National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

Biodiesel Effects on Diesel 

Particle Filter Performance 

A. Williams, R.L. McCormick, R. Hayes, 

and J. Ireland

Milestone Report 

NREL/TP-540-39606 

March 2006 
Biodiesel Effects on Diesel 

Particle Filter Performance 

A. Williams, R.L. McCormick, R. Hayes, 

and J. Ireland

Prepared under Task No. FC06.9400 

Milestone Report 

NREL/TP-540-39606 

March 2006 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
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/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Table of Contents 

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv 

List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iv 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ iv 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1 

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 

Experimental Setup............................................................................................................. 3 

Procedures and Results ....................................................................................................... 6 

Balance Point Temperature............................................................................................. 6 

Regeneration Rate........................................................................................................... 8 

Transient Emissions Testing......................................................................................... 10 

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Work.......................................................... 12 

References......................................................................................................................... 14 

iii
List of Tables

Table 1. Test Engine Specifications.................................................................................... 3 

Table 2. Properties of Diesel Test Fuels ............................................................................ 6 

Table 3. Heavy-Duty Transient Emission Test Results.................................................... 11 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Experimental setup .............................................................................................. 5 

Figure 2. Balance point temperature test DPF differential pressure................................... 7 

Figure 3. BPT test results for B100, B20, and 2007 certification diesel ............................ 8 

Figure 4. Regeneration rate test DPF differential pressure................................................. 9 

Figure 5. Regeneration rate test results for B5, B20, and 2007 certification diesel ......... 10 

Figure 6. Particulate matter emissions transient test results ............................................. 12 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BSFC Brake specific fuel consumption, g/bhp-hr 

B100 100% biodiesel 

B20 20% biodiesel, 80% petrodiesel 

B5 5% biodiesel, 95% petrodiesel 

BPT balance point temperature 

CCRT Catalyzed Continously Regenerated Technology 

CO carbon monoxide 

DPF diesel particle filter 

g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepower hour 

NO nitrogen monoxide 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

PM Particulate matter 

ReFUEL Renewable Fuels and Lubricants facility 

rpm rate per minute 

ULSD Ultra-low sulfur diesel (petrodiesel having 15 ppm or less sulfur) 

THC Total hydrocarbon

iv
Executive Summary

This document reports results of research on the performance of biodiesel and biodiesel 

blends with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and a diesel particle filter (DPF). In 

particular, tests were conducted using a 2002 model year Cummins ISB engine (with 

exhaust gas recirculation or EGR) that had been retrofitted with a Johnson-Matthey 

catalyzed DPF, a passively regenerated filter. Tests were conducted from August 2005 

through January of 2006 in NREL’s ReFuel facility. This report also documents 

completion of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Fiscal Year 2006 Annual 

Operating Plan Milestone 10.2, which is also Corporate Planning System Milestone 

24050. These milestones support the U.S. Department of Energy, Fuels Technologies 

Program Multiyear Program Plan Goal of identifying fuels that can displace 5% of 

petroleum diesel by 2010. 

The impact of biodiesel and biodiesel blends on DPF performance was assessed by 

making the following measurements: 

• Balance point temperature (BPT, the DPF inlet temperature at which the rate of 

particle oxidation approximately equals the rate of particle collection) 

• Filter regeneration rate (assessed by monitoring DPF back pressure as a function 

of time after pre-loading with particles and ramping to high exhaust temperature) 

• Transient emissions testing with and without the DPF installed. 

Tests were conducted using 2007 certification diesel, a commercial ULSD known as BP15, and biodiesel derived from soybean oil. 

Results show that on average, the BPT is 45°C and 112°C lower, respectively, for B20 

blends and neat biodiesel, than for 2007 certification diesel fuel. Filter regeneration rate 

measurements indicate that biodiesel causes a significant increase in regeneration rate, 

even at the 5% blending level. Transient emissions tests show a 25% particulate matter 

(PM) reduction for B20 without the DPF installed. Installation of the DPF caused PM 

emissions to drop by more than a factor of 10 for petrodiesel. Use of B20 with the DPF 

produced an additional PM reduction of 67% as compared with the petrodiesel plus DPF 

configuration. The use of B20 caused a 2.9% increase in fuel consumption, consistent 

with the lower energy content of this fuel. Installation of the DPF caused a nearly 2% 

fuel economy penalty for both ULSD and B20. 

Overall the results suggest significant benefits for the use of biodiesel blends in engines 

equipped with DPFs. The significant lowering of BPT and increase in regeneration rate 

might allow passive DPFs to be used in lower temperature engine duty cycles, avoiding 

the need for actively regenerated filters and their associated fuel economy penalty. 

Actively regenerated systems might require less frequent regeneration, also resulting in a 

lower fuel economy penalty. These hypothetical fuel economy benefits have yet to be 

demonstrated, and this will be the subject of future research. 

1
Introduction 

This document reports results of research on the performance of biodiesel and biodiesel 

blends with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) with a diesel particle filter (DPF). In 

particular, tests were conducted using a 2002 model year Cummins ISB engine (with 

exhaust gas recirculation or EGR) that had been retrofitted with a passively regenerated 

Johnson Matthey catalyzed diesel particle filter. 

Biodiesel is a renewable fuel derived from vegetable oil, animal fat, or waste cooking oil 

and consists of the methyl esters of fatty acids. It is typically used as a diesel blending 

component at levels of 20 volume percent or lower. A resource assessment indicates that 

biodiesel has the potential to displace 5% or more of petroleum diesel use over the next 

decade [1]. A life cycle analysis indicates that biodiesel is a highly renewable fuel, and 

that use of B20 results in a 19% reduction in life cycle petroleum consumption [2]. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed biodiesel emissions data for heavyduty engines published up through about 2000 [3]. For engine dynamometer testing the 

average emission changes for B20 versus petroleum diesel were +2.0% for oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), -10.1% for particulate matter (PM), -11.0% for carbon monoxide (CO), 

and -21.1% for total hydrocarbons (THC). More recently the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) tested two newer engines equipped with EGR and meeting 

the 2004 emission standards. This study found, on average, a 25% reduction in PM 

emissions for B20 [4]. Thus, PM emission reductions are touted as a significant 

advantage for B20 over conventional diesel fuel. 

In 2007, new certification emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines will 

significantly reduce PM emissions as compared with earlier heavy-duty standards. Most 

relevant to this work, beginning with the 2007 model year the PM emission standard will 

be lowered from 0.1 g/bhp-h to 0.01 g/bhp-h. This lowering of PM emissions by a factor 

of 10 is enabled by the introduction in June 2006 of diesel fuel containing a maximum of 

15 ppm sulfur (ultra-low sulfur diesel or ULSD) and also forces the use of DPFs. In a 

DPF, soot particles are trapped on a ceramic filter. In catalyzed DPF systems, such as 

that described in this report, the soot is then burned by reaction with nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2). The role of NO2 as an oxidant is critical to catalyzed DPF performance, and DPFs 

typically contain a precious metal catalyst upstream of the ceramic filter where nitrogen 

monoxide (NO) is converted to NO2. NO2 is a more aggressive oxidizer of soot at low 

temperatures than oxygen, and thus can control the soot oxidation rate. Therefore, the 

small increase in NOx emissions (mainly NO) observed for B20 may have significant 

consequences for the performance of B20 with DPFs. 

Some published information is available on the performance of DPFs with biodiesel and 

biodiesel blends. Frank and coworkers [5] tested B20 and several other fuels at 

Environment Canada with several different aftertreatment and engine configurations. 

The use of a catalyzed DPF produced a factor of 10 reduction in PM emissions relative to 

the base case. No PM emission advantage was observed for B20 with a DPF installed. 

No engine-out emissions were reported for B20 in this study. Additionally, 2007 

compliant procedures for PM emission measurement do not appear to have been used. 

2
However, researchers at Pennsylvania State University [6] have recently shown that 

blending of 20% biodiesel into diesel fuel can significantly lower balance point 

temperature (BPT). They present results showing that this is not caused by increased 

availability of NO2, but by inherent differences in soot reactivity for different fuels. This 

was confirmed by thermogravimetric analysis wherein soot produced in an engine from 

different fuels was burned under identical conditions. Soot characterization by electron 

microscopy suggested that the cause of this increased reactivity is a more highly 

disordered soot nanostructure for B20 blends, such that the soot is more reactive or 

reactive at lower temperatures. More recent results from the Penn State group [7] suggest 

that changes in nanostructure are not the cause of increased reactivity, but rather the 

introduction of highly reactive surface oxygen sites when the soot is produced from B20. 

This report examines the impact of biodiesel and biodiesel blends on BPT, filter 

regeneration rate, and transient emissions using a fully modern engine and state-of-the-art 

(2007-compliant) emissions measurement system. 

This report also documents completion of the NREL’s Fiscal Year 2006 Annual 

Operating Plan Milestone 10.2, which is also a Corporate Planning System Milestone 

24050. These milestones support the U.S. Department of Energy, Fuels Technologies 

Program Multiyear Program Plan Goal of identifying fuels that can displace 5% of 

petroleum diesel by 2010. 

Experimental Setup

The test setup consisted of a 2002 model year 5.9L Cummins ISB, equipped with a DPF. 

Properties of the test engine are shown in Table 1. The engine is direct injection, intercooled with cooled high-pressure EGR; and employs a variable geometry turbocharger, 

electronic control, and high-pressure common rail fuel injection. The 300hp engine is 

designed to meet the 2004 U.S. heavy-duty emissions standards. The lubricant employed 

was Valvoline 15W-40. 

Table 1. Test Engine Specifications

Cummins ISB 

Serial Number 56993170 

Displacement, L 5.9 

Cylinders 6 

Rated Power, kW 224 at 2500 rpm 

Rated Torque 895 N-m at 1600 rpm 

Bore x Stroke 10.2x12 cm 

Compression Ratio 16.5:1 

Fuel System Common Rail 

Intake Restriction, kPa 4.47 

Exhaust Back Pressurea

, kPa 7.95 

 aWithout DPF installed. 

3
The DPF is a 12 L catalyzed passively regenerated system, employing Catalyzed 

Continuously Regenerating Technology (CCRTTM), provided by Johnson Matthey. The 

CCRTTM filter is a diesel oxidation catalyst followed by a wall-flow catalyzed soot filter. 

It is used in applications with exhaust temperatures as low as 200°C-250°C. The DPF is 

mounted 152 cm from the engine turbo flange outlet. The DPF was instrumented for 

inlet and outlet temperatures and pressures as well as differential pressure. Temperatures 

were measured with K-type thermocouples mounted 8 cm from the face of the precatalyst on the inlet side and 8 cm from the face of the DPF on the outlet side. Inlet and 

outlet pressures as well as differential pressure were measured from the same location. 

The overall setup and relative location of all instrumentation is illustrated in Figure 1. In 

addition, engine and emissions sampling system were instrumented for measurement of 

all other critical temperatures and pressures. 

The engine was mounted to a DC electric engine dynamometer at NREL’s Renewable 

Fuels and Lubricants (ReFUEL) facility. ReFUEL’s engine dynamometer is part of a 

fully functional test cell capable of steady-state or transient testing for emissions and fuel 

consumption. The ReFUEL emission measurement system is based on the full-scale 

dilution method with constant volume sampling for mass flow measurement. Gaseous 

emissions—including carbon dioxide, NOx, THC, and CO—are measured continuously. 

PM emissions are measured based on a gravimetric system, in which samples are 

collected onto 47 mm Teflon filters then weighed with a microbalance in a clean room 

environment. 

Test fuels included 2007 certification diesel, a commercial ULSD known as BP-15, and 

various biodiesel blends made from a soy biodiesel feedstock. The properties of the 

ULSD fuels are listed in Table 2. The soy biodiesel was S15 grade and met the 

requirements of ASTM D6751. Through out the study fuels were stored in-doors in a 

heated and air conditioned environment. With the exception of transient emission testing, 

all experiments were conducted with the 2007 certification diesel and the soy biodiesel. 

Transient testing was conducted with the commercial ULSD and the soy biodiesel. 

4
Figure 1. Experimental setup

5
Table 2. Properties of Diesel Test Fuels 

Property Method Units 

Commercial 

ULSD (BP-15) 

2007 

Certification 

Diesel 

Cetane Number D613 51 41 

Kinematic Viscosity 40C D445 mm2/s 2.5 2.3 

Cloud Point D2500 oC -12 -- 

Flash Point D93 oC 64 82 

Total Sulfur D5453 ppm 13 12 

Ash Content D482 wt% 0.000 

Specific Gravity D4052 0.8371 0.858 

Carbon Residue D524 wt% 0.04 -- 

Corrosion, Copper strip D130 1A -- 

Water and Sediment D2709 vol% 0 -- 

Carbon D5291 wt% 86.04 -- 

Hydrogen D5291 wt% 13.48 -- 

Aromatics D1319 %vol 29 28.8 

Distillation T90 D86 oC 322 299 

Procedures and Results

Balance Point Temperature 

The BPT is determined as the DPF inlet temperature at which the rate of particle 

oxidation approximately equals the rate of particle collection. At the BPT, the DPF 

should not experience a net gain or loss of PM, and consequently the differential pressure 

across the DPF should not change. A series of BPT tests were conducted to compare the 

operation of a DPF on a modern engine with 2007 certification diesel, biodiesel, and a 

B20 blend. The BPT was determined with the following test sequence and is illustrated 

in Figure 2: 

• The DPF was completely regenerated by operating at near rated power (2500 rpm 

and 575 ft-lbs) for 120 minutes. 

• The DPF was preloaded with PM at 2000 rpm and 20 ft-lbs over the appropriate 

amount of time to achieve an approximate 1.5 g/L loading of PM on the DPF. 

• The preloaded DPF was operated at 1700 rpm while torque was increased to 

achieve a stepped increase in exhaust temperatures. The DPF pressure drop is 

monitored continuously to determine slope of the increase or decrease of the 

differential pressure across the DPF at a given inlet temperature. 

• This sequence was repeated for 2007 certification diesel, B100 and B20 (soy) 

fuels for determination of BPT at 1700 rpm. 

6
Figure 2. DPF differential pressure during balance point temperature test 

The BPT is determined by analyzing the slope of the differential pressure for each of the 

11 temperature steps. If the slope is positive (back pressure is increasing), then it is 

assumed that the DPF is collecting PM. Once the slope becomes negative (back pressure 

is decreasing), that temperature is above the balance point temperature, as previously 

defined. The BPT determination is made by plotting the slope of the back pressure 

versus the DPF temperature for each of the 11 steps. A linear curve fit is made between 

the two steps where back pressure slope transitions from a positive to a negative value. 

The point where the curve fit crosses the Y-intercept is determined as the best estimate of 

the BPT. In order to understand variability of the testing method, two repeats of the BPT 

test were completed for 2007 certification diesel and B20, and three repeats for B100. In 

the case of 2007 certification fuel, three additional torque steps were added in order to 

move sufficiently beyond the BPT. Figure 3 shows the resulting BPT windows for each 

of the fuels. On average, the BPT is 45°C lower than 2007 certification diesel for B20 

blends and 112°C lower for neat biodiesel. These results do not allow an assessment to 

be made of the relative importance of the increased availability of NO2 (caused by the 

higher NOx emissions from biodiesel) versus increased reactivity of soot as concluded by 

Penn State [6]. 

7
Figure 3. BPT test results for B100, B20, and 2007 certification diesel

Regeneration Rate 

The regeneration rate testing is similar to BPT testing in that the DPF is fully regenerated 

and preloaded to approximately 1.5 g/L. However, rather than stepping through different 

torques at 1700 rpm, the engine moves directly to a single, relatively high-torque (hightemperature) operating point, which simulates an active regeneration event. This test 

method is illustrated in Figure 4. This method provides a potential advantage of 

comparing regeneration behavior between fuels at the same approximate DPF preload 

conditions (grams/Liter). This contrasts with the BPT measurement method, which 

allows for different loading to occur during the ‘steps’ following preload and prior to 

reaching the BPT. 

Testing was conducted with 2007 certification diesel, B5, and B20 with two repeats for 

each fuel. Once the DPF had been preloaded, the engine was then operated at the chosen 

higher temperature point (1700 rpm and 250 ft-lbs) for 60 minutes. This allows enough 

time for DPF temperature to stabilize. In each case the DPF temperature at the active 

regeneration point stabilized between 348°C and 357°C. In general, DPF inlet 

temperatures were lower with higher blend ratios of biodiesel. DPF back pressures also 

varied from test to test, either as a consequence of the slight temperature differences or 

relative differences in the amount of particle loading. At the stabilized regeneration 

point, DPF back pressures ranged between 48.3 cm of H2O and 52.1 cm of H2O. 

Results for regeneration rates are shown below in Figure 5. This plot shows the 

normalized DPF back pressure for the final 15 minutes of steady-state operation at the 

active regeneration point. DPF back pressures are normalized to show relative 

8
differences in performance for each of the fuels. As can be seen, the back pressure slope 

for 2007 certification fuel is slightly positive for repeated runs at the 1700 rpm, 250 ft-lb 

operating condition with temperatures around 354°C. This is consistent with previous 

testing that showed a BPT somewhere between 359°C and 364°C for this fuel. The plot 

also illustrates that both biodiesel blends at the B5 and B20 level show measurable 

decreases in DPF back pressure at the same operating condition with similar amounts of 

DPF preloading. The slope of the back pressure decrease increases with biodiesel 

content. These test results show that PM from biodiesel blends (even down to the B5 

level) appears to measurably oxidize more quickly than particles from certification diesel 

fuel. Increased levels of biodiesel in the fuel appear to increase the rate of DPF 

regeneration at a given engine operating condition. Again, these results do not allow an 

assessment to be made of the relative importance of the increased availability of NO2

(caused by the higher NOx emissions from biodiesel) versus increased reactivity of soot. 

Figure 4. Regeneration rate test DPF differential pressure 

9
Figure 5. Regeneration rate test results for B5, B20, and 2007 certification 

diesel 

Transient Emissions Testing 

Baseline emissions over three hot-start, heavy-duty transient tests were measured for a 

commercial ULSD fuel, and a B20 blend prepared from the ULSD and a soy-biodiesel. 

These tests were conducted with and without the DPF for both fuels to confirm operation 

of the filter and to determine reduction efficiencies of all regulated pollutants. The 

results for each repeated run are shown in Table 3. 

Before installation of the DPF, the B20 blend yielded a 25% PM reduction relative to 

ULSD, as shown in Figure 6. Following DPF installation, PM emissions were reduced 

by 94% for ULSD and 97% for B20. This slightly higher reduction in PM for B20 is 

statistically significant (p<0.01) and is actually a 67% reduction in PM for B20 with DPF 

versus ULSD with DPF. 

Without the DPF, biodiesel reduced emissions of both THC and CO by 12%. In the case 

of both fuels, the catalyzed DPF reduced THC and CO emissions by 98% to 99% to 

almost undetectable levels. NOx emissions increased for the biodiesel blend by 6% 

without the DPF. DPF installation caused NOx emissions to increase by 1% (p<0.05) for 

ULSD but did not cause a significant change in NOx for B20. NOx emissions for B20 

were 5% higher than emissions for ULSD after DPF installation. 

The biodiesel blend produced a 2.9% (p<0.001) increase in fuel consumption without the 

DPF installed, consistent with the known lower volumetric energy content of biodiesel 

10
11

[8]. Installation of the DPF produced a nearly 2% fuel economy penalty for both fuels 

(P<0.001). 

Table 3. Heavy-Duty Transient Emission Test Resultsa,b 

Fuel Run # NOx THC CO PM BSFC 

 g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr 

Without DPF: 

ULSD 945 2.04 0.216 1.21 - 184.2 

ULSD 946 2.06 0.211 1.23 0.0925 183.7 

ULSD 947 2.05 0.198 1.20 0.0888 182.9 

ULSD 948 2.06 0.184 1.18 0.0868 181.7 

ULSD 959 2.05 0.145 1.16 0.0820 186.2 

ULSD 960 2.06 0.137 1.15 0.0799 185.1 

ULSD 962 2.02 0.143 1.15 0.0845 187.2 

ULSD 963 2.05 0.140 1.21 0.0871 184.8 

Mean 2.05 0.172 1.19 0.0859 184.5 

Standard Deviation 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.004 1.75 

COV% 0.71 19.77 2.51 4.91 0.95 

B20 952 2.16 0.168 1.05 0.0667 188.9 

B20 953 2.18 0.161 1.02 0.0625 189.0 

B20 954 2.19 0.147 0.99 0.0612 189.4 

B20 955 2.23 0.151 1.00 0.0606 189.5 

B20 972 2.13 0.155 1.14 0.0736 191.8 

B20 973 2.17 0.128 1.07 0.0638 190.4 

Mean 2.18 0.152 1.04 0.0647 189.8 

Standard Deviation 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.005 1.11 

COV% 1.63 8.96 5.41 7.51 0.58 

With DPF: 

ULSD 981 2.06 -0.001 0.02 0.0055 187.2 

ULSD 982 2.08 -0.001 0.01 0.0049 188.3 

ULSD 983 2.07 0.002 0.03 0.0042 187.5 

ULSD 1001 2.06 0.001 0.03 - 188.1 

Mean 2.07 0.0002 0.02 0.0049 187.8 

Standard Deviation 0.01 0.002 0.01 0.001 0.53 

COV% 0.53 620.15 48.67 13.36 0.28 

B20 987 2.18 0.001 0.01 0.0018 192.9 

B20 988 2.18 0.001 0.01 0.0017 192.9 

B20 994 2.15 -0.001 -0.01 0.0013 193.0 

Mean 2.17 0.0004 0.005 0.0016 192.9 

Standard Deviation 0.02 0.001 0.01 0.0002 0.08 

COV% 0.84 250.54 229.56 15.09 0.04 a

 Negative values indicate emissions below background levels. 

b

 1 g/bhp-h = 1.341 g/kW-h. 
Figure 6. Particulate matter emissions transient test results (error bars 

represent 95% confidence interval based on repeated tests) 

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Work 

Results show that on average, the BPT is 45°C lower than 2007 certification diesel for 

B20 blends and more than 112°C lower for neat biodiesel. Filter regeneration rate 

measurements indicate that biodiesel causes a significant increase in regeneration rate, 

even at the 5% blending level. Transient emissions tests show a 25% PM reduction for 

B20 without the DPF installed. Installation of the DPF caused PM emissions to drop by 

more than a factor of 10 for petrodiesel. Use of B20 with the DPF produced an additional 

PM reduction of 67% below the petrodiesel+DPF level. However, it is important to note 

that this additional PM reduction is only 0.0033 g/bhp-hr, a very small reduction from an 

already very clean engine. The use of B20 caused a 2.9% increase in fuel consumption, 

consistent with the lower energy content of this fuel. Installation of the DPF caused a 

nearly 2% fuel economy penalty for both ULSD and B20. Thus, for the B20 plus DPF 

configuration the total fuel economy penalty was nearly 5%. These results do not allow 

an assessment to be made of the relative importance of the increased availability of NO2

(caused by the higher NOx emissions from biodiesel) versus increased reactivity of soot. 

Overall the results suggest significant benefits to the use of biodiesel blends in engines 

equipped with DPFs. The significant lowering of BPT and increase in regeneration rate 

12
might allow passive DPFs to be used in lower temperature engine duty cycles, avoiding 

the need for actively regenerated filters and their associated fuel economy penalty. 

Actively regenerated systems might require less frequent regeneration, also resulting in a 

lower fuel economy penalty. These hypothetical fuel economy benefits have yet to be 

demonstrated and will be the subject of future research. 

In practice, one of the design considerations for DPFs is the expected exhaust 

temperature range to be encountered in the real-world duty cycle for a given application. 

This is especially critical for applying catalyzed DPF technology which is designed to 

passively regenerate during normal vehicle operation. Low-exhaust temperature duty 

cycles may not be able to employ passive systems. The work reported here shows 

measurable improvements in DPF regeneration performance at steady-state conditions 

with biodiesel blends and suggests the potential for biodiesel blends to extend the useful 

range of a given DPF design to lower operating temperatures. This may also allow 

passive DPFs with a modest fuel economy penalty to replace actively regenerated DPFs 

that have higher fuel economy penalty in some applications. 

The next phase of this research will investigate transient operation with baseline diesel 

and biodiesel blends over a range of controlled differences in mean exhaust temperature. 

Mean exhaust temperature would be controlled by installation of a heat exchanger on the 

exhaust line upstream of the DPF. The data acquired will show if the improvements in 

DPF regeneration performance with biodiesel blends are significant enough to allow 

biodiesel blends to be an enabler for successful application of catalyzed DPFs in lower 

exhaust temperature applications that would not be suitable for passive DPF technology. 

The data will also allow an assessment of the potential for DPFs to be smaller and/or 

contain less precious metal for design applications, which use biodiesel blends. In 

addition, this work could determine if active regeneration of DPF systems leads to fuel 

savings by operation with biodiesel blends by minimizing the time and amount of fuel 

required during active regeneration periods. 

13
References 

1. Tyson, K.S.; Bozell, J.; Wallace, R.; Petersen, E.; Moens, L. “Biomass Oil Analysis: 

Research Needs and Recommendations,” Technical Report, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory/TP-510-34796, June 2004. 

2. Sheehan, J.; Camobreco, V.; Duffield, J.; Graboski, M.; Shapouri, H. “An Overview 

of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles,” National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory/TP-580-24772, May 1998. 

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “A Comprehensive Analysis of 

Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions,” Draft Technical Report, EPA420-P-02-001. 

4. McCormick, R.L.; Tennant, C.; Hayes, R.R.; Black, S.; Williams, A.; Ireland, J.; 

McDaniel, T.; Frailey, M.; Sharp, C.A. “Regulated Emissions from Biodiesel Tested in 

Heavy-Duty Engines Meeting 2004 Emission Standards,” Society of Automotive 

Engineers 2005-01-2200 (2005). 

5. Frank, B.P.; Tang, S.; Lanni, T.; Rideout, G.; Beregszaszy, C.; Meyer, N.; Chatterjee, 

S.; Conway, R.; Lowell, D.; Bush, C.; Evans, J. “A Study of the Effects of Fuel Type and 

Emission Control Systems on Regulated Gaseous Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Engines,” Society of Automotive Engineers 2004-01-1085 (2004). 

6. Boehman, A.L.; Song, J.; Alam, M. “Impact of Biodiesel Blending on Diesel Soot and 

the Regeneration of Particulate Filters,” Energy and Fuels, 19, 1857-1864 (2005). 

7. Boehman, A.L. “Effect of Alternative Fuels on Soot Properties and Regeneration of 

Diesel Particulate Filters,” presented at 2005 Biodiesel Technical Workshop, Denver 

Colorado, November 2005. 

8. Graboski, M.S.; McCormick, R.L. “Combustion of Fat and Vegetable Oil Derived 

Fuels in Diesel Engines,” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 24 125-163 

(1998). 

14
F1147-E(12/2004) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

March 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Biodiesel Effects on Diesel Particle Filter Performance: Milestone 

Report 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-540-39606 

5e. TASK NUMBER

FC06.9400 

6. AUTHOR(S)

A. Williams, R.L. McCormick, R. Hayes, and J. Ireland 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-540-39606 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Research results on the performance of biodiesel and biodiesel blends with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and a 

diesel particle filter (DPF). 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

biodiesel; biodiesel blends; ultra-low sulfur diesel; ULSD; diesel particle filter; diesel particulate filter; DPF 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18