Characterization of Emissions from Malfunctioning Vehicles
Fueled with Oxygenated Gasoline-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 Park
Clean Air Vehicle Technology Center, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
-------
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
Abbreviations and Symbols vi
INTRODUCTION 1
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND MATERIALS 2
Test Fuels 2
Test Fuels/Conditions 3
Test Vehicles 3
Test Facilities 4
Test Procedures 4
Tailpipe Emissions 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
Regulated Emissions 12
Toxic Emissions 14
Particulate Emissions 15
Alcohols 16
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 17
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 19
DISCLAIMER 19
REFERENCES 19
l
-------
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 fuel 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 PM 10), 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, methyltertiarybutyl (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 acetaldehyde 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 PM 10 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.
u
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 Characteristics of test fuels 2
Table 2 Test Schedule/Conditions for 1995 Chevrolet Achieva and 1993 Ford Taurus 3
Table 2a Vehicles tested 3
Table 3 Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at 75 °F 6
Table 4 Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at 20 °F 7
Table 5 Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at 0 °F 8
Table 6 Vehicle UDDS tailpipe emission rates at -20 °F 9
Table 7 IM240 vehicle tailpipe emission rates 10
Table 7a IM240 vehicle tailpipe emission rates 11
Table 8 Detailed Hydrocarbon Table 32
Table 9 Aldehyde and Ketone Compound List 34
in
-------
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
List of Figures
Achieva, THC, UDDS Cycle, NM mode . . .
Achieva, THC, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode ....
Achieva, THC, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . .
Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, NM mode ....
Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, NM mode . . .
Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode ....
Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode . .
Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, NM mode ....
Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, NM mode ....
Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode ....
Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, NM mode . . .
Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode ....
Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode . .
Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, NM mode ....
Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Achieva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, NM mode . . .
Achieva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode ....
Achieva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . .
Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle, NM mode ....
Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Achieva, NOx, IM240 Cycle, NM mode . . .
Achieva, NOx, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode ....
Achieva, NOx, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode . .
Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle, NM mode ....
Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Achieva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Achieva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode .
Achieva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode .
Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode . .
iv
-------
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode ....
Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode ....
Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode ....
Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode . . .
Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode ....
Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Taurus, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Taurus, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode ....
Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode ....
Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode . . .
Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode ....
PM2.5 vs PM10, Both vehicles at all test conditions . .
THC vs PM2.5, Both vehicles at all test conditions . . .
THC vs EtOH, Both vehicles, base fuel all conditions
THC vs EtOH, Both vehicles, E-10 fuel all conditions
THC vs MeOH, Both vehicles, base fuel all conditions
THC vs MeOH, Both vehicles, E-10 fuel all conditions
v
-------
Abbreviations and Symbols
°F
degrees Fahrenheit
CFR
Code of Federal Regulation
CO
Carbon monoxide
CVS
Constant Volume Sampler
E-10
"10 % ethanol, 90 % gasoline blend (v/v)"
EGR
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
ETBE
Ethyl terti arybutyl ether
g/cm3
grams per cubic centimeter
HC
Hydrocarbon
i.d.
inside diameter
ffiP
Initial Boiling Point
IM240
"Inspection and Maintenance test cycle, 240 seconds
L/min
Liters per minute
mg/mi
milligrams per mile
MTBE
Methylteri arybutyl ether
NC
North Carolina
NM
Normal Mode
NOx
Oxides of nitrogen
02
Oxygen
02 S
Oxygen sensor
PM10
Particulate matter <=10 mm
PM2.5
Particulate matter <= 2.5 mm
R2
Correlation coefficient
RVP
Reid Vapor Pressure
SFI
Sequential Fuel Injection
SG
Summer grade fuel
THC
Total Hydrocarbon
TWC
Three Way Catalyst
UDDS
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
WG
Winter grade fuel
vi
-------
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 //m 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.
1
-------
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.a
Fuel Property
Summer
Winter
Winter-E-10
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
aReid vapor pressure.
2
-------
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 IM240'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.®
Vehicle
Cyl.
Vehicle
Displaced
Fuel
Emission
Miles
Liters
System
System a
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
3
-------
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
determined by established gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric (GC-MS) techniques.
Supplementary regulated, unregulated, speciated HCs, speciated aldehydes, ethanol, methanol,
4
-------
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/min. The aldehydes were analyzed by previous described
liquid chromatographic procedures.10
5
-------
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
6
-------
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
* Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
7
-------
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
£GR
Disconnected
Fuel
Basef
E-10 *
Base
£-10
Base
£-10
Base
£-10
Base
£-10
Base
£-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
t Winter grade, without ethanol
1 Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
8
-------
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
£-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
t Winter grade, without ethanol
{Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
9
-------
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
10
-------
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
Baset
E-10*
Base
£-10
Base
E-10
Base
£-10
Base
E-10
Base
£-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
NA"
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
t Winter grade, without ethanol * Winter grade, with ethanol
a Data not available
11
-------
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 IM240 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 °F, 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 E-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
12
-------
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
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.
CarbonMonoxide-UDDS 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 °F (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).
CarbonMonoxide-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 °F) 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
13
-------
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
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 ofNitrogen-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. n'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
a high of 77.68 mg/mi, at 0 °F (02 mode with base fuel), and the Taurus emissions ranged from
14
-------
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 andAcetaldehyde — 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 °F (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 andPM10 - 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
15
-------
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
(PM2.5) 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 andPM10 - 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-10 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-10 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
16
-------
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-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-IM240 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.
CarbonMonoxide-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
17
-------
CarbonMonoxide-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 ofNitrogen-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 ofNitrogen-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 (R2 0.218 for
both vehicles)
PM2.5 andPM10particulate-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 andPM10particulate-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 emissions from the Achieva but a general increase in
emissions from the Taurus.
18
-------
Alcohols-THC vs EtOH emissions showed some correlation with them E-10 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.
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.
DISCLAIMER
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and
Development funded and managed the research described here under Contract 68-D5-0156 to
Clean Air Vehicle Technology Center, Inc. It has been subjected to Agency review and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an
endorsement or recommendation for use.
REFERENCES
1. Health Effects Institute Communications, Research Priorities for Mobile Air Toxics, No. 2
(1993)
2. D. W. Dockery, C. A. Pope., HI, 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)
19
-------
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 coated in situ with acidified 2,4-
Dinitrophenylhydrazine for sampling aldehydes and ketones in air", J. Intern. 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 H Naphthalene and aromatic fuels", Environ. Sci.
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
20
-------
Figure 1. Achieva, THC, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
Figure 2. Achieva, THC, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
20
~
15
I 10
5
~
~
O Base
4
Ae-io
~
*
n
-40
-20
0
20 40
60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 3. Achieva, THC, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
Figure 4. Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
4
~
3
A
5 2
o>
~
0 Base
~
t
Ae-10
*
40
¦20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
60 8
Figure 5. Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Figure 6. Taurus, THC, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
21
-------
Figure 7. Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, NM mode
Figure 8. Achieva, THC, IM240Cycle, 02 mode
Figure 9. Achieva, THC, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode
0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
t
Figure 1 0. Taurus, THC, IM240Cycle, NM mode
0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 11. Taurus, THC, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode
Figure 12. Taurus, THC, IM240Cycle, EGR mode
22
-------
Figure 1 3. Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
1
Base
E-10
40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 1 4. Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
200
150
* ~
f 100
^Base
A E-10
50
k
A
k
A
n
-40
¦20
0 20 40
60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 1 5. Achieva, CO, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
t
Base
E-10
Figure 1 6. Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
-40 -20
4
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
1
Base
E-10
60 80
Figure 1 7. Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
200
150
100
~
-kr
t
Base
E-10
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 18. Taurus, CO, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
25
20
1 15
O)
10
5
-40 -20
t
Base
E-10
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
60 80
23
-------
Figure 1 9. Achieva, CO, IM240 Cycle, NM mode
Figure 20. Achieva, CO, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode
5 100
kE-10 °>
-40 -20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 21. Achieva, CO, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode
Figure 22. Taurus, CO, IM240 Cycle, NM mode
1
Test Temperature, F
Figure 23. Taurus, CO, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode
40
1:
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 24. Taurus, CO, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode
2.5
~ ~
A-
t
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
24
-------
Figure 25. Achieva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
2.5
A ~
A-
0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 26. Achieva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
1.2
1
~
0.8
I0-6
0.4
0.2
4
^ Base
~
y
A E-10
A
A
~
A
-40
-20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
60 8
0
Figure 27, Achieva, NOx, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
Figure 28. Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
0.6
0.4
40 -20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
1
Base
E-10
60 80
Figure 29. Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
Figure 30. Taurus, NOx, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
1
Base
E-10
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
25
-------
Figure 31. Achieva, NOx, IM24Q Cycle, NM mode
¦40 -20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
Figure 32. Achieva, NOx, IM240 Cycle, Q2 mode
Figure 33. Achieva, NOx, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode
Figure 34. Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle, NM mode
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 35. Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle, 02 mode
Figure 36. Taurus, NOx, IM240 Cycle, EGR mode
26
-------
Figure 37. Achieva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1—
t
Base
E-10
40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 38. Achieva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
600
500
400
300
200
100
4
-40 -20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
t
Base
E-10
Figure 39. Achieva, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
70
60
I 50
O)
E 40
30
20
10
0
-40 -20
1
Base
E-10
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
60 80
Figure 40. Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
140
120
T
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 41. Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
350
300
200
£
150
1:
-40 -20
0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 42. Taurus, Benzene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
t
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
27
-------
Figure 43. Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
-4—A-
i k.
t
Base
E-10
40 -20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
Figure 44. Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
90
E 50
40
-40 -20 0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
t
Base
E-10
Figure 45. Achieva, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
4r
A.
1
Base
E-10
-40 -20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
60 80
Figure 46. Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
20
£
o> 10
~
-r
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 47. Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode Figure 48. Taurus, 1,3-Butadiene, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
JE
p> 30
+
1:
40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
A.
t
0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
28
-------
Figure 49. Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
14
12
10
~
~
mg/mi
T> O
A
A
O Base
A E-10
~
A
m
40
¦20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
60 80
Figure 50. Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
50
A
40
|
a) 30
E
20
10
n
*
~
^ Base
V
A E-10
~
A
A
A
40
-20
0
20 40
60 8
0
Test Temperature, F
Figure 51. Achieva, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode Figure 52. Taurus, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
T
1
Base
E-10
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
15
14
13
12
11
| 10
CD
E 9
~ »
0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 53. Taurus, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode Figure 54. Taurus, Formaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
40
35
30
25
1
|} 20
15
10
5
0
1:
40 -20
0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
t
0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
29
-------
Figure 55. Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode Figure 56. Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, Q2 mode
Figure 57. Achieva, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
20
~ ~
1
Base
E-10
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Test Temperature, F
Figure 59. Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, 02 mode
140
120
- 80
E
+ ^
1:
-40 -20
0 20 40 60 80
Test Temperature, F
300
250
~
A
200
E
o> 150
E
^ Base
A E-10
100
A
A
50
A
0
~
~ ~
i.
-40 -20
0 20 40
60 8
0
Test Temperature, F
Figure 58. Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, NM mode
30
A
20
1
o> 15
A
O Base
A E-10
A
3
~
~ ~
*
-40 -20
0 20 40
60 80
Test Temperature, F
Figure 60. Taurus, Acetaldehyde, UDDS Cycle, EGR mode
30
25
A
o) 15
E
O Base
A
A E-10
10
~
0
~ ~
*
-4
0 -20
0 20 40
Test Temperature, F
60 8
30
-------
Figure 61. PM2.5 vs Pml 0, Both vehicles at all test conditions Figure 62. THC vs PM2.5, Both vehicles at all test conditions
R~ 2=0.275 Slope= 6.683 ConsFant=19.143
Figure 63. THC vs EtOH, Both vehicles, base fuel all conditions Figure 64. THC vs EtOH, Both vehicles, E-l 0 fuel all conditions
R~ 2=0.505 Slope=10.147 Constant= 5.642
~
Figure 65. THC vs MeOH, Both vehicles, base fuel all conditions Figure 66. THC vs MeOH, Both vehicles, E-l 0 fuel all conditions
E 25
£
R ~ 2=0.558 Slope= 1.768 Constant= 3.046
~
~
D
D /
~ /
ci a
~
~
~
m
260
240
220
200
R~2=0.921 Slope=25.696 Constant=-32.678
*
~ D
a
a /
~ /
Yan
/
—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 12 14 16
31
-------
Table 8. DETAILED HYDROCARBON TABLE
Peak
Compound
Peak
Compound
Peak
Compound
l
METHANE
72
TRAN S-3 -METHYL-2-PENTENE
127
2,3-DIMETHYLHEXANE
2
ETHYLENE
72501
2,2-DIMETHYLPENTANE
127501
C8H14
3
ETHANE
73
METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
127502
1,2,3 -TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
4
ACETYLENE
74
*** UNKNOWN***
128
2-METHYLHEPTANE
5
PROPANE
75
*** UNKNOWN***
129
4-METHYLHEPTANE
6
PROPYLENE
76
2,4-DIMETHYLPENTANE
129501
C7H12
7
PROPADIENE
76501
2,3-DIMETHYL-2-BUTENE
130
3,4-DIMETHYLHEXANE
8
METHYLACETYLENE
77
2,2,3-TRIMETHYLBUTANE
131
3 -METHYLHEPTANE
9
ISO-BUTANE
78
C6H8
131501
3-ETHYLHEXANE
10
*** UNKNOWN***
79
DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
131502
C7H12
11
1-BUTENE
80
2,4-DIMETHYL-l -PENTENE
132
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
12
ISO-BUTYLENE
81
1 -METHYLCYCLOPENTENE
132501
C8H16
13
1,3-BUTADIENE
82
BENZENE
133
TRANS-1,4-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
14
N-BUTANE
83
4,4-DIMETHYL-2-PENTENE
134
1,3 -DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
15
2,2-DIMETHYLPROPANE
84
3,3 -D IM ETHYLPENT AN E
135
2,2,5-TRIMETHYLHEXANE
16
TRANS-2-BUTENE
85
TRANS-2-METHYL-3-HEXENE
135501
TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
17
1-BUTEN-3-YNE
86
CYCLOHEXANE
136
1-OCTENE
18
1-BUTYNE
87
C7H14
136501
TRANS-l-ETHYL-3-METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
19
CIS-2-BUTENE
88
C7H14
137
CIS-l-ETHYL-3-METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
20
*** UNKNOWN***
89
4-METHYL-1 -HEXENE
138
C8H16
21
1,3-BUTADIYNE
90
C7H12
138501
C8H14
21501
1,2-BUTADIENE
91
TRANS-4-METHYL-2-HEXENE
139
C8H16
22
3-METHYL-1 -BUTENE
92
2-METHYLHEXANE
140
C8H16
23
ISO-PENT ANE
93
2,3 -D IM ETHYLPENT AN E
140501
C8H16
24
1,4-PENTADIENE
94
*** UNKNOWN***
141
N-OCTANE
25
2-BUTYNE
95
1,1 -DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
141501
C8H14
26
1-PENTENE
96
3-METHYLHEXANE
142
C8H16
27
2-METHYL-1,3 -BUTADIENE
96501
CYCLOHEXENE
142501
1,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
28
2-METHYL-1-BUTEN-3-YNE
97
TRANS-5-METHYL-2-HEXENE
143
1,1,2-TRIMETHYLC Y CLOPENT ANE
29
2-METHYL-1 -BUTENE
98
CIS-l,3-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
143501
1,2,3 -TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
30
N-PENTANE
99
TRANS-1,3-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
143502
C8H14
31
ISOPRENE
100
TRANS-1,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
144
C8H16
32
TRANS-2-PENTENE
101
3,4-DIMETHYL-TRANS-2-PENTENE
145
2-OCTENE
33
3,3-DIMETHYL-l-BUTENE
102
ISO-OCTANE
145501
C8H14
34
CIS-2-PENTENE
103
3-METHYL-TRANS-3-HEXENE
145502
C9H16
35
2-METHYL-2-BUTENE
104
TRAN S-3 -HEPTENE
146
ISOPROPYLCYCLOPENTANE
36
CIS-1,3 -PENTADIENE
105
N-HEPTANE
147
*** UNKNOWN***
37
CYCLOPENTADIENE
105501
1,3-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
148
2,3,5-TRIMETHYLHEXANE
38
2,2-DIMETHYLBUTANE
105502
1,4-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
149
C8H14
39
TRANS-1,3 -PENTADIENE
106
CIS-3-METHYL-3-HEXENE
150
*** UNKNOWN***
40
C5H8
107
2-METHYL-2-HEXENE
151
*** UNKNOWN***
41
C5H8
108
TRANS-2-HEPTENE
152
*** UNKNOWN***
42
CYCLOPENTENE
109
3-ETHYL-2-PENTENE
153
*** UNKNOWN***
43
C5H8
109501
C7H12
154
*** UNKNOWN***
44
4-METHYL-1 -PENTENE
110
2-METHYL-2-HEXENE
155
*** UNKNOWN***
45
3-METHYL-1 -PENTENE
11
1,5-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
156
*** UNKNOWN***
46
CYCLOPENTANE
111500
CIS-2-HEPTENE
157
*** UNKNOWN***
47
*** UNKNOWN***
111501
2,3-DIMETHYL-2-PENTENE
158
*** UNKNOWN***
48
2,3-DIMETHYLBUTANE
111502
3-ETHYL CYCLOPENTENE
159
*** UNKNOWN***
49
4-METHYL-CIS-2-PENTENE
112
4-ETHYL CYCLOPENTENE
160
2,4-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
50
2,3-DIMETHYL-l-BUTENE
112500
2,2-DIMETHYLHEXANE
161
C8H14
51
2-METHYLPENTANE
112501
l-CIS-2-DIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
161501
C8H14
52
4-METHYL-TRANS-2-PENTENE
113
METYHLCYCLOHEXANE
162
2,6-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
53
C5H6
114
1,1,3-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
162501
C9H18
54
C5H8
115
C8H14
162502
C9H18
55
*** UNKNOWN***
116
C8H14
163
n-PROPYLCYCLOPENTANE
56
*** UNKNOWN***
117
*** UNKNOWN***
164
*** UNKNOWN***
57
*** UNKNOWN***
118
2,5-DIMETHYLHEXANE
165
2,5-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
58
3-METHYLPENTANE
119
2,4-DIMETHYLHEXANE
165501
3,5-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
59
2-METHYL-1 -PENTENE
119501
2,2,3-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
165502
C9H18
60
1-HEXENE
119502
3-METHYLCYCLOHEXENE
165503
3,3 -DIMETHYLHEPTANE
61
C6H10
119503
4-METHYLCYCLOHEXENE
166
1,1,4-TRIMETHYLC Y CLOHEX ANE
61501
C6H10
119504
C7H12
166501
C9H18
62
2-ETHYL-l-BUTENE
120
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
167
C9H18
63
N-HEXANE
120501
3,3-DIMETHYLHEXANE
167500
C9H18
64
CIS-3-HEXENE
121
C8H16
167501
C9H18
64501
TRAN S-3 -HEXENE
122
C8H14
167502
C9H16
65
TRANS-2-HEXENE
123
C,T,C-l,2,3-TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTANE
167503
C9H18
66
2-METHYL-2-PENTENE
124
2,3,4-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
168
ETHYLBENZENE
66501
3-METHYLCYCLOPENTENE
124501
C7H12
169
2,3-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
67
CIS-3-METHYL-2-PENTENE
124502
C8H16
169501
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE
68
4-METHYLCYCLOPENTENE
125
1 -ETHYLCYCLOPENTENE
170
3,4-DIMETHYLHEPTANE
69
CIS-2-HEXENE
125501
C8H16
171
M&P-XYLENE
70
C6H10
125502
2,3,3-TRIMETHYLPENTANE
172
*** UNKNOWN***
71
*** UNKNOWN***
126
TOLUENE
173
C9H18
32
-------
Peak Compound
173501 C9H18
174 3-METHYLO CTANE
174501 C8H14
175 C9H18
176 C9H18
176501 C9H18
177 C10H22
177501 STYRENE
178 1-NONENE
178501 2-NONENE
179 O-XYLENE
179501 CIS-3-NONENE
180 4-NONENE
181 *** UNKNOWN ***
182 C9H18
182501 C9H18
182502 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 C9H18 ?
194 C9H18
195 ISOPROPYLBENZENE
196 C10H22 ?
197 C10H22 ?
197501 C10H22 ?
198 n-BUTYLCYCLOPENTANE
198501 C9H16
199 C10H22 ?
200 C10H22
201 C9H18
202 C10H22 ?
202501 *** UNKNOWN ***
203 C10H20
204 N-PROPYLBENZENE
205 C10H20
206 1 -METHYL-3 -ETHYLBENZENE
207 l-METHYL-4-ETHYLBENZENE
207501 C10H22
208 C10H22
209 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLB ENZENE
210 C10H22
211 C10H20
212 C10H22
212501 C10H20
213 l-METHYL-2-ETHYLBENZENE
214 C10H20
215 C10H20
216 C10H20
217 o-METHYLSTYRENE
218 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
218501 m-METHYLSTYRENE
219 N-DECANE
219500 C10H20
219501 C10H20
220 2-METHYLPROPYLBENZENE
221 1 -METHYLPROPYLBENZENE
222 C11H24
222501 1 -METHYL-3 -ISOPROPYLBENZENE
222502 C11H24
222503 p-METHYLSTYRENE
Peak
Compound
Peak
Compound
223
1,2,3-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
271
C11H16
224
C11H24
272
C11H14
224501
C10H20
273
C11H16
224502
C11H24
274
C13H28 ?
225
2,3 -DIH YDROIND ENE(IND AN)
275
C12H18 ?
225501
C10H12
276
C12H18
226
C10H20
277
C12H16
226501
INDENE
278
C12H16 ?
227
1,3 -DIETHYLB ENZENE
279
*** UNKNOWN***
228
*** UNKNOWN***
280
C11H14
229
1 -METHYL-3 -n-PROPYLB ENZENE
281
C11H16
229501
l-METHYL-4-n-PROPYLB ENZENE
282
C11H14
230
1,2-D IETHYLB ENZENE
283
*** UNKNOWN***
230501
n-BUTYLBENZENE
284
C12H18
230502
C11H24
285
C12H16
231
C11H24
286
C12H18 ?
231501
1,4-D IETHYLB ENZENE
287
C11H14
232
C11H24
288
*** UNKNOWN***
232501
1,3-D IMETHYL-5-ETHYLB ENZENE
289
*** UNKNOWN***
233
l-METHYL-2-n-PROPYLB ENZENE
290
*** UNKNOWN***
233501
C11H24
291
*** UNKNOWN***
234
l,4-DIMETHYL-2-ETHYLB ENZENE
292
C11H14
235
1,3-D IMETHYL-4-ETHYLB ENZENE
293
C11H14
236
l,2-DIMETHYL-4-ETHYLB ENZENE
294
C12H16
236501
o-ETHYLSTYRENE
295
C12H18
237
1,3-D IMETHYL-2-ETHYLB ENZENE
296
C12H18
237501
m-ETHYLSTYRENE
297
C12H16
237502
C11H22
298
C12H16
238
C10H12
299
C11H16
239
l,2-DIMETHYL-3-ETHYLB ENZENE
300
C12H16
239501
C10H12
301
n-TRIDECANE
240
n-UNDECANE
302
C12H16
240501
C10H12
303
C12H16
241
l-METHYL-4-(2-METHYLPROPYL)B ENZENE
304
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
241501
C11H14
305
*** UNKNOWN***
242
l,2-DIMETHYL-3-ETHYLB ENZENE
306
*** UNKNOWN***
243
C11H14
307
*** UNKNOWN***
243501
C12H26
308
1 -METHYLNAPHTHALENE
244
*** UNKNOWN***
330
MTBE
245
1,2,4,5-TETRAMETHYLB ENZENE
331
ETBE
245501
C11H16
332
TAME
246
1,2,3,5-TETRAMETHYLB ENZENE
333
*** UNKNOWN***
247
C12H26
334
*** UNKNOWN***
248
C11H14
335
*** UNKNOWN***
249
C11H16
336
*** UNKNOWN***
250
C11H16
337
*** UNKNOWN***
251
C11H16
338
*** UNKNOWN***
252
C11H16
339
*** UNKNOWN***
252501
C11H14
340
METHANOL
253
*** UNKNOWN***
341
ETHANOL
254
*** UNKNOWN***
342
N-PROPANOL
255
C10H12
343
2-PROPANOL
255501
C11H16
344
N-BUTANOL
256
l-METHYL-4-(2-METHYLPROPYLBENZENE
345
SEC-BUTANOL
257
1 -METHYL-1H-INDENE
346
TBA
258
C10H12
347
*** UNKNOWN***
258501
1,2,3,4-TETRAMETHYLB ENZENE
348
*** UNKNOWN***
258502
C10H10
349
*** UNKNOWN***
259
C11H16
350
*** UNKNOWN***
260
C11H16
351
*** UNKNOWN***
261
C11H16
352
*** UNKNOWN***
262
C10H12
353
*** UNKNOWN***
263
C11H16
354
*** UNKNOWN***
264
*** UNKNOWN***
355
*** UNKNOWN***
265
C11H14
356
*** UNKNOWN***
266
*** UNKNOWN***
357
*** UNKNOWN***
267
*** UNKNOWN***
358
*** UNKNOWN***
268
NAPHTHALENE
359
*** UNKNOWN***
268501
C11H14
360
*** UNKNOWN***
269
n-DODECANE
270
C11H16
33
-------
Table 9. ALDEHYDE AND KETONE COMPOUND LIST
Peak
Compound
Peak
Compound
Peak
Compound
1
Formaldehyde
9
Valeraldehyde
17
x-V aleraldehyde
2
Acetaldehyde
10
o-Tolualdehyde
18
x-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
3
Acrolein
11
m-Tolualdehyde
19
x-Acrolein
4
Acetone
12
p-T olualdehyde
20
x-Hexanaldehyde
5
Popionaldehyde
13
Hexanladehyde
21
x-Acetaldehyde
6
Crotonaldehyde
14
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
22
2-Butanone
7
Butyraldehyde
15
x-Propionaldehyde
8
Isovaleraldehyde
16
x-Butyraldehyde
34
------- |