This post was written by Cody Ferrell. His journal article was entitled, “Biodiesel Production from Integration Between Reaction and Separation System: Reactive Distillation Process.”
Introduction
Vegetable oil and animal fat are renewable feedstock that is being made into a clean-burning fuel called biodiesel. Biodiesel is better for the environment that it produces less carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and unburned hydrocarbons than petroleum-based fuel. It is safer to handle because it is biodegradable, non-flammable, and is non toxic. In this experiment they used reactive distillation, also called Intensified Process, to produce biodiesel from soybean oil and bioethanol. There are many variables that can affect the production of biodiesel. Some of these variables are the catalyst concentration, reaction temperature, level of agitation, ethanol/soybean oil molar ratio, reaction time and the raw material type. In this experiment different ratios were used to determine the best production amounts along with the appropriate temperature and catalyst amounts. It is important for us to take hold of biodiesel production because it has such few harming effects on the environment compared to diesel and gas burning vehicles. The only drawback of biodiesel is that it is not readily available for much of the population.
Materials and Results
The materials used for the experiment was refined soybean oil which was received by a supermarket in Brazil, and sodium hydroxide the catalyst for this experiment also obtained in Brazil. The experiment used many tanks, glass rings, water condenser, temperature controller, and reflux controller. These were used to reflux, boil, transfer, and condense the ethanol and soybean oil. The entire reaction was taken after 6 minutes though it took longer to reflux and condense the solutions. Each of the variables was changed to have different solutions to get the best percent outcome. In the first run catalyst would be (0.5) which is one percent less than the constant used and the molar ratio would be (3) one percent less as well. In the second run the catalyst would be (1.5) one percent high and the molar ration would be (3) one percent low. In the third run the catalyst would be (0.5) one percent low and the molar ration would be (6) one percent high. The fourth run had the catalyst as (1.5) one percent high as would be the molar ratio (6). In the fifth, sixth, and seventh the catalyst and the molar ratio were the same on the middle mark. These were the control, with the catalyst at 1 and the molar ratio at 4.5. The results show the highest yield in the fourth run at 94.54%. This one had greater amounts of both the catalyst and the molar ratio. The first run had the lowest percent weight at 62.36%. This run had both the catalyst and the molar ratio at one percent less than the constant. Shown in this experiment the most important change or variable in the process was the amount of catalyst used. This held the reaction at the right rate for the right amount of time to produce the best amount of product for this experiment.
In the second experiment the control, which was used in the ninth through the eleventh runs, for the catalyst was at 1 and the molar ratio was at 6. In this experiment they had even more mixtures ran than the first experiment did. In run one the catalyst was one percent less and the molar ratio was one percent less as well. In run two the catalyst was one percent higher and the molar ratio remained one percent low. The third run had the catalyst one percent low and the molar ratio at one percent high. In the fourth run the catalyst was one percent high and the molar ratio was one percent high as well. In runs five and six the molar ratio was at the constant and the catalyst was at the one percent lower and higher from the first experiment, respectively. In the seventh and eighth runs the catalyst remained constant and the molar ratio was one percent lower and higher from the first experiment, respectively. The results showed in the percent weight obtained from each run the third was the highest at 98.18% and the fourth was second highest at 97.19%. These both had the most molar ratio in them at one percent higher than the constant. The catalyst amounts differed though. In run three the catalyst was one percent less than the constant and had the greater percent weight in the run opposed to the fourth which had one percent more than the constant with just less than one percent less weight. This shows that the concentration of each is a major factor in producing an adequate and worthwhile amount of product. The seventh run obtained the lowest percent weight at 69.91%. The amount of catalyst had much to do with the reaction time of how the experiment began its process of distilling. On figure four in the article p. 253 their comparison of predicted values and observed values matched up pretty straight forward. It was not an exponential growth but a linear growth pattern in the amount of product obtained.
Response
This experiment with the tests that were ran and the data that was received could be easily used to predict the ester concentration of the soybean oil with the catalyst concentration within the limits that the experiment ran. The tables and the results that were obtained were clearly stated and logged well. Each experiment was carried out precisely and had usable data that added up to their hypothesis. The experiment was made easier for them because the boiling point of ethanol and the product mixture of ethyl esters and glycerol were so large the separation was made much easier from the alcohol. With the high percentages obtained from the experiments in this process it makes logical sense to use biodiesel more often. This process seems to be easier than the process of making regular diesel and this has fewer side-effects when used in engines.
