Table 2.
Summary of the obtained FAME results in comparison to other reported solid catalysis.
| Feedstock | Type of catalyst | Activation Temperature and time, (OC, h) | Method | FAME yield, % | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Refined coconut oil | OH-impregnated CaO | (600, 2) | Methanolysis with Co-solvent | 81.70 | [7] |
| Palm oil | CaO from magnetic-derived CaCO3 | -(magnetically treated) | Methanolysis | 85 | [15] |
| Waste Frying Oil Valorization | KNO3-Loaded Coffee Husk Ash | (600, 2) | Methanolysis | 72.04 | [22] |
| Blend of waste cooking oil and refined palm oil | Fly ash | (120, 2) | Methanolysis | 73.8 | [1] |
| canola oil | NaOH loaded sepiolite | (500, 5) | Methanolysis | 80.93 | [38] |
| Green alga, Chlorella vulgaris oil | CaO nanocatalyst | (400, 2) | Methanolysis | 67 | [35] |
| Waste cooking palm oil | RC | (600, 3) | Methanolysis | 19.74 | This study |
| RC-TB | (600, 3) | 62.57 | |||
| RC-ITB | (600, 3) | 76.05 |