### 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

- 08 GO28308 

# National 2010

- 2011 Survey of

E85: CRC Project E

- 85

- 2

T eresa L. Alleman

Technical Report

NREL/TP

- 5400

- 52905

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

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



### National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303

- 275

- 3000 • www.nrel.gov



### Contract No. DE

- AC36

- 08GO28308 

# National 2010

- 2011 Survey of

E85: CRC Project E

- 85

- 2

T eresa L. Alleman

Prepared under Task No

. FC08

. 0075

Technical Report

NREL/TP

- 5400

- 52905

December 2011

### NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessar ily 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 1 0% post consumer waste

.

## iii 

# Acknowledgments

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

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

## iv 

# Executive Summary

Domestic ethanol usage has continued to increase in recent years

, and o ver 90% of the gasoline

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

dramatic increases in fuel ethanol use is “E85

. ” “E85” is a common t erm to describe ethanol fuel

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

- specification

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

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

throughout this report.

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

the Coordinating Research Council

, was to examine the quality of “E85” fuel around the count ry

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

pressure equivalent varies among classes due to driveability requirements as ambient

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

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

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

depending on the allowable vapor pressur e.

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

collected in each class. Samples were tested for key properties in D5798

- 10 to assess fuel

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

(acid strength of high

- ethanol content fuels) , inorganic chloride and sulfate, and total sulfate.

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

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

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

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

thr ee volatility classes (see Table ES

- 1) . This is a significant improvement over previous

surveys, where very few samples met the specification . Several samples that would be off

specification for ethanol content under previous versions of the specification now met the

specification with the reduction in ethanol content for all classes

. For the other properties tested,

a few samples were off

- specification for pHe, acidity, water, and inorganic chloride. Few

samples were off

- specification for more than one pro perty

.

Forthcoming changes to D5798

- 11 include a minimum ethanol content of 51 vol% for all

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

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

specification.

## v Table ES

- 1. Summary of vapor pressure and ethanol content results

Class Comments #

Samples DVPE Ethanol

Below

Specification Above

Specification On

Specification Below

Specification Above

Specification On

Specification

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

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

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

## vi 

# Abbreviations

ASTM ASTM International

CRC Coordinating Research Council

DVPE dry equivalent vapor pressure

“E85” fuel meeting ASTM D5798-10 specifications

FFV flex fuel vehicle

mass% percent by mass

mg/100mL milligrams per 100 milliliters

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

PADD Petroleum Area Defense District

pHe acidity of high ethanol content liquids

ppm parts per million

ppmw parts per million by weight

psi pounds per square inch

RFG reformulated gas oline

vol% volume percent

## vii 

# Table of Contents

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1

Test Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2

Results and Discussion

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4



## Error Bars

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4

Results Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 5

Vapor Pressure

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 6

Ethanol Content

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10

Water Content

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13

pHe

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14

Acidity

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16

Sulfur Content

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 18

Washed and Unwashed Gum Content

................................ ................................ .................. 18

Inorganic Chloride, Inorganic Sulfate, and Potential Sulfate

................................ ............... 18

Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 19

References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20

Appendices

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. A

- 1



## Appendix A

- 1

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... A

- 2

Appendix A

- 2

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... A

- 4

## viii 

# List of Figures

Figure 1. Sampling locations for CRC E

- 85

- 2 survey in 2011

................................ ....................... 3

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

................................ ................................ ....... 7

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

................................ ................................ ....... 8

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

................................ ................................ ..... 9

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

............. 10

Figure 6. Ethanol content of Class 1 samples

................................ ................................ ............... 11

Figure 7. Ethanol content of Class 2 samples

................................ ................................ ............... 12

Figure 8. Ethanol content of Class 3 samples

................................ ................................ ............... 12

Figure 9. Water content in Class 1 samples

................................ ................................ .................. 13

Figure 10. Water content in Class 2 samples

................................ ................................ ................ 14

Figure 11. Water content in Class 3 samples

................................ ................................ ................ 14

Figure 12. pHe of Class 1 samples

................................ ................................ ................................ 15

Figure 13. pHe of Class 2 samples

................................ ................................ ................................ 15

Figure 14. pHe of Class 3 samples

................................ ................................ ................................ 16

Figure 15. Acidity results for Class 1 samples

................................ ................................ ............. 17

Figure 16. Acidity results for Class 2 samples

................................ ................................ ............. 17

Figure 17. Acidity results for Class 3 samples

................................ ................................ ............. 18



# List of Table s

Table 1. PADD Definitions

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

Table 2. Properties Tested and D5798

- 10 Specification Limits

................................ ..................... 4

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

........ 6

## 1 

# Introduction

The Renewable Fuels Association estimates 13 billion gallons of fuel

- grade ethanol was

produced in 2010. 1 

## Most of this ethanol is blended at 10 volume percent (vol%) with

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

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

- based ethanol to

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

market is at or near saturation. With the growth in fuel

- grade ethanol production, some ethanol is

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

ethanol.

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

colloqui al, meaning a fuel that meets ASTM D5798

- 10 (“Standard Specification for Fuel

Ethanol (Ed70

- Ed85) for Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engines”) and has been historically

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

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

– compliant fuel should

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

title of D5798 was changed in the 2011 (

– 11 ) version to bette r describe the fuel (“Standard

Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible

- Fuel Automotive Spark Ignition Engines”).

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

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

concentration in “E85

, ” conventional engine systems may face compatibility issues, so FFVs are

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

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

States that have “E85” available , with 2,433 stations reported in July 2011. 2 

## In 2009 , a study by

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

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

## Almost

75% of the samples had vapor pressure below the required minimum

, and nearly 50% had

ethanol content outside the specified range for the volatili ty class.

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

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

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

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

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

ethanol, and Class 3 allowing a minimu m of 70 vol% ethanol. The D5798

- 10 specification now

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

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

between conventional gasoline and “E85

. ” Currently, these fuels may be referred to as Exx

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

- called

blender pumps, where at

- station blending of fuels to obtain Exx blends is conducted. Although

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

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

- grade ethanol is

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

## 2 configuration of these blender pumps , although t he quality of fuels from the blender pumps has

recently been examined. 4



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

( NREL ) and the Coordinating Research Council ( CRC )

, was to collect “E85” samples from

around the country and compare the quality to the D5798

- 10 specification. The work is a follow

on to the previous NREL/CRC “E85” survey. 3 

## A second facet to this study was to compare fuels

dispensed from so

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



# Test Methodology

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

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

information available in Table 2 of ASTM D5798

- 10, with only the 48 contiguous states

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

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

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

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

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

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

, is low

. 5 

## T o collect samples in

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

s amples were collect ed from South Carolina, Florida, Arizona, and part of California

.

To ease the transition from one volatility class to another, D5798

- 10 allows the use of “ shoulder

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1. PADD Definitions

PADD Included States

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

NC, SC, VA, WV

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

TN, WI

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

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

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

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

in PADD 2 came from so

- called blender pumps. All other samples were taken from conventional

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

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

that no carryover fuel was present from the previous month. Appendix A

- 1 contains details of

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

Figure 1. Sampling lo cations fo r CRC E

- 85

- 2 s urvey in 2011



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

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

specification limits from D5798

- 10 are also listed in Table 2.

## 4 Table 2. Properties Tested and D5798

- 10 Specification Limits

Property ASTM

Method D5798

- 10 Limit

Class

1 Class

2 Class

3

Ethanol content, vol% D5501 68

- 83 68

- 83 68

- 83

Vapor Pressure, psi D5191 5.5

- 8.5 7.0

- 9.5 9.5

- 12.0

All Classes

Methanol, vol% D5501 0.5, maximum

Higher Alcohols, vol% D5501 2, maximum

Sulfur, ppmw D5453 80, maximum

Acidity, mass% D1613 0.005, maximum

Washed gum, mg/100mL D381 5, maximum

Unwashed gum,

mg/100mL D381 20, maximum

pHe D6423 6.5

- 9.0

Inorganic Chloride, ppmw D7328 1, maximum

Water, mass% E203 1.0, maximum

Inorganic Sulfate, ppmw D7328 No Limit

Potential Sulfate, ppmw D7328 No Limit



# Results and Discussion

Error Bars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

content (D5501), gum content (D381), acidity (D1613)

, and chloride and sulfate (D7328) do not

cover “E85” fuels in the scope

, and the precision may differ from the values used here. Thus, for

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

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

to be on

- specif ication if either the result is within the limit or if the error bar is within the limit.

## 5 Results Summary

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

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

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

market in would be similar to the results presented.

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

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

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

(RFG) areas , are ozone non

- attainme nt areas, or have state restrictions on vapor pressure of

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

Class Comments #

Samples DVPE Ethanol Content

Below

Specification Above

Specification On

Specification Below

Specification Above

Specification On

Specification

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

RFG/Ozone

Areas and

Vapor

Pressure

Restriction

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

Conventional

Areas,

Conventional

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

Conventional

Areas,

Blender

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

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

RFG/Ozone

Areas and

Vapor

Pressure

Restriction

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

Conventional

Areas,

Conventional

Pumps 1 3 46.2 % 0% 53.8 % 7.7 % 0 % 9 2.3 %

Conventional

Areas,

Blender

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

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

RFG/Ozone

Areas and

Vapor

Pressure

Restriction

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

Conventional

Areas,

Conventional

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

Conventional

Areas,

Blender

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



## Vapor Pressure

To ensure driveability and adequate cold start, the D5798

- 10 specification requires an increase in

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

## 7 pressure failures across all volatility classes. 4 

## Overall, two

- thirds of the samples in thi s study met

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

and denatured fuel ethanol. The specification for gasoline, D4814

- 10, includes various

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirement s in Class 1 for the samples collected.

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

Error bars were determined from the ASTM method reproducibility.GAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHDVPE, psi, D5191

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RFG, Ozone Non-Attainment Areas,

or Areas with Summer Vapor Pressure Restrictions

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Class 1

Specification

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

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

difference between sample groups (Figure 3). All the off

- specification samples for this class

were below the minimum required vapor pressure of 7.0 psi.

Figure 3. Class 2 DVPE res ults for “E85” samples.

Error bars were determined from the ASTM method reproducibility.GAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHDVPE, psi, D5191

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 RFG,Ozone Non-Attainment Areas or

Areas with Summer Vapor Pressure Restrictions

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Class 2

Specification

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

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

30% of the samples met the specification limits ( Figure 4 )

. No s amples from RFG/Ozone/State

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

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

but still less than 50% of the samples i n this study did

. This result appears to be counterintuitive,

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

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

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

required between May and September only.

Figure 4. Class 3 v apor pressure for “E85” samples.

Error bars were determined from the ASTM method reproducibility.GAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHDVPE, psi, D5191

4 6 8 10 12 14 RFG, Ozone Non-Attainment Areas or

Areas with Summer Vapor Pressure Restrictions

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Class 3

Specification

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

## 10 **Ethanol Content**

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

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

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

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

separated by volatility class.

Figure 5. Ethanol content as a function of volatility for samples collected in this s tudy Ethanol, vol%, D5501 60 65 70 75 80 85 90DVPE, psi, D5191

4 6 8 10 12 2010 Study, Class 1 samples

2010 Study, Class 2 samples

2010 Study, Class 3 samples

Maximum ethanol content, per D5798-10

Minimum ethanol content, per D5798-10

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

separated by volatility class

. The ethanol content of the Class 1 samples was typically at the

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

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

Although the specification limits do not change with volatility class in the D5798

- 10 version of

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

samples that meet the D5798

- 10 specification limit for ethanol content would not have met the

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant differences among the samples based on region of collection.

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

- 10 version

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

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

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

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

and ranged from 66 vol% to 87 vol%.

F igure 6. Ethanol content of Class 1 samplesGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHEthanol Content, vol%, D5501

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Class 1

Specification

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

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

Figure 8. Ethanol content of Class 3 samplesGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHEthanol Content, vol%, D5501

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Attainment Areas, Conventional Pumps

Attainment Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Class 2

Specification

Limits For discussion of error bars, see appropriate Section in textGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHEthanol, vol%, D5501

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Class 3

Specification

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

## 13 **Water Content**

Ethanol

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

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

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

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

samples failed to meet the water content specification of D5798

- 10. One of the samples was

from Class 2, from th e state of Texas; the other out

- of

- specification sample was from Class 3,

from the state of Illinois. The data are illust rated in Figures 9

– 11.

Figure 9. Water content in Class 1 samplesGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHWater, E203, mass%

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

Limit

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

Figure 11. Water content in Class 3 samples



## pHe

The pHe measures the acid strength of high

- ethanol content fuels

. H igh values may result in fuel

corrosivity. All of the samples collected in this study readily met the pHe specification, with theGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHWater, E203, mass%

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

LimitGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHWater, E203,mass%

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

Limit

## 15 average value being around 7.2. Figures 12

– 14 show the pHe results for the three volatility

classes.

Figure 12. pHe of Class 1 samples

Figure 13 . pHe of Class 2 samplesGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHpHe, D6423

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

LimitsGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHpHe, D6423

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

Limits

## 16 Figure 14. pHe of Class 3 sample s



## Acidity

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

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

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

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

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

specification (Figure 16). T hree samples failed in Class 3, with t wo samples almost an order of

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

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

several times, with similar results each time.GAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHpHe, D6423

5 6 7 8 9 10 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

Limits

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

Figure 16. A cidity results for Class 2 samplesGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHAcidity, D1613, mass% as acetic acid

0.000 0.005 0.040 0.050 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

LimitGAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHAcidity, D1613, mass% as acetic acid

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

Limit

## 18 Figure 17. A cidity results for Class 3 samples



## Sulfur Content

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

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

specification limit.

**Washed and Unwashed Gum Content** 

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

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

unwashed gum specification maximum of 20 mg/100 mL , but did no t fail for other properties,

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

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

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

detection limit.

**Inorganic Chloride, Inorganic Sulfate, and Potential Sulfate**

Only the inorganic chloride content of “E85” fuels is limited in the D5798

- 10 specification.

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

two samples in Class 3 did not meet the 1

- ppm maximum for chloride. One of the Class 3

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

potential sulfate result s are less than 5 ppm for all samples.GAILKYMOTNFLTXCOUTAZCACAORNYPASCSCILILMOFLTXCOUTNVMNMNMNMNMNIAIAKSNENDSDSDSDSDWIWIOHAcidity, D1613, mass% as acetic acid

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 RFG and/or Ozone Non-Attainment Areas

Conventional Areas, Conventional Pumps

Conventional Areas, Blender Pumps



### D5798-10

Specification

Limit

## 19 

# Conclusions

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

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

D5798-10 and are used in flex fuel vehicles and cont ain 68 vol% to 83 vol% ethanol

. Samples of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chloride, sulfate a nd potential sulfate.

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

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

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

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

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

conventional “E85” pumps throughout the country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

within the ethanol requirements.

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

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

of the samples, thus samples from coastal regions did not differ from samples collected in land

locked states.

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

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

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

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

specification requirements.

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

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

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

how these significant changes to the specification have impacted “E85” qualit y.

## 20 

# References

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

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

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

2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010.

## A

- 1 

# Appendices

## A-2 Appendix A -1 Station Locations and

Sampling Date

Location Class 1 Date Class 2 Date Class 3 Date

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

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

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

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

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

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

3/22/11 No Class 3 Season

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

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

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

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

3/16/10 No Class 3 Season

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

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

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

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

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

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

3/18/11 No Class 3 Season

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

3/18/11 No Class 3 Season

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

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

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

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

3/17/11 No Class 3 Season

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

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

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

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

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

## A-3 Location Class 1 Date Class 2 Date Class 3 Date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## A-4 Appendix A -2

Class 1 ResultsCity/StateDVPE,psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as aceticacid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State College,

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

W Columbia,

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

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

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

Bloomington,

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

Jefferson City,

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

Tallahassee,

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

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

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

## A-5City/StateDVPE,psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as aceticacid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

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

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

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

Heron Lake,

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

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

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

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

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

Annandale,

MN 6.13 0.003 1.5 0.5 0.613 78.93 6.72 0.1 0.2 0.2

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

Grand Island,

NE 5.54 0.006 1 0.5 0.817 80.31 7.74 0.1 1.3 1.3

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Chute,

WI 8.09 0.002 3 1 0.488 80.11 7.32 0.1 1.1 1.1

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

Columbiana,

OH 4.86 0.003 4 0.5 0.718 79.97 7.19

- 0.1 0.7 0.8

## A-6 Class 2 ResultsCity/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

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

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

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

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

Miami, FL 6.17

6.78 0.005

0.004 1.5

2 <0.5

0.5 0.696

0.878 2.3

3.6 81.89

83 6.90

7.74 0.5

0.1 <0.1

0 0.1

0.4

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

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

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

Scottsdale, AZ 9.19

6.13 0.003

0.004 3

5.5 <0.5

<0.5 0.7

0.739 18.6

4.4 70.87

75.73 7.00

7.13 <0.1

0 0.2

1.9 0.3

1.8

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

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

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

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

State College,

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

West Columbia,

SC 6.2

6.66 0.006

0.005 2.5

1 <0.5

<0.5 0.805

0.937 7

6.7 81.98

82.21 7.03

7.75 <0.1

0 0.2

0.8 0.40.7

Greenville, SC

Greenville, SC 6.12

6.97 0.004

0.003 2

2.5 0.5

<0.5 0.74

0.981 6.6

7.8 81.65

80.92 7.14

7.72 <0.1

0.1 0.2

0.7 0.3

0.8

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

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

Tallahassee, FL 6.66

8.49 0.004

0.003 1

3.5 <0.5

<0.5 0.52

0.548 8.2

11.8 78.77

68.92 6.92

7.78 <0.1

0 0.1

0 0.2

0.4

## A-7City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as acetic acid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Island,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## A-8 Class 3 ResultsCity/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as aceticacid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson City,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detroit Lakes,

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

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

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

## A-9City/StateDVPE, psi,D5191Acidity, mass%as aceticacid,D1613Unwashed gum,mg/100mL,D381Washed gum,mg/100mL,D381Water, mass%,E203Sulfur, ppm,D5453Ethanol, vol%,D5501pHe,D6423Inorganic Chloride,ppm,D7328Inorganic Sulfate,ppm,D7328Potential Sulfate,ppm,D7328

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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