Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 

Development of a Commercial Aircraft 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Emission 

Inventory Methodology 
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 


Development of a Commercial Aircraft 


Hazardous Air Pollutants Emission 


Inventory Methodology


Assessment and Standards Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and


AEE-300 - Emissions Division


Office of Environment and Energy


Federal Aviation Administration


Prepared by:


KB Environmental Sciences, Inc.


In Coordination with:


Aerodyn Research Inc.


EPA-420-R-09-904 

May 2009 

Table of Contents 

Section Title Page

 1.0 Introduction 1 

1.1 Project Description 2 

1.2 Project Organization and Responsibilities 2 

2.0 Sources of Secondary Data 5 

2.1 Spicer (1984-1989) 5 

2.2 Gerstle (1997-2002) 7 

2.3 EXCAVATE (2002) 7 

2.4 APEX 7 

2.5 Summary 11 

3.0 Quality of Secondary Data 11 

4.0 Data Reduction and Data Validation 14 

5.0 Documentation and Records 14 

6.0 Reports/Deliverables 14 

References 

List of Tables 

No. Title Page 

1 Spicer Dataset 6 

2 Gerstle Dataset 8 

3 APEX Dataset 10 

4 Dataset Summary 12 

5 Overall Profile Quality Ratings 13 
1.0 Introduction 

For over 20 years, the mobile source hazardous air pollutant (HAPs) speciation profile 

that has been applied to all commercial aircraft engines was based on a single 

measurement campaign from a single engine, as documented in the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) SPECIATE Database version 4.0.1,2 Recent field 

campaigns have generated new publicly-available datasets that include HAPs emissions 

data from various modern commercial aircraft engines. Because there is more recent data 

available, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the EPA agree that the purpose 

of this project is to: 

− Evaluate all available datasets to determine if the HAPs speciation profile 

currently used for commercial aircraft engines should be revised. 

If the evaluation results in the consensus that the speciation profile should be revised, the 

objectives of this project are to: 

− Develop a revised speciation profile. 

− Develop a methodology to incorporate data from future field campaigns that 

generate more HAPs-related datasets. 

− Review, and revise if necessary, the factors used to convert aircraft-related total 

unburned hydrocarbons (THC) to volatile organic compounds (VOC) and total 

organic gases (TOG). 

In addition to the public availability of the final HAPs-related data, it is the FAA’s intent 

that if a revised speciation profile is developed, the profile, the methodology used to 

calculate air toxic emissions inventories, and any resultant conversion factors will be 

incorporated in to the Emission and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). 

The evaluation of project objectives will be a collaborative effort of the project 

participants. Over the past several months, Aerodyne Research, Inc.3

 (Aerodyne) has 

evaluated the secondary data discussed in Section 2.0 of this QAPP. The results of the 

evaluation indicate that, regardless of ambient conditions, type of fuel, power setting, and 

type of engine, there is a “fingerprint” of emitted HAPs in aircraft exhaust. Aerodyne 

will present the participants in this project with a working paper which will include, but 

not be limited to, correlation plots and comparisons of current speciation data to the 

datasets described in Section 2.0 of this Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). 

1

 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/speciate/index.html 2

 In this document, the term hazardous air pollutant (HAP) is synonymous with toxic air pollutant (TAP) and toxic 

air contaminant (TAC). 

3 The Center for Aero-Thermodynamics of Aerodyne Research Inc. is active in a wide variety of research efforts 

including advanced diagnostic measurement techniques for engine emission characterization. 

1 
This QAPP outlines the procedures that will used to ensure that the products that result 

from this project are of the type, and quality required by the EPA, the FAA, and end 

users. This QAPP was developed following guidance from the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society for Quality (ASQ) ANSI/ASQ E4-2004 

document entitled Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs. 

The guidance in the ANCI/ASQ document applies to the collection, generation, 

compilation, analysis, and use of environmental data4. Additional guidance/reference 

material included the EPA’s documents entitled QAPP Requirements for Secondary Data 

Research Projects5 and Quality Manual for Environmental Programs6

. These EPA 

documents provide example guidance that was used in the preparation of this QAPP and 

requirements for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities. 

Notably, the environmental data discussed in this QAPP was collected for purposes other 

than what the data was intended to be used for (secondary use of data). The sources of 

the secondary data are identified in Section 2.0 of this QAPP. 

1.1 Project Description 

Given the current “state-of-the-science” with respect to air toxic emissions from aircraft 

engines, the EPA and FAA are co-developing a methodology to quantify HAPs emissions 

from commercial aircraft in a consistent manner; particularly when applied to aircraft air 

toxic emissions inventories. The intent of the EPA and the FAA is to develop a 

mutually-agreeable methodology to estimate the types and amounts of HAPs emitted 

from commercial aircraft engines.7 The methodology should be: 

− Nationally consistent, 

− Supported by scientific data, 

− Representative of today’s commercial aircraft fleet, and 

− “Living” to reflect the state-of-the-science as new data becomes available.

1.2 Project Organization and Responsibilities 

The FAA and EPA are co-leaders for this effort: 

4

 Environmental data is defined as any measurement or information that describes environmental processes, 

location, or conditions; ecological or health effects and consequences; or the performance of environmental 

technology.

5

 http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/found-data-rqts.pdf 6

 http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/5360.pdf 7

 The technical HAPs methodology guidance needs to also consider how piston, turboprop, and general aviation 

turbofan/turbojet engines should be addressed. 

2 
FAA: Ralph Iovinelli 

 Operations Research Analyst 

Office of Environment and Energy 

AEE-300 - Emissions Division 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-3566 Fax: (202) 267-5594 

ralph.iovinelli@faa.gov 

EPA: Bryan Manning 

 Mechanical Engineer 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

Assessment and Standards Division 

 2000 Traverwood 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 

Telephone (734) 214-4832 Fax: (734) 214-4816 

manning.bryan@epa.gov 

In addition to the co-leaders, the following agencies/individuals participated in 

developing this QAPP and providing their collective and individual input through the 

process of developing the aircraft HAPs emission inventory methodology. The 

responsibilities of these agencies/companies with respect to this project are also described 

below: 

1.2.1 FAA 

FAA is the primary sponsor of this project and is responsible for overseeing the work, 

ensuring it is completed in a timely manner, and coordinating with other appropriate 

governmental agencies. In addition to Ralph Iovinelli, one of the co-leaders of this 

project, the following FAA staff participated in this effort. 

• Mohan Gupta – mohan.l.gupta@faa.gov 

• Carl Ma – carl.ma@faa.gov 

• Ed McQueen – edward.mcqueen@faa.gov 

1.2.2 EPA 

EPA will provide advice and consultation, including review of draft work plans from 

FAA’s contractors, analytical results, and other work products. EPA will also provide 

expertise to assist in the preparation of the HAPs speciation profile. In addition to Bryan 

Manning, one of the co-leaders of this project, the following EPA staff participated in this 

effort. 

3 
• Rich Cook – cook.rich@epa.gov 

• Kent Helmer – helmer.kent@epa.gov 

• Ken Petche – petche.ken@epa.gov 

• Rich Wilcox – wilcox.rich@epa.gov 

• Kathryn Sergeant – sargeant.kathryn@epa.gov 

• John Kinsey – kinsey.john@epa.gov 

• Marion Hoyer – hoyer.marion@epa.gov 

• Laurel Driver – driver.laurel@epa.gov 

• Suzanne King – king.suzanne@epa.gov 

• Ruth Schenk – schenk.ruth@epa.gov 

1.2.3 Aerodyne 

Aerodyne will provide the primary data review, with an emphasis on recent engine 

measurement campaigns and how that data compares to previously collected data. 

Advice and recommendations will be offered on application of this data to verify and/or 

update speciation profiles. Aerodyne, with assistance from KBE, will also rank the data 

used in this project (using the criteria described in Section 3.0 – Quality of Secondary 

Data) and assist KBE in preparing this QAPP. 

• Rick Miake-Lye – rick@aerodyne.com 

1.2.4 KBE 

KBE is responsible for preparing the QAPP and the project report in coordination with 

Aerodyne in order to capture the data analyses, assumptions, and process changes 

throughout the development of the HAPs speciation profile and inventory methodology. 

• Carrol Bryant – cbryant@kbenv.com 

• Mike Kenney – mkenney@kbenv.com 

• Mike Ratte – mratte@kbenv.com 

1.2.5 CARB 

CARB will provide advice and consultation, including review of draft work plans from 

FAA’s contractors, analytical results, and other work products. 

• Dale Shimp – dshimp@arb.ca.gov 

• Steve Church – schurch@arb.ca.gov 

• Steve Francis – sfrancis@arb.ca.gov 

4 
2.0 Sources of Secondary Data 

The EPA and FAA agree that the commercial aircraft air toxics emission inventory 

methodology should use the best data, information, and techniques available and that the 

results provided by the emission inventory should be representative of today’s 

commercial aircraft fleet. This section briefly describes the existing and future datasets 

that are/will be available for this effort. 

The datasets include results from historical testing funded by the U.S. Air Force (referred 

to in this QAPP as the “Spicer” and “Gerstle” datasets), and the more recent 

measurement campaigns sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) – Experiment to Characterize Aircraft Volatile Aerosol and 

Trace Species Emissions (EXCAVATE) – and the NASA, EPA, and Department of 

Defense (DoD) collaboratively sponsored Aircraft Particle Emissions Experiment 

(APEX). 

The following sources will be identified in any project deliverable in which they are used. 

2.1 Spicer (1984-1989) 

The Spicer dataset includes HAPs data from the U.S. Air Force Engineering and Services 

Center from tests performed from 1984 through 1989. One of the purposes of the tests 

was to obtain a detailed analysis of the composition of the gaseous hydrocarbon (HC) 

species emitted in gas turbine engine exhaust. 

This dataset contains test data for five military turbofan aircraft engines that have civilian 

variants and one engine that was in military use at that time but was also used on civilian 

aircraft. The engines tested by Spicer are listed in Table 1. As shown, with the 

exception of the J79 engine, and when considering engine families where specific engine 

models are not provided in the documentation, the engines tested are currently in use in 

the U.S. fleet of aircraft. However, the engines conservatively represent only six percent 

of the engines used on the current fleet. 

The Spicer testing was performed both outdoors and in engine test cells and test methods 

consisted of sampling rakes. During the tests, the engines were fueled with JP-4, JP-5, 

and JP-8. 

Notably, EPA’s repository for speciation profiles, SPECIATE, currently includes data 

from the Spicer dataset. The SPECIATE data (Profile Number 1098-Aircraft 

Landing/Takeoff (LTO) – Commercial) is currently used to estimate air toxic emissions 

for commercial aircraft. Notably, the SPECIATE data reflects composite test results for 

Spicer’s tests for the CFM-56 engine at settings of idle, 30 percent, and 80 percent thrust 

that were performed with JP-5 fuel.8 

8

 SPECIATE references the following as the source of the Spicer data: Spicer, C. W., et al., Battelle Columbus 

Laboratories, Composition and Photochemical Reactivity of Turbine Engine Exhaust, Report No. ESL-TR-84-28, 

Prepared for Air Force Engineering and Services Center (RDVS), Tyndall AFB, FL, September 1984. 

5 
Table 1 

Spicer Dataset 

Engine 

Model 

Tested 

Engine 

Manufacturer 

Military 

Aircraft 

Used On 

Number 

of 

Enginesa 

Type 

of 

Aircraft 

Max 

Thrust 

Engine 

(lbs)a 

Fuel Used 

in Testing 

Testing 

Method 

V

De

TF-39-1Ca General Electric C-5 Galaxy 4 Transport 41,000 

JP-4, JP-5, 

shale derived 

fuel meeting 

JP-8 

specifications 

Outdoors, sampling 

rake (behind the 

engine), gas analyzer 

CFM-56-3 CFM International B-1B Lancer 4 Bomber 20,000 

JP-4, JP-5, 

shale derived 

fuel meeting 

JP-8 

specifications 

Outdoors, sampling 

rake (behind the 

engine), gas analyzer 

C

TF-41-A2 Allison Vought A-7D Corsair II 1 Support 14,500 JP-4 Indoor test cell, Idle, 30%, 75%, and 100% R

TF33-P3 Pratt & Whitney B-52 Stratofortress 8 Bomber 17,000 JP-4 Indoor test cell, Idle, 30%, 75%, and 100% TF33-P7 Pratt & Whitney C-141 Starlifter 4 Cargo/Air Transport/ Refueling 20,250 JP-4 Indoor test cell, Idle, 30%, 75%, and 100% 

J79 General Electric F-104 Starfighter 1 Multirole 10,000 w/o afterburner JP-4 Indoor test cell, Idle, 30%, 75%, and 100% 

Total a The TF-39 has essentially the same core engine as the CF6-6 (DC10). However, the tested TF-39 was not equipped with emission abatemeb A conservatively high estimate because some percentages assume engine families, not specific engine models. 

6 
2.2 Gerstle (1997-2002) 

From 1997 through 2002, the Air Force’s Institute for Environment, Safety and 

Occupational Risk Analysis tested, characterized, and evaluated the exhaust emissions 

(including HAPs) of several military aircraft turbofan engines with civilian variants. The 

data from this effort is referred to as the Gerstle dataset. The Gerstle tests were 

performed using aircraft engine test cells and JP-8 fuel. 

A list of the tested military turbofan engines and their civilian variants is provided in 

Table 2. Notably, the F108-CF-100 engine is the military version of the CFM-56 engine, 

a newer model of the engine tested by Spicer. Two turbojet, one turboprop, and one 

turboshaft engine tested by Gerstle also have civilian variants. These engines are also 

listed in Table 2. 

When considering the tested engine models, and engine families where the specific 

engine model is not provided in test documentation, the turbofan engines in the Gerstle 

dataset represent approximately eight percent of the current fleet of commercial aircraft 

with the turbojets and turboshaft engines representing approximately two and one percent 

of the fleet, respectively (the tested turboprop engine is no longer in use). In total, the 

engines tested by Gerstle represent less than 11 percent of the engines used on the current 

U.S. fleet of aircraft. 

2.3 EXCAVATE (2002) 

The NASA-sponsored testing referred to as EXCAVATE was performed in January of 

2002. A civilian B757 aircraft equipped with RB211-535-E4 engines was tested during 

ground-based operations for the purpose of evaluating the production of aerosols and 

aerosol precursors as a function of engine power, fuel composition, and plume age. The 

tests were performed on aircraft-mounted engines using gas sampling probes and the fuel 

used in the testing was JP-5 (with three different sulfur concentrations, 810 parts per 

million (ppm), 1,050 ppm, and 1,820 ppm). Less than one percent of the current U.S. 

aircraft fleet operates with the RB211-535-E4 engine and only 5.5 percent of the B757’s 

are equipped with this engine. 

2.4 APEX 

As previously stated, APEX was the collaborative research effort of NASA, EPA, DoD, 

and the FAA. The main objective of the APEX research was to characterize both gaseous 

and particulate emissions to advance the understanding of emissions from commercial 

aircraft engines. Participants in the APEX project examined the effects of engine thrust 

on emissions, simulated emissions at airports, and the effects of varying fuel 

composition. 

7 
Table 2 

Gerstle Dataset 

Engine 

Model Tested 

Engine 

Manufacturer 

Aircraft Used 

In Testing 

Number 

of 

Engines 

Type 

of Aircrafta 

Max 

Thrust/ 

Engine 

(lbs)a 

Fuel Used 

in Testing 

Testing 

Method 

Turbofans 

F108-CF-100a CFM International KC-135R 4 Aerial refueling/ airlift 21,634 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

F117-PW-100 Pratt & Whitney C-17 Globemaster II 4 Cargo/ troop transport 40,440 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

TF33-P-102 Pratt & Whitney C/EC/RC-135E Stratotanker 4 Cargo/ troop transport 18,010 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

TF33-P-7/7A Pratt & Whitney C-141 Starlifter 4 Cargo/ troop transport 20,250 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

TF34-GE-100A General Electric A-10A/B Thunderbolt II 2 Close air support 9,065 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

TF39-GE-1C General Electric C-5 Galaxy 4 Outsize cargo transport 43,000 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

Turbojets 

J69-T-25 Continental T-37 Tweet 2 Trainer 1,025 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

J85-GE-5A General Electric T-38 Talon 2 Advanced jet pilot trainer 2,050 (2,900 w/afterburner) JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

Turboprop 

T56-A-7 Allison C-130 Hercules 4 Global airlift 4,200 JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

Turboshaft 

T700-GE-700 General Electric UH60A,UH60G 2 Helicopter NA JP-8 Test Cell. 3-1 hr tests 

Total a The F108-CF-100 is the military designation for the CFM56-2A-2 engine. b A conservatively high estimate because some percentages assume engine families, not specific engine models. 

8 
Notably, the APEX testing resulted in the most extensive set of gaseous and particulate 

emissions data from in-service commercial engines. Table 3 summarizes data for the 

APEX1, APEX2, and APEX3 datasets. Notably, the aircraft engines tested for the APEX 

campaign only represent approximately six percent of the engines in use on the current 

aircraft fleet. 

2.4.1 APEX1 (2004) 

The first APEX testing (APEX1) was conducted in April of 2004 at Edwards Air Force 

Base in California. A NASA-owned DC-8 aircraft equipped with CFM-56-2C1 engines 

was tested. The testing was performed using sampling rakes (1 meter, 10 meters, and 30 

meters downstream) and the sampling was performed at various engine thrust settings (4, 

5.5, 7, 15, 30, 40, 60, 65, 70, 85, and 100 percent). A proton transfer reaction mass 

spectrometer (PTR-MS) was used to measure the concentrations of selected VOCs along 

with time-integrated sampling using vacuum canisters and 2,4 dinitrophenylhydrazine 

media. Three fuel variants were used in the testing—JP-8 as the baseline, JP-8 with 

additives (representing a high sulfur fuel), and Jet-A with a high aromatic hydrocarbon 

content (22 percent). 

A report discussing the APEX1 testing was published in 2006. An executive summary 

and a general description of the project are followed by detailed appendices describing 

the measurement approaches and complete listings of the data obtained. This 

comprehensive report is available on-line at http://particles.grc.nasa.gov. Notably, data 

generated by EPA during the APEX1 measurement program will be included in a final 

report that is currently in preparation. However, prepublication release of EPA’s data 

was authorized for the purpose of this FAA/EPA effort. 

2.4.2 APEX2 (2005) 

APEX2 testing was conducted in August 2005 in Oakland, California. The objectives of 

the testing were to develop emission factors for particulate matter 10 microns or less in 

diameter (PM10), to develop chemical source profiles for typical in-use aircraft engines 

(CFM56 engines on B737 aircraft), to determine the effect of fuel properties and engine 

operating conditions on PM10 emissions, and to evaluate the relationship between smoke 

numbers (SN) and mass emission rates. 

Exhaust plumes were sampled at 30, or 50 meters behind the engines using timeintegrated samples (i.e., filters, polyurethane foam plugs, vacuum canisters, and 2,4 

dinitrophenylhydrazine media) and continuous instruments as in APEX 1. Jet A was 

used in the APEX2 testing. Unlike APEX1, the effect of fuel composition was not varied 

explicitly, although plane-to-plane fuel variations were monitored. 

A report summarizing the APEX2 tests has been prepared. It is anticipated to be released 

as a CARB report. The data that was generated by EPA during APEX2 will be included 

in a report that is currently in preparation. However, prepublication release of the data 

was authorized for the purpose of this FAA/EPA effort. 

9 
Table 3 

APEX Dataset 

Dataset Engine Model Tested Engine Manufacturer Aircraft Type 

Number 

of 

Engines 

Max 

Thrust/ 

Engine 

(lbs)a 

Fuel Used 

in Testing 

Testin

Metho

APEX1 CFM56-2C1 (Turbofan) CFM International DC-8 4 22,000 JP-8, JP-8 with additives, and Jet-A Single-point (

location

APEX2 

CFM56-7B22 

(Turbofan) 

CFM 

International B737-700 2 24,000 Jet-A Single-point (

location

CFM56-

3B1(Turbofan) 

CFM 

International B737-300 2 22,000 Jet-A Single-point (

location

APEX3 

CJ610-8Ab 

(Turbojet) 

General 

Electric Learjet 2 2,950 Jet-A Single-point (

location

PW4158 

(Turbofan) 

Pratt & 

Whitney 

A300-

622R 2 59,000 Jet-A Single-point (

location

RB211-535E4-B 

(Turbofan) Rolls Royce B757-324 2 43,100 Jet-A Single-point (

location

AE3007-A1E 

(Turbofan) 

Rolls Royce 

USA/Allison 

ERJ145-

XL 2 8,110 Jet-A Single-point (

location

AE3007-A1P 

(Turbofan) 

Rolls Royce 

USA/Allison 

ERJ145-

ER 2 7,580 Jet-A Single-point (

location

CFM56-3B1 

(Turbofan) 

CFM 

Internationalc B737-300 2 20,000 Jet-A Single-point (

location

Total a The CFM56-2C1 is assumed only once in the total. b Derived from the military J85 turbojet engine (data for the J85 are included in the Gerstle dataset). 

10 
2.4.3 APEX3 (2005) 

APEX3 testing was conducted in October and November of 2005 in Cleveland, Ohio. 

The objectives of the testing were to develop emission factors for PM10, to develop 

chemical source profiles for a broader range of typical in-use aircraft engines, to 

determine the effect of fuel properties and engine operating conditions on PM10 

emissions, and to evaluate the relationship between smoke numbers (SN) and mass 

emission rates. Engines measured in APEX3 spanned a range from a small business jet, 

through a modern regional turbofan, single-aisle transport turbofan, to a large high bypass 

ratio turbo fan, representing five different engine types, some measuring more than one 

example. 

Exhaust plumes were sampled at 15, 30, or 43 meters behind the engines using timeintegrated samples (i.e., filters, polyurethane foam plugs, vacuum canisters, and 2,4 

dinitrophenylhydrazine media) and continuous instruments as in APEX1 and 

JETS/APEX2. 

Jet-A was used in the APEX3 testing and the effect of fuel composition was not varied 

explicitly, although plane-to-plane fuel variations were monitored. A report summarizing 

the APEX3 testing/results will be prepared upon completion of the chemical analyses. 

As for APEX1 and APEX2, data generated by EPA will be included in a report that is 

currently in preparation. However, EPA authorized the data to be released prepublication 

for the purpose of this FAA/EPA effort. 

2.5 Summary 

For ease in assimilating the information, Table 4 summarizes the types of commercial 

aircraft engines (and assumed civilian variants for the military aircraft engines) that were 

tested during the six measurement campaigns (Spicer, Gerstle, EXCAVATE, APEX1, 

APEX2, and APEX3). As shown, approximately 15 percent of the current U.S. aircraft 

fleet operates with the tested turbofan engines, approximately two percent of the fleet 

operates with the tested turbojet engines, and approximately one percent of the fleet 

operates with the tested turboshaft engines (the tested turboprop engine is not in current 

use). 

3.0 Quality of Secondary Data 

EPA is preparing a QAPP for a project that will update the SPECIATE database 

(SPECIATE 4.0-Quality Management Plan (QMP)/Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP)). The SPECIATE QAPP describes the criteria that will be used to rate the 

EPA’s updated speciation profiles. The commercial aircraft engine speciation profile 

developed through this effort will also update the SPECIATE database. As such, the 

rating criteria will be the same as the rating criteria defined in the final SPECIATE 

QAPP. 

11 
Table 4 

Dataset Summary 

Type of 

Engine 

Civilian 

Engine Family 

Tested Engine 

Model 

Civilian 

Variant (if 

applicable) 

Max Thrust 

(lbs) Dataset Fuel Used in Testing Test M

Turbofan 

AE3007 AE3007-A1E -- 8,110 APEX3 Jet-A Single point 

locations) 

AE3007-A1P -- 7,580 APEX3 Jet-A Single point 

locations) 

TF-39 TF-39-1C CF6-6 41,000 Spicer 

JP-4, JP-5, shale 

derived fuel meeting 

JP-8 specifications 

Outdoors, sagas analyzer 

CFM-56 

CFM-56-3 -- 20,000 Spicer 

JP-4, JP-5, shale 

derived fuel meeting 

JP-8 specifications 

Outdoors, sagas analyzer 

F108-CF-100 (CFM-56-2A-2) 

-- 21,634 Gerstle JP-8 Test cell 

CFM56-2C1 -- 22,000 APEX1 JP8, JP-8 with additives, and Jet-A Single-point 

locations) 

CFM56-2C1 -- 22,000 APEX2 Jet-A Single-point 

locations) 

CFM56-7B24 -- 24,000 APEX2 Jet-A Single-point 

locations) 

CFM56-3-B1 -- 20,000 APEX3 Jet-A Single-point 

locations) 

Rolls Royce Spey TF-41-A2 Rolls Royce Spey 14,500 Spicer JP-4 Indoor, test cJT3D 

TF33-P3 JT3D 17,000 Spicer JP-4 Indoor, test c

TF33-P7 JT3D 20,250 Spicer JP-4 Indoor, test cTF33-P102 JT3D-7 18,010 Gerstle JP-8 Test cell. 3-TF33-P-7/7A JT3D-7 20,250 Gerstle JP-8 Test cell. 3-1 

CJ805 J79 CJ805 10,000a Spicer JP-4 Indoor, test cPW2000 F117-PW-100 PW2037 40,440 Gerstle JP-8 Test cell. 3–CF34 T34-GE-100A CF34 9,065 Gerstle JP-8 Test cell. 3–CF6 TF39-GE-1C CF6 43,000 Gerstle JP-8 Test cell. 3–

12 
Table 4 

Dataset Summary (Continued) 

Type of 

Engine 

Civilian 

Engine Family 

Tested Engine 

Model 

Civilian 

Variant (if 

applicable) 

Max Thrust 

(lbs) Dataset Fuel Used in Testing Test M

Turbofan 

(continued) 

RB211 

RB211-535-E4 -- 40,100 EXCAVATE JP-5 (varying sulfur content) Sampling pr

RB211-535-E4 -- 43,100 APEX3 Jet-A Single point 

locations) 

PW4000 PW4158 -- 59,000 APEX3 Jet-A Single point 

locations) 

Turbojet 

Marbore II J69-T-25 Marbore II – Model 352 1,025 Gerstle JP-8 Test Cell. 3-CJ610 

J85-GE-5A CJ610 2,050 Gerstle JP-8 Test Cell. 3-

CJ610-8A -- 2,950 APEX3 Jet-A Single point 

locations) 

Turboprop T501 T56-A-7 T501-D 4,200 Gerstle JP-8 Test Cell. 3-

Turboshaft CT7 T700-GE-700 CT7-2 NA Gerstle JP-8 Test Cell. 3-

Total a J79 thrust without afterburner. b A conservatively high estimate because percentages assume engine families, not specific engine models. 

13 
4.0 Data Reduction and Data Validation 

A comparison of the test results used to evaluate the speciation of HAPs from 

commercial engines in the more recent work reinforces the earlier speciation results 

obtained by Spicer for the CFM56-3 engine. Therefore, with revisions due to a few 

adjustments for contributions of currently included compounds and additions of a large 

number of small concentration species, it is recommended that the current data in the 

SPECIATE database be used as a base from which the HAP emission inventories for 

commercial aircraft engines are prepared. The few compounds requiring adjustment are 

phenol and butyraldehyde(butanal)/crotonaldehyde. Additionally, methanol and a large 

number of species present at low concentration (each less or much less than a percent 

total mass fraction) were quantified during recent measurements and were not measured 

in the Spicer campaign. These compounds will be added to SPECIATE database to be 

included as part of the commercial aircraft engine profile. The revised species profile 

decreases the unidentified species mass fraction from around 34 percent (original Spicer 

estimate) to 23 percent (current) of the total organic mass. 

A spreadsheet has been developed that will provide the base data and calculations that 

will be used to develop the revised SPECIATE profile. This spreadsheet will be provided 

to the agencies/individuals participating in the development of this QAPP. As stated in 

Section 5.0 (Documentation and Records) of this QAPP, the FAA will be the owner of 

the spreadsheet and will provide a webpage on which the final version and supporting 

documentation will be posted. 

5.0 Documentation and Records 

The FAA will draft, circulate, and file all agendas and minutes of meetings/conference 

calls. The FAA will also maintain a file of all reference material used to produce this 

QAPP and presented/discussed in meetings/conference calls. 

Aerodyne, with assistance from KBE will develop an electronic (spreadsheet) format 

dataset that will include the test data that will be evaluated for this project. FAA will be 

the owner of the dataset and the Final Report. The electronic dataset will include note 

sheets that will document the calculations and/or graphs that are used to produce the 

commercial HAPs speciation profile(s) 

The FAA will provide a webpage on which the final version of the spreadsheet (if 

developed) and supporting documentation (at a minimum, the Final Report), will be 

posted. 

6.0 Reports/Deliverables 

If it is determined that the commercial aircraft engine HAPs speciation profile should be 

updated, the deliverable products for this project will include a Final Report based on the 

14 
activities conducted for the project. The Final Report will include, but not be limited to, 

documentation of the calculations and equations that were used to develop the revised 

speciation profile, a plan to integrate future data in to the profile, and the revised THCVOC-TOG conversion factors (including the methodology and calculations used to 

develop the conversion factors). 

. 

15 
References 

Aerodyne Research Inc. (Miake-Lye, R.) Advancing the Understanding of Aviation’s Global 

Impacts. November 2005. 

ANSI/ASQ. Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs. 2004. 

BACK database. April 2005. 

EPA, QAPP Requirements for Secondary Data Research Projects. July 1, 1999:

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/found-data-qapp-rqts.pdf. 

EPA, Quality Manual for Environmental Programs: EPA Order 5360 A1. May 2000.

EPA, Documentation for the 1996 Base Year National Toxics Inventory for Aircraft Sources

June 2, 2000. 

EPA (Helmer, K.). FAA-OTAQ Quality System Overview. PowerPoint presentation: June 11, 

2007 telecon. 

EPA (Kinsey, J.) Preliminary Data from the Aircraft Particle Emissions Experiments 2 and 3 

(APEX-2 and APEX-3). Powerpoint presentation: June 11 2007 telecon. 

FAA, Air Quality Procedures For Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases, April 1997. 

FAA, Select Resource Materials and Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (HAPs) Associated with Aircraft, Airports, and Aviation. July 1, 2003. 

FAA (Iovinelli, R. and Gupta, M.) A National Framework for Estimation of Aircraft HAPs 

Emission Inventory to be Used in NEPA Studies. PowerPoint presentation to: EPA OTAQ 

Office – Ann Arbor, Michigan. March 29, 2007. 

NASA (Chowen C. Wey, ed.) Aviation Particle Emissions Workshop. NASA/CP--2004-213398, 

2004. 

NASA. Experiment to Characterize Aircraft Volatile Aerosol and Trace-Species Emissions 

(EXCAVATE). August 2005. 

NASA. APEX Index of Measurement Data.

Shumway, L.A. Trace Element and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analysis of Jet Engine 

Fuels: Jet A, JP-5, JP-8. December, 2000. 
Spicer, et al. Chemical Composition and Photochemical Reactivity of Exhaust from Aircraft 

Turbine Engines. Annales Geophysicae 12, 944-955. 1994. 

USAF (Spicer, C.W. et al.) Composition and Photochemical Reactivity of Turbine Engine 

Exhaust (Report No. ESL-TR-84-28). September, 1984. 

USAF (Spicer, C.W. et al.). Aircraft Emissions Characterization: TF33-P3, TF33-P7, and J79 

(Smokeless) Engines (Report No. AD-A-197864/2/XAB). August, 1987. 

USAF (Spicer, C.W. et al.). Aircraft Emissions Characterization, TF41-A2, TF30-P103, and 

TF30-P109 engines (Report No. ESL-TR-87-27). . December 1987. 

USAF (Spicer, C.W. et al.). Aircraft Emissions Characterization (Report No. ESL-TR-87-63. 

1988. 

USAF (Spicer, C.W. et al.) Aircraft Emissions Characterization of F101 and F110 Engines 

(Report No. ESL-TR-89-13). March 1990. 

USAF (Gerstle, T., et al.) Aircraft Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Emissions Testing: Vol. 1, 

Executive Summary (Report No. IERA-RS-BR-TR-1999-006-Vol 1). March 1999. 

USAF (Gerstle, T., et al.) Aircraft Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Emissions Testing: Vol. 2, 

Detailed Sampling Approach and Results (Report No. IERA-RS-BR-TR-1999-006-Vol 2). 

March 1999. 

USAF (Gerstle, T., et al.) Aircraft Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Emissions Testing: Vol. 3, 

Particulate Matter Results (Report No. IERA-RS-BR-TR-1999-006-Vol 3). March 1999. 

USAF (Gerstle, T., et al.) Aircraft Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Emissions Testing: Final 

Report Addendum F119-PW-100 Engine Emissions Testing Report (Report No. A669404). June 

2002.