EPA/AA/CTAB/87-05
Technical Report
Evaluation of Emissions From Low Mileage
Catalysts On A Light-Duty Methanol-Fueled Vehicle
by
Gregory K. Piotrowski
April 1987
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA
decisions or positions.. They are intended to present technical
analysis of issues using data which are currently available.
The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the
exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA
decision, position or regulatory action.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Emission Control Technology Division
Control Technology and Applications Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AW AND RADIATION
July 29, 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemption From Peer and Administrative .Review
FROM: Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Control Technology and Applications Branch
TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Evaluation of Emissions From
Low Mileage Catalysts On A Light-Duty Methanol-Fueled Vehicle,"
(EPA/AA/CTAB/87-05) presents the results of testing methanol
catalysts in a two-phased program. Phase I concerned the use
of base metal or lightly loaded noble metal catalysts in
three-way and oxidation catalyst modes. Phase II involved the
use of heavily loaded noble-metal catalysts in an effort to
reduce HC and aldehyde emissions to very low levels.
Since this report is concerned only with the presentation
of data and its analysis and does not involve matters of policy
or regulations, your concurrence is requested to waive
administrative review according to the policy outlined in your
directive of April 22, 1982.
Approved: ^r^".^.- ' i.-.,^ / /-^ Date ; (~?' - >" -cfrj?
ChVrles L. Gray J/. f,-l3ir . , ECTD
/ /
Attachment
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. Summary 1
II. Introduction l
III. Vehicle Description 2
IV. Test Facilities and Analytical Methods 3
V. Phase I - Low Mileage Catalyst Screening
A. Program Design 3
B. Catalysts Tested 4
C. FTP Test Results 4
D. HFET Test Results 10
VI. Phase II - Low HC/Aldehyde Catalyst Screening
A. Program Design 14
B. Catalysts Tested 14
C. FTP Test Results 14
D. HFET Test Results 16
VII. Conclusions
A. Phase I 16
B. Phase II 18
VIII. Acknowledgements 18
IX. References . . 19
Appendix A - ' Test Vehicle Specifications
Appendix B - Phase I - FTP Emissions
Appendix C - Phase I - HFET Emissions
Appendix D - Phase II - FTP Emissions
Appendix E - Phase II - HFET Emissions
-------
I. Summary
This methanol catalyst test program was conducted in two
phases. The purpose of Phase I was to determine whether a
substrate loaded with a base metal catalyst or noble metal
catalyst in amounts less than those usually found on a gasoline
vehicle converter could provide superior reductions in methanol
engine exhaust emissions. The goal of Phase II was the
reduction of aldehyde and unburned fuel emissions to very low
levels by the use of heavily loaded noble metal catalysts.
Catalysts tested in Phase I were evaluated as three-way
converters as well as under simulated oxidation catalyst
conditions. Phase II catalysts were tested as three-way
converters only.
For Phase I, the most consistently efficient catalysts
over the range of pollutants measured were platinum/rhodium
configurations. None of the catalysts tested in Phase I were
able to meet a NOx level of 1 gram per mile when operated in
the oxidation mode. Testing of the heavily loaded noble metal
configurations in Phase II demonstrated that additional
catalyst loading beyond 60 grams per cubic foot did not improve
catalyst efficiency for most categories of pollutants. The
heavily loaded platinum/rhodium configurations were much more
efficient converting the range of pollutants measured than the
heavily loaded silver or silver/rhodium catalysts.
II. Introduction
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act[l] requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to play a key role in the
introduction of new motor vehicle fuels. EPA studies[2] have
suggested that methanol stands out from other alternative
transportation fuels from an environmental perspective. The
use of alcohol fuels can also play a significant role in the
reduction of the foreign trade deficit and aid the security
interests of the United States by reducing U.S. dependence on
imported petroleum.[3]
The use of methanol fuel rather than gasoline may be
expected to benefit the performance of a catalytic converter in
two ways. First, pure methanol contains low levels of
substances such as sulfur and lead which act as catalyst
poisons. Second, reduced exhaust gas temperatures at the
catalyst inlet should reduce thermal degradation over an
extended period of vehicle operation.
The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) of the
Office of Mobile Sources, EPA, assesses technology that could
be used to reduce mobile source emissions. One part of this
assessment has been a program to evaluate various exhaust
catalysts at low mileage on a neat methanol (M100) fueled
Volkswagen Rabbit vehicle.
-------
-2-
The goal of this program at its inception was to determine
if a lower cost catalyst might provide superior—or at least
comparable—reductions of methanol engine exhaust emissions. A
number of catalysts were procured for testing, some having
conventional noble metal catalyst loading, while others either
were more lightly loaded or involved the use of base metal
catalysts. The catalysts tested, with one exception, had the
same geometric construction and all were evaluated in the same
underfloor location in the vehicle exhaust.
Two different catalyst operating modes were chosen for
Phase I. The catalysts were first tested as three-way
converters, to oxidize unburned fuel, aldehydes, and CO as well
as to reduce NOx emissions. An air pump which supplied air to
the exhaust ahead of the catalyst but downstream of the exhaust
oxygen sensor was then enabled and the catalyst tested in an
oxidation mode. It was hoped that this mode would further
reduce unburned fuel and CO emissions without seriously
impairing the catalysts' NOx reduction capability. The driving
cycles tested included the Federal test procedure (FTP)[4] and
the highway fuel economy test (HFET)[5] cycles. Details of
this testing are provided in the section labeled Phase I - Low
Mileage Catalyst Screening. This portion of the program has
been reported on elsewhere.[6,7,8]
The second phase (Phase II) of this program began with a
recognition of the need to reduce aldehyde emissions from
methanol-fueled vehicles to very low levels. Aldehydes may
promote the process of atmospheric formation of ozone.[9]
Several substrates very heavily loaded with noble metal
catalyst were procured and tested over FTP and HFET cycles to
determine the benefits of the heavier loading on aldehyde and
unburned fuel reduction. This testing was conducted with the
catalysts operated in the three-way mode only. Results from
this testing are discussed in Phase II - Low HC/Aldehyde
Catalyst Screening.
Ill. Vehicle Description
The test vehicle is a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit 4-door sedan,
eguipped with automatic transmission, air conditioning, and
radial tires. The 1.6-liter engine is rated at maximum power
output of 88 horsepower at 5,600 rpm. The vehicle was tested
at 2,500 Ibs inertia weight and 7.3 actual dynamometer
horsepower.
The emission control system was modified by EPA to include
an air injection pump which can inject air into the exhaust at
a location approximately 1 foot downstream from the oxygen
sensor. A manually adjustable valve was installed in the line
between the diverter valve and the exhaust inlet. The valve
permits the oxygen concentration over the catalyst to be varied
while operating the engine in the closed-loop mode.
-------
-3-
A detailed description of the vehicle and special methanol
modifications is provided in Appendix A.
IV. Test Facilities and Analytical Methods
Emissions testing is conducted on a Clayton Model ECE-50
double-roll chassis dynamometer, using a direct drive variable
inertia flywheel unit and road load power control unit. The
Philco Ford CVS used has a nominal capacity of 350 CFM.
Exhaust HC emissions were measured with a Beckman Model 400
flame ionization detector. No corrections to the results were
made for FID response to methanol or the difference in HC
composition because of the use of methanol fuel. CO was
measured using a Bendix Model 8501-5CA infrared CO analyzer.
NOx emissions were determined by chemiluminescent technique
utilizing a Beckman Model 951A NOx analyzer.
Exhaust formaldehyde is measured using a dinitrophenyl-
hydrazine (DNPH) technique.[10] Exhaust carbonyls including
formaldehyde are reacted with DNPH solution forming hydrazone
derivatives. These derivatives are separated from the DNPH
solution by means of high performance liquid • chromatography
(HPLC). Quantization is accomplished by spectrophotometric
analysis of the LC effluent stream.
V. Phase I - Low Mileage Catalyst Screening
A. Program Design - Phase I
The evaluation of a catalyst during this phase was a
three-step process. First, the car was emission tested on a
chassis dynamometer without the catalytic converter present in
the exhaust stream and with the air pump rendered inoperable.
The driving cycles tested, the FTP and HFET, were repeated
three times.
Following these baseline tests, the catalyst to be
evaluated was attached under the vehicle in the exhaust
stream. The second step of the process was to repeat the
series of tests described above with the air pump still
disabled. The catalyst is evaluated in the "three-way" mode in
this test.
In the third step, the air pump was enabled and air was
added at a predetermined rate to the exhaust directly in front
of the catalyst but downstream of the oxygen sensor. This
action simulated the operation of the catalyst as an oxidation
catalyst. The 3 percent 02 level mentioned in the test
results refers to the amount of necessary makeup air to obtain
3 percent oxygen in the vehicle exhaust (at the catalyst inlet)
at 30 MPH steady-state conditions as measured with a Sun oxygen
analyzer. The car was then tested over the FTP and HFET cycles
three times more in this configuration.
-------
-4-
Following this oxidation catalyst mode testing the
converter was removed from the exhaust stream, the air pump was
disabled, and the car then baseline tested, beginning another
evaluation cycle. This evaluation sequence is summarized in
Table 1.
B. Catalysts Tested - Phase I
with one exception all of the catalysts reported on here
used monolithic substrates which contained 400 cells per square
inch and had a wall thickness of 6 mils. The exception was a
platinum/rhodium configuration with a cell wall thickness of
10.5 mils and a cell density of 300 cells per square inch. All
substrates but one were shaped as porous cylinders, 4.0 inches
in diameter and 6.0 inches in length. The one substrate shaped
differently was an oval-faced ("racetrack") monolith, having
face dimensions of 3.18 inches x 6.68 inches and a length of 6
inches. Details are provided in Table 2.
With the dimensional parameters and converter location
fixed, the test results should have been primarily affected by
the washcoat and the catalytically active materials. Most of
the catalysts were noble metals though some use of base metals
was made. The base metal catalysts were proprietary to the
catalyst suppliers.
The catalysts descriptions indicate the ratio of the
constituents by weight, and the number in parentheses at the
end of the description gives the catalyst loading in grams per
cubic foot. Constituents are identified by their chemical
abbreviations; BM signifies base metal.
C. FTP Test Results
FTP test results are presented in two formats. Tables 3
and 4 detail emission levels obtained over two catalyst
operating modes, three-way and oxidation catalyst performance,
respectively. Baseline (no catalyst) results with the air pump
disabled are also presented for each pollutant category.
Tables 5 through 8 rank catalysts for each pollutant and
operating mode by their efficiency at reducing emissions from
baseline levels. Emission statistics for each catalyst are
presented in Appendix B.
Baseline emission levels have been averaged over all
baseline tests from the beginning of Phase I through the end of
Phase II testing. Trends in baseline emissions were commented
on in an internal EPA memo r andum [ 11 ] and an ASME technical
paper. [8] The analysis done in these two reports shows a rough
parallel between catalyst ranking by lowest emission levels
allowed and a ranking involving catalyst efficiency using only
baseline tests run immediately prior to and following a
catalyst's evaluation. For this reason, baseline results by
pollutant category over the life of the entire program were
averaged and are presented as "baseline test results."
-------
-5-
Table 1
Phase I - Low Mileage Catalyst Screening
Sequence of Individual Catalyst Tests
Conditions
Baseline
Catalytic Converter
Attached
Catalytic Converter
Attached
Test Cycles
FTP, HFET
FTP, HFET
FTP, HFET
Air Pump
Off
Off
On
No. of Tests
of Each Cycle
3
3
Table 2
Catalysts Tested in Phase I
Abbreviated
Catalyst Code
5Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
3Pt:2Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd+BM(35)**
Pd(20)
Ag(150)
Pd+BM(5)**
CuO
9Pd:Rh(10)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Pd(10)
Wall Substrate
Cells Per Thickness Substrate Diameter Volume
Square Inch (mils) and Length (in3)
300. 10.5 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 3.18"X6.68"X6.0" 110
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
400. 6. 4."x6." 75
400. 6. 4."x6." 75
400. 6. 4."X6." 75
Racetrack configuration.
BM signifies base metal.
-------
-6-
Table 3
Summary of FTP Cycle Emissions
HC (q/mi)
Catalyst
None (Baseline)
5Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd+BM(35)**
Pd(20)
Ag(150)
Pd+BM(5)**
CuO
Pd(10)
9Pd:Rh(10)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Operat
Three-Way
.96
. 15
. 11
.13
. 15
. 17
.28
. 18
.54
. 19
. 19
.17
. 14
.36
ing Mode
Oxidation
N/A
. 14
. 12
.13
.16
. 14
.28
. 16
.43
. 18
.25
. 17
. 15
.36
Aldehydes (mg/mi)
Operating Mode
Three-Way
252.1
30.3
11.6
11.5
33.0
41.5
118.9
41.0
59.3
38.3
27.8
29.8
18.9
83.7
Oxidation
N/A
15.4
15.6
14 .4
72.9
68.0
129.4
94.2
52.0
80 . 6
37.6
95.2
35.0
95. 1
Table 4
Summary of FTP Cycle Emissions
CO (q/mi)
Catalyst
None (Baseline)
5Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd+BM(35)**
Pd(20)
Ag(150)
Pd+BM(5)**
CuO
Pd(10)
9Pd:Rh(10)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Operating Mode
Three-Way
6
1
1
2
1
6
1
1
2
. 54
.78
.69
.77
.47
.99
.85
.84
.53
.21
.08
. 74
.60
.95
Oxidation
N/A
.60
.39
.40
.35
.38
2.05
.40
5.93
.55
1.64
.65
.59
2.61
NOx (q/mi)
Operating Mode
Three-Way
1
1
2
1
1
.79
.84
.62
. 77
.85
.74
.97
.67
.03
.83
.73
.87
.81
.05
Oxidation
N/A
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.95
.01
.05
.07
.98
.95
.90
.99
.80
.95
.86
.84
.42
Racetrack configuration.
BM signifies base metal.
-------
-7-
Table 5
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
HC Emissions - FTP Driving Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
9Pd:Rh(10)
5Pt:Rh(40)
3Pt:2Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd(10)
Pd(20)
Pd+BM(5)
CuO
Pd+Bm(35)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Ag(150)
Efficiency %
88.5
86.5
85.4
84.4
84.4
82.3
82.3
81.3
80.2
80.2
70.8
62.5
43.8
Catalyst
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
5Pt:Rh(40)
Pd:40
9Pd:Rh(10)
3Pt:2Pd(20)
Pd(20)
Pd(10)
Pd+BM(5)
CuO
Pd+BM(35)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Ag(150)
Efficiency %
87
86
85.4
85.4
84
83
83
82
81.3
74.0
70.8
62.5
55.2
5
5
,4
,3
3
3
Racetrack configuration.
Table 6
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
Aldehyde Emissions - FTP Driving Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Catalyst
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
9Pd:Rh(10)
5Pt:Rh(40)
CuO
Pd(10)
3Pt:2Pd(20)
Pd+BM(5)
Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Ag(150)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Pd+BM(35)
Efficiency %
95.4
95.4
92.5
91.9
89.0
88.2
86.9
84.8
83. 7
83.5
76.5
66.8
52.8
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
12Pt :Rh(40)*
5Pt :Rh(40)
12Pt :Rh(40)
9Pd:Rh(10)
CuO
Ag(150)
Pd(40)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd+BM(5)
Pd(20)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Pd(10)
Pd+BM(35)
Efficiency
94.3
93.9
93.8
86.1
85.1
79.4
73.0
71. 1
68.0
62.6
62.3
62.2
48. 7
Racetrack configuration.
-------
-8-
Table 7
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
CO Emissions - FTP Driving Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
9Pd:Rh(lO)
12Pt:Rh
Pd(10)
12Pt:Rh(
(40)
40)*
5Pt:Rh(40)
CuO
Pd+BM(5)
3Pt:2Pd(
Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd+BM(35
10Ag:Rh(
Ag(150)
20)
)
150)
Efficiency %
90
89
88
88
88
83
81
77
71
69
56
54
.8
.4
. 7
.2
. 1
. 5
.5
.5
.9
. 6
. 4
.9
-0-
Catalyst
3Pt:2Pd(20)
Pd(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
Pd(20)
Pd+BM(5)
9Pd:Rh(10)
5Pt:Rh(40)
Pd(10)
GuO
Pd+BM(35)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Ag(150)
Efficiency %
94.6
94.2
94.0
93.9
93.9
91.6
91.0
90.8
90. 1
74 .9
68.7
60. 1
9.3
Racetrack configuration.
Table 8
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
NOx Emissions - FTP Driving Cycle Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Catalyst
12Pt:Rh(40)
Pd(20)
Pd(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
9Pd:Rh(10)
Pd+BM(5)
5Pt:Rh(40)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd(10)
10Ag:Rh(150)
CuO
Pd+BM(35)
Ag(150)
Efficiency %
65.4
62.6
58.7
57.0
54.7
53.6
53. 1
52.5
51 .4
41.3
3.4
(10.1)
(13.4)
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
10Ag:Rh(150)
Pd+BM(5)
9Pd:Rh(10)
Pd(10)
Pd(20)
CuO
Pd+BM(35)
5Pt:Rh(40)
Pd(40)
Ag(150)
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt :Rh(40)*
3Pt:2Pd(20)
Efficiency %
20.6
(0.6)
(2.8)
(3.9)
(6.1)
(8.9)
(8.9)
(8.9)
(10.6)
(11.2)
(12.3)
(14.5)
(15.6)
Racetrack configuration.
-------
_Q
Hydrocarbon emission reductions are very significant for
most catalysts with ten catalysts having 80 percent or better
efficiency in the three-way operating mode and nine catalysts
with similar efficiencies in the oxidation mode. Combinations
containing rhodium, with the exception of the silver/rhodium
catalyst, were exceptionally effective. Aldehyde levels
followed trends' similar to HCs, with most noble metal/rhodium
catalysts having efficiencies in excess of 90 percent. Many of
the other catalysts showed significant aldehyde reduction
activity, though none provided efficiencies greater than 90
percent.
CO emissions were significantly reduced by virtually all
catalysts, particularly when operated in the oxidation mode.
Again with a few notable exceptions, the conventionally loaded
noble metal/rhodium configurations allowed the lowest CO
levels. With the exception of Ag(150), all catalysts tested
met the levels of the current CO standards for light-duty
gasoline vehicles when operated in either the three-way or
oxidation modes.
Most catalysts provided a substantial (40-60 percrent) NOx
reduction efficiency when tested in the three-way mode. Nearly
all, however, allowed greater than baseline levels when tested
in the oxidation mode. In addition, no catalyst was able to
meet the current 1 gram per mile gasoline light-duty vehicle
standard when operated as an oxidation catalyst.
The platinum/rhodium combinations tested allowed the
lowest emission levels of most pollutants when tested in the
three-way and oxidation modes. The most notable exception was
the comparatively poor efficiency of these catalysts at
reducing NOx levels in the oxidation mode. Pollutant levels in
most categories were similar for the 12Pt:Rh(40) and the
12Pt:Rh(40) racetrack configurations. The additional volume of
the racetrack configuration did not appear to significantly
reduce pollutant levels below those allowed by the smaller
catalyst.
The substrates coated only with palladium catalyst did not
exhibit a good correlation between heavier loading and catalyst
effectiveness. Indeed, the most lightly loaded Pd(10)
configuration provided the greatest efficiency of the three
all-palladium catalysts for several pollutants. The overall
performance of these catalysts, however, as well as the Pt/Pd
and CuO configurations was mixed. Though sometimes allowing
only very low pollutant levels in a particular category (e.g.,
the 94.6 percent efficiency of 3Pt:2Pd(20) in reducing CO
emissions in the oxidation mode), none of these catalysts
consistently placed as one of the three most effective
Catalysts in every pollutant category.
-------
-10-
Though the use of a base metal catalyst is attractive from
a cost standpoint, neither base metal configuration was
consistently as effective as the platinum/rhodium catalysts.
The lightly loaded Pd+BM(5) combination proved fairly
effective, however, at reducing most pollutants over both
operating modes. The silver(150) catalyst was not very
effective in either operating mode. The addition of rhodium
enhanced the effectiveness of the silver catalyst significantly
over both modes for most pollutants. Efficiency for each
pollutant for this catalyst, however, still did not approach
the efficiency given by the platinum/rhodium configurations.
D. HFET Results
HFET test results are presented in the same format as FTP
results. Tables 9 and 10 detail emission averages obtained
over the three-way and oxidation operating modes. Baseline
results with the air pump disabled are presented for each
pollutant category. Tables 11 through 14 rank catalysts for
each pollutant and operating mode by their efficiency at
reducing emissions from baseline levels. Emission statistics
for each catalyst are presented in Appendix C.
All of the catalysts tested reduced HC emissions to very
low levels over both operating modes. This was not unexpected
due to the high speed driving characteristics of the cycle
which caused catalysts to light-off very early. The oxidation
reactions which produced lower aldehyde and CO emissions were
similarly affected.
Though efficiencies for these pollutant categories were
uniformly high some distinctions are evident. Catalysts which
were most effective in reducing emissions over the FTP cycle
generally were the most effective performers over the HFET
cycle. With the exception of Ag/Rh, the rhodium-containing
catalysts proved most efficient in oxidation reactions. An
increase in catalyst volume did not correlate with a decrease
in pollutant emissions (12Pt:Rh(40)). The catalyst loaded only
with silver lagged the others in efficiency and allowed fairly
high levels of CO over both operating modes.
NOx reduction efficiencies were higher on the average over
the HFET cycle than under FTP conditions. Two all-palladium
configurations had efficiencies slightly greater than the very
consistent platinum/rhodium combinations over the three-way
mode. The most effective configuration was a platinum/rhodium
catalyst with an efficiency of 96 percent. All catalysts
showed an increase in NOx output under the oxidation simulation.
-------
-11-
Table 9
Summary of HFET Emissions
Catalyst
None (Baseline)
5Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
3Pt:2Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd+BM(35)
Pd(20)
Ag(150)
Pd+BM(5)
CuO
Pd(10)
9Pd:Rh(10)
10Ag:Rh(150)
HC (q/mi) Aldehydes (mq/mi)
Operating Mode Operating Mode
Three-Way Oxidation Three-Way Oxidation
43
002
003
008
007
005
017
009
024
007
Oil
010
006
014
N/A
N/A
.008
.009
.010
.008
.013
.009
.019
.012
.012
.010
.008
. 014
185.5
0.3
0.5
1.2
1.1
0.9
3.1
2.0
2.4
6.7
5.9
2.7
1. 1
18.6
N/A
N/A
1.2
2.0
1.7
1.8
3.0
2.7
1.9
9.3
6.7
5.1
1.8
22. 5
N/A signifies not available.
* Racetrack configuration.
Table 10
Summary of HFET Emissions
CO (q/mi)
Catalyst
None (Baseline)
5Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd+BM(35)
Pd(20)
Ag(150)
Pd+BM(5)
CuO
Pd(10)
9Pd:Rh(10)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Operating Mode
Three-Way Oxidation
NOx (q/mi)
5.54
. 11
.05
.06
.22
.33
1.30
.38
4.25
. 17
.05
0.00
0.00
.32
N/A
N/A
3
0
0
0
.01
.02
.01
.01
. 03
.01
.47
.00
.08
. 00
.00
. 07
Operating Mode
Three-Way Oxidation
2.50
.09
.61
.55
.64
.51
1.51
.35
2.74
.93
2.26
1.26
.95
1. 57
N/A
N/A
2.73
2.84
2.77
2.65
2.57
2.54
2.64
2.65
2.66
2.72
2.71
2. 52
N/A signifies not available.
* Racetrack configuration.
-------
-1.2-
Table 11
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
HC Emissions - HFET Driving Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
12Pt:Rh(40)
Pd(40)
9Pd:Rh(10)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd-l-BM(5)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
Pd(20)
Pd(lO)
CuO
10Ag:Rh(150)
Pd+BM(35)
5Pt:Rh(40)
Ag(150)
Efficiency %
99.3
98.8
98.6
98.4
98.4
98. 1
97.9
97.7
97.4
96.7
96.0
95.3
94.4
N/A signifies not available.
* Racetrack configuration.
Catalyst
12Pt :Rh(40)
Pd(40)
9Pd:Rh(10)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
Pd(20)
Pd(10)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
CuO
Pd+BM(5)
Pd-l-BM(35)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Ag(150)
5Pt :Rh(40)
Efficiency %
98.1
98.1
98. 1
97.9
97.9
97.7
97.7
97.2
97.2
97 .0
96.7
95.6
N/A
Table 12
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
Aldehyde Emissions - HFET Driving Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
5Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)
Pd(40)
12Pt :Rh(40)*
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
9Pd:Rh(10)
Pd(20)
Ag(150)
Pd(10)
PD+BM(35)
CuO
Pd+BM(5)
10Ag:Rh(150)
Efficiency %
99.8
97.7
99.5
99.4
99.4
99.4
98.9
98. 7
98.5
98.3
96.8
96.4
90.0
N/A signifies not available.
* Racetrack configuration,
Catalyst
12Pt :Rh(40)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Ag(150)
9Pd:Rh(10)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
Pd(20)
Pd+BM(35)
Pd(10)
CuO
Pd+BM(5)
10Ag:Rh(150)
5Pt :Rh(40)
Efficiency %
99.4
99. 1
99.0
99.0
99.0
98.9
98.5
98.4
97.3
96.4
95.0
87.9
N/A
-------
-13-
Table 13
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
CO Emissions - HFET Driving Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
Pd(10)
9Pd:Rh(10)
CuO
12Pt:Rh(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
5Pt:Rh(40)
Pd+BM(5)
10Ag:Rh(150)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd(20)
Pd+BM(35)
Ag(150)
Efficiency %
100.0
100.0
99.1
99.1
98.9
98.0
96.9
96.9
96.0
94.0
93. 1
76.5
23.3
Catalyst
PD+BM(5)
Pd(10)
9Pd:Rh(10)
12Pt:Rh(40)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd(40)
Pd(20)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
PD+BM(35)
10Ag:Rh(150)
CuO
Ag(150)
5Pt:Rh(40)
Efficiency %
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.8
99.8
99.8
99.6
99.5
98.7
98.6
37.4
N/A
N/A signifies not available.
* Racetrack configuration
Table 14
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
NOx Emissions - HFET Driving Cycle
Three-Way Operating Mode
Oxidation Mode
Catalyst
5Pt:Rh(40)
Pd(20)
Pd(40)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
12Pt:Rh(40)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
Pd+BM(5)
9Pd:Rh(10)
Pd(10)
PD+BM(35)
10Ag:Rh(150)
CuO
Ag(150)
Efficiency %
96. 4
86.0
79.6
78.0
75.6
74 .4
62.8
62.0
49.6
39.6
37.2
9.6
(9.6)
Catalyst
10Ag:Rh(150)
Pd(20)
Pd+BM(35)
Ag(150)
Pd+BM(5)
Pd(40)
CuO
9Pd:Rh(10)
Pd(10)
12Pt:Rh(40)
3Pt:2 Pd(20)
12Pt:Rh(40)*
5Pt:Rh(40)
Efficiency %
(0
(1
(2
(5
(6
(6
(6
(8
(8,
(9,
(10,
(13,
N/A
8)
6)
8)
6)
0)
0)
4)
4)
8)
2)
8)
6)
Parentheses on catalyst efficiency
emissions greater than baseline levels.
N/A signifies not available.
* Racetrack configuration.
statistics indicate
-------
-14-
VI. Phase II - Low HC/Aldehyde Catalyst Screening
A. Program Design - Phase II
This phase of the catalyst evaluation program emphasized
reduction of HC and aldehyde emissions through the use of
heavily loaded .catalysts. Oxidation mode testing was deleted
as the previous Phase I evaluation had suggested that the
three-way operating mode was the more efficient approach with
respect to aldehyde and NOx levels.
The test sequence for Phase II is similar to that
presented in Phase I, with two exceptions. First, no oxidation
mode; second, as baseline results were fairly consistent, the
car was baseline tested only after the complete evaluation of
every second catalyst. This evaluation sequence is summarized
in Table 15.
B. Catalysts Tested - Phase II
All of the catalysts reported on here used monolithic
substrates which contained 400 cells per square inch in the
substrate material. These substrates were shaped as porous
cylinders, 4.0 inches in diameter and 6.0 inches in length.
The active catalytic materials were noble metals, with catalyst
loading in the range of 60 to 300 grams per cubic foot.
Details are provided in Table 16.
C. FTP Test Results
Emissions results for each measured pollutant are
presented in Table 17. Baseline test results are also
presented for comparison. Tables 18 and 19 rank catalysts by
efficiency. Emissions statistics for each catalyst are
presented in Appendix D.
The platinum/rhodium combinations tested proved very
effective at reducing both HC and aldehyde emissions. The
5Pt:Rh(80) configuration allowed a very low (average 5.5 mg/mi)
aldehyde emission level over the FTP cycle. HC level
reductions appear limited, however, by the size of the
converter and its location in the exhaust stream. CO emissions
are greatly reduced, the platinum/rhodium combinations allowing
levels easily meeting current light-duty gasoline vehicle
standards. The low CO emissions are not greatly improved over
the levels allowed by the more lightly loaded platinum/rhodium
catalysts tested during Phase I, however. NOx emission levels
are roughly equivalent to those allowed by the most efficient
catalysts tested under three-way conditions during Phase I.
The higher catalyst loadings did not, therefore, significantly
aid NOx reduction.
-------
-15-
Table 15
Phase II - Low HC/Aldehyde Catalyst Effort
Sequence of Two Catalyst Evaluations
Conditions
Baseline
1st Catalyst
2nd Catalyst
Test Cycles
FTP, HFET
FTP, HFET
FTP, HFET
Air Pump
Off
Off
Off
No. of Tests
of Each Cycle
3
3
3
Begin baseline testing prior to evaluation of additional
catalysts.
Abbreviated
Catalyst
Code
5Pt:Rh(60)
Ag(300)
10Ag:Rh(300)
19Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(80)
Table 16
Catalysts Tested in Phase II
Cells
Per Square
Inch
400
400
400
400
400
400
Wall
Thickness
(mils)
6
6
6
6
6
6
Substrate
Diameter
And Length
4. "x6. "
4. "x6. "
4. "x6. "
4. "X6. "
4."x6."
4."x6. "
Substrate
Volume
(in3)
75
75
75
75
75
75
-------
-16-
Table 17
Summary of FTP Cycle Emissions
Three-Way Configuration
Catalyst
None (Baseline)
5Pt:Rh(60)
Ag(300)
10Ag:Rh(300)
19Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(80)
HC
(g/mi)
.96
. 12
.42
.35
. 10
. 11
.09
Aldehyde
(mg/mi)
252.1
10.6
29. 1
19.3
15.0
5.5
9.6
54
43
53
92
68
69
,58
NOX
(g/mi)
.79
.69
.60
.20
.84
.82
.74
Table 18
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
FTP Driving Cycle - Three Way Operating Mode
HC Emissions
Aldehyde Emissions
Catalyst
19Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(80)
5Pt:Rh(60)
10Ag:Rh(300)
Ag(300)
Efficiency %
90.6
89.6
88.5
87. 5
63.5
56.3
Catalyst
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(80)
5Pt:Rh(60)
19Pt:Rh(60)
10Ag:Rh(300)
Ag(300)
Efficiency %
97.8
96.2
95.8
94.0
92.3
88.5
Table 19
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
FTP Driving Cycle - Three Way Operating Mode
CO Emissions
NOx Emissions
Catalyst
5Pt:Rh(60)
19Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(80)
10Ag:Rh(300)
Ag(300)
Efficiency %
93.4
91.1
89.6
89.4
55.4
15.4
Catalyst
5Pt:Rh(60)
19Pt:Rh(80)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(60)
10Ag:Rh(300)
Ag(300)
Efficiency %
61.4
58.7
54.2
53.1
33.0
10. 6
-------
-17-
The heavily loaded Ag(300) outperformed the more lightly
loaded Ag(150) catalyst tested in Phase I in every pollutant
category. Despite its heavier loading, however, the Ag(300)
catalyst allowed pollutant levels greatly exceeding those from
the platinum/rhodium group. The additional loading of the
silver/rhodium catalyst helped it attain a greater efficiency
in most pollutant categories than the lightly loaded version
tested in Phase I. However, as in the case of Ag(300), the
levels attained were not low enough to be comparable to the
platinum/rhodium combinations.
D. HFET Test Results
HFET test results are presented in the same format as FTP
results. Table 20 details emissions obtained over the
three-way operating mode while Tables 21 and 22 rank catalysts
by efficiency at reducing pollutants from baseline amounts.
Emission statistics for each catalyst are presented in Appendix
E.
HC and aldehyde emissions are reduced to extremely low
levels by all of the catalysts tested. All catalysts attained
efficiencies of greater than 90 percent for these pollutants.
These levels, however, are approximately the same as emissions
levels allowed by similar, though less heavily loaded,
catalysts tested in Phase I. CO emissions were reduced to
insignificant levels by all of the rhodium-containing
catalysts. While the lower CO levels allowed by the Ag(300)
catalyst represented a near doubling in effectiveness over the
Ag(150) configuration, the 54 percent efficiency does not
compare favorably to the platinum/rhodium tests. NOx
efficiency of the rhodium-containing heavily loaded catalysts
did not compare favorably with the results obtained with the
lightly loaded Phase I configurations.
The difference in loading between 60 and 80 grams per
cubic foot did not influence catalyst performance over the HFET
cycle. Generally, efficiencies at lower loadings were high
enough to make contributions to catalyst efficiency of the
heavier loading of limited significance.
VII. Conclusions
A. Phase I
1. The most consistently effective catalysts tested
owere the Pt/Rh configurations.
2. With the exception of the Ag(150) configuration, all
catalysts tested were able to meet the levels of current
gasoline light-duty vehicle CO emission standards, when
operated as three-way or oxidation catalysts.
-------
-18-
Table 20
Summary of HFET Cycle Emissions
Three-Way Configuration
Catalyst
None (Baseline)
5Pt:Rh(60)
Ag(300)
10Ag:Rh(300)
19Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(80)
HC
(g/mi)
.43
.007
.033
.002
.007
.006
,004
Aldehyde
(mg/mi)
185.5
1.1
1.1
0.6
5.1
1.5
4.6
5.54
0.00
2.52
0. 12
0.00
0.00
0.00
NOx
(g/mi)
2.50
0.83
2.34
1.76
1.05
0.98
0.85
Table 21
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
HFET Driving Cycle - Three Way Operating Mode
HC Emissions
Catalyst
10Ag:Rh(300)
19Pt:Rh(80)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(60)
Ag(300)
Efficiency %
Aldehyde Emissions
Catalyst
5
1
99
99
98.6
98.4
98.4
92.3
10Ag:Rh(300)
Ag(300)
5Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(60)
Efficiency %
99. 7
99.4
99.4
99.2
97.5
97.3
Table 22
Catalyst Comparison With Baseline
HFET Driving Cycle - Three Way Operating Mode
CO Emissions
NOx Emissions
Catalyst
5Pt:Rh(60)
19Pt:Rh(60)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(80)
10Ag:Rh(300)
Ag(300)
Efficiency
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.8
54. 5
Catalyst
5Pt:Rh(60)
19Pt:Rh(80)
5Pt:Rh(80)
19Pt:Rh(60)
10Ag:Rh(300)
Ag(300)
Efficiency
66.8
66.0
60.8
58.0
29.6
6. 4
-------
-19-
3. Nine of the thirteen catalysts tested were able to
meet the levels of the gasoline light-duty vehicle NOx standard
when operated as three-way catalysts.
4. Substantial aldehyde reduction efficiency was shown
by all catalysts tested. The platinum/rhodium and
palladium/rhodium configurations had FTP efficiencies of about
90 percent under three-way or oxidation conditions.
5. HFET performance exhibited relative catalyst
efficiency trends similar to the FTP results. HFET emission
levels, except for NOx, were substantially lower than FTP
emission levels.
6. A catalyst slightly larger than the average size
tested in this program may not generally increase catalyst
efficiency significantly. Location of the converter in the
exhaust stream (time to light off) and choice of active
catalyst material may be marginally more important than an
increase in catalyst volume.
7. HC and CO emission levels with some exceptions were
generally lower in oxidation mode rather than three-way mode.
Aldehyde and NOx levels generally increased as the oxygen level
at the catalyst inlet increased.
B. Phase II
1. Performance of a heavily loaded noble metal catalyst
generally is not improved by additional loading beyond 60
g/ftj.
2. Heavily loaded platinum/rhodium catalysts were much
more efficient at converting the range of pollutants measured
here than the heavily loaded silver or silver/rhodium catalysts.
3. The platinum/rhodium catalysts tested demonstrated
very high HC and aldehyde efficiencies. These catalysts were
able to meet the levels of the light-duty gasoline NOx and CO
standards.
VIII. Acknowledgements
The author greatly appreciates the efforts of the Test and
Evaluation Branch, Emission Control Technology Division, which
made possible the successful testing detailed here. The
efforts of James Garvey and Ernestine Bulifant, EPA technicians
who conducted many of the dynamometer tests in this program,
are particularly appreciated.
-------
-20-
The author gratefully acknowledges the efforts of Jennifer
Criss and Cheryl Hogan, both of ECTD, whose attention to detail
during the typing of the manuscript and the tables was greatly
appreciated. Carmen Garrett, of the Programs Management
Office, is extended a special thank you for typing many of the
tables that appear in this report.
IX. References
1. The Clean Air Act as amended through July 1981,
Section 2ll(c)(l).
2. Speech by Charles L. Gray, Jr., EPA, QMS, OAR, to
1983 Midyear Refining Meeting of the API, May 11, 1983.
3. Policy Statement by Vice President of the U.S.A.,
George Bush, March 6, 1987.
4. 1975 Federal Test Procedure, Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 86, Appendix I(a), Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule.
5. Highway Fuel Economy Jriving Schedule, Federal
Register, Vol. 41, No. 100, May 21, 1976, Appendix I.
6. "Low Mileage Catalyst Evaluation With a
Methanol-Fueled Rabbit - Interim Report," Wagner, R. and L.
Landman, EPA-AA-CTAB-83/05, May 1983.
7. "Low Mileage Catalyst Evaluation With a
Methanol-Fueled Rabbit - Second Interim Report," Wagner, R. and
L. Landman, EPA-AA-CTAB-84/03, June 1984.
8. "Evaluation of Catalysts for Methanol-Fueled
Vehicles Using a Volkswagen Rabbit Test Vehicle," presented at
the Joint Conference On the Introduction and Development of
Methanol As An Alternate Fuel, Columbus, OH, June 26-27, 1986,
ASME.
9. Moving America to Methanol, Gray, C. L. Jr., and J.
Alson, U of M Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1985, p. 29.
10. Formaldehyde Measurement In Vehicle Exhaust At MVEL,
Memorandum, Gilkey, R. L.., OAR, QMS, EOD, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.
11. Results of Methanol Catalyst Testing Analyzed For
Trends in Baseline Variance, Memorandum, Piotrowski, G. K. ,
OAR, QMS, ECTD, Ann Arbor, MI, 1985.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Methanol-Powered Volkswagen Test Vehicle
Specifications and Changes To Accommodate Methanol Fuel
Vehicle Item
Engine:
Displacement
Bore
Stroke
Compression Ratio
Valvetrain
Basic Engine
Fuel System:
General
Pump Life
Accumulator-Maximum Holding
Pressure
Fuel Filter
Fuel Distributor
Air Sensor
Fuel Injectors
Cold Start Injectors
Fuel Injection Wiring
Idle Setting
Spec i f icat ion/Change
1.6 liter
7.95 cm
8.00 cm
12.5:1
Overhead camshaft
GTI basic engine - European
high performance engine to
withstand higher loads - U.S.
cylinder head.
Bosch CIS fuel injection with
Lambda feedback control, cali-
brated for methanol operation..
1 year due to corrosiveness of
methanol. Improved insulation
on wiring exposed to fuel.
3.0 Bar
One-way check valve deleted
because of fuel incompati-
bility.
5.0-5.3 bar system pressure,
calibration optimized for
methanol, material changes for
fuel compatibility.
Modified
teristics
airflow
charac-
Material changes for fuel
compatibility, plastic screen
replaced by metal screen.
2 injectors, valves pulse for 8
seconds beyond start mode below
zero degrees centrigrade.
Modified for cold start pulse
function and to accommodate
relays and thermo switch.
Specific
calibration.
to
methanol
-------
A-2
APPENDIX A (cont'd)
Methanol-Powered Volkswagen Test Vehicle
Specifications and Changes To Accommodate Methanol Fuel
Vehicle Item
PCV:
Ignition:
Distributor
Spark Plugs
Transmission:
General
Torgue Converter Ratio
Stall Speed
Gear Ratios:
1
2
3
Axle
Fuel Tank:
Material
Coating
Seams and Fittings
Cap
Fuel
Specification/Change
PCV valve with
plunger-no orifice.
calibrated
Slightly reduced maximum
centrifugal advance and
slightly modified vacuum
advance/retard characteristics.
Bosch W260T2
1981 production automatic
3-speed.
2.44
2000-2200 RPM
2.55
1.45
1.00
3.57
Steel
Phosphated Steel
Brazed
European neck and locking cap,
Neat methanol (M100)
-------
APPENDIX B
Phase I - Low Mileage Catalyst Screening
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
-------
B-l
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 5Pt:Rh(40)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/tni)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
A 1 dehyde ( mg/m i )
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emiss
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx ( g/mi )
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
4 17.2
6 .14
6 .70
6 278.
4 .53
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum
26.3
. 19
.90
295.
1.68
Level 3%
Maximum
Mean
20.3
.15
.78
289.
.84
Mean
1 15.4 15.4 15.4
1 .14 .14 .14
1 .60 .60 .60
1 298. 298. 298.
1 1.95 1.95 1.95
ion Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 12Pt:Rh(40)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 8.5
3 .10
3 .42
3 292.
3 .50
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 12.9
3 . 11
3 .31
3 282.
3 1.88
Level 0%
Maximum
13.2
. 12
.93
295.
.70
Level 3%
Maximum
17.5
. 13
.50
301.
2. 10
Mean
11.6
. 11
.69
294.
.62
Mean
15.4
. 12
.39
293.
2.01
Std Dev
4.2
.02
.08
5.4
.56
Std Dev
Std Dev
2.7
.01
.26
1.5
.11
Std Dev
2.4
.01
.10
9.5
. 11
-------
B-2
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 12Pt:Rh(40) - Racetrack
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde ( mg/mi )
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emission
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
2 9.9
2 . 11
2 .70
2 291 .
2 .76
Exhaust Oxyqen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum
13.0
. 15
.84
296.
.77
Level 3%
Maximum
Mean
11.5
. 13
.77
294.
.77
Mean
3 13.4 15.1 14.4
3 .12 .13 .13
3 .24 .51 .40
3 297. 300. 298.
3 2.02 2.07 2.05
Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 3Pt:2Pd(20)
Exhaust Oxyqen
N Minimum
2 29. 5
3 . 15
3 1.36
3 294.
3 .84
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
1 72.9
2 . 16
2 .35
2 304.
2 2.05
Level 0%
Maximum
36.4
. 16
1.65
299.
.87
Level 3%
Maximum
72.9
. 16
.35
307.
2.09
Mean
33.0
. 15
1.47
296.
.85
Mean
72.9
. 16
.35
306.
2.07
Std Dev
2.2
.03
. 10
3.5
.01
Std Dev
1.0
.01
. 15
1.3
.02
Std Dev
4.9
.01
.16
3.0
.02
Std Dev
2.0
.02
-------
B-3
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd(40)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/rai)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emission
For
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
A 1 dehyde ( mg/m i )
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
3 38.6 46.9
3 .15 .19
3 1.59 2.29
3 300. 304.
3 .73 .75
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
Mean
41. 5
. 17
1.99
302.
.74
Mean
2 59.3 76.7 68.0
2 .14 .15 .14
2 .37 .39 .38
2 304. 307. 306.
2 1 .96 2.01 1.98
Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
Catalyst: Pd+Base Metal(35)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
2 118.5 119.2
2 .28 .28
2 2.72 2.98
1 286. 286.
2 1.95 1.99
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
2 117.5 141.2
2 .27 .28
2 1.94 2.17
1 292. 292.
2 1.90 2.00
Mean
118.9
.28
2.85
286.
1.97
Mean
129.4
.28
2.05
292.
1.95
Std Dev
4.6
.02
.36
2.0
.01
Std Dev
12.2
.01
.02
2.0
.04
Std Dev
0.6
.18
.03
Std Dev
16.8
. 16
.07
-------
B-4
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
Driving Cycle For Catalyst: Pd(2Q)
Exhaust Oxygen
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
3
3
3
3
3
Minimum
35.4
.17
.49
293.
.63
Exhaust Oxygen
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
2
2
2
2
2
Minimum
88.7
. 15
.39
295.
1.85
Level 0%
Maximum
48.6
.20
2.09
297.
.70
Level 3%
Maximum
99.7
.16
.40
298.
1.94
Mean
41.0
.18
1.84
295.
.67
Mean
94.2
.16
.40
297.
1.90
Std Dev
6.8
.02
.31
2.0
.04
Std Dev
7.8
.01
.01
2.3
.06
Emission
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Statistics For
For Catalyst:
FTP Driving
Ag(150)
Cycle
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N
4
4
4
4
4
Minimum
41.8
.45
6.29
282.
2.01
Maximum
Mean
71
6
287
2
.0
.61
.69
,
.05
59
6
285
2
.3
.54
.53
,
.03
Std Dev
12.8
.07
. 17
2.6
.02
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
3
3
3
3
3
34.7
.35
5.47
285.
1.98
71.0
.48
6.48
293.
2.01
Mean
52.0
.43
5.93
290.
1.99
Std Dev
18.3
.07
. 51
4. 1
.01
-------
B-5
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd+Base Metal (5)
Exhaust Oxygen
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emission
N
Minimum
3 36.0
3 .19
3 1.08
3 265.
3 .82
Exhaust Oxygen
N
Minimum
3 67.6
3 .18
3 .49
3 281.
3 1.76
Statistics For
For Catalyst
Exhaust Oxygen
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
Minimum
3 26.0
3 .19
3 1.07
3 281.
3 1.73
Exhaust Oxygen
N
3
3
3
3
3
Minimum
33.0
.24
1.63
295.
1.94
Level 0%
Maximum
41.7
.20
1.37
267.
.85
Level 3%
Maximum
Mean
38.3
.19
1.21
266.
.83
Mean
98.3 80.6
.20 .18
.65 .55
287. 283.
1.89 1.80
FTP Driving Cycle
: CuO
Level 0%
Maximum
29.0
.20
1.11
286.
1.73
Level 3%
Maximum
41. 5
.27
1.66
296.
1.96
Mean
27.8
. 19
1.08
283.
1.73
Mean
37.6
.25
1.64
295.
1.95
Std Dev
3.0
. 15
1.3
.01
Std Dev
15.9
.01
.09
3.5
.07
Std Dev
1.6
.03
2.5
Std Dev
4.3
. 01
. 01
.01
-------
B-6
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd(10)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
3
3
3
3
3
N
3
3
3
3
3
Emission
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
25.9
.16
.64
288.
.83
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
72.2
. 16
.58
300.
1.85
Statistics For
Level 0%
Maximum
34.3
.18
.81
297.
.90
Level 3%
Maximum
133.9
. 17
.74
304.
1.88
Mean
29.8
.17
.74
293.
.87
Mean
95.2
. 17
.65
302.
1.86
Std Dev
4.2
.01
. 10
4.7
.03
Std Dev
33.7
-
.08
2. 1
.02
FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 9Pd:Rh(10)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
3
3
3
3
3
N
3
3
3
3
3
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
18.1
. 13
.52
264.
.79
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
32. 1
. 14
.54
286.
1.82
Level 0%
Maximum
20.4
. 14
.69
272.
.84
Level 3%
Maximum
37.5
. 16
.64
286.
1.85
Mean
18.9
. 14
.60
268.
.81
Mean
35.0
. 15
.59
286.
1.84
Std Dev
1.3
-
.09
4 . 1
.03
Std Dev
2.7
.01
.05
-
.02
-------
B-7
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 10Aq:Rh(15Q)
Variable
A 1 dehyde ( mg/m i )
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mi/mg)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
3
3
3
3
3
N
3
3
3
3
3
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
57.5
.32
2.42
255.
.97
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
60.9
.35
2.43
280.
1.40
Level 0%
Maximum
105.2
.38
3.52
269.
1.21
Level 3%
Maximum
120 . 5
.39
2.73
291.
1 .46
Mean
83.7
.36
2.95
264.
1.05
Mean
95. 1
.36
2.61
286.
1.42
Std Dev
24.2
.03
.55
7.6
.14
Std Dev
30.8
.02
.16
5.5
.03
-------
APPENDIX C
Phase I - Low Mileage Catalyst Screening
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
-------
C-l
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 5Pt:Rh(40)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 3 .10 .70 .30 .35
HC (g/mi) 4 .001 .004 .002 .002
CO (g/mi) 4 .08 .15 .11 .04
C02 (g/mi) 4 226. 229. 228. 1.4
NOx (g/mi) 4 .05 .13 .09 .04
-------
02
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 12Pt:Rh(40)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 0.30
3 .003
3 .03
3 236.
3 .58
Exhaust Oxyqen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum
1.0
.004
.06
239.
.63
Level 3%
Maximum
Mean
0.5
.003
.05
238.
.61
Mean
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 3 1.0 1.6 1.2
HC (g/mi) 3 .008 .009 .008
CO (g/mi) 3 0.00 0.01 0.01
COz (g/mi) 3 220. 241. 232.
NOx (g/mij 3 2.43 2.89 2.73
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 12Pt :Rh(40) (Racetrack)
Variable
A 1 dehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx ( g/mi )
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 0.8
3 .005
3 .06
3 228.
3 .48
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 1.6
3 .008
3 . 02
3 236.
3 2.80
Level 0%
Maximum
1.6
.013
.07
240.
.70
Level 3%
Maximum
2.3
.009
.03
238.
2.86
Mean
1.2
.008
.06
232.
.55
Mean
2.0
.009
.02
237.
2.84
Std Dev
0.4
.01
1.6
.03
Std Dev
0.3
11.0
.27
Std Dev
0.4
.004
6.7
.13
Std Dev
0.4
1.0
.03
-------
C-3
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 3Pt:2Pd(20)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emission
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx ( g/mi )
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
2 0.9 1.2
3 .006 .009
3 .20 .23
3 237. 243.
3 .63 .65
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
Mean
1.1
.007
.22
240.
.64
Mean
1 1.7 1.7 1.7
3 .010 .010 .010
3 0.00 .02 .01
3 241. 245. 243.
3 2.74 2.81 2.77
Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd(40)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
2 0.7 1.1
3 .004 .006
3 .30 .35
3 241. 243.
3 .43 .57
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
2 1.7 1.9
2 .007 .009
2 .01 .01
2 241. 242.
2 2.65 2. 65
Mean
0.9
.005
.33
242.
.51
Mean
1.8
.008
.01
242.
2.65
Std Dev
0.2
.001
.02
3. 1
.01
Std Dev
.01
2.0
.04
Std Dev
0.2
.001
.02
1.0
.07
Std Dev
0. 1
. 001
-------
C-4
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd+Base Metal (35)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
2 2.6 3.6
4 .015 .018
4 1.09 1.66
1 232. 232.
4 1.24 1.72
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
Mean
3.1
.017
1.30
232.
1.51
Mean
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 2 2.8 3.2 3.0
HC (g/mi) 3 .012 .013 .013
CO (g/mi) 3 .01 .06 .03
C02 (g/mi) 2 235. 243. 239.
NOx (g/mi) 3 2.53 2.64 2.57
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd(20)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
2 1.9 2.0
3 .008 .011
3 .32 .41
3 236. 240.
3 .30 .42
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
2 2.4 2.9
2 .008 .009
1 .01 .01
2 241. 242.
2 2.51 2.57
Mean
2.0
.009
.38
238.
.35
Mean
2. 7
.009
.01
242.
2.54
Std Dev
0.5
.001
0.26
0.20
Std Dev
0.2
.02
4.0
.06
Std Dev
.001
.05
2.0
.06
Std Dev
0.2
.03
-------
C-5
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Ag(150)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum Mean
3
3
3
3
3
1.9
.021
4.09
233.
2.72
3.2 2.4
.027 .024
4.36 4.25
235. 234.
2.77 2.74
Std Dev
0.7
.003
0. 14
1.0
0.02
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum Mean
4
4
4
4
4
1 . 5
. 016
3.29
229.
2. 57
2.4 1.9
.023 .019
3.68 3.47
237. 233.
2.72 2.64
Std Dev
0.4
.003
0. 19
3.7
0.07
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd+Base Metal(5)
Variable
A1dehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
A1dehyde (mg/m i)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
3
3
3
3
3
N
3
3
3
3
3
Exhaust
Oxygen
Minimum
5
210
Exhaust
.6
.006
. 12
,
.85
Oxygen
Minimum
8
0
230
2
.3
. Oil
.00
,
.61
Level 0%
Maximum
7
214
1
.3
.008
.24
.05
Mean
6
212
.7
.007
. 17
.93
Std Dev
0.9
.001
.06
2. 1
. 10
Level 3%
Maximum
10
0
235
2
.2
.013
.01
,
.72
Mean
9
0
232
2
.3
. 012
.00
,
.65
Std Dev
0.9
.001
-
2.6
.06
-------
C-6
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: CuO
Variable
A 1 dehyde ( mg/m i )
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
3 5.3 6.3
3 .010 .011
3 .05 .05
3 213. 215.
3 2.24 2.27
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
Mean
5.9
.011
.05
214.
2.26
Mean
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 3 6.6 6.9 6.7
HC (g/mi) 3 .011 .012 .012
CO (g/mi) 3 .08 .08 .08
C02 (g/mi) 3 230. 232. 231.
NOx (g/mi) 3 2.62 2.70 2.66
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Pd(10)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
A 1 dehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
N Minimum Maximum
3 2.6 2.8
3 .010 .010
3 0.00 0.00
3 224. 228.
3 1.20 1.35
Exhaust Oxygen Level 3%
N Minimum Maximum
3 3.6 7.0
3 .010 .011
3 0.00 0.01
3 239. 240.
3 2.68 2.74
Mean
2.7
.010
0.00
226.
1.26
Mean
5. 1
.010
0.00
239.
2.72
Std Dev
0.6
1.0
.01
Std Dev
0.1
.001
1.0
.04
Std Dev
0.1
2.0
.08
Std Dev
1.7
0.5
.03
-------
C-7
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 9Pd:Rh(10)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
COz (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3
3
3
3
3
N
3
3
2
3
3
Emission
0.9
.005
0.00
212.
.93
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
1.5
.006
0.00
234.
2.67.
Statistics For
Level 0%
Maximum
1.3
.007
0.00
214 .
.96
Level 3%
Maximum
2.3
.009
0.00
237.
2.75
Mean
1.1
.006
0.00
213.
.95
Mean
1.8
.008
0.00
235.
2. 71
Std Dev
0.2
.001
-
1.0
.01
Std Dev
0.5
.001
-
1.3
.04
HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 10Ag:Rh(150)
Variable
A 1 dehyde ( mg/m i )
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
COz (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
N
3
3
3
4
3
N
2
3
3
3
3
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
8.7
.011
. 15
216.
1.37
Exhaust Oxygen
Minimum
21.6
.013
.04
232.
2.46
Level 0%
Maximum
24.8
.016
.48
220 .
1 . 72
Level 3%
Maximum
23.4
.015
. 11
239.
2. 58
Mean
18.6
.014
.32
217.
1 .57
Mean
22.5
.014
.07
236.
2.52
Std Dev
8.6
.002
. 17
1.4
. 12
Std Dev
1.3
.001
. 04
3.9
.06
-------
APPENDIX D
Phase II - Low HC/Aldehyde Catalyst
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
-------
D-l
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 5Pt:Rh(60)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 3 9.6 11.9 10.6 1.2
HC (g/mi) 3 .11 .13 .12 .01
CO (g/mi) 3 .42 .45 .43 .01
C02 (g/mi) 3 271. 275. 273. 2.2
NOx (g/mi) 3 .67 .70 .69 .01
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: Ag(30Q)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 2 25.6 32.5 29.1 4.9
HC (g/mi) 2 .39 .45 .42 .04
CO (g/mi) 2 5.43 5.63 5.53 .14
C02 (g/mi) 2 288. 293. 291. 3.6
NOX (g/mi) 2 1.58 1.62 1.60 .03
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 10Ag:Rh(3QO)
Exhaust Oxygen Level 0%
Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 3 14.0 27.8 19.3 7.4
HC (g/mi) 3 .30 .37 .35 .04
CO (g/mi) 3 2.22 3.56 2.92 .67
C02 (g/mi) 3 286. 290. 287. 2.2
NOx (g/mi) 3 1.02 1.32 1.20 .16
-------
D-2
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 19Pt:Rh(60)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emission
Variable
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum
Mean
2 7.4 22.6 15.0
3 .09 .10 .10
3 .62 .77 .68
3 285. 290. 287.
3 .83 .86 .84
Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 5Pt:Rh(80)
Exhaust Oxyqen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum
Mean
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 3 4.0 7.0 5.5
HC (g/mi) 3 .10 .13 .11
CO (g/mi) 3 .64 .72 .69
C02 (g/mi) 3 285. 288. 287.
NOx (g/mi) 3 .80 .84 .82
Emission Statistics For FTP Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 19Pt:Rh(80)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 7.8
3 .08
3 .53
3 297.
3 .71
Level 0%
Maximum
10.8
.10
.63
302.
.77
Mean
9.6
.09
.58
299.
.74
Std Dev
10.7
.01
.08
2.6
.02
Std Dev
1.5
.02
.04
1.5
.02
Std Dev
1.5
. 01
.05
2.5
.03
-------
APPENDIX E
Phase II - Low HC/Aldehyde Catalyst Screening
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
-------
E-l
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 5Pt:Rh(60)
Variable
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
Aldehyde (mg/mi) 3 0.6
HC (g/mi) 3 .006
CO (g/mi) 3 0.00
C02 (g/mi) 3 218.
NOx (g/mi) 3 .80
Emission Statistics For
For Catalyst:
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
C02 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emiss
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum Mean
1.8 1.1
.008 .007
0.00 0.00
224. 220.
.88 .83
HFET Driving Cycle
Ag(300)
Level 0%
Maximum Mean
2 0.8 1.3 1.1
2 .031 .034 .033
2 2.47 2.57 2.52
2 223. 223. 223.
2 2.31 2.36 2.34
ion Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 10Ag:Rh(300)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 0.4
4 .015
4 0.00
4 220.
4 1 .66
Level 0%
Maximum Mean
1.0 0.6
.019 .017
.28 .12
226. 222.
1.82 1.76
Std Dev
0.6
.001
3.5
.04
Std Dev
.36
.002
.07
.03
Std Dev
0.3
.002
. 12
2.9
.09
-------
E-2
Emission Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 19Pt:Rh(60)
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emiss
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Emiss
Variable
Aldehyde (mg/mi)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
CO 2 (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum
Mean
3 0.2 12.2 5.1
3 .006 .008 .007
3 0. 00 0 . 00 0. 00
3 221. 221. 221.
3 1.01 1.05 1.03
ion Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 5Pt:Rh(80)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
Level 0%
Maximum
Mean
3 0.4 3.8 1.5
3 .005 .006 .006
3 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 218. 221. 220.
3 .96 1.01 .98
ion Statistics For HFET Driving Cycle
For Catalyst: 19Pt:Rh(80)
Exhaust Oxygen
N Minimum
3 3.4
3 .004
3 0.00
3 223.
3 .84
Level 0%
Maximum
6.4
.005
0.00
229.
.87
Mean
4.6
.004
0.00
226.
.85
Std Dev
6.3
.001
.02
Std Dev
•2.0
1.4
.03
Std Dev
1.6
3.1
.02
------- |