A comparative analysis on emissions of some

next generation long-chain alcohol/diesel

blends in a direct-injection diesel engine
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2059, 020053 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5085996
Published Online: 11 January 2019

H. Zurina, A. Adam, G. M. Anes, Zuhaira Abdullah, M. Fahmi, M. Kamal, and F. Y. Hagos

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Combustion characteristics of biodiesel blended with Al2O3 and SiO2 nanoparticles

AIP Conference Proceedings 2059, 020052 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5085995

Effect of BHA and BHT antioxidant additives on engine performance and emission of a CI
engine fueled with a palm oil methyl ester-diesel fuel blend
AIP Conference Proceedings 2059, 020051 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5085994

Fabrication of SiC and Al2O3 foams by replica method for premixed porous burner application
AIP Conference Proceedings 2059, 020059 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5086002

AIP Conference Proceedings 2059, 020053 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5085996 2059, 020053

© 2019 Author(s).
 A Comparative Analysis on Emissions of Some Next
Generation Long-Chain Alcohol/Diesel Blends In a Direct-
Injection Diesel Engine
H Zurina1,a), A Adam1, G M Anes1, Zuhaira Abdullah1, M Fahmi1 , M Kamal1,
F Y Hagos1
1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang,
Malaysia
a)
Corresponding author: hazrul_zurina@yahoo.com

Abstract. In this experimental study, the effect of using long-chain alcohols (pentanol and 2-ethyl 1-hexanol) on the
emissions were studied and discussed, by comparing the emissions results with diesel fuel. 10% pentanol and 10% 2-
ethyl 1-hexanol were separately added into 90% diesel fuel which namely as PE10 and HE10, respectively. The tests
were performed at full-throttle valve opening and constant engine speed of 1800rpm. The exhaust emissions of diesel
engine fuelled with DF, PE10 and HE10 were studied under varies engine loads (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%). The
results showed that the use of alcohols fuels affects carbon monoxide (CO) emission to increase as well as hydrocarbon
(HC). In addition, decreased nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) were observed. Moreover, it is noted that
2-ethyl 1-hexanol is a better additive than pentanol due to lower CO, HC and NOx measured in HE10.

INTRODUCTION
In modern contemporary world, diesel engines are commonly used in many sectors such as transportation,
railway, aircraft, heavy equipment and others. This led to excessive demand and usage of diesel fuels and diesel
engine. However, the exhaust emissions emitted by diesel engine had increased global concern for air pollution.
According to Reşitoğlu et al., the main pollutant emissions were carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC),
particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) [1]. It was well known that the gases emitted from diesel engine
had negative effects on human respiratory system that caused many health problems such as asthma, asphyxiation
and lung cancer. In addition, the HC and NOx emissions also cause depletion of ozone layer and green-house effect
which were worsen to human.
In order to reduce the emissions, the researchers and manufacturers have been triggered to take different
approaches, including produced new alternative fuels such as biodiesel, diesel with additives, nanoparticles-diesel
fuel blends and alcohol-based fuels [2-5]. New alternative fuels, such alcohol-based fuels have potential to reduce
the particulate emissions. Thus, alcohol has been a potential oxygenated additive to blend with pure diesel (DF).
Among alcohols, ethanol has been widely studied as oxygenated additives on gasoline and diesel. From the previous
studies, short chain alcohol such as ethanol fuel blend was capable to reduce particulate emissions such as CO and
HC. Unfortunately, ethanol fuel blend was also reported to produce higher NO x and NO2 [6-8]. Moreover, ethanol
also has lower miscibility with DF and it possesses 40% lower energy density compared to DF. Based on Table 1,
due to low cetane number of ethanol, cetane improver was required in ethanol-diesel fuel blends [9]. Furthermore,
lower flash point, boiling point and viscosity were among some drawbacks that affect the clean combustion of
ethanol-diesel fuel blends. Therefore, the recent trend in alcohol fuel blends was long-chain alcohol, such as butanol
(C4 alcohols) had attracted many researchers due to its potential to overcome the weakness of ethanol-diesel fuel

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automotive Innovation Green Energy Vehicle
AIP Conf. Proc. 2059, 020053-1–020053-12; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5085996
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1787-8/$30.00

020053-1
blends. From literature, butanol was capable to mix well with DF and various biodiesel [10-12]. Another advantages
of butanol were higher energy density, cetane number, flashpoint and boiling point compared with ethanol [10]. In
2016, Balamurugan et al. found CO and NOx emissions reduced with presence of 4% and 8% butanol [13]. The
possible explanation was due high latent heat of vaporization and calorific value of butanol reduced the combustion
temperature, thus, reduced CO and NOx. Similar trend of falling formation of NOx reported by Atmanli as the
authors found that long-chain alcohol had higher cooling effect [14]. Additionally, Ileri et al. found higher CO2 and
reduced HC emission which indicated more complete combustion [15]. Thus many researchers start replaced to
ethanol with butanol as additives in DF or biodiesel.

TABLE 1. Physical-chemical properties of diesel and alcohols

Fuel properties DF Ethanol Butanol Pentanol Hexanol
(1-PN) (2-EH)
Molecular formula C H C2H6O C4H10O C5H12O C8H18O
12 23
Density at 40 °C (g/m3) 0.837 0.785 0.810 0.815 0.818
% Oxygen by weight 0.00 34.73 21.62 18.15 12.31
Viscosity 5.8 1.13 2.63 2.89 5.1
Cetane number 52 5-8 17–25 20 23
Caloric value (MJ/kg) 42.8 26.90 33.21 32.16 34.70
Latent heat of 270.00 904.00 582.00 308.05 358.00
vaporization

Recently, the development of alternative fuels had introduced another type of long-chain alcohols which were
pentanol (1-PN) and 2-ethyl 1-hexanol (2-EH) as oxygenated additives in alcohol-diesel fuel blend, alcohol-
biodiesel fuel blend and diesel-alcohol-biodiesel fuel blend. As shown in Table 2, the physical-chemical properties
of 1-PN and 2-EH were better than ethanol and butanol. In addition, the thermo-physical properties of 1-PN and 2-
EH were closer to physical-chemical properties of DF. The percentage of O2 content in 1-PN and 2-EH were higher
compared to ethanol and DF. It was also observed that ethanol has lower density than DF by 6.21%. Meanwhile, the
density of 1-PN and 2-EH are 2.63% and 2.27% less than DF. Moreover, the cetane numbers for ethanol, 1-PN and
2-EH are 8, 20 and 23, respectively. With higher cetane number and calorific value, the performance and
combustion of the DF can be improved during engine testing. Even though the calorific value of 2-EH and 1-PN
were lower compared to DF but the calorific value for both alcohols were still higher compared to ethanol by
22.48% and 16.36%. Therefore, better combustion was expected and emissions can be improved at the end of
experiment. Overall, the physical-chemical properties of long-chain alcohol was better than the short-chain alcohol
which was closer to physical-chemical properties of DF. Through previous studies, long-chain alcohol seems to be
capable of replacing short-chain alcohol for alcohol-diesel fuel blend.
Pentanol is a five carbons alcohol in its atomic structure which shown potential as oxidation supplier for better
fuel combustion. Low polarity and hydrophobic leads pentanol to form homogenous mixing with DF and biodiesel,
without obvious phase separation due to low polar interaction parameter that make pentanol are more promising and
reliable. According to a study by Campos-Fernández et al., 1-PN can be added up to 25% by volume without any
engine performance problems [10]. In the study, the 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% pentanol-diesel fuels blends exhibit
similar heat release rate curves with DF with slight increase at the peak. Meanwhile, the brake specific fuel
consumption (BSFC) for pentanol-diesel fuels blends was similar to DF and higher by 1.00%, 1.02%, 1.02% and
1.02% in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% pentanol-diesel fuels respectively. Similar
investigation reported by Wei et al. as the authors also investigated pentanol at the same ratio (10%, 20% and 30%)
[16]. In his paper, Wei et al. stated that n-pentanol and DF can be blend up to 30% by volume without any additional
solvents at room temperature. The addition pentanol enriched the oxygen content, as well as improved both the
premixed and diffusive combustion stage. However, due to the blends low CN, the ignition delay was longer with
the addition of pentanol. For gaseous emissions, HC and CO emissions were increased with increased volume of
pentanol in the blends especially at low and medium engine loads due to the low number of cetane for the pentanol-
diesel fuel blends [14, 16, 17]. Opposite to the results, Agrawal et al. and Imdadul et al. found reduced of CO and
HC were achieved in their works [18, 19]. Authors found reduced of HC and CO for 10% to 30% pentanol added to
DF without additives. Imdadul et al. stated that the decreasing of CO and HC were due to the increase of O 2 in fuel
blends led to complete combustion. Through previous literature studies, NOx emissions had increased with addition

020053-2
of pentanol especially at high engine load [19, 20]. NOx formation at high engine load was attributed with higher in-
cylinder temperature due to the long ignition delay. Moreover, increase in n-pentanol will increase the formation
NO2 emissions affected by the e-OH functional group. However, Yilmaz et al. found less NO x for 5% pentanol with
95% DF even though higher percentage content of pentanol has higher NOx than DF [20].
Another potential long-chain alcohol is 2-ethyl 1-hexanol which is also known as an organic alcohol with eight-
carbon chain. This type of hexanol also known as octanol due similar chemical structure. To the best of authors’
knowledge, there only a few researchers that use 2-ethyl 1-hexanol their studies [21, 22]. In a journal, Aloko et al.
indicates that 5% hexanol with DF shows properties similar to DF and higher aniline point, hence the fuel blends
can be used well in diesel engine with less emission [23]. It was also reported that the fuel blend density, flash point
and viscosity were above the requirement than DF according to ASTM standard. In order to find an alternative fuel
instead of fuel diesel with less emission, the authors studied the effects of hexanol-diesel fuel blends at 5% to 45%
by volume. Zhang et al. also investigated the application of 2-ethyl 1-hexanol at ratio 30% with 70% DF [24].The
previous results showed improvement in performance with hexanol-diesel fuel blends compared to DF with less
smoke formed but increase of NOx emissions by average 9.9%. Increase in hexanol ratio influence combustion
analysis by increasing the maximum peak pressure as well as rate of pressure. It was well known that the heat value
of the hexanol- diesel fuel blends was lower than heat value of the DF, thus increases the BSFC. The presence of O 2
due to the addition of hexanol in the DF improves the combustion, especially the diffusion combustion, thus
increases the BTE. This can be associated due to the higher premixed combustion of the blends because of the lower
cetane number of hexanol, thus resulted increase in percentage of “constant volume” combustion, and to the lower
heat losses and “leaner” combustion as explained by Zhang et al. [25]. However, in his article, Zhang et al also
reported addition of 2-ethyl hexanol had increased the formation of NOx due higher O2 content [24]. In another
experiments, hexanol was used as the one of the co-solvents for biodiesel fuel blends and ethanol-biodiesel fuel
blend [26, 27] . The addition of hexanol improved the blend tolerance for biodiesel or ethanol-diesel and stabilize
fuel blends. In addition, the smoke emission was reported to have decreased significantly with the rise of oxygen
content in the fuels [27]. This concludes that, the usage of hexanol as a co-solvent or a direct blend with DF, the
hexanol is a high potential long-alcohol that could improve the engine performance, fuel combustion characteristic
and exhaust gas emission compared to short-chain alcohol-diesels fuel blends. Another investigation by Devarajan et
al. reported the reducing effect of n-octanol blend with biodiesel on CO, HC and NOx formation [28].The decreased
of HC and CO was due to the n-octanol enhance the combustion rate and supply more O2 to the combustion In
addition, the lower heating value of n-octanol gave cooling effect which lower exhaust temperature, led to decrease
of NOx emission.
Overall, the literature reviews show that there were lack of investigation on the application of 1-pentanol and 2-
ethyl 1-hexanol to diesel engines, especially on its influence on emissions. The objective of the present work is to
examine the potential of 1-pentanol and 2-ethyl 1-hexanol as an additive to diesel fuel. Specifically, for 5%, 10%
and 20% by volume of 1-pentanol and 2-ethyl 1-hexanol in the blended fuel on the gaseous emissions. It was
observed that most researchers do not include carbon dioxide (CO 2) and exhaust gas oxygen (EGO) in their studies.
CO2 and EGO are important to analyses the combustion as higher CO 2 and lower EGO indicated a complete
combustion. Thus, overall exhaust gas emissions such as the CO, CO 2, HC, EGO and NOx emissions are
investigated in this research.

METHODOLOGY

Preparation of Test Fuels

In this experiment, 10% of Pentanol (1-PN) were blended together with 90% of pure diesel (DF) to produce fuel
blends. The fuel blend was prepared using Hielscher Ultrasonic UP400S (400W, 24 kHz) with H14 tip (max.
amplitude 125 μm). The same preparation method was used to prepare 10% of 2-ethyl 1-hexanol (2-EH) with 90%
of DF. A 300 ml of fuel blends were stirred for 2 minutes for a total of 2000 ml for each fuel blends. The three test
fuels were 100% pure diesel name as DF, PE10 and HE10. Details of tested fuels were shown in Table 2. As a safety
precaution, the apparatus and equipment used for fuel blending and storage were washed and wiped with laboratory
acetone. This precaution was done to prevent impurity of the mixed the fuel.

020053-3
 TABLE 2. Details of tested fuel
Test fuels Percentage of fuels (v/v)
DF 100% DF
PE10 10% 1-PN, 90% DF
HE10 10% 2-EH, 90% DF

Thermo-Physical Properties Test

The thermo-physical properties test was conducted to study the stability and properties of the fuel blends. The
measured properties were density, kinematic viscosity and calorific value. The density, kinematic viscosity, and
calorific value of tested fuels was measured using microbalance (model GH-252), viscometer (model GD-265D) and
bomb calorimeter (model Parr 6772). The equipment and ASTM standard used was recorded as in the Table 3. The
results were shown in Table 5. Equation 1 and 2 were used to measure viscosity from the kinematics viscosity
obtained from experiment.

TABLE 3. Table of equipment for properties tested

Properties Equipments ASTM
Density Microbalance, GH-252 ASTM D1298
Kinematics Viscosity Viscometer, GD-265D ASTM D445
Calorific Value Bomb calorimeter, Parr 6772 ASTM D976
௠௠మ
‫ ݕݐ݅ܿ݋ܿݏܸ݅ܿ݅ݐܽ݉݁݊݅ܭ‬ቀ ቁ ൌ ݂݂݁‫ ݁݉݅ݐݔݑ‬ൈ ܿ‫ݎ݁ݐ݁݉݋ܿݏ݅ݒݐ݊ܽݐݏ݊݋‬ (1)
௦

௠௠మ ௚
ܸ݅‫ݕݐ݅ܿ݋ܿݏ‬ሺ݉ܲ‫ݏ‬Ǥ ‫ݏ‬ሻ ൌ ݇݅݊݁݉ܽ‫ ݕݐ݅ݏ݋ܿݏ݅ݒܿ݅ݐ‬ቀ ቁ ൈ ‫ݕݐ݅ݏ݊݁ܦ‬ሺ ሻ (2)
௦ ௠௟

where constant viscometer for 100ml = 0.015120 (mm2/s2)

Test Method
In this work, engine testing was conducted using a diesel engine model YANMAR TF120M. The diesel engine
was a single cylinder, four-stroke, natural aspirated and direct injection (DI) in diesel engine. The specifications of
the engine were included in Table 4. The test engine was operated in full throttle opening under constant engine
speeds 1800 rpm. The engine works on four-stroke cycle and operates with different engine load (0%, 25%, 50%,
75%, and 100%). Before the start of the experiment, the engine was operated with DF for a couple of minutes at
1200 rpm to warm up the engine. Then, tested fuels (DF, PE10 and HE10) were run to flow in setup valve for 5
minute before collecting the test data to attain engine stability. Data was recorded by the installed data-acquisition
system (DAQ) after achieving the steady-state condition. All data was recorded after the engine stabilized at the
setup operating condition for each of the tested fuels. After a completed the test for each test fuel, the engine was run
for a few minutes to ensure that the remaining fuel in the fuel system was completed empty.
All the data was obtained and processed using the DAQ by DEWESOFT X2 engineering software. The QRO-
401 exhaust gas analyser was used to measure the exhaust emissions (CO, CO2, EGO, NOx and HC). The
parameters measured and analysed in this experiment were recorded and discussed. The detail of set up diesel
engine was showed in Figure 1.

020053-4
 TABLE 4. Specifications of YANMAR TF120M
Specification
Engine type YANMAR TF120M
Number of cylinder 1
Bore x stroke 92 x 96 mm
Displacement 0.638 L
Compression ratio 17.7
Injection timing 17o BTDC
Continuous output 10.5 HP at 2400 rpm
Rated output 12 HP at 2400 rpm
Cooling system Water cooled

FIGURE 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup for diesel engine.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Result of Thermo-Physical Properties

Based on Table 4, the thermo-physical properties of fuel blend were slightly lower to DF. Compared to DF,
PE10 and HE10 has lower density by 1.45% and 0.87%, respectively. The kinematic viscosity and viscosity also
decrease with addition of 1-PN and 2-EH. The viscosity for PE10 and HE10 decrease to 3.04 mPa·s and 3.15 mPa·s
from 3.60 mPa·s for DF. Moreover, calorific value also decreased as expected. The result showed that calorific
values were 48.29 MJ/Kg for DF, 46.49 MJ/Kg for PE10, and 46.7837 MJ/Kg for HE10. It is noted that 1-PN has
lower value of density and calorific value compared to 2-EH due to its longer carbon-chain. Overall results indicated
that long- chain alcohols provides more oxygen and stability. Presumably, the properties of fuel blends helped the
combustion process to complete efficiently due to higher calorific value and energy density compare to short-chain
alcohol. This property can be present an advantage in term of engine performance.

020053-5
 TABLE 5. Thermo-physical properties of the fuel blends.
DF PE10 HE10

Density (kg/m3) 837.10 825.00 829.80

Kinematics 4.30 3.68 3.80

viscosity (mm2/s)

Viscosity (mPa·s) 3.60 3.04 3.15

Calorific value 48.29 46.49 46.78

(MJ/Kg)

Carbon Monoxide Emissions

0.050

0.045 DF PE10 HE10

0.040

0.035

0.030
CO (%)

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
0 25 50 75 100
Load (%)

FIGURE 2. Variation of CO emissions for different engine loads.

Figure 2 shows relation of carbon monoxide (CO) emission varies to different loads at constant 1800 rpm.
Generally, CO emission increases as loads increase. At maximum load, CO emission rapidly increases because
engine experiences high volume of fuel blends supply. This happens because in-cylinder temperature increase due to
the higher latent heat of vaporization of 2-EH and 1-PN which also significant to increase of engine load. Referring
to the above figure, PE10 and HE10 have the higher CO emission than DF by 26.43% and 16.88%, respectively.
The formation of carbon monoxide (CO) happens because of incomplete combustion happened and controlled
primarily by the fuel/air equivalence ratio. In addition to that, the lower cetane number of fuels blends has affected
the performance of engine combustion which caused increase in CO emission [29]. The same finding has been
reported by Tutak et al. where highest CO emission was observed at 20% of methanol with DF [30]. Authors stated
that CO was a product of incomplete combustion, usually occurred at high oxygen deficiency. The results can be
explained by the cooling effect of long-chain alcohols that caused incomplete oxidation of the CO to CO2 that can
happens during the expansion stroke. Furthermore, with increasing engine load, temperature of charge increases as
well, that leads to formation of CO emission. Also, at partial loads the emission of CO increases linearly for DF and
fuel blends.

020053-6
 Carbon Dioxide Emissions

8
DF PE10 HE10
7

5
CO2 (%)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Load (%)

FIGURE 3. Variation of CO2 emission for different loads.

Figure 3 illustrated carbon dioxide (CO2) emission versus loads at constant 1800 rpm. The formation of CO 2
happens where CO to convert into CO2 in the presence of adequate O2 using hydroxyl radical OH as the oxidizing
agents. Observed from Figure 2 that CO2 emissions for alcohol-fuel blends was lower than DF. It is also noted that
emission of CO2 is almost less for all long-chain alcohol fuel blends at all load ranges compared to pure diesel, DF.
PE10 and HE10 has 2.02% and 7.37% less CO2 than those DF. Ileri et al. stated that increasing O2 and hydrogen
molecules in fuel structures decrease CO2 emissions [15]. However, despite 2-EH have lower O2, it observed that
PE10 has higher CO2 than HE10 due to the insufficient of oxygen to react with unburnt carbon in the fuel blends
structure. In 2018, Nanthagopal et al. also reported n-butanol and pentanol give decreasing effect of CO2 formation
to calophyllum inophyllum (CIME) biodiesel [31]. Since the CO2 emission highly influences the greenhouse effect
and global warning, it is necessary to ensure the CO2 emission decreased from the engine emissions and objective
achieved. The increase of CO emissions was significant with decrease of CO 2 emissions[32].

020053-7
 Hydrocarbon Emissions

13
12 DF PE10 HE10
11
10
9
8
HC (ppm)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 25 50 75 100
Load (%)

FIGURE 4. Variation of HC emission for different loads.

The variation of hydrocarbon (HC) emission and loads demonstrated in Figure 4. The HC emission for DF and
fuels blends gradually decrease with increasing engine loads. From the figure, it can be clearly seen that HC
emission for fuel blend was higher than DF and HE10 was lower than PE10. The discussion starts with PE10 and
HE10 has higher HC emission at all loads than DF by 86.78% and 42.62% respectively. This situation expected as
long-chain alcohol has lower CN, calorific value and higher heat of vaporization. Lower cetane number of 1-PN and
2-EH usually prolong ignition delay and allowing more time for fuel blends to evaporates. The higher heat of the
evaporation causes slower evaporating which increase HC emission [33]. The high evaporation of temperature of
long chain alcohol has resulted in cooling effect in combustion which leads to the lower temperature inside the
cylinder, resulting in incomplete combustion and high HC emissions [34]. A research by Doğan reported increase
HC emission from 5% n-butanol to 20% butanol [35]. In another research, Emiroğlu et al. found high formation of
HC in presence of 10% butanol, 10% ethanol, or 10% methanol which supported the findings [34].

020053-8
 Exhaust Gas Oxygen Emissions

20
DF PE10 HE10
18

16

14

12
EGO (%)

10

0
0 25 50 75 100
Load (%)

FIGURE 5. Variation of exhaust gas oxygen(EGO) different loads.

The exhaust gas oxygen (EGO) of the blend fuels in the experiment was plotted in Figure 5. EGO levels was
measured to study the amount of oxidation rate during combustion of DF and blended fuels which analyzed the
transition from rich to lean mixtures range [36]. A rich mixture more burnt more O2 and lean mixtures burnt less O2
as the more O2 escapes that known as ‘‘un-combusted” so the EGO level increase. As shown in Figure 11, the EGO
levels decrease with increase of engine loads. This trend happens as high loads has higher temperature of in-cylinder
that decrease the O2 in exhaust gas analyzer which indicated more O2 burnt at higher loads. The same trend found by
Venu et al. using diethyl ether (DEE) addition in ethanol-biodiesel-diesel (EBD) where 0.62% as the lowest EGO
found at load 100% [36]. Besides that, fuels blends with addition of 2-EH has higher O2 emission than fuel blends
with 1-PN and DF. The increase of EGO found to be 1.35% for PE10 and 5.83% for HE10 than DF at maximum
load. The findings shown that addition of long-chain alcohol, 1-PN and 2-EH concentration was affected by the
volatile and latent heat properties of the mixture. From Table 2.1, the O2 content in the 2-EH and 1-PN higher than
DF which explained the higher EGO levels found in fuel blends in Figure 4. Futhermore, the lower CN of alcohol
has prolong ignition delay, allowing more time for fuel to evaporate and increase O2 to escapes. Srinivasan et al.
supported the results as higher EGO found with addition of ethanol into gasoline, increase the O 2 content in fuel
blends [37]. In summary, higher O2 content does increase O2 escapes during combustion.

020053-9
 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

700
DF PE10 HE10
600

500

400
NOX (ppm)

300

200

100

0
0 25 50 75 100
Load (%)

FIGURE 6. Variation of NOx emission for different loads.

In Figure 6, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions were provided at different loads. The above figure showed that as
loads increased, the emissions of NOx increased. The discussion for Figure 5 were NOx formation happen due to the
higher combustion temperature as higher loads significant to higher temperature. Generally, lower NO x found in
fuels blends than DF. At load 100%, clearly observed that the NO x emission for the PE10 and HE10 fuel blends
were lower compared to DF. The NOx emission found to be at 611 ppm, 601 ppm and 520 ppm for DF, PE10 and
HE10 respectively. The addition of long-chain alcohol, 2-EH and 1-PN with high latent of evaporation than DF
gives temperature lowering effects that lowering the temperature of in-cylinder and lower the formation of NOx
emissions [31]. At 100%, the NOx found in PE10 and HE10 with 1.64% and 14.90% lower than DF. In addition, the
fuels blends with 2-EH has lower NOx emission than fuel blends with 1-PN. This is due to lower cetane numbers,
viscosity, density and high volatility of pentanol cause longer ignition delay and more fuel accumulation, increasing
the amount of fuel in premixed combustion. Then, post-combustion temperatures increase, leading to higher NOx
[38]. The findings supported by H Sharon et al, authors found less formation NOx with additional of butanol into
palm oil and DF [39]. Also, Joy et al. reported that n-octanol at 10%, 20% and 30% have lower NO x emissions
compared to DF [40]. The reduction of NOx was an important objective to achieve as it was the most harmful
emission caused by diesel engine.

CONCLUSION
The following points are emerged from the present investigation by adding 10% 1-PN and 10% 2-EH separately
into 90% DF:

1. CO emissions increase with the presence of 1-PN and 2-EH in the blends. 26.43% and 16.88% increase in total
CO emission were observed for PE10 and HE10 at all loads when compared to DF.
2. CO2 formation reduced with for PE10 and HE10. The total CO 2 found were 2.02% and 7.37% for PE10 and
HE10 at all loads when compared to DF.
3. HC emissions higher for PE10 and HE10. The total HC emissions observed for PE10 and HE10 were averagely
86.78% and 42.62% higher at all loads when compared to DF.

020053-10
4. EGO emission increase with the addition of 1-PN and 2-EH. EGO level noted decrease by 1.35% for PE10 and
5.83% for HE10.
5. NOx emissions decrease for PE10 and HE10. At full load, the NOx were 1.64% and 14.90% lower than DF.
The result of investigation showed that both PE10 and HE10 had emitted worse emissions with higher CO
and HC. However, the NOx was successfully reduced by using 1-PN and 2-EH. Moreover, longer-chain alcohol, 2-
EH was a better additive than 1-PN as lower CO, HC and NOx found in HE10. Therefore, the conclusion to be
highlighted were 2-EH was a potential additive alcohol-diesel blends in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A word of appreciation from authors to related members of Power Engine Lab, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang for the supports. Also thank you to the Faculty of Chemical Engineering
and Natural Resources, University Malaysia Pahang for preparing and supplying the equipment used in this study.

REFERENCES
1. Reşitoğlu, İ.A., Altinişik, K., and Keskin, A., The pollutant emissions from diesel-engine vehicles and exhaust
aftertreatment systems. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2015. 17(1): p. 15-27.
2. Othman, M.F., et al., Green fuel as alternative fuel for diesel engine: A review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 2017. 80: p. 694-709.
3. Abdullah, A.A., et al., Comparison of the Effect of Different Alcohol Additives with Blended Fuel on Cyclic
Variation in Diesel Engine. Energy Procedia, 2015. 75: p. 2357-2362.
4. Ali, O.M., et al., Analysis of blended fuel properties and cycle-to-cycle variation in a diesel engine with a
diethyl ether additive. Energy Conversion and Management, 2016. 108: p. 511-519.
5. Chen, A.F., et al., Combustion characteristics, engine performances and emissions of a diesel engine using
nanoparticle-diesel fuel blends with aluminium oxide, carbon nanotubes and silicon oxide. Energy Conversion
and Management, 2018. 171: p. 461-477.
6. Zhu, L., et al., Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of a DI diesel engine fueled with
ethanol–biodiesel blends. Fuel, 2011. 90(5): p. 1743-1750.
7. Alptekin, E., Emission, injection and combustion characteristics of biodiesel and oxygenated fuel blends in a
common rail diesel engine. Energy, 2017. 119(Supplement C): p. 44-52.
8. Shahir, S.A., et al., Performance and emission assessment of diesel–biodiesel–ethanol/bioethanol blend as a
fuel in diesel engines: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015. 48(Supplement C): p. 62-
78.
9. Ciniviz, M., Örs, İ., and Kul, B.S., The Effect of Adding EN (2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate) to Diesel-Ethanol Blends on
Performance and Exhaust Emissions. Automotive of Science And Technology 2017. 1: p. 16-21.
10. Campos-Fernández, et al., A comparison of performance of higher alcohols/diesel fuel blends in a diesel
engine. Applied energy, 2012. 95: p. 267-275.
11. Atmanlı, A., Yüksel, B., and İleri, E., Experimental investigation of the effect of diesel–cotton oil–n-butanol
ternary blends on phase stability, engine performance and exhaust emission parameters in a diesel engine.
Fuel, 2013. 109(Supplement C): p. 503-511.
12. Emiroğlu, A.O. and Şen, M., Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of various alcohol blends
in a single cylinder diesel engine. Fuel, 2018. 212: p. 34-40.
13. Balamurugan, T. and Nalini, R., Experimental investigation on performance, combustion and emission
characteristics of four stroke diesel engine using diesel blended with alcohol as fuel. Energy, 2014. 78: p. 356-
363.
14. Atmanli, A., Comparative analyses of diesel–waste oil biodiesel and propanol, n-butanol or 1-pentanol blends
in a diesel engine. Fuel, 2016. 176: p. 209-215.
15. Ileri, E., Atmanli, A., and Yilmaz, N., Comparative analyses of n-butanolerapeseed oilediesel blend with
biodiesel, diesel and biodieselediesel fuels in a turbocharged direct injection diesel engine. Energy 2016. 89:
p. 586-593.

020053-11
16. Wei, L.J., Cheung, C.S., and Huang, Z.H., Effect of n-pentanol addition on the combustion, performance
and emission characteristics of a direct-injection diesel engine. Energy, 2014. 70: p. 172-180.
17. Zhu, L., et al., Combustion, gaseous and particulate emission of a diesel engine fueled with n-pentanol (C5
alcohol) blended with waste cooking oil biodiesel. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2016. 102: p. 73-79.
18. Agrawal, R., et al., To study and analyse the effect of blending alcohol on diesel engine performance. IJARSE,
2015. 4(6): p. 178-190.
19. Imdadul, H.K., et al., Higher alcohol–biodiesel–diesel blends: An approach for improving the performance,
emission, and combustion of a light-duty diesel engine. Energy Conversion and Management, 2016. 111: p.
174-185.
20. Yilmaz, N. and Atmanli, A., Experimental evaluation of a diesel engine running on the blends of diesel and
pentanol as a next generation higher alcohol. Fuel, 2017. 210(Supplement C): p. 75-82.
21. De Poures, M.V., et al., 1-Hexanol as a sustainable biofuel in DI diesel engines and its effect on combustion
and emissions under the influence of injection timing and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). Applied Thermal
Engineering, 2017. 113: p. 1505-1513.
22. Suhaimi, H., et al., Analysis of combustion characteristics, engine performances and emissions of long-chain
alcohol-diesel fuel blends. Fuel, 2018. 220: p. 682-691.
23. Duncan, A., Adebayo, G.A., and Oke, O.E., Evaluation of Diesel-Hexanol Blend as Diesel Fuel. Vol. 10. 2007.
24. Zhang, T., et al., Effect of using butanol and octanol isomers on engine performance of steady state and cold
start ability in different types of Diesel engines. Fuel, 2016. 184: p. 708-717.
25. Zhang, T., Munch, K., and Denbratt, I., An Experimental Study on the Use of Butanol or Octanol Blends in a
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine. SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 2015. 8(3).
26. Pandian, A.K., et al., Emission and performance analysis of a diesel engine burning cashew nut shell oil bio
diesel mixed with hexanol. Petroleum Science, 2018. 15(1): p. 176-184.
27. Sathiyagnanam, A.P., Saravanan, C., and Gopalakrishnan, M., Hexanol-Ethanol Diesel Blends on DI-Diesel
Engine to Study the Combustion and Emission. 2010.
28. Devarajan, Y., et al., Performance, combustion and emission analysis of mustard oil biodiesel and octanol
blends in diesel engine. Heat and Mass Transfer, 2018. 54(6): p. 1803-1811.
29. Gangwar, J.N., Saraswati, S., and Agarwal, S. Performance and emission improvement analysis of CI engine
using various additive based diesel fuel. in 2017 International Conference on Advances in Mechanical,
Industrial, Automation and Management Systems (AMIAMS). 2017.
30. Tutak, W., et al., Alcohol–diesel fuel combustion in the compression ignition engine. Fuel, 2015.
154(Supplement C): p. 196-206.
31. Nanthagopal, K., et al., An assessment on the effects of 1-pentanol and 1-butanol as additives with
Calophyllum Inophyllum biodiesel. Energy Conversion and Management, 2018. 158: p. 70-80.
32. Ramakrishnan, P., et al., Assessment of n-pentanol/Calophyllum inophyllum/diesel blends on the performance,
emission, and combustion characteristics of a constant-speed variable compression ratio direct injection diesel
engine. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018.
33. Guo, Z., et al., Combustion and emission characteristics of blends of diesel fuel and methanol-to-diesel. Fuel,
2011. 90(3): p. 1305-1308.
34. Emiroğlu, A.O. and Şen, M., Combustion, performance and exhaust emission characterizations of a diesel
engine operating with a ternary blend (alcohol-biodiesel-diesel fuel). Applied Thermal Engineering, 2018.
133: p. 371-380.
35. Doğan, O., The influence of n-butanol/diesel fuel blends utilization on a small diesel engine performance and
emissions. Fuel, 2011. 90(7): p. 2467-2472.
36. Venu, H. and Madhavan, V., Influence of diethyl ether (DEE) addition in ethanol-biodiesel-diesel (EBD) and
methanol-biodiesel-diesel (MBD) blends in a diesel engine. Fuel, 2017. 189: p. 377-390.
37. Srinivasan, C. and Saravanan, C., Study of Combustion Characteristics of an SI Engine Fuelled with Ethanol
and Oxygenated Fuel Additives. Sustainable Energy & Environment, 2010. 1: p. 85-91.
38. Yilmaz, N., Atmanli, A., and Trujillo, M., Influence of 1-pentanol additive on the performance of a diesel
engine fueled with waste oil methyl ester and diesel fuel. Fuel, 2017. 207: p. 461-469.
39. Sharon, H., et al., Fueling a stationary direct injection diesel engine with diesel-used palm oil–butanol blends–
an experimental study. Energy conversion and management, 2013. 73: p. 95-105.
40. Joy, N., et al., Exhaust emission study on neat biodiesel and alcohol blends fueled diesel engine. Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2018. 40(1): p. 115-119.

020053-12