Fuel Processing Technology 106 (2013) 526532

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Fuel Processing Technology

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

Effect of aromatic amine antioxidants on NOx emissions from a soybean biodiesel

powered DI diesel engine
K. Varatharajan a,, M. Cheralathan b
a
b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Velammal Engineering College, Chennai 600 066, India
Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM University, Chennai 603 203, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 November 2011
Received in revised form 27 May 2012
Accepted 6 September 2012
Available online 23 October 2012
Keywords:
NOx reduction
Antioxidants
DPPD
Soybean biodiesel
Prompt NO

a b s t r a c t
It is an overwhelming argument that the use of biodiesel instead of petrodiesel causes a reduction in harmful exhaust emissions from engines. A number of studies, however, indicate substantial increases in engine out NOx
emissions with biodiesel fuel. Some studies have pointed out that the increased formation of prompt NOx is responsible for biodiesel NOx effect. Treatment of biodiesel with antioxidants is a promising approach because it
reduces the formation of hydrocarbon free radicals, which are responsible for prompt NOx production in combustion process. Aromatic amine antioxidants are known as to be efcient inhibitors of free radicals. This study examines the use of p-phenylenediamine derived aromatic amine antioxidants for NOx reduction in a soybean
biodiesel fuelled DI diesel engine. The antioxidant additives, N,N-diphenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (DPPD) and
N-phenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (NPPD) were tested on a computerised Kirloskar-make 4 stroke water cooled
single cylinder diesel engine of 4.4 kW rated power. Results show that signicant reduction of NOx could be
achieved by the addition of antioxidants but smoke, CO and HC emissions were found to have increased.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There is considerable interest worldwide in the replacement of
petrodiesel by biodiesel in order to reduce the harmful diesel exhaust
emissions from engines. However, the use of biodiesel results in a noticeable increase (about 10%) in NOx emissions when compared to conventional diesel [1]. The biodiesel market in the US is expected to reach
6,453 million litres in 2020 and 45,291 million litres globally [2]. As a
consequence, the increase in NOx emissions could become a signicant
barrier to biodiesel market expansion. The nitrogen oxide compounds
not only have direct effects on human health, but also affect the environment and have ground level ozone-forming potential. When compared
to diesel NOx, a relatively small amount of research has been conducted
on biodiesel NOx emissions.
Thermal, prompt and N2O pathway are the dominant NO formation
mechanisms in biodiesel combustion. In general, biodiesel does not contain fuel-bound nitrogen, so NO formation by the fuel NO mechanism can
be considered negligible [3]. Thermal NO is formed by oxidation of nitrogen at elevated temperatures (above1700 K). Prompt NO is produced by
the formation of free radicals in the ame front of hydrocarbon ames.
Generally, the prompt NO contribution to total NO from combustion process is considered less important when compared to thermal NO. On the
other hand, in biodiesel combustion, signicant quantities of NO are
Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Velammal Engineering College, Surapet, Chennai 600066, India. Tel.: + 91 9677039183; fax: + 91
4426591771.
E-mail address: varathas11@gmail.com (K. Varatharajan).
0378-3820/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.09.023

formed by prompt mechanism [4]. N2O pathway mechanism is signicant under elevated pressure and lean air fuel ratio conditions.
Numerous reasons have been proposed for biodiesel NOx effect; however, the exact cause is still unclear. Increased fuel mass delivery due to
advancement of injection timing resulting from higher bulk modulus of
biodiesel fuel, electronic injection advance due to reduced heating
value, higher cetane number of biodiesel, increased premixed-burn fraction, change in chemical kinetic pathways, increased adiabatic ame temperature and heat release rate, more stoichiometric burning and lessened
radiative heat transfer from in-cylinder soot are stated as the reasons for
increased thermal NO formation in biodiesel fuel [5]. Zhang and Boehman
[6] found much higher NOx emissions with common rail system, and concluded that injection timing shift alone could not be the reason for biodiesel NOx effect. Monyem et al. [7] have shown that biodiesel has lower
adiabatic ame temperature than petrodiesel. Moreover, Szybist et al.
[8] observe a lower rate of heat release for biodiesel fuel at all loads.
McCormick and co-workers of US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) reported that the increased formation of prompt NO as
one of the primary reasons for biodiesel NOx effect [4,9] and also they
suggested that the antioxidants can be used to control prompt NO generation. Hess et al. [10] studied the effect of different antioxidant fuel
additives with B20 (soy) fuel on NOx emissions. They observed signicant reduction in NOx emissions with butylated hydroxytoluene and
butylated hydroxyanisole antioxidants. Brezinsky et al. conducted experiments to analyse the biodiesel combustion using high pressure single pulse shock tube (HPST) [11] and jet stirred reactor (JSR) [12]. In
both the tests they have observed increased formation of prompt NO
from the unsaturated methyl ester compared to the saturated methyl

K. Varatharajan, M. Cheralathan / Fuel Processing Technology 106 (2013) 526532

ester. They predicted the prompt NOx by measuring the rate of acetylene formation. In general, biodiesel feedstocks containing higher degree of unsaturated components like soybean, sunower and jatropha
emits more NOx compared to their saturated counterparts. Knothe et
al. [13] found more NOx emissions with biodiesel fuelled engine tted
with EGR (a method to reduce thermal NO) when compared to conventional petro-diesel fuelled engine. This shows that thermal NO has less
effect on biodiesel NOx emissions. Furthermore, Mueller et al. [5] concluded that changes in prompt NO formation may play an important
role in biodiesel NOx effect. Recently, Som and Longman [14] of Argonne
National Laboratory found higher prompt NO formation in biodiesel
combustion. CH and OH radicals are continuously formed during
combustion reactions. The formation of CH radicals is an indicator of
low temperature pre-combustion reactions and the formation of
prompt NO. And the presence OH radicals indicate high temperature reactions and thermal NO [15]. Love et al. [16] observed lesser concentration of OH radicals and higher populations of CH radicals (especially
unsaturated biodiesel fuels) in biodiesel ames.
The reactions of fuel with oxygen from the air are the basis of energy
production, but they are also the major cause of pollutant formation. A
molecule that has an unpaired electron is called a free radical that determines the oxidation reaction rate. The most important reactive radicals
formed during combustion reactions are hydroperoxyl (OOH), hydroxyl
(HO), alkoxyl (RO) and peroxyl (ROO) radicals. These radicals react
with N2 and N2O forming nitrogen oxides. Free radicals from the ester
can be formed by four routes: the bimolecular reaction with hydrogen
atom abstraction by dioxygen from the weakest CH bond, the bimolecular addition of dioxygen to the double bond of nonsaturated ester, the
trimolecular reaction of dioxygen with the weakest CH bonds of two
nonsaturated esters and the trimolecular reaction of dioxygen with double bonds of two molecules of nonsaturated esters [17].
Additions of small amounts of antioxidants into the fuel suppress
free radical formation by reacting with peroxyl radicals to form new
inactive radicals so interrupting the propagation step. The hydrogen
donating ability of a chain breaking antioxidant has a very important
effect on its antioxidant activity. The hydrogen is released from
the weak OH (phenols, hydroquinones) and NH (aromatic amines,
diamines) bonds of antioxidants. In general phenolic antioxidants
(TBHQ, BHT, BHA etc.) are added to biodiesel to prevent degradation.
They are so effective in controlling free radicals at room temperature
but their antioxidant activity decreases rapidly with increasing
temperature. The quantum-chemical study of an aromatic amine N,
N-diphenyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPPD) indicate that it retains its
antioxidant activity even at increased temperatures [18]. Amines possess a pair of p-electrons on the nitrogen atom. The nitrogen atom has
a low electron afnity in comparison with oxygen. Therefore, amine
can be the electron donor reactant in a charge-transfer complex (association of two or more molecules) in association with oxygencontaining molecules and radicals. Moreover, the hydrogen atom
from the NH bond of aromatic amine can be separated more easily
than from the OH bond of phenols since the NH hydrogen bond is
not as strong as the OH hydrogen bond [17].
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of aromatic
amine antioxidants on NOx and other emissions of a DI diesel engine
powered by soybean methyl ester. In this study p-phenylenediamine

527

Table 2
Specications of test antioxidants.
Antioxidant

Specications

N,N-diphenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine
(DPPD)

CAS number
Molecular weight
Chemical formula
Melting point
CAS number
Molecular weight
Chemical formula
Melting point

N-phenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine
(NPPD)

74-31-7
260.34
C18H16N2
144 C
101-54-2
184.24
C12H12N2
68 C

based antioxidants N,N-diphenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (DPPD) and

N-phenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (NPPD) were selected as test antioxidants. The antioxidant-free non commercial soybean biodiesel
was purchased from Chandrasekar biodiesel consulting rm, Hyderabad,
India. The antioxidant additives used in this study were purchased from
Sigma-Aldrich India. The specications of the test fuels and antioxidants
and biodiesel are presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The chemical
structures of the antioxidants are given in Fig. 1. The antioxidant DPPD
contains NH substituent and NPPD contains both NH and NH2
substituents.
2. Experiment details
The engine used in the present study is the computerised
Kirloskar-make 4 stroke water cooled single cylinder diesel engine of
4.4 kW rated power. The schematic diagram of the experimental
setup is shown in Fig. 2. The engine was directly coupled to an
eddy-current dynamometer equipped with a load controller. The fuel
ow rate, speed, load, exhaust gas temperature and gas ow rate
were displayed on a personal computer. The specications of the engine
are given in Table 3. The cylinder pressure was measured by a Piezo sensor of PCB Piezotronics Model M111A22 and the signal of the cylinder
pressure was acquired for every 1CA.
Exhaust emissions were measured with an AVL DiGas 444 ve gas
analyser. The analyser provided a NO range of 0 to 5000 ppm with a resolution of 10 ppm, CO measurement range of 0% to 20% by volume with
a resolution of 0.01%, and HC range of 0 to 20,000 ppm with a resolution
of 10 ppm. The accuracy of the instrument is 10%, 5% and 0.5% of the indicated value for the measurement of NO, HC and CO respectively. As for
smoke measurement, the automatic NETEL NPM CH 1 smoke meter was
employed. The smoke intensity was measured as light absorption
coefcient (m1). The display range, scale resolution, repeatability,

Table 1
Specications of test fuels.
Properties
3

Density at 15 C kg/m
Viscosity at 40 C mm/s2
Flash point C
Pour point C
Caloric value kJ/kg
Cetane number

Soy methyl ester

Diesel Indian oil

850
4.05
95.28
2
39,600
48

830
2.5
66
12
45,300
43

Fig. 1. Chemical structures of selected additives. a) DPPD (N,N-diphenyl-1,4phenylenediamine), b) NPPD (N-phenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine).

528

K. Varatharajan, M. Cheralathan / Fuel Processing Technology 106 (2013) 526532

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of experimental setup.

response time and warm up time of smoke meter are 09.99 m1,
0.01 m 1, 0.1 m 1, 0.3 s and 3 minutes respectively. Experiments
were conducted with different antioxidant concentrations of biodiesel
fuel mixtures (50, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000 ppm) in addition to neat biodiesel and diesel fuel. To make 100 ppm mixture,
100 mg of antioxidant was added to 1 litre of biodiesel. In each load
levels, the measurements of exhaust gas temperature, fuel consumption, fuel pressure, coolant temperature, exhaust gas ow rate, combustion pressure, crank angle, NO, HC, CO and smoke emissions were
carried out and recorded.

3. Results and discussions

The effect of aromatic amine antioxidant additives on NO, CO, HC
and smoke emissions of soybean methyl ester fuelled diesel engine
were systematically investigated in this study. The NO measurements
were repeatable within each engine run, with replicate measurements
varying by 36 ppm. The exhaust emissions of engine are greatly
inuenced by the addition of antioxidants with biodiesel. The results
of performances and emissions of test antioxidant mixtures are compared with neat biodiesel and discussed in this section, as follows.

Table 3
Specications of test engine.
Parameter

Specication

Model
Type

Kirloskar TAF-1
Single cylinder, four stroke, direct injection,
bowl-in-piston, constant speed, diesel engine.
661 cc
87.5 mm 110 mm
17.5:1
1500 rpm
4.4 kW
Eddy current dynamometer
200 bar

Capacity
Bore and stroke
Compression ratio
Speed (constant)
Rated power
Loading type
Injection pressure

3.1. Effects on NO emissions

The NO emissions during combustion of test antioxidant mixtures
were compared to neat biodiesel and diesel. The changes in NO emissions that resulted from the antioxidant addition were found to be signicant. Fig. 3 shows the NO reduction percent of different antioxidant
mixtures relative to neat biodiesel and B20 fuel at full load (4.326 kW),
75% load (3.357 kW), 50% (2.238 kW) load and 25% load (1.119 kW)
respectively. From the gure it can be seen that, antioxidant addion
with B20 fuel reduce the NO emission up to a certain concentration
and beyond the limit emission of NO increase with antioxidant loadings.
At 75% load, the maximum NO reduction percent of DPPD and NPPD additives are 9.35 and 4.06 respectively. As shown in Fig. 3 for B100 fuel,
the NO emission reduction increased linearly with the concentration
of DPPD additive. In the case of NPPD additive, the reduction in NO
emission increases with the increase of concentration up to a certain
limit and starts to decrease beyond it. Similar trends were obtained by
Dunn [19] and he observed increased antioxidant activity at lower
loadings (less than 1000 ppm) and constant or reduced activity at
higher loadings. The possible reason for the inverse relationship between treatment rate and amount of NO reduction is that all the
p-phenylenediamine based antioxidants contain nitrogen in its chemical structure and at higher loading, the excess antioxidant reacts with
oxygen and forms additional NO. The antioxidant efciency is dened
by the ratio F/ [In H]. Where F is the antioxidant activity and In H is
the acceptor reacting with alkoxyl and peroxyl radicals. This ratio does
not depend on the antioxidant concentration [17].
For B100 fuel, we found 28.36% and 20.96% reductions in NO emission, respectively, when the fuel was loaded with DPPD and NPPD additives as compared with neat biodiesel fuel (75% load). DPPD was the
most effective of the antioxidants studied, giving more than 25% decrease in measured NO emissions at all engine loads. The comparison
of specic NO emission of soy methyl ester with the best antioxidant additive to B20 and B100 fuels at various loads is shown in Fig. 4. For B20
fuel, the NO produced by DPPD additive and base fuel at 75% load was
2.38 and 2.49 g/kWh respectively. The corresponding NO emissions for
B100 fuel were 2.12 and 2.72 g/kWh respectively. Fig. 4 shows that
across nearly the full spectrum of engine load examined the NO emission

K. Varatharajan, M. Cheralathan / Fuel Processing Technology 106 (2013) 526532

529

Fig. 3. Effect antioxidant additives on NOx emissions for B20 and B100 fuels. a) 25% load (1.12 kW), b) 50% load (2.24 kW), c) 75% load (3.36 kW), d) 100% load (4.33 kW).

K. Varatharajan, M. Cheralathan / Fuel Processing Technology 106 (2013) 526532

Brake specific CO emissions (g/kWh)

Brake Specific NO emission (g/kWh)

530

Diesel
B100
B100 + 2000 ppm DPPD
B20
B20 + 1000 ppm DPPD

4
3
2
1
0
0

24
Diesel
B100
B100 + 2000 ppm DPPD
B20
B20 + 1000 ppm DPPD

20
16
12
8
4
0
0

Brake power (kW)

Brake power (kW)

Fig. 6. Effect of antioxidant additives with biodiesel fuels on CO emissions.

Fig. 4. Variation of NO emission with brake power.

of biodiesel fuels containing antioxidants are below those not only of biodiesel lacking antioxidants but also below those of petroleum diesel.
As shown in Fig. 4, the biodiesel fuel emits more NO than conventional diesel fuel. The main reason for the NO increase with the use of
biodiesel is discussed as follows. Fenimore [20] proposed that NO formation was initiated by reactions of hydrocarbon radicals (CH, CH2,
C2, C, and C2H) with molecular nitrogen.
CH N2 HCN N

N O2 NO O

HCN OHCN H2 O

CN O2 NO CO

The production rates of HCN, N and NO increases with the concentration of CH radicals. Brezinsky et al. [11,12] observed increased formation of CH radicals during biodiesel combustion. This could be the
reason for increased NOx formation for biodiesel fuel.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of antioxidant additives on NO emission on
diesel fuel. The addition of aromatic amine antioxidant with diesel increases the engine out NO emission in proportion with the increase in
concentrations. Presence of nitrogen in the antioxidant additive has
NO reducing effect with biodiesel but has a NO increasing effect with
diesel. Furthermore, the nitrogen containing cetane improver additive
2- EHN (2-ethylhexyl nitrate) with diesel fuel reduces NO emissions
considerably [21]. Peroxyl radical (HO2) produced by ester is nearly

ve times more active than the alkylperoxyl radical produced by hydrocarbons. The highly reactive ester peroxy radicals are consumed by antioxidants and alkylperoxyl radicals are not consumed by them [17].
From the results, it appears that more free radicals (peroxyl radicals)
are formed during biodiesel combustion than diesel combustion and
prompt NO could play an important role in biodiesel NOx emissions.
Moreover, Lin et al. [22] found increased production of peroxyl radicals
and reduced formation of OH radicals in biodiesel combustion. As mentioned earlier, the decreased formation of OH radicals indicate low temperature reactions and the factors such as heat release rate, adiabatic
ame temperature and stoichiometric burning may not be the major
reason for biodiesel NOx effect.
An ester molecule has two different types of weak CH bonds:
-CH bonds of the alcohol substituent and the -CH bonds of
the acid substituent. The oxidation proceeds in ester via the reaction
of the ester peroxyl radical with weakest CH bond of the ester.
The reduction of NOx emission from antioxidant fuel mixtures is
mainly due to the suppression of peroxyl free radical formations by
reaction with aromatic amines. p-Phenylenediamines reacts with
peroxyl radical to form primary amine radical which is very reactive.
The peroxyl radical further reacts with amine radical and produce
benzoquinonediimine and nitroxyl radical. These reaction products
efciently trap free radicals [23].

3.2. Effects on CO and HC emissions

Fig. 6 shows the inuence of the DPPD antioxidant additive on the
brake-specic CO emissions at various loads for B20 and B100 fuels. It
can be seen that CO emissions increase with the addition of the

40

NO emissions (g/kWh)

Brake specific HC emission (g/kWh)

B100 + DPPD
B100 + NPPD

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5

50

100

250

500

750

1000

1500

2000

Antioxidant concentrations (ppm)

Fig. 5. Effect of antioxidants on diesel NO emission at part load conditions (75% load).

0.7
Diesel
B100
B100 + 2000 ppm DPPD
B20
B20 + 1000 ppm DPPD

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

Brake power (kW)

Fig. 7. Effect of antioxidant additives with biodiesel fuels on HC emissions.

K. Varatharajan, M. Cheralathan / Fuel Processing Technology 106 (2013) 526532

H2 O2 2OH

HO2 OH O

CO OHCO2 H

HC OHHCHO

HCHO OHH2 O HCO

HCO O2 CO2 HO

10

3.3. Effects on smoke emissions

Fig. 8 shows the characteristics of the exhaust smoke emissions of
biodiesel fuel and its blend containing the DPPD additive. The DPPD
fuel mixture increased the smoke density by 12.5 % and 6.6% when
compared with the B20 and B100 fuels respectively for 75% load conditions. It is important to note that the increase in smoke emissions
were still below the level of diesel. Several factors may contribute to
the increase of smoke opacity with antioxidant addition. The possible
reasons for the increase of smoke are reduction of oxygen availability,
increase of CC bonds and increase of aromatic content due to the
addition of antioxidants with fuels.
3.4. Effects on brake thermal efciency
The variation of brake thermal efciency with loads for the antioxidant fuel mixtures is shown in Fig. 9. At part loads change in brake

36
Diesel
B100
B100 + 2000 ppm DPPD
B20
B20 + 1000 ppm DPPD

Smoke intensity (HSU)

32
28
24
20
16
12

36

Brake thermal efficiency (%)

antioxidants. At 75% load, the DPPD additive had about 9.09% and
14.28% more CO emissions than the neat B20 fuel and neat biodiesel
fuel respectively. The variation of brake-specic HC emissions with
load is shown in Fig. 7. In the same manner as the CO emissions, the
antioxidant addition was found to signicantly increase HC emissions. The increase in HC emissions for B20 and B100 fuels were
10.52% and 16.92% respectively at 75% load conditions. However,
the levels of CO and HC emissions with the addition of antioxidants
were still below those for petro-diesel. The reason for the increase
in CO and HC emissions is explained as follows:
Peroxyl (HO2) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) radicals are continuously produced during oxidation. These radicals are further converted
into hydroxyl (OH) radicals by absorbing heat (Eqs. (5) and (6)). The
OH radicals are responsible for the conversion of CO into CO2 and HC
into H2O and CO2 (Eqs. (7), (8), (9) and (10)). Treating biodiesel with
antioxidants reduce the concentration of peroxyl and hydrogen peroxide radicals. This reduction in free radicals may have a signicant effect
on the formation of OH radicals and oxidation of CO and HC.

531

32
28
24
20
16
Diesel
B100
B100 + 2000 ppm DPPD
B20
B20 + 1000 ppm DPPD

12
8
4
0

Brake power (kW)

Fig. 9. Effect of antioxidant additives with biodiesel fuels on brake thermal efciency.

thermal efciencies due to antioxidants addition are insignicant

but at full load, efciencies were slightly lower than the neat biodiesel. At 75% load, the brake thermal efciency produced by the DPPD
and B20 fuel mixture was 24.85%, while the base B20 fuel had
25.20%. For B100 fuel, there is no signicant change in brake thermal
efciency at 75% load but at full load, 0.80% loss in BTE was observed.
The reason for the reduction in thermal efciency is possibly due to
slight cylinder pressure reduction with the addition of antioxidants.
4. Conclusions
The objective of this experimental work was to investigate the effect of p-phenylenediamine derived antioxidants on engine out NOx
emissions from a biodiesel fuelled DI diesel engine. Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn.
1. The test antioxidants and biodiesel mixtures produced lower emissions of nitrogen oxides. Among the tested antioxidants, the additive
N,N-diphenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (DPPD) showed the highest
activity in reducing NO in both B20 and B100 fuels. At 75% load, the
maximum NO reduction percent relative to B20 fuel for DPPD and
NPPD additives were 9.35% and 4.06% respectively and the corresponding reductions for neat biodiesel were 28.36% and 20.96% respectively. Moreover, the emission results show that the studied
aromatic amine antioxidants additives reduced the NO emission
below the level observed with petro-diesel combustion.
2. Increased formation of prompt NO could be the major reason for
biodiesel NOx effect.
3. The antioxidant biodiesel mixtures produced slightly higher CO and
HC emissions when compared with neat biodiesel. The DPPD additive increased the CO emissions over 9.09% with B20 fuel and
14.28% with B100 fuel at 75% load conditions. Use of DPPD additive
with biodiesel fuels leads to a signicant increase in HC emissions
by about 10.52% and 16.92% for B20 and B100 fuels respectively.
Smoke density also slightly increased with the addition of antioxidants with biodiesel. It should be noted however that these emissions are well below the diesel emission levels. The addition of
antioxidants with biodiesel on engine brake thermal efciency was
also found to be insignicant. However, slight reduction in efciency
(0.8%) was observed with antioxidant fuel mixtures at full load.

Acknowledgement

4
0
0

Brake power (kW)

Fig. 8. Effect of antioxidant additives with biodiesel fuels on smoke emissions.

The authors would like to thank the Chairman (Mr. M.V.

Muthuramalingam) and CEO (Mr. M.V.M. Velmurugan) of Velammal
engineering college, Chennai, India for providing laboratory facilities
to our experimental work. The authors also express their thanks to

532

K. Varatharajan, M. Cheralathan / Fuel Processing Technology 106 (2013) 526532

Mr. K. Chandrasekar, biodiesel consultant, Hyderabad for providing

soybean biodiesel for this work.

References
[1] EPA, A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions.
Accessed May 26, 2012 from US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.
epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf EPA420-P-02-001.
[2] GlobalData, Global Biodiesel Market Analysis and Forecasts to 2020. Accessed
May 26, 2012 from market-study.de http://www.markt-studie.de/168/d/2010/
03/30/globaldata-global-biodiesel-market-analysis-and-forecasts-to-2020/.
[3] B. Moser, A. Williams, M. Haas, R. McCormick, Exhaust emissions and fuel properties of partially hydrogenated soybean oil methyl esters blended with ultra low
sulfur diesel fuel, Fuel Processing Technology 90 (2009) 11221128.
[4] NREL, NOx Solutions for biodiesel. Accessed May 26, 2012 from US National Renewable Energy Laboratory http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/31465.pdf.
[5] C. Mueller, A. Boehman, G. Martin, An experimental investigation of the origin of
increased NOx emissions when fueling a heavy-duty compression-ignition engine
with soy biodiesel, SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants 2 (1) (2009)
789816 (2009-01-1792).
[6] Y. Zhang, A. Boehman, Impact of biodiesel on NOx emissions in a common rail direct injection diesel engine, Energy and Fuels 21 (2007) 20032012.
[7] A. Monyem, J. Van Gerpen, M. Canakci, The effect of timing and oxidation on
emissions from biodiesel-fueled engines, Transactions of the ASAE 44 (2001)
3542.
[8] J. Szybist, S. Kirby, A. Boehman, NOx emissions of alternative diesel fuels: a comparative analysis of biodiesel and FT diesel, Energy and Fuels 19 (2005) 14841492.
[9] NREL, Effects of Biodiesel Blends on Vehicle Emissions. Accessed May 26, 2012 from
US National Renewable Energy Laboratory http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/
npbf/pdfs/40554.pdf.
[10] M.A. Hess, M.J. Haas, T.A. Foglia, W.N. Marmer, The effect of antioxidant addition
on NOx emissions from biodiesel, Energy and Fuels 19 (2005) 17491754.

[11] S. Garner, K. Brezinsky, Biologically derived diesel fuel and NO formation: an experimental and chemical kinetic study, Part 1, Combustion and Flame 158 (2011)
22892301.
[12] S. Garner, T. Dubois, N. Chaumeix, P. Dagaut, K. Brezinsky, Biologically derived diesel
fuel and NO formation. Part 2: model development and extended validation,
Combustion and Flame 158 (2011) 23022313.
[13] G. Knothe, C. Sharp, T. Ryan, Exhaust emissions of biodiesel, petrodiesel, neat
methyl esters, and alkanes in a new technology engine, Energy and Fuels 20 (1)
(2006) 403408.
[14] S. Som, C. Longman, Numerical study comparing the combustion and emission characteristics of biodiesel to petrodiesel, Energy and Fuels 25 (2011) 13731386.
[15] F. Salvador, J. Gimeno, J. Morena, Effects of nozzle geometry on direct injection
diesel engine combustion process, Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009)
20512060.
[16] N. Love, N. Parthasarathy, R. Gollahallia, Concentration measurements of CH and
OH radicals in laminar biofuel ames, International Journal of Green Energy 8 (1)
(2011) 113120.
[17] E. Denisov, I. Afanas'ev, Oxidation and Antioxidants in Organic Chemistry and Biology, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2005.
[18] G. Gatial, J. Polovkova, M. Breza, Quantum-chemical study of N, N-diphenylp-phenylenediamine (DPPD) dehydrogenation, Acta Chimica Slovaca 1 (2008)
7284.
[19] R. Dunn, Effect of antioxidants on the oxidative stability of methyl soyate (biodiesel),
Fuel Processing Technology 86 (2005) 10711085.
[20] C. Fenimore, Formation of nitric oxide in premixed hydrocarbon ames, in: 13th
Symp. on Combustion, 13, The Combustion Institute, 1975, pp. 373380.
[21] EPA, The Effect of Cetane Number Increase due to Additives on NOx Emissions
from Heavy-duty Highway Engines. Retrieved May 26, 2012 from US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/r03002.pdf.
[22] K. Lin, J. Lai, A. Violi, The role of the methyl ester moiety in biodiesel combustion:
a kinetic modeling comparison of methyl butanoate and n-butane, Fuel 92 (2012)
1626.
[23] M. Breza, New Research on Antioxidants, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York,
2008. Chapter 7.