المجلة الرسمية لكلية الهندسة جامعة النور

جداول الكثافة النوعية وفق معيار API المحسوبة مسبقًا كبديل عن المعادلة القياسية

نوع المستند : Original Article

المؤلف

شركة توزيع المنتجات النفطية، الهيأة الغربية، فرع صلاح الدين، تكريت، العراق

المستخلص
 يعَدّ كثافة معهد البترول الأمريكي (API) معيارًا أساسيًا لتصنيف النفط الخام والمنتجات النفطية اعتمادًا على الكثافة. يقدّم هذا البحث تطوير جداول لكثافات الزيوت تتراوح بين 0.600 إلى 1.025، يمكن من خلالها اشتقاق كثافة API مباشرةً دون الحاجة إلى استخدام معادلة الحالة. كما تناولت الدراسة فحص أربع كثافات لأربعة منتجات نفطية (البنزين، الكيروسين، زيت الغاز، وزيوت التزييت)، مما أسفر عن 16 نموذجًا إجمالًا. وأظهرت نتائج الاختبارات المختبرية

الكلمات الرئيسية

Crossmark

 

 

Al-Noor Journal for Oil and Gas Studies

 

https://jnog.alnoor.edu.iq/

 

 

 

Pre-calculated API Gravity Tables as an Alternative to the Standard Equation

 

 

 

                             

 

 H Q Ali 1     and  M A. Abdulqader 2,3*     

 

1 North Refineries Company, Baiji, Ministry of Oil, Iraq, 2Oil Products Distribution Company (OPDC), Salahuldeen Branch, Tikrit, Ministry of Oil, Iraq, 3 Department of Oil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of AlNoor, Iraq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article information

 

Abstract

 

Article history:

Received 20 September 2025

Revised 25 November 2025

Accepted 4 January, 2026

 

 

Abstract

    American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity is a key parameter for classifying crude oil and petroleum products by density. This study presents the development of tables of oil gravities ranging from 0.600 to 1.025, from which the American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity can be derived without resorting to the equation of state. This research also examined four densities across four oil products (gasoline, kerosene, gas oil, and lubricating oils), yielding a total of 16 models. Moreover, the results of the laboratory test showed that the gravity of the oils is close, take for instance (the gravity of gasoline ranges between 0.700 to 0.750, the density of kerosene ranges from 0.750 to 0.800, while the density of gas oil ranges from 0.800 to 0.850, and lastly the range of gravity of lubricating oils ranged from 0.850 to 0.900). In conclusion, the tables produced by this study will enable direct measurement of API gravity, saving testers time, improving accuracy, and reducing errors.

 

Keywords:

API, Specific gravity, Gasoline, Kerosene, Gasoil, Lubrication oil

 

Correspondence:

   [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

DOI.:// https://doi.org/10.69513/jnog.v2.i1.a1 ©Authors, 2026, College of Engineering, Alnoor University.

This is an open-access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

 

           

 

1.       Introduction

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity value is a key indicator of crude oil quality and its selling value. Accurate measurement of API gravity is essential for classifying crude oil and petroleum products. Existing crude oil API prediction methods are difficult and time-consuming because they rely on numerous parameters [1]. In the oil industry, the API gravity test is an important method for determining product type [2]. API gravity is a significant quantity in the crude oil sector; nitrogen compounds are not directly related to API gravity, which causes conceptual confusion [3]. The large quantities of oil originate from the upstream and downstream processes, which cause differences in specifications, specialists in specific gravity (Sp. gr) [4]. North refinery company NRC Baiji produced about 200,000 barrels/day. These quantities to be produced must be calculated in accordance with the specification [5]. The world has recently turned to solving problems through scientific research, including the oil industry, as this opportunity has justified reducing the number of workers and the effort expended [6]. Fossil fuels are the largest source, accounting for more than 75% of global energy demand. Various fuels, including diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene, can be generated in petroleum refineries using several petrochemical processes [7]. Crude oil is a complex of hydrocarbon that contains organic and inorganic materials.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Oil samples and equipment

Four types of petroleum products were used in this study, which are gasoline, kerosene, gas oil, and lubricating oils. In this work were used 16 samples, 4 samples of gasoline, 4 samples of kerosene, 4 samples of gasoil, and 4 samples of lubrication oil, these samples were different and Sp.gr to find different API gravity depending on it. These samples were brought from North Refineries Company (NRC) in Baiji. The testes of these samples were evaluated for specific gravity, temperature, and American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity. Four different samples were tested for each model, bringing the total number of samples examined to sixteen. Samples were taken from the loading arms of petroleum products from the dispatch warehouse (Baiji), concentrated in the laboratories of the Petroleum Products Distribution Company (OPDC), Salahuldeen branch, and cooled at room temperature (15 °C). The equipment employed in this work (cylinder 100 ml, thermometer range from 0 to 100 °C, and hydrometers range 0.600 to 0.650, 0.650 to 0.700, 0.700 to 0.750, 0.750 to 0.800, 0.800 to 0.850, 0.850 to 0.900, 0.900 to 0.950, 0.950 to 1.000).

2.2 Testing methods

The Sp. gr. was determined according to ASTM D1298 [12], while the API gravity was determined according to ASTM D 5002 [13] and calculated according to Equation 1 [14]. These tests were done at the laboratory of Salahuddeen branch, Western Authority, Oil Product Distribution Company (OPDC), Ministry of oil Iraq.

API=141.5/Sp.gr-131.5   (1)    Figure 1: The Sp.gr apparatus

 

 

3.       Results and discussions

3.1.  Gasoline test

        Table 1 presents the data on specific gravity, temperature, and API gravity for gasoline samples. As a result, the range of specific gravity was from 0.700 to 0.750 while the range of API gravity was from 75.6 to 57.2. The results also showed that the gasoline samples had the lowest temperatures, at approximately 20 °C, compared with kerosene and gasoil, which reached 20-21 °C. These results are attributed to the presence of light volatile aromatic compounds in gasoline. Therefore, these results will contribute to strengthening the findings that constitute the final Table of this research [15].

Table 1: Sp.gr, temperature, and API results of gasoline samples

 

Sample name

Sp. gr

Temperature °C

API

Gasoline-1

0.710

      20

75.6

Gasoline-2

0.725

      20

63.7

Gasoline-3

0.735

      20

61.0      

Gasoline-4

0.745

      20

58.4             

3.2. Kerosene test

      Table 2 presents the data on specific gravity, temperature, and API gravity for kerosene samples. As a result, the range of the specific gravity was from 0.750 to 0.800, while the range of API gravity was from 57.2 to 45.4. The results also showed that the temperatures of the kerosene product were average compared to gasoline and gasoil, ranging between 22 and 23 °C. This is attributed to the mixture that makes up the kerosene. These results are attributed to the presence of light volatile aromatic compounds that contribute to the composition of gasoline products. Therefore, these results will contribute to strengthening the results that are the basic components of the final Table of this research [16].

Table 2: Sp.gr, temperature, and API results of kerosene samples

 

Sample name

Sp. gr

Temperature °C

API

Kerosene-1

0.755

     22

55.9

Kerosene-2

0.765

     22

53.6

Kerosene-3

0.770

     22

52.3

Kerosene-4

0.785

     22

  48.

3.3. Gasoil test

       Table 3 presents specific gravity, temperature, and API gravity for gasoil samples. As a result, the range of specific gravity was from 0.800 to 0.850, while the range of API gravity was from 45.4 to 35.0. The results also showed that the temperatures of the gas oil product were reasonable compared to other products, as they ranged between 23 and 25 °C. This is attributed to the mixture that makes up the gas oil, which is a mixture of linear organic hydrocarbon compounds that extend up to C30. These results are attributed to the presence of light volatile aromatic compounds that contributed to the composition of the gasoline product. Therefore, these results will contribute to strengthening the results that are the basic components of the final Table of this research [17].

Table 3: Sp.gr, temperature, and API results of gasoil samples

Sample name

Sp. gr

Temperature °C

 API

Gasoil-1

0.815

23

42.1

Gasoil-2

0.830

23

39.0

Gasoil-3

0.840

23

37.0

Gasoil-4

0.845

23

36.0

3.4. Lubrication oil

     Table 4 presents the specific gravity, temperature, and API gravity for lubrication samples. As a result, the range of specific gravity was from 0.850 to 0.900 while the range of API gravity was from 25.4 to 25.7. The results also showed that the temperatures of the lubrication product were low compared to other products, ranging between 20 and 25 °C. These results are attributed to the presence of lubricating oils are heavy hydrocarbons compounds that contribute to the composition of the lubricant product. Therefore, these results will contribute to strengthening the results that are the basic components of the final Table of this research [18].

Table 4: Sp.gr, temperature, and API results of lubrication oil samples

Sample name

Sp. gr

Temperature °C

API

Lubrication-1

0.850

24

75.6

Lubrication-2

0.860

24

65.0

Lubrication-3

0.870

24

62.4

Lubrication-4

0.880

24

57.2

3.5. API gravity tables

     Table 5 presents the ranges of Sp. gr. and API gravity for oil products. Tables 6, 7, and 8 present the API gravity data, which range from 0.600 to 0.795, corresponding to API gravities of 104.3 to 46.5. In addition, the API gravity ranges from 0.800 to 0.995, corresponding to API gravities of 45.4 to 35.0. Furthermore, API gravity was initially set at a specific gravity (Sp.gr) of 1.000 to 1.025, corresponding to API gravities of 10 to 7.0, respectively [19].

Table 5: Range of Sp.gr and API gravity ranges of oil samples

Sample

Sp.gr

API Gravity

Min

Max

Nin

Max

Gasoline

0.700

0.750

 70.6

70.6

Kerosene

0.750

0.800

57.2

57.2

Gasoil

0.800

0.85

45.4

45.4

Lubrication oil

0.850

0.900

35.0

35.0

Table 6: API gravity started of Sp.gr from 0.600 to 0.795

≤ API

API

SP. gr

 

≤ API

API

SP. gr

70.6

70.64

0.700

 

104.3

104.33

0.600

69.2

69.20

0.705

 

102.4

102.38

0.605

67.8

67.79

0.710

 

100.5

100.46

0.610

66.4

66.40

0.715

 

98.6

98.58

0.615

65

65.02

0.720

 

96.7

96.72

0.620

63.7

63.67

0.725

 

94.9

94.90

0.625

62.4

62.44

0.730

 

94.2

94.15

0.630

61

61.01

0.735

 

91.3

91.33

0.635

59.7

59.71

0.740

 

89.6

89.59

0.640

58.4

58.43

0.745

 

87.9

87.87

0.645

57.2

57.16

0.750

 

86.2

86.19

0.650

55.9

55.91

0.755

 

84.5

84.53

0.655

54.7

54.68

0.760

 

82.9

82.89

0.660

53.6

53.64

0.765

 

81.3

81.28

0.665

52.3

52.26

0.770

 

79.7

79.69

0.670

51.1

51.08

0.775

 

78.1

78.12

0.675

49.9

49.91

0.780

 

76.6

76.58

0.680

48.8

48.75

0.785

 

75.1

75.06

0.685

47.6

47.61

0.790

 

73.6

73.57

0.690

46.5

46.48

0.795

 

72.1

72.09

0.695

 

Table 7: API gravity started of Sp.gr from 0.800 to 0.995

≤API

API 

SP. gr

 

≤API

API

SP. gr

25.7

25.72

0.900

 

45.4

45.37

0.800

24.9

24.85

0.905

 

44.3

44.27

0.805

24

23.99

0.910

 

43.2

43.19

0.8 10

23.1

23.14

0.915

 

42.1

42.11

0.8 15

22.4

22.35

0.920

 

41.1

41.06

0.8 20

21.5

21.47

0.925

 

44

44.01

0.8 25

25.7

25.65

0.930

 

39

38.98

0.8 30

19.8

19.83

0.935

 

38

37.96

0.8 35

19.5

19.54

0.940

 

37

36.95

0.8 40

18.2

18.23

0.945

 

36

35.95

0.8 45

17.4

17.44

0.950

 

35

34.97

0.8 50

16.7

16.66

0.955

 

34

33.99

0.8 55

15.9

15.89

0.960

 

33.5

33.53

0.8 60

15.1

15.13

0.965

 

32.1

32.08

0.8 65

14.4

14.37

0.970

 

31.1

31.14

0.8 70

13.6

 

13.62

0.975

 

30.2

30.21

0.875

12.4

12.42

0.980

 

29.3

29.29

0.8 80

12.2

12.15

0.958

 

28.4

28.38

0.8 85

11.4

11.42

0.990

 

27.5

27.48

0.8 90

10.7

10.71

0.995

 

26.6

26.60

0.895

 

Table 8: API gravity started of Sp.gr from 1.000 to 1.025

≤API

API

SP. gr

 

≤API

API

SP. gr

7.9

7.9

1.015

 

10

10

1.000

7.0

7.22

1.020

 

9.3

9.29

1.005

7.0

6.54

1.025

 

8.6

8.59

1.010

 

 

Figure 2: API gravity curve, relationship with sp. gr of oils

4.Conclusions

The Tables of all API gravity values by their relationship with specific gravity has successfully in this work. Extracting the weight value through the equation may take about five minutes, while extracting it from the table does not take half a minute, which saves time in the oil sector. Therefore, these Tables will be of great importance in all aspects of oil extraction, production, refining and distribution, as the API gravity values will be taken directly from the specific gravity via these Tables. As well as there is no need to calculate the equation or the possibility of being exposed to error after these Tables. While statistical analysis, which included standard deviation, error bars, or confidence intervals, was not found because the current work was done according to the API gravity equation.

 

5. Acknowledgment

 

    The authors would like to thank Hussain Talib Abood, General Director of the Oil Products Distribution Company (OPDC), The authors would like to express their appreciation to Eng. Raad Ahmed Abdulaah, Head of Salahudeen Branch (OPDC). At the same time, the author would like to express her thanks to AlNoor University for supporting the research.

 

References

1. Marfo S A and  Bavoh C B. A Simple Statistical Model for Predicting Crude Oil API Values. Ghana Min.2023;23(1):22–26.

2. Pabón R E C and  de Souza Filho C R. Crude oil spectral signatures and empirical models to derive API gravity. Fuel. 2019;237:1119–1131.

3.Pereira Rainha, J. Tristão do Carmo Rocha, R. R. Tavares Rodrigues, B. P. de Oliveira Lovatti, E. V. R. de Castro, and P. Roberto Filgueiras, “Determination of API gravity and total and basic nitrogen content by mid-and near-infrared spectroscopy in crude oil with multivariate regression and variable selection tools,” Anal. Lett., vol. 52, no. 18, pp. 2914–2930, 2019.

4. Syed Hassan S S et al., “Characterization Study of Petroleum Oily Sludge Produced from North Refineries Company Baiji to Determine the Suitability for Conversion into Solid Fuel,” Egypt. J. Chem.2021;64(6): 2775-2781 doi: 10.21608/ ejchem. 2021.54222.3126.

5. Ibrahim M M,  Abdulqader M A, and  Alabdraba WMS. Physicochemical property of hydrochar produced by hydrothermal carbonization of waste oily sludge. in AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing, 2024.

6. Hamed M,  Mohammed A, Khalefa R, O. HABEEB, and  Abdulqader M. The Effect of using Compound Techniques (Passive and Active) on the Double Pipe Heat Exchanger Performance.  Egypt J Chem. 2021; 2779-2082. doi: 10.21608/ejchem.2021.54450.3134.

 7.Humadi H I,  Aabid A A,  Mohammed A E,  Ahmed G S, and  Abdulqader M A. New Design of Eco-Friendly Catalytic Electro-Photo Desulfurization process for Real Diesel Fuel. Chem Eng Res Des.  2024; 206(4):DOI:10.1016/j.cherd.2024.05.001

8.  Fathi M I,  Abdulqader M I, and Habeeb O A. Microwave process of oily sludge produced at NRC Baiji to micro-char solid carbon production. Desalina Water Treat. 2023;310:142–149.doi: 10.5004/dwt.2023.29935

9. Mohammed  A E, Mohammed, Humadi Jasim I, Issa Y S, Ahmed  M A, Aabid, A A.

Process Model Development and Optimal Kinetics for Fuel Desulfurization via a Novel Nano-Catalyst. Iran J Chem Chem Eng. 2024;43(11):3904-3917.doi 1021-9986/202411/3904-3917

10.Abdulqader MA.Thermochemical Conversion of Oily Sludge, Composition, Hazards, and Treatment Strategies: An Overview. AUIQ Complement. Biol Syst. 2025;2(2):10–36.

11. Abdulqader MA,  Salih H Y,  Habeeb O A, Saber S E M, and  Jasem A A, "Clean char solid carbon fuel production via microwave processes of oily sludge produced at North Refineries Company Baiji. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2023;2862(1): p. 020058, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0172519 

12. Fidyayuningrum H,  Fatoni  R, and  Harismah K. Characteristics of Cetane index of traditional diesel oil in Wonocolo district. Bojonegoro. 2020 in AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing, 2020.

13.  Lord D E,  Hogge J W, and  Allen R G. Fuels Characterization for National Research Council Canada 2-m Pool Fire Test Series. Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), 2021.

14. Silva A P, Juliana O B, Renato S Jr, Leonardo RU, William S F, Hiram Moya, Jeffrey LP, Víktor O C. Naphtha characterization (PIONA, density, distillation curve and sulfur content): An origin comparison. Energies. 2023;16(8):3568. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/en16083568

15. Abdellatief M M, Mikhail A. E, Mohammad  A A,  Ahmad M,  Farrukh J. A, Vladimir M K,  Ulyana A M, Nikita A, Klimov E A. Abdul Ghani O. Unifying methodology for gasoline-grade biofuel from several renewable and sustainable gasoline additives. Process Saf Environ Prot.2024;190:1386–1402. https:// doi.org /10.1016/j.psep.2024.07.112

16.  Abdulkhader S I,  Barzanjy MJ. Upgrading the environmental properties of Kirkuk kerosene using glacial acetic acid. 3c Empres. Investig. y Pensam. crítico, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 382–390, 2023.10.17993/3cemp.2023.120151.382-390.

17. Ahmed A. M Alwaise, Mohamed A Alrashedi , and Omar A H. The effect of physical properties of lost petroleum quantities in vertical tanks at (NRC) Baiji. Energy Explor Exploit. 2023;42(2): 685-691.https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987231220961

18 AlAbbad M,  Ribhu G,Edwin G, Obulesu C. Characterization and surrogate formulation of heavy fuel oil. Fuel, 2024;360:130556. 024.10.1016/ j.fuel. 2023. 130556

19.  Omwoyo J B, Kimilu R K, and  Onyari J M. Effects of temperature and catalytic reduction of sulfur content on kinematic viscosity and specific gravity of tire pyrolysis oil.  Chem Eng Commun. 2023; 210(16): 1-810.1080/00986445 .2021.2015339

 

جداول الكثافة النوعية وفق معيار API المحسوبة مسبقًا كبديل عن المعادلة القياسية

 

هشام قنبر علي1، محمود عبد الكريم عبدالقادر3،2*

 

1شركة مصافي الشمال بيجي، 2شركة توزيع المنتجات النفطية، فرع صلاح الدين، تكريت، وزارة النفط، العراق، ³ قسم هندسة النفط، كلية الهندسة، جامعة النور، العراق

 

يعَدّ كثافة معهد البترول الأمريكي (API) معيارًا أساسيًا لتصنيف النفط الخام والمنتجات النفطية اعتمادًا على الكثافة. يقدّم هذا البحث تطوير جداول لكثافات الزيوت تتراوح بين 0.600 إلى 1.025، يمكن من خلالها اشتقاق كثافة API مباشرةً دون الحاجة إلى استخدام معادلة الحالة. كما تناولت الدراسة فحص أربع كثافات لأربعة منتجات نفطية (البنزين، الكيروسين، زيت الغاز، وزيوت التزييت)، مما أسفر عن 16 نموذجًا إجمالًا. وأظهرت نتائج الاختبارات المختبرية تقارب كثافات الزيوت؛ فعلى سبيل المثال، تتراوح كثافة البنزين بين 0.700–0.750، وتتراوح كثافة الكيروسين بين 0.750–0.800، بينما تتراوح كثافة زيت الغاز بين 0.800–0.850، وأخيرًا تتراوح كثافة زيوت التزييت بين 0.850–0.900. وخلاصة القول، فإن الجداول التي أُنتجت في هذه الدراسة تُمكّن من القياس المباشر لكثافة API، مما يوفر وقت الفاحصين، ويُحسّن الدقة، ويُقلّل الأخطاء.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References
1. Marfo S A and  Bavoh C B. A Simple Statistical Model for Predicting Crude Oil API Values. Ghana Min.2023;23(1):22–26.
2. Pabón R E C and  de Souza Filho C R. Crude oil spectral signatures and empirical models to derive API gravity. Fuel. 2019;237:1119–1131.
3.Pereira Rainha, J. Tristão do Carmo Rocha, R. R. Tavares Rodrigues, B. P. de Oliveira Lovatti, E. V. R. de Castro, and P. Roberto Filgueiras, “Determination of API gravity and total and basic nitrogen content by mid-and near-infrared spectroscopy in crude oil with multivariate regression and variable selection tools,” Anal. Lett., vol. 52, no. 18, pp. 2914–2930, 2019.
4. Syed Hassan S S et al., “Characterization Study of Petroleum Oily Sludge Produced from North Refineries Company Baiji to Determine the Suitability for Conversion into Solid Fuel,” Egypt. J. Chem.2021;64(6): 2775-2781 doi: 10.21608/ ejchem. 2021.54222.3126.
5. Ibrahim M M,  Abdulqader M A, and  Alabdraba WMS. Physicochemical property of hydrochar produced by hydrothermal carbonization of waste oily sludge. in AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing, 2024.
6. Hamed M,  Mohammed A, Khalefa R, O. HABEEB, and  Abdulqader M. The Effect of using Compound Techniques (Passive and Active) on the Double Pipe Heat Exchanger Performance.  Egypt J Chem. 2021; 2779-2082. doi: 10.21608/ejchem.2021.54450.3134.
 7.Humadi H I,  Aabid A A,  Mohammed A E,  Ahmed G S, and  Abdulqader M A. New Design of Eco-Friendly Catalytic Electro-Photo Desulfurization process for Real Diesel Fuel. Chem Eng Res Des.  2024; 206(4):DOI:10.1016/j.cherd.2024.05.001
8.  Fathi M I,  Abdulqader M I, and Habeeb O A. Microwave process of oily sludge produced at NRC Baiji to micro-char solid carbon production. Desalina Water Treat. 2023;310:142–149.doi: 10.5004/dwt.2023.29935
9. Mohammed  A E, Mohammed, Humadi Jasim I, Issa Y S, Ahmed  M A, Aabid, A A.
Process Model Development and Optimal Kinetics for Fuel Desulfurization via a Novel Nano-Catalyst. Iran J Chem Chem Eng. 2024;43(11):3904-3917.doi 1021-9986/202411/3904-3917
10.Abdulqader MA.Thermochemical Conversion of Oily Sludge, Composition, Hazards, and Treatment Strategies: An Overview. AUIQ Complement. Biol Syst. 2025;2(2):10–36.
11. Abdulqader MA,  Salih H Y,  Habeeb O A, Saber S E M, and  Jasem A A, "Clean char solid carbon fuel production via microwave processes of oily sludge produced at North Refineries Company Baiji. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2023;2862(1): p. 020058, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0172519 
12. Fidyayuningrum H,  Fatoni  R, and  Harismah K. Characteristics of Cetane index of traditional diesel oil in Wonocolo district. Bojonegoro. 2020 in AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing, 2020.
13.  Lord D E,  Hogge J W, and  Allen R G. Fuels Characterization for National Research Council Canada 2-m Pool Fire Test Series. Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), 2021.
14. Silva A P, Juliana O B, Renato S Jr, Leonardo RU, William S F, Hiram Moya, Jeffrey LP, Víktor O C. Naphtha characterization (PIONA, density, distillation curve and sulfur content): An origin comparison. Energies. 2023;16(8):3568. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/en16083568
15. Abdellatief M M, Mikhail A. E, Mohammad  A A,  Ahmad M,  Farrukh J. A, Vladimir M K,  Ulyana A M, Nikita A, Klimov E A. Abdul Ghani O. Unifying methodology for gasoline-grade biofuel from several renewable and sustainable gasoline additives. Process Saf Environ Prot.2024;190:1386–1402. https:// doi.org /10.1016/j.psep.2024.07.112
16.  Abdulkhader S I,  Barzanjy MJ. Upgrading the environmental properties of Kirkuk kerosene using glacial acetic acid. 3c Empres. Investig. y Pensam. crítico, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 382–390, 2023.10.17993/3cemp.2023.120151.382-390.
17. Ahmed A. M Alwaise, Mohamed A Alrashedi , and Omar A H. The effect of physical properties of lost petroleum quantities in vertical tanks at (NRC) Baiji. Energy Explor Exploit. 2023;42(2): 685-691.https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987231220961
18 AlAbbad M,  Ribhu G,Edwin G, Obulesu C. Characterization and surrogate formulation of heavy fuel oil. Fuel, 2024;360:130556. 024.10.1016/ j.fuel. 2023. 130556
19.  Omwoyo J B, Kimilu R K, and  Onyari J M. Effects of temperature and catalytic reduction of sulfur content on kinematic viscosity and specific gravity of tire pyrolysis oil.  Chem Eng Commun. 2023; 210(16): 1-810.1080/00986445 .2021.2015339
المجلد 2، العدد 1
الشتاء 2026
الصفحة 1-5