Comparative assessment of waste cooking, chicken waste and waste tire biodiesel blends on performance and emission characteristics

•Comparative analysis of three third generation biodiesel were examined.•Waste cooking oil effectiveness compared with the waste tire and chicken waste blends.•Performance efficiency of the chicken waste blends were marginally less than.•Emission of HC and CO were significantly reduced due to the biodiesel blends. A comparative study and experimental tests were conducted by using second generation biodiesel. Owing to problems being faced in the production of first-generation biodiesel using edible sources, the switch over to another reliable source is much more important. A plenty of research has been going on to mend and produce biodiesel from waste sources. Each experimental tests were conducted in a single cylinder, four stroke diesel engines. The fuels taken for comparison were all derived from non-edible and waste sources such as waste cooking oil, waste chicken fat and waste tire oil. The diesel and blends were mixed in the proportion of 9:1 as 90% diesel and 10% blends. The taken fuel blends were WC10 (Waste cooking oil 10%+ Diesel 90%), WCF10 (Waste Chicken Fat oil 10%+ Diesel 90%) and WT10 (Waste Tire oil 10%+ Diesel 90%). Tests were conducted at four loading conditions with 25% interval as 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. These biofuel blends results were compared with neat diesel (D100). The performance, emission and combustion qualities were measured. Among the all tried fuels, the better fuel order was D100, WC10, WCF10 and WT10. However, all blended fuels were in the category of oxygenated biofuel derived from not usable products, waste cooking oil biodiesel showed higher Exhaust gas temperature and Bake Power with lower Bake specific fuel consumption than the waste chicken fat and waste tire bio-oil fuels. On comparing the blended fuel excluding the diesel, the WC10, the WT10 proved to be more efficient than WCF10.