion and total sulphur beside some other non-ASTM
properties such as transmission, absorbance and refractive index.
Table 1 shows the equipment used in this study to analyse these
properties. Moreover, the details of their manufacturers and the
ASTM D6751 methods were also included in the table1.

298

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

Fig. 1. Feedstock pictures.

2.5. Blending of biodiesel

3. Results and discussion

The test fuels were blended by using a homogenizer device at a

speed of 2000 rpm. The homogenizer was xed on a clamp on a
vertical stand, which allows changing of the homogenizers height.
To mix the fuels by using the homogenizer, the plug is turned on
and the appropriate speed is selected by using the selector which is
located on top of the homogenizer.
In this study the effect of biodiesel blending ratios of 1:1 (v/v)
and 1:3 (v/v) on some physical and chemical properties has been
studied and presented. These include viscosity, cloud point, pour
point and cold lter plugging point. In this paper, polynomial curve
tting method was used to estimate the properties of other biodiesel blends. This method is an attempt to describe the relationship between variable X as a function of available data and a
response Y, which seeks to nd a smooth curve that best ts the
data. Mathematically, a polynomial of order k in X is expressed in
the following form:

3.1. Characterization of crude oils

Y Co C1 X C2 X 2 / Ck X k

(1)

The properties of crude oils were presented in Table 2. The main

ndings from this table show that S. foetida oil possesses the
highest kinematic viscosity of 75.826 mm2/s at 40  C. C. megalocarpus oil has the best viscosity index of 224.2. Patchouli oil
possesses the lowest CFPP and highest refractive index and caloric
value of 1  C, 1.5069 and 42,986 kJ/kg respectively. Canola has the
highest ash point of 290.5  C. M. oleifera oil was found to have the
best oxidation stability of 41.75 h. Coconut oil possesses the highest
transmission of 91.2% (T) and lowest Absorbance of 0.04 (abs).
3.2. Characterization of biodiesel
The physical and chemical properties of the produced biodiesels
from different edible and non-edible oils are shown in Table 3. The
following section will discuss some of the obtained results and
compare them with each other.

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

299

Fig. 1. (continued).

3.2.1. Kinematic viscosity

Viscosity is the most important property of any fuel as it indicates the resistance of a material to shear or ow. It therefore
affects the operation of the fuel injection equipment and spray
atomization, particularly at low temperatures when the increase in
viscosity affects the uidity of the fuel [14,15,18]. Table 3 shows the
obtained results of kinematic viscosity of CIME, JCME, SFME, PME,
CoME, CME, SME, CMME, PaME and MOME. From this table, it can
be seen that CoME possesses the lowest kinematic viscosity of
3.1435 mm2/s followed by CMME (4.0707 mm2/s), SME
(4.3745 mm2/s), CME (4.5281 mm2/s), PME (4.6889 mm2/s), JCME
(4.9476 mm2/s), MOME (5.0735 mm2/s), CIME (5.5377 mm2/s),
PaME (6.0567 mm2/s) and nally SFME (6.3717 mm2/s). The

kinematic viscosities of biodiesel are all lower that those presented

by their respective oils as can be seen in Table 2. This is an expected
nding since biodiesel molecules are single, long chain fatty esters
with higher mobility than the bigger and bulkier triglyceride
molecules [19]. It can be observed that all results are in agreement
with the standard specied by ASTM D6751of (1.9e6 mm2/s)
except for SFME and PaME which both have slightly higher viscosity than the limit prescribed by ASTM D445. A comparison of
some results in the present study and those in literature was also
conducted. It was found that CME possesses slightly higher viscosity (4.5281 mm2/s) than that of [13] with 4.50 mm2/s and [19,20]
with 4.439 mm2/s. CoME possesses higher viscosity (3.1435 mm2/s)
than that of [19,20] with 2.726 mm2/s. JCME possesses higher

300

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

Characterization of crude oils

Biodiesel production

Physical and chemical properties of biodiesel

Investigation of biodiesel blending opportunities

Fig. 2. Flow chart of the present study.

viscosity (4.9476 mm2/s) than that of [19] with 4.253 mm2/s, [21]
with 4.42 mm2/s, [22] with 4.84 mm2/s and [13,20] with 4.80
mm2/s but lower than that of [22] with 5.38 mm2/s. MOME possesses higher viscosity (5.0735 mm2/s) than that of [19] with 4.008
mm2/s, [20,23] with 4.83 mm2/s, [24] with 4.91 mm2/s and [25]
with 4.80 mm2/s. PME possesses higher viscosity (4.6889 mm2/s)
than that of [19] with 4.570 mm2/s, [21] with 4.52 mm2/s, [22] with
4.5 mm2/s and of [13] with 4.42 mm2/s but lower than that of [20]
with 5.07 mm2/s. SME possesses higher viscosity (4.3745 mm2/s)
than that of [19,20] with 4.039 mm2/s and [13,22] with 4.08 mm2/s.
SFME possesses slightly higher viscosity (6.3717 mm2/s) than that

of [26] with 6.0 mm2/s. While, CMME possesses lower viscosity

(4.0707 mm2/s) than that of [27] with 4.8 mm2/s and [28] of
4.56 mm2/s. Moreover, CIME possesses lower viscosity
(5.5377 mm2/s) than that of [29] with 5.724 mm2/s but higher than
that of [30,31] with 4 mm2/s and 4.92 mm2/s respectively.
3.2.2. Oxidation stability
Oxidation stability is an important parameter to investigate; it is
an indication of the degree of oxidation, potential reactivity with
air, and can determine the need for antioxidants [14,19]. Table 3
shows the obtained results of oxidation stability. It can be seen
that PME possesses the highest oxidation stability of 23.56 h followed by MOME (12.64 h), CoME (8.01 h), CME (7.08 h), CIME
(6.12 h), JCME (4.84 h), SME (4.08 h), SFME (1.46 h), CMME (0.71 h)
and PaME (0.022 h). It can be seen that PME, MOME, CoME, JCME,
SME, CME and CIME possess oxidation stabilities that agree with
the range specied by ASTM D6751standard of min 3 h. However,
the oxidation stability of SFME, CMME and PaME are less than the
prescribed ASTM standard. This indicates that the use of antioxidants is necessary to meet standards specications. The comparison with other results in literature revealed that the oxidation
stability of CME (7.08 h) is comparable to that of [19,20] with 7.6 h.
CoME possesses lower oxidation stability (8.01 mm2/s) than that of
[19,20] with 35.5 h. However, the result in the present study satisfy
both ASTM d6751 and EN 14214 standards of minimum 3 h and 6 h
respectively. While, JCME possesses higher oxidation stability
(4.84 h) than that of [19,20] with only 2.3 h. Moreover, MOME
possesses higher oxidation stability (12.64 h) than that of [19,20]
with only 2.3 h, [23] of 3.61 h and [25] of 3.52 h. PME possesses
higher oxidation stability (23.56 h) than that of [19] with only 0.2 h
and [20] with 4 h. SME possesses higher oxidation stability (4.08 h)
than that of [19,20] with only 2.1 h.
3.2.3. Cloud, pour and cold lter plugging point
The cloud point (CP) is the temperature at which wax crystals
rst becomes visible when the fuel is cooled. Pour point (PP) is the
temperature at which the amount of wax out of solution is sufcient to gel the fuel, thus it is the lowest temperature at which the
fuel can ow. Cold lter plugging point (CFPP) refers to the temperature at which the test lter starts to plug due to fuel components that have started to gel or crystallize. It is commonly used as
indicator of low temperature operability of fuels and reects their

Table 1
Equipment list.
Property

Equipment

Manufacturer

ASTM D6751

ASTM D6751 limit

1
2

Kinematic viscosity
Flash Point

(Anton Paar, UK)

(Normalab, France)

D 445
D 93

1.9e6.0
130 min

3
4

Oxidation stability
Cloud and Pour point

(Metrohm, Switzerland)
(Normalab, France)

D 675
D 2500 and D 97

3 h min
Report

CCR

(Normalab, France)

D 4530

0.050% m max

Total sulphur

SVM 3000 e automatic

Pensky-martens ash point e automatic
NPM 440
873 Rancimat e automatic
Cloud and Pour point tester e automatic
NTE 450
Micro-Carbone Conradson
Residue Tester e automatic NMC 440
Multi EA 5000 e automatic

(Analytical Jena, Germany)

D 5453

CFPP

(Normalab, France)

D 6371

15 Max (S15)
500 Max (S500)
N/S

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Density
Copper strip corrosion
Dynamic viscosity
Viscosity Index (VI)
Caloric value
Refractive Index
Transmission
Absorbance

(Anton Paar, UK)

(Stanhope-Seta, UK)
(Anton Paar, UK)
(Anton Paar, UK)
(IKA, UK)
(Mettler Toledo, Switzerland)
(Analytical Jena, Germany)
(Analytical Jena, Germany)

D 1298
D 130
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S

N/S
No.3 max
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S

Cold lter plugging

point e automatic NTL 450
SVM 3000 e automatic
Seta copper corrosion bath 11300-0
SVM 3000 e automatic
SVM 3000 e automatic
C2000 basic calorimeter e automatic
RM 40 Refractometer e automatic
Spekol 1500
Spekol 1500

N/S not specied in ASTM D6751 test method.

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

301

Table 2
Physical and chemical properties of crude oils.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Property

Jatropha

Sterculia

Calophyllum

Coconut

Palm

Canola

Soybean

Croton

Moringa

Patchouli

Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) at 40  C

Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) at 100  C
Dynamic viscosity (mpa s) at 40  C
Viscosity index (VI)
Flash point ( C)
CFPP ( C)
Density (kg/m3) at 40  C
High caloric value (kJ/kg)
Copper strip corrosion (3 h at 50  C)
Refractive index
Transmission (%T)
Absorbance (Abs)
Oxidation stability (h at 110  C)

48.095
9.1039
43.543
174.1
258.5
21
0.9054
38,961
1a
1.4652
61.8
0.209
0.32

75.826
13.608
69.408
184.8
246.5
29
0.9153
39,793
1a
1.4651
26.6
0.574
0.15

55.478
9.5608
51.311
165.4
236.5
26
0.9249
38,511
1a
1.4784
34.7
0.46
0.23

27.640
5.9404
25.123
168.5
264.5
22
0.9089
37,806
1a
1.4545
91.2
0.04
6.93

41.932
8.496
37.731
185.0
254.5
23
0.8998
39,867
1a
1.4642
63.2
0.199
0.08

35.706
8.5180
32.286
213.5
290.5
15
0.9042
39,751
1a
1.471
62.9
0.202
5.64

31.7390
7.6295
28.796
223.2
280.5
13
0.9073
39,579
1a
1.4725
65.2
0.186
6.09

29.8440
7.2891
27.1570
224.20
235
10
0.9100
39,331
1a
1.4741
87.5
0.058
0.14

43.4680
9.0256
38.9970
195.20
263
18
0.8971
39,762
1a
1.4661
69.2
0.16
41.75

9.8175
2.2151
9.2933
21.60
146.5
1
0.9466
42,986
1a
1.5069
71.4
0.146
0.13

cold weather performance [15,18]. Table 3 shows the obtained results of CP, PP and CFPP. It can be observed that CIME, JCME, MOME
and PME have relatively higher CP, PP and CFPP than SME, PaME,
CME, CoME, CMME and SFME. The comparison of some results in
the present study and those in literature shows that CME possess a
comparable CP and CFPP of 3  C and 10  C compared to 3.3 and
13 of Refs. [19,20]. CME possesses similar CP and PP of 3  C and
9  C compared to 4  C and 9  C of Ref. [13]. Same observation
was drawn for SME with CP and CFPP of 1  C and 3  C compared to
0.9 and 4 of Ref. [19,20]. While CoME possesses slightly higher CP
and CFPP of 1  C and 1  C compared to 0  C and 4  C of
Ref. [19,20]. However, JCME possesses very high CP and CFPP of
10  C compared to 2.7  C and 0  C of Refs. [19,20]. MOME possesses
higher CP and CFPP of 21  C and 18  C compared to 13.3  C and 13  C
of Refs. [19,20] and 18  C and 17  C of Ref. [25]. MOME possesses
slightly higher PP of 19  C compared to 17  C of Ref. [25]. The results
of CP and CFPP for PME were similar to Refs. [19,20] of 13  C and
12  C respectively. CIME possesses lower CP 12  C compared to
13.2  C but higher PP of and 13  C compared to 4.3  C of Ref. [32].
CMME possesses higher CP and PP of 3  C and 2  C compared to
4  C and 9  C of Ref. [28]. SFME possesses slightly higher pour
point of 2  C compared to 1  C of Ref. [26].
3.2.4. Flash point
Flash point of a fuel is the temperature at which it will ignite
when exposed to a ame or a spark [14,15,18]. Table 3 shows the
obtained results of ash point. It can be seen that CIME, JCME, SME,
CME, SFME, PME, MOME and CMME have ash points of 162.5  C,

186.5  C, 202.5  C, 186.5  C, 130.5  C, 214.5  C, 176  C and 164  C

respectively. These results agree with the specication of ash
point in ASTM D6751 of minimum 130  C except for CoME and
PaME which have a ash point of 118.8  C. The comparison with
literature shows that the ash points of JCME, CME and PME obtained in this study (186.5  C, 186.5  C and 214.5  C) are higher than
those presented in Ref. [13] of 135, 170 and 182  C respectively.
Moreover, the results of CIME presented in this study of 162.5  C are
higher than those presented in Refs. [29e31] of 151  C, 140  C and
140  C respectively. The ash point of MOME (176  C) is higher than
that presented in Ref. [25] of 162  C. The ash point of SME
(202.5  C) is higher than that presented in Refs. [20,26] of 178  C.
The ash point of CoME 118.5  C is slightly higher than that presented in Ref. [20] of 110  C. For CMME the result obtained in this
study (164  C) is lower than that obtained in Ref. [28] of 189  C.
Same observation was drawn for SFME which has ash point of
130.5  C compared to 162  C in Ref. [26].
3.2.5. High caloric value
Caloric value is an important parameter in the selection of a fuel.
The caloric value of biodiesel is generally lower than of diesel
because of its higher oxygen content [14,15,18]. Table 3 shows the
obtained results of caloric value of the produced biodiesel. It can
be observed that PaME possesses the highest caloric value of
44,180 kJ/kg followed by CME (40,195 kJ/kg), MOME (40,115 kJ/kg),
PME (40,009 kJ/kg), SFME (40,001 kJ/kg), SME (39,976 kJ/kg),
CMME (39,786 kJ/kg), JCME (39,738 kJ/kg), CIME (39,513 kJ/kg) and
nally CoME (38,300 kJ/kg).

Table 3
Physical and chemical properties of the produced biodiesel.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Viscosity at 40  C (mm2/s)
Viscosity at 100  C (mm2/s)
Viscosity at 40  C (mpa s)
Density at 40  C (kg/cm3)
Oxidation stability (h at 110  C)
CFPP ( C)
Cloud point ( C)
Pour point ( C)
Flash point ( C)
Copper strip corrosion (3 h at 50  C)
High caloric value (kJ/kg)
CCR (m/m%)
Total sulfur (mg/kg)
Absorbance (abs) at WL 656.1
Transmission (%) at WL 656.1
Refractive index (RI) at 25  C
Viscosity index

N/D not determined.

CIME

JCME

SME

CME

SFME

PME

CoME

MOME

CMME

PaME

5.5377
1.998
4.8599
0.8776
6.12
11
12
13
162.5
1a
39,513
0.4069
4.11
0.057
87.7
1.4574
183.2

4.9476
1.8557
4.2758
0.8642
4.84
10
10
10
186.5
1a
39,738
0.0440
3.84
0.045
90.3
1.4513
194.6

4.3745
1.764
3.8014
0.869
4.08
3
1
1
202.5
1a
39,976
0.0204
0.86
0.037
92
1.4553
257.8

4.5281
1.7864
3.9212
0.866
7.08
10
3
9
186.5
1a
40,195
0.0291
0.83
0.041
91.1
1.4544
236.9

6.3717
2.1954
5.5916
0.8776
1.46
2
1
2
130.5
1a
40,001
0.2911
7.02
0.057
87.9
1.4557
174.4

4.6889
1.7921
4.0284
0.8591
23.56
12
13
15
214.5
1a
40,009
0.0118
1.81
0.05
89.1
1.4468
203.6

3.1435
1.3116
2.705
0.8605
8.01
1
1
4
118.5
1a
38,300
0.0114
0.94
0.035
92.3
1.4357
230.8

5.0735
1.9108
4.3618
0.8597
12.64
18
21
19
176
1a
40,115
0.022
N/D
0.046
90
1.4494
206.7

4.0707
1.6781
3.453
0.8704
0.71
4
3
2
164
1a
39,786
0.028
N/D
0.041
91.1
1.4569
276.3

6.0567
1.8223
5.5848
0.9221
0.022
17
<33
<33
118.5
1a
44,180
0.385
77.1
3
0
1.5032
61.8

302

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

3.3. Effect of biodiesel blending on some physical and chemical

properties

predict the CFPP, CP and PP of these blends at any blending ratio

based on CME% in the blends.

3.3.1. Effect of CoME, PME and SFME blends on kinematic viscosity

The effect of blending CoME and PME with SFME on kinematic
viscosity has been studied. Blending of PME with SFME improved
the viscosity of SFME from 6.3717 mm2/s to 6.0482 mm2/s (3:1),
5.5995 mm2/s (1:1) and 5.3254 (1:3) respectively as can be seen in
Fig. 3a. Moreover, the following equation has been developed from
this gure to predict the viscosity at any PME-SFME blends as
follow:

3.3.2.1. Prediction of CP, PP and CFPP of PME-CME blends.

ViscositySFME  PME  0:5159x2  1:1195x 6:3599

0  x  100xh%PME


R2 0:9908

0  x  100

PP 2:2857x2  20:114x 14:114

0  x  100

(2)

R 0:9784
0  x  100

R 0:9843

(6)

3.3.2.2. Prediction of CP, PP and CFPP of JCME-CME blends.

CP 1:1429x2  12:857x 10:457

0  x  100

0  x  100

(3)
(9)

15
12

10
5

0
0%

10%

20%

30%

2.0000

10

1.0000

0.0000
50%
% of PME in the blends

75%

100%

7
3

0
0%

10%

20%

30%

4.4912

50%

60%

80%

90%

-10
% of CME in the blends

(b)

y = 0.9533x - 4.1182x + 6.3457

R = 0.9981

11

10

3.1435

y = -5.7143x - 16.286x + 11.486

R = 0.9918

8
5

0
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

-5
-10

0
75%

100%

-7

15

50%
% of CoMe in the blends

70%

-5

3.879

CFPP ( C)

Viscosity at 40C (mm/s)

40%

5.3349

25%

100%

y = -6.8571x - 14.743x + 10.543

R = 0.9639

10

6.3717

0%

90%

(a)

-15

80%
-5

-10

(a)

70%

% of CME in the blends

15

3.0000

60%

-10

-15

y = -0.5159x - 1.1195x + 6.3599

R = 0.9908

50%

-10
4.6889

25%

40%

-5

5.0000

0%

y = -6.8571x - 15.543x + 11.943

R = 0.9843

5.5995

CFPP (C)

Viscosity at 40C (mm/s)

R 0:9639

5.3254

4.0000

0  x  100

CFPP (C)

8.0000
6.0482

(8)

R2 0:9785
CFPP 6:8571x2  14:743x 10:543

6.3717

(7)

R2 0:979
PP 13:714x2  6:2857x 10:286

3.3.2. Effect of CME, PME, JCME and CIME blends on cloud, pour and
cold lter plugging point
The effect of blending of CME with PME, JCME and CIME on the
cloud, pour and cold lter plugging point has been studied. As can
be seen in Figs. 4e6, blending of CME with PME, JCME and CIME
improved the cold ow properties of PME, CIME and JCME
respectively. The developed equation in these gures can be used to

6.0000

(5)

ViscositySFMECoME 0:9533x2 4:1182x6:3457

7.0000

(4)

R2 0:9704

CFPP 6:8571x2  15:543x 11:943

Blending of CoME with SFME improved the viscosity of SFME

from 6.3717 mm2/s to 5.3349 mm2/s (3:1), 4.4912 mm2/s (1:1) and
3.879 (1:3) respectively as can be seen in Fig. 3b. Moreover, the
following equation has been developed from this gure to predict
the viscosity at any CoME-SFME blends as follow:

0  x  100xh%CoME


R2 0:9981

CP 3:4286x2  20:629x 13:429

70%

80%
-5

90%

100%

-10

100%

(b)
Fig. 3. Prediction of kinematic viscosity (a) PME and SFME blends (b) CoME and SFME
blends.

-15

% of CME in the blends

(c)
Fig. 4. Prediction of CFPP (a) CME and PME blends (b) CME and JCME blends (c) CME
and CIME blends.

15
y = 3.4286x - 20.629x + 13.429
R = 0.9704

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

90%

-2

0
10%

20%

30%

40%

-15

y = -1.1429x - 12.857x + 10.457

R = 0.979

50%

60%

70%
-1

80%

90%

-4

10

y = -13.714x - 6.2857x + 10.286

R = 0.9785

0
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

-5

-6

14
12
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2 0%
-4
-6

100%
-3

PP (C)

0
40%

% of CME in the blends

-15

100%

% of CME in the blends

(b)
y = -3.4286x - 12.171x + 12.171
R = 0.9867

15

13

11

10
0
30%

90%

-9

20%

80%
-4

-10

(b)

10%

100%

% of CME in the blends

10

2
30%

90%

15

20%

-1
80%

(a)

10%

70%

-9

10

-2 0%

60%

-10

(a)

50%

-5

100%
-3

% of CME in the blends

6
CP ( C)

80%

y = -2.2857x - 20.114x + 14.114

R = 0.9784

5
0%

10%

CP ( C)

15

10

12
10

303

20

PP (C)

16
14
13
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2 0%
-4
-6

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%
-3

PP (C)

CP (C)

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

0
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

-5

% of CME in the blends

-15

Fig. 5. Prediction of CP (a) CME and PME blends (b) CME and JCME blends (c) CME and
CIME blends.

0  x  100

R 0:9867

80%

90%

100%

% of CME in the blends

(c)
Fig. 6. Prediction of PP (a) CME and PME blends (b) CME and JCME blends (c) CME and
CIME blends.

3.3.2.3. Prediction of CP, PP and CFPP of CIME-CME blends.

70%
-1

-9

-10

(c)

CP 3:4286x2  12:171x 12:171

y = -13.714x - 8.6857x + 13.286

R = 0.9972

4. Conclusion

(10)

PP 13:714x2  8:6857x 13:286

0  x  100

R2 0:9972

(11)

CFPP 5:7143x2  16:286x 11:486

0  x  100

R 0:9918

(12)

3.3.3. Sample calculation

From Fig. 3 and based on Eq. (2) in Section 3.3.1, it can be seen
that the viscosity of PME and SFME blends can be predicted using
the following equation:



Viscosity SFME  PME  0:5159x2  1:1195x 6:3599


0  x  100
xh%PME
Therefore, the viscosity of PME-SFME biodiesel blend can be
predicted based on the above equation as follow:



Viscosity25%PME  0:5159*25%^ 2  1:1195* 25%
6:3599 6:0478 mm2 =s

Production of biodiesel from non-edible oils may signicantly

reduce the cost of biodiesel. In this study, production of biodiesel
was performed using several edible and non-edible oils that are
available in the South East Asian market. It has been reported
that the yield of biodiesel from all these feedstocks was high
enough to produce biodiesel in a practical way. Moreover, the
physical and chemical properties of these feedstocks were evaluated. It was found that most of the properties of biodiesels are
following the standard specied by ASTM D 6751. In addition,
this paper also suggests the concept of biodiesel blending in
order to improve their properties such as viscosity, ash, cloud,
pour and cold lter plugging point. For instance, blending of
SFME and CoME improve the kinematic viscosity of pure SFME
from 6.3717 to 3.879 mm2/s. It was also found that blending has
improved the cold ow properties of PME, CIME and JCME
respectively.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Higher
Education of Malaysia and The University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia for the nancial support under UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/06
(D000006-16001). The authors would also like to thank the technical staff at Faculty of Chemical Engineering & Natural Resources
(FKKSA), University Malaysia Pahang for their valuable help and
support.

304

A.E. Atabani et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 296e304

References
[1] Chung K-H, Kim J Lee, Ki-Young. Biodiesel production by transesterication of
duck tallow with methanol on alkali catalysts. Biomass and Bioenergy
2009;33(1):155e8.
[2] da Silva JPV, Serra TM, Gossmann M, Wolf CR, Meneghetti MR,
Meneghetti SMP. Moringa oleifera oil: studies of characterization and biodiesel production. Biomass and Bioenergy 2010;34(10):1527e30.
[3] Deka DC, Basumatary S. High quality biodiesel from yellow oleander (Thevetia
peruviana) seed oil. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35(5):1797e803.
[4] Rashid U, Anwar F, Knothe G. Biodiesel from Milo (Thespesia populnea L.) seed
oil. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35(9):4034e9.
[5] Teixeira da Silva de La Salles KM, Meneghetti SMP, Ferreira de La Salles W,
Meneghetti MR, dos Santos ICF, da Silva JPV, de Carvalho SHV, et al. Characterization of Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc. oil and properties of methyl esters
for use as biodiesel. Industrial Crops and Products 2010;32(3):518e21.
[6] Amani MA, Davoudi MS, Tahvildari K, Nabavi SM, Davoudi MS. Biodiesel
production from Phoenix dactylifera as a new feedstock. Industrial Crops and
Products 2013;43(0):40e3.
[7] Frhlich A, Rice B. Evaluation of Camelina sativa oil as a feedstock for biodiesel
production. Industrial Crops and Products 2005;21(1):25e31.
[8] Liu Y, Xin Hong-ling, Yan Yun-jun. Physicochemical properties of stillingia oil:
feasibility for biodiesel production by enzyme transesterication. Industrial
Crops and Products 2009;30(3):431e6.
[9] Yang F-X, Su Yin-Quan, Li Xiu-Hong, Zhang Q, Sun Run-Cang. Preparation of
biodiesel from Idesia polycarpa var. vestita fruit oil. Industrial Crops and
Products 2009;29(2e3):622e8.
[10] Kansedo J, Lee KT, Bhatia S. Cerbera odollam (sea mango) oil as a promising
non-edible feedstock for biodiesel production. Fuel 2009;88(6):1148e50.
[11] Silitonga AS, Atabani AE, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Irfan Anjum Badruddin,
Mekhilef S. A review on prospect of Jatropha curcas for biodiesel in Indonesia.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15:3733e56.
[12] Wang R, Zhou Wan-Wei, Hanna MA, Zhang Yu-Ping, Bhadury PS, Wang Y,
et al. Biodiesel preparation, optimization, and fuel properties from non-edible
feedstock, Datura stramonium L. Fuel 2012;91(1):182e6.
[13] Gui MM, Lee KT, Bhatia S. Feasibility of edible oil vs. non-edible oil vs. waste
edible oil as biodiesel feedstock. Energy 2008;33(11):1464e653.
[14] Atabani AE, Anjum Badruddin Irfan, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Chong WT,
Keat Teong Lee. Investigation of physical and chemical properties of
potential edible and non-edible feedstocks for biodiesel production, a
comparative analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2013;21(May):749e55.
[15] Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Anjum Badruddin Irfan, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH,
Mekhilef S. A comprehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy
resource and its characteristics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2012;16(4):2070e93.
[16] Moser BR, Vaughn SF. Coriander seed oil methyl esters as biodiesel fuel:
unique fatty acid composition and excellent oxidative stability. Biomass and
Bioenergy 2010;34(4):550e8.

[17] Moser BR, Vaughn SF. Efcacy of fatty acid prole as a tool for screening feedstocks for biodiesel production. Biomass and Bioenergy 2012;37(0):31e41.
[18] Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Ong HC, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Anjum
Badruddina Irfan, et al. Non-edible vegetable oils: a critical evaluation of oil
extraction, fatty acid compositions, biodiesel production, characteristics, engine performance and emissions production. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 2013;18(February):211e45.
[19] Sanford SD, White JM, Shah PS, Wee C, Valverde MA, Meier GR. Feedstock and
biodiesel characteristics. Available from: http://www.regfuel.com/pdfs/
Feedstock%20and%20Biodiesel%20Characteristics%20Report.pdf; 2011 [cited
04.11.12].
[20] Karmakar A, Karmakar S, Mukherjee S. Properties of various plants and
animals feedstocks for biodiesel production. Bioresource Technology
2010;101(19):7201e10.
[21] Oghenejoboh KM, Umukoro PO. Comparative analysis of fuel characteristics of
bio-diesel produced from selected oil-bearing seeds in Nigeria. European
Journal of Scientic Research 2011;58(2):238e46.
[22] Balat M. Potential alternatives to edible oils for biodiesel production e a review
of current work. Energy Conversion and Management 2011;52(2):1479e92.
[23] Rashid U, Anwar F, Moser BR, Knothe G. Moringa oleifera oil: a possible source
of biodiesel. Bioresource Technology 2008;99(17):8175e9.
[24] Kafuku G, Lam MK, Kansedo J, Lee KT, Mbarawa M. Heterogeneous catalyzed
biodiesel production from Moringa oleifera oil. Fuel Processing Technology
2010;91(11):1525e9.
[25] Rashid U, Anwar F, Ashraf M, Saleem M, Yusup S. Application of response surface
methodology for optimizing transesterication of Moringa oleifera oil: biodiesel
production. Energy Conversion and Management 2011;52(8e9):3034e42.
[26] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. Study of the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a diesel engine using poon oil-based fuels. Fuel
Processing Technology 2009;90(4):513e9.
[27] Aliyu B, Shitanda D, Walker S, Agnew B, Masheiti S, Atan R. Performance and
exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with Croton megalocarpus
(musine) methyl ester. Applied Thermal Engineering 2011;31(1):36e41.
[28] Kafuku G, Mbarawa M. Biodiesel production from Croton megalocarpus oil
and its process optimization. Fuel 2010;89(9):2556e60.
[29] Sudradjat R. Calophyllum inophyllum L. a potential plant for biodiesel.
Available from: http://www.iges.or.jp/en/bf/pdf/activity20090204/session2/
Sudradjat.pdf; 2011 [cited 19.11.12].
[30] SathyaSelvabala V, Selvaraj DK, Kalimuthu J, Periyaraman PM, Subramanian S.
Two-step biodiesel production from Calophyllum inophyllum oil: optimization of modied b-zeolite catalyzed pre-treatment. Bioresource Technology
2011;102(2):1066e72.
[31] Sahoo PK, Das LM, Babu MKG, Naik SN. Biodiesel development from high acid
value polanga seed oil and performance evaluation in a CI engine. Fuel
2007;86(3):448e54.
[32] Sahoo PK, Das LM, Babu MKG, Arora P, Singh VP, Kumar NR, et al. Comparative
evaluation of performance and emission characteristics of jatropha, karanja
and polanga based biodiesel as fuel in a tractor engine. Fuel 2009;88(9):
1698e707.