Vol. 26, No. 15 (2014)
Development of Lactic Ester as Bifunctional Additive of Methanol-Gasoline 4829
Methyl lactate
Butyl lactate
Hepyl lactate
Ethyl lactate
Amyl lactate
Octyl lactate
Propyllactate
Hexyl lactate
Decyllactate
7
6
5
0
0
0
Methyl lactate
Propyl lactate
Amyl lactate
Hepyl lactate
Decyl lactate
Ethyl lactate
Butyl lactate
Hexyllactate
Octyllactate
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
40
5
.0
.0
5.0
0
3
0
-
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Dosage of lactic esters (%)
1
-
10.0
15.0
-
Fig. 6. Effect of lactic esters on the evaporation of methanol-gasoline M15
system
0
.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.011.0 12.013.0
Dosages of lactic esters (volume %)
Fig. 4. Effect of the lactic ester dosage on the phase stability of M65
the saturation vapor pressure lower than that of gasoline,
among which methyl lactate is the most effective one. Further
increase of the dosage depresses the saturation vapor pressure
ineffectively. The main reason is contribute to the distribution
of lactic esters on the surface of methanol-gasoline, which
prevent the formation of an azeotrope with low boiling point.
and shown in Fig. 5. It can be found that the phase separation
temperature declines along with the length of the alkoxy group.
For M15, the phase separation temperature comes to the lowest
as the carbon atom number of alkoxy group comes to 7. For
M30, the carbon atom number of alkoxy group comes to 10.
For M50, the carbon atom number of alkoxy group comes to
Conclusion
Lactic esters were synthesized and screened for their
performances of phase stabilizing in M15, M30, M50 and M65
and pressure reducing in M15. The results show that the length
of alkoxy group of lactic esters effects on the phase stability
of methanol-gasoline significantly. The phase stability of lactic
esters with long length is more potent than that with short
length. All of the synthesized esters are potent to depress the
saturation vapor pressure of methanol-gasoline. With the
dosage of 0.2 %, all lactic esters can depress the saturation
vapor pressure lower than that of gasoline and methyl lactate
is the most effective one.
8
. For M65, the lowest phase separation temperature was
obtained as the carbon atom number of alkoxy group comes
to 8.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
M15
M50
M30
M65
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was financially supported by the grants from
National Science Foundation of China (21306149) and Scientific
Research Plan Projects of Shaanxi Education Department
(
2013JK0646).
-
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Carbon atom number of alkoxy groups
REFERENCES
Fig. 5. Relationship of the alkoxy groups and the phase separation
temperature
1
2
.
.
J.L. Wei, Chinese and Foreign Energy, 11, 95 (2006).
X.L. He, Y. H. Zhan and S.S. Li, Fuel of Internal Combustion Engine,
China Petrochemical Press, Beijing, p. 11/352-11/392(1999).
Y. Jianjun and H. Haibo, J. Internal Combustion Engine and Power
Equipment, 4, 40 (2007).
Effect of lactic ester on the evaporation of methanol-
gasoline: The saturation vapor pressure will rise over that of
gasoline as it blends with low percentage methanol such as
M15 and M30, which will lead to vapor block as it used under
relative high temperature. Some chemicals with lower
saturation vapor pressure can be added to depress the high
pressure of gasoline. In this work, the effect of lactic ester on
the saturation vapor pressure of M15 methanol-gasoline was
investigated referred to GB 8017-87 "petroleum products the
vapor pressure determination method (Reid Method)" and the
results are shown in Fig. 6. The original saturation vapor
pressure of M15 is 63.5 kPa, which is 5.7 kPa higher than that
of gasoline. As little amount of esters were added in, the
saturation vapor pressure was depressed obviously. With the
esters' dosage of 0.2 %, methyl lactate, ethyl lactate, propyl
lactate, hepyl lactate, octyl lactate and decyl lactate can depress
3
.
4
5
.
.
J. Fu Wenhui, J. Petrol., 2, 69 (1986).
H. Ping, Research and Application of the Additive of Methanol Gasoline,
LiaoNing Normal University, pp. 9-10 (2010).
Q. Yingbing, J. Contemp. Petrol. Petrochem., 11, 7 (2003).
6
.
7. Z. Mingquan, Chinese Patent 1400290 (2003).
8
9
1
1
.
.
W. Mingqing and H. Yubin, J. GuangZhou Chemical, 39, 87 (2010).
L. Taotao and Y. Lin, Times J. Chem., 19, 1 (2005).
0. G. Hejun, Polym. Mater. Sci. Eng., 18, 171 (2002).
1. Z. Chengru, Chinese Patent 101705122 (2010).
12. L. Bo, Chinese Patent 101787311 (2010).
1
1
1
1
3. S. Hongyan and L. Yinping, Chinese Patent 102031104 (2011).
4. Z.Yali, H. Zhihong and G. Jing, J. Lanzhou Univ. Technol., 31, 3 (2005).
5. S. Mao, Appl. Chem. Ind., 40, 5 (2011).
6. L. Yi, L. Mei and L. Xiaoling, J. Anhui Agric. Sci, 38, 28 (2010).
17. X. Qiang, L. Chuanguang and X. Fuliang, Times J. Chem., 21, 10
2007).
8. Y. Bo and D. Xiaoming, Spectrosc. Spect. Anal., 24, 1320 (2004).
(
1