4.7 Article

Exergy, exergoeconomic, and sustainability analyses of a diesel engine using biodiesel fuel blends containing nanoparticles

期刊

ENERGY
卷 274, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.127278

关键词

Biodiesel; Nanoparticle; Exergy analysis; Exergy economic; Sustainability index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigated the influence of titanium dioxide (TiO2) and silver oxide (Ag2O) nanoparticles additives on biodiesel fuel obtained from cottonseed oil. The fuel blends formed by nanoparticles with biodiesel fuel were evaluated in terms of performance and emissions. The results showed that adding nanoparticles to biodiesel fuel increased thermal efficiency and exergy efficiency, and decreased total exergy losses in fuel blends.
The current paper investigated in detail the influence of titanium dioxide (TiO2) and silver oxide (Ag2O) nanoparticles additives into biodiesel fuel obtained from cottonseed oil in terms of performance and emissions. The fuel blends formed by nanoparticles with biodiesel fuel were evaluated from a different perspective with energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic analyses by utilizing the data from the experiments. Thermal efficiency and exergy efficiency increase when nanoparticles were mixed to the biodiesel fuel. Total exergy losses in fuel blends decrease with the nanoparticle additives. When the engine torque was 40 Nm, the total exergy losses for C100, CAg-75, and CTi-75 test fuels were 14.49 kW, 13.91 kW, and 12.17 kW, respectively. The total exergy loss in D100 fuel was calculated as 12.04 kW under the same conditions. The sustainability indexes for D100 and CTi-75 fuels at an engine torque of 40 Nm were 1.626 and 1.620, respectively. Due to the high price of nanoparticles, test fuels with nanoparticles have a higher cost per unit exergy for engine work than pure biodiesel fuel. Hence, it is essential to decrease the cost of nanoparticle production to expand the using of nanoparticle additives in biodiesel.

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