Next Article in Journal
Potential for Rooftop-Mounted PV Power Generation to Meet Domestic Electrical Demand in Saudi Arabia: Case Study of a Villa in Jeddah
Next Article in Special Issue
Soybean Oil Transesterification for Biodiesel Production with Micro-Structured Calcium Oxide (CaO) from Natural Waste Materials as a Heterogeneous Catalyst
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Evidence for Weather Regimes Governing Solar Power Generation in Kuwait
Previous Article in Special Issue
Preliminary Study on the Use of Biodiesel Obtained from Waste Vegetable Oils for Blending with Hydrotreated Kerosene Fossil Fuel Using Calcium Oxide (CaO) from Natural Waste Materials as Heterogeneous Catalyst
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Biodiesel Production Processes and Sustainable Raw Materials

ADEQ, Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, R. Conselheiro Emídio Navarro, 1, 1959-007 Lisboa, Portugal
LAETA, IDMEC, CERENA, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2019, 12(23), 4408;
Received: 16 October 2019 / Revised: 11 November 2019 / Accepted: 12 November 2019 / Published: 20 November 2019


Energy security and environmental concerns, related to the increasing carbon emissions, have prompted in the last years the search for renewable and sustainable fuels. Biodiesel, a mixture of fatty acids alkyl esters shows properties, which make it a feasible substitute for fossil diesel. Biodiesel can be produced using different processes and different raw materials. The most common, first generation, biodiesel is produced by methanolysis of vegetable oils using basic or acid homogeneous catalysts. The use of vegetable oils for biodiesel production raises serious questions about biodiesel sustainability. Used cooking oils and animal fats can replace the vegetable oils in biodiesel production thus allowing to produce a more sustainable biofuel. Moreover, methanol can be replaced by ethanol being totally renewable since it can be produced by biomass fermentation. The substitution of homogeneous catalyzed processes, nowadays used in the biodiesel industry, by heterogeneous ones can contribute to improve the biodiesel sustainability with simultaneous cost reduction. From the existing literature on biodiesel production, it stands out that several strategies can be adopted to improve the sustainability of biodiesel. A literature review is presented to underline the strategies allowing to improve the biodiesel sustainability.

1. World Energy

Worldwide energy demand has been growing in the last decades (Figure 1a). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) report, this trend will carry on, with an estimated growth in energy consumption of 28% between 2015 and 2040 [1]. Only in 2018, the world primary energy consumption grew 2.9% [2].
World use of petroleum and other fuels has been growing as well, being the largest growth in the transport and industrial sector. In the transportation sector, fossil fuels continue to supply most of the energy consumed despite the shortage of their reserves [1].
In Africa, Europe and Americas the oil remains the dominant fuel, while natural gas dominates in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Middle East. In the Asia Pacific region, coal is the dominant fuel (Figure 1b).
Replacing fossil fuel with more sustainable energies, maximizing the use of renewable ones, is increasingly important, not only to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) but also to improve energy supply security [3]. These concerns have led to changes in global environmental policy.
In 2007 the European Union launched a climate and energy policy to fight climate change and increase energy security but reinforcing simultaneously its competitiveness. The 2020 package was enacted in legislation in 2009 (Renewable Energy Directive) and sets targets for the year 2020 [4]:
20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
20% of EU energy from renewable sources in the energetic mix
20% improvement in energy efficiency
The EU also sets binding national targets of minimum energetic incorporation of 10% for the share of energy from renewable sources consumed by all modes of transport in 2020 [5]. One way to achieve the proposed targets is the increase in the use of biofuels as an alternative energy source. Figure 2 shows the share of renewable energy in transport in 2014, 2015 and 2016 for EU countries.
The Renewable Energy Directive was reviewed in 2015 (Directive (EU) 2015/1513) limiting to 7% biofuel production from agri-food-cultures such as cereal and other starch-rich crops, sugars and oil crops used in transport sector [7].
Biofuel production from wastes and residues was also encouraged due to double contribution by double counting for the purpose target. In addition to the current list of raw materials that can be used to produce double counted biofuels (Directive (EU) 2015/1513) it is possible to use raw materials not included in the list but considered as wastes by the national authorities before the adoption of the amendment [7]. Not all countries apply double counting and the definition of waste differs between them.
For example, Portugal is one of the countries that apply double counting, and biofuels produced from animal fats categories I & II and waste cooking oils, among others, are counted twice. The EU targets for the year 2030 (from 2021 to 2030) had been already established [8]:
At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
At least 32% share for renewable energy (upwards revision by 2023)
At least 32.5% improvement in energy efficiency
The EU has also set a new binding national target of minimum energetic incorporation of 14% for the share of energy from renewable sources consumed in transport until 2030. The 2050 long-term strategy, instead of set targets, creates a vision and defines directions that the EU must take to achieve climate neutrality as well as the Paris Agreement, which established keeping the temperature increase well below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels and the pursuit of efforts to keep it to 1.5 °C, by 2050. Several strategic areas such as energy efficiency; deployment of renewables; clean, safe and connected mobility; competitive industry and circular economy; infrastructure and interconnections; bio-economy and natural carbon sinks; carbon capture and storage to address remaining emissions would have to be worked together to achieve the climate neutrality. In the transport sector an increase in biofuels production due to all alternative fuel options is predicted, which will be required achieving deep emission reductions [9].

2. Biofuels

Biofuels are fuels made from biomass, a renewable alternative to fossil fuels. Many of them can be used in the transport sector, like [10]:
bioethanol: ethanol produced from biomass and/or the biodegradable fraction of waste;
biodiesel: a methyl-ester produced from vegetable or animal oil, of diesel quality;
biogas: a fuel gas produced from biomass and/or from the biodegradable fraction of waste, that can be purified to natural gas quality, to be used as biofuel, or wood gas;
biomethanol: methanol produced from biomass;
biodimethylether: dimethylether produced from biomass,
bio-ETBE (ethyl tert-butyl ether): ETBE produced based on bioethanol. The percentage by volume of bio-ETBE that is calculated as a biofuel is 47%;
bio-MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether): a fuel produced based on biomethanol. The percentage by volume of bio-MTBE that is calculated as a biofuel is 36%;
synthetic biofuels: synthetic hydrocarbons or mixtures of synthetic hydrocarbons, which have been produced from biomass;
biohydrogen: hydrogen produced from biomass, and/or from the biodegradable fraction of waste;
pure vegetable oil: oil produced from oil plants through pressing, extraction or comparable procedures, crude or refined but chemically unmodified, when compatible with the type of engines involved and the corresponding emission requirements.
In this sector, the most widely used biofuels around the world are bioethanol, as a substitute for gasoline, and biodiesel, as a substitute for diesel. Other biofuels are also used, although with more limited market access.

2.1. Biodiesel

Biodiesel, a mixture of alkyl esters produced of fatty acids is highlighted out as a feasible renewable and low carbon substitute of fossil diesel for the transportation sector [5]. Biodiesel can be used pure or blended with petroleum diesel due to its complete miscibility. Biodiesel blends are referred to as Bxx, where the xx indicates the amount of blend. Thus, B100 corresponds to pure biodiesel, and a B80 blend is 80% biodiesel and 20% petroleum diesel by volume.
Worldwide Europe is the main producer of biodiesel as a result of the environmental policy (Figure 3). Diverse feedstocks can be employed in biodiesel production. Nowadays biodiesel worldwide production is still dominated by vegetable oils: soybean, rapeseed, and palm oil. In the USA the main raw material used is soybean oi, with a 52% share of total biodiesel feedstocks, followed by canola oil and corn oil with 13% each [11]. In Europe, rapeseed oil was the major feedstock used, with 45% of the total production in 2017, followed by used cooking oil (UCO) with 21% and palm oil with 18% [12]. For example, in Portugal, rapeseed is the main vegetable oil used, followed by soybean oil. Table 1 presents Portugal’s biodiesel production in the last years.

2.2. Advantages and Disadvantages

The major benefits of using biodiesel as a replacement for diesel fuel are [14,15,16,17]:
Non-flammable and low toxicity;
Safer to handle;
Higher combustion efficiency, portability, availability, and renewability;
Higher cetane number and flash point;
Lower emissions such as CO2, CO, SO2, particulate matter (PM) and hydrocarbons (HC) compared to diesel;
May be blended with diesel fuel at any proportion;
No required engine modification up to B20;
Excellent properties as a lubricant.
There are also some disadvantages of using biodiesel that must be taken into consideration:
Lower calorific value;
Higher pour and cloud point fuel;
Higher nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions (in some cases);
Higher viscosity and less oxidative stability;
Biodiesel is corrosive to copper and brass;
May degrade plastic and natural rubber gaskets and hoses when used in pure form;
Biodiesel causes excessive engine wear.
The main restriction for biodiesel commercialization is its higher cost in comparison to petroleum fuel. Raw materials price represents 70–95% of the total production cost [18].

2.3. Transesterification

Biodiesel is produced by transesterification of triglycerides with short-chain alcohols in the presence of a catalyst (Scheme 1). Due to the reversibility of the reaction, it is necessary to use an excess of alcohol to drive the reaction equilibrium [19]. However, the transesterification reaction can be done without a catalyst through supercritical process reactions [20]. This process consists of three consecutive reversible reactions where triglycerides are converted into diglycerides, diglycerides are converted into monoglycerides and finally, monoglycerides are converted into glycerol. In addition, for each glyceride that reacts the formation of an ester (biodiesel) molecule occurs [21].
Various parameters affect the transesterification reaction. In order to produce biodiesel that meets the standard quality parameters, production processes must be optimized [3]. The most relevant, processual and quality, parameters are [3,22,23]:
Free fatty acids, moisture and water content.
Type of alcohol and molar ratio employed.
Type and concentration of catalysts.
Reaction temperature and time.
Rate and mode of stirring.
Purification process of the final product.
Mixing intensity.
Effect of using organic co-solvents.
Specific gravity
Glycerol, also known as glycerin (commercial term, purity > 95%), is a by-product of transesterification reactions. About 1 kg is produced for each 10 kg of biodiesel [24]. Glycerol is a nontoxic, edible and biodegradable compound used as a raw material in different industries, such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, tobacco, textiles or foods [24,25]. Due to its commercial value, in transesterification reaction beyond the biodiesel quality it is also important to obtain glycerol with high purity.

2.4. Alcohol Used

In biodiesel production, different alcohols can be used, such as methanol, ethanol, propanol or butanol [26]. The most commonly used are methanol and ethanol, and the reaction product produced when methanol is used is called a fatty acid methyl ester mixture (FAME) whereas if the alcohol is ethanol, the product obtained is a fatty acid ethyl ester mixture (FAEE) [26].
The mild reaction conditions needed, the fast reaction time and the easy phase separation combined with its low-cost and industrial availability make the methanol the most used alcohol in biodiesel production [26,27]. However, the use of this alcohol presents some drawbacks. Methanol is more toxic, volatile and has a lower oil dissolving capacity than ethanol. Although methanol can be obtained from biomass gasification, this alcohol is majorly produced from a fossil sources, about 90% from natural gas. Thus, the biofuel produced by methanolysis is not considered fully renewable biodiesel [28].
Besides, ethanol is made from agricultural products such as potatoes, grain, and corn, allowing this way the production of a renewable fuel [29]. Due to the extra carbon atom, the FAEE produced has a cloud and pour point lower than FAME, which allows the engine to start low temperatures [30]. The combustion heat and the cetane number are higher and the storage properties of FAEE fuel are also improved [27]. The main drawbacks of ethanolysis in biodiesel production are its lower reactivity, compared with methanol, as well as the more difficult separation of FAEE from the coproduced glycerin due to their higher miscibility [31].
Many studies have been carried out to compare the effect of methanol and ethanol on biodiesel production from different feedstocks [32,33,34,35]. All achieved results reported that the yield obtained by ethanolysis is lower and more time is needed to complete the reaction than for methanolysis. The separation of FAEE from glycerin is also more difficult. Nevertheless, it allows achieving a completely renewable biodiesel. Although several alcohols can be used to produce biodiesel, so far European Union legislation only covers FAME.

2.5. Feedstocks

As mentioned before several feedstocks can be employed in biodiesel production such as vegetable oils (edible and non-edible), waste cooking oils, animal fats and algae oils [36]. The chemical structure is similar in vegetable oils and animal fats, mainly composed by triglycerides with a smaller fraction of diglycerides and monoglycerides [18]. Triglycerides (Figure 4) are formed by one molecule of glycerol combined with three molecules of saturated or unsaturated fatty acid.
Both feedstocks are water-insoluble, hydrophobic and soluble in nonpolar organics solvents [18]. The main differences between them are the varied distributions of fatty acids and the high free fatty acids (FFA) content in the fats. The fatty acid profiles of some vegetable oils and animal fats are referenced in Table 2.
Animal fats and greases, at room temperature, tend to be solid due to their high content of saturated fatty acid (carbon-carbon single bond), oils are generally liquids. Refined oils have less FFA, lower acid value, than animal fats, waste grease and waste oils [18].
Based on their feedstock, biodiesel can be classified into three categories: first, second and third generation (Table 3):
First generation refers to biodiesel derived from edible vegetable oils. The most commonly used are rapeseed, palm, soybean, coconut, peanut, and sunflower [52]. The vegetable oils are widely available and relatively easier to convert into biodiesel. However, the use of edible vegetable oils in the production of biofuel raises several ethical issues. Edible vegetable oils come from food crops. The use of arable land, water, and fertilizer in “growing fuel” instead of food not only affects the food price but also sustainability issues [52].
Furthermore, even if the total amount of edible oils available was used in the production of biodiesel, it was not enough to meet today’s diesel requirements. These concerns ally with the double counting of biofuels produced from wastes, which have led to an increasing search for more sustainable feedstocks.
Second generation biofuels are biodiesels derived from non-edible crops or feedstocks that have already fulfilled their food purpose such as waste oily streams from the oil refinery, waste cooking oils (WCOs), greases and waste animal fats (WAFs) [53]. The non-edible crops can be grown on lands that cannot be used for arable crops that have a lower necessity of water or fertilizer to grow, making their plantation more economic [53]. The WCO refers to vegetable oils or animal fats that had been heated and used for cooking different types of food. During this process, various chemical reactions occur such as hydrolysis, polymerization, and oxidation modifying the physical and chemical properties of oil/fat [54]. Recycled fats, based on their FFA level, can be divided as yellow or brown grease. The yellow greases have a FFA level of less than 15% while, brown has more than 15% [54]. The second generation also includes WAFs or rendered animal fats, this topic will be explored in the next chapter. The use of these less expensive feedstocks (Table 4) reduces the production costs and reuse wastes, without competing with the food market [47]. The prices of feedstocks are unstable.
Third generation are the biodiesels derived from algal biomass.
Independently of the feedstock category used, the physical and chemical properties of the biodiesel are the same [41].

Animal Fats

Biodiesel production can be also done with animal fats as raw materials such as tallow, lard, poultry fat and fish oils (Figure 5) [18]. Animal fats are wastes or by-products that came from animal meat processing industry and carcasses of livestock, with relatively low prices.
In the European Union the regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and No 142/2011 lays down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption. These materials can be categorized into three specific categories considering the perceived level of risk to public and animal health [57]:
Category 1 (high risk):
Specified Risk Material (SRM) linked with the transmission of TSEs (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies), this includes the spinal cord and brain.
Fallen stock with SRM
Catering waste
Anything handled with Category 1
Category 2:
Material not fit for human consumption and posing a risk to animals and humans
Fallen stock without SRM
Category 3 (lowest risk):
Fit for human consumption at the point of slaughter
Fats are recovered from waste fat tissues by the rendering process. This process depends on the risk category and to prevent contamination between different categories of waste and different species, all processing is done on separated lines [57].
Many types of rendering are used in the industry. All of them involve the application of heat, the extraction of moisture, and the separation of fat [58]. The fat can mainly be recovered from wet or dry rendering. In wet rendering (Figure 6), the fat is recovered by heating in the presence of water. Boiling in water and/or steam at a high temperature can be employed [58,59]. The color of the fat produced by this process is clearer. The free fatty acid content increases due to the long contact with water [58].
In dry rendering (Figure 7), in either batch or continuous processes, the fat tissues are cooked in their “own juices” with dry heat [59].
There is no rule when and where wet or dry rendering is ideal, but it can be observed that the lard and tallow from wet rendering are better than from dry rendering [59]. The rendering process may also be done using an organic solvent.
Usually, fats are further used in food, pet foods, feed applications but can also be transformed into soaps and oleochemicals (Figure 8), depending on the risk category [61]. All fats can be employed as feedstocks in biodiesel production.

2.6. Biodiesel Production from Animal Fats Versus Vegetable Oils

In terms of emission of pollutant gases, the advantages of replacing diesel with biodiesel produced from animal fats or obtained from vegetable oils are similar, since the emissions from burning generate similar results. However, Wyatt et al. have reported that three animal fats-based B20 biodiesel blends obtained from lard, beef tallow and chicken fat had lower nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission levels than B20 blend produced from soy oil [40].
In comparison with biodiesel from vegetable origin, biodiesel from animal fats has several advantages. Due to its lower content of unsaturated fatty acids, biodiesel produced from animal fats has a higher cetane number than biodiesel from the most vegetable oils and diesel fuel [18,36]. The cetane number increases with the increment of fatty acid carbon chains and the increase in degree of saturation [62]. A higher cetane number is recognized to lower NOx emissions [36]. Biofuel from animal fats has also a higher calorific value [36]. A nonconsensual issue is the oxidative stability of animal-based biodiesel. Some authors claim that animal fat-based biodiesel is less stable for oxidation due to the absence of natural oxidants as compared to biodiesel from vegetable oil [63,64,65]. On the other hand, others, claim that from the content of saturated fatty acid, the addition of animal fat improves the oxidative stability of biofuel [36,66,67]. Feedstocks rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids are more susceptible to oxidation, due to the presence of double bonds in the chains, than feedstocks rich in saturated or monounsaturated fatty acids [68].
Pereira et al. evaluated the effect of blending vegetable with animal-based biodiesel on the oxidative degradation of this biofuel. The authors reported that blends of soybean/beef tallow biodiesel presented a higher oxidative stabilities in comparison with soybean biodiesel [67]. Wyatt et al. also reported that the oxidative stability of biofuel from lard, beef tallow, and chicken fat is equivalent or better than soybean biodiesel [40]. However, Sendzikiene et al. [69] showed that biofuel from animal fats such as lard and tallow is less stable for oxidation than rapeseed and linseed oil. Fuel produced from fats has also some disadvantages, such as the higher cold filter plugging point (CFPP) due to a significant content of saturated fatty acids [63,64,65]. The CFPP refers to the lowest temperature at which a given volume of liquid fuel will still flow through a specific filter in a specified time when cooled under certain conditions [70]. This is an important property to cold temperature countries.

2.7. Catalysts for Biodiesel Production

In order to increase the reaction rate, the transesterification reaction needs to be catalyzed [20].
The catalyst is a substance that increases the reaction rate without being consumed. If the catalysis acts in the same phase as the reaction mixture is a homogeneous catalyst. However, if the catalysts acts in different phase it is classified as a heterogeneous catalyst [26]. In this case, the chemical reaction occurs at the interface between the two phases [71]. Figure 9 shows the different types of catalysts that can be used in the transesterification process.
Homogeneous catalysts have the main advantage of acting in the same phase of the reaction mixture, so the mass transfer resistance is minimized. Depending or their nature they can be basic, acid or enzymatic. These catalysts requires less time for a higher yield and conversion than the heterogeneous one [72].
Currently, the most common catalysts employed in the biodiesel industry are the homogeneous basic ones, such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and potassium hydroxide (KOH) that are easily soluble in methanol [22]. Homogeneous basic catalysts, having a higher reaction rate than homogenous acid ones, have the advantage of high biodiesel yield achieved in short reaction time under mild operating conditions. However, high purity feedstocks are essential and such catalytic systems should not be used with low grade fats feedstock which contains a high concentration of FFA and moisture. The FFA reacts with the basic catalyst forming soaps (Scheme 2), which leads to the losses of catalyst and reduced the biodiesel yields.
The feedstocks moisture, and the water formed in the above reaction (Scheme 2), can also hydrolyze the triglycerides into diglycerides and FFA, increasing the acidity index and decreasing the biodiesel yields, according to the reaction in Scheme 3.
In order to overcome this issue, the transesterification reaction can be done in two stages. First, FFAs are converted into esters through pretreatment of the feedstock with an acid catalyst, reducing the FFA level (Scheme 4), followed by alkali transesterification. Another possibility is the use of a homogeneous acid catalyst such as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) or hydrochloric acid (HCl). Acid catalysts are not affected by FFA or water content due to their simultaneously capacity to catalyze both transesterification and esterification reactions (Scheme 4). Although, the acid catalyzed reaction is slower and thus, severe reaction conditions are needed, such as high reaction temperature, high acid catalyst concentration, and high alcohol:oil molar ratio in comparison with basic catalysts.
Homogeneous catalysts cannot be separated from the reaction mixtures so they cannot be reused or regenerated, which is their major drawback. Besides that, these are corrosive to reactors and their separation from the reaction mixture is more difficult, requiring more complex equipment [73,74]. In the homogeneous catalysis purification process, a large amount of water is needed to neutralize and purify the biodiesel, producing a large quantity of wastewater, and increasing the production costs.
In the last decades, there has been a growing interest in the development and employment of new heterogeneous catalysts for biodiesel production. Heterogeneous or solid catalysts can be easily recovered, regenerated and reused. Depending or their nature they can be basic like alkaline earth metal oxides (CaO, MgO), hydrotalcite, acids like zirconia and alumina-based catalysts or enzymatic, like immobilized lipase [74,75]. Heterogeneous catalysts facilitate continuous reactor operation as they are easily separated from the reaction medium. They also minimize biodiesel and glycerin purification steps. Water consumption decreases because no catalyst neutralization process, and consequent steps, are required [21,74]. Like the homogeneous basic catalysts, the performance of basic solid catalysts is also affected by high FFA and water content, is also more active than solid acid one with mild operating conditions requirements. Mass transfer resistance is an issue when using heterogeneous catalysts due to the presence of three phases (oil/alcohol/catalyst) in the reaction mixture. In comparison with a homogeneous catalyst, solid catalyst presents lower conversions requiring more severe reaction conditions to achieve the same conversions [21,74]. Another issue to consider is the leaching of the active phase into the reaction mixture. The catalyst leaching leads to a homogeneous contribution. The extent of the catalyst leaching affects not only the life expectancy of catalysts and consequently their reuse but also the biodiesel quality [76]. For these reasons the heterogeneous catalyst should not be leaching and must be reused.
Lipases are enzymes that can be used in biodiesel production as catalysts, belonging to the homogeneous if used in its free form or heterogeneous group if immobilized [75]. Compared with other catalysts, enzymes have high selectivity, the products achieved (biodiesel and glycerin) are purer and no soaps are formed. Like acid catalysis (homogeneous or heterogeneous), enzymes have the capacity to catalyzed both triglycerides by transesterification and FFA by the esterification reaction. The main disadvantages are its high costs and the risk of enzyme inactivation by the short chain alcohols and products [75,77]. A literature survey on advantages and disadvantages of both homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis is presented in Table 5.

2.8. Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Catalytic Conversion of Animal Fats

Animal fats can be used as feedstocks to produces biodiesel through homogenously- (Table 6) and heterogeneously- (Table 7) catalyzed processes. Table 6 and Table 7 summarize the main characteristics of both types of catalyzed processes.

2.9. Biodiesel Purification

After the transesterification reaction, biodiesel must be purified in order to accomplish the quality specifications (ASTM D6751 or EN 14214) and for further commercialization. In heterogeneous catalysis, in the first step, the solid catalyst can be easily recovered from the reaction mixture by filtration, instead, homogeneous ones will be dispersed and cannot be reused.
Biodiesel phase can be separated from the glycerin phase in a decanter by sedimentation or centrifugation due to their density difference [99,100]. The excess alcohol used in the reaction can be separated from both phases by evaporation or distillation. The obtained biodiesel still contains free glycerol, soap, residual alcohol, catalyst and mono, di, and triglycerides unreacted, which must be removed. Table 8 summarizes the main consequences of biodiesel contamination on internal combustion engines.
Biodiesel can be purified by several processes. The most used industrial biodiesel purification process is water washing. This method is simple, efficient and allows one to obtain biodiesel with high purity. Distilled water, deionized water, acidulated water, acid and water or water, and an organic solvent can be added to biodiesel [99,102,103]. Due to their water solubility, residual glycerol, methanol, catalyst, and any soap formed during the reaction can be eliminated. Lastly, washed biodiesel need to be dehydrated [99,103]. Biodiesel purification with water is time-consuming and produces large volumes of wastewater which cannot be discharged in watercourses. Wastewater effluent has to be treated, increasing the biodiesel production costs. To overcome this issue, a dry washing purification process, using solid sorbents such as ion exchange resin, silica, activated carbon among other adsorbents, can be adopted. This purification process is fast, easy to integrate in an industrial plant and being water-free, no wastewater is produced lowering the production cost [102]. The main drawback is the purified biodiesel may not meet methanol and glycerin EN 14214 specifications. Therefore, methanol and glycerin should be removed as much as possible before the purification process [101,104]. Also, the adsorbent cost, its recycling, and elimination can be a disadvantage [105].
Inorganic and polymeric membranes can also be employed for biodiesel purification [104]. Membrane works as a selective barrier retaining the biodiesel contaminants [105]. No water is consumed within this process, consequently, no wastewater is produced although the addition of a small amount of water improves glycerin retention. High-quality biodiesel meeting the required specifications can be achieved. This process presents some issues too such as, membrane cleaning, membrane costs and the increase of biodiesel production cost [103].

2.10. Quality Specifications

The quality of biodiesel can be influenced by several factors that may be reflected in its chemical and physical properties. To be commercialized, biodiesel has to accomplish the quality specifications established by institutions like the European Committee of Standardization (ISO) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (Table 9). These regulations, which are dynamic and must be periodically reviewed, describe not only the quality requirements but also the test methods employed.

2.11. Properties of Biodiesel from Different Feedstocks

Biodiesel properties are influenced not only by raw materials but also by transesterification and purity process. Table 10 shows a literature review of biodiesel properties from different feedstocks.

3. Conclusions

Biodiesel obtained by alcoholysis of fats is a feasible low carbon fuel to replace the conventional fossil diesel thus helping to mitigate the anthropogenic carbon emissions. First generation biodiesel, obtained by methanolysis of vegetable oils, presents severe sustainability issues related to the use of arable lands to produce energy-dedicated crops (oleaginous crops). Biodiesel sustainability issues can be minimized by using non-edible fats such as animal fats and waste cooking oils. Replacing methanol by ethanol could also contribute to reducing carbon emissions from biodiesel because ethanol can be obtained by biomass fermentation, thus being a renewable alcohol.
Biodiesel production processes can be improved by replacing conventional homogeneous (basic) catalysts with heterogeneous catalysts. Among the huge number of scientific papers on heterogeneous catalysts for biodiesel production, the excellent performances (catalytic activity) of calcium-based catalysts stands out but they have never been tested industrially. The lack of data on the stability of calcium catalysts appears to be a limitation to their industrial testing. Dry-washing purification of biodiesel, instead of the wet process nowadays in use, can also contribute to biodiesel sustainability. Biodiesel dry-washing decreases the large volumes of wastewater generated in the traditional purification method and cuts down the energy required in the biodiesel drying process.

Author Contributions

All authors participated equally in the conception of the presented review and the manuscript was prepared by M.R. and A.P.S.D. and revised by J.G., J.F.P. and J.C.B. contributed to the funding obtaining (PTDC/EMS-ENE/4865/2014).


The authors acknowledge FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal) for funding project PTDC/EMS-ENE/4865/2014. This work was also supported through IDMEC, under LAETA, project FCT UID/EMS/50022/2019.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


ASTMAmerican Society for Testing and Materials
CFPPCold Filter Plugging Point
CISCommonwealth of Independent States
EIAU.S. Energy Information Administration
ETBEEthyl tert-butyl ether
FAEEFatty acid ethyl ester
FAMEFatty acid methyl ester
FFAFree fatty acid
GHGGreenhouse gas
ISOEuropean Committee of Standardization
MTBEMethyl tert-butyl ether
NOxNitrous oxide
PMParticulate matter
SRMSpecified Risk Material
TSETransmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
UCOUsed cooking oil
WAFWaste animal fats
WCOWaste cooking oil


  1. U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2017; U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  2. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, 68th ed.; BP: London, UK, 2019.
  3. Atabani, A.E.; Silitonga, A.S.; Badruddin, I.A.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Masjuki, H.H.; Mekhilef, S. A comprehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy resource and its characteristics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2070–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. European Commission 2020 Climate & Energy Package. Available online: (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  5. European Union Directive (EU) 2009/28. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2019).
  6. European Environment Agency (EEA). Use of Renewable Fuels in Transport. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2019).
  7. European Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1513. Available online: (accessed on 13 February 2019).
  8. European Commission 2030 Climate & Energy Framework. Available online: (accessed on 11 March 2019).
  9. European Commission. The Commission Presents Strategy for a Climate Neutral Europe by 2050—Questions and Answers. Available online: (accessed on 13 March 2019).
  10. European Commission Directive (EU) 2003/30. Available online: (accessed on 13 March 2019).
  11. Biodiesel Explained—U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2019).
  12. Phillips, S.; Flach, B.; Lieberz, S.; Lappin, J.; Bolla, S. EU Biofuels Annual 2018. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2019).
  13. Direcção Geral de Energía e Geología. Renováveis-Estatísticas Rápidas—No 169; Direcção Geral de Energía e Geología: Lisbon, Portugal, 2018.
  14. Mahmudul, H.M.; Hagos, F.Y.; Mamat, R.; Adam, A.A.; Ishak, W.F.W.; Alenezi, R. Production, characterization and performance of biodiesel as an alternative fuel in diesel engines—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Romano, S.D.; Sorichetti, P.A. Dielectric Spectroscopy in Biodiesel Production and Characterization; Springer: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Islam, A.; Ravindra, P. Biodiesel Production with Green Technologies; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; ISBN 9783319452722. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moser, B.R. Biodiesel production, properties, and feedstocks. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2009, 45, 229–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Banković-Ilić, I.B.; Stojković, I.J.; Stamenković, O.S.; Veljkovic, V.B.; Hung, Y.T. Waste animal fats as feedstocks for biodiesel production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Banerjee, A.; Chakraborty, R. Parametric sensitivity in transesterification of waste cooking oil for biodiesel production—A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 490–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shahid, E.M.; Jamal, Y. Production of biodiesel: A technical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4732–4745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Avhad, M.R.; Marchetti, J.M. Innovation in solid heterogeneous catalysis for the generation of economically viable and ecofriendly biodiesel: A review. Catal. Rev. 2016, 58, 157–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ajala, O.E.; Aberuagba, F.; Odetoye, T.E.; Ajala, A.M. Biodiesel: Sustainable energy replacement to petroleum-based diesel fuel—A review. Chembioeng Rev. 2015, 2, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mathiyazhagan, M.; Ganapathi, A. Factors affecting biodiesel production. Res. Plant Biol. 2011, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tan, H.W.; Abdul Aziz, A.R.; Aroua, M.K. Glycerol production and its applications as a raw material: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Luo, X.; Ge, X.; Cui, S.; Li, Y. Value-added processing of crude glycerol into chemicals and polymers. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 215, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Borges, M.E.; Díaz, L. Recent developments on heterogeneous catalysts for biodiesel production by oil esterification and transesterification reactions: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2839–2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Avramović, J.M.; Veličković, A.V.; Stamenković, O.S.; Rajković, K.M.; Milić, P.S.; Veljković, V.B. Optimization of sunflower oil ethanolysis catalyzed by calcium oxide: RSM versus ANN-GA. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 105, 1149–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dalena, F.; Senatore, A.; Marino, A.; Gordano, A.; Basile, M.; Basile, A. Methanol production and applications: An overview. In Methanol: Science and Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sarkar, N.; Ghosh, S.K.; Bannerjee, S.; Aikat, K. Bioethanol production from agricultural wastes: An overview. Renew. Energy 2012, 37, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Watcharathamrongkul, K. Calcium oxide based catalysts for ethanolysis of soybean oil. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2010, 32, 627–634. [Google Scholar]
  31. Velickovic, A.; Avramovic, J.; Stamenkovic, O.; Veljkovic, V. Kinetics of the sunflower oil ethanolysis using CaO as catalyst. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 2016, 22, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rashid, U.; Ibrahim, M.; Ali, S.; Adil, M.; Hina, S.; Bukhari, I.H.; Yunus, R. Comparative study of the methanolysis and ethanolysis of Maize oil using alkaline catalysts. Grasas Aceites 2012, 63, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Verma, P.; Sharma, M.P. Comparative analysis of effect of methanol and ethanol on Karanja biodiesel production and its optimisation. Fuel 2016, 180, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. García, M.; Gonzalo, A.; Sánchez, J.L.; Arauzo, J.; Simoes, C. Metanolysis and ethanolysis of animal fats: A comparative study of the influence of alcohols. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 2011, 17, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meneghetti, S.M.P.; Meneghetti, M.R.; Wolf, C.R.; Silva, E.C.; Lima, G.E.S.; de Lira Silva, L.; Serra, T.M.; Cauduro, F.; de Oliveira, L.G. Biodiesel from castor oil: A comparison of ethanolysis versus methanolysis. Energy Fuels 2006, 20, 2262–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adewale, P.; Dumont, M.J.; Ngadi, M. Recent trends of biodiesel production from animal fat wastes and associated production techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 574–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fat Minami-Nutrition. Available online: (accessed on August 2006).
  38. Woodgate, S.L.; Van der Veen, J.T. Fats and Oils—Animal Based. In Food Processing: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed.; Clark, S., Jung, S., Lamsal, B., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 481–499. [Google Scholar]
  39. Azócar, L.; Ciudad, G.; Heipieper, H.J.; Muñoz, R.; Navia, R. Improving fatty acid methyl ester production yield in a lipase-catalyzed process using waste frying oils as feedstock. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2010, 109, 609–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wyatt, V.T.; Hess, M.A.; Dunn, R.O.; Foglia, T.A.; Haas, M.J.; Marmer, W.N. Fuel properties and nitrogen oxide emission levels of biodiesel produced from animal fats. J. Amer Oil Chem Soc. 2005, 82, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dias, J.M.; Alvim-ferraz, M.C.M.; Almeida, M.F. Mixtures of vegetable oils and animal fat for biodiesel production: Influence on product composition and quality. Energy Fuels 2008, 20, 3889–3893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leung, D.Y.C.; Guo, Y. Transesterification of neat and used frying oil: Optimization for biodiesel production. Fuel Process. Technol. 2006, 87, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Charoenchaitrakool, M.; Thienmethangkoon, J. Statistical optimization for biodiesel production from waste frying oil through two-step catalyzed process. Fuel Process. Technol. 2011, 92, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chakraborty, R.; Gupta, A.K.; Chowdhury, R. Conversion of slaughterhouse and poultry farm animal fats and wastes to biodiesel: Parametric sensitivity and fuel quality assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 120–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Espinosa, M.; Canielas, L.; Silvana, M.; Moraes, A.; Schmitt, C.; Assis, R.; Rodrigues, S.; Regina, M.; Rodrigues, A.; Bastos, E. Beef tallow biodiesel produced in a pilot scale. Fuel Process. Technol. 2009, 90, 570–575. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ito, T.; Sakurai, Y.; Kakuta, Y.; Sugano, M.; Hirano, K. Biodiesel production from waste animal fats using pyrolysis method. Fuel Process. Technol. 2012, 94, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dias, J.M.; Ferraz, C.A.; Almeida, M.F. Using mixtures of waste frying oil and pork lard to produce biodiesel. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 3889–3893. [Google Scholar]
  48. Boey, P.L.; Maniam, G.P.; Hamid, S.A.; Ali, D.M.H. Crab and cockle shells as catalysts for the preparation of methyl esters from low free fatty acid chicken fat. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2011, 88, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Maniam, G.P.; Hindryawati, N.; Nurfitri, I.; Manaf, I.S.A.; Ramachandran, N.; Rahim, M.H.A. Utilization of waste fat from catfish (Pangasius) in methyl esters preparation using CaO derived from waste marine barnacle and bivalve clam as solid catalysts. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2015, 49, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aryee, A.N.A.; Simpson, B.K.; Cue, R.I.; Phillip, L.E. Enzymatic transesterification of fats and oils from animal discards to fatty acid ethyl esters for potential fuel use. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 4149–4157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Behçet, R. Performance and emission study of waste anchovy fish biodiesel in a diesel engine. Fuel Process. Technol. 2011, 92, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Knothe, G.; Razon, L.F. Biodiesel fuels. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2017, 58, 36–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Živković, S.B.; Veljković, M.V.; Banković-Ilić, I.B.; Krstić, I.M.; Konstantinović, S.S.; Ilić, S.B.; Avramović, J.M.; Stamenković, O.S.; Veljković, V.B. Technological, technical, economic, environmental, social, human health risk, toxicological and policy considerations of biodiesel production and use. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 222–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Canakci, M. The potential of restaurant waste lipids as biodiesel feedstocks. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Index Mundi Commodity Prices. Available online: (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  56. Grenea WASTE-BASED MARKET PERFORMANCE. Available online: (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  57. EFPRA. What are the Three Categories? Available online: (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  58. Meeker, D.L. Essential Rendering, All About The Animal By-Products Industry; The National Renderers Association: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2006; ISBN 0965466035. [Google Scholar]
  59. Jayathilakan, K.; Sultana, K.; Radhakrishna, K.; Bawa, A.S. Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  60. Woodgate, S.; van der Veen, J. The role of fat processing and rendering in the European Union animal production industry. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2004, 8, 283–294. [Google Scholar]
  61. Giriprasad, R.; Sharma, H.; Goswami, M. Animal fat-processing and its quality control. J. Food Process. Technol. 2013, 4, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  62. Knothe, G.; Krahl, J.; Van Gerpen, J. The Biodiesel Handbook; AOCS Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 2005; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  63. Encinar, J.M.; Sánchez, N.; Martínez, G.; García, L. Study of biodiesel production from animal fats with high free fatty acid content. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 10907–10914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Dias, J.M.; Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M.; Almeida, M.F.; Méndez Díaz, J.D.; Polo, M.S.; Utrilla, J.R. Selection of heterogeneous catalysts for biodiesel production from animal fat. Fuel 2012, 94, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Avhad, M.R.; Marchetti, J.M. A review on recent advancement in catalytic materials for biodiesel production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 696–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pinzi, S.; Leiva-Candia, D.; López-García, I.; Redel-Macías, M.; Dorado, M. Latest trends in feedstocks for bioidesel production. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2014, 8, 126–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pereira, G.G.; Garcia, R.K.A.; Ferreira, L.L.; Barrera-Arellano, D. Soybean and soybean/beef-tallow biodiesel: A comparative study on oxidative degradation during long-term storage. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2017, 94, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Canakci, M.; Sanli, H. Biodiesel production from various feedstocks and their effects on the fuel properties. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 35, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sendzikiene, E.; Makareviciene, V.; Janulis, P. Oxidation stability of biodiesel fuel produced from fatty wastes. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2005, 14, 335–339. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kumar, M.; Sharma, M.P. Selection of potential oils for biodiesel production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 1129–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gorji, A. Animal renewable waste resource as catalyst in biodiesel production. J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 2015, 7, 36–49. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sharma, Y.C.; Singh, B.; Korstad, J. Latest developments on application of heterogenous basic catalysts for an efficient and eco friendly synthesis of biodiesel: A review. Fuel 2011, 90, 1309–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shan, R.; Zhao, C.; Lv, P.; Yuan, H.; Yao, J. Catalytic applications of calcium rich waste materials for biodiesel: Current state and perspectives. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 127, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nasreen, S.; Nafees, M.; Qureshi, L.A.; Asad, M.S.; Sadiq, A.; Ali, S.D. Review of catalytic transesterifcation methods for biodiesel production. Intechopen 2015, 2, 64. [Google Scholar]
  75. Guldhe, A.; Singh, B.; Mutanda, T.; Permaul, K.; Bux, F. Advances in synthesis of biodiesel via enzyme catalysis: Novel and sustainable approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 1447–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kouzu, M.; Hidaka, J.S. Transesterification of vegetable oil into biodiesel catalyzed by CaO: A review. Fuel 2012, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fjerbaek, L.; Christensen, K.V.; Norddahl, B. A review of the current state of biodiesel production using enzymatic transesterification. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2009, 102, 1298–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Mata, T.M.; Mendes, A.M.; Caetano, N.S.; Martins, A.A. Properties and sustainability of biodiesel from animal fats and fish oil. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014, 38, 175–180. [Google Scholar]
  79. Alptekin, E.; Canakci, M.; Sanli, H. Biodiesel production from vegetable oil and waste animal fats in a pilot plant. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 2146–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Araújo, B.Q.; Nunes, R.C.D.R.; De Moura, C.V.R.; De Moura, E.M.; Citó, A.M.D.G.L.; Dos Santos Júnior, J.R. Synthesis and characterization of beef tallow biodiesel. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 4476–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mata, T.M.; Cardoso, N.; Ornelas, M.; Neves, S.; Caetano, N.S. Evaluation of two purification methods of biodiesel from pork lard, beef tallow, and chicken fat. Energy Fuels 2011, 25, 4756–4762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. De Almeida, V.F.; García-Moreno, P.J.; Guadix, A.; Guadix, E.M. Biodiesel production from mixtures of waste fish oil, palm oil and waste frying oil: Optimization of fuel properties. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015, 133, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Janchiv, A.; Oh, Y.; Choi, S. High quality biodiesel production from pork lard by high solvent additive. ScienceAsia 2012, 38, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fadhil, A.B.; Al-tikrity, E.T.B.; Albadree, M.A. Transesterification of a novel feedstock, Cyprinus carpio fish oil: Influence of co-solvent and characterization of biodiesel. Fuel 2015, 162, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ejikeme, P.M.; Anyaogu, I.D.; Egbuonu, C.A.C.; Eze, V.C. Pig-fat (Lard) derivatives as alternative diesel fuel in compression ignition engines. J. Pet. Technol. Altern. Fuels 2013, 4, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  86. Jeong, G.T.; Yang, H.S.; Park, D.H. Optimization of transesterification of animal fat ester using response surface methodology. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Fadhil, A.B.; Ali, L.H. Alkaline-catalyzed transesterification of Silurus triostegus Heckel fish oil: Optimization of transesterification parameters. Renew. Energy 2013, 60, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Alptekin, E.; Canakci, M.; Sanli, H. Methyl ester production from chicken fat with high FFA. World Renew. Energy Congr. 2011, 1, 319–326. [Google Scholar]
  89. Fayyazi, E.; Ghobadian, B.; Najafi, G.; Hosseinzadeh, B.; Mamat, R.; Hosseinzadeh, J. An ultrasound-assisted system for the optimization of biodiesel production from chicken fat oil using a genetic algorithm and response surface methodology. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2015, 26, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  90. Liu, S.; Wang, Y.; Oh, J.H.; Herring, J.L. Fast biodiesel production from beef tallow with radio frequency heating. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 1003–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mata, T.M.; Cardoso, N.; Ornelas, M.; Neves, S.; Caetano, N.S. Sustainable production of biodiesel from tallow, lard and poultry fat and its quality evaluation. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2010, 19, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  92. Panneerselvam, S.I.; Miranda, L.R. Biodiesel production from mutton. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Clean Energy and Technology (CET), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 27–29 June 2011; pp. 83–86. [Google Scholar]
  93. Cunha, A.; Feddern, V.; De Prá, M.C.; Higarashi, M.M.; De Abreu, P.G.; Coldebella, A. Synthesis and characterization of ethylic biodiesel from animal fat wastes. Fuel 2013, 105, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  94. Stojković, I.J.; Miladinović, M.R.; Stamenković, O.S.; Banković-Ilić, I.B.; Povrenović, D.S.; Veljković, V.B. Biodiesel production by methanolysis of waste lard from piglet roasting over quicklime. Fuel 2016, 182, 454–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vafakish, B.; Barari, M. Biodiesel production by transesterification of tallow fat using heterogeneous catalysis. Kem. Ind. 2017, 66, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  96. Soldi, R.A.; Oliveira, A.R.S.; Ramos, L.P.; César-Oliveira, M.A.F. Soybean oil and beef tallow alcoholysis by acid heterogeneous catalysis. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2009, 361, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hu, S.; Guan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Han, H. Nano-magnetic catalyst KF/CaO-Fe3O4for biodiesel production. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 2685–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Xu, G.; Cui, X.; Fan, S.; Zhang, B.; Song, H.; Yan, X.; Ma, X.; Kong, D. Optimization of transesterification of beef tallow for biodiesel production. In Proceedings of the 2011 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, Wuhan, China, 25–28 March 2011. [Google Scholar]
  99. Atadashi, I.M.; Aroua, M.K.; Aziz, A.A. Biodiesel separation and purification: A review. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Alves, M.J.; Nascimento, S.M.; Pereira, I.G.; Martins, M.I.; Cardoso, V.L.; Reis, M. Biodiesel purification using microand ultrafiltration membranes. Renew. Energy 2013, 58, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Berrios, M.; Skelton, R.L. Comparison of purification methods for biodiesel. Chem. Eng. J. 2008, 144, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Atadashi, I.M.; Aroua, M.K.; Aziz, A.R.A.; Sulaiman, N.M.N. Refining technologies for the purification of crude biodiesel. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 4239–4251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Veljković, V.B.; Banković-Ilić, I.B.; Stamenković, O.S. Purification of crude biodiesel obtained by heterogeneously-catalyzed transesterification. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 500–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Atadashi, I.M. Purification of crude biodiesel using dry washing and membrane technologies. Alex. Eng. J. 2015, 54, 1265–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  105. Reis, M.H.M.; Cardoso, V.L. Biodiesel production and purification using membrane technology. In Membrane Technologies for Biorefining; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 289–307. [Google Scholar]
  106. European Committee for Standardization. European Standard EN 14214: 2012+A1; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  107. U.S. Department of Energy. ASTM Biodiesel Specifications. Available online: (accessed on 5 November 2018).
  108. Sakthivel, R.; Ramesh, K.; Purnachandran, R.; Mohamed Shameer, P. A review on the properties, performance and emission aspects of the third generation biodiesels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2970–2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. World Consumption by fuel from 1994 to 2018. (a) (million tones oil equivalent) and Regional Consumption by fuel 2018; (b) (% of different fuels, color legend in Figure 1a) [2].
Figure 1. World Consumption by fuel from 1994 to 2018. (a) (million tones oil equivalent) and Regional Consumption by fuel 2018; (b) (% of different fuels, color legend in Figure 1a) [2].
Energies 12 04408 g001
Figure 2. EU share of renewable energy in transport in 2014, 2015 and 2016 [6].
Figure 2. EU share of renewable energy in transport in 2014, 2015 and 2016 [6].
Energies 12 04408 g002
Figure 3. World ethanol and biodiesel production from 2008 to 2018 (vertical axis in million tonnes oil equivalent) [2].
Figure 3. World ethanol and biodiesel production from 2008 to 2018 (vertical axis in million tonnes oil equivalent) [2].
Energies 12 04408 g003
Scheme 1. Transesterification reaction (adapted from [21]).
Scheme 1. Transesterification reaction (adapted from [21]).
Energies 12 04408 sch001
Figure 4. Triglyceride [37].
Figure 4. Triglyceride [37].
Energies 12 04408 g004
Figure 5. Tallow, lard, fish oil, and poultry fats.
Figure 5. Tallow, lard, fish oil, and poultry fats.
Energies 12 04408 g005
Figure 6. Wet rendering [59].
Figure 6. Wet rendering [59].
Energies 12 04408 g006
Figure 7. Dry rendering [60].
Figure 7. Dry rendering [60].
Energies 12 04408 g007
Figure 8. Estimated utilization of slaughtered animal (by % weight) [60].
Figure 8. Estimated utilization of slaughtered animal (by % weight) [60].
Energies 12 04408 g008
Figure 9. Different types of catalysis employed in the transesterification process.
Figure 9. Different types of catalysis employed in the transesterification process.
Energies 12 04408 g009
Scheme 2. Saponification reaction of triglycerides and Neutralization reaction of FFA (adapted from [26]).
Scheme 2. Saponification reaction of triglycerides and Neutralization reaction of FFA (adapted from [26]).
Energies 12 04408 sch002
Scheme 3. Hydrolysis of triglycerides in FFA (adapted from [26]).
Scheme 3. Hydrolysis of triglycerides in FFA (adapted from [26]).
Energies 12 04408 sch003
Scheme 4. Esterification reaction of FFA (adapted from [26]).
Scheme 4. Esterification reaction of FFA (adapted from [26]).
Energies 12 04408 sch004
Table 1. Biodiesel production from different feedstocks in Portugal (adapted from [13]).
Table 1. Biodiesel production from different feedstocks in Portugal (adapted from [13]).
Biodiesel Production (ton); Year
Fresh oils316,507365,622304,190299,404324,200287,329205,594175,954151,078
WCO+ animal fat48104639486911,04416,90675,737131,226179,875176,023
Table 2. Fatty acid profiles of different feedstocks (minima and maxima weight percentages).
Table 2. Fatty acid profiles of different feedstocks (minima and maxima weight percentages).
Fatty AcidRapeseed Oil [18,38,39]Soybean Oil [18,38,40,41]WFO [39,41,42,43]Beef Tallow [38,40,44,45,46]Lard [18,38,40,44,47]Poultry FatFish Oil
Chicken Fat [18,38,40,44,48]Duck Tallow [44]Catfish Fat [49]Salmon Oil [50]Anchovy Oil [51]
Lauric (C12:0)--nm–0.4--nm–1.0-11.50.1-
Myristic (C14:0)-nm–1.0nm–1.12.6–3.51.3–1.70.5–1.0-
Myristoleic (C14:1)---0.5–1.3-0.1–0.2-2.0--
Pentadecanoic (C15:0)---0.5–1.0 ---1.9--
Palmitic (C16:0)3.5–4.510.5–11.08.4–25.823.8–27.023.2–25.520.9–24.717.028.116.920.2
Palmitoleic (C16:1)nm–0.5-0.2–4.60.5–4.72.2–2.75.0–7.7--5.46.6
Margaric (C17:0)---1.1–2.5nm–0.4----0.2
Heptadecenoic (C17:1)---0.5–1.7nm–0.4-----
Stearic (C18:0)0.9–1.53.3–4.83.7–4.812.7–34.710.4–17.04.5–5.84.0-4.34.2
Oleic (C18:1 cis)-22.0–25.428.5–52.929.9–47.240.0–42.838.2–48.559.426.819.219.7
Linoleic (C18:2)18.7–22.352.3–54.513.5–50.50.8–2.710.7–21.017.3–23.819.66.716.12.6
Linolenic (C18:3)7.7–9.05.3–7.50.6–3.5nm–0.8nm–64.7nm–2.5--2.81.6
Arachidic (C20:0)0.4–0.50.4–0.50.1–0.4nm–0.3nm–0.2-----
Gadoleic acid (C20:1)1.0–2.0nm–0.30.1–0.8nm–0.50.9–1.00.5–1.0-2.7--
Eicosadienoic (C20:2)----0.5–0.7--0.8-0.2
Eicosatrienoic (C20:3)----nm–0.2--0.5--
Eicosapentaenoic (C20:5)nm–0.1-0.2-----15.610.4
Behenic (C22:0)nm–0.50.4–0.5nm–0.8-------
Erucic (C22:1)nm–0.1---------
Docosapentaenoic (C22:5)--------2.50.8
Docosahexanoic (C22:6)--------11.421.6
Lignoceric (C24:0)-nm–0.10.04–0.3--- ---
nm—not measured.
Table 3. Different generations of biodiesel and their feedstocks (adapted from [3]).
Table 3. Different generations of biodiesel and their feedstocks (adapted from [3]).
1st Generation Edible Oils2nd Generation3rd Generation Microalgal Oils
Non-Edible OilsAnimal Fats
Soybeans (Glycine max)Jatropha (Jatropha curcas L.)Pork lardBacteria
Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)Mahua (Madhuca longifolia)Beef tallowMicroalgae (Chlorella prothecoides)
Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.)Coffee groundsPoultry fatMicroalgae (Chlorella vulgaris)
Rice bran oil (Oryza sativa L.)Camelina (Camelina sativa)Fish oilMicroalgae (Botryococcus braunii)
Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)Cottonseed (Gossypium hirsutum)Chicken fatMicroalgae (Chlorella sorokiana)
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)
Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)
Corn (Zea mays)Neem (Azadirachta indica)
Coconut (Cocos nucifera)Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis)
Canola (Brassica napus)Passion seed
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)Moringa (Moringa oleifera)
Palm (Arecaceae)Tobacco seed (Nicotiana tabacum)
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus)Rubber tree seed (Hevea brasiliensis)
Palm kernel (Elaeis guineensis)Nag champa (Plumeria)
Table 4. The prices of the feedstocks [55,56].
Table 4. The prices of the feedstocks [55,56].
soybean oil728 USD per ton 1
rapeseed oil827 USD per ton 1
palm oil535 USD per ton 1
WCO610 USD per ton 2
tallow (category 1)400 € per ton 2
1 December 2018 price; 2 October 2018 price.
Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysts in biodiesel production.
Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysts in biodiesel production.
HomogeneousLess time required with a higher yield
Mild operation condition
Base catalysts are more active than acid
Acid catalysts are not affected by the content of FFA or water simultaneously capacity to catalyzed transesterification and esterification reaction
Not separable from the reaction mixture, cannot be reuse
A large amount of water is needed to neutralize and purify the biodiesel
Base catalysts are affected by high FFA and water content
HeterogeneousEasily recovered, regenerated and reused
Available to batch or continuous fixed bed reactors
Requires fewer process units with a simpler separation and purification processes
The amount of water is reduced
Base catalysts are more active than acid
Acid catalysts are not affected by the FFA or water amount, capacity to catalyzed both transesterification and esterification reaction
Lower conversions requiring more severe reaction conditions to achieve the same conversions of homogeneous ones
Mass transfer resistance due to the presence of three phases (oil/alcohol/catalyst) in the reaction mixture
Base catalysts are affected by high FFA and water content
Table 6. Review of homogeneous catalysis to process animal fats.
Table 6. Review of homogeneous catalysis to process animal fats.
Reaction ConditionsOptimized ConditionRef.
FeedstockAlcohol TypeCatalyst/Co-SolventReactionAlcohol:Oil (Molar Ratio)Cat. Conc. (wt % Oil)Temp. (°C) and Impeller SpeedTime (h)CatalystAlcohol:Oil (Molar Ratio)Cat. Conc. (wt % Oil)Temp. (°C) and Impeller SpeedTime (h)Y = Yield; C = Conversion; P = Purity (%)
Mix of WFO and pork lard (fat fraction of mix 0–1(w/w))MeOHNaOH-6:10.8601-6:10.8601Y = 81.7–87.7
P = 93.9–96.3
beef tallowMeOHKOH-6:1160 and 602-6:1160 and 60 2Y = 90.6[78]
pork lardY = 91.4
chicken fatY = 76.8
sardine oilY = 89.5
corn oilMeOHKOH---60 and 300 rpm2KOH6:1160 and 300 rpm2Y = 91[79]
chicken fat1st PT: H2SO411st PT: H2SO445 kg oil/40.5 kg alcohol2.4 kg1Y (experiment 1) = 80.4; Y (experiment 2) = 81.5
2nd PT: H2SO412nd PT: H2SO440 kg fat/3.1 kg alcohol0.1 kg1
fleshing oil1st PT: H2SO411st PT: H2SO450 kg oil/21.1 kg alcohol0.62 kg1Y (experiment 1) = 81.6; Y (experiment 2) = 82.3
beef tallowMeOHmethanolic KOH--------70-9065 min.Y = 96.26[80]
beef tallow,MeOHKOH-6:10.860 and 602-6:10.860 and 602Y = 90.8[81]
pork lard Y = 91.5
chicken fat Y = 76.8
Mix of waste fish oil(WFO); palm oil (PO) and WFOMeOH1st: H2SO4-6:11601-6:11601FAME content (33.3 wt % PO; 66.7 wt % WFO) = 80[82]
2nd: NaOH-9:10.5601-9:10.5601Y (33.3 wt % WFO; 66.7 wt % PO) = 98.5
pork lard blended with n-hexane solventMeOHKOH-6:1–18:10.48–3.0550–602-10:12.0602Y (65 wt % solvent) = 98.2[83]
Cyprinus carpio fish oilMeOHKOH; CH3ONa; NaOH; EtONa/n-hexane; pet. ether; acetone; cyclohexane; diethyl ether-----KOH5:10.6500.5Y (1.5:1 hexane to methanol volume ratio) = 98.55 ± 1.02[84]
beef tallowMeOHKOH-6:11.565 and 400 rpm180 min-6:11.565 and 400 rpm180 minester content = 95–97[45]
lardMeOHNaOH-180 cm3 fat/138 cm3 MeOH1.4 g40–701.5-180 cm3 fat/138 cm3 MeOH1.4 g701.5Y = 73[85]
lardMeOHKOH-3.48–8.520.16–1.8424.8–75.220 min.-7.5:11.266520 min.Y = 97.8 ± 0.6[86]
Silurus triostegus heckel fish oilMeOHKOHsingle and two-step transesterification3:1–12:10.25–1.032–600.5–2-6:10.50320.5Y KOH = 96[87]
chicken fatMeOHKOHSulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and sulfamic acid with methanol6:1-25–601–4K methoxide6:11601Y KOMe = 88.5[88]
KOMe (32% in MeOH)
NaOMe (30% in MeOH)
chicken fatMeOHKOHpre-treatment sulfuric acid and methanol4:1–8:10.75–1.25453–9 min-7:11459 minY = 94.8[89]
beef tallowMeOHNaOHradio frequency heating5:1–9:10.2–0.6-RF heating 1–5 min-9:10.6-RF heating 5 min.Y = 96.3 ± 0.5[90]
tallowMeOHKOH-6:10.8602-6:10.8602Y = 90.8[91]
lardY = 91.4
poultryY = 76.8
mutton tallowMeOHKOHpre-treatment sulfuric acid and MeOH6:10.35–0.4 g60 and 900 rpm1.5-6:10.39 g60 and 900 rpm1.5Y = 93.2[92]
mix of chicken and swine fat residuesEtOHKOHanimal fats pre-treated6:1–8:10.44–1.3230–701-7:10.96301C = 83.5[93]
PT = pretreatment.
Table 7. Review of heterogeneous catalysis to processes animal fats.
Table 7. Review of heterogeneous catalysis to processes animal fats.
Reaction ConditionsOptimized ConditionRef.
FeedstockAlcohol TypeCatalyst/Co-SolventCatalyst PreparationAlcohol:Oil (Molar Ratio)Cat. Conc. (wt % Oil)Temp. (°C) and Impeller SpeedTime (h)Catalyst PreparationAlcohol:Oil (Molar Ratio)Cat. Conc. (wt % Oil)Temp. (°C) and Impeller SpeedTime (h)Y = Yield; C = Conversion; P = Purity (%)
catfish fat (Pangasius)MeOHbarnacle900 °C6:1–15:12–7652–890012:15654 FAME content = 97.2 ± 0.04 wt %[49]
bivalve clamFAME content = 96.9 ± 0.03 wt %
waste lard from piglet roasting (compared to heated and unheated lard MeOHquicklime and CaOPure CaO 550 °C, 2 h Quicklime 550 °C, 4 h6:1540; 50; 60 and 900 rpmup to 3Quicklime 550 °C 4 h6.1 560; 900 rpm1 FAME concentration waste lard = 97.5%[94]
chicken fatMeOHcrab, cockle shells and mix900 °C, 2 h----900 °C, 2 h13.8:14.9% (1:1 crab:cockle)653P = 98.8[48]
commercial-grade fatMeOHAmberlyst™ A26 OH-6:11–2.7 mol/L of fat6560–500 min-6:12.2 mol/L656Y = 90–95[95]
pork lardMeOHCaMnOx-9:1–27:11:540–604–8-21:11608Y = 99.6[64]
soybean oil (SBO) and beef tallow (bf)MeOHSulfonated polystyrene compounds-3:1–9:1; 100:120 mol % of –SO3H groups in relation to the oil mass28–643–18-100:120 mol % of –SO3H groups in relation to the oil mass6418CSBO = 85[96]
EtOH-100:16418----CBeef tallow = 85 and 75
beef tallowMeOHKF/CaO-Fe3O4-3:1–12:11–6 g40–6520–70 min.-10:15 g551Y = 94[97]
beef tallowMeOHCs2O/γ-Al2O3wet impregnation with aqueous solution of Cs2CO3.8:1–12:14–6 g55–7580–160 min.-10.5:15.3%662Y = 95.5[98]
Table 8. Biodiesel impurities and properties effects on internal combustion engines [101,102].
Table 8. Biodiesel impurities and properties effects on internal combustion engines [101,102].
FFALow oxidation stabilityCorrosion
waterReduces the heat of combustion
Hydrolysis (FFA production)
Bacteriological growth (filter blockage)
methanolLow values of density and viscosity
Low flash point (transport, storage, and use problems)
Corrosion of Al and Zn pieces
glyceridesHigh viscosity Deposits in the injectors (carbon residue)
metals (soap, catalyst)-Deposits in the injectors (carbon residue)
Filter blockage (sulfated ashes)
Engine weakening
storage problem
Increase aldehydes and acrolein emissions
Table 9. ASTM D6751 and EN 14214 specifications of biodiesel fuels (B 100) [106,107].
Table 9. ASTM D6751 and EN 14214 specifications of biodiesel fuels (B 100) [106,107].
Property SpecificationASTM D6751 LimitTest MethodsEN 14214 LimitTest Methods
Ester content (% (m/m))--96.5EN 14103
Density at 15 °C (kg/m3)880D1298860–900EN ISO 3675/12185
Viscosity at 40 °C (mm2/s)1.9–6.0D4453.5–5.0EN ISO 3104
Cetane numberMin. 47D613Min. 51.0EN ISO 5165
Iodine number (g I2/100 g)--Max. 120EN 14111/16300
Acid value (mg KOH/g)Max. 0.50D664Max. 0.50EN 14104
Pour point (°C)-15 to -16D97--
Flash point (°C)Min. 130D93Min. 101EN ISO 2719/3679
Cloud point (°C)-3 to -12D2500--
Cold filter plugging point (°C)Max. +5D6371-EN 116/16329
Copper strip corrosion (3 h at 50 °C)No 3D130class 1EN ISO 2160
Carbon residue (% (m/m))Max. 0.05D4530--
Methanol content (% (m/m))Max. 0.20EN 14110Max. 0.20EN 14110
Water content (mg/kg)Max. 500D2709Max. 500EN ISO 12937
Sulfur (mg/kg))S15 Max. 15
S500 Max. 500
D5453Max. 10.0EN ISO 20846/20884
Sulfated ash (% (m/m))Max. 0.02D874Max. 0.02EN ISO 3987
Phosphorus content (mg/kg)Max. 10D4951Max. 4.0EN 14107/16294
Free glycerol (% (m/m))Max. 0.02D6584Max. 0.02EN 14105/EN 14106
Total glycerol (% (m/m))Max. 0.24D6548Max. 0.25EN 14105
Monoglyceride (% (m/m))Max. 0.40D6584Max. 0.70EN 14105
Diglyceride (% (m/m))--Max. 0.20EN 14105
Triglyceride (% (m/m))--Max. 0.20EN 14105
Distillation temperature, 90% recovered (°C)Max. 360D1160--
Oxidation stability h (at 110 °C)Min. 3EN 15751Min. 8EN 14112/15751
Linolenic acid methyl ester (% (m/m))--Max. 12.0EN 14103
Polyunsaturated (≥4 double bonds)
Methyl esters (% (m/m))
--Max. 1.00EN 15779
Alkaline metals (Na+ K) (mg/kg)Max. 5.0EN 14538Max. 5.0EN 14108/14109/14538
Alkaline earth metals (Ca + Mg) (mg/kg)Max. 5.0EN 14538Max. 5.0EN 14538
Total contamination (mg/kg)--Max. 24EN 12662
Table 10. Biodiesel properties from different feedstocks.
Table 10. Biodiesel properties from different feedstocks.
Property SpecificationASTM D6751 LimitEN 14214 LimitRapeseed Oil [3]Soybean Oil [3]Palm Oil [3]Chicken Fat [79]Fleshing Oil [79]Beef Tallow [3,18]Mutton Tallow [18]Lard [18]Fish Oil [108]WCO [108]
Density at 15 °C (kg/m3)880860–900882914864867–889.7875.5–876.7832–872856–882873–877.4881–890875–888
Viscosity at 40 °C (mm2/s)1.9–6.03.5–5.04.444.044.54.94–6.254.7–4.774.89–5.354.75–5.984.59–5.083.82–7.23.66–6.8
Cetane numberMin. 47Min. 51.054.437.954.652.358.860.3659–59-50.9–52.641–66
Iodine number (g I2/100 g)-Max. 120-128–1435495.5–13053.6–61nm–44.440–12667–77nm–18560–125.21
Acid value (mg KOH/g)Max. 0.50Max. 0.50-0.2660.240.22–0.80.28–0.320.147–0.20.3–0.650.04–1.130.35–1.320.27–1.31
Pour point (°C)−15 to −16-−12 15−6–12.3 10–15−55–7−14–4−2.5–9
Flash point (°C)Min. 130Min. 101170254135169–174168–175152–171-143.5–147114–17670.6–190
Cloud point (°C)−3 to −12-−3.30.916−5–14 nm–16−4-−5−12–13
Cold filter plugging point (°C)Max. +5-−13−4122–310–11nm–14---−5–12
Copper strip corrosion (3 h at 50 °C)No 3class 1 11No 1No 1No 1-No 1--
Carbon residue (% (m/m))Max. 0.05-81--nm–0.024---nm–0.2176.53–80.010.0004–77.38
Methanol content (% (m/m))Max. 0.20Max. 0.20---0.01–0.060.01–0.01nm–0.1----
Water content (mg/kg)Max. 500Max. 500-<0.005 %vol 200–440326–410nm–374.2-184–1100-
Sulfur (mg/kg))S15 Max. 15
S500 Max. 500
Max. 10.0-0.80.003nm–81.5138.1–141nm–7.0---0–12.5
Sulfated ash (% (m/m))Max. 0.02Max. 0.02-<0.0050.002-0.03nm–<0.005nm–0.025nm–0.002--
Phosphorus content (mg/kg)Max. 10Max. 4.0-0.1<0.001-100nm–<0.1nm–16---
Free glycerol (% (m/m))Max. 0.02Max. 0.02-0.0120.010.008–0.020.01–0.010.008–0.01----
Total glycerol (% (m/m))Max. 0.24Max. 0.25-0.1490.010.03–0.190.10–0.050.076–0.33----
Monoglyceride (% (m/m))Max. 0.40Max. 0.700.473- 0.02–0.560.06–0.270.13–0.223----
Diglyceride (% (m/m))-Max. 0.200.088- 0.05–0.090.02–0.090.63–0.12----
Triglyceride (% (m/m))-Max. 0.200.019- 0.06–0.120.04–0.200–0.07----
Distillation temperature, 90 % recovered (°C)Max. 360------307–344-nm–352.5--
Oxidation stability h (at 110 °C)Min. 3Min.–6-nm–1.6---0.43–15.9
Linolenic acid methyl ester (% (m/m))-Max. 12.0-------0.9–1.4--
Polyunsaturated (≥4 double bonds)
Methyl esters (% (m/m))
-Max. 1.00----------
Alkaline metals (Na+ K) (mg/kg)Max. 5.0Max. 5.0----52–2.63-nm–17.2--
Alkaline metals (Ca + Mg) (mg/kg)Max. 5.0Max. 5.0----------
Total contamination (mg/kg)-Max. 24----------
Heat of combustion (MJ/kg)--3739.76-39.34–40.1739.89–39.9540.23-36.5–40.1037.79–42.2435.40–43.21
nm—not measured.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramos, M.; Dias, A.P.S.; Puna, J.F.; Gomes, J.; Bordado, J.C. Biodiesel Production Processes and Sustainable Raw Materials. Energies 2019, 12, 4408.

AMA Style

Ramos M, Dias APS, Puna JF, Gomes J, Bordado JC. Biodiesel Production Processes and Sustainable Raw Materials. Energies. 2019; 12(23):4408.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramos, Marta, Ana Paula Soares Dias, Jaime Filipe Puna, João Gomes, and João Carlos Bordado. 2019. "Biodiesel Production Processes and Sustainable Raw Materials" Energies 12, no. 23: 4408.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop