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

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

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Blender Pump Fuel Survey: 

CRC Project E-95

Teresa L. Alleman

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-51863

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

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

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Blender Pump Fuel Survey: 

CRC Project E-95 

Teresa L. Alleman

Prepared under Task No. FC08.0075

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-51863

July 2011 
NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
i 

Acknowledgment

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

Coordinating Research Council Emissions Committee for jointly funding this project. 
ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ASTM ASTM International 

CRC Coordinating Research Council

DVPE dry vapor pressure equivalent 

Ex nominally x% ethanol by volume and (100-x)% gasoline or other hydrocarbons

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FFV flex fuel vehicle 

mass% percent by mass 

mg/100mL milligrams per 100 milliliters

pHe acid strength of high ethanol content fuel 

ppmw parts per million by weight

psi pounds per square inch 

TV/L=20 temperature where vapor-liquid ratio is 20

vol% percent by volume 
iii

Executive Summary

Ethanol production for fuel has increased significantly in recent years. In 2010, fuel grade 

ethanol production in the United States reached 13.2 billion gallons and accounted for almost 9% 

of the gasoline pool, mainly used as a blend of 10 volume percent (vol%) and below. 

Approximately 10% of the fuel grade ethanol is blended into “E85,” which is nominally 85 vol% 

fuel grade ethanol in a balance of gasoline or other hydrocarbons. To increase the number of 

ethanol blends available in the United States beyond these two markets, several states have 

provided incentives for the installation of so-called “blender pumps” that can blend gasoline with 

“E85.” At the writing of this report, there is no specification or standard practice that governs the 

properties of these blended fuels and little information is available about the content or qualities 

of fuels sold at blender pumps. No labeling conventions exist for blender pumps. However, 

efforts are underway within ASTM to develop a standard guide for mid-level ethanol blends and 

the Federal Trade Commission has proposed regulations designed to improve the consistency 

and uniformity of blender pump labeling. 

Gasoline and “E85” were collected from 15 stations in eight states across the Midwestern United 

States. The survey samples included fifteen samples each of the parent base gasoline and “E85.” 

These two fuels were presumed to be used in the other ethanol blends, where only the two lowest 

blends, if available, were collected at each station. The gasoline and “E85” samples were tested 

against the applicable ASTM specifications. All the blender pump ethanol fuels (25 total) were 

tested for key parameters, such as vapor pressure and ethanol content. 

Overall, the gasoline samples met the ASTM D4814-10 specification for vapor pressure and 

ethanol content, although one sample had an ethanol content in excess of the maximum. By 

blending additional ethanol into these gasolines, the vapor pressure was affected. When a 

gasoline without ethanol (E0) was blended with ethanol, the vapor pressure increased for the 

ethanol concentration range in this study. Gasolines already containing ethanol saw a vapor 

pressure decline with the addition of ethanol. The lowest vapor pressure was observed for the 

“E85” samples, on average, and one sample failed to meet the minimum D5798-10 specification. 

For the “E85” samples, the acidity and pHe were typically low, with few failures noted. There 

was no correlation between acidity and pHe failures for these samples. Inorganic ions were 

typically near the method detection limit. All samples met the water content specification 

maximum of 1.0 mass%. 

Although it was not a specific goal of the study, a common observation made of the stations 

surveyed was a lack of consistency in labeling conventions, formats, etc. at the blender pumps. 

In the absence of national requirements or guidance, a variety of labels were found in this study. 

Within Wisconsin, where two stations were photographed, intrastate consistency in labeling was 

not observed. 
iv

Table of Contents

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

Test Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 1

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

Samples Collected and Pump Labeling ...................................................................................... 5

Ethanol Content .......................................................................................................................... 8

Vapor Pressure ............................................................................................................................ 9

Vapor-Liquid Ratio ................................................................................................................... 10

Washed and Unwashed Gum .................................................................................................... 11

Specific Gravity and Distillation .............................................................................................. 12

“E85”-Specific Analyses .......................................................................................................... 12

Acidity................................................................................................................................... 12

pHe ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Inorganic Chloride, Inorganic and Potential Sulfate ............................................................. 14

Water Content ....................................................................................................................... 15

Conclusions ...............................................................................................................................................15

References.................................................................................................................................................18

Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. A-1
v 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Locations of stations sampled ......................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Blender pump in Kansas .................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3. Blender pump in Iowa ..................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4: Blender pumps in Wisconsin ........................................................................................... 7

Figure 5. Blender pump in South Dakota ....................................................................................... 8

Figure 6. Ethanol content for samples collected in this survey ...................................................... 9

Figure 7. Sample volatilities for gasolines, FFV fuels, and other blends collected ...................... 10

Figure 8. Unwashed gum content for all samples ......................................................................... 11

Figure 9. Acidity for “E85” samples only .................................................................................... 12

Figure 10. pHe of “E85” fuel samples only .................................................................................. 13

Figure 11. Inorganic ions from “E85” samples. ........................................................................... 14

Figure 12. Water content of E30, E50, and “E85” fuels only ....................................................... 15

List of Tables

Table 1. Test Properties for Survey Samples .................................................................................. 3

Table 2. Result Summary for Samples Collected ........................................................................... 4
1 

Introduction

Ethanol production for fuel has increased significantly in recent years. In 2010, the last year this 

data was available, fuel grade ethanol production was 13.2 billion gallons and accounted for 

almost 9% of the gasoline pool in the United States, mainly used as a blend of 10 volume percent 

(vol%) and below.1Approximately 130 million gallons is blended at higher blend levels, which is 

nominally 85 vol% fuel grade ethanol in a balance of gasoline (commonly called “E85”), and is 

used in flex fuel vehicles (FFVs). The quality of “E85” is set by the ASTM D5798-10 

specification. Although increasing amounts of ethanol are being consumed and the EPA recently 

ruled that gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol could be used in some non-FFVs, many 

observers expect that either ethanol as a fraction of the total gasoline pool will have to grow 

beyond 10 vol% or the “E85” demand will have to greatly expand in order to meet the 

consumption requirement of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard by 2022.2 Another potential 

solution which has been advocated by some is to increase the number of ethanol blends available 

in the United States. 

Several states have offered incentives for the installation of so-called “blender pumps.” These 

blender pumps typically blend “E85” and gasoline to produce fuels with ethanol content greater 

than gasoline but below “E85” (ASTM D5798-10 limits ethanol content in “E85” between 68 

vol% and 83 vol%). There is no specification to govern the properties of these blended fuels, 

blended to between 11 vol% and 67 vol% ethanol, presumably, and little information is available 

about the fuels sold at blender pumps. However, FFV manufacturers state that their FFVs can 

operate on fuel containing ethanol content from zero to 85 vol% (E0 to “E85”).

The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) has undertaken several surveys of “E85” in recent 

years.4–6 The most recent of these surveys,6 led by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, showed significant difficulties meeting the ASTM specification. 

In that survey, 53% of the Class 1 samples were below the specification minimum vapor 

pressure. Over 90% of the samples had ethanol content above the specification maximum. 

The goal of this survey was to sample blender pumps from stations around the Midwest and to

quantify the properties of the blends sold. The survey samples included the base gasoline and 

“E85” used in the blends as well as the two lowest blends, if available, offered at each station. 

Test Methodology

Samples were collected in July 2010 from 15 stations in eight different states. At that time, an 

estimated 150 blender pumps were in use throughout the Midwestern U.S. Although the most 

common on-line database of blender pumps is widely available, 7 each station was contacted 

prior to sampling to ensure that it was still operable. Two stations originally targeted for 

sampling no longer sold ethanol blends, even though they were still listed in the on-line database. 

During the summer months, the volatility of the gasoline in these areas and used in the blends 

must meet the Class A requirements in ASTM specification D4814-10. The “E85” must meet the 

Class 1 specification requirements of ASTM specification D5798-10. Figure 1 shows the 

locations of the stations visited in this study. The gasoline samples were tested against a select 

set of properties from ASTM D4814-10. “E85” samples were tested for a select set of properties 
2 

in ASTM D5798-10. All other samples were tested for critical operability parameters because no 

specification or standard practice exists for ethanol-containing fuels between conventional 

gasoline and ethanol fuel blends (presumably 11 vol% to 67 vol% ethanol). The sample property 

test matrix is given in Table 1. Samples were analyzed by Southwest Research Institute in San 

Antonio, TX following ASTM test method protocols. 

Figure 1. Locations of stations sampled 
3 

Table 1. Test Properties for Survey Samples 

Property ASTM Method Notes 

D4814-10 

Specification 

Limits 

D5798-10 

Specification 

Limits 

Ethanol content, vol% D5599 Samples with E50 

or below only 

10, maximum NA 

Ethanol content, vol% D5501 Samples above E50 NA 68–83 

DVPE, psi D5191 All samples 9, maximum, 

prior to 

ethanol blendinga

5.5–8.5 

Temperature for V/L=20 D5188 Gasoline samples 

only 

Multiple grades NA 

Water content, mass% E203 E30, E50, and 

FFV fuel samples 

NA 1.0 

Distillation, °C D86 All samples Multiple grades NA 

Gums, mg/100mL D381 All samples 5, maximum for 

washed gum 

20, maximum 

for unwashed 

gum 

5, maximum for 

washed gum 

pHe D6423 “E85” samples only NA 6.5-9.0 

Acidity, mass% D1613 “E85” samples only NA 0.005, 

maximum 

Inorganic chloride, 

ppmw 

D7328 “E85” samples only NA 1.0, maximum 

Inorganic sulfate, ppmw D7328 “E85” samples only NA NA 

Potential sulfate, ppmw D7328 “E85” samples only NA NA 

Specific Gravity D4052 All samples NA NA 

NA: not applicable 

a

 9 psi DVPE maximum determined from geographic region where samples were collected, based on ASTM D4814-

10 

Results and Discussion 

Simple statistics (sample size, mean, median, and standard deviation) for each of the measured 

fuel parameters are presented in Table 2. The complete analytical results are provided in the 

appendix. 
4 

Table 2. Result Summary for Samples Collected 

Property Sample Type

#

Samples Mean Median

Standard 

Deviation

DVPE, psi Gasoline (E0) 7 8.7 8.7 0.15 

Oxygenated gasoline 8 9.6 9.6 0.12 

E20 (blender pump) 12 9.4 9.4 0.14 

E30 (blender pump) 12 9.2 9.1 0.20 

E50 (bender pump) 1 8.7 8.7 NA 

“E85” 15 6.3 6.0 0.97 

Ethanol Content, vol% Gasoline (E0) 7 <0.1 <0.1 NA 

 Oxygenated gasoline 8 8.2 9.7 4.0 

E20 (blender pump) 12 21.4 21.2 3.8 

E30 (blender pump) 12 31.5 31.1 4.1 

E50 (blender pump) 1 43.7 43.7 NA 

15 79.7 80.3 3.6 

Water Gasoline (E0) 7 NA NA NA 

Content, Oxygenated gasoline 8 NA NA NA 

mass% E20 (blender pump) 12 NA NA NA 

E30 (blender pump) 12 0.291 0.291 0.061 

E50 (blender pump) 1 0.45 0.45 NA 

“E85” 15 0.643 0.615 0.114 

pHe “E85” 15 7.2 7.3 0.41 

Acidity, mass% “E85” 15 0.006 0.003 0.012 

Specific gravity Gasoline (E0) 

Oxygenated gasoline 

E20 (blender pump) 

E30 (blender pump) 

E50 (blender pump) 

“E85” 

7 

8 

12 

12 

1 

15 

0.739 

0.745 

0.751 

0.755 

0.758 

0.782 

0.739 

0.745 

0.751 

0.754 

0.758 

0.784 

0.004 

0.006 

0.005 

0.005 

NA 

0.005 

T10, °F Gasoline (E0) 7 124. 124. 3.1 

T50, °F Gasoline (E0) 7 206. 202. 7.7 

T90, °F Gasoline (E0) 7 326. 324. 4.5 

FBP, °F Gasoline (E0) 7 411. 413. 6.0 

T10, °F Oxygenated gasoline 8 121. 120. 1.7 

T50, °F Oxygenated gasoline 8 180. 182. 21.8 

T90, °F Oxygenated gasoline 8 325. 326. 8.8 

FBP, °F Oxygenated gasoline 8 403. 403. 11.4 

T10, °F E20 12 124. 123. 2.9 

T50, °F E20 12 161. 162. 2.1 

T90, °F E20 12 316. 315. 5.3 

FBP, °F E20 12 397. 399. 8.1 

T10, °F E30 12 127. 126. 3.1 

T50, °F E30 12 164. 164. 1.9 

T90, °F E30 12 307. 307. 6.9 

FBP, °F E30 12 393. 393. 9.1 

T10, °F E50 1 130. 130. NA 

T50, °F E50 1 166. 166. NA 

T90, °F E50 1 269. 269. NA 

FBP, °F E50 1 376. 376. NA 

T10, °F “E85” 15 157. 161. 7.9 

T50, °F “E85” 15 172. 172. 0.4 

T90, °F “E85” 15 174. 174. 0.7 

FBP, °F “E85” 15 286. 297. 68.1 

“E85” 
5 

Samples Collected and Pump Labeling 

In this study, we collected samples from 15 stations throughout the Midwestern United States. 

Gasoline and “E85” samples were collected at every station. A total of 12 samples of E20 and 

E30 and 1 E50 blend were also collected from the blender pumps. Ten of the stations visited sold 

more than one blend between conventional gasoline and “E85,” typically E20 and E30; however, 

one station sold E30 and E50. The contractor took photographs at several of the stations visited 

to understand the pump labeling. The Federal Trade Commission requires fuel pump labeling to 

inform consumers about the product being purchased. Labeling for conventional gasoline and 

FFV fuel pumps is well defined and must meet specific requirements. 8 No such labeling 

conventions exist for blender pumps, although relevant rules are being developed. 

Figures 2 through 5 show photographs taken at several of the blender pump stations visited in 

this survey. The blender pump in Figure 2 was located in Kansas. The labeling on this pump 

clearly indicates the blends are not intended for use in conventional vehicles. It is worth noting 

that the pump pictured in Figure 2 offers two grades of conventional gasoline, labeled as 

“unleaded” and “mid-grade,” but does not offer “premium grade.” 

Figure 2. Blender pump in Kansas 
6 

Figure 3 shows a blender pump in Iowa. Although the higher ethanol blends have been identified 

by their blend level (E20, E30, and “E85”), there is no clear indication these fuels are intended 

for use in FFVs only. These fuels are dispensed from the yellow nozzle on the right and are 

labeled as “Super Unleaded.” 

Figure 3. Blender pump in Iowa 
7 

Figure 4 shows two examples of blender pumps in Wisconsin. These pumps show the octane 

number of the E20 blend, in contrast to the pumps in Iowa and Kansas. Both pumps show that 

the E20 and “E85” blends are for use in FFVs only; however, there is no consistency to the 

labeling used. In the top photograph, the FFV label is black text on yellow, while the label in the 

bottom photograph is yellow/orange text on black. 

Figure 4: Blender pumps in Wisconsin 
8 

Figure 5 shows a blender pump in South Dakota. Similar to the pumps in Wisconsin, this pump 

lists the octane rating of all the fuels sold, including the “E85.” Although the other pumps carried 

some indication that the higher ethanol blends may not be for use in all vehicles, this was the 

only pump with a warning label for consumers. The warning label is required in South Dakota to 

inform consumers about the fuels being dispensed.9 

Figure 5. Blender pump in South Dakota 

Ethanol Content 

The locations of the blender pumps in this survey were typically rural, in areas not subject to 

mandatory reformulated gasoline or oxygenate blending. However, some of the gasoline samples 

contained various amounts of ethanol (Figure 6). Data in the figures are presented by station, 

showing the change in fuel properties as increasing amounts of ethanol are added. Conventional 

gasoline fuels were limited to 10 vol% ethanol by the EPA at the time the study was conducted 

(July 2010). One gasoline sample exceeded this limit, four samples contained 10 vol% ethanol, 

seven samples contained no ethanol, and three samples contained some ethanol (1.4 vol%, 4.7 

vol%, and 6.2 vol% ethanol). The samples with ethanol content between 0 vol% and 10 vol% are 

likely due to gasolines with different levels of oxygenates being added to the same retail tank. 

Overall, the E20, E30, and E50 blends were close to the labeled ethanol content. A few notable 

samples were significantly different than the published blend level. For example, the E20 from 

station 10 was very similar to the E30 in ethanol content. This could have been due to 

misblending or there may have been an error in sample collection by the contractor. As shown in 

Table 2, the mean and median were very similar for these fuels, indicating little bias either above 

or below the published blend content. 

“E85” is required to be between 68 vol% and 83 vol% ethanol per ASTM specification D5798-

10. All of the samples met the current specification limits for ethanol content. The specification 

changed in 2010 to reduce the minimum ethanol content in all volatility classes. For the “summer 

season,” Class 1, in the older version of the specification (D5798-09b), required ethanol content 

to be between 79 vol% and 83 vol%. The reduction in allowable ethanol content meant three of 
9 

the samples in this study that would have previously failed the specification are now within 

acceptable limits. 

Figure 6. Ethanol content for samples collected in this survey 

Vapor Pressure 

Gasolines and “E85” have to meet strict volatility requirements depending on location and time 

of year. For the gasoline samples from the regions surveyed, the maximum vapor pressure was 9 

psi before ethanol blending. There is a 1-psi waiver (to a maximum of 10 psi) for conventional 

gasoline samples containing 10 vol% ethanol. The “E85” samples are required to have 

volatilities between 5.5 psi and 8.5 psi; however, no standards exist for other levels of ethanol 

blends. The 1-psi waiver does not apply to fuels with greater than 10 vol% ethanol. 

Figure 7 shows the vapor pressures for the samples collected in this survey. The E0 samples all 

met the 9-psi maximum limit in D4814-10. The gasoline samples containing ethanol have 

slightly higher volatilities, but were all below 10 psi. The vapor pressures of the higher ethanol 

blends show the impact of blending with ethanol. In E0 samples, adding ethanol increases the 

vapor pressure for these blend levels. In samples already containing ethanol, adding additional 

ethanol starts to reduce the vapor pressure. The “E85” samples, which contain the most ethanol, 

have the lowest volatilities. Only one “E85” sample had a volatility below the specification 

minimum. This is a marked improvement compared to previous surveys.4

Station

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Ethanol content, vol%, D5501 or D5599

0

20

40

60

80

100

Oxygenated gasoline

E0 gasoline

E20 (blender pump)

E30 (blender pump)

E50 (blender pump)

"E85"

"E85" D5798-10 Upper Specification = 83 vol%

"E85" D5798-10 Lower Specification = 68 vol%

D4814-10 Maximum Ethanol Limit in Gasoline = 10 vol%
10 

Figure 7. Sample volatilities for gasolines, FFV fuels, and other blends collected 

Vapor-Liquid Ratio 

Suitable volatility in gasoline samples is measured by the temperature where a vapor-liquid ratio 

of 20 (TV/L=20) is achieved, to ensure adequate vapor lock protection. The specification limit is 

driven by time of year (ambient temperature) and geographic location. The gasoline samples 

collected in this survey represent vapor lock protection Class 2 (Stations 1–7) and Class 3 

(Stations 8–15). All samples readily met the specification minimum (50°C for Class 2 and 47°C 

for Class 3). 

Station ID

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

DVPE, psi, D5191

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Oxygenated Gasoline (solid circles - 10 psi maximum)

E0 gasoline (open circles - 9 psi maximum)

E20 (blender pump)

E30 (blender pump)

E50 (blender pump)

"E85"

"E85" D5798-10 Upper Specification = 8.5 psi

"E85" D5798-10 Lower Specification = 5.5 psi
11 

Washed and Unwashed Gum 

Every sample was tested for washed and unwashed gum content, a measure of oxidation 

products formed that may lead to engine deposits. The washed gum content is limited in both the 

ASTM D4814 and D5798 specifications, while unwashed gum is only limited in D5798. The 

washed gum was at or very near the detection limit for every sample tested. In most cases, the 

unwashed gum content was also low. At Station 9, the gasoline and E30 samples had unwashed 

gum twice as high as similar samples from other stations. 

Figure 8. Unwashed gum content for all samples 

Station

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Unwashed gum, mg/100mL, D381

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Oxygenated gasoline

E0 gasoline

E20 (blender pump)

E30 (blender pump)

E50 (blender pump)

"E85"

"E85" D5798-10 Upper Specification Limit = 20 mg/100mL
12 

Specific Gravity and Distillation 

The specific gravity and distillation curves were measured for all samples. A data summary is 

presented in Table 2, and the complete data is in the Appendix. No further analyses were 

conducted for this data, it is simply presented for completeness. 

“E85”-Specific Analyses 

Acidity 

The acidity of “E85” samples is an important measure of low-level organic acids left over from 

production and is limited to 0.005 mass%. Figure 9 illustrates the acidity of the “E85” samples 

collected in this study. One sample (station 3) showed acidity slightly above the limit, and one 

sample (station 5) grossly exceeded the specification limit. 

Figure 9. Acidity for “E85” samples only 

Station ("E85" Samples Only)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Acidity, mass%, D1613

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

D5798-10 Upper Specification Limit = 0.005 mass%
13 

pHe 

The pHe of “E85” is another measure of the acidity and corrosivity of the fuel (Figure 10). One 

sample had a pHe slightly below the specification limit, but all the other samples readily met the 

limit. The samples that had elevated acidity met the pHe specification, and the sample with 

slightly low pHe readily met the acidity specification, showing no correlation for these 

parameters based on this study. 

Figure 10. pHe of “E85” fuel samples only 

Station ("E85" Samples Only)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

pHe, D6423

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

"E85" D5798-10 Upper Specification Limit = 9.0

"E85" D5798-10 Lower Specification Limit = 6.5
14 

Inorganic Chloride, Inorganic and Potential Sulfate 

In “E85” samples, inorganic chloride and sulfate can be left over from processing and increase 

the corrosivity of the fuel. Excessive inorganic chlorides can lead to durability and performance 

issues by damaging the fuel injection system. Sulfates can plug fuel filters and also lead to 

injector fouling. Figure 11 illustrates the inorganic chloride and sulfate and potential sulfate 

results from the “E85” samples collected in this study. Overall, the concentrations are very low 

and are similar to results from recent “E85” surveys.5

Figure 11. Inorganic ions from “E85” samples. 

The solid line shows the chloride specification limit. ASTM D5798-10 does not limit potential or 

inorganic sulfate. 

FFV Fuel Chloride

Specification Limit

Station ("E85" Samples Only)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Inorganic chloride or sulfate, or 

potential sulfate, ppmw

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Inorganic Chloride

"E85" D5798-10 Chloride Specification Upper Limit = 1.0 ppmw

Inorganic Sulfate

Potential Sulfate
15 

Water Content 

The presence of water in fuels and in storage tanks can be problematic, regardless of the fuel 

used. Water in “E85” fuels can cause more significant problems than water in traditional fuels. 

The water can cause separation of the ethanol portion of “E85” fuel. The water content was only 

measured for the E30, E50, and “E85” samples. Without exception, the samples met the 

specification maximum limit of 1.0 mass% water. 

Figure 12. Water content of E30, E50, and “E85” fuels only 

Conclusions 

With fuel ethanol volumes expected to eclipse demand in coming years, new strategies will 

likely be developed for utilization. Several avenues are being explored, including potentially 

increasing the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline, increasing “E85” market penetration, and 

introducing ethanol fuel blends with ethanol less than those allowed under D5798. These fuels 

are being sold, mainly in the Midwestern United States, through so-called blender pumps. No 

specification exists for these fuels, and the fuel quality was unknown. Fifteen stations were 

visited in July 2010 to collect samples for the first known quality survey of blender pump fuels. 

Conventional gasoline, “E85,” and the two lowest ethanol blends were collected, if available, at 

every station. Each sample was tested for critical operability properties. 

Photographs taken at several stations reveal no consistent labeling convention at blender pumps. 

Some stations list higher ethanol blends as “Super Unleaded,” without notification to consumers 

that these blends are not approved for use in conventional vehicles. Other stations use labeling to 

inform consumers that these fuels are for FFVs only. 

Station (E30, E50 and "E85" Samples Only)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Water content, E203, mass%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

E30 (blender pump)

E50 (blender pump)

"E85"

"E85" D5798-10 Specification Upper Limit = 1.0 mass%
16

The ethanol content varied greatly over the samples taken. Half the gasoline samples contained 

some ethanol, while the other half of the samples contained none. The “E85” samples were all 

within the specification limits for ethanol content. By looking at the higher ethanol blends at a 

single station, measured ethanol content compared to labeled ethanol content appeared random. 

It was not uncommon to find one blend that matched the posted ethanol content, and another 

blend that was significantly higher or lower than the posted ethanol content. Although a protocol 

was outlined to ensure purging between sample collection, human error does occur. Thus, no 

conclusions can be drawn whether this was due to sample collection error or blending error at the 

pump. 

As increasing ethanol content was added to gasoline, the vapor pressure changed. If the base 

gasoline did not contain ethanol (E0), the vapor pressure of the blend increased. If the base 

gasoline was oxygenated, the vapor pressure decreased. If these fuels are intended for use in

FFVs, the vapor pressure of the samples exceeded the specification maximum set forth in ASTM 

D5798-10. All the gasoline samples met the specification requirements for the TV/L=20 measure of 

volatility. One gasoline sample had excessive unwashed gums, possibly due to additive 

interaction. 

Other properties tested were specific to higher ethanol blends. The water content of the E30 and 

E50 samples and the “E85” fuels was measured. All samples were below the 1.0 mass% water 

content maximum given in ASTM D5798-10. The specification properties for pHe and acidity 

were measured for the “E85” samples. Two acidity failures and one pHe failure was observed. 

There was no correlation between failing acidity and pHe. Overall, the inorganic ion content of 

the fuels was low.

This survey also tested the properties of fuels containing ethanol levels above conventional 

gasoline but below “E85” fuels. Because there is no specification, no robust assessment of 

quality could be made, but the analytical results are reported here. If these fuels are indeed 

intended for use in FFVs, their properties differ significantly from current “E85” fuels and their 

impact on handling and utilization needs to be quantified. 

This survey is the first comprehensive assessment of fuel quality for blender pumps. Future work 

is highly recommended to better understand the fuels dispensed from blender pumps. This work 

may include sampling in a wider geographic area and through multiple gasoline and “E85” 

volatility classes. 

Blender pumps may become more prevalent as the Renewable Fuel Standard mandates drive 

increasing volumes of ethanol and other biofuels in the marketplace in the future. Historically, 

the installation of blender pumps has been limited to the Midwestern U.S., although new pumps 

are being installed in a broader geographic range, including Colorado and Nevada. Future work 

should include these new stations, which will have different base gasoline properties and should 

assess the impact on these fuels. 

This work focused only on summertime fuels, using Class 1 “E85” and Class A gasoline. Future 

work needs to consider fuels in different volatility classes, for both “E85” and gasoline. 

Depending on the region, base gasoline may or may not contain ethanol. This work has shown 

that the vapor pressures for fuels from blender pumps are marginally higher when the base 
17

gasoline contained ethanol for the range of ethanol content in this study. To further validate this 

conclusion, additional work should be conducted at more locations with a wider variety of base 

gasolines. 
18

References 

1. Renewable Fuels Association. Climate of Opportunity, 2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook. 

Annual Report, Washington, D.C.: Renewable Fuels Association, 2011. 

2. Regulation to Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Renewable Fuel Standard 

Program, 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 80, Vol. 75, No. 244, December 21, 2010. 

3. EPA Fuels Trends Report: Gasoline 1995-2005, EPA420-R-08-002, January 2008. 

4. Alleman, T.L.; Wright, K.; Hogan, D. National Survey of E-85 Quality. CRC Report No. 

E-85. November 2009. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

5. SGS Germany GmbH. Summary of the Study of “E85” Fuel in the USA, 2006. CRC 

Report E-79. August 2006. Alpharetta, GA: Coordinating Research Council. 

6. SGS Germany GmbH. Summary of the Study of “E85” Fuel in the USA, Winter 2006–

2007 CRC Report E-79-2. May 2007. Alpharetta, GA: Coordinating Research Council. 

7. “Ethanol Blender Pump Locations.” Google Maps, 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=114795702092705781866.0004506e7cf

3ae206a7c0, Accessed on June 23, 2010. 

8. Title 16 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 306. Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification 

and Posting.

9. NIST Handbook 130. Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area of legal metrology and 

engine fuel quality, Adopted by the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures 

2004. http://dps.sd.gov/licensing/weights_and_measures/images/UniformLaws.pdf, 

Accessed on June 27, 2011.
A-1 

Appendix

Table A-1 Fuel Property Results

Station

ID 

Date 

State

Type

DVPE, psi 

D5191 

Acidity, mass% 

D1613 

Unwashed gum,

mg/100mL

D381 

Washed gum, 

mg/100mL,

D381 

Specific gravity,

at 60°F, 

D4052 

TV/L=20, 

D5188 

Water, mass%, 

E203 

Ethanol, vol%,

D5501 or D5599 

pHe, D6423 

Chloride, ppm,

D7328 

Sulfate, ppm,

D7328 

Potential Sulfate, 

ppm, D7328 

1 7/17/2010 KS Gasoline 9.59 13 1 0.7422 129.5 4.6652 

E-20 9.31 9.5 <0.5 0.7503 21.1573 

“E-85” 5.51 0.0031 1 <0.5 0.7853 0.619 82.73 7.38 <0.1 0.2 0.2 

E-30 9.08 7.5 0.5 0.7552 0.253 30.52 

2 7/19/2010 NE Gasoline 8.71 9 0.5 0.7369 143.1 <0.1 

E-20 9.38 5 <0.5 0.7469 19.7037 

E-30 9.28 4 <0.5 0.7521 0.224 29.32 

“E-85” 5.54 0.0059 1 <0.5 0.7853 0.595 83.74 7.74 <0.1 1.3 1.3 

3 7/14/2010 ND Gasoline 8.93 9 <0.5 0.7478 141.1 <0.1 

E-20 9.64 7 0.5 0.7529 19.8689 

E-30 9.49 5.5 <0.5 0.7561 0.414 29.52 

“E-85” 7.52 0.0021 1 0.5 0.7745 0.817 80.31 7.53 <0.1 0.2 0.3 

4 8/1/2010 SD Gasoline 8.45 8 <0.5 0.7357 140.6 <0.1 

E-30 9.02 5 <0.5 0.7529 0.325 33.07 

“E-85” 6.3 0.003 2 <0.5 0.7812 0.733 77.85 7.31 <1 0.3 <1

5 8/1/2010 SD Gasoline 8.64 7.5 <0.5 0.7381 142.1 <0.1 

E-30 9.39 4.5 <0.5 0.7541 0.223 31.89 

“E-85” 5.98 0.0473 1 <0.5 0.7852 0.56 81.74 6.82 <1 0.2 <1

6 7/18/2010 SD Gasoline 8.6 8 <0.5 0.7424 146.9 <0.1 

E-20 9.35 6.5 <0.5 0.752 21.1254 

E-30 8.94 5.5 <0.5 0.7577 0.346 32.64 

“E-85” 6.02 0.0025 2 <0.5 0.7842 0.805 77.77 7.37 <1 0.2 0.3 
A-2 

Station

ID 

Date 

State

Type

DVPE, psi 

D5191 

Acidity, mass% 

D1613 

Unwashed gum,

mg/100mL

D381 

Washed gum, 

mg/100mL,

D381 

Specific gravity,

at 60°F, 

D4052 

TV/L=20, 

D5188 

Water, mass%, 

E203 

Ethanol, vol%,

D5501 or D5599 

pHe, D6423 

Chloride, ppm,

D7328 

Sulfate, ppm,

D7328 

Potential Sulfate, 

ppm, D7328 

7 7/17/2010 SD Gasoline 8.82 8 <0.5 0.7366 136.2 0.1142 

E-20 9.58 7 <0.5 0.7427 12.1622 

E-30 9.05 6 <0.5 0.7532 0.303 31.66 

“E-85” 7.12 0.0028 3.5 <0.5 0.7764 0.615 68.21 7.43 <1 0.3 0.4 

8 7/17/2010 IA Gasoline 8.68 6.5 <0.5 0.7387 143.2 <0.1 

E-20 9.36 7 <0.5 0.7479 19.6928 

E-30 9.1 7.5 <0.5 0.7524 0.208 28.93 

“E-85” 5.5 0.0034 2 0.5 0.7842 0.542 81.6 6.76 <0.1 0.2 0.3 

9 7/14/2010 MN Gasoline 9.53 25 <0.5 0.7353 126.1 9.78625 

E-30 9.29 20.5 <0.5 0.7462 0.28 26.95 

E-50 8.7 9.5 <0.5 0.7581 0.45 43.74 

“E-85” 6.1 0.0031 3 <0.5 0.7833 0.783 79.29 7.27 <0.1 0.3 0.3 

10 7/15/2010 MN Gasoline 9.51 5 <0.5 0.7558 130.7 9.8753 

E-20 9.13 6 1 0.7633 27.875 

E-30 9 6 0.5 0.7645 0.263 31.7 

“E-85” 6.13 0.0032 1.5 <0.5 0.7856 0.613 78.93 6.72 <0.1 0.2 0.2 

11 7/19/2010 MN Gasoline 9.74 6 <0.5 0.7469 125.5 10.01 

E-20 9.44 5.5 <0.5 0.7531 22.3392 

E-30 8.84 5 <0.5 0.7642 0.347 43.37 

“E-85” 5.82 0.0025 3 0.5 0.7855 0.58 81.67 6.34 <0.1 2.3 2.3 

12 7/18/2010 WI Gasoline 9.37 9.5 <0.5 0.7449 127.2 6.2198 

E-20 9.4 8 0.5 0.7498 21.3132 

“E-85” 8.09 0.0025 3 1 0.7729 0.488 80.11 7.32 <1 1.1 1.1 
A-3 

Station

ID 

Date 

State

Type

DVPE, psi 

D5191 

Acidity, mass% 

D1613 

Unwashed gum,

mg/100mL

D381 

Washed gum, 

mg/100mL,

D381 

Specific gravity,

at 60°F, 

D4052 

TV/L=20, 

D5188 

Water, mass%, 

E203 

Ethanol, vol%,

D5501 or D5599 

pHe, D6423 

Chloride, ppm,

D7328 

Sulfate, ppm,

D7328 

Potential Sulfate, 

ppm, D7328 

13 7/18/2010 WI Gasoline 9.64 9 0.5 0.7455 126.5 14.3952 

E-20 9.54 6.5 <0.5 0.7496 25.7981 

“E-85” 8.12 0.0027 2.5 <0.5 0.7723 0.454 80.89 7.26 <1 1 1 

14 8/1/2010 OH Gasoline 9.62 6 0.5 0.7503 127.6 9.568 

E20 9.22 5.5 0.5 0.7566 23.0157 

“E85” 4.86 0.0031 4 <0.5 0.7848 0.718 79.97 7.19 -0.1 0.7 0.8 

15 7/18/2010 IA Gasoline 9.46 10 1 0.7397 135.6 1.2105 

E-20 9.44 7 <0.5 0.7509 22.71 

E-30 9.32 5.5 <0.5 0.7538 0.302 29.1 

“E-85” 5.99 0.0033 1.5 <0.5 0.7835 0.726 80.45 7.88 <0.1 0.1 0.1 
A-4 

Table A-2 Distillation (ASTM D86) Results

Station ID

State

Sample Type

IBP, °C 

T5, °C 

T10, °C T15, °C T20, °CT30, °C T40, °C T50, °C T60, °C T70, °C T80, °C T90, °C T95, °C 

FBP, °C 

Recovered 

Residue 

Loss

1 KS Gasoline 89.5 112.4 120 125.5 130.3 143.5 174.8 203.2 227.4 252.2 282.6 323.6 356 401.4 98.1 1 0.9

E-20 95.5 118.3 125.9 131.7 137.3 147.4 155.7 161.4 165.7 218.5 268.6 312.9 346 400 98.5 0.8 0.7

 “E-85” 120.8 154 163.7 167.8 169.8 171.6 172.4 172.7 172.9 173.2 173.4 174.1 175.3 303.2 98.5 0.8 0.7 

E-30 95.9 118.3 127 133.6 140.3 151.1 158.8 164.1 167.7 170.2 248.4 306.5 339.6 393.3 98.1 0.8 1.1

2 NE Gasoline 91.1 112.6 123.6 131.8 139.5 156.6 177.3 201.6 227.2 253.7 284.5 322.5 354.9 400.8 97.3 0.9 1.8

E-20 90.3 112.5 122.2 128.2 133.7 144 153.1 160 164.8 214.4 270.9 313.2 343.9 385.7 97.4 1 1.6

E-30 95.8 117.2 125.4 131.8 137.7 148.5 157.2 163.2 167.5 170.3 251.6 308 340 390.3 97.9 0.9 1.2

 “E-85” 121 153.2 163.9 168 170.2 171.9 172.6 172.9 173.2 173.4 173.6 174.3 175.4 297.1 98.6 0.7 0.7 

3 ND Gasoline 86.1 111.9 123.2 132.5 141.4 160.9 185 212.6 240.4 268.2 299.1 334.2 366.1 412.4 98.4 0.8 0.8

 E-20 89.4 113.8 122.2 128.2 134 144.5 153.9 161.1 166.2 233.3 279.4 320.8 352.6 401.9 98.1 1hed 0.9 

E-30 92.9 114.6 123.2 129.6 136 147.8 157.3 163.9 168.2 171.9 263.4 313.7 347.9 397.9 98.3 0.8 0.9

“E-85” 98.7 132.9 147.5 158.2 165.1 170.1 171.5 172 172.2 172.4 172.6 172.9 173.5 182.1 99.2 0.4 0.4

4 SD Gasoline 90.5 108.6 121.6 130.4 138.5 154.9 175.3 198.8 223.2 249.2 280 321.9 351.4 412.8 96.2 1 2.8

E-30 95.6 112.1 123.3 130.4 136.3 147.7 156.6 162.6 166.8 169.7 172.5 300.6 334 391.6 96.3 1 2.7

 “E-85” 112.1 136.3 153.6 161.9 166.4 170.2 171.6 172.2 172.6 172.9 173.3 174.2 175.4 342.4 97.1 1 1.9 

5 SD Gasoline 87.9 105.4 119.5 128.3 136.2 153.6 174.6 200.3 226.7 254.8 287 328.3 361.2 416.4 96.1 1 2.9

 E-30 98 114.4 124.4 131.3 137.7 148.5 157.7 164.1 168.2 171.5 249.7 312.3 346.3 405 96.7 1 2.3 

“E-85” 115.4 149 161.9 166.5 168.7 170.7 171.5 172 172.2 172.6 172.9 173.9 175.6 349.8 97.9 1 1.1
A-5 

Station ID

State

Sample Type

IBP, °C 

T5, °C 

T10, °C T15, °C T20, °CT30, °C T40, °C T50, °C T60, °C T70, °C T80, °C T90, °C T95, °C 

FBP, °C 

Recovered 

Residue 

Loss

6 SD Gasoline 86.2 114.9 129.4 142 154.1 178 200.3 219.9 238.9 261.1 288.3 324.2 351.1 404.1 98 0.6 1.4

E-20 95 119.8 129 136.5 142.6 152.2 158.8 163.3 167.3 242.1 271.8 313.8 342.6 392.3 98.2 0.9 0.9

E-30 95.4 120.6 131.8 140.3 146.8 156.1 161.9 165.5 168.3 170.8 257.6 308.1 336.3 388.1 98 0.6 1.4

“E-85” 115.8 148.7 160.3 165.4 168.3 170.8 171.9 172.5 172.8 173.2 173.6 174.6 176 358.8 98.3 0.8 0.9

7 SD Gasoline 87.8 112.7 123.5 131.9 139.8 157.1 177.6 201.6 227.4 253.2 283.9 321.9 353.1 415.5 97.7 0.9 1.4 

E-20 90.6 114.5 121.6 126.7 131.6 140.7 149.3 156.7 198.3 243.4 275.3 316.1 344.6 398.3 98.2 1 0.8

 E-30 92.3 117.8 126.5 132.8 138.5 149.2 157.5 163.3 167.3 170.6 221 305 337.3 383.2 98 1.2 0.8 

“E-85” 104.7 133.1 145.9 154.6 161.1 167.6 170.1 171.5 172.2 172.7 173.4 174.6 176.9 353.3 98.2 0.8 1

8 IA Gasoline 87.9 113.9 125.3 134 142.3 160.3 181.8 205.2 229.6 254.7 286.2 327.1 356.9 413.6 97.9 0.7 1.4

E-20 94.9 115.9 123.1 128.9 134.4 144.6 153.5 160.2 165.2 227.9 268.1 314.1 346.3 402.8 98.3 0.8 0.9

E-30 92.6 117.6 126.7 132.8 138.8 148.9 157.1 162.8 166.7 170 255.1 306.5 340.1 393.5 98.3 0.8 0.9

 “E-85” 112.1 154.3 162.8 166.8 169 170.9 171.7 172.2 172.4 172.7 173 173.8 175 178.6 98 1.6 0.4 

9 MN Gasoline 92.5 112.9 120.1 124.9 129.1 138.5 146.6 154.8 209 236.6 266.1 307.1 337 381.9 97.8 1.1 1.1

E-30 96.6 114.8 123.2 129.1 135 145.4 154.4 160.9 165.3 169 242.1 296.2 328.2 378.4 97.2 1.1 1.7

E-50 96.2 120.4 129.9 135.8 143 154.4 162.2 166.4 169.1 171 172.8 268.6 316.4 375.8 98.3 0.9 0.8

“E-85” 108.5 151 160.4 165.2 167.8 170.3 171.3 171.8 172.2 172.4 172.8 173.5 174.8 296.4 98.1 1.3 0.6
A-6 

Station ID

State

Sample Type

IBP, °C 

T5, °C 

T10, °C T15, °C T20, °CT30, °C T40, °C T50, °C T60, °C T70, °C T80, °C T90, °C T95, °C 

FBP, °C 

Recovered 

Residue 

Loss

10 MN Gasoline 87 115.4 124.3 130.8 136.9 146.7 154.6 197.6 235.9 262.8 295.9 336 373.3 421.4 98.2 0.9 0.9

E-20 91.1 120 130 137.6 143.9 154.1 160.9 165.4 168.5 172.3 274.7 324.3 363.1 413.9 98.2 1 0.8

E-30 90.2 121.6 131.8 139.4 145.9 155.5 162 166.2 169.2 171 270.8 323.4 362.1 411.9 98.3 1 0.7

“E-85” 113.4 152.9 162.1 166.4 168.6 170.7 171.6 172.2 172.5 172.9 173.4 174.4 176.3 326.8 97 2.2 0.8

11 MN Gasoline 87.7 110.8 118.7 123.9 128.5 138.3 147.4 158.2 216.4 251.6 286.4 327.3 362.3 403.6 98.1 0.9 1 

E-20 94.8 114.2 122.4 127.5 133.3 144.6 154.5 162.3 167.2 172.1 274.7 322 353.3 402.3 97.7 0.9 1.4

 E-30 97.7 120.7 129.6 137.4 144.2 156.1 163.9 168 170.9 172.8 173.9 303.2 339.1 393.6 98.7 0.6 0.7 

“E-85” 120.5 151.3 161.9 166.8 169.2 171.3 172.1 172.5 172.7 172.9 173.2 173.9 175.2 349.5 98.4 0.7 0.9

12 WI Gasoline 91.6 112.5 119.6 124.1 128.9 137.6 153.1 194.8 225.7 252.6 285.2 327.2 353.4 404.1 98.2 0.8 1

E-20 90.9 113.9 122.1 127.2 132.6 143.2 152.8 159.8 164.9 169.7 267.8 315.1 342.6 393.1 98.4 0.5 1.1

“E-85” 101.3 127.7 143.4 155.7 163.8 169.9 171.5 172 172.3 172.5 172.6 172.8 173.3 197.6 98.7 0.1 1.2

13 WI Gasoline 85.2 113.1 121.3 126.8 131.8 141.8 150.7 158.2 181.6 245.3 281.3 324 355.9 397.4 98.1 1.2 0.7 

E-20 87.8 114.2 122.3 128.5 134.5 145.1 154.5 162 166.3 170.2 262.8 314.4 348.2 392 98.3 1.1 0.6

“E-85” 95.3 121.6 142.8 156 164.1 169.8 171.2 171.7 172 172.1 172.2 172.4 172.8 179.7 97.9 0.1 2

14 OH Gasoline 93.2 113.7 120.9 126.1 131.7 141.4 150.4 170.1 226.9 257.9 291.3 333.1 365.8 411.7 98.3 0.9 0.8

E20 91.1 117.2 125.8 132 137.9 148 156.6 162.7 166.9 182.8 277.3 323.2 356.8 401 98.2 1 0.8

 “E85” 121.7 157.2 163 166.1 168 170 171 171.6 172 172.4 172.7 173.5 174.8 278.8 98.1 1.3 0.6 
A-7 

Station ID

State

Sample Type

IBP, °C 

T5, °C 

T10, °C T15, °C T20, °CT30, °C T40, °C T50, °C T60, °C T70, °C T80, °C T90, °C T95, °C 

FBP, °C 

Recovered 

Residue 

Loss

15 IA Gasoline 87.6 109 119.4 128.8 137.7 157.5 179.7 204.3 228.5 253.5 283.1 320.2 350 399.6 98.4 0.9 0.7

E-20 90 116 124.8 131.1 136.6 147.1 155.6 161.7 166.1 170.9 266.3 305.7 340.1 385.2 98.3 1.1 0.6

E-30 92.8 117 125.6 131.8 138.6 149.2 157.7 163.2 167.3 170.2 253.8 304.9 337.5 386.7 98.1 1 0.9

“E-85” 116.1 148.4 161.1 166.1 168.5 170.8 171.8 172.2 172.6 172.7 173 173.6 174.7 293.5 98.8 0.6 0.6