Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and

Environmental Effects

ISSN: 1556-7036 (Print) 1556-7230 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Comparison of Response Surface Methodology

(RSM) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) in
modelling of waste coconut oil ethyl esters
production

Olusegun David Samuel & Modestus O. Okwu

To cite this article: Olusegun David Samuel & Modestus O. Okwu (2018): Comparison of
Response Surface Methodology (RSM) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) in modelling of
waste coconut oil ethyl esters production, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2018.1539138

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1539138

Published online: 31 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1539138

Comparison of Response Surface Methodology (RSM) and Artificial

Neural Network (ANN) in modelling of waste coconut oil ethyl
esters production
Olusegun David Samuel and Modestus O. Okwu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun, Delta State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The attributes of renewability and environmental friendliness have made Received 6 June 2018
ethanol a preferable alternative to methanol in the production of biodiesel Revised 20 August 2018
from lipid feedstocks. For the first time, this study adopted Response Surface Accepted 12 September 2018
Methodology (RSM) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to model coconut oil KEYWORDS
ethyl ester (CNOEE) yield. Transesterification parameters such as reaction Artificial Neural Network;
temperature and ethanol/coconut oil molar ratio and catalyst dosage were biodiesel; ethanolysis;
varied. Maximum CNOEE yield of 96.70% was attained at 73 °C reaction optimization; Response
temperature, 11.9:1 molar ratio, and catalyst dosage of 1.25 wt. %. The Surface Methodology
experimental yield was in agreement with the predicted yield. Central
Composite Design was adopted to develop the RSM while feed-forward
back propagation neural network algorithm was employed for the ANN
model. Statistical indices were employed to compare the models. The com-
puted coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.9564, root-mean-squarce-error
(RMSE) of 0.72739, standard error of prediction (SEP) of 0.008021, mean
average error (MAE) of 0.612, and average absolute deviation (AAD) of
0.674901 for RSM model compared to those of R2 (0.9980), RMSE (0.68615),
SEP (0.007567), MAE (0.325), and AAD (0.3877) for ANN indicated the super-
iority of the ANN model over the RSM model. The key fuel properties of the
CNOEE met with those of biodiesel international standards.

Introduction
Unrest over escalating price and unsustainable demand of fossil fuel, growing environmental concerns and
rapid exhaustion of world petroleum reserves have compelled stakeholders to seek for renewable energy
sources (Das et al. 2018). Production of biodiesel is achieved by means of transesterification process
(Kumar et al. 2018; Samuel and Gulum 2017). The process entails reaction of triglycerides in oil-bearing
feedstock with either methanol or ethanol in the presence of an appropriate catalyst, leading to the
formation of methyl or ethyl esters of oil and glycerol (Anastopoulos et al. 2009; Saraee et al. 2017). The
global study of biodiesel can be attributed to favourable properties such as (1) inherent lubricity, (2) higher
flash point and cetane number, (3) less exhaust emissions tails (especially CO, HC, SOX, and smoke)
(Moser 2009). This has paved for its substitution for fossil diesel. Researchers (Demirbas 2009a; Liaquat
et al. 2012; Winchester and Reilly 2015) highlighted that high cost of feedstock is a major factor which limits
total substitution of diesel fuel. Non-edible vegetables oil, waste oils and less explored feedstocks are suitable
for biodiesel development (Chhetri et al. 2008; Demirbas et al. 2016; Jain et al. 2018). In Nigeria, 7,000
metric tones of coconut palm were produced in 2015 alone (USDA 2015). Among the oil, waste coconut
oil (CNO) has emerged as the oil which is not fit for cooking purpose. The preference of CNO for biodiesel
can be attributed to its lower iodine value, exhaust emission, carbon deposit, and excellent lubricity (Cloin

CONTACT Olusegun David Samuel samuel.david@fupre.edu.ng Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal

University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun, Delta State, Nigeria P.M.B 1221
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueso.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 O. D. SAMUEL AND M. O. OKWU

2005). Above all, CNO is underexploited and largest production of coconut plantation is observed in Lagos
State, Nigeria (Odewale et al. 2012).
The preference of ethanol to methanol for biodiesel production is due to its renewability nature
and environmental friendliness (Demirbas 2009b; Musa 2016). Also, ethyl esters of vegetable oils are
completely bio-based and nontoxic (Taslim et al. 2017).
Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is mostly adopted statistical tool for the optimization of
transesterification variables in biodiesel production (Kumar, Jain, and Kumar 2017). It is useful in
developing a correlation between input variables and tool observed outputs (Ghoshet al. 2012).
Artificial Neural network (ANN) is a soft computing tool for training input and output complex
nonlinear variables (Alavala 2007).

ANN versus response surface methodology

ANN is a powerful data-driven and flexible computational tool possessing the capability of capturing
non-linear and complex data. However, owing to the black box learning technique associated with
the ANN, it cannot be used to correlate input variables and that of output (Gupta and Sharma 2014).
This is overcome by combining another approach such as RSM, to interpret the interaction between
input and response variables. Hence, a better prediction was indicated by combining RSM and ANN
(Ebrahimpour et al. 2008)
In spite of wide application of the RSM and ANN in modelling and prediction of transesterification
processes employed for methyl and ethyl esters production, few reported on the modelling of ethano-
lysis of oils using RSM and ANN. For instance, Sarve, Varma, and Sonawane (2015) modelled mahua oil
ethyl esters with RSM and ANN model. The ANN model was reported to be accurate in modeling of the
parameters. Avramović et al. (2015) hinted that optimization of sunflower oil ethyl esters’ parameters is
with higher accuracy in prediction. From the foregoing literature cited, there are almost no compre-
hensive investigation on (1) optimization of coconut oil ethyl esters (CNOEE), (2) modeling of
transesterification variables using ANN, and (3) Comparison ability of hybrid models such as
RSM and ANN models for CNOEE's parameters in the literature. In fact, there is no established
information on the comparative optimization and performance assessment of CNO methyl and ethyl
esters yield using RSM and ANN in literature. Therefore, in order to eliminate the lapses in knowledge
of such reports in the literature, investigation of the efficacy of RSM and ANN in optimizing ethyl ester's
ethanolysis parameters from low free fatty acid CNO for subsequent scaling up by stakeholders in
biodiesel industries was undertaken.

Material and methods

Procurement of CNO was made from Ifo market, Ogun State, Nigeria for ethanolysis process and
ethanol of 99% purity and catalyst (KOH) were used as alcohol and an alkali catalyst used were
analytical grade and the conventional diesel was purchased from Nigerian National Petroleum
Corporation filling station, Abeokuta, Nigeria.

Basic properties and fatty acid composition of waste CNO

The key properties of CNO were investigated according to the ASTM protocol. The fatty acid
content of the CNO was analyzed by means of gas chromatography using an HP 68900 Powered
by HP Chem. The condition at which the GC machine was conducted was discussed elsewhere
(Samuel and Gulum 2017). The fatty acid was investigated according to EN 14103 standard
method (Akgun and Iscan 2007).
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3

Production of CNOEE and its optimal condition

Ethanolysis of CNO to biodiesel was conducted in a 1.5 L reactor. After the transesterification process
was completed, the CNOEE mixture was permitted to settle overnight and was then separated into
two layers. After draining the glycerol, the crude biodiesel was thoroughly washed for purification.
Three transesterification parameters, viz. catalyst dosage (0.75–1.25 5 wt.%), temperature (25–75 °C),
and ethanol/CNO molar ratio (6–12) were adopted for the base ethanolysis of low fatty acid oil of CNO
(0.65 mg KOH/g). The adopted levels of transesterification variables are in accordance with an earlier study
(Silva, Camargo, and Ferreira 2011). The average yield of CNOEE is reported.

Critical fuel test

The standard protocol was employed to assess major properties such as density, viscosity, acid value,
pour, and cloud point. The aforementioned properties are conducted following the specifications of
EN 14104 and ASTM D6731. The average values were reported from duplicate experimental runs.

Design of experiment
RSM-based modeling of CNOEE
A three-factor-three level central composite design jointed with the RSM was explored to analyze the
experimental value depicted in Table 1. The selection of the variables and ranges was according to
the literature (Silva, Camargo, and Ferreira 2011; Samuel, Giwa, El-Suleiman 2016). Three variables
were adopted to study the response layout and to develop the model and optimize the variables. The
influence of A (reaction temperature, oC), B (ethanol:oil molar ratio) and C (catalyst dosage, wt.%) at
three levels. Design expert (7.0 version) were applied to analyze the data. The step entails the
following: Analysis of variance (ANOVA), a regression assessment, and the depicting of the 3D-
plot. The data presented in Table 1 were analyzed using Eq. (1).

Table 1. Experimental and predicted responses of parameters.

A: Reaction temperature B: ethanol:oil molar C: Catalyst amount Y: Actual yield RSM ANN
(oC) ratio (wt.%) (%) Predicted (%) Predicted (%)
1 25 6 0.75 81.7 81.97 81.74
2 75 6 0.75 91.3 90.83 91.06
3 25 12 0.75 86.9 85.92 86.79
4 75 12 0.75 93.1 94.08 92.81
5 25 6 1.25 94.7 93.44 94.36
6 75 6 1.25 93.7 94.40 93.39
7 25 12 1.25 95.6 95.79 95.24
8 75 12 1.25 96.6 96.05 93.72
9 25 9 1 86.8 88.57 86.70
10 75 9 1 93.8 93.13 93.49
11 50 6 1 87.1 87.85 86.99
12 50 12 1 90.3 90.65 90.09
13 50 9 0.75 87.5 87.69 87.56
14 50 9 1.25 93.5 94.41 93.95
15 50 9 1 90.1 89.80 89.90
16 50 9 1 90.2 89.80 89.99
17 50 9 1 90.2 89.80 89.99
18 50 9 1 90.2 89.80 89.99
19 50 9 1 90.2 89.80 89.99
20 50 9 1 90.1 89.80 89.90
4 O. D. SAMUEL AND M. O. OKWU

X
k X
k X
k X
k
Ypredicted ¼ βo þ βij xi þ βij Xi 2 þ βij Xi Xj þ e (1)
i¼1 i¼1 j > 1 j¼1

where Ypredicted is the predicted response variable (CNOEE ester yield); β0 ; βii ; βij are the regression
coefficients; k is the number of factors studied and optimized in the experiment, and e is the random
error. The Average values were indicated from the duplicated experimental run to ensure accuracy.

ANN-based modeling of CNOEE

The ANN prediction has been carried out successfully using the dataset in Table 1. The
optimum ANN-based model developed was based on three key steps: (1) optimum value of neuron,
(2) choice of the appropriate training algorithm, (3) trial and validation of the model. Fourteen
samples of the dataset were used for training, three samples for validation and three samples for
testing. (Using the available experimental data, Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) ANN fitting tool and
Logistic Sigmoid Activation Transfer Function 3–10–2 (number of input layer, neurons in hidden
layer and output layer nodes) model were implemented. The LM back propagation is presented in
Figure 1. Prior training, the network inputs and target/response were normalized, and the maximum
level and minimum level were assigned –1 and +1, respectively. Details for the adoption of the limits
for the normalization are in the literature (Sarve, Varma, and Sonawane 2015; Nwufo et al. 2017).
Statistical variables such as correlation coefficient (R), regression coefficient (R2), root-mean-
square error (RMSE), mean average error (MAE), standard error of prediction (SEP), and absolute
average deviation (AAD) were adopted in determining the superiority and predictive ability of the

Table 2. Analysis of variance for the quadratic model.

Source Sum of squares DF Mean square F- value Prob> F
Model 232.5082 9 25.834 24.3632 <0.0001 Significant
A 51.984 1 51.984 49.0239 <0.0001 Significant
B 19.6 1 19.600 18.4839 0.0016 Significant
C 112.896 1 112.896 106.4673 <0.0001 Significant
A2 3.058182 1 3.058 2.8840 0.1203 Not significant
B2 0.818182 1 0.818 0.7716 0.4003 Not significant
C2 4.328182 1 4.328 4.0817 0.0709 Not significant
AB 0.245 1 0.245 0.2310 0.6411
AC 31.205 1 31.205 29.4281 0.0003 Significant
BC 1.28 1 1.280 1.2071 0.2977 Not significant
Residual 10.60382 10 1.060
Pure Error 0.013333 5 0.003
R2 0.9564
Adj R2
0.9171

Figure 1. Levenberg−Marquardt back propagation.

 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5

model techniques. The statistical indices of the ANN and RSM models are determined using
Equations (2)–(7). The accuracy of the models according to the statistical indices.
0 1
B Pn    C
B Y  y Y :m  y C
R¼B C
pred:m pred exp exp
B sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m¼1
C (2)
@ Pn  2 P n  2 A
m¼1 Y pred:m  y pred Y exp :m  y exp
m¼1

Pn
ðYi;p  Y1;e Þ2
R2 ¼ 1  Pni¼1 2 (3)
i¼1 ðYi;p  Ye;ave Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
i¼1 ðYi;e  Yi;p Þ
RMSE ¼ (4)
n
 
X n
Yi;e  Yi;p
MAE ¼ (5)
i¼1
n

RMSE
SEP ¼ (6)
Ye;ave
 
100 X
n
Yi;e  Yi;p
AAD ¼   (7)
n i¼1 Yi;e
where Yie, Yip, and n are the experimental value, predicted value, and number of data, respectively.

Results and discussion

Basic properties of CNO
The density (9109.9 kg/m3), kinematic viscosity (30.52 mm2/s), cloud point (−11 °C), and pour point
(−9 °C) of CNO are similar to that reported in the existing literature (Kumar, Kumar, and Singh 2010).
The fatty acid composition of the CNO is depicted in Figure 2. As can be noticed, the lauric acid
(54.5%) is the highest, followed by myristic acid (18.8%) and the least fatty acid is caprolic acid (0.2%).

Modeling of CNOEEs using RSM

Eq. (8) was adopted to represent the quadratic model (coded-basis). The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
are summarized in Table 2.
Y ¼ 65:33 þ 0:260A þ 2:21B  6:11C þ 0:0017A2  0:061B2 þ 20:07C2  0:0023AB
 0:32AC  0:533BC (8)
where Y is the yield of the CNOEE (%), A is the reaction temperature (°C), is the B is the ethanol/
CNO molar ratio, and C is the catalyst amount (wt.%).
The ANOVA was utilized to study the coefficient in Eq. (8). The correlation coefficient
(R2 = 0.9564) was observed to be high, implying 4.36% of the influence on the CNOEE yield cannot
be accounted for by reaction parameters. The adequacy and condition of the model checked by the
ANOVA. The model was observed to be significant as the computed F-value (Fmodel = 25.83) with a
low probability value (P < 0.0001). The regression coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.96,
implying that the model adequately fit the experimental results.
6 O. D. SAMUEL AND M. O. OKWU

Figure 2. Fatty acid composition of coconut oil.

The interaction between temperature and catalyst amount was statically significant, P < 0.005 for
CNOEE's yield. But the interaction between the temperature and oil-to-ethanol molar ratio, and oil-to-
ethanol molar ratio and catalyst amount were not significant (P > 0.005). The temperature, oil-to-
ethanol molar ratio and catalyst amount were found significant for the CNOEE's yield.

Effects of transesterification parameters

The response surface plots of the yield of CNOEE versus reaction temperature and oil/ethanol molar
ratio, reaction temperature and catalyst amount and oil/ethanol molar ratio and catalyst amount while
the third variable is kept constant as the optimum value are presented in Figure 3a–3c, respectively.
As depicted in Figure 3a, the respective molar ratio and reaction temperature ranged from 6:1 to
12:1 and 25 °C to 75 °C, the ethyl ester yield varied from 87.68% to 92.59%. There is a trend for the
increase in the yield as the reaction temperature and molar ratio increased. A similar observation
was reported in the literature (Lin and Hsiao 2012; Naveena, Armshaw, and Pembroke 2015).
As noticed in Figure 3(b), the CNOEE yield increased with the increase in the reaction
temperature and catalyst amount. At the lower reaction temperature (approximately <50°C), the
catalyst amount slightly increased the conversion of CNO to ethyl ester. There is a possibility for the
CNOEE yield with the increase in reaction temperature with the catalyst amount of 1.0 wt.%. It was
observed from Figure 3c that the catalyst amount ranging from 0.75 to 1.25 wt.% and molar ratio
from 6:1 to 12:1 had the ester yield of 87.08–92.59%.

Prediction of CNOEE using ANN

The prediction of coconut ethyl esters using ANN was successfully utilized using Matlab R2016a.
ANN toolbox was from Matlab program using the input variables. Table 3 shows the mean square
error (MSE) and R-values of the data set with 20 samples. The selection for the first iteration entailed
14 samples for the training, 3 samples for validation and 3 samples for testing. The performance
value for the first iteration obtained is not satisfactory as the MSE value for training, validation and
testing are quite high. It becomes acceptable when R-value is close to unity with low MSE values. The
performance value for the iteration is also suitable when two of the datasets are reasonably low
(training and validation or training and testing). A continuous refining of weighted parameters is
ensured to obtain a suitable solution. The iteration was performed at approximately fifty runs with
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 7

93.8

92.0

90.1

88.3
Yield (%)

86.5

12.0

75.0
10.5
62.5

9.0
50.0

Molar ratio 7.5

37.5
Reaction tempetaure (°C)
6.0 25.0

93.8

92.0

90.1

88.3
Yield (%)

86.5

1.25

75.0
1.13
62.5

1.00
50.0

Catalyst amount (wt.%)

0.88
37.5 Reaction tempetaure (°C)

0.75 25.0
8 O. D. SAMUEL AND M. O. OKWU

93.8

92.0

90.1

88.3
Yield (%)

86.5

1.25

12.0
1.13
10.5

1.00
9.0

Catalyst amount (wt.%) 0.88 Molar ratio

7.5

0.75 6.0

Figure 3. (a) Coconut oil ethyl ester as a function of reaction temperature and oil/ethanol molar ratio. (b) coconut oil ethyl ester as
a function of reaction temperature and catalyst amount. (c) coconut oil ethyl ester as a function of oil/ethanol molar ratio and
catalyst amount.

Table 3. Performance of multilayer perceptron network.

R-value
No. Training Testing Validation All Performance
1 7.713 −0.999 −1.0 0.2447 82.00
2 0.7759 0.436 −0.999 0.7540 6.271
3 0.999 −0.914 −0.3837 0.5370 28.50
4 0.923 1.0 0.259 0.7101 41.37
5 0.7624 −0.999 0.5976 0.7093 31.76
6 0.999 −0.999 0.999 0.6151 16.96
7 0.9946 0.9998 0.978 0.9771 0.175
8 0.8867 −0.2150 −1.0 0.7360 1.515
9 0.999 0.6234 0.995 0.7361 0.061
10 0.999 −0.275 −0.331 0.3995 80.34
11 0.6932 1.0 0.532 0.7051 21.80
12 −0.0407 −0.5734 0.998 −0.0458 2.1084
13 0.7000 −0.492 0.946 0.0563 6.171
14 0.821 0.999 0.715 0.71487 54.97
15 0.880 −0.999 0.942 0.8563 18.07
16 0.071 −0.823 0.563 0.0171 69.23
17 0.998 0.817 0.922 0.864 4.354
18 0.950 0.998 −0.855 0.4565 91.74
19 0.8324 0.490 −0.999 0.7210 9.640
20 1.0 −0.391 −0.593 0.5241 37.02
MSE: mean squared error; R: regression coefficient, R2 = average determination coefficient.

best 20 itemized in Table 3. The value of the seventh row gave the best result as shown in bold text of
Table 3.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 9

The correlation coefficient (R) specifies the degree of association or relationship among the variables
in question. Generally speaking, a correlation value of 0 is believed to be the absence of linear relation-
ship, while 1 implies perfect relationship between variables. The R2 value within the range of 0.7 to 1.0
signifies a satisfactory result. The continuous iteration (or refining) of weight parameters was done to
obtain a model with the best possible fit. The iteration was performed several times to achieve the best
value presented in Table 3. The best solution as found at the 7th iteration with the lowest MSE value and
the highest R values for training, testing and validation. The solution to the programmed ANN system is
obtained at the seventh row with minimal MSE value as represented in Table 3. The straight lines
(Figure 4) are the linear relationships between the output and the target data used in this study. The
correlation coefficients (R) between the actual and the predicted values are 0.99456 (training), 0.99987
(testing), and 0.97811 (validation). Therefore, the ANN prediction for training, validation, and testing is

Figure 4. Comparison between the experimental values and yield predicted by ANN for (a) training (b) testing (c) validation.
10 O. D. SAMUEL AND M. O. OKWU

highly substantial and meritorious in terms of correlation. As noticed in Figures 3a–d and Table 3, the
performance value for the final iteration gave a satisfactory result.

Comparative evaluation of RSM and ANN

The prediction capabilities of the RSM and ANN models were determined and compared based
on statistical indices: R2, RMSE, SEP, MAE and AAD. The results of the predictive indices for
the RSM and ANN models as shown in Table 4. The computed R2 of 0.9564, RMSE of 0.72739,
SEP of 0.008021, MAE of 0.612, and AAD of 0.674901 for RSM model compared to those of R2
(0.9980), RMSE (0.68615), SEP (0.007567), MAE (0.325), and AAD (0.3877) for ANN indicated
the superiority of the ANN model over the RSM model. Owing to higher value of R2 and lower
values of other statistical indices of ANN compared to ANN, the accuracy of ANN model is
better than that of the RSM model.
Figure 5 depicted the experimental yield and those of ANN and RSM. As can be oberved, the
ANN predicted yield is much closer to that of the experimental yield than the predicted yield of
RSM. Thus, the ANN model has a superior prediction ability than the RSM model.

Properties of coconut-based biodiesel

Fuel properties of the biodiesel were determine. Key properties of CNOEE such as density, viscosity,
flash point, acid value, cloud point, and pour point were analyzed following ASTM standard
protocols and summarized in Table 5.
The density of CNOEE (884.2 kg/m3) meets the range of EN 14214 standard (860-900 kg/m3).
However, it is higher than those of diesel (B0) (855.0 kg/m3), biodiesels produced by Kumar, Kumar
and Singh 2010 (880.0 kg/m3), Habibullah et al. 2015 (858.2 kg/m3) and Sulaiman, Aziz, and Aroua
2013 (872.9 kg/m3). Biodiesel having higher density can influence engine output power and fuel
consumption (Samuel, Giwa, El-Suleiman 2016; Ali et al. 2015).

Table 4. Comparative of statistical indices of RSM and ANN models.

Variables RSM ANN
R2 0.9564 0.9980
RMSE 0.727386 0.686145
SEP 0.008021 0.007567
MAE 0.612 0.325
AAD 0.674901 0.38770

Figure 5. Actual and predicted ANN values for developing a cleaner fuel.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 11

Table 5. Properties of coconut-based biodiesel.

ASTM EU
Coconut oil Standard Standard Kumar, Kumar, Habibullah Sulaiman, Aziz,
Property Unit ethyl ester a D6751–02 EN14214 and Singh 2010 et al. 2015] and Aroua 2013 B0
Density; kg/m3 884.2 NS 860–900 880.0 858.2 872.9 855.0
15°C
Kinematic mm2/s 4.629 1.9–6.0 3.5–5.0 2.6 4.0927 3.62 2.802
viscosity;
40°C
Flash point °C 160 130 min 120 min 184 106.5 - 68
Acid value mg 0.31 0.5 max 0.50 0.70 0.38 −0.348 -
KOH/g max
Cloud Point °C −7 Report - - −4 −2 −12
Pour Point °C −8 <0 <0 - −3 −3 −18
a
Present study

Kinematic viscosity (KV) of CNOEE (4.629 mm2/s) certifies the ranges of ASTM D6751 (1.9-6.0
mm2/s) and EN14214 (3.5-5.0 mm2/s). However, it is higher than those of B0 (2.802 mm2/s),
biodiesel specified by Kumar, Kumar and Singh 2010 (2.6 mm2/s), Habibullah et al. 2015 (4.0927
mm2/s) and Sulaiman, Aziz, and Aroua 2013 (3.62 mm2/s). The fuel having higher KV can lead to a
reduction in engine power and increase in exhaust emission (Samuel and Gulum 2018; Dobovišek et
al. ).
Flash point (FP) of CNOEE (160 oC) is higher than those of B0 (68 oC) and biodiesel indicated by
Habibullah et al. 2015 (106.5 oC). Fuel having higher FP reduces the risk of fire hazard and this
property is an advantage over diesel fuel (Samuel, Boye and Amosun 2015).
CNOEE provides cloud point (CP) and pour point (PP) of -7 oC and -8 oC, respectively, which
are higher than those of B0 (-12 oC and -18 oC, respectively). It is though that the high CP and PP
will limit the application of CNOEE in cold region (Phankosol et al. 2014). However, researchers
(Samuel, Boye and Amosun 2015; Islam et al. 2016) remarked that blending with different agents
and winterization can improve CP and PP.

Conclusion
The ethylic production of biodiesel from low free fatty acid coconut oil is reported from the
experimental results:
RSM was successfully explored for effective modelling and prediction in the experiment. The
established regression model indicated 96.70% of the influence on the CNOEE yield can be
adequately presented by the variation in the transesterification parameters. However, the for-
mulated ANN predictive model (3:10:1) exhibited higher flexibility and capacity to showcase non-
linear relationship.
The efficacy of the RSM and ANN models was assessed based on the statistical indices such as R2,
RMSE, MAE, and AAD. The computed R2 of 0.9564, RMSE of 0.72739, SEP of 0.008021, MAE of
0.612, and AAD of 0.674901 for RSM model compared to those of R R2 (0.9980), RMSE (0.68615),
SEP (0.007567), MAE (0.325), and AAD (0.3877) for ANN which indicate the superiority of the
ANN model over the RSM model.
The assessment of basic properties indicated that the produced coconut oil ethyl ester is
comparable to that of fossil diesel. In the light of this research, (i) other important fuel properties
(cetane number, heating value, ester content, oxidation stability, iodine value, methanol content,
etc.) of the biodiesel, (2) thermodynamic properties (such as: thermal conductivity, thermal diffu-
sivity) and (3) analyze the exergetic efficiency of the reactor, storage stability of biodiesel and also
testing of produced fuel in the internal combustion engine can be investigated for the future studies.
12 O. D. SAMUEL AND M. O. OKWU

ORCID
Olusegun David Samuel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6625-2820
Modestus O. Okwu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7761-9659

References
Akgün, N., and E. Iscan. 2007. Effects of process variables for biodiesel production by transesterification. European
Journal of Lipid Science Technology 109 (5):486–92. doi:10.1002/ejlt.200600210.
Alavala, C. 2007. Fuzzy logic and neural networks: basic concepts and applications. New Age International Private
Limited.
Ali, O. M., R. Mamat, G. Najafi, T. Yusaf, and S. M. Safieddin Ardebili. 2015. Optimization of biodiesel-diesel blended
fuel properties and engine performance with ether additive using statistical analysis and response surface methods.
Energies 8 (12):14136-14150. doi:10.3390/en81212420.
Anastopoulos, G., Y. Zannikou, S. Stournas, and S. Kalligeros. 2009. Transesterification of vegetable oils with ethanol
and characterization of the key fuel properties of ethyl esters. Energies 2:362–76. doi:10.3390/en20200362.
Avramović, J. M., A. V. Veličković, O. S. Stamenković, K. M. Rajković, P. S. Milić, and V. B. Veljković. 2015.
Optimization of sunflower oil ethanolysis catalyzed by calcium oxide: RSM versus ANN-GA. Energy Conversion
and Management 105:1149–56. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.072.
Chhetri, A. B., M. S. Tango, S. M. Budge, K. C. Watts, and M. R. Islam. 2008. Non-edible plant oils as new sources for
biodiesel production. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 9:169–80.
Cloin, J. 2005. Coconut oil as a biofuel in pacific islands: challenges and opportunities. Suva: South Pacific Applied
Geoscience Commission.
Das, M., M. Sarkar, A. Datta, and A. K. Santra. 2018. Study on viscosity and surface tension properties of biodiesel-
diesel blends and their effects on spray parameters for CI engines. Fuel 220:769–79. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.021.
Demirbas, A. 2009a. Biofuels securing the planet’s future energy needs. Energy Conversion and Management 50:2239–
49. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2009.05.010.
Demirbas, A. 2009b. Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review. Applied Energy 86:S108–
S117. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.036.
Demirbas, A., A. Bafail, W. Ahmad, and M. Sheikh. 2016. Biodiesel production from non-edible plant oils. Energy
Exploration & Exploitation 34:290–318. doi:10.1177/0144598716630166.
Dobovišek, Ž., B. Vajda, S. Pehan, and B. Kegl. 2009. Influence of fuel properties on engine characteristics and
tribology parameters. Goriva i maziva: časopis za tribologiju, tehniku podmazivanja i primjenu tekućih i plinovitih
goriva i inžinjerstvo izgaranja 48 (2):145-158.
Ebrahimpour, A., R. N. Z. R. A. Rahman, D. H. E. Ch’ng, M. Basri, and A. B. Salleh. 2008. A modeling study by
response surface methodology and artificial neural network on culture parameters optimization for thermostable
lipase production from a newly isolated thermophilic Geobacillus sp. strain ARM. BMC Biotechnology 8:96.
doi:10.1186/1472-6750-8-96.
Ghosh, S., R. Chakraborty, G. Chatterjee, and U. Raychaudhuri. 2012. Study on fermentation conditions of palm juice
vinegar by response surface methodology and development of a kinetic model. Brazilian Journal of Chemical
Engineering 29:461–72. doi:10.1590/S0104-66322012000300003.
Gupta, A., and D. S. D. Sharma. 2014. A survey on stock market prediction using various algorithms. International
Journal of Computer Technology and Applications 5:530–33.
Habibullah, M., I. M. Rizwanul Fattah, H. H. Masjuki, and M. A. Kalam. 2015. Effects of palm–coconut biodiesel
blends on the performance and emission of a single-cylinder diesel engine. Energy & Fuels 29:734–43. doi:10.1021/
ef502495n.
Islam, M. M., M. H. Hassan, M. A. Kalam, N. W. B. M. Zulkifli, M. Habibullah, and M. M. Hossain. 2016.
Improvement of cold flow properties of cocos nucifera and calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends using
polymethyl acrylate additive. Journal of Cleaner Production 137:322–329. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.080.
Jain, A., G. Singh, G. Dwivedi, and G. Nandan. 2018. Study of emission parameter of biodiesel from non edible oil
sources. Materials Today: Proceedings 5:3581–86. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.607.
Kumar, D., B. Singh, A. Banerjee, and S. Chatterjee. 2018. Cement wastes as transesterification catalysts for the
production of biodiesel from Karanja oil. Journal of Cleaner Production 183:26–34. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.02.122.
Kumar, D., G. Kumar, and C. P. Singh. 2010. Fast, easy ethanolysis of coconut oil for biodiesel production assisted by
ultrasonication. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 17:555–59. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.10.018.
Kumar, S., S. Jain, and H. Kumar. 2017. Process parameter assessment of biodiesel production from a Jatropha–Algae
oil blend by response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects 39:2119–25. doi:10.1080/15567036.2017.1403514.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 13

Liaquat, A. M., H. H. Masjuki, M. A. Kalam, M. Varman, M. A. Hazrat, M. Shahabuddin, and M. Mofijur. 2012.
Application of blend fuels in a diesel engine. Energy Procedia 14:1124–33. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.1065.
Lin, C. C., and M. C. Hsiao. 2012. Effects of catalyst amount, reaction temperature and methanol/oil molar ratio on
conversion rate of soybean oil assisted by ultrasonic mixing and closed microwave irradiation. International Journal
of Engineering Inventions 1 (6):40–48.
Moser, B. R. 2009. Biodiesel production, properties and feedstocks. Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology, Plants
45:229–66. doi:10.1007/s11627-009-9204-z.
Musa, I. A. 2016. The effects of alcohol to oil molar ratios and the type of alcohol on biodiesel production using
transesterification process. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 25:21–31. doi:10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.06.007.
Naveena, B., P. Armshaw, and J. T. Pembroke. 2015. Ultrasonic intensification as a tool for enhanced microbial biofuel
yields. Biotechnology for Biofuels 8:140. doi:10.1186/s13068-015-0373-1.
Nwufo, O. C., M. O. Okwu, C. F. Nwaiwu, J. O. Igbokwe, O. M. I. Nwafor, and E. E. Anyanwu. 2017. The application
of artificial neural network in prediction of the performance of spark ignition engine running on ethanol-petrol
blends. International Journal of Engineering and Technologies 12:15-31. doi: 10.18052/www.scipress.com/IJET.12.
Odewale, J. O., G. Odiowaya, A. Collins, L. Enaberue, and M. N. Okoye. 2012. Relationship between canopy sizes and
shapes and the productivity and yield of coconut (Cocosnucifera L.) varieties in Nigeria. Greener Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 8:378–80.
Phankosol, S., K. Sudaprasert, S. Lilitchan, K. Aryusuk, and K. Krisnangkura. 2014. Estimation of density of biodiesel.
Energy Fuels 28:4633–4641. doi:10.1021/ef501031z.
Samuel, O. D., S. T. Amosun, and T. E. Boye. 2015. Optimal transesterification duration for biodiesel produced from
Nigerian waste frying oil. British Journal Renew. Energy 1:16–19
Samuel, O. D., and M. Gulum. 2017. Optimization and correlation between the composition and flash point of
(biodiesel+diesel), (palm kernel oil+diesel) and (palm kernel oil+diesel) blends. Advances in Energy Research
28:175–97.
Samuel, O. D., and M. Gulum. 2018. Mechanical and corrosion properties of brass exposed to waste sunflower oil
biodiesel-diesel fuel blends. Chemical Engineering Communications 1-13. doi:10.1080/00986445.2018.1519508.
Samuel, O. D., S. O. Giwa, and A. El-Suleiman. 2016. Optimization of coconut oil ethyl esters reaction variables and
prediction model of its blends with diesel fuel for density and kinematic viscosity. Biofuels 7:723–33. doi:10.1080/
17597269.2016.1192445.
Saraee, H. S., S. Jafarmadar, M. Sayadi, A. Parikhani, J. Kheyrollahi, and N. Pourvosoughi. 2017. Green fuel production
from Pistacia Khinjuk and its engine test analysis as a promising alternative. Journal of Cleaner Production 156:106–
13. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.053.
Sarve, A. N., M. N. Varma, and S. S. Sonawane. 2015. Response surface optimization and artificial neural network
modeling of biodiesel production from crude mahua (Madhucaindica) oil under supercritical ethanol conditions
using CO2 as co-solvent. RSC Advances 5:69702–13. doi:10.1039/C5RA11911A.
Silva, G. F., F. L. Camargo, and A. L. Ferreira. 2011. Application of response surface methodology for optimization of
biodiesel production by transesterification of soybean oil with ethanol. Fuel Processing Technology 92:407–13.
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.10.002.
Sulaiman, S., A. A. Aziz, and M. K. Aroua. 2013. Reactive extraction of solid coconut waste to produce biodiesel.
Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 44:233–38. doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2012.10.008.
Taslim, I. L., R. Manurung, A. Winarta, and D. A. Ramadhani. 2017. Biodiesel production from ethanolysis of DPO
using deep eutectic solvent (DES) based choline chloride–Ethylene glycol as co-solvent. AIP Conference Proceedings
1823 (1):020006. AIP Publishing.
USDA 2015. United States Department of Agriculture. Nigeria coconut production. www.indexumundi.com/
agriculture.
Winchester, N., and J. M. Reilly. 2015. The feasibility, costs, and environmental implications of large-scale biomass
energy. Energy Economics 51:188–203. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.016.