Biobus FinalReport

Biodiesel Demonstration and Assessment
with the Société de transport de Montréal (STM)
Final Report
Biodiesel Demonstration and Assessment
with the Société de transport de Montréal (STM)
Final Report
May 2003
Foreword
This report was drafted by the BIOBUS project team under the direction of the steering committee. It is the result of
cooperative efforts involving representative of the project’s four implementation partners—the Canadian Renewable
Fuels Association (CRFA), the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec (FPCCQ), the Société de
transport de Montréal (STM), and Rothsay/Laurenco (Maple Leaf Foods Group)—the Canadian and Quebec governments,
which provided funding, and the members of various committees. All participated at different stages in verifying the
report's contents.
The BIOBUS project includes a measurement program carried out under normal operating conditions. The report’s
conclusions are thus only prescriptive and in no way commit public transit decision-makers or participating governments
and organizations.
FOREWORD PROJECT – FINAL REPORT I

BIOBUS Project Committee Members
Steering Committee Technical and Logistical Committee Communications Committee
Bliss Baker Sarah Babès Maxime-Pierre Ayotte

Canadian Renewable Fuels Association Ministère des Transports du Québec Ministère des Transports du Québec
(CRFA) Raynald Archambault Claude Bourgault
Claude Barraud Ministère des Ressources naturelles Rothsay/Laurenco
Natural Resources Canada du Québec (Maple Leaf Foods Group)
Luc Beaudin Luc Beaudin Sylvie Bussières
Ministère des Transports du Québec Ministère des Transports du Québec Société de transport de Montréal (STM)
Claude Bourgault Claude Bourgault Thérèse Drapeau
Rothsay/Laurenco Rothsay/Laurenco Environment Canada
(Maple Leaf Foods Group) (Maple Leaf Foods Group) Louise Hamel
Daniel Collin Philippe Coutu Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec,
Société de transport de Montréal (STM) Société de transport de Montréal (STM) Committee Chair
Michel Goulet Pierre Hosatte Camil Lagacé
Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec Project Team (CRFA-FPCCQ), Project Team (CRFA-FPCCQ)
Louise Hamel Committee Chair Hélène Saint-Pierre
Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec, Jacques Jobin Canada Economic Development (CED)
Communications Lead Ultramar Kathleen Smith
Pierre Hosatte Douglas Labelle Natural Resources Canada
Project Team (CRFA-FPCCQ), Agence de l’efficacité énergétique
Technical Lead du Québec (AEÉ)
Camil Lagacé Camil Lagacé
Project Team (CRFA-FPCCQ), Project Team (CRFA-FPCCQ)
Project Director Denis Lamothe
Armand Mousseau SGS Canada
Fédération des producteurs de cultures Georges Lê
commerciales du Québec (FPCCQ) Ministère des Ressources naturelles
Anne-Marie Phan Lan du Québec
Canada Economic Development (CED) Johnny Mulfati
Pierre Sylvestre Cummins Canada
Environment Canada John Patitsas
Luc Y. Tremblay TWD Technologies
Société de transport de Montréal (STM), René Pigeon
Steering Committee Chair Natural Resources Canada
Jean-Claude Raymond
Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec
Martin Roberge
Ministère de l’Industrie et du Commerce
du Québec
Denis Soucy
Société de transport de Montréal (STM)
Michel Souligny
Environmental Technology Centre (ETC)
Environment Canada
Pierre Sylvestre
Environment Canada
II PROJECT – FINAL REPORT BIOBUS PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

STM Steering Committee Special Thanks Report Production Team
Pierre Bellemare To representatives of Coordinator
Denis Bissonnette the following organizations: Camil Lagacé
Richard Boyer Marcel Ayoub Writers
Sylvie Bussières Ministère des Transports du Québec Pierre Hosatte
Daniel Collin Jean Colpron Camil Lagacé
Philippe Coutu Transport Colpron Ltd
Translator
Jacques Durocher Benoît Drolet
Andy Lauriston – PluriVox
Roger Gagnon Ministère des Ressources naturelles
Serge Jolin du Québec Graphic Design
Gaston Larouche Marc Labelle Langevin Turcotte
Jacques Légaré Fédération des producteurs de cultures Photographs
William Mance commerciales du Québec (FPCCQ) Camil Lagacé
Luc Martin Denis Couture Printer
Serge Savard Fédération des producteurs de cultures Lithographie G. Monette Inc.
Denis Soucy commerciales du Québec (FPCCQ) Support Group
Robert Stafford Luc Beaudin
Névine Tadros And to the entire staff of: Claude Bourgault
Luc Y. Tremblay Rothsay/Laurenco Michel Goulet
(Maple Leaf Foods Group) Michel Souligny
Pierre Sylvestre
Luc Y. Tremblay
Direct Frontenac
Terminal Participation
All bus operations and maintenance
employees, as well as facility
maintenance and administrative
support staff.
Special STM Collaboration

Claude Beaudry
Robert Collin
Claude Dauphin
Jacques Deslauriers
Yves Devin
Charles Dubois
Miville Dupuis
Jacques Fortin
Alain Fraser
Robert Gagné
Michel Gagnon
Anne-Marie Giuliani
Renée Halley
Michel Lauzier
Michel Lavallée
Daniel Maillé
Robert Olivier
Gilline Pageau
Odile Paradis
Pierre Pelletier
Pierre Raby
Pierre Rocray
Roger Saint-Hilaire
André Therrien
Sylvie Tremblay
Denise Vaillancourt
Marc Vandecastel
Pierre Vandelac
BIOBUS PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT III

Table of Contents
Foreword I
BIOBUS Project Committee Members II
Summary VII
1 Background 1
Urban Transportation and the Environment 1
Biodiesel’s Benefits 2
Harsh Quebec Winter 3
Promoters 4
STM Participation and Project Credibility 5
Results and Perspectives 5
2 Supplying Biodiesel to the STM 7

Blending and Fuel Delivery 7
Quantity of Biodiesel Used 7
Findings 9
Initial Fuel Characterization 10
Physicochemical Characteristics of Biodiesel Blends 10
Recommendations 13
Cost of Biodiesel 13
3 Emission Measurements 15
Emission Measurement Results 15
Direct C02 and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 17
Impact of Biodiesel Use by Urban Transit Authorities
on Annual CO2 Emissions 17
Impact on Urban Smog 18
Specific Impacts 19
4 STM Fleet Operations and Maintenance 21

Preliminary Tests and Checks 21
Impact of Biodiesel on Bus Fleet Operations 22
Impact of Biodiesel on Bus Fleet Maintenance 22
Impact of Biodiesel on Terminal Infrastructure Maintenance 23
Findings 24
Recommendations 24
5 Communications 27
Internal Communications 27
External Communications 27
Team Honoured 28
Blazing a Path to the Future 28
6 Compendium of Findings and Recommendations 31

Recommendations Regarding Fuel Supply 31
Findings Regarding Emission Measurements 31
Recommendations Regarding Maintenance 32
Findings Regarding Maintenance 33
Recommendations Regarding Maintenance 33
IV PROJECT – FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix
Results of Emission Measurements 37
Carbone Monoxide (CO) Emissions 38
Total Hydrocarbon (THC) Emissions 40
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions 42
Total Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions 44
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Emissions 46
Analysis of Particulates below 2.5 µm (PM2.5) 48
Sulphate (SO4) Emissions 50
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions 52
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions 56
Comparative Emission Measurements for Different Biodiesel Blends 58
Characterization of Fuels Used in the BIOBUS Project 59
Impact of Biodiesel on Diesel Engine Efficiency 60
List of Tables
Potential GHG Emission Reduction for the STM in 2002 5
Periods of Blend Use for Each Source of Biodiesel 8
Impact of B20 Use by Urban Transit Authorities on Annual CO2 Emission Reductions 17
Breakdown of Frontenac Terminal Bus Fleet by Engine Type 21
Summary of Communication Activities 27
List of Charts
Trend in Per-Capita CO2 Emissions 1
Transportation-Related GHG Emissions Per Capita 2
Weekly Temperature Highs and Lows 3
Quantity of Biodiesel Used 7
Weekly Fuel Deliveries to the Frontenac Bus Terminal 8
Weekly Temperature Highs and Lows vs. Cloud Point 9
Lubricity of Various Fuels 11
Low-Temperature Filterability Threshold 11
Cloud Point 12
Measured Cetane Number 12
Percent Emission Reduction with B20 vs. STM Reference Petrodiesel 15
NMOG Ozone-Forming Potential 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT V

Summary
Solid Partnership The BIOBUS project was a joint effort by the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA), the Fédération des producteurs
de cultures commerciales du Québec (FPCCQ), Rothsay/Laurenco and the Société de transport de Montréal (STM).
Rothsay/Laurenco produced pure biodiesel for the project and supplied biodiesel blend to STM’s Frontenac terminal,
which provided 155 buses and the entire infrastructure used to test the fuel. The Canadian and Quebec governments
both made major contributions to project funding.
Three Major Objectives The BIOBUS project ran for one year, from March 2002 to March 2003, during which the following objectives were pursued:
• test the use of biodiesel as a source of supply for public transit
• assess the viability of the fuel as part of the routine operation of a bus fleet, particularly in cold weather
• measure biodiesel’s environmental and economic impact
Why Biodiesel? Biodiesel is a methyl ester produced from a chemical reaction between methanol and either vegetable oil or animal fat.
It could prove to be a prime alternative fuel for public transit since it:
• promotes sustainable transportation because it is produced from local, renewable resources;
• helps significantly in the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) and polluting emissions to achieve goals under
the Kyoto protocol; and
• is easy to use, since it requires no change to existing fuel delivery and distribution facilities or diesel engines.
Supplying Biodiesel Over the duration of the BIOBUS project, Frontenac terminal buses consumed some 550,000 litres of pure biodiesel (24%
to the STM based on vegetable oil, 28% on animal fat and 48% on used cooking oil) in 5% (B5) and 20% (B20) blends with petrodiesel.
Despite three interruptions in blend delivery during the year, the STM did not encounter any major problems from either
a maintenance or customer service standpoint. Quite the contrary, using biodiesel had very positive effects.
Physicochemical Characteristics of Biodiesel Blends

ASTM D 6751-02 is the only biodiesel standard recognized in North America, and applies only to pure biodiesel (B100).
To ensure product quality, it was thus necessary to assess the physicochemical properties of biodiesel blends with STM
reference petrodiesel.
Accordingly, an independent lab determined the characteristics of biodiesel from the three sources used (vegetable oil,
animal fat and used cooking oil) in both 5% and 20% blends. The results confirmed that the pure biodiesel produced by
Rothsay/Laurenco complied with ASTM D 6751-02. Key test findings are given below.
Lubricity
• Even at low concentrations, lubricity (the lubricating power of biodiesel blends) is clearly superior to that of petrodiesel.
Consequently, engine wear is reduced and engine life increased. Biodiesel could thus be a valuable additive to future
very-low-sulphur (<15 ppm) diesel fuels.
Cloud Point and Filterability

• It is safe to use in cold weather biodiesel having a cloud point of -15°C or lower. It is necessary, however, that the
petrodiesel is not at a temperature below the biodiesel’s cloud point during blending. In fact, neither the cloud point
of B100 nor that of the final blend dictates the solubility of biodiesel in low-temperature petrodiesel.
SUMMARY PROJECT – FINAL REPORT VII

Cetane Number
• Having a higher cetane number than STM reference petrodiesel, pure biodiesel improves the ignition performance
of blends and reduces NOx emissions.
Energy Efficiency
• The energy efficiency of biodiesel blends is comparable to that of petrodiesel. Furthermore, blends have no significant
effect on power, maximum torque and fuel consumption of a diesel engine with mechanical fuel injection.
Emission Measurements The only measurements made were direct tailpipe emissions.
It can be generally concluded from the results that biodiesel both reduces polluting and GHG emissions, be they regulated
(PM, CO, THC and NOx) or unregulated (SO4, PAH, CO2 and PM2.5), and helps reduce urban smog.
Direct Carbon Dioxide For the diesel engines studied, direct CO2 emissions were around 600 g per unit work produced (bhp-h); whereas, N2O and
(C02) and Greenhouse CH4 emissions were in the milligram range. Even if significant variations were found for N2O and CH4 emissions, the impact
Gas (GHG) Emissions on the overall GHG balance would have been negligible. Thus CO2 is the only GHG considered in this report.
Biodiesel helps reduce GHG emissions because it comes from animal or plant biomass with a life cycle of a few years.
Unlike petrodiesel, it is a renewable energy source. Variations in tailpipe CO2 emissions are negligible. Accordingly, variations
in fuel consumed per unit work are not significant and engine energy efficiency is unchanged by adding biodiesel.
Baseline GHG emissions for both engine types are around 2.59 kg of CO2 per litre of STM reference petrodiesel. As a working
hypothesis, we can suppose that every litre of pure biodiesel (B100) used to replace a litre of petrodiesel reduces GHGs by
2.33 kg of CO2. This figure is based on the assumption that biodiesel avoids 90% of the emissions from reference petrodiesel
because it contains 10% methanol used for esterification and obtained from natural gas (non-renewable fossil energy).
Impact of Biodiesel Use The BIOBUS project demonstrated that it was viable for public transit authorities to use biodiesel. Under the project,
by Urban Transit Authorities a total 550,000 litres of biodiesel in 5% and 20% blends were consumed by Frontenac terminal buses between March 2002
on Annual CO2 Emissions and March 2003, leading to a reduction in CO2 emissions of roughly 1,300 tons. Since the results show that the reduction in
polluting and GHG emissions was significant, it can be stated that resorting to biodiesel Quebec- and Canada-wide would
help reduce such emissions even further.
The table below gives a rough idea of the impact B20 would have on annual CO2 emissions, assuming that a four-stroke
Cummins engine with mechanical fuel injection is representative of bus fleets across Quebec and Canada.
Impact of B20 Use by Urban Transit Authorities on Annual CO2 Emission Reductions
Units Frontenac Terminal STM Quebec Canada

Bus Fleet 155 1,600 2,850 11,500
Total Distance Travelled km 6.7 million 70.5 million 195.3 million 800 million
Total Fuel Consumed litres 4.5 million 47.2 million 90 million 368 million
Estimated CO2 Reduction Using B20 tons 2,100 22,000 42,000 171,500
Source: Canadian Transit Fact Book (2002 data) and BIOBUS Project
VIII PROJECT – FINAL REPORT SUMMARY

Specific Impacts Studies also showed how emissions using biodiesel varied depending on engine type, concentration of biodiesel in the
blend, and source of biodiesel. It was found that biodiesel reduced several polluting emissions and did so more noticeably
with electronic fuel injection than with mechanical fuel injection (particularly for NOx and PM). It cannot be concluded,
however, that emission reductions were proportional to the concentration of biodiesel in the blend, nor can one source
of biodiesel be singled out as more beneficial.
Impact of Biodiesel From an operational standpoint, using biodiesel did not result in any incident compromising continuity of service. No
on Bus Fleet Operations variation in fuel consumption can be substantiated from the data as a whole. Mechanical maintenance was unproblematic
and Maintenance during and after the cutover to biodiesel for most buses, including both older models with 25-µm fuel filters and later models
with electronic fuel injection systems. Even the two vehicles having a Cummins engine with electronic fuel injection, used
to test the potentially most problematic biodiesel blends (cooking-oil-based B20 and animal-fat-based B20) over the coldest
period of winter, ran nearly 10,000 km each without any problems.
Biodiesel thus caused neither bus-related mechanical problems, notably to the fuel injection system, nor any degradation
of elastomer components in contact with the fuel. The cleansing period was longer than foreseen for buses with 10-µm filters,
longer still because B5 was used for three months before cutting over to B20. Sporadic incidents caused by the finest
(10-µm) filters had no real impact on STM operations and resulted in no significant unforeseen costs. Similarly, no specific
complications arose from using biodiesel, despite its cloud point, in very cold weather (overnight temperatures dropping
to between -20°C and -30°C). The problem that gave rise to incidents would vanish if producers succeed in developing
processes to better control pure biodiesel’s cloud point.
Overall The BIOBUS project demonstrated, under actual operating conditions, that biodiesel is a viable fuel in a region like Montreal
Recommendations where winter temperatures can plummet to -30°C and that it is feasible to continuously supply an urban transit company
the size of the STM. It is important, however, to take certain precautions.
Any infrastructure-related problem has a direct impact on process flow; therefore, a consistent multi-step filtering process
must be followed to ensure consistent blend quality. It is essential to require that suppliers use filters whose performance
has been proven by documented test procedures. Moreover, when cutting over to biodiesel, it is important to use the
desired concentration, e.g., B20, from the outset rather than gradually phasing in biodiesel using weaker blends, in order
to avoid prolonging the cleansing period. Lastly, adequate training must be planned for technical workers to make them
aware of the importance of identifying the source of a problem in order to achieve a correct diagnosis, particularly during
the cleansing period.
Efforts Acknowledged The project’s success is above all due to the unwavering participation of STM employees, particularly those from the
Frontenac terminal, who were most closely involved in the great BIOBUS adventure. Constant support from various partners
was also instrumental.
The innovative nature and global scope of the project were indeed acknowledged. At its April 2003 convention, the
Association québécoise du transport et des routes (AQTR) honoured the project team with its environmental award for
technical achievement. The project was also a finalist for the Phénix award for sustainable development know-how.
The name of the winner was announced only after this report went to press.
SUMMARY PROJECT – FINAL REPORT IX

1 Background
Launched in Montreal in March 2002, the BIOBUS project was designed to test the use of biodiesel as a source of supply
for public transit, to assess the viability of the fuel as part of the routine operation of a bus fleet, particularly in cold weather,
and, to a lesser extent, to measure biodiesel’s environmental and economic impact.
The project was an initiative of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA), the Fédération des producteurs
de cultures commerciales du Québec (FPCCQ), Rothsay/Laurenco and the Société de transport de Montréal (STM).
Rothsay/Laurenco, which produced the pure biodiesel, and the Société de transport de Montréal (STM), which provided
155 buses and the entire infrastructure used to test the fuel, both played key roles throughout the year-long project.
It is also important to note support from the project’s outset by both Canadian and Quebec governments.
Urban Transportation The BIOBUS project is part of broader government policies to fight climate change, improve air quality, recover and manage
and the Environment wastes, and promote sustainable development. Following Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in December 2002,
the federal government adopted an action plan in the fight against climate change and pledged to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. On its side, the Quebec government is working to develop a strategy for implementing commitments it
made under the Kyoto Protocol.
Quebec’s per capita CO2 emissions are only half those of the United States and other Canadian provinces. Such a performance,
nearly as good as that of Japan and Sweden, is due in part to the development of hydropower, which helped reduce
CO2 emissions by 16% over the last two decades.
Trend in Per-Capita CO2 Emissions
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
Tons of CO2
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
USA
9.0
Canada (without Quebec)
8.0
Japan
7.0
Quebec
6.0
France
5.0
Sweden
1975 1980 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Source: Hydro-Québec, based on data from the OECD and Quebec's Department of Natural Resources, 1999
BACKGROUND PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 1

In Québec, the road transportation sector alone accounts for 38% of total GHG emissions compared to 26% for Canada
as a whole. Public transit is by far the least polluting means of motorized transportation. Using a biofuel like biodiesel—
increasingly commonplace in Germany, France and elsewhere in Europe—could mark an immediate first step toward
more environmentally conscious management of transportation. Though its use is not yet widespread in North America,
biodiesel is now being envisaged as a potential alternative fuel for road transportation. One city bus can carry as many
passengers as 50 cars and produces nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 6 times lower, and hydrocar-
bon (THC) emissions 18 times lower. It is thus important to promote public awareness of the advantages of public transit.
Both promoting greater use of public transit and using a biofuel like biodiesel would magnify the environmental impact.
Transportation-Related GHG Emissions Per Capita

(tons of GHG per capita)
B.C. & Territories

Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Maritimes
Canada
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
tons of GHG per capita
Source: Transportation and Climate Change: Options for Action –
Transportation Climate Change Table – November 1999
Biodiesel’s Benefits Since it helps reduce GHG and other polluting emissions, biodiesel provides both a viable and cost-effective solution for
partially reducing the amount of petrodiesel used to operate a city bus fleet. The aim of the BIOBUS project was to assess
the impact of using biodiesel under actual operating conditions, especially in cold weather, and to demonstrate that it was
feasibility to supply biodiesel to a major transit authority like the STM. Accordingly, nearly 550,000 litres of pure biodiesel,
blended at 5% (B5) and 20% (B20) concentrations with petrodiesel, were used to supply the STM’s 155 Frontenac terminal
buses from March 2002 to March 2003.
The BIODIESEL project is untypical in that the kind of biodiesel used by the STM came primarily from agro-industry waste:
non-food-grade vegetable oil, used cooking oil and animal fat. Typically, projects use biodiesel very largely made up of
vegetable oil (soybean, canola, etc.) from cash crops.
Formed from biomass, biodiesel is a renewable energy source that replaces a fossil hydrocarbon fuel. Its production
and use involves a cycle generating low GHG emissions. Biodiesel could turn the largely overlooked potential of certain
wastes into valuable by-products, reducing amounts buried in landfill sites and thus avoiding significant GHG emissions
due to subsequent methane release.
2 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT BACKGROUND

Harsh Quebec Winter In Quebec, where sub-zero winter weather is common, biodiesel has one major drawback: it starts solidifying at -3°C
to 12°C depending on the source of fats or oils it contains. To avoid this problem, biodiesel was blended with petrodiesel,
which can stand temperatures of -25°C. A 20% blend of biodiesel in petrodiesel (B20) has a cloud point of -15°C and can
be used in very cold weather without problems. No special precautions were required for STM Frontenac terminal buses
running on biodiesel during the seven weeks of winter 2002-2003 when temperatures dropped below -25°C. A major
advantage was that buses not running were parked in a garage heated to 15°C.
Weekly Temperature Highs and Lows

(March 29, 2002 to March 28 2003)
35
30
25
20
15
10
Temperature (°C)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Spring Summer Fall Winter week
Weekly Temperature Highs

Weekly Temperature Lows

Promoters Recognized as the largest project yet undertaken in North America to demonstrate and use biodiesel for public transit,
the BIOBUS project sets itself apart from similar projects carried out in countries with a more temperate climate. It thus
provides a baseline for biodiesel use in cold weather (winter 2002-2003). Data on the physicochemical characteristics of
blends and emission measurements further support the prospects that this new fuel can successfully supply city bus fleets.
The partners described below promoted the BIOBUS project.
Implementation Partners
Société de transport de Montréal (STM)
To help improve air quality in Montreal, the STM was very keen to assess, in the framework of a demonstration project,
how the use of biodiesel would impact its operations. The STM was thus a key partner, providing all facilities required to
test biodiesel under actual operating conditions and becoming a technology showcase for other public transit companies
across Canada. The STM’s contribution amounted to $368,700.
Rothsay/Laurenco (Maple Leaf Foods Group)

Rothsay/Laurenco, which specializes in recycling agro-industry wastes, supplied the STM with pure biodiesel for the
duration of the project. It provided 550,000 litres of biodiesel from three different sources: used cooking oil (48%), animal fat
(28%) and non-food-grade vegetable oil (24%). Rothsay/Laurenco, whose financial contribution totalled $37,500, tuned its
production to meet these requirements following the project schedule.
Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA) and the Fédération

des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec (FPCCQ)
The CRFA is a non-profit organization mandated to promote renewable fuels through customer awareness and
communications with government. The FPCCQ has the mission of finding markets for Quebec farm produce. In support
of sustainable transportation, both organizations promoted the project and together contributed $10,000 in funding.
Financial Partners
Government of Canada
As part of its strategy to promote concrete projects that reduce GHG emissions, the Canadian government decided to
support the BIOBUS project in partnership with Natural Resources Canada, Canada Economic Development, Environment
Canada and the Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM) component of the Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF). The
partnership set out to assess the environmental, economic and social benefits of introducing biodiesel in Canada and
to promote the potential marketing of this product as a fuel from renewable resources. Funding from the government of
Canada totalled $515,000.
Quebec Government
The BIOBUS project was a perfect fit for the kind of innovation that the Quebec government pledged to support in its
2000-2002 action plan, especially since it helps move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. This is why the Quebec
government departments responsible for the environment, transportation, industry and commerce, municipal affairs, and
natural resources, as well as the Agence de l’efficacité énergétique decided to allocate a total of $375,000 to the project.
4 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT BACKGROUND

STM Participation and Public transit is a factor shaping Montreal’s social and economic development. STM participation thus made such a major
Project Credibility undertaking as the BIOBUS project all the more credible. With its fleet of 1,600 buses operating out of seven terminals, the
STM provides for 1.3 million passenger trips over its system every day. The STM’s Frontenac terminal was selected to test
biodiesel because it serves the Montreal city core with its commercial arteries and many business centres. Very densely
populated areas therefore benefited from the positive impact of reduced polluting emissions.
The table below shows the reduction in GHG emissions that would have resulted in 2002 had B20 been used by either all
Frontenac terminal buses or by the entire STM fleet.
Annual Statistics for 2002 Frontenac Terminal Entire STM Bus Fleet
(155 buses) (1,600 buses)
Total Distance Travelled 6.7 million km 70.5 million km
Total Fuel Consumed 4.5 million litres 47.2 million litres
Estimated CO2 Reduction with B20 2,100 tons 22,000 tons
Results and Perspectives The demonstration and assessment of this new renewable fuel produced results that are all the more meaningful since
they are based on a fleet and fuel supply as vast as that of the STM. The results can thus be more easily adapted to
specific operating conditions for other transit authorities.
This report presents the main findings on biodiesel use from the standpoint of the supply, maintenance and operation
of a public transit company, highlights results of emission measurements for GHGs and other pollutants, and puts project
impacts in a global perspective.

2 Supplying Biodiesel to the STM
Biodiesel, a methyl ester produced from a chemical reaction between methanol and either vegetable oil (e.g., non-food-grade
or recycled cooking oil) or animal fat, is a prime fuel for urban transportation.
• It helps develop sustainable transportation because it is produced from local, renewable resources, whether agricultural
products or agro-industry by-products. This project called for the use of biodiesel produced from animal fat and vegetable
oil that were recycled agro-industry waste (slaughterhouse waste, recycled cooking oil, non-food-grade virgin oil or
agricultural surplus) and that would otherwise have been dumped or discarded into the environment with a potential
risk of later release as methane, one of the greenhouse gases.
• Biodiesel is easy to use, since unlike other alternative fuels, no changes are needed either to the existing infrastructure
for fuel distribution and delivery or to the diesel engines of today’s buses when used in a 5% to 20% blend. Use under
cold-weather conditions is the only aspect that required close scrutiny and special checks.
• It helps significantly in the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) and polluting emissions. Biodiesel is a renewable energy
source that replaces a fossil hydrocarbon fuel. Its production and use involves a cycle generating low GHG emissions.
Blending and To ensure quality of source products and blends, processes were implemented both for fuel procurement and delivery
Fuel Delivery and for quality control of pure biodiesel and the B5 and B20 blends.
Rothsay/Laurenco supplied biodiesel for the 155 Frontenac terminal buses from March 2002 to March 2003, making three
deliveries a week following the procedure below.
• At the Montreal East Ultramar terminal, a tanker truck was loaded with petrodiesel to the 80% or 95% level depending
on the desired biodiesel blend. Early morning loading was avoided so the petrodiesel would be as warm as possible.
• The Colpron-operated tanker truck then travelled about 30 km from the Ultramar terminal to Rothsay/Laurenco’s
Sainte-Catherine plant on Montreal’s South Shore to be topped up with biodiesel. The volume of biodiesel was based
on that of petrodiesel to achieve the desired blend (B5 or B20, depending on the phase of the project). When necessary,
the pure biodiesel was heated during the hours preceding delivery to a temperature high enough for the final blend to
be above 0°C, if possible.
• The trip to the Frontenac terminal further mixed the blend before it was unloaded into the STM’s underground storage
tank.
Quantity of A total of 550,000 litres of pure biodiesel—24% from vegetable oil, 28% from animal fat and 48% from used cooking oil—
Biodiesel Used were consumed during the BIOBUS project.
Animal Fat: 28% Used Cooking Oil: 48%
Vegetable Oil: 24%
SUPPLYING BIODIESEL TO THE STM PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 7

The three sources of biodiesel were used
over the periods specified below.
1. Vegetable Oil:
• B5: March 29 to July 14, 2002
• B20 : July 15 to August 18, 2002
2. Animal Fat :
• B20 : August 19 to August 23, 2002
September 2 to November 3, 2002
January 20 to January 31, 2003
February 10 to February 16, 2003
3. Used Cooking Oil:
• B20 : November 4, 2002 to January 19, 2003
February 17 to March 28, 2003
Weekly Fuel Deliveries to the Frontenac Bus Terminal

(March 29, 2002 to March 28, 2003)
120,000
100,000
80,000
Fuel Delivered (litres)
60,000
40,000
20,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
STM Reference Petrodiesel

Animal Fat
Used Cooking Oil
Vegetable Oil
No Biodiesel Delivered
This chart shows weekly fuel deliveries to the Frontenac bus terminal from March 2002 to March 2003.
The red bars show that deliveries had to be stopped on the three occasions discussed below:
1. Last week of August (Week 22): Animal-fat-based B20

Shipments were halted because of prolonged filter clogging on vehicles with a Cummins engine whose fuel system had a
10-µm filter at the fuel tank outlet. Buses with 25-µm filters were unaffected. At that time, the phenomenon was unexplained
and believed possibly to be normal. Since the start of the school year is one of the busiest periods for the STM, it was
thought best to be prudent and avoid risking disrupted service.
It was confirmed that the problem stemmed from the ongoing release of deposits on tank walls. Finding the origin of the
problem made the team aware of the need to comply with the finest level of filtering from supplier to engine. Checks
showed that biochemical degradation of biodiesel was not an issue. B20 was sampled at different points in the supply
chain (between delivery and bus fuel filter deposits) and tested for mould and bacteria. Lab results showed the presence
of mould only, which is common in conventional petrodiesel.
8 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT SUPPLYING BIODIESEL TO THE STM

2. First week of February 2003 (Week 45): Animal-fat-based B20
The challenge was to use animal-fat-based B20 during the coldest period in winter. The limiting factor was not running
buses in cold weather but achieving a quality blend when petrodiesel temperature dropped below -10°C (see graph below).
Certain fatty acid esters formed crystals, plugging garage pump filters.
3. Third week of February 2003 (Week 47): Animal-fat-based B10

In response to the problem encountered during Week 45, the concentration of biodiesel in the blend was reduced to 10%
but this brought no noticeable improvement. It was thus decided to revert to cooking-oil-based biodiesel. Deliveries were
interrupted for the time needed to produce a new batch of biodiesel.
Weekly Temperature Highs and Lows vs. Cloud Point

(March 29, 2002 to March 28, 2003)
35
30
25
20
15
10
Temperature (°C)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Weekly Temperature High

Weekly Temperature Low
Minimum Pre-Blend Petrodiesel Temperature
B20 Cloud Point – Vegetable Oil (-15°C)
B20 Cloud Point – Animal Fat (-10°C)
B20 Cloud Point – Used Cooking Oil (-15°C)
Findings • Even though products are filtered individually before blending, since certain animal-fat-based esters can cause
flocculation problems during low-temperature blending, the blend should be refiltered before delivery to the user.
• These incidents caused problems with refuelling pump filters and reduced flow but had no impact on buses.
By following a multi-step filtering process, potential fuel quality issues are easily resolved.

Initial Fuel ASTM D 6751-02 is the only standard specification recognized in North America for biodiesel, and applies only to pure
Characterization biodiesel (B100). It was necessary to make sure that Rothsay/Laurenco products complied with that standard.
The designations applied to sources of biodiesel (vegetable oil, animal fat or cooking oil) have no standard definitions.
The biodiesel used in the BIOBUS project came from the following three sources:
• vegetable (soybean) oil

• animal fat with equal portions of pork lard and beef tallow
• used cooking oil collected from restaurants and agro-industry plants in Greater Montreal and for which the proportion
of vegetable oil to animal fat varied from 75%-25% to 90%-10% depending on the group of customers from whom
it was collected
One goal of the BIOBUS project was to assess the physicochemical properties of biodiesel blended with STM reference
petrodiesel and compare them to the properties of conventional petrodiesel. This characterization would serve to better
understand the products (biodiesel and petrodiesel) used in the project and to help interpret test results from Environment
Canada's Environmental Technology Centre (ETC) in Ottawa.
Compliance of Biodiesel Blends to Conventional Petrodiesel Standards

The pure biodiesel supplied by Rothsay/Laurenco complied with the applicable standard (ASTM D 6751-02). Currently,
there are no standards for biodiesel blends. For information purposes, the characteristics of blends were compared
with Quebec standards for petrodiesel. Disregarding low-temperature behaviour, whose impact needed to be assessed,
biodiesel blends met all criteria except acidity. Petrodiesel acidity is specified to prevent excessive build-up of petroleum
gums and varnishes in engines. For pure biodiesel, acidity measurements help ascertain that esterification is complete
and no free fatty acids remain. The pertinence of taking this factor into account for biodiesel blends is an open question.
Physicochemical The physicochemical characteristics of blends were checked against biodiesel performance. Analyses performed by
Characteristics of an independent lab helped gain a better understanding of the characteristics of 5% (B5) and 20% (B20) blends of biodiesel
Biodiesel Blends derived from different sources (vegetable oil, used cooking oil and animal fat) and how they stood up to petrodiesel standards.
The analyses were also designed to check the quality of the STM supply, specifically against ASTM D 6751-02, the only
existing standard for pure biodiesel (B100).
Methodology
The blends analyzed are the same as those used for emission measurements made on the ETC engine test facility. The
reference petrodiesel for the BIOBUS project was low-sulphur (500 ppm) #2 petrodiesel (type B), delivered to the STM
between February and May 2002. The biodiesel blends were made from this fuel. Characterization covered over 20 criteria
found in various fuel standards. For details, see the table in the Appendix entitled Characterization of Fuels Used in the
BIOBUS Project.
As far as possible, the same methods were used to analyze petrodiesel, biodiesel and blends. The results confirm
the usefulness of biodiesel while highlighting a few important precautions to consider for ensuring reliability.
Lubricity
Even at low concentrations, biodiesel blends have clearly superior lubricity (lubricating power) compared to petrodiesel.
That means that certain mechanical parts in contact with fuel, notably the injection pump, are less prone to wear.
Biodiesel could thus be a valuable additive to future very-low-sulphur (<15 ppm) diesel fuels.

Lubricity of Various Fuels
(based on ASTM D 6079)
With B5, wear scars

were already reduced
by 50% compared to 0.50
pure petrodiesel. B20 0.45
Wear Scars (in mm)

0.40
has the same lubricity
0.35
as B100. 0.30
0.25
0.20
Animal Fat
0.15
Used Cooking Oil
0.10
Vegetable Oil
▲ ▲
0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5% 20%
Concentration of Biodiesel in the Blend
Cloud Point and Low-Temperature Filterability

Wanting to use animal-fat-based biodiesel during the winter, the project team took a close look at the operating conditions
of STM buses. It was then able to implement a fuel-use procedure that took into account the minimum temperature the fuel
could reach under extreme conditions. This lower threshold temperature is above the coldest winter temperature, given
the operating conditions for buses.
Measurements showed that the temperature of the fuel supply on the road for all types of STM buses, including those
having engines with electronic fuel injection, tended to stabilize around 30°C above the outdoor temperature. Once vehicles
stop, it takes around an hour for the temperature of fuel lines and primary filter to drop by about 20°C. Based on these
observations and knowing that Frontenac terminal buses park in a garage heated to roughly 15°C, the STM was not
concerned about using a fuel with a cloud point as high as -15°C, even though the #2 petrodiesel it usually buys has
a -24°C cloud point. It even agreed to test animal-fat-based B20 with a -10°C cloud point.
The project team also verified that it was possible to blend biodiesel at -5°C (the lowest temperature of delivered
petrodiesel allowed by the STM supply contract, specified to avoid problems associated with the frosting of pump nozzle
sensors). Blending at -5°C is not a problem provided the biodiesel is warm enough (e.g., 30°C for cooking-oil-based
biodiesel). It was not known at that point in the project that the petrodiesel supplier was unable to comply with the minimum-
temperature specification, particularly because of cold snaps during winter 2002-2003. Blends thus had to be made some-
times using petrodiesel colder than -10°C. Experience showed that neither the B100 cloud point nor that of the final blend
dictated the solubility of biodiesel in low-temperature petrodiesel. When blending animal-fat-based biodiesel with cold
petrodiesel, it was not enough to heat the B100 to a high enough temperature for the resulting blend to be above its cloud
point (-10°C for animal-fat-based B20). The waxy crystals that form clump and then cannot completely dissolve again, even
at 20°C. The problem could be solved by modifying the characteristics of fatty acid esters in animal-fat-based biodiesel
so that the cloud point is closer to that of vegetable-oil-based biodiesel.
Low-Temperature Filterability Threshold

(based on ASTM D 4539 low-temperature flow test)
The graph at the bottom

of this page and top of the
next show that the use of 15
Threshold Temperature (°C)
animal-fat-based biodiesel 10
5
will be a greater challenge
0
in cold weather, particularly -5
at concentrations of more -10
than 5%. -15
Animal Fat
-20
Used Cooking Oil
-25
Vegetable Oil
▲ ▲
0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5% 20%

Cloud Point
15
Threshold Temperature (°C)
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Animal Fat
-20
Used Cooking Oil
-25
Vegetable Oil
▲ ▲
0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5% 20%
Energy Efficiency
The energy efficiency of biodiesel blends used in the BIOBUS project was entirely comparable to that of petrodiesel.
Results from ETC lab tests show that the use of biodiesel blends had no significant impact on the performance of diesel
engines with mechanical fuel injection regarding power, maximum torque and fuel consumption. For details, see the
Appendix under Impact of Biodiesel on Diesel Engine Efficiency.
The three variables below combine in determining energy efficiency.
1. Energy Content
Pure biodiesel typically contains 8% less energy than the same mass of petrodiesel.
2. Density
Biodiesel is 5% heavier than petrodiesel. Since the energy efficiency of engines is based on the volume of fuel consumed,
energy content must be compared by unit volume and not by unit mass. Taking this into account, the energy content of
pure biodiesel is just 4% below that of petrodiesel. The impact is in the order of 0.5% for B20 and not significant for B5.
3. Cetane Number
Lab measurements on a benchmark engine show that pure animal-fat-based biodiesel has a cetane number ranging
from 52 to over 56 compared to 42 for STM reference petrodiesel. The higher number improves ignition performance and
lowers NOx as confirmed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel
Impacts on Exhaust Emissions (Draft Technical Report EPA 420-P-02-001, October 2002).
Measured Cetane Number

A higher cetane number

normally results in
better combustion and 60
reduced NOX emissions.

55
Cetane number
50
45
40
▲ ▲
0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Animal Fat
5% 20% Used Cooking Oil
Concentration of Biodiesel in the Blend Vegetable Oil

Water Content
The hygroscopic properties of biodiesel can lead to high levels of chemically bound water, without blends containing free
or suspended water. Water content can exceed 1,000 mg of water per kg of pure biodiesel. Tests at normal temperatures
have detected no free water, only sediment. A test method remains to be found, however, to check whether this finding
remains valid for blends at lower temperatures. Water content can have advantages for diesel engines, reducing emissions
(particularly NOx) and increasing engine efficiency. The development of blends of emulsified water in petrodiesel is proof
of this. Biodiesel’s tendency to increase the fuel’s water content, at least in warm weather, is thus an asset worth exploiting.
Thermal Stability
An assessment was made of the risk that the fuel degrades when heated in the diesel engine's fuel line. Biodiesel blends
have shown no significant change in thermal stability, even when exposed to humidity and temperatures above 70°C,
the temperature fuel can reach in bus fuel tanks during summer. Furthermore, fuel samples showed no sign of bacteria,
only traces of mould, which is quite common in petroleum products.
Flash Point
Even though the flash point of pure biodiesel (from 150°C to 190°C) is higher than for conventional diesel (50°C), this does not
affect the flammability of blends, since the vapour pressure of a blend’s most volatile component determines the flash point.
Recommendations Based on the findings, we can make the recommendations below.
• Once biodiesel and petrodiesel have been blended, the fuel must be filtered again before delivery, despite prior filtering
of each product individually. The second filtering avoids problems associated with the flocculation of certain fatty acid
esters when petrodiesel temperature is below the cloud point during blending.
• It is essential to ensure that the fuel supply process includes consistent multi-step filtering by requiring suppliers to use
filters whose performance has been proven by documented test procedures. Specifically, checks must:
• determine the micron rating (pore size) of the finest filters equipping the bus fleet (e.g., 10 µm based on a specific
standard);
• ensure that refuelling pumps have filters that are at least as fine, based on the same standard; and
• ensure that the biodiesel blend delivered has first been filtered just as finely.
Cost of Biodiesel Though beyond the scope of this project, it is interesting to take a brief look at biodiesel from a cost standpoint, given that
its price is higher than that of petrodiesel. There appears to be a developing trend in North America to offset the difference
by removing taxes from this emerging renewable fuel. The Ontario government introduced fiscal measures to this effect
in its June 2002 budget, followed by the Canadian government in November 2002. The Quebec government showed that it
intended to do likewise in March 2003 through a road tax rebate, which has yet to be confirmed.

3 Emission Measurements
Public transit will play a leading role in the fight against climate change. Urban transit authorities studying biodiesel’s
potential as an alternative fuel must not focus, however, uniquely on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since buses
influence urban air quality, one goal of the BIOBUS project was to provide data to help assess the impact of biodiesel on
pollutants in vehicle tailpipe emissions. The project involved assessing biodiesel use and did not study the fuel’s life cycle.
The project team had the further role of ensuring that biodiesel had no significant impact on the total fuel consumption
of buses.
Tests were carried out using a dynamometer bench at Environment Canada’s Environmental Technology Centre (ETC) in
Ottawa using biodiesel from three sources (vegetable oil, animal fat and used cooking oil) in 5% and 20% blends fuelling
two four-stroke Cummins diesel engines, one with mechanical fuel injection and the other with electronic fuel injection.
In all instances, measurements were of tailpipe emissions taken after engine exhaust passed through the same type
of catalytic converter as those equipping STM buses.
Fact sheets in the Appendix give the data for each emission type and are followed by methodological details.
Emission Measurement Overall, biodiesel either had no effect or reduced polluting and GHG emissions whether regulated (PM, CO, THC and NOx)
Results or unregulated (SO4, PAH, CO2 and PM2.5).
Percent Emission Reduction with B20 vs. STM Reference Petrodiesel
Mechanical Fuel Injection System Electronic Fuel Injection System
Total Mass of Emitted Total Mass of Emitted

Particulate Matter – PM Particulate Matter – PM
Carbon Monoxide – CO Carbon Monoxide – CO
Total Hydrocarbons – THC Total Hydrocarbons – THC
Nitrogen Oxides – NOx Nitrogen Oxides – NOx
ND
Fine Particulate Matter – PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter – PM2.5
ND
Sulphates – SO4 Sulphates – SO4
ND
Polycyclic Aromatic Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon – PAH Hydrocarbon – PAH
-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Animal Fat
Used Cooking Oil
Vegetable Oil
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 15

Regulated Emissions
Total Mass of Particulate Matter (PM)

• Among emissions produced by a diesel engine, particulates are those that must be most closely scrutinized. Biodiesel
has the greatest impact in engines with mechanical fuel injection, which, before adding biodiesel, emit 2.5 times more
particulate matter than engines with electronic fuel injection. The most noticeable reductions, 25% to 30% depending
on engine type, are achieved with vegetable-oil-based B20. Animal-fat-based B20 only reduces emissions 20% with
mechanical fuel injection and 8% with electronic fuel injection.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)

• Diesel engine CO emissions, already 15 times lower than the Canadian standard, are reduced a further 20% to 30%
with B20, regardless of engine type.
Total Hydrocarbons (THC)

• Diesel engine THC emissions are already far below the standard. Without biodiesel, engines with electronic fuel injection
produce THC emissions 15% lower than those with mechanical fuel injection. Biodiesel used in an engine with electronic
fuel injection results in a further 20% reduction for vegetable-oil-based B20 and 30% for animal-fat-based B20. For the
engine with mechanical fuel injection, the reduction was only 10%, half that with electronic fuel injection.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

• Generally speaking, biodiesel has a neutral effect on NOx emissions. A biodiesel fuel with a higher cetane number
(animal-fat-based biodiesel and cooking-oil-based biodiesel containing animal fat) apparently tends to reduce NOx
emissions. This is particularly true for an engine with electronic fuel injection, whose NOx emissions are about 3%
to 5% lower. This tendency is confirmed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report Comprehensive Analysis
of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions (Draft Technical Report EPA 420-P-02-001, October 2002).
Unregulated Emissions
Sulphates (SO4)
• S04 in particulate emissions are very low for both types of diesel engine studied.
• B20 results in a 15% reduction in SO4 emissions from an engine with electronic fuel injection.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Carbonyl Compounds
• PAHs include highly carcinogenic substances. Compared to emissions produced by both diesel engines running
on conventional petrodiesel, biodiesel results in no significant amount of new PAHs and does not upset the proportions
of these complex, carcinogenic organic compounds (COVs and carbonyls).
• B20 from all three sources results in substantially lower PAH emissions, around 10% to 30% with electronic fuel injection.
Fine Particulates Below 2.5 µm (PM2.5)

• Biodiesel has a greater impact on total fine particulate emissions for engines with mechanical fuel injection, whose
fine particulate emissions without biodiesel are 2.5 times higher than those of engines with electronic fuel injection.
• Biodiesel’s contribution to reducing the total mass of fine particulate matter stems primarily from reduced elemental
carbon (apparent as sooty exhaust fumes). This can be explained by the fact that biodiesel, low in sulphur, reduces
total sulphur in the blend and that sulphur has a determining effect on the formation of elemental carbon particles.
• It cannot be concluded that there was a reduction in soluble organic fraction (SOF) or in particulates below 1.5 µm, both
thought to be higher health risks. It can be stated, however, that there was no significant increase in such particulate
emissions from the engine with electronic fuel injection
16 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT EMISSION MEASUREMENTS

Direct C02 and The following GHG emissions targeted by the Kyoto Protocol are likely to be found in internal-combustion engine emissions:
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) carbon dioxide (C02) and both nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4), the latter two gases having a global warming potential
Emissions respectively 310 times and 21 times that of an equivalent mass of C02. For the diesel engines studied, direct C02 emissions
were 600 g per unit work produced (bhp-h). Test measurements put N2O and CH4 emissions in the milligram range. It was
thus decided to ignore detailed data for these two types of emissions despite their global warming potential. Even if
significant variations were found for N2O and CH4, the impact on the overall GHG balance would have been negligible.
Thus C02 is the only GHG considered in this report and C02 emissions are the only GHG emissions dealt with in the Appendix.
The appended fact sheet supports two findings.
1. Baseline GHG emissions for both engine types are roughly 2.59 kg of C02 per litre of STM reference petrodiesel.
2. Biodiesel can be considered to have a negligible effect on direct C02 emissions, only animal-fat-based B20 resulting
in 2% lower direct (tailpipe) C02 emissions from engines with mechanical fuel injection.
Despite this, using biodiesel does help reduce GHG emissions. Project data does not contradict this statement since it only
applies to direct tailpipe emissions. When an engine burns one litre of biodiesel, whose physicochemical properties are
very similar to those of petrodiesel, it makes no distinction between the sources of the two fuels. Reduction in GHG emissions
arises from the fact that biodiesel comes from animal or plant biomass with a life cycle of a few years; whereas,
petrodiesel is a fossil fuel that releases into the atmosphere carbon that has been tied up for hundreds of millions of years.
Biodiesel, unlike petrodiesel, is thus a renewable energy source.
That tailpipe CO2 emissions do not significantly change is a point in favour of biodiesel since the engine's fuel combustion
energy balance is based on these emissions. This proves that variations in fuel consumed per unit work are negligible
and that engine energy efficiency is unchanged by adding biodiesel.
As a working hypothesis, we can state that:

Every litre of pure biodiesel (B100) used to replace a litre of petrodiesel reduces GHGs by 2.33 kg of C02.
This figure is based on the assumption that biodiesel avoids 90% of the emissions from reference petrodiesel because
it contains 10% methanol used for esterification and obtained from natural gas (non-renewable fossil energy). Since the
biodiesel manufacturing process requires about 10% methanol (from natural gas), the potential reduction in GHG emissions
for B20 has been estimated at about 17% (about 4.5% for B5). Although this hypothesis simplifies matters, it does set an
order of magnitude. It would have to be confirmed, however, by thorough life-cycle studies, which were not the goal of
the BIOBUS project.
Impact of Biodiesel Use The BIOBUS project demonstrated the viability of biodiesel use by public transit authorities. Under the project, a total
by Urban Transit Authorities 550,000 litres of biodiesel in 5% and 20% blends were consumed by Frontenac terminal buses between March 2002 and
on Annual CO2 Emissions March 2003, leading to a reduction in CO2 emissions of roughly 1,300 tons. Since the results show that the reduction in
polluting and GHG emissions was significant, it can be stated that Quebec- and Canada-wide use of biodiesel would help
reduce such emissions even further.
The table below gives an order of magnitude for the impact B20 would have on annual CO2 emissions, assuming that a
four-stroke Cummins engine with mechanical fuel injection is representative of bus fleets across Quebec and Canada.
Impact of B20 Use by Urban Transit Authorities on Annual CO2 Emission Reductions
Units Frontenac Terminal STM Quebec Canada

Bus Fleet 155 1,600 2,850 11,500
Total Distance Travelled km 6.7 million 70.5 million 195.3 million 800 million
Total Fuel Consumed litres 4.5 million 47.2 million 90 million 368 million
Estimated CO2 Reduction using B20 tons 2,100 22,000 42,000 171,500
Sources: Canadian Transit Fact Book (2002 data) and BIOBUS Project

Impact on Urban Smog Smog is a toxic mixture of air pollutants that often appears as a haze hovering over cities. Individuals exposed to smog
may become more vulnerable to cardiopulmonary diseases. The two main components of smog that impact health are
ground-level ozone and fine airborne particulates. Ground-level ozone is a colourless, extremely irritant gas that forms just
above the earth’s surface. It is called a “secondary pollutant” because it is produced when two “primary pollutants” react
to sunlight in stagnant air. The two primary pollutants are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Other noteworthy pollutants found in smog include nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one of the foremost nitrogen oxides (NOx),
sulphur dioxide (SO2), which can be chemically transformed into acid pollutants like sulphuric acid, and sulphates (S04),
primary components of fine particulates.
Regardless of concentration or source, biodiesel can help reduce urban smog formation. Using biodiesel does not increase
NOx emissions, and can even reduce them. It also substantially lowers the mass of particulate emissions and, depending
on the measures taken, reduces sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. This is in part because biodiesel, not containing sulphur,
dilutes the proportion of sulphur in the blend the engine burns.
Another family of emissions that act as ozone (O3) precursors in smog formation are non-methane organic compounds,
a major component of smog and a powerful irritant to the respiratory tract.
The chart below shows ozone precursor emissions from an engine with electronic fuel injection for the six biodiesel
blends and STM reference petrodiesel. The emissions are non-methane organic gases (NMOGs) quantified by their
total ozone-forming potential (in mg of O3) per unit work by the engine (in brake horsepower-hours). The ozone-forming
potential of a compound corresponds to the compound’s ozone emissions (in mg) multiplied by a reactivity factor, which
expresses the effect of sunlight on the compound. NMOGs are comprised of all hydrocarbons (THC), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and aldehydes from the carbonyl group.
NMOG Ozone-Forming Potential

mg O3/bhp-h
Electronic Fuel Injection System
STM Reference Petrodiesel

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil
B5 – Vegetable Oil
B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Used Cooking Oil
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
mg/(bhp-h)
The chart shows that all biodiesel blends result in a very significant reduction in ozone-forming potential. B5 blends result
in a reduction of at least 25% (up to 50% for animal-fat-based B5); whereas, B20 blends result in reductions of about 30%.
Neither the source of B20 nor the concentration of biodiesel in the blend had a significant effect. It is noteworthy, however,
that ozone-forming potential was lowered the most with animal-fat-based B5 and cooking-oil-based B20, the two blends
for which the most significant NOx reductions were observed. One nitrogen oxide, NO2, is also known to contribute to
ozone formation though not an organic compound.
In conclusion, biodiesel has the overall effect of reducing polluting and GHG emissions, be they regulated (PM, CO, THC
and NOx) or unregulated (SO4, PAH, CO2 and PM2.5), and helps reduce urban smog.
18 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT EMISSION MEASUREMENTS

Specific Impacts The issue of emissions was also studied from another standpoint: how biodiesel’s effect varies depending on engine type,
concentration of biodiesel in the blend, and source of biodiesel.
Impact of Engine Type

• Biodiesel had the overall effect of reducing polluting emissions both for the engine with mechanical fuel injection and
for the one with electronic fuel injection.
• Phasing in engines with electronic fuel injection to replace those with mechanical fuel injection will generally result in
substantially lower emissions, particularly for NOx and PM). Biodiesel nevertheless has a bright future since it reduces
several polluting emissions and does so more noticeably with electronic fuel injection than with mechanical fuel injection.
Impact of Concentration of Biodiesel in the Blend

• Test data does not establish that emission reductions are proportional to the concentration of biodiesel in the blend.
• With B20, significant reductions were generally noted.
Impact of Source of Biodiesel

• Each source of biodiesel has its advantages and limitations, depending on the type of emission considered. In short, all
sources were on a par from the emissions standpoint. Emission tests alone do not provide sufficient basis for selecting
any given source of biodiesel over another.

4 STM Fleet Operations and Maintenance
Operations covers all activities associated with delivering service to the system of STM buses on the road every day
throughout Montreal. Maintenance includes scheduled bus inspection and repair, while infrastructure relates to the
management of STM facilities.
Breakdown of Frontenac Terminal Bus Fleet by Engine Type
Two-Stroke Detroit Diesel Four-Stroke Cummins Four-Stroke Cummins Total

Engine with Mechanical or Diesel Engine with Diesel Engine with Number of
Electronic Fuel Injection Mechanical Fuel Injection Electronic Fuel Injection Vehicles
Start of project: 85 70 0 155
End of project: 75 80 2 157
The BIOBUS project included a series of tests prior to using biodiesel and subsequent assessment of the impact of blends
on STM operations, maintenance and infrastructure.
Preliminary Tests Before bringing biodiesel on stream for general use across the entire STM Frontenac terminal fleet (over 155 buses),
and Checks several preliminary tests were carried out to reassure decision-makers. These tests began in summer 2001, when the
demonstration and impact assessment project was still being planned and financing arranged. Testing was designed to:
• prove that STM buses could tank up on biodiesel without creating engine problems;
• check that this was true even for old buses with two-stroke diesel engines having run over 500,000 km, since it was
feared that, because of its “cleansing” properties, biodiesel might attack accumulated deposits on piston rings or
gaskets between mechanical parts and lead to compression loss or leaks; and
• show that buses could use biodiesel in cold weather.
The tests below reassured the STM on all of these points.
• During a first one-week test in July 2001, a half dozen buses ran on soybean-oil-based biodiesel in blends of up to 30%
with manual fill-ups.
• Similar tests were then carried over more than two weeks with a 20% blend using a dozen buses, including some older
buses with higher kilometrage. No filter-clogging problems were encountered during this period.
• Buses with high kilometrage were tested by STM staff on the company’s dynamometer bench to measure exhaust
opacity before and after using B20. Results did not indicate any loss of engine efficiency but did show a substantial
reduction (50%) in exhaust opacity. Furthermore, particulate emissions were at a much more constant level from one
acceleration test to the next. With STM reference petrodiesel, particulate emission peaks are very irregular and
sometimes vary by a factor of five from one acceleration test to the next.
• A four-stroke Cummins engine with mechanical fuel injection was tested at -20°C in an ETC cold chamber. It was
discovered that significant temperature increases in the fuel system made it possible to use a fuel with a cloud point
higher than the ambient temperature.
• The tendency for fuel to be heated to up to 30°C above the ambient temperature (including in buses with electronic fuel
injection) was confirmed by sampling tank temperatures for the various types of buses on a cold March 2002 morning
following an overnight low of -20°C.
STM FLEET OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 21

Impact of Biodiesel One goal of the BIOBUS project was to assess the impact of using biodiesel on bus fleet reliability. To do so, the STM
on Bus Fleet Operations database of on-road service calls was used. Statistics can be retrieved from the database on driver calls to report technical
problems, coded by type, then the mechanic’s follow-up diagnostic recorded with another code, and work performed
by bus maintenance staff. For instance, if a driver reported “loss of power” a check can be made to see whether or not
it was related to the vehicle’s fuel system and to which terminal the bus belonged.
It was found that Frontenac terminal bus availability was maintained and that biodiesel resulted in no recorded incident
affecting customer service.
The BIOBUS project was well received by bus drivers because of the positive impact on the environment. The satisfaction
expressed stemmed especially from the fact that no trouble arose from using biodiesel. From the drivers’ standpoint, the
power of their buses remained the same and, on the whole, exhaust smelled less. Their perception entirely agrees with
results from the test facility, which showed that variations in engine power and torque were around 3% and probably not
significant (see Appendix under Impact of Biodiesel on Diesel Engine Efficiency).
Impact of Biodiesel Another BIOBUS project objective was to assess statistically the impact of using biodiesel on mechanical maintenance
on Bus Fleet Maintenance and fuel consumption per distance travelled. To reveal and confirm any patterns, a cross-analysis was made using data
from different STM terminals. The analysis was not limited to comparing data for the year preceding biodiesel use with
data obtained during the BIOBUS project. To account for natural trends in the data, first and foremost ageing of the fleet,
the same comparisons were run using 2001 and 2002 data for two other STM terminals, the Saint-Denis and Mont-Royal
terminals. The fleets at these two terminals have about the same breakdown and the area they cover has similar charac-
teristics, some lines in the city core even being shared.
Fuel Consumption
A global assessment was made of fuel consumption but the data revealed no conclusive variation. Note that bus
kilometrage is not recorded on an odometer but calculated based on the lines run and the number of runs along those
lines in the course of the day. The loan or exchange of buses between terminals and other such circumstances means
that one terminal could make up for a shortage of buses every day with ones from other terminals. The absence of any
variation in bus fuel consumption is supported by test facility data (see Appendix under Impact of Biodiesel on Diesel
Engine Efficiency). It can be noted that STM buses on city core routes consume an average 65 litres/100 km.
22 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT STM FLEET OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Mechanical Maintenance
Comparisons for mechanical maintenance were based on data for mechanical work that is normally archived as either
corrective action or preventive maintenance. No corrective action to fuel injection pumps or nozzles arose from the use
of biodiesel.
To probe the issue of repeated filter clogging on one bus model, certain elastomer components in contact with the fuel
were analyzed (thickness, appearance, possible cracking, colour changes, flexibility, etc.). No component degradation
was found.
There was no problem with most buses, particularly older models with 25-µm fuel filters and the latest models with electronic
fuel injection systems, even during the first weeks following the cutover to biodiesel. The behaviour of these buses was
better than those that had already been subjected to biodiesel tests, for which there was a risk of filter plugging due to
deposits loosened by the first fill-ups. In general, filters on the latter buses are located above the engine compartment or
against the engine block, i.e., in the coolest part of the fuel system.
The only real problem to report (backed up by an explanation and solution) was the repeated, then sporadic, clogging of
one model of 10-µm filter, the Fleetguard FS-1000, installed as the primary filter only in Cummins engines with mechanical fuel
injection. Unlike others, this filter is located directly at the fuel tank outlet and thus in an area of the engine compartment
that is not as warm.
The two first waves of filter clogging resulted from the cutover first to B5, then to B20. They were caused by the formation
of a jelly laden with fine black particles that completely plugged the cartridge. The fine particles came from the release of
black deposits that had built up on the inner walls of bus fuel tanks. A third wave of clogging occurred three months later
during the Christmas season when refuelling pumps with older 25-µm filters were used by mistake instead of 10-µm ones.
In response to sporadic 10-µm filter clogging, electron microscope scans were carried out at the Fleetguard labs and
infrared reflectance spectroscopy tests conducted by an independent lab. The clogging was caused by a thin film of
light-coloured wax from a group of fatty acid esters. Once suppliers can better control the cloud point of their biodiesel
products, they will probably be able to eliminate the fatty acid esters that are at the root of this problem.
Note on Buses with Electronic Fuel Injection

One issue was whether Cummins engines with electronic fuel injection, known to be the most prone to fuel quality problems,
would work well with biodiesel. To check this out, four buses, one brand new having an engine with electronic fuel injection,
were loaned to the Frontenac terminal from January to April 2003. They were used to test, during the coldest season, the
potentially most problematic biodiesel blends: cooking-oil-based B20 and animal-fat-based B20. The result was that these
buses travelled nearly 10,000 km each during this period without a single problem.
Although the number of buses was too limited to establish statistics, it is noteworthy that no incidents occurred. These
buses were equipped with Fleetguard FS-1022 filters having the same filter cartridge as FS-1000s but located in a warmer
area of the engine compartment.
Impact of Biodiesel on The project team was also mandated to assess biodiesel’s impact on Frontenac terminal infrastructure. Build-ups on
Terminal Infrastructure refuelling pump filters in the second week of September lead to reduced flow and slower bus fuelling. Any infrastructure-
Maintenance related problem has a direct impact on process flow. It is thus worth reiterating the importance of a consistent multi-step
filtering process.
Another matter was air quality, monitored inside the garage by the STM before and after biodiesel was introduced, as
required by the CSST, the workers’ compensation, health and safety board in Quebec. The results were positive, the STM
finding a significant reduction in emissions and in the quantity of sooty fumes.
STM FLEET OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 23

Findings • Biodiesel caused no bus-related mechanical problems, notably with the fuel injection system. It was even
verified that no degradation of elastomer components in contact with the fuel had occurred.
• Most buses, particularly those with 25-µm filters (and Detroit Diesel engines), went through the cleansing period without
any problems.
• The cleansing period was longer than predicted for buses with 10-µm filters, longer still because B5 was used for three
months before cutting over to B20.
• When a rigorous multi-step filtering process is followed, potential blend quality issues do not affect buses.
• The sporadic incidents caused by the finest (10-µm) filters located farthest from sources of heat in the engine compart-
ment of buses had no real impact and resulted in no significant costs for the STM. Once producers use processes
allowing better control of the cloud point of pure biodiesel, this problem will be solved at the source.
• In certain bus models, some mechanical failures can result in symptoms similar to those associated with plugged fuel
filters. For a correct diagnosis, it is thus important to single out the source of the problem.
• No significant change in engine efficiency was noted.
• On the whole, drivers said they were satisfied with how the project went.
• Cold caused no operating problems for buses on the road despite three cold spells three to five days long when daytime
temperatures remained below -20°C and overnight temperatures dropped to -30°C.
• The two buses having engines with electronic fuel injection used during the winter months were each driven over
10,000 km on B20. They did not prove any more prone to problems on biodiesel than did other vehicles, even during very
cold weather.
Recommendations • Analysis of the cause of incidents arising with 10-µm filters highlights the importance of a consistent multi-step filtering
process (see section Supplying Biodiesel to the STM). The determining value is the pore size of the finest filters
equipping buses.
• When cutting over to biodiesel, it is better to shift to the desired concentration, e.g., B20, from the outset rather than
gradually phasing in biodiesel using weaker blends, in order to avoid prolonging the cleansing period.
• Transit authorities with vehicles not parked in a heated garage should probably limit the concentration of biodiesel in
the blend to 5% or less, making any impact on cloud point negligible. It is preferable, however, not to return to pure
petrodiesel in order to avoid a new transition period the following spring. Minimal biodiesel in a blend prevents build-ups
on fuel tank walls that have been cleansed by earlier use of B20.
• During the first year after cutover, a stock of spare filters adequate for the entire fleet should be kept on hand,
particularly filters located in cooler areas of the engine compartment. The cleansing period will also entail one or two
additional filter changes at an estimated cost of $100 per bus.
• To avoid filter problems and potentially to increase kilometrage between two preventive fuel filter changes, it is worth
discussing matters with the supplier. For a few extra dollars, some filter models housed in the same engine-adapted
cartridge have a larger surface area than the standard model. Changing models could avoid more frequent filter
changes and, with time, bring savings by making filter changes less frequent.
• A training program should be implemented to instruct technical staff on the transition from petrodiesel to biodiesel. Its
content should emphasize the importance of identifying the true source of a problem, particularly during the cleansing
period, in order to achieve a correct diagnosis
24 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT STM FLEET OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

5 Communications
The BIOBUS project had the entirely legitimate goal of heightening public awareness of the issue of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and climate change and of the importance of taking action through the combined use of biodiesel and
public transit. Communications efforts played a leading role in achieving this awareness both within the STM and other
project partners, and among STM customers. All surveys point to the same finding: the project was very warmly received
and satisfaction with it was high.
Internal Partners promoted the project both on their web sites and through a variety of means including special T- and polo shirts,
Communications buttons and even a cardboard BIOBUS piggybank for schoolchildren. Employees were kept abreast of objectives, action
taken, progress and results as the project unfolded.
The STM informed all its personnel of project highlights. Frontenac terminal employees were those most directly involved
in the great BIOBUS adventure. It was thus important to remain attentive to their concerns and keep spirits high. Nothing
could have been easier. Drivers of biodiesel-fuelled buses encountered no major problems, and infrastructure and vehicle
maintenance workers were not flustered by the few sporadic incidents that arose during the project. Quite the contrary,
satisfaction with the project remained high and Frontenac terminal engineers, maintenance workers and other staff
showed unwavering support. Words of support rang loud and clear in the STM’s internal newsletters (en Commun and
Nouvelles STM) and during the various meetings held. Staff felt closely concerned by the BIOBUS project. This gave rise
to genuine team spirit and helped everyone work well together.
External Opportunities to promote the project were not in short supply. Invitations were received by the project team, which
Communications participated in some forty public and industry activities, including symposia and fairs attended by specialists in the envi-
ronment, transportation and agriculture (e.g., Americana 2003, the AQTR’s road and transportation show, and Excellence
2003), popular events (e.g., Montreal’s Fête des neiges, Children's Festival and Clean Air Day), news stories broadcast
by the CBC, by Télé-Québec, and even by a Japanese network specialized in sustainable development with five million
viewers. It is fair to claim that the BIOBUS project had favourable and repeated exposure in a range of contexts both
nationally and internationally.
The project was also applauded in the print media. The widely circulated BIOBUS Newsletters first gave an initial descrip-
tion of the project, and then overviewed its progress. News coverage and feature articles on the project appeared in Métro,
in major newspapers (e.g., the Gazette, Globe and Mail, La Presse, Le Soleil, and Le Devoir), and in trade magazines
(e.g., Forum, Canadian Technology and Business, La maîtrise de l’énergie, and Le bulletin des agriculteurs). The April 2003
issue of Québec Science, for instance, contained a feature article describing the project’s objectives and scope.
High project visibility was certainly achieved by such means as decking out a BIOBUS running throughout the area covered
by the STM, identifying buses running on biodiesel with the BIOBUS logo on their sides and banners on the back bumper,
displaying posters inside buses, distributing leaflets to passengers and visitors, and posting publicity on bus shelters.
Users were also asked to provide feedback. Many individuals shared their impressions either in person or by sending e-mail.
Behind all feedback was growing public concern regarding polluting emissions and the importance of reducing them.
The STM was widely praised for making the environment a priority.
Summary of Communication Activities
Internal External Total

Activities targeting the general public – 5 5
Activities targeting special groups 5 30 35
Appearances in broadcast media 5 20 25
Appearances in print media 10 45 55
Publications and promotional tools 5 10 15
Total 25 110 135
COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 27

Team Honoured On several occasions, the BIOBUS project was held up as an example because of the social and environmental importance
of its mission. During its annual convention held in Sherbrooke on April 8, 2003, with Quebec Minister of Transport Serge
Ménard in attendance, the Association québécoise du transport et des routes (AQTR) honoured the project team with its
environmental award for technical achievement. The media at large then had an opportunity to tour a BIOBUS that was
driven down to Sherbrooke for the event.
The project is also a finalist for the Phénix award for sustainable development know-how given to a primary or secondary
industry having applied processes or technology to improve its environmental performance. The name of the winner was
announced only after this report went to press.
Blazing a Path
to the Future The scale of the BIOBUS project earned it mention as the most important initiative of its kind in North America. It has
opened the way to a more environmentally conscious view of public transit and now serves as a showcase for transit
authorities and users alike.
28 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT COMMUNICATIONS

6 Compendium of Findings and Recommendations
This section contains all project findings and recommendations regarding fuel supply, emission measure-
Suppliers
Operators
Decision-Makers
ments, operations and maintenance. Each finding or recommendation identifies the issue and individuals
addressed.
Recommendations
Regarding Fuel Supply
Refilter fuel to prevent clogging of refuelling pump filters
• Once biodiesel and petrodiesel have been blended, the fuel must be filtered again before delivery, ••
despite prior filtering of each product individually. The second filtering avoids problems associated with
the flocculation of certain fatty acid esters should the petrodiesel be too cold during blending.
Follow strict multi-step filtering to prevent clogging of refuelling pump filters and bus fuel system filters
• It is essential to ensure that the fuel supply process include consistent multi-step filtering by requiring
suppliers to use filters whose performance has been proven by documented test procedures. ••
Specifically, checks must:
1. determine the micron rating (pore size) of the finest filters equipping the bus fleet
(e.g., 10 µm based on a specific standard);
2. ensure that refuelling pumps have filters that are at least as fine, based on the same standard; and
3. ensure that the biodiesel blend delivered has first been filtered just as finely.
Findings Regarding Reduced polluting emissions, GHGs and urban smog

Emission Measurements • Biodiesel has the overall effect of reducing polluting and GHG emissions, be they regulated (PM, CO,
THC and NOx) or unregulated (SO4, PAH, CO2 and PM2.5), and helps reduce urban smog.
Direct tailpipe CO2 emission produced with petrodiesel – Engines with mechanical
and electronic fuel injection
•
• Baseline GHG emissions for both engine types are roughly 2.59 kg of CO2 per litre of STM reference
petrodiesel. Direct GHG emissions are, for all intents and purposes, only comprised of CO2 since despite
their high global warming potential, direct N2O and CH4 emissions were negligible and completely
overshadowed by CO2.
Direct CO2 emissions produced with biodiesel
•
• As a working hypothesis, we can state that:
Every litre of pure biodiesel (B100) used to replace a litre of petrodiesel reduces GHGs by 2.33 kg of C02.
Based on this hypothesis, it is possible to calculate by how much GHGs are reduced for each litre of
B100 used to replace a litre of petrodiesel. The figure above is based on the assumption that biodiesel
avoids 90% of the emissions from reference petrodiesel because it contains 10% methanol used for
esterification and obtained from natural gas (non-renewable fossil energy). Although this hypothesis •
simplifies matters, it does set an order of magnitude. It would have to be confirmed, however, by thorough
life-cycle studies, which were not the goal of the BIOBUS project.
COMPENDIUM OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 31

Impact of biodiesel on urban smog
• Regardless of concentration or source, biodiesel can help reduce urban smog formation. Using •
biodiesel does not increase NOx emissions, and can even reduce them. It also substantially lowers the
mass of particulate emissions and, depending on the measures taken, reduces sulphur dioxide (SO2)
emissions. This is in part because biodiesel, not containing sulphur, dilutes the proportion of sulphur
in the blend the engine burns.
• Another family of emissions that act as ozone (O3) precursors in smog formation are non-methane
organic compounds, a major component of smog. Ozone-forming potential was lowered the most with
animal-fat-based B5 and cooking-oil-based B20, the two blends for which the most significant NOx
reductions were observed. One nitrogen oxide, NO2, is also known to contribute to ozone formation
though not an organic compound.
Impact of engine type
• Biodiesel had the overall effect of reducing polluting emissions both for the engine with mechanical fuel
injection and for the one with electronic fuel injection. •
• Phasing in engines with electronic fuel injection to replace those with mechanical fuel injection will
generally result in substantially lower emissions, particularly for NOx and PM. Biodiesel nevertheless
has a bright future since it reduces several polluting emissions and does so more noticeably with
electronic fuel injection than with mechanical fuel injection. However, it was noted for mechanical fuel
injection alone that biodiesel could significantly increase the proportion of certain very fine particulates.
Impact of the concentration of biodiesel in the blend
• Test data does not establish that emission reductions are proportional to the concentration
of biodiesel in the blend.
• With B20, significant reductions were generally noted.
•
Impact of the source of biodiesel
• Each source of biodiesel has its advantages and limitations, depending on the type of emission
considered. In other words, all sources were on a par from the emissions standpoint. Emission tests
alone do not provide sufficient basis for selecting any given source of biodiesel over another.
•
Findings Regarding Take into account a cleansing period
Maintenance • Biodiesel caused no bus-related mechanical problems, notably with the fuel injection system. It was
even verified that no degradation of elastomer components in contact with the fuel had occurred.
• Most buses, particularly those with 25-µm filters (and Detroit Diesel engines), went through the cleansing
period without any problems.
• The cleansing period was longer than predicted for buses with 10-µm filters, longer still because B5
was used for three months before cutting over to B20.
•
Follow a multi-step filtering process
• When a rigorous multi-step filtering process is followed, potential blend quality issues do not affect
buses.
• The sporadic incidents caused by the finest (10-µm) filters located farthest from sources of heat in
the engine compartment of buses had no real impact and resulted in no significant costs for the STM.
Once producers use processes allowing better control of the cloud point of pure biodiesel, this problem
will be solved at the source.
Know how to pinpoint the problem
•
• In certain bus models, some mechanical failures can result in symptoms similar to those associated with
plugged fuel filters. For a correct diagnosis, it is thus important to single out the source of the problem.
32 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT COMPENDIUM OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings Regarding
Operations
Dependability of biodiesel as a winter fuel
• No significant change in engine efficiency was noted. •
• Cold caused no operating problems for buses on the road despite three cold spells three to five days
long when daytime temperatures remained below -20°C and overnight temperatures dropped to -30°C.
• The two buses having engines with electronic fuel injection used during the winter months were
each driven over 10,000 km on B20. They did not prove any more prone to problems on biodiesel than
did other vehicles, even during very cold weather.
Recommendations Follow a multi-step filtering process

Regarding Maintenance • Analysis of the cause of incidents arising with 10-µm filters highlights the importance of a consistent
multi-step filtering process (see section Supplying Biodiesel to the STM). The determining value is
the pore size of the finest filters equipping buses.
•
Make effective plans for the cutover to B20
• When cutting over to biodiesel, it is better to shift to the desired concentration, e.g., B20, from the
outset rather than gradually phasing in biodiesel using weaker blends, in order to avoid prolonging the
cleansing period. •
• Transit authorities with vehicles not parked in a garage heated during the winter should probably limit
the concentration of biodiesel in the blend to 5% or less, making any impact on cloud point negligible.
It is preferable, however, not to return to pure petrodiesel in order to avoid a new transition period the
following spring. Minimal biodiesel in a blend prevents build-ups on fuel tank walls that have been
cleansed by earlier use of B20.
• During the first year after cutover, a stock of spare filters adequate for the entire fleet should be kept
on hand, particularly filters located in cooler areas of the engine compartment. The cleansing period
will also entail one or two additional filter changes at an estimated cost of $100 per bus.
• To avoid filter problems and potentially to increase kilometrage between two preventive fuel filter
changes, it is worth discussing matters with the supplier. For a few extra dollars, some filter models
housed in the same engine-adapted cartridge have a larger surface area than the standard model.
Changing models could avoid more frequent filter changes and, with time, bring savings by making filter
changes less frequent.
Implement an adequate training program
• A training program should be implemented to instruct technical staff on the transition from petrodiesel
to biodiesel. Its content should emphasize the importance of identifying the true source of a problem,
particularly during the cleansing period, in order to achieve a correct diagnosis
COMPENDIUM OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 33

Appendix
Results of Emission Measurements
A measurement program was implemented to ensure a reliable fuel supply The data is presented in such a way that emissions from biodiesel
and reliable testing. Regulated and unregulated emissions were measured blends can be compared to those for STM reference petrodiesel.
for the various biodiesel blends (based on source and concentration) using The comparisons highlight the impact of the concentration of biodiesel
both types of engine and related to emissions for the reference petrodiesel in the blend (B5 or B20) and of the source of biodiesel (vegetable oil,
used by the STM. This appendix comprises a series of fact sheets to help animal fat or used cooking oil) for both types of engines (with mechanical
interpret the test results. Further tests were carried out for carbon dioxide, fuel injection or with electronic fuel injection).
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and fine (< 2.5 µm) particulates. Details
regarding the methodology used follow the fact sheets. To correctly interpret the data, it is important to determine whether
any variation noted between two test measurements is statistically
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions significant or not. Anova analysis was used to achieve this. With this
method, it is possible to state whether or not the difference between
Measurements were carried out using a test facility at Environment two sets of values is the result of chance and to determine the likelihood
Canada’s Environmental Technology Centre (ETC) in Ottawa. that the same tests, carried out again, would still show a difference.
This appendix contains emission test results for the following: Differences with a probability of 95% or higher have been declared
significant.
Regulated emissions
CO carbon monoxide Notes
THC total hydrocarbons
NOx nitrogen oxides bhp-h
PM particulate matter (total mass) The unit bhp-h (brake horsepower-hour) designates one brake
horsepower applied for one hour. Brake horsepower is used to measure
Unregulated emissions the power of the drive shaft before transmission losses.
PM2.5 fine particulates below 2.5 µm
SO4 sulphates tons/year(1)
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons This unit shows the impact over one year of using a biodiesel blend for
CO2 carbon dioxide the entire STM bus fleet. It was calculated by multiplying test results
in g/bhp-h by the total number of brake horsepower-hours used by the
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions STM over one year. The calculation gave 203 million bhp-h by assuming
The following greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targeted by the Kyoto that the STM fleet’s overall energy efficiency equalled that of an
Protocol are likely to be found in internal-combustion engine emissions: engine with mechanical fuel injection running on reference petrodiesel
carbon dioxide (CO2), and both nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). (0.2314 l /bhp-h) and based on an annual fuel consumption of 47.2 million
The latter two gases have a global warming potential of respectively litres. The simplifying assumption is thus that two-stroke diesel engines
310 times and 21 times that of an equivalent mass of CO2. For the diesel are offset by higher efficiency engines with electronic fuel injection.
engines studied, direct CO2 emission measurements were around 600 g
per unit work produced (bhp-h). Test measurements put N2O and CH4 tons/year(2)
emissions in the milligram range. It was thus decided to ignore detailed This value is calculated by multiplying test results in g/l by the STM’s
data for these two types of emissions despite their high global warming annual consumption of 47.2 million litres.
potential. Even if significant variations were found for N2O and CH4,
the impact on the overall GHG balance would have been negligible. tons/year Quebec; tons/year Canada
Thus CO2 is the only GHG reported here. These two values are obtained using annual fuel consumption data
for 2002 published by the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA).
Each type of emission is described in a fact sheet comprising: It is assumed that the four-stroke Cummins engine with mechanical fuel
injection is representative of bus fleets in Quebec and Canada.
• a table summarizing the mean result for each test
• a comparative analysis of the test results g/km
• bar charts showing: This value is based on a typical consumption by a city bus of 65 l /100 km.
– total emissions in g/bhp-h
– reduction in emissions vs. STM reference petrodiesel in g/litre
– percent reduction in emissions vs. STM reference petrodiesel,
based on the results in g/bhp-h
• key findings from the tests: N.B.
– the impact of engine type, and of concentration and source All emission measurements were made at the output of the vehicle’s exhaust system
after the exhaust passed through the catalytic converter, the same converter being
of biodiesel
used for both engine types on the test facility.
– other specific findings, particularly regarding emission tests
for CO2, PAHs and fine (<2.5 µm) particulates
APPENDIX PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 37

Carbone Monoxide (CO) Emissions
Raw Test Compared with STM Reference Petrodiesel Compared with Vegetable-Oil-Based Biodiesel
Data
Significant Significant
Test g/(bhp-h) g/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference tons/year(1) g/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference
Mechanical Fuel Injection System
1998 Canadian Standard 15.5000
STM Reference Petrodiesel 1.0023

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.9090 -0.0933 -9.3% 99.8% yes -18.943
B20 – Animal Fat 0.8275 -0.1748 -17.4% 99.5% yes -35.501 0.07223 9.6% 100.0% yes
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.7526 -0.2497 -24.9% 100.0% yes -50.723 -0.00272 -0.4% 17.7% no
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.7553 -0.2470 -24.6% 100.0% yes -50.171

#1 Petrodiesel 0.6060 -0.0090 -1.5% 32.8% no -1.828
B5 – Animal Fat 0.5580 -0.0570 -9.3% 99.9% yes -11.577 0.02300 4.3% 8.2% no
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.5460 -0.0690 -11.2% 99.8% yes -14.015 0.01100 2.1% 58.6% no
B20 – Animal Fat 0.4630 -0.1520 -24.7% 100.0% yes -30.873 0.02100 4.8% 95.9% yes
STM Quebec Canada
Annual Fuel Consumption million l /year 47.2 90.0 368.0

Total Annual CO Emissions tons/year 204.5 389.8 1,594.0
Estimated Annual Mechanical Energy million (bhp-h)/year 203.9
Consumption Combined Compared with STM Reference Petrodiesel

Results
tons/year(2) tons/year tons/year
Test l /(bhp-h) g/l g/l % Quebec Canada g/km
STM Reference Petrodiesel 0.2314 4.3314

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2312 3.9318 -0.3997 -9.2% -18.784 -35.969 -147.072 -0.2598
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2310 3.5823 -0.7491 -17.3% -35.210 -67.423 -275.685 -0.4869
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 3.2867 -1.0447 -24.1% -49.103 -94.027 -384.465 -0.6791

#1 Petrodiesel 0.2269 2.6708 -0.0207 -0.8% -0.972 -1.862 -7.612 -0.0134
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 2.4481 -0.2433 -9.0% -11.436 -21.899 -89.541 -0.1582
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 2.3200 -0.3714 -13.8% -17.457 -33.429 -136.687 -0.2414
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 1.9957 -0.6958 -25.9% -32.701 -62.620 -256.046 -0.4523
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 1.9101 -0.7814 -29.0% -36.724 -70.322 -287.538 -0.5079
Impact of engine type Impact of concentration of biodiesel in the blend

• Electronic fuel injection alone reduced CO emissions by around 40% before • Though B20 contains 4 times more biodiesel than B5, it only resulted in emission
any use of biodiesel. reductions 2 to 3 times greater than those using B5.
• The impact of using B20 on CO emissions, depending on the source of the blend, • Thus it cannot be concluded that the impact on CO emissions is proportional
resulted in: to the concentration of biodiesel in the blend.
– a 17% to 25% reduction for the engine with mechanical fuel injection
– a 25% to 31% reduction for the engine with electronic fuel injection Impact of source of biodiesel
• Whether expressed in grams per litre of blend or tons per year, the impact • Testing revealed that the source of biodiesel had a minor effect on CO emissions.
of B20 is of the same order of magnitude for both engine types. The impact of animal-fat-based biodiesel was significantly lower than that of
vegetable-oil-based biodiesel.
38 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT APPENDIX

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions
g/(bhp-h)
STM Reference Petrodiesel STM Reference Petrodiesel

#1 Petrodiesel #1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil B5 – Used Cooking Oil
B5 – Vegetable Oil B5 – Vegetable Oil
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
g/(bhp-h) g/(bhp-h)
Reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions

vs. STM reference petrodiesel
(g/litre of total fuel consumed)

-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2
g/litre g/litre
Percent reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions


-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5%
Other findings • For CO emissions from the engine with electronic fuel injection, there was
• Even without biodiesel, CO emissions produced by both diesel engines studied no benefit in using #1 petrodiesel rather than STM reference petrodiesel (#2).
were very low. Tests with reference fuel gave figures 15 to 20 times lower • By switching to B20, the STM could reduce its current 200 tons of annual
than the limit of 15.5 g/bhp-h set by 1998 Canadian standards. CO emissions by roughly 40 tons. Once all vehicles in its fleet are equipped with
• In short, B20 reduced CO emissions by 17% to 32%, depending on the source electronic fuel injection, the impact of B20 would remain of similar magnitude.
of biodiesel and engine type.

Total Hydrocarbon (THC) Emissions
Data

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.205 0.010 5.2% 83.4% no 2.058
B20 – Animal Fat 0.171 -0.025 -12.6% 96.6% yes -4.984 -0.00070 -0.4% 4.2% no
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.181 -0.014 -7.0% 81.8% no -2.791 0.01010 5.9% 52.8% no

#1 Petrodiesel 0.169 0.000 0.0% 2.0% no 0.000
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.159 -0.010 -5.9% 58.1% no -2.031 0.02100 15.2% 99.1% yes
B20 – Animal Fat 0.118 -0.051 -30.2% 99.9% yes -10.359 -0.01500 -11.3% 92.5% no
STM Québec Canada

Total Annual THC Emissions tons/year 39.8 75.9 310.4

Results

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2312 0.8880 0.0446 5.3% 2.094 4.010 16.396 0.0290
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2310 0.7387 -0.1048 -12.4% -4.924 -9.429 -38.554 -0.0681
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 0.7456 -0.0979 -11.6% -4.600 -8.808 -36.014 -0.0636

#1 Petrodiesel 0.2269 0.7448 0.0052 0.7% 0.245 0.469 1.919 0.0034
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 0.6581 -0.0815 -11.0% -3.831 -7.335 -29.993 -0.0530
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 0.5984 -0.1412 -19.1% -6.635 -12.705 -51.950 -0.0918
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 0.5086 -0.2310 -31.2% -10.856 -20.789 -85.003 -0.1501
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 0.5748 -0.1648 -22.3% -7.748 -14.836 -60.663 -0.1071

• Electronic fuel injection alone reduced THC emissions by around 15% (0.30 g/l ) • It cannot be concluded from the tests that the impact on THC emissions
before any use of biodiesel. is proportional to the concentration of biodiesel in the blend.
• The impact of using B20 on THC emissions, depending on the source of the blend,
resulted in: Impact of source of biodiesel
– a reduction of around 10% (0.10 g/l of blend) for the engine with mechanical • The source of biodiesel had no significant effect on THC emissions.
fuel injection
– a reduction of 22% to 31% (0.17 g/l to 0.23 g/l ) for the engine with electronic
fuel injection
• For B20, the engine with electronic fuel injection yielded twice the reduction
in THC emissions as did the engine with mechanical fuel injection.

Total Hydrocarbon (THC) Emissions
g/(bhp-h)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
g/(bhp-h) g/(bhp-h)
Reduction in total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions


-0.35 -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 0.05 -0.35 -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 0.05
g/litre g/litre
Percent reduction in total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions


-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5%
Other findings • For THC emissions from the engine with electronic fuel injection, there was
• Even without biodiesel, total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions by both diesel engines no benefit in using #1 petrodiesel rather than STM reference petrodiesel (#2).
studied were very low, tests with reference fuel giving figures 6 to 7 times lower • By switching to B20, the STM could reduce its current 40 tons of annual THC
than the limit set by 1998 Canadian standards. emissions by between 2 and 3 tons. Once all vehicles in its fleet are equipped
• In short, B20 reduced THC emissions by 10% to 30%, depending on source with electronic fuel injection, there would be an additional 7-ton to 10-ton
of biodiesel and engine type. annual reduction.

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions
Data

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B20 – Animal Fat 7.2008 -0.1112 -1.5% 88.7% no -22.588 -0.19131 -2.6% 99.9% yes
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 7.3331 0.0211 0.3% 25.7% no 4.280 -0.05902 -0.8% 92.5% no
B20 – Vegetable Oil 7.3921 0.0801 1.1% 76.3% no 16.268

#1 Petrodiesel 4.4800 -0.2680 -5.6% 100.0% yes -54.434
B5 – Animal Fat 4.5925 -0.1555 -3.3% 99.2% yes -31.584 -0.13050 -2.8% 95.5% yes
B5 – Vegetable Oil 4.7230 -0.0250 -0.5% 60.7% no -5.078
B20 – Animal Fat 4.6100 -0.1380 -2.9% 86.3% no -28.029 -0.21700 -4.5% 99.5% yes
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 4.5330 -0.2150 -4.5% 99.9% yes -43.669 -0.29400 -6.1% 99.6% yes
STM Quebec Canada

Total Annual NOx Emissions tons/year 1,491.5 2,843.9 11,628.4

Results

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2310 31.1722 -0.4267 -1.4% -20.056 -38.404 -157.031 -0.277
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 32.1675 0.5686 1.8% 26.722 51.170 209.228 0.370

#1 Petrodiesel 0.2269 19.7444 -1.0346 -5.0% -48.627 -93.115 -380.737 -0.672
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 20.1490 -0.6300 -3.0% -29.612 -56.704 -231.856 -0.410
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 20.4814 -0.2976 -1.4% -13.989 -26.788 -109.532 -0.193
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 19.8707 -0.9083 -4.4% -42.690 -81.747 -334.256 -0.590
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 20.8600 0.0810 0.4% 3.806 7.289 29.804 0.053

• Electronic fuel injection alone reduced NOx emissions by around 35% (10.8 g/l ) • No conclusion can be drawn from the tests regarding the effect of B20
before any use of biodiesel. on NOx emissions.
• Only with electronic fuel injection did the use of biodiesel have a significant
impact on NOx emissions. Impact of source of biodiesel
• For biodiesels not based on pure vegetable oil, for instance, the effect was to • Data from various tests seems to point to the presence of animal-fat-based
lower emissions by up to 1 g/l of blend (3% to 5%). With mechanical fuel injection, esters as a factor contributing to reduced NOx emissions.
biodiesel had no significant effect on NOx emissions.

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions
g/(bhp-h)

0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
g/(bhp-h) g/(bhp-h)
Reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions


-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

g/litre g/litre
Percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions


-30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Other findings • The correlation between lower NOx and animal fat is probably related to the
• Diesel engine NOx emissions are closely monitored to check how well they fact that animal-fat-based biodiesel has a higher cetane number. This would
stand up to pollution standards. corroborate a recent report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Using #1 petrodiesel with electronic fuel injection lowered NOx emissions by 6% [Draft Technical Report EPA 420-P-02-001, October 2002].
compared to STM reference petrodiesel (#2).
• By switching to a B20 blend not based on vegetable oil, the STM could reduce
its current 1,500 tons of annual NOx emissions by up to 40 tons once all vehicles
in its fleet are equipped with electronic fuel injection systems.

Total Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions
Data

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.08684 -0.00994 -10.3% 96.6% yes -2.019

#1 Petrodiesel 0.03937 -0.00079 -2.0% 92.4% no -0.160
B5 – Animal Fat 0.03900 -0.00116 -2.9% no -0.235 -0.00151 -3.7% 89.5% no
STM Quebec Canada

Total Annual PM Emissions tons/year 19.8 37.6 153.9

Results

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2310 0.3258 -0.0924 -22.1% -4.344 -8.319 -34.016 -0.0601
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 0.2915 -0.1267 -30.3% -5.956 -11.405 -46.635 -0.0824

#1 Petrodiesel 0.2269 0.1735 -0.0022 -1.3% -0.105 -0.201 -0.824 -0.0015
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 0.1711 -0.0046 -2.6% -0.218 -0.418 -1.709 -0.0030
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 0.1757 -0.0001 0.0% -0.004 -0.007 -0.029 -0.0001
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 0.1597 -0.0161 -9.2% -0.756 -1.449 -5.923 -0.0105
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 0.1447 -0.0310 -17.7% -1.458 -2.792 -11.416 -0.0202

• Electronic fuel injection alone reduced total particulate matter emissions • No conclusion can be drawn from the tests regarding the effect of B5 on total
by around 60%, lowering the total mass of particulate matter from 0.42 g/l particulate matter emissions from engines with electronic fuel injection.
to 0.18 g/l before any use of biodiesel.
• The impact of using B20 on total particulate matter emissions, depending Impact de l’origine du biodiésel
on the source of the blend, resulted in: • Vegetable-oil-based B20 resulted in the greatest reduction in total particulate
– a reduction of 19% to 31% (0.08 g/l to 0.13 g/l of blend) for the engine with matter emissions: 17% (0.03 g/l ) with electronic fuel injection and 31% (0.13 g/l )
mechanical fuel injection with mechanical fuel injection.
– a reduction of 8% to 17% (0.01 g/l to 0.05 g/l ) for the engine with electronic
fuel injection
• Biodiesel had a much greater impact on total particulate matter emissions
for engines with mechanical fuel injection, whose particulate matter emissions
when not running on a biodiesel blend were 2.5 times higher than for engines
with electronic fuel injection.

Total Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions
g/(bhp-h)

0 0.0250 0.0375 0.0500 0.0625 0.0750 0.0875 0.1000 0 0.0250 0.0375 0.0500 0.0625 0.0750 0.0875 0.1000
g/(bhp-h) g/(bhp-h)
Reduction in total particulate matter (PM) emissions


-0.14 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 -0.14 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02
g/litre g/litre
Percent reduction in total particulate matter (PM) emissions


-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5%
Other findings
• Total mass of particulate matter (PM) is closely monitored for diesel engine emissions
to check how well they stand up to pollution standards.
• For particulate emissions from the engine with electronic fuel injection, there was
no benefit in using #1 petrodiesel rather than STM reference petrodiesel (#2).
• By switching to B20, the STM could reduce its current 20 tons of annual particulate
emissions by nearly 5 tons. Once all vehicles in its fleet are equipped with electronic
fuel injection, the STM could limit its emissions to about 1 ton of particulate matter
per year.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Emissions
Fine (<2.5 µm) Particulate vs. Total Particulate Mass
Raw Test Compared with STM Reference Petrodiesel
Data
1998 Canadian Standard n/a

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.07880 -0.00648 -7.6% 97.1% yes -1.316 90.7
B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.06566 -0.01961 -23.0% 98.2% yes -3.984 98.0

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat 0.03279 -0.00181 -5.2% 72.1% no -0.367 84.1
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.03261 -0.00199 -5.8% 42.4% no -0.404 82.4
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.03365 -0.00095 -2.8% 51.4% no -0.194 83.1
B20 – Animal Fat 0.03553 0.00093 2.7% 69.8% no 0.189 95.9
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.02953 -0.00507 -14.7% 75.4% no -1.030 100.0
STM Quebec Canada

Total Annual PM2.5 Emissions tons/year 17.4 33.2 135.6

Results

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 0.2857 -0.0828 -22.5% -3.891 -7.451 -30.466 -0.0538

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 0.1439 -0.0075 -5.0% 0.355 -0.679 -2.778 -0.0049
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 0.1459 -0.0055 -3.6% -0.259 -0.496 -2.028 -0.0036
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 0.1531 0.0017 1.1% 0.081 0.155 0.633 0.0011
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 0.1276 -0.0238 -15.7% -1.119 -2.143 -8.763 -0.0155
Impact of engine type • Biodiesel had a greater impact on total fine particulate emissions for engines with
• Electronic fuel injection alone reduced the mass of fine (<2.5 µm) particulate matter mechanical fuel injection, whose particulate matter emissions when not running on
emissions by around 60%, lowering the total mass of such emissions from 0.37 g/l a biodiesel blend were 2.5 times higher than for engines with electronic fuel injec-
to 0.15 g/l before any use of biodiesel. tion.
• With electronic fuel injection, using biodiesel had no significant effect on fine
particulate emissions, except for using cooking-oil-based B20, which lead to a 15% Impact of concentration of biodiesel in the blend
reduction (0.02 g/l of blend). • Except in the case of cooking-oil-based blends, a higher concentration of biodiesel
• There was a significant impact for engines with mechanical fuel injection. With in the blend lead to an increase in the ratio of the mass of fine (<2.5 µm) particulates
B20, fine particulate emissions were reduced by about 23% (0.08 g/l of blend). to the mass of total particulates. This means that biodiesel first helped reduce
the mass of larger particulates. Biodiesel did not increase, however, the mass of
fine particulates. Any statistically significant data pointed to a reduction in fine
particulates as well.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Emissions
(PM – total particulate mass) g/(bhp-h)

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
g/(bhp-h) g/(bhp-h)
Reduction in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions


-0.14 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 -0.14 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02
g/litre g/litre
Percent reduction in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions


-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5%
• The tests showed no significant effect for B5 on particulate emissions from Other findings
the engine with electronic fuel injection. • By switching to B20, the STM could reduce its current 17 tons of annual fine
• Since only a single point was measured for B5 using the engine with mechanical particulate emissions by over 3 tons. Once all vehicles in its fleet are equipped
fuel injection, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the effect of blend concen- with electronic fuel injection, the reduction due to biodiesel would drop to only
tration on fine particulate emissions. 1 ton of fine particulates per year.
• Fine particulates below 2.5 µm are closely monitored since they are more likely
Impact of source of biodiesel to reach the respiratory tract than larger particulates.
• Unlike vegetable- and cooking-oil-based biodiesel blends for which reduced emissions
were recorded, animal-fat-based biodiesel had no significant effect on fine particulate
emissions from the engine with electronic fuel injection. It was not possible from the
tests performed to say whether this pattern holds true with mechanical fuel injection.

Analysis of Particulates below 2.5 µm (PM2.5)
Organic Carbon Emissions SOF Emissions (soluble organic fraction of particulate emissions)
mg/(bhp-h) mg/(bhp-h)
Significant
mg/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference
Electronic Fuel Injection System Mechanical Fuel Injection System
STM Reference Petrodiesel 7.656 STM Reference Petrodiesel

B5 – Animal Fat 7.605 -0.7% 6,4% no B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 8.518 11.3% 76% no B5 – Used Cooking Oil
B5 – Vegetable Oil 8.269 8.0% 41.7% no B5 – Vegetable Oil
B20 – Animal Fat 7.751 1.2% 12.8% no B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 8.586 12.1% 74.1% no B20 – Used Cooking Oil
B20 – Vegetable Oil 8.103 5.8% 48.8% no B20 – Vegetable Oil
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Elemental Carbon Emissions mg/(bhp-h)
mg/(bhp-h)
Significant
mg/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat 24.343 -4.5% 93.8% no
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 26.679 4.7% 81.6% no
B5 – Vegetable Oil 21.140 -17.1% 98.9% yes
B20 – Animal Fat 19.641 -22.9% 99.9% yes
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 20.634 -19.0% 99.7% yes
B20 – Vegetable Oil 21.256 -16.6% 81.4% no
• The fact that biodiesel first reduced the mass of larger particulates – An analysis of SOF in particulate emissions from the engine with
warrants discussion of the results of particle counts based on size. mechanical fuel injection showed that adding biodiesel increases SOF.
– For mechanical fuel injection testing, it was decided to analyze the
• The analysis of particle size distribution gives the results below. breakdown of particulate matter into elemental and organic carbon.
– The engine with mechanical fuel injection mainly produced particles The tables above summarize data for elemental vs. organic carbon in
around 0.102 µm for the reference fuel and for cooking-oil-based B5; particulates from the engine with electronic fuel injection. The Anova
whereas, with cooking- and vegetable-oil-based B20, particles ranged analysis of the data clearly shows that the apparent increase in mass
primarily from 0.059 µm to 0.029 µm. Furthermore, for the engine with of the more dangerous organic carbon is not significant. The reduction
mechanical fuel injection, the number of particles no larger than in mass of elemental carbon, however, is significant with values of
1.5 µm increased 80%, rising from 2.5 to 4.0 standard measurement units. up to 20% for B20.
– For the engine with electronic fuel injection, particle size distribution
remained the same for all fuels, most being close to 0.059 µm. • In conclusion, biodiesel’s contribution to reducing the total mass of
There was no noticeable increase in the number of particles 1.5 µm particulate matter stems from reduced elemental carbon (apparent as
or below, which remained at 1.4 standard measurement units. sooty exhaust fumes). This finding agrees with the fact that biodiesel,
low in sulphur, reduces total sulphur in the blend and that sulphur is
• Studies were also conducted on the characteristics of particles emitted, a determining factor in the formation of elemental carbon particles.
including their soluble organic fraction (SOF), and their breakdown
into pure carbon (elementary carbon) and organic molecules (organic • It cannot be concluded that there is a reduction in soluble organic fraction
carbon). It is the soluble or organic fraction of the particles that are most or particulates below 1.5 µm, both thought to be more serious health risks.
likely to interact with the body and that are thus the most carcinogenic. It can be stated, however, that there was no significant increase in such
particulate emissions from the engine with electronic fuel injection.

Sulphate (SO4) Emissions
Data
Test mg/(bhp-h) mg/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference tons/year(1) mg/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 112.90 -15.90 -12.3% 80.9% no -3.2295 4.10000 3.8%

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat 122.31 -12.04 -9.0% 99.9% yes -2.4456 -9.25228 -7.0%
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 135.26 0.91 0.7% 33.3% no 0.1846 3.69698 2.8%
B20 – Animal Fat 110.22 -24.13 -18.0% 99.0% yes -4.9020 -1.06590 -1.0%
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 114.51 -19.85 -14.8% 99.9% yes -4.0312 3.22147 2.9%
STM Quebec Canada

Total Annual SO4 Emissions tons/year 26.3 50.1 204.8

Results
Test l /(bhp-h) mg/l mg/l % Quebec Canada g/km

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 473.46 -83.16 -14.9% -3.908 -7.484 -30.602 -54.0519

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 536.63 -51.35 -8.7% -2.413 -4.621 -18.896 -33.3769
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 570.54 -17.45 -3.0% -0.820 -1.570 -6.420 -11.3397
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 475.09 -112.90 -19.2% -5.306 -10.161 -41.547 -73.3839
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 480.92 -107.06 -18.2% -5.032 -9.635 -39.398 -69.5891

• Without biodiesel, the fuel injection system had little impact on SO4 emissions • Except for animal-fat-based biodiesel in the engine with electronic fuel injection,
from the reference fuel. B5 had no significant impact on SO4 emissions.
• Tests on the engine with mechanical fuel injection did not show that biodiesel • Based only on the engine with electronic fuel injection running on animal-fat-based
had any significant effect on SO4 emissions. biodiesel, SO4 emissions were not found to be proportional to concentration of
• Tests on the engine with electronic fuel injection did show that biodiesel biodiesel in the blend.
had a significant effect on SO4 emissions. The effect was as follows:
– a 9% (0.05 g/l ) reduction using B5 (animal-fat-based only) Impact of source of biodiesel
– a 15% reduction using B20, with no significant difference between sources • Tests using B20 showed a minor difference in the effect that the source of biodiesel
had on SO4 emissions. Animal-fat-based biodiesel alone had a significant effect
with a 5% blend.

Sulphate (SO4) Emissions
mg/(bhp-h)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Reduction in sulphate (SO4) emissions

(mg/litre of total fuel consumed)

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
mg/litre mg/litre
Percent reduction in sulphate (SO4) emissions


-30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Other findings
• Even without biodiesel, S04 emissions produced by both types of diesel engine studied
were very low: 130 mg (0.013 g/bhp-h).
• In short, B20 reduced SO4 emissions by 12% to 17%, depending on source of biodiesel
and engine type.
• By switching to B20, the STM could reduce its current 25 tons of annual SO4 emissions
by about 4 tons and even more once all vehicles in its fleet are equipped with elec-
tronic fuel injection systems.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions
Data
Test mg/(bhp-h) mg/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference tons/year(1) mg/(bhp-h) % Anova Difference

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.11 -0.01 -8% -0.0020
B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.13 0.01 8% 0.0020 0.0200 18.2%
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.11 -0.01 -8% -0.0020

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat 0.1007 0.0048 5.0% 0.0010 0.0089 9.7%
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.1081 0.0122 12.7% 0.0025 0.0163 17.8%
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.0918 -0.0041 -4.3% -0.0008
B20 – Animal Fat 0.0670 -0.0289 -30.1% -0.0059 -0.0192 -22.3%
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.0732 -0.0227 -23.7% -0.0046 -0.0130 -15.1%
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.0862 -0.0097 -10.1% -0.0020
STM Quebec Canada

Total Annual PAH Emissions tons/year 0.024 0.047 0.191

Results
Test l /(bhp-h) mg/l mg/l % Quebec Canada mg/km

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2312 0.48 -0.043 -8% -0.0020 -0.0039 -0.016 -0.028
B20 – Animal Fat
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2291 0.57 0.049 9% 0.0023 0.0044 0.018 0.032
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 0.48 -0.040 -8% -0.0019 -0.0036 -0.015 -0.026

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 0.4418 0.0221 5.3% 0.001 0.002 0.008 0.0144
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 0.3981 -0.0216 -5.1% -0.001 -0.002 -0.008 -0.0140
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 0.2888 -0.1309 -31.2% -0.006 -0.012 -0.048 -0.0851
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 0.3725 -0.0472 -11.2% -0.002 -0.004 -0.017 -0.0307
Impact of engine type Impact of source of biodiesel

• Electronic fuel injection alone reduced PAH emissions by around 20% (0.02 g/l) • No conclusion can be drawn regarding the effect of cooking-oil-based biodiesel
before any use of biodiesel. on PAH emissions since data for both engine types and blends gave conflicting
• Only with electronic fuel injection using B20 was it possible to establish that using results.
biodiesel had any effect. • The data for B20 from the three sources in the engine with electronic fuel injection
suggests that PAH emission reductions are higher in the presence of animal fat.
Impact of concentration of biodiesel in the blend The data for B5 did not support this possible tendency.
• No conclusion can be drawn from the tests regarding the effect of B5 on PAH
emissions.
• A 20% blend of biodiesel from the three sources lead to substantially lower PAH
emissions using electronic fuel injection.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions
mg/(bhp-h)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Reduction in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions

(mg/litre of total fuel consumed)

-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 0.05 0.10 -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 0.05 0.10
mg/litre mg/litre
Percent reduction in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions


-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Other findings
• At 0.1 mg per bhp-h, PAH emissions are very low, total annual STM emissions
only amounting to about 20 kg.

Total Main Carbonyl Emissions BETX Emissions
Electronic Fuel Injection System Electronic Fuel Injection System

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
mg/(bhp-h) Benzene mg/(bhp-h)
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
O-xylene*
Hydrocarbons
Ethylene
Acetylene
* O-xylene is the only of the xylenes present
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) include highly carcinogenic • The main carbonyls—whose combined emissions are shown in the
substances. Before drawing conclusions, it is important to analyze chart above left—consist of six compounds, any other aldehydes or
and compare PAH emissions with other test data for such compounds carbonyls existing in negligible or undetectable quantities. In descending
as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyl compounds, and order of quantity, these compounds are: formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
particularly BETX (benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylenes and (together accounting for three-quarters of the total), acetone, propionalde-
1,3-butadiene). Among carbonyl compounds, certain aldehydes and hyde, acrolein, isobutyraldehyde and butyraldehyde. They remain in
other substances that are particularly carcinogenic, e.g., acrolein, are practically unchanged proportions after biodiesel is added. With cooking-
monitored by urban transportation officials. oil-based B20, there is no detectable level of acrolein.
• With electronic fuel injection, B20 substantially reduced all major PAHs. • For the engine with electronic fuel injection, the other chart upper
Given the uncertainly associated with this kind of measurement and right shows BETX emissions, to which public health officials are paying
the low PAH levels measured, it can be stated that: increasing attention.
– Using biodiesel does not significantly increase any PAH and does
not upset the proportions of these complex, carcinogenic organic
compounds in emissions from the diesel engines studied.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
Data

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B20 – Animal Fat 593.815 -5.715 -1.0% 76.9% no -1,185.4 -0.498 -0.1% 26.4% no
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 588.157 -11.373 -1.9% 97.9% yes -2,359.1 -6.156 -1.0% 88.7% no
B20 – Vegetable Oil 594.313 -5.217 -0.9% 85.3% no -1,082.1

#1 Petrodiesel 590.530 -2.084 -0.4% 64.5% no -432.3
B5 – Animal Fat 589.928 -2.687 -0.5% no -557.3 -10.293 -1.7% 97.8% yes
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 590.070 -2.544 -0.4% 75.3% no -527.7 -10.150 -1.7% 98.7% yes
B5 – Vegetable Oil 600.220 7.606 1.3% 52.8% no 1,577.7
B20 – Animal Fat 597.110 4.496 0.8% 24.4% no 932.6 -1.840 -0.3% 27.2% no
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 590.486 -2.128 -0.4% 83.3% no -441.4 -8.464 -1.4% 80.3% no
B20 – Vegetable Oil 598.950 6.336 1.1% 43.4% no 1,314.3
STM Quebec Canada

Total Annual CO2 Emissions million tons/year 122,290 233,180 953,450

Results
STM Reference Petrodiesel 0.2314 2,590.9

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2312 2,598.2 7.275 0.3% 349.2 654.8 2,677.4 4.729
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2310 2,570.6 -20.253 -0.8% -972.1 -1,822.8 -7,453.1 -13.164
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2291 2,567.3 -23.630 -0.9% -1,134.3 -2,126.7 -8,696.0 -15.360
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 2,586.2 -4.662 -0.2% -223.8 -419.6 -1,715.7 -3.030
STM Reference Petrodiesel 0.2285 2,593.5

#1 Petrodiesel 0.2269 2,602.6 9.104 0.4% 437.0 819.3 3,350.1 5.917
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 2,588.2 -5.272 -0.2% -253.1 -474.5 -1,940.2 -3.427
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2279 2,589.2 -4.335 -0.2% -208.1 -390.1 -1,595.2 -2.818
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 2,602.9 9.365 0.4% 449.5 842.9 3,446.5 6.087
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 2,573.8 -19.747 -0.8% -947.8 -1,777.2 -7,266.8 -12.835
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2297 2,570.7 -22.813 -0.9% -1,095.0 -2,053.2 -8,395.3 -14.829
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 2,588.4 -5.122 -0.2% -245.8 -460.9 -1,884.8 -3.329
Impact of engine type Other findings

• No conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect of engine type on direct • The standard emission level for both engine types is 2.59 kg of CO2 per litre
(tailpipe) CO2 emissions. for STM reference petrodiesel.
• Biodiesel can be considered to have a negligible effect on direct (tailpipe)
Impact of concentration of biodiesel in the blend CO2 emissions.
• No conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect of concentration of biodiesel • Variations in direct C02 emissions are minimal. This is a favourable factor for
in the blend on direct (tailpipe) CO2 emissions. biodiesel since the engine’s fuel combustion energy balance is based on these
emissions. This shows that variations in fuel consumed per unit work were
Impact of source of biodiesel also negligible and that engine energy efficiency was undiminished by introducing
• Only cooking-oil-based B20 with mechanical fuel injection lead to slightly (2%) biodiesel.
but significantly lower direct (tailpipe) CO2 emissions.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
g/(bhp-h)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
g/(bhp-h) g/(bhp-h)
Reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions


-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
g/litre g/litre
Percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions


-30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Note on biodiesel and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction • The reduction in GHG emissions arising from the use of biodiesel as a replacement
• Using biodiesel reduces GHG emissions. The data does not contradict this for petrodiesel depends on a comparison of the life cycle of both fuels, a subject
statement since it only applies to direct tailpipe emissions. When the engine burns beyond the scope of this project. We would nevertheless suggest the following
1 litre of biodiesel, whose physicochemical properties are very similar to those of working hypothesis:
petrodiesel, it makes no distinction between the source of the two fuels. Reduction – Every litre of pure biodiesel (B100) used to replace a litre of petrodiesel reduces
in GHG emissions arises from the fact that biodiesel comes from animal or plant GHGs by 2.33 kg of CO2.
biomass with a life cycle of a few years; whereas, petrodiesel is a fossil fuel that – This figure is based on the hypothesis that biodiesel avoids 90% of the emissions
releases into the atmosphere carbon that has been tied up for hundreds of millions from reference petrodiesel because it contains 10% methanol used for esterifica-
of years. Biodiesel, unlike petrodiesel, is thus considered a renewable fuel. tion and obtained from natural gas (non-renewable fossil energy). Although this
hypothesis simplifies matters and would need to be confirmed by thorough
life-cycle studies, it does set an order of magnitude.

Comparative Emission Measurements for Different Biodiesel Blends
Methodology The test methods follow the recommendations below:

So emission data could be compared from test to test, and particularly
Carbonyl Compounds ERMD 4.1 / 1.2 / M
with data for reference petrodiesel, the decision was made to use Light Hydrocarbons and Methane ERMD 4.3 / 1.3 / M
the dynamometer bench at Environment Canada’s Environmental Volatile and Semi-Volatile Hydrocarbons ERMD 4.4 / 1.1 / M
Technology Centre (ETC) in Ottawa. Besides ensuring reproducibility, Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF) ERMD 4.2 / 1.2 / M
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) AAQD 3.3 / 4.0 / M
this decision is in line with urban bus emission regulations under which Sulphates AAQD 6.5 / 0 / 0 / M. Proc. 3
an emissions certificate is required only for engines equipping such Elemental and Organic Carbon NRCan SOP-T-206. v. 6
buses.
Test procedure The sampling and test procedure complies with requirements set out
The ETC dynamometer bench is certified and recognized in North in the U.S. EPA Heavy Duty Engine Transient Test, Code of U.S. Federal
America for the testing of heavy-duty engines. The load is controlled Regulations (CFR) 40, Part 86 – Protection of Environment, Sections
electronically and simulated by a 500-HP (375-kW) electric generator 86.1337-90 and 86.1337-96.
that develops engine torque and speed to reproduce the same load
cycle from test to test. The cycle used is that prescribed by the U.S. Test operations
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for heavy-duty diesel engines Each fuel was tested as follows:
[U.S. EPA Heavy Duty Engine Transient Test, Code of U.S. Federal 1. Before testing any given type of fuel, the fuel feed was emptied
Regulations (CFR) 40, Part 86 – Protection of Environment, Section and fuel filter changed.
86.1332-90]. 2. The new fuel was then supplied to the engine fuel feed system.
3. The engine was started and warmed up following standard procedures.
4. Once the engine reached a stable temperature, the torque curve
Summary of EPA transient cycle test for heavy-duty
was measured.
diesel engines 5. Tests were then conducted in the following order:
Test Duration (s) 1,199 a. FTP heavy-duty transient cold start
Maximum Speed (% of rated speed) 111.9 (engine not running for at least 12 hours)
Maximum Torque (% of rated torque) 100.0
Mean Speed (% of rated speed) 41.5
b. 20-minute halt of engine
Mean Torque (% of rated torque) 28.3 c. FTP heavy-duty transient hot start, followed by another
20-minute halt
d. three or five more FTP hot Starts at 20-minute intervals,
Tests were conducted using the following two engines: 1998 and 2000 depending on the test
four-stroke, 250-HP, 2200-rpm Cummins diesel engines equipped with
either a mechanical fuel injection pump or a computer-controlled elec- The process was repeated for each fuel. Each test was repeated from
tronic fuel injection system. These six-cylinder in-line engines have a three to five times to determine test repeatability and to run an Anova
total displacement of 8.3l , with a turbocharger and charge air cooler analysis of the variance between the test results for pairs of fuels.
at the intake. So data would be representative of actual STM operating Some tests were rerun due to abnormal deviations. The reference fuel
conditions, emission measurements for both engines were taken at the was tested first, between test runs for each biodiesel blend, and last.
output of the same (broken-in) catalytic converter, the one equipping Each time, at least two tests were rerun to check for instrument drift
the STM’s Novabus low-floor buses. or gradual changes in engine behaviour.
Exhaust gas sampling and testing methods The table below gives the order of testing using the engine with
The test facility was designed not only to certify engines under the mechanical fuel injection. Data from the first three tests was ignored.
regulatory requirements of several countries, but also to carry out Apparently the break-in period for the factory-remanufactured engine
engine and fuel research projects. Exhaust gases were sampled after used was too short despite running the engine for 35 hours on the
dilution in order to assess the mass of a large number of emission dynamometric bench prior to beginning the tests.
components during the test. Emissions were measured either directly
by instant-reading analyzers (infrared sensors, chemiluminescence or
Fuel Emissions Measured Data Kept?
flame ionization), whose results were averaged over the test, or indi- Reference All No
rectly using filters or indicators, which were subsequently analyzed in B5 – Animal Fat All No
the lab to obtain a cumulative value for the test. Gas samples were also B20 – Animal Fat All No
Reference All Yes
bagged and later analyzed by chromatography. A detailed description B5 – Used Cooking Oil All Yes
of the facilities can be found on the ETC web site at: Reference CO, CO2, NOx, PM, THC Yes
http://www.etc-cte.ec.gc.ca. B20 – Used Cooking Oil All Yes
Reference CO, CO2, NOx, PM, THC Yes
B20 – Vegetable Oil All Yes
B20 – Animal Fat CO, CO2, NOx, PM, THC Yes

Characterization of Fuels Used in the BIOBUS Project
Pure Petrodiesel 5% Biodiesel Blend (B5)3
Biodiesel from Three Sources Test Lab #1 STM2 Vegetable Oil Used Cooking Oil Animal Fat
Repeatability Reproducibility
Order as given in ASTM D 6751 Unit Type A Type B-LSC 20 20 20

1. Flash Point ASTM D 93A °C 1.5 3.6 48 50 50 50 50
2. Water and Sediment ASTM D 2709 % vol. 0.014 0.041 0 0.005
2
3 Kinematic Viscosity at 40°C ASTM D 445 cSt (mm /s) 0.014 0.026 1.949 2.096 2.025 2.028
4 Sulphated Ash ASTM D 874 % mass
5 Sulphur ASTM D 5453 % mass 0.046 0.0504
6 Copper Corrosion ASTM D 130
7 Cetane Number ASTM D 613 0.9 3.3 42.7 42.4 44.0 43.4 43.7
8 Cloud Point ASTM D 2500 °C -29 -24 -21 -20 -20
LTFT ASTM D 4539 °C 2 4 -22 -22 -21 -21
9 Carbon Residue – 10% ASTM D 4530 % mass 0.017 0.053 0.02 0.06
Carbon Residue ASTM D 4530 % mass 0.007 0.024
Acid Number ASTM D 974 mgKOH/g 0.07
10 Acid Number ASTM D 664 mgKOH/g 0.056 0.160
11 Free Glycerine ASTM D 6584 % mass
12 Total Glycerine ASTM D 6584 % mass
13 Phosphorus ASTM D 4951 % mass
Distillation 90% recovered ASTM D 86 °C 289.0 305.5 322.0 315.5 315.0
14 Distillation 90% recovered ASTM D 1160 °C
Water by Karl Fischer ASTM D 4928 mg/kg 1.37 1.92 42.5 79.2 49.6 119.4
Gross Energy Content ASTM D 240 BTU/lb 56 172 18,710 18,630 18,632 18,634
Energy Density based on f (13.16) kWh/l 10.141 10.102 10.101
Lubricity (180 minutes) ASTM D 6079 mm 0.062 n/a 0.425 0.225 0.205 0.240
Carbon % mass 86.23 84.8 84.5 84.4 84.4
Hydrogen % mass 13.52 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
Oxygen % mass 0.52 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.7
Density at 15°C ASTM D 4052 kg/m3 826 837.1 842.6 839.3 839.1
High-Temperature Stability ASTM D 6468 % reflect.
Conductivity at 23°C ASTM D 2624 pS/m 501 340
20% Biodiesel Blend (B20)3 Pure Biodiesel (B100)1 Standards

Biodiesel from Three Sources Vegetable Oil Used Cooking Oil Animal Fat Vegetable Oil Used Cooking Oil Animal Fat Petrodiesel D 6751-02
B-FTS
Order as given in ASTM D 6751 Unit

1. Flash Point ASTM D 93A °C 50 51 52 184 152 190 40 min. 130 min.
2. Water and Sediment ASTM D 2709 % vol. 0.035 0 0.033 0.05 max. 0.05 max.
3 Kinematic Viscosity at 40°C ASTM D 445 2
cSt (mm /s) 2.332 2.310 2.310 4.1 4.6 4.7 1.70 to 4.10 1.9 to 6.0
4 Sulphated Ash ASTM D 874 % mass 0.011 0.02 max.
5 Sulphur ASTM D 5453 % mass 0.00039 0.00115 0.00096 0.05 max. 0.05 max.
6 Copper Corrosion ASTM D 130 1a 1a 1a 1a 1 max. No. 3 max.
7 Cetane Number ASTM D 613 46.7 45.6 47.4 52.0 52.0 56.6 40.0 min. 47 min.
8 Cloud Point ASTM D 2500 °C -15 -15 -10 -3 4 13 -23 max. FY
LTFT ASTM D 4539 °C -14 -16 -8 +2 +4 +13
9 Carbon Residue – 10% ASTM D 4530 % mass 0.11 1.03 0.16 max.
Carbon Residue ASTM D 4530 % mass 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.050 max.
Acid Number ASTM D 974 mgKOH/g 0.10 0.31 0.24 0.10 max.
10 Acid Number ASTM D 664 mgKOH/g 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.80 max.
11 Free Glycerine ASTM D 6584 % mass 0.002 0.002 0 0.02 max.
12 Total Glycerine ASTM D 6584 % mass 0.188 0.173 0.206 0.24 max.
New criterion
13 Phosphorus ASTM D 4951 % mass no measure 0.001 max
Distillation 90% recovered ASTM D 86 °C 334.0 331.0 329.0 360 max.
14 Distillation 90% recovered ASTM D 1160 °C 360 max.
Water by Karl Fischer ASTM D 4928 mg/kg 189.2 71.0 350.2 776 184.9 1 581.2
Gross Energy Content ASTM D 240 BTU/lb 18 392 18 398 18 406 17 119 17 149 17192
Energy Density kWh/l 10.087 10.055 10.048 9.832 9.771 9.740
Lubricity (180 minutes) ASTM D 6079 mm 0.180 0.180 0.195 0.145 0.195 0.190 0.460 max.
Carbon % mass 83.4 83.1 83.3 78 76.5 77.5
Hydrogen % mass 13.6 13.6 13.7 13 12.8 13.4
Oxygen % mass 2.8 3.1 2.8 9 10.5 9.0
Density at 15°C ASTM D 4052 kg/m3 849.0 846.0 845.0 889 882 877
High-Temperature Stability ASTM D 6468 % reflect. 98 94 89
Conductivity at 23°C ASTM D 2624 pS/m 604 25 min.
1. Pure biodiesel (B100) based on vegetable oil, cooking oil and animal fat was taken
from the Rothsay/Laurenco tanks in May 2002.
2. Blend taken from Frontenac bus terminal pumps in February, March and May 2002.
3. Blended in SGS Canada’s Montreal labs.

Impact of Biodiesel on Diesel Engine Efficiency
Does using biodiesel affect engine performance and energy efficiency, given that • Consumption during testing
pure biodiesel typically contains 8% less energy per unit mass than conventional The thermodynamic efficiency of engines, a gauge of their energy efficiency,
petrodiesel? The question can be answered by performing the analyses below. can be calculated from the fuel’s energy content per litre. A fuel’s specific fuel
consumption is calculated from its stoichiometric rate of emissions, particularly
• Fuel energy content that for CO2.
This table takes into account that biodiesel was used in 5% or 20% blends and
also that it is denser (heavier) than petrodiesel. Energy content is measured • Maximum power and torque of engines for each fuel (mechanical efficiency)
per litre since fuel is sold by the litre. This data checks whether bus drivers will have the impression of driving the same
vehicle regardless of a change in fuel (ability to accelerate, climb a hill, etc.).
Fuel energy content
Gross Energy Energy Density Energy Content Energy Content Gross Energy
Content Variation per Unit Variation per Unit Content
Mass Volume
ASTM D 240 Calculated Value ASTM D 4052
BTU/lb kWh/l kg/m3
Fuels
STM Reference Petrodiesel 18,710 10.118 837.1

#1 Petrodiesel 18,554 9.900 -0.8% -2.1% 826.0
B5 – Animal Fat 18,634 10.101 -0.4% 0.2% 839.1
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 18,632 10.102 -0.4% -0.2% 839.3
B5 – Vegetable Oil 18,630 10.141 -0.4% -0.2% 842.6
B20 – Animal Fat 18,406 10.048 -1.6% -0.7% 845.0
B20 – Vegetable Oil 18,392 10.087 -1.7% -0.3% 849.0
B100 – Animal Fat 17,192 9.740 -8.1% -3.7% 877.0
B100 – Vegetable Oil 17,119 9.831 -8.5% -2.8% 889.0
This table shows that the variation in energy content per litre of fuel is negligible for B5 and around 0.5% for B20.
Engine fuel consumption and thermodynamic and mechanical efficiency vs. fuel type
Consumption Compared with STM Max. Compared with STM Max. Compared with STM
During Testing Reference Petrodiesel Power at Reference Petrodiesel Torque at Reference Petrodiesel
2000 rpm 1100 rpm
During During
Engine Energy Engine Testing Testing
Consumption Content Efficiency
Test l /(bhp-h) l /(bhp-h) % l /kWh kWh/l % HP HP % lb/ft lb/ft %
STM Reference Petrodiesel 0.2314 0.3144 10.118 31.4% 249.94 691.0

#1 Petrodiesel
B5 – Animal Fat
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2312 -0.0002 -0.1% 0.3141 10.102 31.5% 252.30 2.3650 0.9% 694.8 3.8 0.6%
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2310 -0.0004 -0.2% 0.3139 10.048 31.7% 239.20 -10.7350 -4.3% 665.9 -25.1 -3.6%
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2291 -0.0023 -1.0% 0.3113 10.050 32.0% 252.30 2.3650 0.9% 705.5 14.6 2.1%
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2298 -0.0016 -0.7% 0.3122 10.048 31.9% 249.34 -0.5950 -0.2% 686.4 -4.6 -0.7%
STM Reference Petrodiesel 0.2285 0.3105 10.118 31.8% 241.04 691.2

#1 Petrodiesel 0.2269 -0.0016 -0.7% 0.3083 9.900 32.8% 234.10 -6.9400 -2.9% 683.2 -8.0 -1.2%
B5 – Animal Fat 0.2279 -0.0006 -0.3% 0.3097 10.100 32.0% 243.73 2.6900 1.1% 678.5 -12.7 -1.8%
B5 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2279 -0.0006 -0.3% 0.3096 10.102 32.0% 238.69 -2.3500 -1.0% 688.0 -3.2 -0.5%
B5 – Vegetable Oil 0.2306 0.0021 0.9% 0.3133 10.141 31.5% 236.00 -5.0400 -2.1% 674.2 -17.0 -2.5%
B20 – Animal Fat 0.2320 0.0035 1.5% 0.3152 10.048 31.6% 236.90 -4.1400 -1.7% 678.4 -12.8 -1.9%
B20 – Used Cooking Oil 0.2297 0.0012 0.5% 0.3121 10.050 31.9% 242.21 1.1700 -0.5% 679.7 -11.5 -1.7%
B20 – Vegetable Oil 0.2314 0.0029 1.3% 0.3144 10.048 31.7% 238.56 -2.4800 -1.0% 665.3 -25.9 -3.7%

Thermodynamic efficiency of engines vs. fuel type

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent variation of specific fuel consumption


-5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2%
Maximum power at 2000 rpm vs. fuel type

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
CV CV
Percent variation of maximum engine power


-5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2%

Maximum torque at 1100 rpm vs. fuel type

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
lb/ft lb/ft
Percent variation of maximum engine torque


-5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3%
Findings • It can be concluded that the variations noted are negligible since 1% variations are
• Using biodiesel has no overall impact on the thermodynamic efficiency of engines. not significant. The very fact that animal-fat-based B5 reduced and animal-fat-based
• Engines with mechanical fuel injection tend to consume less fuel when biodiesel B20 increased consumption shows that uncertainty in the measurements is around
is added. 0.5% and that variations are not significant. This is in line with the non-significant
• The slightly higher efficiency without biodiesel noted for electronic fuel injection variations noted for direct CO2 emissions.
over mechanical fuel injection does not seem to hold for B20. This could mean that
certain electronic fuel injection parameters could be better tuned to B20 character-
istics (e.g., a higher cetane number), and that the specific fuel consumption of the
engine with electronic fuel injection would then achieve its initial level of efficiency.

Legal deposit – Bibliothèque nationale du Québec – 2003
Legal deposit – National Library of Canada – 2003
ISBN 2-921969-09-2
Ce rapport est également publié en français.

May 2003

Biobus FinalReport

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Biobus FinalReport

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Biodiesel Demonstration and Assessment

with the Société de transport de Montréal (STM)

FOREWORD PROJECT – FINAL REPORT I

Steering Committee Technical and Logistical Committee Communications Committee

Bliss Baker Sarah Babès Maxime-Pierre Ayotte

II PROJECT – FINAL REPORT BIOBUS PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Special STM Collaboration

BIOBUS PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT III

2 Supplying Biodiesel to the STM 7

4 STM Fleet Operations and Maintenance 21

6 Compendium of Findings and Recommendations 31

IV PROJECT – FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT – FINAL REPORT V

Physicochemical Characteristics of Biodiesel Blends

Cloud Point and Filterability

SUMMARY PROJECT – FINAL REPORT VII

Units Frontenac Terminal STM Quebec Canada

VIII PROJECT – FINAL REPORT SUMMARY

SUMMARY PROJECT – FINAL REPORT IX

Trend in Per-Capita CO2 Emissions

BACKGROUND PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 1

Transportation-Related GHG Emissions Per Capita

B.C. & Territories

2 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT BACKGROUND

Weekly Temperature Highs and Lows

Spring Summer Fall Winter week

Weekly Temperature Highs

BACKGROUND PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 3

The partners described below promoted the BIOBUS project.

Rothsay/Laurenco (Maple Leaf Foods Group)

Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA) and the Fédération

4 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 5

Animal Fat: 28% Used Cooking Oil: 48%

Vegetable Oil: 24%

SUPPLYING BIODIESEL TO THE STM PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 7

Weekly Fuel Deliveries to the Frontenac Bus Terminal

Spring Summer Fall Winter week

STM Reference Petrodiesel

1. Last week of August (Week 22): Animal-fat-based B20

8 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT SUPPLYING BIODIESEL TO THE STM

3. Third week of February 2003 (Week 47): Animal-fat-based B10

Weekly Temperature Highs and Lows vs. Cloud Point

Spring Summer Fall Winter week

Weekly Temperature High

SUPPLYING BIODIESEL TO THE STM PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 9

• vegetable (soybean) oil

Compliance of Biodiesel Blends to Conventional Petrodiesel Standards

10 PROJECT – FINAL REPORT SUPPLYING BIODIESEL TO THE STM

With B5, wear scars

pure petrodiesel. B20 0.45

Wear Scars (in mm)

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

Cloud Point and Low-Temperature Filterability

Low-Temperature Filterability Threshold

The graph at the bottom

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

SUPPLYING BIODIESEL TO THE STM PROJECT – FINAL REPORT 11

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

The three variables below combine in determining energy efficiency.

Measured Cetane Number

A higher cetane number