| Literature DB >> 30416243 |
Paweł Grabowski1, Przemysław Jarosiński1, Piotr Szajerski2, Hanna Gwardiak3,4.
Abstract
The objective was to study changes in water-saturated biodiesel irradiated by electron beam and to analyse them considering the influence of absorbed dose. Based on obtained results it can be concluded that irradiation did not affect ester groups in FAME molecules, but strongly influenced on double bonds. Total ester content decreased linearly with the increase in absorbed dose, causing FAME not to meet the requirement of PN-EN 14214 concerning the ester content (96.5 wt%). Therefore, the use of ionizing radiation to improve biodiesel properties is unlikely, but it is worth to consider electron beam sterilisation of this biofuel.Entities:
Keywords: Biodiesel; Biodiesel modification; E-beam irradiation; Esters content; Spectroscopy
Year: 2018 PMID: 30416243 PMCID: PMC6208635 DOI: 10.1007/s10967-018-6153-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Radioanal Nucl Chem ISSN: 0236-5731 Impact factor: 1.371
Doses of radiation absorbed by samples
| Sample no | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absorbed dose (kGy) | 1.07 | 2.87 | 5.22 | 10.37 | 20.79 | 40.61 | 60.31 | 80.91 | 100.14 | 245.90 |
Fig. 1UV–Vis absorption of all tested samples
Fig. 2UV–Vis absorption of all tested samples in the range 265–290 nm
Fig. 3UV–Vis absorption of all tested samples in the range 380–540 nm
Fig. 4IR absorption of all tested samples in the range 800–4000 cm−1
Fig. 5IR absorption of all tested samples in the range 1600–1800 cm−1
Ester content in all tested RME samples
| Dose of radiation (kGy) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 1.07 | 2.87 | 5.22 | 10.37 | 20.79 | 40.61 | 60.31 | 80.91 | 100.14 | 245.90 | |
| Content of particular methyl esters (wt%) | |||||||||||
| C14:0a | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
| C16:0 | 4.84 | 4.78 | 4.79 | 4.79 | 4.78 | 4.77 | 4.76 | 4.74 | 4.75 | 4.73 | 4.67 |
| C16:1 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.62 |
| C18:0 | 1.77 | 1.75 | 1.76 | 1.76 | 1.76 | 1.76 | 1.76 | 1.76 | 1.76 | 1.76 | 1.77 |
| C18:1 | 59.55 | 59.14 | 59.17 | 59.16 | 59.08 | 58.97 | 58.71 | 58.45 | 58.45 | 58.24 | 57.03 |
| C18:2 | 18.70 | 18.00 | 18.07 | 18.06 | 18.03 | 17.94 | 17.78 | 17.68 | 17.62 | 17.52 | 16.83 |
| C18:3 | 8.22 | 7.64 | 7.68 | 7.67 | 7.69 | 7.64 | 7.54 | 7.47 | 7.38 | 7.35 | 6.99 |
| C20:0 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.53 |
| C20:1 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.28 | 1.28 | 1.27 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.23 |
| C22:0 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.30 |
| C22:1 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| C24:0 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
| C24:1 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Total ester content (wt%) | 96.89 | 95.14 | 95.29 | 95.25 | 95.15 | 94.89 | 94.33 | 93.74 | 93.73 | 93.37 | 91.01 |
aC14:0—methyl mirystate, C16:0—methyl palmitate, C16:1—methyl palmitoleate, C18:0—methyl stearate, C18:1—methyl oleate, C18:2—methyl linoleate, C18:3—methyl linolenate, C20:0—methyl arachidate, C20:1—methyl eicosanoate, C22:0—methyl behenate, C22:1—methyl erucate, C24:0– methyl lignocerate, C24:1—methyl nervonate
Fig. 6Content of unsaturated C18 esters versus dose of radiation
Fig. 7Total ester content versus dose of radiation
Fig. 8Cluster analysis for UV–Vis and GC result
Fig. 9PCA analysis plot