Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Fuel 87 (2008) 312–318

www.fuelfirst.com

Determination of sulfur contaminants in military jet fuels

a,* b
I.C. Lee , H.C. Ubanyionwu
a
US Army Research Laboratory, Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate, Adelphi, MD 20783, United States
b
Texas Southern University, Department of Chemistry, Houston, TX 77004, United States

Received 6 October 2006; received in revised form 12 April 2007; accepted 3 May 2007
Available online 6 June 2007

Abstract

Military jet fuel samples have been characterized by gas chromatography with a sulfur chemiluminescence detector and a mass spec-
trometer (GC–SCD–MS). Sixteen distinct organosulfur compounds were quantified in the jet fuel samples. The structures and the con-
centrations for seven of them are determined in this study. Although the total sulfur content of jet fuel varies from sample to sample, the
individual organosulfur distribution remains unchanged for six jet fuel samples obtained over a 4-year period. The two major sulfur com-
pounds are determined to be 2,3-dimethylbenzothiophene and 2,3,7-trimethylbenzothiophene. These two major compounds are deter-
mined to be good representative compounds in jet fuel surrogates for computational studies of jet fuel catalysis such as JP-8 reformation.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Sulfur; Jet fuel; JP-8

1. Introduction dictate the maximum sulfur content of JP-8 to be less than

A power need for soldiers in the US Army has become
more demanding, and fuel cells are promising technology
for portable and stationary power generation. At present,
there is a lack of logistics for hydrogen gas fuel. Fortu-
nately, there have been reports demonstrating that hydro-
gen can be generated from jet fuel (kerosene) and diesel
[1–3]. Diesel and jet fuel are good contenders as reforming
fuels for Army applications because of logistics, transport-
ability, flammability, and energy densities. The US military
mainly uses two kerosene fuels. Jet Propellant 5 (JP-5) is
used by the US Navy and JP-8 by the US Air Force and
Army. JP-8 is a kerosene-based jet fuel which is a complex
hydrocarbon mixture consisting of different classes such as
paraffin, naphthene and aromatics. Moreover, it also con-
tains performance enhancing additives and contaminants
like organosulfur compounds. These additives include up
to 0.15 vol% of fuel system icing inhibitor. The military
specifications MIL-DTL-5624 and MIL-DTL-83133E
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 394 0292; fax: +1 301 394 0273.
E-mail address: ilee@arl.army.mil (I.C. Lee).
3000 ppmw. According to the Petroleum Quality Informa-
tion System (PQIS) [4], the mean total sulfur contents in
JP-8 received by US Department of Defense from 2002
to 2005 were 550, 550, 730 and 710 ppmw, respectively.
The cumulative sulfur distribution for past few years is
summarized in Fig. 1. From Fig. 1, 75% of all JP-8 received
from 2002 to 2005 contained less than 613, 690, 1150 and
973 ppmw sulfur, respectively.
There were numerous methods developed to identify the
organosulfur compounds in fossil fuels with gas chromato-
graphic techniques [5–10]. Chawla and Di Sanzo per-
formed early work to optimize a GC method with a
sulfur chemiluminescence detector (SCD) to determine sul-
fur compounds in a light petroleum stream [5]. Hau et al.
develop a two-dimensional GC separation method with a
SCD to determine sulfur compounds in diesel fuels [8].
Link et al. coupled GC the atomic emission detection
(AED) [6,7] and mass spectrometry (MS) followed by
high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) [7] to char-
acterize jet fuels. Schade and Andersson identified the
chemical structures of alkylated dibenzothiophenes in the
diesel fuel with GC–MS and GC–AED [9].

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2007.05.010
 I.C. Lee, H.C. Ubanyionwu / Fuel 87 (2008) 312–318 313

100 2. Experimental

2.1. Reagents
75

Fourteen organosulfur standards (Fig. 2) were pur-

2004 chased from Chiron. Between June 2003 and April 2006
2003
50 six JP-8 samples were collected from a military gas station
inside Fort Belvoir, VA. The supplier of all analyzed fuel
2002 samples was DFSP Baltimore, and the origin of the fuel
25 samples have either been from Pasadena, TX or Baton
Rouge, LA. Fuel performance additives were added to
the fuel samples according to the military specifications
2005
0
MIL-DTL-5624 and MIL-DTL-83133E. The fuel supplier
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 also provided the distillation data for the June 2003 sam-
Sulfur Content of JP-8, % ple. The boiling point range is between 159 °C and
Fig. 1. Total sulfur content of JP-8 received by US Department of 267 °C. The boiling points for 10%, 20%, 50% and 90%
Defense in 2002–2005. Data from Petroleum Quality Information System recoveries are 178 °C, 186 °C, 207 °C and 247 °C, respec-
(PQIS), Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir. tively. Isooctane was chosen as a solvent for sample dilu-
tion as suggested by ASTM D5623-94. All JP-8 samples
were soluble in isooctane.

In the field of fuel processing, the mutual goal for the

recent studies [1–3,11] is to produce high-purity hydrogen
on demand for fuel cells in mobile, portable, and stationary
applications. However, sulfur poisoning and carbon forma-
tion deactivate the reforming catalysts and fuel cells. The
objective of this study is to identify and quantify these spe-
cific compounds in military jet fuel samples that deactivate
the catalysts and fuel cells. The paper will determine
whether there is a significant change in the percent amount
of individual organosulfur compounds among fuel samples
over a 4-year period. Then representative organosulfur
compounds will be proposed to be included in jet fuel sur-
rogates for future studies.
2.2. Instrumentation
All samples were analyzed with two different Agilent
6890 gas chromatograph (GC) systems. The first GC is
equipped with an Agilent 5973 mass spectrometer coupled
with a Sievers sulfur chemiluminescence detector (SCD).
The other GC is equipped with a standard FID coupled
with a SCD. Both GC systems use the same injector, col-
umn and temperature program. All GC analyses were car-
ried out under the conditions found in Table 1. The
columns were 30 m HP-5MS, and the carrier gas was
helium. The only differences between these two systems

Benzothiophene 2,5-Dimethylbenzothiophene
2,3,5-Trimethylbenzothiophene 2,5,7-Trimethylbenzothiophene
H3C
H3C
H3C CH3
S S CH3
S CH3
2,3-Dimethylbenzothiophene 2,6-Dimethylbenzothiophene S CH3
CH3
CH3 2,3,4,7-Tetramethylbenzothiophene

2,3,6-Trimethylbenzothiophene CH3
H3C S CH3
S CH3 CH3
2,7-Dimethylbenzothiophene CH3
3,5-Dimethylbenzothiophene
S CH3
H3C CH3 H3C S CH3
CH3
S CH3

S CH3 2,3,7-Trimethylbenzothiophene
Dibenzothiophene
2,4-Dimethylbenzothiophene 2,3,4-Trimethylbenzothiophene CH3
CH3 CH3
CH3 S
S CH3

CH3
S CH3 S CH3

Fig. 2. Chemical structure of organosulfur standards.

314 I.C. Lee, H.C. Ubanyionwu / Fuel 87 (2008) 312–318

Table 1 the reported retention times are from GC–MS–SCD

Gas chromatographic conditions analyses unless stated otherwise. The total sulfur content
Column of each JP-8 sample was determined with a total sulfur
Film thickness 0.25 lm analyzer (Analytik Jena, Multi EA 3100).
Length 30.0 m
Inner diameter 0.25 mm
3. Results and discussion
Chromatographic set-up
Inlet temperature 250 °C
Inlet type Split/splitless Firstly, simultaneous detection of SCD and MS needs to
Pressure 19.71 psi be demonstrated. The effluent from GC column is split to
Split ratio 100:1 the SCD and the MS by a Siltek Y connector (Restek).
Initial temperature 40 °C The GC separation column length ratio after the Y connec-
Programmed temperature 20 °C/min
tor is 2:1 to account for the difference in pump capacity of
Final temperature 200 °C
Carrier gas Helium two detectors so that a sulfur compound can be detected by
Total flow 255.0 mL/min SCD and MS simultaneously. Table 2 shows the retention
times of 14 organosulfur standards with each detector. The
average of the difference in retention times is 0.0224 min
were the post-column splitters and the detectors. In the first with standard deviation of 0.00185 min. These results vali-
GC, the effluent from the GC column is split to the SCD date the parallel detection of sulfur compounds. It should
and the MS by a Siltek Y connector (Restek). The detectors be also noted that the retention time of the benzothiophene
and the Y connector were connected by HP-5MS columns (BT) derivatives is longer than BT, which is consistent with
(15 cm and 30 cm). The column length ratio after the Y Chawla [5]. Chawla et al. also found that dibenzothiophene
connector is 2:1 to account for the difference in pump (DBT) derivatives have a longer retention time than DBT.
capacity of two detectors so that a sulfur compound can Therefore, one can expect that the DBT derivatives will
be detected. In the second GC system, the effluent from have retention times longer than 10 min under the chro-
the GC column is split to the SCD and the FID by an Agi- matographic conditions in this study.
lent microfluidic splitter. The detectors and the splitter Figs. 3a and b illustrate the total ion chromatogram
were connected by two deactivated columns (0.1 mm and (TIC) and the sulfur chromatogram of a 2003 JP-8 sample,
0.25 mm ID). These deactivated columns act as restrictors respectively. A library database search suggests that the
for controlling flow to the detectors. TIC peaks at 2.69, 3.43, 4.23, 5.02, 5.75, 6.47, 7.18, 7.76,
8.47, 9.17 and 10.1 min corresponds to normal alkanes
2.3. Procedure C8–C18, respectively. Analyses of normal alkane (C8–C16)
standards with GC–FID confirm these assignments, and
A series of standards were prepared for calibration of the quantification of alkanes was determined by GC–FID
the GC, and isooctane was chosen as a solvent. Jet fuel (Table 3). Fig. 3b shows that there are two major sulfur
samples were diluted with iso-octane. 5 lL of each diluted peaks (7.534, 8.129 min) and 16 minor peaks (Table 4).
sample was injected into the gas chromatograph with a The hump between 5 and 10 min in the sulfur chromato-
10-lL microsyringe. Fourteen organosulfur compounds gram is typical in all of tested jet fuels. Fig. 4 shows the sul-
were injected into the GC to match the retention time of fur chromatogram of kerosene standard (AccuStandard)
organosulfur compounds present in the JP-8 samples. All with di-n-butyl sulfide as the only sulfur compound. The

Table 2
Retention time and ionization fragments of organosulfur compounds
Organosulfur compounds Retention time (min) MW Observed major peaks in mass
spectra (this work)
SCD MS
Benzothiophene 5.872 5.845 134 134
2,7-Dimethylbenzothiophene 7.259 7.238 162 162, 161, 147
2,6-Dimethylbenzothiophene 7.366 7.341 162 162, 161, 147
2,5-Dimethylbenzothiophene 7.378 7.356 162 162, 161, 147
2,4-Dimethylbenzothiophene 7.422 7.401 162 162, 161, 147
3,5-Dimethylbenzothiophene 7.476 7.454 162 162, 161, 147
2,3-Dimethylbenzothiophene 7.525 7.502 162 162, 161, 147
2,5,7-Trimethylbenzothiophene 7.954 7.930 176 176, 161
2,3,7-Trimethylbenzothiophene 8.123 8.102 176 176, 161
2,3,6-Trimethylbenzothiophene 8.231 8.211 176 176, 161
2,3,5-Trimethylbenzothiophene 8.233 8.211 176 176, 161
2,3,4-Trimethylbenzothiophene 8.574 8.552 176 176, 161
2,3,4,7-Tetramethylbenzothiophene 9.301 9.280 190 190, 175
Dibenzothiophene 10.005 9.983 184 184
 I.C. Lee, H.C. Ubanyionwu / Fuel 87 (2008) 312–318 315

Fig. 5 shows the sulfur chromatogram with mass spectra

a at selective ion monitoring (SIM) mode. GC–MS–SIM
C10 chromatogram monitor ion fragments from all compounds
(organosulfur, alkane, aromatics, etc.) that match the
C11 C12 C selected ion mass. By matching the retention time in the
13 C14

GC–MS–SIM chromatogram with sulfur chromatogram,

C15 one can determine the mass of the organosulfur com-
C9
pounds in the jet fuel. Fig. 5a illustrates the GC–MS–
C8 SIM chromatogram with ion masses 134, 148, 162 and
C16
176. These ion masses were chosen to represent ionization
C17 fragments from BT, methyl-BT, dimethyl-BT and tri-
C18
methyl-BT. The retention times of these ion fragments
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
are before 8.5 min. In another injection (Fig. 5b), only ions
Retention Time, minute
with masses 184, 198, 212 and 226 were selected to be mon-
itored during the analysis. These masses represent key ion-
b 2,3-Dimethylbenzothiophene 2,3,7-Trimethylbenzothiophene ization fragments for DBT, methyl-DBT, dimethyl-DBT
CH 3 CH3 and trimethyl-DBT. The comparison of Figs. 5a, b and
S CH3
3b indicates that the organosulfur compounds in the jet
S CH3
CH3 fuel match the retention time of several compounds with
masses 134, 148, 162 and 176. There are peaks at 7.53,
8.13 and 8.24 in both Figs. 5a and 3b, which suggests that
the jet fuel contains some alkyl BT derivatives. In contrast,
there is only one match for masses 184, 198, 212 and 226 at
10.0 min. All these GC–MS–SIM and GC–SCD results
suggested that the main organosulfur compounds are the
derivatives of BT and the amount of DBT, methyl-,
dimethyl- or trimethyl-DBT is insignificant.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fig. 6 shows a sulfur chromatogram with mass spectra at
Retention Time, minute selective ion monitoring (SIM) mode targeting derivatives
Fig. 3. (a) GC–MS chromatogram of a 2003 JP-8 sample, (b) GC–SCD of benzothiophene. In one injection we monitored masses
chromatogram of a 2003 JP-8 sample. Dotted lines correspond to the 133 and 148 which were fragments of methyl-BT isomers
retention time for sulfur standards in Table 2. (Fig. 6a). The major sulfur peaks (7.534, 8.129 min) in
Fig. 3b do not match a peak in Fig. 6a. There were some
minor peaks 7.0 and 7.5 min, but they were purely mass
hydrocarbon matrix is kerosene. This chromatogram 133. These mass 133 peaks were fragments from alkanes
shows a single peak for di-n-butyl sulfide and a flat base- and aromatics. In another injection we monitored masses
line; therefore, the hump is not due to the column bleed, 147 and 162 which were fragments of dimethyl-BT isomers.
the hydrocarbon matrix or any intrinsic properties of the In Fig. 6b, six dimethyl-BT peaks between 7.0 and 7.6 min
sulfur detector. The hump in the sulfur chromatogram of matched the sulfur chromatogram. In the next injection
jet fuel samples is likely due to unresolved isomers of the the GC–MS–SIM targeted masses 161 and 176 which were
organosulfur compounds. also fragments from trimethyl-BT isomers. In Fig. 6c, six

Table 3
Amount of alkane compounds in the JP-8 samples
Compound Amount (vol%)
April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 July 2005 October 2004 June 2003
Octane 0.9043 1.066 0.8089 0.7440 0.6768 0.8304
Nonane 2.524 3.139 1.830 1.792 1.193 1.684
Decane 4.073 5.060 4.051 3.735 2.290 3.692
Undeceane 3.703 4.762 3.503 3.121 2.233 3.624
Dodecane 3.254 4.038 3.226 2.809 2.059 3.464
Tridecane 2.034 2.460 2.332 1.990 1.663 2.751
Tetradecane 1.557 1.854 1.650 1.428 1.510 2.565
Pentadecane 1.096 1.337 1.001 0.8496 1.012 1.479
Hexadecane 0.7071 0.7846 0.6343 0.5723 0.6812 0.8514
Total normal alkane 19.85 24.50 19.04 17.04 13.32 20.94
316 I.C. Lee, H.C. Ubanyionwu / Fuel 87 (2008) 312–318

Table 4
Amount of organosulfur compounds in the JP-8 samples
Retention time Compound assignment Amount (% of total sulfur concentration)
of observed peak
April February December July October June
(min)
2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2003
<6.726 34.75 35.47 36.61 37.10 32.75 36.01
6.726 1.91 2.17 1.74 1.66 1.69 1.80
6.789 1.73 1.35 1.63 1.75 1.97 1.40
7.263 2,7-Dimethylbenzothiophene 2.49 2.54 2.86 2.93 2.32 2.03
7.324 Dimethylbenzothiophene isomers 2.19 2.14 3.07 3.02 2.12 2.57
7.391 Dimethylbenzothiophene isomers 1.89 2.08 1.84 1.99 1.84 1.80
7.430 Dimethylbenzothiophene isomers 2.12 2.50 2.27 2.52 1.39 1.54
7.490 3,5-Dimethylbenzothiophene 1.29 1.22 1.03 1.09 1.39 1.24
7.534 2,3-Dimethylbenzothiophene 5.39 5.57 5.84 5.98 5.36 5.36
7.909 Trimethylbenzothiophene isomers 1.51 1.58 1.59 1.50 1.47 1.68
7.961 2,5,7-Trimethylbenzothiophene 1.10 1.31 1.89 1.51 1.21 0.96
8.021 Trimethylbenzothiophene isomers 1.92 1.91 2.01 2.11 1.22 1.22
8.059 Trimethylbenzothiophene isomers 1.34 1.53 1.30 1.09 1.39 1.68
8.129 2,3,7-Trimethylbenzothiophene 4.11 4.27 4.53 3.92 5.30 5.72
8.237 2,3,5-Trimethylbenzothiophene/2,3,6- 2.61 2.48 2.43 2.19 1.96 2.35
Trimethylbenzothiophene
8.505 1.12 0.99 0.80 0.72 0.96 0.82
8.715 0.94 1.20 0.90 0.74 0.90 1.23
9.998 Dibenzothiophene 0.44 0.34 0.51 0.23 0.77 0.89
11.11 0.20 0.57 0.33 0.09 0.75 0.74
Total sulfur concentration (ppmw) 648 490 882 1096 396 325

trimethyl-BT peaks between 7.9 and 8.3 min match the sul- a
fur chromatogram.
According to the Table 2 and Fig. 3b, six of the organo-
sulfur compounds matched the retention times of the
organosulfur present in the JP-8 samples. The sulfur con-
tent of these JP-8 samples was quantified, and the concen-
trations are summarized in Table 4. The total sulfur
content in the each jet fuel sample is also included. The
jet fuel samples in this study contained as much as 1096
ppmw sulfur which is below the allowable military upper
limit. Although the total sulfur content varied throughout
the years (Fig. 1 and Table 4), our results indicate that
there is no significant change in the percent amount of indi- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
vidual organosulfur compounds. Retention Time, minute

b
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Retention Time, minute
Retention Time, minute
Fig. 5. (a) GC–MS–SIM chromatogram targeting ions with masses 134,
Fig. 4. Sulfur chromatograms of: (a) a JP-8 sample and (b) a sulfur 148, 162 and 176 and (b) GC–MS–SIM chromatogram targeting ions with
standard in a kerosene matrix. masses 184, 198, 212 and 226.
 I.C. Lee, H.C. Ubanyionwu / Fuel 87 (2008) 312–318 317

a c

♦
♦♦
♦
♦

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Retention Time, minute Retention Time, minute

b d * ♦

♦
♦♦♦
**** ♦
* *

*
**
**

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Retention Time, minute Retention Time, minute

Fig. 6. (a) GC–MS–SIM chromatogram targeting ions with masses 133 and 148, (b) GC–MS–SIM chromatogram targeting ions with masses 147 and 162,
(c) GC–MS–SIM chromatogram targeting ions with masses 161 and 176 and (d) GC–SCD chromatogram of a 2003 JP-8 sample. * and  represent GC–
MS–SIM peaks that match the retention times of sulfur chromatogram.

In Fig. 3b there were two major peaks at the retention
times of 7.534 and 8.129 min which are believed to be 2,3-
dimethylbenzothiophene and 2,3,7-trimethylbenzothioph-
ene, respectively. The total sulfur content was determined
each year from June 2003 to April 2006. For example, the
total sulfur content was found to have the concentration
of 648 ppmw in the April 2006 sample. Among these sulfur
compounds, 5.39 wt% was 2,3-dimethylbenzothiophene and
4.11 wt% was 2,3,7-trimethylbenzothiophene. There were
also several minor peaks between these two major peaks
(Table 4 and Fig. 2b). GC–MS–SIM analysis and matching
retention times suggest that these minor peaks corresponded
to the isomers of trimethylbenzothiophene. There were
other minor peaks eluted before 2,3-dimethylbenzothioph-
ene, and these were isomers of dimethylbenzothiophene
and other smaller alkyl benzothiophenes derivatives. In
addition, a minor peak at 7.630 min was assigned to
be either 2,3,5-trimethylbenzothiophene or 2,3,6-trim-
ethylbenzothiophene. Separating these two compounds
was problematical due to their identical retention times.
Several surrogate jet fuel mixtures have been proposed
in the literature for the kinetic modeling of fuel oxidation

Table 5
Selected JP-8 surrogate mixtures proposed in the literature [15,17]
Surrogate Ref. Alkane (%) Aromatics (%) Cycloalkanes (%)
A [12] Dodecane (26%) a-Methylnaphthalene Decalin (6%)
Isocetane (36%) (18%) Methylcyclohexane (14%)
B [13] Dodecane (30%) Tetralin (5%) Methylcyclohexane (20%)
Tetradecane (20%) Xylene (15%)
Isooctane (10%)
C [14] Dodecane (34.7%) Butylbenzene (16%) Methylcyclohexane (16.7%)
Decane (32.6%)
D [16] Decane (74%) n-Propylbenzene (15%) n-Propylcyclohexane (11%)
318 I.C. Lee, H.C. Ubanyionwu / Fuel 87 (2008) 312–318
and combustions [12–19]. Under relevant conditions for
gas turbine combustion, Rachner and coworkers [18,19]
have developed a crossflow atomization model as well as
an evaporation model where they approximate the Jet
A-1 as single-component fuel (n-decane). Ranzi [15] and
Dagaut and Cathonnet [17] have recently reviewed the
features of these surrogate mixtures, and some of these
mixtures are shown in Table 5. The chemical species in
these jet fuel surrogate mixtures include linear/branch
alkanes, cycloalkanes and aromatics; however, none of
them has included any organosulfur compounds [12–19].
Although the sulfur content is below 0.3% in jet fuels, the
sulfur compounds are generally believed to cause the deac-
tivation of reforming catalysts and fuel cells. Systematic
experimental studies of sulfur effects are extremely difficult
because it is almost impossible to obtain JP-8 with an iden-
tical hydrocarbon matrix, but with different sulfur content
in a controllable fashion. Our results suggest that 2,3-di-
methyl-BT and 2,3,7-trimethyl-BT are good representative
sulfur compounds to increase the sulfur level of a given jet
fuel in catalyst development studies.
Recently, there are studies proposing that a lower-boil-
ing point fraction of hydrotreated jet fuel will contain a
low fraction of sulfur [6]. Table 4 shows that the amount
of organosulfur eluted before 6.726 min was between
32.75% and 37.10%. As aforementioned, tridecane and
tetradecane have the retention times of 6.47 min and
7.18 min, respectively. These results suggest that 32.75–
37.10 wt% sulfur in the jet fuels samples have a lower-boil-
ing point than tetradecane. Moreover, Table 3 indicates
that the majority of alkanes in jet fuel samples are
C8–C13. These results provide additional supporting
evidence that the lower-boiling point fraction from distilla-
tion [6] can retain the majority of alkanes in jet fuel with
fewer organosulfur compounds.
4. Conclusions
Jet fuel samples have been characterized by GC–SCD–
MS. Sixteen distinct organosulfur peaks were quantified
in the jet fuel samples. This study identifies the seven
organosulfur compounds including 2,7-dimethyl-BT,
3,5-dimethyl-BT, 2,3-dimethyl, 2,5,7-trimethyl-BT, 2,3,5-/
2,3,6-trimethyl-BT and dibenzothiophene. The two major
sulfur compounds are determined to be 2,3-dimethyl-BT
and 2,3,7-trimethyl-BT.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank (Randy Shearer, GE
Analytical) for helpful discussion. The financial support
from United Negro College Fund is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Dreyer BJ, Lee IC, Krummenacher JJ, Schmidt LD. Authermal steam
reforming of higher hydrocarbons: n-decane, n-hexadecane, and JP-8.
Appl Catal A 2006;307:184–94.
[2] Strohm JJ, Zheng J, Song C. Low-temperature steam reforming of jet
fuel in the absence and presence of sulfur over Rh and Rh–Ni
catalysts for fuel cells. J Catal 2006;238:309–20.
[3] Lenz B, Aicher T. Catalytic autothermal reforming of jet fuel. J
Power Source 2005;149:44–52.
[4] Petroleum Quality Information System. Defense Energy Support
Center, Ft. Belvoir, VA; 2005.
[5] Chawla B, Di Sanzo F. Determination of sulfur components in light
petroleum streams by high-resolution gas chromatography with
chemiluminescence detection. J Chromatogr A 1992;589:271–9.
[6] Link DD, Zandhuis P. The distribution of sulfur compounds in
hydrotreated jet fuels: implications for obtaining low-sulfur petro-
leum fractions. Fuel 2006;85:451–5.
[7] Link DD, Baltrus JP, Rothenberger KS. Class- and structure-specific
separation, analysis, and identification techniques for the character-
ization of the sulfur components of JP-8 aviation fuel. Energy Fuel
2003;17:1292–302.
[8] Hua RX, Li YY, Liu W, Zheng JC, Wei HB, Wang JH, et al.
Determination of sulfur-containing compounds in diesel oils by
comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography with a sulfur
chemiluminescence detector. J Chromatogr A 2003;1019:101–9.
[9] Schade T, Andersson JT. Speciation of alkylated dibenzothiophenes
in a deeply desulfurized diesel fuel. Energy Fuel 2006;20:1614–20.
[10] Garcia CL, Becchi M, Grenier-Loustalot MF, Paisse O, Szymanski
R. Analysis of aromatic sulfur compounds in gas oils using GC with
sulfur chemiluminescence detection and high-resolution MS. Anal
Chem 2002;74:3849–57.
[11] Shekhawat D, Gardner TH, Berry DA, Salazar M, Haynes DJ,
Spivey JJ. Catalytic partial oxidation of n-tetradecane in the presence
of sulfur or polynuclear aromatics: effects of support and metal. Appl
Catal A 2006;311:8–16.
[12] Agosta A, Cernansky NP, Miller DL, Faravelli T, Ranzi E. Reference
components of jet fuels: kinetic modeling and experimental results.
Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2004;28:701–8.
[13] Violi A, Yan S, Eddings EG, Saforim AF, Granata S, Faravelli T,
et al. Experimental formulation and kinetic model for JP-8 surrogate
mixtures. Combust Sci Technol 2004;174:399–417.
[14] Montgomery CJ, Cannon SM, Mawid MA, Sekar B. Reduced
chemical kinetic mechanisms for JP-8 combustion. In: 40th AIAA
aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada; 2002. Paper
No. 2002-0336.
[15] Ranzi E. A wide-range kinetic modeling study of oxidation and
combustion of transportation fuels and surrogate mixtures. Energy
Fuel 2006;20:1024–32.
[16] Dagaut P. On the kinetics of hydrocarbons oxidation from natural
gas to kerosene and diesel fuels. Phys Chem Chem Phys
2002;4:2079–94.
[17] Dagaut P, Cathonnet M. The ignition, oxidation, and combustion of
kerosene: a review of experimental and kinetic modeling. Progr
Energy Combust Sci 2006;32:48–92.
[18] Rachner M, Becker J, Hassa C, Doerr T. Modeling of the
atomization of a plain liquid fuel jet in crossflow at gas turbine
conditions. Aerospace Sci Technol 2002;6:495–506.
[19] Brandt M, Rachner M, Schmitz G. An experimental and numerical
study of kerosene spray evaporation in a premix duct for gas turbine
combustors at high pressure. Combust Sci Technol 1998;138:313–48.