Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and

Communications DETEC
Federal Office of Civil Aviation FOCA
Aviation Policy and Strategy
Environmental Affairs

AIRCRAFT PISTON ENGINE EMISSIONS

Appendix 4: Nanoparticle Measurements and

Research for Cleaner AVGAS

Picture 1: Nanoparticle measurements of two different aircraft piston engines fuelled with leaded and
unleaded aviation gasoline. (Oberpfaffenhofen Airport (EDMO), Germany)

FOCA, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003 ECERT

Contact person: Theo Rindlisbacher
Tel. +41 31 325 93 76, Fax +41 31 325 92 12, theo.rindlisbacher@bazl.admin.ch
This document has been released for publication by FOCA, Aviation Policy and Strategy, Director M. Zuckschwerdt, 11.06.2007

33-05-003 Piston Engine Emissions_Swiss FOCA_Appendix4_070605_rit

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Contents
Page
1. Background, motivation and project partners 3
1.1 Research programme 3
1.2 Research goals 3

2. General results for nanoparticle emissions of an aircraft gasoline engine, running 3

under rich air/fuel conditions (AVGAS 100 LL)
2.1 Preparations 3
2.2 SMPS™ system layout and description for particle measurements 4
2.3 Results 6
2.4 Picture documentation of first non-volatile nanoparticle measurements 9

3. Looking for particle emission improvements: First tests with unleaded 11

AVGAS (AVGAS 91/96 UL)
3. 1 Introduction and description of AVGAS 91/96 UL 11
3.2 Composition of measured AVGAS 100LL (560 mg Pb / liter) 11
3.3 Used aircraft 12
3.4 Results for HB-EYS 12
3.5 Conclusion for HB-EYS tests 13
3.6 Results for SE-KEI 13
3.7 Air/fuel mixture ratio for HB-EYS and SE-KEI 14
3.8 Discussion 15
3.9 Conclusions for AVGAS 91/96 UL 15

4. Change from SMPS™ to Engine Exhaust Particle Sizer™ (EEPS 3090™) system for 15
aircraft piston engine nanoparticle measurements
4.1 Introduction 15
4.2 EEPS™ system description 15
4.3 Application of EEPS™ for aircraft piston engine measurements 16
4.4 EEPS™ results 18
4.5 First conclusions for EEPS™ measurements 19

5. Research for AVGAS 100LL substitution and emission reduction 19

5.1 Test fuels 20
5.2 Test location 20
5.3 Used aircraft 20
5.4 Measurement systems 20
5.5. Power settings 21
5.6 Results 22
5.7 Discussion 31
5.8 First conclusions 32

2/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

1. Background, motivation and project partners

The results for most in-flight tests documented in Appendix 2 showed engine operation at extremely
rich air/fuel ratios. It is known that fuel rich conditions can form soot nanoparticles even in gasoline
engines. Given the fact that standard aviation gasoline is still leaded today, there was even more evi-
dence for possible nanoparticle emissions.

Through the European AERONET network, Swiss FOCA started collaboration with the Institute of
Combustion Technology of the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) in Stuttgart (Germany), recognizing
their vast experience in nanoparticle measurement techniques and their high reputation in research of
aero engine combustion processes. DLR Oberpfaffenhofen (Germany) provided the necessary infra-
structure for the aircraft on ground measurements at Oberpfaffenhofen Airport (Germany).

At the same time and through AERONET as well, Swiss FOCA got to know Swedish Hjelmco™ Com-
pany, the only producer of lead free AVGAS worldwide, which is meeting ASTM D910 AVGAS specifi-
cations. The company can in 2007 claim more than 26 years of lead free AVGAS flying experience in
Sweden.

At a later step, collaboration started with German TSI™. The company provided their fast response
engine exhaust particle sizer (EEPS™) for in-field testing.

Research for cleaner, lead free AVGAS was done in Switzerland, at St. Stephan Airport (LSTS) in the
Swiss Alps. The airport is a former military airport, privately owned and belongs to the company “pro-
spective concepts”, which generously provided their infrastructure.

1.1 Research programme:

Step 1: Nanoparticle measurements of a gasoline piston aircraft engine running under rich air/fuel
conditions, using standard leaded AVGAS (AVGAS 100LL)

Step 2: Nanoparticle measurements of gasoline piston aircraft engines running under rich air/fuel con-
ditions, using AVGAS 100LL (leaded) and the Swedish AVGAS 91/96 UL (unleaded).

Step 3: Optimization of AVGAS 91/96 UL for higher knocking margin and lowest possible emissions.
Use of three aircraft (three different engines) and ten different fuels.

1.2 Research goals:

1) Development and testing of a ground and in-field nanoparticle measurement methodology and
measurement system.
2) Determination of nanoparticle emissions from aircraft piston engines.
3) Investigating possible emission improvements by use of unleaded AVGAS.
4) Use of knowledge for support, development and application of nanoparticle measurements also for
jet engines. This goal is connected with international activities in ICAO CAEP1 of Swiss FOCA.

2. General results for nanoparticle emissions of an aircraft gasoline engine,

running under rich air/fuel conditions (AVGAS 100 LL)

2.1 Preparations

Step one of the research program started in April 2004. Measurements took place in Oberpfaffenhofen
EDMO (Germany). The test aircraft was HB-KEZ whose engine (Lyc IO-360 series) had shown very
rich combustion at mixture “full rich” conditions (see Appendix 2, section 4d).

1
Commitee on Aviation Environmental Protection of the International Civil Aviation Organization, defining standards and rec-
ommended practices also for environmental aircraft/engine certification.
3/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
Gaseous emissions of HB-KEZ were measured with the FOCA “low cost” system as described in Ap-
pendix 1. The methodology, which was used for the ground power settings, is described in Appendix
3, section 6.4.

Table 1: Measured CO and CO2 concentrations of HBKEZ on 13th April 2004 for different standard power set-
tings, as described in Appendix 3, section 6.4. (TO = take-off, CL = climb, CR = cruise (rich), AP = approach, TA =
taxi, CR L= cruise lean). Running on very rich air/fuel ratio is represented by extremely high CO concentrations
and low CO2 concentrations. The measurement numbers were assigned for the particle measurements
Meas. Nr. LTO CO (Vol. %) CO2 (Vol. %)
- TO 12.506 6.99
6 CL 12.654 6.84
9 CR 12.674 6.82
12,11 AP 13.665 6.23
13,15 TA 10.536 8.06
18 CR L 1.42 13.63

2.2 SMPS™ system layout and description for particle measurements

Non-volatile nanoparticles are extremely small particles in the range of 10 to 500 nanometers (one
hundred thousandth of a millimeter). There is growing concern about negative health effects from such
particles. They are formed as a result of incomplete combustion. Some of them are potentially toxic
and the small size allows them to easily enter the human body deep into the lungs and to penetrate
even into nerve cells and the brain. Measurement systems (including sampling processes) need to be
sophisticated. General metrics are the size and number distribution (concentration).
The first measurements were performed with a SMPS™ (Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer) System TSI
3080™. Such a system classifies the particles first by their size. The classification is done with elec-
trostatic forces in a so called DMA (Differential Mobility Analyzer). When a certain size class is “fil-
tered”, the number per volume (controlled by sample flow and known dilution) is counted in a CPC
(Condensation Particle Counter) (figure 1). The scanning and counting through the size range of 10 to
500 nm usually can take several minutes. This is the measurement time per power mode.

Pure Nitrogen

Heated Line

Diluter Exhaust Probe

CPC

Figure 1: System layout for nanoparticle measurements with an electrostatic classifier and CPC. Ex-
planations are given in the text. [TSI™]
4/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Figure 2: Scheme of a CPC (Condensation Particle Counter) used for counting the number of particles
of a certain class of size (Example: TSI™ Model 3775). [TSI™]

Picture 2: Stainless steel exhaust probe and heated sampling line (150°C). Total length 4.5 meters.

5/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
For best measurement results, the sampling line has to be as straight and as short as possible. The
DLR sampling line measures 4.5 meters only. The material has to be stainless steel, heated to 150°C.
Other materials like Teflon™ would absorb fractions of the particles. The exhaust is diluted by a
heated Dekati™ diluter 1:10. Dilution air is nitrogen with a minimum quality of 4.5. For calibrating sam-
pling line losses, DLR/Wahl has developed and patented a nanoparticle generator, which produces
particles at defined and adjustable sizes. Calibration of sampling lines for size dependent losses has
been carried out. However, absent such calibration in the international measurement community for
the time being, it has not been applied to the measurements, for reasons of comparison with other
engine types and engine technology.

2.3 Results

Figure 3 shows a typical example of a particle size distribution from an aircraft gasoline piston engine,
running on AVGAS 100LL (leaded fuel) under rich air/fuel ratio. For the different power modes,
•
the mean diameter varied between 49 and 108 nm and
•
the total concentration between 5.7 to 8.6 times 10 million particles per cubic centimeter.
With an assumed specific density for soot of 1.2,
•
the estimated mass concentration was around 10 000 micro grams per cubic meter.
(see picture 3)

The result for this gasoline engine is very comparable to the number-size distribution of a typical
diesel passenger car engine without particle filter (see figure 4)!

Figure 3: Number-size distribution of HB-KEZ engine at approach mode. The mean particle diameter
is around 100 nm and the total concentration is in the order of 10 million particles per cubic centimeter.

Figure 4: Number-size distribution of a typical diesel passenger car (CDI) at 2000 RPM (increased
idle) for comparison to the HB-KEZ measurements [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR 2004l]
6/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

At lower power settings, exhaust has been pumped through sample cartridges at controlled flow rate
for later HC speciation with HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography). Pumping time usually
was 2 minutes. Figure 5 shows the result for the measurement of Carbonyls at approach mode. The
speciation was obtained by analysis of the filter material with a gas chromatograph and mass spec-
trometer. Surprising was the amount of produced formaldehyd (see figure 6).

HPLC-chromatogram carbonylcompounds sample No. 12

DNPH

350
Formaldehyde

300

250
Absorption (365 nm)

200

o-,m-,p-Toluenealdehyde
150
1,3-Dinitrobenzene

Acetaldehyde

100
Propionaldehyde

1-Buten-3-one
Acetyl-DNPH

Benzaldehyde
Methacrolein

50
Acetone

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

t [min]

Figure 5: Detected carbonyls at approach mode. [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR 2004]

Nr. 6 Nr. 12 Nr. 15 Blindwert

ppb mg/kg Fuel ppb mg/kg Fuel ppb mg/kg Fuel ppb
Formaldehyd 8337,48 92,49 6346,26 68,98 5867,59 68,24 21,29
Acetaldehyd 999,68 16,27 744,04 11,87 848,79 14,48 7,08
Propanal 639,90 13,73 532,20 11,19 707,13 15,91 0
Aceton 98,92 2,12 95,11 2,00 95,59 2,15 10,26
1-Buten-3-on 831,43 21,53 781,08 19,82 862,45 23,41 0
Methacrolein 213,53 5,53 184,10 4,67 198,74 5,40 0
Butanal 87,75 2,34 0 0 0 0 0
Benzaldehyd 347,12 13,61 297,51 11,43 333,92 13,72 0
o-Toluolaldehyd 162,52 7,21 141,79 6,17 136,54 6,35 0
m-Toluolaldehyd 294,13 13,06 260,23 11,32 281,54 13,10 0
p-Toluolaldehyd 79,40 3,52 80,54 3,50 71,96 3,75 0

Summe 12091,88 191,42 9462,85 150,95 9404,27 166,51 38,63

Figure 6: Summary of carbonyl measurements at climb mode (nr. 6), approach mode (nr. 12) and taxi
mode (nr. 15). [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR 2004]

Formaldehyde is dominating carbonyl emissions of the tested engine, running on AVGAS 100LL at
standard very rich air/fuel mixture.

7/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Picture 3: Poster presented at the 8th International ETH-Conference on Combustion Generated Parti-
cles, 16th – 18th August 2004, Zurich, Switzerland [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR]

8/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
2.4 Picture documentation of first non-volatile nanoparticle measurements

Picture 4: “In-field laboratory” at Oberpfaffenhofen Airport (EDMO) and candidate aircraft HB-KEZ.

Picture 5: SMPS (on the left) with DMA (the vertical tube). The CPC is installed behind the Laptop.

9/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Picture 6: This picture was taken during approach mode measurement. The SMPS is placed in the
back compartment of the car (as shown in picture 5) and is brought as nearly as possible to the air-
craft, for shortest possible sampling line and lowest possible particle losses.

Picture 7: Measurement team which performed – to our knowledge – the first successful measurement
of non-volatile nanoparticles of an aircraft gasoline piston engine. From left to right: Manfred Kaper-
naum, Claus Wahl (both DLR Stuttgart), Werner Bula, Theo Rindlisbacher (both FOCA)
10/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

3. Looking for particle emission improvements: First tests with unleaded

AVGAS (AVGAS 91/96 UL)
3. 1 Introduction and description of AVGAS 91/96 UL

Through AERONET network, FOCA came into contact with Lars Hjelmberg from Swedish Hjelmco™
Oil company, which in 2007 is producing unleaded AVGAS since more than 26 years. Unleaded AV-
GAS has become a standard fuel in Sweden. Because it meets the AVGAS standard ASTM D910, no
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) for the aircraft is needed to use that fuel. It is important to notice,
that the AVGAS specifications do not prescribe any minimum lead content. The only limitation for the
use of the Swedish fuel comes from the lower aviation octane rating compared to the leaded AVGAS
100LL. The engine manufacturer Textron Lycoming has included AVGAS 91/96UL, which is Hjelmco,s
second generation of unleaded AVGAS, as an approved alternate aviation gasoline for a large number
of their engines already in the year 1995. The engines with type numbers are listed in service instruc-
tion No. SI 1070. Generally speaking, only highest pressure ratio engines, especially turbocharged
gasoline piston engines, can not use AVGAS 91/96 UL in their standard configuration.

Swiss FOCA had AVGAS 91/96 UL analyzed and some interesting properties were found:
- The fuel is composed of a surprisingly low number of components compared to 100LL
- The components are extremely pure
- There is no benzene, no sulphur
- There is no dye (the fuel is clear like water)
- The fuel meets AVGAS specification ASTM D910

A hypothesis was set up, that the use of AVGAS 91/96 UL instead of AVGAS 100LL could signifi-
cantly reduce particle emissions, both in terms of mass and in terms of number.

To test the hypothesis, two aircraft whose engines are in the manufacturers list for running on
unleaded AVGAS 91/96 UL, were selected. Both engines were run on AVGAS 100LL ( max lead con-
tent 560 mg / liter) and on unleaded 91/96 UL. DLR used the SMPS (as described in section 2), Scan-
ning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Energy Dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) for particle properties
investigation. Additionally, DLR performed aldehyde tests (DNPH method). Engine power for selected
power modes (Take-off, Climb, Cruise, Approach and Taxi) was adjusted according to the FOCA
methodology for static on-ground tests, as described in Appendix 3, sections 6.2 and 6.3.

3.2 Composition of measured AVGAS 100LL (max 560 mg Pb / liter)

Figure 7: Composition of measured AVGAS 100LL [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR]

11/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

3.3 Used aircraft

HB-EYS Type: Robin DR400 SE-KEI Type: Piper PA28 Warrior II

Owner: Swiss Confederation Owner: Hjelmco Oil, Sweden
Engine: Lyc O-360 series, 180 HP Engine: Lyc O-320 series, 160 HP
Carburetor Carburetor

3.4 Results for HB-EYS

Figure 8: Non-volatile particle number concentrations for AVGAS 100LL and 91/96 UL in function of
propeller power (HB-EYS). [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR]

Figure 9: Total non-volatile particle mass concentration for AVGAS 100LL and 91/96 UL in function of
propeller power (HB-EYS) [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR]

12/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Figure 10: Using EDX, both, Lead (Pb) and Bromide (Br) containing particles from AVGAS 100LL ex-
haust could be identified (HB-EYS). In the picture on the left, the location of the spectrum 1 is indi-
cated with a tag. [C Wahl/DLR].

3.5 Conclusion for HB-EYS tests

- AVGAS 100LL forms soot and lead bromide particles.

- Besides lead additive, also bromides must be contained in AVGAS 100LL. (Bromides are ac-
tually used as scavenger, which should help to reduce lead deposits in the engine…)
- Running HB-EYS on AVGAS 91/96 UL (lead free) still gives some lead bromides, which can
be explained by the fact that the engine has been running on leaded fuel for its whole life and
there are huge lead deposits e.g in the oil pan of the engine.

The use of AVGAS 91/96 UL in HB-EYS gives a significant reduction in non-volatile particle concen-
tration and mass.

3.6 Results for SE-KEI

Figure 11: Non-volatile particle number concentrations for AVGAS 100LL and 91/96 UL in function of
propeller power (SE-KEI). [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR]

13/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Figure 12: Total non-volatile particle mass concentration for AVGAS 100LL and 91/96 UL in function of
propeller power (SE-KEI) [C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum/DLR]

3.7 Air/fuel mixture ratio for HB-EYS and SE-KEI

Combustion quality is greatly influenced by the air/fuel mixture. The air/fuel mixtures at different power
settings were recorded, using the FOCA analyzer described in Appendix 1.

1.2

1.1

1
Lambda

Lyc O-360
0.9
Lyc O-320

0.8

0.7

0.6
XI
UT

an
SE
FF

TA
C

Le
-O

UI

AO
CR
B
KE

SE
PR
IM
TA

UI
CL

AP

CR

Figure 13: Comparison of air/fuel mixture (Lambda) between the measured Lyc O-360 (HB-EYS) and
Lyc O-320 (SE-KEI) for different power modes during the AVGAS 100LL measurements. The engine
Lyc O-360 of HB-EYS runs on a significantly richer air/fuel mixture than that of SE-KEI, with the excep-
tion of the taxi mode. For explanation of lambda, see Appendix 5.
14/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

3.8 Discussion

The carburetor system of SE-KEI is behaving differently from that of HB-EYS. Especially at high
power, the engine of SE-KEI is running less rich than that of HB-EYS. Apart from different carburetor
systems and tuning, the four blade propeller of SE-KEI might add to that effect, providing the air intake
system with slightly increased manifold pressure. As a result of this different behavior, the shapes of
the corresponding curves in figures 8 and 11, and in figures 9 and 12 respectively, are very different.
However, in both cases, with use of AVGAS 91/96 UL, the mass and number concentrations are sig-
nificantly reduced.

3.9 Conclusions for AVGAS 91/96 UL

• The use of AVGAS 91/96 UL gives a significant reduction in non-volatile particle concen-
tration and mass, compared to AVGAS 100LL
• AVGAS 91/96 UL has no lead and no bromide emissions.

• As described in the introduction, the highest pressure ratio piston engines equipped with a
RPM invariant ignition system are not allowed to use AVGAS 91/96 UL.
Given the fact, that
• unleaded AVGAS has a significantly superior environmental performance,
• unleaded AVGAS can increase engine operational safety (no spark fouling, no lead deposits,
still tight aviation gasoline specs, more than 26 years Swedish experience)
• unleaded AVGAS is needed for state-of-the art engine management and the use of exhaust
after treatment systems like catalysts,
research and regulatory initiatives are necessary to further develop and promote AVGAS 91/96
UL as a full substitute for AVGAS 100LL (see section 5).

4. Change from SMPS™ to Engine Exhaust Particle Sizer™ (EEPS 3090™) system for aircraft
piston engine nanoparticle measurements

4.1 Introduction

The Engine Exhaust Particle Sizer™ (TSI EEPS 3090™) spectrometer is a fast-response instrument
that measures very low particle number concentrations in diluted exhaust. It offers a time resolution of
10 times per second, which makes it well-suited for dynamic and transient tests. It was developed for
continuous measurement of entire test cycles. It measures the size distribution and number concentra-
tion of engine exhaust particle emissions in the range from 5.6 to 560 nanometers. Compared to the
SMPS™, the TSI EEPS 3090™ system

• measures fast response (real time) particle number-size-distributions (+)

• significantly reduces engine running time (+)
• makes particle emissions in transient power settings visible (+)
• shows whether a certain power setting produces stable emissions (+)
• has a reduced size resolution and a reduced overall accuracy (-)

4.2 EEPS™ system description

[Source: TSI™]: The instrument draws a sample of the exhaust flow into the inlet continuously. Parti-
cles are positively charged to a predictable level using a corona charger. Charged particles are then
introduced to the measurement region near the center of a high-voltage electrode column and trans-
ported down the column surrounded by HEPA-filtered sheath air. A positive voltage is applied to the
electrode and creates an electric field that repels the positively charged particles outward according to
their electrical mobility. (Figure 14)
Charged particles strike the respective electrometers and transfer their charge. A particle with higher
electrical mobility strikes an electrometer near the top; whereas, a particle with lower electrical mobility
strikes an electrometer lower in the stack. This multiple-detector arrangement using highly sensitive
electrometers allows for simultaneous concentration measurements of multiple particle sizes.
15/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
The Model 3090 uses a real-time data inversion to deconvolute data. The inversion accounts for vari-
ability in particle charge, image charge, multiple voltages on the center rod, and detection time to pre-
sent a size distribution

Exhaust

Figure 14: EEPS™ flow schematic [TSI™]

4.3 Application of EEPS™ for aircraft piston engine measurements

Between 29th March and 4th April 2005, one year after the first non-volatile nanoparticle measurements
in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, the same aircraft (HB-KEZ) with the same engine was measured
again, this time with TSI EEPS 3090™. The main goals were:

• Application test for in-field measurement with EEPS™ at low ambient temperatures
• Comparison to SMPS™ measurements
• Reproducibility test

The measurement arrangement and the sampling line were identical to the measurements of April
2004 (see section 2.2) with the exception that the SMPS™ was replaced by the EEPS™ and the dilu-
tion ratio adjusted to 1 : 100.

Ambient temperatures were as low as 9°C with a relative humidity of nearly 100%. At those ambient
conditions, the EEPS™ was working in-field without any problems. However, measurements for com-
parison with SMPS™ results were made later, at dry ambient conditions.

The methodology, which was used for the ground power settings of the engine, was identical to the
procedure of 2004 (as described in Appendix 3, section 6.4). In 2004, the SMPS™ measurements
were limited to low power settings, due to the necessary sampling time of two minutes and the limited
engine running time, with the aircraft standing on ground.

With EEPS™ it was possible to measure the high power settings as well: The measurement team
could visually follow the stabilization of the number-size distribution on the PC screen. Engine running
times at high power with the aircraft standing could be reduced to less than half a minute.

16/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Picture 8: EEPS™ measurements with HB-KEZ at Oberpfaffenhofen (EDMO), Germany, March 2005

Picture 9: EEPS™ installed in the back Picture 10: Small ground power unit for
compartment of a car. In-field supply of electricity.

17/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
4.4 EEPS™ results

Figure 15: While the power setting is constant, the number-size distributions show a constant shape in
successive measurements at a rate of 10 times per second. (Proof for engine emission flow rate stabil-
ity and combustion and measurement stability.)

Figure 16: Example of a number-size distribution of non-volatile particles for approach mode of the
HB-KEZ engine, measured with EEPS™. With a mean diameter of 100 nm and an overall total con-
centration of 8 * 107 particles / cm3, the SMPS™ values for approach mode were confirmed.
18/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Figure 17: EEPS™ measurement of a power cycle. Each slice represents the mean of 1 second
measurement time. The left axis shows the measurement time, the x-axis in front the particle size and
the z-axis on the right shows the particle number per cm3, as measured after dilution. The first set of
number-size distributions on top of the figure belongs to the climb power setting, followed by cruise
power (12.33.57), approach power (12.34.37) and taxi power setting (12.35.00). The approach power
number-size distribution shown in figure 16 is taken from this cycle and is marked in light blue.

4.5 First conclusions for EEPS™ measurements

• The system showed robustness with respect to low ambient temperatures and high relative
humidity
• The results of the SMPS™ measurements have generally be confirmed for the different
modes (see section 2.3, picture 3)
• For the first time, nanoparticle emissions during transient aircraft piston engine power condi-
tions could be observed.
• Engine running time was very short compared to SMPS™ measurements.

5. Research for AVGAS 100LL substitution and emission reduction

Following the conclusions from section 3.9, the Swedish producer of unleaded AVGAS, Hjelmco Oil,
provided FOCA with a variety of different unleaded AVGAS fuels. The main goal was to find a lead
free AVGAS that would have a similar high aviation octane rating like 100LL with superior emissions
performance and economically feasible production costs. In other words: The research is aimed to find
an environmentally beneficial and safe full substitute for AVGAS 100LL. Please note that aviation oc-
tane rating is not directly comparable to the research octane number (ROZ) used e.g. for car gasoline.
An AVGAS 100 may have a ROZ well above 105. So, an aviation fuel rated at “100” has a significantly
higher octane rating than lead free car gasoline.
The composition of the research fuels is known to DLR and FOCA but is part of a confidentiality
agreement because this is proprietary data. Therefore, the fuels from Hjelmco™ are just labeled “A” to
“H” in this documentation.
19/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
5.1 Test fuels

Fuel A: Standard unleaded AVGAS 91/96UL, as tested before (section 3).

Fuel B to H: unleaded AVGAS which, in comparison to Fuel A, had one ore more components
replaced and/or additives.
Fuel I: Standard leaded AVGAS 100LL
Fuel J: Standard MOGAS (lead free car gasoline with 98 ROZ, tested in Rotax engine)

Fuels D, F and G have the highest aviation octane rating of all tested unleaded fuels, with fuel G
reaching nearly 100, so being comparable to AVGAS 100LL from that point of view.

5.2 Test location

The test location was St. Stephan (LSTS), a former military Airport in the Swiss Alps. The infrastruc-
ture was generously provided by the private company “prospective concepts”.

Picture 11: Test location St. Stephan, Swiss Alps

5.3 Used aircraft

HB-EYS Type: Robin DR400 SE-KEI Type: Piper PA28 Warrior II

Owner: Swiss Confederation Owner: Hjelmco Oil, Sweden
Engine: Lyc O-360 series, 180 HP Engine: Lyc O-320 series, 160 HP
Carburetor (Fuels A to I) Carburetor (Fuels A to I)

HB-WAD Type: Ikarus C-42 (Microlight/Ecolight)

Owner: A. Liechti, Switzerland
Engine: Rotax 912S, 100HP, Carburetor (Fuels A to C and J)

5.4 Measurement Systems

For gaseous emissions, the FOCA measurement system as described in Appendix 1 was used. For
particle emissions, the EEPS™ measurement system, described in section 4 of this appendix, was
used. Simultaneous measurement with both systems was made possible by two separate heated sam-
pling lines. In addition, at lower power settings, exhaust has been pumped through sample cartridges
at a controlled flow rate for later HC speciation (Carbonyl measurements). Pumping time usually was 2
minutes. The speciation was obtained by analysis of the sample cartridges with HPLC (High Perform-
ance Liquid Chromatography) in the DLR laboratory.

20/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Picture 12: Gaseous emission analyzers in the white car on the left (FOCA), particle analyzers in the
blue-green car on the right (DLR).

5.5 Power settings

Engine power for selected power modes (Take-off, Climb, Cruise, Approach and Taxi) was adjusted
according to the FOCA methodology for static on-ground tests, as described in Appendix 3, sections
6.2 and 6.3.It must be noted that the airport elevation of 3274 ft AMSL (with the prevailing air density
at the time of measurement) reduced the maximum propeller power output of the tested engines to
about 88%, compared to sea level standard conditions.

Picture 12: Measurement of SE-KEI engine

21/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
5.6 Results

As described in section 3.7, the two tested Lycoming engines have a quite different air/fuel mixture
characteristic. The Rotax engine is running less rich at high power than the Lycoming engines. There-
fore, if all three engines independently show the same trend, we consider this as a more general ef-
fect, not only valid for one particular aircraft piston engine. As far as particle emissions are concerned,
we focus on the results for the SE-KEI engine. The reason is given by the fact that the engine of HB-
EYS has been running on leaded fuel for its whole life (more than 1600 hours). With a lot of lead de-
posits in the engine, significant amounts of particles have been detected in the exhaust even with
unleaded fuel. The SE-KEI engine has the same basic design as the HB-EYS engine.

5.6.1 Ranking of the fuels in terms of emission factors for gaseous emissions

The resulting fuel consumption for a certain power setting in terms of fuel mass did not differ signifi-
cantly between the tested fuels. This means that measured differences in emission factors directly
translate in different emission levels.

The figures 18, 19, 21 and 22 show the CO and HC emissions ranking of the tested fuels for full
throttle and climb out mode of SE-KEI and HB-EYS. Two groups of fuel can be distinguished: A, E, I,
H and C, D, B, G, F. The second group shows a significant drop in CO and HC emissions. This effect
is shown with both, the SE-KEI and the HB-EYS engine. For the lower CO and HC emissions group of
fuel, one of the original components of the fuel A had been replaced by another.

The figures 20 and 23 show the CO and HC emissions ranking between fuels A, B, C and J, as tested
with HB-WAD and the Rotax engine. The lowest emissions have been measured for fuel B and C,
confirming the result and corresponding to fuel group two above. Fuel J (MOGAS) showed the lowest
total HC emissions of the four fuels, but significantly the highest carbonyl emissions, which is shown in
tables 2 to 4.

For the HC speciation (Carbonyl measurements), the following carbonyls have been detected:

Formaldehyde CH2O
Acetaldehyde CH3CHO
Propargylaldehyde CHCCHO
Acetone CH3OCH3
Propionaldehyde CH3CH2CHO
Crotonaldehyde CH3CHCHCHO
i-Butanale i-C3H7CHO
Benzaldehyde C6H5CHO
Methylglyoxal CH3COCHO
o-Toluene – aldehyde CH3C6H4CHO
m-Toluene – aldehyde CH3C6H4CHO
p-Toluene – aldehyde CH3C6H4CHO

The ranking for the total carbonyl emissions has been analyzed for different power settings (see
examples in tables 2 to 4). A representative ranking is given below. It is given with falling total carbonyl
emissions from left to right:

• SE-KEI (no carbonyl measurement for fuel B)

F, G, D, C (first group) and H, A, E, I (second group)

• HB-EYS

B, D, C, F, G (first group) and E, H, A, I (second group)

• HB-WAD

J (MOGAS), B, C (first group) and A (second group)

Interestingly, the fuels with the lowest CO and lowest total HC emissions produce the highest total
carbonyl emissions. In contrast, the (leaded) AVGAS 100LL produces the lowest total carbonyl emis-
sions.
22/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Relative Comparison of CO emission factors for different fuels (SE-KEI, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
May 2006)

100

80

60
F.T. / CL

40

20

0
FUEL A FUEL E FUEL I FUEL H FUEL C FUEL D FUEL B FUEL G FUEL F

Figure 18: Ranking of the CO emission factors for the tested fuels (SE-KEI engine in climb out
mode/full throttle). AVGAS 100LL (Fuel I) is set to 100%.

Relative Comparison of CO emission factors for different fuels (HBEYS, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
May 2006)

100

90

80

70

60

50 F.T. / CL

40

30

20

10

0
FUEL A FUEL E FUEL I FUEL H FUEL C FUEL D FUEL B FUEL G FUEL F

Figure 19: Ranking of the CO emission factors for the tested fuels (HB-EYS engine in climb out
mode/full throttle). AVGAS 100LL (Fuel I) is set to 100%.

23/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Relative Comparison of CO emission factors for different fuels (HB-WAD, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
June 2006)

120

100

80

60 F.T. / CL

40

20

0
FUEL A FUEL J FUEL B FUEL C

Figure 20: Ranking of the CO emission factors for the tested fuels A, B, C and J with the ROTAX en-
gine at climb out/full throttle setting. MOGAS (car gasoline, fuel J) is set to 100%.

Relative Comparison of HC emission factors for different fuels (SE-KEI, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
May 2006)

100

80

60
F.T. / CL

40

20

0
FUEL I FUEL A FUEL E FUEL H FUEL D FUEL B FUEL F FUEL C FUEL G

Figure 21: Ranking of the HC emission factors for the tested fuels (SE-KEI engine in climb out
mode/full throttle). AVGAS 100LL (Fuel I) is set to 100%.

24/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Relative Comparison of HC emission factors for different fuels (HBEYS, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
May 2006)

100

90

80

70

60

50 F.T. / CL

40

30

20

10

0
FUEL I FUEL A FUEL E FUEL H FUEL D FUEL B FUEL F FUEL C FUEL G

Figure 22: Ranking of the HC emission factors for the tested fuels (HB-EYS engine in climb out
mode/full throttle). AVGAS 100LL (Fuel I) is set to 100%.

Relative Comparison of HC emission factors for different fuels (HBWAD, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
June 2006)

120

100

80

F.T. / CL
60

40

20

0
FUEL A FUEL C FUEL B FUEL J

Figure 23: Ranking of the HC emission factors for the tested fuels A, B, C and J with the ROTAX en-
gine at climb out/full throttle setting. MOGAS (car gasoline, fuel J) is set to 100%.

25/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Table 2: Carbonyl emission factors for fuel A, B, C and J (MOGAS). Results for approach mode
(HBWAD).[DLR C. Wahl/M. Kapernaum]

Approach mode Carbonyls Fuel J Fuel C Fuel B Fuel A

mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel

Formaldehyde 338.25 269.39 290.64 282.20
Acetaldehyde 44.95 97.56 83.22 49.41
Propargylaldehyde 4.55 4.52 5.43 2.20
Acrolein 34.33 34.83 32.66 22.67
Propanaldehyde 2.61 0.79 0.81 3.56
i-Butanaldehyde 24.46 13.04 12.21 15.36
Benzaldehyde 79.70 7.95 8.26 72.43
Methacrolein 69.24 145.73 101.76 69.64
o-Toluolaldehyde 19.709 0 0 2.48
p-Toluolaldehyde 43.42 0 0 1.37
m-Toluolaldehyde 0 0 0 2.73
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 13.586 0 0 0
3,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 23.059 0 0 0
2,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 24.297 0 0 0

Sum 722.16 573.82 534.98 524.05

Table 3: Carbonyl emission factors for fuel A, B, C and J (MOGAS). Results for cruise mode
(HBWAD). [DLR C. Wahl/ M. Kapernaum]

Cruise 65% power Carbonyls Fuel J Fuel C Fuel B Fuel A

mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel

Formaldehyde 306.36 261.48 288.23 269.60
Acetaldehyde 55.62 103.62 96.84 36.69
Propargylaldehyde 3.65 2.50 2.75 1.29
Acrolein 23.42 23.34 22.38 16.15
Propanaldehyde 3.89 0.94 1.44 2.55
i-Butanaldehyde 28.53 9.56 9.38 0
Benzaldehyde 89.38 5.34 9.60 66.84
Methacrolein 82.01 92.48 88.73 60.57
o-Toluolaldehyde 21.90 0 0 1.45
p-Toluolaldehyde 17.97 0 0 1.60
m-Toluolaldehyde 34.57 0 0 2.79
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 15.97 0 0 0
3,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 26.55 0 0 0
2,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 28.34 0 0 0

Sum 738.14 499.25 519.35 459.51

26/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Table 4: Carbonyl emission factors for fuel A, B, C and J (MOGAS). Results for climb mode/full throttle
(HBWAD) [DLR C. Wahl/ M. Kapernaum]

Climb/Full throttle Carbonyls Fuel J Fuel C Fuel B Fuel A

mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel mg/kg Fuel

Formaldehyde 389.16 344.79 386.22 230.63
Acetaldehyde 71.34 220.80 234.52 39.41
Propargylaldehyde 4.02 2.09 2.92 1.37
Acrolein 55.55 74.15 69.53 20.55
Propanaldehyde 7.49 3.26 2.46 0.71
i-Butanaldehyde 15.43 9.88 10.60 30.76
Benzaldehyde 130.85 15.99 25.70 62.24
Methacrolein 142.81 154.95 154.60 0
o-Toluolaldehyde 29.67 0 0 2.67
p-Toluolaldehyde 71.01 0 0 1.74
m-Toluolaldehyde 0.00 0 0 2.74
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 22.06 0 0 0
3,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 37.57 0 0 0
2,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde 41.44 0 0 0

Sum 1018.39 825.91 886.56 392.81

The figures 24, 25 and 26 show the NOx emissions ranking of the tested fuels. The two groups of
fuels mentioned for the CO and HC emissions ranking are confirmed with all engines, but this time the
ranking of the fuels is the other way round, with MOGAS and the C, D, B, G, F fuels producing the
highest NOx emissions.

Relative Comparison of NOx emission factors for different fuels (SE-KEI, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
May 2006)

200

150

F.T. / CL

100

50

0
FUEL F FUEL G FUEL B FUEL D FUEL C FUEL H FUEL E FUEL I FUEL A

Figure 24: Ranking of the NOx emission factors for the tested fuels (SE-KEI engine in climb out
mode/full throttle). AVGAS 100LL (Fuel I) is set to 100%.

27/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

Relative Comparison of NOx emission factors for different fuels (HBEYS, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
May 2006)

140

120

100

80

F.T. / CL

60

40

20

0
FUEL F FUEL G FUEL B FUEL D FUEL C FUEL H FUEL E FUEL I FUEL A

Figure 25: Ranking of the NOx emission factors for the tested fuels (HB-EYS engine in climb out
mode/full throttle). AVGAS 100LL (Fuel I) is set to 100%.

Relative Comparison of NOx emission factors for different fuels (HB-WAD, St. Stephan, Switzerland,
June 2006)

100

90

80

70

60

50 F.T. / CL

40

30

20

10

0
FUEL J FUEL B FUEL C FUEL A

Figure 26: Ranking of the NOx emission factors for the tested fuels A, B, C and J with the ROTAX
engine at climb out/full throttle setting. MOGAS (car gasoline, fuel J) is set to 100%.

28/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

5.6.2 Ranking of the fuels in terms of particle emissions

SE

8
5x10

8
4x10

8
3x10
3
# / cm

Fuel A
8 Fuel B
2x10 Fuel C
Fuel D
Fuel E
8
Fuel F
1x10 Fuel G
Fuel H
Fuel I

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Power %

Figure 24: Particle number concentration for the different test fuels (SE-KEI engine) in function of pro-
peller power. [DLR, C. Wahl, M. Kapernaum]

SE
15
6x10

15
5x10

15
4x10
EI Soot [# /kg Fuel]

15
3x10
Fuel A
Fuel B
15 Fuel C
2x10
Fuel D
Fuel E
Fuel F
15
1x10 Fuel G
Fuel H
Fuel I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Power %

Figure 25: Emission factor for the number of soot particles per kg fuel for the different test fuels (SE-
KEI engine) in function of propeller power. [DLR, C. Wahl, M. Kapernaum]

29/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

SE
30
28
26
24
22
Geometric Mean [nm]

20
18
16
14
Fuel A
12
Fuel B
10 Fuel C
Fuel D
8 Fuel E
6 Fuel F
Fuel G
4 Fuel H
2 Fuel I
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Power %

Figure 26: Geometric mean diameter of emitted nanoparticles for the different test fuels (SE-KEI en-
gine) in function of propeller power. [DLR, C. Wahl, M. Kapernaum]

SE
9

5
3
mg/m

4
Fuel A
Fuel B
3 Fuel C
Fuel D
2 Fuel E
Fuel F
Fuel G
1 Fuel H
Fuel I
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Power %

Figure 27: Emitted particle mass per exhaust volume for the different test fuels (SE-KEI engine) in
function of propeller power. [DLR, C. Wahl, M. Kapernaum]
30/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022

SE
100

90

80

70
EI Soot [mg/kg Fuel]

60

50

40 Fuel A
Fuel B
30 Fuel C
Fuel D
20 Fuel E
Fuel F
Fuel G
10
Fuel H
Fuel I
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Power %

Figure 28: Emission factor for emitted particle mass for the different test fuels (SE-KEI engine) in func-
tion of propeller power. [DLR, C. Wahl, M. Kapernaum]

5.7 Discussion:

For gaseous emissions, an effect of different additives can not be clearly identified. If differences ex-
isted, they would be below the measurement accuracy of the FOCA analyzer system. However, differ-
ences occurring from different composition of the fuels are clearly visible:

One way to maintain an acceptable level of octane number without using lead-tetra-ethyl is by adding
oxygen containing substances to the fuel. The effect of this is most pronounced with the tested lead
free car gasoline (MOGAS, fuel J). The additional oxygen provided by the fuel reduces CO and total
HC emissions and increases NOx emissions. In fact, the tested MOGAS contained large amounts of
MTBE2. This substance might be the cause for the significantly high carbonyl emissions of the tested
MOGAS. In addition to that, a substance like MTBE can pose a certain risk for the contamination of
drinking water.

In order to rank the tested fuels with respect to particle emissions, the fuels can be separated into
three groups:

The fuels A, B and C have the lowest particle number concentrations and the smallest particle diame-
ter, leading to the lowest particle mass emissions. (group 1)

Fuel I (AVGAS 100LL) has the highest particle number concentrations and the highest particle diame-
ters, leading to the highest particle mass emissions. (group 3)

The fuels D, E, F, G, and H (group 2) are situated between the group 1 and 3 fuels. The higher particle
emissions of this group of fuels compared to group 1 can be explained by a fuel additive, which is
missing in the group 1 fuels. However, particle number concentrations and particle mass emissions
are still lower than with AVGAS 100LL (group 3).

2
MOGAS sold in Switzerland and analyzed in 2006 contained quite large quantities of MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether).
31/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern

Reference: 0 / 3/33/33-05-003.022
As we have seen, there is no lead free highest octane fuel producing the lowest possible emissions
(CO, total HC, Carbonyls, NOx and particles) among the tested fuels. A compromise seems to be
needed, weighing the different trade-offs.

5.8 First conclusions

As far as particle emissions are concerned, the standard unleaded AVGAS 91/96UL (Fuel A) has
again proven its superior environmental performance.

If not highest octane number is required, an AVGAS like fuel C seems to be a valuable compromise.

Fuel G, which would have the potential to fully replace AVGAS 100LL from point of view of aviation
octane rating, has a better environmental performance than AVGAS 100LL, but worse than e.g. fuel C.

Picture 13: The measurement team. From left to right: C. Wahl, M. Kapernaum (both DLR), L. Hjelm-
berg (Hjelmco), T. Rindlisbacher, W. Bula (both FOCA)

Picture 14: HB-WAD (with Rotax engine) was generously provided for the fuel tests by A. Liechti, Swit-
zerland. Many thanks also to K. Moser (first to the right, the pilot of HB-WAD), who contributed to the
measurements in his spare time.
32/32

Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Environmental Affairs, CH-3003 Bern