Novel Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester (GGME) as a potential alternative feedstock for existing unmodified DI diesel engine

Accepted Manuscript Novel Garcinia gummi-gutta Methyl Ester (GGME) As a Potential Alternative Feedstock for Existing unmodified DI Diesel Engine

Lingesan Subramani, M. Parthasarathy, Dhinesh Balasubramanian, KrishnaMoorthy Ramalingam PII:

S0960-1481(18)30286-6

DOI:

10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.134

Reference:

RENE 9865

To appear in:

Renewable Energy

Received Date:

11 June 2017

Revised Date:

14 February 2018

Accepted Date:

28 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Lingesan Subramani, M. Parthasarathy, Dhinesh Balasubramanian, KrishnaMoorthy Ramalingam, Novel Garcinia gummi-gutta Methyl Ester (GGME) As a Potential Alternative Feedstock for Existing unmodified DI Diesel Engine, Renewable Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.134

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Graphical Abstract

Methanol Garcinia gummi-gutta seed

Fe3O4 Raw Garcinia gummi- Immobilization gutta oil lipase Immobilized Transesterification process

Diesel engine

Biodiesel

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1|Page

1

Novel Garcinia gummi-gutta Methyl Ester (GGME) As a

2

Potential Alternative Feedstock for Existing unmodified

3

DI Diesel Engine Subramani, bDr.Parthasarathy M, cDr.Dhinesh Balasubramanian,

4

a*Lingesan

5

dKrishnaMoorthy

6

a,d Research

7

Technology(MIT) Campus, Anna University, Chromepet, Chennai 600 044,

8

Tamil Nadu, India.

9

b

Ramalingam

Scholar, Department of Automobile Engineering, Madras Institute of

Department of Automobile Engineering, Veltech Dr.RR & Dr.SR University,

10

Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 600062.

11

c

12

Sivakasi, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu, India.

13

*b Corresponding Author: E-mail address: [email protected] (Lingesan

14

Subramani); Contact Number: (+91) 9626126744.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mepco Schlenk Engineering College,

2|Page 25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

26

The present experimental study is investigated on Kirloskar make TAF-1 model CI engine powered by

27

Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester (GGME) biodiesel and its blends with mineral Diesel. Biodiesel is conceived

28

from Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil via novel immobilized lipase transesterification and achieved the higher yield

29

of 93.08% at 73 hours of reaction time. Raw GGME was blended with mineral Diesel in various proportions,

30

namely, B10, B20, B30, B40, and B100 and the GGME blends were analyzed in terms of combustion,

31

performance and emission characteristics. The results show GGME B20 blend displays lower peak pressure and

32

heat release rate (HRR) than mineral Diesel. The brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for B20 blend reveals there is a

33

slight decrement at peak load. Brake specific energy consumption of GGME blends was marginally decreased for

34

increased blend concentration and at peak load B20 blend shows minor deviation against mineral Diesel. In terms

35

of tailpipe emission, B20 blend exhibits sharp decrement for HC, CO followed by smoke emission at full load

36

condition. B20 blend produces higher NOx and CO2 emissions than mineral Diesel at peak load. The above results

37

conclude that the B20 blend of GGME showcased as a chief alternative fuel for the CI engine.

38 39

Keywords: Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester, Immobilized, lipase transesterification, Combustion,

40

Performance, emission

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

3|Page 65

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

66 67

As per the statistical report of American Energy Information and International Energy Agency world crude

68

oil consumption - surges by 2% every year. By 2030 the world-wide energy consumption will be increased by 4%

69

leading to uncertain fuel consumption rate in every 5 years. Among all the countries the Asian continent energy

70

consumption growth was predicted up to 3.7%. In order to ameliorate global warming, it is wise to lower the

71

percentage of use of fossil fuels as much as possible [1]. Compared with fossil fuels, biodiesel seems to be the

72

best solution for solving global energy crisis [2]. Currently, renewable energy crisis and higher environmental

73

pollution necessitates the search for alternative fuel sources [3-4]. There are different methods for the production

74

of biodiesel, such as dilution, pyrolysis, micro-emulsion followed by transesterification. Among them,

75

transesterification process involves the presence of triglycerides from vegetable oil and animal fat mixed with

76

alcohol or methanol and catalyst to produce tri-hydroxy alcohol and mono-alkaline ester. Compared with fossil

77

fuel, it has viable advantages like eco-friendly nature, fuel efficiency, biodegradable nature, renewable tendency,

78

fuel portability, non-toxic, better performance, good durability and minimized tail pipe emissions [5-7]. Fueling

79

of vegetable oil in CI engine is not a recent approach. Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of compression-ignition engine,

80

in prior used peanut oil as a fuel source. At the time of World War II, again the vegetable oils were utilized in

81

emergencies [8]. Vegetable oils on higher concentration, however, have a negative impact on the engine. Some

82

of the possible negative effects, namely volatility rate, fuel viscosity and cold flow of vegetable oils can choke

83

the engine parts [9].

84

I.M. Monirul et al [10] evaluated Conduct the performance and emission test carried the single cylinder

85

diesel engine using three different biodiesels with varying fuel blends namely palm, jatropha and Calophyllum

86

inophyllum methyl esters and observe exhaust emission majorly reduced for 20% palm biodiesel blend than diesel

87

and another biodiesel blend. The Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends exhibit higher heat release rate and

88

peak cylinder pressure than diesel and another biodiesel blend.

89

Sunil Kumar et al [11] analysed the suitability of petro-Diesel blended with biodiesel of Jatropha curcas

90

in varying proportions in a stationary single-cylinder four-stroke CI engine. Jatropha biodiesel was mixed with

91

mineral Diesel in 0%, 5%, 20%, 50%, 80% and 100% volume. For B20 blend, test engine performance and

92

efficiency were in par with mineral Diesel. HC, CO, and CO2 emissions were found to be lower than Diesel fuel.

93

Sathiyamoorthi et al [12] carried out an experimental investigation to analyze the raw lemongrass oil

94

mixed with petroleum-Diesel fuelled in CI engine and its fuel efficiency and tailpipe emission were analyzed.

95

They noticed that BTE and BSFC results showed the same trend as that of mineral Diesel. Both carbon monoxide

96

(CO) and smoke emission were lesser compared with mineral Diesel, but NOx and CO2 emissions were higher.

97

Overall, combustion characteristics showed higher range for raw lemongrass oil.

98

Khiari et al [13] examined the effect of Pistacia lentiscus biodiesel and blends in 4.5 kW Diesel engine

99

and its combustion, performance and emission characteristics. 5, 30, and 50% of Pistacia lentiscus biodiesel were

100

blended with petroleum Diesel and its BTE was increased by about 3% compared with raw Diesel. There was a

101

reduction observed in emission levels by 17% (particulate matter), 45% (UBHC) and 25% (CO) correspondingly

102

at full load state, although fuel consumption rate and NOx emissions increased by 10% and 4% respectively.

4|Page

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

103

Mallikappa et al [14] investigated the behaviour of cardanol biofuel blends in double cylinder DI Diesel

104

engine and studied its fuel efficiency and tailpipe emission. They observed that the brake power increased

105

significant at 70% engine load. Results revealed that, BSEC levels were decremented by 30% with increased BP

106

(Brake power). At higher load, thermal efficiency scored higher and emission like NOx, CO, and HC showed

107

equivalent up to 20% of fuel blend.

108

Ayatallah Gharehghani et al [15] carried out an investigation on the performance, combustion and

109

emissions parameter of the conventional CI engine for waste fish oil (WFO) biodiesel and its fuel blend mixed

110

with neat Diesel. An E6 Ricardo engine was used to perform the tests under steady state conditions and engine

111

load conditions. WFO was blended in the proportions of (B25), (B50) and (B75) by volume with Diesel. More

112

stable combustion without large cycle-to-cycle variations was found to be achieved by WFO biodiesel and its fuel

113

blends. The analysis showed that, the biodiesel had about 2.92% more gross thermal efficiency and about 1.1%

114

lower combustion loss compared with mineral Diesel fuel. CO emission for the biodiesel and its fuel mixture was

115

found to be reduced by a range of about 5.2 – 27% while significant reduction by about 11.6 – 70% occurred for

116

unburnt HC emissions. However, the more efficient combustion led to an increase of about 7.2% in CO2 emission

117

and about 1.9 – 12.8% increase in NOX emission for WFO and its blends.

118

Jayashri et al [16] conducted the test with neem biodiesel and its fuel mixture fuelled in 4-stroke DI

119

Diesel engine and its output were examined in terms of performance and emission characteristics. The blend

120

mixtures were prepared in the proportions of B10, B20, and B30 % by volume with Diesel. It is observed that,

121

B10 blend resulted in higher performance and lower emissions than the other blends and Diesel. The brake thermal

122

efficiency of B10 was found to be higher than that of Diesel. Emission levels of CO, HC, and NOX were reduced

123

by 23%, 8.5%, and 22% compared with raw Diesel fuel.

124

Kakati et al [17] carried out the production, characteristics and engine performance evaluation of Kutkura

125

fruit seed oil biodiesel. The kutkura fatty acid methyl ester biodiesel was mixed with raw Diesel by B10 and B20

126

and the results showed nominal BSFC range with mineral Diesel. Increased brake thermal efficiency and reduced

127

smoke emissions were also observed. The authors concluded that, the performance level of the engine up to 20%

128

blending of kutkura biodiesel revealed superior efficiency.

129

Sanjid et al [18] studied the outcomes of Brassica juncea methyl ester (mustard biodiesel) and its fuel

130

blends in Diesel engine by both performance and exhaust emissions. Mustard biodiesel showed superior properties

131

compared with the other conventional biodiesels. MB10 blend and MB20 blend of mustard biodiesel were

132

employed for the performance and emission tests. Both the blends, MB10 and MB20 gave 8–13% superior fuel

133

consumption rate and brake power reduced by 7 – 8% compared with Diesel. The MB blends when compared

134

with Diesel exhibited NO higher by (9-12%), HC lower by (24-42%), CO reduced by (19-40%) and finally noise

135

emission by (2-7%).Thus, the authors were able to conclude that MB10 and MB20 blends of fuel were best suited

136

to CI engine.

137

The present research work is about the newly discovered Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester extracted

138

from gracinia seeds, as a novel alternate biodiesel for powering the Diesel engine. Globally, none of the researcher

139

used this GGME as a fuel source for DI Diesel engine but only the oil extraction and fuel characterization could

5|Page

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

140

be made by some of the research persons. To conduct this experimental investigation Garcinia gummi-gutta seed

141

was obtained from Thrissur district in Kerala. In order to increase the GGME yield percentage the novel lipase

142

immobilization concept was implemented in transesterification process. Previously, GGME and its blends meet

143

the ASTM standards. Initially, Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester (GGME) was easily mix with mineral Diesel

144

and five fuel blends was adapted namely 10, 20, 30, 40 and 100 percent by volume basis. Moreover, the engine

145

combustion, performance and tailpipe emission were investigated for five GGME test fuels including mineral

146

Diesel then the test fuel results were compared with mineral Diesel.

147

2. Materials and methods

148

2.1 Biological background of Garcinia gummi-gutta species

149

The main significance of this assessment is to evaluate the clearer of biodiesel generation from Garcinia

150

gummi-gutta seed-based oil as an alternative resource of fuel to alleviate world fossil fuel demand. Garcinia

151

gummi-gutta is a renowned Malabar tamarind named “Kodampuli” in Malayalam belonging to the family

152

clusiaceae, and the tree population is denser in evergreen forest areas of Western Ghats, particularly from

153

Travancore region and more over it is found in Nigerian forest. Further, the other parts the tree, namely leaves,

154

bark, root, flower and sap also have more medicinal properties and they add advantage to medical field. In larger

155

context the seed extracted oil is used for ayurvedic purposes. Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil a sustainable, more

156

feasible, non-edible, ecofriendly and novel biodiesel to play the role of the best alternative to CI engine. This

157

novel oil does not have any impact on commercial agreement as a fuel source. None of the researchers have done

158

the experiment by using Garcinia gummi-gutta fruit seed oil as a non-traditional source for CI engine. The kernel

159

of 95% mixed seeds contains larger quantity of oil, i.e., about 42% yield. There are three different modes of

160

extraction process employed to extract the oil by using kernel: Boling method, Solvent extraction method and

161

mechanical expeller method. Compared with the mechanical expeller method, the remaining two methods result

162

in lesser oil yield up to (30%).Hence, mechanical expeller method was selected to improve the oil yield from

163

Garcinia gummi-gutta seed. The test fuel properties of Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester was showed in Table

164

1. The physicochemical properties and chemical composition of Garcinia gummi-gutta were displayed in Table

165

2 and Table 3.

166

2.2 Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil preparation and extraction process

167

Initially the seeds are collected at National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resource (NBPGR) zone, Thrissur

168

district, Kerala. Then they are sorted based on the size, further the seeds are directly dried in sunlight for 2-5 days.

169

After the removal of moisture content in the seeds, the seeds are roasted at 101°C for 12hr. Then, the seeds are

170

crushed to produce fine powder and the oil is extracted from the powdered seeds using mechanical expeller

171

method. By using this method, marginally higher yield is obtained up to 40% for 1 kg of Garcinia gummi-gutta

172

seed. Various properties like density, calorific value, kinematic viscosity, acid value, cetane number, water

173

content, flash point & ash content are measured based on the ASTM standards. In the present study, raw GGME

174

biodiesel is selected and it is blended with the mineral Diesel on volume basis. The oil extraction process of raw

175

gracinia is illustrated in Fig.1.

176

6|Page 177

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.3 Biodiesel production process of Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil with immobilized nano catalyst approach

178

Transesterification process of novel Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil was performed by lipase immobilized

179

Fe3O4 catalyst. Primarily, lipase immobilized Fe3O4 catalyst (Fe3O4 + Thermomyces lanuginosus lipase) was

180

purchased from Center for Nanoscience and Technology, Anna University Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. In order

181

to anticipate higher biodiesel yield, the renowned approach of immobilization technique was furnished for

182

transesterification of raw Garcinia. By immobilization, chemically bind strategy outcome was created to invent

183

the novel core-shell structures alliance with Fe3O4 nanoparticle as core and enzyme catalyst as shell. To enhance

184

the catalytic activity, iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles were prepared by co-precipitation method and

185

Thermomyces lipase (TL) were immobilized into Fe3O4 nanoparticle. This reaction yields a novel enzyme

186

immobilized Fe3O4 magnetic Nano particle. Initially, transesterification reaction was done by using 150ML

187

shaking flask under 50ºC on a reciprocal shaker.

188

Equivalent amount of 10g of raw Garcinia oil was mixed with TL linked iron oxide nanoparticle and

189

three times the methanol was added to the solution up to 1.5g. Then the residual methanol content was distilled

190

off completely with the help of the evaporator at 65ºC under vacuum condition. After the evaporator process the

191

conversion of Garcinia oil to its methyl ester was reached with optimized time, temperature then the biodiesel

192

efficiency was higher by the impact of batch process. Batch process results that lipase immobilized

193

transesterification process deserves higher yields of 93.08% Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester at 74hr of reaction

194

time. Subsequently, the collected immobilized TL was used with fresh substrate material for each cycle. Then

195

the stability of immobilized TL was analyzed by using batch transesterification of Garcinia oil with methanol

196

solution.

197

2.4 Test Engine Set-up

198

To analyze the combustion, performance and emission parameters of GGMS, experiments were

199

conducted in single cylinder TAF-1 model: kirloskar engine. This type of test engines was preferred since it is

200

widely used in industrial, agriculture and generator applications. It is an air-cooled engine, coupled with eddy

201

current dynamometer along with electrical resistance besides a dynamometer controller. The rated power and

202

constant speed of this engine is 5.2 kW at 1500rpm. Five gas analyzers QRO-402 model and QROTECH Co Ltd.,

203

Korea make analyzer were used to measure the concentration of tailpipe emissions, namely CO, CO2, NOx and

204

HC. Smoke emission was examined by an AVL 437 C smoke opacimeter. Highly equipped flow meter was

205

employed to measure the flow rate in every 20S. A piezo-electric pressure transducer of 7063-A model and kistler

206

make was installed to observe the cylinder pressure; to evaluate the pressure versus crank angle a flywheel was

207

linked with crank angle encoder that was fitted on the flywheel. A combustion analyzer (SeS) was installed. Since

208

the necessity of the analyzer, the encoder and charge amplifier kistler instruments AG, Switzerland make to host

209

the input signals from the test engine is illustrated in Fig 2. The test engine specification is illustrated in Table 4.

210

2.5 Uncertainty analysis

211

The uncertainty and error analysis are significant to ascertain the positive agreement in the experimental

212

measurements, various performance parameters and errors. By using the Holman principle of uncertainty

213

propagation [19], the analysis on certainty was made. So many factors like the test elevation, calibration,

7|Page

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

214

environment factor, reading, relative state, device selection and finally observation of uncertainties and errors.

215

The calculated uncertainty of various devices along with parameter is listed in Table 5 and Table 6. The value of

216

total uncertainty is derived as shown below:

217

Total uncertainty of the experiment

218

=

219

= + 1.491%

220

3. Results and Discussion

221

3.1 Brake thermal efficiency

U load 2  U BTE 2  UUBHC 2  U NOx 2  U CO 2  U Smoke 2  U Pressure 2

222

The thermal efficiency was focused as a most eminent performance characteristic for the test engine. In

223

general, it is defined as the combination of net indicated thermal efficiency and mechanical efficiency. Violability,

224

BTE of the Diesel engine is an independent variable to shorten heating value and BSFC of the test fuel. Fig 3

225

shows the variation of Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) for mineral Diesel and GGME- Diesel blends. In general,

226

BTE is influenced by distinct fuel characteristics like calorific value, oxygen content, cetane index and kinematic

227

viscosity. From the plot, it is observed that mineral Diesel fuel exhibits highest level of BTE throughout the engine

228

load spectrum followed by B10, B20, B30, B40 and B100 blends. It was inferred that, higher percentage of

229

GGME in Diesel fuel led to marginal drop in the thermal efficiency which occurred due to higher viscosity of the

230

fuel influenced inferior air entrainment and fuel spray which strongly affected the combustion process in the test

231

engine. In addition, lesser energy content of the biodiesel also influenced in the combustion. B10 blend exhibited

232

better results compared with the other blends due to air-fuel interaction, atomization of fuel, lower viscosity and

233

higher vaporization phase. The overall BTE trend revealed, up to 75% load condition. In terms of performance

234

B20 blend was similar to B10 blend; however, at 100% load, BTE dropped by 2.31% comparatively. From the

235

observation, it was found that BTE was higher for mineral Diesel (30.69%), followed by B10 (28.99%), B20

236

(28.32%), B30 (27.09%), B40 (26.87%), and B100 (25.68%) comparatively. For all the GGME–Diesel and B100

237

blends, BTE was lower than mineral Diesel fuel. Similar agreements were exhibited for various biodiesel blends

238

[20-25]. There are some possible reasons for lower BTE followed by higher BSEC due to the effect of lesser

239

indicated work, higher pumping and friction losses. At higher loads, these losses were eliminated therefore higher

240

indicated work with higher fuel constraint.

241

3.2 Brake Specific Energy Consumption

242

BSEC validates the quantum of energy taken from the input test fuel on the basis of shaft power acquired

243

by the test engine. In general, cylinder wall temperature of the test engine is increased; correspondingly energy

244

consumption will decrease with increase in power output for the complete test fuel blends. Fig.4 shows Brake

245

Specific Energy Consumption (BSEC) with respect to applied brake power for all the GGME biodiesels and

246

mineral Diesel. Compared with B100, B10 indicates descent energy consumption about 25.29% and 15.46% at

247

lower load and higher load conditions respectively. This is due to fuel viscosity and calorific value of B10 mixture

248

and it seems to be closer to mineral Diesel. It is also observed that BSEC decreases with increase in load condition

8|Page

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

249

due to minimal heating value, higher mass flow, and viscosity of the biodiesel. B100 blend shows higher BSEC

250

of 33.15 MJ/kWh and 14.91 MJ/kWh at part load and full load conditions respectively. At peak load condition

251

signify BSEC of B100 is nearly 22.07 % higher than that of mineral Diesel. This could be the reason of enhanced

252

BTE followed by lesser ignition delay period. This is in agreement with previous findings with various biodiesels

253

[20-23]. In addition, greater density of GGME yields higher fuel discharge for identical movement of plunger

254

associated with the fuel pump. This might be the reason for higher BSEC attainment for GGME blend.

255

3.3 Cylinder pressure rise

256

During the compression operation in CI engines, the highest cylinder pressure was advanced by the test

257

fuel and it mainly depends on the fast burning rate of the test fuel that occurs during the premixed combustion

258

phase. Cylinder pressure plays a significant role in probing the combustion characteristics. The key factors that

259

are involved in manipulating the cylinder pressure variation includes air-fuel reaction rate, cetane index and

260

viscosity, increasing ID, larger fuel accumulation in Premixed Combustion Phase (PCP), faster combustion rate

261

and higher peak pressure. Fig.5 shows the plot of in-cylinder pressure (bar) versus crank angle (degree) at variable

262

peak load spectrum. It is observed that, the cylinder pressure subjected to entire GGME- Diesel blend reveals

263

lower pressure range than that of mineral Diesel fuel, elsewhere higher percentage of blend results in significant

264

drop in the trend. Among all the blends, B100 results in lower peak pressure, while higher peak pressure is noticed

265

for mineral Diesel. This is, perhaps due to poor evaporation rate, which is the result of lower calorific value, higher

266

density and poor atomization of GGME blends [26-27]. It might be influences in vaporization and fuel-air mixing.

267

Finally, cylinder pressure for all the GGME blends exhibits declined range in compared with mineral diesel fuel.

268

This is because of Garcinia gummi-gutta methyl ester fuel properties and its blends results in higher cetane number

269

is compared with mineral diesel fuel. So, due to this reason ignition delay of the biodiesel was lowered followed

270

by lessened fuel accumulation during the combustion stroke.

271

3.4 Heat release rate variation

272 273

The model is shown in equation 1

dQn   dV   1 dP   P V    Qlw . d   -1 d    -1 d 

(1)

274 dQn = Net heat release rate (J/ºCA), V=Instantaneous volume in (m3), θ = Crank angle in degree, γ = d

275

Where,

276

Ratio in specific heats in Cp/Cv(KJ/kgK), P = Instantaneous pressure in (N/m2). The variables Q lw . Q lw and

277

dQn = Blow by loss, γ = Temperature are assessed by Rakopoulas [28]. The gross HRR is consider as d

278

dQg dQn dQlw = + dθ dθ dθ

•

(2)

•

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9|Page

dQlw is related to sum of heat transfer rate to combustion walls [29]. By using some d

279

In the above equation

280

correlation associated with the first law of thermodynamics, model equation is being used to calculate the HRR

281

at every crank angle. Fig 6 exhibits the plot of heat release rate (HRR) of GGME blends with regard to crank

282

angle. From the plot it was noticed that the influence of GGME and its various blending ratios does not have

283

consistent HRR trend throughout the crank angle. On account of higher fuel vaporization phase was occurred

284

during the ignition delay period. At initial stage combustion HRR peaks has negative value for all the test fuel

285

blends. However, the combustion started, the HRR peak shows positive value and precedes a similar trend for DI

286

Diesel engine. This was inferred by simultaneous process of premixed and diffusion combustion phase. Lower

287

HRR prevails due to minimal calorific value, higher cetane number and shortened ignition delay [30]. It is also

288

occurring due to the influence of unsaturated fatty acid that leads to aerosolized biodiesel into small nuclei leading

289

to larger spray angle compared with mineral Diesel. By equate with mineral Diesel HRR for biodiesel blends

290

shows B10 (9.77%), B20 (10.25%), B30 (17.32%), B40 (18.12%) and finally B100 (18.47%) respectively.

291

Meanwhile, during the diffusion burring phase of GGME-Diesel blends inferred higher in range with mineral

292

Diesel. This could be attributed to excess O2 content followed by increased heating value in the fuel [31]. It is also

293

observed that during the diffusion combustion phase, the HRR of B20 and B40 were found to be higher than

294

mineral diesel fuel. This could be attributed to earlier start of injection followed by lowered peak HRR and more

295

diffusion burning. Heat release rate of B10 blend stays closer to Diesel due to its calorific value and it is almost

296

nearer to mineral Diesel.

297

4. Unburned hydrocarbon (UBHC)

298

The level of completeness in fuel combustion can be indicated by unburned hydrocarbon emission

299

UBHC; is a direct indication of incomplete combustion while CO is an indirect source. Generally, HC emissions

300

are less when fueled with biodiesel blends because of higher cetane index and oxygen content [32-38]. Some

301

intensity results even showed HC reduction up to 65% in comparison with Diesel [33-34, 39]. With increasing

302

percentage of biodiesel [36] and increasing chain length [37, 42], HC emission was found to reduce when the

303

amount of oxygen content and cetane number increased, delay period was reduced which caused increase in the

304

percentage of fuel accumulation in the combustion chamber followed by lesser fuel loss, improved rate of

305

combustion and lesser quenching loss resulting in lowered HC emissions [40-42]. The plot of UBHC (ppm)

306

against brake power (kW) is shown in Fig 7. For increasing concentration of mineral Diesel, B10, B20, B30 and

307

B40 blends results marginal increment in the UBHC emission was observed at part and full load spectrum. This

308

could be due to the existence of oxygen molecules in the B100 fuel blend yields, enhanced combustion followed

309

by lesser UBHC formation. Further, oxygen content of GGME enhances certain favorable effects, namely post-

310

flame oxidation, superior flame speed and higher air-fuel mixing rate. The influence of fuel-rich regions revealed

311

improved oxidation of unburned UBHC, thereby reducing UBHC emission. At peak load spectrum, higher UBHC

312

was noticed for mineral Diesel (66.1 ppm), B10 (60.98 ppm), B20 (59.9 ppm), B30 (59.2 ppm), B40 (58.1 ppm)

313

and finally B100 (56.8 ppm) accordingly. Higher levels of UBHC emission were attributed to higher viscosity,

314

density, poor atomization of the fuel blends. By evaluate with mineral Diesel, all the GGME blends causes adverse

315

effect on the declined range of UBHC emission; as a result of integrated reaction of higher cetane number and

10 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

316

higher-cylinder pressure. Thus, higher cetane number of the fuel liberate lessened burning delay period thereby

317

improving the combustion followed by lowered UBHC formation.

318

4.1 Carbon monoxide (CO)

319

Whenever there is deficit oxygen for transforming the carbon to carbon dioxide, the hydrocarbon

320

molecule does not get combusted completely resulting in tangible carbon content ending up as carbon monoxide.

321

In addition, various discrepancies like local rich regions, poor mixing and partial combustion act as a CO

322

formation resource. CO emissions were found to reduce with increasing chain length [41, 42] increasing cetane

323

number [43], engine speed [44]. When the amount of oxygen increases, these discrepancies can be overcome by

324

complete combustion and lesser CO formation can be achieved [35, 43]. Fig.8 depicts the carbon monoxide

325

emission versus brake power for all the fuel GGME Diesel blends. The data shown in figure 8, for increasing fuel

326

blend at decrement and increment engine loads has negligible issue on the carbon monoxide emission as a result

327

of higher lean mixing rate followed by deficit air [45, 46]. This event was attributed to O2 molecules in the test

328

fuel promoting the combustion of CO in higher extent [47]. Normally, BSFC is compensated by higher oxygen

329

content that facilitates higher homogenous mixture which in turn forms less fuel – rich zones, leading to complete

330

combustion. In addition, higher cetane index of the fuel yields, shorter ignition delay resulting in improved

331

combustion. For B20 blend CO emission was ultimately lower due to saturated level and increased carbon chain

332

length. By inspecting the various ranges of different fuels, mineral Diesel and B10 have higher value at peak load.

333

4.2 Carbon dioxide (CO2)

334

Carbon dioxide is an elementary source of GHG (Green House Gas) emission which is a commodity of

335

complete combustion of a HC fuel (Combination effect of both CO2 and H2O leads to complete combustion

336

process). CO2 is a very essential gas for plants and trees for their growth and photo-synthesis. When a bio-fuel is

337

combusted, the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere is simply re-circulated and do not add to the atmosphere,

338

whereas combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon atoms that were stored in subterranean region and CO2 gets

339

added up into the atmosphere [48]. Biodiesel fuel combustion emits higher CO2 due to higher O2 content and

340

relative lower C/H ratio. Some studies on the contrary were also reported where the biodiesel combustion lowered

341

the CO2 emission in comparison to Diesel fuel combustion [49-50]. Fig.9 portrays the CO2 emission versus applied

342

brake power for all the test fuels. The plot shows that increasing concentration of GGME blends cause higher CO2

343

emission for the entire engine load spectrum. At peak load condition, it was noticed that CO2 emission was higher

344

for B100 (3.99%) followed by B40 (3.89%), B30 (3.77%), B20 (3.8%) and B10 (3.7%) in comparison with

345

mineral Diesel (3.51%). The influence of O2 content in the fuel facilitates complete combustion of the fuel.

346

Moreover, increased ppm of CO2 emission might be nullified by the natural sources through the plantation of the

347

biodiesel species in the earth. Earlier combustion, lower heating value, higher expansion and more reaction time

348

for converting CO to CO2 are all the possible parameters resulting in higher CO2 emission formation.

349

4.3 Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

350

CI engines are prone to NOx formation tendency since they operate at higher excess air ratios. Oxides of

351

nitrogen are composed of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrogen oxide (NO). Production of NOx chiefly depends

352

on O2 reactions, cylinder temperature and equivalence ratio [51]. Higher cetane indexed fuel reduces the

11 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

353

possibility of pre-mixed combustion phase by deteriorated delay period followed by lower NOx formation [52-

354

53]. The various reasons associated with higher NOx emissions are (i) lowered radiation heat transfer, (ii) higher

355

adiabatic flame temperature (iii) faster burning rate and (iv) availability of inbuilt excess oxygen [54]. Fig.10

356

displays the variation of Nitrogen oxide (NOx) with respect to brake power for all the GGME-Diesel blends. For

357

the entire load spectrum, increased concentration of blends reveals higher NOx emission and reaches their highest

358

level at peak load. This could be the reason for Zeldovic mechanism, higher peak pressure, greater In-cylinder

359

temperature, availability of oxygen [55] and may be due to lower cetane rated fuel followed by rich air/fuel ratio.

360

The variation at part load and full load conditions displays higher NOx emission signifying the availability of rich

361

core region revealing that excess fuel was supplied by the injector. Thus, consistent higher temperature prevails

362

because of oxygen enrichment in the blends [56]. These are the feasible factors for higher NOx emission for

363

GGME – Diesel blends. Meanwhile, B100 and B40 blend shows higher NOx emission due to combined effect of

364

higher combustion rate owned by rapid combustion. The optimized B20 blend reveals 15.93% lowered NOx

365

emission against B100 blend.

366

4.4 Smoke opacity

367

Smoke emission from the CI engine depends mainly on engine load because with increasing engine load,

368

air-fuel ratio reduces as a result of more fuel taking part in combustion which overall contributes to the overall

369

pressure of more rich mixture zones and higher diffusion burning causing excess smoke [57]. Factors like high

370

density and high viscosity tend to increase the smoke emissions, especially at higher engine loads, where reaction

371

time is less and fuel accumulation is more [58]. There is always a trade-off existing between NOx and smoke

372

emissions being lower and is vice-versa. This is because temperature, air-fuel mixing, fuel atomization, diffusion

373

combustion and ignition delay play “repulsion effect” between NOx and smoke emission. Fig.11 shows the

374

variation of smoke opacity with brake power for all the test fuel blends. From the plot, it was cleared that, in

375

comparison with diesel, lowered smoke emissions were observed for higher GGME blend ratios at entire engine

376

load spectrum. In thus, at peak load higher smoke emission was acquired for mineral Diesel followed by B10

377

(72.8 HSU), B20 (71.85 HSU), B30 (69.15 HSU), B40 (62.85 HSU) and the lowest smoke is observed in case of

378

B100 (60.7 HSU). This indicates lower stoichiometric ratio at peak load condition, higher percentage of fuel in

379

the combustion chamber which in turn gives greater unburned fuels in the tailpipe emission [59]. Moreover, higher

380

smoke opacity is owing to numerous parameters like mismatched injection, worn, clogged, lack of injection timing

381

and injection pressure and some fault arising in fuel and air filters. This also can be attributed to lowered flame

382

temperature and poor mixing rates of the biodiesel besides the presence of aromatic component, lower ignition

383

delay and higher soot oxidation [60]. On the contrary, at peak load the smoke produced by B40(62.85 HSU) and

384

B100(60.7 HSU) blends were marginally lower in comparison with mineral Diesel signifying the influence of

385

better combustion, higher oxygen presence, and lower volatility of the fuel [61].

386

Conclusion:

387

The current article presented a novel approach of lipase-based catalyst immobilized transesterification

388

process. The prime objective of this experimental research work is to investigate the combustion, performance

389

and tailpipe emission characteristics of a single cylinder, kirloskar make TAF-1 model, four strokes, and air-

390

cooled DI Diesel engine fueled with Gracinia-gummi gutta biodiesel and with other fuel blends. Various physical

12 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

391

and chemical properties of GGME blends were tested with ASTM standard methods. The following conclusions

392

were drawn based on the experimental results as follows:

393



Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil was extracted by mechanical expeller and transesterification reaction was

394

performed with novel lipase enzyme linked bio-catalyst reaction and it yields 93.08% of GGME at 74hr

395

of reaction time.

396



In terms of engine performance raw GGME and its blends displayed lower BTE trend and B20 exhibits

397

28.32% decreasing in BTE in comparison with mineral Diesel fuel and for BSEC B20 blend shows minor

398

deviation against mineral Diesel at peak load.

399



400 401

Raw GGME and its blends caused lower trend in cylinder pressure and HRR owing to poor evaporation, lower CV followed by lack of atomization which results in shortened ID and period.



Raw GGME and its blends lowered the CO emission because of its higher lean mixture and improved

402

O2 content. Lower UBHC and smoke opacity were observed for GGME-Diesel blends due to lower

403

ignition delay period, higher O2 presence followed by complete combustion of the test fuel. The tailpipe

404

emission level of NOx and CO2 were comparatively higher than mineral Diesel fuel owing to higher

405

temperature prevails inside the cylinder and early combustion.

406 407



Finally, B20 blend found to be exhibiting a trend closer to mineral Diesel trend, which was a good sign for DI Diesel engine at 1500 rpm.

408

Based on the above evidences, Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil was found to be a potentially powerful

409

biodiesel feedstock for DI Diesel engine. Thus, GGME blend B20 (80% Diesel+ 20% biodiesel) showcased as a

410

chief alternative fuel profile for Diesel engine in the research field.

411

Acknowledgement

412

The authors express their gratitude to the University Grants Commission (UGC) for providing financial

413

grant for this research work. The corresponding authors also would like to thank the Head of the Department and

414

the staff members of Automobile Engineering Department, MIT campus, Anna University, Chennai, for lending

415

support during experimentation and the Centre for Nanotechnology, Anna University for helping in the process

416

of characterization of nanoparticles.

417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13 | P a g e 425

Abbreviation CI

Compression Ignition

CO

Carbon monoxide

NOx

Oxides of Nitrogen

CO2

Carbon dioxide

HC

Hydro Carbon

BSEC

Brake Specific Energy Consumption

BTE

Brake Thermal Efficiency

GGME

Gracinia gummi-gutta Methyl Ester

ASTM

American Society for Testing and Materials

HRR

Heat Release Rate

UBHC

Unburned Hydrocarbon

H2O

Water

HSU

Hartridge Smoke Units

O2

Oxygen

CA

Crank Angle

426 427

Symbols and Nomenclature v

Instantaneous heat release rate, N/m2

P

Instantaneous cylinder volume

θ

Crank angle in degree



Specific heat in ratio (Cp/Cv), KJ/kgK •

Q lw dQg dθ

Blow-by loss

Gross heat release rate

14 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

dQn dθ

Net heat release rate

dQlw dθ

Combustion chamber walls heat release rate

428 429 430

References:

431

[1] Prediction of energy consumption world-wide, http://timeforchange.org/prediction-of-energy-consumption/;

432

2007.

433

[2] Yusuf N.N.A.N, Kamarudin S.K, Yaakub Z, 2011. “Overview on the current trends in biodiesel production”,

434

Energy Conversion and Management; vol.52: pp.2741–2751.

435

[3] Agarwal A.K, Rajamanoharan K, 2007. “Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal

436

combustion engines”, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science; vol.33:pp.233–71.

437

[4] Singh S.P, Singh D, 2010. “Biodiesel production through the use of different sources and characterization of

438

oils and their esters as the substitute of diesel: a review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews;

439

vol.14:pp.200–16.

440

[5] Umer Rashid, Farooq Anwar, Bryan R. Moser, Gerhard Knothe, 2008. “Moringa oleifera oil: a possible source

441

of biodiesel”, Bioresource Technology; vol. 99: pp.8175–8179.

442

[6] Ahmad A.L, Yasin NHM, Derek CJC, Lim J.K, 2011. “Microalgae as a sustainable energy source for biodiesel

443

production: a review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; 15:pp.584–93.

444

[7] Atabani A.E, Silitong A.S, Badruddin I.A, Mahlia T.M.I, Masjuki H.H, Mekhilef S.A, 2012. “Comprehensive

445

review on biodiesel as an alternative energy source and its characteristics. Renew”,Sust. Energy Rev;

446

vol.16:pp.2070-2093.

447

[8] Avinash Kumar Agarwal K, Rajamanoharan, 2009. “Experimental investigations of performance and

448

emissions of Karanja oil and its blends in a single cylinder agricultural diesel engine”,Applied Energy; vol. 86:pp.

449

106–112.

450

[9] Issariyakul Titipong, Dalai Ajay K, 2014. “Biodiesel from vegetable oils”, Renew Sustain – Energy Rev; vol.

451

31: pp. 446–71.

452

[10] I.M. Monirul, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, M.H. Mosarof, N.W.M. Zulkifli, Y.H. Teoh, H.G. How 2016,

453

‘Assessment of performance, emission and combustion characteristics of palm, jatropha and Calophyllum

454

inophyllum biodiesel blends’. Fuel 181 (2016) 985–995.

15 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

455

[11] Sunil Kumar, Alok Chaube, Shashi Kumar Jain, 2012. “Experimental evaluation of C.I. engine performance

456

using diesel blended with Jatropha biodiesel”,International journal of energy and environment; Vol.3, pp.471-

457

484.

458

[12] Sathiyamoorthi R, Sankaranarayanan G.Ḃ, 2014. “Experimental Investigation of Performance, Combustion

459

and Emission characteristics of neat Lemongrass oil in DI Diesel engine” ,International Journal of Current

460

Engineering and Technology; ISSN 2277 – 4106.

461

[13] Khiari K, Awad S, Loubar K, Tarabet L, Mahmoud R, Tazerout M, 2016. “Experimental investigation of

462

pistacia lentiscus biodiesel as a fuel for direct injection diesel engine”,Energy Conversion and Management;

463

vol.108 pp. 392–399.

464

[14] Mallikappa D.N, Rana Pratap Reddy, Murthy Ch.S.N, 2012. “Performance and emission characteristics of

465

double cylinder CI engine operated with cardanol bio fuel blends” ,Renewable Energy; vol.38 pp.150-154.

466

[15] Ayatallah Gharehghani, Mostafa Mirsalim, Reza Hosseini, 2017. “Effects of waste fish oil biodiesel on diesel

467

engine combustion characteristics and emission” ,Renewable Energy, vol.101 pp.930-936.

468

[16] Jayashri N Nair, Ajay Kumar Kaviti, Arun Kumar Daram, 2016. “Analysis of performance and emission on

469

compression ignition engine fuelled with blends of neem biodiesel” ,Egyptian Journal of Petroleum.

470

[17] Kakati J, Gogoi T.K, 2016. “Biodiesel production from Kutkura (Meyna spinosa Roxb. Ex.) fruit seed oil:

471

Its characterization and engine performance evaluation with 10% and 20% blends” ,Energy Conversion and

472

Management; vol.121 pp.152–161.

473

[18] Sanjid Ahmed, Masjuki Hj. Hassan, Md. Abul Kalam, Ashrafur Rahman S.M, Joynul Abedin Md,Ali Shahir,

474

2014.“An experimental investigation of biodiesel production, characterization, engine performance, emission and

475

noise of Brassica juncea methyl ester and its blends”, Journal of Cleaner Production; 79,74-81.

476

[19] Mohan B, Yang W, Chou SK, 2013. “Fuel injection strategies for performance improvement and emissions

477

reduction in compression ignition engines—A review”, Renew Sustain Energy Rev; 28:664–76.

478

[20] Dhinesh Balasubramanian, Sabari Rajan Sokkalingam Arumugam, Lingesan Subramani, Isaac

479

JoshuaRamesh Lalvani Joshua Stephen Chellakumar, Annamalai Mani, 2017. “A numerical study on the effect

480

of various combustion bowl parameters on the performance, combustion and emission behavior on a single

481

cylinder diesel engine”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research; DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-0565-2.

482

[21] Dhinesh B, Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Parthasarathy M, Annamalai K, 2016. “An assessment on

483

performance, emission and combustion characteristics of single cylinder diesel engine powered by Cymbopogon

484

flexuosus biofuel”, Energy Conversion and Management; 117 (2016) 466–474.

485

[22] Parthasarathy M, Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Dhinesh B, Annamalai K, 2016. “Effect of hydrogen on

486

ethanol–biodiesel blend on performance and emission characteristics of a direct injection diesel engine”,

487

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Volume 134, Part 2, December 2016, Pages 433-439.

16 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

488

[23] Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Parthasarathy M, Dhinesh B, Annamalai K, 2016. “Pooled Effect of Injection

489

Pressure and Turbulence Inducer Piston on Combustion, performance and Emission Characteristics of a D.I Diesel

490

Engine Powered with Biodiesel Blend”, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Volume 134, Part 2, December

491

2016, Pages 336-343.

492

[24] Elumalai P.V, Annamalai Kandasamy, Lingesan Subramani, Arularasu S, Appu Raja S, “Experimental

493

Investigation on Lemongrass Oil Water Emulsion in Low Heat Rejection Direct Ignition Diesel Engine" Journal

494

of Testing and Evaluation, ASTM publication (Article In press).

495

[25] Schumacher L.G, Borgelt S.C, Fosseen D, Goetz W, Hires W.G, 1996. “Heavy-duty engine exhaust emission

496

tests using methyl ester soybean oil/diesel fuel blends”, Bioresource Technology; vol.57, pp.31-36.

497

[26] Moreno F, Munoz M, Morea-Roy J, 1999. “Sunflower methyl ester as a fuel for automobile diesel

498

engines”,Transactions of the ASAE;vol.42, pp.1181.

499

[27] Bhupendra Singh Chauhan, Naveen Kumar, Haeng Muk Cho, 2012. “A study on the performance and

500

emission of a diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends”, Energy; vol. 37, pp. 616-622.

501

[28] Rakopoulos D.C, 2012. “Heat release analysis of combustion in heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine

502

operating on blends of diesel fuel with cottonseed or sunflower oils and their bio-diesel” ,Fuel; vol.96, pp.524-

503

534.

504

[29] Sahoo B.B, Sahoo N, Saha U.K, 2009. “Effect of engine parameters and type of gaseous fuel on the

505

performance of dual-fuel gas diesel engines—A critical review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy

506

Reviews;13(6), pp.1151-1184.

507

[30] Mazumdar B, Agarwal A.K, 2008. “Performance, emission and combustion characteristics of biodiesel

508

(waste cooking oil methyl ester) fueled IDI diesel engine” (No. 2008-01-1384); SAE Technical Paper

509

[31] Serrano L.M, Camara R.M, Carreira V.J, Da Silva M.G, 2012. “Performance study about biodiesel impact

510

on buses engines using dynamometer tests and fleet consumption data”, Energy Conversion and

511

Management; vol.60, pp.2-9.

512

[32] Sukumar Puhan, Vedaraman N, Sankaranarayanan G, Boppana V, Bharat Ram, 2005. “Performance and

513

emission study of Mahua oil (madhuca indica oil) ethyl ester in a 4-stroke natural aspirated direct injection diesel

514

engine”,Renewable Energy; vol.30 pp.1269–1278.

515

[33] Ahmet Necati Ozsezen, Mustafa Canakci, Ali Turkcan, Cenk Sayin, 2009. “Performance and combustion

516

characteristics of a DI diesel engine fueled with waste palm oil and canola oil methyl esters” ,Fuel; vol.88, pp.629–

517

636.

518

[34] Ekrem Buyukkaya, 2010, “Effects of biodiesel on a DI diesel engine performance, emission and combustion

519

characteristics”, Fuel; 89, pp.3099–3105.

17 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

520

[35] Metin Guru I. Al-Widyan, Ghassan Tashtoush, Moh’d Abu-Qudais, 2002. “Utilization of ethyl ester of waste

521

vegetable oils as fuel in diesel engines”, Fuel Processing Technology; vol.76, pp. 91– 103.

522

[36] Ghobadian B, Rahimi H, Nikbakht A.M, Najafi G, Yusaf T.F, 2009. “Diesel engine performance and exhaust

523

emission analysis using waste cooking biodiesel fuel with an artificial neural network” ,Renewable Energy;

524

vol.34, pp. 976–982.

525

[37] Sharanappa Godiganur C.H, Suryanarayana Murthy, Rana Prathap Reddy, 2009. “Cummins engine

526

performance and emission tests using methyl ester mahua (Madhuca indica) oil/diesel blends” ,Renewable

527

Energy; vol.34, pp.2172–2177.

528

[38] Sahoo P.K, Das L.M, Babu M.K.G, Arora P, Singh V.P, Kumar N.R, Varyani T.S, 2009. “Comparative

529

evaluation of performance and emission characteristics of jatropha, karanja and polanga based biodiesel as fuel in

530

a tractor engine” ,Fuel, vol.88, pp.1698–1707.

531

[39] Hasan ozgunay, Selime Colak, Gokhan Zengin, ozcan Sari, Hasan Sarikahya, Levent Yuceer, 2007.

532

“Performance and emission study of biodiesel from leather industry pre-fleshings”,Waste Management; vol. 27,

533

pp.1897–1901.

534

[40] Banapurmath, N.R, Tewaria, P.G, Hosmath, R.S, 2008. “Performance and emission characteristics of a DI

535

compression ignition engine operated on Honge, Jatropha and sesame oil methyl esters”, Renewable Energy;

536

vol.33, pp.1982–1988.

537

[41] Usta, N 2005. “An experimental study on performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with

538

tobacco seed oil methyl ester” ,Energy Conversion and Management; vol.46, pp. 2373–2386.

539

[42]Deepak Agarwal, Shailendra Sinha, Avinash Kumar Agarwal, 2006. “Experimental investigation of control

540

of NOx emissions in biodiesel-fueled compression ignition engine” ,Renewable Energy;vol.31, pp.2356–2369.

541

[43] Metin Guru, Atilla Koca, Ozer Can, Can Cınar, Fatih Sahin, 2010. “Biodiesel production from waste chicken

542

fat based sources and evaluation with Mg based additive in a diesel engine” ,Renewable Energy; vol.35, pp.637–

543

643.

544

[44] Qi D.H, Geng L.M, Chen H, Bian Y.ZH, Liu J, Ren X.CH, 2009. “Combustion and performance evaluation

545

of a diesel engine fueled with biodiesel produced from soybean crude oil”, Renewable Energy; vol.34, pp.2706–

546

2713.

547

[45] Abu-Jrai A, Tsolakis K, Theinnoi R, Cracknell A, Megaritis M. L, Wyszynski, Golunski, 2006. “Effect of

548

Gas-to-Liquid Diesel Fuels on Combustion Characteristics, Engine Emissions, and Exhaust Gas Fuel Reforming

549

Comparative Study” ,Energy & Fuels; vol.20, pp.2377-2384.

550

[46]Lapuerta M, Armas O, Rodriguez-Fernandez J, 2008. “Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine

551

emissions”,Prog. Energy Combust;Vol. 34, pp.198-223.

18 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

552

[47]Ozener O, Yuksek L, Ergenc A.T, Ozkan M, 2014. “Effects of soybean biodiesel on a DI diesel engine

553

performance, emission and combustion characteristics” ,Fuel; vol.115 pp. 875-883.

554

[48] The benefits of biofuels. Np., n.d. Web.15 Apr.2014.
555

biofuels/fact_biodiesel.htm>.>.

556

[49] Sahoo P.K, Das L.M, Babu M.K.G, Naik S.N, 2007. “Biodiesel development from high acid value polanga

557

seed oil and performance evaluation in a CI engine”, Fuel; vol.86, pp.448–454.

558

[50] Cherng-Yuan Lin, Hsiu-An Lin, 2007. “Engine performance and emission characteristics of a three-phase

559

emulsion of biodiesel produced by peroxidation” ,Fuel Processing Technology;vol.88, pp. 35–41.

560

[51] Ajav E.A, Bachchan Singh, Bhattacharya T. K, 1998. “Performance of a stationary diesel engine using

561

vapourized ethanol as supplementary fuel” ,Biomass and Bioenergy;vol.15, pp. 493-502.

562

[52] Niraj Kumar, Varun, Sant Ram Chauhan, 2013. “Performance and emission characteristics of biodiesel from

563

different origins: A review”,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews;vol.21, pp.633–658.

564

[53] Kalligeros S, Zannikos F, Stournas S, Lois E, Anastopoulos G, Teas Ch, Sakellaropoulos F, 2003. “An

565

investigation of using biodiesel/marine diesel blends on the performance of a stationary diesel engine” ,Biomass

566

and Bioenergy; vol.24, pp.141 – 149.

567

[54] Lakshmi Narayana Rao G, Durga Prasad B, Sampath S, Rajagopal K, 2007. “Combustion Analysis of Diesel

568

EngineFueled with Jatropha Oil Methyl Ester - Diesel Blends”, International Journal of Green Energy; vol.46,

569

pp.645-658.

570

[55] Agarwal D, Agarwal AK, 2007. “Performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha oil (preheated and

571

blends) in a direct injection compression ignition engine” ,Appl Therm Engg; vol.27,pp.2314–23.

572

[56] Xue J, Grift TE, Hansen AC, 2011. “Effect of biodiesel on engine performances and emissions”, Renew Sust

573

Energy; vol.15, pp.1098–116.

574

[57] Ozer Can, Ismet Celikten, Nazım Usta, 2004. “Effects of ethanol addition on performance and emissions of

575

a turbocharged indirect injection Diesel engine running at different injection pressures”, Energy Conversion and

576

Management; vol.45, pp.2429–2440.

577

[58] Huseyin Aydin, Hasan Bayindir, 2010. “Performance and emission analysis of cottonseed oil methyl ester in

578

a diesel engine”, Renewable Energy; vol.35, pp.588–592.

579

[59] Gumus M, Kasifoglu S, 2009. “Performance and emission evaluation of a compression ignition engine using

580

a biodiesel (apricot seed kernel oil methyl ester) and its blends with diesel fuel” ,Biomass Bio-energy; vol.34

581

pp.134–139.

582

[60] Kasiraman G, Nagalingam B, Balakrishnan M, 2012. “Performance, emission and combustion improvements

583

in a direct injection diesel engine using cashew nut shell oil as fuel with camphor oil blending” ,Energy; vol.47,

584

pp.116-124.

19 | P a g e

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

585

[61] Silitonga A.S, Masjuki H.H, Mahlia T.M.I, Hwai Chyuan Ong, Chong W.T, 2013. “Experimental study on

586

performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with Ceiba pentandra biodiesel blends” ,Energy

587

Conversion and Management; vol.76, pp.828–836.

588

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT List of figure captions Fig 1

Oil extraction process of raw GG oil from Garcinia tree seed of (a) Gracinia Tree (b) Younger Gracinia fruit (c) Younger Gracinia seed (d) Ripe Gracinia fruit (e) Ripe Gracinia seed (f) Gracinia seed collection (g) Dried seed (h) Mechanical Expeller (i) Gracinia seed oil

Fig 2

Experimental kirloskar engine setup for GGME investigation

Fig 3

Variation of Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) with regard to Brake power for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 4

Variation of Brake Specific Energy Consumption (BSEC) with regard to Brake power for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 5

Variation of cylinder pressure with regard to crank angle for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 6

Variation of heat release rate with regard to crank angle for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 7

Variation of UBHC with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 8

Variation of Carbon monoxide with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 9

Variation of carbon dioxide with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 10

Variation of oxides of nitrogen with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

Fig 11

Variation of smoke opacity with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

Fig.1 Oil extraction process of Raw Garcinia gummi-gutta oil from Garcinia tree seed of (a) Gracinia Tree (b) Younger Gracinia fruit (c) Younger Gracinia seed (d) Ripe Gracinia fruit (e) Ripe Gracinia seed (f) Gracinia seed collection (g) Dried seed (h) Mechanical Expeller (i) Gracinia seed oil

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 2 Experimental kirloskar engine setup for GGME investigation

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 3 Variation of Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) with regard to Brake power for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 4 Variation of Brake Specific Energy Consumption (BSEC) with regard to Brake power for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 5 Variation of cylinder pressure with regard to crank angle for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 6 Variation of heat release rate with regard to crank angle for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.7 Variation of UBHC with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.8 Variation of Carbon monoxide with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.9 Variation of carbon dioxide with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.10 Variation of oxides of nitrogen with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.11 Variation of smoke opacity with regards to brake power for various GGME fuel blends

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights 

Raw Garcinia gummi-gutta seed oil was extracted by mechanical expeller and achieved the higher yield of 93.08% at 73 hours of reaction time.



Transesterification was done by novel lipase enzyme linked biocatalyst reaction.



Raw GGME and its blends displayed lower BTE and higher BSEC at peak load condition in comparison with mineral Diesel.



Raw GGME obtained lower trend for In-cylinder pressure and Heat Release Rate (HRR) in comparison with mineral Diesel.



Higher CO2, UBHC, NOx, and smoke opacity along with lowered CO emission were observed for raw GGME and its blends at peak load condition.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT List of Various Table Caption Table 1

Properties of Garcinia Gummi-gutta methyl ester

Table 2

Physicochemical properties of raw Garcinia Gummi-gutta seed oil

Table 3

Chemical composition of Garcinia Gummi-gutta seed oil

Table 4

Kirolskar engine specification

Table 5

Uncertainty of various measuring instruments

Table 6

Uncertainty of different measuring parameters

Table1 Properties of Garcinia Gummi-gutta methyl ester Sl.No

Test Fuel Properties

Units

Diesel

B10

B20

B30

B40

GGME B100

1.

Density @ 15°C

g/cm3

0.830

0.871

0.863

0.861

0.847

0.878

2.

Viscosity @ 40°C

mm2/s

3.2

4.62

4.51

4.33

4.15

4.83

3.

Flash point

°C

70.0

93.6

90.7

88.4

85.6

96.2

4.

Cetane Number

-

46

51.2

50.7

50.3

49.5

52

5.

Higher heating value

MJ/Kg

43.82

40.52

40.81

41.28

41.61

40.28

6.

Ash Content

%

0.01

0.026

0.025

0.023

0.021

0.03

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2 Physicochemical properties of raw Garcinia Gummi-gutta seed oil Sl.No

Component

GG seed oil

1

Color

Pale yellow

2

Specific gravity

0.89

3

Refractive Index

1.462

4

Acid Value (mg NaOH/g)

5.04

5

Saponification value (mg KOH/g)

145.36

6

Free fatty acid (%) as oleic acid

11.50

7

Iodine value (g/100 g)

131.0

8

Peroxide value (meq/g)

3.73

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Chemical composition of Garcinia Gummi-gutta seed oil Sl.No

Fatty acid

Fatty acid

methyl

Fatty acid ratio

ester 1.

10,13-

Myristic

trimethyl

acid

27.285:50

Carbon number 14:0

myristate

EI

Mol.

mass(m/z)

Formula

270(M+),2

C17H 34O2

Pubchem

IUPAC name

Class compound

CID/CAS 267650-23-7

of

Tetradecanoic

Saturated

42,227,143

acid,10,13-

,74

dimethyl-, methyl ester

2.

Methyl linoleate

3.

Methyl

Linoleic

1.54:50

18:2

C19H34O2

900336-44-2

64,234,109

acid

Oleic acid

294(M+),2

18:1

oleate

296(M+),2

Polyunsaturated

12-cis-

,67

19.51:50

Methyl 10-trans,

octadecadienoate C19H36O2

900336-41-6

66,223,83,

Methyl

13-

octadecenoate

Monounsaturated

55 4.

16 dimethyl margarate

5.

Margaric

1.055:50

17:0

acid

Methyl

Arachidic

arachidate

acid

0.61:50

20:0

298(M+),2

C19H38O2

900336-38-6

Methyl

16-

25,241,143

methyl-

,87

heptadecanoate

326(M+),2 83,269,227 ,74

C21H42O2

1120-28-1

Methyl eicosanoate

Saturated

Saturated

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 4 Kirolskar engine specification Make

Kirolskar TAF-1

Type

Four stroke, single cylinder DI diesel engine

Cooling type

Air Cooled

Bore

86.6 mm

Stroke

112 mm

Compression ratio

17.6:1

Rated power and Rated

5.2 kW at 1500 rpm

Speed Injection timing

23deg before TDC

Nozzle

0.3mm and 1 nozzle

Piston geometry

Hemispherical

Swept volume

662 cc

Angle of fuel spray

120 deg

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 5 Uncertainty analysis of various measuring instruments Sl.no

Measured instrument

Percentage uncertainty (%)

1.

EGT

0.17

2.

Smoke Meter

1.01

3.

Pressure transducer

0.28

4.

Tachometer

0.40

5.

Manometer

1.7

6.

Stopwatch

0.4

Table 6 Uncertainty for different measuring parameters Sl.No

Measured parameters

Parentage uncertainty (%)

1. Load

0.3

2. BTE

1

3. UBHC

0.2

4. NOx

0.1

5. CO

0.2

6. Smoke

0.21

7. Pressure

1