Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
32 State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 7. APPENDIX This appendix includes tables summarizing the impacts of alternative fuels on the emissions of SOx, PM2.5, CO, UHC, NOx, and HAP. Alt Fuel Ref Fuel Engine Impact Ref # FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2C1 EI_SO2 ï¢ 90% for pure FT, and ï¢ intermodiatly for blends. 6 HEFA JP-8 F117-PW-100 SO2 ï¢ 50% for 50% blend. 20 Table A.1: Alternative Fuel Impact on SOx Emissions Alt Fuel Ref Fuel Engine Impact Ref # ATJ-SPK JP-8 PW615F Smoke # & P. no Î 26 Beef Tallow JP-8 F117-PW-100 = PW2000 nvPM N ï¢ 63% at idle; nvPM GMD ï¢ 10-15%; EIm ï¢ 50- 70% at 63% power; SN no Î. 20 Beef Tallow JP-9 T63-A-701 Soot ï¢ significantly. 21 Camelina Jet A TFE-109 Honeywell nvPM EIn ï¢ at power settings of 10% and 30%. 44 Camelina JP-10 T63-A-702 Soot ï¢ significantly. 21 CH-SKA Jet A2 CF-700-2D-2 GE BC mass ï¢ 38-50% 15 Fats & Grease JP-11 T63-A-703 Soot ï¢ significantly. 21 FT GTL Jet A1 CFM56-7B EIn ï¢, EIm ï¢ 36 FT GTL Jet A1 CFM56-7 nvPM N & Mass & GMD ï¢ 48 FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2C1 nvPM Mass ï¢ 86% averaged over power for pure FT, ï¢ 66% for blended FT/JP-8, largest reduction at idle; EI_N ï¢ 95% for pure FT and ï¢ 85% for blends 6 FT GTL JP-8 CFM-56-2C EIn ï¢ varied monotonically with power: factor 200 at idle, factor 4 at max thrust; EIm ï¢ factor 30 at 45-65% power, factor 7 at 85% power 2 Table A.2: Alternative Fuel Impact on PM2.5 State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels opyright ational cade y of ciences. ll rights reserved.
31 State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 38. Moore, R., Shook, M,. Beyersdorf, A., Corr, C., Herndon, S., Knighton, W., Miake-Lye, R., Thornhill, K., Winstead, E., Yu, Z., Ziemba, L., Anderson, B., Influence of Jet Fuel Composition on Aircraft Engine Emissions: A Synthesis of Aerosol Emissions Data from the NASA APEX, AAFEX, and ACCESS Missions, Energy and Fuels, 2015, 29, 2591- 2600, 25 February, 2015. 39. Moore, R., et al., Biofuel Blending Reduces PM Emissions from Aircraft Engines at Cruise Conditions, Nature 21420, doi:10.1038. 40. Moses, C.A, Comparative Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels (FT-SPK), Final Report, Coordinating Research Council, Inc., Universal Technology Corporation, CRC project No. AVI 2I04a, Alpharetta, GA September 2008. 41. Moses, C., Evaluation of Synthesized Aromatics Co-Produced with Iso-Paraffinic Kerosene for the Production of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuel (SKA), Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels, Section D02.J0.06 on Emerging Turbine Fuels, Research Report D02-1810, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1 November 2015. 42. Rahmes, T.F., Kinder, J.D., Henry, T.M., Crenfeldt, G.,LeDuc, G.F., Zombanakis, G.P., Abe, Y., Lambert, D.M., Lewis, C., Juenger, J.A., Andac, M.G., Reilly, K.R., Holmgren, J.R., McCall, M.J., Bozzano, A.G., Sustainable Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK) Jet Fuel Flights and Engine Tests Program Results, 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, integration and operations conference, AIAA 2009-7002, Sept, 2009. 43. Roland, O., Garcia, F., TOTAL New Energies, Amyris, Inc., U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Evaluation of Synthesized Iso-Paraffins Produced from Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars (SIP Fuels), Final Version (3.), Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels, Research Report D02-1776, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 15 June 2014. 44. Shila, Jacob J., and Johnson, Mary E., Estimation and Comparison of Particle Number Emission Factors for Petroleum-based and Camolina Biofuel Blends used in a Honeywell TFE-109 Turbofan Engine, AIAA SciTech Forum, 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, California, 4-8 January 2016. 45. Shouse, D.T., Neuroth, C., Hendricks, R.C., Lynch, A., Frayne, C.W., Stutrud, J.S., Corporan, E., Hankins, T. Alternate- fueled Combustor-sector Performance: Part A: Combustor Performance Part B: Combustor Emissions, 2010. ISROMAC13-2010-49. 46. Speth, R.R., Rojo, C., Malina, R., Barrett, S.R.H., Black Carbon Emissions Reductions from Combustion of Alternative Jet Fuels, Atmospheric Environment 105 (2015) 37-42, 19 January 2015. 47. Stratton, R.W., Wolfe, P.J., Hileman, J.I., Impact of Non-CO2 Combustion Effects on the Environmental Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels, Environmental Science & Technology 45 (24) 10736-10743, 22 November 2011. 48. Timko, M.T., Herndon, S.C., de la Rosa Blanco, E., Wood, E.C., Yu, Z., Miake-Lye, R.C., Knighton, W.B., Shafer, L., DeWitt, M.J., Corporan, E., Combustion Products of Petroleum Jet Fuel, a Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Fuel, and a Biomass Fatty Acid Methyl Ester Fuel for a Gas Turbine Engine, Combustion Science and Technology, 183: 1039- 1068, 2011, 13 April 2011. 49. Vander Wal, R., Bryg, V., Huang, C., Insights into the Combustion Chemistry Within a Gas-Turbine Driven Auxiliary Power Unit as a Function of Fuel Type and Power Level using Soot Nanostructure as a Tracer, Fuel 115 (2014) 282â287. 50. Wey, C, and D. Bulzan, Effects of Bio-Derived Fuels on Emissions and Performance Using a 9-Point Lean Direct Injection Low Emissions Concept, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-94888. 51. Winchester, N., Malina, R., Staples, M.D., Barrett, S.R.H., The Impact of Advanced Biofuels on Aviation Emissions and Operations in the U.S., Energy Economics 49 (2015) 482-491, 8 April 2015. State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels opyright ational cade y of ciences. ll rights reserved.
30 State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 19. Colket, M., Heyne, J., Rumizen, M., Gupta. M., Jardines, A., Edwards, T., Roquemore, W. M., Andac, G., Boehm, R., Zelina, J., Lovett, J., Condevaux, J., Bornstein, S., Rizk, N., Turner, D., Graves, C., Anand, M.S., An Overview of the National Jet Fuels Combustion Program, AIAA SciTech Forum 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 4-8 January 2016, San Diego, California. 20. Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Anneken, D., Alternative Fuels Tests on a C-17 Aircraft: Emissions Characteristics, Air Force Research Laboratory, Interim Report, AFRL-RZ-WP-TR-2011-2004, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, December 2010. 21. Corporan, E., Edwards, T., Shafer, L., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Zabarnick, S., West, Z., Striebich, R., Graham, J., Klein, J., Chemical, Thermal Stability, Seal Swell, and Emissions Studies of Alternative Jet Fuels, Energy & Fuels, 2011, 25, 955-966, 2 March 2011. 22. Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Anneken, D., Shafer, L., Striebich, R., Comparison of Emissions Characteristics of Several Turbine Engines Burning Fischer-Tropsch and Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids Alternative Jet Fuels, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11-15 June 2012. 23. Daily, B., Ginestra, C., Reduced Emissions Via Synthesized Aromatic Kerosene, Virent briefing to ASCENT Seattle, WA, 13 October 2015. 24. Del Rosario, R., Koudelka, J., Wahls, R., Madavan, N., Bulzan, D., Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment II (AAFEX II) Overview, 19 September 2012. 25. Donohoo, P. Scaling Air Quality Effects from Alternative Jet Fuel in Aircraft and Ground Support Equipment, M.Sc. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2010. 26. Edwards, T., Meyer, D., Johnston, G., McCall, M., Rumizen, M., Wright, M., Evaluation of Alcohol to Jet Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (ATJ-SPK), Report Version (1.10), Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels, Research Report D02-1828, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1 April 2016. 27. Hendricks, R.C., Bushnell, D., Particulate Emissions Hazards Associated with Fueling Heat Engines, International Journal of Rotating Machinery, Volume 2011, Article ID 415296, 18 March 2011. 28. Hermann, F, Comparison of Combustion Properties Between a Synthetic Jet Fuel and Conventional Jet A-1, In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo. Nevada; 2005. GT2005-68540. 29. Huang, C.J., Vander Wal, R.L., Effect of Soot Structure Evolution from Commercial Jet Engine Burning Petroleum Based JP-8 and Synthetic HRJ and FT Fuels, Energy and Fuels, 2013, 27, 4946-4958, 24 July, 2013. 30. ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance, first edition, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec CA H3C5H. 31. Koenig, J.Q., Health Effects of Ambient air Pollution, How safe is the air we breathe, Kluwer Academic 2000. 32. Leikauf, G. D., Hazardous Air Pollutants and Asthma, Environmental Health Perspective, 110 (suppl 4), 505-526, 2002. 33. Lew, L., Biddle, T., United Technologies Corporation, P&WC Engine Test and Combustor Rig Test Performed on 20 Percent Amyris Farnesane/Jet A Blend, for the Continuous Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program, East Hartford, CT, 16 April 2014. 34. Li, H, et al., Influence of Fuel Composition, Engine Power, and Operation Mode on Exhaust Gas Particulate Size Distribution and Gaseous Emissions from a Gas Turbine Engine, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-94854. 35. Li, H., Altaher, M., Wilson, C., Blakey, S., Chung, W., Rye, L., Quantification of Aldehydes Emissions from Alternative and Renewable Aviation Fuels using a Gas Turbine Engine, Atmospheric Environment 84 (2014) 373-379. 36. Lobo, P., Hagen, D., Whitefield, P., Comparison of PM Emissions from a Commercial Jet Engine Burning Conventional, Biomass, and Fischer-Tropsch Fuels, Environmental Science & Technology, 1 November 2011. 37. Lobo, P., Christie, S., Khandelwal, B., Blakey, S.G., Raper, D.W., Evaluation of Non-volatile Particulate Matter Emission Characteristics of an Aircraft Auxiliary Power Unit with Varying Alternative Jet Fuel Blend Ratios, Energy and Fuels, 2015, 29, 7705-7711, 16 October, 2015. State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels opyright ational cade y of ciences. ll rights reserved.
29 State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 6. REFERENCES 1. Altaher, M., Andrews, G., and Li, H., PM Characteristics of Low NOx Combustor Burning Biodiesel and its Blends with Kerosene, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2013: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition GT2013, June 3-7, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA 2. Anderson, B.E., et al., Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX), NASA Project Report NSAS/TMI2011I217059, February 2011. 3. Anderson, B. NASA Langley Research Center, Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails & Cruise Emissions (ACCESS-2) Flight Experiment, ACCESS Science and Implementation Teams, 09 January 2015. 4. ASTM D1655-16a, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1 April 2016. 5. ASTM D7566-16b, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1 July 2016. 6. Beyersdorf, A. J., Timko, M. T., Ziemba, L. D., Bulzan, D., Corporan, E., Herndon, S. C., Howard, R., Miake-Lye, R., Thornhill, K. L., Winstead, E., Wey, C., Yu, Z., and Anderson, B. E., Reductions in Aircraft Particulate Emissions due to the use of FischerâTropsch Fuels, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 11â23, 2014. 7. Bhagwan, R., Habisreuther, P., Zarzalis, N., and Turrini, F., An Experimental Comparison of the Emissions Characteristics of Standard Jet A-1 and Synthetic Fuels, Flow Turbulence Combustion (2014) 92:865â884. 8. Biddle T., Pratt & Whitney Emissions Test to Determine the Effect of Sasol Fully Synthetic Jet-A Fuel on the Emissions of a Commercial Combustor, Southwest Research Institute, 2-007. 9. Blakey, S., Rye, L., Wilson, C.W., Aviation Gas Turbine Alternative Fuels: A Review, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 33 (2011), 2863-22885, 09 November 2010. 10. Boeing Company, UOP, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPK), Report Version 5.0, Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0.06 on Emerging Turbine Fuels, Research Report D02-1739, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 28 June 2011. 11. Brem, T.B., et al., Effects of Fuel Aromatic Content on Nonvolatile Particulate Emissions of an In-Production Aircraft Gas Turbine, Environmental Science & Technology2015, 49 (22), 13149-13157, 23 October 2015. 12. Cain, J., DeWitt, M., Blunck, D., Corporan, E., Striebich, R., Anneken, D., Klingshirn, C., Roquemore, W. M., and Vander Wall, R., Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emissions From a Turboshaft Engine Burning Conventional, Alternative, and Surrogate Fuels, Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 2290â2302. 13. Carter, N. A., Stratton, R.W., Bredehoeft, M.K., and Hileman, J.I., Energy and Environmental Viability of Select Alternative Jet Fuel Pathways, 47th AIAA/ASME, SAE, ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 31 July â 03 August 2011, San Diego, CA, AIAA 2011-5968. 14. Carter, N. A., Environmental and Economic Assessment of Microalgae-Derived Jet Fuel, Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 2012. 15. Chan, T.W., Chishty, W. A., Canteenwalla, P., Buote, D., and Davidson, C.R., Characterization of Emissions From the Use of Alternative Aviation Fuels, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, January 2016, Vol. 138 / 011506-1. 16. Chen, L. Zhang, Z. Lu, Y., Zhang, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, C., Roskilly, A. P., Experimental Study of the Gaseous and Particulate Matter Emissions from a Gas Turbine Combustor Burning Butyl Butyrate and Ethanol Blends, Applied Energy 195 (2017) 693â701. 17. Christie, S., D4.3 Emissions Report and Database of Systems Key Performance Parameters, ITAKA Collaborative Project, FP7-308807, 30 April 2015. 18. Christie, S., Lobo, P., Lee, D., Raper, D., Gas Turbine Engine Nonvolatile Particulate Matter Mass Emissions: Correlation with Smoke Number for Conventional and Alternative Fuel Blends, Environ. Sci. & Techn. 2017, 51, 988- 996. State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels opyright ational cade y of ciences. ll rights reserved.
28 State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. â¢ âCombustion of alternative fuels and fuel blends modifies the VOC composition profile,â which can be divided into three parts: (1) hydrocarbons, (2) oxygenates (increased for combustion of alternative fuels), and (3) aromatics (reduced in proportion to decreasing Jet A-1 content of the fuel). Vander Wal, R., Bryg, V., Huang, C., Insights into the Combustion Chemistry Within a Gas-Turbine Driven Auxiliary Power Unit as a Function of Fuel Type and Power Level using Soot Nanostructure as a Tracer, Fuel 115 (2014) 282â 287. â¢ Particulate emissions were collected from an auxiliary power unit (APU) directly upon TEM grids for particle characterization by HRTEM. Carbonaceous emissions from two fuels, a coal-based FischerâTropsch and standard JP-8 were compared, each at three power levels. Differences in soot nanostructure, specifically fullerenic content, reveal changes in the combustion chemistry with engine power level, as do differences in aggregate size between the two fuels. As inferred from the soot nanostructure, comparison between fuels demonstrates the impact of fuel structure upon soot formation chemistry. â¢ The APU is a small gas-turbine engine, Honeywell Model GTCP85-98CK whose exhaust is mixed with bleed air and exhausted just before the wing spar. â¢ Comparisons between the FT and JP-8 fuels provides further support in that for the same power level, soot from the JP-8 fuel contains less fullerenic nanostructure, reflecting its substantial aromatic content that accelerates soot formation and minimizes the impact of partial premixing. Differences in aggregate size between the two fuels at each power level are consistent with this interpretation. At each power larger aggregates, indicative of a locally higher fuel concentration is observed for the JP-8 fuel. Therein soot structure across length scales preserves a record of the gas phase species concentration and identity contributing to its formation and growth. This suggests nanostructure can be used as an in situ tracer of the early combustion chemistry within the engine. Wey, C, and Bulzan, D., Effects of Bio-Derived Fuels on Emissions and Performance Using a 9-Point Lean Direct Injection Low Emissions Concept, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-94888. A 9-point lean direct low emissions combustor concept was utilized to evaluate gaseous emissions performance of two bio- derived alternative jet fuels and a JP-8 fuel for comparison. â¢ The bio-derived jet fuels utilized for the testing included a Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) or sometimes termed Hydrotreated Renewable Jet (HRJ) fuel, and a fuel produced from direct fermentation of sugar called AMJ-710 from Amyris. â¢ For the conditions evaluated in the present study, there were no significant differences in NOx emissions between the three fuels for the conditions tested for the 9-point LDI configuration. â¢ At 350 and 250 psia, CO emissions do not show any significant differences between the three fuels. At 150 psia, CO emissions from the HRJ fuel were slightly lower at higher fuel/air ratios. â¢ Combustion efficiencies were very high, greater than 99.9% for the operating ranges examined and again, no significant differences were found between the fuels. There were no significant differences in CO EI emissions between the various fuels and JP-8/alternative fuel blends. â¢ Gaseous emissions measured using a 9-point LDI concept showed no significant differences between the fuels. State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels opyright ational cade y of ciences. All rights reserved.