ARTICLE IN PRESS
Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
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 profiles of seed oils of 75 plant species having 30% or more fixed oil in their seed/kernel were examined.
Saponification 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 specification of biodiesel
standards of USA, Germany and European Standard Organization. The fatty acid methyl esters of another 11 species
meet the specification 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,
sunflower, 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
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
294
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 saponification 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 specification 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 [4–20]. 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 ¼
ð560 Ai Þ=MWi ,
(1)
IV ¼
X
ð254 D Ai Þ=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 ¼ 46:3 þ 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 variables—percentage 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 sunflower 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 confirmed by actual experimentation.
The values of percent fixed 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 specified 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. 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, 25,
29–35, 40–43, 47, 49, 50, 52–54, 56, 57, 61, 62,
64–69, 71–73) 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, saponification number (SN), Iodine value (IV) and Cetane number (CN) of fatty acid methyl ester of some selected seed oils
Item
Sources
SN
IV
CN
Fatty acid composition (%)c
References
39.5d
—
204.0
92.6
52.22
16:0(25.4), 18:1(46.8), 18:2(27.8)
[4]
42.0e
—
203.6
87.2
53.47
14:0(1.0), 16:0(17.2), 16:1(4.2), 18:0(7.5), 18:1(48.4),
18:2(21.7)
[5]
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)
[6]
2.
Anacardiaceae
Rhus succedanea Linn
Annonaceae
Annona reticulata Linn
3.
Apocynaceae
Ervatamia coronaria Stapf
41.6e
—
201.1
76.0
56.33
4.
Thevetia peruviana Merrill
67.0d
—
201.5
84.0
57.48
5.
Vallaris solanacea Kuntze
33.0e
—
198.3
104.7
50.26
6.
Balanitaceae
Balanites roxburghii Planch
43.0d
—
188.9
109.9
50.46
16:0(17.0), 16:1(4.3), 18:0(7.8), 18:1(32.4), 18:2(31.3),
18:3(7.2)
[8]
7.
Basellaceae
Basella rubra Linn
36.9e
—
202.9
85.3
54.0
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)
[9]
73.0d
—
204.6
77.3
55.58
16:0(29.0), 18:0(9.7), 18:1(38.3), 18:2(21.8), 18:3(1.2)
[10]
33.5e
—
191.0
171.0
36.40
18:1(15.0), 18:2(65.0), 18:3(15.0), osa (5.0)
[6]
52.0d
—
236.6
77.5
51.9
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)
1.
[7]
[6]
11.
Euonymus hamiltonianuis Wall
59.5d
—
262.2
96.3
45.45
12.
13.
Combretaceae
Terminalia bellirica Roxb
Terminalia chebula Retz
40.0e
36.4e
—
—
198.8
202.5
77.8
105.1
56.24
49.6
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)
[6]
[6]
14.
Compositaceae
Vernonia cinerea Less
38.0d
—
205.2
68.5
57.51
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)
[6]
57.5d
—
200.5
84.51
54.50
14:0(3.2), 16:0(3.1), 18:0(2.6), 18:1(88.0), 18:2(2.9), uk (0.2)
[6]
33.5d
—
189.5
174.0
35.95
16:0(10.2), 18:0(16.9), 18:1(9.2), 18:2(8.8), elaeostearic acid
(54.9)
[12]
9.
15.
16.
Corylaceae
Corylus avellana
Cucurbitaceae
Momordica dioica Rox
295
10.
Burseraceae
Canarium commune Linn
Cannabinaceae
Cannabis sativa Linn
Celastraceae
Celastrus paniculatus Linn
8.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
MPb
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
Oila
296
Table 1 (continued )
Item
Sources
Oila
MPb
SN
IV
CN
Fatty acid composition (%)c
References
17.
18.
19.
Euphorbaceae
Aleurites fordii Hemsl
Aleurites moluccana Wild
Aleurites montana Wils
57.0d
63.0d
40.0d
—
—
—
191.0
199.9
248.5
178.0
175.2
212.0
36.25
34.18
20.56
[5]
[5]
[10]
20.
Croton tiglium Linn
45.0e
—
203.9
102.9
49.9
21.
Euphorbia helioscopia Linn
31.5e
—
206.7
170.9
34.25
22.
Jatropa curcas Linn
40.0e
—
202.6
93.0
52.31
23.
24.
Joannesia princeps Vell
Mallotus phillippinensis Arg
52.0e
35.5d
—
—
201.4
178.3
125.3
183.0
45.20
36.34
25.
26.
41.8d
58.5d
—
—
199.6
205.1
82.9
187.5
54.99
30.72
27.
Putranjiva roxburghii
Sapium sebiferum Roxb
Flacourtiaceae
Hydnocarpus kurzii Warb
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)
30.1e
25
209.5
108.7
47.89
28.
Hydnocarpus wightiana Blume
63d
—
210.5
102.1
49.25
29.
30.
Guttiferae
Calophyllum apetalum Wild
Calophyllum inophyllum Linn
47.5d
65.0d
—
—
200.4
201.4
97.6
71.5
51.57
57.3
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Garcinia combogia Desr
Garcinia indica Choisy
Garcinia echinocarpa Thw
Garcinia morella Desr
Mesua ferrea Linn
40.5e
44.0d
49.6e
30.0e
68.5d
36
40
26
33
—
198.4
198.3
198.7
197.6
201.0
54.6
38.5
47.4
46.2
81.3
61.50
65.16
63.10
63.52
55.10
48.0e
—
200.7
101.3
55.0e
—
200.8
42.0e
40.5e
—
—
53.5e
41.5e
66.0d
43
39
35
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
[13]
[10]
[13]
[10]
[10]
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)
[14]
[13]
50.70
16:0(7.1), 18:0(17.7), 18:1(38.4), 18:3(36.8)
[10]
101.2
50.71
14:0(4.43), 18:0(7.93), 18:1(63.24), 18:2(24.4)
[15]
201.3
199.0
213.1
193.9
25.46
30.09
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)
[6]
[6]
276.5
274.1
274.1
12.6
6.3
9.59
63.20
64.79
64.05
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)
[13]
[12]
[16]
[13]
[10]
[10]
[13]
[13]
ARTICLE IN PRESS
37.
Icacinaceae
Mappia foetida Milers
Illiciceae
Illicium verum Hook
Labiatae
Saturega hortensis Linn
Perilla frutescens Britton
Lauraceae
Actinodaphne angustifolia
Litsea glutinosa Robins
Neolitsea cassia Linn
[6]
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
36.
[10]
254.4
31.0
60.77
10:0(1.7), 12:0(59.1), 14:0(11.5), 18:1(21.0), 18:2(6.7)
[16]
32.2e
—
199.3
104.0
50.28
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)
[6]
45.
Malpighiaceae
Hiptage benghalensis Kurz
40.2d
—
312.5
89.4
43.65
16:0(2.6), 18:0(1.6), 18:1(4.5), 18:2(4.4), 20:0(2.6), ricinolic
acid (84.3)
[6]
35.0d
44.5d
45.0e
50.0e
—
—
—
—
203.8
201.1
200.3
200.6
109.1
69.3
143.0
94.4
48.52
57.83
41.37
52.26
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)
[5]
[13]
[10]
[10]
43.0d
39
199.1
42.0
64.26
16:0(6.1), 18:0(47.5), 18:1(46.4)
[10]
32.0e
—
199.5
144.0
41.25
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]
35.5e
35.0d
—
—
199.7
199.7
76.0
75.4
56.32
56.66
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)
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
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
40.7d
31
219.6
41.5
61.81
14:0(39.2), 16:0(13.3), 18:0(2.4), 18:1(44.1), 18:2(1.0).
[10]
55.
Myristicaceae
Myristica malabarica Lam
Papaveraceae
Argemone mexicana
35.0e
—
202.5
128.0
44.45
14:0(0.8), 16:0(14.5), 18:0(3.8), 18:1(18.5), 18:2(61.4),
20:0(1.0)
[10]
56.
Papilionaceae
Pongamia pinnata Pierre
33.0e
—
196.7
80.9
55.84
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)
[13]
57.
Rhamnaceae
Ziziphus mauritiana Lam
33.0e
—
198.6
81.8
55.37
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)
[6]
58.
Rosaceae
Princepia utilis Royle
37.2d
—
201.9
108.4
48.94
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)
[10]
38.5e
—
202.8
101.3
50.42
16:0(18.8), 18:0(9.0), 18:1(32.5), 18:2(39.7)
[12]
34.0e
—
202.5
114.9
48.30
16:0(16.6), 18:0(8.8), 18:1(30.5), 18:2(36.0), 18:3(8.1)
[5]
45.0e
39.3e
35
42
253.3
245.3
7.6
4.8
66.13
67.47
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]
55.0e
—
176
153
42.88
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)
54.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63
Rubiaceae
Meyna laxiflora Robyns
Rutaceae
Aegle marmelos correa Roxb
Salvadoraceae
Salvadora oleoides Decne
Salvadora persica Linn
Santalaceae
Santalum album Linn
ARTICLE IN PRESS
15
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
50.0e
44.
Neolitsea umbrosa Gamble
Magnoliaceae
Michelia champaca Linn
43.
297
298
Table 1 (continued )
Item
Sources
Oila
MPb
SN
IV
CN
Fatty acid composition (%)c
64.
65.
66.
Sapindaceae
Nephelium lappaceum Linn
Sapindus trifoliatus Linn
Schleichera oleosa Oken
40.0d
45.5d
40.0e
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),
67.
68.
Sapotaceae
Madhuca butyracea Mac
Madhuca indica JF Gmel
51.0e
40.0e
25
—
211.8
202.1
30.2
74.2
65.27
56.61
[18]
[19]
47.0d
—
202.0
62.2
59.32
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)
37.0d
50.0d
—
—
199.7
169.2
119.5
76.3
46.74
61.39
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)
[6]
[6]
35.0e
—
202.6
98.4
51.09
16:0(14.5), 18:0(8.5), 18:1(44.0), 18:2(32.4), uk (1.0)
[6]
37.4e
13.5
208.7
49.9
61.22
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)
[6]
32.6e
—
201.5
154.2
38.73
16:0(9.0), 18:1(14.6), 18:2(73.7), 18:3(2.7)
[20]
44.5d
—
200.9
111.3
48.31
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)
[10]
70.
71.
73.
74.
75.
a
Sterculaceae
Pterygota alata Rbr
Ulmaceae
Holoptelia integrifolia
Urticaceae
Urtica dioica Linn
Verbenaceae
Tectona grandis Linn
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
[10]
ARTICLE IN PRESS
72.
Mimusops hexendra Roxb
Simaroubaceae
Quassia indica Nooleboom
Ximenia americana Linn
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)
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
69.
References
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
required as it restricts the FAMEs from solidification. 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 specifications.
All the 42 species, which qualify the specification
of CN, also meet the specification 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 specification
of ASTM PS121-99 [23d], it should be comprised
of C12–C22 FAMEs.
The FAMEs of this species may also not meet
the specification of 90/95% boiling point limit of
360 1C specified 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 330–357 1C; thus the specification
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.
299
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 solidification of FAMEs at higher temperature. To avoid
this situation, the upper limit of CN (65) has been
specified in US biodiesel standard (ASTM PS
121–99). Among the 42 FAMEs, which have
already met the specification 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. 31–34,
40–43, 50, 54, 61, 62, 64, 67, 73) have comparatively higher melting points (Table 1). Therefore,
melting points, cloud points and cold filter
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. 1–4, 7,
8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 35, 47, 52, 53, 56,
57, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73) in the first category, the
FAMEs of which meet all the major specifications
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, 58–60, 75), and their
FAMEs meet the specification 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) 293–302
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 12–18 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 750–5000 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 250–1200 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 five 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
4–7 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 150–2250 mm. It
grows best in sandy loam soil. It can be sown
by seeding, seedling or grafting. It gets
maturity after five 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 five 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 sufficient to meet the target of
100% replacement of imported biodiesel which
amounted to 87.5 million tons in 2003–2004 [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 benefits 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) 293–302
301
Table 2
Projection for raising plantation of different species on wasteland
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
A. indica
(47)a[13,25]
C. inophyllum
(30)a [13,14]
J. curcas (22)a
[26]
P. pinnata (56)a
[26]
Z. mauritiana
(57)a [27]
15 (kernel)
6.6 (44.5%)
55
400
2670
2136
8.75
18 (seed)
11.7 (65%)
55
400
4680
3744
8.75
2.5 (seed)
1.0 (40%)
22
2500
2500
2000
8.75
15 (kernel)
4.95 (33%)
33
1111
5499
4399
8.75
15 (seed)
4.95 (33%)
66
277
1371
1096
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 figure 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 fuels—present
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;9:1–17.
[3] Korbitz W. Biodiesel production in Europe and North
America, an encouraging prospect. Renewable Energy
1999;16:1078–83.
[4] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. IX.
New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate,
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research; 1972.
[5] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. I
(revised). New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientific & 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):348–9.
[8] Ghanim A. Hingota: A tree of immense untapped
potential. Indian Farming 1991;41(7):9–11.
[9] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol.
II(revised). New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate, Council of Scientific & 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):119–23.
[12] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. VI.
New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate,
Council of Scientific & 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 Scientific & Industrial Research;
1992.
[15] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. V.
New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate,
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research; 1959.
[16] Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. VII.
New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate,
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research; 1966.
[17] Banerji R, Verma SC, Pushpendra P. Oil potential of
Moringa. Natural Product of Radiance 2003;2(2):68–9.
[18] Bhattacharjee A, Ghosh SK, Ghosh D, Ghosh S, Maiti
MK, Sen SK. Identification of heat stable palmitoyl/
ARTICLE IN PRESS
302
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
M. Mohibbe Azam et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 29 (2005) 293–302
oleoyl specific acyl-acyl carrier protein thioesterase in
developing seeds of Madhuca butyracea. Plant Science
2002;163(4):791–800.
Singh A, Singh IS. Chemical evaluation of mahua
(Madhuca indica [M. longifolia]) seeds. Food Chemistry
1991;40(2):221–8.
Anonymous. The wealth of India: raw materials, vol. X.
New Delhi: Publication & Information Directorate,
Council of Scientific & 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;73:471–4.
Krisnangkura K. A simple method for estimation of
Cetane index of vegetable oil methyl esters. Journal of
American Oil Chemical Society 1986;63:552–3.
[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,
27–30 November 2002, Mumbai. vol. I, p. 10–20.
[26] Katwal RPS, Soni PL. Biofuels: an opportunity for socioeconomic development and cleaner environment. Indian
Forester 2003;129(8):939–49.
[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. 465–72.
[28] Arora VP. Oil price and Indian economy. Yojna 2004;
48(9):12–7.