IntechOpen

Home > Books > Advanced Biodiesel - Technological Advances, Challenges, and Sustainability Considerations

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Biodiesel Refining and Processing Strategies

Written By

Timothy J. Tse, Li Zhou, Farley Chicilo, Venkatesh Meda and Martin J.T. Reaney

Submitted: 31 October 2022 Reviewed: 16 January 2023 Published: 23 February 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.110038

Advanced Biodiesel IntechOpen
Advanced Biodiesel Technological Advances, Challenges, and Susta... Edited by Islam Md Rizwanul Fattah

From the Edited Volume

Advanced Biodiesel - Technological Advances, Challenges, and Sustainability Considerations

Edited by Islam Md Rizwanul Fattah

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

99 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

Biodiesel fuel is produced from triglyceride fats, and oils obtained from plant and animal sources. Typically, triglycerides are first transesterified to produce fatty acid alkyl esters (FAAE) and then refined. Traditional FAAE refining strategies are often energy-intensive, requiring large amounts of water (e.g., wet washing), adsorbents, and/or chemicals. Refining, in turn, produces substantial amounts of waste and is accompanied by the loss of biodiesel as neutral oil entrained in waste. A wide array of methods and technologies have been developed for industrial oil purification. Successful refining practices minimize waste and limit neutral oil losses. Recent studies have explored the use of adsorbents, solvent purification processes, membrane filtration, as well as novel applications of electrostatic field treatments to remove polar impurities (including free fatty acids, residues, soaps, and glycerides), and particulates from oils. This chapter will review and compare traditional current and novel strategies for refining FAAE for use as biodiesel.

Keywords

  • biodiesel
  • fuel
  • refining strategies
  • fatty acid alkyl esters
  • production of biodiesel

1. Introduction

An increase in global energy demand is driving a shift from traditional fossil fuels to renewable and sustainable energy, such as biofuels (e.g., bioethanol and biodiesel). Potentially, the use of renewable fuels can reduce greenhouse gas production, and pollution related to fossil fuel use [1] while also providing a sustainable source of fuel. Collectively, the biofuel markets is expected to reach $245 billion USD by 2027 [2], with biodiesel alone accounting for $73 billion USD by 2030 [3]. The top global producers of biodiesel and bioethanol and their feedstocks are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Currently, the United States, European Union, and Brazil are major global producers for biofuels (bioethanol and biodiesel) [4]. The COVID-19 pandemic led to restrictions to global travel and transport that resulted in a significant global decline in transport fuel [4] consumption, that in turn placed strain on the supply chain [5]. The subsequent lifting of pandemic-related restrictions in 2021–2022 led to recovery of fossil fuel and biofuel markets. The sudden increase in demand led to higher feedstock prices and bottlenecks in supply chains that have in turn increased production costs [4, 5]. Nonetheless, the biofuel market is expected to achieve a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.81% by 2027 [2].

CountryBiodiesel Production (Million L for 2019–2021*)Feedstock
European Union14,882Rapeseed oil/Palm oil/Used cooking oils
United States8905Soybean oil/Used cooking oils
Indonesia8476Palm oil
Brazil6325Soybean oil
Argentina1765Soybean oil

Table 1.

Top global producers (2021) of biodiesel and the feedstocks used [4].

Refers to average estimate between 2019 to 2021.


CountryEthanol Production (Million L for 2019–2021*)Feedstock
United States58,182Maize
Brazil32,748Sugarcane/Maize
China10,433Maize/Cassava
European Union6112Sugar beet/Wheat/Maize
Thailand1794Molasses/Sugarcane/Cassava

Table 2.

Top global producers (2021) of bioethanol and the feedstocks used [4].

Refers to average estimate between 2019 to 2021.


Renewable biomass fuels are classified as primary and secondary biofuels. Primary biofuels are traditionally woody or cellulosic plant material and dry animal wastes that are burned for energy [6], while secondary biofuels can be further categorized into three generations dependent on the feedstock material [7]. First generation biofuels include bioethanol produced from carbohydrate rich input materials such as corn and sugar cane, and biodiesel produced from vegetable oils (such as low erucic acid rapeseed oil and soybean oil), and animal fats such as waste cooking grease [6, 8]. A portion of the inputs for production of first-generation biofuels are derived from edible resources. Second generation biofuels include those that utilize non-edible cellulosic feedstock [7] and fuels produced from non-edible oil-rich plant seeds [6, 9]. Next, third generation bioethanol production relies on algal biomass as a sustainable feedstock [7]. There is also interest in investigating the suitability of microalgae for biodiesel production [10]. Recently, fourth generation approaches for bioethanol production that use genetically engineered organisms are being investigated [11]. Similarly, a fourth generation of biodiesel is based genetically engineered organisms [12].

Second-generation biodiesel can contribute to significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions when compared with fossil diesel sources as the feedstocks used for their production is often considered carbon neutral (e.g., plant-based) [13]. Second-generation biodiesel has also been extensively studied [14] and often utilize fully or partially refined vegetable oils (e.g., soybean oil and rapeseed oils) [15], that must be transesterified using chemical treatments (e.g., acid and/or base catalytic transesterification, with alkali-catalyzed transesterification being the most common [16]), to form fatty acid alkyl esters (FAAE) [15]. Typically, transesterification leads to the production of several contaminants in the FAAE including glycerol, glycerides, soap, alcohols, as well as accumulated moisture due to improper treatment processes or by adsorption of atmospheric moisture during storage [17]. The presence of these contaminants can have detrimental effects on the quality of the FAAE fuel, performance of vehicles being fueled, and storage properties of the fuel including, but not limited to, clogging of fuel filters [18], corrosion of storage containers [19], lower flashpoint [19], and increased deposit formation in the engine fuel system [19]. Therefore, removal of these contaminants is required to ensure quality and utility of the biodiesel product. However, conventional refining methods can require the use of many inputs, high capital cost equipment, and generate waste. For example, wet washing uses heated and softened water [20], while “dry washing” uses adsorbent materials [21] to remove polar contaminants [22]. These washing methods can result in the production of substantial waste [20] and/or require large amounts of expensive absorbent materials [1]. Furthermore, the introduction of water during wet refining processes can lead to the formation of emulsions which leads to FAAE loss [23], but also often requires specialized infrastructure to reduce moisture content in the biodiesel after refining [22].

In addition to wet and dry washing, alternative refining methods using enzymatic processes such as enzymatic degumming [24], physical refining methods [25], and membrane filtration [26] have been explored. Although these methods have been successful in removing contaminants and reducing chemical consumption and byproduct waste, implementation at an industrial scale can be prohibitive due to the cost of expensive reagents and specialized infrastructure. In addition, there are few solvent-stable membranes, and substitution of the solvent during seed oil extraction may be difficult [26]. For example, alcohols exhibit higher latent heat and lower solvent power, compared to hexane thus, requiring a larger amount of solvent to extract seed oil. More recently, newer refining methods (e.g., electrostatic field refinement) [27, 28] have been investigated as approaches to minimize the ecological footprint compared to conventional methods. The purpose of this review of biodiesel production, is to compare approaches of FAAE refining, and explore strategies for refining FAAE for biodiesel production.

Advertisement

2. Production of biodiesel

Most commercial biodiesel is produced by the transesterification of triglycerides with short-chain alcohols (e.g., methanol, ethanol), in the presence of a catalyst [29, 30], yielding glycerin and FAAE [31, 32]. Catalysts can include alkali catalysis (most common approach), acid catalysis, a sequence of acid catalysis followed by alkali catalyst, or a lipase catalysis [33, 34, 35, 36, 37] (Table 3). After transesterification, the FAAE phase is separated from glycerol and residual catalyst via settling or centrifugation [1].

Catalyst typeAdvantagesDisadvantages
AlkaliMore effective, less corrosiveExtra alkali required when processing feedstocks with high content of free fatty acids
Increased production of soap
AcidAppropriate for low quality oil feedstocksSlow process and results in incomplete reactions
Acid-alkaliLess depletion of catalyst, enhanced FAAE yield, generates less contaminantsCan require additional infrastructure and increase processing time
LipaseContinuous productionExpensive and can be unstable

Table 3.

Advantages and disadvantages of FAAE production methods.

Free fatty acids (FFA) in an oil or fat feed material can neutralize alkali catalysts and limit the transesterification reaction required for producing FAAE [15] and ultimately affect the yield and quality of biodiesel [38]. Reactions of the FFA in oils with alkaline catalysts forms soaps (e.g., carboxylic acid salts) and water. The presence of soap increases FAAE viscosity, and forms emulsions that can make separation of glycerol from biodiesel difficult [39]. To prevent this, feedstocks containing FFA should be treated prior to the transesterification process. Frequently used methods to decrease FFAs include acidic esterification, enzymatic esterification, and contacting the FAAE phase with alkaline water. Common acid treatments involve the use of sulfuric acid, in the presence of an alcohol such as methanol or ethanol, to reduce FFA content in the feedstock oil [40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45]. Hydrochloric acid and phosphoric acid can also reduce FFA content in cooking oil destined for biodiesel production [46]. Treatments of high FFA oils with lipase as an enzyme catalysts and glycerol can convert FFAs to glycerides, including monoglycerides, diglycerides, and triglycerides giving an overall reduction of FFA content [47]. The decrease in FFAs helps to improve conditions for alkali transesterification reactions [48].

This transesterification of lipids produces FAAE with beneficial physicochemical properties, including lower viscosity, ignition and flash points, making it an suitable biofuel [49]. However, incomplete transesterification can produce unrefined biodiesel with a variety of contaminants including glycerol, mono−/di-glyceride, soap, alcohol, moisture, and catalyst [29]. The presence of these contaminants in FAAE could significantly affect engine performance, damage fuel storage equipment, and lead to engine failure (Table 4). To ensure that biodiesel fuel is suitable for use as a fuel the crude FAAE must be refined to meet standardized guidelines, such as the American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM D6751) and the European Standard (EN 14214) [54]. Commercial biodiesel refining includes either wet or “dry” washing, however, these processes have significant drawbacks, such as requiring the use of expensive infrastructure and the production of waste products (e.g., wastewater). More recently, sustainable purification alternatives have been explored for biodiesel to maximize outputs, reduce the generation of waste products, and minimize the need for expensive infrastructure.

ContaminantsContaminant limits in standardized guidelinesPotential hazards
Moisture0.05% (by volume; ASTM D6751)Fuel filter plugging due to microbial growth; corrosion of storage container
Methanol

  1. % (by weight; EN 14110)

Lower flashpoint of biodiesel
FFA0.5 mg/g KOHCorrosion, low oxidation stability
Metals5 mg/kg of Class 1 metals (Na + K; EN 14214)Deposits in the injector, filter blockage, engine weakening
Soap66 mg/kg when KOH is used as the catalyst (ASTM D6751)Conferring biodiesel a degree of electric conductivity
Free glycerol<0.02% (by weight; ASTM D6751)Forming gum-like deposit around injector tips and valve heads
Total glyceride<0.24% (by weight; ASTM D6751)Increased levels of oxidative deposits

Table 4.

Common contaminants in FAAE and the potential hazards [19, 50, 51, 52, 53].

Advertisement

3. Conventional FAAE refining strategies

After transesterification, conventional crude FAAE refining strategies include the separation of the FAAE phase from glycerol based on differing densities (e.g., gravitational settling, sedimentation, centrifugation, decantation) [15, 29], followed by wet and/or dry washing (Figure 1). Wet washing removes polar contaminants (e.g., glycerol, soap, alcohol, and catalyst residue), from crude FAAE using a combination of heat and softened water utilizing the affinity of polar contaminants with water [20, 55]. The washing step is typically repeated until the biodiesel layer becomes clear and water layer becomes transparent [1]. Since this washing process must be repeated multiple times, these methods typically require large amounts of water and generate substantial waste in the form of contaminated water [56]. Typically, refining 1 L of crude FAAE can generate between 3 and 10 L of wastewater [29] and an additional drying step must then be included to remove residual moisture and prevent triglyceride hydrolysis [15]. Drying biodiesel can be costly and can result in the formation of emulsions [57].

Figure 1.

Typical fatty acid alkyl esters production and purification process.

In comparison, “dry” washing involves the removal of contaminants from crude FAAE through use of adsorbents or ion exchange resins. Suitable adsorbents include silicates (Magnesol™ or TriSyl™), ion exchange resins (Amberlite™ or Purolite™), cellulosic materials, activated clay, activated carbon, activated fiber, and others [29]. “Dry” washing is based on the affinity of adsorbents to common polar contaminants [58]. Although this method does not rely on contacting biodiesel with water, dry washing consumes a considerable amount of adsorbent material. However, this consumption can be mitigated if the adsorbent can be reused [59].

Both wet and dry washing techniques are commonly used for FAAE refining, and the advantages and disadvantages of both methods are summarized in Table 5. These conventional washing techniques increase production cost and further contribute to FAAE loss. The use of wet and dry washing to refine the FAAE phase generates substantial waste including wastewater and spent adsorbent. Waste is an important consideration for commercial manufacturers. As a result, there is significant interest in the development of refining technologies that are both efficient and environmentally sustainable as further elaborated below.

Refining methodAdvantagesDisadvantages
Wet washing> 99% FAAE purity is achievableRequires large amounts of water
Efficient removal of glycerol and methanolGenerates wastewater
Removes FAAE-soluble impuritiesDrying process can be energy intensive
Dry washingEasier operation and less effort than wet washingLower removal rate of contaminants
Less operation timeRe-generation of adsorbents can be challenging
No introducing moisture into FAAERequires expensive machinery (e.g., pump, column)

Table 5.

Advantages and disadvantages of wet and dry washings in FAAE refining [59].

Advertisement

4. Novel fatty acid alkyl esters refining methods

4.1 Membrane filtration

Conventional FAAE refining processes have significant drawbacks including high energy usage, oil losses, use of harmful chemicals, and the production of substantial waste or effluent products [26]. Fortunately, membrane technologies offer advantages including customizable features in the process design [60] that is both efficient and environmentally sustainable for the purification and separation of many biofuels, including biodiesel [61]. Some advantages include reducing thermal damage to the end-product, improved solvent recyclability, decreased emissions and energy consumption, minimized oil losses, and reduced bleaching requirements [26]. Membrane processes have been developed for refining biodiesel and such refining can generate high quality FAAE with increased yields when compared with conventional processes [62, 63]. Specifically, membranes with suitable properties (tolerance of mechanical, chemical, and thermal stress, high surface area, enhanced selectivity can remove particles from biodiesel [62]. Micro-filtration (MFM; 0.1–10 mm pore size) and ultra-filtration membranes (UFM; 1–100 nm pore size) have been tested for the removal of particles from crude FAAE [53]. These membranes can be classified as either organic membrane (e.g., cellulose membranes) and inorganic membrane (e.g., ceramic membranes), with the latter having the advantage of increased durability, thermostability, and stability in acid, alkali, and high-pressure environments [64]. Common types of membranes used in FAAE purification are summarized in Table 6; the two distinct properties that influence the efficacy of the membranes are pore size and perm-selectivity [61].

MembranesPore size (μm)Temperature (°C)Permeate Flux (L m−2 h−1)PressureResultsRef.
Ceramic membrane0.1603001.5 barLow metal and free glycerol content[65]
Ceramic membrane0.054022.172 bar97.5% and 96.6% removal rate of free glycerol and soap content[62]
Mixed cellulose ester membrane0.22Ambient temperature~1302 barEffect of soap and free glycerin removal[66]
Poly (ether-sulfone) ultrafiltration membrane10 kDaAmbient temperature~804 barEffect of soap and free glycerin removal[66]

Table 6.

Application of membranes in fatty acid alkyl esters refining.

Membrane filtration has been employed as a refining step for processing FAAE after transesterification [67]. Membrane based refining can reduce or remove common contaminants [67, 68], as well as residual catalysts [69]. For example, filtration through ceramic [70, 71] membranes reduce the glycerol content of FAAE [68]. Once isolated the glycerol byproduct might then be further purified and converted to value-added chemicals (e.g., solketal and glycerol carbonate) [72]. However, the use of absorbents is typically required to improve the efficiency of ceramic membranes [71]. In addition, filtration processes have been evaluated for the separation of crude biodiesel from unreacted vegetable oil [73], catalyst [65], soap [65], and methanol [1]. Ceramic or carbon microporous membranes are usually preferred due to resistance to corrosion and degradation in the presence of a base or acid catalyst during transesterification [67, 73, 74]. Filtration through ceramic membranes has been shown to effectively refine biodiesel to produce a product that meets standard specifications [65, 70, 71, 74, 75]. As glycerol and FAAE are immiscible due to their polarity differences, the lipid/oil droplets can be filtered through ceramic membranes owing to their large droplet size compared to the biodiesel [61]. These membranes have also been successful removing other common contaminants such as soap, to reach the quality defined in standard specifications [76]. However, it is often necessary to clean the membranes after each purification process either physically, chemically (hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, etc.), or hydraulically [77], to extend the reusability, efficiency, and repeatability of the membrane [76], otherwise, fouling and clogging can occur [74]. Furthermore, the membrane performance can be affected by physical operating parameters, including temperature requirements. Depending on membrane tolerance of operating conditions scale-up strategy and process design can be limited [76]. Computational modeling has also shown promising results in utilizing reverse osmosis filtration to remove impurities present in crude biodiesel [78]. Finally, the use of coagulation and flocculation processes [79], and membrane filtration methods, including nanofiltration, have been explored to treat biodiesel wastewater [80, 81], accumulated during wet washing processes [80].

Implementation of membrane filtration for biodiesel refining provides an environmentally valuable alternative to conventional biodiesel refining strategies [82]. Membrane filtration has demonstrated success in refining biodiesel from different feedstocks and produced products that meet the ASTM D6751 standard [68]. The combination of electrostatic strategies (electrostatic field, electrodialysis, etc.), with membrane filtration technologies, have also been explored and demonstrated high efficiency and success in refining biodiesel [83], and is further elaborated below.

4.2 Application of electrostatic field and nano-adsorbents in FAAE refining

The utilizing of static electric fields as a method for removing contaminants from FAAE has recently been reported [84, 85]. This method uses the behavior of particles in static electric fields [86] to remove them from FAAE. The process separates particles using electrochemical properties that separate them from bulk solution by electrophoresis (EP) and dielectrophoresis (DEP) [87]. Using EP, particles respond to a uniform direct current voltage that attracts particles, while DEP manipulates particles in a non-uniform electric field which can be tailored depending on the medium and contaminant properties [88]. Based on a range of dielectric properties of targeted molecules/particles/contaminants of interest DEP is commonly used in medical applications, diagnostics, environmental research, polymer research, and particle filtration [89]. These principles can be similarly applied for particle removal enabling partial FAAE refining.

Currently, processes involving electric fields have been applied in oil processing as a means for demulsification and dehydration [90] and removing contaminants [91]. These techniques can be employed to effectively remove polar contaminants (e.g., soap, and glycerides) [92, 93, 94, 95] from non-polar fluids with dielectric constants below 2.8 (Table 7) [99]. The application of electrostatic fields can remove free glycerol from crude FAAE [100, 101, 102].

SourceDielectric constant (k)Temperature (°C) and frequency (MHz)Reference
Soybean oil based3–3.2425–70,
1 kHz- 100 kHz		[96]
Soybean, sunflower, corn, and rapeseed based3–3.425–75,
20–20 MHz		[97]
Soybean oil based2.08–2.2625
100–2000 Hz		[98]

Table 7.

Dielectric constant of vegetable oil based FAAE.

More recently, electrostatic field treatments have been successfully employed in removing polar contaminants present in crude canola oil [27]. Reductions of 74.9%, 53.2%, and 47.0% in phospholipid, free fatty acid, and peroxide contents, respectively, were achieved using a commercial electrostatic “oil cleaner” with a fixed flow rate and equipped with pleated cellulose collector (designed to collect oil contaminants) [27]. Neutral oil loss was minimal (0.37 wt %), and pigment content (e.g., chlorophyll and carotenoid content) remained unaffected [27]. However, it should be noted that the limitations of this process included a requirement to reduce FAME moisture content prior to treatment.

To remove more polar compounds Zhou et al. [27] coupled the use of nano adsorbents (e.g., Al2O3, SiO2, and TiO2) with electrostatic separation. This implementation of nano-adsorbents coupled with electrostatic field treatment effected a significant reduction in contaminants (e.g., soap, total glycerides) from crude FAME. These reductions were observed after only 1 minute of adsorption and at low agitation speeds [28]. Although removal of spent nano-adsorbents can be challenging, electrostatic field application was successful in removing these particulates from the crude FAME solution without altering FAME chemistry [28]. Unfortunately, the application of some of these nano-adsorbents were limited by their reusability. Only Al2O3 was repeatedly regenerated after multiple cycles [28].

E-field and nano-adsorbent treatments offer novel approaches that can be rapidly implemented to process and refine vegetable oil and FAAE for biodiesel production [27, 28]. The ability to reuse spent nano-adsorbents, and potentially recycle solvents [26], make these approaches an attractive alternative to conventional refining. Furthermore, implementation of E-field technologies can offer a greener approach to biodiesel refining as well as economic and environmental advantages including reducing the need for expensive infrastructure, equipment, or harmful chemicals and reducing waste. Further studies should focus on the standardization and optimization of these processes at an industrial scale.

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

The transition from fossil fuels to a new fuel source is becoming increasingly important, and the environmental impact from the production of a new generation of fuel must be carefully considered as the market grows. The use of biofuels is unique in that it uses what can be classified as carbon neutral sources and implements feedstock which can come from primary or secondary sources. The use of these biofuels, however, requires refining which can be costly, environmentally harmful, and energy intensive. Conventional techniques for the removal of contaminants, such as dry and wet washing, produce large amounts of waste. In addition, enzymatic processes, physical refining strategies (temperature and pressure treatments), and membrane filtration can be limited in their capacity due to expensive reagents and infrastructure requirements, or solvent compatibilities. Fortunately, new refinement methods, such electrostatic field treatment and nanoparticle adsorbents have been developed to improve efficiency, minimize chemical usage, and reduce the generation of waste byproducts. These methods have successfully demonstrated the ability to remove contaminants including soap, methanol, and glycerides from vegetable oils and FAAE. Compared to conventional methods, these new techniques offer an economical and environmentally sustainable approach to current conventional methods. These techniques could be considered at an industrial scale, although further optimization is needed. As the global economy’s dependence on fossil fuels continues to decrease, biofuels will play an important role in the development of environmentally friendlier materials to ensure that supply chain needs are met.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Saskatchewan Agricultural Development Fund (20190155, 20190154, 20180281, 20180248, 20180255, 20170133); Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2018-06631); and Mitacs (IT19122, IT16156).

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

Dr. Martin J.T. Reaney is the founder of, and has an equity interest in, Prairie Tide Diversified Inc. (PTD, Saskatoon, SK, Canada: previous company name is Prairie Tide Chemicals Inc.).

References

  1. 1. Atadashi IM, Aroua MK, Aziz ARA, Sulaiman NMN. Refining technologies for the purification of crude biodiesel. Applied Energy. 2011;88(12):4239-4251. DOI: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2011.05.029
  2. 2. Market Research Report. 2022. Biofuels market research report: Information, by fuel type (biodiesel and ethanol), by feedstock type (first, second, and third generation), and by region (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East & amp; Africa, and South America) - Forecast till. 2030
  3. 3. Grand View Research. Biodiesel market size, share & trends analysis report by feedstock (vegetable oils, aniimal fats), by application (fuel, power generation), by region (Europe, APAC), and segment forecasts, 2022-2030; grand view forecasts, 2020-2027: San Francisco, CA, USA. 2022
  4. 4. OECD-FAO Agricultural outlook 2022-2031. 2022
  5. 5. Mustafa R, Purdy SK, Nelson FB, Tse TJ, Wiens DJ, Shen J, et al. World Medical & Health Policy. 2021:1-13. DOI: 10.1002/wmh3.463
  6. 6. Rodionova MV, Poudyal RS, Tiwari I, Voloshin RA, Zharmukhamedov SK, Nam HG, et al. Biofuel production: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2017;42:8450-8461. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.125
  7. 7. Tse TJ, Wiens DJ, Reaney MJT. Production of bioethanol - A review of factors affecting ethanol yield. Fermentation. 2021;7(4):268. DOI: 10.3390/fermentation7040268
  8. 8. Saeid B, Aroua MK, Abdul Raman A, Sulaiman NMN. Density of palm oil-based methyl ester. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data. 2008;53:877-880
  9. 9. Qiu F, Li Y, Yang D, Li X, Sun P. Biodiesel production from mixed soybean oil and rapeseed oil. Applied Energy. 2011;88:2050-2055
  10. 10. Helena MA, Catarina GA, Xavier MF. Advances and perspective in using microalgae to produce biodiesel. Applied Energy. 2011;88:3402-3410
  11. 11. Ziolkowska JR. Biofuels technologies. In: Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Inc.; 2020. pp. 1-19
  12. 12. Singh D, Sharma D, Soni SL, Inda CS, Sharma S, Sharma PK, et al. A comprehensive review on 1st-generation biodiesel feedstock palm oil: Production, engine performance, and exhaust emissions. Bioenergy Research. 2021;14:1-22. DOI: 10.1007/s12155-020-10171-2
  13. 13. Jeswani HK, Azapagic A. Life cycle sustainability assessment of second generation biodiesel. In: Luque R, Melero JA, editors. Advances in Biodiesel Production. 1st ed. Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2012. pp. 13-31. DOI: 10.1533/9780857095862.1.13
  14. 14. Pinzi S, Dorado MP. Feedstocks for advanced biodiesel production. In: Luque R, Melero JA, editors. Advances in Biodiesel Production. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; 2012:69-90. DOI: 10.1533/978085709862.1.69
  15. 15. Elgharbawy AS, Sadik WA, Sadek OM, Kasabay MA. A review on biodiesel feedstocks and production technologies. Journal of the Chilean Chemical Society. 2021;66:5098-5109. DOI: 10.4067/S0717-97072021000105098
  16. 16. Díaz L, Mertes L, Brito A, Rodríguez KE. Valorization of energy crop shells as potential green adsorbents for free fatty acid removal from oils for biodiesel production. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 2020;12:1-14. DOI: 10.1007/S13399-020-0189-Y
  17. 17. He BB, Thompson JC, Routt DW, Van Gerpen JH. Moisture absorption in biodiesel and its petro-diesel blends. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2007;23:71-76
  18. 18. Chesneau HL. Fuel system contaminants: An introduction, from distillate fuel: Contamination, storage and handling. In: Chesneau HL, Dorris MM, editors. ASTM Publication STP 1005. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1988
  19. 19. Van Gerpen JH, Hammond EG, Yu L, Monyem A. Determining the influence of contaminants on biodiesel properties. SAE Technical Papers. 1997. DOI: 10.4271/971685
  20. 20. Abbaszadeh A, Ghobadian B, Najafi G, Yusaf T. An experimental investigation of the effective parameters on wet washing of biodiesel purification. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering. 2014;9(1):1525-1537. DOI: 10.15282/IJAME.9.2013.4.0126
  21. 21. Faccini CS, Cunha MED, Moraes MSA, Krause LC, Manique MC, Rodrigues MRA, et al. Dry washing in biodiesel purification: A comparative study of adsorbents. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society. 2011;22:558-563. DOI: 10.1590.S0103-50532011000300021
  22. 22. Suthar K, Dwivedi A, Joshipura M. A review on separation and purification techniques for biodiesel production with special emphasis on Jatropha oil as a feedstock. Asia Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2019;14:e2361. DOI: 10.1002/APJ.2361
  23. 23. Atadashi IM, Aroua MK, Abdul Aziz AR, Sulaiman NMN. The effects of water on biodiesel production and refining technologies: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;16:3456-3470. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.004
  24. 24. Clausen K. Enzymatic oil-degumming by a novel microbial phospholipase. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 2001;103:333-340. DOI: 10.1002/1438-9312(200106)103:6<333:AID-EJLT333>3.0.CO;2-f
  25. 25. Prieto MM, Bada JC, Léon-Camacho M, Constante EG. Deacidification and recovery of distillates in the physical refining of edible oils. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 2008;111:101-110. DOI: 10.1002/ejlt.200700149
  26. 26. Cheryan M. Membrane technology in the vegetable oil industry. Membrane Technology. 2005;2005:5-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0958-2118(05)70387-6
  27. 27. Zhou L, Shen J, Tse TJ, Chicilo F, Purdy SK, Meda V, et al. Electrostatic field treatment as a novel and efficient method for refining crude canola oil. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;360:131905. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131905
  28. 28. Zhou L, Tse TJ, Chicilo F, Shen J, Meda V, Reaney MJT. Electrostatic field and nano-adsorbent refining of fatty acid methyl esters. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;373:133679. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133679
  29. 29. Atadashi IM, Aroua MK, Abdul Aziz AR, Sulaiman NMN. Membrane biodiesel production and refining technology: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15(9):5051-5062. DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2011.07.051
  30. 30. Musa IA. The effects of alcohol to oil molar ratios and the type of alcohol on biodiesel production using transesterification process. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 2016;25(1):21-31. DOI: 10.1016/J.EJPE.2015.06.007
  31. 31. Haas MJ, McAloon AJ, Yee WC, Foglia TA. A process model to estimate biodiesel production costs. Bioresource Technology. 2006;97(4):671-678. DOI: 10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2005.03.039
  32. 32. Hirner FS, Hwang J, Bae C, Patel C, Gupta T, Agarwal AK. Performance and emission evaluation of a small-bore biodiesel compression-ignition engine. Energy. 2019;183:971-982. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.07.015
  33. 33. Jegannathan KR, Eng-Seng C, Ravindra P. Economic assessment of biodiesel production: Comparison of alkali and biocatalyst processes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15(1):745-751. DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2010.07.055
  34. 34. Mansir N, Taufiq-Yap YH, Rashid U, Lokman IM. Investigation of heterogeneous solid acid catalyst performance on low grade feedstocks for biodiesel production: A review. Energy Conversion and Management. 2017;141:171-182. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2016.07.037
  35. 35. Meng X, Chen G, Wang Y. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil via alkali catalyst and its engine test. Fuel Processing Technology. 2008;89(9):851-857. DOI: 10.1016/J.FUPROC.2008.02.006
  36. 36. Tan T, Lu J, Nie K, Deng L, Wang F. Biodiesel production with immobilized lipase: A review. Biotechnology Advances. 2010;28(5):628-634. DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOTECHADV.2010.05.012
  37. 37. Zhang J, Chen S, Yang R, Yan Y. Biodiesel production from vegetable oil using heterogenous acid and alkali catalyst. Fuel. 2010;89(10):2939-2944. DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2010.05.009
  38. 38. Bouaid A, Vázquez R, Martinez M, Aracil J. Effect of free fatty acids contents on biodiesel quality. Pilot plant studies. Fuel. 2016;174:54-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.01.018
  39. 39. Ramadhas AS, Jayaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Biodiesel production from high FFA rubber seed oil. Fuel. 2005;84:335-340. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2004.09.016
  40. 40. Hayyan A, Alam MZ, Mirghani MES, Kabbashi NA, Hakimi NINM, Siran YM, et al. Reduction of high content of free fatty acid in sludge palm oil via acid catalyst for biodiesel production. Fuel Processing Technology. 2011;92:920-924. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.12.011
  41. 41. Chai M, Tu Q , Lu M, Yang J. Esterification pretreatment of free fatty acid in biodiesel production from laboratory to industry. Fuel Processing Technology. 2014;125:106-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.03.025
  42. 42. Kara K, Ouanji F, Lotfi EM, Mahi ME, Kacimi M, Ziyad M. Biodiesel production from waste fish oil with high free fatty acid content from Moroccan fish-processing industries. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 2018;27:249-255. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpe.2017.07.010
  43. 43. Abdullah, Sianipar RNR, Ariyani D, Nata IF. Conversion of palm oil sludge to biodiesel using alum and KOH as catalysts. Sustainable Environment Research. 2017;27:291-295. DOI: 10.1016/j.serj.2017.07.002
  44. 44. Marchetti JM, Errazu AF. Esterification of free fatty acids using sulfuric acid as catalyst in the presence of triglycerides. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2008;32:892-895. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.01.001
  45. 45. Thaiyasuit P, Pianthong K, Worapun I. Acid esterification - Alkaline transesterification process for methyl ester production from crude rubber seed oil. Journal of Oleo Science. 2012;61:81-88. DOI: 10.5650/jos.61.81
  46. 46. Sahar, Sadaf S, Iqbal J, Ullah I, Bhatti HN, Nouren S, et al. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: An efficient technique to convert waste into biodiesel. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2018;41:220-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.037
  47. 47. Fregolente PBL, Fregolente LV, Pinto GMF, Batistella BC, Wolf-Maciel MR, Filho RM. Monoglycerides and diglycerides synthesis in a solvent-free system by lipase-catalyzed glycerolysis. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 2008;146:165-172. DOI: 10.1007/s12010-008-8133-3
  48. 48. Kombe GG, Temu AK, Rajabu HM, Mrema GD, Kansedo J, Lee KT. Pre-treatment of high free fatty acids oils by chemical re-esterification for biodiesel production. Advances in Chemical Engineering and Science. 2013;3:242-247. DOI: 10.4236/aces.2013.34031
  49. 49. Candeia RA, Silva MCD, Carvalho Filho JR, Brasilino MGA, Bicudo TC, Santos IMG, et al. Influence of soybean biodiesel content on basic properties of biodiesel–diesel blends. Fuel. 2009;88(4):738-743. DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2008.10.015
  50. 50. Berrios M, Skelton RL. Comparison of purification methods for biodiesel. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2008;144(3):459-465. DOI: 10.1016/J.CEJ.2008.07.019
  51. 51. Van Gerpen J. Biodiesel processing and production. Fuel Processing Technology. 2005;86(10):1097-1107. DOI: 10.1016/J.FUPROC.2004.11.005
  52. 52. McCormick RL, Ratcliff M, Moens L, Lawrence R. Several factors affecting the stability of biodiesel in standard accelerated tests. Fuel Processing Technology. 2007;88(7):651-657. DOI: 10.1016/J.FUPROC.2007.01.006
  53. 53. Saleh J, Tremblay AY, Dubé MA. Glycerol removal from biodiesel using membrane separation technology. Fuel. 2010;89(9):2260-2266. DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2010.04.025
  54. 54. Jamaluddin NAM, Riayatsyah TMI, Silitonga AS, Mofijur M, Shamsuddin AH, Ong HC, et al. Techno-economic analysis and physicochemical properties of ceiba pentandra as second-generation biodiesel based on ASTM D6751 and EN 14214. PRO. 2019, 2019;7(9):636. DOI: 10.3390/PR7090636
  55. 55. Low SC, Gan GK, Cheong KT. Separation of methyl ester from water in a wet neutralization process. Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment. 2011;2:15-19
  56. 56. Veljković VB, Stamenković OS, Tasić MB. The wastewater treatment in the biodiesel production with alkali-catalyzed transesterification. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;32:40-60. DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.01.007
  57. 57. El-Mashad HM, Zhang R, Avena-Bustillos RJ. A two-step process for biodiesel production from salmon oil. Biosystems Engineering. 2008;99(2):220-227. DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOSYSTEMSENG.2007.09.029
  58. 58. Gomes MG, Pasquini D. Utilization of eggshell waste as an adsorbent for the dry purification of biodiesel. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy. 2018;37(6):2093-2099. DOI: 10.1002/EP.12870
  59. 59. Stojković IJ, Stamenković OS, Povrenović DS, Veljković VB. Purification technologies for crude biodiesel obtained by alkali-catalyzed transesterification. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;32:1-15. DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.01.005
  60. 60. Kumar R, Ghosh AK, Pal P. Sustainable production of biofuels through membrane-integrated systems. Separation and Purification Reviews. 2019;49:1-22. DOI: 10.1080/15422119/2018/1562942
  61. 61. Hajilary N, Rezakazemi M, Shirazian S. Biofuel types and membrane separation. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2019;17:1-18. DOI: 10.1007/s10311-018-0777-9
  62. 62. Atadashi IM, Aroua MK, Abdul Aziz AR, Sulaiman NMN. Crude biodiesel refining using membrane ultra-filtration process: An environmentally benign process. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 2015;24(4):383-396. DOI: 10.1016/J.EJPE.2015.10.001
  63. 63. Atadashi IM, Aroua MK, Aziz AA. Biodiesel separation and purification: A review. Renewable Energy. 2011, 2011;2:437-443. DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.019
  64. 64. Saracco G, Neomagus HWJP, Versteeg GF, Van Swaaij WPM. High-temperature membrane reactors: Potential and problems. Chemical Engineering Science. 1999;54(13-14):1997-2017. DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2509(99)00009-3
  65. 65. Wang Y, Xingguo W, Yuanfa L, Shiyi O, Yanlai T, Shuze T. Refining of biodiesel by ceramic membrane separation. Fuel Processing Technology. 2009;90:422-427. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.11.004
  66. 66. Alves MJ, Nascimento SM, Pereira IG, Martins MI, Cardoso VL, Reis M. Biodiesel purification using micro and ultrafiltration membranes. Renewable Energy. 2013;58:15-20. DOI: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2013.02.035
  67. 67. Baroutian S, Aroua MK, Raman AAA, Sulaiman NMN. A packed bed membrane reactor for production of biodiesel using activated carbon supported catalyst. Bioresource Technology. 2011;102:1096-1102. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.076
  68. 68. Cao P, Dubé MA, Tremblay AY. High-purity fatty acid methyl ester production from canola, soybean, palm, and yellow grease lipids by means of a membrane reactor. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2008;32:1028-1036. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomebioe.2008.01.020
  69. 69. Atadashi IM, Aroua ML, Abdul Aziz AR, Sulaiman NMN. Removal of residual palm oil-based biodiesel catalyst using membrane ultra-filtration technique: An optimization study. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2014;53:705-715. DOI: 10.1016/j.aej.2014.07.002
  70. 70. Gomes MCS, Pereira NC, de Barros STD. Separation of biodiesel and glycerol using ceramic membranes. Journal of Membrane Science. 2010;352:271-276. DOI: j.memsci.2010.02.030
  71. 71. Goswami KP, Pugazchenthi G. Effect of binder concentration on properties of low-cost fly ash-based tubular ceramic membrane and its application in separation of glycerol from biodiesel. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;319:128679. DOI: 10.1016/j.clepro.2021.128679
  72. 72. Chol CG, Dhabhai R, Dalai AK, Reaney M. Purification of crude glycerol derived from biodiesel production process: Experimental studies and techno-economic analyses. Fuel Processing Technology. 2018;178:78-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.05.023
  73. 73. Dubé MA, Tremblay AY, Liu J. Biodiesel production using a membrane reactor. Bioresource Technology. 2007;98:639-647. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.019
  74. 74. Saleh J, Dubé MA, Tremblay AY. Separation of glycerol from FAME using ceramic membranes. Fuel Processing Technology. 2011;92:1305-1310. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.02.005
  75. 75. Atadashim IM, Aroua MK, Abdul Aziz AR, Sulaiman NMN. High quality biodiesel obtained through membrane technology. Journal of Membrane Science. 2012;412-422:154-164. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.07.006
  76. 76. Ostojčić M, Brkić S, Tišma M, Zelić B, Budžaki S. Membrane filtration as an environmentally friendly method for crude biodiesel purification. Kemija u Industriji. 2019;69:175-181. DOI: 10.15255/KUI.2019.049
  77. 77. Atadashi IM. Purification of crude biodiesel using dry washing and membrane technologies. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2015;54:1265-1272. DOI: 10.1016/j.aej.2015.08.005
  78. 78. Ramanan CJ, Garg S, Bora BJ, Buradi A, Roy S, Sharma P, et al. Influence of pressure in RO filtration of crude biodiesel. Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022;1074:012014. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/1074/1/012014
  79. 79. Gonçalves BR, Machado AEH, Trovó AG. Treatment of a biodiesel effluent by coupling coagulation-flocculation, membrane filtration and Fenton reactions. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;142:1918-1921. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.092
  80. 80. Torres JJ, Cuello M, Ochoa NA, Pagliero C. Biodiesel wastewater treatment using nanofiltration membranes. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2021;148:825-833. DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.02.013
  81. 81. Delcolle R, Gimenes ML, Fortulan CA, Moreira WM, Martins ND, Pereira NC. A comparison between coagulation and ultrafiltration processes for biodiesel wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering Transactions. 2017;57:271-276. DOI: 10.3303/CET1757046
  82. 82. Cheryan M. Membrane Technology in the Vegetable Oil Industry. IL, USA: Agricultural Bioprocess Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign; 2005
  83. 83. Sdrula N. A study using classical or membrane separation in the biodiesel process. Desalination. 2010;250:1070-1072. DOI: j.desal.2009.09.110
  84. 84. Guo Q , Lei C, Chen W, Zhang J, Huang B. Electric-field-driven nanoparticles produce dual-functional bipolar electrodes and nanoelectrolytic cells for water remediation. Cell Reports Physical Science. 2021;2(1):100299. DOI: 10.1016/J.XCRP.2020.100299
  85. 85. Xu X, Deng F, Shao P, Dionysiou DD, Luo X, Li X, et al. Internal electric field driving separation and migration of charge carriers via Z-scheme path in AgIn5S8/ZnO heterojunction for efficient decontamination of pharmaceutical pollutants. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2022;428:132096. DOI: 10.1016/J.CEJ.2021.132096
  86. 86. Arutunian SG, Aginian MA, Margaryan AV, Lazareva EG, Chung M. Electric field lines of an arbitrarily moving charged particle. 2021. DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2109.10792
  87. 87. Pysher MD, Hayes MA. Electrophoretic and dielectrophoretic field gradient technique for separating bioparticles. Analytical Chemistry. 2007;79(12):4552-4557. DOI: 10.1021/AC070534J
  88. 88. Rahman NA, Ibrahim F, Yafouz B. Dielectrophoresis for biomedical sciences applications: A review. Sensors. 2016;17:449. DOI: 10.3390/s17030449
  89. 89. Riteshkumar A, Komal H, Sankaranarayanan A, Krishnamurthy R. Applications of dielectrophoresis in the field of medical sciences. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology. 2019;4:328-341. DOI: 10.32628/IJSRST18401161
  90. 90. Gong H, Yu B, Dai F, Peng Y, Shao J. Simulation on performance of a demulsification and dewatering device with coupling double fields: Swirl centrifugal field and high-voltage electric field. Separation and Purification Technology. 2018;207:124-132. DOI: 10.1016/J.SEPPUR.2018.06.049
  91. 91. Sasaki A, Uchiyama S. A new technology for oil management: electrostatic oil cleaner. SAE Transcations. 2002;111:76-82
  92. 92. Brew CR, O’Dowd DJ, Rae ID. Seed dispersal by ants: Behaviour-releasing compounds in elaiosomes. Oecologia. 1989;80(4):490-497. DOI: 10.1007/BF00380071
  93. 93. Demafelis RB. Potential of Biodiesel Production from Jatropha Curcas in the Philippines. Laguna, Philippines: SEARCA Professorial Chair Lecture. College; 2007. Available from: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PH2008000635. [Accessed 11 02 2023]
  94. 94. Dossat V, Combes D, Marty A. Lipase-catalysed transesterification of high oleic sunflower oil. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 2002;30(1):90-94. DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0229(01)00453-7
  95. 95. Hofmann AF. A physicochemical approach to the intraluminal phase of fat absorption. Gastroenterology. 1966;50(1):56-64. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5085(66)80101-4
  96. 96. Corach J, Galván EF, Sorichetti PA, Romano SD. Estimation of the composition of soybean biodiesel/soybean oil blends from permittivity measurements. Fuel. 2019;235:1309-1315. DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2018.08.114
  97. 97. Prieto LEG, Sorichetti P, Romano SD. Electric properties of biodiesel in the range from 20 to 20 MHz. Comparison with diesel fossil fuel. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2008;33L:3531-3537. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.10.036
  98. 98. Sander A, Antonije Košćak M, Kosir D, Milosavljević N, Parlov Vuković J, Magić L. The influence of animal fat type and purification conditions on biodiesel quality. Renewable Energy. 2018;118:752-760. DOI: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2017.11.068
  99. 99. Aono M, Nitta S, Iwasaki T, Yokoi H, Itoh T, Nomomura S. Amorphous carbon nitride films as a candidate for low dielectric constant materials. MRS Online Proceedings Library. 1999;565:291-296. DOI: 10.1557/PROC-565-291
  100. 100. Abbaszadeh A, Ghobadian B, Najafi G. High voltage/low amperage current for separation of crude glycerin from biodiesel. Advances in Environmental Biology. 2013;15:4028-4032
  101. 101. Hinthao T, Wongwuttanasatian T, Kampeerawat W, Suksri A. Glycerin separation from biodiesel transesterification process by pulsed electric field with specific pulse forming network. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020;859(1):012012. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/859/1/012012
  102. 102. Mayvan AA, Ghobadian B. Electrostatic coagulation for separation of crude glycerin from biodiesel development of a solar powered membrane capacitive deionization system view project a hybrid FSAW-LCSA model development for gasification of sugar cane bagasse view project. 2014

Written By

Timothy J. Tse, Li Zhou, Farley Chicilo, Venkatesh Meda and Martin J.T. Reaney

Submitted: 31 October 2022 Reviewed: 16 January 2023 Published: 23 February 2023

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All
Chapter 8 Evaluation Trials and Carbon Sequestration Potenti...

By Rajeshwar Rao Gandhe, Ajin Sekhar and Rajkumar Mut...

92 downloads

Chapter 1 Biofuels: Production and Properties as Substitute ...

By Manju D. Tanwar, Pankaj K. Tanwar, Yashas Bhand, S...

140 downloads

Chapter 2 Direct Transesterification: From Seeds to Biodiese...

By Issis Claudette Romero-Ibarra, Araceli Martínez Po...

354 downloads