energies

Article
Research of Parameters of a Compression Ignition Engine
Using Various Fuel Mixtures of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil
(HVO) and Fatty Acid Esters (FAE)
Oleksandra Shepel 1 , Jonas Matijošius 1, * , Alfredas Rimkus 1 , Kamil Duda 2 and Maciej Mikulski 3,4

1 Department of Automobile Engineering, Faculty of Transport Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical

University, J. Basanavičiaus Str. 28, LT-03224 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] (O.S.);
[email protected] (A.R.)
2 Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury, Oczapowskiego 11, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland;
[email protected]
3 School of Technology and Innovation, Energy Technology, University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34,
FI-65200 Vaasa, Finland; [email protected]
4 Vaasa Energy Business and Innovation Centre (VEBIC), Yliopistonranta 3, FI-65200 Vaasa, Finland
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +370-684-041-69

Abstract: The present study is aimed at studying the energy and environmental performance at
various engine loads (BMEP) with identical start of injection (SOI) for all fuel types. The combustion
parameters for the fuel mixtures were analyzed using the AVL BOOST software (BURN subrou-
tine). Five different blends were tested, consisting completely of renewable raw materials based on





 hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) and fatty acid methyl ester (FE100), and the properties of diesel
fuel (D) were compared with respect to these blends. The mixtures were mixed in the following
Citation: Shepel, O.; Matijošius, J.;
proportions: FE25 (FE25HVO75), FE50 (FE50HVO50), FE75 (FE75HVO25). In this study, diesel
Rimkus, A.; Duda, K.; Mikulski, M.
exhaust was found to produce higher NOx values compared to FE blends, with HVO being the
Research of Parameters of a
Compression Ignition Engine Using
lowest. Hydrocarbon and smoke emissions were also significantly lower for blends than for diesel.
Various Fuel Mixtures of Possible explanations are the physical properties and fatty acid composition of fuel mixtures, affect-
Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) ing injection and further combustion. The results showed that blends containing more unsaturated
and Fatty Acid Esters (FAE). Energies fatty acids release more nitrogen oxides, thus having a lower thermal efficiency compared to HVO.
2021, 14, 3077. https://doi.org/ No essential differences in CO emissions between D and HVO were observed. An increase in this
10.3390/en14113077 indicator was observed at low loads for mixtures with ester. CO2 was reduced in emissions for HVO
compared to the aforementioned blends and diesel. The results of the combustion analysis show
Academic Editor: Jamie W. G. Turner that with a high content of unsaturated fatty acids, mixtures have a longer combustion time than
diesel fuel.
Received: 29 April 2021
Accepted: 15 May 2021
Keywords: diesel engine; fatty acid esters; combustion; performance; emissions
Published: 25 May 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. As a result of active industrialization, there has been a huge increase in the consump-
tion of fossil fuels and, as a result, it threatens the ecological balance of the Earth [1,2].
The transport sector is the main source of more than one third of all environmental pollu-
tion [3,4]. In this regard, the European Environment Agency in its report “SOER-2020” [5]
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
focuses on the transformation of key systems for the rational use of energy resources,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
fundamental changes in the systems of production and consumption of fossil resources,
This article is an open access article
which are at the heart of environmental problems.
distributed under the terms and In modern conditions, road transport has taken an important place in human life,
conditions of the Creative Commons which has increased the dependence of humankind on energy [6,7]. Such a large number of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// diesel vehicles carry a heavy load on the environment [8]. The constantly growing global
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ energy consumption and global climate change in consequence of greenhouse gases have
4.0/). led to the need to look to find solutions for renewable energy sources [9–12].

Energies 2021, 14, 3077. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113077 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 3077 2 of 18

This led to the development of a new scientific direction based on the technological
stages and peculiarities of processing various types of raw materials to obtain renewable
and environmentally friendly fuels [8,13,14]. In many countries, conditions have been
created for industrial research of renewable fuels [15–17].
Biodiesel is one of the most budding substitutes for diesel fuel [14,18–21]. Biodiesel
can be made from vegetable oils, animal fats, waste oils and other raw materials by carrying
out the transesterification reaction with alcohol and a catalyst [2,22–31].
Biodiesel is called an “environmentally friendly” source of energy, since its impact on
the environment is much less compared to petroleum products [21,32]. Thus, the content
of aromatic hydrocarbons and other substances with carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic
properties for living organisms in biodiesel is lower than in petroleum products if it gets
into soil or water, as biodiesel is completely decomposed by microorganisms [33]. Biodiesel
is essentially free sulfur, which results in an essential reduction in SO2 emissions into
the atmosphere in contrast to conventional diesel fuel [34]. Due to the higher percent-
age of oxygen, the combustion process of biodiesel is much more efficient than diesel
fuel [35,36]. According to most studies [13,37–44], biodiesel significantly reduces the con-
tent of hydrocarbons, particulate matter, soot particles, carbon monoxide and aromatics in
the combustion exhaust gases compared to traditional diesel fuel.
Currently, the technological development of society allows us to focus on a gradual
transition from diesel fuel to more environmentally friendly biodiesel. The advantages of
biodiesel are that it does not require engine modifications [45,46]. Additionally, the key
aspects will be to reduce dependence on oil, which, firstly, will ensure national energy
security, and secondly, will protect the environment.
When operating an engine on biodiesel, there are a number of important aspects to
consider: physical and chemical properties, performance and exhaust emissions.
Higher viscosity biodiesel blends affect engine performance [47–49]. The increased
viscosity of the fuel results the operation of the fuel pumps and the filtration system, as a
result of which the fuel supply to the combustion chamber is disrupted, the combustion
efficiency decreases, and the fuel consumption increases [50,51]. On the other hand, it is
inversely proportional to the amount of acid double chains. This explains the high viscosity
values of biodiesel produced from highly saturated feedstocks [52]. For this reason, the
viscosity of biodiesel must be within the limits defined by international standards for
biodiesel. As can be seen from Table 1, the studied samples are within the norm in
accordance with the EN 14214 standard [26].

Table 1. Physicochemical properties of the analyzed fuels.

Sample D100 HVO100 FE25 FE50 FE75 FE100

Density at 15 ◦C [kg/m3 ] 823.00 776.00 800.30 824.60 848.90 873.20
Viscosity at 40 ◦ C [mm2 /s] 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.3
Sulphur content [mg/kg] 7.25 4.16 4.12 4.27 4.37 5.41
Water content [mg/kg] 85 20 120 150 400 460
Flash point, ◦ C 45 55 82 109 136 163
Hydrogen, % 0.1300 0.1520 0.1460 0.1400 0.1340 0.1280
Carbon, % 0.8700 0.8480 0.8233 0.7985 0.7738 0.7490
Oxygen, % 0.0000 0.0000 0.0308 0.0615 0.0923 0.1230
C/H 6,7% 5.7% 5.6% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8%
Lower Heating Value (LHV) [mg/kg] 42.70 43.70 42.30 41.05 39.53 38.00
Cetane number 45 76.89 69.95 64.52 59.41 58

One of main properties of the fuel is also density, which can be related to a number
of other properties, for instance the cetane number, which is a parameter indicating the
ignition delay time of the fuel. The sulfur content of biodiesel blends declines as the
percentage of biodiesel increases [44].
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 3 of 18

Investigation was controlled on a single-cylinder diesel engine by Jayaprabakar et al. [53]

which used rice bran and algal methyl ester biodiesel mixtures with time-variable injection.
Biodiesel blends have demonstrated poor fuel consumption for rice bran methyl ester
mixtures to compare with algal methyl ester. However, BTE was increased for mixture
with rice brain as opposed to algal methyl ester on account of higher calorific value.
Mikulski et al. [54] used a four-cycle common rail diesel engine for research the swine lard
methyl esters. It was noted that brake specific fuel consumption was increasing for the
B25, B50, B75 blends by an average of 3.2%, 8.5%, 13.8%, respectively. Thus, addition of
methyl ester increased the BSFC. It was accounted for lower heating values compared
with diesel fuel and decreased ignition delay of the experimental blends. On the other
hand, was showed the rise in BTE values on increasing biodiesel percent that can explain
by the heating values of fuel mixtures. Another result for brake thermal efficiency was
observed [55] to research of waste fried oil methyl ester in proportions of B50, B90, and
B100. The higher the concentration of the mixture, the lower BTE was compared to mineral
diesel. This conceivable explained by higher viscosity of blends. It should be noted that
in another study [56], brake thermal efficiency for waste cooking oil was most lowest
compared with diesel but for WCO emulsion was slightly higher. The cause can be poor
combustion of the injected fuel due to high density and viscosity. Isik et al. [57] studied
the n-butanol addition to waste cooking oil biodiesel with diesel fuel. For blend B20 with
WCO/diesel, BSFC had highest values to compare with testing forn-butanol fuel with
10% and waste cooking oil also with 10% biodiesel/diesel. This could be attributed to the
oxygen attend in the B20 that upgrades the combustion feature but have poor atomization.
Chuah et al. [58] carried out experiments on a six cylinder internal combustion engine and
found that BSFC of waste cooking oil methyl ester linearly increased due to the increased
percentage fuel blends. However, BTE was slightly lower level for all mixtures to compare
with diesel fuel at low and high engine loads.
The literature review based on the research of combustion characteristics involving
such as cylinder pressure, rate of heat release and ignition delay, were studied at [54,58–61].
In this investigation, we found results indicating that the combustion of the biodiesel
fuel began a little while later in compare of the diesel fuel. This can be explained due to
longer injection delay of the biodiesel in contrast to the diesel fuel. Biodiesel, as known,
has higher viscosity as opposed to diesel fuel and this important feature leads to higher
rubbing around the needle injector [62]. This slow needle motion, and as a consequence,
the longer-lasting injection delay, in spite of the fact that the cetane number of the biodiesel
is slightly higher compared with the diesel fuel, leads to a lower volatility and higher
viscosity of the biodiesel and poor atomization, and the mixture composed with air during
the ignition delay time leads to a delay in starting the combustion of the biodiesel. In
addition, the peak of the cylinder pressure and the peak of the heat release rate for the
biodiesel are higher than the opposite of the diesel fuel. Additionally, the lower heating
value of the biodiesel leads to a decrease of the heat release rate [30]. The result of peak
pressure for waste cooking oil was slightly lower in comparison with diesel fuel when it
was substituted for the fuel injection pressure and timing injection [63].
It was noted [39] that the use of various mixtures of biodiesel insignificantly reduces
engine power and conducts to the increase of fuel consumption, but at the same time there
is a significant decrease in most harmful substances. The only exception is NOx [47,64].
Other studies [46] have been conducted in which BSFC was increased with an increasing
percent of biodiesel blends owing to the lower heating value of the biodiesel. Another
publication [65] observed that when using mixtures with diesel fuel, Brake Thermal Effi-
ciency decreased in contrast with diesel due to the greater accumulation of energy during
the ignition delay. Additionally, CO, CO2 and smoke have decreased with biodiesel fuel
mixture [59]. However, in [66,67], biodiesel blends had more particulate matter compared
with D100.
After studying various literature reviews of alternative fuels for diesel engines [68–72],
the authors of this research concluded that the literature does not discuss biodiesel based
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 4 of 18

on fuel mixtures from second generation biofuels, HVO, and fatty acid methyl ester, so it
was motivation to research the combustion, energy and ecological parameters for these
mixtures and discuss various aspects.
Given the above information, it is vital to investigate the effect of other mixtures in
various percentages. The analysis of the physicochemical properties of these mixtures will
aim at a comprehensive assessment of their potential for future operation in a diesel engine
in accordance with the standards.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Fuel Preparation
In this research, the properties of mixtures for a diesel engine were considered in
accordance with three standards in European Union standards for fuel. EN 590—this
standard applies to diesel fuel intended for diesel engines and EN 14214—fuel for internal
combustion engines. Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) for internal combustion engines.
Specification and Testing methods.
Additionally, Neste Renewable Diesel is separate recommendation for HVO. Con-
sidering HVO contains of paraffinic hydrocarbons, it cannot match the requirements of
EN 14214 which was created and reasonable only for fatty acid methyl esters—FAME.
Meanwhile, HVO matches EN 590 with the exception of the property for minimum density.
Therefore, the article used the fuel standard of Neste Oil.
This research introduces the conclusions of a study of the 5 different mixtures, en-
tirely consisting of renewable raw materials. During experimental part these blends were
compared to diesel fuel (D). Mixing was carried out in the following proportions. Blends
hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) and fatty acid methyl ester derived from duck fat (FE100)
mixed in the ratio FE25, FE50, FE75,
Additionally, HVO and FE100 have been considered pure. The choice of biofuel based
on animal fats justified by the fact that in a lot of countries is considered as a promising
source for commercial production of biodiesel fuel. The qualities of the blends are given in
Table 1.
Physicochemical properties of biodiesel, in particular, viscosity, density, heat of com-
bustion, cetane number, etc., differ from those for diesel fuel. It can be noted that the fuel
mixtures presented are within the normal range. The cetane number was calculated for
FE25, FE50, FE75 according Kampfer methodology.

2.2. Experimental Setup, Experimental Procedure and Processing Experimental Data

Experimental studies were carried out in the laboratory of the Transport Engineering
Faculty of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania. Fuels were investigated in a
four-cylinder internal combustion engine with direct injection of fuel into the combustion
chamber in the piston (Table 2).

Table 2. Engine specifications.

General Informations 1.9 TDI Diesel Engine

Number of cylinders 4/In-Line
Bore 79.5 mm
Stroke 95.5 mm
Displacement 1896 cm3
Compression ratio 19.5
Maximum torque 180 Nm/2000–2500 rpm
Maximum power 66 kW/4000 rpm
Combustion chamber Direct injection
Nozzle opening pressure 190 bar
Fuel injection Single
Cooling Liquid
 Energies 2021, 14, 3077 5 of 18
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

The engine test bench (Figure 1) used was composed of a 1.9 Turbocharged internal
The engine test bench (Figure 1) used was composed of a 1.9 Turbocharged internal
combustion engine with electronic fuel injection pump. The start of the injection (SOI) was
combustion engine with electronic fuel injection pump. The start of the injection (SOI) was
managed by the engine electronic control unit (ECU) with the one injection procedure.
managed by the engine electronic control unit (ECU) with the one injection procedure.

Figure
Figure1. 1.
Schematic
Schematicof engine testing
of engine equipment:
testing 1–Air
equipment: mass meter;
1—Air 2–Turbocharger;
mass meter; 3–Gas ana-
2—Turbocharger; 3—Gas
lyser; 4–Smoke analyser; 5–Temperature sensor; 6–EGR valve; 7–Air pressure meter;
analyser; 4—Smoke analyser; 5—Temperature sensor; 6—EGR valve; 7—Air pressure meter; 8— 8–Exhaust
gas temperature meter; 9–Air cooler; 10–Intake gas temperature meter; 11–1.9 TDI engine; 12–
Exhaust gas temperature meter; 9—Air cooler; 10—Intake gas temperature meter; 11—1.9 TDI
Engine load plate; 13–Connecting Shaft; 14–Crankshaft position sensor; 15–Fuel injection timing
engine; 12—Engine load plate; 13—Connecting Shaft; 14—Crankshaft position sensor; 15—Fuel
sensor; 16–Fuel pump; 17–Fuel tank; 18–Cylinder pressure sensor; 19–Engine torque and rota-
injection
tional speed timing sensor;
recording 16—Fuel 20–Fuel
equipment; pump; 17—Fuel
injection tank;
timing18—Cylinder pressure sensor;
recording equipment; 21–Fuel19—Engine
injec-
torque and rotational speed recording equipment; 20—Fuel injection timing recording
tion timing control equipment; 22–Cylinder pressure recording equipment; 23–Fuel consumption equipment;
21—Fuel injection
calculation equipment.timing control equipment; 22—Cylinder pressure recording equipment; 23—Fuel
consumption calculation equipment.
The engine was loaded with a DC generator with an accuracy load measurement of
TheMeasurement
1.23 Nm. engine was loaded
of loadwith
and aspeed,
DC generator
fuel and with an accuracy load
air consumption, measurement
temperatures in en-of
gine systems, composition and the smoke levels of the exhaust gases were produced sim-in
1.23 Nm. Measurement of load and speed, fuel and air consumption, temperatures
engine systems,
ultaneously. composition
Concentrations and themonoxide
of carbon smoke levels
(CO),ofunburned
the exhaust gases were (HC),
hydrocarbons produced
ni-
simultaneously. Concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), unburned
trogen oxides (NOx), in exhaust gases and smoke were determined by a five-component hydrocarbons (HC),
nitrogen
AVL DiCom oxides
4000(NO
gasx ),analyzer
in exhaust gases and smoke
(AVL—Anstalt fürwere determined by a five-component
Verbrennungskraftmaschinen List,
Graz, Austria) with a determination 0.01% for CO and 0.1% for smoke, 1 ppm forList,
AVL DiCom 4000 gas analyzer (AVL—Anstalt für Verbrennungskraftmaschinen Graz,
HC and
NOx. Fuel consumption was measured using a SK-5000 electronic scale (accuracy 1.0NO
Austria) with a determination 0.01% for CO and 0.1% for smoke, 1 ppm for HC and g), x .
Fuel consumption was measured using a SK-5000 electronic scale
air consumption was measured by air meter BOSCH HFM 5 (Bosch- Robert Bosch GmbH, (accuracy 1.0 g), air
consumption was measured by air meter BOSCH HFM 5 (Bosch- Robert Bosch GmbH,
Stuttgart, Germany) (accuracy 2%) Pressure of turbocharger was measured using pressure
Stuttgart, Germany) (accuracy 2%) Pressure of turbocharger was measured using pressure
sensor Delta OHM HD 2304.0 (Delta—Delta OHM S.r.l., Padova, Italy) (accuracy 0.0002
sensor Delta OHM HD 2304.0 (Delta—Delta OHM S.r.l., Padova, Italy) (accuracy 0.0002
MPa), temperature was measured using thermocouples (accuracy 1.5 C).
MPa), temperature was measured using thermocouples (accuracy 1.5 C).
To determine the position of the piston at Top Dead Centre (TDC) an optical crank-
To determine the position of the piston at Top Dead Centre (TDC) an optical crankshaft
shaft position sensor A58M-F was used with a signal repeatability of 0.176 crank angle.
position sensor A58M-F was used with a signal repeatability of 0.176 crank angle. Gas
Gas pressure in the cylinder was measured with an AVL quartz piezoelectric sensor
pressure in the cylinder was measured with an AVL quartz piezoelectric sensor GH13P,
GH13P, sensitivity 15.84 ± 0.09 pC/bar. An AVL DiTEST DPM 800 amplifying device was
sensitivity 15.84 ± 0.09 pC/bar. An AVL DiTEST DPM 800 amplifying device was used
used to convert the signals of pressure and crankshaft position sensors. The pressure of
to convert the signals of pressure and crankshaft position sensors. The pressure of gases
gases in (100 cycles) was recorded by the high-speed software LabView Real engine indi-
in (100 cycles) was recorded by the high-speed software LabView Real engine indication
cation
systemsystem (LabView—LabView,
(LabView—LabView, National
National Instruments,
Instruments, Austin,Austin, TX, USA).
TX, USA). Theofstart
The start of
the fuel
the fuel injection was registered by VAG-COM diagnostic equipment and
injection was registered by VAG-COM diagnostic equipment and fuel injection control is fuel injection
control is performed
performed using asignal
using a control control signal modulator.
modulator.
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 6 of 18

Engine testing data from the pressure in cylinder sensors fuel and air consumption,
fuel properties, engine data and others were processed in the AVL BOOST/BURN software
environment to determine start of combustion (SOC) and the ignition delay (ID) period,
to calculate heat release rates, combustion duration, pressure and temperature rise, the
average indicator pressure and other important features of combustion. The BOOST/BURN
calculation methodology is based on the first law of thermodynamics, laws of mechanics
and Vibe function [73].
The load characteristics of the engine were taken at 2000 rpm because the engine is
studied mostly works in a similar rotation speed and maximum torque can be achieved at
this speed. During the test, the engine was loaded with brake torque (MB ) of 30–120 Nm,
(which corresponds to the Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) of 0.2–0.8 MPa). As the
load increased, the start of fuel injection timing (SOI) was changed from 4 to 7 CAD before
TDC. The engine test parameters are given in Table 3.

Table 3. Engine load and start of fuel injection.

Measuring Points 1 2 3 4
Engine speed n, rpm 2000 2000 2000 2000
Engine load MB , Nm 30 60 90 120
BMEP, MPa 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
SOI, CAD −4 −5 −6 −7

When the load is increased, the start of fuel injection timing must be earlier, as it takes
longer to inject the fuel. This parameter is controlled during the test.

3. Results
3.1. Combustion Characteristics
Figure 2 shows the numerical analysis (using AVL BOOST/BURN software) results of
combustion characteristics were presented in three parts: ignition delay, premixed combus-
tion phase and mixing controlled combustion when the engine load (BMEP) is 0.4 MPa.
Comparing the mixtures with each other, it can be noted that the start of combustion for
HVO was earlier than the others, given the same moment of the beginning of the fuel
supply process, and this, in turn, indicates the shortest ignition delay period for this fuel.
During this load (BMEP = 0.4 MPa), the test start of the fuel injection timing was
constant at SOI = −5 CAD for all fuels. The start of combustion (SOC) and ignition delay
(ID) according the fuel type are shown in Figure 2.
This experimental work has found that the ignition delay for HVO and mixtures is
lower than for diesel, which is related with a higher cetane number for these fuels, which
helps to reduce ignition delay [59]. At 4 CAD, the heat release rate for HVO is ~34%
less than for D100, which indicates a reduction in the peak rate of heat release compared
to diesel fuel. Diesel fuel also shows a longer ignition delay due to its higher viscosity,
which results in a delayed evaporation and an atomization process that causes a longer
ignition delay.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the ignition delay time also relies upon the number
of carbon atoms in the molecules of blends. For our experimental mixture with FE100, we
have less carbon to compare with the diesel fuel. Thus, the difference between 4 CAD rate
of heat release for FE25 is ~29%, FE50 is ~23%, FE75 is ~15% and FE100 is ~14% to compare
with mineral diesel. This is also confirmed by the lowest maximum combustion rate during
fast combustion.
With a further increase in the concentration of ester in the mixture, there is also
a noticable tendency to decrease the maximum combustion rate during rapid ignition.
Particularly, the oxygen content of the biodiesel mixtures improves the fuel–air mixing rate
in the cylinder in comparison with the diesel fuel due to the extended combustion duration.
In addition to this there is the vaporization of biodiesel, which is more slow than DF and
 longer to inject the fuel. This parameter is controlled during the test.

3. Results
3.1. Combustion Characteristics
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 Figure 2 shows the numerical analysis (using AVL BOOST/BURN software) results 7 of 18
of combustion characteristics were presented in three parts: ignition delay, premixed com-
bustion phase and mixing controlled combustion when the engine load (BMEP) is 0.4
MPa. Comparing the mixtures with each other, it can be noted that the start of combustion
supplies
for a lower
HVO was premixed
earlier than thephase of given
others, combustion, which
the same correlates
moment of the with the viscosity
beginning and
of the fuel
density of the fuels. In addition, the cetane number effected the SOC timing [30].
supply process, and this, in turn, indicates the shortest ignition delay period for this fuel.

Figure 2. Heat release rate in the cylinder depending on the CAD.

The lower viscosity of HVO than diesel fuel contributes to improved the mixing
characteristics in the premixed phase. This indicates that HVO evaporates faster and
therefore mixes faster with the ambient air than diesel fuel. Moreover, the straight-chain
paraffinic hydrocarbon HVO is more easily degraded than the diesel, and it can be noted
that HVO is more easily sprayed onto the fuel, vaporized and mixed with the ambient air
in the chamber [62]. For the blend with HVO, we observed the same tendency.
Analyzing the third combustion period (diffuse), it can be seen that HVO100 also
reaches its peak earlier than other fuels, which is explained by the earlier onset of combus-
tion. However, diesel fuel is characterized by the lowest maximum combustion rate in the
mixing control combustion period, which is explained by a significantly larger proportion
of fuel burned out during the first combustion period [74].
At 9 CAD, the heat release rate for HVO is ~1% higher than D100. Additionally,
comparing mixtures with ester, we observed that for FE100 the heat release is ~3% higher
equating to fossil fuel; for FE25, FE50 and FE75 the trend is ~4%, 1%, 1%, respectively.
Figure 3 presents that the temperature rise. It is very similar to the pressure rise
presented in Figure 4. Additionally, the maximum for diesel that has the highest maximum
on it is reached much later than for other fuels.
An absolute temperature rise for diesel fuel at 53 K/deg is observed at 4 CAD. The
temperature rises for HVO at 40 K/deg is ~24% (8 CAD) less from diesel fuel, for mixtures
with ester there is a similar trend in the range from ~15% for FE100 (4 CAD) at 45 K/deg to
~29% for FE50 (8 CAD) at 38 K/deg.
The reason is a later start of combustion, but we also see more intensive combustion
of a pre-mixture phase, which in turn causes an increased rate of nitrogen oxide generation
in the cylinder. Therefore, for all fuel mixtures, this is precisely why the rate of formation
of nitrogen oxides in the phase is lower than for diesel fuel.
In the third combustion phase, diffuse heat release is very slightly different for all
fuel mixtures.
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 8 of 18
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

Figure 3. Temperature rise in the cylinder depending on the CAD.

Figure 3. Temperature rise in the cylinder depending on the CAD.

Figure 4. Pressure rise in the cylinder depending on the CAD.

Figure 4. Pressure rise in the cylinder depending on the CAD.
The pressure rise graph shows exactly the same thing as described earlier. The moment
An absolute temperature rise for diesel fuel at 53 K/deg is observed at 4 CAD. The
of the beginning of combustion is clearly visible, as is the moment of a sharp increase in
temperature rises for HVO at 40 K/deg is ~24% (8 CAD) less from diesel fuel, for mixtures
the rate of pressure change.
with ester
Whenthere is aa pure
using similar
HVO,trend theinpressure
the rangerise
from ~15% (3
is ~47% forCAD)
FE100less
(4 CAD)
than ofatdiesel
45 K/deg
fuel
to ~29% for FE50 (8 CAD) at 38 K/deg.
(4 CAD), and for the FE100 it is ~25% (3 CAD) lower than of the fossil fuel. For other
The reason
mixtures is a later
with ester FE25start of combustion,
(2 CAD) and FE50 (3but we also
CAD), it is see
alsomore
~38%intensive
lower in combustion
comparison
of
with diesel fuel; for FE75 it is ~22% (3 CAD) lower in opposite of diesel. oxide genera-
a pre-mixture phase, which in turn causes an increased rate of nitrogen
tion in thegraph
This cylinder.
showsTherefore, for allfuels,
all the other fuel mixtures,
but showsthis
thatistheprecisely
maximum whyvisible
the rate
is of
forfor-
the
mation of nitrogen oxides in the phase is lower than for diesel fuel.
diesel engine, and it corresponds to the premixed combustion phase. This is described by
 ment of the beginning of combustion is clearly visible, as is the moment of a sharp increase
in the rate of pressure change.
When using a pure HVO, the pressure rise is ~47% (3CAD) less than of diesel fuel (4
CAD), and for the FE100 it is ~25% (3 CAD) lower than of the fossil fuel. For other mixtures
with ester FE25 (2 CAD) and FE50 (3 CAD), it is also ~38% lower in comparison with diesel
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 9 of 18
fuel; for FE75 it is ~22% (3 CAD) lower in opposite of diesel.
This graph shows all the other fuels, but shows that the maximum visible is for the
diesel engine, and it corresponds to the premixed combustion phase. This is described by
the
thelongest
longestignition
ignitiondelay
delayperiod,
period, due
due to
to which
which the
the largest
largest amount
amount ofof fuel
fuel is
is accumulated
accumulated
in
inthe
thecylinder
cylinder[56].
[56].
From
From aa practical
practical point
point of
of view,
view, the
the largest
largest peak
peak ofof the
the pressure
pressure rise
rise rate
rate means
means thethe
highest
highestlevel
levelofofshock
shockloads
loadsononthe
theparts
partsofofthe
thecylinder–piston
cylinder–pistongroup
group and
and the
thehighest
highest noise
noise
level
levelon
on this
this type
type of
of fuel
fuel (diesel).
(diesel).
Figure
Figure 5 shows that with
5 shows that with increasing
increasing pressure
pressure between
between thethe mixtures,
mixtures, aa difference
difference isis
observed
observedfromfrom 0.02%
0.02% to to 1.4%.
1.4%. For
For HVO,
HVO, itit decreased
decreased ~0.3%
~0.3% (10
(10 CAD)
CAD) compared
compared to to fossil
fossil
fuel
fuel (9 CAD),
CAD), for forFE25,
FE25,FE50,
FE50,FE75
FE75 and
and FE100
FE100 ~0.7%
~0.7% (9 CAD),
(9 CAD), 1%CAD),
1% (10 (10 CAD),
0.02%0.02% (10
(10 CAD)
and 1.4%
CAD) and(101.4%CAD), respectively.
(10 CAD), respectively.

Figure 5. Pressure in the cylinder depending on the CAD.

Figure 5. Pressure in the cylinder depending on the CAD.
During the experiment, it was found that compression stroke, temperature and pres-
sureDuring
are verythe experiment,
similar it wasbut
for all fuels, found
afterthat
thecompression stroke, temperature
start of combustion and pres-
they differentiate from
sure
−0.4areto very similar
0.7 CAD. for all fuels,
However, but after
it is from the the start ofgraph
pressure combustion
that all they differentiate
the rest from
are calculated,
−0.4 to 0.7 the
including CAD. However,
most important it is from the
one—the ratepressure graph
of diffuse heatthat all the rest are calculated,
release.
including the most important one—the rate of diffuse heat release.
3.2. Energy Indicators
The brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC_m , g/kWh) for the D100 at medium load
was lower than for all mixtures, but at the same time it was higher by ~3% compared to
HVO. We see how with a growth in the rate of ester in the fuel mixtures, as shown in
Figure 6, the fuel consumption increases for FE100 ~13% compared to fossil fuels. If we
compare D100 and other blends, we observe an increase in fuel consumption for FE25
~1%, FE50 ~5%, and FE75 ~9% in comparison with diesel fuel, which in turn affects the
combustion process.
During engine refueling with ester blends, the BSFC for these test fuels was high in
contrast with diesel and HVO under all load conditions. The trend towards higher BSFC
values has been reported to be associated with a lower calorific value of the test fuel, which
results in more fuel being consumed to sustain the power output [75].
Diesel fuel with 0% oxygen showed the lowest BSFC to compare with biofuel mixtures.
Less heating of the tested fuels (Table 1) was reported as the cause for the increase in BSFC
values [71]. However, it should be noted that HVO has the highest fuel consumption rate
due to the higher hydrogen content. Therefore, the calorific value per mass HVO is higher
(Figure 7).
 3.2. Energy Indicators
The brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC_m, g/kWh) for the D100 at medium load was
lower than for all mixtures, but at the same time it was higher by ~3% compared to HVO. We
see how with a growth in the rate of ester in the fuel mixtures, as shown in Figure 6, the fuel
Energies 2021, 14, 3077
consumption increases for FE100~13% compared to fossil fuels. If we compare D100 and10otherof 18
blends, we observe an increase in fuel consumption for FE25~1%, FE50~5%, and FE75~9% in
comparison with diesel fuel, which in turn affects the combustion process.

Figure 6. Dependence of BSFC_m, g/kWh on the load.

During engine refueling with ester blends, the BSFC for these test fuels was high in
contrast with diesel and HVO under all load conditions. The trend towards higher BSFC
values has been reported to be associated with a lower calorific value of the test fuel,
which results in more fuel being consumed to sustain the power output [75].
Diesel fuel with 0% oxygen showed the lowest BSFC to compare with biofuel mix-
tures. Less heating of the tested fuels (Table 1) was reported as the cause for the increase
in BSFC values [71]. However, it should be noted that HVO has the highest fuel consump-
tion rate due to the higher hydrogen content. Therefore, the calorific value per mass HVO
isFigure
higher
Figure 6. (Figure
6. 7). of
Dependence
Dependence of BSFC_m,
BSFC_m, g/kWh
g/kWhononthe
theload.
load.

During engine refueling with ester blends, the BSFC for these test fuels was high in
contrast with diesel and HVO under all load conditions. The trend towards higher BSFC
values has been reported to be associated with a lower calorific value of the test fuel,
which results in more fuel being consumed to sustain the power output [75].
Diesel fuel with 0% oxygen showed the lowest BSFC to compare with biofuel mix-
tures. Less heating of the tested fuels (Table 1) was reported as the cause for the increase
in BSFC values [71]. However, it should be noted that HVO has the highest fuel consump-
tion rate due to the higher hydrogen content. Therefore, the calorific value per mass HVO
is higher (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Dependence of BSFC_V, mL/kWh on the load.

Figure 7. Dependence of BSFC_V, ml/kWh on the load.
Such a correlation can be explained by the ratio of intake pressure on the brake mean
Such pressure
effective a correlation can be
(BMEP). explained
Engine by the ratio
performance of intake
during pressure
low loads on the
is relative onbrake mean
the altitude,
effective pressure (BMEP). Engine performance during low loads is relative
considering that pressure of inlet manifold can straightly influence to the quantity of on the alti-
air
tude, considering that pressure of inlet manifold can straightly influence to
mass induced in the cylinder [76]. Therefore, by growing elevation, the lower amount of airthe quantity
would enter the cylinder and BMEP decreases which involves additional fuel consumption
with identical output power.
Figure 8 shows that BTE increases for all fuels with increasing load, which is associated
with increased power. Additionally, the higher the specific heat of combustion (the amount
of heat released for complete combustion) of the fuel, the lower its consumption [53]. Lower
BTE values
Figure are observed
7. Dependence for all
of BSFC_V, mixtures,
ml/kWh with
on the the highest for HVO followed by diesel
load.
fuel. The difference between these type of fuels is ~0.5%. This is due to the specific heat
Such a correlation can be explained by the ratio of intake pressure on the brake mean
of combustion.
At medium
effective pressureload (BMEPEngine
(BMEP). = 0.4 MPa) for mixtures
performance withlow
during ester,loads
we can observe on
is relative a reduction
the alti-
of BTEconsidering
tude, at an average thatofpressure
~0.3% inofcomparison withcan
inlet manifold diesel fuel. influence to the quantity
straightly
The resulting low BTE for mixtures can be associated with a lower heating value
and increased fuel consumption in comparison with diesel. It could also be on account of
their low heat consumption for higher power outputs at a given load. As the proportion
of biodiesel in the mixtures increases, the BTE decreases due to poor atomization of the
mixtures by reason of their high viscosity. Fuels with a higher proportion of ester gave less
torque due to less energy released due to their lower heating value [77,78]. A lower BTE
can also be attributed to a higher BSFC. In addition, the oxygen content grows with the
 of air mass induced in the cylinder [76]. Therefore, by growing elevation, the lower
amount of air would enter the cylinder and BMEP decreases which involves additional
fuel consumption with identical output power.
Figure 8 shows that BTE increases for all fuels with increasing load, which is associ-
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 11 of 18
ated with increased power. Additionally, the higher the specific heat of combustion (the
amount of heat released for complete combustion) of the fuel, the lower its consumption
[53]. Lower BTE values are observed for all mixtures, with the highest for HVO followed
by dieseloffuel.
increase The difference
percent between
for ester blends these
(Table 1),type of fuels
which is ~0.5%.
decreases This is due
the heating to the
value and,spe-
in
cific heat
turn, of combustion.
decreases the BTE.

Figure 8. Dependence of BTE on the load.

Figure 8. Dependence of BTE on the load.
3.3. Ecological Indicators
At medium load (BMEP = 0.4 MPa) for mixtures with ester, we can observe a reduc-
tion Carbon dioxide
of BTE at (CO2 )ofemissions
an average ~0.3% in decreased
comparisonforwith
all types
dieseloffuel.
fuels with a growth in the
load as shown in Figure 9. At medium load (BMEP = 0.4 MPa),
The resulting low BTE for mixtures can be associated with a lower the CO 2 emissions
heating of
value and
mixes including FE75 and FE100 averaged ~2% and ~3%, respectively, which is higher
increased fuel consumption in comparison with diesel. It could also be on account of12their in
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 19
comparison to diesel. The higher CO2 emissions in the mixtures are related with the higher
low heat consumption for higher power outputs at a given load. As the proportion of
oxygen and carbon content of the tested fuels, in opposition to pure diesel fuel (Table 1).
biodiesel in the mixtures increases, the BTE decreases due to poor atomization of the mix-
tures by reason of their high viscosity. Fuels with a higher proportion of ester gave less
torque due to less energy released due to their lower heating value [77,78]. A lower BTE
can also be attributed to a higher BSFC. In addition, the oxygen content grows with the
increase of percent for ester blends (Table 1), which decreases the heating value and, in
turn, decreases the BTE.

3.3. Ecological Indicators

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions decreased for all types of fuels with a growth in the
load as shown in Figure 9. At medium load (BMEP = 0.4 MPa), the CO2 emissions of mixes
including FE75 and FE100 averaged ~2% and ~3%, respectively, which is higher in com-
parison to diesel. The higher CO2 emissions in the mixtures are related with the higher
oxygen and carbon content of the tested fuels, in opposition to pure diesel fuel (Table 1).

Figure 9. Dependence of carbon dioxide emissions on the load.

Figure 9. Dependence of carbon dioxide emissions on the load.
For HVO100 carbon dioxide emissions was ~5% lower than diesel fuel. Additionally,
For HVO100 carbon dioxide emissions was ~5% lower than diesel fuel. Additionally,
we have observed the decrease CO2 for FE25 and FE50 ~4% and 2% accordingly.
we have observed the decrease CO2 for FE25 and FE50~4% and 2% accordingly.
Additionally, in this experiment it was found that mixtures that have a higher hydro-
Additionally, in this experiment it was found that mixtures that have a higher hydro-
gen/carbon (H/C) ratio contribute the most to CO2 reduction, since their combustion is
gen/carbon
more complete (H/C) ratio
(Table 1). contribute the most to CO2 reduction, since their combustion is
moreHVO,
complete
in turn, has1).
(Table a higher hydrogen/carbon (0.1520%/0.8480%) ratio, which con-
HVO,
tributes in turn,
to the mosthas COa2higher hydrogen/carbon
reduction (0.1520%/0.8480%)
for this fuel type ratio,
compared to the which contrib-
aforementioned
utes to the most CO 2 reduction for this fuel type compared to the aforementioned mixtures
mixtures and diesel fuel.
and During
diesel fuel.
combustion, the fuel is split into CO and then oxidized to carbon dioxide.
During combustion,
Consequently, the fuel iscan
the CO concentration split into decrease
rapidly CO and then oxidized totemperature.
with increasing carbon dioxide.
The
presence of hydrogen-containing substances such as water can help speed uptemperature.
Consequently, the CO concentration can rapidly decrease with increasing the process.
The presence of hydrogen-containing substances such as water can help speed up the pro-
cess.
Additionally, ester blends are oxygenated fuels, and the additional oxygen molecule
influences help to achieve better combustion, resulting in lower CO emissions [79–81].
Adequate oxygen content and high cylinder biodiesel temperatures help reduce CO emis-
sions.
 HVO, in turn, has a higher hydrogen/carbon (0.1520%/0.8480%) ratio, which contrib-
utes to the most CO2 reduction for this fuel type compared to the aforementioned mixtures
and diesel fuel.
During combustion, the fuel is split into CO and then oxidized to carbon dioxide.
Consequently, the CO concentration can rapidly decrease with increasing temperature.
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 12 of 18
The presence of hydrogen-containing substances such as water can help speed up the pro-
cess.
Additionally, ester blends are oxygenated fuels, and the additional oxygen molecule
influences help to ester
Additionally, achieve better
blends arecombustion,
oxygenatedresulting
fuels, andinthe
lower CO emissions
additional [79–81].
oxygen molecule
Adequate oxygen
influences content better
help to achieve and high cylinder biodiesel
combustion, resultingtemperatures help reduce
in lower CO emissions CO emis-
[79–81]. Ade-
sions. oxygen content and high cylinder biodiesel temperatures help reduce CO emissions.
quate
Figure 1010 presents
presentsthe
theCOCOemissions
emissionsforforHVO100
HVO100atat medium
medium load,
load, which
which were
were ~5%~5%
less
less than
than for D100,
for D100, and and
~15% ~15% higher
higher thanthan for FE100.
for FE100. As As reported
reported by the
by the figure,
figure, COCO emis-
emissions
sions
are are for
lower lower
HVO fordue
HVO duelower
to the to theignition
lower delay,
ignition
anddelay, and combustion
combustion time is thus
time is increased, in-
creased, thus contributing to the oxidation process of CO emissions. Diesel
contributing to the oxidation process of CO emissions. Diesel fuel has lower emissions fuel has lower
emissions
than than which
mixtures, mixtures, which is explained
is explained by the highbyC/H
the high
ratioC/H ratio in
in diesel diesel fuel.
fuel.

Figure Dependence of
10. Dependence
Figure 10. of carbon
carbonmonoxide
monoxideemissions
emissionson
onthe
theload.
load.

For blends with ester, this tendency was also higher compared to fossil fuel. For FE25,
FE50 and FE75, carbon monoxide emissions were ~6%, 7%, 8%.
At BMEP = 0.4 MPa, there was a marked reduction in HC emissions. It is also seen
that the curves of this dependence for mixtures with an intermediate concentration of ester
in the fuel occupy an intermediate position between HVO100 and diesel fuel.
This can be explained by an increase in the combustion temperature of the fuel and
the increase of the quality of fuel atomization over the volume of the combustion chamber
with increasing load.
Additionally, low rates for mixtures can be associated with the content of fatty acids,
which promote complete combustion, due to the fact that oxygen molecules are also present
in the droplets of this mixture, which contributes to more complete combustion.
In part, unburned hydrocarbons can result from poor air and fuel homogeneity due to
incomplete mixing before or during combustion.
Satputalei et al. [79] noticed that a higher cetane number on methyl ester decreases
HC emissions in comparison with diesel under all load conditions.
All mixtures have lower values than diesel as we can see from Figure 11. For example,
FE100 has hydrocarbon emissions ~14% less than D100, and HVO ~37%. On average
for other mixtures was found the same tendency. FE25 was ~33%, FE50 ~30%, and FE75
~25% lower compared with diesel fuel, while oxygen-free diesel showed the highest
hydrocarbon emissions.
According to the results of experimental studies, we found that the lower the carbon
content in the fuel, the less smoke will be [82].
With a decrease in the ignition delay, the combustion process starts earlier and the content
of harmful substances, such as smoke, decreases (associated with a higher cetane number).
Smoke emissions are increased for D100 and HVO100 compared to blends with ester,
as is illustrated in Figure 12, because oxygenated fuel contributes to the oxidation of soot.
Behcet et al. [80] found that the smoke level of diesel fuel was high, while for biodiesel it
decreased. Additionally, earlier soot formation for diesel fuel correlates with the expected
high soot tendency of diesel fuels containing aromatics and cycloalkanes, which increase
the formation of soot precursors.
 Satputalei et al. [79] noticed that a higher cetane number on methyl ester decreases
HC emissions in comparison with diesel under all load conditions.
All mixtures have lower values than diesel as we can see from Figure 11. For example,
FE100 has hydrocarbon emissions ~14% less than D100, and HVO ~37%. On average for
other mixtures was found the same tendency. FE25 was ~33%, FE50 ~30%, and FE75 ~25%
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 13 of 18
lower compared with diesel fuel, while oxygen-free diesel showed the highest hydrocar-
bon emissions.

Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Figure 11.
Figure Dependence of
11. Dependence of hydrocarbon
hydrocarbon emissions
emissions on
on the
the load.
load.

According to the results of experimental studies, we found that the lower the carbon
content in the fuel, the less smoke will be [82].
With a decrease in the ignition delay, the combustion process starts earlier and the
content of harmful substances, such as smoke, decreases (associated with a higher cetane
number).
Smoke emissions are increased for D100 and HVO100 compared to blends with ester,
as is illustrated in Figure 12, because oxygenated fuel contributes to the oxidation of soot.
Behcet et al. [80] found that the smoke level of diesel fuel was high, while for biodiesel it
decreased. Additionally, earlier soot formation for diesel fuel correlates with the expected
high soot tendency of diesel fuels containing aromatics and cycloalkanes, which increase
the formation of soot precursors.

Figure 12.
Figure Dependence of
12. Dependence of smoke
smoke emissions
emissions on
on the
the load.
load. Should
Should be
be replaced
replaced by
by smoke.
smoke.

ForHVO,
For HVO,we wecan
canobserve
observe reduce
reduce of smoke
of smoke of ~18%
of ~18% on average
on average in comparison
in comparison with
with diesel
fuel. HVO belongs to the paraffinic fuel and contains a higher H/C ratio (Table 1). This type 1).
diesel fuel. HVO belongs to the paraffinic fuel and contains a higher H/C ratio (Table of
This type of fuel does not have aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfur and another mineral
fuel does not have aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfur and another mineral contaminations, whichcontam-
inations, which affect the formation of soot [83]. The mixtures also have indicators which
affect the formation of soot [83]. The mixtures also have indicators which are lower than of
are lower than of diesel. For FE25, they are ~47%, for FE50 ~55%, for FE75 ~58%, and for
diesel. For FE25, they are ~47%, for FE50 ~55%, for FE75 ~58%, and for FE100 ~62%. Reduced
FE100 ~62%. Reduced smoke emissions at all engine loads are on account of the high mass
smoke emissions at all engine loads are on account of the high mass oxygen content and lower
oxygen content and lower C/H ratio (Table 1).
C/H ratio (Table 1).
NO emissions were increased with a growing load in all samples examined, with
NOxx emissions were increased with a growing load in all samples examined, with
diesel fuel being the highest indicator. The difference between D100 and HVO100 was
diesel fuel being the highest indicator. The difference between D100 and HVO100 was
~19% on average between D100 and FE100 ~10% in Figure 13.
~19% on average between D100 and FE100~10% in Figure 13.
At medium load (BMEP = 0.4 MPa), the nitrogen oxide emissions reduce for FE25~12%,
FE50 ~10%, FE75 ~10%, FE100 ~10%, and HVO ~20% in comparison with D100.
Consequently, a higher combustion chamber temperature results in higher NOx values.
Numerous literature review have explained the influence of biodiesel on NOx emis-
sions due to the fact that biodiesel contains the oxygen. This improves fuel oxidation in the
process of combustion, which has the effect of higher temperature.
The influence of HVO on NOx emissions appears to be positive compared to the
increase in NOx emissions with ester/diesel mixtures. The ambiguous impact on NOx
emissions may depend on the combined effects of ignition delay, fuel injection quantity,
and the distribution of the injection quantity between the pilot and main injection [84].
 affect the formation of soot [83]. The mixtures also have indicators which are lower than of
diesel. For FE25, they are ~47%, for FE50 ~55%, for FE75 ~58%, and for FE100 ~62%. Reduced
smoke emissions at all engine loads are on account of the high mass oxygen content and lower
C/H ratio (Table 1).
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 NOx emissions were increased with a growing load in all samples examined, with 14 of 18
diesel fuel being the highest indicator. The difference between D100 and HVO100 was
~19% on average between D100 and FE100~10% in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Dependence of nitrogen oxide emissions on the load.

Figure 13. Dependence of nitrogen oxide emissions on the load.
Additionally, the second reason can be that a lower iodine number and oxygen content
in mixtures with ester reduces the NOx value by 20% lower than that of a diesel engine.
At medium load (BMEP = 0.4 MPa), the nitrogen oxide emissions reduce for
FE25~12%, FE50~10%, FE75~10%, FE100~10%, and HVO~20% in comparison with D100.
4. Conclusions
Consequently, a higher combustion chamber temperature results in higher NOx values.
1. The use of fat esters results in a deterioration of their physical and chemical properties
Numerous literature review have explained the influence of biodiesel on NOx emis-
with increasing fat concentration. However, it is emphasized that the cetane number
sions due to the fact that biodiesel contains the oxygen. This improves fuel oxidation in
of pure fats is higher than compared with mineral diesel.
the process of combustion, which has the effect of higher temperature.
2. One of the important advantages of testing mixtures is that it lowers the levels of
harmful pollutants in the exhaust of diesel engines. One exception to this is oxides of
nitrogen (NOx ), which are implicated in ozone and smog formation.
3. It was determined the D100 has a higher exhaust gas temperature in comparison with
other mixtures due to the longer combustion process of the fossil fuel.
4. We investigated whether when using blends, the combustion started earlier, in op-
position to when using diesel fuel. The testing blends could give a positive impact
on efficiencies (NOx-Soot trade-offs) and GHG, especially for a heavy-duty engine
application. In addition, FE25, FE50, FE75 and FE100 blends reduced CO from ap-
proximately 7 to 13%. CO2 reduction was observed for all mixtures except FE75 and
FE100. Additionally, the concentration of hydrocarbon emissions decreased for all
mixtures. Lower values have HVO to compare with D100. Smoke emissions were
also significantly lower for blends than for diesel. On average, HVO was reduced
by ~18%, FE25 by ~47%, FE50 by ~55%, FE75 by ~58%, and FE100 by~62%. We have
shown increased NOx emissions for all blends and fossil fuel with an increasing load.
5. The brake thermal efficiency (BTE) indicators for the mixtures were lower compared
to D100 for all loads, but for HVO, they were slightly higher than diesel (~0.5%).
Considering that the heating values of the mixtures are lower in comparison with
diesel fuel, it was found that the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) for all types
of the mixtures was higher in opposition to fossil fuel, besides HVO, which has a
higher LHV.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.S., J.M. and K.D.; methodology, A.R.; software, A.R.;
validation, O.S., J.M. and M.M.; formal analysis, K.D.; investigation, J.M. and A.R.; resources, K.D.
and M.M.; data curation, O.S., J.M. and A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, O.S. and J.M.;
writing—review and editing, O.S., K.D., M.M. and J.M.; visualization, O.S.; supervision, J.M. and
K.D.; project administration, J.M.; funding acquisition, K.D. and M.M. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The study did not report any data.
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 15 of 18

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the AVL company for the opportunity to use the engine sim-
ulation tool AVL BOOST, which was used to analyze the combustion process and present the results.
A cooperation agreement has been concluded between the faculty of the Transport Engineering of
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University and AVL Advanced Simulation Technologies.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BTE brake thermal efficiency

BSFC brake specific fuel consumption
BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure
CAD crank angle degree
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
D diesel fuel
ECU electronic control unit
FE100 fatty acid methyl ester from duck fat
FE25 25% fatty acid methyl ester derived from duck fat and 75% HVO
FE50 50% fatty acid methyl ester derived from duck fat and and 50% HVO
FE75 75% fatty acid methyl ester derived from duck fat and and 25% HVO
FAME Fatty Acid Methyl Ester
HC Unburned Hydrocarbons
HVO Hydrotreated Vegetable Oils
MB brake torque
CN cetane number
ID ignition delay
NOx Nitrogen oxides
O2 Oxygen
SOI start of injection
SO2 sulfur dioxide
LCV lower calorific value
TDC top dead center
WCO waste cooking oil

References
1. Kosai, S.; Matsui, K.; Matsubae, K.; Yamasue, E.; Nagasaka, T. Natural Resource Use of Gasoline, Hybrid, Electric and Fuel Cell
Vehicles Considering Land Disturbances. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 166, 105256. [CrossRef]
2. Zhao, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Chang, Y.; Hao, Y. Converting Waste Cooking Oil to Biodiesel in China: Environmental Impacts
and Economic Feasibility. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 140, 110661. [CrossRef]
3. European Environment Agency. The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020: Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe;
European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2019.
4. Moustakidis, S. Renewable Energy—Recast to 2030 (RED II). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/renewable-
energy-recast-2030-red-ii (accessed on 28 April 2021).
5. Navas-Anguita, Z.; García-Gusano, D.; Iribarren, D. Long-Term Production Technology Mix of Alternative Fuels for Road
Transport: A Focus on Spain. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 226, 113498. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Chong, C.T.; Loe, T.Y.; Wong, K.Y.; Ashokkumar, V.; Lam, S.S.; Chong, W.T.; Borrion, A.; Tian, B.; Ng, J.-H. Biodiesel Sustainability:
The Global Impact of Potential Biodiesel Production on the Energy–Water–Food (EWF) Nexus. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 22,
101408. [CrossRef]
7. Athar, M.; Zaidi, S. A Review of the Feedstocks, Catalysts, and Intensification Techniques for Sustainable Biodiesel Production.
J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104523. [CrossRef]
8. Kim, M.; Won, W.; Kim, J. Integration of Carbon Capture and Sequestration and Renewable Resource Technologies for Sustainable
Energy Supply in the Transportation Sector. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 143, 227–240. [CrossRef]
9. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Overview—Analysis. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-
from-fuel-combustion-overview (accessed on 28 April 2021).
10. Fernbas National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-strategy/
national-energy-climate-plans_en (accessed on 28 April 2021).
11. Sgouridis, S.; Csala, D.; Bardi, U. The Sower’s Way: Quantifying the Narrowing Net-Energy Pathways to a Global Energy
Transition. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 094009. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 16 of 18

12. Rohith Renish, R.; Amala Justus Selvam, M. A Critical Review on Production Process, Physicochemical Properties, Performance
and Emission Characteristics of Sea Mango Biodiesel-Diesel Blends. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 44, 2600–2605. [CrossRef]
13. Duda, K.; Wierzbicki, S.; Śmieja, M.; Mikulski, M. Comparison of Performance and Emissions of a CRDI Diesel Engine Fuelled
with Biodiesel of Different Origin. Fuel 2018, 212, 202–222. [CrossRef]
14. Rimkus, A.; Vipartas, T.; Matijošius, J.; Stravinskas, S.; Kriaučiūnas, D. Study of Indicators of CI Engine Running on Conventional
Diesel and Chicken Fat Mixtures Changing EGR. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1411. [CrossRef]
15. Zahan, K.A.; Kano, M. Technological Progress in Biodiesel Production: An Overview on Different Types of Reactors. Energy
Procedia 2019, 156, 452–457. [CrossRef]
16. Li, M.; Xu, J.; Xie, H.; Wang, Y. Transport Biofuels Technological Paradigm Based Conversion Approaches towards a Bio-Electric
Energy Framework. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 172, 554–566. [CrossRef]
17. Barua, P.; Hossain, N.; Chowdhury, T.; Chowdhury, H. Commercial Diesel Application Scenario and Potential of Alternative
Biodiesel from Waste Chicken Skin in Bangladesh. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 20, 101139. [CrossRef]
18. Mahmudul, H.M.; Hagos, F.Y.; Mamat, R.; Adam, A.A.; Ishak, W.F.W.; Alenezi, R. Production, Characterization and Performance
of Biodiesel as an Alternative Fuel in Diesel Engines—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 497–509. [CrossRef]
19. Gorji, A. Animal Renewable Waste Resource as Catalyst in Biodiesel Production. J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 2015, 7, 2220–6663.
20. Ramos, M.; Dias, A.P.S.; Puna, J.F.; Gomes, J.; Bordado, J.C. Biodiesel Production Processes and Sustainable Raw Materials.
Energies 2019, 12, 4408. [CrossRef]
21. Yesilyurt, M.K.; Cesur, C.; Aslan, V.; Yilbasi, Z. The Production of Biodiesel from Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Oil as a
Potential Feedstock and Its Usage in Compression Ignition Engine: A Comprehensive Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020,
119, 109574. [CrossRef]
22. Islam, A. Biodiesel Production with Green Technologies; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN
978-3-319-45272-2.
23. Kathirvel, S.; Layek, A.; Muthuraman, S. Exploration of Waste Cooking Oil Methyl Esters (WCOME) as Fuel in Compression
Ignition Engines: A Critical Review. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2016, 19, 1018–1026. [CrossRef]
24. Vafakish, B.; Barari, M. Biodiesel Production by Transesterification of Tallow Fat Using Heterogeneous Catalysis. Kem. Ind. 2017,
66, 47–52. [CrossRef]
25. Suarez-Bertoa, R.; Kousoulidou, M.; Clairotte, M.; Giechaskiel, B.; Nuottimäki, J.; Sarjovaara, T.; Lonza, L. Impact of HVO Blends
on Modern Diesel Passenger Cars Emissions during Real World Operation. Fuel 2019, 235, 1427–1435. [CrossRef]
26. Bereczky, A. Effect of the use of waste vegetable oil based biodiesel on the landscape in diesel engines. Therm. Sci. 2017, 21,
567–579. [CrossRef]
27. Keskin, A.; Şen, M.; Emiroğlu, A.O. Experimental Studies on Biodiesel Production from Leather Industry Waste Fat and Its Effect
on Diesel Engine Characteristics. Fuel 2020, 276, 118000. [CrossRef]
28. Yesilyurt, M.K. The Evaluation of a Direct Injection Diesel Engine Operating with Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel in Point of the
Environmental and Enviroeconomic Aspects. Energy Sources Part Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2018, 40, 654–661. [CrossRef]
29. Capuano, D.; Costa, M.; Di Fraia, S.; Massarotti, N.; Vanoli, L. Direct Use of Waste Vegetable Oil in Internal Combustion Engines.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 759–770. [CrossRef]
30. Othman, M.F.; Adam, A.; Najafi, G.; Mamat, R. Green Fuel as Alternative Fuel for Diesel Engine: A Review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 694–709. [CrossRef]
31. Mahlia, T.M.I.; Syazmi, Z.A.H.S.; Mofijur, M.; Abas, A.E.P.; Bilad, M.R.; Ong, H.C.; Silitonga, A.S. Patent Landscape Review on
Biodiesel Production: Technology Updates. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 118, 109526. [CrossRef]
32. Kończak, M.; Kukla, M.; Warguła, Ł.; Talaśka, K. Determination of the Vibration Emission Level for a Chipper with Combustion
Engine. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 776, 012007. [CrossRef]
33. Chen, Y.-A.; Liu, P.-W.G.; Whang, L.-M.; Wu, Y.-J.; Cheng, S.-S. Biodegradability and Microbial Community Investigation for Soil
Contaminated with Diesel Blending with Biodiesel. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 130, 115–125. [CrossRef]
34. Islam, M.S.; Ahmed, A.S.; Islam, A.; Abdul Aziz, S.; Xian, L.C.; Mridha, M. Study on Emission and Performance of Diesel Engine
Using Castor Biodiesel. J. Chem. 2014, 2014, 1–8. [CrossRef]
35. Şen, M.; Emiroğlu, A.O.; Keskin, A. Production of Biodiesel from Broiler Chicken Rendering Fat and Investigation of Its Effects
on Combustion, Performance, and Emissions of a Diesel Engine. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 5209–5217. [CrossRef]
36. Abdalla, I.E. Experimental Studies for the Thermo-Physiochemical Properties of Biodiesel and Its Blends and the Performance of
Such Fuels in a Compression Ignition Engine. Fuel 2018, 212, 638–655. [CrossRef]
37. Dhamodaran, G.; Krishnan, R.; Pochareddy, Y.K.; Pyarelal, H.M.; Sivasubramanian, H.; Ganeshram, A.K. A Comparative Study
of Combustion, Emission, and Performance Characteristics of Rice-Bran-, Neem-, and Cottonseed-Oil Biodiesels with Varying
Degree of Unsaturation. Fuel 2017, 187, 296–305. [CrossRef]
38. Lewandowska, A.; Branowski, B.; Joachimiak-Lechman, K.; Kurczewski, P.; Selech, J.; Zablocki, M. Sustainable Design: A Case of
Environmental and Cost Life Cycle Assessment of a Kitchen Designed for Seniors and Disabled People. Sustainability 2017, 9,
1329. [CrossRef]
39. Fuc, P.; Lijewski, P.; Kurczewski, P.; Ziolkowski, A.; Dobrzynski, M. The Analysis of Fuel Consumption and Exhaust Emissions
From Forklifts Fueled by Diesel Fuel and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Lpg) Obtained under Real Driving Conditions. In Proceedings
of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 3–9 November 2017; Volume 6.
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 17 of 18

40. Mikulski, M.; Ambrosewicz-Walacik, M.; Duda, K.; Hunicz, J. Performance and Emission Characterization of a Common-Rail
Compression-Ignition Engine Fuelled with Ternary Mixtures of Rapeseed Oil, Pyrolytic Oil and Diesel. Renew. Energy 2020, 148,
739–755. [CrossRef]
41. Rimkus, A.; Matijosius, J.; Bogdevicius, M.; Bereczky, A.; Torok, A. An Investigation of the Efficiency of Using O2 and H2
(Hydrooxile Gas-HHO) Gas Additives in a Ci Engine Operating on Diesel Fuel and Biodiesel. Energy 2018, 152, 640–651.
[CrossRef]
42. Emiroğlu, A.O.; Keskin, A.; Şen, M. Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Turkey Rendering Fat Biodiesel on Combustion,
Performance and Exhaust Emissions of a Diesel Engine. Fuel 2018, 216, 266–273. [CrossRef]
43. Skrzek, T.; Rucki, M.; Górski, K.; Matijošius, J.; Barta, D.; Caban, J.; Zarajczyk, J. Repeatability of High-Pressure Measurement in a
Diesel Engine Test Bed. Sensors 2020, 20, 3478. [CrossRef]
44. Górski, K.; Smigins, R.; Longwic, R. Research on Physico-Chemical Properties of Diethyl Ether/Linseed Oil Blends for the Use as
Fuel in Diesel Engines. Energies 2020, 13, 6564. [CrossRef]
45. Kirubakaran, M.; Arul Mozhi Selvan, V. A Comprehensive Review of Low Cost Biodiesel Production from Waste Chicken Fat.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 390–401. [CrossRef]
46. Kinnal, N.; Sujaykumar, G.; D’costa, S.W.; Girishkumar, G.S. Investigation on Performance of Diesel Engine by Using Waste
Chicken Fat Biodiesel. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 376, 012012. [CrossRef]
47. Ramalingam, S.; Rajendran, S.; Ganesan, P.; Govindasamy, M. Effect of Operating Parameters and Antioxidant Additives with
Biodiesels to Improve the Performance and Reducing the Emissions in a Compression Ignition Engine—A Review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 775–788. [CrossRef]
48. Vass, S.; Zöldy, M. Effects of Boundary Conditions on A Bosch-Type Injection Rate Meter. Transport 2021, 1–8. [CrossRef]
49. Vass, S.; Zöldy, M. Detailed Model of a Common Rail Injector. Acta Univ. Sapientiae Electr. Mech. Eng. 2019, 11, 22–33. [CrossRef]
50. Lijewski, P.; Merkisz, J.; Fuc, P.; Ziolkowski, A.; Rymaniak, L.; Kusiak, W. Fuel Consumption and Exhaust Emissions in the
Process of Mechanized Timber Extraction and Transport. Eur. J. For. Res. 2017, 136, 153–160. [CrossRef]
51. Andrzejewski, M.; Fuc, P.; Gallas, D.; Ziólkowski, A.; Daszkiewicz, P. Impact of driving style on the exhaust emission of a diesel
multiple unit. In Computers in Railways XVII: Railway Engineering Design and Operation; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2020;
pp. 365–376.
52. Banković-Ilić, I.B.; Stojković, I.J.; Stamenković, O.S.; Veljkovic, V.B.; Hung, Y.-T. Waste Animal Fats as Feedstocks for Biodiesel
Production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 238–254. [CrossRef]
53. Jayaprabakar, J.; Karthikeyan, A. Performance and Emission Characteristics of Rice Bran and Alga Biodiesel Blends in a CI Engine.
Mater. Today Proc. 2016, 3, 2468–2474. [CrossRef]
54. Mikulski, M.; Duda, K.; Wierzbicki, S. Performance and Emissions of a CRDI Diesel Engine Fuelled with Swine Lard Methyl
Esters–Diesel Mixture. Fuel 2016, 164, 206–219. [CrossRef]
55. Hirkude, J.B.; Padalkar, A.S. Performance and Emission Analysis of a Compression Ignition. Appl. Energy 2012, 90, 68–72.
[CrossRef]
56. Senthil Kumar, M.; Jaikumar, M. A Comprehensive Study on Performance, Emission and Combustion Behavior of a Compression
Ignition Engine Fuelled with WCO (Waste Cooking Oil) Emulsion as Fuel. J. Energy Inst. 2014, 87, 263–271. [CrossRef]
57. Işık, M.Z.; Bayındır, H.; İscan, B.; Aydın, H. The Effect of N-Butanol Additive on Low Load Combustion, Performance and
Emissions of Biodiesel-Diesel Blend in a Heavy Duty Diesel Power Generator. J. Energy Inst. 2017, 90, 174–184. [CrossRef]
58. Chuah, L.F.; Aziz, A.R.A.; Yusup, S.; Bokhari, A.; Klemeš, J.J.; Abdullah, M.Z. Performance and Emission of Diesel Engine Fuelled
by Waste Cooking Oil Methyl Ester Derived from Palm Olein Using Hydrodynamic Cavitation. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
2015, 17, 2229–2241. [CrossRef]
59. Uyumaz, A. Combustion, Performance and Emission Characteristics of a DI Diesel Engine Fueled with Mustard Oil Biodiesel
Fuel Blends at Different Engine Loads. Fuel 2018, 212, 256–267. [CrossRef]
60. Gad, M.S.; Ismail, M.A. Effect of Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel Blending with Gasoline and Kerosene on Diesel Engine Performance,
Emissions and Combustion Characteristics. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 149, 1–10. [CrossRef]
61. Hwang, J.; Qi, D.; Jung, Y.; Bae, C. Effect of Injection Parameters on the Combustion and Emission Characteristics in a Common-
Rail Direct Injection Diesel Engine Fueled with Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel. Renew. Energy 2014, 63, 9–17. [CrossRef]
62. Kegl, B.; Hribernik, A. Experimental Analysis of Injection Characteristics Using Biodiesel Fuel. Energy Fuels 2006, 20, 2239–2248.
[CrossRef]
63. Yadav, S.P.R.; Saravanan, C.G.; Kannan, M. Influence of Injection Timing on DI Diesel Engine Characteristics Fueled with Waste
Transformer Oil. Alex. Eng. J. 2015, 54, 881–888. [CrossRef]
64. Hunicz, J.; Matijošius, J.; Rimkus, A.; Kilikevičius, A.; Kordos, P.; Mikulski, M. Efficient Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil Combustion
under Partially Premixed Conditions with Heavy Exhaust Gas Recirculation. Fuel 2020, 268, 117350. [CrossRef]
65. Szabados, G.; Bereczky, Á. Experimental Investigation of Physicochemical Properties of Diesel, Biodiesel and TBK-Biodiesel Fuels
and Combustion and Emission Analysis in CI Internal Combustion Engine. Renew. Energy 2018, 121, 568–578. [CrossRef]
66. Ajtai, T.; Pinter, M.; Utry, N.; Kiss-Albert, G.; Gulyas, G.; Pusztai, P.; Puskas, R.; Bereczky, A.; Szabados, G.; Szabo, G.; et al.
Characterisation of Diesel Particulate Emission from Engines Using Commercial Diesel and Biofuels. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 134,
109–120. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 3077 18 of 18

67. Kozak, M.; Lijewski, P.; Fuc, P. Exhaust Emissions from a City Bus Fuelled by Oxygenated Diesel Fuel; SAE International: Warrendale,
PA, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
68. Warguła, Ł.; Krawiec, P.; Waluś, K.J.; Kukla, M. Fuel Consumption Test Results for a Self-Adaptive, Maintenance-Free Wood
Chipper Drive Control System. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2727. [CrossRef]
69. Caban, J.; Droździel, P.; Ignaciuk, P.; Kordos, P. The impact of changing the fuel dose on chosen parameters of the diesel engine
start-up process. Transp. Probl. 2019, 14, 51–62. [CrossRef]
70. Sander, A.; Antonije Košćak, M.; Kosir, D.; Milosavljević, N.; Parlov Vuković, J.; Magić, L. The Influence of Animal Fat Type and
Purification Conditions on Biodiesel Quality. Renew. Energy 2018, 118, 752–760. [CrossRef]
71. Alptekin, E.; Canakci, M.; Ozsezen, A.N.; Turkcan, A.; Sanli, H. Using Waste Animal Fat Based Biodiesels–Bioethanol–Diesel Fuel
Blends in a DI Diesel Engine. Fuel 2015, 157, 245–254. [CrossRef]
72. Bereczky, A. The Past, Present and Future of the Training of Internal Combustion Engines at the Department of Energy Engineering
of BME. In Vehicle and Automotive Engineering; Jarmai, K., Bollo, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 225–234.
73. Rimkus, A.; Stravinskas, S.; Matijošius, J. Comparative Study on the Energetic and Ecologic Parameters of Dual Fuels (Diesel–NG
and HVO–Biogas) and Conventional Diesel Fuel in a CI Engine. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 359. [CrossRef]
74. Marasri, S.; Ewphun, P.-P.; Srichai, P.; Charoenphonphanich, C.; Karin, P.; Tongroon, M.; Kosaka, H. Combustion Characteristics
of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil-Diesel Blends under EGR and Low Temperature Combustion Conditions. Int. J. Automot. Technol.
2019, 20, 569–578. [CrossRef]
75. Dimitriadis, A.; Natsios, I.; Dimaratos, A.; Katsaounis, D.; Samaras, Z.; Bezergianni, S.; Lehto, K. Evaluation of a Hydrotreated
Vegetable Oil (HVO) and Effects on Emissions of a Passenger Car Diesel Engine. Front. Mech. Eng. 2018, 4, 7. [CrossRef]
76. Ghazikhani, M.; Ebrahim Feyz, M.; Mahian, O.; Sabazadeh, A. Effects of Altitude on the Soot Emission and Fuel Consumption of
a Light-Duty Diesel Engine. Transport 2013, 28, 130–139. [CrossRef]
77. Can, Ö. Combustion Characteristics, Performance and Exhaust Emissions of a Diesel Engine Fueled with a Waste Cooking Oil
Biodiesel Mixture. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 87, 676–686. [CrossRef]
78. Nantha Gopal, K.; Pal, A.; Sharma, S.; Samanchi, C.; Sathyanarayanan, K.; Elango, T. Investigation of Emissions and Combustion
Characteristics of a CI Engine Fueled with Waste Cooking Oil Methyl Ester and Diesel Blends. Alex. Eng. J. 2014, 53, 281–287.
[CrossRef]
79. Satputaley, S.S.; Zodpe, D.B.; Deshpande, N.V. Performance, Combustion and Emission Study on CI Engine Using Microalgae Oil
and Microalgae Oil Methyl Esters. J. Energy Inst. 2017, 90, 513–521. [CrossRef]
80. Behçet, R.; Yumrutaş, R.; Oktay, H. Effects of Fuels Produced from Fish and Cooking Oils on Performance and Emissions of a
Diesel Engine. Energy 2014, 71, 645–655. [CrossRef]
81. Singh, D.; Singal, S.K.; Garg, M.O.; Maiti, P.; Mishra, S.; Ghosh, P.K. Transient Performance and Emission Characteristics of a
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Fuelled with Microalga Chlorella Variabilis and Jatropha Curcas Biodiesels. Energy Convers. Manag.
2015, 106, 892–900. [CrossRef]
82. Gumus, M.; Kasifoglu, S. Performance and Emission Evaluation of a Compression Ignition Engine Using a Biodiesel (Apricot
Seed Kernel Oil Methyl Ester) and its Blends with Diesel Fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 134–139. [CrossRef]
83. Rimkus, A.; Žaglinskis, J.; Rapalis, P.; Skačkauskas, P. Research on the Combustion, Energy and Emission Parameters of Diesel
Fuel and a Biomass-to-Liquid (BTL) Fuel Blend in a Compression-Ignition Engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 106, 1109–1117.
[CrossRef]
84. Anis, S.; Budiandono, G.N. Investigation of the Effects of Preheating Temperature of Biodiesel-Diesel Fuel Blends on Spray
Characteristics and Injection Pump Performances. Renew. Energy 2019, 140, 274–280. [CrossRef]