NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National 2010-2011 Survey of 

E85: CRC Project E-85-2

Teresa L. Alleman

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-52905

December 2011
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National 2010-2011 Survey of 

E85: CRC Project E-85-2

Teresa L. Alleman

Prepared under Task No. FC08.0075

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-52905

December 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the U. S. Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technology Program and 

the Coordinating Research Council’s Emissions Committee for co-funding this project. 
iv

Executive Summary

Domestic ethanol usage has continued to increase in recent years, and over 90% of the gasoline 

in the United States contains 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol. Another market that has seen 

dramatic increases in fuel ethanol use is “E85.” “E85” is a common term to describe ethanol fuel 

meeting the ASTM D5798 fuel specification; however, it is a misnomer, as an on-specification 

fuel should never contain 85 vol% ethanol. The fuel should contain between 68 vol% and 83 

vol% ethanol. Due to the common usage of this name to describe the fuel, it will be used 

throughout this report. 

The goal of this study, a collaboration between the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and 

the Coordinating Research Council, was to examine the quality of “E85” fuel around the country 

in each of the three classes defined in ASTM D5798. The vapor pressure, measured as dry vapor 

pressure equivalent varies among classes due to driveability requirements as ambient 

temperature changes, but all other properties are the same in each class. A significant change to 

the 2010 version of the specification is the reduction of minimum ethanol content to 68 vol% for 

all classes. Previous versions of the specification required different minimum ethanol content 

depending on the allowable vapor pressure. 

Samples were collected in 21 states between July 2010 and May 2011, with almost 40 samples 

collected in each class. Samples were tested for key properties in D5798-10 to assess fuel 

quality. The parameters tested were vapor pressure, ethanol content, water content, acidity, pHe

(acid strength of high-ethanol content fuels), inorganic chloride and sulfate, and total sulfate. 

Class 1 (summer) samples more often met the volatility specification than samples from other 

classes, with 67% of the samples collected in this study meeting the specification. Samples in 

Classes 2 (fall/spring) and 3 (winter) met the applicable volatility specifications 43% and 30% of 

the time, respectively. Compliance with the ethanol content specification was almost 90% in all 

three volatility classes (see Table ES-1). This is a significant improvement over previous 

surveys, where very few samples met the specification. Several samples that would be offspecification for ethanol content under previous versions of the specification now met the 

specification with the reduction in ethanol content for all classes. For the other properties tested, 

a few samples were off-specification for pHe, acidity, water, and inorganic chloride. Few 

samples were off-specification for more than one property.

Forthcoming changes to D5798-11 include a minimum ethanol content of 51 vol% for all 

classes. Coupled with this change in ethanol content, a fourth volatility class was added. A future 

study is recommended to assess how fuel properties may change with these changes in the 

specification. 
v

Table ES-1. Summary of vapor pressure and ethanol content results

Class Comments # 

Samples

DVPE Ethanol

Below

Specification

Above

Specification

On

Specification

Below

Specification

Above

Specification

On

Specification

1 All Data 42 31.0% 2.4% 66.6% 7.1% 4.8% 88.1%

2 All Data 37 56.8% 0% 43.2% 5.4% 2.7% 91.9%

3 All Data 37 70.3% 0% 29.7% 2.7% 2.7% 94.6%
vi 

Abbreviations

ASTM ASTM International 

CRC Coordinating Research Council

DVPE dry equivalent vapor pressure 

“E85” fuel meeting ASTM D5798-10 specifications 

FFV flex fuel vehicle 

mass% percent by mass

mg/100mL milligrams per 100 milliliters

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

PADD Petroleum Area Defense District

pHe acidity of high ethanol content liquids 

ppm parts per million

ppmw parts per million by weight

psi pounds per square inch 

RFG reformulated gasoline

vol% volume percent 
vii

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1

Test Methodology .......................................................................................................................................2

Results and Discussion..............................................................................................................................4

Error Bars.................................................................................................................................... 4

Results Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5

Vapor Pressure ........................................................................................................................ 6

Ethanol Content .................................................................................................................... 10

Water Content ....................................................................................................................... 13

pHe........................................................................................................................................ 14

Acidity................................................................................................................................... 16

Sulfur Content....................................................................................................................... 18

Washed and Unwashed Gum Content .................................................................................. 18

Inorganic Chloride, Inorganic Sulfate, and Potential Sulfate ............................................... 18

Conclusions...............................................................................................................................................19

References.................................................................................................................................................20

Appendices.............................................................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix A-1.......................................................................................................................... A-2

Appendix A-2.......................................................................................................................... A-4
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Sampling locations for CRC E-85-2 survey in 2011....................................................... 3

Figure 2. Class 1 DVPE results for “E85” samples........................................................................ 7

Figure 3. Class 2 DVPE results for “E85” samples........................................................................ 8

Figure 4. Class 3 vapor pressure for “E85” samples. ..................................................................... 9

Figure 5. Ethanol content as a function of volatility for samples collected in this study ............. 10

Figure 6. Ethanol content of Class 1 samples............................................................................... 11

Figure 7. Ethanol content of Class 2 samples............................................................................... 12

Figure 8. Ethanol content of Class 3 samples............................................................................... 12

Figure 9. Water content in Class 1 samples.................................................................................. 13

Figure 10. Water content in Class 2 samples................................................................................ 14

Figure 11. Water content in Class 3 samples................................................................................ 14

Figure 12. pHe of Class 1 samples................................................................................................ 15

Figure 13. pHe of Class 2 samples................................................................................................ 15

Figure 14. pHe of Class 3 samples................................................................................................ 16

Figure 15. Acidity results for Class 1 samples ............................................................................. 17

Figure 16. Acidity results for Class 2 samples ............................................................................. 17

Figure 17. Acidity results for Class 3 samples ............................................................................. 18

List of Tables

Table 1. PADD Definitions............................................................................................................. 2

Table 2. Properties Tested and D5798-10 Specification Limits..................................................... 4

Table 3. Summary of Vapor Pressure and Ethanol Content Compliance by Volatility Class........ 6
1

Introduction

The Renewable Fuels Association estimates 13 billion gallons of fuel-grade ethanol was 

produced in 2010.1 Most of this ethanol is blended at 10 volume percent (vol%) with 

conventional gasoline. This 10 vol% blend of ethanol and gasoline is commonly referred to as 

E10. With what amounts to effectively a need for 12.6 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol to 

fulfill the total renewable fuel requirements of the 2011 Renewable Fuel Standard, the E10 

market is at or near saturation. With the growth in fuel-grade ethanol production, some ethanol is 

exported, while other domestic markets must either expand or be developed to continue to utilize 

ethanol.

One potential area for increased ethanol penetration is the “E85” market. The term “E85” is

colloquial, meaning a fuel that meets ASTM D5798-10 (“Standard Specification for Fuel 

Ethanol (Ed70-Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines”) and has been historically 

described as a fuel containing nominally 85 vol% ethanol in a balance of hydrocarbons, typically 

gasoline. The use of the term “E85” is not rigorously correct, as D5798–compliant fuel should 

never contain 85 vol% ethanol and is limited in the specification to 68 to 83 vol% ethanol. The 

title of D5798 was changed in the 2011 (–11) version to better describe the fuel (“Standard 

Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark Ignition Engines”).

However, for clarity throughout this report, the fuel will still be referred to as “E85”.

“E85” is a fuel marketed specifically for flex fuel vehicles, or FFVs. Due to the higher ethanol 

concentration in “E85,” conventional engine systems may face compatibility issues, so FFVs are 

designed with different materials and components to handle this high ethanol content fuel. 

Over the past year, there has been an 11% growth in the number of stations around the United 

States that have “E85” available, with 2,433 stations reported in July 2011.2 In 2009, a study by 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Coordinating Research Council 

(CRC) found that many “E85” samples did not meet the required quality specifications.3 Almost 

75% of the samples had vapor pressure below the required minimum, and nearly 50% had 

ethanol content outside the specified range for the volatility class.

In the 2010 survey, the ethanol content was typically above the specification limit, although 

Class 3 samples more often met the specification. The version of D5798 published in 2010, 

which is applicable to the current study, included major changes in the allowable minimum 

ethanol content. In previous versions, the minimum ethanol content changed with volatility class, 

with Class 1 having a lower limit of 79 vol% ethanol, Class 2 allowing a minimum of 74 vol% 

ethanol, and Class 3 allowing a minimum of 70 vol% ethanol. The D5798-10 specification now 

allows a minimum of 68 vol% ethanol for all volatility classes. 

Another potential market for fuel grade ethanol is as a blendstock for creating blends at levels 

between conventional gasoline and “E85.” Currently, these fuels may be referred to as Exx 

blends, where xx is the vol% of ethanol in the fuel. The Exx fuels are dispensed out of so-called 

blender pumps, where at-station blending of fuels to obtain Exx blends is conducted. Although 

little data exist, two scenarios are possible with ethanol blender pumps. In the first case, gasoline

or E10 and “E85” are blended to produce Exx fuels. In the second case, fuel-grade ethanol is 

blended with gasoline to produce Exx and “E85” fuels. Little data exist on the typical 
2

configuration of these blender pumps, although the quality of fuels from the blender pumps has 

recently been examined.4

The goal of this study, a collaboration between the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) and the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), was to collect “E85” samples from 

around the country and compare the quality to the D5798-10 specification. The work is a followon to the previous NREL/CRC “E85” survey.3 A second facet to this study was to compare fuels 

dispensed from so-called ethanol blender pumps to fuels dispensed from conventional pumps. 

Test Methodology

Samples were collected from around the United States between July 2010 and May 2011, 

covering a range of geographic locations. Sampling locations were based heavily on the 

information available in Table 2 of ASTM D5798-10, with only the 48 contiguous states 

considered for sampling. States with no “E85” stations were eliminated from consideration. 

The highest numbers of samples were collected in the Midwest, from Petroleum Area Defense 

District (PADD) 2 (see Table 1 for PADD definitions). PADD 2 has the highest concentration of 

“E85” stations in the United States. With the exception of PADD 3 and part of PADD 5, states 

were only considered if all three volatility classes were represented. In PADD 3 and PADD 5, 

“E85” market penetration, as evidenced by number of stations, is low.

5 To collect samples in 

these regions, the requirement for three volatility classes was waived. Only Class 1 and 2 

samples were collected from South Carolina, Florida, Arizona, and part of California.

To ease the transition from one volatility class to another, D5798-10 allows the use of “shoulder 

seasons.” In the specification, an example shoulder season would be designated 2/1, meaning

that either Class 2 “E85” or Class 1 “E85” can legally be sold during this month. In an effort to 

ensure the samples collected were from the appropriate volatility class, no samples were 

collected during shoulder seasons. When possible, samples were collected during the second full 

month of a season and during the last two weeks of the month.

Table 1. PADD Definitions

PADD Included States

1 (East Coast) CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT, DE, DC, NJ, NY, PA, FL, GA, 

NC, SC, VA, WV

2 (Midwest) IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD, OH, OK, 

TN, WI

3 (Gulf Coast) AL, AR, LA, MS, NM, TX

4 (Rocky Mountain) CO, ID, MT, UT, WY

5 (West Coast) AK, AZ, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA
3

Approximately 40 samples were collected in each volatility class. Fifteen of 24 samples collected 

in PADD 2 came from so-called blender pumps. All other samples were taken from conventional 

pumps. Figure 1 shows the locations of the sample collected. Each station was sampled in all 

applicable classes. Samples were collected in the latter half of the month in an effort to ensure 

that no carryover fuel was present from the previous month. Appendix A-1 contains details of 

station location, sample collection month, and applicable volatility class.

Figure 1. Sampling locations for CRC E-85-2 survey in 2011

Samples were collected and analyzed by Southwest Research Institute of San Antonio, Texas. 

All testing was performed per ASTM test methods for the properties listed in Table 2. The 

specification limits from D5798-10 are also listed in Table 2.
4

Table 2. Properties Tested and D5798-10 Specification Limits

Property

ASTM 

Method

D5798-10 Limit

Class 

1

Class 

2

Class

3

Ethanol content, vol% D5501 68-83 68-83 68-83

Vapor Pressure, psi D5191 5.5-8.5 7.0-9.5 9.5-12.0

All Classes

Methanol, vol% D5501 0.5, maximum

Higher Alcohols, vol% D5501 2, maximum

Sulfur, ppmw D5453 80, maximum

Acidity, mass% D1613 0.005, maximum

Washed gum, mg/100mL D381 5, maximum

Unwashed gum, 

mg/100mL D381 20, maximum

pHe D6423 6.5-9.0

Inorganic Chloride, ppmw D7328 1, maximum

Water, mass% E203 1.0, maximum

Inorganic Sulfate, ppmw D7328 No Limit

Potential Sulfate, ppmw D7328 No Limit

Results and Discussion

Error Bars

Although the results presented in this report are typically for a single measurement on each fuel, 

results are presented with error bars. The error bars are taken from the ASTM test method 

reproducibility for all tests. Not all the test methods used in this study have a measured precision 

for high ethanol content fuels. The methods used in this study are listed in the specification and 

are commonly used to test “E85” fuels. The test methods for dry equivalent vapor pressure 

(DVPE) (D5191), water (E203), pHe (acidity of high ethanol content liquids) (D6423), and 

sulfur (D5453) have a scope and precision that cover “E85” fuels. The test methods for ethanol 

content (D5501), gum content (D381), acidity (D1613), and chloride and sulfate (D7328) do not 

cover “E85” fuels in the scope, and the precision may differ from the values used here. Thus, for 

lack of a better estimate of method precision, the reproducibility from the method has been used 

to generate the error bars. For assessing pass/fail criteria, where applicable, samples are deemed 

to be on-specification if either the result is within the limit or if the error bar is within the limit.
5

Results Summary

Samples in this survey were collected randomly from around the country. The small number of 

samples is not meant to be representative of “E85” in the United States. Thus, results presented 

are not meant to imply, either implicitly or explicitly, that the overall fuel quality of the “E85” 

market in would be similar to the results presented. 

Table 3 summarizes the ethanol content and vapor pressure results for these samples. Samples 

have been divided by volatility class, then divided into three subcategories. The first subcategory 

is for samples, regardless of state, that are from areas that have either reformulated gasoline 

(RFG) areas, are ozone non-attainment areas, or have state restrictions on vapor pressure of 

gasolines during the summer months. The second subcategory is for samples from states with 

conventional gasoline and with conventional “E85” dispensers, where the fuel is blended at the 

terminal and delivered to the station. The third category is for samples collected from states with 

conventional gasoline, but dispensed by blender pumps, where the “E85” may have been blended 

at the terminal or at the station from denatured ethanol and gasoline. 
6

Table 3. Summary of Vapor Pressure and Ethanol Content Compliance by Volatility Class

Class Comments # 

Samples

DVPE Ethanol Content

Below

Specification

Above

Specification

On

Specification

Below

Specification

Above

Specification

On

Specification

1 All Data 42 31.0% 2.4% 66.6% 7.1% 4.8% 88.1%

RFG/Ozone 

Areas and 

Vapor 

Pressure 

Restriction 

Areas

13 76.9% 0% 23.1% 7.7% 7.7% 84.6%

Conventional 

Areas,

Conventional 

Pumps

14 14.3% 7.1% 78.6% 14.3% 7.1% 78.6%

Conventional 

Areas,

Blender 

Pumps

15 6.7% 0% 93.3% 0% 0% 100%

2 All Data 37 56.8% 0% 43.2% 5.4% 2.7% 91.9%

RFG/Ozone 

Areas and 

Vapor 

Pressure 

Restriction 

Areas

14 78.6% 0% 21.4% 7.1% 0% 92.9%

Conventional 

Areas, 

Conventional 

Pumps

13 46.2% 0% 53.8% 7.7% 0% 92.3%

Conventional 

Areas, 

Blender 

Pumps

10 40% 0% 60% 0% 10% 90%

3 All Data 37 70.3% 0% 29.7% 2.7% 2.7% 94.6%

RFG/Ozone 

Areas and 

Vapor 

Pressure 

Restriction 

Areas

11 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Conventional 

Areas, 

Conventional 

Pumps

11 45.5% 0% 54.5% 0% 0% 100%

Conventional 

Areas, 

Blender 

Pumps

15 66.7% 0% 33.3% 0% 6.7% 93.3%

 

Vapor Pressure

To ensure driveability and adequate cold start, the D5798-10 specification requires an increase in 

DVPE as ambient temperature decreases. The 2009 survey of “E85” noted significant vapor 
7

pressure failures across all volatility classes.4 Overall, two-thirds of the samples in this study met 

the vapor pressure requirement (Figure 2). “E85” is typically blended from conventional gasoline 

and denatured fuel ethanol. The specification for gasoline, D4814-10, includes various 

requirements for gasoline properties depending on geography and time of year, and also to meet 

air quality requirements. Several of the samples in this project were collected from areas with 

additional gasoline requirements (typically lower vapor pressure), such as for ozone control, 

areas with RFG, or with summer vapor pressure restrictions. These areas were subcategorized to 

determine if the quality of “E85” differed in these areas from the quality in the rest of the 

country. Compared to the other two groups, this group was less likely to meet the DVPE 

requirements in Class 1 for the samples collected. 

Figure 2. Class 1 DVPE results for “E85” samples.

Error bars were determined from the ASTM method reproducibility.

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

DVPE, psi, D5191

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

RFG, Ozone Non-Attainment Areas,

or Areas with Summer Vapor Pressure Restrictions

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Class 1

Specification

Limits

For discussion of error bars, see Error Bar Section in text
8

Only 43% of the samples in Class 2 met the vapor pressure requirements only, with little 

difference between sample groups (Figure 3). All the off-specification samples for this class 

were below the minimum required vapor pressure of 7.0 psi. 

Figure 3. Class 2 DVPE results for “E85” samples. 

Error bars were determined from the ASTM method reproducibility.

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

DVPE, psi, D5191

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

RFG,Ozone Non-Attainment Areas or

Areas with Summer Vapor Pressure Restrictions

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Class 2

Specification 

Limits

For discussion of error bars, see Error Bar Section in text
9

Similar to Class 2, the Class 3 samples were typically below the specification limit. Overall, only 

30% of the samples met the specification limits (Figure 4). No samples from RFG/Ozone/State 

Vapor Pressure Restriction Areas met the specification minimum of 9.5 psi in this study. An 

increasing number of samples from the conventional areas met the vapor pressure specifications, 

but still less than 50% of the samples in this study did. This result appears to be counterintuitive, 

as gasoline during these months should have the highest vapor pressure, resulting in an “E85” 

blend with higher vapor pressure. As expected, no differences between the areas were noted in 

the Class 3 samples, in part because RFG, ozone and/or vapor pressure restrictions are strictly 

required between May and September only.

Figure 4. Class 3 vapor pressure for “E85” samples. 

Error bars were determined from the ASTM method reproducibility.

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

DVPE, psi, D5191

4

6

8

10

12

14

RFG, Ozone Non-Attainment Areas or

Areas with Summer Vapor Pressure Restrictions

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Class 3

Specification 

Limits

For discussion of error bars, see Error Bar Section in text
10

Ethanol Content

The ethanol content of “E85” samples typically trends inversely to the vapor pressure, so 

samples with the highest vapor pressures have the lowest ethanol content. The reverse also holds 

true: samples with the lowest vapor pressures have the highest ethanol contents. Figure 5 shows

the relationship between vapor pressure and ethanol content for all the data in this survey, 

separated by volatility class. 

Figure 5. Ethanol content as a function of volatility for samples collected in this study

Ethanol, vol%, D5501

60 65 70 75 80 85 90

DVPE, psi, D5191

4

6

8

10

12

2010 Study, Class 1 samples

2010 Study, Class 2 samples

2010 Study, Class 3 samples

Maximum ethanol content, per D5798-10

Minimum ethanol content, per D5798-10
11

To further illustrate the ethanol content of the samples collected in this study, the data have been 

separated by volatility class. The ethanol content of the Class 1 samples was typically at the 

higher end of the specification limit, averaging 80 vol% across all samples. There was little 

difference between samples collected in the various regions around the country (Figure 6).

Although the specification limits do not change with volatility class in the D5798-10 version of 

the specification, this was the first version published with the common specification limits. Three 

samples that meet the D5798-10 specification limit for ethanol content would not have met the 

requirements of previous versions (with a minimum ethanol content of 79 vol% for Class 1). 

Similar to the last study, a few samples are below the specification minimum.

In Class 2, the ethanol content of the samples begins to vary more within the allowable 

specification limits. Although the average is 78 vol%, the range extends from 66 vol% to 85 

vol% (Figure 7). Four samples that would have failed previous versions of D5798 (minimum 

ethanol content of 74 vol% in previous versions) are now on specification. There are no 

significant differences among the samples based on region of collection. 

Figure 8 shows the ethanol content for the samples collected in Class 3. The D5798-10 version 

reduced the minimum allowable ethanol content to 68 vol%, compared to previous versions of 

the specification that required 70 vol% minimum ethanol content. In this survey for Class 3, 

seven samples that would have previously failed are now on specification. This class showed the 

largest variability in ethanol content between samples. The average ethanol content was 74 vol%, 

and ranged from 66 vol% to 87 vol%. 

Figure 6. Ethanol content of Class 1 samples

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Ethanol Content, vol%, D5501

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Class 1 

Specification 

Limits

For discussion of error bars, see appropriate Section in text
12

Figure 7. Ethanol content of Class 2 samples

Figure 8. Ethanol content of Class 3 samples

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Ethanol Content, vol%, D5501

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Attainment Areas, Conventional Pumps

Attainment Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Class 2

Specification 

Limits

For discussion of error bars, see appropriate Section in text GAIL KY MOTNFL TX COUTAZ CACA ORNYPASCSCILIL MOFL TX COUTNV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Ethanol, vol%, D5501

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Class 3

Specification

Limits

For discussion of error bars, see appropriate Section in text
13

Water Content

Ethanol-gasoline blends may have more dissolved water due to the highly polar nature of the 

ethanol in the blend. All samples in this project were tested for water content. The average water 

content for these samples was 0.7 mass% for Classes 1 and 3 and 0.8 mass% for Class 2. There is 

no apparent influence of ethanol content of the samples on the measured water content. Only two 

samples failed to meet the water content specification of D5798-10. One of the samples was 

from Class 2, from the state of Texas; the other out-of-specification sample was from Class 3, 

from the state of Illinois. The data are illustrated in Figures 9–11. 

Figure 9. Water content in Class 1 samples

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Water, E203, mass%

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limit
14

Figure 10. Water content in Class 2 samples

Figure 11. Water content in Class 3 samples

pHe

The pHe measures the acid strength of high-ethanol content fuels. High values may result in fuel 

corrosivity. All of the samples collected in this study readily met the pHe specification, with the GAIL KY MOTNFL TX COUTAZ CACA ORNYPASCSCILIL MOFL TX COUTNV MNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWI WI OH Water, E203, mass%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limit

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Water, E203,mass%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limit
15

average value being around 7.2. Figures 12–14 show the pHe results for the three volatility 

classes. 

Figure 12. pHe of Class 1 samples

Figure 13. pHe of Class 2 samples

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

pHe, D6423

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limits

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

pHe, D6423

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limits
16

Figure 14. pHe of Class 3 samples

Acidity

Acids in fuels can be corrosive and lead to component failures. In past surveys, samples typically 

met the acidity specification, with a few exceptions. The same trend is observed in this work, 

where samples generally meet the specification maximum. The acidity results for Class 1 are 

shown in Figure 15. Four samples did not meet the specification; three values were only slightly 

above the limit and one was a gross failure. Only one sample in Class 2 failed to meet the 

specification (Figure 16). Three samples failed in Class 3, with two samples almost an order of 

magnitude greater than the acidity specification limit (Figure 17). The handful of samples from 

Class 1 and Class 3 that were significantly higher than the allowable specification were retested 

several times, with similar results each time. GAIL KY MOTNFL TX COUTAZ CACA ORNYPASCSCILIL MOFL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

pHe, D6423

5

6

7

8

9

10

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limits
17

Figure 15. Acidity results for Class 1 samples

Figure 16. Acidity results for Class 2 samples

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Acidity, D1613, mass% as acetic acid

0.000

0.005

0.040

0.050

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limit

GA

IL

KY

MO

TN

FL

TX

CO

UT

AZ

CACA

OR

NY

PA

SCSC

ILIL

MO

FL

TX

CO

UT

NV

MNMNMNMNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Acidity, D1613, mass% as acetic acid

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limit
18

Figure 17. Acidity results for Class 3 samples

Sulfur Content

The maximum allowable sulfur content in “E85” is 80 ppm. Every sample in this study easily 

met this specification limit. The highest sulfur content measured was 39 ppm, half the 

specification limit. 

Washed and Unwashed Gum Content

The unwashed gum content of these “E85” fuels was below the maximum specification of 20 

mg/100mL for every sample in Class 1 and Class 2. Two samples in Class 3 greatly exceeded the 

unwashed gum specification maximum of 20 mg/100 mL, but did not fail for other properties, 

such as acidity; these samples had unwashed gum content of 80 mg/100mL and over 200 

mg/100mL. Despite the high unwashed gum content, these samples had washed gum near the 

method detection limit of 0.5 mg/100 mL. All the samples in this study were at or near this 

detection limit. 

Inorganic Chloride, Inorganic Sulfate, and Potential Sulfate

Only the inorganic chloride content of “E85” fuels is limited in the D5798-10 specification. 

Samples were also tested for inorganic sulfate and potential sulfate. One sample in Class 1 and 

two samples in Class 3 did not meet the 1-ppm maximum for chloride. One of the Class 3 

samples was also an order of magnitude greater than the acidity specification. The inorganic and 

potential sulfate results are less than 5 ppm for all samples. GAIL KY MOTNFL TX COUTAZ CACA ORNYPASCSCILIL MOFL TX COUTNV MNMNMN

MNMN

IAIA

KS

NE

ND

SDSDSDSD

WIWI

OH

Acidity, D1613, mass% as acetic acid

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps

D5798-10

Specification 

Limit
19 

Conclusions

The goal of this project was to assess the quality of “E85” in the United States compared to the 

specifications in ASTM D5798-10. The term “E85” is the name given to fuels that meet ASTM 

D5798-10 and are used in flex fuel vehicles and contain 68 vol% to 83 vol% ethanol. Samples of 

“E85” were collected from public stations around the country between July 2010 and May 2011. 

Samples were collected either from conventional pumps, where the “E85” is blended at the 

terminal and delivered to the station, or from blender pumps, typically located in the Midwest. 

Samples taken from these blender pumps were leveraged to conduct a smaller study on the 

quality of fuels from these pumps. Results from that study are presented in Reference 4. 

Samples were collected at each station in each of the three volatility classes, where possible, as 

defined in D5798-10. Overall, approximately 40 samples were collected in each class, with a 

total project sampling of 116 samples. The samples were analyzed for the following properties in 

D5798-10, including vapor pressure, ethanol content, gum content, acidity, pHe, water, inorganic 

chloride, sulfate and potential sulfate. 

Although not a goal of this study, the samples were divided into categories to determine if there 

is any impact on properties due to region or type of pump. About one-quarter of the samples 

were collected from areas that have RFG, ozone non-attainment status, and/or have vapor 

pressure restrictions for air quality for the conventional gasoline. Another quarter of the samples 

were collected from stations with blender pumps. The remaining samples were collected from 

conventional “E85” pumps throughout the country. 

Results for vapor pressure and ethanol content for the samples, across all regions and classes, are 

summarized in Table 3. For Class 1, meeting the DVPE for “E85” samples is more difficult in 

RFG regions, due to the lower DVPE required for summertime gasoline in these regions. 

Overall, two-thirds of the samples in this study met the DVPE requirements for Class 1. Samples 

collected in Classes 2 and 3 met the DVPE 43% and 30% of the time, respectively. On average, 

90% of these samples met the ethanol content specifications. Some variability was observed in 

Class 1 between the RFG regions and conventional regions, though over 75% of the samples fell 

within the ethanol requirements. 

Samples generally met the water specification, although a few samples were slightly above the 

specification maximum. There was no impact of sample collection location on the water content 

of the samples, thus samples from coastal regions did not differ from samples collected in landlocked states. 

No failures were noted for pHe, and a majority of the samples met the acidity specification. It is 

notable that the samples that did not meet the acidity specification were gross failures, almost an 

order of magnitude greater than the specification limit. One of these samples also failed the 

chloride specification. Similar to the other properties, over 95% of the samples met the chloride 

specification requirements. 

In 2011, significant changes to the D5798 specification were published as D5798-11. These 

changes include the addition of a fourth volatility class and the reduction of the minimum 

ethanol content in each class to 51 vol%. A follow-on study is highly recommended to examine 

how these significant changes to the specification have impacted “E85” quality. 
20 

References 

1. Renewable Fuels Association. “2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook,” February 2011. 

2. Ethanol Retailer. “New E85 and Flex Fuel Pump Stations.” July 15, 2011 News Archive; 

http://www.ethanolretailer.com/templates/news-archive/2011/07/#top; Accessed July 28, 

2011. 

3. Alleman, T.L. “National Survey of E85 Quality.” CRC Report No. E-85, November 

2009. http://www.crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2009/E-85/E85%20Final%20Report%20_120609_%20Revised.pdf 

4. Alleman, T.L. “Blender Pump Fuel Survey: CRC Project E-95.” NREL/TP-5400-51863. 

Golden, CO:National Renewable Energy Laboratory. July 2011. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/51863.pdf 

5. Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center. “E85 Fueling Station Locations.” 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/ethanol_locations.html, Accessed May 15, 

2010. 
A-1

Appendices
A-2 

Appendix A-1 Station Locations and

Sampling Date

Location Class 1 Date Class 2 Date Class 3 Date

Atlanta, GA 7/21/10 11/17/10 1/24/11

Chicago, IL 7/20/10 5/18/11 1/26/11

Louisville, KY 7/20/10 10/20/10 1/26/11

St Louis, MO 7/26/10 No Class 2 Season 2/18/11

Nashville, TN 7/16/10 10/20/10 2/17/11

Miami, FL 7/21/10 11/19/10

3/22/11 No Class 3 Season

Sachse, TX 7/19/10 10/14/10 2/15/11

Thornton, CO 7/22/10 5/19/11 1/25/11

Clearfield, UT 7/22/10 5/17/11 1/28/11

Scottsdale, AZ 7/20/10 11/18/10

3/16/10 No Class 3 Season

Pomona, CA 7/20/10 3/16/11 12/20/10

Perris, CA 7/22/10 10/21/10 1/28/11

Portland, OR 7/23/10 10/20/10 12/20/10

Glenmont, NY 7/20/10 5/18/11 2/23/11

State College, PA 7/20/10 10/19/10 1/27/11

W Columbia, SC 7/20/10 11/18/10

3/18/11 No Class 3 Season

Greenville, SC 7/16/10 11/16/10

3/18/11 No Class 3 Season

Champaign, IL 7/26/10 5/25/11 2/21/11

Bloomington, IL 7/26/10 5/25/11 2/21/11

Jefferson City, MO 7/21/10 No Class 2 Season 1/26/11

Tallahassee, FL 7/21/10 11/19/10

3/17/11 No Class 3 Season

Waco, TX 7/20/10 10/19/10 1/26/11

Greeley, CO 7/22/10 5/19/11 2/21/11

East Provo, UT 7/22/10 5/17/11 2/17/11

Las Vegas, NV 7/21/10 5/17/11 2/21/11

Windom, MN 7/21/10 No Data Collected 11/19/10
A-3 

Location Class 1 Date Class 2 Date Class 3 Date

Heron Lake, MN 7/21/10 No Data Collected 11/19/10

Inwood, IA 7/17/10 5/17/11 11/19/10

Gilbert, IA 7/18/10 5/16/11 11/23/10

Lawrence, KS 7/17/10 5/12/11 11/16/10

Luverne, MN 7/14/10 No Data Collected 11/19/10

Annandale, MN 7/15/10 No Data Collected 11/22/10

Crookston, MN 7/19/10 No Data Collected 11/19/10

Grand Island, NE 7/19/10 5/18/11 11/17/10

Wahpeton, ND 7/14/10 No Data Collected 11/19/10

Sioux Falls, SD 8/1/10 5/17/11 11/22/10

Baltic, SD 8/1/10 5/17/11 11/22/10

Watertown, SD 7/18/10 5/23/11 3/24/11

Beresford, SD 7/17/10 5/20/11 3/24/11

Grand Chute, WI 7/18/10 5/16/11 11/18/10

Oshkosh, WI 7/18/10 5/16/11 11/18/10

Columbiana, OH 8/1/10 No Class 2 Season 3/31/11
A-4 

Appendix A-2 

Class 1 Results

City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum, mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328

Inorganic Sulfate,

ppm,D7328

Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

Atlanta, GA 5.1 0.004 2 0.5 0.76 3.6 81.71 7.51 0.1 0.1 0.1

Chicago, IL 4.84 0.004 3.5 0.5 0.619 6.6 82.02 7.3 0.1 0.1 0.2

Louisville, KY 4.72 0.003 6 0.5 0.891 3.2 81.53 7.25 0.1 0.2 0.4

St Louis, MO 4.93 0.003 6.5 0.5 0.838 6.2 79.71 7.29 0.1 0.2 0.3

Nashville, TN 5.06 0.003 2 0.5 0.854 6.9 82.14 8.35 0.1 0.1 0.1

Miami, FL 4.93 0.005 2 0.5 0.473 3.5 84.68 6.99 1.6 0.1 0.1

Sachse, TX 4.75 0.003 3.5 0.5 0.901 5 82.69 7.39 0.1 1.1 1.2

Thornton, CO 5.39 0.003 5 0.5 0.487 20 81.94 7.33 0.1 0.4 0.4

Clearfield, UT 6.26 0.003 3 0.5 0.571 9.9 66.93 7.3 0.1 1.2 0.1

Scottsdale, AZ 5.04 0.004 6.5 0.5 0.59 6.2 81.38 6.44 0.1 1.3 1.3

Pomona, CA 4.98 0.004 3 0.5 0.721 2.7 81.64 7.13 0.1 0.2 0.2

Perris, CA 4.84 0.003 3 0.5 0.598 3.1 81.61 7.69 0.1 0.1 0.1

Portland, OR 5.63 0.003 3.5 0.5 0.574 6.5 81.04 7.38 0.1 0.8 0.8

Glenmont, NY 5.81 0.004 2 0.5 0.837 10.1 79.55 7.57 0.1 0.1 0.1

State College, 

PA 5.51 0.004 1.5 0.5 0.911 6.1 82.8 7.48 0.1 0.1 0.1

W Columbia, 

SC 5.65 0.006 2.5 0.5 0.684 7.6 82 7.46 0.1 0.8 0.9

Greenville, SC 6.07 0.006 3.5 0.5 0.821 9.1 78.39 7.68 0.1 0.6 0.6

Champaign, IL 5.72 0.002 3 0.5 0.954 7.1 81.65 7.44 0.1 0.5 0.7

Bloomington, 

IL 5.75 0.003 4 0.5 0.732 4.6 81.13 7.45 0.1 0.3 0.5

Jefferson City, 

MO 5.8 0.003 2 0.5 0.797 11 81.44 7.61 0.1 0.1 0.2

Tallahassee, 

FL 4.92 0.002 5 1 0.464 6.6 84.43 7.44 0.1 0.1 0.2

Waco, TX 4.8 0.004 3.5 0.5 1.016 9.2 82.03 7.61 0.1 0.9 1.2

Greeley, CO 5.31 0.003 3 0.5 0.722 10.9 79.35 6.76 0.1 2.7 2.7
A-5 

City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum, mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328

Inorganic Sulfate,

ppm,D7328

Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

East Provo, UT 6.53 0.003 2 0.5 0.523 10.3 66.83 7.27 0.1 1 1.2

Las Vegas, NV 5.27 0.002 12 1 0.601 6.5 81.7 8.4 0.1 1.1 1.1

Windom, MN 8.31 0.003 1 0.5 0.769 10.6 81.09 7.53 0.1 0.2 0.3

Heron Lake, 

MN 9.27 0.002 1 0.5 0.657 25.6 64.77 7.36 0.1 0.2 0.2

Inwood, IA 5.5 0.003 2 0.5 0.542 81.6 6.76 0.1 0.2 0.3

Gilbert, IA 5.99 0.003 1.5 0.5 0.726 80.45 7.88 0.1 0.1 0.1

Lawrence, KS 5.51 0.003 1 0.5 0.619 82.73 7.38 0.1 0.2 0.2

Luverne, MN 6.1 0.003 3 0.5 0.783 79.29 7.27 0.1 0.3 0.3

Annandale, 

MN 6.13 0.003 1.5 0.5 0.613 78.93 6.72 0.1 0.2 0.2

Crookston, MN 5.82 0.003 3 0.5 0.58 81.67 6.34 0.1 2.3 2.3

Grand Island, 

NE 5.54 0.006 1 0.5 0.817 80.31 7.74 0.1 1.3 1.3

Wahpeton, ND 7.52 0.002 1 0.5 0.817 80.31 7.53 0.1 0.2 0.3

Sioux Falls, SD 6.3 0.003 2 0.5 0.733 77.85 7.31 1 0.3 1 

Baltic, SD 5.98 0.047 1 0.5 0.56 81.74 6.82 1 0.2 1 

Watertown, SD 6.02 0.003 2 0.5 0.805 77.77 7.37 0.1 0.2 0.3

Beresford, SD 7.12 0.003 3.5 0.5 0.615 68.21 7.43 0.1 0.3 0.4

Grand Chute, 

WI 8.09 0.002 3 1 0.488 80.11 7.32 0.1 1.1 1.1

Oshkosh, WI 8.12 0.003 2.5 0.5 0.454 80.89 7.26 0.1 1 1 

Columbiana, 

OH 4.86 0.003 4 0.5 0.718 79.97 7.19 -0.1 0.7 0.8
A-6 

Class 2 Results

City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

Atlanta, GA 6.2 0.003 1 <0.5 0.808 3.6 81.28 6.94 <0.1 0.4 0.4

Chicago, IL 5.27 0.003 3.5 0.5 0.781 12.1 75.35 7.54 <0.1 1.8 2 

Louisville, KY 5.76 0.002 6.5 <0.5 0.906 3.2 81.64 7.26 <0.1 0.4 <1

Nashville, TN 5.78 0.004 2.5 0.5 0.926 6.1 82.1 6.85 <0.1 0.2 <1

Miami, FL

6.17

6.78

0.005

0.004

1.5

2 

<0.5

0.5

0.696

0.878

2.3

3.6

81.89

83

6.90

7.74

0.5

0.1

<0.1

0 

0.1

0.4

Sachse, TX 7.37 0.003 3 <0.5 0.841 8 75.15 6.55 <0.1 1.2 1.3

Thornton, CO 5.32 0.001 6 <0.5 0.353 8.8 81.92 8.03 <0.1 0.3 0.5

Clearfield, UT 6.54 0.002 2 <0.5 0.743 9.8 65.57 7.93 <0.1 <0.1 0.3

Scottsdale, AZ

9.19

6.13

0.003

0.004

3 

5.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.7

0.739

18.6

4.4

70.87

75.73

7.00

7.13

<0.1

0 

0.2

1.9

0.3

1.8

Pomona, CA 4.73 0.004 3 <0.5 1.074 3.2 82.03 7.67 0 0 0 

Perris, CA 4.94 0.004 2.5 <0.5 0.902 2.5 82.28 6.5 <0.1 0.3 <1

Portland, OR 6.26 0.003 4 0.5 0.662 4.4 82.15 6.61 <0.1 0.4 <1

Glenmont, NY 6.85 0.004 3.5 <0.5 0.919 12.6 71.37 7.99 <0.1 0.4 0.5

State College, 

PA 6.05 0.004 4 0.5 0.775 5.9 80.91 6.65 <0.1 0.4 <1

West Columbia, 

SC 

6.2

6.66

0.006

0.005

2.5

1 

<0.5

<0.5

0.805

0.937

7 

6.7

81.98

82.21

7.03

7.75

<0.1

0 

0.2

0.8

0.40.7

Greenville, SC

Greenville, SC

6.12

6.97

0.004

0.003

2 

2.5

0.5

<0.5

0.74

0.981

6.6

7.8

81.65

80.92

7.14

7.72

<0.1

0.1

0.2

0.7

0.3

0.8

Champaign, IL 6.11 0.004 2 <0.5 1.01 10.2 80.21 7.97 <0.1 0.3 0.4

Bloomington, IL 7.39 0.003 1 <0.5 0.81 8 71.41 7.92 <0.1 0 0.3

Tallahassee, FL

6.66

8.49

0.004

0.003

1 

3.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.52

0.548

8.2

11.8

78.77

68.92

6.92

7.78

<0.1

0 

0.1

0 

0.2

0.4
A-7 

City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

Waco, TX 6.43 0.003 2 0.5 1.344 8.7 79.54 7.03 <0.1 0.7 <1

Greeley, CO 5.72 0.002 1.5 0.5 0.598 9.7 77.56 7.95 <0.1 0.6 0.9

Provo, UT 7.21 0.001 11.5 <0.5 0.666 11.6 66.36 7.81 <0.1 0.4 0.6

Inwood, IA 5.43 0.002 2 <0.5 0.22 6.4 84.59 8.05 <0.1 0.2 0.3

Gilbert, IA 7.31 0.003 2 <0.5 0.871 6.8 75.26 8.2 <0.1 0 0.3

Lawrence, KS 6.97 0.003 3 <0.5 0.702 6.7 82.13 7.85 <0.1 0 0.3

Grand Island, 

NE 5.93 0.005 1 0.5 0.97 5.1 81.77 7.98 <0.1 1.6 1.6

Sioux Falls, SD 6.85 0.004 2.5 <0.5 0.75 8.1 73.89 8.04 <0.1 0.3 0.4

Baltic, SD 5.84 0.004 2 0.5 0.898 6.2 81.75 7.68 <0.1 0.7 0.8

Watertown, SD 7.57 0.002 0.5 <0.5 0.753 9.6 71.08 7.88 <0.1 <0.1 0.3

Beresford, SD 6.37 0.003 0.5 <0.5 0.658 7.2 76.15 8.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4

Appleton, WI 9.4 0.002 1.5 <0.5 0.613 3.4 76.26 8.02 <0.1 0.7 0.8

Oshkosh, WI 8.15 0.002 2 <0.5 0.605 2.3 81.78 8.11 <0.1 0.6 0.6
A-8 

Class 3 Results

City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

Atlanta, GA 8.66 0.008 3 0.5 0.867 5.7 70.77 7.7 0.1 0.3 0.3

Chicago, IL 8.49 0.003 2.5 0.5 0.686 9.2 72.98 7.56 0.1 0.7 0.6

Louisville, KY 9.05 0.003 5.5 0.5 0.911 5.4 71.95 7.71 0.1 0.2 0.3

St. Louis, MO 8.62 0.004 7.5 0.5 0.872 11 70.88 7.61 0.1 1 1.3

Nashville, TN 6.85 0.004 2.5 0.5 1.077 5.6 80.73 7.76 0.1 0.1 0.1

Sachse, TX 8.19 0.004 2 0.5 0.95 11.5 76.47 7.73 0.1 0.1 0.3

Thornton, CO 7.39 0.002 4 0.5 0.643 8.7 82.01 7.61 0.1 0.6 0.6

Clearfield, UT 8.94 0.002 206.5 0.5 0.164 14.1 68.74 6.78 0.1 0.1 0.2

Pomona, CA 6.34 0.004 1.5 0.5 0.969 2.4 79.92 6.54 0.1 0.2 0.3

Perris, CA 6.16 0.003 1 0.5 0.902 4.1 81.74 7.46 0.1 0.4 0.6

Portland, OR 7.5 0.003 3.5 0.5 0.743 4.3 81.33 7.22 0.1 0.2 0.2

Glenmont, NY 8.92 0.004 3 0.5 0.736 12.8 68.07 7.7 0 0 0.4

Milroy, PA 9.13 0.003 3 0.5 0.75 12.9 68.87 7.67 0.1 0.4 0.4

Champaign, IL 9.29 0.003 4 0.5 0.888 12.1 72.09 7.56 0.1 0.8 0.7

Bloomington, IL 9.12 0.003 6 2 1.258 8.6 67.8 7.67 7 0 0.4

Jefferson City, 

MO 10.02 0.004 2 0.5 0.772 6.9 71.52 7.71 0.1 0.2 0.2

Waco, TX 7.5 0.003 2.5 0.5 1.003 7.6 79.47 7.72 0.1 0.1 0.4

Greeley, CO 7.78 0.002 2 0.5 0.577 16.2 75.26 7.51 0.1 0.9 1 

Provo, UT 9.4 0.002 81.5 0.5 0.215 13.7 65.66 7.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

Las Vegas, NV 6.22 0.002 4.5 0.5 0.707 6 81.98 7.45 0.1 1 1.2

Fisher, MN 8.3 0.003 5.5 0.5 0.537 9.9 72.6 7.13 0.1 0.3 0.5

Detroit Lakes, 

MN 10.53 0.002 1.5 0.5 0.781 18.9 68.95 6.51 0.1 0.3 0.4

Luverne, MN 8.29 0.003 2 1 0.629 39 71.95 6.86 0.1 0.1 0.2

Annandale, MN 10.51 0.003 1.5 0.5 0.621 21.7 69.61 6.72 0.1 0 0.2
A-9 

City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

Crookston, MN 9 0.003 2 0.5 0.539 9.6 71.98 6.59 0.1 1.4 1.4

Inwood, IA 6.44 0.003 3 0.5 0.566 12.7 83.65 7.31 0.1 0.1 0.2

Gilbert, IA 5.56 0.003 6 0.5 0.697 5.6 80.58 6.34 0.1 1.3 1.4

Lawrence, KS 6.7 0.003 2 0.5 0.675 4.2 81.89 6.82 0.1 0.2 0.3

Grand Island, NE 7.72 0.003 1 0.5 0.883 15.3 78.3 6.74 0.1 0.7 0.9

Wahpeton, ND 9.41 0.002 0.5 0.5 0.611 8.3 69.58 6.66 0.1 0.4 0.5

Sioux Falls, SD 8.41 0.003 3 0.5 0.604 25.7 71.87 6.26 0.1 0.2 0.3

Baltic, SD 5.86 0.038 1 0.5 0.132 17.1 87.42 7.00 0.1 0 0.1

Beresford,SD 8.43 0.002 2 <0.5 0.541 8.2 71.59 7.66 <0.1 <0.1 0.4

Watertown, SD 8.96 0.022 2 1.5 0.877 9 71.27 7.71 3.3 <0.1 <0.1

Appleton, WI 10.61 0.002 1.5 0.5 0.59 3.7 68.87 6.84 0.1 0.9 0.9

Oshkosh, WI 10.83 0.002 2.5 0.5 0.509 4.3 68.02 6.33 0.1 1.4 1.6

Columbiana, OH 10.31 0.003 0.5 <0.5 0.911 14.5 71.13 7.42 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1