Characterization of Emissions from Malfunctioning Vehicles Fueled with Oxygenated Gasotine-
Ethanol (E-10) Fuel-Part II
Fred Stump, Silvestre Tejada, and David Dropkin
National Exposure Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Colleen Loomis and Christy Pack
Clean Air Vehicle Technology Center, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

-------
ABSTRACT
A 1993 Ford Taurus and a 1995 Chevrolet Achieva were tested using three different fuels:
(1) a winter grade (E-10) fuel containing 10% (vol.) 200 proof ethanol, (2) a winter grade (WG)
fuel without any oxygen containing compounds, and (3) a summer grade (SG) fuel without
oxygenates. Vehicle emissions were characterized at test temperatures of 75 ( SG fuet only), 20,
0, and -20 °F. The vehicles were tested under a mode in which the vehicles were tuned to
manufacturers specifications (NM mode) and under two simulated malfunction modes: 1) the
oxygen (02 mode) sensor was disconnected and 2) the exhaust gas recirculating valve (EGR
mode) was disconnected and plugged. The malfunction modes were not tested simultaneously.
The vehicles were tested on the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) of the Federal
Test Procedure (FTP). Four IM240 test cycles were run after each of the UDDS tests and the
exhaust particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), from the four IM240 driving cycles were collected
on single filters. The gaseous emissions were collected and analyzed for total hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, speciated (individual) hydrocarbons, speciated (individual)
aldehydes, ethanol, methanol, 2-propanol, methyltertiaiybutyl (MTBE) ether, and
ethyltertiarybutyl (ETBE) ether.
Hydrocarbon emissions generally increased as test temperature decreased for both
vehicles, fuels, and test modes. The E-10 fuel reduced some emissions and increased others,
while disconnecting the 02 sensor increased emissions over the other two modes. The trend for
carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions showed a general increase in emission rates as
the testing temperature decreased. When the 02 sensor was disabled, the trend showed
increasing carbon monoxide emissions and when the EGR valve was disabled it was observed that
the oxides of nitrogen emissions generally increased.
The emissions of the toxic compounds benzene and 1,3-butadiene tended to increase as
the testing temperature decreased. Disconnecting the 02 sensor generally increased the emissions
of these toxic compounds when compared with the NM mode emissions. The E-10 fuel generally
reduced both benzene and 1,3-butadiene emissions from both vehicles. The measured emissions
of formaldehyde and acctaldchydc from the test vehicles show a general increase in emissions as
test temperature decreased with both the base and E-10 fuels.
The PM2.5 and PM10 particulate emission rates were comparable. The particulate
emissions from both vehicles followed the HC emission trend and increased as the test
temperature decreased. The E-10 fuel reduced particulate emissions from the Taurus at all test
conditions with the exception of when testing at 20 °F in the EGR mode but the effect of the E-
10 fuel on Achieva PM2.5 were not well defined. The Taurus emitted more particulate matter
than the Achieva at all test conditions except when tested in the NM mode with SG fuel. Both
vehicles emitted more particulate matter when the 02 sensor was disconnected.

-------
INTRODUCTION
Motor vehicles emit large quantities of hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and
oxides of nitrogen (NOx). These emissions participitate in the atmospheric photochemical
processes to form ozone and other oxidants. Motor vehicles also emit toxic compounds such as
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) all
of which are of major health concern. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment specify a reduction in
these toxic emissions.1 This study characterized the emissions from two recent model light duty
gasoline powered vehicles tested at ambient temperatures of 75, 20, 0, and -20 °F. The test
vehicles were operated on a commercially available winter grade fuel (with and without ethanol)
and a commercially available summer grade fuel; (1) the winter grade fuel contained 10% (vol.)
200 proof ethanol (E-10), (2) the winter grade fuel without any oxygenates, and (3) the summer
grade fuel without any oxygen containing compounds. In addition, the two vehicle were tested,
using the different fuels at different temperatures when 1) the 02 sensor was disconnected and 2)
when the EGR valve was disconnected and plugged (malfunction modes).
Particulate emissions are becoming of major concern due to their adverse affects on
materials, visibility reduction, atmospheric reactivity, and human health. Recent epidemiological
studies have indicated health concerns for one particulate matter emissions with an aerodynamic
diameter of 10 or less.2,3 In this study, individual PM2.5 and PM10 filters were taken from
each of the UDDS tests (duplicate tests at each condition). After the completion of each UDDS
test, the particulate emissions from four IM240 driving cycles were collected on individual PM2.5
and PM10 filters. Currently there is little information regarding particulate emission rates from
recent model in-use light-duty gasoline vehicles 4 and very few studies have been done on vehicles
tested at malfunction conditions at various ambient temperatures.
3

-------
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND MATERIALS
The test fuels, vehicles, facilities, and procedures are described in this section.
Test Fuels
The fuels used in this study were a summer grade fuel, a winter grade fuel containing no
ethanol and the winter grade fuel splash blended with ethanol to contain 10 % ethanol by volume
(E-10). These fuels were purchased locally and are representative of the fuel in-use. The
characteristics of the test fuels are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of test fuels."
Fuel Property
Summer
Winter
Wintcr-E-1Q
Specific gravity,
g/cm3
0.75
0.73
0.74
RVPa
6.87
12.15
12.62
Distillation, °F



IBP
102.00
84.20
83.48
10%
133.00
104.00
107.60
50%
219.00
189.50
153.50
90%
351.00
338.00
334.40
End Point
421.00
411.80
415.40
Paraffins, %
45.43
54.53
48.69
Olefins, %
14.08
21,02
18.77
Aromatics, %
. 40.23
23.99
21.43
Benzene, %
1.23
1.15
1.03
Ethanol, %
0.00
0.00
10.00
a Reid vapor pressure.
4

-------
Test Schedule/Conditions
A single UDDS test was performed on each vehicle at 75 °F. Duplicate tests, on each
vehicle, were performed at each of the three lower test temperatures and test conditions (Table 2).
The vehicles were conditioned with each test fuel at each test condition before actually testing the
vehicle for data collection.
Table 2. Test Schedule/Conditions for 1995 Chevrolet Achieva and 1993 Ford Taurus vehicles.
Description
Summer Test Conditions
Winter Test Conditions
Driving Cycles:
UDDS + 4 lM240's
UDDS + 4 IM240's
Test Temperatures:
75 °F
20, 0, -20 °F
Duplicate Runs:
Single test only
Duplicate runs
Fuel Type:
Summer Fuel
Winter Fuel
Ethanol:
No Ethanol
With/Without Ethanol
Malfunction Modes:
02 and EGR
02 and EGR
Emissions Measured:
Gaseous Emissions
Particles Measured
PM2.5 and PM10
Gaseous Emissions
Particles Measured
PM2.5 and PM10
Test Vehicles
The vehicles used in this study were on-loan and are described in Table 2a.
Table 2a, Vehicles tested.3
Vehicle
Cyl.
Vehicle
Displaced
Fuel
Emission


Miles
Liters
System
System 3
1995 Chevrolet Achieva
6
67297
3.1
SFI
EGR/TWC/02S
1993 Ford Taurus
6
113497
3.0
SFI
EGR/TWC/02S
a EGR=Exhaust Gas Recirculation
TWC- Three Way Catalyst
02S-0xygen Sensor
SFI~ Sequential Fuel Injection
5

-------
Test Facilities
Vehicle road simulations were conducted on a Horiba Model CDC800/DMA915
computerized DC electric chassis dynamometer. The dynamometer was housed in a temperature
controlled chamber capable of maintaining vehicle test temperatures from -20 to 110 °F (+/- 1%
°F), Vehicle emissions were transferred from the vehicle tailpipe to a constant volume sampling
(CVS) system through a 7.62-cm i.d. (3 inch) section of flexible stainless steel tubing heated to
230 °F. The CVS system, which dilutes the tailpipe emissions with charcoal-filtered room air, has
been described previously.5 A heater has been added behind the dilution air filter to raise the
tunnel dilution air temperature to 150 °F to prevent formaldehyde and other compound losses in
the system.6
Test Procedures
Testing was conducted as described in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 407
using the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP). The
Inspection/Maintenance (IM240) test was designed to detect malfunctioning vehicles with
advanced (computer-controlled) emission systems. The test was patterned after the first two
major accelerations and decelerations of the FTP and has a maximum speed of 56.7 miles per hour
and test duration of 240 seconds. At the beginning of the test week, the vehicle to be tested was
pre-conditioned by driving the vehicle over the UDDS cycle with the test fuel, in the test mode,
and at the test temperature to be used for data collection. The daily UDDS test served (as
duplicates were run at all temperatures except 75 °F) as the pre-conditioning for the following
days test. During the test week when the vehicle, fuel, temperature, or mode were to be changed,
the vehicle would be conditioned in the afternoon after the daily test was over, by running a LA-4
cycle (phase one and phase two of the UDDS cycle) at the test conditions to be used the
following day. After each UDDS test cycle was run, then four IM240s were run and the PM2.5
and PM10 particles and the gaseous emissions were collected. All four IM240 cycle particulate
emissions were collected on single filters using both PM2.5 and PM10 Cyclones (University
Research Glassware, Carrboro. NC) system. Vehicle emissions were measured at 75, 20, 0, and
-20 *F for each of the UDDS driving cycles and IM240 cycles. The gaseous regulated emissions
and particle data shown for the IM240 cycles are an average of the four tests.
An integrated emissions sample was collected from the CVS system in a Tedlar bag for
each UDDS test phase, which included an initial 124 second sample. Also, a background air
sample was taken after the charcoal dilution air filter. The regulated emissions (THC, CO, and
NOx) were measured with instruments connected to the CVS system and used for real-time
sampling during the testing.
Vehicle emissions characterized were speciated (individual) hydrocarbons (more than 250
compounds), speciated aldehydes (12 compounds), regulated gaseous emissions, alcohols, and
ethers. Identification or structural formulas for more than 95% of the emitted HCs have been
6

-------
determined by established gas chromatographie-mass spectrometric (GC-MS) techniques.
Supplementary regulated, unregulated, speciated HCs, speciated aldehydes, ethanol, methanol,
2-propanol, methyltertiarybutyl (MTBE) ether, and ethyltertiarybutyl (ETBE) ether data are
available from the authors.
Tailpipe Emissions
The vehicle UDDS bag samples were analyzed for speciated hydrocarbons, and speciated
alcohols and ethers by gas chromatography.8 Data were manually transferred to a PC where peak
assignments were made and then the data were finally transferred to the Archived Mobile Source
Emissions Data Base (AME) . The individual compounds were identified using a Lotus 1-2-3
program developed for identifying compounds in complex chromatograms.9 The concentrations
of the regulated emissions were reported as g/mi and mg/mi for individual HCs, aldehydes, and
alcohols and ethers.
Aldehyde emissions were sampled from the CVS system through a heated (212 °F)
stainless steel line and collected on silica gel cartridges coated with acidified 2,4-
dinitrophenylhydrazine. A mass flow controller was used to regulate the sampling rate of the
aldehydes in the exhaust stream at 1 L/tnin. The aldehydes were analyzed by previous described
liquid chromatographic procedures.10
7

-------
Table 3. Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at 75 °F.
Vehicle
Achieva
Taurus
Mode
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
Fuel
Summer Grade
Summer Grade
THC, g/mi
0.37
4.45
0.17
0.35
0.41
0.34
CO, g/mi
4.61
34.14
3.12
2.08
4.74
4.04
NOx, g/mi
0.71
0.85
2.02
0.76
0.79
0.73
Ethanol, mg/mi
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Formaldehyde, mg/mi
3.80
4.18
2.74
13.83
5.92
6.78
Acetaldehyde, mg/mi
1.73
3.82
1.45
0.86
1.54
1.12
Total Aldehydes, mg/mi
8.29
17.10
5.88
16.65
9.95
10.27
Benzene, mg/mi
13.80
182.06
8.03
8.34
11.46
8.56
1,3-Butadiene, mg/mi
1.60
27.47
1.10
1.11
1.52
1.16
PM2.5, mg/mi
2.80
5.80
1.30
0.70
9.00
11.80
PM10, mg/mi
1.00
7.60
2.20
<0.01
8.80
8.50
8

-------
Table 4. Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at 20°F.
Vehicle
Achieva
Taurus
Mode
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
Fuel
Basef
E-10*
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
THC, g/mi
0.76
1.32
5.35
5.06
0.65
0.74
1.23
1.09
4.60
3.63
1.04
1.02
CO, g/mi
9.20
10.60
140.28
67.63
8.48
7.96
12.30
9.62
81.40
49.04
10.67
8.99
NOx, g/mi
0.98
1.05
0.60
0.22
1.55
1.32
0.76
0.58
0.96
0.65
0.86
0.78
Ethanol, mg/mi
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
58.82
0.29
0.14
0.61
7.09
0.85
9.96
<0.01
38.50
Formaldehyde, mg/mi
2.47
7.27
35.29
17.27
19.62
4.42
6.04
10.91
25.88
11.61
4.56
4.90
Acetaldehyde, mg/mi
1.98
10.41
22.31
98.10
2.58
7.69
2.86
9.95
24.28
72.44
2.52
9.84
Total Aldehydes,
mg/mi
7.75
22.16
102.09
136.66
7.17
15.92
14.31
26.36
92.56
105.59
12.70
19.99
Benzene, mg/mi
14.89
45.44
143.12
166.65
18.50
20.22
40.57
29.33
160.37
132.03
31.34
30.45
1,3-Butadiene, mg/mi
1.71
5.41
26.61
24.68
2.63
3.00
6.51
4.58
40.24
25.31
5.35
5.04
PM2.5, mg/mi
11.90
12.85
23.80
18.90
9.60
NAa
41.25
28.80
58.80
33.40
23.40
27.00
PM10, mg/mi
11.60
12.60
28.00
20.90
11.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
f Winter grade, without ethanol
f Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
9

-------
Table 5. Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at 0°F.
Vehicle
Achieva
Taurus
Mode
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
Fuel
Basef
E-10 1
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
THC, g/mi
1.76
3.35
17.40
11.03
1.44
1.33
2.16
1.82
6.81
4.99
1.90
1.80
CO, g/mi
16.95
28.20
133.67
146.49
16.55
14.40
18.58
14.98
113.77
79.05
16.18
15.51
NOx, g/mi
1.10
0.87
0.15
0.25
1.60
1.61
0.82
0.70
0.87
0.91
1.04
0.81
Ethanol, mg/mi
0.30
254.75
0.45
123.92
0.32
0.53
<0.01
35.41
1.03
37.47
0.31
81.86
Formaldehyde, mg/mi
3.00
12.30
13.41
49.64
2.90
5.53
6.20
5.34
29.75
19.66
5.97
6.34
Acetaldehyde, mg/mi
2.35
31.04
19.67
247.96
2.78
12.63
3.48
15.38
20.68
101.50
3.76
12.99
Total Aldehydes,
mg/mi
11.66
54.31
76.58
347.17
11.25
23.45
17.63
27.91
91.00
159.53
18.15
27.81
Benzene, mg/mi
52.31
99.53
510.02
126.42
41.45
41.30
72.51
67.71
207.85
174.95
63.95
60.72
1,3-Butadiene, mg/mi
5.40
.10.11
77.68
20.42
4.71
3.92
10.81
10.61
37.27
39.05
10.67
9.45
PM2.5, mg/mi
40.00
40.90
88.00
54.60
25.00
35.00
83.60
71.30
121.05
78.90
75.50
68.80
PM10, mg/mi
38.20
42.95
90.00
59.00
20.40
35.60
NAa
NA
115.75
NA
NA
NA
f Winter grade, without ethanol
1 Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
10

-------
Table 6. Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at -20°F.
Vehicle
Achieva
Taurus
Mode
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
Fuel
Basef
E-10*
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
THC, g/mi
3.55
2.85
12.31
4.01
2.61
2.41
3.79
3.10
10.42
6.92
3.81
2.99
CO, g/mi
25.65
21.06
154.34
139.34
21.14
18.58
23.40
29.40
163.54
94.82
21.72
26.34
NOx, g/mi
1.19
1.18
0.55
1.09
1.63
1.87
0.80
0.70
0.76
1.05
1.09
0.84
Ethanol, mg/mi
1.32
35.91
1.00
29.70
1.48
11.91
0.77
64.07
0.39
89.50
0.14
47.32
Formaldehyde, mg/mi
9.05
6.97
30.09
9.05
6.57
6.80
8.19
13.20
36.09
28.22
6.01
10.57
Acetaldehyde, mg/mi
4.32
23.64
33.84
38.16
2.98
18.96
4.30
25.21
28.37
123.27
4.38
24.50
Total Aldehydes,
mg/mi
24.56
41.12
118.49
61.78
17.57
34.43
23.82
52.68
121.19
201.17
21.48
47.32
Benzene, mg/mi
115.59
96.71
357.37
139.34
83.64
67.94
116.79
109.05
303.94
232.39
112.66
115.04
1,3-Butadiene, mg/mi
13.64
9.93
74.82
13.02
12.15
7.07
12.73
16.23
47.59
51.08
15.46
16.49
PM2.5, mg/mi
80.20
81.45
121.15
80.70
41.65
78.40
150.85
146.20
194.50
169.20
141.47
119.90
PM10, mg/mi
87.55
87.55
124.70
87.60
46.05
84.95
144.30
NAa
201.30
NA
138.07
NA
f Winter grade, without ethanol
* Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
11

-------
Table 7. IM240 vehicle tailpipe emissions rates.
Vehicle
Achieva
Taurus
Mode
No
Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR
Disconnected
Fuel
Summer Grade
Summer Grade
Temperature
75°F
THC, g/m
0.09
0.20
0.07
0.18
0.28
0.15
CO, g/mi
2.40
4.63
2.04
1.34
2.13
1.25
NOx, g/mi
0.82
1.56
2.80
0.92
1.48
0.89
PM2.5, mg/mi
<0.01
1.40
<0.01
0.70
15.50
17.60
PM10, mg/mi
2.10
0.20
6.10
0.50
12.90
15.30
12

-------
Table 7a. IM240 vehicle tailpipe emissions rates.
Vehicle
Achieva
Taurus
Mode
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR Disconnected
No Malfunction
02 Sensor
Disconnected
EGR Disconnected
Fuel
Base1
E-10'
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Base
E-10
Temperature
20°F
THC, g/m
0.24
1.44
4.34
5.31
0.13
0.17
0.40
0.19
2.98
2.34
0.18
0.16
CO, g/mi
4.36
11.26
133.28
85.18
4.16
3.52
3.38
1.70
62.46
36.56
1.74
1.49
NOx, g/mi
0.60
0.70
0.28
0.20
2.33
2.15
1.24
0.66
1.12
0.74
1.13
0.96
PM2.5, mg/mi
3.20
5.95
9.15
4.20
7.15
NAa
5.60
2.40
7.00
5.50
2.50
5.20
PM10, mg/mi
3.25
5.40
7.30
4.70
6.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


n
Temperature
0.92
0°F
THC, g/m
0.18
1.28
10.62
5.14
0.14
0.14
0.24
0.20
3.56
2.62
0.20
0.16
CO, g/mi
4.22
11.96
98.00
100.79
3.76
3.12
2.55
2.17
87.72
46.36
2.05
1.68
NOx, g/mi
0.76
0.82
0.12
0.19
2.49
2.22
0.98
0.76
1.07
1.00
1.14
0.96
PM2.5, mg/mi
8.20
1.85
28.73
2.30
4.55
4.35
8.00
9.60
9.90
10.00
8.40
5.60
PM10, mg/mi
4.70
4.70
26.63
6.30
4.25
6.35
6.00
NA
11.05
NA
7.20
NA

Temperature
-20°F
THC, g/m
2.24
0.60
17.60
1.54
0.28
0.16
0.25
0.35
4.00
3.06
0.25
0.30
CO, g/mi
18.41
7.32
186.35
35.22
4.88
2.98
2.61
5.94
98.48
55.46
1.76
4.13
NOx, g/mi
0.79
0.88
0.06 .
0.44
2.38
2.66
0.99
0.88
1.22
1.34
1.14
1.05
PM2.5, mg/mi
7.65
3.34
85.00
1.65
6.65
5.05
8.10
13.70
12.00
14.90
11.20
13.40
PM10, mg/mi
10.45
5.05
84.40
1.65
3.75
7.50
6.35
NA
13.25
NA
8.17
NA
f Winter grade, without ethanol
* Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
13

-------
Results and Discussion
Vehicle tests were performed in duplicate for all temperatures except at 75 °F. as only a
single test with summer grade fuel was run. The data were not statistically evaluated since only
single and duplicate tests were made and the comparisons should be viewed from this perspective.
The THC emission results reported were the values determined by the analytical bench and total
hydrocarbon analyzer (using the flame ionization detector) rather than a summation of the
individual hydrocarbons as determined by gas chromatographic analysis. Tables 3-6 contain the
UDDS tailpipe regulated, toxic, and particulate emission data and Tables 7 and 7a contain the
1M240 tailpipe gas phase and particulate emission data. Also, detailed hydrocarbon and aldehyde
and ketone tables are included showing the compounds analyzed for from each bag sample taken
from the FTP test. Figures 1 through 60 show the relation of compound emission rates for the
vehicles, fuels, test cycles, and test modes at the program test temperatures. Each point of the
plots displayed is an average of the vehicle tests at each test temperature. Figures 61 through 66
are regression plots (individual vehicle tests) showing the relationship of PM2.5 vs PM10 and
THC vs PM2.5 emissions. Also, included are plots of THC vs ethanol and methanol emissions
with both fuels.
Regulated Emissions
Total Hydrocarbons-UDDS Cycle. Hydrocarbon emissions (Figures 1-6) generally increased as
test temperature decreased for both vehicles, fuels, and test modes. The vehicle's engine air/fuel
mixture is controlled by a feedback loop via the oxygen sensor and when the sensor was
disconnected, the vehicle operated in a slightly rich fuel condition throughout the test cycle. The
Taurus emitted more HCs than the achieva when tested with the base fuel, NM mode, and the
lower test temperatures (1.23 vs 0.76 g/mi at 20 UF. 2.16 vs 1.76 g/mi at 0 °F, and 3.79 vs 3.55
g/mi at -20 °F) but emissions were similar at 75 °F. Disconnecting the EGR reduced the HC
emissions (compared to the NM modes emissions) from the Achieva (base fuel) and generally
from the Taurus, under the NM mode, using the base fuel. Disconnecting the 02 sensor on the
Taurus resulted in an increase of emissions from 0.35 to 0.41 g/mi (SG fuel at 75 °F) and a
maximum increase of from 3.79 to 10.42 g/mi (base fuel at -20 °F). The Achieva emissions, with
the 02 disconnected increased from 0.37 to 4.45 g/mi (SG fuel 75 °F) to a maximum increase of
from 1.76 to 17.40 g/mi (base fuel at 0 °F). The H-10 fuel reduced emissions from the Taurus
from 1.23 to 1.09 g/mi at 20°F, 2.16 to 1.82 g/mi at 0 °F, and 3.79 to 3.10 g/mi at -20 °F. The
E-10 fuel increased emissions from the Achieva at both 20 (0.76 to 1.32 g/mi) and 0 °F (1.76 to
3.35 g/mi) but reduced emissions at -20 °F (3.55 to 2.85 g/mi).
Total Hydrocarbons-IM240 Cycle. The hydrocarbon emissions (Figures 7-12) in general showed
no trend as the test temperature decreased from 20 to -20 °F with base fuel in NM mode. When
operating the Taurus on E-10 fuel the emissions increased from 0.19 to 0,35 g/mi but the
emissions from the Achieva decreased from 1.44 to 0.60 g/mi as the test temperature decreased
from 20 to -20 °F. Disconnecting the oxygen sensor on the Achieva caused the emissions to
increase from 4.34 to 17.60 g/mi with base fuel and decrease from 5.31 to 1.54 g/mi with E-10
14

-------
fuel as test temperature decreased from 20 to -20 °F. Disconnecting the oxygen sensor on the
Taurus caused the emissions to increase from 2.98 to 4,00 g/mi with base fuel and from 2,34 to
3.06 g/mi with the E-10 fuel (20 to -20 °F). Disconnecting the EGR on both vehicles generally
did not substantially result in significant emission changes as the test temperatures decreased. The
E-10 fuel did not produce consistent emission trends as the test temperatures decreased. Achieva
emissions ranged from 0.13 g/mi at 20 °F (EGR mode with base fuel) to a high of 17.60 g/mi at -
20 °F (02 mode with base fuel) and the Taurus emissions ranged from 0.16 g/mi at both 20 and 0
°F (EGR mode with E-10 fuel) to a high of 4.00 g/mi at -20 °F (02 mode with base fuel) .
Generally, in the 02 mode when both vehicles were at maximum emission levels the E-10 fuel
reduced emissions.
Carbon Monoxide-HDDS Cycle. Carbon monoxide emissions (Figures 13-18) increased as the
test temperature decreased with the Taurus when tested with all modes and with both fuels. In
the NM mode the emissions from the Taurus were 2.08 g/mi (75 °F, SG fuel) and 23.40 g/mi at -
20 °F with base fuel and 29.40 g/mi at the same temperature with E-10 fuel. The emissions from
the Achieva generally increased as test temperatures decreased in all modes and with both fuels.
In the NM mode the emissions from the Achieva were 4.61 g/mi (75 °F« SG fuel) and 25.65 g/mi
at -20 °F with base fuel and 28.20 g/mi at 0 °F with the E-10 fuel. Again, testing in the mode in
which the oxygen sensor was disconnected (allowing the vehicle to operate slightly rich), resulted
in the greatest CO emissions. CO emissions ranged from a low of 3.12 g/mi, at 75 °F, for the
Achieva (EGR disconnected), to a high of 154,34 g/mi at -20 °F (02 sensor disconnected), and
for the Taurus a low of 2.08 g/mi, at 75 °F (NM mode), to a high of 163.54 g/mi at -20 °F (02
disconnected). The E-10 fuel lowered emissions from the Taurus at both 20 and 0 °F at all test
modes but increased emissions at -20 °F at both NM and EGR test modes (23.40 to 29.40 g/mi
and 21.72 to 26.34 g/mi, respectively). The E-10 fuel lowered emissions from the Achieva at -20
°F at all test modes and at 20 °F at the 02 and EGR test modes but emissions were increased at
20 DF (9.20 to 10.60 g/mi) NM test mode and at 0 °F in both the NM and 02 test modes (16.95
to 28.20 g/mi and 133.67 to 146.49 g/mi, respectively).
Carbon Monoxide-IM240 Cycle. The carbon monoxide emissions (Figures 19-24) from the
Achieva generally increased with base fuel and decreased with the E-10 fuel (all modes) as test
temperatures decreased. Emissions from the Taurus generally increased with both fuels and all
modes as test temperatures decreased. As expected disconnecting the oxygen sensor produced
more CO emissions. The Achieva was generally the greater emitter. Emissions from the Achieva
ranged from 2.04 g/mi (EGR mode, SG fuel at 75 °F) to a maximum of 186.35 g/mi (02 mode,
base fuel at -20 DF) and from the Taurus ranged from 1.25 g/mi (EGR mode, SG fuel at 75 °F) to
a maximum of 98.48 g/mi (02 mode, base fuel at -20 °F). The E-10 fuel produced a general
reduction in CO emissions from both vehicles when compared to the base fuel CO emissions.
Oxides of Nitrogen-UDDS. Figures 25-30 show vehicle emissions for both vehicles at all test
conditions. The Achieva produced more NOx than the Taurus in the NM mode with all fuels and
at all test temperatures. Disconnecting the EGR generally increased the NOx emissions from the
Achieva and the Taurus as the test temperatures decreased. The Achieva's emissions ranged
from a low of 0.15 g/mi at 75 °F (02 mode with base fuel) to a high of 2.02 g/mi at 75 °F (EGR
15

-------
mode). The Taurus's emissions ranged from a low 0.58 g/mi at 20 °F (NM mode) to a high of
1.09 g/mi at -20 °F (EGR mode).
Oxides of Nitrogen-IM240. Figures 31-36 show vehicle IM240 data for both vehicles at all test
conditions. In the NM mode the E-10 fuel generally increased NOx emissions (compared to base
fuel emissions) from the Achieva but generally decreased the NOx emissions from the Taurus. At
the lower (<75 °F) test temperatures the Taurus NOx emissions were generally greater with base
fuel and the Achieva emissions were generally greater with the E-10 fuel. In general, the E-10
fuel generally increased NOx emissions from the Achieva and generally reduced emissions from
the Taurus.
Toxic Emissions
Benzene. Besides being present in the fuel itself, benzene is emitted from the tailpipe as a result
of its formation during the combustion process involving other fuel components, such as
cyclohexane and the alkylaromatics.1,12 In one study from 2 to 7 % of the benzene was
determined to be the result of the rearrangement of these molecules during combustion.13
Benzene emissions (Figures 37-42) increased as test temperature decreased with one exception
the Achieva when tested with E-10 fuel at -20 °F, in the NM mode where the emissions decreased
from 54.31 (0 °F) to 41.12 mg/mi (-20 °F). A regression plot of HC vs benzene had a R2 of
0.973 and a slope of 28.930 for the both vehicles, all test modes, all fuels, and all test
temperatures. Benzene emissions from the Achieva ranged from a low of 8.03 mg/mi, at 75 °F
(EGR mode), to a high of 510.02 mg/mi at 0 °F (02 mode and base fuel), and for the Taurus a
low of 8.34 mg/mi, at 75 °F (EGR mode) to a high of 303.94 mg/mi at -20 °F (02 mode and
base fuel). The E-10 fuel (NM mode) reduced benzene emissions, as compared to the base fuel,
from the Taurus at 20, 0 and -20 °F (10.57 to 29.33 mg/mi, 72,51 to 67.71 mg/mi, and 116.79
mg/mi respectively) test temperatures. Achieva emissions increased at both 20 and 0 °F but
decreased at -20 °F (14.89 to 45.44 mg/mi, 52.31 to 99.53 mg/mi, and 115.59 to 96.71 mg/mi
respectively).
1,3-Butadiene. 1,3-Butadiene is not a gasoline component but a by-product of the combustion
process. This compound was emitted primarily in the initial 2 minutes of vehicle start-up, when
the air-to-fuel mixture was rich and the vehicle's emission control system was warming up.
Figures 43-48 show the emission rates for both vehicles at all test conditions. In the NM mode
1,3-Butadiene emissions from the Taurus increased and from the Achieva generally increased as
test temperature decreased for both fuels. A regression plot of HC vs 1,3-butadiene had a R2 of
0.875 and a slope of 5.023 for all vehicles, fuels, modes, and test temperatures. The E-10 fuel, in
the NM mode, generally reduced emissions from the Taurus and generally increased those from
the Achieva. The Achieva emissions ranged from a low of 1.10 mg/mi, at 75 °F, (EGR mode) to
16

-------
a high of 77.68 mg/mi, at 0 °F (02 mode with base fuel), and the Taurus emissions ranged from
1.11 mg/mi, at 75 °F (NM mode), to a high of 47.59 mg/mi, at -20 °F (02 mode with base fuel).
The E-10 fuel, in the NM mode, reduced emissions from the Taurus at both 20 and 0 °F but
increased emissions at -20 °F (6.51 to 4.58 mg/mi, 10.81 to 10.61 mg/mi, and 12.73 to 16.23
mg/mi, respectively). The E-10 fuel increased emissions from the Achieva at both 20 and 0 °F
but decreased emissions at -20 °F (1.71 to 5.41 mg/mi, 5.40 to 10.11 mg/mi, and 13.64 to 9.93
mg/mi respectively).
Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde. Formaldehyde (Figures 49-54) and acetaldehyde (Figures 55-
60) were not present in the fuel but are by-products of the incomplete combustion of the fuel.
These two aldehydes are usually the major aldehydes emitted, with formaldehyde the major
emission product A regression plot of HC vs formaldehyde had a R2 of 0.472 and a slope of
2.091 for all vehicles, fuels test modes, and test temperatures indicating little correlation and
further regressions varying vehicles, modes or temperatures showed no correlation improvement.
Regressions (HC vs formaldehyde) with the fuels showed that with base fuel, all vehicles, modes,
and test temperatures there was no improvement in the correlation but with the E-10 fuel the
correlation increased with an R2 of 0.897 and a slope of 4.167, indicating good correlation HC vs
formaldehyde with this fuel. The Achieva formaldehyde emissions ranged from a low of 2.47
mg/mi at 20 °F (NM mode with base fuel), to a high of 30.09 mg/mi at -20 °F (02 mode with
base fuel) and the Taurus formaldehyde emissions ranged from 4.56 mg/mi at 20 °F (EGR mode
with base fuel), to 36.09 mg/mi at -20 °F (02 mode with base fuel). The E-10 fuel (NM mode)
generally increased formaldehyde emissions from both vehicles. A regression plot of HC vs
acetaldehyde had a R2 of 0.218 and a slope of 5.897 for all vehicles, fuels, modes and test
temperatures. Regression analysis of HC vs acetaldehyde data from the E-10 fuel showed an
excellent correlation with an R2 of 0.931 and a slope of 23.275. The Achieva emissions ranged
from 1.45 mg/mi at 75 °F (EGR mode with SG fuel) to a maximum of 33.84 mg/mi at -20 °F (02
mode with base fuel) and the Taurus ranged from 0.86 mg/mi at 75 CF (NM mode with SG fuel)
to a maximum of 28.37 mg/mi at -20 °F (02 mode with base fuel). The E-10 fuel (NM mode)
increased acetaldehyde emissions from both vehicles with the increase ranging 1,98 to 10.41
mg/mi at 20 °F to a maximum increase of 2.35 to 31.04 mg/mi at 0 °F from the Achieva and the
Taurus emissions ranging from 2.86 to 9.95 mg/mi at 20 °F to a maximum of 4.30 to 25.21
mg/mi at -20 °F. The acetaldehyde emissions were greatest when the vehicles were operated in
the 02 mode. Total aldehyde emissions were also greatest when the vehicles were operated in the
02 mode (vehicle running rich).
Particulate Emissions
PM2.5 and PM10 - UDDS Cycle. The particulate emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) from both
vehicles followed the HC and CO trend, and increased as the test temperatures decreased. The
PM2.5 particles emissions were about the same as the PM10 particle emissions (Figure 61)
indicating that gasoline fueled particulate are less than 2.5 um. Figure 62 is a regression plot of
THC vs PM2.5 for both vehicles at all test conditions, showing no correlation at these conditions.
A regression analysis of the Taurus emissions showed some correlation at all test conditions (R2
17

-------
of 0.494) and good correlation when the data was tested with and without the 02 mode in the 02
mode (R2 of 0.833 and 0.932 respectively). The Achieva show little THC vs PM2.5 correlation
as regression analysis was performed at different test modes and fuels. Individual cycle particle
(PNG.5) emissions ranged from a low of 1.30 mg/'mi for the Achieva tested at 75 °F in the EGR
mode on SG to a high of 121.15 mg/mi at -20 °F in the 02 mode on base fuel. The PM2.5
emissions from the Taurus ranged from a low of 0.70 mg/mi at 75 °F in the NM mode on SG fuel
to a high of 194.50 mg/mi at -20 °F in the 02 mode on base fuel. Particulate emissions from the
Achieva were generally increased in the NM and EGR modes but decreased in the 02 mode when
tested with the E-10 fuel. Particulate emissions from the Taurus were decreased when tested in
the NM and 02 modes and generally decreased in the EGR mode when tested on E-10 fuel.
Taurus PM2.5 emissions (excluding 75 °F tests) were from about 1.5 to almost 5 times,
depending on temperature and mode, that of the Achieva. The vehicles produced the most PM2.5
emissions when tested in the 02 mode and operating on base fuel. The E-10 fuel generally
reduced particle emissions from the Taurus (all modes) but the Achieva emissions were not as
well defined.
PM2.5 and PM10 - IM240 Cycle. The particle emissions from the IM240 cycle (excluding SG
fuel) ranged from a low of 1.65 mg/mi for the Achieva tested at -20 °F in the 02 mode with E-
10 fuel, to a high of 85.00 mg/mi from the same vehicle tested at -20 °F in the 02 mode using the
base fuel. The particle emissions, in general, increased as the test temperature decreased with the
most particle emissions generally at -20 °F. The Taurus generally had a higher emission rate than
the Achieva and the E-l 0 fuel did not show any overall emission trends.
Alcohols
In addition to the HCs and aldehydes, the three alcohols, methanol (MeOH), ethanol (EtOH), and
2-propanol are determined from each vehicle test. These compounds are not present in the base
fuel but are combustion products. Regression analysis of THC vs EtOH and THC vs MeOH,
from both vehicles data, showing the influence of test fuel on the emissions are shown in Figures
63-66. Ethanol was added to the base fuel, to prepare the E-10 fuel, and the base fuel did not
contain either methanol or 2-propanol. No regression plots were prepared for the 2-propanol
emissions. Since, the combined vehicles test data did not show any THC vs EtOH correlation
each of the vehicles were then individually regressed. Achieva regression analysis for THC vs
EtOH with base fuel (all modes and test temperatures) shows no correlation (R2 of <0.10 but
some correlation was present with the E-10 fuel (R2 of 0.773). Achieva EtOH emissions ranged
from <0.01 mg/mi (low value at several conditions) to a high of 123.92 mg/mi at 0 °F with E-l 0
fuel in 02 mode. Taurus regression analysis for THC vs EtOH with base fuel (all modes and test
temperatures) shows no correlation with either fuel (R2 of <0.10 with base and R2 of 0.167 with
E-10). Taurus EtOH emissions ranged <0.01 mg/mi (low value at several conditions) to a high
of 113.74 mg/mi at -20 °F with E-10 fuel in 02 mode. Achieva regression analysis for THC vs
MeOH with base fuel had a fair correlation (R2 of 0.697) and a good correlation with E-10 fuel
(R2 of 0.853). Achieva emissions ranged from 0.53 mg/mi at 20 °F with base fuel in the EGR
mode to 275.60 mg/mi at 0 °F with the E-10 fuel in 02 mode. Taurus regression analysis for
18

-------
THC vs MeOH with base and E-10 fuels showed good correlations (R2 of 0.814 and 0.816
respectively), Taurus emissions ranged from 0.01 mg/mi at 75 °F with base fuel in NM mode to
138.84 mg/mi at -20 °F with E-10 fuel in 02 mode. Achieva regression analysis of THC vs 2-
propanol with base fuel showed a good correlation with both base and E10 fuels (R2 of 0.887 and
0.839 respectively). Achieva emissions ranged from <0.01 mg/mi (at several conditions) to 7.62
mg/mi at 0 °F with base fuel in the 02 mode. Taurus regression analysis for THC vs 2-propanol
with both base and E-10 fuels were fair (R2 of 0.576 and 0.706 respectively). Taurus emissions
ranged from 0.01 mg/mi (at several conditions) to 4.41 mg/mi at 0 °F with base fuel in 02 mode.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In reviewing the regulated emissions (HC, CO, and NOx), the toxic emissions (benzene,
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde). and the particulate emissions (PM2.5 and PM10)
data it should be noted that these are emissions from only two vehicles. These test vehicles could
or could not be representative of the on-road fleet. The malfunction conditions that were
introduced are extreme conditions in which the vehicle's oxygen sensor and the EGR valve were
rendered completely inoperable. In actuality, the condition of these simulated malfunctions
(oxygen sensor and EGR valve disconnected) on on-road vehicles could be anywhere in the range
of being completely operable to inoperable. Limited resources restricted our testing to two
vehicles and to duplicate runs (one at 75 °F) at 20, 0 and -20 °F. Also, due to resource
limitations we were able to take only single PM2.5 and PM10 particulate filter from each of the
UDDS test cycles (all three phases combined) rather than individual PM2.5 and PM10 particle
filter from each of the UDDS's three phases.
Hydrocarbons-UDDS cycle - Hydrocarbons generally increased as test temperature decreased and
the most HCs were emitted when the 02 sensor was disconnected. The E-10 fuel reduced
emissions from the Taurus and generally from the Achieva. The Taurus produced the
maximum emissions (10.42 g/mi) at -20 °F with the 02 sensor disconnected. The
Achieva produced the maximum emissions (12.31 g/mi) at -20 °F with the 02 sensor
disconnected. The Achieva was in general the greater emitter.
Hydrocarbons-1M240 cycle - In general, lowering the test temperature and disconnecting the 02
sensor increased the HC emissions. The E-10 fuel generally reduced the HC emissions.
The vehicles produced the maximum emissions, Achieva 17.60 g/mi and Taurus 4.00 g/mi,
at -20 °F (base fuel) when the 02 sensor was disconnected and both vehicles produced
minimum emissions 75 °F when tested on the SG fuel.
Carbon Monoxide-UDDS cycle - There was a general increase in CO emissions as the test
temperature decreased and disabling the 02 sensor resulted in the most CO emissions.
The E-10 fuel generally reduced CO emissions from both vehicles. Both vehicles
produced the most emissions when the 02 sensor was disconnected
19

-------
Carbon Monoxide-IM240 cycle - There was a general increase in CO emissions as the test
temperature decreased and the most CO was emitted when the 02 sensor was
disconnected. The E-10 fuel generally reduced CO emissions from both vehicles.
Oxides of Nitrogen-UDDS cycle - Disconnecting the EGR generally produced greater NOx
emissions from both vehicles as test temperatures decreased. The Achieva was generally
the greater emitter.
Oxides of Nitrogen-IM240 cycle - The Achieva produced the greatest emissions when tested in
the EGR malfunction mode but the Taurus did not indicate any mode sensitivity. In
general, the E-10 fuel increased emissions from the Achieva and reduced emissions from
the Taurus.
Benzene - Benzene emissions generally increased as test temperature decreased. Disconnecting
the 02 sensor produced the highest benzene emission rate. The E-10 fuel generally
reduced benzene emissions from the Taurus but generally increased emissions from the
Achieva. Regression analysis shows good correlation between HCs and benzene with
both vehicles at all test conditions.
1,3-Butadiene - The 1,3-butadiene emissions generally increased, from both vehicles, as the test
temperature decreased. Disconnecting the 02 sensor resulted in greater emissions. The
E-10 fuel generally reduced emissions rates from both vehicles. Regression analysis of
HCs and 1,3-butadiene indicated a good correlation (R2 0.875) for the all test data.
Aldehydes - Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions from both vehicles generally increased as
the test temperatures decreased when testing with the base and the E-10 fuels. Regression
analysis of HCs and formaldehyde showed slight correlation (R2 0.472 for both vehicles)
and a regression of HCs and acetaldehyde showed no correlation (R3 0.218 for both
vehicles)
PM2.5 and PM10 particulate-UDDS cycle - The PM2.5 and PM10 particulate emissions levels
were comparable (indicating that all PM emissions are less than 2.5 um). Emissions from
both vehicles followed the HC trend and increased as the test temperatures decreased.
The E-10 fuel generally reduced particulate emissions from the Taurus but the Achieva
showed no trends. Disconnecting the 02 sensor on the vehicles generally produced the
most emissions. Taurus particulate emissions were from 1.5 to about 5 times those of the
Achieva.
PM2.5 and PM10 partieulate-IM240 cycle - Particulate emissions generally increased as test
temperature decreased. In general, disconnecting the 02 sensor produced the most emissions.
The E-10 fuel produced a general reduction in emissios from the Achieva but a general increase in
emissions from the Taurus.
20

-------
Alcohols-THC vs EtOH emissions showed some correlation with them E-1Q fuel but the Taurus
showed no correlation with either fuel. Both vehicles showed THC vs MeOH correlation with
both base and E-10 fuels. Regression analysis of THC vs 2-propanol individual vehicle data sets
showed good correlation for the Achieva and fair correlation for the Taurus.
21

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge and express gratitude to William Crews and Richard Snow of
Clean Air Vehicle Technology Center, Inc. for providing analytical assistance. We also
acknowledge Jerry Faircloth, Versal Mason, and Phil Carter of ManTech Environmental for
vehicle testing and data processing assistance. The authors would also like to express their
appreciation to Jim Braddock of EPA for his technical and editorial assistance in preparing this
manuscript
22

-------
DISCLAMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-D5-0156 to Clean Air Vehicle Technology
Center, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been
approve for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
23

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Health Effects Institute Communications, Research Priorities for Mobile Air Toxics, No. 2
(1993)
2.	D. W. Dockery, C. A. Pope., Ill, Annu. Rev. Public Health 1997, 15,107-132.
3.	Particulate air pollution and daily mortality: Replication and validation of selected studies;
Health Effects Institute: Boston, 1995
4.	S. Cadle, P. A. Mulawa, J. Ball, C. Donase, A. Weibel, J. C. Sagebeil, K. T. Knapp, R. Snow,
Environ. Sci Technol. 1997, 31,3405-3412
5.	R. Snow, L. Baker, W. Crews, C. O. Davis, J. Duncan, N. Perry, P. Siudak, F. Stump, W.
Ray, J. Braddock, "Characterization of emissions from a methanol fueled vehicle". J. Air
Pollu. Control Assoc. 39:48(1989)
6.	F. Stump, S. Tejada, F. Black, W. Ray, W. Crews, R. Davis, "Compound injection to assure
the performance of motor vehicle emissions sampling systems". SAE Paper 961118, Society
of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1996
7.	Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 86, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 1983
8.	F. Stump, K. Knapp, and W. Ray, "Seasonal Impact of Blending Oxygenated Organics with
Gasoline on Motor Vehicle Tailpipe and Evaporative Emissions," J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.
40,872-880,(1990).
9.	S. Tejada, J. Sigsby, "Identification of chromatographic peaks using Lotus 1-2-3", J.
Chromatogr. Sci., 26: 292 (1988)
10.	S. Tejada, "Evaluation of silica gel cartridges in situ with acidified 2,4-
Dinitrophenylhydrazine for sampling aldehydes and ketones in air", Anal Chem.
26:167(1986)
11.	E. W. Kaiser, W. O. Siegl, D. F. Cotton, R. W. Anderson, "Effects of fuel structure on
emissions from a spark-ignited engine II. Naphthalene and aromatic fuels", Environ. Sei.
Technol, 26,1581-1586 (1992)
12.	E, W. Kaiser, W. O. Siegl, Y. I. Henig, R. W. Anderson, F. H. Trinker, "Effects of fuel
structure on emissions from a spark-ignited engine", Environ. Sci. Technol., 25, 2005 (1991)
13.	F. D. Stump. K. T. Knapp, W. D. Ray, C. Burton, R. Snow, "The seasonal impact of blending
oxygenated organics with gasoline in motor vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions-Part
II", SAE Paper 902129, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1990
24

-------
Figure 1. Achieva, THC, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Figure 2, Achieve, THC, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
2.5
-»
•2D
Ae-io
Figure 3. Achieva, THC. UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
3







15





A


2








I 1.5
ca
1
0.5
it




~
A i-io
' V

i

40
•20
0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 4, Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Test Temperature, F
Figure 5. Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Figure 6, Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, EGR made
tBase
E-10
40 .20	0 20 40 CO 80
Test Temperature, F
Test Temperature, F
25

-------
Figure 7. Achieves, THC, 1M240Cycle. NM mode
2.5
1.5

Base
E-10
-4fl -20	0 20 40 10
Test Temperature, F
Figure 8, Achieva, THC, IM24Q Cycle, Q2 mode
20
.?• 10

•40 -20	0 2d 40
Test Temperature, F
tBase
E-10
Fjgure 9. Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode
0 20 45 60 so
Test Temperature, F
Figure 10, Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, NM mode
/ 6as«
$W
Test Tgnperature, F
Figure 11, Taurus, THC, IM240Cycle, 02 mode	Figure 12. Taurus, THC, IM24Q Cycle, ESR mode
t
Base
E-10
-40 -20	0	20 40 SO
Test Temperature, F
0.25
0.2
tBase
E-10
40 -20	0 20 « 60 BO
Tast Temperature, F
26

-------
Figure 13. Achieva, CO, ODDS Cycle, NM mode
f 15
Base
E-10
40 -20 0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
Figure 14. Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
200
150
€ wo
so

^ *
1
A

A

i
-40 -20 g 20 40
Test Temperature,?
tBas?
E-10
Figure 15, Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
25
20
15
-40 -20
i
0 20 40
Test Tsmperaturs, F
Base
E-10
60 80
Figure 16, Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
-#¦
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
tSase
E-10
<0 $0
Figure 1 7. Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Figure 18. Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycte, EGR mode
200
150
100

0
A
A O
i


A

Obm«
A E-10
40 -20 0 20 40 B0 10
Test Temperature, F
¦4-
*
tBase
E-10
-40 -20 0 20 40
TeslTanperature, F
27

-------
Figure 19. Achieva. CO, 1M240 Cycle, NM mode
Figure 20, Achieva, CO, IM24Q Cycle, 02 mode
Test Temperature, F
Test Temperature, F
Figure 21, Achieva, CO, 1M24Q Cycle, EGR mode
5.5
s
4.5
4
1 3.5
05
3
2J
2
1J
-40
IT
0 20
Test Temperature, F
40
'Bait
LE-10
Figure 22. Taurus, CO, IM240 Cycle, NM mode
1
''Base
LE-10
40	-20	0	2D	4C	SO
Test Tsnperature.F
Figure 23. Taurus, CO. IM240 Cycle, 02 mode	Figure 24. Taurus, CO, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode
¦i &o
Test Temperature, F
A O
	ir
/Base
E-10
-40 -20	0 20 40 60
Test Tenpasture, F
28

-------
Figure 25. Achleva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, NM modi
Test Temperature, F
Figure 26, Achleva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
1.2
,0.6
0.4
0.2
-0-

tBase
E-10
40 -2(1 0 20 40 60 89
Tesi Tanperatura, F
Figure 27. Achieva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
-•1.7
=
"1.6
1.5
1.4
13
1.2
-40
A <>
Jt	4-

0
20
40
TestTernperature, F
i
Base
E-10
80
Figure 28. Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle NM mode
0.9
0.8
0,7
ra °'6
0.8
0.4
0.3
-M
-20
t
Base
6.10
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
« 10
Figure 29. Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode	 Figure 30, Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle EGR mode
1.1
0.9
a,t
0.7
0.6
-U -20
let Temperature, F
E-1fl
20 40 m
Test Temperature, F
29

-------
Figure 31, Achieva NQx, IM240 Cycle, NM mode
0.9
0.S5
0,75
0.7
0.65
1
Base
E'10
0 20 40 6D
Test Temperature, F
Figure 32, Achleva, NQx, 1M240 Cycle, Q2 mode
f 3
¦l,.,,,,.#,		1
-40 -20
tBase
E-10
0 2D 40
Test Temperature, f
Figure 33. Achleva, NQx, tM240 Cycle, EGR mode
4
2.5
i
Base
1-10
0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
Figure 34, Taurus, NQx, 1M24Q Cyel% NM made
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0J
0.7
0.6
* Base
ki-10
4Q -20	8	20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
Figure 35. Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle 02 mode	Figure 36. Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode

Test Temperature, F
Test Temperalure, F
30

-------
Figure 37, Achleva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
41 -20 0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
Figure 38. Achleva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
'B»S9
e-u
Test Temperature, F
Figure 39, Achieva. Benzene, UDDS Cycle. EG"? made
Figure 40, Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle NM mode
d 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
Test Temperature, F
Figure 41, Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle 02 mode
Figure 42. Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle EGR mode
' Base
LE-10
200
Test Temperature, F
0 20 40 SO 80
TestTgrppersture, F
31

-------
Figure 43, Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDPS Cycle, NM mode
10
0
1 -

" m
6 A

0 ±
t
Base
E-10
40 *20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
80
Figure 44. Achieva, 1,3-Butadlene, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
Tat Temperature. F
Figure 45. Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, ESR mode
Figure 46. Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle NM mode
Tei Tanperature, F
Test Temperalure, F
Figure 47, Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle 02 mode	Figure 48. Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
> 30

&Bas
Ae-k
40-20	0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F

tBase
E-10
40 -20	0	20 44 60
Tast Temper aim F
32

-------
Figure 49, Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode Figure 50, Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
Base
i-10
4(9 >20 0 20 40 . 60
TesITonperalure, F
Bail
MO
40-20 8 20 40 60 80
TestTempefatuie, F
Figure 51. Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode Figure 52. Taurus, Formaldehyde UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Test Temperature, F
Test Temperature,
Figure 53, Taurus, Formaldehyde. UDDS Cycle, 02 mode	Figure 54. Taurus, Formaldehyde UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
40
3S ¦
30 ^
25
. 20
15
to
5
0
Bast
E-10
0 20 40
Test Temperature. F
80
ia
t"
0	20	40
Test Temperature, F
Osase
A E-10
33

-------
Figure 55, Achieva, Acetaldehyde, LIDDS Cycle, MM mode
Test Temperature, F
Figure 56. Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
300
-M -20
^ 0
i
Bast
E-10
20 40 60
TetTamperatufe, F
Figure 57, Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
Figure 58, Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle NM mode
'Base
kE-10
/Base
Test Temperature, F
0	20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
Figure 59. Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode	Figure 60. Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle EGR mode
140
120
too
so
to :
40
20
0
-20
0 20 A
Test Temperature, F
t
Base
E-10
20
-40	-20	0	20	40
TeeiTamperalure, F
1
Base
E-10
60
34

-------
Figure 61, PM2.5 vs Pml 0, Both vehicles of all test conditions Figure 62, THC vs PM2.5, Both vehicles err oil test conditions
210
R* 2=0 9M Sope=l .009 CowtanNQ.32;
tf
I
c
100
20
40
60
160
R A 2=0.275 Scpe-6.683 C<
170
I
HQ
I
80 -
,J&"o
0
2
8
10
12
14
6
36
18
Figure 63. THC vs EtOH, Both vehicles, base fuel all conditions Figure 64-. THC vs EfOH, Bo-h vehicles, E-l 0 fuel all conditions
~.04! Constcrt-0.486
r< ~ 2-C.505 SbDS-10.14? Ccrstent-5 642
S20 -
80 ¦
Figure 65. THC vs MeOH, Both vehicles, base fuel ail conditions Figure 66, THC vs MeOH, Both vehicles, E-l0 fuel ail conditions
R ~ 2=0-558 UOOG* 1-768 COftS?arsJ=3.Q46
ft-- 2-G.92 1 aope-25.656 Conston*- -32.S78
•0	2	4	4	S ] 0 12 14 16 18	0	2	4	6	8	10	12
35

-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
iOl
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
4*
44
45
46
47
48
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
50
59
60
61
~ 01
€2
S3
64
>01
£5
66
101
67
68
63
70
71
72
iOl
73
74
75
?S
iOl
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
83
89
90
Detailed Hydrocarbon Table
Compound
METHANE
ETHYLENE
ETHANE
ACETYLENE
PROPANE
PROPYLENE
PROPADIENE
KETKYIACETYLENE
IS0-BTJTANE
*** UNKNOWN ***
1-BUTENE
ISO-BUTYLENE
1,3-BUTADIENE
N-BUTANE
2, 2-DIMETHYLPRCiPANE
TRAMS - 2-BUTENE
l-BUTEN-l-YNE
1-BUTYNE
CIS-2 -BUTENE
»*« UNKNOWN »**
1.3-BUTAD1YNE
1.2-BUTADIENE
3-METHYL-1-BUTENE
ISO-PENTANE
1.4-PENTADIBNE
2-BUTYNE
1-PENTENE
2-METHYL,-1,3-	BUTADIENE
2-METHYL-1-BITTEN-3-YNE
2-METHYL-1 -BUTENE
N-PENTANE
ISQPRENE
TRANS-2-PENTENE
3.3-DIMETHYL-1-BUTENE
CLS-2-PENTENE
2-KETHYL-2-BUTENE
CI S -1, 3 - PENTAD IENE
CYCLOPENTADIENE
2,	2-DIMETHYLBUTANE
TRANS -1,3- PENTADIENE
CSHB
C5HE
CYCLOPENTENE
C5H8
4-METHYL-1-PENTENE
3-HETHYL-1-PENTENE
CYCLOPENTANE
"* UNKNOWN ***
2,3-DIMETHYLBUTANE
4-HETHYL-CIS	- 2 -PENTENE
2.3-DIMETHYL-1-BUTENE
2-hethylfentane
4 -METHYL-TRANS - 2 - PENTENE
C5H6
C5H8
*** UNKNOWN ***
*** UNKNOWN ***
»** UNKNOWN ***
3-METKYLPENTANE
2-METHYL-I-PENTENE
1-HEXENE
C6H1Q
C6H10
2-ETHYL-1-BUTENE
N-HEXANE
CIS-3-HEXENE
TRANS -3-HEXENE
TRANS -2-HEXENE
2-METHYL-2	-PENTENE
3-METHYLCYCLOFENTENE
CIS - 3-METHYL-2-PENTENE
4-METHYLCYCLQPENTENE
CIS-2-HEXENE
C6H1G
UNKNOWN
TRANS - 3-METHYL-2-PENTENE
2,2 -DIMETHYLPENTANE
METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
*•** UNKNOWN ***
*•** UNKNOWN **»
2.4-DIMETHYLPENTANE
2.3-DIMETHYL-2	-BUTENE
2,2,3-TRIMETHYLBUTANE
C6H8
DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
2.4-DIMETHYL-1-PENTENE
1-METHYLCYCLOFENTENE
BENSENE
4,4-DIMETHYL-2-PENTENE
3,	3-DIMETHYLPENTANE
TRANS -2-METHYL-3-HEXENE
CYCLOHEXANE
C7H14
C7H14
4-METHYL-1-HEXENE
C7H12
91	TRANS-4 -METHYL-2-HEXENE
92	2-METHYLKEXANE
93	2,3-DIMETHYLPENTANE
94	*** UNKNOWN ***
95	1,1-EIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
96	3-METHYLHEXANE
96501	CYCLOHEXENE
97	TRANS-S-METHYL- 2-HEXENE
98	CIS-1,3-DIMSTHYLCYCLOPENTANE
99	TRANS-1,3-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
100	TRANS-1,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
101	3,4-DIMETHYL-TRANS -2-PENTENE
102	ISO-OCTANE
103	3-METHYL-TRANS 3-HEXENE
104	TRANS-3-HEPTEKE
105	N-HEPTANE
105501	1,3 -DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
105502	1,4-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
106	CIS-3-METHYL-3-HEXENE
107	2-METHYL-2-HEXENE
108	TRANS-2-HEPTEKE
109	3-ETHYL-2-PENTENE
109501	C7H12
110	2-METHYL-2-HEXENE
111	1,5-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
111500	C3S-2-HEPTENE
111501	2,3-DIMETHYL- 2 -PENTENE
111502	3-ETHYL CYCLOPENTENE
112	4-ETHYL CYCLOPENTENE
112500	Z,2-DIMETHYLHEXANE
112501	1-CIS-2-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
113	METYHLCYCLOHEXANE
114	1,1,3 -TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
115	CSH14
116	C8H14
117	*** UNKNOWN ***
118	2,5-DIMETHYLHEXANE
119	2,4-DIMETHYLHEXANE
119501	2,2,3-TRIMETHYLFENTAN3
119502	3-METHYLCYCLOKEXSNE
119503	4-METHYLCYCLQKEXHNE
119504	C7H12
120	1,2,4-TRIMETHYLCYCL3PENTANE
120501	3,3-DIMETHYLHEXANE
121	C8H16
122	CSH14
123	C,T,C-1, 2, 3-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
124	2,3,4-TRIMETHYLPENTAN2
124501	C7H12
124502	C8H16
125	1-ETHYLCYCLOPENTEN1
1255 01	C8H16
125502	2,3,3-TRIMETHYLPHNTANE
12€	TOLUENE
127	2,3-DIMETHYLHEXANE
127501	C8H14
1275 02	1,2,3-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
123	2-METHYLHEPTANE
129	4-METHYLHEFTANE
129501	C7H12
130	3,i-DIMETHYLHEXANE
131	3-METKYLHEPTANE
131501	3-1THYLHEXANE
131502	C7H12
132	. 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
132501	C8H1€
133	TRANS-1,4-DIMETHYLCYCLOKEXANE
134	1,3-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
135	2,2,5-TRIMETHYLHSXANE
135501	TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
136	1-OCTENE
1365 01	TRANS-1-ETHYL - 3-METHYLCYCLQPENTAN
137	CIS -1-ETHYL - 3 ~ METHYLCYCLOPEfTTANE
138	C8H16
138501	CSH14
139	C8H16
140	C8H16
140501	C8H16
141	N-OCTANE
141501	C8H14
142	C8H16
142501	1,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
143	1,1,2-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
143501	1,2,3-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
143502	CSH14
144	CSH16
145	2-OCTENE
145501	C8H14
145502	C9H16
146	ISOPROPYLCYCLOPENTANE
147	*** UNKNOWN ***
148	2,3,5-TKIMETKYLHEXANE
149	C8H14
150	*** UNKNOWN ***
151	*** UNKNOWN ***
152	*** UNKNOWN ***
153	*** UNKNOWN *•*
154	*•* UNKNOWN
155	UNKNOWN
156	»•' UNKNOWN *»»
IS?	»~* UNKNOWN ***
158	»*» UNKNOWN ***
159	*** UNKNOWN ***
160	2,4-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
161	C8H14
161501	C8H14
1*2	2,6-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
162501	CSH18
162502	CSH18
163	n-PROPYLCYCLOPENTANE
164	*** UNKNOWN
165	2,5-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
165501	3,5-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
165502	C9H18
165503	3,3-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
166	1,1,4 -TRIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
166501	C9H1S
16?	C9H1S
167500	C9H18
167501	C9H18
167502	C3H16
167503	C3H18
168	ETHYLBENSENE
169	2,3-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
169501	1,3,5-TRIMETHYLCYCLOKEXANE
170	3,4-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
171	MScP-XYLENE
172	•'* TOKITOWN
173	C9H18
173501	C9H18
174	3-METKYLOCTANE
174501	C8H14
175	C9H18
176	C9H18
176501	C9H18
177	C10H22
177501	STYRENE
178	1-NONENE
178501	2-NONENE
179	O-XYLENE
179501	CIS- 3-NGNENE
180	4-NONENE
181	*'• UNKNOWN »"
182	C9H16
182S01	C9H18
132502	C9H18
183	C9H18
184	C9H18 ?
185	C9H18 ?
186	C9H18 ?
187	N-NONANE
187501	C9H18
188	C9H18
189	C9H18
190	C9H18
191	C9H18
191501	C9H18 ?
192	C9H18
193	C9H18
193501	C9B18 ?
194	C9H18
195	IS OPRO PYLB 3N2 ENS
196	C10H22 ?
19?	C10H22 1
197501	C10H22 ?
198	n-BUTYLCYCLOPENTANE
198501	C9H16
199	C10H22 ?
200	C10H22
201	C9H18
202	C10H22 ?
202501	*** UNKNOWN ***
203	C10H20
204	R-PROPYLBENZENE
205	C10H2 0
206	1-METHYL-3 -ETHYLBENZ2NE
207	1-METHYL-4 -ETHYLBENZENE
207501	C10H22
208	C10H22
205	1,3,5-TKIM2THYLBENZENE
210	C10H22
211	C10H20
212	C1CH22
212501	C1CH20
213	1-METHYL-2 -ETHYLBENZENE
214	C10H20
215	C10H20
216	C1OH20
21?	o-METHYLSTYRENE
216	1,2,4-TRIMETKYLBENZENE
218501	m-METHYLSTYRENE
219	N-DECAN2
219500	C10H20
219501	C10H20
220	2-METHYLPROPYLBEE3ENE
221	1 - METHYLPROP YLB EN SENE
36

-------
*»
222
C11H24
295
C11H16

222501
1-METHYL-3 -ISOPROPYLBBNZEKB
300
C12K16

222502
C11H24
301
n-TRIDECANE

222503
p-METHYLSTYRENS
302
C12H16

223
1,2,3-TRIHETHYLBEN2EN2
303
C12H16

224
C11H24
3 04
2 -METHYLNAPHTHALRNE
224501
C1QHS0
305
*•* UNKNOWN
*«*
224502
C11H24
3 06
*•» UNKNOWN
***
225
2 r 3 - DIHYDRCINDENE {INDAN) .
307
'«• UNKNOWN
***
22SS01
CIOKI2
308
1 - METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2 26
C10H20
330
KTBE

226501
INDENE
331
ETBE

227
1,3-DIETHYLBENZENE
332
TAME

22a
*** UNKNOWN ***
333
UNKNOWN
***¦
225
l-METHYL-3-n-PRC?YLBENZENE
334
-** UNKNOWN
• #*
229501
1-METHYL-4-n-PRCFYLB ENZENE
335
-*** UNKNOWN

230
1,2-DIETKYLBEN2ENE
336
»*• UNKNOWN
*«*
230501
n-BOTYLBENZEME
337
»*» UNKNOWN
»«*
230502
C11K24
338
*»* UNKNOWN
«**
231
C11K24
339
UN KNOW
*»*
231501
1,4-BIETHYLBENZENE
340
METHANOL

232
C11H24
341
ETHANOL

232501
1,3-DIMETHYL-5-ETHYLBENZENE
342
K-PRO PANOL

233
1-METHYL-2-n-PROPYLBENZENE
343
2-PROPANOL

233501
C11H24
344
N-BUTANOL

234
1,4-DIMETHYL-2•ETHYLEENZENS
345
5EC-BUTANQL

235
1,3-DIMETHYL-4-ETHYLBENZENE
346.
TBA

236
1,2-DIMETHYL-4-ETHYLBENZENE
347
*** UNKNOWN
***
236501
O-ETHYLSTYRENE
34a
*** UNKNOWN

23*7
1,3-DIMETHYL-2-KTHYLBSNZENE
349
*~* UNKNOWN
** *
237501
m-ETHYLSTYRENE
350
~»* UNKNOWN
* * *
237502
C11K22
351
*** UNKNOWN
• **
233
C10K12
352
*»• UNKNOWN
• * *
239
1,2-DIMETHYL-3-ETHYLBENZENE
353
*** UNKNOWN
* * »
239501
C10H12
354
*** UNKNOWN
**#
240
n-UNDECANE
355
*** UNKNOWN
***
240501
C10H12
356
*** UNKNOWN
***
241
l-HETKYL-4-{2-M2TKYLPR0PYL)BENZENE
357
*** UNKNOWN
44 *
241501
C11H14
353
*** UNKNOWN
4 4 *
242
1,2-DIMETHYL-3-ETHYLBEKZENE
359
•** UNKNOWN
• #4
243
C11K14
360
*** UNKNOWN
#*•
243501
C12H26



244
*** UNKNOWN ***



24S
1,2,4,S-TETRAMETKYLBENZENE



245501
C11H16



246
1,2,3,5-TETRAKETHYLBENZENE



247
C12H26



248
C11H14



249
C11H16



250
C11H16



251
C11H16



252 .
ciiKie



252501
C11H14



253
•** UNKNOWN ***



254
»** UNKNOWN ***



25S
C10H12



255S01
C11K16



256
l-HETHYL-4-(2-METHYLPROPYLBENZENE



25?
1-METHYL-1H-INDENE



258
C19H12



258501
1,2,3,4-TETRAMETHYLBENZENE



258502
C10K10



259
C11K16



260
C11H16



261
CUH16



262
C10K12



263
CUH16



264
UNKNOWN ***



255
C11H14



256
*** UNKNOWN **»



267
*** UNKNOWN ***



268
NAPHTHALENE



268501
C11K14



269
n-DODECANE



270
C11H16



271
C11H16



272
C11H14



273
C11H16



274
C13H28 ?



275
C12H18 ?



27S
C12H18



277
C12K16



27B
C12H16 ?



219
*** UNKNOWN ***



280
C11H14



281
C11H16



282
C11H14



283
UNKNOWN ***



284
C12H1S



285
C12H16



28€
C12H18 ?



237
C11H14



288
-** UNKNOWN ***



289
**' UNKNOWN »•*



290
•*» UNKNOWN ***



291
*** UNKNOT ***



292
C11H14



293
C11HI4



234
C12H16



235
C12H18



296
C12H18



237
C12H16



2 9B
C12H16



37

-------
Aldehyde and Ketone Compound List
PEAK NUMBER	COMPOUND
1	Formaldehyde
2	Acetaldehydc
3	Acrolein
4	Acetone
5	Propionaldehyde
6	Crotonaldehvde
7	Butyraldehyde
8	Isovaleraldehyde
9	Valeraldehyde
io'	O-Tolualdehyde
11	m-Tolualdehyde
12	p-Tolualdehyde
13	•	Hexanaldehyde
14	2,5-DMbenzaldehyde
15	x-Propionaldehyde
16	x-Butyraldehyde
17	x-Valeraldchydc
18	x-DMbenzaldehyde
19	x-Acrolein
20	x-Hexanaldehyde
21	x-Acetaldehydc
22	2-Butanone
38

-------