4.7 Article

Low-cost alternative biodiesel production apparatus based on household food blender for continuous biodiesel production for small communities

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93225-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Second Century Fund (C2F)
  2. Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund [CU_GR_62_52_21_07]
  3. Chulalongkorn University
  4. Research Chair Grant of National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the optimal conditions for continuous production of fatty acid methyl esters using a modified household food blender, including factors such as reaction volume, total flow rate, catalyst concentration, and more. Results showed that the method can achieve high yield while meeting EN 14214 and ASTM D6751 standards.
Fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) are sustainable biofuel that can alleviate high oil costs and environmental impacts of petroleum-based fuel. A modified 1200 W high-efficiency food blender was employed for continuous transesterification of various refined vegetable oils and waste cooking oil (WCO) using sodium hydroxide as a homogeneous catalyst. The following factors have been investigated on their effects on FAME yield: baffles, reaction volume, total reactant flow rate, methanol-oil molar ratio, catalyst concentration and reaction temperature. Results indicated that the optimal conditions were: 2000 mL reaction volume, 50 mL/min total flow rate, 1% and 1.25% catalyst concentration for refined palm oil and WCO, respectively, 6:1 methanol-to-oil molar ratio and 62-63 degrees C, obtaining yield efficiency over 96.5% FAME yield of 21.14x10(-4) g/J (for palm oil) and 19.39x10(-4) g/J (for WCO). All the properties of produced FAMEs meet the EN 14214 and ASTM D6751 standards. The modified household food blender could be a practical and low-cost alternative biodiesel production apparatus for continuous biodiesel production for small communities in remote areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据