MEV Journal of Mechatronics, Electrical Power, an d Vehicular Technology 10 (2019) 24–28 Journal of Mechatronics, Electrical Power, and Vehicular Technology e-ISSN: 2088-6985 p-ISSN: 2087-3379 www.mevjournal.com doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.14203/j.mev.2019.v10.24-28 2088-6985 / 2087-3379 ©2019 Research Centre for Electrical Power an d Mechatronics - Indonesian Institute of Sciences (RCEPM LIPI). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Accreditation Number: (LIPI) 633/AU/P2MI-LIPI/03/2015 and (RISTEKDIKTI) 1/E/KPT/2015. Exhaust emissions analysis of gasoline motor fueled with corncob-based bioethanol and RON 90 fuel mixture Widiyanti a, *, Muhammad Alfian Mizar a, Christian Asri Wicaksana b, Didik Nurhadi a, Kriya Mateeke Moses c a Department of Mechanical Engineering, State University of Malan g Jl. Semarang no. 5, Malang, 65145, Indonesia, b Bachelor Program, Department of Mechanical Engineering, State University of Malang Jl. Semarang no. 5, Malang, 65145, Indonesia, c Graduate school of technological and vocational education, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, Section 3, Douliou, Yunlin, 64002, Taiwan Received 9 December 2018; accepted 15 August 2019; Published online 17 December 2019 Abstract One of the viable solutions to the fossil fuel energy crisis was to seek alternative sources of environmentally friendly energy with the same or better quality such as bioethanol. It was possible to produce bioethanol from organic waste, e.g., corncob. This research aimed to obtain the lowest exhaust emission levels of CO and CO2 generated from a gasoline motor that used a mixture of bioethanol containing 96 % corncob and RON 90 fuel. This research was experimental using Anova statistical data analysis method. The results showed that the lowest average of CO emissions was 0.177 vol% using E100 fuel, and the highest average was 2.649 vol% using 100 % RON 90 fuel, displaying a significant difference. The lowest average of CO2 emissions was 6.6 vol% using E100 fuel, and the highest was 7.51 vol% using 100 % RON 90 fuel, which was insignificantly different. The mixture variation with the lowest CO and CO2 emissions was E100. ©2019 Research Centre for Electrical Power and Mechatronics - Indonesian Institute of Sciences. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Keywords: RON 90 fuel; corncob-based bioethanol; gasoline generator; CO and CO2 exhaust emissions. I. Introduction Waste is a result of various operations of production and consumption to satisfy human needs. Physically, there are three types of waste: gas, solid, and liquid. Organic waste is the most produced waste globally, particularly in East Asia and the Pacific, reaching up to 62 % [1][2]. An example of organic solid waste without optimal handling is corncob. Corncob is the core of the female floral organ to which the kernels are attached. Corncobs have low utility and economic value because they are most beneficial as animal feed or a substitute for firewood. Increasing the utilization of corncob waste and its financial cost can be gained through bioconversion method, a method to turn waste into fuel such as bioethanol [3][4]. During 1969 to 2015, the year 2015 produced the highest maize production in Indonesia of 20,667 million tons [5]. Bioethanol is a biofuel that is renewable as long as there are sunlight, water, oxygen, and agriculture practices [6][7]. Bioethanol is superior to other fuel oils in the market because it has a higher oxygen content to burn perfectly, higher octane number, and is more environmentally friendly because it contains lower CO content [8][9]. Based on the above data, bioethanol is an alternative energy that becomes the most recommended renewable energy and could solve the existing pollution problems [10]. The most common ingredients in bioethanol are molasses [11] and crude fiber materials that high in carbohydrate, lipid, and nutrient contents [12][13][14]. Ethanol can be used in its pure form, mixed with gasoline, or interacted with hydrogen to create fuel cell energy source for internal combustion [15][16]. Potential plants for bioethanol production are those with high carbohydrate content, such as sugarcane, sugarcane juice, sugar palm, sorghum, cassava, cashew (cashew waste), arrowroot, banana stem, sweet potato, corn, * Correspon ding Author. Tel: +62-8123118193 E-mail address: widiyanti.ft@um.ac.id https://dx.doi.org/10.14203/j.mev.2019.v10.24-28 http://u.lipi.go.id/1436264155 http://u.lipi.go.id/1434164106 http://mevjournal.com/index.php/mev/index https://dx.doi.org/10.14203/j.mev.2019.v10.24-28 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.14203/j.mev.2019.v10.24-28&domain=pdf https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Widiyanti et al. / Journal of Mechatronics, Electrical Power, and Vehicular Technology 10 (201 9) 24–28 25 corncob, straw, and bagasse (sugarcane bagasse) [17]. Ethanol is a liquid with a distinct odor [18], flammable, colorless [19], water-soluble [20], and volatile [21]. Until 2015, the global primary energy consumption consists of 7 % water power, 4 % nuclear, 33 % oil, 30 % coal and 24 % natural gas [22][23]. The world energy consumption is projected to rise by 47.41 % from 2010 to 2040 [23] with the non-OECD countries, for example, Indonesia, dominate the consumption [22]. The newest type of fuel in Indonesia is RON 90 or commonly called Pertalite with 90 octane number. Pertalite is created by adding an additive element in its production in the refinery. Pertalite consists of naphtha—a refinery material with a boiling point between gasoline and kerosene and RON of 65 to 70, a high octane mogas component (HOMC) which has a RON of 92 to 95, and a fuel additive called Eco Save [24]. The previous research discussed the measurement of CO, CO2, HC, and N2 exhaust emissions on lightweight transportations [25][26][27][28]. Park [29] also examined the premixing effect of HC, CO, and NOx exhaust emissions from a mixture of bioethanol and gasoline. The emission test and machine performance fueled with a mix of biodiesel and ethanol had an inversely proportionate result between CO and CO2 [30], meanwhile, adding more than 20 % ethanol in biodiesel did not affect the machine performance [31]. This research aimed to determine the exhaust emission levels of CO and CO2 generated from a gasoline motor fueled with a mixture of bioethanol containing 96 % corncob and RON 90 fuel and to identify which variation of fuel mixture has the lowest exhaust emission level of CO and CO2. The update in this study was the optimal composition of the corncob bioethanol fuel and RON 90 mixture with minimal corrosive levels. II. Materials and Methods This study used an experimental research method which is aiming to examine the effect of a given treatment under controllable conditions. The analysis in this study used the descriptive statistic and One Way Anova statistical test [32]. The descriptive analysis was useful to analyze the overall observation of CO and CO2 exhaust emission level while the One Way ANOVA statistical test was used to test the hypothesis. Several instruments in this research were helpful to facilitate data collection from sample tests so that the generated data were more accurate, comprehensive, complete, and systematic and established easy-processing research. The tests used a gasoline generator fueled with a mixture of corncob-based bioethanol and RON 90 fuel as the device. The engine performance analyzation aimed to obtain the CO and CO2 emissions at a constant engine speed of 3000 Rpm. This research used a digital mass scale, measuring cups, Erlenmeyer flasks, volumetric flasks, volumetric pipettes, stopwatch, ammeter, light bulbs, tachometer, and digital Stargas 898 as the measuring instruments. The materials in this research were corncob-based bioethanol with 96 % purity level and RON 90 fuel. This research conducted the tests according to the five fuel mixtures with different concentrations of corncob-based bioethanol and RON 90 fuel in a gasoline generator. The five variations of the fuel mixture were 100 % RON 90, 75 % RON 90 + E25, 50 % RON 90 + E50, 25 % RON 90 + E75, and E100. III. Results and Discussions This experimental research answered the question on the best mixture ratio of fuels to create the lowest CO and CO2 emission. The tests mixed both fuels in five ratio variations to obtain it. The results at Table 1 shows that from five mixture variations of RON 90 and corncob-based bioethanol, there were uniformed results; in which more load generated more CO and CO2 exhaust emissions. The results were different from the experiment of Ehsaan [33], that declared that CO2 exhaust emission was insignificantly increased, unlike the CO exhaust emission. The data shown in Figure 1 addresses that the use of fuel mixture containing RON 90 fuel and corncob- based bioethanol produced a lower CO exhaust emission compared to the 100 % RON 90 fuel. This result occurred because ethanol has more oxygen content than RON 90 fuel, so the fuel combustion process was more likely to be perfect and generated fewer exhaust emissions [34]. Ethanol has an oxygenate compound with one OH in its molecular structure [35]. The presence of inherent oxygen in inert ethanol helps the combustion process [36] in the cylinder because it improved the atomization of air and fuel mixture. The use of 100 % RON 90 fuel produced the highest CO emissions of 3.373 vol% under a load of 1200 W and the 25 % RON 90 + E75 fuel generated the lowest CO emission level of 0.01 vol% Table 1. Comparison results of CO and CO2 exhaust emission from a mixture of RON 90 and Bioethanol No. Load 100 % RON 90 75 % RON 9 0+E25 50 % RON 9 0+E50 25 % RON 9 0+E75 E100 CO (vol%) CO2 (vol%) CO (vol%) CO2 (vol%) CO (vol%) CO2 (vol%) CO (vol%) CO2 (vol%) CO (vol%) CO2 (vol%) 1. 200 W 1.79 6.38 0.94 5.91 0.14 6.53 0.01 5.94 0.13 4.94 2. 400 W 2.37 7.13 1.10 6.14 0.21 6.92 0.10 6.46 0.15 5.79 3. 600 W 2.43 7.60 1.28 7.27 0.25 7.10 0.11 6.75 0.16 6.52 4. 800 W 2.82 7.70 1.58 8.08 0.26 7.25 0.14 7.94 0.18 7.04 5. 1000 W 3.12 7.95 1.67 8.52 0.32 8.15 0.34 8.28 0.21 7.43 6. 1200 W 3.37 8.31 1.85 9.00 0.45 8.34 0.48 8.71 0.23 7.88 Widiyanti et al. / Journal of Mechatronics, Electrical Power, and Vehicular Technology 10 (2019) 24–28 26 under a load of 200 W. Using the 100 % RON 90 fuel of 2.649 vol% generated the highest average of CO emissions and the E100 fuel produced the lowest one of 0.177 vol%. Similarly, the CO2 emission comparison result shown in Figure 2 also showed that the addition of corncob-based bioethanol to RON 90 fuel had produced lower CO2 emissions than the use of 100 % RON 90 fuel. Overall, the CO emission levels were lower than the CO2 emissions. The engine with 75 % RON 90 + E25 fuel mixture under a load of 1200 W produced the highest CO2 emission level of 9 vol% and the engine using the E100 fuel under a weight of 200 W generated the lowest one of 4.9 vol%. On average, the engine with the 100 % RON 90 fuel made the highest CO2 emission of 7.51 vol%, and that fueled with the E100 fuel produced the lowest average of 6.6 vol%. IV. Conclusion This research investigated the exhaust emission in gasoline motor fueled with a mixture of RON 90 gasoline fuel and corncob-based bioethanol. The results indicated that the CO2 emission level tended to increase as with the increasing loading. Overall, CO emissions were lower than CO2 emissions. The more the ethanol content in the fuel mixture, the lower the CO emissions. On the other hand, the CO2 exhaust emission had significantly different results. Generally, the test results of CO2 exhaust emission were similar to the CO exhaust emission; in which they increased with the increasing load and decreased along with the additional ethanol content in the mixture. Based on those results, the CO exhaust emissions were significantly different, while CO2 emissions were insignificantly different. The recommended fuel to be Figure 1. Comparison results of CO exhaust emission (in vol%) Figure 2. Comparison results of CO2 exhaust emission (in vol%) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 200W 400W 600W 800W 1000W 1200W 100% RON 90 75% RON 90+E25 50% RON 90+E50 25% RON 90+E75 E100 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 200W 400W 600W 800W 1000W 1200W 100% RON 90 75% RON 90+E25 50% RON 90+E50 25% RON 90+E75 E100 Widiyanti et al. / Journal of Mechatronics, Electrical Power, and Vehicular Technology 10 (201 9) 24–28 27 used was E100 because it had the lowest CO and CO2 exhaust emissions compared to other mixtures. However, due to the corrosive properties of ethanol, there needed modification in the fuel tank and its channel. Furthermore, it was possible to mix the bioethanol with fuel mixtures from the market to decrease the corrosive that might occur with the recommended combination was 25 % RON 90 + E75. Based on the results, the best fuel mixture was 25 % RON 90 + E75. This composition had the lowest CO and CO2 exhaust emissions and lowest corrosive property compared to the pure E100 composition. Declarations Author contribution Widiyanti and C.A. Wicaksana contributed equally as the main contributor of this paper. All authors read and approved the final paper. Funding statement This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Additional information No additional information is available for this paper. References [1] I. V. Muralikrishna and V. Manickam, “Solid Waste Management,” in Environmental Management, Elsevier, 2017, pp. 431–462. [2] S. Kaza, L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, and F. Van Woerden , What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. The World Bank, 2018. [3] Y. Putrasari, A . Praptijanto, W. B. Santoso, an d O. Lim, “Resources, policy, and research activities of biofuel in Indonesia: A review,” Energy Reports, vol. 2, pp. 237–245, Nov. 2016. [4] D. M. Rahmah, F. Rizal, and A . Bun yamin, “Model Dinamis Produksi Jagun g di Indonesia,” J. Teknotan, vol. 11, no. 1, Jul. 2017. [5] A. Bin Arif, W. Diyono, M. Hayuningtyas, E. Syaefullah, A. Budiyanto, and N. Richana, “Penggandaan Skala Produksi Bioetanol dari Tongkol Jagun g” Inform. Pertan ., vol. 26, no. 2, p. 57, Dec. 2017. [6] H. Zabed, J. N. Sahu, A . Suely, A . N. Boyce, an d G. Faruq, “Bioethanol production from renewable sources: Current perspectives and technological progress,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 71, pp. 475–501, May 2017. [7] M. Guo, W. Song, and J. Buhain, “Bioenergy an d biofuels: History, status, and perspective,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 42, pp. 712–725, Feb. 2015. [8] G. Najafi, B. Ghobadian, T. Tavakoli, D. R. Buttsworth, T. F. Yusaf, and M. Faizollahnejad, “Performan ce and exhaust emissions of a gasoline en gine with ethanol-blended gasoline fuels using artificial neural network,” A ppl. Energy, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 630– 639, May 2009. [9] H. Kim and B. Choi, “The effect of biodiesel an d bioethanol blended diesel fuel on nanoparticles and exhaust emissions from CRDI diesel engine,” Renew. Energy, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 157–163, Jan. 2010. [10] F. Wang et al., “An environmentally friendly and productive process for bioethanol production from potato waste,” Biotechnol. Biofuels, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 50, Dec. 2016. [11] L. Canilha et al., “Bioconversion of Sugarcane Biomass into Ethanol: An Overview about Composition, Pretreatment Methods, Detoxification of Hydrolysates, En zymatic Saccharification, and Ethanol Fermentation,” J. Biomed. Biotechnol., vol. 2012, pp. 1–15, 2012. [12] J. Singh and S. Gu, “Commercialization potential of microalgae for biofuels production,” Renew. Sustain . Energy Rev., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 2596–2610, Dec. 2010. [13] M. K. Lam and K. T. Lee, “Microalgae biofuels: A critical review of issues, problems an d the way forward,” Biotechnol. Adv., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 673–690, May 2012. [14] N. Brosse, A. Dufour, X. Meng, Q. Sun, an d A. Ragauskas, “Miscanthus : a fast-growing crop for biofuels and chemicals production ,” Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 580–598, Sep. 2012. [15] M. Z. Jacobson, “Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security,” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 148–173, 2009. [16] H. L. MacLean and L. B. Lave, “Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–69, 2003. [17] A. D. Kurniawan and S. S. Sanuri, “Analisa Pen ggunaan Bahan Bakar Bioethanol Dari Batang Padi Sebagai Campuran Pada Bensin ,” J. Tek. ITS, vol. 1, no. 2014, 3AD. [18] I. T. Horváth, H. Meh di, V. Fábos, L. Boda, and L. T. Mika, “γ- Valerolactone—a sustainable liquid for energy and carbon-based chemicals,” Green Chem., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 238–242, 2008. [19] H. Behniafar and N. Sefid-girandehi, “Optical and thermal behavior of novel fluorinated polyimides capable of preparing colorless, transparent and flexible films,” J. Fluor. Chem., vol. 132, no. 11, pp. 878–884, Nov. 2011. [20] Y. J. Chen , X. Y. Xue, Y. G. Wang, and T. H. Wang, “Synthesis and ethanol sensing characteristics of single-crystalline SnO2 nanorods,” Appl. Ph ys. Lett., vol. 87, no. 23, p. 233503, Dec. 2005. [21] A. Mirzaei, S. G. Leonardi, and G. Neri, “Detection of hazardous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by metal oxide nanostructures-based gas sen sors: A review,” Ceram. Int., vol. 42, no. 14, pp. 15119–15141, Nov. 2016. [22] S. Bilgen, “Structure an d environmental impact of global energy consumption ,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 38, pp. 890– 902, Oct. 2014. [23] BP, “BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019,” 2019. [24] I. W. B. A . I Wayan Budi Ariawan , I Gusti Bagus Wijaya Kusuma, “Pengaruh Penggunaan Bahan Bakar Pertalite Terhadap Unjuk Kerja Daya, Torsi Dan Konsumsi Bahan Bakar Pada Sepeda Motor Bertransmisi Otomatis,” J. METTEK, 2016. [25] M. V. Prati, M. A . Costagliola, C. Tommasino, L. Della Ragione, and G. Meccariello, “Road Grade Influence on the Exhaust Emissions of a Scooter Fuelled with Bioethanol/Gasoline Blen ds,” Transp. Res. Procedia, vol. 3, pp. 790–799, 2014. [26] S. A. Shahir, H. H. Masjuki, M. A. Kalam, A. Imran, an d A. M. Ashraful, “Performance and emission assessment of diesel– biodiesel–ethanol/bioethanol blend as a fuel in diesel en gines: A review,” Renew. Sustain . Energy Rev., vol. 48, pp. 62–78, Aug. 2015. [27] Y. H. Tan, M. O. Abdullah, C. Nolasco-Hipolito, N. S. A. Zauzi, and G. W. Abdullah, “Engine performance and emissions characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel-biodiesel- bioethanol emulsions,” Energy Con vers. Manag., vol. 132, pp. 54–64, Jan . 2017. [28] A. H. Sebayan g et al., “Prediction of en gine performan ce and emission s with Manihot glaziovii bioethanol − Gasoline blended using extreme learning machine,” Fuel, vol. 210, pp. 914–921, Dec. 2017. [29] S. H. Park, S. H. Yoon, an d C. S. Lee, “Bioethanol and gasoline premixing effect on combustion and emission characteristics in biodiesel dual-fuel combustion engine,” A ppl. Energy, vol. 135, pp. 286–298, Dec. 2014. [30] A. Veeresh, K. Ganesh, M. Vijay, and P. Ravi, “Investigation on the Performance and Emission Characteristics of Biodiesel Animal oil Ethanol Blends in a Single Cylinder Diesel Engine,” in International Conference on Advances in A pplied science and Environmental Technology - ASET 2015, 2015, pp. 115–119. [31] S.-Y. No, “A Review on Spray Characteristics of Bioethanol and Its Blended Fuels in CI Engines,” J. ILASS-Korea, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 155–166, Dec. 2014. [32] S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, “An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples),” Biometrika, vol. 52, no. 3/4, p. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811989-1.00016-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811989-1.00016-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811989-1.00016-6 https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0 https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0 https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2016.08.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2016.08.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2016.08.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2016.08.005 https://doi.org/10.24198/jt.vol11n1.4 https://doi.org/10.24198/jt.vol11n1.4 https://doi.org/10.24198/jt.vol11n1.4 https://doi.org/10.21082/ip.v26n2.2017.p57-66 https://doi.org/10.21082/ip.v26n2.2017.p57-66 https://doi.org/10.21082/ip.v26n2.2017.p57-66 https://doi.org/10.21082/ip.v26n2.2017.p57-66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.09.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.04.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.04.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.04.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.04.008 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0464-7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0464-7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0464-7 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/989572 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/989572 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/989572 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/989572 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/989572 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.06.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.06.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.06.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.11.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.11.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.11.008 https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1353 https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1353 https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1353 https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1353 https://doi.org/10.1039/b809990c https://doi.org/10.1039/b809990c https://doi.org/10.1039/b809990c https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1285(02)00032-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1285(02)00032-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1285(02)00032-1 http://ejurnal.its.ac.id/index.php/teknik/article/view/5767/1646 http://ejurnal.its.ac.id/index.php/teknik/article/view/5767/1646 http://ejurnal.its.ac.id/index.php/teknik/article/view/5767/1646 https://doi.org/10.1039/b712863k https://doi.org/10.1039/b712863k https://doi.org/10.1039/b712863k https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluchem.2011.06.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluchem.2011.06.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluchem.2011.06.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluchem.2011.06.017 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2140091 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2140091 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2140091 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.004 https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-primary-energy.pdf https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/mettek/article/view/23007/15147 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/mettek/article/view/23007/15147 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/mettek/article/view/23007/15147 https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/mettek/article/view/23007/15147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.056 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.056 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.056 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.056 https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-040-8-94 https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-040-8-94 https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-040-8-94 https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-040-8-94 https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-040-8-94 https://doi.org/10.15435/jilasskr.2014.19.4.155 https://doi.org/10.15435/jilasskr.2014.19.4.155 https://doi.org/10.15435/jilasskr.2014.19.4.155 https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709 https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709 Widiyanti et al. / Journal of Mechatronics, Electrical Power, and Vehicular Technology 10 (2019) 24–28 28 591, Dec. 1965. [33] M. Ehsan, M. S. A. Bhuiyan, and N. Naznin, “Multi-Fuel Performance of a Petrol En gine for Small Scale Power Generation,” 2003. [34] A. N. Özsezen, “Evaluating Environmental Effects Of Bioethanol-Gasoline Blends In Use A SI Engine,” Uluslararası Yakıtlar Yanma Ve Yangın Derg., no. 4, pp. 36–41, Dec. 2016. [35] P. Dirrenberger et al., “Laminar burning velocity of gasolines with addition of ethanol,” Fuel, vol. 115, pp. 162–169, Jan . 2014. [36] A. Fossdal et al., “Study of inexpen sive ox ygen carriers for chemical looping combustion,” Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 483–488, May 2011. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709 https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-32-0063 https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-32-0063 https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-32-0063 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/303216 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/303216 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/303216 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.07.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.07.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.08.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.08.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.08.001