ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302 www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Prospects and potential of fatty acid methyl esters of some non-traditional seed oils for use as biodiesel in India
M. Mohibbe Azam, Amtul Waris, N.M. Nahar
Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur 342003, India Received 13 January 2004; received in revised form 15 April 2005; accepted 10 May 2005 Available online 5 July 2005

Abstract Fatty acid proles of seed oils of 75 plant species having 30% or more xed oil in their seed/kernel were examined. Saponication number (SN), iodine value (IV) and cetane number (CN) of fatty acid methyl esters of oils were empirically determined and they varied from 169.2 to 312.5, 4.8 to 212 and 20.56 to 67.47, respectively. Fatty acid compositions, IV and CN were used to predict the quality of fatty acid methyl esters of oil for use as biodiesel. Fatty acid methyl ester of oils of 26 species including Azadirachta indica, Calophyllum inophyllum, Jatropha curcas and Pongamia pinnata were found most suitable for use as biodiesel and they meet the major specication of biodiesel standards of USA, Germany and European Standard Organization. The fatty acid methyl esters of another 11 species meet the specication of biodiesel standard of USA only. These selected plants have great potential for biodiesel. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fatty acid methyl ester; Biodiesel; Non-traditional seed oil; Cetane number

1. Introduction The depleting reserves of fossil fuel, increasing demand for diesels and uncertainty in their availability is considered to be the important trigger for many initiatives to search for the alternative source of energy, which can supplement or replace fossil fuels. In recent years, research has
Corresponding author. Tel.:+91 291 2740534; fax: +91 291 2740706. E-mail address: mmazam@mailcity.com (M. Mohibbe Azam).

been directed to explore plant-based fuels and plant oils and fats as fuels have bright future [1]. The most common that is being developed and used at present is biodiesel, which is fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) of seed oils and fats and have already been found suitable for use as fuel in diesel engine [2]. FAMEs as biodiesel are environmentally safe, non-toxic and biodegradable. The raw materials being exploited commercially by the biodiesel countries constitute the edible fatty oils derived from rapeseed, soybean, palm, sunower, coconut, linseed, etc. [3]. Use of such edible oil to produce biodiesel in India is not

0961-9534/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.05.001

ARTICLE IN PRESS
294 M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302

feasible in view of a big gap in demand and supply of such oils in the country. Increased pressure to augment production of edible oil has also put limitation on the use of these oils for production of biodiesel. Under Indian conditions only such plants can be considered for biodiesel, which produce non-edible oil in appreciable quantity and can be grown in large scale on non-cropped marginal lands and wastelands. There is a long list of trees, shrubs and herbs available plentifully in India, which can be exploited for use as diesel fuel. This article includes 75 Indian plants, which contain 30% or more oil in their seed, fruit or nut. The saponication number (SN), iodine value (IV) and cetane number (CN) of FAMEs of these oils were calculated empirically and were used to establish their suitability for use as biodiesel which can meet the specication of Biodiesel standard of USA, Germany and European Standard Organization.

2. Materials and methods Seed oil content and fatty acid compositions of oils were collected from the literature [420]. SN and IV of oils were either noted from the literature or calculated from reported fatty acid methyl ester compositions of oil with the help of Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively [21]: X SN 560 Ai =MWi , (1) IV X 254 D Ai =MWi , (2)

where, Ai is the percentage, D is the number of double bonds and MWi is the molecular mass of each component. CN of FAMEs was calculated from Eq. (3) [22]: CN 46:3 5458=SN 0:225 IV: (3)

3. Results and discussion The SN and IV were calculated empirically with the help of Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. SN depends upon the molecular weight and the percentage concentration of fatty acid components

present in FAMEs of oil. However, IV, according to Eq. (2), depends upon three variablespercentage concentrations of unsaturated fatty acid components, their molecular weight and the number of double bond(s) present in them. The calculated SN and IV are in good agreement with the experimentally determined respective values [21]. Eq. (3) predicts the CN of FAMEs of seed oils with reasonable accuracy. For example, CN calculated with the help of Eq. (3) and the actual CN of FAMEs of Bambassu, palm, peanut, soybean and sunower oils are in good agreement: the values are 64.40, 63; 63.3, 62; 56.4, 54; 42.5, 45; and 50.6, 49, respectively [22]. From the example, the expected correlation of predicted CN with its actual CN will be somewhat less than 72.5 CN. Eq. (3) may also be used to predict the CN of FAMEs of unusual oils if the IV of such oil calculated with the help of Eq. (2) matches well with the experimentally determined IV of oil. However, it is to be conrmed by actual experimentation. The values of percent xed oil, SN, IV, CN and composition of FAMEs of the oils of selected 75 plant species have been shown in Table 1. The calculated SN and IV ranged from 169.2 to 312.5 and 4.8 to 212, respectively. CN value among the species varied from 20.56 to 67.47. CN is the ability of fuel to ignite quickly after being injected. Higher its value, the better the ignition quality of fuel. This is one of the important parameters, which is considered during the selection of FAMEs for use as biodiesel. For this, different countries/organization have specied different minimum values. Biodiesel standards of USA (ASTM D 6751), Germany (DIN 51606) and European Organization (EN 14214) have set this value as 47, 49 and 51, respectively [23]. Among the FAMEs of 75 species, 42 species (item no. 14, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, 25, 2935, 4043, 47, 49, 50, 5254, 56, 57, 61, 62, 6469, 7173) have CN value higher than 51, the highest minimum value among the three biodiesel standards. Another important criterion for selection of FAMEs is its degree of unsaturation, which is measured as IV. To an extent, the presence of unsaturated fatty acid component in FAMEs is

Table 1 Fatty acid composition, saponication number (SN), Iodine value (IV) and Cetane number (CN) of fatty acid methyl ester of some selected seed oils Item Sources Anacardiaceae Rhus succedanea Linn Annonaceae Annona reticulata Linn Apocynaceae Ervatamia coronaria Stapf Thevetia peruviana Merrill Vallaris solanacea Kuntze Balanitaceae Balanites roxburghii Planch Basellaceae Basella rubra Linn Burseraceae Canarium commune Linn Cannabinaceae Cannabis sativa Linn Celastraceae Celastrus paniculatus Linn Euonymus hamiltonianuis Wall Combretaceae Terminalia bellirica Roxb Terminalia chebula Retz Compositaceae Vernonia cinerea Less Corylaceae Corylus avellana Cucurbitaceae Momordica dioica Rox Oila 39.5d 42.0e MPb SN IV CN Fatty acid composition (%)c References

1. 2.

204.0 203.6

92.6 87.2

52.22 53.47

16:0(25.4), 18:1(46.8), 18:2(27.8) 14:0(1.0), 16:0(17.2), 16:1(4.2), 18:0(7.5), 18:1(48.4), 18:2(21.7) 16:0(24.4), 16:1(0.2), 18:0(7.2), 18:1(50.5), 18:2(15.8), 18:3(0.6), 20:0(0.7), 20:1(0.2), 22:0(0.2), uk (0.2) 16:0(15.6), 18:0(10.5), 18:1(60.9), 18:2(5.2), 18:3(7.4), 20:0 (0.3), 22:0(0.1). 16:0(7.2), 18:0(14.4), 18:1(35.3), 18:2(40.4), 20:0 (1.8), 22:0(0.4), 24:0(0.5) 16:0(17.0), 16:1(4.3), 18:0(7.8), 18:1(32.4), 18:2(31.3), 18:3(7.2) 14:0(0.4), 16:0(19.7), 16:1(0.4) 18:0(6.5), 18:1(50.3), 18:2(21.6), 18:3(0.4), 20:4(0.7) 16:0(29.0), 18:0(9.7), 18:1(38.3), 18:2(21.8), 18:3(1.2) 18:1(15.0), 18:2(65.0), 18:3(15.0), osa (5.0)

[4] [5] M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302

3. 4. 5.

41.6e 67.0d 33.0e

201.1 201.5 198.3

76.0 84.0 104.7

56.33 57.48 50.26

[6] [7] [6]

ARTICLE IN PRESS

6.

43.0d

188.9

109.9

50.46

[8]

7.

36.9e

202.9

85.3

54.0

[9]

8. 9. 10. 11.

73.0d 33.5e 52.0d 59.5d

204.6 191.0 236.6 262.2

77.3 171.0 77.5 96.3

55.58 36.40 51.9 45.45

[10] [6]

1:0(2.0), 2:0(1.7), 16:0(25.1), 18:0(6.7), 18:1(46.1), 18:2(15.4), [11] 18:3(3.0) 2:0(8.5), 16:0(18.3), 18:0(1.5), 18:1(39.1), 18:2(25.8), [6] 18:3(5.3), uk (1.5) 16:0(35.0), 18:1(24.0), 18:2(31.0), osa (10.0) 16:0(19.7), 18:0(2.4), 18:1(37.3), 18:2(39.8), 20:0(0.6), 22:0(0.2) 14:0 (8.0), 16:0(23.0), 18:0(8.0), 18:1(32.0), 18:2(22.0), 20:0(3.0), 22:0(4.0) 14:0(3.2), 16:0(3.1), 18:0(2.6), 18:1(88.0), 18:2(2.9), uk (0.2) 16:0(10.2), 18:0(16.9), 18:1(9.2), 18:2(8.8), elaeostearic acid (54.9) [6] [6]

12. 13.

40.0e 36.4e

198.8 202.5

77.8 105.1

56.24 49.6

14.

38.0d

205.2

68.5

57.51

[6]

15. 16.

57.5d 33.5d

200.5 189.5

84.51 174.0

54.50 35.95

[6] [12] 295

296

Table 1 (continued ) Item Sources Euphorbaceae Aleurites fordii Hemsl Aleurites moluccana Wild Aleurites montana Wils Croton tiglium Linn Euphorbia helioscopia Linn Jatropa curcas Linn Joannesia princeps Vell Mallotus phillippinensis Arg Putranjiva roxburghii Sapium sebiferum Roxb Flacourtiaceae Hydnocarpus kurzii Warb Hydnocarpus wightiana Blume Guttiferae Calophyllum apetalum Wild Calophyllum inophyllum Linn Garcinia combogia Desr Garcinia indica Choisy Garcinia echinocarpa Thw Garcinia morella Desr Mesua ferrea Linn Icacinaceae Mappia foetida Milers Illiciceae Illicium verum Hook Labiatae Saturega hortensis Linn Perilla frutescens Britton Lauraceae Actinodaphne angustifolia Litsea glutinosa Robins Neolitsea cassia Linn Oila 57.0d 63.0d 40.0d 45.0e 31.5e 40.0e 52.0e 35.5d 41.8d 58.5d 30.1e 63d MPb SN IV CN Fatty acid composition (%)c References

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

25

191.0 199.9 248.5 203.9 206.7 202.6 201.4 178.3 199.6 205.1 209.5 210.5

178.0 175.2 212.0 102.9 170.9 93.0 125.3 183.0 82.9 187.5 108.7 102.1

36.25 34.18 20.56 49.9 34.25 52.31 45.20 36.34 54.99 30.72 47.89 49.25

18:1(6.5), 18:2(9.0), 20:0(3.0), a-elaeostearic acid (81.5) 16:0(5.5), 18:0(6.7), 18:1(10.5), 18:2(48.5), 18:3(28.5), uk (0.3) 18:1(18.2), 18:2(10.7), 20:0(3.5), osa (3.0), b-elaeostearic acid (64.6) 14:0(11.0), 16:0(1.2), 18:0(0.5), 18:1(56.0), 18:2(29.0), 20:0(2.3) 12:0(2.8), 14:0(5.5), 16:0(9.9), 18:0(1.1), 18:1(15.8), 18:2(22.1), 18:3(42.7), uk (0.1) 14:0(1.4), 16:0(15.6), 18:0(9.7), 18:1(40.8), 18:2(32.1), 20:0(0.4) 14:0(2.4), 16:0(5.4), 18:1(45.8), 18:2(46.4) 16:0(3.2), 18:0(2.2), 18:1(6.9), 18:2(13.6), kamlolenic acid (72.0) 16:0(8.0), 18:0(15.0), 18:1(56.0), 18:2(18.0), 20:0(3.0) 12:0(0.3), 14:0(4.2), 16:0(62.2), 18:0(5.9), 18:1(27.4)

[5] [5] [10] [10] M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302 [6] [13] [10] [13] [10] [10]

ARTICLE IN PRESS

16:0(4.0), 18:1(14.6), hydnocarpic acid (39.4), gorlic acid [13] (19.5), chaulmoogric acid (22.5) 16:0(1.8), 18:1(6.9), hydnocarpic acid (48.7), gorlic acid [13] (12.2), chaulmoogric acid (27.0), chaulmoogric homolog (3.4) 16:0(8.0), 18:0(14.0), 18:1(48.0), 18:2(30.0) 16:0(17.9), 16:1(2.5), 18:0(18.5), 18:1(42.7), 18:2(13.7), 18:3(2.1), 24:0(2.6) 16:0(2.3), 18:0(38.3), 18:1(57.9), 18:2(0.8), 18:3(0.4), 20:0(0.3) 16:0(2.5), 18:0(56.4), 18:1(39.4), 18:2(1.7) 16:0(3.7), 18:0(43.7), 18:1(52.6) 16:0(0.7), 18:0(46.4), 18:1(49.5), 18:2(0.9), 20:0(2.5) 14:0(0.9), 16:0(10.8), 18:0(12.4), 18:1(60.0), 18:2(15.0), 20:0(0.9) 16:0(7.1), 18:0(17.7), 18:1(38.4), 18:3(36.8) 14:0(4.43), 18:0(7.93), 18:1(63.24), 18:2(24.4) 16:0(4.0), 18:0(4.0), 18:1(12.0), 18:2(18.0), 18:3(62.0) 18:1(9.8), 18:2(47.5), 18:3(36.2), osa (6.5) 10:0(4.3), 12:0(87.9), 14:0(1.9), 16:0(0.5), 18:1(5.4) 12:0(96.3), 18:1(2.3), uk (1.4) 10:0(3.0), 12:0(85.9), 14:0(3.8), 18:1(4.0), 18:2(3.3) [14] [13] [13] [10] [10] [13] [13]

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

47.5d 65.0d 40.5e 44.0d 49.6e 30.0e 68.5d

36 40 26 33

200.4 201.4 198.4 198.3 198.7 197.6 201.0

97.6 71.5 54.6 38.5 47.4 46.2 81.3

51.57 57.3 61.50 65.16 63.10 63.52 55.10

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

48.0e 55.0e 42.0e 40.5e 53.5e 41.5e 66.0d

43 39 35

200.7 200.8 201.3 199.0 276.5 274.1 274.1

101.3 101.2 213.1 193.9 12.6 6.3 9.59

50.70 50.71 25.46 30.09 63.20 64.79 64.05

[10] [15] [6] [6] [13] [12] [16]

43. 44.

Neolitsea umbrosa Gamble Magnoliaceae Michelia champaca Linn Malpighiaceae Hiptage benghalensis Kurz Meliaceae Aphanamixis polystachya Park Azadirachta indica Melia azadirach Linn Swietenia mahagoni Jacq Menispermaceae Anamirta cocculus Wight & Hrn Moraceae Broussonetia papyrifera Vent Moringaceae Moringa concanensis Nimmo Moringa oleifera Lam Myristicaceae Myristica malabarica Lam Papaveraceae Argemone mexicana Papilionaceae Pongamia pinnata Pierre Rhamnaceae Ziziphus mauritiana Lam Rosaceae Princepia utilis Royle Rubiaceae Meyna laxiora Robyns Rutaceae Aegle marmelos correa Roxb Salvadoraceae Salvadora oleoides Decne Salvadora persica Linn Santalaceae Santalum album Linn

50.0e 32.2e

15

254.4 199.3

31.0 104.0

60.77 50.28

10:0(1.7), 12:0(59.1), 14:0(11.5), 18:1(21.0), 18:2(6.7) 16:0(20.7), 16:1(6.9), 18:0(2.5), 18:1(22.3), 18:2(42.5), 20:0(2.6), uk (2.5) 16:0(2.6), 18:0(1.6), 18:1(4.5), 18:2(4.4), 20:0(2.6), ricinolic acid (84.3) 16:0(23.1), 18:0(12.8), 18:1(21.5), 18:2(29.0), 18:3(13.6) 16:0(14.9), 18:0(14.4), 18:1(61.9), 18:2(7.5), 20:0(1.3) 14:0(0.1), 16:0(8.1), 16:1(1.5), 18:0(1.2), 18:1(20.8), 18:2(67.7) 16:0(9.5), 18:0(18.4), 18:1(56.0), 18:3(16.1) 16:0(6.1), 18:0(47.5), 18:1(46.4)

[16] [6]

45.

40.2d

312.5

89.4

43.65

[6]

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

35.0d 44.5d 45.0e 50.0e 43.0d 32.0e 35.5e 35.0d

39

203.8 201.1 200.3 200.6 199.1 199.5 199.7 199.7

109.1 69.3 143.0 94.4 42.0 144.0 76.0 75.4

48.52 57.83 41.37 52.26 64.26 41.25 56.32 56.66

[5] [13] [10] [10] [10]

M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302

16:0(4.0), 18:0(6.1), 18:1(14.8), 18:2(71.0), 18:3(1.0), 20:0(3.0) [9] 16:0(9.7), 18:0(2.4), 18:1(83.8), 18:2(0.8), 20:0(3.3). [17] 16:0(9.1), 16:1(2.1), 18:0(2.7), 18:1(79.4), 18:2(0.7), 18:3(0.2), [17] 20:0(5.8) 14:0(39.2), 16:0(13.3), 18:0(2.4), 18:1(44.1), 18:2(1.0). 14:0(0.8), 16:0(14.5), 18:0(3.8), 18:1(18.5), 18:2(61.4), 20:0(1.0) 16:0(10.6), 18:0(6.8), 18:1(49.4), 18:2(19.0), 20:0(4.1), 20:1(2.4), 22:0(5.3), 24:0(2.4) 16:0(10.4), 18:0(5.5), 18:1(64.4), 18:2(12.4), 20:0(1.8), 20:1(2.6), 22:0(1.2), 22:1(1.7) 14:0(1.8), 16:0(15.2), 18:0(4.5), 18:1(32.6), 18:2(43.6), 24:0(0.9), uk (1.4) 16:0(18.8), 18:0(9.0), 18:1(32.5), 18:2(39.7) 16:0(16.6), 18:0(8.8), 18:1(30.5), 18:2(36.0), 18:3(8.1) [10] [10]

ARTICLE IN PRESS

54. 55.

40.7d 35.0e

31

219.6 202.5

41.5 128.0

61.81 44.45

56.

33.0e

196.7

80.9

55.84

[13]

57.

33.0e

198.6

81.8

55.37

[6]

58.

37.2d

201.9

108.4

48.94

[10]

59. 60. 61. 62. 63

38.5e 34.0e 45.0e 39.3e 55.0e

35 42

202.8 202.5 253.3 245.3 176

101.3 114.9 7.6 4.8 153

50.42 48.30 66.13 67.47 42.88

[12] [5]

10:0(0.8), 12:0(35.6), 14:0(50.7), 16:0(4.5), 18:1(8.3), 18:2(0.1) [13] 10:0(1.0), 12:0(19.6), 14:0(54.5), 16:0(19.5), 18:1(5.4) [13] 16:0(1.9), 18:0(1.0), 18:1(8.6) 18:2(0.8), santalbic acid (84.0), [6] stearolic acid (3.7) 297

298

Table 1 (continued ) Item Sources Sapindaceae Nephelium lappaceum Linn Sapindus trifoliatus Linn Schleichera oleosa Oken Sapotaceae Madhuca butyracea Mac Madhuca indica JF Gmel Mimusops hexendra Roxb Simaroubaceae Quassia indica Nooleboom Ximenia americana Linn Sterculaceae Pterygota alata Rbr Ulmaceae Holoptelia integrifolia Urticaceae Urtica dioica Linn Verbenaceae Tectona grandis Linn Oila 40.0d 45.5d 40.0e MPb SN IV CN Fatty acid composition (%)c References

64. 65. 66.

38

191.4 195.0 193.0

44.2 64.5 57.9

64.86 59.77 61.55

16:0(2.0), 16:0(5.4), 16:0(1.6), 22:0(4.0),

18:0(13.8), 18:1(45.3), 20:0(34.7), 20:1(4.2) [16] 18:0(8.5), 18:1(55.1), 18:2(8.2) 20:0(20.7), 22:0(2.1) [4] 16:1(3.1), 18:0(10.1), 18:1(52.5), 20:0(19.7), [5] 22:1(0.9), gadoleic acid (8.4) [18] [19] [10] [6] [6]

67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

51.0e 40.0e 47.0d 37.0d 50.0d

25

211.8 202.1 202.0 199.7 169.2

30.2 74.2 62.2 119.5 76.3

65.27 56.61 59.32 46.74 61.39

16:0(66.0), 18:0(3.5), 18:1(27.5), 18:2(3.0) 14:0(1.0), 16:0(17.8), 18:0(14.0), 18:1(46.3), 18:2(17.9), 20:0(3.0) 16:0(19.0), 18:0(14.0), 18:1(63.0), 18:2(3.0), 20:0(1.0) 16:0(9.0), 18:1(36.0), 18:2(48.0), osa (7.0) 18:0(1.2), 18:1(60.8), 18:2(6.7), 26:0(15.2), ximenic acid (14.6), osa(1.5) 16:0(14.5), 18:0(8.5), 18:1(44.0), 18:2(32.4), uk (1.0) 14:0(3.5), 16:0(35.1), 16:1(1.9), 18:0(4.5), 18:1(53.3), 20:0(1.1), uk (1.4) 16:0(9.0), 18:1(14.6), 18:2(73.7), 18:3(2.7) 14:0(0.2), 16:0(11.0), 18:0(10.2), 18:1(29.5), 18:2(46.4), 18:3(0.4), 20:0(2.3)

M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302

ARTICLE IN PRESS

72. 73.

35.0e 37.4e

13.5

202.6 208.7

98.4 49.9

51.09 61.22

[6] [6]

74. 75.
a

32.6e 44.5d

201.5 200.9

154.2 111.3

38.73 48.31

[20] [10]

Percent oil content expressed in w/w. Melting point/freezing point of oils and () indicates the liquid state of oil at room temperature. c osa: other saturated acid; uk: unknown. d Oil from kernel. e Oil from seed.
b

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302 299

required as it restricts the FAMEs from solidication. However, with higher degree of unsaturation, FAMEs are not suitable for biodiesel as the unsaturated molecules react with atmospheric oxygen and are converted to peroxide, crosslinking at the unsaturation site can occur and the material may get polymerized into a plastic-like body. At high temperature, commonly found in an internal combustion engine, the process can get accelerated and the engine can quickly become gummed up with the polymerized FAMEs. To avoid this situation, biodiesel standards [23] have set a minimum limit of IV in their specications. All the 42 species, which qualify the specication of CN, also meet the specication of IV. All of them have IV less than 115, the lowest maximum limit among the three biodiesel standards set by EN14214 [23b]. Besides, the concentration of linolenic acid and acid containing four double bonds in FAMEs should not exceed the limit of 12% and 1%, respectively [23b]. None of the 42 FAMEs contains fatty acid with four double bonds. However, there is one species S. mahagoni (item no.49) that has higher concentration (16.1%) of linolenic acid. Therefore, the oil of this species may not be suitable for the production of biodiesel. FAMEs of one more species (X. Americana, item no. 71) from the above list of 42 species can be excluded on the basis of chain length. The FAMEs of this species contain cerotic acid (26:0) and ximenic acid (26:1) in high percentage (15.2 and 14.6%, respectively). As per the specication of ASTM PS121-99 [23d], it should be comprised of C12C22 FAMEs. The FAMEs of this species may also not meet the specication of 90/95% boiling point limit of 360 1C specied in ASTM D6751 and in other biodiesel standards. Generally, the FAMEs, which are mainly comprised of carbon chain lengths from 16 to 18, have boiling points in the range of 330357 1C; thus the specication value of 360 1C is easily achieved. As the FAMEs of this species contain carbon chain length of 26 in a very high percentage (29.8%), it may exceed the limit of 360 1C. Hence the FAMEs of X. Americana (item no. 71) may not be suitable for use as biodiesel.

Generally, FAMEs with higher CN are favored for use as biodiesel. However, with increase of CN, IV decreases which means degree of unsaturation decreases. This situation will lead to the solidication of FAMEs at higher temperature. To avoid this situation, the upper limit of CN (65) has been specied in US biodiesel standard (ASTM PS 12199). Among the 42 FAMEs, which have already met the specication of CN and IV of biodiesel standards, four (Item no. 32, 61, 62 and 67) have low IV (p38.5) and exceed the upper limit of CN. Moreover, oils of these four species along with another 11 species (item no. 3134, 4043, 50, 54, 61, 62, 64, 67, 73) have comparatively higher melting points (Table 1). Therefore, melting points, cloud points and cold lter plugging points (CFPPs) of their FAMEs will be higher. They may not be suitable for use as biodiesel in cold weather conditions. The oils of the remaining species, as mentioned in the respective sources, are liquids under laboratory conditions. The CFPP of the FAMEs produced from these oils will be lower and their use as biodiesel will not bother even in cold conditions. Moreover, CFPPs in hot climates like in India do not matter much. In the light of US biodiesel standard (ASTM D6751-02), in which the minimum value for CN is 47, 13 more species (item no. 5, 6, 20, 27, 28, 36, 39, 44, 46, 58-60, 75) can be selected for biodiesel production. The CN of the FAMEs of these oils ranged from 47 to 51. However, two species M. champaca (item no. 44), mp. 44 1C, and H. kurzii (item no.27), mp. 25 1C, may not be suitable as they have high mp. In this way, there are 26 species (Item no. 14, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 35, 47, 52, 53, 56, 57, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73) in the rst category, the FAMEs of which meet all the major specications of US biodiesel standard (ASTM D 6751-02, ASTM PS 121-99), Germany (DIN V 51606) and European Standard Organization (EN 14214). In the second category, there are 11 species (item no. 5, 6, 20, 28, 36, 39, 46, 5860, 75), and their FAMEs meet the specication of US biodiesel standard (ASTM D6751). If many of these selected plants are grown in large scale on wastelands, the biodiesel produced

ARTICLE IN PRESS
300 M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302

from them can replace or supplement the petrodiesel even it can replace by 100% as India has vast areas of unused non-forest wasteland of different kinds like saline and alkaline lands, wind eroded land, water logged and ravine land. The magnitude of the total wastelands comes to nearly 93.69 million hectares [24]. The cultivation and climatic conditions required for the plantations of some of the species like A. indica (item no. 47), C. inophyllum (item no. 30), J. curcas (item no. 22), P. pinnata (item no. 56), Z. mauritiana (item no. 57) are described here: (1) Azadirachta indica [13,25]: It is a large evergreen tree usually 1218 m high, and grows on almost all kinds of soil. It thrives well in arid and semi-arid climate with maximum shade temperature as high as 49 1C and the rainfall is as low as 250 mm. It can be raised by directly sowing its seed or by transplanting nurseryraised seedlings in monsoon rains. It reaches maximum productivity after 15 years and has a life span of more than 50 years. Planting is usually done at a density of 400 plants per hectare. The wasteland of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be utilized for its plantation. (2) Calophyllum inophyllum [13,14]: It is a large and medium sized, evergreen sub-maritime tree, up to 20 m height. The tree is light and capable of withstanding xerophytic nature of habitat where it thrives. It grows best in deep soil or on exposed sea sands. The rainfall requirement is 7505000 mm. It can be raised either by direct seeding or by transplanting of nursery-raised seedlings. Coastal region wastelands of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh are suitable for its plantation. It gives fruits twice in a year. Plantation can be done at a density of 400 trees per hectare. (3) Jatropha curcas [26]: It is a large shrub/small tree able to thrive in a number of climatic zones with rainfall of 2501200 mm. It is well adapted in arid and semi-arid conditions and has low fertility and moisture demand. It can also grow on moderately sodic and saline, degraded and eroded soil. It can be raised by seeds or cuttings. The best period to plant stem

cuttings is the rainy season. The ideal density of plants/hectare is 2500. It reaches its maximum productivity by ve years and can live up to 50 years. (4) Pongamia pinnata [26]: It is a medium sized tree and found throughout India. The plant is drought resistant, moderately frost hardy and highly tolerant of salinity. It can be regenerated through direct sowing, transplanting and root or shoot cutting. Its maturity comes after 47 years. The tree may be planted at a density of 1111 plants per hectare with a spacing of 3 3 m. It may be considered for plantation in dry, saline areas of Karnataka, Rajasthan and other parts of India. (5) Ziziphus mauritiana [27]: It is a fast-growing small tree. It can withstand severe heat with an absolute maximum shade temperature of 48 1C and a minimum of 13 1C. It is drought resistant and frost hardy. It can grow up to an altitude of 1500 m with rainfall of 1502250 mm. It grows best in sandy loam soil. It can be sown by seeding, seedling or grafting. It gets maturity after ve years and has a life span of 25 years or so. Planting is usually done at a density of 277 plants per hectare. Wastelands of arid and semi-arid region can be utilized for its plantation. Projections for cultivation of these ve species on wastelands have been made and are given in Table 2. Based on these projections it is estimated that the cultivation of A. indica on 40.96 million hectare of wasteland or P. pinnata on 19.9 million hectare would be sufcient to meet the target of 100% replacement of imported biodiesel which amounted to 87.5 million tons in 20032004 [28]. This target is achievable in view of the availability of 93.69 million hectare wasteland. Gestation period in case of seed oil trees is longer, but the benets once start accruing will be available for a much longer period without much efforts and investment. Biodiesel manufactured from non-traditional oils (e.g. A. indica if planted on 40.96 million hectare of wasteland or P. pinnata on 19.9 million hectare) not only makes the country totally free from costly oil imports, it will generate employment on a large scale. Moreover,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302 Table 2 Projection for raising plantation of different species on wasteland A. indica (47)a[13,25] Average seed/kernel Tree1 Average oil yield Tree1 (kg) Spacing of plantation (m m) Number of plants ha1 Average yield ha1 (kg) Biodiesel ha1 Annual biodiesel requirement for 10% replacement of imported diesel oil of 87.5 million ton (million ton) Wasteland requirement for cultivation (million ha) (i) To meet 10% replacement (ii) To meet 50% replacement (iii) To meet 100% replacement
a

301

C. inophyllum (30)a [13,14] 18 (seed) 11.7 (65%) 55 400 4680 3744 8.75

J. curcas (22)a [26] 2.5 (seed) 1.0 (40%) 22 2500 2500 2000 8.75

P. pinnata (56)a [26] 15 (kernel) 4.95 (33%) 33 1111 5499 4399 8.75

Z. mauritiana (57)a [27] 15 (seed) 4.95 (33%) 66 277 1371 1096 8.75

15 (kernel) 6.6 (44.5%) 55 400 2670 2136 8.75

4.096 20.48 40.96

2.33 11.65 23.3

4.375 21.88 43.73

1.99 9.95 19.9

7.98 39.9 79.8

The gure in the parenthesis is the item no. from Table 1.

due to low cost labor, production of biodiesel would be cheaper.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr. Pratap Narain, Director, CAZRI, Jodhpur and Dr. Amal Kar, Head of the Division of Natural Resources and Environment for providing necessary facilities and constant encouragement for the present study.

References
[1] Martini N, Shell JS, editors. Plant oils as fuelspresent state of science and future development. Berlin: Springer; 1998 p. 276. [2] Harrington KJ. Chemical and physical properties of vegetable oil esters and their effect on diesel fuel performance. Biomass 1986;9:117. [3] Korbitz W. Biodiesel production in Europe and North America, an encouraging prospect. Renewable Energy 1999;16:107883. [4] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. IX. New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1972. [5] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. I (revised). New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1985.

[6] Tyagi PD, Kakkar KK. Non-conventional vegetable oils. New Delhi: Batra book Service; 1991. [7] Saxena VK, Jain SK. Thevetia peruviana kernel oil: a potential bacterial agent. Fitoterapia 1990;61(4):3489. [8] Ghanim A. Hingota: A tree of immense untapped potential. Indian Farming 1991;41(7):911. [9] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. II(revised). New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1988. [10] Hilditch TP, Williams PN. The chemical constituents of natural fats, 4th ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1964. [11] Sengupta A, Sengupta SC, Mazumdar UK. Chemical investigation on Celastrus peniculatus seed oil. Fett Wissenschaft Technologie 1987;89(3):11923. [12] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. VI. New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1962. [13] Bringi NV. Non- traditional oilseeds and oils of India. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.; 1987. [14] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. III(revised). New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1992. [15] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. V. New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1959. [16] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. VII. New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1966. [17] Banerji R, Verma SC, Pushpendra P. Oil potential of Moringa. Natural Product of Radiance 2003;2(2):689. [18] Bhattacharjee A, Ghosh SK, Ghosh D, Ghosh S, Maiti MK, Sen SK. Identication of heat stable palmitoyl/

ARTICLE IN PRESS
302 M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293302 oleoyl specic acyl-acyl carrier protein thioesterase in developing seeds of Madhuca butyracea. Plant Science 2002;163(4):791800. Singh A, Singh IS. Chemical evaluation of mahua (Madhuca indica [M. longifolia]) seeds. Food Chemistry 1991;40(2):2218. Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. X. New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientic & Industrial Research; 1976. Kalayasiri P, Jayashke N, Krisnangkura K. Survey of seed oils for use as diesel fuels. Journal of American Oil Chemical Society 1996;73:4714. Krisnangkura K. A simple method for estimation of Cetane index of vegetable oil methyl esters. Journal of American Oil Chemical Society 1986;63:5523. [a] Biodiesel Standard, DIN V51606, Germany 1994 [b] Biodiesel Standard, EN 14214, European Standard Organization 2003 [c] Biodiesel Standard, ASTM D 6751, USA 2002 [d] Biodiesel standard, ASTM PS121, USA 1999. [24] Bhumbla DR, Khare A. Estimate of wasteland in India. New Delhi: Society for promotion of wastelands development; 1984. [25] Narain P. Satyavir. Neem in India: present status and future thrust. In: Proceeding of world neem conference, 2730 November 2002, Mumbai. vol. I, p. 1020. [26] Katwal RPS, Soni PL. Biofuels: an opportunity for socioeconomic development and cleaner environment. Indian Forester 2003;129(8):93949. [27] Meghwal PR, Purbey SK. Advances in Jujube cultivation in arid zone of India. In: Narain P, Kathju S, Kar A, Singh MP, Kumar P, editors. Human impact on desert environment. Jodhpur: Arid zone research association of India; 2003. p. 46572. [28] Arora VP. Oil price and Indian economy. Yojna 2004; 48(9):127.

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]