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

Utilization of Renewable 

Oxygenates as Gasoline 

Blending Components 

Janet Yanowitz

Ecoengineering, Inc.

Earl Christensen and Robert L. McCormick

Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-50791

August 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

Utilization of Renewable 

Oxygenates as Gasoline 

Blending Components 

Janet Yanowitz

Ecoengineering, Inc.

Earl Christensen and Robert L. McCormick

Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Prepared under Task No. FC08.9451

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-50791

August 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1

2 CHEMICAL STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................... 3

3 PRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Alcohols by Fermentation ................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Alcohols via Synthesis Gas .............................................................................................. 6

3.3 Cellulose Hydrolysis ........................................................................................................ 8

4 REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS ................................................................................................. 11

4.1 Federal Requirements ..................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Substantially Similar Requirement ......................................................................... 11

4.1.2 Fuel Registration and Health Effects Testing ......................................................... 12

4.1.3 Other Federal Requirements ................................................................................... 12

4.2 State Requirements ......................................................................................................... 14

4.2.1 ASTM and NIST Specifications ............................................................................. 14

4.2.2 Other State Requirements ....................................................................................... 16

4.3 Transportation and Distribution System Requirements ................................................. 16

5 CHEMICAL PROPERTIES.................................................................................................................19

5.1 Alcohols ......................................................................................................................... 19

5.2 Cellulose-Derived Oxygenates ....................................................................................... 19

6 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS..................................................................................24

6.1 Safety .............................................................................................................................. 24

6.2 Toxicity .......................................................................................................................... 25

6.3 Environmental Considerations ....................................................................................... 26

7 USE IN SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES................................................................................................28

7.1 Energy Density ............................................................................................................... 28

7.2 Volatility......................................................................................................................... 29

7.3 Phase Separation ............................................................................................................ 33

7.4 Materials Compatibility.................................................................................................. 37

7.5 Driveability ..................................................................................................................... 38

7.6 Octane Rating ................................................................................................................. 38

7.7 Heat of Vaporization ...................................................................................................... 39
iv

7.8 Tailpipe Emissions ......................................................................................................... 40

7.9 Viscosity ......................................................................................................................... 41

7.10 Impurities ....................................................................................................................... 41

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH NEEDS......................................................................................42

9 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................44
v 

List of Tables

Table 1. Products from mixed alcohol synthesis via synthesis gas .................................................7

Table 2. Substantially Similar Fuel Blends and Fuel Blends with Waivers ..................................13

Table 3. ASTM 4814-10b, Chemical and Physical Properties of Spark-Ignition Fuels ................15

Table 4. ASTM D4806-11, Chemical and Physical Properties for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for 

Blending with Gasoline ..................................................................................................................17

Table 5. Chemical and Physical Properties of Gasoline and Alcohols ..........................................20

Table 6. Chemical and Physical Properties of Biofuels Compared to Gasoline ............................22

Table 7. Oral Toxicity of Gasoline and Various Oxygenates ........................................................26

Table 8. Mole Fraction of Water in the Organic Phase and Aqueous Phases When Combined 

with 15% Alcohol/n-Heptane Blend84 ...........................................................................................35

List of Figures

Figure 1. Propanol isomers ..............................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Butanol isomers ................................................................................................................3

Figure 3. Pentanol isomers ...............................................................................................................3

Figure 4. Chemical structure of cellulose-derived oxygenates ........................................................4

Figure 5. Simplified scheme showing conversion of C6 sugar (as in cellulose) to cellulosederived oxygenates (after Palkovits, Lange et al., and Alonso et al.). .............................................9

Figure 6. Simplified scheme showing conversion of C5 sugar (pentose as in hemicellulose) to 

cellulose-derived oxygenates .........................................................................................................10

Figure 7. Vapor pressure of alcohol/gasoline blends .....................................................................31

Figure 8. Vapor pressure (as Dry Vapor Pressure or DVPE) of ethanol and n-butanol in gasoline, 

added individually and in a dual alcohol blend.52 ..........................................................................31

Figure 9. Distillation curve for 10 vol% ethanol/gasoline blend.44 ...............................................32

Figure 10. Solubility of water in 10 wt% and 20 wt% mixtures of various alcohols in gasoline ..34

Figure 11. Binodal curves and tie-lines for gasoline-water-alcohol ternary liquid systems.85 .....36
vi

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ABE ABE fermentation (so called because it produced acetone, butanol, and ethanol) 

AKI anti-knock index 

AMF acetoxymethyl furfural 

API American Petroleum Institute

ASTM ASTM International 

BL butyl levulinic acid 

Btu British thermal unit

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO carbon monoxide 

CRC Coordinating Research Council 

DI driveability index

DMF dimethylfuran 

EL ethyl levulinic acid 

EMF ethoxymethyl furfural 

EP ethyl pentanoate 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FFV flex fuel vehicle 

FR Federal Register

g gram 

gal gallon 

GHB γ-hydroxybutyrate 

GTBA gasoline-grade t-butyl alcohol 

GVL γ-valeralactone

H2 hydrogen 

HC hydrocarbons 

HMF hydroxymethyl furfural 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

J joule 

kcal kilocalorie

kg kilogram 

kPa kilopascal 

L liter

LA levulinic acid

lb pound 

MF 2-methylfuran 

mg milligram

MJ megajoules 

mL milliliter

MON motor octane number 

MP methyl pentanoate 

MTHF 2-methyltetrahydrofuran 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 
vii

NMOG non-methane organic gases

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

PA pentanoic acid 

ppm part per million

psi pounds per square inch 

RFG reformulated gasoline

RON research octane number

RVP Reid vapor pressure

UL Underwriters Laboratories

vol% percent volume 

wt% weight percent 
viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the United States Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies Program, Fuels Technologies Subprogram for 

sponsoring this work.
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reviews the use of higher alcohols and several cellulose-derived oxygenates that, as 

blend components in gasoline, can reduce our dependence on petroleum-derived fuel. Higher 

alcohols (with the exception of tert-butanol) can be produced from sugars via fermentation or by 

gasification to form synthesis gas, followed by catalytic conversion to a mixture of alcohols. 

Five-carbon alcohols can also be produced from sugars or ligno-cellulosic biomass by chemical 

means. Levulinic acid esters (ethyl and butyl), methyl pentanoate (MP), γ-valeralactone (GVL), 

methyltetrahydrofuran (MTHF), 2-methylfuran (MF), and dimethylfuran (DMF) can also be 

produced by chemical transformation of ligno-cellulosic biomass and have been proposed as 

gasoline extenders. 

While data on the use of these compounds as fuel components are limited, there is evidence that 

some may provide benefits such as higher energy density, lower vapor pressure, lower affinity 

for water, and potentially improved material compatibility relative to first generation biofuels. 

None of these oxygenates can be used neat in the existing U.S. auto fleet because the vapor 

pressure of each of these materials alone is too low to allow reliable startup. Like fuel-grade 

ethanol, however, neat higher alcohols up to C4, as well as DMF, MF, and MP, have a vapor 

composition in the flammable range at normal ambient temperatures and so must be handled 

appropriately at production facilities and blending terminals. Material compatibility issues are 

expected to be less severe for neat higher alcohols than for fuel-grade ethanol. There is limited 

information regarding materials compatibility of the other oxygenates. 

In contrast to gasoline, alcohols up to C4 will take up (dissolve) significant amounts of water. 

Ethanol, methanol, tert-butanol, and GVL are completely miscible with water; the other alcohols 

and oxygenates less so. However, most of these compounds when dissolved in gasoline and in 

contact with sufficient quantities of water will form two phases. The aqueous phase may contain 

significant quantities of oxygenate, reducing the oxygenate content of the gasoline and 

potentially causing the gasoline phase to fail ASTM specification requirements and give 

unacceptable performance. Thus, for these oxygenates, exposure to water will still need to be 

controlled, although the impact of water exposure will be less than it would be for fuel-grade 

ethanol. 

To limit impurities and constrain other fuel properties, it is likely that an ASTM standard for 

blend components, similar to ASTM D4806 for fuel-grade ethanol, will need to be developed 

prior to introduction of these components into the commercial fuel supply. Development of an 

ASTM specification will require a substantial amount of data on the chemical composition and 

properties of the oxygenate of interest as well as on how the main component and impurities 

impact the durability of the engine and emission control system. At this time, little is known 

about the potential for by-products and minor contaminants that may be present in these 

oxygenates from the various production processes, a data gap that will need to be addressed. 

Very little data exist on how blending higher alcohols or other oxygenates with gasoline or 

unfinished gasoline (blendstock for oxygenate blending) affects the D4814 properties. 

Furthermore, the Driveability Index, one of the properties of D4814, is not defined for 

oxygenates other than ethanol. 
x 

Under the Clean Air Act, fuels used in the United States must be “substantially similar” to fuels 

used in certification of cars for emission compliance. This is generally interpreted as meaning 

that fuels must be substantially similar to gasoline. Aliphatic ethers and alcohols, which include 

MTHF and all of the higher alcohols but not the other oxygenates in this report, and their 

mixtures at concentrations up to 2.7 wt% oxygen were made substantially similar by rule. 

Waivers for the addition of higher alcohols at concentrations up to 3.7 wt% oxygen have also 

been granted. DMF and MF (aromatic compounds) and the ester oxygenates are not substantially 

similar and will require a large body of test data to show that they do not “cause or contribute” to 

the failure or deterioration of any emission control device to obtain a waiver. Furthermore, the 

Clean Air Act requires that fuels be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

which requires the submission of basic data on the composition and health impacts of the fuel. 

The fuel registration requirements have not been completed for any of the oxygenates discussed 

in this report, although the process is underway for isobutanol. 

Limited emission testing performed on pre-Tier 1 vehicles and research engines suggests that 

higher alcohols will reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and organics, while nitrogen oxide 

emissions will stay the same or increase. It is not clear that these effects would be observed in 

modern Tier 2 vehicles. In addition, there is no publicly available information on the impact of 

these oxygenates on emissions of specific toxic compounds. The impact of these oxygenates on 

evaporative emissions, including permeation effects, has not been studied, nor has the impact on 

the durability of emission control catalysts. 

Based on the available evidence, the properties of MTHF, DMF, MF, and MP suggest that they 

may function well as low-concentration blends with gasoline in standard vehicles and in higher 

concentrations in flex fuel vehicles. The high toxicity of DMF and MF warrants special care in 

assessing emissions and the potential for environmental damage to ensure their use would not 

present an exceptional risk. Safety issues associated with the formation of peroxides in MTHF 

will also need to be assessed. 

Fuel use of GVL will be held back by its potential for abuse as a drug. Although ethanol also has 

the potential for abuse and addiction, its widespread availability elsewhere minimizes the 

potential for additional disruption caused by fuel use. In addition, GVL’s miscibility with water 

and its high boiling point (and presumably low vapor pressure at typical ambient temperatures) 

present significant drawbacks to its use as a gasoline substitute or additive. Similarly, the 

miscibility of tert-butanol with water will likely limit its use.

The volatility of low-concentration levulinate/gasoline blends should be measured. However, 

based on the limited information available on boiling points, there is some evidence that the 

levulinate compounds may not be volatile enough to be used in existing vehicles. 

Testing to obtain the approval of Underwriters Laboratories (or another nationally recognized 

testing laboratory) for the use of dispensers and aboveground and underground storage tanks 

with higher alcohols and other oxygenates will be required for widespread commercialization. 

In the longer term, investigations are needed into the performance of these oxygenates in 

advanced engines employing direct injection or low-temperature combustion strategies. 
1 

1 INTRODUCTION

Gasoline has been used to fuel spark-ignition vehicles for over 100 years. Over time, the vehicles 

themselves have been adapted and optimized to run on gasoline, and a complex infrastructure to 

store and distribute the fuel has been developed. Although gasoline is by far the predominant fuel 

for spark-ignition vehicles, various alcohols have been used in cars from the time of the first 

Model T, which was originally designed to run on ethanol or gasoline. Methanol has a long 

history as a racing fuel. Ethanol is used extensively as a blend component at up to 10 volume 

percent (vol%) in gasoline, and in 2010 over 13 billion gallons of were used.1 Ethanol is also 

used to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and other pollutants. At concentrations as high as 

85% in gasoline, ethanol can be used in flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs). The higher alcohols (with 

three or more carbons) could provide significant advantages over ethanol, most notably their 

higher energy density, lesser effect on gasoline/blend vapor pressure, lower affinity for water, 

and improved material compatibility. Higher alcohols or blends of higher alcohols can also be 

produced from ligno-cellulosic biomass, resulting in additional petroleum displacement.

More recently, scientists have proposed several other compounds synthesized from renewable 

sources as potential fuels. These compounds may be less expensive to produce or have 

characteristics that address some of the drawbacks of ethanol. Most importantly, they are 

produced from cellulosic biomass, the largest potential resource for biofuel production.2 The 

compounds reviewed here include 2-methyl tetrahydrofuran (MTHF), dimethylfuran (DMF), 

methylfuran, (MF), γ-valerolactone (GVL), levulinic acid esters [ethyl (EL) and butyl (BL)], and 

methyl pentanoate (MP). Like ethanol, all of these compounds can be produced from sugars or 

from ligno-cellulosic biomass. All have been proposed in the scientific literature, by patent 

holders, or by potential manufacturers as gasoline biofuels. 

Numerous issues will need to be addressed before these new fuel blend components can be fully 

accepted commercially:

How will different concentrations fit into the existing regulatory framework for sparkignition fuels? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already permits aliphatic

alcohols and ethers to be added to gasoline in limited concentrations. However, esters and 

aromatic furanics are not currently permitted. The applicable regulations and waivers are 

reviewed in Section 4.1.

How well will the new oxygenates work in existing engines? The ASTM standard for 

automotive spark-ignition engine fuel (ASTM D4814) and the ASTM standard for denatured fuel 

ethanol for blending with gasolines (ASTM D4806) are mentioned in EPA regulations and 

provide guidance on the properties considered to be important in evaluating spark-ignition fuels. 

The standards, detailed in Section 4.2, specify such factors as vapor pressure, corrosiveness, and 

permissible levels of impurities, and are used here as a starting point for evaluating the 

functionality of higher alcohols as fuels in spark-ignition vehicles. 

How will these oxygenates affect the durability of the engine and the emissions control 

systems? To answer this question, issues of materials compatibility must be addressed, as must

questions regarding the effect of oxygenates on the temperatures and makeup of gases in contact 
2 

with a catalytic converter. From a regulatory perspective, the aliphatic alcohols and ethers do not 

have to demonstrate that they have no effect on emission control system durability as EPA 

stipulates that they are acceptable at limited concentrations. However, information on their

effects on emissions control system durability is limited and it is primarily derived from limited 

testing on ethanol. 

How will these oxygenates affect emissions? Currently, light-duty vehicles must meet 

standards for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and nonmethane organic gas 

(NMOG) emissions. In addition to affecting the emissions of these pollutants, a new fuel could 

cause the emission of different compounds that may have higher or lower toxicities than those 

from gasoline combustion. To register a new fuel with EPA, a significant body of emission 

testing data is required.

Do the storage and transport of the new fuel component represent an environmental 

hazard if it is spilled or otherwise released to the environment? This involves questions of 

human and biological toxicity as well as mobility and biodegradability in the environment. 

Will the new fuel represent a safety hazard in storage, transport, or use? New fuels must 

demonstrate compatibility with distribution, storage, handling, and dispensing equipment. Fire 

safety hazard is also a potential issue. Flammability limits, flash points, and autoignition 

temperatures are the parameters typically used to determine the level of danger in different 

situations. Those characteristics are reviewed for these fuels in Section 6.1.

Can the fuel be transported and stored in the existing gasoline pipelines and storage tanks?

One concern here is the water tolerance of the fuel. The ASTM standard for gasoline (ASTM 

D4814) provides water tolerance levels that have proven acceptable for other fuel blends. In 

addition, an Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing for storage tanks and dispensers, often 

required for insurance and code compliance purposes, may require that extensive testing be 

conducted on material compatibility. 

While there may be a range of blends that will meet the functional requirements for a sparkignition fuel, optimizing renewable oxygenate use will depend not only on the properties of the 

blend, but also on economic and technological aspects related to its production. The production 

of higher alcohols and other oxygenates is currently an area of intense research and development. 

This document briefly discusses production processes. 

Other important issues such as economics and life-cycle greenhouse gas impacts of renewable 

oxygenates as a replacement for gasoline must be evaluated as a function of the production 

method and feedstock and are beyond the scope of this document. 
3 

2 CHEMICAL STRUCTURE

Alcohols are identified as organic compounds in which a hydroxyl group (-OH) is bound to a 

hydrocarbon structure. Here we focus on aliphatic alcohols exclusively. The simplest of the 

alcohols is methanol, which consists of one carbon atom surrounded by three hydrogen atoms 

and a hydroxyl group (CH3OH). Ethanol is the only two-carbon alcohol (C2H5OH), but as more 

carbon atoms are added, the hydroxyl group can be attached at various locations in the molecule. 

Beyond three carbon atoms, the alkyl structure can also vary. The normal (or n-) isomers are also

referred to as linear alcohols. Propanol is an alcohol with three carbons and two isomers (Figure 

1). Butanol is an alcohol with four carbons and four isomers (Figure 2). Pentanol, which consists 

of five carbons, has six isomers; however, only n-pentanol and isopentanol (3-methyl-1-butanol) 

are currently discussed as fuel components (Figure 3). 

Figure 1. Propanol isomers

Figure 2. Butanol isomers

Figure 3. Pentanol isomers

Several other compounds that can be produced from cellulosic biomass and have been proposed 

as fuels are shown in Figure 4. MTHF is an aliphatic ether consisting of a five-membered ring 

structure and a methyl group attached on one of the carbons adjacent to the oxygen. DMF has the 

five-sided ring structure; however, the ring is aromatic, as in a furan molecule. DMF has two 

methyl groups attached to the ring, one on each carbon adjacent to the oxygen. MF has the same 

aromatic furan at its core as DMF, but has only one methyl group. GVL is similar to MTHF, 
4 

with a double-bonded oxygen bonded to the five-sided ring structure. Levulinic acid (LA) is a 

keto-acid consisting of five carbons with a ketone group on the fourth carbon, shown here as the 

ethyl ester, ethyl levulinate. LA can also be converted to pentanoic acid. The final oxygenate 

considered is the methyl ester of pentanoic acid (PA), MP. 

Figure 4. Chemical structure of cellulose-derived oxygenates 
5 

3 PRODUCTION 

There are three major pathways for the production of oxygenates from biomass: 

• Fermentation of sugar-containing materials by yeast or bacteria 

• Gasification of ligno-cellulosic biomass at high temperatures with steam/oxygen to 

create synthesis gas, followed by catalyzed reaction of the synthesis gas components 

to mixed alcohols 

• Acid hydrolysis (or related approaches) of ligno-cellulosic biomass to produce a 

range of five-carbon oxygenates, in some cases requiring subsequent reaction with an 

alcohol such as methanol, ethanol, or butanol. 

These processes are in the developmental stage, and many aspects of the process that will impact 

fuel quality are confidential and may still change. Some important considerations impacting fuel 

use are: 

• What are the co-products and by-products of fermentation or conversion of cellulose 

to sugars, and will it make sense to include any of these in the fuel or will they all 

need to be removed? Ethanol will be a co-product of ABE fermentation (so called 

because it produced acetone, butanol, and ethanol), for example, and might be 

profitably left in the fuel blending component. 

• Particularly for alcohols, what isomers are produced? 

• Will there be impurities remaining? Both inorganic and organic impurities can have 

significant impacts on emissions and other fuel properties. 

• How much water will remain in the product stream?

3.1 Alcohols by Fermentation

Fermentation is a process by which microorganisms derive energy from the oxidation of organic 

compounds. Because the fermentative oxidation process is incomplete, the alcohol products of 

fermentation retain much of the energy that was in the starting carbohydrate molecules. 

Fermentation processes that generate ethanol from carbohydrates, particularly those derived from 

corn and sugarcane, are well understood and were used industrially to produce 10 billion gallons 

of ethanol annually in the United States alone in 2009.1

 

Biomass resources in plants and trees are primarily carbohydrates and lignin. Lignin is a 

complex molecule that is relatively unreactive and difficult to dissolve, so most biomass-to-fuel 

schemes focus on the carbohydrate portion. Carbohydrates include cellulose and hemicellulose 

and the simple sugars from which those polymers are built. To date, alcohols have been 

produced biologically on a commercial scale only from carbohydrate feedstocks.3 

It is known that propanol can be produced as a by-product of ethanol fermentation4

; however, 

evidence of commercial production of propanol from fermentation was not found. The standard 

procedure for the manufacture of n-propanol and isopropyl alcohol is via petrochemical 

feedstocks. It is apparent that most of the commercial interest in higher alcohol production via 
6 

biological pathways is focused on butanol isomers rather than propanol or any of the longerchained alcohols. 

Biological production of butanol has recently been reviewed by Durre5 and Arnold.3 Historically, 

the primary higher-alcohol compound produced commercially has been n-butanol, but there has 

also been some work done to produce sec-butanol and isobutanol. During the First World War, 

industrial quantities of butanol were produced by the ABE fermentation process. Acetone was 

the intended product, but eventually various industrial uses were developed for the huge 

quantities of butanol produced. However, in the latter half of the 20th century, production of 

butanol through this process declined and was replaced by petrochemical-based processes. 

Recently, the production of butanol from biomass has received new attention, with a focus on 

developing novel biological pathways and process changes to reduce costs. Although both 

ethanol and butanol are toxic to the organisms that make them, ethanol can be produced at 

concentrations that top out between 10% and 18%; butanol fermentation is inhibited at much 

lower concentrations. Typically, traditional ABE fermentation can produce only 2 wt% butanol.6

Several companies are working to commercialize improved processes for making butanol, in 

several cases targeting isobutanol because of its higher octane number. 7,8,9,10,11,12 We are not 

currently aware of a method for producing tert-butanol from biomass. 

3.2 Alcohols via Synthesis Gas 

Another approach for the production of alcohols from biomass is via synthesis gas. Synthesis gas

is CO and hydrogen (H2) that can be generated from biomass or from any carbon-containing 

material. In addition to biomass, municipal waste and used tires have also been considered as 

feedstocks. Synthesis gas can also be formed from coal or natural gas. The ability to produce 

mixed alcohols from synthesis gas has been known for more than a hundred years. Reaction 

kinetics typically favor methanol at high conversion, and methanol is largest single component of 

the mixed alcohol product. Operation at lower conversion of up to 30% leads to improved 

selectivity to C2 and higher alcohols. 13,14 Current research focuses on improving catalysts and 

optimizing reactor design to improve selectivity for specific products and increase product 

yields. The current state of mixed alcohol production from synthesis gas is reviewed in two 

recent articles and a recent report.

15,16,17 

Numerous companies claim to be developing processes to produce alcohols from synthesis 

gas.18,19,20 A detailed process design with an economic evaluation was recently published.17

Different estimates of the relative concentration of alcohols produced have been made for the 

different processes (Table 1). EPA’s “substantially similar” rule (discussed below) allows only 

up to 0.3 vol% methanol, or 2.75% methanol if an equal volume of butanol or other higher 

alcohols is also present, although waivers to the rule allowing up to 5% methanol with 2.5% 

higher alcohols have been granted. 

The expected proportion of higher alcohols (propanol and above) is in the 10%–20% range. The 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) process was developed for the purpose of 

making ethanol, and its high ethanol percentage can perhaps be explained by the choice of 

process design, catalyst, and reaction conditions that are intended to produce ethanol. Methanol 

production is kept low by recycling methanol within the process. The “others” listed in Table 1 
7 

are primarily short straight chain alkanes that could be removed in the purification phase of the 

process,21 although they might be acceptable in the finished gasoline. 

Table 1. Products from mixed alcohol synthesis via synthesis gas

Typical 

Product22,23,24

NREL Model17

Methanol 30%–70% 5.01%

Ethanol 35%–45% 70.66%

Propanol 7%–15% 10.07%

Butanol 1%–7% 1.25%

Pentanol+ 1.5%–2% 0.17%

Acetates (C1 and C2) 2%–4%

Others 1%–10% 10.98%

Watera 2% 1.86%

a Water would likely be limited to 1% in the mixed alcohol/gasoline blendstock.

Propanol and higher alcohols exist in various isomeric forms, and the isomers have different 

properties. Thus, it is important to know the isomer makeup of the product stream. In many 

processes, catalyst selection appears to have been made based on selectivity for linear alcohols. 

However, branched alcohols will exhibit somewhat higher octane numbers and thus might offer 

some economic advantage. 

Any sulfur in the feedstock is reduced in the gasification reactor to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and 

carbonyl sulfide (COS), which is then further treated to remove elemental sulfur as a waste 

product. However, molybdenum sulfide-based catalysts require a low concentration of sulfur in 

the synthesis gas to maintain catalyst activity. Christensen et al. found as much as 340 parts per 

million (ppm) sulfur in their mixed alcohol product, primarily in the form of thiols.25 In January 

2006, the allowable sulfur content of gasoline in the United States was reduced to an average of 

no more than 30 ppm. Keeping sulfur content low will be an important issue if the alcohol 

product is used as a vehicle fuel. 

Organic co-products are another issue that may impact the use of synthesis gas products as fuels. 

Small concentrations of other organic compounds may have significant impacts on the products 

of combustion and consequent emissions from engines using these mixtures as fuels. While the 

models suggest a relatively limited range of compounds in the products, experience suggests that 

the combination of CO and H2 and high-temperature reaction conditions might lead to a range of 

organic impurities in low concentrations. 
8 

3.3 Cellulose Hydrolysis

Ligno-cellulosic biomass consists of cellulose (a polymer of glucose, a six-carbon sugar), 

hemicellulose (a polymer of both six- and five-carbon sugars), and lignin (a complex biopolymer 

that is highly aromatic in nature). Figure 5 shows a simplified scheme for reaction of a sixcarbon sugar, or hexose, with acid and water (acid hydrolysis) to form hydroxymethyl furfural 

(HMF). This compound can be converted to DMF by hydrogenation over a copper-ruthenium 

catalyst.26 HMF can be converted to LA by further acid treatment to cause hydration and loss of 

one carbon as formic acid. LA can be converted to esters by reaction with alcohol 

(esterification). These esters have been proposed as both diesel and gasoline blending 

components. 

LA can be converted to GVL by hydrogenation, and GVL in turn can be converted to MTHF by 

further hydrogenation. Horvath et al. have proposed the use of GVL as a fuel.27 Hydrogenation 

of GVL under different conditions with a different catalyst leads to the production of PA, which 

can be converted to MP by reaction with alcohols. MTHF and MF can also be produced from the 

pentoses (five-carbon sugars) in hemicellulose via furfural28 as shown in Figure 6. 

However, the U.S. Department of Justice lists GVL as an addictive drug subject to abuse by 

ingestion. It is part of a family of drugs, the most well-known of which is γ-hydroxybutyrate 

(GHB), more commonly known as the “date rape drug.” GVL, GHB, and the other GHB analogs 

cause relaxation, mild euphoria, and drowsiness; may increase libido, suggestibility, and 

passivity; and cause amnesia. GVL is physically addictive, causing addicts to experience severe 

withdrawal symptoms if they miss a dose or attempt to stop using the drug.29 As with many 

potentially abusable compounds, GVL has avoided regulation to this point because it is relatively 

rare. However, should it become widely available, it would likely be regulated very strictly. MP 

also has drug-related uses, although it is not regulated as such in the United States. It is a mild 

sedative and used as a fragrance and in cosmetics.
9 

Figure 5. Simplified scheme showing conversion of C6 sugar (as in cellulose) to cellulose-derived 

oxygenates (after Palkovits,

30 Lange et al.,31 and Alonso et al.32).
10

Figure 6. Simplified scheme showing conversion of C5 sugar (pentose as in hemicellulose) to 

cellulose-derived oxygenates 

Two other furanic compounds, ethoxymethyl furfural (EMF) and acetoxymethyl furfural (AMF), 

have been proposed as a fuel or fuel additive by Avantium in its patent for the synthesis of 5-

alkoxymethyl furfural ethers and their use.33 Avantium proposes manufacturing these 

compounds via HMF from hexose. There is little information about these compounds other than 

that provided by Avantium, which estimated that EMF has an energy density very close to that of

gasoline, 113,000 Btu/gal for EMF vs. about 110,000 Btu/gal for AMF. Neither compound is 

listed in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics34 or Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry.

35

One source36 lists AMF’s melting point as 53°C–55°C and its flash point as 108°C. Assuming 

these values are true, it is a solid at room temperature and thus is not appropriate as a gasoline 

substitute. Because of the lack of publicly available information about these compounds, they are 

not discussed further. 
11

4 REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS

There is a wide range of federal and state regulatory requirements that must be met before 

widespread introduction of any new spark-ignited engine fuel. These are summarized by Sierra 

Research in a report for the American Petroleum Institute (API).37 The following requirements 

are listed: 

• Compliance with Clean Air Act Section 211(f) that fuels be substantially similar to 

unleaded gasoline; 

• Registration of the fuel with EPA;

• Changes to EPA’s Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) regulations; 

• Changes to EPA’s Gasoline Detergent Additive regulations; 

• Changes to the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations if the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) 

allowance granted to E10 is to be provided to other oxygenate blends; 

• Changes to federal fuel rating and labeling requirements;

• Changes to ASTM and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

specifications for commercial fuels;

• Changes to a myriad of state fuel requirements, with the number and nature of those 

changes varying from state to state; and

• Changes in equipment and operating practices in the gasoline transportation and 

distribution system, including pipelines, storage tanks, and retail dispensing facilities. 

However, in support of new biofuels, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

mandated a significant increase in the amount of biofuels in the nation’s fuel supply to 36 billion 

gallons per year by 2022 from only 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. There is a further requirement 

that a minimum of 21 billion gallons of this requirement be met by advanced biofuels, which are

defined as renewable fuels other than corn-based ethanol with lifecycle greenhouse gas 

emissions that are at least 50 percent less than greenhouse gas emissions produced by gasoline or 

diesel. The fuels considered here have the potential to be considered advanced biofuels, 

depending upon the production method used. 

4.1 Federal Requirements

4.1.1 Substantially Similar Requirement

Section 206 of the Clean Air Act of 1977 prohibits the introduction of fuel or fuel additives into 

commerce for use in light-duty motor vehicles that are not “substantially similar” to unleaded 

gasoline, as defined for at least one of the volatility classes in ASTM D4814-88. In 1991, the 

EPA provided an interpretive ruling, which specified that “substantially similar” fuel could 

include up to 2.7% oxygen by weight, from any combination of aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols, 

excluding methanol.38 This was a change from an earlier ruling on “substantially similar” fuels39

that allowed only up to 2.0% oxygen by weight. 

In addition, under Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the EPA is permitted to 

grant waivers for additives and fuels that do not meet the definition of “substantially similar” if 
12

the applicant demonstrated that the fuel in question did not “significantly deteriorate or 

contribute to the deterioration of the performance of any motor vehicle emissions control 

system.” Several of the waivers granted are applicable to alcohol fuels and are listed in Table 2 

with the appropriate Federal Register (FR) reference. These waivers were all granted in the 

1980s. Notable are waivers allowing 10 vol% ethanol (nominally 3.5% oxygen) and higher 

alcohols at up to 3.7% oxygen (the “Octamix waiver”). 

Of the non-alcohol compounds included here, only MTHF would be considered substantially 

similar because it is both an aliphatic compound and an ether. MTHF can legally be added to 

gasoline at concentrations of up to 2.7 wt% oxygen, (14.5 wt% MTHF) under current 

regulations. None of the other compounds considered meets the definitions of aliphatic ethers or 

alcohols. DMF and MF are aromatics, while the other compounds (EL, BL, GVL, and MP) are 

esters (or keto-esters in the case of the levulinates). 

For the compounds that do not meet the definition for “substantially similar,” the most likely 

path for regulatory acceptance as a gasoline additive would be to request a waiver. However, a 

waiver for a new fuel will likely require a massive testing program. For example, for ethanol 

blends of 15% and 20% (E15 and E20), which have higher percentages of ethanol than the 

“substantially similar” ruling or waivers allow, EPA is requiring extensive, full-useful-life 

durability testing to demonstrate compatibility with emission control systems as well as a large 

body of other test data.40

4.1.2 Fuel Registration and Health Effects Testing

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 79, (40 CFR 79) “Registration of Fuels and 

Fuel Additives” specifies that fuels must be registered with EPA before their introduction into 

commerce. Fuel manufacturers are required to submit basic data such composition, 

concentration, total annual production volume, and other information. More importantly, EPA 

requires that fuels meet Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing requirements. Tier 1 involves a literature search 

on health and welfare effects as well as performance of emissions tests (both combustion and 

evaporative, if applicable) with detailed emissions speciation. A Tier 2 test is intended to 

measure the health effects of inhalation of these emissions and typically involves generation of 

emissions with an engine or vehicle, exposure of laboratory test animals to these emissions, and 

assessment of the effects of this exposure. A Tier 2 test is a major undertaking and can take years 

to complete and potentially cost several million dollars.

None of the long-chain alcohols or other oxygenates described in this report has completed Tier 

1 or Tier 2 testing. Gevo is in the first phase of Tier 1 testing for isobutanol, according to its

August 2010 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.41 Butamax also claims to be 

working on health effects testing of isobutanol to meet EPA requirements.42 

4.1.3 Other Federal Requirements

Gasoline and diesel fuel ratings and labeling are administered by the Federal Trade Commission 

under 16 CFR 306 for fuel labeling and potentially also for fuel rating requirements will be 

necessary for new fuels. Material safety data sheet requirements in 29 CFR 29 1910, Section 

1200 may also require modification. 
13

Table 2. Substantially Similar Fuel Blends and Fuel Blends with Waivers 

Compound Regulatory Basis Maximum 

Oxygen Wt%

Maximum Allowable 

Vol%

Methanol “Substantially similar” 0.3

Denatured ethanol 47 FR 14596 3.5 10.0

Propanol and isomers “Substantially similar” 2.7 9.6

Butanol and isomers “Substantially similar” 2.7 11.5

Pentanol and isomers “Substantially similar” 2.7 13.4

Hexanol “Substantially similar” 2.7 15.6

Methanol and butanol (or other 

higher molecular weight alcohol) 

in equal volumes 

“Substantially similar” 2.1, if half 

methanol, half 

butanol

5.5 total, equal 

amounts of methanol 

and higher alcohol

Mixtures of alcohols and ethers,

not including methanol

“Substantially similar” 2.7 Varies

ARCO OxinolTM – combination of 

methanol and t-butanol and 

small amounts of butanes, water, 

and other oxygenated 

compounds

46 FR 56361 3.5 Up to 4.75% 

methanol, 4.75% 

t-butanol in equal 

amounts

ARCO ArconolTM – combination 

of t-butanol and small amounts 

of butanes, acetone, water, 

peroxide, and other oxygenated 

compounds

46 FR 56361 3.5 Up to 16% t-butanol

DuPont – methanol and higher 

alcohols, must include corrosion 

inhibitor

50 FR 2615, 52 FR 

18736

3.7 5% methanol, 2.5% 

higher alcohols

Texas Methanol Corp. (Octamix 

waiver) – methanol and higher 

alcohols, must include corrosion 

inhibitor

53 FR 3636, 53 FR 

17977, 53 FR 43768

3.7 Maximum 5% 

methanol, minimum 

2.5% higher alcohols
14

EPA also mandates the addition of detergent additives to gasoline to prevent deposit formation in 

engines and fuel systems. In 40 CFR 80, Subpart F, EPA specifies the procedures and test fuels 

for detergent certification. The rule requires testing with gasoline containing 10% ethanol and all 

existing certifications for detergent additives are for fuels containing no more than 10% ethanol. 

Changes to these regulations are required to specify testing procedures and fuels for other 

oxygenates, and then these procedures must be used to certify suitable detergents for use in new 

fuels.

Addition of 10% ethanol to gasoline typically increases the vapor pressure by 1 psi (6.9 kPa). 

The Clean Air Act provides a 1-psi exemption for non-RFG during the summer. Should any new 

oxygenate increase gasoline vapor pressure, this 1-psi exemption would not apply unless changes 

are made to the Clean Air Act to provide such an exemption. EPA requires the use of RFG in 

many parts of the country that are not in compliance with air quality standards or that are 

working to maintain compliance. RFG must meet pollutant emissions requirements that are 

estimated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Complex Model. RFG accounted for 

roughly 35% of U.S. gasoline sales in 2009.43 Oxygenates other than ethanol (at up to 10%) are 

not included in the Complex Model and thus changes to the model and potentially to the RFG 

regulations would be required to accommodate other oxygenates. 

4.2 State Requirements

4.2.1 ASTM and NIST Specifications

EPA requires that all gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends (including alcohols and ethers) 

sold in the United States meet the requirements of ASTM Standard D4814-88. However, many 

states have adopted more recent (or the most recent) versions of this specification as part of 

consumer protection laws or alternatively have adopted model laws and regulations developed by 

the National Council on Weights and Measures under NIST. The NIST model or uniform 

regulations are based on D4814 but may provide relief from certain provisions, especially for 

blending of up to 10% ethanol. 

ASTM D4814 was developed to ensure that its requirements are primarily functional 

specifications, not concentrations or formulations. Thus, D4814 does not specifically exclude 

any oxygenates as long as gasoline remains the primary component of the fuel and the 

performance requirements of the specification are met. Table 3 presents properties and limits 

specified in ASTM D4814. As performance-based specifications, these properties are all 

applicable to blends of higher alcohols and other oxygenates with gasoline. The reasons for their 

inclusion in the standard are listed in the third column of Table 3. Very little data exist on how 

blending higher alcohols or other oxygenates with gasoline or unfinished gasoline (blendstock 

for oxygenate blending) affects the D4814 properties. Furthermore, the Driveability Index (DI) is

not defined for fuels other than hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon-ethanol blends up to 10%. The 

impact of higher alcohols and cellulose derived oxygenates on driveability should be assessed. 

Although material compatibility is also anticipated to be less of an issue for higher alcohols than 

it is for ethanol, materials compatibility testing for the other oxygenates will likely be required 

before widespread use.
15

Table 3. ASTM 4814-10b, Chemical and Physical Properties of Spark-Ignition Fuels

Property Limit Rationale

Maximum vapor pressure at 

37.8°C (100°F). 

Wide range of requirements 

depending on the location and time 

of year, 54 kPa (7.8 psi) to 103 kPa 

(15.0 psi) maximum 

Minimize volatile organic 

compound losses to 

atmosphere and ensure 

acceptable driveability

Distillation temperatures for T10, 

T50, T90, T100 °C (°F)

Varies depending upon location and 

time of year

T10 max: 50°C – 70°C 

(122°F – 158°F)

T50 min: 66°C – 77°C 

(150°F – 170°F)

T50 max: 110°C – 121°C 

(230°F – 250°F)

T90 max: 185°C – 190°C 

(365°F – 374°F)

T100 max: 225°C (437°F)

Ensure reliable startup and 

driveability and prevent 

blending of heavy 

components that could lead 

to engine deposits

Distillation residue 2 vol% maximum Prevent blending of heavy 

components that could lead 

to engine deposits

Maximum Driveability Index:

DI = 1.5 T10 + 3.0 T50 +1.0 T90

+1.33* ethanol volume%

From 569 to 597 maximum 

(unitless), depending on location 

and time of year

Reliable cold-start and 

driveability in cold 

temperatures immediately 

after startup

Minimum temperature at which 

the vapor-liquid ratio is 20

Range of requirements depending 

on the location and time of year, 

from 35°C (95°F) to 60°C (140°F) 

Prevent vapor lock and 

carburetor icing

Copper Strip Corrosion Test, 3 

hours at 50°C (122°F), 

maximum

No. 1 Minimize corrosion of copper 

and other metal-containing 

engine parts

Silver Strip Corrosion Test, 3 

hours at 50°C (122°F), 

maximum

1 Minimize corrosion of silver 

and other metal-containing 

engine parts 

Oxidation stability, minimum 240 minutes Minimize deposits

Lead content, maximum (For unleaded fuel) 0.013 g/L (0.05 

g/gal)

Lead is a highly toxic air 

pollutant and catalyst poison

Sulfur content, maximum (For unleaded fuel) 0.0080 mass% Inhibits activity of the 3-way 

catalyst and leads to

formation of particulate 

matter

Solvent-washed gum content, 

maximum

5 mg/100 mL To avoid deposits on 

carburetor, fuel injectors and 

intake valves

Water tolerance of alcohol 

blends – maximum temperature 

at which phase separation 

occurs

No specification but suitable for 

location and time of year

Ensure that the fuel does not 

separate into aqueous and 

gasoline phases 

Anti-Knock Index: AKI = 

(RON+MON)/2

Recommended 87 to 91, depending 

upon vehicle, with waiver of up to 

5.5 AKI units depending on altitude 

and local climate

Prevent knocking

Note: MON = motor octane number; RON = research octane number.
16

Any new oxygenate commonly used for blending with gasoline would likely be required to have 

a blendstock specification to ensure consistent quality in the marketplace. ASTM Standard 

D4806 covers fuel ethanol that is intended for use as a blend with gasoline at concentrations of 

between 1% and 10%. Although the standard is not applicable to higher alcohols or other 

oxygenates used as gasoline blend components, it is considered here as guidance on properties 

that may be important. Fuel ethanol is denatured, usually with gasoline or natural gasoline, to 

make it unfit for human consumption. Other oxygenates that have the potential for human 

ingestion as drugs (GVL and MP) may also eventually require denaturing if produced in large 

quantities. Denaturing is not necessary for other oxygenates; therefore, a number of properties 

associated with the denaturant would not be applicable. The properties specified in D4806 and 

the reason for each are listed in Table 4. 

4.2.2 Other State Requirements

A wide range of fuel requirements exists in various state laws and may need to be updated or 

changed to accommodate higher alcohols or cellulose-derived oxygenates. These include:

• Ethanol blending mandates. It may not be possible to blend an EPA-compliant fuel 

using other oxygenates in states that have ethanol blending mandates because the total 

oxygenate content would be above the level allowed by the “substantially similar” 

rule.

• Offsets to T50 and vapor lock protection requirements. Many states have adopted 

allowances to encourage ethanol blending. It is not clear how these will impact other 

oxygenates. 

• California fuel requirements. California has a long list of unique fuel requirements 

that may or may not be met by other oxygenates. 

• Compliance with State Implementation Plans. To come into compliance with air 

quality standards, many states have adopted fuel vapor pressure requirements more 

restrictive than required by EPA or ASTM Standard D4814. In addition, new 

oxygenates may impact pollutant emissions in ways that require states to modify their 

state implementation plans. 

4.3 Transportation and Distribution System Requirements

The introduction of a new fuel oxygenate will bring up practical issues such as how to move the 

fuel or fuel blends to market and how to handle them at truck terminals. Pipeline transport of a 

new gasoline/oxygenate blend is theoretically possible for oxygenates that will not phase 

separate in the presence of water. However, there appears to be no established procedures for 

demonstrating water tolerance or compatibility with pipeline infrastructure. Significant largescale testing is likely required to prove that a new fuel can be transported. A second issue is the 

availability of storage tanks. If a terminal is handling ethanol, there may not be additional storage 

tanks available for a new oxygenate. 
17

Table 4. ASTM D4806-11, Chemical and Physical Properties for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for 

Blending with Gasoline

Property Limit Rationale Applicable to Other 

Oxygenates?

Ethanol, volume 

%, mina

92.1 Ensure that fuel additive is 

primarily ethanol. 

It is likely a higher min volume % 

would be required because no 

denaturant is needed.

Methanol, volume 

%, max

0.5 Lowers water tolerance of 

the fuel and increases the 

vapor pressure. 

May apply, although value may 

be different because higher 

alcohols improve water tolerance 

of methanol/gasoline blends.

Solvent-washed 

gum, mg/100 mL, 

max

5.0 Insoluble gums can clog 

filters and deposit inside 

the fuel system.

Yes.

Water content, 

volume %, max

1.0 Ensure water tolerance. Yes, if water is soluble at levels 

above 1 volume percent.

Denaturant 

content, volume 

%, mina 

1.96 Denaturant is required to 

prevent human 

consumption of ethanol.

No, other oxygenates do not 

require denaturants.

Denaturant 

content, volume 

%, max

2.5a or 5.0 Too much denaturant 

dilutes the ethanol content.

No, other oxygenates do not 

require denaturants.

Inorganic chloride 

content, mass 

ppm (mg/L), max

10 (8) Chloride is corrosive to 

many metals. 

Yes. 

Copper content, 

mg/kg, max

0.1 Catalyst for oxidation of 

hydrocarbons and can 

increase gum formation.

Yes. 

Acidity (as acetic 

acid) mass % 

(mg/L), max

0.007 (56) Low-molecular-weight 

organic acids in aqueous 

solution are highly 

corrosive to many metals.

Yes.

pHe 6.5–9.0 pHe above and below 

these values can cause 

problems with material 

compatibility in engines.

pHe is a measurement specific to 

ethanol; however, a similar 

measure of acid strength may be 

required for other oxygenates.

Sulfur, mass ppm, 

max

30 Can increase tailpipe

emissions of particles, 

inhibits 3-way catalyst.

Yes, D4814 currently limits 

gasoline to 80 ppm sulfur. 

Sulfate, mass 

ppm, max

4 Can cause deposits and 

filter plugging as well as 

fuel injector sticking.

Yes. 

Appearance Visibly free of 

suspended or 

precipitated 

contaminants 

(clear and bright)

To avoid deposits that can 

plug filters and clog fuel 

injectors. 

Yes. 

a

The maximum amount of denaturant the IRS considers part of the denatured fuel ethanol for full ethanol blender’s 

tax credit.
18

The main concerns, however, are related to retail outlets. These are regulated by multiple 

agencies (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Fire Protection Association, 

and others) whose primary requirements are that the equipment be compatible with the product 

being stored and dispensed and that the equipment be listed by independent organizations such as 

UL. UL provides a listing of products that it has tested as being safe for use in specific 

applications. Local authorities frequently require a UL listing to demonstrate compliance with 

fire safety codes and environmental protection regulations. UL lists these products for use with 

specific fluids, for example, current dispensers are listed for use with gasoline-ethanol blends 

containing up to 10% ethanol. Typically manufacturers submit their equipment to UL for testing 

using a test protocol that is defined and published by UL and includes specific test fluids that are 

intended to simulate worst case use scenarios. It is likely that retail sale of any of the oxygenates 

discussed in this report would require testing to determine compatibility with a range of 

equipment, including: 

• Hanging hardware (nozzles, hoses, breakaways, and swivels)

• Dispensers

• Product pumps 

• Underground storage tanks

• Leak detection systems

• Vapor recovery systems

• All associated piping. 
19

5 CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

5.1 Alcohols

Various properties of alcohols and gasoline are compared in Table 5. While gasoline and diesel 

are mixtures of a variety of compounds and thus can exhibit a range of properties, many of those 

properties are limited by federal regulation and ASTM specifications. In contrast, alcohols are 

singular compounds with specific chemical properties. Note that the properties of various 

isomers with the same chemical formula may differ significantly. 

5.2 Cellulose-Derived Oxygenates

The properties of the oxygenates are listed in Table 6. These data were compiled from a wide 

range of reference sources. The source of each value is listed below the table and should be 

considered prior to applying these values. 
20

Table 5. Chemical and Physical Properties of Gasoline and Alcohols 

Compound Gasoline Ethanol

nPropanoliPropanolnButanoliButanolsButanoltButanolnPentanoliPentanol

CAS Number 64-17-5 71-23-8 67-63-0 71-36-3 78-83-1 78-92-2 75-65-0 71-41-0 125-51-3 

Formula C2H6O C3H8O C3H8O C4H10O C4H10O C4H10O C4H10O C5H12O C5H12O 

Lower heating value 

(MJ/kg) 41–44 26.8 30.7 30.4 33.2 33.1 32.9 32.7 34.8 35.4

Lower heating value 

(MJ/L) 30-33 21.4 24.7 24.1 26.9 26.6 26.7 25.9 28.5 28.3 

Latent heat of 

vaporization (kJ/kg) 352 919.6 792.1 756.6 707.9 686.4 671.1 527.2 647.1 617.1

Lower flammability 

limit (%) 1.4 3.28 2.13 2.02 1.45 1.68 1.7 2.4 1.2 1.2

Upper Flammability 

limit (%) 7.6 18.95 13.50 11.80 11.25 10.9 9.0 8.0 10.5 9 

Vapor pressure at 

20°C (kPa) 50–100 5.8 2 4.4 0.58 1.2 1.7 4 0.6 0.4

Reid Vapor Pressure, 

(kPa) 54–103 16.0 6.2 12.4 2.2 3.3 5.3 12.2 0.83 1.0

Autoignition temp (°C) 257 363 371 456 343 415 405 478 320 350

Flash point closed 

cup (°C) -43 13 15 12 29 28 24 11 43 45

Boiling point (°C) 27–225 78 97.2 82.3 117.7 107.9 99.6 82.4 137.8 132

Melting point (°C) -40 -114 -126.2 -88.5 -89.3 -108 -114.7 26 -78.2 -117

RON 88-98 109 104* 106 98* 105* 105* 105 (78) (94)

MON 80-88 90 89* 99 85* 90* 93* 89 (74) (84)

Viscosity 20°C (cSt) 0.37–0.44 1.5 2.7 3.1 3.6 8.3 4.7 4.2 5 5

Specific gravity, 20°C 0.69–0.79 0.794 0.804 0.789 0.810 0.802 0.808 0.791 0.816 0.8

Solubility of water in 

compound at 20°C

(wt%)

negligible miscible miscible miscible 20.1 20.0 60 miscible 10.6 9.8

Solubility of 

compound in water at 

20°C (wt%)

negligible miscible miscible miscible 7.7 8.7 12.5 miscible 2.2 2.5
21

Notes on sources for Table 5: 

1. Properties for gasoline are from API.44 Specific gravity of gasoline at 15°C.

2. Lower heating values calculated from information in Willhoit and Zwolinski.

45

3. All safety data (flammability limits, autoignition temperatures, flash points) for alcohols are from Perry’s Standard Tables and Formulas for Chemical 

Engineers.

46 Different values for some of these parameters were found in the Industrial Solvents Handbook.47 

4. All boiling points, melting points, and heats of vaporization are from Willhoit and Zwolinski.

45

5. Octane numbers for ethanol and tert-butanol are from Hunwartzen.48 Slightly different values are referenced in Popuri and Bata.

49 Octane numbers for 

isopropanol are from Unzelman et al.

50 Values with * were measured by NREL using ASTM D2699 and ASTM D2700. Values in parentheses are 

blending octane numbers measured by NREL using ASTM D2699 and ASTM D2700.

6. Viscosity values for alcohols are from the Industrial Solvents Handbook,

47 note that values for t-butanol and i-pentanol are at 25°C.

7. Specific gravity values for alcohols are from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

34

8. Solubility of water in alcohol values are from the Industrial Solvents Handbook,

47 except values for pentanol isomers, which were measured by NREL 

using Karl Fischer titration after saturation with water at 20°C. Solubility of alcohol in water values are from the International Program on Chemical 

Safety.

51

9. Reid vapor pressure (RVP, vapor pressure measured at 100°F [37.8°C] measured in a vessel with a vapor/ liquid volume ratio of 4:1 using a specific 

procedure) measured using ASTM D6378 by Andersen et al.,

52 with the exception of i-pentanol, which was measured by NREL using ASTM D5191, and 

n-pentanol where RVP was calculated from compound-specific coefficients for the Antoine equation given in Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry.

35
22

Table 6. Chemical and Physical Properties of Biofuels Compared to Gasoline 

Compound Gasoline

MTHF DMF MF EL BL MP GVL

2-Methyltetrahydrofuran 

Dimethylfuran 2-Methylfuran Ethyl 

Levulinate 

Butyl 

Levulinate 

Methyl 

Pentanoate

γ-Valerolactone

CAS Number 96-47-9 625-86-5 534-22-5 539-88-8 2052-15-5 624-24-8 108-29-2

Formula C5H10O C6H8O C5H6O C7H12O3 C9H16O3 C6H12O2 C5H8O2

Lower heating value 

(MJ/kg)

41–44 32.8 33.8 31.2 24.3 27.4 28.6 24.2

Lower heating value

(MJ/L)

30-33 28.2 30.1 27.6 24.8 27.1 25.9 26.2

Latent heat of 

vaporization (kJ/kg)

352 375.3 330.5 358.4 306.7 277.5 371.5 543.9

Lower flammability limit 1.4% 1.5% -- 1.9% -- -- -- --

Upper flammability limit 7.6% 8.9% -- 14% -- -- -- --

Vapor pressure at 20 

°C (kPa)

50–100 13.6 -- 18.5 0.01 @

17°C

-- 1 @ 19°C --

Reid Vapor Pressure, 

(kPa) 54–103 -- 13.4 18.5 2.1 -- 4.0 --

Autoignition temp (°C) 257 270 286 450 425 -- -- --

Flash point closed cup 

(°C)

-43 -11 16 -22 90 79 22 96

Boiling point (°C) 27–225 78 94 64.7 206 237.5 126 218–220

Melting point (°C) -40 -136 -63 -91 <-82 -22.6 -91 -12.5

RON 88–98 86 119 103 110 (98) (105) 100

MON 80-88 73 -- 86 102 (96) (105) 100

Viscosity 20°C (cSt) 0.37–0.44 1.52 --

Specific gravity (20°C) 0.69–0.79 0.855 0.8883 0.9132 1.0111 0.9735 0.8947 1.0794

Solubility of water in

compound, % v/v at 

20°C

negligible 5.1% -- -- 8.5 wt% 2.6 wt% -- miscible

Solubility of compound 

in water, (%v/v)

negligible 12.1% 0.26% 0.3% 15.2 wt% 1.3 wt% 0.1% miscible
23

Notes on sources for Table 6:

1. Properties for gasoline are from API.

44 Specific gravity of gasoline at 15°C.

2. Lower heating values in italics estimated using Dulong formula: gross heating value (kJ/kg) = 337 C +1442 (H - O/8) + 93 S where C is the mass fraction of 

carbon, H is the mass fraction of hydrogen, etc. Corrected to net heating value by subtracting the latent heat of vaporization of water at 20°C.

3. Blending RON or MON in parentheses. 

4. MTHF – heating value (ASTM D240), RON and MON (ASTM D2699 and ASTM D2700) measured by NREL; boiling point, specific gravity from CRC 

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics34; flash point from Lewis53; all other properties from Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc.54

5. DMF – heating value, solubility in water, RON from Roman-Leshkov et al.26; flash point, boiling point, melting point from Lewis53; specific gravity from CRC 

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics34; latent heat of vaporization and auto-ignition temperature from uncited data in Zhong.

55 

6. MF – specific gravity, boiling point, melting point from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics

34; flash point and vapor pressure from Lewis53; RON and 

MON from Unzelman et al.50; heat of vaporization from Ribeiro da Silva56; other properties from Penn Specialty Chemicals.57

7. EL – boiling point, specific gravity and solubility from Cox and Dodds58; melting point (ASTM D5972), flash point (ASTM D93), lower heating value (ASTM 

D240), solubilities measured by NREL; heat of vaporization from ChemSpider59; autoignition temperature from ChemCAS60; RON from Huber et al.28; MON 

from Fitzpatrick61; vapor pressure from Merck.

62

8. BL – boiling point and specific gravity from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics

34; melting point (ASTM D5972), flash point (ASTM D93); lower heating 

value (ASTM D240), solubilities measured by NREL; heat of vaporization from ChemSpider63; blending RON and MON measured at NREL (ASTM D2699 and 

ASTM D2700); vapor pressure from Merck.

64

9. MP – latent heat of vaporization from NIST Chemistry Webbook65; vapor pressure, boiling point, melting point, specific gravity from CRC Handbook of 

Chemistry and Physics34; flash point from Sigma-Aldrich66; solubility from NOAA67; vapor pressure from Merck64; blending RON and MON measured at NREL 

(ASTM D2699 and ASTM D2700). 

10. GVL – boiling point, melting point, specific gravity from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics34 (slightly different values included in Horvath et al.27

although original source not referenced – boiling point 207°C –208°C, melting point -31°C, specific gravity 1.05), all other values from Horvath et al.
24

6 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Safety and environmental considerations are important in the selection of gasoline additives. For 

example, methyl tert-butyl ether, in common use as an oxygenate additive to gasoline, has 

recently been phased out because of concerns regarding its widespread occurrence as a 

groundwater pollutant.68 

6.1 Safety

The danger of fire and explosion from both gasoline and oxygenates in storage will depend on 

the temperature and the properties of the specific fuel. All of these compounds present serious 

fire hazards, but because of their chemical dissimilarity, the risks at specific temperatures differ. 

Tables 5 and 6 above detail temperature-related parameters that determine flammability. 

Flammability limits are the range of vapor pressures, typically expressed as a percent of one 

atmosphere, between which the vapors can burn. Vapors richer (higher in concentration) than the 

flammability limits do not have a high enough proportion of oxygen to burn, and vapors with 

concentrations below the flammability limits do not have enough fuel to burn. The flammability 

limits should be compared with the vapor pressure to determine the likelihood that vapor 

concentrations will fall within the flammability limits at a given temperature. 

Gasoline, MTHF, and MF are volatile (gasoline is much more volatile than the two oxygenates). 

Fully saturated gasoline and MTHF vapors at 20°C are too rich to burn (see Table 6). At 

common ambient temperatures, all three are ignitable. In contrast, methanol, ethanol, propanol, 

and tert-butanol have lower vapor pressures at 20°C, which fall between their upper and lower 

flammability limits, within the flammable range. Consequently, while the vapor in closed 

containers of gasoline or MTHF is not flammable, these alcohols would be expected to generate 

dangerous concentrations of vapors in storage tanks. Conversely, in open containers, where 

vapor concentrations are generally diluted to well below saturation concentrations, gasoline and 

MTHF vapors may be present at concentrations within the flammability limits. Some higher 

alcohols have vapor pressures (at 20°C) that are below their flammability limits and thus cannot 

reach dangerous concentrations unless temperatures are elevated. 

Flammability limits are not known for a number of the other oxygenates; however, their flash 

points (the temperature at which the saturated vapor pressure equals the lower flammability 

limit) are known. Below the flash point it is not possible to ignite the vapors. With flash points of 

over 90°C, the levulinates are not likely to be a significant fire danger; however, DMF (flash 

point 16°C), MP (flash point 22°C), and MF (flash point -22°C) may produce flammable vapors 

in typical storage conditions. 

Like the flash point, the autoignition temperature assumes fully saturated vapors. The difference 

is that the flash point is the lowest temperature at which self-sustaining combustion can occur, 

while the autoignition temperature is the temperature at which combustion will occur, i.e., the 

temperature at which saturated vapors will spontaneously combust. For all these fuels, the 

autoignition temperature is well above any normal ambient conditions and unlikely to occur 

except in a fire or if a container is placed near a heat source. For this reason, these fuels should 

be handled with extreme care to avoid contact with sparks or other heat sources. 
25

Another safety issue is flame luminosity. Pure methanol and ethanol flames contain very little 

soot and so are not luminous, which creates a hazard as workers or fuel users may be burned 

because they cannot see the flame. Adding gasoline to these alcohols imparts luminosity. Higher 

alcohols may have adequately luminous flames because of their greater carbon content; however, 

we were not able to identify studies or data sources on this property. 

Fuel storage safety issues for low-concentration blends will be similar to those for straight 

gasoline. While blending of alcohol may increase or decrease vapor pressure slightly depending 

on the blend level, gasoline blends will still require careful handling as Class I flammable 

materials.

MTHF is typically supplied with an inhibitor to prevent the formation of thermally explosive 

peroxides on exposure to air. Stored MTHF and furans must always be tested for peroxide 

formation prior to heating. Many laboratories dispose of MTHF and furans that have been open 

for more than 6 months to eliminate the potential for the formation of dangerous levels of 

peroxides. It is not clear how the safety issues associated with peroxide formation would be 

addressed if large amounts of MTHF were in widespread use. 

6.2 Toxicity

Whether ingested or inhaled, gasoline is toxic and listed as a possible carcinogen. All of the 

alcohols are somewhat more toxic, and ethanol ingested in liquid form is considered to be 

carcinogenic according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Recent 

studies have shown that regular long-term ingestion of liquid ethanol alcohol may cause 

cancer,

69 but at exposures far above those that would typically be expected for fuel usage. DMF

and MF are also potentially quite toxic. Little is known about MTHF; the levulinates and 

pentanoates are expected to be less of a concern because they are in use as flavorings and scents. 

Table 7 presents a quantitative comparison of oral toxicity. Ethanol intended for fuel use is made 

toxic with the addition of a denaturant (usually gasoline) to discourage human consumption. 
26

Table 7. Oral Toxicity of Gasoline and Various Oxygenates

Fuel Oral LD50a (rat or mouse)53 Carcinogenic?70

Gasoline 18.75 mL/kg or about 14,000 

mg/kg71

Gasoline is classed as a possible 

carcinogen and contains benzene, 

a known carcinogen

Methanol 5,628 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

Ethanol 7,060 mg/kg Ethanol “in alcoholic beverages” 

classed as known carcinogen; 

however, this presumes high 

ingestion levels

Isopropanol 5,045 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

n-Propanol 1,870 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

n-Butanol 790 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

sec-Butanol 6,480 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

Isobutanol 2,460 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

tert-Butanol 3,500 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

MTHF Unknown; Inhalation rat LD50: 

6,000 ppm; skin rabbit LD50 

4,500 mg/kg

Not classified by IARC

DMF 300 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

GVL 8,800 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

EL Used as food additive Not classified by IARC

BL Used as a food additive, 

>5,000 mg/kg

Not classified by IARC

MP 2,050 mg/kgb Not classified by IARC

MF 167 mg/kg Not classified by IARC

a. The amount of compound per kg of animal that, if ingested, will kill 50% of the tested population. Thus, a 

smaller value implies greater toxicity.

b. Used in fragrances, soaps, and cosmetics. 

6.3 Environmental Considerations 

Since most of the oxygenates listed in Table 7 are relatively nontoxic and the alcohols are

biodegradable,72 their effect on the environment in the case of spills is expected to be relatively 

small. Longer chain and more highly branched alcohols are not as readily biodegraded.73

Butamax, LLC plans to study the fate and transport of isobutanol in the environment as part of its 

efforts to get isobutanol certified as a fuel additive in California.42 The other compounds are not 

well studied. DMF and MF, with their higher toxicities, may present the greatest concern, while 

the levulinates and pentanoates, commonly used as food additives, flavors or, in the case of 

methyl pentanoate, as a mild sedative, would be expected to readily biodegrade and have a lesser 

impact on the environment. The downside of readily biodegradable compounds may be that they 

may also be relatively unstable in storage prior to use. Note that the high solubility of some 
27

alcohols can lead to greater mobility and potentially more toxic levels in groundwater in 

comparison to gasoline and the other potential oxygenated additives. 

The presence of ethanol in groundwater is known to increase the solubility of other organics. A 

similar effect would be expected with higher alcohols. This was supported by a study in which 

the effects of ethanol, isopropanol, and tert-butanol were compared on the solubility of 

tetrachloroethylene in aqueous solutions. All three alcohols in solution tested at concentrations of 

about 20% and above acted as cosolvents, increasing the aqueous solubility of 

tetrachloroethylene. Tert-butanol exhibited the strongest cosolvent effects.74 
28

7 USE IN SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES

In the near future, the most likely new use of oxygenates will be higher alcohols in lowconcentration blends with gasoline, both because they present the lowest legal hurdles and they 

are believed, for the most part, to be usable in existing cars without affecting the driver’s

experience. The four most significant areas in which oxygenate/gasoline blends differ from 

gasoline are as follows: 

• Oxygenates have a lower energy density than gasoline, and when blended with 

gasoline, oxygenates reduce the energy density of the blend approximately in 

proportion to the amount of oxygen in the compound. 

• Because a solution of nonpolar gasoline and relatively more polar oxygenates is nonideal, even low concentrations of oxygenates in gasoline can change the volatility of 

the blend in ways that cannot be predicted from the vapor pressure of the 

components. On the one hand, if the vapor pressure is higher than that of gasoline, the 

blend can cause increased evaporative emissions and vapor lock on warm days. On 

the other hand, the use of lower vapor pressure fuels could cause problems starting 

vehicles on cold days. 

• Oxygenate blends may differ in material compatibility with thermosets, 

thermoplastics, and elastomers and in potential corrosion of various metals used in 

engines and gasoline storage and handling systems. In addition, if interchanged with 

petroleum fuels, the oxygenate blends may act as a solvent and dissolve deposits that 

are otherwise insoluble in the presence of gasoline. The loosened deposits can affect 

combustion and clog filters. 

• The water tolerance of the oxygenates, especially of the shorter chained and more 

polar alcohols, is quite different from that of gasoline. This can increase the amount 

of water taken up into the gasoline, and if enough water is present, a second phase 

will form and oxygenates may preferentially partition into the aqueous phase. 

While these four issues apply to all of the oxygenates considered, they apply to a different extent 

for each compound. Generally, as the proportion of oxygen in the molecule becomes less, it 

begins to act more like the hydrocarbons in gasoline. For alcohols, the effect of the lone hydroxyl 

group diminishes as the molecule grows larger and they are more energy dense, less likely to 

absorb water, are less corrosive, and have less potential to increase vapor pressure. Other 

potential differences between gasoline and gasoline-alcohol blends include octane, emissions 

effects, driveability, and viscosity. In low-concentration alcohol/gasoline blends, toxicity, fuel 

storage safety, and issues related to environmental spills are determined primarily by the 

predominant gasoline properties. 

7.1 Energy Density

By definition, oxygenates include oxygen in addition to carbon and hydrogen. Because the 

carbon-oxygen and hydrogen-oxygen bonds release no energy when the molecule is combusted, 

on a weight basis oxygenates have a lower energy density than that of the corresponding

hydrocarbon. Ethanol’s energy density is less than 70% that of gasoline’s. However, the longer 

the alcohol chain, the less the impact of the lone oxygen atom. Thus, butanol, pentanol, and 
29

higher alcohols have specific energies that are much closer to that of gasoline than ethanol. The 

volumetric energy density of the compounds considered in this document range from 80% to 

95% of the energy density of gasoline. DMF is the closest to gasoline (95% of the volumetric 

energy density). The energy density of any of the butanols is almost 80% of that of gasoline. In 

practice, this means that vehicles using oxygenate blends in gasoline will require larger fuel 

tanks or will travel shorter distances between refueling events. It also means that fuel injection 

equipment may need to be modified to ensure that the proper amount of fuel is metered into the 

combustion zone. 

Cars built since the late 1980s (virtually all the cars on the road today) operate in “closed-loop” 

mode most of the time. “Closed loop” means that the exhaust oxygen sensor signal is being used 

to control the amount of fuel the injectors are adding to the intake. If the oxygen sensor output 

determines that the combustion mixture is getting fuel-rich, it cuts back on the fueling rate. If the 

mixture is getting lean, it increases the fuel/air ratio. However, some cars start in open-loop 

mode until the engine warms up, and then switch to closed-loop operation. Others switch into 

open-loop operation in order to get more power during accelerations. Thus, in addition to not 

being covered under EPA’s “substantially similar” rule, there are two potential issues regarding 

the use of oxygenate blends that have oxygen contents above that of E10. First, the range of the 

closed-loop system might not allow full compensation for high-oxygen-content fuels. The other 

issue occurs when the car is operating in open-loop mode. In this case, it expects a certain energy 

content in the fuel, and the addition of large amounts of oxygen-containing fuels can deceive the 

system. 

The energy density of a blend can be calculated as the energy density of the constituents times 

the proportion in the blend. For example, using low concentrations of n-butanol (equivalent to 

2.7% oxygen) in gasoline yields a fuel that has about 97% of the energy density of gasoline 

alone. For comparison, all modern cars are designed to operate on concentrations of up to 10% 

denatured ethanol gasoline (3.5% oxygen), which has about 96% of the energy of gasoline alone. 

Because the energy density can roughly be estimated based on the oxygen concentration, any 

blend with an oxygen content less than or equal to that of E10 will have an energy density within 

the range for which modern vehicles have been designed. 

7.2 Volatility

As discussed in Section 4.2, ASTM volatility requirements are specified in several ways: as a 

vapor pressure measured using specific EPA-approved methodology, but essentially the vapor 

pressure at 37.8°C (100°F); by looking at various points on the distillation curve; by calculating 

a DI from several points on the distillation curve; and as a function of the point where the vaporliquid ratio is 20. Varying the vapor pressure affects operability in several important ways, and it 

also impacts evaporative and permeation emissions not just from the vehicle but in transport, 

storage, and fueling. Acceptable values for these vapor pressure-dependent properties vary 

depending on the region of the country and the time of year. 

The vapor pressures of pure alcohols, or any of the other oxygenate compounds described here, 

are too low to easily start cars at moderate to low temperatures. This can be shown by the 

inability of alcohols to meet the DI in requirement in ASTM D4814. Cars designed to operate on 

pure ethanol (E100) (actually containing about 7% water) without gasoline are used in warmer 
30

climates75 where the low vapor pressures will be less problematic for cold starts (although many 

so-called E100 vehicles have a separate small tank of gasoline for cold starting). New E100 cars 

have been proposed by Saab76 and Suzuki77 for more general use. Saab states that the company 

will use a small preheater to warm the fuel when starting a cold car. However, with the existing 

fleet, the low vapor pressure of ethanol and other oxygenates is a significant barrier to 

widespread use of these fuels in neat form in the short term. With boiling points of about 200°C, 

close to that of the heaviest components of gasoline (and far higher than ethanol), and flash 

points of 72°C and 96°C,78 the levulinates will be difficult to ignite and can only be used in low 

concentration blends with lighter fuels in spark-ignition engines. 

The impact of oxygenates on the vapor pressure of gasoline blends cannot be estimated assuming 

ideal solution behavior. Andersen and coworkers52 have reported the vapor pressures of a range 

of alcohol/gasoline blends, including some dual alcohol blends. At the low concentrations 

currently permissible, ethanol, methanol, n-propanol, isopropanol, and tert-butanol elevated the 

vapor pressure of a gasoline blend to greater than that of either of the components, although in 

pure form, the vapor pressures of all neat alcohols are less than those of gasoline. The other 

butanol/gasoline blends (n-butanol, sec-butanol, and isobutanol) do not show a vapor pressure 

increase at low alcohol concentrations (over the vapor pressure of gasoline alone), although their 

vapor pressure behavior is elevated above predictions based on ideal behavior. 

Figure 7 shows the vapor pressure of various concentrations of methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, 

and tert-butanol with gasoline. The vapor pressure bump at low alcohol concentrations can be 

explained by the high polarity of alcohol molecules in comparison to the gasoline hydrocarbons. 

In neat solution, polar molecules are strongly attracted to each other and form hydrogen bonds 

between molecular extremities of opposite polarity. This reduces the vapor pressure for these 

molecules to levels below those that would normally be expected based on molecular size. 

However, when polar compounds are heavily diluted by the nonpolar molecules of gasoline, 

these bonds are no longer effective, and the polar molecules can more readily leave the solution 

and become gaseous. It is not surprising that the increase in volatility is less with less polar, 

higher molecular weight alcohols. 

Blending a higher alcohol (which lowers the overall vapor pressure) into an ethanol/gasoline 

mixture can mitigate the vapor pressure increase as shown in Figure 8. 
31

Figure 7. Vapor pressure of alcohol/gasoline blends79

Figure 8. Vapor pressure (as Dry Vapor Pressure or DVPE) of ethanol and n-butanol in gasoline, 

added individually and in a dual alcohol blend.52 
32

In addition, the use of alcohols (at least methanol and ethanol) in gasoline causes a depression of 

the midsection of the otherwise smooth gasoline distillation curve (see Figure 9). This has been 

associated with difficulty in cold starts. Andersen et al. have reported the distillation curves for 

alcohols up to n-butanol, including dual alcohol blends.80 The higher alcohols have a lesser 

effect, and the flattening of the curve appears at higher temperatures, as would be expected. A 

distillation curve will have a flat section near the boiling point of any specific compound that is 

present at relatively high concentrations, and the higher alcohols boil at higher temperatures than 

ethanol and methanol. Using a higher alcohol in combination with methanol reduces the 

flattening of the curve near the methanol boiling point, but does not eliminate it. 

To further complicate the issue, the vapor pressure and distillation curve of the base gasoline can 

be varied in the refining process. Starting with a gasoline that has a lower vapor pressure would 

result in a blend with a lower vapor pressure. To lower the vapor pressure in gasoline, refiners 

typically remove butanes.81 However, excessive removal of butanes (some of the lowest boiling 

point components of gasoline) can adversely affect a vehicle’s cold-start characteristics.

44 

Figure 9. Distillation curve for 10 vol% ethanol/gasoline blend.44 

Evaporative emissions from vehicles and from fuel storage are roughly proportional to the 

volatility of the fuel blend, although such factors as elastomer deterioration and permeability and 

the loss of canister capacity in the presence of alcohol may increase evaporative losses of alcohol 

blends.82 Quantifying and reducing permeation emissions of ethanol/gasoline blends from 

vehicles is an area of recent research, but there is little recent information regarding evaporative 

emissions of other oxygenates. In the early 1980s, Furey and King measured evaporative 

emissions from cars using two blends of equal amounts of methanol and butanol in gasoline. 

They found that the evaporative emissions were 41% to 44% higher with a 10% blend than with 

gasoline and 26% to 30% higher with an 18% blend. These results are consistent with the 

relative volatility of the fuels.82 However, there have been dramatic changes in evaporative 
33

emission control technology since the 1980s, so evaporative emission impacts for modern 

vehicles are likely to be significantly different.

7.3 Phase Separation

Water is virtually insoluble in gasoline and completely miscible with ethanol, methanol, tertbutanol, and GVL. The water solubility of most of the other higher alcohols and oxygenates falls 

somewhere in between these two extremes. When they are in contact with enough water, these 

somewhat soluble compounds will divide into two phases—a primarily aqueous phase that 

contains some oxygenate, and a primarily oxygenate phase that contains some water. This 

different behavior in relation to water affects the acceptable storage requirements of the various 

fuels. Alcohol and other water-soluble fuels should be kept dry, while gasoline can generally 

tolerate some contact with water because the water is not taken up and thus will not affect use of 

the gasoline. (Note that “water tolerance” as specified in D4814-10 is measured as the 

temperature at which phase separation occurs. This will depend on the amount of water in the 

blend and the oxygenate concentration.) 

Some have argued that phase separation in the presence of water is the most serious technical 

problem associated with ethanol/gasoline blends.83 Water solubility in gasoline is very low and 

thus not a significant performance concern. If water gets into the gasoline transport system, it 

typically pools at the bottom of storage tanks or pipes. However, even small amounts of ethanol 

significantly increase the solubility of water in the hydrocarbon phase. The higher dissolved 

water content can reduce the energy density of the fuel, but more important, if sufficient water is 

encountered, a separate aqueous phase will extract ethanol out of the gasoline. The separate 

aqueous phase can form as the gasoline is cooled in cold weather or if an ethanol/gasoline blend 

is mixed with a fuel having a different ethanol content. ASTM D4814-08b requires that gasoline 

alcohol blends be kept dry enough that they do not separate into a water/alcohol phase and a 

hydrocarbon phase down to the lowest temperatures they are likely to encounter. 

The loss of ethanol into a separate water phase can reduce the octane to below acceptable limits, 

and if the separate phase occurs in the engine, it can cause significant driveability problems. In 

addition, some believe that the water in the fuel, which as conditions change could come out of 

solution, can increase the corrosiveness of the blend. 

The solubility of water in a gasoline/oxygenate blend is highly dependent on the type of 

oxygenate. The amount of water that can be dissolved in various 10% and 20% alcohol blends in 

gasoline is shown in Figure 10. It is interesting to note that the solubility of water in the blends 

increases in the following order: methanol, n-butanol, ethanol; the most water dissolves in the 

n-propanol/gasoline blend, suggesting that, for the purposes of reducing water-related problems, 

n-propanol should be avoided as an additive to gasoline. In contrast, n-butanol should provide a 

significant benefit over ethanol. Gasoline/n-butanol blends can avoid phase separation to 

significantly lower temperatures than can gasoline/ethanol blends having equivalent oxygen 

content. Other testing by the same team of researchers, using n-heptane as a surrogate for 

gasoline, supports these relative solubility rankings and showed decreasing solubility for water in 

the organic phase as the chain length increased to C4 and above (see Table 8).84 
34

Figure 10. Solubility of water in 10 wt% and 20 wt% mixtures of various alcohols in gasoline85
35

Table 8 also shows the mole fraction of water in the corresponding aqueous phase, in the righthand column. The 1.00 values at the bottom of this column show that the fairly nonpolar higher 

alcohols will remain for the most part in the gasoline. In contrast, methanol and ethanol will 

largely partition out of the gasoline phase into the aqueous phase. This is also shown graphically 

as ternary phase diagrams in Figure 11. In this figure, the curve passing through the data is the 

binodal curve and the lines shown are the tie-lines. The single-phase region is the area outside or 

above the binodal curve. A point inside (below) the binodal curve will not exist in equilibrium; it 

represents a composition of gasoline, water, and alcohol that will separate into two separate 

phases, a water-rich phase and a gasoline-rich phase. At either end of a tie-line are the 

composition points of the two coexisting phases. The tie-lines connect the composition points on 

the binodal curve of the water-rich and gasoline-rich phases that form for the ternary 

compositions along the tie-line. The methanol and ethanol tie-lines slope down to the right 

precipitously, indicating that these alcohols will partition quite strongly into the water phase (the 

water phase contains a much higher level of alcohol than the gasoline phase). In contrast, with 

their left-leaning tie-lines, n-propanol and (even more strongly) n-butanol will preferentially 

partition into the gasoline phase. In all cases, the addition of even small amounts of water to a 

10% alcohol in gasoline blend results in phase separation. 

Table 8. Mole Fraction of Water in the Organic Phase and Aqueous Phases When Combined with 

15% Alcohol/n-Heptane Blend84

Alcohol 

Component 

Water Mole Fraction in 

Organic Phase

Water Mole Fraction in 

Aqueous Phase

Methanol 0.000 0.04

Ethanol 0.016 0.55

n-Propanol 0.023 0.84

Isopropanol 0.025 0.85

n-Butanol 0.009 0.99

sec-Butanol 0.012 0.98

tert-Butanol 0.014 0.99

n-Pentanol 0.012 1.00

2-Pentanol 0.012 1.00

n-Hexanol 0.005 1.00

 
36

 

Figure 11. Binodal curves and tie-lines for gasoline-water-alcohol ternary liquid systems.

85 

See footnote for explanation of ternary phase diagrams.*

To understand what this means in practice for the different alcohols, consider, for example, a 

20% n-butanol/gasoline blend that is fully saturated with 0.8% water at 20°C (see Figure 11). If 

that mixture is combined with an equal amount of pure gasoline, however, the 10% blend that 

results can hold only about 0.25% water (much less than half), and the extra water would drop 

out of solution and form a separate aqueous phase. Because the n-butanol will partition 

preferentially into the gasoline phase (see the marked tie-lines in Figure 11), virtually all of the 

 

* In an ordinary x-y graph all the isoconcentration (constant concentration) lines for one constituent run parallel to each other, and 

perpendicular to those of the other constituent. In a ternary graph, the isoconcentration lines for each constituent are still parallel 

to each other, but at a 60° angle to those of the other constituents. By convention, the isoconcentration lines for each constituent 

run parallel to the axis to the left. Thus, in these graphs, a horizontal line represents a constant concentration of alcohol. 

Isoconcentration lines for water slope down to the right parallel to the alcohol axis and gasoline isoconcentration lines slope 

upward to the right parallel to the water axis. For example, for gasoline, the 50% concentration line slopes upward to the right 

from the middle of the bottom axis at the point representing 50% gasoline, 50% water and 0% alcohol, to end on the alcohol axis 

at the point representing 50% gasoline, 0% water and 50% alcohol. In these graphs the isoconcentration lines are implied; the 

drawn lines are tie-lines, which are explained in the text. 
37

n-butanol will remain in the gasoline, and the gasoline/butanol product will remain usable. The 

separate water phase will have very low concentrations of n-butanol. If the alcohol used had 

instead been ethanol, the concentration of water in the 20% ethanol/gasoline blend could have 

been as much as 1.6%. This higher concentration of water will present more operability problems 

if it comes out of solution in the fuel tank (perhaps because of the dilution of the ethanol 

concentration by gasoline or because of a temperature drop). If there is a significant amount of 

water, the loss of ethanol to the aqueous phase could reduce the octane level of the gasoline 

phase to below acceptable levels, and if phase separation occurs in the transportation system, the 

fuel value of the ethanol can be lost. 

In Figures 10 and 11, the Sasol company’s blend seems to act somewhere near the average of its 

various ingredients, suggesting that there is little synergistic effect between the various alcohol 

ingredients. However, others have reported that butanol can be used as an additive to increase the 

solubility of ethanol in gasoline to avoid phase separation.82 This is an important issue that 

should be resolved with additional testing. 

Little is known about the partitioning behavior of other oxygenates, although DMF, MF, and MP 

have very low solubility in water. 

7.4 Materials Compatibility

Information on the materials compatibility of various pure alcohols with fuel storage and 

handling components can be qualitatively compared with gasoline on the basis of chemical 

compatibility charts available from numerous equipment suppliers.86,87 In these charts, alcohols 

are considered slightly more corrosive than gasoline when they are in contact with some of the 

most commonly used metals (aluminum, brass, carbon steel, stainless steel), i.e., they receive a 

“good” rating as opposed to an “excellent” rating. Cast iron should not be used in alcohol 

service, although it is acceptable for gasoline. Higher alcohols are expected to be less aggressive 

than the shorter chain alcohols.88 Most plastics and elastomers are approved for use with 

alcohols, with the exception of the use of some grades of Viton with methanol or ethanol; 

polyurethane and polyacrylates are also not recommended for use with alcohols. The use of zinc, 

brass, lead, and aluminum is not recommended with E8589 and could also be an issue with pure 

ethanol or other neat fuels. 

Despite the guidance from equipment manufacturers regarding carbon steel, in practice stress 

corrosion cracking has proven to be an issue in carbon steels in contact with denatured fuel-grade 

ethanol in some situations.

90 While the reason for this disparity between equipment manufacturer 

guidance for neat alcohols and the practical experience of ethanol fuel users is not fully 

understood, it is an area of significant current research, especially in regard to shipping ethanol 

in steel pipelines. Some theorize that ethanol has proven to be more corrosive in fuel use because 

of the presence of dissolved oxygen.88 Others believe that corrosion issues may be aggravated by 

high levels of water in the fuel.84 The extent to which this issue applies to higher alcohols and 

other oxygenates is unknown. 

As discussed earlier, pure higher alcohols are generally less reactive with most materials than are

shorter chain alcohols. However, it is not clear how to extrapolate this information to blends, 

because in some cases, materials that are compatible with both neat gasoline and neat ethanol are 
38

incompatible with ethanol/gasoline blends.83,91 In addition, there is the question of whether there 

are synergistic effects between different alcohols combined in gasoline.

Although it is known that neat methanol greatly increases engine wear rates, tests conducted on 

older vehicles indicate that alcohol blends of up to 4.5% methanol/4.5% gasoline-grade t-butyl 

alcohol (GTBA) and 16% GTBA blends do not cause increased engine wear or deposits over that 

for normal hydrocarbon gasoline.92 (A 1981 EPA waiver allows the use of tert-butanol combined 

with additional high-volatility butanes, a blend known as GTBA.) 

BP has conducted extensive trials using 11.5% to 16% butanol blends in gasoline on vehicles up 

to 10 years old in the United Kingdom and found no material compatibility issues. They 

specifically compared butanol/gasoline blend compatibility with aluminum components with 

ethanol/gasoline blends and found no corrosion at all with butanol/gasoline blends. Corrosion 

was found when ethanol/gasoline blends were used.8

In Japan, Kameoka et al.93 examined the corrosive impacts of relatively high concentrations 

(35% to 100%) of alcohols, including ethanol, n-propanol, isopropanol, n-butanol, and 

isobutanol in gasoline on various metals. Aluminum was considerably corroded at all alcohol 

concentrations tested, while steel and nickel were relatively unaffected. Copper was also visibly 

damaged by the alcohol blends. Tin and zinc were less consistently affected. Alcohols with fewer 

carbon atoms and with straight chains, as opposed to higher alcohols and branched alcohols, 

tended to be more corrosive, suggesting that ethanol blends represent a worst case. 

Lange et al.31 have compared the elastomer swell caused by ethanol with that caused by EP and 

EL. Although specific experimental methods were not detailed, they found that EP had the 

smallest effect on the tested elastomer, and EL was the worst.

7.5 Driveability

Driveability is a measure of the smoothness of engine performance and will differ with different 

fuels. A methodology has been developed using trained, experienced drivers and a rating system 

that ranges from 1 (vehicle not operating) to 10 (not noticeable by an experienced driver) to 

compare the performance of different engines over a range of vehicle operating situations. BP 

has measured driveability performance for a range of butanol/gasoline blends and found that, 

while driveability performance tends to degrade at higher concentrations, driveability 

performance is indistinguishable from the gasoline over a broad range of butanol 

concentrations.8

 [Note that the “Driveability Index (DI)” in ASTM D4814 is intended to be a 

surrogate for driveability, but is based on the distillation curve. It has been specifically modified 

for ethanol, but has no correction factor for other oxygenates.] 

7.6 Octane Rating

Ideally, fuel is ignited at a precise time in the piston's stroke cycle and propagates as a uniform 

flame front, but in some cases, pockets of fuel ignite outside the envelope of the normal 

combustion flame front. The shock waves created by this ignition event result in a characteristic 

metallic “knocking” sound and can result in power loss or engine damage in very severe cases. 

Certain fuels and additives are less prone to knock. The resistance of a fuel to knock is expressed 

as its octane number. 
39

There are two ways to measure octane number. The research octane number (RON) is measured 

by running the fuel in a test engine with a variable compression ratio and comparing its knock 

resistance to a known fuel standard. The motor octane number (MON) is a similar measurement 

made under conditions that further stress the fuel’s knock resistance, including a higher engine 

speed, variable ignition timing, and a preheated fuel. Typical fuel specifications require a 

minimum value for both RON and MON. For conciseness, the knock resistance is often given as 

the anti-knock index (AKI), which is the average of the RON and the MON. In addition, for lowconcentration additives, one can calculate a blending octane number, assuming that the additive 

raises the blend octane in proportion to its volumetric concentration. In some cases, these 

blending octane numbers can differ from the pure component octane number, but generally there 

is a rough correlation. 

Octane values can be higher than those required for a specific engine although the higher level 

provides no additional benefit. Thus, the octane levels of neat methanol, ethanol, n-propanol, 

n-butanol, isobutanol, tert-butanol, and isopentanol as well as all of the other oxygenates 

considered here, with the exception of MTHF, are appropriate for most on-road spark-ignition 

engines (see Tables 5 and 6). N-pentanol also has a relatively low blending octane number. 

Interestingly, recent testing of DMF in a single cylinder direct-injection research engine found 

engine knock occurring at loads similar to gasoline and much lower than ethanol, which is 

surprising given the high octane level reported in the literature.55

Engines designed for higher octane fuels operate at a higher compression ratio, which makes 

them more efficient and allows them to provide more power with the same volume combustion 

chamber. For example, Saab’s 2.0-liter turbocharged, four-cylinder engine has an 11.0:1 

compression ratio when optimized for ethanol, compared with 8.8:1 for a similar-sized gasoline 

engine. Saab claims that this allows its 2.0-liter engine to provide the power of an equivalent 4.0-

liter engine running on gasoline. Saab’s goal was a more powerful engine. Popuri and Bata49

used the same concept to make a more fuel-efficient engine. They found that the brake-specific 

fuel consumption of isobutanol blends could be as good as, or better than, that of gasoline if the 

compression ratio of their single-cylinder research engine was adjusted to account for the higher 

anti-knock qualities of the alcohol additives.49 Note that, for commercial engines on the road 

today, the compression ratio is fixed by the engine design and cannot be adjusted for different 

fuels. 

When fuels having different octane numbers are blended, the octane number of the blend cannot 

be calculated linearly. Rather, it must be measured, and then a “blending” octane number can be 

calculated that gives a rough estimate of the octane effect that an additive has on the total blend. 

Ethanol, methanol, and tert-butanol all have blending octane numbers that will increase the 

octane number of typical gasoline. However, for many of these compounds, blending octane 

values are not available in the scientific literature. Measurement of the blending octane numbers 

for those oxygenates for which the value is not yet known is a relatively inexpensive and worthy 

research goal. 

7.7 Heat of Vaporization

Neat alcohols and alcohols combined with gasoline at high concentrations have a higher heat of 

vaporization than gasoline does. Of the non-alcohol oxygenates, the heat of vaporization is only 
40

known for a few of the compounds. Except for the relatively high heat of vaporization of GVL, 

the others are comparable to gasoline and thus would not be expected to significantly impact 

engine operation. If the heat of vaporization is high, the increased evaporative cooling effect can 

change combustion characteristics and lower the intake charge temperature and hence increase 

the intake air density. Since a greater mass of air can be injected at the lower temperature, the 

corresponding fueling rate can also be higher, yielding more power from an engine of the same 

size. Alternatively, a higher heat of vaporization can make it more difficult to evaporate fuel in 

cold conditions, leading to more cold start issues. 

7.8 Tailpipe Emissions

Gautam et al. tested emissions from various blends of alcohols at 10% total concentration in 

gasoline in a single-cylinder research engine.

94 Each blend included methanol, ethanol, propanol, 

butanol, and pentanol, but in different proportions, while keeping the total oxygenate 

concentration at less than 3.7% and the total methanol concentration at less than 5%, so that 

these blends could legally meet the requirements for the DuPont waiver mentioned in Table 2. 

The compression ratio of the engine was adjusted to maximize engine efficiency, and despite the 

slightly lower energy density of the alcohol blends, the engine used about 20% less mass of 

alcohol fuel on a delivered-power basis. This is because the higher octane of the fuel 

combination allowed for a higher compression ratio. Emissions of CO were 16%–20% lower, 

emissions of carbon dioxide were 18%–23% lower, emissions of NOx were 5%–11% lower, and 

emissions of organic materials-hydrocarbon equivalent was reduced 17%–23 % on a brakespecific basis. On a fuel-specific basis, emissions were about the same, except that NOx showed 

a slight increase. In recent testing, BP measured emissions on 16% butanol in gasoline blends for 

in-use cars and found no significant change in emissions of CO or NOx and a slight reduction in 

hydrocarbon emissions.8 

In 1988, Furey and King tested the addition of a 2:1 mixture of methanol and butyl alcohols at 

concentrations of 10% and 18% in four cars—one with an open-loop system and three with 

closed-loop systems.82 They found that the alcohol mixture reduced CO at all concentrations in 

all four cars by 20% to 50%, as a result of the leaning effect of the alcohol. For NOx and 

hydrocarbons (HC), the results were mixed with no consistent trend, and differences in HC 

emissions between the alcohol blends and pure gasoline were consistently small (less than 7% in 

all cases). 

Namun and Allsup95 tested pre-Tier 1 closed-loop control vehicles on the Federal Test 

Procedure. The addition of 7% tert-butanol to the base fuel decreased fuel economy by 4.3% and 

HC and CO emissions by 26% and 22%, respectively; NOx and evaporative emissions increased

by 21% and 5%, respectively. When compared with the base fuel, the exhaust aldehydes were 

2.3 times higher with the tert-butanol blend. In contrast, the addition of 10% ethanol to the base 

fuel decreased fuel economy by 2.7%, decreased HC emissions by 9%, decreased CO emissions 

by 27% and increased NOx, and evaporative emissions by 23% and 15%, respectively. 

While it is premature to draw firm conclusions on the limited testing done to date, the most 

recent data suggest that low concentrations of higher alcohols will have only a small, potentially 

positive impact on regulated emissions from cars. Specifically, emissions testing of the most 

modern Tier 2 vehicles using higher alcohol fuels is very limited, and more testing of these 
41

vehicles especially is warranted. Testing will need to include the impact of alcohols on emission 

control system durability. In addition, the potential for toxic emissions from the partial 

combustion of higher alcohols may be of significant concern. Aldehydes are known to form in 

the emissions from alcohol-fueled cars. For higher alcohols, emitted oxygenates could include 

unburned alcohols and potentially a range of aldehydes and ketones with carbon numbers from 

C1 up to that of the highest carbon number alcohol in the fuel. In calculating NMOG, many 

laboratories measure only ethanol, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde today, although the carbonyl 

analysis procedures are easily extended to higher molecular weight materials. Less is known 

about the quantification of unburned higher alcohol in vehicle exhaust. 

Emissions tests have been conducted on a 60% MTHF/40% gasoline blend in a 1990 Dodge 

Dynasty closed-loop engine and compared to straight gasoline.96 The results showed a large 

reduction in HC and NMOG (by about 52%, average of three tests), small but significant 

reductions in CO (20%, average of three tests) and a statistically insignificant increase in NOx. 

Formaldehyde and acetaldehydes increased by 53% and 87%, respectively, and benzene was 

reduced by 73%. 1,3-Butadiene results were ambiguous. Fuel economy was reduced about 7%. 

DMF has also been tested as a neat fuel in a direct injection research engine.55 Emissions of CO, 

HC, and NOx were intermediate between those of neat ethanol and those of neat gasoline. 

For all of the new oxygenate compounds, it is critical to identify any toxic compounds in the 

emissions, and speciation of engine exhaust should be an important future research goal. 

There are few data on evaporative emissions effects, which in modern cars could represent up to

50% of all emissions. While higher alcohols and the other oxygenate compounds will have a 

significantly lower vapor pressure impact than ethanol does, it is not known how these alcohols 

will affect the permeation of fuel through fuel system elastomeric components. Detailed studies 

of evaporative emissions from Tier 2 vehicles are therefore required. 

7.9 Viscosity

The higher alcohols have a significantly higher viscosity than both gasoline and ethanol (see 

Table 5). The viscosity of isobutanol is significantly higher than that of the other alcohols 

evaluated. If higher alcohol blends with gasoline also have higher viscosities, this might stress 

the fuel pump or change spray pattern characteristics. Viscosity measurements of blends would 

be a worthy research goal that could explain the cause of emissions and operational changes with 

the addition of higher alcohols. Note also that tert-butanol is a solid at room temperature and thus 

impossible to pump except at elevated temperatures. Viscosity impacts of the other oxygenates 

will also need to be evaluated in the future. 

7.10 Impurities

The presence of impurities such as lead, sulfur, and gums will depend on the feedstock and the 

method used to produce and purify these compounds. However, both fermentation and synthesis 

via synthesis gas can produce alcohols that are very low in these impurities, although 

contaminated feedstocks could change that situation. Sulfur is a significant concern, as allowable 

sulfur levels in spark-ignition fuels are very low. A detailed assessment of impurities in fuel 

blends is needed for each viable production method along with emission control system 

durability studies of the effects of impurities not already considered in current regulations. 
42

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH NEEDS

A range of different gasoline boiling-range oxygenates can be produced from ligno-cellulosic 

biomass using either biochemical or thermochemical means. This report has reviewed the 

properties of these materials and the published literature on their performance in spark-ignited 

engines. 

All gasoline oxygenate blends must meet the most recent version of ASTM Standard D4814 if 

they are to be treated as conventional gasoline, which includes a number of fundamental 

functional requirements related to volatility, oxidation stability, corrosiveness, octane number, 

impurity levels, and other properties. In addition, there are requirements against phase separation 

that will depend upon the quantity of water absorbed by the fuel. With the exception of GVL, the 

propanol isomers and tert-butanol, the amount of water taken up by blends of the studied 

oxygenates with gasoline is expected to be less than for ethanol blends and thus expected to be 

less problematic. Very little data exist on how blending of these compounds with gasoline or 

unfinished gasoline (blendstock for oxygenate blending) affects the D4814 properties, especially 

the vapor pressure of the non-alcohol oxygenate/gasoline blends. Furthermore, the DI is not 

defined for oxygenate/gasoline blends other than ethanol, and the impact of these blends on 

driveability should be assessed. While material compatibility is also anticipated to be less an 

issue for higher alcohols and for most of the oxygenates that have a polarity less than ethanol, 

materials compatibility testing of all blends seems a reasonable step to take before their 

widespread use.

Little is known about by-products and minor contaminants that could be present in oxygenates 

from the various production processes. For these compounds to become widely used in gasoline 

blending, it is likely that certain impurities will have to be limited to protect engine and emission 

control components. Thus, it is likely that an ASTM specification for blending components, 

similar to the ASTM D4806 specification for fuel-grade ethanol, will have to be developed. The 

development of an ASTM specification will require a substantial amount of data on the chemical 

composition and properties of the alcohol of interest as well as on how impurities impact engine 

and emission control system durability.

Testing to obtain UL listing of dispensers and of both aboveground and underground storage 

tanks for use with oxygenates is required for widespread commercialization. This process will 

require evaluation of the compatibility of these compounds fuel blends with a range of 

elastomers, metals and plastics, as well as other testing to be defined by UL. 

Limited emissions testing performed on pre-Tier 1 vehicles or research engines suggests that 

higher alcohols and MTHF will reduce emissions of CO and organics, while NOx emissions stay 

the same or increase. DMF is also shown to have a small, but beneficial effect on CO, organics, 

and NOx emissions. It is not clear that these effects would be observed in Tier 2 vehicles with 

modern emission controls. Also, there is no public information on the impact of higher alcohols 

and oxygenates on emissions of specific toxic compounds. This is a critical research need. 

Methods for measuring the oxygenate fraction of NMOG will have to include carbonyl 

compounds of higher molecular weight than acetaldehyde, other oxygenate combustion products, 

as well as unburned oxygenate. The impact of higher alcohols and oxygenates on evaporative 
43

emissions, including permeation effects, has not been studied. The impact of these alcohols on 

the durability of emission control catalysts must also be investigated. Similar research will have 

to be completed for other oxygenates. 

The high toxicity of DMF and MF suggests that special care must be taken in assessing 

emissions to ensure their use would not present an exceptional risk, although tailpipe emissions 

speciation is needed prior to the use of any gasoline additive. Safety issues associated with the 

formation of peroxides in MTHF will also need to be assessed. 

The millions of FFVs currently on the road are designed to run on ethanol concentrations of up 

to 85%. These vehicles may also be capable of running on high-percentage blends of higher 

alcohols and oxygenates. The compounds considered here have a higher energy density than 

ethanol, so compensation for energy density will be less of an issue. However, the vapor pressure 

of higher alcohols and the oxygenates is in most cases lower than that of ethanol; thus, cold 

startup might be a problem, and higher gasoline content relative to E85 might be required for 

cold weather operation. Advanced vehicles, with preheaters for cold starts and engines capable 

of optimizing calibration for a wide range of fuel energy densities, are feasible with current 

technology but do not exist in significant numbers in the commercial marketplace today.

In the longer term, the performance of higher alcohols and other oxygenates in advanced engines 

employing direct injection or low-temperature combustion strategies should be investigated 

Fuel use of GVL will be held back by its potential for abuse as a drug. Although ethanol also has 

the potential for abuse and addiction, its widespread availability elsewhere minimizes the 

potential for additional disruption caused by fuel use. Additionally, GVL’s miscibility with water 

and its high boiling point (and presumably low vapor pressure at typical ambient temperatures) 

present significant drawbacks to its use as a gasoline substitute or additive. The same can be said 

for tert-butanol, which is also miscible with water. Moreover, no pathway for the production of 

tert-butanol from renewable sources has yet been proposed. 

For ML and EL, based on the limited information available on phase change temperatures, there 

is some evidence that these compounds will be not volatile enough to be used in existing 

vehicles. The solubility of ML and EL in gasoline should be measured, as well as the volatility of 

low concentration levulinate/gasoline blends as a next step in assessing the utility of these 

compounds as gasoline extenders. 
44

9 REFERENCES

 

1 Renewable Fuels Association, Statistics. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics . Accessed February 17, 2011.

2 Perlack, R.D.; Wright, L.L.; Turhollow, A.F.; Graham, R.L.; Stokes, B.J.; Erbach, D.C. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy 

and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. DOE/GO-102995-2135, April 2005.

3 Arnold, F. “The Race for New Biofuels.” Engineering and Science, Vol. 71, No. 2, 2008, pp. 12–19.

4 Nowak, J.; Szambelan K.; Miettienen H.; Nowak W.; Czarnecki. Z.. “Effect of the corn grain storage method on 

saccharification and ethanol fermentation yield.” Acta Sci. Pol., Technol. Aliment. Vol. 7, no. 1, 2008, pp. 19–27.

5 Durre, P. “Biobutanol: An attractive biofuel.” Biotechnol. J. Vol. 2, 2007, pp. 1525–1534. 

6 Moreira, A.R.; Ulmer, D.C.; Linden, J.C. “Butanol Toxicity in the Butylic Fermentation.” Biotechnology and Bioengineering 

Symp. No. 11, 1981, pp. 567–579. 

7 U.S. Today. Money. www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2000-06-20-butanol . Accessed October 30, 2008. 

8 Wilks, C. “Butanol – The advanced biofuel.” Presented at the Japanese Petroleum Institute, November 2008.

9

 ButylFuel. http://www.butanol.com/ . Accessed March 31, 2009. 

10 Gevo. www.gevo.com . Accessed January 14, 2009.

11 Lane, J. “A butaful fuel: Schwarzenegger launches Cobalt’s biobutanol; rapid commercialization, green chemicals in focus.” 

Biofuels Digest. http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2010/01/13/cobalt-technologies-launches-pilot-butanol-plant-in-californiaaims-for-rapid-commercialization-green-chemicals-in-focus/ . Accessed June 22, 2011.

12 Cobalt Technologies. www.cobaltbiofuels.com . Accessed January 14, 2009.

13 Wender, I. “Reactions of synthesis gas.” Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 48, No. 3, 1996, pp. 189–297. 

14 Herman, R.G. “Advances in catalytic synthesis and utilization of higher alcohols.” Catalysis Today Vol. 55, No. 3, 2000, pp. 

233–245. 

15 Spivey, J.J.; Egbebi. A. “Heterogeneous catalytic synthesis of ethanol from biomass-derived syngas.” Chem. Soc. Rev., 36, 

2007, pp. 1514–1528. 

16 Subramani, V.; Gangwal,. S. “A Review of Recent Literature to Search for an Efficient Catalytic Process for the Conversion 

of Syngas to Ethanol.” Energy & Fuels 22, 2008, pp. 814–839. 

17 Dutta, A.; Talmadge, M.; Hensley, J.; Worley, M.; Dudgeon, D.; Barton, D.; Groenendijk, P.; Ferrari, D.; Stears, B.; Searcy,

E.M.; Wright, C.T.; Hess, J.R. Process Design and Economics for Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: 

Thermochemical Pathway by Indirect Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis. Technical Report NREL/TP-5100-51400, 

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

18 Range Fuels. www.rangefuels.com . Accessed January 14, 2009.

19 Power Ecalene Fuels, Inc. www.powerecalene.com/ . Accessed January 14, 2009.

20 Graham-Rowe, D. “Boosting Cellulosic Biofuels, A catalytic process could improve thermochemical routes to ethanol.” 

Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=21134 . July 28, 

2008. Accessed August 25, 2011. 

21 Aden, A. Personal communication, December 17, 2008.

22 Quarderer, G.J. “Mixed Alcohols from Synthesis Gas.” Proceedings of the 78th Spring National AIChE Meeting. April 6-10, 

1986, New Orleans, LA. 

23 Nirula, S. “Dow/Union Carbide Process for Mixed Alcohols from Synthesis gas.” SRI International. March 1986. PEP Review 

No. 85-1-4. Menlo Park, CA.

24 Power Ecalene,Fuels, Inc. http://powerecalene.com/node/8 . Accessed December 15, 2008.

25 Christensen, J.M.; Mortensen, P.M.; Trane, R.; Jensen, P.A.; Jensen, A.D. “Effects of H2S and process conditions in the 

synthesis of mixed alcohols from syngas over alkali promoted cobalt-molybdenum sulfide.” Applied Catalysis A: General, Vol. 

15, 2009, 29–43.
45

 26 Roman-Leshkov, Y.; Barrett, C.J.; Liu, Z.Y.; Dumesic, J. “Production of dimethylfuran for liquid fuels from biomass-derived 

carbohydrates.” Nature, Vol. 44, 2007, pp. 982–986. 

27 Horvath, I.T.; Mehdi, H.; Fabos, V.; Boda, L.; Mika, L.T. “γ-Valerolactone-a sustainable liquid for energy and carbon-based 

chemicals.” Green Chem., 10, 2008, pp. 238–242. 

28 Huber, G.; Iborra, S.; Corma, A. “Synthesis of Transportation Fuels from Biomass: Chemistry, Catalysts, and Engineering.”

Chem. Rev., Vol. 106, 2006, pp. 4044–4098. 

29 National Drug Intelligence Center. http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs1/1621/1621t.htm . Accessed August 25, 2011.

30 Palkovits, R. “Pentenoic Acid Pathways for Cellulosic Biofuels.” Angewandte Chemie Int. Ed. Vol. 49, 2010, published online. 

doi: 10.1002/anie.201002061.

31 Lange, J.-P.; Price, R.; Ayoub, P.; Louis, J.; Petrus, L.; Clarke, L.; Gosselink, H. “Valeric Biofuels: A Platform of Cellulosic 

Transportation Fuels.” Ange Chem Int. Ed., Vol. 49, 2010, pp. 1–6. 

32 Alonso, D.M.; Bond, J.Q.; Dumesic, J.A. “Catalytic conversion of biomass to biofuels.” Green Chem., Vol. 12, 2010, pp. 

1493–1513.

33 Gruter, G.J.M.; Dautzenber, F. Method for the Synthesis of Organic Acid Esters of 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural and Their Use.

U.S. Patent Application US 2009/0306415 A1, December 10, 2009.

34 Coordinating Research Council. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 91stth Ed., 2010/2011.

35 Dean, J.A., ed. Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, 13th Ed., 1985.

36 Chemical Book. 5-Acetoxymethyl-2-Furaldehyde. 

http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN.aspx?CBNumber=CB7143627 . Accessed August 25, 2011.

37 Sierra Research. Identification and Review of State/Federal Legislative and Regulatory Changes Required for the Introduction 

of New Transportation Fuels. Report No. SR2010-08-01. August 4, 2010. 

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/otherfuels/upload/Sierra_Final_Alt_Trans_Fuel_Report_080410.pdf . August 25, 2011. 

38 56 Federal Register 5352 (February 11, 1991).

39 46 Federal Register 38582 (July 28, 1981). 

40 Oge, M.T. Statement to Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety United 

States Senate, April 1, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/ocirpage/hearings/testimony/111_2009_2010/2009_0401_mto.pdf . Accessed 

Feb. 17, 2011.

41 Gevo, Form S-1, http://secwatch.com/filings/view.jsp?formid=7340051 . Accessed August 25, 2011.

42 Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC. Biobutanol Multimedia Evaluation, Tier 1 Report for the State of California. January 2010.

43 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Refined Motor Gasoline Sales Volumes. 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_a_EPM0_VTR_mgalpd_m.htm . Accessed August 25, 2011.

44 American Petroleum Institute, Alcohols and Ethers, A Technical Assessment for Their Application as Fuels and Fuel 

Components, Third Ed., API Pub. 4261, June 2001.

45 Wilhoit, R.C.; Zwolinski, B.J. “Physical and Thermodynamic Properties of Aliphatic Alcohols.” Journal of Physical and 

Chemical Reference Data, Vol. 2, 1973, Supplement No. 1.

46 Speight. J.G., ed. Perry’s Standard Tables and Formulas for Chemical Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 

47 Cheremisinoff, N., ed., Industrial Solvents Handbook, Chemical Industries, Vol. 94. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003. 

48 Huntwartzen, I. “Modification of CFR Test Engine Unit to Determine Octane Numbers of Pure Alcohols and Gasoline-Alcohol 

Blends.” SAE Paper No. 82002, 1982.

49 Popuri, S.S.S.; Bata, R.M. “A Performance Study of Iso-Butanol-, Methanol-, and Ethanol-Gasoline Blends Using a Single 

Cylinder Engine.” SAE Paper No. 932953, 1993.

50 Unzelman, G.H.; Forster, E.J.; Burns, A.M. “Are There Substitutes for Lead Antiknocks?” Proceedings from the American 

Petroleum Institute’s Division of Refining 36th Midyear Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 12–14, 1971, Vol. 51.

51 International Programme on Chemical Safety. www.inchem.org . Accessed April 6, 2011.
46

 52 Andersen, V. F., Anderson, J. E.; Wallington, T. J.; Mueller, S. A.; Nielsen O. J. “Vapor Pressures of Alcohol-Gasoline 

Blends.” Energy & Fuels, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010, pp. 3647-3654. 

53 Lewis, R.J., ed. Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 11th edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2004.

54 Penn A Chem, www.pschem.com . Accessed April 2009. 

55 Zhong, S.; Daniel, R.; Xu, H.; Zhang, J.; Turner, D.; Wyszynski, M.; Richards, P. “Combustion and Emissions of 2,5-

Dimethylfuran in a Direct-Injection Spark-Ignition Engine.” Energy Fuels, Vol. 24, 2010, pp. 2891–2899. 

56 Ribeiro da Silva, M.A.V.; Amaral, L.M.P.F. “Standard molar enthalpies of formation of some methylfuran derivatives.” J. 

Therm. Anal. Calorim. Vol. 100, 2010, pp. 375–380. 

57 Penn A Chem, www.pschem.com . Accessed April 6, 2011.

58 Cox, G.; Dodds, M.L. “Industrial Uses for Cane Sugar.” Ind. and Eng. Chem. Vol. 25, 1933, pp. 967–968. 

59 Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.chemspider.com/RecordView.aspx?rid=16c0cdae-ae1e-4c3b-8f33-5daa335110ad . 

Accessed June 29, 2011.

60 http://www.chemcas.com/material/cas/archive/539-88-8.asp . Accessed June 26, 1011.

61 Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System. 

http://www.pactsplan.org/documents/MC2_LevulinicFitzpatrick120809.pdf . Accessed June 26, 2011. 

62 O’Neil, M.J.; Heckelman, P.E.; Koch, C.B.; Roman, K.J., eds. The Merck Index – An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and 

Biologicals (14th Edition - Version 14.6); Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck & Co. 2010. 

63 Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.chemspider.com/RecordView.aspx?rid=809c703c-d88a-4802-894d-46b1a583865a . 

Accessed June 29, 2011.

64 The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals (14th Edition - Version 14.6), Ed.: O'Neil, 

Maryadele J. et al. © 2006, 2010 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.

65 National Institute of Standards and Technology. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html . Accessed January 18, 2011. 

66 Sigma-Aldrich. www.sigmaaldrich.com . Accessed January 18, 2011. 

67 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/20706 . Accessed August 25, 

2011. 

68 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Status and Impact of State MTBE Ban. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/mtbeban . Accessed February 19, 2009.

69 American Cancer Society. Alcohol and Cancer. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/PRO/alcohol.pdf . Accessed March 14, 

2009. 

70 International Agency for Research on Cancer. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsCASOrder.pdf . 

Accessed December 2010.

71 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Automotive Gasoline. Atlanta, GA: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1995. 

72 Norris, R. D.; Matthews, J.E. Handbook of Bioremediation, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1994.

73 Dias, F.F.; Alexander, M. “Effect of Chemical Structure on the Biodegradability of Aliphatic Acids and Alcohols.” Appl 

Microbiol, December 1971, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1114–1118. 

74 Ladaa, T.; Lee, C.M.; Coates, J.T.; Falta, Jr., R.W. “Cosolvent Effects of Alcohols on the Henry’s Law Constant and Aqueous 

Solubility of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE).” Chemosphere, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2001, pp. 1137–1143. 

75 Business Exchange. http://bx.businessweek.com/nissan-motor-co/nissan-begins-production-of-e100-flex-fuel-livina-in-brazil . 

Accessed January 26, 2009.

76 www.greencar.com/features/saab_turbo_biopower . Accessed January 26, 2009. 

77 Chambers, N. “Suzuki’s Cars Will Run on 100% Ethanol in US, Brazil by 2010.” Gas 2.0. http://gas2.org/2008/08/18/suzukiscars-will-run-on-100-ethanol-in-us-brazil-by-2010/ . Accessed January 26, 2009.

78 McCormick, R., “Renewable Diesel Fuels: Status of Technology and R&D Needs.” 8th Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction 

Conference, August 25–29, 2003.
47

 79 Pumphrey, J.A.; Brand, J.I.; Scheller, W.A. “Vapour pressure measurements and predictions for alcohol-gasoline blends.” 

Fuel, Vol. 79, 2000, pp. 1405–1411. 

80 Andersen, V.F.; Anderson, J.E.; Wallington, T.J.; Mueller, S.A.; Nielsen, O.J. “Distillation Curves for Alcohol-Gasoline 

Blends.” Energy & Fuels Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 2683–2691. 

81 Hamid, H.; Ali, M. Handbook of MTBE and Other Gasoline Oxygenates. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.

82 Furey, R.L.; King, J.B. “Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Driveability Effects of Methanol/Butanol/Gasoline Fuel Blends.” SAE 

Paper No. 821188, 1988. 

83 French, R.; Malone, P. “Phase equilibria of ethanol fuel blends.” Fluid Phase Equilibria, 228–229; 2005, pp. 27–40. 

84 Letcher, T.M.,; Wootton, S.; Shuttleworth, B.; Heyward, C. “Phase equilibria for (n-heptane+water+an alcohol) at 298.2 K.” J. 

Chem. Thermodynamics, Vol. 18, 1986, pp. 1037–1042. 

85 Heyward, C.; Wootton, S.; Shuttleworth, B. “Ternary Phase Diagrams for Gasoline-Water-Alcohol Mixtures.” Fuel, Vol. 65,

1986, pp. 891–894. 

86 Cat Pumps, Chemical Compatibility Guide. http://www.catpumps.com/pdfs/Catalogs/CHEM-COMP-GUIDE.pdf . Accessed 

June 24, 2011.

87 FNW Chemical Compatibility Guide. 

http://www.fnwvalve.com/FNWValve/assets/images/PDFs/FNW/FNW_ChemicalCompat.pdf . Accessed June 24, 2011.

88 Kane, R.D.; Maldonado, J.G.; Klein, L.J. Stress Corrosion Cracking in Fuel Ethanol: A Newly Recognized Phenomenon. 

NACE Paper No. 04543, 2004. 

89 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Handbook for Handling, Storing, and 

Dispensing E85. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/40243.pdf . July 2006. Accessed August 25, 2011. 

90 American Petroleum Institute. Stress Corrosion Cracking of Carbon Steel in Fuel-Grade Ethanol: Review, Experience Survey, 

Field Monitoring, and Laboratory Testing. API TR 939-D, May 2007. 

91 Golombok, M.; Tierney, S. “Effect of Oxygenates on Water Uptake in Hydrocarbon Fuels.” In. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 36, No. 

11, 1997, pp. 5023–5027. 

92 DeJovine, J.M.; Drake, D.A.; Mays, M.A. “Test Stand Evaluations of Commercial Lubricants with Methanol and Tertiary 

Butyl Alcohols Blends.” SAE Paper No. 830242, 1983.

93 Kameoka, A.; Nagai, K.; Sugiyama, G.; Seko, T. “Effect of Alcohol Fuels on Fuel-Line Materials of Gasoline Vehicles.” SAE 

Paper No. 2005-01-3708, 2005. 

94 Gautam, M.; Martin, D.W.; Carder, D. “Emission characteristics of higher alcohol/gasoline blends.” Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 

Vol 214, Part A, 2000.

95 Naman, T.M.; Allsup, J.R.. “Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions from Alcohol and Ether Fuel Blends.” SAE No. 800858.

96 Lucas, S.; Loehr, D.; Meyer, M.E.; Thomas, J.J.; Gordon, E.E. “Exhaust Emissions and Field Trial Results of a New, 

Oxygenated, Non-Petroleum-Based, Waste Derived Gasoline Blending Component: 2-Methyltetrahydrofuran.” SAE No. 932675, 

1993.