# Analysis of Ethanol to Reduce Solid Particle Pollution in SI Engines

Authors: P. Sivaprakasam; P. Maheandera Prabu; M. Srinivasan; S. Balakrishnan; V. S. Karthikeyan; M. Chithirai Pon Selvan
Journal: Journal of Nanomaterials
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

The present work carries out an experimental comparative analysis of the performance and emission of exhaust gases of the Otto cycle with four automotive times. The comparison was made between alternative fuels such as E10, E15, and E20, with both 90 and 95 octane each the commercialized fuel. The experimental tests were carried out with an engine load corresponding to 25% of the maximum load. After carrying out the tests, the following conclusions can be reached: on the performance and effective parameters of the engine, the obtained best indicator, and as expected, was the case E10 (90 octane). Also, the E15 (90 octane) showed a slight difference compared to the reference fuel E10 (90 octane). About emissions, it was found that these decrease as the concentration of ethanol in the fuel increases.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Gasoline is a liquid, volatile, and flammable compound consisting of carbon and hydrogen atoms (hydrocarbons), boiling temperatures ranging from 40°C to 200°C, and various forms of paraffin (aliphatic hydrocarbons). Gasoline is obtained from petroleum; a nonrenewable natural resource is a compound of organic origin formed by a complex nonhomogeneous mixture of hydrocarbons. Also, it is the result of fossil remains. The hydrocarbon molecules that compose it are from the simplest and smallest CH4- methane, to elaborate and extensive with more than 50 carbon atoms [1, 2]. A considerable variation in parameters was found, such as colour, density, gravity, viscosity, heat capacity, contaminants etc. [3]. These variations are due to the different proportions of different hydrocarbons present. Octane number becomes the most relevant property of gasoline since it is highly related to the performance of the vehicle’s engine. It is the measure of antiknock quality, meaning the ability to burn without causing detonation. Gasoline has an octane number between 85 and 100 depending on the type of gasoline [4, 5]. The volatility property of gasoline has been measured by vapor pressure and the values from 0.7 to 0.85 mmHg. Gasoline is very volatile, and it indirectly represents the content of volatile components that provide safety for gasoline, transportation, and storage [6]. The distillation curve property has related to the composition of gasoline, its volatility, and its vapor pressure. Therefore, 10% distillation, with a boiling temperature below 70°C, was considered. The presence of volatile components has ensured easy cold starting. At 50% distillation, with a boiling temperature below 140°C, correct volatility and maximum power are provided during engine acceleration. For the case, 90% the endpoint of distillation, boiling temperature ranges between 190°C and 225°C. If this amount occurs in large proportions, gasoline can have corrosive effects on the engine’s metal parts and exhaust pipes. It is also related to the harmful impacts on the environment and is an important factor in creating acid rain [7, 8]. Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol, is an organic compound (produced from renewable sources) with the chemical formula C2H5-OH (carbon, hydrogen, and hydroxyls). Under normal conditions, it appears as a liquid, colourless, clean, pleasant, but highly penetrating odour, caustic, and burning flavour; likewise, it is miscible in all proportions, flammable, and volatile. It has classified into two products: hydrated and anhydrous, and it depends on the volume of water they contain [9–11]. The main environmental advantage of these fuels lies in their origin. Biofuels come mainly from biomass, which has extracted part of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere. Therefore, biofuels as fuels do not lead to a net increase in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus helping to minimize the effect of greenhouse gases [12, 13]. Gasohol is the mixture of gasoline and alcohol in different proportions as fuel in explosion engines designed to burn petroleum derivatives. Gasohol can be mixed with ethyl alcohol (ethanol) or methyl alcohol (methanol), although ethanol is the type of alcohol used for commercial purposes. Methanol has been used in a more limited way because it is toxic [14]. The ratio between the two fuels is indicated by the percentage of ethanol preceded by a capital E. In this way, E10 gasohol comprises 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, and E85 contains by mixing 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (Calam et al. [15]). For experimental investigations, E10, E15, and E20 were considered. The stoichiometric air-fuel ratio (A/F) is a dimensionless parameter necessary to describe the air sufficient for the complete combustion of used fuel, so the air is much higher than the amount of fuel for the chemical reaction [16]. The ideal or stoichiometric value of the AF ratio for most commercial gasoline is very close to 15 : 1. Injection systems or carburetors serve to regulate the fuel content for any airflow. Gasoline engines typically have an AF range from 12 : 1 to 18 : 1, depending on operating conditions. Stoichiometric combustion is defined as complete combustion carried out with a strict amount of oxygen; the air used in combustion is the minimum necessary to contain the amount of oxygen corresponding to the complete oxidation of all the components of the fuel [17].The expression of this combustion is(1)CxHy+naN2+O2⟶xCO2+y/2H2O+0.79nN2There are two scenarios of carbon combustion such as complete and incomplete carbon combustion. When complete carbon burning produces CO2, which is the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, this component is an inevitable consequence of combustion. The incomplete carbon combustion creates CO toxic gas that, in high concentrations, can even cause death [18]. The minimum fuel required is consumed, thus producing the least CO2 [19]. The presence of sulfur in fuels gives in variable proportions; oxidation of sulfur can produce SO3. At high flame temperatures, the nitrogen in the fuel and the nitrogen in the oxidizing air can combine with oxygen to form NO. This product in the atmosphere slowly combines with oxygen in the air to form NO2 [20]. Sulfur contact with combustion or atmospheric water can give rise to condensed sulfuric acid (H2SO4) that accompanies raindrops, giving rise to what is known as “Acid rain.” At high flame temperatures, the nitrogen in the fuel and the nitrogen in the oxidizing air can combine with oxygen to form NO; this product in the atmosphere slowly combines with oxygen in the air to create NO2 [20]. The present investigation deals with the method to reduce polluting gas emissions using alternative fuels, such as gasohol in concentrations E10, E15, and E20. Also, it is not enough to modify the engine without this concentration of ethanol.


## 2. Materials and Methods

The ethanol and commercial gasohol were mixed to obtain the E10, E15, and E20 gasohols, experimental methodology, the experimental test protocol, standardization of the turning regimes for each fuel, and finally the equations necessary for the calculation of some important parameters. The E15 and E20 gasohol involved in the experimental tests [21]. To make the necessary measurements for the mixtures, graduated cylinders and a conical funnel were used. Measurements were made based on one litre (maximum capacity of the cylinder). Then, they were poured into a container [22]. The procedure was performed for each of the six fuels. The mixtures were made from the commercial gasohol E10 (90% gasoline and 10% ethanol). The amounts of absolute ethanol were added to obtain the volumetric concentrations [23, 24]. The calculations of the quantities of fuel required were made based on 1000 mL (1 litre), and volumetric concentrations of the fuels involved in the tests are given in Table 1. The physicochemical properties of gasoline and anhydrous ethanol are presented in Table 2.Table 1
Physicochemical properties of gasoline and anhydrous ethanol.
S. no
Parameters
Obtained measurement
Gasoline
1
Boiling temperature (°C)
38.8
2
Flash temperature (°C)
21
3
Auto-ignition temperature (°C)
250
4
Water solubility
Insoluble
5
Vapor pressure (kPa)
6.5-7.8
6
Lower calorific power (kJ/kg)
44,000
7
Superior calorific power (kJ/kg)
47 300
8
Octane number (RON, MON)
91/80
9
Stoichiometric ratio (A/F)
14.7–15
Anhydrous ethanol
1
Boiling temperature (°C)
78.5
2
Flash temperature (°C)
13
3
Auto-ignition temperature (°C)
363
4
Water solubility
Miscible
5
Vapor pressure (mmHg at ambient T °)
43
6
Lower calorific power (kJ/kg)
26800
7
Superior calorific power (kJ/kg)
29600
8
Octane number (RON, MON)
109/98
9
Stoichiometric ratio (A/F)
9Table 2
Volumetric concentrations of the fuels involved in the tests.
Mix (1000 mL)
Ethanol percentage (%)
E10 gasohol volume (mL)
Initial volume of ethanol (mL)
Volume of ethanol added (mL)
Volume of ethanol in the mixture (mL)
E10
10
1000
78
—
78
E15
15
867.7
67.7
132.3
200
E20
20
813.4
63.4
186.6
250


## 3. Experimental Methodology

The main characteristics of the engine used in the tests with specifications are given in Table3. The engine is connected to a direct current dynamometric brake with a maximum revolution speed of 3000 rpm; the engine’s testing was restricted to that speed. The referred dynamometric brake has a reader camry force analog in charge of taking a reading of the force demanded by the load to which the motor is subjected, expressed in kgf, and can test engines with a maximum load of 50 kg for a torque of 147 Nm with a resolution of ±1.Table 3
Main characteristics of the engine used in the tests.
S.no
Specification
Value
1
Power
40 kW at 5500 rpm
2
Torque
76.5 Nm at 2800 rpm
3
Number of cylinders
3
4
Displacement
993 cc
5
Cylinder diameter
76 mm
6
Piston race
73 mm
7
Compression ratio
9 : 1
8
Fuel injection
Carburetor
9
Ignition type
Spark
10
Ignition order
1-2-3Equation (2) is used to calculate torque. An induction sensor (±1 rpm) is installed on the axis of said brake to have a detailed and instantaneous record of engine revolutions, data evidenced in the test bench control panel. Regarding the measurement of fuel consumption, a volumetric measurement system was implemented between one plate and another in the measurement tank. A measurement reading was taken at stabilizing engine speed to consume the volume differential of 29.5 cm3.At atmospheric conditions, a digital thermo hygrometer was used to measure temperature (±1°C) and relative humidity (±1%). Two thermometers (2°C) were installed, one at the refrigerant inlet and the other at the refrigerant exit. These thermometers were installed in the refrigerant transport ducts, thus ensuring a constant and instantaneous reading of engine coolant temperature for each proposed speed. The barometric pressure data, measured twice a day before starting and ending the tests, is due to its invariance of reading as it is a single location.U-shaped inclined water manometer (±1 cm H2O) in the test bench was used, necessary for measuring differential pressure through the nozzle of the buffer tank in the air intake process. After completing the relevant derivation, the system was already prepared for measuring gasses, and the measurements were initiated using a Bosch type emission analyzer. It is necessary to modify the exhaust pipe, which extends outside the roof, to measure combustion gases. As a result, the analyzer probe had to be inserted through a bypass above the exhaust pipe silencer. Insert the probe into the tube and wait approximately 0.5 minutes for the analyzer to record the data for CO, CO2, NO, O2, HC, lambda factor, temperature, and engine oil. It is necessary to modify the exhaust pipe, which extends outside the roof, to measure combustion gases. As a result, the analyzer probe needed to be inserted through a bypass above the exhaust pipe silencer. The various engine parameters are calculated using Equations (2)–(10).The following is the calculation of parameters:Effective torque(2)Me=Fd×g×l,where Me is the effective torque (Nm), Fd is the force (kgf), g is the gravity (m/s2), and l is the length of dynamometric brake arm (m).Effective power(3)Ne=Me×η×π30000,where Ne is the effective power (kW) and η is the rate of turn (RPM).Mass flow of fuel
(4)
m
c
.
=
V
.
×
ρ
c
.Where:m
c
.: Mass flow [Kg / s]V
.: Volumetric flow [cm3 / s]ρ
c: Fuel density [Kg / cm3]In the case of E10, E15 and E20 gasohol:(5)mc.=Ve.×ρe+V.gas×ρgas.Where:V
e
.: Volumetric flow of ethanol in the mixture (cm3 / 𝑠]ρ
e: Density of ethanol [Kg / cm3]V
.
g
a
s: Volumetric flow of commercial gasohol in the mixture (𝑐𝑚3/ 𝑠)ρ
g
a
s: Density of gasohol in the mixture [Kg / cm3]Mass air flow
(6)
λ
=
A
F
R
/
A
F
tWhere:A
F
t: Theoretical air fuel ratio.A
F
R: Real air fuel ratio.(7)AFR=m.a.m.c⟶m.a=AFR×m..Where:m
.
a: Mass air flow [g / h]Specific fuel consumption
(8)
S
F
C
=
m
.
g
a
s
+
P
C
.
P
C
I
g
a
s
m
.
e
360Where:S
F
C: Specific fuel consumption [g / KW - h]P
C
I
e: Lower calorific value of ethanol [KJ / Kg]P
C
I
g
a
s: Lower calorific value of gasoline [KJ / Kg]Average effective pressure.(9)pme=WeVTWhere:p
m
e: Effective mean pressure [KPa]W
e: Work done by the Engine [KJ]V
T: Displacement [𝑚3]Effective performance.(10)ηe=Nem.gasPCIgas+m.ePCIe100Where:P
C
I
g
a
s=44000KJ/KgP
C
I
e=26800KJ/Kgη
e: Effective return [%]


## 4. Results and Discussion

The characteristic curves of the calculated variables are presented using dispersion graphs in this result: effective torque (Te), effective power (Pe), specific fuel consumption (SFC), fuel mass flow (m.c), mass airflow (m.a), and effective return (ηe), and the emissions are as follows: carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrogen oxides (NO).The comparisons were made for E10, E15, and E20 by taking an average of all measurement regimens between the two fuels while keeping the corresponding octane level (OC).


### 4.1. Engine Performance

#### 4.1.1. Torque

Figure1 presents the results of torque produced by various biofuels with respect to speed. The E10 (90) octanes made the highest torque, with a maximum peak of 51 Nm for a 2000 rpm regime, while the E10 (95) had the lowest torque, with a value of 22 Nm. This may be due to the mechanical operating design of the main engine components and their responsiveness to different octane numbers. Hence, the manufacturer recommends using 90 octane fuel and not 95 or other octane levels. The results obtained from torque for 90 octane fuels, in which the average torque of the E10 DE (90) amounts to 47 Nm. At the same time, the E15 presents an average torque of 40, representing a decrease in this last to commercial gasohol of 7.5%; likewise, for the E20, an average torque of 31 Nm was obtained, representing a reduction of 34% compared to E10. In 95 octane fuels, the E10 obtained values were an average torque of 35 Nm, compared to the E15 average torque of 34. The latter represents a 3% decrease to E10, and on the other hand, E20 increase of 0.09% compared to E10, an insignificant increase [25].Figure 1
Effective torque vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


#### 4.1.2. Effective Power

Figure2 shows that the values obtained power for different speeds (rpm) with varying conditions of fuel. It shows that the power directly depends on the engine’s speed; as the speed increases, the sufficient power delivered by the engine also increases. Also, the highest point was offered by the E10 (90) octane with adequate power of 13.04 kW at 3000 rpm. On the other hand, the 90 octanes E20 offered the lowest point with a value of 6.85 kW. The effective power results for 90 octane fuels; the E10 presented an average sufficient power of 12.08 kW. Compared to the 10.50 kW of the E15, the latter represents a decrease corresponding to 15.28%. The results for 95 octane fuels, commercial gasohol E10 provided an average sufficient power rising to 9.16 kW, while E15 showed a power of 8.99 kW, which compared to E10 represents a decrease of 3.09%. On the other hand, the E20 provided an average power of 8.36 kW, representing 34.7% less than the E10. Then, the E20 delivered a brake power of 9.17 kW, which compared to the E10 leads, considering the values of their respective standard deviations, to a negligible variation [26].Figure 2
Effective power vs. RPM for various ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


#### 4.1.3. Specific Fuel Consumption

Figure3 shows the results obtained for the specific fuel consumption with speed. The figure shows that the 90 octane E20 presents remarkable supremacy over other fuels, whose maximum value of 700.73 g/kW-h at 2400 rpm. The minimum value obtained by the 95 octane E20 was 232.65 g/kW-h at 1500 rpm. The results for 90 octane fuels, commercial gasohol E10 provided a specific fuel consumption of 269.24 g/kW-h. At the same time, E15 showed a specific consumption of 293.14 g/kW-h, which, compared to E10, represents an increase of 9.0%. Then, the E20 delivered a specific consumption of 575.78 g/kW-h, which, compared to the E10, implies an increase of 115.29%. The results of the 95 octane fuels are that the commercial gasohol E10 presented a specific fuel consumption of 356.26 g/kW-h. The E15 had a specific consumption of 354.42 g/kW-h compared to E10, representing a decrease of 0.52%. Next, the E20 presented a specific consumption of 328.18 g/kW-h, representing a decrease of 8.95% compared to the E10 [27].Figure 3
Specific consumption vs. RPM for various gasoline-ethanol blends and octane levels.


#### 4.1.4. Fuel Mass Flow

Figure4 depicts the mass flow of fuel sustained in it. From the figure, the mass flow of fuel increases as the rotational speed increases. The 90 octane E20 exhibits a substantial difference when compared to other fuels, with a maximum value of 0.00159 kg/s acquired at 2700 rpm and a lowest value of 0.000562 kg/s obtained at 1500 rpm for the 95 octane E20. The results obtained from the fuel mass flow only for 90 octane fuels showed that the E15 presents an average mass fuel flow of 0.00082 kg/s compared to the 0.00083 Kg/s obtained by the E10 represents a decrease of 1.63%. E20 had an average mass fuel flow of 0.001268 kg/s, representing an increase of 53.22%. About 95 octane fuels, it follows that the average mass flow of fuel corresponding to E15 amounts to a value of 0.000825 kg/s, compared to E10, which obtained a value of 0.000796 kg/s represents an increase of 3.83%. In contrast, E20 obtained a value of 0.000796 kg/s, which compared to E10 represents a decrease of 3.6%.Figure 4
Mass flow of fuel vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


#### 4.1.5. Mass Airflow

Figure5 depicts the air mass flow and the effects of this parameter. The test results show that this parameter does not have a proportional relationship with the speed of rotation. In the same, it is evidenced that, analogously to the results of the maximum fuel flow, the E20 (90) octane shows notorious supremacy over the other fuels, reaching a maximum peak at 1500 rpm of 61.14 kg/s. Likewise, the minimum value corresponds to the E20 of 95 octanes at 1500 rpm, which amounts to 14.38 kg/s. The mass flows of air corresponding to 90 octane fuels were found to be 19.82 kg/s and 20.4 kg/s for E10 and E15, respectively. E20 showed an average mass airflow of 44.74 kg/s, which, compared to the value obtained by E10, offers a 133% increase. The results obtained for 95 octane fuels, the average mass airflow of 24.24 kg/s that corresponds to E10 can be deduced, and the E15 showed an average value of 20.37 kg/s compared to E10 that shows a decrease of 17.67%. Likewise, E20 obtained an average value of 20.57 kg/s and 16.9% less than E10.Figure 5
Mass air flow vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


#### 4.1.6. Effective Performance

Figure6 shows the results obtained corresponding to the adequate performance of the engine operating with different fuels. The highest engine performance was observed with E20 (95) octane at 1500 rpm with a value of 37.4 percent, as shown in the figure. The E20 at 1500 revolutions is data obtained through theoretical calculations (interpolation) and not experimental, hence its high standard deviation. At 1500 rpm with a value of 33.5%, the 90 octane E10 obtains immediately lower noninterpolated data. The test analysis and comparison was performed with datasets equal to E20 with their respective standard deviation. The better performance results were obtained by using E10 (90 octane). The specific results for 90 octane fuels deduced an average effective yield for the E15 of 29.27%. Compared to the value obtained by the E10, an average yield of 31.58% represents a decrease of 8.56%. The E20 obtained an average return of 15.44%, representing a decrease of 53.9% compared to E10. The results for 95 octane fuels show average effective rates of 24.4%, equal to E15, which are not significantly different compared with 24.53% produced from E10. For its part, the E20 obtained a performance of 26.87%, which represents an increase of 10.96% to the E10 [28].Figure 6
Effective performance vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


### 4.2. Emission Characteristics

#### 4.2.1. Carbon Monoxide Emissions (CO)

Figure7 shows the level of the variable CO for all different concentrations of ethanol in the fuel and octane levels. In this, one can notice a high dispersion of the data, and it does not have a proportional relationship to the speed of rotation. Similarly, the E10 of 90 octanes with a value of 4.2% at 2100 rpm achieved the highest value. E15 (95) octane, with a rating of 0.02%, was the lowest value. To the specific results for 90 octane fuels, an average CO emission of 0.19% corresponding to E15 can be deduced, which, compared to the 0.93% that the E10 showed, represents a decrease of 81.44%. E20 led to an average CO concentration of 0.58%, which means a decrease corresponding to 36.9% to that obtained by E10. The complete results for 95 octane fuels, an average CO emission of 0.27% deduced for E15, compared to 0.25% shown by E10, an increase of 9.4%. For its part, E20 showed an average CO concentration of 0.25%, which leads to a null variation of data obtained for both fuels (E15 and E10) [29, 30].Figure 7
Carbon monoxide vs. RPM for different concentrations of ethanol-gasoline and octane levels.


#### 4.2.2. Nitrogen Monoxide Emissions (NO)

Figure8 shows the results obtained for the variable NO for each of the six fuels involved in the tests. The figure depicts the data’s specific dispersion. Results found for 90 octane fuels solely, where average 276.7 ppm emissions of this gas are equivalent to E15, representing an 11.7% drop compared to the 309.4 ppm of the E10. Similarly, the E20 of 95 octanes with a value of 511 ppm obtained the highest value at 1500 rpm, while the E10 (95) octane with a value of 7 ppm obtained the lowest value. The E20 presented an average emission of nitrogen oxides of 98.58 ppm, which, compared to the value of E10, represents a corresponding decrease of 69.36%. For the 95 octane fuels, an average NO emission corresponding to the E15 of 224.2 ppm can be seen, compared to 151.72 ppm of E10, representing an increase of 49%. Likewise, in the case of E20, it presents a value of 256.6 ppm, representing an increase of 70.6% to E10 [29].Figure 8
Nitrogen oxides vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


#### 4.2.3. Carbon Dioxide Emissions (CO2)

Figure9 presents the results obtained for the CO2 variable for each of the six fuels involved in the tests. In this case, the E10’s rate of rotation of 90 octane at 3000 rpm is proportionally increasing at 16.02%, while the E20 (90) octane at a value of 2.55% at 1500 rpm was the lowest value. The test results show that for 90 octane fuels, the CO2 emissions are 13.3% at E15 and 16% at E10. The E20 presented an average emission of carbon dioxide of 8.39%, which, compared to the value of E10, represents a corresponding decrease of 46.9%. For the results of the 95 octane fuels, it can see an average carbon dioxide emission corresponding to E15 of 14.05%, which, compared to 13.05% of E10, represents an increase of 9.4%. Likewise, E20 presents a value of 13.23%, representing an invaluable variability to E10.Figure 9
Carbon dioxide vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.1. Engine Performance

### 4.1.1. Torque

Figure1 presents the results of torque produced by various biofuels with respect to speed. The E10 (90) octanes made the highest torque, with a maximum peak of 51 Nm for a 2000 rpm regime, while the E10 (95) had the lowest torque, with a value of 22 Nm. This may be due to the mechanical operating design of the main engine components and their responsiveness to different octane numbers. Hence, the manufacturer recommends using 90 octane fuel and not 95 or other octane levels. The results obtained from torque for 90 octane fuels, in which the average torque of the E10 DE (90) amounts to 47 Nm. At the same time, the E15 presents an average torque of 40, representing a decrease in this last to commercial gasohol of 7.5%; likewise, for the E20, an average torque of 31 Nm was obtained, representing a reduction of 34% compared to E10. In 95 octane fuels, the E10 obtained values were an average torque of 35 Nm, compared to the E15 average torque of 34. The latter represents a 3% decrease to E10, and on the other hand, E20 increase of 0.09% compared to E10, an insignificant increase [25].Figure 1
Effective torque vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


### 4.1.2. Effective Power

Figure2 shows that the values obtained power for different speeds (rpm) with varying conditions of fuel. It shows that the power directly depends on the engine’s speed; as the speed increases, the sufficient power delivered by the engine also increases. Also, the highest point was offered by the E10 (90) octane with adequate power of 13.04 kW at 3000 rpm. On the other hand, the 90 octanes E20 offered the lowest point with a value of 6.85 kW. The effective power results for 90 octane fuels; the E10 presented an average sufficient power of 12.08 kW. Compared to the 10.50 kW of the E15, the latter represents a decrease corresponding to 15.28%. The results for 95 octane fuels, commercial gasohol E10 provided an average sufficient power rising to 9.16 kW, while E15 showed a power of 8.99 kW, which compared to E10 represents a decrease of 3.09%. On the other hand, the E20 provided an average power of 8.36 kW, representing 34.7% less than the E10. Then, the E20 delivered a brake power of 9.17 kW, which compared to the E10 leads, considering the values of their respective standard deviations, to a negligible variation [26].Figure 2
Effective power vs. RPM for various ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


### 4.1.3. Specific Fuel Consumption

Figure3 shows the results obtained for the specific fuel consumption with speed. The figure shows that the 90 octane E20 presents remarkable supremacy over other fuels, whose maximum value of 700.73 g/kW-h at 2400 rpm. The minimum value obtained by the 95 octane E20 was 232.65 g/kW-h at 1500 rpm. The results for 90 octane fuels, commercial gasohol E10 provided a specific fuel consumption of 269.24 g/kW-h. At the same time, E15 showed a specific consumption of 293.14 g/kW-h, which, compared to E10, represents an increase of 9.0%. Then, the E20 delivered a specific consumption of 575.78 g/kW-h, which, compared to the E10, implies an increase of 115.29%. The results of the 95 octane fuels are that the commercial gasohol E10 presented a specific fuel consumption of 356.26 g/kW-h. The E15 had a specific consumption of 354.42 g/kW-h compared to E10, representing a decrease of 0.52%. Next, the E20 presented a specific consumption of 328.18 g/kW-h, representing a decrease of 8.95% compared to the E10 [27].Figure 3
Specific consumption vs. RPM for various gasoline-ethanol blends and octane levels.


### 4.1.4. Fuel Mass Flow

Figure4 depicts the mass flow of fuel sustained in it. From the figure, the mass flow of fuel increases as the rotational speed increases. The 90 octane E20 exhibits a substantial difference when compared to other fuels, with a maximum value of 0.00159 kg/s acquired at 2700 rpm and a lowest value of 0.000562 kg/s obtained at 1500 rpm for the 95 octane E20. The results obtained from the fuel mass flow only for 90 octane fuels showed that the E15 presents an average mass fuel flow of 0.00082 kg/s compared to the 0.00083 Kg/s obtained by the E10 represents a decrease of 1.63%. E20 had an average mass fuel flow of 0.001268 kg/s, representing an increase of 53.22%. About 95 octane fuels, it follows that the average mass flow of fuel corresponding to E15 amounts to a value of 0.000825 kg/s, compared to E10, which obtained a value of 0.000796 kg/s represents an increase of 3.83%. In contrast, E20 obtained a value of 0.000796 kg/s, which compared to E10 represents a decrease of 3.6%.Figure 4
Mass flow of fuel vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


### 4.1.5. Mass Airflow

Figure5 depicts the air mass flow and the effects of this parameter. The test results show that this parameter does not have a proportional relationship with the speed of rotation. In the same, it is evidenced that, analogously to the results of the maximum fuel flow, the E20 (90) octane shows notorious supremacy over the other fuels, reaching a maximum peak at 1500 rpm of 61.14 kg/s. Likewise, the minimum value corresponds to the E20 of 95 octanes at 1500 rpm, which amounts to 14.38 kg/s. The mass flows of air corresponding to 90 octane fuels were found to be 19.82 kg/s and 20.4 kg/s for E10 and E15, respectively. E20 showed an average mass airflow of 44.74 kg/s, which, compared to the value obtained by E10, offers a 133% increase. The results obtained for 95 octane fuels, the average mass airflow of 24.24 kg/s that corresponds to E10 can be deduced, and the E15 showed an average value of 20.37 kg/s compared to E10 that shows a decrease of 17.67%. Likewise, E20 obtained an average value of 20.57 kg/s and 16.9% less than E10.Figure 5
Mass air flow vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


### 4.1.6. Effective Performance

Figure6 shows the results obtained corresponding to the adequate performance of the engine operating with different fuels. The highest engine performance was observed with E20 (95) octane at 1500 rpm with a value of 37.4 percent, as shown in the figure. The E20 at 1500 revolutions is data obtained through theoretical calculations (interpolation) and not experimental, hence its high standard deviation. At 1500 rpm with a value of 33.5%, the 90 octane E10 obtains immediately lower noninterpolated data. The test analysis and comparison was performed with datasets equal to E20 with their respective standard deviation. The better performance results were obtained by using E10 (90 octane). The specific results for 90 octane fuels deduced an average effective yield for the E15 of 29.27%. Compared to the value obtained by the E10, an average yield of 31.58% represents a decrease of 8.56%. The E20 obtained an average return of 15.44%, representing a decrease of 53.9% compared to E10. The results for 95 octane fuels show average effective rates of 24.4%, equal to E15, which are not significantly different compared with 24.53% produced from E10. For its part, the E20 obtained a performance of 26.87%, which represents an increase of 10.96% to the E10 [28].Figure 6
Effective performance vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.1.1. Torque

Figure1 presents the results of torque produced by various biofuels with respect to speed. The E10 (90) octanes made the highest torque, with a maximum peak of 51 Nm for a 2000 rpm regime, while the E10 (95) had the lowest torque, with a value of 22 Nm. This may be due to the mechanical operating design of the main engine components and their responsiveness to different octane numbers. Hence, the manufacturer recommends using 90 octane fuel and not 95 or other octane levels. The results obtained from torque for 90 octane fuels, in which the average torque of the E10 DE (90) amounts to 47 Nm. At the same time, the E15 presents an average torque of 40, representing a decrease in this last to commercial gasohol of 7.5%; likewise, for the E20, an average torque of 31 Nm was obtained, representing a reduction of 34% compared to E10. In 95 octane fuels, the E10 obtained values were an average torque of 35 Nm, compared to the E15 average torque of 34. The latter represents a 3% decrease to E10, and on the other hand, E20 increase of 0.09% compared to E10, an insignificant increase [25].Figure 1
Effective torque vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.1.2. Effective Power

Figure2 shows that the values obtained power for different speeds (rpm) with varying conditions of fuel. It shows that the power directly depends on the engine’s speed; as the speed increases, the sufficient power delivered by the engine also increases. Also, the highest point was offered by the E10 (90) octane with adequate power of 13.04 kW at 3000 rpm. On the other hand, the 90 octanes E20 offered the lowest point with a value of 6.85 kW. The effective power results for 90 octane fuels; the E10 presented an average sufficient power of 12.08 kW. Compared to the 10.50 kW of the E15, the latter represents a decrease corresponding to 15.28%. The results for 95 octane fuels, commercial gasohol E10 provided an average sufficient power rising to 9.16 kW, while E15 showed a power of 8.99 kW, which compared to E10 represents a decrease of 3.09%. On the other hand, the E20 provided an average power of 8.36 kW, representing 34.7% less than the E10. Then, the E20 delivered a brake power of 9.17 kW, which compared to the E10 leads, considering the values of their respective standard deviations, to a negligible variation [26].Figure 2
Effective power vs. RPM for various ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.1.3. Specific Fuel Consumption

Figure3 shows the results obtained for the specific fuel consumption with speed. The figure shows that the 90 octane E20 presents remarkable supremacy over other fuels, whose maximum value of 700.73 g/kW-h at 2400 rpm. The minimum value obtained by the 95 octane E20 was 232.65 g/kW-h at 1500 rpm. The results for 90 octane fuels, commercial gasohol E10 provided a specific fuel consumption of 269.24 g/kW-h. At the same time, E15 showed a specific consumption of 293.14 g/kW-h, which, compared to E10, represents an increase of 9.0%. Then, the E20 delivered a specific consumption of 575.78 g/kW-h, which, compared to the E10, implies an increase of 115.29%. The results of the 95 octane fuels are that the commercial gasohol E10 presented a specific fuel consumption of 356.26 g/kW-h. The E15 had a specific consumption of 354.42 g/kW-h compared to E10, representing a decrease of 0.52%. Next, the E20 presented a specific consumption of 328.18 g/kW-h, representing a decrease of 8.95% compared to the E10 [27].Figure 3
Specific consumption vs. RPM for various gasoline-ethanol blends and octane levels.


## 4.1.4. Fuel Mass Flow

Figure4 depicts the mass flow of fuel sustained in it. From the figure, the mass flow of fuel increases as the rotational speed increases. The 90 octane E20 exhibits a substantial difference when compared to other fuels, with a maximum value of 0.00159 kg/s acquired at 2700 rpm and a lowest value of 0.000562 kg/s obtained at 1500 rpm for the 95 octane E20. The results obtained from the fuel mass flow only for 90 octane fuels showed that the E15 presents an average mass fuel flow of 0.00082 kg/s compared to the 0.00083 Kg/s obtained by the E10 represents a decrease of 1.63%. E20 had an average mass fuel flow of 0.001268 kg/s, representing an increase of 53.22%. About 95 octane fuels, it follows that the average mass flow of fuel corresponding to E15 amounts to a value of 0.000825 kg/s, compared to E10, which obtained a value of 0.000796 kg/s represents an increase of 3.83%. In contrast, E20 obtained a value of 0.000796 kg/s, which compared to E10 represents a decrease of 3.6%.Figure 4
Mass flow of fuel vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.1.5. Mass Airflow

Figure5 depicts the air mass flow and the effects of this parameter. The test results show that this parameter does not have a proportional relationship with the speed of rotation. In the same, it is evidenced that, analogously to the results of the maximum fuel flow, the E20 (90) octane shows notorious supremacy over the other fuels, reaching a maximum peak at 1500 rpm of 61.14 kg/s. Likewise, the minimum value corresponds to the E20 of 95 octanes at 1500 rpm, which amounts to 14.38 kg/s. The mass flows of air corresponding to 90 octane fuels were found to be 19.82 kg/s and 20.4 kg/s for E10 and E15, respectively. E20 showed an average mass airflow of 44.74 kg/s, which, compared to the value obtained by E10, offers a 133% increase. The results obtained for 95 octane fuels, the average mass airflow of 24.24 kg/s that corresponds to E10 can be deduced, and the E15 showed an average value of 20.37 kg/s compared to E10 that shows a decrease of 17.67%. Likewise, E20 obtained an average value of 20.57 kg/s and 16.9% less than E10.Figure 5
Mass air flow vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.1.6. Effective Performance

Figure6 shows the results obtained corresponding to the adequate performance of the engine operating with different fuels. The highest engine performance was observed with E20 (95) octane at 1500 rpm with a value of 37.4 percent, as shown in the figure. The E20 at 1500 revolutions is data obtained through theoretical calculations (interpolation) and not experimental, hence its high standard deviation. At 1500 rpm with a value of 33.5%, the 90 octane E10 obtains immediately lower noninterpolated data. The test analysis and comparison was performed with datasets equal to E20 with their respective standard deviation. The better performance results were obtained by using E10 (90 octane). The specific results for 90 octane fuels deduced an average effective yield for the E15 of 29.27%. Compared to the value obtained by the E10, an average yield of 31.58% represents a decrease of 8.56%. The E20 obtained an average return of 15.44%, representing a decrease of 53.9% compared to E10. The results for 95 octane fuels show average effective rates of 24.4%, equal to E15, which are not significantly different compared with 24.53% produced from E10. For its part, the E20 obtained a performance of 26.87%, which represents an increase of 10.96% to the E10 [28].Figure 6
Effective performance vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.2. Emission Characteristics

### 4.2.1. Carbon Monoxide Emissions (CO)

Figure7 shows the level of the variable CO for all different concentrations of ethanol in the fuel and octane levels. In this, one can notice a high dispersion of the data, and it does not have a proportional relationship to the speed of rotation. Similarly, the E10 of 90 octanes with a value of 4.2% at 2100 rpm achieved the highest value. E15 (95) octane, with a rating of 0.02%, was the lowest value. To the specific results for 90 octane fuels, an average CO emission of 0.19% corresponding to E15 can be deduced, which, compared to the 0.93% that the E10 showed, represents a decrease of 81.44%. E20 led to an average CO concentration of 0.58%, which means a decrease corresponding to 36.9% to that obtained by E10. The complete results for 95 octane fuels, an average CO emission of 0.27% deduced for E15, compared to 0.25% shown by E10, an increase of 9.4%. For its part, E20 showed an average CO concentration of 0.25%, which leads to a null variation of data obtained for both fuels (E15 and E10) [29, 30].Figure 7
Carbon monoxide vs. RPM for different concentrations of ethanol-gasoline and octane levels.


### 4.2.2. Nitrogen Monoxide Emissions (NO)

Figure8 shows the results obtained for the variable NO for each of the six fuels involved in the tests. The figure depicts the data’s specific dispersion. Results found for 90 octane fuels solely, where average 276.7 ppm emissions of this gas are equivalent to E15, representing an 11.7% drop compared to the 309.4 ppm of the E10. Similarly, the E20 of 95 octanes with a value of 511 ppm obtained the highest value at 1500 rpm, while the E10 (95) octane with a value of 7 ppm obtained the lowest value. The E20 presented an average emission of nitrogen oxides of 98.58 ppm, which, compared to the value of E10, represents a corresponding decrease of 69.36%. For the 95 octane fuels, an average NO emission corresponding to the E15 of 224.2 ppm can be seen, compared to 151.72 ppm of E10, representing an increase of 49%. Likewise, in the case of E20, it presents a value of 256.6 ppm, representing an increase of 70.6% to E10 [29].Figure 8
Nitrogen oxides vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


### 4.2.3. Carbon Dioxide Emissions (CO2)

Figure9 presents the results obtained for the CO2 variable for each of the six fuels involved in the tests. In this case, the E10’s rate of rotation of 90 octane at 3000 rpm is proportionally increasing at 16.02%, while the E20 (90) octane at a value of 2.55% at 1500 rpm was the lowest value. The test results show that for 90 octane fuels, the CO2 emissions are 13.3% at E15 and 16% at E10. The E20 presented an average emission of carbon dioxide of 8.39%, which, compared to the value of E10, represents a corresponding decrease of 46.9%. For the results of the 95 octane fuels, it can see an average carbon dioxide emission corresponding to E15 of 14.05%, which, compared to 13.05% of E10, represents an increase of 9.4%. Likewise, E20 presents a value of 13.23%, representing an invaluable variability to E10.Figure 9
Carbon dioxide vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.2.1. Carbon Monoxide Emissions (CO)

Figure7 shows the level of the variable CO for all different concentrations of ethanol in the fuel and octane levels. In this, one can notice a high dispersion of the data, and it does not have a proportional relationship to the speed of rotation. Similarly, the E10 of 90 octanes with a value of 4.2% at 2100 rpm achieved the highest value. E15 (95) octane, with a rating of 0.02%, was the lowest value. To the specific results for 90 octane fuels, an average CO emission of 0.19% corresponding to E15 can be deduced, which, compared to the 0.93% that the E10 showed, represents a decrease of 81.44%. E20 led to an average CO concentration of 0.58%, which means a decrease corresponding to 36.9% to that obtained by E10. The complete results for 95 octane fuels, an average CO emission of 0.27% deduced for E15, compared to 0.25% shown by E10, an increase of 9.4%. For its part, E20 showed an average CO concentration of 0.25%, which leads to a null variation of data obtained for both fuels (E15 and E10) [29, 30].Figure 7
Carbon monoxide vs. RPM for different concentrations of ethanol-gasoline and octane levels.


## 4.2.2. Nitrogen Monoxide Emissions (NO)

Figure8 shows the results obtained for the variable NO for each of the six fuels involved in the tests. The figure depicts the data’s specific dispersion. Results found for 90 octane fuels solely, where average 276.7 ppm emissions of this gas are equivalent to E15, representing an 11.7% drop compared to the 309.4 ppm of the E10. Similarly, the E20 of 95 octanes with a value of 511 ppm obtained the highest value at 1500 rpm, while the E10 (95) octane with a value of 7 ppm obtained the lowest value. The E20 presented an average emission of nitrogen oxides of 98.58 ppm, which, compared to the value of E10, represents a corresponding decrease of 69.36%. For the 95 octane fuels, an average NO emission corresponding to the E15 of 224.2 ppm can be seen, compared to 151.72 ppm of E10, representing an increase of 49%. Likewise, in the case of E20, it presents a value of 256.6 ppm, representing an increase of 70.6% to E10 [29].Figure 8
Nitrogen oxides vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 4.2.3. Carbon Dioxide Emissions (CO2)

Figure9 presents the results obtained for the CO2 variable for each of the six fuels involved in the tests. In this case, the E10’s rate of rotation of 90 octane at 3000 rpm is proportionally increasing at 16.02%, while the E20 (90) octane at a value of 2.55% at 1500 rpm was the lowest value. The test results show that for 90 octane fuels, the CO2 emissions are 13.3% at E15 and 16% at E10. The E20 presented an average emission of carbon dioxide of 8.39%, which, compared to the value of E10, represents a corresponding decrease of 46.9%. For the results of the 95 octane fuels, it can see an average carbon dioxide emission corresponding to E15 of 14.05%, which, compared to 13.05% of E10, represents an increase of 9.4%. Likewise, E20 presents a value of 13.23%, representing an invaluable variability to E10.Figure 9
Carbon dioxide vs. RPM for different ethanol-gasoline blends and octane levels.


## 5. Conclusions

When gasohol was used in higher ethanol concentrations than the commercial one, E15 and E20, the engine had complications to stabilize it at low revolutions due to the need to modify the engine. The power loss of engine was found at 2100 rpm in the E15 and 2400 rpm in the E20 fuel compositions. The experimental tests concluded that the E10 achieved the maximum effective performance for the various fuels evaluated (90). The E15 of 90 octanes would be an excellent alternative fuel option for engine performance because there is a minimal difference between fuel and another. CO2 emissions were connected with octane level and ethanol concentration, which was confirmed by the present investigation, which stated that as ethanol concentration increases, CO2 emissions decrease. The CO has found that when the concentration of ethanol increases. This is owing to the increased concentration of oxygen atoms in ethanol. A larger amount of oxygen is required to burn the fuel, demonstrating more notoriety between the E10 and E15, reducing up to 100%. In terms of emissions, fuels with a higher ethanol concentration have a considerable advantage over traditional fuels. However, the difference between the E15 and the E20 is not as noticeable. Based on the above results, it is concluded that the 90 octane E15 is the fuel with which it is possible to reduce the emissions of a 4-stroke engine for automotive use without this significantly affecting its performance.



---

*Source: 2726645-2021-09-28.xml*