4.6 Article

An experimental investigation of the performance of biodiesel production techniques: Optimization, kinetics, and energy analysis

Journal

THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROGRESS
Volume 22, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tsep.2021.100842

Keywords

Conventional and PI techniques; Kinetic analysis; Process performance; Process optimization; WCO

Funding

  1. Gujarat Energy Development Agency (GEDA), Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the performance of biodiesel production techniques and found that ultrasonic cavitation and microwave irradiation are more energy-efficient and yield higher production than conventional mechanical stirring.
The present research work aims to compare performance amongst biodiesel production techniques such as conventional Mechanical Stirring method (MS) and the most common process intensification techniques (viz. Microwave irradiation (MW) and Ultrasonic cavitation (US)). The performances of these techniques were evaluated and compared in terms of optimized process conditions, biodiesel yield, energy efficiency, reaction kinetics, and fuel properties. Experiments were designed and performed for each production technique using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) based Box Behnken design (BB-design) method. The optimized parameters were set for all three techniques and the maximum biodiesel yield obtained were 88.03%, 98.00%, and 96.45% for MS, US, and MW respectively. Reaction kinetics follow pseudo-first-order kinetics as noted in all three techniques. The activation energy was observed to be significantly lower for US (21.36 kJ/mol) and MW (13.05 kJ/mol) as compared to the MS (33.17 kJ/mol). Scale-up study up to tenfold increase in batch size was performed on PI techniques. The energy analysis showed that US and MW techniques are more energy-efficient than MS to produce maximum biodiesel yield.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available