EPA-460/3-76-034
February 1977
INVESTIGATION
OF DIESEL-POWERED
VEHICLE EMISSIONS VII
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-76-034
INVESTIGATION
OF DIESEL-POWERED
VEHICLE EMISSIONS VII
by
Karl J. Springer
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Darwer 28510
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas
Contract No. 68-03-2116
EPA Project Officer: R.C. Stahman
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
February 1977
-------
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 (MD-35) , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Southwest Research Institute, 8500 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas,
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2116. 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-460/3-76-034
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Evaluation of regulated and a variety of non-regulated emissions
from four diesel powered cars, one diesel powered pick-up truck and
five diesel engine configurations used in trucks and buses are reported.
The cars were a comprex equipped Mercedes 220D, Mercedes 240D and
300D, Peugeot 204D and the pick-up was powered by a Perkins 6-247
diesel engine. A bus engine, Detroit Diesel 6V-71 (run with two injector
designs) and two truck engines, a Cummins NTC-290 (run in two timing
configurations) and a Detroit Diesel 8V-71TA, comprised the heavy duty
engines evaluated. A DF-2 diesel luel, similar to a national average fuel,
was used in all evaluations except the bus engine, which was operated on
a kerosene DF-1 fuel.
Measurements included unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
oxides of nitrogen and smoke. A variety of non-regulated emissions in-
cluding aldehydes, odor, particulate, selected hydrocarbon components,
sulfate, sulfur dioxide, polynuclear organic matter, carbon hydrogen
nitrogen and sulfur content of the particulate, fuel consumption/economy
and noise and performance (cars and pick-up only). The basic test pro-
cedure included several recognized transient driving cycles for the cars
and the 13-mode Federal Test Procedure for the dynamometer operated
heavy duty diesel engines. Emission rates are computed and summarized
for both light duty and heavy duty diesels. Expression in terms of mass
per unit of time, per unit of fuel consumed, and per unit of distance
driven (light duty) or per unit of power output (heavy duty) allow direct
comparison between different cars or different engines as well as with
previously reported data.
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency by the Department of Emissions Research, Automotive
Research Division of Southwest Research Institute. The EPA Project
Officer was Mr. Ralph C. Stahman. Assisting the Project Officer on
this project and hereby acknowledging their assistance were Mr. John
J. McFadden and Dr. Joseph Somers, both of the Ann Arbor, Michigan
EPA laboratories.
The project was under the overall direction of Mr. Karl J.
Springer, Director of the Department of Emissions Research, who
served as Project Manager. Mr. Harry E. Dietzmann was responsible
for the chemical and analytical studies. Mr. Daniel A. Montalvo per-
formed the odor studies with the prototype CRC CAPE-7 DOAS method.
The project began in June 1974 and was authorized under Con-
tract 68-03-2116. It was known within Southwest Research Institute as
Project Il-40l6-00i and constituted Part VII of a long range investi-
gation of diesel emissions begun in 1966.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
FOREWORD iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
I. SUMMARY 1
II. INTRODUCTION 7
A. Background 7
B. Objective 8
C. Coordination Conference 8
D. Acknowledgement 8
in. DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, VEHICLES, FUELS
AND PROCEDURES 10
A. Heavy Duty Engines 10
B. Diesel Powered Light Duty Vehicles 10
C. Test Fuels 10
D. Test Plan 15
E. Procedures and Analysis 16
IV. RESULTS OF FIVE HD DIESEL ENGINES 52
A. 13-Mode Gaseous Emission Results 52
B. Federal Smoke Results 56
C. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses 60
D. Particulate, Sulfate and SO2 Results 79
E. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 104
F. Discussion and Summary 115
V. RESULTS OF FIVE DIESEL POWERED LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES 124
A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy 124
B. Smoke 127
C. Particulate, Sulfate, SO£ and PNA Results 139
D. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses 150
E, Vehicle Noise and Performance 173
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
LIST OF REFERENCES 178
APPENDIXES
A. Selected Tables and Figures from Petroleum
Products Survey No. 82
B. Chemical - Analytical Procedures
C. Computer Reduced 13-mode Federal Test
Results for Five Heavy Duty Engines
D. Results of Federal Smoke Test of Five
Heavy Duty Engines
E. Odor Rating by EPA Q/I Method of Five Heavy
Duty Engines
F. Instrumental-Wet Chemical Exhaust Data
Taken during Odor Test of Five Heavy Duty
Engines
G. Computer Reduced 1975 FTP, SET and FET
Gaseous and Fuel Economy Data for Five LD
Diesel Vehicles
H. Particulate Emission Rates for Five LD Diesel
Vehicles
I. Sulfate and SO£ Emission Rates for Five LD
Diesel Vehicles
J. Odor Ratings by Trained Panel for Five LD
Diesel Vehicles
K. Instrumental - Wet Chemical Exhaust Data Taken
During Odor Test of Five LD Diesel Vehicles
L. Noise Data for Five LD Diesel Vehicles
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 HD Diesel Engines under 13-mode Gaseous Emissions
Federal Test Procedure 18
2 Schematic of One Cycle of Federal Smoke Compliance
Test 20
3 Gaseous and Smoke Emissions Measurement from
LDV's During Transient Cycles 22
4 Odor Measurement by Trained SwRI Panel 25
5 Gaseous Emission, DOAS and DNPH Sample Trapping
During Odor Evaluation 30
6 Schematic Section of Dilution Tunnel for Diesel
Particulate Sampling 36
7 LDV Particulate Emission Measurement 38
8 HD Engine Particulate Emission Measurement 40
9 Measurement of Sound Level From Light Duty Diesel
Powered Vehicles 50
10 Detroit Diesel 6V-71 Engine Diesel Odor Intensity
by Trained Panel 70
11 Cummins NTC-290 Engine Diesel Odor Intensity by
Trained Panel 71
12 Detroit Diesel 8V-71 Engine Diesel Odor Intensity
by Trained Panel 72
13 Detroit Diesel 6V-71 Engine Diesel Odor Intensity
(TIA) by DOAS Method 73
14 Cummins NTC-290 Engine Diesel Odor Intensity
(TIA) by DOAS Method 74
15 TIA by DOAS Versus "D" Diesel Odor Rating by
Trained Panel for Five HD Diesel Engine Con- 76
figurations
VII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure Page
16 Particulate Emission Rates from Detroit Diesel
6V-71 Bus Engine Based on 47mm Glass Filter 88
17 Sulfate (SO^") Emission Rates from Detroit Diesel
6V-71 Bus Engine Based on 47mm Fluoropore Filter 89
18 SO2 Emission Rates from Detroit Diesel 6V-71 Bus
Engine 90
19 Power Output Fuel and Air Rates from Detroit Diesel
6V-71 Bus Engine During 7-Mode Tests 91
20 Particulate Emission Rates from Cummins NTC-290
Truck Engine based on 47mm Glass Filter 92
21 Sulfate (SO4=) Emission Rates from Cummins NTC-290
Truck Engine Based on 47mm Fluoropore Filter 93
22 SO2 Emission Rates from Cummins NTC-290 Truck
Engine 94
23 Power Output Fuel and Air Rates from Cummins NTC-
290 Truck Engine During 7-Mode Tests 96
24 Particulate Emission Rates from Detroit Diesel
8V-71TA Truck Engine Based on 47mm Glass Filter 97
25 Sulfate (SO4=) Emission Rates from Detroit Diesel
DDAD 8V-71TA Truck Engine Based on 47mm Fluoro-
pore Filter 98
26 SO2 Emission Rates from Detroit Diesel DDAD
8V-71TA Truck Engine 99
27 Power Output Fuel and Air Rates from Detroit
Diesel DDAD 8V-71TA Truck Engine During 7-Mode
Tests 100
28 Sulfate as Percent of S in Fuel for various HD
Engine Configurations 103
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES fcont'd)
Figure Page
29 B:ESO Emission Rates from Detroit Diesel
6V-71 Bus Engine Based on 8 x 10 Glass Filter 108
30 B:ESO Emission Rates from Cummins NTC-290
Truck Engine Based on 8 x 10 Glass Filter 109
31 B:ESO and BaP Emissions Rates from Detroit
Diesel 8V-71TA Truck'Engine Based on
8 x 10 Glass Filters 110
32 Comparison of Particulate g/hr Rates by 8 x 10
and 47mm Glass Filters for Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Engine 112
33 Comparison of Particulate g/hr Rates by 8 x 10 and
47mm Glass Filters for Cummins NTC-290 Engine 113
34 Comparison of Particulate g/hr Rates by 8 x 10
and 47mm Glass Filters for Detroit Diesel 8V-71 TA 114
35 Brake Specific B:ESO, BaP and Particulate
from Five Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Configurations 119
36 Brake Specific SO2 and SO^" Emissions from Five
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Configurations 120
37 Brake Specific CO and NO as NO2 Emissions from
Five Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Configurations 122
38 Brake Specific HC and HC+NO^ Emissions from Five
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Configurations 123
39 Typical Mercedes 220D Comprex "Cold Start" Smoke
Trace 131
40 Typical Mercedes 240D "Cold Start" Smoke Trace 132
41 Typical Mercedes 300D "Cold Start" Smoke Trace 133
42 Typical Peugeot 204D "Cold Start" Smoke Trace 134
43 Typical Perkins 6-247 "Cold Start" Smoke Trace 135
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure Page
44 Particulate Emission Rates of Five Diesel LD
Vehicles 142
45 Sulfate Emission Rates of Five Diesel LD Vehicles 147
46 BrESO Emission Rates of Five Diesel LD
Vehicles 151
47 Average Odor Ratings for Mercedes 220D Comprex
Diesel Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 154
48 Average Odor Ratings for Mercedes 240D Diesel
Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 155
49 Average Odor Ratings for Mercedes 300D Diesel
Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 156
50 Average Odor Ratings for Peugeot 204D Diesel
Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 157
51 Average Odor Ratings for Perkins 6-247 Diesel
Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 158
52 TIA by DOAS Versus "D" Odor Rating by Trained
Panel for Five LD Diesel Vehicles 163
53 Summary of FTP, SET-7 and FET Results 165
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Description of HD Diesel Engines 11
Z Description of Diesel Powered LD Test Vehicles 12
3 Summary of 1973 Bureau of Mines Diesel Fuel
Survey of City Bus and Truck-Tractor Fuel
Properties 14
4 Odor Test Conditions - HD Engines 27
5 Odor Test Conditions - LD Vehicles 28
6 13-Mode FTP Gaseous Emissions Results for Five
HD Diesel Engine Configurations 53
7 Heavy Duty Diesel (And Gasoline) Emission Limits 54
8 Federal Smoke Test Results for Five HD Diesel
Engine Configurations 57
9 Smoke Test Results During Maximum Power Test
for Five HD Diesel Engine Configurations 58
10 Average Odor Panel Ratings of HD Diesel Engines 61
11 Average of Exhaust Analyses Taken Simultaneously
with odor ratings of HD Engines During Steady-State
Conditions 63
12 Average Engine Operating Data Taken Simultaneously
with Odor Ratings of HD Engines During Steady-State
Conditions 66
13 Distribution of Exhaust Hydrocarbon Emissions
During Steady-State Odor Tests, ppm C 77
14 Aldehydes by DNPH for DDAD 8V-71TA Engine 80
15 Summary of Particulate, Sulfate and SO2 from 47mm
Glass and Fluoropore Filter Samples 81
16 Summary of Engine Operating Conditions 47mm Glass
and Fluoropore Filter Tests 86
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table Page
17 Elemental Analyses of Filter Collected Samples
for Five HD Diesel Engines 101
18 Summary of Particulate, BaP and Organic Solubles
from 8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Samples 105
19 7-Mode Brake and Fuel Specific Calculations - DDAD
8V-71TA 111
20 Summary of Engine Operating Conditions during
8 x 10 Size Glass Filter Tests 116
21 Brake and Fuel Specific Emission Rates of Five
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Configurations 118
22 Federal Light Duty Emission Standards 124
23 HC, CO, NOX and Fuel Results Five Diesel LDV's
(Average of Replicate Runs) 125
24 Comparison of SwRI to EPA Average Transient
Results 128
25 Smoke Opacity Values from Smoke Trace, 1975 FTP,
LA-4 Cold-Hot Start 129
26 Smoke Opacity Values from Smoke Trace of SET-7
Driving Cycle 137
27 Smoke Opacity Values from Smoke Trace of FET
Driving Cycle 138
28 Exhaust Smoke Opacity Readings 138
29 Particulate Emission Rates Five Diesel LDV's
(Average of Replicate Runs with 47mm Filters) 141
30 Elemental Analysis of Fiberglass Filter Dilution
Tunnel Collected Particulate, % by Weight 144
31 Sulfate and SO2 Emission Results Five Diesel LDV's
(Average of Replicate Runs) 146
xn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table Page
32 B:ESO and Particulate Emissions Rates
Five Diesel LDV's (Average of Replicate Runs
with 8 x 10 Glass Filters) 149
33 Listing of Average Odor Panel Ratings at 100:1
Dilution 153
34 Rough Comparison of LD Vehicle "D" Odor Ratings 159
35 Exhaust Analyses Taken Simultaneously with Odor
Ratings During Steady State Conditions 160
36 Comparison of TIA and "D" Odor Values 161
37 DOAS Results During Various Transient Cycles
(Five Diesel Powered LDV's) 164
38 Detailed Hydrocarbon Analysis of Samples Taken
During Steady-State Odor Tests 168
39 Detailed Hydrocarbon Analysis of Samples Taken
During Various Transient Cycles 169
40 Aldehydes from Five LD Diesel Vehicles Obtained
During Steady-State Odor Tests 171
41 Aldehydes From Five LD Diesel Vehicles Operated
Over Various Transient Driving Cycles 172
42 Summary of Sound Level Measurements for Five
Diesel Powered Light Duty Vehicles - dBA Scale 174
43 Acceleration Times for Five Diesel Powered LDV's 176
Xlll
-------
I. SUMMARY
Dieselization of passenger cars and light and medium duty
trucks is considered as a partial solution to both energy and environ-
mental problems. This report comprises the evaluation of five diesel
powered light duty vehicles (LDV) and five diesel engine configurations
used in truck and bus heavy duty vehicle (HDV) applications. The
LDV's include Comprex equipped Mercedes 2ZOD, Mercedes 240D,
Mercedes 300D, Peugeot 204D and an International pick-up truck
powered by a Perkins 6-247 engine. The LDV's were operated over
three transient driving cycles used in the 1975 Federal Emissions
Test (city driving), proposed sulfate emissions cycle (congested free-
way driving) and the Federal fuel economy cycle (highway driving).
The five heavy duty engine configurations included a Detroit
Diesel Allison Division (DDAD) 6V-71 city bus engine operated with two
injector designs, a Cummins NTC-290 truck engine operated with and
without variable injection timing and a Detroit Diesel 8V-71TA truck
engine. All vehicles and engines were operated on a "national average"
type DF-2 fuel except for the 6V-71 which operated on a kerosene type
DF-1 fuel consistent with city bus practice. The 13-mode Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) used for gaseous emissions of unburned hydrocarbons
(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitric oxide (NO) was used as the
basic engine test cycle. A 7-mode version of this test was also utilized.
In addition to measurement of the currently regulated emissions
from diesel LDV's (HC, CO and oxides of nitrogen, NOX) and from HD
diesel engines (HC, CO, NO as NO2 and visible smoke), a wide variety
of non-regulated contaminants were determined. These included
aldehydes by the dinitrophenylhydrozine (DNPH) method, odor by Public
Health Service Quality/Intensity (PHS Q/I) method and the diesel odor
analytical system (DOAS), particulate, sulfate, sulfur dioxide (SO2) by
the barium chloranilate (BCA) method, benz alpha pyrene (BaP), detailed
hydrocarbons, noise (LDV's only), smoke, elemental analysis of
particulate and fuel consumption/economy.
Emission rates were computed for the LDV's in terms of mass
per unit of time, per unit of fuel consumed and per unit of distance
driven for the five LDV's. The results of the five diesel engines were
expressed in the same mass rates except mass per unit of power output
was used instead of mass per unit distance driven. The data allows
direct comparison between each of the five LDV's for each type of driving
cycle employed. Similarly, the modal and cycle composite results of
the five HD engines can be directly compared to each other.
-------
The key findings are summarized as follows, first for the
five HD engine configurations and then for the five dies el powered
LDV's.
Heavy Duty Diesel Engines
The turbocharged and aftercooled DDAD 8V-71TA engine was
included for baseline purposes in this project. Most of the comments
that follow are specific to the two emission configurations of the DDAD
6V-71 and Cummins NTC-290 engines.
Gaseous - Substantially lower NO (as NC>2)* HC and CO were
found for the DDAD 6V-71 when equipped with the constant end of in-
jection B60E injectors set at retarded timing relative to the variable end
of injection U5N-60 injectors. The brake specific fuel consumption,
mass of fuel burned per unit of work output, increased slightly due to a
reduction in maximum power with the retarded timing.
Substantially lower NO (as NO£) but higher HC and CO resulted
with the automatic variable injection timing version of the Cummins
NTC 290 engine. Brake specific fuel consumption was, like the 6V-71,
increased slightly again, presumably due to the lower maximum power
observed.
Smoke - Higher Federal smoke test opacities we're observed with
the B60E, retarded timing configuration of the DDAD 6V-71 bus engine.
The "a" accel and "b" lug smoke values were more than doubled from
their relatively low 5.5 and 1.9 percent opacity with L.SN-60 injectors.
The increase in smoke from the city bus engine is a distinct disadvantage
for the B60E retarded timing configuration because of the proximity of city
buses to the large sectors of the population. No change in smoke output
was noted with the "low" emissions configuration of the Cummins NTC-290
relative to its "current" configuration.
Odor - Odor tests by the trained panel revealed that the transient
operating conditions continue to dominate the production of odor, being
more intense than steady state operation. No significant or consistent
differences in perceived odor were found with either emissions configu-
ration of the 6V-71 or NTC-290 engines. Odor intensities ranged from
"D" - 2. 5 to "D" - 3 for the 8V-71TA, a moderate odor strength.
The diesel odor analytical system (DOAS), developed under Co-
ordinating Research Council direction, resulted in total intensity of aroma
(TLA) values that did not correlate with the "D" odor intensity panel ratings
for the five HD engine configurations as a group.
Aldehydes - The difficulty in converting from previous methods for
formaldehyde, acrolein and aliphatic aldehydes to the DNPH procedure
-------
allowed only the last HD engine tested, the DDAD 8V-71TA, to be
evaluated. For the first time in this long range project, data are
available on formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, isobutanal, crotanal,
hexanal, and benzaldehyde by an improved method.
Particulate - Particulate emission rates for the DDAD 6V-71
were about the same regardless of the injector -timing configuration.
The variable timing equipped Cummins NTC-290 emitted about the same
rate of particulate as the standard system. The important finding was
the substantial range in particulate rate from the two-stroke cycle bus
engine and the four-stroke cycle truck engine, on the order of 0.4 to
1.9 g/kW-hr based on a 7-mode cycle. The higher rate of particulate
from the DDAD 6V-71 was substantially different in composition having
much more hydrocarbon content as unburned or partially burned fuel
and lube oil. The NTC-290 particulate was basically soot or carbon.
Sulfate and SO 2 - Of the many ways to express the content of
sulfate and SO 2 in the exhaust, percent sulfur in the fuel converted to
either sulfate or SO£ is most instructive. This is especially true where
fuel sulfur content varies appreciably as with dies el fuel. On the average,
about 2. 5 percent of the fuel consumed by the five diesel configurations
tested was converted to sulfate, measured by the dilution tunnel barium
chloranilate method. The range was from 0.9 to 4.5 percent depending
on engine and condition.
Exhaust SO£ was found to account for the remainder of the fuel
sulfur and permitted sulfur balances to be made within the normal ±10
percent of theoretical sulfur burned. The inaccuracy of the SO2 measure
ment is greater than the amount of sulfur converted to sulfate making the
measurement of SO2 in future projects of minimal importance. The
engine configuration apparently had no significant effect on the sulfate
conversion.
PNA - Attempts at measuring polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon,
emphasized the need for additional procedural development. BaP was
measured only on one of the HD engines, the DDAD 8V-71TA. Poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were measured by a different method on
the Cummins and DDAD 6V-71 engines. The sampling and analysis of
PNA's is in its early exploratory stage and is in need of a substantial
amount of development before confidence in the quantitative rates can
be established.
Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Gaseous - All three Mercedes passenger cars had HC emissions
well within statutory limits of 0.25 g/km (0.41 g/mi), while both the
-------
Peugeot 204D and Perkins 6-247 were above the limit. All five vehicles
were well below the statutory CO limit with the Perkins 6-247 about
double the 0.6 of the three Mercedes cars. The Peugeot 204D with
Comprex equipped Mercedes 220D were lower in NOX than previously
tested diesel cars and approached the statutory limit of 0.25 g/km.
All of these values were from vehicles without intentional emissions
optimization. The Comprex equipped Mercedes 220D is an experi-
mental adaptation.
Fuel Consumption - The superior thermal efficiency of the
diesel cycle was illustrated by the five vehicles. For example, the
three Mercedes cars had city estimates of 9.1 to 9.9 liters/100 km (25.9
to 23.8 mpg) and highway estimates of 7.0 to 7.8 liters/100 km (33.5
to 30.0 mpg). The Peugeot 204D (1134 kg, 2500 Ibs test weight) had a
city estimate of 6.7 liters/100 km (35.9 mpg) and a highway estimate
of 5.4 liters/100 km (43.8 mpg). The heavier pick-up truck (2041 kg,
4500 Ib test weight) powered by the Perkins 6-247, had city estimates
the same as the Mercedes passenger cars and a highway estimate of
8.32 liters/100 km (28.3 mpg).
Smoke - From continuous recordings during various driving cycles,
it was found that the exhaust opacity was at or near the threshold of
visibility most of the time. Only during accelerations were there easily
noticeable smoke discharges. The Comprex equipped Mercedes 220D
had the highest opacity being quite noticeable, especially during the
acceleration. The Comprex acted somewhat as a conventional turbo-
charger might in smoke behavior.
Particulates - Of the five vehicles, the Comprex equipped Mer-
cedes and Perkins 6-247 had the highest particulate rates. This is con-
sistent with the visible smoke discharge even though the smoke-particulate
relationship at or below the threshold of visibility is not defined. Values
ranged from 0.237 to 0.500 g/km over the FTP, 0.150 to 0.307 g/km
for the SET and 0.185 to 0.335 for the FET. The lowest particulate
rate was obtained with the smallest car, the Peugeot 204D, an overall
average of 0.328 g/km, about twice that of a car operating on leaded
gasoline. These are very rough and general comparisons to place
diesel car particulate into some perspective.
The particulate from the Peugeot 204D was found to plug the plastic
Fluoropore filters for sulfate collection during the run necessitating a
change in flow rate during the test. Examination of the particulate re -
vealed that the carbon fraction was much lower and the hydrogen content
much higher than the other passenger cars. The apparent higher amount
of hydrocarbon matter in the particulate indicates a greater amount of
unburned or partially burned fuel and lubricating oil.
-------
Sulfate - Sulfate ranged from 5.1 to 12. 9 mg/km for the five cars
by the three transient test procedures. On the order of 1 . 6 percent of
the fuel sulfur was converted to sulfate during city driving cycles, 1.9
percent during the sulfate test cycle and 2. 3 percent during the highway
fuel economy test. The remainder of the 0. 23 percent by weight sulfur
in the fuel was apparently converted to
It may be shown that for an average conversion of 20 percent of
fuel sulfur to sulfate by catalyst and air pump equipped gasoline cars
that the diesel contributes about half as much sulfate per kilometer
driven. This is based on average sulfur content of 0.23 percent by weight
for DF-2 and 0.03 percent for gasoline. The variability of sulfate emis-
sions from catalyst cars make this rough comparison subject to improve-
ment as better data becomes available.
Odor - Odor ratings at 100:1 exhaust dilution by trained panel
indicated that the three Mercedes cars had about the same odor quality
and intensity, in the range of "D"-2. 5 to "D"-3, a moderate level yet
quite noticeable. The Peugeot 204D and Perkins 6-247 had significantly
higher odor levels, on the order of "D"-3.5 for the Peugeot and "D"-4
for the Perkins. These levels are moderate to strong and are easily
noticed. Contrary to the HD engine experience, the odor ratings made
during steady state were generally in the same range as the transient
acceleration, deceleration, and cold start.
Overall, the relationship of DOAS to observed "D" rating was
much better and more encouraging than found with the five HD engines.
This was found for both steady state and transient cycle vehicle operation.
Aldehydes - A variety of aldehydes were found to be higher in
concentration during the steady state odor test conditions from the
Peugeot 204D and Perkins 6-247 than the three Mercedes cars. This
was also true during the tests over the transient driving cycles in the
case of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. For the most part, the three
Mercedes passenger cars reacted the same. Full scale testing to
establish vehicle test repeatability has not been performed and therefore
the results, especially during transient test cycles, should be used with
caution. One thing is clear, however, and that is the higher aldehydes
from the Peugeot 204D and Perkins 6-247 vehicles is consistent with the
higher hydrocarbons, NRHC, particulate and odor from these two vehicles.
Noise - All four passenger cars had relatively low dBA noise levels.
based on acceleration, cruise and curb idle interior and exterior sound
level measurements. The Perkins 6-247 powered pick-up truck had
higher exterior dBA ratings during the SAE acceleration test as well as
curb idle. However, none of the vehicles would be classed as noisy
-------
with all measurements below 80 dBA. Compared to many gasoline powered
cars, the diesel engine noise has a different quality sound, especially at
idle.
Acceleration Performance - The minimum time to accelerate
from 0-96.5 km/hr (0-60 mph) was with the Comprex equipped Mercedes
220D. The Mercedes 300D, Perkins 6-247 powered pick-up truck,
Mercedes 240D and Peugeot 204D had next fastest acceleration times.
-------
H. INTRODUCTION
More and more, the diesel engine is considered a viable al-
ternative to the conventional SI engine for automobiles. For many
years, the diesel engine has dominated intercity trucking and both
intercity and intracity buses. In these applications, the diesel has
demonstrated a clear superiority over all other power plants in terms
of fuel economy and durability. In recent years, a renewal of interest
in mid-range diesels for use in urban delivery trucks has been evident.
The basic reason given has been the superior fuel economy. This
trend is expected to continue with the real possibility of diesel powered
light duty vehicles (LDV's) becoming much more popular.
A. Background
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1965 were specific in ex-
pressing concern over odor and smoke from diesel powered vehicles.
This legislation prompted a long range investigation of diesel emis-
sions which began in 1966 at Southwest Research Institute's Depart-
ment of Emissions Research on behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). This continuing activity, currently in its tenth year, has
resulted in a large number of reports and papers on the subjectJl -5)*
A number of other studies regarding diesel emissions were made by
SwRI on behalf of EPA under separate projects^~25)
The original project was concerned with visible smoke and
noticeable odor, both classed as "nuisance" emissions which inter-
ferred with the general welfare. Much was learned in how to measure
odor and smoke and the types of conditions which would result in
obvious discharges. In the intervening years, a steady broadening
of this activity included unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide
(CO) and oxides of nitrogen (now regulated emissions), methods of
control and procedural development.
During the last few years, an increasing variety of non-regulated
materials in diesel exhaust have come under scrutiny. Measurement of
particulate, aldehydes, polynuclear organic matter, sulfate (SO4=),
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and several other contaminants have been investi-
gated in an attempt to quantify emissions for which little data was
available.
^Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to the List of References
at the end of this report.
-------
It is important to know as much as possible about the advantages
and disadvantages of an alternative to the conventional gasoline engine as
well as to document the emission rates from state-of-the-art diesel
heavy duty engines. Thus, the justification for the work described in
this report.
B. Objective
The objective was to determine and compare the emissions from
a group of five heavy duty diesel engines and from a group of five diesel
powered light duty vehicles. The approach was to build on and use pro-
cedures and measurement methods perfected during the previous parts
of this project. General emission measurement techniques had to be
adopted from other EPA projects(27, 28)t modified as necessary, and
experience gained in their use. The principal "New" items to this
project were particulate measurement, aldehydes by the DNPH method,
sulfate by BCA method, SO2 by the SwRI-BCA method, and PNA emis-
sions. Thus the objective was not only to acquire emission values for
a group of diesel cars and diesel engines but to bring into everyday use
several measurement procedures for which little or only limited exper-
ience was available.
C. Coordination Conference
On September 17, 1974 a conference was held in San Antonio to
discuss the chemical measurement part of this project. The major con-
cern of the meeting was the measurement of polyorganic matter (POM)
as they relate to polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compounds. In attendance
were Mr. Ralph Stahman, Mr. Dick Lawrence, Dr. Joe Somers, all of
EPA Ann Arbor and Dr. Ron Bradow of EPA Research Triangle. Also
discussed were the selection of suitable test fuels and the test conditions
to be used. The tentative agreements reached are reported in Section II
of this report.
Also reported in Section II are other discussions of specific im-
portance that were made with the advice and at the consent of the Project
Officer. The September 17, 1974 coordination meeting was in effect the
first of many informal but none-the-less important actions of a coordi-
nation and project guidance nature.
D. Acknowledgement
The Environmental Protection Agency selected and furnished the
five diesel LDV's evaluated. The cars were provided to EPA for SwRI
test program through the courtesy of the respective manufacturers. They
were Mercedes-Benz of North America, Peugeot, and Perkins Company.
8
-------
The three heavy duty engines and hardware for alternative engine
configurations -were obtained on "loan" from Detroit Diesel Allison
Division, General Motors Corporation, and Cummins Engine Company,
This project was conducted with the cooperation and assistance of these
companies, for which we are very grateful.
-------
IK. DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES, VEHICLES, FUELS
AND PROCEDURES
This section describes the test engines and vehicles, fuels and
their selection, test plan and procedures followed.
A. Heavy Duty Engines
Table 1 lists particulars that describe the five heavy duty engine
configurations studied. The Detroit Diesel Allison Division (DDAD) 6V-71
engine was operated with both Low Sac Needle size 60 (LSN-60) fuel in-
jectors and B-60E injectors. The B-60E injectors are needle type with a
constant end of injection helix instead of a constant start of injection helix.
The Cummins NTC-290 engine was operated in a "current" configuration
where the engine used standard static injection timing and in a "low" emis-
sions configuration where variable injection timing was employed.
B. Diesel Powered Light Duty Vehicles
Table 2 lists particulars that describe the five LDV's powered
by automotive type diesel engines. All vehicles were delivered to SwRI
by car carrier transport. The comprex-equipped Mercedes 220D J5/an
experimental, one-of-a-kind, vehicle and is not a production unit. The
Mercedes 240D and 300D passenger cars are sold in the U. S.; while
the Peugeot 204D, which uses a transverse mounted high speed diesel
and front wheel drive, is not marketed in the U. S. The Perkins 6-247
engine was installed in the IHC Model 100 1/4 ton pick-up truck by
Perkins Engine Company and evaluated as-received.
C. Test Fuels
One area of discussion at the September 17, 1974 Coordination
Meeting was that of test fuel and fuel sulfur level. Use of the standard
smoke test fuel described in the Federal Register for this project could
result in abnormally high emissions of those pollutants sensitive to fuel
sulfur and aromatic content.
For example, the Federal Register smoke test fuel (also used
for gaseous emissions testing for HC, CO and NO) must have 0. 2 to
0. 5 percent by weight sulfur. This higher-than-normal range of sulfur
is intended to accelerate wear in the engine during the 1000 hour dura-
bility certification test. Since the fuel sulfur content will directly affect
SO2-SO1 readings and indirectly affect odor ( the effect is uncertain), it
was decided to use a sulfur level based on the 1973 Bureau of Mines
survey results for automotive diesel fuel.
The higher-than-normal aromatics in the Federal emissions
DF-2 fuel, because of its effect on smoke emissions, was considered
10
-------
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF HD DIESEL ENGINES
Engine Make
Engine Model
Engine Serial No.
Strokes/cycle
Cylinder arrangement
Displacement, liters
cubic inches
Compression ratio
Type Aspiration
Rated Speed, rpm
Power at rated speed, kw
hp
Peak Torque Speed, rpm
Peak Torque, N-M
Ib-ft
Typical Application
Typical Fuel Type
Detroit Diesel
6V-71U)
6VA53347
2
V-6
6.98
426
18.7:1
Natural
Blower Scavenged
2100
163
218
1200
819
604
City Bus
DF-1
Detroit Diesel
8V-71TA(2)
X-470
2
V-8
9.31
568
18.7:1
Turbocharged
Plus Blower
2100
269
360
1400
1383
1020
Truck-Tractor
DF-2
Cummins
NTC-290-C<3)
10357839
4
1-6
14.01
855
14. 1:1
Turbocharged
2100
216
290
1400.
1086
801
Truck Tractor
DF-2
^Tested with LSN-60 injectors at 1.484 timing and with B-60E injectors at 1. 500 timing setting
(^Aftercooled, N-75 injectors, 1000 hr durability engine
(3)Tested with standard timing, "current", configuration and with variable injection timing,
emission configuration
low1
-------
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF DIESEL POWERED LD TEST VEHICLES
tv
Model
Model Year
Vehicle ID
Type of Vehicle
Number of Doors
Number of Passengers
Color
Odometer, km
Number of Cylinders
Displacement, litre
Bore, m x 10~2
Stroke, m x 10-2
Compression Ratio
Output Power, kw
at rpm
Transmission Type
Speeds
Rear Axle Ratio
Tire Size
Empty Weight (Scale), kg
Test Weight (Inertia), kg
*Per EPA Records.
U) Installed in IHC series 100 pickup by Perkins
(2) Measured
Mercedes
220D
Comprex
220D
1975
COM-1*
Sedan
4
5
Blue
13, 853
4
2.20
8.71
9.24
22:1
66
3800
Man
4
3.46
175SR14
1500
1588
Mercedes
240D
240D
1975
10066208*
Sedan
4
5
Brown
3,559
4
2.4
9.1
9.24
21:1
46.3
4200
Man
4
3.69
175SR14
1497
1588
Mercedes
300D
300D
1975
12019885
Sedan
4
5
Brown
8,106
5
3.0
9.10
9.24
21:1
57.4
4200
Auto
3
3.46
645-14
1588
1814
Peugeot
204D
204D
1974
71-DTM*
Sta. Wagon
4
4
White
11,591
4
1.36
7.8
7.1
23.3:1
38
5000
Man
4
4.06
145SR14
953
1134
Perkins^)
6-247
IHC
1974
4H1CODHB23906
Pickup
2
3
Blue
16,502
6
4.05
9.2
10.16
21:1
78.3
3600
Man
4
3.75(2)
H70-15
1982
2041
-------
and no decision made on whether to use the national average level or
leave it at the minimum 27 percent specification. Not enough was known
about fuel effects on many of the contaminants involved in this study to be
able to give a clear recommendation at the September 17 meeting. There
appears little justification, however, to continue using the Federal smoke
test fuel for research into the variety of contaminants due to its atypical
aromaticity and sulfur content.
It was decided to use the same test fuel in this project and
another EPA Contract 68-03-2118 (Mr. Dick Lawrence, Project Officer),
dealing with sulfates and SOz from a Mercedes diesel powered car. It
was also decided to perform a brief study and analysis of fuel properties
and their range and to use the 1973 Bureau of Mines diesel fuel survey(29)
as a basis. To the extent practical, a commercially-available DF-2
fuel that meets these criteria was desired. Fuel sulfur level would
then be adjusted by adding ditertiary butyl disulfide additive to achieve
the national average sulfur content.
An analysis of data in the 1973 Bureau of Mines Survey* '' was
made. The survey does not give national average values; and after some
study, it was clear that true national average values must be sales weighted.
In order to gain some approximations of national average values, the data
from the five regions in the survey were arithmetically averaged. Thus,
a kind of "national average" for each fuel property was obtained.
Table 3 lists the maximum, minimum and arithmetic average
for the five regions for both city bus fuel and truck-tractor fuel. The
average of the five U. S. regions surveyed was 0. 096 percent by weight
sulfur in city bus fuel (nominally a Type DF-1 fuel) and 0. 228 percent
by weight sulfur in truck-tractor fuel (nominally a Type 2-D fuel). This
overall average value is not sales weighted nor is the individual regional
averages sales weighted. Thus, these average sulfur levels must be used
with much caution insofar as their true national average fuel sulfur con-
tent is concerned. The data on Table 3 were averaged from Tables 1
and 2, reproduced from Reference 29 and included in Appendix A. Also
in Appendix A are Figures 2 and 3, reproduced fromReference 29, that
show the trends of city bus (C-B) and truck-tractor (T-T) fuels.
In conversations with the Project Officer on January 9 and 10,
1975, it was agreed to use a commercially -available name brand
Type DF-1 fuel for the test work on the 6V-71 coach engine. The rea-
soning was to use the type of fuel most nearly used by transit bus oper-
ators and to use the same type of fuel as used during the previous eight
years of work with city buses. Over the years, a substantial data base
and experience level has been accumulated with Gulf Oil DF-1 kerosene
type fuel and it was appropriate to continue with this fuel.
Table 3 also lists the composition of EM-226-F, a DF-1 fuel,
13
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF 1973 BUREAU OF MINES DIESEL FUEL SURVEY
OF CITY BUS AND TRUCK-TRACTOR FUEL PROPERTIES
Test
Gravity, "API
Viscosity at 100°F
Kinematic, CS
Saybolt Univ. , sec
Sulfur content, wt %
Aniline point, °F
C residue on 10%wt%
Ash, wt %
Cetane number
Distillation temp. °F
Vol. recovered
. IBP
10%
50%
90%
End point
% Recovery
% Residue
% Loss
FIA, %
Aroma tic 3
Olefins
Saturates
Flash Point, aF
ASTM
D287
D445
D88
D129
D1266
D611
D524
D482
D613
D976
D86
D139
D93
City
Max.
42.7
1.93
32.4
0. 130
149. 1
0.081
0.001
50.8
353
394
449
516
556
Bus Fuel
Mia.
41.0
1.77
32. 1
0.050
146.3
0.055
0.001
47. 1
347
387
437
497
537
Avg.
41.4
1.87
32.3
0.096
147.8
0.069
0.001
49.08
351
391
443
505
544
DF-1
EM-226-F
44.3
1.67
31.5
0. 10
Calc.
48.6
336
366
399
459
511
99.0
1.0
0.0
15.1
2.5
82.4
115
Truck-Tractor
Max.
36.7
2.79
35. 3
0.251
148.3
0. 110
0.002
48.7
378
430
498
580
624
Min.
35.8
2.56
34.5
0. 192
142.7
0.091
0.001
46.9
366
423
493
571
613
Fuel
Avg.
36.4
2.67
34.9
0.228
145.5
0. 102
0.001
47.9
373
426
495
575
620
DF-2
EM-176-F
36.4
2.6
34.8
0. 23
Calc.
47.6
368
424
482
571
623
99.0
1.0
0.0
25.6
2.7
71.7
150
Note: The Max., Min. , and Avg. Data are baaed on regional averages for the five U. S. regions in the 1973
Bureau of Mines Diesel Fuel Survey and are not Sales-Weighted averages.
-------
and EM-176-F, and DF-2 fuel. Both are Gulf Oil Company commercial
pump diesel fuels to which ditertiary butyl disulfide was added to achieve
0. 10 and 0. 23 percent by weight fuel sulfur levels, respectively. Although
the DF-2 fuel (EM-176-F) happens to fall directly on the arithmetic average
of the five U. S. regions surveyed in 1973, the DF-1 diesel fuel does not.
The DF-1, the same as that used by San Antonio Transit System, is Gulf
DF-1 kerosene, the same as Jet A fuel and is as close as any in the area
to the " national average. " EM-226-F is notably lower in endpoint and is
a lighter fuel than the "national average" on Table 3. Cetane number and
viscosity were quite close, however, to "national average. "
During the January 10, 1975 discussions, it was mutually agreed
to utilize both Gulf fuels; since they were readily available and not sub-
stantially different from the average fuel properties listed in Table 3.
A substantial amount of test work and experimentation has been accumu-
lated with both fuels over the years at SwRI on odor, smoke, and gaseous
emissions. The DF-2 fuel was used on all engines and vehicles other
than the DDAD 6V-71 city bus engine.
D. Test Plan
The test plans are described briefly for each category of engines/
vehicles evaluated.
1. Heavy Duty Engines
The five HD engine configurations were operated on a stationary
engine dynamometer. This permitted acquisition of test data that is
consistent with the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for heavy duty diesel
engines by (1) the 13-mode test for gaseous emissions and (2) the Fed-
eral smoke test for visible emissions. Thus, the data can be compared
to Federal limits for HC, CO, NO (as NO2) and smoke. The nonregu-
lated pollutants could then also be expressed in units consistent with the
13-mode test; namely grams per kw-hour.
For the DDAD 6V-71 and Cummins NTC-290, the engines were
run in their as-received standard configurations and then modified and
the entire series of tests re-run. The injector replacement with the
6V-71 and the changeover from fixed injection timing to variable timing
(NTC-290) was performed by SwRI staff with the advice and instructions
of the respective manufacturer. In the case of the Cummins engine, it
was necessary to have a service representative from the local Cummins
Sales and Service branch to adjust the timing and provide other assistance.
Each series of tests began with the running of several, replicate,
13-mode FTP gaseous emissions tests followed by several Federal smoke
15
-------
tests. From this, the general performance of the engine could be as-
sessed in terms of fuel consumption, air consumption and power output.
The engine's smoke level and HC 4- NO2 were then compared to standards
and to previous data run either at SwRI or by the manufacturer. The
next step in the series was to connect the exhaust to the dilution tunnel
via a suitable muffler so that only a portion of the exhaust was diluted
and the remainder vented. The dilution tunnel runs were based on seven
modes of the 13-mode test and involved replicate runs for 47 mm fiber-
glass, Fluoropore and 8 x 10 size fiberglass. SC>2, sulfate, PNA, as
well as particulate emission rates were then determined. The engine
exhaust was then connected to the SwRI odor sampling dilution system
for odor panel rating. During these replicate days of operation on each
engine configuration, odor panel rating, diesel odor analytical system
(DOAS) measurement, non-reactive hydrocarbons (NRHC) and aldehydes
were measured as well as HC, CO, NOX, CC>2 and selected engine para-
meters.
2. Light Duty Vehicles
All five LDV's were tested as a group in their as-received
condition starting with replicate 1975 cold start Federal Test Proce-
dures (FTP), sulfate emission test (SET) and highway fuel economy
test (FET) for gaseous emissions and fuel consumption determinations.
NRHC, aldehydes, and DOAS analyses were made of selected transient
cycles. Next, smoke tests were performed using the EPA smokemeter
with the three transient test cycles, FTP, SET and FET. The entire
exhaust was then directed into a dilution tunnel and the FTP, SET and
FET transient test series repeated to obtain emission rates of particu-
late, sulfate, SO2 and BaP. Repeated runs were made to obtain 47mm
glass and Fluoropore samples and 8x10 size fiberglass filter samples.
Next the vehicles were operated on the dynamometer adjacent
to the odor room, and replicate odor evluations performed. Aldehydes,
DOAS, NRHC, CO, CO2, HC and NO measurements were obtained sim-
ultaneously with the odor panel ratings. Then the vehicles were oper-
ated over the SwRI road course for sound level, noise, measurements.
Last, each of the vehicles were driven to determine general performance
during several maximum power "wide-open-throttle" accelerations.
E. Procedures and Analysis
The specific test procedures and analysis systems used for
each emissions category are described in the following subsections.
In every case possible, recognized procedures published in the Fed-
eral regulations were employed. Instruments, sampling and analysis,
and other facilities adhered strictly to these methods without exception.
Where a Federal procedure did not exist, existing procedures for HD
diesel vehicles were modified or adapted as necessary for purposes of
16
-------
this project. The advice and consent of the Project Officer was obtained
on those areas of substantial modification before proceeding.
In general, the procedures and analytical efforts are the same as
that used in previous projects in the long range investigation. Several
new sarnpline and analytical techniques were utilized from a related
project^' 2®)and a few such as DNPH and SO2 - SO| for diesels for the
first time.
1. 1974 Heavy Duty Gaseous Emissions FTP-HD Engines Only
The 1974 HD gaseous emissions test, known as the 13-mode test,
is described in Reference 28 as a stationary engine test. The 130-minute
long procedure is a speed-load map of 13 modes at 10 minutes per mode.
In addition to CO and NO by NDIR (according to SAE recommended prac-
tice J-177), air rate must be measured continuously (according to SAE
recommended practice J-244). A Flo-Tron system was used to measure
the net fuel consumption of the engine. Exhaust hydrocarbons were
measured by heated, 191°C (375°F), flame ionization detector optimized
in accord with SAE recommended practice J-215.
The HD diesel engines investigated had a common rated speed of
2100 rpm. For the 13-mode test, the intermediate speed is defined as
peak torque or 60 percent of rated, whichever is higher. The procedure
starts with low idle, then 2, 25, 60, 75, and 100 percent load at inter-
mediate speed followed by low idle. Then speed is increased to "rated"
at 100 percent load with decreases to 75, 50, 25, and 2 percent. Another
idle is then run. Figure 1 upper left view, shows the NDIR's for CO and
NO and heated FID for HC used during the 13-mode test series.
Also shown in Figure 1 are views of the HD diesel engines
mounted on two identical 500 hp dynamometer facilities. The upper
right view shows the Cummins NTC-290. The center photos are left
to right side view of the Detroit Diesel 6V-71. The 8V-71 TA engine
was tested on the same stand as the 6V-71. The center right view shows
aMerriam laminar air flow instrument attached to the engine intake and
drawing air from, a plenum which houses activated charcoal and particu-
late filters. The stationary 13-mode procedure uses measured power
output at the flywheel to determine the cycle weighted power for division
into the product of emission concentration times density of emission
times flow of exhaust to get brake specific emission rate. The lower
two photos of Figure 1 illustrates the 500 hp Midwest eddy current-type
dynamometer and large inertia wheel arrangement used to simulate
transient engine operation as well as absorb the power output.
The 13-mode tests were performed in replicate, usually two to
three times and in strict accord with the Federal Test Procedure with the
17
-------
FIGURE 1.
HD DIESEL ENGINES UNDER 13-MODE GASEOUS EMISSIONS
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
18
-------
one exception of test fuel. The 13-mode tests were performed only with
the five heavy duty engine configurations and were not run on the five
diesel powered LDV's. Modal emissions data were taken on the five LDVs
during the odor testing sequence. These modal values were obtained at
speeds more indicative of actual engine-passenger car/light truck
operation than the HD 13-mode test.
2. Smoke Test Procedures
Smoke tests were performed on both heavy duty and light duty
type engines as follows.
a. 1974 HD Diesel Smoke FTP - HD Engines Only
The Federal smoke test, promulgated in 1968 (Reference
30), was the basic smoke evaluation procedure utilized for the five HD
engine configurations. It was improved and more stringent standards
adopted in 1972\31) for 1974 certification purposes. Replicate smoke
tests were made using the Federal HD smoke test, shown in the Figure 2
schematic. It consists of an initial engine acceleration from 150-250
rpm above the low idle speed to 85-90 percent of rated engine speed in
5.0 ± 1.5 seconds, a second acceleration from peak torque speed (or
60 percent of rated speed, whichever is higher) to 95-100 percent of
rated speed in 10.0 ±2.0 seconds, and (following this second accelera-
tion) a full-power lugdown from 95-100 percent of rated speed to the
particular intermediate engine speed (peak torque speed or 60 percent
of rated speed) in 35.0 ± 5 seconds. Three of these sequences
constitute one smoke test.
For each sequence, the average smoke opacity from the 15
highest-valued one-half second intervals of the two accelerations deter-
mine the "a" factor, and the average opacity from the five highest-
valued one-half second intervals of the lugdown mode determine the
"b" factor. The maximum values allowed for "a" and "b" factors of
1970 through 1973 certification engines were 40- and 20-percent opacity,
respectively. For 1974, the "a" factor was reduced to 20-percent
opacity and "b" factor was reduced to 15-percent opacity. The peak
or "c" factor, which is the average of the three highest one-half
second intervals per cycle, is determined from the "a" and "b" chart
readings. The three cycle "c" values are then averaged to determine
the "c" factor for the test. Smoke-power curves were obtained in which
the engine was run in 200 rpm increments and smoke measured at full
power throughout the range of operating engine speed. These full power
smoke values give additional insight on steady state maximum smoke
performance.
b. Transient Smoke Tests - LDV's Only
There is currently no recognized U.S. smoke test procedure
19
-------
100
90
80
0)
-------
for light duty passenger car exhaust. Although the heavy duty schedule of
speed and load versus time can be used with the light duty vehicle by a
chassis dynamometer version of the test, it is uncertain whether this test
is indeed representative of the way the smaller, higher speed diesels op-
erate. Specifically, engine rated speed is considered higher than that
normally encountered in passenger cars in urban use. The visible smoke
emissions from the five LDV's were continuously recorded during operation
of the vehicle over the three transient during cycle (FTP, SET, FET) but
with the CVS disconnected. These cycles will be described in the next
section.
The two top photos of Figure 3 show selected test cars as prepared
for the smoke tests. Note the short 0.61 meter (24 inch) exhaust pipe
extension of 50. 8 (2 inch) exhaust pipe. The EPA smokemeter is mounted
at the end of this pipe so that the centerline of the light beam is 127 mm
(5 inches) from the tip of the pipe. The usual light duty water brake
Clayton 50 hp chassis dynamometer with belt drive inertia system was
employed. Figure 3 (center left photo) also shows the multi-pen strip
chart recorder used to monitor smoke opacity, vehicle and/or engine
speed. The usual driving aid was used to drive the transient LA-4, SET
or FET speed versus time trace.
3. Transient Test Procedures - LDV's Only
The cold start 1975 FTP was the basic gaseous transient procedure
used for the five diesel powered LDV's. This procedure was not employed
with the stationary heavy duty diesel engines. It is essentially the same
for both gasoline and diesel fueled cars. The basic gasoline procedure
was described by Reference 31 and modified in more recent Federal
Registers . The diesel procedure was originally described in Reference
32 and modified in later Federal Registers. Hydrocarbon values were
obtained by the continuous hot flame ionization analysis. ' ' All tests
were on the same light duty chassis dynamometer with the same CVS and
analytical train. The Federal Test Procedures for gaseous emissions
were followed without exception. No evaporative hydrocarbons tests were
made.
In addition to the usual HC , CO and NOX measurements, samples
were continuously taken and collected in reagents for wet chemical analysis
or in suitably packed traps for later odor analysis. These samples were
withdrawn in the stainless steel pipe section connecting the exhaust dilution
point (below the CVS filter box) and the CVS inlet. Several probes were
inserted into this pipe section; one probe for the DNPH bubblers and one
for each of the three odor trapping systems for the diesel odor analytical
system (DOAS).
These probes were located adjacent to the probe used to obtain
the continuous HC sample. All sample lines and interfaces were heated
21
-------
FIGURE 3. GASEOUS AND SMOKE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT
FROM LDV's DURING TRANSIENT CYCLES
22
-------
as required to maintain sample integrity for diesels. HC sampling and
diesel odor analytical systems (DOAS) traps were taken at gas tempera-
tures of 191°C (375°F). Aldehyde samples were obtained by use of large
glass bubblers immersed in ice water.
A digital integrator was used to integrate the time-concentration
signal from the HC analyzer, a flame ionization detector with linear
response. The other continuous samples depended on their absorbing
materials, reagent for wet collected samples, and chromosorb in the
case of the diesel odor traps, to integrate a total representative sample
for the entire 1975 FTP. It should be understood that each FTP included
three separate bags for gaseous emissions. The integrator for HC was
wired to give three separate integrations.
In the case of wet collected and odor traps, the entire 23-minute
(Bags 1 and 2) and the third bag 505-second portion of the 1975 FTP were
taken in a single collector (bubbler or trap). This was necessary to ob-
tain sufficient sample for analysis and preclude the problem of switching
after the first 505 seconds of the run (cold start bag).
All runs were made with the CVS main blower slowed to a nominal
5. 38mr per minute (260 CFM). The reason was to prevent overdilution
of the already air dilute exhaust and maintain the sensitivity of analysis.
No problems were encountered by operating at this lower^than-normal
speed once the CVS was calibrated and propane checked.
Figure 3 also shows various views of the test set-up used with
the eight cars tested by the 1975 LD FTP. The driving aid strip chart,
engine cooling fan, chassis dynamometer and variable inertia system
are shown in the center right photo. The lower two photos of Figure 3
shows the arrangement of the items used to continuously monitor or sample
the dilute exhaust for oxygenates, HC, and DOAS. Three ovens housed
the systems. Each interface was separate and had its own set of controls,
heated sample line or lines. The lower left view shows the DOAS trap
interface and part of the HC oven relative to the CVS in the background.
The lower right view shows the sample interface for oxygenates.
4. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses - HD and LDV Engines
This subsection includes evaluation of odor by trained panel,
the measurement of gaseous emissions and trapping-analysis of odor
samples by the DOAS simultaneously with odor measurements.
a. Evaluation by Trained Panel
The EPA (PHS) quality-intensity (Q/I) or Turk kit method of
evaluation of dilute samples of diesel exhaust odor' ' was employed to
express odor judgements by the trained ten-person SwRl odor panel. The
23
-------
kit, shown in Figure 4, includes an overall "D" odor in steps 1 through
12, (12 being strongest) that is made of four sub-odors or qualities.
These comprise burnt-smokey "B", oily "O", aromatic "A", and pun-
gent "P" qualities each in a 1 through 4 intensity series, 4 being strong-
est. Special odor sampling, dilution, and presentation facilities' ' '
for diesel odor research were developed ten years ago using design cri-
teria obtained in field studies of atmospheric dilution of bus and truck
exhaust. Horizontal exhaust at bumper height from a city bus was found
to be diluted to a minimum reasonable level of 100:1 before being ex-
perienced by an observer. This dilution level was used in the odor test
of both HD engines and diesel LDV's, although it is uncertain that this
is the reasonable minimum dilution level from a diesel powered passen-
ger car. References 1 and 4 describe the odor facility and References
2, 3, and 4 describe the development of procedures and operating con-
ditions for research purposes.
Figure 4 shows a number of views of the test set-up used
during odor testing. The top left view shows the odor kit and top right
a view of the odor room and panel. The center views show the Mercedes
240D passenger car under test. The lower left view is of the driver's
controls for the dilution and odor measurement signalling while the lower
right view shows the Perkins 6-247 powered IHC pick-up under test.
b. Test Conditions
Both steady state and transient vehicle operation were simu-
lated for odor evaluation.
(1) Heavy Duty Engines
For the first time in the entire long range project,
odor measurements were made from diesel engines operated on a
stationary dynamometer (see Figure 1). In the past, only diesel powered
trucks and buses have been evaluated. With the advent of large inertia
wheels used in the Federal smoke test, it was decided to employ the
same inertia wheels to simulate vehicle acceleration and deceleration.
Simulation of the seven steady-state conditions, that
comprise each morning's odor test runs, was as easily accomplished on
the stationary dynamometer as with the chassis dynamometer vehicles.
The seven conditions, a curb idle in neutral, 2, 50 and 100 percent of
maximum power at each of two speeds - intermediate and rated, are
replicated three times in random order for a total of 21 runs. Thus,
most of the same conditions used for gaseous emissions by the 13-mode
test are used. In the case of the city bus engine, the DDAD 6V-71, the
rated and intermediate engine speeds were reduced from the 2100 and
1260 rpm of the 13-mode test to 1600 and 900 rpm, speeds indicative of
the general range typically encountered by buses in urban operation.
24
-------
FIGURE 4, ODOR MEASUREMENT BY TRAINED SwRI PANEL
Z5
-------
The afternoon runs included three conditions each
replicated four times in random order. The acceleration after a pro-
longed curb idle is meant to represent the repetitive idle-accel of city
buses and the acceleration in a low gear of large trucks. It was simu-
lated by using the large inertia wheel without dynamometer pre-load and
merely advancing the engine fuel control to the "full-rack" or maximum
power demand position. The panel then rated the odor perceived during
this rapid acceleration. Pre-test investigation revealed a specific time
during the acceleration when maximum odor levels are produced.
Table 4 lists the times and engine condition when the
odor was evaluated. The acceleration condition follows a brief cruise
and is intended to simulate the upshift of a vehicle into a higher gear.
It is performed at maximum "rack" or power position. The deceleration
condition investigates the odor levels produced during the "closed-rack"
no fuel demand position of the pump and simulates the deceleration of
the vehicle from cruise. In both the accel and decel conditions, inertia
and a pre-set dynamometer load was used to simulate the vehicle oper-
ation.
In all transient runs, the odor measurement was at a
pre-determined point that produces the most noticeable odor level. The
transients along with the steady state "odor map" provide a compre-
hensive evaluation of the engine's exhaust odor.
(2) LD Vehicles
The odor measurement procedures applied to the diesel
powered cars was in keeping with that used in 1974' 4' 'and was based
on the extensive previous work with diesel exhaust odor measurement from
larger size vehicles. The basic philosophy was to characterize odor over
a range of loads and speeds that could be encountered and over a wide
enough range to cover steep uphill plus moderate trailer towing as well as
the moderate load and no load conditions.
Table 5 lists pertinent operating data for each of the test
conditions. The steady state runs were made at three power levels, nor-
mally zero, mid and high power at a high and at an intermediate speed.
The seventh condition was a low idle of a well warmed-up engine. Mid-
load was defined as a fuel rate midway between the fuel rates at full and
no load (transmission in neutral). These seven conditions were per-
formed in random order so as to replicate each condition three times for
a total of 21 runs. Cold start odor ratings were taken with all cars.
In accord with the Project Officer, high speed was de-
fined as the engine rpm corresponding to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) level
road load. All of the cars were in high gear or high range of the
transmission, operating at approximately 3000 (2800-3500) engine
26
-------
TABLE 4. ODOR TEST CONDITIONS - HD ENGINES
Engine Speed, rpm, High
Inter
Idle
Kw @ High Speed, 100%
50%
2%
Kw @ Inter Speed, 100%
50%
2%
Idle -Ace el rpm start
end
Odor Test rpm
Accel Time, sec.
Accel range, rpm start
Odor test rpm
Accel time, sec.
Decel range, rpm start
Odor test rpm
Decel time, sec.
DDAD
6V- 71
1500
900
440
116.4
58.2
2.3
72.1
36.0
1.4
440
2100
1200
41
. 1
900
1800
1500
10.7
1600
440
1100
6.8
DDAD
8V-71TA
Steady State Operation
2100
1400
480
252.7
126.4
5.1
193.2
96.6
3.9
Transient Conditions
480
2100
1200
4. 3
TT. J
1400
2100
1900
10. 1
2100
480
1400
7p
. 5
i.« /• 1~\T*\ A T"\ £ ~\.T "71 ^
CUMMINS
NTC-290
2100
1400
/ + s\
610
214.1
107. 1
4*\
. 3
162.9
81.5
31
. 3
610
2100
1400
4.0
1400
2100
1900
11.5
2100
610
1600
7 7
' . i
i r\A {"".-IT mmin s
JC~ (J^V Ci XCVCiO O.J.W x* vv*AJ-*j-**-'-fc -«-• — —
NTC-290 depending on configuration.
-------
TABLE 5. ODOR TEST CONDITIONS - LD VEHICLES
Engine High Speed, rpro
Engine Inter Speed, rpm
Engine Idle Speed, rpm
Fuel Hate High, high speed
(kg/hr) inter speed
Mid, high speed
inter speed
No, high speed
inter speed
Idle
Drive Gear, high speed
inter speed
Vehicle km/hr at high speed
inter speed
Idle-Accel km/hr, start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Accel time, sec.
Accel range, km/hr start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Accel time, sec.
Decel range, km/hr, start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Decel time, sec.
Mercedes
220D Comp.
2800
1680
760
16.3
7.2
9.6
4.2
2.9
1.3
0.8
4
4
90. 1
51.5
Mercedes
240D
3000
1800
710
10.9
6.4
7.2
3.9
3.0
1.3
0.5
4
4
90. 1
53. 1
Mercedes Peugeot
300D
Steady State
2900
1740
640
11.3
4.0
7.5
2.0
3.7
1.9
0.5
D-3
D-3
90.1
53. 1
204D
Operation
3500
2100
750
6.4
3.5
4. 1
2. 1
1.8
0.7
0.3
4
4
90. 1
53. 1
Perkins
6-247
2700
1620
.670
19.5
11.8
11.9
6.8
4.4
1.7
0.5
4
4
90. 1
53. 1
Transient Conditions
0
29.8
1
3060
24.1
4
32.2
80.5
3
3240
72.4
9.0
80.5
48.3
3
2550
56.3
11.0
0
32.2
1
3320
24. 1
3.5
48.3
80.5
4
2430
72.4
9. 1
80.5
48.3
4
1920
56.3
10.5
0
31.4
D-l
3150
24.1
3.5
40.2
80.5
D-3
3170
72.4
7.5
80.5
48.3
D-3
2800
56.3
9.6
0
32.2
1
3650
24.1
4
32.2
72.4
3
3780
64.4
15
80.5
40.2
3
2860
48.3
11.0
0
32.2
2
2380
24. 1
3.5
40.2
80.5
4
2200
72.4
11.0
80.5
48.3
4
1720
56.3
13.5
28
-------
rpm at 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph). The intermediate speed was then de-
fined as 60 percent of this speed, which was a nominal 1800 (1620-
2100) rpm for most cars operating in the same gear or drive range
resulting in an intermediate vehicle speed of 53 km/hr (33 mph).
In the afternoon, an acceleration after upshift, a decel-
eration after a cruise, and an acceleration after idle, from rest, were
run. These three transients were replicated in random order four times,
for a total of twelve transients per afternoon. In practice, the level road
load, defined for a specific car test weight given in the Federal Register,
was set in the dynamometer at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph). This road load plus
an appropriate sized inertia wheel was employed to simulate the
acceleration and deceleration performance of the vehicle.
The idle-acceleration test condition, an acceleration
after prolonged 1 minute idle, normally involved evaluation during a
rapid wide-open throttle (WOT) acceleration in low gear. The odor
was evaluated at nominally 24.1 km/hr (15 mph), 2380-3320 rpm
which was reached at 3. 5 to 4 seconds after start of the acceleration.
The acceleration test condition was generally made in
high gear after upshift and began at about 24. 1 - 40. 2 km/hr (15-25
mph). The acceleration ranged in time from 7.5 to 15 seconds depending
on car performance. The deceleration was from 80.5 km/hr (50 mph)
to 40. 2 to 48. 3 km/hr (25 to 30 mph) with evaluation at 48. 3 - 56. 3
km/hr (30 to 35 mph) about 9.6 to 13.5 seconds after closed throttle
(CT). In all transients, the LD FTP road load was preset in the
water brake dynamometer at 80.5 km/hr (50 mph).
c. Gaseous Emissions
Gaseous emissions were also taken during the steady state
speed-load odor maps. Measurements included HC by heated FID,
CC>2> NO and CO by NDIR, NO and NOX by chemiluminescence (CL),
oxygenates, and various NRHC. The seven conditions, in triplicate
(21 runs) were repeated on two mornings normally separated by one
day for analysis and preparation.
These measurements were intended to define the steady state
performance and characterize emissions beyond that possible from the
LDV transient procedures and the 1974 HD FTP 13-mode test. Also,
the data would be useful in comparison with and correlation to the odor
panel ratings and other measurements by the CAPE-7 DOAS instrument.
Figure 5 shows a number of photos of the gaseous emissions instruments,
equipment, and analytical equipment utilized in this category of tests.
The two top photos show the emissions cart and heated HC oven.
d. Partially Oxygenated Compounds - DNPH
Acrolein, aliphatic aldehydes, and formaldehyde, three
29
-------
I—•••
FIGURE 5. GASEOUS EMISSION, DOAS AND DNPH SAMPLE TRAPPING
DURING ODOR EVALUATION
30
-------
partially oxygenated materials, were originally planned to be obtained
using the chromotropic acid method for formaldehyde, 3-methyl-Z-ben-
zothiazolone hydrazone (MBTH) method for aliphatic aldehydes, and the
4-hexylresorcinal method for acrolein. These wet chemical methods
were employed for many years in previous odor correlation and charac-
terization studies for EPA. References 3, 5, 6, 10, 12 and 14 are all
major final reports under the long range study of diesel exhaust and con-
tain data by these methods.
In January 1975, the Research Triangle Laboratories of
EPA reported that use of the chromotropic acid method for formaldehyde
and the MBTH method for aliphatic aldehydes give generally low results
due to a positive interference of oxides of sulfur on the absorption read-
ings. Both chromotropic acid and MBTH are wet chemical methods that
depend on wet collection of a gaseous sample over a finite time period
followed by several intermediate steps with a color development for de-
tection by a Bausch & Lomb Spectronic 20 colorimeter.
Because of the uncertainty over the amount of interference,
it was decided, after some discussion with the Project Officer and Dr.
Joseph Somers of EPA, to employ the 2, 4-dinitrophenylhydrazine or
DNPH method. This method was used by the Petroleum Research
Center of the Bureau of Mines (Bartlesville) some years earlier
with some success, but only with substantial effort. In the past, the
partial oxygenates were obtained at SwRI for their use in predicting or
correlating to perceived odor and for little other reason. They have
never been reported as absolute values nor has their methodology been
investigated.
In discontinuing the rather routine and simple collection
and determination of oxygenates, there ensued an extended period of
preparation and calibration. As a consequence, partial oxygenate
measurements were not made of the HD engines. The DNPH method,
as described by the procedure in Appendix A, was obtained from Dr.
Ronald Bradow of EPA-RTP. Different collection traps are used, a
GC is employed and there are many additional intermediate steps in
the preparation of the sample once collected relative to the previously
used methods. The more difficult to perform DNPH method resulted
in fewer samples than previously analyzed.
Instead of the usual 21 samples, seven separate samples
were obtained. Each sample contained the three replications and rep-
resented 12 to 15 minutes of sample absorption in the glass bubbler
trap system with 4 to 5 minutes of trapping each run. The seven runs
were made on the first day of the two day sequence for each vehicle.
No samples were obtained from the five HD engines due to the delay
required to prepare the DNPH system for use. All five diesel LDV's
were, however, sampled and analyzed for partial oxygenates by the
31
-------
DNPH method. Figure 3 (lower right view) shows a partial view of
the traps and Figure 5 (center left photo) shows the chromatograph
and some of the standards and reagents employed.
e. Characterization of Light Hydrocarbons
The measurement of a variety of light hydrocarbons was
performed using a gas chromatograph procedure developed by EPA
(RTF). (34) This procedure uses a single flame ionization detector
with a multiple column arrangement and dual gas sampling valves.
The timed sequence selection valves allow for the baseline separation
of air, methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene,
benzene and toluene. Only methane is considered non- reactive.
Ethane, propane, benzene and acetylene are considered reactive
even though only to a small degree. Propylene, ethylene and toluene
react to form photochemical smog.
Samples were obtained directly from the bag samples of
FTP, SET and FET transient LD cycles and 7 -modes used during
all odor testing and analyzed. Individual values were determined for
the bag or run. A detailed description of the individual columns,
temperature, flow rates, etc. , may be found in Reference 34. The
center right photo in Figure 5 illustrates the analytical instrumenta-
tion that was used for this analysis.
f. Diesel Odor Analytical System
As one result of approximately five years of research, spon-
sored under the CAPE-7 project of CRC APRAC, A. D. Little developed
a prototype liquid chromatograph for use in predicting diesel exhaust odor.
Called DOAS for diesel odor analytical system, the system provides two
results, one being an indication of the oxygenate fraction called LCO for
liquid chromatograph oxygenates, and the other called LCA for liquid
chromatograph aromatics. These were found by earlier research by
ADL to represent the major odorants in diesel exhaust. The ADL studies
had shown a correlation of the TIA (total intensity of aroma) to sensory
measurements by the ADL odor panel. TIA is equal to 1 + logj LCO.
Both LCO and LCA are expressed in micrograms per liter of
exhaust using either the test fuel or a reference component for calibration.
The LCO is, by virtue of its use to express TIA, considered the most
important indication of diesel exhaust by this method. An entire series
of reports have been published by ADL describing their work with diesel
odorP ) Reference 40 describes the DOAS and its use, while Appen-
32
-------
dix C in this same reference describes the sample collection procedure.
Rather than repeat these instructions, this section will describe how the
system was employed in this series of tests.
Until the prototype was furnished SwRI, one of the first three
built by ADL, the DOAS had been limited primarily to in-house ADL de-
velopment tests. Their work was based on a Detroit Diesel 4-71 engine-
generator set. Although several fuels and injectors were tried, these
tests of a direct odor panel-DOAS type were limited to the single exhaust
odor source. Tests by Caterpillar with their in-house DOAS and samples
from Cummins and Detroit Diesel, as a part of the CAPE-7 project, had
indicated the potential of the DOAS to work with exhaust from a variety of
engines.
With the availability of this potentially useful odor prediction
method, it was decided to obtain simultaneous DOAS values with the trained
SwRI odor panel on all vehicles in the previous work of this series' ' ^'
and to continue its use on all vehicles and engines in this project. Recall
that the DOAS does not measure odor, but measures a class of odorants.
Also, the prototype development by ADL had concentrated on
the liquid chromatograph and the electronic integration and calculation of
the ECO value to give a direct read-out of TIA based on a dialed-in sample
volume. Little had been done on the specific sampling and trapping methods
for collection of the sample except in the broadest general tern-is of sample
flow, temperature, and time. Therefore, one of the first requirements of
the previous project was the design and fabrication of a suitable interface,
beginning with the sample probe and extending to the preparative or analyti-
cal trap. This system and its application was described in detail in the
final report^''' of the previous project.
To obtain DOAS samples requires each test mode to be ex-
tended. Double the running time, from a nominal three minutes to six
minutes, was needed to allow up to five minutes of trapping. The first
minute is to achieve a stable operating speed and load. Panel evaluation
is normally during the third minute of the run. No serious problems of
tire or engine overheating were encountered with this schedule.
The sampling interface system, shown by the center left
photo in Figure 5 follows good laboratory practice as applied to dies el
hydrocarbon measurement. Most of the sampling system, was housed
in an oven held at 190°C (375°F). Each system, of which three separate
ones are available, began with a multi-opening stainless steel probe
located in the exhaust stack. This is normal practice for HC measure-
ment from HD diesel engines. The sample was then transferred to the
oven via a 9. 5mm (3/8 inch) diameter stainless steel line 0. 75m (30 inches)
33
-------
long covered by tubular exterior electrical heating sleeves to maintain
190°C (375°F) sample gas temperature. Between the probe and sample
transfer line, a high temperature bellows type stainless valve was placed
for leak check purposes. Inside the oven, the sample passed through a
fiberglass filter, then into a square head welded metal bellows (stainless)
pump head mounted inside the oven.
Immediately as the flow exits the oven wall, the DOAS trap
is mounted so that it is accessible for change but is not located where
the sample could have intentionally cooled. A number of traps are shown
in Figure 5 (center right photo) ready for installation. Once the sample
passes through the trap, the sample goes through a drierite column, a
glass tube flowmeter, and then into a dry gas volume meter. The dessi-
cant removes troublesome water which condenses in the flowmeter and
gas meter. The flowmeter allows monitoring of gas flow, by visual ob-
servation, during the test while the gas meter measures the total flow
of gas during the test run.
The effect of these temperature and flow variables singly
and in combination on trapping efficiency remain to be determined. The
exact temperature, flow rate and sample time given the trap proper is
of some concern. For example, it currently begins at room temperature
and then warms-up significantly during the five minute sampling time as
more and more hot sample is handled. The definition of sample volume
necessary for the DOAS understandably depends on concentration of
odorous contaminants. Using the sampling procedure in Appendix C
of Reference 39, the best sustained flow possible using the specified
model 155 Metal Bellows pumps was about 5 1/min.
In the case of the cars operating on the 1975 FTP transient
LA-4 test, it was estimated that the long sampling time of 31.4 minutes
would compensate for the intentionally diluted (estimated 5 to 7:1) exhaust
by the CVS method. Recall the dilution level was held to a minimum to
prevent over-dilution of the already air-rich diesel exhaust. An improve-
ment to the system would be the specification of a maximum trap exit
gas temperature. It is understood from A. D. Little that above a certain
exit gas temperature, the trap can lose efficiency. Presently, the exit
gas temperature is not monitored and it may have a bearing on those
tests in which very long sampling periods are required, such as during
the 31.4 minute transient LD cycle. This is not considered a problem
for the 5 minute trap time for raw exhaust.
5. Particulate
The mass rate of emission of particulate from both HD engines
and LiDV's were determined by collecting a known amount of particulate
matter on a pre-weighed glass fiber filter. The 47 mm diameter Gel-
man Type A glass fiber media was the principal size and type of filter
34
-------
disc employed. Particulate mass rates were also obtained using both an
8x10 size fiberglass filter for polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compound
analysis and by Fluoropore (Millipore Corp.) 47mm plastic filter media
with 0.5 micron mean pore flow size. The Fluoropore filters were used
for sulfate collection.
The basic technique for sample collection was to dilute the ex-
haust with prefiltered air much the same as the constant volume sampler
does with the exhaust in the LDV-FTP for gaseous emissions. The
definition of particulate was in terms of the dilution and collection media
and, importantly, the temperature at the point of filtration. In keeping
with EPA definition of diesel engine particulate from Reference 27, any-
thing that was collected on Type A glass at a temperature not to exceed
51. 7° C (125°F) and not condensed water was considered diesel particulate.
The particulate thus included aerosols and unburned fuel-like matter.
Most tests were made at lower average temperatures and depended on
the exhaust volume, temperature, and dilution level.
The nominal 0. 457 m (18 inch) diameter by 4. 88 m (16 ft) long
dilution tunnel used to dilute and cool the exhaust is shown in the Figure
6 schematic drawing. The pertinent dimensions, flows, velocities, and
the relationship of the various components which make up a particulate
collection system are indicated. A micro balance, with 1 microgram
accuracy and housed in a special humidity, temperature controlled en-
vironment, was used to weigh the filters before and after the test. The
weighing box is supplied with pre-filtered scrubbed air at a constant
22. 2 ± 0. 6°C (72 ± 1 °F), 10. 6 ± 0. 3 g/kg (74 ± 2 grains/lb dry air)
humidity at 0. 3 m3/hr (10 CFM).
a. L.DV Particulate
The dilution tunnel was quite capable of handling the entire
exhaust from all five of the diesel powered LDV's without exceeding the
51. 2°C (125°F) sample temperature. The dilution tunnel nominal flow
of 14. 15 m /min (500 CFM) was not excessive in overdiluting neces-
sarily but is greater than would normally be used in a gaseous emissions
test by conventional CVS technique. The particulate tests were performed
separately from the gaseous emission tests and used the same tunnel as in
the HD engine testing.
In order to achieve a sufficient sample and because there
is no convenient means to switch particulate samples at the 505 second
point in the city driving schedule, all cold start FTP's were for the
entire 23 minutes on a given filter. The ten minute soak period was then
observed and then an additional full 23 minute city driving cycle repeated
from a hot start. The other two transient driving cycles were from a
hot start with the sample for the SET and for the FET collected on separate
filters.
The four sample systems permitted the collection of two (2)
35
-------
610mm
00
r~
mm
tin)
— (241 n) — •
1
4!
(1
1
4.88m (16ft)
j-
840mm (33in)
700mm (27.5in)—
DILUTION AIR
FILTER ENCLOSURE
76mm (Sin) RAW
EXHAUST TRANSFER TUBE
230mm (9in)
MIXING ORIFICE
127mm
(Sin) DIA
HI-VOL
SAMPLE PROBE
OR 4 EA. yz» ID ISOKINETIC
SAMPLING PROBE
FIGURE 6. SCHEMATIC SECTION OF DILUTION TUNNEL FOR DIESEL PARTICULATE SAMPLING
-------
each particulate samples on 47 mm glass and two (2) each sulfate samples
on 47 mm Fluoropore media. The testing sequence of cold-hot FTP, SET
and FET was repeated on several successive days. This test sequence was
then performed with the high-vol sampler to obtain larger amounts of par-
ticulate for PNA analysis using the 8 x 10 size glass filters.
The only difficulty encountered was with the Peugeot 204D0
This vehicle, with the smallest displacement of all engines tested and
with the lowest exhaust volume per cycle, would plug the Fluoropore
filters near the end of the cold start FTP and early in the hot start FTP.
The visual appearance of the particulate was such as to suggest an oily
substance that apparently penetrated into the openings of the filter and
completely blocked passage of the sample. The odor of the substance
was similar to crankcase blowby gases and suggested a possible oil con-
trol problem. Smoke tests were re-performed and the visual appearance
evaluated to determine if the engine had begun "burning oil". No change
in the exhaust appearance was found nor was there any trace of blue smoke
or oil burning. Oil consumption, which had been monitored by daily check
of the engine dipstick level, remained negligible.
At the time of this difficulty, September 12, 1975, Mr. R.
Lucki and Mr. J. Marty of Peugeot were visiting SwRI regarding this
project. The problem of filter plugging was discussed in detail and the
Peugeot staff were asked if they had noticed this before. The Peugeot
research on particulates was reported to be just beginning and no data was
available. Mr. Lucki and Mr. Marty then test drove the car to make cer-
tain performance was satisfactory and it was. At their request, the oil
was changed and a new oil filter installed. No other maintenance was per-
formed. To1 permit operation of this vehicle in the test plan, a pair of
special isokinetic sample probe tips were machined in which the ID was
changed to 0. 00813 m (0. 32 inch) from the usual 0. 0127 m (0. 5 inch)
probe tips. These new tips resulted in a lower sample rate and permitted
the Fluoropore filters to run the entire cycle without plugging.
The above described observation was carefully documented to
both Mr. Ralph Stahman and Mr. Jack Me Fadden by telephone, as it
occurred, since it was unusual relative to the other four LD vehicles. The
smaller probes allowed the test plan to be completed without incident.
Tests made with the larger probes after oil and filter change indicated
that the condition of the lubricating oil had no noticeable effect on the
plugging since it still happened.
The various photographs in Figure 7 show the dilution tunnel
in use with the Mercedes 300D car. The dilution tunnel was located along-
side the car, as shown in the upper left and center left views. The posi-
tive displacement blower and the four sampling filter system is shown in
the upper and center right views. The two lower views illustrate the in-
sertion of the four probe assembly and the larger single 8 x 10 sample unit
into the tunnel.
37
-------
r
FIGURE 7. LDV PARTICULATE EMISSION MEASUREMENT
38
-------
b. HD Engine Particulate
The large volumes of hot exhaust from the diesel engines
used in trucks and buses preclude the practical dilution of all the exhaust
in a laboratory size dilution tunnel. This was recognized at the outset of
SwRI's initial efforts to characterize particulates for EPA under Contract
68-02-1230 for RTP. In order to use the fairly standard EPA design
0.457m (18 inches) tunnel, an exhaust flow splitting system was devised
whereby only a part of the exhaust is used in the tunnel and the remainder
vented to the atmosphere. Obtaining a true split of the exhaust is a dif-
ficult job and even more difficult is knowing how much of the exhaust is
split and diluted by the tunnel. With much care and attention to detail,
this can be done with reasonable accuracy and repeatability.
After review of several possible flow splitters, it was de-
termined that the vehicle exhaust muffler was the most realistic point
to obtain a split of the total exhaust that retained all of the properties
and characteristics of the bulk exhaust. Adjacent to the usual exhaust
outlet from the conventionally-used stock muffler, a second but somewhat
smaller outlet was added. As with the stock muffler outlet, an open-
ended tube with the same length and wall perforations, diameter and pat-
tern was fabricated and inserted inside of the muffler in a similar
fashion to the stock outlet tube. By trying several size tubes, the exhaust
flow could be matched to the filter temperature for given operating con-
ditions of the test sequence. The use of a "sampling tube" within the
muffler of similar design to that for the stock outlet was thought to give
the exhaust a similar opportunity to flow out either tube and thus pre-
serve the integrity of the sample.
The use of a large gate valve on the vented exhaust flow
allowed the use of slight exhaust system backpressure so that some
measure of control was available. The exhaust backpressure was gen-
erally set at or slightly below the engine manufacturer's maximum allow-
able at rated speed and load, as in the 13-mode FTP. At other speeds
and loads, the back pressure was allowed to decrease to a value consis-
tent with lower engine speeds and exhaust flows.
The exhaust sampling and dilution system was, for the heavy
duty engines, identical to that described in References 27 and 28. For
the NTC-290, a truck muffler was used and for the 6V-71 coach engine,
a city bus muffler was used to effect the sample split. It is shown pic-'
torially in Figure 8 for the heavy duty engines. The top left photo is of
the tunnel alongside the DDAD 8V-71TA and shows the particulate and
charcoal filtered intake system. A close-up of the exhaust system and
muffler-splitter arrangement is shown in the upper right view of Figure 8.
Notice the large gate valve used for backpressure and dilution level control.
39
-------
"
FIGURE 8. HD ENGINE PARTICULATE EMISSION MEASUREMENT
40
-------
The center two photographs of Figure 8 show the tunnel used
with the NTC-290 engine. A large truck muffler is shown vertically under
the tunnel in the left view. Part of the exhaust then enters directly into
the tunnel and filter samples are taken downstream in the right view. The
lower views show the large 8 x 10 size and the small 47 mm size filters
being removed after a run.
In both situations, the amount of exhaust that was eventually
diluted and from which the particulate samples were obtained, was based
on direct, continuous measurement of the NOX in the raw exhaust and in
the diluted exhaust. The diluted exhaust measurement was corrected for
ambient NOX to compensate for background. This normally was a negli-
gible correction and was not made to the raw exhaust because of the un-
certainty of engine combustion on trace levels of intake NOX. The dilution
ratios typically varied from about 10 to 18 parts of diluent air to 1 part
of exhaust, the higher ratios needed with the higher temperature exhaust.
For purposes of this project, it was decided to obtain par-
ticulate samples during seven steady state modes of the 13-mode gaseous
FTP. To perform all 13 modes was beyond the scope of work, yet to
perform a composite 13-mode test would result in only a single value
with no insight on the effect of speed and load. For most diesels» ^ne emis-
sions behavior can be estimated from a three point curve almost as well
as from a five point curve. This was expected to be the case for particu-
lates and sulfates since they were thought to be a function of fuel rate.
Accordingly, the particulate and sulfate testing followed
the sequence of
Mode Speed Load, Percent
1 Intermediate 2
2 Intermediate 50
3 Intermediate 100
4 Idle
5 Rated 100
6 Rated 50
7 Rated 2
This sequence resulted in four sample filters per mode, two 47 mm glass
for particulate and two 47 mm Fluoropore for sulfate. A separate testing
sequence was performed to obtain larger sample quantities for PNA ana-
lysis using the 8 x 10 high-vol system. Some additional discussion on
calculation procedures is given in the results section.
41
-------
6. Sulfate - SO2 Analysis
The methods used to collect the samples of sulfate were
discussed in the previous sub-section. This section will describe
the utilization of the barium chloranilate analysis (BCA) method and its
adaptation for use with diesel engines. The BCA method for sulfate and
the SwRI-BCA method for SO2 had been widely used with gasoline powered
LDV's under EPA Contract 68-03-2118. Prior to this project, however,
only limited, preliminary work had been performed by EPA at the Ann
Arbor and Research Triangle Park labs with diesels. Although sulfate
and SO2 experiments were performed simultaneously, they will be des-
cribed separately.
a. Sulfate Method
The major concern in using the BCA method was the chemical
work-up procedure for sulfate analysis once the filter had been collected.
Although the soluble sulfates in the barium chloranilate isopropyl alcohol
(IPA) solvent were analyzed using the same detection method for gasoline
and diesel exhaust samples, a number of questions regarding sample ex-
tract were unanswered. One question was the ability of the existing ex-
traction procedure to quantitatively extract the sulfate from the Fluoropore
filter and the carbon particles. Replicate sulfate emissions tests were
run using the Mercedes 240D to generate the exhaust samples. Sulfate
samples were obtained using the dilution tunnel and sampling probe net-
work for obtaining four simultaneous 47 mm Fluoropore filters. The
filters were weighed before and after the test to validate equal particulate
distribution on the filters.
Two of these four filters were ammoniated and extracted using
the standard procedure as it is normally used for gasoline sulfates. The
second two Fluoropore filters were ammoniated and extracted using partial
immersion in an ultrasonic bath. All four filter extracts were filtered
using Swinney syringe adapters with a 13 mm Fluoropore filter to remove
the particulate. The results of this experiment indicated that there •was
essentially no difference between any of the four filters and that the two
grossly different extraction procedures produced the same results.
The chief concern was that the collection of carbon particles
on the filter provides a potentially ready-made absorber of hydrocarbons
on the filter. Extraction of the hydrocarbons and the solubility of these
in the IPA solvent could cause some potential interference problems. The
group of greatest concern would be the substituted multiple ring aromatic
hydrocarbons. Consequently, an experiment was designed to determine if
this was a problem. Another SET was run and four more Fluoropore filters
with equal weight distribution were obtained. The first two were ammoniated
and extracted using the standard hydrocarbons. The cyclohexane was then
removed and the filter and container were thoroughly dried. The IPA solvent
42
-------
was then added and extracted using the standard method. Again there
was no difference between the cyclohexane washed and the unwashed
filters for total sulfate content.
A similar experiment was conducted on a third SET where all
four filters were ammoniated and extracted as usual. Two of the filters
were run in the BCA system as usual and the final two were run without the
barium chloranilate column in the system. The first two filters produced
results equivalent to the two previous SET tests whereas the two samples
analyzed without the BCA column had responses only slightly greater than
the solvent blanks.
Based on the results using the Mercedes 240D exhaust sulfate
samples, two previously assumed items have been verified. First, ex-
traction of diesel sulfate samples can be effectively performed using the
same "wrist-action" shake used for gasoline sulfate samples; and secondly,
hydrocarbons in the sample were not found to produce any interferences.
These same experiments were repeated on the DDAD 6V-71 HD engine
and the same conclusion reached. The 2-stroke cycle engine produces
a particulate with different composition from that of most four-stroke
engines and was important to verification of the BCA system.
As a result of the above experiments, it was determined that
the BCA method would be quite satisfactory for use with the range of diesel
engines in this project. A description of the test procedure for sulfate de-
termination is included in Appendix A.
b. SO 2 Method
The measurement of SO£ involved the evaluation of a TECO
Model 10 pulsed fluorescense (PF) instrument as well as the SwRI-BCA
method. Early in the project, the TECO Model 10 PF was tried with raw
exhaust from a Cummins NTC-290 engine. The very brief try indicated
apparently good response. This was prior to finding a number of problems
with the TECO PF unit with gasoline exhaust and the subsequent develop-
ment of the SwRI-BCA SO2 method. A number of experiments were made
to demonstrate the TECO PF unit with raw and tunnel diluted exhaust
from the 6V-71 engine. The experiments with diluted exhaust were mostly
promising but not considered applicable to the type of testing based on the
13-mode test.
About 2 ppm SO2 was predicted in a nominal 12:1 diluted exhaust
of the 6V-71 operating at full power, 2100 rpm, on 0.1 percent sulfur content
fuel. Although this was measurable by the TECO, this would be the max-
imum value for 2100 rpm since in a normally aspirated, non-turbocharged
diesel, the air flow is essentially constant while power is modulated by
reducing the fuel rate. Therefore, at all lesser power settings, the
content in the exhaust would become substantially less, on the order of
43
-------
5 to 1 for full load to no load at, say 2100 rpm. Idle will give even
lower concentrations, making use of the dilution tunnel to give a suitable
SC>2 sample of no practical interest.
This means the samples for SC>2 must be acquired from raw
exhaust. Repeated tests with the TECO PF unit with raw exhaust were
completely unsuccessful. The response was one of steady climbing meter
deflection with time during an intentional steady state run. The instru-
ment would span and zero properly before and after the test run, however.
A sufficient number of tests were performed with the TECO to confirm
this type of instrument response and to enable the conclusion to be made
that only with some significant research and development effort will the
TECO be made to work with diesel exhaust, at least our experience indi-
cated this. Accordingly, the TECO experiments were discontinued since
additional effort on the instrument just prolonged the start of sulfate test
work which was a priority need.
As an alternate to the TECO, the SwRI-BCA wet collection
system in hydrogen peroxide (I^Oz) was used to collect SO2, The exhaust
first passed through a Fluoropore filter to remove sulfate. Then, the
same system, developed by SwRI for use on gasoline SO2 measurement on
EPA Contract 68-03-2118, was used to prepare the sample for analysis by
BCA method. This method is described in more detail in Appendix A.
c. Sulfur Balance
In theory, the separate measurement of SO2 and SO= concen-
trations in the exhaust can be multiplied by the exhaust flow rate, summed,
and directly compared to the rate of sulfur into the engine which comes
from the fuel. If the fuel sulfur content, fuel rate, and exhaust flow
(intake air flow plus fuel rate) is accurately known, then a sulfur balance
can be made for the engine.
From previous experience on a number of gasoline LDV's
a sulfur balance of +_ 10 percent has been achieved in most cases. This
has been termed quite acceptable and was the target level of precision
in this work with diesel cars and HD diesel engines. As a part of the
preparations and pre-test calibrations, achievement of a satisfactory
sulfur balance was one of the requirements for project validation. It
turned out to be very involved and costly in terms of repeated operation
and extensive sample analysis in the case of the DDAD 6V-71 engine.
In addition to this being the first HD engine thus evaluated,
the engine required repeated attempts to demonstrate adequate sulfur
recovery. One test series would result in generally lower than theoreti-
cal sulfur. The next test series would result in generally higher than it
should. The patterns and trends in data defied explanation. Only after
much patience and attention to detail was a sulfur balance demonstrated.
44
-------
Work with the Cummins NTC-290, underway at the same time, resulted
in a sulfur balance without undue difficulty. Such was the case with the
light duty cars and the pick-up truck. There are some random instances
where sulfur recoveries were outside the +_ 10 percent; but in the majority
of cases, adequate validation of the procedure was obtained.
7. Polynuclear Aromatic Matter - PNA
PNA compounds as a class and as individual contaminants were of
interest in this project. Although there are several laboratory procedures
available for their analysis, the major difficulty was analysis of PNA
materials in diesel exhaust and of equal importance, the collection of a
sample in a form suitable for such laboratory analysis. A substantial
part of the coordination conference of September 17, 1974 with Dr. Somers,
Dr. Bradow and Mr. Stahman, centered on the state-of-the-art of PNA
measurement. At the outset of this project, the CRC APRAC CAPE-24-72
project with Gulf Research and Development was in progress.
The CAPE-24 project is concerned with sampling and analysis of
PNA content of diesel and turbine engine exhaust. It was considered the
most advanced PNA activity appropriate to diesels. It was intended that
the SwRI-EPA work make use of the results in terms of a routine sam-
pling and analysis technique. After telephone discussion with Dr. Rod
Spindt, Project Leader at Gulf, it was obvious to the coordination con-
ference attendees that the state of development was not considered
reduced to routine. In essence, there are several adequate methods of
PNA analysis of say, pure compounds, but no adequate sample collection
and preparation scheme. There were unexplained losses during both
these steps and the losses were sufficiently significant to warrant
deferment of PNA analysis by the Gulf method.
Accordingly, and on the advice and consent of those present at the
September 17th meeting, the measurement of BaP by the Eugene Sawicki
thin layer chromatography method was to be employed. BaP is an elemen-
tary PNA and is generally found in diesel exhaust. It is considered to be a
good indicator of the relative PNA content in that if it is high, PNA is pro-
bably high also. This is the same method then in use for Dr. Bradow on
EPA Contract 68-02-0123 on diesel particulate. There were, at this time,
still some unresolved questions regarding the sample collection and es-
pecially the preparation of the sample for analysis.
In support of Part VII and Contract 68-02-0123, a series of experi-
ments were made to determine the ability of the thin layer analysis to mea-
sure known amounts of BaP deposited on a dirty diesel and a clean filter.
Some experimentation was also performed to evaluate an alternate prepa-
ration method, using an ultrasonic bath with glass beads (per Dr. Bradow)
instead of the standard soxhlet extraction.
45
-------
The results of the above two sets of experiments confirmed that the
thin layer method could measure BaP and served as a calibration of the
technique. This calibration actually was found later to be misleading, as
will be discussed shortly. The results of the other experiment to evaluate
the ultrasonic and standard soxhlet extraction procedures showed that the
standard soxhlet extraction of the Sawicki procedure gave satisfactory
results. The alternative, ultrasonic method was not considered to be an
overall improvement. In Appendix A is a copy of a letter to Dr. Rod Spindt
from Dr. George Lee of Southwest Foundation for Research and Education.
SFRE is a sister organization to SwRI and was responsible for BaP analysis.
The letter outlines the BaP procedure used.
Of concern during the extensive BaP measurements made during
Dr. Bradow's project (Contract 68-02-0123) and of concern at the coordi-
nating conference, was the lack of agreement between thin layer BaP re-
sults from SFRE and that generally known from the literature.
As the volume of data increased, two facts were obvious: (a)
trends in the data were reproducible, with reasonable precision, as a
function of fuel, engine and load conditions and (b) the BaP values were
significantly higher than corresponding values reported in the literature
for benzo-a-pyrene. The data obtained in 68-02-0123 seemed generally
an order of magnitude higher than other investigators although no other
data by this specific method of sampling and analysis could be found for
direct comparison.
In Contract 68-02-0123, PNA samples were obtained using tunnel
air diluted exhaust and this was the first time such samples were acquired.
Previous sampling methods involved cold traps, hot filtration, chemical
absorption and other trapping methods for raw exhaust. The other concern
was the sample transfer and preparation for analysis was introducing an
artifact or some interference. The previously mentioned experiments were
an attempt to validate the system and did not reveal any problem in the
entire procedure and no specific reason for the higher than expected results.
It was not until Dr. George Lee personally ran a series of analyses of
the DDAD 8V-71TA and Perkins 6-247 engines that an error was dis-
covered in the procedure as run at SFRE. These two engines were the last
engines evaluated in the project.
The Sawicki analysis procedure'35' for determination of BaP in-
volved a thin layer chromatographic separation, followed by fluorescence
measurement. It was found that elution of the compounds on the thin
layer plates was accomplished with a benzene:ether eluant rather than
pentane:ether as suggested by Sawicki. The use of the benzene solvent
afforded greater solubility and, therefore, less separation between similar
compounds. In essence, a true separation was still being obtained since
the spots used in the determinations were well below the solvent front. This
combination of lower resolution, yet a constant retention factor, actually
46
-------
resulted in a reproducible measure of the polyorganic matter (POM)
content of the particulate matter. This measure is the sum of several
of the components in the system and not just a single compound as
originally thought. The fluorescence response to the sample solution
was obtained at the same excitation and emissions wavelengths that are
used for BaP. Examples of the compounds which may be represented
by this analysis are the isomers of dibenzanthracene, benzo-a-pyrene,
benzo-e-pyrene, chrysene and possibly triphenylene and pyrene. As
may be seen, this yields a broad representation of available materials.
Returning to the pentanerether system showed the greater reso-
lution of compounds as discussed by Sawicki. Analyses of the same or
similar materials showed a marked reduction in fluorescence intensity
from that found in the benzene system. Although it is still not possible
to readily determine if interferences from other compounds are present,
the values obtained more closely agree with values reported in the liter-
ature. The earlier calibration experiments failed to show this problem
since the n'ew and used filters were "spiked" with BaP. If several PNA's
had been placed on the filter instead of BaP alone, the mistake in eluants
would have been noticed.
The DDAD 8V-71TA and Perkins 6-247 samples were run with
both solvents. BaP readings using the pentane:ether eluant were on the
order of 7 to 39 percent of that obtained by the benzene: ether eluant.
This brings the BaP reading much more in line with other published
data and clarifies and explains the long standing concern over the
apparently "high" BaP levels obtained earlier in this project and in
Contract 68-02-0123.
In a sense, the use of the incorrect eluant by the technician,
although highly regrettable, has resulted in values that may give more
insight into the POM content than the BaP values alone. The readings
are thus labeled benzene:ether soluble organic (B:ESO) matter expressed
in terms of BaP, the compound used for calibration.
8. Elemental Analysis
The project plan originally called for elemental sulfur determi-
nation of the particulate using the 47 mm glass filter. The best known
method for this analysis was the one used in EPA Contract 68-02-0123.
A gravimetric method, ASTM D-1757, was employed by Galbraith La-
boratories, a commercial testing lab located in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Determination of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen weight
percentages in diesel particulate were also performed by Galbraith
47
-------
Laboratories. Carbon and hydrogen were measured using ASTM
method D-3178 and nitrogen was measured using ASTM D-3179. The
results were corrected for blank filter content, which was reported to
be very low.
Since performing the elemental sulfur measurements, additional
work with Dr. Bradow on Contract 68-02-1777 has indicated X-ray fluor-
escence to be a more reliable method. The sulfur analyses in Part VII
were by a state-of-the-art technique which apparently has since been
superceded by the X-ray method. Future projects should be done by this
more reliable method.
9. Vehicle Noise - LDV's only
This series of tests was intended to determine the maximum in-
terior and exterior sound levels, in dBA scale, during idle and various
driving modes. SAE J986a, Sound Level for Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, describes a test procedure that formed the basis for measure-
ment and vehicle operation. A General Radio Type 1933 Precision Sound
Level Analyzer, General Radio Type 1562-A Sound Level Calibrator, and
General Radio Wind Screen, meeting the requirements of International
Electrotechnical Commission Publication 179, were used.
a. Acceleration Drive-by
Exterior drive-by measurements were made at 15. 24 m
(50 feet) using the test procedure outlined in SAE J986a. Under this
test, each vehicle approached a line 7. 6 m(25 feet) before a line through
the microphone normal to the vehicle path and acclerated, using the
lowest transmission gear or range such that the front of the vehicle
reached or passed a line 7. 6 m(25 feet) beyond the microphone line
when maximum rated engine speed was reached. The equipment used was
a precision sound level meter, a sound level calibrator, and a calibrated
wind screen. The test site was (as outlined in J986a) a flat open space,
free of large reflecting surfaces (i. e. , signs, hills, buildings) within
30. 5 m (100 feet) of the test track.
Measurements were made (as outlined in J986a) 1. 22 m (4
feet) above ground level and at 15. 24 m (50 feet) from the centerline
of the vehicle. This distance was considered adequate if the maximum
noise level as measured on the "A-weighted" scale with a "fast" meter
response was 10 dB above the ambient noise level. If this criterion could
not be met, the measurements were made at 7.6 m (25 feet) by sub-
tracting 6 dB from the measured values to extrapolate to an equivalent
reading at 15.24 m (50 feet). If the level at 7.6 m (25 feet) was
48
-------
not 10 dB above ambient levels on a reasonably quiet day, this point
was noted as well as the measured level and ambient level. The sound
level for each side of the vehicle was the average of the two highest
readings which were within 2 dB of each other. Tests were made with
all windows fully closed and the vehicle accessories such as heater,
air conditioner, or defroster (radio excluded) in operation at their
highest apparent noise level.
Interior sound level determinations were the same as ex-
terior except that the microphone -was located 0. 15Z m (6 inches) to the
right side of the driver's right ear. All other test procedures were as
presented in J986a.
b. Constant Speed Drive-by
The exterior noise level -with the vehicle passing by the
microphone at a distance of 15. 24 m (50 feet) was measured. The
vehicle was in high gear and driven smoothly at 48. 3 km/hr (30 mph)
± 5 percent. As in the acceleration test, the measurement was made
at 7.6m (25 feet) if "fast" meter response was not 10 dB above ambient
noise level on the "A-weighted" scale. Six dB was subtracted from the
measured values to extrapolate to an equivalent reading at 50 feet.
Interior sound level determinations were made in the same manner as
during the acceleration test. The sound level reported for this test was
obtained in the manner outlined in the acceleration test already described.
c. Idle
This test included sound level measurements at 3. 05 m
(10 feet) distances from the front, rear, left (street side) and right
( curb side) of the vehicle. The vehicle was parked and engine allowed
to run at manufacturer's recommended low idle speed with transmission
in neutral for at least one minute. Accessory items such as air con-
ditioner or heater and defroster (radio excluded) operated at their highest
apparent noise level. The sound level meter was positioned 3. 05 m from
each bumper mid -way between the sides of the car and 3. 05 m from each
side mid-way between the front and rear bumpers at 1. 22 m(4 feet) height
above the ground. The vehicle was then turned around and headed in the
opposite direction and measurements repeated. Interior measurements
were also obtained at the same single point used in drive-by tests.
Figure 9 contains six photographs taken during typical noise
tests of the cars. The two top photos give some idea of the course and
the type of terrain where measurements were taken. The upper left
shows the Comp rex-equipped Mercedes 220D and upper right photos is
of the Mercedes 300D. The course was identical to that employed in
49
-------
FIGURE 9. MEASUREMENT OF SOUND LEVEL FROM LIGHT DUTY
DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
50
-------
the earlier work and reported in References 12, 14 - 17. In fact, the
test procedure described earlier in this subsection was identical to that
developed and used in 197lj12)
Figure 9 center photos also show typical locations around
the car during the idle test. The center left photo is of the Peugeot 204D
and the center right photo is of the Perkins 6-247 powered IHC pick-up
truck. The General Radio Precision sound level instrument is shown in
the two lower photos of Figure 9. The left photo shows the tripod-held
meter at 15. 24 m (50 feet) from the test course as a test car, the Mer-
cedes 240D, entered the "gate". The right photo shows the hand-held
meter adjacent to the driver's right ear during the interior measure-
ments.
51
-------
IV. RESULTS OF FIVE HD DIESEL ENGINES
This section summarizes the characterization emission data
for the five HD diesel engine configurations tested. More complete
data are included in the appendix.
A. 13-Mode Gaseous Emission Results
Table 6 lists the results of replicate FTP gaseous emissions for
all five configurations by the 13-mode method. Listed are the HC, CO,
and NOX rates as well as cycle weighted BSFC, and maximum power at
2100 rpm. Table 7 lists the heavy duty diesel emission limits for
comparison purposes with the Table 6 data. Note the 1977 California
limits list an alternate standard with HC and NO2 limits specified
separately. The manufacturer may certify either way. The mixed
metric, g/bhp-hr, units of expression are listed in parentheses and
are those currently listed in Federal and California regulations. For
purposes of discussion, the results will be described by engine make
and model.
1. DDAD6V-71N
From Table 6, it is interesting to note the lower HC, CO and NO2
when operating the engine with B60E injectors. It is likewise interesting
to compare the average cycle weighted BSFC and max power at 2100 rpm.
The B60E injectors resulted in poorer BSFC and lower power. Whether
this is due to the injector design or to the retarded timing is unknown
though the retarded timing is likely the major reason.
2. Cummins NT C-290
Although the two Detroit Diesel engines were operated without
difficulty, the Cummins NTC-290 had some minor but important items
of repair necessary to obtain satisfactory emission results. This
engine was installed on a similar dynamometer facility to the DDAD
6V-71 and early performance test at 2100 rpm, maximum power,
indicated quite satifactory observed power of 220 kw (295 hp) and
BSFC of 0.254 kg/kw-hr (0.417 lbs/bhp-hr).based on 55.7 kg/hr (122.8
Ibs/hr) fuel rate.
The engine, at idle, emitted excessive amounts of blue smoke
indicative of oil burning in the engine and exhaust system. The engine
would eventually clear itself of blue smoke after prolonged high load
operation only to "load-up" once again during idle. Several attempts
were made to remedy this through engine operation, including a 14 hour
run-in (the engine was well broken-in according to Cummins' Mr. Dennis
Fox).
52
-------
TABLE 6. 13-MODE FTP GASEOUS EMISSIONS RESULTS
FOR FIVE HD DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
Engine
Date
DDAD
6V-71N
DDAD
6V-71N
Cummins
NTC-290
Cummins
NTC-290
DDAD
8V-71TA
3/19/75
3/20/75
3/20/75
Average
3/24/75
3/24/75
Average
5/14/75
5/14/7S
Average
6/26/75
6/26/75
Average
11/20/75
11/20/75
Average
Run
Brake Specific Emissions Cycle BSFC Power
g/kw-hr (g/hp-hr) kg/kw-hr kw @ 2100
HC CO NO?
LSN 60, 1.484 Timing
2.967 7.723 17.171
2.626 7.128 17.290
2.710 7.657 17.095
2.768 7.502 17.185
(1.997) (5.589) (12.803)
B60E Injectors, 1. 500 Timing
1.238 4.606 11.561
1.357 4.686 12.008
1.298 4.646 11.785
(0.967) (3.461) (8.780)
"Low" Emission Configuration
0.899 2.600 6.638
0.784 2.249 6.841
0.842 2.425 6.740
(0.627) (1.807) (5.021)
"Current" Emission Configuration
0.345 2.030 15.638
0.412 1.946 14.542
0.379 1.988 15.085
(0.282) (1.481) (11.238)
Standard Configuration
3.618 1.018 10.920
3.683 0.898 10.300
3.650 0.958 10.860
(2.719) (0.714) (8.091)
HC+NOZ
20. 138
19.917
19.805
19.953
(14.865)
12.799
13.365
13.082
(9.746)
7.537
7.625
7.581
(5.648)
15.983
14. 944
15.464
(11.521)
11.938
11.841
(8.822)
(Ibs/hp-hr)
0.287
0.283
0.282
0.284
(0.467)
0.290
0.288
0.289
(0.475)
0.289
0.289
0.289
(0.475)
0.269
0.272
0.271
(0.445)
0.281
0.283
0.292
(0.480)
(hp @ 211
140.9
143.0
143.0
142.3
(190.8)
136.8
136.8
136.8
(183.4)
216. 1
216.1
216.1
(289.7)
221.8
221.3
221.6
(297.1)
252.6
252.6
252.6
(338.6)
53
-------
TABLE 7. HEAVY DUTY DIESEL (AND GASOLINE) EMISSION LIMITS
Units CO HC+NO?
1973 California and g/kw-hr 53.6 21.4
1974 Federal (g/bhp-hr) (40) (16)
1975 California g/kw-hr 40.2 13.4
(g/bhp-hr) (30) (10)
1977 California g/kw-hr 33.5 6.7
(g/bhp-hr) (25) (5)
HC NO2
1977 California g/kw-hr 33.5 1.3 10.1
(alternate) (g/bhp-hr) (25) (1) (7.5)
After a 20 minute idle, the exhaust pipe was disconnected from
the turbocharger outlet. The wet oily condition in the turbocharger
indicated that the turbocharger required resealing. With the consent
of Mr. Dennis Fox, the turbocharger was removed and resealed by
the local Cummins authorized sales and service dealer. On reassembly
and additional check-out, extended engine operation, etc. , the problem
was found to persist though not to the degree earlier. The turbocharger
did need resealing but apparently this was not the only source of oil.
Next, and with the consent of Mr. Fox, the injectors were removed
and inspected. No. 2 injector had what appeared to be a damaged center
o-ring and the No. 4 injector inlet screen had a large hole in the center.
Several injector bottom and center o-rings had small nicks but nothing
serious. Most upper o-rings had taken "a set" (had a flat spot) which
is normal. The upper o-ring seals out oil, the center ring to upper
ring seals the return fuel cavity and the lower to center ring seals the
fuel supply. All o-rings were replaced and all injectors flowed by
Cummins (local) to make certain they were satisfactory.
In its as-received originally run condition, the odor, smoke,
and particulate levels were certainly not representative of this type
engine. The odor was much stronger and irritating, especially to the
eyes, than previous experience with similar engines indicates. The
particulate filter would have certainly reflected the unburned and
partially oxidized oil in the exhaust which is not representative of this
engine. Likewise, smoke during idle and accel portions of the Federal
test were not at all comparable to this engine's normal performance.
54
-------
The repair and resealing of the turbocharger, injectors and the replace-
ment of a faulty lead wire between the solenoid and fuel switch brought
about acceptable engine performance with smoke and exhaust odor of
the usual Cummins type. Listed in Table 6 are results of the replicate
gaseous emissions tests taken with the engine in the "low" emission
and in the "current" emission configuration. The "low" emission con-
figuration involves operating the engine as-received from Cummins
with fuel injection retarded in modes 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
These are basically the power producing modes of the 13-mode test.
i.e. , 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent of power at rated and at intermediate
speeds.
The "current" emission level engine is for the engine adjusted
to fixed fuel injection timing based on 1.4 mm (0. 055 inch) injector
lift at 5.16 mm (0. 2032 inch) piston travel before TDC. The variable
timing mechanism was locked in place by applying 620 kPa {90 psi)
air to the air solenoid (with 12 volts continuously applied) to keep the
engine in the advanced mode. The special fuel pump supplied with the
experimental variable timing engine (low emission configuration) was
replaced with a different pump, factory calibrated and tested for the
"current" emission configuration.
After a number of trials, it was possible , with assistance of a
local Cummins technician, to retime the engine and make the necessary
adjustments to the engine to operate it in the "current" emissions con-
figuration.
The Table 6 data indicates a substantial decrease in NO2 when the
variable timing "low" emission configuration was employed. NC>2 was
just under half that of the current emission rate principally due to retard
of fuel injection at all power producing modes of the 13-mode test
sequence. The improvement in NC>2 was accompanied by a doubling in
HC, some more CO (which is of negligible consequence) and a loss in
BSFC from 0. 271 to 0. 289 kg of fuel per observed kw-hr.
Data furnished by Mr. Dennis Fox of Cummins on the "low"
emission configuration, in a letter dated October 28, 1974, are as
follows (converted to SI units):
NO2+HC 6.24g/kw-hr
(4.66 g/bhp-hr)
NO2 5.44 g/kw-hr
(4.06 g/bhp-hr)
HC 0.80 g/kw-hr
(0.60 g/bhp-hr)
55
-------
The engine was then, according to Mr. Fox, converted to the
current configuration and power checked before returning the engine
to its "low" emission configuration and shipped to Southwest Research
Institute. In light of the changes made by Cummins before shipment
and the problems regarding the turbocharger reseal and injector over-
haul required before tests could be made, the level of agreement between
Cummins and SwRI is acceptable.
SwRI has experienced much better agreement with Cummins
with cross check engines in the past. However, a check of our modal
results with Cummins data revealed slightly higher, but consistent
modal NO readings at SwRI which accounts for the apparent difference
in cycle composite NO2 of about 1.3 g/kw-hr. Fuel rate, power, BSFC,
and air rate, turbocharger pressure and rail pressure were all in good
agreement between Cummins and SwRI for both configurations. No
reason can be found for the difference except for the possibility of
adjustments and maintenance given the engine between its initial test
at Cummins and its test at SwRI some eight months later.
3. DDAD 8V-71TA
The replicate 13-mode HD gaseous emissions tests are summarized
on Table 6. The averages shown may be compared to 0.899 g/kw-hr HC,
4.05 g/kw-hr CO, 12.246 g/kw-hr NOX and 13.145 g/kw-hr NOX+HC
obtained at the 1000 hr final durability test of this engine on 9/4/74. The
lower NOX was apparently due to slightly lower air flow and lower NOx
concentrations. In all, very good agreement between the two sets of
data are evident.
For additional data, modal results, observed power, concentra-
tions, etc., please refer to Appendix C of this report. Each run is
summarized by a computer printout sheet containing pertinent raw,
observed, and reduced data.
B. Federal Smoke Results
Table 8 is a summary listing of the "a" acceleration, "b" lug-
down and "c" peak opacity results of the Federal Smoke Test for HD
diesel engines. Shown at the bottom of Table 8 are the Federal limits
for new engine certification beginning in calendar year 1970 and then
reduced in 1974 with addition of a peak limit.
Table 9 is a summary of the smoke and power observed during
a separate test series to evaluate smoke behavior during maximum
power curves run in 200 rpm increments. Each speed was held
56
-------
TABLE 8. FEDERAL SMOKE TEST RESULTS FOR
FIVE HD DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
Engine
Engine Configuration
DDAD LSN 60 Injectors,
6V-71N 1.470 Timing
DDAD B60E Injectors,
6V-71N 1.500 Timing
Smoke Factor, % Opacity
Run a (accel) b (lug) c (peak)
Date
2-18-75
2-18-75
8-25-75 1 12.3
8-25-75 2 12.2
Avg. 12.3
1
2
Avg.
5.3
5.6
5.5
1.8
2.0
1.9
15.1
14.9
15.0
5.6
5.7
5.7
Cummins "Low" Emission
NTC-290
Cummins "Current"
NTC-290 Emission
5-12-75 1 14.3
5-13-75 2 14.9
Avg. 14.6
6-25-75 1 14.5
6-25-75 2 14.4
Avg. 14.5
3.1
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.7
DDAD Standard
8V-71TA
10-29-75
10-29-75
6.5
6.8
6.7
Federal HD Limits
1970
1974
40
20
20
15
50
57
-------
TABLE 9. SMOKE TEST RESULTS DURING MAXIMUM POWER
TEST FOR FIVE HD DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
Engine
Engine
rpm
kw. obs Opacity, %
kw, obs Opacity, %
60 LSN, 1.470
B60E, 1.500
Cummins
NTC-290
DDAD
8V-71TA
2iOO
1900
1700
1500
1400
1300
1100
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
141.3
136.5
127.5
117.7
105.6
88.5
"Low"
288.0
276.8
255.9
238.0
220.8
167.9
132.8
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.5
5.5
Emission Conf.
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.2
3.5
4.6
Standard Configuration
188.0
177.5
165.6
149.2
129.1
106.7
2.8
2.8
3.3
5.0
9.5
16.0
'Current" Emission Conf.
293.9
278.3
255.9
232.8
217.8
199.9
161.9
1.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.5
1.8
4.3
58
-------
sufficiently long to enable true steady state performance to be obtained.
Each engine model will be discussed separately.
1. DDAD 6V-71N
The basic bus engine was run with LSN 60 set to i. 470 and then
with B60E injectors set to 1. 500. The LSN injectors are of low sac
needle design and the B60E are constant ending VCO (valve covers
orifice) unit injectors. Both are of size 60 for essentially equivalent
maximum power. The engine was run on a DF-1 kerosene type diesel
doped to 0. 1 percent sulfur by weight which is very similar to the
national average fuel used by city buses. The a, b, and c smoke
factors for this engine are shown in Table 8 for the duplicate runs
made with each injector timing configuration.
Table 9 lists the power curve smoke data for this engine from
2100 to 1100 rpm. It may be noted from both Tables 8 and 9 that the
smoke performance of this normally aspirated two-stroke cycle engine
equipped with size 60 injectors and operating on kerosene fuel was
quite satisfactory and typical of this type engine and configuration.
The retarded timing and B60E injector design apparently was responsible
for the lower observed power and increased smoke observed. The "a"
and "b" factors were more than doubled when the B60E injectors were
employed though still within the 20 percent "a" and 15 percent "b"
smoke limits of 1974.
The timing retard was probably responsible for not only higher
smoke but also lower power. The design of the injector itself may
have also had some effect on smoke and power. The engine basically
has an almost invisible exhaust as it should for city bus operation.
The increase in smoke is certainly in the wrong direction for this ap-
plication.
Recall from Table 6 the reduction in NC>2 from 17.2 to 11.8 g/kw-
hr by ostensibly using the B60E injectors and timing retard. The B60E
injector incorporates a constant ending of fuel injection regardless of
power level and the VCO (valve covers orifice) tip assembly. The
experimental VCO injectors evaluated some years earlier resulted in
higher smoke than N or LSN style injectors quite likely due to the fewer
and larger diameter openings.
2. Cummins NTC-290
The change in engine configuration from "low" to "current",
though considered quite substantial, had little effect on smoke by the
Federal Test Procedure. The results on Table 8 are consistent run-
to-run and show no difference between configurations. Smoke from
59
-------
this engine is considered to be fairly low in light of four-stroke cycle
turbocharged engines operating on DF-2 diesel fuel.
It may be noted from Table 9 that the smoke performance of
this turbocharged four-stroke cycle engine in both "low" and "current"
configuration was also essentially the same. The smoke performance
during lug-down (b factor) was exceptionally low, below the limit of
visibility. The power curve, a stepwise lug-down, confirms this
observation.
The change in configurations appeared to have little effect on full
power, maximum performance from the average power readings listed
in Table 9 until the speed dropped below 1400 rpm. This is probably
due primarily to the two different fuel pump calibrations employed in
the "low" and "current" configurations. Smoke opacity readings of
4 percent and less represent an exceptionally clear exhaust since 3-4
percent opacity by the EPA smokemeter is generally the limit of visibility
of diesel exhaust smoke.
3. DDAD 8V-71TA
Smoke results by the Federal HD test listed on Table 9 may be
compared to a 9.1 percent "a", 3.9 percent "b" and 17 percent "c"
value at the completion of the 1000 hour smoke-emissions durability
test completed over one year before. The engine was partially dis-
assembled for inspection between certification and these tests. The
DF-2 test fuel was also slightly different from emissions DF-2 fuel
normally used for smoke tests. Otherwise, no apparent reason is
known for the increase in smoke.
During the power-smoke curve, reported on Table 9, the smoke
was observed to be quite low between 2100 and 1500 rpm, the peak torque
speed of the engine. At 1300 and especially 1100 rpm, engine speeds
below peak torque speed, the smoke output increased substantially.
This is typical and means that the truck driver must not "lug" or
underspeed the engine in normal operation or smoke discharge level
will be increased. For further detail regarding the Federal Smoke
test results, please refer to Appendix D.
C. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses
The engine exhaust odor mapping and related instrumental analyses
resulted in a substantial amount of data.
1. Odor Ratings by Trained Panel
Tables 10 and 11 summarize the average odor ratings and
60
-------
TABLE 10. AVERAGE ODOR PANEL RATINGS
OF HD DIESEL ENGINES
100:1 Dilution
Engine
Condition
Intermediate
Speed, 2% load
Intermediate
Speed, 50% load
Intermediate
Speed, 100% load
High Speed,
2% load
High Speed,
50% load
High Speed,
100% load
Odor
Kit
D
B
O
A
P
Total
D
B
O
A
P
Total
D
B
O
A
P
Total
D
B
0
A
P
Total
D
B
O
A
P
Total
D
B
O
A
P
Total
DDAD
LSN 60
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
6.1
2.5
1.0
0.9
0. 6
0.4
5.4
4.7
1.6
1.0
0.9
1.2
9.4
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
•o
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
5.8
4. 1
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
8.2
6V-71
B 60 E
3. 1
1.0
' 1.0
0.8
0.6
6.5
2.3
1.0
0.9
0. 5
0.4
5. 1
3.4
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
7.0
3.4
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
•&~9
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
5.5
3.7
1. 1
1.0
0. 8
0.9
7.5
Cummins
"Current"
2.4
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
5.1
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
5.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.3
4.5
2.3
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
4.8
2.5
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
5.2
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
6.2
NTC-290
"Low"
2.4
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
5.2
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
5.5
2.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.3
5.0
2.2
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.3
4.7
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
6.2
2.1
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.2
4.7
DDAD
8V-71TA
2.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
5.9
2.5
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
5.4
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
6.0
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
~57Z
2.5
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.3
5.3
2.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
5.7
61
-------
TABLE 10. (Cont'd) AVERAGE ODOR PANEL, RATINGS
OF HD DIESEL ENGINES
Idle
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
D
B
O
A
P
Total
D
B
O
A
P
Total
D
B
O
A
P
Total
LSN 60
3.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
6.3
B 60 E "Current"
2.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
5.8
2.5
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
5.3
"Low"
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
6.8
Transient Results
5.1
1.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
10.1
4.6
1.5
1. 1
1.0
1.0
9.2
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
6.8
3.8
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
8.0
3.6
1. 1
1.0
0.8
1.0
7.5
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.5
6.0
3.6
1. 1
1.0
0.8
0.9
7.4
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
6.1
5.2
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
10.4
3.5
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
7.0
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
6.2
4.3
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
8.8
3.8
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
7.6
3.0
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
6.3
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
6.2
62
-------
TABLE 11. AVERAGE OF EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS OF
HD ENGINES DURING STEADY -STATE CONDITIONS
Engine
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
2% load
Intermediate
Speed,
507c load
Intermediate
Speed,
100% load
High Speed,
2% load
Exhaust
Emission
HC, ppm C
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
CO2. 7c
TIA
LCA, jug/1
LCO, /ig/1
HC, ppm C
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCA, jug/1
LCO, jug/1
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO, NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
CO2, %
TIA
LCA, Mg/1
LCO, jag 11
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCA, >ig/l
LCO, jig /I
DDAD
LSN 60
175
145
160
141
178
1.2
1. 1
19.8
1.2
235
98
713
652
743
3.3
1.0
23.7
1. 1
439
7842
809
752
789
6.2
1. 5
55. 1
3. 1
199
117
183
159
194
1, 5
1. 1
23.2
1.3
6V-71
B 60 E
121
199
72
68
92
1. 1
1.4
18.4
2.4
77
86
405
377
409
3.3
1. 1
10.7
1.3
208
3518
1042
960
994
6.2
1.4
25.8
2. 5
130
225
74
69
95
1.5
1.4
19.4
2.6
Cummins
"Current"
78
110
164
155
181
2.2
1.4
7.7
2.2
64
144
887
844
898
6,2
1.2
4.5
1.9
71
619
2069
2032
2157
9.6
1.3
4.3
2.3
72
103
221
195
218
2.8
1.3
5.4
2.0
NTC-290
"Low"
96
139
115
101
114
2.1
1.3
6.4
2. 1
93
176
314
288
294
6.3
1.4
8.6
2.4
86
509
717
678
694
9.1
1.3
4.9
2.4
90
114
140
126
139
2.8
1.4
10.2
2.5
DDAD
8V-71TA
101
123
118
108
135
1.6
1. 8
9.4
5.2
89
93
527
511
535
4.3
1.7
9.9
4.4
100
1132
1093
1020
1045
6.4
1. 8
8.9
5.8
92
84
122
123
149
2. 1
1.7
11.4
5.4
63
-------
TABLE 11. (Cont'd) AVERAGE OF EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS OF
HD ENGINES DURING STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS
Engine
Condition
High Speed,
50% load
High Speed,
100% load
Idle Speed,
2% load
Exhaust
Emission
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCA, >ig/l
LCO, .ug/1
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
co2, re
TIA
LCA, ;ig/l
LCO, ,ug/l
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-C.O, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCA, ug/1
LCO, ^g/1
DDAD
LSN 60
259
95
627
580
629
95
1. 1
25.7
1.3
333
1770
1136
1057
1111
6.2
1.5
48.9
3.0
176
126
183
160
199
1.0
1.0
17.9
1.0
6V-71
B 60 E
92
80
315
285
314
3.4
1.2
13.0
1.6
143
1267
868
823
859
6.2
1.5
24.5
3.0
146
132
100
95
117
0.9
1.2
17. 1
1.6
Cummins
"Current"
64
92
714
653
689
5.4
1.4
4. 1
2.4
83
108
1851
1783
1907
6.6
1.4
5.0
2.5
99
91
133
111
142
1.5
1.3
5.6
2.2
NTC-290
"Low"
95
123
255
228
241
5. 3
1.4
8.7
2.6
88
145
669
601
616
7.0
1.6
6.8
3.9
137
126
89
78
93
1.5
1.4
10.7
2.9
DDAD
8V-71TA
in
76
413
394
437
3.9
1.7
11.4
5. 0
85
88
1010
944
988
5.4
1.8
10.0
5.5
141
87
180
176
196
1. 1
1. 7
8.9
5.0
64
-------
emissions measured at the same time. Table 12 lists pertinent engine
data for the five engine configurations. Each engine model is discussed
separately.
a. DDAD 6V-71N
Table 10 lists the average odor panel ratings for both types
of injector-timing configurations. Looking mainly at the "D" composite
rating, it seems that the B60E had lower "D" ratings at high power
and higher "D" ratings at no load than the LSN 60 injectors. Other
steady states and idle seemed little affected. The B60E injectors were
apparently responsible for lower idle-accel, accel and slightly less
deceleration odor.
The action of the B60E configuration on lower exhaust odor
intensities is somewhat a surprise, especially in light of runs several
years ago with a set of experimental VCO injectors in a city bus. The
fuel and operating conditions were essentially the same though the
injectors were definitely different. Possibly the constant ending of
injection is responsible. This design feature would have effect only at
part load because at full load the start of injection would be equivalent
to the start of injection with the LSN-60 injectors given the same basic
engine timing. The VCO injectors run before resulted in noticeably
higher odor than the usual N or LSN injectors.
The steady state operating conditions used for odor measure-
ment of the 6V-71 engine were no, half and full load at 900 and 1500 rpm.
These speeds are consistent with most city buses equipped with 2 speed
transmission. Also, this is the first time odor measurements have
been attempted using a stationary dynamometer operated engine in
place of the usual chassis dynamometer operated full size city bus.
The bus operating conditions, including transients, were as closely
replicated as possible using previous experience in bus engine operation
and a large inertia wheel for simulation of acceleration and deceleration
type operation.
Table 11 lists most of the gaseous emissions taken simul-
taneously with odor measurements. Also listed in Table 12 are fuel
flow and air flow rates. These are averages of two days replicate
operation, each day the average of three replicate, random ordered,
steady states. As with odor ratings, the gaseous emissions, Table 11,
were quite repeatable from day to day. The oxides of nitrogen
measurement NO and NOX were lower for the B60E injectors and
retarded timing combination. One exception was 900 rpm and full
load during which both CL and NDIR indicated more NO and NOX with
the B60E injectors.
b. Cummins NTC-290
65
-------
TABLE 12. AVERAGE ENGINE OPERATING DATA TAKEN
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS OF HD ENGINES
DURING STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS
Engine
Condition
Intermediate
Speed
2% Load
Intermediate
Speed
50% Load
Intermediate
Speed
100%
High Speed
2% Load
Engine
Parameter
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, obs kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, "C
Exhaust Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm H^O
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, obs kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, 8C
Exhaust Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm HjO
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Po-wer Output, obs kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Exhaust Temp, 9C
Inlet Rest. , mm H2O
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, obs, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp. , °C
Exhaust Temp. , °C
Inlet Rest. , mm H2O
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
DDAD
LSN 60
900
1.4
3.2
10.3
2.285
24.4
113.3
190.5
3.8
900
36.0
8.9
10.5
0.247
25,0
218. 3
188.0
5.3
900
71.8
19.4
10.6
0.270
24.4
410.0
190. 5
5.3
1500
2.3
6.1
16.8
2.652
24.4
148.3
391.2
9.9
6V-71
B 60 E
900
1. 5
2.9
10.5
1.933
26. 1
113.3
198. 1
3.6
900
36.5
8.7
10. 1
0.238
26.7
220.6
203.2
5. 1
900
73.0
17.6
10.3
0.241
27.7
395.6
203.2
6.6
1500
2.3
5.9
16.5
2. 565
26. 1
153.9
419. 1
9.7
Cummins NTC-290
"Current"
1400
3.4
5.7
10.3
1.676
25.6
196.7
96.5
3. 0
1400
84.2
20.2
11.7
0.239
24.4
360.0
129.5
. 5. 1
1400
168.5
38.3
14.8
0.227
25.0
513.3
205. 7
9. 1
2100
4.5
12.6
16.9
2.80
24.4
241. 1
243.8
7.6
"Low"
1400
3. 3
5.5
10.4
1.666
27. 2
202.8
124.5
3. 3
1400
81.8
21.2
12.2
0.259
27.2
395.0
167.6
5.6
1400
163.3
39.2
15.9
0.240
26.7
521. 1
241.3
9.4
2100
2.2
12,5
16.6
5.681
27.8
255.0
264.2
7.6
DDAD
8V-71TA
1400
3.5
6.2
17.5
1.666
24.8
150.9
181.4
7.3
1400
93.1
23.9
20.3
0.256
25.2
277.4
226.6
12. 1
1400
186.2
47.9
25.3
0.257
25.6
405.7
325.4
24.5
2100
4.7
12.9
26.8
2.744
25. 3
172.7
371.9
19.9
66
-------
TABLE 12. (Cont'd) AVERAGE ENGINE OPERATING DATA TAKEN
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS OF HD ENGINES
DURING STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS
Engine
Condition
High Speed,
50 % Load
Engine
Parameter
High Speed,
100% Load
Idle
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, obs kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp. , °C
Exhaust Temp. , °C
Inlet Rest. , mm H2O
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, obs kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw hr
Inlet Temp. , °C
Exhaust Temp. , °C
Inlet Rest. , mm H^O
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, obs kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
Inlet Temp. , °C
Exhaust Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm H2O
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
DDAD 6V-71
LSN 60
1500 '
57.8
14.8
16.8
0.256
24.4
258.8
393.7
. 12.4
B 60 E
1500
56.7
14.0
16.4
0.246
27. Z
261. 1
424. 2
12.2
Cummins NTC-290
"Current"
2100
111.8
30.2
20.9
0.270
25.6
366.7
363.2
12.7
"Low"
2100
107.6
33.7
23.3
0.313
26.1
392.8
442.0
17.0
DDAD
8V-71TA
2100
126.3
35.5
30.8
0.281
25.2
259.4
468. 5
31.3
1500
1500
2100
2100
2100
115.6
27.7
16.7
0.239
24. 4
440. 0
391.2
18. 0
430
0
1.2
4.8
24.4
108.3
63. 5
0
112.6
26.3
16.6
0.233
25.6
430.6
414.0
17.0
430
0
1.2
4.7
27.2
110.6
66.0
0
223.0
51.8
27.2
0.232
24.4
458.3
591.8
12.7
615
0
1.4
4.8
25.0
158. 9
12.7
0
214. 1
55.0
28.7
0.257
26.7
488.3
637.5
27.9
615
0
1.4
4.2
27.8
168. 3
25.4
0
252.6
61.7
36.2
0.244
25.4
349.5
634.4
52. 1
480
0
1.5
6.2
24.6
134.6
39.5
0
67
-------
Table 10 also lists the average odor panel ratings for both
the "Current" and "Low" emission configuration NTC-290 engine. The
retarded timing operates on the "Low" configuration during the half
and fully loaded operation. "D" odor ratings were slightly higher at
half and full load at intermediate, 1400 rpm, speed and at 2100 (high)
rpm half load. The reverse was true for the retarded "Low" con-
figuration at full load, 2100 rpm in that "D" was lower with the '"Low"
or retarded system. Idle was a condition that produced higher "D"
intensity with the "Low" configuration.
Little difference in odor was found during transients except
deceleration in which the low configuration apparently resulted in a lower
average "D" rating. The reasons for the overall inconsistent effect of
the engine emission configuration on odor is not understood. What was
somewhat of concern was the odor intensities, regardless of configura-
tion, found during transients, especially the deceleration. Like the
6V-71, this is the first time odor tests have been made with stationary
operated engines during transient operation at SwRI.
The use of a large inertia wheel does permit very repeatable
and road-like operation of the engine. The deceleration mode is one
that is quite time dependent. The time following closed throttle decele-
ration was carefully investigated to make sure a representative maximum
odor occurrence would be presented to the panel for rating.
Table 11 also lists exhaust emissions data for the Cummins
NTC-290 engine. The engine speeds used were 2100 and 1400 rpm,
same as the 13-mode FTP test speeds. HC and CO were slightly,
but consistently, higher with the "Low" configuration. One exception
was CO at 1400 rpm (intermediate speed) full load. Oxides of nitrogen
were consistently and grossly lower as expected during half and full
load regardless of speed. Exactly why NOX was also lower at idle
and the two no load conditions is unknown.
c. DDAD 8V-71TA
Also listed on Tables 10, 11, and 12 are the average odor,
gaseous emissions and operating data, respectively. This turbocharged
and roots blown truck engine, operated on DF-2 fuel, had, under some
conditions, lower odor ratings than the 6V-71 DDAD engine operating
on DF-1 fuel. This was noticeable during the intermediate and high
speed 100 percent load points, and both acceleration conditions.
For additional details and supporting data for Tables 10
and 11, please refer to Appendices E and F. Appendix E contains the
average panel ratings for each run (triplicate runs in random order
for steady slates and quadruplicate runs in random order for the three
transients). For the DDAD 6V-71 and Cummins NTC-290, the data is
68
-------
grouped in sets of five tables each. The first table is a summary
comparison between the two configurations with daily average results
tabulated. The other four tables of the set list the run by run results
for each day of testing, two days for each configuration.
The 8V-71TA engine was only run in one configuration,
standard, and three odor panel test days were made. The Appendix F
instrumental data on emissions are presented similarly to the odor
data in Appendix E.
d. Analysis of Panel'Ratings
Figures iO, 11 and 12 are plots of the odor data listed in
Table 10. The top set of graphs are for the "D" diesel intensity ratings
at various steady states and are plotted against percent power. The
lower graph summarizes the composite "D"+"B"+"O"+"A"+"P" for
all ten conditions. The transients more often gave highest ratings.
From Figure 10, the B60E injectors produced lower odor under some
conditions. The two emission configurations used with the Cummins
engine, Figure 11, produced inconsistent odor differences.
Neither engine speed or power setting had a noticeable effect
on odor for the 8V-71 engine, Figure 12. The ratings were rather
constant and consistent. The lower graph of Figure 12 shows that
idle-accel was the only condition which could be considered different
from the others. Otherwise, the odor levels must be termed about
the same. With "D" levels on the order of 2.5 to 3, the odor from
this turbocharged two-stroke cycle engine must also be termed light
to moderate in odor strength. This is the first opportunity for an
evaluation of odor to be made from this type engine under the long
range investigation. The relatively low odor levels, at 100:1 dilution,
are encouraging.
Finally, the shapes of the "D" odor intensity for the two DDAD
engines was mainly one of lowest odor at the mid-power point, although
the differences due to power or speed were, for the most part, rather
minimal.
2. Odor Ratings by DOAS Instrument
Listed on Table 11 are the three odor rating values, TIA, LCO
and LCA, for each of the seven steady state conditions. The TIA is
based on the measurement of LCO and is the value used to predict the
total intensity of aroma. For the run-by-run data on which the averages
are based, please refer to Appendix F.
Figures 13 and 14 contain graphs relating TLA to operating point
69
-------
6.0 r
# LSN 60 Injectors
OB60E Injectors
2100 rpm
1260 rpm
100
1-) f\
-------
Odor Intensity
*. cr-
• •
) O O
« Current Configuration
© Low Configuration
.
-
1 • : —
2100 rpm
1400 rpm
2.0 -
50
Percent of Power
100
12. 0
Pno. o
+
t;
3
u
£
0
^
50 100
.
c
IH
3
U
• '
^
o
^
—
c
OJ
S~t
3
U
^
o
^
-t->
G
0)
t!
3
U
^
o
•-!
c
0)
£
3
U
£
0
>-l
Idle Idle- Accel Decel
Percent Power
Accel
1 260 rpm
2100 rpm
FIGURE 11. CUMMINS NTC-290 ENGINE
DIESEL ODOR INTENSITY BY TRAINED PANEL
n
-------
i.8r
1-7
1.61-
- — 2100 rpm
-1400 rpm
(D
C
0)
:
t
:
c
2.0
50
Percent of Power
100
8.0
0
'-
Q
2.0
2 50 100
Percent Power
1400 rpm
2 50 100
Percent Power
2100 rpm
Idle Idle- Accel Decel
Accel
FIGURE 12. DETROIT DIESEL 8V-71 ENGINE
DIESEL ODOR INTENSITY BY TRAINED PANEL
72
-------
1.6
1.5
1.4
H1'3
1.2
1.1
1.0
. LSN 60 Injectors
O B60E Injectors
2100 rpm
1260 rpm
0.9
Idle
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 13. DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71 ENGINE
DIESEL ODOR INTENSITY (TIA) BY DOAS METHOD
73
-------
1.6
1.5 -
• Current Configuration
O Low Configuration
1.4 - e
<
-
1.3
1.2
J4QO rpm
1.1
1.0
0.9
Idle 2 50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 14. CUMMINS NTC-290 ENGINE
DIESEL ODOR INTENSITY (TIA) BY DOAS METHOD
74
-------
(speed and load) for the DDAD 6V-71 and Cummins NTC-290 engine.
This same type of graph is shown at the top of Figure 12 for the 8V-71
engine. The relationships are for the most part inconsistent with the
panel rating versus operating condition, already discussed. For
example, the smooth, consistent trends, shown on the top of Figures
10 and 11 in terms of "D" intensity are not repeated in Figures 13
and 14.
To illustrate the relationship between TLA and the "D" odor
rating by trained panel, the average values by each were plotted in
Figure 15 for the five engine configurations. In the range of "D"-2 to
"D"-4. 7 covered by these four engine configurations, there is no really
satisfactory relationship present.
Much effort has been expended by SwRI staff to determine the
LCO, LCA and TIA, using the most recent instrument modification and
procedural changes recommended by Dr. Phil Levins of A. D. Little
Co. The ability of the TIA measurement to predict or relate to "D"
intensity from these five HD engines in a consistent way is of concern.
It is difficult to justify odor measurement of HD diesel by this analysis
method without substantial additional effort.
Use of the DOAS is currently restricted to steady state type
operation since the sample must be accumulated over a period of time.
Under the best set of conditions in a well equipped diesel emissions
research laboratory, the relationship does not appear to be appropriate
for anything beyond research purposes at this time. We continue to
suggest its use in future odor projects as a matter of obtaining additional
data for comparison-correlation purposes.
3. Detailed Hydrocarbons
Table 13 is a listing of the exhaust hydrocarbons, some of which
are considered to be non-reactive in the atmosphere in terms of the
formation of photochemical smog. These measurements were made
at each of the seven steady-state operating points used for odor measure-
ment. The engine operating data was previously listed on Table 12.
It is difficult to attribute the relative amounts of the various
hydrocarbons in the exhaust to the change in engine configuration. If
indeed one configuration produced more or less of a specific hydro-
carbon, which change in the engine was responsible is difficult to say.
Not enough is known about the effect of timing or injector design, in
the case of the DDAD 6V-71 for example, to speculate or theorize on
the trends.
75
-------
3.0 r
2.5
CO
O
P
1.5
1.0
O Detroit Diesel 6V-71 LSN 60
D Detroit Diesel 6V-71 B60E
A Cummins NTC-290 "Current"
V Cummins NTC-290 "Low"
[> Detroit Diesel 8V-71TA
O 2% Load
Q 50% Load
• 100% Load
O Inter Speed
Rated Speed
Idle
V • «
*^ ^M
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
"D" Diesel Odor Rating by Panel
5.0
FIGURE 15. TIA BY DOAS VERSUS "D" DIESEL ODOR RATING
BY TRAINED PANEL FOR FIVE HD DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
76
-------
TABLE 13. DISTRIBUTION OF EXHAUST HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
DURING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS, ppmC
Engine
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
2% Load
Intermediate
Speed,
50% Load
Intermediate
Speed,
100% Load
High Speed,
2% Load
Exhaust
Emission
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene^'
Toluene'3*
FID HC(4)
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
FID HC<4>
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
FID HC<4>
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
FID HC<4>
DDAD 6V-71<1>
LSN 60
2.5
6.5
0. 1
0.8
tr
2.2
175
2. 3
4.2
0. 1
0.9
tr
1.7
235
7. 7
24. 7
1. 3
1. 1
0.3
15. 1
439
2.2
6.2
0. 1
0.7
tr
2. 3
199
B 60 E
3.4
12.0
0.2
1. 1
0
4.6
121
1.8
2.0
0. 1
0. 5
0
0.7
77
4.3
16, 1
0. 5
1. 2
0. 1
7. 1
208
3. 5
14. 1
0.2
1.6
0
5.4
130
Cummins NTC-29o(1'
"Current"
3.2
2.4
0. 1
0.4
0
0.8
110
1.5
0.9
0. 1
0.3
0
0.9
64
2. 1
2.4
tr
0.3
0
1.0
71
2. 3
2.0
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0.7
72
"Low"
2.5
6.5
0.2
1. 1
0
2.4
139
0.8
2.8
0. 1
0.4
0
1.4
93
0.5
6.4
tr
0.5
1. 5
1.0
86
1. 1
2.5
0. 1
0.5
0
0.9
90
DDAD(2)
8V-71TA
2.8
6.8
0. 1
1. 1
0
2.2
1.0
0.6
123
1.8
3.2
0. 1
0.7
0
1.4
0. 5
0. 1
89
1.3
6.5
0.2
1.0
0
2.6
0.7
0.5
100
2.0
5.3
0.2
0.9
0
2.2
0.7
0.6
92
77
-------
TABLE 13. (Cont'd) DISTRIBUTION OF EXHAUST HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
DURING STEADY-STATE ODOR TESTS, ppmC
Engine
Condition
High Speed,
50% Load
High Speed,
100% Load
Idle
Ambient(5)
Exhaust
Emission
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
FID HC(4)
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
Toluene
FID HC(4)
Methane
Ethylene
Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Benzene
FID HC<4)
Methane
DDAD
LSN 60
1.6
3.6
0.1
0.6
tr
1.4
259
2.9
26.1
0.7
1.7
0.1
13.8
333
2.7
6.4
0.2
0.9
tr
333
2.1
6V-71U)
B 60 E
1.5
2.9
0.1
0.6
0
1.1
92
2.1
13.7
0.3
1.2
0
6.0
143
2.7
7.2
0.2
0.8
0.1
143
1.9
Cummins N1
"Current"
1.5
1.6
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0.5
64
1.3
3.8
tr
0.4
0
1.4
83
3.0
4.5
0.1
0.6
0
83
2.9
"Low"
1. 1
3.6
0. 1
0.5
0
1.9
95
0.5
7.8
0. 1
0.4
0
4.1
88
2.3
8.3
0.2
0.8
0
88
1.0
DDAD*2'
8V-71TA
1.3
3.2
0.2
0.8
0
1.2
0.9
1.0
111
1.3
4. 3
0
0.4
0
2.2
0.9
0. 5
85
3.0
4.8.
0.2
0.9
0
0.9
0 3
w • J
85
2.0
(1) Average of two runs
(2) Average of three runs
(3) Benzene and Toluene determinations made on DDAD
8V-71TA engine only
(4) Average exhaust HC from Table 11 for reference and
comparison to individual HC, especially methane
(5) Representative of air in vicinity of engine intake.
Other light hydrocarbons either non-measureable or
in negligible concentrations «0. 1 ppmC
78
-------
4. Aldehydes
Table 14 lists the aldehydes measured by the DNPH procedure
for the DDAD 8V-71TA engine. In Section III, the DNPH procedure was
described. The DNPH method was used for the first time by SwRI on this
project and the 8V-71 engine was the first HD engine tested. The other
two engines had completed the test program by the time the DNPH
method was ready. The procedure took a substantial effort to prepare
for and obtain laboratory calibration. The procedure continues to be
troublesome and very time-consuming. It does have the great advantage
over previous methods of giving insight into a number of the more
common aldehydes and hopefully do them more accurately.
The aldehydes listed on Table 14 are expressed in concentration
and in the same rates as particulates and sulfates, described later,
of mg/hr, mg/kg fuel and mg/kw-hr. For the first time in the long-
range project, data are available on acetaldehyde, acetone, isobutanal,
crotonal, hexanal and benzaldehyde. In past projects, only formaldehyde
and "aliphatic aldehydes", a functional grouping, were determined.
The net worth of these measurements will be better determined
as more engines are measured by the same method. The analyses are
time-consuming and expensive, making repetitive sampling prohibitive
in cost. One must carefully select test conditions to give the maximum
benefit. For example, each condition on Table 14 is a steady state odor
test condition described earlier in this section. Only a single DNPH
analysis of one sample is made for each of the seven conditions. The
three replicate odor test runs for each condition are collected in a
single bubbler to represent what the odor panel and other instrument
measurements are based on. As more data is developed, it will be
possible to evaluate the relationship of odor to various of the aldehydes
by the computer regression techniques used earlier in this project.
D. Particulate, Sulfate and SO£ Results
The categories of particulate, sulfate and SO2 are discussed in
this subsection. Particulate and sulfate results share a common
sampling basis while SO2 and sulfate are basic to the sulfur balance.
Table 15 is a summary listing of the particulate, sulfate, sulfuric
acid, and sulfur dioxide emission rates for the five HD engines tested.
General methods of expressing the rate of emission for each
contaminant are listed as follows; first, the concentration, in mg/m^
or jjg/m^, for particulate and sulfates; then, a mass per unit of time,
g/hr, rate, then two specific mass emission rates, g or mg per kg
79
-------
oo
o
TABLE 14. ALDEHYDES BY DNPH FOR DDAD 8V-71TA ENGINE
Emission
Condition Rate Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acetone leobutanal Crotonal Hexanal Benzaldehyde
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
Idle
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
>»g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
/ig/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
^g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
/ig/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
jig/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
/jig/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
^ig/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
2223
1947
314
556.3
1942
1969
82
21.1
3071
3880
81
20.8
2118
654
436
0
1941
2602
202
553.6
2400
3692
104
29.2
2718
4913
80
19.4
777
680
110
194.3
71
72
3
0.8
494
624
13
3.4
565
174
116
0
35
47
4
10.0
35
54
2
0.4
212
383
6
1.5
1164
1020
165
291.4
918
931
39
10.0
318
401
8
2.2
459
142
95
0
459
6i4
48
130.6
600
923
26
7.3
777
1404
23
5.6
811
711
115
203.1
988
1002
42
10.8
565
714
15
3.8
1553
480
320
0
318
426
33
90.6
1377
2118
60
16.8
1659
2999
49
11.9
459
402
65
114.9
459
465
19
5.0
282
357
7
1.9
424
131
87
0
565
757
59
161.1
424
652
18
5.2
247
447
7
1.8
0
0
0
0
1589
1611
67
17.3
1412
1784
37
9.6
1094
338
225
0
0
0
0
0
1236
1901
54
15.1
1765
3190
52
12.6
706
618
100
176.6
635
644
27
6.9
353
446
9
2.4
0
0
0
0
706
946
73
201.3
177
272
8
2.2
212
383
6
1.5
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, SULFATE AND SO2 FROM
47 mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES
DDAD
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
2% Load
Intermediate
Speed,
50% Load
Emission Rate
Particulate: mg/m3
g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
SO4=: jug/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
H2SO4: ug/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
S02: g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
S:7cRecovery SO2
H2S04
SO2+H2SO4
Particulate: mg/m3
g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
SO4=: jug/m
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
H2SO4: jug/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
S02: g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
S: % Recovery SO2
H2SO4
SO2+HzSO4
LSN
27.
18.
4.
9.
345.
235.
61.
123.
352.
240.
63.
126.
7.
2.
4.
104.
2.
106.
58.
39.
3.
0.
1026.
697.
55.
14.
1048.
712.
56.
14,
26.
2.
0.
106.
1.
106,
60
48
'77
90
88
5
8
8
4
7
8
1
0
97
08
19
6
1
7
39
7
15
79
7
7
4
0
3
3
6
3
9
13
54
8
9
.7
6V-71
B 60E
29.
20.
4.
10.
555.
395.
95.
210.
567.
403.
97.
214.
7.
1.
3.
87.
3.
90.
81.
56.
4.
1.
681.
470.
38.
9.
695.
479.
38.
9.
26.
2.
0.
109.
1.
110
11
7
99
89
5
3
5
4
4
6
5
8
26
75
82
8
19
9
74
45
59
17
4
0
0
74
7
8
3
95
9
2
6
2
3
.4
Cummins NTC
"Current
17.
9.
2.
2.
577.
298.
66.
90.
589.
304.
67.
92.
23.
5.
7.
113.
0.
113.
63.
36.
1.
0.
4679.
2726.
136.
32.
4777.
2783.
139.
33.
96.
4.
0.
105,
1,
107
8
2
0
8
4
6
3
3
5
9
7
2
4
2
1
0
96
9
0
7
8
4
7
0
9
9
9
3
8
f
o
9
9
3
,9
,9
.9
290
11 "Low"
17.
9.
1.
2.
1315.
680.
139.
210.
1343.
695.
141.
214.
29.
6.
9.
131.
2.
133.
92.
60.
2.
0.
3832.
2516.
99.
31.
3912.
2569.
101.
32.
117.
4.
1.
100.
1.
5
0
8
8
9
9
0
4
6
2
9
8
6
0
3
7
0
7
34
67
4
8
0
7
3
9
5
6
3
5
0
6
5
,4
,4
101.8
DDAD
8V-71TA
29.
26.
4.
6.
1129.
1016.
161.
267.
1153.
1037.
164.
273.
27.
4.
7.
96.
2.
98.
58.
60.
2.
0.
4169.
4334.
183.
45.
4256.
4425.
187.
46.
116.
4.
1.
107.
2.
110.
29
36
18
93
9
5
2
9
6
9
6
6
8
4
3
0
3
3
48
73
57
6
2
9
8
6
8
9
6
6
5
9
2
4
7
1
81
-------
TABLE 15. (Cont'd) SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, SULFATE AND SO2 FROM
47 mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES
DDAD
Condition Emission Rate
Intermediate Particulate: mg/m'
Speed, g/hr
100% Load g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
S04=: >ig/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
H2SO4: /g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
S02: g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
S:% Recovery SO2
H2S04
SO2+H2SO4
Idle Particulate: mg/m^
g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
SO4=: ,pg/ntt3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
H2SO4: /ig/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
S02: g/hr
g/fcg fuel
g/kw-hr
S:%Recovery SO2
H2S04
SO2+H2SO4
LSN
65.
45.
1.
0.
1309.
903.
36.
9.
1336.
922.
37.
9.
56.
2.
0.
115.
1.
116.
33.
6.
6.
543.
107.
102.
R
554.
109.
104.
R
3.
3.
177.
60
78
43
85
48
3
9
9
46
8
9
6
66
6
31
59
4
2
7
6
7
4
-
1
7
4
6
9
5
72
58
-
1
3.42
180. 5
6V-71
Cummins NTC
B 60 E
84.
58.
2.
0.
1188.
824.
35.
8.
1213.
841.
35.
8.
52.
2.
0.
112.
1.
114.
40.
8.
8.
338.
71.
68.
R
345.
72.
70.
R
3.
3.
---
159.
2.
161.
51
66
50
62
5
6
1
78
4
9
9
78
9
25
56
8
17
0
2
5
5
-
4
4
7
5
9
1
3
3
-
2
3
5
290
"Current" "Low"
51.
38.
1.
0.
6802.
5050.
131.
30.
6945.
5156.
134.
31.
163.
4.
0.
92.
1.
94.
11.
2.
2.
---
749.
162.
142.
R
765.
165.
145.
R
7.
6.
...
9
6
0
2
2
1
5
5
0
2
3
1
7
3
9
7
9
7
3
5
3
-
4
1
3
1
5
3
1
5
-
136.0
2.
138.
1
1
101.
79.
2.
0.
4237.
3331.
84.
20.
4326.
3401.
86.
21.
171.
4.
1.
94.
1.
95.
13.
2.
1.
...
1675.
362.
253.
R
1710.
370.
259.
R
7.
5.
-..
113.
3.
117.
38
74
03
49
7
6
7
7
7
5
5
1
2
4
1
7
2
9
7
9
9
'-
7
7
8
8
3
2
5
0
-
5
7
2
DDAD
8V-71TA
65.
86.
1.
0.
3021.
4013.
83.
21.
3085.
4097.
85.
21.
222.
4.
1.
100.
1.
101.
6.
1.
1.
0
1187.
301.
195.
1212.
308.
195.
7.
4.
0
102.
?
tt .
105.
16
57
80
46
6
4
5
3
1
7
2
7
3
6
2
6
2
8
7
7
1
0
8
7
9
1
7
3
9
7
g
6
82
-------
TABLE 15. (Cont'd) SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, SULFATE AND SO2 FROM
47 mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES
Condition
High
Speed,
100% Load
High
Speed,
50% Load
DDAD
Emission Rate LSN 60
Particulate: mg/m3 126.4
g/hr 139.3
g/kg fuel 4. 1
g/kw-hr 1.0
SO4=: ug/m-1 2486. 6
mg/hr 2737.9
mg/kg fuel 80. 2
mg/kw-hr 20.6
H2SO4: ;ig/m3 2538.8
mg/hr 2795.4
mg/kg fuel 81.8
mg/kw-hr 20. 9
SO2: g/hr 60.2
g/kg fuel 1.7
g/kw-hr 0.45
S: % Recovery SO2 88. 2
H2SO4 2.68
SO2+H2SO4 90. 9
Particulate: mg/m3 104. 9
g/hr H6.3
g/kg fuel 5.7
g/kw-hr 1. 68
S04=: /ig/m3 1529.4
mg/hr 1694.9
mg/kg fuel 82.6
mg/kw-hr 24.6
H2SO4: ^g/m3 1561.5
mg/hr 1730.5
mg/kg fuel 84. 3
mg/kw-hr 25. 1
SO2: g/hr 37.5
g/kg fuel 1.82
g/kw-hr 0. 54
S:% Recovery SO2 91.4
H2S04 z. 8
SO2+H2SO4 94. 1
6V-71
B 60 E
151. 1
169.6
5. 1
1.3
3241.6
3635.0
108.4
27.9
3309.6
3711.4
110.7
28.4
54.8
1.6
0.4
81.8
3.6
85.4
143. 7
159.3
7.6
2.4
1908. 5
2118.2
101.6
31.4
1948. 5
2162.7
103.8
32. 1
38.5
1.84
0.57
92.5
3.4
95.9
Cummins NTC 290
"Current1
35.3
45.0
0.8
0.2
5073.5
6460. 9
123.3
28.9
5180.0
6596.6
125. 9
29.5
249. 3
4. 7
1. 1
103.5
1.8
105. 3
54.2
54.8
1.8
0.5
4578. 9
4625.2
150.3
41.4
4675. 1
4722.3
153.4
42. 3
117.8
3.8
1, 1
83.3
2.2
85.5
1 "Low"
54.00
74. 17
1.4
0.4
4675.7
6420. 1
118.9
31.7
4773.9
6555.0
121.4
32.4
233.8
4.3
1.2
94.3
1.7
96.0
95.39
90.64
2.7
0.9
4475. 3
4250.8
125. 1
39.9
4569.2
4340. 0
127.7
40.8
125.3
3.7
1. 2
80.2
1.8
82. 1
DDAD
8V-71TA
63.2
122.0
2.0
0.5
7003.8
13526.3
219.3
53.9
7150.8
13810.3
223.9
55. 1
294.3
4.8
1.2
103.8
3.2
107.0
59.7
97.6
2.8
0.8
4148. 7
6779.2
191.9
54. 1
4235.8
6921.6
195.9
55.2
170.8
4. 8
1. 4
105.2
2. 8
107. 9
83
-------
TABLE 15. (Cont'd) SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, SULFATE AND SO2 FROM
47 mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER SAMPLES
DDAD
Condition
High
Speed,
2% Load
Emission Rate
Particulate: mg/m3
g/hr
g/ kg fuel
g/kw-hr
SO4=: ,ug/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
H2SO4: ^g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
S02: g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
S:% Recovery SO2
H2S04
S02+H2S04
LSN
86.
94.
10.
34.
947.
1033.
120.
387.
967.
1054.
122.
396.
20.
2.
7.
120.
4.
124.
60
6
4
9
9
7
0
1
9
6
7
6
1
7
41
7
6
0
6
6V-71
Cummins NTC
B 60 £
104.
115.
13.
44.
1116.
1236.
138.
473.
1139.
1262.
141.
483.
18.
2.
7.
103.
4.
.108.
49
74
0
5
1
2
3
6
5
2
2
5
4
1
1
3
6
0
"Current
39.
31.
3.
6.
1387.
1101.
116.
245.
1417.
1124.
118.
250.
47.
5.
10.
110.
1.
111.
5
3
3
9
9
4
3
3
0
5
8
5
9
0
6
2
69
9
290
" "Low"
38.
27.
2.
6.
2755.
1997.
203.
490.
2813.
2038.
207.
500.
47.
4.
11.
104.
2.
107.
2
7
8
8
8
1
5
4
6
9
8
7
2
8
5
6
9
6
DDAD
8V-71TA
49.
66.
5.
13.
1406.
1891.
153.
381.
1436.
1931.
156.
389.
61.
5.
12.
108.
2.
110.
6
7
4
3
5
8
3
5
1
6
6
5
2
0
2
0
2
2
84
-------
fuel consumed and g or mg per kw-hr of work produced. These are
commonly known as "fuel specific" and "brake specific" emission rates.
Also listed on Table 15 are percent recoveries in terms of SO2>
H£SO4 and SC>2 plus H2SO4. It is the combined H2SC>4 plus SC>2 recovery,
as a percent of sulfur in the fuel consumed, that represents the sulfur
balance. The goal for such recoveries is to be within ±10 percent of
the theoretical sulfur consumed by the engine.
Table 16 is a summary of the engine operating conditions measured
during the sampling for particulate and sulfate. The values are averaged
for the replicate tests and may be used to represent typical operation
For example, the fuel rate or air flow rate may be used in determining
emissions per day given a usage factor, cycle of operation and the
emission rates of Table 15. For purposes of additional discussion,
the results are graphed by engine make.
1. DDAD6V-71
Figures l6, 17 and 18 are graphs of particulate, sulfate (SO4=)
and SO2 rates, given in Table 15, for the 6V-71N engine. The rates
are plotted against power level at the rated and intermediate engine
speeds for both LSN 60 - 1.470 timing and B60E - 1.500 timing con-
figurations. Note that the particulate, sulfate and SO2 mass per unit
of time all increase mostly linearly with an increase in power. To
produce this power requires an increase in fuel so these trends are
understandable.
However, when the mass per unit of fuel consumed are plotted,
then the particulate and sulfate mostly decreased with an increase in
power. The concentrations of particulate, sulfate or SO2 all increased
as the power was increased. The principal engine conditions of power
output, fuel rate and air flow are graphed in Figure 19 for this engine
and series of tests.
2. Cummins NTC-290
Figures 20, 21 and 22 are graphs of particulate, sulfate and SC>2
rates for the Cummins NTC-290 engine. As with the 6V-71, the rates
are from Table 15 data and are plotted against power level for the
"current" and "low" emission configurations. As with the 6V-71 engine,
particulate, sulfate and SO2 mass emissions per unit of time increased
with power level. One exception was the particulate rate, g/hr, Figure
20, for the 2lOO rpm where the 50 percent power point was the maximum
value of those measured.
85
-------
TABLE 16- SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS
47mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER TESTS
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
2% Load
Intermediate
Speed
50% Load
Intermediate
Speed
100% Load
Idle
High
Speed
100% Load
Engine Operation
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp. *C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, ° C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/km-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output
Fuel Rate, kg,hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, 'C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
DDAD
LSN 60
1260
1.9
3.8
13.5
2.016
28.9
21.5
52.3
1260
49.8
12.6
13. 3
0.253
32,2
21.5
65.0
1260
95.5
24.5
13.3
0.257
33.9
21.3
79.5
430
0
1.0
4.0
32.2
3.7
23.6
2100
133. 1
34. 1
21.4
0.256
34. 4
47. 1
102.9
6V-71
B 60 E
1260
1.9
4.2
14. 1
2. 184
23.9
23.0
49.8
1260
48.2
12.3
13.5
0.261
25.00
21.7
64.8
1260
94.
23.5
13.4
0.25
26.7
21.9
. 79.8
430
0
1.0
4.2
27.8
4. 7
25.4
2100
130. 5
33.5
21.7
0.257
27. 8
47. 1
102.9
Cummins
"Current"
1400
3.3
4.5
10.2
1.364
26.7
11.2
20.3
1400
82.8
19.9
11.3
0.240
27.2
13.6
26.7
1400
165.6
38.4
14. 1
0.232
27.2
18. 9
33.0
615
0
1. 1
4.3
26.7
2.6
12. 7
2100
223.4
52.4
24.5
0.235
27. 2
48.2
64. 0
NTC-290
"Low"
1400
3.2
4.9
10.3
I. 531
33.3
9.7
15.2
1400
79:0
25.4
12.8
0.322
31.7
13.8
27.9
1400
161. 1
39.3
15.2
0.244
31.7
17.8
33.0
615
0
1.5
4.3
31.7
2.2
12.7
2100
202.6
53.9
26.7
0.266
31. 1
45.8
63. 5
DDAD
8V-71TA
1400
3.5
6.2
17.5
1.666
23.3
13. 1
30.5
1400
93. 1
23.9
20.3
0.256
24.4
15.9
43.2
1400
186.2
47.9
25.3
0.257
25.6
24.3
53.3
480
0
1.5
6.2
26. 1
2.4
25.4
2100
252.6
61.7
36.2
0.244
26.1
47.6
88.9
86
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS
47mm GLASS AND FLUOROPORE FILTER TESTS (CONT'D.)
Condition
High
Speed
50% Load
High
Speed
2% Load
Engine Operation
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, "C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
DDAD
LSN 60
2100
68.9
20.5
21.7
0.298
32.2
47.5
90.0
2100
2.7
8.6
21.9
3. 185
34.4
48.2
78.2
6V-71
B 60 E
2100
67.3
20.9
21.8
0.311
28.3
47.5
92.0
2100
2.6
8.9
21.8
3.423
27.2
48.2
80.0
Cummins
"Current"
2100
111.7
30.8
19.6
0.276
27.2
32.7
45.7
2100
4.5
9.5
15.6
2. Ill
27.2
22.2
26.7
NTC-290
"Low"
2100
106.5
34.0
18.5
0.319
30.0
40.0
45.7
2100
4. 1
9.8
14.4
2.390
27.8
55. 1
27.9
DDAD
8V-71TA
2100
126.3
35.5
30.8
0.281
25. 5
35.5
63.5
2100
4.7
12.9
26.8
2.744
24.4
26.0
38. 1
87
-------
QLSN-60 Injectors
AB60E Injectors
2100 rpm
1260 rpm
150 r~
-Tl50
100
50
j
6
Idle 2
50
Percent of Power
FIGURE 16. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES FROM
DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71 BUS ENGINE
BASED ON 47mm GLASS FILTER
88
-------
4000
QLSN-60 Injectors
AB60E Injeqtors
3000 -
-
.-
2000
1000
.2100 rpm
•1260 rpm
150 r-
u 100
4
31
^
M
£ 50
— 4000
3000
•
f
,-'
2000
1000
Idle 2 50
Percent of Power
FIGURE 17. SULFATE (SO4=) EMISSION RATES
FROM DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71 BUS ENGINE
BASED ON 47mm FLUOROPORE FILTER
100
89
-------
60 Injectors
AB60E Injectors
£100 rpm
1260 rprr>
60
00
40
20
0 U
i
— •
20
4
5
"oo
Idle 2 50
Percent of Power
FIGURE 18. SO2 EMISSION RATES FROM
DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71 BUS ENGINE
100
90
-------
150
60 Injectors
Injectors
2100 rpm
1 260 rpm
100
~
u
o 50
(X
0 l_
30 r-
bo
„
»s
'-:
O
20
10
40
20
—4> -; ; :-
-
. i
X
Idle 2
50
Percent of Power
100
01
0
V
::
-
FIGURE 19. POWER OUTPUT FUEL, AND AIR RATES FROM
DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71 BUS ENGINE DURING 7 MODE TESTS
91
-------
100
^ "Current" Configuration
O "Low" Configuration
2100
1400 rpm
-,150
- 100
Idle 2
50
Percent of Powe^r
100
FIGURE 20. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES FROM
CUMMINS NTC-290 TRUCK ENGINE BASED ON 47mm GLASS FILTER
92
-------
8000
V "Current" Configuration
D "Low" Configuration
60001-
.2100 rpm
1400 rpm
E
c
5° 4000-
2000
300
200
J4
Of)
100
o L
,
Idle
••
8000
-j 6000
-
. s^.
E
- 4000
1
-) 2000
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 21. SULFATE (SO4 = ) EMISSION RATES FROM
JMMINS NTC-290 TRUCK ENGINE BASED ON
47mm FLUOROPORE FILTER
93
-------
V "Current" Configuration
O "Low" Configuration
2100 rpm
1400 rpm
~
-
t>o
300
200 -
100
0 L-
]
100
-"o
I
3
3
B-
»
Idle 2 50
Percent of Po\ver
FIGURE 22. SO2 EMISSION RATES FROM
CUMMINS NTC-290 TRUCK ENGINE
100
94
-------
These same trends followed for the particulate loading in mg/
m . Sulfate, Figure 21, tended to flatten out between 50 and 100 per-
cent power while SC>2 concentrations were quite linear with power. The
mass per kg of fuel consumed graphs show that at increasing power,
increased fuel rate, particulate decreased as did sulfate and SC>2 though
the latter decreases are overall trends and are considered slight.
Figure 23 is a graph of fuel, power and air flow rates for the seven
test conditions with the NTC-290.
3. DDAD 8V-71TA
Figures 24, 25 and 26 are the third set of curves depicting the
effect of speed and power output on particulate, sulfate and SC>2. Par-
ticulate and SC>2 show an orderly behavior in terms of g/hr, concentra-
tion and g/kg fuel. As seen in earlier graphs, the higher the speed,
the higher the emission rate in g/hr.
Sulfate, Figure 25, at 100 percent load, 1400 rpm, was a depar-
ture from the trend established by the 2100 rpm points. A re-examina-
tion of the point in question revealed no problems or mistakes in weighing,
sample flow measurement or sulfate analysis. The point was run in
duplicate. It is uncertain that the engine could react at one speed one
way and at another speed another way, although it is not impossible.
Figure 27 is furnished to illustrate the fuel, air, and power behavior
of the engine with speed and power level.
4. Elemental Analyses
Table 1 7 is a listing of the percent by weight values for carbon,
hydrogen, and sulfur. These analyses were made of the 47 mm glass
fiber filters used for particulate gravimetric analysis and mass emis-
sion rates per Table 15. One of the duplicate filters was used for deter-
mination of carbon and hydrogen. The other filter was used for sulfur
analysis.
The most important finding by the carbon and hydrogen values is
the obvious difference in hydrogen between the two two-stroke cycle
DDAD engines and the four-stroke cycle Cummins NTC-290. The par-
ticulate from the four-stroke cycle engine is much lower in hydrogen
than the particulate from the two-stroke cycle engines. This is
consistent with earlier findings with similar engines. (28) Another
interesting though expected finding was the large amount of carbon
in presumably elemental form as soot and, to a lesser extent, in or-
ganic compounds derived from both fuel and oil.
The percent by weight sulfur levels listed on Table 17 must be
viewed with some caution. On a companion project for EPA (Research
Triangle Park) the problems of elemental sulfur analysis by ASTM
D-1257 have been documented and found to give higher sulfur values
with lower sulfur fuels. Comparing the 0. 1 percent sulfur fuel used
95
-------
250 i
200
V" Current" Configuration
O"Low" Configuration
2100 rpm
1400 rpm
150 .
•~
u
*
:
100 .
50
0 -
30
Q
•
- -tf
-40-
r-
M
-
.
-
-
w
^
-
20 -
10
! I ..!
Idle 2
____ ...... 1
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 23. POWER OUTPUT FUEL AND AIR RATES FROM
CUMMINS NTC 290 TRUCK ENGINE DURING 7 MODE TESTS
96
-------
150 -
2100 rpm
1400 rpm
100
-
n
50
Q-
0
150
100
15
10
50
E
_
p
-
Ml
^
-
O-
O-
Idle 2
50
100
Percent of Power
FIGURE 24. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES FROM
DETROIT DIESEL DDAD 8V-71TA TRUCK ENGINE
BASED ON 47mm GLASS FILTER
97
-------
16,000
12,000 -
-
^8,000
a
4,000
300
_
200
bO
E
O—
0-
-2100 rpm
1400 rpm
:
J
•
100 -
-
-,8000
^6000
-^4000
-;
^
-2000
,
0
Idle 2
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 25. SULFATE (SO4=) EMISSION RATES FROM DETROIT DIESEL
DDAD 8V-71TA TRUCK ENGINE BASED ON 47mm FLUOROPORE FILTER
98
-------
300 r
, 2100 rpm
O H 1400 rpm
200
-
...
100 .—I
bt
3
6 r-
.
4 —
•
-
) 1~~~ __
)— "l "
1
!
i
1
•
;
. -
, £)
— — — ~ -Q
" •
:
.
|
1
•
:
a
a
Idle
50
100
Percent of Power
FIGURE 26. SO2 EMISSION RATES FROM
DETROIT DIESEL DDAD 8V-71TA TRUCK ENGINE
99
-------
I
1
0
-
at
^
I
300 r
zoo -
100
o L
40
20
.
L - I- -O
o
*
1 1
Idle 2
50
100
Percent of Power
FIGURE 27. POWER OUTPUT FUEL AND AIR RATES FROM
DETROIT DIESEL DDAD 8V-71TA TRUCK ENGINE
DURING 7-MODE TESTS
100
-------
TABLE 17. ELEMENTAL, ANALYSES OF FILTER COLLECTED
SAMPLES FOR FIVE HD DIESEL ENGINES
Percent by Weight - 47 mm Glass
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
2% Load
Intermediate
Speed
50% Load
Intermediate
Speed,
100% Load
Idle
Speed ,
0 Load
High Speed,
100% Load
High Speed,
50% Load
High Speed,
2% Load
Element
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
DDAD
6V-71
LSN 60 B60E
60.18
11.58
7. 72,
70. 75
13.05
3.85
73.10
6.69
4. 98
68.69
13.66
6.96
69.28
12.07
4. 50
79.80
14.22
2. 85
64.48
13.20
2. 13
62.25
12.11
6.69
71.89
12.61
3.73
74.96
4.37
2.08
61.90
11.37
8.80
66.13
9.47
5. 13
7i.3l
12.97
0.93
67.74
12.41
5.32
Cummins
NTC-290
"Current" "Low"
70.88
5.52
7.14
70.23
2.84
3.34
64.12
2.67
5.92
55.11
7.77
11.91
40.12
4.94
4.73
69.46
3.32
3.64
73.74
5.94
4.59
56.16
6.45
12.89
67.84
1.52
1.31
82.10
1.80
1.99
60.99
6.05
14.49
67.95
2.24
5.96
78.78
0.37
1.87
63.03
7.05
6.24
DDAD
8V-71TA
67.19
10.05
1.38
70.02
8.76
1.31
71.72
5.54
2.74
80.41
10.23
2.44
83.02
6.65
1.70
67.88
8.49
1.54
62.85
9.96
1.56
10.1
-------
with the 6V-71 to the results with the 0. 23 percent sulfur fuel used
with the 8V-71TA, this trend of higher elemental sulfur values is
repeated.
Accordingly, the elemental sulfur values are presented as
analyzed. It is not known, for example, why under certain test points
there is a wide difference, as much as 2:1 between NTC-290 engine
configurations. In the time lapse between performing these analyses
and publication of this report, a more accurate method has become
a standard technique for elemental sulfur. The x-ray fluorescence
method widely used for trace metals analysis, has been used success-
fully for sulfur as well. This analysis normally is made from fluoropore
collected samples because of the low background of the plastic media.
All future sulfur analyses should be made by the x-ray fluorescence
method.
Aside from the mostly qualitative survey of the relative amounts
of carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur, the "percent by weight" values may
be used directly with the particulate rates already discussed. For
example, the mass emission rates for particulate on Table 15 may be
multiplied by the decimal equivalent of the appropriate Table 17 per-
cent carbon to obtain an estimation of the mass emission rate of
particulate as carbon.
5. Discussion
The sulfate and SOz data presented earlier are the first such
results from HD diesel engines using dilution tunnel and the BCA analysis
technique. Thus, the data affords a new and clearer insight as to the
behavior of the engine and engine variations. The particulate results
need little discussion other than the fact that what is collected is con-
sidered conservative. Also, it must be mentioned that the method is
quite sensitive in that small changes in engine operation or condition
are known to give variations in particulate weight. The particulate thus
collected, though mostly carbon soot or carbonaceous, does include
more or less oil vapor, unburned or partially burned fuel, and sulfuric
acid mist.
One way to judge the sulfate measurements is in terms of
sulfate as a percent of sulfur in the fuel consumed. Figure 28 is a plot
of all five engines, speeds and test points and indicates the variation
in conversion efficiency for engine, configuration, speed, and load.
The major significance of this graph is the overall average value, and
the range of conversions determined. A good average, giving equal
weight to all conditions, is about 2.5 percent with 0.9 to 4.5 percent
conversion found. This means that for a given fuel sulfur content, it
is likely that on the order of 2. 5 percent of this sulfur will exit the
engine in a form of sulfate as measured by the test technique employed.
102
-------
4.5
4. 0
r—l
dJ
^3.5
d
•M
"o
2.5
0
w
2.0
1.5 •
1.0
. 5
^
£, S7DDAD 8V-71TA
• DDAD 6V-71 LSN
ODDAD 6V-71 B60E
D Cummins "Current"
A Cummins "Low"
r •-•*•,
N
v
' K rpm
& 2100
0 2100
_ ^-1260 . Xv ;*—-•*'
X, ^--"^^.^ 2100
0 N\ -- 140°
. — Q._2100
1400^- ^^ x JT^^r-^--"
® ^s^^ • 126°
s
- -
7
I 1 , 1
Idle 2 50
L
\
\
\
\
~^ \
— ~ — • a
_ 5
• -$
|
100
Percent of Power
FIGURE 28. SULFATE AS PERCENT OF S IN FUEL
FOR VARIOUS HD ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
103
-------
Please note that two different fuels, a DF-1 for the city bus
engine (6V-71) and a DF-2 for the truck engines (NTC-290 and 8V-
71TA), were used. Using SO4" as a percent of fuel sulfur makes
the results of the five engine study independent of fuel sulfur content.
Assuming the diesel engine converts fuel sulfur to sulfate independent
of the form or content of sulfur in the fuel is probably not too incorrect
an assumption. Then, the values given by these tests could be used
in broader estimations of national impact of heavy duty diesel as
regards the emission of sulfate or sulfuric acid mist. Other require-
ments would be engine population and usage, fuel usage and fuel
sulfur content for a given diesel engine category.
One final remark concerning sulfur balances of diesel engines.
It is clear from the five engine configurations thus studied that on the
order of 0. 9 to 4. 5 percent (general average of 2. 5 percent) of the
fuel sulfur is converted by the engine to a form measured as sulfuric
acid or sulfate. It is also clear from the Table 15 data that SO2 can
account for the remainder of the fuel sulfur, at least within the
accuracy of the measurements.
With the reality of sulfur balances generally being within ±10
percent and occasionally ± 20 percent, then the amount of sulfate is
well within the ability to demonstrate recovery in the exhaust. For
example, the wet collected - BCA finish for 803 measurement cannot
be considered better than ±10 percent precise. This means that the
2.5 percent sulfate value is within the SO2 accuracy so as to make
sulfur balances essentially the same whether sulfate is included or
not. In other words, the SO2 measurement is the controlling factor
on sulfur balances because it represents essentially 97.5 percent
of the value.
From these studies and similar tests with the light duty engines,
discussed later, it may be concluded that sulfur balances with most
diesel engines have limited value unless equipped with a catalyst.
Accordingly, measurement of SO2 is of less importance and could
be deleted in most future projects or employed on a selected basis.
E. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
The results of the 8 x 10 particulate runs, principally for
B:ESO and gravimetric analyses, are summarized on Table 18
in terms of concentration, mass per unit of time, per unit of fuel
burned and per kwrhr of work performed. Measurements were made
specifically for BaP on the last of the five engines thus tested, the
DDAD 8V-71TA. Recall from Section III that problems were en-
countered with the test procedure, as run by Southwest Foundation
for Research and Education, making the polynuclear aromatic
104
-------
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, BaP AND ORGANIC SOLUBLES
FROM 8x10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES
DDAD 6V-71
Condition
Intermediate
Speed.
2% Load
Emission Rate
Particulate:
B:ESOU>
BaP:
mg/m3
g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
/^g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
/tg/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
LSN 60
24.
17.
4.
9.
12.
8.
2.
4.
99
10
5
0
67
66
28
56
B60E
30.
20.
5.
10.
17.
11.
2.
6.
63
29
14
68
24
41
89
01
Cummins NT C- 290
"Current"
16.
8.
1.
2.
22.
1.
0.
0.
92
65
90
62
70
38
303
418
"Low"
16.
8.
1.
2.
3.
2.
0.
0.
95
72
98
73
99
06
467
644
DDAD
8V-71TA*
31.18
27.93
4.44
7.16
6.37
5.71
0.921
1.63
0.417
0.375
0.060
0.107
Organic Solubles,
% of Particulate
Intermediate
Speed,
50% Load
Particulate:
B^SO^1)
BaP:
mg/m^
g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
/"•g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
/-45/m
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
48.
60.
41.
3.
0.
25.
17.
1.
0.
20
22
74
42
87
94
96
47
37
73.
61.
41.
3.
0.
24.
16.
1.
0.
7
71
80
34
87
97
91
35
351
13.
53.
31.
1.
0.
4.
2.
0.
0.
4
12
65
58
382
75
84
142
0343
2i.
86.
57.
2.
0.
10.
7.
0.
0.
8
10
14
32
723
80
16
290
0906
59.2
55.11
56.52
2.40
0.594
8.38
8.67
0.363
0.931
0.773
0.796
0.033
0.009
Organic Solubles,
% of Particulate
Intermediate
Speed,
1 00% Load
Particulate:
B:ESOd)
BaP:
mg/m3
g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
//g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
76.
59.
42.
1.
0.
12.
8.
0.
0.
0
67
02
71
437
18
59
349
0893
76.
94.
63.
2.
0.
23.
15.
0.
0.
7
78
81
74
675
10
55
667
164
7.
40.
29.
0.
0.
6.
4.
0.
0.
0
17
87
776
180
54
87
126
0294
3.
85.
67.
1.
0.
10.
8.
0.
0.
1
56
26
70
418
92
59
217
0534
51.4
66.17
87.35
1.82
0.454
2.06
2.74
0.057
0.014
0.446
0.587
0.012
0.003
Organic Solubles,
% of Particulate
Idle Speed.
0 Load
Particulate:
B:ESOU)
mg/m3
g/hr
g/kg fuel
g/kw-hr
/Ag/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
25.
31.
6.
6.
0
16.
3.
3.
0
5
55
30
30
79
35
35
21.
20.
4.
4.
0
6.
1.
1.
0
3
35
40
0
87
48
35
1.
40.
2.
2.
0
4.
0.
0.
0
2
17
51
09
23
918
765
0.
12.
2.
1.
0
5.
1.
0.
0
8
56
76
84
49
21
807
15.7
13.09
3.39
2.26
0
1.69
0.439
0.029
0
105
-------
TABLE 18 (Cont'd.) SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE, BaP AND
ORGANIC SOLUBLES FROM 8 x 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER SAMPLES
Condition
High Speed,
100% Load
High Speed,
50% Load
High Speed,
2% Load
DDAD
Emission Rate LSN 60
BaP: ^g/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
Organic Solubles,
% of Particulate 15. 7
Particulate: mg/m3 104.33
g/hr 116.16
g/kg fuel 3. 43
g/kw-hr 0. 897
B:ESOU) /4g/m3 12.83
mg/hr 14.29
mg/kg fuel 0. 422
mg/kw-hr 0.1 10
BaP: ^ug/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
Organic Solubles,
% of Particulate 54. 2
Particulate mg/m3 111.10
g/hr 123.81
g/kg fuel 5.92
g/kw-hr 1.82
B:ESOU) /*«/m3 20.19
mg/hr 22.50
mg/kg fuel 1.08
mg/kw-hr 0.331
BaP: yttg/m3
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
Organic Solubles,
% of Particulate 69.6
Particulate: mg/m3 81.77
g/hr 90.37
g/kg fuel 10.51
g/kw-hr 34. 76
B:ESOU) /tg/m3 27.68
mg/hr 30.59
mg/kg fuel 3.57
mg/kw-hr 11.77
BaP: Jig/m2
mg/hr
mg/kg fuel
mg/kw-hr
Organic Solubles,
"!a of Particulate 60. 3
6V-71
B60E
67.2
127.35
136.79
4.11
1.03
3i.l2
33.45
1.00
0.252
47.5
124.56
134.64
6.68
2.03
27.70
29.93
1.49
0.451
75.0
87.13
93.89
10.73
34.77
19.30
20.79
2.38
7.70
72.2
Cummins
"Current
8.8
24.06
30.73
0.586
0.138
3.98
5.09
0.097
0.0227
14.5
41.20
42.07
1.39
0.377
4.54
4.64
0.154
0.0415
10.7
29.36
23.11
2.51
5.14
3.91
3.09
0.336
0.687
21.9
NTC-290
" "Low"
16.3
48.39
67.94
1.26
0.330
5.28
7.42
0.138
0.0361
3.0
59.23
67.85
2.00
0.637
5.38
6.16
0.181
0.0578
3.3
40.34
32.61
3.26
7.95
5.78
4.67
0.467
1.14
25.2
DDAD
8V-71TA*
0.673
0.175
0.117
0
43.2
48.38
94.34
1.53
0.376
4.21
8.26
0.134
0.033
0.565
1.111
0.018
0.004
58.3
54.47
90.54
2.57
0.719
6.52
10.89
0.307
0.086
1.16
1.946
0.055
0.015
61.1
43.56
59.66
4.85
11.95
11.73
i6. 14
1.25
3.43
1.56
2.144
0.166
0.456
56.9
llTExpressed as BaP
^Particulate based on duplicate runs; BaP based on single run
106
-------
hydrocarbon measurements in terms of B:ESO in terms of BaP. BaP
is the calibration standard and all measurements are thus expressed as
BaP.
Figures 29-31 are plots of the B:ESO results for the three HD
engines in terms of mg/hr, pg/m^ and mg/kg fuel consumed for the
seven points thus evaluated. This being the first such reported data
on these particular engines, it is difficult to draw specific comparisons
or to comment on the trends indicated.
Some special discussion of the results of the DDAD 8V-71TA
engine are in order since both BrESO and BaP values were obtained
on this engine. Table 19 lists the results of both sets of measurements.
The ratio of the two is a measure of the correlation or relationship of
BaP to the BrESO.
For example, Table 19 BaP/B:ESO yielded ratios of 0.0725
at 2 percent power-1400 rpm up to 0.3933 at 100 percent power-1400
rpm. Stated differently, BaP was about 7 to 39 percent of the B:ESO
for the engine and conditions investigated. The composite 7-mode
results for the DDAD 8V-71TA engine showed that BaP/B:ESO to be
0.1375 on a brake specific basis. On a fuel specific basis, the
ratio was 0. 1388 or in other words, the 7-mode composite BaP
represents about 14 percent of the B:ESO.
Attempts were made to analyze the remaining filters from the
other two engines without success. The problems were lack of
sufficient filters to make additional correlations and the few filters
that were available were quite old. Storage stability of the PNA
materials is unknown. Therefore, only the B:ESO values are given.
To estimate the probable fraction of the BrESO values listed on Table
18 that is BaP, use the 7 to 39 percent relationship listed on Table 19.
In general, multiplication of the B:ESO values by 0.14 will give an
estimated level of BaP, as BaP, for the DDAD 6V-71N and, with
less confidence, the Cummins NTC-290. It is uncertain whether the
0.14 factor is appropriate for the four-stroke cycle NTC-290 engine.
It is clear that much more work needs to be done on method-
ology development including sampling, sample preparation and analysis
of diesel exhaust PNA content. Such work, beyond the scope of this
project, is urgently needed in order to obtain values that have greater
precision and are more repeatable and have greater specificity.
Figures 32 through 34 are graphs comparing particulate rates
in g/hr, by the 8x10 size filter, used for BrESO and BaP analysis
107
-------
OLSN-60 Injectors
40
2100 rpm
AB60E Injectors 1260 rpm
•~
~
bfl
6
' !
_
A
i
Idle 2
Percent of Power
FIGURE 29. B:ESO EMISSION RATES FROM
DETROIT DIESEL, 6V-71 BUS ENGINE
BASED ON 8 x 10 GLASS FILTER
108
-------
12
V "Current" Configuration
D "Low" Configuration
2100 rpm
1400 rpm
IH
Jl
"So
g
0
- 12
Idle 2
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 30. BrESO EMISSION RATES FROM CUMMINS
NTC-290 TRUCK ENGINE BASED ON
8 x 10 GLASS FILTER
"
_c
be
- 4
0
109
-------
: B:ESO
" 2100.rrm
r-i 1400 i
50
Percent of Power
FIGURE 31. B:ESO AND BaP EMISSIONS RATES
FROM DETROIT DIESEL 8V-71TA TRUCK ENGINE
BASED ON 8 x 10 GLASS FILTERS
100
110
-------
TABLE 19. 7-MODE BRAKE AND FUEL, SPECIFIC CALCULATIONS - DDAD 8V-71TA
% Fuel Output
Mode Power Speed kg/hr kw
1 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
BS
BS
BS
50
100
0
100
50
z
Parti culate
n-iP - mK
1400 6.2 3.5
1400 23.9 93.1
1400 47.9 186.2
480 1.5 0.0
2100 61.7 252.6
2100 35.5 126.3
2100 12.9 4.7
"fcffig • °.63
O&r _ n fit t
BaF - kw/hr * "'""
B:ESO = "\g/B:ESO = 0> 080
Wgt. Part BaP B:ESO
fact i?/hr mg/hr mg/hr
0.12 26.38 0.375 5.71
0.16 55.78 0.796 8.67
0.12 88.17 0.587 2.74
0.2 3.59 0.175 0.439
0.12 93.92 1.111 8.26
0.16 86.67 1.946 10.89
0.12 62.40 2.144 16.14
Totals
WEIGHTED
Fuel Power Part BaP B:ESO
kg/hr kw K/hr mgjhr mg/hr
0.74 0.42
3.82 14.89
5.75 22.34
0.30 0.00
7.40 30.31
5.68 20.21
1.55 0.56
25.24 88.73
FS Participate = S/Par,t .
kg fuel-hr
FS BaP = m«/BaP = 0.
kg/fuel-hr
FS R.irsn = mg B:ESO = 0
3.17 0.045 0.620
8.92 0.127 1.387
10.58 0.070 0.329
0.72 0.035 0.089
11.27 0.133 0.991
13.87 0.311 1.742
7.49 0.257 1.937
56.02 0.978 7. 10
= 2.22
039
.281
Comparison*
BaP
B:ESO
0.0725
0.0916
0.2128
0. 3933
0. 1342
0. 1785
0. 1328
kg fuel-hr
-------
Particulate Rate, g/hr
H- H- H- ' *-• ^
Ji. 0^ 00 O t\> *»•
oo oooo oooo
• LSN Injectors - 47mm filters
O"RAOTT TTI -i o r> t r-» Y- c 4Vr-r\T-n filff^TQ
D LSN Injectors -8x10 filters
AB60E Injectors -8x10 filters
• • •
•
;
— •
s
-
.
A
,
/ ^^
/^^
^ <^^
.
^>
^
-• ,~-
' ' , ^f "
^^p^r
i
8
f- -
i i ..._ — , — i —
i
•
— — •
1
— —
^
2
1
S*
^
LOO rpm
260 rpm
1
^
•
,
I
.- ' "' -^
1
Idle 2
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 32. COMPARISON OF PARTICULATE g/hr RATES BY
8 x 10 AND 47mm GLASS FILTERS FOR DETROIT DIESEL 6V-71 ENGINE
112
-------
• "Current" Configuration - 47mm glass filters
G "Low" Configuration - 47mm glass filters
O "Current" Configuration - 8 x 10 glass filters
A "Low" Configuration - 8 x 10 glass filters
2100 rprn
1400 rpm
100
80
60
-
-
2 40
it
—•
2
•J
—
—
•-
rt
ft 20
~~'**-*
—ft
*
1
Idle 2
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 33. COMPARISON OF PARTICULATE g/hr RATES
BY 8 x 10 AND 47mm GLASS FILTERS
FOR CUMMINS NTC-290 ENGINE
113
-------
•~
~
bo
~
tf
•~
•~
•-
ri
-
J40 '
120 -
100 _
47 mm filters
8 x 10 filters
2100 rpm
1400 rpm
-
-
80 -
60
40
20
0
-x' S*
^^
r s
>^*"
"ffj
^ x-^
X-- ^
x/ -^
^x ."'
J-x***
-^
f^
- **•
Q
—
o
. 1
•-
_
. ">
. ^ . v
c' 1
3
.
•
•^
•
•
;
. .
.
|
Idle
50
Percent of Power
100
FIGURE 34. COMPARISON OF PARTICULATE g/hr RATES BY
8 x 10 AND 47 mm GLASS FILTERS FOR DETROIT DIESEL 8V-71TA
114
-------
with the 47 mm glass fiber filters used for particulate rate and
discussed earlier. The comparison is quite reasonable and satis-
factory of the particulate rates by the two somewhat different methods.
The level of agreement shown helps to confirm this aspect of the
large size filters since particulate rate is involved in the B:ESO and
BaP emission rate computations.
Table 20 is a summary listing of the engine operating parameters
experienced during the 8x10 inch glass fiber filter, 7-mode runs.
The operating data for the 8 x 10 runs is essentially a repeat of the
4 x 47 mm filter runs described on Table 15.
F. Discussion and Summary
One way to discuss and summarize the emissions evaluation of
the five HD dies el engine configurations is to compute a combined
emission rate from the seven-mode data using weighting factors
derived from the 13-mode emissions test. Table 21 is a summary
of the composite emission rates for sulfate, SO2, particulate and
B:ESO, four of the principal non-regulated pollutants. Both
brake and fuel specific rates are given.
The specific weighting factors and supporting rationale for
their selection was described in Section III. Briefly, the rationale
used was the 2 percent (and 1 00 percent) load points would cover half
of the time or operation usually accounted for by the 25 percent (and
75 percent) load points of the 13-mode test. Thus, the change in the
2 percent (and 100 percent) load weight factors up to only 0.12 from
0. 08. Note that the 50 percent load factor was doubled to 0. 16 from
0. 08 to account for the other half of the 25 and 75 percent load points
not accounted for by the 2 and 100 percent load factors.
The approximation of the "13 mode" really then depends on how
well the 3 modes at each speed agree with the trend of the usual 5 modes
at each speed. If the i3 mode data can be considered linear, then the
approximation is considered valid. Note that the use of just 5 modes
per speed in the 13 mode test is based to some extent on this argument
of smooth or continuous emission behavior as a function of power
output, which is fairly valid. The 7-mode test is therefore considered
to be an adequate map for purposes of this characterization and repre-
sents the best compromise of modal data for the level of effort available.
Please recall that the Detroit Diesel 6V-71 engine was operated
on a 0. 1 percent S fuel (DF-1 national average) and the Detroit Diesel
8V-71TA and Cummins on a 0. 23 percent S fuel (DF-2 national average).
Thus, the g/kw-hr SC>2 and SO4= values for the Cummins and DDAD
8V-71TA on Figure 36 are expected to be higher than the Detroit 6V-71
values.
115
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS
DURING 8 x 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER TESTS
Condition
Intermediate
Speed,
2% Load
Intermediate
Speed
50% Load
Intermediate
Speed
100% Load
Idle
Speed
0% Load
High
Speed
100%
Engine Operation
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC, kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest., mm Hg
Exh. Rest., mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest., mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, fcg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest., mm Hg
Exh. Rest., mm Hg
Engine Speed, rpm
Power Output, kw
Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, "C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest. , mm Hg
DDAD 6V-71
LSN 60
1260
1.9
3.8
13.5
1.989
26.1
21.5
50.8
1260
48.2
12.2
14.9
0.253
27.2
21.7
63.5
1260
96.2
24.6
13.5
0.256
29.4
22.0
78.5
430
0
0.97
4.0
17.2
3.9
24.4
2100
129.5
33.9
21.6
0.262
31.1
46.9
101.5
B 60 E
1260
1.9
4.0
13.1
2.105
23.3
20.2
50.8
1260
48.2
12.5
13.2
0.259
31.7
20.9
63.5
1260
94.6
23.3
13.2
0.246
31.7
19.8
76.2
430
0
1.1
4.3
26.1
3. 2
25.4
2100
132.6
33.3
20.6
0.251
34.4
46.0
101.6
Cummins
"Current"
1400
3.3
4.5
10.2
1.352
31.1
11.2
20.3
1400
82.8
20.0
11.5
0.242
28.3
13.4
27.9
1400
165.7
38.5
14.3
0.233
28.9
19.1
27.9
615
0
1.23
4.3
28.9
2.8
14.2
2100
223.4
52.4
24.5
0.235
30.6
49.3
48.8
NTC-290
"Low"
1400
3.2
4.4
10.2
1.363
28.3
8.8
15.2
1400
79.0
24.7
12.9
0.312
28.3
13.5
27.9
1400
160.8
39.6
15.1
0.246
32.8
17.7
30.5
615
0
1.52
4.4
32.2
2.2
15.2
2100
205.7
53.76
26.8
0.261
32.8
46.0
58.4
DDAD
8V-71TA
1400
3.5
6.2
17.5
1.666
22.7
14.0
30.5
1400
93.1
23.9
20.3
0.256
23.4
16.8
40.6
1400
186.2
47.9
25.3
0.257
24.6
25.2
50.8
480
0
1.5
6.2
22.8
2.8
25.4
252.6
61.7
36.2
0. 244
25.0
49.5
88.9
116
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF ENGINE OPERATING CONDITIONS
DURING 8 x 10 SIZE GLASS FILTER TESTS (CONT'D.)
Condition Engine Operation
High Engine Speed, rpm
Speed Power Output, kw
50% Load Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, °C
Inlet Rest. , mm HZ
Exh. Rest., mm Hg
High Engine Speed, rpm
Speed Power Output, kw
Z% Load Fuel Rate, kg/hr
Air Rate, kg/min
BSFC kg/kw-hr
Inlet Temp, "C
Inlet Rest. , mm Hg
Exh. Rest., mm Hg
DDAD
LSN 60
2100
67.9
20.9
21.8
0.308
31.7
47.6
90.2
2100
2.6
8.6
21.8
3.308
31. 1
48.4
75.2
6V-71
B 60 E
2100
66.3
20.2
21.1
0.305
30.6
47.3
88.9
2100
2.7
8.75
21.2
3.240
29.4
47.3
76.2-
Cummins
"Current"
2100
111.7
30.2
15.5
0.270
29.4
33.3
30.2
2100
4.5
9.23
19.9
2.051
29.4
22.0
27.7
NTC-290
"Low"
2100
106.5
33.9
22.4
0.318
30.0
32. 1
38. 1
2100
4.1
10.0
15.9
2.439
27.8
19. 1
27.9
DDAD
8V-71TA
2100
126.3
35.5
30.8
0.281
25.7
37.4
63.5
2100
4.7
12.9
26.8
2.744
23.3
27.0
38.1
117
-------
TABLE 21.. BRAKE AND FUEL SPECIFIC EMISSION RATES
OF FIVE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
DP AD 6V-71 Cummins NTC-290 DDAD
Emission Rate LSN-60 B 60 E "Current" "Low" 8V-71TA
Brake Specific Based on. 7-Mode Schedule
Particulate, g/kw-hr
(47 mm glass filter) 1.90 1.74 0.381 0.671 0.697
Particulate, g/kw-hr
(8 x 10 glass filter) 1.29 1.45 0.297 0.540 0.63
Sulfate, mg/kw-hr 21.16 25.22 35.02 37.26 48.37
H SO mg/kw-hr 21.60 25.75 35.76 38.04 49.39
SOz, g/kw-hr 0.584 0.590 1.19 1.38 1.35
BrESO, mg/kw-hr(l) 0.316 0.380 0.0395 0.066 0.080
BaP, mg/kw-hr O.Oll
Brake Specific Based on 13-Mode Schedule
CO, g/kw-hr 7.50 4.65 1.99 2.43 3.65
HC, g/kw-hr 2.77 1.30 0.38 0.84 o. 96
NO as NOz, g/kw-hr 17.19 11.79 15.09 6.74 10.86
HC+NOz, g/kw-hr 19.96 13.09 15.46 7.58 n.84
Fuel Specific Based on 7-Mode Schedule
Particulate, g/kg fuel
(47 mm glass filter) 4.43 5,75 1.44 2.09 2.45
Particulate, g/kg fuel
(8 x 10 glass filter) 4.26 4.86 1.12 1.85 2.22
Sulfate, mg/kg fuel 70.87 83.28 131.89 116.30 170.06
HzS04, mg/kg fuel 72.36 85.03 134.66 118.74 173.63
SOz, g/kgfuel 1.96 1.95 4.49 4.31 4.76
BrESO, mg/kg fuel(l) 1.04 1.27 0.149 0.226 0.281
BaP, mg/kg fuel 0.039
Fuel Specific Based on 13-Mode Schedule
CO, g/kg fuel 26.41 16.09 7.34 8.41 12.5
HC, g/kg fuel 9.75 4.50 1.40 2.91 3.29
NO as NO2, g/kg fuel 60.53 40.80 55.68 23.32 37.19
HC+N02, g/kg fuel 70.28 45.29 57.05 26.23 40.55
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Based on 13-Mode Schedule
BSFC, kg fuel/kw-hr 0.284 0.289 0.271 0.289 0.292
(1)B:ESO in terms of BaP
118
-------
2.0
1.5
M
A
k
X
^1.0
-------
60 r-
do
H
O
i/J
40 -
20
-I
-
•"
1
-
-
-
1
•
--
.
1
•
1
I
.
;
"
_J
.
;
w
_ _ -
LSN-60 B60E
DDAD 6V-71
3.00
£ 2.00
I
00
N
1.00
"Current" "Low"
Cummins NTC-290
,
.
_
.
"
i_
1
•
• •
•
DDAD
8V-71TA
•
LSN-60 B60E
DDAD 6V-71
"Current" "Low"
Cummins NTC-290
DDAD
8V-71TA
FIGURE 36. BRAKE SPECIFIC SO2 AND SC>4= EMISSIONS
FROM FIVE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
(7 Mode Schedule)
120
-------
For completeness, the 13-mode FTP brake specific values are
bar graphed in Figures 37 and 38 in terms of CO, NO and NO2, HC and
HC+NOX. These data were reported earlier in this report. There
are many areas of interest indicated by the extensive data summaries
thus far presented. Many questions can be asked as to why or how did
SO4~, B:ESO and BaP, particulate and gaseous emissions react as
they did to engine, fuel, injector type, timing, speed, load, etc. The
answers to these questions, beyond engineering judgment, are not
within the scope of work of this project.
121
-------
8r
*>[
L
.
LSN-60 B60E
DDAD 6V-71
"Current" "Low"
Cummins NTC-290
DDAD
8V-71TA
20 —
15
O
O
-
—
-
. .
.
•
•
•
•
1
•
1
LSN-60 B60E
DDAD 6V-71
"Current" "Low"
Cummins NTC-290
DDAD
8V-71TA
FIGURE 37. BRAKE SPECIFIC CO AND NO AS NO2 EMISSIONS
FROM FIVE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
(13 Mode FTP)
122
-------
r
FH
43
U
^
DC
u
*1
0
20
15
h
42
*
,y
"sao
CO
o
8
u
E 5
0
"~
"
-
•
.
LSN-60 B60
DDAD 6V-7]
.
-
,
E
'
.
-
LSN-60 B60E
DDAD 6V -71
,
"Current" "Low
Cummins NTC.-2
1
•
•
•
11
90
•
•
;
.
•
,
DDAD
_ av.-iii
'A
I
"Current" "Low" '
Cummins NTC-2^0
i
"1
DDAD
8V- 7 IT
A
FIGURE 38. BRAKE SPECIFIC HC AND HC+NO2 EMISSIONS
FROM FIVE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS
(13 Mode FTP)
123
-------
V. RESULTS OF FIVE DIESEL POWERED LIGHT
DUTY VEHICLES
The results of the five light duty diesel powered vehicles are des-
cribed by emission category. For description of test methods, procedures
and equipment, please refer to Section III.
A. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy
The transient test procedures known as the FTP, SET and FET
were the basis for measurement of gaseous emissions of HC, CO and NO
as well as fuel economy.
1. Emission Standards
The contractural requirement to report all data and results in
modernized metric units (SI) requires a statement of equivalent emission
standards for 1973 and later model year light duty cars in grams per kilo-
meter (g/km) for understanding. Table 22 lists the HC, CO and NOx limits
in g/km with those published in appropriate Federal Registers in g/mile
in parentheses. The conversion was based on 1.609 km equal to 1 mile
and were rounded to the same number of decimals as the published limit.
The metric equivalent levels are approximately 62 percent of the mixed
metric-English units.
TABLE 22. FEDERAL LIGHT DUTY EMISSION STANDARDS
Year Units HC CO NOX
1973-1974 g/km 2.1 24 1.9
(g/mile) (3.4) (39) (3.0)
1975 Interim g/km 0.9 9.3 1.9
(g/mile) (1.5) (15) (3.1)
Original g/km 0.25 2.1 1.9
1975 Statutory (g/mile) (0.41) (3.4) (3.1)
1977 Statutory g/km 0.25 2.1 1.3
(g/mile) (0.41) (3.4) (2.0)
1978 Statutory g/km 0. 25 2. 1 0.25
(g/mile) (0.41) (3.4) (0.40)
2. Emissions and Fuel Economy
Table 23 is a summary of the gaseous emissions of HC, CO and
NOX (in g/km), fuel consumption (url/100 km) and the reciprocal of fuel
consumption, fuel economy in mpg. Of most importance on Table 23 are
124
-------
TABLE 23. HC, CO, NOX AND FUEL RESULTS
FIVE DIESEL LDV's (Average of Replicate Runs)
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Emissions, g/km
Vehicle
Mercedes 220D*
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
HC
0. 11
0. 18
0. 10
0.69
0.45
0. 30
0. 13
0. 17
0. 10
0.69
0.48
0. 31
0. 11
0. 12
0.09
0. 72
0.50
0.26
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.48
0. 57
0.25
0.06
0.06
0.08
0. 54
0.69
0.29
CO
0.81
0.60
0. 53
1.06
1. 78
0. 96
0.84
0.62
0. 55
1.07
1.86
0. 99
0. 76
0. 59
0.46
1.08
1. 77
0. 93
0.48
0. 38
0. 36
0. 57
1.40
0.83
0. 55
0.45
0.39
0.71
1. 58
0.74
NOX
0.65
0.79
1.07
0.42
0.93
0.77
0.68
0.80
1. 10
0.44
0.99
0.80
0.65
0.77
0.95
0.39
0.87
0.72
0.56
0. 80
0.99
0.34
0. 94
0.73
0. 57
0.78
0. 98
0.33
0.86
0.70
Fuel
Cons.
1/100 km
9. 10
9. 15
9.90
6. 72
9. 18
8.81
9.54
9. 50
10. 53
6.94
9. 70
9.24
9. 10
8. 61
8. 54
6. 54
8.81
8.23
7. 03
6.98
7.84
5.40
8.32
7. 11
7.49
7. 32
8.05
5.61
8.42
7. 38
Fuel
Econ.
mpg
25.92
25.72
23.80
35.86
25.67
27. 39
24.75
24.81
22. 36
33.99
24. 25
26.03
27.23
27. 39
27.54
35.97
26. 85
29.14
33.47
33.74
30.03
43.80
28.33
33.87
31.44
32. 16
29.27
41.91
27. 94
32.54
*Comprex equipped
125
-------
the 1975 FTP and FET results, since these are the most popularly used
for comparison to other vehicles and, of course, current and future emis-
sion tests. The summarized data is the average of three replicate runs
which exhibited quite satisfactory repeatability. It is interesting to look
at HC by vehicle for the 1975 FTP. HC for the Peugeot 204D and Perkins
6-247 were substantially higher than the three Mercedes cars. CO was
also higher with the Perkins and Peugeot than the three Mercedes cars.
Oxides of nitrogen were lowest for the Peugeot 204D and Mercedes 220D
Comprex. In comparing these g/km emission rates to the more familiar
g/mile units, it may be helpful to remember to multiply the g/km by 1. 609
to obtain g/mile.
The fuel consumption values, in Sj 100 km illustrate the superior
fuel consumption of the 1134 kg test weight Peugeot 204D. The 6. 72 &/100
km relates to 35. 86 mpg on the city or 1975 FTP. This is in contrast
to nominal 25 mph fuel economy of most diesel cars. The FET results
emphasize the fuel consumption importance of the diesel. Again the Peugeot
204D was lowest of the five vehicles with 5. 4 £/100 km or 43. 8 mpg fuel
economy.
The major results of particular importance was the relatively low
NOX of the Mercedes 220D Comprex and the Peugeot 204D. The Comprex
likely resulted in the low exhaust NOX due to internal exhaust gas recir-
culation, an inherent feature of this method of forcing air into the engine.
The Peugeot 204D was especially noteworthy since this is a produc-
tion car sold in Europe. The 0.42 g/km NOx relates to 0.68 g/mile, which is
nearer the stringent NOX regulation of 0. 4 g/mile for passenger cars than
any other diesel yet evaluated. It remains to be seen if fuel injection im-
provements can cut HC and CO without raising NOX. It would be interesting
to take the 204D and attempt to reduce NOX to 0. 4 g/mile while reducing
HC and CO by combination of retard-EGR etc. and improved injection.
Also as expected, the Perkins 6-247, at 4500 Ibs test weight, had the poor-
est FET economy even though FTP economy was quite respectable.
The Perkins powered pick-up truck received four 1975 FTP tests
at a higher test weight of 2495 kg (5500 Ibs) instead of the 2041 (4500 Ibs)
summarized on Table 23. These runs made at the higher power setting
required for the higher test weight resulted in an average 0. 64 g/km HC
(1.03 g/mile), 2. 45 g/km CO (3. 94 g/mile), 0. 97 g/km NOX (1. 45 g/mile)
and 10.0 &/100 km fuel economy (23. 5 miles per gallon) was obtained.
Repeatability of tests during the 2495 kg series was equally good as that
shown above for 2041 kg test weight.
Appendix G contains the computer printout sheets for the gaseous
emissions and fuel economy for the five cars. The computer sheets are
grouped by each vehicle beginning with FTP then SET and FET results.
-------
3. Comparison to EPA Results
Three of the five cars had been tested at EPA Ann Arbor laboratories
before being shipped to SwRI. Table 24 is a summary of the test data pro-
vided by Mr. Jack McFadden of EPA for the replicate 1975 FTP and FET
tests performed at Ann Arbor. Also shown is the average result for the
same three cars when tested at SwRI for comparison. Overall, the corre-
lation must be termed very satisfactory. In many cases excellent agree-
ment is shown.
SwRI found slightly lower HC and NOX on the FTP and slightly
lower NOX on the FET on the Mercedes Comprex. Fuel consumption was
in good agreement. For the Mercedes 240D, NOX was just slightly lower
on the FTP and FET at SwRI. For the low NOX Peugeot 204D, however,
NOX was about the same. The SwRI HC for the Peugeot during the FTP
agreed best with the 6-05-75 EPA run, the last one made before shipping
the car. For some reason, CO was found to be lower during the SwRI
tests than the EPA tests. Otherwise, the lab to lab agreements are
quite acceptable. The five vehicles were tested at SwRI in a two-week
period, the Mercedes 300D and 240D the first week and the remaining
cars on the second week. The same test crew, dynamometer, CVS,
fuel and instruments were employed during the two-week test period.
B. Smoke
The primary evaluation of visible smoke was intended to be the FTP,
city, transient driving schedule. Also run were the FET and SET. Also
run were simulated Federal Smoke Tests on four of the cars.
1. Transient Cycle Smoke
A series of transient driving tests was made with each vehicle
using the U. S. EPA smokemeter. Evaluation of the traces has, of neces-
sity, been of a visual judgmental basis since no specific procedure has yet
been developed or suggested using any of the transient, mostly light duty
schedules. A well designed diesel engine will not smoke appreciably until
the last 10 to 15 percent of power demand, something that infrequently
happens on any of the transient driving cycles even for the relatively low
power to weight diesel powered cars tested.
a. 1975 FTP Smoke
Table 25 is a listing of smoke values in percent opacity con-
sidered important from a visual analysis of the traces. It was decided to
look for those conditions which might produce maximum noticeable smoke
during the cold as well as the hot start portion of the test of the 1975 FTP.
Since three tests were made, three sets of readings are listed for each
segment of the LA-4 route evaluated. Table 25 starts with the initial cold
127
-------
TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF SWRI TO EPA
AVERAGE TRANSIENT RESULTS
Vehicle
Mercedes
220D
Comprex
Mercedes
240D
Peugeot
Test Test
Type Lab
FTP EPA
SwRI
FET EPA
SwRI
FTP EPA
SwRI
FET EPA
SwRI
FTP EPA
SwRI
FET EPA
SwRI
Test
No.
16-9062
16-9085
Average
Average
16-9062
16-9085
15-9124
Average
Average
15-9215
16-9239
Average
Average
15-9215
16-9239
Average
Average
16-6280
16-6342
15-7563
16-9322
Average
Average
16-9281
16-9369
15-9300
16-9322
Average
Average
Test
Date
5-15-75
5-16-75
5-15-75
5-16-75
5-20-75
5-29-75
5-30-75
5-29-75
5-30-75
10-24-74
10-30-74
1-30-75
6-5-75
?
?
?
6-5-75
Emissions, g/km
HC
0. 14
0.18
0.16
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08*
0. 13
0. 13
0. 18
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
1.36
1.00
0.63*
0.60
0.99
0.69
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.41
0.50
0.48
CO
0.84
0.83
0.84
0.81
0.47
0.46
0.48
0.47
0.49
0.73
0.71
0.72
0.61
0.42
0.40
0.41
0.38
1.80
1.37
1.71
1.94
1.70
1.06
1.01
1.00
1.07
1.04
1.03
0.57
NOX
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.65
0.74
0.65
0.75
0.71
0.56
0.95
0.98
0.97
0.79
0.89
0.90
0.89
0.80
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.43
0.42
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.35
0.34
Fuel Cons.
litre/100 km
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.1
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.9
7.0
9.4
9.6
9.5
9.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.4
6.9
7. 1
7.4
7.2
6.7
6.0
5.7
5.9
6.0
5.9
5.4
*Not by Hot FID, therefore not included in Average
128
-------
TABLE 25. SMOKE OPACITY VALUES FROM SMOKE TRACE,
1975 FTP, LA-4 COLD-HOT START
Smoke Condition
Mercedes Mercedes Mercedes Peugeot Perkins
220D* 240D 300D 204D 6-247
Cold Start,
Peak %
35.0
99.0
76.5**
25.0
47. 0
40.5
29.0
27.0
54.5
97.0
87.0
96.2
66.0
63.8
63.0
Cold Idle, Avg. %
(after start)
1st Accel, Peak %
(after cold idle)
Idle at 125 Sec, Avg. %
Accel at 164 Sec, Peak %
to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph)
Hot Start, Peak %
Hot Idle, Avg. %
(after start)
1 st Accel, Peak %
(after hot idle)
Idle at 125 Sec, Avg. %
(During Final 505 Sec)
Accel at 164 Sec, Peak %
to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph)
(During final 505 sec)
*Mercedes 220D equipped with Comprex supercharger.
**Repetitive accels after 1st accel ranged from about 30 to 80%.
'• 129
8.8
9.3
10.5
94.5
56.5
50.5
2.8
3.5
3.4
20.8
43.3
43.0
50.0
66.5
50.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
47.5
43.5
25.0
3.5
2.9
2.0
55.0
52.0
65.5
4.8
3.5
3.0
13.8
32.5
15.0
2.6
1.3
2.0
24.5
10.1
25.0
29.0
29.5
25.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
6.5
16.0
7.7
1.8
2.0
1.0
8.0
10.0
6.8
6.0
6.0
6.5
23.0
18.5
22.7
5.5
5.0
4.8
23.0
22.0
17.0
29.0
39.0
20.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
6.0
5.5
8.0
3.8
3.5
2.5
10.0
8.0
8.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
11.5
16.0
0.8
0.8
1.5
6.7
8.5
15.0
57.0
62.0
79.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.2
7.0
9.5
0.3
1.3
1.0
3.2
4.6
3.5
2.4
2.5
2.0
32.5
18.7
32.5
1.1
1.5
1.5
34.6
35.0
35.8
38.7
40.0
44.1
1.0
1.3
1.5
26.3
16.0
14.0
1.7
1.3
1.0
33.5
37.5
37.5
-------
start which, for the diesel, usually results in a momentary peak value
from 25 to 99 percent. "Next, the cold idle which occurs immediately
after start produced mostly negligible levels except for the Mercedes
220 Comprex and Peugeot 204D. This trend was not consistent at the
idle after hot start orat the idle at 125 seconds. In fact, the Mercedes
300D had the highest idle smoke after the initial cold start idle of the
five cars.
Next, the initial accel with the still cold engine was rated for
its peak or maximum smoke level recorded. Each vehicle and engine re-
sponded differently with the Mercedes Comprex producing very high and
noticeable peak opacities ranging from 50 to 95 percent opacity. The
Perkins 6-247 engine produced the next highest opacities during this
initial accel in the range of 19 to 33 percent.
An interesting part of the entire 23-minute LA-4 driving pat-
tern occurs during the first 505 seconds or first bag. Starting at 164
seconds of the test, the vehicle is accelerated from rest to 90.1 km/hr
(56 mph). The vehicle undergoes an upshift during this acceleration
and for the low power to weight ratio diesel cars, requires generally
maximum power or close to maximum power from the engine. In a
sense, this accel is similar to the two accels in the EPA HD smoke test
procedures. Shown on Table 25 is the average smoke during the idle
just prior to the acceleration and the maximum or peak opacity recorded
during acceleration to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph).
The accel peak smoke for the five cars is the maximum value
measured by the smokemeter and in some instances represented a fairly
brief excursion. Some of these peak values occurred twice during the ac-
cel and represented the two requirements for power during the speed
time trace. In general, the peaks were broader and more sustained than
that common to starting with an occasional short puff on top of the smoke
trace proper.
Figures 39 to 43 are typical cold start idle-accel to 90. 1 km/hr
(56 mph) for each of the five cars. The trace represents the first 300
seconds of the cold start and was considered typical. All traces were based
on a chart speed of 76. 2 mm/min (3 inches/min) with zero opacity equal
to 100 percent of chart and 96. 5 km/hr (60 mph) equal to 100 percent of
chart. In the case of the Mercedes 220 Comprex, 300D, Peugeot 204D
and Perkins 6-247, these were for the third test. The Mercedes 240D
chart, Figure 40, was for the second test.
In analyzing the smoke traces on Figures 39 - 43 careful at-
tention must be paid the physical distance between recorder pens (offset)
since a two-pen overlapping recorder was used. Contrary to what some
charts show, acceleration of the engine, vehicle, and smoke output oc-
curred essentially at the same time. Each major chart division from
right (engine start) to left is 24. 5 mm and is equal to 20 seconds.
130
-------
FIGURE 39.
TYPICAL MERCEDES 220D COMPREX "COLD START11
SMOKE TRACE
-------
FIGURE 40. TYPICAL MERCEDES 240D "COLD START"
SMOKE TRACE
-------
FIGURE 41. TYPICAL MERCEDES 300D "COLD START"
SMOKE TRACE
-------
FIGURE 42. TYPICAL PEUGEOT 204D "COLD START"
SMOKE TRACE
-------
FIGURE 43
TYPICAL PERKINS 6-247 "COLD
SMOKE TRACE
START1
-------
Table 25 also lists the hot start peak opacity and subsequent
idle average opacity readings taken after the prescribed 10 minute soak.
Most engines were either the same or slightly lower during the hot start
than its cold start. The high Peugeot 204 and Mercedes Comprex cars
had some improvement but the peak was still substantial and easily
noticeable. The hot start idle readings basically replicated the cold
idle values except for the Mercedes Comprex and the Peugeot 204 which
were substantially less. The first acceleration in the LA-4 hot start
test was generally lower than during the cold start first acceleration in
the driving procedure. Except for the Perkins 6-247, the Mercedes
and Peugeot diesel cars showed measurable improvement and this may
be attributed to the engine being in a warm condition.
The next condition rated was the idle just prior to the
acceleration to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph) which repeated the same type
of idle but during the cold start part of the test.
•sir
The rapid acceleration to 90.1 km/hr (56 mph) during the
final 505 seconds resulted in peak opacities that were substantially
lower than the same driving sequence performed for the Mercedes 240D,
300D and Peugeot 204D. Oddly enough, the Mercedes 220D Comprex
had a higher peak opacity during the high power acceleration after hot
start. The Perkins 6-247 resulted in essentially the same smoke peaks.
b. SET and FET Smoke
Tables 26 and 27 list the visual evaluation made of the
smoke measured during the sulfate (SET) and highway economy (FET)
cycles. The SET and FET represent cycles of increasing average speed
with fewer starts and stops relative to the FTP. These cycles pro-
gressively reduce the effect of vehicle inertia (weight) and increase the
effect of road load. Thus, it would be expected that more importance
be given to cruise than to the accelerations, as was the case with the
FTP.
However, all engines were non-turbocharged and there-
fore steady state and transient effects were not as great as might have
been expected. One engine, the Mercedes 220D Comprex, acted in a
sense as if it were equipped with a conventional turbocharger. The
response of the engine and its smoke behavior was to a great extent
similar to a turbocharged engine since acceleration smoke, on the
transient driving cycles was always substantially higher than all other
cars tested.
136
-------
TABLE 26. SMOKE OPACITY VALUES FROM SMOKE TRACE OF SET-7 DRIVING CYCLE
Smoke Condition
Hot Start, Peak %
Idle, Avg. %
Mercedes
220D Comprex
59.
3.
0
0
Mercedes
240D
36.
2.
0
2
Mercedes
300D
31.
4.
5
5
Peugeot
204D
81.0
0.5
Perkins
6-247
39.
1.
0
5
(after start)
1st Accel, Peak %
to 26. 1 km/hr
Accel at 189 sec, Peak %
from 16. 1 km/hr to
90.9 km/hr
Accel at 527 sec, Peak %
from 0 km/hr to
57.1 km/hr
Accel at 638 sec, Peak %
from 15.6 km/hr to
91.7 km/hr
Accel at 944 sec, Peak %
from 22.5 km/hr to
90.9 km/hr
35.5
35.0
46.0
32.0
14.5
9.5
4.0
9.5
5.0
6.3
6.5
5.5
9.8
4.0
4.5
3.0
6.7
2.0
3.8
4.5
5.8
24.6
26.0
26.7
17.7
-------
TABLE 27. SMOKE OPACITY VALUES FROM SMOKE TRACE
OF FET DRIVING CYCLE
Mercedes Mercedes Mercedes Peugeot Perkins
Smoke Condition 220D Comprex 240D 300D 204D 6-247
Hot Start, Peak % 49.0
Idle, Avg. % 3.5
(after start)
1st Accel, Peak % 89.0
to 79.6 km/hr
Accel, Peak % 33.0
to 94.9 km/hr
9.5
0.5
8.0
4.0
26.0
3.5
8.0
4.5
91.0
0.5
36.0
1.3
7.5 21.5
2.0 8.5
TABLE 28. EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY READINGS
(Chassis Version of Federal Procedure)
Mercedes
Federal Smoke 220D Comprex
"a" factor
"b" factor
"c" factor
27.0
37.8
29.8
Mercedes
240D
6.0
3.7
9.3
Peugeot
204D
5.7
3.3
10.8
Perkins
6-247
17.0
19.8
23.7
138
-------
2. Simulated Federal Smoke Test
Four of the cars were run under a chassis version that simulates
engine test featured in the Federal Smoke Test for HD vehicles. The
Mercedes 300D was incapable of performing the lug-down part of the
test because of the automatic transmission and therefore was not run.
The results of the chassis dynamometer simulated Federal smoke
test are summarized on Table 28. The "a" accel factors are listed
first, followed by the "b" lugdown and "c" peak smoke values.
Shown below are the smoke limits specified for the U.S.
beginning in 1970 and 1974 calendar years.
Federal Factor, % Opacity
"aii "b" "c"
Federal HD Limits 1970 40 20
1974 20 15 50
Although chassis version is only a simulation of the Federal Test Pro-
cedure, it is helpful to relate to these Federal limits as a frame of
reference. The Table 28 "a", "b" and "c" factors for the Mercedes
240D and Peugeot 204D were all well below the Federal limits for
1974 as they should be. The smoke levels of these two diesel cars
can better be compared to the threshold of visibility of exhaust smoke
which is generally considered to be about three to four percent
opacity by the U.S. EPA full flow smokemeter used in this work.
The Mercedes 220D Comprex and Perkins 6-247 both had "a"
and "b" factors that are considered high for light duty diesel engines
used in LD vehicles. The Perkins 6-247, though lower in smoke than
the Comprex, is still very noticeable to the casual observer.
C. Particulate, Sulfate, SO2 and PNA Results
The use of a dilution tunnel for collecting samples of particulate
and sulfate were, for the first time in this long range project, applied
to diesel powered cars.
1. Particulate
Table 29 lists the particulate emission rates of the five LDV's.
These rates are based on both duplicate fiberglass and duplicate Fluoro-
pore filters taken at the same time during FTP cold, FTP hot, FET and
139
-------
SET experiments. The 1975 FTP is a weighted combination of the cold
and hot runs by the expression 1975 FTP = 0. 43 FTP cold + 0. 57 hot.
The fiberglass filter rates are generally taken as the most accurate for
gravimetric analysis and particulate determinations. They should be used
in preference to the Fluoropore media results. The Fluoropore filters
were taken to obtain samples for sulfate. It is interesting to note the agree-
ment by the two collection media, however. Appendix H includes the in-
dividual run data on which the Table 29 averages are summarized. Please
refer to Appendix H for additional tabulations.
Of the methods for expressing particulate, such as g/test, g/hr,
g/kg fuel, g/km is probably the best and most meaningful. Any or
all of those listed on Table 29 are helpful in assessing the importance of
diesel cars. The particulate rates are shown in the barchart, Figure 44.
of the five cars, the Comprex equipped Mercedes 220D and the Perkins 6-247
vehicles had the highest particulate rates. They also have the highest visible
smoke discharges of the five cars. The other three vehicles were typically
lower with the 240D and 300 nearly identical. Although the Peugeot 204D
had the lowest particulate rates of all the cars, it was not possible to sample
its tunnel diluted exhaust through the plastic Fluoropore sulfate filter with-
out the filter plugging. This occurred most readily during the hot FTP run.
A visit by Peugeot representatives occurred when this was ^observed
and no reason could be given by Peugeot nor was any reason explainable by
the vehicle or engine operation. The oil was changed and oil filter replaced
at the advice of Mr. Lucki of Peugeot prior to performing the tests. The
deposit on the filter had the smell of "burned oil" or that of blowby gases.
Its appearance was quite different also, reminding one of filters from two
stroke diesel engines. The two stroke engine is characterized by a par-
ticulate that has a higher degree of oil like particulate organic solubles
that on occasion are given to plugging of filters.
From the discussions with Peugeot and our other staff members, it
was surmised that during the hot run portion of the test, oil or oil-like
material was finding its way into the exhaust and plugging the filter. No
specific source for this material was found. It had no effect on the life of
the 47mm Type A fiberglass membranes. In order to obtain a suitable
SO4~ sample, the sampling probe was redesigned to a smaller diameter
and the sampling rate reduced substantially. This, then, was enough
to allow full term 23-minute runs to be made without incident.
An interesting comparison one can make from the diesel car
data is to examine the particulate rates of these five vehicles relative
to gasoline cars run on leaded and lead-free gasoline. If it is assumed
that diesel car operation consists of cold FTP, hot FTP, SET and FET
140
-------
TABLE 29. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES
FIVE DIESEL LDV's (Average of Replicate Runs with 47mm Filters)
Fiberglass
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Vehicle
Mercedes 220D*
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
g
hr
11.76
9.42
9. 6T
7.44
15.72
10.79
12. 75
10.05
9.63
7.77
16. 56
11.35
11.03
8.95
9. 63
7. 17
15.09
10.37
18.64
15. 27
18.76
14.41
25. 95
18.61
14. 87
12.38
12.89
8.41
17. 18
13. 15
K
. kg fuel
5.03
3.96
3.92
4. 23
6.68
4.76
5. 14
4.00
3.47
4.53
7.09
4.85
4.94
3.93
4. 27
3.99
6. 37
4.70
4.02
3.35
3.63
4. 10
4.79
3.98
4.22
3. 58
3.43
3.19
4. 33
3.75
g
km
0.375
0.298
0.306
0.237
0. 500
0. 343
0.411
0.319
0.307
0. 263
0.526
0.365
0.349
0.284
0.306
0.218
0.481
0. 328
0.237
0. 195
0.242
0. 185
0. 335
0.239
0.265
0. 221
0.232
0. 150
0.307
0.235
Fluoropore
g
hr
11.07
8.93
8.47
6.39
14. 51
9.87
11.94
9.66
8.27
6.91
15.04
10.36
10.42
8.38
8.62
6.00
14. 11
9.51
18.49
13.68
17. 14
14. 15
25.36
17.76
13.81
11.41
12.35
7.48
16.71
12.35
g
kg fuel
4.71
3.76
3.44
3.63
6. 11
4. 33
4.75
3.85
2.96
3.76
6.30
4. 32
4.69
3.69
3.82
3.54
5.96
4.34
3.99
3.01
3.32
4.02
4.68
3.80
3.93
3.25
3.26
2.83
4.21
3.50
s
km
0.352
0.283
0.272
0.207
0.461
0.315
0.379
0.306
0.269
0.218
0.478
0.330
0.331
0.266
0.274
0. 189
0.449
0. 302
0. 236
0. 176
0.221
0. 182
0. 327
0.228
0.247
0.203
0. 220
0. 132
0.299
0.220
* Comprex Equipped
141
-------
bO
28
74
20
16
12
4
n
_
1
[FTPC
H
fa
H
W
fa
H
W
co
~
FTPc
"
ft
H
fa
'
H
W
fa
H
W
CO
-
FTPc
EH
fa
-
H
W
fa
H
W
co
j FTPc
-
FTPh
-
H
W
fa
H
W
co
.
L_
u
ft
fa
H-
j .
EH
fa
-
H
N
fa
•
H
W
CO
4
0 •
0. 5
0.4
g
^0.3
60
0.2
0. I
8
6
i — i
3 .
&0
* 2 -
0
-
_-
[FTPC
ft
H
fa
H
W
fa
H
W
CO
FTPc
ft
H
fa
i
.--
£
-o-
ft
fa
ft
EH
fa
w
W
H
W
CO
o
FTPh
H
W
fa
H
W
CO
FTPc
EH
fa
H
W
fa
H
W
CO
H
W
H
W
CO
1
FTPc
FTPh
H
W
fa
H
W
co
.
— i
FTPh
H
W
H
W
FTPc
H
W
CO
o
EH
FTPh
H
W
fa
H
W
co
ft
H
fa
FTPh
H
W
H
W
CO
FTPc
H
fa
FTPh
EH
H
W
W
CO
••
•
H
W
fa
H
W
CO
—
tr
ft
fa
ft
H
ft
fa
H
fa
H
W
fa
EH
W
CO
—
H
EH
FTPh
H
W
fa
H
W
co
-
i
.j
:
H
W
CO
•
- • — • • • '
Mercedes Mercedes Mercedes Peugeot Perkins
220D Comprex 240D 300D 204D 6-247
FIGURE 44. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES OF FIVE DIESEL LD VEHICLES
(Based on 47mm Glass Filters)
142
-------
type operation, all on an equal basis, then an overall average particulate
rate for the five vehicles can be obtained. An average of 0.328 g/km
of diesel particulate results from the simple averaging of the average
g/km (fiberglass) column of Table 29. This average is, admittedly,
a simplistic estimate, but when the range of values (0.150 to 0.526
g/km) is considered, it is probable that a weighted average would not
be materially different.
Gasoline car particulate levels in the general literature are
quite varied and it is uncertain whether this is a procedural problem,
inconsistent test methods, or one of vehicle variability. In any event,
a good rough guess of particulate from leaded gasoline fueled cars
might be on the order of 0.15 g/km while unleaded gasoline powered
cars are on the order of 0.02 g/km. These are very rough figures,
but may be used to compare the overall 0.328 g/km particulate rate
for five cars and four test cycles. If the 0.328 g/km value may be con-
sidered indicative of diesel car particulate emission rates, then the
diesel car is on the order of twice that of the car operating on leaded
gasoline and fifteen times the unleaded gasoline powered car.
As a very rough frame of reference, early suggestions by EPA,
prior to removal of lead from gasoline, indicated possible particulate
limits starting initially at 0.06 g/km and eventually becoming as
stringent as 0.02 g/km. The diesel car is 5.5 to l6 times these
earlier suggestions. It should be noted that plans for particulate
emission regulations for automobiles were set aside when the auto
makers called for lead-free fuel. The test procedure and data base
used for the suggested limits were not well defined so use of these
values is not necessarily recommended.
2. Elemental Analysis
Table 30 lists the percent by weight of the analysis for carbon,
hydrogen and sulfur made of the particulate collected on the 47 mm
fiberglass filter. One filter of the two obtained was used for carbon
and hydrogen and the other used for sulfur determination.
The carbon content was typically on the order of 75 percent for
all cars except the Peugeot 204D. Substantially less of the particulate
analyzed as carbon, on the order of 55 percent. Also worthy of note
was the observation of slightly but consistently higher carbon during
the SET. Exception to this was the Perkins data.
143
-------
TABLE 30. ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FIBERGLASS FILTER DILUTION TUNNEL
COLLECTED PARTICULATE, % BY WEIGHT
Element
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Cycle
FTPc
FTPh
SET
FET
FTPc
FTPh
SET
FET
FTPc
FTPh
SET
FET
Mercedes
220D Comprex
75.48
72.48
83.20
77.89
2.35
2.29
2.24
2.56
2.84
2.67
2.54
2.79
Mercedes
240D
78.69
76.81
81.50
67.51
3.22
3.81
3.58
3.49
4.27
4.73
3.28
4.77
Mercedes
300D
75.89
74.73
79.99
72.60
2.65
2.64
2.70
3.13
4.93
4.49
2.85
2.98
Peugeot
204D
46.91
51.37
59.59
57.96
6.95
8.07
8.47
9.33
5.35
3.84
4.11
3.96
Perkins
6-247
73.46
75.50
73.56
71.51
3.73
3.96
4.91
5.16
2.26
1.81
1.65
2.12
-------
Just as carbon was lowest for the Peugeot so was hydrogen much
higher, on the order of two to three times that of the other four cars.
What this infers is that the particulate has a higher degree of hydrocarbon
matter and not nearly as much soot or carbon black as the other cars.
The higher amount of hydrocarbon matter such as unburned or partially
burned fuel and lubricating oil would confirm the earlier discussion
regarding filter appearance and the Fluoropore filter plugging encountered
with this car.
Listed last on Table 30 are the elemental sulfur values. In Section
IV, the ASTM method used to analyze elemental sulfur was reported to
have since been replaced by X-ray fluorescence. Though the values seem
consistent within a given car and from car to car, they should be used with
caution beyond a qualitative comparison. Such comparisons should be
limited to the data on Table 30.
3. Sulfate and SO2
Table 31 is a summary of the SO| and SC>2 results for the FTP
cold, FTP hot, FET and SET. The 1975 FTP is a mathematical combi-
nation of the cold and hot FTP's. Probably the SET test is the most im-
portant of the various cycles evaluated. Both mg/km (804) or g/km (SC>2)
are the important rates. Figure 45 is a bar chart of the various sulfate
emission rates and depicts how each vehicle behaved for each of the four
test cycles. Note that the Mercedes 220D Comprex and Peugeot 204D
had about half the SC>4/km as that of the Mercedes 300D and the Perkins
6-247. Although it is uncertain why this is so, it is probably due to dif-
ferent reasons. All vehicles used the DF-2 national average fuel doped
to 0. 23 percent by weight sulfur.
Another important column of data for SO^ and SO2 is the "as % S
in Fuel11 column. This indicates the amount of sulfur in the fuel that be-
comes SO| as measured by the current EPA-SwRI method. It is inter-
esting that on the order of 1. 6 percent of the fuel sulfur is converted
during all city driving cycles, about 1. 9 percent with the higher duty
cycle SET and about 2. 3 percent with the highway driving cycle, the FET.
As shown on Table 31, the remainder of the exhaust sulfur compounds
is represented by SOz, which typically had 88 to 100 percent of fuel sul-
fur. Please note the accuracy of SOz measurement is not considered
better than ± 10 percent normally and rarely worse than ± 20 percent.
This may sound fairly crude, but when the SC>2 test method, a wet col-
lection with BCA finish after several intermediate wet chemical steps, is
considered, this is probably current state of the art. What this analysis
shows is that nearly all fuel S is converted to SC>2, but some, a persist-
ent 1. 6 to 2. 3 percent, depending on test condition, does show up as sul-
fate in the tailpipe. The inaccuracy of SOz measurement therefore makes
SC>2 measurement of little or no importance in sulfur balance of diesels
since the relatively small SC>4= levels are within the ± accuracy of the
.SO2 measurement.
145
-------
TABLE 31. SULFATE AND SO2 EMISSION RESULTS
FIVE DIESEL LDV's (Average of Replicate Runs)
Sulfate (804-) SO?
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Vehicle
Mercedes 220D*
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
mg
hr
220.
246.
287.
210.
338.
260.
266.
273.
317.
212.
345.
282.
186.
230.
265.
209.
333.
245.
548.
790.
873.
540.
1001.
750.
320.
491.
574.
286.
627.
459.
mg
km
7
9
5
3
7
8
7
0
0
3
4
9
1
4
1
8
7
0
3
0
3
2
2
6
0
1
9
2
2
9
7.
7.
9.
6.
10.
8.
8.
8.
10.
6.
10.
9.
5.
7.
8.
6.
10.
7.
7.
10.
11.
6.
12.
9.
5.
8.
10.
5.
11.
8.
02
92
15
69
77
31
49
69
09
76
96
00
92
36
44
64
62
80
07
02
22
96
91
64
72
77
27
10
34
24
mg
kg fuel
93.
105.
116.
119.
141.
115.
106.
109.
114.
116.
136.
116.
83.
102.
117.
121.
144.
113.
119.
174.
170.
154.
185.
161.
91.
142.
152.
108.
160.
131.
5
1
2
0
2
0
4
2
2
0
6
5
8
0
7
0
8
9
8
8
6
5
2
0
0
7
2
5
6
0
as % S
in Fuel
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
34
51
67
71
00
65
53
57
64
67
96
67
20
47
69
73
03
62
72
51
31
22
66
28
31
05
19
60
28
1.89
g
km
0.35
0.32
0.31
0.26
0.36
0.32
0.37
0.34
0.34
0.25
0.36
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.28
0.27
0.37
0.31
0.27
0.27
0.32
0.21
0.31
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.20
0.27
0.25
as % S
in Fuel
106.8
91.7
86.1
99.6
108.1
98.5
102.2
94.3
86.1
91.3
96.9
94.2
97.2
91.9
86.2
105.8
106.5
97.5
101.6
101.6
102.4
99.9
96.6
100.4
89.0
87.0
84.4
95.1
83. 7
87.8
*Comprex Equipped
146
-------
iooo r
750
^500
M
e
250
--K-
1-
16-
£ 12
•^
so
8-
4
o-
o
ft
ft
j:
ft
ft
EH
w
W
H
W
ft
,
u
ft
EH
ft
ft
H
ft
H
fo
-
H
M
ft
c.
H
ft
•
r1
H
ft
H
W
w
EH
—
c.
H
ft
,jCj
ft
H
ft
p_,-
M
E-i
M
ft
—
ft
H
1
ft
H
ft
p_i
JTL
w
w
ft
—
-
200
150
ttO
4
-------
For additional sulfate and SO2 data, individual run results, and
g/test data, please refer to Appendix I.
If, from Table 31, the self weighting average of the four cycles
may be taken as representative of actual driving, and if the five vehicles
are illustrative of diesel cars in operation, then the following analogy
may be made.
On the assumption that 1.87 percent of the fuel sulfur exits the
vehicle as SO4=, then, for every kg of fuel burned, the contribution of
the diesel car is equivalent to 1.87 percent of 0.23 percent fuel sulfur,
the current U. S. national average of DF-2 diesel fuel. Catalyst equipped
cars can emit a very wide range of SO4= as a percent of fuel sulfur, on
the order of 0.3 percent to as high as 50 percent by the SET depending
on the model, make, and type catalyst, and especially whether or not
and how much secondary air injection is used for HC and CO control.
Disregarding storage in the catalyst of sulfate, an overall guess at a
general value would be on the order of 20 percent conversion.
Thus, for one kg of gasoline, the contribution of the catalyst-
equipped gasoline car is equivalent to 20 percent of 0.03 percent fuel
sulfur, the current U.S. national average for regular grade gasoline.
From this very rough and general comparison, it may be concluded that
for the same mass of fuel burned, the diesel car will contribute about
half the sulfates as that of an oxidation catalyst-air pump equipped car.
It may be argued that the sulfates from gasoline catalyst cars will be
reduced by reduced secondary air, different catalyst formulations and
other techniques such as trapping. It may also be argued that the diesel
car will quite likely consume half as much fuel for the same distance
driven due to its superior fuel economy.
The upshot of this discussion is to try and place the diesel car
exhaust sulfate into perspective and consider its contribution relative
to catalyst equipped cars. One problem in making such comparisons
is the tremendous variability in gasoline car SO4= levels and the un-
certainty over near term solutions and their potential for reduction.
Another uncertainty is whether the diesel car sulfates are in the form
of sulfuric acid as is the case for gasoline fueled, catalyst-equipped
cars. This difference is important to diesel, non-catalyst equipped
cars. The health work establishing health effects of sulfuric acid mist
has not been done yet. As a consequence, this preliminary comparison
must be continually reviewed and improved as more accurate predictions
of near term car sulfate production are available.
4. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Table 32 is a summary of particulate rates by means of a third
method, that of using a large 203. 2 x 254mm (8x10 inch) glass fiber
148
-------
TABLE 32. B:ESO AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS RATES - FIVE DIESEL LDV'S
(Average of Replicate Runs with 8x10 Glass Filters)
Test Vehicle
1975 FTP Mercedes 220D*
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
FTP Cold Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
FTP Hot Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
FET Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
SET Mercedes 220D
Mercedes 240D
Mercedes 300D
Peugeot 204D
Perkins 6-247
Average
Parti culate
g
11.76
10.01
10. 02
7.06
13.25
12.41
10.78
10.95
7.86
14.20
11.27
9.4
9.33
6.47
12.60
21.25
16.85
20.00
12.86
21.73
14.38
13.24
13.30
8.09
13.07
g
kg fuel
5.02
4.22
4.08
3.97
5.51
4.95
4.31
3.95
4.28
5.60
5.08
4.15
4. 19
3.75
5.60
4.64
3.72
4.20
3.73
4.01
4.09
3.84
3.49
3.06
3.29
g
km
0.374
0.318
0.321
0.224
0.417
0.395
0.343
0.349
0.249
0.452
0.359
0.265
0.300
0.205
0.400
0. 274
0.217
0.258
0.168
0.280
0.257
0.236
0.238
0. 144
0. 233
mg
TT
1.44
1.22
2.03
3.90
1.06
1.66
1.31
2.18
2.36
1.05
V
1.27
1. 15
1.91
5.07
1.06
2.02
2.26
1.80
14. 15
1.22
1.47
0.90
B:ESO(1)
mg ug mg
kg fuel km hr
0.610
0.514
0.822
2.280
0.442
0.660
0.524
0.788
1.290
0.413
0.573
0.507
0.847
2.936
0.459
0.441
0.498
0.378
4. 103
0.224
0.417
0.249
Vial Cracked,
8.17 3.091
0. 966
0.243
45.8
38.8
64.6
124.2
33.7 0.775
52.7
41.7
69.6
75.0
33.3 0.322
40.5
36.6
60.8
161.3
33.9 0.249
26.0
29.1
21.4
184.8
15.8 0.206
26.2
15.3
Sample Lost
145.4
17-3 0.192
BaP
mg >
-------
(Gelman Type A) filter media. The purpose of the large filter, widely
used in the popular Hi Vol atmospheric sampler, is to obtain sufficient
sample for PNA analysis. The mg/hr, mg/kg fuel and y g/km of B:ESO
by the FTP cold and FTP hot were mathematically combined to give an
equivalent 1975 FTP value. Figure 46 is a bar chart depicting the
emission rates from Table 32 as a function of test cycle for each of the
five vehicles.
As with hydrocarbons, the Peugeot produced the highest rates of
B:ESO. Since the fuel itself is one source of POM, it follows that the
more unburned or partially burned fuel in the exhaust, the more the
POM will be. To the writer's knowledge, this is the first time POM,
SO4=, SO2> and particulate emissions have been reported on this variety
of diesel powered LDV's. There is little in the literature against which
to directly compare these results, and this is especially true in the case
of POM and particulate. No work with gasoline powered light duty
vehicles has been performed by these same procedures, although some
work is in progress for Research Triangle Park Laboratories of EPA
by SwRI in support of the fuel additive registration programs. There
is, of course, a great amount of sulfate data for gasoline powered cars
using the exact same procedures and test cycles. Several years earlier,
Exxon reported extensive data on PNA emissions from gasoline powered
passenger cars.(4l» 42) Although the LD diesel results are higher than
that reported by Exxon, the test procedures and sample collection
methods were quite different, making a direct comparison difficult.
Also listed on Table 32 are BaP values for the Perkins 6-247
powered IH pick-up truck. Recall from Section III the analysis of POM
compounds was made by two methods for the DDAD 8V-71TA HD engine
(see Section IV) and the Perkins 6-247 engine. As with the DDAD 8V-71
TA engine, a ratio of BaP to B:ESO may be computed for the Perkins.
Based on yg of BaP/km divided by yg of B:ESO/km, the ratios are:
Cycle Ratio
1975 FTP 0. 259
FTP cold 0.306
FTP hot 0.233
SET 0.197
FET 0.171
Thus the BaP/B:ESO ratios ranged from 0.171 to 0.306, depending on
the transient cycle operated. The highway driving cycle resulted in the
least BaP/B:ESO, while the cold FTP resulted in the highest BaP/B:ESO.
Overall, the BaP part of the B:ESO was on the order of 20 percent. It is
unknown whether this range of BaP/B:ESO will hold for the other four
LD diesel vehicles.
D. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses
This section covers the odor tests by trained panel and DOAS as
•well as related instrumental analysis for gaseous emissions, non-reactive
hydrocarbons and aldehydes.
150
-------
---
a
4.0 |
-
8.0
-
. 0
3 0
. u
. 0
n
y
•~
•
.
200 |-
-
u
EM
-
r»
M4
H
o
Hn
PU
43
H
H
W
n
n
-
H
A
H
h
H
n
I-H
H
~
^PMI^MK
w
o ,r:
n n n, H
ft H f£J W
[±4 UH CO ^
Zl
. 5
Mercedes Mercedes Mercedes
220D Comprex 240D 300D
FIGURE 46. B:ESO EMISSION RATES OF FIVE DIESEL LD VEHICLES
Peugeot
204D
Perkins
6-247
(Based on 8 x 10 Glass Filters)
151
-------
1. Odor Ratings by Trained Panel
Table 33 is a listing of the average odor panel ratings for each of the
five vehicles. All ratings were made at a dilution ratio of 100:1, 100 parts
of prefiltered and conditioned diluent air to 1 part of raw exhaust. Each
value listed represents two days of test consisting of six random steady
state runs and eight runs during transient. The Peugeot 204D, the first of
the five test vehicles, was run three days for nine runs for each steady
state run and 12 runs for each transient condition. The day by day, run by
run data are listed and summarized in Appendix J.
One way to group the significance of this type of extensive individual
mode data is to plot the "D" odor rating against power level for the two
speeds evaluated. Recall that the six odor tests in steady state represent
a partial odor map. Another way to depict the odor behavior of a vehicle/
engine is to sum the panel responses of "D" + "B" + "O" + "A" + "P" for
each operation condition. This gives each approximately equal weight to
the "D" intensity value and the sum of the four quality ratings and is con-
sistent with prior evaluations.
The top half of Figures 47 through 51 show the "D" diesel odor map
for six speed-load combinations. The lower half shows the sum of the "D"
+ "B" + "O" + "A" + "D" ratings. It is interesting to note the behavior of
the "D" ratings with speed and load. Except for the Peugeot 204D, the
higher speed produced the higher "D" odor. While the Comprex equipped
220D and Perkins 6-247 had lowest odor at 50 percent power, both the
Mercedes 240 and 300D had "D" odor levels mostly unchanged with con-
dition. The Peugeot 204D showed an increase in odor with power level.
Unlike many previous diesel car tests in which the transients
(accel, decels and idle-accels) were usually higher than the steady
states, these tests revealed no substantial consistent difference. The
accel after idle (Figure 47, Comprex 220D) cold start (Figure 48 and 49,
Mercedes 240D and 300D) were conditons of maximum odor for those three
cars. Otherwise, transients were the same, slightly higher or lower than
the steady states.
Table 34 is a rough comparison of the odor ratings for the five
vehicles. This evaluation indicates that the Perkins 6-247 powered pick-up
to be consistently highest in "D" intensity for every grouping such as "six
steady states", three transients or the idle and cold start categories of
operation. Next highest in "D" odor ratings was the Peugeot 204D and
then the Comprex equipped Mercedes 220D. The Mercedes 240D and 300D
cars were very similar, except for the idle ratings, giving essentially
identical results. This is to be expected for the 240 and 300D engines
since the only difference is the number of cylinders (5 versus 4).
152
-------
TABLE 33. LISTING OF AVERAGE ODOR PANEL RATINGS AT
100:1 DILUTION
Vehicle Odor Mercedes Mercedes Mercedes
Condition Kit 220D Comprex 240D 300D
Peugeot
204D
Perkins
6-247
STEADY STATE RESULTS
Intermediate
Speed, 2%
Load
Intermediate
Speed, 50%
Load
Intermediate
Speed, 100%
Load
High Speed,
2% Load
High Speed,
50% Load
High Speed,
100% Load
Idle
Idle-Accel
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
0
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
0
A
P
D
B
.0
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
2.4
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.4
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
3. 5
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.6
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
3. 1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
3.7
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.9
3. 1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
3. 1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
2.2
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.4
2.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
2.4
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.6
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.7
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
2. 1
1.0
1.0
' 0.6
0.7
TRANSIENT
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.6
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
2.2
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.3
2. 5
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
RESULTS
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
3.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
3.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
4. 1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
3.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
3.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
3.8
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
3.8
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.9
3. 1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
3.4
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
4.6
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.1
2.9
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
3.7
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.9
4.9
1.4
1.2
0.9
1.1
3.3
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.9
3.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.9
4.2
1.3
1. 1
0.9
0.9
4.4
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
4.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.9
3.3
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.6
4.5
1.5
1. 1
0.9
1.0
153
-------
3.5H
—
-
-
c:
i. 5
2.0
50%
Power
10.0
9.0
: 8.0
&
-+ 7.0
<
:+ 6.0
P
± 5.0
«
+ 4.0
9
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
J
100%
!
L
-
2 50 100
Percent Load
1680 rpm
2 50 100
.Percent Load
2800 rpm
Idle Idle Accel Decel Cold
Accel Start
FIGURE 47. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR MERCEDES 220D
COMPREX DIESEL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
154
-------
J5.U
bC
.S 2.5
Jj
M
o
0 2.0
-
Q
1.5
0
1
3000 rpm
(r ; . _
— • —
,-
1
' 1 L_
_
— . —
2% 50%
____—-r— "* "~~*
^~-—"'
. . — *
^____— —
1800 rpm
1
i
100%
Power
I
1
10.0
9.0
r 8.0
r1
± 7.0
^^
_+ 6.0
^4- K n
;y D . U
3-4.0
Q
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 ,
—
j
'
^i
_L_.
.
_
i
.
•
- •
1
|
i
. — i - .
i
i
•
•
i
i
1
.
;
•
!
'
.
.
|
_
•
• •
i.
i
i
i
.
•
2 50 100 2 50 100 Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold
Percent Load Percent Load
Accel Start
1800 rpm
3000 rpm
FIGURE 48. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR MERCEDES 240D
DIESEL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
155
-------
3.5r
3
P
100%
100
9n
. u
8 0
7 0
6 0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1 0
n
i-
.. .
,
1
'
-•
-
•
'
'
'
'
'
-
•
:
'
,
- -
1
•
j
!
2 50 100
Percent Load
1740 rpm
50 100 Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold
Percent Load Accel Start
2900 rpm
FIGURE 49. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR MERCEDES 300D
DIESEL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
156
-------
4. 5 t-
bO
C 4. 0
—^
o
O 3'5
Q
3.0
0
10. 0
9.0
8.0
:+ 7-°
5 6.0
P 5.0
? 4.0
P 3.0
2.0
1.0
0
z%
50%
Power
J.J_
i
100%
2 50 100
Percent Load
2100 rpm
2 50 100
Percent Load
3500 rpm
Idle Idle-Accel Decel Cold
•Accel start
FIGURE 50. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR PEUGEOT 204D
DIESEL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
157
-------
s.o r
4.0
c
• iH
I 3-°
o
p
2.0
2%
10.0
9.0
8.0
-n 7-°
(X
=+6.0
5
3- s.o
p
±4.0
ffl
B- s.o
Q
2.0
1.0
0
2 50 100
Percent Load
1620 rpm
50%
Power
100%
•
,
2 50 100
Percent Load
2700 rpm
Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold
Accel Start
FIGURE 51. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR PERKINS 6-247
DIESEL LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
158
-------
TABLE 34. ROUGH COMPARISON OF LD VEHICLE "D"
ODOR RATINGS
Six Steady Cold Three All Eleven
Car Evaluated States Idle Start Trans. Conditions
Mercedes 220D Comp. 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.0
Mercedes 240D 2.4 2.1 3.2 2.5 2.5
Mercedes 300D 2.5 2.9 3.4 2.6 2.6
Peugeot 204D 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.5
Perkins 6-247 3.9 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.0
2. Gaseous Emissions
Table 35 is a tabulation of the numerous observations of selected .
gaseous emissions taken simultaneously with the odor panel ratings. The
measurements were restricted to the seven steady state operating con-
ditions, six at speed and load and curb idle. Appendix K contains the in-
dividual test data for each vehicle. Table 5 in Section III gives fuel
rate for each test condition. Each table in Appendix K lists air flow as
measured during each test run. Given the fuel rate and air flow, the
concentrations of Table 35 may be used to compute a seven mode cycle
emissions composite in g/hr or g/kg fuel consumed.
The seven mode cycle, if computed to yield composite emission
rates, is not consistent with the 13-mode HD cycle in a number of ways.
The six speed and load points for the cars are intentionally selected to
represent the way cars operate. The LD diesel operating or duty cycle
is unlike that of the HD diesel in a truck or bus making calculations from
the emissions data given on Table 35 for a simulated 13-mode HD result
inappropriate. Please note that the speeds were selected not at rated and
peak torque/intermediate as with the HD 13-mode test but as that engine
speed which produces 56 mph, in the highest gear. The lower speed was
taken as 60 percent of the 56 mph engine speed.
3. DOAS - Simultaneous with Odor Panel
Also listed on Table 35 are the average values obtained by the DOAS
simultaneously with the odor panel ratings. Table 36 compares the "D",
odor panel rating with the DOAS results for each day of odor testing, each
vehicle, and each test condition. Only T1A is listed since this is the odor
159
-------
TABLE 35. EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR
RATINGS DURING STEADY -STATE CONDITIONS
Vehicle
Condition
Intermediate
Speed. 2%
Load
Intermediate
Speed. 50%
Load
Intermediate
Speed, 100%
Load
High Speed,
2%Load
High Speed,
50% Load
High Speed,
100% Load
Idle
Exhaust
Emissions
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
CO2, 7e
TIA
LCD, ug/l
LCA. ug/l
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOje-CL, ppm
C02. %
TIA
LCO, Ug/l
LCA, Ug/l
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR. ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCO, yg/1
LCA, Ug/l
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCO, ug/l
LCA, Ug/l
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOjc-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCO, ug/l
LCA, Ug/l
HC, ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOZ-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCO. wg/1
LCA, Ug/l
HC , ppm
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
C02, %
TIA
LCO, ug/l
LCA, Ug/l
Mercedes
220D Comprex
58
146
120
112
120
2.9
1.8
5.9
11.7
33
130
271
251
256
5.7
1.8
6.2
12,3
42
2402
181
172
173
6.7 •
1.8
5.0
8.7
170
415
139
121
131
3.8
1.9
8.3
23.4
46
146
364
334
337
6.1
1.8
6.3
11.4
38
1916
336
313
316
8.0
1.9
10.0
17.2
102
154
150
133
139
3.0
1.8
7.2
16.0
Mercedes
240D
69
173
66
63
68
2.4
1.6
4. 1
7.3
68
149
351
308
309
6.7
1.7
4.7
8. 1
61
286
361
340
344
10.3
1.7
4.8
6.0
76
353
86
80
84
3.1
1.7
4. 1
7.5
50
179
401
357
366
7.4
1.7
4.9
7.2
63
430
477
444
444
12.2
1.7
5.0
5-9
96
151
95
87
93
2.4
1.6
3.7
7.9
Mercedes
300D
79
187
71
64
73
2.6
1.6
4.4
7. 5
68
146
189
167
177
4.4
1.7
5. 1
9.8
60
132
276
243
252
5.6
1.7
4.7
8.0
61
235
104
88
98
3. 1
1.7
4.2
8.0
43
159
341
312
320
6.4
1.7
5.2
8.8
46
148
490
456
464
9.4
1.8
5. 5
8.1
119
172
. 104
85
95
2.5
1.7
4.6
10.6
Peugeot
204D
292
376
36
32
51
2. 1
2. 1
10.6
21.8
700
358
139
116
153
4.7
2.2
16.6
46.8
843
351
218
204
208
8.6
2.5
29.7
90.5
320
560
55
45
61
2.9
2. 1
13.0
25.4
356
331
206
188
201
6.1
2.3
17. 1
40.7
377
335
267
241
244
9.2
2.4
25.9
63.3
539
517
32
23
50
2.2
2.1
12.4
25.7
Perkins
6-247
935
871
27
32
44
2.0
2.5
29.6
61.9
306
407
349
321
326
6.8
2.2
16.3
32.4
492
5094
350
316
326
11.3
2.2
18.9
38.5
1305
869
55
57
71
2.6
2.5
29.5
83.4
210
317
383
374
385
7.5
2.2
17.5
32.9
532
3795
396
358
371
11.9
2.4
25.5
44.7
361
515
53
59
74
1.7
2.2
15.2
20.8
160
-------
TABLE 36. COMPARISON OF TIA AND "D" ODOR VALUES
Mercedes
220 Comprex
Condition
Idle
Inter, rpm
2% Load
Inter, rpm
50% Load
Inter, rpm
100% Load
High rpm
2% Load
High rpm
50% Load
High rpm
100% L.oad
Day
•«i * i
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
2nd
Avg
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
2nd
Avg.
TIA
2.0
1. 5
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
2. 1
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
2. 1
1.7
1.9
"D"
3. 1
3.0
3. 1
2.4
2.8
2.6
2. 5
2.2
2.4
2.7
3. 1
2.9
3.4
3. 5
3. 5
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
Mercedes
240D
TIA
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1. 7
1. 7
1.6
1.7
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1. 7
"D"
2. 2
2. 0
2. 1
2. 1
2.2
2. 2
2.0
2. 2
2. 1
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.8
2. 5
2.6
2.4
2. 5
2. 7
2.6
2.7
Mercedes
300D
TIA
1. 7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1. 7
1.8
"D"
2.6
3. 1
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2. 1
2.2
1.9
2. 1
2.0
2.8
2.2
2.5
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.0
2. 5
2. 8
Peugeot
204D
TIA
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
2. 2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.4
2. 5
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2. 3
2. 2
2. 3
2. 3
2.4
2.4
"D"
3. 9
3.8
3. 9
3.5
3.2
3.4
3.4
3. 3
3.4
4.6
4.0
4.3
3.3
2.9
3. 1
3.0
3. 3
3.2
3.5
3.7
3.6
Perkins
6-247
TIA
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.4
"D"
4.4
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.7
4.6
2.7
3. 1
2.9
3. 9
3. 5
3. 7
4. 6
5. 1
4.9
3. 2
3.4
3. 3
4. 1
3.4
3.8
-------
rating or total intensity of aroma value by the DOAS taken as 1 + log LCO .
The LCO is an indicator of a class of odorants in diesel exhaust. The
T1A is an arbitrary scale of odor intensity based on an assumed chemical
odorant: perceived odor relationships. All T1A, LCO and LCA values
are given for each observation in Appendix K.
The plot of T1A versus observed "D" rating is shown in Figure 52.
Note that the triangles A and V for the Mercedes 240D and 300D cars
cluster together with the squares (Mercedes 220D Comprex) close by and
just above the conventional 4 and 5 cylinder results. Then the Peugeot
204D and Perkins 6-247 are at the upper half of the data with the 6-247 having
"D" ratings as high as 4. 5 to 5.
Overall the relationship is encouraging and much better than that
found with five heavy duty engines described in Section IV. There is
some question regarding the line of data at T1A of 1. 7 where "D"-2 to
"D"-3 was observed. The same thing is true for the T1A of 1. 8.
4. DOAS Results - Transient Cycles
An attempt was made to obtain T1A, LCO and LCA values during
the 1975 FTP light duty test procedure. The object was to try and relate
transient T1A values to various odor ratings obtained by the eleven mode
odor evaluation using the trained panel.
Table 37 lists the DOAS results of samples obtained throughout
each of the various driving cycles. The chromosorb trap was used to
collect and integrate a dilute exhaust sample throughout each transient
test and in this way served as the sample bag to integrate the sample.
Figure 53 is a bar chart summary of the average data from Table 37. It
is interesting to note the stairstep increase of T1A with the average speed
of the cycle. The city FTP has the slowest average speed while the high-
way FET has the highest average speed.
It is also clear from Figure 53 that the DOAS rates the Perkins
as having the highest odor with the Peugeot next highest. Then the
Mercedes 220D Comprex was next highest. Of the five cars, the 240D
and 300D Mercedes had the lowest DOAS values and they were quite
similar. Recall from the earlier discussion of the eleven mode odor
panel ratings that this was the order of the observed odor ratings. All
this serves to confirm, in a very qualitative way, the correlation shown
in Figure 52.
The LCO, which has not been converted into TLA, gives a better
comparison of the five vehicles and three test modes. Note the very
similar behavior of the LCA values to the LCO, both shown on Figure 53.
162
-------
o
D
A
V
O
Peugeot 204D
Mercedes 220D Comprex
Mercedes 300D
Mercedes 240D
Perkins 6-247
O 2% Load
Q 50% Load
• 100% Load
O Inter Speed
£f Rated Speed
Idle
3.0
2.5
en
«!
0
P
CO
1.5
1.0
0
a-
i
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
"D" Diesel Odor Rating by Panel
5.0
FIGURE 52. TIA BY DOAS VERSUS "D" ODOR RATING BY
TRAINED PANEL FOR FIVE LD DIESEL VEHICLES
163
-------
TABLE 37. DOAS RESULTS DURING VARIOUS TRANSIENT CYCLES
(Five Diesel Powered LDV'S)
DOAS Results
Vehicle
Mercedes
220D
Comprex
Mercedes
240D
Mercedes
300D
Peugeot
204D
Perkins
6-247
TestDate
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
Run
No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
LCA, jag /I
FTP
3.25
2.71
3. 35
3. 10
1.74
1.42
1.57
1. 58
1.49
1.50
1.31
1.43
5.33
6.09
7. 23
6. 22
4.81
4.36
4.55
4.57
FET
4. 92
6.80
6. 84
6.19
_
1.79
1.91
1.80
2.92
2.02
1.86
2. 27
10. 97
12. 94
11.96
15.52
15. 57
14.33
15. 14
SET
3.69
3. 81
4.09
3.86
2.25
1.42
1.69
1.79
1. 61
1.40
1. 35
1.45
9.60
11.31
10.66
10.52
9.27
8. 16
8.69
8.71
LCO, ug/1
FTP
0.98
1.01
1.29
1. 09
0.87
0.75
0. 72
0. 78
0. 72
0.82
0.66
0.73
1.93
2.33
2.93
2.40
2. 30
2.28
2.33
2.30
FET
1.68
2.77
2. 93
2.46
1.48
1.22
1.13
1.28
1.47
1.17
1.35
1.33
4.40
5. 17
6.73
5.43
7. 90
7.60
7.07
7.52
SET
1. 13
1.35
1.45
1. 31
1.29
0. 75
0.83
0. 96
0. 76
0.79
1.20
0.92
3.80
4. 24
4. 31
4. 12
4.42
3.71
4.02
4.05
FTP
0.99
1.00
1. 11
1.03
0.94
0.88
0.86
0.89
0.86
0.90
0.82
0.86
1.29
1. 37
1.47
1.38
1. 36
1.36
1.37
1.36
TIA
FET
1. 23
1.44
1.47
1. 38
1. 32
1.09
1.06
1. 16
1. 17
1.07
L 13
1. 12
1.65
1.71
1.83
1.73
1. 90
1.88
1.85
1.88
SET
1.06
1. 14
1. 16
1. 12
1. 11
0.88
0. 92
0.97
0.88
0. 90
0. 88
0.89
1.58
1.63
1.64
1.62
1.65
1.57
1.61
1.61
-------
2.0
1.8
If
, 0
1.4
7
£ < 1
t-i 1 i U
U1 £_,
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
•
.
-
- •-
-
PH
H
1
H
W
H
H
Mercedes
220D Comprex
PH
r—
i
H
H
H
W
Mercedes
240D
H
H
W
w
H
H
PH
H
r-
EH
W
W
UH
-
PH
H
t^-
i
H
H
H
W
Mercedes Peugeot Perkins
300D 204D 6-247
FIGURE 53. SUMMARY OF FTP, SET-7 AND FET RESULTS
-------
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
'3.0
0-
O
-------
5. Detailed Hydrocarbons
The detailed exhaust hydrocarbons, most of which are considered
to be non-reactive, were analyzed during both steady state and transient
vehicle operation.
a. Simultaneous with Odor Panel
Summarized on Table 38 are the results of the detailed HC
analysis from samples collected during the seven steady state odor
test conditions. A single sample was analyzed in each case and all
results have been corrected for background hydrocarbon content.
Methane and ethylene, generally the two most predominant
hydrocarbons, were quite similar for the Mercedes 240D and 300D
cars, as would be expected. The Peugeot 204D and Perkins 6-247
exhaust analysis revealed substantially higher methane and ethylene
as well as ethane, acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene and
toluene. There were some exceptions to this comparison but as a
general rule, these two vehicles had much more of most of the indivi-
dual hydrocarbons.
In some instances, the Comprex equipped Mercedes 220D had
higher methane and/or ethylene such as 100 percent load at inter-
mediate speed and high speed, 2 percent load. Overall, the Mercedes
220D Comprex HC analyses were similar to the other two Mercedes
cars.
It is possible to use the concentration data listed in Table 39,
the fuel rate data listed in Table 5 of Section III, and the average air
flow data listed in the data tabulations in Appendix K to compute
emission rates of methane, ethylene, etc. , in terms of g/hr or g/kg
fuel consumed.
b. Transient Cycles
The results of the HC analysis of samples collected during the
three driving cycles are tabulated on Table 39 in terms of concentration
and g/km. Since the concentration data, of necessity, is of the CVS air
diluted exhaust and not raw exhaust, the concentrations cannot be easily
or directly compared even for the three Mercedes cars since the ex-
haust volume was variable. For example, the Peugeot 204D concen-
trations are much more dilute than the Perkins 6-247 due to the engine
displacement and exhaust flow difference.
To enable some measure of comparison on a common basis, the
emission rate was computed for each hydrocarbon in terms of mg/km.
167
-------
TABLE 38.
DETAILED HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES TAKEN
DURING STEADY -STATE ODOR TESTS
Vehicle
Condition
Exhaust
Emissions
Intermediate Methane, ppmC
Speed, 2% Ethylene, ppmC
Load Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propane, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
Benzene, ppmC
Toluene, ppmC
Intermediate Methane, ppmC
Speed, 50% Ethylene, ppmC
Load Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propane, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
Benzene, ppmC
Toluene, ppmC
Intermediate Methane, ppmC
Speed, 100% Ethylene, ppmC
Load Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propane, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
Benzene, ppmC
Toluene, ppmC
High Speed,
Z% Load
High Speed,
50 % Load
High Speed,
100% Load
Idle
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propane, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
Benzene, ppmC
Toluene, ppmC
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propane, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
Benzene, ppmC
Toluene, ppmC
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propane, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
Benzene, ppmC
Toluene, ppmC
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
P ropane, ppmC
Propylene. ppmC
Benzene. ppmC
Toluene, ppmC
Mercedes
2ZOD Comprex
6. 1
12.3
0.9
2.2
0. 1
3. 3
1.9
0.2
3.6
3.2
0.2
0.7
tr*
0.7
1.2
0.2
10.6
3.6
0.2
1. 9
tr *
0.4
2.0
0.2
21.7
32.6
2.2
8.4
0. 3
7. 7
10. 9
2.9
6.7
7. 1
0. 5
1.4
0. 1
1.7
1.2
0.2
1.7
1. 1
tr*
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.6
tr *
5. 2
12.8
0.8
.0
2
0.2
3.7
3.2
0.7
Mercedes
240D
4.5
11.0
0.5
1.7
0. 1
3.4
1.5
0.1
3. 1
7.9
0.3
1.0
0. 1
2.4
1.9
0.4
3.5
5.9
0. 1
1. 1
0.0
1.4
1.7
0. 1
6.6
10.9
0.6
2.6
tr*
2.9
2.4
0.3
3.1
5.3
0.2
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.7
0. 1
3.3
5.7
0. 1
1. 5
0.0
0.9
1.4
tr *
5.6
12.7
0.8
2.0
0. 1
4.0
1.9
0.4
Mercedes
300D
Peugeot
204D
Perkins
6-247
4. 1
8. 1
0.3
1. 3
tr*
2.3
2.0
0.6
3.9
8.7
0.4
1.2
tr*
2.5
2.0
0.4
3.2
6.5
0.3
0.9
tr*
1.7
1.3
0.2
5.8
9.3
0.5
1.7
tr *
Z.Z
2.8
0.7
3.5
5.4
0.3
1. 1
tr *
1. 1
0.9
0.3
3.2
4.5
0.2
1. 1
0.0
1.0
1.2
0.2
4.8
10.1
0.6
1.6
0. 1
3.2
2.9
0.8
6.4
29.9
0.9
3.8
0. 3
10.6
4.5
1.4
7.0
34.6
1.6
4.4
0.5
13.6
4.2
1. 5
16.1
78. 1
4.4
9.4
0.8
34.0
2.0
0.0
7.9
32.3
1.0
4.8
0.1
9.0
4.8
1.0
5.5
32.8
1. 1
3.4
0.3
11.7
4.2
3.3
7.2
56.2
2.2
5.0
0.4
23.8
8.5
1.8
9.6
45.9
1.9
6.0
0.4
17.7
2.2
1. 1
10. 9
60.5
1.7
7. 1
0.2
21.7
5.0
1.9
13.7
28.0
0.9
9. 1
tr *
6.2
8.0
0.8
126.0
83.6
4. 5
66.9
0.3
7.0
25.7
1.1
12.7
69.0
2. 3
7.9
0.3
25.9
3.2
1.6
8.6
18.4
0. 5
6.0
0.0
3.9
4. 1
0.6
90. 1
111. 8
4. 1
60.7
0. 1
7.7
21.0
0.6
5.2
21.8
0.3
2. 1
tr *
7.8
3.0
0.7
• trace, less than 0. 1 ppmC
168
-------
TABLE 39. DETAILED HYDROCARBON ANALYSE OF SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING VARIOUS TRANSIENT CYCLES
Emi»»ioa
M«thaa*
Ethyl«a«
Ethan.
Ac.tyl«i.
Propta.
P ropyUa*
B.aiiae
Toluca*
Unit!
(1)
ppmC
mg/kai
ppmC
mg/km
ppmC
mg/km
ppmC
mg/km
ppmC
mg/km
ppmC
mg/km
ppmC
mg/km
ppmC
mg/km
T"t
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
220D
1 2.5
2 2.0
3 2.5
4.8
5.5
19.65
13.82
12.58
1 3.7
2 Z 7
3 3. 1
3.7
4.9
21.63
15.26
14.56
1 tr.«>
2 tr.
3 tr.
tr.
tr.
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 1.3
2 1.2
3 1.3
1.7
2.2
8.65
6.51
6.07
1 0.0
2 0.0
3 0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
1 r.
2 T.
3 r.
r.
r.
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 2.9
2 tr.
3 1.8
0.8
1.7
6.07
3.26
4.99
1 0.0
2 0,0
3 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mflrcadti
240D
0.9
0.3
0.6
,2.7
3.1
5.57
2.75
3.66
3.4
3.1
2.9
4.0
17.74
12.07
12.14
tr.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
tr.
tr.
1.3
1.4
1.31
5.02
8.94
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
r.
r.
r.
r.
r.
o.o
0.0
0.0
tr.
0.0
tr.
tr.
tr.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
300O
0.5
0.1
0.5
2.7
3.1
3.94
3.34
4.25
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.7
14.49
9.39
8.49
tr.
tr.
tr.
tr.
If.
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
tr.
1.1
tr.
1.2
2.81
tr.
3.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
tr.
0.0
0.0
0.0
tr.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
1. 1
tr.
1.0
2.51
0.0
3.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
P«ug«ot Pftrtta*
Z04D 6-247
1.7
0.6
1.7
2.2
2.4
9.30
4.44
4.04
7.1
6.4
6.6
8.0
38.13
27.76
24.20
tr.
tr.
tr.
tr.
tr.
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.7
7.57
5.08
4.77
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.6
2. 1
19.98
10.93
9.37
t .
t .
t .
t .
t .
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
2.1
3.1
4.5
5.9
24.43
13.58
14.96
10.1
8.5
13.1
19.1
51.31
54.75
60.16
tr.
tr.
tr.
tr.
0.7
0.0
0.0
4.07
3.7
1.6
2.7
3.1
4.6
14.89
6.59
12.91
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
1.9
3.0
4.5
7.3
17. S5
18.80
21.67
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.8
2.4
9.56
9.90
5.28
tr.
0.0
tr.
0.0
«r.
0.0
0.0
0.0
(1)
•-'air diluted CVS itmplir concentration
(2'lr»c« m««Q« «i.35 ppm or <0. 15 mj/km
169
-------
It is interesting to look at the effect of driving cycle on the emission
rate as well as the car make/model for each hydrocarbon. In some cases,
such as methane and ethylene, the greater the average speed and duty
cycle, the lower the mg/km. The other hydrocarbons were all in the
trace to very low ppm, making these g/km values extremely low. In the
case of trace concentrations, <0. 05 ppm, the mg/km values were assigned
zero.
As with the heavy duty diesels, the methane fraction of the exhaust
hydrocarbons is very low, almost negligible. For additional analyses,
the mg/km methane values may be compared to the FID-HC g/km values
listed earlier on Table 23. For example, the Mercedes 240D 1975 FTP
HC rate was 0.18 g/km or 180 mg/km. The same vehicle, same test
procedure yielded 5.57 mg/km of methane.
6. Aldehydes
The DNPH method was used to measure a variety of aldehydes in
the exhaust of the five LD diesels. Measurements were made during the
odor testing steady states as well as during various transient driving cycles.
a. Aldehydes - Simultaneous with Odor Panel
Table 40 is a listing of the various aldehyde concentrations obtained
during the seven steady state conditions. Recall that the three replicate
runs made on a given day for each of the seven conditions were accumulated
in a single wet collector. Thus each value shown is based on a single com-
posite observation considered representative of what the odor panel and other
emission measurements were made from.
The most important observation from Table 40 is the substantial,
about 8 to 40 fold higher formaldehyde values for the Peugeot 204D relative
to the other three passenger cars. In many instances, the Perkins 6-247
engine matched the Peugeot 204D such as during the 2 percent intermediate
speed and high speed conditions and almost during the idle. While all three
Mercedes cars had essentially identical aldehydes under practically all
test conditions, the Peugeot 204D and to a lesser extent the Perkins 6-247
had much higher acetaldehyde, acetone, isobutanal, crotanal, hexanal,
and benzaldehyde. The differences in the various aldehydes relative to
the Mercedes diesel may explain why the odor from both the Peugeot 204D
and Perkins 6-247 was higher as well as differences in particulate and
is consistent with other differences and trends already discussed.
b. Aldehydes - Transient Cycles
Table 41 has both concentration and mass emission rate in mg per
km for each car, each driving cycle and each of the various aldehydes
analyzed. The wet collector served to integrate the exhaust sample through-
out each test cycle. As with the NRHC, the dilute concentration values
are not as informative as the mg/km calculated emission rates.
170
-------
TABLE 40. ALDEHYDES FROM FIVE LD DIESEL VEHICLES OBTAINED DURING
STEADY -STATE ODOR TEST
(all values in
Condition
Aldehydt
Intermediate Formaldehyde
Speed, 2% Acetaldehyde
Power Acetone
Isobutanal
Crotonal
Hexanal
Benzaldehyde
Intermediate Formaldehyde
Speed, 50% Acetaldehyde
Power Acetone
Isobutanal
Crotonal
Hexanal
Benzaldehyde
Intermediate Formaldehyde
Speed, 100% Acetaldehyde
Power Acetone
Isobutanal
Crotonal
Hexanal
Benzaldehyde
High Speed,
2?c Power
High Speed,
50% Power
High Speed,
100% Power
Idle Speed
No Power
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Isobutanal
Crotonal
Hexanal
Benzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Isobutanal
Crotonal
Hexanal
Benzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Isobutanal
Cortonal
Hexanal
Benzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Isobutanal
Crotonal
Hexanal
Benzaldehyde
Mercedes
220D Comprex
1341
635
565
353
530
106
0
Mercedes
240D
1553
883
1024
2930
812
494
0
Mercedes
300D
1624
530
6
0
0
0
0
Peugeot
204D
29087
8825
5295
530
918
282
212
Perkins
6-247
26404
11014
8225
6495
4942
2859
3495
353
212
106
0
318
177
0
530
177
106
0
565
212
0
4060
1412
353
0
353
177
177
530
353
318
388
706
71
0
459
177
106
0
953
106
0
2330
1059
530
0
530
353
0
459
530
530
1483
353
247
0
459
706
847
1341
318
318
212
1165
494
424
1200
530
600
0
494
530
671
1800
635
671
0
459
459
353
918
671
530
353
2542
1271
1306
3001
635
177
0
459
106
35
0
212
71
0
353
106
0
0
212
0
0
812
424
353
141
706
71
2648
459
212
35
0
318
106
0
1236
671
106
318
635
212
1553
2153
847
388
388
671
106
0
15461
5825
6495
2542
212
353
635
13273
6425
3883
635
353
1624
24569
9637
6036
741
1694
2118
0
14297
4589
4060
883
212
565
141
21639
6425
6648
0
777
353
1165
41901
13308
12884
1236
2365
5154
0
2789
1447
706
2965
0
388
494
5436
1236
282
1094
812
671
1694
18144
7095
3495
2542
1059
812
953
1694
883
459
1659
424
177
530
7600
2083
459
635
318
177
2113
24604
8154
7201
5825
1836
1836
565
171
-------
TABLE 41. ALDEHYDES FROM FIVE LD DIESEL VEHICLES OPERATED OVER
VARIOUS TRANSIENT DRIVING CYCLES
Aldehyde
Formaldehyde
Cycle
FTP
SET
FET
Units
Ug/m3*
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Mercedes
220D Comprex
214
2.52
210
1.50
301
1.55
Mercedes
240D
337
3.96
432
3.08
692
3.57
Mercedes
300D
323
3.80
829
5.81
766
3.95
Peugeot
204D
956
11.25
1192
8.50
1505
7.76
Perkins
6-247
3244
38. 17
1459
10.4
5332
27.5
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Iso-butanal
Crotonal
Hexanal
B enzald ehyd e
Cycle
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
FTP
SET
FET
Units
Ug/m3*
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
yg/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
yg/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
yg/m3
mg/km
yg/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
yg/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
Ug/m3
mg/km
85
1.00
0
0
0
0
712
8.37
1424
10. 15
836
4.31
942
11.08
2239
15.96
1532
7.90
201
2.37
396
2.82
339
1.75
40
0.47
254
1.81
301
1.55
0
0
0
0
0
0
96
1. 13
77
0. 55
231
1.19
125
1.47
419
2. 99
477
2.46
186
2.19
502
3.58
826
4.26
57
0.67
318
2.27
293
1.51
0
0
18
0.13
130
0.67
0
0
321
2.29
388
2.00
94
1. 11
0
0
0
0
800
9.41
916
6.53
281
1.45
0
0
0
0
291
1.50
99
1.17
164
1.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
0.45
0
0
0
0
237
1.22
364
4.28
526
3.75
785
4.05
256
3.01
222
1. 58
894
4.61
744
8.75
917
6. 54
1536
7.92
349
4.10
386
2.75
611
3.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
893
10.50
1368
9.75
551
2.84
451
5. 31
1736
12. 38
2088
10.77
1105
13.0
2378
16.95
1446
7.46
428
5.04
383
2.73
1357
7.00
0
0
226
1.61
165
0.85
500
5.88
0
0
215
1. 11
*CVS - dilated sample
172
-------
It is interesting to note the generally consistent formaldehyde and
acetaldehyde values of the three Mercedes cars, regardless of test cycle,
while the Peugeot 204D and Perkins 6-247 were quite substantially higher.
The Perkins, under most tests was even higher than the Peugeot. Quite
variable results were noted for acetone, isobutanal, crotonal. In many
instances, no hexanal or benzaldehyde was measured.
The Mercedes 240D tended to have lowest FTP acetone and crotonal.
For many of the aldehydes measured, the results were inconsistent for
the Mercedes 240D and 300D. This is contrary to what might have been
expected since the two engines are very similar except for number of
cylinders. This was the first attempt to measure aldehydes by the
DNPH method from diesel cars during transient driving via dilute CVS
exhaust sampling. Repeatability and precision of the aldehyde analyses
presented has not been qualified at this writing.
Most important from Table 41 and the aldehyde measurements is
the apparent substantially higher formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rates
from the two most odorous, highest hydrocarbon vehicles tested, the
Peugeot 204D and Perkins 6-247.
E. Vehicle Noise and Performance
The final areas of evaluation of the five diesel powered vehicles
involved noise and acceleration performance measurements.
1. Noise Results
Table 42 is a summary of all the vehicle noise measurements made.
For more complete, individual run sound level measurements, please
refer to Appendix L. Please note that for the Perkins 6-247 powered
I-H pick-up truck, the accelerations were made in third instead of second
gear with the four speed manual transmission. First gear is rarely used
in everyday driving.
With the Mercedes 220 Comprex and 240 diesel cars, a resonant.
low frequency noise was noted inside each car at or near a constant speed
of 48.3 km/hr. On the 220 Comprex, the rather strong resonant sound
occurred at very slight acceleration from constant 48. 3 km/hr while in
the 240 model, the particular sound was prominent during constant 48. 3
km/hr. The intensity and character of the noise in the Mercedes 240D
was noticeably moderated at deceleration from 51.5 to 48.3 km/hr.
All four passenger cars may be termed "quiet" in terms of the
SAE J986 exterior drive-by ranging from 70.5 to 72.5 dBA. The same
is true during the exterior drive-by at 48.3 km/hr. The Peugeot 204D
was slightly above the other three cars at 63 dBA versus 59 to 59.8 dBA.
173
-------
TABLE 42. SUMMARY OF SOUND LEVEL, MEASUREMENTS FOR
FIVE DIESEL POWERED LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES - dBA SCALE
Mercedes Mercedes Peugeot Mercedes Perkins
220D Comp. 240D 204 300D 6-247
Date Tested 7-8-75 7-9-75 7-9-75 7-28-75 2-2-76
SAE J986a
Accel Driveby
Exterior 71.5 70.5 72.5 71.8 79<3)
Interior
Blower On*1) 82.5 78.5 80 79 80. 5(3)
Off 77.8 75 79.8 76.5 80.
48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Exterior 59 59.8 63 59.5 65
Interior
Blower On(D 78 81 71.8 75.8 72.3
Off 73.8 80.8 69.5 63.8 70.5
Engine Idle
Exterior(2) 67.5 65.5 69.5 67 72.5
Interior
Blower On*1) 75.5 70.5 67.5 68.5 66
Off 54.8 53. 5 58 54. 5 63.5
Windows Up, Fresh Air Blower on High
(2>At3.05m
(3)Accel in 3rd gear
174
-------
As would be expected, the Mercedes 240D and 300D gave almost identical
sound levels. Apparently the 5 cylinder engine has little influence on the
vehicle noise. Slightly higher levels were found during the acceleration
and exterior idle.
The interior measurements were greatly influenced by whether or
not the air circulating blower was on (in its "high" position) or not. This
blower continues to dominate the measured noise level inside the vehicle.
The Peugeot 204D interior acceleration driveby seemed the least affected
by the blower. In all, the four diesel passenger cars had low noise levels,
confirming that which is obvious to those who own or drive these cars.
The Perkins 6-247 powered IH pick-up truck does not compare
with the four diesel passenger cars. All exterior noise measurements
were higher than the four passenger cars. The Perkins powered truck
was on the order of 7 dBA higher during the SAE driveby acceleration,
3 dBA higher during the 48. 3 km/hr cruise and about 5 dBA higher
during idle. Interior measurements were not all that different from
the four cars. The one exception was the interior rating, blower off
and during the SAE driveby.
A direct comparison of the Perkins pick-up to the other four pas-
senger cars is not justified since the Perkins engine was merely installed
in an existing pick-up truck and no attempt made to develop a total vehicle
as has been the case with the automobiles. The noise levels, though
comparable to gasoline powered passenger cars in dBA intensity can,
under certain conditions such as idle, have a definitely different noise
quality. One example was the Comprex equipped Mercedes 220D car
which had a distinctive high pitch whine similar to the sound of a vacuum
cleaner. The whine, though noticeable, was not considered objectionable
or annoying.
2. Performance Results
Although not required by the project, it was felt that some limited
information on vehicle acceleration performance might be of value. There-
fore, at the conclusion of the project, acceleration times were obtained
both directions over a level road course. The results of these tests made
to determine time to go from 0 to 96.5 km/hr (0-60 mph), 0-64.4 km/hr
(0-40 mph) and 32. 2-96.5 km/hr (20-60) were obtained.
Table 43 lists the average of three separate accelerations in each
direction for the five vehicles. The 1556 kg Mercedes 220D equipped with
the Comprex gave the best acceleration performance of the three medium
size passenger cars. Others with the same weight, size and shape to the
220D are the Mercedes 240D (1497 kg) and 300D (1588 kg). The 226D size
engine has the smallest displacement of the three. The Comprex makes
the car perform better than the other two.
175
-------
TABLE 43. ACCELERATION TIMES FOR FIVE DIESEL POWERED LDV'S
(Windows up, air conditioner off)
Vehicle
Direction
(1) 0-40 mph
(2) 0-60 mph
20-60 mph
0-64.4km/hr<1)
Time, Sec
Mercedes
220D
Comprex
Mercedes
240D
Mercedes
300D
Peugeot
204D
Perkins
6-247
N
S
Average
N
S
Average
N
S
Average
N
S
Average
N
S
Average
8.9
8.8
8.9
13.4
13.2
13.3
10.8
10.8
10.8
14.3
13.3
13.8
12.4
12.1
12.3
0-96.5 km/hr(2)
Time, Sec
26,
31,
28.7
32.2-96.5 km/hr(3)
Time, Sec
15.0
15.2
15.1
19.6
19.3
19.5
-------
The 240D had a standard (manual) transmission, same as the 220D
Comprex. The 300D was equipped with automatic transmission. The
additional displacement (5 cylinders instead of 4) made the 300D outperform
the 240D even though it was equipped with automatic transmission.
The Peugeot 204D, at 953 kg, was the lightest of the five vehicles.
It also had the smallest diesel engine of the five. Its acceleration perfor-
mance was somewhat poorer than the other three passenger cars during
the 0-96. 5 km/hr and 32. 2-96. 5 km/hr trials. The 0-64. 4 km/hr accel
time was about the same as the Mercedes 240D. Surprisingly, the Perkins
6-247, in a 1982 kg pick-up truck had acceleration times slightly better than
the Mercedes 240D but not as good as the Mercedes 300D. Its ability to
accelerate was far superior to the Peugeot 204D though twice the weight
and with a larger, less aerodynamic frontal area.
The field trials shed some additional light on the ability of diesel
powered light duty vehicles to perform. Wide open throttle accelerations
such as those made in this series, are only one indicator of vehicle road
performance. They do give a relative comparison, especially where
factors of vehicle weight, transmission, power plant size and vehicle
shape are considered.
177
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Springer, Karl J. , "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke - Part I, " Final Report to the U. S. Public
Health Service, Contract 86-66-93, March 1967.
2. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C. , "An Investigation of
Diesel Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke, " National Petroleum
Refiners Association, FL 66-46 presented at the Fuels and
Lubricants Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1966.
3. Springer, Karl J. , "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke, Part II, " Final Report, No. AR-644, Contract
PH-86-67-7Z, February 1968.
4. Stahman, Ralph C. , Kittredge, George, and Springer, Karl J. ,
"Smoke and Odor Control for Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses, "
SAE Paper No. 680443, Mid-Year Meeting, Detroit, Michigan,
May 20-24, 1968. Also SAE Transactions.
5. Springer, Karl J. , "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke - Part III, " Final Report to the U. S. Public
Health Service, Contract PH 22-68-23, October 1969.
6. Springer, Karl J. and Harry E. Dietzmann, "An Investigation of
Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part IV," Final Report
to the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract PH 22-68-23,
April 1971.
7. Springer, Karl J. and Charles T. Hare, "Four Years of Diesel
Odor and Smoke Control Technology Evaluations - A Summary,"
ASME Paper No. 69-WA/APC-3, November 1969-
8. Dietzmann, Harry E. , Springer, Karl J. , and Stahman, Ralph C. ,
"Diesel Emissions as Predictors of Observed Diesel Odor," SAE
Paper No. 720757, September 1972. Also SAE Transactions.
9. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E. , "Diesel Exhaust
Hydrocarbon Measurement - A Flame lonization Method, "SAE
Paper No. 700106, January 1970.
10. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Emissions - Part V, " Final Report AR-936 to Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract PH 22-68-23, April 1974.
11. Springer, Karl J., and Stahman, Ralph C. , "Control of Diesel
Exhaust Odors", Paper 26 presented at New York Academy of
Sciences Conference on Odors: Evaluation, Utilization and Control,
New York, October 1-3, 1973.
178
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (Cont'd.)
12. Springer, Karl J. , "Field Demonstration of General Motors
Environmental Improvement Proposal (EIP) - a Retrofit Kit
for GMC City Buses." Final Report to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under Contract No. PH-22-68-23, December 1972.
13. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C. , "Diesel Emission
Control Through Retrofits, " SAE Paper 750205 presented at
Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit,
February 24-28, 1975.
14. Springer, Karl J. , "Emissions From Diesel and Stratified Charge
Powered Cars, " Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. PH 22-68-23, EPA Report No. EPA-
460/3-75-001-a, December 1974.
15. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C. , "Emissions and Economy
of Four Diesel Cars," SAE Paper 750332 presented at Automotive
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, February 24-28,
1975.
16. Springer, Karl J. , "Emissions from a Gasoline- and Diesel-
Powered Mercedes 220 Passenger Car," Report No. AR-813,
Contract No. CPA 70-44, June 1971.
17. Springer, Karl J. , and Ashby, H. Anthony, "The Low Emission
Car for 1975 - Enter the Diesel, " Paper No. 739133, Intersociety
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, August 1973.
18. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T. , "A Field Survey to
Determine Public Opinion of Diesel Engine Exhaust Odor, "
Final Report to the National Air Pollution Control Administration
under Contract PH 22-68-36, February 1970.
19. Hare, Charles T. , and Springer, Karl J. , "Public Response to
Diesel Engine Exhaust Odors, " Final Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. CPA 70-44, April 1971.
20. Hare, Charles T. , Springer, Karl J. , Somers, Joseph H. , and
Huls, Thomas A. , "Public Opinion of Diesel Odor, " SAE Paper
No. 740214, presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress,
Detroit Michigan, February 25 - March 1, 1974.
21. "Guide to Reduction of Smoke and Odor from Diesel-Powered
Vehicles," Office of Air Programs Publications No. AP-81,
Environmental Protection Agency, September 1971.
179
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (Cont'd.)
22. Springer, Karl J. and Ludwig, Allen C. /'Documentation of the
Guide to Good Practice for Minimum Odor and Smoke from Diesel-
Powered Vehicles, " Final Report, Contract CPA 22-69-71, Novem-
ber 1969.
23. Springer, Karl J., White, John T. , and Domke, Charles J. ,
"Emissions from In-Use 1970-1971 Diesel-Powered Trucks
and Buses, " SAE Paper 741006 presented at Automobile
Engineering Meeting, Toronto, Canada, October 21-25, 1974.
24. Kennedy, Gordon J. , White, John T. , Springer, Karl J. , and
Ing alls, Melvin N. , "Exhaust Emissions from Heavy -Duty Trucks
Tested on a Road Course and by Dynamometer, " SAE Paper
750901 presented at the Automobile Engineering Meeting,
Detroit, Michigan, October 13-17, 1975.
25. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J. , "Exhaust Emissions
from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal
Combustion Engines," Final Report Part 5 (Heavy Duty Farm,
Construction, and Industrial Engines) to the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. EHS 70-108, EPA Report
No. APTD-1494, October 1973.
26. Eisele, E. , Hiereth, H. and Polz, H. , "Experience with Comprex
Pressure Wave Supercharger on the High-Speed Passenger Car
Diesel Engine, " SAE Paper 750334 presented at the Automotive
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, Feb-
ruary 24-28, 1975.
27. Hare, Charles T. , Springer, Karl J. , and Bradow, Ronald L. ,
"Fuel and Attitive Effects on Diesel Particulate Emissions -
Development and Demonstration of Methodology, "SAE Paper
760130 presented at the 1976 Automotive Engineering Congress
and Exposition, February 23-27, 1976, Detroit, Michigan.
28. Bascom, R. C. and Hass, G. C. , "A Status Report on the
Development of the 1973 California Diesel Emissions Standards,"
SAE Paper No. 700671, National West Coast Meeting, Los
Angeles, August 24-27, 1970.
29. Bureau of Mines-Petroleum Products Survey No. 82 titled
"Diesel Fuel Oils, 1973" and dated November 1973.
30. Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 108, June 4, 1968
180
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (Cont'd)
31. Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 40, February 27, 1971.
32. Federal Register. Volume 38, Number 151, Part III, August
7, 1973.
33. Turk, Amos, "Selection and Training of Judges for Sensory
Evaluation of the Intensity and Character of Diesel Exhaust
Odors," U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service, 1967.
34. Black, F. M. , High, L. E. , and Sigsby, J. E. , "Methodology
for Assignment of a Hydrocarbon Photochemical Reactivity
Index for Emissions from Mobile Sources. " Final Report to
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report No. EPA-
650/2-75-025, March 1975.
35. Sawicki, E. , Corey, R. C. , and Dooley, A. E. ,:Health Lab
Sci. (Suppl. 1), 56-59, 1970.
36. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel
Engine Exhuast, Final Report, July 1969, CRC Project CAPE-7-68,
HEW Contract PH 22-68-20.
37. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel
Engine Exhaust, Final Report, Jun 1970, CRC Project CAPE-7-68
HEW Contract No. CPA 22-69-63.
38. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine
Exhaust, Final Report, June 1971, CRC Project CAPE 7-68,
EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-18.
39. Analysis of the Odorous Compounds in Diesel Engine Exhaust,
Final Report, June 1972, CRC Project CAPE 7-68, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-0087.
40. Levins, P. L. and Kendall, D. A. , "Application of Odor Tech-
nology to Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation, " CRC Project
CAPE-7-68, Contract No. 68-02-0561, September 1973.
41. Gross, George P. , "The Effect of Fuel and Vehicle Variables
on Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Phenol Emissions, "
SAE Paper 720210 presented at the Automotive Engineering
Congress, January 1972.
42. Gross, George P. , "Automotive Emissions of Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons," SAE Paper 740564, September 1973.
181
-------
APPENDIX A
SELECTED TABLES AND FIGURES FROM
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SURVEY NO. 82
"DIESEL FUEL OILS, 1973"
BUREAU OF MINES
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NOVEMBER 1973
-------
TABU l.~a\mmrr of Tn» C-B fu»l«
00
fail IUTW. 19T3
>
tN)
Otocraphle dlitrlbutloa of Ala
Dlatrtet* vital*, ration
Additional dlitrleta
T»lt
nub point, *r
Colon
ASM
Vlieoiltgr it 100* n
Saykolt UBlnml, Me.
aoud point, 'r
taar polM, 'r
Sulfur contact, vn
AalllBt point, *r
Carbon nmltm on lot, vtj
Aah, vtt
Cttam nuntar
OlltllUtlon tan*, >,
volvM raeovaradt
or
Jfl*
End point
Ml ftUll
AmN
093
D1500
D15<
oea
D77
D149
D6U
DUh
tMe
D613
066
taaUra ration
A,B,C
38
32.3 41.4 47.9
122 - 194
10.5 - LI.O
430 - *!)
1.50 1.90 3.42
32.3 37.3
<-66 - 20
<-65 - 0
0.011 0.100 0.34
130. 5 149.1 178.0
0.00 0.076 0.19
0.000 0.001 0.007
43.0 49.8 65.3
318 352 412
350 394 460
407 445 530
444 506 604
490 545 645
0
15
35.4 41.0 42.7
126 - 176
-
•30 - 4j|
1.50 1.85 2.92
- 32.1 35.7
-60 - 6
<-65 - -5
0.01 0.050 0.222
138.0 146.9 160.6
0.005 0.073 0.19
0.000 < 0,001 0.002
43.0 47.1 54.6
324 347 387
364 388 442
411 437 314
465 497 590
499 533 637
Central nflon
i,r,a
A,B,C,D,I,I,J,K,l
34
32.3 40.9 44.7
122 - 194
L0.5 - 1.0
«30 - 417
1.45 1.93 3.05
32.4 36.1
-56 - 10
-60 - -5
0.015 0.130 0.464
130.5 146.8 160.6
0.03 0.081 0.19
0.000 0.001 0.007
42.3 49.1 54.6
324 353 412
350 393 460
408 446 514
465 510 590
498 549 637
Kockjr Mountain ration
I.I.J.K
0,1, F,0 L,M R 0,P
13
35.0 40,9 43.8
122 - 176
10. 5 - LI.O
••30 - '20
1.50 1.93 3.05
32.4 36.1
-62 - 10
-65 - -5
0.001 0.112 0.464
138.0 148.3 160.6
0.00 0.058 0.090
0.000 0.001 0.002
39.0 48.6 54.6
320 352 398
360 393 442
404 449 514
472 516 590
496 556 634
Uutom n«lon
L,M,»,0,P
14
•33.4 42.7 47.6
122 - 178
L0.5 - 11.0
•00 . .18
1.44 1.77 3.01
36.0
-62 - 14
-65 - 5
0.001 0.089 0.38
139.9 147.9 161.9
0.01 0.055 0.120
0.000 0.001 0.005
39.0 50.8 65.3
320 350 408
360 387 454
404 438 525
456 498 574
496 537 606
DltMl fttil rarnj, 1978
Oaofraphle distribution of dl.Ml fual*
Dlitrleta vlthla ration
Additional 41itrl
rVW M1M, >
Carte* mliw oa 101, «tt
Ail, «n
Ottaa. rater
Mltlllitloa te^, *r.
•olm monwrttt
IOC
JOl
901
In) pout
BSS7
D93
D1500
0156
OWf>
tee
B97
DU9
Mil
DM]
066
laiUm ration
A,1,C
o,i,r,o
35
34.1 41.8 45.0
120 . 206
l.°>3 : fil
1.45 I.9J 3.41
32.3 373
-60 - 0
0.0004 0.083 0.32
134.3 150.5 IK.O
0 00 0.065 0.20
0.000 0.001 0.005
44.0 51 0 65.0
319 356 408
360 394 460
408 445 530
444 508 608
490 546 648
Soutaarn nalon
A,a,C,t,r,0,I,J
16
31.9 40.0 43.6
128 - 172
tO.5 - 1.0
•30 - .18
145 2.ll" 337
330 372
flu -5
0.009 0.068 0 23
131.5 146.0 155.5
0.00 0.072 0.13
0.000 0.000 0.007
40.0 48.1 59.4
336 354 400
366 403 458
405 458 543
461 518 606
Cantral rtflon
A,B,C,B,I,I,J,K
33.8 41.0 44.4
124 - 206
10.5 - 1.0
-30 - .17
1.50 1.90 2 98
31.3 35.9
-40 - .5
0.01 0.133 0.46
134.2 146.1 155 0
0.00 0.075 0.20
0.000 0.001 0 00}
43.3 49.8 59.4
316 352 408
362 393 458
403 446 543
462 510 593
Htxkjr Mountain
8,I,J,IC
t,H,»,0,P
35.4 41.2
124
^ :
1.46 1.89
32.2
-70
-60
0.004 0,113
135.2 1469
0.04 0.069
0.000 < 0.001
42.0 494
311 355
345 395
394 446
459 508
ration
J.K
44.4
174
1.0
•21
2 98
35.9
4
-5
0.4«
154.0
0. II
0.002
59.4
404
54)
593
VciUrn ration
rLoVi°A
18
36.4 41.2 44 9
128 - 180
L0.5 - 2.5
•30 - .17
1.40 2.06 350
331 37.6
-70 - 16
-65 . 10
0004 0.075 0.36
134.0 148.6 158 9
0.01 0.072 0.15
0.000 .0.001 0.001
40.8 498 566
311 345 382
345 393 457
394 453 535
459 512 609
-------
' at m* T-T fu«l»
, 19T3
OaccraFBle alatrltutloa of 41*
Mttrlcta »1U>U rtflaa
Muter of fotlj
ttat
amrlty, 'API
nun »oi«t, T
color, tent
VUeoilty it 100' F:
Saybolt Itelvaraal, MO.
Cloud pout, T
roar pout, *r
•ulfur eoatut, va
AallU* poUt, T
Cartom raaldua at lot, vtt
Au, vtt
CtUnt rator
Dlttlllatlan taqi, "ft
volun neovtradt
lot
tnl petit
Ml fUtl*
AMI
tew
P93
D15OO
D86
BWOO
D97
DU9
Dill
1*1?
B613
D86
A.l.C
57
HU1M '-tr-*- ^.i—
31.5 36.1 44.7
122 - 194
10.5 - 1.3
1.50 2.56 3.54
34.5 37.7
-42 - 24
-60 - 13
0.02 0.192 0.50
122.5 142.7 178.0
0.00 0.109 0.33
0.000 0.002 0.06
39.0 46.9 63.1
309 366 412
364 423 466
408 493 533
465 572 628
507 418 698
toutham ration
D
A,S,C,t,P,0,X,J
30
MUUMAnm* NulB»
31.5 33.8 42.5
128 - 190
L0.5 - 1.3
1.50 2.73 3.77
35.1 38.4
<-26 - 12
-60 - 5
0.02 0.235 1.1
126.0 143.1 140.6
0.01 0.102 0.237
0.000 < 0.001 0.004
40.1 47.0 36.0
324 368 412
364 425 466
417 497 534
467 579 648
507 624 692
onral racloa
i,r,o
7i
MU1M Ann* NulM
X.O 36.6 44.7
122 - 226
1.0.5 - 2.0
1.50 2.61 3.77
34.7 38.4
<-50 - 16
-50 - 10
0.002 0.236 0.76
122.3 143.7 172.0
0.015 0.110 0.33
0.000 0.001 0.009
39.0 48.6 56.0
326 377 463
366 425 483
408 493 535
465 571 648
500 613 692
ftocfcy Maintain ration
1,1, J,K
D,I,r,0,L,N,*,0
38
oauua Aoraca Mulu
30.0 36.6 44.3
136 - 206
10.5 - L2.0
1.66 2.67 3.90
34.9 38.9
-40 - 30
-50 - 25
0.02 0.251 0648
130.0 1483 160.6
0.00 0.091 0.237
0.000 0.001 0.006
40.6 48.7 54.8
341 378 436
376 429 489
428 493 544
484 574 636
509 619 700
L,N,l,0,r
12
MlKlflM Attract ^*1r"T
30.0 36 7 44 7
110 - 216
L0.5 - 2.5
1.27 2.79 1.25
35.3 400
<-70 - 38
<-70 - 30
0.003 0.230 0.49
127.3 1465 160.0
0.04 Ol97 015
0.000 0.002 0.006
41.0 48.7 63.7
319 375 450
346 430 489
389 498 545
455 580 626
489 624 670
, 1978
Otodmplile Olrtrlbutloa of iltMl futU
Dlitrlet* vlthlB mlon
AddltloBkl ^lijtrletc
•wbtr of tutlM
l^tt
grotty, 'in
nuh polat, *?
Color, ACTM
VUcoolty at 100* Fl
Untmtle, ct
Saykolt Iklnrul, MC.
OMA pout, >
roar pout, *T
Sulfur canunt, vtl
AnllU. poUt, *r
Crnrton mlaut OB lot, vtl
JUh, vtl
C*UM aa^tr
Dittlllatloi tMV, 'T,
nliMi rteottradi
or
101
501
901
mt pout
jmm
ten
»3
D15OO
DM5
168
aey»
wn
D129
0611
Klk
tkte
D£13
D66
luum niloa
A,B,C
DfKjFf 0
62
HlnlHM ^Tfr~^r tf^ilmiir
31.8 36.8 47.5
120 - 206
10.5 - 2.0
1.48 2.60 3.80
34.6 38.6
-52 - 20
-50 - 10
0.005 0.168 0.520
111.0 145.4 180.0
0.00 0.092 0.20
0.000 0.001 0.006
40.1 49.0 65.0
320 370 412
364 424 471
ft 3 28
494 613 654
Sovttera rtilott
D
t.N.H.O
37
ft)pl»^i fti^mt Hrilnir
31.8 35.7 41.7
138 - 220
L0.5 - LI. 5
1.58 2.78 3,99
3S.2 39.2
-42 - 18
-40 - 5
0.018 0.194 1.1
125.0 145.4 160.0
0.00 0.104 0.23
0.000 <0.001 0.004
40.0 47.1 39.4
320 372 430
386 430 489
422 502 548
463 578 646
502 623 696
Ctatnl rtfloa
I,r,o
ABCDIIJC
'L,H',*.O'
67
Mlnl^rY Awi*cB u»fM«
32.8 36.8 44.1
128 - 224
L0.5 - L2.0
1.30 2.58 3.81
34.6 38.1
-50 - 20
-55 - 10
0.007 0.229 0.70
111.0 145.9 171.0
0.00 0.106 0.23
0.000 0.001 0.006
40.1 49.0 59.4
325 375 453
364 42S 492
tt $ 32
508 612 696
Doelqr Mountain ration
I.I.J.K
D 1 t 0 L Mil 0
35
Hlnlvm A^raftt tffl1*^
33.0 36.8 43.4
140 - 220
L0.5 - L2.0
1.68 2.66 3.99
34.8 39.2
-38-32
-50 - 25
0.009 0.243 0.50
131.7 147.3 169.5
0.00 0.093 0.23
0.000 0.001 0.01
42.9 49.0 39.4
324 380 430
387 431 489
$ $ a*
498 6)8 667
Wcitcra nflon
L,N,I,O.P
D*ltF|0*l>I|J|K
32
•""1™"T **"f*l* *ta»i""
31.2 36.4 44.5
130 - 238
L0.5 - 3.5
1.31 2.94 4.25
35.8 40.0
-62 - 36
-65 - 30
0.005 0.218 0.43
134.0 149.2 160.5
0.01 0.092 020
0.000 0.001 0.01
40.8 49.1 62.5
315 378 490
352 438 522
3 it? 3?
504 626 687
-------
I960 Bl b2 *3 164 IBS B6 57 '68 59 '70 '71 "72 '73
2.70
260
2.50
^ 240
2 ^30
< 220
«
2.00
1.90
'.BO
170
160
1.50
1.40
0.50
KINEMATIC VISCOSITY
I960 '61 62 '63 B4 55 '66 *7 '68 59 '70 '71 72 '73
620
610
600
590
580
570
560
550
540
530
520
510
•Wl
END POINT
L^~.
1 — H
>x
k=±:
!±=!
?^_
X
> — •
F^*
^N
-
_
IE
£
_
*
50
.20
a
z
u
u
cc
•x.
55
54
53
52
SI
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
SULFUR CONTENT
580
u.570
-i
f J:
^
^
FIGURE 2.-Trends of Some Properties of Type C-B Diesel Fuel Oils.
A-4
-------
I960tel '62 '63 B4 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73
KINEMATIC VISCOSITY
I960 '61 '62 '63 '64 165 '66 t7 168 '69 "70 '71 '72 73
350
3 40
330
320
J-3.10
o
03.00
^2.90
2.80
ui
^270
»-
!2 260
t-
52.50
o
2.40
2.30
2.20
210
0.50
7OO
680
670
660
650
64O
63O
620
610
600
590
*nn
END POINT
^V
^
^^•B
1
B— -
• .,
-. •
^
fc—
^"
u
a.
40
30
20
10
.00
SULFUR CONTENT
64O
63O
u.
*-620
tn
m
er 610
5 60O
I 590
jf 580
2 570
o
£ 560
J550
^540
a
530
5ZO
90% POINT
a
5
3
•:
f-
kll
U
56
55
54
53
52
5!
50
te
47
4{
45
i.:
CETANE NUMBER
^
" ^
- — -
**«i
•^^
•*=Z,
' ,
^
*-- —,
r *
\
480
470
460
450
440
430
420
410
400
390
380
•vrn
IO% POINT
— •*
*-*~^
^
' i
FIGURE 3-Trends of Some Properties of Type T-T Diesel Fuel Oils.
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
CHEMICAL - ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES
-------
OXYGENATED COMPOUNDS IN AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST-GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHIC PROCEDURE
Fred Stump
1. Principles and Applicability
1. 1 This method is applicable for the characterization of oxygenated
compounds in automobile exhaust.
Aldehydes have been shown (1) to be about as photochemically reactive
as olefins. The aldehydes are believed to be contributors to eye irritation
as well as odors that are common in polluted atmospheres.
Analysis of exhaust samples from catalytic and non-catalytic cars
show that formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone/acrolein/propionaldehyde,
crotonaldehyde and benzaldehyde are consistently present in vehicle emis-
sions withiso-butyraldehyde and hexanaldehyde being intermittently observed.
With the present analytical equipment setup acetone, acrolein, and prop-
ionaldehyde have the same chromatographic relative retention time. Since
the components in this time zone are not resolved, all effluents occuring at
this retention time are calculated as acetone.
1. 2 The vehicular exhaust is first diluted in a constant volume
sampler system and then a portion of this dilute exhaust is pulled through a
manifold sampling system. The sample is taken through two impingers
in series each of which contains 40 ml of absorbing reagent. The absorbing
reagent is a solution of 2, 4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine in 2N HC1. The carbonyl
compounds present in the sample stream react with the absorbing reagent
forming soluble and insoluble derivatives which are removed by filtration
and extraction techniques. These separated derivatives are then dried,
and the soluble and precipitated portions are recombined prior to analysis.
A single gas chromatographic analysis is then made to characterize the
combined sample.
2. Range and Sensitivity
The mechanics of the method (sampling volumes, extraction tech-
niques, and analytical procedure) were designed around the established
dilution (CVS) system and then set-up manifold sampler. The analytical
procedure has been shown to have a total recovery of better than 95% when
the effluent concentrations are in the range of 0. 01 to 30 parts per million.
The limits of detectability as well as the range can be easily ad-
justed to satisfy all measurement conditions that have been encountered
up to the present time.
B-2
-------
3. Interferences
No significant interferences in the method have been detected.
4. Precision, Accuracy and Stability
4. 1 Precision
Data obtained from 5 repetitive injections of standard derivatives
in benzene has shown the maximum deviation to be 0. 8% for benzaldehyde
and a minimum deviation of 0. 3% for formaldehyde.
4. 2 Accuracy
The data obtained from a standard mix of derivatives in absorbing
reagent solution (to simulate actual sample recovery conditions) indicate
a recovery in excess of 97%.
4. 3 Stability
Data from standard mixes indicate that no significant concentration
changes occurred when the solution was left standing for a period of 5 days.
5. Apparatus
5. 1 Hardware
A. Perkin-Elmer 900 Gas Chromatograph with dual columns
and flame ionization detectors with a single differential amplifier.
B. Perkin-Elmer PEP-1 Data Systems for peak area retention
time and area integration.
C. Electronik 19 Model Honeywell recorder for chromatographic
display.
D. Dual column 24 x 1/8 inch O.D. (0.093) stainless steel
tubing packed with 6. 1% Dexsil (polycarboranesiloxane) 300 GC on Chromo-
sorb G 60/80 mesh, DMCS treated and acid washed.
E. 100 ml capacity impinger type scrubbers. Ace Glass
# 7530-07.
F. 125 ml capacity vacuum and volatile liquid flasks.
G. Calibrated rotometers capable of measuring at least
3 liters per minute.
B-3
-------
H. Three fritted glass filters porosity "D", ASTM 10-20 microns
pore size. Ace Glass Company
I. Separatory funnels 125 and 250 ml capacity.
J. Separatory funnel shaker, Wrist-Action QjL) type with appropriate
funnel holders.
K. Nitrogen manifold or explosion proof constant temperature
vacuum, oven.
L. Volumetric dispensing flasks, wash bottles, graduated cylinders,
and 1 dram vials.
M. Ring stands, labels, holders, tubing, fittings and clamps needed
for equipment manipulation.
N. Pump, Cast Model 0211-P103A-G8C.
O. Heated manifold, See Figure 2.
6. Reagents
6. 1 Pentane, Spectroquality
6. 2 2, 4-Dinitrophenyhydrazine (2, 4-DNPH).
6. 2. 1 A 2N HC1 solution of reagent grade 2, 4-DNPH,
saturated at 0°C is prepared as follows:
A. To a 1-liter volumetric flask containing about 500 ml
of distilled water, add 163 ml of concentrated HC1 and 2. 5 grams of the
2, 4-DNPH crystals.
B. Dissolve crystals using either an ultrasonic generator
bath or an automatic stirrer with a teflon coated stirring bar.
C. If reagent is not to be used immediately, store the
stoppered flask in a refrigerator as near to 0°C as possible. The storage
period should not exceed 10 days. Discard solution if crystals begin to
form before this ten day period expires.
6. 2. 2 Due to contamination present in both the pentane and
2, 4-DNPH reagents it is more expedient to obtain a background by per-
forming at least duplicate extractions on the absorbing reagent in the same
manner as samples are treated. Since the contaminants vary in concentration
from lot to lot it will be necessary to obtain a background when new lots
or batches of reagents are introduced. These background values have been
found to be extremely vital in correcting sample concentrations.
B-4
-------
6. 3 Sodium Bicarbonate
7. Procedure
7. 1 Calibration
7. 1. 1 Anthracene functions as the internal standard and is
presently prepared at a concentration of 0.041580 mg/ml. The anthracene
is dissolved in spectroquality Benzene and two ml of this prepared solution
is used to dissolve the dried oxygenate derivatives prior to analysis.
7. 1. 2 Response factors for the individual carbonyls are
determined from standard concentrations of pure 2,4-DNPH derivatives
in spectroquality Benzene. The purity of the synthesized derivatives
must be checked by a melting point (2) determination before derivatives
are used to obtain the response factors. Typical response factors and
concentration repeatability for the hydrazone derivatives normally found
in exhaust are shown in Table I. The response factors for each carbonyl
is calculated from the following equation:
Response Factor (F) = Anthracene Area mg/ml Derivative
r Derivative Area mg/ml Anthracene
7. 2 Oxygenate collection and recovery
7. 2. 1 Sample Collection
A. Pipette 40 ml of reagent solution into 6 impingers.
B. The two impingers are connected in series for each
bag so that the collection efficiency can be calculated.
C. Place the assembled impingers in an ice bath.
D. Collect the samples noting the flow rate, room temp-
erature, barometric pressure and total sampling time.
E. The sample is taken through a heated manifold system
connected into the dilution system and collected under the conditions
described in the Federal Register , Volume 37, Number 221, Part II,
Wednesday, November 15, 1972, New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicles Engines.
F. The manifold collection system is electrically slaved
to the CVS dilution system so that the impinger sampling time corresponds
to Federal Cycle run times.
B-5
-------
G. Disconnect the impingers from the manifold. Partially
remove the impinger tube assembly until the stem is above the liquid and
wash any precipitates and reagent from both the internal and external
surfaces of the stem with a few milliters of distilled water. Allow the
excess water to drain from the stem and remove the impinger tube from
the absorber bottle. Let sample set at room temperature at least one hour
before proceeding to the filtration and extraction steps.
7. 2. 2 Samples containing precipitates
A. Attach the side arm of a 125 ml vacuum flask containing
a fritted glass filter to a vacuum line and apply vacuum.
B. Transfer the contents of the absorber to the fritted glass
filter assembly and rinse absorber with small portions of distilled water.
C. Wash the precipitate on the fritted filter with a few ml
of distilled water.
D. Shut off vacuum and transfer contents of vacuum flask to
a 125 ml separatory funnel. Rinse vacuum flask with small volumes of
distilled water until rinse is essentially colorless.
E. Remove filter with precipitates and put a second filter
on the flask and apply vacuum. Repeat steps B through D for each suc-
ceeding sample.
F. Dry filters under a steam of nitrogen or in a vacuum oven
at 50° C and 18" water vacuum. Set the filters with the dried precipitate
until the filtrate has been processed then proceed to step G.
G. When precipitate is dry place the filter on a dry 125 ml
vacuum flask.
H. Pour 15 ml of methylene chloride over the precipitate and
let set for approximately 30 seconds until the precipitate has dissolved.
Apply vacuum and pull the solution through the filter. Add a second 15 ml
of methylene chloride to the filter and gently swirl around to wash the
filter funnel as well as to dissolve any residual materials. Apply vacuum
to pull this second volume of methylene chloride into the vacuum flask.
I. Transfer the dissolved hydraz ines with a 15 ml washing
of methylene chloride to the 125 ml gas tight flask, containing the dried
extract corresponding to this precipitate.
J. Repeat steps A through I for each sample containing a
precipitate.
B-6
-------
7. 2. 3 Samples With No or Removed Precipitates
A. Transfer contents of absorber or vacuum flask to a
125 ml separator/ funnel washing the absorber bottle or flask with
small volumes of distilled water.
B. To the separatory funnel containing the absorbing
reagent, add 40 ml of pentane (the background of which has been
determined). Stopper the funnel and then put it into the automatic
shaker holder. Vent the funnel. Start the shaker and let it shake
for 5 minutes.
C. Stop shaker and vent funnel. Allow the two-phase
system to separate, collecting the lower phase in a second separatory
funnel. Transfer the remaining pentane extract portion to a 250 ml
separatory funnel. Add a second 40 ml of pentane to the already once
extracted sample solution. Repeat steps B and C.
D. Repeat steps B and C a third time.
E. To the 250 ml separatory funnel containing the 120 ml
of pentane extract drain off the absorbing reagent which had been trans-
ferred with the pentane.
F. Add 25 ml of distilled water to the funnel, then approx-
imately 1/4 to 1/2 grams of sodium bicarbonate. Wash lip of funnel
free of material, put stopper in funnel and then manually shake for 30
seconds.
G. Let phases separate and drain the wash water from
the funnel, and again add 25 ml of distilled water and repeat the shaking.
After the phases have separated, drain off the water, insuring that all
traces are removed, as the presence of water will now extend the time
required to evaporate the extract to dryness.
H. Wipe lip of funnel with a dry paper towel and transfer
the contents to a clean, dry 125 ml air tight flask. The flasks can either
be placed in a vacuum oven at 50°C and 18 inches of water vacuum or
under a steam of dry nitrogen until the pentane has been removed and
only the dried derivatives remain.
I. Repeat steps A through H for each sample.
J. When the samples have come to dryness, remove from
oven or nitrogen steam and set aside until the precipitates have been
processed.
B-7
-------
K. After the precipitates have been dried and dissolved
in methylene chloride add this solution to the flasks containing the
dried extracted portion of the sample. This solution is then taken to
dryness under the conditions in step H above.
L. Pipette into each of the 125 ml gas tight flasks con-
taining the dried 2, 4-DNPH derivatives (extract and precipitate) 2 ml
of the Internal Standard (Anthracene in Benzene) Solution and place the
flask in a sonic bath until the residue has dissolved. Visually examine
the bottom of the flasks, by holding up to a light area, to insure that
all of the residue has completely dissolved.
M. Transfer the solution from step L to a labeled 1 dram
vial in preparation for gas chromatographic injection.
7. 3 Analysis
7. 3. 1 Optimization of Parameters
A. Prior to calibration and determination of response
factors the hydrogen, helium (carrier), and air flows must be optimized
using a standard mix in benzene. This flow-response calibration pro-
cedure can be found in most gas chromatographic books.
B. The conditions presently in use were obtained by first
optimizing the hydrogen-air flows at low, medium, and high helium
carrier rotometer settings. A number of injections were made at each
of the above conditions using different sample sizes. The best chroma-
tographic conditions, flow rates measured at detector, were found to be
at a helium flow rate of 40. 0 cc/min. , hydrogen flow rate 45. 5 cc/min.,
and air at a flow of 600 cc/min. with a sample size of 15 microliters.
7.3.2 Technique
A. Condition the chromatograph column with a 15 microliter
portion of either a standard mixture or sample prior to obtaining concen-
tration data. A conditioning process should be repeated whenever samples
are not analyzed for an hour or more.
B. The injection is on-column using a 25 microliter syringe.
Before injection, at least 3-25 microliter portions of the sample is used
to condition the syringe. A 25 microliter portion is then taken into the
syringe and syringe laid on a clean paper towel. The chromatograph lid
is raised and a wrench is used to remove the column tee cap. The tee is
a 3-way fitting shaped the capital "T" and is situated such that the vertical
B-8
-------
section of the "T" is on the horizontal plane. A cap is placed on one side
of the "T" top and the column of the other side. The carrier gas enters
the side arm and exits through the column side of the "T". The syringe
is then taken up and the volume adjusted from 25 to 15 microliters. The
syringe tip is wiped free of any liquid and then inserted through the "T"
into the column and the plunger firmly pushed in. The syringe is removed
and a cold cap put on the tee, tightened, and then the lid closed. When the
chromatograph responds to the benzene solvent the GC programmed start
button is pressed simultaneously with the inject data systems interface
initiator. The syringe is then washed several times with clean benzene
in preparation for the next injection.
C. The GC temperature is programmed from 130°C to
300°C at a rate of 6°C per minute. Injection block temperature is 240°C
and the manifold temperature held at 300°C.
D. See Figure I for a typical exhaust chromatogram of a
non-catalytic automobile.
8. Calibrations
8. 1 Absorber Inefficiency-Series Impingers
8. 1. 1 Using a Programmable Calculator
Corrections for absorber inefficiency for an infinite number
of absorbers is based on the material balance concept. This method
for determining the total concentration of carbonyl compounds using two
absorbers in series has been verified within experimental error using
a multiple impinger train.
These calculations are essential for an accurate determination
of, particularly, the acetaldehyde and acetone concentrations. The percent
of acetaldehyde passing through the first absorber is about 7. 5% of the
material present in the absorber and for acetone/acrolein/propionaldehyde
is in the order of 20% of the material in the first absorber.
Calculations for series impingers are made by using the
following equations:
First using the formula
Rn = AO + Al
when Rn = Concentration in each absorber
N-l
C^ Rj = sum of individual absorber concentrations
B-9
-------
The concentrations present in the series absorbers are used
to determine the constants AQ and
The constants AQ and Aj are then used to calculate the total
uncorrected concentration by equation.
Co = --= -- where:
K
AQ = material removed from
sample stream by first absorbers.
AI = material removed by second
and succeeding absorbers.
Vg = sample volume
K = Constant
The value of Cg is then corrected by a background subtraction.
For example:
Since the material balance concept dictates, that, the ..quantity, of
material absorbed by each of the absorbers in a train is related, then the
linear regression equation can be used to determine the values of the slope
and intercept of any two absorbers in series. Know these two constants
for any two absorbers the total concentration can then be calculated for
the sample steam.
Example:
Absorber in train Concentration in Absorber
1st . 1600
2nd . 0800
3rd .0400
4th .0200
Data Points:
N-l
. 1600 0
.0800 .1600
. 0400 . 2400
.0200 .2800
When calculated for an infinite number of absorbers.
B-10
-------
C0 =
' .50
8. 1. 2 Alternate Method
An alternate method for doing the calculations if a programmable
calculator is not available would be run two absorbers in series and then
based on this information a per cent of the material passing through the
first impinger could be determined. This per cent could then be applied to
any number of hypothetical absorbers and then summed to give a total con-
centration.
After sufficient data has been obtained on series absorbers then
only one absorber can be run and calculations made, with confidence, to get
a total concentration.
8. 2 Carbonyl Concentration
Carbonyl (ppm) = GI X — X -=• X. X '—
GI = Co corrected for background
Vs = Sample volume in liter
Tr = Room temperature, °K
Pr = Room pressure, mm Mercury
F = Response factor for individual carbonyl
MW = Molecular weight of carbonyl derivative
I. S. = Internal Standard Concentration, mg/ml
T0 = Temperature at Standard Conditions
P0 = Pressure at Standard Conditions
V0 = Volume at Standard Conditions
B-ll
-------
TABLE 1. STANDARD MIXTURE OF 2, 4-DNPH DERIVATIVES FOR THE
CALIBRATION OF THE CHROMATOGRAPHIC SYSTEM
2, 4-DNPH
Derivative
Number of
Determinations
Ratio
Concentration
mg/ml
Anthracene to
2, 4-DNPH
Standard
Deviation
X
F-Factor
Formaldehyde 5
Acetaldehyde 5
Acetone 5
Iso-Butyraldehyde 5
C r otonald ehyd e 5
Hexanaldehyde 5
Benzaldehyde 5
0.09896
1.0851 0.0032
0.10395 0.9181 0.0028
0.08040 1.0498 0.0049
0.02840 2.9385 0.0127
0.04487 2.0720 0.0096
0.01497 5.3590 0.0144
0.06550 1.3593 0.0104
2.5293
2.2481
1.9926
1. 9653
2. 1902
1.8898
2.0972
B-12
-------
THE MEASUREMENT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE
USING THE BARIUM CHL.ORANILATE METHOD
(SO2-BCA)
February 1975
Southwest Research Institute
San Antonio, Texas
B-13
-------
I. BACKGROUND
The measurement of sulfur dioxide (802) in dilute automotive
exhaust has been a difficult task. Although there are several continuous
recording SO^ instruments commercially available, they have not dem-
onstrated the degree of accuracy necessary at the SC>2 levels observed
in dilute automotive exhaust. A number of other wet chemical procedures
are also available but are considered either excessively time consuming
or lacking in sensitivity. With this in mind, an idea was conceived by
EPA Research Triangle Park to use some basic concepts in the Federal
Register and .to adapt these concepts for measuring SO-> in dilute automo-
tive exhaust.
This procedure uses midget impingers with 3 percent hydrogen
peroxide to oxidize the SO2 to sulfate. The samples are then evaporated,
treated, extracted and analyzed according to the barium chloranilate
method for sulfate analysis. The main advantages of this procedure are
the sensitivity and the simplicity of analysis.
II. APPARATUS
This procedure incorporates two midget impingers in series with
a 0.5)i filter in the sample line. Other items in the sample train include
drierite tube, wet test meter, sample pump and flowmeter. A flow sche-
matic is presented in Figure 1 to illustrate the relative positions of the
various individual components. The sample probe is glass and the filter
is a 0. 5^i SS filter press-fit into the teflon union connecting the glass
sample probe and the first bubbler. By use of appropriate valving, a
dual system could be assembled if consecutive samples were desired
such as in the cold start 505 and the stabilized portion of the 1975 FTP.
A. Midget impingers - capable of handling 25 ml of absorbing reagent.
B. Sample pump - must have sample flow capacity of at least 2 1/m.
C. Drierite column - filled with mixture of indicating and non-indicating
drierite.
D. Wet test meter - capable of accurately measuring sample flow
rates at least in the range of 2 1/min.
E. Flow meter - capable of monitoring flow rates in the range of
2 1/min.
B-14
-------
F. Sample probe - glass should be of minimum length.
G. Filter - 0.5^. stainless steel filter disc press-fit into teflon union.
H. Barium Chloranilate Sulfate Analysis System^1).
III. REAGENTS
A. 30 percent stabilized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) ACS reagent grade,
Store in refrigerator.
B. 3 percent hydrogen peroxide solution, dilute 30 percent 10:1 to
obtain the required 3 percent H2O2. Use only distilled water
as the dilutent. Prepare the day of use.
C. Ammonium hydroxide, 1M. Use ACS reagent grade diluted to
obtain the desired 1M solution.
D. Red litmus paper.
E. Isopropyl alcohol, spectroquality identical to that used in the sul-
fate analysis.
F. 60 percent IPA - 40 percent H2O, same solvent that is used in
the barium chloranilate method for sulfate analysis.
G. Distilled water, used in preparation of absorbing reagent (3
percent H2O2) and extraction solvent (60 percent IPA).
H. Ammonium sulfate, ACS grade, used in the perparation of ammo
nium. sulfate standards.
I. Miscellaneous analytical and chemical support items, routinely
used in the Barium Chloranilate Procedure.
IV. PREPARATION OF SULFATE STANDARDS (USING
A. Comments
Weigh out exactly 2. 750 g of ACS reagent grade (NH4)2SO4 into %a
pre-weighed clean dry beaker. Dissolve the (NH4)2SO4 in 60 percent IPA
and dilute to a total of 1000 ml in a Class A volumetric flask. The resulting
Designates that which is attached.
B-15
-------
sulfate concentration is then 2000ug SO4/ml. This solution is called
the dilute primary standard and is to be used to prepare working cali-
bration standards.
B. Calculations
2. 750 g (NH4)2SO4 = 2. 750 g (NH4)2SO4 x 96 awu SC>4
132 awu (NH4)2SO4
2. 750 g (NH4)2S04 = 2. 000 g SO4 =
2.000 g SO4/1 = 2.000 g SO4/1 x 11 x 106>ug
1000 ml 1 g
2.000 g SO^/1 = 2.000 x 106;ng = 200qug/ml
10^ ml
C. Preparation of Working Standards
Volume of Dilute Volumetric Sulfate Concentration
Sample Primary Standard* Flask, ml** J&g,SO2/ml
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
5
5
1
1000
2000
1000
2000
1000
20,0
15.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
* Measured using Class A volumetric pipet.
** Measured using Class A volumetric flask.
After each set of standards are prepared, run to establish the validity
and linearity of the new working standards.
All glassware should be thoroughly cleaned and no visible glass-
ware spots should be tolerated. Once the working standards are prepared,
they should be transferred to clearly marked glass reagent bottles for
storage.
V. PROCEDURE
A. Sample Acquisition
The exhaust sample to be analyzed is bubbled through the two
midget impingers in series. Prior to sampling, it is important to leak
B-16
-------
check the sampling system to insure no leaks are present. Once the ab-
sence of leaks is verified, pipet 25 ml of freshly prepared 3 percent
hydrogen peroxide into each of the bubblers. All ground glass fittings
should have stopcock grease to insure leak tight connections. Prior to
testing, the drierite column is freshly prepared and the wet test meter
is read. Once the test has started, the flow is adjusted to 1.5 1/min.
Sampling times will vary depending on the concentration of the SO2 in the
exhaust sample; however, the extracted sample can be diluted if necessary.
Tests have shown that sufficient sample can be obtained from 10
minutes at 2 to 3 ppm SC>2 levels, bubbling at a rate of 1. 5 1/min. It
might be possible to use somewhat higher sample flow rates if necessary,
but high recoveries have been observed at 1. 5 1/min. Generally, sampling
for periods of more than 20 minutes will require dilution at the 2 to 3 ppm
SO2 level. It should be pointed out that this will vary somewhat depending
on the range capability of the individual EGA system.
B. Extraction Procedure
1. After the bubbling is complete, quantitatively transfer the ab-
sorbing reagent to a 100 ml beaker. Rinae the impinger tip and bubbler
thoroughly several times with 3 percent H^O. Add these rinsings to the
original absorbing reagent in the 100 ml beaker. This will bring the total
volume to about 30 ml. The final volume at this point is not critical
since the absorbing reagent will be evaporated to dryness.
2. Place the 100 ml beaker on a steam bath and begin evaporating.
Once the volume has evaporated to about 10 ml, make the solution slightly
basic to litmus with 1M ammonium hydroxide. Use a stirring rod tip to
touch the sample to a strip of red litmus paper. Usually 2 to 4 drops
will be sufficient. Complete the evaporation to dryness to insure that
no ammonium hydroxide remains in the beaker. Several experiments in
determining recovery rates have indicated that any ammonium hydroxide
remaining will create an interference.
3. Once the beaker is thoroughly dry, remove from the steam
bath and allow to cool. The entire evaporation procedure requires
about 4 to 5 hours per beaker. The ammonium sulfate appears as a
white deposit on the bottom and sides of the beaker. Use a rubber police-
man on a glass stirring rod with about 2 ml of 60 percent IPA to gently
break loose the deposit and put into solution. This step is repeated
several times using about 2 ml of 60 percent IPA each time. After each
time, add the rinsing to a 10 ml volumetric flask. After a minimum of
three extraction-rinsings, dilute to the mark with additional 60 percent
IPA. After the sample has been properly prepared, it is then considered
ready for analysis in the barium chloranilate system.
B-17
-------
C. Analysis
After the sample has been bubbled, evaporated, treated and ex-
tracted, it is analyzed using the barium chloranilate procedure. Since
these samples are essentially ammonium sulfate in 60 percent IPA, the
working standards are also ammonium sulfate in 60 percent IPA. A copy
of the barium chloranilate procedure is attached for reference. Standards
are run before and after each sample and blanks are run between all
samples and standards. A typical trace of a standard, blank, sample
sequence is shown in Figure 2.
D. Calculations
The equation used to calculate the ppm SO2 in an exhaust sample
using the SO2-BCA procedure is listed below:
o
ppm SO2 sample = 6.67 x cone SO4 = std, jag x area SO 4 = sample, in x DF
area SO^. = std, in'1 x density, g/1 x sample volume, 1
The derivation of this equation is presented as an attachment and is ap-
plicable to this specific procedure.
Although calculations use peak areas, it would be possible to use
peak heights under certain conditions:
(Example 1) - Assume an exhaust sample was bubbled through two
bubblers in series and a total of 12. 75 liters was sampled. The gas en-
tering the dry gas meter was 0°C at a barometric pressure of 29..92" Hg.
A 804= standard of 19.2jig/ml gave a response of 1.56 in2. When diluted
5:1 for the first bubbler and left at full strength for the second, the un-
known sample gave a response of 2. 05 in2 for the first bubbler and 0. 32 in2
for the second bubbler.
ppm SO2 = 6.67 x 19. 2 x 2. 05 x 5 = 22. 5 ppm
(bubbler 1) 1.56x2.927x12.75
ppm SO2 = 6.67 x 19.2 x 0.42 x 1 =0.9 ppm
(bubbler 2) 1.56x2.927x12.75
Total Sample ppm SO2 = 22. 5 ppm + 0.9 ppm = 23. 4 ppm
(Example 2) - Assume an exhaust sample was bubbled through two
bubblers in series and a total of 1.436 ft^ was sampled. The gas entering
the dry gas meter was 30° C at a barometric pressure of 29.31" Hg. An
504 standard of 9.6ug SO^/ml gave a response of 0. 78 in2. When diluted
10:1 for the first bubbler and leaving the second at full strength, the un-
Ituo'.vn sample gave a response of 3. 25 in2 for the first bubbler and 0. 21 in
S£ ^
I* X B-18
-------
for the second bubbler. (Note that there are two differences in the ex-
amples, this example has the sample volume in ft^ rather than liters
and the sampling conditions are not at STP. ) The first calculation will
be to obtain the density of SO2 at 30° C and 29.31" Hg.
density SO, at 0°C and 29.92" Hg = 2.927 g
2 1 1
1 liter at 0° C and 29.92" Hg = 1.133 liters at 30° C and 29.31" Hg
1 1 = 1 1 x 273 + 30°K x 29. 92" Hg = 1.133 1
273'K 29.31"Hg
density SO2 at 30° C and 29.31" Hg = 2.927 g = 2.583 g/1
1.1331
ppm SO2 = 0. 2356 x9.6x3.25xlO=25.4 ppm
(bubbler 1) 0. 78 x 2.583 x 1.436
ppm SO2 = 0. 2356 x 9.6 x 1.95 x 1 =1.5 ppm
(bubbler 2) 0. 78 x 2. 583 x 1. 436
Total Sample ppm SO_ = 25.4 + 1.5 = 26.9 ppm
B-19
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DATA SHEET
DERtVA-nOM Of
, -SCfl
OF "*- SHEET
SHEET NO
PROJECT 11-tlolS-OCM
DATE tt-»3
Pv HftRRV e.
tmti
! />xn i _ L ..
JC
fi?QM
OP
SO,
.,
•'
I
}
L£.
FMHBCA PfiQ&Evuac
I
.
^^
i i i : i I _i
i
XTsP
tfi
yo_0-E
& *»
LS
.6 tT-
!
! I
J
j
H_
5«2j
MM
i7i_l_^m
lJe-ps _ Jt.
lJ
i-i-L
L I-.LL. LI. _L_LJ_T
.*
M i M i I : II ! '! Ml1
B-20
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DATASHEET
SUBJECT DERWAT'OM OP
SHEET NO.—!^_OF—-L-SHEET:
PROJECT H-40'S-OOI
,£&_&/is£jLPJEj
- "_L^« ••"• 1 r, -. rr^ /•
B-21
-------
03
tv;
C\J
Note: All tubing in sample train up to the impingers is glass or teflon.
teflon union w/SS
frit insert
pump
glass probe
dilution tunnel
regulating
valve
wet test
meter
thermocouple
flowmeter
midget impingers
FIGURE 1. SO2-BCA FLOW SCHEMATIC
-------
•-•
FiGuiife TXPICAL BCA STANDARD AND SAMPLE TRACE
-------
June 17, 1975
Dr. R, S. Splndt
Gulf Research and Development Co.
P. 0, Drawer 2038
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
Dear Dr. Spindt:
In reference to our telephone conversation of June 13, I an sending
you the benzene extract of diesel exhaust particulates fro** a glass fiber
filter (8" x 10"). This is one sample of seven submitted to us by Mr.
Karl Springer for analysis of benz(a)pyrene. The data are as follows:
Batch: #1
Filter No.: AR-2003
Condition: 2100 rpm - 100% load
Particulate weight (g): 0.205837
Extract weight (g): 0.09770
Total B(a)P extracted Gig): 50.3
Filter description: Black; ouch powder
Extract description: Clear; golden brown
The analytical procedure used for this work followed that described
by Sawicki et al. (Health Lab. Sci. 7^(1) Suppl., Jan., 1970) with some
minor modifications. In general, the" procedure is as follows:
1. Prewash Soxhlet equipment by refluxing benzene for 1 hour.
2. Extract filter by Soxhlet method with benzene (distilled in
glass) for 4 hours. (8" x 10" filter divided into measured
sections of 4" x 5" to facilitate extraction process* Each
filter portion was placed in a separate Soxhlet apparatus
and the extracts contained after completion of the process).
3. Evaporate the solvent to a few »1 volune and quantitatively
transfer to a preweighed vial (this step allows separation
of filter fiber residue from the saaple). Evaporate the
solvent and reweigh the vial to determine the weight of
extractable material.
4. Add exactly 1 al of solvent to the vial and redissolve the
residue.
5. Spot 10 pi of this solution on a thin layer plate (alumna
or silica gel) and develop with 19:1 hexane ether.
6. Scrape the plate in the region where the B(a)P separates using
a high concentration marker as a guide.
,B-24
-------
Page Two
7, Dissolve the adsorbed material and quantitatively filter to
remove the insoluble particles.
8, Evaporate the filtrate to dryness and add 1 ml H_SO..
*+ *r
9. Read the fluorescence intensity with excitation at 470 ran and
enission at 540 nm.
10. Known quantities of B(a)P spotted on TLC and extracted were
used as comparison standards.
I hope that we nay be able to easily solve the apparent variations
between our analyses.
It may be beneficial if we were to undertake analyses by one another's
procedures, as well as saoples, to obtain a better understanding of the
complexities involved and, perhaps, to obtain another degree of inter-
laboratory comparability.
Should you have materials which have already been analyzed and are
suitable for shipment, we would also be interested in undertaking a re-
analysis in our laboratory.
If you have any further questions or if I nay be of further assis-
tance please call oe at 512-674-1410, Ext. 363.
Sincerely yours.
George H. Lee, II, Ph.D.
Associate Foundation Scientist
Department of Environmental Sciences
GHL/pat
cc: Karl Springer
John Rowlands
B-25
-------
1. Non-Reactive Hydrocarbons (NRHC)
The measurement of NRHC was performed using a gas chroma-
tograph procedure developed by EPA (RTP)' '. This procedure uses a
single flame ionization detector with a multiple column arrangement and
dual gas sampling valves. The timed sequence selection valves allow
for the baseline separation of air, CH4, C^^l^, C2&2> CsHg, C3H&,
and C7Hg. Although only CH^ C2H&, CzH2» ^Hg, an<* ^6^6 are con"
sidered non-reactive, 02^41 03^, and CyHg were determined during
the course of the analysis. Only the non-reactive hydrocarbons are used
in the calculation of NRHC emission rates, but all individual hydrocarbon
data is useful in the characterization of emissions from the two Chevrolet
engines.
Samples were obtained directly from the bag samples of 1975 LD
FTP and analyzed in the NRHC system. Individual NRHC values were
determined and a NRHC value for the bag was calculated. This value was
then used to determine the NRHC emission rates for these tests. By
knowing the NRHC and HC emission rates, it was possible to determine
the fraction of NRHC in the total HC. A detailed description of the indi-
vidual columns, temperatures, flow rates, etc. may be found in Reference 8
Figure A-l illustrates the NRHC analytical instrumentation that was used
for this analysis.
-------
FIGURE A-l. NON-REACTIVE HYDROCARBON
GAS CHROMATOGRAPH INSTRUMENTATION
FIGURE A-2. TECO MODEL 40 PULSED
FLUORESCENT SO2 ANALYZER
B-27
-------
FOE DISCUSSION A1JD BEVIBV OIIlY
KOT FOR RELEASE
Determination of Soluble SulCates: Automated Method
1. Principle and Applicability
1.1 This method is for the determination of water-
soluble sulfates from diluted automobile exhausts
collected on Fluoropore filters. The method is
quite general and may be used for trace sulfate
.'analysis of any sample from.which .sulfstes can be
leached out with water or aqueous alcoholic solutions.
There are interferences from some anions and methods
for minimizing or eliminating these are still- being
•
worked out. The method as written is applicable to
sulfate analysis of exhaust emissions from cars run on
non-leaded gasoline.
1.2 Auto exhaust is mixed with air in a dilution tunnel and
sampled through isokinetic probes. SOo reacts with
available moisture in the exhaust to form K^SO, aerosols
and is trapped on Fluoropore*-filters with 0.45 \i pore
size. The filter is extracted with 60/40 isopropyl
alcohol/water solution (i.e. -60 ml isopropyl alcohol
(IPA) +40 ml water). The extract is fed by a high
pressure liquid (chromatographic) pump through a
column of cation exchange resin to remove cationic
interferences and then through a column of solid
barium chloranilate where BaSO, precipitates out.
• • An ecuivalent amount of reddish colored acid chlor-
12
anilate icn is released * and is measured colori-
3 i. '
metrically at 310 mp. '•'. .To use this method for
aqueous sulfate solutions, four parts by volume of
the solution are mixed with six parts of IPA before
feeding through the columns. Manual method or a
dynamic sampling system can be used.
*Registered trade mark. Obtainable from Millipore Corp.
B-28
-------
2
Rany.g and Sensitivity
Working concentration range and sensitivity depend on sample
size. A sensitivity better than 0.5 ug S07 per ml in
607* IPA and working range of 0 - 25 p.g/rol were obtained
using a 0.5 ml external sampling loop injection system in
conjuncti'oh with a du Pont liquid chromatograph UV detector.
Sensitivity may be further increased by increasing the
i
alcohol content of the solvent, as this would further
decrease the solubility of BaSO, and barium chloranilate.
* -4
This, however, requires a much tighter control of the
water/IPA ratio in the sample and in the mobile phase. To
• • ~ •
minimize spurious results arising from water imbalance, it
is recoii-mended that both the extracting solvent and the
mobile phase for analytical runs be taken from the same
stock solution. Sample size as large as 1.5 ml has been
successfully used.
Interferencest
Cations interfere negatively by reacting with the acid
chloranilate to form insoluble salts. These, however, are
conveniently removed by passing the sample through a cation
exchange resin in the acid form. Some anions such as
Cl", Br~, F~, POp interfere positively by precipitating
out as barium salts with subsequent release of acid
2-5
chloranilate ions. Some buffer systems are reported
to minimize anion interference. These systems are being
investigated for possible incorporation in the present
procedure. Alternative clean-up methods are also under
consideration. Fortunately, for non-leaded exhaust samples
collected on filters, ionic interference is minimal.
Interference from aromatic compounds is minimized by using
a 300 rap. cut-off filter in the optical path of the detector
system.
B-29
-------
4. Precision. Accuracy, and Stability
4.1 Precision
With an external sampling loop of about 1.5 ml,
photometer attenuation set to read .04 absorbance
units full scale, standard deviation of 0.05 |ig
S07/ml was obtained for a sample containing 4.0 ug
SO^/cal.
4.2 Stability
4.2.1 Sulfuric acid standards containing 10 and
100 p.g SOT/ml in 607. IPA are stable for at
least one month when stored in tightly capped
volumetric flask which has been cleaned with
1:1 nitric acid and copiously rinsed with
deionized water. Alternative storage .containers
are capped polyethylene reagent bottles.
4.2.2 The cation exchange resin and the barium
chloranilate columns as described in apparatus
section last for over two months. For samples
known to contain cations, it is advisable to
remove these cations by external treatment
with cation exchange resin prior to injection
into the sampling loop.
4.2.3 As the barium chloranilate column is depleted
each time sulfate samples are fed through, it
is good practice to run sulfuric acid standards
before and after the sample.
4.2.4 Exposure of alcoholic samples, standards, and *
solvents to the atmosphere should be minimized,
since IPA solution picks up atmospheric water
on standing.
B-30
-------
4
5. Apparatus
A schematic of the principal components of the automated
set-up is shown in Figure 1.
5.1 Hardware
a. Reservoir (LR) for the solvent (60% IPA).
b. High pressure liquid pump (LP) capable of
delivering liquids at flow rates of up to
3 ml/min at pressures as high as 1000 psi.
Most liquid pumps used in high pressure liquid
chromatography would be satisfactory.
c. Flow or pressure controller (FC).
d. Six-port high pressure switching valve (SV) >
equipped with interchangeable external loop (L).
e. Ultraviolet detector (D) equipped with appropriate
filters to isolate a narrow band of radiation
centered at 310. mp.. A microscope cover glass'was
found to be satisfactory.
f. Recorder to monitor detector response.
g. Automatic sampler (AS), such as the one used for
a Technicon AutoAnalyzer.
h. Peristaltic pump (PP). to draw sample into sampling
loop.
i. Cation exchange resin column (CX) - standard
1/4" 0. D. x 10" stainless steel column packed
with analytical grade Dowex 50W-X2 cation exchange
resin in hydrogen form.
j. Barium chloranilate column (BC) - standard 1/4"
0. D..x 5" stainless steel column packed with
barium chloranilate.
B-31
-------
5
5.2 Principle of Operation
Solvent (607. I?A) in reservoir (LR) is continuously
fed through cation exchange (CX) and barium chloranilate
columns at flow rates of about 3 ml/min. by a high
pressure liquid pump (LP). Background absorbance is
continuously measured by a UV detector (D) at 310 mu,
and visually monitored in a strip chart recorder.
A solenoid actuated air operated switching valve (SV)
is used for filling the external sampling loop (L)
with samples in conjunction with an automatic sampler
(AS) and peristaltic pump (PP) and injecting the sample
into the columns. At CX cations are removed and at
BC, color reaction takes place. The BaSO, precipitate
is retained in the column while the acid chloranilate
is carried by the solvent through the detector system
for colorimetric measurement.
For an automated sampling system such as shown in
Figure 1, both SV and PP are electrically coupled to
AS by electric relays such that both are activated
whenever AS is sampling (I.e. L is being filled and
mobile phase bypasses L). At the end of the sampling
cycle, PP and AS stop and SV switches to the injection
mode (i.e. mobile phase passes through L and carries
sample through CX and BC columns).
For manual operation SV may be retained or replaced
by a similar switching valve equipped with an extended
.
handle for manual switching. Samples may be introduced
into the sampling loop by syringe injection or by
peristaltic pump system similar, to the one used in
the automated system.
B-32
-------
6. Reagents
6.1 Isoprppyl alcohol (IPA) spectroquality grade or
equivalent. Volatile solvent, safety class IB.
6.2 60% IPA. Add four parts water to six parts IPA
by volume. Store in tightly capped bottle." About
three liters are needed for a 12 hour operation.
6.3 Barium chloranilate, suitable for sulfate analysis.
6.4 Dowex 50W-X2 cation exchange resin, hydrogen form,
100-200 mesh.
6.5 Hydrochloric acid (4N). Add 30 ml .concentrated
. hydrochloric acid to 60. ml deionized water. (Danger,
strong acid.)
6.6 Standard sulfuric acid (J-N)-. Dilute to the mark
2.S ml of concentrated sulfuric acid with deionized
distilled water in a liter volumetric flask which
•
.has been washed in 1:1 nitric acid and copiously
rinsed with deionized distilled water. Standardized
against accurately weighed sodium carbonate to get
exact normality. O.IK l^SO, is-equivalent to 4800
ug/SO,=/ml. (Danger, strong acid.)
6.7 Standard sulfate solution (1000 ug SO^/ml). Dissolve
1.4787 gra sodium sulfate which has been heated up to
105°C for four hours and cooled in a dessicator and
dilute to 1000 ml.
7. Procedure
7.1 Column preparation
7.1.1 Barium chloranilate column (BC). In order to
prepare a full column with minimum dead volume
connect two lengths of standard 1/4" 0. D.
stainless steel tubings as shown in Figure 2.
b = 2", a = 5". Connect a small funnel to
open end of B with a Tygon tubing sleeve.
B-33
-------
Till the funnel "half way with barium
chloranilate and use a vibrator (i.e. electric
pencil engraver) to pack the solid in column.
Continue operation until B is about half filled.
ove funnel, plug empty space with glass wool,
arid cap the end with a 1/4" to 1/16" reducer.
Plumb column B directly to SV in Figure 1.
Connect a Tygon tubing at A and direct tubing
to waste, reservoir. Activate liquid pump, set
flow controller at pressure drop of about 600
psi. Let solvent flow for 20 minutes. Deactivate
pump, disconnect column from SV. Disconnect
column A from column B. Connect a glass wool
plugged 1/4" to 1/16" reducer to uncapped tna
of column A.
7.1.2 Cation exchange resin column (CX). Add cation
exchange resin, 100-200 mesh, Dowex 50W-X2
to 80 ml of 4N HC1 in a 150 ml beaker until a
wet volume equivalent to 20 ml has settled at
•the bottom. Let soak for at least three hours
with occasional stirring using a glass rod.
Decant the acid, add 100 ml deionized distilled
water, stir and slowly, decant the liquid as
soon as most of the solid has settled down at
the bottom. Repeat rinsing procedure several
times until rinse liquid gives a neutral reaction
to pH paper.
Connect two standard 1/4" 0. D. stainless
steel tubings as in 7.1.1 with b = 5" and.
a = 10". Connect a small funnel to open end
of B with Teflon or Tygon tubing sleeve.
Clamp composite tube vertically and connect .
-------
8
open end of A to vacuum line equipped with
liquid trap. Fill funnel with deionized
distilled water and turn on vacuum slowly until
composite tube is completely filled with water.
Add water until funnel is half-filled, stop
vacuum and add slurry of freshly washed resin.
Let resin settle by gravity until resin top
is seen above B. Turn on vacuum slowly, k.eep
adding resin slurry until composite tube is
completely filled. Proceed as in 7.1.1
beginning with sentence: "Remove funnel-, plug
empty space..."
7.2 Priming System for Analytical Run
Connect the cation exchange and barium. chloranilate
columns with 1/4" union packed with glass wool as
shown in Figure 1. Fill solvent reservoir (LR) with
60% 1PA, activate liquid pump, detector, recorder,
switching valve, sampler, and peristaltic pump.
Allow to cycle normally to clean out all components.
For this initial operation, dip the sampling probe
in at least 100 ml of 60% IPA. Set liquid flow rate
at about 3 ml/min. Let run for at least 30 minutes.
Deactivate switching valve, sampler,. and peristaltic
pump. Leave other components in operating mode.
When background is stable at attenuation of .01
absorbance units full scale, system is ready for
analysis.
7.3 Preparation of Calibration Standards
Either sulfuric acid or sodium sulfate standards may
be used.
Add 200 ml of 0.1 N ^SO, aqueous stock solution to
300 ml 1007. IPA in 500 ml volumetric flask. (Note:
There is a volume decrease of about 2.7% when these
B-35
-------
9
proportions of water and IPA are mixed.) Dilute
to the mark with 60% IPA. This is equivalent to
l,920ng SOf/ml in 60% IPA. Prepare from this
alcoholic stock solution calibration standards in
the range 0.5 - 25 ug SO^/ml by dilution of appropriate
aliquots with 60% IPA.
7.4 Extraction of Soluble Sulfates from Fluoropore Filters
Place filter in one 02. polyethylene bottle, add 10 ml
60% IPA and cap tightly. Shake until filter collapses
and is completely immersed in liquid. Let stand
overnight.
7.5 Analysis
Set instrument in operating mode, remove sampling probe
from holder, an'd dip in 100 ml 60% IPA. Let it run
at flow rate of 3 ml/rain until stable background is
obtained, then remount sampling probe to holder.
In the meantime, fill sample cuvettes with sample
extract and blank solutions (60% IPA) and place
on turntable. Sampling pattern is blank, blank,
sample, blank, blank at .the rate of about six minutes
•
per sample or blank. Blanks are used to wash out
system between samples and minimize sample overlap.
One blank between samples is adequate for dilute samples,
(See also 5.2.)
A series of standards (see 7.3) is run, preferably
before sample runs and calibration curve, peak height
vs. concentration, is plotted. A control standard
• f
may also be placed after every ten samples as a
quality check on the stability of the system.
The plot of peak height (detector response) vs.
concentration (ug S0,«/ml) is non-linear in the low
concentration end as would be expected from solubilities
and kinetics consideration. Non-linearity is also
observed at the upper end of the curve.
B-36
-------
10
8. Calculations
Calculate the concentration of suTEate as jig SO/^/ml
using the calibration curve. Total soluble sulfates
[SO,°]F in filter is then given by:
[SC£=]F - (ng S04=/m) x Vo x d
where: Vo = total volume of original sample extract
d »• dilution factor
Example: Suppose 10 ml 60% IPA was used to extract the
soluble sulfates in the filter and that 2 ml. of this was
'diluted further to 6 ml with 60% IPA to bring detector
response within calibration r
-------
References
1. R. J. Bertolacini and J. E. Barney II, "Colorimetrie
Determination of Sulfate with Barium Chloranilate,11
Anal. Chem. 29, 281 (1957).
2. Ibid, "Ultraviolet. Spectrophotometric Determination
• of Sulfate, Chloride and Fluoride with Chloranilic
Acid," Anal. Chem. 3£, 202 (1958).
3. H. N. S. Schafer, "An Improved Spectrophotometric
Method for the Determina'tion of Sulfate with .Barium
Chloranilate as Applied to Coal Ash and Related
Materials," Anal. Chem. 3£, 1719 (1967).
4. S. C. Barton and H.' G. McAdie, "An Automated Instrument
for Monitoring Ambient H2S04 Aerosol" in Proceedings
of the Third International Clean Air Congress,
Dusseldorf, Federal Republic of Germany, 1973,
VDl-Verlag GmbH, 1973, p. C25.
•
5. M. E. Gales, Jr., W. H. Kay lor and J. E. Longbottom,
"Determination of Sulphate -by Automatic Colorimetrie
Analysis," Analyst 93, 97 (1968).
B-38
-------
FIGURE 1
'FLOW.SCHEMAILCfOR AUTOMATED SULFATE
Od
i
u>
NO
LR
'RECORDER
WASTE
-------
FIGURE 2
CONFJGURATIONFORLOADIN.G COLUMN
I
^
o
1/4" TO l/16il REDUCER
1/4" UN ION
GLASS WOOL PLUG
^ Cpn
B
,
A
mmmSfcfrpm
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER REDUCED 13-MODE
FEDERAL. TEST RESULTS FOR
FIVE HEAVY DUTY ENGINES
-------
TABLE C-l. 13-MOOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
00-40 bV-71 N COACH ENGINE WITH bO-LSN INJECTORS 1,470 TIMING
TEST 1 BUN 1 3-19-75 1-0 FUEL £M-22b-F PROJECTl ll-*01b-001
MODE
1
2
3
*
S
b
7
8
q
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
*
5
b
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
*30
12bO
12bO
12bO
12faO
12bO
*JO
21nO
2100
2100
2100
2100
*30
HC
PPM
393
2*8
2b7
27b
35b
572
38*
*00
asb
27b
2b8
288
33b
TORQUE POWER
N X M KW
».7 .2
Ib.b 2.2
199,* 2b.3
377,5 *9,8
5b7,* 7*. 9
7*7,8 98,7
2,» .1
b*l,0 1*0,9
*7*,8 10*,*
325,2 71,5
15b,7 3*,5
9,5 2,1
2.* .1
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
,023
.Ob*
.132
,20*
.283
,*12
,023
,582
,**2
.3**
.231
.I1*?
.023
CO* NO++ WEIGHTED
PPM PPM KW
139 201
153 12b
91 3*5
78 b23
9b 1013
3232 1128
12b 19*
7b* 1037
13* 81b
lib 550
10* 282
118 135
111 225
CYCLE COMPOSITE BSHC a
83CO* s
BSN02++a
BSHC + BSN02++B
BSFC a
.01
.18
2.10
3,98
5,99
7,89
,01
11.27
8,35
5,72
2,7b
.17
.01
2,9b7
7,723
17,171
20,138
AIR EXHAUST
FLOW FLOW
KG/MIN KG/MIN
*,SO *.S2
13.59 13. bb
13.92 1*.OS
13, *b 13, bb
13, *b 13.7*
13.88 1*,29
*,*7 *.*9
21. b8 22.27
21,00 21,*5
21, *7 21,82
21, *7 21,70
22,35 22, *9
*,*7 *,*9
BSHC BSCOt
G/KW HR G/KW HR
2*1,83 170.11
**,9S 55,09
*,15 2,82
2,20 1.23
1,90 1,03
2,*1 27.1*
*b9,37 30b,83
1,8* 7,00
1.77 l.faO
2,*5 2.0*
*,"! 3.81
90,29 73,59
tlO, 70 271,15
GRAM/KM HR
GRAM/KH HR
GRAM/KM HR
GRAM/Kw HR
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
,005
,005
,010
,015
.021
,030
.005
,027
,021
,01b
,011
,007
,005
83N02++
G/KW HR
*05,3*
7*, 81
17,55
lb,27
17,71
IS.Sb
77b,b2
15, bO
15, 9b
15,97
lb,93
138.18
898, bb
HUM,
MILLI
G/KG
8,0
8,0
8.0
8.0
8,0
8,0
8,3
8,3
8,3
8.3
8,3
8.3
8,3
.287KG/KW MR
CONVERTED TO WET BASIS
CONVERTED TO «£T BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER KG DRY AIR
C-2
-------
T-AfeLE C-Z
13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
DO-AD bV«71 N COACH ENGINE *ITH bO-LSN INJECTORS 1.H70 TIMING
TEST 1 BUN 2 3-20-75 1»D FUEL EM«22b-F PROJECT! 11-fOlfa-OOl
MODE
1
2
3
*
S
b
7
8
1
10
11
12
13
MODE
i
2
3
t
S
b
7
B
1
10
11
12
13
CYCLE
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
440
18^0
18bO
18bO
1260
12bO
440
2100
2100
21nO
2ino
2100
440
HC
PPM
210
244
5bt
23b
308
SOB
300
380
212
252
23b
252
33b
TORQUE
N X
2
2
117
381
sat
778
t
bSO
til
332
15b
t
2
CO*
PPM
132
Ib3
78
bt
1b
3152
152
fa70
127
121
111
125
132
COMPOSITE
M
,4
,4
.0
.3
.0
,fa
.7
,4
t*
.3
,7
.7
*"*
POWER FUEL
KM
f
.
2b,
51.
77,
102.
,
It3,
108,
73,
34,
1,
NO + +
PPM
225
112
382
702
1128
11S8
22b
lOlb
838
527
2t1
13b
217
BSHC
1
3
0
t
0
7
2
0
1
1
5
0
1
9
ascot s
BSHC +
as
JN02 +
»»
8SN02++S
8SFC •
FLOW
KG/MIN
,023
,ObO
.132
,20t
,281
,tll
,023
.582
,t55
,3tb
,227
|023
WEIGHTED
KIN
.01
.03
2.08
H.ll
fa.lb
8.22
.01
11. tt
8,bt
5.85
2,7b
,08
.01
2.b2b
7,128
17,210
11.117
AIR
FLOW
KG/MIN
*.51
13,84
13,37
13,15
12,10
13,28
4. SB
21, 7b
21, tl
21, tB
21,34
21, 1b
4,57
BSHC
G/Kft HR
3Sb,08
315.12
3,11
1.71
1,53
1,17
183,57
1.73
1,72
2.11
t,30
155,81
tlO.tl
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/Kfl
GRAM/Kn
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
t,bl
13,10
13.50
13. 3b
13,11
13, bl
4,bO
22,34
21.87
21,82
21,57
22,11
4.51
BSCO*
6/KW HR
322.33
411.88
2.3b
,1b
.15
2t,3fa
185, tl
b.Ofa
l.tl
2.23
t ,02
153.10
320. t3
HR
HR
HR
HR
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
,005
,004
,010
,01b
,022
,031
,005
.OS?
,021
,01b
,011
,007
,005
8SN02++
G/K* HR
lOt, 17
t72,1?
18,11
17,31
18,31
It, 70
tS3,27
lb,31
Ib.lb
It ,11
It, 83
27t,48
8b8,11
HUM,
MILLI
G/KG
a,
8.
8,
8.
,
i
i
,
.
,
,
t
•
1
4
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.
3
3
.283KG/KM HR
* CONVERTED TO WET BASIS
+* CONVERTED TO wET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
MATER PER
-------
TABLE C-3
13.MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
DO-AD bV-71 N COACH ENGINE WITH bO-LSN INJECTORS 1.470 TIMING
TEST 1 RUN 3 3-20-75 . 1-0 FUEL EM-22b-F PROJECT! ll-401b-001
MODE
1
2
9
4
5
b
7
8
R
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
4*0
12bO
12bO
12bO
12bO
12bO
4*0
21riO
2100
2100
2100
2100
4»0
HC
PPM
33b
242
2b4
292
352
492
29b
388
308
248
232
252
2bO
TORQUE
N X M
2.
2.
189,
384,
588.
778,
a,
bSO,
»8b.
325.
Ibl.
4,
2.
CO*
PPM
118
159
100
77
99
32Sb
144
81b
ibS
103
104
118
118
CYCLE COMPOSITE
4
4
9
b
7
b
*
4
7
2
*
7
4
POWER
KW
.1
.3
85.1
50.7
77,7
102,7
.1
143,0
107,0
71.5
35.5
1.0
.1
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
.023
,049
,132
,204
.295
,408
,023
,S8fa
,44h
,333
.231
,147
,023
N0* + WEIGHTED
PPM
233
119
359
b57
1072
115b
199
1040
844
S2b
281
12b
217
BSHC *
BSCO* »
BSN02++"
BSHC *
B
SN02t*=
KW
,01
.03
2,00
4, Ob
b,21
8,22
,01
11.44
8,Sb
5.72
2.84
,08
.01
2.710
7,bS7
17,095
19,805
BSFC » .282KI
AIR
FLOW
KG/MIN
4,53
13. Sb
13, Sb
13, Sb
13.31
13,47
4,50
21,30
21.43
21. Sb
21, b3
22.04
4.49
BSHC
G/KW HR
407,04
30b,0b
4.20
2.31
1.79
1.93
3Sb.24
1.73
1.83
2.21
4.1b
155.85
311.90
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
I/HI* HR
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
4,55
13. bl
13. b9
13,77
13, bO
13,88
4,52
21,89
21,88
21.90
21.87
22.19
»,51
BSCO*
G/Kw HR
285,04
399, Sb
3,15
1.22
1,00
25,51
34b,35
7,24
l,9b
1,83
3,72
144,Bb
281,95
HR
MR
HR
HR
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
,005
,004
,010
,015
,022
.030
,005
,028
,021
.015
,011
.007
,005
BSN02++
G/KW
923,
494,
18.
Ib,
17,
I1*.
783,
is.
Ib,
15,
Ib,
255,
850,
HR
b3
01
b9
98
87
88
4b
Ib
43
34
48
b8
37
HUM,
MILLI
G/KG
8.8
8,8
8.8
8.8
8,8
8.8
8,8
8.8
9.4
9,4
9,4
9,«»
9,»
* CONVERTED TO wET BASIS
+* CONVERTED TO «ET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER KG DRY AIR
C-4
-------
TABLE C-4
13-MOOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
00-40 bV-71 N COACH ENGINE WITH B-bOE INJECTORS 1,500 TIMING
TEST 2 RUN 1 3-24.75 1-0 FUEL EM»22b«F PROJECTl ll-401b-OQl
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
440
12bO
12faO
12*0
12bO
12bO
4
-------
TABLE C.5 |3.MQOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
DO-AD bV-71 N COACH ENGINE WITH 6-bOE INJECTORS 1,500 TIMING
TEST 2 RUN 2 3-24-75 1-0 FUEL EM«agb-F PROJECTl ll»401b-001
MODE
i
2
3
4
S
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MOOE
1
a
3
H
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ENGINE
SPEED
RP*
440
lafaO
12faO
12bO
12faO
12bO
440
aioo
2100
2100
2100
2100
440
HC
PPM
Ibb
184
152
84
98
IBS
lie
IfaB
9b
75
13b
2se
178
TORQUE
N X M
2.
2.
185.
377,
557.
7HS,
4,
baa.
4bS.
315.
159.
7,
a.
CO*
PPM
119
227
158
78
90
I»b4
107
3faO
98
73
105
18b
113
CYCLE COMPOSITE
4
4
a
5
9
4
7
0
3
7
1
1
4
POWER
KM
.1
.3
as*
49,8
73. b
98,3
.a
13b,8
102,3
b9,4
35,0
l,b
.1
NO+ +
PPM
124
b4
191
3b?
702
1002
131
809
517
299
145
58
124
BSHC s
8SCO* s
BSN02+ts
BSHC +
BSN02ttB
BSFC »
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
.023
.ObO
.127
.204
.280
,393
.023
.559
,441
.3*0
,23-»
,1*7
,023
WEIGHTED
KM
.01
.03
I.q5
3.98
5,89
7,87
.01
10,94
8.18
5,55
a, ao
.13
,01
1.357
4,b8b
12,008
13.3bS
AIR
FLOW
KG/MIN
SBB
13,97
13,97
13,92
13, 4b
13,55
4,78
81.90
ei.7b
ai,7b
21,43
22,24
4,78
BSHC
G/KW HR
21b.S9
239,85
2.55
,b9
.53
,b9
71, 5b
,80
.bl
.b9
2,45
104,82
227,47
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KM
GRAM/KW
GHAM/KW
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
S90
14,03
1S10
14,13
13,74
13,94
»,80
aa,4b
22,20
22.10
21. bb
22.38
4.80
BSCO +
G/KW HR
310,37
589,79
5,30
1.29
.97
12,03
135, fal
3,43
1.23
1.3*
3.78
154,03
28b.S3
HR
HR
HR
HR
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
,005
,004
,009
,015
.021
,029
.005
,02fa
,020
.Olb
,011
,007
,005
BSN02++
G/KW
529,
a?s
10,
9,
12,
13.
273,
12,
10,
s!
78,
519,
HR
53
33
47
90
49
53
07
S5
b9
Ob
57
72
35
HUM,
MILLI
G/KG
2.4
2,4
2,4
2,4
8,5
a. s
2,s
it*
l.q
1,9
2.0
2.0
,288KG/Kw HN
CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
CONVERTED TO MET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
HATER PER KG DRY AIR
C-6
-------
TABLE C-6 13-WQOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
NTC-240 CUMMINS ENGINE hlTN TIMING RETARD MODES 3,H,5,b,8,4,10, AND 11
TEST 1 SUN 1 S-1H-7S FUEL EM-324«F PROJECT! ll-»01b-00l
MODE
i
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
4
10
11
12
13
MODE
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
blO
1400
1*00
1400
1400
1400
blO
2100
21HO
2ino
2100
2100
blO
HC
TORQUE
N X M
4.
4,
275,
5fa2.
819.
lias.
14.
"82.
735.
493.
a?".
7,
2.
co+
7
7
4
b
0
a
0
a
9
B
B
1
4
POWER
KW
.3
.7
40.4
82. S
120.1
Ifa4.9
1.2
aib.i
lbl.8
108. b
52.7
l.b
.2
N0»+
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
.017
.072
.184
,3b7
.507
,b58
.017
.439
,748
,5h7
.325
.172
,017
WEIGHTED
AIR
FLOW
" G f W J N
u Q 14
lojbfa
10,b8
12.23
13, 5b
14,90
4,4g
2b,S2
24, 9t,
20.54
17. 3fa
15,80
4,92
BSHC
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
4,95
10,74
10,87
12,54
14 ,07
IS.Sb
4,93
27, 4b
85,70
21.11
17, b9
15,97
4,93
BSCO*
FUtL
AIR
RATIO
,004
,007
.018
,030
,037
,044
,004
,035
.030
.028
,019
.011
,004
BSN02++
HUM
.
M1LLI
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PPM
238
212
170
aob
198
Ib2
282
88
92
140
152
22b
282
PPM
145
218
145
208
300
b73
154
147
Ib3
202
154
182
Ib7
CYCLE COMPOSITE
PPM
50
bb
204
254
447
70fa
90
b43
437
284
2b2
143
87
BSHC '
BSCO* s
asnc *
B
B
SN02t+«
SN02++B
KW
«0e
,0b
3,23
b,bO
9,bO
13.20
.08
17.29
12,95
8,b9
4,22
.13
.01
,894
2,bOO
b,b38
7,537
G/KW HR
113,11
45.17
1.33
,42
,b8
,44
33.37
,33
.43
.74
1,48
b?,07
2bb, 44
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
G/KW HR
137,27
144,45
2,2fa
1.84
2,04
3,bB
3b,31
l.^S
1.50
2,27
3.00
107.41
314,35
HR
HR
HR
HR
G/KW
78,
4b,
S.
3.
*»
b.
34,
7,
fct
5.
8,
134,
2b4.
HR
10
b3
35
77
44
34
74
78
bl
2b
38
23
54
G/KG
8,
8,
8,
8,
8,
7,
7,
7.
7,
7,
7,
7,
7,
*
4
4
b
b
S
S
5
7
7
7
4
9
BSFC a .2B4KG/KW HR
* CONVERTED TO w£T BASIS
** CONVERTED TO 'MET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER «G DRY AIR
C-7
-------
TABLE C-7 13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
NTC-290 CUMMINS ENGINE WITH TIMING RETARD MODES 3,f,S.b,8,9,10,AND 11
TEST 1 RUN 2 S-l»-75 FUEL £M-22q«F PROJECT! Il«f01b-00l
MODE ENGINE TORQUE POWER
SPEfD
RPM N X M KW
1
2
3
f
S
b
7
8
q
10
11
12
13
MODE
i
2
3
f
S
b
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE
blO
IfOO
1*00
1*00
IfOO
1*00
bin
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
blO
HC
PPM
285
2bS
IfO
Iff
13f
qo
230
98
98
12b
llf
17b
2b*
0.
a.
282.
5b7,
81*.
1125.
9,
982,
735,
*89,
2*b,
7.
*•
CO*
PPM
159
202
128
17b
2*9
b09
118
173
150
151
103
152
159
COMPOSITE
BSHC »
0 0.0
f .3
5 »!,*
* 83.2
2 119,*
2 lb»,9
5 .b
3 21b,l
9 lbl,8
0 107.5
9 5*. 3
1 l.b
* .2
NO*.*
PPM
8b
82
2*2
303
*73
b99
101
b28
*S2
279
2b9
12fa
95
BSHC -
B3CO* =
BSN02***
BSN02*+=
BSFC =
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MJN
.017
,072
!sb3
.b58
.017
|S7S
.325
.172
,017
WEIGHTED
KW
0,00
,03
3,31
b.b5
9,55
13,20
.0*
I7,2q
12, qs
a.bo
f ,3f
.13
.01
,78f
2,2f 9
fa, 8*1
7.b25
f c 8 SK i
AIR
FLOW
10,' 79
10,7*
12, *3
13.80
1*,85
2b,bh
25,*1
21.28
18.02
15.39
f.9Q
BSHC
G/KW HR
R
2*0,70
1,08
, bf
,f 7
,25
5*. S3
,3fa
.fb
.75
1.12
50,88
2*8,98
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
J/KW HR
EXHAUST
FLOW
*,9S
10,8fa
10,93
12,80
1*,30
15,50
f ,qf
27, bO
2b,lb
21, 8b
18,3*
IS.Sb
f,91
BSCO*
G/KW HR
R
3faf,73
l,9b
1.57
1,73
3,32
55,92
1,28
l.fl
i,78
2,01
87,30
298,51
HR
HR
HR
HR
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
,00*
,007
,018
,029
,03fa
.Off
,00f
,035
,029
,027
.018
.011
,00f
BSN02**
G/KW HR
R
2*3,31
b,08
f ,ff
S,fO
b.2b
78,7*
7,b*
fa,9b
5,*0
8,b*
119,03
29* ,1*
HUM,
M1LLI
G/KG
8,2
8,2
8,2
7,7
7.7
7,7
M
q,l
9,1
7,7
7.7
7.7
* CONVERTED TO WET BASIS
** CONVERTED TO wET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER KG DRY AIR
C-8
-------
TABLE C-8 13-MOOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
NTC-290 CUMMJNS ENGINE WITH STANDARD TIMJNG 0.055 LIFT AT 0.3032 PISTON
TEST 2 RUN I b«2b»7S FUfcL EM-229-F PROJfcCTl ll-*01b-001 INJ.2Q3
MODE
i
2
3
4
5
b
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
bdo
1*00
1*00
1*00
1*00
1*00
beo
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
biO
HC
TORQUE
N X M
*,
*.
280.
SbO.
8H2.
1137,
*.
1008.
757.
503.
25b,
*,
2.
CO*
7
7
1
2
7
1
7
9
3
3
<*
7
>f
POWER
KW
.3
.7
*1.1
82.1
123.5
lbb.7
.3
221.8
lbb.5
110.7
Sb.*
1.0
.2
NO**
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
,02b
,073
.189
,33b
,*8>»
,b35
,023
,8b9
,b88
.510
.333
,170
,02b
WEIGHTED
AIR
FLOW
KG/MIN
*,37
10,30
10,71
11, Sb
13,02
!*,*«
*,19
25, 1*
22,23
19,8* '
17,82
lb.15
*.*3
9SHC
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
*,39
10,37
10.90
11,90
13,51
15,05
*,21
2b.01
22.91
20.35
18, lb
lb,3c?
*.*5
BSCO*
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
.OOb
,007
.018
,029
,037
,0**
.005
.035
.031
,02b
,019
,011
.OOb
9SNO
2**
HUM
•
HILLI
i
2
3
»
5
b
7
8
4
10
11
12
19
PPM
102
78
*8
52
bl
59
119
b2
51
b2
b2
87
12b
PPM
118
157
115
ISO
2*7
890
112
128
13?
88
79
10*
105
CYCLE COMPOSITE
BSwC *
PPM
119
1*9
3bS
72b
1337
18b5
123
Ib91
12*1
717
*13
20*
122
BSHC =
BSCD+ s
83N02*+=
8SN02*+=
KM
,02
,ob
3,29
b,57
9,88
13,3*
.02
17,75
13,32
8,85
*,51
,08
,01
,1*5
2.030
15,b38
15,983
6/KW HR
*2,30
33, B2
,37
.32
.19
,lb
*7.29
.21
.eo
.33
.58
39,59
105,9*
GRAM/KM
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KM
GRAM/KVv
G / K rt HH
97.12
135. b8
1.77
l,2b
l.Sb
* ,bb
88,50
,87
1.09
.93
1,»8
9*. 20
175,70
HR
HR
HR
HH
G/K«
Ibl.
Sll.
9,
10.
13,
lb.
IbO.
18,
lb,
ie.
13.
303.
33b,
HR
10
22
22
02
92
0*
09
89
27
55
b8
81
03
G/KG
10,
10,
10,
10.
10.
10,
10.
10,
10.
10.
10,
10,
10,
4
*
b
fa
b
b
b
BSFC
,2b9KG/Kw MR
* CONVERTED TO WfeT BASIS
*+ CONVERTED TO wfcT BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
MATER PER KG DRY AIR
C-9
-------
TABLE C-9 13-MQOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
NTC-290 CUMMINS ENGINE KITH STANDARD TIMING 0,055 LIFT AT 0,8032 PISTON
TEST Z HUN 2 b-2b-7S FUEL EM-ggq-f PROJECT! ll-*01b-001 INJ.203
MODE
i
2
3
*
S
b
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
MODE
1
2
3
*
S
b
7
ft
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE
ENGINE TORQUE POwfP FUEL
SPEED FLOW
RPM N X M KW KG/MIM
beo
1*00
1*00
1*00
1*00
1*00
beo
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
b20
HC
PPM
130
10*
b*
b5
95
90
132
7*
58
78
75
93
11*
2.* .2
*.? .7
277.7 <»0,7
5b2.b 82.5
8*0.* 123,2
1130,0 IbS.b
*.7 .3
lOOb.5 221.3
757.3 lbb.5
505. b 111.2
25b,* Sb.*
*,7 1.0
2,* .2
CO* N0t+
PPM PPM
105 130
1*3 1*1
lOb *13
153 79b
270 1308
821 177(1
111 128
IbO 1593
111 1102
10* b9b
89 *00
97 193
105 lib
COMPOSITE BSHC
ascot
BSN02+*
BSHC + BSN02+*
BSFC
,029
,070
.189
.3*2
,*78
,b*b
.029
,877
,b92
.511
.333
.us
.02b
WEIGHTED
KW
,01
,0b
3.2fa
fa.bO
9.8b
13,25
,02
17,71
13.32
8.89
*.51
,08
,01
= ,*12
S l,9*b
s 1*,532
= 1H,9*«»
AIR
FLOW
*,33
8.33
10.18
11. 3b
12.52
1*,11
*.U
2*.2B
21, b5
19. *3
17,**
15.50
*,33
8SHC
G/KW HR
lOb.Bb
3b.S*
.*7
.27
.29
.23
51, hi
.2*
.23
.*!
• t>9
*0.b7
93.71
GRAM/Km
GRAM/KK
GRAM/Kw
GRAM/KW
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
*,35
B.*0
10.37
11,70
13.00
l*.7b
*.l*
25.15
22,3*
19,9*
17,77
15, b9
».35
BSCO*
5 / *^ " M K
171,70
99,93
1.5b
l,2b
I.b5
*,2*
8S, 75
1.05
.87
1.08
I.b2
8*. 33
171.72
HR
HR
HR
nfl
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
,005
,008
,019
.030
,038
,0*b
,007
,03b
.032
,02b
.019
.012
,00b
BSN02++
G/^ W HR
3*9,71
Ib2,05
10,01
10.75
13,1*
15.02
Ib3,bl
17,^5
1*,08
11,89
U.01
27b,75
312,32
HUM,
MILLI
G/KG
11.9
11,9
11,9
u. s
U.*
11.*
11,*
U.*
10,7
10.7
10,7
10,7
10,9
= ,272KG/K« HR
* CONVERTED TO WET BASIS
++ CONVERTED TO KtT BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER
-------
TABLE C-10 13-MODF FEDERAL OIFSEL EMISSION CYCLE
r>DAO-8V-7lTA DIESEL ENGINE IN STANDARD CONFIGURATION • 1000 MR CERT ENGINE
TEST I RUN 1 11-20-75 FIJFL EM-5*b-F PROJECTS ll-*01b-om
MODE
1
2
3
t
5
b
7
8
q
IP
11
12
13
MODE
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
*80
1*00
1*00
1*00
1*00
i*nn
*80
2100
2100
2100
2ino
2100
*80
HC
TORQUE
N X M
*.
23.
320.
b*l.
qbl.
1281,
*.
n*q.
8bl.
57*.
297,
21.
*.
CO*
7
7
5
0
*
q
7
0
7
5
2
*
7
POWER
KW
.2
3.5
*7.0
q* .0
1*0. q
187. q
.2
252. b
iaq.5
1 2 b . 3
b3.2
*.7
.2
NO++ »
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
,02*
,ioq
.227
.*07
.575
,7B8
.025
1.017
.S33
.585
.382
.210
.030
IEIGHTEO
AIR
FLOW
EXHAUST
FLOW
FUEL
AIR
KG/MIN KG/MIN RATIO
5.q2
17,81
18.55
20.5*
22.25
25.38
b,?*
35.85
33. bO
31.02
2q,*7
27,02
b.bO
BSHC
s.qs
I?,"*!
18,78
20. qs
22.82
2h.l7
h,2?
3b.h7
3*.*3
3 J ,bl
2^,85
27.2*
h.b3
BSCO*
.no*
,00b
.018
.020
.02b
.031
,nn*
,o2q
.025
,niq
,013
.008
.005
BSM02++
HUH
•
MILLI
I
2
3
*
5
b
7
R
q
10
11
12
13
PPM
15*
172
1*5
l*b
IS*
10*
I5b
110
130
13*
l*b
IS*
IS*
PPM
Ib8
2*3
102
^2
32*
1318
108
155
qq
aq
8b
101
103
CYCLE COMPOSITE
PPM
13S
81
23*
*5b
721
858
13*
8*5
5S2
373
l^S
71
1?8
BSHC =
RSCO+ a
BSHC +
R
R
SN02++"
SN02++=
KW
.02
.28
3,7b
7,52
11,27
15,03
.02
20.21
15, Ib
10.11
5,05
,38
,02
l.nig'
3. his
in,q2o
u.qse
G/KW HR
lll.hb
25.77
i,bq
,q&
.73
• *2
U^.23
,*b
.f
,qs
2.01
25. IS
12*. *q
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
G/KW HR
2*2,01
72, bb
2,3b
1.18
3.0*
10. b*
Ib5,lb
1.30
1.05
1.2S
2.3fa
33.87
lbb.5*
HR
HR
HR
HR
G/KW
330.
sq.
».
™ •
11.
u.
33*.
u.
10.
8.
».
3q.
337.
HR
1"
pq
qo
b8
12
38
7*
fa8
25
aq
b8
20
bO
G/KG
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
BSFC
.P81KG/KW HR
* CONVERTED TO WET BASIS
«•+ CONVERTED TO WgT B*SIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER KG DRY AIR
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-11 13-MOOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
PDAO-8V-71TA DIESEL ENGINE IN STANDARD CONFIGURATION - 1(100 HR CFRT ENGINE
TEST 1 RUN 8 11-20-75 FUEL-EM-2*b-F PROJECTS ll-*01b-001
MOOE
i
2
3
*
5
fi
7
R
q
10
11
12
13
MODE
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
*80
1*00
1*00
1*00
1*00
1*00
*sn
2100
2100
2100
2100
2inn
*80
HC
TORQUF
N X M
2.
23.
313.
fa29.
9*2.
1258.
*,
11*9.
Bbl.
57*.
287.
21.
2.
CO*
„
7
*
1
<»
2
7
n
7
5
2
*
4
PO*ER FUEL
KW
.1
3.5
*5.9
92.2
138.2
18*.*
.2
252. h
189.5
12b.3
b3.2
*.7
.1
NO+ +
FLOW
KG/MIN
.02b
.097
.235
.390
.51,1
.810
.021
1.039
.807
.599
.38b
.20b
.02b
WEIGHTED
AIR
FLOW
KG/MTN
b.J5
17.23
19.01
19.99
21.78
25.?*
b.22
3h.7CI
33.7*
30. bO
28.80
2(>.*8
b.21
HSHC
EXHAUST
Fi.nw
KG/MIN
h.17
17.32
19.2*
20.38
22.3*
Sh.05
b.25
37.7*
3*. 55
31.20
29,18
2S,b9
K.23
BSCOt
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
.on*
.nob
.012
.020
,02b
.032
,003
.028
.0?*
.020
,013
.008
,00*
HSN02+*
HUH
•
MILLI
I
2
3
*
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PPM
137
125
118
127
1*9
9*
13b
98
113
lOb
137
159
112
PPM
111
Ib2
102
lOb
338
1529
109
130
81
fa?
75
7b
82
CYCLE COMPOSITE
PPM
128
7b
221
*07
bbl
8b8
117
8*0
b05
370
191
73
125
BSHC
RSCO+
BSHC *
9
B
SN02++
SN02+-+
KM
.01
.28
3.b?
7.38
11.05
1*.7S
.02
20.21
15. Ib
10,11
5.05
.38
.01
a .898
= 3.b83
•» 10.800
= ll.b9B
G/KW HR
eob.pa
18,11
1.**
.82
.70
.39
103.59
,»3
,bO
.7b
l.B*
2b,29
170.2*
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
G/KW HR
333.97
*b.79
2.*7
1.3b
3,17
12.52
lb*,92
1.13
.81)
,9b
2,02
25.13
2*7. *2
HR
HR
HR
MR
G/KW
b2R.
3b.'
R.
«.
10.
11.
290.
u.
10.
8.
H.
39.
b21.
HR
59
02
80
57
18
88
Sb
95
51
70
*1
bO
07
G/KG
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
•».
8
8
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
«
flSFC
.283KG/KW HR
* CONVERTED TO WF.T BASIS
«•+ CONVERTED TO WF.T BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
WATER PER KG DRY AIR
C-12
-------
APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
OF FIVE HEAVY DUTY ENGINES
-------
TABLE D-l. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL, SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. Date J/~ /£- '/ 5 Evaluated By /f /v
Model Engine &/-?/* -£SA/60 /• 1
Accelerations
Wo
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
.2
3
v/
j— •
&
f*
/
J
/O
//
,'2,
S3
/•c
• $ — '
Total Smoke %
/v. (5
/^ j"
/^ - -S^
^.,5
/^ '
-?.o
?/v
Factor (a) ^?:?7. £ = ^ 3 'C
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
.2.
^
tf
•T"
//
/.f
f-S^
/^r~
Aif
Total Smoke % / .7
/
^
j
<_
5"
J.O
X /
//
//
/ *-:'
x7.^
/
j^
^
y
f
-? <3
J?.O
jf. ^
^. 6'
j?, 0
/o.O
Factor (b) . j£/ -. /J %
15
Comments: //_ ."i
x^r-
/S'.f
/•"-. & /b ?~ /.^~. C
/^-..r /OLO /3.o
•£.(,,£ jjLi'\,1 J/3, f
A3r.^
^ -• /J'. / *%-> '• & '' ^tcO-ty
j^
D-2
-------
TABLE D-2. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No.
Date c2-/$. 7$ Evaluated By ~^l //
Model Engine £ I/- //A/ - /-S/\/ &O J.47D
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. £>2
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
^
3
•*
JT"
£
•/
?
9
/O
//
/-Z-
/3
/<-'
/ a~~
Total Smoke %
MO
//, - -6 » £
/
j.
J
V
^
o
7
g
$
lo
M
/JL,
13
/v
/y
y /a
3,O
If.O
/9.f
/¥-.f
7.0
<4. f
j.±"
J. O
3..O
/, 5
of. 7
j?.£>
£. o
J2.O
/. /
//T-2,
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
/
<3,
3
^
•2~
6
Sf
J
•?
'0
/ /
/•<*
'3
/ **.
if
^. &
/$.£>
/•i,d
/3.,O
?.o
S" ' O
A.O
3. 7
sZ. 3
^ ^
>?• .3
V.^
j. r
£ .7
J,O
w.7
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
-e
3
-<£
,5-
•J. O
/,s^
/ 5^
.^. O
-?. -^^r: A
D-3
-------
TABLE D-3. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL, SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. — Date f-3£'-7'Sr Evaluated By /f/p
Model Engine £f/- ?/ /2tofi£~ /' ^£
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
£
J
^
£~
£
7
f
f
/o
//
/<£.
/3
/j£
/S~
/&.o
32.S"
3/. D
-ZJ.S'
/7-f>
jjt.£'
/3.0
/o.o
f.S'
7.t>
£.0
2L£~
7-£~
£,.£"
£. ^
Total Smoke % • £/0. £~
Factor (a) zttl
1
£.
j
^
£~
£.
7
S
4
//
/_2
/J
,4?
/£"
<£3,O
CJKf
/S.f
/&.&
/•tf.o
/o.o
7. £"
6-S*
&-O
7.0
7-0
6.0
£,.6
^.7
/t*±
/
.£
j
^
^~
&,
7
g
$
/O
//
A3.
/J
/jl
/f
//.O
<33.O
JA.f
30.0
/£~.0
//.£*
9.0
-------
TABLE D-4. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. — Date <^--?.T~- 7S~ Evaluated By XT/V
Model Engine £ f- 7/ & &d £~ /, S~d0
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. ^
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
,2
3
jtf
'£"
(,
7
g
J
/o
//
/«2
/j
/y
/•& —
Total Smoke %
12.0
3Z.O
1X.O
*ja.0
/(..O
/3,f
/O.£~
f.S"
7.0
£,S~
4,0
7.£~
& * **
r?"
£".g~
/f^.O
Factor (a) : J^P,.T" - /£.
/
£
J
-/
5"
(.
7
f
f
/o
//
/3,
/3
/*/
/&
jU
/3. £~
JAST
J.iS'O
^/. f
JZ-f
/3.
£.0
£.£"
£.f
J/.0
JJ.O ^3.^" al/.£~
<£0.O 3./,S~ -?/ ^
>^a /O "7? /9 x; "7 x7
I/]L3.£X fj'*~ {0 / . c^
y
D-5
-------
TABLE D-5. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. Date £> - /jj _ TjT" Evaluated By A- A-
Model Engine Cu~m,,>i.<-,'^/ /1/72T- ^?^?
JU
Accelerations
uJ t*"'is;&/) Cenr>'°LU ra^io/j
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
JL,
-3
4
^
&
7
%
-)
/o
//
/ 2*
'3
/<-
f -5
*£$ 0
*f-&.O
• O
J3.f
/J2. J
// 5^
//.O
3. S^"
/. ^
/< o
/*. 5~~
•/ i?
7. J
Total Smoke % J?.40. -3
/
oU
3
X.O
f.Z —
/<3. C"
/T: 5"
/«2. ^"
•9. C?
•7 j
409.S-
/
^2,
3
7^ ^7
/(9 5
/.< /?
/ -52V. 3 -
/
.2,
J
-(/
J
J./K
15
Comments: *^f,O
J.-3
3.0
J 0
J 0
3. D
/S-.3
/
^L
J
' C jn. s — ^i? ~~
J-f^,<5> 77'.0 7-2 •<> —
A 7.
D-6
-------
TABLE D-6. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL, SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No.
Date
Evaluated By
Model Engine (^nL-n'^Cti^i/ Al Tcl-Jl$0
z.
Accelerations
cut &»,s*ion CMt^uw.o*
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. ^
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NoT Smoke %
/
JL
3
>4.
o
^
>7
/
"7
/<9
//
/J2.
A3
; —
7 ^
*z/.o
36: . t>
JZ-^. O
/ ^. O
/£ ^
/£.<*.
^ ' S~~
#.&
: i
3. 0
-f i?
? g
3. /
Total Smoke % /.5""! 3
Factor (b) , -
15
Comments: 4£*£, f)
-?- /
-?. /^
^?. /
£.3
J..3
S3., f
/
^2.
j?
v'
J
^?. 7
.5s. -ST"
^•. o"
- <—
-<". j^
/^./
JfD
J¥. O -J4, O «M'< O
Jtf c —
-------
TABLE D-7. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. Date £-JZ£~- Y-J Evaluated By fcxr
Model Engine Cn.-n-^n^aJ rf/~d- LX 9O
£
Accelerations
~iOn 01 'yuf~
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
3s
^
•V.
-sJ
£,
7
/
9
/O
//
/JL
/3
fi
/.S —
Total Smoke %
/7,0
34.0
31. o
36.0
oZ/. *~
/3. S""
J-^-.O
/I.O
£.*5~
/I.O
<£ 3. 0
1 f.O
/0.0
*f ?~~
&,o
3Z5.0
/
i
-3
V
^
if
7
J'
/'
/o
//
/^
/.?
/*
/$ —
^,£>
/7. £>
J.3.O
*i/.C>
/$ • 5"^
/V. 3
// s"
/, $
&.O
£*.S~
/&.n
a? 3- O
/<£.£~~
3.0
£^ S"
/9f.*r
/
*2,
3
3.£~
3 £^
3 £~
1 5*"
J".o
/7.0
-£3.0
/
~i
j
4
S
.?.$
of. ±~~
J z~
~2- 3
^2.3
/1J
J/. O ^?/ O *3 2 . O
*?&• ^ /3, £ — /^ &
9 /. o &3. ^r~ 6 '7 o
D-8
-------
TABLE D-8. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. Date & - £ Z'- Y^T Evaluated By /T ft
Model Engine /f, „, „,,, ^ /l/7~£?. ~?^£>
L
Accelerations
m>^s,e>n on ,,\ur.i
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. ois
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
2_
J)
4.
s~~
£
^
,:
•j
/£>
//
/J^
/J
/•c
f^
/O.D
3. 3. *~
3"/-. ^
-S.Z'-O
*LO.Q
/to
/y1^*
/£>.O
J.O
70
/6>.D
&. o
S o
~J.o
3.1. 0
/7.0
fi ZT~
6.S
<3o/.o
/
,2.
3 .
^
_^
7
j
-J
/o
//
/z
/3
/-•.
/f. o
*<3,3
^£.5"
^O.O
/7. ,T~
/'-'. -^
-'/.O
S.o
&>.£>
S'.O
/
ofo^. o
Factor (a) ; <£<^,/? = /"V! -^ %
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
<£
3
^
— -
Total Smoke %
3.0
°2-£
*2.0
*2 3
<2,0
/o.o
Factor (b) = 3£. f ; ^
/
^.
J
^
r*
'^%
15
Comments: ^^. ^
=2.*^
-2.*'
^"--"
.« . S
-? O
ti.t
/
=2^
^
^25". 9 •=? /. O j? /. O
JS.D 6X.D 6&.S~~
'C ''
D-9
-------
TABLE D-9. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. Date /O-St-^-7^ Evaluated By A;Y
Model Engine £>Dtff) ///_'// T
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval Not Smoke %
. /
2-
S
4
5~
i,
7
#
/
10
II
/•
/3
/*
/5^
Total Smoke %
10. 0
JO.'J
i a. o"
/6.o"
/c". )
// j
/^.^
/i.-f
ii. .-)
f j>
f.ff
7,0
Ls~
45~
4.Q
lu.f
1
2,
3
V
<-
6
fj
?
1
10
II
/.2-
/^
/<^
tf
]&• o
*?£. O
J0.&~
j.b.g'
^.•S"
*?£.£
M.0
ts:o
// s~
/o.o
Jf.^
4^>
^i ' S
¥.£
"^.^"
£33.0
/
£.
3
-^
-"
&
f
J
~
iO
/I
12-
13
/ 0
/3.S'
//. r*
y. <3
•7.Q
7.2
<£. ^5
/^7 J
#-ff~
331.^
Factor (a)- £2/0 = /^/. Q V*
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
ji.
<£
+
z~
S'.f
£ 5"
-7 5"
$.Q
?.o
Total Smoke % 3£" • °
Factor (b) f / -
I
2
J
-<.
j—
L.f %
15
Comments:
£.0
6.0
6.G
76
J-Z~
31.J
/
^
jf
•^
J^
f f
-S~ -£~
£, /)
& •r"
^ S"
3t,o
' .2r>.£> / 3d- O 1 ^?4- /7
^ /? ^ ,2. 3d.£~ 2. =2j.S^
J /&.S~ ^j> J6,s~ ^? J? J
.f^o^ . ^ '-p 0 £ X & , ip~
331,3^
•'•'' ~ 3S~. 7 Yo ~> - -*&££c,i;
D-10
-------
TABLE D-10. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
FEDERAL, SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No.
Date /0-
Evaluated By X"*/
Model Engine /9/>/
/O. 0
10. 0
3.0
7 5
(?.S~
'^ -j
.fj.O
4..$
<£,»
/3(*,ir
Factor (a) ; SJ3.0 = /^
/
£.
^
"2
^~
£
•7
Y
-j
/J
//
/%_
/$_
/•<£
.•••J
.1*
=2 £. O
^ ••-..?
3.2. D
*?6. 0
sf a
/?.&
'•' y
/; 7
/9.O
£.O
^f.p
.4.3
tte.*r
45
Lagging
First Sequence Second Sequence
/
sZ-
3
^
-i
i^
Sf
s
-1
/O
//
/3
/5
/•«•
//.3~~
40.0
&7.O
•33. £>
: ' 3
«2/ j
//C. 5^
/J, ^7
9.0
4. o
• —
^o—
y ^"
^^v.o
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
JL
3
4?
5-"
Total Smoke %
6.0
^, n
6-0
6.-^
?• O
*~* / o
/
-£
J!
V
5
&.S"
fjf.^~
I7i^'
f.n
f '^
37.0
/
3-
3
<
•=>
(,. o
£.£
(, ^~~
JT^T"
',^«S^
33.^
Factor (b) , 103 b - bt % 'D
15
Comments:
/7.0 34. 0 "¥J.o
/£" 3 3.2 o 3", 3
SJ 3 -?3 & --' -
^^ A ~[y {-, . (J /07 '_'
J.lb.b
-7 •=- 3 3 3 YD "" ' -^ ,' £2 '.:
I/
D-ll
-------
APPENDIX E
ODOR RATING BY EPA Q/I METHOD
OF FIVE HEAVY DUTY ENGINES
-------
TABLE E-l. COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS
Detroit Diesel 6V-7 1 Engine
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
900 rpm
50% load
900 rpm
100% load
1500 rpm
2% load
1500 rpm
50% load
1500 rpm
100% load
Date
Conf.
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
"D"
Composite
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.0
3. 1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.3
4.7
4.6
4.7
3.4
3.3
3.4
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
3.2
3.4
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.5
4.2
3.9
4.1
3.9
3.4
3.7
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1. 1
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
iipti
Pungent
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.2
1. 1
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
E-2
-------
TABLE E-l (Cont'd.) COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS
Detroit Dieael 6V-71 Engine
Condition
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Date
Conf.
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
8/19/75 LSN
8/21/75 LSN
Average
8/26/75 B60E
8/28/75 B60E
Average
"D"
Composite
2.8
3. 1
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
5. 1
5. 1
5. 1
4.0
3.6
3.8
4.8
4.4
4.6
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.9
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.2
1. 1
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.0 •
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
I1QII
Oily
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
t,p,,
Pungent
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
E-3
-------
TABLE £-2. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Date: August 19. 1975
Injectors: LSN 60
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
3.
13.
17.
1.
6.
11.
8.
16.
20.
10.
15.
21.
4.
9.
18.
2.
5.
14.
7.
12.
19.
22.
27.
29.
31.
23.
26.
28.
32.
24.
25.
30.
33.
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
900 rpm
50% load
900 rpm
100% load
1500 rpm
2% load
1500 rpm
50% load
1500 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.8
2.3
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.2
2.3
2.5
5.0
4.6
4.6
4.7
2.9
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.8
4.6
4.1
4.0
4.2
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.8
5.0
5.1
4.9
5.4
5.1
4.9
5. 1
4.6
4.5
4.8
3. 1
2.9
3.0
3.8
3.2
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.8
.9
.4
.9
.8
.8
.7
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
"O"
Qily^
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.4
1.1
1. 1
1.1
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
o.s'
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1. 1
0.9
"P"
Pungent
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Q._2
0.3
1.3
1.1
1. 1
1.2
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
1. 1
1.1
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
E-4
-------
TABLE E-3. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-7 1
Date: August 21, 1975
Injectors: LSN 60
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
5.
12.
20.
4.
14.
21.
1.
8.
18.
6.
13.
19.
7.
10.
15.
2.
9.
17.
3.
11.
16.
24.
25.
29.
32.
22.
27.
30.
33.
23.
26.
28.
31.
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
900 rpm
50% load
900 rpm
100% load
1500 rpm
2% load
1500 rpm
50% load
1500 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
3. 1
2.6
3.0
2.9
2.6
2. 1
2.9
2.5
4.0
4.9
5.0
4.6
3.3
2.7
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.9
2.6
3.6
3.3
4.7
3.9
2.9
3.0
3.3
3.1
4.9
5.2
5.4
4.7
5.1
4.6
4.4
4. 1
4.4
4.4
3.0
3.6
2.9
3.3
3.2
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
"0"
Oily
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1. 0
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
iipn
Pungent
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.4
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
E-5
-------
TABLE E-4. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Date: August 26, 1975
Injectors: B60E
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
2.
7.
12.
8.
17.
20.
14.
16.
18.
4.
11.
19.
3.
10.
15.
1.
5.
9.
6.
13.
21.
24.
26.
30.
31.
23.
25.
29.
32.
22.
27.
28.
33.
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
900 rpm
50% load
900 rpm
100% load
1500 rpm
2% load
1500 rpm
50% load
1500 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
3.4
3.0
3. 1
3.2
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.2
3.9
2.8
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.3
4.0
3.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.3
4.1
3.7
3.8
3.9
3. 1
2.8
2.5
2.8
4.2
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.4
2.9
3.8
2.3
3.5
2.8
2.4
2.8
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.2
1. 1
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1. 1
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.7
ri'pii ,
JPunccnt
0.5
0.5
°il
0. 5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
1.0
1. 1
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1. 1
0.6
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
E-6
-------
TABLE E-5. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Date: August 28, 1975
Injectors: B60E
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
1.
6.
13.
3.
11.
19.
9.
15.
17.
2.
10.
18.
7.
14.
21.
4.
8.
16.
5.
11.
20.
22.
27.
29.
32.
23.
26.
28.
31.
24.
25.
30.
33.
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
900 rpm
50% load
900 rpm
100% load
1500 rpm
2% load
1500 rpm
50% load
1500 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Compoaite
3.0
3.5
2.4
3.0
2.6
2.1
2.4
2.4
3.1
3.9
2.9
3.3
3.7
2.7
3.1
3.2
2.6
3.0
2.6
2.7
3.8
3.7
2.8
3.4
3.4
2.1
2.9
2.8
4.0
3.9
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.1
3.7
3.3
3.6
3.4
2.3
2.8
3.2
3.2
2.9
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.5
0, 7
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
"P"
Pungent
0.5
0.8
0. 4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
1.1
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.7
0. 2
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
E-7
-------
TABLE E-6. COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS
Cummins NTC-290
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Date
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
Conf.*
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
"D"
Composite
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.6
2. 1
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.8
3.0
1.9
2.3
2.1
"B"
Burnt
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
»O"
Oily
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
1 1 pit
Pungent
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
*C - "Current Emission Configuration"
L - "Low Emission Configuration"
E-8
-------
TABLE E-6 (Cont'd.) COMPARISON OF ODOR RATINGS
Cummins NTC-290
Condition
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Date Conf. *
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
C
c
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
"D"
Composite
2.6
2.4
2.5
3.3
3. 2
3.3
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.5
3. 1
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.9
5.1
5.2
5.2
4.6
4.0
4.3
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.4
"O"
Oily
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1. 1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
"P"
Pungent
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
1. 1
1. 2
1. 2
1. 1
1. 0
1. 1
*C - "Current Emission Configuration
L - "Low Emission Configuration"
E-9
-------
TABLE E-7. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Current)
Date: August 5, 1975
Timing: Standard
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
5.
10.
16.
3.
14.
21.
1.
9.
18.
7.
13.
20.
2.
8.
19.
6.
11.
15.
4.
12.
17.
22.
27.
29.
31.
24.
26.
28.
33.
23.
25.
30.
32.
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.6
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.0
3.1
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.6
1.8
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.9
1.8
2.4
3.3
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.6
3.5
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.7
3.1
2.7
2.9
3.6
3.1
4.4
4.8
5.3
5.8
5.1
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
"0"
Oily
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.1
"A"
Aromatic
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.3
0. 4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
M p>"
Pungent
0.6 '
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0,3
0.4
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
0..5
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
E-10
-------
TABLE E-8. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Current)
Date: August 7, 1975
Timing: Standard
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
6.
12.
17.
1.
8.
19.
4.
13.
21.
2.
9.
15.
3.
14.
20.
7.
11.
16.
5.
10.
18.
24.
26.
28.
31.
23.
27.
30.
32.
22.
25.
29.
33.
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.5
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.5
2.6
3.4
2.7
2.3
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.4
3.4
4.1
2.7
3.6
3.5
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
5.0
5. 7
4.6
5.3
5.2
"B"
Burnt
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.7
1. 7
1.7
1.7
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0. 8
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1, 0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.2
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
"P"
Pungent
0.2
0. 2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0. 3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.1
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.2
E-ll
-------
TABLE E-9. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Low)
Date: August 12. 1975
Timing: Variable
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
2.
7.
10.
15.
ZO.
6.
11.
18.
5.
9.
19.
4.
13.
21.
1.
8.
16.
3.
12.
17.
24.
26.
30.
33.
22.
27.
29.
32.
23.
25.
28.
31.
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
3.1
2.6
2.7
1.9
2.1
2.9
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.8
3.6
2.5
3.0
1.9
1.6
2.3
1.9
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.1
3.5
2.1
2.6
3.4
3.0
2.8
4.1
4.5
5.0
4.9
4.6
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.5
IIQII
Oily
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
iipn
Pungent
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
E-12
-------
TABLE E-10. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Low)
Date: August 14, 1975
Timing: Variable
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
3.
9.
15.
7.
13.
19.
2.
10.
21.
11.
17.
20.
1.
8.
12.
4.
6.
16.
5.
14.
18.
22.
26.
30.
33.
23.
25.
28.
31.
24.
27.
29.
32.
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
1.8
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.3
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.9
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.6
2.0
2.3
2.3
3. 7
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.9
4.1
3.3
3.4
3.4
2.1
2.9
3.8
3.3
3.0
3.5
4.5
4.1
4.0
4.0
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.2
"O"
Oily
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.8
0. 7
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
ifpi i
Pungent
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
6.3
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
E-13
-------
TABLE E-11. SUMMARY OF DAILY ODOR TEST AVERAGES
Detroit Diesel 8V-71 TA
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Date
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
"D"
Composite
3.2
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.9
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.7
3.1
2.8
2.4
2.8
3.8
3.9
3.7
3.8
2.8
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.8
3.1
2.9
2.9
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
. 1
. 1
.0
. 1
. 1
. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
it pit
Pungent
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
E-14
-------
TABLE E-12. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 8V-71 TA
Date: January 12. 1976
Injectors: N-75
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
5.
10.
16.
3.
14.
21.
1.
9.
18.
7.
13.
20.
2.
8.
19.
6.
11.
15.
4.
12.
17.
24.
26.
28.
31.
23.
27.
30.
32.
22.
25.
29.
33.
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
3.4
2.7
3.4
3.2
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.6
3.2
2.6
2.8
3.3
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.6
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.6
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.7
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.2
2.8
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.8
2.8
"B"
Burnt
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0..8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"0"
Oily
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.6
iipn
Pungent
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0. 7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
E-15
-------
TABLE E-13. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 8V-71 TA
Date: January 14, 1976
Injectors: N-75
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
6.
12.
17.
1.
8.
19.
4.
13.
21.
2.
9.
15.
3.
14.
20.
7.
11.
16.
5.
10.
18.
23.
26.
29.
31.
22.
24.
28.
32.
25.
27.
30.
33.
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Accele ration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
1.9
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
3.1
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.2
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.0
2.7
2.1
2.3
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.8
2.5
3.1
2.7
2.8
3.6
4.1
3.6
4.4
3.9
2.8
2,9
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.5
3.5
3.3
2.9
3.1
"B"
Burnt
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
it nil
Pungent
0.5
0. 7
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.3=
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.7
E-16
-------
TABLE E-14. ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 8V-71 TA
Date: January 16, 1976
Injectors: N-75
Dilution: 100:1
Run
No.
1.
9.
16.
6.
13.
19.
4.
10.
17.
5.
11.
14.
8.
15.
21.
2.
7.
20.
3.
12.
18.
24.
26..
29.
32.
23.
27.
31.
33.
22.
25.
28.
30.
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.3
2.4
2.9
2.5
2.7
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.7
3.4
2.9
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.9
2.3
2.5
2.0
2.9
2.3
2.4
3.4
3.7
4. 0
3.8
3.7
3.4
2.6
3.5
3.3
3.2
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.3
2.9
"B"
Burnt
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.6
0. 7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
ii pn
Pungent
0.3
0. 3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.6
E-17
-------
APPENDIX F
INSTRUMENTAL-WET CHEMICAL EXHAUST DATA
TAKEN DURING ODOR TEST OF
FIVE HEAVY DUTY ENGINES
-------
TABLE F-l. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS
Detroit Diesel 6V-71 Engine
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
900 rpm
50% load
900 rpm
100% load
1500 rpm
2% load
1500 rpm
50% load
1500 rpm
1007. load
Idle
Date
8/19/75
8/21/75
Average
8/26/75
8/28/75
Average
8/19/75
8/21/75
Average
8/26/75
8/28/75
Average
8/19/75
8/21/75
Average
8/26/75
8/28/75
Average
8/19/75
8/21/75
Average
8/26/75
8/28/75
Average
8/19/75
8/21/75
Average
8/26/75
8/28/75
Average
8/19/75
8/21/75
Average
8/26/75
8/28/75
Average
8/19/75
8/21/75
Average
8/26/75
8/28/75
Average
Conf.
LSN 60
LSN 60
B60E
B60E
LSN 60
LSN 60
B60E
B60E
LSN 60
LSN 60
B60E
B60E
LSN 60
LSN 60
B60E
B60E
LSN 60
LSN 60
B60E
B60E
LSN 60
LSN 60
B60E
B60E
LSN 60
LSN 60
B60E
B60E
HC,
ppm C
203
147
175
120
122
121
240
229
235
75
79
77
454
423
439
212
203
208
233
164
199
126
133
130
253
264
259
100
84
92
345
321
333
135
151
143
202
149
176
132
159
146
CO,
ppm
144
145
145
207
191
199
99
97
98
89
82
86
7851
7833
7842
3621
3410
3516
112
121
117
235
215
225
97
93
95
84
76
80
1829
1710
1770
1353
1181
1267
126
126
126
129
135
132
CO 2,
%
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.3
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.0
6.4
6.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
NDIR
NO,
ppm
162
158
160
71
73
72
712
726
719
398
411
405
830
787
809
1031
1052
1042
191
174
183
73
75
74
619
636
627
298
331
315
1132
1139
1136
852
883
868
191
174
183
97
102
100
CL
NO,
ppm
142
140
141
66
69
68
652
652
652
364
390
377
762
741
752
933
987
960
160
158
159
66
71
69
574
586
580
276
294
285
1051
1062
1057
795
850
823
160
160
160
92
97
95
NOX,
ppm
181
174
177
89
95
92
707
778
743
396
421
409
800
778
789
968
1020
994
194
193
194
93
97
95
623
635
629
303
324
314
1105
1117
1111
827
891
859
200
198
199
113
121
117
DO AS
LCA,
^g/l
23.5
16.1
19.8
19.7
17.0
18.4
26.4
20.9
23.7
11.4
10.0
10.7
59.7
50.4
55.1
26.6
24.9
25.8
26.1
20.2
23.2
20.8
18.0
19.4
28.9
22.5
25.7
16.1
9.8
13.0
54.0
43.7
48.9
27.2
21.8
24,5
20.3
15.4
17.9
18.7
15.5
17.1
Results
LCO,
>-g/l
1.0
1.3
1.2
2.4
2.4
2.4
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3
2.3
3.8
3.1
2.2
2.8
2.5
0.9
1.6
1.3
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.6
2.4
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
TIA
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1,1
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
F-2
-------
TABLE F-2. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Date: August 19, 1975
Injectors: LSN 60
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
Average
900 rpm
50% load
Average
900 rpm
100% load
Average
1500 rpm
2% load
Average
1500 rpm
50% load
Average
1500 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
3.
13.
17.
1.
6.
11.
8.
16.
20.
10.
15.
21.
4.
9.
18.
2.
5.
14.
7.
12.
19.
HC,
ppm C
230
202
176
203
224
250
246
240
460
468
434
454
222
232
246
233
280
230
250
253
342
340
352
345
205
206
194
202
CO,
ppm
148
143
140
144
102
88
108
99
8197
7508
7849
7851
135
88
112
112
111
85
94
97
1886
1808
1792
1829
129
135
115
126
C02,
%
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
NDIR
NO,
ppm
146
172
168
162
685
721
731
712
803
830
856
830
1.86 '
196
192
191
628
630
600
619
1088
1114
1193
1132
186
190
198
191
CL
NO,
ppm
147
143
137
142
642
663
652
652
738
770
778
762
160
167
153
160
610
573
540
574
1030
1045
1078
1051
160
160
159
160
NOX,
ppm
178
189
176
181
697
713
712
707
775
810
815
800
196
198
188
194
658
623
587
623
1093
1083
1140
1105
202
204
194
200
DOAS Results
LCA,
,ug/l
23.4
22.4
24.8
23.5
27.6
24.7
27.0
26.4
57.4
61.3
60.3
59.7
26.1
26.3
25.9
26.1
30.5
28.5
27.7
28.9
54.6
52.5
54.8
54.0
19.7
20.4
20.7
20.3
LCO,
Ag/1
f »
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
2.0
2.9
2.1
2.3
0.7
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.6
0.8
1.1
2.4
2.0
2.9
2.4
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.8
TIA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.4
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.4
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
F-3
-------
TABLE F-3. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Date: August 21, 1975
Injectors: LSN 60
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
Z% load
Average
900 rpm
50% load
Average
900 rpm
1 00% load
Average
1500 rpm
2% load
Average
1500 rpm
50% load
Average
1500 rpm
1 00% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
5.
12.
20.
4.
14.
21.
1.
8.
18.
6.
13.
19.
7.
10.
15.
2.
9.
17.
3.
11.
16.
HC,
ppmC
142
150
148
147
218
239
230
229
392
444
432
423
173
156
163
164
257
278
257
264
332
306
324
321
146
150
152
149
CO,
ppm
151
140
143
145
108
94
89
97
8197
8109
7193
7833
127
121
116
121
94
94
91
93
1652
1730
1749
1710
108
156
113
126
C02,
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
NDIR
NO,
150
154
170
158
702
713
763
726
731
775
856
787
158
178
186
174
635
644
630
636
1120
1120
1176
1139
172
174
176
174
CL
NO,
138
140
142
140
646
643
668
652
708
732
783
741
156
157
162
158
593
589
575
586
1070
1043
1073
1062
170
153
156
160
NOX,
170
177
175
174
710
712
730
717
735
778
820
778
190
190
198
193
645
638
623
635
1125
1093
1133
1117
202
192
201
198
DOAS Results
LCA,
16.4
21.8
10.1
16.1
16.1
25.0
21.5
20.9
46.8
55.0
49.5
50.4
20.5
20.4
19.6
20.2
20.9
23.4
23.2
22.5
47.3
44.1
39.6
43.7
14.2
15.2
16.9
15.4
LCO,
/fi/i
1.3
1.7
0.8
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.3
3.4
4.2
3.8
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
4.1
3.4
3.1
3.5
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
TIA
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
F-4
-------
TABLE F-4. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Date: August 26, 1975
Injectors: B60E
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
Average
900 rpm
50% load
Average
900 rpm
100% load
Average
1500 rpm
2% load
Average
1500 rpm
50% load
Average
1500 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
2.
7.
12.
8.
17.
20.
14.
16.
18.
4.
11.
19.
3.
10.
15.
1.
5.
9.
6.
13.
Zl.
HC.
ppm C
104
144
111
120
72
84
70
75
232
212
192
212
124
132
123
126
104
100
96
100
126
140
140
135
158
122
116
132
CO.
ppm
194
225
202
207
94
85
88
89
4317
3445
3101
3621
252
238
216
235
81
94
78
84
1213
1423
1423
1353
139
121
126
129
C02,
%
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.2
6.2
6.2
5.6
6.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
5.9
6.2
6.2
6.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
NDIR
NO,
ppm
72
65
77
71
371
403
421
398
979
1054
1061
1031
66
77
76
73
297
295
302
298
856
861
838
852
103
99
89
97
CL
NO,
ppm
70
61
67
66
338
371
382
364
892
947
960
933
62
63
74
66
278
269
280
276
818
793
773
795
96
90
90
92
NOX,
ppm
93
86
89
89
372
405
412
396
925
977
1002
968
88
92
100
93
310
291
309
303
843
825
813
827
113
113
113
113
DO AS Results
LCA,
/
-------
TABLE F-5. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 6V-71
Date: August 28, 1975
Injectors: B60E
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
900 rpm
2% load
Average
900 rpm
50% load
Average
900 rpm
100% load
Average
1500 rpm
2% load
Average
1500 rpm
50% load
Average
1500 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
1.
6.
13.
3.
11.
19.
9.
15.
17.
2.
10.
18.
7.
14.
21.
4.
8.
16.
5.
12.
20.
HC,
ppm C
138
122
106
122
80
74
84
79
166
252
190
203
130
122
148
133
106
78
68
84
148
152
152
151
202
137
138
159
CO,
ppm
202
189
181
191
81
89
75
82
3410
3410
3410
3410
230
202
213
215
81
86
62
76
1183
1198
1163
1181
142
129
135
135
C02,
%
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3
6.2
6.5
6.5
6.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.4
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
NDIR
NO,
ppm
74
64
82
73
386
434
412
411
990
1083
1083
1052
70
76
78
75
343
336
313
331
874
840
934
883
103
105
99
102
NO,
ppm
68
67
73
69
388
393
388
390
963
1005
993
987
64
70
79
71
280
303
300
294
859
840
850
850
102
91
97
97
CL
NOX,
ppm
90
96
99
95
418
426
420
421
998
1033
1028
1020
92
100
99
97
312
330
331
324
894
885
895
891
122
119
122
121
DOAS Results
LCA,
/*g/l
22.6
16.1
12.2
17.0
12.5
8.1
9.4
10.0
24.6
24.4
25.7
24.9
23.9
14.1
15.9
18.0
12.6
8.8
8.1
9.8
22.4
19.7
23.4
21.8
18.6
15.6
12.4
15.5
LCO,
Ag/1
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
3.0
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.1
2.4
2.3^
2.6
1.9
1.6
1.2
1.6
3.4
2.7
3.0
3.0
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.6
TIA
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.1.
1.1
1. 1
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.5
1. 5
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
F-6
-------
TABLE F-6. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS
Cummins NTC-290
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Date
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
8/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
a/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
a/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
8/5/75
a/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
a/5/75
a/7/75
Average
8/12/75
8/14/75
Average
Conf. *
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L.
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
C
C
L
L
HC,
ppm C
76
79
78
90
101
96
63
64
64
98
87
93
69
73
71
83
88
86
70
73
72
88
91
90
62
65
64
99
90
95
80
86
83
87
88
88
105
93
99
144
130
137
CO,
ppm
116
104
110
133
144
139
143
144
144
189
162
176
621
617
619
567
451
509
105
101
103
115
112
114
97
86
92
134
112
123
112
103
108
142
148
145
98
83
91
125
126
126
C02,
%
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.3
9.8
9.3
9.6
9.2
8.9
9.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
6.0
7.2
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
NDIR
NO,
ppm
171
157
164
118
112
115
888
886
887
307
320
314
2059
2078
2069
732
702
717
219
222
221
139
142
140
726
702
714
250
260
255
1875
1827
1851
636
702
669
131
134
133
89
89
89
CL
NO,
ppm
153
156
155
103
98
101
849
839
844
278
297
288
2002
2061
2032
667
688
678
199
190
195
122
130
126
657
649
653
226
230
228
1795
1770
1783
574
628
601
114
107
111
78
77
78
NOX,
ppm
178
184
181
118
110
114
900
896
898
285
303
294
2118
2195
2157
683
705
694
222
214
218
138
140
139
695
682
689
234
247
241
1923
1890
1907
587
645
616
140
143
142
92
93
93
DOAS Results
LCA,
pafl
5.3
10,1
7.7
6.2
6.5
6.4
4.6
4.3
4.5
9.4
7.7
8.6
3.8
4.8
4.3
5.1
4.7
4.9
5.4
5.4
5.4
7.4
12.9
10.2
4.3
3.9
4,1
9.1
8.2
8.7
5.1
4.9
5.0
6.8
6.7
6.8
5.8
5.3
5.6
9.5
11.8
10.7
LCO,
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.9
2.8
2.0
2.4
2.6
1.9
2.3
2.6
2.1
2.4
2.3
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.8
2.5
2.1
2.7
2.4
3.0
2.2
2.6
3.1
1.9
2.5
3.0
4.7
3.9
2.8
1.5
2.2
2.9
2.9
2.9
TIA
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
!.3
1.3
" 1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
F-7
-------
TABLE F-7. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Current)
Date: August 5. 1975
Timing: Standard
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
Average
1400 rpm
50% load
Average
1400 rum
100% load
Average
2100 rpm
2% load
Average
2100 rpm
50% load
Average
2100 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
5.
10.
16.
3.
14.
21.
1.
9.
18.
7.
13.
20.
2.
8.
19.
6.
11.
15.
4.
12.
17.
HC,
ppm C
71
77
81
76
59
65
64
63
64
77
66
69
71
64
75
70
63
57
67
62
82
74
84
80
100
99
116
105
CO,
PPm
127
108
112
116
152
148
130
143
582
633
647
621
81
121
112
105
94
104
92
97
112
94
130
112
104
81
108
98
COz,
%
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.1
-
6.3
6.2
9.3
9.5
10.6
9.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.3
6.0
-
-
6.0
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
NDIR
NO,
ppm
158
190
164
171
896
884
884
888
2030
2160
1986
2059
230
218
210
219
751
704
723
726
1824
1880
1922
1875
125
150
117
131
CL
NO,
PPm
140
159
160
153
868
830
850
849
2030
1975
2000
2002
202
194
201
199
661
642
668
657
1758
1803
1825
1795
107
128
108
114
NOX,
PPm
161
182
190
178
918
880
903
900
2150
2108
2095
2118
226
216
223
222
699
673
712
695
1868
1933
1968
1923
132
155
133
140
DOAS Results
LCA,
x*g/l
6.7
4.6
4.7
5.3
4.6
3.8
5.3
4.6
2.9
5.0
3.5
3.8
5.8
5.4
5.0
5.4
3.9
5.1
4.0
4.3
5.8
4.5
5.0
5.1
7.2
4.5
5.6
5.8
LCO.
/
-------
TABLE F-8. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Current)
Date: August 7, 1975
Timing: Standard
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
Average
1400 rpm
50% load
Average
1400 rpm
100% load
Average
2100 rpm
2% load
Average
2100 rpm
50% load
Average
2100 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
6.
12.
17.
1.
8.
19.
4.
13.
21.
2.
9.
15.
3.
14.
20.
7.
11.
16.
5.
10.
18.
HC,
ppm C
78
83
76
79
65
66
62
64
76
72
71
73
75
72
72
73
67
67
62
65
95
88
76
86
90
90
98
93
CO,
ppm
117
108
88
104
135
162
135
144
576
641
633
617
94
-
108
101
77
90
90
86
121
94
94
103
90
81
77
83
C02,
%
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.2
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
9.3
9.4
9.3
9.3
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.8
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.4
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NDIR
NO,
ppm
154
175
142
157
809
995
854
886
2145
2073
2015
2078
218
235
212
222
685
713
709
702
1863
1762
1855
1827
150
123
128
134
CL
NO,
pj>m
146
160
163
156
825
880
813
839
2060
2048
2075
2061
182
192
197
190
622
683
642
649
1770
1770
1770
1770
106
103
111
107
NOX.
ppm
172
187
192
184
873
963
853
896
2243
2143
2200
2195
207
216
219
214
658
717
670
682
1900
1875
1895
1890
149
143
137
143
DOAS Results
LCA,
^tg/1
4.3
22.0
4.1
10.1
2.8
4.0
6.2
4.3
7.2
3.4
3.9
4.8
4.8
6.5
4.8
5.4
4.4
4.0
3.2
3.9
4.4
5.8
4.6
4.9
4.3
6.5
5.0
5.3
LCO,
Jjigl\
1.2
3.3
1.8
2.1
1.0
1.8
2.3
1.7
2.2
1.4
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4
4.5
2.1
2.7
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.5
TIA
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
F-9
-------
TABLE F-9. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Low)
Date: August 12, 1975
Timing: Variable
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
Average
1400 rpm
50% load
Average
1400 rpm
1 00% load
Average
2100 rpm
2% load
Average
2100 rpm
50% load
Average
2100 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
2.
7.
14.
10.
15.
20.
6.
11.
18.
5.
9.
19.
4.
13.
21.
1.
8.
16.
3.
12.
17.
HC,
ppni C
87
88
96
90
103
96
96
98
85
76
88
83
90
88
86
88
104
98
96
99
80
90
91
87
146
147
140
144
CO,
PP™
130
135
135
133
202
189
175
189
492
647
562
567
108
117
120
115
138
117
148
134
130
165
130
142
135
120
121
125
C02,
%
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
6.4
6.2
6.3
6.3
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.2
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.3
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.?
NDIR
NO,
PP_™
124
124
107
118
316
288
316
307
731
749
716
732
146
127
145
139
259
229
263
250
616
654
639
636
77
93
97
89
CL
NO,
ppm
106
105
98
103
280
275
278
278
660
670
672
667
121
117
127
122
226
224
227
226
556
570
595
574
65
82
88
78
NOX,
PP"1
122
118
113
118
292
273
289
285
672
687
690
683
139
135
140
138
234
233
234
234
570
580
610
587
83
93
100
92
DOAS Results
LCA,
AgA
t
6.2
6.0
6.4
6.2
9.4
10.8
8.1
9.4
5.1
5.0
5.1
5.1
7.9
8.2
6.2
7.4
8.9
9.1
9.3
9.1
6.2
6,2
7.9
6.8
8.7
10.6
9.1
9.5
LCO,
xUg/1
/
3.0
2.5
1.1
2.2
2.5
3.3
2.5
2.8
3.5
1.4
2.8
2.6
3.6
1.0
1.8
2.1
3.9
1.8
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.4
2.4
3.0
3.2
2.0
3.4
2.9
TIA
1.5
1,4
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
F-10
-------
TABLE F-10. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Cummins NTC-290 (Low)
Date: August 14, 1975
Timing: Variable
Dilution: 100:1
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
Average
1400 rpm
50% load
Average
1400 rpm
100% load
Average
2100 rpm
2% load
Average
2100 rpm
50% load
Average
2100 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
3.
9.
15.
7.
13.
19.
2.
10.
21.
11.
17.
20.
.1.
8.
12.
4.
6.
16.
5.
14.
18.
HC,
ppm C
108
100
96
101
72
92
98
87
104
88
72
88
92
88
92
91
90
88
92
90
88
88
88
88
136
124
130
130
CO,
ppm
148
108
175
144
175
121
189
162
451
409
492
451
54
135
148
112
135
108
94
112
135
135
175
148
135
81
162
126
C02,
%
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.9
2.8 .
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.3
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
1.5
1.4
1.4
1. 4
NDIR
NO,
PPm
122
111
103
112
347
326
288
320
736
745
625
702
146
150
130
142
259
267
255
260
697
716
692
702
107
84
76
89
CL
NO,
PPm
105
95
95
98
305
295
290
297
700
665
690
688
125
135
130
130
225
235
230
230
630
630
625
628
85
75
70
77
NOX,
PPm
115
100
115
110
310
305
295
303
710
690
715
705
135
145
140
140
245
250
245
247
645
650
640
645
100
90
90
93
DO AS Results
LCA,
/fJB/i
5.7
6.8
7.1
6.5
6.0
7.4
9.6
7.7
3.7
5.2
5.1
4.7
14.5
16.9
7.3
12.9
7.9
8.0
8.7
8.2
6.7
4.8
8.5
6.7
15.8
9.7
9.9
11.8
LCO,
/cg/1
1.8
2.6
1.3
1.9
2.1
1.3
2.5
2.0
1.4
3.0
1.8
2.1
4.0
3.1
1.4
2.8
2.0
3.2
1.4
2.2
2.6
9.2
2.2
4.7
4.9
1.8
2.1
2.9
TIA
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.4
1,3
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.4
2.0
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.4
F-ll
-------
TABLE F-U. SUMMARY OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Detroit Diesel 8V-71TA
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
1400 rpm
50% load
1400 rpm
100% load
2100 rpm
2% load
2100 rpm
50% load
2100 rpm
100% load
Idle
Date
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
Average
1/12/76
1/14/76
1/16/76
HC,
ppm C
-
101
"
101
.
89
"
89
_
100
-
100
.
92
92
-
Ill
-
Ill
_
85
-
85
.
141
-
141
CO,
ppm
.
118
127
123
_
96
89
93
_
1049
1214
1132
_
78
8J?
84
„
68
84
76
_
87
89
88
.
91
82
87
C02,
%
_
1.6
!_._5
1.6
_
4.5
4.1
4. 3
_
6.8
6.0
6.4
—
2.2
2.0
2.1
_
4.1
3.6
3.9
.
5.5
5.2
5.4
_
1.1
1.0
1.1
NDIR
NO,
J>pm
m.
125
110
118
522
531
527 .
1146
1040
1093
127
117
122
399
426
413
1071
948
1010
_
185
175
180
CL
NO,
PP"i
112
103
108
512
510
511
1034
1005
1020
124
122
123
379
408
394
959
929
944
.
169
183
176
NOX,
PP"1
135
135
135
536
534
535
1035
1055
1045
151
146
149
414
460
437
1000
975
988
189
203
196
DOAS Results
LCA,
^B/l
10. 0
8. 7
9.4
10 5
9.3
9.9
9. 0
8.8
8.9
11.6
11. 2
11.4
11.5
11.2
11.4
10. 2
9.7
10.0
9.1
8.6
8.9
LCO,
Mll\
5 7
4. 7
5.2
4 7
4. 1
4.4
6 5
5.1
5.8
5 9
4.9
5.4
5 2
4. 7
5.0
5 9
5 1
5.5
5.3
4.6
5. 0
TIA
1 8
1. 7
1.8
I 7
1.6
1.7
1 8
1. 7
1.8
1 7
1 7
1. 7
1 7
1 7
1.7
1 8
1 7
1.8
1. 7
1 7
1.7
-------
TABLE F-12. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 8V-71 TA
Date: January 14, 1976
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
Average
1400 rpm
50% load
Average
1400 rpm
100% load
Average
2100 rpm
2% load
Average
2100 rpm
50% load
Average
2100 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
6.
12.
17.
1.
8.
19
4.
13.
21.
2.
9.
15
3.
14.
20.
7.
11.
16
5
10
18
HC.
ppm C
104
92
107
101
110
48
108
89
104
92
104
100
126
61
88
92
142
86
1 f)4.
uT
80
95
80
85
122
186
116
141
CO,
ppm
131
91
132
118
105
78
105
96
1190
1015
942
1049
78
78
78
78
60
65
78
~68
91
78
91
87
80
80
113
91
C02,
%
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.6
3.9
4.0
5.5
4.5
6.1
6.6
7.6
6.8
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.2
3.5
4. 4
4 5
ITT
3.9
5.4
7.1
5.5
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
NDIR
NO,
ppm
126
122
126
125
525
487
555
522
1131
1148
1159
1146
122
122
138
127
377
403
416
399
1093
1050
1071
1071
190
174
190
185
CL
NO,
ppm
115
102
120
112
496
510
530
512
1027
975
1100
1034
117
125
130
124
370
378
390
379
930
940
1006
959
172
160
175
169
NOX,
ppm
133
130
143
135
518
530
560
536
1055
1050
1000
1035
143
150
160
151
402
410
430
414
985
990
1025
1000
196
182
190
189
DOAS Results
LCA,
,«-g/l
9.0
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.4
10.1
9.3
9.3
12.8
7.3
6.4
8.8
9.1
13.1
11.4
11.2
13.5
10.4
9.7
11.2
10.7
10.3
8.1
9.7
8.5
9.3
8.0
8.6
LCO,
AS/1
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.7
3.4
5.0
4.0
4.1
7.2
4.7
3. 3
5.1
3.8
5.9
5.0
4.9
5.7
4.4
4.0
4.7
5.6
5.3
4.4
5.1
4.5
5. 1
4.J
4.6
TIA
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.8
1. 7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1. 7
F-13
-------
TABLE F-13. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Engine: Detroit Diesel 8V-71TA
Date: January 16, 1976
Operating
Condition
1400 rpm
2% load
Average
1400 rpm
50% load
Average
1400 rpm
100% load
Average
2100 rpm
2% load
Average
2100 rpm
50% load
Average
2100 rpm
100% load
Average
Idle
Average
Run
No.
1.
9.
16.
6.
13.
19.
4.
10.
17.
5.
11.
14.
8.
15.
21.
2.
7.
20.
3.
12.
18.
CO,
ppm
144
126
111
127
88
100
78
89
1219
1205
1219
1214
72
85
111
89
60
109
84
84
105
70
91
89
84
91
72
82
C02,
%
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.9
4.4
3.9
4.1
5.8
6.1
6.2
6.0
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
3.6
4.0
3.3
3.6
5.5
5.0
5.0
5.2
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
NDIR
NO,
ppm
107
115
109
110
505
537
551
531
950
1054
1115
1040
109
115
126
117
412
430
436
426
852
922
1071
948
172
172
180
175
CL
NO,
ppm
93
107
109
103
497
520
513
510
958
1028
1030
1005
122
123
122
122
402
408
413
408
905
923
960
929
190
177
183
183
NOX,
ppm
127
139
140
135
528
543
530
534
1023
1068
1075
1055
142
147
148
146
493
439
448
460
952
972
1002
975
207
200
203
203
DOAS Results*
LCA,
/cg/1
10,5
9.3
10.3
10.0
9.5
10.9
11.1
10.5
11.0
9.4
6.5
9.0
11.3
12.2
11.5
11.7
9.5
15.0
10.0
11.5
12.1
8.7
9.7
10.2
10.2
8.0
9.2
9.1
LCD,
^g/1
6.0
5.1
6.1
5.7
4.8
4.9
4.5
4.7
8.2
6.7
4.4
6.4
6.4
5.9
5.4
5.9
4.8
6.6
4.3
5.2
6.4
4.8
6.4
5.9
6.3
4.9
4.8
5.3
TIA
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
*Run January 12, 1976
F-14
-------
APPENDIX G
COMPUTER REDUCED 1975 FTP, SET AND FET
GASEOUS AND FUEL, ECONOMY DATA FOR
FIVE LD DIESEL, VEHICLES
-------
TABLE G-l.HC, CO, NOX AND FUEL RESULTS
MERCEDES 220D COMPREX
Emission Rate, g/km
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Date
11-21-75
11-35-75
11-25-75
Average
11-31-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
HC
0. 11
0.09
0. 12
0. 11
0. 14
0. 10
0. 12
0. 13
0. 11
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.06
CO
0. 85
0.83
0.75
0.81
0.93
0.85
0.75
0.84
0.76
0.79
0.72
0.76
0.48
0.50
0.47
0.48
0.57
0.57
0.52
0.55
NOx
0.69
0.64
0.62
0.65
0.72
0.66
0.65
0.68
0.65
0.62
0.59
0.65
0.60
0.53
0.57
0.56
0.60
0.56
0.56
0.57
Fuel
Cons.
1/100 km
9.58
9.28
8.44
9. 10
10.20
9.64
8.78
9.54
8.88
8.86
8.21
9.10
7.30
7.03
6.77
7.03
7.72
7.63
7.12
7.49
Fuel
Econ.
mps
24.55
25.34
27.87
25.92
23.06
24.40
26.79
24. 75
26.49
26.55
28.65
27.23
32.22
33.46
34.74
33.47
30.47
30.83
33.03
31.44
G-2
-------
TAHLE G-2. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
1H75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
o
I
(JO
UNIT NO. TEST NO, 1
VEHICLE MOUEL MEHCEOES 2800 L*
TEST TYPE -1 COLD CONT.HC
BAROMETER 7H8.1H MM OF HG.
DHY BULB TEMP. 81,1 DEC, C
REL. HUMIDITY 37 PCI,
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DIF. PRESS., G2, 30'4.8 MM.
BA& RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER
HC SArtPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGKO METEK READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEK HEAOING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEAOINU/SCALE
PERCENT
METEK HEADlNli/sCALE
PERCENT
METEK READING/SCALE
PPM
HACKGSU METEH HEADING/SCALE
PPM
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coe
coa
C02
coe
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
CUNLENTHATION PPM
CONCtMHAl ION PPM
COrtCENFRAIION PCI
CONCENTMATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C05
NOX
WEIGHTED HASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
MASS NOX
IJA1E 11/21/75
ENGINE 2,20 LITHE H CYLt
COMMENTS 3 BAG
11 GKAMS/KILOMETRE
PS GHAMS/MLOMETHF.
si GKAMS/KILOHETRF
MFGR. CODE COMPREX YR, 1. CU. MEIflES
-------
TABLE G-3. VEHICLE EMISSION HESULTS - 1975 FTP
1M7S LIGHT DUTY FMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 8
VtHICLt MUOEL MERCKDES 380U L
TEST TYPE »-» COLO CUNI.HC
BAROMETER 7»H.5S MM OF HG.
OHY RIILB IE1P. 8J.1 UEG, C
REL, HUMIUlir 311 ccr.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE ll/Sf/PS
ENGIME 8.eil LlTRt H CYL,
COMMENTS 3 HAG
MFGR, CODE COMPREX
TEST HT. 1587 KG
WEI BULB TEMP 11,7 DEG, C
ABS. HUMIDITY f.b MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1175
KOAD LOAD
H.H KM
o
I
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
r.oe
NOX
HC
CO
cos
NOX
RLOHEK L)1F. PRESS., G8, 3UH.8 MM. H20
(JAG KESuLTS
HAG NO.
HLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
C02
CO?
CO?
NOX
PPM
MtTER WEADINli/SC ALE
PPM
MF.TEH RtAUINU/SCALE
PPM
bACKGHU MtTEK HEAOINU/SC ALE
BACKGHU PPM
SAMPLE METEK READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
HAC*GKf) PtRCENf
SAMPLE MtTErt HEADING/SCALE
O MtTER RtADINU/SCALE
HACM;RD PPM
IION PPM
C'lNCENTRAf ION PHM
CUNCEUfHATKIN PCI
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
'1A3S GHAMS
fiAbS GKAMS
MASS GRAMS
i
7517
7.S/3
30
a. s/3
10
•U.3/*
78
l.W*
3
53.3/3
1 .Sb
.08
i.o/a
i.o
72
H.73
.tlH UKAMS/KILOMtTRE
.83 GKAMS/KILOMMRt
f"»7.Bb GRAMS/KlLOMf TRE
,ht GHAMS/KILOMfTHE
H.7/3
14
a. 5/3
lu
87. b/*
58
l.l/*
8
BLOWER INLE1 PRESS., Gl 2f8.9 MM. H,?0
BLOWER INLET IEMP. HH OEG. c
3
7582
7.1/3
8<»
H.5/3
18
8.5/8
.07
87.3/8
87.3
.1/8
f «f
,8R
8b.S
.53
S.SO
15b7.83
4.0R
wfclGHTFi; MASS HC
wKlGHTtlJ MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS toe
NEIGhTtU HASS NOX
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CUNSUMP1IOM = q.jR LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
10TAL CVS FLOW = 2UH.5 STL>. CU. METRES
.S/*
1
1.35
8,5/8
,0?
•»O.S/8
•»O.S
i.a/8
1.2
18
b5
H.8S
1335,10
3.5f
-------
lAHLfc G-4. VEHICLt EMISSION RESULTS _ 1975 FTP
1M7S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TtST
UNIT NU. TEST NU. 3
VEHICLE MODEL MERCtOES 220U L*
TEST TYPE -1 COLD CONT.HC
BAROMETER 740.12 MM Of- HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 20.h DEC. C
HEL. HUMIKITY 43 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 11/85/75
ENGINE 2.SO LITHE 4 CYL,
COMMENTS 3 BAG
D1K. PKtSS.r
HAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
HLOWtR REVOLUTIONS
304,8 MM, H2U
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
O co
(In C02
coe
coe
coe
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
COS
NOX
SAMPLE MfcTEH HtAUINU/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD METEH REAUI NU/3C ALE
HACKGHD PPM
SAMPLE MfcTEH REAOINli/SCALE
SAMPLt PPM
BACKGHD METER HEADIHU/SCALt
UACKGNO PPM
SAMPLt METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLt PERCENT
BACKGRO METER RF AU1NU/SC ALE
HACMJHIJ PERCENT
SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
SAhPLt PPM
HACKGHD MhTtR WtAIJlNG/SCALE
HACKGKIJ PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCtNTrtAT ION PPM
COKiCENIKAT ION PC I
CONCENTKATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GKAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
12,0/2
24
4.0/2
8
35.7/*
b7
.-»/*
1
47.7/2
1.38
2.1/2
.Ob
41.3/2
41.3
1.1/2
1.1
17
bt
1.33
10.3
.5-*
*, Ih
J Sbb.Hfa
3.81
.It GHAMS/KILUMETKE
,7S GHAMS/KILOMKTKE
S25.HS GRAMS/KlLl'Mf TRE
MFGR. CODE COMPREX
TEST HT. 1587 KG
WET HULB TEMP 13.3 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY b.7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
Y««
ROAD LOAD
8.1 KK
11. H/?
23
3.5/2
7
24. H/*
Hb
INLET PRESS., ci SHB.S MM. neo
BLOWER INLET TEMP. na OEG. c
3
7511
11.1/2
22
4.0/2
8
34. I/*
31.2/2
.8?
1,7/2
.04
25.H/2
2S.R
.1/2
44
.83
4.RS
14K3.17
4.1)5
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGhTEO MASS CD
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
CAPHON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPIION = H.44 LITRES PER HUNflRfcO KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLLM = 2117,« STU. CU. METRES
41.S/2
1.2U
2.1/2
.Ob
35.1/2
35.1
1.2/2
1.2
15
bl
1.15
34.0
.48
3.H7
117b.lO
3.21
-------
TABLE Q-S. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VtHlCLE NUMBER
DATE n/31/75 TIME -o MRS,
MODEL 1<»75 MERCEDES 330-0 3ET-7 CONT.HC
DRIVER BP TEST WT. ISB? KG.
«tT BULB TEMP 13 C DRY BULB TEMP 21 C
SPEC. MUM. 5.8 GRAM/KG dARO. 7»8.S MM HG.
RUN DURATION 23.33 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 35*,0 MM. H30
BLOWER OIF. PRESS. 379.f MM H30
BLO«ES INLET TEMP. »3 OEG. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 3132"»
SLOWER REVOLUTIONS 30818
8LO«£R CU. CM /REV. 8+80
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE a.2 LITRE »•CYL.
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. 3b.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
BAG RESULTS
HC SAhPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
nC BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER REAUINli/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO bACKGRO MtTER READING/SCALE
Cu dACKGRO PPM
C03 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C03 SAMPLE PERCENT
C03 BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
C03 6ACKGHO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
*ox BACKGSO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
505 SArtPLt METER READING/SCALE
S03 SAMPLE PPM
S02 8ACKG*0 MtTER READING/SCALE
S03 BACKGKO PPM
hC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRAFION PPM
HC MASS (G«AMS)
CO MASS (GKAM5)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
he GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,o<*
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .57
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 205
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,bO
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,2d
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.38
co GKAMS/KG OF FUEL a.8
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bO
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 9.39
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.33
b.7/3
27
1.5/3
b
3S.2/*
7*
I.*/*
3
SB. 1/2
i.be
3.3/2
.08
52.0/3
52.0
11.1
.b/*
.1
ei
bH
l.Sf
50,8
11. n
l.st
12, »9
13.12
».70
HC GRAMS/MIN .08
CO GRAMS/MlN .5
C02 GRAMS/MIN iqi
NOX GRAMS/MIN ,5b
S03 GHAMS/MIN ,30
G-6
-------
TABLE c-6.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE -
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE
MODEL 1S7S MERCEDES 8200
DRIVER BP
NET 8ULB TfcMP 12 C
SPEC. HUM. >t.b GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS,
5ET-7 CONT, HC
1EST WT. 1587 KG.
URY BULB TEMP 21 C
BARt). 7fH.b MM HG.
TEST NO, 2
ENGINE 2.2 LITRE i •» CYL.
GVM a KG
REL. HUM, 21.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0,0(3 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF, PRESS.
BLOHER INLET TEMP,
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
SLOwER REVOLUTIONS
BLO«£R CU. CM /REV.
23.32 MINUTES
25*.0 MM. M20
BOf.fl MM H20
*3 OEG, C
31S37
20818
8 + 45
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
BACKGHD
3ACKGRD
SAHHLE
SAMPLE
&ACKGRO
BACKGHO
C02 SAMPLE
Cu2 SAMPLE
C02
C02
i40x SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
MUX
NOX
302 SAMPLE
302 SAMPLE
502 BACKGrtO
502
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READINU/SCALE
PPM
METER REAUING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOINli/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM '
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
hC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTHATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GHAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .Ob
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .5?
C02 GRAMS/MLOM£TRE 203
NOX GRArtS/rtlLOMETRE ,5b
502 GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,2S
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .87
CO GhAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.8
C02 GRAMS/iNG OF FUEL 31b2
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.7S
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.12
b,2/3
2S
3.2/3
13
37. fa/*
71
,3/*
1
Sf .0/2
i.S8
2.2/2
.Ob
SO. 3/2
SO. 3
1.3/2
1.3
51. 7/*
12.9
.5/*
.1
13
b?
1.53
»S.2
12.8
1.21
12.31
12.27
5.18
HC GRAMS/MIN ,os
CO GRAMS/MlN .5
C02 GRAMS/MIN IB"?
NOX GRAMS/MIN .53
S02 GHAMS/MIN .23
G-7
-------
TABLE G-7. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 11/25/75 TirtE -0 HRS.
MODEL 1*75 MERCEDES aeo-o SET-? CONT.HC
DKIVER BP TEST *T. 1587 KG.
WET BUL8 TEMP 13 C URY BULB TEMP gl C
SPEC. MUM. b.7 GRAH/KG BArtO. 739.1 M* HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 2.3 LITRE <* CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. f3,S PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
23. 3d MINUTES
ast.o
309. 1
MM. nao
MM Hao
OEG. C
PUN DURATION
BLOHER INLET PRESS.
BLOwER DIP. PRESS.
BLOwER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLU«ER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER cu. CM /REV.
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC (JACKGRD MtTER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGHD PPM
CU SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
co BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COa SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COa SAMPLE PERCENT
cua BACKGHD HETE* READING/SCALE
COa BACKGHD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE fETER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX 6ACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NUX BACKGHO PPM
soa SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
soa SAMPLE PPM
SOa BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SOe BACKGHO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOa COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C03 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOa MASS (GHAMS)
HC GRAMS/MLOMETRE
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
COa GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
SOe GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.0*
.sa
i
.Sb
.25
ai
5.5/e
11
35. O/*
bb
.!/*
0
sa.a/a
i.sa
a.H/a
.07
i.s/a
1.8
13. »
,5/*
.1
11
b3
l.fb
*b,8
13.2
.^8
11. as
411b. OS
ia.it
s.s*
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .75
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL a.b
coa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3ib3
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL *.33
SOa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL f.ab
HC GRAHS/MIN .Of
CO GRAMS/MlN .5
COa GRAMS/MIN l?b
NOX GRAMS/MIN .52
soa GRAMS/MIN ,gt
G-8
-------
TABLE G-S. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FRUM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VtHlCLE NUMBED
DATE ll/21/7b TIME -0 HrtS.
MODEL 1S7S MERCEDES 220-0 FET CONT. HC
DRIVER BP TEST HT, 1587 KG.
«ET dULB TEMP 13 C UR* BULB TEMP 21 C
SPEC. HUM, 5,a GRAM/KG OARO, ?»8.S MM HG,
TEST NO, 1
ENGINE a.e LITRE t CYL,
GVw 0 KG
SEL. HUM. 3b,7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.uo KG
RUM DURATION
BLO«£R INLET PRESS, ast.o
BLOWER DIP. PRESS, 30*. a
BLOwER INLET TEMP, t3
OVMU REVOLUTIONS
BLOwEH REVOLUTIONS
CU. CM /REV. 8»<*»
12,78 MINUTES
MM. H20
MM HeO
OEG. C
2tl07
BAG RESULTS
nC SAMPLE
hC
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
nC
CO
CO
CO
CO 6ACKGKO
coa SAMPLE
C02
coa
coa
NOX SAMPLt
NUX SAMPLE
NOX
6 AC K GH Q
SAMPLE
sea SAMPLE
502 BACKGriD
302 6ACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METE« READING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAUINli/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER HEADING/SCALE
PERCENT
MtTEK READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PHM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
COCENIRATION PPM
MASS CGRAMS)
MASS (.GRAMS)
HC
CO
CU2 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GfiAMS)
SQ2 MASS (SHAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO GRAMS/MuOrtETRE
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX G«AMS/-KILOMETRE
502 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
hC GRAMS/^G OF FUEL
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/ivG OF FUEL
SOS GSAMS/KG OF FUEL
,bU
1.52
7,9
31bl
9.81
3.83
38
1,1/3
S
87
l.b/*
3
2.10
3. i/a
.08
VI. b
l.t/2
I.1*
lfa,8
i.l/*
.3
31
80
2.03
70, f
Ib.b
i.Sf
7.Sb
3118.31
S.12
3,87
HC GRAM3/HIN .12
CO GRAMS/MIN .fa
CQ2 GRAMS/MIN ^so
NOX GRArtS/MlN .78
S02 GRAMS/MIN .30
G-9
-------
TABLE G-9. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FHOM SINGLE 8AG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMREK
DATE U/2W75
MODEL 1975 MEKCEDES 22DO
DRIVER BP
WET BULB TEMP 12 C
SPEC. HUM. >f,b GRAM/KG
TIMt -() HKS.
t-ET CONT. HC
ICST wT. 1587 KG.
UHr BULB TEMP 21 C
BARO. 7H9.b MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 2.2 LITHE I » CYL.
GVw o KG
»EL, HUM. J9,b PCT
MEASURED FUEL Q.OO KG
RUN DURATION
BLOKES INLET PRESS.
8LOHER DIP, PRESS.
BLOKES INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLO«E« REVOLUTIONS
BLOWfcK CU. CM /HEV.
12.78 MINUTES
25*.0 MM. H20
317.5 MM H20
•*S OfcG. C
23830
11319
8»1R
BAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coa
C02
coa
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
soa
502
502
302
KESULTS
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGflQ
BACKGrtO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGriD
SACKGNO
SAnPLt
SAMPLE
BACKGRO
BAC*GKO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGKD
BACKGKO
SAMPLE i
SAMPLE
BACKGrfO
6ACKGRD
METER REAOINS/SCALE
PPM
MtTEt< HtADINli/SCALE
PPM
METEH REAOING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METE« REAOINU/SCALE
PERCENT
METEH HEADING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER RtAuiNb/scALE
PPM
MtTEH HEADING/SCALE
PPM
ETER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEAOlNti/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATIOfl PPM
MASS (GHAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (G3AMS)
SGa MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,ob
CO GRAMS/*lLO«ETRfc .50
coa GRAMS/KILOMETRE is?
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .53
S02 GRAMS/MLOMETRE ,ab
hC GrtAMS/KG OF FUEL I.Ob
CO GRArtS/KG OF FUEL 8.5
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b2
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.98
GRAMS/KG OF FUEL >*.»?
7.0/3
28
2.0/3
8
88
.!/*
0
bb.7/2
2.01
1.1/2
.05
b5.3/2
b5.3
75.77*
1H.S
.7/*
.2
21
8H
1.M7
bf ,5
18.8
1.03
8.29
3079. to
8.75
t.3b
HC URAMS/MIN .08
CO GRAMS/MlN ,b
COS GRAMS/MIN 2*1
NOX GRAMS/MIN .faf)
302 GRAMS/hIN .34
G-10
-------
TABLE G-10. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FHQM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VtHlCLE NUMBED
- FET
DATE 11/25/75 IIME -0 HKS.
MODEL 1175 MEKCEOES 220-0 HET CONT.MC
DRIVER 8P IEST HT. 1587 KG.
WET HULB TEMP 13 C DRY BULB TEMP SI C
SPEC. HUM. b.7 GRAM/KG bARO, 73S.1 MM HG.
TEST NO, 3
ENGINE 2.2 LITRE t CYL.
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. 43,5 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
RUN DURATION
BLOHER INLET PRESS. 25*.0
9LO*ER OIF, PHESS. 30*.8
BLOWER INLET TEMP. ts
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
RLOrtER (DEVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /HtV.
ie.7b 1INUTES
MM. H20
MM HSO
tS OEG. C
SH015
11387
H430
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
MC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
BACKGHD
6ACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD
BACKGRD
COS SAMPLE
CO? SAMPLE
C02 BACKGHD
cos BACKGHD
NCX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX QACKGKD
NOX BACKGHD
SOS SAMPLE
SOS SAMPLE
SOS BACKGHD
SOS BACKGHO
HETES REAUlNb/SCALE
PPM
METEi^ REAU1NU/SCALE
PPM
PPM
METEH READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER KtAOlNb/SCALE
PERCENT
MfcTER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER KEADINIi/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HkAOlNG/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOS COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (G&AMS)
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOa MASS (GRAMS)
HC GHAMS/KILOMETRE
CO GHAMS/KILOMETRE
COS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GHAMS/KILOMETRE
SOe GHAMS/KILOMETRE
.OB
180
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
co GMAMS/KG OF FUEL
COS GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
SOe GHAMS/KG OF FUEL
.57
.28
1.3b
a.a
s.s/a
u
.a/*
o
65. 8/2
1.18
S.5/S
.07
bfa.3/2
bfa.3
.b/S
,b
81. O/*
20.2
l.l/*
.3
2b
71
1.18
b5.8
20.0
1,28
7.70
SSb7.S5
1.32
».S7
1.13
4.87
HC GRAMS/MIN .10
CO GRAMS/MIN .b
COS GRAMS/MIN 232
NOX GRAMS/MIN .73
302 GRAMS/MIN ,3b
G-ll
-------
TABLE G-ll.HC, CO, NOX AND FUEL RESULTS
MERCEDES 240D
Emission Rate
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Date
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
HC
0.20
0. 12
0.21
0. 18
0.18
0. 12
0.22
0. 17
0.12
0. 12
0. 12
0. 12
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.06
CO
0.62
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.64
0.59
0.63
0.62
0.60
0.60
0.58
0.59
0.36
0.39
0.40
0.38
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
g/km
NOX
0.78
0.82
0.76
0.79
0.79
0.84
0.77
0.80
0.78
0.78
0.74
0.77
0.87
0.78
0.74
0.80
0.81
0.79
0.74
0.78
Fuel
Cons.
1/100 km
9.51
8.89
9.05
9.15
9.86
9.17
9.48
9.50
9.04
8.37
8.43
8.61
7.32
6.72
6.90
6.98
7.46
7.15
7.34
7.32
Fuel
Econ.
mpg
24.73
26.46
25.99
25.72
23.85
25.79
24.81
24.81
26.02
28. 10
28.06
27.39
32. 13
35.00
34.09
33.74
31.53
32.90
32.04
32. 16
G-12
-------
TABLE G-12. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS IE3T
1975 FTP
UNIT NO, TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES etnu LA
TE3T TYPE -1 COLO CONt. HC
DATE 11/12/75
ENGINE 2.3S LITRE •» CYL,
COMMENTS 3 BAG
MFGR, CODE
TEST HT.
OM616
KG
KUAO LOAD 8.H KW
BAROMETER 7>»8.e8 MM OF KG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 25, b PEG, C
REL. HUMIDITY II PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF, PRESS., G2, IbS.l MM. H2U
DAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER RFVOLUTIONS
o
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
coa
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
0ACKGRO MtlER
BACMiKD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
UACKtiriD PPM
SAhPLE METER
READINU/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
3AMPLE PERCENT
HACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
UACKGHD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO MtTfcR
OACKGRD PPM
CONCENTHAl ION
CONCENTriAT ION
CONCENrHAIION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
i
SHS8
11.3/3
H5
1.5/3
b
7?
,-»/*
1
t.7.5/2
e.ot
2.0/2
.OS
73.H/2
1.1
73
2,00
?2.5
lSbb.«U
H,b3
WET BULB TEMP 11,1 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 2,2 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRF.S3,, Gl 13^,7 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP, na OEG, c
3357
fl.e/3
33
1.5/3
b
so
,s/*
1
i.e*
1.7/2
.Of
H5.9
27
*H
1.2U
»S.l
1.15
H.OB
IblH.S?
It. 8/3
32, I/*
bl
.B/*
e
Sb.O/2
l.bS
2.7/2
.07
b3.V2
b3,f
1.3/2
1.3
SI
57
l.SS
b2.3
1.38
3.11
i3bs.ua
H.3b
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MAS3 CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,?0 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.be UKAMS/KILOMETRE
TRE
CARBON HALANCE H'EL CONSUMPIION = S,S1 LITRFS PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = Ib2.7 SIU. CU. METRES
-------
UNIT NO. 1EST NO. 8
VEHICLE MOMU MEHCEOtS 2400 LA
TEST TYPE -» COLD CON1, HC
BAROMETER 75C.BB MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TE-P. 25,b DEG, C
PEL. HUMIDITY S2 PCI.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
TABLE G-13. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
MFGR. CODE OM616 YR- lq75
TEST HT. 1587 KG ^0*0 LOAD
DATE
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE H CvL,
COMMENTS 3 BAG
8.H KW
Q
l
OIF. PRESS., G2, 2HB.1 MM. H20
BAG HE5UI.T8
BAG SO.
ES DEVOLUTIONS
nu"«'
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
t"* "^ I. V U 1. Vf I AU'*f
StlPLE HtTER READING/SCALE
S'KPLfc PPM
b»CKGHD METEK READING/SCALE
r»CKGKD PPM
S*MPLt ME(EK READING/SCALE
5»nPLE PPM
i*CKGKD METEK READING/SCALE
6*C»\Gr<0 PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
5MHLE PERCENT
MtKGKO MEItH HEADING/SCALE
S»CKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER RfcAOlNG/SC ALE
S*«PLE PPM
t*c«GRu METER READING/SCALE
hACKGKO PPM
Ct'NCEHTHATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
-ASS GRAMS
"ASS GRAMS
»»SS GHAMS
MASS 5RAM3
1
7523
lB.b/2
.17
5,0/2
10
85
31.3/*
*0
50.2/2
l.Ht.
2.H/2
.Ob
5b.7/2
5b,7
1.7/e
1.7
28
Hb
l.HO
55.2
.13
3.05
!Hh7.bO
H.18
WET BULB TEMP 13.3 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY •» . H MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOHER INLET PRESS., Gl en.3 MM. HBO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. *3 DEG. c
1.8/2
2U
5.0/2
10
30. O/*
57
11. 2/*
21
32.3/2
.10
3.1/2
.OR
3H.5/2
34.S
1.5/2
1.5
10
3b
.83
33.1
.58
H.Ob
5.15
17.7/2
35
b.0/2
12
28. 8/*
5f
3,b/*
7
1.31
2.H/2
.Ob
52. i/a
52.1
l.b/2
l.b
25
H7
1.2b
51.5
.81
3,1)8
lSOb.71*
MASS HC ,J<
MASS CU ,5'
WEIGHTED MASS C02 23?. 54 Gt! AMS/KIL'IME T RE
WEIGHUD MASS NOX ,ae GKAMS/KILOMETRE
CARBON UALANCE MJEL CONSUMPIIUN = 8.HH LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOrt = 211.1 sfU. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE G-14. VEHICLE EMISSION HF.SULTS- 1975 FTP
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
O
UNIT NU. TEST NO. J
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES 2400 LA
TEST TYPE -4 COLO CONT.riC
BAROMF.TER 750.32 MM OF HG,
OKY BtlLH TEMP. 21.1 PEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 23 PC T.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
HLOWtR UIF. PRESS., G2, 304.8 MM, H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER KF.VOLIITIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPrt
SAMPLE METFR REAOIMi/SCALE
PPM
METER REAUINU/SCALE
OACKCiKQ PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
MF.TEK READING/SCALE
PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
DATE 11/14/75
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE 4
COMMENTS 3 HAG
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
co
CO
C02
CO?
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
WACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GHAhS
MASS GRAMS
MASS
HC
CO
COS
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
WEIGHTED MASS HC
HEIGHTEN MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
1
7521
23.0/8
4b
f ,s/a
1
32. I/*
hi
5
se.b
1.54
3.o
.OB
53. e
1.1/2
l.H
38
5't
1.H7
51,5
i.et
3.53
1523.18
H.50
,P1 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
.bU GHAMS/KILOMEJRE
241.b2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
, 7h GRAMS/KILOMETRE
MFGR. CODE OM616
TEST WT. 1567 KG
WET BULB TEMP 10.b OEG. C
A8S. HUMIDITY 3.5 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLF.1 PRESS., Gl 279.H MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. HS OEG, c
ROAD LOAD H.4 KW
2
12107
lb.3/2
33
4.0/2
8
22.I/*
t2
2.5/»
5
33.7/2
,15
3.5/2
.01
33.6/2
33,S
i.i/e
1.1
25
3fa
,8h
31.7
1.H1
4.11
1532.10
i
7514
18.J/2
37
4.S/2
1
50
2.0/*
4
4S.O/2
1.21
.07
so. i/a
so. i
1,7/S
1.7
21
45
1.23
48. b
.13
2.13
1277. 8b
4.24
CARbON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPUON = I.US LITRES PCH HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW s 2U1.1 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE G-15. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VEHICLE.
DATF. ll/12/7b
MODEL 117S MERCEDES 2HOD
DKIVER fjP
"fcT oULB TEMP 13 t
SPEC. HUM. i.s GKAM/KG
TIME -o «RS.
SET 7 CONT. HC
(ESI *T. 1SB7 KG,
URY BULB TEMP db C
SAHO. 7*8.3 *M HG.
SAMPLE
RUN UOKATIUN 23,35 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 131.7 MM. H20
BLOWER UIF. PRESS, ibb.l MM HgO
8LOt-.cS INLET TEMP. «»H DEC. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS Jl'»b3
REVOLUTIONS 15115
CU. CM /REV. 8b<)8
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOING/SCALE
PPM
METER ^EASING/SCALE
PPM
M£TE« 8EAOIKG/SCALE
PP-1
METER HEAOING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER HEADING/SCALE
PERCENT
METE* HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOING/SCALE
PPM
M£TER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HAG RESULTS
HC SArtPLE
r(C SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coe SAHPLC
C02 SAMPLE.
C02
C02
MOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMHLc.
NOX
NOX
SOd SArtPLt
302 SAMPLE
S02 bACKGrt!)
S02 rtACKGKO
HC COMCENTHAriON PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCEN1HATION PPM
MASS iGrtAMS)
MASS (GKAMS)
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GKAMS)
NOx MASS (GRABS')
S02 MASS CGKAMSJ
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO GRAMS/MLOMETRC
CO? GRAMS/MLOMtTn'E
NOX
.at,
.81
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.08
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ?.*
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31S*
NOX G«AMS/KG Or FUEL 12.12
SO? GrfAMS/ivG OF FUEL 3.B3
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 2.H LITRE » CYL.
GVW 0 KG
KEL. HUM. 21.8 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.uo KG
33
7.5/2
IS
fl.H/*
78
b?.5/2
e.o*
.Ob
b5.3/*
lb.3
.*/*
.1
20
73
1.1R
St. 2
lb.3
1.31
10.08
17. b2
5.22
HC GRAMS/MIN ,0b
CO GRAMS/MIN .*
C02 GRAMS/MIN 185
NOX GriAMS/MlN .75
502 GRAMS/MIN .22
G-16
-------
TABLE G-16. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FKOM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VtHlCLE NUMBER
DATE 11/13/75 UME 1520 MRS,
MODEL 1S75 MERCEDES 2»OD StT-7 CONT. HC
DRIVER BP 1EST wT. 1587 KG.
WET BULB TEMP 15 C DRY BULB TEMP 21 C
SPEC. MUM. b.7 GRAM/KG BARO. 750.8 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 2,* LITRE i » CYC.
GVM 0 KG
HEL. HUM. 3».q PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.uo KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOwER 1>IF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP,
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.:
31530
20821
MINUTES
MM. H20
MM H20
DEC. C
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC BACKGKO
HC BACKGHO
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
CO 8ACKGHD
CO BACKGKO
C02 SAMPLE
C02 SAMPLE
CU2 BACKGSO
C02 BACKGSD
NOX SAMPLt
NOX SAMPLt
NOX BACKGKQ
NOX BACKGKD
302 SAMPLE
302 SAMPLE
SOS BACKGKO
302
METEH READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAUINU/SCALE
PPM
METER HEAOING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METEH READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METES HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (G«AMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC GHAMS/MLOMETRE
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
SOe GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
co G«AMS/KG OF FUEL
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
,o»
190
. ?H
.2i>
.b2
>.s
31b5
13.CH
».18
7.1/2
1*
3.0/2
b
30. 5/*
98
2
51.5/2
1.50
3.1/2
.08
bS.7/2
b5.7
l.b/2
l.b
51. 3/*
12.8
.1
S
5f
12.7
,81
S,8b
17.10
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO G«AhS/MlN ,t
cos GRAMS/MIN 177
NOX GRAMS/MIN .73
302 GRAMS/MIN .23
G-17
-------
TABLE G-17. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE- SET
VtHICLE NUM8EK
DATE 11/14/75 TIME -0 HKS.
MODEL 1H7S MERCEDES 3400 SET-7 CONT. HC
DRIVER BP TEST WT. 1587 KG.
*ET BULB TEMP ie C URY BULB TEMP 24 C
SPEC. HUM. 4.0 GRAM/KG bARO. 750.3 MM HG,
RUN DURATION 23.34 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 354.0 MM. H30
BLOWER OIF. PRESS. 317,5 MM HgO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 4b OEG. C
OYNO REVOLUTIONS 317bb
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS anaaa
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 8112
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE a.4 LITRE I 4 CYL.
GVM o KG
REL. HUM. ai.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGHD PPM
co SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER HEADING/SCALE
CO BACKGHO PPM
CUB SAMPLE METER REAOINU/SCALE
COa SAMPLE PERCENT
COe BACKGKO METER REAOING/SCALE
COa BACKGHO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
»
-------
TABLE G-18. EXHAUST EMISSIONS F«0rt SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - HWFET
VtHICLE NUMBER
DATE 11/12/75
MODEL 1^*75 MERCEDES 2*00
ORIVER 8H
»ET BULB TEMP 13 C
SPEC. HUM. 3.1 GRAM/KG
RUN DURATION 12.77
BLOWS* INLET PRESS. 131.7 HM. nao
BLOWER OIF. PRESS. IbS.l MM HSO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 DEC. c
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 23158
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 8271
BLOwER CD. CM /REV. 8700
IIME 1133 H«S.
MwFET CONT. HC
TEST *T. 1587 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 8S C
bARO. 7*8,3 MM HG.
TEST NO, 1
ENGINES*. 3 LITHE
GVW o KG
REL. HUM. ii.o PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo
* CYL.
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
HAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
BACKGRO
8ACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGHO
BACKGRD
COa SAMPLE
C02 SAMPLE
COe BACKGHO
COS HACKGRU
NOX SAMPLt
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGHO
NOX fiACKGKO
302 SAMPLE
S02 SAMPLE
302 8ACKGRD
S02 BACKGHO
METEK READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEH HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOINb/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOlNb/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEK READING/SCALE
PP.1
HETER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTHATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GHAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (G«AMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KIL(JMETRE
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
C03 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
co URAMS/KG OF FUEL
coa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
,07
,3fa
.87
,2b
i.oa
17.1/2
S
S5.1*/*
11. I/*
23
8b.8/2
2.7*
2,2/2
.Ob
»7,b/3
1*2.8
1.1/2
1.1
17. I/*
a*. 3
.2
21
80
2,70
1*1.1
2*.l
1.10
b.OO
3211.30
HC GRAMS/MIN .01
CO GRAMS/MlN .5
COa GRAMS/MIN 251
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.12
305 GRAMS/MIN .33
G-19
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VEHICLE
TABLE G-19.
DATE 11/13/75 TIME -0 HRS.
MODEL n?s MERCEDES 2*00 FtT CONT. HC
DRIVER BP TEST wT. 1587 KG.
WET BULB TEMP is C UKY BULB TEMP a«f C
SPEC, HUM. b.7 GRAM/KG UAHO, 750.8 MM HG,
RUN DURATION 12.77 MINUTES
BLOWfcR INLET PRESS. 2H1.3 MM. H20
BLOWER DIF, PRESS. 313.1 MM H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »3
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOwER CU. CM /REV.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 2.* LITRE I "» CYL,
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 3».1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL D.OQ KG
23838
11313
OEG. C
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
BACKGHO
BACKGhO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO
BACKGRO
COa SAMPLE
coe SAMPLE
coa BACKGRO
C02 SACKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX 8ACKGRD
NOX 8ACKGHD
302 SAMPLE
S02 SAMPLE
S02 BACKGHD
SOa BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READINU/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOa COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COa MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
GRAMS/KILOMETRE .05
GRAMS/KILOMETRE .31
coa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 171
MOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .78
sog GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,2b
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .13
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.1
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31fa5
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.82
soa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL *.b?
lO.f/2
21
2.0/2
f
3b.8/*
bS
1.3/*
2
b4.0/2
1.^2
2.b/2
.07
SO.0/2
10.0
1,1/2
1.1
7t.7/«
18.7
,8/*
.2
17
bf
1.81.
88. »
18.5
,Bb
b,*l
2S»b,58
13.87
HC GRAMS/MIN .07
CO GP.AMS/MIN ,s
C02 GRAMS/MIN aJl
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1,01
S02 GRAMS/MIN ,3t
G-20
-------
TABLE G-20. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FWOM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VEHICLE NUM8EH
DATE li/lH/75 TIME -0 HKS,
MODEL n?5 MERCEDES 2*00 FET CONT, HC
DRIVER BP TEST XT, 15H7 KG.
HET BULB TEMP 12 C DRY BUL8 TEMP 2H C
SPEC, HUM. 4.0 GRAM/KG HARD. 750,3 MM HG,
TEST NO, 3
ENGINE a.t LITRE t CYL.
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM, 21.fa PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BL04ER DIF, PRESS,
BLOHER INLET TEMP,
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOrtER CU, CM /HEV,
lfi.7b MINUTES
2SH.O MM, H20
317.5 MM H20
*3 DEC, C
23H01
11381
8428
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC BACKGHD
HC BACKGRO
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
CO BACKGKO
CO 8ACKGWO
COS SAMPLE
COS SAMPLE
C02 8ACKGKD
COS BACKGftO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGRO
NOX 8ACKGWD
302 SAMPLE
302 SAMPLE
302 BACKGKD
S02 BACKGKO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEK READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS CGRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .ob
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .HO
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 18H
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,7t
soe GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,30
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.03
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL t>.s
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b5
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.80
SOa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.If
iS.S/2
32
7.D/2
It
3S.b/«
75
3,t/*
7
bfa.0/2
i.SS
2.1/2
.09
S2.8/2
S2.8
1,8/2
i.8
85. O/*
ei.3
.2
20
b5
l.<»2
SI. 3
21,1
,S8
fa, 51
3025,17
12. 2*
HC GRAMS/MIN .08
CO GRAMS/MlN .5
C02 GRAMS/MIN 237
NOX GRAMS/MIN .Sb
S02 GRAMS/MIN .31
G-21
-------
TABLE G-2L HC, CO, NOX AND FUEL RESULTS
MERCEDES 300D
Emission Rate, g/km
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Date
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
Average
HC
0. 11
0.09
0.09
0. 10
0. 12
0.08
0.09
0. 10
0.08
0.08
0. 12
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0. 12
0.08
CO
0.49
0. 54
0. 55
0.53
0.54
0.57
0. 55
0. 55
0.43
0.47
0.49
0.46
0.35
0. 38
0.36
0. 36
0.37
0.40
0.41
0. 39
NOX
1.09
1.07
1.04
1.07
1.14
1. 10
1.07
1. 10
0.99
1.00
0.87
0.95
1.09
1.00
0.87
0.99
1.14
0.98
0.81
0.98
Fuel
Cons
1/100 km
9. 37
9.96
10. 36
9.90
10.05
10.47
11.08
10.53
8.34
8.83
8.46
8.54
7.68
8.09
7.74
7.84
8. 13
8. 13
7.90
8.05
Fuel
Econ.
mpg
25. 10
23. 62
22. 70
23.80
23.40
22.46
21.23
22. 36
28. 20
26. 64
27.80
27. 54
30.63
29.08
30.39
30.03
28. 93
29. 10
29.78
29. 27
-------
TAbLE G-22. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
1<»75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. I
VEHICLE MUOEL MERCEDES 3000 LA
TEST TYPE -1 COLO CONT. HC
BAROMETER 748.S4 HH OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP, 17.B OER, C
REL, HUMIDITY 5b PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 11/12/75
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE s CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
MFGR, CODE
TEST HI. 1614 KG
WET BULB TEMP 18,8 DEC, C
AB5. HUMIDITY 7,2 MlLLlGRAMS/KG
YR. 117S
NUAO LOAD
8.» KM
Q
l
CsJ
to
BLOWER DIP. PRESS. r G2, IbS.l MM, HgO
BAG RESULTS
DAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 13%7 MM, H20
BLOHEH INLET TEMP, -»a OEG. c
HC
HC
HC
MC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
COS
C02
CO*
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
COe
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE HPM
UACKGRD METtH READING/SCALE
BACMiHD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
HACK.GMD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGHO METER READINU/SCALE
OACKGKO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READINU/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHU METER Rfc AOING/SCALE
UACKGRO
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
i
5H70
3,0/2
h
35. 1/*
t>b
,7/*
1
2.5/2
.07
31.9/3
S5.7
.8/3
24
hi
a. 13
13,7
.5^
3. OS
lb?b. 7b
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,11 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
.HH GRAhS/KILtJMFTHE
.92 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
i.os GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2
1397
U.b/2
23
1,5/2
3
28,8/*
*3
,3/*
1
H3.5/2
1.25
3,5/2
tO«»
11,0/3
57,0
1,0/3
3,0
20
»1
l.lb
5H.3
,87
3.50
ISb'l.'lb
b.83
13.0/2
2b
7.5/2
15
31. 1/*
5H
1.5/*
18
b2,e/2
l.Bb
•i.s/a
.25
ei.e/3
07. b
3.0/3
13
40
.33
2,01
5.H8
CARBON HALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION s 1.37 LITRES PER HUNOREO KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLUw = 151.2 STU. CU. METRtS
-------
o
I
N)
UNIT NO, • TEST Nil. 2
VEHICLE M0l,( _ HEKCEDF.S 300U LA
TEST TYPE -H COLD CONT.HC
BAROMETEH 751.MH MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 2H.H DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 3f. PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS. , G2, J.Hn.5 MM, H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLUWEH REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
TABLE G-23. VEHlCLt EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FPP
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
MFGR, CODE OM617
TEST WT. 1814 KG
UATE
ENGINE 3.00 LITHE 5 CYL,
COMMENTS 3 BAG
YR. 1S7&
KOAD LOAD
B.
-------
JAbLE G-24. VEHICLE FMI3S10N RESULTS - 1975 FTP
1M75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS UST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL MEKCtOES 30UD LA
TtST TYPE -1 COLD CONT. HC
BAROMETER 7H8.79 MM OF HG.
OKY BULB TEMP. 83.3 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 21 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G2, 304.8 MM, H20
PATE M/1H/7S
ENGINE 3.00 LITRE 5 CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
O
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLU
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC UAtKGRD
HC HACKGRU
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
CO BACKGRO
CO HACUGKD
COS SAMPLE
COS SAMPLt
COS BACKGHD
t)ACKGKl>
SAHPLt
SAMPLE
HACKGRD
COS
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
riONS
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
MfcTER READING/SCALF.
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METF.H READING/SCALE
HPM
METtH READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PI'M
METtR READING/SCALE
I'PM
HC
CO
COS
NOX
HC
CO
C08
NOX
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASH GRAMS
1
7527
12.7/2
?s
s.s/a
11
ee. s/*
12
58. 8/2
I.**
.8/2
.02
71. "»
2.7/2
2.7
Ib
HI
1.72
bl.l
.58
2.73
b.ne
.OH GKAMS/KILHHETHE
.Sb GHAMS/KlLOf'MHE
277.H» bKAMS/KlLOMLTRE
MFGH. CODE OM617 YR. 1975
TEST NT. 1814 KG ROAD LOAD
WET BULB TEMP 11.7 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3,7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
INLET PRESS., GI ani.a MM, H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP, HS OEG. c
KN
2
12897
S.S/2
20
S.b/2
11
37
.?/*
1
38,'»/2
.09
17.0/2
•>7.0
1.5/2
1.5
10
3S
1.00
HS.b
.55
3.SS
1785.70
b.88
WEIGHTED MASS hC
WEIGHTFO MASS CO
rttlGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
CARBON HALANCt FUEL CONSUMPTION = 10.3b LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW s 210.2 STO. CU. METRES
3
7513
12.B/2
2b
3.5/2
7
2'».0/*
H5
2. I/*
H
HB.b/2
1.^0
3.0/2
,08
b2,3/2
b5. 3
l.H/2
l.H
19
f U
1.33
bl.O
,b3
5.3b
-------
TABLE G-25. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FHOM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VfcHICLE NUM8EH
DATE ll/12/7b HME -0 HKS.
MODEL l^S HEKCEDES 3000 StT-7 CONT. HC
DRIVER BP TEST WT. 1814 KG.
*£T BULB TEfiP 17 C DRY BULB TE*H 21 C
SPEC. HUH. 10.B GUAM/KG BAKO, ?'*8.5 MM h(i,
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 3.0 LITHE 5 CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. b8.0 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOHER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.f* MINUTES
131.7 MM. H20
IbS.l MM H20
fb OEG. C
aibdb
1517S
MC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
BACKGRO
BACKGrtO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGKO
BACKGHO
C02 SAMPLE
C02 SAMPLE
COS 3ACKGRO
CUe BACKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGHO
NOX BACKGHO
SOg SAMPLE
SOB SAMPLE
S02 BACKGRO
302 BACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METEH READINti/SCALE
PPM
METEH READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METEK HEAOINii/SCALE
PERCENT
METER REDOING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
HPM
HC CONCENTKATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOg COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GKAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .Ob
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,37
COa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 217
NOX GRAMS/MLUMETRE l.l*
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .15
MC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .90
co GHAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.5
C02 GRAMS/KG UF FUEL 31b7
K.OX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL Ib.bS
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 2.18
11.5/2
23
2.0/2
4
3S.5/*
7«t
b.5/«
12
73.0/2
a. 23
2.7/2
.07
37.3/3
.1/3
2.7
»0.8/*
10.2
.1
20
59
e.i?
101.7
10.1
1.3^
8.15
H708.b5
2t.75
3.25
HC GRAMS/MIN .Ob
CO GRAMS/MIN .3
C02 GRAMS/MIN 201
NOX GRAMS/MIN l.Ub
302 GRAMS/MIN .11
G-26
-------
TABLE G-26. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VEHICLE NUH8EH
DATE 11/13/75 TIME 1250 MRS.
MODEL 1^75 MERCEDES 3000 StT-7 CONT.HC
DRIVER 8P 1EST «T. 1814 KG.
*fcT BULB TEMP i» C WHY BULB TEMP 2* C
SPEC. HUM. b.l GRAM/KG HARD. 751.1 MM HG.
TEST NO, 2
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE I s CYL,
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. 31.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
23.32 MINUTES
13S.7 MM. H2Q
190.5 MM H20
*8 DEG. C
2083b
RUN DURATION
BLO«ER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
OrNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLO*hR CU. CM /REV.
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
BACKGKO METE« RfAOING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD METER RtADlNb/SCALE
CO 8ACKGHO PPM
C02 SAMPLt METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PfcKCENT
C02 8ACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRQ PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER REAOlNG/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METErt READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGKD PPM
soa SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
soa SAMPLE PPM
302 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
S02 8ACKBHD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GNAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .07
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,«fO
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE alb
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .98
so2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .21*
HC GUAMS/KG OF FUEL .<**>
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.9
C02 GRAMS/KG (If FUEL 31bb
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL I1*.31
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.55
i.i/e
18
i.s/a
3
S7.3/*
52
1.5/*
3
Sb,3/2
l.fab
2.1/2
.Ob
27,'»/3
82,2
,b/3
1.9
12,3
,?/*
,3
H7
l.bl
80. b
12.2
51.27
5.27
HC GRAMS/MIN ,0b
CO GSAMS/MlN ,t
C0^ GRAMS/MIN 305
NOX GHAMS/MIN .si
302 GRAMS/MIN .23
G-27
-------
TABLE G-27. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE - SET
VEHICLE NUM8EH
DATE 11/1»/7S TIME -0 HKS.
MODEL l^S MERCEDES 300D StT-7 CONT, HC
DRIVER BP TEST *T. 1814 KG.
MET BULB TEMP 12 c UHY BULB TEMP a» c
SPEC. HUM. 3,5 GUAM/KG bA*0. 7»8.8 MM HG.
RUN DURATION 33,33 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS, ast.o MM. HSO
BLOWER OIF. PRESS, 317.5 MM H20
SLOWER INLET TEMP,
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 3,0 LITRE s CYL.
GVN Q KG
REL. MUM. 18,7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
31S5b
20813
DEC, c
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
BACKGKD
BACKGRD
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD
BACKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 SAMPLE
COS BACKGRD
COS 3ACKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGRD
NOX BACK.GRO
302 SAMPLE
S03 SAMPLE
302 BACKGHO
S02 BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEH HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEH RtADING/SCALE
PERCENT
METEH READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METEH READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METEH READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRAUON PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .12
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .<»i
C02 GHArtS/KILOMETHE 210
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .si
soa GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,a?
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.77
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.l
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b3
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.22
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1,08
18.5/2
37
s.o/e
10
21. q/*
Sfa
3.5/»
7
Sb.S/2
I.b7
3.2/2
.08
2b.»/3
?''.2
2.3/3
b.''
55. 7/*
13. <»
.1
2R
73,2
13.8
2. 55
8.82
»5b7.b7
17. bH
5. 8S
HC GRAHS/MIN .11
CO GRAMS/MlN .1
C02 GRAMS/MIN l««b
NOX GRAMS/HIN ,7b
302 GRAMS/MIN .25
G-28
-------
TABLE G-28. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VEHICLE NUMREK
DATE 11/12/75
MODEL 1^75 MERCEDES 3000
DRIVER BP
HET BULB TEMP 17 C
SPEC. MUM. 10.a
TIME -n HKS.
t-EI CONT. HC
TEST WT. 1814 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 21 C
tJARO. 7H8.S MM HG.
TEST NU. 1
ENGINE 3.0 LITHE 5 CYL,
GVw 0 KG
REL. HUM. bB.O PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RON DURATION 12.78 MINUTES
INLET PWESS. 152. t MM. H20
BLOwER OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
PLOnER REVOLUTIONS
BLO«(£R CO. CM /REV.
IfaS.J
HH
23793
MM h20
OEG. C
8b4S
HAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
oC SAMPLE
hC
hC
CO SAMPLt
CO SAMPLE
CO
CO
C02 SAMPLE
C02 SAMPLE
CO? HACftGrtD
CO? HACKGKQ
NOX SAMPLE
SAMPLE
NLJX
soe SAMPLE
SO? SAMPLE
302 BACKGrtD
SO? SACKGHO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
hETER READING/SCALE
PPM
MfcTEH RfcAOINti/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METfcK READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER HEAUING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
hC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NUx CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GKAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
Ciie MASS (GRAMS)
NUX MASS (G*'AMS)
SOS MASS (GKAMS)
HC UWAMS/KILOMETRE .os
CO GRAMS/KlLOMfTRt ,3b
CO? {.HAMS/KILOMETKE SOS
NOX GrtAMS/KlLOMtTHE 1.0^
15.7/2
31
b.S/ti
13
88
^
ss.o/e
2.18
3. i/a
.08
53.3/3
lSb.9
3,3/3
I."*
flS.O/*
21.3
l.l/*
.3
21
80
2.12
ei.o
.7«»
b.U?
18. *B
3.71
hC GHAMS/nG OF KUEL , 7S
CO GRAMS/KG OF KUEL &.S
cog GHAMS/KG OF FUEL 3ib8
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL lb.87
SOP GHAMS/IVG OF f-ufcL 3.38
MC GRAMS/MIN ,0b
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
GHAMS/MIN 271
GHAMS/MIN I.«t5
SOe GRAMS/MIN ,2«»
G-29
-------
TABLE G-29. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VtHlCLE NUMBER
DATE 11/13/75 TIME USS H*S.
MODEL H7S MERCEDES 3000 FtT CONT. HC
DRIVER BP TEST «T. 1814 KG,
*ET 8UL6 TEMP it C DRY BULB TEMP at C
SPEC. HUM. fa.i GRAM/KG BARO. 751.1 MM HG.
RUN DURATION 18.77 MINUTES
SLOWER INLET PRESS. 131.7 MM. HSO
BLOWER OIF, PRESS. 1SO.S MM H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. ft OEG. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 23S8b
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 11H37
BLOWER CU, CM /REV. 8b80
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE i s CYL,
GVH 0 KG
REL. MUM. 31.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
BACKGRO
BACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD
BACKGRO
C02 SAMPLE
COS SAMPLE
C02 BACKGRD
C02 BACKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGRD
NOX BACKGRO
S02 SAMPLE
S02 SAMPLE
302 BACKGRD
S02 BACKGRD
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PHM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METErt RtAOING/SCA|_E
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCE^THATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
303 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .ob
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .ss
COS GRAMS/KILOMETRE 215
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE i.nu
SOe GRAMS/KILOMETRE .30
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ,1S
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.7
coa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL sib?
NOX GRAMS/KG OF KUEL It,71
soa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL t.st
IS.5/2
31
b,0/2
12
38.I/*
72
*.!/*
8
73,0/8
2.83
2.b/2
.07
38.0/3
11*.0
,8/3
2.*
82.I/*
20.S
!.<*/*
,5
21
bl
2.18
118.0
20.1
1.07
b.3S
3SS0.8b
lb.»1
f .8b
HC GRAMS/MIN .08
CO GHAMS/MIN .S
C02 GRAMS/MIN 878
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1,21
S02 GHAMS/MIN .38
G-30
-------
TABLE G-30. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VtMICUE NUMBER
DATE 11/1H/7S TIME -0 HH3.
MODEL I1*?? MERCEDES 3000 FtT CONT. HC
DRIVER BP TEST WT, 1814 KG.
WET BULB TEMP ia C URY bULB TEMP 2t C
SPEC. HUM. 3,5 GKAM/KG BARO. 7*8,8 MM HG.
TEST NO, 3
ENGINE 3.0 LITRE 5 CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL, HUM. 18,7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOwER REVOLUTIONS
BLOhER CU. CM /REV.
12.77 MINUTES
ast.o MM, Hao
317.5 MM H20
*3 DEG. C
113M5
8H27
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC BACKGRO
HC BACKGKO
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
CO BACKGRD
CO BACKGKO
coa SAMPLE
coa SAMPLE
COg BACKGRD
COa BACKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGRD
NOX BACKGRO
302 SAMPLE
302 SAMPLE
S02 BACKGRD
302 BACKGRD
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOlNb/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
MtTEH READIMU/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOg COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NUX MASS (GRAMS)
303 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,ot
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,3b
C02 GRAMS/KILOMtTHE 20b
NOX GRAMS/KILOMF.TRE .87
SOg GRAMS/MLOMETRE ,33
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .Sb
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5,b
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3lb7
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.31
502 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.07
lH.b/2
2<*
5.0/2
10
as. a/*
78
10
72.3/a
a.ai
a. a/a
.Ob
3b.7/3
110.1
.8/3
as. s
.?/*
.5
ei
bO
a.ib
108.1
23.3
1.03
s.q«»
3395.11
It, 27
HC GRAMS/MIN .08
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
COa GRAMS/MIN 2bb
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.12
SOa GRAMS/MIN ,t3
G-31
-------
TABLE G-31,HC,CO, NOX AND FUEL RESULTS
PEUGEOT 204D
Emission Rate, g/km
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Date
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
HC
0.68
0.67
0.72
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.67
0.81
0.72
0.40
0.44
0.61
0.48
0.45
0.55
0.61
0.54
CO
1.03
1.00
1.15
1.06
1.03
1.00
1. 17
1.07
1.07
1.04
1.14
1.08
0.55
0.54
0.62
0.57
0.67
0.72
0.75
0.71
NOX
0.44
0.39
0.43
0.42
0.47
0.40
0.46
0.44
0.41
0.37
0.40
0.39
0. 36
0.30
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.32
0.33
0.33
Fuel
Cons.
1/100 km
7.05
6.43
6.69
6. 72
7.38
6. 57
6.86
6.94
6.62
6.41
6.59
6.54
5.67
4.91
5. 63.
5.40
5.75
5.55
5.54
5.61
Fuel
Econ.
mpg
35.55
36.58
35.47
35.86
31.87
35.80
34.29
33.99
35.53
36.69
35.69
35.97
41.49
47.91
42.02
43.80
40.91
42.38
42.46
41.91
G-32
-------
IAI1LE G-32. VEHlCLt EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
LIGHT OUTr EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO, 1
VEHICLE MODEL PEUGEOT-8CHO L*
TEST TYPE -1 COLD CONT.MC
BAROMETER 7HS.55 MM OF HG,
our OULH TEMP. eo.b OEG. c
RtL. HUMIOITV 38 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 11/81/75
ENGINE 1.3b LITRE » CVL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
Mf-GR. CODE PEUGEOT
TEST WT, H33 KG
WEI BULB TEMP 11.7 DEC, C
ABS. HUMIDITY »,1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR.
ROAD LOAD
7,0 KW
o
I
(JO
UO
BLOWER DU. PRESS. , 68, 8M7.8 MM. M80
HAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
bLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 251.5 MM. H50
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 OEG. c
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C08
CO?
COS
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
COB
NOX
HC
CO
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKKHO METER HEADING/SCALE
MACKGHU PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGHO METER HEADING/SCALE
BACKGKD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
HACKGHD METER HEAD INU/SC ALE
OACKGrtO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER HE AlHNU/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGrt!) METER READING/SCALE
PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
Cf'NCENfRAl ION PCT
CONCENTKATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
.1ASS GRAMS
WEIGHTH) MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
i
7Slb
115
.5/3
e
Ib.l/*
87
3, I/*
b
1.11
30.5/8
30.5
.8/1
.8
llf
78
1.11
BH.B
3.71
5.1b
UHe.38
2,70
8
12100
ai.o/a
8<*
.5/3
8
3b.b/*
b«1
l.b/*
3
85.1/8
.71
8.B/8
.07
11,3/8
11.3
.b
88
18.7
H.bO
7,81
Ilb5.8b
8.18
3
7581
87.3/3
101
1.8/3
5
T3.V*
88
,b/*
1
35.8/2
1,01
8,8/8
.Ob
85.1/8
85.1
l,b/8
l.b
105
7R
5.15
115, 8H
e.ee
1.R3
18!..75 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
CAROON HALANCt
TOTAL CVS FLOrK s
liONSOHP I I ON = 7. OS LURES PFR HLINDHtD KILOMETRES
810. S STO. CU. METRES
-------
[ABLE G-33. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
1175, LIGHT Otm EMISSIONS ftST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. c!
VEHICLE. MUDEL PEUGEOT ?n»D LA
TEST TYPE -* COLD CONT.HC
UAROMHER 7«»;.7K HM OF HG.
DKY HIILB TEMP. 21.1 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 30 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE U/2H/7S
ENGINE l,3h LITHE •» CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
MFGR. CODE PEUGEOT
TEST NT. 1133 KG
WET BULB TEMP 11.7 OEG. C
ABS, HUMIDITY ».? MILLIGRAMS/KG
VR, 1175
ROAD LOAD
1.5 KM
BLOWER UIF, PRESS., Ge, 3u-».e MM, HSO
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 2S1.0 MM. H20
BLOWEK INLET TEMP. -»a OEG. c
O
HAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
ro
CO
CO
CO?
C02
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METER REAMING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGKD METER READING/SCALE
o A C ^ l> H 0 r T M
SAMPLE METEH READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRO MtTER READING/SCALE
BACMiHD PPM
SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGHD MEIER READING/SCALE
HACKGKO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGhU MtTER READING/SCALE
OACKGHO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTHAT ION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAM3
MASS GHAM3
MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS Co
WEIGHTED MASS COe
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
1.0/3
H
H1.7/*
7B
.•»/*
1
3b.3/2
i.oe
s.o/e
.05
,8/e
115
75
.18
2H.H
3.75
t,17
1015.01
s.eo
l.OU GKA«S/KlLOMETRK
IbH.PM GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,3S GHAMS/KILOMtTRE
e
1288H
Bb
1,0/3
H
3H.8/*
bb
1
.b?
.07
17.8/5
X7.8
.1/2
.1
02
b3
.bO
lf.,1
f,5b
7. I1*
1072.38
2.bl
3
7511
27.5/3
110
l.B/3
7
HO,I/*
77
.2/*
0
31.2/2
,1b
2.3/2
.Ub
23.2/2
23.2
1.0/2
1.0
103
7H
.10
22.3
3.3b
H.88
M3b,17
2,00
CARBON BALANCE FUfcl CONSUMPIION = b.H3 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CvfS FLO* = 21)1. 7 SU>. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE G-34. VEHICLt EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL PEUGEOT 20HD LA-
TEST TYPE •» COLO CONT.HC
BAROMETER 7H3.71 MM Of HG,
DKY BULB 1EMP. lb,7 OtG, C
REL. HUMIDITY bt PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 11/25/75
ENGINE 1.3b LITRE •» CYL,
COMMENTS 3 BAG
O
i
BLOKtR
, PRESS. , G2,
MM. H20
BAG RESUl. IS
BAG NO.
BLOWtR REVULUTIONS
HC SAMPLE HETEK READING/SLALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACHGttO METEH READINU/SCALE
HC HACKGKD PPM
CO SAMPLE METEH READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGWD ME TEH RfcAOlMG/SCALE
CO BACivGKD PPM
COP SAMPLE METEH READINb/SCALE.
COe SAhPLh PERCENT
C02 BACKGHO METER REAOINU/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BAchGKD METEH READING/SCALE
NOX HACKGKD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
i
7850
111
a.
10
1.1/*
1.09
,na
31,1/2
31.1
3.8/2
3.8
85
1.02
28.t
3.H3
5.78
1100.h2
2.89
,7i GRAMS/K1LUMEfRE
1,15 GHAMS/KlLOMtlHE
17S.8* GHAMS/KILUMETME
MFGR, CODE PEUGEOT
TEST HI, 1133. KG
Et BULB TEMP 12.8 OEG. C
AUS. HUMIDITY 7.7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 61 eH8,1 MM.
BLOWEK INLET TEMP. ts OEG. c
YH, 1975
HOAD LOAD
7.0 KW
2H.3/3
17
2.2/3
«»
H3.0/*
81
2. 1/*
H
,bH
2.9/2
.OS
17.7
1.8/2
1.8
81
.bl
Ib.U
4,95
8.35
1077.b7
2.b9
WtlGHTED MASS HC
HtlRHTKO MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
CARUON BALANCE FUEL COKSUMPI I UN = b.b9 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TUTAL CVS FLOM = 211,6 STU. CU. METRES
3
7523
33,5/3
3,5/3
It
18. 7/*
H
3.S/*
7
3b.l/2
1,02
2.0/2
,05
2»,5/2
21,5
1.0/2
1.0
81
.<*>
23.b
3,92
5.30
1001,88
2.31
-------
TABLE G-35. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VtHICLE
DATE 11/21/75
MODEL 1975 PEUGEOT 20*0
DRIVER BP
"ET dULB TEMP id C
SPEC. njM. t.q GRAM/KG
IIME -0 HrtS.
StT-7 CONT. HC
IEST *T. 1133 KG.
UHY BULB TEMP 21 C
BARO. It*, b MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE i,» LITHE H CYL.
GVw 0 KG
REL. HUM. 32.i PCT
MEASURED FUEL U.OO KG
RUN OU«»TION 23.33 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PHESS. 2Sb.s MM. HBO
BLOwtR OIF. PHESS. 30t.8 MM H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. *3 OEG. c
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 3179*
BLOwER REVOLUTIONS 2081b
BLO«£R cu. CM /REV.
nC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHO PPM
SAMPLE MfcTER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
bACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
tjACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 8ACKGKD MfcTER REAOING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METES HEAOING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METEH READING/SCALE
NOX 6ACMGRO PPM
S02 SAMPLE MfcTER READING/SCALE
S02 SAMPLE PPH
S02 BACKGRD METEH READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPh
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
hC MASS CG«AMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS CGHAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .»5
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,b?
C02 G«AMS/KILOM£TRE 151
NOX GSAMS/*ILOM£TRE ,3S
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .05
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 9.38
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL it.o
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3127
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.2*
S02 bRAMS/KG OF FUEL ,95
28.8/3
1.7/3
7
»».3/«
83
O.O/*
0
l.S/2
.OS
31.2/2
31.2
1.0/2
1.0
S.7/*
2.f
.»/*
,1
109
80
1.1»
30.3
2.3
9.8b
l».bb
3285.13
7,bl
1.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .42
CO GRAMS/MlN .b
C02 GRAMS/MIN 1*1
NOX GRAMS/MIN .33
S02 GRAMS/MIN .0*
G-36
-------
TABLE G 36. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE- SET
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE n/2»/?s
MODEL 1^75 pEiiGtoT 20*0
DRIVER BP
WET 8ULB TEMP ia C
SPEC. hUM. «f.7 GHAM/KG
TIME -i) HrtS,
SET-7 CONT.HC
IEST *T. 1133 KG.
Uftf BULB TEMP 21 C
tfARO. 7t7.8 MM HG,
TEST NO, i
ENGINE l.» LITRE I t CYL,
GVW 0 KG
REU. HUM. 2S.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.ou KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
SLOWER INLET TEMP,
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
f»LOn£R CU. CM /REV.
23.33 MINUTES
25*.0 MM. H20
J17.5 MM H2U
*3 OEG. C
20817
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC BACKGRO
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
CD BACKGRO
CO BACKGRO
C02 SAMPLE
coa SAMPLE
COa BACKGRD
Ctifi BACKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPut
NOX BACKGKO
NOX BACKGRD
soa SAMPLE
302 SAMPLE
S02 BACKGRO
S02 BACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER RfcAOINU/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOINli/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOTNG/SCALE
PPM
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS CGRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,ss
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .72
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE Its
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .3d
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,2U
HC GRAHS/KG OF FUEL 11, ?«»
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL is.*
C02 GRAMS/RG OF FUEL 3117
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.15
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL t.3?
35,1/3
ItO
2.0/3
8
V8.b/*
SI
1.2/*
2
tO, 3/2
1.15
1.8/2
.05
2S.1
.8/2
.8
10.5
.t
.1
133
8fa
1.10
28.4
10. t
11. Sb
15. b*
7. OS
HC GRAMS/MIN .51
CO GRAMS/MIN .7
C02 GRAMS/KIN 13b
NOX GRAMS/MIN .30
802 GRAMS/MIN .IS
G-37
-------
TABLE G-37. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FRO* SINGLE 6AG SAMPLE - SET
VEHICLE
DATE 11/25/75
MODEL l'-*?5 PEUGtOT
HP
rtULU TEMP n C
llMc -(i
SET-7 CONf.HC
JEST wT. 1133 KG.
OrtY BULb TE*P 17 C
SPEC.
7.? GSAf/KG OAHO. 7*3,7 MM HG,
TEST MO. 3
ENGINE i.+ LITHE » CYL,
GVW 0 KG
KEL. HUM. bt.a PCT
MEASUHti) FUEL O.UO KG
DURATION 23.13 MINUTES
S* INLET PKESS. es^.o nn. mo
UlF. PRESS. 3D1*. 8 Mtl H20
INLET TEMP. *& otc. c
DYNO DEVOLUTIONS 3I5h3
REVOLUTIONS c?0»13
CU. CM /f
-------
TABLE G-38. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FHOM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
FET
DATE 11/21/75
MODEL 1S7S PEUGEOT 20tD
DRIVER EG
WET 6ULB TEMP 15 C
SPEC, HUM. -».s GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
FtT CONT. HC
fE3T WT. 1133 KG.
URY BULB TEMP 81 C
dARO. 7tH.b MM HG,
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE i,» LITRE * CVL,
GVw Q KG
REL. HUM. 32.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
nao
OEG. C
RUN DURATION 12.7H MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS, est.o MM,
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 30e,3 MM
BLOWER INLET TEMP,
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOnER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
BAG RESULTS
riC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
11*13
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coa SAMPLE
coa SAMPLE
coa
coa
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX bACKGHO
NOX 6ACKGHO
soe SAMPLE
soa SAMPLE
SOa BACKGRD
SOa 3ACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READINU/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
303 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COa MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
SOa tHAMS/MLOMETRE
HC GRAMS/rtG OF FUEL
co GHAMS/KG OF FUEL
coa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/Kii OF FUEL
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
,tu
. 3b
,ab
8.t8
il.s
3133
7.bS
3b.5/3
3.0/3
ia
si, a/*
9fa
,»/*
1
ss.t/a
I.b3
a.b/a
.07
tt.s/a
tf .5
.7/2
.7
IB. 5
l.O/*
.3
13S
•U
1.S7
f3.9
18.3
b.b7
S.07
b.Ol
HC GRAMS/MIN ,Sa
CO GRAMS/MIN .7
COa GRAMS/MIN 1R3
NOX GRAMS/MIN ,>»7
GRAMS/MIN ,33
G-39
-------
TAbLE G-39. EXhAUST EMISSIONS FKUM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VEHICLE NUMBEK
DATE 11/2H/7S
MODEL i9>5 PtUGEOT 20*0
DRIVER 8P
wET 80LH TtMP 12 C
SPEC. HUM. *.; GUAM/KG
1IM£ -0 H«S.
FtT CONT. HC
TEST *T. 1133 KG.
ORY BULB TEMH 31 C
8AHU. 7*7.8 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE if* LITRE i * CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 29.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
RUN OUhAflUN 12. 7b MJNIJTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 2*8.1 MH. mo
BLOWER UIF. PRESS. 30*. 8 MH H20
8LOWE* INLET TEMP. *b l)EG. C
OYNO REVOLUTIONS 237S2
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 11381
BLOhER CU. Crt /REV. 8*35
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER REAOINli/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
BACKGrtD METEH READINIi/SCALE
6ACKGWO PPM
SAMPLE METE« READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PHM
iJACKGrtO METER REAOINIi/SCALE
BAC^GSO PHM
C02 SAMPLE METEH REAOINIi/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGHO METER HEADING/SCALE
COS dACKGriO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLt METE* HEAOINU/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NUX BACKG^O METEH READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGrfO PPM
soa SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
302 SAhPLt PHH
•S02 BAOGrtO METER REAOINti/SCALE
S02 BACKGHO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
co CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTHATION PPM
hC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COg MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GHAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .**
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .5*
COe GRAMS/MLQMETRE 129
NOX GRAMS/MLOMETRE .30
S02 GRAMS/MLOMETRE .17
38.7/3
155
2.0/3
8
S0.3/*
M*
2
*8.0/2
1.39
1.2/2
.03
37,*/2
37.*
.8/2
.8
*8.?/*
X2.2
l.O/*
.3
1H7
89
1.3b
3b.7
12,0
7.23
8.8*
2125.09
*.97
2.77
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 10.b2
cu GRAMS/KG OF FUEL i3,o
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 312*
NOX GHAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.31
S02 GRATIS/KG OF FUEL *,07
HC GRAMS/MIN .57
CO GRAMS/MlN .7
C02 GRAMS/MIN Ibb
NOX GRAMS/MIN .39
S02 GRAMS/MIN .22
G-40
-------
TAbLE G-40. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FHOn SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VtHICLE NUMBER
OATt ll/aS/75 TIME -0 HHS.
MODEL 1175 PEUGEOT 20HO FET CONT, HC
DRIVER BP IEST «*T. 1133 KG.
WET BULB TEMP 13 C DRY BULB T£MH 17 C
SPEC, HUM. 7.7 GRAM/KG bARO. 7*3,7 MM HG,
TEST NO, 3
ENGINE i.t LURE » CYL,
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. b».a PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF, PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP,
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOwER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.7? MINUTES
aSt.O MM. H30
as*.s MM Hao
** OEG. C
23831
11310
BAG KESULTS
HC SAMPLE
hC SAMPLE
HC 6ACKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
CO BACKEND
CO tJACKGHO
coa SAMPLE
coa SAMPLE
COa BACKGRO
COa BACKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGRD
NOX BACKGRD
soa SAMPLE
soa SAMPLE
SOa BACKGRD
SOa BACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEH HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER REAOING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEH READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTKATION ppH
303 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS CGRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COa MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOa MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .bl
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,ba
COa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1*8
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,3s
SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE .20
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ia.q»
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL u.i
coa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL an?
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.3«»
soa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL *.a
-------
TABLEG-41.HC, CO, NOx AND FUEL RESULTS
PERKINS 6-247
Emission Rate, g/km
Test
1975 FTP
FTP Cold
FTP Hot
FET
SET
Date
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
Average
HC
0.43
0.43
0.49
0.45
0.51
0.44
0.48
0.48
0.56
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.33
0.68
0.70
0.57
0.71
0.68
0.69
0.69
CO
1.81
1.76
1.78
1.78
1.83
1.86
1.90
1.86
1.84
1.73
1.73
1.77
1.43
1.41
1.36
1.40
1.62
1.51
1.60
1.58
NOX
0.99
1.01
0.80
0.93
1.03
1.06
0.88
0.99
0.94
0. 96
0.72
0.87
1.00
0.97
0.84
0.94
0.90
0.88
0.80
0.86
Fuel
Cons.
1/100 km
9.63
9.26
8.65
9. 18
9.85
9.82
9.44
9.70
9.59
8.89
7.95
8.81
8.68
8.43
7.84
8.32
8.56
8.40
8.30
8.42
Fuel
Econ.
mpg
24.42
25.40
27. 19
25.67
23.88
23.95
24.92
24.25
24.53
26.46
29.58
26.85
27. 10
27.90
30.00
28.33
27.48
28.00
28.34
27.94
G-42
-------
TABLE G-42. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 1
VEHICLE MOUEL IHC-PERMNS LA
TEST TYPE -» COLO CONT.HC
BAROMETER 7HS.H1 MM OF HG.
DRY HIlLb 1EHP. S3.3 DtG. C
HEL. HUMIOITY 10 PCT,
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 11/21/75
ENGINE H.05 LITHfc b CYL,
COMMENTS 3 BAG
MFGR. CODE 6-247
1EST WT, 2041 KG
XET BULB TEMP 13.3 DtG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.4 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YH, 1175
HOAD LOAD
q.5 KW
O
i
BLOWER I)|F. PKt'SS.r G2» e>12.1 MM, H20
BAG RESULTS
PAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER INLET PRESS.. Gl 2H1.3 MM. H20
INLET TEMP. na DEG, c
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COS
C02
CO?
coe
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METtR READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD MfcTER RE AO ING/SCALE
HACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METEK READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGKO MtTER REAOING/SCALE
OACKGKO PPM
SAMPLE MtTER RE AO ING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT -
UACKGRO METFR READING/SCALE
OACK(i«u PtRCfcNT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
bACKGRD METFR RE AOING/SCALF.
OACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCEMTRAT I0» PCT
CONCENTRATION PPH
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGMTLO MASS Cdd
WEIGHTf-0 MASS NOX
.B1 GHAMS/KIL'IMF:TRE
.71 GRAMS/KROMf IRE
.SI GMAMS/KILOMETKE
1
75?b
25.2/3
101
3.0/3
18
Ibf
l.l/*
2
5H.7/S
l.fel
2.8/2
.1)7
72.0/2
72.0
1.1/2
1.1
15K
1.51*
71.0
2
12107
lb.U/3
bH
2.0/3
B
51.3/*
111
I.*/*
3
33.H/2
,q
-------
TABLE G-43. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - 1975 FTP
197S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TtST
UNI I no. TEST NO. i
VEHICLE MUDCL IHC-PERKIN3 LA
TE8I TYPE -H COLO CONT.HC
tR 711.30 MM OF HG.
DRY HHLU fEMP. 17,8 DEC, C
REL. HUMIUITY 74 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
DATE 11/8H/7S
tNfilNF. H.OS LITRE b CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAG
MFGR. CODE 6-247
TEST WT. 2041 KG
WET BULB TEMP I*.* DKG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY q.e MILLIGRAMS/KG
YH. 1S7S
KUAO LOAD
S.S KW
O
i
OU. PHt3S,»
317. S MM. H?0
DAG RESULTS
MAG HO.
HLO» METER REAOING/SCALE
CU OACKGKO PPM
COa SAMPLE METEW READING/SCALE
COe SAMPLE PERCENT
CUe HACKGHO METER REAOING/SCALE
CUe HACKGRO PERCENT
NDX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLt PPM
NOX BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE
NOX HACMjKU PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO tlASb GHAMS
1
75es
ab.i/a
10»
4.0/3
Ib
50.7/«
201
i.q/*
!•»
5!>.7/e
l.b*
a. 8/5
.07
bS.M/B
b5.«>
1.^/2
i.^
"1(>
1H1
1,57
b«».2
a.s-»
11. •?!
C05 MASS GRAMS lMa.57
NOX MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS hC ,*3 GHAMS/K J LdMh TRE
WEIGHTLO MASS CO 1.7b GHAMS/MLOME THE
WEIGHTtO MASS COS aHH.H<» GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NO* l.nl GKAMS/K1LOMF fKfc
b.bO
ULOWER INLET PRESS., Gl £bb,7 MM, H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. «»3 DEC, c
2
12113
13.8/3
55
3.6/3
110
3. I/*
13
.Ob
3B.2/2
3b.S
1.2/2
35.1
a. 35
10.55
lSOa.73
b.11
CARHON fULANl-fc FUEL CONSUMPTION =
LITRES PFR HUNOREO KILOMETRES
3
75
-------
TABLE G-44. VEHICLE EMISSION HtSULTS - 1975 FTP
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS Tt3T
o
I
>^
U1
UNIT NO. TEST NU.
VEHICLE MODEL lMC-PERKl*s LA
TEST TYPE COLO CONT.HC
BAROMETER 738.if MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 28 PCT,
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWtR Dlf-. PkESS., GH, ?HR.7 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLO*FR RfcVOLUTIONS
DATE I1/25/7S
ENGINE H.05 LITRE b CYL.
COMMENTS 3 BAU
METER READlNli/SCALE
PPM
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC OACKGWD MfcTEH HEADINU/SCALE
HC 04CC.GKO PPM
CO SAMPLE MhTtR WE AU INU/SC ALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO RACKGKO NtTER HE AU INU/SCALt
CO 0-AtKGHO PPM
COS SAMPLE MtlEH READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? HACKGRD METEH Rt ADINli/SCALE
CO^ OAC^GKD PERCENT
MOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX HAChGHD MtTER READlNli/SCALE
NOX ftACMiHU PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C0t> CONCENTHATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COe MASS GRAMS
MOX MASS GRAMS
1
7531
33,8/3
95
3.1/3
a
.3/*
1
sa. i/a
1.55
1.3/2
.03
1.11/2
1.0
OK
17*
11. 28
15S7.S1
5.55
1.7H GhAMS/KILOMtTRE
288.2;" GKAMS/KILOMtTRE
IRE
15,8/3
b3
2.6/3
10
57, 7/*
108
.!/*
0
Bi.1*/?
,8H
aa/e
.Ob
3f .5/2
3»,S
1.2/2
1.2
5H
MFGR. CODE 6-247
TEST WT, 2041 KG
HE! BULB TEMP 11.7 DEC, C
AUS. HUMIDITY H.S MILLIGRAMS/KG
BLUMER INLET PRESS., Gl 2*1.3 MM. H20
BLO«EH INLET TEMP. HS DEC. c
3
7531
85.
YR.
KOAO LOAD
9.5 KM
.82
33.*
2.18
11. b9
lfSl.85
5.08
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
'HEIGHTED MASS coe
WtlGhTLO MASS NOX
CARBON HALANCt I-UEL CUNSDMPI I UN = B.bS LITRES PtR HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL tVS FLUrt = BU7.4 8TW. CU. METRES
2,8/3
11
148
5,*
10
1.8/2
.05
l.e/2
1.2
1,08
H3.b
1110, b3
3,87
-------
TABLE G-45.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - FET
VtHICLE NUMBER
DATE il/81/?!> TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 1^75 IHC-PERKINS FET CONT, HC
DRIVER BP TEST wT. 20«U KG.
«ET BULB TEMP 13 C ORY BULB TEMP 23 C
SPEC, HUM, S.» GRAM/KG bAHO. 7»S.5 MM HG.
TEST NO, 1
ENGINE t.O LITRE I b CYL.
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. 30.2 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 2*1.3
BLOWER DIP, PRESS, 304.8
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. C* /REV.
IS.7? MINUTES
MM. H20
MM H80
f3 DEG, C
23898
11391
84H3
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER HEADING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CUg BACKGHO METER REAUlNli/SCALE
COS RACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
so2 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
soa SAMPLE PPM
302 BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COB CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOa COCtNTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GHAMS)
CO MASS (.GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOe MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,33
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE l.»3
C02 GSAMS/MLOMETSE J2S
NOX GRAMS/MLOMETRE 1,00
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .33
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL t.SO
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL IS.b
C08 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3133
NOX GRArtS/KG OF FuEL 13.Kb
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H.SO
118
3. 5/3
10
S8.7/«
l.l/*
2
7S.1/2
.Ob
ll'l.l
1.1/2
1.1
S3.5/*
23.*
.*/*
.1
110
238
a.»o
118.2
23.3
5.*2
23. bS
3770. 9b
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
S02 GRAMS/MIN
.H2
l.S
G-46
-------
TABLE G-46. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FHOM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE-
VtHlCLE NUMBER
FET
DATE ll/et/75
MODEL H7S HC-PERKINS
DRIVER BP
NET 6ULB TEMP 13 C
SPEC. HUM. b.O GRAM/KG
1IME -0 HKS.
FET CONT.HC
TEST XT. aofl KG,
DRY BULB TEMP 31 C
7*1.3 MM HG,
TEST NO. a
ENGINE ».a LITHE b CYL,
GV« 0 KG
REL. HUM. 31,5 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOfcER DIF. PHESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP,
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU, CM /REV.
la,?1* MINUTES
es-t.o MM. nao
317.5 MM HgO
** OtG. C
11*13
BAG KESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC bACKGRD
HC BACKGn'O
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
CO BACKGRO
CO OACKGHO
COa SAMPLE
COa SAMPLE
COa bACKGRD
coa SACKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGRO
NOX BACKGHO
soa SAMPLE
soa SAMPLE
soa BACKGRO
SOa BACnGKO
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCfc'lTHATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (G»AMS)
COa MASS (GKAMS)
NQX MASS (G*AMS)
MASo (GHAMS)
METER REAOINli/SCALE
PPM
METEK READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
ilETER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER HEADING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO GRAMS/KlLOrtETRE
COe GRAMS/MLOMETHE
NOX GRAMS/MLOMETRE
soa GRAMS/MLOMETRE
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
COa GRAMS/HG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
SOa GRAMS/ftG OF FUEL
,b«
l.bb
is.q
3117
13. bb
3,0/3
la
58. S/*
asa
l.t/*
t
77. i/a
a. 38
a,8/a
.07
38,0/3
11H.O
1.2/2
i.a
13. 3/*
83.3
a.*/*
.b
ass
2.32
113.0
ae.a
11. as
23.30
3bf l.lb
15. Sb
5.31
HC GRAMS/HIN .88
CO GRArtS/MlN 1.8
C08 GRAMS/HIN 285
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.2S
SOa GRAMS/MIN .*!
G-47
-------
TABLE G-47. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FKOM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE -
VfcHlCLE NUMBEK
DATE 11/35/75
MODEL 117S IHC-PERKINS
DRIVER 6P
WET BULB TEMP 13 C
SPEC, HUM. *,S GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
I CONT. MC
IEST WT. Sim KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 23 C
bARU. 738.i MM HG,
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE »,o LITRE b CYL.
GVrt 0 KG
REL. HUM. 37.5 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.ou KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS, ss-t.o
BLOWER OIF. PRESS,
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
13.78 MINUTES
MM. HSO
MM HSO
-------
TABLE G-48. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAb SAMPLE - SET
VtHICLE NUMBER
DATE 11/21/75 IIME -0 HKS.
MODEL H75 IHC PERKINS SET-7 CONT. HC
DRIVER BP TEST MT. 20*1 KG.
WET BULB TEMP 13 C DRY BULB TEMP 23 C
SPEC. HUM. S.t GUAM/KG dARO. ?'»5.S MM HG,
TEST NO, 1
ENGINE ».o LITRE I b CYL.
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 3U.S PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
6LCH&R DIF. PRES3.
8LOHER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOrtER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.32 MINUTES
SHfa.f MM. H20
30t.8 MM H20
43 DEC. C
311lt
20801
84*3
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGHO
dACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO
HC
HC
hC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02 SAMPLE
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BACKGRO
C02 bACKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NQX SAMPLE
NOX BACKGRO
NOX BACKGRO
S02 SAHPLE
302 SAMPLE
S02 BACKGRO
302 6ACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER RfcAOING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
hC CONCENTRATION PPh
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAh$)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SU2 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .71
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE l.t>2
COS GRAMS/KILOMETRE 22*f
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,9U
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE .27
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.90
CO GRAnS/KG OF FUEL 22.b
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3112
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.s*
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.75
ft ,
178
1.5/3
b
50. I/*
.8/.*
3
1.7b
2.7/2
.07
2b.2/3
78. b
.5/3
1.5
55. 7/*
13.1
.1
172
1S5
1.70
77.3
13.8
15. *9
35.30
4870.75
!S.b3
5.8b
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GHAMS/MlN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
S02 GRAMS/MIN
.bb
1.5
201
.8*
.25
G-49
-------
TABLE 0-49. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE SAG SAMPLE - SET
VtHlCLE NUMBER
DATE U./2W75
MODEL i^S 1HC-PERKINS
DRIVER 8P
*ET BULB TEMP 13 C
SPEC. HUM. b.U GRAM/KG
TIME -0 r!KS,
3ET-7 CQNT.HC
i£sr *T. atm KG.
URY BULB TEMP 21 C
CARD. 7»H,3 MM HG,
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE ».a LITRE b C*L,
GVh 0 KG
KEL. HUM, 3S,S PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
83.33 MINUTES
INLET PRESS, ssf.o MM.
BLOWER OIF, PRESS, 317, S MM Had
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
8LO*£H REVOLUTIONS
cu.
»» UEG. C
31tai
2O8A5
SAG RESULTS
MC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
MC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
dACKGriO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGHO
BACKGrtO
COg SAMPLE
coe SAMPLE
COg BACftGKO
cua
NOX
NOX SAMPLE
NOX bAC^G^O
NOX BACKGKO
sos SAMPLE
soa SAMPLE
soa BACKGKO
6ACK&HD
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
MtTER READING/SCALE
PPM
MtTfcH HEAOING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
MtTEH READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METES REAOING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEH READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METfcR READING/SCALE
PPM
MC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PHM
COS CUNCENtHATlUN PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
HC rtASS tGHAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO* MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOS MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/MLOHETRE ,b8
CO GRAMS/MLOMETRE 1.51
cog GRAMS/MLOMETRE aao
NOX GHAMS/RILOMETRE ,88
so? GRAMS/KILOMETRE .at
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL s.s?
CO GRAMS/MS OF FoEL 21.»
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3115
NOX GRArtS/KG OF FUEL l?,fK
soa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.75
173
5.7/3
11
I.*/*
.08
as, a/a
75, b
.5/3
1.5
55. I/*
13.8
l.O/*
181
l.b?
7t.3
13. b
1*.70
32. Bb
t783.be
1^.13
S.7b
HC GRAMS/MIN ,b3
CO GRAMS/MlN l.»
COa GRAMS/MIN 205
NOX GRAMS/MIN ,82
soa GRAMS/MIN .as
G-50
-------
TABLE G-50. EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE - SET
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 11/2S/75 TIME -0 HHS.
HOOEL !"?!> IHC-PERKINS SET-7 CONT, HC
DRIVER BP TEST wT, aim Kfi.
*ET 8UL8 TEMP IS C DRY BULB TEMP 32 C
SPEC. HUM. ».S GRAM/KG BAKO. 738.1 MM HG,
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE t,o LITRE b CYL,
GVW o KG
REL. HUM, 27.S PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
«LO»ER DIP, PRESS, 30*.8
8LO*£» INLET TEMP, HS
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
REVOLUTIONS
CU. CM /REV.
23.32 MINUTES
MM. H20
MM H20
HS DtG. C
313S8
aoaui
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO
8ACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO
BACKGRO
C02 SAMPLE
CO? SAMPLE
C05 UACKGRO
C02 8ACNGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SACKGRD
NOX BACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
S02 BACKGRO
302 6ACKGRO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEAOINU/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METEK READING/SCALE
PPM
METER HEADING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER REAOINU/SCALE
PERCENT
METER REAOING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPK
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PRM
COi? CONCENTRATION PCT
WOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
MC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GSAMS)
COg MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GHAMS/KILOMETRE .bl
CO GRAMS/KILOM£T«E l.hO
co? GRAMS/KILOMETRE en
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .80
SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE .58
MC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL q.si
co GRAMS/KG of FUEL ?e.i
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3111
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H.S3
303 GKAMS/KG OF FUEL ^.os
1.5/3
b
1.9/«
aos
.5/*
2
1.73
e.a/e
.Ob
2^.5/3
73.5
,b/3
1,8
If .8
.b
.1
l.bB
71. 9
17, »q
b.lf
HC GRAMS/MIN ,b»
CO GRAMS/MIN l.b
C02 GRAMS/MIN 202
NOX GRAMS/HIN .75
SOa GBAMS/MIN ,2b
G-51
-------
APPENDIX H
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES
FOR
FIVE LD DIESEL, VEHICLES
-------
TABLE H-l. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES - MERCEDES 220D COMPREX
47mm Size Filters
Test
Date
a
i
ro
FTP 8-26-75
Cold 8-27-75
8-28-75
Average
FTP 8-26-75
Hot 8-27-75
8-28-75
Average
1975 8-26-75
FTP 8-27-75
8-28-75
Average
Fiberglass
g
test
4.97
5.00
4.91
4.96
4. 10
4.37
4.25
4.24
4.47
4.64
4.53
4. 54
g
hr
12.94
12.53
12.78
12.75
10.66
11.37
11.05
11.03
11.64
11.87
11.79
11.76
K
kg fuel
5. 15
5. 19
5.09
5. 14
4.80
5. 13
4.90
4.94
4.95
5. 16
4.98
5.03
g
km
0.411
0.415
0.407
0.411
0.340
0.362
0.346
0.349
0.370
0.385
0.372
0.375
g
test
4.70
4.77
4.29
4.59
3.86
4.02
4. 12
4.00
4.22
4.34
4. 19
4.25
Fluoropore
g
hr
12.23
12,42
11. 17
11.94
10.06
10.48
10.72
10.42
10.99
11.31
10.91
11.07
g
kg fuel
4.87
4.95
4.44
4.75
4.53
4.71
4.83
4.69
4.68
4.81
4.66
4.71
g
km
0.389
0.395
0.355
0.379
0.320
0.333
0.341
0.331
0.350
0.360
0.347
0.352
FET 8-27-75 3.96 18.64 4.02 0.237 3.93
18.49 3.99 0.236
SET 8-27-75 5.78 14.87 4.22 0.265 5.36
13.81 3.93 0.247
-------
TABLE H-2. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES - MERCEDES 240D
47mm Size Filters
Fiberglass
Fluoropore
ffi
Test
FTP
Cold
Date
8-22-75
8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
FTP
Hot
8-22-75
8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
1975
FTP
8-22-75
8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
FET
8-22-75
8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
SET
8-22-75
8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
^
test
3.72
3.92
3.94
3.86
3.49
3.29
3.53
3.44
3.59
3.56
3.71
3.62
3.34
3.04
3.30
3.23
4.66
4.84
4.92
4.81
g
hr
9.67
10.21
10.28
10.05
9.08
8.57
9.20
8.95
9.33
9.28
9.66
9.42
15.71
14.42
15.68
15.27
12.00
12.47
12.66
12.38
K
kg fuel
3.84
4. 07
4.09
4. 00
3.99
3.77
4.04 •
3.93
3.93
3.90
4.06
3.96
3.47
3. 15
3.42
3.35
3.47
3.61
3. 67
3. 58
g
km
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
306
324
326
319
288
272
292
284
295
294
306
298
202
184
199
195
214
222
227
221
g
test
3.48
3.98
3.68
3.71
3. 20
3. 18
3. 27
3. 22
3.32
3.52
3.45
3.43
3. 00
2.90
2.81
2.90
4.39
4.66
4. 25
4.43
g
hr
9.06
10.35
9.57
9.66
8.34
8.29
8.51
8. 38
8.65
9. 18
8.97
8.93
14. 15
13. 67
13. 24
13. 68
11.30
12.00
10.94
11.41
g
kg fuel
3.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
60
13
82
85
68
65
74
69
64
87
77
76
13
01
90
01
26
47
02
25
g
km
0. 286
0.328
0.304
0.306
0.265
0.263
0.269
0.266
0.274
0.291
0.284
0. 283
0. 183
0. 176
0. 170
0. 176
0.201
0.213
0.194
0.203
-------
TABLE H-3.
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES - MERCEDES 300D
47mm Size Filters
Fiberglass
Fluoropore
a
Test
FTP
Cold
Date
10-7-75
10-8-75
10-9-75
Average
FTP
Hot
10-7-75
10-8-75
10-9-75
Average
1975
FTP
10-7-75
10-8-75
10-9-75
Average
g
test
3.43
3.99
3.84
3.75
3.59
3.75
3.76
3.70
3.52
3.85
3.79
3.72
g
hr
8.54
10.35
10.00
9.63
9.35
9.76
9.79
9.63
9.00
10.01
9.88
9.63
g
kg fuel
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4.
4.
3.
.4.
4.
3.
08
73
60
47
14
32
34
27
68
07
02
92
,..S_
km
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
272
330
319
307
298
310
311
306
286
319
314
306
g
test
2.95
3.32
3.20
3. 16
3.33
3.26
3.35
3.31
3. 17
3.29
3.29
3. 25
g
hr
7.69
8. 80
8.33
8. 27
8.66
8.49
8.71
8. 62
8. 24
8.62
8.55
8.47
g
g
kg fuel km
2.77
3. 12
3.00
2.96
3.83
3.76
3.86
3.82
3.37
3.48
3.49
3.44
0.244
0.296
0.266
0.269
0.275
0.270
0.277
0.274
0.262
0.281
0.272
0.272
FET 10-7-75 3.99 18.76 3.63 0.242 3.64 17.14 3.32 0.221
SET 10-7-75 5.00 12.89 3.43
0.232 4.80 12.35 3.26
0.220
-------
TABLE H-4. PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES - PEUGEOT 204D
47mm Size Filters
Fiberglass
Fluoropore
s
Ul
Test
FTP
Cold
Date
10-6-75
10-7-75
10-8-75
Average
FTP
Hot
10-6-75
10-7-75
10-8-75
Average
1975
FTP
Aver
10-6-75
10-7-75
10-8-75
age
g
test
2.81
3.45
2.89
3.05
2.42
3.14
2.70
2.75
2.58
3.27
2.78
2.89
g
hr
7.30
8.49
7.51
7.77
6.31
8. 18
7.02
7. 17
6.74
8.31
7.23
7.44
g
g
kg fuel km
4.57
4.91
4. 10
4.53
3. 64
4.27
4. 05
3.99
4.04
4.54
4.07
4.23
0. 266
0. 285
0. 239
0.263
0. 200
0.233
0. 221
0. 218
0. 228
0. 255
0.229
0.237
g
test
2.76
2.76
2.44
2.65
2.21
2.98
2.23
2.47
2.45
2.88
2.32
2.55
g
hr
7. 19
7. 17
6.36
6.91
5.75
6.46
5.80
6.00
6.37
6.77
6.04
6.39
g
kg fuel
3.90
3.92
3.45
3.76
3.32
3.72
3.57
3.54
3.57
3.81
3.52
3. 63
g
km
0.226
0.227
0.201
0.218
0. 182
0.204
0. 182
0.189
0.218
0.214
0.190
0.207
FET 10-6-75 3.06 14.41
4. 10
0. 185 3.00 14. 15
4.02
0. 182
SET 10-6-75 3.26 8.41
3. 19
0.150 2.90 7.48
2. 83
0. 132
-------
TABLE H-5.
PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES - PERKINS 6-247
47mm Size Filters
Fiberglass
Fluoropore
B
Test Date
FTP 12-3-75
Cold 12-4-75
12-5-75
Average
FTP 12-3-75
Hot 12-4-75
12-5-57
Average
1975 12-3-75
FTP 12-4-75
12-5-75
Average
g
test
6.31
6. 10
6.67
6.36
5.44
5.82
6.13
5.80
5.81
5.94
6.36
6.04
g
hr
16.43
15.87
17.37
16.56
14. 17
15. 15
15.95
15.09
15. 14
15.47
16.56
15.72
g
kg fuel
7,. 50
6.26
7.50
7.09
6.12
6.54
6.46
6.37
6.71
6.42
6.91
6.68
g
km
0. 522
0.505
0. 553
0. 526
0.451
0.483
0. 508
0.481
0.481
0.492
0.527
0.500
g
test
5.58
5.56
6. 18
5.77
5.30
5.32
5.65
5.42
5.42
5.42
5.88
5.57
g
hr
14.54
14.49
16.08
15.04
13. 80
13.84
14.70
14. 11
14. 12
14. 12
15.29
14.51
g
kg fuel
6. 27
5.70
6.94
6.30
5.96
5.98
5.95
5.96
6.09
5.86
6.38
6. 11
g
km
0.462
0.460
0.511
0.478
0.439
0.440
0.468
0.449
0.449
0.449
0.486
0.461
FET 12-3-75 5.51 25.95 4.79 0.335 5.39 25.36
4.68 0.327
SET 12-3-75 6.67 17.18 4.33 0.307 6.49 16.71
4.21 0.299
-------
APPENDIX I
SULFATE AND Sp2 EMISSION RATES
FOR
FIVE LD DIESEL, VEHICLES
-------
TABLE I-l.SULFATE AND SC>2 EMISSION RESULTS
Mercedes 220D Comprex
i
tVJ
Sulfate (SO4-)
Test
FTP
Cold
Date
8-26-75
8-27-75
8-28-75
Average
FTP
Hot
8-26-75
8-27-75
8-28-75
Average
1975
FTP
8-26-75
8-27-75
8-28-75
Average
FET
8-27-75
8-28-75
Average
SET
Avei
8-27-75
8-28-75
•age
mg
hr
238. 1
300.5
261.5
266.7
169.8
210.9
177.6
186. 1
199.2
249.4
213.6
220.7
557.6
538.9
548.3
320.6
319.4
320.0
mg
km
7.58
9.56
8.32
8.49
5.40
6.70
5.65
5.92
6.33
7.93
6.80
7.02
7.19
6.95
7.07
5.73
5.70
5.72
mg
kg fuel
95.
119.
104.
106.
76.
94.
80.
83.
84.
105.
90.
93.
121.
117.
119.
91.
90.
91.
0
9
3
4
5
8
0
8
4
6
4
5
9
7
8
2
8
0
S02
as % S g
in Fuel
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
37
72
50
53
10
36
15
20
22
51
30
34
75
69
72
31
30
31
Date
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
-21-75
-24-75
-25-75
-21-75
-24-75
-25-75
-21-75
-24-75
-25-75
-24-75
-25-75
11-24-75
11
-25-75
km
0.35
0.38
0.37
0.31
-
0.33
0.32
.
-
0.35
0.35
0.26
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.25
as % S
in Fuel
93.3
111.2
102.2
91.0
_
103.4
97.2
.
-
106.8
106.8
97.3
106.0
101.6
85.4
92.6
89.0
-------
TABLE 1-2. SULFATE AND SO2 EMISSION RESULTS
Mercedes 240D
Sulfate (SO4~)
Test Date
FTP 8-22-75
Cold 8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
FTP 8-22-75
Hot 8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
1975 8-22-75
FTP 8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
FET 8-22-75
8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
SET 8-22-75
8-29-75
9-2-75
Average
mg
hr
258. 0
340.5
220. 5
273.0
234.3
267.7
189.4
230.4
244.5
290.0
206.4
246.9
957.7
736.4
676. 1
790.0
594.5
514. 6
364.3
491. 1
mg
km
8. 21
10.84
7. 01
8.69
7.54
8. 52
6.03
7.36
7.82
9.51
6.44
7.92
12.41
9.49
8.72
10. 20
10.62
9. 19
6. 51
8.77
mg
kg fuel
103.2
136.2
88.2
109.2
104.5
118. 1
83.6
102.0
103.9
125.9
85.6
105. 1
212.4
162.7
149.4
174.8
172.6
149.6
105.9
142.7
as % S
in Fuel
1.48
1.96
1.27
1.57
1.50
1.70
1.20
1.47
1.49
1.81
1.23
1.51
3.04
2.34
2. 14
2.51
2.48
2.15
1.52
2.05
SO2
Date
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
g
km
0.30
0.43
0.30
0.34
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.36
0.30
0.32
0.26
0.26
0.30
0.27
0. 24
0.25
0.25
0.25
as % S
in Fuel
80. 1
121.3
81.5
94.3
86.8
94.3
94.6
91.9
80.4
105.8
89.0
91.7
91.4
101. 6
111.9
101.6
83.4
91.0
86.6
87. 0
-------
TABLE 1-3.
SULFATE AND SO2 EMISSION RESULTS
Mercedes 300D
Sulfate (SO4=)
Test Date
FTP 10-7-75
Cold 10-8-75
10-9-75
Average
FTP 10-7-75
Hot 10-8-75
10-9-75
Average
1975 10-7-75
FTP 10-8-75
10-9-75
Average
FET
10-7-75
10-7-75
Average
SET
10-7-75
10-7-75
hr
376.2
313.6
261.3
317.0
249.3
288.5
257.6
265. 1
303.9
299.3
259.2
287.5
817.7
928.8
873.3
629.9
519.8
mg
km
11.97
9.98
8.31
10.09
7.93
9. 18
8.20
8.44
9.67
9.52
8.25
9.15
10.54
11.90
11.22
11. 25
9.30
mg
kg fuel
135.6
113.0
94. 1
114.2
110.6
128. 1
114.3
117.7
121.4
121.6
105.6
116.2
160.3
180.9
170.6
166.8
137.6
as % S
in Fuel
1.94
1.62
1.35
1.64
1.59
1.84
1.64
1.69
1.74
1.74
1.52
1.67
2.30
2.31
2.31
2.39
1.98
Average
574.9 10.27 152.2
2.19
S02
Date
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
11-12-75
11-13-75
11-14-75
g
km
0.33
0.35
0.33
0.34
0.27
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.33
0.32
.
0.25
0.27
0. 26
as % S
in Fuel
84.9
87.7
85.7
86. 1
84.7
86.9
86.9
86.2
84.8
87.2
86.4
86. 1
94.4
110.4
102.4
80.0
88.8
84.4
-------
TABLE 1-4.
SULFATE AND SO2 EMISSION RESULTS
Peugeot 204D
Sulfate (SO4=)
Test
FTP
Cold
Date
10-6-75
10-7-75
10-8-75
Average
FTP
Hot
10-6-75
10-7-75
10-8-75
Average
1975
FTP
10-6-75
10-7-75
10-8-75
Average
FET
10-6-75
10-6-75
Average
SET
10-6-75
10-6-75
mg
hr
204.4
237. 2
195.3
212.3
172.8
251.6
202.3
208.9
186.4
245.4
199.3
210.3
606.9
473. 5
540.2
278.7
293.8
mg
km
6.51
7.55
6.22
6.76
5.49
8.00
6.43
6.64
5.92
7.81
6.34
6.69
7.82
6. 10
6.96
4.97
5.24
mg
kg fuel
111.4
129.9
106.9
116.0
100. 1
145.8
117.2
121.0
105.0
139.0
113. 2
119.0
173.6
135.4
154.5
105.7
111.4
as % S
in Fuel
1.61
1.87
1.54
1.67
1.43
2.09
1.68
1.73
1.51
2.00
1.62
1.71
2.49
1.94
2.22
1.55
1.64
SO 2
Date
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
g
km
0. 26
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.29
0.28
0.25
0. 27
0.28
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.20
0.21
0.20
«.
as % S
in Fuel
88.9
94.0
91. 1
91.3
111.0
111.5
95.0
105.8
101.5
104.0
93.3
99.6
117.9
88.6
93.2
99.9
95.1
H
Average
286.2 5.10 108.5
1.60
0.20
95. 1
-------
TABLE 1-5.
SULFATE AND SO2 EMISSION RESULTS
Perkins 6-247
Sulfate (SO4~)
mg
Test
FTP
Cold
Date
12-3-75
12-4-75
12-5-75
Average
FTP
Hot
12-3-75
12-4-75
12-5-75
Average
1975
FTP
12-3-75
12-4-75
12-5-75
Average
FET
12-3-75
12-3-75
Average
SET
12-3-75
12-3-75
hr
343.
334.
358.
345.
332.
317.
352.
333.
337.
324.
354.
338.
1021.
981.
1001.
637.
616.
mi
R!
km
8
4
0
4
0
0
0
7
0
5
6
7
1
2
1
8
6
10.
10.
11.
10.
10.
10.
11.
10.
10.
10.
11.
10.
13.
12.
12.
11.
11.
89
61
39
96
56
12
20
62
70
33
28
77
17
65
91
54
15
mg
as % S
kg fuel
135.
132.
141.
136.
143.
138.
152.
144.
140.
135.
147.
141.
188.
181.
185.
163.
157.
9
2
6
6
7
4
3
8
3
7
7
2
9
5
2
2
8
in Fuel
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
95
90
03
96
06
97
05
03
01
94
04
00
71
60
66
31
24
Average
627.2 11.34 160.5
2.28
S02
Date
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
11-21-75
11-24-75
11-25-75
_g
km
0.43
0.28
0.38
0.36
0.39
0.36
0.35
0.37
0.41
0.32
0.36
0.36
0.33
0.32
0.28
0.31
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.27
as % S
in Fuel
113.7
_
102.4
108. 1
103.9
103. 2
112.4
106.5
108. 1
_
108. 1
108. 1
97.9
99.0
92.8
96.6
81.5
81.6
88.0
83.7
-------
APPENDIX J
ODOR RATINGS BY TRAINED PANEL
FOR
FIVE LD DIESEL VEHICLES
-------
TABLE J-l. ODOR SUMMARY - MERCEDES Z20D COMPREX EVALUATION
100:1 DILUTION
Operating
Condition
1680 rpm
1680 rpm
32 mph
1680 rpm
32 mph
2800 rpm
2800 rpm
56 mph
2800 rpm
56 mph
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
A c c ele ration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Load
2%
50%
100%
2%
50%
100%
Date
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
4/7/76
4/9/76
Average
Composite
2.4
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.7
3. 1
2.9
3.4
3.5
3.5
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.0
3. 1
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.0
3.2
3. 1
3.1
2.9
3.0
3. 1
3. 0
3.1
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.1
l.Q
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Oily
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Aromatic
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
0. 7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Pungent
0.4
0.6
0. 5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
J-2
-------
TABLE J-2. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 220D Comprex
Date: April 7, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
NO.
1.
8.
14.
6.
13.
19.
5.
12.
20.
4.
10.
16.
7.
15.
21.
2.
9.
17.
3.
11.
18.
22.
26.
28.
32.
23.
25.
29.
33.
24.
27.
30.
31.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter- 50
Inter- 100
High-2
High-50
High- 100
Idle
Idle- Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
'iD"
Composite
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.4
3.2
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.1
2.4
2.7
3.2
3.2
3.7
3.4
2. 8
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.2
2.7
2.9
3.4
2.9
3.0
3. 1
3.8
4.2
3.4
3.1
3.6
2. 7
3.2
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.8
3.4
2.9
3.3
3.1
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
0. 9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0. 7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.7
npii
Pungent
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
1. 1
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
Cold Start
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
J-3
-------
TABLE J-3. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 220D Comprex
Date: April 9, 1976
Dilution. Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
8.
14.
21.
3.
9.
16.
2.
10.
17
6.
12.
18.
1.
7.
15.
5.
13.
20.
4.
11.
19.
23.
27.
29.
33
22.
26.
30.
32.
24.
25.
28.
31.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter-50
Inter- 100
High- 2
High-50
High- 100
Idle
"D"
Composite
3.9
2.4
2. 1
2.8
2.4
2. 1
2.0
2.2
3.3
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.9
4.3
3.4
3. 5
2.7
3.3
2.6
2.9
2.4
3.5
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.6
3.3
3.0
Idle - Acceleration 3. 8
Acceleration
Deceleration
4. 3
3.6
3.4
3.8
3.0
3.6
3.6
2.4
3.2
2.6
2.9
3.3
2.6
2.9
"B"
Burnt
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 3
1.0
I. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
p^i
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
l.Q
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
L_0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.9
0.6
0^4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0^8.
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.0
0^8
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.9
0^5
0.8
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.7
up ti
Pungent
1.0
0.4
0*4
0.6
0.6
0.3
O.J.
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.8
O^J.
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
p^i
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.9
' 0.8
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Cold Start
3.0
1.0
1.0
0. 7
0.6
J-4
-------
TABLE J-4.
ODOR SUMMARY -- MERCEDES 240D EVALUATION
100:1 DILUTION
Operating
Condition
1800 rpm
1800 rpm
33 mph
1800 rpm
33 mph
3000 rpm
3000 rpm
56 mph
3WJO rpm
56 mph
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Load
2%
50%
100%
2%
50%
100%
Date
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
Composite
2. 1
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2. 1
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.2
2.0
2. 1
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.2
2.5
3.0
3.3
3.2
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Oily
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Aromatic
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.6
0. 5
0.4
0. 5
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
Pungent
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.8
J-5
-------
TABLE J-5. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 240D
Date: April 20, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
7,
11.
16.
4.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
5.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1.
9.
19.
6.
12.
18.
23.
28.
29.
31.
24.
26.
30.
33.
22.
25.
27.
32.
Operating
Condition
Inter-0
Inter-50
Inter- 100
High-0
High-50
High-100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.3
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.9
1.7
2.3
1.8
2.6
2. 1
2.2
2.8
3. 1
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.9
2.J9
2.7
2.3
2.7
1.7
2.2
2.7
2.0
2.4
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.4
3.1
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.7
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
o^l
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
P^l
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
JL2
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.6
0.6
0. 7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0. 7
0.4
0.9
0. 7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.5
0. 7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0. 7
up n
Pungent
0. 2
0. 2
0.4
0.3
0. 2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0. 6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0. 1
0.3
0.2
0.7
0. 9
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0. 3
0.3
0.3
0. 8
0.4
0.6
0.8
0. 7
0. 5
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0. 6
0.8
0.6
Cold Start
3.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
J-6
-------
TABLE J-6. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 240D
Date: April 22, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
6.
11.
15.
2.
8.
18.
1.
9.
19.
5.
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
24.
26.
27.
32.
22.
25.
29.
31,
23.
28.
30.
33.
Operating
Condition
Inter -2
Inter-50
Inter- 100
High-2
High- 50
High- 100
Idle
Idle -Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2. 1
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.4
2.9
2.4
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.9
1.7
2.3
2.0
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.4
2. 1
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.2
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
IIQII
Oily
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0^1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
npii
Pungent
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0. 5
0.6
0.4
0.'7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0. 5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0. 1
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
Cold Start
3. 3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
J-7
-------
TABLE J-7. ODOR SUMMARY -- MERCEDES 300D EVALUATION
100:1 DILUTION
Operating
Condition
1740 rpm
1740 rpm
33 mph
1740 rpm
33 mph
2900 rpm
2900 rpm
56 mph
2900 rpm
56 mph
Idle
Idle - Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Load
2%
50%
100%
2%
50%
100%
Date
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
"D"
Composite
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2. 1
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.2
2.5
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.8
2.6
3. 1
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.5
3.4
3.3
3.4
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
IIQtl
Oily
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1. 0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0. 5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
ttnu
Pungent
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
J-8
-------
TABLE J-8. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D
Date: April 14, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
6.
11.
15.
2.
8.
18.
1.
9.
19.
5.
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16
24.
26.
27.
32.
22.
25.
29.
31.
23.
28.
30.
33.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter-50
Inter- 100
High -2
High- 50
High- 100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.8
1.6
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.2
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.5
3.0
2.9
2.8 '
3.3
•3.6
2.6
3.2
3.2
3.0
2. 9
176"
2.2
2.8
2.9
2.6
3.4
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.9
1.9
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.1
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.4
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0._9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0. 9
oT?
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0. 7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.6
0,6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
npii
Pungent
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.8
0. 7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0. 3
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.4
0. 2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0. 3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
Cold Start
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
J-9
-------
TABLE J-9. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D
Date: April 16, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
7.
11.
16.
4.
14
20.
3.
13.
21.
5.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1.
9.
19.
6.
1Z.
18
23.
28.
Z9.
31.
24
26
30.
33.
22.
25.
27
32.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter- 50
Inter- 100
High-2
ffigh-50
High- 100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
"D"
Composite
2.7
1.9
2.3
2.3
2. 1
2.2
iJ2
2.1
2.3
2.5
1.5
2. 1
2.1
2. 1
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.6
ia
2.8
2.9
2.0
l^L
2.5
3.4
2.8
UL
3.1
2.6
2.6
2.4
2,8.
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.2
1^
2.6
3.4
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1^0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-Lu2
1.0
1.0
I.O
-L.O
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
JLSL
1.0
1.0
1.0
LJL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
L3.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
i^o.
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1^0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.9
0.8
O^J
0.8
0.9
1.0
£^£
0.9
1.0
0.9
0_2
0.9
0.9
0,8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
JL£
1.0
0.9
0.9
Ul
0.9
0.9
0.8
LJI
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
2^2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
.L-0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
UL
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.9
O^g
0.8
0.6
0.5
SiJi
0. 5
0.5
0.6
^A
0.5
0.6
0.9
Q^S.
0.7
0.6
0.9
Jj^i
0.7
0.6
0. 5
!L_5.
0.6
0.8
0.8
P^l
0. 7
- 0.8
0.6
0.4
SL_6_
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
a^a
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.5
O^S.
0.8
1.0
iipn
Pungent
0.6
0. 3
JL_5_
0.5
0.3
0.4
SU3.
0. 3
0. 3
0.5
SLJ.
0.3
0.5
0.4
-------
TABLE J-10. ODOR SUMMARY --PEUGEOT Z04D EVALUATION
100: 1 DILUTION
Operating
Condition Load
2100 rpm 2%
2100 rpm 50%
33 mph
2100 rpm 100%
33 mph
3500 rpm 2%
3500 rpm 50%
56 mph
3500 rpm 100%
56 mph
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Date
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
3/29/76
3/31/76
4/2/76
Average
"D"
Composite
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.3
3.5
. 3.4
3. 3
3.4
3.8
4.6
4.0
4. 1
2.7
3.3
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.7
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3. 7
3^
3.8
3.6
3.7
4.2
3.8
2.9
3.0
3. 5
3. 1
3.6
2.6
4. 0
3.4
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.4
1. 1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1. 1
1.2
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"0"
Oily
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.9
0_£
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0^2.
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
O.b
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0,5
0.9
0.7
lip II
Pxmccnt
0.8
0.8
SLi
0.8
0.7
1.0
2_a
0.8
0.9
1.0
1^.
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0. 7
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0. 5
1.0
0.7
J-ll
-------
TABLE J-ll. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 204D Dilution Ratio: 100-1
Date: March 29, 1976
Run
No.
4.
10.
15.
3.
12.
17.
1.
9.
16.
8.
13.
20.
5.
14.
21.
6.
11.
18.
2.
7.
19.
24.
27.
30.
32.
23.
25.
28.
33.
22.
26.
29.
31.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter -50
Inter- 100
High- 2
High- 50
High- 100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
3.3
3.7
3.0
3.3
4.4
2.9
3. 1
3.5
4.0
4.1
3.3
3.8
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.7
3.5
3.4
2.8
3.2
3.8
4.0
3.3
3.7
3. 5
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.5
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.4
3.6
3.3
3.6
2.5
2.6
3.5
2.8
2.9
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
T76
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.6
•575
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
•575
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.6
npii
Pungent
0. 8
0. 9
0.8
0.8
1. 1
0. 5
0.6
0. 7
0.9
0. 9
1.0
0.9
0. 8
0.8
0.3
"075
0. 8
0. 9
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.5
1. 1
•575
0.8
0. 8
0.6
1.0
0.8
1.0
0. 8
1.0
0.6
•679
0.4
0. 5
0. 8
0.6
•576
Cold Start
3.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
J-12
-------
TABLE J-12. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 204D
Date: March 31, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
5.
11.
14.
4.
10.
17.
8.
15.
21.
3.
6.
18.
2.
12.
19.
1.
9.
16.
7.
13.
20.
23.
28.
30.
32.
24.
27.
29.
33.
22.
25.
26.
31.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter- 2 3.6
3.3
3.6
3.5
Inter- 50 3.5
3.3
3.4
3.4
Inter-100 5.4
4.8
3.6
4.6
High-2 3.3
3.9
2.8
3.3
High-50 2.8
3.0
3. 3
3.0
High-100 3.4
2.8
4.4
3.5
Idle 4. 3
4.0
3. 3
3.9
Idle-Acceleration 4. 6
3.3
2.9
3.8
3. 7
Acceleration 3. 8
3.9
3. 3
3.6
3. 7
Deceleration 3.4
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.0
Cold Start 2. 6
"B"
Burnt
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1. 1
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0. 9
O"
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
l.Q
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
ttpn
Pungent
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.9
1. 1
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.9
1. 1
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
J-13
-------
TABLE J-13. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 204D
Date: April 2, 1976
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
7.
12.
18.
5.
10.
19.
6.
13.
21.
2.
9.
14.
1.
8.
17.
4.
11.
16.
3.
15.
20.
23.
25.
28.
31.
22.
27.
30.
32.
24.
26.
29.
33.
Operating
Condition
Inter- 2
Inter- 50
Inter- 100
High- 2
High-50
High- 100
Idle
Idle -Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
3.1
2.6
3.9
3.2
3.0
2.9
3. 9
3.3
4.4
4.0
3.7
4.0
2.7
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.0
3.4
3.3
3.7
4.3
3.0
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.8
4.0
3.4
4.0
4.3
3.9
3.9
4.7
4.1
3. 9
471
3.0
3.4
3.7
4.0
3.5
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.3
1. 1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
IIQII
Oily
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1, 0
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
1.0
1.0
0. 7
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
itpn
Pungent
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0. 7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1. 0
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Cold Start
4.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
J-14
-------
TABLE J-14. ODOR SUMMARY -- PERKINS 6-247 ENGINE,
IHC PICK-UP TRUCK EVALUATION 100:1 DILUTION
Operating
Condition
1620 rpm
1620 rpm
33 mph
1620 rpm
33 mph
2700 rpm
2700 rpm
56 mph
2700 rpm
56 mph
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Load
2%
50fc
100%
2%
50%
100%
Date
4/29/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/20/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
"D"
Composite
4. 5
4.7
4.6
2.7
3. 1
2.9
3.9
3.5
3.7
4.6
5. 1
4.9
3.2
3.4
3.3
4. 1
3.4
3.8
4.4
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.4
4. 2
3.8
4.0
3.4
3. 1
3. 3
4.8
4. 1
4.5
"B"
Burnt
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.2
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.5
IIQII
Oily
1.0
1^2
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.2
1.2
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0^
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0^9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
llptl
Fung ent
1.1
1.0
1. 1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0. 5
0.6
1.0
W
1.0
J-15
-------
TABLE J-15. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: IHC Pick-up, Perkins 6-241 Engine Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Date: April 28, 1976
Run
No.
7.
11.
16.
4.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
5.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1.
9.
19.
6.
12.
18.
23.
28.
29-
31.
24.
26. •
30.
33.
22,
25.
27.
32.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter-50
Inter- 100
High-2
High-50
High- 100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
4.6
4.8
4.2
4.5
2.8
2.2
3.1
2.7
3.1
4.9
3.7
3.9
5.1
4.5
4.2
4.6
3.3
3.6
2.8
3.2
4. 1
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.4
4.7
4.4
3.8
4.4
4. 1
4.3
4.2
3.9
4.6
4.4
3.9
4.2
2.8
3.3
3.6
3.9
3.4
"B"
Burnt
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1. 1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
"O"
Oily
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.8
0. 9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
npii
Pungent
1.2
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.6
1.4
0.8
0.9
1.2
1. 1
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.5
1. 1
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1. 1
oa
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1. 1
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
Cold Start 4.8 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.0
J-16
-------
TABLE J-16. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: IHC Pick-up,Perkina 6-247 Engine Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Date: April 30, 1976
Run
No.
6.
H.
15.
2.
8.
18.
1.
9.
19.
5.
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
24.
26.
27.
32.
22.
25.
29.
31.
23.
28.
30.
33.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter -50
Inter- 100
High- 2
High- 50
High- 100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
4.7
4.9
4.4
4.7
2.6
2.7
4.0
3.1
3.3
3.0
4. 1
3.5
4.9
5.2
5.3
5.1
4.0
3.0
3. 1
3.4
2.9
4.0
3.3
3.4
3.9
3.6
4. 1
3.9
4.7
4.6
4. 1
4.4
4.5
3.3
4.1
3.4
4.4
3.8
2.7
2.9
3.6
3.0
3.1
"B"
Burnt
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.4
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1. 3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
1.4
1. 1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1. 1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1, 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1. 1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.7
0. 5
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
0. 7
1.0
0.7
0.8
iipn
Pungent
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
1. 1
0.8
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.0 '
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
Cold Start
4. 1
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.9
J-17
-------
APPENDIX K
INSTRUMENTAL,-WET CHEMICAL EXHAUST DATA
TAKEN DURING ODOR TEST OF
FIVE LD DIESEL VEHICLES
-------
TABLE K-l. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS --
MERCEDES 2ZOD COMPREX EVALUATION
Operating
Condition
1680 rpm
1680 rpm
32 mph
1680 rpm
32 mph
2800 rpm
2800 rpm
56 mph
2800 rpm
56 mph
Idle
Load Date
2% 4/07/76
4/09/76
Average
50% 4/07/76
4/09/76
Average
100% 4/07/76
4/09/76
Average
2% 4/07/76
4/09/76
Average
50% 4/07/76
4/09/76
Average
100% 4/07/76
4/09/76
Average
4/07/76
4/09/76
Average
HC,
ppm
53
63
58
32
33
33
50
33
42
167
172
170
49
43
46
48
28
38
108
95
102
CO,
ppm
157
135
146
131
128
130
2247
2557
2402
417
413
415
144
147
146
1483
2349
1916
171
137
154
NDIR
NO,
ppm
100
140
120
257
284
271
163
199
181
128
149
139
357
371
364
329
343
336
141
159
150
C.L.
NO.
ppm
105
118
112
253
249
251
172
171
172
125
116
121
335
333
334
325
300
313
138
127
133
NOX,
ppm
113
126
120
258
253
256
173
173
173
138
124
131
338
336
337
325
306
316
148
130
139
C02,
%
2.9
2.9
2.9
5.6
5.8
5.7
6.6
6.7
6.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
6.0
6.1
6.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
3. 1
2.9
3.0
LCA,
Ug/l
14.9
8. 5
11.7
16.4
8. 1
12.3
10.3
7.0
8.7
30.7
16.0
23.4
12.7
10.0
11.4
28.0
6.4
17.2
25.2
6.7
16.0
DOAS Results
LCO,
AK/1
7.2
4.5
5.9
7.9
4.4
6.2
5.4
4.5
5.0
11.1
5.4
8.3
6.8
5.8
6.3
15.0
4.9
10.0
10.8
3.6
7.2
TIA
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
2. 1
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
2. 1
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.8
-------
TABLE K-a. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 220D Comprex Date: April 7, 1976
OJ
Run
No.
1.
8.
14.
6.
13.
19.
5.
12.
20.
4.
10
16.
7.
15.
21.
2.
9.
17.
3.
11.
18.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter-2 108
64
48
53
Inter-50 36
28
32
32
Inter-100 56
48
48
50
High-2 172
152
176
167
High-50 48
56
44
49
High- 100 80
32
32
48
Idle 104
124
96
108
CO,
ppm
157
170
144
157
91
144
157
131
2116
2247
2378
2247
385
512
453
417
118
157
157
144
1861
1190
1398
1483
131
197
184
171
NDIR
NO,
ppm
80
122
99
100
276
235
259
257
198
122
170
163
146
119
119
128
352
360
360
357
343
284
360
329
174
95
154
141
C.
NO,
ppm
90
110
115
105
250
260
250
253
175
165
175
172
125
140
110
125
325
330
350
335
320
320
335
325
150
125
140
138
L.
NOX,
ppm
100
120
120
113
255
260
260
258
175
' 170
175
173
135
155
125
138
325
335
355
338
320
320
335
325
160
130
155
148
DOAS Results
C02 ,
%
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
5.6
5. 5
5.8
5.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
5.9
6.0
6. 1
6.0
8.2
7.9
8.0
8.0
3. 1
3.0
3. 1
3.1
LCA,
/Ag/1
19.0
16.9
8.8
14.9
24.5
13.3
11.3
16.4
. . - _
11.9
8.6
10. 3
34.2
34.8
23. 1
30.7
....
14.5
10.8
12.7
44.6
25.9
13.4
28.0
38.5
21.7
15.4
25.2
LCO,
M-K/l
8.9
7.4
5.2
7. 2
11.7
6.1
5.8
7.9
- _ _
6.3
4.4
5.4
12.6
13. 1
7.7
11.1
___
7.6
5.9
6.8
22.6
13.7
8.7
15.0
16. 8
9. 1
6.5
10.8
TLA
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.9
- _ _
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.2
2. 1
1.9
2. 1
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.4
2. 1
1. 9
2. 1
2. 2
2.0
1.8
2.0
-------
TABLE K-3. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 220D Comprex Date: April 9, 1976
Run
No.
8.
14.
21.
3.
9.
16.
2.
10.
17.
6.
12.
18.
1.
7.
15.
5.
13.
20.
4.
11.
19.
Operating HC ,
Condition ppm
Inter-2 88
44
56
63
Inter-50 22
48
28
33
Inter- 100 24
44
30
33
High-2 152
176
188
172
High-50 40
48
40
43
High- 100 26
32
27
28
Idle 96
94
96
95
CO ,
ppm
170
118
118
1.35
122
131
131
128
2512
2580
2580
2557
398
389
453
413
153
157
131
147
2345
2682
2020
2349
148
131
131
137
NDIR
NO,
ppm
104
162
154
140
276
276
301
284
194
193
210
199
178
130
138
149
367
377
369
371
352
330
347
343
166
162
150
159
C. L.
NO,
ppm
87
133
135
118
245
242
260
249
171
172
170
171
133
100
115
116
329
330
339
333
301
290
310
300
123
129
128
127
NOX.
ppm
96
138
143
126
248
249
263
253
173
173
173
173
140
113
118
124
332
333
342
336
303
303
313
306
128
130
133
130
C02,
%
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.9
5.6
5.7
*il
5.8
6.5
6.7
6.9
6.7
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.8
6.0
6. 1
6.3
6. 1
8.0
8. 1
8.0
8.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
Z.9
DOAS Results
LCA,
M-g/1
/' H "•"
8. 1
8.9
-.-
sTs
10.0
7.3
6^2
8.1
13.0
5.9
2. 1
7.0
18.2
13.3
16.4
16.0
16.2
7.9
6.0
10.0
6.5
5.3
7.5
6.4
7.9
7.8
4.5
6.7
LCO,
/x.g/1
/'" **»••—
4. 5
4.5
475
5.5
4.2
3.5
4.4
5.7
4.5
3.3
4.5
6.3
5. 3
4.7
5.4
7.9
5. 5
4. 1
5.8
5.4
3.8
5.4
4.9
4.2
4.2
2.5
3.6
TIA
1.7
1.6
177
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.7
.5
.7
.8
.7
. 7
.7
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
-------
TABLE K-4. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--
MERCEDES Z40D EVALUATION
Operating
Condition. Load
1800 rpm 2%
1800 rpm 50%
33 mph
1800 rpm 100%
33 mph
ft 3000 rpm 2%
i
Ul
3000 rpm 50%
56 mph
3000 rpm 100%
56 mph
Idle
Date
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
4/20/76
4/22/76
Average
HC.
ppm
65
72
69
51
84
68
47
75
61
52
100
76
41
59
50
43
83
63
88
104
96
CO,
ppm
179
167
173
140
157
149
255
317
286
356
349
353
179
179
179
407
453
430
148
153
151
NDIR
NO,
ppm
71
60
66
376
326
351
379
343
361
99
72
86
430
371
401
513
441
477
99
90
95
C.L.
NO,
ppm
64
61
63
333
282
308
362
317
340
88
72
80
384
330
357
474
413
444
85
88
87
NOX,
ppm
71
64
68
334
283
309
366
322
344
93
75
84
390
341
366
475
413
444
95
90
93
CO2,
%
2.4
2.3
2.4
6.6
6.7
6.7
10.8
10.7
10.8
3.2
3.0
3.1
7.4
7.3
7.4
12.3
12.0
12.2
2.4
2.4
2.4
DOAS Results
LCA,
X/t.g/1
7. 1
7.4
7.3
6.8
9.3
8. 1
6.2
5.8
6.0
6.3
8.7
7.5
7.4
6.9
7.2
7.0
4.7
5.9
7.4
8.3
7.9
LCO,
yW'g/l
4. 1
4.0
4.1
4. 1
5.3
4.7
4.9
4.6
4.8
3.7
4.4
4. 1
5.2
4.6
4.9
5.8
4.2
5.0
3. 7
3.7
3.7
TIA
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1. 7
1.7
1. 7
1.6
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1. 7
1.6
1.6
1.6
Air Flow,
kg/min
2.04
1.82
1.93
2.02
2.02
2.02
2. 04
2. 06
2. 05
3. 33
3. 12
3.23
3.29
3.28
3.29
3.28
3.23
3.26
0.66
0.69
0.68
-------
TABLE K-5. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes Z40D
Date: April 20, 1976
Run
No.
7.
11.
16.
4.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
5.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1.
9.
19
6.
12.
18
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter-2 80
52
64
65
Inter-50 52
56
48
51
Inter- 100 40
56
44
47
Hlgh-2 52
40
64
52
High- 50 28
60
36
41
High- 100 40
48
40
43
Idle 88
88
88
88
CO,
_ ppm
184
184
170
179
144
144
131
140
237
264
264
255
385
317
371
356
157
210
170
179
425
385
412
407
144
157
144
148
NDIR
NO ,
ppm
60
76
76
71
386
369
373
376
360
382
395
379
95
103
99
99
434
434
421
430
510
514
514
513
95
99
103
99
C.L.
NO,
ppm
60
63
70
64
325
330
345
333
350
360
375
362
85
90
88
88
385
388
380
384
455
483
485
474
85
80
90
85
NOX,
ppm
70
70
72
71
320
335
348
334
355
362
380
366
90
95
95
93
400
390
380
390
455
485
485
475
95
90
100
95
C02,
%
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
6.7
6.3
6.7
6.6
11.0
10.5
11.0
10.8
3.2
3.0
3.3
3.2
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
12.5
12. 1
1Z. 3
12.3
Z.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
LCA,
/*•«?/!
7.4
6.9
6.9
7. 1
6.6
7. 4
6.3
6.8
6.2
7.7
4.7
6.2
6.2
6.6
6.2
6.3
8.4
9.3
4.6
7.4
7.9
7.2
5.8
7.0
7.5
7.3
7. 3
7.4
DOAS Results
LCO,
z*g/l
4.1
4.2
4. 1
4. 1
3.9
4.4
4. 1
4. 1
5.2
5.2
4.3
4.9
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.7
6.2
5.7
3.8
5.2
6.8
5.5
5.2
5.8
3.8
3.9
3.3
3.7
TIA
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1. 7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1,6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.8
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
Air Flow,
kg/mln
2.03
2.07
2.02
2.04
2.04
2.04
1.99
2.02
2.06
2.03
2.03
2.04
3, 32
3.28
3. 38
3. 33
3.25
3. 35
3. 26
3.29
3.29
3. 27
3.28
3.28
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.66
-------
TABLE K-6. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 240 D Date: April 22, 1976
Run
No.
6.
11
2.
1 Q
l.
g
19
5.
12
7.
14
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter-2 104
52
60
~~72
Inter -50 64
80
108
84
Inter- 100 64
80
80
75
High-2 72
128
100
Too
High- 50 72
48
56
~59
High- 100 76
104
68
83
Idle 88
116
108
104
CO,
ppm
264
118
118
767
131
184
157
304
317
331
317
398
264
385
349
197
157
184
453
480
425
453
170
131
157
153
NDIR
NO,
ppm
60
60
60
~60
330
330
318
126
343
334
352
343
91
45
80
~72
364
390
360
377
429
438
456
441
99
95
76
90
C.
NO,
58
60
65
61
280
285
280
282
330
305
315
317
82
55
78
72
335
340
315
330
410
420
410
413
93
90
80
88
L.
NOX,
60
63
70
64
280
288
280
283
-. 340
310
315
322
85
60
80
75
343
360
320
341
410
420
410
413
95
95
80
90
_!*?
2.6
2. 1
2.2
2.3
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.7"
10.8
10.7
10. 5
10.7
3.2
2.6
3.1
3.0
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.3
12. 1
12.1
11.8
12.0
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
i.
LCA,
9.3
5.4
7.4
7. 5
11.4
8.9
9.3
5. 1
6.5
5.9
5.8
7.3
10.2
8. 5
8.7
6. 1
8.2
6.5
6.9
4.3
4.6
5. 1
4.7
8.6
9.2
7. 1
8.3
>\jj\o ttesuu
LCO,
4.6
3.3
4.0
5.0
5.9
4.9
5.3
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.2
4.8
4. 3
4.4
4. 3
4.8
4.7
4.6
4. 1
3.9
4.6
4.2
4. 1
3.8
3. 2
3.7
3
TIA
1.7
---
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
Air Flow,
kg/min
2. 53
1. 50
1.42
1.82
2. 03
2. 03
1.99
2.02
2. 08
2. 07
2.02
2.06
3.40
2.58
3. 38
3. 12
3. 32
3.24
3.29
3.28
3,25
3.29
3. 16
3.23
0.69
0.70
0.68
0.69
-------
TABLE K-7. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS --
MERCEDES 300D EVALUATION
i
00
Operating
Condition Load
1740 rpm Z%
1740 rpm
33 mph
1740 rpm
33 mph
2900 rpm
56 mph
2900 rpm
56 mph
Idle
50%
..„ 2900 rpm 2%
50%
Date
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
100% 4/14/76
4/16/76
Average
HC,
ppm
85
72.
79
69
68
61
60
4/14/76 67
4/16/76 15
Average 61
4/14/76 42
4/16/76 41
Average 43
100% 4/14/76 48
4/16/76 41
Average 46
CO.
ppm
214
152
187
153
US.
146
130
121
132
268
202
235
153
159
157
llfl
148
4/14/76 121 186
4/16/76 117 158
Average 119 172
NDIR
NO,
ppm
68
II
71
178
199
189
262
2
-------
TABLE K-8. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D
Date: April 14, 1976
vO
Run
No.
6.
11.
15.
2.
8.
18.
1.
9.
19.
5.
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
Operating HC,
Condition pprn
Inter-2 72
119
64
85
Inter-50 74
76
58
69
Inter-100 56
65
62
61
High- 2 68
66
66
67
High- 50 46
35
44
42
High- 100 52
44
48
48
Idle 96
136
130
121
CO,
ppm
224
227
191
214
170
144
144
153
131
131
127
130
277
264
264
268
170
138
150
153
184
144
144
157
210
165
184
186
Nt>IR
NO,
ppm
76
55
72
68
186
146
202
178
284
218
284
262
107
97
103
102
319
367
334
340
483
514
465
487
122
107
99
109
C. L.
NO,
ppm
60
58
57
58
155
166
170
164
237
220
238
232
89
78
80
82
297
312
296
302
435
432
444
437
98
76
78
84
NOX,
ppm
69
71
74
71
167
173
184
175
247
234
253
245
94
97
92
94
303
315
307
308
441
440
456
446
101
88
93
94
CO? »
Of
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.7
4.2
4.6
4.4
4.4
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.5
3.2
3. 1
3.0
3. 1
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.4
9.6
9.2
9.4
9.4
2.6
2.5
2.4
2. 5
DOAS Results
LCA,
jf-B/1
8.7
7.8
8.3
8.3
13.0
10. 3
9.1
10.8
10.0
8.2
8.3
8.8
9.5
9.5
8.0
9.0
7.3
9.4
9.6
8.8
9.2
8. 1
8.7
8.7
11.8
13.3
11.3
12. 1
LCO,
is-Zll
/
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
6.7
4.5
4.6
5.3
5.7
4.0
4.4
4.7
4.5
4.0
3.8
4.1
4.3
4.9
5.9
5.0
5.8
5. 1
5.9
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.3
4.8
TLA
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1. 7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1. 7
Air Flow,
kg/min
3.24
3.23
3.24
3.24
2.62
2.69
2.66
2.66
2.67
2.68
2.76
2. 70
4. 29
4. 18
4. 16
4.21
4. 15
4. 09
4.28
4. 17
4. 20
4. 21
4.01
4. 14
0.84
0. 89
0. 89
0. 87
-------
TABLE K-9. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 300D Date: April 16, 1976
Run
No.
7.
11.
16.
4.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
5.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1.
9.
19.
6.
12.
18.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter-2 60
89
66
72
Inter-50 62
78
58
66
Inter-100 54
70
50
58
High-2 54
56
56
55
High- 50 38
44
48
43
High- 100 44
44
40
43
Idle 102
130
118
117
CO,
ppm
157
157
164
159
157
133
125
138
144
123
131
133
237
118
250
202
164
157
170
164
144
138
131
138
157
161
157
158
NDIR
NO,
ppm
84
60
76
73.
202
202
194
199
297
305
267
290
115
101
101
106
339
343
345
342
485
478
515
493
111
84
99
98
c.
NO,
ppm
70
69
67
69
176
173
162
170
265
264
230
253
95
93
90
93
310
335
320
322
493
470
460
474
93
81
83
86
L.
NOX,
ppm
78
74
73
75
179
183
172
178
270
272
236
259
103
101
100
101
316
348
329
331
498
480
468
482
102
94
92
96
DOAS Result a
C02
%
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.4
5.7
5.7
5.2
5.6
3.1
3. 1
3.1
3. 1
6.2
6.6
6.2
6.3
9.1
9.4
9.6
9.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
LCA,
ACK/1
5.6
6.6
7.8
6.7
8.0
9.6
8.5
8.7
7.2
7.6
6.9
7.2
6.6
7.2
7.0
6.9
9.6
9.6
7. 1
8.8
9.1
6.3
7.2
7.5
8.7
9.2
9.5
9.1
LCO,
l«/l
f
3.8
4.2
4.8
4.3
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.5
5.0
4.7
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.3
6.0
5.3
4.6
5.3
6. 1
4.4
5.3
5.3
4.2
4. 1
4.6
4.3
TIA
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
.7
.7
.7
.8
.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
Air Flow,
kg/min
2.66
2.61
2.58
2.62
2.76
2.73
2.73
2.74
2.73
2.79
2.75
2.76
4. 17
4. 12
4.26
4. 18
4. 19
4.29
4. 25
4.24
4. 22
4.20
4.30
4.24
0.91
0. 87
0.86
0.88
-------
TABLE K-10. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS --
PEUGEOT Z04D EVALUATION
Operating
Condition Load
2100 rpm 2%
2100 rpm 50%
33 mph
2100 rpm 100%
33 mph
3500 rpm 2%
3500 rpm 50%
56 mph
3500 rpm 100%
56 mph
Idle
Date
3/31/76
4/02/76
Average
3/31/76
4/02/76
Average
3/31/76
4/02/76
Average
3/31/76
4/02/76
Average
3/31/76
4/02/76
Average
3/31/76
4/02/76
Average
3/31/76
4/02/76
Average
HC,
ppm
345
239
292
592
808
700
853
832
843
351
288
320
408
303
356
413
340
377
569
508
539
CO,
ppm
398
353
376
367
349
358
335
367
351
590
530
560
335
326
331
344
326
335
549
485
517
NDIR
NO,
ppm
38
33
36
149
130
140
233
203
218
64
45
55
226
185
206
290
243
267
35
29
32
C.L.
NO,
ppm
35
28
32
120
112
116
215
192
204
50
40
45
198
177
188
258
223
241
26
20
23
NOX,
ppm
57
45
51
162
143
153
222
193
208
70
52
61
215
187
201
260
227
244
55
45
50
C02,
%
2.1
2.0
2.1
4.6
4.8
4.7
8.7
8.5
8.6
2.8
3.0
2.9
6.0
6.1
6.1
9.0
9.3
9.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
LCA,
ALg/1
23. 1
20.4
21.8
51. 5
42. 1
46.8
99.0
82.0
90.5
26.6
24. 1
25.4
46.6
34.7
40.7
59.0
67.5
63.3
29.0
22.4
25.7
DOAS Results
LCO,
/*• K/l
11. 3
9.8
10.6
18. 1
15.0
16.6
32.8
26.6
29.7
13.7
12.2
13.0
18.5
15.7
17. 1
24.6
27.2
25.9
13. 1
11.6
12.4
TIA
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.1
2. 1
2. 1
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
Air Flow,
kg/min
1.29
1.27
1.28
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.98
2.07
2.03
2.07
2.07
2. 07
2.04
2.04
2.04
0.83
0.85
0.84
-------
TABLE K-ll. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 204D Date: March 31, 1976
Run
No.
5.
11.
14.
4.
10.
17.
8.
15.
21.
3.
6.
18.
2.
12.
19.
1.
9.
16.
7.
13.
20.
Operating HC ,
Condition pprn
Inter-2 384
328
328
345
Inter-50 592
616
568
592
Inter- 100 976
840
744
853
High -2 324
496
232
351
High-50 352
408
464
408
High- 100 392
542
336
413
Idle 824
436
448
569
CO,
425
358
412
398
398
317
385
367
344
331
331
335
618
618
535
590
371
304
331
335
412
317
304
344
645
494
507
549
NDIR
NO,
ppm
45
38
30
38
162
154
130
149
226
230
243
233
72
41
80
64
243
214
222
226
313
272
284
290
45
23
38
35
C.
NO,
35
40
30
35
135
110
115
120
205
210
230
215
50
35
65
50
195
200
198
245
270
258
38
20
20
26
L,.
NOX,
55
60
55
57
160
165
160
162
210
220
235
222
65
60
85
70
215
215
215
250
270
260
55
50
60
55
DOAS Results
C02,
%
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
4.8
4.6
4. 5
4.6
8.9
8.4
8.8
8.7
2.9
2.5
3.0
2.8
5.9
5.9
6.3
6.0
9.2
8.8
8.9
9.0
2. 1
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCA,
20.9
23.2
25.3
23. 1
38.8
60. 5
55. 1
51.5
123.7
84.3
89. 1
99.0
27.9
26.8
25.2
26.6
37.6
44. 1
58. 1
46.6
17. 1
87.2
72.6
59.0
30.0
31.6
25. 5
29. 0
LCD,
10. 1
11.4
12.4
11.3
13.0
21.5
19.7
18. 1
40.6
28.6
29.1
32.8
12.9
14.4
13.7
13.7
15.4
17.8
22.3
18.5
10.4
34. 1
29.2
24.6
13.4
13. 1
12.7
13. 1
TIA
2.0
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
Z. 1
2.3
2.3
2. 2
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2. 1
2.2
2.1
2. 1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.3
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.1
Air Flow,
kg/min
1. 28
1. 30
1. 30
1.29
1. 25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.24
1.22
1.22
1.23
2. 10
1.72
2. 11
1.98
2. 10
2. 06
2.04
2.07
2. 07
2.04
2.02
2.04
0.78
0.85
0.85
0.83
-------
TABLE K-12. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 204D
Date: April 2, 1976
Run
No.
7.
12.
18.
5.
10,
19.
6.
13.
21.
2.
9.
14.
1.
8.
17.
4.
11.
16.
3.
15.
20.
Operating
Condition
Inter-2
Inter-50
Inter-100
High-2
High- 50
High- 100
Idle
HC,
ppm
232
208
276
329
584
896
944
808
816
784
896
832
284
292
288
288
292
312
304
303
300
440
280
340
476
512
536
508
NDIR
CO, NO,
ppm ppm
C. L.
371
317
371
353
331
358
358
349
398
344
358
367
562
507
521
530
304
344
331
326
331
317
331
326
494
480
480
485
23
38
38
138
122
130
130
190
202
218
203
34
49
53
45
194
170
190
185
243
235
251
243
19
30
38
29
NO,
ppm
30
30
25
28
130
100
105
112
205
180
190
192
40
40
40
40
170
170
190
177
230
215
225
223
25
15
20
20
NOX,
PPt"
50
45
40
45
160
140
130
143
205 .
185
190
193
50
55
50
52
190
190
180
187
235
220
225
227
50
40
45
45
COz,
%
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.7
4.7
4.9
4.8
8.4
8.4
8.6
8.5
2.9
3. 1
3.0
3.0
6.3
5.9
6. 1
6.1
9.3
9.0
9.5
9.3
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.1
LCA,
/*&/!_
20.8
22.6
17.9
20.4
37.5
48.1
40.8
42.1
87.2
72.0
86.8
82.0
23.4
25.9
22.9
24.1
43.3
44.8
15.9
34.7
72.4
66.9
63.2
67.5
21.3
24.0
21.8
22.4
DOAS Results
LCO,
s^~^
11.0
10.2
8. 1
9.8
12.9
18.6
13.6
15.0
28. 2
24. 5
27. 1
26.6
12.5
13.7
10.5
12.2
18.0
19.8
9.2
15.7
27.9
27.2
26. 5
27.2
11.2
11.7
12.0
11.6
TIA
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
2. 1
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2. 1
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2. 1
2.1
2. 1
2.1
Air Flow,
kg/min
1.28
1.24
1.28
1.27
1. 25
1.28
1.24
1.26
1.22
1.24
1. 24
1. 23
2.02
2. 12
2.08
2. 07
2.07
2. 08
2. 06
2. 07
2. 04
2.02
2.06
2.04
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.85
-------
TABLE K-13.EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS --
PERKINS 6-247 ENGINE, IHC PICKUP EVALUATION
Operating
Conditions Load
1620 rpm 2%
1620 rpm S0%
33 mph
1620 rpm 100%
33 mph
2700 rpm 2%
2700 rpm 50%
56 mph
2700 rpm 100%
56 mph
Idle
Date
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
4/28/76
4/30/76
Average
HC, CO,
ppm ppm
984 938
885 803
935 871
260 406
351 407
306 407
NDIR
NO,
C. L.
NO,
488
496
492
1341
1269
1305
200
219
210
587
476
532
421
301
361
5309
4879
5094
918
819
869
344
290
317
437Z
3218
3795
572
457
515
21
33
27
340
357
349
348
351
350
58
51
55
366
399
383
359
433
396
38
68
53
27
37
32
298
343
321
298
334
316
53
60
57
350
398
374
328
388.
358
48
70
59
NOX
ppm
40
48
44
303
348
326
308
343
32.6
64
77
71
355
415
385
342
400
371
68
80
74
CO,
2.0
Z.O
2.0
6.4
7.2
6.8
11.6
11.0
11.3
2.6
2.6
2.6
7.7
7.3
7.5
12.4
11.4
11.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
DOAS Results
LCA,
UK/I
72.9
50. 8
61.9
29.3
35.4
32.4
25.6
51.3
38. 5
91. 1
75.6
83.4
23.9
4JL9.
32.9
52.3
37. 1
44. 7
22.7
18.9
20.8
LCO,
34.4
24.8
29.6
14.0
18.6
16.3
12.0
25.7
18.9
32.3
26.7
29.5
12.6
22.4
17,5
28.7
22. 2
25.5
15.4
15.0
15.2
TIA
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.2
2. 2
2.0
2.4
2.2
2. 5
2.4
2.5
2.0
2.4
2. 2
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
Air Flow,
kg/min
0.81
0.81
0.79
0. 79
0. 78
0.78
1.33
1.33
1.33
1. 33
1. 30
1.30
0.31
. 0.31
-------
TABLE K-14CASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: IHC Pickup, Perkins 6-247 Engine Date: Aptil 28, 1976
Run
No.
7.
11.
16.
4.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
5.
10.
17.
2.
8.
15.
1.
9.
19.
6.
12.
18.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter-2 904
1088
960
984
Inter-50 196
272
312
260
Inter -100 400
624
440
488
High-2 1312
1360
1352
1341
High-50 120
280
200
200
High-100 552
554
656 656
587
Idle 408
392
464
421
CO,
ppm
928
986
899
938
385
480
353
406
4332
6717
4879
5309
899
928
928
918
304
371
358
344
4106
4409
4602
4372
590
507
618
572
NDIR
NO,
ppm
19
15
30
21
360
318
343
340
386
318
339
348
68
53
53
58
364
352
382
366
356
352
369
359
38
23
53
38
C.
NO,
ppm
20
25
35
27
300
300
295
298
305
298
290
298
55
55
50
53
350
350
350
350
335
325
325
328
45
50
50
48
L.
NOX,
ppm
40
40
40
40
300
300
310
303
' 310
31 5
300
308
60
70
62
64
360
350
355
355
350
335
340
342
65
70
70
68
DOAS Results
c°2,
%
2. 2
1.9
2.0
2.0
6. 3
5.6
7.4
6.4
11.0
11.8
12.3
11.6
2. 5
2.5
2. 7
2.6
7.3
7.8
8.0
7.7
11.8
12. 3
13.2
12.4
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.6
LCA,
iA-g/1
76.4
89.2
53.0
72.9
20.0
32.8
35.0
29.3
15.6
33. 1
28.0
25.6
96.6
107.7
69.1
91. 1
13.0
32. 1
26.6
23.9
19.7
72. 1
65.0
52. 3
19.6
25.8
22.8
22. 7
LCO,
J>-R/1
35.4
42. 1
25.6
34.4
8.9
14.4
18.7
14.0
7.0
15.6
13.5
12.0
34.0
38.5
24. 5
32.3
4.4
22.0
11.5
12.6
8.0
39.9
38. 1
28.7
12.8
16.3
17. 1
15.4
TIA
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.0
2. 2
2. 3
2.2
1.8
2.2
2. 1
2.0
2. 5
2.6
2.4
2. 5
1.6
2. 4
2. 1
2.0
1.9
2.6
2.6
2.4
2. 1
2. 2
2.2
2. 2
Air Flow,
kg/min
0.81
0.80
0. 82
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.77
0.79
0.77
0.79
0. 78
0.78
1. 32
1. 35
1.33
1.33
1. 32
1.34
1. 32
1.33
1.30
1. 31
1. 30
1.30
0.31
0. 31
0.31
0. 31
-------
TABLE K-15.GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: IHC Pickup, Perkins 6-Z47 Engine
Date: April 30, 1976
Run
No.
6.
11.
15.
2.
8.
18.
1.
9.
19.
5.
12.
17.
7.
14.
20.
3.
13.
21.
4.
10.
16.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter-2 944
848
864
885
Inter-50 224
412
416
351
Inter- 100 520
488
480
496
High-2 1360
1216
1232
1269
High-50 320
176
160
219
High- 100 452
544
432
476
Idle 280
304
320
301
CO,
ppm
800
753
857
803
425
425
371
407
4879
5039
4720
4879
828
786
842
819
317
277
277
290
2854
3418
3382
3218
480
507
385
457
NDIR
NO,
ppm
38
27
34
33
386
322
364
357
364
343
347
351
64
41
49
51
382
412
403
399
416
399
483
433
87
57
60
68
C.
NO,
ppm
30
35
45
37
345
335
350
343
325
338
340
334
60
60
60
60
400
395
400
398
375
395
395
388
70
60
80
70
L.
NOx,
ppm
45
50
50
48
345
345
355
348
335
343
350
343
70
80
80
77
415
405
410
415
385
415
400
400
80
70
90
80
. DOAS Results
C02,
%
2.4
1.9
1.6
2.0
6.6
9.2
5.8
7.2
11.0
12.3
9.6
11.0
3.2
2.5
2. 2
2.6
9.7
6.1
6. 1
7.3
14.4
10.3
9.6
11.4
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.7
LCA,
/M?/l
43. 1
48.2
61. 2
50.8
26.8
39.2
40. 1
35.4
44.0
46.8
63.2
51. 3
89.5
63.3
73.9
75.6
47.6
53.3
24.9
41.9
23.0
50.8
37.6
37. 1
20.7
18.4
17.6
18.9
LCO,
/A-g/1
25.3
20. 1
29.0
24. 8
13.7
21.9
20.2
18.6
21.6
28.9
26.5
25.7
32.8
20.7
26.7
26.7
29.3
23.5
14.4
22.4
15.7
27.1
23.8
22. 2
15.3
18.6
11. 1
15.0
TIA
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
2. 1
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.5
2. 3
2.4
2.4
2. 5
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.4
2. 3
2.2
2.3
2. 1
2. 2
-------
APPENDIX L
NOISE DATA
FOR
FIVE LD DIESEL VEHICLES
-------
TABLE L-l. MERCEDES 220 COMPREX DIESEL, CAR
NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: July 8, 1975 Wind: 4. 8 km/hr SSE
Acceleration Test (Second Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 42-45
After Test 42-45
First
Exterior at I5.24m^1)
Right to Left 71.5
Left to Right 70
Interior 77.5
Fresh Air Blr On 82
Constant Speed
Ambient: Before
Exterior at 15.24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Test 42-45
First
59
59
Pass
Second
71
71.5
76
83
48.3 km/hr
Pass
Second
59
58.5
Third
71.5
71.5
78
81.5
Drive by
After
Third
58.5
59
Arithmetic
Average' '
71.5
71.5
77.8
82.5
Test 42-45
Arithmetic
Average^)
59
59
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
73.5 (80)<3) 72 (79)(3) 74 (80)(3> 73.8(80)(3>
77.5 (82)(3) 77 (80)(3) 78.5(8l)(3) 78(81.5)<3)
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest .
Ambient: Before Test 42-45
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 55 (75.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
After Test 42-45
Test 2 - Direction B
Max.
Reading
54.5 (75 Blr On) 75.5
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 66.5 59 65.5 64.5 67.5 59.5 65.5 65.5 67.5
U) According to SAE J-986a
(^) Average of the two highest rt:;icliiigs that arc within 2 dB of each other
(3) Value obtained at very slight accel from 48.3 km/hr
L-2
-------
TABLE L-2. MERCEDES 240 DIESEL CAR
NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: July 8, 1975 Wind. 6.4km/hrSSE
Acceleration Test (Second Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 47-48
Exterior at 15.
Right to Left
Left to Right
First
24m(D
70
70
Interior 75
Fresh Air Blr On 78
Constant Speed 48.
Pass
Second
70.5
70
74.5
77.5
3 km/hr
After Test 47-48
Third
70.5
71
75
79
Driveby
Arithmetic
Average'2)
70.5
70.5
75
78.5
Ambient: Before Test 47r48 After Test 47-48
_ Pass _ Arithmetic
First Second Third Average^2)
Exterior at 15.24m
Right to Left 58.5 59.5 60 59.8
Left to Right 60 59.5 59.5 59.8
Interior 80 (72)(3) 80(72)<3) 81 . 5 (71 . 5/3> 80. 8 (72)(3)
Fresh Air Blr On 81 (75)(3) 80 (74. 5)(3) 81 (76)(3) 81 (75. 5)(3)
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Max.
Test 1 - Direction A _ Test 2 - Direction B Reading
Interior 53. 5 (70. 5 Blr On) 53. 5 (68. 5 Blr On) 70.5
Front Rear Left Right Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 65 59.5 64.5 64.5 65.5 60 65 64.5 65.5
(1) According to SAE J-986a
Average of the two highest readings that are within 2 dB of each other
Value obtained at decel from 51.5 to 48.3 km/hr
L-3
-------
TABLE L-3. PEUGEOT 204 DIESEL STATION WAGON
NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: July 9, 1975 Wind: 6.4km/hrSSE
Acceleration Test (Second Gear)
Ambient: Before
Exterior at 15.24mU)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Test 41-45
First
72
72
79.5
79.5
Constant Speed
Ambient: Before
Exterior at 1 5 . 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Ambient: Before
Test 41-45
First
63
62
69
72
Engine Idle,
Test 41-45
Test 1 - Direction A
Pass
Second
71.5
73
79
80
48.3 km/hr
Pass
Second
63
63
68.5
71
Vehicle at
After
Third
72
71
80
80
Driveby
After
Third
62.5
63
70
71.5
Rest
After
Test 41-45
Arithmetic
Average'^/
72
72.5
79.8
80
Test 41-45
Arithmetic
Average'^'
63
63
69.5
71.8
Test 41-45
Max.
Test 2 - Direction B Reading
Interior 57.5 (67.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
58.5 (66.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
67.5
Exterior 69.5 59 64.5 65 69 59 64.5 69.5 69.5
(1) According to SAK J -986u
(2) Average of the two highest readings that are within 2 dB of each other
L-4
-------
TABLE L-4. MERCEDES 300D DIESEL CAR
NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: July 28, 1975 Wind: 6.Okm/hrSSE
Ambient: Before
Exterior at 15.24m(1)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Test 42-44
First
70
71.5
76
79
Constant Speed
Ambient: Before
Exterior to 15.24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Test 42-44
First
59.5
59
64
75.5
Engine Idle,
Pass
Second
71.5
71.5
75
78.5
48.3 km/hr
Pass
Second
59.5
58.5
63.5
76
Vehicle at
After
Third
71.5
72
77
79
Driveby
After
Third
59.5
58.5
63.5
75
Rest
Test 42-44
Arithmetic
Average^)
71.5
71.8
76.5
79
Test 42-44
Arithmetic
Average* '
59.5
58.8
63.8
75.8
Ambient: Before Test 42-44
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 54 (68.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 67 58 66.5 64.5
After Test 42-44
Max.
Test 2 - Direction B Reading
54.5 (68.5 Blr On) 68.5
Front Rear Left Right
66.5 59 66.5 64.5 67
(1) According to SAE J-986a
(2) Average of the two highest readings that are within 2 dB of each other
L-5
-------
TABLE L-5. PERKINS 6-247 DIESEL LIGHT TRUCK
NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: February 2, 1976 Wind: !2.9km/hrSW
Acceleration Test (Third Gear)
Ambient: Before
Exterior at 15. 24mU)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Test 43-48
First
74
78.5
80
79
Constant Speed
Ambient: Before
Exterior at 7.62m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Test 43-47
First
63
65
70
72
Engine Idle,
Pass
Second
74.5
78.5
79
81
48.3 km/hr
Pass
Second
63
64
71
72.5
Vehicle at
After
Third
74.5
79.5
80.5
80
Driveby
After
Third
64
65
69
72
Rest
Test 43-48
Arithmetic
Average'2'
74.5
79
80.3
80.5
Test 43-47
Arithmetic
Average^ '
63.5
65
70.5
72.3
Ambient: Before Test 43-50
Test 1 - Direction A
After Test 43-48
Max.
Test 2 - Direction B Reading
Interior 63.5 (66 Blr On) 63.5 (66 Blr On) 66
Front Rear Left Right Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 72.5 65.5 68.5 67.5 72.5 65 69.5 69 72.5
According to SAE J-986a
Average of the two highest readings that are within 2 dB of each other
L-6
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
RtPORT NO.
EPA-46Q/3-76-Q34
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
A. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Investigation of Diesel Powered Vehicle
Emissions Part VII
5. REPORT DATF
February 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
11-4016
7. AUTHOR(S)
Karl J. Springer
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
AR-1166
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
8500 Culebra Rd.
San Antonio, Texas
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2116
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRF.SS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OMSAPC - ECTD
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
?inal Report-Part VII 6/74-11/7
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLED; NTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Five light duty diesel vehicles and five heavy duty diesel engines were tested
over various test cycles for both regulated and unregulated emissions. A Mercedes
220 D, Mercedes 240 D, Mercedes 300 D, Peugeot 2040, and an International
Harvester pick-up truck with a Perkins 6-247 engine were the light duty diesel
vehicles tested. The heavy duty diesels included a Detroit Diesel 6V-71 city bus
engine with two injector designs, a Cummins NTC-290 truck engine operated with
and without variable timing, and a Detroit Diesel 8V-71TA truck engine. Emissions
measured included HC, CO, NO , C02, smoke, adlehydes, exhaust odor, benzo (a)
pyrene, sulfate, sulfur dioxide, and particulate mass.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Exhaust Emissions
Diesel Engines
Odor/Smoke
Particulate
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Heavy Duty Vehicles
Heavy Duty Engines
Light Duty Vehicles
Emission Test Procedures
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
379
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |