Fuel 248 (2019) 161–167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Alternative fuels for marine applications: Biomethanol-biodiesel-diesel T

blends
⁎
Tatjana Paulauskiene , Martynas Bucas, Airida Laukinaite
Klaipeda University, Faculty of Marine Technology and Natural Sciences, H. Manto 84, 91225 Klaipeda, Lithuania

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recent emission related limits imposed on marine fuel are causing the ship owners to look for alternative fuels to
Alternative fuel comply with the new limits. Depletion of fossil fuel raised the attention of researchers to investigate renewable
Biomethanol energy sources such as biodiesel and alcohol. Methanol blends as marine fuel leads to drastically reducing sulfur
Biodiesel and particle emissions, adopting methanol also shows lower nitrogen oxide emissions and, when produced from
MDO
renewable sources, lower CO2 emissions over the entire fuel lifecycle. Biodiesel has the potential in fulfilling the
Biomethanol-diesel blends
environment and economic concerns as it is a renewable and sustainable energy source.
Empirical relationships among physical-chemical properties and blends of biomethanol-biodiesel-diesel were
assessed by direct gradient analysis. It was inspected how the physical-chemical properties change along an
ordination axis of detrended correspondence analysis using “vegan” package in R. Physical-chemical properties
from the multivariate model were predicted by using two types of blends’ data. The first one was based on the
simulated ranges from the used data in calibration of the redundancy analysis, whereas the second one consisted
of simulated ranges extrapolated up to 99% of both blends.
It was concluded that a blend with 10% biomethanol and 20% biodiesel was the most suitable alternative fuel
for marine applications (considering to ISO 8217:2012 standard and environmental requirements for marine
fuel).

1. Introduction fuel lifecycle [1].

The Baltic Sea is a closed water body, penetrating deeply into the
north of Europe, and the second largest low-salinity water reservoir in
the world, with a total area of about 0.12% of the world's oceans.
Intensive shipping (more than 17% worldwide) activities contribute
significantly to the air pollution in the Baltic Sea region, which in 2006
was assigned the status of SECAs. Short-term SECA/ECA NOx and SOx
reductions are the most pressing issues and long-term GHGs and PM
emissions requirements will provide further environmental challenges.
Recent emission limits imposed on marine fuel are causing the ship
owners to look for alternative fuels as a way of complying with the new
limits.
The majority of ships use diesel engine and the quality of marine
diesel fuels is lower than the quality of land based fuel. The potential of
methanol blends as marine fuel alternative leads to drastically reducing
of sulphur (up to 35%) and particle emissions compared to traditional
marine diesel, adopting methanol also shows lower nitrogen oxide
emissions and, when produced from renewable sources (wood and its
waste, bio-methane, synthesis gas) lower CO2 emissions over the entire
The combustion of low sulphur fuel in an internal combustion en-
gine has soot content of 0.1 g·kWh−1 while methanol produces only
0.01 g·kWh−1. Engine performance is the most effective with methanol
compared to MDO, MGO [2]. Methanol is characterized by a higher
evaporation heat (1178 kJ·kg−1), higher oxygen content (49.93%),
lower carbon content (37.50%), and higher burning rate [3]. However,
it is necessary to point some drawbacks of the use of pure methanol.
One of the main ones is that the calorific value of methanol is almost
twice lower than that of diesel fuel, and the safety requirements for
methanol in the event of fire are higher, as its flash point is very low.
Meanwhile, biodiesel is characterized by high flashpoint (120 °C),
better lubrication of internal combustion engine, high cetane index
(≈50), good biodegradation and low toxicity. Biodiesel has a minimal
amount of sulphur and aromatic compounds, so its combustion pro-
ducts are cleaner than diesel, the exhaust gases contain lower amounts
of unburned hydrocarbons, hard particles and carbon monoxide.
Biodiesel also contains 10–11% oxygen, which is soluble in diesel.
In order to replace the higher part of fossil fuels in marine diesel fuel
by components from renewable sources, it is necessary to develop

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tatjana.paulauskiene@ku.lt (T. Paulauskiene), martynas.bucas@jmtc.ku.lt (M. Bucas), ik.jtgmf@ku.lt (A. Laukinaite).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.082
Received 22 August 2018; Received in revised form 3 February 2019; Accepted 13 March 2019
0016-2361/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
T. Paulauskiene, et al.
Table 1
Parameters of biomethanol-biodiesel-diesel blends.
Standard ISO 8217:2017 requirements
−3
Density at 15 °C, kg·m LST EN ISO 3675:1999 Max 900
Kinematic viscosity at 40 °C, mm2·s−1 LST EN ISO 3104:1994 Min 1.80
Max 10.80
Distillation ASTM D86-96 – at 250 °C–33 vol%;
Cetane index ASTM D976-06(16) Min 35
Flash point, °C LST EN ISO 2719:2016 Min 60
Pour point, °C ISO 3016:1994 Max minus 6
Ash, % (weight basis) LST EN ISO 6245:2002 Max 0.01
Calorific value, MJ·kg−1 DIN 51900-3:2000 – –
complex multi-component blends. So far there is no consensus on the
ratio of the most effective formulation of such blends. Besides, an in-
crease in the amount of each component added to marine diesel fuel can
critically change the physio-chemical properties of the fuel.
The aim of this research is to investigate the use of biomethanol-
biodiesel-diesel blends in diesel engines for marine applications.
2. Materials and methods
Study of literature sources reveals that there is no consensus on
which ratio of methanol-biodiesel/diesel blends would be the best al-
ternative for marine fuels, considering fuel quality indicators, its us-
ability and emission generation. However, in a number of studies it has
been found that methanol exceeding 30% in the blend fuel properties
and emission factors decline. Therefore, when composing methanol-
diesel or methanol-biodiesel-diesel blends, it is recommended to choose
not more than 30% methanol in blends [4].
16 blends with different biomethanol-biodiesel-diesel ratios were
studied. All blends were divided into 4 groups, in which the methanol
content varies from 0 to 30% (volume basis), and biodiesel from 0 to
20% (volume basis) (Table 1). In order to produce homogeneous blends
1% (volume basis) of dodecanol was added to each blend [5,6].
Biodiesel and methanol contain high levels of oxygen, 11% and
49.9% respectively. When increasing the amount of oxygen, oxidation
stability of the mixtures decreases [7]. In order to avoid this, anti-
oxidants are added to the blends. The scientific articles investigate the
influence of various antioxidants on the oxidative stability of biodiesel
or biodiesel-diesel blends: tert-Butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), phenylene-
diamine (PPDA), diphenyl-phenylenediamine (DPPDA), L-ascorbic acid
(LAA), ethylenediamine (EPA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), bu-
tylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), pirogalol (PY), etilheksil-nitrat (EHN)
and etc. [8,9].
Scientific studies reveal that the most effective supplement to im-
prove the oxidation stability is tert-butylhydroquinone [8,10,11]. TBHQ
additive reduces the risk of corrosion (Almeida et al, 2011), fuel con-
sumption up to 10.2% [12,13], HC; smoke [13] and NOx emissions up
to 14% [14] as well as increases the cetane number by 6%: from 47.5 to
50.3 [9].
In order to prevent corrosion, corrosion inhibitors are added to the
mixtures. Fazal [15] study investigated the tert-butylamine additive and
its effect on corrosion. Investigating the effects of several amines (EDA,
nBA and TBA), it was found that the most effective way to prevent
corrosion is using TBA (efficiency 47%) and EDA.
In another Fazal experiment, more corrosion inhibitors were in-
vestigated: tert-butylamine (TBA), benzotriazole (BTA), butylated hy-
droxytoluene (BHT) and pyrogalol (PY). In this study, the highest anti-
corrosion efficiency was achieved added by using the TBA supplement
which efficiency was 86.71%.
In recent studies Fazal [16] has investigated TBA and BHA as cor-
rosion inhibitors. The study showed that TBA is an efficient corrosion
162
Fuel 248 (2019) 161–167
Blend Components
Diesel Biodiesel Methanol
843 877 797
2.80 4.30 1.01
– –
at 350 °C–95 vol%
51 50 5
62 120 11
Minus 19 Minus 12 Minus 98
≤0.01 – –
40 23
inhibitor.
So, in addition combustion enhancer additive – tert-
Butylhydroquinone (1000 ppm) and corrosion inhibitor – tert-butyla-
mine (250 ppm) were added to the blends.
A comparative analysis of the physical and chemical properties and
fuel consumption of biomethanol-biodiesel-diesel blends were per-
formed, and the results were compared with ISO 8217:2012 standard
“Petroleum products – Fuels (class F) – Specifications of marine fuels”
according to the IMO requirements for marine fuels (Table 1).
Empirical relationships among physical-chemical properties (flash
point, ash, density, kinematic viscosity, cetane index, calorific value)
and blends of methanol-biodiesel-diesel were assessed by direct gra-
dient analysis [17]. According to Leps & Smilauer [18], we inspected
how the physical-chemical properties change along an ordination axis
of detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) using “vegan” package
[19] in R. The length of the first DCA axis was < 0.2 standard devia-
tions; therefore we carried out redundancy analysis. In the redundancy
analysis model, marginal statistical significance of methanol-biodiesel-
diesel blends was evaluated using permutation tests (n = 999). The
isolines of physical-chemical properties and blends of methanol-bio-
diesel-diesel were added for better understanding their values in the
multivariate plots of redundancy analysis. Physical-chemical properties
from the multivariate model were predicted by using two types of
blends’ data. The first one was based on the simulated ranges from the
used data in calibration of the redundancy analysis, whereas the second
one consisted of simulated ranges extrapolated up to 99% of both
blends.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Analysis of literature sources on diesel and / or biodiesel blends with
methanol
The results of systematized and summarized results of the analysed
literature sources on diesel and / or biodiesel blends with methanol are
presented in Table 2.
3.2. Analysis of physical and chemical properties of methanol-biodiesel-
diesel blends
In this study the measurements of the density of composites; the
kinematic viscosity; flashpoint and pour point temperatures; ash and
calorific values and the calculations of cetane index were performed
according to the standard methodologies. The results are presented in
Table 3.
The study showed that the lowest density value is in blend of 30%
methanol and 7% biodiesel; compared to the same biodiesel blend
without methanol, the density decreased only by 2%, to 825 kg·m−3.
The highest density is of the blend with no methanol and with biodiesel
content of 20%, the density of such blends is 1% higher than that of the
T. Paulauskiene, et al. Fuel 248 (2019) 161–167

Table 2
The comparative analysis of the results of diesel and/or biodiesel blends with methanol in literary sources.
Acronym Values change Additives Density Kinematic Cetane Emission Calorific Fuel BTE Reference
compared viscosity index value Consumption
with CO NOx HC

−3 2 −1
Kg·m mm ·s – % % % MJ·kg−1 g·kWh−1

BM5 B100 – – ↓ ↓ ↓34.2% ↑ – – ↑ ↑ [20]

BM10 ↓32.2%
BM15 ↓26.4%
B20M5 D100 – ↓843 ↑3.28 ↑ ↓ ↑ – ↓ ↑ – [21]
B20M10 ↑3.62
DM5 D100 – ↓837 – – ↓4.76% ↑2.5% ↓7.15 ppm ↓ ↑182.28 ↓ [22]
DM10 ↓835 ↓14.2% ↑8% ↓6.1 ppm ↑189.87
DM15 ↓832 ↓33.3% ↑38% ↓5.85 ppm ↑214.43
DM5 D100 – ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓27% ↓ ↑14.3% ↓19% – ↑149.23 ↑ ↓7.5% [5]
DM10 40% ↑39% ↓35% 162.38 ↓9.6%
DM15 ↓50% ↑45% ↓48% ↑172.28 ↓6.7%
DB(1:1)M5 DB(1:1) 4% oleic 842 – ↓ ↓ Unchanged Unchanged ↓2.25% – – [23]
DB(1:1)M10 acid (M10) 843 ↓4.34%
D95M5 D100 1% – – ↓ ↓27.3% ↑17.4% ↓31.5% – ↑308 ↓ [6]
D90M10 dodecanol ↓29.7% ↑23.6% ↓37.2% ↑323
DB(1:1)M10 D100 – – – – ↓ ↑ ↓ – ↑ – [24]
DB(1:1)M20
D70M30 D100 – ↓ – – ↓68% ↓65% ↓56% ↓ ↑ – [3]
DM10-40 D100 – 822–840 – – ↓up to ↑ Unchanged ↓ – – [4]
80% (10–30%), ↑
DM40

Note: B – biodiesel, % (volume basis), M – methanol, % (volume basis), D – diesel, % (volume basis); BTE – Brake Thermal Efficiency; ↑ – increase; ↓ – decrease.

blend containing 7% biodiesel fuel. In the studied literature, the effect
of methanol on the density variation is similar [3,6,20,23].
According to the ISO 8217: 2017 standard, the maximum permis-
sible density of marine diesel fuel shall not exceed 900 kg·m−3. In
Table 3, we can see that blends of maritime diesel fuel with selected
biodiesel and methanol levels do not exceed the maximum allowable
value set in the standard.
It has been determined that M0B20 blend of 3.24 mm2·s−1 has the
maximum kinematic viscosity, which is 16% higher than that of marine
fuels with a biodiesel content of 7% (2.8 mm2·s−1). Yasin [21], An [20]
and Yusri [25] had similar results. According to the ISO 8217: 2017
standard, the kinematic marine diesel viscosity must be between
2 mm2·s−1 and 11 mm2·s−1. In Table 3, we see that the kinematic
viscosity of the studied blends falls within these limits, thus meeting the
standard values. The higher the viscosity of the blend, the harder the
mixture moves in the system, so when increasing the amount of bio-
diesel in the blends, methanol acts as an enhancing additive, because
the viscosity of the blend decreases.
The distillation of the blends was performed according to ASTM
D86-96 standard: “Standard Test Method for distillation of petroleum
products at atmospheric pressure”, the results of the study are presented
in Fig. 1.
The temperature at the start of the boiling and distillation of 10%
blend describes the engine starting characteristics. The lower the tem-
perature, the easier it will be to start the engine. Meanwhile, the dis-
tillation temperature of 50% blend volume affects the engine warm up.
The lower the temperature, the faster the engine warms up. This tem-
perature is also important because it is used to calculate the value of the
blend cetane index. The 95% distillation temperature describes the total
evaporation ability of the blend.
The first drop shows the temperature at which the mixture starts to
boil; it depends on the composition of the blend. When the blend
contains methanol, it starts boiling at 64–65 °C.
Fig. 1 shows the results of the distillation test of four blends with
different methanol content. 10% marine diesel blend of 7% (volume
basis) biodiesel condensed at 197 °C, while 10% of the blend volume,
with the methanol content of 10% (volume basis), 20% (volume basis)
or 30% (volume basis) condensed at 64–65 °C.

Table 3
Results of methanol-biodiesel-diesel blends analysis.
Blends Density Kinematic viscosity Cetane index Flash point Pour Point Ash Calorific value
Kg·m−3 mm2·s−1 - °C °C %, weight basis MJ·kg−1

M0B7 838 ± 0.58 2.81 ± 0.03 51.94 ± 2 66.2 ± 3 −20 0.004 ± 0.0001 45.34 ± 0.02
M0B10 840 ± 0.58 2.95 ± 0.01 50.83 ± 2 66.2 ± 3 −21 0.004 ± 0.0001 45.15 ± 0.02
M0B15 842 ± 1.00 3.06 ± 0.02 51.06 ± 2 67.2 ± 3 −22 0.004 ± 0.0001 44.78 ± 0.02
M0B20 844 ± 1.00 3.23 ± 0.08 52.86 ± 2 68.2 ± 3 −24 0.005 ± 0.0001 44.53 ± 0.02
M10B7 835 ± 0.58 2.82 ± 0.06 46.12 ± 2 14.2 ± 3 – 0.005 ± 0.0001 44.06 ± 0.02
M10B10 837 ± 0.58 2.91 ± 0.02 49.11 ± 2 14.2 ± 3 – 0.006 ± 0.0001 42.69 ± 0.02
M10B15 840 ± 0.58 3.04 ± 0.10 49.43 ± 2 15.2 ± 3 – 0.006 ± 0.0001 42.47 ± 0.02
M10B20 842 ± 0.58 3.22 ± 0.05 50.37 ± 2 15.2 ± 3 – 0.005 ± 0.0001 42.31 ± 0.02
M20B7 830 ± 1.00 2.78 ± 0.09 45.33 ± 2 14.2 ± 3 – 0.004 ± 0.0001 40.58 ± 0.02
M20B10 832 ± 0.58 2.86 ± 0.07 48.46 ± 2 15.2 ± 3 – 0.004 ± 0.0001 40.51 ± 0.02
M20B15 835 ± 0.58 3.01 ± 0.04 48.72 ± 2 15.2 ± 3 – 0.004 ± 0.0001 40.78 ± 0.02
M20B20 837 ± 1.00 3.11 ± 0.02 49.19 ± 2 15.2 ± 3 – 0.005 ± 0.0001 40.52 ± 0.02
M30B7 824 ± 0.58 2.75 ± 0.06 45.44 ± 2 15.2 ± 3 – 0.005 ± 0.0001 38.69 ± 0.02
M30B10 827 ± 0.58 2.85 ± 0.11 48.19 ± 2 14.2 ± 3 – 0.004 ± 0.0001 38.35 ± 0.02
M30B15 831 ± 0.58 2.98 ± 0.06 48.44 ± 2 14.2 ± 3 – 0.005 ± 0.0001 38.11 ± 0.02
M30B20 833 ± 0.58 3.03 ± 0.05 48.90 ± 2 15.2 ± 3 – 0.005 ± 0.0001 38.44 ± 0.02

163
T. Paulauskiene, et al.
Fig. 1. Results of the test of the distillation of methanol-biodiesel-diesel blends: A – biodiesel content in blends – 7%; B – when the blend does not contain methanol.
50% of the blend volume is distilled when the temperature reaches
270 °C, 242 °C, 234 °C, 228 °C, when the methanol content of the blend
varies respectively: 0% (volume basis), 10% (volume basis), 20% (vo-
lume basis) and 30% (volume basis). As we can see, increasing the
amount of methanol, the temperature at which half of the volume of the
blend is condensed, decreases. When methanol content increases by
30% (volume basis), the temperature decreases by 16%.
For all blends with the varying methanol content and with the
biodiesel content of 7% (volume basis), the 95% distillation tempera-
ture of the blend has changed in a small range from 319 °C to 321 °C.
However, analysing non-methanol blends, the results of the dis-
tillation show that 10% of the volume of the blend is distilled at a
temperature varying from 197 to 211 °C. Increasing the biodiesel con-
tent from 7% (volume basis) to 20% (volume basis), the 10% distilla-
tion temperature increases by 7%. The temperature of the blend of
higher biodiesel amount after distillation of 95% of the volume in-
creases respectively: 316 °C, 320 °C, 330 °C, 342 °C. Increasing the bio-
diesel content of the blend from 7% (volume basis) to 20% (volume
basis), the temperature of distillation of 95% of the blend increases by
8%.
The cetane index indicates the combustion properties of the fuel: the
higher the index, the easier the combustibility. The study revealed that
the lowest cetane index is of a blend of 30% (volume basis) of methanol
and 7% (volume basis) of biodiesel; its cetane index is 45 and it is 13%
lower compared to a blend in which there is no methanol and biodiesel
is also 7% (volume basis). Similar results were observed in Datta [26]
164
Fuel 248 (2019) 161–167
studies, which concluded that up to 10% of methanol in a blend would
not cause a significant decrease in cetane number and it will remain
within the standard range [5,6,26].
M0B20 has the highest calculated cetane index, it reaches 52 and is
1% higher than of M0B7 blend. Thus, when a blend does not contain
methanol, biodiesel increases the cetane index by about 1%.
Meanwhile, when the blend contains 10% (volume basis) methanol,
when increasing the biodiesel content from 7% (volume basis) to 20%
(volume basis), the cetane number increases by 9%, from 46 to 50. A
similar trend is observed when the methanol content of the blend
reaches 20% (volume volume) and 30% (volume basis), so the biodiesel
component in methanol blends increases their cetane index. According
to the ISO 8217: 2017 standard, the marine cetane index should reach
35. All blends tested in the study meet the minimum value of the cetane
index fit in the standard.
When examining the flash-point of methanol-biodiesel-diesel
blends, it is important to evaluate the flash-point of individual com-
ponents. Biodiesel burns at 120 °C with a source of ignition and the
flash point of methanol is even 11 times smaller and reaches 11 °C.
The flash point of M0B7 has been determined to be 64 °C. The
maximum flash-point is achieved when the blend does not contain
methanol and biodiesel amounts to 20% (volume basis). Compared to
M0B7, the flash point of such a blend increases by 3% to 68.2 °C. A
similar trend is also observed in Yasin [21] studies.
In the study, the lowest flash-point values are observed in blends
containing methanol. When the blend contains methanol (10–30%
T. Paulauskiene, et al.
Fig. 2. The multivariate plots of redundancy analysis: (A) a triplot with the physical-chemical properties (bolded), the blends of methanol-biodiesel-diesel (vectors),
the measurements (points) and isolines of blends were added respectively to their vectors; (B) the isolines of density and calorific value; (C) the isolines of flash point
and cetane index; (D) the isolines of kinematic viscosity and ash.
(volume basis)), the flash point is reduced by 79%, up to 14 °C. In all
blends containing methanol, increasing the amount of biodiesel does
not affect the value of flashpoint, because when heated, methanol
evaporates first and after ignition combusts the blend. The increase of
methanol content from 10 to 30% (volume basis) in these blends does
not influence the flash point range, which remains 14–15 °C.
The minimal flashpoint of the marine diesel according to ISO 8217:
2017 is 60 °C. The results of the study show that blends containing
methanol do not meet the standard values, therefore, it is necessary to
look for ways to ensure the homogeneity of the blend, which would
allow achieving higher flash-point temperatures.
Studying the blends containing methanol, after some time the seg-
regation of blends was observed, although in order to avoid this phe-
nomenon 1% (volume basis) of dodecanol was added to the blend. It is
known that the flow rate of pure methanol is minus 98 °C, so that when
cooling the blend to determine its fluidity temperature, the part in
which there was no methanol thickened, while the methanol on the top
did not. Segregation was observed in blends with a methanol content of
10% (volume basis). For this reason, it was considered inappropriate to
study blends with a methanol content of 20% (volume basis) and 30%
(volume basis). However, it can be assumed that solving the problem of
segregation of blends with methanol, methanol would improve the
properties of the flow, and the blends would thicken at lower tem-
peratures.
After determining the fluidity rate of the composite blend, it has
been obtained that when increasing the volume of biodiesel in marine
diesel fuel from 7 to 20% (volume basis), the fluidity rate decreases by
17%, from minus 20 to minus 24 °C, and this component improves the
fluidity properties.
165
Fuel 248 (2019) 161–167
In accordance with ISO 8217: 2017 standard, the fluidity tem-
perature of marine diesel fuel must be lower than minus 6 °C, since the
temperature of the studied biodiesel / diesel blends is between minus
20 °C and minus 24 °C and by addition of methanol it is even lower, it
can be stated that the values obtained fall within the standard range.
The ISO 8217: 2017 standard for marine diesel fuel states that the
ash content should not exceed 0.01% (weight basis). The ash content of
the compound blends is below this limit; therefore, it corresponds to the
standard. Zhu [27] research showed that mixing methanol and bio-
diesel with diesel fuel reduces the ash content. The lower the ash
content, the longer hard particle filters are not jammed, as ash is not
produced in the process of combustion, and the exhaust emission con-
trol system is less loaded [28,29].
Analysing the calorific values of blends, the M0B7 blend has been
found to have a maximum calorific value of 45.3 MJ·kg−1. Meanwhile,
the minimum calorific value is of 30% (volume basis) of methanol and
15% (volume basis) biodiesel blend – 38.1 MJ·kg−1, which is 16%
lower compared to M0B7.
The analysis of the achieved results shows that increasing the
amount of methanol in the blend, the calorific value of the blends de-
creases: in a blend containing 7% (volume basis) of biodiesel, adding
10% (volume basis) of methanol, the calorific value is reduced by 3%,
when methanol is 20% (volume basis) the calorific value decreases by
11%, and when the methanol content reaches 30% (volume basis), the
calorific value of the blend decreases by as much as 16% and reaches
38.7 MJ·kg−1.
When the blend does not contain methanol and biodiesel varies
from 7% (volume basis) to 20% (volume basis), the calorific value
decreases by only 2% and reaches 44.6 MJ·kg−1.
T. Paulauskiene, et al. Fuel 248 (2019) 161–167

Other researchers [4,23,30,31], who are studying changes in the
calorific values of methanol-biodiesel blends, received similar results.
3.3. Multivariate model and predictions of physical-chemical properties
manipulating blends of biomethanol-biodiesel-diesel
The redundancy analysis showed that the concentrations of me-
thanol and biodiesel explained 71% of the variation in physical-che-
mical properties of the blends. The two canonical axes were statistically
significant (p < 0.01) and explained 55% and 16%, respectively. The
canonical axes displayed high correlations (r = 0.98 and 0.90, respec-
tively) between the concentrations of methanol and biodiesel and
physical–chemical properties, therefore the relationships can be inter-
preted in the multivariate plots of the redundancy analysis (Fig. 2).
The first axis represented the gradient of methanol concentration,
whereas the second axis was correlated to the gradient of biodiesel
concentration (Fig. 2). There were negative strong relationships be-
tween the concentration of methanol and density, cetane index and
partly calorific value and flash point. The density, kinematic viscosity
and cetane index were positively related to the concentration of bio-
diesel, whereas the relationship with calorific value and partly with
flash point were negative. The results of marginal analysis of con-
straints revealed that both factors were statistically significant
(p < 0.01), where the importance of methanol concentration was
slightly higher than the one of the biodiesel concentration (they re-
spectively explained 47% and 34% of the variation in the physical-
chemical properties of the blends).
From the model of redundancy analysis, the predicted physical-
chemical properties had negative relationships with the concentration
of methanol, but the concentration of ash (Fig. 3). The increase of the
concentration of methanol to 91% reduced the flash point temperature
by ca. 3 times, calorific value – by 2 times, cetane index – by 22%,
kinematic viscosity – by 11%, density – by 5%, whereas increased the
concentration of ash by 4%.
All predicted physical-chemical properties, except flash point tem-
perature and calorific value, had positive relationships with the con-
centration of biodiesel. The increase of the concentration of biodiesel to
91% increased kinematic viscosity – by 38%, ash – by 35%, cetane
index – by 22%, density – by 4%, whereas reduced the flash point
temperature by 8% and the concentration of calorific value – by 7%.
4. Conclusions
It has been found that the blend of marine diesel fuel with 10%
(volume basis) of methanol and 20% (volume basis) biodiesel fuel is the
closes to the ISO 8217: 2017 standard. In further research, seeking to
use this blend as an alternative marine fuel, it is necessary to improve
the homogeneity of the blend and find ways to improve the methanol
solubility in diesel fuel.
However, the increase of the concentration of biodiesel to 91% in-
creased kinematic viscosity – by 38%, ash – by 35%, cetane index – by
22%, density – by 4%, whereas reduced the flash point temperature by
8% and the concentration of calorific value – by 7%.

Fig. 3. The predictions of physical-chemical properties (flash point, ash, density, kinematic viscosity, cetane index, calorific value) in relationship to the con-
centrations of methanol-biodiesel-diesel blends by the model of redundancy analysis using two types of simulated concentrations of blends: (1) concentrations of
methanol and biodiesel in the same range (0–30% and 0–20% respectively) as used for a calibration of the model (solid line) and (2) extrapolated ranges of
concentrations of methanol and biodiesel (30–99% and 20–99% respectively) in the blend (dotted line).

166
T. Paulauskiene, et al. Fuel 248 (2019) 161–167

Conflict of interests [15] Fazal MA, Sazzad BS, Haseeb ASMA, Masjuki HH. Inhibition study of additives
towards the corrosion of ferrous metal in palm biodiesel. Energy Convers Manage
2016;122:290–7.
None. [16] Fazal MA, Suhaila NR, Haseeb ASMA, Rubaiee S, Al-Zahrani A. Influence of copper
on the instability and corrosiveness of palm biodiesel and its blends: An assessment
Acknowledgements on biodiesel sustainability. J Cleaner Prod 2018;171:1407e1414.
[17] Zuur A, Ieno EN, Smith GM. Analysing Ecological Data. Springer Science & Business
Media; 2007.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding [18] Leps J, Smilauer P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO.
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Cambridge Press; 2003.
[19] Oksanen JF, Blanchet G, Kindt P, et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R
package version 2.3-0. [available on internet at http://CRAN.R-project.org/
References package=vegan]; 2015.
[20] An H, Yang WM, Li J. Numerical modeling on a diesel engine fueled by biodiesel-
methanol blends. Energy Convers Manage 2015;93:100–8.
[1] Riaz A, Zahedi G, Klemes JJ. A review of cleaner production methods for the
[21] Yasin MHM, Mamat R, Aziza AFYA, Najafi G. Comparative study on biodiesel-
manufacture of methanol. J Cleaner Prod 2013;57:19–37.
methanol-diesel low proportion blends operating with a diesel engine. Energy
[2] Lapuerta M, Rodríguez-Fernánde J, Fernández-Rodríguez D, Patiño-Camino R.
Procedia 2015;75:10–6.
Modeling viscosity of butanol and ethanol blends with diesel and biodiesel fuels.
[22] Ciniviz M, Köse H, Canli E, Solmaz Ö. An experimental investigation on effects of
Fuel 2017;199:332–8.
methanol blended diesel fuels to engine performance and emissions of a diesel
[3] Soni DK, Gupta R. Numerical investigation of emission reduction techniques applied
engine. Alexandria Eng J 2011;55:1867–79.
on methanol blended diesel engine. Alexandria Eng J 2016;55:1867–79.
[23] Qi DH, Chen H, Geng LM, Bian YZH, Ren XCH. Performance and combustion
[4] Jamrozik A. The effect of the alcohol content in the fuel mixture on the performance
characteristics of biodiesel–diesel–methanol blend fueled engine. Appl Energy
and emissions of a direct injection diesel engine fueled with diesel-methanol and
2010;87:1679–86.
diesel-ethanol blends. Energy Convers Manage 2017;148:461–76.
[24] Yilmaz N. Comparative analysis of biodiesel-ethanol-diesel and biodiesel-methanol-
[5] Sayin C. Engine performance and exhaust gas emissions of methanol and ethanol-
diesel blends in a diesel engine. Energy 2012;40:210–3.
diesel blends. Fuel 2010;89:3410–5.
[25] Yusri IM, Mamata R, Najafi G, Razman A, Awad OI, Azmia WH, et al. Alcohol based
[6] Sayin C, Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. The influence of operating parameters on the
automotive fuels from first four alcohol family in compression and spark ignition
performance and emissions of a DI diesel engine using methanol-blended-diesel
engine: a review on engine performance and exhaust emissions. Renew Sustain
fuel. Fuel 2010;89:1407–14.
Energy Rev 2017;2017(77):169–81.
[7] Pullen J, Saeed K. Experimental study of the factors affecting the oxidation stability
[26] Datta A, Mandal BK. Engine performance, combustion and emission characteristics
of biodiesel FAME fuels. Fuel Process Technol 2014;125:223–35.
of a compression ignition engine operating on different biodiesel-alcohol blends.
[8] Khalife E, Tabatabaeib M, Demirbasd A, Aghbashloe M. Impacts of additives on
Energy 2017;125:470–83.
performance and emission characteristics of diesel engines during steady state op-
[27] Zhu L, Cheung CS, Zhang WG, Huang Z. Influence of methanol–biodiesel blends on
eration. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2017;59:32–78.
the particulate emissions of a direct injection diesel engine. Aerosol Sci Technol
[9] Jiaqiang E, Phama E, Zhaoc D, Denga Y, DucHieu L, Wei Z, et al. Effect of different
2010;44:362–9.
technologies on combustion and emissions of the diesel engine fueled with bio-
[28] Fang J, Meng Z, Li J, Pu G, Du Y, Li J, et al. The influence of ash on soot deposition
diesel: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:620–47.
and regeneration processes in diesel particular filter. Appl Therm Eng
[10] Kivevele T, Huan Z. Influence of metal contaminants and antioxidant additives on
2017;124:633–40.
storage stability of biodiesel produced from non-edible oils of Eastern Africa origin
[29] Almeida ES, Portela FM, Sousa RMF, Daniel D, Terrones MGH, Richter EM, et al.
(Croton megalocarpus and Moringa oleifera oils). Fuel 2015;158:530–7.
Behaviour of the antioxidant tert-butylhydroquinone on the storage stability and
[11] Karavalakis G, Stournas S. Impact of antioxidant additives on the oxidation stability
corrosive character of biodiesel. Fuel 2011;90:3480–4.
of diesel/biodiesel blends. Energy Fuel 2010;24:3682–6.
[30] Park SH, Kim SH, Lee CS. Mixing stability and spray behavior characteristics of
[12] Ileri E, Kocar G. Effects of antioxidant additives on engine performance and exhaust
diesel-ethanol-methyl ester blended fuels in a common-rail diesel injection system.
emissions of a diesel engine fueled with canola oil methyl ester-diesel blend. Energy
Energy Fuels 2009;23:5228–35.
Convers Manage 2013;7:145–54.
[31] Sundus F, Fazal MA, Masjuki HH. Tribology with biodiesel: A study on enhancing
[13] Ryu K. The characteristics of performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine
biodiesel stability and its fuel properties. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
using a biodiesel with antioxidants. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:78–82.
2017;70:399–412.
[14] Velmurugan K, Sathiyagnanam AP. Impact of antioxidants on NOx emissions from a
mango seed biodiesel powered DI diesel engine. Alex Eng J 2016;55:715–22.

167