United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA 460/3-88-005
August 1988
oEPA
Air
Butadiene Measurement
Technology
-------
EPA 460/3-88-005
Butadiene Measurement Technology
by
Lawrence R. Smith
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-4044
Work Assignment B-1
EPA Project Officer: Craig A. Harvey
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
August 1988
-------
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, Environmental Protection
Agency, 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 Work
Assignment No. B-l of Contract 68-03-4044. The contents of this report are
reproduced 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 460/3-88-005
11
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by
the Department of Emissions Research, Southwest Research Institute. The program,
authorized by Work Assignment B-l under Contract 68-03-4044, was initiated June
11, 1987 and completed in February 1988. It was identified within Southwest
Research Institute as Project 08-1567-001. The EPA Project Officer for the
program was Mr. Craig A. Harvey of the Emission Control Technology Division, Ann
Arbor, Michigan. SwRI Project Leader and principal researcher for the project was
Dr. Lawrence R. Smith. Mr. Charles T. Hare was Project Manager, and was involved
in the initial technical and fiscal negotiations and subsequent major program
decisions.
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
This program involved the development and validation of a gas
chromatography procedure to measure 1,3-butadiene levels in vehicle exhaust.
After development and validation, the procedure was used to measure 1,3-butadiene
emissions from each of two gasoline-fueled light-duty test vehicles over duplicate
cold-start FTP tests. The 1,3-butadiene emissions are reported in rag/mile and as
total grams for each FTP test. In addition to the 1,3-butadiene measurements,
regulated exhaust emission (HC, CO, and NOX in g/mile), other 04 hydrocarbon (n-
butane, isobutane, etc. in mg/mile), and fuel economy (in mi/gallon) measurements
were conducted for each FTP test.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
SUMMARY viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. GENERAL EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENTS, PREPARATIONS
AND PROCEDURES 2
A. Automobiles 2
B. Test Fuel 2
C. Dynamometer and CVS System 4
D. Instrumentation for Regulated Emissions 5
E. Vehicle Test Procedure 5
F. 1,3-Butadiene Analytical Procedure 6
m. PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION 7
IV. RESULTS 16
A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy 16
B. 1,3-Butadiene Test Results 16
C. 4 Emission Results 17
V. QUALITY ASSURANCE 21
REFERENCES 23
APPENDICES
A. 1,3-BUTADIENE PROCEDURE
B. COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF THE REGULATED EMISSION AND FUEL
ECONOMY TEST RESULTS
C. COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF REGULATED EMISSIONS AND
FUEL ECONOMY - VOIDED TEST RESULTS
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Automobiles Evaluated in This Project 3
2 Partial Views of the Chassis Dynamometer, the
Dilution Tunnel, and the Intake to the CVS 5
3 FTP Driving Cycle vs Time Trace 6
4 Gas Chromatogram of C$ Hydrocarbons, ~Z5 ppmC
Each Hydrocarbon 8
5 Chromatogram of ~2.6 ppmC, 1,3-Butadiene Standard 9
6 Chromatogram of FTP - Bag 1 Sample from 1987
Plymouth Reliant 10
7 Chromatogram of 1,3-Butadiene and n-Butane Standard 1Z
8 Chromatogram of Dilute Exhaust Sample 13
9 Decay of 1,3-Butadiene in a Dilute Exhaust Sample Bag
(Cold-Start 505 Sample Bag from FTP Testing of 1986
Chevrolet Celebrity) Spiked with 1,3-Butadiene 15
10 Separation of C± Hydrocarbons 20
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Automobiles Evaluated 2
2 Description of Unleaded Gasoline Test Fuel,
EM-781-F 4
3 Determination of Detector Linearity 11
4 Regulated Emission and Fuel Economy Test Results 16
5 1,3-Butadiene Emission Results 17
6 1,3-Butadiene Emission Results for Each FTP Segment 18
7 C4 Emission Results 19
-------
SUMMARY
An analytical procedure was developed and validated to measure 1,3-butadiene
in dilute vehicle exhaust. This procedure utilizes a gas chromatograph (GC) with a
flame ionization detector to separate 1,3-butadiene from hutane and other 4
hydrocarbons. Dilute exhaust samples are collected in standard CVS bags and
analyzed within one hour of collection. The GC flame ionization detector gives a
linear response for 1,3-butadiene in the region of interest. The procedure has a
detection limit on the order of 0.03 ppmC 1,3-butadiene in dilute exhaust (0.5
mg/mile for the FTP). In addition to 1,3-butadiene, the procedure allows the
quantification of six other C4 hydrocarbons: butane, isobutane, 1-butene,
isobutylene, cis-2-butene, and trans-2-butene. In this program the developed
procedure was utilized to evaluate 1,3-butadiene emissions from two light-duty
vehicles fueled with an alcohol-free commercial grade gasoline. The test vehicles, a
1986 Chevrolet Camaro and a 1987 Ford Taurus, were both fuel injected with
closed-loop operation. The test fuel had a Reid Vapor Pressure of 12.05 psi and an
olefin content of 13.6 percent.
The two test vehicles were each evaluated in duplicate over the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) with 1,3-butadiene, regulated emissions (total hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen), emissions of six other C4 hydrocarbons (butane,
isobutane, 1-butene, isobutylene, cis-2-butene, and trans-2-butene), and fuel
economy determined during each test. The most significant observations made from
the data generated (not necessarily in order) are as follows:
1,3-Butadiene was detected in the exhaust of both test vehicles.
The Camaro (port fuel injection) had a higher 1,3-butadiene emission rate
than the Taurus (throttle body injection), 1.7 mg/roi versus 0.9 mg/mi.
The 1,3-butadiene fraction of the total hydrocarbon emissions was higher for
the Camaro than for the Taurus, 0.61 percent versus 0.36 percent.
The majority (>98%) of the 1,3-butadiene emissions were generated in the
cold-start transient phase (Bag 1) of the FTP. 1,3-Butadiene accounted for
0.70 percent of the Bag 1 Taurus hydrocarbon emissions and 0.95 percent of
the Camaro hydrocarbon emissions.
1,3-Butadiene emissions were significant (0.35 percent of the total
hydrocarbons), however, in the hot-start transient segment (Bag 3) of the
FTP for a voided test on the Taurus. The Taurus had to be restarted several
times during the initial segment of the hot-start test.
In general, the Camaro had higher emission rates than the Taurus for the
unsaturated C4 hydrocarbons (1,3-butadiene, 1-butene, isobutylene, and
trans-2-butene), while the inverse was noted for the saturated C4
hydrocarbons (butane, isobutane).
viii
-------
L INTRODUCTION
The objective of this program was to develop and validate a procedure for the
measurement of 1,3-butadiene levels in vehicle exhaust. After development and
validation, the procedure was used to measure 1,3-butadiene emissions from two
gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles. A measurement technique selective to 1,3-
butadiene is important because previous sample collection and analysis techniques
used for characterizing vehicle exhaust hydrocarbons did not permit the
determination of 1,3-butadiene separately from butane, and because 1,3-butadiene
has been determined to have high carcinogenic potency. This report describes the
gas chromatography procedure that was developed and validated in this program for
1,3-butadiene exhaust measurements, and presents the results from two test
vehicles.
The two gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles tested in the program, a 1986
Chevrolet Camaro and a 1987 Ford Taurus, were rented locally. The Camaro had
port (multipoint) fuel injection with a closed-loop 3-way catalyst and neither
secondary air injection nor pulsed air. The Taurus had throttle body fuel injection
with a closed-loop 3-way plus oxidation catalyst and pulsed air. Prior to testing,
each vehicle was tuned to manufacturer's specifications and minor mechanical
repairs were conducted, if required. The test fuel used in the program was a
commercial grade unleaded gasoline obtained from a local service station. The test
fuel had a Reid Vapor Pressure of 1Z.05 psi and an olefin content of 13.6 percent.
Each of the two test vehicles was operated in duplicate over the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) to generate exhaust samples for analysis. 1,3-Butadiene
measurements, as well as measurements for six additional C^ hydrocarbons (butane,
isobutane, 1-butene, isobutylene, cis-Z-butene, and trans-Z-butene) and the
regulated emissions (total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen),
were made on each exhaust sample. 1,3-Butadiene and the other C± hydrocarbon
results were reported in mg/mi and the regulated emissions results were reported in
g/mi. Fuel economy determinations using the carbon balance method were also
conducted with the results reported in miles per gallon.
-------
H. 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. Sampling and
analysis for 1,3-butadiene as well as butane, isobutane, 1-butene, isobutylene, cis-2-
butene, and trans-2-butene are also discussed.
A. Automobiles
Two fuel-injected gasoline-powered automobiles were evaluated in this
project. The automobiles are described in Table 1 and are shown in Figure 1. The
1986 Chevrolet Caraaro was equipped with port (multipoint) fuel injection, and the
1987 Ford Taurus was California certified and equipped with throttle body injection.
Both vehicles were rented locally. Prior to testing, the vehicles were tuned to
manufacturer's specifications and operated over a cold-start FTP cycle to determine
if the emission control systems on the vehicles were functioning properly. The
Camaro appeared to be in acceptable operating condition (HC, 0.30 g/mi; CO, 4.56
g/mi; NOX, 0.38 g/mi; and fuel economy, 22.22 mi/gal), but the Taurus was not
operating properly (HC, 3.67 g/mi; CO, 115.12 g/mi; NOX, 0.35 g/mi; and fuel
economy, 17.98 mi/gal) and required some repair. Replacement of the fuel injector
on the Taurus drastically reduced the HC and CO emission rates and increased the
fuel economy (HC, 0.25 g/mi; CO, 3.35 g/mi; NOX, 0.45 g/mi, and fuel economy,
23.68 mi/gal). At this point, the Taurus appeared to be operating properly and was
accepted for use in the program.
TABLE 1. AUTOMOBILES EVALUATED
Model Year
Body Type
Engine Family
ID Number
Odometer Mileage
Emission Controls
Fuel Injection
Transmission
Chassis Dynamometer
Inertia Setting, Ibs
Power Setting, Horsepower
Chevrolet Camaro
1986
2-door
G1G2.8V8XGZX
G1FP8753GN119808
33083
EGR/3CL
Port
L-4
3,500
8.4
Ford Taurus
1987
4-door
HFM2.5V5HCH9
1FABP52D5HA157262
28568
EGR/PLS/OXD/3CL
Throttle Body
A3
3,000
7.4
B. Test Fuel
The test fuel was an alcohol-free commercial grade unleaded gasoline (Gulf)
obtained from a local service station. Selected properties of the test fuel are
presented in Table 2. The test fuel had an RVP slightly higher than the requested
8.9 to 11.7 psi range (12.05 psi), however, its use was approved by the Project
Officer. No. 1,3-butadiene was found in the test fuel.
-------
1986 Chevrolet Camaro
1987 Ford Taurus
FIGURE 1. AUTOMOBILES EVALUATED IN THIS PROJECT
-------
TABLE 2.
DESCRIPTION OF UNLEADED GASOLINE
TEST FUEL, EM-781-F
Item
Distillation - D86
IBP
5%
10%
15%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
Recovery, %
Residue, %
F.I.A.
% Aromatics
% Olefins
% Saturates
RVP, psi
Benzene, %
Toluene, %
Isobutane, g/gal
Butane, g/gal
1-Butene, g/gal
Isobutene, g/gal
cis-2-Butene, g/gal
trans-Z-Butene, g/gal
1,3 -Butadiene, g/gal
Test Result
23(74)
32(90)
38(101)
43(110)
49(120)
60(140)
73(164)
88(191)
106(223)
115(239)
148(298)
171(340)
189(373)
207(405)
98.5
0.5
24.4
13.6
62.0
12.05
1.1
4.0
21
140
2.5
1.1
7.2
7.9
<0.3
C. Dynamometer and CVS Systems
A Clayton Model ECE-50 chassis dynamometer with a direct-drive variable-
inertia flywheel system was utilized for the testing. This direct-drive inertia
system simulates equivalent weight of vehicles from 455 kg (1,000 Ib) to 4,025 Rg
(8,875 Ib) in 55 kg (125 Ib) increments. The constant volume sampler (CVS) used for
the evaluations was SwRI CVS No. 2. An 18-inch diameter by 16-foot long stainless
steel dilution tunnel was used in conjunction with the CVS, which was run at a
-------
nominal 315 scfm. A cooling fan of 5,000 cfm capacity was used in front of the
vehicles during all tests. Vehicle hoods were maintained fully open during the
testing and were closed during the soak periods.
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.'*
FIGURE 2. PARTIAL VIEWS OF THE CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER, THE
DILUTION TUNNEL, AND THE INTAKE TO THE CVS
D. Instrumentation for Regulated Emissions
Bagged samples of the dilute exhaust were evaluated for HC, CO, NOX, and
CO2 using SwRI Bag Cart No. 2. 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.
E. Vehicle Test Procedure
The test procedure utilized in this project was the Federal Test Procedure^)
(FTP). The FTP uses the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) which is
1372 seconds in duration. The UDDS, in turn, is divided into two segments; the first
having 505 seconds and the second having 867 seconds. The FTP consists of a cold-
start 505 and a stabilized 867 followed by a ten-minute soak and then a hot-start
505. The FTP schedule is illustrated in Figure 3.
* Numbers in parentheses designate references at the end of the report.
-------
1
100
80
60
40
20
0
200
400
600 800
TIME, sec
1000
1200
1371
FIGURE 3. FTP DRIVING CYCLE VS TIME TRACE
F. 1,3-Butadiene Analytical Procedure
The analytical procedure used to measure 1,3-butadiene and several other 4
hydrocarbons is summarized in this section. A detailed description of the procedure
has been included as Attachment A of this report.
The procedure was developed to measure 1,3-butadiene in dilute vehicle
exhaust. In addition to 1,3-butadiene, the procedure provides separation and exhaust
concentrations for six other C4 hydrocarbons including: isobutane, butane, 1-
butene, isobutylene, cis-2-butene, and trans-2-butene. Standard CVS bag samples
are analyzed for 1,3-butadiene using a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame
ionization detector (FID). The gas chromatograph system utilizes a Perkin-Elmer
Model 3920B gas chromatograph with an FID, two pneumatically-operated and
electrically-controlled Seiscor valves, and an analytical column. The analytical
column is a 9' x 1/8" stainless steel column containing 80/100 Carbopack C with
0.19% picric acid. The carrier gas is helium, which flows through the column at a
rate of 27 ml/min. The column temperature is maintained at 40°C for analysis.
External 1,3-butadiene standards in zero air are used to quantify the results.
Detection limits for the procedure are on the order of 0.03 ppmC in dilute exhaust
for 1,3-butadiene (0.5 mg/mile for the FTP).
-------
PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION
A selective measurement technique for 1,3-butadiene in dilute exhaust was
necessary, because previous methods utilized in exhaust measurements did not
permit the determination of 1,3-butadiene separately from butane^), and because
1,3-butadiene had been determined to have a high carcinogenic potency. This
section describes the development and validation of a gas chromatography procedure
to accurately separate and quantify 1,3-butadiene emissions in vehicle exhaust.
A review of the literature and of currently in-use methods for the
determination of 1,3-butadiene in complex hydrocarbon mixtures revealed that a
number of gas chromatograph columns to separate 1,3-butadiene from butane and
other 04 hydrocarbons were commercially available. A Perkin-Elmer 3920B Gas
Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a gas phase
injection system was utilized in the evaluation of these columns. The gas phase
injection system allowed the analysis of standard CVS sample bags. The GC columns
were either purchased from commercial distributors or prepared in-house using
commercially available packing materials. A 6' x 1/8" SS column packed with 0.19
percent picric acid on 80/100 mesh Graphpac-GC gave promising results in the
initial portion of the program. Figure 4 illustrates the separation obtained with the
Graphpac Column. GC parameters for the analysis included an isothermal GC oven
temperature of 30°C, an injection loop of 10 ml, an amplifier attenuation setting of
x8, and a carrier gas (helium) flow rate of 40 ml/min. The GC parameters were then
varied to optimize the GC response for 1,3-butadiene. The 2.6 ppmC 1,3-butadiene
peak in Figure 5 was obtained by increasing the sample loop to 20 ml, increasing the
oven temperature to 35°C, and changing the amplifier attenuation to x4.
A CVS bag sample (Bag 1) from the FTP testing of a 1987 Plymouth Reliant
was analyzed for 1,3-butadiene. This analysis gave a 1,3-butadiene concentration in
the dilute exhaust sample of 1.4 ppmC (Figure 6). This 1,3-butadiene concentration
represented approximately 1 percent of the "cold-start 505" total hydrocarbons (147
ppmC). A second vehicle, a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity (2.8 liter V-6 engine) gave
approximately 0.2 ppmC in a Bag 1 FTP dilute exhaust sample. This concentration
represented approximately 0.4 percent of the total hydrocarbons (46 ppmC). Mr.
Craig A. Harvey, the EPA Project Officer for this program, was present during the
Celebrity testing.
Mr. Frank Black of EPA-RTP was then contacted as to their approach for the
analysis of 1,3-butadiene. The RTP laboratory also uses a stainless steel column
packed with 0.19 percent picric acid on 80/100 mesh Graphpac-GC for the GC
analysis of 1,3-butadiene. Differences in the SwRI and RTP procedures at this point
included: 1) cryogenic concentration of the hydrocarbon sample at RTP as opposed
to a 20cc sample loop at SwRI; 2) a longer analytical column at RTP, 9-foot
compared to 6-foot at SwRI; and 3) naming of a 1,3-butadiene standard against
propane on a total hydrocarbon FID at SwRI as opposed to naming the 1,3-butadiene
on the GC-FID at RTP (differences in response factors for different hydrocarbons
are greater on a total hydrocarbon FID than on a GC-FID). At this point, a certified
low concentration 1,3-butadiene standard (2.0 ± 0.04 ppmC) was purchased from
Scott Specialty Gases and utilized as a standard in subsequent test work. This
standard also contained 8.04 ± 0.16 ppmC butane. To achieve additional separation
of the C4 hydrocarbons, a 9-foot x 1/8 inch SS column packed with 0.19 percent
-------
laobutyleite j
CiBM2~Buttene
Trans -2-S utene
l,3-BaLa(ken
6 3 "" 0
Retention time, Minutes
FIGURE 4. GAS CHROMATOGRAM OF C4 HYDROCARBONS,
~25 PPMC EACH HYDROCARBON
8
-------
Retention time, Minutes
FIGURE 5. CHROMATOGRAM OF ~Z.6 PPMC, 1,3-BUTADIENE STANDARD
-------
9630
Retention time, minutes
FIGURE 6. CHROMATOGRAM OF FTP - BAG 1 SAMPLE FROM
1987 PLYMOUTH RELIANT
10
-------
picric acid on 80/100 mesh Carbopack C was prepared and installed into the GC to
replace the existing six-foot column. With a carrier flow of 35 ml/min and an oven
temperature of 35°C, this column provided a minimum separation of one minute
between any two of the C± hydrocarbons. Figure 7 illustrates the separation of 1,3-
butadiene and butane using the 9-foot column. A gas divider was used to dilute the
standard to various levels in order to determine the linearity of the FID detector
over the range of expected concentrations of both 1,3-butadiene (0-2.0 ppmC) and
butane (0-8.04 ppmC) in dilute exhaust. The detector was found to be linear for
both 1,3-butadiene and butane with r2 values of 1.00 for both compounds. The data
used to determine detector linearity can be found in Table 3. Figure 8 shows a
chromatogram of a dilute exhaust sample (sample taken during the first 140 seconds
of an FTP-bag 1). Seven 4 compounds were separated and identified in the
chromatogram. The identities of the butane and 1,3-butadiene peaks were
confirmed by spiking the exhaust sample with the Scott standard. The remaining
five C^ compounds were identified by relative retention times.
TABLE 3. DETERMINATION OF DETECTOR LINEARITY
Butane
Gas Concentration
in ppmC
by Gas Divider(x) GC Peak Area(y)
8.04 69716
6.83 56045
4.02 33086
0.80 6821
0.0 0
8.04 69411
6.83 58070
r2 = 1.00
a = -426
b = 8569
1,3-Butadiene
2.0
1.7
1.0
0.2
0.0
2.0
1.7
16532
13117
7528
1792
0
16346
13539
r2 = 1.00
a = -89
b = 8080
To determine 1,3-butadiene stability in exhaust, a cold-start 505 (bag 1) dilute
exhaust sample from the FTP testing of a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity (2.8 liter V-6
engine) was spiked with 1,3-butadiene. The sample bag was then analyzed for 1,3-
butadiene immediately after the spike (time 0) and at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes
11
-------
24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Retention time, minutes
FIGURE 7. CHROMATOGRAM OF 1,3-BUTADIENE AND N-BUTANE STANDARD
12
-------
32
28
20 16
Retention time, minutes
FIGURE 8. CHROMATOGRAM OF DILUTE EXHAUST SAMPLE
13
-------
after the spike. Figure 9 displays the result of this experiment. The initial spiked
concentration of 1,3-butadiene was on the order of 3 ppmC. After 4 hours, the 1,3-
butadiene decreased to 63 percent of the original concentration. A 1,3-butadiene
standard (
-------
1UU
00
Of
0)
CX
a
a 90
to
0)
J^
a,
U]
_2
H
iH °
01
0)
rH
(U
H
"S 70
2 70
3
1
.-1
91
H
0
M
01
N
O
4-1
a) 50
o
0)
Pi
40
0
::i
iii
ii!
iii
t ;
1 ' r
:l:
i ;i
i ;;
i
i::
! ! :
! ! .
3
i)
: ; |
:;:
i
: i :
}',
6
1:
iii
0
: l
ii:
iii
. . 1
:i!
I
: : '
9
0
i
i :
-
. '- ; :
. . .
12
t
' :
0
: :
iii:
: :i :
ii;i
: I :
' i '
i i:
; i :
::;:
ii i
t
! i ::
! '-. ', .
i ;
: :i
'. ! '
;:::
ii;i
! : : :
! ' :
! : :
ii:
i .
: J
1
: ! ; i
50
!
: , .
r
: :'
18
....
' :f :
i .
0
i
: : : i
iii
iii
: '
l: :
: :
: :
, ,
i; :
j; ]
| : :
i. ;
i: i
t ' '
L '
i
i
j
i
!
1
!
1
|!
j
|
Ii
::i:
ii:i
* : : :
ii;
ill
: i :
i - !
I : i
:H
1 ;
j i
ii
! i
: ; 1
0
;ii
! : :
: :
iii'
iii
ii:
li:
;r
' i :
j ! !
Iii;
! : ! :
j: . ;
i: ::
i ' :
; i : i
','''
1 !
iii:
i : : '
' : i
'. \
ii:
. .
ii ;
:! : .
: i , .
24
'' i i i
! ' . :
i ' '
i::i
iii'
0
iiii
: : !
i:ii
i : :
i ii
! ii
i ' '
.!:
! .
ii '
: ' i :
; 1
; |
.
'::i
27
Time, minutes
FIGURE 9. DECAY OF 1,3-BUTADIENE IN A DILUTE EXHAUST SAMPLE BAG (COLD-START 505
SAMPLE BAG FROM FTP TESTING OF 1986 CHEVROLET CELEBRITY) SPIKED WITH 1,3-BUTADEENE
-------
IV. RESULTS
This section describes the results of the regulated and 1,3-butadiene emission
tests conducted on two vehicles. In addition to 1,3-butadiene, analyses for six other
4 hydrocarbons were conducted, including: butane, isobutane, 1-butene,
isobutylene, cis-2-butene, and trans-2-butene.
A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy
Duplicate FTP tests were conducted on each of the two test vehicles. A
summary of the individual and average regulated emission and fuel economy results
is presented in Table 4 along with the Federal Emission Standards. Computer
printouts for the regulated emissions and fuel economy are included in Appendix B.
TABLE 4. REGULATED EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY TEST RESULTS
FTP Emissions, g/mi, except as noted
Camaro
Taurus
Test Test
Test
1
Test
2
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
0.28
3.88
0.34
0.28
5.16
0.43
0.28
4.52
0.39
0.25 0.25 0.25
2.91 2.95 2.93
0.44 0.44 0.44
Federal
Standard
0.41
3.4
1.0
Fuel Economy, mi/gal 23.72 22.91 23.32 23.69 23.14 23.42
With the exception of one voided test on the Taurus, the operation of the test
vehicles was consistent during testing. During the voided test, the Ford Taurus died
repeatedly in the initial stages of the hot-start portion of the FTP (Bag 3). Because
of these problems, the results of this test (Test 2, Run 1, 1/25/88) were not included
in Table 4. Regulated emissions and fuel economy were recorded for the test (HC,
0.38 g/mi; CO. 3.36 g/mi; NOX, 0.38 g/mi, and fuel economy, 22.72 mi/gal), and a
copy of the computer printout for the regulated emissions has been included in
Appendix C. The C± emissions were also recorded for this test and will be discussed
in the following section. One additional test was also conducted on the Camaro
(Test 1, Run 1, 1/19/88), however, problems with the 1,3-butadiene analysis system
prevented the sampling of a complete set of C± data. The Bag 1, 1,3-butadiene
emissions were recorded and the results will be included in the following section.
The regulated emissions for the entire test were recorded (HC, 0.30 g/mi; CO, 5.48
g/mi; NOX, 0.35 g/mi; and fuel economy, 23.67 mi/gal) with a copy of the computer
printout included in Appendix C. These data were not included in Table 4 since
comparable 1,3-butadiene data were not available.
B. 1,3-Butadiene Test Results
Emission measurements for 1,3-butadiene were conducted in duplicate for
each of the test vehicles operated over the FTP cycle. The results of these
measurements are reported in Table 5. The Camaro (port fuel injection) had higher
1,3-butadiene emission rates than the Taurus (throttle body injection), 1.7 mg/mi
16
-------
versus 0.9 rag/mi. The 1,3-butadiene for the Camaro also accounted for a higher
percentage of the total hydrocarbons than the Taurus, 0.61 percent versus 0.36
percent. The average total mass of 1,3-butadiene generated during the FTP test
(unweighted) was 29.93 mg for the Camaro and 15.80 mg for the Taurus. The voided
test on the Taurus gave a slightly higher 1,3-butadiene emission rate than the two
tests listed in Table 5 (1.5 nag/mi versus 0.8 and 1.0 nag/mi), however, the 1,3-
butadiene percentage of the total hydrocarbons was similar to the other tests (0.40
percent versus 0.32 and 0.40 percent).
TABLE 5. 1,3-BUTADIENE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP Emissions, nag/mi, except as noted
Camaro Taurus
Test Test Test Test
1 2 Avg 1 2
Total Hydrocarbons 280 280 280 250 250
1,3-Butadiene 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.8 1.0
1,3-Butadiene Percent 0.64 0.57 0.61 0.32 0.40 0.36
of Total Hydrocarbons
Total mg 1,3-Butadiene 31.65 28.20 29.93 14.13 17.46 15.80
per test (not weighted)
The 1,3-butadiene emission results for each FTP segment are given in Table 6
for the two test vehicles. As can be seen in the table, virtually all (> 98%) of the
1,3-butadiene is generated in Bag 1, the first 505-second segment of the cold-start
UDDS cycle. The 1,3-butadiene accounted for 0.70 percent of the Bag 1 Taurus
emissions and 0.95 percent of the Bag 1 Camaro emissions. The 1,3-butadiene
emission rate for Bag 1 of the incomplete Camaro test was 8.6 rag/mi and the
percentage of the total hydrocarbons was 1.1 percent. The voided Taurus test (hot-
start problems) had lower Bag 1 1,3-butadiene emissions than the recorded tests (3.3
nag/mi versus 4.0 and 4.9 mg/mi), however, the Bag 3 emissions were significant, 2.8
rag/mi, and accounted for 0.35 percent of the total hydrocarbons.
C. 04 Emission Results
In addition to 1,3-butadiene, the emission rates of six other C± hydrocarbons
were determined in this program. The emission rates for these six C± hydrocarbons
(butane, isobutane, 1-butene, isobutylene, cis-2-butene, and trans-2-butene) are
listed in Table 7 along with 1,3-butadiene and total hydrocarbon emission rates.
Figure 10 illustrates the separation of the C± hydrocarbons obtained during the gas
chromatography analysis. In general, the Camaro had higher emission rates than the
Taurus for the unsaturated C± hydrocarbons (1,3-butadiene, 1-butene, isobutylene,
and trans-2-butene) while the reverse was noted for the saturated C± hydrocarbons
(butane, isobutane). 1,3-Butadiene was found to be 13.1 percent of the "butane plus
1,3-butadiene" emissions for the Camaro, and 4.6 percent for the Taurus.
17
-------
TABLE 6. 1,3-BUTADIENE EMISSION RESULTS
FOR EACH FTP SEGMENT
Total Hydrocarbons
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
(detection limit)
Total rag 1,3-Butadiene 31.Z
per test
1,3-Butadiene Percent 0.95
of Total Hydrocarbons
Test
1
920
8.7
--
31.2
0.95
Bael
Test
2
830
7.9
28.2
0.95
Avg
875
8.3
0.4C
29.7
0.95
Test
1
60
NDa
ND
0
Bag 2
Test
2
90
ND
ND
0
Avg
75
ND
0.6C
ND
0
Test
1
230
jb
«*
0.4
0.04
Bag 3
Test
2
240
ND
~*~
ND
0
Avg
235
T
0.4
0,4
0.04
Total Hydrocarbons
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Butadiene
(detection limit)
Total mg 1,3-Butadiene 14.1
per test
1,3-Butadiene Percent 0.61
of Total Hydrocarbons
Taurus Emissions, nag/mi, except as noted
Test
1
660
4.0
Bag 1
Test
2
620
4.9
Avg
640
4.5
0.4
Test
1
80
ND
Bag 2
Test
2
100
ND
Avg
90
ND
0.6
Test
1
250
ND
Bag 3
Test
2
270
ND
_
Avg
260
ND
0.4
17.5
0.79
15.8
0.70
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
aNone Detected
bTrace, detected but below the level of quantification. Estimated to be in the order
of 0.1 nag/mile.
cDetection limits for bags 1 and 2 are not equivalent due to differences in CVS volumes
and miles driven for the two FTP segments.
18
-------
TABLE 7. C4 EMISSION RESULTS
FTP Emissions, mg/roi, except as noted
Total Hydrocarbons
1,3 -Butadiene
Butane
Isobutane
1-Butene
Isobutylene
cis-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
1,3-Butadiene Percent
of Butane plus
1,3-Butadiene
Test
1
280
1.8
11.0
2.1
1.9
3.4
1.0
1.4
14.1
Camaro
Test
2
280
1.6
11.6
2.0
1.9
3.7
1.1
1.4
12.1
AZ&.
280
1.7
11.3
2.1
1.9
3.6
1.1
1.4
13.1
Test
1
250
0.8
19.8
3.9
1.6
2.5
1.1
1.3
3.9
Taurus
Test
2
250
1.0
17.5
3.0
1.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
5.4
Avg
250
0.9
18.7
3.5
1.5
2.5
1.1
1.3
4.6
19
-------
Camaro Bag 1 Sample
Injection
Air, Cl, C2
C3
0.37 ppmC Isobutane
0.58 ppmC 1-Butene
2.36 ppmC Butane
0.95 ppmC Isobutylene
0.26 ppmC cis-2-butene
0.36 ppmC trans-2-butene
0.73 ppmC 1,3-Butadiene
Unknown
Backflush
Time, minutes
36
32
FIGURE 10. SEPARATION OF C4 HYDROCARBONS
20
-------
V. QUALITY ASSURANCE
The Quality Assurance (QA) guidelines addressed in the QA plan for this Work
Assignment were followed in performing the work for the program. Chassis
dynamometer, CVS, and bag cart calibrations were performed using procedures and
equipment specified in the Federal Register, and are available for inspection.
Quality assurance associated with 1,3-butadiene analyses is described in the
following paragraphs.
Tedlar sample bags routinely used with the CVS to collect diluted vehicle
exhaust gas for analyses of HC, CO, and NOX regulated emissions were also
employed for 1,3-butadiene analyses utilizing an FID-equipped gas chromatograph.
All sample bags were analyzed within one hour of collection to avoid long-term
degradation of 1,3-butadiene experienced in the validation experiments. Sample Bag
1 was typically analyzed within 5 minutes of collection, while sample bags 2 and 3
were analyzed within 30 and 60 minutes of collection, respectively. One background
bag, background bag 2, was run during the analyses. This background bag was run
after all sample bags had been analyzed and within 2 hours of collection. After all
sample and background bags had been analyzed, Bag 1 was spiked with the standard
sample (containing both butane and 1,3-butadiene) to confirm the presence of 1,3-
butadiene in the diluted exhaust.
A series of six consecutive injections of the standard containing 1,3-butadiene
and butane during the analysis phase of the program gave average peak areas and
standard deviations of 17,180 ± 313 for 1,3-butadiene and 77,339 - 463 for butane.
The precision of these injections as percent standard deviation was 1.8 percent for
1,3-butadiene and 0.6 percent for butane. A more reasonable assessment of the
precision of the analytical method may be determined by using peak areas from
standards actually used to bracket samples run. The precision determination using
the results for the 20 standard injections carried out during this program to bracket
samples is shown below:
Percent
Deviation
Hydrocarbon
Standard
Number of
Analyses
Average
Area
Standard
Deviation
in Area
1,3-butadiene 20 18,277 795 4.4
Butane 20 78,513 3,530 4.5
Precision determinations by repetitive injections of actual samples were not
practical due to the decay of 1,3-butadiene with time.
The program objectives for precision (5.0 percent), accuracy (5.4 percent), and
completeness (95 percent) for the analysis of 1,3-butadiene were met with a
precision of 4.4 percent, accuracy of 4.8 percent, and completeness of 100 percent.
Accuracy was determined employing a certified standard of 1,3-butadiene purchased
from Scott Specialty Gases. The analytical accuracy of the purchased gas was ±2
percent as determined by Scott.
21
-------
The detection limit of 0.03 ppmC for 1,3-butadiene, as used in this report, is
the level above which the Hewlett-Packard Model 3353 gas chromatograph computer
system can consistently detect and integrate the 1,3-butadiene signal from the GC-
FID. Levels between 0.01 and 0.03 ppmC can be detected by the GC-FID, however,
quantification by the computer system is variable. These levels have been referred
to as trace amounts in this report.
2.2
-------
REFERENCES
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 85, Subpart H, Sections
applicable to Light-Duty Vehicles.
2. (a) F.M. Black and R.L. Bradow, "Patterns of Hydrocarbon Emissions from
1975 Production Cars." SAE 750681 presented at Fuels and Lubricants
Meeting, Houston, Texas, June 1975.
(b) F.M. Black, "The Impact of Emission Control Technology on Passenger Car
Hydrocarbon Emission Rates and Patterns.11 Proceedings of the International
Conference on Photochemical Oxidant Pollution and Its Control, EPA-600/3-
77-OOlb, January 1977.
(c) F.M. Black and L.E. High, "Automotive Hydrocarbon Emission Patterns and
the Measurement of Nonmethane Emission Rates." SAE 770144 presented at
SAE Congress, Detroit, Michigan, February 1977.
(d) F.M. Black and L.E. High, "Methodology for Determining Particulate and
Gaseous Diesel Hydrocarbon Emissions." SAE 790422 presented at SAE
Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 1979.
(e) J.E. Sigsby, S. Tejada, et al. "Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
46 In-Use Passenger Cars." Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 21, p.
466, May 1987.
23
-------
APPENDIX A
1,3-BUTADIENE PROCEDURE
-------
MEASUREMENT OF 1,3-BUTADIENE IN EXHAUST
This procedure was developed to measure 1,3-butadiene in dilute vehicle
exhaust. In addition to 1,3-butadiene, the procedure provides separation and relative
exhaust concentrations for six other 04 hydrocarbons including: isobutane, butane,
1-butene, isobutylene, cis-2-butene, and trans-Z-butene. Standard CVS bag samples
are analyzed for 1,3-butadiene using a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame
ionization detector (FID). External 1,3-butadiene standards in zero air are used to
quantify the results. Detection limits for this procedure are on the order of 0.03
ppmC in dilute exhaust for 1,3-butadiene.
Analytical Procedure
The analysis of 1,3-butadiene is accomplished by collecting 1,3-butadiene in
Tedlar bags and analyzing the samples with a gas chromatograph equipped with a
flame ionization detector (FID). The analysis flow schematic for 1,3-butadiene is
shown in Figure A-l. A detailed description of the procedure follows.
The gas chromatograph system for the analysis of 1,3-butadiene utilizes a
Perkin-Elmer Model 39ZOB gas chromatograph with an FID, two pneumatically-
operated and electrically-controlled Seiscor valves, and an analytical column. The
analytical column is a 9' x 1/8" stainless steel column containing 80/100 Carbopack
C with 0.19% picric acid. The carrier gas is helium, which flows through the column
at a rate of 27 ml/min. The column temperature is maintained at 40°C for analysis.
A chromatogram of a Z.O ppmC 1,3-butadiene and 8.04 ppmC butane standard is
shown in Figure A-Z. A chromatogram of an exhaust sample is shown in Figure A-3.
To quantify the results, the sample peak areas are compared to the peak area of a
standard, which was run before and after each set of sample bags. Figure A-4 shows
the analytical system with gas chromatograph, detector, sample injection system,
and recorder.
The analytical column, sampling loop, and Seiscor valves are all housed in the
GC oven and are operated with the aid of a specially fabricated control system.
Figure A-5 (Step 1) illustrates the gas chromatograph flow schematic with the gas
sampling valve in the purge position and the backflush valve in the foreflush position
for the analytical column. Figure A-6 (Step Z) illustrates the flow schematic when
the gas sampling valve is actuated and the backflushed valve is still in the foreflush
position. Once the 1,3-butadiene peak has eluted, the backflush valve is activated
and the 5 and heavier molecular weight hydrocarbons are backflushed from the
analytical column (Figure A-7). Under normal conditions, it is not necessary to
backflush the calibration standards since they are free of contaminants that would
interfere with the analytical column.
Control System
The control of the two Seiscor valves is accomplished by ATC timers and
ASCO electric solenoid valves. The electric schematic for the control of the
Seiscor valves using these timers and electric solenoid valves is shown in Figure A-8.
The flow schematics for vacuum and pressure lines to the Seiscor valves are
presented in Figures A-9, A-10, and A-ll.
A-Z
-------
Vehicle
I
CVS
Tedlar Bags
Gas
Chromatograph
Recorder
A/D Converter
HP 3353
Computer System
I
Computer
Printout
FIGURE A-l. THE ANALYSIS FLOW SCHEMATIC FOR 1,3-BUTADIENE
A-3
-------
24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 42 0
Retention time, minutes
FIGURE A-2. CHROMATOGRAM OF 1,3-BUTADffiNE AND N-BUTANE STANDARD
A-4
-------
20 16 12
Retention time, minutes
FIGURE A-3. CHROMATOGRAM OF DILUTE EXHAUST SAMPLES
A-5
-------
FIGURE A-4. ANALYTICAL SYSTEM
A-6
-------
Analytical Column
(9'xl/8" SS, 0.19% Picric Acid
on 80/100 Carbopack C)
Seiscor Valve
(Normal Configuration)
PE 3920B
Gas Chromatograph
with FID
Seiscor Valve
(Gas Sampling Configuration)
10 ml
sample
loop
»%
A o
Carrier Gas
Vent
Regulating
Valve
Pump
Sample or
Calibration
gas in
Female
quick-connect
FIGURE A-5. FLOW SCHEMATIC OF 1,3-BUTADIENE ANALYTICAL SYSTEM
(STEP 1 - PURGE OF SAMPLE LOOP)
A-7
-------
Analytical Column
(9'xl/8" SS, 0.19 Picric Acid
on 80/100 £arbopack C)
Seiscor Valve
Configuration)
./
PE 3920B
Gas Chromatograph
with FID
Seiscor Valve
(Sanple Inject Configuration)
Carrier Gas
Vent
Sample or
Calibration
gas in
Female
quick-connect
FIGURE A-6. FLOW SCHEMATIC OF 1,3-BUTADIENE ANALYTICAL SYSTEM
(STEP Z - INJECT SAMPLE OR CALIBRATION GAS INTO SYSTEM)
A-8
-------
Analytical Column
(9'xl/8" SS, 0.19 Picric Acid
on 80/100 Carbopack C)
Seiscor Valve
(backflush configuration)
Vent
PE 3920B
Gas Chromatograph
with FID
Seiscor Valve
(Purging Configuration)
Carrier Gas
10 ml
Sample
Loop
Regulating
Valve
Pump
Sample or
Calibration
gas in
Female
quick-connec t
FIGURE A-7. FLOW SCHEMATIC OF 1,3-BUTADffiNE ANALYSIS SYSTEM
(STEP 3 - BACKFLUSH ANALYTICAL COLUMN)
A-9
-------
AC (-)
>
(-»
o
FIGURE A-8. ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC OF 1,3-BUTADIENE ANALYSIS SYSTEM
-------
Vacuum
n
cap
Air Pressure (30 psi)
cac
P V
CSV
Seiscor
: i
CSV off
Vacuum
n.
cap
cap
Air Pressure (30 psi)
y
P V
Backflush
Seiscor
Backflush off
FIGURE A-9. FLOW SCHEMATIC IN ELECTRIC SOLENOID VALVES
(BOTH VALVES DE-ENERGIZED)
A-ll
-------
Vacuum
n
E2
cap
Air Pressure (30 psi)
caP
Vacuum
P V
Backflush
Seiscor
Air Pressure (30 psi)
Backflush off
FIGURE A-10. FLOW SCHEMATIC IN ELECTRIC SOLENOID VALVES
(GSV ENERGIZED, BACKFLUSH DE-ENERGIZED)
A-12
-------
Vacuum
ri
Air Pressure (30 psi)
si) |
3
P V
CSV
Seiscor
:...............!
CSV on
Vacuum
C3P
n
Air Pressure (30 psi)
u
P V
Backflush
Seiscor
Backflush on
FIGURE A-ll. FLOW SCHEMATIC IN ELECTRIC SOLENOID VALVES
(BOTH VALVES ENERGIZED)
A-13
-------
Sample Calculations
The quantification of 1,3-butadiene is based on a direct comparison of the 1,3-
butadiene in exhaust with a calibration blend of a known 1,3-butadiene
concentration. Two basic assumptions are made in the calculations that should be
considered when conducting 1,3-butadiene analyses. The first assumption is that the
exhaust samples are analyzed as quickly as possible after collection and that the
measurements are made within the working range of the system. Exhaust samples
spiked with 1,3-butadiene have indicated a loss of 1,3-butadiene with time.
Calculations for this system are based on the assumption that the analyses are
conducted within one hour of sample collection and minimal sample decay has
occurred. The use of a gas divider and a 2.0 ppmC 1,3-butadiene standard has shown
that the FID response of 1,3-butadiene is linear in the 0.05 to 2.0 ppmC range.
Procedural development work has found that 1,3-butadiene levels are generally
below 2.0 ppmC in dilute exhaust. The other C± hydrocarbons are quantified by
direct comparisons of the hydrocarbons in exhaust with a calibration blend of
butane. If the above assumptions are followed, then the following relationships are
valid.
Let Csam= ppmC concentration of 1,3-butadiene in sample
^std = PPmC concentration of 1,3-butadiene in standard
Asam= area of 1,3-butadiene peak in sample
Astd ~ area °* l»3-butadiene peak in standard
csam
If a 2.0 ppmC 1,3-butadiene (in air) calibration blend gives 8000 area counts
for the 1,3-butadiene peak and an exhaust sample gives 1000 area counts for the 1,3-
butadiene peak, then the 1,3-butadiene in the exhaust is calculated as follows:
CSam = Asam * Cstd
Csam= 1,000 x 2.0
Astd
00 x 2
8,000
csam= °-2
The 1,3-butadiene concentration in ppmC can be multiplied by the per carbon
density of 1,3-butadiene at 68°F and 29.92" Hg (562 fig/ml) to give a mass per unit
volume of 1,3-butadiene in dilute exhaust (fig/m3) for subsequent mass calculations.
Equipment
The analyses for 1,3-butadiene are performed using a gas chromatograph
equipped with a flame ionization detector. The detector, electrometer, recorder,
A-14
-------
and GC integrator are the major electronic components in the detection system. A
control console was fabricated to house the mechanical hardware items that are
necessary for the proper operation of the 1,3-butadiene analysis system. Major
items in the analysis system are listed below:
Gas Chromatograph
1. Perkin-Elmer Model 39ZO gas chromatograph equipped with flame
ionization detector
2. Soltec Model B-281 1 mv recorder
3. Hewlett-Packard Model 3353 gas chromatograph computer system with
remote printer
4. Hewlett-Packard Model 1865A A/D Converter
5. Analytical column, 9' x 1/8" SS, 0.19 picric on 80/100 mesh Graphpac GC
6. Seiscor valve - gas sampling configuration
7. Seiscor valve - back flush configuration
Control Console System
1. ATC timers, Model 3Z5A346A10PX (2 ea)
2. ASCO solenoid valve, Model 834501 {2 ea)
3. Brook flowmeter, R-2-15-A w/ss float; 0-150 scale
4. Metal Bellows MD-155 pump
5. Female quick-connect, stainless steel
6. Nupro Model 2M stainless steel, copper and Teflon tubing (1/8" and
1/16")
7. Miscellaneous stainless steel and brass unions, tees, etc.
8. Bud Classic n control console cabinet
9. Miscellaneous electrical on-off switches
A-15
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF THE
REGULATED EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY
TEST RESULTS
Table B- Vehicle Test No. Run No.
1 Camaro 1 2
2 Camaro 2 1
3 Taurus 1 1
4 Taurus 2 2
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE - DEPORTMENT OF EMISSIONS RESEARCH
TABLE B-l. FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 08-1567-001
TEST NO. 1 RUN
VEHICLE XODEL 86 CftMftRO
ENGINE 2.8 L(171. CID) L-6
3A33*TER 746.00 MM H6(29.37 IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 16. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BA6 NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BL.OWER DIP ? MM. H20UN. H20>
BLOWER INLET * MM. H20UN. .-120)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEB. CIDE6. F)
ROWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
TKC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPW
THC 3CKGRD METER/RAN6E/PPX
CO SAMPLE .1ETER/RAN6E/PPN
CO BCKGRD METES/RANSE/PPM
COc SflRPLE «ETER/RftNGE/PCT
OK BCKSRD METER/RflNGE/PCT
W» SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NDX FCK6RD METER/RAN6E/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
THC CONCENTRATION PP«
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NCX CONCENTRflTION PPM
THC MASS GRAMS
CC MASS GRAMS
Cue MASS SRAMS
N0< MASS GRANS
THC SRWS/MI
CO GRAMS/MI
C02 BRAMS/KI
NOX QRAMS/MI
FUEL ECONOMY IN MP6
RUN TINE SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE MI
SCF, DM
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 1
BAROMETER MM HG 746.0
HUMIDITY G/KG 3.0
TEMPERATURE DE6 C 23.9
VEHICLE NO.i
DATE 1/20/flfl
BAB CART NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. Z
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 D£6 C(75,0 DE6 F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.0 6M/K8
TEST WEIGH; ises.
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
GASOLINE EM-7B1-F
ODOMETER 55260. KM(33094. MILES)
KG( 3500. IBS)
6.3 KU( 3.4 HP)
1
COLD
STABILIZE
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .30
HOT TRANSlcNT
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
45.6 (114.0)
40637.
76.1 ( £686.)
79. 7/ Zl BO.
5.4/ Zl 6.
81. if 14/ 386.
.9/14/ 4.
15.2/14/1.0032
14.1/14/ .0502
98. 4/ I/ 24.5
i.9/ I/ .5
12.77
75.
374.
.9570
24.0
3.23
33.10
1332.9
2.79
.92
9.27
373.2
.78
22.70
505.
3.57
.986
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
41.1 (106.0)
69667.
131.0 ( 4626.)
8.2/ £/ B.
S.3/ 2/ 5.
37.7/12/ 38.
1.7/12/ 2.
Bl.3/14/ .6848
13.8/iV .0489
15. 1/ I/ 3.9
1.5/ I/ .4
19.44
3.
35.
.6385
3.5
.24
5.41
1531.4
.70
.06
1.39
392.4
.18
22.46
867.
3.90
.988
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
44.4 (112.0)
40572.
75.8 ( 2577.;
32. */ 2/ 23.
4.5/ 2/ 5.
44.4/14/ 191.
.4/14, 2.
89.t/;4- .£.437
13.3/14/ .0468
41. 2/ I/ 10.3
.fl/ I/ .2
15.41
18.
186.
.8049
10.1
.81
16.40
1117.3
:.i?
.23
4.60
313.3
.33
£7.50
505,
3.57
.987
CARBON DIOXIDE 6/MI
FUEL ECONOMY MP6
HYDROCARBONS (THC) 6/KI
CARBON MONOXIDE 6/MI
OXIDES OF NITROGEN 6/XI
3-BA6
366.3
23.72
.28
3.88
.34
(4-BA6)
.0)
.00!
.00!
.00}
.00)
B-2
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE - DEPARTMENT OF EMISSIONS RESEARCH
TABLE B-2.FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 06-1X7-001
TEST NO. a RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 66 CAMARO
ENGINE c.8 L(i71. CID) L-6
TRPNSK.S3ION ft4
BAROMETER 747.27 HI HGI29.42 IN HE)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 18. PCT
8% RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. rfc'OUN. H20J
BLOWER INLET P MM. H2QUN. H20)
SLOPES INLET TEMP, DEE. Ci&ES. F>
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD, CU. METRES (SCF)
THC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
THC BCK6RD METER/RAN6E/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANQE/PPM
CO BCKBRD NETER/RAN6E/PPM
COc SAMPLE METER/flflNGE/PCT
002 BCh&RD METER/RAN6E/PCT
N3X SAMPLE METER 'fiftySE /PR
MX BCK6RD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
THC CONCENTRATION PP«
CO CGNCEOPT10N PPW
C0£ CC1CENTRATION PCT
NO* CI3NCENTRATION PPM
THC KASSSRAKS
CQ KfiSS GRAMS
CD£ MASS 3RAHS
NuK «SS C-RAMS
THC GRAKS/MI
C5 5HAMS/KI
C0£ GRftMS/Ki
SECONDS
MI
FUEL ECONOMY IK MP&
^UN TINE
MEASURED DISTANCE
SCF, DRV
CWPCSITE RESULTS
TEST NUHBER £
BAROMETER MM HG 747.3
HUNIDITV 6/K6 3.6
TEMPERflTURE DEB C 25.0
VEHICLE NO.1
DATE 1/21/68
BAG CART NO. £
DYNOND. 3
CVS NO. £
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DE6 Cm.O DEG F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.6 GM/K6
TEST UEI8KT 1588.
ACTUAL ROM LOAD
8ASOLINE EM-Tfll-F
ODONETER 53277. KN(33105. MILES)
KGi 3500. LB3)
6.3 HU! 6.4 HP)
1
COLO TRANSIENT
STABILIZED
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .81
HOT TRANSIENT
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40501.
76.0 ( 26B3.)
72. 6/ 2/ 73,
6. I/ 11 6.
92.7/14/ 457.
2.1/14/ 8.
%. 3/14/1. 0352
15.8/14/ .0574
23. 9/ 2/ 2S.O
.&/ 2/ .6
12.33
67.
438.
.9824
28.4
2. 94
38.72
1366.5
3.34
.83
10.91
385.0
.94
21.31
505.
3.55
.985
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 \30.0)
40.6 (105.0)
69600.
131.2 ( 4634.)
10.1/2/ 10.
6.0/ 2/ 6.
67.0/12/ 67.
6.3/12/ 6.
82.0/14/ .6979
15.4/14/ .0557
20. 2/ I/ 5.2
1.2/ I/ .3
18.99
5.
60.
.6452
4.9
.34
9.14
1550.0
.99
.09
2.39
405.0
.26
21.68
867.
3.83
.968
7K.O (30.0)
762.0 130.0)
41.7 (107.0)
40442.
76.1 ( 2687.)
24. 7/ 2/ 25.
5.5/ 11 6.
56.9/14/ 253.
1.2/14/ 5.
9C.1/14/ .8700
15.1/14/ .0544
44.7/ I/ 11.2
1.7/ I/ .4
14.93
20.
243.
.8192
10.6
.87
21.56
1141.2
1.27
.24
6.08
321.7
.36
26.70
504.
3.55
.986
CARBON 3IQXIDE S/Ml
FUEL ECONOMY MP6
HYDROCfiRBONS (THC) G/M1
CARBON MONOXIDE G/MI
OXIDES OF NITROGEN 6/MI
3-BAG
373.1
22.91
.28
5.16
.43
(4-BftS»
.0)
( .00)
i .00,
( .00)
t .00;
B-3
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE - DEPARTMENT OF EMISSIONS RESEARCH
TABLE B-3. FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 08-1567-001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 87 FORD TAURU
EN6INE 2.5 U150. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 749.05 MM HG129.49 IN HG)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 14. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20UN. H2Q)
BLOUER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEB. CIDEB. F)
BLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
THC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
THC BCK6RD METER/RANBE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANBE/PPM
CO BCK6RD METER/RANBE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANBE/PCT
C02 BCK6RD METER/RANBE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANBE/PPM
NOX BCK6RD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
THC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
THC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS. MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
THC GRAMS/MI
CO GRANS/MI
COS GRAMS/MI
NOX GRAMS/MI
FUEL ECONOMY IN MP6
RUNTIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE MI
SCF, DRY
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 1
BAROMETER MM HG 749.0
HUMIDITY 6/K6 8.8
TEMPERATURE DEC C 25.6
VEHICLE N0.2
DATE 1/22/88
BAB CART NO. 2
DYNONO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.6 DE6 C(78.0 DE6 F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 2.8 6M/K6
1
COLD TRANSIENT
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40611.
76.4 ( 2697.)
57.6/ 2/ SB.
4.9/ 2/ 5.
75.4/14/ 353.
.8/14/ 3.
95.3/14/1.0061
12.7/14/ .0444
73.87 I/ 20.0
.9/ I/ .2
12.81
53.
342.
.9651
19.8
2.35
30.43
1349.8
2.29
.66
8.56
379.8
.64
22.43
505.
3.55
.986
TEST HEIGHT 1361. KGI 3000. IBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.5 KU( 7.4 HP)
GASOLINE EM-781-F
ODOMETER 45997. KM(2B5B1. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .79
2
STABILIZED
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
42.2 (108.0)
69615.
131.2 ( 4632.)
9.S/ 2/ 10.
5.6X 21 6.
13.4/12/ 14.
1.9/12/ 2.
79.57 IV .6523
12.7/14/ .0444
24. 3/ I/ 6.2
,5/ I/ .1
20.47
4.
12.
.6101
6.0
.32
1.76
1465.5
1.20
.08
.46
385.1
.32
22.97
867.
3.81
.990
3
HOT TRANSIENT
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40556.
76.3 ( 2693.)
24.S/2/ 25.
5.1/2/ 5.
56.6/137 134.
.6/13/ 2.
50.67147 .8821
12.7/14/ .0444
65.27 I/ 16.3
.3/ I/ .0
14.93
20.
130.
.8406
16.3
.88
11.54
1174.0
1.88
.25
3.25
330.3
.53
26.38
505.
3.55
.987
CARBON DIOXIDE G7HI
FUELECONOMY MP6
HYDROCARBONS (THC) 6/NI
CARBON MONOXIDE 6/NI
OXIDES OF NITROGEN 6/MI
3-BAG
368.9
23.69
.25
2.91
.44
(4-BA6)
.0)
.00)
.00)
.00)
.00)
B-4
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE - DEPARTMENT OF EMISSIONS RESEARCH
TABLE B-4. FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 08-1567-001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 2
VEHICLE MODEL 87 FORD TAURU
EN6INE 2.5 LU50. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 750.82 MM H6(29.56 IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 14. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BA6 NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOUER DIF P MM. H2DUN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOUER INLET TEMP. DE6. C(DE6. F)
BLOUER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
THC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
THC BCKGRD KETER/RAN6E/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKBRD METER/RflNGE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
THC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
THC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS 6RAMS
C02 NABS GRAMS
NQX MASS GRAMS
THC GRAMS/MI
CO GRAMS/MI
C02 GRAMS/MI
NOX GRAMS/MI
FUEL ECONOMY IN MP6
RUN TINE SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE MI
SCF, DRY
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 2
BAROMETER MM HG 750.8
HUMIDITY 6/K6 2.3
TEMPERATURE DEC C 21.7
VEHICLE NO.2
DATE 1/26/88
BAG CART NO. 2
DYNONO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEG CI71.0 DEC F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 2.3 GM/KG
1
COLD TRANSIENT
STABILIZED
TEST WEIGHT 1361. KG( 3000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.5 KU( 7.4 HP)
GASOLINE EM-781-F
ODOMETER 46043. KM(28610. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
HOT TRANSIENT
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
44.4 (112.0)
40495.
75.9 ( 2682.)
53. 8/ 2/ 54.
4.1/2/ 4.
BO.2/14/ 361.
.3/14/ 1.
97.3/14/1.0654
12.1/14/ .0420
93. 0/ t/ 23.2
1.6/ I/ .4
12.09
50.
371.
1.0269
22.8
2.20
32.76
1427.9
2.60
.62
9.19
400.8
.73
21.26
504.
3.56
.986
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
41.7 (107.0)
69677.
131.3 ( 4637.)
8.77 2/ 9.
4.1/2/ 4.
10.6/12/ 11.
.9/12/ 1.
80.0/14/ .6612
12.1/14/ .0420
25. 4/ I/ 6.4
l.B/ I/ .5
20.21
5.
10.
.6213
6.0
.37
1.48
1493.7
1.18
.10
.38
386.5
.30
22.89
868.
3.86
.989
787.4 (31.0)
787.4 (31.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40551.
76.2 ( 2690.)
25. 1/ 2/ 25.
3.8/ 2/ 4.
54.6/13/ 129.
.4/13/ 1.
92.2/14/ .9221
12.1/14/ .0420
61.0/ I/ 15.3
1.5/ I/ .4
14.30
22.
125.
.8830
14.9
.96
11.12
1231.8
1.70
.27
3.11
344.2
.48
25.34
505.
3.58
.987
CARBON DIOXIDE 6/MI
FUEL ECONOMY MPG
HYDROCARBONS (THC) 6/MI
CARBON MONOXIDE 6/MI
OXIDES OF NITROGEN G/MI
3-BA6
377.9
23.14
.25
2.95
.44
(4-BA6)
.0)
.00)
.00)
.00)
.00)
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF
REGULATED EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY
VOIDED TEST RESULTS
Table C- Vehicle Test No. Run No. Test Problem
1 Taurus 2 1 vehicle died during hot-start
2 Camaro 1 1 incomplete 1,3-butadiene data
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE - DEPftRTNENT OF EMISSIONS RESEARCH
TABLE C-l. FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 08-1567-001
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
VEHICLE MODEL 87 FORD TAURU
ENGINE 2.5 LI150. CID) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
BAROMETER 755.14 MM H6<29.73 IN H6)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 13. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DE6. CtDES. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT aOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
THC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
THC BCK6RD METER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCK6RD NETER/RANBE/PPM
C02 SAMPLE NETER/RANGE/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER/RAN6E/PCT
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
THC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
THC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NDX MASS GRAMS
THC GRANS/MI
CO GRAMS/MI
C02 GRAMS/MI
NOX GRAMS/MI
FUR ECONOMY IN MP6
RUNTIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE MI
SCF, DRY
COMPOSITE RESULTS
TEST NUMBER 2
BAROMETER MM H6 755.1
HUMIDITY G/K6 2.4
TEMPERATURE DE6 C 23.9
VEHICLE NO.2
DATE 1/25/BB
BAG CART NO. 2
DYNONO. 3
CVS NO. 2
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DE6 C(75.0 DE6 F)
ABS. HUMIDITY 2.4 6M/K6
1
COLD TRANSIENT
STABILIZED
TEST WEIGHT 1361. K6( 3000. LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 5.5 KW( 7.4 HP)
GASOLINE EM-7B1-F
ODOMETER 46026. KM (28599. MILES)
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .7fl
HOT TRANSIENT
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
45.6 (114.0)
40697.
77.2 ( 2727.)
45. 11 ^l 46.
3.3/ 2/ 3.
65.6/14/ 299.
.0/14/ 0.
96.9/14/1.0532
11.4/14/ .0392
68. 8/ I/ 17.2
.4/ I/ .1
12.33
43.
292.
1.0172
17.1
1.91
26.24
1438.1
1.99
.54
7.42
406.8
.56
21.11
506.
3.54
.986
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
42.2 (108.0)
69669.
132.5 ( 4678.)
7.9/ 2/ 8.
3.6/ 2/ 4.
12.0/12/ 12.
.0/12/ 0.
80.2/14/ .6648
11.6/14/ .0400
22.2/ I/ 5.7
.&/ I/ .2
20.10
5.
12.
.6268
5.5
.35
1.85
1520.3
1.09
.09
.48
398.5
.29
22.19
868.
3.81
.990
762.0 (30.0)
762.0 (30.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40604.
77.1 ( 2721.)
66.27 2/ 67.
3.9/ 2/ 4.
52.5/14/ 231.
.0/14/ 0.
90.9/14/ .8894
11.6/14/ .0400
53. 11 \l 13.5
.6/ I/ .2
14.59
63.
226.
.8522
13.3
2.79
20.29
1202.2
1.54
.79
5.72
339.0
.43
25.30
506.
3.55
.966
CARBON DIOXIDE 6/MI
FUEL ECONOMY HP6
HYDROCARBONS (THC) G/NI
CARBON MONOXIDE 6/MI
OXIDES OF NITROGEN 6/MI
3-BA6
383.9
22.72
.38
3.36
.38
(4-BA6)
( .0)
( .00)
( .00)
( .00)
( .00)
02
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE - DEPARTMENT OF EMISSIONS RESEARCH
TABLE C-2. FTP - VEHICLE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
PROJECT 08-1567-001
TEST NO. 1 RUN 1
v^:Cj£ MCDEi. 86 CAMMO
ENGINE 2.3 LU71. CID) L-6
TRANSMISSION A4
BfiRO«tTER 735.33 MM KG(28.95 IN HG)
SLftTIVE HUMIDITY 28. PCT
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
SLOWER DIF P m. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DE6. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TOT FLOW 3TD. C'J. METRES(SCF)
THE SAMPLE METER/RAN6E/PPM
THC BCKGRD NETER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
CO BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
COS SAMPLE NETER/RAN6E/PCT
C02 BCKGRD METER'.RANGE/PCI
NOX SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPW
NOX BCKGRD METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
THC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
THC MASS GRAMS
CO MfiSS GRAMS
CCc ;'Hoi SRAMS
WX MASS GRAMS
THC SRH«S/WI
CO SRAMS/Mi
CQ2 SRAMS/KI
NOX GRAMS/HI
FUEL ECONOMY IN WPG
RUNTIME SECONDS
MEASURED DISTANCE MI
SCF, DRY
CO*:-;-. = RESULTS
r£ST NUMBER 1
BAR01CTER MM HB 735.3
HUMIDITY G/KG 5.4
TEMPERATURE DEG C 23.9
VEHICLE NO. i
DATE 1/19/B8
BAG CART NO. 2
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. c
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEB Ci75.0 DEG F5
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.4 6M/KG
TEST WEIGHT 1588.
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
GASOLINE EM-781-F
ODOMETER 53242. KM(33083. MILES)
KGi 3500. LBS)
6.3 KW( 8,4 HP)
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR .85
1
COLD TRANSIENT
STABILIZED
HOT TRANSIENT
774.7 (30.5)
774.7 (30.5)
44.4 (112.0)
40573.
74.5 t £630.)
71. 5/ 2J 72.
6.2/ 2/ 6.
66.9/14/ 421.
1. 1/14/ 4.
94.1/H/ .9725
13.3/14/ .0468
66. 11 \l 21.7
2.6/ I/ .7
13.13
66.
405.
.9232
£1.1
2.83
35.16
1267. 1
2.55
.79
9.85
354.9
.71
23.78
505.
3.57
.382
"74.7 (30.5;
774.7 (30.5)
40.6 (105.0)
69655.
128.8 ( 4546.)
10. 1/ 2/ 10.
5.7/ 2/ 6.
64.6/12/ 65.
2.8/12/ 3.
81.6/14/ .6904
13. 3/1 W .0468
16. 0/ I/ 4.1
1.3/ I/ .3
19.20
5.
61.
.6460
3.8
.36
9.12
1522.9
.79
.09
2.36
394.7
.21
22.24
868.
3,86
.984
7 -i. 7 i2C>.5)
774.7 (30.5/
42.2 (109.0)
40523.
74.7 ( 2637.)
31. 5/ 2/ 32.
5.0/ 2/ 5.
73.5/14/ 343.
.8/14/ 3.
89.9/14/ .8652
13.1/14/ .0460
40. 1/ I/ 10.1
,8/ I/ .2
14.86
27.
331.
.8223
9.9
1.17
£8.77
1124.2
1.20
.33
8.09
316.1
.34
26.88
505.
3.56
.983
CARBON DIOXIDE 6/MI
FUEL ECONOMY MP6
HYDROCARBONS (THC) 6/MI
CARBON MONOXIDE 6/KI
OXIDES OF NITROGEN G/MI
3-BA6
365.0
23.67
.30
5.48
.35
(4-BA6)
( .0)
( .00)
( .00)
( .00)
( .00)
C-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
^. REPORT NO.
EPA 460/3-83-005
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
BUTADIENE MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY
5. REPORT DATE
August 1988
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S)
Lawrence
R. Smith
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Work Assignment B-l
11. CONTRACT7GRANT NO.
68-03-4044
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report (6-11-87/2-88)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This program involved the development and validation of a gas chromatography
procedure to measure 1,3-butadiene levels in vehicle exhaust. After development
and validation, the procedure was used to measure 1,3-butadiene emissions from
each of two gasoline-fueled light-duty test vehicles over duplicate cold-start
FTP tests. The 1,3-butadiene emissions are reported in mg/mile and as total
grams for each FTP test. In addition to the 1,3-butadiene measurements, regulated
exhaust emissions (HC, CO, and NOX in g/raile), other C^ hydrocarbon (n-butane,
isobutane, etc. in mg/mile), and fuel economy (in mi/gallon) measurements were
conducted for each FTP test.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
Air Pollution
Exhaust Emission
Motor Vehicles
Emission Characterizati( n
Emission Test Procedures
Light-Duty Vehicles
1,3-Butadiene Emissions
IBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
53
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-73)
------- |