# Chlorella protothecoides Algae Oil and Its Mixes with Lower and Higher Alcohols and Al2O3 Metal Nanoadditives for Reduction of Pollution in a CI Engine

Authors: Gayatri Vaidya; Pravin P. Patil; Arif Senol SENER; Navale Sainath Ramnath; Bharat Singh; Raviteja Surakasi; Srujana Sripathi; Tsegaye Alemayehu Atiso
Journal: Journal of Nanomaterials
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Numerous Algae oils with low and medium viscosity were investigated as fuel for CI engines. However, high viscous algae oil has not been explored in detail as a replacement for diesel in CI engines due to operational problems and poor performance characteristics. Esterification of neat algae oil to obtain its biodiesel is a complex process. The biodiesel obtained also has viscosity nearly five times more than diesel viscosity. Hence, research efforts on CI engines using algae oil methyl ester are lacking, particularly in combustion characteristics. This work focuses on utilizing algae oil as a fuel in CI engines. Algae oil has more affinity for alcohols due to a higher percentage of ricinoleic acid which aids in forming a homogeneous mixture. Alcohols with better fuel properties improve the combustion capability of algae oils with low and medium viscosity. However, not much research has been carried out in alcohols with very high viscous algae oil. Hence, in this work, higher and lower-order alcohols were blended with algae oil in their neat form and their biodiesel with Al2O3 nanoadditives for performance improvement.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Extensive research has been carried out worldwide in compression ignition (CI) engines using algae oils with low and medium viscosities, particularly nonedible algae oils. Biodiesel obtained from nonedible sources is a viable option in CI engines for commercial applications. Compared to mineral diesel, biodiesel has many advantages such as biodegradability, safer storage, better lubricity, low toxicity, and environment friendly [1]. Algae oils with low to medium viscosity can be modified to obtain the properties equivalent to diesel by a suitable chemical process. However, high viscous algae oils such as Chlorella protothecoides oil cannot be esterified easily to obtain biodiesel. They require a complicated transesterification process and cannot match the diesel viscosity. As a result, not much experimental research was carried out using high viscous nonedible algae oil for diesel engine applications. In particular, the combustion behavior of heavy viscous oils either in raw form or biodiesel is not available in the literature [2].The present work focuses on this direction by investigating neatC. Protothecoides oil (CPO) with higher and lower-order alcohols as a fuel substitute for CI engines. Numerous nonedible vegetable oils with low and medium viscosity were investigated for CI engines. However, high viscous nonedible vegetable oil such as algae oil has not been explored in detail as a replacement for diesel in CI engines due to operational problems and poor performance characteristics [3]. Esterification of neat C. Protothecoides oil to obtain biodiesel is complex. The biodiesel obtained also has viscosity nearly five times of diesel viscosity. Hence, research efforts on CI engines using neat C. Protothecoides oil or its methyl ester are lacking, particularly in combustion characteristics. This work utilizes C. Protothecoides oil as a fuel in CI engines. C. Protothecoides oil has more affinity for alcohols due to a higher percentage of ricinoleic acid which aids in forming a homogeneous mixture [4].Alcohols with better fuel properties improve the combustion capability of vegetable oils with low and medium viscosity [5, 6]. However, not much research has been carried out in alcohols with very high viscous C. Protothecoides oil. Hence, in this work, higher and lower-order alcohols were blended with C. Protothecoides oil in its neat form and its biodiesel for performance improvement. A literature survey was done on the following methods to improve the performance of a CI engine operating on vegetable oil or its biodiesel. It evaluated the use of canola biodiesel (COME) and diesel blends in a CI engine on the performance and emission behavior. COME was blended with diesel in proportion on a volume basis [7].It was observed that pour point and cetane number of biodiesel were better, while density, viscosity, and calorific value were poor compared to diesel. They observed that engine power output was reduced with biodiesel and diesel blends. Based on the experimental results, they concluded that 25% blend of COME with diesel would be the best alternative to diesel, based on emission and performance parameters. It was performed as experiments in a CI engine at a rated speed of 1500 rpm with diesel-ethanol and biodiesel-ethanol blend as fuel. Ethanol was blended by volume with both diesel and biodiesel to assess the performance parameters of a CI engine in comparison with diesel and biodiesel [8]. They observed that in comparison to the biodiesel-ethanol blend, the diesel-ethanol blend produced higher indicated thermal efficiency and showed mean effective pressure. Both the parameters increased with ethanol proportion in the blend. Ignition delay was longer with higher ethanol concentration in the blend, and the delay period was longer with biodiesel-ethanol blend compared to diesel-ethanol blend. Also, the combustion duration for ethanol blended with biodiesel was higher than diesel. NOx and HC emissions were higher and increased with ethanol proportion. They observed that CO emission increased proportionally to ethanol concentration with diesel and biodiesel blends. The objectives of the present research work are to improve the combustion, emission, and performance of very high viscous algae oil with lower and higher-order alcohol and Al2O3 nanoadditives fueled compression ignition engines [9].


## 2. Experimental Setup

The test engine was a four-stroke single-cylinder CI engine with a water-cooled and direct fuel injection system. It developed a maximum rated output of 3.5 kW at 1500 rpm with maximum load condition. The engine made was Kirloskar, a TV1 model engine with over-head valves controlled by push rods. The fuel injection timing and pressure were maintained 23° before TDC and 200 bar as recommended by the manufacturer. The engine coolant was circulated through the water jackets in the cylinder, and the temperature of the coolant was maintained at 80°C. A pressure transducer (piezoelectric) was fitted on the cylinder head to measure in-cylinder pressure. The engine was loaded by coupling it with an eddy current dynamometer.Tests were conducted in four load conditions, namely, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of maximum brake power. Engine performance parameters like speed, load, exhaust temperature, fuel consumption, and emissions like smoke, hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and NO were measured at all load conditions. This experimental study tested the following fuels: diesel, CPO, CPO with lower/higher-order alcohol, and CPOAl2O3 nanoadditives. The size of the nanoadditives is less than 100 nm. The experiments were conducted at a constant speed of 1500 rpm. The tests were conducted after the engine attained a stable condition. The fuel injection pressure was set at 200 bar. The engine output was varied in steps from 25% to 100% loading under the single fuel mode. The DAQ system recorded pressure crank angle data of hundred consecutive cycles. This data was analyzed to interpret the variation in average pressure at the corresponding crank angle. The first phase of the test was conducted to compare the emission and performance behavior of the base fuels such as diesel, CPO, CPO with lower/higher-order alcohol, and CPO Al2O3 nanoadditives with variable load at the rated speed of 1500 rpm. The emission and performance behavior of the engine with ternary blends of diesel, ethanol, and hexagonal and Al2O3 nanoadditives were studied.


## 3. Result and Discussion

### 3.1. Engine Operation with Ternary Fuel Blends of NCO, Diesel, and Ethanol

In this phase of research work, the proportion of diesel fuel is maintained constant at 20% for all the blends. Binary fuel blend of CPO and diesel is blended with ethanol, hexagonal, and Al2O3 in different proportions [10]. Experiments were conducted with the following three ternary fuel blends: (i) neat algae oil 80% and hexagonal 20% by volume (PCO80+Hex20); (ii) neat algae oil 100% (PCO 100%) and (iii) neat algae oil biodiesel (PCOME 100%); and (iv) neat algae oil 80% and ethanol 20% by volume (PCO80+Eth20) and neat algae oil 100% with 100 ppm Al2O3 (PCO100%+100 ppm Al2O3).Figure1 shows the BTE variation with BP for various test fuels. CPO+Hex has a BTE of 33%, whereas CPO has a BTE of 22%. CPO has a significantly lower BTE [11]. More energy is released during the diffusion phase, resulting in more heat energy squandered in the exhaust. CPO+Eth, on the other hand, has a BTE of 31.25%, which is similar to CPO + Hex (33%). Ethanol was combined with PCO and diesel to increase CPO combustion. Blending improves atomization and the creation of air-fuel mixtures [12].Figure 1
BTE with BP at full load.Figure2 shows the HRR with an appropriate crank angle for various fuels at full load. CPO+Hex has a maximum HRR of 67 J/°CA at 100% load, whereas CPO has a maximum HRR of 45 J/°CA. Because hexagonal has a reduced viscosity and a high flame speed, ethanol addition in ternary fuel blends results in a significant increase in premixed combustion [13]. For CPO, it can be seen that primary combustion occurred during the diffusion phase. HRR for the optimal CPO+Eth combination is 62 J/°CA. This blend’s premixed combustion is more similar to CPO+Hex. Compared to CPO and other trifuel blends, this leads to higher BTE, higher peak pressure, and reduced smoke emission [14].Figure 2
HRR with the crank angle at full load.Figure3 shows the in-cylinder pressure related to the crank angle at full load for several test fuels. Because of the reduced HRR and poor combustion with CPO, the peak pressure is limited to 61 bar, which is lower than with CPO+Hex (70 bar). Adding ethanol to CPO raises the peak pressure for CPO+Eth (66 bar), bringing it closer to that of CPO+Hex. Ignition delay is more significant, and oxygenated hexagonal is stored during the delay time, giving the injected fuel more oxygen to burn, resulting in a quicker HRR and higher peak pressure [15].Figure 3
In-cylinder pressure with CA at full load.Figure4 shows the fluctuation of ignition delay (ID) with BP. The ID of CPO and CPO+Hex at full load is 14°CA and 9°CA, respectively. Because of its low volatility, CPO has a higher ID than CPO+Hex. This contributes to incorrect air-fuel mixture creation and poor atomization, which increases ignition delay. Hexagonal blending reduces viscosity while increasing volatility, resulting in better atomization, vaporization, and air-fuel mixing [16]. The ignition delay for the optimal CPO+Eth blend is 12°CA.Figure 4
Ignition delay with BP at full load.Figure5 shows the variance in smoke emission with BP for several test fuels. The smoke opacity of CPO operation approaches 100% at full load; however, smoke emission lowers with ternary fuel blend of diesel, CPO, and ethanol [17]. Ternary fuel mixes have low density and viscosity, resulting in improved combustion. Ternary mixture with high ethanol concentration emits less smoke for CPO+Eth optimal blend is 69% opacity due to the blend’s improved volatility. CPO+Hex emits smoke with a 58% opacity.Figure 5
Smoke emission variation with BP at full load.Figure6 illustrates the variance in NO emission with BP for several test fuels. In comparison to CPO+Hex, CPO emits extremely little NO. Because of incorrect air-fuel mixture preparation, combustion is lower with CPO premixed. As a result, less heat is generated, resulting in a lower in-cylinder temperature and lower NO emissions [17]. At full load, CPO and CPO+Hex release NO emissions of 5.3 g/kWh and 8.2 g/kWh, respectively. The addition of hexagonal improves the premixed combustion phase for tri-fuel blends because hexagonal has a greater flame velocity, which raises the in−cylindertemperature, favouring NO production significantly [18, 19]. The NO emission for the CPO+Eth optimal blend at full load is 7.6 g/kWh.Figure 6
NO emission variation with BP at full load.


## 3.1. Engine Operation with Ternary Fuel Blends of NCO, Diesel, and Ethanol

In this phase of research work, the proportion of diesel fuel is maintained constant at 20% for all the blends. Binary fuel blend of CPO and diesel is blended with ethanol, hexagonal, and Al2O3 in different proportions [10]. Experiments were conducted with the following three ternary fuel blends: (i) neat algae oil 80% and hexagonal 20% by volume (PCO80+Hex20); (ii) neat algae oil 100% (PCO 100%) and (iii) neat algae oil biodiesel (PCOME 100%); and (iv) neat algae oil 80% and ethanol 20% by volume (PCO80+Eth20) and neat algae oil 100% with 100 ppm Al2O3 (PCO100%+100 ppm Al2O3).Figure1 shows the BTE variation with BP for various test fuels. CPO+Hex has a BTE of 33%, whereas CPO has a BTE of 22%. CPO has a significantly lower BTE [11]. More energy is released during the diffusion phase, resulting in more heat energy squandered in the exhaust. CPO+Eth, on the other hand, has a BTE of 31.25%, which is similar to CPO + Hex (33%). Ethanol was combined with PCO and diesel to increase CPO combustion. Blending improves atomization and the creation of air-fuel mixtures [12].Figure 1
BTE with BP at full load.Figure2 shows the HRR with an appropriate crank angle for various fuels at full load. CPO+Hex has a maximum HRR of 67 J/°CA at 100% load, whereas CPO has a maximum HRR of 45 J/°CA. Because hexagonal has a reduced viscosity and a high flame speed, ethanol addition in ternary fuel blends results in a significant increase in premixed combustion [13]. For CPO, it can be seen that primary combustion occurred during the diffusion phase. HRR for the optimal CPO+Eth combination is 62 J/°CA. This blend’s premixed combustion is more similar to CPO+Hex. Compared to CPO and other trifuel blends, this leads to higher BTE, higher peak pressure, and reduced smoke emission [14].Figure 2
HRR with the crank angle at full load.Figure3 shows the in-cylinder pressure related to the crank angle at full load for several test fuels. Because of the reduced HRR and poor combustion with CPO, the peak pressure is limited to 61 bar, which is lower than with CPO+Hex (70 bar). Adding ethanol to CPO raises the peak pressure for CPO+Eth (66 bar), bringing it closer to that of CPO+Hex. Ignition delay is more significant, and oxygenated hexagonal is stored during the delay time, giving the injected fuel more oxygen to burn, resulting in a quicker HRR and higher peak pressure [15].Figure 3
In-cylinder pressure with CA at full load.Figure4 shows the fluctuation of ignition delay (ID) with BP. The ID of CPO and CPO+Hex at full load is 14°CA and 9°CA, respectively. Because of its low volatility, CPO has a higher ID than CPO+Hex. This contributes to incorrect air-fuel mixture creation and poor atomization, which increases ignition delay. Hexagonal blending reduces viscosity while increasing volatility, resulting in better atomization, vaporization, and air-fuel mixing [16]. The ignition delay for the optimal CPO+Eth blend is 12°CA.Figure 4
Ignition delay with BP at full load.Figure5 shows the variance in smoke emission with BP for several test fuels. The smoke opacity of CPO operation approaches 100% at full load; however, smoke emission lowers with ternary fuel blend of diesel, CPO, and ethanol [17]. Ternary fuel mixes have low density and viscosity, resulting in improved combustion. Ternary mixture with high ethanol concentration emits less smoke for CPO+Eth optimal blend is 69% opacity due to the blend’s improved volatility. CPO+Hex emits smoke with a 58% opacity.Figure 5
Smoke emission variation with BP at full load.Figure6 illustrates the variance in NO emission with BP for several test fuels. In comparison to CPO+Hex, CPO emits extremely little NO. Because of incorrect air-fuel mixture preparation, combustion is lower with CPO premixed. As a result, less heat is generated, resulting in a lower in-cylinder temperature and lower NO emissions [17]. At full load, CPO and CPO+Hex release NO emissions of 5.3 g/kWh and 8.2 g/kWh, respectively. The addition of hexagonal improves the premixed combustion phase for tri-fuel blends because hexagonal has a greater flame velocity, which raises the in−cylindertemperature, favouring NO production significantly [18, 19]. The NO emission for the CPO+Eth optimal blend at full load is 7.6 g/kWh.Figure 6
NO emission variation with BP at full load.


## 4. Conclusion

In summary, NCO was successfully used in a CI engine after running the engine at full load for 15 minutes with diesel. However, in the current study, CPO demonstrates relatively poor combustion behavior compared toCPO+Hex. This is evidenced by a longer ignition delay, a lower HRR, a longer combustion duration, and so on. CPO has significantly superior combustion, performance, and emission behavior. The strategies examined to improve the performance and combustion of CI engines were ternary fuel mixing of CPO, hexagonal, ethanol, and Al2O3 blending with NCO as the primary fuel. Among the approaches investigated, CI engine running with CPO+Hex is the best, comparable to diesel operation.



---

*Source: 9658212-2022-02-15.xml*