THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

An Investigation on the Chemical

Compatibility of Gasoline on Materials
Daniel Ha
Ocean Lakes High School
Authors Note
Research conducted by Daniel Ha, Mathematics and Science Academy, Ocean Lakes
High School.
This paper is the culminating product of the Mathematics and Science Academy Senior
Research Project. Special thanks to Mr. Scott Sonier for serving as the advisor for this research
project. Special thanks to Mrs. Babette Zado and Mrs. Allison Graves as well for overseeing and
providing input for the concepts of this project and research paper.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Daniel Ha, Mathematics
and Science Academy, Ocean Lakes High School, 885 Schumann Drive, Virginia Beach, VA
23454. Email: ha.daniel14@gmail.com

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

Abstract
The purpose of my project was to determine the effectiveness of common plastic
materials in their ability to be used as gasoline containers. In my research I learned that the most
common materials used to store and contain gasoline were high density polyethylene plastic, as
well as steel. My hypothesis was that, if different plastic materials were submerged in gasoline
for a period of time, then a slope of net weight over time would not be equal to zero. However,
my null hypothesis was that if different plastic materials were submerged in gasoline for a period
of time, then all of the slopes of net weight over time would be equal to zero. In order to test this
I experimented with 8 cm squares of sheet metal, high density polyethylene (HPDE),
polystyrene(PS), polyethylene terephthalate(PETE), polypropylene(PP), and a piece of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe. I submerged each material in a beaker full of gasoline for a period of 25
minutes each. I massed the materials before and after submerging them in the gasoline, as well
as took masses in 5 minute intervals. The results of my experimentation showed that
polyethylene terephthalate plastic, as well as polystyrene had a slope greater than zero, which
rejected my null hypothesis. The data was analyzed at the .05 level of significance. Using a
linear regression slope T-test, it showed that only one of the plastics that had net mass that
showed significance. However, the other plastic did not reach the threshold of significance, but
had a significant chemical reaction. In conclusion, only two types of plastics are viable
alternatives that could be researched further to see their future as gas containers.

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

Introduction
Everyone on the Earth uses plastic materials every day in some way, shape, or form. The
word plastic derives from the Greek words plastos and plastikos which means molded or
fit for molding. A plastic can be a wide range of moldable, organic solids that are either
synthetic or semi-synthetic in nature. Plastics are all around us. They make up our computers,
laptops, phones, CDs, mechanical pencils, toys, bowls, utensils, cups, as well as a plethora of
household products. However, plastics are also used industrially. For example in the medical
field, plastic test tubes are shipped as tiny one centimeter by one centimeter cubes, and then
when they arrive at the hospitals the cubes are expanded to become the test tubes the hospitals
need.
One of the more common places plastics are found is in an automobile. In the modern
age, automobiles have become the primary source of transit and transportation. Each separate
component of a car, from the interior to the exterior, has specific requirements to operate safely
and effectively. A car seat belt, for example, has certain needs and requirements to operate safely
and effectively. Therefore a special material such as a plastic, metal, or some type of alloy is
needed to fulfill those needs. In this case, polyethylene terephthalate plastic is used due to its
flexible yet strong material to provide passengers with reliable safety (Rau, 2011). A car cannot
be made completely of single type of plastic, since there are so many parts to a car with a variety
of material requirements. Each individual part of an automobile has a material tailored to its
need,

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

whether it is plastic or metal. This is why materials testing is very important in finding the most
effective material any situation or product.
Numerous of studies have been researched and tested on the viability of plastic replacing
steel as the bulk material used in the formation of automobiles. The reason for such an increase
in the topic of plastics, specifically in the automobile field, was due to the 70s. During the 70s
there was a steep increase in the price of oil, due to the oil crisis of 1973, where members of
Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) embargoed the United States. Due
to the increase in gas prices, researchers looked towards a more efficient car in terms of mileage
per gallon of gas to combat such high prices (Use of plastics, 2004). Plastics were a viable option
to look into, since plastics are light in weight compared to steel, as well as they are able to
perform most of the same function as steel and/or metal.
Automakers have been interchanging coated-steel fuel tanks and plastic ones since the
mid-1980s. The most common types of fuel tanks are High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic
and terne-Coated steel fuel tanks. Terne is actually an alloy coating that is a mixture of 50% zinc
and 50% tin, but was originally a ratio of 20% zinc and 80% lead. It is used to coat sheet steal to
stop it from corroding, as well as it is one of the cheapest alloys to purchase and produce
(Alvarado, 1996). High density polyethylene is a light weight material, and also lowers the
weight of an automobile to improve fuel economy. Although both terne-coated steel fuel tanks
and high density

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

polyethylene fuel tanks get the job done, terne- coated steel fuel tanks are the cheaper option to
produce (Use of plastics, 2004).
There are seven common types of plastics, which include: Polyethylene Terephthalate,
High Density Polyethylene, Polyvinyl Chloride, Low Density Polyethylene, Polystyrene,
Polypropylene, and Other. These plastics can further be divided into either thermosets or
thermoplastics. Thermosets solidify and retain their shape when heated, while as thermoplastics
soften when heated but revert back to original condition at room temperature (Plastics, 2014). In
a paper published by Dr. Michael Fisher for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
he reported about enhancing the future of automotive safety with plastics. He investigated that
plastics encompass a wide variety of polymeric compounds which allows them to pick and
choose their desired properties. These properties vary from size, flexibility, hardness, transparent,
translucent, opaque, softness, and practically any shape or color imaginable. Plastics are very
versatile as well, as they are very resistant to corrosion, heat, and chemicals. They are even
excellent thermal and electrical insulator, couple that with its light weight, plastics are one of the
most extremely cost effective materials in the market (Fisher, 2006).
The purpose of this experiment is to study the effectiveness of different materials,
specifically plastics, and their chemical compatibility with gasoline in order to find out which
plastics show any viability for further research as an alternative to high density polyethylene and
Steel. My research hypothesis was that, if different plastic materials were submerged in gasoline
for a period of time, then a change in net mass would occur in multiple materials. However, my

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

null hypothesis was that if different materials were submerged in gasoline for a period of time,
then no change in net mass would occur and there is no relationship between plastics and the
chemical computability of gasoline.

Methods
Preparation of Tested Materials
Products from an assortment of household plastics were prepared to make testing
materials. A high density polyethylene milk jug, a polystyrene meat tray, a polyethylene
terephthalate water bottle, a polypropylene food container, and a segment of polyvinyl chloride
pipe were collected. Each plastic was cut into an 8 cm square sheet, with the exception of the
polyvinyl chloride pipe as it is difficult to produce an 8 cm square out of a pipe. Instead the PVC
pipe was cut 6 cm in length in order to have similar surface area exposed to the gasoline in later
experimentation. An 8 cm square of steel sheet metals was also used as a material in
experimentation to act as a control along with the high density polyethylene plastic.
Experimental Procedure
400 mL of gasoline was carefully poured into a 1000 mL beaker. Each material would be
submerged individually in the 400 milliliters of gasoline for a period of 25 minutes. The mass, in
grams, of each material was recorded, with the use of a scale, on a data table before treatment of
the gasoline. Within each separate 25 minute period of gasoline submersion, materials were
taken out of the gasoline in 5 minute intervals. Each material was then lightly patted with a rag

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

to remove excess gasoline, the mass was recorded again, and then the material was placed back
into the beaker of gasoline. After the 25 minutes in the gasoline, each material was removed,
dried with the rag and the mass was recorded for the last time.
Data Collection
The mass of each material, high density polyethylene, steel, polystyrene, polypropylene,
polyvinyl chloride, and polyethylene terephthalate, were recorded in grams using a scale. The
mass was continually recorded using the scale after each 5 minute interval during the 25 minute
period. Each materials mass was then compared from before the treatment of gasoline to after
treatment of gasoline, which equivocates to net mass. Net mass is calculated by:
(Mass of Material after Gasoline Treatment) (Mass of Material before Gasoline Treatment) = Net Mass of Material

Qualitative observations were also taken for each material as well.

Safety
This research dealt with the chemical gasoline. Contact with gasoline in either liquid or
vapor form may cause irritation to the eye. Although gasoline is practically non-toxic, prolonged
or repeated contact may cause skin irritation. Excessive inhalation of gasoline may cause
irritation to the nose, throat, lungs and respiratory tract. Gasoline is also very flammable,
therefore experimentation was done outside with gloves, a lab apron, a chemical safety mask,
and goggles. After experimentation was over the gasoline was collected and transferred to the
local Household Hazardous Waste Facility for disposal.

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

Data Analysis
The chemical compatibility of gasoline on the different types of materials are
summarized in Tables 1 through 3 in the appendix. The data collected was based on the net mass
of each material before and after being treated with gasoline. For the high density polyethylene,
it was observed to have average flexural strength, a smooth side, as well as a somewhat ridged
opposite side. The high density polyethylene had a mass of 2.9 g before treatment, and had a
mass of 2.9 g after treatment, so this calculated was calculated as a net mass of 0 grams, which is
expected since this was one of the controls. The steel sheet metal was comparatively much
heavier than all of the other materials, had a smooth surface, and was very rigid. The steel sheet
metal had a mass of 32.7 g before gasoline treatment, and had a mass of 32.7 g after the gasoline
treatment, which calculates to a net mass of 0 grams.
The polyvinyl chloride was the only material of which was not in a 8 cm sheet form, as
it was difficult to obtain PVC, therefore cutting a piece of PVC pipe was the other option for
testing this material. Since the testing material was obtain from a PVC pipe, the mass is
significantly higher than the other plastics, and is almost as heavy as the steel sheet metal
sample. For the polyvinyl chloride (PVC), it had a mass of 29.6 g before the gasoline treatment,
and had a mass of 29.6 g after treatment, giving it a net mass of 0 grams. The polypropylene
material was observed to be a very smooth material with good flexural, but would retain its
original shape very well. The polypropylene had a mass of 3.6 g before the treatment of
gasoline, and had a mass of 3.6 g after the treatment, which calculates to another net mass of 0
grams.

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

The polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic was very thin since it was made out of ecofriendly recycled plastic. The polyethylene terephthalate plastic had a mass of 1.3 g before the
treatment of gasoline, and had a mass of 1.2 g after the gasoline treatment, which calculated as a
net mass of -.1 gram. The pattern that was shown in the massing intervals of the polyethylene
terephthalate trial was that the mass stagnated at 1.2 g after the 10th minute up to the 25th minute.
The polystyrene material was a very light weight and soft material and showed little to no
flexural strength. Before the treatment of gasoline the polystyrene had a mass of 1.0 g, and after
the treatment of gasoline the polystyrene had a mass of 1.3 g. The polystyrene had a calculated
net mass of -0.3 grams. The pattern shown within this trial of the polystyrene sample was that the
mass stagnated at 1.3 g after the 5th minute to the 25th minute.
It was observed after the first interval of gasoline immersion that the polystyrene seemed
to have dissolved or melted in the gasoline fluid. Visually it had looked like the material lost
significant mass before weighing it on a scale. Upon pulling the material out of the gasoline
fluid, instead of the solid soft material, the polystyrene showed very stretchable and sticky
characteristics. The material seemed to be somewhat moldable upon the initial reaction with the
gasoline. After the first interval of gasoline submersion with the polystyrene, the material
seemed to retain its shape for the rest of experimentation.
To calculate whether or not these changes in mass in the polyethylene terephthalate
plastic and the polystyrene showed any significance, a Significance Test for Slope using a Linear
Regression T-Test was used to calculate a p-value which allowed us to determine the level of

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

10

significance. Data was analyzed using a .05 level of significance. When calculating the pvalue of the polyethylene terephthalate plastic, which only lost .1 gram of mass out of 1.3 grams,
the p-value was calculated to be .0417. The p-value of the polystyrene, which gained .3 grams of
mass, was calculated to be .1583. The .1 gram of mass lost in the polyethylene terephthalate
sample showed definite significance, since the p-value of the polyethylene terephthalate sample
was less than that of the level of significance threshold. The polystyrene was close, but however
had a p-value greater than the threshold of significance of .05. Therefore, in terms of net mass,
the polystyrene sample was not significant data. Although the chemical reaction the polystyrene
had with the gasoline must be recognized, and is very significant in its own right. These two
samples of plastic, polyethylene terephthalate and polystyrene, were the only two plastics that
showed any sort of change in net mass.

Conclusion
The whole purpose of the experiment was to investigate which plastic materials were
viable options for further research and experimentation as gas tanks and containers. The
experiment was also intended to investigate which plastics were not viable options, and why they
could not serve as an efficient choice as new gas tanks and containers. Besides the controls, high
density polyethylene and steel, there were two plastics that showed viability in terms of further
research. The polypropylene plastic as well as the polyvinyl chloride plastic showed no change
in net mass which shows that there is no immediate disadvantage to them yet.

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

11

The results of the high density polyethylene and steel were not surprising, since those two
materials were acting as a control group to compare to the other materials. The controls have
already been produced and used as fuel tanks and containers; therefore, they were expected to
have a net mass of 0 after experimentation. With the polypropylene and polyvinyl plastic having
calculated net masses of 0, put them in the same category as the two controls, high density
polyethylene and steel. Those results make sense since both the polypropylene and polyvinyl
have strong chemical resistance as a chemical property.
The results of the polystyrene and the polyethylene terephthalate seemed to be the most
relevant scientific finding in my experimental research. I proved that neither the polystyrene nor
the polyethylene terephthalate were viable options to be used for the production of gas cans /
containers. The experiment concluded that the polyethylene terephthalate seemed to dissolve into
the gasoline, which is very dangerous since that dissolved solid material would accumulate in
engines and eventually clog them. Clogging blocks the pathway for gasoline to be used by the
engine which would lead to the engines ceasing to operate.
The results of the polystyrene were one of the more interesting results out of all of the
materials tested in the experiment. The violent chemical reaction that the gasoline had on the
polystyrene was very surprising. When the polystyrene was taken out the gasoline, the
temperature of the material was much warmer than before it had come into contact with the
gasoline. I concluded that the type of reaction that the gasoline had on the polystyrene was an
exothermic one, because of the heat release in the polystyrene.

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

12

In conclusion, due to the polystyrene and the polyethylene terephthalate my research

hypothesis was accepted, and my null hypothesis was rejected. Further research specifically on
polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene may be conducted to experiment whether there are any
long term disadvantages to them. As for the polystyrene and the polypropylene, further research
is not needed, since through this experiment there are already glaring disadvantages to this
materials in attempt to use them as gas cans / containers.

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

13

References
Alvarado, P. (1996). Steel vs. Plastics: The Competition for Light-Vehicle Fuel
Tanks. Journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 48(7), 22-25.
Fisher, M. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (2006). Enhancing future
automotive safety with plastics (07-0451).
Plastics, Common Wastes & Materials. (2014). Retrieved, from
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm
Rau, M., & Nentwig, P. (2011, September). Plastics in cars: Polymerizations and
recycling. Science in School, 36-40.
Use of plastics in automobile. (2004). Informally published manuscript, Dept. of
Chemical and Biological Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, .

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

14

Appendix A
Table 1
Time elapsed in minutes.
0 minutes

5 minutes
10 minutes
15 minutes
20 minutes
25 minutes

Time elapsed in minutes.

0 minutes

5 minutes

10 minutes

15 minutes

Observation of HDPE Plastic

Observation of Sheet Metal

Grams: 2.9 g
Average flexural strength
smooth inside, but
somewhat ridged on the
other side
Grams: 2.9 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 2.9 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 2.9 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 2.9 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 2.9 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 32.7 g
Comparatively much
heavier than the other
materials. Smooth surface.
Rigid
Grams: 32.7 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 32.7 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 32.7 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 32.7 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 32.7 g
No Change to Material

Table 2
Observation of Polystyrene
Grams: 1.0 g
Very light weight and soft
Little to no flexural strength.

Observation of PVC Plastic

Grams: 29.6 g
Was not in sheet form, a
cylindrical shape.

Grams: 1.3 g
Completely different form of the
plastic. Very sticky upon pulling
it out of the gasoline. A more
compact and condensed form of
the polystyrene. Moldable to
some degree.
Grams: 1.3 g
The Material is less moldable
and retains its shape more.
Grams: 1.3 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 29.6 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 29.6 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 29.6 g
No Change to Material

20 minutes
25 minutes

Grams: 1.3 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 1.3 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 29.6 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 29.6 g
No Change to Material

THE CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GASOLINE ON MATERIALS

15

Appendix B
Table 3
Time elapsed in minutes.
0 minutes

Observation of PET Plastic

Observation of Polypropylene

Grams: 1.3 g
Very thin due to ecofriendly production. Partial
ridges on the surface

5 minutes

Grams: 1.3 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 3.6 g
Smooth material with good
flexural strength but
reverts back to original
shape.
Grams: 3.6 g
No Change to Material

10 minutes

Grams: 1.2 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 1.2 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 3.6 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 3.6 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 1.2 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 1.2 g
No Change to Material

Grams: 3.6 g
No Change to Material
Grams: 3.6 g
No Change to Material

15 minutes
20 minutes
25 minutes