79-7
Investigation of the Effects of the Installation
of an Oxidation Catalyst on a Diesel Powered Vehicle
March 1979
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmenal Protection Agency
Prepared by: Edward Anthony Earth
-------
Background
The number of Diesel powered automobiles and light-duty trucks sold in
the United States has significantly increased in the past few years with
the increased interest in fuel economy. Both domestic and foreign
automobile manufacturers have announced plans to expand the availability
of Diesels both in the number of models and the number of total units
built. This increased importance of Diesels has caused a significant
amount of discussion as to the ability of the manufacturers to meet the
recently announced EPA Diesel Emission Standards.
Since there was little or no experience with the effects of installing
an oxidation catalyst in a Diesel powered vehicle, the EPA decided to
investigate this configuration for its effects on both regulated and
unregulated pollutants. Due to the relatively low hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide emissions typical of Diesel exhaust, the initial question
was whether the catalyst would attain a sufficient temperature to allow
it to function as intended. After establishing that the catalyst would
function, its effect on emissions, both gaseous and particulate, on fuel
economy, and on vehicle performance were to be investigated.
The conclusions drawn from this EPA evaluation test can be considered to
be qualitatively and quantitatively valid only for the specific vehicle
and catalysts used. However, it is reasonable to extrapolate the results
from the EPA test to other types of Diesel powered vehicles in a quali-
tative manner, i.e., to suggest that similar results are likely to be
achieved on other Diesel engines using similar oxidation catalysts.
Summary of Findings
1. Both catalysts* used in the investigation achieved light-off (50%
or greater conversion efficiency) shortly after the start of the cold-
start Federal Test Procedure. For the FTP, both catalysts yielded HC
and CO values which were substantially reduced from the baseline condition
while NOx emissions remained unchanged. Compared to the stock config-
uration, particulate emissions were unchanged for the Ford catalyst and
showed a substantial increase for the Engelhard catalyst.
2. For the HFET, both catalysts showed a significant reduction of CO
emissions and no change in NOx emissions from the baseline. The Ford
catalyst showed substantial reductions of HC while the Englehard showed
some increase of HC emissions compared to the baseline.
*Ford production catalyst normally used with Ford 250 CID gasoline
powered vehicles. Engelhard research catalyst with catalyst loading
and materials chosen for use with Diesel passenger vehicles.
-------
-2-
3. In stock configuration the vehicle was able to follow the FTP and
HFET driving cycles. However, with the catalysts installed, the vehicle
had difficulty achieving the higher acceleration rates of the driving
cycles at speeds above 30 mph. Typically the vehicle was four MPH
slower than the desired speed.
4. With a catalyst, the vehicle's accelerator pedal response was very
poor. It was extremely difficult, therefore, to properly modulate the
vehicle's speed and accurately following the driving cycle.
5. The fifty mile per hour steady state tests showed that the two
catalysts substantially reduced CO emissions while there was little
change in NOx emissions from the baseline. The Ford catalyst reduced
the HC emissions while the Engelhard catalyst had no effect on HC
emissions compared to the baseline.
6. Propane injection was attempted on the Englehard catalyst to determine
whether a richer mixture would result in higher catalyst temperatures
and, therefore, lower overall emissions. Attempts to raise the catalyst
temperature by "feeding" propane into the exhaust manifold were fruitless.
At high loads there was no increase in catalyst temperature or conversion
efficiency. At low loads the catalyst temperature decreased and conversion
efficiency decreased.
7. The diesel particulates were bioassayed for mutagenitic properties.
The results of these tests were inconclusive.
Test Vehicle
The test vehicle was a 1975 Mercedes Benz 300D equipped with an automatic
transmission. This vehicle has' been used extensively for emissions
testing and has a history of stable emissions. The vehicle was fitted
with a catalyst sized to have approximately the same volume as that for
an equivalent powered gasoline vehicle.
The Englehard catalyst was tested first. This catalyst had a monolith
substrate with approximately three times the loading of a conventional
gasoline catalyst and was similar to others Englehard had used for
testing on Diesels. The "Ford" catalyst was a production catalyst
normally installed in medium displacement Ford gasoline powered vehicles.
Specifications of these catalysts are given on the test vehicle description
in the following page.
Test Procedure
The vehicle was tested in four basic configurations. 1) The Engelhard
catalyst was installed in the engine compartment near to the exhaust
manifold outlet. This installation required some sharp bends in the
exhaust pipe. 2) The same configuration was tested with exhaust tubing
-------
-3-
Test Vehicle Description
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Mercedes 300D
VIN - 11511412019885
Engine
Type
Bore x Stroke
Displacement
Compression Ratio
Maximum power at RPM
Fuel Metering
Fuel Requirement
Drive Train
Transmission Type
Final Drive Ratio
Chassis
Type
Tire Size
Inertia Weight
Passenger capacity
Emission Control System
Basic Type
Additional Features
Durability Accumulated on System
CATALYST DESCRIPTION
15, 4 cycle, Diesel pre-chamber, OHV
3.58 in. x 3.64 in. (91.0 mm x 92.5 mm)
183 CID (3000 cc)
21:1
77 hp/57 kW at 4000 rpm
High Pressure, In-Line pump
Diesel Fuel No. 2
4 Speed Automatic
4 Door Sedan, Front Engine, Rear Drive
Michelin XZX 175 SR 14
Tread 2 Plies Steel + 2 Plies Rayon
Sidewall 2 Plies Rayon
4000 pound
5
Engine Modification
Catalyst (see Catalyst Description Below)
300 Miles on Engelhard catalyst
150 Miles on Ford catalyst
Ford Catalyst
General Type
Total Volume (cu. in.)
Substrate Type
Active Material
Loading (grams/cubic foot)
Surface Area (BET) (m /cc)
Englehard Catalyst
General Type
Total Volume
Substrate Type
Active Material
Loading (grams/cubic ft.)
Oxidation
95- 6% (92 Clamshell/89/Stuffed (alt)
Monolithic
67% Platinum, 33% Palladium
25
7.5 minimum
Oxidation
77
Monolithic corning 200 cells/in^
100% platinum
78
-------
-4-
replacing the catalyst to determine the effects of the catalyst and the
effects of the exhaust pipe geometry. 3) and 4) Both the Ford and the
Engelhard catalyst were then placed beneath the vehicle such that changes
to the stock exhaust system geometry were minimized. Thermocouples were
installed in the catalysts to measure catalyst inlet and outlet temperatures.
The exhaust manifold back pressure was measured at 50 mph to determine
the effect of each configuration on the exhaust back pressure. Also,
the exhaust manifold was insulated in an effort to raise the temperature
of the exhaust gases entering the catalyst.
A modal analyzer was used to determine the catalyst efficiency at each
mode of the FTP and at intervals in the fifty mile per hour steady state
tests prior to any emissions or particulate testing. For modal analysis,
continuous raw exhaust emissions were taken simultaneously both before
and after the catalyst. During the first test configuration, the Engelhard
catalyst installed in the engine compartment, propane was injected at
the exhaust manifold to assist in catalyst light-off.
The testing of each configuration consisted basically of multiple cycles
of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP), the Highway Fuel Economy Test
(HFET), and a fifty mile per hour steady state procedure. Particulates
were measured from the 4-bag FTP tests. Ames analysis was performed to
determine whether the resultant particulates were mutagenic and, therefore,
possibly carcinogenic.
The Ames test is a biochemical assay that uses a tester strain of
Salmonella bacteria that is a histidine deficient strain. As such,
since it cannot produce its own histidine to survive, the strain must
mutate to survive. For the Ames test, the tester strain is placed in a
Petri dish without histidine and with the chemical being tested. If the
chemical mutates the bacteria (thus correcting the genetic defect), the
Salmonella returns to normal, produces histidine, and is able to survive.
By counting the number of colonies of bacteria that have "reverted", an
indication of the mutagenic potential of the chemical can be obtained.
If the chemical does, not .mutate .the. bacteria, .it dies for lack of histidine.
These mutagenic effects have been correlated with known carcinogens with
some success.
The standard light-duty diesel test procedure was modified by incor-
porating an 18 inch particulate tunnel in the sampling system. The
tunnel was flowed at 500 SCFM to keep the dilute exhaust temperature
below 125°F at the sample zone. At this point a small sample is drawn
thru a 47 mm filter. By accurately weighing this filter-and measuring
the flow volume through the filter, total particulate mass can be calculated,
The HFID sample is also taken at this sample zone. These procedures
have now been issued as a formal test procedure in the proposed "Particulate
Regulation for Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles", Federal Register, February
1, 1979.
-------
-5-
For bioassay a large particulate sample is required. Therefore, a much
larger filter (8 x 10 inches) was incorporated down stream of the parti-
culate sample zone. The dilute exhaust was drawn through this filter
and then returned to the tunnel.' These samples were sent to a laboratory
for chemical extraction of the particulates and bioassay.
The changes outlined in the preceding two paragraphs do not affect the
vehicle's gaseous emissions.
Results
The original goal of this test program had been to install a catalyst on
the vehicle, to operate the vehicle in any manner necessary to achieve
catalyst light off (50% or greater conversion efficiency), and to
obtain samples for bioassay tests. However since the catalysts were
able to light off rather easily in transient driving cycles, a more
complete test program was practicable.
In the various test configurations the vehicle was tested for gaseous
and particulate emissions. The test procedures used were the FTP,
Highway Fuel Economy Test and 50 mph steady state. For this testing an
18 inch particulate tunnel was employed. The individual test results
are given at the end of this report. These results are summarized in
the following table:
Table I
Mercedes Benz Diesel
FTP Emissions
Grams- Per Mile
HC (HFID) CO C00 NOx MPG Particulates
Typical Baseline .23 .86 441 2.01 23.0 .47
Engelhard Catalyst .14 .10 423 1.93 24.0 .59
(Engine Compartment)
Engelhard Catalyst .14 .18 424 1.97 24.0 .57
(Underneath vehicle)
With Bypass for
Engelhard .18 .80 413 1.94 24.5 .43
(in engine compartment)
Ford Catalyst .10 .49 404 1.96 25.1 .44
-------
-6-
For the FTP, both catalysts yielded HC and CO values which were sub-
stantially reduced from the already low baseline condition while NOx
emissions remained unchanged. The Engelhard catalyst was especially
effective in reducing CO emissions. Particulate emissions were unchanged
for the Ford catalyst and showed a substantial increase for the Engelhard
catalyst. However, this particulate level was still lower than that
emitted by most full sized diesel passenger vehicles available in the
U.S. There was no appreciable difference in the emission results for
the Engelhard catalyst in either location.
Table II
Mercedes Benz Diesel
HFET Emissions
Gram Per Mile
Typical Baseline
Engelhard Catalyst
(Engine Compartment)
Engelhard Catalyst
(Underneath vehicle)
Bypass for Engelhard
Catalyst
Ford Catalyst
HC (HFID) CO C02 NOx MPG Particulates
.15 .54 332 1.86 30.5 .32
.13 .03 361 1.83 28.1 1.02
.08 .05 365 1.88 27.9 .78
.08 .50 354 1.90 28.8 .38
.03 .07 342 1.82 29.8 .51
For the HFET, both catalysts showed a significant reduction in CO, no
change in NOx emissions from the baseline and a slight decrease in fuel
economy. The Ford catalyst showed substantial reductions of HC while
the Engelhard-showed some-increase-in-HC-emissions-when compared to the
baseline. Particulate emission rates were increased substantially,
especially for the Engelhard catalyst.
The reason for this higher particulate emission rate for the Engelhard
catalyst is not known. Sulfate mass was not measured, but could possibly
be the reason if the Engelhard catalyst had a higher sulfate conversion
efficiency than the Ford catalyst.
-------
-7-
Table III
Merdedes Benz Diesel
50 mph Steady State Emissions
Grams Per Mile
Typical Baseline
Engelhard Catalyst
(Engine Compartment)
Engelhard Catalyst
(Underneath vehicle)
Bypass for Englehard
Catalyst
Ford Catalyst
HC (HFID)
.08
.10
.06
.08
.04
CO
CO,
NOx MPG Particulates
.54 330 1.70 30.5 .35
,04 342 1.70 29.7 .89
,03 320 1.70 31.8
.47 344 1.90 29.5
,11 333 1.78 30.5
.69
.37
The fifty mile per hour steady state tests showed that the two catalysts
substantially reduced CO emissions while there was little change in NOx
emissions from the baseline. The Ford catalyst reduced HC emissions
while the Engelhard catalyst had no substantial effect on HC emissions
compared to the baseline. Particulate emissions were unchanged for the
Ford catalyst and showed a substantial increase for the Engelhard catalyst.
In stock configuration this vehicle was able to follow the FTP and HFET
driving cycles. However, with -the catalysts installed, the vehicle had
difficulty achieving the higher acceleration rates of these driving
cycles at speeds above 30 mph. Typically the vehicle would be four mph
slower than the desired speed. Also, with a catalyst, the vehicle's
throttle response was very poor. Therefore, it was extremely difficult
to properly modulate the vehicle speed to accurately follow the driving
cycle. These deficiences were probably caused by the increase in back
pressure caused by the modifications and resultant reduction in available
power (see Tables V and VI).
The principle objective of this study was to obtain particulate samples
of a catalyst vehicle for bioassay. Samples were successfully obtained.
The results of these tests are inconclusive. Appendix A consists of
copies of two letters discussing the results of the bioassay (Ames)
tests.
Prior to the standard emission tests, the vehicle was checked with an
exhaust modal analyzer to determine if the catalysts were functioning
and to evaluate the effectiveness of propane injection in assisting the
-------
catalyst to light-off. The vehicle exhaust was sampled continuously
both before and after the catalyst with two continuous analyzers. These
analyzers are controlled by a process computer to continuously calculate
mass emissions and catalyst conversion efficiency.
Catalyst light-off (50% or greater conversion efficiency) occurred at
the relatively low temperature of 400°F. There was no appreciable
temperature rise across the catalyst. This was probably due to the
relatively low HC and CO concentrations in the Diesel's exhaust.
Attempts to raise the catalyst temperature by "feeding" propane into the
exhaust manifold were fruitless. At 50 mph, there was no change in HC
conversion rate and temperatures across the catalyst did not increase.
At 40 mph, catalyst temperatures continually decreased and conversion
efficiency decreased.
The foregoing results are summarized below:
Table IV
Engelhard Catalyst
-HC CO-
Avg. % Time of % Time of
Test Type Temp. F° Efficiency Occurance Efficiency Occurance
Cold LA-4 20% 300 sec. 40% 330 sec.
Hot LA-4 450-500 70% 115 sec. 100% 30 sec.
50 MPH 600 80% 100%
Idle 400-450 80% 100%
50 MPH Propane 480 90% 100%
40 MPH 200
Ford Catalyst HC CO >
Avg. % Time of % Time of
Test Type Temp. F" Efficiency Occurance Efficiency Occurance
Cold LA-4 60-40% 330 sec. 90% 125 sec.
Prior to the start of testing several checks were made to determine
typical pressure losses through the Engelhard catalyst.. These tests
were performed by flowing air through the catalyst at known rates and
measuring the pressure drop across the catalyst. The results are
summarized in the table below:
Table V
Pressure Drop
Catalyst Flow Rate SCFM in H-O
Engelhard 116 .46
193 .93
Pressure drop characteristics across the Ford catalyst were not determined,
-------
-9-
The airflow/pressure drop data suggested that there should be minor
increases in exhaust system back pressure caused by the catalyst. Tests
on the vehicle showed, however, that there was a substantial back pressure
penalty. The results of the back pressure tests performed at 50 mph are
summarized in the following table:
Table VI
Baseline 6.9 in H20
Engelhard catalyst 35 in H^O
in engine compartment
With bypass for Engelhard 22 in H-0
Ford catalyst 18.7 in HO
These results-.showed that the cobbled engine compartment installation
significantly increased engine back pressure (catalyst and catalyst
bypass). These configurations also resulted in the greatest deviations
in the vehicle's capability to follow the driving trace.
At the conclusion of testing, the catalysts were removed and inspected.
Neither catalyst showed any visual signs of plugging due to deposits.
Both catalysts had maintained their respective efficiencies throughout
this short test program.
Conclusions
Catalysts can be effective in reducing Diesel HC and CO emissions.
However, the long term durability of these systems was not determined.
Catalysts can adversely affect Diesel pafticulate emissions and reduce
vehicle performance if incorrectly sized and/or installed without
adequate system design.
The chemical nature and biological activity of the Diesel particulates
from a catalyst vehicle was not determined. The test results available
from this test were too limited to draw any conclusions.
-------
-10-
Mercedes Benz Diesel Catalvg'-
FTP Results gni/mi
Date Test No. HC(HFID) CO C02 NOx MPG Particulate
Engelhard Catalyst Installed
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-20
6-21
6-28
6-29
79-2620
79-2624
79-2633
Bypass
79-3052
79-3069
79-3088
79-3473
..12
.15
.14
for Engelhard Catalyst
.26
.10
Ford
.11
.09
06
13
10
(Engine
81
78
in Engine Compartment
431
421
416
1.
1.
1.
93
93
92
Compartment
414
412
1.
1.
95
93
23.
24.
24,
6
1
4
0
0
0
.59
.62
.56
Configuration)
24.
24.
5
6
0
0
.42
.44
Catalyst
45
53
Engelhard Catalyst Installed
6-30
7-29
79-3575
79-4388
.14
.14
19
17
412
397
2.
1.
Underneath
411
437
1.
2.
08
83
24.
25.
6
6
0
0
.45
.42
Vehicle
87
06
24.
23.
7
3
0
.57
Typical Baseline Emissions
.23 .86 441 2.01 23.0 .47
-------
-11-
Mercedes Benz Diesel Catalyst
50 MPH Steady State Results gm/mi
Date .Test No. HC(HFID) CO C02 NOx MPG Particulate
6-14
6-15
6-15
6-21
6-22
fi_9«
En{
79-2623
79-2632
79-2636
Bypass for
79-3055
79-3072
7Q-1A79
jelhard Cat
.11
.08
.10
Engelhard
.06
.10
DA
:alyst Ins
.04
.03
.04
Catalyst
.45
.49
Ford
11
tailed in I
357
348
322
(Engine Cos
334
354
Catalyst
m
Sngine Cot
1.80
1.72
1.58
apartment
1.90
1.90
1 7« ,
apartment
28.5
29.2
31.6
Configura
30.4
28.7
m s
i
098
0.96
0.72
tion)
0.36
0.36
Engelhard Catalyst Installed Underneath Vehicle
6-30 79-3578 .06 .03 320 1.70 31.8 0.69
Typical Baseline Emissions
.08 .54 330 1.65 30.5 .35
-------
-12-
Mercedes Benz Diesel Catalyst
HFET Results gra/rai
Date Test No. HC(HFID) CO C02 NOx MPG Particulate
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-19
6-20
6-22
6-27
6-28
6-29
6-30
7-29
7-29
79-2622
79-2626
79-2635
7Q_insi
/ " JU Ji
Bypass
79-3054
79-3071
79-3086
79-3090
79-3475
79-3577
79-4389
79-4390
Engelhard Catalyst Installed In Engine Compartment
.199 .03 373 1.87 27.2
.07 .03 350 1.77 29.1
.13 .04 348 1.75 29.2
Um "\~Ili. 1 Q7 77 9
U X O / H J_ 74. £.!£.
for Engelhard Catalyst (Engine Compartment Configuration)
.07 .51 352 1.85 28.9
.09 .49 355 1.94 28.6
Ford Catalyst
.02 .07 334 1.72 30.5
.03 .07 331 1.78 30.7
.03 .08 360 1.86 28.3
Engelhard Catalyst Installed underneath Vehicle
.04 .06 349 1.79 29.2
.09 .04 373 1.92 27.3
.12 .04 372 1.88 27.3
1.23
0.88
0.95
0.42
0.34
0.36
0.58
o.a
0.78
Typical Baseline Emissions
.15 .54 332 1.75 30.5 .32
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: October 20, 1978
SUBJECT: Ames test results from MB 300D With and Without Catalysts
FROM: Thomas M. Baines, Engineer, CAB
TO.- Charles L. Gray, Director, ECTD
THRU: Karl H. Hellman, Chief, CAB
During late June and early July, 1978, a series of samples were taken to
ORD/MSERB in Research Triangle Parfc,.N.C. These samples were from a
Mercedes Benz 3ODD Diesel light-duty vehicle which was operated over a
variety of cycles and was equipped both with and without a catalyst.
MSERB was requested to extract these samples and send the extracts to
the Cellular Biology Section (CBS} for Ames tests. This history is
summarized in the attached 17 August, 1978 memo to you from-J.H.. Somers.
These samples were finally analyzed in late August and early September
and the results finally communicated to us on 27 September, 1978 during
a meeting with Joellen Huisingh. These results are summarized in
Table 1. / .
In discussing these results, Joellen felt that the only statement that
can be made is that- the samples from the Mercedes operated both with and
without a catalyst all appear to^be mutagenic. It appears that the
catalyst did not alter the mutagenicity.of the sample. There was,
however, some question about the quality of the sample. These samples
were packed and transported in accordance with the instructions given to
ECTD by MSERB, namely to put the filter into a manila envelope and keep
it at room temperature. During the meeting, Joellen expressed concern
over the stability of the samples in that they had not been handled
under yellow light, stored in a nitrogen atmosphere at sub-zero temper-
atures (the current recommended practice).
Joellen states that it is currently not possible to compare Ames test
results that have been run under different conditions at different
times. With this limitation in mind it may be useful, to observe that
the Mercedes 3ODD results reported here are generally the same as (pos-
sibly a bit higher than) the results reported on the VW and Mercedes
240D in the Williamsburg paper. .
^_
I am aware that it is important that we obtain better communication of
preliminary results on Ames tests with ORD in FY79. ECTD has brough"fc
this point up to various ORD people as an area to improve in FY79.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Attachments
cc: Merrill Korth
EPA Fo, 320-6 (R~3-76f°bef
Stanley Blacker
-------
-14-
Table 1
Table of Ames Test Results from
Mercedes Benz 300D Diesel Vehicle Catalyst Experiments
Sample Test Catalyst Specific Activity (rev./ml.)
Numbers Cycle . - MA** H- MA**
1+12 50SS Engelhard*+ 3817 4496
6 + 13 HFET Engelhard*+ 2067 3822
9 + 10 FEP(1,2)+ Engelhard*+ 1712 3973
20 + 27 HFET No Cat 2205 3038
21 + 23 FTP(1,2,3,4) No Cat 1267 3129
26 + 32 FTP (1,2) Ford++ 2136 3359
11 FTP (3,4) Engelhard*+ IS* 1269
24 + 25 50SS No Cat 362 1450
28 + 33 FTP(3,4) Ford++ 519 2147
30 + 36 50SS Ford++ 245 840
*IS = Insufficient Sample
"+ Number in parenthesis indicates FTP bags during x?hich sample was taken.
*+ Catalyst located in engine compartment, close to exhaust manifold.
++ Catalyst located in toeboard position.
** -MA = without metabolic activation
+MA = with metabolic activation
-------
March 7, 1979
Additional Computation of Ames Test Results
Prom MB 300D Catalyst Study : -^
. '
. ' - '- - " ; :~- " '
Thomas M. Balnea, Engineer, CAB
'
Charles L. Gray, Director," ECTD .
THRU: Karl H. Hellman, Chief , CAB
The purpose of this memo Isrto transmit:, the computations that .you
requested. ; These computations are of the Ames test data from the study
of the Mercedes Benz 300D operated both with and without a catalyst.
You requested that in. addition to* the-specific activity (rev./plate/ml)
data reported in ny 20 October^-1978 memo to. you, that I conrpute the
data in terms of revertantsl per-plate per Tnile, grams particulate per
mile, gramar-of particle bound oganies(PBO) per aile, revertents per
- gram of partlcnlate sample and grams of::"hot" extractable per mile. All
of these data (as well as some gaseous emiasionfl data) are given in the
attached Table 1 with the exception of the "hot11 extractable data. This
is because 1) none of .the samples were fractionated to yield such data,
and 2> no light duty samples have ever been known to be fractionated to
yield data which-could be used to scale the data obtained in this study..
Table 1 1» largely self^-explanatory. However, an important points must
be made. Namely, that the data can only be compared within test labor- ,
atories as the laboratories each used a different batch of the same '-.."'
strain of Salmonella t. bacteria. Extensive investigation in the two ^;
labs was carried out after .these; data were developed and it then became --
apparent that one batch of bacteria was significantly more sensitive
than the-,other.-'-,- -^:-^^^^^-^-^---.^^:-:^:^^-::-. ,....>, so'--'^^ ....
- -- . '.^: :.--.- -- ;- '. ' '" ~:-r'r^-^'.~--:::*?y*?"?----ff^--:^~'---^--r-"-!..'--\~- k?"~*T:-.--. . , -.- .-/-.- :'' -'- -. - «..,°l.
.. ^^v-.*>:.;j.?.^ijr«,-.. ^. . .-: -.; ..._ ^r::.Vjr.^:V-:.^...-.-;, s: .-'^T- ..*.'.' .* -:.--;-.^-:-.-- . ' , -.-.-_O"_.x - . - ' -...':'r-";--
Using the^ data in Table-1 it can be seen that the parameter "revertents .;;:
per mile4(rev/ndL)" ranges'from 0.9 x 10 to 7.4 x 10 , somewhat less '^5?
than one^order of magnitude;" Within a given lab (NSI or C3S) the
'' '''~'':' '
With respect to the effect of: the catalyst, the best comparisons can be^-%
made using, the 50SS data from C3S with and without catalyst and the ^r'"v
data on- the FTP and the HFET. These are shown in Table 2.
-------
-16
-2- '. .'":'.
Table 2 . .;^^.M^
With Catalyst Compared to No Catalyst Data ^fe: V>: -"
f "-LV' ' ';-/;". -C"
Lab Cycle Catalyst PBO g/ad rev/nd |_ *^^if'V^
CBS 50SS Yea (Ford) 0.021 0.9 x 10* r^'lft'^?
CBS' .': soss --.,^.;:.»»;./:.::.4-;;..'---""..:'-".'0.035 . 2.5 x 10 .li^fef
»1-.:Jt.v:V-**-'*vV i"J :-
4 ;3feea:^-i
Cycle
50SS
50SS
FTPC
FTPC
FTP
HFST
HFST
Catalyst
Yea (Ford) "
Yes (Ford)
-: : Yas (Engel) /
_'._ "- HO ..- ;"-,-,-: -.,..'; /'":
;:-"vA:'-:. Yes (Engel) /--..
PBO g/ad.
0.021
0.035
0.022
0.037
0.034
0.026
0.029
HSI FEPC Tea (Ford) 0.022 3.7 x 10
HSI FTPC : Y«» (Engel) / 0.037 7.4x10;
HSI ; L FTP 1: Hb. : ^ 0.034 5.3x10
3.7 x 10
HSI v HFST ;cv 5b " ;: ;; 0.029 4.4 x 1O
In the CBS case the use of the catalyst reduced rev/mi by 64%. In the
cases of the NSI data: on the BFET use of the catalyst reduced rev/mi by
161. However for the NSI data on the FTP the use of the catalyst either
increased rev/mi by 452, or reduced rev/nd. by 501 depending on which
catalyst (Engelhard or Ford) was used.
Because (as is pointed out in footnote 3 to Table 1) the significance of
the unit rev/mi is not yet established, It is suggested that the results
shown in Table 1 and Table 2 not be over interpeted. Since the Ames
Test activity data has not yet even been acknowledged by OKD to be able
to be used in a quantitatively comparable manner, the quantitative
comparisons shown in the above table may not be supported by OKD re..-
searchers. .- - -. '_ '*- '--.- . ..
If you have any questions on this, please advise.
Attachment. r ' - -' - -. - -
cc: Merrill Korth
Robert Maxwell ;:
Ralph Stahnan -'-^
Stanley Blacker
CAB:BAINES:dc:2565 Plymouth Rd:X448:3/7/79
-------
Table 1
Table of Emissions and Amoo Teat Results from MB 300D with and without Catalyst
Emission Rate R/mi.
Sample
Numbers
9 + 10
26 + 32
21 + 23
6 + 13
20 + 27
1 + 12
11
28 + 33
30 + 36
24 + 25
Test1
Cycle
FTPC
FTPC
FTP
HFET
HFF.T
snss
FTPH
FTPH
50SS
50SS
Cat.2
Engl
Ford
None
Engl
None
Engl
Engl
Ford
Ford
None
Test3
Lab.
.NSI
NSI
NSI
NSI
NSI
NSI
CBS
CBS
CBS
CBS
HC*
0.14
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.14
0.09
0.03
0.08
CO*
0.12
0.50
0.78
0.04
0.50
0.04
0.10
0.50
0.09
0.47
Part.*
0.588
0.416
0.442
0.919
0.381
0.840
0.556
0.416
0.390
0.366
PBO5
0.037
0.022
0.034
0.026
0.029
0.032
0.029
0.026
0.021
0.035
S.A. (rev/ml)6 -.
-MA
1712
2136
1267
2067
2205
3817
IS6
519
245
362
+MA
3973
3359
3129
2822
3038
4496
1269
2147
840 .
1450
rev/g
sample
12J& 10*
8.9 x 10*
12.0 x 10*
4.0 x 10*
11.6 x 10*
8.6 x 10*
3.3 x 10*
6.7 x 10*
2.3 x 10*
6.9 x 10*
g
rev/ml
A «
7.4 x 10
3.7 x 10*
5.3 x 10*
3.7 x 10*
4.4 x 10*
7.2 x'lO*
1.8'x 10*
i.roHo*
0>9J£o*
2';s'>i'io*
1 FTP - FTP, bags 1, 2, 3, 4; FTPC - FTP, bags 1, 2; FTPH » FTP, bags 3,4.
2 Engl - Engelhard catalyst, located in engine compartment close to exhaust manifold; Ford Ford catalyst located in toeboard position;
None no catalyst used. .
3 Test lab. - laboratory performing Ames test; NSI - Northrup Services, Inc.; CBS - Cellular Biology Section.
* Average emissions for the given pollutant over the tvo filters that were combined for Ames testing. The FTP HC and CO emissions averages
are for the entire FTP, not Just the cold or hot portions. The particulate mass emissions data come from 47 mm filter data.
PBO - Particle bound organics; computed by taking PBO fraction date from 8 x 10 filters and applying to the 47 mm data.
Specific Activity in revertants per plate per ml .of solution (solvent + PBO, .in a ratio of 2 mg PBO/1 ml solvent); -MA » without
metabolic activation; +MA « with metabolic activation; IS » insufficient sample.
Revertants per plate par gram of particulate sample. Based on Specific Activity with metabolic activation data.
Revertants per plate per mile. The practical significance of this unit has not yet been established.
------- |