Sweet!
I don’t beleive that chemists would refer to 2,5-dimethylfuran as DMF since that acronym is well established to mean dimethylformamide. That said I hope its true because 2,5-dimethylfuran has more uses than fuel, but it is just too damned expensive.
There wasn’t much information in the original Nature article but the article cited above managed to get quite a few things wrong. The substance is 2,5-dimethylfuran. Frutose is a sugar. Highly oxygenated sugar" is meaningless, since they have the same C:H:O ratio, 1:2:1. That’s why they are called carbohydrates. Where did “…and converts the gas to a liquid at a lower temperature…” come from? None of the intermediates involved in the conversion of fructose to 2,5-dimethylfuran is a gas.
The process demonstrates the feasibility of converting a sugar to a fuel, but a better source would be glucose since it is more easily derivable from a variety of plant sources (according to the developer). The current price for 2,5-dimethyfuran is much too high to use it as a fuel, but this process should provide a cheaper source.
No toxological information is available for this substance (MSDS). It could turn out to be like MTBE.