Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Investigation of diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions of T

microalgae fuel components in a turbocharged diesel engine
⁎
Farhad M. Hossaina, , Md Nurun Nabib, Richard J. Browna
a
Biofuel Engine Research Facility, Queensland University of Technology, QLD, Australia
b
School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Perth, WA 6000, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Microalgae are a promising feedstock for alternative fuel for compression ignition engines due to their positive
Diesel engine contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Microalgae are gaining significant interest as they can
Microalgae biocrude produce more oil than any oilseed plants. Unlike some other plant oils, the use of microalgae as an alternative to
Particulate matter fossil fuels, can overcome food versus fuel conflict. In the current investigation, five different chemical com-
Particulate number
ponents of microalgae hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) biocrude paraffin, xylene, cyclo-pentanone, dioctyl-
phthalate and butanol were mixed in equal volumes. Commercial diesel fuel was used as a reference fuel. The
first blend consisted of 5 vol% of each of the 5 components was mixed with 75 vol% diesel. The blend is called as
B1. The second blend consisted of 10 vol% of each of the 5 components was mixed with 50 vol% of diesel. This
blend is called B2. The neat diesel (100% pure diesel) is called as 100D. The engine used in this study was a six-
cylinder high-pressure common rail direct injection diesel engine fitted with a turbocharger. This study deals
with engine performance, combustion and exhaust emission characteristics comparing diesel, B1 and B2 blends.
The experimental results indicated a general reduction in both particle mass (PM) and total particle number (PN)
emissions with both blends compared to those of diesel. Increase in nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions at all four
engine loads were found with both B1 and B2 blends. It was realised that the drop or rise of emissions was
mainly a function of fuel-bound oxygen.

1. Introduction
Currently, biodiesels are receiving much interest for their potential
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from compression ignition engines.
Such fuels can be sustainable, renewable and biodegradable. Microalgal
oil is an encouraging source for biodiesel production due to its quantity
production capacity than straight vegetable oils. Rajak et al. [1] ex-
amined the influence of microalgae spirulina biodiesel blend on engine
performance and exhaust emissions. The authors found lower carbon
monoxide (CO), PM, NOx and smoke emissions compared to diesel fuel.
However, Islam et al. [2] conducted engine experiments with dino-
flagellate crypthecodinium cohnii and waste cooking oil biodiesel. One of
the drawbacks of biodiesel combustion is higher NOx emissions com-
pared to diesel fuel. Higher NOx emissions were also reported with
microalgae biodiesel blends compared to diesel [3]. Kannan et al. [4]
made an investigation for diesel emissions with azolla algae biodiesel.
They reported higher NOx emissions compared to diesel. The higher
NOx emissions with azolla biodiesel were associated with the higher
exhaust gas temperature using azolla biodiesel reflecting higher
temperature in the combustion chamber [5]. Like NOx emissions, diesel
PM emissions are harmful. Unlike NOx emissions, several reports found
that PM emissions, on the other hand, were reduced with biodiesel
[6–11]. However, to the authors knowledge, no one conducted an en-
gine experiment using microalgae hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL)
biocrude due to their physico-chemical properties [12,13]. An engine
experiment as conducted by Farhad et al. [14] using microalgae HTL
surrogate fuel, which was made based on chemical compounds and
their original weight percentage in microalgae HTL biocrude. In this
study, the authors reported that the higher NOx emissions with mi-
croalgae HTL biocrude chemical compound were due to the more
complete combustion and higher combustion temperatures. It was fuel
oxygen in the blend that enhances complete combustion results in
lower PM emissions.
HTL methods are gaining interest in producing biocrude. In lique-
faction methods, biomass is changed into gas, liquid and solids similarly
to pyrolysis [15]. HTL is the most energetically favourable thermo-
chemical biomass conversion process and it has been investigated with
a wide range of microalgae biomass feedstocks, laboratory and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mdfarhad.hossain@connect.qut.edu.au (F.M. Hossain).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.061
Received 9 January 2019; Accepted 22 February 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.M. Hossain, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228

Nomenclature HTL Hydrothermal Liquefaction

kJ kilo Joule
100D Neat diesel kW kilo Watt
B1 75D5 × 5B kWh Kilo Watt Hour
B2 50D5 × 10B IMEP Indicated Mean Effective Pressure
75D5 × 5B 75 vol% diesel + 5 vol% each of 5 chemicals HHV Higher Heating Value
50D5 × 10B 50 vol% diesel + 10 vol% each of 5 chemicals LHV Lower Heating Value
BERF Biofuel Engine Research Facility MPa Mega Pascal
BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure MJ Mega Joule
BP Brake Power NDIR Non-Dispersive Infrared
BTE Brake Thermal Efficiency NOx Nitrogen Oxides
CA Crank Angle PM Particulate Matter
CAI California Analytical Instruments PN Particle Number
CLD Chemiluminescence Detector PSD Particle Size Distribution
CMD Count Mean Diameter PPM Parts Per Million
CO Carbon Monoxide QUT Queensland University Of Technology
DI Direct Injection SOF Soluble Organic Fraction
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

commercially-grown strains Botryococcus braunii [16], Spirulina and
Tetraselmic sp. [17,18]. Jena et al. [19] studied the production of n
biocrude from Spirulina platensis. However, biocrude has a higher
oxygen content compared to reference diesel. In addition, HTL biocrude
contains inorganic salts and metals, which pose challenges within the
traditional refining process [16,17,20].
Therefore, microalgae-based biocrude requires further processing to
improve quality by reducing these undesired components. Chemical
analysis of microalgae biocrude reveals the presence of many chemical
compounds in small quantities. However, five chemicals contribute
around 65% (wt.) of the total weight. Those five chemicals were
blended to produce a new synthesis fuel for internal combustion engine
performance and exhaust emissions.
In the present study, engine performance, combustion and emission
parameters were studied with a diesel fuel, B1 and B2 blends. The focus
of this study was to investigate the effect of two synthesised blends on
engine performance, combustion and emission. The B1 and B2 blends
were made by mixing five different chemical components that are si-
milar to the components of fresh water microalgae HTL biocrude named
“Scenedesmus sp.”. The components are alcohol (butanol), cyclic ketone
(cyclo-pentanone), paraffin (undecane), aromatic fatty acid methyl
ester (dioctyl-phthalate) and aromatic (xylene). The volumetric per-
centage of the preceding chemical components for the two blends were
5 and 10 respectively. The first blend was prepared by blending 5 vol%
each of 5 components with the rest of 75 vol% was diesel. Similarly, the
second blend was made by mixing 10 vol% each of 5 components with
the rest of 50 vol% diesel. The two blends actually represent 25% algal
biodiesel + 75% diesel and 50% algal biodiesel + 50% diesel, respec-
tively. The reason for choosing 25% (B1 blend) and 50% (B2 blend)
HTL biocrude chemical components is that the properties of B1 and B2
are within ASTM biodiesel standard limits. A comprehensive search of
the literature did not reveal any study of the effect 25% and 50% mi-
croalgae HTL biocrude chemical compounds effect on engine perfor-
mance, combustion and exhaust emissions. The novelty of this study
was to examine engine performance, combustion and exhaust emission
characteristics with special emphasis on PM and PN emissions using
25% and 50% algal biodiesel blends (B1 and B2).

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of dynamometer and instrumentation experimental set up.

221
F.M. Hossain, et al.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Test engine
All engine experiments were conducted out in the Biofuel Engine
Research Facility (BERF) of Queensland University of Technology
(QUT) using a 6-cylinder common rail direct injection (DI) diesel en-
gine. For loading the engine, an electrically operated water brake dy-
namometer coupled to the engine. A Kistler 6053CC60 transducer with
a data translation converter (DT9832) was utilised to record the in-
cylinder gas pressure data. A rotary encoder (Kistler 2614) was used to
record the engine speed and crank angle data. To measure the crank
case blow-by emission, a blow-by sensor was used. All experiments
were performed using a speed of 1500 rpm, which is a maximum torque
speed for this engine. The engine was run with four loads 25%, 50%,
75% and 100% at maximum torque speed. Fig. 1 displays the experi-
mental set-up, while Table 1 presents some key specifications of the test
engine.
A high precision particle analyser differential mobility spectrometer
(DMS, Cambustion Ltd.) recorded the PN data. The PM data was esti-
mated from the DMS data by incorporating a re-inversion tool [21]. For
PM data estimation, a density factor of 2.2E-15 and a power coefficient
of 2.65 were used for the accumulation mode, while for the nucleation
mode, these values were 5.2E-16 and 3 were respectively [21]. For NOx
and CO measurements, a CLD NO/NOx (CAI-600) digital analyser and
an NDIR gas analyser (CAI-603) respectively were utilised. For ex-
perimental measurements, the engine was first warmed up for ∼30 min
with diesel fuel. Data recording started when the oil temperature
reached 90 °C. Two separate fuel tanks were used to avoid fuel dilution.
The engine was run again for ∼20 min after changing fuels to ensure
results integrity. Also, for each fuel, the data were recorded thrice and
the mean was shown in the results section. As mentioned previously,
two novel blends (B1 and B2) were synthesised. The blends were pre-
pared on a volume basis.
2.2. Error analysis
The uncertainty of the results could be due to the different sensor
selection, data measurement, the procedure for measurement and in-
strument calibration. In order to minimise the error, the measurements
for performance and emission parameters for each fuel were repeated
thrice. The relevant mean values are plotted and upper and lower
bounds are shown as bars in the Figs. The overall percentage of ex-
perimental uncertainty in the current investigation was calculated by
the square root technique [22] using Eq. (1).
Overall uncertainty = Square root of [(uncertainty of BMEP)2
+ (uncertainty of BTE)2
+ (uncertainty of PM emission)2 +
(uncertainty of PN emission)2
+ (uncertainty of NOx emission)2
+ (uncertainty of CO emission)2
+ (uncertainty of boost pressure)2
+ (uncertainty of maximum pressure rise rate)2
+ (uncertainty of pressure transducer)2
+ (uncertainty of crank angle sensor)2
Overall uncertainty = Square root of [(0.35)2 + (1.2)2 + (1.25)2 + (1.25)2
+ (1.25)2 + (0.90)2 + (0.86)2 + (1.1)2 + (0.29)2
+ (0.015)2] = ± 3.01%.
222
Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228
3. Experimental results and discussions
In this section, the engine performance, combustion and exhaust
emission parameters are discussed. The engine performance parameters
include brake mean effective pressure (BMEP), indicated mean effective
pressure (IMEP), brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and brake
thermal efficiency (BTE). The combustion parameters include in-cy-
linder pressure, maximum pressure rise rate and boost pressure. The
emissions parameters are NOx, PM and PN.
3.1. Engine performance
Fig. 2 displays BMEP and IMEP variations with respect to engine
load for three different fuels 100D, B1 and B2. IMEP for all fuels is
higher than BMEP because of frictional loss. BMEP and IMEP were
computed from the brake and indicated powers. Inherently, biofuels
possess lower energy content. The lower energy content results in lower
torque, power and mean effective pressure. Both IMEP and BMEP show
linear trends. However, B1 and B2 blends indicate a slight decrease in
IMEPs and BMEPs compared to those of 100D (diesel). The difference in
IMEPs and BMEPs for the two blends are higher at higher engine loads
relative to diesel. The decreases in IMEP and BMEP are associated with
the lower heating values (LHV) of the oxygenated blends (Table 2)
[2,24].
Fig. 3 shows the BTE and BSFC against BMEP for the three tested
fuels. As can be seen from the Fig., the BSFCs are higher, while the BTEs
are slightly lower for all BMEPs for the B1 and B2 blends. The higher
BSFCs and lower BTEs for B1 and B2 blends compared to those of diesel
are associated with the lower heating value (Table 2) and higher visc-
osity (Table 2) of the two algal blends. The higher viscosities of B1, B2
could influence the spray penetration and proper air-fuel mixing that
could result in lower BTEs. In general, the BSFCs for the diesel lie in the
range of 218–225 g/kWh, while for the B1 and B2 blends range from
225 to 235 g/kWh and 236 to 253 g/kWh respectively. The BTE for
diesel from low load to high load (0.42–1.73 MPa) is found to be
36.40%, 37.99%, 37.32% and 37.27% respectively. For B1 blend for a
load range of 0.40–1.68 MPa, these values are observed to be 36.23%,
37.88%, 37.2% and 37.17% respectively. However, for B2 blend, the
BTE at four BMEPs (0.40 MPa, 0.81 MPa, 1.21 MPa and 1.64 MPa) are
found to be 35.74%, 37.86%, 37.20% and 37.10% respectively. Com-
pared to diesel, a maximum of 0.5% lower BTE was observed with B1
blend, while a maximum of 1.8% drop in BTE was observed with B2
blend.
Fig. 4(a-b) show the plots of in-cylinder pressure against crank angle
for diesel, B1 and B2 blends for two engine loads (50% and 100%)
respectively. The in-cylinder gas pressure measures the air-fuel mixing
ability when burns in the engine cylinder [25]. For the integrity of the
data, the in-cylinder pressure data was averaged for 720 cycles. It is to
be noted that the in-cylinder pressure increases with the increase in
engine load for all three fuels. For all three fuels, the highest pressure
peaks were found to be near the top dead centre (360 °CA). Compared
Table 1
Test engine.
Model Cummins ISBe22031
Number of cylinders 6
Bore × Stroke [m] 0.102 × 0.120
Capacity [Litres] 5.9
Peak torque @1500 rpm [Nm] 820
Maximum power @2500 rpm [kW] 162
Compression ratio [–] 17.3:1
Fuel injection system Common rail
Aspiration Turbocharged
Dynamometer type Water brake [Electrical]
Certification for emission Euro 3
F.M. Hossain, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228

Biodiesel standard ASTM

0.86–0.90
6751-12

1.9–6.0

47 min
130
–
–

–
–
–
ASTM D1298
ASTM D1298

ASTM D5291
ASTM D5291
ASTM D5291
ASTM D240
ASTM D240
ASTM D93
Standard

D4737A
ASTM
B2 (50D5 × 10B)
Fig. 2. Effect of engine loads on IMEP for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.

42.28
40.26
71.03
83.21

42.12
0.85
4.88

9.66
7.13
to diesel, B1 and B2 blends show lower pressure peaks for both loads.

B1 (75D5 × 5B)
Relative to diesel, the lower pressure peaks with the two algal blends
could be their lower volatilities and higher viscosities that could cause
poor atomisation and improper air-fuel mixing [26]. Additionally, the

46.922
43.96
42.10
69.84
87.99
lower pressure with B1 and B2 is due to lower energy content (heating

0.85
3.77

9.15
2.85
value) of B1 and B2 blends as seen in Table 2. From Fig. 4a, the max-

51.744
imum pressure for diesel at 50% load is found to be at 359.60 °CA with

45.64
43.95
68.66
91.66
100D

0.84
2.66

8.34
0.00
a corresponding peak pressure of 6921 kPa, while for B1 blend, the
peak pressure is found to be 6783 kPa at 359.5 °CA and that of B2 is

1 – Measured at QUT, 2 – Calculated, 3 – Chemical certificate, 4 – Caltex fuel certificate, 5 – NREL report (2004) – reference [23].
Butanol CAS 71-
6618.5 kPa at 359.5°CA. However, for 100% load (Fig. 4b), the peak
pressure for 100D is found to be 10949 kPa at 359.95 °CA, that of B1 is
10668 kPa at 359.4 °CA and that of B2 is 10328 kPa at 359.6 °CA.

36.20
33.44
35.00
64.80
13.61
21.60
36-1

0.81
3.15
Fig. 5 presents the rate of heat release (RoHR) for neat diesel, B1

175
and B2 for an engine speed of 1500 rpm and an engine load of 25%. The
calculation of RoHR was based on the in-cylinder gas pressure. For data
Dioctyl pathalate CAS

integrity, the calculation was averaged for 720 cycles. As seen in Fig. 5,
the diesel shows earlier combustion followed by B1 and B2. In other
words, the ignition lag for diesel was lower than B1 and B2 (inset of
117-81-7

Fig. 5). The ignition lag was calculated between the start of ignition and
207.00
27.40

35.70
33.71

73.79

16.40
0.96

9.81
the start of injection. The longer ignition lag with B1 and B2 was due to
485
the lower cetane number of B1 and B2 compared to diesel. In other
words, the shorter ignition lag with diesel was due to the larger cetane
Cyclo Pentanone CAS

number of diesel. It is also evident from Fig. 5, the peaks of the RoHR
with B1 and B2 are more significant than the diesel, which could ex-
plain why NOx emissions are higher for the two algal blends. The
120-92-3

higher RoHR peaks with B1 and B2 were associated with the longer
34.09
32.14
30.00
71.37

19.04

time to mix air and more fuel during the premixed combustion phase,
0.92
1.71

9.59

105

releasing much heat energy rapidly once ignition starts.

Figs. 6 and 7 present the rate of maximum pressure rise and boost
pressure respectively with respect to BMEP for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.
Xylene CAS
1330-20-7

As seen in Fig. 6, the maximum pressure rise rate for B1 and B2 blends
is higher compared to that of diesel. Compared to diesel, the longer
42.41
40.48
25.00
90.50
0.84
1.39

9.50
0.00
8.35

ignition lags using B1 and B2 cause more fuel in the combustion

chamber that could result in the higher pressure rise rate from B1 and
Undecane CAS 40-

B2 combustion at all BMEP conditions. When compared between B1

and B2 blends, the maximum pressure rise rate was found to be higher
for the B2 blend. For four engine loads (BMEPs), the maximum rate of
pressure rise rate for the diesel lies in the range of 277–352 kPa. For the
46.24
43.09
70.00
84.51
15.49
6701

0.77
1.89

0.00
795

same engine loads, the corresponding values for B1 and B2 blends are
found to be 300–359 kPa and 492–646 kPa respectively. On the other
(w/w %)
(w/w %)
(w/w %)

hand, the boost pressure in Fig. 7 increases as BMEP increases for all
mm2/s

MJ/kg
MJ/kg
Unit

kg/l

fuels. As seen in Fig. 7, the insignificant variations in boost pressure

°C

among the three fuels were observed.

Test fuels [13,14].

Kinematic vis. @
Density@ 15 °C

3.2. Exhaust emissions

Cetane index
Flash point

Hydrogen
Properties

40 °C

Oxygen
Carbon

The plots in Fig. 8 are the changes in brake specific NOx emissions
Table 2

HHV
LHV

from the combustion of diesel, B1 and B2 blends. From Fig. 8, it reveals

1

that NOx emissions increase as BMEP increases for all fuels. Relative to

223
F.M. Hossain, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228

Fig. 5. . Rate of heat release curve for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.

Fig. 3. Variations of BTE and BSFC for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.

diesel fuel both B1 and B2 blends increase NOx emissions at all loading
conditions. Flame temperature, injection timing, fuel properties,
oxygen concentration and residence time are some of the contributors
to higher NOx emissions for oxygenated fuels [27]. Increase in NOx
emissions with B1 and B2 blends was reported in [2]. A most widely-
used technique is to introduce exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) tech-
nique [28] could reduce NOx emissions. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that
relative to diesel, a maximum of 23% NOx increase at a 25% load was
observed with B1. At the same loading condition, B2 increased a
maximum of 25% NOx emissions. The increase in NOx emissions for the
other three loads (50%, 75% and 100%) using B1 is found to be 19%,
16% and 14% respectively. For the same three loads, the increase in
NOx emissions for B2 blend is observed to be 19%, 17% and 15% re- Fig. 6. Maximum pressure rise rate for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.
spectively. These results indicate an interesting finding for NOx emis-
sions using B1 and B2 blends. They indicate that the higher fuel-bound fuel rich zone and the fuel-bound oxygen that suppresses the smoke
oxygen in the blend, higher the NOx emissions produced. This could be formation [30], which is a principal component of PM emission. Fuel-
associated with an increase in available oxygen which could cause more bound oxygen enhances the combustion process for complete combus-
complete combustion that results in more NOx emissions [6]. The in- tion [6] and this fuel-bound oxygen either oxidises soot emissions that
creased NOx emissions with biodiesel-based oxygenated blends (B1 and have already formed or prevents soot emissions from forming [21,31].
B2) could also be due to their higher adiabatic flame temperature, as- Low or absence of fuel sulphur and aromatic components in B1 and B2
sociated with the double bonds in the blends [7]. Reduced radiative could be the lower PM formation from B1 and B2 combustion [6]. As
heat transfer in the combustion chamber for biodiesel-based oxyge- can be seen from Fig. 9 that both B1 and B2 blends form a substantially
nated blends, due to their reduced PM formation (Fig. 9) could be an lower amount of PM emissions compared to diesel fuel. As mentioned
additional reason [7] for increased NOx emissions. The higher RoHR before, this is due to the presence of fuel-bound oxygen, which aids to a
peaks in Fig. 5 for B1 and B2, relative to diesel, could be an additional decrease in soot formations and therefore reduces PM emissions.
reason for higher NOx emissions with B1 and B2 blends. Increased NOx Compared to diesel fuel, the reductions in PM emissions with B1 blend
emissions for fuel-bound oxygenated fuels can be seen in the published at four different BMEPs were observed to be 79%, 66%, 60% and 45%
literature [6–9,29]. respectively. B2, on the other hand, for the same four engine loads
Fig. 9 shows the variations in PM emissions at all four engine loads reduced PM by 95%, 79%, 75% and 64% respectively. Higher changes
(BMEP) for diesel, B1 and B2 blends. PM is primarily produced in the

Fig. 4. In-cylinder pressure for diesel, B1 and B2 blends for (a) 50% load, (b) 100% load.

224
F.M. Hossain, et al.
Fig. 7. Boost pressure for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.
Fig. 8. NOx emissions for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.
Fig. 9. PM emissions for diesel B1 and B2 blends.
(reductions) in PM emissions once again are realised for higher fuel-
bound oxygen.
Fig. 10 indicates the specific PN emissions for diesel, B1 and B2.
Like PM emissions there are substantial PN reductions are observed
with B1 and B2 blends. The reductions are observed to be higher for B2
blend due to its higher fuel-bound oxygen than B1 blend. The dominant
factor for reductions in specific PN emissions using B1 and B2 blends is
the molecular oxygen. Both blends contain oxygen and the additional
fuel-bound oxygen helps more complete combustion that suppress PN
formation. A maximum of 36% reductions in PN emissions is observed
with the B1 blend at 25% engine load. A close look at Fig. 10 indicates,
compared to diesel, the reductions in PN emissions at 25%, 50%, 75%
and 100% loads with B1 blend are found to be 36%, 27%, 28% and 22%
respectively. With higher fuel-bound oxygen, B2 blend reduces PN
225
Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228
emissions at four engine loads by 65%, 60%, 59% and 60% respec-
tively. Published literature [6,8] support the current investigation
concerning PM and PN reductions using B1 and B2 blends as oxyge-
nated fuels.
The plots in Fig. 11 shows the variations in particle size distribution
(PSD) at all four loads for the three tested fuels diesel, B1 and B2
blends. In regards to PSD, there are mainly two types of particles from
diesel exhaust, namely nucleation mode (NM) and accumulation mode
(AM) particles. Usually, particles with sizes from 3 to 30 nm are clas-
sified as NM particles, which mainly composed of soluble organic
fraction (SOF). The AM particles on the other hand, ranges from 30 nm
to 1000 nm, mainly consist of agglomerated soot and adsorbed mate-
rials [8]. As can be seen from Fig. 11, diesel indicates the largest par-
ticle peaks compared to those of B1 and B2 at all loads. Between the two
blends, no significant variations were observed at 25% load. However,
for other loads including 50%, 75% and 100%, B2 show consistently
lower particle peak compared to those of B1. This is due to the higher
molecular oxygen in B2 compared to that of B1. As can be seen in
Table 2, B2 contains 7.13% oxygen in its molecule, while B1 contains
2.85% oxygen. The CMDs were larger for diesel compared to those of
B1 and B2. At 25%-100% engine loads, the CMDs for the reference
diesel is found to be 64.94 nm, 64.94 nm, 74.99 nm and 74.94 nm, re-
spectively. However, for the same four loads, the B1 blend shows CMDs
of 48.7 nm, 56.23 nm, 64.94 nm and 56.23 nm, respectively, which are
consistently lower than those of diesel. Compared to diesel, B2 shows
lower CMDs at both 25% and 50% loads. But similar at 75% and 100%
loads. Among various reasons for lower particle peaks with B1 and B2
blends compared to diesel, the most dominant factor for substantially
lower particle peaks with the both blends is the fuel oxygen, which
could contribute to decreasing in AM peak size, since it can promote
combustion in the fuel rich region. Additionally, lack or absence of
aromatic hydrocarbon in the oxygenated blends could contribute to
decreasing AM particle size [8].
Fig. 12(a-b) display the PM-NOx and PN-NOx trade-off respectively
for the diesel, B1 and B2 blends at all four loads. Both Figures show
significant reductions in both PM and PN emissions using B1 and B2
blends with increased NOx emissions at all loads. As indicated earlier, it
is also obvious that both PM and PN reduced but, NOx increased with
B1 and B2 blends compared to diesel fuel at all loads. As mentioned
before the different reasons for lower PM, PN emissions and higher NOx
emissions, but the major reason is the molecular oxygen in the two
blends. Further investigation for NOx reduction is required by in-
troducing either exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) technique, or using
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst or optimising the fuel in-
jection timing.
The relative changes of different engine performance and emission
parameters at all four loads (25%, 50%, 75% and 100%) for B1 and B2
blends compared to diesel are shown in Fig. 13. The changes in
Fig. 10. PN emissions for diesel, B1 and B2 blends.
F.M. Hossain, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228

Fig. 11. PSD for diesel, B1 and B2 blends at a load of (a) 25%, (b) 50%, (c) 75%, and (d) 100%.

performances and emissions parameters for B1 and B2 blends were
calculated based on the performances and emissions of reference diesel.
Compared to diesel, the reduction and increase of different engine
performance and emission parameters for B1 and B2 blends are shown
in Table 3.
4. Conclusions
The study examined diesel engine performance, combustion and
emission parameters with neat diesel, B1 and B2 blends. The outcomes
of this investigation can be summarised as follows:
– The two novel algal blends of 25% algae + 75% diesel and 50%
algae + 50% diesel were prepared for fuels of compression ignition
engine.
– Both algal blends indicated a slightly lower brake mean effective
pressure and indicated mean effective pressure were observed
compared to diesel, lower thermal efficiencies and higher specific
fuel consumption due to lower heating values, higher viscosities and
densities of the two blends.
– Due to inherent lower heating values, both blends also showed a
lower pressure peak.
– Both B1 and B2 blends reduced particle mass and number emissions
significantly. The maximum PM reductions with B1 blend was ob-
served to be 79%, that for B2 blend was 95%. On the other hand, for
PN reductions, the two values were 36% and 65% respectively.
However, as anticipated, compared to diesel, the two blends in-
creased a maximum of 25% NOx emissions.
Concerning the engine performance, combustion and emissions, the

Fig. 12. The trade-off between (a) PM vs. NOx (b) PN vs NOx.

226
F.M. Hossain, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228

Fig. 13. Relative changes in performances and emissions with B1 and B2 compared to diesel for loads of (a) 25%, (b) 50%, (c) 75% and (d) 100%.

Table 3
Relative changes in performances and emissions parameters for B1 and B2 blends.
Parameters Load B1 B2 Load B1 B2 Load B1 B2 Load B1 B2

CO 25% 10.49 ↓ 20.87 ↓ 50% 14.59 ↓ 27.28 ↓ 75% 31.17 ↓ 47.26 ↓ 100% 22.73 ↓ 40.38 ↓
NOx 23.04 ↑ 25.37 ↑ 19.32 ↑ 19.21 ↑ 16.75 ↑ 17.92 ↑ 14.97 ↑ 15.93 ↑
PM 79.38 ↓ 95.46 ↓ 66.14 ↓ 79.41 ↓ 60.98 ↓ 75.39 ↓ 44.93 ↓ 63.67 ↓
PN 36.00 ↓ 65.00 ↓ 27.37 ↓ 59.95 ↓ 27.98 ↓ 58.93 ↓ 22.53 ↓ 60.04 ↓
BTE 0.47 ↓ 1.81 ↓ 0.29 ↓ 0.38 ↓ 0.16 ↓ 0.17 ↓ 0.29 ↓ 0.45 ↓
BSFC 4.87 ↑ 12.75 ↑ 2.98 ↑ 7.79 ↑ 4.83 ↑ 9.64 ↑ 3.84 ↑ 7.61 ↑
BMEP 4.67 ↓ 0.56 ↓ 4.69 ↓ 2.31 ↓ 5.21 ↓ 1.91 ↓ 3.33 ↓ 2.36 ↓

results in the current study suggest that 25% and 50% algal blends
could be potential alternative fuels for a diesel engine. However, further
study is needed to reduce the NOx emissions employing exhaust gas
after treatment technology, changing the combustion chamber design
and fine-tuning of injection timing.
assistance in this investigation. Finally, authors want to special thanks
to Prof Ben Hankamer and Prof Evan Stephens of University of
Queensland (UQ) and University of Queensland’s Solar Biofuels
Research Centre Facility for their help to give the alage for this re-
search.

Declaration of interests References

None.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Queensland University of
Technology (QUT) HDR student project. The authors would also like to
acknowledge Prof Zoran Ristovski and Dr. Thomas Rainey of QUT for
their advice, and Dr. Timothy Bodisco of Deakin University for his as-
sistance to get in-cylinder pressure data, Mr. Andrew Elder from
DynoLog Dynamometer Pty Ltd and Mr. Noel Hartnett for their la-
boratory assistance, Dr. Md Jahirul Islam and Dr. Md Mostafizur
Rahman for their advice, and Dr. S.M.A Rahman, Dr. Thuy Chu Van for
[1] Rajak U, Verma TN. Spirulina microalgae biodiesel – a novel renewable alternative
energy source for compression ignition engine. J Cleaner Prod 2018;201:343–57.
[2] Islam MA, Rahman MM, Heimann K, Nabi MN, Ristovski ZD, Dowell A, et al.
Combustion analysis of microalgae methyl ester in a common rail direct injection
diesel engine. Fuel 2015;143:351–60.
[3] Islam Muhammad Aminul, Heimann Kirsten, Browna RJ. Microalgae biodiesel:
current status and future needs for engine performance and emissions. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev 2017;79:1160–70.
[4] Kannan D, Christraj W. Emission analysis of Azolla methyl ester with BaO nano
additives for IC engine. Energy Sources Part A 2018;40:1234–41.
[5] Piloto-Rodrígueza Ramón, Sánchez-Borroto Yisel, Melo-Espinosa Eliezer Ahmed,
Verhelst S. Assessment of diesel engine performance when fueled with biodiesel
from algae and microalgae: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017:833–42.
[6] Nabi MN, Rasul MG. Influence of second generation biodiesel on engine perfor-
mance, emissions, energy and exergy parameters. Energy Convers Manage

227
F.M. Hossain, et al.
2018;169:326–33.
[7] Zare A, Nabi MN, Bodisco TA, Hossain FM, Rahman MM, Chu Van T, et al. Diesel
engine emissions with oxygenated fuels: a comparative study into cold-start and
hot-start operation. J Cleaner Prod 2017;162:997–1008.
[8] Zare A, Bodisco TA, Nabi MN, Hossain FM, Ristovski ZD, Brown RJ. Engine per-
formance during transient and steady-state operation with oxygenated fuels. Energy
Fuels 2017;31:7510–22.
[9] Nabi MN, Zare A, Hossain FM, Ristovski ZD, Brown RJ. Reductions in diesel
emissions including PM and PN emissions with diesel-biodiesel blends. J Cleaner
Prod 2017;166:860–8.
[10] Nabi MN, Zare A, Hossain FM, Bodisco TA, Ristovski ZD, Brown RJ. A parametric
study on engine performance and emissions with neat diesel and diesel-butanol
blends in the 13-Mode European Stationary Cycle. Energy Convers Manage
2017;148:251–9.
[11] Nabi MN, Brown RJ, Ristovski Z, Hustad JE. A comparative study of the number and
mass of fine particles emitted with diesel fuel and marine gas oil (MGO). Atmos
Environ 2012;57:22–8.
[12] Hossain FH, Kosinkova J, Brown RJ, Ristovski R, Stephens E, Hankamer B, et al.
Chemical-physical properties of a HTL biocrude from a high growth-rate microalga
at a larger laboratory scale. Energy Fuels 2016.
[13] Hossain FM, Rainey TJ, Ristovski Z, Brown RJ. Performance and exhaust emissions
of diesel engines using microalgae FAME and the prospects for microalgae HTL
biocrude. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:4269–78.
[14] Hossain FM, Nabi MN, Rainey TJ, Bodisco T, Rahman MM, Suara K, et al.
Investigation of microalgae HTL fuel effects on diesel engine performance and ex-
haust emissions using surrogate fuels. Energy Convers Manage 2017;152:186–200.
[15] Tommaso G, Chen W-T, Li P, Schideman L, Zhang Y. Chemical characterization and
anaerobic biodegradability of hydrothermal liquefaction aqueous products from
mixed-culture wastewater algae. Bioresour Technol 2015;178:139–46.
[16] Dote Y, Sawayama S, Inoue S, Minowa T, Yokoyama S-Y. Recovery of liquid fuel
from hydrocarbon-rich microalgae by thermochemical liquefaction. Fuel
1994;73:1855–7.
[17] Eboibi BE-O, Lewis DM, Ashman PJ, Chinnasamy S. Hydrothermal liquefaction of
microalgae for biocrude production: improving the biocrude properties with va-
cuum distillation. Bioresour Technol 2014;174:212–21.
[18] Eboibi BE, Lewis DM, Ashman PJ, Chinnasamy S. Effect of operating conditions on
yield and quality of biocrude during hydrothermal liquefaction of halophytic mi-
croalga Tetraselmis sp. Bioresour Technol 2014;170:20–9.
[19] Jena U, Das KC, Kastner JR. Effect of operating conditions of thermochemical li-
quefaction on biocrude production from Spirulina platensis. Bioresour Technol
228
Energy Conversion and Management 186 (2019) 220–228
2011;102:6221–9.
[20] Anastasakis K, Ross AB. Hydrothermal liquefaction of the brown macro-alga
Laminaria Saccharina: effect of reaction conditions on product distribution and
composition. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:4876–83.
[21] Rahman MM, Stevanovic S, Islam MA, Heimann K, Nabi MN, Thomas G, et al.
Particle emissions from microalgae biodiesel combustion and their relative oxida-
tive potential. Environ Sci Processes Impacts 2015;17:1601–10.
[22] How HG, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Teoh YH, Chuah HG. Effect of Calophyllum
Inophyllum biodiesel-diesel blends on combustion, performance, exhaust particu-
late matter and gaseous emissions in a multi-cylinder diesel engine. Fuel
2018;227:154–64.
[23] NREL. Compendium of experimental cetane numbers. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; 2004.
[24] Özkan M. Comparative study of the effect of biodiesel and diesel fuel on a com-
pression ignition engine’s performance, emissions, and its cycle by cycle variations.
Energy Fuels 2007;21:3627–36.
[25] Rahman MM, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS, Azad AK, Uddin MN. Effect of small pro-
portion of butanol additive on the performance, emission, and combustion of
Australian native first- and second-generation biodiesel in a diesel engine. Environ
Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017;24:22402–13.
[26] Asokan MA, Senthur prabu S, Kamesh S, Khan W. Performance, combustion and
emission characteristics of diesel engine fuelled with papaya and watermelon seed
oil bio-diesel/diesel blends. Energy 2018;145:238–45.
[27] Giakoumis EG, Rakopoulos CD, Dimaratos AM, Rakopoulos DC. Exhaust emissions
of diesel engines operating under transient conditions with biodiesel fuel blends.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2012;38:691–715.
[28] Uyumaz A. Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of a DI diesel
engine fueled with mustard oil biodiesel fuel blends at different engine loads. Fuel
2018;212:256–67.
[29] Nabi MN, Zare A, Hossain FM, Rahman MM, Stuart D, Ristovski Z, et al.
Formulation of new oxygenated fuels and their influence on engine performance
and exhaust emissions. Proceedings of the Australian Combustion Symposium
December 7-9. The University of Melbourne; 2015.
[30] Miyamoto N, Ogawa H, Nabi MN, Obata K, Arima T. Smokeless, low NOx, high
thermal efficiency, and low noise diesel combustion with oxygenated agents as
main fuel. SAE technical paper series # 980506. (1998).
[31] Rahman MM, Pourkhesalian AM, Jahirul MI, Stevanovic S, Pham PX, Wang H, et al.
Particle emissions from biodiesels with different physical properties and chemical
composition. Fuel 2014;134:201–8.