Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Proceedings
of the
Combustion
Institute
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
www.elsevier.com/locate/proci

Aviation gas turbine alternative fuels: A review

Simon Blakey, Lucas Rye, Christopher Willam Wilson ⇑
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK

Abstract

The development of kerosene-like drop-in alternative aircraft fuels is currently receiving increased atten-
tion. Using a range payload approach the need for drop in fuels is justified. The alternative fuels available
can be categorised into two groups; depending on whether the product increases supply security of supply
or provides a reduced environmental footprint. This paper uncovers this relationship through a review of
commercially available process technologies (Transesterfication, Fischer–Tropsch (FT) and hydroprocess-
ing (HRJ)) to produce alternative fuels. The lifecycle assessments available are reviewed to identify what
are actually clean fuels or have the potential to be one. A summary of the recent alternative fuel flight test
campaigns is given and there results evaluated along with ground based results.
A review of combustion characteristics available for the alternative fuels including ignition characteris-
tics are presented to demonstrate the effect the distillation curve has on combustion and how too narrow a
distribution of components in the fuel could generate problems with high altitude relight. The effect alter-
native fuels have on gaseous emissions regulated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) is discussed and shown to be engine hardware
dependant.
Experimental data, from an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) engine, are provided showing how, although
the Gas to Liquid (GtL) and Coal to Liquid (CtL) FT fuels may not reduce GHG emissions, even with
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), the local air quality around airports will benefit through
reduced particulate emissions.
Finally the prospects for future fuel development are discussed.
Ó 2010 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gas turbine; Alternative fuels; LCA; Combustion; Emissions

1. Introduction from fossil fuels, contributing around 2–3% of

Commercial aviation is a global business of
around 15,750 aircraft currently operating on a
single fuel product which is presently sourced
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Sir Frederick Map-
pin Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield, South Yorkshire,
England S1 3JD, UK. Fax: +44 0114 222 7890.
E-mail address: c.w.wilson@sheffield.ac.uk (C.W.
Wilson).
global carbon emissions.
The relative rate of growth of the sector cou-
pled with concerns around the environmental
impact and the future security of supply of fuels
has caused the sector to rapidly investigate the
potential use of alternative fuels in aviation gas
turbines. This review presents supporting data
from the research community to show the current
state of this investigation into alternative sources.
Unlike the use of alternative fuels in other sec-
tors, aviation presents far greater restriction on

1540-7489/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.proci.2010.09.011
2864 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
Nomenclature
EIspecies emissions indices = gpollutant
kgfuel
F00 static thrust
Iw Wobbe index
LCV lower calorific value
SG specific gravity
W mass of fuel
Subscripts
e empty
Fuel, f fuel
o operating
p Payload
Glossary of terms
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
BtL Biomass to Liquid
CCS carbon capture sequestration/storage
any candidate fuel due to several factors. First, the
extreme conditions under which combustion must
reliably and safely take place demand a limited
range of potential liquid fuels. Second, any product
proposed must be fully interchangeable with the
current jet fuel product to avoid the logistic prob-
lems of airports handling multiple fuels of varying
qualities and the commercial limitations this would
impose. Finally, the long life of a commercial jet
means any candidate fuel needs to be “backwards
compatible” and suitable for use in existing engine
technology. For these reasons, the main research
drive has been around the development of “drop-
in” fuels which can be used in the existing fleet.
Focusing on the energy consumed in the pro-
duction of fuels, a trade-off is apparent between
the energy cost and the production potential of
various routes to a jet product. Across all sectors,
various processes for the production of alternative
fuels have been proposed. Their applicability to
aviation and an assessment of their strengths
and weaknesses is the subject of this review. Spe-
cifically discussed are:
1. why we need the alternative fuels,
2. what fuels are suitable for aviation,
3. how they are produced,
4. what are their life cycle emissions,
5. where have they found uses in today’s growing
market,
6. combustion related performance,
7. and what research is still required.
1.1. Current aviation kerosene
Aviation kerosene is a multi component fuel
with a carbon chain length of C8–C16 [1] which
has been developed from lamp oil. The specifica-
CO2e CO2 equivalent
CtL Coal to Liquid
FAE fatty acid ester
FAME fatty acid methyl ester
FID flame ionisation detector
FT Fischer–Tropsch
GC gas chromatograph
GtL Gas to liquid
HRJ hydrogenated renewable jet
HVO hydrogenated vegetable oil
LTO landing and take off
LOSU level of scientific understanding
PM particulate matter
SPK synthetic paraffinic kerosene
WTT Well to Tank
XtL Anything to Liquid
tion of aviation kerosene has developed over the
years and has changed in line with safety and
security of supply criteria [2]. The composition
of kerosene obtained from a 2D GC can be seen
in Fig. 1 [3]. The composition is typically made
up from groups of paraffins, naphthenes or cyclo-
paraffins and aromatics, with olefins being present
in small amounts.
Seventy to 85% of the fuel is made up of paraf-
fins, with normal straight chain, branched chain
isoparaffins and cycloparaffins or naphthenes
being present. The exact split between normal, iso
and cyclic is variable and depends on the raw crude
used in the refinement process. The high hydrogen
to carbon ratio for n- and iso-paraffins gives a high
heat to weight ratio and a clean burn. The cyclopar-
affins reduce the hydrogen to carbon ratio and
reduce the heat release per unit weight; their advan-
tage is in that they help reduce the fuel freeze point
a vital parameter for high altitude flight.
The aromatics are present at less than 25% and
are unsaturated cyclic hydrocarbons containing
one or more six carbon ring structures. Since they
are deficient in hydrogen they have high heat con-
tent per unit volume but lower heat content per
unit mass compared to paraffins with the same
carbon number. Jet fuel also contains trace
amounts of sulphur, nitrogen and oxygen contain-
ing hydrocarbon compounds, which arise from
the raw crude oil, known as hetero atoms. These
are found in parts per million and have an impact
on the fuel’s anti-oxidation properties and lubric-
ity. Finally all known crudes contain sulphur in
varying amounts. The sulphur in jet fuel is present
as mercaptans, sulphides, disulphides, thiophenes
and other sulphur containing compounds. The
total sulphur content is currently limited to
3000 ppm by the specification.
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
Fig. 1. 2D GC analysis results of a typical UK Jet fuel [3].
This wide variation in compounds found in jet
fuel causes the combustion engineer difficulties
when trying to model any combustion process.
Model fuels are adopted as described by Dagaut
[4], but it is difficult to distinguish between jet pro-
duced by different crudes. Models are also being
developed for alternative fuels and are necessary
for our scientific understanding of the subject.
1.2. Why alternative fuels for aviation?
The IPCC undertook the first sector based
assessment and published “Aviation and the global
atmosphere” in 1999 [5]. This publication identi-
fied that aviation was responsible for 2–3% of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The concern about
aviation green house gas (GHG) emissions does
not lie in today’s absolute level but from the fact
that aviation is set to continue to grow, albeit that
we are in a recession, by around 4.7% year on year.
This means that today’s fleet of around 15,750 air-
craft will grow to almost 32,000 by 2028 [6].
However, the impact of aviation on the envi-
ronment is much wider than just the CO2. The
IPCC assessment tried to quantify the effect of
emissions of NOx, H2O, sulphate and particulate
matter (PM), the latter through cloud nucleation,
from aviation as radiative forcing (RF). The level
of scientific understanding on how these emissions
influence the environmental impact varies. Fig-
ure 2 contains a column that estimates the level
of scientific understanding (LOSU). Over the sub-
sequent years several other studies have reported
and updated the original estimates of the effects
and is shown in Fig. 2, which shows the estimated
2865
RF attributed to aviation apportioned to each
individual engine emissions [7,8]. RF is a measure
of the change of energy balance of the earth’s
atmosphere system in watts per square meter.
Positive values quantify the net warming effect
while negative values show a cooling effect. The
net numbers from aviation still remain low when
compared to the incident radiation from the sun
of 342 W/m2 [9].
Since the first civil jet airliner, the De Havil-
land Comet, the aerospace industry has tried to
reduce the fuel consumption from jet powered air-
craft through improvements in technology, as
shown in Fig. 3 [10]. The engine fuel burn has
reduced by 49% with the aircraft fuel burn per
seat reducing by 82%, relative to the Comet.
Although we can demonstrate that there is a
reduction in emissions with time, as new technol-
ogy is employed, the speed at which we can realise
these benefits is compromised as the airline indus-
try keeps its assets in use for around 40 years [11],
due to the high investment cost. Hence new tech-
nology has to wait for the fleet to be totally
replaced before its full benefit is realised.
Two technologies which can have an instant
improvement across the sector are air traffic
management and alternative fuels. Air traffic
management has the potential for around a 15%
improvement while the correct fuel can help avia-
tion achieve a carbon neutral position.
1.3. Fuel specifications
The first fuel specifications appeared in 1943
in the UK and 1944 in the US [12]. The fuels
2866 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885

Fig. 2. RF components associated with aviation. Bars show the best estimate available and include an estimate as to the
confidence level in the data [5,7,8].

100 to Sasol as the work done to clear a synthetic and

Improvement relative to Comet

conventional Jet fuel blend and subsequently a

80
60
40 Boeing
Airbus
20 Other
Aircraft fuel burn per seat
Engine Fuel Consumption
0 content was too low, as the seals would shrink.
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Entry into Sevice
Fig. 3. Technology efficiency gains.
specifications have undergone many changes,
mainly related to safety or security of supply until
today where we have JP-5 and JP-8 for military
use and Jet A and Jet A-1 for commercial use.
Jet A is used in the United States while Jet A-1
is adopted in the rest of the world, the only differ-
ence being the freeze point which is 40 °C for Jet
A and 47 °C for Jet A-1. The fuel specifications
are detailed in ASTM 1655 [13] and Def Stan 91-
91 [14]. The first alternative fuel to be considered
for aviation use was a coal derived fuel from
Sasol. When the specification bodies were
approached to clear this fuel the first thing that
they did was to change the fuel specification to
stop it being used. However, we owe a lot is owed
fully synthetic Jet fuel has led to the formation
of a procedure for the approval of alternative avi-
ation fuels [15].
One of the biggest concerns of alternative fuels
has come from their low aromatic content.
Concern has been raised that the ageing seals in
the aircraft and engine would leak if the aromatic
2000 2010
For this reason the aromatic content of synthetic
fuel blends is currently fixed at a minimum of
8%. There is currently no scientific reason for this
value; no problem has historically existed when
conventional kerosene, which does not drop
below this value, is used.
1.4. Fuel requirements
Several authors have suggested general
requirements for a fuel for aviation use as follows,
in no order of significance [16–18].
1. High heat content for maximum range or
payload. This can mean a high specific
energy or High energy density.
2. Good atomisation.
3. Rapid evaporation.
4. Good burning characteristics, including re-
light capability at altitude.
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885 2867

5. Low explosion risk. Alternative fuels are less well understood,

6. High specific heat capacity. although they follow similar trends to the hydro-
7. Free from contaminants. carbons. The larger chemical structures in the
8. Minimum carbon formation. fuels tends to result in lower hydrogen contents
9. Low viscosity and high lubricity – good for hydrocarbon fuels of a similar density, this
storage and pumping characteristics, clearly results in lower energy densities although
including low freezing point to facilitate the specific energy content rises steeply with
altitude operation. molecular size. Large molecules are likely to result
10. Good thermal stability/chemical stability. in increased clouding and waxing of the fuel at
11. Wide availability and acceptable cost. low temperatures, which makes such fuels less
12. Products of combustion acceptable suitable for flight purposes.
environmentally.
13. Good ground storage and handling 1.6. Suitable fuels for aviation
characteristics.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between a
In addition to the list above, fuel used for mil- fuel’s lower calorific value (LCV) and the density
itary purposes would be restricted by several addi- of a fuel for a range of fuels [20–22]. Also on the
tional logistical requirements [19]. graph is a horizontal line which represents a con-
Clearly some of these requirements (such as stant LCV of 42.8 MJ kg1. The aviation fuel
numbers 3 and 5) are contradictory, this reflects specifications currently use this value as a mini-
the complexity of the situation. Since this review mum limit for aviation fuel. Two vertical lines
is looking at the effects of utilising alternative are present which serve to show the current spec-
fuels we will initially focus on how the character- ification limits for jet fuel density of 775–
istics of alternative fuel differ from aviation Jet 840 kg m3. The figure also shows where families
fuel. of fuels reside.
The characteristics of hydrocarbon fuels are In industrial gas turbines, fuelled by gaseous
well understood: those denser than jet fuel tend fuels, the idea of the Wobbe index has been used
to be more viscous, have lower thermal stability, to identify how far away from the design fuel an
increasing aromatic contents and atomise and alternative can be [23]. This takes into account
evaporate less well. Those less dense behave for the mass flow of the fuel, along with the amount
the most part in the opposite fashion. In addition, of energy, that will be delivered through a given
lower adiabatic flame temperatures associated fuel delivery system to ensure fuel placement is
with higher carbon, or lower hydrogen, content correct. The Wobbe index, Iw, is defined in Eq.
fuels will result in less NOx production; although (1). Lines of constant Wobbe index, ±0.05 based
this should be balanced against the potential on jet fuel, are also shown in Fig. 4. The Wobbe
increased fuel bound nitrogen of such fuels. index needs to be modified for use with liquid

120
H2(l)

100

775 < ρ > 840

80
LCV (MJ/kg)

0.95 < Wo/Wo JetA-1 avg. < 1.05

60 CH4 (l)
LCV ≤ 42.8
40
FAE / Bio diesels
20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Density (kg/m3)
Conventional HCs Alternatives-SPKs Alternatives-Alchohols Alternatives-FAEs

Fig. 4. Relationship between LCV and density for range of liquid fuels showing limits of Jet A specification [20–22].
2868 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
fuels as obviously the situation is more complex
with the liquid fuel properties such as surface ten-
sion, viscosity etc. having a substantial impact on
fuel atomisation.
LCV
I w ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
SG
A high LCV and high density would be most
desirable for flight, offering the maximum energy
release per unit volume and per unit mass. A line
has been added to the hydrocarbon group in
Fig. 4 showing the clear trade-off between high en-
ergy densities (having the units MJ m3) and low
“mass” densities and showing the upper limit to
the desirability of high LCV and high density
using hydrocarbons. Higher energy content fuels
are in existence, notably pentaborane, however
the toxicity of such chemicals mean that they are
only considered as emergency fuels [22] and fall
outside the scope of this review. In general, heavy
fuels have high energy densities and light fuels
have high specific energy.
Currently, several pathways are being explored
for the production of synthetic paraffinic kerose-
nes (SPKs) such as Fischer–Tropsch (FT) and
the hydrotreating of oils, allowing the production
of jet fuels from feedstocks other than crude oil,
tar sands and oil shale. These processes produce
a fuel of mainly n- and iso-paraffins and do not
have the spread of hydrocarbons seen in conven-
tional fuels [24]. As such without the addition of
heavier compounds, SPKs fall on the lower den-
sity limit of the aviation fuel specification as can
be seen in Fig. 4. SPKs also have other advantages
such as an absence of sulphur or other trace
compounds.
Many alternative fuels fall away from the
hydrocarbon line, such as alcohols and fatty acid
ester (FAE) fuels. The calorific value of the Alco-
hol group rises steeply with increasing molecular
size. Unlike the other fuel groups it is not possible
to create a line plot through the FAE data. This is
mainly due to the properties of the fuel being
dependent on the feedstock and triglyceride
groups from which it is created.
1.7. Range payload
To help understand how alternative fuels can
be used for aviation we need to investigate the
effects of fuel characteristics on the operability
of an aircraft. One way to do this is to look
at the payload range diagram for a specific air-
craft design. This can be used to evaluate small
changes in the “cut” of the petroleum fuel and
can be used to compare some candidate alterna-
tive fuels.
The operating weight of an aircraft W0 at the
start of the flight cycle is usually as close to the
maximum structural load of the aircraft as possi-
ble. How that weight is made up is dependent on a
combination of the payload expected and the fuel
required for the flight range. The operating empty
weight of the aircraft We, including crew, is the
only other component making up W0 as defined
by Eq. (2), and is assumed constant here.
W e þ W p þ W f ¼ W 0 6 W max ð2Þ
Clearly if the maximum structural load of the air-
craft is exceeded the aircraft will have difficulty in
take off, and in the worst case will not be safe to
land.
If the maximum structural load of the aircraft
is not met by W0 the use of that particular aircraft
for that particular flight should be justified by
some other operational criteria, as the airframe
and power plant are oversized for the flight and
will result in a greater consumption of energy than
should be necessary.
There are further limitations to Eq. (2) how-
ever, as for aircraft, the volume available for the
payload and fuel are restricted by the airframe.
Whereas the former is not usually significant, as
the payload weight limit is met before the payload
volume limit, the fuel volume restriction on range
can become significant as the desired operating
range increases.
As such the ranges achievable for a set of pay-
loads, spanning from no payload to that matching
the maximum structural load of a particular
aircraft can be plotted in a range versus payload
diagram [25]. This indicates the limitations of that
particular design of aircraft, and identifies the
trade-off between payload and fuel carried.
The traditional range versus payload diagram
is shown for the Boeing 747 in Fig. 5, using Boe-
ing data [26], for a range of hydrocarbon fuels,
some real, and some chosen to show the trend
of the curve in Fig. 4. For comparison purposes,
the average properties of Jet fuel used in the UK
as recorded by QinetiQ’s annual survey [27] are
also modelled.
For low density/high calorific value fuels, the
range limit for all possible payloads is entirely lim-
ited by the volume of the fuel tanks. As mentioned
above, situations where the maximum structural
load is not met by the weight of the various ele-
ments in Eq. (1) lead to inefficiencies and clearly
would not be the recommended flight cycle. The
optimisation of aircraft design based on fuel type
is further illustrated by the fact that, based on the
above calculations, none of the aircraft modelled
would ever be able to fly on liquid hydrogen or
liquid methane, as the volume limitations preclude
the aircraft having enough fuel for takeoff,
landing and meeting FAA requirements for
redirecting to alternative airfields, with existing
fuel tanks.
As the density of the hydrocarbon fuel
increases, the range can be extended to a certain
degree by balancing the payload and fuel weights
to reach the maximum structural load of the
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885 2869

90000
ρ LCV
(kg/m3) (MJ/kg)
80000
512 46.1
650 43.9
70000
720 43.1
Avg. jet [20]
798 42.4
Payload mass (kg).
60000
920 41.5
1200 40.1
50000

40000

30000 747 data

(kerosene)
20000

10000

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Range (km)

Fig. 5. Changes to the range performance of Boeing 747-200B due to alterations to the hydrocarbon fuel used for flight
(747 data from [26]).

aircraft. As can be seen from the average UK jet
fuel case, the 747 is fuel volume limited at a pay-
load 70% of its maximum payload.
At higher densities >920 kg m3 the fuel is
dense enough for the range not to be limited by
the volume of the fuel tank. However, as the cal-
orific value of the fuel is dropping, the range pos-
sible also decreases.
By comparing conventional hydrocarbon fuels,
it can be seen that some fuels would outperform
the range possible from kerosene at maximum
payload, particularly fuels in the range 560 <
q < 775 kg m3. These fuels offer a small increase
in range at the maximum payload, although the
limitations of the tank volume result in a reduced
range in the range/payload pay-off region.
The beneficial increases in range for small
changes in the hydrocarbon fuel are correspond-
ingly small however, with the greatest increase
seen of around an additional 1.2% range at max-
imum payload.
Unlike the hydrocarbon fuel density and LCV
used for, data available in the literature for alter-
native fuels tends to be quoted at discrete values
rather than a curve of possible fuels. This makes
the creation of a set of curves for alternative fuels
more difficult.
Some discrete points have been used to create
Fig. 6, showing the range payload diagram for
several possible fuels. The fuels were chosen to
represent the classes of alternatives suggested in
the literature and used in the recent test flights,
primarily Alcohols, FAMEs and SPKs [28].
As mentioned previously, SPKs consist of a
narrower band of straight chain hydrocarbons
than conventional kerosene and the SPK range
payload data presented represents the limit of
paraffinic hydrocarbons. As the SPK product is
blended either with other synthetic hydrocarbons
or with conventional kerosene to produce a fuel
which meets the specification, the actual perfor-
mance of an approved SPK fuel is likely to fall
between the SPK limit data and the average jet fuel
data.
This analysis only considers neat fuels and,
although they are clearly not suitable on their
own, they can be blended with conventional
hydrocarbons to provide a suitable range of spe-
cific energies and energy densities.
2. Alternative fuels
2.1. Production pathways
2.1.1. Fatty acid ester (FAE)
FAEs which are commonly referred to as bio-
diesels are most likely to be long chain fatty acid
ester groups derived from the transesterification
of the triglyceride fat groups in the base oil, as
shown in Fig. 7. The exact composition of the
biodiesel is dependent upon the makeup of the
original oil and the way in which the transesteri-
fication process is carried out, using methanol or
ethanol will produce methyl (FAME) or ethyl
esters (FAEE), respectively. Transesterification
is potentially a comparatively cheap way of
transforming the large, branched molecular struc-
ture of the bio-oils into smaller, straight-chain
molecules of the type required in regular diesel
combustion engines. Some common composi-
tions of oils are shown in Table 1 [29]. After
transesterification, methyl or ethyl ester groups
of the fats would be expected to be present in
similar proportions.
2870 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885

90000
ρ LCV
(kg/m3) (MJ/kg)
80000 Methanol: CH3OH(l)
792 19.9
UDMH: (CH3)2N2H2
790 30.1
70000 1-Butanol: C4H9OH
810 33.1
FAME 869 37.0
UK Jet [20]
60000 798 43.3
SPK limit
Payload mass (kg).

770 44.3

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Range (km)

Fig. 6. Changes to the range performance of a Boeing 747-200B due to the use of alternative fuels [28].

Fig. 7. Transesterification process for creating FAME.

Fig. 8. Distribution of hydrocarbons from a range of FT processes. Sasol ipk is a CtL. S-8 syntrolyums GtL, Shell GtL
and two Sasol GtL’s from Sasols Oryx plant [36].
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885 2871

Table 1
Compositions of various different fats and oils (%Wt), where the top row refers to the length of the carbon–hydrogen
chain and number of double bonds in the fatty acid molecule (e.g. 18:1 has 18 C–H atoms and one double bond) [29].
Oil or fat 14:0 16:0 18:0 18:1 18:2 18:3 20:0 22:1
Soybean 6–10 2–5 20–30 50–60 5–11
Corn 1–2 8–12 2–5 19–49 34–62 Trace
Peanut 8–9 2–3 50–65 20–30
Olive 9–10 2–3 73–84 10–12 Trace
Cottonseed 0–2 20–25 1–2 23–35 40–50 Trace
Hi linoleic safflower 5.9 1.5 8.8 83.8
Hi oleic safflower 4.8 1.4 74.1 19.7
Hi oleic rapeseed 4.3 1.3 59.9 21.1 13.2
Hi erucic rapeseed 3.0 0.8 13.1 14.1 9.7 7.4 50.7
Butter 7–10 24–26 10–13 28–31 1–2.5 .2–.5
Lard 1–2 28–30 12–18 40–50 7–13 0–1
Tallow 3–6 24–32 20–25 37–43 2–3
Linseed oil 4–7 2–4 25–40 35–40 25–60
Tung oil 3–4 0–1 4–15 75–90
Yellow grease 1.27 17.44 12.38 54.67 7.96 0.69 0.25 0.52

Table 2 gas or biomass. Gasification technology is used to

Typical metal concentrations found in petro and produce syngas from coal or biomass via the
biodiesel. partial oxidation of the solid fuel [33]. Depending
Units Biodiesel Petro diesel on the type of feedstock, the creation of syngas is
either a net consumer (coal) or producer (natural
Chlorine %wt/wt dry 0.4 <0.0001 [%(m/m)] gas) of water. A review of different syngas produc-
Arsenic mg/kg dry 5 <0.05
Cadmium mg/kg dry 3 <0.01
tion technology has been carried out by Keshav
Chromium mg/kg dry 30 <0.01 and Basu [34].
Copper mg/kg dry 50 0.03 The Fischer–Tropsch (FT) process principally
Lead mg/kg dry 20 <0.05 involves carbon chain building [33], requiring a
Mercury mg/kg dry 0.3 0.05 synthesis gas (syngas) feedstock. Depending on
Nickel mg/kg dry 30 0.02 product requirements, the catalyst is usually
Vanadium mg/kg dry 20 0.01 selected to favour the production of long chains
Zinc mg/kg dry 150 0.02 paraffins (alkanes) as shown in Eq. (3) [33] below,
m
nCO þ ðn þ ÞH2 ! Cn Hm þ nH2 O ð3Þ
The ester properties depend on the starting 2
material and there is a carry through of any con- The synthetic crude yield is then upgraded (hydro-
tamination, such as metals, from the raw material processing – cracking and separation) to produce
into the FAE, see the compositional link in Fig. 7. commercial product, thereby allowing the refiner
This can have an adverse effect on the hot end to effectively design a fuel based upon the desired
materials in the engine [30], especially if metals chain lengths. Depending on the operating tem-
such as vanadium are present. Table 2 shows typ- perature, pressure and syngas composition of the
ical amounts of metals present in petro diesel and FT process it is possible to control the output car-
biodiesel [31]. The aviation fuel specifications cur- bon numbers of the process and develop synthetic
rently exclude metals. kerosene suitable for aviation [35]. Typical GC
analysis results of various FT fuels are shown in
2.1.2. Fischer–Tropsch Fig. 8 [36]. The process is outlined in Fig. 9 [37].
Direct conversion of feedstock into product Experience gained through the refinement of
(also known as liquefaction) is considered to be fossil feedstock using the Fischer–Tropsch process
the most energy efficient route, however, at pres- (CtL and GtL) provides a stepping stone towards
ent commercial technology is based upon indirect the cleaner BtL technology. The identification or
conversion [32]. This route requires the produc- development of sufficient biomass feedstock and
tion of syngas from suitable feedstock, which is the lower technological readiness of the process
then fed into a liquid conversion process. Depend- however present significant hurdles to overcome.
ing on the feedstock used, the process is entitled
‘anything to liquid’ (XtL), where ‘X’ is ‘C’ (coal), 2.1.3. Hydrotreated oils
‘G’ (gas) or ‘B’ (biomass). A technology at a lower readiness level,
Syngas, namely a gaseous mixture of hydrogen recently used to produce fuel for a series of test
and carbon monoxide, may be derived from coal, flights, is based on the hydroprocessing of
2872 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885

Synthesis Gas Fischer-Tropsch Hydrocracking Synthetic

Generation Synthesis Product

Fig. 9. Synthetic product production process [37].

vegetable oils – which are broadly a triglyceride
mixture. Hydroprocessing is employed in the con-
ventional refinery process to firstly deoxygenate
and remove undesirable materials including nitro-
gen, sulphur and residual metals (hydrotreatment)
and break down carbon chain lengths (hydro-
cracking) [38]. The process is illustrated in
Fig. 10 [38,39].
The biomass oil based synthetic jet fuel pro-
duction process involves removing oxygen mole-
cules and other undesirable material (i.e. heavy
metals) from the triglyceride [24] through hydro-
treatment. Subsequent selectively hydrocracking
and rearrangement of the atomic structure (isom-
erisation) yields lighter hydrocarbons suited for
aviation (Jet A-1: C8–C16 [24]). One such hydro-
processing process has been produced by UOP.
Typical carbon number and iso/n-paraffin distri-
butions from the UOP process, used in flight
and engine demonstrations are shown in Fig. 11.
The resulting fuel looks very similar irrespective
of the feedstock as the fuels have undergone the
same process. An alternative fuel produced
through the hydroprocessing of biomass oils is
entitled ‘HRJ’ or ‘Hydroprocessed Renewable
Jet’ Fuel [40].
2.2. Life cycle analysis
To evaluate the environmental credentials of
any fuel it is necessary to undertake a life cycle
analysis which evaluates the total carbon budget
during the production, transportation and refine-
ment of any fuel. The lifecycle results taken from
the PARTNER program [40], Omega [41], IATA
[42] and Boeing [43] are illustrated in Fig. 12.
Conventional (crude derived) and unconven-
tional (tar sands and shale derived) refinement
of oil into product is labelled as ‘Jet Fuel’ in
Fig. 12. Further processing during crude refine-
ment produces an ultra low sulphur fuel identified
above as ‘ULS Jet Fuel’. ‘F–T fuel’ refers to syn-
thetic kerosene produced via the Fischer–Tropsch
process using coal, gas or biomass as feedstock.

Hydrocracking
& Synthetic
Triglyceride Hydrotreatment
Isomerisation Product

Fig. 10. Hydroprocessing of vegetable oil [38,39].

25

Camelina SPK
Jatropha SPK
20 Jatropha - Algae SPK
Camelina - Jatropha - Algae SPK

15
%Wt

10

0
i-9 n-9 i-10 n-10 i-11 n-11 i-12 n-12 i-13 n-13 i-14 n-14 i-15 n-15 i-16 n-16
Carbon Distribution

Fig. 11. Carbon distribution showing n and iso paraffins for spk’s produced by the UOP process [43]. Fuels shown are
the neat fuels used to blend the fuel for the Continental flight on alternative fuels.
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
Palm Oil to HRJ Worst case land use
Soy to HRJ Worst case land use
CtL
Oil shale to jet
Oil sands to jet - in situ
GtL
Oil sands to jet - surface
Rapeseed Oil to HRJ Worst case land use
CtL + CCS
Crude to Ultra Low Sulphur jet
Crude to Conventional Jet
Rapeseed Oil to HRJ
Algea Oil to HRJ
Camilina Oil To HRJ - modified
Jatropha Oil to HRJ
Soy to HRJ
Palm Oil to HRJ
Camilina Oil To HRJ
BtL
-200
Fig. 12. CO2 equivalent lifecycle data for a range of conventional and alternative fuels. [40–43,46].
For simplicity, it is assumed that combustion CO2
is comparable across fuel types as compositionally
all fuels are comprised of similar hydrocarbons
(i.e. drop-in fuels), although this is discussed later.
The tank to wake CO2 released during biofuel
combustion is assumed to be similar to that
absorbed during plant growth thus resulting in
approximately zero net atmospheric change
[44,40]. Note that carbon capture and storage
techniques (CCS) involve sequestration and stor-
ing the CO2 produced during the FT synthesis
process.
The results clearly demonstrate that refinement
of feedstock, readily available in sufficient quality
to provide secure supply such as unconventional
oils and other fossil fuels, produces similar or
slightly higher lifecycle emissions to that of con-
ventional crude oil refinement.
Fuel sourced from biomass feedstock has until
recently been thought to provide substantial emis-
sion savings, when compared to petroleum
derived products. The simple reasoning behind
this is that emissions released during biofuel com-
bustion are absorbed from the atmosphere
throughout plant growth, thus resulting in a zero
net field to wake emissions footprint. It is impor-
tant however, to consider the whole process
involved in producing the biomass feedstock.
For example, increasing feedstock prices (palm
oil has doubled in the last three years), provides
economic incentive to acquire additional land to
site plantations. Clearing land to keep up with
demand releases previously trapped CO2 back
into the atmosphere thus disturbing the carbon
balance [45]. Considering that biofuel crops typi-
cally have poor CO2 absorption rates compared
with the original growth, it is quite likely that
there will be a net increase in atmospheric CO2.
Depending on the original growth it is probable
2873
Biomass Credit
Recovery
Processing
Transportation
Combustion
WTT N2O
WTT CH4
Land use
0 200 400 600 800 1000
g CO2e /MJ
that the released CO2 will be higher than if a tra-
ditional fossil fuel was combusted.
The work of Wong [44] and that of the
PARTNER Program [40,46] demonstrated that
land use change through the cultivation of bio-
mass has the potential to release significant
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [47]. The
GHG emissions resulting from biomass cultiva-
tion is largely dependent on previous land usage
as illustrated via numerous scenarios considered
in the PARTNER program. The land use change
investigated was the conversion of Peat land rain-
forest to palm plantations. The land use change
results in an increase of GHG emissions of a fac-
tor of 7.5. In Fig. 12 the land use scenario for
rapeseed is that set aside land is converted to
rapeseed cultivation while the land use change
for Soy is the conversion of tropical rainforest
to a soybean field.
The emissions of camelina are included in
Fig. 12 but are from a different source [42,43]so
the data has to be considered carefully. The data
is inconsistent with that of Wong [44] as it has
no CO2 equivalent emissions from N2O or CH4
included. The transportation and processing also
appear to be low. To obtain a better comparison
an attempt to arrive at a more consistent value
has been undertaken. Since the process of produc-
ing HRJ from the camelina, algae and Jatropha
oils would be similar it makes sense that the pro-
cess related CO2 would be similar. The camelina is
a distant relative of rapeseed which can grow on
marginal land. With this in mind and taking into
consideration the soil fertility needs of camelina
are likely similar to those of other crucifers with
the same yield potential the values for non CO2
emissions have been modified to arrive at a CO2e
number in line with that obtained in the OMEGA
programme [41].
2874 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
The literature demonstrates that although
‘tank to wake’ emissions may be reduced through
the introduction of an alternative product, care
must be taken to uncover the entire ‘well to wake’
profile before assessing the products true environ-
mental impact. Unless sustainable biomass feed-
stock can be sourced and grown on marginal
land without significant clearing, the current state
of the art is likely to produce similar emissions to
that produced via conventional crude refinement
and combustion.
2.3. Availability and economics
Unlike the automotive industry, where individ-
ual countries can focus on providing independent
fuelling options (i.e. Brazil – ethanol), the global
nature of the aviation industry requires a global
secure supply of fuel which is indistinguishable
to the many airframe and engine configurations.
To date the sector has achieved this by relying
almost entirely on crude oil, with the only excep-
tion being in Johannesburg, South Africa.
The supply of conventional crude is however
limited, and may be examined using Hubbert
Peak oil theory [48]. Hubbert proposed that on
discovery of a new oil field, supply from that field
would continue to increase with infrastructure
installation until a maximum output is reached.
Extraction would continue at this rate until the
field pressure decreased resulting in a reduced
extraction rate. Superimposing current reserves
with predicted findings yields a normal distribu-
tion. The point at which maximum production is
reached is entitled ‘peak oil’, however the date at
which this occurs is difficult to quantify. On one
hand the oil industry claims that sufficient reserves
(discovered, undiscovered and unconventional)
exist to meet global demand for decades, while
others claim that production has or is about to
peak. A recent paper estimates that “remaining
resources appear to be sufficient to meet demand
up to 2030” [49]. It is certain however, that once
peak production is reached, demand will exceed
supply leading to price rise, product security con-
cerns and increased resource diversification.
Besides the pressures of Peak Oil on crude
derived product, it should be recognised that ker-
osene represents only 10–15% of the overall cut of
a crude oil barrel. Kerosene fits between the hea-
vier cut of diesel and the lighter cut of gasoline,
therefore the future availability of jet fuel has a
strong interdependency on the developments in
the automotive sector.
Environmental pressures through the introduc-
tion of trading schemes and taxes also have the
potential to create supply security issues as eco-
nomics begin to push other sectors towards clea-
ner fuel sources. For example, diesel oil which
inherently has poor environmental credentials
provides a cheap source of fuel for the commercial
shipping sector. If however environmental penal-
ties were imposed it is expected that the shipping
sector would begin looking for cleaner sources
of fuel, namely kerosene, thereby creating
increased demand for the limited available crude
oil cut (i.e. Peak Cut).
Refinement of biomass product as an alterna-
tive feedstock has been demonstrated to a large
extent in the automotive industry. Biofuels have
the potential to provide emission savings and
unlike fossil feedstocks, are a renewable resource
and thus are theoretically not subject to peak sup-
ply concerns. Cultivation of sufficient energy crop
to support the sector however, has raised numer-
ous issues regarding land use allocation, including
food crop displacement and land use reallocation
(i.e. the clearing of forests to site cropland) [45].
Creating sufficient alternative product volume
to wean aviation off conventionally derived kero-
sene through supply diversification is not an easy
task considering an average of 6.8 million barrels
of product was consumed per day in 2007. Fore-
casts predicted this value will increase to nearly
7.2 million barrels per day in 2012 [50], although
the current recession is expected to delay con-
sumption forecasts by a few years. The forecasts
however, highlight perhaps the most important
requirement to consider when evaluating the
potential of a candidate fuel: that the feedstock
must be available in sufficient quantities to allow
for refinement of product in adequate quantities
to support the aviation sector. A second impor-
tant fact to consider is that commercialisation is
steering the majority of feedstock and hence prod-
uct to the automotive or petrochemical market;
thus the aviation industry will need to compete
to secure these hydrocarbons.
To date increasing supply has involved refine-
ment of other fossil fuels at similar environmental
expense (best case). Environmentally focused fuel
programs have been based on the refinement of
limited biomass feedstocks thus creating supply
issues. This has demonstrated an incompatibility
between diversifying supply and environmental
credentials. The analysis of an alternative fuel’s
environmental credentials – which is expected to
become a key requirement of an alternative fuel
largely due to political pressures and environmen-
tal legislation – is achieved through an assessment
of emissions from well to wake.
3. Flight demonstrations and test programmes
A summary of all the flight and engine demon-
strations discussed is given in Table 3.
3.1. AAFEX
The Aircraft Alternative Fuel Emissions
eXperiment (AAFEX) campaign in Palm Dale
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885 2875

Table 3
Summary table of alternative fuel tests.
Test programme Fuel tested Vehicle Data measured Reference
AAFEX JP-8, GtL, CtL, CFM56-2C1 PM, Gaseous Emissions [51]
blends
Engine environment S-8(GtL) T63 Turboshaft, PM [88]
research facility Research Combustor
Engine environment S-8(GtL) + aromatic T63 PM, gaseous emissions [89]
research facility solvents
Hunter army airfield S-8 T700, T701C PM BC/EC [71]
B52 S-8 TF33 P-103, B-52 PM [52]
Fully synthetic CTL, Jet A1 JT9D, pressure atomiser, Engine endurance, PM, [85,72,90]
Sasol approval 4 burner sector, fully annular spray characteristics,
trent combustor, gaseous emissions,
annular turboshaft combustor ignition performance,
lean blowout
Airbus/Rolls Jet A-1, GTL A380, Trent 900 Engine performance [3]
Royce/Shell
RR corporation JP-8, S-8 Full annular AE3007 PM, gaseous emissions, [91]
combustor combustor wall
temperature,
Lean blowout, 22Ignition,
Pattern factor
Virgin Atlantic Jet A-1/FAME 747-400, CF6-80C Engine operation [92]
Air New Zealand Jet A-1/SPK from 747-400, RB211524G2-T Engine relight and overall [42,43]
Jatropha performance
Continental Airlines Jet A-1/SPK from 737-800, CFM56-7B Engine emissions, engine [42,43]
Jatropha performance
and Algae
Japan Airlines Jet A-1/SPK from 747-300, JT9D Engine performance [42,43]
Jatropha, Camelina
and Algae
P&W Canada Jet A-1, 50% and PW615 Engine performance and [43]
100% HVO emissions in support of
(diesel range), by JAL flight
volume
KLM/Air France Jet A-1/SPK from 747-400, CF6-80C2 Engine performance,
Camelina with passengers
Evaluation of semi S-8, IPK, GtL(x3) – Non combustion [36]
synthetic fuels performance, materials
compatibility

California (19th Jan–7th Feb, 2009) focused on 3.2. US air force

measuring the effect of fossil derived FT fuel on
engine and APU emissions. Measurements of
gaseous emissions and particulate emissions were
undertaken for a range of fuels including conven-
tional kerosene (JP-8), GtL, CtL and a 50/50
blend by volume of the FT fuels with JP-8. The
experimental platform utilised two of four
CFM56-2C1 engines fitted to a NASA DC-8
research aircraft. The campaign involved mea-
surement both close to the exhaust plane and at
two downstream locations, thus providing data
for the evolution of particulate matter (PM) and
gaseous emissions [51].
The emissions, measured at 1 m downstream of
the engine, showed the FT fuels had an effect on
emissions. At low power the CO and HC emis-
sions were reduced with the FT fuels, while at high
power the GtL produced the lowest NOx results
[51].
The first aircraft to be approved for opera-
tional readiness by the USAF was the B-52 in
August 2007. Tests were initially carried out
using Syntroleum’s synthetic fuel (S-8) based on
a GtL process [36]. Before approval for use on
the B52 a series of 50 h engine testing was carried
out, both on wing and in test beds at Tinker Air
Force Base (AFB), before flight tests were
performed. JP-8 along with a 50/50 blend of
synthetic fuel and Jet fuel (JP-8) were evaluated.
Gaseous and PM emissions were performed and
only beneficial impacts on the TF33 engine
emissions were observed with the use of the FT
blend [52].
The B52 has since been followed by several
other transport and fighter platforms evaluated
by the USAF [53]. These were tested using a blend
of Shell (Bintulu GtL) and JP-8. The extent of
2876 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
testing was reduced as the Shell GtL was consid-
ered to be very similar to the S-8/JP-8 blend.
3.3. Airbus/Rolls Royce/Shell A380 demonstration
flight
The technological readiness of gas derived
alternative fuel was demonstrated in February
2008 by the Shell, Rolls Royce and Airbus cumu-
lative research effort which involved flying an
Airbus A380, powered by Rolls Royce Trent 900
engines from Filton (UK) to Toulouse (France)
on 37.4% synthetic product by volume [3]. The
synthetic component, which was similar to that
used in the USAF tests, was limited to ensure
the blend met the minimum density requirements.
The test flight generated valuable data, including
engine accelerations, decelerations as well as alti-
tude windmill starts. This helped in the generic
approval of the GtL process for use in 50/50
blends as part of the successful approval ASTM
4054 procedure [54].
3.4. Virgin Atlantic
Richard Branson’s airline, Virgin Atlantic was
the first commercial carrier to successfully demon-
strate that flight on an alternative biomass derived
jet fuel was possible [55]. The non-revenue flight
between London and Amsterdam on the 23rd
February 2008 was operated with one of the four
Boeing 747–400 engines (General Electric CF6-
80C) fuelled with a blend of Jet A-1 and 20%
coconut and babassu palm oil [56]. A FAME
derived from coconut oil has carbon numbers
from C8 to C18 [56] and is at the light end of what
is normally associated with FAME and very close
to that found in Jet fuel. Although no emissions
data was available for this flight fundamental
work looking at 20% blends of FAME in Jet have
shown that little difference in emissions should be
expected [57].
Virgin stated that that feedstock was chosen
carefully so that it did not complete with food
production. However, the airline received consid-
erable backlash over the sustainability of their test
flight [58–60]. Boeing has in fact provided a dis-
claimer stating that the FAME fuel used in the
Virgin flight was the only suitable fuel available
at the time and that it did not consider FAME a
viable option for aviation. The test flight however,
did prove a key objective in successfully demon-
strating alternative fuel operation and perhaps
paved the way for more recent developments.
The engine was taken out of service and over-
hauled following this 45-min flight, no informa-
tion regarding the condition of the engine has
been made available.
Subsequent to this flight and following the
introduction of biodiesel as a blend with petro die-
sel in road transport fuels a problem has arisen
with FAME contamination of jet fuel [56]. Clear-
ance has been given at 30 ppm FAME in Jet and
the industry is working towards clearing 100 ppm
FAME in jet. However, the prospect of airport
closures due to FAME contamination remains a
possibility until more data is gained on its use
and the ability to process out contaminants.
3.5. Air New Zealand
Armed with the knowledge of the importance
of sustainable fuel selection, Air New Zealand
defined three feedstock selection criteria. The cri-
teria required biomass and hence the refined prod-
uct not only to satisfy economical and technical
factors but also social responsibility [61]. The lat-
ter factor was demonstrated through the selection
of suitable feedstock which did not compete with
food consumption. Social responsibility feeds
back into the environmental footprint of the alter-
native product, as demonstrated by the presented
lifecycle results [44,40]. Unsustainable farming
practices (i.e. clearing forest to plant crops) have
a high probability of increased lifecycle CO2e
emissions compared to conventionally refined
crude product.
In the case of Air New Zealand, Jatropha – a
plant which when grown under favourable condi-
tions produces high oil content inedible seeds
[62,63] – was identified as a feedstock which
matched the key selection criteria. Hydro process-
ing techniques, as shown in Fig. 10, were
employed to convert the seed oil into a drop-in
jet fuel which was then blended with 50% Jet
A-1. The use of a HRJ ensured that no metals
were present. The test flight, which took place
on the 20th December 2008 between Auckland
and Wellington (New Zealand), involved one of
the airline’s Boeing 747-400 aircraft. The non-rev-
enue flight was fuelled so that one of the four Rolls
Royce engines operated on the 50/50 fuel blend.
Engine parameter analysis from the test flight
has shown potential fuel burn saving of 1.2%
[64], however limited flight data exists to extrapo-
late this conclusion (i.e. single test flight). The
result however is supported by data from UOP,
which shows that the energy content of a Jatropha
based hydro processed fuel is 44.3 MJ kg1 com-
pared to 42.8 MJ kg1 (specification minimum)
for Jet A-1 [65] Regardless the Air New Zealand
flight successfully demonstrated that extracted
oil, in this case from Jatropha feedstock, could
be converted into a drop-in jet fuel through hydro
processing.
3.6. Continental airlines
The technology readiness of hydro processing
technology was further demonstrated through
the Continental airlines flight program, which
operated a twin engine aircraft (Boeing 737-800)
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
out of Houston on the 7th January 2009. One of
the two engines was powered using a 50/50 blend
of conventional jet fuel and a mixture of Jatropha
(47.5%) and Algae (2.5%).
The airline became the first flight to demon-
strate operation of an Algae feedstock, which
has been cited in the literature as having the
potential to provide higher yield than land based
crops [66]. Potential algae yields are however
masked by much uncertainty [67].
3.7. Japan airlines
Japan airlines has also demonstrated the feed-
stock independence of hydro processed jet fuel
through incident free operating of one of its Boeing
747-300 aircraft out of Tokyo. The roundtrip test
flight, which departed on the 30th January 2009,
operated one of four engines on a 50/50 blend of
conventional jet fuel and hydro processed biomass
feedstock, consisting of Camelina (42%), Jatropha
(8%) and Algae (<0.5%).
The success of the recent test campaigns has not
only highlighted gas turbine biomass product com-
patibility but also demonstrates the technological
readiness (expected 2010 approval) and feedstock
independence of the hydro treatment process.
3.8. Qatar airways
Following fuel certification, Qatar Airways
operated a commercial flight using GtL product
on October 13th 2009, citing fuel diversity, the
production of a premium product and its environ-
mental impact as key drivers [68]. The Airline is
expected to operate regular commercial flights
once the supply of GtL kerosene has be secured
Fig. 13. Ignition of kerosene, petro diesel and FAME [31].
2877
through the Shell – Qatar Petroleum Pearl Project
which is expected to come online during 2010 [69].
4. Combustion performance
4.1. Ignition and relight
Gas turbine ignition consists of a number of
phases. First the formation of a flame kernel
which contains sufficient reactants to become self
sustaining is formed. Second this kernel is trans-
ferred to a region within the combustor where
the conditions are favourable for a flame to
develop, and finally the flame spreads throughout
the combustor.
To initiate the kernel sufficient gas phase fuel
must be present in the vicinity of the igniter. This
depends on the fuel vapour pressure which is a
function of the individual hydrocarbons present.
Figure 13 [31] shows the atmospheric ignition
performance of a gas turbine can type combustor
operating with a range of alternative fuels. The
ignition performance shows that biodiesel has
the worst performance with kerosene having the
best and petro diesel in between. At low combus-
tor air mass flows, 0.2 kg s1, the kerosene will
light at a FAR 1=4 of that required for the FAME.
The reason for this is apparent if the GC–FID is
examined for each fuel, Figs. 14–16. If the vapour
pressures of alkanes present in the fuels is looked
at then the lower the carbon number the higher
the vapour pressure is for a given temperature.
The kerosene, as expected, has lighter fractions
present than the petro diesel suggesting a more
volatile fuel with a higher vapour pressure. The
FAME has a very limited spread of compounds
2878 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885

Fig. 14. GC–FID of aviation kerosene Jet-A1.

Fig. 15. GC-FID of petroleum diesel.

Fig. 16. GC–FID of Bio-diesel.

as would be expected since it is made up of acids
derived from the triglycerides and these are at
the heavy end of the carbon spectra. This results
in a reduced fuel vapour available for ignition
(Fig. 15).
Cold day ignition and relight testing was
undertaken as part of the initial SASOL approval
process [70]. Here high altitude ignition testing to
simulate ignition following a flame out at altitude
was evaluated. The ignition performance was
identical to conventional Jet fuel, within experi-
mental accuracy, except for points close to the
blow off limit of the combustor. If the GC–FID
are examined for both the Jet fuel and synthetic
jet small changes can be seen, associated with
the distillation curve, which were identified as
the reason why the synthetic fuel had a lower blow
off limit.
4.2. Particle emissions
The performance of alternative fuels in respect
of particulate emissions has received considerable
attention [36,43,47,51,71,52,72,73]. Most work
which has evaluated XtL or HRJ has indicated a
reduction in particle matter emissions. This is pri-
marily due to the reduction in aromatic content of
the fuel.
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885 2879

50

40 Idle
Full Power

SAE Smoke No.

30

20

10

0
JetA-1 CTL GTL Blend BioDiesel Diesel

Fig. 17. Measurements of soot from an APU using the filter paper method [76].

An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) has been run are currently being evaluated by the E-31 commit-
to evaluate alternative fuels. The APU has been tee of the SAE. However, there are currently no
described elsewhere [74,75]. Figure 17 [76] shows approved PM number density or size distribution
SAE smoke number measurements from an techniques for use in aviation. The E-31 committee
APU operating at idle and full power fuelled by has published an Aerospace Information Report
a range of fuels. The filter paper measurement is [79] describing several methods for the measure-
based on passing a known amount of exhaust ment of non volatile particulates.
gas sample through a filter paper and looking at Figures 18 and 19 show the volatile and non
the stain caused by the gas flow. The measure- volatile particle emissions from the APU, respec-
ments were carried out in accordance with ARP tively, measured using a DMS. The non volatile
1179 [77]. The figure shows smoke measurements PM emission demonstrates that more particulate
for Jet A-1, Sasol CtL, Shell GtL, a GtL/Jet A-1
blend, Biodiesel (FAME) and a petro diesel. This
GtL/Jet A-1 blend is similar to the fuel used on
the first commercial alternative fuel flight by
Qatar Airways. The results show that the smoke
number increases with engine power setting and
is very dependent on the fuel composition. The
highest smoke number is, as expected, from the
petro diesel, followed by the Jet A-1. The CtL fuel
has the next highest smoke number associated
with the aromatic content of the fuel. The neat
GtL fuel has a very low level of smoke emissions,
with the measured value being lower than the
technique measurement accuracy of 3 SN. The
Gtl/Jet A-1 blend is cleaner than would have been Fig. 18. Measurement of volatile particulate emissions
expected if the SN was linear with aromatic con- from Jet A1 and biodiesel in an APU at idle and full
tent and is consistent with the effects found in power [80].
the AAFEX testing [51]. The biodiesel smoke
measurement is exceptionally low. The measure-
ment would expect the exhaust to be very clean.
However, observations of the exhaust plume,
and particulate size and number measurements,
would suggest that the smoke number was consid-
erably higher than that measured. Close observa-
tion of the filter paper showed that the filter paper
had deposit but the colour was not as dark as that
from Jet A-1 or Petro Diesel. This particulate col-
our change has also been seen when looking at
compression ignition engines [78] and shows the
care needed in the measurement techniques when
looking at alternative fuels. Fig. 19. Measurement of non volatile particulate emis-
The use of the filter paper technique is known to sions from Jet A1 and biodiesel in an APU at idle and
be inadequate for use in aviation and alternatives full power [80].
2880 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
is present than would be expected based on the
filter paper technique alone, causing concern when
using filter paper techniques for particulate
measurement.
The biodiesel has 300% more volatile particu-
late at idle, Fig. 18 [80], than the Jet A-1. This vol-
atile particulate emission comes from a lower
combustion efficiency resulting in increased HC
emission which condenses onto the particulate as
can be seen in Figs. 20 and 21 [75], where data
from a high resolution time of flight aerosol mass
spectrometer HR-ToF-AMS, as described in [81],
are shown. The Jet A-1 particulate can be seen to
contain a limited amount of HC while the biodie-
sel has orders of magnitude more products of
Fig. 20. HR-ToF-AMS measurements of JET A1 par-
ticulate at idle [75].
Fig. 21. HR-ToF-AMS measurements of Biodiesel par-
ticulate at idle [75].
incomplete combustion. Jet A-1 would have vola-
tile particulate present due to the fuel sulphur
level [82–84]. However, the synthetic fuels burn
clean, due to their heavy dominance by paraffin,
and the lack of sulphur in the fuel should result
in low volatile particulate. This is confirmed on
tests of a T700 engine [71] where there are little
volatile emissions from neat FT fuels.
4.3. Gaseous emissions
In this section we look at the gaseous emissions
from the various test programmes summarised in
Table 3. Figures 22 and 23 also show the gaseous
emissions for an APU running on a range of fuels
and how the emissions change relative to Jet A-1.
In general the absolute values are not reported in
the literature rather the percentage change of the
alternative fuel is given relative to Jet A/Jet A-1
or JP-8, [43,85].
When an engine is certified it is to standards
recommended by the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP). The parame-
ter used to certify an engine is based on the emis-
sions from a reference Landing and Take-Off
(LTO) cycle [86]. This cycle comprises of four
operating modes and the time at mode, as shown
in Table 4. The representative emission parameter
is the sum of the pollutants emitted during each
mode and divided by the take off thrust of the
engine and is given by:-
P
ðEIspecies wfuel tmode Þ
EPAP ¼ ð4Þ
F 00
The emissions of HC and CO are highest at the
low power idle condition when the air into the
combustor is at the lowest temperature and pres-
sure, while the emission of NOx increases with
power setting peaking at take off where the air
temperature and pressure into the combustor is
at its highest.
4.4. NOx emissions
NOx is a high power emission normally only
important at climb and cruise conditions of the
LTO cycle, or when the combustion temperature
is high. The NOx is dominated by thermal NOx.
Jet A-1 and the alternative fuels discussed have
practically zero fuel bound Nitrogen so fuel
NOx is negligible.
Comparing the results from the tests summa-
rised in Table 3 for NOx is difficult as it needs
to be corrected to ambient humidity and tempera-
ture to evaluate the differences between fuels, this
has not always been done [43].
Generally, running on neat synthetic jet from
the FT or Hydrogenated processes reduces the
emitted NOx by up to 12%. Burning FAME in
the engine also reduces the NOx emitted. Calcula-
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885 2881

GtL
50/50 GtL/Jet A-1
1.5 CtL

Relative to Jet A-1

Diesel
RME
1.0

0.5

0.0
UHC NOx CO

Fig. 22. APU idle gaseous emissions for GtL, 50/50 GtL/Jet A-1 blend, CtL, Diesel and RME biodiesel [76].

1.8
GtL
1.6
50/50 GtL/Jet A-1
1.4 CtL
Relative to Jet A-1

1.2 Diesel
1.0 RME

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
UHC NOx CO

Fig. 23. APU Full power gaseous emissions for GtL, 50/50 GtL/Jet A-1 blend, CtL, Diesel and RME biodiesel [76].

Table 4 sition which result in the combustion occurring

LTO cycle power settings and times in mode.
Mode Power (%)
Idle/taxi 7 26
Approach 30
Climb 85
Take off 100
tions based on alternative fuels used in industrial
gas turbines have shown that, with the continuous
combustion found in gas turbines, the NOx emis-
sions follow the adiabatic flame temperature of
the air fuel mixture [87]. The change in flame tem-
perature comes from the change in hydrogen to
Carbon ratio in the fuel; Fig. 24 shows how the
h/c ratio changes between a HRJ, Jet A and their
blends. The reduced temperature in the combustor
is backed up in engine tests and observed reduced
exhaust gas temperatures [43] although this also
depends on the engine control system. When the
control system drives the engine to a constant tur-
bine inlet temperature as for the T63 engine [88]
no NOx reduction was seen. The NOx however
is not just a function of temperature but also the
time at temperature so changes to the fuel compo-
earlier will also affect NOx emissions.
Time in mode (min)
4.5. CO emissions
4
2.2 CO emissions, as described earlier, are highest
0.7
at the low power conditions. They are also more
susceptible to effects caused by the fuel injectors
and when CO is measured on engine runs by the
hysteresis effects on the fuel temperature caused
by engine running.
The CO emissions for alternative fuels are
very different ranging from a 20% reduction over
the LTO cycle for a P&W 4 burner sector rig
burning a fully synthetic FT fuel, to an 8%
increase from a CFM56-7B engine test burning
blends of HRJ.
It has been demonstrated on a T63 engine that
the CO emission is significantly dependent on fuel
aromatic content. The engine was tested on JP-8,
S-8 and S-8 with a range of aromatic solvents
added. Moving between JP-8 and S-8 saw a
reduction of CO emissions by 22% at idle while
addition of three different aromatic compounds,
at 20% concentration, saw an increase of CO of
between 9% and 32% with the heavier aromatics
2882 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
Fig. 24. H/C ratio change for HRJ synthetic Kerosene measured by UOP, GE and AFRL [43].
having the largest effect on CO [89]. Increasing
aromatics and molecular weight of the fuel
reduces the combustion efficiency hence the CO
increase.
4.6. HC emissions
The effect of burning alternative fuels on the
HC emissions is very similar to what happens with
the CO emissions. There is conflicting evidence
with some tests showing a reduction of up to
44% [89] while some showing an increase of a sim-
ilar magnitude [43].
The effect of adding aromatic content to a neat
FT fuel is again shown on the T63 engine [89],
with the effect being larger than for CO. With
the addition of the 20% aromatics the HC emis-
sions increased by between 13% and 58%, depend-
ing on which aromatic is added. Again the higher
molecular weight aromatic resulted in the largest
increase in HC.
The percentage increase/decrease may seem
alarming but we are dealing with low values. For
the P&W 4 burner sector tests the HC reduced from
16 ppm on JET A to 11.8 ppm for a fully synthetic
Jet fuel at idle, which is the highest HC level condi-
tion [72].
One of the major issues we have in assessing
the emissions is that although we have detailed
information on the synthetic fuels we do not
always get the same compositional information
on the JP-8, Jet A or Jet A-1. Survey of the fuels
used worldwide show how variable the standard
jet fuel can be [27].
4.7. CO2 emissions
CO2 emissions for aviation are normally con-
sidered as directly related to fuel burn. Figure 25
shows measured CO2 reduction from Jet A-1
emissions of the alternative fuels run in the
APU. As can be seen the higher calorific value
of the synthetic fuels results in a lower emission
of CO2. This reduction in CO2 emissions while
running on synthetic fuels has been shown in the
engine demonstration flights.
The Air New Zealand demonstration flight
reported a reduction in fuel burn of 1.5% relative
to what would have been expected from Jet A-1,
for the engine fuelled with synthetic fuel. Statisti-
cal analysis showed that this difference was signif-
icant [43].
Support testing for the Continental airlines
flight on a synthetic fuel blend investigated Jet
A, 25/75 bio-SPK/Jet A and a 50/50 blend. These
blends resulted in a fuel flow improvement of
0.7% and 1.2%, respectively, which corresponded
well to the 0.6 and 1.1 changes in energy content
of the fuels [43].
The reduction in CO2 will come with a corre-
sponding increase in H20. Since the aviation
impact on the environment includes the effects of
water vapour, contrails and contrail induced cir-
rus cloud this will also need to be addressed and
quantified resulting in the need for Fig. 2 to be
reassessed with the alternative fuels added. Work
on this is currently being addressed by the EU
funded network of excellence ECATs.
5. What is still required?
One of the main observations in looking at the
results of alternative fuels is that the data for stan-
dard jet fuel is not always given. We need to spend
as much time characterising the standard fuel,
which we blend, as we do the alternative fuel.
Fuels database show us that the current specifica-
tion for jet fuel results in differing cuts of fuel
being available. We need to understand this so
we can fully understand the effect of alternative
fuel on combustor performance.
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
Fig. 25. Percentage change in measured CO2 emissions
from an APU at constant power setting showing CO2
reduction as a function of Fuel Energy content for Petro
diesel, GtL, CtL, Jet A-1 and a Jet A-1/GtL blend.
We need to adopt models that enable combus-
tor performance to be determined from the chem-
ical makeup of the fuel. In particular we need to
better understand how the ratio of iso, normal
and cyclic paraffins in a fuel affect the combustion
performance, engine operation and material com-
patibility. This needs extending to include the
effects of aromatics, and the molecular weight of
the aromatics, on the performance.
We need a better understanding on the LCA of
alternative fuels. Too many numbers are banded
around media sites that have not been through
the peer review process. Methodologies of obtain-
ing the LCA need to be scrutinised and
standardised.
Measurement techniques used when assessing
alternative fuels need to be critically assessed.
We cannot take for granted the fact that they will
work as intended and not be affected themselves
by alternative fuels.
Finally we need to get a better understanding
of how the emissions from gas turbines, operating
on alternative fuels, will affect the environment.
We need to understand the reactivity of the
exhaust emissions and also understand the com-
plex non-CO2 emissions interaction with the
environment.
6. Conclusions
The range of alternative fuels which are suit-
able for aviation are restricted if the fuel is to be
used for all existing aircraft.
The effect of energy content as a function of
weight and volume of the fuel has an impact on
what can be considered as an alternative aviation
fuel since it is linked to the aircraft range/payload.
FAME is unsuitable for aviation use due to the
carryover of metal contaminants from the raw
feedstock. FAME is currently causing issues in
multi product pipelines and is treated as a major
contaminant of aviation Jet fuel.
2883
Bio-SPKs are proving to be a sustainable alter-
native to conventional crude based Jet fuel. As a
50/50 blend these have been evaluated in a num-
ber of ground and flight demonstrators and show
benefits in terms of fuel burn and particulate
matter.
More work is still required before 100%
Bio-SPKs can be used in aviation. The exact blend
of components needed is still to be optimised.
The current situation may open the way for
“Designer Fuels” for aviation.
Alternative fuels fall into two groups of secu-
rity of supply or sustainability. However, the secu-
rity of supply group also has significant
environmental benefits due to reduced CO2 emis-
sions and reduced particulate emissions.
Acknowledgements
I thank the combustion institute for inviting
me to undertake this review. I also acknowledge
the funding for the alternative fuels work carried
out at Sheffield which has been from a range of
sources including; Rolls Royce plc, Shell Avia-
tion, Shell Global Solutions, Omega along with
EU programs; SWAFEA, AlfaBird and Ecats.
References
[1] CRC, Handbook of Aviation Fuels, Society of
Automotive Engineers, 2004.
[2] L.Q. Maurice, H. Lander, T. Edwards, W.E.
Harrison, Fuel 80 (5) (2001) 747–756.
[3] Airbus, Alternative Fuels Programme – 1st Phase
GTL Flight Test Final Report, 2008.
[4] P. Dagaut, M. Cathonnet, Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. (2006) 48–92.
[5] J. Penner, D. Lister, D. Griggs, D. Dokken, M.
McFarland (Eds.), Aviation and the Global Atmo-
sphere, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[6] Airbus, Global Market Forcast 2008–2028, Airbus,
2009.
[7] R. Sausen, I. Isaksen, V. Grewe, et al., Meteorol. Z.
14 (4) (2005) 555–561.
[8] D.S. Lee, D.W. Fahey, P.M. Forster, et al., Atmos.
Environ. 43 (22–23) (2009) 3520–3537.
[9] K.E. Trenberth, J.T. Fasullo, E.J. Kiehl, Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 90 (3) (2009) 311.
[10] SWAFEA, State of the Art on Alternative Fuels in
Aviation, SWAFEA, 2009.
[11] R. Parker, M. Lathoud, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C:
J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 224 (3) (2010) 529–538.
[12] T. Edwards, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 129 (2007)
1–13.
[13] ASTM D 1655, Standard specification for aviation
Turbine fuels, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 2006.
[14] Defence Standard 91-91, Turbine fuels, Aviation
Kerosene Type, Jet A-1, Nato Code: F-35, Joint
Service Designation AFTUR, Ministry of Defence,
2006.
2884 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
[15] C. Moses, Development of the protocol for accep-
tance of synthetic fuels under commercial specifica-
tion, Southwest Research Institute, 2007.
[16] A. Lefebvre, Gas Turbine Combustion, Hemisphere
Publishing Corp., 1983.
[17] L. Gardner, R.B. Whyte, Gas Turbine Fuels, in:
Design of Modern Turbine Combustors, Academic
Press Ltd.
[18] F.E. Armstrong, J.E. Allen, R.M. Denning, Proc.
IMechE G 211 (1997).
[19] A.H. Lefebvre, Fuel Effects on Gas Turbine Com-
bustion, Wright Patteson Airforce Laboratory,
Purdue University, 1982.
[20] I. Gökalp, E. Lebas, Appl. Therm. Eng. 24 (2004)
1655–1663.
[21] J. Odgers, D. Kretschmer, Gas Turbine Fuels and
Their Influence on Combustion Energy and Engi-
neering Science Series, Abacus Press, Cambridge
Mass, 1986.
[22] E.M. Goodger, Alternative Fuels: Chemical Energy
Resources, Macmillan Press Ltd., London, 1980.
[23] V. Poloczek, H. Hermsmeyer, Modern gas turbines
with high fuel flexibility, in: PowerGen, PowerGen,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia October 21–23, 2008.
[24] P. Bogers, Alternative fuels for aviation – industry
options & challenges (Shell), in: Aviation and
Alternative Fuels (ICAO), ICAO, Montreal, Canada
2009.
[25] L.K. Loftin, Quest for Performance: The Evolution
of Modern Aircraft, NASA Scientific and Technical
Information Branch 1985, Washington, DC
[26] Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, 747 Air-
plane Characteristics, Airport Planning D6-58326,
Boeing Company, 1984.
[27] G. Rickard, The Quality of Aviation Fuel Available
in the UK, Annual Survey, QINETIQ, 2007.
[28] S. Blakey, M. Farmery, R. Midgley, C.W. Wilson,
Fuel effects on range versus payload for modern jet
aircraft, in: 11th International Conference on Stabil-
ity, Handling and Use of Liquid Fuels, IASH,
Prague, 2009.
[29] C.L. Peterson, G.L. Wagner, D.L. Auld, Trans.
ASAE 29 (5) (1986).
[30] A. Bradshaw, N.J. Simms, J.R. Nicholls, Fuel 87
(2008) 3529–3536.
[31] C.W. Wilson, S. Blakey, S. Cornwell, et al., Pre-
paring the Way for Gas Turbines to Run on
Alternative Fuels, British Flame, Birmingham, 2007.
[32] F. Behrendt, Y. Neubauer, M. Oevermann, B.
Wilmes, N. Zobel, Chem. Eng. Technol. 31 (5)
(2008) 667–677.
[33] Ø. Vessia, Biofuels from Lignocellulosic Material,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
2005.
[34] T. Reddy Keshav, S. Basu, Fuel Process. Technol.
88 (5) (2007) 493–500.
[35] H. Schulz, Appl. Catal., A 186 (1999) 3–12.
[36] C.A. Moses, Comparative Evallation of Semi Syn-
thetic Jet Fuels, CRC, 2008.
[37] E.F. Sousa-Aguiar, L.G. Appel, C. Mota, Catal.
Today 101 (1) (2005) 3–7.
[38] J.G. Speight, The Chemistry and Technology of
Petroleum, fourth ed., CRC Press, New York, 2006.
[39] R. Altman, Aviation alternative fuels, characteriz-
ing the options, in: Aviation and Alternative Fuels
(ICAO), ICAO, Montreal, Canada, 2009.
[40] PARTNER, U.S. Fuel trends analysis, Presented at
the 4th meeting of the Group on International
Aviation and Climate Change, 27 May 09 25,
Montréal, Canada.
[41] M. Vera-Morales, A. Schäfer, Fuel-Cycle Assess-
ment of Alternative Aviation Fuels, University of
Cambridge (OMEGA Program), 2009.
[42] IATA, Report on Alternative Fuels, IATA, 2009.
[43] T.F. Rahmes, J.D. Kinder, T.M. Henry, et al.,
Sustainable Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kero-
sene (Bio-spk) Jet Fuel Flights and Engine Test
Program Results, in: Ninth AIAA Aviation Technol-
ogy, Integration, and Operations Conference
(ATIO), AIAA, Hilton Head, South Carolina,
2009.
[44] H.M. Wong, Life-cycle Assessment of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels. M.Sc.
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
MIT, Washington, 2008.
[45] G. Marsh, Renew. Energy Focus 9 (4) (2008) 48–51.
[46] R.W. Stratton, H.M. Wong, J.I. Hileman, Life
Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative
Jet Fuels, PARTNER Project 28 Report Version
1.1, PARTNER, 2010.
[47] J. Hileman, H.M. Wong, D. Ortiz, N. Brown, L.
Maurice, M. Rumizen, The Feasibility and Poten-
tial Environmental Benefits of Alternative Fuels for
Commercial Aviation, in: 26th International Con-
gress of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS, 2008.
[48] M.K. Hubbert, Science 109 (2823) (1949) 103–109.
[49] J. Kjärstad, F. Johnsson, Energy Policy 37 (2)
(2009) 441–464.
[50] M. Unnikrishnan, IEA: Jet Fuel Demand to Grow
Briskly Through 2012, 2007.
[51] D. Bulzan, B. Anderson, C. Wey, et al., Gaseous
and particulate emissions results of the nasa alter-
native aviation fuel experiment (AAFEX), in: Pro-
ceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for
land sea and Air, ASME, Glasgow, 2010, GT2020-
23524.
[52] E. Corporan, M.J. DeWitt, C.D. Klingshim, R.C.
Striebich, DOD Assured Fuels initiative: B-52
aircraft Emissions Burning A Fischer–Tropsch/JP-
8 Fuel Blend, in: 10th international Conference on
Stability, Handling and Use of Liquid Fuels, IASH,
Tucson, Arizona, 2007.
[53] R. Drinnon, Alternative fuel research: C-17 tests to
follow B-52 certification, Inside AMC, 2007.
[54] ASTM, Standard Practice for Evaluating the Com-
patibility of Additives with Aviation-Turbine Fuels
and Aircraft Fuel System Materials Draft, 2004.
[55] S. Ramsay, Doubts Surround Virgin’s Breakthrough
Biofuel Flight, ABC News, 2008.
[56] S.D. Anderson, S. Christopher, A. Clarke, R.
Grace, Reduction of trace bio components in Jet,
in: 11th International Conference on Stability, Han-
dling and Use of Liquid Fuels, IASH, Prague, 2009.
[57] P. Dagaut, S. Gaı̈l, J. Phys. Chem. A 111 (19) (2007)
3992–4000.
[58] BBC, Airline in First Biofuel Flight, BBC News,
2008.
[59] Greenpeace, Virgin Guilty of ‘High Altitude Green-
wash’, 2008.
[60] The Guardian, Branson’s Coconut Airways – But Jet
is on a Flight to Nowhere, Say Critics, The Guard-
ian, 2008.
 S. Blakey et al. / Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33 (2011) 2863–2885
[61] S. Miller-Reeves, Air New Zealand Announces
World First Flight to Take off on December 3rd, 2008
[62] W.M. Achten, L. Verchot, Y.J. Franken, et al.,
Biomass Bioenergy 32 (12) (2008) 1063–1084.
[63] W.H. Maes, A. Trabucco, W.M. Achten, B. Muys,
Biomass Bioenergy 33 (10) (2009) 1481–1485.
[64] NZPA, Jet Biofuel Test Gives Big Savings, 2009.
[65] J. Holmgren, Creating alternative fuel options for
the aviation industry: role of biofuels, in: Aviation
and Alternative Fuels (ICAO), ICAO, Montreal,
Canada, 2009.
[66] M. Packer, Energy Policy 37 (9) (2009) 3428–3437.
[67] L. Rye, S. Blakey, C.W. Wilson, Energy Environ.
Sci. 3 (2010) 17–27.
[68] Qatar-Airways, Alternative Fuels: Taking Leader-
ship in the Application of Cleaner Alternative Fuels,
2009.
[69] Attiyah, Qatar Shell GTL Plant to Start 2010, 2008.
[70] F. Hermann, Cold day ignition and altitude relight
testing of SASOL fully synthetic aviation kerosene –
External Report, DNS 126274, Rolls Royce, 2007.
[71] M. Cheng, E. Corporan, M.J. DeWitt, B. Landgraf,
Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 9 (2) (2009) 237–256.
[72] C.A. Moses, P.N.J. Roets, J. Eng. Gas Turbines
Power 131 (4) (2009).
[73] T. Biddle, Approval of a Fully Synthetic Fuel for Gas
Turbine Engines, Pratt & Whitney, 2006.
[74] S. Blakey, C. Leong, L. Rye, C.W. Wilson, Reverse
engineering gas turbine emission performance:
Applied to an aircraft APU, in: Proceedings of the
ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for land sea and
Air, ASME, Glasgow, 2010, GT2010-22478.
[75] P. Williams, P. Lobo, D. Hagen, et al., Organic
aerosol speciation of different fuels from an APU,
in: International Aerosol Conference, Finland, 2010.
[76] S. Blakey, L. Rye, C.W. Wilson, Emissions from an
APU operating on a range of Alternative fuels,
SWAFEA members meeting, Paris, France, 2010.
[77] SAE International, Aircraft Gas Turbine Exhaust
Smoke Measurement, SAE Publications, 1997.
[78] S. Sidhu, J. Graham, R. Striebich, Chemosphere 42
(2001) 681–690.
[79] E-31 SAE Committee, Nonvolatile Exhaust Particle
Measurement Techniques, 2004.
2885
[80] P.D. Whitefield, P. Lobo, D.E. Hagen, C.W.
Wilson, L. Rye, P. Williams, PM Emissions Char-
acteristics of APU’s Burning Conventional and
Alternative Fuels, Cambridge Particle Meeting,
Cambridge, UK, 2010.
[81] P.F. DeCarlo, J.R. Kimmel, A. Trimborn, et al.,
Anal. Chem. 78 (2006) 8281–8289.
[82] R. Hitzenberger, H. Giebl, A. Petzold, et al.,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 (14) (2003) 1779.
[83] A. Petzold, M. Fiebig, L. Fritzsche, et al., Meteorol.
Z. 14 (4) (2005) 465–476.
[84] C.W. Wilson, A. Petzold, S. Nyeki, U. Schumann,
R. Zellner, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 8 (2004) 131–143.
[85] C.A. Moses, T.B. Biddle, S.P. Seto, C. Lewis, R.C.
Williams, P.N.J. Roets, Combustion and opera-
tional characteristics of sasol CTL fully synthetic jet
fuels, in: 10th International Conference on Stability,
Handling and Use of Liquid Fuels, IASH, Tucson,
Arizona, 2007.
[86] ICAO Annex 16 International standards and rec-
ommended practices, Environmental protection,
Volume II “Aircraft engine emissions” plus amend-
ments, Amendment 3, 20 March 1997; Amendment
4, 4 November 1999; Amendment 5, 24 November
2005.
[87] P.A. Glaude, R. Fournet, R. Bounaceu, M. Moli-
ère, Fuel Process. Technol. 91 (2010) 229–235.
[88] E. Corporan, M.J. DeWitt, V. Belovich, et al.,
Energy Fuels 21 (5) (2007) 2615–2626.
[89] M.J. DeWitt, E. Corporan, J. Graham, D. Minus,
Energy Fuels 22 (4) (2008) 2411–2418.
[90] C. Moses, Evaluation of Sasol synthetic kerosene
for suitability as jet fuel, Ph2 Engine and Combustor
Tests, SWRI, 2007.
[91] N. Risk, Overview of the relationship between fuel
properties and engine performance, in: Workshop on
Alternative Fuels, ICAO, Montreal, Feb 2009.
[92] S. Foster, A change is in the air: sustainable fuels
for the aviation industry, in: International Confer-
ence on Alternative Aviation Fuels Programme,
Omega, Royal Aeronautical Society, London 24–
26 November, 2008.