Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957

A study on emission characteristics of an EFI engine with

ethanol blended gasoline fuels
Bang-Quan He*, Jian-Xin Wang, Ji-Ming Hao, Xiao-Guang Yan, Jian-Hua Xiao
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Received 10 July 2002; accepted 22 November 2002

Abstract

The effect of ethanol blended gasoline fuels on emissions and catalyst conversion efficiencies was investigated in a
spark ignition engine with an electronic fuel injection (EFI) system. The addition of ethanol to gasoline fuel enhances
the octane number of the blended fuels and changes distillation temperature. Ethanol can decrease engine-out regulated
emissions. The fuel containing 30% ethanol by volume can drastically reduce engine-out total hydrocarbon emissions
(THC) at operating conditions and engine-out THC, CO and NOx emissions at idle speed, but unburned ethanol and
acetaldehyde emissions increase. Pt/Rh based three-way catalysts are effective in reducing acetaldehyde emissions, but
the conversion of unburned ethanol is low. Tailpipe emissions of THC, CO and NOx have close relation to engine-out
emissions, catalyst conversion efficiency, engine’s speed and load, air/fuel equivalence ratio. Moreover, the blended
fuels can decrease brake specific energy consumption.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Spark ignition engine; Ethanol; Oxygenate; Catalyst; Emission; Acetaldehyde

1. Introduction and Elliott, 1993), the fuels containing oxygenates and

Exhaust emissions from engines are dependent on fuel
composition (DePetris et al., 1993), air/fuel equivalence
ratio (McDonald et al., 1994), driving conditions,
oxygen content and the chemical structure of additive
(Neimark et al., 1994). Since tetraethyl lead as gasoline’s
octane improver was banned in the United States on
the first day of January in 1996, oxygenates, which
have no differences in air toxicity of ozone forming
potential (Noorman, 1993), have been used to en-
hance gasoline’s octane number, reduce summertime
smog, wintertime carbon monoxide and volatile
organic compounds with the provision of more complete
fuel combustion in engines. Although the decrease
of exhaust emissions by applying oxygenates to
engines is small relative to that by catalysts (Jeffrey
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-10-62772515; fax: +86-
10-62785708.
E-mail address: hebq@tsinghua.edu.cn (B.-Q. He).
with aromatics replaced by isoparaffins can reduce
hydrocarbon, CO and NOx emissions (Lange et al.,
1994).
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) is one of oxyge-
nated fuels. To meet the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 and similar regulations, over 85% of reformulated
gasoline (RFG) contains MTBE because of its low cost
and good blending characteristics. By 1998, MTBE was
ranked fourth in bulk chemical production in the United
States (An et al., 2002). MTBE can remarkably reduce
exhaust emissions (Kivi et al., 1992). For example, the
fuel with 15% MTBE can reduce CO by 10–15%, NOx
by 1.0–1.7%, THC by 10–20%, and also improve
fuel consumption (Kisenyi et al., 1994). However,
MTBE is highly soluble in water. Low levels of its
concentration make drinking water unpalatable due to
its low taste and odor threshold. Moreover, MTBE is
much more difficult to be degraded than other gasoline
components. Therefore, it has been detected in surface
water and ground water because of its widespread use

1352-2310/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00973-1
950 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957

(Nadim et al., 2001). Besides, MTBE itself can be
presented in exhaust gas and it has irritation effects on
eyes or lungs (Poulopoulos and Philippopoulos,
2000; Flynn et al., 2001). When research animals inhale
high levels of MTBE, they will develop cancers or
experience other non-cancerous diseases. MTBE even
poses a potential for carcinogenicity to humans at
high doses (Nadim et al., 2001). Therefore, it is time
to find alternative oxygenates that have no such
disadvantages.
Ethanol is a promising alternative biomass fuel
because of its biodegradable and regenerative character-
istic. The use of ethanol to substitute for MTBE in RFG
has some benefits in reducing water contamination and
poses no significant adverse impacts on public health
and environment (Nadim et al., 2001). CO2 released by
burned ethanol can be fixed by growing plants and
therefore makes no net greenhouse gas contribution to
global warming (Wheals et al., 1999). Since oxygen
content by weight in an ethanol molecule is approxi-
mately twice that of MTBE, less ethanol is required to
meet specified oxygen content in fuel. However, the heat
value of ethanol is less than that of gasoline. Conse-
quently, the heat value of ethanol blended gasoline fuels
will decrease when the proportion of ethanol increases
(Hsieh et al., 2002). Addition of ethanol to gasoline not
only increases Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of the blended
fuel (Pumphrey et al., 2000), but also alters the fuel’s
distillation curve and composition (Hsieh et al., 2002;
D’Ornellas, 2001). Hence, additional costly steps are
needed to reduce evaporative emissions from ethanol
blended gasoline fuels. Furthermore, ethanol blended
gasoline fuels will yield high unburned ethanol
and acetaldehyde emissions (Poulopoulos et al., 2001;
Zervas et al., 2002) and acetic acid emissions (Zervas
et al., 2001).
Ethanol content and engine operating conditions
influence exhaust emissions. Therefore, much attention
is paid to regulated and unregulated emissions from a
spark ignition engine in this experiment.
Exhaust gases were sampled from the inlet and outlet
of the catalytic converter and then were measured on
line by an AVL exhaust analyzer. THC was analyzed
with a flame ionization detector (FID). CO was analyzed
with a non-dispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR). NOx
was analyzed with a chemiluminescent detector (CLD).
CO, THC and NOx emissions were average values of the
acquired data within 20 s for each stable operating
condition. Unburned ethanol and acetaldehyde were
measured in a GC-17A gas chromatography equipped
with a 30 m long, 0.32 mm inner diameter GS-Q type
capillary column and a FID.
3. Experimental results and discussions
3.1. Properties of ethanol blended gasoline fuels
Three test fuels were used in this study. The first was
unleaded gasoline (E0) as a base fuel for ethanol blended
gasoline fuels. The second and the third were ethanol
blended gasoline fuels containing 10% ethanol (E10)
and 30% ethanol (E30) by volume, respectively. Some of
the combustion-related properties concerning the three
fuels have been summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 shows research octane number (RON), motor
octane number (MON) and distillation temperature
including initial boiling temperature (IBT), 10%, 50%,
90% distillation temperatures and final distillation
temperature. As shown in Table 1, RON and MON
increase with the increase of ethanol concentration.
Compared to E0, RON of the blended fuels is increased
by 2.6 and 7.3, respectively. It can also be observed that
the addition of ethanol to gasoline increases IBT, but
10%, 50%, 90% and final distillation temperatures
decrease; The distillation temperatures below 50% of
E10 are lower than those of E30 and then become higher
than those of E30, which indicates that distillation
temperatures of ethanol blended fuels are dependent on
the evaporation of ethanol.

Table 1
2. Experimental equipment and procedure Properties of ethanol blended gasoline fuels

The engine used in this experiment is a multi-point Property items E0 E10 E30
port injection gasoline engine with a cylinder bore of Density (kg/l at191C) 0.736 0.741 0.751
90.82 mm, a stroke of 76.95 mm and a compression ratio RON 92.4 95.0 99.7
of 8.2. Its rated power is 66 kW at 5000 rpm and the MON 81.2 82.3 86.6
speed of maximum torque is 3000 rpm.The EFI system
will choose a close-loop control mode at part engine Distillation temperature (1C)
loads to keep the engine operating near stoichoimetric IBP 36.0 37.5 40.0
air/fuel ratio and then change to an open-loop control 10 vol% 55.2 49.0 52.7
mode at full engine loads to produce maximum power. 50 vol% 92.5 73.2 72.5
90 vol% 153.7 149.8 145.7
A Pt/Rh based three-way catalytic converter was
End point 184.5 181.0 181.5
installed in the tailpipe.
 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957 951

3.2. Regulated engine emission characteristics and
catalyst conversion efficiencies
To analyze emissions and catalyst conversion effi-
ciencies, the relationship between air/fuel equivalence
ratio (l) and brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) is
presented in Fig. 1. It can be seen that l is almost the
same quantity at most operating conditions. The spark
ignition engine operates near stoichiometric air/fuel
ratio at part loads and burns rich mixture at full loads.
Fig. 2 shows CO emissions under different loads and
speeds. It can be seen that ethanol can decrease engine-
out CO emissions. Compared to E0 at full loads, at
2000 rpm, E10 and E30 decrease engine-out CO emis-
sions by 4.7% and 5.8%, respectively; At 3000 rpm,
engine-out CO emissions decrease by 5.7% and 3.1%,
respectively, which can be explained by the fact that the
oxygen atom in ethanol molecule is more effective in
improving combustion in rich mixture than that in air.
Tailpipe CO emissions are also decreased except for few
operating conditions.
From engine-out emissions and tailpipe emissions,
catalyst conversion efficiency of emissions can be
calculated. Fig. 3 presents catalyst conversion efficiency
of CO. Compared to E0, at part loads, ethanol can
enhance CO conversion at 2000 rpm and only E30 has
higher CO conversion at 3000 rpm. However, at full
loads, the conversion of CO decreases at above two
speeds. Because exhaust temperature of the catalytic
converter inlet in Fig. 4 exceeded the catalyst light-off
temperature of 3501C, the space velocity of the catalytic
converter was between 40 000 h 1 and 120 000 h 1 at all

1.5
2000 rpm E0 E10 E30 1.5
3000 rpm E0 E10 E30
1.0
1.0
λ

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 1. The relationship between l and BMEP.

4 4
2000 rpm
E0 2000 rpm
3 Engine-out 3 E0
E10 Tailpipe
CO (%)

E10
CO (%)

2 E30 2 E30

1 1

0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80
BMEP (MPa) BMEP (MPa)
(a)
5 5
3000 rpm E0
4 Engine-out E10 4 3000 rpm
E30 Tailpipe
CO (%)

3 E0
CO (%)

3
E10
2 2
E30
1 1

0 0
0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) (b) BMEP (MPa)

Fig. 2. (a) CO emissions at 2000 rpm and (b) CO emissions at 3000 rpm.
952 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957

100
100
2000 rpm 90 3000 rpm
80

CO conversion (%)
CO conversion (%) 80
E0 70 E0
60 E10 60 E10
E30 50 E30
40 40
30
20 20
10
0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 3. CO conversion.

1000 1000
3000 rpm
Temperature (°C)

2000 rpm E0 E10 E30

Temperature (°C)
E0 E10 E30 800
800
600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 4. Exhaust temperature of catalytic converter inlet.

2500 2500
2000 rpm E0 E10 E30 2000 rpm
2000 Engine-out 2000 E0
THC (ppm)

Tailpipe
THC (ppm)

1500 1500 E10

E30
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80
BMEP (MPa) (a) BMEP (MPa)

2500 2500
3000 rpm 3000 rpm
E0 E10 E30 2000 E0
2000 Engine-out Tailpipe
THC (ppm)

THC (ppm)

E10
1500 1500
E30
1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) (b) BMEP (MPa)

Fig. 5. (a) THC emissions at 2000 rpm and (b) THC emissions at 3000 rpm.
 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957 953

100 100
2000 rpm 3000 rpm

THC conversion (%)

THC conversion (%)

80 80
E0
E0
60 60 E10
E10
E30
E30
40 40

20 20

0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80
BMEP (MPa) BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 6. THC conversion.

2500 2500
2000 rpm E0 E0
2000 2000 2000 rpm
Engine-out E10
NOx (ppm)
NOx (ppm)

Tailpipe E10
1500 E30 1500 E30
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80
BMEP (MPa) (a) BMEP (MPa)

3500 3500
3000 rpm 3000 rpm
3000 3000
Engine-out Tailpipe E0
NOx (ppm)

2500 E0 2500
NOx (ppm)

E10
2000 E10 2000
E30
1500 E30 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) (b) BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 7. NOx emissions at 2000 rpm and (b) NOx emissions at 3000 rpm.

120 120
2000 rpm E0 E10 E30 3000 rpm E0 E10 E30
NOx conversion (%)

100
NOx conversion (%)

100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80
BMEP (MPa) BMEP (MPa)

Fig. 8. NOx conversion.

954 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957

operating conditions, the catalyst conversion efficiency
reaches its maximum and keeps constant. As a result,
tailpipe CO emissions have close relations with engine-
out emissions, operating conditions (loads and speeds),
ethanol content in the blended fuels and l.
THC emissions are illustrated in Fig. 5. Compared to
E0, engine-out THC emissions of E10 and E30 are
reduced by 6–13% and 15–29.5% at 2000 rpm, respec-
tively and reduced by 5–15.3% and 22.1–25.8% at
3000 rpm, respectively. Those results indicate that
ethanol can significantly reduce engine-out THC emis-
sions.
Fig. 6 presents THC conversion efficiencies. It can be
seen that although the conversion of THC of E10 and
E30 is less than that of E0 at most operating conditions,
tailpipe THC emissions of E10 and E30 is low since
100
75
%
engine-out THC emissions of E10 and E30 are far less
those of E0; The degree of THC reduction by catalysts is
far more than that by ethanol.
NOx emissions are illustrated in Fig. 7. It can be seen
that ethanol can decrease engine-out NOx emissions.
The main reason is attributed to the properties of
ethanol blends. In order to produce the same power at
part loads, electronic control unit will decrease the
amount of intake air and increase the amount of injected
fuel to maintain air/fuel equivalence ratio near 1.0. At
full loads, to maintain the maximum power of the
engine, more blended fuel is injected. Since ethanol has
higher latent heat relative to that of base gasoline, the
mixture’s temperature at the end of intake stroke
decreases and finally causes combustion temperature to
decrease. As a result, engine-out NOx emissions
decrease.
NOx conversion efficiencies are shown in Fig. 8.
Because of high oxygen concentration in the exhaust
when ethanol is used, the NOx conversion of E10 and
E30 is lower relative to that of E0 at most operating
E0 conditions. But tailpipe NOx emissions of the three fuels
are quite close.

E10 Engine-out emissions at idle speed are presented in

50
Fig. 9. The emissions of E0 are assumed to be 100%
E30 here. The emissions of E10 and E30 are relative values to
25 E0. It can be seen that E10 slightly decreases CO, THC
and NOx emissions, but E30 can reduce CO, THC and
0 NOx by 35.7%, 53.4% and 33%, respectively, which
CO THC NOx
indicates that the fuel with high oxygen content can
Fig. 9. Engine-out emissions at idle speed. improve combustion.

80 80
70 E10 2000 rpm 70 2000 rpm
E10
Ethanol (ppm)

Tailpipe
Ethanol (ppm)

60 E30 Engine-out 60 E30

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80
BMEP (MPa) (a) BMEP (MPa)

70 70
3000 rpm E10 E30 3000 rpm
60 Engine-out 60 E10 E30
Tailpipe
Ethanol (ppm)

Ethanol (ppm)

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) (b) BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 10. (a) Unburned ethanol emissions at 2000 rpm and (b) Unburned ethanol emissions at 3000 rpm.
 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957 955

100 100
2000 rpm 2000 rpm E0
E0 E10 E30
80 Tailpipe
Acetaldehyde (ppm)
80 Engine-out E10

Acetaldehyde (ppm)
E30
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80
BMEP (MPa) (a) BMEP (MPa)

120 3000 rpm

E0 E10 E30 120 3000 rpm
Engine-out
100 Tailpipe E0 E10 E30
Acetaldehyde (ppm)

Acetaldehyde (ppm)
100
80
80
60
60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86 0.20 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.86
BMEP (MPa) (b) BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 11. (a) Acetaldehyde emissions at 2000 rpm and (b) acetaldehyde emissions at 3000 rpm.

500 500

2000 rpm 3000 rpm

450 450
BSFC (g/kW h)

BSFC (g/kW h)

E0
E0
400 400 E10
E10
E30
E30
350 350

300 300

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

BMEP (MPa) BMEP (MPa)

Fig. 12. BSFC of ethanol blended gasoline fuels.

3.3. Unregulated engine emission characteristics Fig. 11 shows acetaldehyde emissions. It is clear that
engine-out acetaldehyde emissions increases as the
Unregulated emissions such as unburned ethanol and proportion of ethanol increases. The maximum engine-
acetaldehyde were measured. Unburned ethanol emis- out acetaldehyde emissions of E30 are reached at
sions are shown in Fig. 10. It is evident that there are 0.48 MPa/2000 rpm and 0.2 MPa/3000 rpm, respectively.
engine-out unburned ethanol emissions at various While engine-out acetaldehyde emissions of E0 are quite
operating conditions when ethanol is used. Engine-out low relative to those of the blended fuels, which
unburned ethanol emissions of E30 are more than two indicates that more acetaldehyde emissions are formed
times those of E10; Tailpipe unburned ethanol emissions due to the oxidation of ethanol. But tailpipe acetalde-
are high, which means that the conversion of ethanol is hyde emissions are low except few operating conditions.
low in the catalysts. Those results show that Pt/Rh based catalysts are
956 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957
20
BSEC (kJ/kWh)
18 2000 rpm
E0
16 E10
E30
14
12
0.2 0.4 0.6
BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 13. BSEC of ethanol blended gasoline fuels.
effective in converting acetaldehyde emissions when
compared to the conversion of unburned ethanol.
3.4. Fuel consumption
Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) is presented
in Fig. 12. Since ethanol has low heat value, in order to
produce the same power at the same operating condi-
tions, more fuel will be burned as the proportion of
ethanol increases. As a result, BSFC increases. To
properly evaluate combustion efficiency of the blended
fuels, brake specific energy consumption (BSEC) is
introduced in Fig. 13. As shown, ethanol can decrease
BSEC except for low load using E10 at 2000 rpm. BSEC
can be decreased up to 4% for E30. Those results show
that ethanol can improve combustion efficiency.
4. Conclusions
From the discussions above, we can conclude that:
1. The addition of ethanol to gasoline fuel enhances
octane number of the blended fuels and decreases
distillation temperature except for IBP.
2. At operating conditions, ethanol blended fuels
slightly decrease engine-out CO and NOx emissions,
but they can significantly reduce engine-out THC
emissions. At idle, E10 has little effect on the
decrease of engine-out CO, THC and NOx emissions,
but E30 can drastically reduce engine-out CO, THC
and NOx emissions.
3. At most cases, ethanol blended fuels can decrease
tailpipe CO, THC and NOx emissions. The tailpipe
emissions have close relations to engine-out emis-
sions, conversion efficiencies, engine operating con-
ditions (speeds and loads), ethanol content and air/
fuel equivalence ratio.
4. With the increase of ethanol content, engine-out
unburned ethanol and acetaldehyde emissions in-
crease. Pt/Rh based three-way catalysts can effec-
20
BSEC (kJ/kWh)
18 3000 rpm
E0
16 E10
E30
14
12
0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
BMEP (MPa)
tively convert acetaldehyde emissions, but the
conversion of unburned ethanol is low.
5. Ethanol blended fuels can decrease BSEC.
Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under the
contract No. 50136040.
References
An, Y.-J., Kampbell, D.H., Sewell, G.W., 2002. Water quality
at five marinas in lake texoma as related to methyl tert-butyl
ether (MTBE). Environmental Pollution 118, 331–336.
DePetris, C., Giglio, V., Police, G., Prati M. V., 1993. The
influence of gasoline formulation on combustion and
emissions in spark-ignition engines. SAE Technical Paper
Series 932679.
D’Ornellas, C.V., 2001. The effect of ethanol on gasoline
oxidation stability. SAE Technical Paper Series 2001-01-
3582.
Flynn, P.J., Ityokumbul, M.T., Boehman, A.L., 2001. Pre-
liminary investigation on the viability of 1,3-dioxolane as an
alternative to MTBE in reformulated gasoline. SAE
Technical paper 2001-01-3683.
Hsieh, W.D., Chen, R.H., Wu, T.L., Lin, T.H., 2002. Engine
performance and pollutant emission of an SI engine using
ethanol–gasoline blended fuels. Atmospheric Environment
36, 403–410.
Jeffrey J.G., Elliott N.G., 1993. Gasoline composition effects in
a range of European vehicle technologies. SAE Technical
Paper Series 932680.
Kisenyi, J.M., Savage, C.A., Simmonds, A.C., 1994. The
impact of oxygenates on exhaust emissions of six European
cars. SAE Technical Paper Series 940929.
Kivi, J., Niemi, A., Nylund, N.O., et al., 1992. Use of MTBE
and ETBE as gasoline reformulation components. SAE
Technical paper 922379.
Lange, W.W., Muller, A., McArragher, J.S., Schafer, V., 1994.
The effect of gasoline composition on exhaust emissions
 B.-Q. He et al. / Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957
from modern BMW vehicles. SAE Technical Paper Series
941867.
McDonald, C.R., Shore, P.R., Lee, G.R., den Otten, J.,
Humphries, D.T., 1994. The effect of gasoline composition
on stoichiometry and exhaust emissions. SAE Technical
Paper Series 941868.
Nadim, F., Zack, P., Hoag, G.E., et al., 2001. United States
experience with gasoline additives. Energy Policy 29, 1–5.
Neimark, A., Kholmer, V., Sher, E., 1994. The effect of
oxygenates in motor fuel blends on the reduction of exhaust
gas toxicity. SAE Technical Paper Series 940311.
Noorman, M.T., 1993. The effect of MTBE, DIPE and
TAME on vehicle emissions. SAE Technical Paper Series
932668.
Poulopoulos, S., Philippopoulos, C., 2000. Influence of MTBE
addition into gasoline on automotive exhaust emissions.
Atmospheric Environment 34, 4781–4786.
957
Pumphrey, J.A., Brand, J.I., Scheller, W.A., 2000. Vapour
pressure measurements and predictions for alcohol–gasoline
blends. Fuel 79, 1405–1411.
Poulopoulos, S.G., Samaras, D.P., Philippopoulos, C.J., 2001.
Regulated and unregulated emissions from an internal
combustion engine operating on ethanol-containing fuels.
Atmospheric Environment 35, 4399–4406.
Wheals, A.E., Basso, L.C., Alves, D.M.G., et al., 1999. Fuel
ethanol after 25 years. TIBTECH 17, 482–487.
Zervas, E., Montagne, X., Lahaye, J., 2001. C1–C5 organic acid
emissions from an SI engine: influence of fuel and air/fuel
equivalence ratio. Environmental Science and Technology
35, 2746–2751.
Zervas, E., Montagne, X., Lahaye, J., 2002. Emission of
alcohols and carbonyl compounds from a spark ignition
engine. Influence of fuel and air/fuel equivalence ratio.
Environmental Science and Technology 36, 2414–2421.