Production of biodiesel from chicken wastes by various alcohol-catalyst combinations

Authors

  • Chia-Wei Lin University of Cape Town
  • Shuo-Wen Tsai

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2015/v26i1a2219

Abstract

An environmentally friendly biorefinery process for producing biodiesel from chicken wastes was performed for this study. Low acid value (0.13±0.01 mg KOH/g) chicken oil was obtained by preparing chicken wastes with moderate heating and filtration processes that minimized damage to the lipids and thus facilitated subsequent reactions. Methanol-lipids in a molar ratio of 6:1 and a methanol-ethanol-lipids mixture in a molar ratio of 3:3:1 were both reacted with 1% KOH catalyst for transesterfication. Furthermore, ethanol-lipids in a molar ration of 6:1 were analogously transesterified with 1% sodium ethoxide. The amounts of biodiesel were 771.54 mg/mL±15.28, 722.98 mg/mL±37.38, and 714.86 mg/ mL±29.99 from methanol, eth-anol, and a mixture of methanol/ethanol (3:3), respectively, after transesterification. The total amount of ethyl ester was comparable with the total amount of methyl ester. In addition, ethanol is a renewable resource and a biorefinery concept can be contributed for biodiesel production. Further-more, transesterification of chicken oil with a mixture of methanol/ethanol (3:3) only needed a relatively short reaction time of an hour. Densities, viscosities, sulphur contents, acid values, and flash points of all esters were within the specifications of CNS 15072 and EN 14214. The transesterification system for chicken oil in ethanol and mixed methanol/ethanol (3:3) demonstrated in this study is a potential candidate for biodiesel production.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Chia-Wei Lin, University of Cape Town

Energy Research Centre Snr Research Officer

Downloads

Published

2015-03-23

How to Cite

Lin, C.-W., & Tsai, S.-W. (2015). Production of biodiesel from chicken wastes by various alcohol-catalyst combinations. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 26(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2015/v26i1a2219