| Literature DB >> 28952536 |
Saifuddin Nomanbhay1, Mei Yin Ong2.
Abstract
The conversion of biomass into chemicals and biofuels is an active research area as trends move to replace fossil fuels with renewable resources due to society's increased concern towards sustainability. In this context, microwave processing has emerged as a tool in organic synthesis and plays an important role in developing a more sustainable world. Integration of processing methods with microwave irradiation has resulted in a great reduction in the time required for many processes, while the reaction efficiencies have been increased markedly. Microwave processing produces a higher yield with a cleaner profile in comparison to other methods. The microwave processing is reported to be a better heating method than the conventional methods due to its unique thermal and non-thermal effects. This paper provides an insight into the theoretical aspects of microwave irradiation practices and highlights the importance of microwave processing. The potential of the microwave technology to accomplish superior outcomes over the conventional methods in biodiesel production is presented. A green process for biodiesel production using a non-catalytic method is still new and very costly because of the supercritical condition requirement. Hence, non-catalytic biodiesel conversion under ambient pressure using microwave technology must be developed, as the energy utilization for microwave-based biodiesel synthesis is reported to be lower and cost-effective.Entities:
Keywords: biodiesel; microwave; non-catalytic transesterification; non-thermal effect; sustainability
Year: 2017 PMID: 28952536 PMCID: PMC5590484 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering4020057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Different feedstocks for biodiesel production.
| Vegetable/Edible Oils | Non-Edible Oils | Animal Fats | Other Feedstocks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soybeans | Almond | Lard | Bacteria |
| Rapeseed | Tallow | Algae | |
| Canola | Andiroba | Poultry Fat | Fungi |
| Safflower | Babassu | Fish oil | Microalgae |
| Barley | Tarpenes | ||
| Coconut | Latexes | ||
| Copra | Camelina | Cooking oil (Yellow Grease) | |
| Cotton seed | Cumaru | Microalgae (Chlorellavulgaris) | |
| Groundnut | |||
| Oat | |||
| Rice | |||
| Sorghum | Jojoba oil | ||
| Wheat | Pongamiaglabra | ||
| Winter rapeseed oil | Laurel | ||
| Lesquerellafendleri | |||
| Mahua | |||
| Piqui | |||
| Palm | |||
| Karang | |||
| Tobacco seed | |||
| Rubber plant | |||
| Rice bran | |||
| Sesame | |||
| Salmon oil |
Comparison between three types of heating methods for biodiesel production.
| Characteristic/Parameter | Conventional Heating | Supercritical Heating | Microwave Heating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reaction time | 1 to 2 h (Long) | Less than 1 h (Short) | 0.05 to 0.1 h (Very short) |
| Reaction temperature | 40 °C to 100 °C | 250 °C to 400 °C | 40 °C to 100 °C |
| Reaction pressure | Atmospheric | 35 MPa to 60 MPa (High) | Atmospheric * |
| Catalyst required | Yes | No | Yes/No |
| Heat losses | High | Moderate | Low |
| Energy form | Electrical energy to thermal energy | Electrical energy to thermal energy | Electrical energy applied through microwave |
| Process efficiency | Low | Moderate | High |
| Catalyst removal | Yes | No | Yes |
| Soap removal | Yes | No | Yes |
| Advantages | Simple to operate, uses low energy source | Short reaction time, easy product separation | Short reaction time, cleaner products, energy efficient |
| Limitations | High energy requirement, saponified products | High capital costs, pressure vessel safety | May not be efficient with feedstock containing solids |
* Reactions at high temperature and pressure with no catalysts are possible.
Figure 1Biodiesel production classification.
Advantages and disadvantages of different types of catalysts in biodiesel production.
| Type of Catalyst | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Homogeneous base catalyst |
Very fast reaction rate: around 4000 times faster than acid-catalyzed transesterification. Reaction can be carried out at mild reaction conditions (less energy intensive). Catalysts such as NaOH and KOH are relatively cheap and widely available. |
Sensitive to free fatty acid (FFA) content in the oil. Unwanted soap formation if the FFA percentage in the feedstock is more than 2 wt %. Decrease in the biodiesel yield due to soap formation. The downstream purification process raises problems such as producing a large amount of wastewater. |
| Heterogeneous base catalyst |
Relatively fast reaction rate in comparison to acid-catalyzed transesterification. Reaction can be carried out at mild reaction conditions (less energy intensive). Easy separation of catalyst after the reaction. High possibility to reuse and regenerate the catalyst. |
Poisoning of catalyst when exposed to the surrounding air. Sensitive to FFA content in the oil due to its basicity property. Unwanted soap formation if the FFA percentage in the feedstock is more than 2 wt %. Decrease in the biodiesel yield due to soap formation. Leaching of catalyst active sites may lead to product contamination. |
| Homogeneous acid catalyst |
Insensitive to FFAs and water content in the feedstock. Preferable method for cheaper feedstock. Simultaneous esterification and transesterification processes. Reaction can be carried out at mild reaction conditions (less energy intensive). |
Very slow reaction rate. Corrosive catalyst such as H2SO4 leads to corrosion on reactor and pipelines. Separation of catalyst from product is problematic. |
| Heterogeneous acid catalyst |
Insensitive to FFA and water content in the feedstock. Preferable method for cheaper feedstock. Simultaneous esterification and transesterification processes. Easy separation of catalyst from the product. High possibility to reuse and regenerate the catalyst. |
Complicated catalyst synthesis process results in higher overall production cost. Normally, a high reaction temperature, high alcohol-to-oil molar ratio, and long reaction time are required. Energy intensive. Leaching of catalyst active sites may lead to product contamination. |
| Enzymes |
FFAs are converted to biodiesel. Not affected by the water content in the feedstock. High biodiesel yield, usually around 90%. Simple glycerol recovery and produces high grade glycerol. Easy catalyst recovery and the reusability proved but not sufficiently studied. Low reaction temperature at 20–50 °C. Low environmental impact as no need for wastewater treatment. |
Low to moderately-high reaction rate, depending on the parameters. Relatively high cost of catalysts if enzymes cannot be recovered and reused. Possible enzyme inhibition by alcohols. |
Figure 2Electromagnetic spectrum [31].
Energy of different bonds and microwaves.
| Bonding and Microwave | Energy (eV) |
|---|---|
| Brownian motion at 37 °C | 2.7 × 10−3 |
| Biological compound | 13.6 |
| Covalent bond (e.g., OH−) | 5 |
| Hydrogen bond | 2 |
| Van der Waals intermolecular interactions | <2 |
| Microwave at 0.3 GHz | 1.24 × 10−6 |
| Microwave at 2.45 GHz | 1 × 10−5 |
| Microwave at 300 GHz | 1.24 × 10−3 |
Figure 3Heating mechanisms for: (a) conventional heating, and (b) microwave heating [43].
Comparison between microwave heating and conventional heating.
| Microwave Heating | Conventional Heating |
|---|---|
| Energetic coupling | Conduction/convection |
| Coupling at molecular level | Superficial/wall heating |
| Rapid | Slow |
| Volumetric | Superficial |
| Selective | Non-selective |
| Dependent on material’s properties | Less dependent |
Figure 4Selective heating of water/oil emulsion (water droplets are represented by the orange bubbles) [54].
Figure 5Effect of extraction time on extract yield (DB) at 70 °C [50].
Figure 6Reaction coordinates of CuO reduction under conventional heating, E-field microwave heating, and H-field microwave heating.
Figure 7Schematic illustration of the tetrahedral structure of water before and after microwave irradiation.
Figure 8The field dependence of the tetrahedral order parameter and lifetime of hydrogen bonds.
Figure 9Microwave-assisted catalytic biodiesel production.
Experimental studies of microwave-assisted transesterification with different feedstocks.
| Feedstock | Feedstock Solvent | Reaction Time (min) | Reaction Temperature (°C) | Catalysts | Microwave Power (W) | Biodiesel Yield (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coconut oil | 1:6 Methanol | 5 | 1% NaOH | 100 | 97.76 | [ | |
| Waste frying oil | 1:6 Methanol | 2 | 60 | 1% NaOCH3 | 98.87 | [ | |
| 1:12 Methanol | 6 | 2% BaO | 800 | 96 | [ | ||
| 1:9 Methanol | 6 | 2% KOH | 800 | 92 | [ | ||
| Chinese tallow tree | 1:3 Methanol ( | 20 | 58.1 | 1.74% NaOH | 96.62 | [ | |
| Palm oil | 1:12 Methanol | 1.75 | 70 | 1% NaOH | 400 | 99.4 | [ |
| 1:5 Methanol | 10 | 0.5% Ca(OH)2 from seashells | 96 | [ | |||
| 1:9 Methanol | 60 | 65 | 5% CaO | 150 | 89.9 | [ | |
| Soybean oil | 1:12 Methanol | 2 | 70 | 1% KOH | 200 | 99 | [ |
| 1:14 Methanol | 30 | 65 | 10% C4H4O6KNa doped ZrO2 catalyst | 94.75 | [ | ||
| Castor oil | 1:10 Ethanol | 10 | 60 | 1.5% KOH | 80.1 | [ | |
| 1:6 Methanol | 5 | 60 | 0.5% NaOH | 96 | [ | ||
| 1:6 Methanol | 5 | 60 | 1% KOH | 96 | [ | ||
| Wet microalgae | 1 g : 4 mL Methanol (co-solvents: chloroform, sulfuric acid) | 30 | 60 | 400 | 11% of dry-mass | [ | |
| Microalgae oil | 1:1 Methanol-hexane ( | 10 | 65 | NaOH | 86.41 | [ | |
| Rice bran oil | 1:5 Methanol | 20 | 60 | 0.15% NaOH | 98 | [ | |
| Safflower oil | 1:10 Methanol | 6 | 60 | 1% NaOH | 300 | 98.4 | [ |
| Canola | 1:1 Methanol ( | 5 | 100 | 1% ZnO/La2O2CO3 | 95 | [ | |
| Rubber seed oil | 1:5 Methanol | 60 | 60 | 6% Cement clinker catalyst | 96.8 | [ | |
| Yellow horn seed oil | 1:6 Methanol | 120 | 50 | 8% immobilized Novozym 435 (in green deep eutectic solvent) | 400 | 95 | [ |
Microwave-based biodiesel properties.
| Property | Units | ASTM D6751 | EN 14214 | Microwave Heating | Regular Diesel [ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste Cooking Oil [ | Chinese Tallow Tree [ | Karanja [ | Soybean [ | Jatropha [ | |||||
| Density | kg/m3 at 15 °C | 870–890 | 860–900 | 870–880 | 880 | 887 | 877 | 889 | 846 |
| Viscosity | mm2/s at 40 °C | 1.9–6 | 3.5–5 | 2.25–3.10 | 2.02 | 4.3 | 4.22 | 4.21 | 2.28 |
| Pour point | °C | −4 to −1 | 2 | 6 | −15 | ||||
| Flash point | °C | >93 | >101 | 145 | 173 | 132 | 68 | ||
| Cetane index | >47 | >51 | 55.45–56.10 | 62.73 | 56.3 | 50.9 | |||
| Copper strip corrosion index | No. 3 max | Class 1 | No. 2 | No. 1 | No. 1 | ||||
| Iodine value | g I2/100 g | <120 | 83 | 115.3 | |||||
| Heating value | MJ/kg | 32.5–36.1 | 45.08–45.24 | 37.95 | 42.71 | ||||
| Saponification value | mg KOH/g | 195 | 181.3 | ||||||
| Acid value | Mg KOH/g | <0.5 | <0.5 | 0.34 | 0.405 | 0.14 | 0.42 | 0.34 | |
| Water content | % | <0.05 | <0.05 | 6.00% | 2.00% | 0.0129 | 0.0102 | ||
Figure 10The microwave-mediated transesterification of algal biomass under supercritical ethanol conditions to yield ethyl ester.
Figure 11Experimental protocol for the microwave-mediated supercritical ethanol transesterification process for algal biomass.