Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Plastic waste pyrolysis oil (PWPO) offers a waste-to-energy pathway; however, its use in small spark-ignition engines is constrained by fuel-property variability, mixture preparation, and combustion phasing. This study integrated evidence on fuel properties, crank-angle-resolved combustion, indicated performance, cyclic variability, and emissions for PWPO produced using a silica-alumina catalyst containing 0, 5, 10, and 15 vol.% methanol in a 163 cm³ single-cylinder stationary Otto engine at engine speeds of 1,500–4,000 rpm. A 4 × 6 operating matrix was used to compare pressure-volume behavior, pressure-crank-angle development, apparent heat-release rate (HRR), CA10/CA50/CA90 phasing, net indicated mean effective pressure (IMEPₙ), COVIMEP, and gaseous emissions. The response to methanol was distinctly non-monotonic. M10 generally produced the highest IMEPₙ, whereas M5 yielded the lowest speed-averaged CO (3.87 vol.%, 16.9% below PWPO) and M10 yielded the lowest speed-averaged HC (411.7 ppm, 28.1% below PWPO); CO emissions from M10 were 14.2% lower than those from PWPO. Re-examination of the archived burn-phasing data showed that the M10 CA10-CA90 interval was approximately 2.8-5.6% longer than that of PWPO despite earlier CA90, while M10 COVIMEP remained approximately 16-25% under no-load conditions. The evidence therefore supports a trade-off between fuel composition and engine responses rather than a concentration-proportional benefit or statistically validated optimum: moderate methanol reformulation improved pressure development and incomplete-combustion emissions, but did not eliminate cyclic instability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siahaan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: