3.9 Article

Experimental study on a diesel engine fueled with Semecarpus anacardium biodiesel containing dispersed TiO2 nanoparticles: performance, combustion, and emission analyses

期刊

ENERGY ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 113-128

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s40974-022-00265-2

关键词

Nanoparticles; Stability; Biodiesel; Cylinder pressure; Brake thermal efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with Semecarpus anacardium biodiesel and TiO2 nanoparticles. The results showed that the addition of nanoparticles improved the engine's thermal efficiency and fuel consumption, while reducing emissions. Increasing the injection pressure enhanced the engine's operating characteristics.
This study examined the performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with Semecarpus anacardium biodiesel (BD20) and TiO2 nanoparticles. TiO2 nanoparticles were dispersed in BD20 biodiesel at different concentrations (50, 75, and 100 mg/L). In addition, a dispersant (QPAN80) was added at a ratio of 1:1 for the surface modification of the TiO2 nanoparticles. Injection pressures of 200, 225, and 250 bar were used to investigate the effect of the aforementioned variables on performance. The dispersion of nanoparticles in BD20 improved the brake thermal efficiency (BTE) and specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of the nanofuel. The cylinder pressure (CP) and net heat release rate (NHRR) of BD20 blended with nanoparticles were significantly higher than those of conventional diesel. The NOx emission levels were lower. An increasing in the injection pressure improved the operating characteristics. At an FIP of 250 bar, the progressive BTE and minimum BSFC were 34.46% and 0.234 kg/kWh, whereas the peak CP and NHRR were 69.66 bar and 70.14 J/& DEG;C, respectively. CO, HC, NOx, and smoke were 0.02%, 33 ppm, 846 ppm, and 37.58%, respectively, for BD20 + 75 mg/L of TiO2 + 75 mg/L of QPAN.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据