Co-Production of Biodiesel

and Purified Glycerol

Design of an industrial process to produce 150,000
tonnes per year of biodiesel plus purified glycerol in
India
Executive Summary
This report will provide an in-depth insight into the production of 150,000 tonnes/year
of biodiesel, adhering to ASTM D6751-19 standards, from a biomass source,
specifically Jatropha Curacas, at a target location at Nadiad, Gujrat, India. A
secondary objective will be to produce a valuable co-product to the sold, so that initial
investment costs can be recouped. Transesterification was selected hence the main
reactants are: methanol, jatropha seeds and hexane; which by and large make up both
the biggest operating cost of the plant and the most amounts, by weight, required for
the continuous operation of the plant.
A gantt chart was procured to provide a timetable of sorts, where every group
member was designated a task so that each member can be held accountable and to
provide a way to manage time more efficiently. It was amended through the duration
of the project to help ease the transition of designated tasks on a weekly basis;
assigned at the supervisory meetings. Initially, literature reviews were undertaken to
understand the process and to gain a broad understanding of the topic at hand. As
alternative process routes and process selection was drafted the literature became
more focused on a specific part of the process design. Existing processes, for the
product, were explored both at novel lab scales and industrial scales to determine the
most cost effective and most recommended route. The implications on the general
health and safety of public and staff were considered due to the possible health
implications of wastewater leakages into the local environment. Also considered within
that parameter was the site layout, which considered environmental impact of the plant
and allowed for the least polluting options to be selected.
The process eventually selected was the transesterification reaction,
specifically the dual step option due to the excessive free fatty acids present in the
Jatropha oil extracted. The significant process units were the transesterification
reactor and esterification reactor along with the 2 neutralizing reactors. The reaction
conditions were considered ambient which again minimized the environmental impact
of the plant.
Future considerations would definitely to complete preliminary economic
appraisal to fully understand each cost component before committing to a specific
process route.
Table of Contents
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2
Project Objectives and Plan .................................................................................................. 3
Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction to the Product and Market Evaluation ............................................................ 4
Historical ............................................................................................................................... 5
Current .................................................................................................................................. 5
Future .................................................................................................................................... 5
Alternative Process Routes ................................................................................................... 6
Gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis ..................................................... 6
Process Description ........................................................................................................ 6
Dual Step Transesterification Method ................................................................................... 7
Production of biodiesel and other chemicals from straw hydrolysates.................................. 8
Process Route Selection ............................................................................................................. 9
Process flow diagram ............................................................................................................... 13
Mass Balance ........................................................................................................................... 14
Soxhlet extraction ................................................................................................................ 14
Hexane Extraction ................................................................................................................ 14
Esterification Reactor........................................................................................................... 14
Decanter 1 ............................................................................................................................ 15
Transesterification Reactor .................................................................................................. 15
Decanter 2 ............................................................................................................................ 16
Neutralisation 1 & 2 ............................................................................................................. 16
Drying .................................................................................................................................. 17
Vacuum distillation .............................................................................................................. 17
Energy Balance ........................................................................................................................ 17
Hexane Removal .................................................................................................................. 17
Esterification Reactor........................................................................................................... 18
Transesterification Reactor .................................................................................................. 18
Vacuum Distillation ............................................................................................................. 19
Drying .................................................................................................................................. 19
Heat Exchangers .................................................................................................................. 19
Health and Safety ..................................................................................................................... 19
General Hazard & safety ...................................................................................................... 20
 1.0 Process Utility Hazards ................................................................................................... 20
1.1 Chemical hazards ........................................................................................................... 20
Environmental .......................................................................................................................... 21
Environmental impact statement.......................................................................................... 21
Initial phase- Construction ................................................................................................... 21
Waste water .......................................................................................................................... 21
Economic appraisal .................................................................................................................. 22
Site Layout ............................................................................................................................... 25
Justification for the location................................................................................................. 25
Layout justification .............................................................................................................. 25
References ................................................................................................................................ 26

Project Objectives and Plan

The aim of this project is to design a chemical plant that produces 150,000 tonnes/year of
biodiesel and one other high value product in India. Biodiesel must be produced via
transesterification of vegetable, animal or seed oils in order to meet the specification of
biodiesel. However, diesel can be produced from biomass via different chemical steps. In
order to decide on a process route different processes must be analysed, and the selected
process must be fully justified. The co-product is to be selected during initial research and
process selection. The project plan is given in the form of core objectives and a Gantt chart
that displays timescales of tasks and allocates team leaders to each individual section. The
Gantt chart can be found in Appendix 1.

Objectives

 Compare multiple biomass processing routes that yield biodiesel plus a co-product and
select the most effective one in terms of potential for profit, environmental impact, yield
and availability of feedstock.
 Select a high value co-product that can be obtained from the process to produce
biodiesel from biomass.
 Carry out an extensive market evaluation for biodiesel and the selected high value co-
product considering the past, current and future market conditions specific to the
location of India and surrounding countries.
 Design the process and the plant layout using engineering software such as AutoCAD.
 Perform mass and energy balances for each process step in the form of an Excel
spreadsheet with clear annotations.
 Complete a HAZOP study for all the main hazards arising from the process and outline
safeguarding that will be put in place to reduce the risk on an accident at the plant.
 Perform a comprehensive economic evaluation that includes revenues, margin, profits
and capital recovery.
 Display all findings in a clear and accessible way and discuss any improvements that
could be made.

Introduction to the Product and Market Evaluation

Biodiesel is a renewable and natural domestic fuel extracted from animal fats or vegetable
oils, principally from soya bean, rapeseed, Jatropha, Palm oil, etc. Biodiesel is the general
name given for methyl esters obtained from the organic feedstock. The most frequently used
method is the transesterification of triglycerides with alcohol in the presence of a catalyst.
Biodiesel is biodegradable, renewable and non-toxic. (Conserve Energy Future, 2019).

Using food to produce biofuels is unacceptable as there is a restricted quantity of land for
growing in India and food is a necessity. Therefore, inedible crops are a preferred substitute.
Biomass feedstocks are the plant and algal material used to derive fuels like biodiesel. There
is a rapidly rising interest in using Jatropha curcas as the feedstock for biodiesel production
as it is non-edible, consequently, the edible oils are not compromised. In addition to this, the
seed has a high content of the oil. The reason Jatropha is best suited is that the yield of
biodiesel per hectare for Jatropha is higher than those for traditional crops like soybean and
rapeseed. The growing of variety of crops increases biodiversity. Seed yield under cultivation
can range from 1500 to 2000 kg per hectare. The seeds contain up to 40% of oil by weight
that can be processed to produce biodiesel fuel (Gübitz, 1999).

It is evident to identify that biodiesel is the only substitute fuel that significantly reduces
emissions of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons compared to petroleum diesel fuel. In
comparison, 85% of carcinogenic compound emissions are reduced. In India, biodiesel is of
significant value as the Indian economy relies more on diesel than petrol. Biodiesel can satisfy
increasing energy needs, whilst reducing reliance on the import of fossil fuels.

Biodiesel is often made by reacting lipids like vegetable oils and soybean oil however since
India has insufficient production of vegetable oil the alternate of a non-edible oil produced from
Jatropha curcas is widely used. The seed oil can also be used for soap production, directly as
fuel in stoves and oil lamps. The feedstock selected for this report has several advantages;
Jatropha curcas is extensively adopted in different geo-climatic conditions of India and can
aid in energy security environmental conservation, the economy as well as rural employment.
In India, there is a vast potential for the production of biodiesel from the seed of Jatropha
curcas plant, as they occur abundantly in forests and wastelands (Arif and Ahmed, 2009).

The introduction of Biodiesel with the successive research has shown, biofuel is seen as an
alternative to reduce numerous environmental concerns (Olleco, 2019). This report will focus
on the production of biodiesel in India.

Historical
In India, the National Biofuel Mission launched in 2003 which includes a Biodiesel Blending
Programme (BDBP) as its main component (Raju, n.d.). The policy aims to encourage farmers
to plant non-edible seeds on wasteland which is not suited for agriculture. Jatropha
curcas has been used on small scale in remote areas and then it was marked to be cultivated
in the area of 11.2–13.4 million hectares by the end of 2012 (Avinash, Subramaniam and
Murugesan, 2014). Non-edible crops such as Jatropha have been used in the production of
Biodiesel, however, some developments need to be made. Some of these include proper
value marketing and processing of jatropha seeds, biodiesel distribution, and governance
arrangements. For an economically viable venture to take place in India, biotechnological
innovations are crucial.

Current
The switch to biodiesel has facilitated India to meet its global climate commitments. It has
encouraged the application of progressive technologies for the generation of biofuels.
According to Wastelands Atlas, India has over 57% wasteland of the total geographical area,
(Kumar, Chaube and Jain, 2012), therefore the plantation of Jatropha is necessary to meet
India’s fuel demand and energy security. Currently, energy consumption in India is 4% of
global energy and it is the fifth-largest country in energy consumption after the USA, China,
Russia, and Japan.

Future

It has been projected that India will double its oil consumption, at least, by 2030, when India
will become the third-largest oil consumer in the world. This means biodiesel production could
potentially play a major role. Biodiesel progression from non-edible feedstock is gaining
traction around the globe. China has set an area aside to produce Jatropha, for biodiesel.
India has up to 60million hectares of non-arable land accessible to produce Jatropha and
intends to replace 20% of diesel fuels with Jatropha-based biodiesel (Ren et al., 2018).
Alternative Process Routes

There are many different pathways to producing diesel, these are outlined in figure 1. The
specification of the diesel produced is determined by the process route, in this analysis three
main pathways will be described and analysed to find which give the highest conversion for
the lowest price and cost to the environment. Transesterification, esterification followed by
transesterification and Fischer Tropsch synthesis will be considered. Key advantages and
disadvantages of each pathway are discussed for these three process routes, followed by a
more in depth analysis of the different variations within the transesterification method.

Gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis

Process Description
Pre-treatment of biomass through drying, screening and size reduction (Hu, Yu and Lu, 2012).
Torrefaction pre-treatment technique allows for lower moisture content and higher energy
density which can be fed into gasification unit (Bergman et al., 2019). Bio syngas is produced
and pre-treated to remove organic impurities and optimize CO/H ratio, before entering Fischer-
Tropsch (FT) reactor operating at a low temperature on an Iron or Cobalt catalyst bed. The FT
products are essentially linear waxes which can be hydrocracked to liquid oils (Steynberg and
Dry, 2004). The liquid oils would consist of 80 % diesel and 15% naphtha as a by product. (De
Klerk, 2012) (Steynberg and Dry, 2004) (Lasa, Doğu and Ravella, 1992)

Main reactions taking place during gasification unit step:

𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 + 𝑂2 (𝐻2 𝑂) → 𝐶𝑂, 𝐶𝑂2 , 𝐻2 𝑂, 𝐻2 , 𝐶𝐻4 + 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝐻𝑠 + 𝑡𝑎𝑟 + 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 + 𝑎𝑠ℎ (Murugesan et
al., 2009)

The impurities that are a by-product of the gasification step need to be removed and the ratio
of CO/H2, in the bio syngas, needs to be adjusted to the optimal feed for desired products.

Main reactions taking place in Fischer Tropsch Reactor:

(2𝑛 + 1)𝐻2 + 𝑛𝐶𝑂 → 𝐶𝑛 𝐻2𝑛+2 + 𝑛𝐻2 𝑂 (Gill et al., 2011)

2𝑛𝐻2 + 𝑛𝐶𝑂 → 𝐶𝑛 𝐻2𝑛 + 𝑛𝐻2 𝑂 (Gill et al., 2011)

2𝑛𝐻2 + 𝑛𝐶𝑂 → 𝐶𝑛 𝐻2𝑛 + 2𝑂 + (𝑛 − 1)𝐻2 𝑂 (Gill et al., 2011)

𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 𝑂 ↔ 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2 (Gill et al., 2011)

The Fischer Tropsch products are determined by the Anderson-Schluz-Flory distribution:

𝑦𝑛 = (1 − 𝛼) ∗ 𝛼 𝑛−1 (Förtsch, Pabst and Groß-Hardt, 2015)

These products are then condensed and the wax, making upto 50% of the products, is then
hydrocracked resulting into an 80% diesel product. This mixture is then distilled and separated
into “renewable diesel” and naptha. Figure 1.1 shows the block flow diagram for the method
of producing renewable diesel via Fischer Tropsch synthesis. Figure 1.2 in the appendix
illustrates Advantages and Disadvantages of the Fischer-Tropsch Methods.
Dual Step Transesterification Method

Method Process Description Advantages Disadvantages

Dual step Jatropha oil contains an -Renewability -Disposal of by-
transesterification average of 14% free -Higher cetane product (glycerol
method fatty acid(FFA). As this number and water)
is beyond the limit to -lower (Leung, Wu and
convert into biodiesel emissions Leung, 2010)
using an alkaline -Higher
catalyst (1%FFA), a pre- combustion -Extensive
treatment step is added efficiency purification of
to reduce the FFAs to (Leung, Wu and products
below 1%. During the Leung, 2010) required
pre-treatment -Fast reaction
process(esterification), rate -Possibility of
Methanol using H2SO4 -Mild reaction some by-
as a catalyst converts conditions products formed
the FFAs into esters. In -Cheap (soaps)
the second catalysts
step(Transesterification) -Low operating
the reaction is carried costs
out using methanol with
NAOH as a catalyst
which results in the
production of biodiesel
with glycerol as a by-
product. (Kumar Tiwari,
Kumar and Raheman,
2007)
At this stage a centrifuge
can be used to separate
the two. At this point the
alcohol in the glycerol
phase can be removed
by vacuum flash
process. The crude
biodiesel can now also
be purified through a
water washing process
and then dried. (Leung,
Wu and Leung, 2010)

Figure 1.3 in the appendix demonstrates the process routes for the duel
transesterification process.

Extraction
Jatropha curcas seeds are cracked to obtain the kernels. The kernels then need to be
grounded up so that it can be extracted using the Soxhlet method. During the Soxhlet
method the grounded up kernels are defatted in a Soxhlet apparatus using petroleum
ether. Petroleum ether is used as it provides a clear oil which is preferable for efficient
biodiesel production. The solvent is then removed by vacuum evaporation and
exposure to heat in a drying oven at 50C. (Patel Shivani, 2011)
Reactions
In the Dual step transesterification process FFA is converted to methyl ester using
methanol and sulphuric acid as a catalyst. (Duti 2016).

At this point the transesterification reaction can be carried out. The triglyceride will
react with methanol whilst using a base catalyst to produce biodiesel.

(widayat 2015)

Production of biodiesel and other chemicals from straw hydrolysates

Straw is seen as a biproduct/agricultural residue from the grain or shafts once they
have been removed to create cereals, rice, rapeseeds etc, and consist of materials
such as dry stalks and leaves. The use of straw can be a highly desirable biomass
to use, as it produces far less greenhouse gases compared to other biomasses like
vegetable oils etc. (Passoth, V., & Sandgren, M. (2019)).
Straw is categorized into a biological group called lignocellulose and like its cousins,
it too needs to undergo a thermochemical and enzymatic treatment to expose the
key desired components to create biofuels such as biodiesel etc; these strands are:
Polysaccharide cellulose, hemicellulose and polyaromatic lignin. (Passoth, V., &
Sandgren, M. (2019)).
Using oleaginous yeasts could provide up to 20% of their biomass as lipids. The
build-up of lipid occurs in excess carbon. An example of this would be straw
hydrolysate; where there is a high carbon: nitrogen ratio. In this condition, the citrate
cycle is hindered within the oleaginous yeasts; thus, causing the citrate to leave the
mitochondria and enter the cytoplasm, where the citrate altered by the ATP citrate
lyase to form acetyl-CoA and oxaloacetate. Acetyl-CoA is seen as the foundation for
fatty acid synthesis. This occurs under nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate
hydrogen (NADPH) conditions, the acetyl-CoA carboxylase and fatty acid synthesise
in the oleaginous yeast enzyme. Furthermore, the yeast can break down and convert
hexose, pentose and other organic acids from lignocellulose into lipids. Passoth, V.,
& Sandgren, M. (2019)). The inhibitors found in the hydrolysate counter work against
the oleaginous yeast, which creates a limit to the dry matter within the fermentation
process. (Passoth, V., & Sandgren, M. (2019)). As a result, there is also a limit on the
amount of desired product that could manufactured. (Passoth, V., & Sandgren, M.
(2019)). Moreover, further research has shown that Lipomyces Starkeyi was able to
consume acetic and xylose, which created a rise in the pH levels without having to
manually tamper with the process to increase the pH levels. (Passoth, V., &
Sandgren, M. (2019)). The observation illustrated that an independent fed batch that
controlled its pH levels could increase the lipid concentration from the hemicellulose
fraction of lignocellulose. (Passoth, V., & Sandgren, M. (2019)). Additionally,
oleaginous fed-batch promotion generated the largest production of lignocellulose
hydrolysate (Xu J; Liu D 2017; Passoth, V., & Sandgren, M. (2019)), demonstrating
that the strains were able to adapt to fermentation inhibitors. (Passoth, V., &
Sandgren, M. (2019))

Figure 1 in the appendix illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of using straw
hydrolysates.

Process Route Selection

Process selection is a vital part of the design project as it is will act as a baseline to group
members as they can refer to this to gain a solid understanding of the process and the
reasoning behind why each step was selected. To ensure that we are taking the key concepts
into account, we assessed the potential process routes using the following criteria:
-Simplicity
-Operating conditions
-Environmental impacts of the process
-Energy efficiency
-Costs associated with the process
Methodology
The chosen method to assess the process was the decision matrix. To ensure that each score
given to the processes are accurate, evidence is also provided to ensure that the reasons for
process selection are fully justified.
Following on from opting to use the decision matrix the group was tasked with the
weighting for each criteria. This included a lot of discussion and critical thinking to ensure
that we prioritise effectively. Below shows the weighting that was given to each criteria and a
short justification to explain the thinking process involved.
Simplicity (weighting 3/5)
The selected process should challenge us so that we gain an insight into the problems we will
face after having finished our degree but should not be too difficult so that it becomes a brick
wall that cannot be penetrated. This will insure that the group project can be completed
within the time frame given to us whilst allowing the group members to gain a real
understanding of process design.
Energy Efficiency (weighting 4/5)
Reducing energy use and cutting down on waste will insure that the plant is more sustainable
and improve the reputation of the organisation for ethical operation. Waste products that can
be converted into energy or be recycled can greatly reduce environmental impacts and lower
the operation costs of any plant.
Cost (weighting 4/5)
After discussing with the group it was decided that a relatively high weighting would be
placed on the cost. This is mainly due to the fact that the aim of designing any process plant
ultimately is to generate a profit. Therefore, a low cost route will insure that the process that
we design is applicable to a real life scenario.
Operating conditions 3/5
Plants that have relatively high operating costs will have a great impact on the
capital/operating costs and the health and safety of the plant. This is mainly because a plant
with high temperatures/pressures will need to be fitted with pressure valves and units such as
preheaters which will drive up the capital costs considerably. The high operating costs will
also mean that if accidents take place the damage done will be more difficult to control. To
account for this relatively more safeguards will need to be installed to insure that the damage
is controlled.
Environmental impacts 4/5
Due to many ways biodiesel benefits the environment by producing fewer emissions and the
biomass acting as carbon sinks as they grow it was decided that the process should also have
a relatively low environmental impact.

Cost Simplicit Efficienc Operating Environmenta Total

y y Conditions l Impacts

Criteria 4 3 4 3 4
Rating
Trans- 3 3 2 3 4
esterification
Weighting 12 9 8 9 16 54
Rating
gasification 3 2 3 3 3

Weighting 12 6 12 9 12 51
Rating

Process selection

After having compared the different methods for creating biodiesel from biomass it was clear
that the Dual Step transesterification method was the superior method due to the high % off
FFAs present in Jatropha oil and the disadvantages being dealt with by adding glycerol
purification to the process and recycling the waste water.
The primary criterion for Biodiesel is the adherence of ASTM D 6751-02 (D6751-03, 2019)
which specifies strict tolerance for all the components that make up the bio-diesel, especially
acid value, viscosity and ethyl ester content. However, from the Fischer Tropsch process
route, the product adheres to ASTM D 975 (19b, 2019) for renewable diesel. Although the
products differ greatly. the process route was still investigated. However, upon realising the
mismatch in specifications the fischer tropsch route was dropped in favour of the
transesterification route to obtain bio-diesel.
Extraction process
Jatropha seeds first need to be cracked and the shell to be removed so that only the kernels
are left. The Kernels then need to be grounded up by using a mechanical method and the oil
is then extracted by using different solvents such as petroleum ether, hexane and isopropanol.
There are different methods of extraction: filtration, centrifugation, separating funnel and
soxhlet extraction. (Patel Shivani, 2011) Below is a table that was used to decide the best
extraction method.

(Patel Shivani, 2011)

The overall efficiency of the process is highly dependant on the % yield of oil
extracted from the Jatropha seed kernels during the pre-treatment stages. Therefore, when
extraction techniques were compared Soxhelt extraction using hexane was deemed the best
selection: oil yield being far greater than the other solvents.

(Patel Shivani, 2011)

Methylic route vs ethylic route( we used methanol)

In industry, Methanol and Ethanol are the most used for the transesterification reaction.
Methanol has a lower solubility in oil and the reaction becomes transfer limited. The
advantages of methanol are that it gives a higher conversion due to the methoxide
intermediate, methoxide being highly reactive. Ethanol can be obtained from renewable
resources and has superior solvent properties but is held back by the formation of emulsions
after the transesterification reaction. (Issariyakul et al., 2007) Ultimately, the better conversions
provided by Methanol and difficulty of separation with ethanol led to the conclusion that
Methanol would be the alcohol of choice for this process.
The base catalyst for both reactions was chosen as KOH at a concentration of 1 wt.%, due to
no improvements at higher catalyst concentrations. (Tomasevic and Siler-Marinkovic, 2003)
Catalyst Justification
Alcohol has a low solubility in oil. Therefore, there are two ways to increase the solubility: utilizing
catalysts or carry out the reaction under super critical conditions. The latter option requires high
temperatures and pressures which would greatly increase the operational costs.
Homogeneous/Heterogeneous
Homogeneous base catalysis gives a very fast reaction rate (4000 times faster than acid-catalyzed
transesterification).
Homogeneous catalysts are most commonly used in the transesterification reactions. The
disadvantages of a homogeneous catalyst are that due to saponification and excess catalyst found in
the reactor the product will need to be purified further that creates a large amount of waste water. The
catalyst is also not reusable.
Unlike homogeneous catalysts, heterogeneous can be reused several times and better
separation of the final product. They can also be used in a continuous process without the need for
purification steps.
Due to the high temperatures requirements for the heterogeneous route and the relatively low
temperature requirements for a homogeneous catalyst, the latter was chosen as the catalyst type for
the process.
Commercially, most of the biodiesel is made from homogeneous base catalyst(NaOH/KOH).
The most common catalyst used in industry for the transesterification process are either NaOH or
KOH. The advantages of NaOH is that it dissolves quickly in methanol, low cost and the relatively low
quantity required when compared to KOH. (Thangaraj et al., 2018)

Although, there are clear benefits for the use of ethanol, ecologically especially when
compared to the fossil fuel derived methanol, the economics and operating costs would be
affected substantially. There would be an additional 43.8% extra requirement for the alcohol
(ethanol) that possess no clear process benefits. Hence methanol is selected as the alcohol in
the process.

Biodiesel purification

There are two main methods that are utilized in industry to purify biodiesel: Wet washing and
dry washing. Water washing is the more traditional method and quite effective as the

impurities remaining are soluble in water (glycerol, salts, soaps). However the main issue
with water washing is that it produces a large amount of waste water that will need to be
treated or disposed. Dry washing attempts to solve this problem by replacing water with an
ion exchange resin to neutralize the impurities. However after dry washing the biodiesel
would need to be distilled again and an increased cost of the absorbent. (Faccini et al., 2011)
Water washing with acid was decided to be the purification method as the acid will neutralize
the catalyst whilst also splitting the soaps into water soluble salts that can be easily washed
away. (Atadashi, 2015)

After water washing a dryer is used to remove the excess water and the pure biodiesel is
stored in a storage tank.

Feedstock
Whilst looking for suitable biomass that can be converted to biodiesel we came across to
main options: Coconut Husks and Jatropha seeds as they are both widely available in India
and contain high percentages of vegetable oil (10% and 30-40% respectively). (KAUSHIK et
al., 2007) (Sulaiman, Abdul Aziz Abdul Raman and Mohammed Kheireddine Aroua, 2010)
India is the leading country in coconut production in the world which makes Coconut waste a cheap
and abundant raw material. This combined with using in situ production that can eliminate the need to
extract the oil makes coconut a relatively cheap and highly available biomass that can be used for the
production of biodiesel.
Jatropha is a naturally occurring flower in india and has many agronomic traits that make it a viable
crop to use for the production of biodiesel. It is a hardy shrub that can be intercropped with other
crops that will provide protection from grazing livestock and can also protect against pests and
pathogens. Jatropha is also relatively easy to grow due to the low nutrient requirements and labour
inputs and yields of around 4 tonnes of seed per hectare can be achieved in unkept hedges.
(Parawira, 2010)
After doing some preliminary calculations with each feed stock we found that coconut husks aren’t
very profitable due to the relatively low oil content and the prices of coconut waste. When looking at
Jatropha we found that the ease of cultivating the crop, the crop not competing with food supply and
the high oil yields make Jatropha the far superior option. (Parawira, 2010).
Ratio of alcohol to oil 3:1 required but reaction takes place in excess of alcohol hence 6:1
[(García et al., 2011), (Issariyakul et al., 2007), (Kulkarni, Dalai and Bakhshi, 2007)] forcing the
reaction into the forward direction.
 𝑜𝑖𝑙 (𝑔) 𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑙
𝑔 = 𝑔
𝑀𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑖𝑙 ( ) 6 ∗ 𝑀𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑙 ( )
𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑙
Mr of Ethanol: 46.07 g/mol
Mr of Methanol: 32.04 g/mol
Mr of soxhelt extracted oil: 870.15 g/mol (refer to appendix 1.1)
Basis 100g of oil:
100 (𝑔) 𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑙 (𝑔)
Ethanol: 𝑔 = 𝑔 therefore ethanol required = 31.77g
870.15 ( ) 6∗46.07 ( )
𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑙
100 (𝑔) 𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑙 (𝑔)
Methanol: 𝑔 = 𝑔 therefore methanol required = 22.09g
870.15 ( ) 6∗32.04 ( )
𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑙

Process flow diagram

Dry healthy seeds are crushed with a mechanical crusher to improve oil extraction by
increasing surface area.

Crushed seeds are passed into Soxhlet extraction thimble. A thimble is used to allow the
liquid to pass through. Soxhlet extraction is a continuous solid / liquid extraction. The
Jatropha oil is extracted over a continuous cycle of six hours, using hexane as the solvent.

The product and solvent are collected and exposed to heat in a drying oven (K-101) at 90oC
in order to remove and recover the hexane by evaporation. Recovered hexane is used in the
oil extraction process again.

The Jatropha oil is pumped into the esterification reactor (R-101), not before being cooled by
a heat exchanger (W-100). Simultaneously, sulfuric acid and methanol are pumped through
a mixer (Mixer-1) before entering the reactor too.

The esterification reaction between the free fatty acids present in the oil and methanol occur
at 45oC and 1atm in the presence of the acid catalyst (sulfuric acid), producing a small
amount of biodiesel. More importantly, the free fatty acid percentage (FFA%) is lowered to
below 2%, crucial for the transesterification process.

Stream 9 enters the first decanter (S-101), where triglycerides, FFA’s and biodiesel are
separated from water, methanol and sulfuric acid forming two distinct streams, 8 and 10;
Stream 10 enters the transesterification reactor, whilst the stream 8 is recycled into the
esterification reactor.

Stream 10 enters the transesterification reactor (R-102) at 25oC and 1 atm. Its entrance is
simultaneous with the introduction of stream 11, a mixture of methanol and the alkaline
catalyst sodium hydroxide. In the reactor, triglycerides and methanol react in the presence of
the catalyst at 65oC to produce biodiesel and glycerol. The incidental reaction between the
remaining FFA and sodium hydroxide occur in this reactor also.

The products, unreacted reactants and catalyst exit the reactor and are cooled to 25oC by
W-104 before entering the second decanter (S-102). It is in S-102 where large amounts
biodiesel and glycerol are separated out into two distinct streams, 13 and 14.

Stream 13 mostly consists of crude biodiesel and undergoes water washing with acid at the
combined temperature of both streams at 52.67oC, using phosphoric acid. The acid works to
neutralize the sodium hydroxide present in the stream while the water works to wash out
impurities. Stream 14 which mostly consists of crude glycerol also undergoes a
neutralization reaction in V-101 using a mixture of water and phosphoric acid with a similar
effect, instead occurring at 25oC.

Final purification processes occur for both the biodiesel and the glycerol. Stream 22 enters a
dryer (T-101), where it is heated at 80oC to remove the added water from the water washing
stage. Stream 17 enters D-101, undergoing vacuum distillation to remove impurities,
producing biodiesel. The impurities are recycled back into decanter 1 to undergo the
transesterification process once more.

To optimise the process, catalyst recovery could be included. During some operations, the
catalyst can get clogged which reduces activity, if this happens the catalyst is then
regenerated. The generation can be done using solvents. As catalysts are expensive, the
higher the percentage of recovery, the more economical the process would be.

Mass Balance
Soxhlet extraction
The Soxhlet extractor is where Jatropha oil used throughout the process is extracted from the
crushed seeds leaving the seed crusher. A number of assumptions were made when carrying
out the mass balance for this unit. This is shown in table 4.3 in the appendix.

The assumption that maximum oil extraction occurs at 70oC is due to it exceeding the boiling
point of Hexane (68oC) whilst being greatly lower than that of Jatropha oil (395oC). The
vaporization of hexane is crucial for the extracting action of the Soxhlet method. The
decision to based calculations on this temperature was also due to the limited availability of
information regarding experimental temperature of this process, due to varied solvents
available for the process. (Patel, 2011)

Hexane Extraction
In this unit Hexane in evaporated from the stream to be recycled, as it is not need further
downstream. The mixture is heated to 90°C a temperature that is above the boiling point of
Hexane but well below the boiling point of Jatropha oil. Table 000 summarises the assumptions
around this unit. Hexane Extraction mass balance can be found in Appendix 2.0.
Table 4.3

Esterification Reactor
The Esterification Reactor is where the free fatty acid content is reduced from 14wt% to an
acceptable level of less than 1wt% (Kumar Tiwari, Kumar and Raheman, 2007). The catalyst
used is H2SO4 at a weight percent of 1 with respect to the oil and methanol mixture. There is
only one reaction taking place inside this unit which is displayed in Equation 000.
Equation 000

(Gaurav et al., 2019)

The stoichiometry of this equation together with the yield of Fatty Acid Methyl Esters, or
Biodiesel, is used to calculate the quantities of components leaving the reactor as follows;
Moles of Biodiesel out = (Moles of Fatty Acids in) x (Conversion %)/100
Moles of Fatty Acids out = (Moles of Fatty Acids in) x (1 – Conversion %)/100
Assumptions for the Pre-Treatment Vessel are given in Table 000. Mass Balance for this unit
are displayed in Appendix 2.1.
Table 5.3

Decanter 1
A decanter is used to separate the methanol, water and H2SO4 from the Jatropha oil at this
stage. Between the range of 298K and 333.15K Oil and water make two distinct liquid phases
that are virtually immiscible (Zhou, Lu and Liang, 2006). It is assumed that all methanol, water
and H2SO4 is removed from the top layer leaving only trace amounts in the oil phase
(Mazumdar P, 2013). Therefore, all the methanol and H2SO4 and the water that is produced in
the Pre-Treatment Vessel goes via stream 8 to methanol distillation where the methanol is
removed for reuse and the water and catalyst are sent to catalyst recovery.
Summary of assumptions can be found in Table 7.3 found in the appendix. The mass balance
around the decanter is displayed in Appendix 2.2.

Transesterification Reactor
The transesterification reactor is the where the bulk proportion of feedstock (triglycerides) is
converted into biodiesel. It reacts with methanol in the presence of sodium hydroxide at a weight
percentage of 2. This is the main reaction taking place in the reactor, highlighted in figure 1.

Alongside this reaction, an incidental second reaction occurs due to the presence of a free fatty acids
in the inlet stream reacting with the catalyst; The chemical equation of which is described b
y figure 1.2.

Table 8.3 highlights the assumptions made whilst carrying out the material balance of the process.

The assumed yield of 96% was used to work out the conversion of the triglycerides, in order to
determine the composition of the outlet stream. Using the Yield equation (eq.1.1) and rearranging it
for the moles of product produced (eq.1.2),

In the study of this process, it was discovered that the moles of biodiesel produced via
transesterification was equal to,

3
(0.96) × ( ) × (23.68784)
1

= 68.2209792𝑚𝑜𝑙

Using the stoichiometry of the main reaction to determine the theoretical amount of biodiesel
produced, it appears to be 71.06352mol (23.68784*3). The difference between the actual amount of
biodiesel produced and the theoretical amount which equals 2.8425408 mols, is related to the
unreacted Triglyceride. Comparing the stoichiometry once more, the amount of unreacted triglyceride
appears to be 0.9475136 mols (2.8425408/3), meaning the reacted proportion was 22.7403264. This
information was used to determine the conversion of triglyceride in the transesterification process as
shown below using eq.000,
In a similar way, this method was used to determine the amount of soap produced from the
saponification reaction. Based on the assumptions stated in table 000, the yield of soap was
considered to be 96%.

The mass balance for the transesterification reactor does not balance 100%. The outlet stream of
reactor is greater than the inlet stream as depicted in figure 000. The difference of 5.33 kg/h (2 d.p)
would suggest that there is some generation in the system. This added mass counts towards a small
increase to the outlet stream, 0.02%. Given that the increase of material is such a small proportion the
process is still deemed successful at this stage.

Decanter 2
Although there will be two distinct phases no component will end up solely in one of these
phases. There will be a distribution of each component between the two phases. The
distribution of Biodiesel, methanol and glycerol among these two phase is given in Table 000.
The data available was the weight percentages of each component in the two of the phases.
These weight percentages were used to calculate distribution by assuming a 100kg/h basis for
each phase and taking the weight percentages as their equivalent value in kg/h. An example
calculation to show how the distribution was calculated is as follows;
e.g. for Biodiesel distribution in the bottom glycerol rich phase
(average biodiesel wt% in the glycerol rich phase)/(average biodiesel wt% in the glycerol rich
phase + average biodiesel wt% in the biodiesel rich phase) x 100
3.93/(3.93 + 80.58) x 100 = 4.646 %
Weight percentage of biodiesel coming into decanter that will end up in bottom glycerol rich
phase = 4.646 %
Table 000

Phase diagrams unavailable for some components of the mixture therefore, some assumptions
had to be made in regards to distributions of the other components. These assumptions are
summarised in the Table 000
Table 000

The Mass Balance for the Decanter 2 section is displayed in Appendix 000
Neutralisation 1 & 2
The neutralisation (1 & 2) units are very similar. Phosphoric acid is added to the process fluid
to remove any unseparated glycerol, methanol, salts, soaps and any remaining catalyst. This is
achieved by the Phosphoric Acis reacting with the sodium hydroxide to form Sodium Phosphate
a salt which will precipitate out of the oil and be washed away. It is assumed that the amount of
phosphoric acid needed is the exact amount required according the stoichiometry because
any more than the required amount would make the mixture acidic and any less and the
sodium hydroxide would not be fully neutralised.
Balanced Equation:
3NaOH(aq) + H3PO4(aq) à Na3PO4(aq) +3H2O(l)
Drying
This unit is an evaporator that removes any left over water and methanol from the biodiesel. It
is assumed at this stage that all 100% of the remaining water and methanol is removed from
the final product and leaves out of the vent. It would need to be considered that the methanol
leaving the vent should instead be captured and reused within the process. The mass balance
sheets for drying are displayed in Appendix 000.
In the mass balance calculations, only the main units of the process were considered. The first
units of the process are seed crushing and Soxhlet extraction. These processes have been
neglected in the mass balance sheets. However, the mass of seeds required and the mass of
hexane required has been calculated and is displayed on the Properties and Assumptions page
in Table 2.6. This value for seeds was calculated from the mass of Jatropha Oil needed, which
was calculated using trial and error with the complete mass balance by inputting different feeds
until the required 150,000t/y of biodiesel was achieved. Due to time restrictions and complexity
of the recycles within the process they have not been added to the mass balance calculations.

Vacuum distillation
The crude Glycerol siphoned from Neutralisation reactor 1 has a wt% of 40.519 which
is far too low to be marketable and considering the glut in the crude glycerol market a
decision was made to increase the purity to atleast 98%. Although numerous literature
sources state the need for sequential distillation to remove, completely, the impurities,
such as methanol and water present a novel approach has been to conduct direct
distillation on the ternary mixture. Vacuum pressures are applied to lower the
temperature within the distillation column, as to not catalyse the degradation of
Glycerol (Sunoco Inc. (R&M) Philadelphia, PA (US), 2006).

Energy Balance
Hexane Removal
The hexane removal unit has only one function that is to heat and evaporate the hexane from
the Jatropha oil. The Process fluid is heated up to 100°C to and the Hexane is evaporated. The molar
specific enthalpy for each stream is calculated using Equation 1.
𝑇
ℎ𝑖 = △ ℎ𝑣𝑎𝑝 298 + ∫ 𝐶𝑝 (𝑇)𝑑𝑇
298
(Equation 1)
The heat flow of each stream in kJ/h can be calculated by multiplying of the enthalpy of an
individual stream by the molar flowrate the individual stream. These two steps are done in one
in the energy balance spreadsheet. The heat flows in kJ/h are then divided by the amount of
seconds in an hour to get the individual heat flow of each stream in kW. The total heat flow for
the unit is then the sum of the heats flows out minus the sum of the hear flow out as shown in
Equation 2.
𝑛 𝑛

𝑄̇ = ∑(𝑚𝑖 ℎ𝑖 )𝑜𝑢𝑡 − ∑(𝑚𝑖 ℎ𝑖 )𝑖𝑛

𝑖=1 𝑖=1
(Equation 2)
A reference temperature of 25°C was used due to the enthalpy of vaporisation being given at
that temperature and the Molar Specific Heat Capacity for 75°C because it is the midpoint
between 50°C and 100°C. The Specific Heat Capacity at 75°C was calculated using
interpolation from the values in table 14.1 in the Thermodynamic Properties section. The
following assumptions were made for the energy balance calculations for hexane extraction;
• Cp is assumed to have a linear relationship with temperature.
• The Cp for the midpoint between the inlet and outlet temperatures are used.
• Any shaft work is ignored at this stage in the design.
The value for Heat Flow calculated was 5063.3 kW. This seems like a rather large number and
this is due to the vaporisation enthalpy of Hexane and also the molar specific heat capacity of
triglycerides in very large which means it takes a lot of energy to heat the process fluid up by
50°C. This suggests that it may be better to use a flash drum to remove the Hexane because
this would not involve heating the process fluid to such high temperatures.
Esterification Reactor
In the Esterification Reactor there is one reaction taking place which is the reaction of free fatty
acids with methanol to make fatty acid methyl esters and water. The energy balance for this
section is calculating using Equation 3.
𝑇
ℎ𝑖 = ℎ𝑓∅ + ∫ 𝐶𝑝 (𝑇)𝑑𝑇
298
(Equation 3)
The heat duty was found by using Equation 2. The reference temperature was again used as
25°C due to the values for enthalpy of formation being at this temperature. The enthalpy of
formation for each component was used in the calculations, even the ones not reacting as these
values will cancel each other out when subtracted. The following assumptions were made for
the Esterification Reactor energy balance;
• Difference in heat flow out with heat flow in is the total heat duty.
• The reactor is considered isothermal.
• Any shaft work is ignored at this stage. in the design.
The value found for the heat duty of this the Esterification Reactor was -24.35 kW which makes
sense because the reaction is exothermic (Syed Azhar Syed AB, 2019) and the temperature is
constant. Therefore, it would be expected that this value would be small and negative. This
value means that 24.35 kW of heat would have to be removed to maintain the reactor at 45°C.
Transesterification Reactor
The Energy Balance for the Transesterification reactor was calculated in the same way as the
Esterification reactor. A reference temperature of 25°C was used due to the enthalpies of
formation being given at this temperature and the Specific Heat Capacity was used at 60°C.
The assumptions for the Transesterification Reactor are as follows;
• The reaction of free fatty acids is ignored in these calculations due to the fact that there
are only a small amount present and the absence of data for ΔH°f available for soap.
• ΔH°f and Cp of triglycerides is assumed to be that of Triolein.
• The reactor is considered isothermal.
• Any shaft work is ignored at this stage in the design.
The final Heat Duty for the Transesterification reactor was found to be 389.16 kW. This value
makes sense because transesterification is an endothermic reaction and the temperature is kept
constant. This value means that 389.16 kW of heat will have to be input into the unit to keep
the temperature constant at its optimum temperature of 60°C.
Vacuum Distillation
In the vacuum distillation energy balance the energy input is seen as the amount of energy
required to keat the process fluid from 25°C to 60°C. In reality this unit will be more energy
intensive than this energy balance shows because it will require energy to pressurise it and also
the condenser and reboiler will require energy inputs that have not been considered here. The
equation 4 was used to calculate the enthalpies then Equation 2 was used to calculate the Heat
Duty.
𝑇
ℎ𝑖 = ∫ 𝐶𝑝 (𝑇)𝑑𝑇
298
(Equation 4)
Drying
This unit is an evaporator therefore heating and vaporisation enthalpies are considered.
Equation 1 and 2 are used with a reference temperature of 25°C and Specific Heat Capacity
value for 67.5°C because it is the midpoint between the inlet and outlet temperatures. The
assumptions for this section are as follows;
• Cp is assumed to have a linear relationship with temperature.
• Cp of the midpount between the inlet and outlet temperatures is used.
• Any shaft work is ignored at this stage in the design.
A value of 326.68 kW was found for the Heat Duty of the drying unit. This is far lower than
the hexane removal because there is a smaller amount of triglycerides in the stream and they
have a very large heat capacity. This value makes sense because it is positive. This value means
that 326.68 kW will have to be input to vaporise the water and heat the stream from 25°C to
65°C.
Heat Exchangers
The heat exchangers were all calculated using the same method. The only differences were the
components present, the temperatures in and out, the reference temperatures and the
temperature specific heat capacities were based on. Equation 2 and 4 were used to calculate the
heat duty and all values were checked to ensure that they were the correct sign and magnitude.

Health and Safety

The health and safety for workers and the surrounding environment is extremely important, and a
topic every chemical engineer must abide to without exception. The rules implemented, in accordance
to the country the plant is in, are there to protect the employers, but they also help protect the
integrity of the business. For a plant to work at optimal efficiency, there would have to be strong
assurance that all health and safety precautions are properly maintained. To ensure this, employers
must be well trained to handle: machinery, software, resources, products, and all chemicals involved
etc. Misconduct in the plant would first and foremost cause harm to the individual and secondly cause
loss/damage to other areas of the process e.g. damage to equipment, extra labour etc.
India, being a developing country that is going through an economical “boom”, has yet to update its
health and safety regulations. The only regulation that would apply to the biodiesel process from
jatropha oil would be the Factories Act 1948. Yet that act would not fully suffice, as it primarily focuses
on the well-being of the labourer, but rarely grazing the important factors like fire preventions and
risks of chemical usage. It would be of great benefit if Indian authorities were to implement the similar
regulations of the more developed countries like the UK health and safety act 1974 or US
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) act 1970.
General Hazard & safety
PPE
All workers must wear the correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of
a potential hazard befalling them whilst they are working on site. The responsibility of enforcing
and providing PPE lies upon the employers, but also should be in the interest of the individual
to maintain & uphold to the PPE regulation for their own safety. Employees that are required
to work in the control room are not required to wear any PPE, whilst those who work around
utilities and chemicals must wear the correct PPE in accordance to the area they work in, e.g.
those who work in the lab must wear gloves, lab-coats and goggles; whilst those who work
near the utilities must wear a hard hat and proper attire. (Osha.gov, 2018; UK.gov, 2003).
Fire and explosions
A fire and/or an explosion occurring is a very serious hazard that must be preventable at all
costs. Temperature/ pressure indicators must be installed in the reactors; and some sort of
indicator must be installed in all the units to constantly measure their conditions. (Osha.gov,
2018). They should be linked to a control system that would either counter the error in the utility
by opening and closing appropriate valves; or cut the flow stream to stop the process entirely.
Furthermore, the employers must ensure that all streams and utilities are regularly checked
for any corrosions or leaks and notify relevant authority according to the Control of Major
Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 & Dangerous Substances and Explosive
Atmosphere Regulations 2002. (UK.gov, 2003).
It is important that a plant has an assurance for and “if” a fire or an explosion does occur.
Appropriate fire extinguishers must be installed and regularly checked to make sure that they
are all operational. All the employers should be well versed with fire exits routes and should
be able to distinguish the correct fire assembly points. Also, the employees should all wear
highlighted jackets so that they would be easier to detect in the smoke, if they were to be
trapped within the plant.
First aid
No matter how many rules are implemented to prevent a hazard from occurring, there will
always be some level of accident due to negligence in the workplace. Therefore, The Health
and Safety Regulation 1981 and OSH both state that there should be the duty of the
employer to provide the services for first aid. This would require: a few employees to be first
aid trained; washing stations; and first aid equipment’s like defibrillators. (Legislation.gov.uk;
Osha.gov, 2018).
1.0 Process Utility Hazards
The utilities used in the process have their very own hazards and if the employees do not take proper
care when handling the units, it could be classed as either minor or catastrophic. Figure 1.0 in the
appendix under the health and safety section illustrates the units, hazards and safety procedure for
handling the equipment’s.

1.1 Chemical hazards

Like the utilities, chemical hazards come with hazards that range from minor to major, when assessing
the risk value. They can cause light irritation to completely burn the flesh of a worker who doesn’t
handle the chemicals with care. Figure 1.1 in the appendix under the health and safety section
illustrates the chemicals present, the hazards, prevention and PPE.
Environmental
Environmental impact statement
In the design of a chemical plant major consideration should be given to the impact that the
plant may have on the environment. As the aim of the project is to create a renewable fuel a lot
of thought needs to put into ensuring that the starting up and operating the plant should also
have little environmental impact.

Initial phase- Construction

The first step of construction is deciding whether to use a brown of green field site. A green
field is a site that has not been previously built on and a brown field is a site that has already
been used. When considering the impact on the environment caused by the destruction of
ecosystems and the CO2 emissions that are released from vehicles used for deforestation and
for the transport of the remains of the environment after it has been cleared it is clear that the
brown field is the far superior option. The brown field site may also have some infrastructure
remaining that can further lower the capital costs of construction.
Other Initial environmental impacts unrelated to the process:

• Delivery: During the construction a large amount of CO2 emissions will be release due
to the delivery of the materials and equipment. The best way to counteract this problem is to
source the equipment and materials locally so that the CO2 emissions can be reduced and
capital costs can be minimised
• During the construction process, the transport required by the construction workers and
the use of construction vehicles will also impact the environment negatively. This can be solved
by proper planning and ensuring that only the right quantity of construction vehicles and
workers onsite.
•
Operational impacts on the environment
During the daily operation of the plant the transport of the reactants and products will release
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. To counteract this the Jatropha seeds and the reactants are
sourced locally to reduce the emissions. The products will be stored at the plant so that it can
be sent to customers in bulk further reducing the greenhouses gases released when burning
fossil fuels.
Due to the high number of workers the transport of the workers to the plant will also
add to the carbon emissions. To solve this problem a company bus or company led car share
incentives can further decrease the carbon emissions from fossil fuels.
The plant will also require electricity for the heating of reactors, streams and general
running of the plant. This electricity directly contributes to the greenhouse gases which is
ultimately bad for the environment. One way in which this can be counteracted is by utilizing
solar technology. India has huge potential for solar energy, about 5,000 trillion kWh per year
of energy is available through solar energy. Some parts of India receive as high as 7kwH per
sq. By utilising solar technology, the plant can greatly reduce the environmental impact whilst
also saving operating costs which ultimately makes the plant more profitable. (Mnre.gov.in,
2019)

Waste water
The main waste for this process is the waste water that is the by-product of the purification of
biodiesel. To reduce the emissions due to transport of waste water to the water treatment
facility, waste water storage tanks are installed so that it can be transported in bulk.
Economic appraisal
*Please refer to the supplementary excel spread sheets for the full calculations
of the values obtained.
The preliminary stages of plant design address the aspects of the chemical
process, however an equally important if not more important criterion is the economic
feasibility of the process. It is dependent on the; capital costs involved at the inception
of the plant (i.e. equipment costs, installation and construction costs) as well as the
operating cost. Obtaining figures for income is also required to eventually assess the
profitability of a project, which is usually undertaken by considering; income from sales
and the eventual cash flow of the project, from which profits can be assessed. In this
chapter the aforementioned will be discussed and profitability assessment will be
conducted to evaluate the economic feasibility of the plant. The plant is situated in
Gujrat, India, for project inception in 2018. The calculations are represented in GBP
so the reader can acquire a perspective of costs, in a currency where costs can be
easily understood.
Capital costs
This is a sum of the fixed capital investment and working capital [1] and is
calculated through either; a multitude of step counting methods or through the
individual pricing of the equipment purchase cost, to which factors are assigned [2]
and a final capital cost is estimated. The FCI is a once only cost that is not recoverable,
apart from the scrap value (10% of FCI), at the end of plant life.
Cost index
Used to adjust differences in cost and services between 2 different points in
time. Initially, the cost is brought from the base year to 2015 using CEPCI (Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index), so that location factors can be implemented. Then the
cost is brought up from 2015 to 2018 using the CEPCI value of (630.1/556.8) = 1.083.
This takes into account the difference in terms of inflation and material and erection
costs.
Step counting methods
Wilson’s
Considers the average equipment cost for a single unit as a function of the
process complexity and capacity, from which an estimate for the capital cost is
obtained.
𝐶£1971 = 𝑓 ∗ 𝑛 ∗ 𝐴𝑈𝐶 ∗ 𝑓𝑚 ∗ 𝑓𝑃 ∗ 𝑓𝑇 [3] (Petley, 1990)
An equipment list is used to determine number of main plant items (exc. pumps)
[3E] and a plant capacity of 201904.37 US ton/year is used for the calculation of AUC,
with the factors being obtained from graphical correlations [3B, 3C, 3D]. The capital
cost calculated is then brought forward to 2018 and the target location changed to
India by using CEPCI and location factors, respectively. Hence the cost in India is
£15,063,800.75.
.
Bridgewater
Functional units (significant steps in a process) are used and the methodology
is primarily for solid and/or liquid processing plants. However, the calculated cost is in
USD and for the ISBL cost hence location factors and cost indices are applied along
with a USD/GBP exchange rate of 1.3579 in 2018. Capital cost is the summation of
the ISBL and OSBL, and OSBL is usually taken as 40% of ISBL. (D'Adda, 1997)
𝑄 0.675
𝐶 = 4320𝑁 [5] (Peters, Timmerhaus and West, 2006)
𝑠
 𝑠 is determined to be 0.95 due to the main reaction being the transesterification
reaction at a 95% conversion. The resulting ISBL cost is £187,623,164.48 which has
been adjusted for India (2018) and the capital cost is 1.4*ISBL (Petley, 1990)
£262,672,430.27
Estimated factorial
This methodology provides a very broad cost estimate due to the average unit
cost being used from preliminary calculations and the delivered equipment cost being
derived from that. Then a Lang factor, 4.74 for a fluid processing plant (Gerrard, 2001),
is used to estimate the plant capital cost.
𝐷𝐸𝐶 = 𝑛 ∗ 𝐴𝑈𝐶 [6] (Gerrard, 2001)
𝐶 = 𝐹(Σ𝐶𝑒 )
Cost indices are applied to the 1971 cost and a location factor used for the
intended location resulting in an ISBL cost of £25,053,479.15 and capital cost of
£35,074,870.81.
Detailed factorial
The factor principle allows for a calculation of capital cost, by using the
purchased equipment cost for each item. Each piece of equipment is sized, using data
from the mass and energy balance, appropriately to find the cost from graphical
correlations.
The heat exchangers are sized from the energy balance: using the heat duty to
calculate the area of heat exchanger [7] relying on the assumed temperatures of the
service fluid for the log mean temperature approach [8] and then obtaining a cost
estimate from graphs [9,10]. The process is similar for the reactor volumes; however,
the mass balance is used instead. For the specialised equipment, literature is used to
obtain a cost (Haas et al., 2006) and is then scaled to the plant operating capacity [11]
to estimate a purchase cost. All the values are standardised to 2018 and Indian
location in a mild steel cost basis. For equipment that is constructed from exotic
materials the incremental cost is calculated, using material factors, and added to the
mild steel basis to get a total cost. Justification of material choice is based on the
reactivity of components. (Turton, 2018)
Direct costs are calculated using the equipment purchase cost as a reference
and using factors to find the installation and erection costs. The indirect costs are
calculated in a similar way, and from the detailed factorial method a value of
£52,731,207.58 is found as the total fixed capital cost.
Method comparison
Each method used to calculate the capital cost is evaluated and compared, to
illustrate the inherent inaccuracies of the step counting methods.
Operating costs
Made up of 3 distinct categories: fixed, variable and general costs [12]. Raw
materials make up a large percentage of the fixed costs and is calculated from the
mass balance, with the costs procured from journals and chemical manufacturers
based in India: subsequently brought to 2018 using average inflation [13]. The utility
costs are dependent on the energy balance and heat duties associated with each
piece of equipment where temperature or phase change occurs. After obtaining the
amount of steam or cooling, it is priced (Peters, Timmerhaus and West, 2006) and
location factors are applied, along with inflation, to bring the cost to 2018.
Due to operating labour being the source for calculations of the majority of
operating costs, it had to be as accurate as possible through 2 methods: due to plant
capacity exceeding the maximum value on the graph [14] a formula was chosen [15]
(Turton, 2018), with the salary of a high skilled worker taken as INR 43200/month
(Tradingeconomics.com, 2019), to reflect the cost as £1037379.86 per year.
The remaining operating costs are calculated using percentages of operating
labour or FCI however a particularly difficult cost to calculate was the R&D and
marketing and distribution due to them being percentages of the final operating cost.
Hence, scaling calculations are applied to rectify that issue [16]
Depreciation is calculated on a 10-year period (Gerrard, 2001), as a straight-
line basis [17] and it works out as £1,006,561.98. Hence, the total operating cost after
summation of the aforementioned factors is £4,803,058,197.86. This value is grossly
exaggerated due to raw material costs, with hexane contributing more than 96%, this
will be addressed in further detail in the sensitivity analysis.
Working Capital
An investment that is required before plant start up, on an annual basis.
providing funds for continuous operation (Peters, Timmerhaus and West, 2006).
Because it is constant through the lifetime of the plant, due to plant operating at a
constant capacity, and is recovered at the end of plant life the cost is eventually
zeroed. However, for the plant it’s calculated as in 3 ways but taking 6 months of
operating costs is a more realistic representation: it’s taken as £2,401,529,098.93.
Income
The black box from the mass balance is used to derive the mass flow rates,
which are converted to kg of product per year according to 8,000 operational hours.
The price of Biodiesel, glycerol and seed cake are brought forward from 2003 to 2018,
using average inflation. Subsequently, annual income from sales of all products
amount to £179,436,516.91.
Repayment
An amortized annual repayment of capital cost is calculated [18] for the interest
accrued in 3 scenarios: fully internally funded, half funded and fully borrowed. A plant
life of 20 years is used for calculations (Vlysidis et al., 2011) with a construction time
of 3 years (Vlysidis et al., 2011) and an interest rate of 5-10% (Peters, Timmerhaus
and West, 2006): 10% is chosen due to an overestimation being financially wiser than
an underestimate.
A fully internally funded project isn’t subject to interest accrued, due to a lack of
debt. In the second and third scenario the amortization costs were calculated to be
£341,841.44 and £683,682.89 per year, respectively. Therefore, the total repayment
over the life time of the plant is calculated as £7,178,670.33 and £14,357,340.66,
respectively.
Profitability assessment
The costs and income is collated into a cash flow table, for all 3 aforementioned
scenarios, with costs highlighted as negative and income as positive values.
Cumulative cash flow is added to help with graphical interpretations of the payback
time and breakeven analysis, with NPV [19] values taken at incremental values to
estimate the DCFrr, through trial and error. Also, the overall return on investment [20]
allows for an insight into whether the plant is economically viable.
However, due to the exaggerated cost of raw materials, specifically hexane, the
plant operates at a loss through its life span, with a return on investment at:-
43412.88012%, -43418.79014%and -43424.70016% for scenario 1, 2 and 3,
respectively. Due to operations at a loss the plant has no breakeven point or payback
period in any scenarios and IRR is evaluated as incalculable, hence economically
unviable.
Sensitivity analysis
 Due to the oil extraction process making up a large proportion of the raw
material, therefore operating costs, the focus is to alleviate its financial burden. This is
achieved by treating hexane as part of the FCI rather than an operating cost and
applying it as a once through cost. This improves the economic viability of the project
to a slight degree however still leaves the plant operating at a loss and an abysmal
ROI of -793.9719247% even as the best case scenario (fully internally funded).
Instead, if oil extraction is removed from the process there would be a dramatic
reduction in raw material costs, reducing the operating cost, therefore positively
affecting the cash flow of the process, to the point where a profit could be made and
profitability can be further assessed. Replacing the extraction process with Jatropha
oil, directly from a vendor, would allow the process to take place as somewhat
economically feasible. However, even in the preliminary calculations, when Jatropha
oil is purchased at a cost of Rs 26/kg (S.Nevase et al., 2012) and the production was
scaled up to the requirements of the process the cost was extraordinary at
£72,227,525,587,624.00 per year. Hence it is concluded that extraction of Jatropha
oil, on site, is the most economically viable option however the extraction process
could potentially be optimised to allow for a profit to be made.

Site Layout
Justification for the location
The biodiesel plant is planned to lay its foundation in India, more specifically Nadiad
Gujarat. This is located on the western tip of India, where the Indian land meets the
Indian ocean. The region chosen is seen as PCPIR, which stands for Petroleum,
Chemical & Petrochemical Investment Region. This space is spread over 453sq km
of vast fields and is occupied by over 500 large and medium scaled industries, 16,000
small scale industrial units - with over 6500 chemicals and petrochemicals being
produced within this region. (Vibrant Gujarat, 2017). Moreover, the PCPIR as the
biggest supplier of bio fertilizers, seeds and other fertilizers that would help the
agricultural to produce Jatropha seed oil. (Vibrant Gujarat, 2017).
The PCPIR has a unique characteristic that boosts its image. The region is abundant
in natural resources and vast plain lands; it has export promotion processes that is
located in Dahej and Jageshwar, Bharuch; it has an established transport
infrastructure that connects populated areas of in the PCPIR to the rest of India; and
it has a regulatory framework that provide a supporting backbone from the
government. (Vibrant Gujarat, 2017).
Nadiad is 60.8 km away from Ahmedabad and is linked via a highway and rail-line,
which means there is easy access for transporting materials. Nadiad in general has a
population of 225,071, with an average literacy rate of 86.78%. (Census India, 2011)
This can be seen as reassurance for those working in and around the plant, as it
provides adequate accommodations and facilities for the employees to support their
lifestyle.
A satellite image of the proposed area has been provided in the appendix as figure
1.0 under the site layout secton.
Layout justification
There are many things to take into consideration when designing the layout for the
site. The most important is the safety aspects for the process. However, other
considerations like easy access to the plant, facilities for the employees and space for
future expansions all are taken into account.
The prevailing wind would hit the plant from the south; therefore, the facilities are
located north of the site and storage tanks and utilities place south of the site. To add
to this, past the storage tanks and fences on the south side of the site there is empty
lands.
The figure 1.1 in the appendix under the site layout section illustrates the facilities
found on the layout to reasoning behind the overall design of the plant.

Conclusion
The design capacity for this project was 150,000 tonnes/year of biodiesel co-producing one
other high value product. After designing a dual step esterification and transesterification
plant with Jatropha Seeds as feedstock it has been found that it will not be feasible at this
scale. The amount of land required to produce 69102 kg/h of seeds would be extremely large.
The cost of the seeds is problematic at this scale. However, the biggest cost to the process is
the hexane for the solvent extraction that is so costly that the breakeven point would be so far
in the future that it was not found. Even if the hexane is taken as a capital cost there is no
feasible payback time. This could be rectified by using a different less expensive solvent or
perhaps the price for hexane was unreliable. The other option was to buy the Jatropha Oil
already in oil form rather than the seeds but this was also economically not feasible. The oil
extraction section also proves problematic in terms of the energy balance. The hexane
removal is by far the most energy requirement intensive out of the entire process. However,
this unit could be replaced with a flash drum in order to lower the heating costs.
Only the main units were considered for the mass balance at this stage. If there was more
time available, the other units should be added because it is important to know what is going
on within all the streams in the process flow diagram. The units that have not been included
would have been potential improvements for the process therefore would be beneficial to
include if the project was to develop any further. The end product purity and amount of
biodiesel and glycerol was acceptable and within the specification and capacity therefore we
have been able to meet the brief. However, all the objectives have not been met because the
project is not feasible because of the costs. Due to time restrictions and the complexity of the
recycles, they were not added into the mass balance which means that the amount of
methanol required would actually be amount required minus the amount recycled. This would
affect the economic evaluation because less of the feedstock are being wasted.
There are no units that release a lot of energy apart from the heat exchangers where the
temperature of the process fluid is being lowered. For example, in heat exchangers 1 and 4 a
lot of heat is removed (e.g. -631.277 in Heat Exchanger 4) and this waste heart could be used
to heat parts of the process that require heat to be input.

References
Arif, M. and Ahmed, Z. (2009). Bio-diesel. Delhi: Satish Serial Publ. House.
Avinash, A., Subramaniam, D. and Murugesan, A. (2014). Bio-diesel—A global
scenario. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, pp.517-527.

Bambal, A., Guggilla, V., Kugler, E., Gardner, T. and Dadyburjor, D. (2014). Poisoning of a
Silica-Supported Cobalt Catalyst due to Presence of Sulfur Impurities in Syngas during
Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: Effects of Chelating Agent. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 53(14), pp.5846-5857.

Bergman, PCA, Boersma, AR, Kiel, JHA, Prins, MJ, Ptasinski, KJ & Janssen, FJJG
2004, Torrefaction for entrained-flow gasification of biomass. in WPM Swaaij, van
(ed.), Biomass for energy, industry and climate protection : Second World Biomass
Conference ; proceedings of the world conference, Rome, Italy, 10 - 14 May 2004. ECN-RX,
vol. 04-046, ETA-Renewable Energies, Florence, pp. 679-682

Conserve Energy Future. (2019). Advantages and Disadvantages of Biodiesel Fuel. [online]
Available at: https://www.conserve-energy-
future.com/advantages_disadvantages_biodiesel.php [Accessed 16 Oct. 2019].

De Klerk, A. (2012). Fischer-Tropsch Refining. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

Demirbaş, A. (2013). Biorefineries. Springer.

Fischer, F. and Tropsch, H. The preparation of synthetic oil mixtures (synthol) from carbon
monoxide and hydrogen. Brennst. Chem. 1923, 4, 276–285.

Förtsch, D., Pabst, K. and Groß-Hardt, E. (2015). The product distribution in Fischer–
Tropsch synthesis: An extension of the ASF model to describe common
deviations. Chemical Engineering Science, 138, pp.333-346.

Gill, S., Tsolakis, A., Dearn, K. and Rodríguez-Fernández, J. (2011). Combustion

characteristics and emissions of Fischer–Tropsch diesel fuels in IC engines. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science, 37(4), pp.503-523.

Gübitz, G. (1999). Exploitation of the tropical oil seed plant Jatropha curcas L. Bioresource
Technology, 67(1), pp.73-82.

Halvorsen, B., Adhikari, U. and Eikeland, M. (2019). Gasification of Biomass for Production
of Syngas for Biofuel.

Hu, J., Yu, F. and Lu, Y. (2012). Application of Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis in Biomass to
Liquid Conversion. Catalysts, 2(2), pp.303-326.

Kadam, K., Forrest, L. and Jacobson, W. (2000). Rice straw as a lignocellulosic resource:
collection, processing, transportation, and environmental aspects. Biomass and Bioenergy,
18(5), pp.369-389.

Kumar, S., Chaube, A. and Jain, S. (2012). Critical review of jatropha biodiesel promotion
policies in India. Energy Policy, 41, pp.775-781.

Lahiry, S. (2018). Biodiesel in India: The Jatropha fiasco. 1st ed. [ebook] Available at:
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/energy/biodiesel-in-india-the-jatropha-fiasco-61321
[Accessed 16 Oct. 2019].

Lasa, H., Doğu, G. and Ravella, A. (1992). Chemical Reactor Technology for
Environmentally Safe Reactors and Products. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
legislation.gov. (-). The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/917/regulation/3/made. Last accessed 26th Nov
2019.
Mahmoudi, H., Mahmoudi, M., Doustdar, O., Jahangiri, H., Tsolakis, A., Gu, S. and
LechWyszynski, M. (2017). A review of Fischer Tropsch synthesis process, mechanism,
surface chemistry and catalyst formulation. Biofuels Engineering, 2(1), pp.11-31.

Murugesan, A., Umarani, C., Subramanian, R. and Nedunchezhian, N. (2009). Bio-diesel as

an alternative fuel for diesel engines—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 13(3), pp.653-662.

Olleco. (2019). Biodiesel | Green Fuel | Renewable Energy | Bioliquid Fuels. [online]
Available at: https://www.olleco.co.uk/green-fuels/biodiesel [Accessed 17 Oct. 2019].
Osha.gov. (2018). [online] Available at:
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/all_about_OSHA.pdf [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].

Raju, S. (n.d.). Biofuels in India. Dr. Ramesh Chand.

Rauch, R., Kiennemann, A. and Sauciuc, A. (2013). Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis to Biofuels

(BtL Process). The Role of Catalysis for the Sustainable Production of Bio-fuels and Bio-
chemicals, pp.397-443.
Ren, J., Scipioni, A., Manzardo, A. and Liang, H. (2018). Biofuels for a more sustainable
future.

Steynberg, A. and Dry, M. (2004). Fischer-Tropsch technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

UK.gov. (2003). Health and safety regulation. Available at:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hsc13.pdf. Last accessed 26th Nov 2019.

Syed Azhar Syed AB, R. (2019). Preliminary Study of the Heat Release From Esterification
Process. International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS, [online] 10(03),
p.24. Available at: https://ijens.org/104403-5656%20IJET-IJENS.pdf [Accessed 6 Nov.
2019].

Kumar Tiwari, A., Kumar, A. and Raheman, H. (2007). Biodiesel production from jatropha oil
(Jatropha curcas) with high free fatty acids: An optimized process. Biomass and Bioenergy,
31(8), pp.569-575.

Zhou, H., Lu, H. and Liang, B. (2006). Solubility of Multicomponent Systems in the Biodiesel
Production by Transesterification of Jatrophacurcas L. Oil with Methanol. Journal of
Chemical & Engineering Data, 51(3), pp.1130-1135.

Patel Shivani (2011). Extraction and analysis of Jatropha curcas L. seed oil. AFRICAN
JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, 10(79).

Kumar Tiwari, A., Kumar, A. and Raheman, H. (2007). Biodiesel production from jatropha oil
(Jatropha curcas) with high free fatty acids: An optimized process. Biomass and Bioenergy,
31(8), pp.569–575.

Leung, D.Y.C., Wu, X. and Leung, M.K.H. (2010). A review on biodiesel production using
catalyzed transesterification. Applied Energy, 87(4), pp.1083–1095.
Duti, Israt & Maliha, Maisha & Ahmed, Shoeb. (2016). Biodiesel Production from Waste
Frying Oil and Its Process Simulation. Journal Of Modern Science And Technology. 4. 50-
62.

Widayat, Widayat & Aulia, Haris & Hadiyanto, H. & Sasongko, Setia. (2015). Kinetic Study
on Ultrasound Assisted Biodiesel Production from Waste Cooking Oil. Journal of
Engineering and Technological Sciences. 47. 374-388.
10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2015.47.4.3.

Kumar Tiwari, A., Kumar, A. and Raheman, H. (2007). Biodiesel production from jatropha
oil (Jatropha curcas) with high free fatty acids: An optimized process. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 31(8), pp.569-575.
Syed Azhar Syed AB, R. (2019). Preliminary Study of the Heat Release From Esterification
Process. International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS, [online] 10(03), p.24.
Available at: https://ijens.org/104403-5656%20IJET-IJENS.pdf [Accessed 6 Nov. 2019].

Zhou, H., Lu, H. and Liang, B. (2006). Solubility of Multicomponent Systems in the Biodiesel
Production by Transesterification of Jatrophacurcas L. Oil with Methanol. Journal of Chemical &
Engineering Data, 51(3), pp.1130-1135.

Lotero, E., Liu, Y., Lopez, D., Suwannakarn, K., Bruce, D. and Goodwin, J. (2005). Synthesis of Biodiesel via
Acid Catalysis. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 44(14), pp.5353-5363.

Lotero E, Goodwin JG, Bruce DA, Suwannakarn K, Liu Y, Lopez DE. The catalysis of
biodiesel synthesis. Catalysis 2006;19:41–83.

Abbaszaadeh, A., Ghobadian, B., Omidkhah, M. and Najafi, G. (2012). Current biodiesel production
technologies: A comparative review. Energy Conversion and Management, 63, pp.138-148.

Meher, L., Kulkarni, M., Dalai, A. and Naik, S. (2006). Transesterification of karanja(Pongamia pinnata) oil by
solid basic catalysts. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 108(5), pp.389-397.
D'Adda, M. (1997). Fixed-capital cost estimating. Catalysis Today, 34(3-4), pp.457-467.
Gerrard, A. (2001). Guide to capital cost estimating. Rugby, England: Institution of Chemical
Engineers.

Haas, M., McAloon, A., Yee, W. and Foglia, T. (2006). A process model to estimate biodiesel
production costs. Bioresource Technology, 97(4), pp.671-678.

Peters, M., Timmerhaus, K. and West, R. (2006). Plant design and economics for chemical engineers.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.

S.Nevase, S., Gadge, S., Dubey, A. and Kadu, B. (2012). Economics of biodiesel production from
Jatropha oil. Journal of Agricultural Technology, [online] Vol 8(2). Available at: http://ijat-
aatsea.com/pdf/v8_n2_12_March/21_IJAT%202012_8_2__Samodini%20S.pdf [Accessed 3 Dec.
2019].

Tradingeconomics.com. (2019). Wages - Countries - List. [online] Available at:

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/wages [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].

Turton, R. (2018). Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes, fifth edition. Boston [etc.]:
Prentice Hall.
Vlysidis, A., Binns, M., Webb, C. and Theodoropoulos, C. (2011). A techno-economic analysis of
biodiesel biorefineries: Assessment of integrated designs for the co-production of fuels and
chemicals. Energy, 36(8), pp.4671-4683.

Xu J, Liu D (2017) Exploitation of genus Rhodosporidium for microbial lipid

production. World J Microbiol Biotechnol
33:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-017-2225-6
Brandenburg J, Blomqvist J, Pickova J, Bonturi N, Sandgren M, Passoth V
(2016) Lipid production from hemicellulose with Lipomyces starkeyi in a pH
regulated fed-batch cultivation. Yeast 33:451–
462. https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.3160
Passoth, V., & Sandgren, M. (2019). Biofuel production from straw hydrolysates:
current achievements and perspectives. Applied Microbiology and
Biotechnology. doi:10.1007/s00253-019-09863-3

KAUSHIK, N., KUMAR, K., KUMAR, S., KAUSHIK, N. and ROY, S. (2007). Genetic variability and
divergence studies in seed traits and oil content of Jatropha (Jatropha curcas L.)
accessions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31(7), pp.497-502.
Sulaiman, S., Abdul Aziz Abdul Raman and Mohammed Kheireddine Aroua (2010). Coconut waste as
a source for biodiesel production. 2010 2nd International Conference on Chemical, Biological and
Environmental Engineering.
Parawira, W. (2010). Biodiesel production from Jatropha curcas: A review. Scientific research and
essays, Vol. 5(1992-2248), pp.pp. 1796-1808.
D6751-03, A. (2019). ASTM D6751 - 03 Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock
for Distillate Fuels. [online] Astm.org. Available at:
https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/D6751-03.htm [Accessed 28 Nov. 2019].
19b, A. (2019). ASTM D975 - 19b Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel. [online] Astm.org. Available
at: https://www.astm.org/Standards/D975.htm [Accessed 28 Nov. 2019].
Patel Shivani (2011). Extraction and analysis of Jatropha curcas L. seed oil. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF
BIOTECHNOLOGY, 10(79).
García, M., Gonzaloa, A., Sánchez, L., Arauzo, J. and Simoes, C. (2011). Methanolysis and
ethanolysis of animal fats: A comparative study of the influence of alcohols. Chemical Industry and
Chemical Engineering Quarterly, 17(1), pp.91-97.
Issariyakul, T., Kulkarni, M., Dalai, A. and Bakhshi, N. (2007). Production of biodiesel from waste fryer
grease using mixed methanol/ethanol system. Fuel Processing Technology, 88(5), pp.429-436.
Kulkarni, M., Dalai, A. and Bakhshi, N. (2007). Transesterification of canola oil in mixed
methanol/ethanol system and use of esters as lubricity additive. Bioresource Technology, 98(10),
pp.2027-2033.
Tomasevic, A. and Siler-Marinkovic, S. (2003). Methanolysis of used frying oil. Fuel Processing
Technology, 81(1), pp.1-6.
Thangaraj, B., Solomon, P., Muniyandi, B., Ranganathan, S. and Lin, L. (2018). Catalysis in biodiesel
production—a review. Clean Energy, 3(1), pp.2-23.
Issariyakul, T., Kulkarni, M., Dalai, A. and Bakhshi, N. (2007). Production of biodiesel from waste fryer grease
using mixed methanol/ethanol system. Fuel Processing Technology, 88(5), pp.429-436.

Sunoco Inc. (R&M) Philadelphia, PA (US) (2006). PURIFICATION OF GLYCERIN.

US 7,126,032 B1.

Census India. (2011). Nadiad Population 2019. Available:

https://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/336-nadiad.html. Last accessed 29th Nov
2019.
Vibrant Gujarat. (2017). Chemicals and Petrochemicals Sector Profile. Government of
Gujarat. Last accessed 29th Nov 2019
Patel, S. (2011). Extraction and analysis of Jatropha curcas L. seed oil. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF
BIOTECHNOLOGY, 10(79), pp.18211-18212.

Chitra, P., Venkatachalam, P. and Sampathrajan, A. (2005). Optimisation of experimental conditions

for biodiesel production from alkali-catalysed transesterification of Jatropha curcus oil. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 9(3), p.17.
Widayat, Widayat & Aulia, Haris & Hadiyanto, H. & Sasongko, Setia. (2015).
Kinetic Study on Ultrasound Assisted Biodiesel Production from Waste Cooking
Oil. Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences. 47. 374-388.
10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2015.47.4.3.
Babcock, R., Clausen, E. and Popp, M. (2019). Yield Characteristics of Biodiesel Produced from
Chicken Fat-Tall Oil Blended Feedstocks. p.8.

Granollers, M. (2018). Reaction engineering Chapter 1, p.11

Endalew, A., Kiros, Y. and Zanzi, R. (2011). Heterogeneous catalysis for biodiesel
production from Jatropha curcas oil (JCO). Energy, 36(5), pp.2693-2700.

Atadashi, I. (2015). Purification of crude biodiesel using dry washing and

membrane technologies. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 54(4), pp.1265-1272.

Faccini, C., Cunha, M., Moraes, M., Krause, L., Manique, M., Rodrigues, M.,
Benvenutti, E. and Caramão, E. (2011). Dry washing in biodiesel purification: a
comparative study of adsorbents. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society, 22(3),
pp.558-563