## 2-22-2008

1 

## The Effects of E20 on Metals Used in Automotive Fuel System Components

Bruce Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and

Mike Timanus

Minnesota C enter for Automotive

Research at Minnesota St ate University, Mankato



### ABSTRACT

The focus of this study was to compare the effects of E20 versus E10 and gasoline on metal materials found in automotive, marine, and small engine fuel system components. Metal samples were prepared using SAE and ASTM standards and exposed to blends of Fuel C; Fuel C and 10% aggressive ethanol; and Fuel C with 20% aggressive ethanol at an elevated temperature of 45 °C for 2016 hours. The fuel was changed in weekly intervals with photo images and mass loss/ gain data

recorded at the 1 st , 3 rd , 6 th , and 12 th week.



### INTRODUCTION

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty signed a bill on May 10, 2005 that requires by volume 20% of the fuel sold in Minnesota to be ethanol. Currently, gasoline sold in Minnesota contains 10% ethanol (E10) by volume. Ethanol, C 2 H 5 OH, is an alcohol that can be derived from starches such as corn or materials containing sugars such as sugar cane. Ethanol can also be made from

cellulosic materials such as grasses by converting them into sugars. However, this process is much more cost intensive and has not yet reached commercial production levels. Ethanol is considered a renewable

fuel and is also classified as an alternative fuel since it can be used as a substitute for gasoline.

The passage of the law is only the first step. The fuel may not be used on public roadways until a federal

section 211f waiver is obtai ned from the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Extensive testing in five areas: vehicle driveability, vehicle emission control system effectiveness and durability, vehicle tailpipe and evaporativ e emissions, fuel system material compatibility, and public health must be conducted in order to obtain the waiver (C. Jewitt, personal communication, July 6, 2005). This will be a costly and timely process requiring many different

studies.

This paper represents one in a series of four papers that

focus on the effects of 20% ethanol-blended fuel (E20) on fuel system components. This paper provides some of the background information on E20 and the various laws that affect its use as an on-road fuel. Next, it

contains a brief review of literature on E20 with a particular focus on material compatibility issues. Finally, it investigates the issues of designing the material compatibility study in terms of standards, procedures, and equipment needed to carry out the testing.



### MINNESOTA ETHANOL LEGISLATION

On May 10, 2005, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty signed into law a bill requiring ethanol to constitute 20% of the gasoline sold in the State of Minnesota. The bill

allows for two methods of ac hieving this. First, if by December 31, 2010 the volume of ethanol sold in the State through the combinati on of E10 and E85 reaches 20% of the total gasoline sold in the State, then the goal will be met and there will not be any changes in the fuel

sold. If the combination of the two fuels’ ethanol content does not reach at least 20% of the total fuel sold, then by August 30, 2013 the ethanol content of gasoline will be increased from 10% to 20% by volume (Eisenthal, 2005).

The second method, 20% ethanol in all gasoline, requires the EPA to approve a waiv er for the use of E20. EPA waivers may be granted one of two ways. The EPA can review the application and supporting data and grant the waiver. Or, if the EPA fails to provide a decision on the waiver within 180 days, the waiver is automatically granted. This clause is of particular concern because the original fuel waiver for E10 was granted because the EPA failed to make a decision in 180 days. The Minnesota law explicitly states that the failure of the EPA to act shall not be deemed an approval.



### LITERATURE REVIEW

The passage of the Minnesot a E20 legislation raised many questions about the effects of E20 on non-flex fuel

vehicles. All vehicles sold in the United States since the early 1980s are compatible with E10, but whether or not they are compatible with E 20 is not known. Before E20 can be sold in Minnesota, a section 211f waiver needs to

be obtained from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In order to obtain a waiver, extensive research and testing will need to be conducted in five areas: driveability, fuel system material compatibility, tailpipe and evaporative emissions, emission control system effectiveness and durability, and health effects. This research and testing will be

conducted to ensure that t he fuel does not cause any more problems than gasoline in the five categories.

## 2-22-2008

2 The fuel systems on vehicl es produced today are seeing an ever-increasing amount of ethanol-blended fuels and are expected to have a usable lifespan of 15 to 20 years. Currently, all fuel systems ar e compatible with E10, but as increased ethanol blends become more prevalent, the need to quantify the effects of higher blends on materials is necessary. Unfortunately, there is little

information on the non-linear effects of increased ethanol blends on fuel system materials. This means

that as the concentration of ethanol increases from 0 to

100% there is no model that accurately predicts the effects on materials. In fact, neat ethanol and neat gasoline often have a smaller negative impact on materials than gasoline-ethanol blends. To compound this problem, mid-range blends of 15 to 50%, often have the largest negative impact on materials.

The MSU material compatib ility study started out like

most research with a comprehensive review of the literature. To guide this review, a few questions were asked: (a) What literature exists on E20 and materials? (b) What materials are in a fuel system? (c) What standard test procedures are used to validate a material for compatibility with a fuel? (d) By what criteria is a material deemed compatible or incompatible with a fuel? With these questions in mind, a thorough review of the Society of Automotive Engineers’ (SAE) technical paper library was conducted along wi th an extensive internet search. Also, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), Tier I and II supplie rs (supply parts to the OEMs), and material testing laboratories were contacted

for information.

During the search for information on E20, it became apparent that there was very little information publicly

available. Most OEMs have te sted with a fuel close to E20, such as E25 because of its extensive use in Brazil, but retain this information as proprietary. Several small

material studies mentioned E20 or tested a blend close to E20 such as E25, but these studies offered only a small portion of the informat ion that would be necessary for a waiver. In fact, only one major study on E20 was found, the Orbital Engine Company’s study for the

Commonwealth Government of Australia conducted from October 2002 through March 2003 (Orbital, March 2003, May 2003).

The Orbital study was extremely comprehensive, covering both automobiles and small engines in areas of emissions, driveability, material compatibility, durability, and a well-to-wheel study. With regards to material compatibility, the Orbital st udy tested actual components from vehicles. The study found that E20 caused significant problems with many metal, plastic, and rubber components that gasoline did not. The Orbital study was carefully reviewed at MS U. The study identified significantly higher levels of discoloration and tarnishing on components exposed to the E20 than the gasoline reference fuels in the study. However, it should be

noted that E10 was not incl uded in this study and other

research studies have noted similar discoloration and tarnishing associated with the use of E10. Also, it is

believed that corrosive water was added to the E20 blends at levels high enough to cause phase separation but was not added to the gasoline reference fuels. According to SAE recommended practice J1681 Gasoline, alcohol and diesel fuel surrogates for materials testing , corrosive water is only added to gasoline or ASTM Fuel C, not ethanol (SAE, 2000). This test method could be a reason for the extreme negative

results that the Orbi tal study reported.



### FORMULATING THE EXPERIMENTS

With a lack of available literature on ethanol compatibility, it became apparent that actual material compatibility experiments would be necessary to answer some of the questions about t he effects of E20. It was also determined that E10 should be included in any material compatibility tests as a reference to the changes caused by ethanol. Ethanol does cause different changes to materials than gasoline. But, if E20 does not cause a larger negative impact on materials than E10, an accepted motor fuel, then E20 would be acceptable. The inclusion of E10 in the testing for the purpose of differentiating acceptable changes caused by ethanol is a significant com ponent of the MSU material

studies.

PROCESS OVERVIEW

Four standard practices from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) were used to develop the specific testing procedures. The procedure developed was a combination of SAE J1747, Recommended methods for conducting corrosion tests in gasoline/methanol fuel

mixtures , and ASTM G31, Standard practice for laboratory immersion corrosion testing of metals . The test fuels were blended as per SAE J1681, Gasoline alcohol and diesel fuel surrogates for materials testing

. SAE J1747 modifies ASTM G31 to make it fuel-testing specific. A decision was made to use the exposure

method of ASTM G31 over SAE J1747 because it allowed more data to be collected. Originally, SAE J1747 called out for all of the samples to be completely

immersed. Due to the fact that corrosion can occur at the liquid/vapor level and in the vapor level itself, a decision was made to use ASTM G31’s suggested exposure where as one sample is completely immersed, the second sample is halfway immersed, and the third sample is exposed to vapors only. This allowed data to be collected from all three types of exposures as the

material would be in use.

## 2-22-2008

3 All testing and data collection took place in a room equipped with a ventilation system designed to handle hazardous fumes. All samples were prepared as specified by ASTM G1, Standard practice for preparing, cleaning, and evaluating corrosion test specimens . After the samples were prepared, the weights and dimensions were measured to provide a baseline for comparison. Photographs of the color and surface texture were also

taken.

Three bottles were used for each material. Each contained three coupons of a specific material and one of the three test fuels. Next, 510 ml of the appropriate test solution was added to each of the bottles along with the three test samples on the sample stands. The bottles were placed in the oven unsealed until a temperature of 45 ± 2 °C was reached. Upon temperature stabilization, the bottles were sealed. The samples were exposed to the test fluid for a period of 2016 hours. Each week, the test solution was changed to minimize bulk solution composition changes, oxygen depletion, and to replenish ionic contaminates. Finally, the samples were photographed and weighed after the

1 st , 3 rd , 6 th , and 12 th week. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed step-by-step procedure.

MATERIALS

Based on the review of numerous material compatibility studies, only the raw materials used in the construction of fuel system components were tested, rather than actual components. Testing raw materials allows for much broader coverage than testing components. For instance, the results from a test on mild steel could cover fuel lines, fuel rails, tanks, and injectors of any manufacturer using that material. This was determined to be more practical than testing each of the components individually. Also, many industry-accepted standard tests require specimens of specific dimensions that would be difficult to obtain from actual components.

The list of materials used in the fuel systems of

automobiles from the 1970’s forward, marine engines, non-road engines, and fuel dispensing equipment is immense. It would be virtually impossible for one study to test every material and combination of materials used. The materials list for this study was created from various sources such as literature reviews, manuals, and recommendations from fuel system and engine manufacturers. After the list of metals was assembled, it was forwarded to a list of fuel system engineers from several OEMs and Tier I and II suppliers for peer review. Finally, materials that are commonly used in flex-fuel vehicle fuel systems were removed from the list because they have already been prov en compatible with any

blend of ethanol from 0 to 85%. The 19 materials included in the study are listed below. • brass 260

• brass 360

• cast iron

• copper 110

• 6061 aluminum

• 3003 aluminum

• cast aluminum mic 6

• 60/40 tin/lead solder

• 1018 steel

• 1018 steel tin plated

• 1018 steel nickel plated

• 1018 steel zinc plated

• 1018 steel zinc tri-chromate plated (hexavalent)

• 1018 steel zinc di-chrom ate plated (hexavalent free)

• 1018 steel zinc-nickel plated

• terne plate

• Zamak 5

• magnesium AZ91D

• lead

After the testing had begun, magnesium AZ91D was

identified by small engines manufacturers as an alloy used in many fuel system s. Because the addition of another sample was not possible due to size constraints of the oven, the Magnesium samples were tested at a later date with the materials from another study at a slightly higher temperature of 55 ± 2 °C.

SAE J1747 suggests a sample size of 1 x 4 x 0.125 in. strips for testing because three will fit in the test bottle

and maintain a minimum surface area to fuel volume

ratio of 0.2 cm 2 /ml. Due to the decision to test samples in three states, immersed, liquid/vapor, and vapor, this size would not allow sufficient space for the vapor sample. A new sample size of 1.5 x 1.5 x 0.125 in. was chosen instead. This allowed ample space in the test bottle for the vapor sample, while maintaining the

minimum surface area to fuel volume ratio of 0.2 cm 2 /ml.

The raw materials for the samples were obtained in

either 1.5 x 0.125 in. strips or 12 x 12 x 0.125 in. sheets. The test samples were cut from the strips or sheets using a horizontal band saw and then milled to the final dimension to ensure squareness and accuracy. After milling, a 9/32 in. hole was drilled to provide a means of suspending the sample. Next, an identification number was stamped on each sample to identify the material,

the state in which it was to be tested, and the fuel it was to be tested in. All of the preparation work was done before sending out the samples that needed plating to

ensure that the entire surfac e was covered. Finally, before testing, all samples were prepared in accordance with ASTM G1, Standard practice for preparing, cleaning, and evaluating corrosion test specimens

.

## 2-22-2008

4 TEST FUEL

The test fuel selection for this research was a major focus in the test plan development. In the review of the literature, several studies were identified in which it was difficult to determine the spec ific composition of the base gasoline or ethanol components. The test fuels used in this study were based on the test-fuel standard specified in SAE J1681, Gasoline alcohol and diesel fuel surrogates for materials testing . This paper was the result of a task force formed in the early 1990’s for testing materials with methanol. Since then, the standard has been altered to include many fuels. The task force adopted ASTM Fuel C to use as a reference for gasoline in material compatibility testing. ASTM Fuel C represents a worst-case-scenario gasoline due to its composition of 50% iso-oc tane and 50% toluene. The iso-octane represents the alkane group that makes up 40 to 70% of gasoline (Harrigan, Banda, Bonazza, Graham, Slimp, 2000, p. 2). It is important that the alkane group is represented for two reasons. First, they make up a large percentage of gasoline and second, they can cause swelling in polymers (plastics and elastomers). The toluene represents the aromatic group that makes up 20 to 50% of gasoline (p.2). Aromatics can cause swelling in polymers, but they also help suspend alcohols within the fuel mixture.

Synthetic ethanol, not fuel-grade ethanol, should be used for materials testing because its known composition “will help to minimize some of the variables

in the use of ethanol as a fuel test component” (Harrigan et al., p. 5). Many impurities can be found in fuel-grade ethanol including sulfuric acid, acetic acid, water, and

sodium chloride. “The acid is formed either in the alcohol production process or due to oxidation of the alcohol during handling, transfer or storage” (p. 3). Water also is a by-product of production and can cause metal corrosion, especially when combined with sodium chloride. It is important that these are represented in the test fuel because they can cause material compatibility issues. As per SAE J1681, these impurities were added to the synthetic ethanol to form aggressive ethanol. Aggressive ethanol is a worst-case-scenario fuel that would still be acceptable under ASTM D4806, Standard specification for denatured fuel ethanol for blending with gasoline for use as automotive spark-ignition engine fuel (ASTM, 2006). All fuels used in this study met SAE Standard J1681’s

criteria. The three test fuels used included

Surrogate gasoline [C] - ASTM Fuel C, 50/50 toluene iso-octane mixture (500 ml toluene and 500 ml iso-octane)

E10 fuel [C(E10) A ] - 90% Fuel C + 10%aggressive ethanol (450 ml toluene, 450 ml isooctane, 100 ml aggressive ethanol)

E20 fuel [C(E20) A ] - 80% Fuel C + 20%aggressive ethanol (400 ml toluene, 400 ml isooctane, 200 ml aggressive ethanol)

Aggressive ethanol consists of synthetic ethanol 816.00 g, de-ionized water 8.103 g, sodium chloride 0.004 g, sulfuric acid 0.021 g, and glacial acetic acid 0.061 g (SAE J1681 Appendix E.1.2).

APPARATUS

The samples were placed in 1 L, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles for the immersion testing. A wide mouth design was selected to allow easy access to the test samples. A test stand to support the three samples, one immersed, one halfway immersed, and one suspended above the liquid in the vapors, was designed and fabricated due to the lack of a suitable commercially available unit (see Figure 1). These stands were constructed from HDPE due to its insulating properties and resistance to chemical attack. The test stands resembled a ladder with three, 1⁄4 in. horizontal rungs running between two, 1⁄2 in . vertical rods. Samples were hung on the rungs by a 9/32 in. diameter hole and the entire assembly extended up to the neck of the bottle to facilitate easy removal, ye t allowed the bottles to be sealed tightly.

## 2-22-2008

5 Figure 1. Samples on test stand and bottle

An explosion-proof friction air oven was used to maintain the samples at 45 ± 2 °C. It uses the heat generated by circulating air to maintain the temperature instead of an

element or a flame. This is very important when heating combustible liquids in the presence of oxygen due to the potential for an explosion if the vapors were to come into contact with an ignition source.

DATA COLLECTION

The samples weights and dimensions were recorded

before being exposed to the test fluids. Along with weight, a photo was taken of each sample to provide a reference of the original color and surface texture. The color of the solution was also noted before each weekly fuel change. Throughout the 2016 hours of the test,

data was collected after the 1 st , 3 rd , 6 th , and 12 th week. After a sample was removed from the test fuel, it was dried and weighed to determine any mass gains or losses. Next, the samples were cleaned by scrubbing with a bleach-free scouring powder and a soft bristle brush. This was done to remove any corrosion that

occurred. After the corrosi on was removed, the samples were weighed again to determine any mass losses.

Three primary pieces of measuring equipment were

used to collect the data. A micrometer with a resolution of 0.0001 of an inch was used to measure the dimensions of the test samples. A special micrometer with pointed anvils was used to measure corrosion pit depth and a Radwag WAX 220 analytical balance was used to measure the mass of the test samples. The balance has a linearity of ∀ 0.0002 g and a repeatability of 0.00015 g as outlined in the user’s manual. Based on the resolution and linearity of the scale, a weight change in a specimen less than 0.0008 g could be due to scale

error and should not be considered a measurable change.



### DATA ANALYSIS

Two methods of determining the effects of the three blends of fuels were incorporated into this study. The

first was visual examination of the samples for pitting, surface texture change, and discoloration. The test fuel was examined for color change and loose by-products each week. The second was the mass loss analysis as
described in ASTM G1 Section 8.

VISUAL EXAMINATION

The first method of determining the effects of the

different fuel blends was thr ough a visual examination of each sample. When examining the samples visually,

corrosion and its different states need to be defined.

According to the 1989 ASM International Handbook of

Corrosion Data , edited by Bruce D. Craig of Metallurgical Consultants Inc, uniform / general corrosion is defined as, “A form of attack that produced overall uniform wastage of the metal” (p.1). Pitting corrosion is defined as, “A high localized attack of the metal creating pits of vary ing depth, width, and number. Pitting may often lead to complete perforation of the metal with little or no general corrosion on the surface” (p.1).

The pictures of the sample s before, during, and after

were used to determine any discoloration, change in surface texture, or pitting. Pitting deeper than 0.025 mm was measured using a micrometer with pointed anvils. For the purpose of this study, discoloration was considered acceptable becaus e fuel system components are generally not aesthetic parts. Also, light pitting (less than 0.025 mm) that did not re sult in loose by-products was considered acceptable. However, deep pitting (greater than 0.025 mm) or perforation was considered unacceptable. And, “heavy corrosion resulting in the production of loose corrosion by-products” was considered unacceptable, because these could potentially become lodged in fuel pumps, filters, injectors, etc... causing a failure (anonymous OEM fuel and corrosion engineer, personal communication, February 10, 2006).

## 2-22-2008

6 MASS LOSS

To understand the effects of t he different fuel blends in

relation to time, the mass loss can be changed to a corrosion rate. The corrosion rate is a prediction of the

amount of the material in m illimeters per year (mm/yr), that a component would lose after being exposed to the fuel. This can be used to project the amount of time a component made of a particular material will last before

failure.

The data gathered from the original dimensions and weights were used along with the data collected from weighing the samples throughout the test to calculate percent mass lost or gained. If uniform corrosion had occurred, the corrosion rate was calculated in millimeters per year. Only corrosion rates higher than 0.0025 mm/yr are reported in this study. Corrosion rates less than this require much longer immersion periods to determine. ASTM G31 recommends the following formula: [Hours = 50 / (corrosion rate in mm/yr)] to determine the length of time needed to accurately predict extremely low corrosion rates (ASTM G31, 8.11.4). Corrosion rates less than 0.0025 mm/yr represent an insignificant loss of material over a 20-year time span. If pitting had occurred, then the corrosion rate

was not calculated due to t he inconstant nature of pitting, which would result in an inaccurate corrosion rate (ASTM G1, 8.2). Instead, the pit depths were measured using a micrometer with pointed anvils and recorded.

Using the corrosion rate per year, perforation potential was calculated to determine if a leak would likely develop during a normal service life of 20 years. A material is considered acceptable if the corrosion rate allows a component to provide at least 20 years of

service.

The mass-loss analysis involves calculating the

corrosion rate from the data gathered on each sample. This data includes the time of exposure in hours, the surface area of each sample, the density of the material,

and a constant to convert units. The corrosion rate formula as per ASTM G1 Section 8.1 is as follows.

Corrosion Rate = (K x W) / (A x T x D)

K = a constant in ASTM G1 Section 8.1 (8.76 *10 4 )

T = time of exposure in hours

A = area in cm 2

W = mass loss in grams

D = density in g/cm 3 An example of the corrosion rate calculation on a sample of magnesium AZ91D exposed to test Fuel C(E10) A at the liquid/vapor interface is shown below. The sample had a surface area of 28.326 cm 2 and weighed 4.0476 g before the soak process and 4.0194 g at the

end of 2016 hours.

Corrosion Rate = (87600 x -0.0282 g) / (28.326 cm 2 x 2016 Hours x 1.77 g/cm 3 )

Corrosion Rate = -0.0244 mm/year

The measure of mm/yr was chosen so that the time to corrode through materials of varying thickness could be determined. For example, if a 2.00 mm (0.080 in.) thick carburetor bowl made of magnesium AZ91D was exposed to the liquid/vapor in terface of E10, it would take (2.00 mm / 0.0244 mm/yr) or 81.9 years to corrode through. This is well in ex cess of the expected 20-year

service life.



### RESULTS

Visual appearance and mass change data was used to verify if a material was compatible with the fuels. Also, the data from the E20 samples were compared to that of the E10 and Fuel C samples because the latter two represent approved fuels. If E20 did not cause any more significant changes than E10 or Fuel C, and met

the criteria stated in the dat a analysis section of this paper, then a material was deemed compatible.

VISUAL CHANGE

Many of the materials showed discoloration after being exposed to the ethanol-blended fuels. In general, the samples exposed to E20 exhibited a greater degree of discoloration than the samples exposed to E10. Also, in all cases the sample that was completely immersed showed a greater degree of discoloration than the sample exposed only to the vapor. This could easily be seen on the liquid/vapor interface samples with the bottom half that was immersed being darker than the top half that was exposed to the vapor (see Figure 2). However, it should be noted that discoloration does not necessarily indicate a potent ial fuel system reliability problem. Also, because fuel system components are not aesthetic parts of the v ehicle, discoloration is not a reason to deem a material incompatible.

## 2-22-2008

7 Only one material, lead, showed discoloration after being exposed to Fuel C. El even materials, listed below, showed discoloration after being exposed to E10.

• 1018 steel

• copper

• lead

• 1018 nickel plated steel

• 1018 zinc-tri-chromate plated steel

• brass 260

• terne plate

• solder (60/40 tin/lead)

• Zamak 5

• cast iron

• magnesium AZ91D

Finally, fourteen materials showed discoloration after being exposed to E20. This included the same eleven

materials that were discolo red by E10 along with cast

aluminum and brass 360. No discoloration of the test fuel was noted throughout the study.

Only Zamak 5, an alloy used in some carburetors, showed pitting when it was exposed to E10 and E20, but not Fuel C. The pitting was apparent on the liquid and liquid/vapor samples but not the vapor samples. Although the pitting could be seen with the naked eye, it was not easily measurable with a micrometer. Finally,there was a noticeable amount of loose corrosion byproduct in the E10 and E20 Zamak 5 containers when the fuel was changed. This is unacceptable because the loose corrosion by-product could clog components in the fuel system. It should be noted that Zamak 5 is often plated to make it more corrosion resistant for fuel applications and the samples used in this study were not plated.

Figure 2. Zamak 5 samples after week 12: Fuel C (left), E10 (center), E20 (right)

MASS LOSS ANALYSIS

Several materials displayed measurable mass losses, 0.0008 g or greater, in one or a ll of the test fuels by the end of the study. Only tw o of these materials, magnesium AZ91D and Zamak 5, displayed a mass loss large enough to potentially calculate an accurate

corrosion rate or discuss further. The mass losses on

the other materials were so small that they did not represent a concern, nor could an accurate corrosion rate be established as mentioned in the data analysis section of this paper. Refer to Appendix B for mass-loss data and corrosion-rate data for the individual samples.

Magnesium AZ91D is a die casting alloy that is commonly used in carburetors and diaphragm pumps. The magnesium AZ91D samples exhibited a mass loss in all three test fuels, with the largest loss occurring on the liquid/vapor sample immersed in Fuel C. This particular sample had a corrosion rate of -0.0248 mm/year. The samples exposed to E10 (liquid/vapor) and E20 (vapor) had similar, but slightly lower, corrosion rates of -0.0244 and -0.0224 mm/year, respectively. Even though these samples had a large enough mass loss to calculate a corrosion rate, the rate was small enough that potential problems in a 20-year life cycle would be unlikely and therefore was deemed acceptable.

Zamak 5, a material used in some early OEM

carburetors and aftermarket carburetors, demonstratedsignificant mass loss, pitting, and loose corrosion byproducts after being exposed to E10 and E20 during the 2016-hour study. The samples exposed to Fuel C did show a mass loss, but it was too small for an accurate

corrosion rate to be calculated and therefore did not represent a potential problem. The Zamak 5 samples that were exposed to only vapor demonstrated little or no changes in all three fuels. However, the samples that were exposed to the liquid/vapor mix and liquid only showed significantly higher levels of corrosion as the

ethanol concentration was increased. There was also pitting evident on the samples placed in the E10 and E20. The E20 samples also darkened to a greater extent than the E10 samp les and had a greater mass loss. The mass losses of the samples exposed to E10 were 0.0393 g and 0.0568 g for the liquid/vapor and liquid samples, respectively. The samples exposed to E20 showed mass losses of 0.1318 g and 0.3384 g for the liquid/vapor and liquid samples, respectively. As the ethanol concentration increased from 10 to 20 %, the

mass losses increased 3.5 and 6 times for the liquid/vapor sample and liquid sample, respectively (see Figure 3). The corrosion rate in mm/yr was not calculated for the E10 and E20 samples, as per ASTM G1 protocol, due the fact that pitting was observed.

Overall, Zamak 5 was found to be incompatible with bothE10 and E20 due to pitting and loose corrosion byproduct that could potentia lly clog fuel system components. Zamak 5 also exhibited an unacceptable

mass loss in E20. It should be noted that Zamak 5 is

## 2-22-2008

8 often plated to make it more corrosion resistant and the samples used in this study were not plated.

Figure 3. Zamak 5 mass loss comparison



### CONCLUSIONS

This study tested and compar ed the effects of E20 to

that of E10 and Fuel C on 19 different metals used in automotive, marine, and sm all engine fuel systems and fuel dispensing equipment. Eighteen of the nineteen metals were found to be compatible. One metal, Zamak 5, exhibited unacceptable leve ls of corrosion in both E10 and E20. It was deemed unacceptable in both fuels because of pitting and the formation of loose corrosion by-products that could clog fuel system components.

Zamak 5 also exhibited an excessive mass loss when exposed to E20. Again, it should be noted that the Zamak 5 samples used in this study were not plated, which could be the reason that the corrosion problems found in this study with E10 are not seen on automobiles currently being used with E10.

Different degrees of discoloration were observed in many of the other material s. While many of the materials yielded higher discoloration as the ethanol concentration increased, they did not show signs of pitting, loose corrosion by-products in the test fluid, or

have a mass loss that exceeded a rate that would cause a failure within a 20-year life cycle. 

### ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not hav e been possible without the support and recommendations from a number of individuals, organizations, and companies including 

### ZAMAK 5 2016-Hour Change in Mass

-0.3500 -0.3000 -0.2500 -0.2000 -0.1500 -0.1000 -0.0500 0.0000

Vapor Mixed Liquid Grams

Fuel C

E10

E20 Briggs & Stratton Delphi Ford Motor Company

General Motors

Intertek Automotive

Jewitt and Associates

Kohler
Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Renewable Fuels Association S&S Cycle Technology Applications Group

TI Automotive

Toro Toyota Zen Fuel LLC / Michael Harrigan



### REFERENCES

ASTM Recommended Practice, (2006). Standard specification for denatured fuel ethanol for blending with gasoline for use as automotive spark-ignition engine

fuel . ASTM D4806.

ASTM Recommended Practice, (2004). Standard specification for automotive spark-ignition engine fuel

. ASTM D4814.

ASTM Recommended Practice, (2003). Standard practice for preparing, cleaning, and evaluating corrosion test specimens . ASTM G1.

ASTM Recommended Practice, (1972). Standard practice for laboratory im mersion corrosion testing of

metals . ASTM G31.

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7547 (1977).

Craig, B. (1989). Handbook of corrosion data . Metals Park, OH. ASM International.

Eisenthal, J. (2005, May). E20 “Bill finally reaches Gov. Pawlenty’s desk”. Minnesota Ag Connection . Retrieved October 22, 2005, fromhttp://www.minnesotaagconnection.com/storystate.cfm?Id=405&yr=2005

Environmental Protection Agency. (1995, August 22). Waiver Requests under section 211 (f) of the clean air

act . Retrieved October 28, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/docs/OMS WWW/regs/fuels/additive/ waiver.pdf

## 2-22-2008

9 Environmental Protection Agency. (1991, January 24). Regulation of fuels and fuel additives; Definition of substantially similar . Retrieved October 28, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/r egs/fuels/additive/jan91.pdf

Orbital Engine Company. (2003, May). Market barriers to the uptake of biofuels study: A testing based assessment to determine impacts of a 10% and 20% ethanol gasoline fuel blend on non-automotive engines - 2000hrs material compatibility testing . Report to

Environment Australia.

Orbital Engine Company. (2003, May). Market barriers

to the uptake of biofuels study: A testing based assessment to determine impacts of a 20% ethanol gasoline fuel blend on the Australian passenger vehicle fleet - 2000hrs material compatibility testing . Report to

Environment Australia.

Orbital Engine Company. (2003, March). Market barriers

to the uptake of biofuels study: A testing based assessment to determine impacts of a 20% ethanol gasoline fuel blend on the Australian passenger vehicle

fleet . Report to Environment Australia.

Oxygenated gasoline, Minnesota Stat. §§ 52-239.791 (2004).

Oxygenated gasoline, Minnesota Stat. §§ 52-239.791 (2005).

SAE Recommended Practice, (2000, January). Gasoline, alcohol and diesel fuel surrogates for materials testing . SAE J1681.

SAE Recommended Practice, (1994, December).

Recom mended practices for conducting corrosion tests in gasoline/methanol fuel mixtures . SAE J1747.

Society of Automotive Engineers. (2000). A rational approach to qualifying materials for use in fuel systems

. Warrendale, PA: Harrigan, M., Banda, A., Bonazza, B., Graham, P., & Slimp, B. Sun Refining and Marketing Company. (1988, April). Waiver application for 15% MTBE (EPA Publication No. EN-88-02, III-A-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

United States Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2005, September 9). “Minnesota passes E20 law”. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://www.eere.energy.gov/a fdc/progs/ddown.cgi?/WHA TS_NEW/480/1/0



### TERMINOLOGY

E10 - Fuel consisting of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol

E20 - Fuel consisting of 80% gasoline and 20% ethanol

ASTM Test Fuel C - Test Fuel C is composed of 50%

toluene and 50% iso-octane.

Aggressive ethanol - Synthetic ethanol 816.00 g, deionized water 8.103 g, sodium chloride 0.004 g, sulfuric acid 0.021 g, glacial acetic acid 0.061 g (SAE J1681 appendix E.1.2)

C(E10) A - Fuel consisting of 90% ASTM test Fuel C and 10% aggressive ethanol

C(E20) A - Fuel consisting of 80% ASTM test Fuel C and 20% aggressive ethanol



### CONTACT

Department of Automotive Engineering Technology Minnesota State University, Mankato

205 Trafton Science Center East Mankato, MN 56001

Phone: 507-389-6383

## 2-22-2008

10 

### APPENDIX A



# MnCAR

Minnesota Center for Automotive Research

10-25-07

FROM Bruce Jones, Gary Mead, & Paul Steevens

Minnesota Center for Automotive Research Minnesota State University, Mankato

Trafton Science Center 205E
Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 389-6383 (507) 389-5002 (fax)

RE E2 0 Material Compatibility Testing Procedure - Metals

Introduction This document is intended to outline the material compatib ility testing procedures used by the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (MnCAR) for the purpose of measuri ng the material compatibility characteristics of metals commonly found in automotive fuel systems.

Standards Used Proposed testing will follow the procedures outlined in SAE J 1747, J1681, and ASTM G1, G31 for immersion testing of

metals

. SAE J1747 (Dec94): Recom mended Methods for Conducting Corrosion Tests in Gasoline/Methanol Fuel

Mixtures SAE J1681 (Jan00): Gasoline, Alcohol, and Diesel Fuel Surrogates for Materials Testing

ASTM G1-03: Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens ASTM G31-72 (Re-approved 2004): Standard Practice for Laboratory Im mersion Corrosion Testing of Metals

Properties Examined mass loss/gain pitting appearance change

## 2-22-2008

11 Metals to Test Nineteen metals, nine specimens of each (3 specim ens x 3 fuels): 1.5 x 1.5 x 0.125 in. squares.

brass 260 steel 1018 aluminum 6061 brass 360 steel 1018 nickel plated aluminum 3003 cast iron steel 1018 tin plated cast aluminum mic 6 copper 110 steel 1018 zinc plated magnesium AZ91D

lead steel 1018 zinc di-chr omate hexavalent free plated

solder 60/40 steel 1018 zinc tri-ch romate hexavalent chrome plated terne plate steel 1018 zinc/nickel plated

Zamak #5

Test Fuels Three test fuels used consisting of C Surrogate gasoline- "base” ASTM Fuel C 50/50 toluene iso-octane mixture (500 ml toluene and 500 ml iso-octane) C(E10) A E10 fuel- 90% Fuel C + 10% aggressive et hanol (450 ml toluene, 450 ml iso-octane, 100 ml aggressive ethanol) C(E20) A E20 fuel- 80% Fuel C + 20% aggressive et hanol (400 ml toluene, 400 ml iso-octane, 200 ml aggressive ethanol)

Aggressive ethanol consists of synthet ic ethanol 816.00 g, de-ionized water 8.103 g, sodium chloride 0.004 g, sulfuric acid 0.021 g, and glacial acetic acid 0.061 g (SAE J1681 appendix E.1.2).

Required Material A. Containers for testing- HDPE (high densit y polyethylene) bottles with a 1L capacity. B. Oven capable of uniformly heating the HPDE bottles to 45 ± 2 ° C for 2000 hours. C. HDPE stands to separate the s pecimens while in the bottles. D. Analytical scale with a resolution of 0.5 mg to weigh the test specimens. E. Micrometer with and accuracy ± 0.001in to measure specimens.

Specimen Preparation 1. Prepare the 1.5 x 1.5 x 0.125 in. specimens by st amping an ID number on each and drilling mounting holes where necessary. All preparation work on plated specimens must be done before plating so that no base material is exposed during testing (ASTM G31, 7.5, 7. 6; SAE J1747, 4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2).

2. Clean each specimen by scrubbing with a bleach-free sc ouring powder (Bon Ami), followed by a water rinse, and finally a rinse in acetone. All handling of the specimen from th is point out must be performed using gloves or forceps to avoid contamination (ASTM G31, 7.8).

3. Record each specimen’s weight using an analytical balance accurate to at least ± 0.5 mg (ASTM G31, 7.9).

4. Measure the dimensions of each specimen using a micrometer accurate to at least 0.001 in. Calculate the surface area subtracting any holes (ASTM G31, 7.9).

5. Photograph the specimens to show or iginal color and surface texture.

Test Procedure 1. Fill the 1 L HDPE bottles with 510 mL of the appr opriate test fluid (SAE J1747, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.4.2).

NOTE: In order to ensure even heating and exposure, all specimens should be placed in, or removed from the test fluid at the same time. Also, all bottles should be placed in or removed from the oven at the same time.

2. Place three specimens of the same material on the HDPE test stand. After a ll of the test stands are loaded, place all of them into their appropriate test bottles so that the bottom specimen is completely immersed, the second specimen halfway immersed, and the third just exposed to vapors. Place the lid on the bottle, but do not tighten at this time to avoid pressure build up (ASTM G31, 8.10.3; SAE J1747, 4.1.4.2).

## 2-22-2008

12 3. Preheat the oven to 45 °C and maintain this temperature within ± 2 °C. Place all of the bottles in the oven at the same time and allow the temperature of the specimens to stabilize at 45 ± 2 °C. Once stabilized, fully tighten the lids on the bottles. This procedure will ensure pressu re buildup in the bottles is minimized (SAE J1747, 4.1.3.2, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.5.4).

NOTE: During fuel change or measurement, always remove all of the bottles at the same time from the oven to avoid uneven exposure. Immediately remove all of the test stands/specimens from all of the bottles to allow them to cool and dry.

4. Change the test fluid weekly to minimize bulk soluti on composition changes, oxygen depletion, and to replenish ionic contaminants. Note any changes in the test fluid color or loose corrosion by-products weekly (ASTM 31, 4.1.4; SAE J1747, 4.1.2.2).

5. Continue heating the submerged metal specimens fo r 2000 hours, and take corrosion measurements after the 1 st , 3 rd

, 6 th , and 12 th week (SAE J1747, 4.1.5.5).

Specimen Inspection and Cleaning Procedure 1. Perform inspection and measurement after the 1 st , 3 rd , 6 th , and 12 th week while replacing the test fluid (SAE J1747, 4.1.5.5).

2. Gloves or forceps must be used at all times when handling specimens to prevent contamination.

NOTE: Always remove all of the bottles at the same ti me from the oven to avoid uneven exposure. Immediately remove all of the test stands/specimens from all of the bottles to allow them to cool and dry.

3. Photograph the specimens after they are dried, and weigh them before cleaning to determine any mass gains (ASTM 31, 9.1).

4. Clean the specimens with a bristle brush and a bleach-free scouring powder. If heav ily corroded areas can not be cleaned by brushing, air driven walnut s hells are to be used (ASTM 31, 9.3.1).

5. After cleaning, weigh the specimens to determine ma ss loss. The mass loss will be the principle method for determining the level of corrosion for each material (ASTM 31, 10.1).

6. If any pitting is discovered, measure it using a microm eter with pointed anvils. Take a photograph of the sample to show the pitting. Do not establish a loss per year val ue, as pitting is rarely c onsistent (ASTM 31, 10.2.1).

7. If it appears that internal attack has not been a factor in the corrosion, then calculate the mass loss, in millimeters per year, with the following formula: (K * W) / (A * T * D), w here K = an ASTM constant (used to convert to millimeters per year), W = mass loss in grams to the nearest 0.001 g to correct for any losses during cleaning, A = area in cm 2 to the

nearest 0.010 cm 2 , T = time in exposure in hours to the nearest 0.001 h, and D = density in g/cm 3 (ASTM 31, 11.2).

8. If testing is to continue, refer back to steps 1-5 of the Test Procedure section.2-22-200813APPENDIX B MASS CHANGE AND CORROSION RATEFuel CFuel E10Fuel E20Vapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed Liquidbefore 4.5660 4.2890 4.3270 before 4.5637 4.0476 4.2334 before 4.0248 4.3013 4.8323after 4.5497 4.2589 4.3053 after 4.5402 4.0194 4.2108 after 3.9995 4.2790 4.8138Change in Mass (g)-0.0163 -0.0301 -0.0217-0.0235 -0.0282 -0.0226-0.0253 -0.0223 -0.0185Corrosion Rate (mm /year)-0.0138 -0.0248 -0.0179-0.0202 -0.0244 -0.0191-0.0224 -0.0185 -0.0150before 35.1726 35.1298 35.1278 before 35.1176 35.2521 35.1395 before 35.0740 35.3728 35.1840after 35.1726 35.1297 35.1275 after 35.1179 35.2518 35.1403 after 35.0747 35.3721 35.1817Change in Mass (g)NM NM NMNM NM 0.0008 NM NM -0.0023Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NC/M NC/MNC/M NC/M NSNC/M NC/M NSbefore 39.8973 40.2768 39.9907 before 40.0638 40.1193 40.1089 before 40.1089 40.0810 39.9104after 39.8969 40.2768 39.9906 after 40.0645 40.1172 40.1029 after 40.1086 40.0747 39.9016Change in Mass (g)NM NM NMNM -0.0021 -0.0060 NM -0.0063 -0.0088Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NC/M NC/MNC/M NS NSNC/M NS NSbefore 38.0175 37.8497 38.0058 before 38.0088 37.9634 37.9290 before 38.0100 38.0215 37.9682after 38.0170 37.8487 38.0061 after 38.0076 37.9608 37.9244 after 38.0093 38.0154 37.9605Change in Mass (g)NM -0.0010 NM-0.0012 -0.0026 -0.0046 NM -0.0061 -0.0077Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NS NC/MNS NS NSNC/M NS NSbefore 11.9894 12.0125 12.1421 before 12.0231 11.9805 12.0513 before 12.1142 12.1351 12.0491after 11.9897 12.0130 12.1433 after 12.0231 11.9801 12.0515 after 12.1145 12.1343 12.0466Change in Mass (g)NM NM 0.0012 NM NM NMNM -0.0008 -0.0025Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NC/M NSNC/M NC/M NC/MNC/M NS NSKeyHighlighted CellsSignificant Change in Mass (> 0.0008 g)NMNot Measurable because mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scale (< 0.0008 g)NC/MNot Calculated because Mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scaleNC/PNot Calculated because Pitting was observ edNSNot Significant enough of a corrosion rate (< 0.0025 mm /yr)Magnesium AZ91D1018 SteelCopperBrass 360Aluminum 30032-22-200814Fuel CFuel E10Fuel E20Vapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed Liquidbefore 12.5156 12.5067 12.5564 before 12.4225 12.4891 12.5206 before 12.5053 12.5671 12.5244after 12.5147 12.5068 12.5563 after 12.4217 12.4885 12.5202 after 12.5047 12.5663 12.5228Change in Mass (g)-0.0009 NM NM-0.0008 NM NMNM -0.0008 -0.0016Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NC/M NC/MNS NC/M NC/MNC/M NS NSbefore 51.7746 51.0825 51.6412 before 52.6858 52.6618 51.7176 before 51.0475 52.1925 52.2263after 51.7684 51.0756 51.6332 after 52.6845 52.6544 51.7223 after 51.0411 52.1842 52.2085Change in Mass (g)-0.0062 -0.0069 -0.0080-0.0013 -0.0074 0.0047-0.0064 -0.0083 -0.0178Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSbefore 35.8358 36.1278 35.7120 before 35.8500 36.0347 35.7876 before 35.6869 35.6886 36.0737after 35.8354 36.1274 35.7130 after 35.8499 36.0342 35.7856 after 35.6866 35.6861 36.0707Change in Mass (g)NM NM 0.0010 NM NM -0.0020 NM -0.0025 -0.0030Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NC/M 0.0001 NC/M NC/M NSNC/M NS NSbefore 35.5065 35.5188 35.3381 before 35.6685 35.8266 35.5859 before 35.9923 35.6300 36.1662after 35.5049 35.5160 35.3361 after 35.6679 35.8250 35.5825 after 35.9916 35.6265 36.1593Change in Mass (g)-0.0016 -0.0028 -0.0020 NM -0.0016 -0.0034 NM -0.0035 -0.0069Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NS NSNC/M NS NSNC/M NS NSbefore 35.2673 35.5167 35.0492 before 35.5073 35.2863 35.4092 before 35.3760 35.4253 35.0952after 35.2670 35.5162 35.0496 after 35.5077 35.2851 35.4063 after 35.3761 35.4233 35.0891Change in Mass (g)NM NM NMNM -0.0012 -0.0029 NM -0.0020 -0.0061Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NC/M NC/MNC/M NS NSNC/M NS NSKeyHighlighted CellsSignificant Change in Mass (> 0.0008 g)NMNot Measurable because mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scale (< 0.0008 g)NC/MNot Calculated because Mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scaleNC/PNot Calculated because Pitting was observ edNSNot Significant enough of a corrosion rate (< 0.0025 mm /yr)Aluminum 60611018 Nickel Coated SteelLead1018 Zinc Di-Chromate (HexavalentFree) Coated Steel1018 Zinc Tri-Chromate(HexavalentChrome) Coated Steel2-22-200815Fuel CFuel E10Fuel E20Vapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed Liquidbefore 35.8451 36.0073 36.0557 before 35.7778 35.8873 35.6474 before 35.4252 35.8586 35.5483after 35.8451 36.0061 36.0542 after 35.7776 35.8864 35.6462 after 35.4251 35.8573 35.5467Change in Mass (g)NM -0.0012 -0.0015 NM -0.0009 -0.0012 NM -0.0013 -0.0016Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NS NSNC/M NS NSNC/M NS NSbefore 35.9483 35.4653 35.9028 before 35.5163 36.0325 35.9464 before 35.7825 35.7930 35.8908after 35.9473 35.4636 35.9012 after 35.5165 36.0306 35.9444 after 35.7826 35.7917 35.8895Change in Mass (g)-0.0010 -0.0017 -0.0016 NM -0.0019 -0.0020 NM -0.0013 -0.0013Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NS NSNC/M NS NSNC/M NS NSbefore 35.8610 35.8227 36.1638 before 35.9817 35.9930 35.8024 before 36.2028 36.0410 35.9459after 35.8598 35.8216 36.1621 after 35.9812 35.9922 35.8000 after 36.2024 36.0385 35.9401Change in Mass (g)-0.0012 -0.0011 -0.0017 NM -0.0008 -0.0024 NM -0.0025 -0.0058Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NS NSNC/M NS NSNC/M NS NSbefore 38.7669 38.8832 38.8826 before 38.8417 38.8662 38.8704 before 38.8192* 38.7110 38.8467after 38.7658 38.8870 38.8820 after 38.8414 38.8635 38.8658 after 38.8179 38.7061 38.8380Change in Mass (g)-0.0011 0.0038 NMNM -0.0027 -0.0046-0.0013 -0.0049 -0.0087Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NS NC/MNC/M NS NSNS NS NSbefore 17.0354 16.7382 17.1234 before 16.8331 16.7840 16.3970 before 16.7526 16.4992 16.5597after 17.0320 16.7336 17.1201 after 16.8302 16.7778 16.3855 after 16.7514 16.4877 16.5404Change in Mass (g)-0.0034 -0.0046 -0.0033-0.0029 -0.0062 -0.0115-0.0012 -0.0115 -0.0193Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS -0.0036KeyHighlighted CellsSignificant Change in Mass (> 0.0008 g)NMNot Measurable because mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scale (< 0.0008 g)NC/MNot Calculated because Mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scaleNC/PNot Calculated because Pitting was observ edNSNot Significant enough of a corrosion rate (< 0.0025 mm /yr)* For Brass 260, the "before" weight measurem ent was lost. The week 1 data has been substituted for the before measurement.Terne PlateBrass 2601018 Zinc Coated Steel1018 Tin Coated Steel1018 Zinc/Nickel Coated Steel2-22-200816Fuel CFuel E10Fuel E20Vapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed LiquidVapor Mixed Liquidbefore 37.9335 38.5033 37.2485 before 38.9853 37.7488 39.8251 before 33.7774 40.0972 35.1012after 37.9305 38.4997 37.2430 after 38.9837 37.7422 39.8182 after 33.7764 40.0919 35.0944Change in Mass (g)-0.0030 -0.0036 -0.0055-0.0016 -0.0066 -0.0069-0.0010 -0.0053 -0.0068Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSbefore 32.0851 33.3180 29.1921 before 31.4755 27.6252 30.9663 before 32.2466 30.8127 28.0344after 32.0842 33.3148 29.1913 after 31.4748 27.5859 30.9095 after 32.2462 30.6809 27.6960Change in Mass (g)-0.0009 -0.0032 -0.0008 NM -0.0393 -0.0568 NM -0.1318 -0.3384Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NC/M NC/MNC/M NC/P NC/PNC/M NC/P NC/Pbefore 12.2150 12.5064 11.2828 before 11.6278 11.8106 12.4761 before 12.2339 12.3675 11.5788after 12.2133 12.5059 11.2823 after 11.6279 11.8113 12.4758 after 12.2341 12.3690 11.5811Change in Mass (g)-0.0017 NM NMNM NM NMNM 0.0015 0.0023Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NS NC/M NC/MNC/M NC/M NC/MNC/M NS NSbefore 33.6240 30.4415 32.7912 before 32.5202 30.5405 33.4194 before 34.3885 32.8555 32.7844after 33.6238 30.4439 32.7944 after 32.5227 30.5450 33.4234 after 34.3925 32.8593 32.7890Change in Mass (g)NM 0.0024 0.00320.0025 0.0045 0.00400.0040 0.0038 0.0046Corrosion Rate (mm /year)NC/M NS NSNS NS NSNS NS NSKeyHighlighted CellsSignificant Change in Mass (> 0.0008 g)NMNot Measurable because mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scale (< 0.0008 g)NC/MNot Calculated because Mass change was outside accuracy/precision capability of scaleNC/PNot Calculated because Pitting was observ edNSNot Significant enough of a corrosion rate (< 0.0025 mm /yr)Cast AluminumCast IronSolder 60Tin/40LeadZamak 5