Com Fis Tropsh

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 37 (2011) 503e523
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pecs
Review
Combustion characteristics and emissions of FischereTropsch diesel fuels in IC

engines
S.S. Gill a, A. Tsolakis a, *, K.D. Dearn a, J. Rodrguez-Fernndez b
a
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

E.T.S. Ingenieros Industriales, Dpto. Mecnica Aplicada e Ingeniera de Proyectos, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 3 August 2010
Accepted 8 September 2010
Available online 25 October 2010
This article gives a condensed overview of Gas-to-Liquid (GTL), Biomass-to-Liquid (BTL) and Coal-toLiquid (CTL) theory and technology by the use of FischereTropsch (FeT) processes. Variations of the FeT
process can be used to tailor the fuel properties to meet end user needs as well as aid vehicle manufacturers in achieving forthcoming emission regulations. They do this by improving engine-out emissions
and exhaust gas after-treatment performance. Regardless of feedstock or process, FeT diesel fuels
typically have a number of very desirable properties, including a very high cetane number. This review
focuses on how fuel properties impact pollutant emissions and draws together data from various studies
that have been carried out over the past few years. Reduced emission levels as demonstrated in several
publications have been attributed to several chemical and physical characteristics of the FeT diesel fuels
including reduced density, ultra-low sulfur levels, low aromatic content and high cetane rating, but not
all of them contribute to the same extent to the emissions reduction.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Diesel engines
FischereTropsch
Combustion
Emissions
Cetane number
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
1.1.
Fuel crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
1.2.
Diesel engines and emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
1.3.
Emission standards for vehicles e transport sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
1.4.
FischereTropsch diesel fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
1.5.
Well-to-wheels analysis of fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
1.6.
Effect of fuel properties on engine emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
Gas-to-liquid (GTL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
2.1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
2.2.
GTL fuels combustion and emissions characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.2.1.
Mechanically-injected and electronic pump-line-nozzle systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.2.2.
Common-rail systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
2.3.
Engine optimization-emission strategies with GTL fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Biomass-to-liquid (BTL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
3.1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
3.2.
BTL fuels combustion and emissions characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
Coal-to-liquid (CTL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
4.1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
4.2.
CTL fuels characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Summary of FischereTropsch diesel fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 (0) 121 414 4170; fax: 44 (0) 121 414 7484.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Tsolakis).
0360-1285/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2010.09.001
504
S.S. Gill et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 37 (2011) 503e523
1. Introduction
FischereTropsch (FeT) diesel fuels appear to be the feasible short

term solution [3].
There are two strands to the European Legislation which promote
the use of biofuels, namely article 7a of the Fuels Quality Directive
and the Renewable Energy Directive. The European directive 2009/
30/EC was adopted to revise the Fuel Quality Directive 98/70/EC.
Apart from establishing the target aiming to satisfy 10% of its
transport fuel needs from renewable sources, it introduces
a requirement of fuel suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG)
intensity of energy supplied for road transport in article 7a [6]. The
European Union (EU) Renewable Energy Directive sets out a path
targeting 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 [7].
With ongoing improvements aimed at enhancing performance
and reducing noise and emissions, the diesel engine has become an
increasingly attractive option for passenger car applications [3].
1.1. Fuel crisis

The world is presently confronted with the twin crises of fossilfuel depletion and environmental degradation. Excessive use of
fossil fuels has major local, regional and global environmental
impacts [1]:
1. Local e Air pollution
2. Regional e Acid rain and airborne pathogens (i.e. infections,
particles and chemicals)
3. Global e Greenhouse effect
Projections for the 30-year period from 1990 to 2020 indicate
that vehicle travel, and consequently fossil-fuel demand, will
almost triple and the resulting emissions will pose a serious
problem. The main reason for increased pollution levels, in spite of
the stringent emission standards that have been enforced, is the
increased demand for energy in all sectors and most signicantly
the increased use of automobiles [1].
1.3. Emission standards for vehicles e transport sector

Under the framework of the European Climate Change Programme, the European Commission set a goal of reducing CO2
emissions from new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.
A eet-average CO2 emission target of 130 g/km for new passenger
cars must be reached by each vehicle manufacturer by 2015, using
vehicle technology under the Regulation 443/2009/EC. However to
meet the EU CO2 target of 120 g/km, a further 10 g/km is to be
provided through additional measures such as biofuels [8]. The
proposed legislation to reduce the CO2 emissions from light
commercial vehicles [COM (2009) 593] introduces a eet-average
CO2 emission target of 175 g/km fully phased-in by 2016. This
regulation is applicable to vehicles category N1 (light commercial
vehicles) with a reference mass not exceeding 2610 kg [9].
Euro 6 stage has been adopted at the same time as Euro 5, but
will lay down signicantly lower limits for NOx emissions from
diesel cars [10]. The Euro 6 Stage European emission regulations for
light passenger and commercial vehicles were introduced by
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 later amended by the Commission
regulation (EC) No. 692/2008 of July 2008. All vehicles equipped
with a diesel engine will be required to substantially reduce their
emissions of NOx for the Euro 6 regulation to be introduced on 1st
September 2014 for the approval of vehicles, and from 1st January
2015 for the registration and sale of new types of cars. As illustrated
in Table 1, NOx emissions from passenger cars and light commercial
vehicles (category N1, class I) intended to be used for transport will
be capped at 80 mg/km (an additional reduction of more than 50%
compared to the Euro 5 standard) [12]. For the other regulated
emissions, such as the control of carbon monoxide (CO) and total
hydrocarbon (THC), although not in engines, would probably be
required to meet future limits as a result of developments in aftertreatment systems. This is especially the case if low-temperature
combustion modes are used (for example late injection, high EGR
ratios etc). In the case of PM, Euro 6 will not reduce the emissions
compared to the levels imposed by Euro 5, but the latter has already
1.2. Diesel engines and emissions

Although, the diesel engine is an attractive solution for carbon
dioxide (CO2) reduction, there remains a challenge to control
simultaneously nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM)
emissions to a level required by prevailing regulations [2,3].
Unfortunately, if the diesel combustion system is not well
controlled, it can produce higher levels of PM and/or NOx. PM,
which is composed of soot and sulfate bound with water and
unburned oil and fuel, can have associated health issues. Whereas
NOx, which is formed by oxidation of atmospheric and/or fuel
contained nitrogen at high temperatures in the power cylinder, is
capable of producing smog and acid rain, polluting waterways and
crops [4].
Since NOx and PM emissions from current diesel technologies
are close to the limits permitted by regulations and both limits will
become more stringent in the near future; these two emissions will
be critical factors in the development of new diesel engines. An
improved knowledge of the potential to reduce these types of
emissions could help engine manufacturers adapt their engines to
the use of biofuels and to optimize them. This can be done by
readjusting the compromise between efciency, costs (mainly due
to after-treatment systems) and emissions within the regulation
limits [5]. However as engines are currently calibrated to be as
efcient as possible while complying with the emission standards,
there still stands a trade-off between the emissions performance
and efciency. Among other solutions to reduce both NOx and PM
such as reformed exhaust gas recirculation (REGR), selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts, and diesel particulate lters (DPF),
alternative fuels like biofuels and designed fuels such as
Table 1
Euro 6 emission regulations for light passenger and commercial vehicles (after [11]).
Compression ignition (CI) limit values
Vehicle Type
Passenger cars
Light commercial
vehicles
All
1305 kg
1305e1760 kg
>1760 kg (Max 3500 kg)
Category
Class
Mass of carbon
monoxide (CO)
(mg/km)
Mass of oxides
of nitrogen (NOx)
(mg/km)
Combined mass
of hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen
(THC NOx) (mg/km)
Mass of particulate
matter (PM)
(mg/km)
Number of particles
(P) (#/km)
M
N1
e
I
II
III
500
500
630
740
80
80
105
125
170
170
195
215
5.0/4.5
5.0/4.5
5.0/4.5
5.0/4.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

1011
1011
1011
1011
forced the manufacturers to introduce DPF in vehicles. Inversely,

the NOx after-treatment techniques associated with heavy-duty
diesel have already been implemented in order to meet the Euro V
limits, while Euro VI will mainly imply an effort to reduce PM
emissions. European emission regulations (see Table 2) for new
heavy-duty engines, which generally include trucks and buses,
were introduced by Regulation 595/2009, published in July 2009.
It is worth noting that for passenger and light commercial
vehicles, the standards are dened in mg/km, while for heavy-duty
vehicles they are dened by engine power, mg/kWh, and are
therefore not directly comparable. Fig. 1 gives an overview of the
European emission standards which stage the progressive introduction of increasingly stringent standards. In addition to this Fig. 2
gives a brief summary of the emission standards implemented in
China and the United States. The Chinese standards are based on
European regulations with a certain time delay. The US standards
for engines and emissions are established by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) [14].
505
The basic technology is known as the FischereTropsch process

and a number of companies have developed this synthetic process
using catalytic technology. The resulting synthesized straight-chain
HC has good compression ignitability and are suitable for use with
automobiles as diesel engine fuel. For this reason, many reports
have been published concerning the inuence of FeT diesel fuel
properties on diesel emissions characteristics [20]. Franz Fischer
and Hans Tropsch developed the process that bears their names in
the 1920s. The production of diesel fuels using the FeT process is
a set of chemical reactions in the presence of a catalyst [21]:
Synthesis Gas (Syngas) Formation
1
CHn O2 / nH2 CO
2
(1)
FeT Synthesis Process
nCO 2n 1H2 /Cn H2n2 nH2 O Paraffins
(2)
1.4. FischereTropsch diesel fuels
nCO 2nH2 /Cn H2n nH2 O Olefins
(3)
Due to the concern about the limited future oil resources and
requirement of CO2 reduction, interests in renewable and alternative
fuels have grown increasingly. New diesel fuels are necessary not
only to improve engine performance and emissions, but also to
ensure the sustainability of the fuel supplies. The chronogram in
Fig. 3 shows the number of publications related to FeT process fuels,
which is then illustrated in terms of individual raw materials. There
seems to be an overall exponential increase especially in work
related to FeT and its processes for new alternative fuels. However
studies related to BTL and CTL fuels have successively been low,
whereas GTL type fuels have become more attractive. The following
work focuses on current studies carried out with second generation
FeT diesel fuels, and is a good reection of the literature selected
from amongst the most representative studies published in journals.
Ultra-clean, high cetane number fuels (facilitating lower
combustion temperatures and pressures) derived from an FeT
process (nal liquid fuel to be obtained from renewable sources) is
a promising alternative [3,16]. They are virtually free of sulfur and
aromatic hydrocarbons (HC), can facilitate further reduction of
engine-out emissions, and improve the performance of the catalytic after-treatments and fuel reformers [3]. These fuels show
a very high potential for realizing a much more favorable NOx/PM
trade-off without the commonly observed associated penalties in
fuel efciency [17]. The raw material can either be natural gas (the
nal liquid fuel being GTL), coal (CTL) or residual biomass (BTL). GTL
is already produced commercially and diesel fuels blended with
GTL are available in several European countries [18]. A number of
new large-scale GTL production plants is currently being planned or
under construction, resulting in a potential total GTL diesel fuel
production of signicant volumes (1 million barrels/day or more)
within the next decade [19]. The exhaust emissions performance of
GTL diesel fuels has been the subject of a growing number of
technical publications in recent years.
Synthesis gas can be formed from any carbonaceous material

such as natural gas, coal, or biomass. Several reactions are required
to obtain the gaseous reactants required for FeT catalysis. Reactant
gases entering an FeT reactor must rst be desulfurized to protect
the catalysts that are readily poisoned. The following major sets of
reactions are employed to adjust the H2/CO ratio:
Water-Gas-Shift Reaction e Provides a source of hydrogen (H2):
H2 O CO/H2 CO2
(4)
Steam Reforming is important for those FeT plants that start

with methane:
H2 O CH4 /CO 3H2
(5)
Several routes are possible for the formation of synthesis gas

from natural gas, including autothermal reforming, steam reforming
(Reaction (5)), and partial oxidation. The formation of synthesis gas
from coal or biomass is called gasication, wherein the feedstock is
reacted with steam and oxygen (O2). The next step in the FeT
production process is the conversion of synthesis gas into HC. This
begins with H2 and CO molecules being formed into eCH2e alkyl
radicals and water in an exothermic reaction. The eCH2e radicals
then immediately combine in an iron or cobalt catalytic reaction to
make synthetic olen and/or parafn HC (Reactions (2) and (3)) of
various chain-lengths (high boiling point wax and olenic naphtha).
The selectivity (the amount of desired product obtained per unit
consumed reactant) is inuenced by parameters such as temperature, H2/CO ratio in the feed gas, pressure and the catalyst type.
The FeT product can be upgraded to high quality diesel fuel
through post-processing and any oxygenates formed during the
Table 2
Euro VI emission regulations for heavy-duty diesel engines (after [13]).
Compression ignition (CI) limit values
European steady
state cycle (ESC)
European transient cycle (ETC)
Mass of carbon
monoxide (CO)
(mg/kWh)
Mass of total
hydrocarbons
(THC) (mg/kWh)
Mass of oxides
of nitrogen (NOx)
(mg/kWh)
Ammonia (NH3) (ppm)
Mass of particulate
matter (PM) (mg/kWh)
1500
130
400
10
10
4000
160
400
10
10
506
Fig. 1. European emission standards comparison for, a) Diesel passenger cars b) Heavy-duty diesel engines [15].
FeT process are often removed during this step. Addition of H2 and
a catalyst causes hydrocracking, rupturing long carbon chains into
shorter, liquid parts to produce cuts that correspond to a range of
conventional renery products. Regardless of feedstock or process,
FeT diesel fuels typically have a number of very desirable properties [22]. Fig. 4 gives a simple overview of the FeT technology.
Adaptation of the FeT synthesis to syngas of different origins
revolves around purity, cleanliness and the H2/CO ratio of the gas
[23]. It is important to note that the distillation range of FeT diesel
can be customized by FeT synthesis conditions and by the distillation cut after synthesis occurs. Therefore this is not an inherent
property of the FeT diesel.
A variety of catalysts can be used for the FeT process, but the
most common are the transition metals, cobalt and iron. Cobalt
catalysts are more active for FeT synthesis when the feedstock is
China Standards
Light-Duty Vehicles
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Major Cities
Euro 3
Nationwide
Euro 2
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
U.S. EPA On-Highway Standards
Light Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines:
8,500 to < 19,500 lb. GVWR
Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines:
19,500 to 33,000 lb. GVWR
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines:
> 33,000 lb. GVWR
Light-Duty*
natural gas. Natural gas has high H2/CO ratio, so the water-gas-shift
is not needed for cobalt catalysts. Iron catalysts are preferred for
lower quality feed-stocks such as coal or biomass.
FeT synthesis is technically classied into two categories, the
high-temperature FischereTropsch (HTFT) and the low-temperature
FischereTropsch (LTFT) processes. The criterion for this classication
is the operating temperature of the synthesis, which ranges between
310e340 C for the HTFT process and 210e260 C for the LTFT process
[25,26]. The FeT syncrude composition and its distillate yields are
mainly determined by the catalyst type (iron or cobalt based) and the
reaction conditions. The carbon number distribution of an HTFT and
LTFT synthesis product is different. HTFT syncrude has a high naphtha
yield and low contents of material boiling above 360 C, whereas
a synthesis product from the LTFT process consists of a considerable
amount of higher-boiling HC. Also the nal distillate yield is
Euro 4
Euro 3
Euro II
Euro 5
Euro 5
Euro 4
Euro III
Euro IV
Euro V
2004-2006
2007-2009
2010
US' 04
US' 07
US' 10
Tier 2 (Phase-in 2004-2009)
GVWR = Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

*Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles 8,500-10,000 lb. GVW range are included in Tier 2 Requirements
U.S. EPA Off-Highway Standards
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tier 3
175 + hp
75 - 175 hp
Tier
Tier 2
2-3*
< 75 hp
Tier 2
Tier 4
Tier 3
Tier 4
*75-100 hp Tier 2, 100-175 hp Tier 3

Fig. 2. Overview of emission standards for China and United States [14].
Tier 4
below accepted lubricity standards, but not signicantly below the

US8, EU and MK1 diesel fuels (i.e. before additive addition) which
consist of sulfur content below 10 ppm. The lubricity of FeT diesel
fuels can be improved to acceptable levels using commercial
additives. Fatty acid methyl esters (i.e. biodiesel) can also be used to
improve the lubricity of FeT diesel fuel [22]. Density is an important factor for fuel consumption, whereas the other properties
mentioned have an effect on emissions. Although density is not
a problem for aromatic-containing HTFT diesel, LTFT diesel contains
virtually no aromatics and the resulting density of 770e780 kg/m3
poses a rening challenge. However, synthetic LTFT distillate is
increasingly blended into top quality diesel fuels to reduce emissions in modern high performance diesel engines [25].
Ideally, a compression ignition (CI) fuel would be renewable,
produce useable power to current diesel standards, run in both
existing and newly manufactured engines and require no engine
modications. In addition, its combustion should produce fewer
emissions which would enhance the efciency of exhaust gas aftertreatment systems primarily by increasing the availability of active
catalytic sites. In a modern diesel engine synthetic fuels can satisfy
many of the above ideal fuel requirements. Recent studies have
shown that synthetic fuels have emission benets in the reduction
of HC, CO, NOx and PM. However the density of synthetic fuels such
as GTL is lower than that of the standard European specications for
diesel. As a result the volumetric energy density is also lower and
the injection system hardware and injection strategy may need to
be recongured [17,28].
Fig. 3. Chronogram of published papers related to FeT diesel fuels (ISI web of
knowledge).
substantially larger for the LTFT process. But a key difference of HTFT
and LTFT is the nal composition, being HTFT mainly composed of
aromatics and olens and LTFTof parafns. As a consequence, HTFT is
apparently more suitable as a gasoline fuel due to the high octane
number of aromatics, whereas LTFT is used for diesel fuels (high
cetane number of parafnic compounds, but with a density usually
below the diesel standards) [25]. However, good ignitability (i.e. high
cetane number) is crucial for a diesel fuel, and constitutes the feature
that reinforces the introduction of FeT derived fuels in the market,
while density issues do not introduce severe limitations (at least in
the typical ranges).
FeT diesel fuels can be designed to have a high cetane number,
low aromatics, thus low C/H ratio and relatively low specic gravity.
These fuels are also extremely low in sulfur (often less than 1 ppm)
when derived from natural gas. These particular fuels are a strong
candidate for fuel blending and as a neat fuel in transportation
markets. Their impact on after-treatment catalyst development and
particulate abatement is attractive due to their low sulfur content,
absence of aromatic HC and high H2 content [2,27]. However, some
properties of FeT diesel fuels are still to be improved. Poly-aromatic
and sulfur compounds contribute to the lubricity of diesel fuels,
although sulfur content in diesel fuels is being virtually eliminated.
The very low aromatic content of FeT diesel fuel combined with the
near zero sulfur content results in a fuel with poor lubricity properties. Lubricity tests with neat FeT diesel fuels reveal results well
1.5. Well-to-wheels analysis of fuels

The well-to-wheels (WTW) analysis in Fig. 5 taken from the EU
commission WTW report represents the specic life cycle assessment of the efciency of fuels for road transport. The GHG bars
represent the combined well-to-tank (WTT) and tank-to-wheels
(TTW) stages. As shown in Fig. 5, the energy inputs of synthetic
fuels are higher than those of conventional diesel. The GHG emissions from GTL are slightly higher than those of conventional diesel.
CTL diesel produces considerably more GHG emissions, while
synthetic diesel from biomass is signicantly lower. Though the BTL
approach requires a substantial amount of energy, however they
have the potential to save more GHG emissions than current biofuel
options. The wood pathways produce very little GHG as the
conversion process is fuelled by the wood itself although it is not
Natural Gas
Biomass
Coal
Catalyst
Tail
Synthesis Gas
Production
O2
Air
Oxygen
Plant
507
H2 + CO
Syngas
F-T Liquid
Synthesis
Hydrogen
Separation
Product Gas
Power
Recovery
Generation
Hydrogen
Recovery
Wax
Liquid
Fuels
Hydrogen
H2
Wax
Hydrocracking
Liquid
Fuels
Fig. 4. FeT technology [24].
Transportation
Fuels
508
Fig. 5. WTW energy requirement and GHG emissions for synthetic diesel fuel and DME pathways (2010 vehicles) [23].
particularly energy efcient. Overall the combined process of

primary energy conversion and FeT synthesis is energy-intensive,
especially for coal and wood though less so for natural gas. This is
primarily due to the overall process with gas being more straightforward and more energy efcient. However the CTL schemes are
attracting a lot of interest, particularly in combination with CO2
capture and storage [23].
1.6. Effect of fuel properties on engine emissions
Some of the physical and chemical properties of the FeT fuels are
behind their potential to reduce engine-out emissions. Among these
properties, the higher cetane number is the most cited to justify the
trends [3,17,20], but others such as the differences in aromatic
content or the adiabatic ame temperature play a role as well. Sulfur
content or volatility, which could affect emissions, is a marginal
consideration as sulfur content is being eradicated from all types of
diesel fuels [5]. Differences in volatility are uncertain, since this
property is strongly affected by the oil-fraction that is used in the
manufacturing process of both conventional and FeT diesel fuels.
The cetane number affects engine performance and emissions
through the chemical ignition delay. The higher the cetane number,
the lower this delay, thus the fraction of injected fuel that is burnt
under pre-mixed conditions is reduced. Pre-mixed combustion is
associated with higher pressures, pressure gradients and temperatures in the chamber, all of which increase NOx formation.
Aromatic compounds are suspected of directly inuencing the rst
steps of soot particle formation (for example, the nano-particles
inception). The chemical pathway involves especially polycyclic
aromatic compounds, but this is a subject under continuous
investigation [29,30]. Adiabatic ame temperatures of fuels may be
calculated from thermodynamic properties, and are directly related
to the thermal formation of NOx. Aromatic compounds are reported
to have higher adiabatic ame temperatures than parafnic ones
[31]. Finally and regarding the sulfur content in fuels, which when
oxidized (to form sulfur oxides) combine with water to produce
sulphates, a component of the insoluble organic fraction (ISF) of the
particulate matter emitted. However, sulfur reduction in recent
years has been related to its effect on catalysts (i.e. deactivation,
poisoning) rather than increases in particulate.
Kidoguchi et al. [32] were one of many research groups who
studied the effect of fuel properties on direct injection diesel
combustion. The study revealed that by reducing the cetane number,
there was an increase in NOx and decrease in PM emissions at high

load. This effect was thought to be due to the low cetane number fuel
having a long ignition delay causing a high maximum heat release
rate and shortened combustion duration. However for low loads,
lower cetane fuels produced higher THC due to local over lean
mixtures caused by the ignition delay, hence resulting in an
incomplete combustion. McMillian and Gautam [27] supports this
and concludes THC brake specic emissions were reduced for FeT
diesel fuels as a direct result of higher cetane number and hence the
expected ignition delay. Szybist et al. [33] found a similar relationship between NOx and cetane number, however only when the
injection timing was advanced. The reductions were thought to be
coupled to the lower C/H ratio in the fuel which in turn reduced the
ame temperature and hence the ability to produce NOx.
When the cetane number was kept constant, changing the
aromatic content had little effect on the combustion characteristics,
although increasing the aromatic content resulted in high NOx and
PM emissions. This was assumed by Kidoguchi et al. [32] to be associated with the locally rich and high-temperature region formed due
to various factors. These may include the high adiabatic ame
temperature, the difculty in pyrolysis of HC containing aromatics as
well as the slow physical process such as evaporation and turbulent
mixing. However as the injection pressure was raised, the effects of
cetane number and aromatic content on particulate emissions
become less signicant. Nishiumi et al. [34] concluded that the
narrow distillation characteristics using parafnic fuels simulating
FeT diesel fuel (which eliminates heavy HC fraction) could reduce the
soluble organic fraction (SOF) in PM emissions. However the high
cetane number promoted the formation of ISF, especially at light load
conditions. It was thought that the higher the cetane number the less
PM produced as there is a shorter ignition delay and consequently
more time for the complete combustion and for particle oxidization.
2. Gas-to-liquid (GTL)
2.1. Introduction
The FeT reaction is considered as the heart of the GTL processchain to produce high quality synthetic liquid HC. The main process
steps are illustrated in Fig. 6 and these include [35]:
Synthesis Gas Generation e Synthesis Gas (composed of H2, CO
and CO2) is produced from natural gas (NG) through a reforming
Air
Separation
Oxygen
Air
Natural Gas
(NG) CH 4
NG
Pre-treatment
Syngas Conversion
F-T Synthesis (to

Synthetic HC)
Steam
Water
Treatment
Fuel
NG Reforming
Syngas
H 2, CO, CO2
Synthesis Product Upgrading
Hydrocracking
Hydrotreating
Water
Tail Gas
Treatment Processing
509
Fractionation
Syngas
Conditioning
Final Products:
LPG
Naphtha
Kerosene
Diesel
Lubricants
Hydrogen
Fig. 6. Generic gas-to-liquids (GTL) process simplied [35].
process. Various technologies such as steam methane reforming

(SMR), partial oxidation (POX), and autothermal reforming
(ATR) are used.
Synthesis Gas Conversion e The conversion of synthesis gas to
HC through an FeT synthesis process.
Synthesis Product Upgrading e To provide a better usable
collection of HC, catalytic hydrocracking of the wax streams
and hydrotreating of the naphtha are undertaken.
By-products of the FeT process, the FeT tail gas and the FeT
water each of which is treated in order to improve plant
efciency.
GTL fuels have many advantages as an alternative cleaner diesel
fuel with a higher cetane number and the absence of poly-aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) content. These key properties of GTL fuels give
rise to the potential of reducing PM emissions by increasing the
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) ratio without any smoke penalty, as
presented later. The lower PM for GTL is primarily due to the lack of
aromatics and the change in combustion phasing brought about by
the higher cetane number. Furthermore, the absence of sulfur
content not only helps in a PM emissions reduction, but also, in the
case of a NOx adsorber catalyst, in a fuel consumption improvement. Fuel efciency is improved by reducing the desulfurization
process frequency due to the improved activity of an after-treatment catalyst. However it should be noted that the lack of sulfur in
GTL fuels is not a signicant property since diesel fuels in Europe
and USA are already sulfur free.
Fuel densities of GTL fuels are generally several percent lower,
resulting in a deterioration of the volumetric fuel consumption in
comparison with conventional diesel fuel [36]. Several papers have
documented the behavior of GTL, and experiments have involved
the study of both engine and vehicle emissions fuelled with it. A
common trend observed in those studies was reductions in emissions using different kinds of GTL fuels compared to conventional
diesel fuel [37].
2.2. GTL fuels combustion and emissions characteristics
Research into the inuence of GTL fuel properties on diesel
emissions and combustion characteristics have been one of many
key areas of interest. A cross-section of these studies is presented
below highlighting key properties and characteristics concluded
from each study. Since injection systems have seen a lot of progress
in recent years and given the effect they have on engine performance and emissions with different fuels, the studies discussed
below are classied according to the type of injection system

equipped in the engine/vehicle.
2.2.1. Mechanically-injected and electronic pump-line-nozzle
systems
In general, under these types of injection systems, the physical
properties of the fuel (such as density or compressibility) are
expected to affect the injection process to a greater extent than
under other more modern systems. This is because the injectors
remain closed until the pressure wave generated in the highpressure pump propagates along the fuel lines and reaches the
injectors. The propagation of the wave depends directly on those
fuel properties.
The combustion of Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), GTL and
a ULSD-GTL blend (50/50 by volume; shown as GD50) was studied
by Abu-Jrai et al. [3]. The tests were carried out using a singlecylinder experimental engine, which in particular gave a higher
thermal efciency for GTL fuel than ULSD (see Table 3 for fuel
properties). The engine employed a pump-line-nozzle direct
injection system with a compression ratio of 15.5:1. The use of
GD50 and pure GTL did not have a signicant effect on the start of
combustion compared to diesel fuel; however it reduced signicantly the fuel burnt in the pre-mixed combustion phase. This
resulted in reduced in-cylinder pressure and hence lower temperature. A typical diesel engine combustion process occurs in 2
phases i.e. a pre-mixed and a diffusion phase. Typically an extended
diffusion phase (as for FeT diesel fuels) can result in higher levels of
soot formation than combustion processes with shorter diffusion
phases [38]. The reduction of the pre-mixed combustion phase was
more evident over the medium and high load operating conditions.
Similar results were again obtained from a recent study by AbuJrai et al. [18], where the combustion of GTL fuel showed lower incylinder pressure, lower mROPR (maximum rate of pressure rise)
and lower mROHR (maximum rate of heat release) than the ULSD
fuel combustion. It is believed that, using a mechanically-injected
system, GTL retards the start of injection due to its lower density and
higher bulk modulus of compressibility than diesel fuel. The higher
cetane number decreases the ignition delay and as a result both
effects balance, resulting in a less pronounced pre-mixed combustion phase without affecting the start of combustion. Atkinson et al.
[39] believes that the reduction of the ignition delay is essentially
responsible for the lower NOx reduction benets of FeT fuel, while
the negligible aromatic and sulfur content of the fuel results in lower
PM emissions, as concluded by Cheng and Dibble [40] and Nabi et al.
[41]. However the reductions in PM emissions were signicant at the
510
Table 3
Fuel properties for ULSD and GTL [3].
Properties
Method
Ultra-low
sulfur diesel
(ULSD) US07
FT-GTL
Cetane number
Density at 15 C (kg/m3)
Viscosity at 40 C (mm2/s)
50% distillation ( C)
LCV (MJ/kg)
Sulfur (mg/kg)
Aromatics (wt%)
C (wt%)
H (wt%)
O (wt%)
H/C ratio (molar)
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
53.9
827.1
2.467
264
329
42.7
46
24.4
86.5
13.5
79
784.6
3.497
295.2
342.1
43.9
0.05
0.3
85
15
1.88
2.1
D613
D4052
D445
D86
D86
ASTM D2622
lower load modes, with no clear trend observed regarding the

engine speed or engine power. Lower sulfur fuels have also shown
evidence of higher conversion efciencies in the exhaust gas catalyst
[42], and it was noted by Gardner et al. [43] that sulfur acts as a factor
reducing the HC development.
For the engine loads of 2, 4, and 5 bar IMEP (low-high engine
load operating conditions), the total combustion duration of GD50
and GTL was increased compared to diesel fuel and the controlled
diffusion combustion duration was longer for GTL and GD50 [3].
Overall, the combustion of GTL with optimized injection timing
indicated that the NOx-smoke trade-off curve is shifted to lower
values, while improving the engine thermal efciency compared to
the combustion of the diesel fuel. From the trends illustrated in the
work by Abu-Jrai et al. [3], it is clear that a modern highway diesel
engine can improve the engine fuel economy and emissions, if it is
equipped with a modern injection system (e.g. common rail), with
the exibility of injection timing and pressure, combined with the
use of EGR for different diesel-GTL fuel blends. However the overall
combustion parameters of FeT fuels are very sensitive to high EGR
levels, particularly soot emissions which will increase dramatically
as the level of EGR increases [44]. Fig. 7 shows the effect of EGR for
the overall trade-off with NOx. The GTL illustrated is for advanced
injection timing.
It is clear from the research carried out by Cowart et al. [38], that
the injection advance has a very strong inuence on soot formation.
The test engine used in this study was a standard single-cylinder
co-operative fuels research engine (CFR). The burn fraction for FeT
diesel fuel is always less than that of conventional diesel for the
same injection advance. This indicates that FeT diesel fuel has
a shorter pre-mixed combustion phase which is consistent with
a shorter ignition delay due to the higher cetane number. Low soot
levels are typically associated with a large pre-mixed combustion
phase and a comparably lower diffusion phase. According to the
ndings of Cowart et al. [38], FeT diesel fuel produces more soot
than conventional diesel at high compression ratios and lower
loads but this improves as the load increases. This effect is likely
due to a shortened pre-mixed combustion phase with reduced
fuelling levels, since the higher cetane associated with FeT diesel
fuel causes it to ignite sooner before much mixing with air has
occurred. The higher in-cylinder temperatures are encountered
with higher compression ratios which result in the FeT diesel fuel
advantage diminishing. As compression heating increases, the
change in FeT diesel fuel combustion temperature, results in
a proportionally smaller overall NOx effect. Fig. 8 shows how the
injection timing affects the HC and NOx concentrations.
Wu et al. [37] used a six-cylinder, four stroke, turbocharged,
intercooled direct injection CI engine. This was equipped with
a mechanically controlled pump-line-nozzle-type fuel-injection
system and had a compression ratio of 18:1. The test fuel GTL (labeled
G100) was characterized by a cetane number of 75. The conventional
diesel in this work was No. 0 diesel in China (see Table 4). Blends of
these two fuels, G10, G20, G30, G50, and G70, represent GTL fractions
of 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, and 70% by volume, respectively.
It was noted that most properties of blended fuels had a good
linear relationship with the GTL volume fraction in the blends.
Density, sulfur, polyaromatics, and total aromatics of blends
decreased while the cetane number and lower heating value
increased as the GTL fraction increased. GTL has lower density and
is more compressible than diesel fuel, so the pressure in the fuelinjection system can develop slower; pressure waves can propagate
later for the same nominal pump timing [3]. According to Cowart
et al. [38] there is a phasing problem compounded with FeT diesel
fuels (due to their higher cetane number and associated shorter
ignition delay time). Because of early timing, in-cylinder pressure
can peak too early resulting in a lower torque. Excess fuel is
therefore required to compensate for this non-optimal phasing
which results in excessive sooting.
However results from Wu et al. [37], showed that the maximum
combustion pressure and the peak value of HRR for G100 are lower
than those of diesel by 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively. The main reason for
this is the signicantly high cetane number of GTL shortening the
ignition delay period, during which time less of the combustible
mixture is formed and the maximum combustion pressure decreases.
Lower peak combustion pressures, resulting in a lower in-cylinder gas
temperature, would contribute to reducing the NOx emission of GTL
[37]. The mROHR during the diffusion combustion phase is also
dependent on the fuel-injection duration. In general, FeT diesel fuel
has longer injection duration due to its lower density [27].
Wu et al. [37] believed that, using the pump-line-nozzle-type
fuel-injection system, GTL causes later fuel-injection timings due to
its different density and bulk modulus of compressibility compared
to those of conventional diesel. The brake specic fuel consumption
(BSFC) of all GTL blends was generally lower than diesel and an
Fig. 7. Effect of EGR on the trade-off of NOx (elaborated from [2,3,17,19,20]).
NOx (ppm)
improvement of fuel economy was seen as more signicant at low

speed than at mid-high speed. G100 showed the best fuel economy
with a BSFC 2.7% lower than diesel. This is expected since GTL fuel
has a higher caloric value on a gravimetric basis than ULSD [3,37].
A general trend is that the CO emissions of all fuels are very low at
low loads, while the CO increases signicantly at high loads. GTL
blends produce lower CO emissions than diesel, especially at higher
loads. HC emissions decrease with increasing GTL in the blends at
all load conditions. In general higher GTL volume fraction in blends
leads to further reductions in HC. GTL fuels G30, G70, and G100
offer an average reduction of 4.3%, 9.1%, and 12.1% respectively,
when compared to diesel. There is a trend that more GTL in blends
contributes to a greater NOx emissions reduction. GTL fuels G30,
G70, and G100 on average reduce NOx by 1.1%, 3.5%, and 8.4%
respectively, compared with diesel. Wu et al. [37] also suggested
using retarded pump timings and GTL fuel instead of a conventional
diesel, as an effective means to reduce NOx without signicantly
compromising PM emissions. The overall trends of engine load and
speed with GTL fuelling is represented in Fig. 9. This highlights the
key advantages of using GTL, even when small quantities have been
blended with conventional diesel fuel.
Diesel
GTL
G30
G70
A more up to date study was carried out by Rounce et al. [17],

which compared ULSD with GTL and Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME).
The test engine used was the same as that in the study by Abu-Jrai
et al. [3]. RME is a rst generation biodiesel currently available in
Europe. Table 5 shows the properties of the fuels. This study illustrated comparable results to those seen in many of the previous
publications. If the start of injection had not been articially modied by the authors, GTL would have had the effect of retarding the
start of injection due to its reduced fuel density and increased
compressibility. However, in order to exploit the potential of GTL in
reducing emissions, the authors advanced the start of injection for
GTL, thus advancing the combustion as well. Fig.10 shows that under
these testing conditions GTL reduced ignition delay (dened as the
time between start of injection and start of combustion) and the fuel
burnt in the pre-mixed phase (the rst heat release peak) [17].
The larger cetane number also extends the diffusion controlled
combustion phase. This lowers the in-cylinder peak pressure and
temperature by spreading the heat release over a later CAD
compared to ULSD. However the rst heat release peak for RME is
larger in comparison to ULSD and GTL (see Fig. 10, which considers
advanced injection timing for GTL). This was thought to be due to
the higher polarity of the oxygen content of the fuel giving rise to
an increasing bulk modulus [17]. In addition to the oxygen content
in the RME fuel, Larsson and Denbratt [45] concluded that this as
well as the negligible aromatic content encouraged the reduction of
soot emissions. It is also important to note that in the study of
Rounce et al. [17] the injection start was modied to optimize the
engine operation with GTL.
The signicant advantage observed from GTL fuelling is the NOx
reduction as shown in Fig. 11. The decrease is considered to occur
due to the lowering of the maximum ROHR, as this gives an indication of the maximum extent of the temperature range. The
decrease of NOx emissions with GTL fuel can be linked to its
increased cetane number, which reduces ignition delay [17]. In
relation to the study by Larsson and Denbratt [45], the NOx-soot
trade-off can be reduced sufciently to meet future emissions
regulations for fuels such as FeT, RME and MK1 at lower loads using
later injection timings and higher levels of EGR.
HC (ppm)
Fig. 8. Effect of injection timing on HC and NOx trade-off (elaborated from [3,17,19]).
Increasing Engine Load (%)
Diesel
GTL
G30
G70
Increasing Engine Load (%)
HC (ppm)
NOx (ppm)
511
Diesel
GTL
Diesel
GTL
Increasing Engine Speed (rpm)
Increasing Engine Speed (rpm)
Fig. 9. Overall trends for engine speed and load with GTL on regulated emissions (elaborated from [37]).
512
70
80
Diesel
60
RME
60
50
GTL
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
ROHR (J/degCA)
Cylinder Pressure (bar)
70
-10
0
-20
-10
10
20
fuel. This derating is due to the lower density of FeT diesel fuel as
fuelling was not adjusted to compensate for the lower fuel energy
ux. The test engine used in the McMillian and Gautam [27] study
was the Ricardo Proteous, single cylinder, 4-stroke DI engine with
a compression ratio of 13.3:1. This included a mechanical lift pump
which was integral with the injector pump. They found that under
diffusion burning conditions and in the absence of signicant
differences in ignition delay, both NOx and PM were primarily
dependent on the fuels C/H ratio, as well as a function of various
aspects of the fuels boiling range. The lower aromatic content of
FeT diesel fuel is primarily responsible for lower C/H ratio and for
the higher-boiling point.
30
CAD
Fig. 10. Cylinder pressure and ROHR (elaborated from [17]).
The study carried out by Rounce et al. [17], introduced three-way

blending of ULSD, GTL and RME. This particular blend was able to
sufciently produce a fuel with similar combustion characteristics
(i.e. in-cylinder pressure, ROHR and start of combustion) to
conventional ULSD with no fuel economy penalty. The blend offered
numerous advantages such as:
No fuel specic engine modications required.
Additional simultaneous improvements in the smoke-NOx
trade-off.
Enhanced engine efciency due to the dynamic properties of
the blends (e.g. the higher cetane number due to the GTL and
the increased oxygen content due to the RME proportion).
They also suggested that these blends may be a feasible solution
to meet diesel replacement targets, if such blend could be produced
economically and in sufcient quantities.
In the Atkinson study [39] a natural gas derived slurry-phase
FeT diesel, fuelled a Navistar T444E (V8, 7.3 L) DI diesel engine,
with a compression ratio of 17.5:1. The natural gas derived slurryphase FeT diesel refers to the Sasol Slurry Phase Distillate Process
used in South Africa. The synthesis gas is reformed to produce CO2
and H2 which is then converted into heavy HC via the FeT process
over a suitable catalyst [46]. It was found that at all operating
conditions, the FeT diesel fuel yielded a shorter ignition delay that
was 0.1 ms shorter (1 CA at 1500 rpm) than diesel fuel as a result of
its higher cetane rating. This enabled a reduced physical evaporation period before ignition. McMillian and Gautam [27] showed
that a shortened ignition delay will result in less fuel energy
injected during the pre-mixed combustion phase, resulting in
a much smaller heat release rate. The Atkinson study [39]
concluded that while FeT derates an unmodied CI engine by
a small amount at its highest load settings, the brake specic
emissions of FeT diesel fuel are signicantly lower than with diesel
2.2.2. Common-rail systems

The injection process (and more specically the injection start)
in common-rail systems is expected to be almost independent of
fuel properties. This is due to the lines that connect the fuel pump
and the injectors being full with highly-pressurized fuel, and the
injector apertures electronically controlled by the engine control
unit (ECU). Pressure at the rail is also controlled by the ECU.
Kitano et al. [2] tested a J series GTL fuel on a turbocharged 4cylinder 2.0L DI diesel engine with a compression ratio of 16:1. The
fuel effects in particular were studied using a single injection
strategy. J series fuels were characterized by a lower 90% distillation
temperature (T90) by 30 C intervals on the basis of a J3 fuel. The
properties of the J3 fuel are collated in Table 6. One of the signicant
differences in diesel diffusion combustion between GTL fuel and
diesel fuel is the ignition timing. The high cetane number GTL fuel
shortens the ignition delay and lowers the heat release peak due to
the decrease of pre-mixture; hence resulting in reduced NOx and
combustion noise. This decrease when using GTL fuel represses the
rapid temperature and pressure rise during combustion, which can
lead to diesel knocking [2].
The advantage of GTL fuels in NOx emission benets is
decreasing as EGR rates increase thus reducing combustion
temperatures. Consequently, GTL fuels have benets regarding
engine noise; however have no advantages for NOx when compared
with modern low NOx diesel engines, in which a large amount of
EGR is introduced [2].
The high cetane number J3 GTL fuel was observed to have high
reactivity at low combustion temperatures, resulting in a reduction
of the unburned fractions. Under a light load with high EGR rate
and retarded injection timing it was possible to reduce signicantly
the HC emissions. It was concluded that a high cetane number fuel,
is able to indirectly reduce the NOx under these specic engine
conditions [2]. In comparison with results obtained with GTL for
advanced injection timing using a mechanically-actuated system,
Abu-Jrai et al. [3] showed that EGR under standard injection timing
was capable of providing further NOx reduction. This was without
any extensive penalty in smoke, engine thermal efciency, and fuel
Fig. 11. Effect of engine load on NOx trade-off (elaborated from [3,17,37]).
Table 4
Diesel and GTL fuel properties [37].
513
Table 6
Fuel properties [2].
Properties
Diesel
G100
Properties
GTL
Ref. Fuel Diesel Fuel
Cetane number
Sulfur (wt%)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Total aromatics (wt%)
Polyaromatics (wt%)
C (wt%)
H (wt%)
839.2
51.7
0.0403
42.9
27.7
6.2
265.3
330.8
2.665
86.32
13.32
779.0
75
0.0003
43.6
1.4
0.4
275.7
310.1
2.74
84.9
15.1
Cetane number
IBP
Distillation ( C)
T10
T50
T90
FBP
H/C ratio
Heating value (MJ/kg)
Aromatics (vol%)
Sulfur (mass ppm)
786
3.73
85
209.5
258
305
344
362
2.10
43.9
< 0.1
<1
840
2.88
53.4
170
205.5
262.5
328
358
1.89
43.0
18.9
33
economy. Similarly from work carried out by Schaberg et al. [19], it

was thought that the lower soot emissions of the GTL diesel fuel
and its blends could facilitate signicant reductions in NOx emissions by exploiting their higher EGR tolerance. Therefore by calibrating the EGR rate, start of injection and the interval between the
pilot and main injection, it was possible to achieve a NOx-soot
trade-off which was signicantly more favorable than that of the
reference EU diesel. These results showed the tremendous potential of the optimization of injection timing with GTL-like fuels in
reducing emissions from diesel combustion.
Schaberg et al. [19] carried out a study using two blended fuels
as shown in Table 7 comprised of 20% and 50% GTL diesel fuel
blended with the reference diesel fuel (a sulfur-free European
diesel fuel meeting the EN590 specication), respectively. The
vehicle emission tests were conducted over the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) test cycle with a Mercedes Benz E220 CDI
vehicle (model year 2003) with a compression ratio of 18:1. The
density of the GTL diesel fuel was approximately 8% lower than that
of the EU diesel, which resulted in a lower heating value (LHV) in
the region of 6% lower on a volumetric basis. Since the overall
distillation temperatures of GTL diesel are lower than those of EU
diesel, the less heavy distillation indicates that GTL evaporates
easier to form a more combustible airefuel mixture [37]. Therefore
the cumulative energy requirement for heating all of the fuel
fractions is likely to be lower. However this is also dependent on the
specic heat and latent heat of the fractions. As GTL has a lower
mass ux during the fuel-injection process, this results in a leaner
local air/fuel ratio. In addition if the T90 is lower, the fuel spray will
have less penetration because it will evaporate sooner and as
a consequence there will be less air entrained [19].
For the GTL diesel and the 50:50 EU-GTL blend, the start of
combustion resulting from the pilot injection is some 3e4 CA
earlier than for the 80:20 EU-GTL blends and the EU diesel. This
proves that, when the injection timing is kept constant for all fuels
Table 5
ULSD, GTL and RME fuel properties [17].
Properties
ULSD
GTL
RME
Cetane number
IBP distillation ( C)
FBP distillation ( C)
LCV (MJ/kg)
Sulfur (mg/kg)
Total aromatics (wt%)
C (wt%)
H (wt%)
O (wt%)
H/C ratio (molar)
53.9
827.1
2.467
164.6
264
329
352.2
42.7
46
24.4
86.5
13.5
w0
1.88
80
784.6
3.497
219.5
295
342
358.2
43.9
w0
0.3
85.0
15.0
w0
2.10
54.7
883.7
4.478
315
335
342
348
39.0
5
w0
77.2
12.0
10.8
1.85
(this can be done in common-rail systems, for example), the higher

cetane number of GTL blends advances the combustion timing by
reducing the fraction of fuel that is burnt under pre-mixed conditions [47]. This trend is consistent with numerous studies where
the differences between GTL and conventional diesel fuels were
mainly observed in the start of combustion [2,19,33,48], in the
higher rate of pilot-injection combustion [48,49], or in the shortening of the main-injection combustion under low load conditions
where the contribution of pre-mixed combustion is higher [50].
Due to the earlier heat release for the GTL diesel and 50:50 EUGTL blend, these fuels tend to have a marginally higher peak cylinder
pressure, which, due to the retarded combustion, coincides with the
compression pressure peak, rather than with the combustion pressure peak. The result for each test fuel was given as a percentage
relative to the reference fuel result. For HC, CO, and soot emissions,
the performance of the 50:50 EU-GTL blend was very similar to, and
in some cases better than, that of the neat GTL diesel. Both of these
fuels typically showed reductions between 20% and 60% in HC and
CO emissions, with the greatest reductions being evident at the
pseudo-idle operating point (1000 rpm/no load). Reductions with
the 80:20 EU-GTL blends were typically between 5% and 20% for
both CO and HC, except at 2800 rpm/4 bar where HC emissions were
similar to the reference fuel. NOx emissions also showed reductions
with all of the test fuels at all operating points, except at the pseudoidle point where the neat GTL diesel NOx emission was some 15%
higher than that of the reference fuel. Reductions in soot were
between 30% and 60% for the neat GTL diesel and the 50:50 EU-GTL
blends. The 80:20 EU-GTL blend showed reductions in soot of
between 5% and 35%, which are, on average, signicantly larger than
would be expected from the blending ratio [19].
Kitano et al. [20] tested two types of neat GTL fuels (see Table 8
for fuel properties) made from natural gas by the FeT synthetic
process. GTL A had a distillation range appropriate to conventional
diesel fuel and GTL B had a lower distillation range than GTL A. The
cetane number expresses ignitability, and was higher for both GTL
fuels than diesel fuel. The test engine used in this study was the
same as that described earlier.
The emissions after-treatment system was equipped with
a diesel particulate and NOx reduction system (DPNR), capable of
simultaneously reducing NOx and PM emissions. Additional fuel
was injected intermittently from the exhaust port injectors for NOx
reduction or catalyst regeneration. The test results showed no
signicant effect on NOx by the GTL fuels both with and without
DPNR. It was suggested that the GTL fuels had little impact on the
combustion temperature and NOx conversion efciency through
the catalyst in the operation with original calibration. However
Kitano et al. [20] found that the distillation range of GTL fuels had
a signicant impact on engine-out PM. It was considered that
lowering distillation characteristics improved the fuel evaporation
514
Table 7
GTL Blends and Properties [19].
Properties
Units
EU diesel (Ref.)
GTL diesel
50:50 EU-GTL blend
80:20 EU-GTL blend
Density at 15 C
Density at 20 C
Cetane number
Total sulfur
ASTM D86 distillation
kg/m3
kg/m3
e
mg/kg

C

C

C

C

C
mm2/s

C

C
%m/m
%m/m
%m/m
%m/m
e
e
MJ/kg
mm
836
832
54
7
221
277
354
360
82
2.95
17
14
26.8
4.6
86.5
13.5
6.41
1.86
43.1
394
768
765
74
<1
187
251
321
329
59
1.97
19
18
0.1
0.0
85.0
15.0
5.67
2.10
43.8
370
802
798
62
4
201
264
337
346
66
2.54
18
17
13.5
2.3
85.7
14.3
6.02
1.98
43.5
(<400)
821
817
58
6
212
270
339
350
76
2.79
17
15
21.5
3.7
86.2
13.8
6.25
1.91
43.2
(<400)
10%
50%
95%
FBP
Flash point
Kinematic viscosity at 40 C
CFPP
Cloud point
Total aromaticsa
Bi- and polycyclic aromaticsa
Carbon contenta
Hydrogen contenta
C/H ratio (Mass)a
H/C ratio (Molar)a
Lower heating valuea
HFRR scar diameter
a
Values for blends calculated according to blending ratios.
and mixing with the surrounding air, resulting in the reduction of

smoke and PM. Due to the differences in fuel density and heating
value, the volumetric fuel consumption of GTL A and B deteriorated
by 4.0% and 5.9%, respectively compared to diesel fuel. With regard
to the fuel consumption, there was almost no difference between
the experimental GTL fuels and diesel fuel in thermal efciency.
However with the GTL fuels there was a 2e5% decrease in the
maximum power output under a full load performance and a 4e7%
decrease in the peak torque, these being consistent with the lower
caloric value of GTL fuels (compared to diesel fuels) on a volumetric basis. It was also found that a low compression ratio engine
and high ow rate injection nozzles are benecial for improving the
exhaust emissions and engine output power with the GTL fuels. For
GTL fuels with a high cetane number, the period from the start of
injection to the beginning of heat release (ignition delay) is shorter
than with diesel fuel, hence reducing the pre-mixed combustion
rate. In the latter stage of combustion, there is little difference
between the heat release rates of GTL fuels and diesel fuel, which
have different cetane numbers and distillate ranges.
Ng et al. [51] investigated and compared the different GTL/ULSD
blends in older and newer light-duty vehicles to nd out the degree
Table 8
GTL and diesel fuel properties [20].
Properties
GTL A
GTL B
Diesel Fuel
Cetane number
IBP
Distillation ( C)
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
Sulfur (ppm)
H/C ratio
Aromatics (vol%)
Net heating value (MJ/kg)
785.2
3.606
85.2
211.5
249.0
262.0
274.0
286.0
298.0
307.5
317.0
326.5
339.0
349.0
354.5
<1
2.10
<1
43.90
751.0
1.270
71.5
162.1
173.8
177.5
183.0
190.1
198.8
209.9
222.2
234.8
246.8
253.9
258.3
<1
2.14
<1
43.90
834.0
2.713
52.7
198.5
224.5
234.0
242.0
250.5
259.5
270.5
285.5
304.0
329.5
350.0
360.0
5
1.89
19.3
42.95
of emissions reduction and their fuel consumption. The vehicles

chosen were an older Mercedes C Class (model year 1999) and
a newer Opel Astra (model year 2007) meeting Euro 2 and Euro 4
emissions standards respectively. Two fuels were mixed to obtain
blends containing 20% and 50% GTL by volume in ULSD and were
designated as GTL20 and GTL50, with GTL100 as 100% GTL. Table 9
provides key properties for each fuel blend. The blending of GTL
with ULSD can be regarded as one practical measure to sufciently
improve GTL fuel lubricity.
On the basis of the results from the four different GTL/ULSD fuels
used with the specied vehicles, the following was concluded:
Both vehicles, under all the drive cycles (FTP, Highway, and
US06), exhibited excellent drivability with GTL/ULSD fuels.
Fuels that contained GTL showed a reduction in CO2 emissions
(per-mile). Thus this could either relate to less fuel energy
consumed over the drive cycles or as GTL tends to have a lower
C/H ratio; it could simply be the case that the energy
consumption is equal to that of ULSD despite the difference in
CO2 emissions. In addition, slight changes in the driving
patterns (gear shifts, power, etc.) could have affected the
measured levels of CO2 emissions.
Greater GTL quantities in ULSD showed a small reduction in
fuel economy for both vehicles under all the drive cycles. This
was thought to have been due to the lower volumetric caloric
content of the GTL containing fuels.
There was an improvement in the overall NOx emissions
emitted from both vehicles under some conditions. However
no clear trend was observed between the NOx emissions and
the GTL content in the blend.
Increasing the GTL quantity within the blend reduced the PM
concentration, especially for the Opel Astra. This was primarily
due to the vehicle having been equipped with a DPF.
Overall the newer vehicle running on a blend of 50% GTL and
50% ULSD proved to be the most favorable especially for the
NOx and PM regulated emissions. This however had
a minimum effect on mpg.
According to Schaberg et al. [19] the soot formation in a dieseltype ame increases with the total aromatic content, and particularly with poly-aromatic content. In a diffusion ame where peak
combustion temperatures are controlled by the adiabatic ame
Table 9
Properties of GTL/ULSD Fuels (ULSD, GTL20, GTL50, and GTL100) [51].
Properties
ULSD
GTL20
GTL50
GTL100
Hydrocarbon types
(ASTM D1319), %a
Saturates, vol%
61.7
70.7
82.5
99
Olens, vol%
3
2.2
2.2
0.4
Aromatics, vol%
35.3
27.1
15.3
0.6
Carbon, mass%
86.65
86.39
86.45
85.4
Hydrogen, mass%
12.93
13.1
13.13
13.99
Trace Sulfur (ASTM D5453), ppm
11.6
10.2
8.5
0.1
b
45.7
46.0
46.3
47.0
Gross heat of combustion, MJ/kg
Net heat of combustion, MJ/kg
42.8
42.9
43.2
43.6
Specic gravity (ASTM D287)
0.8433
0.8299
0.8072
0.7703
32
29
29
26
Pour point (ASTM D97), C
26
23.0
20
17
Cloud point (ASTM D2500), C
Viscosity at 40 C (ASTM D445),
2.21
2.1
2.05
1.99
2
mm /s
a
Indicative only as the method is not well suited to higher-boiling-range distillate fuels.
b
Values for blends calculated from blending ratios.
temperature, the higher H/C ratio of the GTL diesel fuel and its
blends can be expected to result in decreased NOx emissions. The
signicantly lower HC and CO emissions with the GTL diesel fuel
and its blends are likely to be a result of the shorter ignition delays
and the better vaporization characteristics, as the energy requirement for complete vaporization of the fuel is lower [19,52].
GTL fuels are designed to improve fuel spray volatility by
changing the distillation characteristics while maintaining the high
cetane number to be above seventy. FeT diesel fuels have lower
boiling points throughout the distillation range improving the
vaporization of the fuel with a lower incidence of wall-wetting,
which can also contribute to lower HC emissions [53]. It is generally
known that higher fuel volatility will enhance the airefuel mixture
formation resulting in soot emissions reduction. Distillation characteristics of the FeT diesel fuel were shown to produce variations
in the observed soot emissions with lower distillation test fuels
producing the largest smoke and PM emission even at high cetane
numbers [2]. An explanation of this behavior has been attributed to
the joint effect of the injection hardware capabilities and diverse
fuel properties (e.g. lower FeT density). This can lead to a shorter
FeT ignition delay, reduced pre-mixed combustion and longer
overall burn duration (i.e. longer diffusion combustion) as well as
a later peak pressure location [39].
From the observation by Uchida et al. [36] of combustion in
a single-cylinder engine (compression ratio of 16.5:1), and using an
optical method to visualize the appearance of the ame from the
injected fuel sprays, it was concluded that soot formation was
suppressed with the GTL fuels. The analysis of fuel spray investigated in a pressurized combustion chamber simulating medium
load engine operation was carried out by Kitano et al. [2]. It was
believed that lowering distillation characteristics improved atomization and dispersion of fuel spray, and that fast evaporation of
lighter fuel accelerated the fuel mixing with air. The fuel spray was
also looked at by Schaberg et al. [19] using a single-cylinder optical
engine. It was observed that there was no signicant difference in
either the macroscopic or microscopic characteristics of the fuel
sprays between the GTL diesel and the reference fuel (which was
very similar to EU diesel). This means that the air entrainment and
mixing processes with the two fuels will be similar. These results
coincide with the engine in-cylinder imaging comparisons from the
study of Boehman et al. [54,55] which showed ULSD and GTL
having no signicant differences in spray or ame structure when
using a direct injection diesel engine.
The initial rate of heat release has been known to affect the
combustion noise. Using high cetane number fuels such as GTL, this
515
can be reduced. To reduce combustion noise of a DI diesel engine,

pilot injection is used in a common-rail injection system. GTL fuel is
more advantageous in smoke emissions under operation with pilot
injection as demonstrated by Kitano et al. [20]. In case of diesel fuel,
as pilot quantity increases, combustion noise is signicantly
improved while smoke emissions increase. The repression of
combustion temperature due to the lower levels of pre-mixed
combustion also reduces NOx [20]. In relation to the research
carried out by Abu-Jrai et al. [3] and Schaberg et al. [19], this study
by Kitano et al. [20] has yet again proved that GTL fuels have
benets for NOx reduction in modern, low compression ratio diesel
engines, in which a large amount of EGR is introduced.
Schaberg et al. [19] and Yates et al. [56] found that GTL was
particularly sensitive to pressure and temperature. This is illustrated in the work by Schaberg et al. [19], which gives a representation of the ignition delay between GTL diesel and conventional
diesel fuel, where the ignition delay tends towards zero as
temperature and pressure increase. Schaberg et al. [19] believed
that the shorter ignition delay of GTL diesel was due to its highly
parafnic nature, whereas the faster evaporation rate compared to
that of conventional diesel was attributed to the distillation prole.
2.3. Engine optimization-emission strategies with GTL fuels

Briey, most of the works commented upon in the previous
section identied differences in the combustion phasing and
duration of FeT fuels compared to reference diesel fuels, typically
because of the lower density, higher compressibility and higher
cetane number of the FeT fuels. These differences mainly consisted
of an injection delay [3], a combustion advance [2,38] and/or an
increase in the ratio of diffusion/pre-mixed combustion [18]. The
magnitude of the changes observed depended on the type of
injection, this being the reason why the works above discussed
have been grouped separately depending on the injection system
tested. These changes in the combustion process, along with other
differences in the fuel composition (i.e. no sulfur, no aromatic
compounds and different parafnic compound speciation in FeT
fuels) resulted in an overall reduction of the pollutant emissions
when engines were run on FeT fuels.
This nding pushed authors to promptly conclude that FeT fuels
show potential to reduce emissions drastically by the optimization
of the engine operation (i.e. optimization of the combustion process
in terms of fuel injection, start of combustion and duration) [19,37].
However, the effect of both the combustion process and the fuel
composition is overlapped in all the studies cited, therefore it is not
possible to separate the effect of each one on the engine emissions.
More precisely, the effect of the fuel composition remains uncertain.
To make this problem even worse, many of those authors carried out
their tests with the EGR (manually or automatically) activated,
which introduces an additional uncertainty in the results obtained,
namely whether or not the EGR ratio was kept totally constant when
comparing different fuels at the same engine operating conditions.
In addressing these issues, Yehliu et al. [57] started with keeping
the EGR valve closed in their common-rail engine by having access
to an opened ECU. They tested four operating modes with a xed
engine speed, torque and start of injection each, but dening two
injection processes: a single injection pulse and a split one (pilot
and main injections). This permitted an examination of the effect of
the fuel when current, modern injection strategies are used. Their
results showed that, with either injection strategy, NOx, PM, CO and
HC all decreased when FeT fuel was compared to conventional
diesel, but the split injection offered more versatility to improve the
engine efciency and fuel consumption. Although these tests
eliminated the uncertainty of the EGR ratio (no EGR for any test),
516
injection parameters but considering others as well) is a key step

towards exploiting the tremendous potential of FeT fuels.
At the present time, emission reduction is the priority of vehicle
manufacturers and as a consequence sacrices in engine fuel efciencies have to be considered in order to meet the strict emission
limits [3]. As a result of the emissions benets discussed above
regarding GTL fuels combustion, it is possible to operate under
a more efcient control strategy with their use. An example of
a practical implementation of this is illustrated in Fig. 12. It was
carried out by Schaberg et al. [58] in order to minimize engine-out
NOx emissions, while maintaining a constant PM emission level. The
subsequent step to this process was to minimize tailpipe PM emissions by utilizing a DPF which was tted to the vehicle as standard
equipment. The target for the tailpipe PM emissions was to the
proposed Euro 5 limit of 5 mg/km.
During this study a Mercedes E320 CDI vehicle was modied for
more optimal operation on GTL diesel fuel. The changes to engine
hardware included minor injector modication and a reduction of
the engine compression ratio from 18:1 to 15:1, as well as a reoptimization of the software calibration. The modied vehicle
achieved a NOx emission reduction of less than 0.08 g/km in the
NEDC test cycle, while all other regulated emissions still met the
Euro 4 limits, as well as those currently proposed for Euro 5 and
Euro 6. The CO2 emissions and fuel consumption were not degraded
with the optimized engine. Engine efciency and performance
were not compromised by the adaptation for GTL diesel fuel and
the results corroborate that clean fuels are one means to comply
with future, more stringent emission regulations in a cost-effective
manner [51,58].
A more systematic approach was developed by Uchida et al. [36]
where the combustion optimization was determined utilizing the
distinguishing characters of GTL. The concept taken from the study
is summarized in Fig. 13. HC emissions and combustion noise were
suppressed as well as smoke emissions improved by making
several changes to the conguration of the engine and applying
them to the new combustion chamber geometry. These included air
quantity and EGR ratio recalibration, and the revision of the fuelinjection parameters, including pilot-injection quantity and timing.
Conclusions formed from this optimization showed that by
reducing the compression ratio, the NOx and smoke emission
trade-off improved without any energy consumption penalties
Relative Soot (%)
GTL Diesel & Hardware Adaptation

~ 70% NOx Reduction Required
EU 4 Engine
DPF
EU 6?
EU 5?
Relative NOx (%)
Fig. 12. Strategy for minimizing NOx and PM emissions (after [58]).
the effect of the combustion process, which was advanced with FeT
fuel, and the fuel composition remained overlapped.
In order to isolate the effect of the fuel composition only, the
same authors [48] changed their test methodology in a later work.
With the same engine and open ECU, they modied the injection
pressure and the start of the pilot injection (amongst other variables) in order to have, for all the fuels, the same combustion
pattern associated with the main injection. Obviously, the
combustion due to the pilot injection differed for the different fuels,
but the majority of the combustion process occurred with the main
injection. According to the thermodynamic diagnosis performed by
the authors, this main combustion process (start, duration,
phasing and pre-mixed/diffusion ratio) was the same for all the
fuels. Under these conditions, the results showed that in general
FeT fuels reduced both PM and gaseous emissions compared to
conventional diesel, but the reduction was lower than in the case
where the combustion process was not matched. For example, for
NOx emissions, the reduction of 50% (approximately) when the
combustion process was not identical moved down to 20% when
the combustion process was matched for all the fuels. With this it is
readily concluded that the engine optimization (mainly through its
GTL
High Cetane
w/o PAH
Lower T90
Low Density
- Suppress HC in Low Loads

- Shortened Ignition Delay
- Reduce Combustion Noise
- Suppress Soot Formation
- Improvements in Soot
& Fuel Economy
(i.e. Better Mixture
Formation )
- Reduced Volumetric
Fuel Consumption
- Reduced Thermal Efficiency
(i.e. Increased Injection Duration )
Pilot Injection Optimise
NOx Reduction by Higher

EGR Rate & Lower
O2 Content
Advanced Injection Timing
NOx Reduction by Lower

Compression Ratio
- Reduced Fuel Economy

(i.e. High Back pressure)
Increased Injection Pressure
- Reduced Fuel Economy

(i.e. Lower Thermal
Efficiency)
- Smoke Reduction
(i.e. Reduction of Air)
Turbocharger Efficiency
Improvement with EGR
Cooler Size Optimisation
Fig. 13. Engine optimization concept using neat GTL fuels (after [36]).
- Increase in NOx
517
Hydrogen
Gasification
Syngas
Water Gas Shift &

Separation
Methanol
Catalysed
Synthesis
Anaerobic
Digestion
DME
Biogas
FT Diesel
Purification
Lignocelluiosic
Biomass
Syngas
Pyrolysis
Hydrothermal
Liquefaction
Hydrolysis
Primary
Energy
Bio-Oil
Hydro-Treating &
Refining
Biodiesel
Sugar
Fermentation
Ethanol
Intermediate
Product
End
Product
Fig. 14. Conversion processes for lignocellulosic biomass (elaborated from [62e64]).
especially under low-medium loads. It was also concluded by

Kitano et al. [20], that the combination of GTL fuel and the lowering
of the compression ratio of the diesel engine offered a promising
alternative to improve the emissions potential. Other engine
performance levels such as fuel consumption and combustion noise
were maintained. The investigation results also indicated that low
compression ratio and high ow rate injector nozzles were benecial in the further reduction of emissions and improvement of
engine output power.
3. Biomass-to-liquid (BTL)
3.1. Introduction
The production process for BTL starts with the grinding and
drying of biomass, which is then formed into pellets. The fuel
feedstock comprises of lignocellulosic biomass mainly from forest
and agricultural residues, such as tree barks, tops and branches,
demolition wood, tall grasses, and crop residues facilitated in the
use of low cost, non-edible feedstocks [59,60]. The biomass pellets
are diverted into a smoldering gas and solid fraction (charcoal) in
a low-temperature gasication process and transformed into
a synthetic gas in a second step. After purication, the gas is liqueed in an FeT reaction that employs a cobalt or iron catalyst, and
the products (fuel) are generally aliphatics, ranging from C4 to C40.
The resulting parafn-like liquid can be further hydro-treated to
increase stability and to produce a fuel or fuel blend more suitable
for the engines [61]. Despite the wealth of literature on FeT diesel,
reports on the BTL-type fuel are scarce. Fig. 14 gives a special
emphasis on the conversion processes for lignocellulosic biomass,
as well as producing FeT diesel fuel as the end product.
Fig. 15 illustrates a roadmap created by the EU Biofuels Advisory
Council, promoting bio-automotive fuel production over the next
40 years. It goes through three phases: R&D and demonstration of
second bio-automotive fuel production up to 2010; technology
deployment up to 2020 after rst commercial plant is built up
around 2010; and the large-scale introduction of bio-automotive
fuel production integrated into a bio-renery system [59,63].
3.2. BTL fuels combustion and emissions characteristics
Ng et al. [61] were one of few researchers who have reported on
a BTL-type fuel called SunDiesel. This specic fuel is environmentally friendly and a non-petroleum diesel fuel derived from biomass
2050
Source: EU Biofuels Advisory
2020
2010
2005
Large scale production of 2nd

Generation biofuels
Integrated bio-refinery
Deployment of 2nd Generation biofuel production

Demonstration of bio-refinery
R&D and Demonstration of 2nd Generation biofuel production:

EtOH, F-T Diesel, DME, SNG from lignocellulosic biomass
R&D on bio-refinery
1st Generation biofuels:
Improving processes for EtOH, ETBE, FAME, FAEE
Fig. 15. Roadmap of EU bio-automotive fuel (after [59,63]).
518
Table 10
Fuel Properties [61].
Properties
Method
Hydrocarbon types (%)

Saturates
Olens
Aromatics
Carbon
Hydrogen
Trace sulfur (ppm)
Cetane number
Gross heat of combustion (MJ/kg)a
Net heat of combustion (MJ/kg)a
Specic gravity
Pour point ( C)
Cloud point ( C)
Viscosity (mm2/s)
ASTM D1319
ASTM D5453
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
D287
D97
D2500
D445
Conventional
diesel
SunDiesel
67.2
2.6
30.2
86.59
12.67
311
47
45.67
42.98
0.8514
20.5
15.5
2.95
91.8
5
3.2
85.79
12.54
0.3
80
47.25
44.58
0.7612
20.5
15.5
1.55
Conversion 1 Btu/Ib 2.326 kJ/kg.
(i.e. FeT type diesel manufactured from wood chips, not from soy
bean). Its fuel properties can be found in Table 10 alongside
conventional diesel fuel.
The SunDiesel has about 3% aromatics, a trace of sulfur and
a lower density than conventional diesel. It is signicantly lighter
than conventional diesel; therefore, it contains less energy on
a volumetric basis. The road test vehicle for this research was
a Mercedes A-170 (model year 1999) with a common-rail fuelinjection system. During the series of tests, the drivers noticed
some drivability improvement with a reduction in engine harshness, probably due to the higher cetane number of SunDiesel. In
addition the characteristic diesel odor was totally absent [61]. All
the regulated exhaust emissions of THC, CO, NOx, and PM were
reduced when the vehicle was running on SunDiesel. The performance differences between the two fuels are depicted in the study
by Ng et al. [61]. The results were based on the NEDC composing of
four ECE Urban Driving Cycles, simulating city driving (Bag 1), and
one Extra Urban Driving Cycle (EUDC), simulating highway driving
conditions (Bag 2) [14].
Ng et al. [61] believed the signicant reduction of PM emissions

was most likely due to the lower aromatic and sulfur content in the
SunDiesel fuel. The similar reductions in CO and THC are indicative
of better overall air and fuel optimization. SunDiesel fuel is lower in
density than the conventional diesel, so its fuel economy expressed
in miles per gallon (MPG) was slightly lower. The overall reduction
in NOx (except Bag 1, city driving of NEDC), with SunDiesel, is
desirable. The total CO2 emission rate was 10% lower than for the
conventional fuel; thus, as the C/H ratio for both SunDiesel and
conventional diesel are similar, it can be assumed that less fuel
mass was consumed. Miers et al. [65] also used a light-duty vehicle
equipped with a common-rail fuel-injection system. Due to the
improved brake specic energy consumption (BSEC) of SunDiesel,
the study showed a higher power output than conventional diesel.
However advancing the injection timing not only improved BSEC
but also resulted in an increase in NOx. A further study was then
conducted by Ng et al. [61] using a Caterpillar single-cylinder
research engine, commonly referred to as a 3401-E. This was
equipped with a mechanically actuated and electronically
controlled unit injector (MEUI). The engine operating conditions
were selected as approximately 75% load and an engine speed
approximately 80% of the full rated power speed. The overall
emissions of NOx and PM were lower when the engine was running
on SunDiesel than on conventional diesel. The injection technology
used in both of the studies above did not have any dramatic effect
on the overall emission trends. The PM size distributions of the two
fuels showed the SunDiesel-fuelled engine emitting smaller particles than the conventional fuel, even though there was less PM
mass associated with the SunDiesel. However PM size is of concern
to both human health and DPF performance, since smaller particles
are more likely to penetrate deeper into the respiratory system and
to pass through diesel lters.
The in-cylinder pressure and ROHR for SunDiesel and conventional diesel, as illustrated in the work of Ng et al. [61], showed that
the in-cylinder pressure for SunDiesel reached its peak several
crank angles before the conventional diesel. The ignition delay was
quite similar for both fuels, with the pre-mixed burning peak
Table 11
NExBTL properties in comparison with different fuels and blend properties [67].
Properties
NExBTL Biodiesel
GTL Diesel
FAME (RME)
EN590/2005
Cetane Number
Distillation 10 vol% ( C)
Cloud point ( C)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Lower heating value (MJ/L)
Polyaromatics (wt%)
Oxygen (wt%)
Sulfur (mg/kg)
775.785
2.9.3.5
84.99
260.270
295..300
5.30
z44
z34
0
0
z0
770.785
3.2.4.5
73.81
z260
325.330
0.e25
z43
z34
0
0
<10
z885
z4.5
z51
z340
z355
z5
z38
z34
0
z11
<10
z835
z3.5
z53
z200
z350
z5
z43
z36
z4
0
<10
5 vol%
20 vol%
85 vol%
829
2.8
57
56
6
7
17.9
0.09
198
268
354
822
2.9
61
61
5
8
15.4
0.07
198
276
351
792
3.4
91
89
2
17
3.2
<0.03
229
293
334
EN590
Properties
Method
Base
Cetane number
Cetane index
Sulfur (mg/kg)
Cloud point ( C)
Total aromatics (m%)
Polyaromatics (m%)
Distillation, initial boiling point ( C)
Final boiling point ( C)
ENISO 12185
ENISO 3104
ENISO 5165
ENISO 4264
ISO 20846
ASTM D5773
EN 12916-2000
EN 12916-2000
ENISO 3405
831
2.7
54
54
6
7
19.0
0.07
191
262
357
NExBTL blended
519
H2S, NH3, COX

Make-up
Hydrogen
Recycle H2
Gas
Recovery
Treatment
Coal
Liquefaction
Coal +
Catalyst
C1-C2
LPG
Hydrotreating
Refining
Gasoline
Diesel Fuel
H-Donor
Slurry
Slurry
Heavy Vacuum
Gas Oil (HVGO)
Fractionation
Solvent Deashing
De-Ashed Oil
Ash Reject
(DAO)
Fig. 16. DCL process [68].
occurring at comparable instances, even though they have

dissimilar cetane numbers. SunDiesel had a smaller pre-mixed
burning portion, which could explain why there was less NOx
produced. Although the rates of heat release for both fuels were
relatively similar, it was observed that with SunDiesel fuelling, the
cylinder pressure was slightly lower. It was thought that this
phenomenon could be due to the lower boiling point effect on fuel
air mixing of the SunDiesel, further compounded by the low
aromatic effect. Similar work by Miers et al. [65] found that by
advancing the injection timing, the peak value of the pre-mixed
combustion phase for SunDiesel was reduced. Soltic et al. [66]
showed that the different physical properties of the fuels have
a keen inuence on the injection system, which can also impose
lifetime problems using neat vegetable oils with pump-line-nozzle
injection systems. According to Ng et al. [61], further experimental
and modeling research on the FeT type of diesel is needed if more
gains in the performance are to be realized. With the advent of the
aromatics-free FeT diesel fuel, hopefully research will focus more
on the aliphatics in the future.
The Neste Oil Corporation (formerly Fortum Oil) developed
a new technology and a bio-based diesel fuel component named
Coal*
Oxygen/
Steam
Gasification &
Gas Cleaning
Iron Catalyst
H2 + CO
Syngas
F-T Synthesis
Steam
Sulphur,
CO2
And Ash
Steam
*Any carbon-bearing
feedstock
NExBTL. This is a non-oxygenated hydrocarbon biodiesel which

exhibits similar chemistry and properties to the present synthetic
GTL and BTL diesel fuels (see Table 11). However this fuel is not an
FeT type fuel, but a fuel from direct catalytic hydrogenation via
a vegetable oil rening process. NExBTL biodiesel is compatible
with the existing vehicle eet as well as diesel fuel logistic systems.
It is technically easier to blend in conventional diesels made from
crude oil in all ratios without any impact on fuel consumption or
CO2 emissions [67]. NExBTL contains no sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen or
aromatics. Its heating value is similar to the EN590 hydrocarbon
fuel; storage stability is good and water solubility low. Rantanen
et al. [67] were one group of researchers who tested NExBTL
proportions blended in EN590 diesel: 5 vol%, 20 vol% and 85 vol%
NExBTL. It was reported that the NExBTL-component in diesel
decreases CO and HC emissions. The decrease was dependent on
the proportion of NExBTL in the mixture. Particulate emissions
decreased with high NExBTL concentrations. On the other hand, it
decreased gaseous toxic emissions such as aldehydes, 1,3-butadiene, benzene and particulate PAHs and mutagenicity. Further
testing and research on BTL fuels and engines is required to develop
a much broader understanding for the potential of these fuels.
Tail Gas
Electric Power
Generation
Electricity
Fig. 17. ICL process [68].
CX HY
Liquids
& Wax
F-T Product
Separation &
Upgrading
Water
And
Oxygenates
Ultra-Clean
Liquid Fuels
& Chemical
Feedstocks
520
4. Coal-to-liquid (CTL)
Table 13
Estimated percentage number of publications which have reported increases,
similarities or decreases in engine performance and emissions with FeT diesel fuels
in comparison to conventional diesel fuel.
4.1. Introduction
The currently known reserves for coal exceed those of crude oil
by a factor of 25. The largest coal reserves are at present in United
States, Russia and China [25]. China and India combined account for
almost two-thirds of the increase in world coal demand. Liquefaction technologies such as the FeT process to produce liquid fuels
from coal are becoming more attractive, especially with high oil
prices. The current CTL facilities are either independent or consist
of an integrated gasication combined cycle (IGCC) power plant.
This is where the synthesis gas from the IGCC is routed to the FeT
plant. However both concepts produce distillate and naphtha [25].
CTL is one of the more reasonable approaches for alternative liquid
fuels, having already been technically and commercially established.
The term CTL can be used to describe both coal gasication (combined
FeT synthesis to produce liquid fuels), and the less developed, direct
coal liquefaction technologies. Coal gasication is applied widely in
the production of fertilizers and a broad range of chemicals. FeT
plants associated with coal or related solid feed-stocks (sources of
carbon) must rst convert the solid fuel into gaseous reactants, i.e. CO,
H2, and alkanes. This conversion is called gasication. Coal-based FeT
plants can produce signicant amounts of CO2, partly due to the high
energy demands of the gasication process. Coal can be used to
produce liquid fuels for transportation by the removal of carbon or
addition of H2, either directly or indirectly. The rst approach is
usually known as carbonization or pyrolysis and has low yields; the
second is called liquefaction. The relatively low cost of the raw coal
feedstock is the main incentive as to why this technology is pursued,
even though the cost of converting coal into useful liquid fuels is
higher than that of rening crude oil. The FeT based pyrolysis
processes are less efcient, but commercially proven. During the FeT
process, coal is heated to around 950 C and as decomposition occurs
the volatile matter is driven off to produce synthesis gas (a mixture of
CO and H2). This is then reacted over a cobalt or iron-based catalyst at
temperature and pressure to produce the desired liquid products
such as naphtha, diesel, lubricants, and waxes [21]. The review carried
out by Hk and Aleklett [21], draws attention to the fact that further
investigation and analysis of coal pyrolysis are not undertaken.
Direct coal liquefaction (DCL) is potentially the most efcient
route currently available. The common features of a DCL process are
the dissolution of a high proportion of the coal into a solvent at high
temperature and pressure. This is followed by hydrocracking of the
dissolved coal with H2 gas over a catalyst (see Fig. 16 for an overview of the DCL process). The overall energy efciencies of the very
best modern processes are generally in the range 60e70% and the
technology has been demonstrated at large pilot plants, although
no commercial plants yet exist.
In theory, FeT synthesis which is currently used for indirect coal
liquefaction (ICL) processes can be used to create liquid fuels from
Table 12
Typical properties of DCL and ICL nal products [21,68].
Properties
DCL
ICL
Distillable product mix
65% Diesel
35% Naphtha
42e47
<5 ppm
4.8%
0.865
>100
<0.5 ppm
5%
0.764
80% Diesel
20% Naphtha
70e75
<1 ppm
<4%
0.780
45e75
Nil
2%
0.673
Diesel cetane number

Diesel sulfur content
Diesel aromatics
Diesel specic gravity
Naphtha octane number (RON)
Naphtha sulfur content
Naphtha aromatics
Naphtha specic gravity
Effective power
Brake specic fuel consumption
Thermal efciency
NOx emissions
PM emissions
THC emissions
CO Emissions
CO2 emissions
Increase [
Samea h
Decrease Y
e
17
58
e
5
e
e
11
75
e
33
21
16
e
6
22
25
83
8
79
79
100
94
67
a
Studies which have reported an increase and decrease when modifying engine
parameters (i.e. Engine load).
very unconventional feedstock as long as H2 and carbon are available. Chemical reactions between carbon and other compounds
will eventually fabricate HC molecules of desired length. CO can be
produced by gasication of coal or another carbon-rich compound.
The resulting mixture of CO and H2 (synthesis gas) is then used to
produce HC chains of different lengths using condensation and
a suitable catalyst [21]. The type of resulting products depends on
the catalysts used and the reactor-operating conditions. Fig. 17
shows a typical ICL process. The only commercial-scale ICL
processes producing liquid synthetic fuels and currently in operation are those operated by Sasol in South Africa [25].
4.2. CTL fuels characteristics
The main candidates for future CTL technology are DCL and ICL.
The fraction of liquids produced from pyrolysis is simply too small
and of reduced quality. Table 12 shows the general differences
between DCL and ICL nal products.
The low sulfur content of CTL products compared with petroleum-derived fuels is a common attribute for both DCL and ICL,
which comes from the necessity to protect catalysts from
poisoning. All ICL fuels are inherently clean and virtually free from
nitrogen, sulfur and aromatics, generally giving lower emissions
when combusted. The cetane and octane numbers for both DCL and
ICL fuels also differ, resulting from the chemical properties of the
various products [21]. ICL gives diesel of a high quality, which is
mostly due to the dominance of straight-chain products.
5. Summary of FischereTropsch diesel fuels
Table 13 gives a summary of the overall effects of FeT diesel
fuels from publications reviewed in this paper. Some of the literature reports an increase in fuel consumption as well as a decrease in
rated power. However the majority of the studies have shown that
FeT diesel fuels do not cause any loss of power whilst showing
signicant improvements in all regulated emissions. In general FeT
diesel fuels give a viable solution to retaining engine performance
and reducing legislative emissions.
6. Conclusion
The studies used as part of the discussion are by no means the
only literature recorded on FeT diesel fuels. The selection of publications has given an overview and reection on current advantages
associated with these fuels, in particular the GTL type fuels. The
review has shown that part of the FeT fuels benet comes from
differences in the fuel composition (parafnic nature, high cetane
number) that affects the combustion process (e.g. less pre-mixed
combustion) and emissions (lower NOx formation). Many strategies
in actual engines consist in retarding the injection, thus penalizing

the fuel consumption, in order to reduce NOx emissions. As a result,
the most conventional way to improve engine performance for an
FeT diesel fuel is by advancing injection timing (the higher cetane
number of FeT diesel fuels give rise to shorter ignition delays),
resulting in an improved BSFC and thermal efciency, while maintaining NOx at an acceptable range. Advantages associated with
a high cetane number will diminish especially at high compression
ratios where the soot levels are higher due to the reduced pre-mixed
combustion. The overall combustion parameters of FeT fuels are
very sensitive to high levels of EGR, particularly soot emissions
which will increase dramatically as the level of EGR increases.
However FeT fuels have a higher tolerance to EGR.
Since GTL has lower distillation characteristics, the improvement in atomization and dispersion of fuel spray enables faster
evaporation, accelerating the fuel mixing with air (i.e. forming
a more combustible airefuel mixture). In addition the rates of heat
release for such fuels, in particular GTL, are lower and therefore
improve the combustion noise. However using pilot injection in
conjunction with a common-rail injection system can also assist the
reduction of combustion noise.
The repression of the combustion temperature and pressure rise
can lead to diesel knocking. Using a pump-line-nozzle type fuelinjection system, GTL causes later fuel-injection timings than
conventional diesel. A low compression ratio engine and a high
ow rate injection nozzle are benecial for improving the exhaust
emissions and engine output power of GTL fuelled engines. It
should be noted that not only the combustion differences but also
the composition of the FeT fuels is responsible for the emissions
reductions (especially those of PM) found. FeT diesel fuels are
characterized by their almost non-existent sulfur and aromatic
content. With reduced emissions associated with FeT diesel fuels,
the majority of the studies have shown an improvement in the
availability of active catalytic sites, which further enhances the
efciency of exhaust gas after-treatment systems.
The feedstock for BTL is much more abundant than food crops
and can be harvested with much less interference to the food
economy and much less strain on land, air and water resources. But
the conversion technologies such as hydrolysis and gasication are
still under development. It is unrealistic to claim that CTL provides
a feasible solution to liquid fuels shortages created by peak oil. For
the most part, it can only be a minor contributor and must be
combined with other strategies.
Many studies have shown comprehensively that there is a very
large, still unexploited potential for improvements in road fuels.
These will provide major reductions in pollutant emissions both in
vehicles already on the road as well as in future vehicles. High
cetane (i.e. purely parafnic), clean fuels improve combustion and
reduce emissions drastically in modern diesel engines without
impairing engine performance (noise, fuel consumption and
power). The challenge therefore is to substantially increase the
production of biofuels by using innovative feedstock, processes and
technologies, which are both competitive and sustainable.
Acknowledgments
The School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Birmingham (UK) is gratefully acknowledged for the PhD scholarship
to Mr. S.S Gill.
References
[1] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal
combustion engines. Prog Energ Combust 2007;33:233e71.
521
[2] Kitano K, Sakata I, Clark R. Effects of GTL fuel properties on DI diesel

combustion. SAE Paper 2005-01-3763.
[3] Abu-Jrai A, Tsolakis A, Theinnoi K, Cracknell R, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML,
et al. Effect of gas-to-liquid diesel fuels on combustion characteristics, engine
emissions, and exhaust gas fuel reforming. Comparative study. Energ Fuel
2006;20:2377e84.
[4] McGeehan JA, Yeh S, Couch M, Hinz A, Otterholm B, Walker AP, et al. On the
road to 2010 emissions: eld test results and analysis with DPF-SCR system
and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. SAE paper 2005-01-3716.
[5] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Rodrguez-Fernndez J. Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel
engine emissions. Prog Energ Combust 2008;34:198e223.
[6] Amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specication of petrol, diesel and
gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specication of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/
EEC. Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
April 2009. Off J Eur Union:88e113. Available Online, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriOJ:L:2009:140:0088:0113:EN:PDF 2009.
[7] Department of Energy and Climate Change e the renewable energy strategy
(RES). Department of Energy and Climate Change. Available Online, http://
www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/
renewable/res/res.aspx.
[8] Setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the
Communitys integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty
vehicles. Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council. Off J Euro Union. Available Online, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriOJ:L:2009:140:0001:0015:EN:PDF 2009.
[9] Setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as
part of the communitys integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from
light-duty vehicles. COM (2009) 593 Final: regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council; 2009. Available Online, http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriCOM:2009:0593:FIN:En:PDF.
[10] Euro 5 to Euro 6 standards. Available Online, http://www.euractiv.com/en/
transport/euro-5-emissions-standards-cars/article-133325.
[11] Implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with
respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5
and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.
Commission regulation (EC) No 692/2008. Off J Eur Union:130. Available
Online,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriOJ:L:2008:
199:0001:0136:EN:PDF 2008.
[12] Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards: reduction of pollutant emissions from light
vehicles. Available Online, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_
market/single_market_for_goods/motor_vehicles/interactions_industry_
policies/l28186_en.htm.
[13] Type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from
heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance
information and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Directive 2007/
46/EC and repealing Directives 80/1269/EEC, 2005/55/EC and 2005/78/EC.
Regulation (EC) no 595/2009 of the European parliament and of the council of
18 June 2009. Off J Euro Union: 10. Available Online, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriOJ:L:2009:188:0001:0013:EN:PDF.
[14] Emission standards and tests cycles. Available Online, http://www.dieselnet.com.
[15] Rodrguez-Fernndez J, Tsolakis A, Ahmadinejad M, Sitshebo S. Investigation
of the deactivation of a NOx-reducing hydrocarbon-selective catalytic reduction (HC-SCR) catalyst by thermogravimetric analysis: effect of the fuel and
prototype catalyst. Energ Fuel 2009;24:992e1000.
[16] Rodrguez-Fernndez J, Tsolakis A, Cracknell RF, Clark RH. Combining GTL fuel,
reformed EGR and HC-SCR after treatment system to reduce diesel NOx
emissions. A statistical approach. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2009;34:2789e99.
[17] Rounce P, Tsolakis A, Rodrguez-Fernndez J, York APE, Cracknell RF, Clark RH.
Diesel engine performance and emissions when rst generation meets next
generation biodiesel. SAE Paper 2009-01-1935.
[18] Abu-Jrai A, Rodrguez-Fernndez J, Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Theinnoi K,
Cracknell RF, et al. Performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine
operated with reformed EGR. Comparison of diesel and GTL fuelling. Fuel
2009;88:1031e41.
[19] Schaberg P, Botha J, Schnell M, Hermann HO, Pelz N, Maly R. Emissions
performance of GTL diesel fuel and blends with optimized engine calibrations.
SAE Paper 2005-01-2187.
[20] Kitano K, Misawa S, Mori M, Sakata I, Clark RH. GTL fuel impact on DI diesel
emissions. SAE Paper 2007-01-2004.
[21] Hk M, Aleklett K. A review on coal-to-liquid fuels and its coal consumption.
Int J Energ Res; 2009.
[22] Alleman TL, McCormick RL. FischereTropsch diesel fuels e properties and
exhaust emissions: a literature review. SAE Paper 2003-01-0763.
[23] Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and power-trains in the
European context, well-to-wheels report Version 2b. EUCAR, CONCAWE and
JRC. The Joint Research Centre of the EU Commission; 2006.
[24] Lawrence C. Biomass research and development. Department of Defence
Seeks to Explore the Use of Biofuels. Available Online, http://www.
brdisolutions.com/web%20pages/News%20Center/Feature%20Articles/
December%202006.aspx; 2006.
[25] Leckel D. Diesel production from FischereTropsch: the past, the present, and
new concepts. Energ Fuel 2009;23:2342e58.
522
[26] Dry M. The FischereTropsch process: 1950e2000. Catal Today 2002;71:227e41.

[27] McMillian MH, Gautam M. Combustion and emission characteristics of
FischereTropsch and standard diesel fuel in a single e cylinder diesel engine.
SAE Paper 2001-01-3517.
[28] Larsson M, Denbratt I. An experimental investigation of Fischer-Tropsch fuels
in a light-duty diesel engine. SAE Paper 2007-01-0030.
[29] Roesler JF, Martinot S, McEnally CS, Pfefferle LD, Delfau JL, Vovelle C. Investigating the role of methane on the growth of aromatic hydrocarbons and soot
in fundamental combustion processes. Combust Flame 2003;134:249e60.
[30] Marchal C, Delfau J-L, Vovelle C, Morac G, Mounam-Rousselle C, Mauss F.
Modelling of aromatics and soot formation from large fuel molecules. Proc
Combust Inst 2009;32:753e9.
[31] Glaude P-A, Fournet R, Bounaceur R, Molire M. Adiabatic ame temperature
from biofuels and fossil fuels and derived effect on NOx emissions. Fuel
Process Technol 2010;91:229e35.
[32] Kidoguchi Y, Yang C, Miwa K. Effects of fuel properties on combustion and
emission characteristics of a direct-injection diesel engine. SAE Paper 200001-1851.
[33] Szybist JP, Kirby SR, Boehman AL. NOx emissions of alternative diesel fuels:
a comparative analysis of biodiesel and FT diesel. Energ Fuel 2005;19:1484e92.
[34] Nishiumi R, Yasuda A, Tsukasaki Y, Tanaka T. Effects of cetane number and
distillation characteristics of parafnic diesel fuels on PM emission from a DI
diesel engine. SAE Paper 2004-01-2960.
[35] Process analytics in gas-to-liquid (GTL) Plants. Siemens AG. Available Online,
www.siemens.com/processanalytics; 2007.
[36] Uchida N, Hirabayashi H, Sakata I, Kitano K, Yoshida H, Okabe N. Diesel engine
emissions and performance optimization for neat GTL fuel. SAE Paper 200801-1405.
[37] Wu T, Huang Z, Zhang WG, Fang JH, Yin Q. Physical and chemical properties Of
GTL-diesel fuel blends and their effects on performance and emissions of
a multi-cylinder DI compression ignition engine. Energ Fuel 2007;21:1908e14.
[38] Cowart JS, Sink EM, Slye PG, Caton PA, Hamilton LJ. Performance, efciency
and emissions comparison of diesel fuel and a FischereTropsch synthetic fuel
in a CFR single cylinder diesel engine during high load operation. SAE Paper
2008-01-2382.
[39] Atkinson CM, Thompson GJ, Traver ML, Clark NN. In-cylinder combustion
pressure characteristics of FischereTropsch and conventional diesel fuels in
a heavy duty CI engine. SAE Paper 1999-01-1472.
[40] Cheng AS, Dibble RW. Emissions performance of oxygenate-in-diesel blends
and FischereTropsch diesel in a compression ignition engine. SAE Paper 199901-3606.
[41] Nabi MN, Kannan D, Hustad JE. Experimental investigation of diesel
combustion and exhaust emissions fuelled with FischereTropsch-biodiesel
blends: Part-I. SAE Paper 2009-01-2721.
[42] Larsen U, Lundorf P, Ivarsson A, Schramm J. Emissions from diesel and gasoline vehicles fuelled by Fisher-Tropsch fuels and similar fuels. SAE Paper
2007-01-4008.
[43] Gardner TP, Low SS, Kenney TE, Belaire RC. Evaluation of some alternative
diesel fuels for low emissions and improved fuel economy. SAE Paper 200101-0149.
[44] Johansson MA, Ehleskog M, Gjirja S, Denbratt I. Effects of varying engine
settings on combustion parameters, emissions, soot and temperature distributions in low temperature combustion of FischereTropsch and Swedish
diesel fuels. SAE Paper 2009-01-2787.
[45] Larsson M, Denbratt I. Combustion of FischereTropsch, RME and conventional
fuels in a heavy-duty diesel engine. SAE Paper 2007-01-4009.
[46] Schaberg P, Myburgh I, Botha J, Roets P, Viljoen C, Dancuart L, et al. Diesel
exhaust emissions using Sasol slurry phase distillate process fuels. SAE paper
972898.
[47] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Hernndez JJ, Tsolakis A. Potential for reducing emissions in a diesel engine by fuelling with conventional biodiesel and FischerTropsch diesel. Fuel 2010;89(10):3106e13.
[48] Armas O, Yehliu K, Boehman AL. Effect of alternative fuels on exhaust emissions during diesel engine operation with matched combustion phasing. Fuel
2010;89:438e56.
[49] Payri F, Arrgle J, Fenollosa C, Belot G, Delage A, Schaberg P, et al. Characterisation of the injection-combustion process in a common rail D.I. diesel
engine running with Sasol FischereTropsch fuel. SAE Paper 2000-01-1803.
[50] Oguma M, Goto S, Oyama K, Sugiyama K, Mori M. The possibility of gas to liquid
(GTL) as a fuel of direct injection diesel engine. SAE Paper 2002-01-1706.
[51] Ng H, Carlson R, Wang M. Comparing the performance of GTL/ULSD blends in
older and newer diesel passenger cars. SAE Paper 2008-01-1810.
[52] Czerwinski J, Zimmerli Y, Neubert T, Heitzer A, Kasper M. Injection,
combustion and (Nano) particle emissions of a modern HD-Diesel engine with
GTL, RME & ROR. SAE Paper 2007-01-2015.
[53] Schaberg PW, Zarling DD, Waytulonis R, Kittelson DB. Exhaust particle
number and size distributions with conventional and FischereTropsch diesel
fuels. SAE Paper 2002-01-2727.
[54] Boehman AL, Szybist JP, Song J, Zello V, Alam M. Combustion Characterization
of GTL diesel fuel. In: Prepr Pap-Am Chem Soc, Div Fuel Chem, vol. 49; 2004. p.
714e16.
[55] Boehman A, Alam M, Song J, Acharya R, Szybist J, Zello V. Fuel formulation
effects on diesel fuel injection, combustion, emissions and emission control.
In: Proceedings of DOE 2003 diesel engine emissions reduction conference;
2003. p. 1e9.
[56] Yates ADB, Viljoen CL, Swarts A. Understanding the relation between cetane
number and combustion bomb ignition delay measurements. SAE Paper
2004-01-2017.
[57] Yehliu K, Boehman AL, Armas O. Emissions from different alternative diesel
fuels operating with single and split fuel injection. Fuel 2010;89:423e37.
[58] Schaberg P, Botha J, Schnell M, Herrmann HO, Keppeler S, Friess W. HSDI
diesel engine optimisation for GTL diesel fuel. SAE Paper 2007-01-0027.
[59] Zhang W. Automotive fuels from biomass via gasication. Fuel Process
Technol; 2009.
[60] Nigam PS, Singh A. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources.
Prog Energ Combust, doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2010.01.003.
[61] Ng H, Biruduganti M, Stork K. Comparing the performance of SunDiesel and
conventional diesel in a light-duty vehicle and heavy-duty engine. SAE Paper
2005-01-3776.
[62] Hamelinck C, Broek RVD, Rice B, Gilbert A, Ragwitz M, Toro F. Liquid biofuels
strategy study for Ireland. In: A report of sustainable energy Ireland; 2004. p. 1e105.
[63] Biofuels in the European Union e a vision for 2030 and beyond. European
Biofuels Research Advisory Council; 2006.
[64] Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, Dalai AK. Production of rst and second generation
biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2010;14:578e97.
[65] Miers SA, Ng H, Ciatti SA, Stork K. Emissions, performance, and in-cylinder
combustion analysis in a light-duty diesel engine operating on a FischereTropsch, biomass-to-liquid fuel. SAE Paper 2005-01-3670.
[66] Soltic P, Edenhauser D, Thurnheer T, Schreiber D, Sankowski A. Experimental
investigation of mineral diesel fuel, GTL fuel, RME and neat soybean and
rapeseed oil combustion in a heavy duty on-road engine with exhaust gas
after treatment. Fuel 2009;88:1e8.
[67] Rantanen L, Linnaila R, Aakko P, Harju T. NExBTL e biodiesel fuel of the second
generation. SAE Paper 2005-01-3771.
[68] Lipinski JA. Overview of coal liquefaction. U.S.-India coal working group
meeting. Available Online, http://www.fe.doe.gov/international/Publications/
cwg_nov05_ctl_lepinski.pdf; 2005.
Nomenclature
ATR: autothermal reforming
BSEC: brake specic energy consumption
BSFC: brake specic fuel consumption
BTL: biomass-to-liquid
CA: crank angle
C/H: carbon/hydrogen ratio
CFR: co-operative fuels research engine
CI: compression ignition
CO: carbon monoxide
CO2: carbon dioxide
CTL: coal-to-liquid
DCL: direct coal liquefaction
DI: direct injection
DME: di-methyl-ether
DPF: diesel particulate lter
DPNR: diesel particulate and NOx reduction system
ECU: engine control unit
EGR: exhaust gas recirculation
EN590: European diesel fuel standard
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
EU: European Union
EUDC: extra urban driving cycle
FAEE: fatty acid ethyl ester
FAME: fatty acid methyl ester
FeT: FischereTropsch
GHG: greenhouse gas
GTL: gas-to-liquid
H2: hydrogen
HC: hydrocarbon
HRR: heat release rate
HTFT: high-temperature FischereTropsch
ICL: indirect coal liquefaction
IGCC: integrated gasication combined cycle
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure
ISF: insoluble organic fraction
LHV: lower heating value
LTFT: low-temperature FischereTropsch
mROHR: maximum rate of heat release
mROPR: maximum rate of pressure rise
MEUI: mechanically actuated and electronically controlled unit injector
MK1: Swedish low sulfur environmental classied diesel fuel
MPG: miles per gallon
NEDC: new European driving cycle
NExBTL: bio-based diesel fuel
NOx: oxides of nitrogen (NO, NO2)
O2: oxygen
PAH: poly-aromatic hydrocarbons
PM: particulate matter
POX: partial oxidation
RME: rapeseed methyl ester
ROHR: rate of heat release
SCR: selective catalytic reduction
SMR: steam methane reforming
SOF: soluble organic fraction
THC: total hydrocarbons

TTW: tank-to-wheels
T90: lower 90 % distillation temperature
ULSD: ultra-low sulfur diesel
WTT: well-to-tank
WTW: well-to-wheel
523

Com Fis Tropsh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Com Fis Tropsh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Com Fis Tropsh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 37 (2011) 503e523

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science

Combustion characteristics and emissions of FischereTropsch diesel fuels in IC

School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

FischereTropsch (FeT) diesel fuels appear to be the feasible short

1.1. Fuel crisis

1.3. Emission standards for vehicles e transport sector

1.2. Diesel engines and emissions

forced the manufacturers to introduce DPF in vehicles. Inversely,

The basic technology is known as the FischereTropsch process

FeT Synthesis Process

nCO 2n 1H2 /Cn H2n2 nH2 O Paraffins

1.4. FischereTropsch diesel fuels

nCO 2nH2 /Cn H2n nH2 O Olefins

Synthesis gas can be formed from any carbonaceous material

Steam Reforming is important for those FeT plants that start

H2 O CH4 /CO 3H2

Several routes are possible for the formation of synthesis gas

Ammonia (NH3) (ppm)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tier 2 (Phase-in 2004-2009)

GVWR = Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

*75-100 hp Tier 2, 100-175 hp Tier 3

below accepted lubricity standards, but not signicantly below the

1.5. Well-to-wheels analysis of fuels

Fig. 4. FeT technology [24].

particularly energy efcient. Overall the combined process of

there was an increase in NOx and decrease in PM emissions at high

F-T Synthesis (to

Synthesis Product Upgrading

Fig. 6. Generic gas-to-liquids (GTL) process simplied [35].

process. Various technologies such as steam methane reforming

below are classied according to the type of injection system

lower load modes, with no clear trend observed regarding the

Fig. 7. Effect of EGR on the trade-off of NOx (elaborated from [2,3,17,19,20]).

improvement of fuel economy was seen as more signicant at low

A more up to date study was carried out by Rounce et al. [17],

Increasing Engine Load (%)

Increasing Engine Load (%)

Increasing Engine Speed (rpm)

Increasing Engine Speed (rpm)

Cylinder Pressure (bar)

The study carried out by Rounce et al. [17], introduced three-way

2.2.2. Common-rail systems

Ref. Fuel Diesel Fuel

economy. Similarly from work carried out by Schaberg et al. [19], it

(this can be done in common-rail systems, for example), the higher

50:50 EU-GTL blend

80:20 EU-GTL blend

Values for blends calculated according to blending ratios.

and mixing with the surrounding air, resulting in the reduction of

of emissions reduction and their fuel consumption. The vehicles

can be reduced. To reduce combustion noise of a DI diesel engine,

2.3. Engine optimization-emission strategies with GTL fuels

injection parameters but considering others as well) is a key step

Relative Soot (%)

GTL Diesel & Hardware Adaptation