Skip to main content

Determination of methanolysis rate constants for low and high fatty acid oils using heterogeneous surface reaction kinetic models

Abstract

Catalytic methanolysis of soybean oil with Amberlyst A26-OH basic ion-exchange resin was studied in the presence and absence of free fatty acids. Catalytic methanolysis of soybean oil is a key step in the biodiesel production process. The use of the heterogeneous Amberlyst A26-OH basic resin to catalyze this conversion is of interest due to the resin’s ability to be recovered, regenerated, and reused. This current research modeled methanolysis on the surface of the heterogeneous catalyst using both the Eley–Rideal and Langmuir–Hinshelwood–Hougen–Watson reaction kinetic models. For all experiments, soybean oil (with and without 5 % oleic acid incorporated) was reacted with methanol at a molar ratio of 1:10 soybean oil to methanol in the presence of Amberlyst A26-OH (added at 20 % by weight of oil). The reaction was carried out over multiple investigations in a batch reactor where the reactants were mixed at 550 rpm and held at 50 °C and atmospheric pressure. The resulting data demonstrated that the Eley–Rideal reaction mechanism offered the best description of the surface interactions occurring on the resin. Based upon Eley–Rideal model fitting, the mean (± standard deviation) methanolysis rate constant (the rate at which methanol was consumed during the reaction) was determined to be 7.48 × 10−4 (±4.05 × 10−5) h−1 with free fatty acid absent and 1.94 (± 1.25 × 10−1) h−1 with free fatty acid present.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Russbueldt BME, Hoelderich WF (2009) Appl Catal A 362:47–57

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pasqualino JC, Montané D, Salvadó J (2006) Biomass Bioenergy 30:874–879

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Owen NA, Inderwildi OR, King DA (2010) Energy Policy 38:4743–4749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pastore C, Lopez A, Lotito V, Mascolo G (2013) Chemosphere 92:667–673

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Revellame E, Hernandez R, French W, Holmes W, Alley E (2010) J Chem Technol Biotechnol 85:614–620

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dong T, Wang J, Miao C, Zheng Y, Chen S (2013) Bioresour Technol 136:8–15

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen L, Liu T, Zhang W, Chen X, Wang J (2012) Bioresour Technol 111:208–214

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Saydut A, Kafadar AB, Tonbul Y, Kaya C, Aydin F, Hamamci C (2010) Energy Explor Exploit 28:499–512

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Georgogianni KG, Katsoulidis AK, Pomonis PJ, Manos G, Kontominas MG (2009) Fuel Process Technol 90:1016–1022

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shibasaki-Kitakawa N, Honda H, Kuribayashi H, Toda T, Fukumura T, Yonemoto T (2007) Bioresour Technol 98:416–421

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feng Y, He B, Cao Y, Li J, Liu M, Yan F et al (2010) Bioresour Technol 101:1518–1521

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Niu X, Xing C, Jiang W, Dong Y, Yuan F, Zhu Y (2013) React Kinet Mech Catal 109:167–179

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Darnoko D, Cheryan M (2000) J Am Oil Chem Soc 77:1263–1267

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berchmans HJ, Morishita K, Takarada T (2013) Fuel 104:46–52

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jain S, Sharma MP (2010) Bioresour Technol 101:7701–7706

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang Y, Ou S, Liu P, Zhang Z (2007) Energy Conversat Manag 48:184–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jamal Y, Boulanger BO (2010) J Chem Eng Data 55:2405–2409

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jamal Y, Luo G, Kuo CH, Rabie A, Boulanger BO (2014) J Food Process Eng 37:27–36

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu Y, Lotero E, Goodwin JG Jr, Lu C (2007) J Catal 246:428–433

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Maddikeri GL, Pandit AB, Gogate PR (2012) Ind Eng Chem Res 51:6869–6876

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Agarwal M, Singh K, Chaurasia SP (2012) J Renew Sustain Energy 4:701–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. AlKabbashi AN, Alam MZ, Mirgani MES, Al-Fusaiel AMA (2009) J Appl Sci 9:3166–3170

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leung DYC, Guo Y (2006) Fuel Process Technol 87:883–890

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kapil A, Wilson K, Lee AF, Sadhukhan J (2011) Ind Eng Chem Res 50:4818–4830

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dossin TF, Reyniers M-F, Marin GB (2006) Appl Catal B 62:35–45

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Di Serio M, Tesser R, Pengmei L, Santacesaria E (2008) Energy Fuels 22:207–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cren ÉC, Meirelles AJA (2005) J Chem Eng Data 50:1529–1534

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Díaz L, Brito A (2014) J Adv Chem Eng 4:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lukić I, Kesić Ž, Maksimović S, Zdujić M, Liu H, Krstić J et al (2013) Fuel 113:367–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ilgen O (2014) Fuel Process Technol 118:69–74

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marchetti JM, Miguel VU, Errazu AF (2007) Fuel 86:906–910

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ilgen O (2012) Fuel Process Technol 95:62–66

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Veljković VB, Stamenković OS, Todorović ZB, Lazić ML, Skala DU (2009) Fuel 88:1554–1562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dossin TF, Reyniers M-F, Berger RJ, Marin GB (2006) Appl Catal B 67:136–148

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. De Filippis P, Borgianni C, Paolucci M (2005) Energy Fuels 19:2225–2228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Arzamendi G, Campo I, Arguiñarena E, Sánchez M, Montes M, Gandía LM (2008) J Chem Technol Biotechnol 83:862–870

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chantrasa A, Phlernjai N, Goodwin JG Jr (2011) Chem Eng J 168:333–340

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cantrell DG, Gillie LJ, Lee AF, Wilson K (2005) Appl Catal A 287:183–190

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Marchetti JM, Errazu AF (2010) Biomass Bioenergy 34:272–277

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the US Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Fulbright Program and the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (Project Number 32296-19386) for the financial support. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Guofan Luo and Mr. Charlie Kuo for their laboratory support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yousuf Jamal.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 174 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jamal, Y., Rabie, A. & Boulanger, B.O. Determination of methanolysis rate constants for low and high fatty acid oils using heterogeneous surface reaction kinetic models. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 114, 63–74 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-014-0780-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-014-0780-5

Keywords

  • Methanolysis
  • Heterogeneous catalysis
  • Eley–Rideal
  • Langmuir–Hinshelwood–Hougen–Watson
  • Kinetic modeling