Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119

www.fuelfirst.com

Diesel engine performance and emission evaluation using

emulsified fuels stabilized by conventional and gemini surfactants
a,*
M. Nadeem , C. Rangkuti b, K. Anuar b, M.R.U. Haq c, I.B. Tan a, S.S. Shah d

a
Chemical Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750, Perak, Malaysia
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750, Perak, Malaysia
c
Civil Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750, Perak, Malaysia
d
Department of Chemistry, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan

Received 16 October 2005; received in revised form 26 February 2006; accepted 17 March 2006
Available online 18 April 2006

Abstract

Diesel engines exhausting gaseous emission and particulate matter have long been regarded as one of the major air pollution sources,
particularly in metropolitan areas, and have been a source of serious public concern for a long time. The emulsification method is not only
motivated by cost reduction but is also one of the potentially effective techniques to reduce exhaust emission from diesel engines. Water/
diesel (W/D) emulsified formulations are reported to reduce the emissions of NOx, SOx, CO and particulate matter (PM) without com-
pensating the engine’s performance. Emulsion fuels with varying contents of water and diesel were prepared and stabilized by conventional
and gemini surfactant, respectively. Surfactant’s dosage, emulsification time, stirring intensity, emulsifying temperature and mixing time
have been reported. Diesel engine performance and exhaust emission was also measured and analyzed with these indigenously prepared
emulsified fuels. The obtained experimental results indicate that the emulsions stabilized by gemini surfactant have much finer and better-
distributed water droplets as compared to those stabilized by conventional surfactant. A comparative study involving torque, engine brake
mean effective pressure (BMEP), specific fuel consumption (SFC), particulate matter (PM), NOx and CO emissions is also reported for
neat diesel and emulsified formulations. It was found that there was an insignificant reduction in engine’s efficiency but on the other hand
there are significant benefits associated with the incorporation of water contents in diesel regarding environmental hazards. The biggest
reduction in PM, NOx, CO and SOx emission was achieved by the emulsion stabilized by gemini surfactant containing 15% water contents.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Emulsified fuels; Gemini surfactants; Emission characteristics

1. Introduction vessels and locomotives. While the operational advantages

At present, diesel engines are still the most fuel-efficient
combustion engines and diesel fuel is the dominant fuel
used by the commercial transportation sector as it offers
fuel economy, efficient power, durability and heavy-duty
applications [1]. Diesel engines power most non-road
equipments including construction, agricultural, marine
*
Corresponding author. Permanent address: Department of Chemistry,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan. Tel.: +60 16
9022682.
E-mail address: nadeem_waterchemist@yahoo.com (M. Nadeem).
of diesel engines are clear, the general public has consider-
able concerns regarding the pollution caused by diesel
engines in the form of obnoxious odor, gas pollutants
and particulate matter to atmosphere. Diesel particulate
emissions are small, often less than 2.5 lm in size, and con-
sist of a complex mixture of engine’s oils, sulfates and inor-
ganic materials. These particles have been identified as
toxic air contaminants and declared by health experts as
‘‘likely human carcinogen’’ contributing to a variety of
lung related illnesses including asthma, emphysema and
bronchitis [2,3]. Environmental protection agency (EPA)
stringent standards are aimed at reducing emissions from

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.03.013
2112 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119
on-road vehicles by as much as 90%. Although the new
EPA standards will go a long way towards controlling
the diesel emission in the future and primarily will impact
new engines but older uncontrolled diesel engines, due to
their durability and long life, will be continuing to make
up a significant portion of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet for
the years to come. As a result, efforts are underway to min-
imize the emissions from diesel engines which are already in
operation and include a variety of strategies from fuel
reformulations to engine retrofits. Most of the diesel PM
reduction efforts have been focused on either new engine
replacements or retrofitting existing engines with post com-
bustion emission control equipment. Primarily diesel oxi-
dation catalysts and particulate filters were focused.
Diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) have been in use for
more than 20 years. They are relatively inexpensive and
are robust enough to be used in many non-road applica-
tions such as construction and mining equipments. They
are not overly sensitive to fuel sulfur content and can
achieve PM reductions as 25% or more. Diesel particulate
filters (DPFs) also offer retrofit opportunities. However,
because of the requirement of specific engine conditions,
their use is limited. DPFs work properly in the engines
which can sustain higher engine exhaust temperatures.
DPFs also require the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel.
Although DPFs cost two to three times more than oxida-
tion catalysts but they can reduce the PM to 90%. Low sul-
fur diesel and alternative fuels can also provide PM
control. More importantly, low sulfur fuel allows the use
of emission control technologies that have been proven effi-
cient in providing the significant PM control. Other fuels
and fuel technologies that can offer PM benefits include
biodiesel, natural gas, diesel/water emulsions and diesel/
electric hybrids. Natural gas, biodiesel and diesel/electric
hybrid technologies are currently being used in heavy-duty
engine applications [4]. However, natural gas and diesel/
electric hybrids applications would typically lead to the
replacement of existing engine; although natural gas retro-
fits or re-powering opportunities do exist. While significant
emission benefits can be achieved through the use of these
technologies in comparison to baseline diesel equipments, a
more meaningful comparison should include advanced die-
sel technology engines fuelled with ultra-low sulfur diesel.
Here, emission benefits may still favor the diesel alterna-
tives, but the degree of benefits is smaller. In contrast, bio-
diesel and W/D emulsions are direct fuel substitutes that
can be utilized with little or no modifications to existing
diesel engines [5]. W/D emulsion fuels contain water and
diesel combination in the presence of surfactants/additives
to maintain the stability of the emulsion. An emulsion is
defined as the mixture of two immiscible liquids wherein
droplets of one phase (the dispersed or internal phase)
are encapsulated within sheets of another phase (continu-
ous or external phase). There are two forms of emulsions:
oil-in-water (O/W) emulsion in which oil droplets are
dispersed and encapsulated within the water and water-
in-oil (W/O) emulsion in which droplets of water are dis-
persed and encapsulated within oil. Emulsions have found
numerous multifarious applications in food and beverages,
cosmetics, paints, printing, pharmaceuticals, polymeriza-
tion, metal and wood processing, etc. [6]. Surfactants or
surface-active agents are amphipathic substances with
lyophobic and lyophilic groups making them capable of
adsorbing at the interfaces between liquids, solids and
gases. They are capable to form self-associated clusters,
which normally lead to organized molecular assemblies/
aggregates, monolayers, micelles, vesicles, liposomes and
membranes. Apart from traditional applications as deter-
gents, emulsifiers, dispersants, wetting and flotation agents,
they have tremendous and not yet fully appreciated poten-
tial for engineering functional interfaces and surface coat-
ings. Emerging technologies represent a vibrant and
challenging area in understanding the physico-chemical
properties and phase behaviour of surfactant based pro-
cesses involved in the preparation of emulsions, disper-
sions, suspensions and their subsequent characteristics i.e.
stabilization, formation, breaking of interfaces, wetting,
spreading, solubilisation and adhesion, etc. [7–9]. Modifi-
cations in the molecular structure of surfactants to improve
their existing properties such as surface activity have
attracted the attention of scientists and they have been in
search of newer surfactants. This has led to the synthesis
of new generation surfactants such as gemini, viscoelastic
and non-migratory, etc. Unlike conventional surfactants,
gemini has a long hydrocarbon chain, an ionic group, a
spacer, a second ionic group and another hydrocarbon tail
which are also known as double tailed surfactants and are
considerably more surface-active than conventional surfac-
tants [10]. The methods usually used to observe the stability
of W/D fuel emulsions consists in visually observing the
progression of the emulsion at given temperature (appear-
ance of supernatant phases or settling sludge), or by accel-
erating aging through centrifuging [11]. In order to protect
the environment, fulfill the strict standards for vehicle
exhaust emissions and to provide the healthy atmospheric
conditions to ever increasing urban populations, scientists
all around the world are working to produce environment
friendly fuels [12–16]. The objectives of this work are also
to formulate W/D emulsified; environment friendly fuels
using conventional and gemini surfactants because in the
presence of gemini surfactants water droplets can have
greater resistance against coalescence and to evaluate the
exhaust emission of a diesel engine using them.
2. Experimental
The conventional surfactant used in the experiments was
sorbitan monooleate (SM) of Sigma–Aldrich and was used
as received. Where as the gemini surfactant 1,2-ethane
bis(dimethyl alkyl (CnH2n + 1) ammonium bromide)
(n = 10) was prepared from N,N,N 0 ,N 0 -tetramethylethylen-
ediamine and the corresponding alkyl bromides of n = 10,
by following the method given by Achouri et al. [17]. The
product was purified by repeated recrystallization. The
 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119 2113

Table 1
Chemical characteristics and properties of commercial diesel and emul-
sified fuels
Properties Diesel Emulsified Emulsified
fuel-1a fuel-2b
Density (kg m3) 839.5 852.0 845.0
Cetane no. 52.6 45.5 45.9
Viscosity (cSt) 2.973 3.16 3.05
Lower heating value (MJ K g1) 42.89 39.51 40.69
Sulfur content (ppm w) 410.0 345.0 321.0
C (% w/w) 85.24 72.67 73.56
H (% w/w) 13.652 11.86 11.97
N (% w/w) 0.063 0.050 0.054
O (% w/w) – 12.689 13.782
Aromatic content (% w/w) 29.73 26.03 26.38 Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the experimental set-up.
Poly aromatic content (% w/w) 0.51 0.45 0.48
Molecular weight (g/mol1) 211.9 189.0 189.67
Adiabatic flame temperature (K) 2730.6 2704.6 2714.8
a
Diesel containing 15% water contents stabilized by conventional chosen ingredients at a specific temperature. Emulsification
surfactant. is greatly influenced by hydrophile–lipophile balance
b
Diesel containing 15% water contents stabilized by Gemini surfactant. (HLB) of any surfactant/emulsifier. Generally water–oil
(W/O) emulsifiers have low HLB, solubilizing agents have
high HLB and oil–water (O/W) emulsifiers have intermedi-
diesel oil employed was a commercial diesel available in ate HLB values [7]. The stability of W/O emulsion depends
Malaysia, which is not susceptible to freeze at 10 °C. Prede- upon various factors, including the presence or absence of
termined amounts of oil, water (5%, 10% and 15%) and sur- the emulsifying agent, temperature, viscosity, specific grav-
factants (conventional and gemini independently) were ity and water contents, etc. Different parameters regarding
introduced to an atomizer for homogenous mixing to pro- the emulsion preparation and stability (emulsifier dosage,
duce the stable dispersed water droplets in the range of oil/water ratio, stirring intensity, effect of temperature
5–10 lm (Fig. 2) in diameter within the oil. All the measure- and mixing time), engine’s performance and emission’s
ments were made under following conditions unless other- characteristics are presented in Figs. 2–5, 6–9 and 10–12,
wise specified: the ratio of oil to water, 95:5, 90:10 and respectively.
85:15, stirring intensity, 2500 rpm, mixing time, 15 min,
emulsifying temperature, 30 °C and pH value 6.0. Emulsion 3.1. Properties of commercial diesel and prepared
stability was determined by the relative volume of emulsion emulsified fuels
defined as the ratio of emulsion volume to the total volume
of water, oil and surfactant used to prepare the emulsion The main affecting properties (density, viscosity and
after 24 h preparation time. Specifications of the diesel and water droplet size) of emulsified fuels are reported in Table
emulsified fuels are given in Table 1. Diesel engine test bed 1 and Fig. 2. In all cases, an increase of the value of these
(FORD, XLD 418) was utilized to study the performance properties with water concentration was observed. In case
(Engine’s torque, power, brake mean effective pressure, of viscosity, Sawa and Kajitani [18] observed an increase
BMEP and specific fuel consumption, SFC) and emission proportional to the ratio between surface area Sp/Se. Se
(particulate matter PM, nitrogen oxides NOx, carbon mon- is the surface area of emulsified fuel and Sp is the sum of
oxide CO and sulfur oxides SOx) characteristics using neat surface area of distributed water droplets, both areas being
diesel and emulsified fuels, respectively. Particulate matter assumed spherical. In case of density, it can be concluded
sampler (P 1810, Oliver IGD Limited) and exhaust gas that emulsion density is a little smaller than that obtained
analyzer (Tempest 100, Telegan gas monitoring Ltd.) were from averaging the fuel and water densities. The emulsion
utilized to record the emission data. Fig. 1 shows the sche- density value depends on the amount of air bubbles in the
matic illustration of the engine set-up. The specifications emulsion as a result of the preparation process. Likewise, it
of the engine are: XLD 418 type diesel engine of FORD, four can also be concluded that an increase of air bubbles car-
strokes, four cylinders, water-cooled, compression ratio: ries a decrease of bulk modulus. The increased viscosity
21.50, total displacement volume: 1753 cc and a maximum of emulsified fuel tends to advance injection timing in some
output brake horsepower: 60.0 at 4800 rpm. injection systems due to the modification of the dynamics
of the command hydraulic system. This effect is mainly
3. Results and discussion due to the flow variations through the control circuit
[19–21]. With the use of emulsions an improvement in mix-
The most important factor in the preparation of emul- ing process was observed. This improvement is caused by
sions is the selection of suitable surfactant, blend of surfac- two confirmed phenomena: an additional momentum in
tants and/or additives which can satisfactorily emulsify the jet behaviour and more important, is the internal droplet
2114 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119

Fig. 2. Photographs by an optical electron microscope at a magnification of 500 for W/O emulsions stabilized by conventional (a) and gemini
(b) surfactant.

100 100
Relative volume of emulsion/%

Relative volume of emulsion/%

98
90

96
80

94

70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time/hr 92
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.20% Conventional surfactant 0.20% Gemini surfactant Mixing time/min
0.4% Conventional surfactant 0.4% Gemini surfactant
0.5% Conventional surfactant 0.5 % Gemini surfactant W:O = 15:85 (Conventional surfactant) W:O = 15:85 (Gemini surfactant)
1.0% Conventional surfactant 1.0% Gemini surfactant W:O = 5:95 (Conventional surfactant) W:O = 5:95 (Gemini surfactant)
W:O = 10:90 (Conventional surfactant) W:O = 10:90 (Gemini surfactant)

Fig. 3. Effect of conventional and gemini surfactant dosage on

Fig. 5. Effect of mixing time on emulsification.
emulsification.

90
100
Relative volume of emulsion/%

85
98
Torque/Nm

80
96

94 75

92 70

90
65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time/hr
Engine speed/rpm
W:O = 5:95 (Conventional surfactant) W:O = 5:95 (Gemini surfactant)
W:O = 10:90 (Conventional surfactant) W:O = 10:90 (Gemini surfactant) Neat diesel Diesel+CS+5% water
W:O = 15:85 (Conventional surfactant) W:O = 15:85 (Gemini surfactant) Diesel+GS+5% water Diesel+CS+10% water
W:O = 20:80 (Conventional surfactant) W:O = 20:80 (Gemini surfactant) Diesel+GS+10% water Diesel+CS+15% water
Diesel+GS+15% water

Fig. 4. Effect of water/oil ratio on emulsification. Fig. 6. Engine’s torque/N m vs. speed/rpm using neat diesel and
emulsified fuels.

micro-explosions of water, which produce a secondary

atomization, thus improving the mixing process [22–28]. emulsion as prepared by using conventional and gemini
The mentioned micro-explosion phenomenon is induced surfactant, respectively, and afterwards centrifuged at a
by the volatility difference between the water and the fuel speed of 3000 rpm for 60 min. Very small pellets, with
[21,29,30]. Fig. 2 shows photographs (a, b) by an optical diameters ranging from 1 to 2 lm can be observed distrib-
electron microscope at magnification 500 of this O/W uted evenly in the outer phase in Fig. 2(b). Both Figs. 2(a)
 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119 2115

50
45
40
35
Power/BHP

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Engine speed/rpm

Neat diesel Diesel+CS+5% water

Diesel+GS+5% water Diesel+CS+10% water
Diesel+GS+10% water Diesel+CS+15% water
Diesel+GS+15% water

Fig. 7. Engine’s power/bhp vs. speed/rpm using neat diesel and emulsified
Fig. 10. Particulate matter reduction (%).
fuels.

6.5
800

700
6
600
BMEP/bar

5.5 500
NOx/ppm

400
5
300

200
4.5
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 100
Engine speed/rpm 0
Neat diesel Diesel+CS+5% water 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Diesel+GS+ 5% water Diesel+CS+10% water Engine speed/rpm
Diesel+GS+10% water Diesel+CS+15% water Neat diesel Diesel+CS+5% water Diesel+GS+5% water
Diesel+GS+15% water Diesel+CS+10% water Diesel+GS+10% water Diesel+CS+15% water
Diesel+GS+15% water

Fig. 8. Engine’s BMEP/bar vs. speed/rpm using neat diesel and emulsified
Fig. 11. NOx emission from neat diesel and emulsified fuels.
fuels.

390
2200
370 2000

1800
350
SFC(g/kW Hr)

1600
CO/ppm

330
1400
310 1200

1000
290
800
270
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Engine speed/rpm
Engine speed/rpm
Neat diesel Diesel+CS+5% water
Neat diesel Diesel+CS+ 5% water Diesel+GS+5% water Diesel+CS+10% water
Diesel+GS+5% water Diesel+CS+10% water Diesel+GS+10% water Diesel+CS+15% water
Diesel+GS+10% water Diesel+CS+15% water Diesel+GS+15% water
Diesel+GS+15% water
Fig. 12. CO emission from neat diesel and emulsified fuels.
Fig. 9. Engine’s SFC/g/kW h vs. speed/rpm using neat diesel and
emulsified fuels.
but the O/W emulsion, prepared by gemini surfactant, con-
and (b) reveal that although the emulsification rate of the tains smaller and evenly distributed pellets in its inner
O/W emulsion by conventional surfactant is also good phase. The speed of coalescence of those small pellets of
2116 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119
the dispersed phase then slows down, and a better stability
and in turn proper secondary atomization of the emulsion
is achieved.
3.2. Effect of emulsifier dosage
Surfactant/emulsifier dosage is one of the most important
parameters that directly influence the stability of emulsions.
Flocculation/coagulation, creaming, phase separation and
coalescence are reported in various investigations below
and above the optimum concentration of surfactant. The
relative volume of emulsion containing 5% water contents
increased as surfactant concentration increased from 0.2%
to 0.5% (W/V) and 0.2% to 0.4% (W/V) for conventional
and gemini surfactants, respectively (Fig. 3). As the concen-
tration increased further, emulsion stability was deterio-
rated due to agglomeration of the oil droplets at low
surfactant concentrations and as a result of rapid coales-
cence at high surfactant concentrations as compared to
the optimal dosage. Thus the optimal dosage of conven-
tional and gemini surfactants (0.5% and 0.4%, respectively)
were utilized for the following experiments.
3.3. Effect of water/oil ratio
Emulsion type is dependant on the relative phase volume.
It has been reported that a phase volume, U > 0.74 results in
either inversion or breaking of emulsion [6]. The effect of
volume ratio of water to oil on emulsion stability at the con-
ventional and gemini surfactant dosage 0.5% and 0.4%,
respectively, is shown in Fig. 4. Increase in the ratio of water
contents from 5% to 15% results in progressive increase of
volume of emulsion (96.8–94.5%, 97.8–96.5%, 98.8–97.9%
and 97.5–95.6%, 97.8–96.5%, 99.7–99.3%) with emulsions
containing 5%, 10% and 15% water contents with conven-
tional and gemini surfactants, respectively. With these
W/O ratios, the relative volume of the emulsions with
gemini surfactant was essentially constant as compared to
the emulsions with conventional surfactant over a period
of 30 h, indicating the improved stability of emulsions.
However, when the W/O ratio was 20:80, the relative
volume of both the emulsions was decreased to 94.8–92.1
and 95.5–93.5 over a period of 30 h and was further decreas-
ing, indicating the instability of the emulsions as compared
to those containing 15% water contents.
3.4. Effect of temperature, stirring speed and mixing time
It is well known that surface tension and viscosity of
most liquids decrease with temperature. The increased
kinetic energy imparted to surface molecules at higher tem-
peratures will tend to overcome the net attractive force of
the bulk liquid [7]. There are various methods to prepare
the emulsions of two liquids which are slightly miscible
with each other. Usually the emulsification process is
achieved through the deformation of interface between
two phases using mechanical energy. The purpose of
vigorous stirring is to form a stable and homogenous emul-
sion by breaking large liquid drops into smaller drops. It is
reported that stability of W/D emulsions is higher at 30 °C
and stirring speed less or greater than 2500 rpm is not suit-
able for proper emulsification because less speed can is
insufficient to breakdown the large droplets into smaller
drops and higher stirring speed lead the emulsifier/surfac-
tant to break away from the oil–water interface [6].
All the emulsions were prepared with stirring speed,
2500 rpm, temperature, 30 °C for both conventional and
gemini surfactant containing emulsions. Mixing time is also
an important parameter for emulsification because the radii
of the emulsion droplets decrease with increased stirring
speed to an optimal level and emulsifying time. Relative
volume of emulsion for both conventional and gemini sur-
factant increased with time from 5 to 15 min is presented in
Fig. 5. As the mixing time increased further than 15 min,
decrease in relative emulsion volume indicates the instabil-
ity of the emulsions. However, this instability is quite less
in case of emulsion containing gemini surfactant as com-
pared to conventional surfactant.
3.5. Engine’s torque
The effect of water addition in the form of emulsions on
the engine output for various speeds is shown in Fig. 6.
Torque is a function of engine’s speed. At low speed torque
increases as the engine speed increases, reaches maximum
and then decreases with increase in engine speed because
at higher speeds engine is unable to ingest full charge of
air. Torque produced by all the six different types of emul-
sified fuels is lower as compared to the neat diesel,
70–88 N m. Where, the emulsion containing 15%, 10%
and 5% water contents with CS and GS produced, 67–82,
67.6–82.6, 68–84, 69–85 and 69–87, 69.5–87.8 N m, respec-
tively. The torque produced by the emulsion containing 5%
water contents and GS was found to be the closest torque
output to that of neat diesel which is an indication of the
fact that increase in water contents is responsible to pro-
duce lower heating values for emulsified fuels. From this
it can also be concluded that GS is responsible for
improved emulsification and combustion efficiency which
is also in accordance to the results reported by Dryer [30]
that the water in emulsified fuels improves the combustion
process owing to the simultaneous additional braking of
the droplets, to the increase in evaporation surface of the
droplets and to better mixing of the burning fuel in air.
3.6. Engine’s power
Power produced by the engine by emulsified fuels and
neat diesel is represented in Fig. 6. The power increases
to maximum and then decreases at higher speeds because
of increase in friction loss. It is obvious that the power
trend produced by engine using these emulsion fuels is
almost similar to that of engine’s torque. However, the
difference in produced power is more prominent beyond
 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119
4000 rpm. At 4000 rpm the engine produced 46.3 bhp using
neat diesel fuel, where as, the power produced by the engine
using the emulsion fuels containing 15%, 10% and 5% water
contents with CS and GS were found to be 45.0, 45.2, 44.8,
44.9 and 43.6, 43.8 bhp, respectively. It can be concluded
that under normal operating conditions i.e. <4000 rpm
there is no significant difference in engine’s power using
emulsified fuels. However, the emulsion fuels containing
GS exhibited better performance comparatively.
3.7. Engine’s brake mean effective pressure (BMEP)
BMEP value increases with engine speed (Fig. 8) using
emulsion fuels have lower values as compared to the neat
diesel. Amongst the analyzed emulsions, the emulsion
containing 15% water contents with CS produced the lowest
BMEP value. BMEP values produced by engine at 4000 rpm
using neat diesel and emulsified fuels containing 5%, 10%
and 15% water contents with CS and GS are 5.93, 5.83,
5.89, 5.75, 5.8 and 5.6, 5.62, respectively. The emulsified fuel
containing 5% water with GS produced the closet BMEP to
that of neat diesel fuel. Although the BMEP using emulsified
fuels containing 10% and 15% water contents is less as
compared to neat diesel but the difference is insignificant.
3.8. Engine’s specific fuel consumption (SFC)
SFC, which is fuel flow rate per unit power output, is pre-
sented in Fig. 9. It measures how efficiently the engine is
using the fuel supplied to produce work. Considering the
SFC values in Fig. 9 it is quite obvious that the SFC of neat
diesel fuel is lowest, where as the emulsion containing 15%
water contents has the highest SFC values followed by 10%
and 5% water containing emulsified fuels, respectively.
Because, when the percentage of water in the emulsion
increases, a larger amount of diesel is displaced by an equal
amount of water and less amount of diesel is actually con-
tained within emulsion. In the presence of evenly dispersed
water droplets, diesel may be attributed to the formation of
finer spray because of rapid evaporation of water, resulting
in more fuel burning in premixed combustion and suppres-
sion of thermal dissociation due to low average tempera-
ture. However, this difference is less when engine speed is
in normal operating conditions i.e. 3000–4000 rpm. SFC
of neat diesel, emulsified fuel containing 15%, 10% and
5% water contents at 4000 rpm with CS and GS was found
to be 308.2, 312.8, 312.6, 325.9, 325.7, 336.8 and 334.5 g/
kW h, respectively. The difference of fuel consumption of
the emulsified fuels with CS and GS is negligible.
3.9. Reduction of particulate matter (PM)
The reduction in PM by the engine using neat diesel and
five different emulsified fuels is illustrated in Fig. 10. The
obtained data has revealed that the lowest PM was
produced by the engine when it was operated using emulsi-
fied fuel containing 15% water contents with GS followed
2117
by the emulsified fuel with 15% water contents with CS,
respectively. Neat diesel produced 0.033 g/h of PM, where
as it was 0.0204, 0.0190, 0.015, 0.012 and 0.0105, 0.0095 g/
h for emulsified fuel containing 5%, 10%, 15% water with
CS and GS, respectively.
3.10. Reduction of NOx
Comparison of the NOx concentration being emitted
from the engine’s exhaust using neat diesel and emulsified
fuels is shown in Fig. 11. Concentration of NOx increased
with speed of the engine due to the conversion of elemental
nitrogen to NO under a condition of high gas temperature
which can easily combine with O2 to create NO2 [16]. Com-
bustion of both emulsified fuels containing CS and GS pro-
duced significantly less amounts of NOx as compared to
neat diesel where as significant reduction was achieved using
emulsified fuel stabilized by GS. This is due to the finely dis-
persed water droplets of the emulsion causing a phenome-
non known as heat sink. When heat sink occurs it results
in the water contents of the inner phase partially absorbing
the calorific heat value of the emulsions, thereby decreasing
the burning gas temperature inside the combustion chamber
and thus restraining the generation of NOx [30].
3.11. Reduction of CO
A comparison of the CO emissions emitted from the
engine’s exhaust using neat diesel and emulsified fuels is
given in Fig. 12. It is quite clear that higher the engine speed,
higher is the CO concentration. The combustion of emulsi-
fied fuels produced lower CO emissions as compared to neat
diesel. Because the burning of W/O emulsion generates large
extent of micro explosion, leading to a larger degree of mix-
ing of reactant mixture [16]. By considering Fig. 11 it can be
inferred that the emulsified fuel containing 15% water con-
tents with CS and GS produced lowest emission of CO
850–1670, 830–1645 ppm where as it was 1105–2203,
1053–2021, 1049–2000, 995–1956 and 980–1900 ppm for
neat diesel, emulsified fuel containing 5%, 10% water con-
tents with CS and GS, respectively. This is an indication
of improved combustion due to proper dispersion and
homogenisation of water droplets into diesel. During the
combustion of a water-in-oil emulsion, the primary spray
fuel droplets are further divided as a result of the explosive
vaporization caused by rapid heating of the water dispersed
within the individual fuel droplets [12]. The internal water
droplets undergo spontaneous nucleation of steam bubbles
at a temperature well above 212 °F, causing a violent con-
version of the water droplet to steam. The vaporization, in
turn, produces a rapid expansion of the surrounding oil
droplets, fragmenting the oil into a vast number of smaller
fuel droplets i.e. secondary atomization. In order for sec-
ondary atomization to be most effective in a combustion
process, very small droplets with a well-controlled size
distribution are necessary. The smaller water droplets
(1 lm or less), due to high surface area, are responsible to
2118 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119
produce sufficient energy to cause secondary atomization.
Where as, the larger droplets (10 lm or larger), due to less
surface area, reduce the number of droplets for explosion
and tend to produce less violent explosions within the oil
droplets because of nucleation taking place at lower temper-
atures. This process greatly increases with the number and
surface area of the fuel droplets in the flame zone. Since
the combustion of fuel is a surface reaction, the greater
the surface area, the less time it takes to burn out the carbon.
This results in overall shorter flame length which reduces the
possibility of flame impinging on the wall of the engine. This
shorter flame length most likely creates the conditions favor-
able to reduce fireside fouling. Another advantage of the sec-
ondary atomization produced by emulsified fuel is the
reduction in the air required for combustion because of
more thorough mixing of the fragmented fuel droplets and
combustion air. In turn reduced air can cause less conver-
sion of unburned fuel C to CO and S to SO3 [21,31–34].
4. Conclusions
Emulsified fuels containing 5–15% water contents were
prepared using conventional and gemini surfactants and
studied in an engine bed XLD 418 (Ford) to clarify the
changes in the main pollutant emissions (NOx, CO and
PM). The experimental results can be summarized as follows.
The emission of NOx, CO and PM was reduced using
the emulsified fuels instead of neat diesel; however the
emulsified fuels containing gemini surfactant were most
prominent in the reduction of PM. In addition, emulsion
fuels have higher specific fuel consumption and produced
less torque, power and brake mean effective pressure but
the difference is insignificant. By considering the obtained
data it can be concluded that water and diesel emulsions
can be used in internal combustion engines without modi-
fication. Instead of conventional, gemini surfactants are
much more better emulsifiers. Amongst the analyzed emul-
sion fuels 15% water–diesel emulsion was found to be the
best emulsified fuel in controlling the engine’s emission.
Generally, the use of the emulsified fuel reduces the adsorp-
tion of the hydrocarbons and, therefore, the SOF/ISF ratio
remains below that obtained with the reference fuel. This is
probably caused by the reduction on emitted hydrocarbons
which is consequence of the enhanced fuel/air mixing.
Water emulsification has a potential to significantly reduce
the formation of thermal NOx, CO, SOx, soot, hydrocar-
bons and PM in the Diesel engines. Further, experimental
work for optimizing the emulsion formulation using gemini
surfactants and evaluation of internal structure is highly
recommended.
Acknowledgement
Financial support of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
(UTP) is highly acknowledged.
References
[1] Pischinger FF. Compression–ignition engines. In: Sher E, editor.
Handbook of pollution from internal combustion engines. London,
UK: Academic; 1998. p. 261–2.
[2] American Lung Association of California. Diesel exhaust and air
pollution. April 2000.
[3] American Lung Association of California. Reducing public exposure
to diesel emissions from heavy duty vehicles. December 2000.
[4] Brown KF, Chadderton DT, Daly DA, Langer DD. Opportunity for
diesel emission reductions using advanced catalysts and water
blended fuel. SAE paper tech. no. 2000-01-0182. 2000.
[5] Dec JE, Canaan RE, Tree DR. The effect of water-emulsified fuel
on diesel Soot formation. Presentation at 219th American
chemical society national meeting, San Francisco, CA, March 26–
31, 2000.
[6] Gonglun C, Daniel T. An experimental study of stability of oil–water
emulsion. Fuel Process Technol 2005;86:499–508.
[7] Rosen MJ. Surfactants and interfacial phenomenon. New York:
Wiley; 2004.
[8] Holmberg K. Handbook of applied surface and colloid chemis-
try. John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
[9] Texter J. Reactions and synthesis in surfactant systems. Marcel and
Dekker; 2001.
[10] Hait SK, Moulik SP. Gemini surfactants: a distinct class pf self-
assembling molecules. Curr Sci 2002;82:1101–11.
[11] Schulz P, Dalix L, Letoffe JM, Faure Y. INSEDELF: method of
studying separation in liquid–liquid phase application to water–diesel
fuel emulsions. Fuel 2004;83:137–42.
[12] Nazha MAA, Rajakaruna H, Crookes RJ. Soot and gaseous species
formation in a water-in-liquid fuel emulsion spray—a mathematical
approach. Energy Convers Manage 1998;39:1981–9.
[13] Selim MYE, Elfeky SMS. Effect of diesel/water emulsion on heat flow
and thermal loading in a precombustion chamber diesel engine. Appl
Thermal Eng 2001;21:1565–82.
[14] Kadota T, Yamasaki H. Recent advances in the combustion of water
fuel emulsion. Progress Energy Combust Sci 2002;28:385–404.
[15] Abu-zaid M. Performance of single cylinder, direct injection diesel
engine using water fuel emulsions. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:
697–705.
[16] Cherng-Yuan L, Li-Wei C. Engine performance and emission
characteristics of three-phase diesel emulsions prepared by an
ultrasonic emulsification method. Fuel 2006;85:593–600.
[17] Achouri ME, Infante MR, Izquierdo F, Kertit S, Gouttaya HM,
Nciri B. Synthesis of some cationic gemini surfactants and their
inhibitive effect on iron corrosion in hydrochloric acid medium.
Corros Sci 2001;43:19–35.
[18] Sawa N, Kajitani S. Physical properties of emulsions fuel (water/oil
type) and its effect on engine performance under transient operation.
SAE paper 920198. 1992.
[19] Samec N, Kegl B, Dibble RW. Numerical and experimental study of
water/oil emulsified fuel combustion in a Diesel engine. Fuel 2002;81:
2035–44.
[20] Desantes JM, Arrégle J, Ruiz S, Delage A, Schmelezle P, Esmilaire O.
Characterisation of the injection–combustion process in a common
rail D.I. Diesel engine running with fuel–water emulsion. In:
Proceedings of EAEC Congress, Barcelona. 1999. p. 59–68.
[21] Armasa O, Ballesterosa R, Martosb FJ, Agudeloc JR. Characteriza-
tion of light duty Diesel engine pollutant emissions using water-
emulsified fuel. Fuel 2005;84:1011–8.
[22] Sheng HZ, Chen L, Wu CK. The droplet group micro-explosions in
w/o Diesel fuel emulsion sprays. SAE paper 950855. 1995.
[23] Ballester JM, Fueyo N, Dopazo C. Combustion characteristics of
heavy oil–water emulsions. Fuel 1996;75(6):695–705.
[24] Park JW, Huh KY, Park KH. Experimental study on the combustion
characteristics of emulsified Diesel in a rapid compression and
expansion machine. Proc Inst Mech Eng 2000;214(Part D):579–86.
 M. Nadeem et al. / Fuel 85 (2006) 2111–2119
[25] Gong JS, Fu WB. A study on the effect of more volatile fuel on
evaporation and ignition for emulsified oil. Fuel 2001;80:437–45.
[26] Kadota T, Yamasaki H. Recent advances in the combustion of water
fuel emulsion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2002;28:385–404.
[27] Ocampo-Barrera R, Villaseñor R, Diego-Marı́n A. An experimental
study of the water content on combustion of heavy fuel oil/water
emulsion droplets. Combust Flame 2001;126:1845–55.
[28] Dryer FL. Water addition to practical combustion systems: concepts
and applications. Sixteenth symposium (international) on combus-
tion. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA. 1977. p. 279–95.
[29] Lasheras JC, Fernández-Fello AC, Dryer FL. Initial observations on
the free droplet combustion characteristics of water-in-fuel emulsions.
Combust Sci Technol 1979;21:1–14.
2119
[30] Dryer FL. Water addition to practical combustion system-concepts
and applications. 16th Symposium (int). 1976. p. 279–95.
[31] Andrews GE, Bartle KD, Pang SW, Williams PT. The reduction in
diesel particulate emission using emulsified fuel. SAE paper tech no.
880348. 1988.
[32] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Gómez A. Diesel particle size distribution
estimation from digital image analysis. Aerosol Sci Technol 2003;37:
369–81.
[33] Lapuerta M, Hernández JJ, Armas O. Kinetic modelling of gaseous
emissions in a Diesel engine. SAE paper 2000-01-2939; 2000.
[34] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Ballesteros R, Carmona M. Fuel formulation
effects on passenger car Diesel engine particulate emissions and
composition. SAE paper 2000-01-1850; 2000.