Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 35, pp 35429–35439 | Cite as

Multi-objective optimization of diesel engine performance and emissions fueled with diesel-biodiesel-fusel oil blends using response surface method

  • Amin Hassan Pour
  • Seyed Mohammad Safieddin Ardebili
  • Mohammad Javad Sheikhdavoodi
Research Article


The interest in research on alcohol-based biofuels is on the rise. Fusel oil is a long-chain alcohol and a by-product of bioethanol synthesis. This study analyzed the effects of blended levels of fusel oil and biodiesel in diesel fuel on the performance and exhaust emissions of a single-cylinder diesel engine. The effects of input parameters (i.e., fusel oil content (%), biodiesel content (%), engine speed (rpm), and engine load (%), each at five levels) on response parameters (i.e., power, torque, fuel consumption, and emission factors, namely NOX, UHC, CO, and CO2) were investigated. Different levels were used for analyzing fusel oil (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20%), biodiesel (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20%), engine load (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%), and engine speed (1400, 1700, 2000, 2300, and 2600 rpm). Response surface method (RSM) was employed to maximize engine performance and minimize exhaust emissions. A blend of D90F5 B5 (5% fusel oil, 5% biodiesel, and 90% petro-diesel) and engine speed of 2026 rpm at load 46% were predicted to be an optimal value. Using a 72% desirability function, optimum results for torque (14.2 Nm), power (3.37 kW), and brake-specific fuel consumption (356.9 g/kWh) were also obtained from RSM. Based on the optimized inputs, the optimized values of different output pollutants were 0.14 vol.% for CO, 1.62 vol.% for CO2, 23.7 ppm for UHC, and 85.17 ppm for NOX. The result illustrated that use of fusel oil decreased NOX emissions up to 20%, while UHC and CO emissions increased up to 32% and 22%, respectively. In addition, the use of fusel oil content (up to 10%) in the blended fuels improved the engine power by 5.6%.


Fusel oil Biodiesel Performance Emissions Response surface method 



Fusel oil


Pure diesel


80% gasoline+20% fusel oil


20% ethanol in diesel and biodiesel blends


Diesel+biodiesel+fusel oil


91% diesel+6% biodiesel+3% ethanol


80% diesel+10% biodiesel+10% fusel oil


10 vol% fusel oil blended with diesel


90% diesel+5% fusel oil+5% biodiesel


Low-temperature combustion


Brake-specific fuel consumption


Design of experiment


Nitrogen oxides


Unburned hydrocarbons


Carbon monoxide


Carbon dioxide


Response surface method


Central composite design


Funding information

This study was financially supported by grant no: 970106 of the Biotechnology Development Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


  1. Abuhabaya A, Fieldhouse J, Brown D (2013) The optimization of biodiesel production by using response surface methodology and its effect on compression ignition engine. Fuel Process Technol 113:57–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu-Qudais M, Haddad O, Qudaisat M (2000) The effect of alcohol fumigation on diesel engine performance and emissions. Energy Convers Manag 41:389–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attia AMA, Nour M, Nada SA (2018) Study of Egyptian castor biodiesel-diesel fuel properties and diesel engine performance for a wide range of blending ratios and operating conditions for the sake of the optimal blending ratio. Energy Convers Manag 174:364–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Awad OI, Ali OM, Mamat R et al (2017a) Using fusel oil as a blend in gasoline to improve SI engine efficiencies: a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:1232–1242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awad OI, Mamat R, Ali OM et al (2017b) The effect of adding fusel oil to diesel on the performance and the emissions characteristics in a single cylinder CI engine. J Energy Inst 90:382–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Awad OI, Mamat R, Ibrahim TK et al (2017c) Calorific value enhancement of fusel oil by moisture removal and its effect on the performance and combustion of a spark ignition engine. Energy Convers Manag 137:86–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Awad OI, Mamat R, Obed MA et al (2017d) Response surface methodology (RSM) based multi-objective optimization of fusel oil -gasoline blends at different water content in SI engine. Energy Convers Manag 150:222–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Awad OI, Ali OM, Hammid AT, Mamat R (2018a) Impact of fusel oil moisture reduction on the fuel properties and combustion characteristics of SI engine fueled with gasoline-fusel oil blends. Renew Energy 123:79–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Awad OI, Mamat R, Ibrahim TK et al (2018b) Effects of fusel oil water content reduction on fuel properties, performance and emissions of SI engine fueled with gasoline-fusel oil blends. Renew Energy 118:858–869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calam A, Icingur Y, Solmaz H et al (2015) A comparison of engine performance and the emission of fusel oil and gasoline mixtures at different ignition timings. Int J Green Energy 12:767–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Damanik N, Ong HC, Tong CW et al (2018) A review on the engine performance and exhaust emission characteristics of diesel engines fueled with biodiesel blends. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emiroğlu AO, Şen M (2018) Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of various alcohol blends in a single cylinder diesel engine. Fuel 212:34–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang Q, Fang J, Zhuang J, Huang Z (2013) Effects of ethanol-diesel-biodiesel blends on combustion and emissions in premixed low temperature combustion. Appl Therm Eng 54:541–548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagos FY, Ali OM, Mamat R, Abdullah AA (2017) Effect of emulsification and blending on the oxygenation and substitution of diesel fuel for compression ignition engine. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75:1281–1294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. He T, Chen Z, Zhu L, Zhang Q (2018) The influence of alcohol additives and EGR on the combustion and emission characteristics of diesel engine under high-load condition. Appl Therm Eng 140:363–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heydari-Maleney K, Taghizadeh-Alisaraei A, Ghobadian B, Abbaszadeh-Mayvan A (2017) Analyzing and evaluation of carbon nanotubes additives to diesohol-B2 fuels on performance and emission of diesel engines. Fuel 196:110–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Imdadul HK, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA et al (2016) Influences of ignition improver additive on ternary (diesel-biodiesel-higher alcohol) blends thermal stability and diesel engine performance. Energy Convers Manag 123:252–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiang M, Zheng Z (2018) Effects of multiple environmental factors on the growth and extracellular organic matter production of Microcystis aeruginosa: a central composite design response surface model. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiang L, Wang YD, Roskilly AP et al (2018) Investigation on thermal properties of a novel fuel blend and its diesel engine performance. Energy Convers Manag 171:1540–1548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karthickeyan V, Balamurugan P, Senthil R (2016) Investigation of CI engine fueled with ethanol nano additives blended diesel. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Recent Advances in Bioenergy Research. Springer, pp 121–130. Google Scholar
  21. Khalife E, Tabatabaei M, Demirbas A, Aghbashlo M (2017) Impacts of additives on performance and emission characteristics of diesel engines during steady state operation. Prog Energy Combust Sci 59:32–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khoobbakht G, Akram A, Karimi M, Najafi G (2016a) Exergy and energy analysis of combustion of blended levels of biodiesel, ethanol and diesel fuel in a di diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng 99:720–729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khoobbakht G, Najafi G, Karimi M, Akram A (2016b) Optimization of operating factors and blended levels of diesel, biodiesel and ethanol fuels to minimize exhaust emissions of diesel engine using response surface methodology. Appl Therm Eng 99:1006–1017. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khoobbakht G, Karimi M, Kheiralipour K (2018) Effects of biodiesel-ethanol-diesel blends on the performance indicators of a diesel engine: a study by response surface modeling. Appl Therm Eng.
  25. Koivisto E, Ladommatos N, Gold M (2015) Systematic study of the effect of the hydroxyl functional group in alcohol molecules on compression ignition and exhaust gas emissions. Fuel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar C, Rana KB, Tripathi B, Nayyar A (2018) Properties and effects of organic additives on performance and emission characteristics of diesel engine: a comprehensive review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–24. doi CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee W-J, Liu Y-C, Mwangi FK et al (2011) Assessment of energy performance and air pollutant emissions in a diesel engine generator fueled with water-containing ethanol–biodiesel–diesel blend of fuels. Energy 36:5591–5599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mahalingam A, Munuswamy DB, Devarajan Y, Radhakrishnan S (2018) Emission and performance analysis on the effect of exhaust gas recirculation in alcohol-biodiesel aspirated research diesel engine. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–7. doi CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahla SK, Singla V, Sandhu SS, Dhir A (2018) Studies on biogas-fuelled compression ignition engine under dual fuel mode. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:9722–9729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mubarak M, Shaija A, Suchithra TV (2016) Optimization of lipid extraction from Salvinia molesta for biodiesel production using RSM and its FAME analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:14047–14055. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murcak A, Hasimoglu, Cevik I, Kahraman H (2015) Effect of injection timing to performance of a diesel engine fuelled with different diesel-ethanol mixtures. Fuel 153:569–577. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Yusaf T et al (2015) Optimization of performance and exhaust emission parameters of a SI (spark ignition) engine with gasoline–ethanol blended fuels using response surface methodology. Energy 90:1815–1829. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nayyar A, Sharma D, Soni SL, Mathur A (2017) Experimental investigation of performance and emissions of a VCR diesel engine fuelled with n-butanol diesel blends under varying engine parameters. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:20315–20329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nemestóthy N, Gubicza LL, Fehér E et al (2008) Biotechnological utilisation of fusel oil, a food industry by-product a kinetic model on enzymatic esterification of i-amyl alcohol and oleic acid by Candida antarctica lipase B. Food Technol Biotechnol 46:44–50Google Scholar
  35. Noorollahi Y, Azadbakht M, Ghobadian B (2017) The effect of different diesterol (diesel–biodiesel–ethanol) blends on small air-cooled diesel engine performance and its exhaust gases. Energy 142:196–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Osman Emiroğlu A, Şen M (2018) Combustion, performance and exhaust emission characterizations of a diesel engine operating with a ternary blend (alcohol-biodiesel-diesel fuel). Appl Therm Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pandian AK, Ramakrishnan RBB, Devarajan Y (2017) Emission analysis on the effect of nanoparticles on neat biodiesel in unmodified diesel engine. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:23273–23278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Park SSH, Youn IIM, Lee CSC (2010) Influence of two-stage injection and exhaust gas recirculation on the emissions reduction in an ethanol-blended diesel-fueled four-cylinder diesel engine. Fuel Process Technol 91:1753–1760. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pullen J, Saeed K (2014) Factors affecting biodiesel engine performance and exhaust emissions - part II: experimental study. Energy 72:17–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rajesh Kumar B, Saravanan S (2016) Use of higher alcohol biofuels in diesel engines: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 60:84–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramakrishnan P, Kasimani R, Peer MS (2018) Optimization in the performance and emission parameters of a DI diesel engine fuelled with pentanol added Calophyllum inophyllum / diesel blends using response surface methodology. Environ Sci Pollut Res  25:29115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ren Y, Huang Z, Miao H et al (2008) Combustion and emissions of a DI diesel engine fuelled with diesel-oxygenate blends. Fuel 87:2691–2697. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rivera XCS, Topriska E, Kolokotroni M, Azapagic A (2018) Environmental sustainability of renewable hydrogen in comparison with conventional cooking fuels. J Clean Prod 196:863–879. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Safieddin Ardebili M, Ghobadian B, Najafi G et al (2011) Biodiesel production potential from edible oil seeds in Iran. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:3041–3044. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Safieddin Ardebili SM, Hashjin TT, Ghobadian B et al (2015) Optimization of biodiesel synthesis under simultaneous ultrasound-microwave irradiation using response surface methodology (RSM). Green Process Synth 4:259–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos FFP, Rodrigues S, Fernandes FAN (2009) Optimization of the production of biodiesel from soybean oil by ultrasound assisted methanolysis. Fuel Process Technol 90:312–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simsek S, Ozdalyan B, Engine SSI (2018) Improvements to the composition of fusel oil and analysis of the effects of fusel oil–gasoline blends on a spark-ignited (SI) engine’s performance and emissions. Energies 11:625. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solmaz H (2015) Combustion, performance and emission characteristics of fusel oil in a spark ignition engine. Fuel Process Technol 133:20–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Soufi MD, Ghobadian B, Najafi G et al (2017) Optimization of methyl ester production from waste cooking oil in a batch tri-orifice oscillatory baffled reactor. Fuel Process Technol 167:641–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Subramanian T, Varuvel EG, Ganapathy S, et al (2018) Role of fuel additives on reduction of NOX emission from a diesel engine powered by camphor oil biofuel. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taghizadeh-Alisaraei A, Ghobadian B, Tavakoli-hashjin T, Mohtasebi SS (2012) Vibration analysis of a diesel engine using biodiesel and petrodiesel fuel blends. Fuel 102:414–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tan YH, Abdullah MO, Nolasco-Hipolito C et al (2017) Engine performance and emissions characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel-biodiesel-bioethanol emulsions. Energy Convers Manag 132:54–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tutak W, Jamrozik A, Pyrc M, Sobiepański M (2017) A comparative study of co-combustion process of diesel-ethanol and biodiesel-ethanol blends in the direct injection diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng 117:155–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Venugopal P, Kasimani R, Chinnasamy S (2018) Prediction and optimization of CI engine performance fuelled with Calophyllum inophyllum diesel blend using response surface methodology (RSM). Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–16. doi CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Woo C, Kook S, Hawkes ER (2016) Effect of intake air temperature and common-rail pressure on ethanol combustion in a single-cylinder light-duty diesel engine. Fuel 180:9–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xue J, Grift TE, Hansen AC (2011) Effect of biodiesel on engine performances and emissions. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:1098–1116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang Y, Ding Q, Yang M, et al (2018) Magnetic ion exchange resin for effective removal of perfluorooctanoate from water: study of a response surface methodology and adsorption performances. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–12. doi CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yasin MHM, Yusaf T, Mamat R, Yusop AF (2014) Characterization of a diesel engine operating with a small proportion of methanol as a fuel additive in biodiesel blend. Appl Energy 114:865–873. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yilmaz N, Vigil FM, Donaldson AB, Darabseh T (2014) Investigation of CI engine emissions in biodiesel-ethanol-diesel blends as a function of ethanol concentration. Fuel 115:790–793. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yücesu HS, Topgül T, Cinar C, Okur M (2006) Effect of ethanol–gasoline blends on engine performance and exhaust emissions in different compression ratios. Appl Therm Eng 26:2272–2278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yusri IM, Majeed APPA, Mamat R et al (2018) A review on the application of response surface method and artificial neural network in engine performance and exhaust emissions characteristics in alternative fuel. Renew Sust Energ Rev 90:665–686. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biosystems EngineeringShahid Chamran University of AhvazAhvazIran

Personalised recommendations