MEMORANDUM 

lNTEDSTATES 9fJROtM:NTAL PROTECTI)N AGeCY 

NAn::.NAJ.. VEH ICLE #D FLB.. EMISSIONS I.PB:RA.lCRY 

2ffi5 PLYMOUTH RQAD 

/>HIJ ~ MO-tGAN 48105-2400 

October24,2013 

SUB.JECf: Manufacturer Data on Ethanol Measurements in the SHED 

FROM: Glenn W. Passavant, Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

TO: Public Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-20 11-013 5 

Attached are e-mails from Ford and GM providing EPA data on the fraction 

of ethanol in the SHED for measurements of various types of evaporative 

emissions for gaso line containing 10 percent ethanol. EPA considered this 

input in decision making with regard to the values for fixed correction 

factors for FID- based SHED evaporative hydrocarbon measurements 
Passavant, Glenn 

From: 

Sent: 

Middleton, Kenneth (K.C.) [kmiddle1@ford.com] 

Monday, June 10,2013 12:32 PM 

To: Passavant, Glenn 

Cc: Glodich, Jeffrey (J.M.) 

Subject: RE: INNOVA data for ORVR tests 

Attachments: FORD FFV Evap and ORVR Ethanol Adjustment Data.pdf 

Glenn, 

Attached is a PDF file which includes lnnova and impinger for both FFV Evap. and FFV OR~R (this is the same data I 

provided at our meeting last Thursday). 

In the PowerPoint which Jeff provided at the meeting, the FFV ORVR results were split onto two pages (the first page 

was impinger and the second page was lnnova). 

If you need this data in Excel, please let me know and I can forward you the Excel files which I used to create the PDF. 

Thanks. 

Regards, 

Ken Middleton 

Supervisor, Evaporative and Advanced Certification 

Phone: (313) 805-8233 

From: Passavant, Glenn [mailto:passavant.glenn@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 12:09 PM 

To: Middleton, Kenneth (K.C.) 

Subject: INNOVA data for ORVR tests 

Hi Ken: 

1 read your chart 6 (Ethanol Adjustment Factor for ORVR) as for impinger only. Do you have any INNOVA data for 

ORVR? 

Thanks 

Glenn W. Passavant 

US EPA/ASD 

Acting Director 

Data & Testing Center 

Ann Arbor, M l 48105 

734-214-4408(office) 

517-902-7565(cell) 

1 
Ford Motor Company 

lnnova and lmpinger Data Comparison (FFV Testing with E10) 

2-day, 3-day and Running Loss Test Results 

lmplnger 2-0ay 

HIS Day•1 Dayl2 

2008 MY 4.6L FFV wlo Adjustment 

Econollne Complete Adjusted 

veh. 8E41-4.6-J-730 %Difference 

2009 MY 5.4L FFV o Adjustment 0.038 0.290 0.483 

E><pedition [Actusted 0.040 0302 0499 

veh. 9851-5 .4-C-796 'II> Dilrerenoe 5.26% 414% 3.31% 

2009 MY 5.4L FFV wl o Adjustment 

Econollne Complete [Adjusted 

w h. 9E41-5.4-J-S24 % Difference 

2009 MY 5 .4L FFV wlo Adjustment 0.041 0 .. 271 0.478 

Econoline Incomplete ~djusted 0.041 0275 0.481 

Veh. 184W401 % Difference 0.00% He% 0.63% 

2010 M Y 3 .0L FFV Escape 

:Wio Adjustment 

veh. AM71-3.0-J-966 Adjusted 

% Difference 

w/o Adjustment 

2010 t.f'f 3 .0 L FFV Fusion Adjusted veh. ADE1-3 ~5 

')(, Oiffel8nce 

lmpinger Avenage % Difference 2.63% 2.81% 1.97% 

Avg_ % Dltferenoe: HS + Worot Day( AII Tests) 

In nova 2-0ay 

HIS oay • 1 aay_n 

2011 MY 6 .2L FFV Super wlo Adjustment 

Duty Adjusted 

wh. BFA1·6.2.J-006 'Mo Difference 

2011 MY 6.2L FFV Super !wlo Ad]<lstment 

Duty Adjusted 

veh. BFA1-6.2.J-007 % Ddlerence 

2011 MY 5 .4L FFV iwfo Adjustment 

Econollne Complete [AdJusted 

veh. BE41-5.4-J-021 %0rfference 

w/o Adjustment 

2012 MY 2 .0 L FFV Focus [AcJI11$Ied veh. CL100178 

')(, OiffeteOOO 

2013 MY 3 .5 L FFVTaurus 

!wlo Adjustment 0.076 0.355 o.2n 

veh. DPH1-3.5-J-2 14 ~usted o.on 0371 0.289 

%Difference 1.32'Mo 4.51% 4.33% 

lnnova Average % Differance 1.32% 4.51% 4.33% 

[Avg % Oolfenance: HS +Worst Day (All Tests) 

DATA SUMMARY (Includes alllnnova and lmpinger results) 

lnnova and lmplnger 2-0ay 

HIS I Dav •1 I Day n 

lnnova and lmpinger Average% Dllference 2.19% I 3.37% I 2.76% 

Avg % ll!llerence HS +Worst Dey (All Tests) 

HIS+WD 

0.521 

0.539 

3.45% 

0.519 

0.522 

058% 

2.02% 

HIS+WD 

0.431 

0448 

394'Mo 

3.114% 

I HIS +WD I 

I 2.68% I 

3-{)ay RIL 

HIS Dayt1 Dayll2 Dayl3 HIS+WD 

O.o78 0.352 0 .399 0.412 0.490 .001 No 

0.078 0.364 0.416 0.421 0.499 adjustment 

000% 3.41% 4.26% 2.18% 1.84% 

0.099 0.266 0253 0.25ot 0.365 .001 No 

0.100 0.278 0260 0269 0378 ~ustrnent 

1.01% 4.51% 2n% 591'1!. 3.56% 

0.123 0.366 0.409 0.443 0.566 .001 No 

0.123 0.373 0.416 0.447 0.570 adJustment 

000% 1.36% 171% 0.90% 0.71% 

0.089 0466 0.523 0.591 0.680 .001 No 

0089 0.494 0530 0601 0.690 ~~ 

000% 1.65% 134% 1.69% 1.47% 

0.082 0.180 0.132 0.123 0.262 .002 No 

0.084 0.191 0.142 0.130 0 .275 adjustment 

2.44% 6.11% 7.58% 5.69% 4.96% 

0086 0.247 0252 0.296 0.382 002 No 1 

0087 0.254 0259 0.304 0.391 ~ustment I 

1.16% 2.83'll> 2.76% 2.70% 2.36'll> 

O.n% 3.31% 3.41% 3.18% 2.48% 0.00% I 

2.37% 

3-{)ay RIL 

HIS Day#! oayn Dayl3 HIS+WD 

0.048 0.266 0330 0.352 0.400 001 No 

0.048 0.273 0.336 0.359 0.407 adjustment 

0.00% 2.63% 182% 1 99% 1.75% 

0.074 0.298 0358 0.391 0.465 .001 No 

O.o78 0.304 0370 0.401 0.479 edJustment 

5.41% 2-01% 335% 2.58% 301'll> 

0089 0.284 0265 0.245 0.373 OOONo 

0.095 0.288 0270 0.254 0.363 adJustment 

6.74% 1.41% 1.89% 3.67% 2.88% 

0.040 0.208 0.192 0.163 0.248 .001 No 

0042 0.216 0200 0.189 0.258 adjustment 

500% 3.65% 417'll> 3.88'll> 403'1!. 

0 .035 0.276 0.287 0.267 0.322 .000 No 

0037 0.290 0299 0.276 0.336 a~ustmont 

5.71'Mo 5.07% 4,18% 3.37'Mo 4.35% 

4.57% 2.99% 3.08% 3.05% 3.18% 0.00% 

3.29% 

3-Day I RIL 

HIS I Day#1 I Dayn I Dav l3 I I HIS+ WD 

2.50% I 3.17% I 3.28% I 3.12% I 2.79% 0.00% J 2.76% 
Ford Motor Company 

lnnova and lmpinger Data Comparison (FFV ORVR Testing with Ethanol Fuel Blend) 

ORVR Test Results with lmpinger Adjustment to OMHCE grams/gallon 

Vehicle# Type of Vehicle Date of Test ORVRSHED lmpinger 

FlO Result Adjusted 

(g/gallon) Result 

(OMHCE 

g/gallon) 

ODC1-3.0-F-632 2000 MY Taurus FFV 4K EDV 5/19/1999 0.022 0.022 

1DD1-3.0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV 11/8/1999 0.104 0.106 

1DD1-3.0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV ' 11/19/1999 0.100 0.100 

1DD1-3.0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV 2/19/2000 0.044 0.045 

1DD1-3.0-125 2001 MY Taurus FFV DDV 2/24/2000 0.155 0.156 

1U51-4.0-C-420 2001 MY Explorer FFV 4K EDV 4/6/2000 0.004 0.004 

1DD1-3.0-C-286 2001 MY Taurus FFV 4K EDV 4/7/2000 0.036 0.036 

2S11-4.0-J-035 2002 MY Exol. Sport Trac FFV 4K EDV 11/21/2001 0.021 0.021 

3R31-3.0-J-604 2003 MY Ranaer FFV 4K EDV 1/29/2002 0.007 0.008 

1 U51-4.0-C-421 2001 MY EXPlorer FFV 4K EDV 217/2002 0.005 0.006 

2U51-4.0-J-236 2002 MY Exolorer FFV 4K EDV 7/11/2002 0.143 0.144 

4S11-4.0-J-913 2004 MY Expl. Sport Trac FFV 4K EDV 3/7/2003 0.015 0.016 

4U51-4.0-H-190 2004 MY Exolorer FFV 4K EDV 10/3112003 0.005 0.006 

6VC 1-4.6-F-444 2006 MY Crown Vic FFV 4K EDV 6/8/2005 0.008 0.008 

6F61-5.4-F-536 2006 MY F150 FFV 4K EDV 9/20/2005 0.097 0.100 

AVERAGE: 

ORVR Test Results with lnnova Adjustment to OMHCE grams/gallon 

Vehicle# Type of Vehicle Date of Test ORVRSHED In nova 

FlO Result Adjusted 

(g/gallon) Result 

(OMHCE 

g/gallon) 

AM71-3.0-J-966 2010 MY 3.0L FFV Escape 4K EDV 2/6/2009 0.102 0.104 

BFA1-6.2-J-007 2011 MY 6.2L FFV F-350 4K EDV 10/8/2009 0.019 0.020 

BFA 1-6.2-J-007 2011 MY 6.2L FFV F-350 4K EDV 10/30/2009 0.013 0.013 

BE41-5.4-J-021 2011 MY 5.4L FFV E-150 4K EDV 2/18/2010 0.019 0.019 

BF61-5.0-J-056 2011 MY 5.0L FFV F-150 4K EDV 8/13/2010 0.033 0.033 

DPH1-3.5-J-214 2013 MY 3.5L FFV Taurus 4K EDV 12/2/2011 0.019 0.020 

AVERAGE: 

DATA SUMMARY (Includes alllnnova and lmpinger results) 

3.91% 

DIFFERENCE IN% OF STANDARD (lnnova and lmpinger): 0.38% 

% Difference ORVRSHED lmpinger Difference in 

FlO Result (% Adjusted %of 

of 0.20 g/gal. Result(% of Standard 

standard) 0.20 g/gal. 

standard) 

0.00% 11 .00% 11.00% 0.00% 

1.92% 52.00% 53.00% 1.00% 

0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 

2.27% 22.00% 22.50% 0.50% 

0.65% n.50% 78.00% 0.50% 

0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 

0.00% 18.00% 18.00% 0.00% 

0.00% 10.50% 10.50% 0.00% 

14.29% 3.50% 4.00% 0.50% 

20.00% 2.50% 3.00% 0.50% 

0.70% 71 .50% 72.00% 0.50% 

6.67% 7.50% 8.00% 0.50% 

20.00% 2.50% 3.00% 0.50% 

0.00% 4.00% 4.00% 0.00% 

3.09% 48.50% 50.00% 1.50% 

4.64% AVERAGE: 0.40% 

% Difference ORVRSHED Inn ova Difference in 

FlO Result (% Adjusted %of 

of 0.20 g/gal. Result(% of Standard 

standard) 0.20 g/gal. 

standard) 

1.96% 51.00% 52.00% 1.00% 

5.26% 9.50% 10.00% 0.50% 

0.00% 6.50% 6.50% 0.00% 

0.00% 9.50% 9.50% 0.00% 

0.00% 16.50% 16.50% 0.00% 

5.26% 9.50% 10.00% 0.50% 

2.08% AVERAGE: 0.33% 
Passavant, Glenn 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Glenn, Jason, 

steven.j.horetski@gm.com 

Monday, July 22, 2013 12:50 PM 

Passavant, Glenn; Gordon, Jason@ARB 

Steve Douglas 

Ethanol Adjustment Factor 

GM Tier 3 FlO vs lnnova Compare_ARB_EPA_7-22-13.pdf; ORVR Test - Emissions 

Speciation 071213.pdf 

I evaluated some GM evaporative emission SHED data to compare the FlO and INNOVA analyzer readings. I only looked 

at test data generated using test fuel containing 10% ethanol but with controlled RVP versus splash blended test fuel with 

an RVP increase compared to the base test fuel. This limited the data sets to testing run with LEV 3 test fuel or GM 

blended Phase 2 MTBE fuel with 10% ethanol. This unfortunately limited the data that was available for evaluation. For 

some of the testing it appears that our IN NOVA analyzers used for development 3-Day Hot Soak testing were a little 

noisy. That also limited the available 3-Day data that could be evaluated. The evaporative emission testing was run per 

the EPA CFR test procedures but using CARB temperatures and test fuels. 

I analyzed passenger cars (PC}, LOT 2 and LOT 3/4 LEV 2 data and PC PZEV data. The GM SHEDs utilize analog 

Rosemount (Model FlO 1) FlO and digital photoacoustic multi-gas (Model 3433) INNOVA analyzers. The FlO ethanol 

response factor is approximately 0.73. 

Displayed below is the data that was evaluated: 

1 
GM Evaporative Emission SHED FID Versus INNOVA Data Comparison 

GM Confidential Business lnfonnation 

Evop CARB 2..00y CARB 3-0ay 

Model Emil lion Vehicle SHED 

Year Product Standanl Class Vellicte No. Tul Fuel U-..rllf'lent HS Day1 Doy 2 Totol Hot Sook Day1 Doy 2 Doy 3 Tolol 

2010 MaiJ>u LEV2 FFV PC 1AZN4040 Phaso 2 E10 FlO 0.026 0.252 0.227 0.278 0.090 0,259 0.241 0.229 0.349 

IMOVI 0.029 0,270 0.244 0.299 0.090 0.278 0.259 0.244 O.JM 

%0aho 11.54% 7.14% 7.41% 7.55% 0.00% 7.34% 7.47% 6.55% 5.«% 

2012 O~ando LEV2 FFV PC X4PV132A Phase 2 EtC AD 0.024 0.331 0.358 O.U2 - - - - - lnnova 0.026 0.348 0.372 0.398 - - - - - %00 .. 6.33% 5.14% 3.9 1% 4.19% - - - - -

2012 V.,-ano LEV2 FFV PC 4CPN4010 Ph111 2 E10 F1D 0,040 0.336 0.243 0.376 0.085 0.226 0. 181 0.169 0,311 

lnnova 0.042 0.364 0.268 0.406 0.092 0.253 0.203 0.189 0.345 

%Doh 5.00% 8.33% 10.29% 7.98% 8.24% 11.95% 12.15% 11.83% 10.93% 

2014 ifTl>ala lEV2 FFV PC 1DGN4143 LEV 3 E10 FlO 0.057 0.291 0.263 0.348 0.118 0.164 0.077 0.059 0.282 

lnnova 0.058 0.3 12 0.287 0.370 0.122 0.173 0.083 0.064 0.295 

%Delta 1.75% 7.22% 9,13% 6.32% 3.39% 5.49% 7,79% 8.47% 4.61% 

2014 MaiJ>u LEV2 FFV PC 1EGN4331 LEV3 E10 FlO 0.060 0.340 0.253 MOO 0.084 0.160 0.096 0.074 0.244 

Inn ova 0.06 1 0.352 0.262 0.41 3 0.084 0.175 0.106 0.083 0.259 

%De~· 1.67o/o 3.53% 3.56% 3.25% 0.00% 9.37% 10.42% 12.18% 6.15% 

LEV 2 PC NA E10 MEAN% 5.66% 6.27% 6.17% S.U% 2.91% 1.54% t .AI% 9.71% 6.71% 

2014 CTS PZEV PC 6EAN4699 LEV 3 E10 FlO 0.051 0.173 0.119 0.224 - - - - - fnnov• 0.052 0.182 0.125 0.234 - - - - - %Ce llo 1.96% 5.20% 5.04% 4.46% - - - - - 2014 XTS PZEV PC 6EGN4017 LEV3 E10 FlO 0.080 0,165 0. 100 0.245 - - - - - lnnove 0.081 0,171 0.104 0.252 - - - - - %Dell 1.25% 3,64% 4.00% 2.86% - - - - - PZEV PC NA E10 MEAN 'h 1.61% 4..42% 4.52% 3.66% - - - - - 2012 Capti\11 LEV2 FFV LDT2 ZBLN4373 Phoso2 EtO FlO 0.024 0.245 0.288 0.292 0.054 0.364 0.331 0.264 0.418 

k1nova 0.024 0.256 0.280 0.304 0.054 0.382 0.347 0.298 0.438 

%Delli 0.00% 4.49% 4.48% 4.11 % o.oo% 4.95% 4.13% 4.93% 4.31% 

201 2 Equinox LEV 2 FFV LDT2 1CLN4452 Phase2 E10 FlO 0.036 0.278 0.299 0.335 - - - - - Inn ova 0.038 0.304 0.320 0.356 - - - - - %Do~ 0.00% 9.35% 7.02% 6.27% - - - - -

2012 Equinox LEV2 FFV LDT2 1CLN4504 Phose 2 E10 AD 0.022 0.230 0.264 0.286 0.066 0. 192 0.148 0.129 0.258 

lnoova 0.024 0.253 0.283 0.307 0.068 0.2 15 0.166 0.1« 0.283 

%Della 9.09% 10.00% 7.20% 7.34% 3.03% 11.86% 12.16% 11.63% 9.69% 

LEV2 LOT2 NA E10 MEAN % 3.03% 7.9$% 1.23% 5.91% 1.52% un. 1.50% 1.11% 7.00% 

2015 Tahoe LEV2 FFV LDT3/4 XECSE02 1 LEV 3 E10 AD 0.052 0.205 0. 141 0.257 0. 171 0.254 0. 164 0. 146 0.'125 

In nova 0.053 0.226 0.157 0.279 0.171 0.274 0.179 0.159 0.445 

% Daft• 1.92% 10.24% 11.35% 8.56% 0.00% 7.87% 9.15% 8.90% 4.71% 

2014 Silwrado LEV2 FFV LDT3/4 XECPE047 LEV3 E10 FlO 0.100 0.373 0.286 M 73 - - - - - tnnova 0.103 0.410 0.316 0.513 - - - - - %01~ 3.00% 9.92% 1D.49% 8.46% - - - - -

2010 H3T LEV 2 FFV LDT3/4 X3581206 Phace 2 E10 FlO 0.033 0.382 0.410 0,443 - - - - - k1nov1 0.033 0.377 0.422 0.455 - - - - - %0aho 0.00% 4.14% 2.93% 2.71% - - - - -

LEV 2 LOTl/4 NA E10 MEAN% 1.64% 8.10% 1.25% 6.58% 0.00% UT% t.15% UO% 4.71% 

• IN NOVA Was Loss Than FlO, Juot Usle<l tho FlO Value 
GM Evaporative Emission SHED FlO Versus INNOVA Mean Data Comparison 

GM Confidential Business 1nrormat1on ! 

e .... ..., CARB2-0ay CARB3-Day n 

s .. ndar Vehicle 

d c .... Vehicle No. Teat Fuel OttaSII N HS Oayt Oay2 Total N Hot Soa k Day I Ooy2 Oay3 Total 

LEVZ PC NA EIO leAN of LEV z P 5 5.66% U7% 1.17% 5.&6% 4 2.11% 1.54% 1.41% 9.76% 1.71% 

LEVZ LDT2 NA EI O fAN of LEV Z LD 3 3.03% 7.15% 1.23% 5.91% z 1.52% IA6% 1.50% 1.21% 7.00% 

LEVZ LDT314 NA EIO ~of LEV 2 LDl l 1.64% 1.10% 1.25% Ul% I 0.00% 7.17% 1.15% 1.90% 4.71 % 

LEVZ AU. NA EIO WofAU. LEV 11 3.44% 7A4% 7.12% 6.11% 7 1.47% 1.29% 8.03% 8.91% 6.16% 

PZEV PC NA EIO EAHofPZEVP 2 1.61% 4.42% 4.52% 3.66% - - - - - - -~ 

----- ' ~ ~ -~ ·····- - -·-······- --- -- ----- ~- -
C) 

c:: 

·-I , 

tn 

t! c 

0 

·-

... 

ftS 

·- ~ CJ 

G) 

c. 

> 

tn 

tn > c M 

~ 0 """""' ·- 0 tn N 

0 tn 

·- ~ 

E 

-:::s w .., 
Outline 

• Test Condition Review 

• ORVR Results 

• Composition of ORVR Emissions 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 
Test Conditions 

Canister Pre Aging 

• TF1 (9.2 psi RVP, E10) 

• Load Rate= 40 g/hr, Purge 400 BV@ 22.7 LPM, 

• Vapor concentration 50°/o 

• Minimum 10- 15 aging cycles, 12 cycles performed 

ORVR Prep 

• Butane Load Rate = 40 g/hr, 2 g BT 

• Soak 1 hr 

• Purge canister with 400 BV at 22.7 LPM 

Canister- 2.1 L BAX 1500 + 110 ml virgin BAX 1500 trap/test 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 
Test Conditions 

ORVR 

• 34 gallon tank, filled to 10% 

• Soak fuel system (2.1 L canister disconnected) for at least 1 hour at 80°F 

• Complete refueling test @ 10 GPM. 

• Calculate emissions (g/gal). 

• Collect carbon samples from cani~ter and trap. 

• Purge canister with 400 BV at 22.7 LPM 

• Reload with butane and repeat procedure as required with new trap 

Tests conducted 

• ORVR testing completed at emissions of 

o 0.13 g/gal 

o 0.15 g/gal 

o 0.21 g/gal 

o 0.26 g/gal 

Canister- 2.1 L BAX 1500 + 110 ml virgin BAX 1500 trap/test 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 
ORVR Results 

Emission Fuel Canister Trap Canister+ Vapor 

Rate Dispensed Loading Loading Trap Generation 

(g/gal) (gal) (g) (g) Loading Rate 

(g) (g/gal) 

I • • • 17.9 • • • • I • -- -·- -·· 

0.15 24.4 97.2 3.6 100.8 4.13 -- - ... -- " - - -·-- ·- ·-

0.21 21.8 lj 95.6 4.6 100.5 I 4.61 -·- _IL__ -~ --~- ---

0.26 19.6 92.5 5.2 97.7 4.48 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 5 
GC/FID Results 

ORVR Emission Rate- 0.13 g/gal 

100% 

90% ~ - ---·------·-----·· 

I 

80% 

70% - ------- ------- ----·- ... ----- • Trap Canister VI 

-';1. 60% 0 

> -

• Trap Canister PI 

c 

0 50% :.e 

Ill 

0 

Q. 

E 40% 8 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% .. --·r - C4 cs Ethanol MTBE C6,C7 C8 Aromatics 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 6 
GC/FID Results 

ORVR Emission Rate- 0.15 g/gal 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

• Trap Canister VI 

-'#. 

0 60% 

> 

• Trap Canister PI 

-

c: 

0 

~ 50% 

'iii 

0 

Q. 

E 40% 8 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% _11--,,- -----,-- --, 

C4 cs Ethanol MTBE C6,C7 C8 Aromatics 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 7 
GC/FID Results 

ORVR Emission Rate- 0.21 g/gal 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

-';1. 60% 0 

> -

c 

0 

... 50% 

·;;; 

0 

a. 

E 40% 0 

v 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% -----r--

C4 cs Ethanol -

/AWV 

-----, 

MTBE 

• Trap Canister VI 

~ Tr~p Canister PI 

-----

--·· --- --, -- • --1 I 

C6,C7 C8 Aromatics 

ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 8 
GC/FID Results 

ORVR Emission Rate 

100% 

90% -1 

I 

80% -

70% 

-

'*' 0 

> - 60% 

c 

.2 

;t:: 50% Ill 

0 

a. 

E 40% 

8 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

C4 cs Ethanol 

MWV 

- 0.26 g/gal 

• Trap Canister VI 

• Trap Canister PI 

MTBE C6,C7 C8 Aromatics 

ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 9 
GC/FID Results 

Grouping of Compounds 

• C4: butane 

• C5: pentane, methyl butane 

• C6: dimethyl butane, methyl pentane, hexane 

• C7: dimethyl pentane, heptane 

• C8: trimethyl pentane, octane 

• Aromatics: benzenes, toluene 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ July, 2013 
Findings 

• Under these ORVR test conditions and emissions rates ranging from 

. 0.13 to 0.26 grams/gallon, the primary components were C4 

compounds (butane and iso-butane) 

• No ethanol seen in any of the ORVR emissions 

MWV ORVR Emissions Speciation/ June, 2013