United States        Air and Radiation        EPA420-R-02-029
           Environmental Protection                  November 2002
           Agency
vxEPA     Technical Description of the
           Toxics Module for
           MOBILE6.2 and Guidance on
           Its Use for Emission
           Inventory Preparation
                                   > Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                                                 EPA420-R-02-029
                                                                   November 2002
                                                                      for
                           and                on Its Use for
                                   Rich Cook
                                Edward L. Glover
                        Assessment and Standards Division
                      Office of Transportation and Air Quality
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                   NOTICE

   This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.
It is intended to present technical, analysis of issues using data that are currently available.
        The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
     technical information and to inform the public of technical developments which
       may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.

-------
      Table of Contents

1.0   Background	1

2.0   Calculation of Toxic Emission Rates	2
      2.1    Exhaust Emissions for Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde,
             andMTBE	2
      2.2    Exhaust Emissions for Acrolein	11
      2.3    Evaporative Emissions for Benzene andMTBE	12
      2.4    User Defined Air Toxic Pollutants	12

3.0   Input Parameter Data	13
      3.1    Sources of Fuel Parameter Data for Modeling Base Years	14
             3.1.1.  The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers North American
                   Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Survey	14
             3.1.2.  TRW Petroleum Technologies Survey	15
             3.1.3.  Reformulated Gasoline Surveys	15
      3.2    Weighting Fuel Parameter Data from Surveys	16
      3.3    Projecting Fuel Parameter Data to Future Years	17
      3.4    Fuel Parameter Data from Recent EPA Toxic Emissions Modeling	17

4.0   Results of the MOBILE6.2 Model	18
      4.1    Comparison of Calendar Year Fleet Average Emission Factors to
             MOBTOXSb Emission Factors from 1999 Study	18
      4.2    Comparison of MOBILE6.2 and MOBTOXSb Results by Vehicle Class
             and Model Year	21

5.0   References	26

-------
Acronyms

ETBE =            Ethyl tertiary butyl ether
ETOH =            Ethanol
FTP =              Federal Test Procedure
HAP =             Hazardous Air Pollutant
MOBTOX =        EPA's first highway vehicle toxic emission factor model, used in a 1993
                   study
MOBTOXSb =      EPA's revised highway vehicle toxic emission factor model, used in several
                   EPA assessments, beginning in 1999
MOBILE =         EPA's emission factor model for HC, CO, and NOX. PM and toxics are being
                   added to the most recent version, MOBILE6
MTBE =            Methyl tertiary butyl ether
NEI =              National Emissions Inventory
NSATA =          National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
TAME =            Tertiary amine methyl ether
TOG =             Total organic gases
UC =              Unified Cycle

-------
1.0  Background

       This document describes the methodology used to estimate air toxic emission rates in the
toxics module for MOBILE6 (MOBILE6.2), describes the sources of data used, and provides
users with guidance on how to obtain data required as input parameters for the model. The
document also compares some MOBILE6.2 results to results using a previous highway mobile
source toxics emission factor model, MOBTOXSb.

       EPA has developed two previous toxic emission factor models for highway mobile
sources. These models were developed primarily for internal assessment purposes and neither
were officially released. However, both were released in draft form for use outside of EPA. The
first model, MOBTOX, was developed as part of an assessment of toxic emissions, exposure,
and risk, released in 1993 as the Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study.1  This model applied
toxic fractions on a technology group basis to total organic gas (TOG) gram per mile emission
factors to calculate air toxic emission factors. The TOG emission factors were derived from a
version of MOBILE4.1 modified to account for control programs mandated by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Using MOBTOX, average nationwide in-use toxic emission factors could
be estimated for benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,  and acetaldehyde, for a number of
evaluation years and possible control scenarios.

       Several years later, EPA developed a new toxic emission factor model, MOBTOXSb.2'3'4
The model was used in several EPA assessments, including the Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Final Rule,5 the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2007 Diesel-
Sulfur Rule,6 the Technical Support Document for the Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule,7 and the
1996 National Toxics Inventory and National Scale Air  Toxics Assessment.8'9 MOBTOXSb
includes MOBILE6 model enhancements and represents a substantial improvement over the
preliminary version used in the 1993 study. The model has the capability to account for
differences in exhaust toxic fractions of TOG between normal and high emitting vehicles in
calculating emission rates. Moreover, the model accounts for the impacts of aggressive driving
and air conditioning usage on toxics. The  impacts of fuel reformulation programs and changes in
vehicle emission control technology can also be addressed with the model. The model accounts
for the impacts of specific fuel parameters included in the Complex Model for reformulated
gasoline and a draft fuel effects model for MTBE.10'n Finally, whereas separate runs had to be
done for each toxic with the first version of MOBTOX, MOBTOXSb allows the user to model
benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and MTBE in one run. Unfortunately, the
input structure of MOBTOXSb is quite complicated and the model is difficult to use. This is
because the model consists of several separate software tools that are not fully integrated into  the
MOBILE framework.

        Combining the air toxic and MOBILE models is a recommendation of the National
Academy of Science  Research Council's review of MOBILE.12 MOBILE6.2 fulfills this need,
simplifies the modeling process, and provides a single, consistent interface for modeling vehicle
pollutants. The MOBILE6 toxics module fully integrates the calculation of highway vehicle air

-------
toxic emission factors for benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and
MTBE into the modeling framework. It also integrates toxic emissions data and algorithms from
EPA's Complex Model for Reformulated Gasoline.  Moreover, the model can estimate emissions
of other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) based on user provided information.

2.0 Calculation of Toxic Emission Rates

       MOBILE6.2 explicitly estimates emissions for the following compounds:

1)     Benzene - A known human carcinogen that causes leukemia and other blood disorders

2)     1,3-Butadiene - Causes excess incidence of leukemia in humans, and also a variety of
       reproductive and developmental effects in mice and rats

3)     Formaldehyde - A likely human carcinogen that causes nasal tumors in rats, and is a
       respiratory irritant

4)     Acetaldehyde - A likely human carcinogen that causes nasal tumors in rats, and is a
       respiratory irritant

5)     Acrolein - A respiratory tract irritant

6)     MTBE - Causes kidney lesions, swelling around the eyes and increased prostration in
       rats.  It is also associated with tumors of kidneys and testes in male rats and liver tumors
       in female mice

       The above compounds, except for MTBE, dominate risk from mobile sources, based on
results of the recent National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment.8 Benzene and MTBE are found in
both exhaust and evaporative emissions; the others are constituents of exhaust only. Emission
factors are reported according to whether they are exhaust, crankcase, diurnal, hot soak, running
loss, resting loss or refueling loss emissions. MOBILE6.2 also distinguishes between exhaust
start and running emissions for some light duty vehicle classes. Emissions are reported by
vehicle class for the 28 vehicle types included in MOBILE6 (Table 2.1). MOBILE6.2 also has a
command (ADDITIONAL HAPS) which allows the user to enter emission factors or air toxic to
TOG ratios for additional air toxic pollutants. This command is described in more detail in
Section 2.4.

2.1 Exhaust Emissions for Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, and
MTBE

       The exhaust component of the toxics module multiplies the air toxic to TOG ratio by the
MOBILE6.2 TOG (or volatile organic compound, VOC, for some technology groups) estimates
to produce an air toxic emission estimate in MOBILE6.2.  For light-duty gasoline vehicles, the

-------
                       Table 2.1. MOBILE6 Vehicle Classifications
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Abbreviation
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
LDGT3
LDGT4
HDGV2b
HDGV3
HDGV4
HDGV5
HDGV6
HDGV7
HDGVSa
HDGVSb
LDDV
LDDT12
HDDV2b
HDDV3
HDDV4
HDDV5
HDDV6
HDDV7
HDDVSa
HDDVSb
MC
HDGB
HDDBT
HDDBS
LDDT34
Description
Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (Passenger Cars)
Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 1 (0-6,000 Ibs. GVWR, 0-3,750 Ibs. LVW)
Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 2 (0-6,001 Ibs. GVWR, 3,751-5750 Ibs. LVW)
Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 3 (6,001-8500 Ibs. GVWR, 0-5750 Ibs. ALVW)
Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 4 (6,001-8500 Ibs. GVWR, 5,751 Ibs. and greater ALVW)
Class 2b Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (8501-10,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 3 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (10,001-14,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 4 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (14,001-16,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 5 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (16,001-19,500 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 6 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (19,501-26,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 7 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (26,001-33,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 8a Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (33,001-60,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 8b Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (>60,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles (Passenger Cars)
Light-Duty Diesel Trucks land 2 (0-6,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 2b Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (8501-10,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 3 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (10,001-14,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 4 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (14,001-16,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 5 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (16,001-19,500 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 6 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (19,501-26,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 7 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (26,001-33,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 8a Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (33,001-60,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Class 8b Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (>60,000 Ibs. GVWR)
Motorcycles (Gasoline)
Gasoline Buses (School, Transit and Urban)
Diesel Transit and Urban Buses
Diesel School Buses
Light-Duty Diesel Trucks 3 and 4 (6,001-8,500 Ibs. GVWR)
product is then multiplied by an off-cycle adjustment factor, explained in more detail below,
which accounts for the difference in toxic fractions between Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and
Unified Cycle (UC) operation. Mathematically, it is represented by:

Ratio = g/mi Toxic from Air Toxic Module / g/mi TOG from Air Toxic Module
Final Toxic Emission Factor = Ratio * TOG emissions from MOBILE6*ADJ
                                                                      TOX UC/FTP
(1)


(2)
Toxic to TOG ratios vary by technology group, vehicle type, whether a vehicle is a normal or
high emitter (same definition as MOBILE6), and fuel characteristics. Ratios for individual
technology group/vehicle type/emitter class combinations are determined using a series of
algorithms which calculate the ratios based on fuel parameter inputs. Since toxic emission rates
are a product of toxic to TOG ratios and TOG emission rates, anything that reduces TOG will
also result in toxic emission reductions.

-------
       Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde exhaust emissions from light-
duty gasoline vehicles with three-way or three-way plus oxidation catalysts were estimated using
algorithms developed for the Complex Model for Reformulated Gasoline.10 For MTBE, a draft
fuel effects model based on the Complex Model database was used.11 These algorithms were
also used in MOBTOXSb.  It should be noted that the sulfur effects terms in the algorithms were
not used; instead, sulfur impacts on toxic emissions were assumed to be proportional to the sulfur
impacts on total VOC estimated by MOBILE6.  The Complex Model algorithms are based on
data from vehicles representing a 1990 model year fleet.  Toxic to TOG ratios for advanced
technology vehicles running on a given fuel, such  as California low emission (LEV) and Tier 2
vehicles, could be different than ratios based on the fleet in the Complex Model database.
However, test data are far too limited to develop algorithms for advanced technology vehicles.
Toxic emissions data from a small number of California Low Emission Vehicles13 suggest toxic
to TOG ratios from vehicles are similar to those of vehicles in the Complex Model database, but
additional testing and analysis are needed.

       For benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde, the algorithms are based on
about 1800 observations; for MTBE they are based on a nearly 900 observations.  These
algorithms are applied by stratifying the light-duty gasoline fleet into ten Technology Groups and
applying the algorithms individually to each group (this is known as the unconsolidated Complex
Model). The ten groups are formed as a combination of fuel system, catalyst type, Air injection
(y/n toggle), EGR, and Normal / High emitter status.  These groups are  listed in Table 2.2. The
first nine groups represent only normal emitting vehicles (same definition as MOBILE6).  The
tenth group represents all of the high emitters, regardless of technology.

        Table 2.2. Technology Groups in the Complex Model for Reformulated Gasoline
Technology Grouo Definitions
Technology Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
High Emitters
Fuel System
PFI
PFI
TBI
PFI
PFI
TBI
TBI
TBI
CARB
ALL
Catalyst
3WAY
3WAY
3WAY
3WAY + OX
3WAY
3WAY
3WAY + OX
3WAY
3WAY + OX
ALL
Air Injection
NO AIR
NO AIR
NO AIR
AIR
AIR
AIR
AIR
NO AIR
AIR
ALL
EGR
EGR
NO EGR
EGR
EGR
EGR
EGR
EGR
NO EGR
EGR
ALL
PFI = port fuel Injection, TBI = throttle body injection, CARB = carburetor, SWAY = three way catalyst, SWAY
OX = three way plus oxidation catalyst, ERG = exhaust gas recirculation

-------
       The Complex Model algorithms can be found in the regulatory impact analysis for the
1993 Reformulated Gasoline Rule.10  Separate toxic ratios are calculated for each of the groups
and weighted together by the fraction of the fleet attributable to each technology group in
MOBILE6. These fractions can be obtained from the MOBILE6 TGS array.14

       For light-duty gasoline vehicles with oxidation catalysts only or no catalysts, toxic to
VOC ratios are determined using algorithms derived from a more limited data set from about 50
vehicles tested on a baseline fuel and a small number tested on reformulated fuels.  Data were not
available to develop algorithms for ETBE and TAME blends; thus, the algorithms for ethanol
oxygenated gasoline were used for ETBE blends, and the algorithms for MTBE oxygenated
gasoline were used for MTBE blends. Algorithms for light-duty diesel vehicles and heavy-duty
engines are based on only a few tests.  These algorithms for diesel vehicles and engines do not
include any impacts of fuel parameters. Although diesel fuel parameters, such as cetane, do seem
to have an impact on toxics emissions, data are inadequate to quantify them.15 No speciation data
were available for highway motorcycles; thus, algorithms for non-catalyst light-duty vehicles
were used, since most motorcycles in the fleet do not have catalytic converters.  The algorithms
for older technology light-duty gasoline, light-duty diesel, and heavy-duty vehicles were also
used in MOBTOXSb and are provided in Table 2.3.  The specific studies which comprise the
data set for these algorithms are described in Appendix D of the 1999 document, "Analysis of the
Impacts of Control Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas
and Nationwide."3

       For light-duty gasoline vehicles, toxic to TOG ratios developed using the algorithms
described above were also adjusted to account for the impacts of aggressive driving. These
adjustments were applied to start and running emissions, as well as all speeds and roadway types.
Adjustments to account for aggressive driving were based on analysis of data from vehicles
running on both the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Cycle, which does not account for aggressive
driving, and the Unified Cycle (UC), which does. The adjustment is applied as shown previously
in equation 2. These adjustments were developed for MOBTOXSb, and are given in Table 2.4.
The adjustments are based on an analysis of UC and FTP emissions data from 12 vehicles
collected by the California Air Resources Board. Details of the analysis of these data can be
found in Appendix G of the 1999 document, "Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on
Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide."3  There are
separate adjustments for normal and high emitters.

-------
Table 2.3  Exhaust Toxic Fraction Equations for LDGV with Oxidation Catalysts, Non-Catalyst LDGV, HDGV, LDDV and HDDV
Vehicle Class/
Catalvst
Benzene
LDGV and
LDGT/oxcat
LDGV and
LDGT/noncat
MC
HDGV/noncat
HDGV/cat
LDDV
Baseline Gasoline

Bz/TOG= (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. % Arom.)-
1.1626)7100
Bz/TOG= (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. % Arom.)-
1.1626)7100
Bz/TOG= (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. % Arom.)-
1.1626)7100
Bz/TOG= (1.077 + 0.7732*(volume
% benzene) + 0.0987 * (volume %
aromatics - volume % benzene))/! 00
Bz/TOG = 0.0200
MTBE Gasoline

Bz/TOG = (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. % Arom.)-
1.1626)/100
Bz/TOG = (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. % Arom.)-
1.1626)/100
Bz/TOG = (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. % Arom.)-
1.1626)/100
Bz/TOG = (1.077 + 0.7732*(volume
% benzene) + 0.0987 * (volume %
aromatics - volume % benzene))/! 00

EtOH Gasoline

Bz/TOG = (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198 * (vol. % Arom.) -
1.1626)/100
Bz/TOG = (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. %Arom.)-
1.1626)/100
Bz/TOG = (0.8551* (vol. % Bz) +
0.12198* (vol. %Arom.)-
1.1626)/100
Bz/TOG = (1.077 + 0.7732*(volume
% benzene) + 0.0987 * (volume %
aromatics - volume % benzene))/! 00

                                                           6

-------
Vehicle Class/
Catalvst
LDDT
HDDV

Formaldehyde
LDGV and
LDGT/oxcat
HDGV/cat
LDGV and
LDGT/noncat
MC
HDGV/noncat
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
Baseline Gasoline
Bz/TOG = 0.0200
Bz/TOG=0.0105


Form/TOG = 0.0151
Form/TOG = 0.0224
Form/TOG = 0.0347
Form/TOG = 0.0386
Form/TOG = 0.0386
Form/TOG = 0.0782
MTBE Gasoline




Form/TOG=0.0151 +((0.0151 *
1.2082)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Form/TOG = 0.0224 + ((0.0224 *
0.4336)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Form/TOG = 0.0347 + ((0.0347 *
0.1259)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))



EtOH Gasoline




Form/TOG =0.0151 + ((0.0151 *
0.3350)*(wt % EtOH/3.5))
Form/TOG = 0.0224 + ((0.0224 *
0.1034)*(wt % EtOH/3.5))
Form/TOG = 0.0347 + ((0.0347 *
0.1034)*(wt % EtOH/3.5))




-------
Vehicle Class/
Catalvst
Acetaldehyde
LDGV and
LDGT/oxcat
HDGV/cat
LDGV and
LDGT/noncat
MC
HDGV/noncat
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
Baseline Gasoline

Acet/TOG = 0.0047
Acet/TOG = 0.0060
Acet/TOG = 0.0067
Acet/TOG = 0.0123
Acet/TOG = 0.0123
Acet/TOG = 0.0288
MTBE Gasoline

Acet/TOG = 0.0047 + ((0.0047 *
0.2556)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Acet/TOG = 0.0060 + ((0.0060 *
0.2303)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Acet/TOG = 0.0067



EtOH Gasoline

Acet/TOG = 0.0047 + ((0.0047 *
2.1074)*(wt % EtOH/3.5))
Acet/TOG = 0.0060 + ((0.0060 *
1.1445)*(wt%EtOH/3.5))
Acet/TOG = 0.0067 + ((0.0067 *
1.1445)*(wt%EtOH/3.5))




-------
Vehicle Class/
Catalvst
1,3-Butadiene

LDGV and
LDGT/oxcat
LDGV and
LDGT/noncat
MC
HDGV/noncat
HDGV/cat
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
Baseline Gasoline

Buta/TOG = 0.0044
Buta/TOG = 0.0092
Buta/TOG = 0.0074
Buta/TOG = 0.0029
Buta/TOG = 0.0090
Buta/TOG = 0.0090
Buta/TOG = 0.0061
MTBE Gasoline

Buta/TOG = 0.0044 + ((0.0044 * -
0.2227)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Buta/TOG = 0.0092 + ((0.0092 *
0.1517)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Buta/TOG = 0.0074 + ((0.0074 * -
0.2172)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Buta/TOG = 0.0029 + ((0.0029 * -
0.3233)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))



EtOH Gasoline

Buta/TOG = 0.0044 + ((0.0044* -
0.2804)*(wt % EtOH/3.5))
Buta/TOG = 0.0092 + ((0.0092 *
0.1233)*(wt%EtOH/3.5))
Buta/TOG = 0.0074 + ((0.0074 *
0. 1233)*(wt % MTBE/2.7))
Buta/TOG = 0.0029 + ((0.0029 * -
0.1188)*(wt%EtOH/3.5))



9

-------
Vehicle Class/
Catalyst
MTBE
LDGV and
LDGT/oxcat
LDGV and
LDGT/noncat
MC
HDGV/noncat
HDGV/cat
Baseline Gasoline





MTBE Gasoline

MTBE/TOG = 0.0464*(wt %
MTBE/2.7)
MTBE/TOG = 0.0333 *(wt %
MTBE/2.7)
MTBE/TOG = 0.0209*(wt %
MTBE/2.7)
MTBE/TOG = 0.0155*(wt %
MTBE/2.7)
EtOH Gasoline





10

-------
   Table 2.4.  Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicle Off-Cycle Adjustments for Toxic/TOG Fractions
Toxic Compound
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
MTBE
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Normal Hydrocarbon Emitter
1.315
1.037
0.825
1.163
1.020
High Hydrocarbon Emitter
1.126
0.708
0.965
0.894
0.919
2.2. Exhaust Emissions for Acrolein

       Acrolein emissions were not included in MOBTOXSb, but the pollutant is included
explicitly in MOBILE6.2 because it was identified as a national non-cancer hazard driver in the
the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (more than 10% of the U.S. population lives in census
tracts where the typical exposure exceeded the reference concentration for this compound),8 and
because highway mobile sources are a large contributor to the overall inventory in 1996.7
Acrolein fractions of TOG used in the model are the same as those used in the 1996 National
Toxics Inventory. The documentation for that inventory describes the data sources used to
develop them.9  The fractions used are provided in Table 2.5. They are obtained from vehicles
running on a baseline gasoline or diesel fuel and the model does not account for potential impacts
of fuel reformulation.

                  Table 2.5.  Acrolein/TOG fractions Used in MOBILE6.2
Vehicle Category
LDGV
LDGT
HDGV - Catalyst
HDGV- No Catalyst
LDDV
HDDV
MC
Acrolein/TOG Fraction
0.0006
0.0006
0.0005
0.0045
0.0035
0.0035
0.0006
                                           11

-------
2.3 Evaporative Emissions for Benzene and MTBE

       Algorithms from the Complex Model for Reformulated Gasoline and the MTBE draft
fuel effects model were used to developed benzene and MTBE fractions of evaporative TOG.10'n
A summary of the algorithms used are given in Table 2.6. Since the above two models do not
calculate resting loss emissions, it was assumed that benzene and MTBE fractions for resting loss
were equal to those of diurnal emissions. The algorithms for benzene are based on a proprietary
vapor equilibrium model developed by General Motors.  For MTBE, diurnal and hot soak
emission algorithms are based  on regression analysis of data from over  100 tests; and the running
loss algorithm is based on data from 6 tests. The refueling emissions algorithm is based on an
analysis done at the Colorado School of Mines, which relates MTBE refueling emissions to
benzene refueling emissions.16 MOBILE6.2 does not estimate crankcase emissions of HAPs due
to a lack of HAP emissions data on this emissions type.

              Table 2.6. Evaporative Benzene and MTBE Fraction Equations
                    from the Complex Model and EPA's MTBE Model
Pollutant
Benzene
MTBE
(High)
Process
Hot Soak
Diurnal
Running
Resting
Refueling
Hot Soak
Diurnal
Running
Resting
Refueling
Toxic Fraction Eauation (Toxic/TOG)
(-0.03420*OXY - 0.080274*RVP + 1.4448)*BNZ/100
(-0.02895*OXY - 0.080274*RVP + 1.3758)*BNZ/100
(-0.03420*OXY - 0.080274*RVP + 1.4448)*BNZ/100
(-0.02895*OXY - 0.080274*RVP + 1.3758)*BNZ/100
(-0.02955*OXY - 0.081507*RVP + 1.3972)*BNZ/100
(24.205 - 1.746*RVP)*MTBE/1000
(22.198 - 1.746*RVP)*MTBE/1000
(17.8538 - 1.6622*RVP)*MTBE/1000
(22.198 - 1.746*RVP)*MTBE/1000
1.743*MTBE*(-0.02955*OXY - 0.081507*RVP + 1.3972)7100
Note:   OXY = wt% oxygen
       RVP = Reid vapor pressure in psi
       BNZ = vol% benzene
       MTBE = vol% MTBE
2.4.  User-Defined Air Toxic Pollutants

       MOBILE6.2 has a command (ADDITIONAL HAPS) which allows the user to enter
emission factors or air toxic ratios for additional air toxic pollutants.  Table 2.7 lists compounds
identified as mobile source air toxics in the 2000 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule that are not
explicitly modeled by MOBILE6.2 (benzene, ,13-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, MTBE
and acrolein are modeled) or MOBILE6.1 (diesel particulate matter).
                                          12

-------
 Table 2.7. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Not Explicitly Modeled by MOBILE6.1
                                     or MOBILE6.2.
Arsenic Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Dioxin/Furans
Ethylbenzenea
n-Hexanea
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Mercury Compounds
Naphthalenea
Nickel Compounds
POMb
Styrene
Toluenea
Xylene3
       Tound in evaporative as well as exhaust emissions.
       bPolycyclic Organic Matter includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring, and which have a
       boiling point greater than or equal to 100 degrees centigrade. A group of seven polynuclear aromatic
       hydrocarbons, which have been identified by EPA as probable human carcinogens, (benz(a)anthracene,
       benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
       indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene) are sometimes used as surrogates for the larger group of POM compounds.

       A number of these compounds have an evaporative as well as an exhaust emissions
component.  As described in the MOBILE6.2 User's Guide, emission factors must be input in
milligrams per mile and ratios can be input as  fractions of VOC, fractions of TOG, or fractions of
PM. All user-defined inputs for evaporative emissions must be input as ratios.  These ratios must
be expressed as milligrams of HAP per gram of VOC, TOG, or PM.

       ADDITIONAL HAPS input files were developed for the compounds listed in Table 2.7,
except for dioxins/furans and lead compounds, and used to develop the draft 1999 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI), version 3 (ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/draftnei99ver3/). 17
Sixteen individual POM compounds were included in the files. Because toxic to TOG ratios for
several gaseous HAPs vary between baseline gasoline and gasoline oxygenated with MTBE or
ethanol, separate input files were developed for:  1) baseline gasoline; 2) gasoline oxygenated
with 2% MTBE by weight (e.g., Federal reformulated gasoline); 3) gasoline oxygenated with
2.7% MTBE by weight (e.g., winter oxygenated gasoline); and 4) gasoline oxygenated with 3.5%
ethanol by weight (gasohol). These input files are provided as examples for users in the updated
MOBILE6.2 release.

3.0 Input Parameter Data

       MOBILE6.2 requires the following additional fuel parameter inputs which are not
required for estimation of criteria pollutant emissions:
                                            13

-------
GAS AROMATIC% - Aromatic content of gasoline on a percentage of total volume basis

GAS OLEFIN% - Olefin content of gasoline on a percentage of total volume basis

GAS BENZENE% - Benzene content of gasoline on a percentage of total volume basis

E200 - Percentage of vapor a given gasoline produces at 200 degrees F

E300 - Percentage of vapor a given gasoline produces at 300 degrees F

OXYGENATE - Oxygenate type and content of gasoline on a percentage of total volume basis.
There are four valid oxygenate types in the model:
       MTBE - methyl tertiary butyl ether
       ETBE - ethyl tertiary butyl ether
       ETOH - ethanol
       TAME - tertiary amine methyl ether

       These are all parameters included in the Complex Model. MOBILE6.2 cannot model air
toxics in a situation where a single fuel contains more than one oxygenate. However, the user
can model multiple fuels for an area which differ in the oxygenate used, using a "market share"
parameter.  This is described in more detail in the User's Guide. Also, if the user selects ETBE
or TAME, MOBILE6 assumes that it is an equal weight percent of MTBE for the purposes of
HC, CO, and NOx calculations.

3.1  Sources of Fuel Parameter Data for Modeling Base Years

       There are a number of sources of data on fuel properties from surveys of gasoline at
service stations.  Information on these data sources is provided below.

3.1.1.  The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers North American Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Survey

       The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers samples commercially available gasoline and
diesel fuel throughout the United States, Mexico, and Canada during the summer and winter
seasons.18  In the U.S., three grades of gasoline are sampled - premium unleaded, mid-grade
unleaded, and regular unleaded.  Table 3.1 lists the U. S. cities included in the Alliance gasoline
surveys. These surveys are available for purchase on the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers'
website:

http://store.autoalliance.org/StoreFront.asp
                                          14

-------
     Table 3.1. Cities Included in Fuel Surveys Conducted by the Alliance of Automobile
                                     Manufacturers
Albuquerque, NM
Atlanta, GA
Billings, MT
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Fairbanks, AK**
Houston, TX*
Kansas City, MO
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles, CA
Miami, FL
Minneapolis/ St. Paul, MN
New Orleans, LA
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA*
St. Louis, MO
San Antonio, TX
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC

*Data collection initiated in 1994.
**Data collection initiated in 2000.

3.1.2. TRW Petroleum Technologies Survey

       TRW Petroleum Technologies (formerly the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy
Research) also samples gasoline from service stations throughout the country during summer and
winter. The TRW Petroleum Technologies surveys include non-reformulated gasoline, gasoline-
alcohol blends, and reformulated gasolines. Data are reported for 3 grades, for 15 marketing
districts, selected by elevation and location. Table 3.2 lists the marketing districts included in the
surveys. Information on obtaining surveys can be obtained from the following address:

TRW Petroleum Technologies
Attn: Cheryl L. Dickson
P. O. Box 2543
Batlesville, OK  74005
Telephone: (918)338-4419

3.1.3. Reformulated Gasoline Surveys

       The U.S. EPA samples gasoline at the pump in reformulated gasoline areas, at least four
times a year, twice during the summer VOC season (6/1-9/15) and twice outside the VOC
season.19 These surveys collect and analyze samples from retail gasoline stations.  Mandatory
reformulated gasoline areas outside California are surveyed at least eleven times a year.  Some of
the smallest opt-in areas are not surveyed every year.  Surveys measure Complex Model
parameters plus T50 and T90, except that surveys in the federal RFG areas in California are for
                                           15

-------
       Table 3.2.  Districts Included in TRW Petroleum Technologies Gasoline Surveys
District
1 (Northeast)
2 (Mid-Atlantic Coast)
3 (Southeast)
4 (Florida)
5 (North Central)
6 (Ohio Valley)
7 (Central and Upper Plains)
8 (Oklahoma and East Texas)
9 (North Mountain States)
10 (Central Mountain States)
1 1 (New Mexico, West Texas)
12 (West Southwest)
13 (Pacific Northwest)
14 (North California and North
Nevada)
15 (South California)
States
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee

Northern Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa,
Missouri, Southern Illinois

Montana, Wyoming, Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon
Colorado, Utah

Arizona, Southern Nevada, Southeastern CA
Western Washington, Western Oregon


oxygenates only. Prior to 1998, the surveys reported only total oxygen and oxygenate content,
benzene content, aromatics content and Reid vapor pressure (RVP). These data are available at
the following website:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/rfg/properf/perfmeth.htm

3.2 Weighting Fuel Parameter Data from Surveys

       For most modeling, it will be necessary to develop composite fuel parameters based on
the mix of regular, mid-grade, and premium gasoline. Such data can be found at the State level
                                           16

-------
in the Petroleum Marketing Annual reports, published by the Energy Information Administration,
Office of Oil and Gas, Department of Energy.20 These documents can be found at the following
website:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_marketing_annual/pma_
historical.html

Also, many areas of the Midwest sell both baseline gasoline and gasohol. Information on
baseline and gasohol sales volumes at the State level is compiled by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information.21  The
website where this information can be obtained is:

http://www.fhwa. dot, gov/ohim/qffuel .htm

3.3.  Projecting Fuel Parameters to Future Years

       In order to do toxic emission factor modeling for future years, model users will need to
make a determination of appropriate fuel parameters to use in the modeling. There are three
potential approaches which may be used to do this:

1)     Use existing refinery modeling work and apply results to areas being modeled.

2)     Employ a consultant to evaluate what fuel changes are likely, based on professional
      judgement and experience, or to do new refinery modeling work.

3)     If one  is  modeling an area where a new program has been implemented, look at other
       areas of the country where the program has been implemented, and make inferences.

       Several refinery modeling studies were done in conjunction with the Tier II Gasoline
Sulfur Final Rulemaking, to evaluate costs of meeting low sulfur standards.  These studies were
done by the American Petroleum Institute, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association,
the Association  of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Department of Energy.
Results of these studies are summarized Chapter 5 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
rule.5

3.4.  Fuel Parameter Data from Recent EPA Toxic Emissions Modeling

       In its 1999 assessment of motor  vehicle toxic emissions and exposure,3  EPA compiled
fuel summer and winter parameters for  10 urban  areas and 15 regions, which were used to
develop emission factors for construction of a  nationwide highway mobile source toxics
inventory. Data were compiled for 1990 and 1996 base years,  summer and winter. Projections
to 2007 and 2020 were done based on refinery modeling. Methods use to do projections are
                                          17

-------
described in Appendix J of the 1999 assessment.  The parameters used in this modeling are
provided in the Appendix of this guidance document.

       In addition, EPA recently developed county-level fuel parameters for 1990, 1996, and
1999, to use in developing revised inventory estimates for the NEI.  These fuel parameters can be
found at the EPA ftp site with draft 1999 NEI, version 3 data:

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/draftnei99ver3/

4.0  Results of the MOBILE6.2 Model

4.1 Comparison of Calendar Year Fleet Average Emission Factors to MOBTOXSb
Emission Factors from 1999 Study

       This section presents some limited results of emission factor modeling using
MOBILE6.2, comparing estimates to those from MOBTOXSb, the predecessor to this model.
The MOBTOXSb emission factors were obtained from analyses done for the 1999 document,
"Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions and Exposure
in Urban Areas and Nationwide."3  These emission factors do not include impacts of 2007 heavy
duty standards. The MOBILE6.2 toxic emission factors were developed using the same input
data, again not including impacts of 2007 heavy duty standards. The limited results presented
here are based on modeling for the city of Atlanta. Atlanta does not have a reformulated gasoline
program but does have an inspection and maintenance program. Although absolute emission
levels vary significantly from  city to city, depending on type of fuel program, type of inspection
and maintenance program, average temperature and other local parameters, the trends in toxic
emissions are consistent.  Thus modeling results for Atlanta are a good illustration of the
directional differences which can be anticipated in changing between the models, provided input
parameters are similar.

       Figures 4.1 through 4.4 present fleet average toxic emission factors from MOBTOXSb
and MOBILE6.2, for benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde.  For all
compounds, MOBILE6.2 estimates higher emission factors in base years, with a convergence in
emission factors by 2020.  This trend is primarily a result of changes in the TOG emission rates
used in MOBILE6.2, versus those used in MOBTOXSb. The TOG emission rates in
MOBTOXSb were derived incorporating elements of the MOBILE6 methodology, but significant
revisions to the emission rates were made subsequent  to the development of MOBTOXSb and
prior to release of MOBILE6.  The difference in underlying TOG emission rates between the two
models are given in Figure 4.5.
                                          18

-------
        Figure 4.1. MOBILES.2 and MOBTOXSb Comparison for
            Benzene (fleet average, exhaust and evaporative)
   140
   120
     1985   1990   1995   2000   2005   2010
                            Calendar Year
                                           2015   2020
                                                        2025
  25.0
  20.0
      Figure 4.2.  MOBILES.2 and MOBTOXSb Comparison for 1,3-
                       Butadiene (fleet average)
0)
'a
S
  15.0
  10.0
   5.0
   0.0
     1985    1990   1995   2000   2005   2010
                           Calendar Year
                                            2015
                                                   2020
                                                         2025
                                   19

-------
     Figure 4.3.  MOBILES.2 and MOBTOXSb Comparison for
                  Formaldehyde (fleet average)
70.0
 0.0
   1985   1990   1995   2000    2005    2010    2015    2020   2025
                           Calendar Year
  Figure 4.4. MOBILES.2 and MOBTOXSb Comparison for Acetaldehyde
                          (fleet average)
25.0
  1985     1990    1995     2000    2005    2010
                            Calendar Year
                                               2015
                                                      2020
                                                              2025
                                    20

-------
          Figure 4.5. MOBILE6.2 and MOBTOXSb Comparison for TOG
                     Emissions (Exhaust and Evaporative)
         6000
         5000
         4000
       x
       LJJ
         3000
       1
         2000
         1000
            0
            1985   1990   1995   2000   2005   2010   2015   2020   2025
                                  Calendar Year
       In base years (around CY 1990), the difference between MOBILE6.2 and MOBTOXSb is
greatest for 1,3-butadiene. This is because during base years, MOBILE6.2 classifies more
vehicles as hydrocarbon high emitters, and the toxic to TOG fraction for 1,3-butadiene is roughly
three times higher than the normal emitter fraction.  It should also be noted that MOBILE6.2
projects slightly lower emission factors for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde by 2020. This is
because diesel vehicles emit proportionally larger quantities of carbonyl compounds relative to
TOG, and MOBILE6 projects lower TOG emissions for heavy duty diesel engines, particularly in
future years when benefits of 2007 heavy duty standards are realized.

4.2 Comparison of MOBILE6.2 and MOBTOXSb Results by Vehicle Class  and Model
Year

       As part of an evaluation of MOBILE6.2 modeling results, Eastern Research Group, Inc.
developed an Excel Workbook which can generate charts which can make MOBILE6.2 versus
MOBTOXSb comparisons for the following cases:

4)     Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles
5)     1990, 2007, and 2020
6)     Winter and Summer

The workbook allows comparison of exhaust and evaporative toxic and TOG emission factors, as
well as toxic to TOG ratios, for individual vehicles classes. Results are presented by model year
                                          21

-------
for a given calendar year. Since MOBILE6.2 and MOBTOXSb use different classes of vehicles,
the comparisons in Table 4.1 were used.

    Table 4.1. Classes of Vehicle Types Compared Between MOBILE6.2 and MOBTOXSb
MOBILES/ MOBTOX
Vehicle Type
LDGV
LDGT2
HDGV
LDDV
HDDV
MOBTOX
Vehicle Type
ID Number
1
3
4
5
7
MOBILE6
Vehicle Type
LDGV
LDGT3
HDGV2b
LDDV
HDDV8B
MOBILE6 Vehicle
Type ID Number
1
4
6
14
23
       Figures 4.6 and 4.7 depict mg/mi emission factors and toxic to TOG ratios, respectively,
for light-duty gasoline vehicle exhaust benzene in Atlanta, summer, 2007, by model year.
MOBILE6.2 emission factors for early 1980's model years are about three times greater than
MOBTOXSb, while there is convergence for later model years. Benzene to TOG ratios are also
somewhat higher for earlier model years, but the difference is not as great as the difference in
emission factors.  Thus, it can be concluded that differences in TOG emission rates for earlier
model years account for most of the difference in benzene emission rates (Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.6. Light Duty Gasoline Vehicle mg/mi Benzene Exhaust Emission Factors for Atlanta,
                                     Summer, 2007.
               Comparison of MOBTOX to MOBILE6.2
              Veh:LDGV City: ATL  CalYr: 2007 Sum
                  Pollutant: Benzene Exhaust
        025

c
1
)5











i







'  -_,




-



I
X









\
s,



















-.









~1
^




^^




*  -




t~ -\
"----,





^~- .











u~--i





^













































1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20
                                           Model Year
                                       - MOBTOX
                                                - MOBILES 2
                                           22

-------
Figure 4.7.  Light Duty Gasoline Vehicle Benzene Exhaust fractions of TOG for Atlanta,
                                      Summer, 2007.
           Comparison ofMOBTOXto MOBILES 2
           Veh: LDGV City: ATL Cal Yr 2007 Sum
               Pollutant: Benzene Exhaust
n OR

n C\A
8 Ou4
j^~-<
~^ 0 03
n ro
n m
n -






















j
^-""





 -i






H






^S.







^














































 














- - i















- 







 i
^




1980 1985 1990 1995
Model Year


-+- MOBTOX  MOBILEG.2








r^-J













- ^

























































2000 2005 20



Figure 4.8.  Light Duty Gasoline Vehicle Exhaust g/mi TOG for Atlanta, Summer, 2007.
           Comparison ofMOBTOXto MOBILES 2
          Veh: LDGV City: ATL  Cal Yr: 2007 Sum
                Pollutant: TOG Exhaust
   4.5

    4

   3.5

    3

   2.5

    2

   1.5

    1

   0.5

    0
      OLIO
                   1905
                                1990
                                             1995
                                           Model Year
                                                           2000
                                                                        2005
                                                                                      2010
                                       - MOBTOX  MOBILE6.2
                                            23

-------
       A similar trend is seen in benzene evaporative emission rates (Figure 4.9). For heavy
duty diesel vehicles, however, benzene exhaust emission rates estimated using MOBILE6.2 are
lower than MOBTOXSb (Figure 4.10). This is a result of lower TOG emission rates in
MOBILE6.2 for that vehicle class.

       The Excel workbook used to make these comparisons for benzene, as well as
comparisons for other HAPs, has been made available along with the release of the document
(file name External_ChartComparisons_20011120.xls).

  Figure 4.9. Light Duty Gasoline Vehicle Evaporative Benzene mg/mi for Atlanta, Summer,
                                         2007.
               Comparison of MOBTOXto MOBILES 2
              Veh: LDGV City: ATL Cal Yr: 2007 Sum
                   Pollutant: Benzene Evap
n ni9
M lT1
n nno
nnnfi
n r\r\A
n nno
n
































~^^,


-i




^


i



  ,






"--,














^-






>  ,




S






1
'l

'   .





\
1
^   .













1
---,






^






1















 I







 I







	 -l















i- ^




































1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Model Year


 MOBTOX -- MOBILE6.2









20
                                           24

-------
Figure 4.10. Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Exhaust Benzene mg/mi  for Atlanta, Summer, 2007.
           Comparison of MOBTOXto MOBILE6.2
         Veh:HDDV8B City: ATL  Cal Yr: 2007 Sum
               Pollutant Benzene Exhaust
n riQ

n n9
n m^; -
n m
nnns
n















i





j^
1





5s
5






\







L  ,






^
\







>- 	 1





\
i-  i





\
N







	 1





- -^,
1 	 1





\
\
L--,







1 	 1







	  1






































































"l







	 	 -1







	  1







 H







1














1 980 1 985 1 990 1 995 2000 2005 201 0
Model Year


 MOBTOX  MOBILE6.2



                                            25

-------
5.0 References

l.EPA. 1993.  Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study. Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor,
ML Report No. EPA 420-R-93-005, April, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm

2. Cook, R., P. Brodowicz, D. Brzezinski, P. Heirigs, and S. Kishan.  1998.  Analysis of In-Use
Motor Vehicle Toxic Emissions Using a New Emission Factor Model, MOBTOXSb. Presented
at AWMA Specialty Conference, Emission Inventory: Living in a Global Environment,
December 8-10, 1998.

3.  EPA. 1999. Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions
and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide. Prepared for U. S. EPA, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, by Sierra Research, Inc., and Radian International Corporation/Eastern Research
Group.  Report No. EPA 420 -R-99-029/030. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/r99029.pdf

4.  Cook, R., P. Brodowicz, P. Heirigs, S. Kishan, and M. Weatherby. 2000. Assessment of
Emissions and Exposure from Selected Motor Vehicle Air Toxics. Paper No. 77, Presented at
93rd Annual AWMA Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, June  18-22, 2000.

5.  EPA. 1999. Regulatory Impact Analysis - Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control.  Report No.
EPA420-R-99-023, December 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/ria/r99023.pdf

6.  EPA. 2000. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements.  Report No. EPA420-R-00-026, December
2000. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm

7.  EPA. 2000. Technical Support Document. Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Motor
Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Fuels.  EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, December
2000. Report No. EPA-420-R-00-023.  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/r00023 .pdf

8.  EPA. 2002. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996.
http ://www.epa. gov/ttn/atw/nata/

9.  Eastern Research Group.  2000a. Documentation for the 1996 Base Year National Toxics
Inventory for Onroad Sources.  Prepared for U. S. EPA, Emission Factor and Inventory Group,
Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards, June 2, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/

10. EPA.  1993.  Final Regulatory  Impact Analysis for Reformulated Gasoline. December 13,
1993. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/rfg/ (ria.zip)
                                          26

-------
11. Wyborny, L.  1998. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Emissions from Passenger Cars.
Draft Technical Report. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources.
April, 1998.

12. National Research Council. 2000.  Modeling Mobile Source Emissions.  National Academy
Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309070880/html/

13. Coordinating Research Council.  1997.  Test Program to Determine Fuel Sulfur Effect on
Emissions from California Low-Emission Vehicles. Project E-42.

14. EPA.  1998. Emission Control Technology Distributions: Current and Projected Use of
Emission Control Technology in Light and Heavy Duty Engines.  EPA Report No. 420-98-013,
MOBILE6 Document No. M6.FLT.008. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/mobile6/m6flt008.pdf

15. EPA.  2001. Stategies and Issues in Correlating Diesel Fuel Properties with Emissions: Staff
Discussion Document. EPA Report No. 420-P-01-001.
http ://www. epa. gov/otaq/models/analysis/pO 1001 .pdf

16. Grabowski, Michael S., Mowery, Deborah L., McClelland, John W.;  Draft Report:
Microenvironment and Source Apportionment Analysis of Toxics Exposure from Conventional
and Oxygenated Motor Fuels;" Colorado School of Mines, September 1997.

17. EPA.  2002. Draft 1999 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), Versions.
(ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/draftnei99ver3/).

18. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.  North American Fuel Surveys.
http://store.autoalliance.org/StoreFront.asp

19. EPA.  Information on Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Properties and Emissions Performance
by Area and Season, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/rfg/properf/perfmeth.htm

20. Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Marketing Annual Reports.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_marketing_annual/pma_
historical.html

21. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics: Motor Fuel.
http ://www.fhwa. dot, gov/ohim/qffuel .htm
                                          27

-------
Appendix -1990 Baseline Fuel Specifications
Area
Atlanta
Atlanta
Chicago
Chicago
Denver
Denver
Houston
Houston
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
New York
New York
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Phoenix
Spokane
Spokane
St. Louis
St. Louis
Western WA/OR - Win 95/96
Western WA/OR - Win 95/96
Western WA/OR - Win 96/97
Western WA/OR - Win 96/97
Northern California
Northern California
Southern California
Southern California
ID/MT/WY
ID/MT/WY
UT/NM/NV
UT/NM/NV
ND/SD/NE/IA/KS/Western MO
ND/SD/NE/IA/KS/Western MO
AR/MS/AL/SC/Northern LA
AR/MS/AL/SC/Northern LA
Florida
Florida
Northeast-NoRFG
Northeast-NoRFG
Northeast-RFG
Northeast-RFG
Ohio Valley-NoRFG
Ohio Valley-NoRFG
Ohio Valley-RFG
Ohio Valley-RFG
Northern MI/WI
Northern MI/WI
West Texas
West Texas
Abbrev.
AT
AT
CH
CH
DN
DN
HS
HS
MN
MN
NY
NY
PA
PA
PX
PX
SP
SP
SL
SL
WA
WA
WB
WB
CN
CN
CS
CS
ID
ID
UT
UT
ND
ND
SE
SE
FL
FL
NN
NN
NR
NR
ON
ON
OR
OR
Ml
Ml
WT
WT
Year
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
Season
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
RVP. psi Aromatics
8.5
12.5
8.7
13.7
8.3
12.1
8.3
12.8
9.5
13.2
8.3
13.3
8.4
13.9
8.1
10.9
8.6
13.1
8.8
13.2
9.4
12.9
9.4
12.9
8.3
12.4
8.2
11.3
9.3
13.0
8.7
13.0
8.8
13.3
8.6
12.3
9.2
12.2
8.8
13.5
8.8
13.5
9.7
14.1
9.7
14.1
9.4
14.0
8.0
11.7
27.9
26.2
28.8
23.0
24.8
19.3
30.2
23.0
29.8
24.9
31.9
26.4
29.2
23.5
33.0
26.4
21.0
19.2
28.9
22.0
29.0
30.9
29.0
30.9
29.9
29.9
29.1
29.8
24.6
22.5
23.7
23.5
26.6
21.0
28.8
25.6
31.6
26.0
29.7
26.5
29.7
26.5
26.8
24.9
26.8
24.9
27.1
24.5
28.6
27.2
Olefins Benzene %
10.5
14.4
8.6
9.1
12.2
12.8
10.9
14.4
8.3
9.3
13.9
16.7
13.7
13.2
5.9
5.6
8.0
10.3
8.9
11.4
10.0
8.2
10.0
8.2
11.5
9.6
7.6
8.6
9.9
13.7
11.0
13.5
9.6
10.8
12.8
16.9
9.0
17.7
13.7
17.3
13.7
17.3
10.5
11.1
10.5
11.1
8.5
9.6
9.6
14.6
1.16
1.49
1.35
1.69
1.41
1.23
1.36
1.22
1.69
1.86
1.08
1.55
0.86
1.63
2.15
1.88
1.36
1.58
1.11
1.71
2.34
2.47
2.34
2.47
2.17
2.14
2.12
1.81
1.98
1.71
1.97
2.13
1.50
1.29
1.62
1.47
1.40
1.25
1.77
1.42
1.77
1.42
1.59
1.56
1.59
1.56
1.57
1.36
1.83
1.75
Sulfur
344
267
512
450
375
272
375
454
422
701
367
274
371
206
123
157
739
698
372
319
449
314
449
314
104
135
172
205
565
681
235
159
328
307
363
328
363
372
332
343
332
343
383
333
383
333
363
352
289
362
E200 %
40.7
49.1
47.2
54.4
45.1
62.0
46.7
52.4
45.9
56.0
43.1
49.5
43.6
50.5
41.1
56.5
46.6
51.1
45.2
54.0
43.5
49.7
43.5
49.7
41.8
49.3
40.8
45.9
47.5
53.6
44.6
56.3
47.4
55.3
43.0
50.0
44.1
48.9
42.5
51.6
42.5
51.6
46.8
55.6
46.8
55.6
49.2
55.8
45.3
49.2
E300 % MTBE % ETBE % EtOH % TAME % Oxygen wt %
79.0
82.4
78.6
82.6
79.4
85.5
79.4
80.2
78.9
81.6
78.8
81.8
79.0
82.9
78.5
82.9
82.6
84.9
78.9
82.7
81.0
83.7
81.0
83.7
82.2
84.3
80.8
82.6
84.1
86.5
82.8
87.4
81.3
84.6
79.5
81.6
79.2
80.3
80.4
82.9
80.4
82.9
80.3
82.6
80.3
82.6
80.8
83.4
81.4
82.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.5
1.8
0.5
0.0
0.5
2.8
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.3
0.9
2.5
5.4
2.4
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.08
0.32
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.50
0.08
0.04
0.09
0.22
2.70
0.64
0.70
0.27
0.22
0.27
0.21
0.19
0.22
0.19
0.22
0.93
0.84
0.93
0.84
1.06
1.62
0.43
0.93

-------
Appendix -1996 Baseline Fuel Specifications
Area
Atlanta
Atlanta
Chicago
Chicago
Denver
Denver
Houston
Houston
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
New York
New York
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Phoenix
Spokane
Spokane
St. Louis
St. Louis
Western WA/OR - Win 95/96
Western WA/OR - Win 95/96
Western WA/OR - Win 96/97
Western WA/OR - Win 96/97
Northern California
Northern California
Southern California
Southern California
ID/MT/WY
ID/MT/WY
UT/NM/NV
UT/NM/NV
ND/SD/NE/IA/KS/Western MO
ND/SD/NE/IA/KS/Western MO
AR/MS/AL/SC/Northern LA
AR/MS/AL/SC/Northern LA
Florida
Florida
Northeast-NoRFG
Northeast-NoRFG
Northeast-RFG
Northeast-RFG
Ohio Valley-NoRFG
Ohio Valley-NoRFG
Ohio Valley-RFG
Ohio Valley-RFG
Northern MI/WI
Northern MI/WI
West Texas
West Texas
Abbrev.
AT
AT
CH
CH
DN
DN
HS
HS
MN
MN
NY
NY
PA
PA
PX
PX
SP
SP
SL
SL
WA
WA
WB
WB
CN
CN
CS
CS
ID
ID
UT
UT
ND
ND
SE
SE
FL
FL
NN
NN
NR
NR
ON
ON
OR
OR
Ml
Ml
WT
WT
Year
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
Season
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
RVP, psi Aromatics
7.2
12.4
7.9
14.0
8.8
13.6
7.1
12.8
9.6
14.9
8.0
13.2
7.9
13.5
6.8
8.7
8.7
14.8
6.8
13.6
8.0
13.6
8.0
13.4
6.9
10.5
7.0
10.6
8.5
13.5
8.0
14.4
8.3
13.4
7.7
12.2
7.6
12.1
8.6
13.2
7.9
12.5
8.7
14.1
7.8
12.9
8.5
14.0
8.0
11.8
32.1
24.8
26.0
22.4
27.1
21.9
27.4
21.1
28.2
23.4
28.6
23.3
29.0
25.4
36.1
34.3
28.5
18.6
29.9
23.8
35.7
27.5
35.7
29.4
24.4
20.1
20.7
17.7
28.3
22.8
30.7
20.4
29.0
22.4
30.7
24.5
33.6
24.6
28.1
23.8
24.7
19.7
30.2
25.5
27.3
18.9
28.4
25.3
30.1
25.8
Olefins Benzene %
11.2
13.0
9.7
7.8
8.8
9.2
13.0
12.8
7.3
5.3
17.1
16.6
12.3
10.2
6.8
7.1
8.3
6.9
12.0
11.4
6.7
6.3
6.7
5.8
3.5
2.1
4.3
3.5
8.1
6.4
10.6
8.3
8.0
6.8
13.2
13.0
10.1
12.8
12.4
16.2
11.7
9.6
10.4
8.8
8.1
8.8
9.1
8.4
9.7
8.1
0.87
0.77
0.96
0.80
1.33
0.94
0.71
0.70
1.81
1.65
0.51
0.47
0.80
0.63
1.07
1.40
1.32
0.97
0.70
0.89
2.17
1.81
2.17
1.81
0.56
0.52
0.52
0.57
1.64
1.40
1.75
1.14
1.33
1.12
0.84
0.81
0.79
0.82
1.03
0.73
0.65
0.66
1.24
1.04
0.99
0.97
1.32
1.46
1.48
1.21
Sulfur
343
447
492
523
296
350
261
224
121
70
231
267
367
337
118
216
412
350
492
535
256
342
256
345
26
30
10
31
318
252
207
106
229
224
349
271
280
289
308
222
234
265
334
310
300
355
277
206
263
361
E200 %
36.9
51.2
50.2
58.0
50.1
62.1
47.8
59.9
59.4
62.3
49.8
57.5
51.2
59.3
45.7
50.2
45.0
59.8
39.0
52.7
44.0
58.8
44.0
52.7
49.3
54.4
51.0
56.3
46.8
53.7
45.2
72.2
45.4
56.0
38.8
50.5
40.3
50.5
43.2
52.2
50.5
59.1
45.3
54.0
45.5
59.4
49.0
57.6
41.5
47.3
E300 % MTBE % ETBE %
79.8
82.7
80.8
83.9
83.1
88.1
79.8
83.8
84.6
89.1
81.5
85.7
81.8
85.9
76.2
82.6
81.4
87.1
78.8
82.6
82.4
84.5
82.4
84.0
89.9
90.8
86.8
88.6
84.6
84.6
83.6
85.2
81.8
85.0
78.1
82.3
79.4
82.7
80.7
83.3
82.4
87.0
80.3
82.6
81.1
88.4
80.9
83.1
81.6
83.7
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
7.9
0.0
0.0
10.6
14.5
11.3
8.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
9.1
10.5
11.0
11.6
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.8
10.9
10.5
0.9
0.4
9.5
10.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
EtOH % TAME % Oxygen wt
0.0
0.0
9.0
9.0
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
9.4
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
0.0
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
1.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.8
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.06
3.12
3.11
0.00
2.91
1.74
1.41
3.24
2.77
1.89
2.58
2.01
1.58
0.14
3.53
0.00
3.21
0.00
0.00
0.02
1.49
0.02
0.44
1.63
1.87
1.96
2.08
0.09
0.09
0.20
3.54
0.59
0.68
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.27
0.14
1.94
1.87
0.68
0.48
1.69
1.79
1.04
0.85
0.03
0.00

-------
                                                         Appendix - 2007/2020 30 ppm Sulfur Fuel Specifications
Area
Atlanta
Atlanta
Chicago
Chicago
Denver
Denver
Houston
Houston
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
New York
New York
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Phoenix
Spokane
Spokane
St. Louis
St. Louis
Western Washington/Oregon
Western Washington/Oregon
Western Washington/Oregon
Western Washington/Oregon
Northern California
Northern California
Southern California
Southern California
Idaho/Montana/Wyoming
Idaho/Montana/Wyoming
Utah/New Mexico/Nevada
Utah/New Mexico/Nevada
ND/SD/NE/IA/KS/Western MO
ND/SD/NE/IA/KS/Western MO
AR/MS/AL/SC/Northern LA
AR/MS/AL/SC/Northern LA
Florida
Florida
Northeastern states - non RFC
Northeastern states - non RFC
Northeastern states- with RFC
Northeastern states- with RFC
Ohio Valley - non-RFG
Ohio Valley - non-RFG
Ohio Valley - with RFC
Ohio Valley - with RFC
Northern MI/WI/MN
Northern MI/WI/MN
West Texas
West Texas
Abbrev. Year
AT
AT
CH
CH
DN
DN
HS
HS
MN
MN
NY
NY
PA
PA
PX
PX
SP
SP
SL
SL
WA
WA
WB
WB
CN
CN
CS
CS
ID
ID
UT
UT
ND
ND
SE
SE
FL
FL
NN
NN
NR
NR
ON
ON
OR
OR
Ml
Ml
WT
WT
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
Season
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Scenario
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
30 ppm
RVP, psi Aromatic
7.0
12.4
6.6
14.0
8.8
13.6
6.7
12.8
9.6
14.9
6.8
13.2
6.7
13.5
7.0
10.6
8.7
14.8
6.4
13.6
8.0
13.5
8.0
13.5
7.0
10.5
7.0
10.6
8.5
13.5
8.0
14.4
8.3
13.4
7.7
12.2
7.6
12.1
8.6
13.2
6.7
12.5
8.7
14.1
6.5
12.9
8.5
14.0
8.0
11.8
30.9
24.0
24.1
17.6
26.1
21.2
26.8
19.7
27.2
22.7
25.8
19.3
25.0
21.0
22.0
17.7
27.5
17.9
28.8
20.7
34.5
27.6
34.5
27.6
22.0
20.1
22.0
17.7
27.3
22.1
29.6
19.8
28.0
21.7
29.6
23.7
32.4
23.8
27.1
23.1
24.0
18.2
29.1
24.7
27.1
17.4
27.4
24.5
29.1
24.9
Olefins Benzene
8.9
11.4
6.2
2.9
7.0
8.0
9.7
5.0
5.8
4.7
11.9
5.8
10.3
5.2
4.0
3.5
6.6
6.0
11.3
4.9
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.0
2.1
4.0
3.5
6.5
5.6
8.5
7.2
6.4
6.0
10.5
11.3
8.1
11.2
9.9
14.1
11.0
4.8
8.3
7.7
7.6
4.4
7.3
7.3
7.8
7.1
0.87
0.77
0.93
0.80
1.33
0.94
0.78
0.67
1.81
1.65
0.59
0.53
0.65
0.62
0.80
0.57
1.32
0.96
0.72
0.89
2.17
1.81
2.17
1.81
0.80
0.52
0.80
0.57
1.64
1.40
1.75
1.14
1.33
1.12
0.84
0.81
0.79
0.82
1.03
0.73
0.67
0.66
1.24
1.04
1.02
0.97
1.32
1.46
1.48
1.21
Sulfur
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
E200 %
38.1
50.8
51.2
60.1
51.3
61.7
48.5
56.5
60.6
61.9
49.9
58.1
51.1
56.5
50.0
56.3
46.2
59.8
45.0
52.5
45.2
55.4
45.2
55.4
50.0
54.4
50.0
56.3
48.0
53.3
46.4
71.7
46.6
55.6
40.0
50.1
41.5
50.1
44.4
51.8
50.8
59.6
46.5
53.6
45.6
59.9
50.2
57.2
42.7
46.8
E300% MTBE% ETBE % EtOH % TAME % Oxygen
80.2
82.7
82.7
87.3
83.5
88.1
82.5
86.4
85.1
89.1
83.8
88.0
84.1
87.6
92.0
88.6
81.8
87.2
79.6
84.7
82.8
84.2
82.8
84.2
92.0
90.8
92.0
88.6
85.0
84.6
84.0
85.2
82.2
85.0
78.5
82.3
79.8
82.7
81.1
83.3
83.2
89.7
80.7
82.6
81.9
91.1
81.3
83.1
82.0
83.7
1.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.2
10.6
0.0
0.0
11.2
14.6
11.8
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.6
3.4
0.6
11.2
10.6
1.7
0.6
9.5
10.1
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.7
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
9.6
8.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
6.1
10.2
0.0
10.2
0.0
6.1
0.0
2.9
0.0
2.9
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.4
3.5
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
5.8
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.30
0.10
2.10
3.70
0.00
2.90
2.00
1.90
3.30
2.80
2.00
2.70
2.10
2.00
2.10
3.50
0.00
3.50
2.10
2.10
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
0.20
0.10
0.40
3.60
1.20
0.70
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.60
0.10
2.00
1.90
1.30
0.50
1.70
1.80
2.20
0.80
0.10
0.00

-------