Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Noria Corporation
Objectives of Measuring AN
AN is the measure of acid concentration in a nonaqueous solution. It is
determined by the amount of potassium hydroxide (KOH) base required to
neutralize the acid in one gram of an oil sample. The standard unit of measure is
mg KOH/g. AN does not represent the absolute acid concentration of the oil
sample. The AN measurement detects both weak organic acids and strong
inorganic acids.
A change in the acid concentration of an oil can originate from multiple sources.
Acidic contaminants, wrong oil, alkaline-reserve depletion and oxidation by-
products can cause an increase in acid concentration. Table 1 lists common
acids that can be detected.
Understanding the extent of additive depletion is key in determining the RUL of
an oil. Some additives are weakly acidic and can elevate the oil's initial AN. As
the lubricant ages these additives deplete, thereby reducing the acidity created
by the additives. The common antiwear additive, zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate
(ZDDP), produces certain AN trends during lubricant aging.
Concurrently, the oil is possibly being contaminated with acidic constituents,
increasing the acid content in the oil. The combined effects of additive depletion,
acidic contamination and other acidic-affecting events create a challenge in
determining what the AN represents.
Figure 1 shows the underlying components that affect the AN during lubricant
aging. It can be seen that during an induction period the antioxidant additives are
depleting; once these additives are depleted, the base oil begins to oxidize if the
stressing conditions are sufficiently high. By trending the AN, this increase can
be detected.
The weak components and the strong components are typically combined as
AN. Even though AN is comprised of both acidic components, it does not
represent all acidic components in the lubricant. For instance, the AN and base
number (BN) tests are not affected by extremely weak acids and bases that have
a dissociation constant of less than 10-9. This is the reason that TAN is being
replaced by AN.
pH vs. AN
The pH and AN test methods measure different aspects of the oil's acidic or
alkaline character. The pH test method measures the apparent pH of the oil. The
apparent pH is a representation of how corrosive the oil may be, but it does not
indicate the concentration of acidic or alkaline constituents. The pH test method
is useful in applications where corrosive oil could cause considerable damage. It
is also valuable in lubricant systems with a high potential for the formation or the
contamination of strong acids.
The AN and BN test methods respectively measure the concentration of acidic
and alkaline constituents. Both acidic and alkaline constituents can exist in oil at
the same time. In fact, some additives are amphoteric, meaning they can behave
as either a base or an acid. In some oils, it is important to monitor both the AN
and BN to determine the reactions in the oil.
AN and BN do not indicate the strength of the acidic or alkaline constituents in
the lubricant, which reduces their ability to indicate the oil's corrosiveness. AN
has a better ability than pH to detect and monitor weak acids, which do not
readily dissociate in water. This prevents the pH test method from obtaining a
good indication of how the weak acid concentration is changing in the lubricant.
Standardized Methods
Table 2 lists the current ASTM standard test methods for determining AN. Each
test has been designed for specific purposes, with ASTM D664 and ASTM D974
being the two most commonly used tests. ASTM D1534 and ASTM D3339 are
similar versions of D974, used for special cases. AN tests can be broken up into
two titration categories: potentiometric or colorimetric.
ASTM AN Tests
ASTM D664 measures acidic constituents by using a potentiometer to determine
an end point. This method can be used to measure both AN and SAN. To
prepare the sample a mixture of toluene, isopropyl alcohol and water is dissolved
into a sample. Potassium hydroxide is then titrated into the solution using a
burette. The potentiometer output is monitored while the KOH is titrated into the
solution.
If the inflection is indistinguishable, the buffer potential will be considered the AN.
The inflection point is commonly used on new oil; however, for used oils the
inflection may become indistinguishable requiring the use of the buffer potential
as the end point.
Modified Tests
AN tests are typically conducted to obtain an accurate indication of additive
depletion and possible contamination of ingressed acids. The standard ASTM
methods are time consuming, have relatively poor reproducibility and utilize
hazardous materials. In an effort to control the source of these issues, many
modified versions of the AN test are currently being used. Each test is specific to
its application. For example, a lab may automate the test to reduce labor and
increase throughput.
The cost of this standard test slate needs to be affordable for the end user;
therefore, each individual test performed may need to be streamlined to ensure
both quality and economy are achieved.
Reproducibility
ASTM's definition of reproducibility is "the difference between two single
independent results obtained by different operators working in different
laboratories on identical test material." Ninety-five percent of the time, the
reproducibility of ASTM D664 is +/- 20 percent of the mean for fresh oils using
the inflection point method or +/- 44 percent of the mean for used oil using the
buffer end point method.
For example, if a mean AN was 0.10 you could expect results from 0.14 to 0.06
95 percent of the time. The reproducibility of ASTM D974 is shown in Table 4.
Consider that you received an oil analysis report from multiple labs on the same
oil. It has a mean AN of 0.05, and the results could vary from 0.09 to 0.01.
Dos
Don'ts
Don't switch back and forth between methods.
Don't switch back and forth between labs. Don't delay oil analysis; instead,
provide the sample to the lab as soon as possible.
Don't compare results between different methods.
Common Trends of AN
Trending
In the world of AN tests, there is a current state of disillusionment. Each
laboratory provides results from its own modified test methods, which forces the
end user to rely on precision over accuracy. First, the user must be wary of
comparing results between labs. In an ideal environment, both accuracy and
precision would be provided. In a next-to-ideal world, only accuracy would be
provided.
Simple mathematics could be used to determine the exact value, but in the real
world of AN tests, the precision of each individual labs is what can be counted
on. The results are not on the true mark, but relative to each other they are good.
Comparing results from different labs would result in values all over the board.
By focusing on the precision of one lab or test procedure, a trend emerges.
Trending can enable the end user to properly evaluate his/her lubricant with
greater confidence.
General Trends
Trending results is the best way to work around the accuracy discrepancies that
come from using AN results in machine condition monitoring. By using results
from one specific test or lab, the ability to trend is good. Figure 2 illustrates the
common trends found in lubricants. Linear trends are for some ester-based
synthetics and oils going through oxidation. It represents the linear oxidation of
the base oil.
The parabolic curves may characterize rust and oxidized (R&O) oils. The AN
remains constant during the additive depletion induction phase. Once the R&O
additives have depleted, the base oil will begin to oxidize. The switching trend is
representative of EP oils, where some of the additives are acidic. As additives
deplete and react, the AN varies. These effects make it hard to trend EP oils
unless the normal switching pathway is known in advance.
References
1. ASTM D664: Standard Test Method for Acid Number of Petroleum Products
by Potentiometric Titration. American Society of Testing and Materials
International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
2. ASTM D974: Standard Test Method for Acid Number and Base Number by
Color-Indicator Titration. ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, Pa.
5. Finch, Stephen. "Evaluation of New Field Test Methods for Base Number
and Acid Number in Lubricating Fluids." Dexsil.
6. Smart, Clifford L. "Get Smart with Improved TAN Titrations." Practicing Oil
Analysis magazine. October 2000.
7. "Interview Helps Clarify Questions Surrounding AN/BN Test Methods in
Used Oil Samples." Practicing Oil Analysis magazine. May 2003.
10. Ball, Peter G. "New pH Test Offers Benefits over TAN/TBN." Practicing Oil
Analysis magazine. September 1998.
11. Oil Analysis Level I Course Manual, Noria Corporation. 2006.