Disclaimer 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the National Biodiesel Board and 

the Cold Flow Consortium. Neither National Biodiesel Board, the Cold Flow Consortium 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 National Biodiesel Board, the Cold Flow 

Consortium or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not 

necessarily state or reflect those of the National Biodiesel Board, the Cold Flow Consortium or 

any agency thereof. 
Cold Flow Consortium Committee 

Marathon Ashland 

Mr. Rick Stanko 

Mr. Steve Hoehne 

Flint Hills Resources

Mr. Brett Webb 

Magellan Midstream Partners 

Mr. Rod Lawrence 

BP

Mrs. Sherry Boldt 

ADM 

Mr. Peter Reimers

Baker Commodities 

Mr. Fred Wellons 

West Central Soy 

Mr. Myron Danzer 

Mr. Don Irmen 

FPPF

Dr. Gary Pearl 

National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory 

Mrs. Teresa Alleman 

Farmer’s Union Marketing and 

Processing Association – FUMPA 

Mr. Charles Neece 

Kaneb Pipeline

Mr. Paul Heinz

Tesoro Refining Company 

Mr. John Berger 

Schaeffer Manufacturing Company 

Mr. Hoon Ge 

CANMET – Natural Resources 

Canada 

Mr. Ed Hogan 

Murphy Oil USA Inc

Mr. Barry Jeffery

SOYMOR

Mr. Jim Blair

Smithfield Bioenergy LLC 

Mr. Jim Boushka 

Non-Voting Members: 

National Biodiesel Board 

Mr. Paul Nazzaro 

Mr. Steve Howell

University of Minnesota 

Mr. Ken Bickel 

Minnesota Department of Commerce

Mr. Jim Hedman 

 ii
Executive Summary

Increased use of biodiesel has created some handling challenges for bringing blended fuels 

to the consumer. The most immediate handling concern for blenders is assurance that diesel

fuels and biodiesel can be blended uniformly and in a single phase. More specifically, 

blenders need guidelines and parameters for blending diesel fuel and biodiesel in colder 

climates. Neat biodiesel has a much higher cloud point than conventional diesel fuels and 

this can impact handling procedures. This concern became a priority following the passage 

of a bill in Minnesota that required all on-highway diesel fuels to contain at least 2%

biodiesel as early as July 1, 2005. 

In response to the need in Minnesota, the National Biodiesel Board established a Biodiesel 

Cold Flow Consortium to study the blending properties of biodiesel. Members of the 

consortium included petroleum marketers, biodiesel producers, fuel blenders, and other 

experts and interested parties. The members designed a project to investigate this cold flow 

problem. The project goal was to define operating parameters for blending biodiesel with 

diesel fuel at a variety of temperatures, including those seen in the wintertime in Minnesota. 

To achieve this goal, a small blending test rig was designed to simulate splash and 

proportional blending at the terminal. Unadditized No. 1 and No. 2 diesel fuels were 

selected, along with three biodiesels with a range of cold flow properties. The test 

temperatures were determined using Minnesota winter climate data. All testing focused on 

preparing 2 volume percent biodiesel blends. 

Splash blending tests were based on visual observation of wax crystal formation and are 

thus qualitative. To ensure quantitative data was obtained, differential pressure drop 

measurements were collected. These measurements compared the pressure drop of neat

diesel fuel through a filter with the pressure drop created by B2 blends at various 

temperatures. 

Results from the testing showed that the biodiesel must be kept at least 10oF above its cloud 

point to successfully blend with diesel fuels in cold climates. Because generic, unadditized

fuels were used in this project, the actual temperatures of the fuels will need to be

determined on an individual basis. 

 iii
Table of Contents

Cold Flow Consortium Committee .......................................................................................... i 

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................iii 

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

Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 1 

Experimental Apparatus.......................................................................................................... 1 

Test Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 2 

Test Fuels ................................................................................................................................ 3

Results and Discussion............................................................................................................ 3 

Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 5 

Small Group Steering Committee Members........................................................................... 6 

Appendix A. P&ID of Splash Blending Rig. .......................................................................... 7 

Appendix B. P&IF of Modified Test Rig................................................................................ 8 

Appendix C. Step-by-step Analytical Procedures................................................................... 9 

Appendix D. Certificate of Analysis for #1 Diesel Fuel ....................................................... 11 

Appendix E. Certificate of Analysis for #2 Diesel Fuel........................................................ 13 

Appendix F. Certificate of Analysis for Soy Biodiesel......................................................... 15 

Appendix G. Certificate of Analysis for Yellow Grease Biodiesel ...................................... 16 

Appendix H. Certificate of Analysis for Tallow Biodiesel................................................... 17 

Appendix I. Qualitative Blending Data................................................................................. 18 

Appendix J. Listing of Consortium Members Comments..................................................... 22 

 iv
Introduction 

In response to the recent passage of Minnesota’s bill requiring 2% biodiesel in all diesel 

fuels starting as early as July 1, 2005, the National Biodiesel Board convened a Cold Flow 

Consortium. The Consortium was tasked with investigating the blending of biodiesel into 

diesel fuel at temperatures similar to those experienced in the Minnesota winter, with the

objective of defining parameters for successfully preparing homogeneous single-phase 

blends. The Consortium was composed of fuel providers, marketers, blenders, and other 

interested parties. Each member had an equal voice in the Consortium. 

Scope 

This study was designed to accurately determine the temperature where biodiesel and No. 1 

and No. 2 diesel could be blended at 2 volume percent (2%) biodiesel, while meeting

standards for blend precision and homogeneity. The approach taken was to fabricate a small

scale blending system to simulate splash and proportional blending. The system has the 

capability to blend biodiesel at different rates with different grades of diesel fuel at different 

temperatures. This study focused on preparing 2% biodiesel (B2) blends exclusively. The 

blending system was self-contained to include tanks, pumps, motors, and necessary

appurtenances. The system included the ability to heat and/or cool the biodiesel as needed 

and cool the diesel as needed. 

Experimental Apparatus 

The test unit was designed to be totally portable to allow for future testing at various 

locations. The design of the test skid was specifically sized for testing B2 as mandated in the

state of Minnesota. The test skid included an environmental chilling chamber, capable of

cooling fuel to near -60oF in a reasonably short period of time. A photograph of the blending

unit is in Figure 1. Each process and test was recorded manually and with video equipment 

along with the blending equipment records of volume amounts. To assist in recording the 

results of these tests, the finished product tank included interior lighting, viewing ports, and 

sample ports. The finished product tank was manufactured of a clear material to offer the 

best possible opportunity for evaluating the formation of crystals. 

The design for the first series of testing simulated splash blending into a clear blending

container maintained at ambient temperature. A process and instrumentation diagram 

(P&ID) of this test bench configuration is contained in Appendix A. For proportional 

blending, a flow loop was created to allow the fuels to circulate through the piping while 

inside the cooling chamber. The piping loop included a filter and differential pressure across 

the filter was employed to monitor fuel viscosity changes and determine if the fuels were

plugging the filters or strainers. Large increases in viscosity or filter plugging would 

indicate the formation of wax or biodiesel crystals. A P&ID of this configuration is shown 

in Appendix B.

 1
Figure 1. Photograph of Small Scale Test Unit for Blending Biodiesel and Diesel Fuel 

 

Test Procedures 

Sequential Blending into Visible Container. These tests simulated splash blending. Four 

scenarios were tested:

1. Cold No. 1 diesel was loaded into the container. The first type of biodiesel

was added to the top to create a B2 blend. This procedure was repeated for each type 

of biodiesel. 

2. Cold No. 2 diesel was loaded into the container. The first type of biodiesel

was added to the top to create a B2 blend. This procedure was repeated for each type 

of biodiesel. 

3. Biodiesel was loaded into the container first. The No. 1 diesel fuel was 

loaded on top to create the B2 blend. This scenario was repeated for each type of 

biodiesel. 

4. Biodiesel was loaded into the container first. The No. 2 diesel fuel was 

loaded on top to create the B2 blend. This scenario was repeated for each type of 

biodiesel. 

Proportional Blending. The biodiesel and diesel fuels were blended through proportional 

blending. To accomplish this, four gallons of cold No. 1 or No. 2 diesel fuel were circulated 

through the filters and the pressure drop across the filters measured. Biodiesel was then

proportionally blended at 2% and any change in the filter pressure drop monitored. This 

procedure was repeated with each of the three biodiesels. Step-by-step procedures are given 

in Appendix C. 

 2
Test Fuels

A local truck rack operator provided the diesel fuels for this project. The fuels were 

unadditized commercial grades of No. 1 and No. 2 diesel fuels. The certificates of analysis 

are in Appendix D and E, respectively. The biodiesels were soy-, yellow grease-, and 

tallow-derived fuels. The certificates of analysis are in Appendices F, G, and H, 

respectively. West Central Soy provided the soy biodiesel. Rothsay/Laurenco provided the 

yellow grease and tallow biodiesels. 

The biodiesels were sent to a test facility to measure the cloud and pour points of the neat 

biodiesels and the B2 blends. Because the unadditized diesel fuel (Appendices D and E) was 

not available, a typical no. 2 diesel was used to make the blends for cloud point and pour 

point determination. The results of this testing are shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Measured Low Temperature Properties of Fuels Used in this Study

Fuel Cloud Point Pour Point 

°C °F °C °F 

No. 2 Diesel -23 -9 -27 -17

Soy Biodiesel 2 35 0 32

Yellow Grease Biodiesel 5 41 3 37

Tallow Biodiesel 14 57 18 64

2% Soy Biodiesel -21 -5 -27 -17

2% Yellow Grease Biodiesel -21 -5 -27 -17 

2% Tallow Biodiesel -20 -4 -27 -17 

Results and Discussion 

The initial testing used visual observation to determine if shock crystallization occurred. 

Testing revealed several drawbacks with this method. First, the fuel was pushed through the 

apparatus with nitrogen gas. Bubbles of nitrogen remained suspended in the fuels impeding

visual observation. To allow for visual observation, the clear blending vessel was exposed to 

ambient temperatures. Although the fuel was preconditioned to the test temperatures and the 

plumbing was insulated, the ambient air warmed the fuels and the test temperature was 

unknown. Due to the qualitative nature of the data, no conclusions could be drawn from the 

visual data, however they are included in Appendix I.

To resolve these issues, vane pumps were used to push the fuel rather than nitrogen gas. 

Temperature monitoring was used to ensure the pumps were not heating the fuels. The clear 

blending vessel was replaced with a steel blending vessel. The steel blending vessel was 

placed in an environmental chamber designed to keep the apparatus at the desired 

temperature. These changes no longer allowed for visual observation of the blending results. 

A quantitative measure of changes in the blend was needed. Swagelok SS-8TF2 filters of

varying porosities were used in conjunction with differential pressure gauges to indicate

changes in viscosity or solid formation. The diesel fuels were circulated through a 15 

micron filter to determine the baseline pressure drop. Results of this baseline testing are 

listed in Table 2. The duration is the amount of time needed to dispense 1 gallon of fuel. 

Table 3 shows the results of testing with the three biodiesels. The fuels were circulated 

 3
through the pump rig for 180 seconds. The differential pressure was measured at various 

intervals throughout the testing. For the low and middle cloud point fuels, the 100 mesh 

strainer was clean at the end of the circulation period. For the high cloud point fuel, the 

strainer was 50% plugged with solids. The 15 micron filter did not allow for usable data, as

the biodiesels exceeded the gauge range and bypassed the loop through the relief valve. 

Table 2. Baseline Testing with Fuels to Determine Pressure Drop Across Various Size Filters 

and Strainers 

Fuel Strainer Flow Rate,

GPM

Temperature, 

oF

Duration, 

sec 

Differential 

Pressure, PSI 

#2 None 1 64 60 0

#2 None 3.3 64 18 0

#2 100 mesh 3.3 68 18 7.5

#2 15 micron 1.9 68 31 82

#2 100 mesh 1.4 68 42 1

#2 15 micron 0.85 68 71 35

#1 100 mesh 3.3 50 18 3

#1 15 micron 2.1 50 29 not measured 

#1 100 mesh 1.5 51 39 not measured 

#1 15 micron 1.1 51 37 not measured 

Table 3. Baseline Testing with Biodiesel Fuels to Determine Pressure Drop Across 100 Mesh

Filter. Shaded lines indicate biodiesel was at or below its cloud point. 

Biodiesel Cloud 

Point, oF 

Flow Rate, 

GPM

Temperature, 

oF

Test Time, 

sec 

Differential 

Pressure, PSI 

32 3.3 50 60 5

32 3.3 51 90 5

32 3.3 51 120 5

32 3.3 51 150 5

32 3.3 51 180 5

43 3.3 50 60 6

43 3.3 51 90 6

43 3.3 51 120 6

43 3.3 51 150 6

43 3.3 51 180 6

58 3.3 51 60 17 

58 3.3 51 90 16 

58 3.3 51 120 16 

58 3.3 51 150 16 

58 3.3 52 180 14 

The diesel fuel was filtered through the 15 micron filter then switched to the 100 mesh 

strainer. The differential pressure was measured before, during, and after blending with 

biodiesel at a constant temperature. The final differential pressure reading was taken through 

the 15 micron filter and compared to the diesel baseline results to determine the rise in 

pressure of the blend (Table 4). 

 4
Table 4. Differential Pressure Results of Biodiesel Blending into Diesel Fuels

The shaded lines indicate that the biodiesel temperature is at or below its cloud point.

Test Type of

Diesel Fuel

Diesel Fuel

Temp. F

Biodiesel 

Cloud Point, 

F 

Biodiesel

Temp. F

% 

Biodiesel

in Test

Sample 

Unblended

Fuel DP

PSI 

B2 DP

PSI 

DP 

Rise in

PSI 

Comments

1RR #2 10 32 58 1.7 70 75 5

2 Kerosene 10 32 50 2 40 40 0

3 # 2 10 43 50 1.9 75 80 5

4 Kerosene 10 43 50 1.9 45 45 0

5 #2 10 58 56 1.8 75 82 7 

6 Kerosene 10 58 58 1.7 40 42 2 

7 Kerosene 0 32 50 1.7 33 35 2

8 Kerosene -10 32 50 1.8 50 55 5

9 Kerosene -10 43 50 1.8 45 45 0

10 Kerosene 0 43 50 1.9 32 35 3

11 Kerosene 0 58 53 1.9 40 45 5 

12 Kerosene -10 58 53 2 35 45 10 Blend 

Unsuccessful

All above tests were performed using a 15 micron Filter and 2% Biodiesel Blends. All samples were top samples.

Under the conditions used in this study, researchers determined that the biodiesel must be at

least 10oF warmer than its cloud point when it is blended in cold diesel fuel. Although some 

testing was conducted below the cloud point of the biodiesels, there is not enough data to 

draw definite conclusions and the recommendation above is a conservative estimate. 

Unadditized diesel fuels were deliberately chosen for this study. Due to various fuel

properties encountered in the real world, the target temperatures will need to be determined 

on an individual basis based on the fuels in use. 

The results were shared with the Consortium members. A record of their comments is in 

Appendix J.

Conclusions 

This study was designed to simulate different types of blending for biodiesel and diesel 

fuels. A small test rig was constructed to simulate real world blending scenarios. The

original tests used visual observation to determine when the blends were successful. This 

method did not provide objective data. A modification to the test methodology was made – 

filters and differential pressure gauges were used to determine the change in differential 

pressure between the base fuel and the B2 blends. 

Based on tests with the fuels described above, the study findings are: 

• Qualitative visual observations of sequential blending with diesel and 

biodiesel fuels showed clouding and possible crystallization of the fuel. 

o This may be a concern in Northern and Midwest states where biodiesel will 

be blended into colder diesel fuel that may result in crystal formation without 

adequate mixing.

 5
• A typical rack blending system is “once through only” without circulation 

through a pump. 

o Circulating diesel or biodiesel fuels through a pump does not match up with 

real world rack blending systems. 

o In this study, test run blending used circulation through a pump that may

have provided additional shearing and mixing that helped to eliminate

“shock” or wax crystallization. 

In this study, successful B2 blends were made when the biodiesel was 10°F above its cloud 

point. Unadditized diesel fuel was deliberately chosen for this study and the three biodiesels 

were selected to span a range of cloud points and are not meant to be representative of all 

fuels encountered. Because of the variety of fuel properties, the target temperatures for

blending will need to be determined on an individual basis based on the fuels and actual 

winter temperatures at the terminal. It will be important for blenders to request cloud point 

information from suppliers for cold weather considerations. 

Small Group Steering Committee Members 

Steve Howell-Marc IV Consulting Group 

Paul Nazzaro-Advanced Fuel Systems 

Charley Selvedge-Flint Hills Resources

Rick Stanko-Marathon Ashland Petroleum Company

Rod Lawrence- Magellan Midstream LP

 6
Appendix A. P&ID of Splash Blending Rig.

 7
Appendix B. P&IF of Modified Test Rig 

 8
Appendix C. Step-by-step Analytical Procedures

The step-by-step analytical procedures follow. 

Baseline Determination

1. Turn on the diesel fuel pump. Set the temperature controller to the test temperature.

2. Assure that Flow Control Valve #1 (FCV1) is closed, i.e. no fuel is passing through 

the Differential Pressure Gauge (DPG). 

3. Allow the system to run for XX minutes. (Calculated value based on the volume of 

diesel fuel in the tank and the flow rate; volume pumped > volume in the tank.) 

4. Assure the temperature has stabilized. Record the temperature. 

5. Open FCV1 and start timer.

6. At 1 minute intervals record the reading on the DPG. 

7. If the DP increases to over 10? mm Hg, record the time and turn off the pump. 

8. At 10 min record the reading on the DPG as the Final Differential Pressure (FDP).

9. Repeat steps 1 – 8. 

10. Record the results from the two runs and report the average. 

Biodiesel Blend Filterability Determination

1. Turn on the diesel fuel pump. Set the controller to the test temperature. 

2. Assure that FCV1 is closed. 

3. Allow the system to run for XX minutes 

4. Load the desired amount of biodiesel into the injector. 

5. Record the injector temperature.

6. Assure the diesel fuel temperature has stabilized. Record the temperature. 

7. Open FCV1 and allow the diesel fuel to flow through the DPG for 1 minute. 

8. Record the DP. 

9. Inject the biodiesel 

10. If the DP increases to over 10? mm Hg, record the time and turn off the pump. 

11. At 10 minutes record the reading on the DPG as the FDP. 

12. Repeat steps 1 – 11, with new diesel fuel and biodiesel. 

13. Record the results from the two runs and report the average. 

Biodiesel Solubility Determination

1. Turn on diesel fuel pump. Set the temperature controller to the test temperature. 

2. Assure that FCV1 is closed. 

3. Allow the system to run for XX minutes 

4. Load the desired amount of biodiesel into the injector. 

5. Record the injector temperature.

6. Assure the diesel fuel temperature has stabilized. Record the temperature. 

7. Inject the biodiesel 

8. Circulate the blended fuel for 10 minutes. 

9. Open FCV1 and allow the blended fuel to flow through the DPG. 

10. Record the DP every one minute. 

11. If the DP increases to over 10? mm Hg, record the time and turn off the pump. 

12. At 10 minutes record the reading on the DPG as the FDP. 

13. Repeat steps 1 – 11, with new diesel fuel and biodiesel. 

14. Record the results from the two runs and report the average. 

 9
The ability to use the rig and the procedures above to assess the cold temperature properties

of blends below the cloud point of diesel fuel depends on the repeatability of the rate of filter

plugging, because at these temperatures, the filter is going to plug. 

 10
Appendix D. Certificate of Analysis for #1 Diesel Fuel 

 11
Laboratory Analysis Report

Date Printed: 5/20/2005

Report To: Submitted By: 

cc: Rod Lawrence

Magellan Analytical Services

1090-A Sunshine Rd

Kansas City KS 66115 - 

Paul Hinkle

Additive Systems Inc

407 S Main

Broken Arrow OK 74012

True

Sample ID: KS04100778 Type of Sample: Diesel Fuel

Tank: 

Sample Description: Jet Fuel

Sample Notes: D9

Method Results

D 86 - Distillation

165.6 °C IBP

185.8 °C 10%

191.8 °C 20%

210.9 °C 50%

250.0 °C 90%

272.9 °C FBP

97.6 mL Volume

1.0 mL Loss

1.4 mL Residue

D 93 - Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester

37 °C

D 5453 - Total Sulfur by Ultraviolet Fluorescence

920 ppm (wt/wt)

D 4737 - Cetane Index

44.9 

D 5773 - Cloud Point

-54 °F

D 5949 - Pour Point

-70 °F

10/20/2004 Results in boxes do not meet ASTM D975 specifications.

Page 1 of 1

KS04100778 1090-A Sunshine Road, Kansas City, KS 66115

913-621-3603
Appendix E. Certificate of Analysis for #2 Diesel Fuel 

 13
Laboratory Analysis Report

Date Printed: 5/20/2005

Report To: Submitted By: 

cc: Rod Lawrence

Magellan Analytical Services

1090-A Sunshine Rd

Kansas City KS 66115 - 

Paul Hinkle

Additive Systems Inc

407 S Main

Broken Arrow OK 74012

True

Sample ID: KS04100777 Type of Sample: Diesel Fuel

Tank: 

Sample Description: # 2 LSD

Sample Notes: D9

Method Results

D 86 - Distillation

181.8 °C IBP

213.3 °C 10%

224.2 °C 20%

262.1 °C 50%

324.6 °C 90%

351.8 °C FBP

97.8 mL Volume

1.0 mL Loss

1.2 mL Residue

D 93 - Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester

50 °C

D 5453 - Total Sulfur by Ultraviolet Fluorescence

292 ppm (wt/wt)

D 4737 - Cetane Index

47.3 

D 5773 - Cloud Point

6 °F

D 5949 - Pour Point

-10 °F

10/20/2004 Results in boxes do not meet ASTM D975 specifications.

Page 1 of 1

KS04100777 1090-A Sunshine Road, Kansas City, KS 66115

913-621-3603
Appendix F. Certificate of Analysis for Soy Biodiesel 

 15
Appendix G. Certificate of Analysis for Yellow Grease Biodiesel 

 16
Appendix H. Certificate of Analysis for Tallow Biodiesel

 17
Appendix I. Qualitative Blending Data 

Blend 

Type

Diesel 

Type

Diesel 

Temp, F

Biodiesel 

Cloud 

Point, F 

Biodiesel

Temp, F

Temp

Differential

Comments 

Ratio No. 2 40 32 72 32 Mixed well

Ratio No. 2 30 32 72 42 Mixed well

Ratio No. 2 20 32 72 52 Mixed well

Ratio No. 2 10 32 72 62 Mixed well

Ratio No. 2 0 32 72 72

Mixed well, Signs of icing revealed paraffin dropout, 

clogged 80 M strainers on #2 Fuel. 

Removed strainers and retest. 

Ratio No. 2 -5 32 72 77 Mixed well

Ratio No. 2 -5 32 72 77 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 2 -10 32 72 82 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 2 -10 32 72 82 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 2 -15 32 72 87 Mixed Well, Some icing 

Ratio No. 2 -17 32 72 89 #2 slushy. Bio blended throughout though. 

Ratio No. 2 -20 32 72 92 #2 slushy, Partially frozen. 

Bio did not blend throughout 

Ratio No. 2 -25 32 72 97 #2 Froze

Ratio No. 2 -10 32 55 65 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 2 -10 32 50 60 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 2 -10 32 45 55 Bio Crystallizing on contact, Mixing but not blending.

Ratio No. 2 -15 32 50 65 Small amounts of bio Crystallizing on contact, 

Mixing but not blending.

Ratio No. 2 -15 32 55 70 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 2 0 43 60 60 Mixed Well

Ratio No. 2 -5 43 60 65 Mixed well

Ratio No. 2 -5 43 55 60 Mixed Well, No Crystals

Ratio No. 2 -10 43 55 65 Mixed Well, No Crystals

Ratio No. 2 -10 43 50 60 Mixed Well, No Crystals, Hazy Fuel

Ratio No. 2 -15 43 45 60 Mixed Well, No Crystals, Hazy Fuel

Ratio No. 2 -15 43 40 55 Mixed thoroughly, Very Cloudy

Ratio No. 2 -15 43 35 50 Bio icing, Creating large crystals, Did not Blend 

Ratio No. 2 -15 43 30 45 Bio icing, Solids Present, Did not Blend 

Ratio No. 2 -5 43 35 40 Mixed Thoroughly, Crystals forming on contact. 

Ratio No. 2 -5 43 40 45 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 2 0 43 35 35 Mixed well but stayed hazy, cloudy

 18
Blend 

Type

Diesel 

Type

Diesel 

Temp, F

Biodiesel 

Cloud 

Point, F 

Biodiesel

Temp, F

Temp

Differential

Comments 

Ratio No. 1 -30 32 45 75 Icing, mixed fair

Ratio No. 1 -30 32 50 80 Icing, mixed fair

Ratio No. 1 -30 32 60 90 Icing, mixed fair

Ratio No. 1 -25 32 60 85 Icing, mixed fair

Ratio No. 1 -20 32 60 80 Mixed well

Ratio No. 1 -20 32 55 75 Icing, mixed fair

Ratio No. 1 -15 32 55 70 Mixed Well

Ratio No. 1 -15 32 50 65 Icing, mixed fair

Ratio No. 1 -15 32 53 68 Mixed well

Ratio No. 1 -10 32 50 60 Mixed Well

Ratio No. 1 -10 32 45 55 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 1 -10 32 50 60 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 1 -5 32 45 50 Blended well

Ratio No. 1 -5 32 40 45 Blended well

Ratio No. 1 0 32 35 35 Icing, mixed fair

Ratio No. 1 -15 43 40 55 Mixed well

Ratio No. 1 -20 43 40 60 Mixed well

Ratio No. 1 -25 43 40 65 Slight Icing of bio 

Ratio No. 1 -30 43 40 70 Icing of bio

Ratio No. 1 -15 43 35 50 Blended well

Ratio No. 1 -10 43 35 45 Icing of bio

Ratio No. 1 -25 43 45 70 Mixed Well, No icing 

Ratio No. 1 -30 43 45 75 Icing

Ratio No. 1 -30 43 50 80 Icing

Ratio No. 1 -25 43 50 75 Blended well

Ratio No. 1 -30 43 55 85 Blended well

Ratio No. 1 -35 43 55 90 Icing

Ratio No. 1 -35 43 60 95 Blended

 19
Blend 

Type

Diesel 

Type

Diesel 

Temp, F

Biodiesel

Cloud 

Point, F 

Biodiesel

Temp, F

Temp

Differential

First Product: Comments

Sequential No. 2 0 32 50 50 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 0 32 50 50 No. 2:Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -5 32 45 50 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -5 32 45 50 No. 2:Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -10 32 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -10 32 45 55 No. 2:Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -10 32 40 50 Bio: Icing 

Sequential No. 2 -10 32 40 50 No. 2: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -10 32 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 32 55 70 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 32 55 70 No. 2: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 32 50 65 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 32 50 65 No. 2: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 32 45 60 Bio: Mixed Fair/ Slower Dispersing 

Sequential No. 2 -15 32 40 55 Bio: Icing/ Still mixed fair

Sequential No. 2 0 32 45 45 No. 2: Slight Icing 

Sequential No. 2 0 43 50 50 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 0 43 50 50 No. 2:Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -5 43 45 50 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -5 43 45 50 No. 2:Mixed Poorly

Sequential No. 2 -10 43 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -10 43 45 55 No. 2:Mixed Poorly

Sequential No. 2 -10 43 40 50 Bio: Icing 

Sequential No. 2 -10 43 40 50 No. 2: Bio blobbing, no blending at all 

Sequential No. 2 -10 43 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 43 55 70 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 43 55 70 No. 2: Slow to blend but did mix with agitation.

Sequential No. 2 -15 43 50 65 Bio: Mixed Well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 43 40 55 No. 2: Bio blobbing, no blending at all 

Sequential No. 2 -15 43 45 60 Bio: Blended well 

Sequential No. 2 -15 43 40 55 Bio: Blended Well, but Crystals Forming 

Sequential No. 2 0 43 45 45 No. 2: Slow to blend but did mix.

 20
Blend 

Type

Diesel 

Type

Diesel 

Temp, F

Biodiesel

Cloud 

Point, F 

Biodiesel

Temp, F

Temp

Differential First Product: Comments

Sequential Kerosene -20 32 60 80 Kerosene: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -15 32 55 70 Bio: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -15 32 55 70 Kerosene: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -10 32 50 60 Bio: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -10 32 50 60 Kerosene: Not Blending 

Sequential Kerosene -10 32 40 50 Bio: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -10 32 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -5 32 55 60 Bio: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -5 32 55 60 Kerosene: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene -5 32 50 55 Bio: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene 0 32 50 50 Kerosene: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene 0 32 45 45 Kerosene: Icing

Sequential Kerosene 0 32 40 40 Bio: Blended Well

Sequential Kerosene 0 32 40 40 Kerosene: Not Blending, Icing 

Sequential Kerosene -30 43 40 70 Bio: Slight icing of bio 

Sequential Kerosene -30 43 40 70 Kerosene: Icing of bio. Poor Mix

Sequential Kerosene -25 43 40 65 Bio: Minor icing of bio. Mix Well 

Sequential Kerosene -25 43 40 65 Kerosene: Minor icing of bio. Mix Poor

Sequential Kerosene -20 43 40 60 Bio: Mix well, no icing 

Sequential Kerosene -25 43 45 70 Bio: Mix well, no icing 

Sequential Kerosene -30 43 45 75 Bio: Icing

Sequential Kerosene -20 43 40 60 Kerosene: Icing of bio. Poor Mix

Sequential Kerosene -15 43 35 50 Bio: Mixed well

Sequential Kerosene -15 43 35 50 Kerosene: Did not blend well. 

Sequential Kerosene -25 43 50 75 Bio: Mixed Well

Sequential Kerosene 0 43 50 50 Kerosene: Blended well

Sequential Kerosene -30 43 55 85 Bio: Blended Well

Sequential Kerosene -30 43 50 80 Bio: Icing

Sequential Kerosene -35 43 55 90 Bio: Icing

Sequential Kerosene -40 43 60 100 Bio: Icing

Sequential Kerosene -35 43 60 95 Bio: Blended Well

 21
Appendix J. Listing of Consortium Members Comments 

Contributors of the Consortium have offered the following statements for consideration:

• Optimal biodiesel blending is dependant on accurate knowledge of B100 and 

Petroleum diesel cold flow properties to help determine parameters. 

• The impact of blending method type (splash, ratio, and sequential blending) and 

mechanical mixing on B2 blend homogeneity was not evaluated in this study. 

• The impact of B2 biodiesel blends on D975 test parameters was not evaluated in test 

runs completed and documented in this report. 

• The impact of water contamination on wax/ice crystallization was not evaluated 

within this study although desiccant filters were used to help prevent moisture 

contamination of the B100 and fuels for testing.

• In many cases the pressure drop of the B2 blend was greater than that of the base 

diesel fuel. In no case was the B2 blend a lower pressure drop than the base diesel

fuel. The potential implications of this for users of B2 blends made during cold 

weather blending are not known. 

• In several cases the bottoms samples had slightly higher biodiesel concentrations 

than the “bulk” samples. This might indicate the existence of not completely

homogenous mixtures for these test conditions. 

 22