PB88-104344
    Preliminary Evaluation of  a  Method Using an
    FID (Flanie lonization Detector)  for
    Measurement of Methanol  in Auto  Emissions
    (U.S.)  Environmental Protection Agency
    Research Triangle Park,  NC
    Sep 37
U.S. Department of Commerce
      Techrscri Information Service

-------
                                                       pBtia-10434
                                        EPA/600/3-87/035
                                        September 1987
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF A METHOD USING AN FID FOR
      MEASUREML'NT 01' METHANOL IN AUTO EMISSIONS
                         by
         Peter A. Gabele and William D.  Ray
 Emissions Measurement nnd Characterization Division
      Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory
         Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711

           John Duncan and Charles Burton
               Northrop Services Inc.
         Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709
      ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
         OFFICE OK KKStARCH AND DFA'EI.OPMENT
        I'.S. ENVIRONXENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Inslnicr.cm on the if-tne beiore completing
I. REPORT NO.
  EPA/600/3-87/035
2.
                              3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
   PRELIMINARY  EVALUATION OF A METHOD USING AN  FID FOR
   MEASUREMENT  OF METllANOL IN AUTO EMISSIONS  •
                              5. REPORT DATE
                                 September 1987
                              6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
           Peter Cabele,  William Ray, USEPA
   John Duncan, Charles  Burton, Northrop Services
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
  PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOCFIESS
   Atmospheric Sciences  Research Laboratory
   Office of Research  and  Developnent
   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                              1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.	
                                 A101/D/73/022 . 2QS2 (FY-37)
                              II. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
   Atmospheric Sciences  Research Laboratory -   RTP,
   Office of Research  and Development
   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
   Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711
                              13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
                              Final
                              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                EPA/600/09
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
     '• This  report evaluates  a  simplified technique  for  estimating -ethanol  e-ission
  rates in auto  exhaust.  The technique,  referred to as  the  FID Bubbled Method  or FBM,
  is based in priciple  on  the  fact that while hydrocarbons are not  readily  absorbed in
  water,  methanol is.   Kence,  by  using a heated  flaze  ionization  detector  to  measure
  the organic tr.ass in sample's before and after bubbling them in water,  the  quantity of
  methanol  origir.aily present  can  be  estimated  by taking the  difference  between  the
  measurements.   Evaluation of  the method was  done by  comparing methanol measurements
  using the  FBM  with measurements  made using an  established reference method.   Results
  shewed  poor  to  fair  agreement   between  the  two nethods.   The   FID  -Bubbled  Method
  appeared  better  at estimating methanol emission rates  from  evaporative   tests than
  from  exhaust tests  and  also exhibited  better•accuracy for samples containing higher
  levels  of  r.ethar.ol.
                               KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI FicM/Group
                   itv.uR.iT y CLASS , I tut :i
                    UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                        121. NO. OF PA it
         RELEASE  TO  PUBLIC
                 (0. SECURITY CLA5S ,ri,,lTj
                    UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         2:. PHlCE
EPA Form 27JO-I (R««. 4-77)   pucvioui COITIOM u OBSOLETE

-------
                      NOTICE

This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication.  Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.

-------
                                    ABSTRACT

     Tliis  report evaluates  a  simplified  technique  for  estimating  methanol
emission rates in auto exhaust.  The technique, referred to as the FID Bubbled
Method or  FBM,  is based in  priciple  on the fact  that  vhile  hydrocarbons are
not readily  absorbed  in water, rnethanol is.   Hence,  by using  a  heated flame
ionization detector  to measure the organic  mass in samples  before  and after
bubbling  them  in water, the quantity of  tnethanol  originally present  can be
estimated  by taking  the difference  between  the measurements.   Evaluation of
the method was  done  by comparing  nethanol  measurements  using the  FBM with
measurements made using  an established  reference method.   Results showed poor
to fair  agreement between  the  two methods.   The FID Bubbled Method  appeared
better at  estimating nethanol  emission  rates  from evaporative tests  than from
exhaust tests and also exhibited better accuracy for samples containing higher
levels of taethanol.
                                       111

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The  author  would  like  to  thank   Susan  Bass  for  her . assistance  in  the
preparation of this document.
                                       i v

-------
                                    SECTION 1
                                  INTKODUCTION

     In August  1986, the  EPA  published a notice  of proposed  rulemaking  for
standards for enissions from methanol-fueled motor vehicle engines(l).   Since
that time, concents regarding the proposed standard have been solicited from a
number  of automobile  manufacturers.   Of  the  comments  received,  many  have
addressed the  "overly complex"  instrumentation  requirement  set forth  in  the
standard  for  measurement   of   organic  compounds.   In  accordance  with  the
proposed  standard,   gas  and  liqv.id  chromatographs  (GCs  and  LCs)  would  be
required  for cethanol and  formaldehyde analyses  in addition  to the  heated
flame ionization detector (FID) required for regulated hydrocarbon analyses.

     The consensus of recommendations received from commentators proposes that
the separate measurements  of  viethanol and formaldehyde not  be  required,  thus
eliminating  the need  for  GC  and  LC analyses.   Manufacturers contend  that
reasonably accurate measurement of  total organics  can  be  had through the sole
application of a heated FID, in one  form or  another.   Some further suggest or
recoranend the  use of  correction factors  to account  for differences  in  FID
response and photochemical reactivity between the organic components.

     VCith regard to  these  comments,  the concerns  of  instrument  complexity are
valid and sole  use of  th'> heated FID to measure  total  organics vould greatly
simplify  the procedure.  The use  of  a correction  factor to compensate for the
FID's  low response  to  methanol would  be  appropriate  if   the  fraction  of
methanol  to  total  organic emissions  remained constant; however,  the fraction
varies significantly with  fuel  type and vehicle.   For  example,  80  percent of
the FTP  total  organic emissions  were methanol  from a  methanol-car  tested in
1984  versus  60  percent  for one  tested in  1986  (2,3).   Both vehicles  were
Methanol  Escorts,  but the  earlier  tests  were  performed  using a 90 percent
methanol  fuel while ';he later tests used an 85 percent methanol fuel.

     This study was  undertaken  to evaluate a simplified method  for estimating
methar.ol  emissions from  automobiles using  a technique  which  employs a heated
FID.  Based  in principle on the high solubility of mcthanol and low solubility
of hydrocarbons i.i water,  the  technique measures  total  organics of the sample
with the FID, bubbles the sample  through water to remove the methanol portion,
then  reneasures  the  remaining   organic  traction  with  the same  FID.   The
difference  between  the   total  organics  (initial  FID  measurement)  and  the
remaining orga-iics  (final FID measurement)  is  corrected  for FID  response to
methanol and taken as an estimate of the sample's methanol concentration.

     While  it   is  known  that  any  hydrocarbons which  would  be  absorbed  in
solution,  during the  bubbling  process  would be  counted   as  methanol  by  the.
method,  the  inpact  of  this occurrence on  the  technique's  accuracy requires
investigation.   Because a  greater  quantity  of  the  more soluble  automobile
hydrocarbon  emissions  occur immediately following  a  cold start,  the highest
methnnol  measurement errors with the technique  likely occur during  the  FTP
cold  transient  test  phase (Bag  1).   On  the  other hand,  the  Lowest  errors
likely  occur with evaporative  emissions  which  contain relatively  few water
soluble hydrocarbon components.

-------
                                    SECTION 2
                         CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     An experimental  study was  carried  out  to  evaluate a  simplified  method
(FID Bubbled  Method)  for measuring methanol  emissions  from  a methanol-fueled
automobile.   Conclusions based  on a comparison of  results obtained  using the
GC method (reference method) and the FID Bubbled Method (FBM) are as follow:

1.  Comparisons  between the FBM and  CC msthod  for methanol  measurement are
fair to poor  with differences  between methods ranging  from  11  to 112 percent
(see Table 1).
2.   Comparison  between  the   methods   is   better  with  methanol  evaporative
emissions than with methanol exhaust emissions.
3.  Methar.ol  measurement differences, expressed as  a  percent of the GC valua,
are inversely related to the raethanol content of exhaust samples.
4.  Accuracy  of  the FBM is compromised  by the absorption of  hydrocarbons  in
water, particularly during the  CT (cold transient)  Test Phase of the FTP.

     Net all  of  the difference  between  GC  and FBM  methanol measurements could
be attributed to the absorption of hydrocarbons in  the water solution used for
removal of  the methanol.   When FBM methanol  measurements were  corrected  to
account for  the  loss  of the soluble  hydrocarbons,  the  resulting  values were
still significantly higher  than  those  from the CC.   Another  factor thought  to
perhaps have  an  impact  on FBN accuracy  by  altering  the  FID's  response  to
normal  hydrocarbons  was  the   increase  in  humidity  of   the  bubbled  sample
compared  to   the  unbubbled sample.   Preliminary  tests were  carried  out  to
qualify any  effect this factor  might  be  having on analyzer  response  but  no
significant effect vas  observed.  Future tests are  recommended  to thoroughly
examine the humidity  effect on  FID  response to organic emissions samples from
a methanol-fueled automobile.

-------
                                     SECTION 3
                              EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

      The  procedure  adopted  was  designed  to  enable  an  evaluation  of  a
 simplified technique fcr  measuring methanol emissions from  a  methanol-fueled
 automobile.   Basically  it  consisted  of comparing  methanol  nicsureraents  made
 using a  technique  known  as  the  FID Bubbled  Method or FBM  with, measurements
 made using an established reference method.  The reference  method  utilized a
 gas chroir.atograph (CC)  to analyze methanol which had been trapped in a chilled
 water solution (4).

 TEST VEHICLES AND IUELS

      The principal  test  vehicle  used to  generate  methanol  emissions  for the
 study was a Methanol Escort which  was equipped  with a 3-way  catalyst.   It was
 a modified version  of  its gasoline-fueled counterpart designed  to  operate on
 "nearly  neat"  nethanol   fuel.   Engine   modifications featured  an  increased
 compression  ratio,  recalibrated  carburetor,  and a  retimed  ignition  system.
 Many of the parts  in the  Escort's  fuel  tank and fuel delivery  system had been
 replaced  with materials   designed to  withstand  the  corrosive  effects  of
•methanol.

      Experiments  with  the Methanol Escort  were  carried  out  in  a  "piggyback"
 fashion as testing  proceeded  during a higher priority program.  When tests on
 the  Escort   v:ere   concluded,  a  few  exhaust  samples were  obtained  from  a
 conventionally fueled,  1987  Plymouth  Caravellc.   These  were  combined  with
 appropriate quantities  of methanol  to simulate  a methanol  car's  exhaust, then
 used to examine  the effects of methanol  and sample  humidity on  FID response to
 hydrocarbons.  Use  of  the Caravelle for these  purposes was  justified  because
 the  character  of  exhaust  hydrocarbons  from  a  methanol  car  was  found  to
 resemble that from similarly controlled  gasoline-fueled cars  (2).

      Fuels used by  the  Methanol  Escort  during the  study were  M85  (85  percent
 methanol/15 percent unleaded winter grade  gasoline)  and  M100 (pure  methanol).
 The owner's manual for the  Escort  recommended  use  of M85 because the gasoline
 fraction of the  fuel provides good front-end volatility for engine starting in
 cold weather.  Suns with  M100 were conducted to assist  in evaluating  the FBM
 over  a  wider  range of   possible  methanol  emission  rates  and exhaust  gas
 compositions.   Regular   unleaded   vintergrade   gasoline  was   used   in  the
 experiments conducted on the Plymouth Carvclle.

 SAMPLE GENERATION,  COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS

      The Xethanol Escort was driven through  a series  of  FTP  driving cycles on
 an  electric  chassis dynamometer.   For  each test  run,  three  sets  of  exhaust
 data wtre  obtained corresponding  to  the  cola transient  (CT) , hot  stabilized
 (HS) ,  sr.d  warr.   transient  (V.'T)  test   phases.  Evaporative  emissions  were
 collected only during the diurnal tests.

      Exhaust gripes from the car  were  ducted into a  dilution  tunnel  where they
 were thoroughly mixed with  filtered diluent.  The  diluted  exhaust  gas  mixture
 was drawn  through  the  system  by a constant volume  system  (CVS) which  had a
 flowrate of  about  650 scfm.   Methanol.  was  sampled  using the procedures set
 forth  in reference  4   (the reference  method  for  sampling and analysis  of

-------
methanol), and  in accordance with  procedures  specified for sampling regulated
FTP gaseous emissions(5).  In the former case, the dilute exhaust samples were
bubbled  through water  using  impingers which were  later  analyzed for methanol
on the CC;  in the latter case  the  samples  vere collected in bags  which were
analyzed on the heated FID using the FBM (sec Figure 1).

     Evaporative emissions were sampled in  a Sealed  Housing  for Evaporative
Determination  (SHED).   At  the  conclusion of  each diurnal test,  samples were
taken from the SHE1) in a 60L Tedlar bag  for  analyses  of  methanol using the GC
and F3M.

     .The FBM  procedure consisted  of  first  using  a heated  FID  to  analyze  a
portion  of  the CVS  or evaporative  sample which had been  collected  in a-bag.
Next, the remaining sample in the bag was bubbled  through water  in two series
impingers into  a  second  bag  which was re-analyzed  using  the same heated FID.
The difference  in reading between  the two  bags was taken  as  a measure of  '•he
methanol  fraction  absorbed   in  the water.   Because the  heated  FID had been
calibrated using propane, its methanol C response factor was about 0.75 i .02.
Therefore, a  correction  factor  equal  to the  reciprocal of 0.75,  or 1.33,  was
applied  to  the  difference  measurement  to  arrive  at  the  concentration  of
methanol in the sample.

     After adequate  samples  had been  taken  for methanol  analysis,  remaining
sample portions of'  both the   unbubbled  and  bubbled  bags  vere retained  as
samples  lor  separate  CC analyses  to obtain  an.  accounting  of   the  detailed
hydrocarbons  before  and alter  the bubbling  in water.   These  analyses were
performed using the chromatographic procedures of Black et al. (6).

-------
                                    SECTION 4
                             RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

     The FBM and the  reference  method  were used to .simultaneously collect aid
analyse da.a during  FTPs with a Methanol  Escort.   Sumnaries  of that d.-ita are
contained  in  tables  2,3 and 4.   The  terra  "FID Total  Organic" used  in the
tables refers to the KID raeaourcr.ent of the CVS bag sample taken before it was
bubbled in  water.   The  FID  measurement  of  the  bubbled sample  is  termed "HC
(FBM)"  and  the   decrease  in  concentration  due   to  bubbling  is  termed
"CH OH(FBM)".   This  decrease,   adjusted   to  compensate  for   the   FID's  low
response   to   nethanol,   represents   the   FBM   estimate  of   the  methanol
concentration in the sample.  The nethanol measured using the CC in accordance
with the reference method  is termed "CH OH(CC)".

     Table  2  contains  data when  the  Escort  was  being  fuuled  with  M85.
Comparisons  between  the methanol  measurements with  the  FBM  and  the  GC are
rather poor  in  this  table.   For  the  CT,  US, and WT  test  phases  of the FTP,
the  average  differences between  the  CH_OH   (FBM) values  and  t-he  CH.,011  (CC)
values are 46%,  112%,  and  55%.   Sinilar data  obtained  fron  the same nethanol
Escort  operating  on  MIOO  (pure  nethanol)  fuel  are  shown  in Table  3.   The
average differences for  this case are  11%, 7y%, and 24%.

     Evaporative emissions results obtained using M85 and M!00  fuels are  shown
in  Table  i.   Evaporative  tests using M85  fuel,  performed with  the charcoal
canister disconnected,  resulted  in  substantially higher  emission  rates  than
when  the canister  was  connected  during  the  Ml 00  tests.   Comparisons between
the  two irethar.ol  measurement methods  for  evaporative  emission tests (average
difference <25-l) were somewhat inprovod  over those 'or  the  exhaust emission
tests, however, methanol determinations  with  the  FBM  were still consistently
higher.

     FBM  mathanol   determinations  error   on   the  high  side  when   final  FID
readings (HC (FBM)) are  lower  than  expected.   For example, ibsorption of so~.e
saraple hydrocarbons in  the water solution used to absorb methane-1 would result
in  a  lower final FID  reading.   Because partial absorption of 'Hydrocarbons was
suspected,  an  attempt  was  made   to   identify  and quantify  the  absorbed  HC
species.  This was accomplished  through  detailed HC analyses  of  bubbled and
ur.bubbled exhaust sar.ples.   Integrated HC  results  iron  three of these analyses
(shown in Table 5) indicate  that  between  2 and 11 percent of the hydrocarbons
were  being  absorbed  in  sample? taken during the CT  Test Phase  of  the;  FTP.
Results from  tiic  other  two  test  phases  are  less dramatic with  little  or no
rneasureable  absorption  occurring.   This  finding  is   not  unexpected   since
exhaust gas  oiefins  and aroma tics, which  are normally  ir.orc  soluble in water
than  the  paraffinic  components,  comprise a  greater  fraction  of  the  CT  Test
Phase hydrocarbons.

     Manv hydrocarbons which are virtually insoluble in water arc very soluble
in  alcohol-    Because   alcohol  (r.ethanoJ )  is being  collected  i:i  the  water
solution  during  bubbling  witli  t're  FBM,   the possibi L i tv  exists  that  s^™,e
hydrocarbons are  being  absorbed  in this  alcohol.  Evidence  suggesting  this
occurrence  is  the  r.ot iceabl t-  de-crease   in   concentration  after  bubbling  of
cis-2-butene,  1-pentone,  2-nethy1-2-butcne,  and  o-xylene.   All  of  these  HC
compounds  are  listed  as   being  very soluble  or  niscible  in alcohol  but
insoluble in wat.er (7).  Beyond  t:;i:-:  observation, the- extent of HC absorption

-------
 in ccthanol with  the  FBM VMS not examined and thus recains  a study for future-
 consideration.

      Vhen  the  FBM r.ethanol  iseasurucicnts arc  corrected  to  account  for the
 absorption  of  hydrocarbons  in  the  water  solution,  the  results  are   still
 significantly  hip.hcr  than  the  OC  values  (see  Table fj).   This  persistent
 dlscrepency  led   to  a  prclininary  examination  of  another  factor  thought
 possibly  to  be impacting  FID response  to hydrocarbons.   This was  the higher
 water vapor  in bubbled sanples  than  in  unhubbled  samples.  Saaple huaiditv
 before bubbling,  which  is est8sated  below 50 percent-,  increases  to saturation
 levels after  wubbiing.   To  examine  whether or not  this  increase  in humidity
 has any effect on r IP  response to hvurocarb(>:is, a hydrocarbon sample collected
 f r>,-~ the .iMyisouth Caravel le  w.is saturated with water  vapor and analyzed en the
 riD  il7ppn).   Then the  sa-ple w.s  dried   (1'ermai'uri:  Oiler)  and  red^nlyred  to
 weterair.i:  if  sample  tumidity had  h.id any'ef foe;  on  FID response.   None war.
 observe'*.   In  another  test,  water  wa:.  ir.jecti-d into  a bag  containing 84 ppa
 !-.C.   Identical   FID  neasurescnts   before  and  after   the  injection   apain
 der.onst rated that sacple tumidity  levels  had had r.o  slp,nit leant  eltect rn r ID
 rospon-se  to  norr.al   exhaust  hydrocarbons.  Futur;-   tests   nr.: recosaended   to
 ex<;r_ine  thorouphlv tlic  iiur-idity effert  on  Fit)  response  to  i-:p.;\r.ic emissions
i :'.i--.p!t'S fro:? a r-.etha;;oi-:tii' led auter.ohilc.

      Unfortunately,  ti?le  restraints  have  ended  the  quest  to   dele mine : !'.e
 c-t.-ch.lni sns  resp!  nsible   :«'r   FBM  r.ethanol  neasur er.ent  d i:i  tlio FiiM "crior" pert ems' presented  in
 Table ! are a r ranged  in  order c'.  n.ii'.ni ti:dc,  the exh.'.i'st neas-urert-nt errors are
 ir.ver -.c ly  related  to  the  r.cthar.ol  coi tent  o!  *l:e  s.irp.e (see  Table ^).
 L'bv'i-iis ly , THM accuracy  :n the study l.i-ise!'i t. teii stihstant ial! y with increase  in
 r^ethannl conccnrracion  ot  the exhaust nanplo.

-------
                                   REFERENCES

1.   Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 168, August, 1986.

2.   P. A.  Gabele,  J.O.   Baugh,   F.  Black,  R.  Snow.   "Characterization  of
     Emissions  from  Vehicles  Using  Nethanol  and Mothnnol-Gasoline  Blended
     Fuels,"  JAPCA, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1985.

3.   R.  Snow  et al.,  "Chai'acterization of  Emissions  from a  Kethanol Fueled
     Metor Vehicle,"  submitted to JAPCA  for publication,  preprint  available
     through EPA, MD-46, RTP, NC, 27711.

4.   L.R.  Smith,  C.   Urban,   "Characterization   of  Exhaust  Emissions  froc
     Xethanol    end   Gasoline    Fueled    Automobiles,"      Final    Report,
     EPA460/3-82-004, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
     Park, N.C... March, 1982.

5.   "Code  of  Federal  Regulations,"   Title  40,   Part  86,   U.S.  Government
     Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July 1978.

6.   P.M.  Black,  L.E. High,  J.E.  Sigsby, "A  Gas  Chromatopraphic Method  for
     Direct Analysis of Photochemically Non-reactive Hydrocnrbcns ,"  J. Chroir,.
     ?ci.  14: 257 (1976).

7.   Large's Handbook of Cher.-.istry, 13th Edition, McGraw-Hill  Book Co., New
     Yrrk, 1985.

-------
REFERENCE
 METHOD
FID BUBBLE
  METHOD
FI:;AL
BAG
SAMPLE
V
/"
^
S
FID
ANALYSIS
  Figure  i.  Merhanol  sampling  and  analysis  flow schematic
                           s;

-------
TABLE 1.  DIFFERENCES (IN PERCENT) OF METHANOL MEASUREMENTS,
                        FBM VERSUS GC.  .             .    '
TEST
PHASE/FUEL:
Cold Transient
Hot Stabilized
Warm Transient
Diurnal
— — — — — ————————————
M85
+46%
+ 112%
+55%
+25%.
— — — _- — — __ — ____ — __ — — .^ — — 	 .
M100
. +11%
+ 79%
+ 24%
+20%
            TABLE 2.  FTP EXHAUST DATA, M85 FUEL

   FID TOTAL
Run •:••
30242
30243
30244
AVG.
30242
30243
302^4
AVG .
30242
30243
30244
AVG.
ORGANIC
(ppm)
82
82
91
85
16
16
1.3
15
56
5b -
50
54
ilC (FBM)
(ppn)
CT TEST PHASE
39
38
44
40 .
HS TEST PHASE
13
13
) L
12
WT TEST PHASE-
30
29 - .
28
29 	
CH OH (FBM)
fppm)
57.2
58.5
62.5
59.4 .
4.0
4.0
2.7
3.6
34.6
35.9
29.3-
33.3 ;
CH3OH(GC)
(ppm)
38.7'
41.9
41.0
40.5
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.7
23.5
22.5
18.6
21.5 -:.


-------
                      TABLE 3.  FTP EXHAUST DATA, M100 FUEL
Run f?
FID TOTAL
 ORGANIC
  (ppra)
HC (FBM)
  (ppm)
CH OH . (FBM)
   (ppn)
                                             CH CH(GC)
                                            (ppn)
                   CT TEST PHASE
30245
30246
30248
30249
AVG.
30245
30246
30248
30249
AVG.
30245
30246
30248
30249
AVG.
173
130
89
101
123.2
HS
11
10
10
6
9.2
V,T
23
63
45
52
45.7
12
10
8
8
9.5
TEST PHASE
7
5
5
4
5.2
TEST PHASE
7
7
• 6
6
6.5
                          214.1
                          160.0
                          107.7
                          123.7
                          151.4
                            5.3
                            6.6
                            6.6
                            2.7
                            5.3
                           21.3
                           74.6
                           51.9
                           61.2.
                           52.2
                     200.0
                     135.1
                     125.7
                     130.7
                     147.9
                       3.0
                       3.0
                       3.2
                       2.4
                       2.9
                      16.0
                      55.0
                      44.4
                      55.1
                      42.6


          FUEL
    TABLE 4.   DIURXAL EVAPORATIVE DATA


FID TOTAL
 ORGANIC     HC (FBM)   CH,OH(FBM)   CH OH(GC)     CCMMENT
  (ppm)      (ppm)        ""(ppr.)       Ippn)
30240
30234
30237
30250
30251
M85
MS 5 '
M85
Ml 00
Ml 00
252
234
237
14.0
12.8
232
210
213
4.0
3.4
	 _ .
26.6
31.9
31.9
13.3
12.5
21.5
22.3
28.7
11.4
•10.1
w/o canister
w/o canister
w/c canister
v/ canister
w/ canister
                                       .10

-------
         TABLE 5.  FTP Exhaust Data,  M85 Fuel

Run ?
30242
30243
30244
30242
30243
30244
30242
30243
30244
Integrated
THC (GC)
Unbubbled
(ppm)
39.
38.
40.
11.
10.
9.
27.
26.
24.
3
6
1
6
3
9
8
6
.3
Integrated HC's CHOH(FBM).
THC (GC) Absorbed Corrected for
Bubbled In Water HC's Absorbed
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
• CT TEST PHASE
36.8 2.5
34.2 4.4
. 39.4 . . 0.7 ..
US TE?" PHASE
11.3 0.3
11.1
9.5 0.4
WT TEST PHASE
27.2 0.6
27. 1
24.7
53
52
'..61.
3.6
4.0
2.2
34
36
39
CH OH
(GC)
(ppm)
39
42
41
1.
1.
1.
. 23
22
19




8
8
4




TABLE 6.  METHOD COMPARISON VS.  MCTHANOL FRACTION AND
           CONCENTRATION IN EXHAUST SAMPLES
MsJthanol. . .
Fraction
.11
.29
.36
.43
.76
.92
Methanol .
Cone, (pp.ra)
•->
3
21
- 40
43
148
. . .% Diff.
(FBM Error)
. +112%
+79%
+55%
-(46%
+24%
' +11%


-------

-------