76-18 EAB
Sulfuric Acid Emissions from a
Union Carbide Low Sulfate Catalyst
April 1976
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Background
To meet the emission levels required by the Clean Air Act, most
vehicle manufacturers use oxidation catalysts as part of their vehicle's
emission control system. By using a catalyst, the manufacturers have
been able to calibrate their vehicles to achieve good fuel economy even
while they have had to meet more stringent emission standards (1) .
However, during tests in recent years, it was observed that small
amounts of exhaust SO- were converted to sulfuric acid mist by oxidation
catalysts (2,3). Because of the possible adverse health effects, EPA
has undertaken efforts to develop sampling systems and teat procedures
(4) and to evaluate the sulfate emissions characteristics of various
systems. '
Laboratory tests of a metal oxidation catalyst by Union Carbide
(UC) has shown promise for low sulfate emissions in a vehicle. In bench
checks a large portion of the SO. injected had formed elemental sulfur
after passing through the catalyst. Union Carbide offered several units
to EPA for vehicle testing. ECTD, because of its interest in evaluating
technology which could have an impact on sulfate emissions, agreed to
test the catalysts.
The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many
systems which appear to offer potential for emissions reduction or
improvement in fuel economy compared to conventional engines and vehicles.
EPA's Emission Control Technology Division is interested in evaluating
all such systems, because of the obvious^benefits to the Nation from the
identification of systems that can reduce emissions, improve economy, or
both. EPA invites developers of such systems to provide to the EPA
complete technical data on the system's principle of operation, together
with available test data on the system. In those cases in which review
by EPA technical staff suggests that the data available show promise for
the system, attempts are made to schedule tests at the EPA Emissions
^Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such tests are
set forth in a series of Technology Assessment and Evaluation Reports,
of which this report is one.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are of limited
applicability. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of an emission
control system in achieving improvements on the different types of
vehicles that are in actual use requires a much larger sample of test
vehicles than is economically feasible in the evaluation test projects
conducted by EPA. For promising systems it is necessary that more
extensive test programs be carried out.
Numbers in parenthesis designate reference listed at end of this report.
-------
The conclusions from this EPA evaluation test can be considered to
be quantitatively valid only for the specific test car used. However,
it is reasonable to extrapolate the results from the EPA test to other
types of vehicles in a directional or qualitative manner, i.e., to'
suggest that similar results are likely to be achieved on other types of
vehicles.
System Description
The Union Carbide unit is a monolith metal oxidation catalyst. The
active material is a non-noble metal ceramic material that is supported
by a corrugated wire mesh (See Figure 1). A strip of the mesh and
ceramic is rolled up lengthwise to form a cylindrical biscuit.
Since complete characteristics of the UC catalyst were unknown, a
test vehicle was selected whose original equipment catalyst approximated
the known general characteristics (space velocity, size, monolith) of
the UC catalyst. Also, since studies had shown that catalyst vehicles
with excess air have higher sulfate emissions (5), the test vehicle
would have an air pump to provide a severe test of the UC catalyst's
effectiveness.
A survey was conducted for a suitable vehicle. Included in the
survey were cars made by Chrysler, Datsun, Ford, and Volkswagen. The
1975 Ford Pinto 2.3 litre, 49 State, catalyst vehicle was chosen as most
compatible. Walker Manufacturing (a manufacturer of automotive mufflers
and catalyst cans) volunteered their research facilities to fabricate a
suitable container. They canned the biscuit in a package identical to
the original. (The test vehicle is described in detail on page 4.)
Test Procedures
Exhaust emissions tests were conducted according to the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure ('75 FTP), described in the Federal Register of November
15, 1972 except thatIno evaporative emissions tests were conducted.
^Additional tests included the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET),
described in the Federal Register, Volume 39, Number 200, October 15,
1974, the sulfate cycle, and steady state emissions tests. All tests
were conducted using an inertia weight of 3000 pounds (1360 kg) with a
road load setting of 10.3 horsepower (7.7 kW) at 50 miles per hour (80.5
km/hr).
The sulfate procedure employed a test series consisting of a 75
FTP, an EPA Highway cycle, and several sulfate cycles (see attachment).
All testing was done using a fuel doped to a level of .03 percent sulfur
with di-tertiary butyl disulfide. The vehicle was preconditioned by
driving either 500 miles (monolith catalyst) or 1000 miles (pelleted
catalyst) of the AMA durability cycle while using the sulfurized fuel.
To permit the catalyst to age, the UC catalyst was driven 2000 miles
before sulfate testing was initiated.
The vehicle was tested in three configurations: no catalyst,
factory catalyst, and UC catalyst. All three units were similar (See
Figure 2).
-------
Exhaust
Gas
Flow
Catalyst and
supporting wire mesh
Figure 1 Union Carbide Catalyst Biscuit
Factory Catalyst
Union Carbide Catalyst
Union Carbide Catalyst
Figure 2A Catalysts
Figure 2B Catalyst Installation
-------
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1976 Ford Pinto
Emission control system - Catalyst
Engine
type 4 stroke, Otto cycle, inline 4 cylinder
bore x stroke 3.78 x 3.13 in./96.0 x 79.5 mm
displacement 140 cu. in./2300 cc
compression ratio 9.0:1
maximum power @ rpm 88 hp/65.6 kW
fuel metering single 2 barrel carburetor
fuel requirement regular unleaded, tested with 96 RON
Indolene HO unleaded with .03% sulfur
Drive Train 0>Y weight)
transmission type 3 speed automatic
final drive ratio . 3.18:1
Chassis
type unitized body/frame, front engine, rear drive
tire size A 78 x 13
curb weight
inertia weight 3000 pounds
passenger capacity 4
Emission Control System
basic type ............ alr injection
EGR
factory catalyst
monolith
3.64 in. diameter x 6 in. long
effective volume 52 cu. in.
Corning-substrate
Engelhard-catalyst
Walker-container
Union carbide catalyst
monolith
4 in diameter x 3 in. long
effective volume 37 cu. in.
UC substrate
UC catalyst
Durability accumulated on system . 3480 miles with factory catalyst
2200 miles with UC catalyst
-------
An empty catalyst can was used to permit baseline vehicle emissions
to be established. These values were then used to evaluate the efficiency
of the two catalysts.
The UC catalyst was equipped with temperature probes (See Figure
2), to allow test personnel to determine if and when catalyst lightoff
occurred.
Test Results
The Union Carbide catalyst performed well. As a catalyst it achieved
smaller reductions in HC and CO emissions than the factory catalyst (see
summary results below), but the vehicle easily met the 1976 emission
standards. The sulfate emissions were repeatable, stable, and unexpec-
tedly low (see summary results below) particularly for a vehicle using
an air pump. The detailed results are tabulated in Tables 1 through 4.
Emissions tests were conducted at low mileage to verify the satis-
factory operation of the UC catalyst. This also permitted the catalyst
deterioration to be observed. The results for the"75 FTP and HFET are
tabulated below:
Low Mileage '75 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile ;
(grains per kilometre)
System
Mileage
(kilometres) HC
CO
C0
NOx
Baseline 2870
(2 test) (4623)
Factory Catalyst 27l3
x(l test) (4366)
UC Catalyst 328
(2 test) (527)
Factory Catalyst
% Change from Baseline
UC Catalyst
% Change from Baseline
1.33 21.52 365 2.04
(.83) (13.37) (227) (1.26)
.37 2.46 420 2.11
(.23) (1.53) (261) (1.31)
.67 5.54 396 1.71
(.42) (3.44) (246) (1.06)
-72% -89% 15% -3%
-50% -74% 8% -16%
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
22.0 miles/gal
(10.7 litres/100 km)
20.9 miles/gal
(11.3 litres/100 km)
21.8 miles/gal
(10.8 litres/100 km)
-5%
-1%
On the EPA Highway Cycle the results were:
-------
Mass Emissions
Low Mileage EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
System
Mileage
(kilometres) HC
CO
CO,
NOx
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
2894
(4657)
2734
(4400)
344
(554)
.e
.78
(.48)
.16
(.10)
.40
(.25)
-79%
-49%
2.31
(1.44)
.16
(.10)
1.03
(.64)
-93%
-55%
— t
267
(166)
299
(186)
287
(178)
12%
7%
2,47
(1.53)
2.76
(1.72)
2.90
(1.80
12%
17%
32.5 miles/gal
(7.4 litres/100 km)
29.6 miles/gal
8.0 litres/100 km)
30.6 miles/gal
(7.7 litres/100 km)
-9%
-6%
Baseline
(2 tests)
Factory Catalyst
(1 test)
UC Catalyst
(1 test)
Factory Catalyst
% Change from Baseline
UC Catalyst
% Change from Baseline
Thus, the UC catalyst achieved significant reductions in HC and CO
emissions, at low mileage. However, as an oxidation catalyst it was
not as efficient as the factory unit.
The vehicle then underwent mileage accumulation to age the UC
catalyst. The factory catalyst later underwent mileage accumulation to
precondition the factory unit prior to sulfate tests.
The results of the sulfate tests were:
'75 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
System
Mileage
(kilometres) HC
CO
CO,
NOx
Baseline
Factory Catalyst
U.C. Catalyst
5202
(8372)
3386
(5449)
2088
(3360)
1.49 14.74 383 2.02
(.93) (9.16) (238) (1.26)
.35 2.70 386 1.90
(.21) (1.68) (240) (1.18)
.82 4.80 375 1.98
(.51) (2.98) (234) (1.23)
1975-76 Federal Standards
Factory Catalyst
% Change frcm Baseline
UC Catalyst
% Change from Baseline
1.5 15.0
-77% -82%
1%
-45% -67% -2%
3.1
-6%
-2%
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
21.6 miles/gal
(10.9 litres/100 km)
22.7 miles/gal
(10.4 litres/100 km)
22.8 miles/gal
(10.3 litres/100 km)
5%
-------
The corresponding EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test results were:
EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test
Mass Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
Baseline
Factory Catalyst
UC Catalyst
Factory Catalyst
% Change from Baseline
UC Catalyst
% Change from Baseline
System
Mileage
(kilometres)
5224
(8406)
3425
(5512) i
2126
(3432)
HC
CO
c
NOx
.90 2.10 298 2.22
;.56) (1.30) (185) (1.38)
.17 18 303 2.48
Ml) (.11) (188) (1.54)
.45 .85 292 2.59
;.28) (.53) (181) (1.61)
-82% -91% +2% 12%
-50% -60% -2% 17%
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
29.1 miles/gal
(8.1 litres/100 km)
29.3 miles/gal
(8.0 litres/100 km)
30.1 miles/gal
(7.8 litres/100 km)
1%
3%
In these tests after 5000 durability miles the UC catalyst again achieved
significant reductions in HC and CO emissions, although it was not as
efficient as the factory unit. The percent change in HC and CO emission
reductions remained constant for each catalyst. Thus, on the basis of
this limited data, the UC catalyst has no readily apparent deterioration
problem. The sulfate results for the above tests are listed in Tables 2
and 3. They are not noted above because the sulfate emissions over the
'75 FTP and the EPA Highway Cycle are not representative of a vehicle's
sulfate emissions over the sulfate emission te;st. cycle:.
The principle thrust of this report, the vehicle's sulfate emissions
over the sulfate cycle, are summarized below and tabulated in Table 4:
Sulfate Cycle Sulfate Emissions
System Mileage
Factory Catalyst 3423
(5508)
UC Catalyst
2116
(3405)
H-SU, mgm/mile
Z cf -
27.5 (range 20.6-39.4)
6.1 (range 3.2-8.2)
For comparison,' typical vehicle sulfate emission results (5) as found
in the EPA sulfate baseline study were:
Vehicles calibrated to meet present, and future emission standards.
-------
System Mileage H0SO, m^m/mile
£. H-
Catalyst vehicles with excess air 30 (range 0.3-96)
Catalyst vehicles without excess air 17 (range 0.5-83)
3-way catalyst vehicles 1
Non-catalyst vehicles 1
The UC catalyst sulfate emissions were stable and low, particularly for
a vehicle using an air pump.
Steady State fuel economy results in miles per gallon, were:
Speed, mph Baseline Factory Catalyst UC Catalyst
15
30
45
60
24.2
32.9
33.3
29.6
26.5
32.9
33.1
28.4
27.2
32.8
33.1
28.6
Thus there was no significant steady state fuel economy difference
among the three configurations.
A comparison of the test vehicle's combined city/highwgy fuel
economy, with that of the 1976 certification Pinto (as published in the
1976 EPA Buyer's Guide), showed no fuel economy penalty. When compared
to all vehicles in the same inertia weight class (3000 Ibs) the test
vehicle and the certification vehicle had an 8% fuel economy improvement.
City/Highway Combined
Fuel Economy (Fuel Consumption)
Vehicle miles/gal litres/100 km
Test Pinto, Baseline 24.5 (9.6)
Test Pinto, Factory Catalyst 25.3 (9.3)
Test Pinto, U.C. Catalyst ' 25.6 (9.2)
Ford Certification Vehicle 25.7 (9.1)
(140 CID)
Average of all 3000 Ib Vehicles 23.6 (10.0)
(avg. 150 CID)
-------
In calculating city/highway combined fuel economy, the urban fuel
economy is weighted 55% and the highway fuel economy is weighted 45% to
account for the 55/45 ratio of urban to rural mileage accumulation.
MPG , . .
combined
.55 + .45
urban nighway
The vehicle had good driveability.
Conclusions
The Union Carbide catalyst performed well. As an oxidation catalyst
it achieved smaller reductions in HC and CO emissions than the factory
catalyst. The sulfate emissions were repeatable, stable, and unexpectedly
low, particularly for a vehicle using an air pump. However an increase
in catalyst size to achieve comparable emission reductions might change
sulfate emissions.
-------
10
References
1. T. C. Austin, R. B. Michael, and G. R. Service, "Passenger Car Fuel
Economy Trends through 1976", SAE paper 750957, presented at Automobile
Engineering Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, October 1975.
2. W. R. Pierson, R. H. Hammerle, J. T. Kummer, "Sulfuric Acid Aerosol
Emissions from Catalyst-Equipped Engines." SAE Publication Number
740287, Detroit, Michigan, February 1974.
3. R. L. Bradow, John B. Moran, "Sulfate Emissions from Catalyst Cars,
A Review," SAE Publication Number 750090, Detroit, Michigan, February
1975.
4. J. H. Somers, R. Lawrence, C. E. Fett, T. M. Baines, and R. J. Garbe,
"Sulfuric Acid Emission from Light Duty Vehicles," SAE paper 760034,
presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit,
Michigan, February 1976.
5. Internal report "Test Report, Automotive Sulfuric Acid Baseline
Program," EPA, Emission Control Technology Division, January 1976.
-------
11
Attachment
Ford Pinto
Procedures used to measure Sulfate Emissions
1. The fuel was drained from the test vehicle. The vehicle was refueled
with Indolene HO gasoline containing .020% sulfur by weight.
2. The catalyst was stabilized by driving 500 miles of the AMA durability
cycle to stabilize the sulfate loading of the catalyst.
3. The following sequence of test cycles was used to measure sulfate
emissions.
a) 75 FTP
b) Sulfate emission test
c) Sulfate emission test
d) EPA Highway driving cycle
e) Sulfate emission test
f) Sulfate emission test.
-------
Table 1A
Baseline '75 FTP Mass Emissions
grains per mile
Bag 1 Cold Transient Bag 2 .Hot Stabilized Bag 3 Hot Transient
Fuel . Fuel Fuel
Vehicle System . Economy Economy Economy
Test Number Mileage Mileage ' HC CO C02 NOx MPG HC CO CO^ NOx MPG HC CO C02 NOx MPG
76-3118 2852 2852 1.95 33.76 375 2.70 20.5 1.24 24.98 373 1.38 21.3 1.18 12.78 351 2.68 23.7
76-3125 2893 2893 1.71 28.60 373 2.71 21.0 1.20 21.29 365 1.43 22.1 1.15 9.49 351 2.79 24.0
77-129 5197 5197 1.84 26.92 404 2.67 19.6 1.38 14.25 390 1.59 21.3 1.41 6.77 361 2.52 23.6
^ 77-149 5208 5208 1.91 28.38 405 2.58 19.5 1.34 13.18 385 1.51 21.6 1.50 7.12 355 2.40 23.9
-------
Table IB
Factory Catalyst '75 FTP Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Vehicle System
Test Number Mileage Mileage
76-3099
*
77-212
77-247*
2713
5799
5875
2713.
3348
3424
Bag 1 Cold Transient
...- Fuel
Economy
HC_ CO CQ2 , NOx MPG HC
.90 10.64 434 2.70 19.5 .20
.85 14.5.4 425 2.53 19.7 .20
.70 8.62 443 2.62 19.4 .19
Bag 2 Hot Stabilized
CO C02
.21 420
.20 382
.24 389
Bag 3 Hot Transient
NOx
.51
..41.
..37
Fuel
Economy
MPG
20.6
23.2
22.8
HC
.31
.30
.32
CO
.58
.73
.78
CO?
390
358
342
NOx
2.81
2.34
2.39
Fuel
Economy
MPG
22.6
24.7
25.8
* Sulfate emissions taken.
-------
Table 1C
Union Carbide '75 FTP Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Bag 1 Cold Transient Bag 2 Hot Stabilized Bag 3 Hot Transient
Fuel " Fuel Fuel
Vehicle System Economy Economy Economy
Test Number Mileage Mileage HC CO C02 . NOx MPG HC_ CO C02 NOx MPG HC CO C02 NOX MPG
76-3321 3245 321 1.26 lc.07 430 1.12 19.4 .51 • 3.56 421 1,44 20.7 .57 3.00 370 1.10 23.5
76-3313 3258 334 1.10 12.40 412 2.95 20.4 .53 3.68 385 1.49 22.6 .56 3.03 352 2.74 24.8
76-3518* 4934 2010 1.23 12.79 418 20.1 .87 .80 397 2.82 22.1 1.08 2.69 375 1.79 23.2
76-3534*. 5009 2085 1.06 14.36 400 2.49 20.8 .60 3.29 364 1.33 23.9 .73 3.54 342 2.24 25.4
76-3577* 5093 2169 1.03 13.07 387 2.70 21.6 .60 3.11 364 1.64 23.9 .71 2.42 346 2.65 25.2
* Sulfate emissions taken.
-------
15
Table 2A
Baseline '75 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test Number
76-3118
76-3125
77-129
77-149
Test Vehicle
N.umber Mileage
76-3099 2713
t
77-212 5799
77-247 5875
Vehicle
Mileage
2852
2893
5197
5208
Factory
System
Mileage
2713
3348
3424
System
Mileage
2852
2893
5197
5208
HC CO
1.37 23.46
1.29 19.57
1.48 14.82
1.50 14.66
Table 2B
Catalyst '75 FTP Composite
grams per mile
HC CO
.37 2.46
.36 3.29
.33 2.11
C02 NOx
420 2.11
384 1.90
387 1.90
Fuel
Economy
CO 2 NOx MPG
367 2.01 21.7
363 2.06 22.3
385 2.07 21.5
381 1.97 21.7
Mass Emissions
Fuel
Economy
MPG H7S04 % Conversion
20.9
22.7 19.7 15
22.7 9.7 7.3
mgm per mile H^SO, , values normalized to .030% sulfurized fuel.
-------
16
Table 2C
Union Carbide Catalyst '75 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test
Number
76-3321
76-3313
76-3518
76-3544
76-3577
Vehicle
Mileage
3245
3258
4934
5009
5093
System
Mileage HC
321
334
2010
2085
2169
.68
.66
1.00
.73
.72
CO
5.
5.
3.
5.
4.
78
30
79
64
97
C02
409
382
395
365
364
NOx
1.
2.
1.
2.
28
13
82
13
Fuel
Economy
MPG Ho SO,.
21.
22.
22.
22.
23.
1
6
0 2.4
6 2.1
7 .71
% Conversion
1.9
1.7
.6
mgm per mile H-SO^, values normalized to .030% sulfurized fuel.
-------
17
Table 3A
Baseline Highway Cycle Mass Emission
grams per mile
Test Number
76-3118
76-3125
77-129
77-149
Vehicle
Mileage
2873
2915
5206
5241
System
Mileage
2873
2915
5206
5241
HC
.79
.76
..90
.90
CO
2.98
1.64
2.15
2.04
CO?
266
268
305
291
NOx
2.49
2.45
2.34
2.09
Fuel
Economy
MPG
32.5
32.5
28.5
29.8
Table 3B
Factory Catalyst Highway Cycle Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test
Number
\
76-3099
77-215
77-250
Vehicle
Mileage
2734
5837
5915
Vehicle
Mileage HC
2734
3386
3464
.16
• 17
.17
CO
.16
.17
.18
CO?
299
302
303
2
2
2
NOx
.76
.41
.55
Fuel
Economy ^
MPG H9SOA
29
29
29
.6
.3 33.0
.2 38.3
% Conversion
37.4
43.8
mgm per mile
, values normalized to .030% sulfurized fuel.
-------
18
Table 3C
Union Carbide Catalyst Highway Cycle Mass Emissions
grains per mile
Test
Number
76-3313
76-3521
76-3547
76-3580
Vehicle
Mileage
3268
4971
5049
5130
Fuel
System Economy
Mileage HC CO C00 NOx MPG H^SQ^*
344 .40 1.03 287 2.90 30.6
2047 .52 .88 303 29.0 8.2
2125 .42 .93 302 2.76 29.1 4.2
2206 .42 .75 271 2.42 32.4 9.8
% Conversion
9.2
4.7
12.3
* mgm per mile
, values normalized to .030% sulfurized fuel.
-------
19
Table 4A
No sulfate emissions taken on vehicle without catalyst.
Table 4B
Factory Catalyst Sulfate Cycle Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test
Number
77-213
77-214
77-216
77-217
77-248
77-249
77-251
77-252
Vehicle
Mileage
5810
5823
5847
5860
5886
5901
5925
5938
System
Mileage
3359
3372
3396
3409
3435
3450
3474
3487
HC
.19
.19
.17
.16
.17
.17
.17
.18
CO
.33
.23
.27
.28
.29
.32
.28
.50
co2
333
322
332
325
321
333
324
330
NOx
2.50
2.51
2.50
2.46
2.52
2.59
2.46
2.42
Fuel
Economy
MPG
26.6
27.5
26.6
27.2
27.5
26.5
27.3
26.8
H SO *
20.6
23.2
25.9
30.4
21.9
29.4
39.4
28.8
% Conversion
2L.2
24.7
26.7
32.0
23.3
30.1
i
41.7
29.9
mgm per mile HjSO,, values normalized to .030% sulfurized fuel.
-------
20
Table 4C
Union Carbide Catalyst Sulfate Cycle Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test
Number
76-3519
76-3520
76-3522
76-3523
76-3545
76-3546
76-3548
76-3549
76-3578
76-3579
76-3581
76-3582
Vehicle
Mileage
4945
4958
4981
4994
5020
5035
5059
5072
5104
5117
5140
5153
System
Mileage
2021
2034
2057
2070
2096
2111
2135
2148
2180
2193
2116
2229
HC
.61
.60
.63
.63
.42
.43
.45
.43
.44
.44
.44
.45
CO
1.81
1.68
1.24
1.45
1.71
1.47
1.63
1.58
1.35
1.37
1.32
1.31
co2
340
323
307
313
303
312
309
291
292
282
298
304
NOx
2.40
2.61
2.64
2.47
2.41
2.22
2.41
2.33
Fuel
Economy
MPG
25.7
27.1
28.5
28.0
28.9
28.1
28.4
30.1
30.0
31.0
29.4
28.8
H0SO,*
6.0
3.2
5.2
6.9
4.1
5.2
8.2
6.0
6.7
6.8
7.3
7.3
% Conversion
5.0
3.4
5.8
7.5
4.7
5.6
9.7
7.0
8.0
8.4
8.4
8.1
mgm H~SO, per mile, values normalized to .030% sulfurized fuel.
-------
21
Table 5A
Baseline Steady State Emissions
grams per mile
Test Vehicle
System Speed
Fuel Economy
Number
76-3119*
76-3120*
76-3121
76-3122
76-3123
76-3124
Mileage
2813
2814
2816
2821
2828
2839
* grams per minute
Mileage MPH
Idle N
Idle D
15
30
45
60
, gallons per hour
HC
.11
.21
.64
.77
.79
.65
Table
Factory Catalyst Steady
grams per
\
Test
Number
76-3100*
76-3101*
76-3102
76-3103
76-3104
76-3105
Vehicle
Mileage
2748
2751
2753
2756
2797
2770
System Speed
Mileage MPH
2748 Idle N
2751 Idle D
2753 15
2756 30
2797 45
2770 60
HC
.02
.03
.10
.10
.13
.16
CO
2.98
6.10
24.35
23.53
3.00
1.05
C09
56
49
326
230
259
296
NOx
.02
.02
^.26
2.04
1.17
3.81
MPG
29.3
30.0
24.2
32.9
33.3
29.6
5B
State Mass Emissions
mile
CO
.01
.01
.11
.09
.09
.14
co2
63
63
334
269
267
312
NOx
.03
.03
.28
2.53
1.24
3.90
Fuel Economy
MPG
.42
.43
26.5
32.9
33.1
28.4
* grams per minute, gallons per hour
-------
22
Table 5C
Union Carbide Catalyst Steady State Mass Emissions
grains per mile
Test
Number
76-3322*
76-3323*
76-3324
76-3325
76-3326
76-3327
Vehicle
Mileage
3277
3277
3278
3281
3284
3292
System
Mileage
353
353
354
357
360
368
Speed
MPH
Idle N
Idle D
15
30
45
60
HC
.04
.08
.37
.36
.39
.33
CO
.36
.72
4.86
4.72
1.05
.81
co2
60
54
317
262
295
308
NOx
.03
.04
.25
2.12
1.04
3.68
Fuel
27
32
33
28
Economy
MPG
.41
.38
.2
.8
.1
.6
grams per mile, gallons per hour
------- |