Quantitative priority estimation model for evaluation of various non-edible plant oils as potential biodiesel feedstock

Zul Ilham; Farhana Haque Nimme; Zul Ilham; Farhana Haque Nimme

doi:10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.303

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2019, Volume 4, Issue 2: 303-319. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.303

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Quantitative priority estimation model for evaluation of various non-edible plant oils as potential biodiesel feedstock

Zul Ilham ^,,
Farhana Haque Nimme

Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received: 26 November 2018 Accepted: 22 March 2019 Published: 03 April 2019

Energy security, fluctuating petroleum prices, resource depletion issues and global climate change have driven countries to consider adding alternative and renewable energy options to their conventional energy share. The use of biofuel such as non-edible oils-based biodiesel is as an option over conventional diesel and could be important for the development of a sustainable and eco-friendly energy resource. The aim of the present study was to select the most feasible non-edible plant oil as biodiesel feedstock by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), one of the multi-criteria decision making methods based on priority estimation model. Among various non-edible plant oils which are widely available in the South-East-Asian region, selection of the most feasible plant oil was evaluated based on seven criteria; seed oil yield, oil yield, free fatty acid (FFA) content, cold filter plugging point, oxidation stability, easiness to grow in marginal land, and availability in tropical areas. The obtained results from priority determination showed that nyamplung was the most efficient feedstock of biodiesel for the industry with the criteria weightage of 0.180. It was followed by kemiri sunan (2^ndorder) having weightage of 0.164, physic nut 0.150 (3^rdorder), indian beech 0.107(4^thorder), indian milkweed 0.095(5^thorder), lead 0.092 (6^thorder), kapok 0.076 (7^thorder), cassia 0.049 (8^thorder), soursop 0.043 (9^thorder) and monkey pod 0.043 (10^thorder). This study highlights an insight into multi-criteria decision making technique to assess the feasible plant oil for biodiesel production that could aid decision-making in the industry and policy development, particularly for the South-East-Asian region.
- Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP),
- Non-edible plant,
- feedstock,
- biodiesel,
- biomass
Citation: Zul Ilham, Farhana Haque Nimme. Quantitative priority estimation model for evaluation of various non-edible plant oils as potential biodiesel feedstock[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 303-319. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.303

Related Papers:

Abstract

Energy security, fluctuating petroleum prices, resource depletion issues and global climate change have driven countries to consider adding alternative and renewable energy options to their conventional energy share. The use of biofuel such as non-edible oils-based biodiesel is as an option over conventional diesel and could be important for the development of a sustainable and eco-friendly energy resource. The aim of the present study was to select the most feasible non-edible plant oil as biodiesel feedstock by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), one of the multi-criteria decision making methods based on priority estimation model. Among various non-edible plant oils which are widely available in the South-East-Asian region, selection of the most feasible plant oil was evaluated based on seven criteria; seed oil yield, oil yield, free fatty acid (FFA) content, cold filter plugging point, oxidation stability, easiness to grow in marginal land, and availability in tropical areas. The obtained results from priority determination showed that nyamplung was the most efficient feedstock of biodiesel for the industry with the criteria weightage of 0.180. It was followed by kemiri sunan (2^ndorder) having weightage of 0.164, physic nut 0.150 (3^rdorder), indian beech 0.107(4^thorder), indian milkweed 0.095(5^thorder), lead 0.092 (6^thorder), kapok 0.076 (7^thorder), cassia 0.049 (8^thorder), soursop 0.043 (9^thorder) and monkey pod 0.043 (10^thorder). This study highlights an insight into multi-criteria decision making technique to assess the feasible plant oil for biodiesel production that could aid decision-making in the industry and policy development, particularly for the South-East-Asian region.

References

[1]	Rastogi RP, Pandey A, Larroche C, et al. (2018) Algal green energy-R&D and technological perspectives for biodiesel production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 82: 2946–2969. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.038
[2]	Anitha A, Dawn SS (2010) Spent groundnut oil for biodiesel production using supported heteropolyacids. 2^nd International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering, Chennai, India.
[3]	Ambat I, Srivastava V, Sillanpää M (2018) Recent advancement in biodiesel production methodologies using various feedstock: A review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 90: 356–369. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.069
[4]	Carvalho J, Ribeiro A, Castro J, et al. (2011) Biodiesel production by microalgae and macroalgae from north littoral portuguese coast. WASTES: Solutions, Treatments and Opportunities 1^st International Conference, September 12th–14^th, Guimaraes, Portugal.
[5]	Aburas H, Demirbas A (2015) Evaluation of beech for production of bio-char, bio-oil and gaseous materials. Process Saf Environ Prot 94: 29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2014.12.004
[6]	Albayrak E, Erensal YC (2004) Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve human performance. An application of multiple criteria decision making problem. J Intell Manuf 15: 491–503.
[7]	Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169: 1–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
[8]	Abdel-malak FF, Issa UH, Miky YH, et al. (2017) Applying decision-making techniques to Civil Engineering Projects. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 6: 326–331. doi: 10.1016/j.bjbas.2017.05.004
[9]	Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Ser Sci 1: 83–98.
[10]	Ong HC, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, et al. (2011) Comparison of palm oil, Jatropha curcas and Calophyllum inophyllum for biodiesel: A review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 15: 3501–3515. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.005
[11]	Atabani AE, César ADS (2014) Calophyllum inophyllum L.-A prospective non-edible biodiesel feedstock. Study of biodiesel production, properties, fatty acid composition, blending and engine performance. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 37: 644–655.
[12]	Fadhlullaha M, Widiyantoa SNB, Restiawatya E (2015) The potential of nyamplung (Calophyllum inophyllum L.) seed oil as biodiesel feedstock: Effect of seed moisture content and particle size on oil yield. Energy Procedia 68: 177–185.
[13]	Zakaria MB, Vijayasekaran, Ilham Z, et al. (2014) Anti-inflammatory activity of Calophyllum inophyllum fruits extracts. Procedia Chem 13: 218–220. doi: 10.1016/j.proche.2014.12.031
[14]	Manjunathan M, Vivek T, Sathishkumar S (2016) Performance of Albizia saman oil blend in CI engine. Int J Innovative Res Sci, Eng Technol 5: 14606–14616.
[15]	Phoo ZWMM, Ilham Z, Goembira F, et al. (2013) Physico-chemical properties of biodiesel from various feedstocks. Green Energy Technol 66: 113–121.
[16]	Riayatsyah TMI, Ong HC, Chong WT, et al. (2017) Life cycle cost and sensitivity analysis of Reutealis trisperma as non-edible feedstock for future biodiesel production. Energies 10: 1–21.
[17]	Supriyadi S, Purwanto P, Anggoro DD, et al. (2018) Enhancing biodiesel from kemiri sunan oil manufacturing using ultrasonics. E3S Web Conf 31: 1–5.
[18]	Phoo ZWMM, Razon LF, Knothe G, et al. (2014) Evaluation of Indian milkweed (Calotropis gigantea) seed oil as alternative feedstock for biodiesel. Ind Crops Prod 54: 226–232. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.01.029
[19]	Kusumo F, Silitonga AS, Masjuki HH, et al. (2017) Optimization of transesterification process for Ceiba pentandra oil : A comparative study between kernel-based extreme learning machine and artificial neural networks. Energy 134: 24–34. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.196
[20]	Kumar R, Das N (2018) Survey and selection of Jatropha curcas L. germplasm : Assessment of genetic variability and divergence studies on the seed traits and oil content. Ind Crops Prod 118: 125–130.
[21]	Ilham Z, Saka S (2010) Two-step supercritical dimethyl carbonate method for biodiesel production from Jatropha curcas oil. Bioresour Technol 101: 2735–2740. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.053
[22]	Devi M, Ariharan VN, Prasad N (2013) Nutritive value and potential uses of Leucaena leucocephala as biofuel-A mini review. Res J Pharm, Biol Chem Sci 4: 515–521.
[23]	Ramli N, Ilham Z (2017) Mimosine toxicity in Leucaena biomass : A hurdle impeding maximum use for bio products and Bioenergy. Int J Environ Sci Nat Resour 6: 1–5. doi: 10.14355/ijer.2017.06.001
[24]	Ilham Z, Hamidon H, Rosji NA, et al. (2015) Extraction and quantification of toxic compound mimosine from Leucaena leucocephala leaves. Procedia Chem 16: 164–170. doi: 10.1016/j.proche.2015.12.029
[25]	Hakimi MI, Goembira F, Ilham Z (2017) Engine-compatible biodiesel from Leucaena leucocephala seed oil. J Soc Automot Eng Malays 1: 86–93.
[26]	Suryawanshi B, Mohanty B (2018) Modeling and optimization : Supercritical CO₂extraction of Pongamia pinnata (L.) seed oil. J Environ Chem Eng 6: 2660–2673. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2018.04.014
[27]	Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Ong HC, et al. (2013) Non-edible vegetable oils: A critical evaluation of oil extraction, fatty acid compositions, biodiesel production, characteristics, engine performance and emissions production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 18: 211–245. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.013
[28]	Goembira F, Saka S (2015) Advanced supercritical methyl acetate method for biodiesel production from Pongamia pinnata oil. Renewable Energy 83: 1245–1249. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.022
[29]	Mund NK, Dash D, Barik CR, et al. (2016) Chemical composition, pretreatments and saccharification of Senna siamea (Lam.) H.S. Irwin & Barneby: An efficient biomass producing tree legume. Bioresour Technol 207: 205–212.
[30]	Folorunsho AT, Ojediran J, Olawale O (2014) Solvent extraction of oil from soursop oilseeds & its quality characterization. Inte J Sustainable Energy Environ Res 3: 80–89.
[31]	Daǧdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kilinç N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36: 8143–8151. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.016
[32]	Morteza Z, Reza FM, Seddiq MM, et al. (2016) Selection of the optimal tourism site using the ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS in the framework of integrated coastal zone management: A case of Qeshm Island. Ocean Coastal Manage 130: 179–187. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.06.012
[33]	Bitarafan M, Hosseini SB, Sabeti N, et al. (2016) The architectural evaluation of buildings' indices in explosion crisis management. Alexandria Eng J 55: 3219–3228. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2016.08.015

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)