United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA 460/3-82-004
August 1982
Air
Characterization of Exhaust
Emissions from Methanol- and
Gasoline-Fueled Automobiles
-------
EPA 460/3-82-004
Characterization of Exhaust Emissions from
Methanol- and Gasoline-Fueled Automobiles
by
Lawrence R. Smith
and
Charles M. Urban
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-2884
Task Specifications 11 and 12
and
Contract No. 68-03-3073
Work Assignments 1 and 3
EPA Project Officer: Robert J. Garbe
Task Branch Technical Representative: Thomas M. Baines
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
August 1982
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from
the Library Services Office, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas, in
fulfillment of Task Specifications 11 and 12 and Work Assignments 1 and 3
of Contract 68-03-2884 and 68-03-3073. The contents of this report are
produced herein as received from Southwest Research Institute. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and
not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of
company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA 460/3-82-004
11
-------
FOREWORD
These project tasks and work assignments were initiated by the Control
Technology Assessment and Characterization Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. The engineering
and analytical effort on which this report is based was accomplished by the
Department of Emissions Research of Southwest Research Institute, 6220
Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas 78284. The program tasks authorized by
Task Specifications 11 and 12 under Contract 68-03-2884 and by Work Assign-
ments 1 and 3 under Contract 68-03-3073 were initiated June 30, 1981,
August 19, 1981, November 30, 1981, and January 8, 1982, respectively, and
were completed March 1982. This program was identified within Southwest
Research Institute as Projects 05-5830-011, 05-5830-012, 06-6619-001 and
05-6619-003.
The two initial project tasks were under the supervision of Mr. Charles
Urban, Project Leader. Dr. Lawrence Smith, Senior Research Scientist,
directed this program beginning November 7, 1981. Mr. Urban continued to
be involved in major project decisions for the duration of the program.
Mr. Charles Hare was Project Manager and was involved in the initial
technical and fiscal negotiations and subsequent major program decisions.
The EPA Project Officer was Mr. Robert J. Garbe of the Control Technology
Assessment and Characterization Branch, Environmental Protection Agency,
and the EPA Task Branch Technical Representative was Mr. Thomas M. Baines.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the laboratory effort to characterize regulated
and unregulated exhaust emissions from four light-duty, spark-ignited auto-
mobiles. Two of the automobiles, a 1981 Ford Escort and a 1981 Volkswagen
Rabbit, were evaluated with gasoline; one of these was also operated on a
gasoline-alcohol blend. The two other vehicles, also a 1981 Escort and a
1981 Rabbit, were evaluated with methanol fuel. The automobiles were
evaluated over the Light-Duty Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway
Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HFET). Additional evaluations with the
methanol-fueled Escort and Rabbit ware conducted using promoted base metal
catalysts, and the Escort was evaluated in a non-catalyst configuration.
Exhaust constituents measured, in addition to the regulated emissions,
include: aldehydes (including formaldehyde), particulates, individual
hydrocarbons, methanol, ethanol, ammonia, cyanide, amines, nitrosamines,
and methyl nitrite. Additional exhaust evaluations included mass spectral
and Ames bioassay analyses.
IV
-------
SUMMARY
The major objective of this program was to evaluate regulated and unre-
gulated exhaust emissions from low mileage noble metal catalyst-equipped
automobiles fueled with gasoline and methanol. Additional objectives in-
volved the emissions characterization of these vehicles when low mileage
promoted base metal catalysts were used, as well as the evaluation of a
gasoline-methanol fuel blend (Anafuel). Four 1981 model year automobiles,
two methanol-fueled (a Ford Escort and a Volkswagen Rabbit), were evaluated
over two driving schedules, the light-duty Federal Test Procedure (FTP),
and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). Additional multiple Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedules (UDDS) were used to generate particulate
samples.
The exhaust emissions evaluated in this program included the regulated
emissions (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen^ aldehydes
(including formaldehyde) and ketones, selected individual hydrocarbons,
methanol, ethanol, ammonia, cyanide, organic amines, nitrosamines, and
methyl nitrite. Additional evaluations involved the collection and
extraction of particulate samples for Ames bioassay and mass spectral
analyses.
Average FTP emission rates and fuel economy values for eight different
vehicle, catalyst, and fuel combinations are summarized on the following
page. The following observations are made for these data:
• The Ford Escort produced similar emissions and fuel consumption
when operating on "Anafuel" and gasoline.
• The methanol-fueled cars had higher fuel consumption (but lower
energy consumption), higher formaldehyde and methanol emissions,
and lower particulate emissions than the corresponding gasoline-
fueled cars.
• The methanol-fueled Escort had lower NOX than its gasoline
counterpart and the methanol-fueled Rabbit had higher NO than
its gasoline counterpart. All vehicles had NO emissions below
the 0.62 g/km (1.0 g/mi) level of the standard except for the
promoted base metal-equipped Rabbit.
• In general, the promoted base metal catalyst and the factory-
installed noble metal catalyst produced opposing results for the
Escort and the Rabbit. The promoted base metal catalyst produced
lower emissions from the Escort and higher emissions from the
Rabbit. One reason for this may be that the Escort was tested
with a larger promoted base metal catalyst than the Rabbit.
v
-------
SUMMARY OF FTP EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
Emissions in mg/km, except as noted
Fuel
Catalyst
Hydrocarbons, g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
Fuel Cons., &/100 km
Energy Cons., 10"J/km
Parti culates
Formaldehyde
Methanol
Methane
Ammonia
Cyanide
Amines
Nitros amines
1981 Ford Escorts3
Gasoline
Configuration
Anafuel
Factory
0.19
2.02
0.42
9.6
3.03
4
<1
NDb
43
c
—
—
ND
Gasoline
Factory
0.23
2.79
0.34
9.6
3.03
6
<1
ND
60
—
—
—
ND
Methanol Configuration
Methanol
Factory
0.26
3.75
0.25
18.7
2.92
4
21
253
30
6
ND
<0.1
ND
Methanol
P. B. -Metal
0.19
0.94
0.22
18.5
2.89
2
2
94
22
3
0.1
ND
ND
Methanol
No Catalyst
6.39
25.34
0.38
19.1
2.98
7
221
7126
41
2
<0.1
0.4
ND
1981 VW Rabbitsa
Gasoline
Configuration
Gasoline
Factory
0.07
0.67
0.10
9.9
3.12
7
ND
ND
9
—
—
—
ND
Methanol
Configuration
Methanol
Factory
0.24
0.55
0.42
17.0
2.66
3
6
273
3
—
—
—
ND
Methanol
P. B. -Metal
0.30
1.70
0.94
16.9
2.64
4
20
336
7
—
—
—
ND
Total of four separate automobiles
None detected
-i
"Analysis not conducted
-------
• Relative to results without a catalyst, the low mileage promoted
base metal and the noble metal catalysts significantly reduced
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, methanol, formaldehyde and organic
amine emissions from the Ford Escort (85 to 100 percent reduction)
Oxides of nitrogen, methane, and particulate emissions were re-
duced 30 to 65 percent with catalytic aftertreatment.
• Nitrosamines were not detected in the exhaust of any of the
configurations evaluated.
• The exhaust hydrocarbons from methanol-fueled vehicles were found
to be primarily methanol.
• Organic amine, ammonia, and cyanide emissions from methanol-
fueled vehicles were similar to corresponding emissions from
gasoline-fueled vehicles.
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
SUMMARY v
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES xii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Project Objective 1
B. Emission Measurement Procedures 1
C. Vehicles Evaluated 2
D. Fuels Evaluated 2
E. Catalytic Aftertreatment Evaluations 2
F. Vehicle Testing 2
II. GENERAL EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENTS, PREPARATIONS AND PROCEDURES 3
A. Automobiles 3
B. Fuels 3
C. Catalytic Aftertreatment Evaluations 3
D. Dynamometer and CVS System 9
E. Exhaust Sampling and Analysis 9
F. Instrumentation for Regulated Emissions and Engine
Parameters 9
G. Large Filter Samples 12
H. Emissions Test Procedures 12
I. Test Numbering System 17
J. Computational Methods 17
III. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR UNREGULATED EMISSIONS 19
A. Description of the Analytical Procedures 19
B. Validation and Qualification of the Analytical
Procedures 22
C. Accuracy of the Analytical Procedures 23
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
IV. VEHICLE TESTING 27
A. Vehicle, Fuel, and Catalyst Configurations Evaluated 27
B. Regulated and Unregulated Emissions Test Results 30
C. Methyl Nitrite Sampling and Results 30
D. Mass Spectral Analyses 32
E. Ames Bioassay Sampling and Results 33
F. Other Testing 36
V. ANALYSES OF THE RESULTS 39
A. Emissions from Automobiles Operating on Methanol and
Gasoline 39
B. Emissions from Automobiles with Noble Metal and Promoted
Base Metal Catalysts 41
C. Emissions from Methanol-Fueled Automobiles with and
without Catalytic Aftertreatment 42
D. Emissions from the Ford Escort Fueled with Gasoline
and Anafuel 44
E. Summary of Formaldehyde Emissions 45
F. Hydrocarbon Emissions from Methanol-Fueled
Automobiles 47
LIST OF REFERENCES 49
APPENDICES
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
B. INDIVIDUAL AND AVERAGE TEST RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES
C. FTP INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE RESULTS
D. COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF THE REGULATED EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
E. ADDITIONAL TEST RESULTS
F. MASS SPECTRAL RESULTS
G. AMES TESTS RESULTS
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Three of the Automobiles Evaluated in the Program 5
2 Views of the Emissions Sampling System 10
3 Emissions Sampling System 11
4 Driving Cycle Speed vs Time Traces 16
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I Automobiles Evaluated 4
2 Automobile Configurations Evaluated 6
3 Properties of Gasoline Fuel 7
4 Properties of Methanol Fuel 8
5 Description of Four-Cycle FTP 13
6 Test Sequence for Each Automobile Configuration 14
7 Laboratory Test Sequence 15
8 Laboratory Test Sequence for Multiple UDDS Sequence 15
9 Summary of Driving Schedule Parameters 16
10 Sampling and Analysis Methodology for Unregulated Emissions 20
11 Procedural Validation and Qualification 23
12 Emission Procedural Sample Rates and Accuracy 25
13 Automobile Configurations Evaluated 28
14 Methyl Nitrite Analyses 32
15 Mass Spectral Sampling and Analyses 33
16 Ames Test Results 35
17 Effect of Methanol-Isopentane Blend with Car 83 37
18 Summary of the FTP Results for Car Configurations 81,
83, 84 and 85 40
19 Summary of the FTP Results for Car Configurations 83,
84, 87 and 89 42
20 FTP Evaluation of the Methanol-Fueled Ford Escort 43
21 Emissions and Fuel Consumption Results for the Gasoline-
Fueled Ford Escort 44
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
22 Comparison of Average FTP Formaldehyde Emissions 46
23 Calculated Hydrocarbon Emissions Rates 47
Xlll
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the effort to characterize regulated and unreg-
ulated exhaust emissions from automobiles fueled with methanol and a methanol-
gasoline blend. Four automobiles were evaluated over a total of ten different
vehicle catalyst and fuel combinations. Two of the combinations involved
automobiles operating with gasoline to enable making direct emissions com-
parisons. This is the seventh program to be completed at SwRI involving
a large number of unregulated emissions from automobiles. The previous
projects involved evaluations of non-catalyst, oxidation catalyst-equipped,
and three-way catalyst-equipped gasoline-fueled automobiles.(1/2,3,4,5,6)*
A. Project Objective
The primary objective of this project was to evaluate regulated and
unregulated exhaust emissions from automobiles fueled with methanol.
Evaluations were performed on four 1981 model-year automobiles over a
total of ten different combinations of vehicles, fuels, and catalysts.
B. Emission Measurement Procedures
The compound or groups of compounds evaluated, along with the sampling
methods used, were as follows:
Sampling
Methods Compounds Evaluated
Bag HC, CO, NOX, C02, Individual HC, ethanol
and methyl nitrite
Filter Particulates, organic soluble fraction of
particulates for Ames Bioassay and mass
spectral analyses
Impinger Cyanides, aldehydes, ammonia, organic amines,
and methanol
Trap Nitrosamines and mass spectral analyses
Several of these procedures for measuring the unregulated emissions were
developed in another project and reported in a widely distributed interim
report.'''
*Superscript numbers in parentheses designate references at end of report.
-------
C. Vehicles Evaluated
Four 1981 model year automobiles were evaluated in this project. Two
of the four were methanol-fueled, a Ford Escort and a Volkswagen Rabbit,
and two were gasoline-fueled, also a Ford Escort and a Volkswagen Rabbit.
The two VW Rabbits were fuel injected, and all four vehicles were equipped
with a three-way catalyst. These vehicles were obtained through the EPA
Project Officer. The methanol-fueled Ford Escort was received from the
Los Angeles County Mechanical Department. This vehicle was among the first
of 40 such methanol-fueled vehicles built by Ford for the California Energy;
Commission (CEC) alcohol program. The methanol-fueled VW Rabbit was one
obtained on loan from Volkswagen and was built on the same assembly line
that produced the methanol-fueled VW Rabbits for the CEC alcohol program.
The gasoline-fueled VW Rabbit was lent for use in this program by Volkswagen
of America (Mr. Dan Hardin and Larry Nutson are among those responsible for
this loan).
D. Fuels Evaluated
The three fuels evaluated in this program were gasoline, methanol and
"Anafuel," (a gasoline-methanol blend). Two vehicles were tested in several
catalytic converter configurations with methanol fuel. Two vehicle config-
urations were tested with a gasoline fuel, for comparison purposes, and
one vehicle configuration was tested with "Anafuel."
E. Catalytic Aftertreatment Evaluations
The methanol-fueled Escort and VW Rabbit were evaluated with their
original factory-provided noble metal catalysts and with promoted base
metal catalysts. An additional evaluation was conducted on the Ford Escort
without catalytic aftertreatment.
F. Vehicle Testing
Vehicle configurations evaluated in this study were generally tested
in duplicate; in a. few cases, triplicate tests were conducted. The test
sequence included the Light-Duty Federal Test Procedure (FTP),^8) and the
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HFET).^9) Additional multiple
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedules (UDDS) were used to generate particu-
late samples for subsequent extraction for mass spectral and Ames Bioassay
analyses.
-------
II. GENERAL EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENTS, PREPARATIONS AND PROCEDURES
This section describes the automobiles, the fuels, the facilities,
and the general instrumentation and procedures utilized in this project.
The overall sampling systems for the unregulated emissions are also
discussed.
A. Automobiles
Four 1981 automobiles were evaluated in this project. These automobiles
are described in Table 1, and several are shown in Figure 1. Two of the
automobiles were designed to operate on methanol (a Ford Escort, Car 83,
and a VW Rabbit, Car 84) and two on gasoline (a Ford Escort, Car 81, and
a VW Rabbit, Car 85). All four of these automobiles were obtained through
the EPA Project Officer. The four automobiles were evaluated in ten con-
figurations, involving various combinations of fuels and catalysts. These
ten combinations are described in Table 2.
B. Fuels
Three fuels were used in this program: gasoline, a methanol-gasoline
blend, and methanol. The gasoline fuel, Amoco Indolene, was used in testing
Car Configurations 81 and 85. This gasoline fuel is described in Table 3.
The methanol-gasoline blend, "Anafuel", was used in testing Car Configuration
82. "Anafuel" consists of up to 12 volume percent methanol, up to 6 volume
percent of certain four-carbon alcohols, and a proprietary inhibitor (of
not less than 0.023 grams per gallon and not more than 0.033 grams per
gallon) in unleaded gasoline. This fuel is described in the Federal Register
Vol. 46, No. 192, Monday, October 5, 1981. Methanol, of 99.98 percent
purity, was used in testing Car Configurations 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, and
90. The methanol is described in Table 4.
C. Catalytic Aftertreatment Evaluations
The methanol-fueled Escort and Rabbit were evaluated with their original
equipment noble metal catalysts and with promoted base metal catalysts.
The promoted base metal catalyst material used in the program was supplied
by Davison Chemical, a division of W. R. Grace. The active elements con-
sisted of transition elements (but not nickel) plus 0.05 troy ounces of
Palladium per substrate. The catalysts were packaged and installed into
the vehicles by Southwest Research Institute. The promoted base metal
catalysts, used on the Escort (Car Conf. 87) and the Rabbit (Car Conf. 86),
are described in Appendices A-l and A-2. The promoted base metal catalyst
used in the testing of the Rabbit (Car Conf. 89), consisted of one-half the
promoted base metal catalyst material previously used for the testing of
the Ford Escort.
-------
TABLE 1. AUTOMOBILES EVALUATED
Project Car
Numbers
81 & 82
83, 87, 88,
& 90
84, 86 & 89
85
Project Car
Numbers
81 & 82
83, 87, 88,
& 90
84, 86 & 89
85
Project Car
Numbers
81 & 82
83, 87, 88,
& 90
84, 86 & 89
85
Vehicle
Year Make
1981 Ford
1981 Ford
1981 VW
1981 VW
Engine
Disp. Cyl.
1.6 4
1.6 4
1.6 4
1.7 4
Chassis
Inertia
Kilograms
Body
Model Type
Escort Wagon
Escort Wagon
Rabbit 4-dr
Rabbit 4-dr
ID or
Serial Number
1FABP082XBW20356
1FABP0825BW225255
1VWFB01793V183756
1VWGB9171BY085460
Transmission Fuel Delivery
Manual -4
Auto. -3
Auto. -3
Auto. -3
Dynamometer Settings
Power Inertia
Kilowatts Pounds
Carbureted
Carbureted
Injected
Injected
Power
Horsepower
1134
1134
1134
1134
5.3
5.3
5.7
5.7
2500
2500
2500
2500
7.1
7.1
7.7
7.7
-------
Car 83 - 1981 Methanol-Fueled Ford Escort
Car 84 - 1981 Methanol-Fueled VW Rabbit
Car 85 - 1981 Gasoline-Fueled VW Rabbit
Figure 1. Three of the automobiles evaluated in the program.
5
-------
TABLE 2. AUTOMOBILE CONFIGURATIONS EVALUATED
Project
Car
Number
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Year
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
Make
Ford
Ford
Ford
VW
VW
VW
Ford
Ford
VW
Ford
Model
Escort
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Rabbit
Rabbit
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Escort
Fuel Used
Indolene
Anafuel
Methanol
Methanol
Indolene
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Catalyst Used
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
P.B. Metal
P.B. Metal
No Catalyst
S.B. Metal
Noble Metal
Cars 81 and 82 are the same car operating with two different
fuels. Cars 83, 87, 88 and 90 are the same car operating with
different catalyst configurations. Cars 84, 86, and 89 are the
same car operating with different catalyst configurations.
Car 90 evaluation is car 83 with a new carburetor.
-------
TABLE 3. PROPERTIES OF GASOLINE FUEL
SwRI Fuel Code
Product Name
Sample No.
Octane, Research
Octane, Motor
Sensitivity, Clear
Gravity, API
Oxidation Stability, Min.
Lead, g/gal., AA
Phosphorus, g/gal.
R.V.P., Bomb, PSI
Sulfur, %
Gum, mg/100 m£
FIA, Vol. %: aromatics
olefins
saturates
Distillation, Evap.
IBP, °F
5% point, °F
10% point, °F
20% point, °F
30% point, °F
40% point, °F
50% point, °F
60% point, °F
70% point, °F
80% point, °F
90% point, °F
95% point, °F
EP, °F
EM-338-F
Amoco Indolene H01112R
D-06133
97.7
89.5
8.2
60.6
600
<0.002
0.000
9.0
0.009
0.4
22.8
2.0
75.2
92
103
121
156
188
206
217
226
237
257
309
334
406
recovery, %
95.0
-------
TABLE 4. PROPERTIES OF METHANOL FUEL
SwRI Fuel Code
Product Name
a
Octane Number RON
MON
a
Vapor Pressure
psi at 38°C
Boiling Point °C
Flash Point3 °C
EM-464-F
DuPont Methanol
106-110
90-92
65
11
SPECIFICATIONS AND TYPICAL ANALYSES
Methanol, wt %
Specific gravity (25/25C)
Distillation range (1 atm)
First drop to dry, C
Nonvolatiles, wt %
Acetone, wt %
Acidity (as acetic acid), wt %
Alkalinity (as ammonia), wt %
Carbonizable substances
platinum cobalt scale
(APHA)
Permanganate test, minutes
Color, platinum cobalt scale
(APHA)
Hydrocarbon test, clouding
when diluted with
2 parts water
Spec.
min.
max.
max.
max.
max.
max.
max.
min.
max.
99.85
—
1.0
0.0005
0.002
0.0020
0.00030
35
50
5
Typical
Analysis
99.98
0.78891
0.5
< 0.0001
< 0.0014
0.0013
< 0.00005
10
56
0
none
passes
.Obtained from literature, references 10, 11, 12, 13
Obtained from DuPont .Methanol Data Sheet
-------
The Escort was also evaluated without catalytic aftertreatment. For
this evaluation, the catalyst was replaced by a piece of exhaust tubing.
D. Dynamometer and CVS System
A Clayton Model ECE-50 chassis dynamometer with a direct-drive variable-
inertia flywheel system, was utilized for all transient testing. This direct-
drive inertia system simulates equivalent weight of vehicles from 455 kg
(1000 Ib) to 4025 kg (8875 Ib), in 55 kg (125 Ib) increments.
The constant volume sampler (CVS) used for these evaluations was SwRI
CVS Number 2. This unit has a nominal capacity of 9.2 m3/min (325 cfm).
A nominal 460 mm (18 inch) diameter by 5m (16 foot) long dilution tunnel
was used between the intake filter and the CVS to enable sampling of parti-
culates.
Partial views of the chassis dynamometer, the dilution tunnel and the
intake to the CVS can be seen in Figure 2. Both the dynamometer and the CVS
were calibrated, maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions and the appropriate sections of the Code of Federal Regulations
applicable to light-duty vehicles.^8^
In addition to the 142 m^/min (5000 cfm) cooling fan placed in front
of the automobile, 42 m^/min (1500 cfm) blowers were available to cool each
rear wheel. These additional blowers were used only during the HFET driving
cycle.
E. Exhaust Sampling and Analysis
A pictorial schematic of the exhaust and sampling system is shown in
Figure 3. This system is in accordance with the guidelines established in
previous unregulated emission projects conducted at SwRI for the EPA. The
primary feature of this system is the number of sampling probes and systems
necessary to collect all of the required unregulated emission samples. This
complexity is illustrated in the views of the system shown in Figure 2.
This section has described the dilution tunnel and provided some insight
into the overall sampling system assembly. More details on each of the
individual sampling systems for the unregulated emissions are given in
Section III.
F. Instrumentation for Regulated Emissions and Engine Parameters
Bagged samples of the dilute exhaust were evaluated for HC, CO, NOX,
and CO2 using SwRI Bag Cart Number 1. This bag cart was designed, calibrated
and operated in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Code of
Federal Regulations applicable to light-duty vehicles.(8)
-------
CVS Side of System
Dynamometer Side of System
Figure 2. Views of the emissions sampling system
10
-------
(Bags)
HC, CO, NOx, C02
Individual HC, Ethanol,
Methyl Nitrite
(Filters)
Particulate
Exhaust £
on*- O , , ,
i
AP Control -7
Orifice /
CVS
Constant
Volume
Sampler
/
/I
_?i^
j
|
\Filtere
Air In
iC 460 mm (18") I. D. * ^ ,Z
*"" "*" 1
Orifice Mixing f
Plate
L
\
I
(Traps and Impingers)
HCN
Amines
Ammonia
Aldehydes & Ketones
Methanol
Nitrosamines
Exhaust
from
Automobile
Figure 3. Emissions sampling system
-------
G. Large Filter Samples
To obtain particulate samples for Ames Bioassay and mass spectral analyses,
a system that allows the simultaneous collection of particulate on four
500 mm by 500 mm (20 inch by 20 inch) Pallflex filters was used in place of
the regular CVS. Due to the low particulate emission rate of gasoline- and
methanol-fueled automobiles, such a system is necessary to obtain sufficient
quantities of particulate for extraction and subsequent analyses. This
20x20 filter system permits the collection of the total particulate gen-
erated by the automobile during a test cycle. The 20x20 filter system is
attached to the sampling end of the dilution tunnel and consists of a
positive displacement blower with four associated in-line 20x20 filters
and filter holders, temperature and flowrate controllers and readouts.
The nominal flowrate is held at 0.217 m3/s (460 scfm) by maintaining a
constant temperature, using a heat exchanger, and a constant pressure drop
across the blower. With this flowrate, there was no difficulty in main-
taining the tunnel temperature below 43°C (110°F). Maximum temperature
was about 35°C (95°F) in most of the cycles.
H. Emissions Test Procedures
The primary procedures and driving schedules utilized in this project
are defined as follows:
/ P\
FTP - 1981 Federal Test Procedure
(uses the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule)
(9)
HFET - Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
Each of the two primary procedures and schedules, requiring emissions testing
in this project (FTP and HFET), utilized bagged samples for evaluation of
regulated emissions and fuel consumption.
The HFET is a hot-start, single-segment driving cycle. The FTP, however,
involved cold-start and hot-start, multi-cycle with multi-segment operation.
In addition, in this project, a four-bag FTP was utilized for most of the
unregulated emissions, rather than the three-bag FTP specified in the Federal
Test Procedure. Therefore, before proceeding, it is important to clarify the
meaning of FTP as used in this project.
FTP - The FTP uses the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UUDS) which
is 1372 seconds in duration. The UDDS, in turn, is divided into two
segments: a "transient" phase of 505 seconds and a "stabilized" phase
of 867 seconds. The 1975 Federal Test Procedure consists of cold start
"transient" and "stabilized" phases, followed by a hot start "transient".
In this project, the hot start "transient" was followed by a hot start
"stabilized". For the remainder of this discussion, and throughout this
report, the four-cycle FTP will be identified as presented in Table 5.
12
-------
A composite value in mass per distance for the three-cycle, three
sample FTP regulated emissions is calculated using the following
formula:
MASS
= 0.43X(MASS 1 + MASS 2) 0.57x(MASS 3 + MASS 2)
DISTANCE (DIST. 1 + DIST. 2) (DIST. 3 + DIST. 2)
For the four-cycle FTP, two-sample composite values determined in
this project, the following formula was used:
MASS _ 0.43*M(1 + 2) 0.57*M(3 + 4)
DISTANCE (Dl + D2) (D3 + D4)
For both the three- and four-cycle FTP'S, actual measured distances
are used for each cycle in the calculations.
To illustrate the similarity of the three- and four-cycle FTP'S, the
following assumptions are made. Since the same driving cycle is
involved, Distance 3 is essentially equal to Distance 1, and Distance 4
is essentially equal to Distance 2, therefore, these equations can be
reduced to:
3-FTP M/D - °'43X(M1 + M2.). + 0.57X(M3 + M2)
Dl + D2
4-FTP M/D - — ^ + 2) + 0.57XM(3 + 4)
U J_ i JLJ^
TABLE 5. DESCRIPTION OF FOUR-CYCLE FTP
Four-Cycle FTP
Cold UDDS Hot UDDS
Cycle 12 34
Duration, seconds 505 867 505 867
Regulated Emissions, 3-Bag XX X
Regulated Emissions, 4-Bag XX XX
Unregulated Emissions:
Bag XX XX
Impinger X X
Trap X
NOTE: X designates a sample taken
13
-------
Therefore, with the assumption that the changes in distance traveled are
negligible, the composite results with the four-cycle FTP relative to
results with the three-cycle FTP will differ only as the mass emissions
emitted during Cycle 4 differ from those emitted during Cycle 2. For
the regulated emissions, the differences during Cycles 2 and 4 were
small, and the overall effects of such differences were essentially
negligible.
The test sequence followed for each automobile is given in Table 6.
TABLE 6. TEST SEQUENCE FOR EACH AUTOMOBILE CONFIGURATION
Sequence
Upon Receipt
1
2
3
4
6
7
Operation Performed on Each Vehicle Configuration
Drain and fill with test fuel, install and leak-
check exhaust adapter, install proper catalytic
converter
Precondition with UDDS
Run FTP, HFET - Sample and analyze emissions
Run FTP, HFET - Sample and analyze emissions
Run FTP. HFET - Sample and analyze emissions
Run multiple UDDS sequences (nine) - Sample with
20x20 Pallflex filters for Ames Bioassay analyses
Run multiple UDDS sequences (nine) - Sample with
20x20 Pallflex filters for Ames Bioassay analyses
Run FTP - Sample and analyze for methyl nitrite0
Run multiple UDDS sequences (nine) - Sample with
20x20 Pallflex filters and Tenax GC traps for
mass spectral studies^
Run multiple UDDS sequences (nine) - Sample with
20x20 Pallflex filters and Tenax GC traps for
mass spectral studies
bOnly two FTP, HFET sequences were run for Car Configurations 88, 89 and 90.
Multiple UDDS sequences were not run on Car Configuration 86.
Methyl nitrite evaluations were performed only on Car Configurations 83,
84, 85, and 86. An additional FTP was run on car 84 and an additional
HFET was run on car 83.
d
Mass spectral studies were performed only on Car Configurations 84 and 85.
14
-------
The sequence followed in the laboratory for running one set of emissions
tests (FTP and HFET) is given in Table 7. The sequence followed in the
laboratory for running each multiple UDDS sequence is given in Table 8.
TABLE 7. LABORATORY TEST SEQUENCE
1. Precondition, UDDS
2. Soak 12 to 20 hours
3. FTP - 4 bags for gaseous emissions
2 filters or impinger samples
4. Engine Off - 10 minutes - Fan Off
5. HFET - 1 bag sample
1 filter or impinger sample
Note: 5000 cfm fan on during all car operation.
Additional tire and fuel tank cooling
blowers on during all HFET operation.
TABLE 8. LABORATORY TEST SEQUENCE FOR MULTIPLE UDDS SEQUENCE
1. Precondition, UDDS
2. Soak 12 to 20 hours
3. Cold Start UDDS
4. Engine Off - 10 minutes - Fan Off
5. Hot Start UDDS
6. Engine Off - 10 minutes - Fan Off
7. Repeat Steps 5 and 6
8. Repeat Steps 5 and 6
9. Repeat Steps 5 and 6
10. Force cool engine with fan on for one hour
11. Force cooled cold start UDDS
12. Engine Off - 10 minutes - Fan Off
13. Repeat Steps 5 and 6
14. Repeat Steps 5 and 6
15. Repeat Steps 5 and 6
15
-------
The parameters of the two primary driving schedules are summarized in
Table 9, and these schedules are illustrated in Figure 4. Other driving
schedule designations frequently used are as follows:
Driving Schedule
Designation Used
FTP
HFET
Other Common
Designations
LA-4 and UDDS
FET
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF DRIVING SCHEDULE PARAMETERS
Average Speed
km/hr jtiph
Schedule
FTP:
505
867
UDDS
Duration,
Seconds
505
867
1372
Distance,
Kilometers
5.8
6.2
12.0
HFET
765
16.5
31.4
77.6
19.5
48.2
100
80
A 60
3 40
20
60 r
.TRANSIENT
PHASE
STABILIZED
PHASE
200
400
600 800
TIME, sec
1000
1200
1371
100
80
a 60
J3 40
20
0
60
L 0
200 400
TIME, sec
600
765
Figure 4. Driving cycle speed vs time traces
16
-------
I. Test Numbering System
The numbering system used in this project consists of three digits plus
a cycle abbreviation. The designation used for all automobile testing was
"VCT", followed by the individual test cycle abbreviation FTP or FET. The
meaning of each leter is described as follows:
As Used in
Code Description This Project
VC Vehicle Configuration 81 thru 90
T Test Series 1 thru 3
J. Computational Methods
The methods used for calculating the unregulated emissions results are
given in Appendix A-3. All regulated emissions were calculated using the
methods prescribed in the Code of Federal Regulations for Light-Duty
Vehicles.(8) en the computer printouts for the regulated emissions
(Appendix D), all items of potential interest are identified by descriptive
headings. Items on the computer sheet identified only by abbreviated
headings are used in calculating the unregulated emissions.
17
-------
III. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR UNREGULATED EMISSIONS
The analytical procedures used to measure the unregulated emissions
are summarized in this section. Detailed descriptions for several of the
procedures, along with discussions of their development, validation, and
qualifications, are available in the EPA report, "Analytical Procedures
for Characterizing Unregulated Pollutant Emissions from Motor Vehicles."
A. Description of the Analytical Procedures
The unregulated emissions evaluated in this project, along with the
methods for sampling and the procedures used in the analyses, are listed
in Table 10. Organic amines, aldehydes and ketones, and individual hydro-
carbons represent groups of compounds. The respective procedures separate
and identify a number of individual components within each of these groups.
The analytical procedures involved in this project are briefly described as
follows:
Organic Amines - The collection of organic amines (monomethylamine,
monoethylamine and dimethylamine, trimethylamine, diethylamine, and
triethylamine) is accomplished by bubbling CVS-diluted exhaust through
glass impingers containing dilute sulfuric acid. The amines are complexed
by the acid to form stable sulfate salts which remain in solution. A
portion of this solution is then injected into a gas chromatograph equipped
with an ascarite loaded pre-column and a nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD).
External amine standards in dilute sulfuric acid are used to quantify the
results.
Ammonia - Ammonia in CVS-diluted automotive exhaust is measured in the
protonated form, NH^+, after collection in dilute I^SO^j. The acidification
is carried out in a glass impinger maintained at ice bath temperature. A
sample from the impinger is then analyzed for ammonia in an Ion Chromato-
graph and the concentration in the exhaust is calculated by comparison to
an ammonium sulfate standard solution.
Aldehydes and Ketones - The collection of aldehydes (formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde and hexanaldehyde) and ketones (acetone
and methylethylketone) is accomplished by bubbling CVS-diluted exhaust
through glass impingers containing 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) in
dilute hydrochloric acid. The aldehydes and ketones (also known as carbonyl
compounds) react with the DNPH to form their respective phenylhydrazone
derivatives. These derivatives are insoluble or only slightly soluble
in the DNPH/HC1 solution and are removed by filtration followed by pentane
extractions. The filtered precipitate and the pentane extracts are com-
bined and then the pentane is evaporated in a vacuum oven. The remaining
dried extract contains the phenylhydrazone derivatives. The extract is
19
-------
TABLE 10. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR UNREGULATED EMISSIONS
Compound
Organic Amines
Ammonia (NH3)
Aldehydes & Ketones
Total Cyanide [Hydrogen
Cyanide (HCN) and
Cyanogen
Particulates
Methanol
Ethanol
Methyl Nitrite
Nitrosamines
Sampling
Impinger
Impinger
Impinger
Impinger
Method of Analysis
Individual Hydrocarbons Bag
Filter
Impinger
Bag
Bag
Trap
Gas Chromatograph with ascarite
precolumn and nitrogen-phosphorus
detector (GC-NPD).
Ion Chromatograph.
Dinitrophenylhydrazone derivative.
Gas Chromatograph with flame
ionization detector (GC-FID).
Cyanogen chloride derivative. Gas
Chromatograph with electron capture
detector (GC-ECD).
Gas Chromatograph with flame
ionization detector (GC-FID).
Weighed using microbalance.
Gas Chromatograph with flame
ionization detector (GC-FID).
Gas Chromatograph with flame
ionization detector (GC-FID).
Gas Chromatograph with mass
spectrometer.
Gas Chromatograph with TEA detector.
20
-------
dissolved in a quantitative volume of toluene containing a known amount
of anthracene as an internal standard. A portion of this dissolved extract
is injected into a gas chromatograph and analyzed for several individual
aldehydes and ketones using a flame ionization detector.
Total Cyanide (Hydrogen Cyanide plus Cyanogen) - The collection of
total cyanide is accomplished by bubbling CVS-diluted exhaust through glass
impingers containing a 1.0 N potassium hydroxide absorbing solution. This
solution is maintained at ice bath temperature. An aliquot of the absorbing
reagent is then treated with KH2PC>4 and Chloramine-T. A portion of the
resulting cyanogen chloride is injected into a gas chromatograph equipped
with an electron capture detector (BCD). External CN~ standards are used
to quantify the results.
Individual Hydrocarbons - For measurement of selected individual hydro-
carbons, methane (CH^) , ethane (£2*%) i ethylene (C^A^) , acetylene (C^R^}
propane (C^Hg), propylene (C^Hg) , benzene (CgHg) , and toluene (C-^Hg) , a
sample of CVS-diluted exhaust is collected in a Tedlar bag. This bagged
sample is then analyzed for individual hydrocarbons using a gas chromato-
graphic system containing four separate columns and a flame ionization
detector. The peak areas are compared to an external calibration blend
and the individual hydrocarbon concentrations are obtained using a Hewlett-
Packard 3354 computer system.
Methanol - The measurement of methanol in exhaust is accomplished by
bubbling the exhaust through glass impingers containing deionized water.
The exhaust sample is collected continuously during the test cycle. For
analysis, a portion of the aqueous solution is injected into a gas chroma-
tograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). External methanol
standards, consisting of methanol in deionized water, are used to quantify
the results. Detection limits for this procedure are on the order of 0.06
ppm in dilute exhaust. This procedure is described in detail in Appendix A-4.
Ethanol - The measurement of ethyl alcohol in exhaust is accomplished
by direct bag analysis using a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame
ionization detector. The exhaust sample is collected continuously during
the test cycle. External ethanol standards, consisting of ethanol in zero
air, are used to quantify the results. Detection limits for this procedure
are on the order of 0.6 ppm in dilute exhaust. A more detailed description
of this procedure can be found in the Final Report of Task No. 6, Contract
68-03-2377, "Gasohol, TEA, MTBE Effects on Light-Duty Emissions."(14)
Methyl Nitrite - The measurement of methyl nitrite in exhaust was
accomplished by collecting dilute exhaust in Tedlar bags and analyzing
the collected sample with the aid of a gas chromatograph (GC) coupled to
a mass spectrometer. The GC analytical column used in the analysis con-
sisted of a 5' x 2 mm glass column packed with Chromosorb 101. The tem-
perature program for the gas chromatograph involved isothermal operation
at 25°C for 4 minutes, followed by an increase to 240°C at a rate of 10°C
per minute. Selected ion masses of 30, 31, 60 and 61 amu were monitored
21
-------
with the mass spectrometer, which was operating at an electron energy of
70 ev. Samples were admitted to the GC using a 5.8 m£ Teflon sample loop.
Methyl nitrite, for vise as a standard, was prepared by dropwise addition
of dilute sulfuric acid to a solution of sodium nitrite in aqueous methanol.
The evolved methyl nitrite gas was collected in a cold trap (-70°C) and
transferred to a cooled, evacuated stainless steel gas bomb. Working
standards were prepared in Tedlar bags, by diluting portions of this stock
standard with helium. Due to the water in the exhaust samples, the methyl
nitrite peak was considerably broadened as it eluted from the gas chroma-
tograph. As a result of this broadening the detection limits for the
procedure were only on the order of 0.3 ppm.
Nitrosamines - The collection of nitrosamines (n-nitrosodimethylamine,
N-nitrosodiethylamine, N-nitrosodipropylamine, N-nitrosodibutylamine,
N-nitrosopiperidine, and N-nitrosopyrrolidine) is accomplished by passing
CVS-diluted exhaust through ThermoSorb/N traps at a flow rate of 2 liters
per minute. One sample is taken over several FTP test cycles to improve
the detection limits. After sample collection, the ThermoSorb/N traps are
sent to the Thermo Electron Corporation for analysis. At Thermo Electron
the traps are backflushed with a 25/75 solution of methanol in dichloro-
methane. The first 1.5 to 1.8 m£ of this eluant are saved for GC-TEA
analysis. The GC-TEA instrument detection limits range from 5 ng for
N-nitrosodimethylamine to 10 ng for N-nitrosodibutylamine. Additional :
information on the ThermoSorb/N traps and the GC-TEA analyzer can be found
in the Task 2 Final Report of EPA Contract 68-03-2884, "Nitrosamines in
Vehicle Interiors."(15'
Particulate - The "particulate'1 is collected on a 47 mm glass fiber
filter. The amount of "particulate" collected is determined by weighing
the filter on a microbalance before and after sampling.
B. Validation and Qualification of the Analytical Procedures
Several of the procedures used in this project were subjected to a
series of validation and qualification experiments in previous projects.
Validation experiments included checks for sample stability, sample collec-
tion efficiency, detector linearity, interferences, and analysis repeatability.
Qualification experiments included the injection of the compound of interest
into the dilution tunnel with and without the presence of exhaust and the
subsequent recovery of that compound at the procedure sampling point.
Sample stability checks were performed using repeated analyses of the
same sample at intervals over a specified period of time, and comparing the
results to the initial analysis. Organic amines, aldehydes and ketones,
ammonia, total cyanide, nitrous oxide and individual hydrocarbon samples
were found to be stable for several days. Carbonyl and organic sulfides
and the hydrogen sulfide samples were found to be stable for approximately
one day.
22
-------
Sample collection efficiency experiments were performed by passing a
known concentration of sample through a series of impingers or traps and
analyzing each impinger or trap individually for the compound of interest.
All of these procedures used in this project had a collection efficiency of
98% or better. Detector linearity experiments were performed by preparing
several samples of various known concentrations and plotting the resulting
peak areas versus the concentrations. The procedures had linear response
over the range of interest in this project.
To determine interferences from other compounds, for each procedure,
known exhaust components were introduced into the sample to determine their
effect on the resultant measurements. To determine analysis repeatability,
several samples of known concentrations were prepared and a number of com-
plete analyses were performed at each concentration. The results of these
tests were then compared to determine analysis repeatability -
The qualification experiments were performed to determine if the com-
pounds of interest could travel the length of the dilution tunnel in the
presence of dilute exhaust without significant loss by reaction with exhaust
or the tunnel itself. The compounds were introduced at the sample point at
which the exhaust enters the tunnel and were sampled at the normal sampling
point. Table 11 lists the procedures for which validation and qualification
experiments have been performed.
TABLE 11. PROCEDURAL VALIDATION AND QUALIFICATION
Validation
Compound or Compound Group Conducted Qualification Conducted
Organic Amines Yes Yes (significant tunnel losses)
Ammonia Yes Yes (significant tunnel losses)
Aldehydes & Ketones Yes Yes
Total Cyanide Yes Yes
a.
Individual Hydrocarbons Yes No
a a
Particulates No No
'Established procedure
C. Accuracy of the Analytical Procedures
A difficult, but very important endeavor was the determination of
procedural accuracy for each analytical method. The primary difficulty
23
-------
involved those procedures in which the exhaust compounds are trapped or
absorbed, an extraction or subsequent reaction is performed, and then a
portion of the extract is analyzed. After much consideration, in previous
unregulated emission projects, the decision was reached to initially define
the accuracy in terms of a "minimum detection value" (MDV). The MDV, as
used in this report, is defined as the value above which it can be said
that the compount has been detected in the exhaust (i.e., at a measured
value equal to the MDV, the accuracy is equal to plus or minus the MDV).
Determination of accuracy over the entire range of each procedure was
beyond the scope of these projects.
For compounds collected by bag samples, the MDV was determined from
the instrument detection limits only, and is independent of the sampling
rate and duration. For compounds which are concentrated in impingers or
traps, the MDV is dependent on the instrument detection limit, chemical
workup, sampling rate and sampling duration. The MDV's listed in Table 12
were derived using the listed sampling rate and a 23-minute sampling period.
24
-------
TABLE 12. EMISSION PROCEDURAL SAMPLE RATES AND ACCURACY
Test Number,
Barometer,
Humidity,
Temperature
VCT
mm HG
gAg
Mol.
Weight
Sample
Flow
yg/m3
per
ppm
Procedural
Minimum
Detection
Values3
ppm yg/m3
MDV
for
FTP
g/km
km
Carbon Dioxide,
Fuel Cons.,
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons (THC)
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
Particulates
Total Particulates
Compound Group Totals
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Organic Amines
Nitrosamines
Other Compounds
Ammonia
Cyanide & Cyanogen
Methanol
Ethanol
Methyl Nitrite
44.01
11.88
28.01
46.01
17.03
26.02
32.04
46.07
61.04
Bag
Bag
Bag
Bag
14.0
4.0
Bag
4.0
2.0
575
1165
1915
2.0C
0.5C
575
2330
958
<50
10
40
16
<1
-0.5
-0.5
-0.1
<0.001d
4.0
4.0
4.0
Bag
Bag
710
1080
1333
1916
2539
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.6
0.3
7
11
80
1150
762
0.1
0.2
1.3
19.6
e
a Based on a 23-minute sampling period at the specified flow rate for all
impinger, filter and trap collected samples.
b Based on yg/m3 in the diluted exhaust and typical UDDS (FTP 505 and 867)
parameters (1372 seconds, 206 m3 CVS flow, 12.07 km, 0.98 DSFC).
c Based on the lowest instrument ranges used in this project.
d Based on sampling for six 23-minute periods, three 4-bag FTP's.
e Not applicable.
25
-------
TABLE 12 (Cont'd). EMISSION PROCEDURAL SAMPLE RATES AND ACCURACY
Aldehydes and Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone^
Methylethylketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Mol.
Weight
30.03
44.05
58.08
72.12
100.16
16.04
28.05
30.07
26.04
44.11
42.08
78.12
92.15
CRCP
Synonym
2-Propanone
2-Butanone
Hexanal
Ethene
—
Ethyne
—
Propene
—
—
yg/m3
per
Ppm
1250
1830
2415
3000
4165
665
1165
1250
1085
1835
1750
3245
3830
Procedural
Minimum
Detection
Values3
-PPm
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
15
20
25
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
MDV
for
FTP
mg/kmb
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1290
1875
2460
3040
4205
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
3
4
5
6
8
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.14
Organic Amines
Monomethylamine 31.06 Amino-Methane
Monoethylamine6 45.09 Amino-Ethane
Trimethylamine 59.11
Diethylamine 73.14
Triethylamine 101.19
a&b See initial page of this table.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 54th Edition.
d Includes Acrolein -56.07 and Propionaldehyde - 58.08 (CRC - Propenal
and Propanal, respectively).
e Includes Dimethylamine - 45.09.
26
-------
IV. VEHICLE TESTING
Regulated and unregulated exhaust emissions were measured from four
automobiles in a total of ten different vehicle, fuel, and catalyst confi-
gurations. This section describes those evaluations and presents the test
results.
A. Vehicle, Fuel, and Catalyst Configurations Evaluated
The vehicle, fuel, and catalyst configurations evaluated in this program
are described in Table 13, along with the number and types of tests performed.
The configurations selected permit comparisons of emissions data relative to
the fuel (Indolene to "Anafuel" and to methanol) and the catalyst (no after-
treatment to catalytic aftertreatment, and noble metal to promoted base
metal catalysts). The gasoline-fueled Escort was evaluated with both Indolene
(Conf. 81) and "Anafuel" (Conf. 82) to permit a comparison of emissions from
these two fuels; and the Indolene also provided the gasoline baseline data
for comparison with the methanol-fueled Escort. Both the methanol-fueled
Escort and Rabbit were evaluated with their factory-installed noble metal
catalysts (Configurations 83 and 84) and with promoted base metal catalyst
materials supplied by the Davison Chemicals Division of W. R. Grace
(Configurations 86 and 87).
In the promoted base metal catalyst evaluation of the VW Rabbit,
Configuration 86, the promoted base metal catalyst material sent by
W. R. Grace and initially used, was subsequently determined to have only
one-thirteenth the total surface area of the original-equipment noble
metal catalyst. This is because the catalyst sent was on a substrate
normally used for experimental diesel traps. Also, during the evaluation
of this promoted base metal catalyst, small pieces of catalytic material
were found in the dilution tunnel. When the catalyst container was cut
open, it was found that only one-half of the catalyst was remaining. The
VW Rabbit was reevaluated (Car Conf. 89) using one-half of the promoted
base metal catalyst material previously used for testing of the Ford
Escort.
The promoted base metal catalyst unit used in the reevaluation had
approximately the same surface area as the original equipment noble metal
catalyst. A comparison of the average FTP emissions from the reevaluation
of the promoted base metal catalyst (Car Conf. 89) with the average
emissions from the initial evaluation (Car Conf. 86) is made as follows:
27
-------
TABLE 13. AUTOMOBILE CONFIGURATIONS EVALUATED
oo
Car
Conf.a
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Model
Escort
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Rabbit
Rabbit
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
a
Escort
Fuel Used
Indolene
Anafuel
Methanol
Methanol
Indolene
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Catalyst Used
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Base Metal
Base Metal
No Catalyst
c
Base Metal
Noble Metal
Replicate
FTP-HFET
Tests
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
FTP'S for Multiple UDDS
Methyl Nitrite sequences -
Analysis Ames Bioassay
-e 2
2
lf 2
2 2
1 2
1 Og
2
1
2
—
Multiple UDDS
Sequences - Mass
Spectral Study
—
—
—
2
2
—
—
—
—
—
Cars 81 and 82 are the same car operating with two different fuels. Cars 83, 87, 88
and 90 are the same car operating with different catalyst configurations. Cars 84,
86 and 89 are the same car operating with different catalyst configurations.
Promoted base metal catalyst provided by W.R. Grace for the W Rabbit.
Catalyst substrate of a type normally used for experimental diesel particulate traps.
£«
Base-metal catalyst consisted of half of the unit used for Car 87.
Car 90 evaluation is Car 83 with a new carburetor.
test in this configuration.
An HFET test was also run.
Test was run on Car Configuration 89 in place of Car Configuration 86.
-------
Average FTP Emissions, mg/km
Car Conf. No. 86 89
Catalyst Promoted Base Metal Promoted Base Metal
(Initial Evaluation) (Reevaluation)
Hydrocarbons 540 300
Carbon Monoxide 2240 1700
Oxides of Nitrogen 1090 940
Methanol 573 336
Formaldehyde 30 2C
The emissions were all lower in the reevaluation of the promoted base
metal catalysts for the five emissions which were observed to differ in
the two evaluations. In the reevaluation, relative to the initial promoted
base metal catalyst evaluation, emissions decreased from 14 percent for NO
to 44 percent for hydrocarbons.
To provide information on the magnitude of the emissions being pro-
duced by the engine and on the effectiveness of the aftertreatment (promoted
base metal and noble metal catalysts), the methanol-fueled Escort was
evaluated in a non-catalyst configuration (Car Configuration 88). A piece
of exhaust tubing was used in place of the catalyst during the testing.
During the repetitive UDDS cycles to collect particulate on 20x20
filters in the non-catalyst configuration, the Escort (Car Conf. 88)
began to experience difficulties in following the driving trace and finally
could not be driven without repeatedly stalling. SwRI checked the fuel pump,
the fuel filter, and the float level on the carburetor. To check the fuel
pump, SwRI replaced the unit with an OEM gasoline-fueled application unit. The
fuel bowl on the carburetor contained a significant amount of particulate
(apparently due to corrosion). The Project Officer was alerted to this
finding and he, in turn, contacted Ford Motor Company. Ford indicated
that the as-received carburetor in the Escort was susceptible to corrosion
from methanol, and it was postulated that this corrosion caused the
carburetor to malfunction. Ford Motor Company sent an engineer to SwRI
to replace the carburetor on the Escort with a newer, more corrosion-
resistant model. The engineer replaced the carburetor and the fuel pump
on the Escort, and made the appropriate adjustments for proper vehicle
operation.
After the carburetor and fuel pump were replaced, the Escort was
found to operate in essentially the same manner as it had when it was
first received at SwRI. The Ford Escort was reevaluated with this new
carburetor, using the original factory-installed noble metal catalyst
(Car Conf. 90). These data were used for a comparison with the baseline
emissions data obtained earlier in the program (Car Conf. 83). This
comparison of the FTP emissions and fuel consumption is summarized as
follows:
29
-------
FTP Emissions, mg/km
Car Conf. No. 83 90
Carburetor as-received new
Hydrocarbons 260 290
Carbon Monoxide 3750 1420
Oxides of Nitrogen 250 250
Total Particulates 4 3
Methanol 253 263
Formaldehyde 21 11
Fuel Consumption, 18.7 18.2
£/100 km
The above data indicate the Escort was operating slightly richer with
the as-received carburetor. With the new carburetor and fuel pump,
carbon monoxide emissions were 62 percent lower and fuel consumption appeared
to be 3 percent lower. Particulates and formaldehyde also appeared to be
lower with the new configuration, 24 to 44 percent, respectively. However,
hydrocarbons (12 percent) and methanol (4 percent) appeared to have increased
after the carburetor replacement, and NOX was unchanged.
B. Regulated and Unregulated Emissions Tests Results
Summaries of the test results are included in Appendix B. Individual
sample data for the FTP evaluations are included in Appendix C, and the
computer printouts for the regulated emissions are included in Appendix D.
The analyses and discussion of these test results are included in Section V
of this report. Methanol, ethanol, aldehyde, particulate and individual
hydrocarbon emissions data are based on appropriately weighted four-cycle
FTP results. Cyanide, ammonia, amines, and nitrosamines emissions data are
based on unweighted four-cycle FTP results (i.e., one sample taken over an
entire four-cycle test for the cyanide, ammonia, and amines, and one sample
taken over three four-cycle tests for the nitrosamines).
In these data tables, a double dash (—) has been used when no test
data were available. This occurs for the unregulated emissions when valid
test data could not be obtained due to instrument malfunction or loss of
the sample. Blanks are left in the tables where the analyses were excluded
in accordance with the program scope of work.
C. Methyl Nitrite Sampling and Results
As described in Table 13, analyses for methyl nitrite were conducted
on four Car Configurations (83, 84, 85, and 86). The bag samples taken for
methyl nitrite analyses were collected using the standard CVS flowrate of
9.2 m3/min (325 scfm). Using methanol fuel, this flowrate resulted in the
minimum consistent dilution ratio at which water vapor would not condense
in the sample bags. Dilution ratio is an important issue in the analyses
of methyl nitrite, since the formation rate of methyl nitrite is a function
30
-------
of the concentration of the components from which it is formed. This point
is discussed as follows:
Methyl Nitrite (MeONO) is formed in the reaction of methanol
and nitrogen dioxide (N02):
MeOH + 2NO2 t MeONO
This reaction occurs at temperatures below 400 to 458°K (260 to
365°F) (16/17) ana a^ a rate proportional to, at least, the square of the
NO concentration.(17)
A
Nitrogen dioxide concentrations emitted from a car are generally only
a very small percentage of the total NOX. The rate for conversion in air
from NO to N02 is as follows:
Time to conversion in minutes *
ppm NO 25% 50% 90%
100 14 40 360
10 140 400 3600
1 1400 4000 40000
*Values have been rounded off for clarity
Based on these NO to NO2 reaction rates, the overall reaction rate
from NO in the dilute exhaust to MeONO would be on the order of the
cube of the NO concentration (i.e., a 10:1 dilution would apparently
result in about a 1000-fold decrease in the reaction rate to MeONO).
Therefore, the concentration of MeONO formed is essentially a direct
function of the sampling parameters. Only at low dilution ratios, has any
appreciable MeONO been detected in exhaust samples; occurring in two
previous studies reported in the literature.(16,17)
The results of the methyl nitrite analyses are given in Table 14.
Only three samples contained greater than 0.3 ppm methyl nitrite, samples
3, 7, and 8. Sample 3, the cold start 505 segment from the VW with the
noble metal catalyst, and sample 7, the sample taken over the entire four-
bag FTP from the VW with the promoted base metal catalyst, were the only
samples that were calculated to contain greater than 25 ppm HC (which is
mostly methanol) and 25 ppm NOX. Sample 8, the sample taken over the
entire four-bag FTP from the Escort, contained greater than 0.3 ppm
methyl nitrite only in the analyses conducted twelve or more hours after
the sample was collected. These results are consistent with the previous
findings reported in the literature, e.g., low levels of NOX produce
correspondingly low levels of methyl nitrite.
31
-------
TABLE 14. METHYL NITRITE ANALYSES
Sample
No.
2
3
4
5
6
Car
VW
VW
VW
VW
VW
VW
VW
Fuel Catalyst
G Noble
M
M
M
M
M
M
Noble
Noble
Noble
Noble
Noble
Promoted
Base
8A
8B
8B
8C
9
Escort
Escort
Escort
Escort
Escort
M
M
M
M
M
Noble
Noble
Noble
Noble
Noble
Sample
Description
4-FTP
4-FTP
FTP-Bag 1
FTP-Bag 2
FTP-Bag 3
FTP-Bag 4
4-FTP
4-FTP
4-FTP
4-FTP
4-FTP
HFET
Time at
Analysis
Initial
Initial
Initial
Initial
Initial
Initial
Initial
Initial
12 hours
24 hours
48 hours
Initial
ppm
Methyl
Nitrite
ND
ND
1.1
ND
ND
ND
4.1
ND
0.5
0.3
0.5
ND
G = Gasoline and M = Methanol
4-FTP means a single bag taken over two UDDS cycles
Initial analysis was conducted as soon as practical; this was about
30 minutes after sample collection.
ND - not detected, detection limit -0.3 ppm
The data presented in Table 14 also indicate undetectable levels of
methyl nitrite in the exhaust of the gasoline-fueled vehicle, which is again
consistent with the reaction discussed above in that the gasoline vehicle
exhaust contains no detectable levels of methanol. Also, it is observed
from Table 14 that in comparing samples 3 through 6, the only bag where
methyl nitrite appeared was bag 1. This is probably due to the fact that
the VW emitted HC (methanol) during bag 1 but almost no HC during bags 2,
3, and 4. Also from Table 14, it is observed that the promoted base metal
catalyst gave the highest levels of methyl nitrite observed. However, the
promoted base metal catalyst tested was the one used for experimental diesel
particulate traps and this one had very little catalyst surface area and
therefore was not very efficient at NO or methanol control. This is
probably the reason for the higher methyl nitrite results.
D. Mass Spectral Analysis
Two car configurations (the VW Rabbits, gasoline and methanol version)
were operated over multiple UDDS driving schedules (as described in
32
-------
Section II-F) to generate particulate for subsequent extraction and mass
spectral analyses. At the same time, gaseous samples were collected on
Tenax traps at a sampling point downstream of the particulate filter, and
these samples were also analyzed by mass spectroscopy. The matrix of
samples collected and analyzed is shown in Table 15.
TABLE 15. MASS SPECTRAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
Samples Over Multiple UDDS Cycles
Gasoline Methanol Other
Car Car Samples
20"x20" Pallflex Sample 22-
Tenax Trap Sample 22-
20"x20" Pallflex Blank - - 1
Extraction Solvent - - 1
Tenax Trap Blank - - 1
Tenax Trap Ambient - - 1
Both of the vehicles tested (VW gasoline and methanol) emitted very low
levels of both HC and particulate, especially during warm operation. Con-
sequently, sampling was difficult and resulted in only small amounts of
sample for analysis. Nevertheless, the mass spectral data indicate,
for the organic soluble fraction of the particulate, very few differences
between the extracts from the gasoline- and the methanol-fueled vehicles.
The majority of identifiable compounds (cellosolves, siloxanes, and
phthalates) originated from the filter, from the ambient air in the
laboratory and possibly from the engine oil. These high background levels,
as compared to sample levels, prevented interpretation of the data. This
was also the case with the gaseous samples obtained using Tenax traps.
The majority of the compounds found on the sample traps were also found
on an ambient air trap.
Analyses conditions, comparisons of scans, and sample chromatograms
are presented in Appendix F.
E. Ames Bioassay Sampling and Results
Multiple UDDS cycles were run to generate particulate samples for sub-
sequent extraction and Ames Bioassay analyses. Particulate samples were
collected on four 500 mm x 500 mm (20 inch x 20 inch) Pallflex filters as
described in Section II.J. The soluble organic fraction of the particulate
was removed by soxhlet extraction procedures using methylene chloride as
the extracting solvent. The soluble organic fraction was then sent to
Microbiological Associates in Rockville, Maryland for Ames Bioassay analyses.
33
-------
The Ames analyses were conducted in duplicate using tester strain TA98,
both with and without metabolic activation. Table 16 lists the car con-
figurations evaluated, the filter weight gain (on the four 20x20 filters),
particulate emission rates based on the 20x20 filters, the extractable
organic data, and the average Ames Bioassay results in revertants per
microgram extract (rev/yg) and in revertants per kilometer driven (revAm),
both with and without metabolic activation. The complete Ames Bioassay
results, as reported to Craig Harvey, EPA, Ann Arbor by Microbiological
Associates, are included as Appendix G. The Ames activity values (rev/yg)
reported in Table 16 are the average of the two duplicate mean model pre-
dicted slope values listed in the data in Appendix G.
The Indolene-fueled Escort and Rabbit, both with noble metal catalysts,
had lower total particulate (1.68 and 1.65 mg/km) and higher percent organics
(29 percent) than the remaining six configurations. The methanol-fueled
Escort, with the promoted base metal catalyst, and the Escort fueled with
Anafuel, with noble metal catalyst, had the highest total particulate (3.02
and 2.51 rag/km) and the lowest percent organics (17 and 18 percent) of the
eight configurations evaluated. These differences in particulate and percent
organics tended to cancel each other out, resulting in reasonably consistent
extractable organic emissions from the eight configurations evaluated (0.29
to 0.55 mg/km).
The Ames activity for the eight samples ranged from 0.2 rev/yg (100
rev/km), without metabloic activation, for the Indolene-fueled Rabbit with
noble metal catalyst to 13.7 rev/yg (6030 rev/km), with metabloic activation,
for the Escort operating on Anafuel. All eight samples showed some toxicity
to the TA98 tester strain and all eight gave higher activities with metabolic
activation than without, indicating the presence of indirect acting mutagens
in the samples.
Direct quantitative comparisons of Ames test results are not considered
to be appropriate. However, it is of some interest to compare the results
from this program to the results from a previous EPA program in which a 1980
VW Rabbit was evaluated with a variety of diesel fuels.^19) The Ames
activities for those evaluations (also tester strain TA98) ranged from 3 to
24 rev/yg and from 113,000 to 1,206,000 rev/km. This is approximately
double the rev/yg values and over 100 times greater than the rev/km values
obtained in this program.
To our knowledge, the significance of differences in the magnitude
of Ames results has not been defined. Therefore, the following discussion
provides only relative comparisons of the data. The Ames results have been
compared as to fuel and catalyst type and the following observations are
presented.
• The methanol-fueled noble metal catalyst-equipped Rabbit gave
higher Ames values than its gasoline-fueled counterpart, while
the methanol-fueled Escort gave lower Ames values than its
gasoline-fueled counterpart.,
34
-------
TABLE 16. AMES TEST RESULTS
Vehicle Fuel Catalyst
Escort Indolene noble metal
Escort Anafuel noble metal
Escort Methanol noble metal
Escort Methanol base metala
Escort Methanol none
VW Indolene noble metal
VW Methanol noble metal
VW Methanol base metal
Particulate
Sample
Weight, mg
161
271
198
326
199
177
227
NAb
Vehicle
Emission
Rate,mg/km
1.68
2.51
1.83
3.02
1.84
1.64
2.10
NA
Extractable Orqanics
Percent of
Particulate
29
18
26
17
28
29
26
NA
Vehicle
Emission
Rate,mg/km
0.48
0.44
0.47
0.50
0.52
0.48
0.55
0.29
Ames Activity TA98
Without
Metabolic
Activation
rev/yg
Extract
2.6
12.2
0.5
0.6
2.3
0.2
2.7
0.4
rev/km
1250
5370
240
300
1200
100
1490
120
With
Metabolic
Activation
rev/yg
Extract
4.8
13.7
0.7
1.3
4.0
0.8
4.1
3.3
rev/km
2300
6030
330
650
2080
380
2260
960
Promoted base metal catalyst - includes palladium
NA - Data Not Available
-------
• Opposing results were also observed when comparing the Ames
activities from noble and promoted base metal catalyst
equipped cars. The Escort, equipped with the noble metal
catalyst, gave slightly lower Ames values than when equipped
with the promoted base metal catalyst, while the Rabbit gave
lower Ames values when equipped with the promoted base metal
catalyst than when equipped with the noble metal catalyst.
• The methanol-fueled Escort without a catalyst gave higher
Ames activity than when equipped with either a noble metal
catalyst or a promoted base metal catalyst.
• The Escort gave higher Ames values when fueled with Anafuel
than when fueled with Indolene.
F. Other Testing
A fuel mixture of 94.5% methanol and 5.5% isopentane is reportedly
being used in the methanol-fueled vehicles being tested in California.
The isopentane is added to improve the cold-start capabilities at low
ambient temperatures. These low ambient temperatures, at which starting
becomes a problem, are considerably lower than the temperatures maintained
within this laboratory for FTP testing. Therefore, addition of isopentane
was not necessary for starting purposes in the evaluations conducted. It
is not known if isopentane would be the best volatility enhancer to use in
a commercial methanol. Other compounds such as a methyl-t-butylether (MTBE)
or a low boiling gasoline cut may be more effective and/or less costly.
To determine the effects of a methanol-isopentane blend on driveability
and emission rates, the Ford Escort (with the original equipment catalyst
and carburetor) was evaluated over a single 3-bag FTP, using a mixture of
94.5% methanol and 5.5% isopentane. The results of this test are given in
Table 17, along with the emission results obtained with this car fueled with
pure methanol. The computer printout for this test is included in Appendix E-l.
There was no apparent change in the driveability (evaluated on a sub-
jective basis) of the Escort with the methanol-isopentane blend, and the CO
and NOX emission rates were similar to those obtained with pure methanol.
The HC emission rates were higher with this blend in all three cycles of
the.FTP. The car had not been started within the previous four days before
the FTP test was run; this could have affected the HC and CO emissions in
the cold-start 505. The emissions in the other two cycles, however,
should not have been affected.
36
-------
TABLE 17. EFFECT OF METHANOL-ISOPENTANE BLEND WITH CAR 83
1981 Methanol-Fueled Ford Escort
Composite FTP g/km
HC
CO
N0x
HC
CO
NO
J*>
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
Low
0.25
3.24
0.23
0.63
4.06
0.51
0.10
2.98
0.10
0.21
2.80
0.22
Pure Methanol
High Average
0.27 0.26
4.51 3.75
0.26 0.25
Cold-Start 505
0.78 0.69
4.65 4.33
0.65 0.56
Cold-Start 867
0.14 0.11
4.26 3.43
0.14 0.12
Hot-Start 505
0.25 0.22
5.31 3.91
0.28 0.24
Methanol/isopentane
Blend
0.46*
4.30*
0.23
, gAm
1.24*
6.59*
0.54
, gAm
0.22
3.82
0.11
, g/km
0.31
3.47
0.23
*Car was not operated for four days prior to the cold-
start 505.
37
-------
V. ANALYSES OF THE RESULTS
This section reports the analyses performed on the emissions data
generated in this program. The analyses involved averaging and refor-
matting the data to enable making various comparisons. Due to the very
limited number of data points for each constituent at each specific con-
dition, advanced statistical analyses were judged to be inapplicable.
Several comparisons, that are discussed in this section, include: emissions
from the methanol-fueled automobiles tested to emissions from the gasoline-
fueled automobiles tested; emissions from methanol-fueled automobiles tested
with factory-equipped noble metal catalysts to emissions from methanol-fueled
automobiles tested with promoted base metal catalysts; emissions from the
Ford Escort using Indolene fuel to the emissions from the same car using
Anafuel; and emissions from catalyst-equipped methanol-fueled automobiles
tested to emissions from methanol-fueled automobiles tested with the
catalyst removed. Other discussions in this section include the measurement
of total hydrocarbon and formaldehyde emissions from methanol-fueled auto-
mobiles.
A. Emissions from Automobiles Operating on Methanol and Gasoline
In this program, regulated and unregulated emissions were evaluated
from two 1981 model year methanol-fueled automobiles, a Ford Escort and a
Volkswagen Rabbit, and from two 1981 gasoline-fueled automobilesr also a
Ford Escort and a Volkswagen Rabbit. Each of the four automobiles were
evaluated in triplicate with each fuel. A summary of the average FTP
emissions, fuel consumption and energy consumption data for the four
automobiles is presented in Table 18.
As expected, the methanol-fueled Escort and Rabbit consumed nearly
twice the volume of fuel consumed by their gasoline-fueled counterparts.
This higher fuel consumption is due to the lower average energy density of
methanol. However, on an energy basis the methanol-fueled cars consumed
slightly less energy than their gasoline counterparts. These values are cal-
culated using the energy content of gasoline (113,300 BTU/gal) and methanol
(56,123 BTU/gal).(2°) Several other findings of interest, as noted in the
data in Table 18, are as follows:
• In the methanol-fueled cars, the hydrocarbon emissions were
composed primarily of unburned methanol fuel.
• Particulate emissions were higher for the gasoline-fueled cars.
• Formaldehyde emissions were considerably higher for methanol-
fueled cars, 21 and 6 mgAm, than for the gasoline-fueled cars,
<1 and 0 mg/km.
39
-------
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF THE FTP RESULTS FOR
CAR CONFIGURATIONS 81, 83, 84 AND 85
Emissions in mg/km, except as noted
Car Configuration No.
Fuel
Hydrocarbons, g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
Fuel Cons., &/100 km
Energy Cons., 10°J/km
Total Particulate
Methanol
Ethanol
Nitrosamines
Formaldehyde
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ammonia
Total Cyanide
Organic Amines
Measured HC expressed as methanol
Not measured
Ford
81
Gasoline
0.23
2.79
0.34
9.6
3.03
6
0
0
0.000
0.1
59.7
5.4
11.3
0.9
0.5
3.8
4.0
10.7
b
b
b
Escorts
83
Methanol
0.26a
3.75
0.25
18.7
2.92
4
253
0
0.000
20.5
30.0
0.2
0.3
<0.1
0.4
0.0
<0.1
0.1
6
0.00
0.01
VW
85
Gasoline
0.07
0.67
0.10
9.9
3.12
7
0
0
0.000
0.0
8.7
3.0
1.6
1.1
0.0
2.6
3.3
5.7
b
b
b
Rabbits
84
Methanol
0.24a
0.55
0.42
17.0
2.66
3
272
0
0.000
6.4
3.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
b
b
b
40
-------
• Individual hydrocarbon emissions (methane, ethane, ethylene,
acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene and toluene) were higher
from gasoline-fueled cars.
• The total of the individual hydrocarbons measured in this program
comprised only a small portion of the total HC for the methanol-
fueled cars, up to ten percent; whereas the total individual
hydrocarbons constituted thirty to forty percent of the total HC
for the gasoline-fueled cars.
• The ammonia, cyanide, and organic amine emissions from the one
car evaluated (6 mg/km, 0.0 mg/km, and 0.01 mg/km, respectively)
were similar to or lower than the average emissions from three-way
catalyst equipped gasoline-fueled automobiles tested in a previous
project^4) (8 mg/km, 1.8 mg/km, and 0.03 mg/km, respectively).
• No nitrosamines were detected in the exhaust or either the
methanol- or gasoline-fueled automobiles.
The major differences between the results with the methanol-fueled and the
gasoline-fueled automobiles were the higher fuel consumption with the methanol-
fueled automobiles. However, the methanol-fueled vehicles consumed slightly
less energy- There were major differences in the composition of the hydro-
carbon emissions.
B. Emissions from Automobiles with Noble Metal and Promoted Base Metal
Catalysts
Regulated and unregulated exhaust emissions and fuel consumption were
also evaluated for the methanol-fueled Ford Escort and Volkswagen Rabbit
equipped with promoted base metal catalysts. A summary of the average FTP
emissions and fuel consumption data for these evaluations, along with the
corresponding noble metal evaluations, is given in Table 19.
Referring to the data in Table 19, most emissions decreased when the
noble metal catalyst on the Ford Escort was replaced with a promoted base
metal catalyst. With the VW Rabbit, however, the emissions increased when
the noble metal catalyst was replaced with the W. R. Grace promoted base
metal catalyst. It is uncertain why the evaluations produced opposing
results; however, it may be of importance that the two automobiles utilized
different catalyst configurations. The Ford Escort utilized a dual-bed
catalytic converter (a 3-way catalyst followed by air injection and an
oxidation catalyst) for its factory supplied catalyst; whereas, the VW
Rabbit utilized a single-unit three-way catalyst. These same configurations
were reproduced for the promoted base metal catalyst evaluations, except
the Ford used twice the amount of catalyst.
41
-------
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF THE FTP RESULTS FOR CAR
CONFIGURATIONS 83, 84, 87, and 89
Emissions in mg/km, except at noted
Ford Escort VW Rabbit
Car Conf. No. 83 87 84 89
Catalyst Promoted Promoted
Noble Metal Base Metal Noble Metal Base Metal
Hydrocarbons*, g/km 0.26 0.19 0.24 0.30
Carbon Monoxide, g/km 3.75 0.94 0.55 1.70
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km. 0.25 0.22 0.42 0.94
Fuel Cons., H/100/km 18.7 18.5 17.0 16.9
Energy Cons., 106J/km 2.92 2.89 2.66 2.64
Total Particulates 4234
Methanol 253 94 272 336
Ethanol 0000
Nitrosamines 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Formaldehyde 21 2 6 20
Methane 30 22 3 7
*Measured HC expressed as methanol
C. Emissions from Methanol-Fueled Automobiles With and Without Catalytic
Aftertreatment
The methanol-fueled Escort was evaluated without catalytic aftertreat-
ment to permit a comparison of the emissions to those from this same car with
catalytic aftertreatment. This would also give an indication of the repeat-
ability of the engine-out emissions since two FTP's were run. Table 20
gives the average FTP results for evaluations of the Ford Escort without
catalytic aftertreatment, and with a noble metal catalyst, and with a
promoted base metal catalyst.
Referring to the data in Table 20, the promoted base metal and noble
metal catalysts significatnly reduced (85-100 percent reduction) HC, CO,
methanol, formaldehyde, and organic amine emissions relative to the values
without a catalyst. Emissions that were reduced 30-65 percent with the use
of catalytic aftertreatment include NOX, methane, and particulate.
To provide additional information, the VW Rabbit was also evaluated
over a single FTP test cycle without catalytic aftertreatment. The
computer printout for this test is included in Appendix E-2. The regulated
FTP emissions and the fuel consumption for this test, and for the VW Rabbit
with noble metal and promoted base metal catalytic aftertreatment, are
summarized on the following page.
42
-------
TABLE 20. FTP EVALUATIONS OF THE METHANOL-FUELED FORD ESCORT
Emissions in mg/km, except as noted
Car Configuration No.
Catalyst
Hydrocarbons*, g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
Fuel Cons., H/IOO km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Methane
Ammonia
Cyanide
Amines
Number of FTP's
83
87
88
Noble Metal
0.26
3.75
0.25
18.7
4
253
21
30
6
0.0
0.0
3
Promoted
Base Metal
0.19
0.94
0.22
18.5
2
94
2
22
3
0.1
0.0
3
No Catalyst
6.39
25.34
0.38
19.1
7
7126
221
41
2
0.1
0.4
2
*Measured HC expressed as methanol
FTP Results for VW Rabbit
84
Car Conf. No.
Catalyst
HC,
CO,
NO
Fuel Cons., H/100 km 17.0
89"
Noble Metal
0.24
0.55
0.42
Promoted
Base Metal
0.30
1.70
0.94
No Catalyst
1.29
4.67
1.16
16.9
16.7
Vehicle was tested with a promoted base metal catalyst volume
approximately equal to the noble metal catalyst volume it
replaced.
DSingle evaluation, no car configuration number was assigned.
"Measured HC expressed as methanol
With the VW Rabbit, the noble metal catalyst appeared to be signifi-
cantly more efficient in reducing the regulated emissions than did the
promoted base metal catalyst. Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides
of nitrogen were reduced 81, 88, and 64 percent, respectively, when using
the noble metal catalyst and 77, 64, and 19 percent, respectively, when
using the promoted base metal catalyst.
43
-------
D. Emissions from the Ford Escort Fueled with Gasoline and Anafuel
The 1981 model year gasoline-fueled Ford Escort was also evaluated with
Anafuel,- a proprietary alcohol-gasoline blend. A summary of the results of
these evaluations, along with the results obtained with gasoline (Indolene),
is presented in Table 21.
TABLE 21. EMISSIONS AND' FUEL CONSUMPTION RESULTS FOR THE
GASOLINE-FUELED FORD ESCORT
Emissions in mg/km, except as noted
Hydrocarbon, g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
Particulates, mg/km
Methanol, mg/km
Ethanol, mg/km
Formaldehyde, mg/km
Nitrosamines, mg/km
Individual Hydrocarbons
Percent IHC of HC
Fuel Cons., H/10Q km
FTP
Indolene
0.23
2.79
0.34
6
0
0
0.1
0.000
97
42%
Anafuel
0.19a
2.02
0.42
4
0
0
0.4
0.000
75
39%
HFET
Indolene
0.10
1.05
0.31
1
0
0
0.0
b
47
47%
Anafuel
0.05a
0.60
0.42
1
0
0
0.0
b
22
44%
9.6
9.6
6.2
6.3
Measured hydrocarbons expressed as Anafuel
Analyses not conducted
With the Anafuel, relative to results with Indolene, HC and CO emissions
decreased (primarily in the HFET), NOX increased, and fuel consumption
remained essentially the same. Particulate emissions were somewhat lower
with Anafuel than with Indolene. Based on results in previous projects,
the 6 mg/km for the FTP with Indolene is within the expected range.
Emissions of methanol, ethanol, and aldehydes and ketones were either
zero or sufficiently low to be considered negligible. The individual
hydrocarbon emissions were 39 to 47 percent of the total hydrocarbon
emissions.
In the HFET evaluations, there were relatively large variations of
CO with both fuels and of NOX and particulates with the Anafuel. Due to
these variations in emissions with the Anafuel, a fourth HFET test was
run. The results are summarized on the following page.
44
-------
HFET with Anafuel
821 822 823 824
HC, gAm 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05
CO, gAm 0.80 0.31 0.69 0.51
NOX, gAm 0.38 0.55 0.32 0.50
Fuel Cons., £/100 km 6.5 6.2 6.2 6.2
Particulate, mg/km 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.5
The fourth test essentially verified the reality of the variability that
was experienced in the first three. Reasons for this variability are not
known, but in most cases the absolute values of the variations were small.
Although the Anafuel contained a significant amount of methanol, the
fuel consumption with Anafuel was essentially the same as it was with Indolene.
It should also be noted that there was no apparent change in driveability
(evaluated on subjective basis) with the Anafuel relative to Indolene.
This is based on the subjective judgement of three different drivers, plus
analyses of the driver traces.
The hydrocarbon portion of the Anafuel has essentially the same weight
percentages of hydrogen and carbon and the same hydrogen to carbon ratio
as did the Indolene (based on the Anafuel composition, obtained from the
EPA). Theoretically, on an equal BTU basis, the volumetric fuel consumption
with Anafuel should have been two to three percent higher than with Indolene.
Such a small difference, however, is within the repeatability of the fuel
consumption determinations in the emissions cycles. The fuel composition
and parameters that were used are summarized as follows:
Specific Carbon % of; HC% g/gallon
Gravity Fuel HC of Fuel C H 0 Fuel
Indolene 0.739 86.6 86.6 100 2421 375 0 2796
Anafuel 0.773 81.9 86.7 94.4 2395 366 165 2926
E. Summary of Formaldehyde Emissions
Since formaldehyde is the most prevalent aldehyde in exhaust and is a
suspected carcinogen, additional comparisons have been made and reported.
Table 22 lists the formaldehyde emissions from automobiles tested in this
project, along with the values from automobiles tested in previous EPA
projects. The formaldehyde emissions from the methanol-fueled cars with
catalytic aftertreatment were as follows: almost equivalent to the emis-
sion rates from the one non-catalyst 1977 model year gasoline-fueled
automobile; two to six times higher than the emissions from oxidation-
catalyst equipped 1978 model year gasoline-fueled automobiles; and ten
times higher than the emissions from the three-way catalyst equipped 1978
45
-------
and 1979 model year gasoline-fueled automobiles. The formaldehyde emissions
from the methanol-fueled Escort without catalytic aftertreatment were seven
times higher than the formaldehyde emissions from unmodified 1970 model year
gasoline-fueled non-catalyst automobiles, and similar to the maximum emis-
sions from malfunctioning 1970 model year automobiles.
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE FTP FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS
Formaldehyde Emissions, mg/km
Methanol-Fueled
Catalytic Aftertreatment 12
No Catalytic Aftertreatment 221
Gasoline-Fueled
1981 Low Mileage Cars/3-Way Catalysts <1
1978 & 1979 3-Way Catalyst Equipped Cars 1
1978 Oxidation Catalyst Equipped Cars 2-7
1977 Non-Catalyst Card 10
1970 Non-Catalyst Cars6 32
Maximum for Malfunctioning Car 206
Data from this program, catalytic aftertreatment includes both
noble-metal and base-metal data.
Average for low mileage 1978 and 1979 three-way catalyst-equipped
cars in unmodified configuration, EPA Contract 68-03-2692^,3) an
c
Average for low mileage 1978 oxidation catalyst-equipped cars in
unmodified configuration, EPA Contract 68-03-2499(D and for high
mileage 1978 oxidation catalyst-equipped cars, before and after
dtune-up, EPA Contract 68-03-2884, Task Specifications 7 and 10.
Value from one 1977 non-catalyst car in unmodified configuration,
EPA Contract 68-03-2499.(D
e
Average for four 1970 non-catalyst cars, in unmodified configuration,
^PA Contract 68-03-2884, Task Specifications 4 and 5.<5>
Highest value for 1970 non-catalyst car, in malfunction configuration,
EPA Contract 68-03-2884, Task Specifications 4 and 5.
46
-------
F. Hydrocarbon Emissions from Methanol-Fueled Automobiles
In this program, the reported hydrocarbon emissions for all fuels
evaluated, including the non-standard hydrocarbon fuels (methanol or Anafuel),
are the FID-measured values expressed as the fuel used (i.e., the reported
hydrocarbon emissions included the weight of the oxygen in the fuel). While
the hydrocarbon emissions have been corrected for oxygen content, no correc-
tion has been applied to the FID response. The magnitude of the FID re-
sponse differs for different types of hydrocarbon compounds. The relative
response of methanol as compared to propane (the hydrocarbon commonly used
to calibrate the FID response) has been found in the literature to range
from 0.73 to 0.85. (21,22,23,24)
Using the data in this program, the FID response factor for methanol
has been calculated to be no larger than 0.89. This value has been calcu-
lated using the measured methanol, individual hydrocarbons (IHC), and total
hydrocarbon emissions for Car Configurations 83, 84, 86, 88, and 89 (Table 23),
along with a response factor of one for the individual hydrocarbons. These
car configurations utilized in the calculations all used methanol fuel. Car
Configurations 87 and 90 also used methanol. Car 87, however, was omitted
due to the unusually low methanol emissions, and Car 90 was omitted due to
the absence of individual hydrocarbon emission data. Formaldehyde emissions
were not used in these calculations, due to the low response factor for
formaldehyde (estimated to be less than 0.1) and its relatively low emission
rate in the exhaust. The contribution of formaldehyde to the total hydro-
carbon response of the FID is estimated to be on the order of 1 percent.
TABLE 23. CALCULATED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS RATES
Methanol9 IHC Measured FID HCC Calculated HC
0.26 0.26
0.24 0.25
0.54 0.52
6.39 6.39
0.30 0.31
Collected in water and analyzed using a GC-FID.
Collected in a bag and analyzed using a GC-FID; includes methane,
ethylene, ethane, acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene and toluene.
Collected in a bag and analyzed using an FID.
Calculated value is based on a 0.89 response factor for methanol and
a response factor of 1.0 for the measured IHC compounds.
Car Conf.
Car Conf.
Car Conf.
Car Conf.
Car Conf.
83 •
84
86
88
89
0.253
0.273
0.573
7.126
0.336
0.031
0.003
0.010
0.048
0.010
47
-------
As can be seen from the data in Table 23, a 0.89 FID response factor
for methanol results in a calculated HC that is in good agreement with the
HC as measured by FID. However, the measured individual hydrocarbons do
not include all the hydrocarbons present in the exhaust. Therefore, the
actual FID response factor for methanol would be lower than 0.89, and
would probably be within the range of 0.73 to 0.85 reported in the
literature.
These calculations indicate that the values measured in this program
are reasonably consistent with relationships reported in the literature.
They also illustrate that the use of response factors requires a breakdown
of the total hydrocarbon compounds present in the exhaust. A valid question,
however, is the relative importance of methanol as a pollutant relative to
the other hydrocarbons normally emitted. This question has not been
addressed in this program.
48
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Urban, C.M., "Regulated and Unregulated Exhaust Emissions from Mal-
functioning Non-Catalyst and Oxidation Catalyst Gasoline Automobiles,"
Final Report to Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-03-2499, January 1980.
2. Urban, C.M., "Regulated and Unregulated Exhaust Emissions from Mal-
functioning Three-Way Catalyst Gasoline Automobiles," Final Report
to Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2588,
January 1980.
3. Urban, C.M., "Regulated and Unregulated Exhaust Emissions from a Mal-
functioning Three-Way Catalyst Gasoline Automobile ," Final Report
to Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2692,
January 1980.
4. Smith, L.R., "Characterization of Emissions from Motor Vehicles
Designed for Low NOX Emissions," Final Report to Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-2497, July 1980.
5. Urban, C.M., "Unregulated Exhaust Emissions from Non-Catalyst Base-
line Cars Under Malfunction Conditions," Final Report to Environmental
Protection Agency under Tasks 4 and 5 of Contract No. 68-03-2884, 1981.
6. Smith, L.R., "Characterization of Exhaust Emissions from High Mileage
Catalyst-Equipped Automobiles," Final Report to Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under Tasks 7 and 10 of Contract No. 68-03-2884, September
1981.
7. Dietzmann, H.E., et al. "Analytical Procedures for Characterizing
Unregulated Pollutant Emissions from Motor Vehicles," Report EPA
600/2-79-017, February 1979.
8. Code of Federal Regulattions, Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 85, Subpart
H, Sections applicable to 1981 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles.
9. Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (Federal Register, Vol. 41,
No. 100, May 21, 1976, Appendix I).
10. Ingamells, J.C. and Lindquest, R.H., "Methanol as a Motor Fuel or a
Gasoline Blending Component," SAE Paper No. 750123.
11. Holmer, E., Berg, P.S., and Bertilsson, B.I., "The Utilization of
Alternative Fuels in a Diesel Engine Using Different Methods," SAE
Paper No. 800544.
49
-------
12. Moriarity, Andrew J., "Toxicological Aspects of Alcohol Fuel
Utilization," International Symposium on Alcohol Fuel Technology,
Methanol, and Ethanol, November 21-23, 1977, CONF-771175.
13. Paul, J.K. (Ed), Methanol Technology and Application in Motor Fuels,
1978.
14. Bykowski, B.B., "Gasohol, TEA, MTBE Effects on Light-Duty Emissions,"
Final Report to Environmental Protection Agency under Task No. 6 of
Contract 68-03-2377, 1979.
15. Smith, L.R., "Nitrosamines in Vehicle Interiors," Final Report to
Environmental Protection Agency under Task 2 of Contract No.
68-03-2884, September 1981.
16. Jonsson, Anders, et al. "Methylnitrite in the Exhaust from a Methanol-
Gasoline Fueled Automobile," Chemosphere Nos. 11/12, pages 835-841,
Pergamon Press Ltd., 1979.
17. Raby, Richard J. , et al. "Organic Nitrites in Aged Exhaust from
Alcohol-Fueled Vehicles," Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, pages 995 and 996, Volume 31, No. 9, September 1981.
18. Braker, William, et al. "Matheson Gas Data Book," page 408, Fifth
Edition, September 1971.
19. Bykowski, B. B., "Characterization of Diesel Emissions From Operation
of a Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle on Alternate Source Diesel Fuels,"
Final Report to Environmental Protection Agency under Task 3 of
Contract No. 68-03-2884.
20. Harvey, Craig A., "Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy Determination
for Alternate Automobile Fuels," SAE Paper No. 820794
21. Hilden, David L., and Parks, Fred B., "A Single-Cylinder Engine Study
of Methanol Fuel-Emphasis on Organic Emissions," SAE Paper No. 760378.
22. Bechtold, Richard, and Pullman, J. Barret, "Driving Cycle Economy,
Emissions, and Photochemical Reactivity Using Alcohol Fuels and
Gasolines," SAE Paper No. 800260.
23. Menard, Holger, et al. "Development of a Pure Methanol Fuel Car,"
SAE Paper No. 770790.
24. Ebersole, G.D., and Manning, F.S., "Engine Performance and Exhaust
Emissions: Methanol Versus Isooctane," SAE Paper No. 720692.
50
-------
APPENDICES
A - GENERAL INFORMATION
B - INDIVIDUAL AND AVERAGE TEST RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES
C - FTP INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE RESULTS
D - COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF THE REGULATED EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
E - ADDITIONAL TEST RESULTS
F - MASS SPECTRAL RESULTS
G - AMES TESTS RESULTS
-------
APPENDIX A
GENERAL INFORMATION
A-l Description of Base Metal Catalyst for Methanol-Fueled Ford Escort
A-2 Description of Base Metal Catalyst for Methanol-Fueled Volkswagen Rabbit
A-3 Calculations for Unregulated Emissions
A-4 The Measurement of Methanol in Exhaust
-------
APPENDIX A-l
DESCRIPTION OF BASE METAL CATALYST FOR METHANOL-FUELED FORD ESCORT
Base metal catalyst substrates, for use on the methanol-fueled Ford
Escort, were provided by Davison Chemical, a division of W.R. Grace. Four
each 68mm by 144mm eliptical by 72mm long (2.68" x 5.68" x 2.82") ceramic
monoliths with Davex 908 catalyst were provided, and these were identified
as SMR 14-1513. These substrates had cells 1.27 millimeters square (twenty
square cells per square inch). It was reported by a representative of W.R.
Grace that these catalyst substrates have 71 square inches of surface area
per cubic inch of substrate (about 28 square centimeters per cubic centimeter).
After being informed that the Ford Escort utilized a duel-bed catalytic
converter (3-way catalyst followed by air injection and an oxidation catalyst),
the representative from W.R. Grace recommended that two of the substrates
be used prior to the air injection, and the other two subsequent to air
injection. This was discussed with the EPA Project Officer, who subsequently
relayed a decision to package the catalyst in that manner. Other discussion-
involved the possibility that the 3-way section was not being utilized as a
3-way catalyst on this methanol-fueled car.
The substrates were packaged into a stainless steel container fabricated
for this purpose. A gasket, one-eighth of an inch thick, was installed
between the substrates to assure against blockage of the cell openings. A
gap of approximately one inch was provided between the sections of substrate
where the air injection tube was located. Ceramic insulation was used
between the eliptical outside diameter of the substrates and the container.
A-2
-------
Exhaust tubing was added to both ends of this catalytic converter up
to existing connections in the exhaust system. In this manner, the original
exhaust system was just disconnected, and did not require modification. The
only modification to the original exhaust system was the installation of a
probe to enable measurement of exhaust backpressure.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A-2
DESCRIPTION OF BASE METAL CATALYST FOR METHANOL-FUELED VOLKSWAGEN RABBIT
A base metal catalyst substrate, for use on the Volkswagen Rabbit, was
provided by Davison Chemical, a division of W.R. Grace. One 102mm diameter
by 152mm long (4" x 6") unit (Grade 6) with 908 catalyst was provided, and
this unit was identified as SMR 14-1526. This substrate was an open-cell
ceramic foam having spherical cells that were nominally three millimeters
in diameter.
A representative of W.R. Grace subsequently reported that this catalyst
substrate has approximately 5 to 6 square inches of surface area per cubic
inch of substrate (about 2 square centimeters per cubic centimeter). Based
on this reported surface area, this catalyst had only about one-thirteenth
the total surface area of the original equipment catalytic converter that
was on the Volkswagen.
This substrate was installed into a container that was fabricated for
this purpose. Ceramic insulation was utilized in the assembly of the sub-
strate into the container.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A-3. CALCULATIONS FOR UNREGULATED EMISSIONS
This appendix documents the calculational methods used for the un-
regulated emissions. All values not defined (i.e., CVS FLOW, VOL, etc.)
are obtained from the computer printouts for the regulated emissions.
Example printout is included as Table 1.
A. Individual Hydrocarbons and Ethanol
1. For FTP Evaluations only, convert 2-Bag UDDS to Equivalent
1-Bag UDDS
PPM 12 = PPM1 X-CVS FLOWJ.+ PPM2 x CVS. FLQW2_
CVS FLOW]. + CVS FLOW2
PPM 34 = PPM3 x cvs FLOW3 + PPM4- x CVS FLOW4
CVS FLOW3 + PPM FLOW4
2. Convert PPM to yg/m3:
yg/m3 = 35.32 x DENSITY x PPM
Density, g/ft
Methane CtLj - 18.86 Propane C3H8 - 17.29
Ethylene C2H4 - 16.50 Propylene C3H6 - 16.50
Ethane C2He - 17.68 Benzene C6H6 - 15.33
Acetylene C2H2 - 15.33 Toluene C7H8 - 15.49
Ethanol C2HsOH - 54.26
B. Calculation of mg/km
mg/km = [ (EXH x SCF - BG x DFC) x VOL 4- KM] v 1000
Calculations were performed using a Hewlett-Packard HP-65
Programmable Calculator.
Dry (DVC) and (SFC) were used for all unregulated emissions
except IHC and Ethanol
DFC and SFC are obtained from the computer print-out for
regulated emissions. (See Tables 1 and 2).
A-5
-------
C. Calculation for 4-FTP (Aldehydes, Methanol, Ethanol, Individual Hydrocarbons,
and Particulates)
Composite 4-FTP = 0.43 x (Value for 1 & 2) + 0.57 x (Value for 3 & 4)
Only one sample was taken over the entire 4-Bag FTP for nitrosamines,
ammonia, total cyanide, and organic amines, therefore, calculations were
performed as in B.
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A-3 (Cont'd). CALCULATIONS FOR UNREGULATED EMISSIONS
TABLE 1. COMPUTER PRINTOUT NOMENCLATURE FOR FOUR-BAG FTP
FTP - vEHigCE'EMtSCION'S'RESULTS'
PROJECT
TEST NO. RUN
VEHICLE MODEL
ENGINE
TRANSMISSION
BAROMETER MM HG( IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
^ DILUTION FACTOR
I HC CONCENTRATION PPM
-J CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/lOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER
BAROMETER MM HG
HUMIDITY G/KG
TEMPERATURE DEG C
VEHICLE NO.
DATE
BAG CART NO.
DYNO NO.
DRY BULB TEMP.
ABS. HUMIDITY
1
COLD TRANSIENT
/ CVS NO.
DEG C(
GM/KG
DEG F)
TEST WEIGHT KG( .. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD KW( HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER KM( MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
STAB I ..I ZEi)
HOT TRANSIENT
STABILIZED
3-BAG
CARBON DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN G/KM
(4-BAG)
-------
APPENDIX A-3 (CONT'D). CALCULATION FOR UNREGULATED EMISSIONS
TABLE 2 . DEFINITION OF COMPUTER PRINTOUT NOMENCLATURE
FOR FOUR-BAG AND SINGLE-BAG
REGULATED EMISSIONS
The following are primarily exerpts taken from the computer program:
C DFC = DILUTION FACTOR CORRECTION DFC = FOR WET SAMPLES DFCD = FOR DRY
DF(J)=13.4/( YC2(2,J) +((YH(2,J) + CC(2,J))/10000.))
DFC(J) = 1 - 1/DF(J)
C CALCULATE DFC, VOL. KM FOR BAGS 1+2 AND 3+4
C DP = TOTAL CVS FLOW / EXHAUST FLOW = AIR + EXH / EXH
C DFC = 1 - 1/DF = 1 - EXH/(AIR+EXH) = AIR/(AIR+EXH)
DFC12 =(DFC(1)*VMIX(1) + DFC(2)*VMIX(2)) / (VMIX(l) + VMIX(2))
DFC34 = (DFC(3)*VMIX(3) + DFC(4)*VMIX(4)) / (VMIX(3) + VMIX(4))
IF(RH.LT.20) RH = 20
DFCD12 = DFC12 * (1.0 - 0.000323*(RH - 20))
DFCD34 = DFC34 * (1.0 - 0.000323*(RH - 20))
C SCF = SAMPLE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR WATER REMOVAL SCF = FOR WET SCFD=DRY
SCF12 = 1.000
SCF34 = 1.000
SCFD12 = (SCFD(1)*VMIX(1)+SCFD(2)+VMIX(2)) / (VMIX(l) +VMIX(2))
SCFD34 = (SCFD(3)*VMIX(3)+SCFD(4)*VMIX(4)) / (VMIX(3) +VMIX(4))
C
C
CALCULATE 4-BAG EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
4-BAG = 0.43*(BAG1+BAG2)/(MILES1+MILES2)+0.57*(BAG3+BAG4)/(MILES3+MILES4)
DISTA=MILES(1) + MILES(2)
DISTB=MILES(2) + MILES(3)
DISTC=MILES(3) + MILES(4)
HCWM4 = 0.43*((HCM(1)+HCM(2)) / DISTA) + 0
COWM4 = 0.43*((COM(1)+COM(2)) / DISTA) + 0
C02WM4= 0.43*((C02M(1)+C02M(2))/DISTA) + 0
NOXWM4= 0.43*((NOXM(1)+NOXM(2))/DISTA) + 0
CBFE4 = 2421. / (.866*HCWM4 + .429*COWM4 +
.57*((HCM(3)+HCM(4)) / DISTC)
.57*((COM(3)+COM(4)) / DISTC)
,57*((C02M(3)+C02M(4)) / DISTC)
.57*((NOXM(3)+NOXM(4)) / DISTC)
.273*CO2WM4)
A-8
-------
APPENDIX A-4
THE MEASUREMENT OF METHANOL IN EXHAUST
The measurement of methanol in exhaust is accomplished by bubbling
the exhaust through glass impingers containing deionized water. The
exhaust sample is collected continuously during the test cycle. For
analysis, a portion of the aqueous solution is injected into a gas
chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). External
methanol standards in deionized water are used to quantify the results.
Detection limits for this procedure are on the order of 0.06 ppm in
dilute exhaust.
SAMPLING SYSTEM
Two glass impingers in series, with each containing 25 m£ of deion-
ized water, are used to collect exhaust samples for the analysis of methanol.
A flow schematic of the sample collection system is shown in Figure 1.
The two glass impingers collect 99 percent of the methanol in exhaust.
The temperature of the impinger is maintained at 0-5°C by an ice water
bath, and the flow rate through the impinger is maintained at 4£/minute
by the sample pump. A dry gas meter is used to determine the total flow
through the impinger during a given sampling period. The temperature
of the gas stream is monitored by a thermocouple immediately prior to
the dry gas meter. A drier is included in the system to prevent conden-
sation in the pump, flowmeter, dry gas meter, etc. The flowmeter in the
system allows continuous monitoring of the sample flow to insure proper
flow rates during the sampling. Several views of the sampling system
are shown in Figure 2.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
The analysis of methanol is accomplished by collecting methanol
in deionized water and analyzing the sample with a gas chromatograph
equipped with an FID. The analysis flow schematic for methanol is shown
in Figure 3. A detailed description of the procedure follows.
For the analysis of methanol, dilute exhaust is bubbled through
two glass impingers each containing 25 m£ of deionized water. Upon
completion of each driving cycle, the impinger is removed and the contents
are transferred to a 30 m£ polypropylene bottle, and capped.
A Perkin-Elmer 392GB gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ioniza-
tion detector is used to analyze the sample. A 5 y£ portion of the
sample is injected into the gas chromatograph (GC). The column is a
3' X 1/8" Teflon column containing 120/150 mesh Porapak Q. The carrier
gas is helium which flows through the column at a rate of 20 mji/minute.
The column temperature is maintained at 100°C. A chromatogram of a
standard sample containing 63 ppm methanol is shown in Figure 4. To
A-9
-------
Gas Temperature
Digital Readout
Sample
Probe
Flowmeter
On-Off Solenoid
Valve
Sample
Pump
Dry
Gas
Meter
Regulating
Valve
hlal3|g|s
Dilute
Exhaust
Ice Bath
Temperature Readout
Gas Volume
Digital Readout
Figure 1. Methanol sample collection flow schematic.
-------
Front View
Digital
Readout
Flowmeter
Regulating
Valve
Close-up of Upper Front
Figure 2. Methanol sampling system,
A-11
-------
Solenoid
Impinger
Ice Bath
Close-up of Impingers (Side View)
Dry Gas Meter
Pump
Rear View
Figure 2 (Cont'd). Methanol sampling system.
A-12
-------
CVS
1
Glass
Impinger
Unused Sample
saved as needed
I
Sample analysis
in gas chromatograph
with FID
A/D Converter
I
Recorder
Hewlett-Packard
3354
Computer System
Figure 3. Methanol analysis flow schematic.
A-13
-------
Sample Methanol Standard
Instrument PE 3920B OoeratorK.Miltenberqer
Column 7 ft. 1/8" O.D. l.D. Teflon Type
Packed with_
% wt.
on 120/150 mesh Porapak Q
Run ISO @ 100 °C using 20 cc/min. _
@ psig Rotameter Reading
Liq. Phase
Support
Helium Carrier
held @
held for_
Inlet 150
°C ISO for
°/min. Held for
min. (other)
min.. oroa to
_min., Prog to Cat
°/min
°C. Heated-Glass Lined'
Detector 200 °Q FID Type (other)
type
Hyd 33 psig
Air 57 psig
( ) Psig
Recorder ^ jn/min speed
Injection 5 ul indicated
Sampling Device
_ Rotameter Rdg.
Rotameter Rdg.
Rotameter Rdg.
_1 mV.F.S..
5 ul net
Soltec
_cc/min
_cc/min
cc/min
ul Actual
syringe
43210
Retention time, min.
Figure 4. Chromatogram of methanol standard
A-14
-------
quantify the results, the sample peak area is compared to the peak area
of a standard solution. Figure 5 shows the analytical system with gas
chromatograph, detector, A/D converter, and recorder.
CALCULATIONS
The procedure has been developed to provide the user with the concen-
tration of methanol in exhaust. The results will be expressed in yg/m3
of exhaust and ppm. The equations for determining the concentrations
in yg/m and ppm are derived in the following manner.
The first step is to correct the volume of exhaust sampled to a
standard temperature, 68°F, and pressure, 29.92"Hg, by use of the equation
P x V P x V
exp exp = corr corr
T T
exp corr
VeXp = experimental volume of gas sampled in ft3
Vcorr = volume of gas sampled in ft corrected to 68°F and 29.92"Hg
PeXp = experimental barometric pressure
pcorr = 29.92"Hg
Texp = experimental temperature in °F + 460
Tcorr = 68°F + 46° = 528°R
Solving for Vcorr gives:
P ("Hg) x V (ft3) x 528°R
= expv *' exp
corr T (°R) x 29.92"Hg
exp
The next step converts the volume from cubic feet to cubic meters by
use of the conversion factor: 1 cubic meter is equal to 35.31 cubic feet.
P ("Hg) x V (ft3) x 528°R
= exp exp
corr(m3) Tx 29.92"Hg x 35.31 ft3/m3
exp
(Equation 1)
The next step is to find the concentration of methanol in yg/m£. Since
the gas chromatograph FID has a linear response in the concentration of concern,
then the following equation holds.
Csam (^g/mjl) Cstd
A A .,
sam std
A-15
-------
0%
Figure 5. Methanol analytical system
-------
csam = concentration of the sample in yg/m£
Asam = Gc peak area of sample in relative units
cstd = concentration of the standard in yg/m£
Astd = GC peak area of standard in relative units
Solving for Csam gives:
. , (yg/m&) x A
std ^' sam
std
The Csam(yg/m£) in solution is corrected for any necessary dilution by
multiplying by the dilution factor, D.F.
= Cstd (^/m£) * Asam
Astd
To obtain the total amount in yg of methanol in the aqueous absorbing
solution, the absorbing reagent volume is multiplied by the concentration
to give:
yg sample = Csam (yg/m&) x Abs. Vol. (m£)
C (yg/m£) x A x D.F. x Abs. Vol.
s td
(Equation 2)
To obtain yg sample/m , Equation 2 is divided by Equation 1 to give:
C ., (yg/m£) x A x D.F. x Abs. Vol.
, T std sam
yg samp/m =
A x P ("Hg) x 528°
std exp
T x 29.92"Hg x 35.31 (ft3/m3)
x exp
V(ft3!
exp
(Equation 3)
A-17
-------
To find the concentration of methanol in ppm, the density of the
methanol is needed. At 29.92"Hg and 32°F, one mole of gas occupies
22.4 liters. This volume is corrected to 68°F from the equation
V = V;i
T TI
Vi = 22.4£
TI = 32°F + 460 = 492°R
V = volume at 68°F
T = 68°F + 460 = 528°R
Solving for V gives:
= V^J^ = 22.4 x 528 =
TI 492
Since one mole of gas occupies 22.045, at 68°F, the density can be found in
g/i by dividing the molecular weight in g/mole by 22.04 £/mole
, , .,. mol. wt. g/mole
den (gA) = 24.04
The density in yg/m£ can be found by converting g to yg and £ to lad as
follows:
den yg/mJl = mol. wt. g/mole 1 x 106yg/g _ mol. wt. x 1000
24.04 A/mole X 1 x 103m£/£ ~ 24.04
(Equation 4)
To obtain the concentration of methanol in ppm, the concentration in yg/m3
is divided by the density in yg/m£
ppm = yg/m3 -=-
A-18
-------
Using Equations 3 and 4 gives the ppm concentration in the form of the raw
data.
24.04(&) x C ^, (yg/mfc) x A x D.F. x Abs. Vol.
std sam
ppm = ~~—~—"—'—" • '
^ Mol. Wt. (g/mole) x 1000 x A „ x P ("Hg)
std exp
T (°R) x 29.92"Hg x 35.31 ft3/m3
X 528°R x V(ft3)
exp
(Equation 5)
At this point, the concentration can be expressed in yg/m3 (Equation 3) and
ppm (Equation 5) at 68°F and 29.92"Hg from the raw data.
Hewlett-Packard Calculations
In order to insure maximum turnaround in a minimum time period, a
Hewlett-Packard 67 program was developed to calculate the methanol concen-
trations in yg/m3 and ppm from the raw data. This program is presented in
Figure 6.
Sample Calculation
Assume exhaust samples were collected in glass impingers for each
portion of a three bag 1975 FTP. Raw data for these tests are presented
in Figure 7. Calculations were performed using the HP 67 program and
manual calculations.
Manual calculations for driving cycle FTP-1
For Bubbler #1
c ^(ygAn&) x A x D.F. x Abs. Vol.
,_, std p^ sam
yg/m3CH3OH =
A x P ("Hg)
std exp
T x 29.92"Hg x 35.31 ft3/m3
exp
X 528°R x V(ft3)
exp
(7.9 yg/m&) x 1000 x 1 x 25
1500 x 29.80"Hg
x (460 + 75) x 29.92"Hg x 35.31 ft3/m3
528°R x 3.196 ft3
= 1480 yg/m3
A-19
-------
Figure 6. HP-67
User Instructions
STEP
0
Oo
OT
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
INSTRUCTIONS
Switch to on; switch to run
Feed side 1 of card in from right to left
Set decimal place
Input Sample Volume
Input Barometric Pressure
Input Sample Temperature
Input Absorbing Reagent Volume
Input Dilution Factor, Bubbler #1
Input Standard Concentration, Bubbler #1
Input Standard Area, Bubbler #1
Input Sample Area, Bubbler #1
Output Sample Cone., Bubbler #1
Input Dilution Factor, Bubbler #2
Input Standard Cone., Bubbler #2
Input Standard Area, Bubbler #2
Input Sample Area, Bubbler #2
Output Sample Cone, Bubbler #2
Output Sample Cone., Bubbler # 1 & #2
Output Sample Cone .
A-20
INPUT
DATA/UNITS
ft3
11 Hg
OF
ItlJl
yg/mji
counts
counts
Uq/mfc
counts
counts
KEYS
I || 1
1 II 1
1 g I 1 Sci 1
1 A 1 I I
1 R/s I 1 I
1 R/S 1 | |
LR/lJ 1 J
1 "D /C 1 1 1
| K/ O ) | J
1 R/S 1 | J
I R/S | | J
| R/S 1 L J
en: L~J
| R/S | | J
LR/S.J | J
| R/S | | |
T? /C
\ x\/ P 1 | J
fR/sl 1 1
Gt/aD LIU
1 1 1 1
i 1 i — — i
1 h II RTN 1
1 1 f "J
i i r i
i i i
r i i
i i i
[ r ]
L J J
: :] r i
C 1 L " 1
i__j ^ |
p i r
LITJL •
L~n L . j
L_] r i]
n.j r.::i
L_] L 1
:_ID L"
L~~I r i
:~ZIL "
OUTPUT
DATA/UNITS
uq/mjl
yg/m£
yg/mJl
ppm
-------
STEP KEY ENTRY
Figure 6 (Cont'd). HP-67 Program Form
KEY CODE COMMENTS STEP KEY ENTRY
KEY CODE
COMMENTS
001
010
020
030
040
050
SO
f LBL A
2
•
R/S
X
STO 1
R/S
4
6
0
+
RCL. 1
-r
R/S
X
STO 2
RCL 2
R/S
X
R/S
X
R/S
v
R/S
X
STO 3
R/S
RCT, 2
y
R/S
X
R/S
R/S
X
R/S
RCL 3
+
R/S
1
3
3
3
4-
R/S
h RTN
1
S1
E
31 25 11
02
81
84
71
33 01
84
04
06
nn
61
34 01
81
84
71
33 02
34 02
84
71
84
71
Rd
Rl
H4
71
33 m
P4
34 r>2
71
84
71
84
Rl
«4
71
84
34 03
61
R4
01
03
03
03
81
84
35 22
2
S2
In Sample Vol . , f t3
In Barometric Press
ure, "Hg
In Sample Temp, °F
In Sol. Vol. , mi
In Dilution Factor
In Std Cone., yg/m&
In Std. Area
In Sample Area,
Bubbler #1
Out Sample Cone,
Bubblerftl uQ/m3
In Dilution Factor
Cn Std. Cone., yg/m£
Cnput Std. Area
Cn Sample Area,
Bubbler #2
Out Sam. Cone,
Bubbler #2, ug/m3
Out Cone. , yg/m
Output ppm Methanol
REGIS
3 4
S3 S4
C
060
070
080
090
100
110
TERS
5
35
D
A-21
6
S6
7
S7
8 9
S8 S9
I
-------
Figure 6 (Cont'd) . HP-67 Program Form
STEP KEY ENTRY KEY CODE COMMENTS STEP KEY ENTRY KEY CODE
001
010
020
030
040
050
f LBL A
2
R/S
X
STO 1
R/S
4
6
0
+
RCL I
R/S
X
STO 2
RCL 2
R/S
X
R/S '
X
R/S
•
R/S
X
STO 3
R/S
RCL 2
y
R/S
X
R/S
•
R/S
X
R/S
RCL 3
+
R/S
1
3
3
3
-=-
R/S
h RTN
31 25 11
02
81
84
71
33 01
84
04
06
nn
61
Id 01
R1
84
71
33 02
34 02
84
71
84
71
84
81
84
71
33 03
84
34 02
71
84
71
84
81
84
71
84
34 03
61
R4
01
03
m
03
Rl
84
35 22
In Sample Vol . , ft3
In Barometric Press-
ure, "Hg
In Sample Temp., °F
In Sol. Vol. , m&
In Dilution Factor
In Std Cone . , yg/mJl
In Std. Area
In Sample Area,
Bubbler #1
Out Sample Cone . _.
Bubbler #1, yg/mj
In Dilution Factor
In Std . Cone . , yg/m&
Input Std. Area
In Sample Area,
Bubbler #2
Out Sample cone . , .,
Bubbler #2, yg/mj
Out Cone . , yg/m
Output ppm Methanol
060
070
080
090
100
110
COMMENTS
REGISTERS
01234
SO S1
A E
S2 S3 S4
» C
56789
S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
D
A-22
E I
-------
METHANOL
SWRI PROJECT NO.
FUEL CVS NO.
SAMPLE COLLECTION BY: _
GENERAL COMMENTS
TEST NO.
TEST DATE:
VEHICLE:
TUNNEL SIZE:
DRIVER:
MILES:
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS BY:
CALCULATIONS BY:
Test No.
Driving Cycle
Volume, Ft3
B.P., "Hg
Temp. °F
Absor. Rea. Vol., m£
Dilution Factor, Bubbler #1
Std. Cone ygCH3OH/m£ Bub. #1
Std. Area - Bubbler #1
Sample Area - Bubbler #1
Sample Cone ygCH3OH/m3 , Bub#l
Dilution Factor, Bubbler #2
Std. Cone ygCHsOH/mtBub. #2
Std. Area - Bubbler #2
Sample Area - Bubbler #2
Sample Cone UgCH^DH/m3, Bub#2
Total Cone. ygCH^OH/m3
PPM Methanol
FTP-1
3.196
29.80
75
25
1
7.9
1500
1000
1480
1
0.79
2000
500
55.5
1530
1.15
FTP-1
1.625
30.02
80
25
5
79
5000
1000
43700
2
7.9
1500
300
1750
45500
34.1
FTP- 3
2.010
29.02
96
50
10
790
10000
1000
753000
5
7.9
5000
6000
45200
798000
599
SET- 7
3.730
29.25
85
50
2
7.9
1000
3000
23700
1
0.79
1000
100
39.5
23700
17.8
HFET
8.241
29.95
83
75
1
7.9
5000
15000
7820
1
0.79
6000
1000
43.5
7860
5.90
NYCC .
1.070
29.50
89
75
1
0.79
1000
3000
6180
1
0.79
5000
15000
6180
12400
9.28
Figure 7. Methanol sample collection sheet
-------
The concentration in Bubbler #2 is calculated in the same manner
using the appropriate dilution factor, standard concentration, standard
area, and sample area:
For Bubbler #2:
3 0.79 yg/m£ x 500 x 1 x 25
yg/Itl ~ 2000 x 29.80
x (460 + 75) x 29.92"Hg x 35.31 ft3/m3
528bR x 3.196 ft3
=55.5 yg/m£3
The concentrations from the two bubblers can be added for a total
cone entration:
Total yg methanol/m3 = cone.(Bubbler #1) + cone.(Bubbler #2)
= 1480 yg/m3 +55.5 yg/m3
.= 1535 yg/m3
PPM CH3OH = yg/m3 v density yg/m£
-, .. ,, , n Mol. Wt. (CH-^OH) x 1000
density yg/irui = •
24
Mol. Wt. CH3OH = 32.04 g/mole
density = 32.04 x 1000
' 24.04£
ppm = 1535 v 1333 yg/m£ = 1.15 m£/m3 = 1.15 ppm
Note: The values used in these calculations are picked from a range of
temperatures, standards, dilution factors, etc., to validate the calculations
and may not be representative of expected raw data. These calculations are
presented to confirm that the manual and HP-67 calculations give the same
results. This was confirmed on six sets of calculations.
A-24
-------
LIST OF EQUIPMENT AND REAGENTS
The equipment and reagents for the analysis of the methanol is
divided into two groups. The first involves the sample acquisition and
the second the instrumental analysis of the sample once it has been obtained.
Manufacturer, stock number and any pertinent descriptive information are
listed. The preparation of standards is also discussed.
Sampling
1. Glass impingers, Ace Glass Products, Catalog #7530-11, plain tapered
tip stoppers with 18/7 arm joints and 29/42 bottle joints.
2. Flowmeter, Brooks Instrument Division, Model 1555, tube size R-2-15-C,
graduated 0-15, sapphire float, 0-5 £/min range.
3. Sample pump, Thomas Model 106 CA18, capable of free flow capacity of
4 5,/min.
4. Dry gas meter, American Singer Corporation, Type AL-120, 60 CFH
capacity.
5. Regulating valve, Nupro 4MG, stainless steel.
6. Teflon tubing, United States Plastic Corporation, 1/4" OD x 1/8" ID
and 5/16" OD x 1/8" ID.
7. Teflon solenoid valve, the Fluorocarbon Company, Model DV2-144NCA1.
8. Drying tube, Analabs Inc., Catalog #HGC-146, 6" long, 1/4" brass
fittings.
9. Miscellaneous Teflon nuts, ferrules, unions, tees, clamps, connectors,
etc.
10. Digital readout for dry gas meter.
11. Miscellaneous electrical switches, lights, wirings, etc.
12. Six channel digital thermometer, Analog Devices, Model #2036/J/1.
13. Iron/Constantan type J single thermocouple with 1/4" OD stainless
steel metal sheath, Thermo Sensors Corporation.
14. 30 m£ polypropylene sample storage bottles, Nalgene Labware, Catalog
#2006-0001.
15. Deionized or distilled water.
16. Class A, 10 m& volumetric pipet.
17. Class A, 1000 m& volumetric flask.
A-25
-------
Instrumental Analysis
1. 5 yl syringe, Hamilton Co., Reno, Nevada.
2. Perkin-Elmer Model 3920 B gas chromatograph equipped with flame
ionization detector.
3. Soltec Model B-281 1 mv recorder.
4. Hewlett-Packard Model 3354 gas chromatograph computer system with
remote teletype printout.
Preparation of Primary Standards
The primary standard for the methanol analysis is prepared by diluting
a known volume of methanol with deionized (or distilled) water. Standards
less than ^500 ppm are prepared by diluting higher concentration standards
with deionized water.
A-26
-------
APPENDIX B
INDIVIDUAL AND AVERAGE TEST RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES
Table B- Car No. Car Fuel Catalyst
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Escort
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Rabbit
Rabbit
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Escort
Indolene
Anafuel
Methanol
Methanol
Indolene
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Promoted Base
Promoted Base
None
Promoted Base
Noble Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
-------
NJ
TABLE B-l. CAR 81 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
1981 Ford Escort Wagon - Indolene Fuel
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
FTP
Test Number,
Barometer,
Humidity,
Carbon Dioxide,
PVS
mm Hg
g/kg
g/km
Fuel Cons., £/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC)
Carbon Monoxide,
Oxides of Nitrogen,
Other Emissions
Total Particulates
Methanol
Ethanol
Aldehydes & Ke tones
, g/km
g/km
g/km
Individual Hydrocarbons
Nitrosamines
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
_au
740.
12.
219.
9.
0.
2.
0.
7.
0.
0.
0.
90.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
4
0
56
23
68
35
30
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
812
745.0
11.1
223.3
9.78
0.24
3.15
0.36
5.36
0.0
0.
0.2
99.
002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
813
745.7
9.9
216.1
9.42
0.22
2.54
0.32
4.56
0.0
0.
0.0
99.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Average
743.
11.
219.
9.
0.
2.
0.
5.
0.
0.
0.
96o
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7
1
5
59
23
79
34
74
0
1
000
1
0
0
0
0
811
740.2
14.0
146.5
6.36
0.10
1.41
0.29
1.93
0.0
0.
0.0
48.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
HFET
812
745.0
10.4
143.3
6.18
0.11
0.80
0.35
1.27
0.0
0.
0.0
46.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
813
746.0
10.9
142.1
6.14
0.09
0.94
0.28
0.95
0.0
0.
0.0
47.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Average
743.7
11.8
144.0
6o23
0.10
1.05
0.31
1.38
0.0
0.
0.0
47.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
57.2
4.7
11 oO
0.8
0.0
2.8
3.6
9.9
58.0
6.1
11.6
1.3
0.4
4.5
4.3
13.3
63.9
5.4
1103
0.6
1.2
3.9
3.8
8.8
59.7
504
11.3
0.9
0.5
3.8
3.9
10.7
28.0
3.4
702
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.3
4.1
24.8
305
7.9
0.0
0.0
3.7
2.1
3.6
28.9
2.7
7.8
0.0
0.6
2.6
1.6
2.9
27.2
3.2
7.6
0.0
0.2
2.9
2.0
3.5
-------
TABLE B-2. CAR 82 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
1981 Ford Escort - Anafuel
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
FTP
Test Number,
Barometer,
Humidity ,
Carbon Dioxide,
PVS
mm Hg
g/kg
g/km
Fuel Cons., &/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC)
Carbon Monoxide,
Oxides of Nitrogen
, g/km
g/km
, g/km
821
743.7
11.4
218.5
9.61
0.18
1.87
0.41
822
742.7
15.0
218.9
9.63
0.18
2.05
0.46
823
741.9
10.2
214.9
9.47
0.21
2.14
0.39
Average
742.
12.
217.
9.
0.
2.
0.
8
2
4
57
19
02
42
821
743.
10.
148.
60
0.
0.
0.
7
4
2
48
06
80
38
HFET
822
743.0
11.9
14209
6.21
0.04
0.31
0.55
823
741.7
10.0
141.3
6.18
0.05
0.69
0.32
Average
742.8
10.8
144.1
6.29
0.05
0.60
0.42
ro
i
U)
Other Emissions
Total Particulates
Methanol
Ethanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Nitrosamines
3.54
0.0
0.
0.9
74,
3.31
0.0
0.
0.0
73.
3.69
000
0.
0.0
76.
3.51
0.0
0.
0.3
.74.
0.000
1.14
0.0
0.
0.0
25.
1.20
0.0
0.
0.0
19.
—
0.0
0.
0.0
21.
1.17
0.0
0.
0.0
22.
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.1
5.3
4.4
1.1
0.4
2.2
4.5
12.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.1
5.7
4.7
0.9
0.1
1.9
4.2
13.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
000
0.0
42.6
5o7
3.4
1.1
0.2
2.0
5.2
15.8
0.3
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
4206
506
402
IcO
0.2
2.0
4.6
13.9
0.0
0.0
OoO
0.0
0.0
16»5
2.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.3
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
1.7
2.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.2
1.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
2.3
OoO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
1.8
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.1
2.2
-------
TABLE B-3. CAR 83 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
FTP
Test Number, PVS
Barometer, mm Hg
Humidity, g/kg
Carbon Dioxide, g/km
Fuel Cons., H/IOO km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC) , g/km
ro Carbon Monoxide, g/km
i. Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
831
741.2
10.7
196.6
18.76
0.27
4.51
0.23
832
737.9
12.8
203.6
19.26
0.25
3.50
0.26
833
739.9
10.5
192.1
18.17
0.27
3.24
0.25
Average
739,7
11.3
197.4
18.73
0.26
3075
0.25
831
741,4
10.9
139.2
12.87
0.06
0.45
0.18
HFET
832
737.6
11.8
148.2
13.69
0.05
0.26
0.23
833
741.4
8.4
137.4
12.68
0.05
0.28
0.18
Average
740.1
10.4
141.6
13.08
0.05
0.33
0.20
Particulates
Total Particulates
Compound Group Totals
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Organic Amines
Nitrosamines
Other Emissions
Methanol
Ethanol
Ammonia
Cyanide & Cyanogens
4.13
3.97
3.52
3.87
7.13 7.50 4.13
6.25
28.0
36.9
0.00
286.5
0.
5.62
0.00
15.0
30.6
0,02
193.3
0.
6.79
0.00
19.5
25.6
277.6
0.
20.8
31.0
0.01
0.000
252.5
0.
6.21
0,00
1104
3.4
47.9
0.
15.7
4.0
41.1
0.
18.2
3.0
35.7
0.
15.1
3.5
38.2
0.
-------
TABLE B-3(Cont'd). CAR 83 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
Test Number, PVS
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Organic Amines
Monomethylamine
Monoethylamine +
dimethylamine
Trimethylamine
Diethylamine
Triethylamine
FTP
831
26.97
0.00
1.04
0.00
0.00
35.78
0.40
0.33
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
832
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.05
0.04
0.16
0.12
0.70
0.00
0.08
0.44
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
833
19.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.12
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Average
20o50
0,00
0.35
0.00
0.00
29.98
0.15
0.31
0.04
0.35
0.00
0.03
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
831
10.72
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
3.02
0.25
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HFET
832
15.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
833
18.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.87
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Average
14.86
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.08
0.07
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE B-4. CAR 84 EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1981 VW Rabbit -
Methanol Fuel
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
CTi
FTP
Test Number,
Barometer,
Humidity,
Carbon Dioxide,
PVS
mm Hg
g/kg
g/km
Fuel Cons., Si/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC)
Carbon Monoxide ,
Oxides of Nitrogen
, g/km
g/km
, g/km
841
750.3
5.9
186.2
17.24
0.27
0.59
0.41
842
751.8
6.4
179.8
16.64
0.27
0.54
0.40
843
745.7
9.0
185.2
17.13
0.18
0.53
0.45
Average
749.
7.
183.
17.
0.
0.
0.
3
1
7
00
24
55
42
841
750
6
150
13
0
0
0
.8
.5
.6
.87
.00
.17
.12
HFET
842
752.1
5.2
149.7
13.74
0.01
0.14
0.13
843
745.7
9.2
147.1
13.54
0.01
0.11
0.14
Average
749.5
7.0
149.1
13.72
0.01
0.14
0.13
Other Emissions
Total Particulates
Methanol
Ethanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Nitrosamines
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
2.46
319. 8:
0.
6.6
3.6
6.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.49
0.02
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.19
278.6
0.
__
2.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.43
0.03
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.11
219.1
0.
6.2
3.4
6.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.15
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.92
272.5
0.
6.4
3.2
000.0
6.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.02
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.76
0.0
0.
0.0
1.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.48
0.0
0.
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
2.2
0.
0.1
0.7
0.00
0.00
Q.OO
0.00
0.00
0,73
Q.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.12
0.7
0.
0.0
0.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE B-5. CAR 85 EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1981 VW Rabbit -
Indolene Fuel
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
w
I
FTP
Test Number, PVS
Barometer, mm Hg
Humidity, g/kg
Carbon Dioxide, g/km
Fuel Cons . , A/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC) , g/km
Carbon Monoxide , g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
Other Emissions
Total Particulates
Methanol
Ethanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Nitrosamines
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
851
751.6
5.7
226.7
9.73
0.07
0.59
0.11
9.73
0.0
0.
0.0
25.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.36
2.72
1.55
0.97
0.00
2.43
3.88
5.86
852
739.6
12.0
236.9
10.17
0.07
0.72
0.09
7.39
0.0
0.
0.0
28.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.'OO
9.34
3.40
1.62
1.20
0.00
2.80
4.15
5.98
853
743.5
9.0
228.6
9.81
0.06
0.71
0.11
4.78
0.0
0.
0.0
21.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.40
2.87
1.61
1.08
0.00
—
1.88
5.36
Average
744.9
8.9
230.7
9.90
0.07
0.67
0.10
7.30
0.0
0.
0.0
25.2
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.70
3.00
1.59
1.08
0.00
2.62
3.30
5.73
851
751.6
5.8
177.5
7.64
0.07
0.78
0.04
23.56
0.0
0.
0.0
38.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.25
2.57
4.08
0.00
0.00
3.36
6.28
4.45
HFET
852
739.1
11.8
184.2
7.93
0.07
0.80
0.05
25.03
0.0
0.
0.0
39.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.81
2.84
4.06
0.00
0.00
3.05
6.51
4.91
853
743.7
9.5
177.3
7.63
0.06
0.75
0.03
11.29
0.0
0.
0.0
33.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.14
2.33
3.53
0.00
0.00
—
6.59
4.47
Average
744.8
9.0
179.7
7.73
0.07
0.78
0.04
19.96
0.0
0.
0.0
36.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.07
2.58
3.89
0.00
0.00
3.21
6.46
4.61
-------
TABLE B-6. CAR 86 EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1981 VW Rabbit
With Base-Metal Catalyst
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
w
oo
FTP
Test Number, PVS
Barometer, mm Hg
Humidity , g/kg
Carbon Dioxide, g/km
Fuel Cons., £/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC) , g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
861
754.1
3.3
182.0
17.09
0.52
2.02
1.07
862
735.1
11.1
179.7
16.92
0.53
2.27
1.06
863
729.7
8.3
187.5
17.66
0.56
2.43
1.14
Average
739.6
7.6
183.1
17.22
0.54
2.24
1.09
861
754.9
3.0
143.7
13.51
0.16
1.96
1.06
HFET
862
735.1
11.1
144.8
13.63
0.17
2.04
1.05
_863_
730.5
11.2
152.1
14.29
0.16
1.99
1.17
Average
74002
8.5
146.9
13.81
0.16
2.00
1.09
Other Emissions
Total Particulates
Methanol
Ethanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Nitrosamines
428.1
0.
28.8
10,2
598.0
0.
33.0
9.0
692.1
0.
28.6
10.9
572.7
0.
30.1
1O.O
0.000
0.
6.2
5.8
194.0
0.
19.5
5.6
170.9
0.
15.4
4»6
182.5
0.
13.7
5.3
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
28.81
0.00
0.00
0000
0.00
7.95
1,49
0.21
0.00
32.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.12
1.87
0.00
0.00
28.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.46
1.06
0.21
2,12
30.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.51
1.47
0.14
0.71
6.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.46
1.18
0.16
0.00
19.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.32
1.31
0.00
0.00
15.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
0.68
0.04
0.00
13.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.23
1.06
0.07
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.QO
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE B-7. CAR 87 EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1981 Ford Escort
With Base Metal Catalyst
w
I
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
FTP
Test Number, PVS
Barometer, mm Hg
Humidity, g/kg
Carbon Dioxide, g/km
Fuel Cons., H/10Q km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC) , g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
871
744.2
5.0
204.2
18.94
0.19
0.97
0.25
872
754.9
4.9
199.9
18.54
0.21
0.91
0.19
873
740.7
10.7
192.9
17.90
0.16
0.95
0.21
Average
746.6
6.9
199.0
18.46
0.19
0.94
0.22
874
741.2
10.5
13600
12051
0.01
0.05
0014
HFET
872
754.6
3,7
136.0
12.52
0.03
0.09
0.14
873
740.9
10.0
135.7
12.48
0001
0006
0.14
Average
745.6
8.1
135.9
12.50
0.02
0.07
0.14
Particulates
Total Particulates
Compound Group Totals
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Organic Amines
Nitrosamines
Other Emissions
Methanol
Ethanol
Ammonia
Cyanide & Cyanogens
2.48
2.05
2.53
2.35
2,79
1.91
2.57
2.42
2.4
26.1
0.00
1.8
23.6
0.00
2.0
22.5
2.1
24.1
0.00
0.000
0.0
3.4
0.0
4a2
0.0
3.7
0.0
3.8
92.7
0.
3,59
57.5
0.
0.09
132.4
0.
3.09
0.13
94.2
0.
3.34
0.11
0.6
0.
Gj.0
0.
0.0
0.
0.2
0.
-------
TABLE B-7(Cont'd). CAR 87 EMISSIONS SUMMARY - 1981 Ford Escort
With Base-Metal Gatalyst
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
Test Number, PVS
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
> Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Prcpylene
Benzene
Toluene
Organic Amines
Monomethylamine
Monoethylamine +
dimethylamine
Trimethylamine
Diethylamine
Triethylamine
871
2.17
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
23.60
0.16
1.80
0.00
0.54
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
872
1.76
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.53
0.13
1.35
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FTP
873
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.66
0.12
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HFET
Average
1.98
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
22.26
0.14
1.28
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
874
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.36
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
872
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.88
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
873
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.70
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.65
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE B-8. CAR 88 EMISSIONS SUMMARY-1981 FORD ESCORT
WITHOUT CATALYTIC AFTERTREATMENT
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
Test Number, PVS
Barometer, mm Hg
Humidity, g/kg
Carbon Dioxide, g/km
Fuel Cons., H/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC) , g/km
w Carbon Monoxide, g/km
,L Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
M
Particulates
Total Particulates
Compound Group Totals
Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Organic Amines
Nitrosamines
Other Emissions
Methanol
Ethanol
Ammonia
fxraniHo K, (~*\ra nnrr^n c
881
752.1
3.8
161.9
18.91
5.52
23.02
0.41
8.42
222.3
40.4
0.1
6553.2
0.
0.00
0.03
FTP
882
752.9
1.8
156.2
19.27
7.25
27.65
0.35
5.27
220.4
55.7
0.6
7699.1
0.
4.26
0.06
Average
752.5
2.8
159.1
19.09
6.39
25.34
0.38
6.85
221.4
48.1
0.4
0.000
7126.2
0.
2.13
0.05
881
752.3
3.6
127.4
12.79
2.51
5.28
0.19
4.19
256.3
5.8
3313.7
0.
HFET
882
752.1
2.1
123.7
12.47
2.45
5.46
0.17
2.40
216.4
6.5
2889.8
0.
Average
752.2
2.9
125.6
12.63
2.48
5.37
0.18
3.30
236.4
6.2
3101.8
0.
-------
Table. B-8 (Cont'd). CAR 88 EMISSIONS SUMMARY-1981 FORD ESCORT
WITHOUT CATALYTIC AFTERTREATMENT
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
Test Number, PVS
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Organic Amines
Monomethylamine
Monoethylamine +
dimethylamine
Trimethylamine
Diethylamine
Triethylaraine
881
222.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.50
2.89
0.26
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FTP
882
219.85
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00
46.37
3.51
0.48
2.86
2.43
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
Average
221.08
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
41.44
3.20
0.37
1.79
1.22
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
881
255.84
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
5.25
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HFET
882
215.36
0.00
0.00
1.06
0.00
5.51
0.30
0.07
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
Average
235.60
0.00
0.25
0.53
0.00
5.38
0.44
0.04
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE B-9. CAR 89 EMISSIONS SUMMARY-1981 VW RABBIT -
REEVALUATION OF BASE-METAL CATALYST
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
Test Number, PVS
Barometer, mm Hg
Humidity, g/kg
Carbon Dioxide, g/km
Fuel Cons . , A/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC) , g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
Other Emissions
Total Particulates
Methanol
i
M
w Aldehydes & Ketones
Individual Hydrocarbons
Nitrbsamines
891
745.7
11.4
179.6
16.79
0.29
1.70
0.90
3.69
322.8
22.7
10.2
FTP
892
739.9
12.4
182.7
17.09
0.31
1.70
0.98
3.43
349.7
17.9
10.1
Average
742.8
11.9
181.2
16.94
0.30
1.70
0.94
3.56
336.3
20.3
10.2
0.000
891
746.3
10.6
148.5
13.76
0.04
0.69
0.85
4.04
15.2
0.0
6.0
HFET
892
739.4
8.5
151.6
14.08
0.04
0.94
1.00
3.58
31.3
2.4
4.8
Average
742.9
9.6
150.1
13.92
0.04
0.82
0.93
3.81
23.3
1.2
5.4
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
22.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.26
1.26
0.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.34
0.55
0.26
0.11
1.85
0.00
0.95
0.00
20.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.30
0.91
0.48
0.06
0.93
0.00
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.57
0.84
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.35
0.00
3.56
0.30
0.26
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.18
0.00
4.07
0.57
0.40
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE B-10.CAR 90 EMISSIONS SUMMARY-1981 FORD ESCORT WITH
NOBLE METAL CATALYST AND NEW CARBURETOR
EMISSION RATE, MG/KM (Except as Noted)
Cd
Test Number, PVS
Barometer, mm Hg
Humidity, g/Jcg
Carbon Dioxide, g/km
Fuel Cons,, 2/100 km
Regulated Emissions
Hydrocarbons, (THC) , g/km
Carbon Monoxide, g/km
Oxides of Nitrogen, g/km
901
746.5
4.3
192.3
17.92
0.28
1.37
0.24
FTP
902
740.9
7.4
197.3
18.39
0.30
1.46
0.26
Average
743.7
5.9
194.8
18.16
0.29
1.42
0.25
901
745.5
4.7
132.9
12.26
0.07
0.27
0.16
HFET
902
740.4
5.7
138.2
12.75
0.06
0.25
0.21
Average
743.0
5.2
135.6
12.51
0.07
0.26
0.19
Other Emissions
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Hexanaldehyde
2.86
240.7
10.9
10.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
285.0
10.1
10.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.86
262.9
10.5
10.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
APPENDIX C
FTP INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Table C- Test No. Car Fuel Catalyst
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
16-18
19-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
811-3
821-3
831-3
841-3
851-3
861-3
871-3
881-2
891-2
901-2
Escort
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Rabbit
Rabbit
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Escort
Indolene
Anafuel
Methanol
Methanol
Indolene
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Promoted Base
Promoted Base
None
Promoted Base
Noble Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
-------
Table C-l. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Indolene Fuel
Test 811
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
10.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
9.68
1.64
0.93
0.52
0.02
1.31
1.58
5.16
0.00
2
3.77
0.17
1.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
5.07
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3 4
5.25 3.
0.54 0.
1.15 0.
0.00 0.
0.00 0.
0.40 0.
0.54 0.
1.21 0.
0.00 0.
44
16
99
00
00
00
00
00
00
C-2
-------
Table C-2. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Indolene Fuel
Test 812
Total Particulates
Methanol
Emissions in mg/km
Cold-UDDS
7.03
0.00
Hot-UDDS
4.08
0.00
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
9.81
2.31
1.04
0.92
0.03
92
76
6.80
0.00
4.10
0.23
1.14
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.17
0.28
0.00
Hot-UDDS
5.32
0.73
1.27
0.00
0.05
0.76
0.58
1.40
0.00
3.46
0.10
1.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
C-3
-------
Table C-3. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Indolene Fuel
Test 813
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
FormaIdehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
6.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
9.37
1.77
1.00
0.42
0.16
1.74
1.53
4.46
2
4.16
0.24
1.03
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3
6.18 4.
0.64 0.
1.27 1.
0.00 0.
0.20 0.
0.62 0.
0.62 0.
1.22 0.
4
60
21
05
00
03
00
14
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-4
-------
Table C-4. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Anafuel
Test 821
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
5.50
0.00
2.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
7.63
1.87
0.44
0.75
0.12
1.17
2.19
6.78
2
2.12
0.08
0.34
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3 4
4.71 2.
0.96 0.
0.55 0.
0.00 0.
0.00 0.
0.23 0.
0.60 °-
1.43 0.
59
04
39
00
00
00
08
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-5
-------
Table C-5. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Anafuel
Test 822
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethan 1
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
5.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
7.83
2.01
0.50
0.64
0.09
1.04
2.16
6.68
0.00
2
2.10
0.12
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3 4
4.18 2.
0.80 0.
0.57 0.
0.00 0.
0.05 0.
0.11 0.
0.53 0.
1.75 0.
0.00 0.
48
15
41
00
00
00
00
00
00
C-6
-------
Table C-6. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Anafuel
Test 823
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methano1
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
5.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
7.88
2.22
0.45
0.76
0.01
0.99
2.60
8.16
2
2.06
0.09
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3 4
4.22 2.
0.89 0.
0.49 0.
0.00 0.
0.03 0.
0.26 0.
0.78 0.
2.07 0.
65
05
35
00
02
00
00
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-7
-------
Table C-7. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel
Test 831
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
5.75
525.3
28.91
0.00
0.94
0.00
0.00
2.
106.
25.
0.
1.
0.
0.
Emissions in
Cold-UDDS
1
2.97
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
2.83
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
92
4
50
00
12
00
00
ppm
Hot-UDDS
3
4.53 2
0.11 0
0.06 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
4
.17
.00
.01
.00
.09
.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-8
-------
Table C-8. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel
Test 832
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
5.82
332.8
20.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
3.06
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.29
2
2.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.58
88.13
11.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3
2.49 2
0.01 0
0.02 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
4
.19
.00
.00
.00
.12
.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-9
-------
Table C-9. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel
Test 833
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
6.15
483.0
Hot-UDDS
1.54
122.7
30.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
2.92
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
1.89
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3
1.81
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
2.01
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-10
-------
Table C-10. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel
Test 841
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
3.98
743.6
Hot-UDDS
1.32
0.00
15.32 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
0.96
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-ll
-------
Table C-ll. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel
Test 842
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
4.13
647.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
0.91
0.05
0.01
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
4
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
C-12
-------
Table C-12. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel
Test 843
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
3.71
505.8
12.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
2.65
2.8
1.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
0.94
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
3 4
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-13
-------
Table C-13. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Indolene Fuel
Test 851
Emi s s ions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
14.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
1.90
1.69
0.52
0.65
0.00
1.53
0.90
3.27
2
0.19
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.00
6.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3 4
0.80 0.
0.07 0.
0.21 0.
0.00 0.
0.00 0.
0.00 0.
0.28 0.
0.50 0.
16
00
01
00
00
00
00
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-14
-------
Table C-14. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Indolene Fuel
Test 852
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Ac etaldehyde
Acetone
Cold-UDDS
9.17
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
Hot-UDDS
6.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
2,38
1.19
0.60
0.81
0,00
1.76
0.93
3.14
0.00
0.16
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
1.13
0.18
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.68
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-15
-------
Table C-15. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Indolene Fuel
Test 853
Emissions in mg/km
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
Total Particulates
Methanol
5.95
0.00
3.89
0.00
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
2.14
1.82
0.54
0.74
0.04
1.
1.
3.
01
08
59
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
0.74
0.01
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-16
-------
Table C-16. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel - Base Metal Catalyst
Test 861
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
1Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
995.6
34.69
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
0.00
24.37
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.03
0.24
0.01
0.00
0.36
0.11
0.01
0.00
0.50
0.21
0.02
0.00
0.51
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-17
-------
Table C-17. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel - Base Metal Catalyst
Test 862
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
1046.6
48.27
0.00
2.52
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
259.7
21.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.12
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-18
-------
Table C-18. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel - Base Metal Catalyst
Test 863
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
1139.3
40.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
345.7
19.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
3 4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.26
0.03
0.12
0.21
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.52
0.10
0.02
0.00
0.39
0.02
0.01
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-19
-------
Table C-19. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel - Base Metal Catalyst
Test 871
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
3.30
215,6
5.05
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
1.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.85
0.09
0.14
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.15
0.00
1.96
0.01
0.23
0.00
1.69
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-20
-------
Table C-20. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel - Base Metal Catalyst
Test 872
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
3.62
183.2
4.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
0.86
21.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
3.10
0.09
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.54
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.58
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.27
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-21
-------
Table C-21. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel - Base Metal Catalyst
Test 873
Total Particulates
Methanol
Emissions in mg/km
Cold-UDDS
3.49
307.9
Hot-UDDS
1.80
0.00
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Ac etaldehyde
Acetone
4.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
2.56
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.77
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.93
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.24
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ethanol
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-22
-------
Table C-22. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel - No Catalyst
Test 881
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
FormaIdehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
14.87
7346.1
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
3.56
5955.0
222.3
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
3.95
0.42
0.04
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.79
0.28
0.02
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
2.95
0.28
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.71
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-23
-------
Table C-23. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel - No Catalyst
Test 882
Emi s s ions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
6.24
9512.8
251.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
4.53
6330.8
196.33
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
4.26
0.45
0.06
0.39
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.08
0.35
0.03
0.33
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.35
0.31
0.05
0.28
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.75
0.28
0.03
0.27
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-24
-------
Table C-24. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel - Reevaluation Base Metal Catalyst
Test 891
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Cold-UDDS
4.30
692.6
46.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
3.23
43.9
4.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
1.28
0.29
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.09
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.15
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-25
-------
Table C-25. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 VW Rabbit - Methanol Fuel - Reevaluation Base Metal Catalyst
Test 892
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Cold-UDDS Hot-UDDS
4.14
740.3
26.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions
Cold-UDDS
1
1.22
0.16
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.90
55.10
11.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
in ppm
Hot-UDDS
3
0.36 0
0.06 0
0.05 0
0.05 0
0.44 0
0.00 0
0,22 0
0.00 0
4
.18
.03
.00
.00
.24
.00
.15
.00
C-26
-------
Table c-26. FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel - New Carburetor
Test 901
Emissions in mg/km
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes S Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
4.22
425.7
12.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
1.83
101.1
9.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
C-27
-------
Table C-27- FTP Individual Sample Unregulated Emissions Results
1981 Ford Escort - Methanol Fuel - New Carburetor
Test 902
Emissions in jmg/km .
Total Particulates
Methanol
Aldehydes & Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Hexanaldehyde
Individual Hydrocarbons
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethanol
Cold-UDDS
527.8
23.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hot-UDDS
101.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Emissions in ppm
Cold-UDDS
Hot-UDDS
C-28
-------
APPENDIX D
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
OF THE
REGULATED EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
Table D- Test No. Car Fuel Catalyst
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
16-18
19-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
811-3
821-3
831-3
841-3
851-3
861-3
871-3
881-2
891-2
901-2
Escort
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Rabbit
Rabbit
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Escort
Indolene
Anafuel
Methanol
Methanol
Indolene
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Promoted Base
Promoted Base
None
Promoted Base
Noble Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
-------
TEST NO. 811 FTP RUN t
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 740.41 MM HG(29.)5 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 63. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR
-------
TABLE D-2. TEST NO. 812 EMISSIONS RESULTS
TEST NO. 812FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORO ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 744.98 MM HG(29.33 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 59. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
OFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 812FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 745.0
HUMIDITY G/KG 11.1
TEMPERATURE OEG C 23.9
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05-5830-01 I
VEHICLE NO.81
DATE 7/ 8/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C<75.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY M.I GM/KG
TEST HEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-338-F
ODOMETER 7932. KM( 4929. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.01
1
:OLD TRANSIENT
800.1 (31.5)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
40438.
75.8 ( 2676.)
81. 1/ 2/ 81 .
11. I/ 2/ 11.
26. O/ 3/ 603.
.4/ 3/ 9.
57. 5/ 3/ 1.01
2.9/ 3/ .04
20. 9/ 2/ 21.
.3/ 2/ 0.
12.41
71.
572.
.97
20.6
3.10
50.48
1349.6
3.03
.53
8.67
231.9
.52
10.55
505.
5.82
.972
.938
1.000
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108.0)
69408.
130.3 ( 4602.)
22. 3/ 2/ 22.
10. 6/ 2/ 11.
40.7/13/ 38.
7.2/13/ 6.
40. 2/ 3/ .68
3.4/ 3/ .05
B.3/ 2/ 8.
.2/ 2/ 0.
19.50
12.
31.
.63
8.1
.92
4.65
1508.0
2.05
.14
.72
233.9
.32
10.05
867.
6.45
.975
( .920)
( .974)
206.1
0.00
12.27
10.29
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
774.7 (30.5)
41.7 (107.0)
40417.
76.0 ( 2682.)
38. 7/ 2/ 39.
9.9/ 2/ 10.
64. 4/1 I/ 261.
1.7/11/ 5.
50. 9/ 3/ .88
3.3/ 3/ .05
13. 2/ 2/ 13.
.4/ 2/ 0.
14.67
29.
247.
.84
12.8
1.29
21.85
1164.6
1.89
.22
3.69
196.6
.32
8.67
505.
5.92
.973
.943 (
1.000 (
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
ARSONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
769.6 (30.3)
42.2 (108.0)
69267.
130.1 ( 4595.)
20. 8/ 2/ 21.
10. O/ 2/ 10.
32. 9/1 3/ 30.
4.8/13/ 4.
39. 3/ 3/ .66
3.3/ 3/ .05
9.6/ 2/ 10.
.4/ 2/ 0.
20.01
II.
25.
.62
9.2
.85
3.84
1469.3
2.32
.13
.60
227.9
.36
9.78
866.
6.45
.975
.925)
.974)
206.1
0.00
12.37
9.25
3-BAG (4-BAG)
223.3 ( 221 .5)
9.78 ( 9.70)
.24 ( .24)
3.15 ( 3.12)
.36 ( .37)
TEST NO. 812FET RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 744.98 MM HG(29.33 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 55. PCT
0 BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
T VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.81
DATE 7/ 8/81
BAG CART NO. 1
OYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG 0(75.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.4 GM/KG
HFET
779.8 (30.7)
764.5 (30.1)
41.1 (106.0)
61240.
115.3 < 4073.)
36.7/ 2/ 37.
9.7/ 2/ 10.
50.1/12/ 106.
1.4/12/ 3.
65.6/ 3/ 1.18
3.2/ 3/ .05
27.4/ 2/ 27.
t.O/ 2/ 1.
1 1.27
28.
100.
1 .13
26.5
1.85
13.37
2387.0
5.78
766.
.911 ( .895)
1.000 ( .971)
115.3
0.00
16.66
8I2FET
745.0
10.4
23.9
143.3
6.18
.11
.80
.35
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-338-F
ODOMETER 7971. KM( 4953. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .99
D-3
-------
TEST NO. 813FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 745.74 MM HG(29.36 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 54. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CIDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 8I3FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 745.7
HUMIDITY G/KG 9.9
TEMPERATURE DEG C 23.3
TEST D-3. TEST NO. 813 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05-5830-01t
VEHICLE NO.81
DATE 7/ 9/81
BAG CART NO. t / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM338-F
ODOMETER 7994. KM( 4967. MILES)
DRY BULB TEMP
ABS. HUMIDITY
23.3 DEG C(74.0 DEG F)
9.9 GM/KG
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.97
COLD TRANSIENT
795.0 (31.3)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
40486.
76.0 ( 2682.)
72. O/ 2/ 72.
9.3/ 2/ 9.
93. 0/1 I/ 468.
.5/I1/ 1.
56. 6/ 3/ 1.00
3.2/ 3/ .05
16. 5/ 2/ 17.
.I/ 2/ 0.
12.79
63.
450.
.95
16.4
2.78
39.76
1322.0
2.32
.48
6.84
227.3
.40
10.23
505.
5.82
.973
.940
1.000
2
STABILIZED
789.9 (31.1)
779.8 (30.7)
42.2 (108.0)
69489.
130.4 ( 4604.)
19. 9/ 2/ 20.
9.0/ 2/ 9.
28.6/13/ 26.
1.3/13/ 1.
39. I/ 3/ .66
3.6/ 3/ .06
8. I/ 2/ 8.
.2/ 2/ 0.
20.13
11.
24.
.61
7.9
.85
3.70
1452.7
1.92
.13
.58
227.0
.30
9.74
868.
6.40
.976
( .923)
( .975)
206.3
0.00
12.22
9.97
CARBON
FUEL C(
HYDROW
CARBON
OXIDES
3
HOT TRANSIENT
789.9 (31.1)
779.8 (30.7)
42.2 (108.0)
40408.
75.8 ( 2677.)
35. 7/ 21 36.
9.5/ 2/ 10.
87.6/12/ 213.
.7/12/ 1.
48. 6/ 3/ .84
3. I/ 3/ .05
12. O/ 2/ 12.
.I/ 2/ 0.
15.50
27.
205.
.80
11.9
1.17
18.09
1104.6
1.68
.20
3.06
186.9
.28
8.21
505.
5.91
.975
.945 (
1 .000 (
DIOXIDE G/KM
WSUMPTION L/100KM
tRBONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108.0)
69447.
130.4 ( 4604.)
20. 3/ 2/ 20.
B.6/ 2/ 9.
49.7/13/ 47.
1.4/13/ 1.
38. 3/ 3/ .65
3.4/ 3/ .05
8.0/ 2/ 8.
.I/ 2/ 0.
20.53
12.
44.
.60
7.9
.91
6.72
1424.3
1.92
.14
1.05
221.6
.30
9.55
868.
6.43
.976
.929)
.976)
206.2
0.00
12.34
8.91
3-BAG (4-BAG)
216.1 ( 214.5)
9.42 ( 9.37)
.22 ( .22)
2.54 ( 2.68)
.32 ( .32)
TEST NO. 813FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 746.00 MM HG(29.37 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 50. PCT
0 BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER, MM HG
HUMIDITY, G/KG
TEMPERATURE, DEG C
CARBON DIOXIDE, G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION, L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
HFET VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.81
DATE 7/ 9/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 OEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.9 GM/KG
HFET
792.5 (31.2)
777.2 (30.6)
42.2 (108.0)
61186.
114.9 ( 4056.)
31.6/ 2/ 32.
8.9/ 2/ 9.
56.7/12/ 123.
.7/12/ 1.
65.I/ 3/ 1.16
3.0/ 3/ .05
21.5/ 2/ 22.
.3/ 2/ 0.
11.36
23.
117.
1.12
21.2
1.56
15.64
2361.7
4.68
765.
.912 ( .897)
1.000 ( .973)
114.9
0.00
16.63
813FET
746.0
10.9
26.1
142.1
6.14
.09
.94
.28
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-338-F
ODOMETER 8018. KM( 4982. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.00
D-4
-------
TEST NO. 821FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 743.71 MM HG<29.28 IN HO)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 62. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CfDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE D-5. TEST NO. 822 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 822FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 742.70 MM HG(29.24 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 78. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C
-------
TABLE D-6. TEST NO. 823 EMISSIONS RESULTS
TEST NO. 823FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 741.93 MM H6(29.2t IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 58. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM>
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER S23FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 741.9
HUMIDITY G/KG 10.2
TEMPERATURE DEG C 22.B
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.82
DATE 7/15/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG C(73.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.2 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-479-F
ODOMETER 8167. KM( 5075. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.98
1
:OLD TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108.0)
40431 .
75.5 ( 2668.)
78. 8/ 2/ 79.
10. 4/ 2/ 10.
97.9/tl/ 515.
2.5/11/ 7.
56. I/ 3/ .99
2.9/ 3/ .04
17. 7/ 2/ 18.
.7/ 2/ 1.
12.84
69.
489.
.94
17.1
3.01
42.98
1307.1
2.43
.52
7.40
225.1
.42
10.17
505.
5.81
.972
.940 (
1 .000 (
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108.0)
69480.
129.8 ( 4584.)
13. 7/ 2/ 14.
8.9/ 2/ 9.
16.0/13/ 15.
6.8/13/ 6.
38. 6/ 3/ .65
3.4/ 3/ .05
10. I/ 2/ 10.
.7/ 2/ 1.
20.47
5.
8.
.60
9.4
.39
1.26
1431.4
2.31
.06
.20
224.4
.36
9.60
868.
6.38
.975
.923)
.974)
205.4
0.00
12.19
9.87
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
777.2 (30.6)
42.2 (108.0)
40439.
75.5 ( 2668.)
35. 7/ 2/ 36.
8. I/ 2/ 8.
62.0/12/ 137.
2.6/12/ 5.
49. 2/ 3/ .85
3.4/ 3/ .05
18. 3/ 2/ 18.
.5/ 2/ 1.
15.43
28.
128.
.80
17.8
1.23
11.23
1110.7
2.54
.21
1.91
189.3
.43
8.24
505.
5.87
.974
.946 (
1 .000 (
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON
OXIDES
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
777.2 (30.6)
42.2 (108.0)
69389.
129.6 ( 4577.)
13. 8/ 2/ 14.
7.4/ 2/ 7.
38. 8/1 3/ 36.
4.3/13/ 4.
37. 5/ 3/ .63
3.3/ 3/ .05
10. I/ 2/ 10.
.6/ 2/ 1.
21.06
7.
31.
.58
9.5
.50
4.73
1384.3
2.33
.08
.74
215.8
.36
9.27
867.
6.42
.976
.929)
.975)
205.2
0.00
12.28
8.78
3-BAG (4-BAG)
214.9 ( 212.4)
9.47 ( 9.38)
.21 ( .21)
2.14 ( 2.30)
.39 ( .39)
TEST NO. 823FET RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION M4
BAROMETER 741.68 MM HG(29.20 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 49. PCT
0 BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER OIF P MM.
BLOWER INLET P >
H20UN. H20)
M. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
OEG C
G/KM
L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
T VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.82
DATE 7/15/81
BAG CART NO. 1
OYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.0 GM/KG
HFET
787.4 (31.0)
774.7 (30.5)
42.8 (109.0)
61308.
114.4 I 4039.)
18.5/ 2/ 19.
7.0/ 2/ 7.
90.0/13/ 91.
2.5/13/ 2.
63.9/ 3/ 1.14
2.9/ 3/ .04
24.9/ 2/ 25.
.?/ 2/ 1.
I 1.64
12.
85.
1.10
24.3
.80
11.33
2304.5
5.18
766.
.914 ( .900)
1.000 ( .974)
114.4
0.00
16.31
823FET
741.7
10.0
25.0
141 .3
6.18
.05
.69
.32
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-479-F
ODOMETER 8196. KM( 5093. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .98
D-7
-------
TABLE D-7.. TEST NO. 831 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. 831FTP RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A4
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HG(29.1B IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 58. PCT
BAS RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CIDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 83-FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 741 .2
HUMIDITY G/KG 10.7
TEMPERATURE OEG C 23.3
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.83
DATE 11/16/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
OYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG C(74.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.7 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 9665. KM( 6006. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.00
1
:OLD TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
764.9 (30.9)
43.3 (110.0)
40467.
75.5 ( 2666.
45. 3/ 2/ 45.
9.9/ 2/ 10.
67.7/11/ 281.
.2/11/ 1.
53. I/ 3/ .93
2.9/ 3/ .04
20. 8/ 2/ 21.
.5/ 2/ 1.
12.08
36.
267.
.89
20.3
3.64
23.47
1225.6
2.94
.63
4.06
212.2
.51
20.18
504.
5. 78
.963
.9
205
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
43.3 (110.0)
69550.
) 129.7 ( 4581.)
13. 5/ 2/ 14.
9.0/ 2/ 9.
78. 6/1 2/ 185.
.5/12/ 1.
34. I/ 3/ .57
2.9/ 3/ .04
3.4/ 2/ 3.
.4/ 2/ 0.
19.68
5.
177.
.53
3.0
.86
26.77
1252.3
.75
.14
4.26
199.5
.12
18.98
868.
6.28
.967 .970
37( .920)
.2/ 0.00
12.05
19.55
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
42.8 (109.0)
40363.
75.5 ( 2666.)
21. 7/ 2/ 22.
7.9/ 2/ 8.
80. 1/1 1/ 363.
.5/1I/ 1.
45. 9/ 3/ .79
3. I/ 3/ .05
9.3/ 2/ 9.
.3/ 2/ 0.
14.03
14.
346.
.74
9.0
1.44
30.44
1029.2
1.30
.25
5.31
179.4
.23
17.29
504.
5.74
.965 .968
.943( .
205. 5/
11.89
18.06
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
kRBONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.8 (109.0)
69618.
130.0 ( 4591.)
12. 8/ 2/ 13.
9.8/ 2/ 10.
54.5/12/ 117.
.4/12/ 1.
33. 4/ 3/ .56
2.8/ 3/ .04
3.2/ 2/ 3.
.4/ 2/ 0.
20.34
3.
112.
.52
2.8
.60
17.01
1228.2
.70
.10
2.77
199.7
.11
18.78
870.
6.15
.970
925)
0.00
3-BAG (4-BAG)
196.6 ( 196.7)
18.76 ( 18.70)
.27 ( .26)
4.51 ( 4.07)
.23 ( .23)
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 831FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A4
BAROMETER 741.43 MM HGI29.I9 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 50. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
002 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLE NO.83
DATE 11/16/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.9 GM/KG
HFET
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
61263.
116.2 ( 4103.)
14.4/ 2/ 14.
8.4/ 2/ 8.
59.9/13/ 57.
.9/13/ 1.
62.4/ 3/ 1.11
3.3/ 3/ .05
13.8/ 2/ 14.
.4/ 2/ 0.
10.36
7.
54.
1.07
13.4
1.05
7.2B
2266.0
3.01
765.
.903 ( .889)
1.000 ( .961 )
116.2
0.00
16.28
831FET
741 .4
10.9
26.1
139.2
12.87
.06
.45
.18
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 9690. KM( 6021. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.01
D-8
-------
TABLE D-8. TEST NO. 832 EMISSIONS RESULTS
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 832FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A4
BAROMETER 737.87 MM H0(29.05 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 60. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 832FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 737.9
HUMIDITY G/KG 12.8
TEMPERATURE DEG C 25.6
VEHICLE NO.83
DATE 11/18/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG CI78.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.8 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 9729. KM( 6045. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.07
1
:OLD TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40413.
75.0 ( 2647.)
51. 3/ 2/ 51.
13. 7/ 2/ 14.
75. 0/1 t/ 327.
1.3/1 I/ 4.
55. 7/ 3/ .98
2.9/ 3/ .04
20. 6/ 2/ 21.
.6/ 2/ 1.
11.42
39.
308.
.94
20.1
3.87
26.87
1286.8
3.08
.67
4.65
222.8
.53
21.25
504.
5.77
.961 .966
.935< .
204. 3/
12.03
20.31
2
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.2 (108.0)
69534.
129.3 ( 4565.)
15. 6/ 2/ 16.
12. 7/ 2/ 13.
60.0/12/ 132.
1.6/12/ 3.
35. O/ 3/ .59
2.7/ 3/ .04
3.8/ 2/ 4.
.6/ 2/ 1.
19.30
4.
124.
.55
3.2
.61
18.65
1293.8
.86
.10
2.98
206.7
.14
19.45
868.
6.26
.969
917)
0.00
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
40391.
75.0 ( 2648.)
22. 3/ 2/ 22.
11. 1/ 2/ 11.
63. 2/1 I/ 254.
.9/1 I/ 3.
47. 3/ 3/ .82
2.9/ 3/ .04
11. 3/ 2/ 11.
.7/ 2/ 1.
13.76
12.
241.
.77
10.7
1.20
21.01
1063.0
1.64
.21
3.62
183.4
.28
17.41
504.
5.80
.964 .967
.94K .
204. I/
12.05
16.22
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
WBONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.2 (108.0)
69456.
129.1 ( 4560.)
14. 3/ 2/ 14.
10. 8/ 2/ 11.
62.5/12/ 138.
1.2/12/ 2.
34. 2/ 3/ .57
2.7/ 3/ .04
3.9/ 2/ 4.
.8/ 2/ 1.
19.76
4.
131 .
.53
3.1
.70
19.71
1257.7
.83
.11
3.15
201.2
.13
18.97
868.
6.25
.969
923)
0.00
3-BAG (4-BAG)
203.6 ( 202.0)
19.26 ( 19.12)
.25 ( .25)
3.50 ( 3.55)
.26 ( .26)
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 832FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A4
BAROMETER 737.62 MM HG(29.04 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 54. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
OFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
OEG C
G/KM
L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLE NO.83
DATE 11/18/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.8 GM/KG
HFET
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
61247.
115.6 ( 4081.)
17.4/ 2/ 17.
12.9/ 2/ 13.
38.7/13/ 36.
2.4/I3/ 2.
66.6/ 3/ 1.20
3.1/ 3/ .05
17.I/ 2/ 17.
-7/ 2/ 1.
9.65
6.
32.
1 .15
16.5
.90
4.32
2439.3
3.77
765.
.896 ( .881 )
1.000 ( .959)
115.6
0.00
16.46
832FET
737.6
11.8
26.1
148.2
13.67
.05
.26
.23
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 9754. KM( 6061. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.04
D-9
-------
TABLE LV-9. JEST m
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 833FTP RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CtD) L-4
TRANSMISSION A4
BAROMETER 739.90 MM HGI29.13 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 50. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES
-------
TBBLE D-10. TEST NQ 841 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 841 FTP RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 750.32 MM HGC29.54 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 30. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 841 FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 750.3
HUMIDITY G/KG 5.9
TEMPERATURE DEG C 25.0
VEHICLE NO.
DATE 11/ 9/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO.
DYNO NO. 3
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KGt 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2305. KM( 1432. MILES)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C<77.0 DEG
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.9 GM/KG
1 2
COLD TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
43.3 (110.0)
40469.
76.6 ( 2704.)
74. 3/ 2/ 74.
8.7/ 2/ 9.
72.3/12/ 166.
1.8/12/ 3.
49. 6/ 3/ .86
3.0/ 3/ .05
26. 9/ 2/ 27.
.7/ 2/ 1.
13.12
66.
157.
.82
26.3
6.76
13.99
1145.4
3.32
1.16
2.41
197.3
.57
18.63
504.
5.81
.973 .978
.944( .9
208. 7/ 0
12.05
17.85
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.1 (106.0)
69577.
132.1 ( 4665.)
7.9/ 2/ 8.
6.9/ 2/ 7.
6.3/13/ 6.
2.4/13/ 2.
31 .2/ 3/ .52
2.5/ 3/ .04
10.5/ 2/ 11.
.6/ 2/ 1.
22.34
1.
3.
.48
9.9
.23
.54
1162.5
2.17
.04
.09
186.2
.35
17.13 i
868.
6.25
.980
35)
.00
CARBON
FUEL C(
F)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .86
3 4
HOT TRANSIENT
782.3 (30.8)
782.3 (30.8)
42.2 (108.0)
40460.
76.7 ( 2709.)
7.9/ 2/ 8.
6.2/ 2/ 6.
14.5/13/ 13.
1.0/13/ 1.
44. 6/ 3/ .76
2.3/ 3/ .04
19. 5/ 2/ 20.
.4/ 2/ 0.
15.12
2.
12.
.73
19.1
.22
1.06
1027.2
2.42
.04
.18
178.0
.42
16.39
505.
5.77
.975 .978
.947( .9
208. 8/ 0
11.99
16.84
DIOXIDE GAM
JNSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS
-------
TABLE D-l1. TEST NO. 842.EMISSIONS RESULTS
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -HETHANOU FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 842FTP' RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 751.84 MM HG(29.60 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 34. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DE6. CIDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 842FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 751.8
HUMIDITY G/KG 6.4
TEMPERATURE DEG C 23.9
VEHICLE NO.
DATE 11/10/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO.
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP,
ABS. HUMIDITY
23.9 DEG CI75.0 DEG F)
6.4 GM/KG
1
COLD TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40550.
76.3 ( 2694.)
80. 3/ 2/ 80.
17. 7/ 2/ 18.
72.6/12/ 167.
9.6/12/ 18.
49. O/ 3/ .85
3.0/ 3/ .05
24. 7/ 2/ 25.
.4/ 2/ 0.
13.28
64.
144.
.81
24.3
6.50
12.80
1125.2
3.11
1.11
2.19
192.7
.53
IB. 17
505.
5.84
.972 .976
.944( .
207. 3/
12.09
17.28
2
STABILIZED
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
41.7 (107.0)
69555.
131.0 ( 4627.)
15. 5/ 2/ 16.
14. 3/ 2/ 14.
17.4/13/ 16.
I4.8/13/ 13.
30. 8/ 3/ .51
3.0/ 3/ .05
10. 4/ 2/ 10.
.5/ 2/ 1.
22.57
2.
3.
.47
9.9
.32
.41
1118.0
2.18
.05
.07
178.8
.35
16.45
868.
6.25
.979
934)
0.00
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2345. KM( 1457. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .87
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
40449.
76.3 ( 2693.)
1I.3/ 2/ 11.
9.0/ 2/
25.2/13/
11.9/13/
44.I/ 3/
2.9/ 3/
19.J/ 2/
.8/ 2/
15.28
3.
12.
.71
18.6
.29
1.09
995.5
2.37
.05
.19
172.0
.41
15.85
9.
23.
II.
.75
.04
19.
1.
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69429.
131.0 ( 4626.)
9.4/ 2/ 9.
B.4/ 2/
11.7/13/
8.5/13/
30.8/ 3/
3.0/ 3/
10.I/ 2/
.7/ 2/
22.62
1.
3.
.47
9.4
.24
.47
1117.9
2.07
.04
.07
178.0
.33
16.38
8.
11.
8.
.51
.05
10.
1.
505. 868.
5.79 6.2B
.974 .977 .979
.948( .938)
207.3/ 0.00
12.07
16.13
CARBON DIOXIDE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
HYDROCARBONS (THC)
CARBON MONOXIDE
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
G/KM
L/100KM
G/KM
G/KM
G/KM
3-BAG
179.8
16.64
.27
.54
.40
(4-BAG)
( 179.6)
( 16.62)
( .27)
( .54)
( .40)
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 842FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 752.09 MM HG(29.61 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 24. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/100KM
12.
1.
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLE NO.
DATE 11/10/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP.
ABS. HUMIDITY
HFET
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
61227.
115.3 ( 4073.)
8.0/ 2/ 8.
7.5/ 2/ 8.
23.5/13/ 21.
4.1/13/ 4.
66.9/ 3/ 1.20
2.7/ 3/ .04
11.8/ 2/
.8/ 2/
9.62
1.
17.
1.16
1 1.1
.20
2.31
2458.7
2.07
766.
.896 ( .889)
1.000 ( .968)
115.3
0.00
16.48
B42FET
752.1
5.2
26.7
149.2
13.74
.01
.14
.13
26.7 DEG CI60.0 DEG F)
5.2 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2369. KM( 1472. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .85 i ) ) ) i > >
D-12
-------
TABLE D-12. TEST NO. 843 EMISSIONS RESULTS
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 843FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 745.74 MM HG(29.36 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 48. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. CIOEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET
-------
TEST NO. 851 FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VM RABBIT
ENGINE 1.7 L(105. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 751.59 MM HGC29.59 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 27. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/tOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/1OOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 851 FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 751.6
HUMIDITY G/KG 5.7
TEMPERATURE DEG C 25.6
TABLE D-13. TEST NO. 851 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.85
DATE 11/20/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-338-F
ODOMETER 12793. KM( 7949. MILES)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.
1
COLD TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
40453.
76.7 ( 2709.)
38. 6/ 2/ 39.
10. 6/ 2/ It.
77.9/12/ 183.
2.7/12/ 5.
58. 5/ 3/ 1.03
2.B/ 3/ .04
9.7/ 2/ 10.
.3/ 2/ 0.
12.70
29.
173.
.99
9.4
1.28
15.43
1396.0
1.19
.22
2.66
240.8
.20
10.49
504.
5.80
.982 .984
.941 ( .
208. 9/
12.06
10.08
.6 DEG C(78.0 DEG
7 GM/KG
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (3t.O)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69561.
132.2 ( 4668.)
10. 4/ 2/ 10.
9.4/ 2/ 9.
5.2/13/ 5.
4.2/13/ 4.
37. 4/ 3/ .63
2.9/ 3/ .04
2.B/ 2/ 3.
,2/ 2/ 0.
21.23
1.
1.
.59
2.6
.11
.16
1421.6
.57
.02
.02
227.1
.09
9.70
868.
6.26
.985
933)
0.00
CARBON
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .86
3
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
40425.
76.7 ( 2710.)
16. 9/ 2/ 17.
8.2/ 2/ 8.
10.4/13/ 9.
2.7/13/ 2.
53. I/ 3/ .93
2.9/ 3/ .04
3.7/ 2/ 4.
.2/ 2/ 0.
14.41
9.
.89
3.5
.41
.62
1244.8
.44
.07
.11
215.3
.08
9.21
505.
5.78
.983 .984
.945( .
208. B/
12.04
9.38
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON
OXIDES
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.
787.4 (31.
41.7 (107
0)
0)
.0)
69476.
132.0 ( 4662.)
8.4/ 2/ 8.
7.5/ 2/ 8.
3.7/13/ 3.
2.3/13/ 2.
37. O/ 3/ .62
3.0/ 3/ .05
3. I/ 2/ 3.
.2/ 2/ 0.
21 .49
1 .
.58
2.9
.10
.20
1398.5
.63
.02
.03
223.6
.10
9.55
868.
6.25
.985
937)
0.00
3-BAG
226.7
9.73
.07
.59
.11
(4-BAG)
( 225.7)
( 9.68)
( .07)
( .59)
( .11)
TEST NO. 851FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.7 L(t05. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 751.59 MM HGI29.59 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 26. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CIDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/1OOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.85
DATE 11/20/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.7 DEG CI80.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.8 GM/KG
HFET
789.9 (31.1)
789.9 (31.1)
42.2 (108.0)
61178.
117.9 ( 4163.)
22.4/ 2/ 22.
6.9/ 2/ 7.
96.2/13/ 98.
2.2/13/ 2.
75.9/ 3/ 1.38
2.8/ 3/ .04
3.9/ 2/ 4.
.4/ 2/ 0.
9.59
16.
92.
1.35
3.5
1.10
12.70
2906.9
.69
765.
.896 ( .888)
1.000 < .979)
117.9
0.00
16.37
851FET
751.6
5.8
26.7
177.5
7.64
.07
.78
.04
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-33B-F
ODOMETER 12817. KM( 7964. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.86
D-14
-------
TEST NO. 852FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.7 LI105. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 739.65 MM H6(29.12 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 57. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20MN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/1OOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/1OOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 852FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 739.6
HUMIDITY G/KG 12.0
TEMPERATURE DEG C 25.6
TABLE D-R TEST NO. 852 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.85
DATE 11/23/81
BAG CART NO. I / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DE6 CI78.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.0 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG< 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-338-F
ODOMETER 12845. KM( 7982. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.04
1
:OLD TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
40465.
75.7 < 2672.)
37. 9/ 2/ 38.
9.7/ 2/ 10.
B6.7/12/ 210.
.5/12/ 1.
61. 4/ 3/ 1 .09
2.9/ 3/ .04
8.6/ 2/ 9.
.5/ 2/ 1.
12.02
29.
201.
1.05
8.1
1.27
17.73
1455.0
1.23
.22
3.07
252.1
.21
11.00
505.
5.77
.972 .974
.9381 .
205. 9/
11.98
10.60
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69556.
130.2 ( 4598.)
9.4/ 2/ 9.
9.4/ 2/ 9.
4.1/13/ 4.
1.1/13/ 1.
39. 3/ 3/ .66
2.8/ 3/ .04
1.7/ 2/ 2.
.5/ 2/ 1.
20.12
0.
3.
.62
1.2
.04
.40
1487.6
.32
.01
.06
239.7
.05
10.24
868.
6.21
.976
921)
0.00
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.1 (106.0)
40447.
75.8 ( 2676.)
17. 9/ 2/ 18.
8.9/ 2/ 9.
16.2/13/ 15.
1.6/13/ 1.
55. O/ 3/ .96
3.0/ 3/ .05
3. 1/ 2/ 3.
.5/ 2/ 1.
13.85
10.
13.
.92
2.6
.42
1.13
1278.9
.40
.07
.20
220.1
.07
9.42
505.
5.81
.973 .975
.942( .
205. 6/
12.09
9.66
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/tOOKM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
*RBONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.2 (108.0)
69418.
129.9 ( 4585.)
9. I/ 2/ 9.
9.2/ 2/ 9.
4.7/13/ 4.
1.3/I3/ 1.
38. 9/ 3/ .66
3. I/ 3/ .05
.9/ 2/ 1.
.6/ 2/ 1.
20.34
0.
3.
.61
.3
.03
.46
1455.5
.09
.00
.07
231 .6
.01
9.89
867.
6.29
.976
925)
0.00
3-BAG (4-BAO)
236.9 ( 234.5)
10.17 ( 10.07)
.07 ( .07)
.72 ( .73)
.09 ( .08)
TEST NO. 852FET RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.7 L(I05. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 739.14 MM HG(29.10 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 49. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P
BLOWER INLET P
H20UN. H20)
H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
OFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER, MM HG
HUMIDITY, G/KG
TEMPERATURE, DEG C
CARBON DIOXIDE, G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION, L/1OOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
T - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.85
DATE 11/23/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 27.8 DEG C(82.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.8 GM/KG
HFET
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
42.8 (109.0)
61199.
116.0 ( 4095.)
24.I/ 2/ 24.
9.1/ 2/ 9.
48.5/12/ 102.
.5/12/ I.
79.6/ 3/ I .46
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-338-F
ODOMETER 12870. KM( 7997. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.04
2.8/ 3/
4.0/ 2/
.5/ 2/
9.09
16.
97.
1.42
3.6
1.07
13.09
3022.1
.82
765.
.890 ( .
1.000 ( .
116.0
0.00
16.40
851FET
739.1
11.8
27.8
184.2
7.93
.07
.80
.05
.04
4.
1.
876)
971 )
D-15
-------
TABLE D-15. TEST NO, 853 EMISSIONS RESULTS
TEST NO. 853FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.7 K105. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 743.46 MM HG<29.27 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 43. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P
BLOWER INLET P
H20IIN. H20)
H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER B53FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 743.5
HUMIDITY G/KG 9.0
TEMPERATURE DEG C 25.6
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.85
DATE 11/24/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
OYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG CC78.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.0 GM/KG
TEST WEISHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW< 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-33B-F
ODOMETER 12887. KM( 8008. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .95
1 2
COLD TRANSIENT STABILIZED
767.4 (31.0) 784
767.4 (31.0) 784
42.8 (109.0) 42
40477.
76.2 ( 2690.) 131
41. 6/ 2/ 42. 10.
10. 8/ 2/ 11. 10.
89.1/12/ 218. 4.
1.8/12/ 3. 3.
59. 4/ 3/ 1.05 38.
2.9/ 3/ .04 2.
7.7/ 2/ B. 2.
.2/ 2/ 0.
12.45
32.
208.
1.01
7.5
1.39
18.43
1409.0
1.04
.24
3.19
244.0
.18
10.66
504.
5.78
.976 .979
.940( .927)
207. 3/ 0.00
12.01
10.23
.9 (30.9)
.9 (30.9)
.2 (108.0)
69577.
.1 ( 4630.)
6/ 2/ It.
4/ 2/ 10.
6/1 3/ 4.
0/1 3/ 3.
O/ 3/ .64
9/ 3/ .04
6/ 2/ 3.
3/ 2/ 0.
20.87
1.
1.
.60
2.3
.05
.23
1436.7
.55
.01
.04
230.4
.09
9.84
868.
6.24
.980
CARBON
}
HOT TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.8 (109.0)
40398.
76.1 ( 2685.)
12. 4/ 2/ 12.
9.9/ 2/ 10.
10.6/I3/ 10.
2.3/13/ 2.
53. 2/ 3/ .93
3.0/ 3/ .05
3.7/ 2/ 4.
.3/ 2/ 0.
14.39
3.
7.
.89
3.4
.14
.65
1234.3
.47
.02
.11
213.8
.08
9.14
504.
5.77
.977 .979
.94M .
207. O/
12.04
9.32
DIOXIDE GAM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
*RBONS (THC) GAM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
784. 9 (30.9)
42.2 (108.0)
69501 .
131.0 ( 4625.)
9.4/ 2/ ~
4*.7/13/
3^4/ 3/
.B/ 2/
• 7/ 2/
21.24
0.
2.
.58
.1
.01
.36
1390.8
.03
.00
.06
222.1
.01
9.48
868.
6.26
.980
932)
0.00
3-BAG
228.6
9.81
.06
.71
.11
y.
4.
105
1 .
1 •
(4-BAS)
( 226.2)
( 9.71)
( .06)
( .72)
( .08)
TEST NO. 853FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.7 LII05. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 743.71 MM HG(29.28 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 44. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20MN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC 8CKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, GAM
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 05-5830-011
VEHICLE NO.85
DATE 11/24/81
BAG CART NO. I
OYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG C(79.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.5 GM/KG
HFET
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
42.8 (109.0)
61205.
116.8 ( 4126.)
21.5/ 2/ 22.
7.8/ 2/ B.
93.5/13/ 95.
1.3/13/ 1.
76.O/ 3/ 1.39
2.6/ 3/ .04
2.7/ 2/ 3.
.7/ 2/ I.
9.58
15.
90.
1.35
2.1
.98
12.20
2891.0
.44
765.
.896 { .883)
1.000 ( .973)
I 16.8
0.00
16.31
853FET
743.7
9.5
26.1
177.3
7.63
.06
.75
.03
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-338-F
ODOMETER 12911. KM( 8023. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .96
D-16
-------
TABLE IM6. TEST NO. 861 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. 86IFTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 754.13 MM HGI29.69 IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 16. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLF METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 861 FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 754.1
HUMIDITY G/KG 3.3
TEMPERATURE DEG C 25.6
VEHICLE NO.86
DATE 12/18/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO.
OYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP.
ABS. HUMIDITY
25.6 DEG C(78.0 DEG F)
3.3 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2849. KM( 1770. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .80
1
COLD TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
40569.
77.3 ( 2729.)
9.5/ 3/ 95.
.7/ 3/ 7.
6I.5/1I/ 245.
1.4/11/ 4.
48. 7/ 3/ .84
2.7/ 3/ .04
63. 3/ 2/ 63.
.4/ 2/ 0.
13.23
89.
233.
.80
62.9
9.11
20.99
1137.5
7.46
1.57
3.62
196.1
1 .29
18.75
506.
5.80
.976 .982
.944( .
210. O/
12.04
17.64
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
40.6 (105.0)
69459.
132.7 ( 4666.)
15. 2/ 2/ 15.
7. I/ 2/ 7.
68.6/13/ 67.
6.1/13/ 6.
30. 4/ 3/ .50
2.4/ 3/ .04
27. 5/ 2/ 28.
.3/ 2/ 0.
22.67
8.
60.
.47
27.2
1.49
9.28
1136.5
5.55
.24
1.49
162.2
.69
16.99
867.
6.24
.965
939)
0.00
3
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
40415.
77.1 ( 2721.)
21. 2/ 2/ 21.
6.8/ 2/ 7.
58.9/I2/ 129.
3.8/I2/ 7.
43. 5/ 3/ .74
2.8/ 3/ .04
61. 8/ 2/ 62.
,4/ 2/ 0.
15.26
15.
US.
.70
61.4
1.52
10.63
992.1
7.28
.26
1.83
171.0
1.25
16.02
505.
5.80
.980 .983
.949( .
209. 6/
12.04
16.24
4
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
767.4 (31.0)
41.1 (106.0)
69443.
132.5 I 4680.)
14. 9/ 2/ 15.
6.5/ 2/ 7.
38.5/12/ 79.
4.3/I2/ 8.
29. 2/ 3/ .48
2.0/ 3/ .03
27. O/ 2/ 27.
.5/ 2/ 1.
23.60
9.
69.
.45
26.5
1 .53
10.71
1097.3
5.40
.25
1.72
175.9
.87
16.45
668.
6.24
.985
944)
0.00
3-BAG (4-BAG)
CARBON
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON
OXIDES
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
182.0 180
17.09 16.
.52
2.02 2.
1.07 1.
.1 )
93)
52)
09)
07)
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. 861FET RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 754.89 MM HGI29.72 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 15. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER.
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
HYDROCARBONS,
CARBON MONOXIDE,
OXIDES OF NITROGEN,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/100KM
G/KM
G/KM
G/KM
VEHICLE NO.86
DATE 12/18/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.0 GM/KG
HFET
787.4 (31.0)
767.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
61 I 72.
118.3 ( 4178.)
22.7/ 2/ 23.
6.5/ 2/ 7.
96.4/I2/ 243.
3.1/13/ 3.
61.9/ 3/ 1.10
I.6/ 3/ .02
96.I/ 2/ 96.
.9/ 2/ 1.
10.26
17.
231.
1 .08
95.3
2.65
31.88
2337.0
17.19
765.
.903 ( .898)
1.000 ( .973)
118.3
0.00
16.27
861FET
754.9
3.0
25.0
143.7
13.51
.16
I .96
I .06
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG< 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2673. KM( 1785. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .80
D-17
-------
TABLE D-17. TEST NO. 862 EMISSIONS RESULTS
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. B62FTP RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 735.08 MM HGI28.94 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 56. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C
-------
TABLE D-18. TEST NO. 863 EMISSIONS RESULTS
TEST NO. 863FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 729.74 MM HG(28.73 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 38. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. C(OEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF,)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM '
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 863FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 729.7
HUMIDITY G/KG 8.3
TEMPERATURE OEG C 26.1
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
VEHICLE NO.86
DATE 12/22/81
BAG CART NO. I / CVS NO.
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP.
ABS. HUMIDITY
26.1 DEG C(79.0 DE6 F)
8.3 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2943. KM( 1829. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .93
1
COLD TRANSIENT
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108.0)
40502.
74.6 ( 2632.)
10. 5/ 3/ 105.
I.2/ 3/ 12.
72. 2/1 I/ 309.
4.2/II/ 12.
53. 3/ 3/ .93
3.3/ 3/ .05
62. 9/ 2/ 63.
I.I/ 2/ 1.
11.92
94.
285.
.88
61.9
9.33
24.75
1207.6
8.18
1.60
4.24
206.9
1.40
19.84
505.
5.84
.969 .974
.938( .
202. 4/
12.10
18.57
2
STABILIZED
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
42.8 (109.0)
69550.
127.9 ( 4516.)
21. 9/ 2/ 22.
12. 5/ 2/ 13.
B8.9/I3/ 89.
1I.2/I3/ 10.
33. I/ 3/ .55
3.7/ 3/ .06
27. I/ 2/ 27.
I.O/ 2/ 1.
20.60
10.
77.
.50
26.1
1.70
11 .49
1164.3
5.93
.27
1.83
185.8
.95
17.39
867.
6.27
.977
927)
0.00
3
HOT TRANSIENT
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108. 0)
40455.
74.5 ( 2629.)
30. O/ 2/ 30.
11. 5/ 2/ 12.
69.5/12/ 158.
3.4/12/ 6.
46. O/ 3/ .79
2.9/ 3/ .04
59. 2/ 2/ 59.
I.O/ 2/ 1.
14.32
19.
146.
.75
58.3
1.91
12.68
1021.4
7.69
.33
2.18
176.0
1.33
16.54
505.
5.80
.972 .975
.945< .
202. 3/
12.06
16.72
4
STABILIZED
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108.0)
69452.
127.8 ( 4513.)
19. 7/ 2/ 20.
10. 8/ 2/ 11.
90.0/I3/ 91.
6.2/13/ 6.
31 .6/ 3/ .52
2.9/ 3/ .04
25. 2/ 2/ 25.
I.O/ 2/ 1.
21.64
9.
83.
.48
24.2
1 .60
12.31
1127.9
5.50
.26
1.97
180.3
.88
16.89
867.
6.26
.977
934)
0.00
3-BAG (4-BAG)
CARBON
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
^RBONS (THC) G/KM
MONOX 1 DE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
187.5 ( 185
17.66 ( 17.
.56 (
2.43 ( 2.
1.14 I 1 .
.9)
51 )
56)
47)
12)
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. 863FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 730.50 MM HGI28.76 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 51. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER OIF P Ml
BLOWER INLET P
H20(IN. H20)
MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. C(DEG.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
OFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER, MM HG
HUMIDITY, G/KG
TEMPERATURE, DEG C
CARBON DIOXIDE, G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION, L/tOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLE NO.86
DATE 12/22/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 26.1 DEG CI79.0 OEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.2 GM/KG
HFET
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
42.2 (108.0)
61270.
114.6 ( 4046.)
25.O/ 2/ 25.
9.2/ 2/ 9.
64.5/tl/ 262.
I.I/I I/ 3.
68.I/ 3/ 1.23
2.4/ 3/ .04
87.3/ 2/ 87.
.9/ 2/ 1 .
9.24
17.
245.
1.19
86.5
2.56
32.67
2502.8
19.23
765.
.892 ( .877)
1.000 ( .959)
114.6
0.00
16.46
863FET
730.5
1 I .2
26.1
152.1
14.29
.16
1.99
1.17
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2969. KM( 1845. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.01
D-19
-------
TABL£ D-19. TEST NO. 871 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. 871 FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 744.22 MM HGI29.30 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 26. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 871 FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 744.2
HUMIDITY G/KG 5.0
TEMPERATURE DEG C 24.4
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
VEHICLE NO.87
DATE 12/ 3/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO.
DYNO NO. 3
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 10167. KM( 6317. MILES)
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.0 GM/KG
1 2
COLO TRANSIENT STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0) 787
787.4 (31.0) 787
42.8 (109.0) 42
40476.
75.9 ( 2681.) 130
40. 3/ 2/ 40. 15.
13. O/ 2/ 13. 11.
82.3/12/ 196. 19.
1.8/12/ 3. 2.
55. 5/ 3/ .97 34.
3. I/ 3/ .05 3.
33. 6/ 2/ 34. 2.
.7/ 2/1.
11.61
28.
186.
.93
33.0
2.87
16.43
1293.8
4.03
.50
2.86
225.3
.70
21.19
505.
5.74
.972 .977
.936( .929)
206. 5/ 0.00
11.98
20.01
.4 (31.0)
.4 (31.0)
.2 (108.0)
69516.
.5 ( 4609.)
3/ 2/ 15.
8/ 2/ 12.
5/13/ 18.
5/13/ 2.
7/ 3/ .58
I/ 3/ .05
9/ 2/ 3.
4/ 2/ 0.
19.84
4.
15.
.54
2.5
.71
2.30
1279.0
.53
.11
.37
205.1
.08
18.92
867.
6.24
.980
CARBON
FUEL C(
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .84
3
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
40455.
75.9 ( 2680.)
16. O/ 2/ 16.
12. 2/ 2/ 12.
50.3/13/ 47.
2.2/13/ 2.
47. 7/ 3/ .82
3.5/ 3/ .05
11.2/ 2/ 11.
.5/ 2/ 1.
13.97
5.
44.
.77
10.7
.47
3.89
1074.2
1.31
.08
.68
186.9
.23
17.29
505.
5.75
.975 .978
.942( .
206. 2/
11.97
18.03
DIOXIDE G/KM
)NSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON
OXIDES
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.8 (109.0)
69472.
130.4 ( 4603.)
14. O/ 2/ 14.
11. 2/ 2/ 11.
21.4/13/ 20.
1.7/13/ 2.
34. I/ 3/ .57
2.8/ 3/ .04
2.7/ 2/
.5/ 2/
20.22
3.
18.
.53
2.2
.58
2.67
1261. B
.47
.09
.43
202.8
.08
18.72
868.
6.22
.980
935)
0.00
3-BAG
204.2
18.94
.19
.97
.25
3.
1 .
(4-BAG)
( 203.6)
( 18.88)
( .18)
( .98)
( .25)
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. 874FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 741.17 MM HGI29.I8 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 50. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/tOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLE NO.87
DATE 12/ 7/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO, 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DEG 0(78.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.5 GM/KG
HFET
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
41.1 (106.0)
61241.
116.1 ( 4101.)
10.9/ 2/ II.
10.7/ 2/ 11.
9.8/13/ 9.
3.6/13/ 3.
61.4/ 3/ 1.09
3.1/ 3/ .05
11.4/ 2/ II.
.7/ 2/ 1 .
10.60
1 .
6.
1.05
10.8
.19
.75
2228.2
2.37
765.
.906 ( .891)
1.000 ( .962)
116.1
0.00
16.39
874FET
741.2
10.5
25.6
136.0
12.51
.01
.05
.14
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 10306. KM( 6404. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.99
D-20
-------
TABLE D-20.
FTP
TEST NO. 872 EMISSIONS RESULTS
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. 872FTP RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 Lt 96. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 754.89 MM HG(29.72 IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 26. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF f MM. H20ON. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. CIOEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 872FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 754.9
HUMIDITY G/KG 4.9
TEMPERATURE DEC C 24.4
VEHICLE NO.87
DATE 12/ 4/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.9 GM/KG
COLD TRANSIENT
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
41.7 (107.0)
40405.
77.0 ( 2719.)
46.3/ 2/ 46.
9.3/ 2/ 9.
75.0/I2/ 174.
1.0/I2/ 2.
53.9/ 3/ .94
2.5/ 3/ .04
24.I/ 2/ 24.
.2/ 2/ 0.
12.01
38.
166.
.91
23.9
3.88
14.87
1280.0
2.96
.68
2.60
223.6
.52
21.02
504.
5.72
.973 .978
.9391 .9
209.7/ C
11.87
19.93
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 10208. KM( 6343. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
2
STABILIZED
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
41.1 (106.0)
69554.
132.7 ( 4686.)
11. 4/ 2/ 11.
8.6/ 2/ 9.
21.9/I3/ 20.
1.7/I3/ 2.
33. 6/ 3/ .56
2.9/ 3/ .04
2.4/ 2/ 2.
.3/ 2/ 0.
20.55
3.
18.
.52
2.1
.57
2.78
1258.8
.45
.09
.45
204.8
.07
18.91
868.
6.15
.981
'31)
i.OO
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
42.8 (109.0)
40388.
76.8 ( 2713.)
11.6/ 2/ 12.
8.0/ 2/ 8.
35.6/13/ 33.
1.1/13/ 1.
43. 7/ 3/ .75
2.9/ 3/ .04
7.9/ 2/ 8.
.3/ 2/ 0.
15.41
4.
31.
.71
7.6
.42
2.77
992.3
.94
.07
.48
172.8
.16
15.97
504.
5.74
.977 .979
.946( .
209. 2/
11.95
17.18
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
U3BONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE 8/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
69461.
132.4 ( 4674.)
10. O/ 2/ 10.
7.5/ 2/ 8.
9.7/13/ 9.
1.2/13/ 1.
33. O/ 3/ .55
2.B/ 3/ .04
2.8/ 2/ 3.
.2/ 2/ 0.
21.00
3.
8.
.51
2.6
.50
1.16
1232.7
.55
.08
.19
198.7
.09
18.30
868.
6.20
.981
938)
0.00
3-BAG (4-BAG)
199.9 < 198.1)
18.54 ( 18.36)
.21 ( .21)
.91 ( .83)
.19 ( .19)
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. 872FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 754.63 MM HG(29.71 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 17. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CIDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO 8CKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLE NO.87
DATE 12/ 4/81
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 27.2 DEG C(81.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.7 GM/KG
HFET
812.8 (32.0)
812.8 (32.0)
42.8 (109.0)
61210.
118.0 ( 4167.)
9.3/ 2/ 9.
7.I/ 2/ 7.
I3.2/13/ 12.
.6/13/ 1.
60.O/ 3/ 1.06
2.9/ 3/ .04
13.2/ 2/ 13.
.4/ 2/ 0.
10.87
3.
1 1.
I .02
12.B
.45
I .51
2209.4
2.36
765.
.908 ( .903)
1.000 I .973)
118.0
0.00
16.25
872FET
754.6
3.7
27.2
136.0
12.52
.03
.09
.14
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-465-F
ODOMETER 10233. KM( 6359. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .81
D-21
-------
TABLE D-21, TEST NO. 873 EMISSIONS RESULTS
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. 873FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 740.66 MM HG(29.I6 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 53. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 873FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 740.7
HUMIDITY G/KG 10.7
TEMPERATURE DE6 C 25.0
VEHICLE NO.87
DATE 12/ 7/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.0 DES F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.7 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 10264. KM( 6378. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.00
1
;OLD TRANSIENT
792.5 (31.2)
792.5 (31.2)
42.2 (108.0)
40464.
75.5 ( 2666.)
46. 3/ 2/ 46.
14. 3/ 2/ 14.
83. 6/1 2/ 207.
3.8/12/ 7.
53. 3/ 3/ .93
3.2/ 3/ .05
26. 0/ 2/ 26.
.7/ 2/ 1.
12.12
33.
191 .
.89
25.4
3.34
16.80
1225.0
3.66
.58
2.91
212.0
.63
19.99
504.
5.78
.964 .969
.9381 .
205. 5/
12.06
19.31
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69560.
130.0 ( 4591.)
14. B/ 2/ 15.
13. 4/ 2/ 13.
26.5/13/ 24.
7.4/13/ 7.
34. B/ 3/ .58
3.3/ 3/ .05
2.5/ 2/ 3.
.7/ 2/ 1.
19.76
2.
17.
.53
1.8
.36
2.60
1271.4
.46
.06
.41
202.5
.07
IB. 68
868.
6.28
.971
922)
0.00
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
40439.
75.6 ( 2669.)
15. O/ 2/ 13.
12. 8/ 2/ 13.
43.1/13/ 40.
6.6/13/ 6.
45. 7/ 3/ .78
3.3/ 2/ .12
7. I/ 2/ 7.
.5/ 2/ 1.
14.65
3.
33.
.68
6.6
.31
2.92
934.2
.96
.05
.50
160.5
.16
14. 84
505.
5.82
.967 .970
.944( .9
205. 4/ 0
12.08
16.59
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROC/
CARBON
OXIDES
ARSONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69477.
129.9 ( 4585.)
12. 6/ 2/ 13.
12. O/ 2/ 12.
13.2/13/ 12.
6.0/13/ 5.
33. 9/ 3/ .57
3. I/ 3/ .05
2.6/ 2/ 3.
•4/ 2/ 0.
20.38
1.
6.
.52
2.2
.21
.98
1237.8
.55
.03
.16
197.8
.09
18.22
867.
6.26
.972
28)
.00
3-BAG (4-BAG)
192.9 ( 191.5)
17.90 ( 17.76)
.16 ( .16)
.95 ( .88)
.21 ( .22)
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL -BASE METAL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. B73FET RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L< 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 740.92 MM HG<29.17 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 49. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20
-------
TABLE D-22. TEST NO. 881 EMISSIONS RESULTS
VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-003
TEST NO. B8IFTP RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 752.09 MM HG<29.61 IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 25. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM, H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
IIC SAMPLE METER/RANOE/PPM
HC RCKCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METEU/RANGE/PPM
CO RCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPH
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD MET6R/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 88IFTP
BAROMETER MM HG 752.1
HUMIDITY G/KG 3.B
TEMPERATURE DEC C 20.6
VEHICLE NO.88
DATE I/ 8/82
BAO CART NO. I / CVS NO.
DYNO NO. 3
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 10896. KM( 6770. MILES)
DRY nULB TEMP. 20
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.
1
COLO TRANSIENT
789.9 (31.1)
787. 4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
40522.
76.9 ( 2715.)
29. O/ 3/ 290.
I.3/ 3/ 13.
53. 8/ 3/1330.
.2/ 3/ 5.
44. 5/ 3V .76
3.0/ 3/ .05
39. 9/ 2/ 40.
.2/ 2/ 0.
12.59
278.
1285.
.72
39.7
28.47
1 14.98
1013.3
4.76
4.94
19.95
175.9
.83
19.67
505.
5.76
.977 .980
.941( .
209. 3/
11.90
19.86
.6 DEC C(69.0 DEO
8 GM/KG
2
STABILIZED
789.9 (31.1 )
787.4 (31.0)
41.1 (106.0)
69590.
132.4 ( 4676.)
24. 7/ 3/ 247.
1.3/ 3/ 13.
46. 6/ 3/1130.
.3/ 3/ 7.
27. 8/ 3/ .46
2.6/ 3/ .04
B.7/ 2/ 9.
.3/ 2/ 0.
19.56
235.
1099.
.42
8.4
41 .39
169.40
1015.8
1.74
6.74
27.58
165.4
.28
20.04
868.
6.14
.983
934)
0.00
F)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .81
3
HOT TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.8 (109.0)
40445.
76.8 ( 2711.)
21. 9/ 3/ 219.
1 .2/ 3/ 12.
46. 6/ 3/1130.
.4/ 3/ 9.
37. 9/ 3/ .64
2.9/ 3/ .04
16. 2/ 2/ 16.
.5/ 2/ 1.
15.03
208.
1091.
.60
15.7
21 .25
97.47
839.7
1 .88
3.67
16.84
145.1
.33
16.23
505.
5.79
.979 .981
.944( .
209. O/
12.01
4
STABILIZED
767.4 (31.0)
787. 4 (31.0)
41.1 (106.0)
694R6.
132.2 ( 4669.)
20. 5/ 3/ 205.
1.2/ 3/ 12.
42. 7/ 3/1025.
.2/ 3/ 5.
28. 9/ 3/ .48
3.3/ 3/ .05
7. I/ 2/ 7.
.6/ 2/ 1.
19.40
194.
998.
.43
6.5
34.10
153.65
1036.6
1 .35
5.49
24.72
166.8
.22
19.60
B68.
6.22
.982
936)
0.00
17.97
CARBON
DIOXIDE 0/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/tOOKH
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON
OX 1 DE S
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
3-BAG (4-BAG)
161.9 162.4)
18.91 18.79)
5.52 5.15)
23.02 22.191
.41 .39)
VCIIICLF EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FIIFL
PROJECT 05-6619-003
TEST NO. 881FET RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORn FSCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( OB. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 752.35 MM HG(29.62 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY Ifl. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DFG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE r'ETER/RANCE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METEH/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKCRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLF METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKCRO METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE MCTER/RANGE/PPM
NOX RCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY.
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEC C
G/KM
L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, C/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLE NO.88
DATE I/ 8/82
BAG CART NO. I
DYNO NO. 3
CVS HO. 2
DRY nULB TEMP. 25.0 OEG CI77.0 DEC F)
APS. HUMIDITY 3.6 GM/KG
HFET
BOO.I (31.5)
792.5 (31.2)
43.3 (110.0)
61293.
118.? ( 4175.)
27.3/ 3/ 273.
I.I/ 3/ II.
2fl.5/ 3/ 664.
.3/ 3/ 7.
57.n/ 3/ 1.02
3.4/ 3/ .05
17.8/ 2/ 18.
.7/ 2/ 1.
10.43
263.
634.
.97
17.2
41 .43
87.27
2104.7
3.14
766.
.904 ( .899)
1.000 ( .974)
t 1R.2
0.00
16.53
8BIFET
752.3
3.6
25.0
127.4
12.79
2.51
5.28
.1"
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LRS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( /.I HP)
GASOLINE FM-464-F
ODOMETFR 10920. KMI 6786. HILFS)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
D-23
-------
TABL£LV£. J
TEST NO. 8B2FTP RUN 1
VEHICLF MODEL Bl FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 9B. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMCTER 752.86 MM 110(29.64 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY II. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METEH/RANCE/PPM
HC HCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLF MF.TER/RANGE/PPM
CO P.CKGRO METEIi/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 RCKORD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE t'ETFR/RANGE/PPM
NOX PCKGRD ME TER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM P.LR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER B82FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 752.0
HUMIDITY G/KG 1.B
TEMPERATURE DEC, C 21.7
PROJECT 05-6619-003
VEHICLF. N0.88
DATE 1/11/82
BAG CART NO. I / CVS NO.
DYNO HO. 3
rflANOL FUEL
DRY BULB TEMP
ARS. HUMIDITY
21.7 DEC C(7I.0 DEG F)
I.B GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETCR 10950. KM( 6804. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .77
1
COLD TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40458.
76.8 ( 2711. i
34. O/ 3/ 340.
1.0/ 3/ 10.
57. 6/ 3/1440.
.7/ 3/ 16.
45. 6/ 3/ .78
3.6/ 3/ .06
41 .O/ 2/ 41.
.7/ 2/ 1.
12.10
331 .
1386.
.73
40.4
33. S3
123.90
1029.3
4. 56
5.85
21.44
178.1
.79
20.22
504.
5.7B
.981 .985
.938( .
209. 2/
12.01
20.30
2
STABILISED
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
40.6 (105.0)
6957B.
132.4 ( 4677.)
33. 5/ 3/ 335.
I.O/ 3/ 10.
57. 4/ 3/1434.
.7/ 3/ 16.
27. 2/ 3/ .45
3.3/ 3/ .05
7.5/ 2/ 8.
.4/ 2/ 0.
IB. 66
326.
1395.
.40
7.1
57.43
215.04
965.7
1.39
9.21
34.48
154.8
.22
20. 3B
868.
6.24
.907
935)
0.00
CARBON
FUEL C<
3
HOT TRANSIENT
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
42.2 ( 1 08 . 0 )
40396.
76.7 ( 2707.)
27. I/ 3/ 271.
I.O/ 3/ 10.
52. 8/ 3/1301.
.4/ 3/ 9.
37. 6/ 3/ .63
3.2/ 3/ .05
13. 7/ 2/ 14.
.4/ 2/ 0.
14.70
262.
1264.
.59
13.3
26.72
112.78
824.8
1.51
4.61
19.44
142.2
.26
16.46
504.
5.80
.984 .9R6
.9431 .
208. 9/
12.05
18.39
DIOXIDE G/KM
3NSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARPON
OXIDES
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STAP.ILI7FD
BOO.I (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
41.1 (106.0)
69564.
132.3 ( 4671.)
20. 3/ 3/ 203.
.9/ 3/ 9.
48. 6/ 3/1 184.
.4/ 3/ 9.
28. 8/ 3/ .47
3.0/ 3/ .05
7. 1/ 2/ 7.
.5/ 2/ 1.
18.95
194.
1155.
.43
6.6
34.26
177.82
1043.4
1 .30
5.49
28.48
167.1
.21
20.17
869.
6.24
.987
939)
0.00
3-PAG (4-BAG)
156.2 ( 159.0)
19.27 < 19.21)
7.25 ( 6.15)
27.65 < 25.118)
.35 ( .35)
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-003
TEST NO. R82FET RUN 1
VEHICLF. MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 752.09 MM HG(29.6I IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 12. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20IIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TCMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METEU/rANGE/PPM
HC DCKGRD IIETER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METEH/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 nCKCRD MFTER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLF METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM>
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARPON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
OEG C
G/KM
L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS, G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
VEHICLF NO.88
DATE 1/11/82
BAG CAPT NO. I
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG CI72.0 DEG F)
AF1S. HUMIDITY 2.1 GM/KG
HFET
810.3 (31.9)
B07.7 (31.8)
43.3 (110.0)
61213.
117.4 ( 4147.)
26.6/ 3/ 266.
1.O/ 3/ 10.
?9.7/ 3/ 694.
.7/ 3/ 16.
56.I/ 3/ .99
2.9/ 3/ .04
16.6/ 2/ 17.
.4/ 2/ 0.
10.73
257.
656.
.°5
16.2
40.19
89.71
2033.1
2.84
765.
.907 ( .903)
1.000 ( .976)
117.4
0.00
16.44
8P2FCT
752.1
2.1
22.2
123.7
12.47
2.45
5.46
.17
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( (.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 10975. KM( 6820. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .78
D-24
-------
TABLE D-24. TEST NO. 891 EMISSIONS RESULTS
TEST NO. 891 RUN t
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE I.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 749.74 MM HG(29.36 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 69. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H2CHIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20MN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CfDEG. F}
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 891
BAROMETER MM HG 745.7
HUMIDITY G/KG 11.4
TEMPERATURE DEG C 21 .7
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL
PROJECT 05-6619-001
VEHICLE NO.84
DATE 1/28/82
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
OYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG C<71.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.4 CM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KGI 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 3757. KM( 2334. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.02
1
OLD TRANSIENT
800.1 (31.5)
787.4 (3t.O)
43.3 (110.0)
40468.
76.0 ( 2683.)
75. 8/ 2/ 76.
8.4/ 2/ 8.
60.4/tl/ 238.
.9/tl/ 3.
49. O/ 3/ .85
2.4/ 3/ .04
44. 6/ 2/ 45.
.2/ 2/ 0.
13.19
68.
225.
.81
44.4
6.88
19.88
1132.3
6.59
1.20
3.45
196.5
1.14
18.72
504.
5.76
.961 .965
.9451 .9
206. 9/ 0
11.95
17.58
2
STABILIZED
795.0 (31.3)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
69580.
130.9 ( 4622.)
9.5/ 2/ 10.
8.3/ 2/ 8.
56.3/13/ 54.
2.2/I3/ 2.
29. 8/ 3/ .49
2.3/ 3/ .04
17. 7/ 2/ 18.
.3/ 2/ 0.
23.24
2.
50.
.46
17.4
.27
7.62
1098.8
4.45
.04
1.23
177.6
.72
16.51
868.
6.19
.968
24)
.00
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
792.5 (31.2)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
40406.
75.9 ( 2682.)
12. O/ 2/ 12.
7.5/ 2/ 8.
89.2/13/ 90.
2.5/I3/ 2.
43. 5/ 3/ .74
2.2/ 3/ .03
42. 2/ 2/ 42.
.3/ 2/ 0.
15.38
5.
84.
.71
41.9
.50
7.39
989.8
6.22
.09
1.27
170.4
1.07
15.87
504.
5.81
.963 .966
.9491 .
206. 6/
12.06
16.10
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/tOOKM
HYDROC
CARBON
OXIDES
*RBONS (THC) G/KM
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
69483.
130.6 ( 4612.)
8.5/ 2/ 9.
7.4/ 2/ 7.
55.6/13/ 53.
1.4/I3/ 1.
29. 5/ 3/ .49
1.9/ 3/ .03
17. O/ 2/ 17.
.5/ 2/ 1.
23.50
1.
50.
.46
16.5
.25
7.57
1097.7
4.22
.04
1.21
175.5
.67
16.31
868.
6.25
.968
928)
0.00
3-BAG (4-BAG)
179.6 178.9)
16.79 16.73)
.29 .29)
1.70 1.70)
.90 .89)
TEST NO. 891 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 746.25 MM HGC29.38 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 52. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20
-------
TEST NO. 892 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L< 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 739.90 MM HG<29.13 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 63. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CIDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 892
BAROMETER MM HG 739.9
HUMIDITY G/KG 12.4
TEMPERATURE OEG C 24.4
TABLE D-25. TEST NO. 892 EMISSIONS RESULTS
TP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL
ROJECT 05-6619-003
VEHICLE NO.84
DATE 1/29/82
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.4 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KH( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 3799. KM( 2360. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR 1.06
;OLD TRANSIENT
767.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40479.
75.4 ( 2662.)
90. 4/ 2/ 90.
11. 1/ 2/ 11.
95. 9/1 2/ 241 .
3.3/I2/ 6.
51 .O/ 3/ .89
2.7/ 3/ .04
48. 7/ 2/ 49.
.4/ 2/ 0.
12.61
80.
225.
.85
48.3
8.05
19.70
1170.9
7.39
1 .38
3.37
200.3
1.26
19.08
504.
5.84
.962 .967
.943( .
205. O/
12.10
17.96
2
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.8 (109.0)
69556.
129.6 ( 4578.)
13. 2/ 2/ 13.
13. O/ 2/ 13.
57.9/13/ 55.
4.4/13/ 4.
30. 9/ 3/ .51
2.2/ 3/ .03
16. 2/ 2/ 18.
.4/ 2/ 0.
22.34
1.
50.
.46
17.8
.14
7.49
1138.5
4.68
.02
1.20
182.1
.75
16.92
868.
6.25
.969
923)
0.00
CARBON
FUEL C(
3
HOT TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
43.3 (110.0)
40456.
75.4 ( 2661.)
12. 9/ 2/ 13.
10. 1/ 2/ 10.
93.1/13/ 94.
.t/13/ 0.
43. 9/ 3/ .75
2.7/ 3/ .04
45. 5/ 2/ 46.
,3/ 2/ 0.
15.21
3.
90.
.71
45.2
.35
7.89
982.6
6.91
.06
1.37
170.6
1.20
15.89
505.
5.76
.965 .968
.948( .
205. O/
11 .94
16.22
DIOXIDE G/KM
)NSUMPTION L/IOOKM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON
OXIDES
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
4
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.
784.9 (30.
42.8 (109
69512.
9)
9)
.0)
129.6 ( 4576.)
10. I/ 2/
9.5/ 2/
62. 9/1 3/
.1/13/
30. O/ 3/
2.3/ 3/
17. 6/ 2/
.2/ 2/
23.04
1.
58.
.46
17.4
.17
8.80
1096.4
4.57
.03
1.42
177.5
.74
16.53
868.
6.18
.970
929)
0.00
3-BAG
182.7
17.09
.31
1.70
.98
10.
10.
61.
0.
.50
.04
18.
0.
(4-BAG)
181,4)
16.97)
.32)
1.76)
.98)
TEST NO. 892 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 739.39 MM HGI29.lt IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 44. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER DIF P MM.
BLOWER INLET P
H20(IN. H20)
H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(OEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 8CKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
RUN TIME SECONDS
DFC, WET (DRY)
SCF, WET (DRY)
VOL (SCM)
SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
TEST NUMBER,
BAROMETER,
HUMIDITY,
TEMPERATURE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
FUEL CONSUMPTION,
MM HG
G/KG
DEG C
G/KM
L/1OOKM
HYDROCARBONS, GAM
CARBON MONOXIDE, G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN, G/KM
T - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL
PROJECT 05-6619-003
VEHICLE NO.84
DATE 1/29/82
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 OEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.5 GM/KG
HFET
800.1 (31.5)
800.1 (31.5)
42.8 (109.0)
61267.
115.7 ( 4085.)
29.4/ 2/ 29.
27.9/ 2/ 28.
56.2/12/ 122.
.1/12/ 0.
67.5/ 3/ 1.21
2.4/ 3/ .04
80.6/ 2/ 81.
.4/ 2/ 0.
9.43
4.
115.
1.18
80.2
.69
15.52
2500.4
16.52
765.
.894 ( .881)
1.000 ( .961)
115.7
0.00
16.49
892
739.4
6.5
23.9
151.6
14.08
.04
.94
1.00
TEST HEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW< 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 3823. KM( 2375. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
.93
D-26
-------
TABLE D-26. TEST NO. 901 EMISSIONS RESULTS
TP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-003
TEST NO. 901 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 746.51 MM HG(29.39 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 24. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRO METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
002 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL
-------
TABLE D-27. TEST NO. 902 EMISSIONS RESULTS
FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-003
TEST NO. 902 RUN I
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 740.92 MM HG<29.17 IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 40. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BA6 NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20ON. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPH
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
KM (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/IOOKM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 902
BAROMETER MM HG 740.9
HUMIDITY G/KG 7.4
TEMPERATURE DEG C 23.3
VEHICLE NO.88
DATE 2/ 2/82
BAG CART NO. I / CVS NO.
DYNO NO. 3
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW< 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 11376. KM( 7069. MILES)
DRY BULB TEMP.
ABS. HUMIDITY
1
COLD
787
787
42
75
67.
It.
67.
52l
2.
28.
TRANSIENT
.4 (31.
.4 (31.
.8 (109
40322.
0)
0)
.0)
.3 ( 2658.)
2/ 2/
3/ 2/
8/1I/ 2
6/11/
3/ 3/
7/ 3/
7/ 2/
3/ 11
12.25
57.
268.
.87
28.4
5.70
23.51
1204.1
3.69
1.00
4.13
211.7
.65
20.19
504.
5.69
.969
67.
11.
81.
2.
.91
.04
29.
0.
.9
.939(
204. 9/
11.
19.
23.3 DEG C(74.
7.4 GM/KG
2
0 DEG
STABILIZED
787
787
42
.4 (31.
.4 (31.
.8 (109
69444.
0)
0)
.0)
129.6 ( 4578.)
12.
11.
9.
1.
33.
2.
3.
73
.927)
0.00
83
42
7/ 2/
I/ 2/
6/1 3/
9/1 3/
6/ 3/
4/ 3/
9/ 2/
3/ It
20.59
2.
7.
.53
3.6
.37
1.03
1247.1
.81
.06
.17
203.1
.13
18.70
868.
6.14
.976
13.
11.
9.
2.
.56
.04
4.
0.
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
3 4
HOT TRANSIENT
787
787
42
75
22.
11.
59.
,
44.
2.
10.
.
.4 (31.0)
.4 (31.0)
.8 (109.0)
40364.
.4 ( 2661.)
7/ 2/ 23.
O/ 2/ 11.
0/12/ 129.
7/1 2/ 1.
6/ 3/ .76
6/ 3/ .04
O/ 2/ 10.
2/ 2/ 0.
14.87
12.
123.
.73
9.8
1.25
10.80
1002.9
1.27
.22
1.89
175.7
.22
16.45
504.
5.71
.972 .974
.945 < .
205. O/
11.85
17.45
90
STABILIZED
7B7.4 (31.
787.4 (31.
42.8 (109
69455.
0)
0)
.0)
129.7 ( 4578.)
11. "
to.
9.
1.
33.
2.
3.
.
933)
0.00
7/ 2/
3/ 2/
6/1 3/
5/1 3/
O/ 3/
3/ 3/
9/ 2/
2/ 2/
21.00
2.
7.
.52
3.7
.33
1.08
1225.0
.83
.05
.18
199.6
.14
18.38
868.
6.14
.976
3-BAG
CARBON
F
H
C
UEL C(
YOROC/
ARSON
OXIDES
DIOXIDE
JNSUMPTI
kRBONS (
MONOXID
G/KM
ON L/IOOKM
THC) G/KM
E G/KM
197
18.
,
1 .
OF NITROGEN G/KM
.3
39
30
46
26
12.
to.
9.
1.
.55
.04
4.
0.
(4-BAG)
( 196
( IB.
(
( 1.
(
.3)
30)
30)
46)
26)
HFET - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL FUEL
PROJECT 05-6619-003
TEST NO. 902 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 740.41 MM HGU9.15 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 29. PCT
BAG RESULTS
TEST CYCLE
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLE E-l FORD ESCORT EMISSIONS WITH METHANOL-ISOPENTANE BLEND
TABLE E-2 VW RABBIT EMISSIONS WITHOUT CATALYST
-------
TABLE E-l. FORD ESCORT EMISSIONS WITH METHANOL-ISOPENTANE BLEND
FTP
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -METHANOL +ISOPENTANE
PROJECT 05-5830-011
TEST NO. 5.5PEN RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 FORD ESCORT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 98. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 733.81 MM HG(28.89 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 26. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20( IN. H20)
BLOWER I'NLET P MM. H20(fN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
w NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
I NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
w DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/1OOKM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 5.5PEN
BAROMETER MM HG 733.8
HUMIDITY G/KG 5.2
TEMPERATURE DEG C 24.4
VEHICLE NO.82
DATE 11/30/81
BAG CART NO. 1
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP.
ABS. HUMIDITY
1
COLD TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
43.3 (110.0)
40537.
74.3 ( 2623.)
91.7/ 2/ 92.
16.2/ 2/ 16.
91.6/1 I/ 456.
53
2
26
.2/11/
.9/ 3/
.4/ 3/
.!/ 2/
.3/ 2/
11.68
77.
439.
.91
25.8
7.13
37.93
1236.4
3.10
1.24
6.59
214.8
.54
19.77
505.
5.76
.973
1 .
.94
.04
26.
0.
24.4 DEG C(76.0 DEG F)
5.2 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.3 KW( 7.1 HP)
GASOLINE METHANOL
ODOMETER 9815. KM( 6099. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .85
2
STABILIZED
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.8 (109.0)
69613.
127.7 ( 4508.)
20. 7/ 2/ 21.
12. 8/ 2/ 13.
72.2/12/ 166.
.8/12/ 1.
34. O/ 3/ .57
2.5/ 3/ .04
3.3/ 2/ 3.
.I/ 2/ 0.
19.86
9.
160.
.53
3.2
1.36
23.79
1241.7
.66
.22
3.82
199.3
.11
17.91
868.
6.23
.981
CARBON
3
HOT TRANSIENT
784.9 (30.9)
784.9 (30.9)
42.8 (109.0)
40453.
74.2 ( 2619.)
30. 5/ 2/ 31.
11. 9/ 2/ 12.
95.4/12/ 240.
.7/12/ 1.
45. 3/ 3/ .78
2.7/ 3/ .04
11. 3/ 2/ 11.
.I/ 2/ 0.
14.48
19.
231.
.74
11.2
1.80
19.95
1003.5
1.34
.31
3.47
174.7
.23
15.73
505.
5.74
.977
DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/1 OOKM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON
OXIDES
MONOXIDE G/KM
OF NITROGEN G/KM
STAB
3-BAG
195.8
17.70
.46
4.30
.23
(4-BAG)
0.0)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
-------
TABLE E-2. VW RABBIT EMISSIONS WITHOUT CATALYST
FTP
- VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -HETHANOL W/0 CAT.
PROJECT 05-6619-001
TEST NO. FTP RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 81 VW RABBIT
ENGINE 1.6 L( 97. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 742.44 MM HG(29.23 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 22. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. COEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE MET£R/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 RCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
I C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
w NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM
C02 GRAMS/KM
NOX GRAMS/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
RUN TIME SECONDS
MEASURED DlSTANCE KM
SCF, DRY
DFC, WET (DRY)
TOT VOL (SCM) / SAM BLR (SCM)
K.V (MEASURED)
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 880FTP
BAROMETER MM HG 742.4
HUMIDITY G/KG 4.1
TEMPERATURE DEG C 23.9
VEHICLE NO.
DATE 12/23/81
BAG CART NO. 1 / CVS NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 4.1 GM/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1134. KG( 2500. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.7 KW( 7.7 HP)
GASOLINE EM-464-F
ODOMETER 2995. KM( 1861. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .82
1
COLO TRANSIENT
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
42.8 (109.0)
40450.
75.3 ( 2658.)
16.9/ 3/ 169.
.6/ 3/ 6.
89.2/11/ 435.
1.8/11/ 5.
48.0/ 3/ .83
2.6/ 3/ .04
71 .5/ 2/ 72.
.I/ 2/ 0.
13.04
163.
416.
.79
71 .4
16.39
36.45
1091.4
8.45
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69502.
129.3 ( 4567.)
38.O/ 2/ 38.
6.3/ 2/ 6.
78.5/12/ 184.
1.7/12/ 3.
29.7/ 3/ .49
2.6/ 3/ .04
28.7/ 2/ 29.
.2/ 2/ 0.
22.61
32.
177.
.45
28.5
5.51
26.71
1071.1
5.80
2.83 .89
6.29 4.31
188.4 173.0
1.46 .94
18.58 16.64
504. 867.
5.79 6.19
.976 .981 .983
.944( .937)
204.6/ 0.00
1 1.99
17.58
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
42.2 (108.0)
40443.
75.2 ( 2655.)
55.9/ 2/ 56.
6.5/ 2/ 7.
67.7/11/ 281 .
.9/11/ 3.
41.I/ 3/ .70
2.5/ 3/ .04
65.6/ 2/ 66.
.2/ 2/ 0.
15.84
50.
270.
.66
65.4
4.99
23.66
911 .9
7.73
.86
4.10
158.0
1.34
15.22
STABILIZED
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69497.
129.3 ( 4567.)
37.2/ 2/ 37.
6.7/ 2/ 7.
79.6/12/ 188.
5.1/12/ 10.
27.6/ 3/ .45
1.7/ 3/ .03
28.I/ 2/ 28.
.6/ 2/ 1.
24.37
31 .
175.
.43
27.5
5.30
26.32
1014.1
5.60
.86
4.26
164.0
.91
15.80
505.
5.77
.979
.982
.951 ( .944)
204. 5/ 0.00
11 .96
15.52
867.
6.18
.984
CARBON DIOXIDE G/KM
FUEL CONSUMPTION L/100KM
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/KM
CARBON MONOXIDE G/KM
OXIDES OF NITROGEN G/KM
3-BAG
172.0
16.65
1.29
4.67
1 .16
(4-BAG)
( 169.4)
16.41 )
1 .28)
4.65)
1 .15)
-------
APPENDIX F
MASS SPECTRAL RESULTS
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
L. Smith, Div. 05
Carter Nulton, Div. 01
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: GC/MS Analyses for 05-5830-012
May 3, 1982
Eight tenax traps were received for analysis. The samples
were transferred from the traps to the head of the ambient gc
column by first connecting the traps in-line with the column
helium flow. The samples were then desorbed by placing the
traps in a 180°C oven for four minutes.
Sample #6 (2-16-82) was lost due to a leak in the trap
assembly.
Table 3 and the total ion chromatograms (Figures 1,2,3)
show the similarities between the gasoline, methanol, and back-
ground tenax samples. The tenax samples contain the same com-
pounds regardless of the sample type. This is probably due to
the high level of background contamination.
Six dichloromethane extracts were received for analysis.
The analysis conditions are listed in Table 2. Table 4 and the
total ion chromatogram (Figures 4,5,6) show the similarities
between the gasoline, methanol, and blank filters. Compounds
present include cellosolves, siloxanes, and phthalates and are
likely to be system contaminants. Again, the high background
level prevents the interpretation of the data.
CPN:ack
Encl.
F-2
-------
TABLE 1. SAMPLE LOG
Sample Description
Sample type
1 Tenax Blank (2-15-82)
2 Sample #17 (2-15-82) gasoline engine w/o
catalyst
3 Sample #6 (2-16-82) ABORTED
4 Sample #44 (2-17-82) gasoline engine with
catalyst
5 Sample #40 (2-18-82) gasoline engine with
catalyst
6 Sample #43 (2-19-82) methanol engine
7 Sample #T-842 (2-22-82) methanol engine
8 Method Blank - (Background)
9 S-191 (854) gasoline engine
10 S-192 (853) gasoline engine
11 S-193 (843) methanol engine
12 S-194 (844) methanol engine
13 S-195 filter blank
14 S-196 solvent blank
tenax trap
extract
F-3
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYSIS CONDITIONS
Tenax Traps
Filter Extracts
Column
Carrier
Program
initial temperature
initial hold
program rate
final temperature
injection port
transfer line/separator
analyzer
injection size
mass range
scan time
1% SP1000 on 60/80 mesh
Carbopack 2mm X 6 ft
He 20 mLs/min
Desorb 180° (4 min) -
GC oven ambient
60°C
0 min
8°C/,dn
250°C
180°
250°
100°
(desorb)
22-250 m/e
2 sec/scan
DBS capillary
30m x .248mm I.D. spitless
He 1 mL/min
40°C
2 min
10° /min
250°C
250°
250°
100°
2 yl
35-425 m/e
1 sec/scan
-------
TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF TENAX SAMPLES
Relative amounts based on external ethylbenene standard
Ln
SCAN
50/80
250
294
326
360
377
390
390-460
470
495
530
540
565
575
750
784
792
808
815
856
870
900
913
950
970
990
1055
1137
Sample #40
gasoline (2-18-82)
— _ _ —
34
1
0.1
6
>155
0.3
18
*
1
20
4
0.8
0.6
2
0.5
0.3
50
7
2
1
2
9
7
Sample T-842
Methanol (2-22-82)
_ — — —
19
2
15
10
16
1
27
3
1
14
3
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.5
0:6
0.4
6
6
0.6
0.3
0.3
5
Method Blank
(2-22-82)
_ — _ —
19
_.
4
2
0.5
*
92
*
4
56
24
26
19
7
3
2
1
1.4
2.4
1
0.4
1
0.7
0.4
Tentative Peak Identification
air § water
mixture of propane/propene
dichlorodif luoromethane
ethanol
2-methylpropane
di ch 1 or om ethane
acetone
saturated mixture of butane/
propanol
cyclopentane
pentanol
2-methylbutene
t r ichl orotr if luoro ethane
C5H10
pentane
hexane
dime thy Ipentane
methylcyclohexane
dime thy Ipentane
2 , 3- dime thy Ipentane
3-methylhexane
2-methylhexane
C8H18
toluene
2 , 4-dimethylhexane
3-ethylpentane
dime thy Ihexane
t rime thy Ihexane
siloxane
*Interference
-------
TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF FILTER EXTRACTS
SCAN NUMBER
S-192 (853)
Gasoline
_ _ _ _
764
793
804
857
927
996
1025
1059
1102
1136
1172
1179
1206
1225
1297
1337
1391
1400
_ _ _ _
S-193 (843)
Methanol
_ _ _ _
691
765
794
805
857
932
1027
1058
1074
1103
1136
1173
1227
1299
1338
1394
1402
S-195
Filter Blank
594
696
770
809
884
1080
1139
1147
1210
1215
1290
1338 /mixture
1403
1444
1484
Tentative Peak Identification
ethylhexanol
ethyl hexanoic acid
butoxyethoxy ethanol
[ [methoxyethoxy] ethoxy] ethanol
[ethanediylb is (oxy) bis- ethanol
[ (ethoxyethoxyOethoxy] ethanol
ethylmethyl pentamine
methylpyrrolidinyl pyridine
decanoic acid
dihydropyrrolylpyridine
(butoxyethoxy) ethoxyethanol
[oxybis (ethanediyloxy) ]bis-ethanol
biphenylol
tetraoxadodecane
dodecanoic acid
trimethylhexene
tetramethylbutylphenol
phosphoric acid tributylester
tetradecamethylhexas iloxane
alkane
dimethyldodecane
tetradecanoic acid (methylester)
alkane
hexadecame thy Ihept as iloxane
phthalate
hexadecanoic acid
phthalate
unknown
unknown
-------
TABLE 4. (con't.)
SCAN NUMBER
S-192 (853)
Gasoline
1542
1654
1844
2005
S-193 (843)
Methanol
1545
1657
1769
1848
2006
S-195
Filter Blank
1544
1764
1841
1987
Tentative Peak Identification
unknown
alkane
alkane
bis (ethylhexyl) ester hexanedioic
unknown
phthalate
acid
TJ
-------
HID BIG
02/23/82 9:48:00
SAMPLE: TBtAX BLANK—BACKGROUND
RANGE: G 1.1450 LABEL: N 0.
DATA:
CALI:
223R02 11
223S01 87
SCANS
1 TO 1450
'.00.
oo
T-842 (2-22-82)
4.0 QUAN: A 0, 1.0 BASE: U 20, 3
16760800.
913
1366
280
5:59
400
11:59
680
17:58
T
23:58
29:57
1200
35:57
1400
41:56
SCAN
TIHE
Figure 1. Total Ion Current (TIC) chromatogram of Tenax Method Blank
-------
HID BIG
92/19/92 16:12:00
SAMPLE: TEHAX SAMPLE
RANGE: G 1.1532
4
(2-18-82 CARi85>
N 0. 4.0 QUAN: A
DATA: 218R06 ttl
CALI: 218SQ2 88
0. 1.0 BASE: U 20. 3
SCANS
1 TO 1450
987955*.
RIC_
894
1052
200
6:01
1
400
12:01
1
600
18:0?
800
1000
30:03
1200
36:04
1400 SOW
42; 04 nw.
Figure 2. TIC chromatogram of Tenax sample #40 (gasoline engine)
-------
100.6-1
RIC
02/23/82 8:48:00
SAMPLE: TENAX SAMPLE T-842
RANGE: G 1,1700 LABEL: N
*m
2-22-82
0, 4.0 (WAN:
DATA:
CALI:
223R01 41
223S01 87
SCANS
1 TO 1450
A 6, 1.6 BASE: U 20. 3
9863IM.
Tl
I
H1
O
RIC_
535
580
—I
200
1
409
i
800
33:20
1200
40:00
T
46:40
SCAN
TIME
Figure 3. TIC chromatogram of Tenax sample T-842 (methanol engine)
-------
BIG
02/19/82 12:42:00
SAttPLE: S-195
RANGE: G 1.2500
DATA:
CALI:
219R03 8770
2I9S02 83
SCANS 400 TO 2500
BLANK P20 4 20X20 2-19-82
LABEL: N 0, 4.0 QUAN: A 0. 1.0 BASE: U 20. 3
RIC
378880.
uj
580
1000
16:40
1500
25:00
2000
33:20
2500 SCAN
41:40 TIME
Figure 4. TIC chromatogram of extract S-195 filter blank
-------
BIG
02/18/82 11:18:08
SAMPLE: SAMPLE 843
RANGE: G 1,2500
(S-193
LABEL: N
2-17-82)
2,25.0 QUAN:
DATA:
CALI:
218R02 II
218S01 13
SCANS 450
A 4, 1.0 BASE: U 20, 3
100.0-1
M
NJ
BIC
500
ft:?fl
1000
16:40
TIME
Figure 5. TIC chromatogram of extract S-193 (843) methane engine
-------
BIG
02/18/82 10:20:00
SAMPLE: SAMPLE 853
RANGE: G 1,2500 LABEL: N 2.25.0 QUAN:
DATA:
CALI:
218B01
218S01
ttl
83
SCANS 490 TO 2608
A 4. 1.0 BASE: U 20. 3
.0-1
I
H
u>
BIG
—I
500
8:20
1000
16:40
1590
25:00
-1 1
2000
33:20
Figure 6. TIC chromatogram of extract S-192 (853) gasoline engine
-------
APPENDIX G
AMES TEST RESULTS
As Reported to Craig Harvey EPA-Ann Arbor
by Timothy E. Lawlor, Microbiological Associates,
Rockville, Maryland
Sample I.D.
CABS-82-0010
CABS-82-0020
CABS-82-0030
CABS 82-0040
CABS 82-0050
CABS 82-0060
CABS 82-0070
CABS 82-0080
Car
Escort
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Rabbit
Escort
Escort
Rabbit
Catalyst
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
Noble Metal
P.B. Metal
None
P.B. Metal
Fuel
Indolene
Anafuel
Methanol
Methanol
Indolene
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
-------
9MICROBIOLOf*ICAI Microbiological Associates
«• • W •« W » I V/ U W V3 IWM I. A Unit of Whittaker Corporation
ACCOOIATPC 5221 River Road
A%OOWWlM I CO Bethesda, Maryland 20816
(301) 654-3400
Telex No. 90-8793
August 4, 1982 WHH2S
Craig Harvey
CTAB
Environmental Protection
Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Dear Craig:
Enclosed are statistical compilations for the following
samples:
CABS-82-0010 - CABS-82-0080
CABS-82-0090 - CABS-82-0160
CABS-82-0180
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call
Sincerely ,
*\
Timothy E. Law lor
Rockville Laboratories
TEL:gr
enclosures
G-2
-------
ianple 1.0.
ate Tested Strain
Activation
Lot Number
Model
Predicted
Slope
Low
igh
Linear
egression
redicted
Slope
(Muan)
oxicity
6,
Value
u
u
4J "O
«j 4,
is
iii!
fc§
Dose
Range
ested
(UCS)
Max
Rev/
Dose
Comments
^-A5-Si
1.8
,0
.2.
0.6A.
v/
11
u
00
0/
v/
CABS-**.-
z-^-nl "
00/01
v'
v/
3000
31 fJ
3.0CC
11
34-77
3.000
0,146
.0^
0.3
0,4,
6./6T
v/
s
a.ooo
^(300
.0
00103
2000
ooos/
y
s/
X.OQO
0.3
, 00 1/3
sX
v/
.30— >
ooo
AH
6,178
v/
3.000
ll
\/
30OO
3,1
207,?
63
v/
A3
* 04 10(0
v/
-/
-------
anple I.D.
Date Tested
ctivation
ot Number
Model
Predicted
Slope
Low Mean High
Linear
egression
redicted
Slope
(Muan)
'ox i city
Value
Poisso
Valid
Adequ
Met
u 13
o> v
§o
w
>
c.
o
u
W 11
H »
"• §
m (j
ar
ve
Dose
Range
Tested
(UGS)
Max
Rev/
Oose
Comments
,005-00.
y
oiOO
3- 4-* A
y
y
,00113
V/
y
3333
0,7
,00063
X
5000
ffOOQ
u
3-V-SQ
i/
0,113
y
v/
O.OOO
2000
y
aooo
3.3
,06073
0,03
2000
^2000
h
0,3
6.C,
0,093
v/
y
0,1
O.o3
v/
3.0OO
0.7
y
3.6- >
,2(300
u
V
v/
v/
HIS
v/
5.000
,2000
a .
o.o
0,01
y
y
y
U
, 00036
v/
y
11,1
3-V-
1 1
//r
.0016,0
v/
KH^-<
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 460/3-82-004
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM
METHANOL AND GASOLINE FUELED AUTOMOBILES
5. REPORT DATE
August 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Lawrence R. Smith
Charles M. Urban
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORG \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2884 and
68-03-3073
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report (6/81-3/82)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes the laboratory effort to characterize regulated and
unregulated exhaust emissions from four light-duty, spark-ignited automobiles.
Two of the automobiles, a 1981 Ford Escort and a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit, were
evaluated with gasoline; one of these was also operated on a gasoline-alcohol
blend. The two other vehicles, also a 1981 Escort and a 1981 Rabbit, were
evaluated with methanol fuel. The automobiles were evaluated over the Light-
Duty Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
(HFET). Additional evaluations with the methanol-fueled Escort and Rabbit
were conducted using promoted base metal catalysts, and the Escort was evaluated
in a non-catalyst configuration. Exhaust constituents measured, in addition
to the regulated emissions, include: aldehydes (including formaldehyde),
particulates, individual hydrocarbons, methanol, ethanol, ammonia, cyanide,
amines, nitrosamines, and methyl nitrite. Additional exhaust evaluations
included mass spectral and Ames bioassay analyses.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Held/Group
Air Pollution
Exhaust Emissions
Methanol Exhaust Emissions
Motor Vehicles
Emission Characterization
Emission Test Proceudres
Light-Duty Vehicles
Methanol Fueled Vehicles
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
270
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |