SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
&EPA
SOUTHERN RESEARCH
Legendary Discoveries. Leading Innovation.
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: Vehicle Fuel Additive
APPLICATION: Gasoline Passenger Vehicles
TECHNOLOGY NAME: TEA Fuel Additive
COMPANY: Taconic Energy, Inc.
LOCATION: Saratoga Springs, NY
WEB ADDRESS: http://www.taconicenergy.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA-ORD) operates
the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to facilitate the deployment of innovative
technologies through performance verification and information dissemination. The goal of ETV is to
further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and innovative
environmental technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed
data on technology performance to those involved in the purchase, design, distribution, financing,
permitting, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups that
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters, and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of technologies by developing test
plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests, collecting
and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance
with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are
generated and that the results are defensible.
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center), operated by Southern Research Institute
(Southern), is one of six verification organizations operating under the ETV program. One sector of
significant interest to GHG Center stakeholders is transportation - particularly technologies that result in
S-l
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
fuel economy improvements. laconic Energy (laconic) has developed the TEA fuel additive for gasoline
passenger vehicles and requested that the GHG Center independently verify its performance. The GHG
Center verified the fuel economy performance attributable to the TEA additive at the Transportation
Research Center (TRC) in East Liberty Ohio in October 2010.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Taconic Energy has registered with the EPA three products within the TEA additive technology family in
accordance with the regulations found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 79 of the Federal
Register. Gasoline containing any of these registered materials retains their EPA baseline fuel
designation. The additive family TEA-037, 037E, and 037M differ in the types and amounts of solvent
systems. The active ingredient of this technology serves primarily as a friction modifier ameliorating the
in-cylinder friction losses in a gasoline engine.
The following technology information is provided by Taconic and does not represent verified
information. Taconic Energy has completed development and rigorous testing of this active ingredient
in a variety of vehicles. According to Taconic, the additive typically improves fuel economy in passenger
vehicles by 1-5% and provides associated emission reductions. Taconic claims that the additive has been
shown to have an almost immediate effect on fuel economy with no required break-in period, a slight
increase in improvement over time, and impacts of the additive are not immediately eliminated when
the additive is removed. There is a carryover effect that requires accumulation of significant mileage to
return to the original equipment condition. The physical properties of the three products within the TEA
additive technology family are governed by the amount and type of solvent used in formulation.
VERIFICATION DESCRIPTION
Details on the verification test design, measurement test procedures, and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures are contained in two related documents. Technology and site specific
information can be found in the document titled Test and Quality Assurance Plan (TQAP) - Taconic
Energy, Inc. TEA Fuel Additive. The TQAP describes the system under test, project participants, site
specific instrumentation and measurements, and verification specific QA/QC goals. The TQAP was
reviewed and revised based on comments received from peer and stakeholder reviews, and the EPA
Quality Assurance Team. The TQAP meets the requirements of the GHG Center's Quality Management
Plan (QMP) and satisfies ETV QMP requirements.
The primary performance parameter for this technology was the fuel economy change (A or "delta") due
to TEA additive use. The GHG Center performed a series of controlled dynamometer tests on a
representative vehicle (2008 Chrysler Town and Country passenger van). Once the fuel economy change
was established, a percentage fuel savings was determined relative to the reference fuel. The test plan
was designed to evaluate the immediate effect of the additive by comparing a set of baseline and
candidate test runs occurring over a very short test period. Each fuel economy test run conformed to
the widely accepted Highway Fuel Economy Test (HwFET) and the New York City Cycle Test (NYCC).
All tests were conducted on a chassis dynamometer at the laboratories of TRC. GHG Center personnel
ensured that the test facility equipment specification and calibrations conformed to the method criteria
during all tests. Emissions and fuel consumption were measured over the duty cycle gravimetrically and
also by monitoring the tailpipe exhaust emissions. The vehicle tests also quantified pollutant and
greenhouse gas emissions (CO, CO2, NOX, and THC) as secondary verification parameters. Testing was
conducted during the period of October 26 through 28, 2010 with six replicate test runs conducted at
each test condition.
S-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
Quality assurance (QA) oversight of the verification testing was provided following specifications in the
ETV QMP. The GHG Center's QA manager conducted an internal technical systems audit (an audit of the
testing and measurement systems used by TRC) and an audit of data quality on the data generated
during this verification and a review of this report. Data review and validation was conducted at three
levels including the field team leader, the project manager, and the QA manager.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
Results of the verification testing for fuel economy using baseline and additized fuels and the HwFET
vehicle duty cycle are summarized in Table S-l. The table summarizes test results obtained using both
the carbon balance and gravimetric analyses for each fuel, and summarizes the statistical delta analysis
comparing results from the baseline and additized fuels tests. Due to unfavorable results of the first set
of additized fuel tests on the HwFET cycle, the verification testing was modified to deviate from the
planned sequence. Specifically, the vendor requested that the analysts run the same sequence of HwFET
tests on a second lot of additized fuel before moving on with further NYCC duty cycle testing. When
results of the second lot of additized fuel confirmed results of the first, further testing of additized fuel
(on the NYCC duty cycle) was cancelled. The rationale for this decision was that demonstrating a
statistically significant delta would be even more difficult on the NYCC duty cycle where baseline fuel
economy was 8.5 mpg less than it was on the HwFET cycle. Therefore the testing was aborted to
minimize unnecessary vendor testing costs and no further testing was conducted.
Table S-l. Statistical Analysis of Test Results (Delta)
Statistical Parameter
Average Fuel Economy (mpg)
Difference from Baseline (mpg)
Difference from Baseline (%)
'test
F, 0.05, DF
Equal Variance?
Pooled Standard Deviation - Sp
ttest
DF
T, 0.05, DF
Statistical Significance?
+ Confidence Interval
Confidence Interval of Mean Fuel
Economy Change (%)
Additized Fuel - Lot 1
Carbon
Balance
32.03
0.20
0.62
4.00
5.05
Yes
0.16
2.12
10.0
2.23
No
0.21
105.0
Gravimetric
31.06
0.09
0.29
4.61
5.05
Yes
0.15
1.04
10.0
2.23
No
0.20
214.7
Additized Fuel - Lot 2
Carbon
Balance
31.88
0.05
0.26
1.66
5.05
Yes
0.18
0.47
10.0
2.23
No
0.24
475.6
Gravimetric
31.14
-0.03
-0.09
1.25
5.05
Yes
0.18
-0.27
10.0
2.23
No
0.24
-815.3
Results of the analysis show that there was no statistically significant change in vehicle fuel economy
between the baseline and additized fuels on the HwFET duty cycle. As a secondary verification
parameter, engine emissions of pollutant and greenhouse gases (CO, CO2, NOX, and THC) were also
determined during each test. Table S-2 summarizes the average emission rates for each pollutant under
each HwFET test series. Emissions of NOx, THC, and NMHC were very low for all test periods. Although
S-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-49-Final
April 2013
statistical analyses were not performed on the CO and CO2 emissions, the additive did not appear to
have a measureable impact on engine emissions.
Table S-2. Summary of Engine Emissions
Pollutant
NOx
THC
NMHC
CO
C02
Average Measured Emission Rate (grams/mile)
Baseline Fuel
0.018
0.004
0.001
0.207
276
Additized Fuel - Lot 1
0.021
0.007
0.005
0.188
275
Additized Fuel
-Lot 2
0.023
0.008
0.005
0.227
276
Signed by Cynthia Sonich-Mullin
(6/10/2013)
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Signed by Tim Hansen
(4/25/2013)
Tim Hansen
Director
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Notice: GHG Center verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. The EPA and Southern Research
Institute make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that
a technology will always operate at the levels verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any
and all applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply
endorsement or recommendation.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
S-4
------- |