CEN/TR 15993:2013

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-april-2013
1DGRPHãþD
SIST-TP CEN/TR 15993:2010
*RULYD]DPRWRUQDYR]LOD*RULYRHWDQRO(]DPRWRUQDYR]LOD2]DGMH
]DKWHYDQLKSDUDPHWURYLQQMLKRYLKRPHMLWHYWHUGRORþE
Automotive fuels - Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel - Background to the parameters
required and their respective limits and determination
Kraftstoffe für Kraftfahrzeuge - Ethanol-Kraftstoff (E85) - Hintergrund für die geforderten
Parameter und deren jeweiligen Grenzwerte und Bestimmung
Carburants pour automobiles - Essence pour automobile Ethanol (E85) - Informations
sur les paramètres requis et leurs limites et détermination respectives
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 15993:2013
ICS:
71.080.60 Alkoholi. Etri Alcohols. Ethers
75.160.20 7HNRþDJRULYD Liquid fuels
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

TECHNICAL REPORT
CEN/TR 15993
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
February 2013
ICS 75.160.20; 71.080.60 Supersedes CEN/TR 15993:2010
English Version
Automotive fuels - Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel - Background
to the parameters required and their respective limits and
determination
Carburants pour automobiles - Essence pour automobile Kraftstoffe für Kraftfahrzeuge - Ethanol-Kraftstoff (E85) -
Ethanol (E85) - Informations sur les paramètres requis et Hintergrund der geforderten Parameter und deren
leurs limites et détermination respectives jeweiligen Grenzwerte und Bestimmung

This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 21 May 2011. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 19.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United
Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2013 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 15993:2013: E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

Contents Page
Foreword . 3
1 Scope . 4
2 Summary of the ethanol fuel (E85) taskforce work . 4
3 Record of the work to date . 4
3.1 Context . 4
3.2 The Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel Task Force . 5
3.3 Planning. 7
4 The draft ethanol (E85) automotive fuel specification . 8
4.1 Parameters included . 8
4.2 Considerations on the parameters . 9
4.2.1 Denaturants . 9
4.2.2 RON MON . 9
4.2.3 Ethanol content and higher alcohols . 10
4.2.4 Vapour pressure . 12
4.2.5 Density . 13
4.2.6 Sulfur content . 13
4.2.7 Oxidation stability . 14
4.2.8 Existent gum content (solvent washed) . 14
4.2.9 Oxygenates content . 14
4.2.10 Phosphorus . 16
4.2.11 Water content . 16
4.2.12 Chloride content . 17
4.2.13 Copper strip corrosion . 18
4.2.14 Total acidity . 18
4.2.15 Copper content . 18
4.2.16 Sulfate content . 19
4.2.17 Conductivity . 19
4.2.18 pHe . 20
4.2.19 High boiling components. 20
4.2.20 Additives . 20
4.2.21 Biologically sourced ethanol . 20
4.2.22 Guidelines . 21
4.3 Parameters considered and not included in the draft specification . 21
4.3.1 Appearance . 21
4.3.2 Chlorine as chlorides . 21
4.3.3 Lead . 21
5 Acknowledgement. 21
Bibliography. 22

Foreword
This document (CEN/TR 15993:2013) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 19 “Gaseous and
liquid fuels, lubricants and related products of petroleum, synthetic and biological origin”, the secretariat of
which is held by NEN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
This document supersedes CEN/TR 15993:2010.
The original Technical Report presented all decisions that led to the proposed draft of prCEN/TS 15293:2009
in order to support the enquiry ballot. This document includes all decisions that have been made following
comments and further investigations leading to the effective publication of the ethanol (E85) automotive fuel
specification as CEN/TS 15293:2011. In addition, it presents all further details leading to the effective revision
of that CEN/TS into a full European Standard.
1 Scope
This Technical Report explains the requirements and test methods for marketed and delivered ethanol (E85)
automotive fuel according to CEN/TS 15293 [3]. It provides background information to judge the (approval of the)
final text of the standard and gives guidance and explanations to the producers, blenders, marketers and users of
ethanol (E85) automotive fuel.
NOTE 1 This document is directly related to CEN/TS 15293:2011 [3] and will be updated once further publications take
place.
NOTE 2 For the purposes of this document, the terms “% (m/m)” and “% (V/V)” are used to represent the mass
fraction, µ, and the volume fraction, φ, respectively.
2 Summary of the ethanol fuel (E85) taskforce work
At the 2007 plenary meeting, CEN/TC 19 decided to register the following work item as described in its active
programme of work: "Automotive fuels — Ethanol E85 — Requirements and test methods", under responsibility of
WG 21. The scope was to develop a CEN Standard on the basis of CWA 15293 [4]and existing related national
standards and to check for the most appropriate wording of the title of the standard.
The work on the specification was developed during a series of Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel Task Force (TF
E85) meetings between October 2007 and May 2009, and is presented by means of this Technical Report. The
draft standard, referenced by the identification CEN/TS 15293, comprised a set of properties and limit values to
define an adequate quality of the ethanol (E85) automotive fuel and recommendations for precautions to be taken
(see Table 1 in CEN/TS 15293:2011 [3]).
The draft standard was presented to CEN/TC 19/WG 21 in November 2008, together with a request to allow the
TF some additional time to finalise discussions and to study data that still needed to be generated from field
experience, both of refinery and ethanol production. Following that November meeting, a draft enquiry text was
developed and this was presented in January 2009 to WG 21 and thereafter to CEN/CCMC.
It should be noted that the draft standard had been considered on the basis of the ethanol blend component
specification EN 15376 2007 [2] and the former version of the EN 228 (unleaded petrol) standard [1]. Revision
discussion on those documents has been included in the discussions in the last two years. However,
CEN/TS 15293 still contains some pending issues, which are noted as such in the text.
Many of the test methods proposed by the test methods experts are being examined to determine their
applicability to ethanol (E85) fuel and to determine if their precision is sufficient to support the limit values
proposed. This activity is being undertaken in several other CEN working groups where the specialists in methods
are present.
An automatic link has been established between the gasoline and ethanol (EN 228 and EN 15376 respectively)
standards and the ethanol (E85) automotive fuel (CEN/TS 15293) standard so that modifications to one will be
coherent with the other.
3 Record of the work to date
3.1 Context
The European Commission is following a policy of promoting renewable energy use in Europe, and to this end
is encouraging the extension of automotive gasoline fuel with a proportion of renewably-sourced ethyl alcohol
(referred to in this document as ethanol).
In order to facilitate a transparent and stable market in ethanol, it is necessary to establish an ethanol (E85)
automotive fuel standard for Europe that will ensure a uniform high quality fuel for problem-free ethanol use as
a gasoline fuel.
To this end, the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) Technical Committee 19, responsible for
Automotive Fuels Standards, accepted the CWA revision as a work item on its programme to be developed in
Working Group 21, responsible for Automotive Gasoline management.
The intention of CEN/TC 19 was to redraft the CWA into a CEN standard based on the publication of
EN 15376 and EN 228, also taking into account the developments in Sweden, France and Germany.
Discussion in WG 21 had indicated that there were still test method questions to be solved and thus national
initiatives were not halted.
CEN/TC 19, having considered the proposal for a new work item, as documented in N 1318 and supported by
WG 21, noting the request from UPEI in document N 1326R, decided to register the following work item as
described in N 1318 in its active programme of work: "Automotive fuels — Ethanol E85 — Requirements and
test methods", under the responsibility of WG 21. The scope was to develop a CEN Standard on the basis of
CWA 15293 and existing related national standards and to check for the most appropriate wording of the title
of the standard. The Task Force E85 was created.
The aim of the CWA was to keep the specification simple and straightforward, allowing cars to be introduced
into the market. The original idea was to ensure basic car functionality, for which the existing CWA succeeded.
However, as flexi-fuel vehicles were soon to fall under the Emission Legislation, more stringent fuel
requirements were needed. The existing CWA was not able to support EURO V vehicles.
CWA 15293 and its successor(s) should specify requirements and test methods for marketed and delivered
Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel. It is applicable to Ethanol (E85) for use in spark ignition engine vehicles
designed to run on Ethanol (E85). Ethanol (E85) is a mixture of nominally 85 % ethanol and 15 % petrol, but it
also includes the possibility of having different 'seasonal grades' containing more than 50 % ethanol.
This document is the report on the work to date carried out by the TF E85 (see 3.2) towards establishing a
European Standard for Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel.
3.2 The Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel Task Force
CEN, in anticipation of a mandate from the Commission, requested TC 19/WG 21 to convene a task force and
begin work on a draft ethanol (E85) automotive fuel standard. A call was made to the industries concerned by
the mandate for experts to participate in the TF E85. The experts who have contributed to the work over the
years are listed in Table 1. Revision work on CEN/TS 15293 had been discussed from meeting 9 onwards,
whereas the former version of this document had been finalised at meeting 8.
Table 1 — Membership of the taskforce
Name Organisation Country
Auger Celine (from meetings 2 to 9) Renault France
Baldini Luca ENI Italy
Bennett John Afton Chemical United Kingdom
Bernard Joerg Suedzuecker Germany
Betlejewski Marek (from meetings 2 to 7) PKN Orlen Poland
Colbert Dane Ethanol Union France
Costenoble Ortwin (TF Secretary) NEN Netherlands
Crépeau Gerald (Convenor) PSA Peugeot Citroën France
Elliott Nigel Exxon Mobil United Kingdom
Engelen Benoit Total Belgium
Feuerhelm Tom DIN/FAM Germany
Gameson Thomas Abengoa Bioenergia Spain
Gibarroux Germain (since meeting 10) Renault France
Grand Jean-Gabriel (until meeting 2) Renault France
Hermans Pierre (until meeting 10) Exxonmobil Belgium
Jeuland Nicolas (since meeting 5) IFP France
King Stan (until meeting 9) Afton Chemical CEFIC-ATC
Koppen Piet (since meeting 8) PAC Netherlands
Kronström Börje Svenska Shell Sweden
Lloyd Robin (until meeting 4) Argent Energy United Kingdom
Leber Edwin (until meeting 8) Opel Germany
Manuelli Pascal Total France
Mirabella Walter Lyondell Italy
Nilsson Magnus (until meeting 10) General Motors Powertrain Sweden
Olofsson Mathias (until meeting 10) SEKAB Sweden
Pollak Vanda (since meeting 6) Hungrana Hungary
Rantanen – Kolehmainen Leena (since meeting 6) Nesteoil Finland
Rappange Aly (until meeting 10) Royal Nedalco Netherlands
Suanders Bob (since meeting 8) EI United Kingdom
Schuermans Kurt (since meeting 7) Chevron Netherlands
Sijben Jo (from meetings 4 to 10) Proces Design Center Netherlands
Skret Iwona (until meeting 6) Instytut Technologii Nafty Poland
Sniegula Agnieska (since meeting 8) PKN Orlen Poland
Spaans Han (until meeting 9) AC Analytical Controls Netherlands
Tittarelli Paolo SSC Italy
Following his retirement as TF project leader, due to his change of profession, Mr. Bennett handed over the
nd
work to Mr. Crépeau during the 2 meeting and his contribution to the work and initiatives of this TF is hereby
warmly acknowledged.
The task force has met on the following occasions:
th st
a) 30 October 2007 Brussels, 1 meeting,
th nd
b) 15 January 2008 Brussels, 2 meeting,
th rd
c) 5 March 2008 Hamburg, 3 meeting,
th th
d) 18 April 2008 London, 4 meeting,
rd th
e) 3 July 2008 Brussels, 5 meeting,
th th
f) 11 September 2008 Brussels, 6 meeting,
th th th
g) 4 /5 December 2008 Paris, 7 meeting,
rd
h) 23 April 2009 Paris, 8th meeting,
rd th
i) 23 September 2009 Paris, 9 meeting,
th th
j) 18 February 2010 Brussels, 10 meeting.
Following the finalisation of the ethanol specification at the level of 10 % blending, it was debated and
concluded to merge the TF 85 with the Ethanol TF. At the end of 2010, both taskforces were disbanded.
3.3 Planning
The initial planning was: enquiry text ready in August 2008, the comments known in April 2009 and the final
text to be delivered to CEN/CCMC in November 2009.
WG 21 had advised the use of EN 228 as the blending component and had supported a six month extension
allowance for the E85 specification for the necessary updating of test methods and seasonal grades. Next, it
agreed that no shortened procedure, such as a UAP, should be used. Thus, renewed planning was pursued
and prEN 15239 was published for ballot in May 2009.
However, the TF encountered several open issues due to the uncertainty of the guarantee of the octane in the
future with the integration of Blending Oxygenate Base-stock (BOB) in all European markets and its impact on
ethanol (E85) fuels. In addition, the test methods precision for chlorine content at 1 mg/kg or below and the
high-boiler requirement were under evaluation. Furthermore, time was required to collect data on the current
market, resulting in a better specification proposal. At the end of 2009, the TF still planned to aim at a
submission for formal vote halfway through 2010; although being revised, this CEN Technical Report shall,
support the ballots. After the CEN enquiry, considering the technical comments and the suggested necessary
updates, the deliverable on prEN15293 had been changed into a CEN Technical Specification with its
th
submission to CEN/CCMC on 27 of March, 2010.
th
CEN/TS 15293 was ratified by CEN on 28 September 2010 and was published as CEN/TS 15293:2011.
CEN/TC 19 intends to further revise this Technical Specification, but it needs to rely on test method precision
data (availability).
4 The draft ethanol (E85) automotive fuel specification
4.1 Parameters included
Ethanol (E85) automotive fuel should be based on unleaded petrol complying with EN 228 and ethanol complying
with EN 15376.
The parameters chosen by the TF E85 are those presented in Table 1 (general requirements) and Table 2
th
(seasonal requirements) of CEN/TS 15293:2011. After the 10 meeting, all the parameters were agreed upon in
full consensus. The applicability of all the test methods had been checked within CEN/TC 19 or were under an
improvement process (like the oxygenates content determinations), with the exception of octane. An overview
of the assessment is presented in Table 2. Nevertheless, for octane, it was suggested to include any new or
adapted methodology in the next revision like the alternatives indicated in DIN 51617-1. If this were to be done
during the first quarter of 2011, all the parameters would be in line with an applicable method.
Table 2 — Test method assessment
E85
Test Method Applicability Annex A
to be
Property  for E85 fuel completed
Density EN ISO 12185
Oxidation stability EN ISO 7536
Existent gum content (solvent washed) EN ISO 6246
Copper strip corrosion (3 h at 50 °C) EN ISO 2160
Acidity, (as acetic acid CH3COOH) EN 15491

pHe EN 15490
electrical conductivity EN 15938

Methanol EN 1601
Higher alcohols (C3–C5) EN 1601

Ethers (5 or more C atoms) EN 1601
Water content EN 15489
EN 15692
Inorganic chloride content EN 15492

Copper content EN 15488
EN 15837
Phosphorus EN 15487
EN 15837
Sulfur content EN 15485
EN 15486
Sulphate EN 15492
Ethanol + higher saturated alcohols
content EN 1601
Vapour pressure EN 13016-1
Table 2 — Test method assessment (continued)
Further works Methods Applicability Annex A
to be
for E85 fuel completed
Research octane number EN ISO 5164
Motor octane number EN ISO 5163
Research octane number DIN 51756-7
Motor octane number DIN 51756-7
High boiling component
Legend
Applicability OK
Applicability OK but revised method standard necessary (prEN 15293, Annex A to be completed)
Applicability NOK
Comments to be integrated very soon
Comments already integrated
NOTE For rejected parameters see 4.3.
4.2 Considerations on the parameters
4.2.1 Denaturants
The presence of petrol that conforms to EN 228 is generally considered sufficient to render Ethanol (E85) a
denatured product. The taskforce E85 considers it necessary to follow the same line of requirement as set out
before by CEN/TC 19 regarding denaturants in EN 15376 and thus that requirement is copied.
4.2.2 RON MON
In Europe, E85 Flex Fuels Vehicles (FFV) are engineered to take advantage of the higher octane value of
85% ethanol. Originally, the CWA was drafted on the assumption that EN 228 would be used for blending and
the engine ignitions are tuned to these specification limits. The difference between E0 to E85 RON range were
analysed and the combustion potentials with higher octane fuels were demonstrated. The impact of energy
content loss, the knocking effect and the ignition timing was explained. The car manufacturers calibrated for
E0 and E85 fuels based on an oxygen (ethanol) sensor. It was necessary to limit the variation on RON/MON
for the E85 fuel because a lower value on RON/MON was not suitable for engine calibration and could
potentially damage the engine. Furthermore, it was impossible to test for EN 228 quality at the fuelling station
in E85. If in the future EN 228 at E10 level is used, it will be the finished E10 that meets the EN 228
boundaries. FFVs needed to be able to run on RON 95, but for optimisation reasons (car makers calibrate on
the full range of fuels used in the FFV) they would need a minimum of 104/90 for the E85. If the octane was
not measured (and EN 228 would not be required for the petroleum part), other elements like paraffin needed
to be limited and calorific value needed to be tested. Moreover, it was shown that the 104/90 RON/MON
proposal was also for optimisation of the fuel economy.
The European automobile manufacturers (ACEA) suggested 104,0 RON and 90,0 MON minimum limits and
the ethanol producers agreed to support the car makers in their need to use the better octane.
The oil industry mentioned that the only available petrol for blending would be BOB, which meets EN 228 after
addition of ethanol. They suggested defining an alternative proposal requiring blending with EN 228 minus the
octane specification. After a lot of discussion inside TF E85 covering several meetings, all stakeholders
concluded that the final RON/MON depended on the quality of the BOB (typical BOB RON could be down to
92), but suspected that in E85 it would be close to 104/88.
This issue warranted a MON/RON limit in the specification to maximise the benefits in the market, besides
having sufficient blend stock available at economical conditions to allow the market to grow.
The group agreed to consider a higher RON/MON based on the proposal of the engine manufacturers and
agreed on setting a MON/RON limit with the actual CFR engine test, include a BOB- ethanol calculation table
as information for the blenders and to do a BOB- ethanol base blend check to further define the E85 limit.
After discussions, an E85 based on a fuel with 91 of RON and 83 of MON that can reach the 104 and 88
targets was accepted by the group. Tests on two batches of low MON and RON implied that the MON/RON
requirement (104/88) was safely set. Oil industry confirmed these values and that sufficient flexibility for the
refinery remained.
Due to the uncertainty of the future value of RON and MON with the introduction of the BOB, a new debate on
the subject appeared. Following additional information, EU car makers designed vehicles in order to exploit
higher octane when available in the tank, for example, with a RON of 106 vs. 98, a CO gain of 5 % on mixed
cycle. However, if car makers are sure of the higher RON value, fuel consumption could be reduced by 40 %
to 25 %, particularly if driven on highways due to a better knocking resistance.
As car makers and ethanol producers believed this would make E85 fuels more attractive for the customer, it
was agreed to leave the 104 as indicative in the table in the first instance. Once there would be sufficient
confidence with actual field data, the values could become mandatory. It was agreed to replace the octane
requirements in Table 1 with a separate clause following the suggestions as presented during the meeting.
Both additions to Annex A on the test method updates and an extra informative Annex B with the background
would be included.
th
During the 10 meeting, the group agreed that §5.5.2 would remain as it is and that both MON and RON
requirements would be re-evaluated once the test methods were upgraded towards applicability for E85.
The current ISO 5164 test can measure at the level of 106 of RON. It was suggested to specify 104 based on
the precision at that level. However, two steps should be taken notice of: estimation of the octane number and
the depiction of the specific nozzle on the CFR engine. As all engines should be certified for their specific
nozzle, it was agreed not to clarify the specific r and R in the specification. A correction should not be included
in the E85 specification.
It was suggested to include any new or adapted methodology in the next revision such as the alternatives
indicated in DIN 51756-1.
CEN/TC 19/WG 9 should check if a GC method could be an alternative to determine RON/MON. ISO/TC 28
and ASTM D02 have also initiated revision studies on the octane engine test.
4.2.3 Ethanol content and higher alcohols
The ethanol content is specified as a minimum to ensure a correct degree of purity for its use in automobiles,
and to qualify for Custom and Excise recognition. As the ethanol coming from the production facility may
contain small quantities of higher saturated alcohols C3 – C5 that are not considered harmful to engines, they
are included within this parameter. The higher saturated alcohols are also limited by a maximum content as a
separate parameter.
TF E85 supported allowing more flexibility on the amount of petrol to achieve the necessary performance. It
was suggested to include the French limits and to use different indications of grades to prevent confusion with
EN 228 climate classes.
The French Customs required a maximum range of 10 % from a consumer protection viewpoint. Yet the
flexibility in the DVPE would be lost if the range of ethanol were limited to 10 %. It was suggested to first
define the volatility grades and see if the ethanol content needed similar or additional grades.
Since the summer period seemed to give the constraints, ethanol producers suggested leaving out the
requirement of maximum ethanol percentage and limiting it by the vapour pressure. However, in winter, a limit
of 75 % seemed to give optimum results, as the more gasoline the better.
The group agreed to further address the need for a maximum ethanol limit and the French 10 % range
requirement, based on information from the car makers.
The engine needs vapour pressure for a cold start and DVPE is a way to measure it. Once running, the broad
distillation characteristics become more critical and driveability is assisted by high front-end distillates. The
usefulness of the Driveability Index was debated. It was feared that we would deviate too much from the
original model with such high ethanol quantities.
Referring to the work in CEN/TC 19/WG 9 on three different methods, the GC test should report: oxygenates
only or also hydrocarbons. A reliable ethanol determination could be made with only minor updating of the
existing test methods.
It was suggested that the definition of the effective ethanol content be improved, which was a calculation of
100 % minus the rest. The group felt that the ethanol content meant ethanol plus higher alcohols. The oil
industry, referring to the fact that it needed to be measured in volume, reckoned that ethanol has higher
alcohols in it. Ethanol producers indicated that the denaturants should be excluded and administrators
referred to the needs of the tax authorities.
The TF E85 agreed to limit the ethanol and higher content, using EN 15721 or another test suggested by
WG 9, and not the EN 15376 content, since there was a maximum on the higher alcohols content in the
specification table.
Limiting the content of unleaded petrol, the suggestion to delete the petrol content requirement from the table
was accepted since Ethanol (E85) is defined as a mixture of ethanol and petrol.
Ethanol producers favoured the original principal of actually blending 85% and lowering the percentage too
much would make the product less commercially attractive. In the US, 70% was required as a minimum.
Regarding E85 volatility in very cold conditions, it could be necessary to use block heaters.
To be sure that the complete range of EN 228 products can be used to ensure the vapour pressure requests
(see 4.2.4), a consensus proposal with four grades was presented and discussed. A wide range of limits on
ethanol and higher alcohol content was proposed: grade “a” from 70 % to 85 %, grade “b” from 70 % to 85%,
grade “c” from 60 % to 85 % and grade “d” from 50 % to 85 %.
The debate was on acknowledging the French experience and allowing a wider ethanol content range (70% to
85%), whereas the ethanol producers preferred the 75 % ethanol minimum. The oil industry argued that with
the E10 requirement becoming the new market situation, having a low DVPE BOB in stock was essential.
CONCAWE members would not approve a 75 % ethanol limit and additional data would be provided by the
French oil industry. On the b, c and d grades consensus was achieved, as were the DVPE values. For the
lower limit of ethanol content in grade a, this was to be dealt before the end of the enquiry.
BOB in France had not been available until April 2009, and acquiring new data would take time. The group
agreed to await further data at the next meeting and requested the CONCAWE members to provide further
field data. The oil industry tabled that the French oil industry goal was, motivated by tax incentives on ethanol
quantity, to have the maximum amount of ethanol in E85, but they would not like to be blocked by availability
of gasoline in stock.
Based on a study with three base fuels with different vapour pressures done with the regular test, the data
showed differences between the model and the actual blends. For low vapour pressures, the model
overlapped (taking into account the precision) with the actual data. For the highest VP base fuels, the model
largely overestimates the actual vapour pressure in the lowest blend percentages.
Taking into account the fact that flexibility was needed during the seasonal changes, the RED requirements
would push the blenders to use the highest ethanol percentages and that a no-risk approach would be
necessary, the group agreed to 70 % minimum of class a. To emphasise the importance of vapour pressure it
would be presented as the first row of Table 2.
4.2.4 Vapour pressure
Car makers gave further details on the DVPE test results and engine impact regarding emissions and cold
start. The data showed that in winter the ethanol content should be above 75 %. With regard to the exhaust
emissions, a discussion on the catalyst adaptations needed and the delay in the combustion took place. The
group concluded that the fuel needed to be compatible with flexible-fuel vehicles. Further discussions on the
optimisation of the ignition timing and relation to the emissions also took place. As mentioned previously, the
ethanol content was closely linked to the DVPE.
With regard to the winter conditions, car makers tabled the (new) emission regulations were not taken into
account in the former CWA and specific heating systems would be needed for the 50 kPa now required in
Sweden. Hence, the car makers wished for 60 kPa.
Regarding the summer grades, some car makers worried about early winter starts with 35 kPa summer grade
still available at the fuelling stations. Referring to the -7 °C Euro 5b regulation, a reference fuel (linked to an
actual market fuel) would be legally required. Euro 5 would be applicable from 2009 with a E5 and E85 fuel
test at 20 °C and, for Euro 5b, at -7 °C also with E5 and E85 reference fuel (not yet defined). The Comitology
process on Euro 5b had not yet been settled.
The convenor had proposed as an alternative solution introducing a third, intermediate grade with a 70 %
ethanol and a 50 DVPE minimum; this was agreed by the group. The TF experts considered the EN 228
different grades and deducted the ethanol content from the vapour pressures required by the different grades.
EN 228 allowed regional grades which could take care with the expected risks of having -15 °C in late summer
in certain areas.
The oil industry showed empirical data on the strict DVPE - ethanol window that had to be met; with an
analysis of the hydrocarbon part it is possible to calculate the actual vapour pressure.
In winter, the oil blenders generally blend to the upper limit, but during transitional periods this may change.
The oil industry gave an overview of the current situation and explained BOB. They presented the risk that a
blender would first make EN 228 and then add 15 % to ethanol, and as such might end up with a higher
percentage of ethanol than 85 %. They suggested a 40 kPa minimum combined with a 65 % to 85 % ethanol
content range or a 35 kPa minimum combined with a 70 % to 85 % for the summer grade.
TF E85 experts considered whether not achieving 85 % ethanol with a 40 kPa was a market issue. Further
discussion on what could be achieved based on the vapour pressure took place. It was remarked that the
specification should not be closed for blenders using a higher VP gasoline and that refinery ethanol blending
is an option. It was agreed that setting a lower end VP and a reasonable higher end VP would provide market
flexibility. Referring to the Swedish experience with 35 kPa, it was commented that an increase to 40 kPa
would be a costly operation.
After an overview of the chosen grades for each country and the CONCAWE data showing the absolute
minimum temperature measured in each country, TF E85 agreed to set the grade for each country and
recalculate the EN 228 classes into E85 grades for ethanol blending limits, provided all the E85 grades
include all European reasonable temperatures.
When the driveability data for different vapour pressure ranges were shown, the group's discussion
accepted -13 °C as the engine starting requirement. The grade C is for inter seasonality or for winter for the
countries with a minimum temperature superior to -10 °C. Car makers repeated that at such low temperatures
the catalyst would not operate correctly and compliance with future emission regulations needed to be
assured. The oil industry indicated that a requirement of 85 % of ethanol cannot be compatible with a 60 kPa
requirement for all countries. Car makers indicated that the margins in winter would be small due to starting
th
issues. A compromise on the vapour pressure grades was sought for resolution during the 6 TF 85 meeting.
Car maker accepted a decrease from 40 kPa min for the grade A to 35 kPa to allow an increase in the ethanol
content and the minimum vapour pressure for the grade C to 50 kPa min and for the grade D to 60 kPa. At
these limits, the impact on vapour pressure for the new emissions regulation at -7 °C was raised. Each grade
has to be linked to temperature range of use and season period. The season period has to be defined by
national authorities.
Ethanol producers proposed having the actual grade C renumbered as b and introducing a new grade c with a
minimum of 60 % ethanol and a minimum DVPE of 55 kPa. The oil industry agreed to the expansion of the
amount of grades and mostly aimed at the high limit of the volatility.
A consensus proposal with four grades was presented and discussed. An agreement was reached: grade a
35 kPa to 60 kPa, grade b 50 kPa to 80 kPa, grade c 55 kPa to 80 kPa, grade d 60 kPa minimum.
Vapour pressure test methods measure the total pressure (Ptot) of the sample. The actual result reported by
these test methods is Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent (DVPE). A correlation equation would be needed to
convert (Ptot) to (DVPE). The original correlation equations in these vapor pressure test methods were
developed using a very large data set of neat gasoline and E10 samples. The correlation equation appears to
be linear from E0 (neat gasoline) to E10. The unknown was whether the correlation equation in these test
methods is linear all the way to E85.
At the time, it was suggested that Ptot be reported instead of DVPE. The advantage of reporting Ptot is that
correlation equations to convert values to DVPE are no longer needed.
4.2.5 Density
Car makers prefer a narrow range of density for a good driveability. They use it to calibrate fuel systems and
consequently set the flow in the various critical parts (nozzles, pumps…). While density is primarily influenced
by ethanol and aromatics, the quantity of fuel injected is linked to density. Additionally, during the cold start,
variations on density alter the air/ fuel ratio, with the potential for knocking. For durability, a minimum limit and
for exhaust emission a maximum limit was important; therefore the range should be maximum 45 points.
E85 density field data were shown in the range between 760 and 800. The proposed range of 760 to 800 was
accepted by the group and EN ISO 12185 seemed applicable.
4.2.6 Sulfur content
It was questioned why sulfur should be checked when the two blending components (EN 228 and EN 15376)
were required and already meet the sulfur requirement. The oil industry responded that downstream
contamination could have an impact and it is an extra check. Since sulfur contamination causes catalyst
problems and it is a political issue, it was sensible to specify it. This did not mean every batch needed testing.
The group accepted to include the 10 mg/kg limit and to consider a note indicating that good housekeeping
and fuel management with the use of specified fuels assures the blender that the specification was fulfilled.
The test method experts remarked that sulfate, considered as the more critical matter, still is a concern using
UVF sulfur testing. If the petrol was according to EN 228, the sulfur in E85 is far below 10 mg/kg. WG 27
experts noted that the WDXRF (EN 15485) method was only applicable when the total oxygenate content is
known (range of 23 % to 30 % of oxygen content in the actual proposed specification). Thus, they suggested
using EN 15486 (UVF). TF 85 declined developing a new test for E85 and supported the UVF method
although the sulfate problem is known. It was proposed that the total sulfur requirement be deleted as sulfate
needed to be measured and EN 228 petrol would be the other sulfur origin, only having 10 mg/kg but TF 85
concluded that sulfur is an environmental requirement and could not be skipped.
Analytic experts agreed that the matrix effect could be solved. For sulfur, the direct ICP test (under
development at that time [18]) still showed problems, because the volatile sulfur species would dissolve in the
petrol, making it difficult to retrieve dry residue. They thus suggested not using ICP as an E85 test method for
sulfur or other species. The conclusion was that the two ethanol test methods could be applied, where for
WDXRF a specific calibration with an E75 internal standard to correct for the matrix effect should be applied.
The group, hearing the experts' recommendation that the precision and performance would not be hampered,
agreed to refrain from a new precision study. The two test methods with a scope extension and procedure
updates were revised.
4.2.7 Oxidation stability
Since the applicability of EN ISO 7536 was questionable, testing on the applicability and checking for
discrimination based on the suggestion to add copper oxide was conducted. The results showed that all five
samples (including two that were spiked with 100 mg/kg copper as requested by the TF) were stable for 12 h,
which was double the time limit adopted for the European petrol standard. The results provided a first
indication that E85 could comply with a 6 h minimum limit for oxidation stability. However, undertaking a full-
scale statistical analysis to determine whether the results were consistent was necessary.
Ethanol producers suggested removing the requirement as the test would not allow discrimination, but car
makers remarked that additives could present a problem. The group thought that this issue was covered by
the additives clause, whereas the rest would be covered by requiring EN 228. The car makers' proposal was
to keep it in order to have more experience on this parameter. The oil industry supported setting the limit that
had worked in EN 228 for years, noting the questio
...