SwRI 08.04074.02
SwR! 08.05004.02
MARINE GASOLINE ENGINE AND BOAT TESTING
By
James N. Carroll
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agency
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
September 2002
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE™
SAN ANTONIO HOUSTON
DETROIT WASHINGTON, DC
-------
EPA-420-R-02-104
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
6220 Culebra Road P.O. Drawer 28510
San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510
MARINE GASOLINE ENGINE AND BOAT TESTING
By
James N. Carroll
FINAL REPORT
Work Assignments 2-02 & 3-02
EPA Contract 68-C-98-158
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
September 2002
Prepared by:
Japrtis N. Carroll, Project Leader
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Bruce B. Bykowski, Director
DEPARTMENT OF EMISSIONS RESEARCH
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS AND EMISSIONS RESEARCH DIVISION
This report shafl not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Southwest Research Institute™
Results and discussion given in this report relate only to the test items described in this report
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
EXECUT/VE SUMMARY v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM 2
A. Marine Engine 2
B. Boat 3
C. Test Facility 5
D. Test Program 7
E. Emission Test Cycle and Fuels 1
F. Emissions Measurement and Calculations , 10
G. Engine Modifications 12
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 17
A. Task 1 - Engine Open-Loop Baseline Emissions Test 17
B. Task 2 - Accelerated Catalyst Aging 17
C. Task 3 - Engine Closed-Loop Baseline Emissions Tests 19
D. Task 4 - Engine )n-Boat Operation on Fresh Water 21
E. Task 5 - Engine In-Boat Operation on Salt Water 24
F. Task 6 - Closed-Loop Emissions Test After
In-Boat Operation 25
G. Task 7 - Open-Loop Emissions Test With Exhaust
Gas Recirci/fation 27
H. Air Toxic Emissions 28
IV. SUMMARY 33
APPENDIX No. of Pages
MARINE ENGINE TEST RESULTS 20
REPORT OS 04074 02 & 05004 02
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Sea Ray 190 Boat 4
2 Mercruiser 4.3L TBI V6 Engine 4
3 Front View of Marinized 4.3L PFI Engine 5
4 Side View of Marinized 4.3L PFI Engine 6
5 Marine Engine Water Supply and Exhaust Pipe 6
6 Intake Manifold EGR Probes 12
7 Side-View of Engine Showing EGR Valve at Top and EGR Pipe to
Exhaust Manifold 14
8 Top View of Engine Showing EGR Valve in Center and EGR Pipes . . 14
9 Catalyst Cans Before Water Jackets Were Mounted 15
10 Water-Jacketed Catalyst Mounted to Engine With Coolant Plumbing .. 16
11 Water Reversion Cones Inserted in Exhaust Elbows 16
12 Boat Transom Interference with Exhaust Elbow 21
13 Interfering Sections of Boat Transom Before Removal
Marked in Black 22
14 Catalyst-Equipped Engine as Tested in Boat 22
15 Exhaust Manifold and Ingestion Water Collection Tubes 24
16 Water Ingestion Testing at Port Aransas, Texas 25
17 Inlet of Right Catalyst After Water Ingestion Testing 26
18 Outlet of Right Catalyst After Water Ingestion Testing 26
REPORT OS 04074 02 & 05004 02 "'
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1 Description of Test Engine 3
2 Work Assignment Tasks 7
3 Steady-State Test Modes 8
4 Certification Gasoline Fuel Analysis 9
5 ISO E4 Open-Loop Baseline Emission Test 17
6 General Motors RAT-A Catalyst Aging Cycle Specifications 18
7 Catalyst Emission Test Results Before Aging 19
8 Catalyst Emission Test Results After Aging 19
9 ISO E4 Closed-Loop Baseline Emission Test Without Catalyst 20
10 ISO E4 Closed-Loop Baseline Emission Test With Catalyst .. 20
11 ISO E4 Closed-Loop Emission Test with Catalyst After On-Boat
Operation 27
12 ISO E4 Open-Loop Emission Test with Exhaust Gas Recirculation ... 28
13 Summary of Vapor-Phase PAH Emissions from Open-Loop Baseline
Emission Test 30
14 Summary of Metal Emissions from Open-Loop Baseline
Emission Test 30
15 Summary of Hydrocarbon Speciation from Open-Loop Baseline
Emission Test 31
16 Summary of Vapor-Phase PAH Emissions from Ciosed-Loop Baseline
Emission Test with Catalyst 32
17 Summary of Metal Emissions from Closed-Loop Baseline
Emission Test with Catalyst 32
18 Summary of Hydrocarbon Speciation from Closed-Loop Baseline
Emission Test with Catalyst 33
19 Summary of ISO E4 Marine Engine Test Results 34
REPORT 0® 040« 02 & 05004 02 'V
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Outboard spark-ignition marine engines began to be regulated federally in 1998
under 40 CFR Part 91, and in California starting in 2001. The primary emission reduction
technologies for this category were replacement of conventional two-stroke engines with
either four-stroke engines or electronic direct fuel-injected two-stroke engines. EPA
regulations required reducing emissions from the average new engine by a factor of 5
between 1998 and 2006. California regulations required new engines in California to have
their emissions reduced by a factor of 5 by 2001, and then further reduced by a factor of
2 by 2008.
Another significant class of marine engines is inboard spark-ignition engines. These
are almost as numerous as outboards, and are present in much higher horsepower ranges.
Many are automotive in origin. In July 2001, the California Air Resources Board added
emission standards for inboard and sterndrive marine engines to its existing spark-ignition
marine engine regulations. Emission standards for 2003 engines were set to 16.0 g/kw-hr
HC+NOx over California's marine engine test cycle. Beginning in 2009, the emission
standard drops to 5 g/kw-hr HC+NOx, which is considered a "catalyst forcing" level. In
2009, these engines will also be required to meet the standard for their useful life, which
is defined as ten years or 480 hours, whichever comes first.
Automotive engines have been successfully emission controlled by applying
feedback electronic air-fuel control, electronically-controlled exhaust gas recirculation, and
three-way catalysts. These emission reduction strategies had been shown as effective in
a previous test program with a Mercruiser 7.4L MPIV8 engine, and EPA was interested in
demonstrating the effectiveness of catalyst technology in a boat. The purpose of this
project was to further investigate the levels of emission control that could be achieved with
gasoline marine engines using exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and catalytic
aftertreatment. There were five objectives to the test program:
1) Set up a marine engine in the laboratory in three configurations (baseline,
exhaust gas recirculation, catalytic control).
2) Age the catalysts.
3) For each of the three test configurations, test the engine for emissions and
performance during steady-state operation.
4) Integrate the catalyst with an engine in a boat, and test in fresh and salt
water.
5) Retest the catalyst in the laboratory in order to measure any deterioration in
performance.
REPORT OS 04074 02 A C5004 02
V
-------
A General Motors 4.3L V-6 spark-ignited, fuel-injected engine was tested in this
study This engine has its origin in automotive usage. It was marinized using earlier
engine model Mercury Marine hardware, by the attachment of watercooled exhaust
manifolds and a fuel pump, plus a "sea pump," coolant manifold, and cooling water
plumbing. The engine control module was supplied by GM. General Motors and Mercury
Marine supplied the engine, boat, materials, and developmental support to the project.
Emissions were measured in eight modes of engine operation. A subset of these
eight modes was the ISO E4 recreational marine boat engine test cycle, which is also the
California and Federal marine engine test cycle. The engine was emission tested in open-
loop control configuration. The ECM was then modified to operate in closed-loop control
using a heated exhaust gas oxygen sensor, and an exhaust gas recirculation system was
attached to the engine. Results from the program are summarized in the following table.
SUMMARY OF ISO E4 MARINE ENGINE TEST RESULTS
Emission Test
HC + NOx,
g/kW-hr
CO,
g/kW-hr
Power,
hp
Baseline (Open-Loop)
16.6
110.8
205
Closed-Loop Baseline without Catalyst
14.8
101.0
206
Closed-Loop Baseline with Catalyst
4.10
70.4
206
Closed-Loop with Catalyst After On-Boat
Operation
4.50
73.2
201
Open-Loop With Exhaust Gas Recirculation
9.51
92.0
198 |
In open-loop without any emission-reduction technologies, the engine produced 16.6
grams HC+NOx/kW-hr and 110.8 grams CO/kW-hr over the E4 test cycle. By applying
exhaust gas recirculation and adjusting the air/fuel ratio, HC+NOx emissions were reduced
by 43 percent to 9.51 g/kW-hr, and CO emissions were reduced 17 percent to 92.0 g/kW-
hr.
With the engine in closed-loop control without catalysts, the HC+NOx emissions
were reduced by 11 percent to 14.8 g/kW-hr, and CO emissions were reduced to 101.0
g/kW-hr. SwRl then attached two catalysts (48 in3) of 300 CPSI cell density, which were
aged with a rapid aging cycle for 50 hours. With the aged catalysts on the engine in
closed-loop control, HC+NOx emissions were reduced by 75 percent to 4.1 g/kW-hr, and
CO emissions were reduced to 70.4 g/kW-hr. Following engine testing on the boat, the
engine was re-tested and HC+NOx emissions had increased to 4.5 g/kW-hr, and CO
emissions had increased to 73.2 g/kW-hr.
The use of catalytic exhaust aftertreatment, exhaust gas recirculation, and closed-
loop control was shown to effectively reduce marine gasoline engine emissions. Although
REPORT 08 04074 02 & £5004 02
vi
-------
emission rates from the engine slightly increased after on-boat testing, the cause for this
increase is unknown. The increase may be due to factors other than catalyst deterioration
such as test-to-test repeatability. The catalysts were inspected after on-boat usage and
were found intact with no visible signs of water damage. Durability of aftertreatment
designs must still be addressed by long-term on-boat tests.
REPORT OS 04074 02 & 05004 02
vii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
As part of its program for developing emission standards for sterndrive and inboard
marine gasoline engines, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued Work
Assignments 2-02 and 3-02 under EPA Contract 68-C-98-158 to SwRI® to continue to
investigate the levels of control that were achievable for marine gasoline engines using
exhaust gas recirculation and catalytic aftertreatment. In addition, the catalyst-equipped
engine was installed in a boat, and operated on both fresh and saJhvater to assess engine
operation, and to assess any effects from water ingestion in the catalyzed exhaust system.
The Work Assignment Manager for EPA was Mr. Michael Samulski. The SwRI
project manager was Mr. Jim Carroll. Engine support from General Motors was supplied
by Mr. Doug French. Engine ancf boat support from Mercury Marrne was supplied by Mr.
Glen Martin, and additional support was provided by Messrs. Steve Griffin, Glenn Boehle,
and Jeff White of SwRI.
DISCLAIMER
"Statements and conclusions in this report are those of Southwest Research
Institute and not necessarily of the Environmental Protection Agency. The mention
of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material
reported herein is not to be construed as an actual or implied endorsement of such
products."
REPORT OB 04074 02 & C50D4 02
1 of 34
-------
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
A. Marine Engine
The engine chosen for this project was a General Motors 4.3L spark-ignited V6, as
described in Table 1. This engine was chosen, with input from Mercury Marine and
General Motors Powertrain, because it had hardware and software capabilities for exhaust
gas recirculation (EGR) control, and closed-Joop control of the air/fuel ratio. In addition, the
V6 configuration was chosen because it was represented to be especially susceptible to
water ingestion, which could cause failure of the catalysts. The marine industry commonly
refers to water ingestion as a combination of water reversion, which is water flowing in
reverse back up the exhaust pipes, and condensation of exhaust g ases when water
collects in marine engine exhaust man/folds. This engine is considered representative of
the marine engine population. Marinizing hardware for this engine was taken from an
earlier model Mercury Marine 4.3L engine.
The major differences between an on-road engine and a marine engine are found
in their cooling and exhaust systems. Atf liquid-coofed on-road engines use closed-loop
cooling systems with air-to-water radiators. Marine engines use open-loop cooling systems
in which sea or lake water is drawn to the engine's water pump by a sea pump. Plus,
marine engines use water-cooled exhaust manifolds, and mix all the sea pump's water with
the exhaust gases. Another difference from its on-road counterpart is that this engine's
fuel pump and engine oil are water-cooled.
With marine cooling systems, until the engine reaches operating temperatures, a
thermostat closes off flow through the engine, and all the sea pump's flow is routed to
water-cooled exhaust manifolds. Once the engine is hot, a portion of the sea pump's flow
cools the engine and is then re-mixed with the flow to the exhaust manifolds. Thus, all of
the sea pump's flow is mixed with hot exhaust gases as they exit the exhaust manifolds.
The reason for using water-cooled exhaust manifolds and for mixing the engine's cooling
water with the exhaust flow, is to keep all surface temperatures within the boat below
200°F. This allows the engine operator to work around the engine without getting burned,
and keeps the exhaust pipes from potentially causing a fire.
Due to the corrosive nature of salt water, many ocean-going marine engines use a
liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger in a closed-loop engine cooling system, in that case, the
engine block coolant is a mixture of anti-freeze and fresh water just like an on-road engine.
However, all the water from the sea-pump is still used to cool the exhaust manifolds and
exhaust gases. Stainless steel is sometimes used for salt-water cooled exhaust systems.
REPORT as 04C74 02 & 05OQ4 02
2 of 34
-------
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF TEST ENGINE
Engine Manufacturer
General Motors
Engine Serial Number
102LJ T10530044
Marine Engine
Model/Year
4.3L Port FueJ Injected / 2001
Rated Power and Speed
210 hp at 4600 rpm
Idle Speed
600 rpm
Operating Cycle
Four-stroke - naturally aspirated
Displacement
4.3 Liters
Cylinders
V6
First system: Open-loop total loss system from sea
pump through engine and out through exhaust
manifolds
Cooling Systems
Second system: Closed-loop through heat exchanger,
engine block and heads, utilizing total Joss system from
sea pump to liquid-liquid heat exchanger and out
through exhaust manifolds
Exhaust System
Water jacketed manifolds to 'Y'-pipe (Bullhorn), all water
though manifolds mixed with exhaust gases at entrance
to Bullhorn, exhaust released underwater through
propeller
Engine Control System
Marine Electronic Fuel Injection V.4 (MEFI4) produced
by Delphi for GM, all fuel injectors f red simultaneously
Exhaust Gas
Recirculation
GM heavy-duty on-road engine EGR system with
positional feedback control
Fuel System
Mu/ti-port fuel injection with water-cooled fuel pump at
30 psi
Ignition System
Capacitive Discharge Ignition (CDI) through distributor
Engine Oil
10W-40
Spark Plug
AC Delco 41-932
B. Boat
The boat used for on-water testing of the catalyst-equipped engine was a Sea Ray
190 stern-drive boat donated by MerCruiser, and it is shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows
an earlier model MerCruiser4.3L, throttle-body injection (TBI), V6 engine, which had been
used in a previous project to study water ingestion. Marinlzing hardware from the engine
in Figure 2 was used to marinize the PFI engine in this project.
REPO RT 08 04071 02 & 05004 02
3 of 34
-------
FIGURE 1. SEA RAY 190 BOAT
FIGURE 2. MERCRUISER 4.3L TBI V6 ENGINE
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
4 of 34
-------
C. Test Facility
The 4.3L marine engine was tested in an SwRI gasoline engine test cell. The engine
was mounted on a bed plate using jack stands, and connected to the dynamometer using
a clutched U-joint coupling. A400hp GE dynamometer was used to control engine speed
and load. Engine load was set using the throttle. The engine was instrumented for
measurement of various temperatures and pressures. Fuel consumption was measured
using a Micromotion coriolis-effect mass flowmeter. A front view of the marine engine in
the test cell is shown in Figure 3.
-J-jr ¦ an* »WWrMt-" "11 n\t¦ i^ijnwMiWKfl
FIGURE 3. FRONT VIEW OF MARINIZED 4.3L PFI ENGINE
A rear view showing the exhaust 'Y' pipe or bullhorn connecting to the exhaust
manifolds is shown in Figure 4. Note that unlike vehicular exhaust systems, the exhaust
manifold directs exhaust up and through an 'exhaust riser'. Exhaust risers are put on
marine engines to raise the height of the exhaust system above the water-line of the boat,
otherwise water could flow into the boat through the exhaust and engine. If the engine
were to be mounted further below the water line, additional straight risers could be put
before the 'elbow' riser, which directs the exhaust rearward. Both the exhaust manifolds
and risers are double-walled and water-cooled. After the elbow riser directs exhaust
rearward, the water flowing through the manifold and riser is mixed with the exhaust at the
point where the rubber coupling and hose clamps are visible. In a boat, the cooled exhaust
and coolant water then flows down the bullhorn and exits through the propeller drive and
steering system. In the test cell, the exhaust and coolant are directed to a drum where
water collects and overflows to a storm drain. Exhaust was directed up from the drum
through a pipe to the atmosphere.
The sea pump was supplied with water from our local utility using a large tub of
water that was kept at a constant level with a float-controlled petcock. Figure 5 shows the
water supply for the sea pump near the engine, just outside the test cell. The figure also
shows the exhaust pipe from the bullhorn out to the water separation drum in the
foreground.
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02 5 Of 34
-------
FIGURE 4. SIDE VIEW OF MARINIZED 4.3L PFI ENGINE
FIGURE 5. MARINE ENGINE WATER SUPPLY AND
EXHAUST PIPE
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
6 of 34
-------
D. Test Program
In order to achieve project objectives, SwRI collaborated with General Motors (GM)
Powertrain and Mercury Marine (Mercury) for technical and material support. GM
Powertrain furnished the 4.3L PFI engine in non-marinized form, plus control software for
the engine and instructions in its use. Mercury Marine furnished the Sea Ray boat with a
completely marinized engine with wiring harness. Catalysts were supplied by DCL
International Inc. in support of the project. Table 2 lists the Work Assignment tasks for this
program.
TABLE 2. WORK ASSIGNMENT TASKS
Task
Task Objective
Task 1
Collect open-loop engine baseline emissions data, {regulated
emissions plus air toxics)
Task 2
Age catalysts to the equivalent of 500 hours use.
Task 3
Collect closed-foop engine emission data after equipping and
calibrating the engine with catalysts, (regulated emissions plus air
toxics)
Task 4
Install the catalyst-equipped engine on a boat and operate it on
freshwater.
Task 5
Operate the boat on saltwater with the catalyst-equipped engine.
Task 6
Collect catalyst-equipped engine emission data after engine operation
in the boat, (without air toxics)
Task 7
Collect open-loop engine data after equipping and calibrating the
engine with an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system.
E. Emission Test Cycle and Fuels
Emissions were measured using an eight-mode steady-state engine test cycle that
included all the modes contained in the ISO-8178-E4 and Bodensee (BSO) marine test
cycles. The eight test modes are shown in Table 3.
All emission tests were performed using federal certification grade fuel coded EM-
2977-F. An analysis of the emission test fuel is shown in Table 4. During on-water testing,
the boat was fueled with commercial grade, regular-octane gasoline.
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
7 of 34
-------
TABLE 3. STEADY-STATE TEST MODES
Mode
Speed
Torque
1*
rated
100% of torque at rated speed
2
90% of rated
85% of torque at rated speed
3*
80% of rated
72% of torque at rated speed
4
70% of rated
59% of torque at rated speed
5*
60% of rated
47% of torque at rated speed
6
50% of rated
35% of torque at rated speed
T
40% of rated
25% of torque at rated speed
8*
idfe
* Modes included in ISO E4 duty cycle.
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
8 of 34
-------
TABLE 4. CERTIFICATION GASOLINE FUEL ANALYSIS
SUPPLIER HALTERMANN PRODUCTS
BATCH NO. 00C-11 SwRI CODE EM-2997-F
CFR Specification a
Supplier
Analysis
SwRI
Analysis
Item
ASTM
Unleaded
Octane, [R+M]/2
D2699
D2700
89.9±3.1
93.1
93.1
Pb (organic), gm/U.S., gal
D3237
0.05b
<0.01
<0.001
Distillation Range:
IBP, °F
10% Point, °F
50% Point, °F
90% Point, °F
EP, °F
D86
D86
D86
D86
D86
71-110
118-138
200-230
300-340
415 (max.)
84
125
218
311
391
95
129
217
313
389
Sulfur, wt. %
D2622
0.10 (max.)
<0.001
0.001
Phosphorus, gm/U.S., gal
D3231
0.005
(max.)
<0.0008
0.0002
RVP, psi
D323
8.0-9.2
9.2
9.15
Hydrocarbon Composition:
Aromatics, %
Olefins, %
Saturates, %
D1319
D1319
D1319
35 (max.)
10 (max.^
29.0
0.6
70.4
31.8
0.5
67.7
3 Gasoline fuel specification in CFR 91 for marine gasoline vehicles.
b Maximum.
c Remainder.
Supplier Analyses SwRI Analyses
Date: 6/26/00 by: Karen Kohl
Date: 8/9/00
REPORT OB 04074 02 & 05004 02
9 of 34
-------
F. Emissions Measurement and Calculations
Total hydrocarbons (THC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
carbon dioxide (C02) emissions were measured from raw exhaust in every test.
Instrumentation used included a heated flame ionization detector (HFID) for THC, non-
dispersive infrared analyzers for CO and C02, and a chemiluminescent analyzer for NOx.
All instruments were laboratory-grade and calibrated to certification-quality levels.
Emission rates were calculated in each mode using the fuel flow method from the Code
of Federal Regulations Part 91.419 (c) "Raw Emission Sampling Calculations" for gasoline
spark ignition engines.
In Task 1 and Task 3 for the modes contained in the ISO E4 d uty cycle, the
following airtoxics were measured: benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3 butadiene,
acrolein, styrene, gaseous polycychc aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), chromium, and
manganese.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are of interest because this class of hydrocarbons
contains quite a number of compounds which have been shown to have carcinogenic or
mutagenic effects in animal and microbial studies. Only vapor phase PAH samples were
analyzed. Vapor phase samples of diluted exhaust were obtained using XAD-2 resin
sandwiched between two pieces of polyurethane foam (PUF). Vapor phase polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons were captured at the same time as the metal samples by placing
the PUF cartridges after the particulate filters which captured the metals and any solid-
phase PAHs.
The PUFs and XAD-2 resin were extracted together with dichloromethane (DCM)
for 18 hours. One hundred pL of a surrogate solution containing 2-methylnaphthalene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene-d14 at 1.0 ng/jal_ was spiked to the
media just prior to extraction, to monitor extraction efficiency. The sample extracts were
then solvent exchanged into hexane, and subjected to a cleanup procedure described in
US EPA Method 610.
Samples were analyzed on a FISONS MD800 GC/MS in selected ion recording
(SIR) mode. Separation of PAHs was accomplished by injecting a two microliter aliquot
of the sample extract onto a 30m DB-5 capillary column. A set of six PAH calibration
standards containing target PAHs and deuterated PAHs as internal standards were also
analyzed. A relative response factor (RRF) for each PAH in relation to a deuterated PAH
was established. For PAH quantization, the same deuterated PAH mixture was spiked into
the sample extract at the time of analysis and then used for calculating PAH
concentrations. Each sample was analyzed twice. The Electron Impact (El) mode
determined PAH species, and Chemical Ionization (CI) mode determined nitro-and dlnitro-
PAH species.
A sample of raw exhaust was filtered through particulate filters for each test, and
analyzed to determine the capture weight of chromium and manganese. A single
background air sample was taken for each test. Each particulate-laden filter was cut, and
a portion was placed in a pre-cleaned, Teflon PFA microwave digestion vessel. Twelve
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
10 of 34
-------
milliliters of trace metals-grade acid (9 ml. concentrated nitric acid and 3 mL concentrated
hydrochloric) was added to each vessel. The vessel was capped and placed in a CEM
MARS5 Microwave Accelerated Reaction System using the "Filter XP1500" microwave
method. In this method, 1200W using the electrical power was applied to increase the
temperature of the vessel contents to 240°C in 10 minutes; and then they were held at that
temperature for an additional 10 minutes. Once the vessel cooled, the samples were
transferred to centrifuge tubes and brought up to a final volume of 50 mL with deionized
water. The digests of the samples were then analyzed using inductively coupled plasma
atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) for all elements. Detection limits range from 1
to 10 Mg for each element per sample. Results of the analyses were used to compute the
mass emission rate of metals in the exhaust.
Benzene, 1,3 butadiene, acrolein, and styrene levels were analyzed using Phase II
Auto/Oil procedures, which can identify and quantify 223 individual C,-C12 hydrocarbons
using gas chromatography. Raw exhaust samples were captured in Tedlar® bags for
delivery to the analyzer. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde samples were captured by
bubbling a measured volume of raw exhaust through a liquid reagent which was then
analyzed by liquid chromatography.
It should be noted that the air toxic measurement techniques used at SwRI are
designed to measure samples from diluted engine exhaust. Because marine engines
inject cooling water into their exhaust, conventional dilution methods could not be used.
Therefore, raw exhaust samples were taken from the engine before water was mixed with
the exhaust. Because raw exhaust has a high moisture content, some water condensed
out of the exhaust samples while they were taken. It is probable that some of the air toxics
were scrubbed out of the exhaust by condensation, but what fraction was scrubbed is
unknown. Therefore, air toxic rates presented in this report may be somewhat under-
estimated.
For test modes where EGR was used, the amount of EGR was calculated from the
levels of C02 measured in the background air, intake manifold, and exhaust gases using
the formula below. Figure 6 shows the shut-off valve above the two C02 sample probes
in the intake manifold.
EGR level, % = 100 * (Intake Manifold CQ.,.% - Background CO,. %)
(Exhaust Manifold C02, % - Intake Manifold C02, %)
REPORT OB 04074 02 & Q5004 02
11 of 34
-------
FIGURE 6. INTAKE MANIFOLD EGR PROBES
PAH and metals results are reported in fjg/sample volume units. PAH and metals
emission rates were calculated by multiplying sample analysis results by the total exhaust
flow rate, and then dividing by the sample volume drawn through the PUF trap and filter.
The engine's exhaust flow rate was calculated using its fuel flow rate and a carbon balance
approach based on HC, CO, and C02 emission concentrations (SAE Technical Paper
910560, 'Emission Factors for Small Utility Engines').
Similarly, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, and
styrene analysis results are reported as their concentrations in the raw exhaust. Sample
concentrations, the density of the compounds, and the total exhaust flow were used to
calculate the corresponding mass emission rates.
G. Engine Modifications
The General Motors 4.3L PFI engine as received required hardware and software
modifications in order to meet the goals of the project. Modifications were made in order
to operate the engine in closed-loop control with an exhaust gas oxygen (EGO) sensor, to
use exhaust gas recirculation, and to add catalysts. In addition, marinizing hardware from
an older model Mercury Marine 4.3L engine was utilized to prepare the engine for boat
operation.
1. Engine Control Modifications
The engine uses GM's Marine Electronic Fuel Injection V.4 (MEFI4) control
software and Electronic Control Module. The ECM calibration is accessible through a
REPORT 08.04074 02 & 05004.02
12 of 34
-------
serial port interface on a personal computer (PC). The MEFI4 software was received with
a "running" calibration from GM which is supplied to GM's customers for general engine
operation. GM supplies this open-loop calibration to their OEM clients to get the engine
running in preparation for the OEM's calibrations.
Although these functions are not used by any of GM's clients, MEFI4 has
closed-loop control capability with the addition of an exhaust gas oxygen (EGO) sensor;
it also has exhaust gas recirculation control capability with the addition of an EGR valve.
Mr. Doug French of GM Powertrain prepared the software for closed-loop (CL) and EGR
control, removed its password, and instructed SwRI personnel in its operation. Mr. French
also augmented the engine wiring harness with power and control connections between
the ECM and the EGR valve and EGO sensor. In addition, he set up the software to be
able to monitor, through the PC interface, the air/fuel ratio using a Universal Exhaust Gas
Oxygen (UEGO) sensor. Mr. French explained that the MEFI4 ECM can control air/fuel
ratio using feedback from either the EGO or UEGO. In this project, closed-loop feedback
was supplied by the EGO sensor only. The EGO sensor was mounted in a one-inch riser
placed between the exhaust riser and the catalyst.
The 4.3L PFl engine uses an intake manifold which already has an inlet port
for EGR. However, the exhaust manifold did not have an EGR port, nor was there an EGR
valve to control EGR flow. A one-inch water-jacketed marine riser was modified to accept
an EGR pipe, and GM heavy-duty on-road engine EGR valve and pipes were attached
between the ports. Figure 7 shows the one-inch riser mounted at the exit of the left
manifold, along with the EGR pipe to the EGR valve. Figure 8 shows a top view of the
EGR hardware.
Mercury Marine and GM warned SwRI that, due to water condensation and
water reversion within the exhaust system, the EGR pipe and valve could experience high
waterflows which could be transferred to the intake manifold and thence into the cylinders.
A large cylindrical water trap was put in-line between the exhaust manifold and the EGR
valve to capture any liquid which could have been drawn into the intake system. The large
water trap can be seen in Figures 7 and 8. A drain petcock was placed at the bottom of
the water trap. No significant amounts of water were drained from the water trap during
this project and it was probably unnecessary to mount the trap.
REPORT 06 04074 02 A 05004 02
13 of 34
-------
FIGURE 7. SIDE-VIEW OF ENGINE SHOWING EGR VALVE
AT TOP AND EGR PIPE TO EXHAUST MANIFOLD
FIGURE 8. TOP VIEW OF ENGINE SHOWING EGR VALVE
IN CENTER AND EGR PIPES
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
14 of 34
-------
2.
Engine Exhaust Modifications
In order to keep all surface temperatures below 200°F, the catalysts required
water-cooled jackets. Figure 9 shows the catalysts in their canisters, as received from DCL
International. Figure 10 shows a catalyst with water jacket and coolant hose fittings as it
was mounted on the engine.
Since the catalyst has a ceramic substrate and washcoat and operates at
high temperatures, there were concerns that water ingestion during on-boat operation
could cause the catalyst's surface coatings to spall from the substrate and even cause the
substrate to crack. In addition, there was a concern that, if exposed to it, salt water could
poison the catalyst. In order to minimize the chances of catalyst failure due to water
ingestion, the exhaust manifolds were modified using techniques learned in a previous
SwRI project for the California Air Resources Board ("Marine Exhaust System
Modifications", CARB Contract No. 99-641). That project was performed with a 2000
Mercury Marine 4.3L TBI (Throttle Body Injection) engine in the Sea Ray 190.
During that project, it was found that small amounts of water could collect in
the exhaust manifolds from condensation. This was minimized by controlling the exhaust
manifold wall temperature above the exhaust gas dewpoint of 120-130°F. Control of
manifold wall temperatures was accomplished by blocking the normal flow of cooling water
out of the manifold at the exhaust flange, and installing a 180°F thermostat in the exhaust
manifold. A T fitting was installed in the coolant hose into the manifold so that until the
thermostat opened, all coolant was routed to the catalyst water jacket. From the catalyst
jacket, coolant flowed to another T fitting where coolant from the thermostat was mixed
before entering the exhaust elbow. The thermostat housing can be seen in the lower part
of Figure 10. The hose from the thermostat joins the hose from the catalyst at the upper
right of Figure 10 at the T into the exhaust elbow. Figure 11 shows cones inserted by
SwRI into the exhaust elbows to help prevent water reversion back up the exhaust.
FIGURE 9. CATALYST CANS BEFORE WATER
JACKETS WERE MOUNTED
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
15 of 34
-------
FIGURE 10. WATER JACKETED
CATALYST MOUNTED TO ENGINE
WITH COOLANT PLUMBING
FIGURE 11. WATER REVERSION CONES INSERTED IN
EXHAUST ELBOWS
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
16 of 34
-------
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Task 1 - Engine Open-Loop Baseline Emissions Test
Because the open-loop calibration for this engine was not a production marine
engine calibration, the engine air/fuel ratio settings as received were deemed not
representative of a marine baseline calibration. However, the air/fuel ratios of Mercury
Marine's throttle body injected 4.3L engine were recorded with a UEGO sensor during the
water ingestion project mentioned earlier. For this baseline emission test, the engine was
operated in open-loop configuration with its air/fuel ratio set to those measured in the field.
Ignition timing was left as received because a production marine calibration was
unavailable. GM's ignition timing for this engine was set for power with a safety factor to
preclude engine knock, which is consistent with marine engine calibrations.
Modal emissions from all eight modes of the test cycle are included in Appendix
Table 1. The spreadsheet file which contains all data from these tests is named 'GM 4.3L
Marine Baseline.XLS', and has been supplied separately by electronic media.
Within the eight-mode test matrix of the project's test program (Table 3), the five
modes of the ISO E4 marine duty cycle are Modes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8. E4 cycle weighted
emissions are shown in Table 5, and are consistent with levels measured from spark-
ignited engines prior to emission regulations, without catalytic aftertreatment or exhaust
gas recirculation.
TABLE 5. ISO E4 OPEN-LOOP BASELINE EMISSION TEST
ISO E4
Weight
Power,
HC,
NOx,
HC+NOXl
CO,
Mode
Factor
hp
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
1
0.06
205.0
602.6
958.3
1560.9
27457
2
0.14
116.8
249.3
1519.7
1769.0
2568
3
015
58.3
174.3
597.9
772.2
2807
4
0.25
20.5
78.2
38.3
116.5
2181
5
0.40
0
99.3
1.2
100.5
1346
Weighted Total
g/hp-hr
3.68
8.70
12.38
82.6
g/kW-hr
4.94
11.67
16.61
110.8
B. Task 2 - Accelerated Catalyst Aging
Under this task, the catalysts were to be aged to an equivalent of 480 hours on-boat
operation. The two catalysts supplied by DCL International Inc. were loaded at 1.0 g/L
P1:Rhata4:1 ratio. The catalysts were cylindrical, were 3 V»" diameter by 4" long, and had
a ceramic substrate of400cpsi structure. Information regarding on-boat catalyst operation
REPORT 08 04074 02 4 05004 02
17 of 34
-------
is not yet available, and accelerated aging equivalencies have yet to be established. SwRI
routinely uses accelerated aging cycles for automotive clients, and our experience is that
at least 100 hours of accelerated aging is required for 100,000 mile light-duty vehicle on-
road equivalency. At an average speed of 50 mph, 100,000 miles is equivalent to 2000
hours of on-road operation; 500 hours of on-road vehicle operation would be equivalent
to 25 hours of accelerated aging. We decided to err on the side of over-aging, and chose
to perform 50 hours of accelerated aging on these catalysts.
The two DCL catalysts were aged for 50 hours on a gasoline engine at SwRI
following the General Motors (GM) RAT-A Rapid Aging Test cycle, which incorporates
various air-fuel ratios and air injection periods to produce high catalyst bed exotherms.
The GM RAT-A aging cycle is composed of four segments, and is described in Table 6.
A large displacement V-8 engine operated on commercial gasoline was used to age the
units.
TABLE 6. GENERAL MOTORS RAT-A CATALYST AGING CYCLE
SPECIFICATIONS
Mode No.
Description
Parameter
Specification
1
Stoichiometric
Air-Fuel Ratio
Inlet Temperature
Flow rate (per catalyst)
Time Duration
CO concentration
02 concentration
800°C
84 SCFM
40 seconds
<1.0%
<1.0%
2
Fuel-Rich Operation
(Power Enrichment)
Time Duration
CO concentration
02 concentration
6 seconds
2.9%
3.0%
3
Fuel-Rich Operation
with Air Injection
Time Duration
CO concentration
02 concentration
Catalyst Bed
Temperature
10 seconds
2.9%
3.0%
approximately
950-1000°C
4
Stoichiometric Operation
with Air Injection
Time Duration
02 concentration
4 seconds
3.0%
Exhaust gas emission measurements were made at the beginning and end of aging
in orderto assess aging affects, as shown in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. Emissions were
measured in modes 2 and 4 of the RAT A cycle, which are labeled Rich and Lean,
respectively. Aging the catalysts reduced rich NOx efficiency from 83 to 50 percent. In
lean operation, HC reduction efficiencies were not affected by aging. However, CO
reduction efficiency dropped slightly from 96 percent to 92 percent. These reductions were
measured only at single points in the RAT A cycle, and are not comparable to the overall
reduction efficiencies measured during modal marine engine emission tests.
REPORT 08 04074 02 3 05004 02
18 of 34
-------
TABLE 7. CATALYST EMISSION TEST RESULTS BEFORE AGING
Mode 2 Rich Mixture
Mode 4 Lean Mixture
Catalyst
HC, ppm
NOx1 ppm
CO, %
HC, ppm
NOx, ppm
CO, %
Before Catalyst 1
1640
1233
3.00
135
1732
0.41
After Catalyst 1
750
219
2.73
15
1687
0.02
Reduction Efficiency
54%
82%
9%
89%
3%
96%
Before Catalyst 2
1675
1246
3 00
165
1761
0.41
After Catalyst 2
740
211
2 80
15
1699
0.02
Reduction Efficiency
56%
83%
7%
91%
3%
96%
TABLE 8. CATALYST EMISSION TEST RESULTS AFTER AGING
Mode 2 Rich Mixture
Mode 4 Lean Mixture
Catalyst
HC, ppm
NO,, ppm
CO, %
HC, ppm
NOxl ppm
CO, %
Before Catalyst 1
1980
1183
3.09
150
1617
0.39
After Catalyst 1
1125
611
2.99
10
1575
0 03
Reduction Efficiency
43%
48%
3%
93%
3%
91%
Before Catalyst 2
2000
1167
3.09
115
1603
0 36
After Catalyst 2
1025
586
2 99
10
1562
0.03
Reduction Efficiency
49%
50%
3%
91%
3%
92%
C. Task 3 - Engine Closed-Loop Baseline Emission Tests
DCL International furnished 300 cpsi catalysts in 6-inch long canisters that were
water jacketed at SwRI and aged for 50 hours with a rapid-aging cycle. The catalyst
dimensions in the 6-inch riser were 3 inches in diameter by 6 inches long. Volume per riser
was 42 in3.
Mode 1 was run in open-loop control at a 12.5:1 air/fuel ratio to preclude
overheating, and all other modes were tested in closed-loop control at stoichiometric. In
Mode 1, exhaust back pressure was 5.1 inches of mercury (in. Hg), compared to the non-
catalyst equipped baseline back pressure of 4.6 in. Hg. The higher back pressure with the
catalysts did not affect engine power.
Engine emissions were measured before and after the catalyst after engine air/fuel
ratios in modes 2 through 5 were calibrated for minimum HC+NO* after the catalyst. Modal
emissions measured before and after the catalyst from all eight modes of the test cycle are
included in Appendix Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The spreadsheet file which contains
all data from these tests is named 'CL BASELINE SUM.XLS', and has been supplied
separately by electronic media. Table 9 shows results from emissions measured in front
of the catalyst, and Table 10 shows results from emissions measured behind the catalyst.
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
19 of 34
-------
TABLE 9. ISO E4 CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSION TEST WITHOUT CATALYST
ISO E4
Weight
Power,
HC,
NOx,
HC+NOx,
CO,
Mode
Factor
hp
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
1
0.06
205.8
560.5
927.2
1487.7
24968
2
0.14
119.4
270.9
1335.6
1606.5
5028
3
0.15
59.0
198.3
514.6
712.9
4381
4
0.25
20.5
49.6
47.8
97.5
1006
5
0.40
0
74.6
1.1
75.8
320
Weighted Total
g/hp-hr
3.34
7.72
11.06
75.3
g/kW-hr
4.48
10.36
14.83
101.0
Change from open-loop baseline,%
-9
-11
-11
-9
TABLE 10.
ISO E4 CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSION TEST WITH CATALYST
ISO E4
Weight
Power,
HC,
NOx,
HC+NOx,
CO,
Mode
Factor
hp
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
1
0.06
205.9
427.0
506.6
933.6
24894
2
0.14
118.3
95.8
202.0
297.9
2804
3
0.15
56.6
19.2
35.6
54.9
681
4
0.25
22.3
19.7
3.5
23.2
692
5
0.40
0
48.7
0.2
48.9
234
Weighted Total
g/hp-hr
1.54
1.51
3.05
52.5
g/kW-hr
2.07
2.03
4.10
70.4
Change from open-loop baseline, %
-58
-83
-75
-36
Results in Table 9 show that the engine without the catalysts produced 9 percent
less HC, 11 percent less NOx, and 11 percent less combined HC+NOx, compared to the
engine's open-loop baseline results. Air/fuel ratio control reduced CO emissions by 9
percent. Results in Table 10 show that the engine with the catalysts produced 58 percent
less HC, 83 percent less NOx, and 75 percent less combined HC+NOx, compared to the
engine's open-loop baseline results. The use of a catalyst reduced CO emissions by 37
percent.
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
20 of 34
-------
D.
Task 4 - Engine In-Boat Operation on Fresh Water
1. Boat Engine Installation
Following the closed-loop baseline emissions tests, the catalyzed engine and
control systems were installed in the Sea Ray 190 boat pictured in Figure 1. The catalysts
increased the height of the exhaust system such that the exhaust elbows at the top of the
manifolds interfered with the front section of the transom (Figure 12). Through discussion
with Mercury Marine we received permission to remove two small sections of fiberglass
from the transom since it would not degrade the boat's structural integrity. Figure 13
shows the interfering fiberglass sections of the transom before they were cut out, marked
in black. Figure 14 shows the engine installation as it was tested on water, with exhaust
elbows passing through the cutout sections.
FIGURE 12. BOAT TRANSOM INTERFERENCE WITH
EXHAUST ELBOW
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
21 of 34
-------
FIGURE 13. INTERFERING SECTIONS OF BOAT TRANSOM
BEFORE REMOVAL MARKED IN BLACK
FIGURE 14. CATALYST-EQUIPPED ENGINE
AS TESTED IN BOAT
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
22 of 34
-------
2. Jn-Boat Operation on Fresh Water
In-boat testing of the catalyst-equipped engine was conducted on a fresh
water lake near San Antonio to subject the catalysts to conditions which could produce
water ingestion. Test conditions and procedures were specified in a National Marine
Manufacturers Association (NMMA) letter submitted to the Manufacturers of Emission
Controls Association (MECA) in February, 2000. A copy of the letter is provided in
Appendix B. It outlines a set of durability, safety, and performance tests that are generally
accepted by industry for heat soak, water ingestion, and engine exhaust back pressure
characterization. SwRI's test program focused on the following water ingestion tests.
15 minute Idle - Neutral
• 15 minute Idle - Drive
45 minute idle - Neutraf
45 minute Idle - Drive
1500 rpm deceleration in gear
• 1500 rpm deceleration in neutral
2500 rpm deceleration in gear
2500 rpm deceleration in neutral
3500 rpm deceleration in gear
3500 rpm deceleration in neutral
SwRI also conducted additional tests that were thought to induce water
reversion, These tests included:
Start-up from boat trailer and motor to dock (5 minutes)
Five hard throttle tip-ins/tip-outs (snaps) in and out of gear
Three successive moderate-to-hard boat reversal operations
Motoring at 1500 rpm for 5 min.
Motoring at 3000 rpm for 5 min.
Motoring at 3000 rpm for 1 min., motoring at full-throttle (1 min.), come to
rest in gear, idle (1 min.), soak engine
The boat's engine exhaust manifolds were also instrumented with stainless
steel water sample tubes connected to a ball valve for each bank, as shown in Figure 15.
The sample tubes were purged before each test with the engine running, and at the end
of each test with the engine off. No water was found in the exhaust manifolds after any of
the water ingestion tests on fresh water.
The engine was instrumented with a Campbell CR23X Data Recorder that
received inputs from thermocouples, pressure transducers, and the engine speed sensor.
Data was sampled at 0.5 Hz to accommodate the large number of channels that were
sampled, and the long steady-state tests at idle and light loads.
REPORT 06 04074 02 & 05004 02
23 of 34
-------
FIGURE 15. EXHAUST MANIFOLD AND INGESTION WATER
COLLECTION TUBES
Both catalysts had surface thermocouples installed at three locations: at the
center of the coolant jacket, near the inlet flange, and near the outlet flange. During most
fresh water tests, temperatures remained below 200°F. However, during the tests when
the engine was at 3000 rpm sustained operation, and when at full load for 1 minute,
surface temperatures near the flanges of the catalysts reached peak values of 226°F. Skin
temperature near the center of the catalyst during this same period peaked at 122°F.
When fresh water tests were completed, the catalysts were inspected with
a borescope, and photographs were taken of the surface of the catalyst outlet. No signs
of water damage were noted during these inspections.
E. Task 5 - Engine In-Boat Operation on Salt Water
Following fresh water testing, the boat was trailered to Port Aransas, Texas for salt
water testing in the bay. Water ingestion tests were repeated at Port Aransas. Figure 16
shows the boat during testing at Port Aransas.
After the 45 minute idle in drive test, three drops of water were measured from each
manifold. After the 15 minute idle in neutral test, two drops of water were measured from
the right manifold. Also, after the 45 minute idle in neutral test, two drops of water were
measured from the left manifold.
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
24 of 34
-------
FIGURE 16. WATER INGESTION TESTING AT
PORT ARANSAS, TEXAS
During most of the salt water tests, exhaust system surface temperatures were
below 200°F. However, during the tests when the engine was at sustained 3000 rpm
operation, and when at full load for 1 minute, surface temperatures near the non-water
jacketed flanges of the catalysts reached peak readings of 230°F. The flange
temperatures could be reduced by changing the water jacket design. Skin temperature
near the center of the catalyst during this same period peaked at 165°F.
F. Task 6 - Closed-Loop Emissions Test After In-Boat Operation
After the salt water ingestion tests were performed, the engine was removed from
the boat and re-installed in the test cell. During the installation, the catalysts were
inspected for water contact and degradation. No signs of water contact, spalling, or
cracking were noted. Figures 17 and 18 show the inlet and outlet of the right catalyst,
respectively.
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
25 of 34
-------
FIGURE 17. INLET OF RIGHT CATALYST
AFTER WATER INGESTION TESTING
FIGURE 18. OUTLET OF RIGHT CATALYST AFTER WATER
INGESTION TESTING
REPORT 08.04074.02 & 05004.02
26 of 34
-------
The complete closed-loop catalyzed engine was re-mounted in the test cell and an
eight-mode emissions test was performed. Modal emissions from all eight modes of the
test cycle are included in Appendix Table 4. The spreadsheet file which contains all data
from these tests is named 'CL AFTER BOAT TESTING.XLS', and has been supplied
separately by electronic media.
E4 cycle modal emissions are shown in Table 11. Results show that after
subjecting the catalysts to water ingestion tests on fresh and salt water, the engine still
produced 55 percent less HC, 80 percent less NOx, and 73 percent less combined
HC+NOx compared to the engine's open-loop baseline results. The catalyst reduced CO
emissions by 34 percent. HC+NOx emission rates increased from 4.1 before to 4.5 g/kw-hr
after the water ingestion tests, and CO emission rates increased from 70.4 to 73.2 g/kw-hr.
The increase may be due to factors other than catalyst deterioration such as test-to-test
repeatability.
TABLE 11. ISO E4 CLOSED-LOOP EMISSION TEST WITH CATALYST
AFTER ON-BOAT OPERATION
ISO E4
Weight
Power,
HC,
NOx,
HC+NOx,
CO,
Mode
Factor
hp
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
1
0.06
201.6
392.0
537.8
929.8
24324
2
0.14
119.0
109.2
236.0
345.2
3264
3
0.15
57.5
19.3
37.7
57.0
737
4
0.25
20.7
26.2
4.7
30.9
759
5
0.40
0
55.7
0.3
56.0
265
Weighted Total
g/hp-hr
1.66
1.70
3.36
54.6
g/kW-hr
2.22
2.28
4.50
73.2
Change from open-loop baseline, %
-55
o
CO
i
-73
-34
G. Task 7 - Open-Loop Emissions Test With Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Table 12 summarizes ISO E4 cycle emission rates with EGR applied to the engine
in open-loop control. Modes 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the E4 test cycle correspond to the project
test Modes 3, 5, 7, and 8 listed in Table 3. The air/fuel ratio in Mode 1 was set to 12.5:1.
Air/fuel ratios in modes 2, 3,and 4 were set to 14.5:1, and in Mode 5 (idle), it was set to
13.5:1 for smooth operation. Compared to E4 emissions from the baseline engine,
operation with EGR reduced HC emissions by 1 5 percent, a nd NOx emissions were
reduced by 54 percent. Combined HC+NOx emissions were reduced by 43 percent, and
CO emissions were reduced by 17 percent.
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
27 of 34
-------
TABLE 12. ISO E4 OPEN-LOOP EMISSION TEST WITH EXHAUST GAS
RECIRCULATION
HC+
ISO E4
EGR,
Weight
Power,
HC,
NOx,
NOx,
CO,
Mode
%
Factor
hp
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
1
0
0.06
198.5
618.4
724.7
1343.1
30899
2
5.2
0.14
113.7
175.5
662.2
837.7
2368
3
11.1
0.15
56.1
166.5
144.5
311.0
1357
4
9.7
0.25
19.8
61.2
19.1
80.3
766
5
0
0.40
0
67.7
1.3
69.0
613
Weighted Total
g/hp-hr
3.13
3.96
7.09
68.6
g/kW-hr
4.20
5.31
9.51
92.0
Change from open-loop baseline, %
-15
-54
-43
-17
Modal emissions from all eight modes of the test cycle in Table 3 are included in
Appendix Table 5. The spreadsheet file which contains all data from these tests is named
'4.3L Marine EGR.xls', and has been supplied separately by electronic media.
H. Air Toxic Emissions
In addition to regulated gaseous emissions measurement, raw exhaust samples
were collected and analyzed for PAHs, chromium, manganese, and hydrocarbon species.
It is important to note that although the analytical methods used to quantify these non-
regulated emissions followed accepted practice, the collection of samples from raw
exhaust for these analyses is not a recommended practice. The preferred practice is to
direct the whole exhaust into a dilution tunnel before withdrawing samples for analysis.
Since marine engine coolant is pumped into the exhaust to reduce its temperature, this
method cannot be used. Emission samples were drawn from raw exhaust before coolant
was mixed with it, and collected in Tedlar® bags for HC speciation, and on filters and
PUF/XAD traps for metals and PAH analyses, respectively.
Due to the initial high temperature and moisture content of the raw exhaust (up to
9 percent water), water condensed in the sampling systems and the sample bags as the
sample cooled. Condensation probably scrubbed some hydrocarbons from the exhaust.
In addition, water vapor condensing from the raw exhaust sample reduced the volume of
gaseous sample in the bags, and thus caused an increase in the measured concentration
of the remaining hydrocarbons. This reduction in sample volume also caused errors in the
sample volume measured by the flow meter in the filter and PUF/XAD sample system.
These limitations of raw exhaust sampling were discussed with EPA before the project
began, and SwRl was directed to proceed with this approach with the understanding that
the accuracy of the results would be somewhat affected.
REPORT 08 04074 02 A 05004 02
28 of 34
-------
In order to increase the accuracy of toxic compound measurements, a different
approach to sample collection should be devised to eliminate water condensation from the
raw exhaust sample. One approach would be to use a mini-dilution tunnel to draw a partial
sample of raw exhaust from the marine engine, and by dilution, reduce its water vapor
fraction enough to preclude liquid waterformation. Then, a particulate filtersample system
could be incorporated in the tunnel for metals collection, bag samples could be collected
for hydrocarbon speciation, and wet chemistry samples could be collected for aldehyde
and alcohol analysis, using conventional methods. Title 40 CFR Part 92 details this
approach for locomotive particulate measurement, and CFR Part 89 references similar ISO
procedures for off-road engines.
Results of analyses for metals and PAHs are provided in mass units (nanograms)
per sample. The engine exhaust flow rate was calculated using modal air/fuel ratios and
fuel flow rates. The sample volume {cubic feet) drawn through the filters and PUF/XAD
traps was then divided into the total exhaust flow rate (cubic feet/minute), and the result
(sample/minute) was multiplied by the sample metals and PAH masses to give an emission
rate in nanograms/minute. For HC species, the exhaust flow rate, species concentrations
(from bag analysis), and species densities were used to calculate mass flow rates.
1. Open-Loop Baseline Emission Test
A summary of the vapor-phase PAH emissions in open-loop baseline
configuration is shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF VAPOR-PHASE PAH EMISSIONS
FROM OPEN-LOOP BASELINE EMISSION TEST
ISO E4 MODE
1
2
3
4
5
WEIGHTED COMPOSITE
WEIGHT FACTOR
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1
POWER, HP
205 0
1168
58 3
20 5
00
42 5
EMISSIONS RATES
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hp-hr
ug/kW-hr
NAPHTHALENE
1220000
159000
59500
15600
1730
109000
2570
3440
ACENAPHTHYLENE
97400
25700
2240
632
115
9980
235
315
ACENAPHTHENE
20100
S850
2150
429
81
2910
68
91
FLUORENE
12700
11500
595
361
86
2590
61
82
PHENANTHRENE
2170
1B60
457
452
58
594
14
19
ANTHRACENE
294
301
23
23
3
70
2
3
FLUORANTHENE
371
186
50
34
5
66
2
3
PYRENE
217
97
27
14
2
35
1
1
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
62
27
9
ND*
ND
9
0
0
CHRYSENE
31
18
ND
ND
ND
4
0
0
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
8ENZO(A)PYRENE
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
INOENO(123-CD)PYRENE
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
0
0
DIBENZ(AH)ANTHRACENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
15
9
ND
ND
ND
2
0
0
*ND = Not delected
REPORT 08 04074 02 t 05004 02
29 of 34
-------
A summary of chromium and manganese results in open-loop baseline
configuration is shown in Table 14. The open-loop baseline emissions test was performed
after testing of the catalyzed closed-loop engine. During closed-loop engine emissions
sampling, approximately four cubic feet of sample was drawn from the exhaust in five
minutes. To reduce the amount of moisture condensation in the metals and PAH sampling
system for the open-loop tests, the sample flow and volume was reduced by two-thirds
over the same sample period. The reduced sample volume did not provide enough sample
to allow manganese to be detected above the detection limit of 0.5 pg manganese per filter
sample.
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF METAL EMISSIONS FROM OPEN-LOOP BASELINE
EMISSION TEST
ISO E4 MODE
1
2
3
4
5
WEIGHTED COMPOSITE
WEIGHT FACTOR
006
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1
POWER, hp
105 0
1168
58 3
20 5
00
42 5
EMISSION RATES
Mg/hr
pg/hr
pg'hr
pg/hr
pg/hr
pg/hr
pg/hp-hr
pg/kW-hr
CHROMIUM
54200
27900
19400
5510
295
12200
286
384
MANGANESE
ND*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*ND - Not detected
A summary of hydrocarbon speciation results in open-loop baseline
configuration is shown in Table 15 Only compounds requested by EPA, and the sum of
all compounds analyzed are shown in Table 15. Detailed HC speciation results are shown
in Appendix Table 6. Total weighted hydrocarbon rate measured by the HFID for the test
was 4 94g/kW-hr, which compares well with the weighted speciated hydrocarbon emission
rate.
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
FROM OPEN-LOOP BASELINE EMISSION TEST
ISO E4 MODE
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1,3-BUTADlENE, mg/min
46 9
00
11 0
126
12 2
125
BENZENE, mg/min
396
18B
112
65 6
58 8
107
STVRENE, mg/min
00
00
00
00
00
00
FORMALDEHYDE, mg/min
396
104
48 4
26 5
14 3
58 0
ACETALDEHYDE, mg/min
29 0
23 6
12 7
3 5
28 8
90
ACROLEIN, rng/min
135
14 1
57
1 5
1 9
4 8
POWER. kW
153
87 1
43 5
153
00
31 7
1,3-BUTADIENE, mg/kW-hr
184
00
152
49 6
00
23 6
BENZENE, mg/kW-hr
156
130
155
257
00
202
STYRENE, mg/kW-hr
00
00
00
00
00
0 0
FORMALDEHYDE, mg/kW-hr
156
71 9
66 7
104
00
110
ACETALDEHYDE, mg/kW-hr
11 4
163
17 5
138
00
170
ACROLEIN, mg/kW-hr
53
97
79
60
00
91
SUM OF ALL SPECIATED COMPONENTS, mg/min
8100
3380
2350
1110
1370
2140
SUM OF ALL SPECIATED COMPONENTS, mg/kW-hr
318C
2330
3250
4350
NA
4050
REPORT 08 MQ74 02 & 05004 02
30 of 34
-------
2. Closed-Loop Baseline Emission Test With Catalyst
A summary of vapor-phase PAH emissions in closed-loop control with
catalyst is show in Table 16. PAH emissions from the non-catalyzed engine in open-loop
control are of the same order of magnitude. The reason for the similar PAH emission rates
from the two configurations is unknown, and not consistent with the difference in total HC
emissions.
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF VAPOR-PHASE PAH EMISSIONS FROM CLOSED-LOOP
BASELINE EMISSION TEST WITH CATALYST
ISO E4 MODE
1
2
3
4
5
WEIGHTED COMPOSITE
WEIGHT FACTOR
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1
POWER, HP
205 9
118 3
566
22 3
00
43 0
EMISSIONS RATES
u g/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hr
ug/hp-hr
ug/kW-br
NAPHTHALENE
655000
168000
29700
28100
66300
113000
2630
3520
ACENAPHTHYLENE
159000
20100
2310
814
1640
13500
317
425
ACENAPHTHENE
18300
5410
1060
326
488
2290
53
71
FLUORENE
44800
12300
2500
740
645
5230
122
164
PHENANTHRENE
24000
9920
2660
688
837
3790
88
118
ANTHRACENE
13400
5710
1410
522
244
2020
47
63
FLUORANTHENE
1870
1170
453
178
45
407
9
12
PYRENE
1590
1020
405
163
40
356
8
11
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
NO*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
CHRYSENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
BENZO(A)PYRENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
INDENO(123-CD)PYRENE
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
0
0
DIBENZ(AH)ANTHRACENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
15
9
ND
ND
ND
2
0
0
'NO = Not detected
A summary of chromium and manganese results from the catalyzed test engine in
closed-loop control is shown in Table 17. In this engine configuration, manganese was
detected in all modal samples. However, values are only on the order of three-times the
detection limit of 0.5 |jg, which is also the ratio of sample collection volume between these
samples and those taken from the engine in open-loop non-catalyzed configuration.
Therefore, it would be inaccurate to conclude that the engine's configuration affected
manganese emission rates. The reason forthe unexpected high chromium level measured
from Mode 4 is unknown.
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
31 of 34
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF METAL EMISSIONS FROM CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE
EMISSION TEST WITH CATALYST
ISO E4 MODE
1
2
3
4
5
WEIGHTED COMPOSITE
WEIGHT FACTOR
006
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1
POWER, hp
205 0
118 3
56 6
22 3
00
43 0
EMISSION RATES
pg/hr
Mg/hr
pg/hr
|jg/hr
Mg/hr
pg/hr
pg/hp-hr
yg/kW-hr
CHROMIUM
10400
8660
4170
84400
100
23600
549
736
MANGANESE
7080
4300
1780
7100
122
3120
73
98
A summary of hydrocarbon speciation results from the test engine in closed-loop
control with catalyst is shown in Table 18. Only compounds requested by EPA, and the
sum of all compounds analyzed are shown in Table 18. Detailed HC speciation results are
shown in Appendix Table 6. Total weighted hydrocarbon rate measured by HFID for the
test was 2.07 g/kW-hr which, compares reasonably well with the weighted speciated
hydrocarbon emission rate.
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
FROM CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSION TEST WITH CATALYST
ISO E4 MODE
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1,3-BUTAD/ENE, mg/min
40
1 9
03
02
OS
08
BENZENE, mg/min
278
52 2
95
39 4
35 7
49 9
STYRENE, mg/min
00
00
00
00
00
00
FORMALDEHYDE, mg/min
15 1
11 2
08
0 1
06
29
ACETALDEHYDE, mg/min
11 0
47
05
02
04
1 6
ACROLEIN, mg/min
50
20
02
00
02
07
POWER, kW
154
88 2
42 2
166
00
32 1
1,3-BUTADIENE, mg/kW-hr
1 6
1 3
04
06
00
1 5
BENZENE. mg/kW-hr
109
35 5
13 5
142
00
93 4
STYRENE, mg/kW-hr
0 0
00
00
00
00
00
FORMALDEHYDE, mg/kW-hr
59
7 5
1 1
0 4
00
54
ACETALDEHYDE, mg/kW-hr
4 3
32
07
08
00
30
ACROLEIN, mg/kW-hr
1 9
1 4
03
0 1
00
1 3
SUM OF ALL SPECIATED COMPONENTS,
mg/min
5030
1210
206
206
686
828
SUM OF ALL SPECIATED COMPONENTS,
mg/kW-hr
1960
826
293
743
NA
1550
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
32 of 34
-------
IV. SUMMARY
A 4.3L General Motors V-6 spark-ignited, fuel-injected engine was marinized with
earlier engine model Mercury Marine hardware by the attachment of water-cooled exhaust
manifolds and fuel pump, a "sea pump," coolant manifold, and cooling water plumbing.
The engine was emission tested in open-loop control configuration. Emissions were also
measured after the ECM was modified to operate in closed-loop control using a heated
exhaust gas oxygen sensor. SwRI also installed two catalysts (48 in3) which had been
aged for 50 hours with an accelerated aging cycle. The feedback control system was
calibrated to produce low after-catalyst HC+NOx emissions. The catalyzed engine system
was then installed in a boat, and water ingestion tests were performed on both fresh and
saltwater. Following boat testing, the engine was again emissions tested in the laboratory.
The engine was then returned to open-loop control, and an exhaust gas recirculation
system was installed. Emissions were measured with the EGR system calibrated to reduce
NOx emissions during part-load operation.
Emissions were measured in eight modes of engine operation. A subset of these
eight modes is the ISO E4 recreational marine boat engine test cycle, which is also the
California and Federal marine engine test cycle. A summary of all ISO E4 cycle results is
shown in Table 19.
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF ISO E4 MARINE ENGINE TEST RESULTS
Emission Test
HC + NOx,
g/kW-hr
CO,
g/kW-hr
Power,
hp
Baseline (Open-Loop)
16.6
110.8
205
Closed-Loop Baseline without Catalyst
14.8
101.0
206
Closed-Loop Baseline with Catalyst
4.10
70.4
206
Closed-Loop with Catalyst After On-Boat
Operation
4.50
73.2
201
Open-Loop With Exhaust Gas Recirculation
9.51
92.0
198
In open-loop without any emission-reduction technologies, the engine produced 16.6
grams HC+NCVkW-hr, and 110.8 grams CO/kW-hr over the E4 cycle. By applying
exhaust gas recirculation and adjusting the air/fuel ratio, HC+NOx emissions were reduced
by 43 percent to 9.51 g/kW-hr, and CO emissions were reduced 17 percent to 92.0 g/kW-
hr.
With the engine in closed-loop control without catalysts, HC+NOx emissions were
reduced by 11 percent to 14.8 g/kW-hr, and CO emissions were reduced by 9 percent to
101.0 g/kW-hr. With the use of EGR in open-Joop control, up to half of the NOx emissions
REPORT 08 04074 02 S 05004 02
33 of 34
-------
could be removed. With aged catalysts on the engine in closed-loop control, HC+NOx
emissions were reduced by 75 percent to 4.1 g/kW-hr, and CO emissions were reduced
by 36 percent to 70.4 g/kW-hr. Following engine testing on the boat, the engine was re-
tested and HC+NOx emissions appeared to be slightly higher at 4.5 g/kW-hr, and CO
emissions had increased to 73.2 g/kW-hr.
The use of catalytic exhaust aftertreatment, exhaust gas recirculation, and closed-
loop control was shown to effectively reduce marine gasoline engine emissions. Although
emission rates from the engine increased very slightly after on-boat testing, the cause for
this increase is unknown. The increase may be due to factors other than catalyst
deterioration such as test-to-test repeatability. The catalysts were inspected after on-boat
usage and were found intact with no signs of water damage.
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
34 of 34
-------
APPENDIX
MARINE ENGINE TEST RESULTS
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
-------
TABLE A-1. OPEN-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
BS
Actual
BSHC
BSNOx
HC+NOx
BSCO
BSC02
BSFC
Mode
Time (s)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(Ib/hp-hr)
Power (hp)
1
120
2 94
4.67
7 61
134
511
0 51
205 0
2
120
1 99
11 0
130
31 4
597
0 45
157 2
3
120
2 14
130
152
22 0
601
0.45
1168
4
120
3 05
134
164
32 7
620
0 47
83 5
5
120
2 99
103
133
48.2
609
0 48
58 3
6
120
3.57
5 18
8 75
82 7
663
0 56
35 6
7
120
3 81
1 87
5 68
106
824
0.70
20 5
8
120
HC
Nox
CO
C02
C-B Fuel
Intake
Humidity
Background
Humidity
Sample
Mode
(9/hr)
(g/hrj
(9/hrj
(g/hrj
(Ib/hrJ
(gr/lb)
(gr/fb)
Kw
1
603
958
27457
104788
104 2
97 9
78.7
0 87
2
314
1726
4935
93841
71 3
97 9
81 4
0 88
3
249
1520
2568
70169
52 1
98 4
83 2
0 88
4
255
1115
2725
51710
39 5
98 3
81 7
0 88
5
174
598
2807
35483
28 1
94.5
79 8
0 88
6
127
184
2940
23567
199
97.6
79 4
0 88
7
78 2
38.3
2181
16907
143
97 5
81 9
0 88
8
99 3
1 2
1346
3403
4.1
97 0
82 5
0 88
Nox
NOx Wet S
CO Wet S
HC S
C02 Wet S
Calculated
Speed
Load
Mode
Kh
(ppm)
{%)
(ppm)
{%)
A/F
(rpm)
(Ib-ft)
1
1 12
860
4.54
2009
11 0
11 6
4597
234 2
2
1.12
1964
1 03
1326
125
14 1
4140
199 4
3
1 12
2316
0 72
1415
12 6
14 5
3678
166.7
4
1.12
2278
1 03
1945
124
14.2
3217
136 3
5
1 10
1784
1 51
1898
12 2
138
2757
111 0
6
1 12
792
2 32
2025
11 9
13 2
2297
81.3
7
1 12
227
2 40
1731
11 8
132
1839
58.6
8
1 12
29
6 06
9021
9.7
107
555
Intake Air
Throttle
HC Wet
NOx Dry
CO Dry
C02 Dry
Dewpoint
Dilution Air
Dilution Air
Mode
(%>
(ppm)
(ppm)
{%)
(%)
fF)
Temp. (F)
RH {%)
1
100
2009
985
519
12 61
65 6
79 7
50 2
2
39
1326
2236
1 18
14 24
65 6
80 8
50 0
3
30
1415
2634
0 82
14 28
65 7
81 3
50 3
4
25
1945
2591
1.17
14.12
65.7
80.8
50.2
5
22
1898
2031
1 72
13 87
64 7
80 3
49 9
6
18
2025
903
2 65
13.52
65.5
80 0
50.1
7
15
1731
258
2 74
13 47
65 5
80 9
50 2
8
9021
33
6 89
11.09
65 4
81 1
50 2
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-1
-------
TABLE A-1 (CONT'D). OPEN-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
Manifold
Barom.
Intake Air
Vacuum
Fuel Flow
Water Out
Water In
Oil
Cyl 1
Mode
{mm Hg)
(F)
("Hg)
(Ib/hr)
(F)
(F)
(F)
(F)
1
737
81 3
06
104 2
161
75
256
1217
2
737
81 9
43
71.3
160
75
250
1244
3
737
81 5
79
52 1
158
74
237
1178
4
737
81.5
10.6
39 5
159
75
227
1096
5
738
78.2
129
28 1
159
74
214
1037
6
738
79 6
149
199
158
75
203
996
7
738
79.4
154
14 3
158
75
195
999
8
737
79 0
147
4.1
159
75
169
660
Exh. Man.
Cyl 2
Cyl 3
Cyl 4
Cyl 5
Cyl 6
H20 Out
Target A/F
UEGO A/F
Mode
(F)
-------
TABLE A-2. BEFORE-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
The right catalyst outlet temperature
read false for all tests
Actual
BSHC
BSNOx
BSHC+NOx
BSCO
BSC02
BSFC
Mode
Time (s)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(Ib/hp-hr)
BEFORE MODE 1
181
2 72
4 51
7 23
121 4
527
0.51
BEFORE MODE 2
180
2.62
8 80
114
56 6
574
0 47
BEFORE MODE 3
180
2 27
11.2
135
42 1
581
0 46
BEFORE MODE 4
180
2 51
12.2
14.7
36 3
599
0 46
BEFORE MODES
180
3.36
8 72
12 1
74 3
598
0.50
BEFORE MODE 6
180
2 94
7 25
102
47 9
680
0 53
BEFORE MODE 7
180
2 43
2 34
4.77
49 2
879
0 67
BEFORE MODE 8
180
Intake
Power
HC
NOx
CO
C02
C-B Fuel
Humidity
Mode
(hp)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(Ib/hr)
(gr/lb)
BEFORE MODE 1
205 8
560
927
24968
108532
104.0
85.5
BEFORE MODE 2
155 7
407
1370
8810
89371
72 7
84 9
BEFORE MODE 3
1194
271
1336
5028
69415
544
83 1
BEFORE MODE 4
86 0
216
1047
3123
51499
39 7
83 1
BEFORE MODE 5
59 0
198
515
4381
35277
29 8
82 6
BEFORE MODE 6
37 0
109
268
1774
25170
197
82 1
BEFORE MODE 7
20 5
49 6
47.8
1006
17977
137
80 8
BEFORE MODE 8
74 6
1 14
320
4269
3 48
82.3
Background
Humidity
Sample
NOx
NOx Wet S
CO Wet S
HCS
C02 Wet S
Mode
(gr/lb)
Kw
Kh
(ppm)
(%>
(ppm)
(%)
BEFORE MODE 1
73 6
0 88
1 05
860
4.00
1813
11 07
BEFORE MODE 2
75 3
0 88
1 05
1704
1 89
1762
12 18
BEFORE MODE 3
77 4
0 88
1 04
2177
1 40
1522
12 29
BEFORE MODE 4
78 1
0 88
1 04
2331
1 19
1656
12.45
BEFORE MODE 5
78 2
0 88
1.04
1604
2 33
2126
11 92
BEFORE MODE 6
78 7
0 88
1 03
1222
1.37
1697
12 39
BEFORE MODE 7
80 3
0 88
1 03
311
1 11
1101
12 57
BEFORE MODE 8
79.4
0 88
1 04
29
1 41
6635
11 96
Calculated
Speed
Load
HC Wet
NOx Dry
CO Dry
Mode
A/F
(rpm)
(Ib-ft)
Throttle (%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(%)
BEFORE MODE 1
12.13
4598
235 0
100
1813
982
4 57
BEFORE MODE 2
13 39
4139
197 6
36
1762
1944
215
BEFORE MODE 3
13 89
3682
170 3
29
1522
2479
1.59
BEFORE MODE 4
13.96
3222
140 2
24
1656
2655
1 35
BEFORE MODE 5
13.11
2764
112.1
21
2126
1831
2.66
BEFORE MODE 6
13 80
2302
84 5
17
1697
1393
1.56
BEFORE MODE 7
14 00
1838
58 4
13
1101
355
1 26
BEFORE MODE 8
13 68
583
6635
33
1 60
REPORT 00 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-3
-------
TABLE A-2 (CONT'D). BE FORE-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
Intake Air
Dilution
Manifold
C02 Dry
Dewpoint
Air Temp.
Dilution Air RH
Barom.
Intake Air
Vacuum
Mode
(%)
(F)
Right (F)
(F)
(F)
BEFORE MODE 1
1180
1281
1261
184
185
1421
1480
BEFORE MODE 2
1156
1249
1238
182
183
1385
1475
BEFORE MODE 3
1064
1188
1183
180
181
1283
1413
BEFORE MODE 4
1014
1117
1110
179
181
1177
1336
BEFORE MODE 5
950
1029
1031
178
180
1038
1155
BEFORE MODE 6
917
973
1041
175
181
949
1046
BEFORE MODE 7
898
921
1039
176
180
895
990
BEFORE MODE 8
599
655
694
174
175
570
704
Mode
Left Cat Skin
(F)
Right Cat In
(F)
Right Cat
Out (F)
Right Cat
Skin (F)
Oxygen Dry
(%)
BEFORE MODE 1
166
1485
False read
246
0 13
BEFORE MODE 2
168
1472
False read
242
0 25
BEFORE MODE 3
174
1352
False read
237
0.28
BEFORE MODE 4
179
1232
False read
233
0 37
BEFORE MODE 5
174
1096
False read
226
0 25
BEFORE MODE 6
172
1027
False read
223
0 31
BEFORE MODE 7
172
985
False read
221
0 30
BEFORE MODE 8
174
675
False read
201
1 00
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2 (CONT'D). BEFORE-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
ISO E4 CYCLE BEFORE-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
WEIGHTED
HC
NOx
CO
Mode
Wt. Factor
Hp
(g'hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
MODE 1
0.06
12.35
33.6
55.6
1498
MODE 3
014
16.71
37.9
187.0
703.9
MODE 5
0.15
8.85
29.75
77.18
657.2
MODE 7
0 25
5.11
12.41
11.96
251.6
MODE 8
0.4
0.00
29.85
0.45
127.8
Total
43.0
143.6
332.2
3239
HC
NOx
CO
g/hp-hr
3.34
7.72
75.3
g/kW-hr
4.48
104
101.0
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-5
-------
TABLE A-3. AFTER-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
After MODE 8A was repeated because the engine went into open-loop
mode but it was only noticed after the test.
After Mode 8 and After 8A have similar results so it is probable that the
engine went into open-loop after the test was over
The right catalyst outlet temperature read false for ail tests
Actual
BSHC
BSNOx
BS HC-NOx
BSCO
BSC02
BSFC
Mode
Time (s)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(Ib/hp-hr)
AFTER MODE 1
180
2 07
2 46
4 54
121
531
0 51
AFTER MODE 2
180
1 15
3.12
4 26
51 6
581
0 46
AFTER MODE 3
180
0 81
1 71
2 52
23 7
610
0 45
AFTER MODE 4
180
0.76
1 21
1 97
22 8
624
0 46
AFTER MODE 5
180
0 34
0 63
0 97
12.0
677
0 48
AFTER MODE 6
180
0 34
0 15
0 49
160
754
0 54
AFTER MODE 7
180
0 88
0 16
1 04
31 0
854
0 63
AFTER MODE 8
180
AFTER MODE 8A
180
Intake
Power
HC
NOx
CO
C02
C-B Fuel
Humidity
Mode
(hp)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(Ib/hr)
(gr/lb)
AFTER MODE 1
205 9
427
507
24894
109221
104 1
78 0
AFTER MODE 2
160 2
184
500
8267
93040
74 1
751
AFTER MODE 3
1183
96
202
2804
72160
53 4
77.1
AFTER MODE 4
84 9
64
103
1937
52980
39 1
75.3
AFTER MODE 5
56 6
19
36
681
38346
27 5
79 0
AFTER MODE 6
34 2
12
5
549
25814
186
76 9
AFTER MODE 7
22 3
20
4
692
19074
14 1
77 7
AFTER MODE 8
44
0
219
4390
3.4
77 1
AFTER MODE 8A
49
0
234
4292
34
76 0
Background
Humidity
Sample
NOx Wet S
CO Wet S
HC S
C02 Wet S
Mode
-------
TABLE A-3 (CONT'D). AFTER-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
Intake Air
Dilution
Manifold
C02 Dry
Dewpoint
Air Temp.
Dilution Air
Barom.
Intake Air
Vacuum
Mode
(%)
-------
TABLE A-3 (CONT'D). AFTER-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
ISO E4 CYCLE AFTER-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP BASELINE EMISSIONS
WEIG
HTED
HC
NOx
CO
Mode
Wt. Factor
Hp
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
MODE 1
0.06
12.35
25.6
30.4
1494
MODE 3
0.14
16.56
13.4
28.3
393
MODE 5
0.15
8.49
2.88
5.35
102
MODE 7
0.25
5.58
4.93
0.88
173
MODE 8A
0.4
19.49
0.07
94
Total
43.0
66 3
65.0
2255
HC
NOx
CO
q/hp-hr
1 54
1.51
52.5
q/kW-hr
2.07
2.03
70.4
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-8
-------
TABLE A-4. AFTER-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP EMISSIONS
AFTER BOAT TESTING
Mode 5 was re-run because the first run was at the
wrong load
BS
Actual
BSHC
BSNOx
HC+NOx
BSCO
BSC02
BSFC
Power
Mode
Time (s)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(Ib/hp-hr)
(hp)
1
180
1 94
2 67
4 61
120 7
548
0 52
201 6
2
180
1 30
3 49
4 79
52 1
592
0.47
157 2
3
180
0 92
1 98
2 90
27.4
604
0 45
1190
4
180
0 72
1 30
2 02
15 1
617
0 45
84 4
5
180
0.34
0 66
0 99
128
671
0 48
57 5
6
180
0 69
0 38
1 07
32 1
721
054
35.5
7
180
1 26
0 23
1 49
36 7
899
0 67
20 7
8
180
00
HC
NOx
CO
C02
C-B Fuel
Intake
Humidity
Background
Humidity
Sample
Mode
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(Ib/hr)
(gr/lb)
(gr/lb)
Kw
1
392 0
537 8
24324
110431
104 2
77 3
77 8
0 87
2
204.1
548.8
8194
93109
74 1
78.9
78 4
0 88
3
109 2
236 0
3264
71940
53 8
79.4
79 4
0 88
4
60 6
109 9
1277
52055
37 7
81 4
79.1
0 88
5
19 3
37 7
737
38592
27 7
72 4
77.6
0 86
6
24 5
135
1138
25581
19 1
82.7
80 0
0 88
7
26 2
4 7
759
18619
13.8
82 7
80 0
0.88
8
55 7
03
265
4647
3 64
81.1
80 9
0 88
NOx
NOx Wet S
CO Wet S
HC S
C02 Wet S
Calculated
Speed
Load
Mode
Kh
(ppm)
<%)
(ppm)
(%)
A/F
(rpm)
(Ib-ft)
1
1 01
518
3 89
1266
11 24
12.14
4597
230 3
2
1.02
686
1 71
861
12 38
13.49
4138
199 5
3
1 02
393
0 91
616
12 80
14 05
3680
169 9
4
1 03
255
0 50
480
13 00
14 36
3220
137 6
5
0 99
123
0 39
207
13 03
14 50
2761
109 4
6
1 04
61 9
0 89
385
12 81
14 10
2300
81 0
7
1.04
29 9
0.82
573
1284
14.12
1841
59 1
8
1 03
70
1 14
4824
12 66
13 47
607
00
Intake Air
Dilution
Throttle
HC Wet
NOx Dry
CO Dry
C02 Dry
Dewpoint
Dilution Air
Air RH
Mode
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(%)
(%)
(F)
Temp. (F)
(%)
1
100
1266
593
4 45
12 86
59 1
79 9
49
2
36
861
783
1 96
14 14
59.7
80.1
49
3
27
616
449
1 04
14 60
59 9
80 5
49
4
22
480
291
0.57
14 83
60 5
80 5
49
5
19
207
141
0 45
14 86
57.4
79 7
50
6
14
385
70 6
1 01
14 62
61 0
80 8
49
7
11
573
34 2
0 94
14 65
61.0
80 7
49
8
0
4824
80
1 30
14 45
60.4
81 1
49
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-9
-------
TABLE A-4 (CONT'D). AFTER-CATALYST CLOSED-LOOP EMISSIONS
AFTER BOAT TESTING
Manifold
Barom.
Intake Air
Vacuum
Fuel Flow
Water Out
Water In
Oil
Cyl 1
Mode
(mm Hg)
-------
TABLE A-5. OPEN-LOOP EMISSIONS WITH EXHAUST
GAS RECIRCULATION
BS
Actual Time
BSHC
BSNOx
HC+NOx
BSCO
BSC02
BSFC
Power
Mode
(s)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(g/hp-hr)
(Ib/hp-hr)
(hp)
1
120
3 12
3 65
6.77
156
537
0 550
198.5
2
121
3 75
3 81
7 56
151
514
0 530
153 1
3
181
1 54
5 82
7.37
20 8
667
0 490
113.7
4
180
2 51
4.77
7 28
27.4
633
0 475
83 4
5
180
2 97
2 58
5 55
24.2
675
0 502
56 1
6
180
3 30
1 83
5 13
33 7
740
0 559
34 8
7
180
3 10
0 96
4 06
38.8
988
0.736
198
8
180
00
HC
NOx
CO
C02
C-B Fuel
Intake
Humidity
Background
Humidity
Sample
Mode
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(Ib/hr)
(gr/lb)
(gr/lb)
Kw
1
618
725
30899
106505
109 2
74 2
72.3
0 87
2
574
583
23052
78729
81.2
74.5
73.5
0.87
3
176
662
2368
75914
55 8
74.6
74 1
0 88
4
209
398
2285
52738
39.6
74.6
74 7
0.88
5
167
145
1357
37822
28.1
74 6
74 5
0.88
6
115
63 7
1174
25782
19 5
75 4
75.7
0 88
7
61 2
19 1
766
19520
145
76 1
73 2
0 88
8
67 7
1
613
4159
37
77 5
74 8
0 88
Background
Intake
NOx
NOx Wet S
CO Wet S
HC S
C02 Wet S
C02 Wet
Mode
Kw
Kw
Kh
(ppm)
(%>
(ppm)
(%)
Intake (%)
1
0 98
0 98
1 00
699
4 88
1971
10.70
0 05
2
0.98
0.9 8
1.00
758
4.91
2469
10.68
0.05
3
0 98
0 98
1.00
1063
0 62
932
12 72
0 68
4
0.98
0 97
1.00
913
0 86
1590
12 64
0.99
5
0 98
0 97
1 00
464
0 71
1768
12 67
1 30
6
0 98
0.97
1.00
298
0.90
1789
12.64
1 19
7
0 98
0 97
1 01
118
0 78
1265
1271
1 17
8
0 98
0 98
1.01
35
2 71
6031
11 68
0.06
C02 Dry B
C02 Wet
Calculated
EGR
Speed
Load
Throttle
HC Wet
Mode
(%)
B<%)
A/F
(%)
(rpm)
(Ib-ft)
(%)
(ppm)
1
0 051
0 050
11 6
0.00
4606
226.3
100
1971
2
0 051
0 050
11 5
0 00
4143
194.1
35
2469
3
0.051
0 050
14 5
5 19
3682
162 3
32
932
4
0 051
0 050
142
8 05
3222
135 9
25
1590
5
0 051
0 050
14 3
10 95
2761
106 7
21
1768
6
0 051
0 050
14 1
9 92
2304
79 4
17
1789
7
0 051
0 050
14.2
9.71
1836
56.5
14
1265
8
0 051
0 050
125
0 00
575
00
0
6031
REPORT 03 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-11
-------
TABLE A-5 (CONT'D). OPEN-LOOP EMISSIONS WITH EXHAUST
GAS RECIRCULATION
Intake Air
Dilution
Dilution
NOx Dry
CO Dry
C02 Dry
Dewpoint
Air Temp.
AirRH
Barom.
Intake Air
Mode
(ppm)
<%)
(%)
(F)
(F)
(%)
(mm Hg)
(F)
1
800
5 58
12.23
58 2
79
47 8
745 4
72.6
2
866
5 61
12.20
58 4
79
47 9
745 6
72 9
3
1210
0 71
14.47
58 4
79
48 2
744.9
72.8
4
1040
0 98
14 40
58 4
80
48 3
744.8
74.3
5
528
081
14 42
58 4
80
48 1
744 3
74 8
6
340
1 03
14 41
58.6
80
48 4
743 4
73 8
7
135
0 89
14 49
58 9
79
48 3
743.8
73 0
8
40
3 09
13 33
59 4
79
48 7
743 5
72 9
Intake C02
Manifold
dry
Vacuum
Fuel Flow
Water Out
Water In
Oil
Cyl 1
Cyl 2
Mode
(%)
("Hg)
(Ib/hr)
(F)
(F)
(F)
(F)
(F)
1
0 05
04
109 1
161
73
260
1199
1213
2
0.05
5 1
81.2
159
73
264
1156
1165
3
0 69
55
55 7
159
73
240
1191
1211
4
1.01
86
39 6
158
73
223
1087
1113
5
1.33
105
28 1
158
74
209
1037
1043
6
1 22
13.3
19.5
157
74
197
1000
1007
7
1.20
134
14 5
158
74
190
1013
1017
8
0.06
14 7
37
159
74
159
689
692
Exh. Man.
Oxygen
Cyl 3
Cyl 4
Cyl 5
Cyl 6
H20 Out
Dry
Measured
Mode
(F)
(F)
(F)
(F)
Right (F)
(%)
Air/Fuel Ratio
1
1203
1137
1230
1199
101
0 14
12.10
2
1085
1070
1157
1129
98
0 17
12.10
3
1340
1126
1207
1190
96
0.51
14.50
4
1351
1030
1104
1100
91
0 53
14 40
5
1340
969
1042
1026
89
0 60
14 40
6
1758
933
983
972
87
0 46
14 30
7
941
919
967
975
87
0.43
14 50
8
603
600
497
663
85
0 63
13 40
ISO E4 CYCLE OPEN-LOOP EMISSIONS WITH EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
ISO E4 WEIGHTED
HC
NOx
CO
Mode
Wt. Factor
Hp
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
(g/hr)
MODE 1
0 06
11 91
37 10
43.48
1854 0
MODE 3
0 14
15.92
24 57
92 71
331 5
MODE 5
0 15
8 41
24 97
21 68
203 5
MODE 7
0 25
4 94
1531
4 77
191 6
MODE 8
04
0 00
27 06
0 52
245 4
Total
41.2
129 0
163 2
2826 0
HC
NOx
CO
g/hp-hr
3 13
3.96
68 6
g/kW-hr
4 20
5.31
92 0
REPORT 08 04074 02 & 05004 02
A-12
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/min
METHANE
0 0
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
ETHANE
121 3
73 3
49 6
23 1
25 1
40 78
114 7
51 8
13 1
11 5
198
26 89
ETHYLENE
997 4
468 7
272 9
137 7
140 3
256 94
620 5
91 2
94
24 8
69 3
85 35
PROPANE
5 8
26
2 5
1 2
1 6
2 05
65
2 1
0 5
06
1 7
1 62
PROPYLENE
641 6
254 2
166 3
76 C
74 4
147 79
0C
0C
00
0 0
OC
0 00
ACETYLENE
548 6
250 3
121 7
80 9
223 C
195 64
35 3
33 3
40
2 1
92
11 60
PROPADIENE
00
OC
00
00
0C
0 00
00
OC
00
00
00
OOC
BUTANE
86 2
35 6
167
97
7 9
18 25
31 0
73
05
0 1
82
6 24
TRANS-2-BUTENE
33 0
14 S
104
40
4 4
8 41
30 6
86
08
07
28
4 47
1-BUTENE
37 6
23 2
137
48
6 3
11 28
25 1
86
08
06
3 2
4 26
2-METHYLPROPENE (ISOBUTYLENE}
393 5
153 S
1164
50 3
47 5
94 20
272 1
644
67
8 1
22 4
37 33
2,2-DIMETHYLPROPANE
(NEOPENTANE)
25 5
10 9
79
32
3 4
6 40
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
PROPYNE
OC
00
00
0C
0 0
0 0C
00
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
1,3-BUTADlENE
46 9
00
11 C
126
12
12 49
40
1 9
03
02
06
0 82
2-METHYLPROPANE (ISOBUTANE)
76 7
50 S
23 C
10 1
20 7|
25 98
00
OC
00
00
00
OOC
1-BUTYNE
00
OC
00
0C
o q
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
METHANOL
00
OC
00
0C
00
0 00
0C
00
00
00
0 0
OOC
CIS-2-BUTENE
2 7
OS
1 C
03
04
0 68
26 6
64
00
0 1
00
2 60
3-METHYL-1-BUTENE
00
0C
00
0C
00
0 00
0C
0 0
00
00
00
0 00
ETHANOL
00
0C
00
0C
00
0 00
0C
00
00
OC
00
0 00
2-METHYLBUTANE (ISOPENTANE)
207 9
104 3,
99 7
32 6
64 2
75 86
2727
87 2
176
18 1
90 1
71 76
2-BUTYNE
OC
0C
0C
OC
OC
0 00
00
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
1-PENTENE
4 2
23
1 3
04
09
1 06
00
OC
00
OC
0 2
0 08
2-METHYL-1 -BUTENE
136
9 3
65
2 2
28
4 77
11 2
4 3
05
04
1 2
1 94
PENTANE
75 9
36 1
32 1
11 a
22 7
26 38
60 0
17 1
3 1
37
18 2
14 66
UNIDENTIFIED C5 OLEFINS
94
84
42
1 6
1 3
3 2E
9 1
52
0 1
02
0 8
1 66
2-METHYL-1,3-BUTADIENE
6 3
1 0
1 5
38
2 7
2 79
24 4
7 5
07
03
1 3
3 19
TRANS-2-PENTENE
36
2 3
1 6
06
0 7
1 1S
25
1 C
0 1
0 1
0 3
0 46
3,3-DI MET HYL-1-BUTENE
1 6
1 4
1 0
0 3
0 3
0 63
06
04
0 1
00
0 1
0 14
CIS-2-PENTENE
2 0
1 1
1 0
04
04
0 69
1 5
06
0 1
0 1
02
0 28
2-METHYL-2-BUTENE
18 7
4 1
95
4 2
4 2
5 82
23 2
78
09
07
2 6
3 87
TERT-BUTANOL
00
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/min
CYCLOPENTADIENE
92
00
1 7
59
4 2
3 97
26 C
97
1 3
03
1 0
3 5B
2,2-DIMETHYLBUTANE
74
3 1
30
1 3
1 9
2 42
7 1
24
05
05
2 1
1 79
CYCLOPENTENE
30
1 8
1 3
05
05
0 93
1 8
06
0 1
0 1
02
0 31
4-METHYL-1-PENTENE
1 2
0£
06
02
02
0 44
1 C
0 5
02
0 1
0 1
0 21
3-METHYL-1 -PENTENE
OC
0C
OC
00
OC
0 00
00
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
CYCLOPENTANE
78
32
28
1 2
2 1
2 48
67
1 7
03
04
1 6
1 41
2,3-DIMETHYLBUTANE
22 5
125
11 7
39
7 3
8 74
185
6 1
1 4
1 4
6 7
5 23
MTBE
00
OC
00
0 0
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
4-METHYL-CIS-2-PENTENE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
0 C
0 00
2-METHYLPENTANE
30 4
15 1
14 0
48
89
10 82
28 5
84
1 6
1 9
87
7 06
4-METHYL-TRANS-2-PENTENE
2 5
00
06
03
03
0 43
00
OC
00
00
00
0 00
3-METHYLPENT ANE
16 2
8 1
73
2 6
46
5 69
16 5
5 1
1 C
1 1
5 1
4 16
2-METHYL-1-PENTENE
1 9|
07
03l
0 1
0 1
0 35
08
02
OC
OC
0 1
0 11
1-HEXENE
1 9
0 7
03
0 1
0 1
0 35
08
02
OC
00
00
0 10
HEXANE
22 2
9 9
92
3 3
6 1
7 36
25 7
70
1 3
1 6
7 2
5 99
UNIDENTIFIED C6 OLEFINS
11 5
9 9
5 7
2 2
1 9
4 24
86
32
OC
00
07
1 24
TRANS-3-HEXENE
OC
00
00
00
OC
0 00
00
00
OC
00
00
0 00
CIS-3-HEXENE
02
08
0 1
00
00
o n
02
od
00
00
00
0 03
DI-ISOPROPYL ETHER
OC
0C
OC
0 C
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
o d
0 OC
TRANS-2-H EXENE
07
06
02
0 1
0 1
0 23
05
02
00
00
0 1
0 08
3-METHYL-TRANS-2-PENTENE
1 1
0C
07
03
03
0 36
1 0
04
0 1
OC
0 2
0 20
2-METHYL-2-PENTENE
OC
OC
OC
00
OC
0 00
1 2
05
0 1
OC
0 1
0 22
3-METHYLCYCLOPENTENE
0C
00
OC
00
OC
0 00
03
01
00
00
00
0 04
CIS-2-HEXENE
03
00
0 1
00
OC
0 05
0 1
00
00
OC
OC
0 02
ETBE
0C
00
OC
0 0
00
0 00
00
00
od
OC
0 C
0 0C
3-METHYL-CIS-2-PENTENE
04
00
03
02
03
0 23
1 0
04
00
OC
0 1
0 17
2,2-DIMETHYLPENTANE, NOTE A
96
74
70
2 6
24
4 29
11 9
31
05
07
2 9
2 56
METHYLCYCLOPENTANE. NOTE A
94
1 0
09
02
23
1 84
11 6
30
05
07
28
2 51
2,4-DIMETHYLPENTANE
16 5
83
74
2 d
48
5 89
164
5 1
1 0
1 1
48
4 04
2,2,3-TRIMETHYLBUTANE
2 1
1 e
09
0
05
0 79
30
1 6
0 3
0 1
0 5
0 68
3,4-DIMETHYL-1-PENTENE
0 6
00
0 4
0 1
00
0 12
0 7
0 1
0 0
00
0 1
0 08
1-METHYLCYCLOPENTENE
0 0
00
04
00
02
0 14
08
03
0 1
0 1
0 3
0 23
BENZENE
396 4
188 1
112 1
65 5
58 8
106 87
277 7
52 2
9 5
39 4
36 7
49 92
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/min
3-METHYL-1-HEXENE
04
oc
02
00
OC
0 05
00
OC
OC
OC
00
OOC
3,3-DIMETHYLPENTANE
0 0
0 0
1 6
00
00
0 25
11
00
0 C
0 1
0 3
0 22
CYCLOHEXANE
13 7
5 3
54
1 9
32
4 14
13 6
35
0 7
08
3 5
2 99
2-METHYLHEXANE
0 0
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
2,3-OIMETHYLPENTANE
16 1
79
7 5
2 5
4 5
5 62
102
55
1 2
1 4
62
4 37
1. 1-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
1 C
04
04
0 1
0 2
0 3C
1 3
03
00
0 1
0 2
0 24
TERT-AMYL METHYL ETHER
0 0
00
OC
OC
00
0 0C
00
OC
OC
OC
0 0
0 00
CYCLOHEXENE
1 6
1 1
08
02
03
0 54
1 1
04
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 20
3-METHYLHEXANE
4 S
2 2
2 1
07
1 3
1 61
80
2 2
05
0 5
2 4
1 94
CIS-1.3-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
1 5
05
05
02
04
0 43
1 7
04
0 1
0 1
04
0 34
3-ETHYLPENTANE
0 0
00
OC
OC
0C
0 0C
OC
00
00
00
00
0 00
TRANS-1,2-
DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
00
0 0
00
00
00
ooc
OC
00
00
00
00
0 00
TRANS-1,3-
Dl M ETHYLCYCLOPENTAN E
1 5
0 7
05
02
03
0 45
1 6
04
0 1
0 1
04
0 33
1-HEPTENE
0 0
00
00
00
00
OOC
OC
00
00
0 0
00
0 00
2,2,4-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
124 9
65 2
66 9
21 8
39 5
47 90
1272
43 3
12 1
11 6
53 3
39 71
2-METHYL-1-HEXENE
oq
00
00
00
00
OOC
OC
OC
00
00
00
OOO
TRANS-3-HEPTENE
0 c
04
OC
00
00
ooe
OC
OC
00
0 0
00
0 00
HEPTANE
6 4
2 6
25
09
1 a
2 08
88
2 1
0 4|
05
2 3
1 94
CIS-3-HEPTENE
00
00
00
00
00
oop
00
00
00
oq
oq
OOO
UNIDENTIFIED C7
56
5 3
1 7
1 2
1 0
2 02
17 0
36
05
0 2
03
1 77
2-METHYL-2-HEXENE
0 0
0 0
00
00
00
OOC
OC
00
00
o d
OC
0 00
3-METHYL-TRANS-3-HEXENE
0 0
0 0
00
00
oa
0 00
OC
00
00
00
OC
OOO
TRANS-2-HEPTENE
0 3
02
0 1
00
00
0 08
03
00
00
00
00
0 03
3-ETHYL-CIS-2-PENTENE
0 1
00
0 1
00
00
004
OC
00
00
00
00
OOO
2,4,4-TRIMETHYL-l-PENTENE
0 1
00
0 1
00
00
0 05
02
oq
oq
00
0 1
0 06
2.3-DIMETHYL-2-PENTENE
0 0
OC
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
OC
0 0
0 0
OOO
CIS-2-HEPTENE
0 6
05
03
02
02
0 28
06
0 3
00
00
0 1
0 15
METHYLCYCLOHEXANE
15 0
53
52
1 9
36
4 33
11 3
2 5
05
0 6
2 8
2 36
CIS-1,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
2,2-DIMETHYLHEXANE
o d
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
0 0
00
OOC
1,1,3-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
1 0
03
03
02
02
0 27
05
02
00
00
0 1
0 12
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/min
2,4,4-TRIMETHYL-2-PENTENE
0 1
1 C
0 0
00
00
0 16
04
02
00
00
0 1
0 08
2.2,3-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
20 7
92
98
34
69
7 63
17 £
49
1 2
1 2
6 1
4 69
2.5-DIMETHYLHEXANE
OC
00
OC
00
OC
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
ETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
0 0
00
00
00
OC
OOC
00
OC
00
00
00
OOC
2,4-DI METHYLHEXANE
17 2
87
9 3
30
5 5
6 60
18 1
53
1 5
1 4
63
4 93
1-TRANS-2-CIS-4-
TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
0 5
02
02
0 1
00
0 11
07
02
00
0 1
0 1
0 14
3,3-DI METHYLHEXANE
0 0
00
00
00
00
0 00
OC
00
00
0 0
00
0 00
1-TRANS-2-CIS-3-
TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
0 5
04
02
0 1
00
0 12
0 1
00
00
00
0 1
0 04
2,3,4-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
30 7
17 9
20 7
63
130
14 23
41 3
12 1
4 3
3 9
21 4
14 35
2,3,3-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
36 8
26 3
30 5
89
168
1941
28 1
86
4 2
38
16 9
11 28
TOLUENE
820 0
272 8
280 6
131 1
1113
206 76
830 1
195 7
31 8
25 4
102 C
129 14
2,3-DIMETHYLHEXANE
682 4
375 0
147 5
73 1
131 7
186 51
0 0
00
1 5
1 4
OC
0 56
1,1,2-TRlMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
00
00
OC
00
00
0 00
0 0
OC
00
0C
00
0 00
2-METHYLHEPT ANE
OG
00
00
03
00
0 08
00
0C
OC
00
00
OOC
3,4-DIMETHYLHEXANE, NOTE B
6 4
2 1
2 5
09
1 0
1 67
72
1 2
05
0 5
1 0
1 21
4-METHYLHEPTANE
94
36
3 1
07
0 S
2 06
8 8
1 6
03
0 5
08
1 24
3-METHYLHEPTANE
4 7
24
0 0
07
06
1 02
5 3
06
0 1
02
06
0 74
1-CIS.2-TRANS.3-
TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
4 8
OC
1 4
05
00
0 63
4 0
02
00
0 1
02
0 38
CfS-1,3-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
ool
00
00
00
OC
OOC
TRANS-1,4-
DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
0 0
00
OOO
3-ETHYLH EXANE
44
1 8
1 3
06
03
0 99
36t
00
00
02
04
0 43
2.2,5-TRlMETHYLHEXANE
29 8
130
14 7
50
8 1
10 29
16 7
40
1 2
1 2
4 4
3 81
TRANS-1-METHYL-3-
ETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
o d
00
00
00
0 00
CIS-1-METHYL-3-
ETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
29
09
1 3
05
02
0 70
00
02
00
00
00
0 03
1,1-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
00
00
oq
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
OC
0 00
TRANS-1-METHYL-2-
ETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
O
33
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
0 4
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/mm
>
I
1-METHYL-1-ETHYL-
CYCLOPENTANE
0 0
00
0 0
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
2,4,4-TRIMETHYLHEXANE
2 1
OC
06
0 3
0 1
0 32
00
OC
00
00
00
0 00
2,2,4-TRIMETHYLHEXANE
00
OC
00
00
0 0
0 00
OC
00
00
OC
00
0 00
TRANS-1,2-
DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
30
06
08
0 5
07
0 77
2 C
0 1
00
00
02
0 22
1-OCTENE
0 0
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
TRANS-4-OCTENE
0 0
1 6
OS
03
0 3
0 57
34
00
00
00
02
0 30
OCTANE
4 3
1 1
1 6
07
0 2
0 88
38
05
0 1
0 1
06
0 57
UNIDENTIFIED C8
8 1
39
1 4
09
0 9
1 83
00
00
00
00
04
0 15
TRANS-2-OCTENE
2 2
04
0 7
03
02
0 45
1 0
0 1
OC
00
OC
0 06
TRANS-1,3-
DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE. NOTE C
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
0 0
00
0 00
CIS-2-OCTENE
1 6
OC
04
03
00
0 23
2 7
0 1
0 1
0 0
02
0 26
ISOPROPYLCYCLOPENTANE
0 0
OC
0C
00
0 0
0 00
00
00
00
00
OC
0 00
2,2-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
0 0
0C
00
00
0 0
0 00
0 0
00
00
00
OC
0 00
2,3,5-TRIMETHYLHEXANE
5 1
1 £
2 1
08
0 1
1 12
3 1
06
02
0 1
06
0 58
CIS-1-METHYL-2-
ETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
09
OC
02
02
0 2
0 22
0 0
00
oo
00
00
0 00
2,4-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
24
04
08
0 3
0 0
0 42
1 5
0 1
00
0 c
0 1
0 16
4,4-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
09
OC
0 1
0 1
0 3
0 24
0 3
00
00
00
00
0 03
CIS-1,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
00
0C
00
OC
0 0
0 00
00
00
00
00
OC
OOO
ETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
2 1
05
03
0 2
06
0 53
05
00
00
00
00
0 03
2,6-DIMETHYLHEPTANE, NOTE D
3 1
oe
08
04
0 1
054
09
0 1
00
00
02
0 14
1,1,3-TRIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
00
0C
00
OC
0 0
0 00
OC
00
00
00
00
0 00
2,5-OIMETHYLHEPTANE, NOTE E
3 5
1 2
1 1
06
OC
0 7C
1 1
03
0 1
0 1
0 3
0 24
3,3-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
00
OC
00
OC
OC
OOC
OC
00
00
00
OQ
OOC
3,5-DIMETHYLHEPTANE, NOTE E
00
00
00
OC
00
OOC
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
ETHYLBENZENE
78 9
39 8
26 3
12 E
134
22 74
56 9
180
27
1 7
7 8
9 88
2,3,4-TRIMETHYLHEXANE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
2,3-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
00
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
m-& p-XYLENE
234
54 3
39 2
25 8
17 4
40 99
147 2
24 2
34
2 7
8 5
16 82
4-METH YLOCT AN E
00
OC
00
00
00
OOC
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
3,4-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
00
00
00
00
00
OOO
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
014
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/min
4-ETHYIHEPTANE
0 0
00
OC
00
OC
ooo
00
00
00
00
OC
OOC
2-METHYLOCTANE
7 2
00
1 C
04
04
0 84
35
03
00
00
0 3
0 35
3-METHYLOCTANE
3 0
04
03
03
0 2
0 44
1 1
0C
00
00
0 1
0 11
STYRENE
0 0
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
OC
0 0
00
00
0 00
o-XYLENE
76 0
20 1
155
87
70
14 67
54 4
94
1 6
1 2
4 2
6 82
1-NONENE
10 2
2 1
1 9
1 2
1 0
1 89
2 3
07
0 2
0 1
06
0 52
TRANS-3-NONENE
0 0
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
0 C
00
0 c
00
00
0 00
CIS-3-NONENE
0 C
00
OC
00
0 0
0 00
00
00
0 0
00
00
0 00
NONANE
7 3
1 2
1 4
07
07
1 30
2 5
05
02
01
05
0 47
TRANS-2-NONENE
0 0
OC
OC
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
OC
00
0 00
ISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE)
80
1 £
1 4
09
07
1 43
32
07
0 1
OC
00
0 33
2,2-DI METHYLOCT ANE
00
OC
00
00
00
OOC
OC
00
OC
00
00
0 00
2,4-DIMETHYLOCTANE
17 1
14 1
7 C
34
1 2
5 3£
25 4
12 1
1 5
03
08
3 82
ri-PROPYLBENZENE
30 5
12 E
11 5
4 1
58
8 77
30 9
69
1 5
06
2 5
4 18
1 -METHYL-3-ETHYLBENZENE
156 8
60 3
50 4
193
24 8
40 16
160 2
35 5
67
3 1
120
21 19
1 -METHYL-4-ETHYLBENZENE
67 1
26 1
22 C
86
11 C
17 54
71 0
156
29
1 3
5 1
9 25
1,3.5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
115 0
34 0
27 5
127
132
24 22
112 2
22 0
39
1 8
73
13 76
1-METHYL-2-ETHYLBENZENE
14 2
55
4 £
20
10 1
6 67
64 1
14 4j
25
1 2
4 7
8 4C
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
360 6
102 8
90 e
42 C
43 3
77 41
379 4
761
137
59
22 9
46 08
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE
0 0
00
00
00
00
0 00
0 0
00
00
OC
00
0 00
1-DECENE
0 0
OC
00
00
00
0 00
00
0C
00
OC
00
0 00
~ECANE, NOTE F
2 S
1 C
1 £
04
04
0 7^
22
04,
0 1
OC
02
0 27
ISOBUTYLBENZENE, NOTE F
2 8
09
11
04
03
0 69
2 0
04
0 1
OC
0 1
0 25
1.3.-DIMETHYL-5-ETHYLBENZENE
0 C
OC
00
OC
00
0 00
0 0
00
00
OC
00
0 00
METHYLPROPYLBENZENE (sec
butylbenzene)
4 3
1 4
1 7
06
00
0 86
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
1-METHYL-3-ISOPROPYLBENZENE
0 cl
0C
0 1
OC
6 7
2 69
70 0
136
2 5
1 1
40
8 36
1,2,3-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
57 3
186
15 0
64
03
10 03
2 2
04
00
OC
0 1
0 25
1-METHYL-4-ISOPROPYLBENZENE
2 4
04
08
03
02
0 49
1 7
02
0 1
o d
02
0 23
INDAN
00
00
0 0
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
1 -METHYL-2-ISOPROPYLBENZENE
6 8
2 8
2 7
OS
33
2 76
29 2
68
1 0
03
04
3 OS
1,3-DIETHYLBENZENE
0 0
OC
0 0
0C
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOC
1,4-DIETHYLBENZENE
2 9
24
11
04
1 4
1 30
12 5
28
04
0 1
07
1 53
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/min
1 -M ETHYL-3-N-PROPYLBENZENE
167
48
62
1 9
09
3 44
89
1 5
1 4
0 5
06
1 32
1-METHYL-4-N-PROPYL8ENZENE,
MOTEG
20 5
104
60
2 8
0 1
4 33
1 1
02
00
00
00
0 11
1,2 DIETHYLBENZENE
1 C
02
03
0 1
0 1
0 23
1 1
0 1
02
OC
0 1
0 14
1-METHYL-2-N-PROPYLBENZENE
4 4
28
1 3
0 5
1 C
1 37
16 5
1 8
0C
00
OC
1 24
1.4-DIMETHYL-2-ETHYLBENZENE
93
67
3 0
1 6
0 5
2 55
123
32
05
0 2
08
1 63
1.3-DIMETHYL-4-ETHYLBENZENE
20
4 7
09
0 7
1 6
1 71
5 C
1 6
02
00
0 2
0 64
1.2-DIMETHYL-4-ETHYLBENZENE
124
56
36
1 7
1 5
3 11
16 5
37
06
02
09
2 03
1.3-DIMETHYL-2-ETHYLBENZENE
39
26
06
04
04
0 94
29
1 1
02
00
OC
0 36
UNDECANE
2 5
1 2
03
0 2
0 2
0 51
37
03
0 1
00
0 1
0 33
1.2-DIMETHYL-3-ETHYLBENZENE
00
OC
0 5
00
00
0 08
26
OC
OC
00
00
0 17
1,2.4,5-TETRAMETHYLBENZENE
26
05
07
06
0 3
0 5S
7 4
1 4
0 1
00
03
0 77
2-METHYLBUTYLBENZENE (sec
AMYLBENZENE)
00
00
00
00
0 0
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOO
3,4 DIMETHYLCUMENE
OC
OC
00
o a
OC
0 0C
oc
0C
00
OC
OC
OOO
1,2,3,5-TETRAMETHYLBENZENE
OC
OC
0 1
OC
00
0 03
07
00
00
OC
00
0 06
TERT-1-BUT-2-METHYLBENZENE
1 5
0 £
0 5
02
02
0 4C
0 5
04
OC
00
0 1
0 14
1,2,3,4-TETRAMETHYLBENZENE
00
OC
00
0 C
0C
0 OC
25
03
OC
00
00
0 19
N-PENT-BENZENE
3 1
1 7
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 52
3 1
00
00
od
0 1
0 21
TERT-1 -BUT-3.5-DIMETHYLBENZENE
OC
00
00
00
00
0 00
53 6
93
05
00
2 9
5 74
TERT-1 -BUTYL-4-ETHYLBENZENE
21 8
10 1
4 4
3 8
1 2
4 83
00
OC
00
00
OC
0 00
NAPHTHALENE
00
02
0 1
0 1
00
0 07
09
0C
00
00
OC
0 06
DODECANE
03
02
0 1
0 1
00
0 11
1 4
0 1
00
00
00
0 12
1,3,5-TRIETHYLBENZENE
00
00
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
00
00
00
OOO
1,2,4-TRIETHYLBENZENE
OC
OC
00
00
00
0 00
00
00
o d
0 0
00
OOO
HEXYLBENZENE
00
00
00
0 0
00
0 00
o a
od
od
00
od
OOO
UNIDENTIFIED C9-C12+
279 C
57 6
86 2
50 2
38 8
65 83
332 2
69 5
10 0
46
23 6
41 75
FORMALDEHYDE
396 C
104 4
48 4
26 5
14 3
57 97
15 1
11 2
OB
0 1
06
2 86
ACETALDEHYDE
29 0
23 6
12 7
35
28
8 96
11 0
4 7
0 5
02
04
1 61
ACROLEIN
13 5
14 1
5 7
1 5
1
4 79
50
20
02
00
0 2
0 65
ACETONE
4 1
67
59
1 7
05
2 71
4 3
23
04
04
0 2
0 81
-------
TABLE A-6. HYDROCARBON SPECIATION RESULTS
ISO E4 MODE
BASELINE OPEN-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION
CLOSED-LOOP ENGINE CONFIGURATION WITH CATALYSTS
1
2
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
1
3
3
4
5
Weighted
Composite
Weight Factor
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
0 4
1 0
0 06
0 14
0 15
0 25
04
1 0
Emission Rate
mg/min
PROPIONALDEHYDE
82
7 1
3 7
09
08
2 5S
1 5
07
0 1
OC
0 1
0 22
CROTONALDEHYDE
53
61
3 C
06
06
2 0E
1 3
1 1
02
00
00
0 28
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE, NOTE H
1 6
1 1
06
03
02
0 49
0 8
05
0 1
00
0 0
0 14
METHYL ETHYL KETONE, NOTE H
1 6
1 1
06
03
02
0 49
08
05
0 1
00
00
0 14
BENZALDEHYDE
94 1
48 3
23 4
7 C
50
19 68
25 6
12 5
1 9
03
1 0
4 04
ISOVALERALDEHYDE
1 £
1 1
oe
02
01
0 46
02
OC
00
00
0 0
0 02
VALERALDEHYDE
07
03
0 £
0 1
0 1
0 24
02
00
OC
00
0 0
0 03
O-TOLUALDEHYDE
7 5
38
1 5
05
04
1 51
0 5
03
00
00
0 0
0 08
M/P-TOLUALDEHYDE
32 e
147
74
26
1 £
6 57
37
1 4
02
00
0 1
0 48
HEXANALDEHYDE
OC
0 1
0 1
00
00
0 03
00
OC
OC
00
00
0 OC
DIMETHYLBENZALDEHYDE
20 1
89
5 0
1 A
1 1
3 96
20
0E
0 1
00
OC
0 2£
SUM OF ALL SPECIATED
COMPONENTS, mg/min
8104
3383
2351
1108
1371
2138
5026
1214
206
206
686
828
POWER, kW
152 9
87 1
43 5
15 3
OC
31 7
153 5
88 2
42 2
16 6
OC
32 1
BRAKE-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS,
mg/kw-hr
3181
2332
3245
4348
NA
4046
1964
826
293
743
NA
1550
------- |