Biodiesel use and experience among state DOT agencies

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 177-184

  Humburg, Daniel S ^a   Hansen, Tonya J ^b   Schumacher, Leon G ^c   Mahapatra, Ajit K ^d   Taylor, Gary L ^b   Adams, Brian T ^c  

^a South Dakota State University   (United States)

^b SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^d FORT VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biodiesel use; Blend; Filtering; Fleet; Maintenance; Performance issues; Survey; U.S. departments of transportation

Indexed keywords

BLENDING; ESTERS; FEEDSTOCKS; FILTRATION; MOTOR TRANSPORTATION; SURVEYS;

BIODIESEL BLENDED FUEL; COLD WEATHER; SOY METHYL ESTER;

SYNTHETIC FUELS;

EID: 33744496277     PISSN: 08838542     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Agarwal, A. K., J. Bijwe, and L. M. Das. 2003. Wear assessment in a biodiesel fueled compression ignition engine. Trans. ASME 125 (3): 820-826.
2. Canakci, A., and J. H. Van Gerpen. 2003. Comparison of engine performance and emissions for petroleum diesel fuel, yellow grease biodiesel and soybean oil biodiesel. Transactions of the ASAE 46(4): 937-944.
3. Cardone, M., M. V. Prati, V. Rocco, M. Seggiani, A. Senator, and S. Vitolo. 2002. Brassica carinata as an alternative oil crop for production of biodiesel in Italy: Engine performance and regulated and unregulated exhaust emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (21): 4656-4662.
4. Kersting, T. 2002. Personal communication. South Dakota Soybean Processors. Volga, S.D.: SDSP.
5. Marshal, W., L. G. Schumacher, and S. Howell. 1995. Engine exhaust emissions evaluation of a Cummins L10E when fueled with a biodiesel blend. SAE Paper No. 952363. Warrendale, Pa.: SAE.
6. MDA. 2002. Economic impact of soy diesel in Minnesota. Agricultural Marketing Services Division, Minneapolis, Minn.: Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ams/biodiesel/ ecoimpsoydiesel.pdf.
7. Monyem, A., J. H. Van Gerpen, and M. Canakci. 2001. The effect of timing and oxidation on emissions from biodiesel fueled engines. Transactions of the ASAE 44(1): 35-42.
8. Munack, A., O. Schroeder, J. Krahl, and J. Bunger. 2001. Comparison of relevant exhaust gas emissions from biodiesel and fossil diesel fuel. CIGR J. Sci. Res. Dev. Manuscript 01 001, v. III.
9. Schumacher, L. G., and S.A. Howell. 1994. Lubricating qualities of biodiesel and biodiesel blends. In Bioenergy 94: Proc. 6th National Bioenergy Conf., 113-119, Reno/Sparks, N.V.: Western Regional Biomass Energy Program.
10. Schumacher, L. G., N. N. Clark, D. W. Lyons, and W. Marshall. 2001. Diesel engine exhaust emissions evaluation of biodiesel blends using a Cummins L10E engine. Transactions of the ASAE 44(6): 1461-1464.
11. Sharp, C. A. 1996. Emissions and lubricity evaluation of rapeseed derived biodiesel fuels. Southwest Research Institute Study, San Antonio, Tex. Presented at DOE Biodiesel Emissions Testing Meeting. Seattle, Wash.: Department of Energy and University of Idaho.
12. SDASS. 2003. South Dakota Agriculture Bulletin 63. Sioux Falls, S.D.: South Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service.
13. Tiffany, D. 2001. Biodiesel: A policy choice for Minnesota. St. Paul, Minn.: University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences.
14. Wechel, T., C. R. Gustafson, and F. L. Leistritz. 2003. Economic feasibility of biodiesel production in North Dakota. Report #505. Fargo, N.D.: North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.