### Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the National Biodiesel Board and the Cold Flow Consortium

. Neither National Biodiesel Board , the Cold Flow Consortium nor any agency thereof, nor any oftheir 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 , orfavoring by the National Biodiesel Board , the Cold Flow Consortium or any agency thereof
. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those ofthe National Biodiesel Board , the Cold Flow Consortium or any agency thereof
.

## Cold Flow Consortium Committee Marathon Ashland Mr. Rick Stanko Mr. Steve Hoehne 

### FlintHills Resources Mr. Brett Webb 

### Magellan Midstream Partners Mr. Rod Lawrence 

### BP Mrs. Sherry Boldt ADM Mr. Peter Reimers 

### BakerCommodities Mr. Fred Wellons 

### West Central Soy Mr. Myron Danzer Mr
. Don Irmen 

### FPPF Dr. Gary Pearl 

### National Renewable Energy Laboratory Mrs. Teresa Alleman 

### Farmer's Union Marketing and Processing Association

- FUMP A Mr. Charles Neece 

### Kaneb Pipeline Mr. Paul Heinz 

### Tesoro Refining Company Mr. John Berger 

### Schaeffer Manufacturing Company Mr. Hoon Ge

ii 

### CANMET- NaturalResources Canada Mr. Ed Hogan 

### Murphy Oil USA Inc Mr. Barry Jeffery 

### SOYMOR Mr. Jim Blair 

### Smithfield BioenergyLLC Mr. Jim Boushka 

### Non-Voting Members: National Biodiesel Board Mr. Paul Nazzaro Mr. Steve Howell 

### University ofMinnesota Mr. Ken Bickel 

### Minnesota Department ofCommerce Mr. Jim Hedman

### Executive Summary Increased use ofbiodiesel has created some handling challenges for bringing blended fuels to the consumer. The most immediate handling concern for blenders is assurance that diesel fuels and biodiesel can be blended uniformly and in a single phase. More specifically, blenders need guidelines andparameters for blending diesel fuel and biodiesel in colder climates. Neatbiodiesel has a much higher cloud pointthan conventional diesel fuels and this can impact handling procedures. This concern became a priority following the passage ofa bill in Minnesotathatrequired all on-highway diesel fuels to contain at least 2% biodiesel as early as July I, 2005. In response to the need in Minnesota, the National Biodiesei Board established a Biodiesel Cold Flow Consortium to study the blending properties ofbiodiesel. Members ofthe consortium included petroleum marketers, biodiesel producers, fuel blenders, and other experts and interested parties. The members designed a project to investigate this cold flow problem. The project goal was to define operating parameters for blending biodiesel with diesel fuel at a variety oftemperatures, including those seen in the wintertime in Minnesota. To achieve this goal, a small blendingtestrig was designed to simulate splash and proportional blending atthe terminal. UnadditizedNo. I and No.2 diesel fuels were selected, along with three biodiesels with a range ofcold flow properties. The test temperatures were determined using Minnesota winter climate data. All testing focused on preparing 2 volume percentbiodiesel blends. Splash blending tests were based on visual observation ofwax crystal formation and are thus qualitative. To ensure quantitative data was obtained, differential pressure drop measurements were collected. These measurements compared the pressure drop ofneat diesel fuel through a filter with the pressure drop created by B2 blends at various temperatures. Results from the testing showed that the biodiesel must be kept at least 1 0°F above its cloud pointto successfully blend with diesel fuels in cold climates. Because generic, unadditized fuels were used in this project, the actual temperatures ofthe fuels will need to be determined on an individual basis.

111

## Table of Contents Cold Flow Consortium Committee .......................................................................................... i Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Scope ................................................................................................. ...................................... 

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

### TestProcedures ....................................................................................................................... 2 TestFuels ................................................................................................................................ 

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

### 3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... .............. 

### 5 Small Group Steering Committee Members ........................................................................... 

### 6 Appendix A. P&ID ofSplash Blending Rig........................................................................... 7 Appendix 

### B. P&IF ofModified TestRig................................................................................ 

### 8 Appendix C. Step-by-step Analytical Procedures................................................................... 

### 9 Appendix D. Certificate ofAnalysis for 

### #1 Diesel Fuel ....................................................... 

### 11 Appendix E. Certificate ofAnalysis for 

### #2 Diesel Fuel........................................................ 

### 13 Appendix F. Certificate ofAnalysis for Soy Biodiesel......................................................... 15 Appendix G. Certificate ofAnalysis for Yellow Grease Biodiesel ...................................... 16 Appendix 

### H. Certificate ofAnalysis for Tallow Biodiesel ................................................... 

### 17 Appendix I. 

### Qualitative Blending Data................................................................................. 18 Appendix J. Listing ofConsortium Members Comments..................................................... 22

iv

### Introduction In response to the recent passage ofMinnesota' s bill requiring 2%biodiesel in all diesel fuels starting as early as July 1, 2005, the National Biodiesel Board convened a Cold Flow Consortium
. The Consortium was tasked with investigating the blending ofbiodiesel into diesel fuel at temperatures similar to those experienced in the Minnesota winter, with the objective ofdefiningparameters for successfully preparing homogeneous single-phase blends. The Consortium was composed offuel providers, marketers, blenders, and other interested parties
. Each member had an equal voice in the Consortium. 

### Scope This study was designed to accurately determine the temperature where biodiesel and No. 1 andNo.2 diesel could be blended at 2 volume percent (2%) biodiesel, while meeting standards for blend precision and homogeneity
.The approach taken was to fabricate a small scale blending system to simulate splash and proportional blending. The systemhas the capability to blend biodiesel at different rates with different grades ofdiesel fuel at different temperatures. This study focused on preparing 2%biodiesel (B2) blends exclusively
. The blending system was self-contained to include tanks, pumps, motors, and necessary appurtenances. The system included the abilityto heat and/or cool the biodiesel as needed and cool the diesel as needed. 

### Experimental Apparatus The test unit was designed to be totally portable to allow for future testing atvarious locations
. The design ofthe test skid was specifically sized for testing B2 as mandated in the state ofMinnesota
. The test skid included an environmental chilling chamber, capable of cooling fuel to near -60°F in a reasonably short period oftime
. A photograph ofthe blending unit is in Figure 1
. Each process and test was recorded manually and with video equipment along with the blending equipmentrecords ofvolume amounts.To assist in recording the results ofthese tests, the finished producttank included interior lighting, viewing ports, and sample ports. The finished producttank was manufactured ofa clear material to offer the bestpossible opportunity for evaluatingthe formation ofcrystals. The design for the first series oftesting simulated splash blending into a clear blending container maintained at ambienttemperature. A process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) ofthis testbench configuration is contained in Appendix A. 

### Forproportional blending, a flow loop was created to allow the fuels to circulate through the piping while inside the cooling chamber. The piping loop included a filter and differential pressure across the filter was employed to monitor fuel viscosity changes and determine ifthe fuels were pluggingthe filters or strainers. Large increases in viscosity or filter plugging would indicate the formation ofwax or biodiesel crystals
. A P&ID ofthis configuration is shown in Appendix B.



### 1

### Test Procedures SequentialBlending into Visible Container. These tests simulated splash blending. Four scenarios were tested: 1. 

### Cold No
. 1diesel was loaded into the container. The first type ofbiodiesel was added to the top to create a B2 blend. This procedure was repeated for each type ofbiodiesel. 2. Cold No.2 diesel was loaded into the container. The first type ofbiodiesel was added to the top to create a B2 blend. This procedure was repeated for each type ofbiodiesel. 3. Biodiesel was loaded into the container first. The No. 1 diesel fuel was loaded on top to create the B2 blend. This scenario was repeated for each type of biodiesel. · 4. Biodiesel was loaded into the container first. The No.2 diesel fuel was loaded ontop to create the B2 blend. This scenario was repeated for each type of biodiesel. ProportionalBlending. The biodiesel and diesel fuels were blended through proportional blending. To accomplish this, four gallons ofcold No. 1 orNo. 2 diesel fuel were circulated through the filters and the pressure drop across the filters measured. Biodiesel was then proportionally blended at 2% and any change in the filter pressure drop monitored. This procedure was repeated with each ofthe three biodiesels. Step-by-step procedures are given in Appendix C.

2

### Test Fuels A local truck rack operatorprovided the diesel fuels for this project. The fuels were unadditized commercial grades ofNo. 1 and No.2 diesel fuels. The certificates ofanalysis are in Appendix D and E, respectively. The biodiesels were soy-, yellow grease-, and tallow-derived fuels. The certificates ofanalysis are in Appendices F, G, andH, respectively. West Central Soyprovidedthe soy biodiesel. Rothsay/Laurence provided the yellow grease and tallow biodiesels. The biodiesels were sentto a test facility to measure the cloud and pourpoints ofthe neat biodiesels and the B2 blends. Becausethe unadditized diesel fuel (Appendices D and E) was not available, a typical no. 2 diesel was used to make the blends for cloud point and pour pointdetermination. The results ofthis testing are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Measured Low Temperature Properties of Fuels Used in this Study Fuel Cloud Poi ! t · Pour Point 

## oc 

# i t 

## oc OF

**-N..,....-o.-2-D,...,.....ie-se....,l------------2~3-----1 ,**  **~** -27 -17

Soy Biodiesel 

### 1- 2 $
. 0 32 Yellow Grease Biodiesel 5 

### 41 3 37 Tallow Biodiesel



### 1~ 14- 

### J1

**~ ~}**  18 64 2% Soy Biodiesel -21

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

# i ;" -27 -17 2% Tallow Biodiesel -20



### · -27 -17 

### Results and Discussion The initial testing used visual observation to determine ifshock crystallization occurred. Testing revealed several drawbacks with this method. First, the fuel was pushed through the apparatus with nitrogen gas. Bubbles ofnitrogen remained suspended in the fuels impeding visual observation. To allow for visual observation, the clear blending vessel was exposed to ambienttemperatures. Although the fuel was preconditioned to the test temperatures and the plumbing was insulated, the ambient air warmed the fuels and the test temperature was unknown. Due to the qualitative nature ofthe data, no conclusions could be drawn from the visual data, howeverthey are included in Appendix 

### I. To resolve these issues, vane pumps were used to push the fuel rather than nitrogen gas. Temperature monitoring was used to ensure the pumps were notheating the fuels. The clear blending vessel was replaced with a steel blending vessel. The steel blending vessel was placed in an environmental chamber designedto keep the apparatus atthe desired temperature. These changes no longer allowed for visual observation ofthe blending results. A quantitative measure ofchanges in the blend was needed. Swagelok SS-8TF2 filters of varying porosities were used in conjunction with differential pressure gauges to indicate changes in viscosity or solid formation. The diesel fuels were circulated through a 15 micron filter to determine the baseline pressure drop. Results ofthis baselinetesting are listed in Table 2. The duration is the amount oftime needed to dispense 1 gallon offuel. Table 3 shows the results oftesting with the three biodiesels. The fuels were circulated

3

### through the pump rig for 180 seconds. The differential pressure was measured at various intervals throughout the testing. Forthe low and middle cloud point fuels, the 100 mesh strainer was clean atthe end ofthe circulationperiod
. Forthe high cloudpoint fuel, the strainer was 50%plugged with solids. The 15 micron filter did not allow for usable data, as the biodiesels exceeded the gauge range and bypassed the loop through the reliefvalve. Table 2
. Baseline Testing with Fuels to Determine Pressure Drop Across Various Size Filters and Strainers Fuel Strainer Flow Rate, Temperature, Duration, Differential GPM OF sec Pressure, PSI #2 None 1 64 60 0 #2 None 3.3 64 18 0 #2 100 mesh 3.3 68 18 7.5 #2 15 micron 1
.9 68 31 82 #2 100 mesh 1.4 68 42 1 #2 15 micron 0.85 68 71 35 #1 100 mesh 3.3 50 18 3 #1 15 micron 2.1 50 29 not measured #1 100 mesh 1.5 51 39 not measured #1 15 micron 1.1 51 37 not measured

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

. Shaded lines indicate biodiesel was at or below its cloud point. Biodiesel Cloud Flow Rate, Temperature, TestTime, Differential Point, °F GPM °F sec Pressure, PSI 32 3.3 50 60 5 32 3.3 51 90 5 32 3.3 51 120 5 32 3.3 51 150 5 32 3.3 51 180 5 43 3.3 50 60 6 43 3.3 51 90 6 43 3.3 51 120 6 43 3.3 51 150 6 43 3.3 51 180 6 58 3
.3 51 60 17 58 3
.3 51 90 16 58 3.3 51 120 16 58 3
.3 51 150 16 58 3
.3 52 180 14 

### The diesel fuel was filtered through the 15 micron filter then switched to the 1 00 mesh strainer. The differential pressure was measured before, during, and after blending with biodiesel at a constanttemperature. The final differential pressure reading was taken through the 15 micron filter and comparedto the diesel baseline results to determine the rise in pressure ofthe blend (Table 4).

4Test

1RR

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Table 4. Differential Pressure Results of Biodiesel Blending into Diesel Fuels The shaded lines indicate that the biodiesel

**tem~erature** is at or below its cloud

**~o int.**  Type of Diesel Fuel Biodiesel Biodiesel % Unblended 82 DP DP Comments Diesel Fuel Temp
. F Cloud Point, Temp
. F Biodiesel Fuel DP PSI Rise in F in Test PSI PSI Sam le #2 10 32 58 1
.7 70 75 5 Kerosene 10 32 50 2 40 40 0 #2 10 43 50 1.9 75 80 5 Kerosene 10 43 50 1.9 45 45 0 #2 10 58 56 1
.8 75 82 7 Kerosene 10 58 58 1
.7 40 42 2 Kerosene 0 32 50 1
.7 33 35 2 Kerosene -10 32 50 1
.8 50 55 5 Kerosene -10 43 50 1.8 45 45 0 Kerosene 0 43 50 1
.9 32 35 3 Kerosene 0 58 53 1
.9 40 45 5 Kerosene -10 58 53 2 35 45 10 Blend Unsuccessful All above tests were performed using a 15 micron Filter and 2% Biodiesel Blends
. All samples were top samples
. 

### Underthe conditions used in this study, researchers determined thatthe biodiesel mustbe at least 10°F warmer than its cloudpoint when it is blended in cold diesel fuel. Although some testing was conducted belowthe cloud point ofthe biodiesels, there is not enough data to draw definite conclusions and the recommendation above is a conservative estimate. Unadditized diesel fuels were deliberately chosen for this study. Due to various fuel properties encountered in the real world, the target temperatures will need to be determined on an individual basis based onthe fuels in use. The results were shared with the Consortium members. A record oftheir comments is in Appendix J
. 

## Conclusions This study was designed to simulate differenttypes ofblending for biodiesel and diesel fuels
. A small test rig was constructed to simulate real world blending scenarios
. The original tests used visual observation to determine when the blends were successful. This method did notprovide objective data
.A modification to the test methodologywas made

- filters and differential pressure gauges were used to determine the change in differential pressure betweenthe base fuel and the B2 blends
. Based on tests with the fuels described above, the study findings are: • Qualitative visual observations ofsequential blending with diesel and biodiesel fuels showed clouding and possible crystallization ofthe fuel. o This may be a concern in Northern and Midwest states where biodiesel will be blended into colder diesel fuel that

### mayresult in crystal formation without adequate mixing.
5

### • A typical rack blending system is "once through only" without circulation through a pump. o Circulating diesel orbiodiesel fuels through a pump does not match up with real world rack blending systems. o In this study, test run blending used circulation through a pump that may 

### have provided additional shearing and mixing that helped to eliminate "shock" or wax crystallization. In this study, successful B2 blends were made when the biodiesel was 10°F above its cloud point. Unadditized diesel fuel was deliberately chosen for this study and the three biodiesels were selected to span a range ofcloud points and are not meant to be representative ofall fuels encountered. Because ofthe variety offuel properties, the targettemperatures for blending will need to be determined on an individual basis based onthe fuels and actual wintertemperatures at the terminal. It

### will be important for blenders to request cloud point information from suppliers for cold weather considerations. 

## Small Group Steering Committee Members Steve Howell-Marc IV Consulting Group Paul Nazzaro-Advanced Fuel Systems Charley Selvedge-Flint Hills Resources Rick Stanko-Marathon Ashland Petroleum Company Rod Lawrence- Magellan Midstream LP



### 6C) ii: C) r:::: "C r:::: Cl) - m .c tn ca - a. U) .... 0 c **~** a. . <( **.~** "C r:::: Cl) a. a. <( DOD 6B.TD W/ Dlapla;y 1br Product temp

. t

I (o)-1Uc))

I **~9** 7au

' Bnv1ranmnntal Cllls.mbllr - 30"F-300"J!' 6gal

. Test Tank (Pl'esllul'e Ba.ted) K1n1 Pall II!Jector (IDJeotion r&W oontrol) Var1&bles Controlled: • Product Temperature • Tot&l Volumes Delivered • FlowRates • Pressures

i i ••• Visual Inspect!on OnJ;y of Blended Product ••• **~**

i I

I I I I

6

gal. Insulated Tank ·B10 D1811al Fu8l 10 ga.Uon aamp11Dg tank Bio-Diesel Test1ng

l'-C) **~** - tn **~** "C Cl) !E "C 0 ::!: **~** 0 LL - **~** a. m >< · - "C c Cl) c. c. <C Environmental Chamber 5 gal

. Tank (Diesel) - Nitrogen Supply VeJ.ooU;v Oa.IIJulK!on: **V=~** V = Veloai1\V 1D. Pt Da LD. of pipe = GPK l'um:p 100 gpb@ B8plll or 1. 86 gpm Veloalt;r. \_

lift' **B0 40A~e**  **888 "ID**  = 1.78 tt. ./880. 5 ga.l

. B1o Ta.nk

1/rl' .088' Wbe .480" m = 15.661t./BeO. Heated

l!'Jltlll' Swage1oak

* SB-aTl!'2 l!'lltlll'-.: 8lira1nsP

- 1. 'l' aq. in. S!nliared

= lii.O aq.1n. B1o InJector

I Bm1t.b 44M 4'
- 189 aq. m.

I

00

### Appendix C. Step-by-step Analytical Procedures The step-by-step analytical procedures follow. Baseline Determination 1. Turn on the diesel fuel pump. Setthe temperature controller to the test temperature. 2. Assure that Flow Control Valve #1 (FCVI) is closed, i.e. no fuel is passingthrough the Differential Pressure Gauge (DPG). 3. Allow the system to run for XX minutes. (Calculated value based on the volume of diesel fuel in the tank and the flow rate; volume pumped> volume in the tank.) 4. Assure the temperature has stabilized. Record the temperature. 5. Open FCV1 and starttimer. 6. At 1minute intervals record the reading on the DPG. 7. Ifthe DP increases to over 10? mm Hg, record the time and tum offthe pump. 8. At 10 min record the reading on the DPG as the Final Differential Pressure (FOP). 9. Repeat steps 1 - 8. 10. Recordthe results from the two runs and report the average. Biodiesel Blend Filterability Determination 1. Tum on the diesel fuel pump. Setthe controller to the test temperature. 2. Assure that FCVl is closed. 3. Allow the system to run for XX minutes 4. Load the desired amount ofbiodiesel into the injector. 5. Record the injector temperature. 6. Assure the diesel fuel temperature has stabilized. Record the temperature. 7. Open FCVl and allow the diesel fuel to flow through the DPG for 1minute. 8. Record the DP. 9. Injectthe biodiesel 10. Ifthe DP increases to over 10? mm Hg, record the time and tum offthe pump. 11. At 10 minutes record the reading on the DPG as the FOP. 12. Repeat steps l- 11, with new diesel fuel and biodiesel. 13. Record the results from the two runs and report the average. Biodiesel Solubility Determination 1. Turn on diesel fuel pump. Set the temperature controller to the test temperature. 2. Assure that FCV1 is closed. 3. Allow the system to run for XX minutes 4. Load the desired amount ofbiodiesel into the injector. 5. Record the injectortemperature. 6. Assure the diesel fuel temperature has stabilized. Record the temperature. 7. Inject the biodiesel 8. Circulate the blended fuel for 10 minutes. 9. Open FCV1 and allow the blended fuel to flow through the DPG. 10. Record the DP every one minute. 11. Ifthe DP increases to over 1 0? mm Hg, record the time and tum offthe pump. 12. At 10 minutes record the reading on the DPG as the FOP. 13. Repeat steps 1

- 11, with new diesel fuel and biodiesel. 14. Recordthe results from the two runs and report the average.

9The ability to use the rig and the procedures above to assess the cold temperature properties ofblends below the cloud point ofdiesel fuel depends on the repeatability ofthe rate offilter plugging, because at these temperatures, the filter is going to plug.



### 10

## Appendix D
. Certificate ofAnalysis for #1 Diesel Fuel

11

## Laboratory Analysis Report Date Printed: 5/20/2005
Report To: RodLawrence Magellan Analytical Services 1090-A Sunshine Rd Kansas City KS 66115-

cc:
Sample ID: KS04100778 Sample Description: JetFuel Sample Notes: Method D 86

- Distillation D9 Results 165.6 °C IBP 185.8 

### oc 10% 191.8 

### oc 20% 210.9 

### oc 50% !25o.o 

### oc 90% 272.9 °C FBP 97.6 mL Volume 1.0 mL Loss 1.4 mL Residue Type ofSample: Diesel Fuel Tank:

D 93- Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester !37 

### oc D 5453

- Total Sulfur by UltravioletFluorescence 920 ppm (wt/wt) D 4737- Cetane Index 44.9 D 5773

- Cloud Point -54 °F D 5949

- PourPoint -70 °F Submitted By: Paul Hinkle Additive Systems Inc 407 S Main Broken Arrow OK 74012

10/20/2004 Results in boxes do not meet ASTM 0975 specifications.

913-621-3603 l()Q()_A**~~m~hinPRn~rl K~n~~'i:rit"**  KS**hhll~** Page I ofI KS04100778

## Appendix E
. Certificate ofAnalysis for #2 Diesel Fuel

13

## Laboratory Analysis Report Date Printed: 5/20/2005
ReportTo: Rod Lawrence Magellan Analytical Services 1090-A Sunshine Rd Kansas City KS 66115-

cc:
Sample ID: KS04100777 Sample Description: # 2 LSD Sample Notes: Method D 86

- Distillation D9 Results 181.8 

### oc IBP 213.3 

### oc 10% 224.2 

### oc 20% 262.1 

### oc 50% 324.6 

### oc 90% 351.8 °C FBP 97.8 mL Volume 1.0 mL Loss 1.2 mL Residue Type ofSample: Diesel Fuel Tank:

D 93- Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed CupTester 

### j5o 

### oc D 5453

- Total Sulfurby UltravioletFluorescence 292 ppm (wt/wt) D 4737- Cetane Index 47.3 D 5773

- Cloud Point 6 Of D 5949

- PourPoint -10 °F Submitted By: Paul Hinkle Additive Systems Inc 407 S Main Broken Arrow OK 74012

10/20/2004 Results in boxes do not meet ASTM 0975 specifications.

913-621-3603 Page I of! KS04100777

## Appendix F
. Certificate of Analysis for Soy Biodiesel

MAR. 22.2005-10: 11AM· --4'1DDITIVE SYSTEM15---- J

I!!!! I

**tMOIY«ttlrl:~~.**

**T~GJT-"-'** Fl
...;,....r::.'. WstrM 6 A.di""••t

**~** V61111M.f:

**C'•t-~**..a.&WW

**~~;** 51111•f-1 A.tb .,.,. aw., I KJIIIIIhaif• '-"iiRO
..

**~** db : I ,
**'f~""l&wr.arbUVt\4,...._""AtSU.81**

**C"~ftl··""·**



### ~-~r-''"c-.

**Cu~r C:urrudo•~**  , ) I A<N

**~**....,..-q KQII/P!i ' ' .l'll
.. tf.....

### ""10.'"'" Mojla!

**ll51ril~**.. il\n •• udUAd

**pr~~:** 

## £•_,...,...,.

**~,..** WestCentral POBox61 4061 111 Street Ralston,fA !149 Phone; ?ll-667-)411 FU!71%-667-3306

**-~l'.tlet**

SIIIRI Predw:tColor:
&laiR! O.OOS2 0.1186 153 0.01 O.Gl 0,001 -4.20 0.00014 S2.7 0 lB 0.61 <(1.0001 34& 11

**~**



### 15 i•

## Appendix G

. Certificate ofAnalysis for Yellow Grease Biodiesel

I'IDDITIIJE SYSTEMS


### Rothsay I

**La re**  **n~** Ci05, 1 flH ··- VDT!!

**~adl allae.**  Qna-, Cu.ak .Rt

LUO
liD.MIUllbrP dJ1 OnnqJe Les Alimlll\tsMuple Leaf

**In~:.** AMamblll'e4Map)aL
.. f:Ji'eads Ina.

Til: C460l 03lo32SD Fax: (450) 832-470S

Blodleoe1,..frof!l :

**~** fMng ol RKy.:Jool

**F!YI~IJ** 011

**..,_..~** BJc>tll-1 Lal Number: 3D0804.001 CER.TIPICATE OF A,NALYSIS

- ...

**-~ll**..... llatr.DI!It.Qioll-o

PROPERTY AST11M£1HDD RESULTS UMTS Flooh palnl 0!11 185 'C WateraHI sediment P270!1 0,011 %

**1<'"'""""·~.oiO'C** 04411 u mm2/Na. SUIII!sd Ash P874 0.011 

# "'-

SuiV PIIG2 <0.0115 v.mCapperSutp Caroslon 1)13<> 1a 

### - 

## c.-

**ce1~** sa -·- Claudpalm l);!mo +41 •c Cllllonllalldua 041!90 0.03 %mAllldnum'- DG64 0.87 fila I<OHIIIIG

**FNOO~** P111114 a.OOG 'II. mHO

**T<>IOia~m** Pllltl4 0.188 %mau TemperttuN IU 'C



### 16 N0.887 P.2/3

LIMITS 1111l.am
... o.osomax. 1.9·6.0 0.020 0.015

**NQ.~** mill(, 40 "''"·

**Fl~pclrt!Q-·•** 0.050 O,BO C.a2!l 0.240

## Appendix H
. Certificate ofAnalysis for Tallow Biodiesel

MAR.22.2005 10=12AM ADDITIVE SYSTEMS



# I Rothsay I 

## Laurenco 60S,

**lenA~** VIlle Ste-Catb.erlne,

**Qu~ec,** Canada JDL lEO
UlaMemhte dnGroup!! L111 AlimeDIIt MapleLeaf IDe. A Member ofMapleI.eaCl!'ood.Iu.c.

**Te~** (480) 632-3250 Fsx: (460) 632-4708

**CI!!~IFICATIS** OF ANAl.'YSIS

- ..**--~nouon: csr11H1a~~~nuraa**  DATE,02-10-2004

Lot

**NUIIIb~~r-** 021004.001
PROPBIUY ASTII Mf:ntOI) IWiUI-TS UNITS

**Flett~** point 0113 tllli 'C Waterend eecllmenl 02709 0.!122 'l!i Klnemllllcvlecctlty, -40 'C O.ol-45 5.3 mm2/SIIC. Sulfalad Ash 0&7-4 

### - %maw

Sldlllr 1:>2822 

## - 'l'fTl'lll"

-·- CopperSti11 Cor!lllllon D1110 

# - - c.tana 0513 

# - - ClOUd point P2SOO +16 •c Cllbon Rileldue D-4!3C 

## - 'IiiiiAc:kl

**n~mber** 01164 0.53 rngKCtfllr4l flllllgiyalrln cast 0.1102 '11om11n Tolal QlfCel1n 05564 0.108 '1&1118115 pH 4.32



### 17 1'1:1.1387 P.3/3

UrtiTS 1!1!1.0 lllin. IJ.051Jn'I!L 1.9-8.0 0.020 0.05 ('lclll 40

**~rt**to Cllllllmef O.Oiill 0.80 a.aac 0.24C

### Appendix I. Qualitative Blending Data
Blend Diesel D" I Biodiesel 8 . d" I T lese Cloud IO lese
. emp. Comments Type Type Temp, F p . t F Temp, F D1fferent1al om, Ratio No.2 40 32 72 32 Mixed well Ratio No.2 30 32 72 42 Mixed well Ratio No.2 20 32 72 52 Mixed well Ratio No.2 10 32 72 62 Mixed well Mixed well, Signs of icing revealed paraffin dropout, Ratio No.2 0 32 72 72 clogged 80 M strainers on #2 Fuel. Removed strainers and retest. Ratio No.2 -5 32 72 77 Mixed well Ratio No.2 -5 32 72 77 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.2 -10 32 72 82 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.2 -10 32 72 82 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.2 -15 32 72 87 Mixed Well, Some icing Ratio No.2 -17 32 72 89 #2 slushy. Bio blended throughout though. Ratio No.2 -20 32 72 92 #2 slushy, Partially frozen. Bio did not blend throughout Ratio No.2 -25 32 72 97 #2 Froze Ratio No.2 -10 32 55 65 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.2 -10 32 50 60 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.2 -10 32 45 55 Bio Crystallizing on contact, Mixing but not blending. Ratio No.2 -15 32 50 65 Small amounts of bio Crystallizing on contact, Mixing but not blending. Ratio No.2 -15 32 55 70 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.2 0 43 60 60 Mixed Well Ratio No.2 -5 43 60 65 Mixed well Ratio No.2 -5 43 55 60 Mixed Well, No Crystals Ratio No.2 -10 43 55 65 Mixed Well, No Crystals Ratio No.2 -10 43 50 60 Mixed Well, No Crystals, Hazy Fuel Ratio No.2 -15 43 45 60 Mixed Well, No Crystals, Hazy Fuel Ratio No.2 -15 43 40 55 Mixed thoroughly, Very Cloudy Ratio No.2 -15 43 35 50 Bio icing, Creating large crystals, Did not Blend Ratio No.2 -15 43 30 45 Bio icing, Solids Present, Did not Blend Ratio No.2 -5 43 35 40 Mixed Thoroughly, Crystals forming on contact. Ratio No.2 -5 43 40 45 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.2 0 43 35 35 Mixed well but stayed hazy, cloudy



### 18Blend Diesel Diesel Biodiesel

. . Cl d B1od1esel Temp C 

### ts Type Type Temp, F ou T F D"ff f 1 ommen p . t F emp, 1 eren 1a

om, Ratio No.1 -30 32 45 75 Icing, mixed fair Ratio No.1 -30 32 50 80 Icing, mixed fair Ratio No
. 1 -30 32 60 90 Icing, mixed fair Ratio No
. 1 -25 32 60 85 Icing, mixed fair Ratio No
. 1 -20 32 60 80 Mixed well Ratio No.1 -20 32 55 75 Icing, mixed fair Ratio No.1 -15 32 55 70 Mixed Well Ratio No.1 -15 32 50 65 Icing , mixed fair Ratio No.1 -15 32 53 68 Mixed well Ratio No.1 -10 32 50 60 Mixed Well Ratio No.1 -10 32 45 55 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No.1 -10 32 50 60 Mixed Well, No icing Ratio No
. 1 -5 32 45 50 Blended well Ratio No
. 1 -5 32 40 45 Blended well Ratio No.1 0 32 35 35 Icing, mixed fair Ratio No.1 -15 43 40 55 Mixed well Ratio No.1 -20 43 40 60 Mixed well Ratio No.1 -25 43 40 65 Slight Icing of bio Ratio No.1 -30 43 40 70 Icing of bio Ratio No.1 -15 43 35 50 Blended well Ratio No.1 -10 43 35 45 Icing of bio Ratio No.1 -25 43 45 70 Mixed Well , No icing Ratio No.1 -30 43 45 75 Icing Ratio No.1 -30 43 50 80 Icing Ratio No.1 -25 43 50 75 Blended well Ratio No.1 -30 43 55 85 Blended well Ratio No.1 -35 43 55 90 Icing Ratio No.1 -35 43 60 95 Blended



### 19Blend Diesel Diesel Biodiesel Biodiesel Temp . Type Type Temp, F Cloud Temp, F Differential F1rst Product: Comments Point, F Sequential No.2 0 32 50 50 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 0 32 50 50 No. 2:Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -5 32 45 50 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -5 32 45 50 No. 2:Mixed Well Sequential· No.2 -10 32 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -10 32 45 55 No. 2:Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -10 32 40 50 Bio: Icing Sequential No.2 -10 32 40 50 No. 2: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -10 32 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 32 55 70 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 32 55 70 No. 2: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 32 50 65 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 32 50 65 No. 2: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 32 45 60 Bio: Mixed Fair/ Slower Dispersing Sequential No.2 -15 32 40 55 Bio: Icing/ Still mixed fair Sequential No.2 0 32 45 45 No. 2: Slight Icing Sequential No.2 0 43 50 50 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 0 43 50 50 No. 2:Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -5 43 45 50 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -5 43 45 50 No. 2:Mixed Poorly Sequential No.2 -10 43 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -10 43 45 55 No. 2:Mixed Poorly Sequential No.2 -10 43 40 50 Bio: Icing Sequential No.2 -10 43 40 50 No. 2: Bio blobbing, no blending at all Sequential No.2 -10 43 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 43 55 70 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 43 55 70 No. 2: Slow to blend but did mix with agitation. Sequential No.2 -15 43 50 65 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential No.2 -15 43 40 55 No. 2: Bio blobbing, no blending at all Sequential No.2 -15 43 45 60 Bio: Blended well Sequential No.2 -15 43 40 55 Bio: Blended Well, but Crystals Forming Sequential No.2 0 43 45 45 No. 2: Slow to blend but did mix.



### 20Blend Diesel Diesel Biodiesel Biodiesel Temp
. Type Type Temp, F Cloud Temp, F Differential F1rst Product: Comments Point, F Sequential Kerosene 

### -20 32 60 80 Kerosene: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### -15 32 55 70 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### -15 32 55 70 Kerosene: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene



### -10 32 50 60 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### -10 32 50 60 Kerosene: Not Blending Sequential Kerosene 

### -10 32 40 50 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### -10 32 45 55 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### -5 32 55 60 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene



### -5 32 55 60 Kerosene: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### -5 32 50 55 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### 0 32 50 50 Kerosene: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### 0 32 45 45 Kerosene: Icing Sequential Kerosene 

### 0 32 40 40 Bio: Blended Well Sequential Kerosene 

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

### -30 43 45 75 Bio: Icing Sequential Kerosene 

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



### -15 43 35 50 Bio: Mixed well Sequential Kerosene



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



### -25 43 50 75 Bio: Mixed Well Sequential Kerosene 

### 0 43 50 50 Kerosene: Blended well Sequential Kerosene 

### -30 43 55 85 Bio: Blended Well Sequential Kerosene 

### -30 43 50 80 Bio: Icing Sequential Kerosene 

### -35 43 55 90 Bio: Icing Sequential Kerosene 

### -40 43 60 100 Bio: Icing Sequential Kerosene



### -35 43 60 95 Bio: Blended Well



### 21

## Append ix 

## J. Listing of Consortium Members Comments Contributors ofthe Consortium have offered the following statements for consideration:
• Optimal biodiesel blending is dependant on accurate knowledge ofB100 and Petroleum diesel cold flow properties to help determine parameters. • The impact ofblending method type (splash, ratio, and sequential blending) and mechanical mixing on B2 blend homogeneity was not evaluated in this study. • The impact ofB2 biodiesel blends on D975 

### test parameters was not evaluated in test runs completed and documented in this report. • The impact ofwater contamination on wax/ice crystallization was not evaluated within this study although desiccant filters were used to help prevent moisture contamination ofthe B100 and fuels for testing. • In many cases the pressure drop ofthe B2 blend was greater than that ofthe base diesel fuel. In no case was the B2 blend a lowerpressure drop than the base diesel fuel. The potential implications ofthis for users ofB2 blends made during cold weather blending are not known. • In several cases the bottoms samples had slightly higher biodiesel concentrations than the "bulk" samples. This might indicate the existence ofnot completely homogenous mixtures for these test conditions.

22