| Literature DB >> 28842614 |
A Avinash1, A Murugesan2.
Abstract
Taraditionally, the water-soluble contaminants of biodiesel are treated by water wash method. However, water wash method ends up in an aqueous effluent, which might then cause a harmful environmental impact. As a consequence, waterless purification of biodiesel has triggered primary interest in biodiesel manufacturing process. To address this issue, an endeavour has been made in this work to investigate the waterless purification of biodiesel from waste cooking oil using cow dung ash at different concentration of 1, 2, 3 and 4 wt/wt %. The optimum concentration of cow dung ash for biodiesel purification was found through chemometric analysis by comparing the Fourier transform infrared transmission (FTIR) spectral characteristics of cow dung ash with the water treated FTIR. It was observed from the experimental study that 1 wt/wt % of cow dung ash exhibited similar structural characteristics as that of traditional water treated method of biodiesel purification. Therefore, bio-waste cow dung ash is an effective adsorbent in purifying biodiesel analogous to traditional water washing technology.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28842614 PMCID: PMC5573379 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09881-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1XRD pattern of cow dung ash.
Comparison of d-spacing, position and strongest peak intensities of CDA with standard compounds.
| Compound | JCPDS | hkl | d-spacing (nm) | Position (2θ) | Relative intensity (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | Experimental | Standard | Experimental | Standard | Experimental | |||
| SiO2 | (46–1045) | 101 | 0.33434 | 0.331583 | 26.639 | 26.8662 | 100 | 100 |
| Al2O3 | (10–0173) | 122 | 0.15140 | 0.15147 | 61.164 | 61.10 | 5 | 6 |
| MgO | (45–0946) | 311 | 0.12698 | 0.126521 | 74.689 | 75.01 | 5 | 5 |
| CaO | (37–1497) | 400 | 0.12025 | 0.121854 | 79.662 | 78.4178 | 6 | 7 |
| Fe2O3 | (33–0664) | 128 | 0.11896 | 0.119219 | 80.709 | 80.5 | 5 | 4 |
Figure 2EDX spectrum of cow dung ash.
Figure 3(a) FTIR spectra of pure water and biodiesel treated wastewater (b) FTIR spectra of biodiesel samples.
Analysis of biodiesel samples.
| Purification method | Acid number (mg KOH/g) | Saponification value (mg KOH/g) | Methanol (%) | Water (mg/kg) | Free glycerin (%) | Total glycerin (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unpurified | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 212 | 0.74 ± 0.02 | 2247.4 | 0.00782 ± 0.00001 | 0.59 ± 0.02 |
| Water purified | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 204 | 0.015 ± 0.01 | 5365.2 | 0.00035 ± 0.00001 | 0.49 ± 0.01 |
| CDA treated 1 wt/wt % | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 205 | <0.01 | 1879.5 | 0.00393 ± 0.00002 | 0.50 ± 0.01 |
| CDA treated 2 wt/wt % | 0.27 ± 0.01 | 206 | <0.01 | 1881.2 | 0.00451 ± 0.00001 | 0.48 ± 0.01 |
| CDA treated 3 wt/wt % | 0.27 ± 0.01 | 207 | <0.01 | 1880.8 | 0.00412 ± 0.00001 | 0.47 ± 0.01 |
| CDA treated 4 wt/wt % | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 207 | <0.01 | 1881.6 | 0.00442 ± 0.00001 | 0.48 ± 0.01 |
Figure 4Scatter plot of biodiesel samples.
Figure 5(a) Score plot of PCA (b) Dendrogram.
Figure 6(a) PLSR model for raw data (b) PLSR model for preprocessed data.