Automobile
Sulf uric Acid
Emission Control -
The Development Status
as of December 1975
a report to
the Administratoc
Environmental Protection Agency
prepared by
Emission Control Technology Division,
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control,
Environmental Protection Agency
5222
-------
March 17, 1976
ERRATA/ADDENDUM - l"
to
AUTOMOBILE SULFURIC ACID EMISSION CONTROL -
THE DEVELOPMENT STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 1975
Corrections
The following corrections should be made to the above-captioned report:
Page 1-2 The third paragraph should be replaced with the following:
"Production lead time for the 1979 model year could become
important for the improved air injection- systems if development
work is not started very soon. The advantages of improved air .
injection or improved fuel metering are not very apparent until
standards of 0.41 HC and 3.4 CO along with sulfuric acid emission
standards are required to be met. This is because air injection
is considered more likely to be used to meet these more stringent
HC and CO standards." . .
Appendix I, page 1-17 An asterisk(*) should be added following the
page heading "ADDRESSEES" and the following .footnote should be
added at the bottom of the page:
"A letter substantially the same as that reproduced on pages
1-1 through 1-16 was also sent to the Automobile Importers of
America, requesting that that organization make available to
its members copies of the information request and the outline."
Addendum
Control of air injection was indicated in the report to be
a potentially promising technique to control sulfuric acid emis-
sions. Little data were available on such systems at the time
the report was prepared. Such a system has been tested recently.
Preliminary, low mileage, tests on a Chevrolet Laguna with a
controlled air injection system are shown below. The system is
controlled by dumping the air injection.
The results may be confounded, because dynamometer bearings were
replaced during the test sequence. The tests .are to be re-run.
Table Addendum-1
Gaseous Emissions, 1975 FTP ^ . Sulfuric Acid Emissions,
grams per mile (milligrams per mile)
System Configuration HC CO NOx Average Range
Full Air 0.51 3.54 1.57 32 20 to 39.9
0.45 4.65 1.53 .
Average 0.48 4.10 1.55
Controlled Air . 0.33 3.61 1.54 9.6(^ 6 to 16.3
0.36 5.28 1.39
0.31 5.21 1.38
Average 0.33 4.70 1.44
(1) LA-4 driving cycle, using the dilution tunnel, (2) Sulfuric Acid driving
cycle and test procedure, (3) 8 tests, (4) 12 tests.
-------
AUTOMOBILE SULFURIC ACID EMISSION CONTROL -
THE DEVELOPMENT STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 1975
A Report to the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
December 1975
-------
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY !_!
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1.
2.2 Background 2-1
2.3 Nomenclature 2-3
3. CONCLUSIONS 3-1
4. WHAT CAUSES SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS? 4-1
4.1 Parameters Governing Sulfuric Acid Formation 4-1
4.2 Sulfuric Acid Production Over Catalysts 4-3
5. HOW MUCH SULFURIC ACID DO CURRENT VEHICLES EMIT? 5-1
5.1 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Non-Catalyst Vehicles 5-1
5.2 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Catalyst Vehicles 5-5
5.2.1 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Monolith. ..........
Catalyst Vehicles 5-5
5.2.2 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Pelleted
Catalyst Vehicles 5-13
6. HOW CAN SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FROM AUTOMOBILES
BE CONTROLLED? 6-1
6.1 Fuel Desulfurization 6-1
6.2 Fuel Additives. 6-5
6.3 Combustion Modification 6-6
7. HOW CAN SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS BE CONTROLLED FROM
CATALYST AUTOMOBILES? 7-1
7.1 Oxidation Catalyst Systems 7-1
7.1.1 Oxidation Catalyst Modifications 7-1
7.1.2 Modifications to Oxidation Catalyst Feedgases 7-14
7.2 New Sulfuric Acid Control Systems 7-19
7.2.1 Air Injection Changes 7-19
7.2.2 Fuel Metering Improvements 7-20
7.2.3 3-Way Catalyst Systems 7-22
-------
7.2.3.1 3-Way Catalysts Without Feedback 7.22
7.2.3.2 3-Way Catalysts With Feedback 7-29
7.2.3.3 3-Way Catalyst Modifications 7.31
7.2.4 3-Way Plus Oxidation Catalyst Systems. 7.35
7.2.5 Dual Catalyst Systems 7.37
7.2.5.1 Reduction Catalyst Modifications 7.37
7.2.6 Start Catalyst Systems 7-39
7.2.7 Super Early Fuel Evaporation 7-40
7.2.8 Electronic Emission Control Systems 7-42
7.2.9 Sulfuric Acid Traps 7.43
7.2.9.1 Mechanical Traps 7.43
7.2.9.2 Chemical Traps 7.43
8. WHAT ABOUT SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FROM OTHER ENGINES? 8-1
8.1 "Lean Burn" Engines 8-1
8.1.1 Non-Catalyst Vehicles with Lean Burn Engines .... 8-1
8.1.2 Catalyst Vehicles with Lean Burn Engines 8-1
8.2 Stratified Charge Engines 8-4
8.3 Diesel Engines 8-4
8.4 Other Lean Engines 8-9
9. WHAT IMPACTS ARE LIKELY TO ACCOMPANY SULFURIC ACID CONTROL?. . . 9-1
9.1 Cost, Fuel Economy, and Sulfuric Acid Emissions ,
of Potential Emission Control Systems 9-1
9.2 Production Lead Time Considerations 9-12
9.3 Other Unregulated Emissions from Catalyst Vehicles 9-14
10. APPENDIXES
Appendix I Request for Sulfuric Acid Information from
EPA to the Manufacturers 1-1
Appendix II Procedures II-l
Appendix III Determination of Soluble Sulfates in CVS
Diluted Exhausts: An Automated Method III-l
Appendix IV Non-Regulated Emissions from Light Duty
Motor Vehicles IV-1
Appendix V Preliminary Data from the Sulfuric Acid
Baseline Program V-l
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
SECTION .1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sulfuric acid emissions from current production and prototype
vehicles vary greatly as shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1
Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Baseline
Program Vehicles
Type of Emission Sulfuric Acid
Control System Emissions, tngpm*
Range Approximate Mean
Non-catalyst 0 to 3 1
Oxidation catalyst w/o
air injection 0 to 118 8
Oxidation catalyst w/air
injection 0 to 123 30
3-Way Catalyst 0 to 2 1
The most important parameter in the formation of sulfuric acid
emissions appears to be the oxygen level in the exhaust gas to the
catalyst. The significant difference in sulfuric acid emissions between
the catalyst-equipped vehicles with and without air injection is attri-
buted to this oxygen level effect.
Current technology which has demonstrated low (below 10 mgpm)
sulfuric acid emissions has also demonstrated the capability to certify
at the California emission levels of 0.9 HC, 9.0 CO, 2.0 NOx. About 20
percent of the estimated sales for 1976 in California have non-catalyst
or catalyst without air injection control systems. Prototype 3-way
catalyst vehicles, which also have low sulfuric acid emissions, have
been successfully operated to 50,000 miles at emission levels below the
California levels.
*Milligrams per vehicle mile on the sulfuric acid test procedure, the
SC-7 with 300 ppm sulfur in the fule. A milligram is one one-thousandth
of a gram, or about 0.00004 ounces.
1-1
-------
The most promising future sulfuric acid control technique is
control of the exhaust gas oxygen levels by improved fuel metering
systems and/or improved air injection systems. Oxidation catalyst, 3-
way catalyst, and dual catalyst emission control systems are all com-
patible with oxygen level control systems. Other important control
techniques may be developed as sulfuric acid control system development
programs are commenced. Most of the experimental work which has been
done to date has been related to the characterization of production
emission control systems, and relatively few data are available on
advanced systems, especially those designed with sulfuric acid control
in mind.
However, meeting standards more stringent than 0.9 HC, 9.0 CO, 2.0
NOx gaseous emissions while controlling sulfuric acid emissions is not
precluded. The degree of difficulty in meeting more stringent HC and CO
emissions may be increased, depending on the control techniques used.
Production lead time for the 1979 model year could become important
for the improved air injection systems if development work is not started
very soon. The advantages of improved air injection or improved fuel
metering are not very apparent until the 0.41 HC and 3.4 CO levels.
The lack of a finalized test procedure for sulfuric acid emissions
and the lack of a sulfuric acid emission standard have caused some
manufacturers to defer from starting serious development programs. The
test procedure is still being developed by EPA. The Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, (NPRM) is now scheduled for publication in May of 1976.
Variability in test results over the sulfuric acid test cycle, the SC7,
has continued to be a problem, for EPA and the manufacturers. This
problem is expected to be alleviated as more is learned about sulfuric
acid emissions and the test procedure is standardized.
1-2
-------
From the manufacturers' point of view, the HC, CO, and NOx emission
standards need to be firmed up for the 1979 model year. Not doing so
within the next few months could result in lead time problems if stringent
HC, CO and NOx levels are instituted, in conjunction with stringent
sulfuric acid standards.
1-3
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 Introduction
This report has been prepared to summarize the current status of
sulfuric acid emission control technology development and to provide
information for the Administrator and others within EPA on the impacts
of approaches likely to be used to control sulfuric acid emissions.
The information used to prepare this report came from four main
sources: 1) EPA in-house testing, 2) contracted efforts sponsored by
EPA, 3) the technical literature, and A) information supplied to EPA by
automobile manufacturers and others at the request of EPA. A copy of the
letter requesting the information, a list of the information desired,
and a list of the organizations to which the request was made can be
found in Appendix I of this report.
This report does not contain any discussion of or conclusions about
the health effects of sulfuric acid or the air quality impact of sul-
furic acid emissions.
2.2 Background
Interest in sulfuric acid emissions from automobiles became greatly
expanded during 1973. In 1972 tests for particulate emissions run by an
EPA contractor showed that the particulate emissions from vehicles
equipped with oxidation catalysts and fun using unleaded fuel were
higher than the particulate emissions from non catalyst-equipped ve-
hicles, also run using unleaded fuel. This was not generally expected
2-1
-------
at that time since the majority of the particulate from non catalyst-
equipped vehicles, run using leaded fuel was found to be lead, and the
use of unleaded fuel was expected to reduce the particulate emissions
from both catalyst-equipped vehicles and non catalyst-equipped vehicles
to the same extent.
Since the catalysts in question had been furnished by the Ford
Motor Company, they requested and were given the filters used in the
particulate testing; subsequent analysis showed the presence of sulfuric
acid. Ford informed EPA of the results of their analysis in a February 5,
1973 letter from Mr. H. L. Misch to Mr. Robert Sansom, then the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Water Programs of EPA.
EPA began to expand its work to characterize sulfuric acid emissions
from motor vehicles soon after that.
On March 8, 1974 a notice was published in the Federal Register
requesting the submission of information about measurement methods and
control technology for sulfuric acid emissions.
The sulfuric acid issue was also discussed at two public hearings
held by EPA early in 1975. These two public hearings were the hearings
on the applications for suspension of the then 1977 HC and CO standards,
and a related hearing on sulfuric acid emissions.
The Decision of the Administrator of EPA on the applications for
suspension of the 1977 HC and CO standards discussed the sulfuric acid
issue extensively. In that Decision, the Administrator indicated that
EPA would soon publish a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for a
sulfuric acid emission standard. The standard was targeted to be appli-
cable to motor vehicles for the 1979 model year. Since that time, EPA
has embarked on an intensive program to determine the impacts of
2-2
-------
various motor vehicle standards, to develop certification feasible test
procedures, and to publish the NPRM. At the time of this report, the
target date for publication of the NPRM was May 1976.
2.3 Nomenclature
The gaseous emissions results in this report are reported in the
usual triplet abbreviation in the following manner: 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO,
1.2 NOx, which means 0.41 grams per mile hydrocarbons, 3.4 grams per
mile CO, and 1.2 grams per mile NOx, all gaseous emissions determined on
the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP). Since this report deals with
sulfuric acid emissions, the report team has added another abbreviation
to the triplet to correspond to milligrams per mile (mgpm) of sulfuric
acid (H_SO,). . The test procedure for sulfuric acid is just in the
process of being finalized, and the report team has used values for
sulfuric acid emissions based on the latest test cycle, the so-called
sulfate cycle number seven (SC7). The test procedures are discussed in
Appendix II. A vehicle that achieved the abovementioned gaseous emis-
sions on the 1975 FTP and for example 28 milligrams per mile sulfuric
acid on SC7 would be reported as 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.2 NOx; 28 H^O^.
Other notations that may be used are LA4 which is the Federal urban
driving cycle used for the FTP; the 1972 FTP which is the older, no
longer used, version of the 1975 FTP which does not include the hot
start; SCI and other numbers which are earlier versions of the sulfuric
acid cycle. Other test conditions for which there are data are at steady
state cruise. These are labeled "SS". For example 60SS means 60 miles
per hour, steady state cruise.
Other abbreviations that may appear are FET (for fuel economy test)
and HWFET (for highway fuel economy test). These both refer to the EPA
Non-Metropolitan Driving Cycle. This cycle is used by EPA to determine
what are referred to as highway fuel economy numbers.
2-3
-------
Fuel economy is reported in miles per gallon (MPG). MPG Values
determined on the 1975 FTP are labeled MPGU ("U" for urban) and values
determined on the Non-Metropolitan Driving Cycle are labeled MPGH ("H"
for highway). Results labeled MPGC are a composite value from the fol-
lowing relationship:
MPGC = l/((.55/MPGU) + (.45/MPGH)).
The abbreviation used for inertia weight is IW. Inertia weight
refers to the test weight used for gaseous emissions, sulfuric acid and
fuel economy determinations.
All sulfuric acid emission results from gasoline fueled vehicles
have been converted to the equivalent basis of a fuel containing 0.030
percent by weight sulfur. This is a sulfur level considered to be the
most typical of the average unleaded, regular fuel currently available.
The conversion was done by linear ratio of the sulfur levels of the
fuel. As an example, a vehicle that got 12 lUSO, on 0.010 percent by
weight sulfur fuel would be converted to 12 (0.030/0.010) = 36 H2SO^.
For distillate-type fueled vehicles, such as Diesels, the same
procedure was followed except in this case the value of the average fuel
was taken to be 0.21 percent sulfur by weight.
2-4
-------
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS
-------
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS
Caveat
In a field such as emission control technology in which rapid
developments and increases in understanding are continually being made,
any conclusion must be viewed with the understanding of the time at
which it was made. This is and has been the case for gaseous emission
control technology and is even more true for sulfuric acid emission
control technology.
Conclusions
Control of sulfuric acid emissions from automobiles
is still in the infant stage of development.
Manufacturers are working now in 1975 to meet an unknown standard
for model year 1979. This can be compared to the years 1970-1971 when
they were working to meet known standards in 1975-1976. This report
concludes that the situations are similar - new test procedures -new
technology needed - and a position very low on the learning curve. Many
techniques and approaches for controlling sulfuric acid emissions remain
to be explored.
Domestic manufacturers are somewhat ahead of most foreign
manufacturers in preparing to meet sulfuric acid
standards.
The clear message from the responses to EPA's request for informa-
tion on the studies of sulfuric acid emissions from the majority of the
3-1
-------
foreign manufacturers was that they are waiting to see what final test
procedures and standards will be proposed before they mount an effort to
meet the standards. Some of the foreign manufacturers do not evon linvo
the test equipment needed to measure sulfuric acid emissions, let alone
have data and rational development plans. Though in fairness, some
foreign manufacturers, particularly Toyota and Nissan, have made signifi-
cant contributions to the understanding of sulfuric acid emissions
despite the long lines of communication between EPA and their research
centers.
Some manufacturers appear to be concerned about the vari-
ability of test results, and will probably maintain that EPA
has no business setting standards until the test results are
less variable.
It is true that the test procedures for sulfuric acid testing are
relatively new and that some important parts of the certification-
feasible procedures currently remain to be finalized (especially the
vehicle preconditioning). However, test result variability for both
gaseous emissions and sulfuric acid emissions has always been a com-
bination of both test procedure variability (driver, sampling, analyses,
etc.) and vehicle variability (the vehicledoes not perform exactly the
same way on each test). The manufacturers always strive to reduce
vehicle variability, and based on their comments and EPA's own work, EPA
strives to reduce test variability. This has always been the case with
gaseous emissions and will likely continue to be the case with sulfuric
acid emissions, although it is true that the causes of vehicle vari-
ability during sulfate testing are relatively unexplored now.
Considering the abovementioned caveat and the pre-
ceeding conclusions, the analyses conducted in concert
with this study resulted in estimates of the sulfuric
acid emission levels that could be met in 1979 for
various concurrent gaseous emissions standards as
shown below.
3-2
-------
1.5
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
15
15
9.0
9.0
3.4
9.0
3.4
3.4
3.1
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.4
Table 3-1
Ranges of Sulfuric Acid Emission Levels and
Gaseous Emission Standards for Model Year 1979
Gaseous Emissions Sulfuric Acid Emissions
(grams per mile, 1975 FTP) (milligrams per mile, SC7)
HC CO NOx v H2S04
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-15
5*-50
*
5 -50
*
5 -50
5*-50
At this point in time, the best estimates that can be given involve
the use of ranges. There are four basic reasons for this:
1. The technology for controlling sulfuric acid emissions is just
now being considered for development.
2. There is variability in the test results now and the test procedure
is still not finalized.
3. Several different technical approaches could be used to meet the
gaseous emission standards and their likely sulfuric acid emissions
are not the same.
4. Not many sulfuric acid emission data are available from advanced
gaseous emission control systems that were designed without con-
sideration for sulfuric acid emissions, let alone systems that
were designed with sulfuric acid emission control in mind.
*
The lead time for the introduction of 3-way catalysts by all manu-
facturers and the 50,000 mile durability of 3-way catalysts at these
gaseous emission levels is uncertain.
3-3
-------
As time goes by and the technology and understanding advances, the
ranges will, of course, narrow.
The deterioration factor assumed for the sulfuric acid emission
levels is 1.0 to reflect maximum sulfuric acid emissions at the 4,000 mile
point. The lower bound of the sulfuric acid emissions in table 3-1
represents the lowest technically achievable standard for sulfuric acid
at the given gaseous emission standard. Thus this maximum effort for
sulfuric acid control is assumed to force 3-way catalyst technology at
the .41 HC levels and no catalyst or low excess air, catalyst technology
at the .9 HC levels. This estimate would involve the greatest effort on
the part of the manufacturers. This also means that it will be more
difficult to certify at both the given gaseous and sulfuric acid levels.
The highest level in the range assumes only moderate technological
improvements and leaves more technological options open to the manu-
facturer. This highest level also involves a much lower risk of all
manufacturers being able to certify. These ranges include lead time,
variability, and technological considerations; however it does not mean
that all currently produced emission control systems of each manufacturer
will be capable of certification.
Table 3-1 should not be interpreted to mean that low gaseous emis-
sion levels cannot be achieved along with low sulfuric acid emissions.
Three-way catalysts have the potential to do both. Also, other technologies,
particularly limited AIR oxidation catalyst approaches are still relatively
unexplored. What should be interpreted from table 3-1 is that it would
be more difficult for the manufacturers to certify vehicles at both
stringent sulfuric acid and gaseous emission standards.
It should be recognized that, as with emission control systems for
regulated gaseous emissions, EPA does not dictate the control technology
3-4
-------
to be used to control sulfuric acid emissions. That choice is left to
the individual vehicle manufacturers. EPA only establishes the level
that the manufacturers' vehicles are required to meet for each pollutant.
As the gaseous emission standards and the sulfuric acid emission
standards become more stringent, however, the number of system choices-
open to the manufacturers becomes more limited.
Manufacturers that are doing anything at all in
sulfuric acid emission work, currently appear to
be doing more in the procedures area than in the
systems development area.
There could be several reasons for this. The manufacturers could
be waiting until they are forced to meet a sulfuric acid emission
standard, via promulgation of one. However, there are other factors
that must be considered. Developing an expertise in the test procedure
area is one important first step, and it is arguable whether series or
parallel control technology development is a more optimal approach.
Additionally, the capabilities of the manufacturers may be strained so
that development of everything needed is slower than desirable. Con-
sider the emissions for 1974 - HC, CO and NOx were the only requirements.
For 1979 the manufacturers will be facing still uncertain gaseous emis-
sions standards, high altitude regulations, a new evaporative procedure
and standard, and a new light duty truck standard. Coupled with this is
the pressure to produce vehicles with better fuel economy. Yet another
factor is that EPA has asked the manufacturers for assistance in obtaining
procedures information.
The report team considers that all of the reasons discussed above
have contributed to the current status.
3-5
-------
The general technical approaches now under study
for controlling sulfuric acid emissions appear to
be improved fuel management, control of oxygen
level in the exhaust, and catalyst modifications.
The approaches listed above are similar to some of those also being
pursued for control of gaseous emissions control at more stringent
gaseous emission standards.
3-6
-------
SECTION 4
WHAT CAUSES SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS?
-------
SECTION 4
WHAT CAUSES SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS?
4.1 Parameters Governing Sulfuric Acid Formation
Almost all fuel used for motor vehicles contains sulfur to one
degree or another. The current national average sulfur level for
gasoline is approximately 0.03% and for Diesel fuel No. 2 is 0.21%. This
sulfur is usually in the form of organic sulfur compounds. These
sulfur compounds, during the combustion process, are oxidized to sulfur
dioxide (SO-) and sulfur trioxide (SO,).. By far the greater quantity of
sulfur oxides from the combustion is SO-, with only a very small amount
of SO- formed. Sulfur trioxide combines readily with water (H-O) to
form sulfuric acid (H-SO,). In the exhaust of motor vehicles there is
abundant H-0, since H-0 is one of the major products of combustion (C02
being the other), and there is about one kilogram of water formed for
each kilogram of fuel burned. The sulfuric acid thus formed in the
exhaust system and a short distance beyond the vehicle tailpipe is
emitted to the atmosphere in droplets small enough to be called a mist.
The major factors that govern the production of sulfuric acid are;
a) the sulfur content of the fuel, b) the conditions during combustion
and in the exhaust system including temperature and oxygen concentration,
c) the time history of the exhaust, e.g. residence time, and d) the
amount of water present. Since the assumption is usually made that
there is enough water present, the important consideration is the oxida-
tion of SO- to SO-. An example of the influence of temperature and
oxygen level in SO. to SO, oxidation is shown in Figure 4-1* and in
Table 4-1*. One can see from Figure 4-1 that lower temperatures and
*Letter to Dr. Joseph Somers, EPA, from Dr. K. Bachman, Exxon Research
and Engineering, July 17, 1975.
4-1
-------
o
CO
0)
4J
M
O
O
g
1,0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
300
(572°F)
400
(752°F)
Figure 4-1
Equilibrium Conversion
S02
-------
higher oxygen levels enhance the equilibrium conversion of SO- to S0_.
Of course, these values represent equilibrium or theoretical maximum
conversion,and kinetics governing reaction rates determine actual con-
version values as discussed below.
4.2 Sulfuric Acid Production Over Catalysts
Figure 4-1 shows the equilibrium conversion of SO- to S0_ and is
indicative of what would be produced if the reactants were held at the
given temperature and oxygen concentration for a long time. Since all
chemical reactions take a finite time to reach equilibrium, the amount
of SO- formed may be less than is indicated by Figure 4-1 if the time
available is too short. What is not shown on Figure 4-1 is the rate of
reaction to form SO- from SO. The reaction rate is what determines how
long it takes for the reaction to go to the equilibrium conditions.
The production of sulfuric acid over catalysts is important, be-
cause what a catalyst does is speed up the reaction rate. In fact, most
of the sulfuric acid produced for industrial use is produced by a
catalytic process. In the context of industrial use, sulfuric acid is a
valuable and important chemical that has many uses because it it a
strong acid with a high boiling point, a good oxidizing agent, a good
drying and dehydrating agent, and is also relatively cheap.
The contact process for sulfuric acid production involves the
production of SO, passage of SO- and oxygen over a catalyst bed to
form SO,,, and the formation of sulfuric acid by passing the SO- through
concentrated sulfuric acid to which water is continually added. The
basics of the contact process were first reported about 1831.
4-3
-------
Both platinum (Pt) catalysts and vanadium pentoxide (V2°5^ catalysts
e used for the c
to arsenic poisoning.
can be used for the contact process, with V?0C. having greater resistance
£* J
Since automotive catalysts use platinum as one active material it
can be expected that some sulfuric acid production potential is there,
since there are oxygen, SO-, water, and a platinum catalyst present.
There are many parameters governing sulfuric acid production over
automotive catalysts. Among them are catalyst temperature, space velocity,
noble metal composition and dispersion, washcoat composition, surface
area, and preparation, catalyst processing and pre- treating, type of
substrate and storage characteristics, exhaust gas oxygen level, effect
of other exhaust gas constituents, and sulfur dioxide concentration.
The effects of these parameters are discussed below:
Catalyst Temperature
Theoretically, catalyst operating temperature is expected to have a
significant effect on sulfuric acid formation. The thermodynamic equilib-
rium constant for SO oxidation is such that higher temperatures lead to
decreased sulfuric acid formation. Also, the temperature and activation
energy required determine the kinetics for the reactor, i.e., the rate
at which the reaction occurs. Lab data using automotive catalysts show
that at high temperatures the lab results approach equilibrium pre-
dictions and at low temperatures the lab results are far from the
equilibrium predictions. This indicates that the reaction rates at high
temperature are high enough to permit equilibrium to be approached, and
that the reaction rates at low temperatures are sufficiently low to make
equilibrium predictions of little value. Unfortunately, automotive
catalysts operate most of the time in the intermediate temperature range
4-4
-------
where SO- oxidizes readily. Low temperature operation is not feasible
because HC and CO oxidation would also be very slow. High temperature
operation of the catalyst can result in poor physical and/or chemical
durability. Figure 4-2* shows the relationship between conversion rate
and temperature for certain space velocities (reciprocal of residence
time).
Table 4-2
Effect Temperature and Space Velocity
on S02 Oxidation
ro
O
O
to
O
CO
O
CO
£T
LJ
>
2
O
O
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5% OXYGEN
Thermodynomic Equilibrium
o Space Velocity 33,700 hr'1
» » 82,000 hr"1
« « 246,000 hr"1
200 300 400
500 600 700
TEMPERATURE °C
800 900
*Ford Motor Company Report on Light Duty Vehicle Sulfuric Acid
Emission Control Status, September 2, 1975.
4-5
-------
The theoretical benefits of higher temperature may be attainable
with satisfactory durability if improved active material temperature
stability and substrate integrity are achieved. Conventional catalysts
are continually being improved in these respects. Perovskite catalysts,
which hold the active materials in a crystal lattice, are a relatively
new approach which appear to offer some promise in this area.
Space Velocity
Space velocity, in effect, determines the total time period in
which the exhaust gas is in contact with the catalyst. Space velocity
3
is the exhaust flow (ft /hr) measured at standard temperature and pres-
3
sure, divided by the catalyst volume (ft ). The reciprocal of space
velocity is contact time, usually expressed in hours, that the exhaust
gas is exposed to the catalyst. Lab data show that sulfuric acid emis-
sions are affected by space velocity, with a low space velocity tending
to increase sulfate emissions. This was shown in Figure 4-2. GM re-
ported the data shown in Table 4-2 which also shows increased sulfuric
acid conversion at lower space velocities.
Table 4-2
Effect of Space Velocity on Sulfuric Acid
Formation in Pelleted Catalysts
Space Velocity Sulfuric Acid Formation
7,000 hr'1 18%
28,000 hr"1 14%
The effect of space velocity on sulfuric acid formation must be
taken into consideration in the optimization of catalyst type and size.
4-6
-------
Noble Metal Composition
Noble metal composition appears to have an effect upon sulfuric
acid conversion. Alternative noble metals for oxidation catalysts
include platinum (Pt), paladium (Pd), and rhodium (Rh). Table 4-3 shows
a comparison of Pt, Pt-Pd and Pt-Rh catalysts. The test vehicle was a
Plymouth Fury with a 318 cu. in. engine and AIR. The catalysts were
Chrysler-UOP monoliths.
Table 4-3
Comparison of Sulfuric Acid Emissions for
Different Noble Metal Catalysts
Catalyst Composition Speed(mph) Sulfuric Acid Emissions(mgpm)
platinum (fresh) 30 21
60 98
platinum/palladium 30 31
(fresh) 60 80
platinum 30 12
(50K miles aged) 60 80
platinum/palladium 30 25
(50K miles aged) 60 81
platinum/rhodium 30 12
(5K miles aged) 60 55
Tailoring the noble metal composition to reduce sulfuric acid
emissions while maintaining HC and CO conversion efficiency is con-
sidered feasible, although rhodium is not considered to be an immediate
4-7
-------
solution to the sulfuric acid problem as much now as it was initially
because of the poorer durability of current Pt/Rh catalysts.
Catalyst Dispersion and Washcoat
Very limited data is available at this time on the effects of noble
metal dispersion and washcoat on sulfate formation. The washcoat espe-
cially can affect the storage and release process, due to its large
surface area and mass, compared to the active material. Chrysler has
also reported some promising test results using DuPont developed perovskite
catalysts. These catalysts have the noble metal dispersed in a perovskite
crystal structure. Chrysler did not report actual test data, but did
claim that a 50% decrease in sulfuric acid formation was experienced
using perovskite catalysts. This type of catalyst is also claimed to be
resistant to lead poisoning.
Catalyst Processing and Pre-Treating
This appears to be a promising area for sulfuric acid control. It
is known that techniques such as aging decrease a catalyst's sulfuric
acid formation capabilities. Table 4-4 shows data reported by Chrysler
on the effect of artificial aging.
Selective catalyst poisoning may also hold promise. For example it
is known that arsenic and lead will poison the S0~ to SO- formation over
a platinum catalyst. It may be possible to poison this reaction while
not significantly reducing the HC and CO oxidation capabilities of a
catalyst. However, an important unknown factor at this time is the
effect on catalyst durability of aging and/or selective poisoning. It
seems clear that this approach to sulfuric acid control merits a great
deal of attention.
4-8
-------
Table 4-4
Effect of Artificial Aging of Catalysts
on Sulfuric Acid Emissions
(Synthetic Exhaust, 1000°F, 22,000 ghsv)
Catalyst* . Preconditioning % Conversion, SC>2 to
Pt monolith None 40%
Pt monolith 88 hours at 1600°F in air 20%
Pt monolith 16 hours at 1800°F in air 20%
Pt monolith After addition of .25% lead
from lead nitrate solution 20%
*Each of the four catalysts tested were unaged prior to preconditioning
for the test.
Type of Substrate and Storage Characteristics
Two major types of substrate exist, monolithic and pelleted. It is
not clear at this time whether monoliths and pellets have significantly
different SCL conversion characteristics. In theory, differences may
exist because the two types have dissimilar physical, chemical, and
thermal properties. The sulfuric acid storage characteristics of the
two are also dissimilar and this has clouded experimental efforts to
evaluate their conversion characteristics.
The differences in storage behavior are thought to be due to the
different mass amounts of alumina in monolithic and pelleted catalysts.
Storage of sulfur compounds on catalysts is believed to be caused by a
chemical bonding between these compounds and the alumina. Pelleted
catalysts are composed of semi-porous alumina pellets whereas monolithic
catalysts have a cordierite substrate with only a thin washcoat of
4-9
-------
alumina. The greater mass and surface area of alumina and the slower
warmup (sulfur compounds store more readily on colder sulfaces) present
in pelleted catalysts both contribute to increased sulfuric acid storage.
Pellets have a slower warmup because they have greater thermal inertia
than the thin walled monolithic substrate.
Figures 4-3* through 4-6* show the effects of preconditioning on
sulfuric acid emissions. Both the pelleted and monolithic catalysts
were preconditioned on each fuel by a sequence of standard AMA dur-
ability mileage accumulation followed by a series of cold start and hot
start 1975 FTPs. The varying sulfuric acid emissions as a function of
time show the adsorption and desorption that takes place until stability
is reached.
Oxygen Level
Catalytic emission control systems generally operate with a significant
amount of excess oxygen in the exhaust in order to insure conversion of
HC and CO. The amount of excess oxygen appears to be an important
parameter in determining the level of SCL to SCL conversion. Figures 4-
7* and 4-8* show laboratory reactor data for monolith and pelleted
catalysts.
It can be seen that SCL conversion drops off considerably as the
excess 0~ level is lowered to 0.5% and below. It is noteworthy that the
CO conversion rate remains high at 0.5% excess oxygen. The investigators
who reported this data indicated that the HC conversion behavior paralleled
the CO behavior.
The selective oxidation of HC and CO demonstrated at low excess
oxygen levels indicates that close control of excess oxygen via improved
*M. Beltzer, R. J. Campion, J. Harlan and A. M. Hachhauser, The
Conversion of SO,, Over Automotive Oxidation Catalysts, SAE Paper 750095,
February 1975.
4-10
-------
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
0.60
0.45
0.30
0.15
Conditioned on 0.14%
Sulfur Fuel
_ Conditioned on 0.004%
Sulfur Fuel
20 40_ 60 80
.Time, Win.
100
SULFUftIC ACID EMISSIONS AT 60 MPH CRUISE PELLETIZEO
CATALYST. 0.14% SULFUR FUEL
120
.
I
^
o
in
a
o
^
0.07
0,05
0.03
0.01
i i i * *
1 Conditioned on 0.004%
<( Sulfur Fuel
\ --Conditioned on 0.14%
\ Sulfur Fuel
\
N
X
^^
», <""'*O«.^ o _
1 1 1 1 1
1
-
-
o
_-
20 40 60 80 100 120
Time, Mln.
SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS AT 80 MPH CRUISE KLLETIZEO CATALYST. 0.004% S FUEL
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
_.
II *
o
I/)
0
*"
0.60
0.45
0.30
0.15
-
' \.
Xv_
r o
i
Conditioned on 0.14%
Sulfur Fuel
-Conditioned on 0.004%
Sulfur Fuel
"^ -
^""~"~ °
-***O 0
1 1 1 1 1
20
100
120
40 60 80
Time, Mln.
- HILFATE EMISSIONS AT 80 MFD CRUISE MONOUTH CATALYST. 0.140% SULFUR FUEL
_ 0.04
. 0.03
o*
JJ 0.02
*~ 0.01
Conditioned on 0.14%
Sulfur Fuel
Conditioned on 0.004%
Sulfur Fuel
-O -? & Q g (?_
0 20 40 60 80 , 100 120
Time, Mln.
SULFATE EMISSIONS AT 80 MPH CRUISE MONOUTN CATALYST. 0.004% SULFUR FUEL
4-11
-------
fuel metering or modulated air injection is a promising control approach
for sulfuric acid. The low sulfuric acid emissions exhibited by three-r
way catalyst systems, which have precise control of the exhaust oxygen
level, support the theory that selective oxidation of HC and CO can be
accomplished.
Effect of Other Exhaust Gas Constituents
It has been shown that; the presence of exhaust gases such as carbon
monoxide, propylene (C.H-) and hydrogen tend to reduce the conversion of
J D
S0~. Figure 4-9 contains data reported by Ford which shows the effect
of these gases.
The probable explanation for this behavior is that the reducing
gases compete with the SCL for adsorption on the catalyst and the ava^l-
able oxygen. Carbon monoxide and propylene are preferentially oxidized
under these circumstances rather than SCL. This phenomenon could be
utilized as a control technique but precise air-fuel ratio or air in-
jection rate control would be needed in order to maintain the catalyst
at near breakthrough condition. Breakthrough occurs when conditions are
such that significant HC and CO pass entirely through the catalyst
without reacting because of insufficient residence time.
Another exhaust gas constituent which could possibly affect sulfuric
acid formation is lead. The conversion of lead to lead sulfate in the
exhaust has not yet been investigated. The disadvantages of the use of
more lead in the fuel may be why this effect has not been studied. These
disadvantages include, increased deposits on spark plugs and EGR valves
and catalyst deactivation. In addition to lead, lead sulfate may also
have detrimental health effects.
4-12
-------
Figure 4-7
""
"j^SE
?2
2
1 0.
(VjA.
O<
4/1 (/)
"" 5
o
-------
Figure 4-9
Effect of Other Exhaust Gases on SCL Oxidation
10 _
O UJ
^ t 100
80
60
40
20
cf
n
c £
LJ O
2
O
O
SPACE VELOCITY 74,600 hr"
OXIDATION EFFICIENCY
CO 526 °C
A C3H6 526 °C
CONVERSION OF SOg
D Without CO,C3H6 526°C
nWithCO,C3H6,H2 526 °C
-I
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
02 CONCENTRATION (%)
5.0
imply that sulfuric acid emissions for a given system would be directly
proportional to the sulfur level of the fuel. Experimental evidence
appears to indicate that sulfuric acid emissions are approximately
proportional to the SO level. Figure 4-10 contains data reported by
Ford that show the conversion rate to be fairly level at widely varying
SO levels.
4-14
-------
Figure 4-10
Effect of S0_ Concentration on
S00 Oxidation
100
80
Without CO,C3H6,H2
375°Ctl02,3OOhr'
WithCO,C3H6,H2
0376°C,74,6OOhr~'
+467*C, 74,600 hr'1
40
INLETS02(ppm)
60 80 100
4-15
-------
SECTION 5
HOW MUCH SULFURIC ACID DO CURRENT VEHICLES EMIT?
-------
SECTION 5
HOW MUCH SULFURIC ACID DO CURRENT VEHICLES EMIT?
5.1 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Non-Catalyst Vehicles
This section discusses the available sulfuric acid emission data
for conventional non-catalyst vehicles. Sulfuric acid emissions from
non-conventional non-catalyst vehicles such as stratified charge, Diesel,
and lean burn vehicles are discussed in Section 8.
Work done in 1973 using the absorption method (EPA Stationary
source Method 8) indicated that non-catalyst cars emitted significant
quantities of sulfuric acid (i.e. 10-20% conversion of fuel sulfur to
sulfuric acid). Further work showed this measurement method to be un-
reliable in that sulfuric acid formation occurred in the measurement
apparatus itself.
Work done in 1973 and later using the dilution tunnel method indicates
that non-catalyst cars form about 1 mgpm of sulfuric acid when burning
0.03 weight % sulfur in the gasoline. Both Ford and Chrysler reported
sulfuric acid data for conventional non-catalyst cars in their current
and previous submissions to EPA. While General Motors reported no
sulfuric acid data for conventional non-catalyst cars in their current
submission to EPA, their previous submissions contained extensive data
in this area.
The available data base is summarized in Table 5-1.
The results in this table shows sulfuric acid emissions of about 1
mgpm, on the average, but with numbers frequently higher with a maximum
value of 5 mgpm. More recent data tend to be lower (i.e. under 1 mgpm).
The above data indicate that conventional non-catalyst cars can emit
over 1 mgpm.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1 SULFATE EMISSIONS FROM CONVENTIONAL NON-CATALYST VEHICLES
Sulfuric Acid
Vehicle
1973 Vehicle
Conventional
Non-Catalyst
Vehicles
1973 Pontiac
Ul
i
w 1973 Buick
(Air)
1973 Chev.
(Air)
1973 Chev.
(Air)
1973 Chev.
(Air) New
Vehicle
1974 Ford
Ranch Wagon
Data Test
Source Cycle
Exxon 1972
5-30-74 FTP
40 inph
40 mph
40 mph
GM 1972
5-7-74 FTPs
EPA-ECTD Hot Start
FTP
Cold Start
FTP
Fuel Sulfur
wt. %
0.04
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.032
0.016
0.15
0.015
0.05
0.033
0.033
Conversion Sulfuric Acid
to Sulfuric Emissions,
Acid mgpm
2.0 7
.1 .4
.1 .4
.2 .9
0.3 1
0.0 <1
0.1 1
0.6 1
2.6 9
2.7
2.6
Emissions Normal-
No, of ized to 0.03% Fuel
Tests Sulfur, mgpm
1 4
1 .2
1 .2
1 .2
1 1
1 <1.9
1 .2
1 2
1 5.4
3 2.7
3 2.6
-------
TABLE 5-1 SULFATE EMISSIONS FROM CONVENTIONAL NON-CATALYST VEHICLES (continued)
Data Test
Vehicle Source Cycle
30 inph
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
FTP
FET
Fuel Sulfur
wt.%
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
Conversion
to Sulfuric
Acid
-
Sulfuric Acid
Emissions,
mgpm
.08
.35
.19
.36
.27
.29
.36
.20
No. of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Sulfuric Acid
Emissions Normal-
ized to 0.03% Fuel
Sulfur, mgpm
.07
.32
.17
.34
.25
.27
.35
.18
Ul
Pinto(2.3L)
Chrysler
Car 500
Chrysler
Car 497
Ford
1972 Vehicles
8-75
Chrysler
8-75
Chrysler
8-75
EPA-ORD
60 mph
30 mph
SC-1
60 mph
60 mph
55 mph
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
FET
60 mph
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.033
0.033
0.032
0.057
0.082
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
.6
.3
.2
.15
.10
.10
.20
1.4
.21
.65
.7
1
1.1
1.1
1
1
.7
.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.3
1.3
2.7
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
11
4
6
5
2
2
6
1
L.2
.19
.59
.6
.9
1
1
.9
.9
.7
.4
2.1
1
.8
.6
.4
.4
.8
-------
TABLE 5-1 SULFATE EMISSIONS FROM CONVENTIONAL NON-CATALYST VEHICLES (continued)
Data
Vehicle Source
1974 Torino Ford
8-75
Test
Cycle
FTP
60 mph
60
60
60
60
Fuel Sulfur
wt. %
0.019
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
Conversion
to Sulfuric
Acid
1.2
Sulfuric Acid
Emissions,
mgpm
1.2
.20
.14
.18
.18
.25
No. of
Tests
5
2
2
2
2
2
Sulfuric Acid
Emissions Normal-
ized to 0.03% Fuel
Sulfur, mgpm
3.0
.18
.13
.17
.17
.23
-------
5.2 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Catalyst Vehicles
Conventional oxidation catalyst vehicles can emit substantially
greater quantities of sulfuric acid than non-catalyst vehicles. Both
monolithic and pelleted catalyst vehicles emit sulfuric acid. Deter-
mining emission factors for monolithic catalyst vehicles is relatively
simple. However, the problems caused by the storage and release of
sulfuric acid are more pronounced with pelleted catalysts. This phenomenon,
which is explained in more detail in Section 5.2.2, makes it more com-
plicated to determine sulfuric acid emission factors for pelleted catalysts,
The emission data reported to EPA for catalyst vehicles is summarized in
the next two sections.
5.2.1 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Monolith Catalyst Vehicles
Sulfuric acid testing for monolith catalyst vehicles has been done
by EPA, EPA contractors, Ford, Chrysler, GM, Nissan, and Engelhard.
While most of the testing has been done on vehicles with air pumps, some
limited testing has been done on vehicles without air pumps.
The most extensive testing of monolith catalyst vehicles without
air pumps was done by Exxon Research and Engineering (Exxon) under EPA
contract. Exxon tested two 1975 certification cars designed to meet the
1.5 HC, 15 CO, 3.1 NOx levels. These vehicles were tested as part of
the EPA sulfuric acid test procedure development program. Under all
test conditions sulfuric acid emissions were extremely low, at about 1
mgpm. Exxon also tested a rental Plymouth to verify that production
cars had similar emissions to the certification cars. This car also had
very low sulfuric acid emissions. The low sulfuric acid emissions can
be attributed to the lack of an air pump with resultant low exhaust
oxygen levels. The emission data for these vehicles is summarized in
Table 5-2.
5-5
-------
Table 5-2
EPA-Exxon Data for Plymouths
(0.03% Sulfur Fuel)
(1.4% 0. in exhaust at 60 SS)
HC
gpm
.39
.30
.06
.08
.32
.06
CO
gpm
4.2
4.5
.72
1.1
4.3
1.6
NOx
gpm
2.7
2.9
1.6
1.3
3.4
2.6
H2SO
mgpm
1.5
1.8
.2
.06
0
0
Test Condition Number of Tests
FTP 9
FTP 9
SC-7 5
SC-7 5
FTP 1
SC-7 5
Engelhard reported two tests run on a Ford vehicle with the air
pump disconnected. The results of these tests show about 2 mgpm sul-
furic acid over the FTP. Since the FTP frequently gives lower sulfuric
acid emissions than other test cycles, the Engelhard tests by themselves
are somewhat inconclusive.
EPA test results indicate that low oxygen levels over the catalyst
result in low sulfuric acid emissions. The potential of low oxygen
levels as a sulfuric acid control technique is discussed in more detail
in Section 7.
Sulfuric acid emissions from monolith catalyst vehicles with air
injection are generally much higher than for those cars without air
injection. EPA, Ford, and Chrysler have tested several cars of this
type for sulfuric acid. One vehicle with a monolith catalyst and with-
out air injection has been reported as having sulfuric acid emissions
as high as 25 mpg over the SC7. This is apparently due to excess oxygen
in the exhaust from lean carbure^ion.
5-6
-------
Vehicle
Granada
Table 5-3
EPA Tests of Ford Certification Vehicles
(0.03% fuel sulfur)
Test Cycle
Repetitive FETs
Repetitive SC-7s
Repetitive SC-7s
FTP
SC-7 preceded by FTP
SC-7 preceded by FET
Duplicate SC-7 preceded by
2 FETs and 1 FTP
Duplicate FETs preceded by
1 FTP and 2 SC-7s
Number of
Tests
9
about 17
30
8
3
3
by 8
HC
gpm
.31
.30
.38
.69
-.31
.33
CO
gpm
.92
1.2
1.6
6.9
1.5
1.8
NOx
gpm
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
H2SO/
mgpm
12.1
12.8
19.4
3.3
29.4
20.0
23.7
36.7
Monarch
Repetitive SC7s
FTP
SC-7 preceded by FTP
SC-7 preceded by FET
Duplicate SC-7 preceded by
2 FETs and 1 FTP
Duplicate FETs preceded by
1 FTP and 2 SC-7s
15
9
3
3
5
.28
.65
.31
.26
2.1
6.3
2.3
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
15.3
3.5
20.6
16.3
23.2
30.5
Maverick
Repetitive SC-7s
Repetitive SC-7s
Repetitive FETs
18
5
9
.13
.12
.11
.37
1.2
.08
2.0
.8
1.8
6.8
5.5
54
5-7
-------
Table 5-4
Sulfuric Acid Emissions for Chrysler Vehicles
Car
Car 467
(0.035%
Sulfur Fuel)
Test Cycle
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
1 hour
60 mph
5 min.
60 mph
10 min.
60 mph
20 min
60 mph
40 min
60 mph
5 min.
60 mph
10 min.
60 mph
20 min.
60 mph
40 min
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
Preconditioning
60 mph
30 min.
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
4 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
4 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
4 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
4 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
4 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
60 mph
2 hours
1 SC-7s
2 SC-7s
1 SC-7s
2 SC-7
1 SC-7
3 SC-7s
Sulfuric Acid,
mgpm
97
85
89
91
105
105
111
107
95
109
98
101
93
90
91
91
91
91
102
91
4
4
3
4
4
28
5-8
-------
Table 5-4
(Continued)
Car
Car
518
(0.031%
Sulfur Fuel)
Test Cycle
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
55 SS.
Preconditioning
5 SC-7s
7 SC-7s
35 mph
Ihour
35 mph
1 hour and
3 SC-7s
1 SC-7
3 SC-7s
1 SC-7
3 SC-7s
5 SC-7s
1 SC-7
3 SC-7s
5 SC-7s
1 SC-7
5 SC-7s
7 SC-7s
Sulfuric Acid
mgpm
20
19
49
31
14
17
19
6
6
7
4
3
16
27
32
69
The FTP emissions for these two cars are as follows;
Car 467
Car 518
HC
.65
.69
CO
9.3
5.52
NOx gpm
1.33
1.53
5-9
-------
EPA-ECTD tested two 1975 Ford certification vehicles designed to
meet the California and Federal standards (i.e. 50 state vehicles).
These vehicles, a Granada and Monarch, were tested in the sulfuric acid
test procedure development program. Also, a Ford Maverick certification
vehicle designed to meet 1.5 HC, 15 CO, 3.1 NOx was tested in this
program by EPA-ECTD and EPA-OR I The results of these tests are given
in Table 5-3.
EPA-ORD ran some limited tests on two Ford rental cars, a Granada
and a Torino. The tests run were repetitive sulfate cycles which show
sulfuric acid emissions from 5 to 25 mgpm.
Chrysler ran sulfuric acid tests on a monolith catalyst vehicle
equipped with air injection and designed to meet 0.9 HC, 9.0 CO, 2.Q NOx
(car 467). This vehicle gave about 100 mgpm sulfuric acid at 60 SS.
Sulfuric acid emissions were lower but more variable over the sulfate
cycle ranging from 3-49 mgpm. The emission values for both cars 518 and
467 are given in Table 5-4.
Ford Motor Company did their initial work with Battelle Labs with
an engine dynamometer. An Engelhard catalyst equipped with air injection
gave about 50 mgpm of sulfuric acid with 0.03% sulfur fuel at 60 mph. A
GM pelleted catalyst with air injection showed similar results. Further
work at Battelle through the CRC-APRAC CAPE 19 project concentrated on
measuring sulfuric acid emissions from a 1975 351 CID Ford Torino. This
work also showed about 50 mgpm of sulfuric acid at 60 mph.
Ford is also conducting a program at Southwest Research which, in
part, will obtain emission factors for two 1975 Ford vehicles produced
to meet the California standards. The two vehicles are a Pinto (5P13)
and a 400 CID Torino (52A30) with monolith catalysts and air injection.
5-10
-------
Table 5-5
Sulfuric Acid Emission Data for Ford Vehicles
0.033% Sulfur Fuel
Vehicle
Torino
Pinto
Test
60 mph
60 mph
60 mph
60 mph
60 mph
30 mph
30 mph
Number of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Preconditioning
30 miles at 60 mph
130 miles at 60 mph
30 miles at 60 mph
30 miles at 60 mph
30 miles at 60 mph
170 miles at 60 mph
170 miles at 60 mph
Sulfuric
Acid,; mgpm
55.5
52.8
28.0
37.5
45.9
93.8
79.7
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-3
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
FTP
3 FETs
60 mph
60 mph
60 mph
60 mph
2
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
and 75 miles at 30 mph
105 miles @ 30 mph 24.2
2 SC-ls
105 miles at 30 mph 33.5
and 7 SC-ls
1 SC-1 18.5
3 SC-ls 11.3
70 miles at 60 mph 23.4
70 miles at 60 mph
and 1 SC-7 22.7
70 miles at 60 mph
and 1 SC-7 34.2
7 SC-7s and 1 FTP 37.6
3 FTPs (hot start)
and 1 FET 42.8
30 miles at 60 mph 24.3
130 miles at 60 mph 25.0
30 miles at 60 mph 10.5
30 miles at 60 mph 17.8
5-11
-------
Vehicle
Test
60 mph
30 mph
30 mph
SC-1
SC-7
FTP
3 FETs
Table 5-5
(continued)
Number of
Tests
2
2
2
SC-1
SC-7
SC-7
2
2
2
3
2
Preconditioning
Sulfuric.
Acid, mgpip
30 miles at 60 mph 17.1
170 miles at 60 mph 46.9
170 miles at 60 mph
and 75 miles at
30 mph 56.4
105 miles at 30 mph
and 2 SC-ls
7 SC-ls
13.3
12.3
70 miles at 60 mph 10.7
70 miles at 60 mph
and 1 SC-7 10.2
70 miles at 60 mph 9.7
and 1 SC-7
7 SC-7s and 1 FTP 8.9
3 FTPs (hot start) 13.1
and 1 FET
5-12
-------
The vehicles were run on the modified AMA cycle for 222 miles at the
start of the program. The vehicles were then tested for sulfuric acid
emissions at 60 mph, at 30 raph, over the FET, and over SC-1 and SC-3 and
SC-7. Sulfuric acid emissions were about 25 mgpm and 10 mgpm for the
Torino and Pinto respectively. Detailed data for these cars are given
in Table 5-5.
5.2.2 Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Pelleted Catalyst Vehicles
Sulfate Storage and Release
Pelleted catalysts consist of about 2500 grams of alumina pellets
with a noble metal coating. By contrast, a monolith contains about 100
grams of washcoat alumina with noble metal coating on an inert non-
reactive cordierite support. The alumina, which is chemically basic,
can react with the sulfuric acid produced by the catalyst to form aluminum
sulfate and possibly aluminum sulfite. This reaction occurs at lower
catalyst temperatures (e.g. 400°F) associated with lower speed operation.
However, the reaction is reversible at higher catalyst temperatures
associated with higher speed operation. The aluminum sulfate will
decompose back to alumina and either SO- or SO... While it is not clear
how much S02 versus SO., is formed from this decomposition, SO- that
would be formed might be oxidized to SO- by the catalyst. The SO- may
then form sulfuric acid by combining with water. Therefore the decom-
position of aluminum sulfate could result in the sulfuric acid emissions.
At low speed operations when sulfuric acid can be stored, the
vehicle would emit only small quantities of sulfuric acid. At higher
speeds, great quantities of sulfuric acid can be emitted for temporary
periods until the catalyst stabilizes. This storage and release mechanism
can occur many times over the life of a catalyst. A short period of
5-13
-------
operation at 60 mph can release most of the stored sulfate allowing the
catalyst to store sulfates once again during subsequent lower speed
operation.
The type of prior driving will have a great effect on the level of
sulfuric acid emissions obtained during a sulfuric acid test.
For example, operation of a vehicle over the FTP, a low speed
cycle, generally results in storage relative to higher speed cycles.
Even the SC-7 itself, with an average speed of 35 mph, can result in
storage relative to a higher speed condition such as the FET. The
storage-release phenomenon can introduce a large amount of variability
in sulfuric acid emission results for pelleted catalysts.
Sulfuric Acid from Pelleted Catalysts Without Air Injection
EPA-ORD did:extensive testing of two GM certification vehicles with
pelleted catalysts but no air injection. These vehicles were designed
to meet 1.5 HC, 15.0 CO, 3.1 NOx. These vehicles emitted small quantities
of sulfuric acid, about 1 mgpm over the SC-7 cycle. The results of the
EPA-ORD tests are summarized in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6
EPA Tests of GM Cars
Car
Test
Number
of Tests
HC
gpm
CO
gpm
NOx
gpm
mgpm
Impala (Car Repetitive
06308)
Chevelie
SC-7's
FTP
Repetitive
SC-7's
FTP
7
9
4
8
.61
.41
.40
.60
26.8
5.1
12.6
12.0
1.0
1.0
4.2
3.0
1.3
.5
.4
.4
5-14
-------
EPA-ECTD tested three pelleted catalyst cars without air injection
(1) 1975 Chevrolet 350 CID production car supplied by GM
(2) 1975 Chevrolet 350 CID Certification car (Car 06308)
supplied by GM and also tested by EPA-ORD.
(3) 1975 Chevrolet Rental Vehicle
About 1,00.0 miles of preconditioning at 30 mph with 0.03% sulfur
fuel was run on the first car to stabilize the catalyst. During this
time, sulfuric acid emissions rose to a maximum stable value of 8 mgpm.
After this, 24 sulfuric acid cycles were run with the first cycle showing
sulfuric acid emissions of 64 mgpm. The rapid decline of sulfate emissions
with time can be seen in Table 5-7. Apparently, significant sulfate
storage occurred over the 1,000 miles at 30 mph. The vehicle quickly
stabilized to show sulfuric acid emissions of about 1 mgpm. The car was
then tested at 60 mph and showed sulfuric acid emissions of about 35
mgpm.
The second two vehicles were tested only on sulfuric acid cycles and
showed sulfuric acid emissions of about 1 mgpm. Table 5-7 lists the
sulfuric acid emissions obtained in the order the tests were run for all
three vehicles.
GM has run a number of vehicles without air injection including
cars that meet both the Federal and the California standards for 1975.
Two of the cars were 1975 Chevrolets and were tested over the FTP,
HWFET, SC, and some steady state speeds. The third car (R5451) is a
Buick designed to meet the 1975 California standards of 0.9 HC, 9.0 CO,
2.0 NOx. All three cars had low sulfuric acid emissions, generally
below 10 mgpm. This is especially significant for the Buick which meets
the stricter California standards. One Chevrolet had much higher sulfuric
acid emissions (50 mgpm) at a 40 mph steady state.
5-15
-------
Car
1975 Chevrolet
Production Car
Table 5-7
Sulfuric Acid Emissions for GM Cars
0.03% Fuel Sulfur
1975 Chevrolet
197$ Chevrolet
Rental Car
Test
SC-1
30 mph
for
1,000 miles
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-1
SC-3
SC-2
FTP
SC-1
FET
60 mph
SC-1
SC-3
Number of
Tests
5
29
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
6
2
4
2
6
5
4
Sulfuric Acid
mgpm
.4
8 stable
value
64
25
11
6
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
.4
1
6
35
1
1
5-16
-------
The sulfuric acid emissions for these three vehicles are listed in
Table 5-8. The gaseous emissions for these three cars over the FTP are
given in Table 5-9.
With Air Injection
Pelleted catalysts with air injection tend to give higher sulfuric
acid values than pelleted catalysts without air injection. Most of the
tests on pelleted catalysts with air injection were run by EPA and GM.
3
EPA tests were run on two AMC Hornets and with the GM 160 in.
pelleted catalyst with air injection. Both cars were identical 1975
production cars run on modified AMA mileage accumulation. The tests
were done under an EPA contract with Southwest Research Institute. These
cars showed sulfuric acid emissions ranging from about 30 to 60 mgpm
with most of the values about 50 mgpm. The emissions obtained by
Southwest on these cars are listed in Table 5-10.
Exxon ran some very limited tests on an AMC Matador rental vehicle
equipped with a pelleted catalyst and air injection. The car was run
on SC-7 without any preconditioning. The sulfuric acid emissions ob-
tained were very low as shown in Table 5-11.
Table 5-11
Exxon Test on AMC Matator
Pelleted Catalyst with Air Injection
HC CO NOx . H2S04
Test gpm gpm gpm mgpm
SC-7 (10 times) .1 .36 2.0 1.7
FTP .28 .94 2.1 .8
, 5-17
-------
Table 5-8
Sulfuric Acid Emissions for GM Cars
(normalized to 0.03% sulfur fuel)
Car
Chevrolet
R5501
(4,000 miles)
Test
Buick
R5451
(2,000 miles)
Chevrolet
R5948
(1,200 miles)
Number
of
Tests
Sulfuric Acid
mgpm
S-l
40 mph
FET
55 mph
FTP
FET
60 mph
FTP
30mph
40mph
S-7
SOmph
5
6
6
5
7
8
6
3
4
4
4
4
12
10
15
12
1
10
10
0
8
50
8
8
5-18
-------
Table 5-9
Gaseous FTP Emissions for GM Cars
Car HC CO NOX gpm
Chevrolet (R5501) .54 5.90 3.04
Buick (R5451) .46 3.39 1.85
Chevrolet (R 5948) .49 10.53 1.99
5-19
-------
Table 5-1U
Southwest Research Tests
of AMC Pelleted Catalyst
Vehicles with Air Injection
Car
Hornet
EM-5
Hornet
EM-6
Test
FTPs
Repetitive
SC-7s
Repetitive
SC-9s
Repetitive
SC-7s
SC-7
Preceded by
FTP
SC-7
Preceded by
FET
FTPs
Repetitive
SC-7
SC-7
Preceded by
FTP
SC-7
Preceded by
FET
Number of
Tests
9
19
12
12
3
3
9
19
3
3
HC
gpm
.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.6
.1
.1
.1
CO NOX
gpm gpm
6.1 2.7
.2 2.4
.1 2.3
.1 2.2
.1 2.6
.2 2.3
4.7 2.9
.2 2.6
.1 2.3
.1 2.4
H2S04
mgpm
10.8
57
68
56
31
31
20
54
52
47
5-20
-------
It was noted that low amounts of SO- were recovered during these
tests indicating the catalyst was probably storing. It is therefore
impossible to make any valid conclusions from this brief test other than
to note the need for adequate preconditioning.
GM has extensively tested six pelleted catalyst vehicles with air
injection designed to meet the California standards. These cars and
their gaseous emissions over the FTP are listed in Table 5-12. These
cars were tested for sulfuric acid over various test cycles. The emis-
sions were as high as 120 mgpm at 60 SS and are listed in Table 5-13
normalized to 0.03% fuel sulfur. The tests were run in the order shown
in the table.
Ford and Chrysler have each done some limited testing of pelleted
catalysts.
Ford tested a 1976 Ford LTD equipped with a GM 260 in pelleted
catalyst. The vehicle was calibrated to meet the California standards
and gave stable sulfuric acid emissions of about 60 mgpm over SC-7 with
0.03% fuel sulfur. These values are in agreement with earlier Ford work
on an engine 'dynamometer at Battelle which found a pelleted catalyst
with air injection to emit about 50 mgpm.
Chrysler tested a pelleted catalyst on one of their cars with air
injection (car 384). They found this car gave essentially the same
sulfuric acid emissions as car 467 which was similar to car 384 except
it had a monolith catalyst. Car 467 emitted about 100 mgpm over SC-7
with 0.03% sulfur'fuel.
5-21
-------
Table 5-12
GM Tests of
Gaseous Emissions
Car , HC CO NOX
(1) 350 CID _ _ _
Fuel Injection '
1975 Cert. Vehicle
(2) 1975 Cadillac __
production vehicle
(3) 1975 350-4 Nova _
production vehicle
(4) 350-2 1975 Chev. .75 6.67 2.19
(R 5950)
(5) 350-2 1975 Chevrolet .60 9.08 1.63
(R-5952)
(6) 350-2 1975 .55 7.63 1.76
Chevrolet
(R-5949)
5-22
-------
Table 5-13
Sulfuric Acid Emissions for GM Cars with Air Injection
Vehicle
(1) Fuel Injection
Car
(2) Cadillac
(3) Chevrolet
Nova
(4) Chevrolet
(R5950)
(5) Chevrolet
(R5952)
Test
Repetitive
SC-7s
Repetitive
SC-7s
Repetitive
SC-7s
Repetitive
SC-7s
FTP
SC-7
FET
FET
60 mph
FTP
30 mph
40 mph
SC-1
50 mph
FET
60 mph
FTP
30 mph
40 mph
SC-1
FET
55 mph
50 mph
Number of
Tests
12
8
7
7
10
10
10
4
4
4
4
6
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sulfuric
mgpra
10
35
40
50
10
25
40
7
40
8
30
70
80
90
100
120
20
70
80
50
60
90
8
5-23
-------
Vehicle
(0) Chevrolet
(R5949)
Table 5-13 (continued)
Test Number of
Tests
FTP 3
30 mph 4
40 mph 4
SC-1 4
50 mph 4
FET 4
60 mph 4
Sulfurle Add
ni}',pm
4
5
30
40
30
60
120
5-24
-------
SECTION 6
HOW CAN SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FROM
AUTOMOBILES BE CONTROLLED?
-------
SECTION 6
HOW CAN SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FROM
AUTOMOBILES BE CONTROLLED?
This section discusses both non-vehicle and vehicle approaches
toward controlling sulfuric acid emissions. These approaches are ap-
plicable for both catalyst-equipped and non catalyst-equipped vehicles.
6.1 Fuel Desulfurization
There appears to be general agreement that, in the fuel sulfur
ranges of interest, for the same systems, sulfuric acid emissions are
directly proportional to the fuel sulfur level. Therefore, reducing the
level of sulfur in the fuel will reduce sulfuric acid emissions. The
subject of fuel desulfurization was one of the items covered in the EPA
request for information published in the Federal Register of March 8,
1974. A summary of the comments from the respondents is shown below in
Table 6-1.
Table 6-1
Some Costs for Fuel Desulfurization
Ranee
Construction lead time
Capital investment
Annual operating costs
Cost per gallon of gasoline
Energy penalty
2
Gasoline yield penalty
Note:
100 ppm sulfur
2
At constant crude input
0 to 6 years
$2 to 12 billion
$12 to 200 million
0.5 to 2.0 cents
per gallon
1/2 to 1 1/2%
1 to 2%
Median
4 years
$2 1/2 billion
$12 million
1 cent per gallon
1%
1%
6-1
-------
The estimates for fuel cost increments give information that can be
used to compare the cost to the consumer of a system for controlling
sulfuric acid emissions from the vehicle to the customer costs due to
fuel desulfurization.
The assumptions for such a comparison were as follows: the cus-
tomer costs for fuel for 50,000 miles of vehicle operation were calculated
for the range and the median of the estimates using the average fuel
economy of the 1976 models, MPGC = 17.6. For 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 cents
per gallon, the additional costs are $14.20, $28.40, and $56.80 respec-
tively. These values are rounded to $15, $30 and $60. If the system
used to control sulfuric acid emissions would cost less than those
values it would be advantageous to control sulfuric acid on the vehicle.
If the sulfuric acid emission control systems were to cost more than
those values, it would appear to be beneficial to the customer to have
his fuel desulfurized. However, it should be emphasized that this com-
parison is simplistic and that no other implications (other than cost to
consumer) were considered; e.g. imports of the refiner, capital invest-
ment capabilities, etc.
The impacts of sulfuric acid control technology on cost, including
operating cost (fuel economy and maintenance costs), are not well known
at this time. As an indication of what the range of impacts might be,
the report team has calculated what the sulfuric acid emission control
system could cost for the case given above modified by a plus and minus
five percent fuel economy effect. The results are shown in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-1 indicates that systems that cost more than the indicated
amount will be more costly to the customer than desulfurizing the fuel.
Also, Figure 6-1 shows that only a small (1 to 3 percent) fuel economy
loss can be tolerated before the extra cost of fuel more than outweighs
6-2
-------
figure!6-1 ! ._. I .
Control System Costs to Just1 Eqvjal j
Fue]| Desulfurizi.tion ^osts ds a Fynctiori
oij OiOJ .Qontjfql Fu«U Ecoitomy^Eif
1 : ' i ! I '
! ' ' ' i '
i ,
I !
1., ._._ 150
Systerii
Cost
Dollars
' Estimated
Desijlf uriz
i iEc|onorty duei
' iCohtrblJ
6-3
-------
the cost of desulfurization to the customer. It must be kept in mind
that maintenance costs were not included in the calculations for Figure
6-1. Again, it should be noted that Figure 6-1 is based only on consumer
costs, e.g., if energy conservation also were a desired objective then
Figure 6-1 would have to be modified.
Several qualifications concerning Figure 6-1 must be mentioned. The
fuel desulfurization costs shown are for reducing the fuel sulfur level
to 100 ppm, a 67 percent reduction. If more control, say to 30 ppm, is
necessary the cost estimates are not well established, although they
could be at the top end of the range, 2 cents per gallon. Figure 6-1 and
the assumptions and calculations for it also do not consider the pos-
sibility of some desulfurization and some on-vehicle control. Such a
strategy analysis is beyond the scope of this report. Figure 6-1 is not
specific to any sulfuric acid emission control system, however, it does
give ranges of system cost to compare specific systems against. Finally,
apportioning the cost and fuel economy impacts to just sulfuric acid
control is difficult to do as the following two cases indicate. First
consider the control technique of dumping the air pump output to the
atmosphere after the first few minutes of startup operation. It is
possible that such an approach may cause a HC problem. If the spark is
retarded and fuel economy suffers, is the fuel economy loss due to HC or
H_SO, control? If the 3-way catalyst approach is used and fuel injec-
tion is needed to keep the oxygen level in the proper region for H-SO,
control, and the fuel economy improves, to what is the fuel injection
cost and fuel economy effect due: H2SO, control or HC/CO/NOx control?
In summary, it is the conclusion of this report that Figure 6-1
indicates that systems for controlling just sulfuric acid emissions
alone that cost more than $30 should be examined carefully.
6-4
-------
6.2 Fuel Additives
Theoretically, a material could be added to the fuel that would tie
up the sulfur in the fuel or combine with the S0_ formed to reduce the
SO- available for oxidation to SO . Ideally the resultant products
would be harmless and it would be attractive if the additive had anti-
knock properties.
One candidate, though certainly not an ideal one, is tetraethyl
lead.
The possibility of using leaded fuel as a means:of reducing sulfuric
acid emissions has been discussed by Chrysler Corporation. The lead in
the fuel could tie up some of the fuel sulfur as lead sulfate which is
insoluble and may have lesser health effects than sulfuric acid. How-
ever, there is insufficient lead in even low lead fuel (0.5 g/gal of
lead) to tie up much of the sulfur. With 0.03% sulfur fuel, less than
10% of the fuel sulfur could be converted to lead sulfate with leaded
fuel containing 0.5 g/gal lead.
Furthermore, standard oxidation catalysts are rapidly poisoned by
leaded fuel. Some preliminary work by Chrysler indicates that ethylene
dibromide (one of the two scavengers used with leaded fuel) poisons
catalysts while lead or ethylene dichloride (the other scavenger used
with leaded fuel) does not. Chrysler has also suggested that gasoline
containing lead alone or lead and ethylene dichloride could be used with
catalyst vehicles. However, both Ford and GM feel that lead alone does
poison catalysts and cannot be used with catalyst cars. This report
concludes that much more work is needed to establish if lead may be able
to be used with conventional catalysts.
6-5
-------
DuPont is developing a high temperature catalyst that may be re-
sistant to lead poisoning. Leaded fuel used with this catalyst would
not lower sulfates significantly by formation of lead sulfate. However,
it is possible that this catalyst has lower activity for SO- oxidation
than other catalysts or that lead selectively poisons this catalyst for
S0_ oxidation.
Other than tetraethyl lead, not much work has been done with fuel
additives to either tie up fuel sulfur or to combine with SO-- The
report team considers that if additives to tie up fuel sulfur were
available, they would probably already be used for fuel oil sulfur
control. The use of a fuel additive that would tie up the SO- formed,
likewise has received little attention because, in the opinion of the
report team, in view of the work needed to find such an additive and to
determine quantitatively its effects on engine wear and catalyst dura-
bility it is apparently not considered to be a promising approach. The
determination of the effects of trace quantities of lead on catalyst
durability, for example, was (and still is) a major program. With
little to indicate that such an approach will work for sulfuric acid
control, the researchers in the field probably consider other avenues to
be more productive.
6.3 Combustion Modification
Modification of the combustion process was one of the first approaches
tried toward controlling gaseous emissions. For example, leaning out of
the air/fuel ratio to control HC and CO emissions and exhaust gas recircula-
tion (EGR) to control NOx emissions have proved to be effective control
measures. However, almost no real work has been tried in an attempt to
control the formation of SO in the engine. Apparently, most investigators
consider it fruitless to try to prevent the oxidation of sulfur to S02
in the combustion chamber while maintaining the excellent combustion
6-6
-------
efficiency typical of the conventional engine. This report analysis
tends to concur with this approach, however, it would be interesting to
have data on the extent (if any) of S09 reduction due to combustion
modifications.
Analagous to the case of fuel additives, an additive is not pre-
cluded for addition to the inlet air to the engine. EGR is one example,
with CCL being the primary "air additive". One potential candidate for
control of S0~ emissions would be ammonia (NH_) addition. Ammonium
sulfate might be formed. The commercial process for making ammonium
sulfate uses sulfuric acid and ammonia, not S0_ and ammonia. However,
several potential drawbacks with this approach are evident. First, NH.
would most probably decompose to nitrogen and hydrogen at combustion
temperature. Second, even if it did not decompose, NH» could be oxidized
to NO increasing the NOx control task (particularly if an oxidation
catalyst is used). Third, even if ammonium sulfate were formed it is not
clear to the report team that this kind of emission is a harmless one.
Fourth, the hardware and extra maintenance required to keep any sort of
air additive system functioning on the vehicle implies higher customer
costs. Finally, current sulfuric acid analysis techniques do not
distinguish between sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfate, though they can
be modified to detect such differences. Ammonia injection after the
oxidation catalyst, though not a combustion modification, may be a technique
to provide ammonia at a more useful location, but would be subject to the
last three drawbacks which were previously mentioned.
Other additives for the inlet air stream would appear to have at
least the same drawback as the fourth comment cited above for NH,
addition.
The combustion modification approach does not appear to be too
promising at this point in time, and it is understandable why little
work was reported in this area.
6-7
-------
SECTION 7
HOW CAN SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS BE CONTROLLED
FROM CATALYST AUTOMOBILES?
-------
SECTION 7
HOW CAN SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS BE CONTROLLED
FROM CATALYST AUTOMOBILES?
7.1 Oxidation Catalyst Systems
Oxidation catalysts have been criticized due to their role in the
generation of sulfuric acid emissions. Often overlooked are the HC, and
CO benefits provided by the catalyst and the engine calibration flex-
ibility provided by catalysts which in turn provides for more optimal
fuel economy. This is quite apparent in the 26.6% overall improvement
in fuel economy of the 1976 models over the 1974 models.*
7.1.1 Oxidation Catalyst Modifications
Dramatic reductions of sulfuric acid emissions from catalyst
modification have not been realized at this point in time. There are
several reasons for this in the opinion of the report team: 1) final
sulfuric acid testing procedures and sulfuric acid emission standards
have not yet been established, 2) most auto manufacturers depend on
suppliers for improvements in catalyst technology, 3) neither the
manufacturers nor the catalyst suppliers have had sulfuric acid testing
capabilities very long, and 4) the sulfuric acid emissions of present
systems are not yet completely understood.
The following sections discuss catalyst parameters which have been
investigated for sulfuric acid reduction potential. All HC, CO, and NOx
*T. C. Austin, R. B. Michael and G. R. Service, "Passenger Car
Fuel Economy Trends Through 1976," SAE Paper 750957.
7-1
-------
emission values are from 1975 FTP tests and sulfuric acid emission
values are from the test indicated in the table and are corrected to
0.030 wt% sulfur in the fuel.
Type of active material
A few base metal catalysts have been examined for sulfuric acid emis-
sions. Those tests are presented in Table 7-1. The base metal catalyst
on the Ford vehicle demonstrated no improvements over noble metal catalysts,
but the GM catalyst did. No firm conclusions about sulfuric acid emissions
from base metal catalysts can be made from this data. In light of past
durability problems (primarily sulfur tolerance problems) base metal
catalysts alone do not appear to be the optimum solution in the near
future. There is work going on, however, to utilize noble metal-promoted-
base metals catalysts. These catalysts are primarily base metal, but
have small amounts of noble metals added to improve their activity and
poison tolerance.
Active metal composition
Various noble metals combinations which are currently used in oxidation
catalysts have been examined for potential sulfuric acid emission
reductions. These data are presented in Table 7-2. The only data which
indicate that platinum/rhodium catalysts do not provide reduced sulfate
emissions are from Johnson-Matthey (J-M), the parent company of Matthey-
Bishop (M-B). The J-M data is not convincing since all data points are
at extremely low levels of sulfuric acid emissions, but J-M's disagreement
is significant since they have more production experience with Pt/Rh
catalysts than any other catalyst manufacturer. M-B indicates that they
are not certain, but they believe that differences in their substrate
are responsible for lower sulfuric acid emissions. The data indicate no
7-2
-------
Table 7-1
Base Metal Oxidation Catalysts
Model
CID
EPA
Ford LTD 400
AIR
x
EGR
Catalyst
M Type
175 FTP
Active HC CO NOx
CID Materials Mileage gpin gpa gpm
Cu/Cr/Zn .15 3.12 1.93
860
GM
H2S04 M2S04
mgpra Preconditioning
66 200 mi of 30 SS
26 Above
80 Above + 75 FTP
41 Above + 2 SC-7's
46 Above + 4 SC-7's
36 Above + HWFET
15 Above + 3 HWFET
.50 8.65 1.55
K2S04
Test Cycle
30 SS-Stabilized
75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
HWFET
HWFET
60 SS
72 FTP
72 FTP
72 FTP
P = Pelleted catalyst
M = Monolith catalyst
* Corrected to 0.30 wt % S
-------
Table 7-2
Hoble Metal Composition
Model
Exxon
CID AIR EGR
351
Catalyst ' 75 FTP~"
Active HC CO NOx
M Type CID Materials Mileage gpm gpm gpm
Ox
x Ox
350
AC Ox
AC Ox
EPA
'75 Fury 318
UOP Ox
Ch Ox
Ch Ox
Pt
Pt/Pd
Pt
Pt/Pd
Pt/Rh(93/7
.1 t.o.)
Pt/Pd (70/
30 .1 t.o.)
Pt (100/0
.1 t-..
4000
500
.48 5.72 1.61
.27 3.45 1.65
.62 3.64 1.88
23
48
36
39
36
39
20
56
44
44
44
23
32
140
55
46
46
7
17
109
49
47
52
8
11
50
28
73
19
89
Preconditioning
H2S04
Test Cycle
FTP-1
60 SS-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-3
60 SS-4
FTP-2
FTP-1
60 SS-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-3
60 SS-4
FTP-2
FTP-1
60 SS-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-3
60 SS-4
FTP-2
FTP-1
60 SS-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-3
60 SS-4
FTP-2
30 SS
60 SS
30 SS
60 SS
30 SS
60 SS
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Noble Metal Composition
mfr.
EPA
VW
J-M
Model
'75 Fury
Beetle
Capri
CID
318
AIR EGR
P M
Ch
Ch
x
x
X
X
X
Type
Ox
Ox
Ox
Ox
Active
CID Materials
Pt/Pd (70/
30 .1 t.o.)
Pt (100/0
.1 t.o.)
Pt
Pt/Pd
Pt/Rh
Pt
Pt/Rh
Mileage
50,000
50,000
fresh
cat.
fresh
cat
HC CO NOx
gpm gpm gpm
.53 5.54 1.64
.36 4.78 .76
.33 5.19 .75
.42 5.54 .67
H2S04
mgpm
23
78
11
78
4
1
1
2
2
0.3
2
4
1
Preconditioning
'H2&04
Test Cycle
Stabilized 30 SS 30 SS
Stabilized 60 SS 60 SS
Stabilized 30 SS 30 SS
Stabilized 60 SS 60 SS
75 FTP
75 FTP
75 FTP
FTP
55 SS
30 SS
FTP
55 SS
30 SS
-------
significant differences between all platinum (Pt) and platinum/palladium
(Pt/Pd). More information will be provided by a current EPA contract
with Exxon and future Ford studies.
Pt/Pd catalysts are said to have better light-off characteristics
than all Pt catalysts. M-B indicates that all Pt catalysts have better
durability than Pt/Rh catalysts as shown in Figure 7-1. Pt/Pd catalyst
durability is said to be poorer than all Pt, but better than for Pt/Rh.
Active metal loading
The only vehicle results available agree with earlier GM laboratory work
in that they indicate only very small increases in sulfuric acid emis-
sions for increases in noble metal loading. The increase in noble metal
loading was about 60% in Pt/Pd for the pelleted catalyst. These results
are presented in Figures 7-2* and 7-3*. Only Pt/Pd was used -in these
tests. These results need to be verified for Pt and Pt/Rh as well. Also
the increased loading concept needs to be verified on the SC-7. This
could be important as increased noble metal loadings are known to provide
improved durability for HC and CO.
Dispersion of active metal
Perovskite catalysts are being tested which contain the active metals in
a lattice structure. DuPont has indicated that the perovskite catalysts
have improved thermal stability which would enable them to be placed
closer to the exhaust manifold. This could provide higher temperature
operation for reduced sulfuric acid emissions and improved HC conversion
efficiency. HC conversion has not been very high when operated at
conventional temperatures for the perovskite oxidation catalysts. These
*E. L. Holt, K. C. Bachman, W. R. Leppard, E. E. Wigg, and
J. H. Somers, "Control of Automotive Sulfate Emissions", SAE paper 750683.
7-6
-------
Figure 7-1
Durability Results for Different Catalysts
(fron J-^)
o
o
100
80
60
40
20
Improved Pt Catalyst(20G)
'^Improved Rh/Pt catalyst (23G)
High Temperature
Durability Test
Improved Catalyst Stability
!- \
\
§
0
100 r
80
60
40
Production Pt/Rh (3C)
50
100
150
200
250
HOURS
Improved Pt catalyst (20G)
Improved Rh/Pt catalyst (23G)
12C)
Production Tt/Rh(3C)
50
100 150
HOURS
200
250
J 0
§
-------
catalysts are also said to be chemically stable and could possibly
tolerate operation with leaded fuels. This could potentially reduce
sulfuric acid emissions also. No vehicle data on sulfuric acid emis-
sions is available yet, but lab data from Chrysler indicates a 50%
reduction as compared to conventional oxidation catalysts.
The effect of conventional dispersion, i.e., how the active sites
are distributed on the catalyst, on sulfuric acid emissions has not been
reported.
Catalyst volume and space velocity
Since space velocity is defined as the exhaust gas flow rate divided by
the converter volume, space velocity and catalyst volume will be dis-
cussed together. Early laboratory test data had indicated that sulfuric
acid emissions would increase as the catalyst volume increased (or space
velocity decreased). The Exxon vehicle data presented in Figures 7-2,
7-3, 7-4, and 7-5 indicate a contrary result. There was generally no
increase and even reductions of sulfuric acid emissions with increased
catalyst volume. The two pelleted catalysts were 160 and 260 cubic
inches respectively, and two monoliths were used in place of one to
increase the volume. The Exxon tests were on 1975 FTP's and 60 SS so
this effect can not automatically be assumed to be similar over the SC-
7, but these initial tests were very encouraging. The effect of catalyst
volume must be determined as this is an important parameter which can be
used to recover possible losses in HC and CO control if exhaust oxygen
levels are reduced to control sulfuric acid, if these initial Exxon
results are found to be accurate.
This has become a very important issue to EPA as some vehicle
manufacturers are now reducing catalyst volumes and making claims of
sulfuric acid emission improvements - with no vehicle results to sub-
stantiate those claims. If the Exxon results are correct, then HC and
7-8
-------
Figure 7-2
Figure 7-3
§0.04
0.02
I
£ £
32
<
Q.
Ut
RESIDENCE
TIME
EFFECT OF CATALYST AND SYSTEM OPERATING VARIABLES
ON SULFATE EMISSIONS-PELLETED CATALYST-FTP CYCLE
< 0.10
or
o
UJ
5
0.05
0.00
U -o
wo.
s^
UJ
1
ice
<
£
£
SHORT
RESIDENCE
TIME
1
= §
I
I
EFFECT OF CATALYST AND SYSTEM OPERATING VARIABLES
ON SULFATE EMISSIONS-PELLETED CATALYST-96 KM/H
CRUISE
Figure 7-4
Figure 7-5
0.04
3.02
UJ
a is >>-
UJ OL < U1
-D
l O.
£ > OUJT)
o -J uj£
a.
a.'
1
0.05
m
m
IS
EFFECT OF CATALYST AND SYSTEM OPERATING VARIABLES
ON SULFATE EMISSIONS-MONOLITH CATALYST-FTP CYCLE
*88 KM/H
EFFECT OF CATALYST AND SYSTEM OPERATING VARIABLES
ON SULFATE EMISSIONS-MONOLITH CATALYST-96 KM/H
CRUISE
7-9
-------
CO durability and emissions will possibly be degraded with no improve-
ment in sulfuric acid emissions.
Catalyst parameters such as washcoat or pellet composition, pre-
paration, and surface area have not been studied for effects on vehicle
sulfuric acid emissions. These studies should probably be done by
catalyst manufacturers, who have the most expertise in this area, al-
though the automobile manufacturers have some capability, too. This is
a good example of a possible cooperative catalyst development program
between the auto makers and catalyst suppliers. No such program has
been reported.
Selective poisoning of oxidation catalysts has been discussed by
many manufacturers but only Chrysler reported work in this area. The
Chrysler efforts consisted of brief lab testing which demonstrated about
a 50% reduction in sulfuric acid with lead poisoning. In the same
study, Chrysler also successfully heat aged two catalysts. Sulfuric
acid reductions from heat aging were comparable to the results from
selective poisoning. Changes in HC and CO efficiency were not reported.
Since it is known that some catalysts used in the contact process for
making sulfuric acid are poisoned by arsenic, the lack of any data from
testing selective catalyst poisons is disappointing and a major area in
which information is lacking.
Others have looked at the effects of catalyst aging in actual
vehicle testing as in table 7-3. Only the VW testing used the same
catalyst (as opposed to two identical catalysts - one relatively fresh
and the other aged) for sulfuric acid testing during mileage accumulation.
The results in Table 7-3 are not sufficient to be absolutely conclusive,
but the indication is that sulfuric acid emissions decrease with aging.
This agrees with previous lab work and would be expected. As HC and CO
7-10
-------
Table 7-3
Catalyst Aging
Tested by
Exxon
Model
CID AIR
EGR
'75 Chevrolet
AC
Type
Ox
Catalys t
Active HC CO NOx
CID Materials Mileage gpm gpm gpm
AC
EPA
'75 Fury
318
Ox
Ox
Ox
Ch Ox
Ch Ox
Ch Ox
Ch Ox
175 FTp
H2S04
H2S04
Preconditioning
150 Pt/Pd (70/ 500
30 .1 t.o)
150 Pt/Pd (70/ 50,000
30 .1 t.o)
150 Ft(lOO/o .1 500
t.o)
150 Pt (lOO/o 50,000
.1 t.o)
.19
.19
.18
.17
.19
.19
.27
.22
.27
.53
.62
2.28
2.26
2.16
1.47
2.16
2.16
2.80
2.73
3.48 1.65
5.54 1.64
3.64 1.88
10
98
58
44
36
3
4
96
37
28
21
0.7
20
56
44
44
44
23
7
37
28
23
26
26
28
73
23
78
19
89
11
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Comments Test Cycle
FTP-1
60 3S-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-3
bO SS-4
FTP-2
FTP-1
bU SS-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-3
60 SS-4
FTP-2
FTP-1
60 SS-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-j
bU Sb-4
FTP-2
FTP-1
60 SS-1
60 SS-2
60 SS-3
60 SS-4
FTP-/.
30 SS-Stabilized
60 SS-Scabilized
30 bS-Stabilized
60 SS-Stabilized
-------
Table 7.3 (continued)
Catalyst Aging
Catalyst '75 FTP
Active HC CO NOx H2S04 HaSO^ H7S04
Tested by Model CID AIR EGR £ M Type CID Materials Mileage gpm gpm gpm mgpm Preconditioning Test Uycle
VW Beetle x Pt/Rh 5,000 .43 7.82 1.33 3 75 FTP
75 FTP
75 FTP
75 FTP
Pt/Rh
Pt/Rh
5,000
10,000
15,000
22,500
5,000
10,000
15,000
22,500
.43
.68
.59
.62
.63
.59
.71
.72
-**-* -
7.82
6.10
5.51
6.29
4.52
6.28
6.96
5.50
.a---
1.33
1.26
1.15
1.5
1.38
1.97
1.35
1.59
-"-*
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
2
VW Dasher x Pt/Rh 5,000 .63 4.52 1.38 3 75 FTP
75 FTP
75 FTP
75 FTP
I
M
ro
-------
oxidation deteriorates over mileage accumulation, S0_ oxidation is
assumed to deteriorate as well. This data would indicate that in a
certification procedure the deterioration factor for sulfuric acid
emissions would probably be a value of 1.0 for almost all vehicles if
the sulfuric acid deterioration factor is calculated as currently done
for HC, CO, and NOx. The Exxon fleet testing* of twenty 1975 California
vehicles over 32,000 miles further supports this conclusion even though
AMA mileage accumulation was not used in this study.
7.1.2 Modifications of Oxidation Catalyst Feedgases
It is the conclusion of this study that the primary sulfuric acid
control technique that will be used in the near term to control sulfuric
acid emissions will be modifications to the exhaust gases entering the
oxidation catalyst. Oxygen level and temperature will be the primary
control parameters.
Oxygen level
Most investigators, with the possible exception of Ford, agree that
control of the feedgas oxygen levels to the catalyst is the most impor-
tant, controllable factor in the generation of sulfuric acid emissions.
The data in Table 7-4 indicate the effects of low and high exhaust
oxygen levels. Data at oxygen levels between these values have not been
reported, but sulfuric acid emissions would be expected to be inter-
mediate. To fully understand the oxygen levels in Table 7-4 it must be
understood that at a stoichiometric A/F ratio the oxygen level of the
exhaust into the catalyst is not zero as indicated by ideal combustion
equations. As seen in Figure 7-6, the stoichiometric oxygen level may
be as high as about 0.7%.
*"Fleet Test of 20 1975 California Vehicles," Exxon Research and
Engineering Company, October 8, 1975.
7-13
-------
Table 7-4
02 Level Effects
Tested by
Exxon
Model CID
'75
Catalyst
Active
AIR EGR P_ M Type CID Materials
Chevrolet 350 warm-
up
full
AC
Ox
Exxon
351 warm-
up
full
VW
Beetle
Beetle
Dasher
None
None
Ox
T Exh
°F
870
1200
1200
1200
1200
890
870
1150
1150
1150
1150
Excess HC
02 Level gpm
3.5%
Ox
Ox
x
X
Ox
3-Way
Ox
Pt/Rh
Pt/Rh
Pt/Rh
CO
gpm
NOx
gpm
H2S04
mgpm
17
21
19
12
22
33
19
19
42
18
2.38
3.44
2.28
2.26
4.90
5.73
2.16
2.16
5.54 .67
3.27 .62
2
53
20
15
15
0.6
10
98
58
44
36
3
3
5
2
3
4
3
20
56
44
44
44
23
1
2
Preconditioning
H2S04
Test Cycle
FTP #1
60 SS-1 (1/2 hr)
60 SS-2 (1/2 hr)
60 SS-3 (1/2 hr)
60 SS-4 (1/2 hr)
FTP #2
FTP
60 SS - 1
60 SS - 2
60 SS - 3
60 SS - 4
FTP
FTP
60 SS
60 SS
60 SS
60 SS
FTP
FTP
60 SS
60 SS
60 SS
60 SS
FTP
.44 4.41 1.45
75 FTP, lean FI
75 FTP.closed loop
FI
75 FTP, Rich A/F
-------
Table 7-4 (continued)
02 Level Effects
Tested by
Engelhard
Engelhard
GM
i
M
Ln
Exxon
Model
'75
Chevelle
CID
350
None
'75 Volvo 128 None None
'74 Vega 140 None
AC
V,«lLL
Active Excess
M Type CID Materials 02 Level
F.I Ox 153 Pt/Pd .7-1.8%*
El Ox 76 Pt/Pd .9-1.4%*
Ox 160 Pt/Pd .12**
.3**
1.1**
2.2**
El Ox .9-1.4
El 3-Way 0
El 3-Way 0
HC
Mileage spm
^.v. ..
25,000 .38
25,000 .28
.34
.40
.47
.48
.17
4,000 .14
16,000 .23
i j
CO
gpm
or
8.34
2.22
5.3
5.7
1.7
1.4
1.37
1.04
2.12
NOx
gpm
Dr
1.99
3.61
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.4
2.24
.56
.46
-
H2S04
mepm
Si_
4.6
4.2
1.5
0.9
0.5
0.6
3.2
2.4
4.8
3.2
1.1
0.8
1.7
0.4
H2S04
Preconditioning
9 mi of city and
highway driving
75 FTP
500 mi of AMA
Above test
Above tests
Above tests
Above tests
Above tests
Above tests
Above tests
H^DU^ lest
Cycle and
Comments
75 FTP
75 FTP, closed
loop FI
HWFET, closed
loop, FI
SC-7 closed loop
FI
HWFET, closed
loop FI
SC-7, closed loop
FI
HWFET, closed loop
FI
SC-7, closed loop
FI
HWFKT, closed loop
FI
SC-7, closed loop
FI
75 FTP
75 FTP
75 FTP
HWFET
-------
Table 7-4 (continued)
02 Level Effects
Tested by
Engelhard
Engelhard
EPA
Catalys t
Active
Model CID AIR EGR P_ M Type CID Materials Mileage Q2 Level gpm
'72 351
Galaxie
'75
Torino
Cutlass
351
full
None
None
x
x
AC
Ox
Ox
Ox
Ox
Ox
153
153
153
153 Pt/Pd
25,000
2,500
EPA
Cutlass
Hone
AC
Ox
7,000
* total cat out 0 level
** total 02 level to catalyst
Excess HC
02 Level gpm
4-7%*
4-7%*
4-7%*
.3-1.5%* .37
4%** .41
.43
1%** .37
.55
/ -j rir
CO NOx H2S04 H2S04
gpm gpm mgpm Preconditioning
82 AMA
18 AMA
54 AMA
4.05 1.66 4.2 9 mi of city and
highway driving
1.59 1.23 2.7 1000 mi of AMA
16.8 Above
16.6 Above
34.5 Above
21.4 Above
1.57 1.25 1.1 Above
37.3
39.1
55.4
41.9
29.5
3.76 0.91 2.4
2.9
2.1
4.5
2.4
2.6
4.29 1.05 1.7
1.9
2.0
3.4
2.8
2.8
2.3
3.9
2.7
3.1
H2S04
Test Cycle
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
75 FTP
T-J FTP
SC-7
SC-7
HFET
SC-7
75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
hFET
SC-7
SC-7
75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
HFET
SC-7
SC-7
75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
hFET
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
-------
HI f S
Figure 7r-6.
Conversion of CO and ethvlene as a function of oxygen content for three engine
aged catalysts evaluated on laboratory oxidation test unit.
VHSV = 40,000, 0.05 troy oz. PM/160 1n3, Pt/Pd ratio as shown.
Inlet temperature 400°C.
100
80
g
8 60
40
o:
UJ
> 20
o
o
u
Id
Z
u
O
100
60
1*60
M
O
U.
o
240
O
CO
or
£20
z.
o
o
1.0 2.0 3.0
FEED OXYGEN (%)
o:
u
u
o
m
Pt/Pd= 7.5,3.75^
^'
only
1.0 2.0 3.0
FEED OXYGEN (%)
7-17
-------
There are several items of interest in Table 7-4. First the Exxon
data indicate that by using air injection only during warm up, sulfuric
acid emissions can be greatly reduced. Also of importance here are the
greatly increased CO emissions for the monolithic catalyst vehicle
without full AIR. This apparently is due to the large difference bet-
ween active surface area and catalyst volume between the pelleted catalyst
and the monolithic catalyst. The increased CO emissions point to the
need for fuel metering improvements to accompany reduced oxygen levels
at the .41 HC, 3.4 CO levels.
Also of interest are the Volkswagen and Exxon data which utilize
both 3-way and oxidation catalysts. The sulfuric acid emissions from
both types of catalysts are very low when oxygen levels are low. Thus
there is no "magic" reason why 3-way catalysts have low sulfuric acid
emissions, as oxidation catalysts can have low sulfuric acid emissions
too at similar oxygen levels. In fact 3-way and oxidation catalyst
formulations are not greatly different except that 3-way catalysts are
specifically designed to operate at very low oxygen levels. Because of
their design, 3way catalysts offer better HC, CO, and NOx conversion
efficiencies than oxidation catalysts at low exhaust oxygen levels. VW
has already certified oxidation catalyst vehicles which depend on the
oxidation catalyst for some NOx control. The GM data also indicate some
NOx conversion at low oxygen levels. The catalyst is a production 160
CID oxidation catalyst.
The Engelhard data indicate large differences in sulfuric acid
emissions at similarly high exhaust oxygen levels. The reasons for
these variations apparently are in the different catalyst formulations.
All the formulations were indicated to be proprietary in the Engelhard
submission.
7-18
-------
The data in Table 7-4 indicate that large sulfuric acid reductions
can be achieved by appropriate oxygen level control. The HC and CO
penalties shown for the monolithic oxidation catalyst must be carefully
minimized in future work.
Exhaust gas temperature
Equilibrium calculations indicate that sulfuric acid emissions can be
reduced if the exhaust gas temperature and catalyst operating temperature
can be increased. In practice this can be done with exhaust port liners,
exhaust pipe insulation, AIR optimization, and catalyst relocation
nearer the engine exhaust ports. Exxon has done limited vehicle testing.
Their results were shown in Figures 7-2 through 7-5. The temperature
increases were about 200 F for the pellets, and the temperature reduc-
tions were about 180 F for the monoliths. These data are not absolutely
conclusive, but they do suggest that operating temperature increases may
provide only marginal improvements in sulfuric acid emissions. Further
reductions may be possible at very high operating temperatures, but
catalyst durability and exhaust system temperatures are potential problem
areas.
7.2 New Sulfuric Acid Control Systems
7.2.1 Air Injection (AIR) Changes
Current AIR systems in normal operation provide large quantities of
excess air to oxidation catalysts to assist in the oxidation of HC and
CO. These current systems contain valves to divert the compressed-air
to the atmosphere during: a) decelerating conditions to prevent audible
combustion in the exhaust system and b) high engine speed and load
conditions to prevent catalyst overtemperature occurances or c) as an
7-19
-------
alternative to b) conditions when the converter reaches a maximum
allowable temperature (generally high speed and load conditions again).
The large quantities of excess air of course contain large amounts of
oxygen. This has been shown to be undesirable because of the excess
oxygen role in the generation of sulfuric acid emissions.
Exxon used a diverter valve in their "limited AIR" vehicles dis-
cussed in section 7.1.2. This system represents a simple "on-off" AIR
control system. Should simple systems such as this fail to provide
statutory HC and CO control, future AIR control systems could become
much more sophisticated. Hardware such as electronically controlled
clutches (similar to those used for air conditioning compressors) or
variable ratio belt drives may be used for improved AIR control. One
manufacturer has suggested the use of feedback (oxygen sensor controlled)
AIR systems as an alternate to feedback fuel metering. This may be
possible, but the fuel metering system would probably need to operate
over an A/F ratio band which is narrower than that of current carburetors.
With this initial "crude" A/F ratio control the feedback AIR system
could possibly eliminate the lean transients which result in high sulfuric
acid emissions.
Volvo has reported work on a feedback AIR system. They did not
report any test results, but they indicated that HC and CO control was
unacceptable. Volvo vehicles now have mechanical fuel injection and it
may be more attractive to them to use feedback controlled fuel (not air)
metering than to a manufacturer who has not already accepted the cost of
fuel injection.
7.2.2 Fuel Metering Improvements
For sulfuric acid emission control at gaseous emission levels more
stringent than 0.9 HC, 9.0 CO, 2.0 NOx, the conventional carburetor
7-20
-------
systems become less attractive from many reasons. These include: 1) a
relatively wide A/F operational band, 2) relatively poor fuel distribution,
3) relatively poor emissions repeatability, 4) high transient HC, CO
emissions, 5) poor cold start emissions, and 6) poor adaptability to
feedback control.
There are many intense efforts going on in the auto industry to
find a suitable replacement for the carburetor or to make an improved
carburetor. Chrysler is developing a carburetor fuel vaporizer to
improve start up characteristics and a fuel injection system. They are
evaluating the Dresser sonic carburetor (through Holley) and the Bendix
fuel injection system. Ford is evaluating many fuel injection systems
including Bosch K-Jetronic, Bosch L-Jetronic, and their own system which
uses the vortex shedding principle for air metering. They indicate that
the vortex shedding system is too sophisticated and expensive for use in
production though it does not appear to be much more sophisticated or
expensive than other electronic fuel injection systems. Ford has evaluated
the Dresser device and several of their own devices which are similar
for some time now. Ford also has reported the development of a system
which incorporates fuel injectors into the sonic air metering system.
This apparently is to improve the feedback control capabilities of the
system. They are also working on feedback controlled carburetors in
hopes of making the carburetor compatible with 3-way catalysts. General
Motors reported tests using their IFC carburetor, feedback carburetion,
and Bendix fuel injection. One Bendix system was reported as "L-Jetronic"
which indicates that Bendix is doing work with the Bosch air metering
system.
Bendix and Bosch have both offered fuel injection systems which are
potentially superior to the carburetor in many respects. The domestic
auto industry has not given up the carburetor, however, primarily be-
cause of the current carburetor's low cost, the large capital invest-
ments in carburetor production facilities, and its ability to achieve
current emission levels.
7-21
-------
The adoption of 3-way catalyst systems for both sulfurlc acid and
regulated emissions control would require the use of advanced fuel
metering. The capability of using feedback control from an oxygen
sensor and the compatibility with other electronic emission control
systems suggests that electronic fuel metering of some sort is likely to
be adopted in the future.
7.2.3 3-Way Catalyst Systems
Volvo has been the manufacturer with possibly the most extensive
test program with 3-way catalysts. It appears that Volvo vehicles with
3-way catalysts may be introducted by. 1978. Ford has designated the 3-
way plus ox. cat. system as its prime system for 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 0.4
NOx. The very low sulfuric acid of feedback controlled 3-way catalyst
systems will certainly generate increasing interest by other vehicle
manufacturers. The main reason that interest in 3-way catalysts is not
even higher is that adequate durability has not been demonstrated at the
0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, levels. Figures 7-7 through 7-12 summarize Volvo
durability efforts. The Johnson-Matthey (J-M) catalyst and the Engel-
hard IIB catalysts are oxidation catalysts, not 3-way catalysts. It
must be kept in mind that 3-way catalysts are relatively new, compared
to oxidation catalysts. Their current durability performance may be
improved in the near future, as more work is done. The recently revised
fuel contaminant levels for certification fuels (modified to be con-
sistent with field levels) will help existing and new 3-way catalysts
also.
7.2.3.1 3-Way Catalysts Without Feedback
In Table 7-5 Volkswagen has illustrated potential 3-way catalyst
emission control systems without feedback. The actual catalysts used by
VW were oxidation catalysts (both Pt/Rh), but the calibration techniques
7-22
-------
HC gram;
Figure 7-7
HC DURABILITY of 3-Way Catalysts
EPA Mileage Ace., A-Sond System
B20F
ETK
O
,__AZZ_
/v.AZZ_
ETK
Kali CJieroie 516-59
Engulhard PTX 516 r.'
J-M 516 EW2/3CA (V.'o
Engelhard PTX 516 I.',
0.60 L
0.40
i
NJ
CO
0
20,000 30,000
Durability Miles
40,000
-------
CO g rtrns/nule
Figure 7-8
CO DURABILITY of 3-Way Catalysts
EPA Milscgo Ace., A -Sorvj System
B2CF
O - - -EJ!L ....
3_ AZZ_
AZZ
A----
ETK_
Kali Ciieiiifi S16-S9
^.v-oli'ord '''.".< 5; 6 '".<:-]
'.' r 1 / -' '.) /o ^ / / , ,
v.- -.'i 3 I O .'. .'i // ..».^ .' '-: -^ \ :; ,. .< :
_ f-'noolhord ?''':( 51 6 I i "'
/
/
/
lY
.._!
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,CCO
Durability Miles
-------
Figure 7-9
NOx DURABILITY Of 3-Wav Catalysts
EPA Mileage Ace., A-Sond System
B20F
NCx grams/mile
ETK
o_AZZ
AZZ
ETK
Kali Chc-nie 516-SV
Engelhard PT* ^16 TWC-1
J-M ^16 EW2/3C/4 (V.'clkt
Engelhard PTX 516 Ii.3
10,000
20,000 30,000
Durability Miles
40,000
50.000
-------
Figure 7-10
HC Durability of 3-Way Catalysts
Bi/f
SO 0oo
-------
Figure 7-11
CO Durability jof 3-Way Catalysts -
ACC. a^ir A i
VJ
K>
/o
t
-* -
-------
Figure 7-12
NOx Durability of 3-Way Catalysts
200
oo
o
o
/Qoco
-------
are equally valid for 3-way catalyst systems without feedback. The
Beetle utilized a lean operating fuel injection system without air
injection. The Dasher used rich carburetion and air injection. The low
sulfuric acid emissions indicate that the exhaust oxygen levels to the
catalyst may have been quite low in both cases. The preferred approach
would be the lean fuel injection system because of fuel economy advantages,
Other fuel metering systems could be used in place of the fuel injection,
but the catalyst efficiencies for HC, CO, and NOx are highly dependent
on the capability of the fuel metering system to remain near or within
the A/F ratio operating "window". The "window" concept is illustrated
in Figure 7-13. HC and CO efficiency are lost during rich A/F ratio
fluctuations and NOx efficiency is lost during lean fluctuations.
Table 7-5
Results of Volkswagen Calibration Techniques
Test HC CO NOx H2S°4
Cycle gm/mi mgpm
Beetle 75 FTP .42 5.54 .67 1
Dasher 75 FTP .44 4.41 1.45 3
7.2.3.2 3-Way Catalysts With Feedback
The use of feedback control to the fuel or air metering system
from an oxygen sensor is much more promising than the 3-way catalyst
system without feedback, because of its improved capability to operate
within the A/F window. A Bosch sensor is shown in Figure 7-14 and a
schematic of a current feedback controlled 3-way catalyst is shown in
Figure 7-15. This system utilized feedback control of the fuel injec-
tion system. The sensor life has been estimated to be greater than
15,000 miles by Bosch. GM indicates a much longer sensor life - pos-
sibly 50,000 miles. The sensor cost is estimated to be about five
dollars.
7-29
-------
Figure 7-13
THREE-WAY CATALYST EFFICIENCY
OP
100
90
' 80
2 70
w
o 60
H
EM
H 50
O 40
3
30
§ 20
u
10
0
14
- ' CO
A/F CONTROL
LIMITS: ±0.5%
The
"window"
\
\
\
0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 15.0
AIR-FUEL RATIO.
7-30
-------
The Volvo durability data indicate potential down to about 0.41
HC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx without the use of EGR if a catalyst change is
considered (see Kali Chemie data). The capabilities of 3-way catalyst
systems at 0.4 NOx are uncertain since little has been done with the
best EGR systems, but the sulfuric acid emissions would still be ex-
pected to be very low (less than 5 mgpm). Table 7-6 presents data from
closed loop 3-way catalyst vehicles. All use closed loop fuel injection
operated at stoichiometry except for one as noted.
Other fuel metering systems such as carburetors may also be
used. Those systems which incorporate electronic fuel control appear
most promising due to better time response. The Ford sonic system with
electronic injectors is a notable example. Not only does this Ford
system appear favorable in terms of cost, but also in terms of potential
HC, CO control, potential sulfuric acid control, adaptability to altitude
compensation, and adaptability of other electronic emission control
devices.
7.2.3.3 3-Way Catalyst Modifications
There has been no incentive to modify 3-way catalysts for
lower sulfuric acid emissions as they are already very low, usually less
than 5 mgpm when used with the appropriate closed loop hardware. Cur-
rent emphasis is on improving catalyst durability and widening the A/F
ratio "window" of operation. .
Though not a catalyst modification as such, Engelhard has
indicated (see Figure 7-6) that it is important for HC, CO control at
low oxygen input levels to retain palladium in 3-way catalyst formulations.
The conversion efficiencies in Figure 7-6 were not confirmed by 1975 FTP
results, but indicate improvements in warmed-up efficiency as opposed to
improved light off characteristics. Conspicuously absent was an analysis
7-31
-------
Table 7-6
3-Way Catalysts
Exxon
Model
Volvo*
CID
AIR EGR
Toyota
1600 None x Toy
cc
EPA
Exxon
Volvo
Volvo
128
128
None None
None None
* lean biased fuel injection
** total oxygen level
Catalyst
M Type CID
El Ox
El 3-Way
3-Way
El 3-Way 102
El 3-Way 102
Active Excess
Materials 02 level
.9-1.4%
0
0
Pt/Rh
TWC-1 0.2%**
TWC-9
HC CO NOx H2S04
Mileage gpm gpm gpm mgpm
.17 1.37 2.24 1.1
4,000 .14 1.04 .56 0.8
16,000 .23 2.12 .46 1.7
0.4
0 .25 2.00 .41
20,000 .43 2.56 1.47 0.2
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
4,000 .219 .735 1.73 0
0
0
4,000 .22 1.93 .87 6.9
4,000 .21 1.40 .91 1-2
14,000 2.1
1.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
H,b04
Preconditioning
30 mi @ 30 SS
16.6 9 mi of
city & highway
driving
16.1
FTP
Above + 45 mi
of 55 SS
Above + 55 mi
of 55 SS
Above + 30 SS
n^Dvj^ lest-
Cycle and
Comments
FTP, lean
closed loop
FI
FTP, closed
loop FI
FTP.HWFET
Hot 72 FTP,
closed loop
FI
50 SS
30 SS
50 SS
Hot 72 FTP
75 FTP
liWFET
60 SS
75 FTP,
closed loop
FI
75 FTP
75 FTP
55 SS
55 SS
30 SS
HWFET
-------
7-6 (continued)
3-Way Catalysts
Catalyst-
VW
EPA
Model CID AIR EGR
Beetle None
Volvo
None
M Type
x 3-Way
CID
Active
Materials
Pt/Rh
'75 FTP
Excess HC CO NOx H2S04
02 level Mileage gpm gpm gpm mgpm
15,300
.18 3.27
.62
.13 1.42 1.66
H2S04
Preconditioning
2.6 500 ini of A1-1A
1.6
1.7
2.0
1.3
1.4
Test
Cycle and
Comments
75 FTP,
closed loop
FI
7j FTP
closed loop
Fl
SC-'/
SC-7
hFET
SC-7
sc-/
-------
Figure 7-14
Oxygen Sensor
Figure 7-15
AIR
_«.
FUEL
AIR
MET
fXN
ER
A* On
AU
1
fir
101,
t T C
0.1, C
M
tf
A
*,
IREJ
TMT»M»
riRCULATIOH
^
] IGNITION 1
ENGINE
1 ' * i A ! M;
.I/ ,'r i,\ '
AAM
INJECTION
J^-OtY.
^ i r^
VAl
A)
>
*C4
VE
J
EOR
F
IttlVfl
x>to«l
r
* T
>,-
T.
r«
C
34WAY
C-U
-T" ,»
SENSOR
Tl
r«p
2Z
DUAL BED SYSTEM
P~^
rr«TEM
lm | ^ EXHAUST GAS
^.J
Mr
THROTTLE POSITION
STARTER SWITCH
INDICATING LIGHT
Schematic layout of a closed loop exhaust emission control system
7-34
-------
of the effects of rhodium, as most 3-way catalysts currently use rhodium
with platinum. Engelhard has also indicated that the EPA amendment to
the durability fuel specifications which eliminated the minimum lead and
phosphorus levels will have "a significant beneficial effect" for 3-way
catalyst systems. NOx emissions (apparently NOx durability) are expected
to be significantly improved with HC, CO emissions slightly improved.
The pervoskite 3-way catalysts developed by'DuPont seem to
have HC efficiency problems similar to their oxidation catalyst counter-
parts, but more work is needed in this area.
7.2.4 3-Way Plus Oxidation Catalyst Systems
This system is similar to the 3-way catalyst system with an oxidation
catalyst added for clean up of HC and CO. An AIR system would probably
be added to insure an oxidizing atmosphere in the second catalyst. Ford
has designated this system as its prime system at statutory emission
levels, (0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 0.4 NOx). The sulfuric acid emissions of such
a system would depend on the amount of air injected to the oxidation
catalyst. If the amount of air were similar to current systems, the
sulfuric acid emissions would probably be high. It may be that this
amount of air could be much less as the HC and CO conversion require-
ments should be less than required of current oxidation catalysts.
Feedback AIR system control for the oxidation catalyst is feasible and
perhaps not too costly, as considerable electronics will already be
present to provide stoichiometric mixtures to the 3-way catalyst.
General Motors presented the vehicle data in Figure 7-16 on a 3-way
plus ox. cat. system. The vehicle used closed loop carburetion and
operated with .062 wt% sulfur in the fuel. This is more than twice the
national average sulfur level that all other data in this report has
been corrected to (.030). The sulfuric acid emissions of this vehicle
7-35
-------
..!MJi.,NaurfU-i,fr
:, .M.i. nil .IIMI
3-Way + Ox Cat Car
R-436'i Ciidilifc 4.72 in Ooctr;. at Start: 6966
'"* 1 - ..' f3 \ t* r- -» P - r- K
* > I WfU«-' LUwt.' IvCJ ( i)
A.I.R,
C.062|i S
k 1-
Jt?
4O
I
CO
a
A
^j
HFE
0
fft'/es 3*)
ZOO
400
-------
are low over both the FTP and the SC-7. The large differences between
sulfuric acid emissions over the 30 SS and 40 SS vs. the FTP and SC-7
cannot be explained without further knowledge of the emission control
system and test sequence.
7.2.5 Dual Catalyst Systems
A dual catalyst system contains a reduction catalyst followed by an
oxidation catalyst. These systems currently have demonstrated the best
durability to date of all potential systems at 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 0.4
NOx. Most durability has been run with only marginally acceptable fuel
metering systems - conventional carburetors. The use of advanced fuel
metering systems should further improve their durability performance.
Table 7-7 contains the sulfuric acid emissions reported on the Chrysler
and AMC Gould catalyst equipped cars. The sulfuric acid emissions of
the Chrysler car are relatively low. There may be several reasons for
this. First is the possibility of low air injection rates as Chrysler
reported air pump failure shortly afterward. The proximity of the HC,
CO emissions to the statutory levels indicate considerable HC, CO con-
version, however. Second is the possibility that the HC, CO oxidation
reactions are preferred to the S02 oxidation reactions as indicated in
Ford lab studies. The CO levels to the oxidation catalyst are high with
dual catalyst systems because of their rich A/F ratio calibrations. The
sulfuric acid emissions of the AMC car are similar to those of an oxida-
tion catalyst car with air.
7.2.5.1 Reduction Catalyst Modifications
Vehicle manufacturers have expended no efforts to improve
reduction catalysts for the purpose of sulfuric acid control. This is
because of the priority given to understanding sulfuric acid emissions
7-37
-------
Table 7.7
Dual Catalyst Systems
-Catalyst-
Mf r.
Model
CIB
Chrysler 73 Polara 360
AIR EGR P_ M Type CID
x x Red
Ch Ox
Active
Materials
Pt/Pd
5000
A! 1C
Red
Ox
HC
gpm
.67
.46
CO NOx H2S04
gpiu gpm mgpra
6.37 .82 2
2.5
1.3
5.7 1.06 14.8
8.1
8.3
7.9
3.9
19.1
29.4
51. i
41.0
33.5
3.7
30.9
34.4 -
58.9
41.6
49.0
H2S04
Preconditioning
1 SC-7
3 SC-7's
5 SC-7's
1 SC-7
3 SC-7's
5 SC-7's
7 SC-7's
H2SU4 test
Cycle and
Conunents
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7 Fresh ox
SC-7 Fresh ox
SC-7 Fresh ox
SC-7 Fresh ox
''/5 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
IIFET
SC-7
SC-7
'75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
HFET
SC-7
SC-7
cat
cat
cat
cat
-------
from oxidation catalysts and the apparent dependence of sulfuric acid
emissions from a dual catalyst system on the exhaust oxygen level to the
oxidation catalyst.
DuPont has also developed pervoskite reduction catalysts.
Chrysler lab tests indicate that they are very active, but their effect
on sulfuric acid emissions is unknown.
Gould has been modifying their reduction catalyst though not
for the purpose of decreasing sulfuric acid emissions. The modification
is being made to improve the sulfur tolerance of their base metal catalyst.
This problem has not been reported for other reduction catalysts.
7.2.6 Start Catalyst Systems
A start catalyst is a low thermal inertia oxidation catalyst which
is mounted near the exhaust ports of the engine. The light-off time is
more important, and resistance to "breakthrough" is less important than
for a main catalyst. Both GM and Chrysler considered the use of start
catalysts before suspension of the 1977 emission standards.
Start catalysts may be useful for sulfuric acid emissions and
gaseous emissions control for vehicles with and without main oxidation
catalysts. A warm up AIR system would probably be needed in either
case. Without a main catalyst, the start catalyst would assist in
lowering emissions to achieve the .9 HC, 9 CO, 2.0 NOx levels. It
appears that current start catalyst durability may not be sufficient for
continuous operation, so a start catalyst must be removed from the
exhaust stream after the main catalyst has lit off or after cold start
enrichment has ended if a main catalyst is not used. If the DuPont
catalyst is shown to have the high temperature capability claimed for
it, it might make a natural start catalyst, especially if it could be
7-39
-------
left on-stream all the time. The resulting system could be cheaper than
a switched-out start catalyst.
Chrysler reported 60SS results from a 360 CID Cordoba with a start
catalyst, a main catalyst, and AIR, The sulfuric acid emissions ranged
from 16 to 27 mgpm with .008% sulfur in the fuel.
For the no main catalyst case, sulfuric acid emissions would
increase slightly over non-catalyst vehicles, but would be less than for
vehicles with main catalysts and high exhaust CL levels. With a main
catalyst, the start catalyst could offer improved cold start HC, CO
control so that exhaust 0,, levels and sulfuric acid emissions could be
reduced.
Start catalysts could be used in 3-way catalyst systems which use
feedback AIR control in place of feedback fuel metering. The sulfuric
acid penalty would be very small, and the improved light off charac-
teristics would assist in HC, CO, and NOx control. Start catalysts
could similarly be used in 3-way plus ox. cat systems. Current 3-way
systems do not use the AIR system and would have to add it to gain start
catalyst benefits.
7.2.7 Super Early Fuel Evaporation (Super EFE)
Super EFE systems are quick heat intake manifolds developed by
General Motors. These systems are used for start up. They block the
exhaust flow from both banks of a V-8 engine and divert the exhaust flow
under the floor of the intake manifold and out a third exhaust pipe as
in Figure 7-17. The floor of the intake manifold is a high heat trans-
fer, finned plate. GM has stated that problems with super EFE include;
1) coking of the heat transfer plate, 2) casting difficulties, 3) dura-
bility, and 4) cost and complexity. However, resolution of these problems
7-40
-------
FIGURE -7-17
Super EFE with Start Catalyst
7-41
-------
may be possible and such systems may be found perferable to exhaust
oxygen level control systems at low HC, CO, and NOx levels.
The super EFE system with a conventional carburetor has been re-
ported to have achieved the 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 2.0 NOx levels without
catalytic treatment of the exhaust. Thus the sulfuric acid emissions
would be very low. A big fuel economy penalty was reported, but a start
catalyst in the third exhaust pipe as in Figure 7-17 could assist in
gaining HC and CO control that could be traded off for more optimal fuel
economy. The addition of a main catalyst could further improve the HC,
CO control and/or fuel economy.
7.2.8 Electronic Emission Control Systems
Both Ford and Chrysler have plans for the introduction of electronic
spark control on some 1976 model year vehicles. Electronic fuel in-
jection is in production on two GM vehicles. Ford and Chrysler are
developing electronic EGR control systems. All three are developing
electronic fuel metering systems. Evidence is accumulating that elec-
tronic emission control systems will be used in conjunction with catalysts
to achieve statutory emission levels. Sulfuric acid emission control
will provide another reason for going to feedback controlled electronic
fuel metering systems or air injection systems. Once the cost of either
of these systems is accepted, full electronic control of many functions
may soon follow. These could include:
engine air/fuel metering
exhaust air injection control
spark control
EGR control
altitude compensation
transmission shift points
anti-skid control of the vehicle
7-42
-------
7.2.9 Sulfuric Acid Traps
7.2.9.1 Mechanical Traps
Sulfuric acid traps involve removing sulfuric acid after it is
formed in the catalyst by either mechanical or chemical means. Mechanical
traps would be similar to traps developed by DuPont and Ethyl for lead
additives. These traps work by centrifugally removing exhaust particulates.
While these traps have been demonstrated adequately for lead compounds,
there is serious questions that they would work for sulfuric acid.
Sulfuric acid would probably not condense as a particulate in the exhaust
system but still be in gaseous form. Mechanical traps are ineffective
in removing gases. Chemical traps which remove sulfuric acid by an
acid-base chemical reaction seem to be the only feasible type of trap.
7.2.9.1 Chemical Traps
Much of the work on chemical traps has been done by EPA through
contract with Exxon Research and Engineering. Both GM and Ford have
started trap programs but have extremely limited results to report.
Most of the work that has been done involves screening various
materials for use in the trap. The screening is done in a laboratory
apparatus that uses a synthetic exhaust gas blended from gas cylinders
to contain sulfuric acid, SO-, and other components found in automotive
exhaust. Screening materials for use in traps involves examining several
criteria as listed below:
Reactivity for sulfuric acid
High capacity of material for absorption per unit volume
Small volume increase of material after trapping
7-43
-------
Thermal stability of material
No adverse side reactions
Low water solubility
Low toxicity of material
Little attrition of material with mileage
These criteria were developed by Exxon. Many of the materials screened
by Exxon are listed in Table 7-8.
Table 7-8
Trap Materials Screened by Exxon
85% CaO, 10% Si02, 5% Na20
A1203
BaO
80% CaO, 20% Si02
MgO
85% MgO, 10% Si02, 5% Na20
CaCCL as marble chips
ZrO (zirconia)
Micro-eel
ZnO
97% CaO, 3% aluminum sterate
Mn02
These tests show the calcium oxide mixtures to be most effective in
reacting with sulfuric acid. The calcium carbonate also seemed promising.
The mixture of calcium, silicon, and sodium oxides removed well over 90%
of the sulfuric acid.
GM has also screened a number of compounds including both active
materials on alumina supports and bulk materials with no support. The
7-44
-------
screening apparatus used by GM involves passing actual engine exhaust
through 19 trap samples simultaneously. While this apparatus enables
screening of many materials, it does not allow the efficiency of the
materials, to be determined accurately since there is no way to measure
absorption for each of the individual materials. Also, it is not known
that uniform flow was obtained for all 19 samples. GM has tested the
following general types of materials:
Supported materials
noble metals on alumina-3 samples
metal oxides on alumina-17 samples
alkali-alkaline earth oxides on
alumina - 5 samples
miscellaneous - 12 samples
Bulk materials
oxides-hydroxides - 8 samples
mixed oxides-hydroxides - 5 samples
metallic systems - 7 samples
miscellaneous - 2 samples
GM found most of the supported materials to have satisfactory physical
durability but generally low reactivity towards S0_ since less than 65%
of the SO, was absorbed. Many of the bulk materials had poor physical
durability since they broke apart and fragmented. GM feels that a
calcium oxide material seems to offer the most potential at this time.
This is in agreement with the Exxon findings.
Even more limited vehicle tests have been done using traps. Most
of the vehicle test work has been done through an EPA contract with
Exxon. Exxon tested the CaO-SiO -Na 0 formulation in a trap installed
7-45
-------
on a catalyst vehicle. The vehicle ran for 25,000 miles and the trap
was still removing about 95% of the sulfuric acid emitted from the
catalyst. The pellets in the trap showed almost no attrition products
and had excellent physical stability. However.^ pressure drop across the
trap increased from an initial value of 1,000 pascals to a final, value
of 30,000 pascals. The trap material expanded considerably as sulfate
was absorbed thus filling in void volume and causing the much higher
pressure drop. The pressure drop was great enough so that the vehicle
would hardly operate. Additional work is necessary in designing a trap
that is effective and yet does not have these pressure drop characteristics,
GM is working on a trap that increases in volume as the trap material
expands. The trap contains a moveable plate held in place by a spring
which moves as the trap material increases in volume. This trap has not
been tested yet.
Exxon also tested a trap containing calcium carbonate in the form
of marble chips. The vehicle test showed low reactivity for sulfuric
acid indicating calcium carbonate, at least in this physical form, is
not a good trap material.
Exxon is also examining use of trap material of a ring type geometry
versus the pellets originally used. The rings have sufficient void
volume that a satisfactory pressure drop should be obtained. Exxon is
fabricating rings made of a suitable trap material and will test them on
a vehicle shortly.
Exxon is also examining other sorbent materials which expand less
than the CaO-Na20. It seems the presence of the Na_0 results in both
SO- and SO- absorption. A less reactive material resulting in SO-
absorption but no S09 absorption should have less expansion. Exxon is
7-46
-------
screening a variety of mixtures of calcium oxide with other compounds.
Unfortunately, these other compounds are not as effective as the CaO-
SiO_-Na_0 for sulfuric acid but seem to have adequate reactivity. The
most promising mixtures to date contain either diatomite or Portland
cement in addition to the calcium oxide. The most promising materials
from this extended screening project will be vehicle tested. The vehicle
testing will be complete early in 1976.
The work done to date on sulfuric acid traps is very promising in
that it shows it is possible to build a vehicle trap that removes sulfuric
acid. However, a number of problems must be resolved before these traps
are ready for vehicle application. It is not known at this time whether
sulfuric acid traps can be an option to meet a sulfuric acid standard in
1979.
7-47
-------
SECTION 8
WHAT ABOUT SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FROM
OTHER ENGINES?
-------
SECTION 8
WHAT ABOUT SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FROM
OTHER ENGINES?
8.1 "Lean Burn" Engine
The term "lean burn" engines refers to conventional Otto cycle
engines which have air-fuel metering calibrations leaner than a stio-
chiometric air-fuel ratio. The stratified charge engines which also
operate leaner than stoichiometric will be considered in Section 8.2.
8.1.1 Non-Catalyst Vehicles with Lean Burn Engines
Non-catalyst vehicles using lean burn engines and lean thermal
reactors have emissions potential down to at least 0.9 HC, 9 CO, 2.0
NOx. As seen in Table 8-1, sulfuric acid emissions from these vehicles
are very low and about equal to other non-catalyst vehicles. These
systems would compete with non-AIR, catalyst systems for use in produc-
tion at the 0.9 HC, 9.0 CO, 2.0 NOx levels. The non-catalyst, lean burn
cars would be expected to have small fuel economy losses and somewhat
lower sulfuric acid levels when compared to non-AIR, catalyst vehicles
at these emission levels.
8.1.2 Catalyst Vehicles with Lean Burn Engines
Lean burn plus oxidation catalyst vehicles (without AIR or start
catalysts) are potentially competive at the .9 HC, 9 CO, 2.0 NOx levels.
Table 8-2 illustrates that sulfuric acid emissions of catalyst vehicles
with lean burn engines are somewhat lower than catalyst vehicles equipped
with an air pump, but higher than current production non-AIR vehicles.
These levels are assumed to be attributable to the excess oxygen in the
exhaust.
8-1
-------
Mfr.
Model
Ford 7674 Pinto
CID
2.3*.
Ford T522 LTD(SOOOIW) 400
Chrysler
1150
GM ES65314
oo
I
New Yorker 440
(5500IU)
AIR EGR
None Modulated
Modulated
None None
Table 8-1
Non-Catalyst Lean Burn Cars
'75 FTP
HC CO NOx
Lean Reactor gpm gpm gpm
.8
5.11
None
1.54
.89 6.98 1.96
.87 12.0 2.42
1.0 11.0 1.8
Test
Cycle
FTP
60 mph
30 mph
SET-1
FTP
60 mph
SET-1
FTP
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
FTP
72 FTP
75 FTP
72 FTP
HWFET
30 SS
40 SS
50 SS
60 SS
H2S04
MPG mgpn
19.0
1.2
0.2
0.4
10.6
1.2
0.6
*
2.1
1.7*
1.7*
1.3*
0.7
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.9
0.7
1.0
5.3
h2SOz,
Preconditioning
30 mi @ 60 mph
70 mi @ 60 mph+
30 mi @ 30 mph
30 mi @ 60 mph
90 mi @ 60 mph
1 SET-7
3 SET-7 's
5 SET-7 's
7 SET-7 's
Comments
2 tests
2 tests
2 tests
2 tests
2 tests
* S level of fuel is unknown
-------
Table 8-2
Catalyst Vehicles with Lean Burn Engines
Mfr.
Model
CID
AIR EGR
Active
M Type CID Material
HC
-'75 FTP
CO NOx
gpm gpm
hrysler New Yorker 440 None None
Ch Ox
152 Pt(.02046 .65
gm/in3)
8.91
2.51
#94332 Chevelle 400 None
AC
Ox
260 Pt/Pd
.26 0.93 1.82
H2S04
mgpm
14.2*
3'8*
5.4
6.6
26
28
32
Preconditioning Test Cycle
SC7
800 mi. local
low speed
driving +
1 '75 FTP
Above +1
HWFET + 1
75 FTP
Above + 1
HWFET + 1
75 FTP
FTP
SC7
SC7
SC7
SC7
SC7
SC7
SC7
S level in fuel is unknown
-------
8.2 Stratified Charge Engines
Stratified charge (SC) engines have been investigated by EPA and
the automotive industry both for low emissions levels and improved fuel
economy. SC engines have been produced with direct cylinder injection,
(PROCO and the Texaco TCCS) and with divided, separately fueled com-
bustion chambers, (Honda CVCC). Additionally, the direct injection SC
engines have been tested with catalytic converters.
SC engine vehicles have excellent emission potential coupled with
potential for improvements in fuel economy over the conventional Otto
cycle engine. Since SC engines are lean burning engines, it would be
expected that those SC engines which also incorporated a catalyst to
achieve 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO would have high sulfuric acid emissions. The
tests reported to date in Table 8-3 seem to indicate that the two systems
tested have sulfuric acid emission levels more equivalent to non-AIR
catalyst equipped vehicles. The reasons for this are not known presently,
but may be related to exhaust temperature. Those engines which have no
catalysts are comparable to vehicles with conventional engines without
catalysts.
8.3 Diesel Engines
Few sulfuric acid emission data have been accumulated using the
Diesel engine in LD vehicles. The data are presented in Table 8-4.
These data indicate the Diesel cars had sulfuric acid emission levels
like those of vehicles equipped with catalysts, being approximately in
between the catalyst no-AIR and the catalyst with AIR results, and
closer to the lower of the two levels.
It should be pointed out however, that the fuel sulfur level was
seven times higher than the previously reported gasoline levels of
8-4
-------
Table 8-3
Stratified Charge Engines
Mfr.
Model
Ford (PROCO) Capri
CID AIR EGR
141 None Con-
stant
Catalyst
Active
M Type CID Materials Mileage
HC
'75 FTP
CO NOx H2SOi
gpm gpm mgpm
M/B Ox 118
Toyota
(reported)
GM
CVCC
CVCC
2000
CC
GM (report- Texaco
ed) ES64606 Cricket
141
No
No
Unk
Unk
Yes
1100
2000
.16 .74
00
i
GM ES63342
GM ES64329
73 Chev- 350 Ho
rolet
350-3
74 Chev- 350 No
rolet
350-1FC
Unk
Unk
Manifold
Reactor
1.0 7.1
.81
9.3 4.6 1.5
Ox 80,115 Pt/Pd Texaco 7615 1.3 .77 2.1
w/oCat.
7735
.83 4.6 1.8
1.6
5.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.6
1.5
1.7
5
1.6
H2S04
Preconditioning
3.7
4.3
3.4
6.9
<0.4
<0.3
0.9
4
2
3
7.5
14
7.5
65
2.5
2.5
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
H2S04 Test
Cycle and
Comments
75 FTP, 5 tests
75 FTP(hot), 4 tests
HFET 6 tests
60 SS, 10 tests
30 SS, 3 tests
50 SS, 3 tests
60 SS, 3 tests
72 FTP, 5 tests
75 FTP, 5 tests
72 FTP(hot), 5 tests
75 FTP
SC7
HFET
SC7
HFET
72 FTP
75 FTP
72 FTP
72 FTP(hot)
30 SS
40 SS
50 SS
HFET
60 SS
SCI
-------
Table 8.3 (continued)
Stratified Charge Engines
Mfr.
Ford 1662
Ford 38A73
Honda*
HonUa**
Model
Catalyst
CID AIR EGR P_ M Type CID
Active
Materials
HC
gpm
'75 FTP
CO NOx
gpm gpm
2.3L CVCC 2.3L None None
Pinto
400 CVCC 400 None None
CVCC
CVCC
Unk
Unk
1.13 11.18 1.29
.49 4.02 1.85
.26
4.02 1.G7
H2S04
mgpm
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.9
0.3
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
2.3
0.3
2.6
2.4
0.6
3.6
3.1
H2S04
Preconditioning
30
70
70
30
30
70
70
30
mi @ 60
mi @ 60
mi @ 60
mi @ 30
mi @ 60
mi @ 60
mi @ 50
mph
mph
mph +
mph
mph
mph
mph +
ll^OWC) 1COI,
Cycle and
Comments
FTP
60SS, 2
30SS, 2
SCI ,
FTP
60 SS 2
30 SS 2
i
tests
tests
2 tests
tests
tests
2 tests
8 30 mph
FTP, 3
72 FTP
HFET, 6
60 SS,
75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
tests
(hot), 3 tests
tests
9 tests
* Tested by EPA
** Tested by EPA-ORD
-------
Mfr.
Toyota
GM
GM
Model CID Mileage
Unk 3000 CC 3100
HC
gpm
Table 8.4
Diesel Engines
'75 FTP
CO
NOx
gpm
H2S04**
mgpm
3.8
1.9
3.7
H2S04
Preconditioning
None
30 SS
50 SS
60 SS
Opel
2100
Experimental
2.11
.63
1.81
2.64
00
l
Mercedes* 220D Comprex 2.2X, Unk
240
2.4X, Unk
10
18
12
12/
13
12
8
8
20
5.3
3.6
4.5
3.5
5.4
4.6
6.3
5.5
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
Unk
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
Test
Cycle and
Comments
4 tests
2 tests
7 tests
#2 Diesel 72 FTP
#1 Diesel 72 FTP
72 FTP
75 FTP 16.9 mpg
72 FTP (hot)
30-SS
40 SS
60 SS
75 FTP
75 FTP
HFET
SC
(hot)
75 FTP (3 tests)
75 FTP (hot) (3 tests)
HFET(3 tests)
SC (3 tests)
-------
Table 8.4 (continued)
Diesel Engines
oo
i
oo
/J r ir rv
HC CO NOx H2SC>4**
Mfr. Model CID Mileage gpm gpm gpm mgpm
300D 31 Unk 5.6
5.2
6.8
6.4
Peugeot 204D 1357cc Unk 4.2
4.1
4.4
3.1
VW* Rabbit 1.5S. 4300 .19 .98 1.19 8.5
Diesel 4500 10.1
8.9
9.9
10.1
10.2
9.1
8.8
9.6
9.3
8.6
h^SC>4
Preconditioning
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
None
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
hzSOH
Test Cycle
75 FTP
75 FTP (hot)
HFET
SC-7
75 FTP
75 FTP (hot)
HFET
SC-7
75 FTP
SC-7
SC-7
HFLT
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
SC-7
hFET
SC-7
SC-7
**
Tested by EPA
Corrected to 0.21% S in fuel
-------
0.03%. Diesel fuel has about 0.21% as the average national fuel sulfur
level. If a desulfurized Diesel fuel were utilized, it is conceivable
that the Diesel engine would achieve sulfuric acid levels of the non-
catalyst gasoline vehicles.
A word of caution concerning these data should be noted. Concern
has been shown by a number of test facilities and investigators that the
amount of particulate carbon emitted by the Diesel engine may be masking
the true sulfate levels observed during the sulfate test procedure.
Further work must be conducted to resolve this controversy.
8.4 Other Lean Engines
A Williams gas turbine was run at the Dow-Midland facility during
1973 and the sulfate results reported were .05 mgpm on the 1975 FTP and
.4 mgpm during a 50SS. No preconditioning was reported. There was
difficulty with the vehicle test set-up and the sulfate results may not
be representative of the true results obtainable.
8-9
-------
SECTION 9
WHAT IMPACTS ARE LIKELY TO ACCOMPANY
SULFURIC ACID CONTROL?
-------
SECTION 9
WHAT IMPACTS ARE LIKELY TO ACCOMPANY
SULFURIC ACID CONTROL?
Since there has not been a significant amount of work done specif-
ically for sulfuric acid control, this section will discuss future
gaseous emission levels, the emission control options open to manu-
facturers to achieve those gaseous emission levels, the estimated
sulfuric acid emissions of each control option, and the other impacts as
related to each control option. These other impacts will include cost
and fuel economy. A general discussion of lead time and unregulated
pollutants will be presented with special attention given to the lead
time requirements for critical hardware. The relevant time frame for
this section is 1979-1980.
9.1 Cost, Fuel Economy, and Sulfuric Acid Emissions of Potential
Emission Control Systems
The following tables indicate the emission control systems which
are options to the manufacturers for 1979-1980. These system selections
are appropriate for automobiles up to 4000 pounds inertia weight.
Systems for heavier vehicles may be somewhat different, but certainly
the vast majority of 1979-1980 vehicles would be included in this
analysis. Only the Otto cycle engine was considered in this analysis as
it will still be the predominant powerplant in 1979-1980. Stratified
charge and Diesel engines will probably increase their market shares,
but will still represent only small portions of the total sales.
The systems abbreviations used in the following tables are:
9-1
-------
EGR = Proportional exhaust gas recirculation
AIR = air injection system
IAIR = improved air injection system (includes proportional AIR
and accel air control)
LB = lean burn engine
OC = oxidation catalyst
SC = start catalyst
3W = 3-way catalyst
DC = dual catalysts (reduction plus oxidation catalysts)
SEFE = super early fuel evaporation system (i.e. 8 cylinder EFE)
IFM = improved fuel metering (i.e. Dresser carburetor or its
equivalent)
CLFI = closed loop fuel injection
TR = thermal reactor
RTR = rich thermal reactor
RCR = reactor-catalyst-reactor (i.e. Questor system)
The cost estimates included Table 9-1 through 9-7 are complete
emission control system or subsystem costs (sticker prices) in 1975
dollars. Total system costs are based on the individual component costs
in Table 9-1. None of the system costs include catalyst change costs.
It is possible that in certification at emission levels below 0.9 HC,
9.0 CO, 2.0 NOx, any of the catalytic systems could require a catalyst
change.
The multiplicative fuel economy factors are based on a 1976 model
year fuel economy factor of 1.00. The highest fuel economy factor of
1.08 indicates that an estimated 8% improvement in fuel economy will be
accrued by 1979-1980 by systems changes alone. This does not include
changes in model mix (the switch to ligher cars), improved transmissions,
reduced aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, or any of the myriad of
other changes planned for introduction in that time frame to improve
fuel economy.
9-2
-------
Table 9-1*
Emission Control Component Costs
(Jan 75 Dollars)
Report Team Estimate
Component of Cost
1. PCV Valve 3
2. Evap Control 15
3. Transmission Controlled :.
Spark (TCS) 5
4. Anti-Dieseling Solonoid 6
5. Intake air heater 6
6. OSAC spark control 5
7. Hardened valve seats 2
8. Air system 40
9. Advanced Air System 55
10. PEGR 30
11. QHI manifold 10
12. Electric choke 6
13. HEI 30
14. Timing & other control
modulation valves 5
15. OX catalyst 80 Pellet
50 Big Monolith
16. NOx catalyst 60 Each
17. Misc. mods thru '74 20
18. EFI 180
19. 02 Sensor and feedback electronics 20
20. 3-way catalysts 90
21. Thermal Reactor 100
22. Improved Exhaust System 30
23. QA and other tests 10
24. Ox Pellet cat chg. 70
25. Mono cat chg. 150
26. EFE 15
27. Start catalyst 50
28. Improved fuel metering 15
29. Super EFE 25
* from "Tradeoffs Associated with Possible Auto Emission Standards"
prepared by the Emission Control Technology Division, Mobile Source
Pollution Control, February 1975.
9-3
-------
The sulfuric acid emissions of each control option are stated as
being less than or equal to a number. This number represents our
estimate of a value which could be achieved by the vast majority of
vehicles using the specified control system, though not necessarily by
all vehicles using that control system.
The use of sulfuric acid traps has not been considered in this
section because of uncertainties in their availability for the 1979-1980
model years.
Table 9-2
Systems for 1.5 HC, 15.0 CO, 2.0 NOx for 1979-1980
Fuel Economy H9S04
System Cost Factor Emissions, mgpm
EGR+OC* 195 1.08 <15
EGR+AIR+OC 235 1.08 <50
AIR+SC 160 1.08 <30
LB 65 .98 <10
LB+IFM 80 1.08 <10
LB+TR 165 1.08 <10
*System most likely to be used, as indicated by manufacturers
Discussion of Table 9-2
Systems
The EGR+OC system is similar to the current Federal control systems of
most manufactruers. By 1979-1980 this could actually approach an open
loop, 3-way catalyst system. The EGR+AIR+OC system may not be used as
it offers no advantages over EGR+OC. The LB+IFM system is very attractive
because of its low cost, low sulfuric acid emissions, and good fuel
economy. The IFM system is the key to this system as it is necessary to
cheaply retain good fuel economy. The IFM system is not ready for
production at this time, but it could possibly be ready for use in 1979.
9-4
-------
Cost
The cost advantages of LB and LB+IFM have been noted already. The LB+TR
system also offers cost advantages with no other penalties at this
emission level. Thermal reactor development programs in the industry
are ongoing, but at a rather low priority.
Fuel Economy
HC and NOx emissions will not create fuel economy problems except for LB
only systems which would have to use some retard for HC, NOx control.
H?SO, Emissions
The sulfuric acid emissions for the AIR+SC system may be unrealistically
high if the start catalyst is switched out of the exhaust system. Since
no such system has been tested, the 30 mgpm estimate was used and is
considered to be quite pessimistic. The high sulfuric acid emissions of
the EGR+AIR+OC system indicate that air injection systems which create
very high exhaust oxygen levels in oxidation catalyst systems cannot be
tolerated if low sulfuric acid emission levels are needed.
Table 9-3
Systems for 0.9 HC, 9.0 CO, 2.0 NOx for 1979-1980
Fuel Economy HoS04
System Cost Factor Emissions, mgpm
EGR+AIRfOC* 235 1.08 £50
EGR+IAIR+OC 250 1.08 <30
EGR+OC* 195 1.04 <15
EGR-K)C+IFM 210 1.08 <10
LB+IFM 80 1.00 <10
LB+TR+IFM 180 1.08 <10
3W+CLFI 290 1.08 <10
Systems most likely to be used, as indicated by manufacturers.
9-5
-------
Discussion of Table 9-3
Systems
The EGR+OC system may again approach the open loop 3-way catalyst system.
The 1976 certification results conclusively indicate that these systems
can certify at .9 HC, 9 CO, 2.0 NOx. The IAIR systems are now partially
developed as proportioning valves and are in production by one small
manufacturer. The accel control system is not developed, but could be
available by 1979.
The LB+IFM system is again very attractive for initial cost, but fuel
economy considerations suggest that port liners and a thermal reactor or
other aftertreatment would be required.
Fuel Economy
Fuel economy considerations suggest that a thermal reactor should be
added to the LB+IFM systems. EGR+OC systems need IFM at this emission
level to avoid retard for HC control.
H-SO, Emissions
The sulfuric acid emissions of the EGR+IAIR+OC may be overestimated.
Much greater improvements in sulfuric acid control have been achieved
via AIR system improvements, but at HC, CO penalties. Until the HC and
CO/sulfuric acid emissions/exhaust oxygen level relationships are better
understood, the 30 mgpm estimate will be used.
9-6
-------
Table 9-4
Systems for 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 2.0 NOx for 1979-1980
Fuel Economy HoS04
System Cost Factor Emissions mgpm
EGR+AIR+OC* 235 0.90 £60
EGR+IAIR+OC 250 0.90 £30
EGR+AIR+OC+SC* 285 1.08 £70
EGR+IAIR+OC+SC 300 1.08 £40
EGR4AIR+SEFE 150 0.70 <10
EGR+AIR+SEFE+SC 215 0.85 £20
EGR+AIR+SEFE+OC 260 0.95 <60
EGR+IAIR+SEFE+OC 275 0.95 £30
EGR+AIR+SEFE+OC+SC 310 1.08 £70
EGR+IAIR+SEFE+OC+SC 325 1.08 £40
LB+OC+IFM 190 1.00 £30
LB+OC+TR+IFM 290 1.08 £30
3W+CLFI 290 1.00 £10
3W+CLFI-I-AIR-K)C 410 1.08 £60
3W+CLFI+AIR+SC 380 1.08 <30
3W+CLFI+IAIR+OC 425 1.08 £30
*Systems most likely to be used, as Indicated by manufacturers,
9-7
-------
Table 9-5
Systems for 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.5 NOx for 1979-1980
Fuel Economy HoS04
System Cost Factor Emissions,mgpm
EGR+AIR+OC* 235 0.85 <60
EGR+IAIR+OC 250 0.85 <30
EGR+AIR+OC+SC* 285 1.08 <70
EGR+1AIR4OC+SC 300 1.08 <40
EGR+AIR+SEFE+OC 260 0.90 <60
EGR+IAIR+SEFE+OC 275 0.90 <30
EGR+AIR+SEFE+OC+SC 310 1.08 <70
EGR+IAIR+SEFE+OC+SC 325 1.08 <40
LB+OC+IFM 190 0.95 <30
LB+TR+OC+IFM** 290 1.08 <30
3W+CLFI 290 0.95 <10
3W+CLFI+AIR+OC 410 1.08 <60
3W+CLFI+IAIR+OC 425 1.08 <30
3W+CLFI+AIR+SC 380 1.08 <30
EGR+AIR+RTR 265 0.90 <10
*Systems most likely to be used as indicated by manufacturers.
**EGR on large cars
9-8
-------
Discussion of Table 9-4 and 9-5
Systems
LB+OC+TR+IFM and LB+OC+IFM systems could approach open loop 3-way catalyst
systems if desirable. The IFM would be used to control the exhaust
oxygen level, and sulfuric acid emissions would be much reduced in that
case. The SEFE systems are just appearing, even though they may be
viable at higher emission levels. They were brought in here because
this is the only emission level they have been tested at.
Cost
The most attractive systems are clustered at about $300 initial cost,
and 3W+CLFI has become competitive in price for the first time.
Fuel Economy
The EGR+IAIR+OC systems and the 3W+CLFI systems are no longer achieving
optimal fuel economy as they become HC control limited. The SEFE systems
are not competitive in fuel economy until they evolve to EGR+AIR+SEFE+OC+SC.
H-SO, Emissions
The sulfuric acid emissions of the IAIR systems become very critical in
terms of leaving a large number of control system options open to the
vehicle manufacturers. The 15 mgpm level of sulfuric acid emissions
leaves many technical options open at 1.5 HC, 15 CO, and 2.0 NOx and at
0.9 HC, 9 CO, 2.0 NOx, but very few are left at 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, and 2.0
NOx. The sulfuric acid emission level now needs to be 30 mgpm to leave
many of the technical options open.
9-9
-------
Table 9-6
Systems for 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx for 1979-1980
Fuel Economy H2S°4
System Cost Factor Emissions mgpm
EGR+AIR+OC+SC 285 0.95 £70
EGR+IAIR+OC+SC 300 0.95 <40
EGR+AIR+SEFE+OC+SC 310 1.00 <70
EGR+IAIR+SEFE+OC+SC 325 1.00 <40
EGR+LB+OC+IFM 220 0.95 <30
EGR+LB+TR+OC+IFM 320 0.95 <30
3W+CLFFI 290 0.90 <10
3W+CLFI+AIR+OC 370 1.00 <60
EGR+AIR+RTR 265 0.80 <10
EGR+AIR+DC 405 0.90 <60
EGR+IAIR+DC 420 0.90 <30
EGR+AIR+DC+SC 455 1.00 £70
EGR+IAIR+DC+SC 470 1.00 <40
Discussion of Table 9-6
Systems
The 3W+CLFI and LB systems have reached their currently demonstrated
lower levels of emission control capability. Dual catalyst systems
could possibly be introduced at this level. The start catalyst may not
be needed in a dual catalyst system if the reduction catalyst can perform
this function effectively. IFM systems become more important at these
NOx levels for all but dual catalyst vehicles. EGR is no longer capable
of providing all of the NOx control. The fuel economy lost by retard
control of NOx can be partially regained by the IFM which regains some
engine-out HC control which was lost by using high EGR rates.
9-10
-------
Cost
The lean burn systems are still initially inexpensive, but their fuel
economy penalty cannot be overcome.
Fuel Economy
All systems are showing fuel economy losses from the .41 EC, 3.4 CO, 1.5
NOx levels. These losses would be recovered later in time as cold start
HC control is improved and manufacturers gain expertise at these emission
levels. There is no inherent reason that fuel economy penalties must
exist at this or any other level of emission control.
H2SO, Emissions
Sulfuric acid emissions are again subject to the previous IA1R dis-
cussion. Also the sulfuric acid emissions of dual catalyst systems are
not well defined and may be lower than indicated in this Table.
Table 9-7
Systems for 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 0.4 NOx for 1979-1980
Fuel Economy H2S04
System Cost Factor Emissions, mgpm
EGR+AIR+3W+CLFI+OC 400 0.90 160
EGR+IAIR+3W4CLFI+OC 415 0.90 130
EGR+AIR+3W+CLFI+OC
+SC 445 0.95 170
EGR+IAIR+3W+CLFI
+OC+SC 460 0.95 140
EGR+AIR+DC 405 0.80 160
EGR+IAIR+DC 420 0.80 130
EGR+AIR+DC+IFM 420 0.85 ffiO
EGR+IAIR+DC+IFM 435 0.85 £30
EGR+AIR+DC+IFM+SC 470 0.90 570
EGR+IAIR+DC+IFM+SC 485 0.90 140
RCR+AIR+IFM 395 0.85 110
9-11
-------
Discussion of Table 9-7
Systems
The number of system options is much reduced as only the remaining
systems have 0.4 NOx potential. The RCR+AIR+IFM system (Questor system)
has appeared because of its low NOx and potentially low sulfuric acid
emission capabilities. IFM or CLFI are necessary for best fuel economy.
Cost
Nearly all system costs are now similar at about $420. The Questor
system is most attractive in terms of initial cost, but not in fuel
economy.
Fuel Economy Factor
The fuel economy factors are again reduced, but can probably be recovered
later in time, if development is continued vigorously.
H_SO, Emissions
Only the Questor system is extremely low in sulfuric acid emissions.
This is expected because of the absence of an oxidation catalyst in the
oxygen rich exhaust, but must be varified by vehicle testing.
9.2 Production Lead Time Considerations
The production lead times associated with automotive products in
Figure 9-1* reveal that design approaches for the various emission
*See "Assessment of Domestic Automotive Industry Production Lead
Time for 1975/1976 Model Years," Vol. I and II, December 15, 1972,
prepared by the Aerospace Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-01-0417.
9-12
-------
VO
I
Figure 9-1
.PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT.
LEAD TIME
RESEARCH AND ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT
PRODUCT CONCEPTUAL-
IZATION
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT/
VEHICLE PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
CAR PROGRAM APPROVAL
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING/
CAR PROTOTYPE TESTING
PARTS PROCUREMENT/TOOL
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION
AND TRYOUT
PILOT ASSEMBLY
PRODUCTION BUILDUP
'f//ff//n/n//n
PRODUCTION
LEAD TIME REFERENCE-
36
.PRODUCTION.
LEAD TIME
i///fffit7/ff/r//fft/ffftii///f/f//f7/i/Tf//////n
1///7H
m
24
12
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Automotive Product Development Phases
-------
control systems to be manufactured by the vehicle manufacturer for 1979
should be completed by about July 1, 1976. This allows 26 months before
the start of production about August 1, 1978 for the 1979 model year.
The various vehicle manufacturers' estimates for individual components
ranged from 24 to 29 months. Most of the control hardware in section
9.1 is manufactured by the vehicle manufacturers. Notable exceptions
are the improved fuel metering (IFM), closed loop fuel injection (CLFI),
and catalysts. These items are generally purchased from suppliers and
require about 24 months or less from the date of order to full pro-
duction. The only potential problem hardware in section 9.1 is the
thermal reactors, and then only if they are not made by the vehicle
manufacturer and are purchased from a supplier. The lead times in the
casting industry are normally 36 months from the time of order to full
production.
The emission control system selections for the 1979 model year have
not been made by the vehicle manufacturers, but they should be made
shortly after the sulfuric acid NPRM is published. Hopefully the Con-
gress will also have clarified the gaseous emission requirements for
1979 by this time as well. "
The vehicle manufacturers did not comment on the productivity of
their specific development programs, but only one item discussed in
section 9.1 seems to be lacking in development. This item is the im-
proved AIR system (IAIR), and it is not expected to be a lead time
problem as this is a modification to existing hardware and not a totally
new development program.
9.3 Other Unregulated Emissions from Catalyst Vehicles
Unregulated emissions from catalyst equipped vehicles have been
reported to include hydrogen sulfide, (HLS) , hydrogen cyanide, (HCN),
9-14
-------
along with carbonyl sulfide, (COS) and carbon dlsulfide, (CS2), to name
a few. With the exception of hydrogen sulfide, identifiable by the
"rotten egg" odor, little characterization work has been done to date to
determine the levels or the other unregulated emissions, or to char-
acterize the amount of these emissions produced by non-catalyst equipped
vehicles. Work is underway within EPA in this area currently, however.
It is concluded that the conventional gasoline engine, though
characterized for emissions to a large extent, still needs additional
characterization. Hydrogen chloride, hydrogen bromide, chlorine,
bromine, vinyl chloride and other halogenated compounds have not been
fully characterized from the conventional gasoline engine utilizing
leaded fuel. Further, almost no data exist on the levels of hydrogen
cyanide, nitrosoamines, and organic sulfur compounds which could be
emitted in trace quantities from non-catalyst cars.
Further characterization of oxidation catalyst systems needs to be
done, and also dual and 3-way catalyst systems need to be studied. Ad-
ditionally, characterization work must be done on lean burn, stratified
charge, rotary, Diesel, and gas turbine engines, both in the baseline
configurations and with control systems.
Hydrogen sulfide can be emitted from catalyst vehicles when they
operate under rich conditions. Hydrogen sulfide has a characteristic
odor at levels far below those associated with adverse health effects.
Scattered reports have been received of hydrogen sulfide odor from in-
use 1975 catalyst vehicles. EPA is still assessing the magnitude of
this problem and what action can be taken to correct it. Preliminary
indications are that the H-S - emitting vehicles have improperly adjusted
9-15
-------
or defective emission control hardware which results in overly rich
conditions into the catalyst. It is concluded that the H2S problem
should not get any worse than it is now and measures to improve vehicle
maintenance or construction should reduce the incidence of occurance.
The Bell Research Laboratories have identified hydrogen cyanide
(HCN) in laboratory experiments intended to simulate vehicle catalyst
systems and have suggested that HCN might be produced under certain
conditions in sufficient quanities from catalyst equipped vehicles to
present a health hazard. However, the Bell research was conducted as a
laboratory test set-up rather than an actual vehicle test. In view of
the effect of exhaust water content in suppressing HCN formation which
was identified by Bell, there is substantial doubt that significant
quantities of HCN are, in fact, produced by catalyst-equipped vehicles,
although further work is desirable to confirm this.
Base metal catalysts such as the nickel alloy reduction catalyst
being developed by Gould, Inc. emit certain metallic compounds. Metallic
nickel has been identified and it is suspected that nickel carbonyl and
nickel oxide could be emitted. Reduction catalysts using ruthenium may
emit ruthenium oxide during oxidizing conditions.
Appendix IV provides a further discussion of unregulated automotive
pollutants.
9-16
-------
APPENDIX I
REQUEST FOR SULFURIC ACID INFORMATION FROM
EPA TO THE MANUFACTURERS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
5&B
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Daniel Hittler
Manager, Development Department
American Motors Corporation
14250 Plymouth Road
Detroit, Michigan 48232
Dear Mr. Hittler:
Section 202(b)(4) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, requires the
Environmental Protection Agency to review and report annually to the
Congress on the progress being made in efforts to develop emission
control systems needed to implement Federal motor vehicle emission
standards established under Section 202 of the Act.
On March 5, 1975, EPA granted a one-year suspension of the
effective date of the 1977 emission standards for exhaust emissions of
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from light duty vehicles. That
suspension was granted, even though it was found that oxidation
catalyst technology exists which would permit the achievement of the
standards by the statutorily required date, because the EPA Administrator
concluded that such technology could not be considered "effective"
under the terms of Section 202(b)(5) of the Act in view of the
potential public health risk posed by emissions of sulfuric acid
from cars equipped with such emission control systems, particularly
when those systems were designed to achieve maximum degrees of control
of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. In additon to granting the one-
year suspension requested by auto manufacturers, the Administrator
simultaneously announced EPA's intention to adopt a sulfuric acid
emission standard applicable to light duty vehicles beginning with
the 1979 model year and recommended Congressional action to further
delay the imposition of more stringent exhaust hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide emission standards for light duty vehicles until
suitable limitations on sulfuric acid emissions, as well as those of
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, can be achieved.
1-1
-------
2
As part of .the reporting requirements of Section 202(b)(A), and in
support of our Efforts to develop and propose a suitable sulfuric acid
emission standard for light duty vehicles, EPA is conducting an
assessment of the status of efforts to achieve control of exhaust
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions simultaneously with
minimizing emissions of sulfuric acid. Accordingly, pursuant to
Section 307(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act, you are requested to provide
us with information regarding your efforts to characterize and control
sulfuric acid emissions from light duty vehicles being designed to
achieve various levels of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide control.
While this request is being made specifically for information
regarding light duty vehicles, submission of relevant information on
light duty trucks, if available, would also be appreciated.
The desired information, which is described in the enclosed
outline, is divided into two main areas: a) data obtained by your
company in characterizing sulfuric acid emissions from various types
of light duty vehicle systems, and b) descriptions of your company's
efforts and results in attempting to minimize sulfuric acid emissions
while achieving stringent levels of hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and
oxides of nitrogen control.
The information provided by your company should, in general,
follow the enclosed outline. You may limit the information
supplied in repsonse to this request to that information which is
not previously been supplied to EPA. However, if portions of the
desired information have already been supplied to EPA, please
indicate the appropriate documents by specific reference and supply
copies of the earlier submissions if possible.
Your response should be submitted to EPA no later than September
2, 1975. Three copies should be submitted to:
Director, Emission Control Technology Division
Attention: Status Report Team
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, USA
In addition, please provide two copies of your response to:
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Attention: Mr. Joseph Merenda (AW-455)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
1-2
-------
Except for Information claimed by the submitter to be trade
secret (the treatment of which is discussed in the enclosed
outline), a copy of each submission will be placed in a public docket
and will be available for public inspection through the Freedom of
Information Center at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Questions concerning the data requested should be addressed to
Mr. John DeKany, Director of the Emission Control Technology Division,
which Division has primary responsibility within EPA for acquiring and
analyzing data on the status of technology for vehicle emission
control. Also, staff from that Division may contact you for additional
information or explanations, and such request should be deemed by you
as an integral part of the request for data made by this letter.
While similar in format to requests made by EPA in previous years
for information on the status of efforts to achieve standards for light
duty vehicle hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen
emissions, this request focuses specifically only on one aspect of
the feasibility of achieving such standards, and of the costs which may
be associated with doing so, namely, the impact of doing so without
major increases in sulfuric acid emissions. As a result,
this request does not address many other aspects of efforts in
controlling currently regulated automotive pollutants, and a separate
written request for information on those other areas may be
anticipated later this year.
Your cooperation in ensuring that the Environmental Protection
Agency receives clear, detailed, and understandable information
describing the efforts of your company in the characterization and
control of automotive sulfuric acid emissions will contribute materially
to ensuring the availability of a sound technical data base for future
decisions on automotive emission control standards.
Sincerely yours,
Roger Strelow
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management (AW-443)
Enclosure
1-3
-------
OUTLINE
FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE SULFURIC ACID EMISSION CONTROL STATUS REPORT
The following outline should be followed in submitting the
requested information. Any information not identified in the
outline or the discussion of the outline that you feel is necessary
for an accurate description of the technical efforts of your company
to characterize and develop methods to control light duty vehicle.
sulfuric acid emissions may also be included:
I. Characterization of Light Duty Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Emissions
A. Non-catalyst production vehicles
B. Oxidation catalyst production vehicles
C. Prototype non-catalyst vehicles
D. Prototype oxidation catalyst vehicles
E. Prototype advanced catalyst systems
II. Light Duty Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Emission Control Development
Efforts
A. Re-optimization of existing systems
B. Catalyst modifications
C. Air injection modifications
D. Fuel metering modifications
E. Advanced catalyst systems
F'. Sulfuric acid traps
III. Confidentiality of Trade Secret Information
1-5
-------
DISCUSSION OF OUTLINE
The specific types of information requested for each item
in the outline are discussed in more detail below.
I. Characterization of Light Duty Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Emissions
This section should present and discuss all data obtained by
your company which help to characterize the quantities of sulfuric
acid emitted by light duty vehicles designed to achieve various
levels of HC, CO, and NOx control. Because of the difficulties
in comparing bench test or engine dynamometer data with vehicle test
data, only vheicle data are specifically requested in this section.
However, if your company feels that certain bench or engine test
data would be helpful in understanding or interpreting vehicle
data, bench or engine test data may be included.
Vehicle characterization data should be organized according
to the categories listed in the outline. These categories are
discussed further below. Within each category, the data for each
vehicle reported on should contain the information requested in
Appendix A.
A. Non-catalyst production vehicles
This category includes all non-catalyst vehicles which
were tested in the same configuration as vehicles
certified for sale in the U.S. These vehicles may be
either actual production vehicles, or may be
certification prototypes. Any non-catalyst vehicles
which have been modified in such a way that they could
not be considered to be covered by an EPA certificate
of confirmity should be reported on in Section I.C.,
rather than in this category.
B. Oxidation catalyst production vehicles
This category includes all oxidation catalyst-equipped
vehicles which may be considered production vehicles as
defined for category I.A. above.
C. Prototype non-catalyst vehicles
This category includes all non-catalyst vehicles tested
for sulfuric acid emissions which cannot be considered
production vehicles as defined in category I.A. above.
1-6
-------
2
This Includes both conventional non-catalyst vehicles
which have been modified from their production config-
urations and non-conventional systems such as stratified
charge engines, vehicles equipped with special lean
carburetion or other special fuel metering systems, or
alternate engines such as gas turbine, Rankine cycle,
Stirling, or Diesel engines, which do not employ
catalytic exhaust treatment.
D. Prototype oxidation catalyst vehicles
This category includes all vehicles equipped with
conventional oxidation catalyst systems but which
do not fall into the production vehicle category
I.E. This category also includes non-conventional
engines equipped with conventional oxidation catalyst
systems, such as a stratified charge engine with an
oxidation catalyst.
E. Prototype advanced catalyst systems
This category includes all vehicles employing emission
control catalysts in configurations other than the
conventional single stage oxidation catalyst employed
on many 1975 model light duty vehicles. This category
would include start catalyst, three-way catalyst, and
dual catalyst configuations.
II. Light Duty Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Emission Control Development
Efforts
This section should provide a complete and detailed discussion
of all efforts completed or presently in progress by your company
to develop or evaluate various possible approaches to controlling
sulfuric acid emissions from light duty vehicles. These efforts,
which may include laboratory bench testing, engine dynamometer tests,
and vehicle tests, should be discussed in the groupings identified
in the outline. These groupings, and the specific types of data
sought, are discussed more fully below:
A. Re-optimization of existing systems
This category includes efforts based on modification of
various engine-catalyst system parameters without major changes
in component design or system configuration. Examples of
approaches included in this category are changes in engine
calibration, catalyst size and location, air injection rate,
etc.
1-7
-------
-3-
B. Catalyst modifications
This category includes modifications to the chemical or
physical structure of the catalyst such as changes in.
active material composition and loading, changes in
catalyst substrate formulation or configuration, and
changes in catalyst manufacturing and processing
techniques, including the possibility of selective
poisoning of S02 oxidation activity.
C. Air injection modifications
This category includes all modifications to pre-catalyst
air injection systems other than simple changes in air
injection rate or pump capacity. Included would be all
types of air injection modulation, whether on-off or
proportional to other engine or catalyst operating
parameters.
D. Fuel metering modifications
This category includes changes in engine fuel-air metering
other than simple changes in carburetor calibration.
Included would be efforts to develop or evaluate various
types of more accurate fuel-air metering devices such as
electronic fuel injection, sonic flow carburetors, etc.
E. Advanced catalyst systems
This category includes all efforts involving major changes .
in catalyst system configurations such as dual catalysts,
three-way catalysts, and oxidation catalysts operated at or
near stoichiometric conditions either with or without
catalyst oxygen level feedback.
F. Sulfuric acid traps
This category includes all efforts to develop or evaluate
chemical or mechanical traps intended to remove S03 at\d/or
H2S04 from the exhaust stream leaving the oxidation catalyst,
or S02 before the exhaust stream enters the catalyst.
1-8
-------
-4-
In each of the categories discussed above, your compnny's efforts
and results should be presented according to the following format:
1. Description of program
Describe each approach being investigated in that category
and discuss the technical rationale for pursuing that
approach. If a given category has been eliminated from
consideration on technical grounds, please discuss the
data and judgments which have led to that conclusion.
2. Current status of program
Discuss the current status of each of the efforts
identified in item 1.
3. Experimental data
Present and discuss all experimental data obtained to date
from the efforts identified in item 1. for each category.
See Appendix A for the information required from vehicle
tests, Appendix B for engine dynamometer tests, and
Appendix C for laboratory bench tests.
4. Cost estimates
Provide any available estimates for the cost of implementing
each of the approaches being investigated. Separate estimates
for first cost and operating cost should be provided if
possible.
5. Lead-time estimates
Provide any available estimates of the lead-time which would
be required to implement each approach on production vehicles.
6. Other impacts
Discuss the impact of using each approach on other aspects
of vehicle design and operation. If possible, the
discussion should address each of the following items:
a. Favorable or adverse impacts on ability to achieve
control of HC, CO, and NOx to various levels.
1-9
-------
-5-
b. Favorable or adverse impacts on vehicle fuel economy
c. Impact on emissions of other presently unregulated
substances such as H2S, catalyst or trap attrition
products, etc.
d. Impact on vehicle safety, including consideration of
effects on exhaust system temperatures, and
e. Any other impacts on vehicle manufacture or operation
such as requirements for materials in limited supply,
requirements of special fuels, relationships between
sulfuric acid emissions and gasoline sulfur content
for vehicles equipped with that control approach,
need for periodic replacement or maintenance of
system components, and any problems which might
be posed by disposal of components such as chemical
trapping materials or catalysts.
III. Confidentiality of Trade Secret Information
A. -Information submitted in response to the request which
accompanies this outline will be deemed to have been obtained
pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
B. This means that only information which "...would divulge
trade secrets or secret processes" may be kept in confidence.
(Even this information will not be kept confidential in two
situations: (1) when the information is emission data, or (2) if
and when the information becomes "relevant" to any proceeding under
the Act.) If you wish such information to be kept confidential
prior to any proceeding, you must identify with particularity at the
time of submission the data you regard as likely to "...divulge ;
trade secrets or secret processes" if disclosed. Otherwise, such
claims will be deemed to be waived. If confidential treatment of
certain data is claimed at the time of submission you will be
subsequently contacted by EPA and required to submit supporting
information.
C. If the Administrator determines that a satifactory showing
has not been made that the information would disclose trade secrets
or secret processes, you will be notified by certified mail. No
sooner than 30 days following the mailing of such notice, any
information with resepct to which trade secret status has not been
established will be placed in a public docket. Any information as
1-10
-------
to which the Administrator determines that a satisfactory showing
has been made will be held confidential unless such information
subsequently becomes relevant to a proceeding under the Act. In such
case, a representative of your General Counsel's office will be
notified in writing by certified mail and by telephone at least ten
days prior to placing such material in a public docket.
1-11
-------
Appendix A
Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Emission Data
All vehicle sulfuric acid emission data submitted to EPA should
be in the following format and contain all of the requested
information which is available. All 10 items should be submitted
for catalyst cars. Items (2), (4),(5), and (6) do not apply to control
systems not containing a catalyst.
(1) Vehicle manufacturer and model, vehicle mileage, inertia
weight, and engine size should be listed. A complete description
of the emission control system and of any non-conventional
engine should be included. The type of air injection used (if
any) should be described.
(2) For each catalyst employed, catalyst type, catalyst mileage,
catalyst manufacturer, catalyst volume, active metal composition
(e.g. Pt-Pd), active metal loading, amount of alumina on the
catalyst, and catalyst space velocity (minimum, maximum, and
nominal together with a description of the corresponding vehicle
speed and load) should be given.
(3) The HC, CO, NOx, and C02 emissions of the car over the FTP
and over the condition of the sulfuric acid test should be
listed. The emission design target of the vehicle (e.g. 1975
Federal) should be included. Also, fuel economy numbers in mpg
should be listed for both the FTP and the EPA "Highway" test.
(A) The efficiency of the catalyst for control of HC, CO, and
(if applicable) NOx emissions should be included (i.e., (engine-
out minus tailpipe emissions) divided by engine-out emissions)
as well as the conditions over which the efficiency was
measured.
(5) The catalyst operating temperature over the sulfuric acid
test (including the position of the thermocouple in the catalyst)
should be given, as well as a description of the procedures used
to provide catalyst cooling during the test.
(6) The oxygen levels at catalyst inlet and outlet during the
sulfuric acid test should be listed.
1-12
-------
-2-
(7) The type of mileage accumulation prior to the test should be
given, including the fuel sulfur level used during mileage
accumulation.
(8) The type of immediate preconditioning (e.g. Ann Arbor road
route) before the sulfuric acid test, including fuel sulfur
level, should be given.
(9) Particulate and sulfuric acid emissions (in g/mile and
g/kilometer as H2S04), the test cycle used, the sampling
and analytical methods used, and fuel sulfur level should
be given. Sulfuric acid emissions should also be normalized
to 0.03% fuel sulfur. The percent conversion of fuel sulfur
to sulfuric acid should be given.
(10) S02 emissions (in g/mile and g/kilometer) and percent
recovery of total sulfur compounds should be given.
1-13
-------
Appendix B
Engine Dynamometer Sulfuric Acid Emission Data
All engine dynamometer sulfuric acid data submitted to EPA should
be in the following format and contain all of the requested information
which is available. All 10 items should be submitted for catatlyst--
equipped engines. Items (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7) do not apply to
control systems not containing a catalyst.
(1) Engine manufacturer and model should be listed. A complete
description of the emission control system and of any non-
conventional engine should be included. The type of air injection
used (if any) should be described.
(2) For each catalyst employed, catalyst type, catalyst mileage,
catalyst manufacturer, catalyst volume, active metal composition
(e.g. Pt-Pd), active metal loading, amount of alumina on the
catalyst, and catalyst space velocity should be given.
(3) The HC, CO, NOx, and C02 emissions of the engine over the
condition of the "sulfuric acid test should be listed. The
emission design target of the engine (e.g., 1975 Federal) should
be included. Also, fuel consumption values should be listed
for the test cycle.
(4) The efficiency of the catalyst for control of HC, CO, and
(if applicable) NOx emissions should be included (i.e., (engine-
out emissions minus catalyst-out emissions) divided by engine-
out emissions) as well as the conditions over which the
efficiency was measured.
(5) The catalyst operating temperature over the sulfuric acid
test (including the position of the thermocouple in the catalyst)
should be given, as well as a description of the procedures used
to provide catalyst cooling during the test.
(6) The oxygen levels at catalyst inlet and outlet during the
sulfuric acid test should be listed.
(7) The catalyst aging prior to the sulfuric acid emission
test.should be identified including data on the engine speed
and load cycle used, hours accumulated over the cycle, catalyst
operating temperature, inlet oxygen level, and fuel sulfur level.
This information is especially important if the catalyst aging
cycle is different from the sulfuric acid emission test
cycle.
1-14
-------
2
(8) The type of immediate preconditioning before the sulfuric
acid test, including fuel sulfur level, should be given.
(9) Particulate and sulfuric acid emissions (in grams per test as
H2S04), the test cycle used, the sampling and analytical methods
used, and the fuel sulfur level should be given. Sulfuric acid
emissions should also be normalized to 0.03% fuel sulfur. The
percent conversion of fuel sulfur to sulfuric acid should be given.
(10) S02 emissions (in grams per test) and percent recovery of
total sulfur, compounds should be given.
1-15
-------
Appendix C
Laboratory Bench Test Sulfuric Acid Emission Data
All laborabory bench test sulfuric acid data submitted to EPA
should be in the following format and contain all of the requested
information which is available.
(1) Catalyst type, catalyst manufacturer, catalyst volume used
in the test, active metal composition (e.g. Pt-Pd), active metal
loading, and amount of alumina on the catalyst should be given.
(2) The complete composition, concentrations, and flow rate
of the input gas should be given. The flow rate should also
be given in terms of space velocity over the catalyst (bed
volumes/hour). A description of the laboratory apparatus
including source (bottle vs engine) of the gases and sampling and
analytical methods should be given.
(4) The complete composition and concentrations of the output
gas should be given.
(5) The catalyst temperature during the test should be
given.
(6) The previous history and type of preconditioning for the
catalyst should be given. This history should include the
previous exposure of this catalyst to S02 and/or S03.
(7) The percent conversion of S02 to S03 as well as the
percent recovery of total sulfur compounds should be given.
1-16
-------
ADDRESSEES
Domestic Manufacturers
Mr. Daniel Hittler
Manager, Development Department
American Motors Corporation
14250 Plymouth Road
Detroit, Michigan 48232
Mr. Sidney L. Terry
Vice President
Public Responsibility
and Consumer Affairs
Chrysler Corporation
P.O. Box 1919
Detroit, Michigan 48231
Mr. Herbert L. Misch
Vice President
Environmental and Safety
Engineering Staff
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, Michigan 48121
Mr. Ernest R. Starkman
Vice President
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
Warren, Michigan 48090
Catalyst Manufacturers
Mr. Robert S. Leventhal
Senior Vice President
Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
430 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
Mr. V.W. Makin, President
Matthey Bishop, Inc.
Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
Dr. Vladimir Haensel
Vice President
Science and Technology
UOP, Inc.
10 UOP Plaza
Des Plaines, Illinois 60016
Foreign Manufacturers
Mr. Bernard Steinhoff
Emission Control Department
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
Montvale, New Jersey 07645
Mr. Guenter Storbeck
Product Planning Manager
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
818 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
1-17
-------
APPENDIX II
SULFURIC ACID TEST PROCEDURES
-------
APPENDIX II
SULFURIC ACID TEST PROCEDURES
This Appendix discusses the test procedures currently used by
EPA to quantify light duty vehicle sulfuric acid emissions.
DRIVING CYCLE
The sulfuric acid driving cycle was derived from the CRC-APRAC CAPE
10 data on driving patterns in the Los Angeles area. The computer-
generated cycle is designed to represent driving on congested urban
freeways. This cycle is designed to simulate the type of potentially
high localized sulfuric acid exposure situations about which EPA is
concerned. The cycle has an average speed of 35 mph which is in accord
with data showing maximum traffic flow on freeways at this speed. The
cycle also contains long segments of 55 mph cruise along with periods of
lower speed operation.
Initially, two different driving cycles were generated; each of
which had an average speed of 35 mph, a 23 minute length, and represented
congested freeway operation. The cycles were different in that they t
were composed of different sequences of driving modes. One cycle had an
extended period (about 7 minutes) of 55 mph cruise toward the end of the
cycle. The other cycle had shorter periods of 55 mph cruise interspersed
throughout the cycle. Emission tests were run on both cycles and indicated
no significant difference in sulfuric acid emissions for either cycle.
The first cycle was selected for subsequent use in the EPA test pro-
cedure development program.
II-l
-------
The driving cycle initially had speed fluctuations in 5 mph in-
crements and did not have low magnitude-high frequency speed fluctua- ,
tions (noise) characteristic of actual driving. Noise can result in
higher HC and CO emissions as well as variations in exhaust oxygen level
from the engine which could affect sulfuric acid emissions. Noise
was added to the cycle creating a modified cycle. The maximum accelera-
tion and deceleration rates on the cycle were then limited to 3.3 mph/
second to be compatible with belt driven Clayton dynamometer being used
by some of the automobile companies. These dynamometers cannot accom-
modate acceleration or deceleration rates greater than 3.3 mph/second.
About 5 seconds of the 23 minute cycle were changed.
Some /other '.very minor modifications may still be made in this cycle
(as shown in Figure 1) to make it easier for drivers to follow with
standard transmission cars. While none of the automobile companies have
noted any problems in following the cycle, EPA engineers feel there may
be minor problems with 3 or 4 speed standard transmission vehicles. If
any modifications are made, they will be extremely minor and have little
effect on emissions.
PRECONDITIONING
There are two categories of vehicle preconditioning that would
affect sulfuric acid emissions in a certification-type program. The
first is long term preconditioning which constitutes the mileage ac-
cumulation schedule for 4,000 miles for emission data cars and 50,000
miles for durability cars. The second is the immediate type of mileage
or emission tests preceding the sulfate test itself. For example, the
sulfuric acid test could be run immediately after the FTP in which case
the FTP constitutes the immediate preconditioning. Current Federal
emission test procedures for HC, CO, and NOx provide for long term
II-2
-------
I
u>
100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
SECONDS
1975 FTP
1000.00 1100.00 1200.00 1300.00 1UOO.OO
100.00- 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
600.00 700.00
SECONDS
800.00 900.00 1000.00 1100.00 1200.00 1300.00 1400.00
Figure 1: Comparison of the Three EPA Driving Cycles
-------
mileage accumulation over the AMA driving schedule. The AMA schedule
consists of running 11 laps around a 3.7 mile test track*. During each
of the first 9 laps there are 4 stops with a 15 second idle. Normal
accelerations and decelerations are used. In addition, there are five
light decelerations each lap from the lap speed to 20 mph followed by
light accelerations to the lap speed. The 10th lap is run at a constant
speed (55 mph). The last lap is started with a wide open throttle
acceleration from 0 to 70 mph followed by a second wide open throttle
acceleration at the midpoint of the lap. The maximum speed for each
of the 11 laps is listed below:
Lap Maximum Speed, mph
1 40
2 30
3 40
4 40
5 35
6 30
7 35
8 45
9 35
10 55
11 70
A modified AMA schedule can also be used for mileage accumulation
if the manufacturer wishes to do so. The modified AMA is identical to
the regular AMA except that it has a maximum speed of 55 mph in the last
lap instead of 70 mph. The wide open throttle accelerations in the last
lap are retained. Both AMA mileage accumulation schedules have average
speeds of about 30 mph.
*Federal Register, Volume 37, No. 221, Part 85, Page 24318, November 15,
1972.
II-4
-------
Not all of the automobile comapnies follow this schedule exactly
since many companies do not have a 3.7 mile test track. EPA has given
the automobile companies permission to make changes in this mileage
accumulation schedule. However, all of the automobile companies
follow schedules which are similar to the AMA cycle.
Sulfuric acid, stored on catalysts as aluminum sulfate at low
catalyst temperatures associated with lower vehicle speeds, can be
released at higher catalyst temperatures associated with higher vehicle
speeds. Once these sulfates are purged from a catalyst, the catalyst is
able once again to start storing. These phenomena are much more important
for a pelleted catalyst which can contain up to 3000 g of alumina versus
a monolith catalyst which contains about 100 g of alumina. However
data from an EPA contract with Southwest Research Institute show that
sulfuric acid storage and release is a relatively short term phenomenon
for both monolith and pelleted catalyst vehicles. Southwest ran a
variety of tests (FTP, SC, FET, steady state cruise) on different cars
after AMA mileage accumulation and found complete recovery of total
sulfur over the test sequence. Specific graphs showing this recovery
of total sulfur is given in Figures 2-5 for the following four cars:
Plymouth - monolith catalyst, no air injection
Plymouth - monolith catalyst, air injection
Chevrolet - pelleted catalyst, no air injection
Chevrolet - pelleted catalyst, air injection
Data from EPA Contract 68-03-0497 with Exxon show that sulfuric
acid emissions over an FTP for a pelleted catalyst preceded by 2 hours
of 60 mph cruise are lower than sulfuric acid emissions over an FTP
preceded by either the city or highway durability cycle developed by
II-5
-------
Test No.
Test Type
Figure 2
10
CD
I «
M
bO
W
w
5 4
,5
I »
O
2
1
0
1
t
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3M
Cold LA-4
Hot LA-4
SET-7
SET-7
HWFET
HWFET
Accc-.l to 30
30 rriph
Accel to 60
60 mph
ll|||||,iil'
/n-rx4 yftnxcrrrrr.^r:
. .::::-i:-.n-r--.:-:-..-u-!.n JT
-c_._i±ii.;i: ^_p^ ±^x ^
: vr.:-irv
.1 :,~'-l.. j~--.-} l"^-i- -ll^-i.L;!:".! il"!ZH.
4
Cumulative Fuel Sulfur, grams
8
10
FIGURE '1. CUMULATIVE SJLFUR RECOVERED IN EXHAUST AS A
FUNCTION OF SULFUR CONSUMED WITH FUEL FOR A 1975
49 STATE PLYMOUTH GRAN FURY
(SwRI Car EM-1)
II-6
-------
Test No.
Test Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cold LA-4
Hot LA-4
SET-7
SET-7
HWFET
HWFET
Accel to 30
30 mph
Accel to 60
60 mph
0
Cumulative Fuel Sulfur, grams
FIGURE 2 . CUMULATIVE SULFUR RECOVERED IN EXHAUST AS A
FUNCTION OF SULFUR CONSUMED WITH FUEL FOR A 1975
49 STATE PLYMOUTH GRAN FURY
(SwRI Car EM-1)
II-7
-------
grams
I
f-t
*
w
.«->
CO
3
J
d
-------
TEST NO.
1
2
3 and 4
5 and 6
7
8
9
10
TEP"*1 '''YPE
Cold LA-4
Hot LA-4
SET-7
HWFET
Accel to 30 mph
30 mph Steady
Accel to 60 mph
60 mph Steady
10
n
a
d
bO
h
CO
| 6
X
W
I
8 rHEE
4 6 8
Cumulative Fuel Sulfur, grams
.FIGURE 4. CUMULATIVE SULFUR RECOVERED IN EXHAUST
AS A FUNCTION OF SULFUR CONSUMED WITH FUEL
IN A 1975 CALIFORNIA CHEVROLET IMPALA
(SwRI CAR EM-4) PELLETED CATALYST WITH AIR INJECTION
II-9
-------
TEST NO.
1
2
3 and 4
5 and 6
7
8
9
10
TEST TYPE
Cold LA-4
Hot LA-4
SET-7
HWFET
Accel to 30 mph
30 mph Steady
Accel to 60 mph
60 mph Steady
10
tn
a
cd
M
w>
&
2
W
4->
01'
I
-------
Exxon. These are not the similarly named EPA city and highway cycles.
The average speed of the Exxon city durability cycle is 20 mph while
the average speed of the Exxon highway durability cycle is 55 mph. It
was also noted that sulfuric acid emissions over an FTP preceded by
either the city or the highway durability cycle are essentially identical.
Exxon found the following catalyst emperatures over these three types
of preconditionings:
Exxon city durability cycle - 800 F
Exxon highway durability cycle - 1000 F
60 mph - steady state - 1200°F
The higher catalyst temperatures during the 60 mph preconditioning
purged the catalyst of sulfuric acid stored at lower temperatures. This
effect was not seen for the city versus highway durability cycle.
The first objective of the EPA test procedure program was to
determine how modified versus regular AMA mileage accumulation affected
sulfuric acid emissions. The second objective of the EPA test procedure
program was to determine how immediate preconditioning (FTP, FET, etc.)
affected sulfuric acid emissions over the sulfuric acid cycle.
EPA h,ad the following four labs participate in the test procedure
development program:
EPA-OMSAPC (Ann Arbor, Michigan)
EPA-ORD (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina)
Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, Texas)
Exxon Research and Engineering (Linden, New Jersey)
Each lab tested one of the following four pairs of matched 1975 cars:
11-11
-------
2 Fords, monolith catalyst with air injection
2 Chevrolets, pelleted catalyst without air
injection
2 AMC Hornets, pelleted catalyst with air
injection
2 Plymouth, monolith catalyst with no air
injection
The Fords were designed to be sold in all 50 states for 1975 and meet
both the 49 states (1.5 HC, 15.0 CO, 3.1 NOx) and California (0.9 HC,
9.0 CO, 2.0 NOx) standards. The other cars were designed for the 1975
Federal Standards.
Each pair of cars was tested on the following test sequence.
1) Run AMA to 4,000 miles
(regular AMA, 11 laps, 70 mph maximum
speed)
2) SEQUENCE A
Ann Arbor .road route - 1 hour
1 LA 4(hot start)
4 hot start emission tests (SET)*
Ann Arbor road route - 1 hour
Overnight soak
Federal test procedure (FTP)*
Fuel Economy Test (FET)*
Repeat 2) twice for a total of three sequences
3) Run 300 miles of modified AMA**
*HC, CO, NOx, sulfuric acid, and S02 measurements taken.
**55 MPH top speed, no wide open throttle accelerations.
11-12
-------
4) SEQUENCE B
Ann Arbor road route - 1 hour
1 LA-4 (hot start)
Overnight soak
FTP*
SET - 2 times*
FET*
Repeat 4, twice for a total of three sequences
5) Repeat 3)
6) SEQUENCE C
Ann Arbor road route - 1 hour
1 LA-4 (hot start)
Overnight soak
FTP*
FET*
SET - 2 times*
Repeat 6, twice for a total of three sequences
7) Run SET as many times as necessary until
a stable sulfuric acid emission value is
obtained.
8) Repeat 3)
In addition, Sequence A was run again with modified preconditioning for
the cars tested by EPA-OMSAPC and EPA-ORD.
*HC, CO, NOx, sulfuric acid, and 803 measurements taken.
**55 MPH top speed, no wide open throttle accelerations.
11-13
-------
The sulfuric acid emissions from the vehicles without air injection
were low, about 1 mgpm. The vehicles with air injection had much higher
sulfuric acid emissions, generally from 10 to 70 mgpm.
Summaries of the values obtained are given in Tables 1 through 8.
These numbers generally show the FTP to have lower sulfuric acid emissions
than either the sulfuric acid cycle or the FET. The FET was found to
have higher sulfuric acid emissions than the sulfuric cycle. It is not
currently known why the sulfuric acid cycle should give higher values
than the FTP but lower values than the FET. Possibly sulfuric acid is
stored more in the FTP, somewhat less over the sulfuric acid cycle, and
less yet (if at all) over the FET. However, other factors such as
kinetic limitations to the reaction at lower temperatures experienced in
the FTP could be significant.
These values also show that the sulfate values for the sulfate
cycles in sequence A are more variable than those in either sequence B
or C. This greater variability is probably caused by lack of specific
preconditioning since the Ann Arbor road route involves actual driving
in city traffic which is not reproducible from run to run. The one LA-4
cycle for preconditioning is apparently insufficient to assure reproducible
results. Also, supposedly identical cars (i.e. the two cars comprising a
matched pair) did not give identical sulfuric acid values.
The values in sequences B and C are essentially similar. These
numbers suggest that it does not seem to make any difference whether the
sulfuric acid cycle is preceded by an FTP or an FET. This finding is
encouraging since it allows EPA to place the sulfuric acid cycle after
either cycle in the certification process.. However, it must be noted
11-14
-------
Table 1 SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE FTP
Lab
EPA-A*
EPA-ORD
Exxon
SWRI
Vehicle
Catalyst
Granada Monolith
Monarch w/air
Impala Pellet
Chevelle w/o air
Ply I & II Monolith
wo/air
AMC 5 & 6 Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
HC
g/mile
.64
.08
12.82
.51
.09
17.21
.34
.18
48.62
.60
.14
23.00
CO
g/mile
6.64
.90
20.28
8.55
2.33
27.72
4.38
1.60
36.38
5.41
1.43
26.26
co2
g/mile
699.13
16.25
2.32
876.24
40.72
4.65
_
-
-
_
-
-
NOX
g/mile
1.29
.130
9.99
2.04
.45
25.60
2.83
.72
25.51
2.82
.68
24.35
S04
mg/mile
3.44
1.26
36.32
.44
.23
50.75
1.66
1.15
70.32
15.41
7.17
49.83
S02
mg/mile
-
-
31.00
6.25
20.15
161.62
28.75
17.79
68.09
65.59
96.32
MPG
12.52
.37
2.98
13.610
.146
8.74
-
-
-
-
-
I
I-1
Ln
-------
Table 2 SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE FET
Lab
EPA-A
EPA-ORD
Exxon
SWRI
Vehicle
Granada
Monarch
Chevelle
Impala
Ply. I &
II
AMC 5 &
6
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Pellet
wo /air
Monolith
wo/air
Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
HC
g/mile
.27
.03
11.83
.26
.14
53.94
.14
.056
39.43
.09
.02
24.40
CO
g/mile
1.20
.36
29.56
7.60
5.93
78.00
1.55
.98
63.55
.09
.09
104.4
C02
g/mile
512.96
12.85
2.51
636.56
51.41
8.08
_
-
-
_
-
-
NOX
g/mile
1.21
.121
10.05
2.33
1.26
54.20
3.69
1.36
36.94
2.65
.91
34.29
S04
mg/mile
34.11
17.77
52.1
.99
.82
83.11
1.43
1.14
76.58
73.54
30.45
41.40
S02
mg/mile
_
' -
.
117.17
22.68
19.35
147.69
38.29
25.93
43.43
14.78
34.03
MPG
17.22
.45
2.61
18.53
.26
1.38
_
-
_
-
-
M
.trl
I
-------
Table 3: SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE SETS IN SEQUENCE A
(SET PRECEDED BY ANN ARBOR ROAD ROUTE)
Lab
EPA-A2
EPA-ORD
Exxon
SWRI
Vehicle
Granada
& Monarch
Chevelle
& Impala
Ply. I & II
AMC 5 & 6
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Pellet
wo /air
Monolith
wo /air
Pellet
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var.
Mean
Std. Dey.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dey.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
HC
g/mile
.32
.03
10.58
.44
.27
62.45
.11
.07
62.32
.12
.02
14.56
CO
g/mile
1.53
.41
26.27
14.76
7.68
53.42
1.35
.89
68.55
.28
.18
61.42
C0?
g/mile
551.6
16.1
2.93
686.0
72.7
10.59
-
-
NOX
g/mile
1.36
.14
10760
1.98
.43
19.67
2.72
1.06
39.90
2.12
.14
6.53
S04
rag/mile
19.61
9.00
46.03
.53
.38
87.43
1.52
1.31
82.36
54.57
22.81
41.98
so2
rag /mile
':
106.33
43.47
40.58
126.98
33.97
26.44
66.57
15.51
24.10
MPG
15.99
.47
2.9
15.73
.51
3.24
-
-------
Table 4: SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE SETS IN SEQUENCE B
(SET PRECEDED BY FTP)
Lab Vehicle Catalyst
EPA-A2 Granada Monolith
Monarch w/air
EPA-ORD Chevelle Pellet
Impala wo/air
Exxon Ply I & II Monolith
wo/air
SWRI AMC 5 & 6 Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dey.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
HC
g/mile
.31
.02
5.6
.33
.13
39.84
.11
.05
42.58
.11
.02
16.4
CO
g/mile
1.94
.58
26.90
14.05
6.93
49.8
1.50
.69
46.69
.09
.06
66.95
co2
g/mile
562.85
11.7
2.05
676.9
49.91
7.37
_
-
_
-
-
NOX
g/mile
1.33
.13
9.35
2.06
.52
23.23
2.36
1.23
55.97
2.51
.38
14.60
SOA
mg/mile
25.00
12.00
49.1
.47
.26
47.42
.75
.63
88.24
41.35
8.45
21.00
so2
mg/mile
_
-
_
-
-
125.64
31.30
25.26
_
-
-
MPG
15.7
..34
2.15
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
M
I
oo
-------
Table 5: SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE SETS IN SEQUENCE C
(SET PRECEDED BY FET)
Lab
EPA-A2
EPA-ORD
Exxon
SWRI
Vehicle
Granada
Monarch
Chevelle
Impala
Ply. I & II
AMC 5 & 6
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Pellet
wo /air
Monolith
wo /air
Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
HC
g/mile
.30
.01
3.3
.40
.18
46.13
.10
.06
56.50
.1
.03
21.25
CO
g/mile
1.90
.31
16.15
16.27
6.66
39.62
.98
.47
45.52
.11
.08
54.50
co2
g/mile
564.55
11.05
2.05
723.9
66.9
9.24
-
^
-
NOX
g/mile
1.29
.08
5.7
2.34
.56
21.86
1.86
.85
46.38
2.37
.31
13.10
S04
rag/mile
18.15
5.5
30.50
.34
.16
43.27
.86
.49
64.27
39.35
13.15
32.75
S02
mg/mile
-
76.00
15.62
20.55
115.63
11.42
9.91
61.12
8.18
13.25
MPG
16.2
.34
2.1
14.53
.56
3.86
_
-
_
-
-
I
I-1
vO
-------
Table 6 -SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FOR SULFURIC ACID CYCLES
OVER SEQUENCE A (4 SETS, FTP, HFET)
Lab. Vehicle
EPA-A2 Granada
EPA- A2 Monarch
EPA-ORD Chevelle
EPA-ORD Impala
M Exxon Ply-I
M
O
Exxon Ply- I I
SWRI EM-5
SWRI EM-6
(AMC)
SWRI EM-5
(AMC)
SWRI EM-6
(AMC)
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Monolith
w/air
Pellet
w/o air
Pellet
w/o air
Monolith
w/o air
Monolith
w/o air
Pellet
w/air
Pellet
w/air
Pellet
w/air
Rellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var,%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
CF Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf.Yar.%.
HC
g/mile
.33
.03
10.10
.31
.03
11.05
.43
.33
76.94
.44
.21
.48
.12
.06
52.57
.10
.07
72. 07
.11
.02
14.73
.12
.02
14.39
.11
.02
14.73
.12
.02
14.39
CO
g/mile
1.42
.25
17.78
1.63
.57
34.76
10.15
6.94
63.38
19.36
8.41
43.46
1.54
.80
52.14
1.16
.98
84.95
.21
.09
43.55
.35
.27
79.28
.21
.09
43.55
.35
.27
79.23
C02 NOx S04
g/mile g/mile mg/mile
553.2 1.30
12.1 .19
2.9 14.56
550.0 1.41
20.1 .09
3.66 6.63
686.0 3.21
72.7 .72
10.59 22.34
.75
.13
17.00
3.41
1.21
35.47
2.03
.90
44.32
2.02
.10
4.75
2.22
.18
8.30
2.02
.10
4.75 -
.13
0.30
18.82
9.32
49.50
20.40
8.68
42.56
.21
.24
13.35
.84
.51
61.51
2.32
2.07
89.22
.72
.54
75.50
51.98
23.91
45.99
57.15
21.70
37.97
51.98
23.91
4.5.99
57.15
21.70
37.97
S02
mg/mile
-
-
-
106.33
43.47
40.88
105.93
25.99
24.53
148.03
41.95
28.34
75.40
13.63
18.08
57.73
17.38
40.11
75.40
13.63
18.06
57,73
17.38
30.11
MPG
15.93
.33
2.10
16.04
.60
3.71
15.73
.51
15.73
-
-
^
-------
Table 7 SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FOR SULFURIC ACID CYCLES
OVER SEQUENCE C (FTP.HFET, 2 SETS)
i
ts>
Lab.
EPA-A2
EPA-A2
EPA-ORD
EPA-ORD
Exxon
Exxon
SWRI
SWRI
Vehicle
Granada
Monarch
Chevelle
Impala
Ply-I
Ply-II
EM-5
(AMC)
EM-6
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Monolith
w/air
Pellet
w/o air
Pellet
w/o air
Monolith
w/o air
Monolith
w/o air
Pellet
w/air
Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf .Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var,
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var,
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var,
Mean .
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var,
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var. 2
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf.Var. %
HC
g/mile
.33
.01
2.70
.26
.01
3.80
.34
.17
49.85
.45
.19
42.41
.08
.03
41.28
.11
.08
71.71
.10
.02
', 15.00
.10
.03
37.50
CO
g/mile
1.85
.21
11.40
1.94
.40
20.90
10.27
3.71
36.10
22.26
9.60
43.14
.72
.28
38.34
1.23
.65
52.69
.16
.14
88.70
.05
.01
20.30
C02
g/mile
545.3
9.2
1.70
547.8
12.9
2.40
723.9
66.9
9.24
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
NOX
g/iaile
1.24
.06
4.60
1.33
.09
6.80
3.34
.90
26.99
1.33
.22
16.72
2.08
.79
38. U5
1.64
.90
54.70
2.33
.18
7.80
2.41
.44
18.40
S04
mg/mile
20.0
5.8 ..
29.1
16.3
5.2
31.90
.27
.10
36.10
.41
.21
50.43
.48
.40
82.07
1.23
.57
46.46
31.3
9.2
29.40
47.40
17.10
36.10
SO-
mg/mile
_
- .
-
-
-
-
-
76.00
15.62
20.55
116.49
6.50
5.58
114.77
16.34
14.23
67.04
10.06
15.00
55.20
6.30
11.50
MPG
16.2
. 27
1.70
16.1
.41
2.50
-
-
14.53
.56
3.86
-
-
-
-
-------
Table 8 SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FOR SULFURIC ACID CYCLES
OVER SEQUENCE B (FTP, 2 SETS, HFET)
I
N>
Lab
EPA-A2
EPA-A2
EPA-ORD
EPA-ORD
Exxon
Exxon
SWRI
SWRI
Vehicle
Granada
Monarch
Chevelle
Impala
Ply-I
Ply-II
EM-5
(AMC)
EM-6
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Monolith
Pellet
w/o air
Pellet
w/o air
Monolith
w/o air
Monolith
w/o air
Pellet
w/air
Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.%
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
HC
g/mile
.31
.01
2.60
.31
. .03
8.60
.32
.12
36.51
.33
.14
43.16
.12
.06
50.28
.10
.03
34.88
.11
.03
28.88
.10
.01
4.00
CO
g/mile
1.49
.19
13.00
2.38
.97
40.80
12.33
6.62
53.72
15.77
7.24
45.88
1.41
.80
56.68
1.58
.58
36.69
.12
.06
51.40
.06
.05
82.50
C02
g/mile
561.2
13.6
2.40
564.5
9.8
1.70
676.9
49.91
7.37
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
NOX
g/mile
1.43
.24
17 . 00
1.23
.02
1.70
3.34
.87
25.98
.78
.16
20.47
3.02
1.26
41.79
1.70
1.19
70.15
2.68
.60
22.60
2.33
.15
6.60
S04
mg/mile
29.4
12.4
42.0
20.60
11.60
56.20
.24
.08
33.56
.70
.43
61.27
.26
.24
94.79
1.23
1.01
81.69
31.0
7.2
23.2
51.7
9.7
18.8
S02 MPG
mg/mile
15.7
.38
2.4
15.6
.29
1.9
_ _
- -
-
_ _
-
- -
134.35
27.20
20.25
116.93
35.40
30.27
_ _
- -
- -
_.
_
-
-------
that the data are extremely variable and may mask any differences between
the three sequences.
Another finding from the limited data available is that sulfuric
acid emissions are similar for cars preconditioned with either the
regular or modified AMA. No statistically significant difference could
be found between the two preconditionings.
However, the variability of the sulfuric acid data are high and
greater than that found by EPA previously for HC, CO, and NOx over the
FTP. Previous EPA work (SAE Paper 741035) found the following coefficients
of variations for gaseous emissions over repetitive FTPs on a catalyst
car:
HC 10%
CO 15%
NOx 2%
C02 4%
The reasons for the higher variability of sulfuric acid data are not
known. It was thought that input emissions into the catalyst were not
stable. Tests were run by Exxon, Southwest, and EPA-ORD in which con-
tinuous traces of HC, CO, NOx, CO-, and sometimes 0- were taken upstream
of the catalyst. These emissions were found to be stable. Limited
f
tests were run by EPA-OMSAPC in which SO- was measured continuously
after the catalyst. These tests were done with an experimental second
derivative spectrophotometer which is just in the process of being
applied to automotive exhaust. The readings on this instrument are to
be considered only preliminary until more exhaustive work is done.
However, these readings showed that the instantaneous SO- emissions were
not as reproducible as were the other gaseous emissions. This work
11-23
-------
suggests that sulfuric acid storage and release on the catalyst may
cause poorer reproducibility. However, EPA feels the reproduclbllity of
the cycle is acceptable for use in certification.
Another area that must be mentioned is that values obtained on the
sulfuric acid cycle will frequently vary from one day to another. This
variation is frequently as great as 100%. Yet repeating the sulfuric
acid cycle on any given day can give stable values. For example, a Ford
Granada tested by EPA gave stable sulfuric acid values of about 20 mgpm
when tested one time and stable sulfate values of 12 mgpm when tested
another time. While the reasons for this are not known, it is possible
that the car itself is varying with time. This phenomenon is being
investigated.
The data shown in Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 exhibit variability
greater than would be expected from conventional gaseous emission tests.
The type of variability appears to depend on the emission control system.
The variability for the vehicles equipped with air injection is much
lower than the variability for the vehicles without air injection (w/o.air).
The reason for this could be that the vehicles equipped with air
(w/air) injection may have more repeatable oxygen levels in the exhaust.
A comparison of variability of the data'is shown in Table 9. Note that
the variability is reduced for all pollutants HC, CO, NOx and lUSO,.
The variability for CO exceeds the conventional test value by the
greatest amount, indicating that there may be reason to explore the CO
analyzer capability when operating with the high dilution rates typical ",
of sulfuric acid testing. It is also possible that the variability is
partly a function of emission levels and the cars emitting small quantities
of sulfuric acid show great variability.
11-24
-------
Table 9
Coefficient of Variation in Percent
for Gaseous and Sulfuric Acid Measurements
Data Set HC CO NOx H,
All Data
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
all cars
w/air
all cars
w/o air
32.4
39.2
26.1
31.8
12.0
52.8
46.3
52.4
47.6
38.9
42.0
50.6
22.2
19.2
25.8
21.8
10. 0
34.5
48.7
52.0
51.4
42.7
36.9
60.5
Conventional
Testing 10.0 15.0 2.0
BASELINE PROGRAM
EPA is currently running a sulfuric acid baseline emission program
on about 70 cars. This program is designed to provide emission factors
on current cars and to measure emissions on advanced prototypes. The
following categories of cars are being tested on this program.
(1) current non-catalyst cars
(2) catalyst vehicles designed for the following standards
HC CO NOx
1.5
1.5
0.9
0.4
0.4
15
15
9.0
3.4
9.0
3.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
11-25
-------
(3) advanced non-catalyst systems (stratified charge,
Diesel, lean burn, rotary)
(4) advanced catalyst concepts.
(5) fleet vehicles
Each catalyst car is being preconditioned on modified AMA for 500:-
1,000 miles with 0.03% sulfur fuel. The GM cars are being preconditioned
on both modified and regular AMA to give EPA more data on the effect of
these two preconditionings.
Each car is then being tested twice on the following sequence:
FTP
SC
SC
FET
SC
SC
Testing the car twice will give EPA information on the repeatability of
the cycle and what preconditioning is necessary for a retest. The use
of the FTP and FET before the sulfuric acid cycles will provide additional
information on preconditioning. The baseline program will be complete
. *
in late 1975. The preliminary baseline data which were available prior
to the completion of this report are included as Appendix V.
The data from the baseline program will enable EPA to properly
place the sulfuric acid cycle in the certification process (i.e. after
the FTP or FET).
11-26
-------
Table 9: PLACEMENT OF THE SULFURIC ACID CYCLE IN THE
CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE.
Current
LA-4 (PreCond)
i
to
12 hour soak (min)
Diurnal
FTP
Hot soak
Option 1
LA-4 (PreCond)
12 hours soak (min)
Diurnal
FTP
SC
Hot soak
HFET
SC
Option 2
Cold LA-4 (PreCond)
SC
HFET
SC
12 hour soak (min)
Diurnal
FTP
Hot soak
Option 3
12 hour soak (min.)
Cold LA-4 (PreCond)
HFET
12 hour soak (min)
Diurnal
FTP
Hot soak
-------
APPENDIX III
DETERMINATION OF SOLUBLE SULFATES IN CVS
DILUTED EXHAUSTS: AN AUTOMATED METHOD
-------
APPENDIX III
Determination of Soluble Sulfates in CVS
Diluted Exhausts: An Automated Method
The initial report that catalytic converters originally designed
to reduce hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from late model
automobiles also promote conversion of SO to SO or H0SO. mist
^ .3 ^ 4x *
prompted a crash program to find or develop a fast and sensitive
methodology for sulfates applicable to car exhausts. A number of
analytical procedures for sulfates are described in the literature.
Only a few of these, however, have the sensitivity sufficient to
detect soluble sulfates in auto exhaust samples conveniently col-
lectible within the time frame of the Federal Test Procedure.
The automated method described in this report is addressed
primarily to the determination of water-soluble sulfates in CVS
diluted exhausts from cars run on nonleaded fuels. The method is
quite general, however, and may be used for trace analysis of
sample sulfates which can be leached out with water or aqueous
alcoholic solutions.
The method, first developed elsewhere (1), is based on the re-
action of sulfate ions with the solid barium salt of chloranilic acid
(2,5 dichloro-3, 6-dihydroxy-p-benzoquinone). The reactor precipitates
out BaSO and releases highly uv absorbing acid chloranilate ions, the
absorbance of which can be measured with a suitable spectrophotometer
and related to sulfate concentration. The sensitivity of the method is
greatly enhanced by conducting the reaction in a medium less polar than
water, such as ethanol-water or isopropanol-water mixtures, where the
III-l
-------
solubilities of both BaSO. and barium chloranilate are reduced.
The barium chloranilate method is estimated to have a limiting
sensitivity for SCK to concentration levels of 0.06 yg/ml (2).
Cations are known to interfere negatively by reacting with the
*
acid chloranilate to form insoluble salts. This interference is
easily removed by passing the sample through a column of cation
exchange resin in the hydrogen form. Anions such as Cl , Br , F ,
and PO interfere by precipitating out as barium salts with sub-
sequent release of acid chloranilate ions. Some buffer systems are
reported to minimize these anion interferences (3,5). For.exhaust
samples from cars run on nonleaded fuel, ionic interference was observed
to be negligible when filtration on Teflon filters was used as a sample
collection technique.
Sampling and Sample Preparation
Sampling methodology involves dilution of the auto exhaust with
air in a dilution tunnel. At the temperature the tunnel is operated,
SO reacts readily with the available moisture in the exhaust to form
H SO mist. The acid aerosols are sampled through isbkinetic probes
and collected on 47 mm diameter 1 y pore size Fluoropore* filters at
flow rates of 28.3 liters per .minute. The filters are extracted,
preferably ovemiahi, with 10 ml of 60/40 isopropanol/H_O solution
(60% IPA) in capped polyethylene bottles. Initial agitation until the
filters collapse and completely submerge in the extracting solvent is
III-2
-------
conveniently accomplished by using a vortex test tube mixer. The
supernatant extract can be analyzed directly in the automated sulfate
instrument without further treatment.
The Automated Sulfate Instrument
A schematic of the principal components of the automated set-up
is -shown in Figure 1. Hardware requirements include:
a. Reservoir (LR) for the solvent mobile phase (60% IPA).
b. High pressure liquid pump (LP) capable of delivering liquids
at flow rates of up to 3 ml/min at.pressures as high as 1000
psi. Most liquid pumps used in high pressure liquid chroma-
tography would be satisfactory.
c. Flow or pressure controller (FC).
d. Six-port high pressure switching valve (SV) equipped with
interchangeable external loop (L).
e. Ultraviolet detector (D) equipped with appropriate filters
or monochromator to isolate a narrow band of radiation
centered at 310 nm.
f. Recorder to monitor detector response.
g. Automatic sampler (AS), such as the one used in a Technicon
AutoAnalyzer set-up.
h. Peristaltic pump (PP), such as a Technicon proportioning pump,
. to draw sample into the sampling loop.
III-3
-------
i. Cation exchange resin column (CX) - standard 1/4" O.D. x 10"
gas chromatographic stainless steel column packed with
analytical grade Dowex 50W-X2 (100-200 mesh) cation exchange
resin in the hydrogen form.
j. Barium chloranilate column (BC) - standard 1/4" O.D. x 5"
*
gas chromatographic stainless steel column packed with barium
chloranilate suitable for sulfate analysis.
The operating principle of the automated instrument may be
briefly described as follows:
Solvent mobile phase (60% IPA) in reservoir (LR) is continuously
fed through cation exchange (CX) and barium chloranilate (BC) columns
at flow rates of about 3 ml/min by a high pressure liquid >pump (LP).
Background absorbance is continuously measured by a UV detector (D)
at 310 nm and visually monitored in a strip chart recorder. A solenoid
actuated, air operated switching valve (SV) is used for filling the
external sampling loop (L) with samples in conjunction with an automatic
sampler'(AS) and peristaltic pump (PP) and injecting the samples into
the columns. At CX cations are removed and at BC color reaction takes
place. The BaSO precipitate is retained in BC while the acid chlor-
anilate is carried by the mobile phase through the detector system for
colorimetric measurement.
For an automated sampling system such as shown in Figure 1, both
SV and PP are electrically coupled to AS and controlled by electric
timer relays such that both are activated whenever AS is sampling
III-4 .
-------
(i.e. L is being filled and mobile phase bypasses L). At the end of
the sampling cycle, PP and AS stop and SV switches to the injection
mode (i.e. mobile phase passes through L and carries the sample through
CX and BC columns).
For manual operation, SV may be retained or replaced by a
similar switching valve equipped with an extended handle for manual
switching. Samples may be introduced into .the sampling loop by syringe
injection or by peristaltic pump system similar to the one used in the
automated version.
The automatic sampler (AS) used'in our system is a Technicon
AutoAnalyzer sampler with turntable capacity of 40 sample cuvettes.
The cam programmer was replaced by two digital timers to allow flexi-
bility in setting cycle times for the sampling-rinse operations.
Analytical Operation
Before the start of an analytical run, all components are switched
to the operating mode, and SV, AS, and PP are allowed to cycle normally
to clean out all components. During this time the sampling probe is
immersed in a large reservoir of 60% IPA to prevent introduction of
air into the-system. Once a stable background absorbance is obtained,
analysis of the samples proceeds. Sample cuvettes are filled with
sample extracts and blank solutions (60% IPA) and then covered with
thin polyethylene film to prevent evaporation losses. The filled
cuvettes are arranged in the turntable according to the pattern blank,
III-5
-------
blank, sample, blank, blank for concentrated samples and blank, samplq
blank for dilute samples. Blanks are used to wash out the system
between samples and minimize sample overlap. Depending on the size
of the sampling loop and the mobile phase flow rate, cycle time can
* ''"'',
vary from 2.5 to 6 minutes per sample or blank. Analysis begins as
soon as the sampling probe is returned to its normal position.
Calculation
A series of sulfuric acid standards in 60% IPA is normally run
in the same manner as the samples, and a calibration curve, peak
height vs. concentration, is plotted. Sample sulfate concentrations
are calculated from the calibration curve. Total soluble -sulfates ;
in the filter [SO~] are calculated using the relation:
[S0^]p = (yg SO^/ml) x VQ x d
where: V = total volume of original sample extract
o .- ...
d = dilution factor
= 1 if original sample extract was not diluted
to bring detector response within range of
of the calibration curve
Discussion
The solubilities of barium chloranilate and BaSO vary with
the isopropanol/water ratio in the mobile phase. A momentary imbalance
in this ratio as a result of injection of a slug of sample or blank
gives a negative background response if the injected slug is richer
in isopropanol than the mobile phase, and a positive response if it
III-6
-------
is richer in water. To minimize this effect, we recommend that
both the extracting solvent and the mobile phase for the analytical
runs be taken from the same stock solution.
In order to determine the maximum absorbance of the acid
chloranilate ions as they elute out of the barium chloranilate
column of the automated system, the colored eluates corresponding
to sulfate concentrations in the range 0-30 vg/ml were collected
and scanned in a Gary 14 spectrophotometer. In this concentration
range, peak maximum was observed at 310 nm. This corresponds to
the isobestic point.reported by Schafer (3). .
For isopropanol-water system, the volume of the mixture is not
equal to the sum of original volumes of the individual components.
In the case of a 60/40 isopropanol/water mixture, volume shrinkage
on mixing is about 2.7%. This volume change should be taken into
account when preparing standards or samples from aqueous solutions.
The working concentration range and sensitivity of the automated
system depend on sample size. A degraded sensitivity better than
0.5 pg S0~ per ml in 60% IPA was easily obtained using a 0.5 ml
external sampling loop in conjunction with a duPont liquid chroma-
tograph UV detector. Figure 2 shows a calibration run in the range
C5
0-5-yg SO./ml using a 0.5 ml sampling loop with detector sensitivity
set at 0.02 absorbance units full scale. The last two peaks, 4048
and 4049, correspond to exhaust samples from noncatalyst cars. Testing
mode was the Federal Test Procedure. The calibration curve is non-
III-7
-------
linear with concentration and becomes flatter at the low concentration
end. This is strongly suggestive of interplay of thermodynamic and
kinetic effects. Similar behavior was likewise observed at the high
concentration end.
*
Reproducibility of repetitive measurements is quite good. Table
I shows the precision obtained for five repetitive scans of sulfate
standards at concentrations of 1, 2, and 4 yg/ml. A 0.5 ml sampling
loop was used. , ''
.Two experiments were conducted to determine the extractability
of sulfuric acid from and absorption in Fluoropore filters. In the
first of these, known amounts of sulfuric acid in 60% IPA .were
deposited on the filters and allowed to dry overnight. The filters
were then extracted with 60% IPA and analysis of t'he liquid after
the filters equilibrated with the solution overnight. The results
show that extraction is quantitative and that the filter has practi-
cally no affinity for the solute. These results are summarized in
Tables II and III.
Table IV shows the efficacy of the collection technique for
trapping sulfuric acid aerosols. The aerosols were generated using
a Collison aerosol generator, and then fed into the CVS dilution
tunnel under conditions simulating a test run. The aerosols were
collected through isokinetic probes.and collected on Fluoropore
filters. The back-up glass fiber filters used in these runs did not
gain measurable weights, indicating no significant breakthrough of
III-8
-------
the collected particulate from the primary collecting filters.
Figure 3 shows a typical analytical scan of extracts from exhaust
samples from cars run on nonleaded fuel. The first five peaks are
sample peaks, while the next six are calibration peaks corresponding
to concentration range 0-6 yg SO /ml. As a general rule, calibration
runs are always made for each series of samples, ad peak height-concen-
tration relation may change as flow rate, back pressure, and column
permeability vary over an extended period. This practice may be
dispensed with for systems equipped with integrators.
Table V shows typical results of analysis for soluble sulfates
of nonleaded exhaust samples collected on Fluoropore filters using
the Federal Test Procedure. The low sulfate results correspond to
i
test runs with noncatalyst cars and the high results to test runs with
catalyst equipped cars.
A few filter samples were analyzed sequentially by x-ray . :
fluorescence technique and by the barium chloranilate method. The
filters were first analyzed by x-ray fluorescence, then extracted
with 60% IPA and analyzed for sulfate in the automated instrument.
The results are summarized in Table VI.. Considering the fact that
sample handling .techniques were not closely monitored, agreement
between the two methods is encouraging.
III-9
-------
Conclusion
The automated method described in this report offers a sensitive
(less than 0.5,ug SO per ml), fast (less than four minutes throughput
tine from initial sample injection into the column), and convenient
.*
method for the analysis of soluble sulfates in auto exhaust. Sample
preparation is minimal, as this involves only simple extraction with
60% IPA. There are no precipitates to cause deterioration of the
optical cell, as the BaSO precipitate is effectively retained in .
the barium chloranilate reactor column. Although primarily addressed
to trace sulfate analysis of auto exhausts from cars run on nonleaded
fuels, the method may be adapted to any sulfate sample which can be
leached out with water or aqueous alcoholic solution.
111-10
-------
Table I
Precision of Repetitive Measurements
Peak Height
[SO°J in yg/ml 1 24
4 """ "*
9.7 . 21.2 47.8
9.9 20.4 48.8
9.6 . 21.2 49.5
10.2 20.3 48.6
8.8 21.2 49.0
Mean 9.6 20.9 48.7
Standard Deviation ±0.5 ±0.5 ±0.6
Coefficient of 5.2 2.4 1.2
Variation
111-11
-------
Table II
Recovery of Deposited H SO on Fluoropore
Filters by Extraction with 60% IPA
Total pgs SO on Filter
Deposited Found
10 10
20 20.5
30 30
40 40.5
50 50
60 60
169 172
338 350
507 494
111-12
-------
Table III
Absorption of H SO in 60% IPA by Fluoropore Filters
Total ygs SO in Solution
Initial Final
10 10.5
20 20
40 40.8
60 61.2
200 205
400 392
111-13
-------
Table IV
Collection of Generated H S04 Aerosols
Fed into the CVS Dilution Tunnel
Sample #
4001-3
4002-4
4003-2
4004-1
4005-3
4006-3
4007-1
4008-2
Mass Loading
in ygs
956
1791
1076
1323
2403
296
468
21181
Total SO on
Filter in ygs
350
664
390
217
856
115
197
8438
% SO on
Filter
36.6
37.1
36.2
16.4
35.6
38.8
42.2
39.8
111-14
-------
Table V
Typical Results of Sulfate Analysis of Nonleaded
Exhaust Samples Collected on F.luoropore Filters
Mass Loading
Sample #
4034-1
*
4035-3
4036-3
4037-3
4038-3
4039-3
4076-3
4079-3
4080-3
4084-3
4087-3
in ygs
415
271
252
151
120
287
232
308
430
506
765
Total SO
in ygs
20
15.5
16.7
11
10.8
10.5
84
106
192
241
316
% SO as %
Mass Loading
4.8
5.6
6.6
7.3
9.0
3.3
36.2
34.4
44.6
47.6
41.3
111-15
-------
Table VI
Soluble Sulfatg Analysis: Preliminary Comparison of
X-Ray Fluorescence and Barium Chloranilate Method (BCM)
rs
Total SO on Filters in yg
Sample #
4006
4007
4014
4017
4023
4032
4036
4038
4039
4050
Mass
Loading
459
379
358
285
390
1065
224
84
250
390
X-Ray Fluorescence
Low Resolution High Resolution
208
184
143 '- .
37
142 . -
296
12.8
17.0
- 12.4
18.0
BCM
219
173
156
44
113
245
9.8
7.8
9.8
13.7
Ratio
X-rRay/BCM
.0.950
1.064
.917
.841
1.256
1.208
1.306
2.179
1.265
1.314
111-16
-------
References
1. Bertolacini, R. J. and Barney, J. E., "Colorimetric Determination
of Sulfate with Barium Chloranilate," Anal. Chem. 29, 281 (1957).
2. Ibid, "Ultraviolet Spectrophotometric Determination of Sulfate,
Chloride, and Fluoride with Chloranilic Acid," Anal. Chem. 30,
202 (1958).
3. Schafer, H. N. S., "An Improved Spectrophotometric Method for the
Determination of Sulfate with Barium Chloranilate as Applied to
Coal Ash and Related Materials," Anal. Chem. 39, 1719 (1967).
4. Barton, S. C. and McAdie, H. G., "An Automated Instrument for
Monitoring Ambient H SO Aerosol," In Proceedings of the Third
International Clean Air Congress, Dusseldorf, Federal Republic of
Germany, 1973, VDI-Verlag Gmb H, 1973, p. C25.
5. Gales, M. E., Jr., Kaylor, W. H. and Longbottom, J. E., "Determination
of Sulphate by Automatic Colorimetric Analysis," Analyst 93, 97 (1968)
111-17
-------
FIGURE 1
FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR AUTOMATED SULFATE INSTRUMENT
RECORDER
LR
oo
O O O AS
TO WASTE
TO WASTE
-------
Figure 1
Flow Schematic for Automated Sulfate Instrument
LR - Liquid reservoir
LP - High pressure liquid pump
FC - Flow or pressure controller
P - Pressure monitor
SV - High pressure switching valve
Jj - External sampling loop
CX - Cation exchange resin column
BC - Barium chloranilate column
D - UV detector
FM - Flow monitor
AS - Automatic sampler
PP - Peristaltic pump
111-19
-------
5.0
CO
ce
o
"
oa
M
M
I
N3
O
1
0.002 ABSORBANCE UNITS
4.0
0.5
4049
-------
Figure 2
Sulfate calibration for concentration range 0-5 yg SO.
per ml in 60% IPA. 4048 and 4049 are exhaust samples
from a car not equipped with catalyst.
111-21
-------
i
S3
NJ
0.002 ABSORBANCE UNITS
-------
APPENDIX IV
NON-REGULATED EMISSIONS FROM
LIGHT-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
-------
Non-Regulated Emissions From
Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
John B. Moran
Director, Catalyst Research Program
Criteria and Special Studies Office
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 1975
IV-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
The statutory light-duty vehicle emission standards for hydrocarbons
(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NO ) embodied within
A
the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments and concern regarding the public health
consequences of emissions resulting from the use of lead additives in gaso-
line have been, until recently, the principal motivating forces which have
influenced the research efforts by both the EPA and industry with regard
to emissions characterization.
The effect of fuel composition, fuel additives, engine parameters,
and post-combustion emissions control devices on regulated emissions
(HC, CO, and NO ) has constituted the bulk of the emissions characterize-
A
tion effort with the internal combustion engine (ICE) which has been the
basic automotive powerplant for the past several decades. The fact that
the hydrocarbon emissions standards were based, not upon direct public
health effects of hydrocarbons, but rather upon the role hydrocarbons play
in atmospheric reactions to form oxidants resulted in substantial effort
to characterize the individual hydrocarbon species emitted and to further
define their "reactivity." The Congressional concern about lead in
gasoline, which surfaced in the 1960's, caused the first real effort to
examine non-regulated emission products from automotive engines. This
resulted in programs which provided emissions characterization of exhaust
particulates and exhaust lead compounds. These studies were expanded in
the late 1960's to examine the effect of fuel composition, particularly
increased aromatic content which is required to achieve equivalent octane
quality when lead is removed from the fuel, on exhaust particulate, polynu-
clear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA's), and phenols.
IV-2
-------
Section 211 of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments permits the
EPA to restrict or prohibit the use of fuels or additives whose emission
products endanger the public health or welfare or significantly impair
the performance of emissions control devices. As a result, the EPA
undertook major research programs to examine the effect of fuel composition
and fuel additives on a broad range of emission products, both regulated
and non-regulated. While these programs have focused principally upon
gasoline-fueled light-duty ICE-powered vehicles, the exhaust generation,
collection, and analysis techniques developed have begun to be applied
to other powerplants, principally, the diesel engine. These programs have
focused upon both regulated emissions (HC, CO, and NO ) and these non-regu-
X
lated emissions products: individual hydrocarbon species, PNA's, parti-
culates, organic particulates, lead compounds, aldehydes, oxygenates,
phenols, trace metals, sulfur compounds, and nitrogen compounds. The latter
two general classes of emission products are only now beginning to be
capable of analysis.
As a result of the initial thrust of these efforts, the ICE is
currently the best characterized engine with regard to exhaust products.
This is not to say that such engines have been fully characterized, as
is evident from the recent concerns regarding the potential emission of
ethylenedibromide (EDB), recently discovered to be a carcinogen. Only
one very limited study has sought to determine the form of halogen
emissions from ICE's burning leaded gasoline. Nonetheless, the ICE
IV-3
-------
characterization data base must serve as the benchmark against which to
judge the public health trade-offs associated with non-regulated emission
products from advanced emission-controlled ICE's, alternate ICE power-
plants, alternate fuels, and new fuel additives. At this time, only a
qualitative comparison can be drawn, principally due to the critical
lack of emissions characterization data from advanced emission-controlled
ICE's and alternate engines.
Table 1 presents this qualitative comparison of non-regulated
emissions, known or estimated, for advanced emission-controlled ICE's
and the diesel, rotary, Sterling, Rarikine, and turbine alternate power-
plants. The basic ICE serves as the basis for comparison. Table 2
summarizes the toxicological properties of many of the identified non-
regulated pollutants while Table 3 presents specific compound identifi-
cations for the PNA, phenol, and aldehyde groups of compounds identified
in ICE exhaust.
CATALYSTS
The use of oxidation catalysts has resulted in significant decreases
in the emissions of HC and CO and of many non-regulated pollutants of
public health concern (PNA's, aldehydes, pheonls). Because these systems
require the use of unleaded fuel, lead particulate emissions from vehicles
so equipped have essentially been eliminated. In addition, because of the
reaction characteristics of the catalytic process, the higher molecular
weight hydrocarbons are disproportionately decreased resulting in the emission
-------
of lower molecular weight, less reactive, hydrocarbons. However, use of
oxidation catalysts has also resulted in a significant increase in the
emissions of an oxidized sulfur compound, sulfuric acid, to the extent
that the principal exhaust particulate species from catalyst-equipped
vehicles is sulfuric acid and the related bound water.
Reduced forms of sulfur, hLS principally with traces of COS and
CSp, have been identified when such catalysts are operated under reducing,
(fuel rich) conditions. While fairly well characterized when operating
within design limits, oxidation catalyst-equipped vehicles have not been
well characterized outside of the design limits, although such operation
may occur in the hands of the consuming public.
Noble metal (platinum, principally) attrition products from catalysts,
earlier identified from prototype systems, now appear to be undetectable
in particulate smaller than 10 microns. Larger particulate attrition
i
products do, however, contain measurable quantities of such metals.
Because of the severe lack of toxicological data available and because
platinum has been shown to methylate, EPA is conducting extensive toxico-
logical programs to assess the potential of public health risk associa-
ted with platinum exposures.
Dual catalysts and three-way catalysts might generally be expected
to generate non-regulated emission products similar to those from oxida-
tion catalysts, although in differing quantities. However, qualitative
differences could result either from the more stringent reducing condi-
tions associated with the NO reduction catalyst of the dual catalyst
X
IV-5
-------
system, or from attrition products if non-noble metal catalysts are
used. The potential for new or higher emission rates of rion-regulated
pollutants than from oxidation catalysts cannot be dismissed, however,
particularly when such systems operate outside design limits. Such
systems have not been well characterized, even when operating properly,
let alone when operating outside limit targets.
Lean burn and stratified charge engines, when operated with gaso-
line, appear basically to emit both regulated and non-regulated pollutants
which one would expect from a clean combusting ICE with the possible
exceptions of increased aldehydes, oxygenates, and oxidized sulfur
compounds due to their lean (excess oxygen) combustion characteristics.
These systems have been poorly characterized, however. Stratified charge
engines using heavier fuels (diesel, distillate, etc.), while equally
poorly characterized, would be expected to emit higher levels of sulfur
compounds, trace metals, particulates, PNA's, and organic particulates
than would be expected from the gasoline-fueled stratified charge engine
due to the less well refined characteristics of the fuel.
Diesel and rotary engines are used in small numbers in the current
light-duty fleet. The current rotary has, before exhaust after-treatment,
much higher HC and CO emissions than the ICE. Current rotaries emit
higher PNA's, organics, and trace metals than current ICE's due to
higher oil consumption. Future rotaries may well solve this problem,
which is necessary for increased fuel economy also. Rotary engine
emissions, in general, are not significantly different than those from
the basic ICE when one excludes the oil combustion effects. The diesel,
iv-6
-------
quite apart from the spark-ignition ICE, is a compression-ignition
engine which burns a much less highly refined fuel than gasoline. As a .
result, non-regulated pollutants are quite different than those from
an ICE. High particulate (mostly carbon), odor, SO,,, PNA's, organic
paniculate* and aldehydes are known. Sulfate emissions are higher than
from the ICE due to a 10-fold higher sulfur level in the fuel (the
percent of S converted to SO, is the same, however, approximately 1%).
Diesels have not been well characterized but such work is currently
under way by EPA. If major use of diesels is considered, pollutants quite
different than those from ICE's may be considered for control (particu-
lates, aldehydes, odor).
Sterling, Rankine, and turbine engines, while only in the early
stages of development, are continuous combustion devices quite apart
from the intermittent combustion devices discussed above. As a result,
HC and CO emissions can be quite low. Non-regulated pollutants have not
been characterized. However, one would expect changes in emission products
associated with the fuel composition such as S02, sulfates, PNA's,
particulate, organic particulate, and trace metals if heavier fuels were
used. High nickel emissions (a carcinogen) have been reported from one
developmental turbine.
DISCUSSION
While the current ICE is reasonably well characterized, we are only
now gaining the analytical capability to more fully examine detailed
IV-7
-------
non-regulated emissions of potential public health concern. This is
particularly true in the general areas of sulfur and nitrogen compounds.
The identification of a "new," toxic emission product resulting from the
use of a new fuel additive, emission control device, or alternate engine
would permit a fairly straight-forward appraisal of potential public
health risk. Unfortunately, this is rarely, if ever, the real-world
situation. Emissions from mobile sources are immensely complex, contain
hundreds of compounds, and are affected by many parameters. PNA's offer
an example. PNA emissions increase with increased fuel aromatics, yet
the application of oxidation catalyst technology to achieve reduced
regulated emissions has resulted in a dramatic related decrease in PNA
emissions even when using lead-free higher aromatic content fuels. If
we are concerned about the public health consequences of PNA exposures,
as we indeed are, the result is a net benefit even though catalyst-
equipped vehicles emit higher levels of PNA's with a higher aromatic
fuel than would be the case with a lower aromatic fuel.
Sulfuric acid from catalyst-equipped vehicles poses a similar
dilemma. Catalyst technology results in decreased human exposures to CO
and oxidants. Yet, while the potential exposure to sulfates from all
the sulfur in gasoline is only about 1% of- the national ambient air
burden, the high traffic density localized exposure to directly emitted
sulfates from catalyst may well exceed the general ambient levels by
several fold. Thus, we must., in the future, be concerned not only with
area-wide exposures to automotive-generated pollutants but also to the
localized exposures on and near major concentrations of vehicles.
iv-8
-------
The EPA currently has a number of programs under way to permit such
localized and area exposure assessments in the future. In addition, we
have undertaken major programs to develop and expand our capability to
measure both regulated and non-regulated emissions and to ascertain the
impact of fuels, fuel additives, emission control devices, and alternate-
power systems on such emissions. These studies will be focusing not
only upon the details of emission products from the ideally operating
systems, but on the effects of non-design operation, such as may occur
in the hands of the consuming public, on these emissions. At the present
time, however, the qualitative comparisons presented in Table 1 are the
best that can be put forth, with the essential understanding that the
bulk of our knowledge is associated only with systems 1A and IB and is
essentially void for the other systems considered.
IV-9
-------
Knowp/EstlrJtoil Uon-Ki'julated l-.is^ijvis. of. Pul'ljc HoaHh Com ern
from Current .\nd AJvancod I mission l'ontrol_SySttv:s_ iijkl l.njines
Enoino/System
1. ICE (Otto Cycle)
A. pre-1975
B. Oxidation
Catalyst
C. Dual Catalyst
D. 3-Way Catalyst
E. Thermal Keactor
F. Lean Burn
G. Stratified
Charge
2. Diesel
3. Rotary
1. Sterling
5. Ranking
6. Turbine
Current Status
principal current engine
v 85" of 1975 vehicles
so equipped
under development.
under development
used on snjll number 1974-
1975 vehicles, may be used
with catalyst systems in
future
Possible in the
near future -- under
development
foreign model in production
in 1975 -- development
advancing
current medium and heavy duty
engine, limited light duly --
light duty under development
currently used, small percen-
tage of fleet -- uses thermal
reactor fo"- IIC, CO control
long range possibility
long range possibility
loi.y range possibility
Known/Potriiti.il Hon-ReguUlcd Emissions (See Table 2 for Compound Idrntif ication)
Unburned hydrocarbons, CO, NO, and NO., are limited by emission standards. Ovor a hundred
individual gaseous hydrocarbons have toon Identified. Non-rcqulatod omissions inclu,;..1
PNA's, part ic.ul.itos. organic carbon nv.:;'ounds . lead compounds, nitry>ji:n coi.-poumls (nu'luM
HCii) , halonon coi';pounds (from load scavcnyers) , sulfur compounds, ,il Ji'liydcs, oxygen nos,
phenols, and trace metals. liest emission cluiracterUation of all engines. Basic, co: .;>.i ra-
il ve reference for other engines/systems. (Principal particulate emitted is lead cw-i'C.'urc-.
Same general products as with 1A except it much lower levels for hydrocarbons, CO,5
PIIA's, or'ianic carbon parlicul.iti;, lead compounds (unleaded tuel matured), a 'idenyou? ,
oxygenates, and phenols, nitrogen compounds apparently unchanged from 1A. Increased
emission rale of H?SO,i (sulfuric acid). Trace metals unchanged with passible exception
of large particulate (>HV.. ) noble i.-.otals and catalyst support matorial (alumina)
Principal (-articulate emission product is hydra ted sulfuric acid. Use of
air injection increases sulfuric acid emission. Reduced forms of sulfur (COS, CS~, H,S)
identified when catalyst operated under reducing conditions (fuel rich carl;uretion).
In general, as 1C plus 11113 if operated under severe reducing conditions without a'dcquate
post-oxidation. Sulfuric acid i.'jy still be enittpd due to air injection between front
reducing catalyst and aft oxidizing catalyst. Increased trace i.Mlal en-.issions reporu-d
(nickel) with non-noble metal systems. Poorly characterized to date.
Very low emission rates of both regulated (IIC, CO, HO ) and non-regulated emission
products if system can be maintained at required narrow air-fuel ratio over full
engine operating range. Technology and durability a problem at present. Lean
excursion -- sulfuric acid likely. Rich excursions -- H.S, COS,TS?, HCN possible.
Catalyst attrition products as particulate possible. Poorly characterized to date.
Same relative emissions as 1A ocspt at reduced levels. Trace nictal emissions may '.«
slightly higher. Leaded fuel '.isc-d with non-catalyst systems, thus lef.d compounds art
emitted. Better characterization data than for 1C or 10, but less than 1A arid 1U.
Some relative emissions as 1ft except at reduced levels if ured without catalysts alt.k"fj!i
lead compounds would be emitted if leaded fuel used. Possible increase in oxidized
sulfur compounds, aldehydes, and oxygenates. As IB if catalyst used with lean burn
approach. Poorly characterized at present. '
Same as 1A but at reduced levels when gasoline-fueled and without catalyst. Lead
compounds emitted if leaded fuel used. Possible increase in oxidized sulfur compounds,
aldehydes, and oxygenates. Heavier fuels (distillate, die:el, turbine) result in
increased particulate and smoke and possibly PIJA's, organic particulate, and aldehydes
over 1574 lA's. Poorly characterized. Likely as IB if catalyst treatment employed also.
High particulate (principally carbon), smoke, and odor known. Aldehydes and, likely,
PIIA's higher than IB but likely lower than uncontrolled (pre-1568) 1A. Oxidized
sulfur compounds higher than 1A due to high sulfur levels in dicsel fuels relative to
gasoline. Similarly, trace metal emissions are higher than 1A. Organic particulate
emissions My be higher for certain diesel configurations. Poorly characterized but
studies underway.
Basically same emissions as 1A with higher PIIA's, organic particulates, and trace metals
due to current high oil consumption rate. Poorly characterized. Hay approach IB if
oxidation catalyst coupled to engine to achieve reduced HC/CO targets.
Very low regulated and non-regulated emissions due to continuous combustion process. !.tf.'d (ruli.live to iA) except ar. may result from fuel used: i.i-..
Increased sulfur compound:., I'llA's, organic p.irt.iculatn, and trace metals if a hiMVirr,'
dirtier fuel Ui.m <|ainlim: is used, ilot ch.n jctcrized for noii-rcrjiiUled mission'., ri:
nickel taii-.sions reported from one developmental regenerative aulbMOtivu turln'm..
IV-10
-------
TABLT. Z
rt Refill a tc.J Em_s_s_ions_ p£ P>iJJlc_Jle_a_l_t!j_Co])Coni_
Compound
! t ('M.itinuni)
l\1 (I'jlladium)
i'> (Kirxlium)
i -.1 (Ruthenium)
\ :'»'; (Polynuclcar
/n.i:..U1c Hydrocarbons)
hionols
Aldehydes /Oxygenates
Irar.c Mstals
lead
lijSO^ (Sulfuric Acid)
lij.5 (Hydrogen Sulfide)
COS (Carbonyl Sulfido)
CSp (Carbon Disulfide)
I!CK (Hydrogen Cyanide)
HH3 (Ami.ionia)
Brie LJ^l^Jili!J?.l.-lIic-lfi!ISl!I!d.
Toxicological Concern
Methylation of platinum compounds occurs. Body does absorh and distribute metallic and several soluble and insoluLU.
compounds. Metal allergen. Toxic at high concentrations. 1LV is2i.g/m (soluble form, as Pt).
Is toxic at high concentrations. May act as cardiac irritant, liot believed an allergen or respiratory irritant as
Pt. Little data available. No TLV.
Meager data. TLV 100 ,,g/n as metal, 1 |,g/m as soluble salt. Possible ajj[ergenic effects. '
No data available. No TLV.
Over 30 emitted from ICE. Several known to be carcinogenic.
Several arc emitted. In genera 1, this class of materials is toxic, irritates the eyes, nose, and throat and can 1...-.I
to chronic poisoning. Impact lungs, heart, liver, and kidney. TLV's for specific phenols., ranqe from 100 iiy/n/ 10
19,000 i.g/inj., of these identified in exhaust (Table 3) TLV ranges from 19,000-22,000 ;>g/mj.
Reactive organic materials. Many are present in auto exhaust. Generally primary irritation to skin, eyes, an;l
respiutory tract.
Over 20 emitted from engines. Usually, very low concentrations. Some, such as nickel, are carcinogenic. Othi.-rs,
such as iron oxide, appear to act as PNA cancer potentiators.
Toxic to humans. EPA has published lead in gasoline regulations. TLV 150 vg/m (as inorganic lead).
/"
Respiratory irritant. One of the most irritating of the sulfate compounds. Limited human clinical studies.
TLV 1000 wg/n.
At low concentrations (50 ppm) respiratory irritant. At high concentrations (over 500 ppm) lethal systemic
poison. TLV 10 ppm (10,000 iig/m ).
Very reactive toxic gas. Central nervous system poison. One case reported lethality at 8 ppm after about an hour
exposure. No 1LV. (USSK: TLV 3.3 ppm, amhient air 3.3 ppb)
Toxic vapor which affects the central nervous system. Chronic effects reported. TLV 20 ppm (60,000 ug/m ) with
little, if any, safety margin. Cardiovascular and neurological effects have been noted from chronic exposures
approaching 10 ppm.
Lethal gas. Iircnediattly fatal at 270 ppm. Principally an acute poison. There are a few reports of chronic effo; t:..
TLV 10 ppm (ll,000..g/nij)
Gas irritating to eyes and respiratory system. Reports of temporary blindness and intolerable Irritation at high
concentrations. TLV 25 ppm (18,000 ug/m )..
Ste Table 3 for identified emission products.
Reference: TLV's. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in Workroom Air Adopted by the American Conference of Government Industrial
Hygienists for 1975. Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1974.
IV-11
-------
Identified Phenol, PNA, and Aldehyde
Compounds in Automotive Exhausts
PHENOLS
Phenol
0-Cresol
m-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,3-Dimethylphenol
3,4-Dimethylphenol
.2,3,5-Trimethylphenol
POLYHUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Naphthalene
2
3
Acenaphythylene
Anthracene, A
Alky! As
Phenanthrene
Trimethyl phenar.threnes
Benz(a)anthracene, BaA*
Methyl BaA
Chrysene, C*
Methyl C
Dimethyl C
Fluoranthene, Ft
Methyl Ft
Pyrene P
Methyl P
11 H-Benzo(b)fluorene, BbF
Methyl BbF
Triphenylene
Naphthacene
Benzo(a)pyrene, BaP*
Methyl BaP
Dimethyl BaP
Benzo(e)pyrene, BeP*
Methyl BeP
Dimethyl BeP
Benzo(ghi)fluoranthene.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(j)fluoranthene*
Benzo{k)fluoranthene* '
Dibenz(a5h)anthracene*
Dibenzofluorenes
Perylene
Anthanthrene*
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Dibenzo(a,l)naphthacene
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene*
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene*
Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene*
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene*
Ceronene
Dibenzo(b,par)perylene
8
Tribenzo(h,rst)pentaphene
ALDEHYDES
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein + propylene oxide
Propiorialdehyde
Methacrolein + methylfuran
Crotonaldehyde
^'Carcinogenic
Tiglaldehyde
Berizaldehyde
Tolualdehyde
Ethylbenzaldehyde
Salicylaldehyde
IV-12
-------
APPENDIX V
PRELIMINARY DATA FROM THE SULFURIC
ACID BASELINE PROGRAM
-------
TEST REPORT
AUTOMOTIVE SULFURIC ACID
BASELINE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
JANUARY, 1976
-------
SUMMARY
This program involved the testing of 75 vehicles for sulfuric acid
and gaseous emissions (HC, CO, N0xand COa). A variety of catalyst and
non-catalyst cars were tested. Of the 75 vehicles originally scheduled,
56 have been tested to date. These cars included both current production
cars and cars designed to meet advanced emissions standards. The catalyst
cars were preconditioned with 500-1,000 miles of modified AMA preconditioning
on 0.03% sulfur fuel. The non-catalyst vehicles were tested without
preconditioning. Four different labs (EPA-OMSAPC, EPA-ORD, Exxon Research
and Engineering Co., and Southwest Research Institute) participated in
this program.
The following test schedule was run twice with each car:
FTP'
SET.
SET
PET-'
SET
SET
The average sulfuric acid emissions found over the SET is listed below
for different categories of vehicles.
Catalyst vehicles with air injection about 30 ragpm (range 0.3-96)
Catalyst vehicles without air injection about 8 mgpm (range 0.5-83)
3-way catalyst vehicles about 1 mgpm
Non-catalyst vehicles about 1 mgpm
Two conclusions that can be made from this program are:
(1) There is no definite trend indicating that sulfuric acid emissions
increase with the severity of the HC, CO, and NOX: standards.
There were vehicles with low sulfuric acid emissions in each
category. For example some catalyst vehicles meeting HC, CO,
and NOX standards of .41, 3.4, and 2.0 (or less) gpm had very
low sulfuric acid emissions. While some catalyst vehicles
in this low emissions category had high sulfuric acid emissions,
many catalyst vehicles meeting the more lenient standards of 1.5,
15, and 3.1 gpm HC, CO, and NOX had equally high sulfuric acid emissions.
(2) The main factor causing high sulfuric acid emissions for cars
with either pelleted or monolith catalyst is excess air (oxygen)
in the catalyst. This excess oxygen level is frequently independ-
ent of whether or not the car has an air pump. For example, a
non-air pump catalyst car with a lean calibration could have a
high exhaust oxygen level. Some catalyst cars with air pumps
may have low sulfuric acid emissions while some catalyst cars
without air pumps may have high sulfuric acid emissions.
-------
BACKGROUND
Work done for the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 showed
much greater emissions of sulfuric acid from catalyst equipped vehicles
compared to non-catalyst equipped vehicles. EPA is concerned that
sulfuric acid emissions from catalyst equipped vehicles may cause high
localized ambient levels of sulfuric acid in congested traffic situations
and thus have adverse health effects. To prevent such a problem from
occurring, EPA plans to propose automotive sulfuric acid regulations
effective for the 1979 model year.
In developing these regulations, EPA devised a new driving cycle
(the Sulfuric Acid Emission Test or SET) representative of congested
freeway operation where the highest localized sulfuric acid levels
are expected to occur. It was necessary to develop a new driving
cycle since neither the Federal Test Procedure (FTP)nor the Fuel
Economy Test (FET) represent the congested freeway type driving situation.
This cycle was tested extensively in the summer of 1975 in the Test
Procedure Development Program. The following four pairs of matched
cars supplied by the automobile companies were used.
2 Fords - monolith catalyst with air injection
2 Plymouths - monolith catalyst without air injection
2 Chevrolets - pelleted catalyst without air injection
2 AMC Hornets - pelleted catalyst with air injection
All of the cars except the Fords were designed to meet standards of 1.5,
15, and 3.1 gpm HC, CO, and NOX respectively over the FTP. The Fords
were designed to meet standards of 0.9, 9.0, and 2.0 gpm.
The Test Procedure Development Program involved the testing of the
cars on the following sequence with 0.03% sulfur fuel.
1) Run AMA to A,000 miles
(regular AMA, 11 laps, 70 mph maximum speed)
2) SEQUENCE A
Ann Arbor road route - 1 hour
1 LA 4 (hot start)
4 hot start emission tests (SET)*
Ann Arbor road route - 1 hour
Overnight soak
Federal test procedure (FTP)*
Fuel Economy Test (FET)*
Repeat 2) twice for a total of 3 sequences
3) Run 300 miles of modified AMA **
4) SEQUENCE B
Ann Arbor road route - 1 hour
-------
1 LA-4 (hat start)
Overnight soak
FTP*
SET-2 times*
FET*
Repeat 4) twice for a total of three sequences
5) Repeat 3
SEQUENCE C
6) Ann Arbor road route - 1 hour
1 LA-4 (hot start)
Overnight soak
FTP*
FET*
SET-2 times*
Repeat 6) twice for a total of three sequences
7) Run SET as many times asnecessary until a stable
sulfuric acid emission value is obtained.
8) Repeat 3)
* HC, CO, NOX,, Sulfate,and S02 Measurement Taken.
*,* 55 mph top speed, no wide open throttle accelerations.
In addition, Sequence A was run again with modified AMA preconditioning
for the cars tested by EPA-OMSAPC and EPA-ORD.
The sulfuric acid emissions from the vehicles without air injection
were low, about 1 mgpm. The vehicles with air injection had much higher
sulfuric acid emissions, generally from 10 to 70 mgpm.
A summary of the mean values,standard deviations, and coefficients of
variation for various test cycles are given in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Table 1 Sulfuric Acid Emissions over the FTP
Table 2 Sulfuric Acid Emissions over the FET
Table 3 Sulfuric Acid Emissions over the SET in Sequence A
(SET preceded by Ann Arbor Road Route)
Table 4 Sulfuric Acid Emissions over the SETs in
Sequence B. (The SET preceded by FTP)
Table 5 Sulfuric Acid Emissions over the SETs in
Sequence C (SET preceded by FET)
-------
These values show that th
-------
Following this program, the Baseline Program was started. The
main purposesof the Baseline Program were as follows:
(1) to obtain sulfuric acid emission factors on a greater number
of currently produced catalyst and non-catalyst vehicles,.
(2) to obtain sulfuric acid emission factors on a number of
advanced prototype vehicles designed for more stringent
control of HC, CO, and NOX emissions.
VEHICLES
A total of 75 vehicles were scheduled for baseline testing representing
a variety of current and advanced emission control systems. The following
general categories of vehicles were selected:
(I) Current non-catalyst vehicles
(II) Current catalyst vehicles designed for the following combination
of standards:
HC gpm CO gpm NOx gpm
1.5 15 3.1
1.5. 15 2.0
.9 9.0 2.0
.4 9.0 1.5
.4 3.4 2.0
(III) Advanced non-catalyst vehicles (stratified charge, lean
burn, diesel, lean reactor, rotary engine.)
(IV) Advanced catalyst vehicles (3-way catalyst, start catalyst,
modulated air injection, sulfate trap).
(V) Fleet vehicles
2 sets of 5 identical cars to be used to determine car-tocar
variability.
A complete listing of the 75 vehicles scheduled for this program and
the tests conducted are listed in Table 6. The following four laboratories
participated in this Drogram.
AA= EPA-OMSAPC, Ann Arbor, Michigan
RTP= EPA-ORD, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
SwRI= Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
Exxon= Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Linden, N.J.
-------
Of the 75 cars, only 56 have been tester! as of this.date. Many of the
remaining cars will be tested later. Many of the vehicles were supplied
by General Motors, Ford,Chrysler, American Motors, and Volvo. These cars
included the prototypes designed to meet future standards as well
as some production cars meeting the 1975 standards. The rest of the cars
were either privately owned or rental vehicles.
TEST SCHEDULE
The catalyst cars were preconditioned using the AMA schedule
specified in the Federal Register* except that the wide open throttle
acceleration was eliminated and the maximum speed in the last lap was
55 mph. Pelleted and monolith catalyst cars were preconditioned for
1,000 and 500 miles respectively with 0.03% sulfur fuel. A limited
number of the GM cars were also preconditioned with the regular AMA (with
the wide open throttle acceleration and 70 mph maximum speed included).
Preconditioning a limited number of the GM cars with both regular and
modified AMA will give a comparison of how the two preconditionings affect ,
sulfuric acid emissions. Each of the laboratories participating in this
program did the vehicle preconditioning themselves with either on road "or
dynamometer operation. However, GM and Ford accumulated AMA mileage on
the prototype vehicles supplied to EPA-OMSAPC making additional mileage
accumulation on these vehicles unnecessary.
The vehicles were tested in a two day sequence that included
sulfuric acid cycles in addition to FTPs and FETs. The exact test sequence
is listed below:
23 minute LA-4 preconditioning
. Day 1
FTP
SET
SET
FET
SET
SET
Day 2
FTP
SET
SET
FET
SET
SET
Particulate mass, sulfuric acid, HC, CO, NOX, and frequently S0£ were measured
over all FTP?,SETs, and FETs.
*Federal Register, Volume 37, No. 221 Part 85 Page 24319, November 15, 1972
-------
-6-
Runnlng the sulfuric acid cycle after both the FTP and FET will give
EPA more information on how these two cycles affect emissions over the
sulfuric acid cycle. Strictly speaking, additional AMA mileage would
have ideally been run before the FET. However, limited data from the Test
Procedure Development Program suggest that no trend is apparent on sulfuric
acid emission tests which are 1) preceded by AMA mileage accumulation and
either an FTP or FET, or, 2) preceded by just an FTP or FET. Also, it
would have been impossible to complete the program in the time required if
additional AMA mileage accumulation were necessary.
Running two SETs after the FTP and FET gives an indication of how
closely a second SET agrees with the first SET. It is possible that the
second SET which is preceded by the first SET will be different from the
first SET which is preceded by an FTP or FET. Finally, running the
entire test sequence a second day will give an indication on the repeatability
of the sequence.
RESULTS
A summary of the test results is given in Table 7. This Table lists
the following:
(1) the vehicles tested.
(2) the FTP gaseous emissions.
(3) the fuel economy over the FTP and FET.
(4) the average sulfuric acid emissions over the two FTPs.
(5) the average sulfuric acid emissions over the two FETs.
(6) the average, maximum, minimum, standard deviation, and
coefficient of variation for the sulfuric acid values over.the
eight SETs.
The appendix includes a list of all gaseous and sulfuric acid emission
values for every test on each of the cars.
The first category (I) of cars tested was current non-catalyst cars
including three vehicles with air pumps and one vehicle without an air
pump. The three air pump cars were 1975 production cars meeting standards
of 1.5, 15, and 3.1 gpm HC, CO, and NOX. The non-air pump car was a 1972
Chevrolet. Sulfuric acid emissions were very low from all cars, generally
less than 1 mgpm. This low level is expected from conventional non-catalyst
vehicles.
The next category (II A) of the cars tested was 1975-76 catalyst cars
designed to meet standards of 1.5, 15, and 3.1 gpm, HC, CO, and NOx. Three
of the vehicles did not have air injection and had average sulfuric acid
emissions under 10 mgpm. Two of these cars were 1975 Plymouths supplied by
Chrysler Corporation and tested by Exxon. These cars had sulfuric acid emission
rates of 1 mgpm when tested last summer but 7-9 mgpm when tested in the
baseline program. The glass fiber filters used by Exxon have a high sulfur
background which may affect the accuracy of the results, especially at lower
-------
sulfuric acid emission levels such as 1 mgpm. Eight cars were tested with
air injection. Seven of these "cars showed sulfuric acid emissions of
8-24 mgpm over the SET. These levels are typical for air injection cars.
However, the eighth car was a 1975 Granada tested by EPA-ORD. EPA-ORD
reports that this car was a "full pass" system with all of the exhaust
passing through an Englehard catalyst. The sulfuric acid emissions
were extremely low at less than 1 mgpm over the SET. It is not known
why the sulfuric acid emissions are this low.
The third category (II B) of cars was catalyst cars designed to
meet the 1975 California Standards of 0.9, 9.0, and 2.0 gpm HC, CO,
and NOX. Of the nine cars originally scheduled in this group, four could
not be tested this time and will be tested at a later date. Three of
the five cars tested had air injection and showed sulfuric acid emissions
of 15-50 mgpm over the SET. The two cars without air injection (an
Oldsmobile and Buick) showed sulfuric acid emissions over the SET of about
20 mgpm for the Oldsmobile and 6 mgpm for the Buick. The 20 mgpm
level is higher than normally expected for non-air pump cars and is
probably due to the lean calibration (about 5% exhaust oxygen at idle)
The sulfuric acid emission levels of cars in this category are about
what would be expected.
The next category (II C) of cars was advanced catalyst prototypes
designed to meet 0.4, 3.4, and 2.0 gpm HC, CO, and NOX. Three of these
cars had no air injection. One of these cars was a Volvo prototype
and had very low sulfuric acid emissions of 3 mgpm. Two of the other cars
were prototype Oldsmobiles with pelleted catalysts but no air pumps.
These cars were calibrated somewhat lean (4% oxygen at idle) resulting
in higher sulfuric acid than usually expected for non-air pump cars.
One of the two cars had average sulfuric acid emissions of 30 mgpm over
the SET. The other car had average sulfuric acid emissions of 118
mgpm over the SET. The reasons for the unusually high sulfuric acid
emissions from this car are being investigated.
The.next category (II D) of cars was catalyst, prototypes designed
to meet 0.4, 9.0 and 1.5 gpm HC, CO, and NOX. The one pelleted catalyst
vehicle with air injection, an AMC Gremlin, had low sulfuric acid emissions
about 5 mgpm over the SET. This vehicle was tested twice to be sure
stable sulfuric acid emissions were obtained. The Oldsmobile pelleted
catalyst vehicle without air injection had low sulfuric acid emissions
of 2 mgpm over the SET. The monolith catalyst vehicle with air injection
had sulfuric acid emissions of 24 mgpm over the SET.
The next category (II E) of vehicles was catalyst vehicles designed
to meet standards of 1.5, 15 and 2.0 gpm HC, CO, and NOX. Three of the
four non-air injection cars had low sulfuric acid emissions. The fourth
non-air pump vehicle (a Chrysler car) had somewhat higher sulfuric acid
emissions than expected (about 20 ragpm over the SET) for a non-air
pump vehicle. The two air injection vehicles had much higher sulfuric
acid emissions. One of these cars emitted 83 mgpm over the SET which
is higher than expected.
-------
The next category (III) of vehicles includes advanced non-catalyst
concepts such as stratified charge, lean burn, diesel, and rotary engine.
The stratified charge, two lean burn, and rotary vehicles all had low
sulfuric acid emissions (about 1 mgpm). The Ethyl lean reactor vehicle
showed higher sulfuric acid emissions of about 6 mgpm over the SET.
There is reason to think that the chloranilate analysis method used for sulfuric
acid analysis may give erroneous results when lead salts are present from
use of leaded gasoline. Since leaded gasoline had been used with this
vehicle immediately before the EPA tests, this vehicle will be retested.
The two diesels tested showed high sulfuric acid emissions (about 10-20
mgpm over the SET). The high sulfuric acid emissions are probably
caused to a large extent by the higher sulfur content of diesel fuel(0.21%) -
versus gasoline, (0.03%).
The next category (IV) of cars was advanced catalyst prototypes
including 3-way catalysts, dual catalysts, and other systems. The
three 3-way catalyst vehicles tested had very low sulfuric acid emissions of
'about 1 mgpm due to the low oxygen level in the exhaust (1% or less) .
A vehicle with a 3-way catalyst followed by an oxidation catalyst with
air injection was tested and had 82 mgpm over the SET. Presumably the
higher sulfuric acid emissions are caused by high oxygen levels resulting
from air injection. The dual catalyst vehicle containing a Gould reduction
catalyst followed by a pelleted oxidation catalyst with air injection
had sulfuric acid emissions of 36 mgpm over the SET. A lean burn
prototype with air injection and an oxidation catalyst-\ emitted 88 mgpm
sulfuric acid the SET. A vehicle with a small start catalyst in front
of the oxidation catalyst emitted 40 mgpm sulfuric acid over the SET.
A vehicle with a sulfuric acid trap was found to reduce sulfuric acid
emissions by 50%. Some of the prototype vehicles scheduled in this
category were not available but will be tested as soon as possible.
The final category (V) of vehicles included two sets of five identical
cars which would be tested to investigate car to car variability. Five
Ford Mavericks were tested in this program and were found to have
average sulfuric acid emissions of 25 to 43 mgpm over the SET. The
other five vehicles will be tested when they are available.
CONCLUSIONS
This program involved sulfuric acid emission tests of 56 of the 75
vehicles originally scheduled. Emission factors for different catalyst
and non-catalyst systems were measured. These tests gave the average
emission factors over the SET for air injection and non-air injection
catalyst cars as listed below:
Vehicle Sulfuric Acid
Catalyst vehicles with air injection about 30 mgpm
Catalyst vehicles without air injection about 8 mgpm
3-way catalyst vehicles about 1 mgpm
Non-catalyst vehicles about 1 mgpm
-------
Two conclusions that can be made from this program are:
(1) There is no definite trend indicating that sulfuric acid emissions
increase with the severity of the HC, CO, and NOx standards.
There were vehicles with low sulfuric acid emissions in each
category. For example^some catalyst vehicles meeting HC, CO,
and NOX standards of .41, 3.4, and 2.0 (or less) gpm had very
low sulfuric acid emissions. While some catalyst vehicles
in this low emissions category had high sulfuric acid emissions,
many catalyst vehicles meeting the more lenient standards of 1.5,
15, and 3.1 gpm HC, CO, and NOX had equally high sulfuric acid emissions.
(2) The main factor causing high sulfuric acid emissions for cars
with either pelleted or monolith catalyst is excess air (oxygen)
in the catalyst. This excess oxygen level is frequently independ-
ent of whether or not the car has an air pump. For example, a
non-air pump catalyst car with a lean calibration could have a
high exhaust oxygen level. Some catalyst cars with air pumps
may have low sulfuric acid emissions while some catalyst cars
without air pumps may have high sulfuric acid emissions.
-------
Table 1 SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE FTP
Lab Vehicle Catalyst
EPA-A2 Granada Monolith
Monarch w/air
EPA-ORD Impala Pellet
Chevelle w/6-.air
Exxon Ply I & II Monolith
'wo/air .
SWRI AMC 5 & 6 Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var..
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
HC
g/mile
. .64
.08
12.82
.51
.09
17.21
..34
.18
48.62 ...
.60
.14
23.00
CO
g/mile
6.64
.90
20.28
8.55
2.33
27.72
4.38
1.60
36.38
5.41
1.43
26.26
co2
g/raile
699;13
16.25
2.32
876.24
40.72
4.65
_
-
- '
-
.-'.
NOX
g/mile
1.29
.130
9.99
2.04
.45
25.60
2.83
.72
25.51
2.82
.68
24.35
S04
rag/mile
3.44
1.26
36.32
.44
.23
50.75
1.66
1.15
70.32
15.41
7.17'
49.83
S02
ing/mile
w
-
31.00
6.25
20.15
161.62
28.75
17.79
68.09
65.59 -
96.32
MPG
12.52
.37
2.98
13.610
.146
8.74
_
-
-
-
-------
Table 2 SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE FET
Lab
EPA-A'
EPA-ORD
Exxon
SWRI
Vehicle
Granada
Monarch
Chevelle
Impala
Ply. I &
II
AMC 5 &
6
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Pellet
wo/air
Monolith
wo /air
Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
. Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
HC
g/mile
.27
.03
11.83
.26
.14
53.94
.14
.056
39.43
.09
.02
24.40
CO
g/mile
1.20
.36
29.56
7.60
5.93
73.00
1.55
.98
63.55
.09
.09
104.4
C02
g/mile
512.96
12.85
2.51
636.56
51.41
8.08
_
-
-
_
-
-
NOX
g/mile
1.21
.121
10.05
2.33
1.26
54.20
3.69
1.36
36.94
2.65
.91
34.29
S04
rag/mile
34.11
/17.77
52.1
.99
.82
83.11
1.43
1.14
76.58
73.54
30.45
41.40
S02
rag/mile
..
-
- ..
117.17
22.68
19.35
147.69
38.29
25.93
43.43
14.78
34.03
MPG
17.22
.45
2.61
18.53
.26
1.38
_
-
_
-
-
-------
Table 3: SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE SETS IN SEQUENCE A
(SET PRECEDED BY ANN ARBOR ROAD ROUTE)
Lab
EPA-A"
EPA-ORD
Exxon
SWRI
Vehicle
Granada
& Monarch
Chevelle
& Impala
Ply. I & II
AMC 5 & 6
Catalyst
Monolith
w/air
Pellet
wo /air
Monolith
wo/air
Pellet
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var.
Mean
Std. Dey.
Cf . Var.
Mean
Std. Dey.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
:Cf. Var.
HC
g/mile
.32
.03
10.58
.44
.27
62.45
.11
.07
62.32
.12
.02
14.56
CO
g/mile
1.53
.41
26.27
14.76
7.68
53.42
1.35
.89
68.55
.28
.18
61.42
CO,
g/mile
551.6
16.1
2.93
686.0
72.7
10.59
-
NOX
g/mile
1.36
.14
10.60
1.98
.43
19.67
2.72
1.06
39.90
2.12
.14
6.53
S04
rag/mile
19.61
9.00
46.03
.53
.38
87.43
1.52
1.31
82.36
54.57
22.81
41.98
so2
ing/mile
-
106.33
43.47
40.88
126.98
33.97
26.44
66.57
15.51
24.10
MPG
15.99
.47
2.9
15.73
.51
3.24
-
-------
Table 4: SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE SETS IN SEQUENCE B
..; (SET PRECEDED BY FTP)
Lab Vehicle Catalyst
EPA-A2 Granada Monolith
Monarch w/air
EPA-ORD Chevelle Pellet
Impala wo/air
Exxon Ply I & II Monolith
wo/air
SWRI AMC 5 & 6 Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var.
Mean.
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
HC
g/raile
.31
.02
5.6
.33
.13
39.84
.11
.05 .
42.58
. .11
.02
16.4
CO
g/mile
1.94
.58
26.90
14.05
6.93
49.3
1.50
.69
46.69
.09
.06
66.95
CO 2
g/mile
562.85
11.7
2.05
676.9 .
49.91
7.37
_
-
-
_
.
-
NO..
A
g/mile
1.33
.13
9.35
2.06
.52
23.23
2.36
1.23
55.97
2.51
.38 .
14.60
SO/
mg/mile
25.00
12.00
49.1
.47
..26 .
47.42
.75
.63
88.24
41.35
8.45
21.00
so2
mg/mile
-
-
..
-
-
125.64
31.30
25.26
_
-
-
MPG
15.7
.34
2.15
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
- '
-
-------
Table 5: SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS OVER THE SETS IN SEQUENCE C
(SET PRECEDED BY FET)
Lab
Vehicle
Catalyst
EPA-A2 Granada Monolith
Monarch w/air
EPA-ORD Chevelle Pellet
Impala wo/air
Exxon Ply. I & II Monolith
wo/air
SWRI AMC 5 & 6 Pellet
w/air
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf. Var.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cf . Var .
HC
g/mile
.30
.01
3.3
.40
.18
46.13
.10
.06
56.50
.1
.03
21.25
CO
g/nile
1.90
.31
16.15
16.27
6.66
39.62
.93
.47
45.52
.11
.08
54.50
co2
g/mile
564.55
11.05
2.05
723.9
66.9
9.24
-
-
NOX
g/mile
1.29
.08
5.7
2.34
.56
21.86
1.86
.85
46.38
2.37
.31
13.10
SO^
mg/mile
18.15
5.5
30.50
.34
.16
43.27
.86
.49
64.27
39.35
13.15
32.75
S02
mg/mile
-
76.00
15.62
20.55
115.63
11.42
9.91
61.12
8.18
13.25
MPG
16.2
.34
2.1
14.53
.56
3.86
-
-------
TABLE 6
EPA BASELINE VEHICLES FOR SULFURIC ACID PROGRAM
Category
I. Current Non-catalyst
Vehicles
II. Current Catalyst
Vehicles
A. 1.5,15,3.1 gpm,
HC.CO, NOx
B. 0,9,9,2.0
(Calif)
C. 0.4,3.4,2.0
Vehicle
Description
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Non Air Pump
Air Pump
Air Pump
Air Pump
Pellet w/air
Pellet no air
Pellet no air
Monolith w/air
Monolith w/air
Monolith w/air
Monolith w/air
Monolith w/air
Monolith w/air
Monolith no air
Monolith no air
Monolith w/air
Pellet w/air
Pellet w/air
Pellet w/air
Pellet no air
Pellet no air
Monolith w/air
Monolith w/air
Monolith no air
Pellet no air
Pellet w/air
Pellet w/air
Pellet no air
Pellet no air
Monolith w/air
Monolith w/air
Monolith lean mixture, no
air injection
Monolith w/air
Test Vehicle
72 Chevrolet
75 Granada 351
75 Dodge (318)
75 Valiant
75 Hornet (304)
75 Chcv. (350)
75 Malibu (250)
76 Maverick (302)
75 Maverick
76 Ford LTD (351)
75 Torino
75 Torino
75 Maverick (250)
75 Plymouth
75 Plymouth
75 Granada
75 Chevrolet (350)
75 Matador (304)
75 Cadillac (500)
75 Vega (231)
75 Olds. Cutlass (455) .
Gran Fury (360)
Granada (302)
Audi 100LS (114) or Audi Fox
(97) California
75 Buick
Chevrolet
Pontiac
Olds.
Olds.
77 Mercury
Volvo
Volvo
Source
Test Lab
Rent
Re'nt
Rent
Chrysler
AMC
GM
Rent
Ford
Rent
Ford
Rent
Rent
Rent
Chrysler
Chrysler
Rent
Lease
Rent
Rent
Rent
GM
Lease
Ford
Rent or
from Audi
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Ford
Chrysler
Volvo
RTP
SwRI
SwRI
AA
SwRI
RTP
RTP
AA
RTP
AA
RTP
RTP
RTP
Exxon
Exxon
RTP
SwRI
RTP
RTP
RTP
AA
SwRI
AA
RTP
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
Volvo
AA
-------
TABLE 6 (cortt'd)
EPA BASELINE VEHICLES FOR SULFURIC ACID PROGRAM
Category
D. 0.4,9.0,1.5
E. 1.5,15,2.0
III. Advanced Non-Catalyst
System
IV. Advanced Catalyst
Concepts 0.4,3.4,
(0.4*)
Vehicle
Description
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Pellet w/air
Pellet no air
Monolith w/aLr
Pellet no air
Pellet
Monolith no air
Monolith no air
Monolith w/air
Pellet w/air
Pellet no air
Monolith w/air
Monolith no air
Strac. Charge
Rotary /THM
Lean Burn
Lean Burn
Diesel
Diesel
Lean Reactor
Diesel
3-way Fuel Inject., no
air ,_
3-way
3-way
3-way, Fuel Injection
Lean Burn Oxidation Cat.
Start Cat.
Start Cat.
Dual Catalyst
Mod . Air
Mod. Air
Sulfate Trap
3-way w/ oxide cat. +
Test Vehicle
Gremlin 232
Oldsmobile Cutlass 350
77 Granada (3C2)
77 Crrinn da (302) recalibrate car 4
75 Chev. Sportvan (350) 3.40 Axle
75 Chev. Stepside (250) 4.11 Axle
75 Ford F-100(300) 3.25 Axle
75 Dodge Van (225) 3.55 Axle
Kor.da CVCC (90)
Mazda Rx4 (80)
Peugot 504D
Mercedes 240D
Dodge Cornet
VW Rabbit (Diesel)
Volvo
Exxon
Pinto
Source
air inj. (DeCussa Syst.)Pinto
*many of these cars were designed for NOX emissions above 0.4 gpm
Volvo
Exxon
GM
"Ford
GM
GM
Chrysler
AMC
GM
Exxon
Exxon
Ford
Test Lab.
AMC
GM
Chrysler
GM
AMC
Chrysler
Ford
Ford
Rent
Rent
Rent
Rent
Chrysler
Chrysler
Ethyl
VW
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
RIP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
SwRI
AA
AA
AA
Exxon
AA
SwRI
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
Exxon
Exxon
SwRI
-------
Category
V. Fleet Vehicles
TABLE 6 (cont'd)
EPA BASELINE VEHICLES FOR SULFURIC ACID PROGRAM
Vehicle
Descrip t ion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Pellet no
air
Pellet no air
Pellet no
Pellet no
Pellet no
Monolith
Monolith
Monolith
Monolith
Monolith
air
air
air
w/air
w/air
w/air
w/air
w/air
Test Vehicle
75
75
.75
'75
75
76
76
76
76
76
Oldsmobile
Oldsraobile
Oldsmobile
Olds-mobile
Oldsmobile
Maverick
Maverick
Maverick
Maverick
Maverick
(455)
(455)
(455)
(455)
(455)
Source
Test Lab.
Rent
Rent
Rent
Rent
Rent
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
RTP
-------
TABLE 7 SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES IN BASELINE PROGRAM
CATEGORY
VEHICLE
DESCRIPTORS
I. Current Non-Catalyst Vehicles
1. Non Air Pump
2. Air Pump
3. Air Pump
4. Air Pump
II. Current Catalyst Vehicles
A. 1.5, 15, 3.1 gpm HC,CO,NOX
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
0.9,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Pelleted w/air
Pelleted no air
Pelleted no air
Mono, w/air
Mono, w/air
Mono, w/air
Mono . w/air
Mono . w/air
Mono, w/air
Mono . no air
Mono . no air
Mono . w/air
9.0, 2.0 gpm HC, CO,
Pelleted w/air
Pelleted w/air
Pelleted w/air
Pelleted no air
a. Pltd. no air
(Mod . AMA precond . /
b. Pltd. no air
(Std. AMA Precond.)
Mono, w/air
Mono, w/air
Mono, no air
Pelleted no air
FTP GASEOUS
EMISSIONS(gm/mi)
HC CO NOX
1.28
1.57
1.30
0.91
0.55
0.40
NOT
0.55
0.24
0.38
1.08
1.41
0.24
0.28
0.55
0.91
36.00
40.73
15.43
12.32
4.30
7.67
AVAILABLE
3.48
0.62
2.97
5.33
7.82
0.31
4.58
7.64
3.20
2.83
2.61
1.95
2,21
2.26
1.84
1.70
1.59
3.62
2.69
2.19
2.42
2.78
2.12
1.45
NOX (California)
0.62 16.98 1.87
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT AVAILABLE
0.61 1.74 1.20
0.44
1.58
1.24
0.64 9.26 1.67
0.65 3.90 1.36
NOT AVAILABLE
0.57 10.72 1.02
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
FTP HFET
SULFATE EMISSIONS (rag/mi)
10.7
11.9
12.8
14.0
17.3
13.3
11.2
13.8
15.9
12.0
11.6
14.6
11.1
12.0
12.8
10.6
14.4
20.6
15.6
:0
20
19
13
15
18.8
17.6
15.6
16.9
17.2
18.4
18.2
14.2
FTP
AVG
0.4
1.4
1.7
0.0
14.0
0.1
4.9
13.9
9.3
10.6
8.0
6.9
7.4
9.4
2.0
5.0
2.4
1.9
8.8
9.4
1.5
FET
AVG
0.4
0.7
2.6
0.0
61.2
0.2
21.9
45.0
8.0
16.5
15.0
25.6
9.8
13.8
0.6
16.2
33.7
45.0
94.2
42.0
8.8
IAVG
0.2
0.6
2.7
0.0
26.1
0.3
21.1
42.4
9.9
16.0
14.1
17.7
6.9
9.0
0.5
15.2
23.5
29.0
52.1
29.9
MAX
0.9
1.4
3.1
0.0
44.2
0.8
31.0
51.5 .
19,2
23.8
20.7
21.9
10.6
12.7
1.4
23.7
32.9
41.9
80.8
37.3
- SET
MIN
0.1
0.2
1.9
0.0
15.6
0.1
9.6
30.3
.2.4
4.9
10.0
12.4
5.2
5.2
0.1
10.9
14.3
16.6
23.7
22.3
S.D.
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.0
9.6
0.3
7.0
8.0
6.3
6.1
4.4
3.9
1.8
2.6
0.6
4.0
6.1
10.0
22.3
5.2
1
C.V.
1.12
0.68
0.17
Undefined
0.37
1.16
0.33
0.19
0.64
0.38
0.31
0.22
0.25
0.29
1.13
0.27
0.26
0.34
0.43
0.18
5.6
12.8
2.8
3.7
0.67
-------
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
CATEGORY
VEHICLE
DESCRIPTORS
FTP GASEOUS
EMISSIONS (gin/mi)
HC CO NOV
C. 0.4, 3.4, 2.0 gpm HC, CO, NOX
1. Pltd. w/air 0.41 2.18 1.50
2. a. Pltd. w/air 0.36 4.18 1.26
(Mod. AMA Precond.)
b. Pltd. w/air 0.28 2.81 1.51
(Std. AMA Precond.)
3. Pelleted no air 0.32 2.10 1.55
4. Pelleted no air 0.32 0.79
5. Mono, w/air 0.25 1.08
6. Mono, w/air 0.26 3.94
7. Mono, no air/lean 0.48 4.98
8. Mono, w/air 0.14 1.36 1.64
D.. 0.4, 9.0, 1.5 gpm HC, CO, NOX
1. Pelleted w/air 0.37 1.47 1.55
2. Pelleted no air 0.46 4.02 0.98
3. Mono, w/air 0.46 5.66 1.46
.48
.23
.28
.25
E. 1.5, 15.0, 2.0 gpm HC, CO, NOX
1. Pelleted no air 0.58
2. Pelleted no air 0.29
3. Mono, no air 1.37
4. Mono, no air 0.39
5. Mono, w/air 0.46
6. Pelleted w/air 0.40
7. Pelleted no air
8. Mono, w/air
9. Mono, no air
III. Advanced Non-Catalyst Systems
1. Stratified Charge 0.38
2. Rotary/THM 2.03
3. Lean Burn 0.37
4. Lean Burn 0.46
5. Diesel
6. Diesel
7. Lean Reactor 0.36
8. Diesel 0.12
81
02
36
94
80
70
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT AVAILABLE
.61
.08
.65
.74
.75
.10
3.85
26.14
4.81
4.37
NOT AVAILABLE
0.74 1,
.85
.50
.11
.33
.26
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
FTP HFET
11.4
11.2
11.7
10.
10.
9.
12.0
16.7
16.0
19.1
13.2
17.0
14.1
14.1
16.5
14.8
14.4
15.5
25
13
10
11
17.4
15.8
18.2
16.0
15.2
15.0
16.4
23.5
23.7
27.2
18.4
24.0
19.2
19.6
22.2
22.1
19.6
16.8
6.88
0.98
1.80
1.22
11.8
36.5
23.4
17.1
19.0
18.9
20.2
50.2
FTP
AVG
8.6
3.2
1.9
11.0
11.6
7.2
25.4
4.3
10.7
4.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.6
3.6
4.9
4.4
6.5
0.5
1.8
0.3
1.8
17.8
12.8
8.5
FET
AVG
66.9
73.3
44.3
118.2
29.6
33.1
76.7
-
65.2
9.2
4.0
36.0
4.7
4.5
28.5
8.7
109.3
13.8
12.6
2.2
0.3
1.0
15.3
6.2
9.8
SULFATE EMISSIONS (mg/mi)
'AVG
69.6
32.1
21.7
96.2
29.3
30.3
81.5
2.6
58.8
5.2
2.4
23.9
3.3
3.7
22.3
2.9
83.3
12.7
2.0
1.5
0.4
1.6
17.4
6.2
9.4
MAX
78.9
49.3
42.1
118.2
87.2
37.3
122.8
3.7
78.0
12.8
2.9
37.7
6.7
12.0
25.4
6.4
106.8
25.4
3.6
3.4
0.9
2.8
15.7
7.7
10.2
MIN
60.7
14.2
9.3
79.6
2.3
16.1
55.5
2.0
48.7
2.3
1.9
4.2
1.1
1.5
18.2
1.5
50.6
. 1.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.9
18.8
5.2
8.6
S.D.
6.9
12.4
11.2
19.1
26.7
10.6
27.6
1.0
16.7
3.1
0.4
12.1
1.9
3.5
2.5
1.3
17.7
8.7
1.0
1.1
0.2
0.7
1.2
1.0
0.7
c.v.1
0.10
0.39
0.52
0.15
0.91
0.35
0.34
0.37
0.28
0.58
0.16
0.50
0.57
0.94
0.11
0.47
0.21
0.68
0.50
0.78
0.43
0.44
0.07
0.16
0.07
-------
TABLE 7 (cont'd)
CATEGORY
VEHICLE
DESCRIPTORS
IV. Advanced Catalyst Concepts 0.4,
1. 3-Way,F.I., No air
2. 3-Way
3. a. 3-Way
(Mod. AMA Precond.)
b. 3-Way
(Std. AMA Precond.)
4. 3-Way, F.I.
5. Lean Burn, Oxy. Cat.
6. a. Start Catalyst
(Mod. AMA Precond.)
b. Start Catalyst
(Std. AMA Precond.)
7. Start Catalyst
8. Dual Catalyst
9. Modulated Air
10. Modulated air
11. a. Sulfur trap
without trap
b. Sulfur trap
with trap
12. Three way with oxide
catalyst air injection
(DeGussa System)
V. Fleet Vehicles
1. Pellet no air
Pellet no air
Pellet no air
Pellet no air
Pellet no air
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Monolith with air
Monolith with air
Monolith wit air
Monolith with air
FTP GASEOUS
EMISSIONS (gm/mi)
HC
CO
NOV
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal) FTP FET
FTP HFET AVG AVG
SULFATE EMISSIONS (m&/mi)
I '» ' oET
AVG
MAX
0.30
0.72
1.35
NOT AVAILABLE
0.28 2.78 0.55
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT AVAILABLE
0.23
0.30
0.16
2.69
2.84
1.63
4.90
5.80
0.64
13.0
15.4
11.1
11.2
20.7
16.2
16.2
1.6
4.7
10.6
7.6
39.4
18.7
57.4
17.4
5.0
83.2
22.0
35.9
27.8
54.1
9.7 17.4
4.7 5.8
82.0 102.8
MIN
16.2
16.8
5.9
3.3
S.D.
5.2
9.3
C.V.1
3.4, (0.4*) gpm HC,
0.13
NOT
0.31
0.54
0.45
0.27
0.21
1.42
AVAILABLE
4.85
6.25
7.76
0.66
0.70
CO, NOX
1.66
2.05
0.89
1.15
1.65
1.36
18.9
11.8
11.9
_
12.7
13.2
24.3
17.4
17.7
_
19.1
19.0
2.6
0.8
2.5
0.9
4.6
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.9
0.2
105.2
95.8
1.5
1.0
1.4
0.2
88.2
40.0
1.7
2.1
2.8
0.3
114.3
57.1
1.3
0.6
0.6
0.0
77.4
14.2
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.1
11.7
13.9
0.12
0.49
0.51
0.61
0.13
0.35
0.24
0.26
3.9 0.41
0.9 0.18
59.9 17.1 0.21
10. Monolith with air
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
0.53
0.42
0.39
0.50
0.45
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
2.54
2.24
2.38
1.93
2.06
1.69
1.20
1.66
1.79
1.71
14.8
13.4
15.5
14.6
16.0
21.9
18.4
23.1
21.9
18.6
13.0
16.4
10.1
21.4
5.8
32.8
52.3
44.7
42.6
33.0
31.4
38.9
34.8
43.0
25.5
49.7
52.0
47.5
58.8
40.0
21.3
22.4
23.8
36.4
13.7
9.2
9.5
8.9
8.1
8.3
0.29
0.24
0.26
0.19
0.32
-------
TABLE I
PLYMOUTH (I), BASE LINE TEST RESULTS <
Test
116 FTP1F1
117 SET1F1
118 SET2F1
119 FET1F1
120 SET3F1
121 SET4F1
122 FTP1F2
123 SET1F2
124 SET2F2
125 FET1F2
126 SET3F2
127 SET4F2
128 SET1G1
129 SET2G1
130 SET3G1
CO
gpm
4 . 58
0.43
1.13
0.93
1.03
.
1.04
0.88
2.43
2.95
3.10
0.96
0.77
0.62
Emission
HC
gpm
0.28
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.10
0.09
Rates As
NOX
_Jg2m
2.78
4.52
3.95
3.46
3.33
4.25
4.37
4.05
4.13
3.87
4.29
4.06
4.02
Indicated
S02
mgptn
164.5
128.6
79.9
116.5
122.1
106.3
91.7
128.9
108.0
101.8
101.8
77.0
95.7
88.3
S04
mgpm
6.7
6.1
6.5
6.9
6.0
8.1
7.4
6.7
12.8
5.2
10.6
6.6
7.3
8.6
% Fuel
Sulfur As
S02
112.8
120.0
75.7
117.0
115.3
100.0
62.3
118.9
102.7
101.4
95.2
73.0
91.0
83.4
SO&
3.1
3.8
4.1
4.6
3.8
3.7
4.6
4.3
8.5
3.3
6.6
4.2
4.6
5.4
Fuel Sulfur
Consumed
mgpm
72.9
53.6
52.8
49.8
52.9
53.1
73.6
54.2
52.6
50.2
52.6
53.5
52.8
52.6
52.9
Fuel Economy
ni/gal.
12.0
15.8
16.1
17.6
16.5
15.8
11.9
15.7
16.2
17.6
16.0
15.8
16.2
16.2
16.1
-------
TABLE II
PLYMOUTH (II) , BASE LINE TEST RESULTS
Emission Bates As Indicated
Test
131 FTP1F1
132 SET1F1
133 SET2F1
134 FET1F1
135 SET3F1
136 SET4F1
137 FTP1F1
138 SET1F2
139 SET2F2
140 FET1F2
141 SET3F2
142 SET4F2
143 SET1G1
144 SET2G1
145 SET3G1
CO
gpm
8.83
0.78
0.70
0.90
0.67
0.92
6.45
1.00
1.55
1.10
2.55
2.55
1.81
2.61
1.94
HC
..fiPm
0.71
0.16
0.17
0.12
0.15
0.15
0.39
0.17
0.22
0.14
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.21
0.19
NOx
gpm
2.04
2.67
2.76
2.88
2.79
2.62
2.20
2.69
3.34
4.14
3.35
3.46
3.46
3.51
3.61
S02
mgpm
98.0
125.6
114.1
138.6
108.4
117.3
91.6
152.9
132.2
147.5
140.7
133.0
137.9
130.2
64.6
S04
mgpm
9.7
10.6
10.5
16.0
9.9
10.0
9.0
12.7
7.2
11.5
5.2
6.0
6.7
6.3
7.0
% Fuel
Sulfur As
S02
60.7
106.1
96.4
119.9
93.0
104.7
57.0
127.6
111.5
130.1
118.8
111.6
115.1
110.3
54.5
S04
4.0
6.0
5.9
9.2
5.7
5.9
3.7
7.1
4.1
6.8
2.9
3.3
3.7
3.5
3.9
M
Fuel Sulfur
Consumed
mgpm
80.7
59.2
59.2
57.8
58.3
56.0
80.3
59.9
59.3
56.7
59.2
59.6
59.9
59.0
59.3
Fuel Economy
m/gal.
12.0
14.7
14.7
15.5
15.0
15.7
11.1
14.5
14.7
15.8
14.7
14.7
14.6
14.7
14.7
-------
TABLE III
BASE LINE TESTS 1974 FORD GALAXIE EQUIPPED WITH PTX-IIB
OXIDATION CATALYSTS RUNS 1-15, NO SULFATE TRAP
Sulfate
Trap
on
Test Vehicle
(1) FTP NO
(2) SET "
(3) SET "
(4) FET
(5) SET "
(6) SET "
(7) FTP "
(8) SET "
(9) SET "
(10) FET "
(ll)SET "
(12) SET "
(13) SET
(14) SET "
(15) SET "
Emission Rates
CO
Epm
1.99
0.87
1.05
0.26
0.95
0.87
3.39
1.24
0.71
0.25
0.87
0.50
0.62
0.23
HC
gpm
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.28
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.27
0.10
0.18
0.11
NOX
gpm
4.26
?.82
7.78
9.46
8.13
7.94
5.53
8.09
7.94
10.19
7.41
8.34
7.63
8.03
S02
mgpm
. 79.9
147.2
129.1
72.1
145.7
116.1
68.7
159.8
. 104.4
75.9
116.9
150.9
138.3
98.3
103.0
S04
mgpm
12.4
17.4
8.2
17.6
9.9
5.9
8.9
7.9
6.6
17.2
7.7
13.7
7.9
12.0
16.6
% Fuel
S02
50.0
127.3
111.9
65.9
127.1
100.6
42.6
133.4
89.5
70.6
100.8
131.7
120.5
85.3
88.3
Sulfur as
SO*
5.2
10.1
4.7
10.7
5.8
3.4
3.7
4.4
3.8
10.7
4.4
8.0
4.6
6.9
9.5 '-'
Fuel Sulfur
Consumed
mgpm
79.9
57.8
57.7
54.7
57.3
57.7
80.7
59.9
58.3
53.7
58.0
57.3
57.4
57.6
58.3
CAR 3S-H
Fuel Economy
m/gal
11.2
14.9
15.0
16.2
15.1
14.8
11.0
14.6
14.9
16.3
14.9
15.2
15.0
15.1
15.0
-------
TABLE IV
BASE LINE TESTS 1974 FORD GALAXIE EQUIPPED WITH PTX-IIB
OXIDATION CATALYSTS AND SULFATE TRAP
Test
(16) FTP
(17) SET
(18) SET
(19)FET
(20) SET
(21) SET
(22)FTP
(2 3) SET
(24) SET
(25)FET
(26) SET
(27) SET
(28) SET
(29) SET
(30) SET
Sulfate
Trap
on C
Vehicle gp
YES 2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
ii _
0.
" 0.
II _
0.
0.
0.
Emission Rates
0
m
92
57
90
38
48
99
76
53
-
26
65
70
36
86
HC
gptn
0.31
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.28
0.11
0.27
0.21
0.12
0.11
0.10
NOX
SPm
5.73
7.71
7.80
9.68
8.45
7.53
5.86
8.25
»
9.95
8.31
7.39
7,03
6.80
S02
mgpm
69.3
42.8
52.5
65.3
44.7
67.9
35.3
54.9
61.9
46.6
82.0
50.6
84.2
64.5
65.2
S04
mgpm
6.9
5.8
4.4
2.9
3.8
3.3
8.2
5.5
4.5
7.2
5.0
5.2
3.8
5.8
3.0
% Fuel
S02
42.7
36.8
45.8
59.7
39.0
48.7
22.0
52.0
53.9
43.5
70.9
45.1
73.4
57.1
54.6
Sulfur as
SO*
2.8
3.3
2.6
1.8
2.2
1.8
3.4
3.5
2.6
4.5
2.9
3.1
2.2
3.4
!«7
Fuel Sulfur
Consumed
mgpm
81.
58.
57.
54.
57.
59.
80.
52.
57.
53.
57.
56.
57.
56.
59.
1
2
3
7
4
8
3
8
4
6
8
1
4
5
7
eft* 12 -i{
Fuel Economy
tn/pal
11.3
14.5
15.1
16.1
15.0
14.8
11.1
16.3
15.1
16.4
14.9
15.5
15.0
14.9
14.8
-------
SOUTHWEST BASELINE EMISSION DATA
1975 Hornet Sportabout, Baseline Car IIA-1
Pelleted Catalyst with Air Pump
(0.030% Sulfur Fuel)
Test Test
, No. Date
1 10/7/75
1 10/8/75
2 10/7/75
2 10/8/75
3 10/7/75
3 10/8/75
4 ' 10/7/75
4 10/8/75
3 10/7/75
5 10/8/75
6 10/7/75
6 10/8/75
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
avg.
S-7
S-7
S-7
S-7
avg.
FET
FET
avg.
S-7
S-7
avg.
S-7
S-7
avg.
HC
0.33
0.35
0.34
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.12
Grams/km
CO NOX
2.28
3.06
2.67
0.18
0.-25
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.33
0.40
0.36
0.11
0.11
1.43
1.38
1.41
1.64
1.79
1.72
1.74
1.75
1.74
1.81
1.55
1.68
2.28
1.75
2.02
1.59
1.65
1.62
S02
.030
.047
.03.°,
0.055
0.036
0.046
0.036
0.036
0.032
0.041
0.036
0.082
0.037
0.060
0.041
0.060
0.050
mg/k;n
S04
9.93
7.41
8.67
9.71
20.94
15-32
13.92
27.48
20.70
31.47
44.55
38.01
13.48
16.46
14.97
9.77
18.14
13.96
%S
as S04
9.49
7.27
8.38
13.48
27.03
20.26
18.84
37.81
28.32
42.13
69.56
55.84
13.81
23.35
18.58
12.74
23.95
18.34
%S
as S02
44.43
71.19
57.81
116.79
70.63
93.71
75.31
75.31
66.45
97.11
81.78
128.48
80.99
104.74
82.11
121.71
101.91
Total
Recovery
53
78
66
130
97
113
94
94
108
166
137
142
104
123
94
145
120
.91
.46
.19
.27
.66
.96
.15
-
.15
.58
.67
.61
.29
.34
.32
.86
.66
.26
Fuel g
2261
2203
1994
2146
2047
2011
1491
1334
2042
1962
2095
2085
Avg. of 8 SET-7's
0.10
0.21
1.77 0.050
16.24
21.38
96.57
115.60
-------
Southwest Research Institute .
1975 CALIFORNIA CHEVROLET IMPALA, PELLETED CATALYST
BASELINE EMISSIONS SUMMARY (0.0415% SULFUR FUEL)
Date
11/6/75
11/7/75
Average
11/6/75
11/7/75
Average
11/6/75
11/7/75
Average
11/6/75
11/7/75
Average
11/6/75
11/7/75
Average
11/6/75
11/7/75
Average
Test Type
FTP
FTP
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
FET
FET
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
jr/km
Duration
23 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
12 min
12 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
KC
0.37
. 0.40
0.39
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
CO
10.83
10.28
10.56
2.82
3.41
3.12
4.31
3.20
3.76
1.47
0.73
1.10
4.62
3.28
3.95
2.84
2.20
2.52
NOx ,
1.19
1.14
1.17
1.09
0.8S
0.99
1.05
0.99
1.02
0.94
' 0. 84
0.89
1.04
0.94
0.99
1.01*
0.99
1.00
SO?
0.136
0.082
0.109
0.063
0.064
0.066
O.HO
0.076
0.093
0.064
0.051
0.058
0.085
0.091 '
0.088
0.075
0.068
0.072
mg/km
1.49
4.74
3.12
8.39 '
6.77
7.58
8.01
10.03
9.02
7.23
12.94
10.09
7.33
10.35 .
3.84
9.79
14.75
12.27
H2SO4 as %
of fuel S
0.66
2.16
1.41
5.26
4.60
4.93
5.10
6.88
. 5.99
4.99
9.36
7.18
4.44
7. .01
5.73
6.41
9.52
7.97
SO2 as %
of fuel S
91.43
56.71
74.07
65.51
66.81
66.16
106.87
80.14
93.51
67.55
56.47
62.01
79.09
94.47
86.78
75.14
67.28
71 . 21
Total
Recovery
92.09
58.86
75.48
70.77
71.41
71.09
111.97
87.02
99.50
72.54
65.83
69.19
83.54
101.43
92.51
81.56
76.80
79.18
-------
1975 MERCEDES .240D-
Baseline Emissions Summary - Southwest Research
Date
1/18/75
1/19/75
Average
1/18/75
/19/75
Average
718/75
/19/75
Average
/18/75
/19/75
Average
/18/75
: /19/75
Average
/18/75
/19/75
Average
g/km
Test Type . Duration HC CO
FTP
FTP
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
FET
FET
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
23 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
12 min
12 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
0.43
0.49
0.46
0.36
0.3S
0.37
0.34
0.37
0.36
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.38
0.33
0.36
0.33
0.36
0.35
NOX
0.78
0.77
0.78
0.74
0.90
0.82
0.71
0.83
0.77
0.71
0.82
0.77
0.71
0.82
0.77
0.78
0.81
0.80
S02
0.392
0.283 '
0.338
0.363
0.324
0.344
0.213
0.277
0.245
0.356
0.296
0.326
0.315
0.310
0.313
0.342
0.277
0.310
lug/km
H2S04
9.35
12.77
11.06
9.75
11.48
10.62
10.05
11.02
10.54
9.39
9.61
9.50
10.22
11.03
10.63
11.42
11.70
11.56
H2S04 as%
of Fuel S
1.75
2.32
2.05
2.17
2.50
2.34
2.29
2.37
2.33
2.33
2.24 ..
2.29
2.32
2.44 .
2.38
2.56
2.58
2.57
S02 as %
of fuel S
113.92
78.70
96.31
123.70
108.35
116.03
74.23
90.88
82.56
134.97
105.65
120.31
109.57
104.74
107.16
117.56
93.54
105.55
Total
Recovery
116.70
31.03
98.37
125.86
110.26
118.36
76.53
93.24
'84.89
137.30
.,107.89
122.60
111.87
107.18
109.54
120.13
96.12 .
108.13
-------
SOUTHWEST BASELINE
1975 California Plymouth Gran
Monolithic Catalyst
(0.0415% Sulfur
EMISSION DATA
Fury, Baseline Car II B-6
'with Air Pump
Fuel)
Test
No-.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Avg.
Date
10/2/75
10/3/75
10/2/75
10/3/75
10/2/75
10/3/75
10/2/75
10/3/75
10/2/75
10/3/75
10/2/75
10/3/75
of 8
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
avg.
SET-7
SET-7
avg.
SET-7
SET-7
avg.
FET
FET
avg.
SET-7
SET-7
avg.
SET-7
SET-7
avg.
SET-7 ' s
HC
0.39
0.42
0.40
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
CO
6.46
5.06
5.76
0.42
0.49
0.46
0.65
0.27
0.46
0.16
0.07
0.12
0.31
0.28
0.30
0.36
0.85
0.60
0.45
g/km
NOX
1.01
1.08
1.04 .
0.74
0.94
0.84
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.58
0.64
0 . 61
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.76
0.91
0.84
0.79
S02
0.096
0.079
0.088
0.049
0.064
0.057
0.081
0.083
0.082
0.036
0.087
0.062
0.065
0.044
0.054
0.072
0.090
0.081
0.068
ing /kin
H2SO/.
6.44
4.55
5.50
37.41
14.76
26.09
35.24
23.65
29.45
59.99
57.13
58.56
50.20
50.20
47.26
18.34
32.80
32.41
%fuelS
as S
in H2S04
2.86
1.93
2.40
24.59
9.52
17.06
23.67
15.65
19.66
46.88
44.79
45.84
34.50
34.50
32.23
10.95
21.59
21.59
%fuel; S
as S
in S02
65.14
51.51
58.33
49.06
63.57
56.28
83.03
83.66
83.34
43.39
104.30
73.85
68.02
48.40
58.21
75.63
82.18
78.91
69.19
Total
Recovery
68.00
53.44
60.73
73.64
73.09
73.37
106.71
99.30
103.00
90.27
149.09
119.68
102.52
102.52
107.87
93.13
100.50
93.75
-------
SOUTHWEST BASELINE EMISSION DATA
Fuel Injected Pinto
TWC-9 3 Way Catalyst, No Air Injection
Date
10/28/75
10/29/75
10/28/75
10/29/75
10/28/75
10/29/75
10/28/75
10/29/75
10/28/75
10/29/75
10/28/75
10/29/75
Test
No.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
FET
FET
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
Duration
23 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
12 min
12 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
23 min
HC
0.30
0.26
0.28
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
CO
4.63
5.01
4.82
1.79
1.46
1.63
1.53
1.45
1.49
0.73
0.49
0.61
1.64
1.36
1.50
1.31
1.23
1.27
NOX
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.18
0.66
0.42
0.68
0.67
0.68
0.73
0.68
0.71
0.74
0.74
0.74
0'.69
0172
0.71
S02
0.051
0.055
0.053
0.049
0.053
0.051
0.048
0.051
0.050
0.043
0.056
0.050
0.049
0.057
.0.053
0.053
0.050
0.052
tng/km
H2S04
0.53
0.53
0.06
0.15
0.11
0.14
0.04
0.09
0.14
0.16
0.15
0.03
0.21
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.10
S02 as %
of fuel S
0.58
0.58
0.09
0.22
0.16
0.20
0.06
0.13
0.23
0.27
0.25
0.05
0.33
0.19
0.18
0.12
0.15
S02 as %
of fuel S
86.74
94.90
96.82
113.35
123.40
118.38
110.39
119.96
115.18
106.98
152.02
129.50
114.99
136.88
125.94
128.16
125.27
126.69
Total
Recover1
87.33
87.33
113.44
123.62
118.53
110.60
120.02
115.31
107.21
152.79
129.75
115.03
. 137.21
126.12
128.34
125.39
126.87
-------
. . . BASELINE EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
197X FORD PINTO, BASELINE CAR IV-4 \V
DEGUSSA 3-WAY CATALYST PLUS OXIDATION CATALYST WITH AIR
(0. 030% FUEL SULFUR)
% Fuel S % Fuel S
Test
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Date
10/6/75
10/7/75
10/6/75
10/7/75
10/6/75
10/7/75
10/6/75
10/7/75
10/6/75
10/7/75
10/6/75
10/7/75
Avg. of 8
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
Avg.
SET-7
SET-7
Avg.
SET-7
SET-7
Avg.
FET
FET
Avg.
SET-7
SET-7
Avg.
SET-7
SET-7
Avg..
SET-7 's
g/km
HC
0.09
0. 11
0. 10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. 01
0.01
0.01
0.00
<0.01
0.01
0.00
-------
SOUTHWEST BASELINE EMISSION DATA
1975 318 CID Kon Catalyst Dodge Cornet
w/air Injection
Test
No. Date
1 10/28/75
1 10/29/75
2 10/28/75
2 10/29/75
3 10/28/75
3 10/29/75
4 10/28/75
4 10/29/75
5 10/28/75
5 10/29/75
6 10/28/75
6 10/29/75
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
FET
FET
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
HC
0.85
0.77
0.81
0.51
0.41
0.46
0.41
0.39
0.40
0.44
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.34
0.40
0.44
0.34
0.39
a
o
CO
9.03
10.15
9.59
6.02
5.15.
5.59
3.53
4.82
4.18
2 . 04
2.53
2.29
5.04
3.74
4.39
3.01
3.80
3.41
/km
NOX
1.18
1.25
1.22
1.19
1.30
1.25
1.16
1.24
1.20
1.24
1.23
1.24
1.35
1.39
1.37
1.13
1.44
1.29
S02
0.071
0.074
0.073
0.052
0.053
0.053
0.054
0.050
0.052
0.052
0.048
0.050
0.058
0.053
0.056
0.059
0.052
.0.056
mg/lan
H2S04
0.85
1.25
1.05
1.95
1.18
1.57
1.52
1.93
1.73
1.63
2.71
2.17
1.52
1.90
1.71
1.56
1.88
' 1.72
% fuel S
as S
in K2S04
0.58
0.87
0.73
1.87
1.15
1.51
1.51
1.86
1.69
1.90
3.03
2.47
1.42
1.92
1.67
1.50 '
1.83
1.67
% fuel S
as S
in S02
74
78
76
75
79
77
82
73
78
93
81
87
82
81
82
87
77
87
.01
.19
.10
.81
.58
.70
.34
.90
.12
.18
.92
.55
.41
.97
.19
.87
.02
.45
Total
Recovery
74
79
76
77
80
79
83
75
79
95
84
90
83
83
83
89
78
84
.59
.06
.83
.68
.73
.21
.86
.76
.81
.08
.75
.02
.84
.89
.87
.37
.85
.11
-------
SOUTHWEST BASELINE EMISSION DATA
1975 351 CID non-catalyst Granada
w/air Injection
Test
No Date
1 10/23/75
1 11/06/75
2 10/23/75
2 11/06/75
3 10/23/75
3 11/06/75
A 10/23/75
4 11/06/75
5 ' 10/23/75
5 11/06/75
6 10/23/75
6 11/06/75
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
FET
FET
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
SET-7
HC
1.01
0.94
0.98
0.39
0.57
0.46
0.38
0.39
0.39
0.25
0.30
0.28
0.41
0.38
0.40
0.37
0.39
0.38
CO
26.63
24.00
25.32
9.52
9.42
9.47
10.70
9.20
9.95
7.84
5.25
6.55
10.87
9.55
10.21
10.54
10.69
10.62
g/km
NOX
1.65
1.60
1.63
1.72
1.92
1.82
1.62
1.85
1.74
1.52
1.78
1.65
1.57
1.71
1.64
1.49
2.68
2.09
S02
0.063
0.069
0.066
0.051
0.060
0.056
0.052
0.043
0.048
0.055
0.074
0.065
0.057
0.063
0.060
0.054
0.062
0.058
rag /km
H2S04
0.78
0.97
0.88 .
0.86
0.56
0.71
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.43
0.47
0.45
0.36
0.17
0.27
0.15
0.25
0.20
% fuel S
as S
in H2S04
0.64
0.76
0.70
1.03
0.62
0.83
0.28
0.26
0.27
0.56
0.55
0.56
0.40
0.19
0.30
0.17
0.26 '
0.22
% fuel S
as S
in S02
79.98
83.08
81.53
94.36
102.47
98.42
91.51
71.62
81.57
110.42
130.68
120.55
98.76
105.09
101.93
93.39
101.47
97.43
Total
Recovery
80.62
83.84
82.23
95.40
103.09
99.25
91.79
71.89
81.84
110.99
131.22
121.11
99.16
105.28
102.22
93.56
101.74
97.65
-------
TABLE 1
Sulfate Test Program Results
Test Sequence (0.03% Sulfur Fuel)
FTP
FET . r
FET C
SC
SC
SC repeated x times
Tests Run By EPA-ORD with 5,000 CFM
Cooling Fan (Mazda and Mavericks ran somewhat warmer than usual)
Tests are shown in order run
»
Vehicle Test
1975 Blue Chev. Impala FTP
(Supplied to EPA by GM) , FET
oxidation catalyst, no FET
air injection designed for SC
1.5,15,3.1 gpm HC, CO.NOx SC
FTP
JX.N*. sc
SC
sc
SC
SC
SC
: sc
SC
1972 Chev. (non-catalyst) FTP
Car 309 FET
X.V FET
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
HC
g/ffl
.383
.203
.138
.512
.954
.373
.222
.715
.631
.998
.535
1.001
1.008
.586.
.697
.516
.723
.726
1.054
1.040
1.025
1.027
1.062
1.036
1.029
CO
g/ra
7.760
5.528
3.928
- 24.804
41.505
8.148
10.459
32.866
36.263
39.726
24.779
39.565
43.150
28.601
5.354
2.955
2 . 718
11.723
36.042
22-918
29.652
32.861
31.398
32.900
32.948
NOX
g/m
1.764
2.298
2.375
1.664
1.488
1.904
1.961
1.455
1.361
1.300
1.394
1.299
1.394
1.391
3.111
2.870
2.839
,3.854
3.780
3.764
2.651
3.665
3.760
3.737
3.742
C02
g/m
757
641
641
825 -
556
752
632
585
585
571
554
554
554
554
743
510
559
556
550
558
463
424'
452
462
463
Fuel Economy
11.6
13.4
13.4
10.1
14.0
11.2
13.4
13.6
13.5
13-7
14.6
14.0
13.9
14.5
11.5
16.9
15.4
15.1
14.3
14.6
17.0
18.2
17.2
16.8
16.8
mgpm
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
void
0.2
0.32
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1
o.i K>
0.2 \s\
0.1
-------
TABLE 1 (Cont'd)
page 2
Vehicle
Honda CVCC
XBL1 ,
1975 Blue Ford Maverick,
monolith catalyst with air
injection designed for 1.5,
15,3.1 gpm HC, CO, NOx
"3s. Kb
1975 Red Ford Maverick,
monolith catalyst with air
injection designed for
1.5,15,3.1 gpm HC, CO, NOx
ILK'N
Test
SC
SC
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
FTP
FET
FET
LA-4
SC
SC
HC
1.109
1.049
1.046
0.988
.093
.283
.126
.314
.743
.086
.155
.348
.494
.740
.052
.061
.187
.314
.393
.177
.094
1.147
1.155
.200
.085
.091
.091
.102
.112
.104
.100
.097
.226
.202
.115
.243
.191
.223
CO
38.011
41.425
34.634
39.423
2.095
2.097
4.092
5.614
5.012
2.162
4.407
7.208
3.014
7.600
1.503
2.046
5.007
5.610
7.603
.648
.531
.532
2.609
. .327
.102
.072
.329
4.705
7.208
R/m
3.673
3.739
3.810
3.661
2.693
2.695
2.676
2.295
1.870
2.229
2.197
2.432
2.366
2.429
2.377
2.451
2.664
2.593
2.877
1.534
1.645
1.343
1.342
1.545
1.502
1.298
1.570
1.367
1.366
1.094
1.163
1.502
2.089
2.005
1.934
2.384
1.409'
1.342
C02
g/m
488
488
488
487
386
350
326
300
340
309
299
274
299
283
331
322
299
299
308
469
466
423
422
505
460
447
485
448
447
461
486
447
569
526
470
49*5
,447
447
Fuel Economy
mpg
15.8
15.6
15.9
15.8
22.3
24.6
26.6
28.1
24.9
27.9
28.4
30.4
27.8
29.3
26.1
26.8
28.3
28.2
27.1
18.5
18.7
20.6
20.6
17.2
18.9
19.4
17.9
19.4
19.4
18.8
17.7
19.4
15.3
16.5
18.2
17.6
19.1
19.0
S04
mgpm
0.1
0.04
0.2
0.1
18.2
6.9
2.5
1.1
0.5
2.9
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.7
2.7
3.0
1.4
0.9
1.2
39.9
25.8
28.9
28.7
3.7
40.6
41.5
47.6
60.8
36.9
20.1
10.3
42.3
2.9
22.5
19.6
3.4
2.4 /^
-------
page 3
TABLE 1 (cont'd)
Vehicle
Mazda RX-4
\ . . x
JSL V
1975 Blue Ford Torino, monolith
catalyst with air injection
designed for 1.5,15,3.1 gpm
HC.CO, NOx.
H.M
1975 Yellow Ford Torino monolith
Test
SC
SC
FTP
HWFET
HWFET
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
FTP
FET
FET
SC
SC
LA-4
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
FTP
FET
HC
g/m
.122
.092
1.663
.770
1.108
11.706
1.608
1.781
.532
11.726
.970
16.483
806
8.523
1.302
8.038
1.154
.703
.564
. -771
.972
1.158
812
.822
.788
.786
.703
.742
.810
.670
.641
.762
1.474
.748
CO
g/m
1 - 50 3
1.246
13.922
8.443
35.021
65.654
55.862
8.839
4.724
71.813
11.351
94.751
6.430
64.079
9.806
52.951
4.967
2.100
2.098
2.918
2.914
3.220
2.313
2.925
4.111
3.778
3.755
4.432
3.77.2
3.808
4.423
4.130
2.865
2.098
NOX
g/m
1.859
1..255
1.63-5
1.908
1.569
1.358
1.632
1.S40
1.500
1.382
1.362
1.166
1.871
1.570
1.564
1.471
2.783
2.963
2.860
3.280
3.276
2.990
4.161
2.774
3.215
3.250
2.888
3.242
3.171
2.895
2.993
3-137
1.893
.2 . 682
C02
g/m
50-'.
424
710
565
402
349
398
6.16
632
423
73.1
330
711
436
614
435
799
820
751
712
695
772
696
635
694
660
641
697
659
697
711
697
561
592
Fuel Economy
mpg
17.2
20.4
11.8
15.0
18.9
17.8
17.7
13.7
13.6
15.2
11.6
16.4
12.0
15.4
13.7
16.0
10.7
10.5
11.5
12.1
12.4
11.1
12.4
13.6
12.4
13.0
13.4
12.3
13.0
12.3
12.1
12.3
15.3
14.6
S04
mgpm
5.1
6.1
3.4
7.6
1.3
3.4
1.7
0.3
4.8
1.5
3.2
2.3
2.2
1.1
2.4
1.1
5.4
20.0
12.8
12.2
16.4
12.2
10.6
15.2
10.8
10.3
10.6
12.2
13.5
11.9
12.0
15.1
B:J
catalyst with air injection
designed for 1.5,15,3.1gpm
HC.CO.
-------
TABLE 1 (Cont'd)
page 4
Vehicle Test
FET
SC
sc
SC
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
HC
g/m
.748
1.009
1.002
1.015
.813
1.045
.988
1.074
.997
1.095
1.106
.984
1.125
1.442
CO
g/M
2.30]
2.048
2.312
2.J76
2.031
2.055
2.056
2.059
1.758
2.061
2.059
1.914
2.096
5.423
NOX
g/m
2.682 .
2.774
2.710
3.569
2.695
' 2/722
3.839
2.796
2. ,695
2.824
2.603
2.662
2.903
2.163
C02
g/m
592
616
585
586
555
602
587
587
572
588
571
554
588
644
Fuel Economy
mpg
14.6
14.0
14.7
14.7
15.5
14.3
14.7
14.7
15.1
14.6
15.1
15.5
14.6
13.3
S04
mgpm \/
22.9
22.4
19.8
24.8
19.6
19.6
N/A
24.8
22.4
19.8
18.4
18.5
19.8
12.0
-------
TABLE 2
Sulfate Test Program Results
Test Sequence
FTP F.PN-KT?
sc
sc
FET
FET
SC
SC
The following vehicles were run with a 5,000 CFM cooling fan
Honda CVCC, Mazda RX-4, 2 Torinos, Chevrolet 309, Blue Impala (Series 1)
The following vehicles were run with a larger 22,000 CFM cooling fan
Granada, Blue Impala (Series 2), 2 Mavericks
All cars were run with 0.03% sulfur fuel except the Granada which ran on 0.019%
sulfur fuel containing a managanese fuel additive.
The tests are given in the order run.
Vehicle
1975 Blue Chev. Impala
(supplied to EPA by GM) ,
oxidation catalyst, no air
injection, designed for
1.5, 15, 3.1 gpm. HC, CO,
NOX.
~TT tv ~\
-U- rs A-
Test
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
HC
g/m
.433
.269
.646
.760
.427
1.03
1.07
.265
.281
.749
.173
.256
.480
1.01
CO
g/m
Series 1
10.53
13.52
3.6 . 16
38.16
20.55
55.38
57.71
8.53
9.43
36.20
29.70
5.78
28.60
41.30
g/m
(5,000 CFM fan)
1.729
1.01
1.22
1.22
1.12
1.15
1.18
1.41
1.16
.966
1.11
1.53
1.03
1.14
C02
g/m
727
371
552
527
561
521
504
683
537
487
477
502
521
505
Fuel Economy
mpg
11.7
22.1
14.2
14.8
14.6
14.2
14.5
12.5
15.8
15.9
16.0
15.2
15.3
15.2
S04
mgpm
_
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.8
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
page 2
Vehicle
Test
EC
g/m
CO
g/m
NOX
g/m
C02
g/m
Fuel Economy
mpg
S04
mgpnf*
Series 2 (22,000 CFM Fan)
1972 Chevrolet (non-catalyst)
Car 309
XI
Ford Granada designed for
1.5,15,3.1 gpm. HC, CO, NOX
10.019 sulfur fuel)
FTP
SC
sc
FET
FET
SC
sc
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
.455
.124
. 125
.154
.167
.112
.181
.457
.110
.122
.109
.174
.084
.171
1.26
1.01
1.02
1.25
1.02
1.04
.783
.759
1.05
1.05
1.32
1.00
1.01
.759
.757
1.04
1.05
.940
5.625
2.565
5.509
9 . 1 01
3.838
4.940
10.393
6.010
2.562
4.943
3.336
1.854
2.282
4.621
30.02
32.70
42.80
35.61
41.28
50.73
49.82
14.94
60.52
70.48
42.37
46.40
63.98
61.17
49.65
78.89
81.93
4.243
2.128
2.454
2.237
1.998
2.509
1.906
1.619
2.093
2.115
1.989
1.952
2.117
1.911
1.669
3.09
3.08
2.15
3.10
2.10
1.66
1.44
2.52
1.79
1.60
2.31
2.04
1.52
1.20
1.54
1.36
1.32
1.442
622
559
541
519
552
544
545
656
542
543
551
520
530
541
632
459
484
782
600
522
563
593
571
554
885
568
503
464
525-
484
484
598
13.8
15.5
15.8
16.3
15.6
15.8
15.5-
13.0
15.9
16.7
15.6
16.6
16.3
15.9
12.
16.
15.
10.
13.0
14.4
13.
14.
13.0
13.0
9.1
13.5
L4.2
15.5
14.4
14.2
14.1
14.3
.7
.9
.7
.3
.5
,1
.17
.16
.85
.91
.21
.17
.72
.13
.08
.14
.27
.13
.09
.11
2.3
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
page 3
Vehicle
Honda CVCC
TTT A
-* * i j-
1975 Blue Ford Maverick,
monolith catalyst with air
injection designed for 1.5,
15,3.1 gpm HC.CO.NOx
ULKS
Test
SC
SC
FF.T
FET
SC
SC
FTP
; SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FET
FET
FET
FET
FTP
SC
SC
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
SC
SC
FTP
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
IIC
g/m
.521
.541
.533
.771
.525
.491
.883
.552
.512
,479
.621
.573
.654
.040
.068
.087
.087
.257
.061
.037
.281
.375
.248
.050
.040
.147
.352
.288
.290
.083
.085
.068
.257
.094
.075
.190
.086
CO
g/m
.784
.779
.897
2.300
.734
1.033
2.168
-.754
-.754
.889
1.119
.795
.756
.901
1.262
1.275
2.301
4.021
1.497
1.240 .
6.802
7.590
3.600
1.52
1.52 .
4.46
7.31
2.727
.938
0
0
0
.365
0
0
.299
0
KOX
g/m
1.953
2.006
2.107
2.430
2.384
2.062
1.453
1.375
1.495
1.936 '
2.030
1.815
2.028
2.095
1.692
1.716
2.032
1.669
1.671
2.049
1.776
1.909
1.890
1.84
1.96
1.53
1.93
1.971
1.782
1.662
1.413
1.656
1.529
1.124
1.290
1.395
1.370
C02
g/m
506
534
528
5 CO
506
487
580
513
513
507
510
529
562
334
306
315
296
317
283
308
274
283
344
303
303
2G7
287
350
499
448
423
421
433
395
397
504
443
Fuel Economy
mpg
17.1
16.2
16.4
17.2
17.1
17.8
14.8
16.9
16.9
17.1
17.0
16.4
15.4
26.0
28.3
27.5
29.0
26.9
30.5
28.0
30.5
29.4
24.9
28.5
28.5
29.5
29.5
24.1
17.4
19.4
20.5
20.7
20.0
22.0
21.9
17.2
19.6
S04
mgpm
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
1.7
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
5.6
1.3
3.1
2.4
0.3
2.6
2.4
0.6
3.6
3.1
--
8.14
45.8
31.5
52.5
44.7
40.1
51.1
19.6
51.5
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
page 4
Vehicle
Test
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
1975 Red Ford Maverick, mono- FTP
lith catalyst with air
injection designed for 1.5,
15,3.1gpm HC.CO, NOx
_.
At K*^
Mazda RX-4
ILL x
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
1975 Blue Ford Trino, monolith^ SC
catalyst with air injection
designed for 1.5,15,31. gpm
He, CO, NOx. "TT kl
V-FTP
HC
'g/m
.086
.078
.187
.084
.080
.217
.097
.107
.093
.136
.115
.107
.258
.096
.095
.083
.184
.083
.094
2.12
1.15
1.67
.969
.942
.957
10.73
1.94
1.07
13.86
9.258
0.826
1.20
1.08
CO
g/m
. 308
0
.221
0
.145
.220
.144
0
.073
.103
0
.305
.404
.301
.175
.217
.217
0
0
31.40
12.84
44.99
26.20
28.54
9.84
60.3.1
20.88
16.46
73.54
60.10
7.97
25.11
5.05
%
1.282
1.465
1.496
1.283
1.406
2.560
2.346
1.816
1.426
1.403
1.787
1.694
2.287
1.911
1.727
1.667
1.803
1.228
1.566
1.52
1.63
1.42
1.33
1.38
1.38
1.34
1.47
1.12
1.39
1.1.3
1.40
1.41
2.54
C02
g/m
430
415
427
400
442
554
490
489
481
469
464
452
539
517
437
441
459
433
434
546
487
438
480
467
521
379
672
552
349
314
563
514
769
Fuel Economy
mpg
20.2
20.9
20.4
21.7
19.7
15.7
17.8
17.8
18.1
18.5
18.8
19.2
16.1
16.8
19.9
19.7
18.9
20.1
20.1
14.0
17.6
16.9
16.6
16.9
16.1
17.1
12.2
15.0
17.1
19.9
15.1
15.6
11.2
S04
ragptn
30.3
44.1
38.5
43.9
45.4
6.9
21.9
17.9
27.3
23.8
18.6
12.4
1.2
3.4
1.0
3.6
1.2
2.6
0.9
2.3
0.4
0.4
1.2
2.8
!-5
13.3
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd).
page 5
Vehicle
1975 Yellow Ford Torino,
monolith catalyst with air
injection designed for 1.5,
15, 3.1 gpm HC.CO, NO*.
II K*
*
Test
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET.,
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC :- .
FET
FET
SC
SC
FTP
SC
SC
FET
FET
SC
SC
HC
'g/m
.649
.569
.401
.474
.639
.601
1.08
.721
.577
.431
.599
.612
1.53
.927
.917
.521
.699
.750
.735
1.29
.835
.802
.553
.720
.989
.998
CO '
8/m *
3.44
5.00
2.72
2.29
3.78
4.10
5.60
2.90
2.90
2.29
4.22
6.00
8.35
7.26
8.88
7.55
7.55
9.90
11.10
7.29
7.23
8.85
7.95
7.51
9.42
7.67
NOX
g/m
2.29
2.36
4.07
3.82
2.89
3.13
2.83
2.62
2.34
2.65
1.69
2.00
2.09
2.20
1.72
2.13
2.03
1.49
1 . 89
2.29
2.31
1.83
2.25
2.74
2.70
2.81
C02
g/m
644
629
679
634
660
638
765
645
551
612
598
645
588
555
540
530
564
524
539
647
553
537
561
602
552
550
Fuel Economy
mpg
13.4
13.6
12.7
13.6
13.0
13.5
11.2
13.3
15.6
14.1
14.3
13.3
14.4
15.3
15.6
16.0
15.1
16.1
15.6
13.1
15.4
15.7
15.1
14.1
15.3
15.2
so4
mgpm
21.6
11.5
15.3
16.4
20.2
15.4
7.85
23.8
17.2
17.9
13.6
4.9
8.6
20.7
10.4
13.5
16.1
10.6
10.2
7.3
18.8
14.3
14.3
16.3
10.0
17.7
-------
1976 Ford Mjv..-rick VID No. 6X91F117980
DATA SUMMARY
Run no.
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5297
52'Jl
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
Type
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
HC
' .559
.249
.195
.395
.143
.212
.194
.499
.241
.214
.203
.191
.222
.263
CO
2.919
.599
.399
.746
.417
.399
.399
2.155
.821
.601
.865
.583
.399
1.054
COX
1 . 'il 1
1.435
1 .642
1.625
1.L05
1 .791
1 .131
1 . 8£9
1.655
1.663
1.570
1.667
1.758
2.172
GR/KILE
CO?
CO7 1
oo/ . !
448.2
^mfi i
H JIJ . 1
417.8
395.9
At\A n
T-UH . j
436.9
C7/1 o
D/4 . C.
459.0
453.5
384.6
385.1
465.2
578.3
..or'
. ;. u
14.7
19.3
1 V . 0
20.7
21.9
1 > »
1(3.7
IS. 9
15.0
13.9
18.9
22. 5
22.5
18.6
15.0
P" f\~f
np.T
.0203
.0824
.CJ65
. 0680
.0675
.0686
.0708
.0418
.0673
.0-171
.0760
.0747
.1087
.0721
S02
.C-'iO
.026
.019
.024
.030
.017
.017
.028
.014
.014
.017
.026
.019
.019
% Fuel S Conv. t
S04
.0069
.0377
.0213
.0307
.0318
.0317
.0317
.0190
.0297
.0218
.0346
.0342
.0497
.0272
S02
17.7
30.2
21.8
30.0
39.5
19.1
20.5
25.2
15.9
15.9
23.0
36.1
21.3
17.1
S04
4.1
29.2
1C.3
25.5
27.9
23.7
25.5
11.4
22.5
16.5
31.2
30.8
37.2
16.3
-------
EPA Sulfate Baseline Program
120
100
M-VEL
+ FTP
O S-7
D HWFET
EPA
FTP
S-7
HWFET
80
60
40
2(
0
i i I i i
77204
Pontiac 350-4 4000f Std AMA
Am/EGR/OC
.41/3.4/2.0
.31/2.2/1.39
77204
Pontiac 350-4 4000# Mod AMA
AIR/EGR/OC
.41/3.4/2.0
. 31/2. 7/1.56
M-136213
Olds 455/4 5000# Mod AMA
CCS/EGR/OC
.41/3.4/2.0
. 36/1.9/1.63
DWH
-------
EJPA Sulfate Baseline Program
120
oo
00
1
0)
100
80
60
40
?0
0
.if
i i
-t
h
«
_l
42267
k I
I
42267
M-VEL
+ FTP *
0 S-7
Q HWFET
(
/
/
/
/
\
\
<
i
,
1
i
\
\
<
-<
<
y
u 1
-
-(
1
EPA
FTP
S-7
HWFET
1
(
1
\
\
\
{
I
_,«
1
' M-134885
Chevy 400-4 5000* Std Ama
Closed Loop Carb/EGR/3-way
.41/3.4/.40
.38/4.87.91
Chevy 400-4 5000# Mod AMA
Closed Loop Carb/EGR/3-way
.41/3.4/.40
.3S/4.8/.57
Olds 455-4 5000# Mod AMA
CCS/EGR/OC
.41/3.4/2.0
.31/2.1/1.53
DWH
1-12-76
-------
EPA Sulfate Baseline Program
120
100
M-VEL
+ FTP
O S-7
D HWFET
EPA
FTP
S-7
HWFET
80
60
CD
CD
a
w
o>
"8
CO
40
20
52321
Olds 350-4 4500* Std AMA(VEL)
Mod AMA (EPA)
CCS/EGR/OC
.41/9/1.5
.34/2.6/1.03
52724
Olds 350-4 5000* Mod AMA
CCS/EGR/OC
1.5/15/2.0
. 51/9.3/1. 60
ES-65334
Chevy 350-4 4500* Mod AMA
Mod. Am/EGR/OC
. 9/9/1.5
DWH
1-12-76
-------
EPA Sulfate Baseline Program
120
100
M-VEL
+ FTP
O S-7
D HWFET
EPA
O FTP
O S-7
D HWFET
80
I
a
o>
OQ
-*
g
w
0)
3
i
1X2
60
40
7
2C
\
5P P
Z
oLfc
ES-65323
Chevy 350-4 4500# Std AMA
AER/EGR/OC/warm-up conv
.41/3.4/2.0
.29/.5/1.58
ES-65323
Chevy 350-4 4500* Mod AMA
AIR/EGR/OC/warm-up conv
.41/3.4/2.0 Ty- <^
,32/. 7/1.40
ES-94332
Chevy 400-4 4500# Mod AMA
CCS/OC .__
.41/3.4/2.0 ^^ =*
.31/. 9/2.1
DWH
1-12-76
-------
EPA Sulfate Baseline Program
120
100
M-VEL
FTP
S-7
HWFET
EPA
FTP
S-7
HWFET
80
60
to
CO
fl
W
o 401
v... ..
I
W
i
2(
\
t
I 1 I I I
63327
Olds 350-4 4500# Std AMA
CCS/EGR/OC
Std .9/9/2.0
Meas .47/1.3/1.35
63327
Olds 350-4 4500* Mod AMA
CCS/EGR/OC
.9/9/2.0
.52/2.6/1.31
56176
Chevy 400-4 4500# Mod AMA
AIR/EGR/OC
.41/3.4/2.0
.48/1.4/1.55
DWH
-------
]976 Ford'Maverick VID No. 6x92F118030
DATA SUMMARY
GR/MILE ' Fuel
Run no.
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
Type
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
HC
.453
.268
.311
.175
.684
.248
1 .161
.451
.350
.298
.345
.224
.323
.287
CO
2.429
.786
1 .693
.745
1.390
1.026
2.683
J 1.956
2.053
1.930
1 .861
1.935
1.846
1.972
A/J <
NOX
1.467
1 .347
1.672
^.SL?
1.634
1.544
96JL
1.699 1
1.399
.908
.951
1.185
1.372
1.382
tV
C02
527.23
384.38
444.62
396.68
400.62
444.64
370.93
551.47
510.414
498.577
542.160
568.708
491.144
494.830
MPG
16.3
22.5
19.4
21 .8
21.5
19.5
22.9
15.6
16.9
17.4
16.0
15.2
17.6
17.5
PART
.0139
.0696
.0412
.0707
.0621
.0304
.0426
.1096
.0702
.0887
.0930
.0662
.0707
S02
.037
.055
.053
.049
.055
.013
.045
-
.074
.052
.068
.076
.055
.065
S04
.0058
.0325
.0199
.0327
.0267
.0137
.0191
-
.040
.0279
.0386
.0338
.0259
.0251
S02
36.3
74.3
61.6
64.5
71.4
15.3
62.5
-
75.5
54.7
65.4
69.7
57.9
68.4
S Conv. to
S04
3.8
29.3
15.4
28.6
23.1
10.8
17.7
-
27.2
19.6
24.7
20.7
18.6
17.6
-------
1976 Prototype Chrysler Imperial VIN#YM23T5C143242
Electronic Lean Burn
DATA SUMMARY
Run no.
5258
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
Type
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
HC
.355'
.170
.169
.268
.282
.205
.206
.388
.217
.245
.267
,285
.214
.287
CO
4.457
2.466
2.462
2.552
2.772
2.710
3.266
5.162
3.822
5.080
2.539
2.879
3.245
5.368
NOX
2.022
3.121
3.122
2.508
2.407
3.028
3.059
2.189
4.252
4.546
5.221
5.221
4.317
4.919
GR/MILE
C02
891.2
517.1
504.9
455.1
442.1
519.9
525.0
790.6
532.4
525.9
459.0
559.0
530.4
530.5
MPG
9.68
16.7
17.1
18.9
19.4
16.6
16.4
10.9
16.1
16.3
18.8
18.7
16.2
16.1
PART
.0027
.0070
.0046
.0038
.0025
.0023
.0019
-
.0032
.0015
.0012
.0008
.0016
.0026
S02
.153
.094
.097
.079
.070
.092
.097
-
.110
.110
.098
.091
.113
~
S04
.0003
.0009
.0005
.0004
.0003
.0003
.0003
-
.0004
.0004
.0003
.0003
.0004
.0004
% Fuel S
S02
85.3
94.9
100.0
89.7
82.3
92.0
96.0
-
106.8
107.8
111.4
102.2
110.8
i Conv.
S04
.14
.59
.31
.30
.24
.17
.22
-
.27
.21
.24
.23
.23
.24
-------
1976.Ford Maverick A/ID 6X92F118024
DATA SUMMARY
GR/MILE * Fuel b Lonv- 1
Run no.
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5325
5326
Type
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
S-7
F^T
FET
S-7
S-7
HC
.482
.243
.203
.311
.169
.260
.225
.517
.286
.214
.511
.168
.213
.281
CO
1.415
.604
.596
.869
.593
1.721
.389
2.440
.811
.399
1.582
.588
.566
.604
NOX
1.792
- 1.689
1.492
1.656
1.475
1.793
1.091
1.783
1.942
2.077
2.114
2.069
1.514
1.613
C02
585.3
451.6
398.0
388.2
385.6
440.5
437.1
593.6
416.8
448.1
403.1
403.1
431.7
440.1
MPG
14.8
19.2
21.8
22.3
22.5
19.6
19.9
14.5
20.8
19.4
21.4
21.5
20.1
19.7
PART
.0348
.1182
.0900
.0929
.0960
.0772
.0844
.0577
.1015
. 1 007
.0756
.0744
.0735
S02
.061
.060
.064
.013
.140
.049
.049
.040
.053
.032
.057
.053
.032
.036
S04
.0164
.0588
.0420
.0448
.0466
.0368
.0416
.0265
.0484
.0450
.0341
.0373
.0364
S02
54.0
69.8
84.2
17.6
189.2
57.6
59.0
35.1
66.2
43.0
73.1
68.8
38.6
42.9
S04
9.7
45.6
36.8
40.4
42.0
28.9
33.4
15.5
40.3
38.4
29.6
30.0
28.9
-------
1976 Prototype Chrysler Imperial VIN IM69H2D241298
\ \ v \i
Electronic Lean Burn ' ~
.DATA SUMMARY
Rin no.
5244
5245
5246
5247
5249
5250
5259
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
Type
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
HC
.470
.353
.316
.332
.334
.378
.439
.394
.351
.460
.299
.334
CO
4.457
2.999
2.720
2.555
3.273
4.046
4.275
2.689
2.921
4.364
3.747
5.298
NOX
2.257
3.141
2.010
2.577
3.639
1.895
2.407
6.145
4.800
5.996
4.968
4.984
GR/MILE
C02
761.1
543.5
542.7
468.1
555.0
523.7
752.4
524.4
426.9
470.7
541.5
532.0
MPG
11.3
15.8
15.9
IS. 4
15.5
16.4
11 .4
16.4
20.1
18.2
15.9
16.1
PART
.0287
.0253
.0197
.0122
.0130
.0155
.0127
.0079
.0079
.0057
.0109.
.0073
S02
.148
.089
.089
.085
.107
.105
.185
.100
.C96
.087
.107
.107
S04
.0027
.0028
.0023
.0015
.0014
.0014
.0009
.0010
.0009
.0007
.0013
.0009
% Fuel S
S02
100.7
84.8
85.6
94.4
100.0
104.0
125.7
99.0
115.7
95.6
102.9
103.9
Conv. t
S04
1 .22
1 .77
1.50
1 .09
.87
.93
.42
.68
.76
.43
.85
.63
-------
1975 CHEVROLET VAN VID NO. 3323
DATA SUMMARY
Run no.
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
Type
LA-4
S-7
S-7
HWFET
HWFET
S-7
S-7
LA-4
S-7
S-7
HSFET
HWFET
S-7
S-7
HC
.493
.232
.293
.120
.158
.144
.125
.299
.165
.194
.590
.115
.167
.104
CO
4.62
4.49
0.48
0.43
0.34
0.46
0.47
2.77
0.30
0.64
0.49
0.23
0.23
0.23
NOX
3.538
3.829
1 .674
2.342
3.613
4.414
4.339
2.662
3.847
3.875
3.490
3.422
3.395
3.799
GR/MILE
C02
581.16
548.79
569.47
530.01
508.81
565.45
543.97
527.88
526.62
533.80
510.19
508.78
552.24
559.71
MPG
14.683
15.564
15.167
16.312
16.991
15.288
15.892
16.247
16.418
16.179
16.892
17.002
. 15.661
15.458
PART
.0048
.0035
.0093
.0157
.0238
.0179
.0219
.0041
.0033
.0315
.0307
.0565
.0513
.0562
S02
.1082
.1056
.1203
.0963
.1118
.1241
.1092
.0728
.1078
.1063
.0955
.0647
.1058
.0990
S04
.0004
.0012
.0039
.0071
.0098
.0081
.0095
.0009
.0159
.0141
.0133
.0251
.0232
.0254
% Fuel :
S02
97.715
101.000
110.854
95.382
115.313
115.121
105.330
72.348
107.375
104.535
98.250
66.791
100.495
92.851
S Conv. t
S04
.550
1.758
5.426
10.671
15.174
11 .343
13.751
1.469
23.895
20.859
20.537
38.148
33.148
35.717
-------
1976 Ford Maverick VID No. 6X92F118017
DATA SUMMARY
GR/MILE * rucl J "u"v> "
Run no.
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
Type
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
HC
.455
.165
.109
.145
.074
.187
.125
.394
.144
.107
.103
.136
.128
.125
CO
4.23
1.030
.597
.749
.593
1.699
.814
.247
.605
.605
.586
.614
.614
1.262
NOX
1.164
1..131
.977
1 .308
1.310
1.302
1.333
1.226
1.130
1.053
1.020
1.030
1.112
1.146
C02
648.7
500.2
455.1
461.0
468.2
511.6
492.0
637.9
498.7
479.0
471.2
478.9
526.3
497.6
MPG
13.2
17.3
19.1
18.8
18.5
16.9
17.6
13.5
17.4
18.1
18.4
18.1
16.5
17.4
PART
.0351
.0779
.0793
.1103
.0795
.0458
-
.0298
.0919
0.828
.1320
.1207
.1033
.0745
S02
.030
.032
.030
.035
.035
.023
.035
.016
.027
.034
.035
.031
.026
.038
S04
.0178
.0405
.0389
.0539
.0384
.0224
.0297
.0150
.0486
.0411
.0585
.0583
.6520
.0383
S02
24.0
33.3 .
34.5
39.8 .
38.9
23.5
37.2
13.0
28.4
37.0
38.9
33.7
25.7
40.0
S04
9.5
28.1
29.8
40.9
28.4
15.2
21. T
8.1
34.1
29.8
43.3
42.2
34.3
26.9
-------
1976 PINTO VID NO. 9309
DATA SUMMARY
Run no.
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
Type
LA-4
S-7
S-7
HWFET
HWFET
S-7
S-7
LA-4
S-7
S-7
HWFET
HWFET
S-7
S-7
HC
.382
.273
.406
.508
.431
.505
.359
.493
.294
.281
.367
.819
.357
.341
CO
1.31
0.41
50.60
0.52
0.43
0.71
0.65
1.21
0.54
0.64
0.35
0.46
0.50
0.64
NOX
1.815
2.766
2.861
2.188
2.333
2.976
3.389
2.437
2.849
2.958
2.462
2.547
3.024
3.067
GR/MILE
C02
459.34
379.95
401.13
307.54
330.50
373.75
389.38
454.07
378.57
395.53
350.02
350.12
396.76
395.13
MPG
18.726
22.710
17.975
27.948
26.050
23.012
22.125
18.934
22.776
21.797
24.628
24.511
21.728
21.808
PART
.0210
.0696
.0413
.0556
.0531
.0453
.0346
.0343
.0448
.0313
.0595
.0716
.0724
.0650
S02
.1056
.0464
.0452
.0251
.0263
.0436
.0486
.1002
.0379
.0423
.0170
.0147
.0464
.0321
S04
.0086
.0308
.0182
.0231
.0231
.0190
.0150
.0138
.0196
.0157
.0271
.0324
.0130
.0301
% Fuel :
S02
120.643
64.058
59.166
42.822
41 .807
61.208
65.590
115.858
52.592
56.199
25.529
22.048
61 .429
42.714
S Conv. t
S04
14.794
63.958
35.724
59.121
55-.061
40.105
30.384
23.971
40.798
31.347
61.037
73.004
25.870
60.063
-------
1976 Ford Maverick VI D No. 6X92F118023
% Fuel S Conv. to
Run no. Type HC CO NOX C02 MPG PART S02 S04 S02 504
5303
5304
5305
5307
5308
5309
5310
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
.397
.186
.159
.516
.173
.168
.179
.376
.193
.188
.307
.135
.205
.1.70
2.902
.600
.599
.879
.275
.182
.385
1.851
.804
1.261
.912
.434
1.043
.603
1.662
1.684
1.579
1.667
1.585
1.058
1.548
1.656
1.679
1.456
1.693
1.496
1.511
1.561
565.8
429.1
411.2
378.8
360.0
430.2
412.6
547.6
413.2
497.3
401.3
363.9
423.2
440.0
15.2
20.2
21.1
22.8
24.1
20.2
21.0
15.8
21.0
17.4
21.6
23.8
20.5
19.7
.0134
.0534
.0498
.0803
.0943
.0772
.0479
.0350
.0843
.0800
.0960
.0974
.0807
.0943
.042
.045
.057
.045
.053
.050
.060
.051
.031
.068
.045
.054
.039
.058
.0038
.0261
.0241
.0391
.0434
.0368
.0238
.0164
.0407
.0399
,0478
.0484
.0395
.0475
38.5
54.9
72.2
61.6
76.8
61.0
75.9
48.6
39.2
71 .6
58.4
77.1
48.1
69.0
2.3
21.2
20.4
35.7
41.9
29.9
20.1
10.4
34.3
28.0
41.4
46.1
32.5
37.7
-------
1976 Ford Maverick VID No. 6X91F117980 "5Do
DATA SUMMARY
GR/MILE % t-uel i> Lonv. tc
Run no.
5283
5284
5-285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5297
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
Type
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
FTP
S-7
S-7
FET
FET
S-7
S-7
HC
.559
.249
.195
.395
.143
.212
.194
.499
.241
.214
.203
.191
.222
.263
CO
2.919
.599
.399
.746
.417
.399
.399
2.155
.821
.601
.865
.583
.399
1.054
NOX
1.511
1.485
1.642
1.625
1.606
1.791
1.691
1.869
1.665
1.663
1.570
1.667
1.758
2.172
C02
587.1
448.2
456.1
417.8
395.9
464.9
436.9.
574.2
459.0
458.5
384.6
385.1
465.2
578.3
MPG
14.7
19.3
19.0
20.7
21.9
18.7
19.9
15.0
18.9
18.9
22.5
22.5
18.6
:s.o
PART
.0203
.0824
.0465
.0680
.0675
.0686
.0708
.0418
.0673
.0471
.0760
.0747
.1087
.0721
S02
.O'iO
.026
.019
.024
.030
.017
.017
.028
.014
.014
.017
.026
.019
.019
S04
.0069
.0377
.0213
.0307
.0318
.0317
.0317
.0190
,0297
.0218
.0346
.0342
.0497
.0272
S02
17.7
30.2
21.8
30.0
39.5
19.1
20.5
25.2
15.9
15.9
23.0
36.1
21.3
17.1
S04'
4*1
29.2
16.3
25.5
27.9
23.7
25.5
11.4
22.5
16.5
31.2
30.8
37.2
16.3
-------
SULFATE PRO.IECT
VEHICLE in : N39R4J130401
CAPWICE
14:0ft:34 DEC 22, 1975
TEST TEST ANAL H2S04 S02
NO. DATE DATE DOOM MG/MI MG/HI
762871 11-17-75 11-20 11717 0.8
763000 11-17-75 11-20 11726 0.8
763064 11-17-75 11-20 11739 2.1
763065 11-17-75 11-20 11752 1.0
763066 11-17-75 11-20 11762 0.9
763067 11-17-75 11-20 11775 0.7
763087 11-18-75 11-20 11789 0.8
763088 11-18-75 11-20 11800 1.0
763089 11-18-75 11-20 11813 0.8
763090 11-18-75 11-20 11827 1.1
763091 11-18-75 11-20 11837 0.7
763092 11-18-75 11-20 11850 0.7
9*. FUFL SULFUR
S04 SO? HECOV DRV ANAL
O'TSSIONS
r £0
Mp.-
0.3
n.4
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
n.6
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3 CFJ VOC 0.31 4.58 741 2.05 ll.fi
0.4 LSJ VOC 0.!?
1.2 LSJ vnr 0.08
0.6 VOC LSJ 0.03
0.5 VOC LSJ 0.06
0.4 VOC LSJ 0.10
0.3 JSH EMM 0.39
0.6 JSH FMM O.lp
0.5 JSH JSH 0.10
0.7 EMM JSH 0.06
0.4 F.MM JSH 0.09
0.4 EMM JSH 0.09
3
?
1
3
4
S
.53
.94
.89
.19
.05
.11
573
5S3
512
558
567
709
0
0
0
0
0
0
.71
.65
.45
.77
.77
.85
15
IS
17
15
15
1?
7
.9
.2
.7
.5
,tt
?.98 SS5
3.51 512
1.84 499
?.54 543
2.84 547
0.77
0.72
0.46
0.75
0.7?
15.9
17.1
17.7
16.2
16.1
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5401-75-100
LC WFT RULB IS AN EDUCATED GUESS 8EC
AUSE OF PSYCHROMETER MALFUNCTI
RC 8401-SC-100
RC 8401-SC-200 '
RC 9401-HE-100
RC 8401-SC-300
RC 8401-SC-400
RC 540J-75-200
LC 1 STALL ON BAG 1 VARIAN CHART SP
F.FD FAST
PC H401-SC-500
LC VARIAN CHART SPEED FAST
RC 8401-SC-600
LC VAPIAN CHART SPEED FAST
PC 9401-HE-200
PC G401-SC-700
RC 8401-SC-800
NOTE:
This vehicle IV 3 on Table 6. This vehicle is in the 5000 Ib inertia weight class and has a 400 CID engine and a three-way catalystPTjut no air pump.
This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3. it, and 0.4 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan on the passenger side blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur just before testing.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
It should be noted that small negative peaks were present in addition to the usual positive. peaks during sulfate analysis. This indicates some
possible interference with the analysis. It is felt that the possible interference is small and that no analysis numbers are reasonably accurate.
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : N39R4J130401
CAPRICE
07:53:33 JAN 20, 1976
TEST
NO.
763501
763502
763503
763504
763505
763506
763507
763508
763509
763510
763511
763512
TEST
DATE
12-18-75
12-18-75
12-18-75
12-18-75
12-18-75
12-18-75
12-19-75
12-19-T5
12-19-75
12-19-75
12-19-75
12-19-75
ANAL
DATE
12-29
12-29
12-29
12-29
12r29
12-29
12-29
12-29
12-29
12-29
12-29
12-29
H2S04 S02 % FUEL
SULFUR
ODOM MG/MI MG/MI S04 S02 RECOV
14056
14067
14080
14093
14103
14116
14130"
14141
14154
14168
14178
14191
1.6
1.8
1.0
1.9
2.8
0.7
3.5
1.5
0.6
1.8
1.2
2.0
0.7
1.1
0-6
1.2
1.7
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.7
1.2
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.2
1.7
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.7
1.2
EMISSIONS
DRV ANAL HC
RJB LRH
RJ8 LRH
RJB LRH
RJB LRH
PDV LSJ
POV LSJ
TJC LRH
TJC TJC
LSJ TJC
LSJ TJC
LRH TJC
LSJ TJC
0.69
0.16
0.15
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.39
0.13
0.12
0.08
0.11
0.12
CO
7.83
5.31
5.98
2.43
3.27
3.41
4.67
3.70
3.34
2.44
3.11
3.57
(G/MI<) COMMENTS
COS
736
542
541
499
545
541
736
552
551
495
543
551
NOX MPG (TEST TYPE)
0.87 11.8 RC 5401-75-300
0.80 16.1 RC 8401-SC-900
0.75 16.1 RC 8401-SC-1000
0.54 17.6 RC 9401-HE-300
0.76 16.1 RC 8401-SC-1100
0.76 16.2 RC 8401-SC-1200
0.92 11.9 RC 5401-75-400
0.85 15.9 RC 8401-SC-1300
0.81 15.9 RC 8401-SC-1400
0.57 17.8 RC 9401-HE-400
0.81 16.2 RC 8401-SC-1500
0.80 15.9 RC 8401-SC-1600
NOTE:
This is vehicle IV 3 on Table 6. This vehicle is in the 5000 Ib. inertia weight class and has a. 400 CID engine and a three-way platinum and
Rhodium catalyst XHN2217) but no air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and)0.4 GPM of HC, CO, and NO .
Cooling-three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan on the passenger side blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning: 1,000 miles of modified AMA driving with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur, then about 150 miles of dynamometer testing with the
0.03Z sulfur fuel, and finally 1,000 miles of standard AMA driving again with the 0.03% sulfur fuel.
The test fuel-was als.o 0.0j% sulfur.
It should be -noted that small negative peaks were present in .addition to the usual positive peaks during sulfate analysis. This indicates
some interference with the analysis. It .is felt that the possible interference is small and that the- analysis numbers are reasonaly accurate
GM Sulfuric Acid Emission Data given on enclosed graph.
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : P41G5F172407
VALIANT
11:03:25 DEC 16, 1975
TEST TEST ANAL H2S04 S02
MO. DATE DATE ODOM MO/MI MG/MI
762269 9-17-75 - 1808
762270 9-17-75 - 1819
762271 9-17-75 - 1832
762272 9-17-75 - 1845
762273 9-17-75 - 1856
762274 9-17-75 - 1869
762291 9-18-75 - 1884
762292 9-18-75 - 1895
762293 9-18-75 - 1909
762294 9-18-75 - 1922
762295 9-18-75 - 1932
762296 9-18-75 - 1946
% FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS
S04 S02 PECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02
LSJ CFJ 0.98 13.08 729
LSJ CFJ 0.56 3.85 512
LSJ CFJ 0.54 3.73 503
LSJ CFJ 0.64 2.65 435
LSJ CFJ 0.55 3.68 503
LSJ CFJ 0.55 3.84 516
LSJ CFJ 0.84 11.56 718
LSJ CFJ n.46 3.60 499
CFJ LSJ 0.49 3.95 494
CFJ LSJ 0.62 2.56 413
LSJ CFJ 0.50 3.63 485
LSJ CFJ 0.47 3.64 471
> COMMENTS
NOX MPG (TEST TYPE)
2.23 11.8 RC 5407-75-100
3.05 17.1 RC 8407-SC-100
2.90 17.4 RC 8407-SC-200
3.58 20.1 RC 9407-HE-100
LC RAN OUT OF SAMPLE- INSTR
UMENTS NOT STABLIZED
2.91 17.4 RC 8407-SC-300
3.12 16.9 RC 8407-SC-400
2.19 12.0 RC 5407-75-200
LC 1RST BAGS SHUT LATE IE T
HEY ARE OVERTIME
2.80 17.5 RC 8407-SC-500
2.79 17.7 RC 8407-SC-600
3.51 21.2 RC 9407-HE-200
2.76 18.0 RC 8407-SC-700
3.10 18.6 RC 8407-SC-800
NOTE:
This is vehicle I 4 on Table 6, a production 1975 non-catalyst vhjeicle with air pump. The vehicle is in the 4000 Ib. inertia weight class with a 318
CID Engine
Preconditioning - ECTD, TAEB testing
0.03% sulfur in test fuel
No sulfate numbers are being reported for this car. In addition to the usual positive peak obtained in
sulfate analysis, a large negative peak was also noted. Negative peaks indicate some substance (such as
lead compounds from previous use of leaded fuel in the vehicle) may be present which interferes with the
analysis. The numbers obtained from the analysis may not be accurate. It should be noted that the
sulfate peaks were sufficiently small to suggest little sulfate was present (less than 5 mgpm).
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : 6X92F118030
MAVERICK
12:57:36 DEC 16, 1975
TEST
NO.
762479
762480
762481
762482
762483
762484
762511
762512
762513
762514
762515
762516
762517
762518
762519
762520
762521
762522
762808
762809
762810
762811
762812
762813
TEST
DATE
10- 6-75
10- 6-75
10- 6-75
10- 6-75
10- 6-75
10- 6-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10- 7-75
10-31-75
10-31-75
10-31-75
10-31-75
10-31-75
10-31-75
ANAL
DATE
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
10-08
11-11
11-11
11-11
11-11
11-11
11-11
OUOM
1209
1220
1233
1246
1259
1273
1298
1312
1325
1338
1348
1361
137^
1388
1401
1414
1427
1440
1452
1465
1478
1491
1501
1514
H2S04 S02
MG/MI MG/MI
4.5
10.1
9.6
11.2
13.4
la.l
4.0
24.8
23.7
24.9
27.6
31.0
38.1
38.8
3t>.5
39.0
36.9
43.1
6.2
20.4
21.7
2't. 5
28.1
24.3
% FUEL SULFUR
504
2.5
7.3
6.7
8.0
9.9
13.2
2.2
18.2
17.6
20.1
20.3
22.6
2S.O
2«. 5
26.0
29.0
27.2
31.9
3.4
15.0
16.3
23.3
20.7
lfl.2
S02 RECOV
2.5
7.3
6.7
8.0
9.9
13.2
2.2
18.2
17.6
20.1
20.3
22.6
28.0
28.5
26.0
29.0
27.2
31.9
3.4
15.0
16.3
23.3
20.7
18.2
DRV
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
LRH
LRH
LRH
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
LRH
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CAS
PAL
PAL
PAL
PAL
CAS
ANAL
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
LRH
LRH
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
EMISSIONS UJ/MK)
HC
0.58
0.28
0.27
0.23
0.26
0.26
0.51
0.28
0.28
0.23
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.29
0.55
0.29
0.27
0.22
0.27
0.29
CO
3.92
0.90
1.10
1.30
1.11
U.94
2.22
0.57
0.86
0.64
0.72
0.71
0.63
0.61
0.85
0.68
0.91
0.83
4.31
0.56
0.46
0.45
0.47
0.85
C02
637
500
509
502
486
491
744
488
482
444
487
490
488
489
490
484
488
486
602
473
462
440
472
463
NOX
1.54
1.60
1.70
1.92
1.57
1.58
1.69
1.68
1.63
1.83
1.76
1.78
1.75
1.80
1.76
1.76
1.72
1.72
1.86
1.94
1.85
1.98
1.90
1.84
MPG
14.4
18.6
la. 2
18.5
19.1
18.9
12.4
19.0
19.2
20.9
19.0
18.9
19.0
19.0
18.9
19.2
19.0
19.1
15.3
19.6
20.1
21.1
19.7
20.0
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5030-75-100
RC 8030-SC-100
RC 8030-SC-200
RC 9030-HE-100
RC 8030-SC-300
RC 8030-SC-400
RC 5030-75-200
RC 8030-SC-500
RC 8030-SC-600
RC 9030-HE-200
RC 8030-SC-700
RC 8030-SC-800
RC 8030-SC-900
RC 8030-SC-1000
RC 8030-SC-1100
RC 8030-SC-1200
RC 8030-SC-1300
RC 8030-SC-1400
RC 5030-75-300
RC 8030-SC-1500
RC 8030-SC-1600
RC 9030-HE-300
RC 8030-SC-1700
RC 8030-SC-1800
NOTE:
This is vehicle II A 4 of Table 6. The vehicle is a 1976 production vehicle in the 35001b. inertia weight class with a 302 CID engine,
monolithic catalyst, and air pump and is designed to meet standards of 1.5, 15.0, and 3.1 GPM HC, CO, and NOX. The catalyst is of
platinum and palladium and 48 cubic inches in size.
Cooling- one fan infront of vehicle and one fan at the passenger side of vehicle blowing across under the rear of the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 500 miles of modified AMA with 0.03% sulfur fuel.
0.03% sulfur in test fuel.
-------
VEHICLE' IP : 6P64-I113161
LTO LANOAU
10:53:14 DEC 16. 1975
TEST
NO.
TEST
DATE
ANAL
OftTF
H2S04 SO?
DOOM
762572 10-14-75 10-?? 1214
762579 10-14-75 10-?? 1225
762580 10-14-75 10-23 1238
7625R1 10-14-75 10-?? 1251
762582 10-14-75' 10-2? 1261
762583 10-14-75 10-23 1275
762595 10-15-75 10-23 1301
762596 10-15-75 10-23 1314
762597 10-15-75 10-23 1328
762598 10-15-75 10-23 1341
762599 10-1^-75 10-?3 1354
762600 10-15-75 10-23 1367
762620 10-16-75 - 1378
0.0
2.4
2.8
6.0
10
10.
7
7
9.3
4.9
19.2
10.0
17.5
10.9
* FHFL SULFlirt EMISSIONS tG/Ml.)
s04 so? .WECOV OPV AHAL HC co co2 NO
o.o
1 .*
1.8
4.2
7.1
7.0
13.4
13.7
7. .4
1?.4
7.7
0.0 CAS CFJ 0.74 5.95 671
1.6 CAS CFJ 0.?3 1.19 506
1.8 CAS CFJ n.23 1.1? 508
4.2 CAS CFJ 0.1« 0.30 471
7.1 C«S CFJ 0.?? 0.88 501
7.0 CAS CFJ 0.22 0.86 507
5.0 LRH TftS 0.40 5.2* 616
13.
13.
7.
12.
7.
-
4
7
4
4
7
LPH
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CAS
CAS
CFJ
I 3H
I PH
LPH
1 RH
0.
n.
0.
n.
0.
0.
20
19
16
19
19
.38
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
2.
66
93
39
12
36
97
472
466
449
46b
470
659
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
83
79
97
74
77
62
18.7
19.0
19.7
18.9
18.8
13.3
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5161-75-100
LC FALSE START ON BAG 1
RC 8161-SC-100
RC 8161-SC-200
RC 9161-HE-100
RC 8161-SC-300
RC 9161-SC-400
PC 5161-75-200
LC BAG «3 ONLY OF FTP
RC S161-SC-500
RC 8161-SC-600
RC 9161-HE-200
PC 8161-SC-700
RC 8161-SC-800
RC 5161-75-300
NOTE:
This is vehicle II A 6 of Table 6. This vehicle is a 1976 production vehicle in the 5000 Ib. inertia weight class with a 351 CID engine, a
monolithic catalyst, and an air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 1.5, 15.0, and 3.1 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX. The catalyst is
88 cubic inches and contains Platinum and Palladium.
Cooling - Two fans in front of the vehicle and another one on the passenger side towards the rear of the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 500 miles of customer driving on fuel of unknown sulfur level then 500 miles of modified AMA with fuel of 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
It should be noted that small negative peaks were present during sulfate analysis in addition to the usual positive peaks. This indicates some
possible interference with the analysis. It is felt that the possible interference is small and that the analysis numbers are reasonably accurate.
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : 3637T6M157541
CUTLASS
14:11:39 DEC 22, 1975
TEST TEST ANAL H2S04 SO?
NO. DATE DATE ODOM MR/MI MR/MI
763186 11-24-75 12-01 4762 1.3
763187 11-24-75 12-01 4773 14.3
763188 11-24-75 12-01 4786 17.2
763189 11-24-75 12-01 4796 31.2
763190 11-24-75 12-01 4806 23.7
763191 H-24-75 12-01 4819 22.3
763206 11-25-75 12-01 4837 3.5
763207 11-25-75 12-01 4848 26.7
763208 11-25-75 12-01 4861 21.7
763209 11-25-75 12-01 4874 36.2
763210 11-25-75 12-01 4885 29.4
763211 11-25-75 12-01 4898 32.9
% FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
S04 S02 RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02 NOX MPG
P.5
7.8
9.5
19.2
12.9
1?.2
1.3
15.2
11.7
23.0
16.2
17.5
0.5 LSJ LRH 0.60 1.75 785 1.21 11.2
7.8 LSJ LRH
9.5 LSJ LRH
11
10
19.2 LSJ LRH 0.07
12.9 LSJ LRH 0.10
12.2 CAS LRH 0.10
1.3 JSH LRH 0.62
15.2 JSH LRH 0.12
11.7 JSH LRH 0.10
23.0 JSH LRH 0.07
16.2 LRH JSH 0.09
17.5 JSH LRH 0.10
0.36
0.34
0.11
0.33
0.41
1.72
0.34
0.43
0.05
0.46
0.29
591
584
521
591
586
799
564
599
507
583
601
1.51
1.4?
1.5?
1.38
1.34
1.20
1.31
1.43
1.66
1.45
1.25
15.0
15.2
17.0
15.0
15.1
11.0
15.7
14.8
17.5
15.2
14.7
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5541-75-300
LC 1 STALL, CAR SEEMS TO MISFIRE, 8A
G 1 READ ON TRAIN 15-CONVERTED
PC 8541-SC-900
RC 8541-SC-1000
RC 9541-HE-300
RC 8541-SC-1100
RC P541-SC-1200
RC 5541-75-400
LC SECOND COUNTER HANG-UP, SEC FOR F
IPST TWO BAGS ESTIMATED
RC 8541-SC-1300
RC 8541-SC-1400
RC 9541-HE-400
RC 8541-SC-1500
RC 8541-SC-1600
NOTE:
This is vehicle II B 5 of Table 6. This vehicle is in the 4500 Ib. inertia weight class equipped with a 455 CID engine and a 260
cubic inch pelleted catalyst* But even with no air pump, the oxygen level in the exhaust before the catalyst is approximately 5.0% according
to GM data.
This system is designed to meet standards of 0.9, 9.0, and 2.0 GPM of HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the rear wheel blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of standard AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel, a little over 100 miles of testing with an 0.03% sulfur fuel and
1000 miles of modified AMV driving again with an 0.03% sulfur fuel.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
0-05
''/"o
OH
-------
PROJECT
E ID
GRANADA
14:04:46 DEC 22, 1975
TEST
NO.
TEST
DATE
ANAL
DATE
H?S04 SO?
763035 11-13-75 1.1-20 10777 8.2
763036
763037
763038
763039
763040
763041 1
763044 1
763042 1
763043 1
1-13-75
-13-75
-13-75
-13-75
-13-75
-14-75
-14-75
1-14-75
1-14-75
1-20
1-19
1-20
1-?0
1-20
1-20
1-20
Ll-20
11-20
10788
10801
10815
10825
10839
10840
10654
10864
10377
33.7
37.3
43.9
30.5
?«.o
10.7
40.0
22.3
?7.5
* FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
<;04 SO? WECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02 NOX MPG
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
2n.7
?.?.6
?3.5
1«.7
17.1
^.0
27.0
n.3
17.1
3.8 LSJ VDC 0.70 3.99 682 1.30
20.7
22.6
29.5
IS. 7
17.1
S.O
27.0
13.3
17.1
L^J
LSJ
VOC
VOC
vnc
LSJ
LSJ
VOC
vnc
VOC
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LS,I
VDC
VDC
LSJ
LSJ
0
0
n
0
0
o
n
0
n
.31
.29
.25
.27
.28
.60
.24
.27
.29
1.
1.
0.
1.
1 .
3.
1.
1.
1.
16
1.4
99
13
28
81
17
60
09
523
.530
478
523
527
684
492
539
533
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.21
.24
.07
.15
.15
.42
.21
.31
.31
16.9
16.7
18.5
16.9
16. R
12.8
18.0
16.4
16.6
KC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
12.8 RC 5244-75-3500
LC CVS BLOWER RAN DURING 10 MIN SOAK
8244-SC-11700
8244-SC-11800
RC 9244-HE-2300
8244-SC-11900
8244-SC-12000
5244-75-3600
9244-HE-2400
8244-SC-12100
8244-SC-12200
NOTE:
This is vehicle II. B 7 of Table 6. This is a 1975 certification vehicle in the 4000 Ib inertia weight class with a 302 CID engine, a 47 cubic
inch Platinum and Palladium monolithic catalyst, and an air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.9, 9.0, and 2.0 gpm of HC, CO,
and NOX.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the passenger side of the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 4000 miles of AMA with a fuel of 0.01% sulfur, then about 6000 miles of dynamometer testing and AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur
fuel, and finally 500 miles of modified AMA again with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
-------
SULFATF PROJECT
VEHICLE ID :
CUTLASS
09:20:35 DE;C 2, 1975
TEST
NO.
762815
762816
762«17
762818
762819
762820
762840
762841
762842
762843
762844
762845
TEST ANAI.
H2S04
DATE OATF ODOM MG/MI
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
3-75 11
3-75
3-75
3-75
3-75
3-75
4-75
1
1
1
1
1
1
4-75 1
4-7^ 1
4-75 1
4-75 1
4-75 1
-11
-12
-12
-12
-11
-12
-1?
-IK
-18
-IP
-18
-19
2415
2426
2439
2453
2463
2476
2490
2501
2515
2528
2539
2553
2
16
16
34
21
29
1
37
39
55
41
29
*
7
8
6
5
4
7
1
3
1
4
9
S
% FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
S04 502 RECOV DPV ANAL HC CO C02 NOX
NOTE:
1 .1
0.4
u.5
23.2
IP. 3
17.1
21.1
2?. 5
3^.8
24.8
1.1 RJH LRM 0.41 1.59 718 1.23 12.3 RC
q
9
23
12
17
0
21
22
36
24
16
.4
.5
.2
.3
.1
.4
.1
.5
.8
.8
.5
RJR
PJR
EMM
EMM
EMM
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LRH
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
TFJ
VDC
VDC
VDC
VDC
VDC
VDC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
.05
.07
.04
.07
.06
.48
.07
.05
.04
.06
.05
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.60
.78
.01
.33
.23
.57
.18
.22
.07
.22
.24
574
562
479
562
559
755
570
557
483
545
575
1.43
1.42
1.40
1.62
1.53
1.25
1.42
1 .36
1.47
1.36
1.34
15.
15.
18.
15.
15.
11.
15.
15.
18.
16.
15.
4
8
5
8
9
7
6
9
3
3
4
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5541-75-100
LC ONE FALSE START
RC 8541-SC-100
RC 8541-SC-200
RC 9541-HE-100
RC 8541-SC-300
RC 8541-SC-4QO
RC 5541-75-200
LC 1 FALSE START ON BAG 1
PC 8541-SC-500
RC 8541-SC-600
PC 9541-HE-200
PC 8541-SC-700
PC 8541-SC-800
This is vehicle II B 5 of Table 6. This vehicle is in the 4500 Ib. inertia weight c<^ss with a 455 CID enigne, a 260 cubic inch pelleted
catalyst, but no air pump. Oxygen in the exhaust beffore the catalyst is approximately 5.0% according to GM data. This system is designed
to meet standards of 0.9, 9.0, and 2.0 GPM of HC, CO, and
Cooling - two fans in front of the vehicle and another fan blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side.
Preconditon^-JlOOO miles of standard AMA with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur js£t before testing.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur
oArA
-------
SULFATF
VEHICLE 10 : 4V39T5H4?7036
ELFCTRA ??5
09:59:06 JAN 13,
TEST
NO.
TFST
OATE
ANAI H2S04
OATF OOOM MC,/MI
SO?
763350 12-11-75 l?-?3 11759 1.1
76340? l?-ll-75 !?-?«=; 11770 12.8
763414 12-11-75 1 2-?5 11783 4.?
763415 12-11-75 12-25 11797 R.I
763416 12-11-75 12-25 11807 3.1
763417 12-11-75 12-25 11820 4.0
763429 12-12-75 12-?5 11835 1.9
763430 12-12-75 I?-?* 11846 10.1
763431 12-12-75 12-24 11859 2.8
76343? 12-12-75 12-24 11872 9.4
763433 12-12-75 12-?4 1188? 3.7
763434 12-12-75 12-24 11895 3.8
0.4
6.4
?.l
4.3
1.6
LSJ
LSJ
CFJ
CFJ
LPH
CFJ
I.RH
I.R.H
I.RH
LSJ
0
0
0
0
n
.^7
.12
.1?
.00
.11
10.
5.
6.
3.
4.
4?
09
14
34
15
8?2
666
665
618
660
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
03
98
95
91
9?
10
13
13
14
13
.6
.2
.1
.?
'
* FIJFL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MT.)
504 SO? RF.COV PPV AN4L. HC CO C02 NOX
0.4
6.4
?.l
4.3
1 .6
1 .4
5.0
1 .9
1 .9
2.0 LPH LSJ 0.11
0.7 LSJ I..RM 0.57
5.1 LSJ LSJ 0.07
1.4 CFJ LSJ ".07
5.0 CFJ CFJ 0.06
1.9 t.PH CFJ n.oo
1.9 CAS CFJ o.ii
1
4
1
4
5
4
5
5
.35
.03
.63
,9P.
.40
.90
.26
ft 63
«15
648
654
614
ft51
663
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.92
.0?
.96
.P9
.8?
.84
.95
13
10
13
13
14
11
13
.1
.6
.s
.4
.3
.4
.?
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPF)
PC 5036-75-100
RC 8036-SC-100
PC P0^6-SC-200
P.C 9036-HF-100
RC 8036-SC-100
LC TIME BETWEEN CYCLES 5 MIM - 10-SF
r,
PC 8036-SC-400
RC 5036-75-200
PC 8036-SC-500
"C 8036-SC-600
PC 9Q36-HF.-200
PC 8036-SC-700
RC «036-SC-800
NOTE:
This is vehicle II. B. 9 of Table 6. This vehicle is a 1975 certification vehicle in the 5500 Ib. inertia weight class with a 455 CID engine.
The vehicle has a 260 cubic inch pelleted catalyst but no air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.9, 9.0, and 2.0 gpm of HC, CO,
and NO..
This vehicle is car 5451 also tested at GM for sulfuric acid emissions. The GM tests showed sulfuric acid emissions with 0.03% fuel
sulfur of about 2 mgpm over the FET, FTP, and 60 mph.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the passenger side of the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 750 miles of modified AMA driving with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur content. The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
It should be noted that small negative peaks were present during sulfate analysis in addition to the usual positive peaks. This indicates some
possible interference with the analysis. It is felt that the possible interference is small and that the analysis numbers are reasonably accurate.
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : C29H51410190
MALIBll
14:32:47 DEC 22» 1975
TEST
NO.
763148
763149
763150
763151
763152
763153
763157
TEST
DATE
11-20-75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-20-75
1-20-75
1-20-75
1-20-75
1-20-75
1-21-75
1
ANAL
DATE
1-25
11-25
1
1
1
1
1
1-25
1-25
1-25
1-25
1-25
H2S04 S02
ODOM
53450
53461
53474
53488
53498
53511
53524
MG/MI MG/MI
8
78
60
65
64
62
8
7
9
7
3
8
1
5
763158 11-21-75 11-25 53535 78.5
763159 11-21-75 11-25 53548 68.7
763160 11-21-75 12-01 53561 68,4
763161 11-21-75 12-01 53571 71.2
763162 11-21-75 12-01 53584 72.0
* FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MK)
S04 S02 RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02 NOX
3.5
4?.4
33.0
39.6
35.8
34.1
3.6
42.1
37.1
45.0
40.3
39.2
MPG
3.5
42.4
33.0
39.6
35.8
34.1
3.6
42.1
37.1
45.0
40.3
39.2
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
JSH
JSH
JSH
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
JSH
JSH
JSH
JSH
JSH
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
CAS
JSH
JSH
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
39
12
12
09
15
16
43
12
12
07
10
16
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
36
23
21
18
21
21
01
22
22
18
20
24
797
598
593
530
534
588
751
599
595
491
568
591
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.56
.64
.66
.61
.66
.63
.44
.64
.67
.52
.40
.60
11.
14.
15.
16.
15.
15.
11.
14.
14.
18.
15.
15.
1 RC
8 RC
0 RC
7 RC
2 RC
1 RC
7 RC
LC
8 PC
9 RC
1 RC
6 RC
0 RC
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5190-75-100
8190-SC-100
8190-SC-200
9190-HE-100
8190-SC-300
8190-SC-400
5190-75-200
WET BULB MAY N9T BE ACCURATE BECA
USF OF SOCK ON PSYCHROMETER
8190-SC-500
8190-SC-600
9190-HE-200
8190-SC-700
5190-SC-800
NOTE:
This is vehicle II. C. 1 of Table 6. This vehicle is in the 4500 Ib. inertia weight class equipped with a 400 CID engine, a 260 cubic inch
pelleted catalyst" and an air pump. The vehicle is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and 2.0 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another one at the passenger side blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel just prior to testing.
-------
SULFATF PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : 77204
VENTURA
14:22:30 JAN
1976
TEST
NO.
TEST
DATE
763305 12- 8-75
ANAL H2S04 S02
DATE ODOM MG/MI MG/MI
65298
763332 12- 8-75 12-12 65309 35.0
763333 12- 8-75 12-12 65322 .32.7
763334 12- 8-75 12-12 65332 49.6
763335 12-
763336 12-
763351 12-
763352 12-
763353 12-
763354 12-
763355 12-
763356 12-
NOTE:
8-75 12-12 65342 14.2
8-75 12-12 65355 14.8
9-75 12-15 65378 3.2
9-75 12-15 65389 29.7
9-75 12-15 65402 40.5
9-75 12-15 65416 97.0
9-75 12-15 65426 40.6
9-75 12-15 65439 49.3
* FUFL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
S04 SO? RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02 NOX
- LSJ LRH 0.37 3.94 767
MPG
17.8
2P.O
7.5
R.I
1.2
15.5
21 .6
54.2
21 .=;
2*. 3
19.1 LSJ LSJ 0.03 0.16 593
17.8 CAS LSJ 0.04 0.42 592
29.0 CAS LSJ 0.03 0.38 549
7.5 CAS I. WH 0.05 2.34 603
8.1 LRH CAS n.05 2.32 582
1.2 LSJ CAS 0.35 4.43 790
15.5 LSJ LSJ 0.04 0.20 616
21.6 LPH LSJ 0.02 0.0<* 604
54.2 L4H L»H 0.01 0.02 577
21.5 CAS LRH 0.03 0.30 607
26.3 LRH CAS 0.03 0.27 601
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
.26
.2?
.24
.33
.07
.96
.27
.31
.27
.30
.27
.23
11
15
15
16
14
15
11
14
14
15
14
14
.5
.0
.0
.1
.6
.1
.1
.4
.7
.4
.6
.7
RC
LC
RC
RC
RC
LC
RC
PC
PC
LO
RC
RC
RC
PC
RC
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5204-75-400
15 SEC CRANK 1 STALL ON BAG 1
8204-SC-900
8204-SC-1000
9204-HE-300
REV COUNTER BETWEEN TWO NUMBERS -
7479 OR 7579
8204-SC-1100
8204-SC-1200
5204-75-500
3 FALSE STARTS ON BAG 1-PUMPED AC
CEL BEFORE EACH
8204-SC-1300
8204-SC-1400
9204-HE-400
8204-SC-1500
5204-SC-1600
This is veVtle II C 2 of Table 6. This vehicle is in the 4000 Ib inertia weight class and has a 350 CID engine, a 260 cubic inch
pelleted catalsyt, and an air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and 2.0 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX-
Cooling - three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan on the passenger side blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of standard AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel, then about 200 miles of dynomometer testing with
a fuel of 0.03% sulfur content, and then 10000 miles of modified AMA driving with the 0.03% sulfur fuel.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
CM
-------
SUI.FATF PROJECT
VEHICLE 10 : 77204
VENTURA
14:22:30 JAN 14, 1976
TEST
NO.
762903
762904
762941
762942
762943
762944
763028
763029
TEST
OATE
11-1
11-1
0-75
3-75
11-13-75
11-13-75
11-13-75
11-1
11-1
3-75
3-75
11-14-75
ANAL
OATF
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
-13
-19
-19
-19
-19
-19
-1*
-19
DOOM
62756
62776
62787
62800
62814
62824
62837
62858
H2S04 S02 *
MG/MI MG/MI S04
1
3
42
28
44
12
9
0
.1
.0
.1
.2
.2
.6
.8
.9
0
1
25
17
29
7
e;
0
.5
.3
.4
.1
.5
.3
.7
.4
763030 11-14-75
62869
9.3
763031 11-14-75 11-19 6?H82 21.5
76303? 11-14-75 11-19 *?B95 44.4
763033 11-14-75 11-19 62905 21.5
763034 11-14-75 11-19 62918 28.7
NOTE:
5.4
2«.9
17.3
SO?
EMISSIONS
RECOV DPV ANAL HC CO C02
0.5 LSJ CFJ 0.54 7.65 759
NOX
MPG
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
1.3 LSJ VOC ".28 2.81 756
1.48 11.5 PC 5204-75-100
LC HARD STARTING,1 FALSE ON RAG 1,BA
G'3 LOST WHEN RADIATOR HOSE RR
1.51 11.7 kC 5204-75-200
LC LONG CRANK-1 FALSE START ON BAG 1
1.53 16.6 RC 8204-SC-100
1.19 16.7 RC 8204-SC-200
0.98 18.4 RC 9204-HE-100
LC GASOLINE ODOR IN TEST CELL
7.3 VDC VOC -.10 2.48 549 0.92 16.0 RC 8204-SC-300
LC GASOLINE ODOR IN TEST CELL
0.94 16.1 RC 8204-SC-400
LC GASOLINE ODOR IN TEST CELL
1.49 11.7 RC 5204-75-300
LC 4 STALLS 2 BACKFIRES VIA CARBORA
TOR
1.53 16.1 RC 8204-SC-SOO
LC 6 MIN. IDLE BETWEEN 204-SC-500 AN
D 204-7S-300
1.48 16.5 RC 8204-SC-600
1.39 17.9 RC 8204-HE-200
1.5? 16.3 RC H204-SC-700
1.45 16.6 RC R204-SC-SOO
25.4 LSJ LSJ 0.03
17.1 VOC LSJ 0.04
29.5 VOC LSJ 0.01
5.7 LSJ VOC -.06
0.4 LSJ VOC 0.46
0.04
1.37
O.h9
1.89
3.68
535
529
482
547
750
5.4 LSJ VOC 0.04 0.07 550
12.9 LSJ VOC 0.04
28.9 VDC LSJ 0.02
12.7 VDC LSJ 0.04
17.3 VOC LSJ H.04
0.08
0.18
0.35
0.06
538
496
545
534
This is vehicle II C2 of Table 6. This vehicle is in the 4000 Ib. inertia weight class and has a 350 CID engine, a 260 cubic inch pellet
catalyst, and an air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of .4, 3.4 and 2.0 gpm of HC, CO and NO^-
Cooling. Two fans in front of tbe vehicle and another fan on the passenger side blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of standard AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel prior to testing.
CP*
-------
SH|_r/»Tr
\/FhTCl. F TO : "
10:03:33 JAN 13, 1976
TEST
NO.
763449
763450
763451
763452
763453
763454
763472
763473
763474
763475
763476
763477
TEST
DATF
12-16-7*:
12-16-75
12-16-75
12-16-7*:
12-16-75
12-16-75
12-17-75
12-17-75
12-17-75
12-17-75
12-17-75
12-17-75
AMflL H?SC!4 SO?
HIT!-'
12-25
1 ?-2«
-
1 ?-?«
12-2Q
12-29
12-25
12-29
12-29
12-?9
12-29
12-29
POOM
53399
53410
53423
53427
53437
53460
53475
C3436
53499
53513
53523
53536
Mr-/
11
107
160
74
93
10
1 IB
90
122
«8
100
Ml MH/MI
.2
.?
-
.2
ft
.9
.7
.2
.7
.p
.2
.9
FIJr'L
NOTE:
ECOv nivv
FMTSSH^'S
-If CO
4.1 <".". s i>-j r..37
S / . 0 ('." S l.J'-i " . 05
NOX wn-,
1.55 10.5
COMMENTS
(TtSr TYPE)
40.?
'4. 1
ft.i.ft
5.1.6
7^.1
U~J..<^
1.69 14.; RC --1213-50-100
M ? l.f-0 14.u PC A^i3-SC-200
~b6 1.54 )b.n WC ^rl^-nt-lOO
Ml 1.61 14.b kC Hr>13-SC-300
6 J4 1.4ft iu.,0 'HC H213-SC-40Q
»J9 1.56 10.5 KC '=21.3-75-200
'.tt.s ISJ I SJ 0.04 0.0ft ft07 1.64 14.^ we ".213-SC-500
->'.'- CAS LSI o.0'+ li.O^ 5*7 1.57 1<+.M f«c -=?21 3-SC-600
73.1 Ca^ (~AS n.OJ O.OA 557 1.4h 15.9 nC c>? 13-HE-200
O.u *~05 1.59 1^.7 PC H213-SC-700
^05 1.51 14.7 RC «?13-S(
»-.0 CfJ CAS !-.{ 3
Hi. 5 !_"-'*' '~AS 1.04
*'-.? !.>.-. CA^ 0.04
4. 1 LSJ \_-~>n 1.^7
1 .-
55.7 I »» r.'.S n.04 0.0
This is vehicle II C 3 of Table 6. Tfc-S vehicle is in the 5000 Ib inertia weight class and is equipped with a 455 CID engine and a 260
cubic inch pelleted catalyst. This vehicle was provided by GM to CARB. for fleet usage and has gone over 50,000 miles. This car has no air
pump. The oxygen level in the exhaust before the catalsyWis. approximately 3.5% for this vehicle according to GM data. This system is
designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and 2.0 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - three fans in front of the vehicle, another fan at the passenger side of the vehicle and still another fan directed at
the gasoline tank blowing from the floor.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur just prior to testing.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
ACID
ON
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : 3L*9T3M134S85
DELTA 88
10:05:07 JAN 13. 1976
TEST
NO.
TEST
DATE
ANAL H?S04 S02
DATE ODOM MG/MI MG/MI
% FIIFL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
S04 SO? RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO CO? NOX
MPG
763364 12-17-75 12-24 52549 20.7
763409 12-18-75 12-?4 52560 87.?
763413 12-18-75 12-24 52573 19.7
763478 12-18-75 l?-?4 52586 18.9
763479 12-18-75 12-29 52596 2.9
763480 12-18-75 12-29 52609 2.2
763481 12-18-75 l?-29 5?625 ?.5
76348? 12-18-75 12-29 52636 2?.8
763483 12-18-75 l?-29 5?649 ?9.3
763484 12-18-75 12-2° 5266? 40.4
763485 l?-18-75 l?-?9 5?672 34.8
763486 12-18-75 l?-?9 5?685 35.4
7.9
44.1
11.1
10'. 9
1 .5
1.?
1 .0
11.6
IS.?
??.9
17.8
18.3
7.9 CAS LRH 0.27
44.1 CAS LRH 0.04
m.i LSJ CAS n.05
10.9 LSJ LSJ 0.0?
1.5 LRH LSJ n.H
1.2 LRH LSJ 0.13
1.0 LSJ LRH 0.36
11.6 LSJ CFJ 0.03
15.2 LRH CFJ 0.03
??.9 LRH LSJ 0.0?
17.8 CFJ LSJ 0.0?
IS.3 CFJ LSJ 0.03
0.79
0.11
0.3?
0.41
?.95
3.50
-2.03
0.0?
0.0?
0.18
0.08
0.14
868
656
649
576
648
641
882
65?
637
586
649
643
.46
.4?
.45
.30
.4?
.43
.49
.35
.39
.23
.43
.41
10.?
13.5
13.7
15.4
13.6
13.7
10.0
13.6
13.9
15.1
13.7
13.8
COMMENTS
-------
SIJI.FATF P'-\I JECT
in : wH4ir,5fl2(!?i?o
CORONFT
13:02:14 DEC 18, 1975
TEST
NO.
TEST
DATF
H?S04
OATF
76386? 11- 4-75 11-1?
ODOM
4717
MA/MI
762863
762864
762865
762866
762867
762877
762878
762879
762880
7628R1
762882
762883
1 1- 4-75
11- 4-75
1 1- 4-75
11- 4-7S
11- 4-75
11- 5-75
11- 5-75
11- 5-75
11- 5-75
11- 5-75
11- 5-75
11- 7-75
11-1?
11-1P
1 1-1?
11-18
1 1-1«
11-1?
11-1?
-
11-13
11-13
n-n
11-18
4728
4741
4754
4764
4778
4793
4804
481 7
4831
4H41
4H54
4878
1??.R
R4.0
7?.l
6f .0
62.6
24.6
114.3
-
«1 .?
59.1
^S.S
3?. 5
*
cf)4
47.2
41 . 1
.IS. 7
.14 . 1
SULFU3
SO?
47
>. 7
.31 .
13.
F-HS5IO.NS (G/MI.)
DPV AN3L HC CO C0
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID S 4Z63A5465S3
12S49S58 DEC 169 1975
MARQUIS
TEST
NO.
762369
762370
762371
762372
762373
762374
762381
762382
762383
762384
762385
762386
762427
762428
762429
762430
762431
762432
762441
762442
762443
762444
762445
762446
762447
762448
762449
762450
762451
762452
TEST
DATE
9-25-75
9-25-75
9-25-75
9-25-75
9-25-75
9-25-75
9-26-75
9-26-75
9-25-75
9-26-75
9-26-75
9-26-75
10- 1-75
10- 1-75
10- 1-75
10- 1-75
10- 1-75
10- 1-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
10- 2-75
ANAL
DATE
10-01
10--01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-01
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
ODOM
51669
51680
51694
51707
51717
51730
51743
51756
51770
51783
51793
51817
51822
51833
51847
51860
51868
51882
51895
51909
51922
51935
51948
51964
51977
51990
52003
52016
52029
52056
H2S04
MG/MI
7.9
29.2
29.6
37.3
30.5
3308
6.7
25.2
37.3
33.1
30.8
34.9
7.0
16,1
19.3
28.8
22.2
30.2
11.2
20.1
29.4
36.2
43.6
44.8
16.9
30.4
39.8
41.9
43.7
44.3
S02
3.0
14.8
15.0
20.8
15.5
17o8
2»6
13ol
18»3
20.1
16.3
17.7
2.8
8.5
10.1
16.5
11.3
15.4
5.4
10.0
14.8
18.4
21.9
22.2
8.3
15.4
20.0
21.4
22.0
22.5
FUR EMISSIONS
ECOV
3.0
14.8
15.0
20.8
15.5
17.8
2.6
13.1
18.3
DRV
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
LRH
LRH
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
ANAL HC
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
CFJ
CFJ
JSH
0.52
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.25
0.03
0.03
CO
1.21
0.0
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.04
1.14
0.0
0.0
(G/MI,)
C02
902
678
679
615
676
652
895
663
701
NOX
1.19
1.20
1.18
1.05
1.17
1.15
1.19
1.11
1.08
MPG
9
13
13
14
13
13
9
13
12
.8
.1
.1
.4
.1
.6
.9
.4
.7
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5553-75-100
LC i FALSE START ON BAG i
ONG CRANK ON HOT START
5553-SC-100
5553-SC-200
9553-HE-100
8553-SC-300
8553-SC-400
5553-75-200
LC VEHICLE STARTS HARD 12
F.C CRANK
8553-SC-500
8553-SC-600
LC COOLING FANS WERE OFF
L
S
DU
RING TEST FOR 1 MIN, BLO
20.1
16,,3
17o7
2.8
8.5
10.1
16.5
11.3
15.4
5.4
10.0
14.8
18.4
21.9
22.?
8.3
15.4
20.0
21.4
22.0
22.5
CFJ
CFJ
BGB
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LRH
LRH
LRH
CAS
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
LRH
CAS
JSH
JSH
CAS
LRH
LRH
LRH
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
LRH
LRH
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
0.02
0.03
0.03
Oo25
1
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.01
-.01
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.01
0»02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
565
648
679
891
653
656
598
674
674
715
686
683
677
685
693
701
676
682
674
682
678
1.04
1.09
1.20
1.27
1.19
1.19
1.10
1.17
1.15
1.36
1.32
1.29
1.24
1.27
1.29
1.35
1.27
1.29
1.27
1.22
1.27
15
13
13
9
13
13
14
13
13
12
1?
13
13
13
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
.7
.7
.1
.9
»6
.5
.8
.2
.2
.4
.9
.0
.1
.0
.8
.7
.1
.0
.2
.0
.1
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
PC
RC
RC
WN BREAKER CAUSE
9553-HE-200
8553-SC-700
8553-SC-800
5553-75-300
LC CELL TEMP LOW
8553-SC-900
LC CVS SAMPLE FLOW AT 10
/H
8553-SC-1000
9553-HE-300
8553-SC-1100
8553-SC-1200
8553-SC-1300
8553-SC-1400
8553-SC-1500
8553-SC-1600
8553-SC-1700
8553-SC-1800
8553-SC-1900
8553-SC-2000
8553-SC-2100
8553-SC-2200
8553-SC-2300
8553-SC-2500
CF
NOTE:
This is vehicle II C 5 of Table 6. This vehicle is a prototype vhjeilce in the 5500 Ib inertia weight class with a 460 CID engine, monolithic
catalyst, and an air pump and designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and 2.0 gpm HC, CO, and NOX. The catalyst is a 166 cubic inch catalyst of platinum and
palladium.
Cooling - two fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the back wheel blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side
Preconditioning - 36,000 miles of AMA with a 0.01% sulfur fuel, then 500 miles of modified AMA with a 0.03% sulfur fuel.
A m°/ «..i £--_ i i_i_ _ f
0.03% sulfur in the test fuel
Manufacturer's Results:
HC gpm
0.22
FTP
CO gpm
1.54
NOX gpm
1.7?
-------
TEST TF^T flNAl. M?sO4 Mi? * H if-'t ~ -,:/ . TS1-. PINS <<;/'-!. 1 . CO'^FMTS
MO. DATE OfiTF OflQM «;/«! »'.r,/-.il ''-'lu <.'*;> <:(' rr.^ [>:;\i A;IAL '<' ("" <''>> MMX ^! r. (TFST TYPf )
10-??-7S 11-01 *,ftl*, 10.7 ^.>-, / .L, | ..... i ;r ;-,.!/. i.,^ ,.,.. j./,,, ,.... ^r S?A,J_ /s_ yn n
7ft?7?l m-??-7S 11-m ftft43 <»H.7 U-.4 <-,.) r ! CC | ..,. f...| :.|'. 1 .A ( /'!., i-f. s.-h^-'.r.-^on
7ft?7?? lo-??-7S ll-o'i fthS i 'is.^ L-^.'; -.7.C, r.jf in -..'.-' ;j.'i] < //. i.si /i./ >- r 'i/h^-tie - 1 on
7ft?7?3 lO-??-7S ll-n:< ftftft'3 7n.ri '!.? - I . ^ <~i I I l-~ -..-> .-.,; <.,-, I.1-'-. ''I. I t-C -i/fr/-sC- H>n
7ft?7?4 10-??-75 11-0"< ftft7ft ^9.^. T:.^ <-i.^ r> I r l< ...',.; ...i,| /..MI 1 .'---i ,- I . I K( ;l 0.09') IT. ox/null <>l plaLiixiin and |i|l lad inin in a ral in <>l
2 to l.and an alrpump which provides 17. to 67. oxyj;en to I he calalysl. 'I'ln- .sysl.t'in Is designed lo meel staixlard:; ol O./i, 'l.'i, and ()./i j.pin
of HC, CIO, and N()x.
Cool Inn - one fan In front of the vheicle and another fan at the rear wheel hlowin); across the vehicle I roiu the passeiij-.er .side.
Preconditioning - 4000 miles of an unknown drlvlnj; schedule wilh a fuel of unknown sulfur level, then 500 miles of mod i I ied AMA
on a fuel of 0.03Z sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE in : HYY334
VOLVO
09:56:25 DEC 18, 1975
TEST TEST ANAL H2S04 S02
NO. DATE OATE ODOM MG/MI MG/MI
762751 10-24-75 11-06 1150? 4.3
762752 10-24-75 11-06 11521 2.0
762753 10-24-75 11-06 11548 2.1
762754 10-24-75 - 11572
762755 10-24-75 11-06 11585 3.7
762756 10-24-75 - 11623
NOTE:
* FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
504 S02 RECOV DPV ANAL HC CO CO? NOX
MPG
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
1.6
1.6
2.9
1.6 GGS TJC
- CJP TJC
2.9 GGS TJC
0.48
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
98
36
24
01
25
12
522
407
426
377
425
427
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.25 16.7 RC 5334-75-100
1.15 21.7 RC 8334-SC-100
1.23 20.8 PC 8334-SC-200
42 23.5 RC 9334-HE-100
1.29 20.9 RC 8334-SC-300
1.24 20.7 RC 8334-SC-400
This is vehicle II C7 of Table 6. This vehicle is a prototype vehicle in the 3500 Ib. inertia weight class with a 163 CID
engine, a monolithic catalyst, fuel injection, and no added air. The vehicle is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and
0.4 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX. The catalyst*is of platinum and.palladium in a ratio of 2 to 1 and receives an oxygen level of 0.6% to 2%.
Cooling - one fan in front of the vehicle and another fan at the back wheel blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 4000 miles of AMA with fuel of unknown sulfur level and then 500 miles of modified AMA with fuel of 0.03% sulfur.
Manufacturers Results:
HC gpm
0.68
CO gpm
9.47
x gpm
1.78
MPG
15.1
FET MPG
22.6
Englehard PTX 514.5 IIC-M20-300, 0.039bz_noble metal per unit.
-------
1 ' !
DEC
1975
TEST
NO.
76231 1
762320
762309
762319
762318
762317
762310
762312
762313
762314
762315
762316
762345
762346
762347
762348
762349
762350
762351
762352
762362
762363
762364
762365
762589
762590
762591
762592
762593
762594
76261 1
762612
7*2613
762614
7626J5
762616
TF^T
DATF.
9-22-75
9-22-75
9-22-7^
q-22-7"=
9-22-75
9-??-75
9-23-75
9-?3-75
9-23-75
9-23-75
9-23-7S
9-23-75
9-24-75
9-24-7^
9-24-75
9-24-75
9_?4-75
q_?4_7q
q_?4_7q
q_?4-75
q-?4-75
9-24-7S
9-24-7S
9-24-75
10-15-75
10-15-75
] n-] s-75
1 0-15-75
1 0-1K-7C
10-15-7S
1 0-16-7<=
10-l*-7*
1 0-16-75
10-1^-75
10-16-7S
10-16-7^
AN 11
j^ * T P"
Q T 0
9-30
9-30
9-30
9-3T,
9--.M
9 - 3 r:
9-30
9-3A
q-3r;
q - } r.
9-30
3-30
9-3^
q--U-
9-30
9-30
q- ir
9-3C.
9-3"
10-0 1
10-01
10-01
1 0-n)
10-?3
10-P3
10-53
1 0 - '> ''
10-23
-
IO-PI
lO-'T
in-?3
1 l-o->
1 1-03
OOOM
5145"
<=.] 46-i
S14HS
S1SO 3
51515
^1521
=>! S 34
51 S45
51SS7
^ J S 7 1
S 1 S 8 1
51 S94
K 1 6 1 0
S)N?4
SI 637
51651
S] 6f-5
5167^
5 1 <~ 9 1
S 1 7 0 "-V
51718
51 731
51 744
^1 775
^334
5^>34S
^pJ':;q
52373
S 2 3 « 3
5239^
S2.23
^2436
52450
H ? ^* ^5 1
C24 71
^ *p JU r*: ^*
^5^04
-S/MI
1 .°
2.S
3.4
6 . 6
3.S
"3 J-*
r.o
3. !
3. ^
'-= L
< tr
2 . T
i .4
1 ."
f "^
3 . "i
2.7
3 . S
:< . 3
J . -:
S.f-
S.4
' . 2
7.7
1 '' . '
1 1 >, . v
'' . !'
! ^ . '-*
7. 1
-
4 . 1!
4 . '^
".]
-.V
'"> "'
ci ii rif*.-
l .3
1 .4
.7
"'.7
I <
v" ' '
V n--,/ s .-,.,), ,;
3 r-'^ i >- .--.37
/> rfts i -"H ;i . i 2
r, <-.'.r- t. -- -i. i /
s r/-s i -"' 'i .(.-.
] ! : = H Pic ".IP
i C c . I C '» v 1.17
7 CAS CF I '- .4 \
7 r ;s s r F i > . i s
? . :... rt i '. . ] y
fl L '--' '.F S i1 . 1 '1
1 L-" TF.I . 1 ;;
C L "" <"* l " . l'»
4 r ft', ?>" i . 3'..
- r .1 - r t- | ,1.13
3 ! <-' '-*-' 1 '. 1 1
7 ! - - TK j .- . i ]
4 rr i i j-, ,1 . o J
1 r-c- i i. ;-,- .'.. i i
1 r. .'= i v-i >. i ?
? re>; .-AS :-. . ] ;;
1 L "- r.A<: -i.ll
'» 1. 1- ;-.-,<, ,.. ] j
- r? i _c:rts r. . n
- f t j r & --; .1.12
^. I.'.-- me; .-. . 1.-
L. 1 -i f > 1 -i . i 0
'.» r,-:--, rr i :,. 1 (i
H TA-: i LJ~ .1.07
4 r>-j i >-< T. 1 1
f F ..I I l>-l ".10
C ft s i w .j r, . -» p
7 r ft c, r .1 s ', . ] 1
i- ! -- r ; -i. l .1
7 |...,. 1 v~ n.o>-
1 ff .1 I..-H M. 11
> re i i -~ .... ] ,1
SSI '"-is (/« 1 . )
C.d CO'? NO"
!..->? '^7 1.43
l.<«r ^1 1.36
' . i.i ^1 1 .2^
'I..10 .<4-i 1.14
n. n 3C<7 1 .40
.'. . - ^ 400 1.33
1.-.2 u4l !.:<«
'.L/C '»? 1.53
r, .-4 4(-i(i i.sn
;....?; 3r>ii 1.45-
1 . -»« \7* 1 . Jh
2.«4 3^0 1.36
1 ..i? .3 3 3 1 .64
0.««7 .3^9 l.SS
'!.i:4 3M 1.S3
1.J1 3^4 1.S3
."'.SS 3/d 1.52
1 i . -'> 0 3 p 6 . s 2
. i . « ] .. 3 h o .56
f). if ' -"-J .SH
0.27 "< 7 / . 4 b
:'i . 3^. ^^ .b^
ij.S- 3^-> .SO
Ti . "U-- 3 / -v .51
1."'- W2 1.«.3
0.17 3 1 / 1.31
:i.V4 316 1.30
0 . U S 300 1.3^
0.21 3 1 o 1 . 2 M
'l . 32 T-> 1.2^
\.'^ ^'^3 1.^9
'i . H'. 3oO 1.53
i.lb "> f* 1.43
w . 0 - 312 1.40
',.17 3S4 1.4b
V. 1 7 3nl 1.4^
"""'
li.S ^C
22. b PC
23.? PC
2b.s >^r
22. 3'' PC
22. 1 .K-C
1^ .9 PC
22.3 PC
22. 1 "C
2b. 3 PC
23.3 PC
22.5 f-C
2'*.'-) KC
22." PC
23.9 PC
23.1 PC
23.4 PC
22.9 PC
24.2 PC
23.4 WC
2J.S PC
23.4 t=C
23.9 PC
23.3 PC
IB.r. PC
2H.<* PC
2*.0 PC
29. * PC
27.9 PC
24.1 «C
19.0 PC
24.6 PC
26.2 RC
2H.4 WC
25.0 PC
2, <«.-> PC
COMMENTS
(Tt'ST TYPE)
5bl3-7b-100
Hbl3-SC-100
8513-SC-200
9S13-HE-100
«bl3-SC-300
LC TWO FANS ON VEHICLE
HblJ-SC-400
5513-75-200
MSI 3-SC-bOO
6513-SC-600
9S1 3-HE-200
"SI J-SC-700
«b!3-SC-800
H513-SC-900
LC 1 STALL ON FIRST ACCEL.
COLD START - C02 «-l SP
aN GAS R-2 GAIN
Hbl 3-SC-1000
«S13-SC-1 100
r>5 1 3-SC- 1 200
8513-SC-1300
HS13-SC-1400
^Sl 3-SC-1500
^51 3-SC-1600
HS13-SC-1700
HS13-SC-1800
Hbl3-SC-1900
(HS13-SC-2000
5S13-75-300
LC. 60 SEC CRANK 1 STALL VE
HICLE STARTS HARD
M513-SC-2100
«5 1 3-SC-2200
9513-HF.-300
^51 3-SC-2300
851 3-SC-2400
5513-75-400
LC GOOD START (VEHICLE) NOT
f DRIVER
HS13-SC-2500
85 1 3-SC-2600
9bl 3-HE-400
HS1 3-SC.-2700
HS1 3-SC-2800
NOTE:
This is vehicle II. 1) 1 of Table 6. This vehicle is a prototype vehicle in the 3500 Ib inertia weight class and has a 232 CID engine. The vehicle
was equipped with an Engelhard monolithic start catalyst, a pelleted catalyst (AC HN 2364) and an air pump. The start catalyst was 26 cubic inches and
the pelleted catalyst was 160 cubic inches and both catalyst^contained Platinum and Palladium. This system was designed to meet standards of 0.4,
9.0, and 1.5 gpm HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - One fan in front of the vehicle. Preconditioning - 50,000 miles of AMA with a fuel of about 0.02% sulfur, then 1000 miles of modified AMA
fuel of 0.03% sulfur before testing began. An additional 500 miles of AMA with 0.03% sulfur fuel was run between tests
is rqfiuiAf ^^ ~^0 NC^^M MPij
".24 l.i
76-2365 and 76-2589. The
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : 3J57K5M232731
CUTLASS
12:54:24 DEC 16, 1975
TEST
NO.
762642
762643
762644
762645
762646
762647
762662
TEST
DATE
ANAL
DATE
H2S04 S02
ODOM MG/MI MG/MI
10-20-75 10-22
10-20-75 10-22
10-20-75 10-22
10-20-75 10-22
10-20-75 10-22
10-20-75 10-22
10-21-75 10-22
7047
7058
7071
7084
7094
7107
7122
2.4
2.9
2.1
4.5
2.4
2.6
1.7
% ruEL SULFUR EMISSIONS
504 S02 RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02 NOX
1.2
2.1
1.3
3.2
1.5
1.6
0.8
1.2
MPG
1.2
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.4
1.6
1.9
1.2
2.1
1.3
3.2
1.5
1.6
0.8
1.2
1.2
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.4
1.6
1.9
LRH
LRH
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CAS
CAS
LRH
LRH
CFJ
CFJ
CAS
TJC
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
LRH
LRH
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
LKH
LRH
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
37
08
10
05
09
08
55
07
08
05
08
08
09
09
09
07
3.
1.
2.
0.
2.
1.
4.
2.
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
76
41
97
65
29
72
29
92
73
52
32
27
21
15
25
25
646
448
519
474
513
530
682
531
536
489
537
535
534
530
532
525
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.91
.85
.05
.08
.16
.08
.05
.11
.14
.05
.15
.15
.15
.15
.16
.12
13
19
16
18
17
16
12
16
16
18
16
16
16
16
16
16
.6
.7
.9
.7
.2
.6
.8
.6
.4
.1
.5
.5
.5
.b
.6
.rt
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5731-75-100
RC 8731-SC-100
RC 8731-SC-200
RC 9731-rtE-lOO
RC 8731-SC-300
RC 8731-SC-400
RC 5731-/5-200
LC i FALSE START ON BAG i
RC 8731-SC-bOO
LC 6.5 MIN IDLE PRIOR TO SA
MPLE
RC 8731-SC-600
RC 973J.-HE-200
RC 8731-SC-700
kC 8731-SC-800
RC 8731-SC-900
RC 8731-SC-1000
RC R731-SC-HOO
RC 8731-SC-1200
762665 10-21-75 10-22 7133 1.9
762666 10-21-75 10-22 7146 2.0
762667 10-21-75 10-22 7160 3.4
762668 10-21-75 10-22 7170 2.8
762669 10-21-75 10-22 7183 2.8
762670 10-21-75 10-22 7196 2.8
762671 10-21-75 10-31 7210 3.9
762672 10-21-75 10-22 7223 2.7
762673 10-21-75 10-22 7236 3.1
NOTE:
This is vehicle II D 2 erf Table 6. This vehicle is in the 4500 Ib. inertia weight class equipped with a 350 CID engine and a 260
cubic inch pelleted catalyst.' Without an air pump the oxygen level in the exhaust before the catalyst is approximately 1.5% according
to GM data. TJJ.S system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 9.0, and 1.5 gpm of HC, CO, and NOx-
Cooling- Two fans in front of the vehicle and another fan on the passenger side at the rear wheel blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel just before testing.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur. n^/ol
t 0.05 Ot P*'r*
/IctD
on
-------
Ii:4i:i4 DtC In. 1975
I'MvT
TEST
NO.
762970
762971
762972
762973
762974
762975
763010
763011
763012
763013
763014
763015
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
TFST
DATF
-11-75
-11-75
-11-75
-11-75
-11-75
-11-75
-12-7*
-12-75
-12-75
-12-75
-12-75
-12-75
ANAL
DATF
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1 1
11
11
11
11
-13
-13
-13
-13
-13
-13
-13
-13
-13
-19
-1"
-19
OOOM
461*
4629
4642
4665
4675
468R
4703
4714
4727
4741
4751
4765
H2S04
MC,/M
2.
4.
in.
4ft.
36.
37.
1 .
10.
24.
23.
30.
24.
1
4
2
7
*
?
7
7
1
fi
2
0
H
502
S04
! .4
lc.O
41.3
1 .0
J O (J
? 0 * ^
24. P
SO?
1 .<* ISJ )5
1 .3 t S J LSI
is..n JSH i.sj
41.3 JSH
"'.fr LS.J .is-1 r.07
1 .0 1.5 J T.) ;i.4-
".. 1 I SJ T.I (i.l 'i
l".'^ l>'-! LSJ '-..17
x»." LSJ I *-! 0.0P.
?3.H I.S.I L '-I f>.(i«
vlC-.^S (0/'"I.) COMMENTS
CU C'V NOX MHH (Tf.Sr TY^r)
'M'l / l.si 17.2 ^C 5un.i-7ri-100
4^j 2."7 2fj.'-< -C *40j-SC-100
LC l^.A^LK TO SHIFT IMO fI9ST f,EA«
U-. INC, TC.ST
.'I . -ii4 '»4-j ?."<^ rV.n feC -J40.'-Ht-lGO
LC vFHl'CLf i)'lv»N t-"0J AS-^UT 3 1/2 HOI
S FOH- «f^Al-i Pi-IOK JO THIS TEST
i.'-^ 4J-. 1.44 s,l.? ^-t. Xvfi.l-SC-JOO
0.*-.0 1.-0 Kf, "4«3-SC-40n
t,.]9 SIS 1.42 lb.4 *;C 5403-75-200
1.11 <* 1 I 1.1? 21.5 PC K403-SC-500
'>.'-I M<» 2.00 21.4 h-r fi403-SC-600
36rs 2.31 ^4.0 WC 9903-HF-200
"01 1.92 22.1 t-C JS03-5C-700
NOTE:
This is vehicle II. D. 3 of Table 6. The vehicle is a 1976 certification vehicle in the 3500 Ib inertia weight class and has a 225 CID engine,
a small oval Platinum monolithic catalyst, and no. air pump. Chrysler states this vehicle should be considered as a prototype designed to meet
standards of 0.4, 9.0, and 1.5 gpm of HC, CO, and NO .
Cooling - Two fans in front of the vehicle also one fan at each side.
Preconditioning - 4000 miles of AMA with fuel of unknown sulfur level and the 500 miles of modified AMA with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
Manufacturer's results:
HC gpm
0.49
FTP
CO gpm
7.1
NOX gpm
1.28
-------
SULFATF PPOJFTT
VEHICLE 10 : 3J45K5ni37<:<73
VISTA CRUISE
12:05:46 DEC 18, 1975
TEST
MO.
TEST
DATE
ANAL
DATF
H2S04 SO?
DOOM MG/MI MP/MI
762768
762769
762770
762771
762772
762773
762777
762778
762779
762781
762780
762782
762783
762784
762785
762786
762803
10-28-75
10-28-75
10-28-75
10-28-75
10-28-75
10-28-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
10-29-75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13134
13145
13158
13171
13181
13194
13210
13221
13234
13247
13262
13273
13286
13296
13309
13322
13340
2
6
4
6
3
.?.
d
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
.0
.7
.5
.2
.0
.6
.1
.4
.6
.1
.1
.3
.1
.3
.4
.2
.4
NOTE:
* FIIFL SULFUR FMISSIONS IG/MI.)
S04 SO? RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO CO? NOX
MPt'i
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
1.0
4.5
3.0
4.5
?.l
1 .7
1 .0
3.0
1 .7
1 .4
0.9
0.7
n.'9
1 .0
o.o
1 .0
1.0 CAS CFJ 0.64 8.79 614
4.5 CSS CFJ 0.17 5.01 43V
3.0 LRH CFJ 0.16 <*.71 486
4.5 SV!> L"H 0.08 1.54 458
?.l SVT L°H 0.14 4.60 474
1.7 svf) CAS 0.15 5.35 48b
1.0 LRH Cas 0.5] 4.83 617
1.66 14.1 RC 5473-75-100
1.97 17.8 RC 8073-SC-100
1.87 1«.0 RC H973-SC-200
?.?0 19.3 RC 9973-HE-100
1.78 18.4 RC ^t>73-SC-300
1.7H 17.9 RC H973-SC-400
1.56 14.? PC 5973-75-200
LC NOX VALUES ARE QUESTIONABLE
3.0 LRH CAS o.]3 3.23 482
.1.7 CFJ L°H '1.1.4 3.69 483
1.4 CFJ CFJ 0.15 ^.87 475
2.08 16.? RC 8973-SC-SOO
LC NOX VALUES ARE QUESTIONABLE
?.08 18
2.11 18
?..? C«S TF'J n.0« 1.04 465 2.33 19
O.Q CAS CFJ 0.13 3.65
0.7 LRH CFJ 0.1? ?.84
0.9 Lf-H L.RH 0.1? 2.90
1.0 CFJ LRH 0.1? ?.77
0.8 CFJ CFJ 0.15 4.4?
1.0 CAS CFJ 0.1? 3.04
482
477
483
478
2.12 ia
2.15 18
2.04 IB
2.02 18
2.0? 16
2.05 16
,2 WC
LC
,4 RC
LC
.0 KC
LC
.? RC
.4 RC
.? RC
.? RC
.3 RC
,5 we
8973-SC-600
NOX WAS MF.ASUREO ON TRAIN 15 ALL
NOX VALUES BEFORE THIS ARE ?
8973-SC-700
TEST WAS PERFORMED IN WRONG SEQUE
NCF BEFORE 973-HE-201 16-2780
9973-HE-200
TEST WAS RUN IN WRONG SEQUENCE AF
TER 973-SC-700 16-2781
3973-SC-800
8973-SC-900
8973-SC-1000
H973-SC-1100
8973-SC-1200
B973-SC-1300
This is vehicle II E 1 of Table 6*. This vehicle is in the 5000 Ib. inertia weight class and is equipped with a 350 CID engine and a 260 cubic
inch pelleted catalystTbut without an air pump. The system is designed to meet standards of 1.5, 15.0, and 2.0 gpm of HC.CO, and NOX.
Cooling - Two fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the rear wheel on the passenger side blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel just before testing.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
c/lTft<-V.5T 0.05
&
O/V
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : LL29G5G132100
DART
13:12:11 DEC 18, 1975
TEST TEST ANAL H2S04 S02
NO. DATE DATE ODOM MG/MI MG/MI
762906 11-6-75 11-18 4617 4.3
* FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
S04 S02 RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02 NO]
762907
762908
762909
762910
762911
762928
762929
762930
762931
762932
762933
11
11
1]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
l-
l-
6-75
6-75
6-75
6-75
6-75
7-75
7-75
7-75
7-75
7-75
7-75
11-18
11-18
11-19
11-18
11-19
11-13
11-13
11-13
11-13
11-13
11-13
4628
4641
4655
4665
4678
4695
4696
4709
4743
4754
4766
25.4
21.3
25.1
20.4
21.7
2.9
22.0
25.3
31.8
18.2
24.4
19.5
16.5
20.7
16.0
16.6
1.6
17.1
20.2
26.7
14.4
19.7
2.4 LSJ CFJ 1.43 6.91 534
19.
16.
20.
16.
16.
1.
17.
20.
26.
14.
19.
5
5
7
0
6
6
1
2
7
it.
7
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
CFJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
48
42
38
44
39
37
41
40
36
41
39
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
43
39
32
46
45
36
37
39
33
54
40
431 ]
427 ]
402 ]
423
433
522
427
415
395
417 !
408 1
1.66
1.70
1.51
.62
.65
.65
.95
.69
.58
1.76
1.66
20
20
22
20
20
16
20
21
22
21
21
.5
.7
.0
.9
.4
.5
.7
.3
.4
.2
.6
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5100-75-100
LC BAG 1 RAN APPROX 10 SEC. LONG
RC 8100-SC-100
RC 8JOO-SC-200
RC 9100-HE-100
RC fllOO-SC-300
RC 8100-SC-400
RC 5100-75-200
RC 9JOO-SC-500
RC 8100-SC-600
PC 9100-HE-200
RC 8100-SC-700
RC 8100-SC-800
NOTE:
This is vehicle II E 3 of Table 6. This is a 1975" certification vehicle in the 3500 Ib. inertia weight class with a 318 CID
engine, a small oval platinum monolithic catalyst, and an air pump. This vehicle is designed to meet standards of 1.5, 15.0 and 2.0 gpm
of HC, CO, and NO*. '
Cooling - two fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the back wheel blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 4000 miles of AMA with a fuel of unknown sulfur level followed by 500 miles of modified AMA with a fuel of. 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur - -
Manufacturers' Results:
FTP
HC gpm CO gpm
1.09 6.1
jj gpm
1.78
-------
SULFATF PROJECT
VEHICLE ID t A5A8a7A130769
MATADOR
14!3qt38 "EC 22» 1975
TEST
NO.
763194
763195
763196
763197
763198
763199
763200
763201
763202
7632fl3
763204
763?05
TEST
DATE
11-25-75
11-25-75
11-25-75
1
1
1
1
1
1
'1
-25-75
-25-75
-25-75
-26^-75
-26-75
-26-75
-26-75
11-26-75
11-26-75
ANAL
DATE
12-01
12-01
12-01
12^01
12-01
12-01
12-04
12-04
12-04
12-0*
12-04
12-04
H2S04 S02
ODOM MG/MI MG/MI
% FUEL SULfUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
S04 S02 RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO CQ2
5227
5238
5251
5265
5275
5288
5304
5315
5328
5341
5352
5365
3.6
12.0
3.0
4.1
1.5
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.2
4.9
3.0
3.9
1.8
7.8
2.1
2.9
1.0
Ul
0,8
1,5
3,6
2,0
1.8 LSJ JSH
7,8 LSJ JSH
2.1 LPH JSH
2.9 LPH LSJ
JSH LSJ
JSH LSJ
LSJ JSH
LSJ LRH
JSH LRH
3,6 JSH LSJ
2,0 LRH JSH
2,6 LRH JSH
JtO
If'
,<\,8
0.31
0.09
0.07
0.0*
0.07
07
27
0,09
o.fl*
0.06
5.60
2.42
1.52
Q.I*
1.38
1,37
4.44
1.78
(hi*
1.06
619
507
487
*6Q
*96
*^3
622
499
488
*
)
NOX
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2"
*
J
»
*
98
70
61
71
57
58
18
66
57
73
66
6?
MPG
14
17
18
19
17
17
1*
17
ifi
1
4
1
3
R
q
1
7
2
19,8
18
1-8
1
?.
RC
PC
PC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
PC
RC
PC
BP
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5769-75-100
8769-SC-100
9769-SC-200
9769-HE-100
8769-SC^300
8769-SC-400
5769-r75-200
87^9-SC-500
9769-SC-600
9769THEr200
8769-rSCs700
8769-SC=8pO
NOTE;-
This is vehicle II -E 2 of Table ft. This is a 1976 production vehicle in the 1^000 lb Inertia weight class with a 258 pID engine, pelleted catalyst,
and an air pump. 'The catalyst is a 160 cubic-inch platinum and palladium catalyst. This system is designed to meet standards of 1.5, 15.0, and 2.0
GPM of HC, CO, and NOx. ...... "" '
'Cooling - Two fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the back wheel blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side.
Preconditioning- 4000 miles of AMA with fuel of about 0.02% sulfur, then 1000 miles of modified AMA with an 0.03% sulfur -fuel.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
Manufacturer's Results-:
HC gpm
t).33
FTP
CO gpm
5,48
Vx. 8Pm
1.64
«PG
12.6
FET
MPG
18.5
NOTE:
It should be noted that small negative peaks were present in addition to the usual positive .peaks during sulfate analysis. This
indicates some possible interference with the analysis. It is felt that the possible interference is small and that the analysis
numbers are reasonably accurate.
-------
TFST
NO.
762683
762684
762685
762686
762687
762688
762697
762698
762699
762700
762701
762702
762741
762742
762743
762744
762745
762746
TFST
DATE
10-22-75
10-22-75
10-22-75
10-22-75
10-2?-75
10-22-75
10-23-75
10-23-75
10-23-75
10-23-75
10-23-75
10-23-75
10-24-75
10-24-75
10-24-75
10-24-75
1 0-24-75
10-24-75
AN4I.
OflTF
11-03
.10-31
10-31
10-31
11-03
11-03
11-03
11-03
11-03
11-16
1 -nf-.
1-n*- '
1-n*-
1-0*
\-nt~
l-o«.
-
DOOM
7^43
7354
7981
'7990
«003
ftn^O
P031
8045
pnsrt
Pi>69
PD82
0096
U120
f-l 34
P, 144
M5S
o ]^tt
vsr>4 <;o2 * F'irt_
ur,/'*! '.ir,/M[ c;p6 c;n
3.0 1.6
3 . f- ? . 9
1 .5 i .?
7.3 '-. . 3
2.2 i .7
A. 4 i.H
8 . B
~2.*>
3.3
9.7
2.2
1.9
2.9 1.6
2.2-' 1 . 7 '
2.4 ' ' . 1
9.0 7 . *
3.2 '- . 4
-
-;ri f_ in : s-
? DEC '"* V P> '-' V
1 .h Tjr
^.9 TJl.
1 .2 L'
6.3 l>"
1 . 7 Cf J
<4.'- n-'.j
- Tjr
- TJf
- U--'
| U. j-
r^.i
r F.I
1 . ^ T J~
1 .7 r,r.v
2.1 f,(TS
7.3 '''.'.
^.i. .",','.
_ r, r. i.
;-'-, |^"T
F >.': t
'='<^|. -if
C. f j .' . i> s
T jc -i.r^
TJ'- 'l.lu
T 1C r- .('.-
rjr '-. u-
T.li~ -!.!~<
Pi-'j c.n
Tjr f.n
fi~ !'.f
r.c.: '"'.o
v.ir ' . o
Tjr ",n
'-(".- -.-'^
rjr n .00
T..r ' . <>7
i.jr '.;"-
Tjr f. .I;..;
Tjr " . ! !
CI^A
SSI'^.s ((,/f'l.
CO ro2 N
l.V- '-^" 1
1 . .IS 4>30 1
0.17 jsa 1
1 .« 7 4u / 1
l.^T i-^l 1
II." => 0
i.'i '.' 0
(j . :"' 0 0
i . !j 'I 0
0 . 0 ;J 0
I! . 0 0 0
,;.no '"-.^ i
O.s*-, tiVu 1
,,./'! ~AS \
:.!': ^.o / n
..-- '-5 -) 1
l.D1- - 1--' 1
N fl I J «
)
>.*
.76
.«*>
.71
.7S
.0
.i'
.n
.0
.0
' '
.*-'
. '' !)
.4f
."''
."-I
.-.4
M
14
19
22
1-
19
(j
U
0
0
0
0
Ib
Mi
^;-
x 1
r^ 0
,j / ,
.7
.4
.S
.7
."
.0
.0
.0
.0
' '
."
.1
. ^
,'
. -
.7
'
'T
MC
MC
K-C
f-C
HC
KC
hT,
PC
i-C
kC
HC
i^C
«C
pr
ur
PC
16:09:55 NOV
COMMENTS
(TFST TYPE)
H693-SC-100
&693-SC-200
9f>c'3-HF- 100
Hh^S-SC-lOO
:<^Q3-SC-400
5 6 9 3 - 7 5 - 2 0 0
H693-SC-SOO
i693-bC-6(IO
^*93-Hh -200
H^Qj-SC-700
H*Q3-SC-80fl
S ^> ^ 3 7 4 3 0 0
*-^ *-~. ^ j S C 900
Hb9J-SC-1000
4>-.Qj-HF- M)0
'<< s.i-SC-1 1 00
« h Q 3 - S C - 1 2 0 0
.NOTE: . . .
This is vehicle II E 4 of Table 6. The vehicle is the same as vehicle II E 4 of Table I but without an air pump. It has'an inertia weight
of 4000 Ibs., a 302 CID engine, a monolithic catalyst. The catalyst is 142 cubic inches with Platinum and Palladium. The system is designed to
meet standards of 1.5, 15.0, and 2.0 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX
Cooling - Two fans in front of the vehicle and another fan on the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 5000 miles of an unspecified driving schedule with a fuel of unknown sulfur content, then 500 miles of modified AMA with a fuel
of 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
Manufacturer's Results:
FTP
HC gpm
0.57
CO gpm
4.06
NOX gpm
1.61
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : 5W81F123693
GRANADA
14:20:21 DEC 22. 1975
TEST
NO.
TEST
DATE
ANAL
DATE
H2S04 S02
ODOM MG/MI MG/MI
763380 12- 9-75 12-11 8828 3.7
763381 12- 9-75 12-11
763382 12- 9-75 12-11
763383 12- 9-75 12-11
763384 12- 9-75 12-11
763385 12- 9-75 12-11
763386 12-10-75 12-11
763387 12-10-75 12-11
763388 12-10-75 12-11
763389 12-10-75 12-11
763390 12-10-75 12-12
763391 12-10-75 1?-12
8839 50.6
8853 79.1
8866 109.2
8876
8889
8901
8912
8925
78.0
82.8
5.0
77.4
87.0
8938 109.3
8948 106.8
8961 105.0
% FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/HI.)
S04 SO? RECOV DRV ANAL HC CO C02 NOX
MPG
1.9
33.2
53.6
78.5
50.9
54.6
2.6
51.9
59.3
8?.3
73.2
72.0
1.9 CAS LRH 0.46 1.92 609 1.69 14.5
33.
53.
78.
50.
54.
2.
51.
59.
82.
73.
72.
2
6
5
9
6
6
9
3
3
2
0
CAS
LRH
LRH
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
LSJ
CAS
CAS
LRH
LPH
LRH
LSJ
LSJ
CAS
CAS
LRH
LSJ
LSJ
CAS
CAS
CAS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
11
07
08
12
12
47
11
06
06
11
12
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
32
04
02
22
15
6R
08
11
01
09
05
506
491
461
509
502
611
496
487
440
484
485
1
1
1
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
1
.39
.41
.45
.38
.45
,81
.45
.44
.47
.46
.46
17.5
18.1
19.2
17.4
17.6
14.4
17.9
18.?
20.1
18.3
18.3
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5693-75-400
LC LONG CRANK, 1 FALSE START ON RAG
1
RC 8693-SC-1300
RC 8693-SC-1400
RC 9fc93-HE-400
RC 8693-SC-1500
RC 8693-SC-1600
RC 5693-75-500
LC 1 FALSE START ON BAG 1
RC 8693-SC-1700
RC 8693-SC-1800
RC 9693-HE-500
RC 8693-SC-1900
RC 8693-SC-2000
NOTE:
This is Vehicle II £5 of Table 6. This vehicle is in the 4000 Ib. inertia weight class with a 302 CID engine, a monolithic catalyst,
and an air pump. The catalyst is 142 cubic inches with platinum and palladium noble metal. This system is designed to meet standards of
1.5, 15.0, and 2.0 GPM of HC.CO, and NOx-
Cooling - three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the back wheel blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 5000 miles of an unspecified driving schedule with a fuel of unknown sulfur content, then 500 miles of modified
AMA with a 0.03% sulfur fuel, about 200,miles of dynaometer testing with the 0.03% sulfur fuel, and then an additinal 500 miles of modified
AMA with the 0.03% sulfur fuel.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
Manufacturer's results:
HC
0.33
FTP
CO
1.15
NOx gpm
1.89
-------
l(j:57:<»7 HEC 16. 1975
TFST
NO.
762177
76217B
762179
7621PO
7621R2
762199
762200
TFST
OATE
9- 9-75 9-1?
9- q-75 9-1?
g- 9-75 9-12
9- q_7c, 9-1?
9_ 9-75 9-1?
9- 9-75 9-1?
9-10-7^
HPS04
OOOM
43S7
4364
4382
76220?
762203
9-10-75
9-10-75
9-10-75
9-10-75
9-10-75
9-12
9-12
9-1?
9-12
9-12
4419
4430
4447
4470
44H4
4^97
11! . 1
9.3
.«. Fi"~l_ c'.'I.H'0 < " TSSI'.JNS (C'/M.
tf!4 SO? C'FO'iv ')CV /ifn^L MC C'.> CU2 N
1 .* 1 .*- VOC >< (.}? 0.90 ^77 i
5,f- y.f. v'"~ ,>.-> ^.2 Vi; <~ *>*- -i.07 CI.S" s>\ 0
'.7 ?.7 i/.-.C .«-> 0.04 0.40 20 J 0
'.^ ?.6 VOi" .-"-I o.i)7 O.Sf- ?l-y 0
?.r- ^.s v'p.r: ..->- -.(» 7 r..--.>-- ?:-i ..)", i.-.d? O.So ?!> 1
?.? "*«? V f 1. -> -i O.Of (c.^~> ?^4 ]
^.7 ^.7 ,l*-.i 1 .-'-i r..(iri O.'*^ 20(1 0
r.4 ?.4 ,lff, |_^M 1-i.lVW l).S'^ ^J5 0
-''.:> >.? Jf0b SEC.
NOTE:
This is vehicle III 8 on Table 6, a \tyRabbit with a 90 cubic inch diesel engine.
Cooling - One fan in front of vehicle
Preconditioning - ECTD, TAEB testing
0.21% sulfur in test fuel.
-------
SULF&TF
V/FHICLF: ID : wL4i«;4A2io26i
ETHYL'S COPONKT
12:52:58 OEC 16, 1975
TEST
NO.
TFST
D&TE
H2S04 S02
OATF ODOM
% FUEL SULFi.W
c;04 SO? i->ECOV
ANAL
FMTSSIONS (G/MI.
C CO C02
762542 10- 9-75 10-?n S239S 17.6
762543 10- 9-75 10-20 52406 7.6
762544 10- 9-75 10-20 S2419 7.7
762545 10- 9-75 10-20 52432 7.1
762546 10- 9-75 10-20 52442 6.4
762547 10- 9-75 10-20 52455 5.5
762555 10-10-75 10-20 ^2474 7.1
762548
762549
762558
762556
762557
762559
762560
762561
762562
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-10-75
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-22
-
-
10-22
10-22
52485
S2498
52511
52523
52536
52549
52S62
52575
52588
5.9
5.2
5.3
5.6
5.3
-
-
5.5
4.6
7.6
4.9
c.O
^.5
4.1
1.5
3.1
3.8
3.7
7.6 CAS TLH o.3f, 6.8ft 737
4.9 CAS nCS 0.10 3.60 530
5.0 LPH OCS 0.08 3.42 526
s.5 LMH LWH 0.05 1.25 441
4.1 LRH LWH O.OH 3.33 529
3.5 DCS LRH 0.07 2.7Q 523
3.1 GGS DCS 1.14 7.40 692
3.9 nos DCS o.ll 2.87 517
3.5 DCS GGS 0.08 2.21 513
4.1 OCS DCS 0.06 l.bO 434
3.8 DC1^ DCS 0.08 2.63 509
3.5 CAS LSJ 0.19 2.60 516
- TJC LSJ n.Ort 1.86 502
- LSJ TJC O.OA 2.59 511
3.7 LSJ DCS 0.12 2.84 505
3.0 LSJ OCS 0.10 2.65 513
. )
NOX
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
80
67
55
61
58
59
96
44
32
34
44
24
29
30
37
40
MPG
11
16
16
20
16
16
12
17
17
20
17
17
17
17
17
17
.8
.6
.7
.0
.6
.8
.5
. 0
.2
.3
.3
.0
.6
.2
.4
.1
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
PC
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5261-75-100
LC 10 SEC CRANK ON
8261-SC-100
8261-SC-200
9261-HE-100
8261-SC-300
8261-SC-400
5261-75-200
LC 1 FALSE START 1
8261-SC-500
8261-SC-600
9261-HE-200
8261-SC-700
8261-SC-800
8261-SC-900
8261-SC-1000
8261-SC-1100
8261-SC-1200
RAG 1
STALL
NOTE:
This is vehicle III. 7 of Table 6. This vehicle is an advanced non-catalyst system. The vehicle is in the 4500 Ib inertia weight .
equipped with a 360 CID engine which is calibrated lean, and has thermal reactors and a lead trap.
Cooling - One fan in front of the vehicle and one fan at each side.
Preconditioning - ECTD TAEB testing
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
Ethyl reported significant entrainment of lead salts from the lead trap since the trap was full of lead salts during the EPA tests. Lead
compounds interfere with the EPA analysis method for sulfates. The sulfate emission numbers reported for this car must be considered in this
light. Ethyl analyzed two EPA'filters on runs 901 and 1001 and reported 18.5 and 17.8 Xjg/fliter which correspond to sulfate emissions of
about 2 tngpm.
-------
«»u
1976
CLASSIC
TFST
NO.
7*3232
763233
763234
763235
763236
763237
763254
763255
763256
763257
76325H
763259
TFST
DttTF
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
1-75
1-75
1-75
1-75
1-75
1-75
2-75
2-75
2-75
?-75
2-75
2-75
A^4«l
OATF
12-05
1 2-05
12-0^
12-05
1 2-'>5
12-05
12-05
12-OS
12-05
12-05
12-05
12-05
000:'"
2.1
14.2
9712
9725 25.2
973* 102.6
9748
9761
9776
9787
9790
9R16
9826
9r40
38.2
44.3
1.*
45.7
57.1
89.0
46.5
46.*
SO'-.
1 ."
71.1
?->. 7
27. f>
'5.9
23.7
A.'. .7
2".n
3n.7
71
I =- '
I.?.)
I ^ !
rrj
rr.i
i s i
C;V
C .*- '
JS -
JSH
IS-
. 05
.01.
. r-i
. r-u
I.S.I
I S.I
C'J
, 14
, .54
, (I ft
.02
. 0 7
. 0
.1)1
» -' .5
.31
COS.
SOS
^64
511
511
472
.
)
NOX ff(->
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.35
24
17
11
21
1H
.3ft
35
36
1
.3
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
-»
7
7
J
7
7
1.27 IB
1
1
.
.
32
26
1
1
7
7
.0
.H.
. 5
. i
. 1
.3
.3
.3
.4
.8
.2
.3
»c
WC
^C
KC
HC
KC
NC
KC
PC
PC
we
PC
COK^ENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5^24-75-300
«^24-SC-600
A^?^-sc-700
cj??i4_HF-200
B224-SC-800
M??^-sc-900
5224-75-400
B224-SC-1000
H224-SC-1100
9224-HE-JOO
fl.224-SC-l-200
P224-SC-1300
NOTE:.
This is vehicle IV 6 of Table 6. ^This vehicle is in the 4500 Ib. inertia weight class and equipped with a 350 CID engine, a start catalyst,
a 260 cubic inch pelleted catalyst; and an air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and 0.4 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan on the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of standard AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel, then about 100 miles of dynamometer testing with fuel of
0.03% sulfur, and finally 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with fuel 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
I*/
CS/7.
AC-ID
-------
S'iLFATf-
' * ' T (" t '<'. I r> : i
VO
DEC 18, 1975
TFST
NO.
TFST
DATE
'-'.TSSI'IMS C-J/I-'I.)
ODD'-1
762713 10-23-75 11-1*
762714 in-23-7^ 11-n^ 15S62
762715 10-2"»-75 11-n* 1S"7S
762716 10-21-75 U-n* i <^.K9
7627)7 10-23-75 11-n^ 15930
62750 1 0-24-75
15^75
2.6
1 .7
1.3
1 .7
1 .4
rv./v /.NHL HC C'.i C02 NOx
1 .7 Tjr r.Fj fi.1 i 1.4?
1 .4 T JO TJC f1.!.! i O.ol
1 .4 I..!. -. T jr '.,", ? ri.ci4 3->?
1 .H T.jr. l.-i-i '.":':> :j.C4 364
1.1 OF.I TJC 1.0.2 U.Oh 350
1.2 CK.I TJC .-.,a,: 0.11 3--J3
ijip'
COMMENTS
(TFST TYPt)
.f-.*-. ]H.'i WC S3AO-75-100
.1S 2?.^ HC «340-SC-100
LC 7.5 MIN IOLF PRIOP TO TEST-TRACES
CHftNGE WILL TEST PROCEED
NO FILTEP SAMP
1.21 2<*..3 PC ^3
0.9M ?^.7 ^
n.P« 22. S PC B340-SC-400
0.24 17.3 PC 5340-75-200
LF
NOTE:
This is vehicle IV 1 of Table 6. The vehicle is a prototype vehicle in the 3500 Ib inertia weight class equipped with a 130 CID engine,
fuel injection, a three-way monolithic (Engelhard PTX 16 TWC 16-M 20-300 noble metal loading 0.095 oz./unit)catalyst, and a Lambda-so/nd
oxygen senor which controls oxygen to the catalyst at 0.6% to 0.9%. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and/0.4 gpm of
HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - One fan in front of the vehicle and another fan at the rear wheel blowing across the vehicle from the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 4000 miles of AMA with a fuel of unknown sulfur level, then 500 miles of modified AMA with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
Manufacturer's results:
FTP
HC gpm CO gpm
0.11 1.79
NOX gpm
0.69
MPG
16.7
FET
MPG
22.9
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VEHICLE ID : D37H41435671
MALI8U CLASSIC
14:27:35 DEC 23, 1975
TEST
NO.
763362
763263
763264
763265
763266
763267
763277
763278
763279
763280
763281
763282
763316
763317
763318
763319
TEST
DATE
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
2-75
2-75
2-75
2-75
3-75
3-75
2-75
3-75
3-75
3-75
4-75
4-75
4-75
4-75
4-75
4-75
ANAL
DATE
12-05
12-05
-
-
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-11
H2S04 S02 % FUEL SULFUR
ODOM
12813
12824
12838
12849
12871
12882
12876
12890
12920
12934
12951
12962
12975
12999
13010
13023
MG/MI MG/MI S04 S02 RECOV
3.3
22.3
-
-
3.4
88.8"
77.4
119.3
88.8
91.7
7.1
114.3
84.8
91.1
79.2
80.9
1.5
-
-
-
1.5
53.5
46.6
78.3
53.2
57.2
3.3
69.8
53.3
68.6
48.7
50.6
' 1.5
-
-
-
1.5
53.5
46.6
78.3
53.2
57.2
3.3
69.8
53.3
68.6
48.7
50.6
EMISSIONS
DRV ANAL HC
LSJ JSH
LSJ CAS
CAS LSJ
CAS JSH
LSJ JSH
LSJ CAS
JSH CAS
CAS LSJ
CAS LSJ
CAS LSJ
CAS LRH
CAS LRH
LRH CAS
LRH CAS
LSJ LRH
LSJ LRH
0.30
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.21
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.28
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.06
CO
0.68
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.60
0.0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.71
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
(G/MI.)
C02
697
0
0
0
695
536
534
490
538
516
697
543
526
441
542
532
NOX
1.56
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.69
1.74
1.70
1.71
1.85
1.83
1.70
2.12
2.07
2.02
2.47
2.13
MPG
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
16.6
16.6
18.1
16.5
17.2
12.7
16.3
16.8
20.1
16.4
16.7
COMMENTS
(TEST TYPE)
RC 5671-75-100
RC 8671-SC-100
RC 8671-SC-200
RC 9671-HE-100
RC 5671-75-200
RC 8671-SC-300
RC 8671-SC-400
RC 9671-HE-200
RC 8671-SC-500
RC 8671-SC-600
RC 5671-75-300
RC 8671-SC-700
RC 8671-SC-800
RC 9671-HE-300
RC 8671-SC-900
RC 8671-SC-1000
NOTE:
This is vehicle IV 5 of Table 6. This is a prototype vehicle in the 4500 Ib. inertia weight class with a 400 CID engine and a 260 inch
-dieted catalyst 0.05 oz Pt/Pd (5/2 Ratio) but with no air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4 and 0.4 gpm of
C, CO, and KOX.
ooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the back wheel on the passenger side and blowing across the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
GM sulfuric acid emission data give on enclosed graph.
-------
> '"i
-. 1 -. 1
9, 1976
CLASSIC
TFST
NO.
763232
763233
763234
763235
763236
763237
763254
76325S
763256
763257
763258
763259
TFST
OATF
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
1-75
1-75
1-75
1-75
1-75
1-75
2-75
2-75
2-75
2-75
2-75
2-75
ANSI
OATF
12-05
1 2-o5
l?-n^
12-05
12-05
12-05
12-05
12-os
12-05
12-05
12-05
12-OS
000*
9701
9712
9725
9736
9748
9761
9776
9787
9790
9816
9R26
9840
H2SO4
»-,//!
2.1
14.2
2S.2
102.6
38.2
44 . 3
1 .8
45.7
57.1
89.0
46.5
46.8
so?
71.1
2-5.7
27. >'
23.7
3'-. .0
6f, .7
29. 0
3n.7
71
'-*.7
l> 1
CF.J
( F.I
I S.I
I s,J
JS--
,0 CAS I.S.I 0
.7 CAS I SJ ''
' ' 1
3J
OS
03
01
r> i
r. .4
22
!)«
04
02
o -,
, ns
Co
'-'
ii.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
II.
0.
0.
I) .
0 .
or
o;i
14
.14
0 P
(12
/3
07
0
01
33
31
(G/N.
679
L; 2 7
S 0 6
AS4
S20
512
664
51 I
511
472
516
SI J
I.)
NOX
1.35
1.24
1.17
1.11
1.21
1.18
1.3S
1.35
1.36
1.27
1.32
1.26
1-
13
16
17
19
17
17
13
17
17
IB
17
17
PI,
.0
.H.
.5
. 1
.1
.3
.3
.3
.4
.6
.2
.3
BC
we
PC
wC
h>C
we
WC
WC
PC
PC
we
RC
CONSENTS
(TEST TYPE)
5?24-75-300
8224-SC-600
82?4-SC-700
9224-HF-200
8224-SC-800
K224-SC-900
S??4-7S-<*1)0
8224-SC-1000
8224-SC-1100
S)2?4-HF.-300
8224-SC-1200
8224-SC-1300
NOTE:
This is vehicle IV 6 of Table 6. ajhis vehicle is in the 4500 Ib. inertia weight class and equipped with a 350 CID engine, a start catalyst,
a 260 cubic inch pelleted catalyst; and an air pump. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4, and 0.4 gpm of HC, CO, and NOX.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan on the passenger side.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of standard AMA driving with an 0.03% sulfur fuel, then about 100 miles of dynamometer testing with fuel of
0.03% sulfur, and finally 1000 miles of modified AMA driving with fuel 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was also 0.03% sulfur.
D/YT/\
-------
SULFATE PROJECT
VFHTCLF 10 : A5A057F1117?!
HORNFT
11:10:15 DEC 19. 1975
TEST
4M4L H2S04 SO?
narr ODD" "C-/MI
763093 n-'fl-75 ll-?r
4.1
7MP94
7*3005
767096
76TT97
76 3H Q",
763126
7631?7
7631P8
763129
7f>31 ?n
7him
76314?
763143
763144
763145
763146
763147
1 1 -l°-7c
11-1 --~"r
11 -10-75
11-10-75
1 1.1 a_7c
1 1-1=-7S
11-19-7=
1 1-1C.7C
1 1-10-7=
H-]a_7c;
11-19-7=
11-20-75
1 1-2C-75
11-20-75
11-20-75
11-20-75
1 l-?o-7=.
1 1-?'1
1 l-?o
ll-?o
!!-?('
11 -?n
1 l-?fl
U-'o
1 ]-?n
1 i-?n
1 1 -?t:
1 l-.'O
!l-?5
11 -?5
11-? =
ll-?5
11-25
11 -?5
1 1732
1 174 =
11759
1 J76-3
11781
11B07
1 1818
1 1»31
1 1345
1 1 955
11360
11891
1190?
11915
1)929
11934
11952
16.8
"5.5
54.4
44.1
34.6
4.0
31.2
34.3
63.8
44.3
54.1
5.9
37.5
32.5
54.0
32.9
38.4
% FUEL SULFUR EMISSIONS (G/MI.)
S04 SO? PECOV DRV ANAL HC CO CO? NOX
MPT,
COMMENTS
(TTST TYPE)
11.9
20.9
41.. 6
21.9
3'. 7
40.9
4?. 7
?.? JSH FMM o.?2 2.26 581 0.54 15.2 PC 5721-75-100
11.9 JSH FMM 0.12
20.q JSH JSH 0.11
41.6 FMM JSH 0.11
30.4 EM" JSH O.I?
23.7 EMM JSH 0.12
2.0 LSJ JSH 0.39
21.9 LSJ
24.4 LSJ
47.9 JSH
32.7 JSH
40.9 JSH
).? LSJ
?7.4 LSJ
JSM n.12
LSJ n.ll
LSJ ".09
LSJ O.OS
LSJ 0.02
JSH 0.??
JSM 0.12
24.0 LSJ LSJ 0.12
4?.7 JSM LSJ 0.11
?4.4 JSH LSJ 0.12
2*.fl JSH LSJ 0.11
0.58
0.1?
0.02
0.12
0.30
3.67
0.21
0.14
0.0?
0.05
0.04
2.40
0.26
0.22
0.04
0.24
0.18
469
468
434
480
485
568
471
451
4?8
Uu'-i
440
560
455
449
4?1
447
44?
LC TVS SAMPLE STARTED LATE ON BAG 3
0.38 18.9 PC 0721-SC-100
0.47 is.9 RC 0721-SC-200
0.64 20.4 we
0.42 19..4 PC
PEM STUCK ON FIRST ACCEL-O
LC
0.46 18.3 RC "721-SC-400
0.6? 15.4 PC 5721-75-200
LC CAKlC-E 1 SPAN GAS SPANISH 4S Ic =4
MG17 ? SPA"J GAS F0= CO?
0.3» 18.« P- P7?l-bC-Sno
0.47 1^.7 -r ?.721-1C-700
0.4? ?-,.? zr g7pi-sc-800
0.49 15.7 PI
0.35 19.5 »i
LC BAGS UNPLUGGED AT 1250 SEC
0.37 19.7 PC 8721-SC-1000
0.52 21.1 RC 9721-HE-300
0.37 19.rt PC h721-SC-1100
0.39 ?0.0 PC 9721-SC-1200
NOTE:
This is vehicle IV 8 of Table 6. This vehicle is a prototype vehicle in the 3500 Ib. inertia weight class equipped with a 258 CID engine,
both an oxidizing catalyst (EngelhnrdlTB) and a reducing catalyst, and an air pump. The catalysts are a Gould GEM 68 reducing catalyst and a
26 cubic inch Platinum and Palladium monolithic oxidation catalyst. This system is designed to meet standards of 0.4, 3.4 and)0.4 gpm of HC,
CO, and NOX.
Cooling - Three fans in front of the vehicle and another fan at the side of the vehicle.
Preconditioning - 1000 miles of modified AHA with a fuel of 0.03% sulfur.
The test fuel was 0.03% sulfur.
Manufacturer's Results:
HC gpm
0.33
FTP
CO gpm
3.11
NOX gpm
0.51
MPG
14.5
COffice 1976 - 650-518/6E-002'*
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR ANO WASTE M ';.AGEME.NT
Dear John:
The purpose of this note is to .express my admiration for the
work thai' you and your staff have done in preparing the technology
assessment report on automotive sulfuric acid emission control, which
report was forwarded to me this week by Eric Stork. The report seems
to do a really good job of pulling together what is known about this
subject, and by doing so will be valuable not only for deliberations
that are internal to EPA, but also to the many others outside of EPA
who /have a need to participate in discussions of this matter.
v'
Of course, we have become so used to excellent work of this type
from your group thrt 1 fully expected this report to be up to your
usual standards. Nevertheless, I think it appropriate to ask you to share
T.r_th you''- staff that we recognize and appreciate that their wori'. so
consistently meets our high expectations.
Sincerely,, yours,
l
------- |