Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60

Urban Environmental Pollution 2010

Evaluation of Pollutant Gases Emitted by Ethanol and Gasoline

Powered Vehicles
J. R. Tavaresa,b,*, M. S. Sthela, L. S. Camposa, M. V. Rochaa, G. R. Limaa, M. G. da
Silvaa, H. Vargasa
a
Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense, Alberto Lamego Avenue 2000, Campos dos Goytacazes, Postcode: 28013-602, Brazil
b
Instituto Federal Fluminense, Doutor Siqueira Street 273, Campos dos Goytacazes, Postcode: 28030-130, Brazil
Received date September
Elsevier 30, 2010;
use only: revised
Received datedate
here;January
revised30, 2011;
date here;accepted
accepteddate
dateJanuary
here 30, 2011

Abstract

The increasing number of automotive vehicles around the world is responsible for the emission of great amounts of pollutant
gases, which can cause serious problems to environment and to human health. Among the fuels used in light vehicles, two of
them deserve special mention: gasoline, hegemonic fuel in the world scenario and ethanol, whose consumption is rapidly
increasing, once it is a renewable fuel that mitigates emissions of carbon dioxide. The Brazilian ethanol program is now
supported by 2 basic factors: the mandatory use of ethanol blend in gasoline, and the expanding market for flex-fuel cars. The
gasoline sold in Brazil has 20% to 25% of anhydrous ethanol, and approximately 90% of the new cars sold use flex fuel engines.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop methodologies to assess the emissions from gasoline and ethanol engines. In this work, an
Electrochemical Analyzer was employed to detect important pollutant gases, as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the exhaust of gasoline and ethanol (including flex-fuel) powered vehicles. These gases can cause
serious damages to human health, besides causing environmental problems, as acid rain. Furthermore, CO and NOx are primary
pollutants in the formation of the tropospheric ozone, which is an important greenhouse gas and causes the photochemical smog.
Finally, based on data experimentally obtained, we could perform a comparative analysis of the pollutants emission from
gasoline and ethanol powered vehicles. We could notice that gasoline powered vehicles had greater NOx emission than ethanol
powered vehicles, as it was expected. Nevertheless, this difference could not be observed in CO and SO2 emission, once both
ethanol and gasoline powered vehicles emitted considerable amount of CO and SO2 in the range of ppmV. We could also notice
that pollutant emissions are strongly related to many factors, such as the vehicle manufacture date, model, engine rotation speed
and vehicle maintenance.
© 2010
2011 Published by Elsevier BV
Keywords: Atmospheric Pollution; Ethanol; Gasoline; Eletrochemical Analyzer.

1. Introduction

The increased concentration of pollutant gases from anthropogenic activities is focus of serious worrying in
world scenery. This worrying is pertinent once the anomalous concentration of these gases can cause environmental
problems, as ozone layer depletion, acid deposition, photochemical smog and global warming. [1-3] Furthermore,
studies indicate the relationship between the increased concentration of pollutant gases and the higher incidence of
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. [4-6]
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 55-22-27330486;
E-mail address: jutavares@iff.br.

1878-0296 © 2011 Published by Elsevier

doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2011.03.007
52 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60

In this study, we focus on three environmentally important gases. Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas that can cause
many respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, insomnia, headache, fatigue, decreased physical capacity, dizziness,
vertigo, nausea, vomiting, visual disturbances, heading disorders, cardiac ischemia, heart disease and
arteriosclerosis. In high concentrations, it can also cause death. [7, 8] The Nitrogen Dioxide and the Sulfur Dioxide
also cause health diseases [9, 10], besides contributing to the acidification of the rain. Furthermore, CO and NO are
primary pollutants in the formation of the tropospheric ozone, which is an important greenhouse gas [11-13]
Among the anthropogenic activities responsible for the emission of pollutants, transport is highlighted because of
the significant increase in the number of automotive vehicles around the globe. In this context, two fuels received
emphasis in our study: gasoline and ethanol.
Gasoline is the most consumed fuel in the world. This important petroleum-derived is a non-renewable fuel,
made primarily of light hydrocarbons, which contains 4 to 12 carbons. Its distillation range varies from -30oC to
220oC at atmospheric pressure. [14] Complete combustion of gasoline generates only carbon dioxide (CO2) and
water. However, a real engine also performs incomplete combustion, which generates as a by-product carbon
monoxide (CO). [15] Moreover, the gasoline used in vehicles is not completely pure. It also consists of sulphur,
nitrogen and oxygen compounds and trace metals. Thus, when the sulfur in gasoline reacts with the air oxygen, the
sulfur dioxide (SO2) will be the formed. Nitrogen Oxides (NO and NO2) formation may occur through the oxidation
of the atmospheric nitrogen or by the oxidation of nitrogen present in the fuel itself. [9]
Recently, ethanol has been targeted as a potential replacement for gasoline in the auto industry. Among its
advantages, we highlight the fact that it is a renewable fuel and reduce considerably the emission of greenhouse gas
CO2, since during the growth of the plant used in ethanol production, the CO2 emitted during the combustion
process is removed from the air through photosynthesis. [16, 17] Ethanol can be produced by the fermentation of
sugar or starch, which is present in large quantities in certain vegetables, such as sugarcane, corn, sugar beet and
sorghum. Ethanol can also be produced by the hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials present, for example, in sugar
cane bagasse and straw and in the wood.
Macedo [18] analyzed the energy balance of the main raw materials used for the production of ethanol (Table 1).
The energy balance symbolizes the amount of renewable energy which can be generated for each unit of fossil
energy used in ethanol production. We can notice that the Brazilian ethanol produced from sugar cane, has a much
higher energy balance for ethanol generated from any other conventional raw material.

Table 1. Energy balance for ethanol production with different raw materials. Source: Macedo, 2006)
Raw Material Renewable energy / Fossil Energy used
Corn (USA) 1,3
Sugarcane (Brazil) 8,9
Sugar beet (Germany) 2,0
Sweet sorghum (África) 4,0
Wheat (Europe) 2,0
Cassava 1,0

Another problem to be analyzed is the possibility that the increased use of ethanol fuel can affect the world food
production, causing inflation and increasing hunger. [19, 20] The use of U.S. corn for ethanol production, for
example, can be a decisive factor for the inflation of corn-based food and meat. Despite the speculation surround the
matter, there is no conclusive evidence that Brazilian ethanol produced from sugarcane is harming food production.
According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply [21], in 2008 only 1% of
Brazilian farmland were being used by the planting of sugarcane. This framework is still favourable. However, if
Brazil intends to supply not only its domestic market, but the growing worldwide market demand, this situation can
become unsustainable over time.
Nowadays, the Brazilian ethanol program is supported by 2 basic factors: the mandatory use of ethanol blend in
gasoline (20 to 25%) and the expanding market for flex-fuel cars.
 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60 53

2. Methodology

In this study, we have analyzed the emission of pollutant gases in ethanol and gasoline powered vehicles in order
to make a comparative analysis between these fuels. For this purpose, we used an Electrochemical Analyzer. The
Electrochemical Analyzer TEMPEST 100 (Telegan Gas Monitoring TP20729) is composed of electrochemical
sensors (Citycell Gold Class) capable of simultaneously measuring, through of the manifold system, the
concentration of NOx (0-1,000 ppmV), CO (0-10,000 ppmV) e SO2 (0-2,000 ppmV). The calibration of Tempest
100 is held annually by the company Confor Instrumentos (São Paulo-SP) using gas calibration (Gama Gases or Air
Products) obtaining a uncertainly of ± 5 ppmV in 03/11/2009. The probe of the Tempest 100 has 2.5 meters and is
capable of withstanding a temperature up to 700o C, although the temperature of the sample damages the sensor.
The electrochemical sensors (see Fig. 1) are composed of a sensing electrode, a counter electrode, a reference
electrode and a reagent electrolyte inserted between the electrodes. Furthermore, a barrier permeable to gas, also
known as hydrophobic membrane, must cover the sensor to avoid the entry of undesirable gases and water, and to
control the amount of gaseous molecules that reach the electrode surface. [22]

Figure 1. (a) Detection scheme of an electrochemical sensor. (b) Photo of the Tempest Analyzer

When the gas enters the sensor, it reacts with the electrodes, undergoing an oxidation-reduction process. As the
electrodes are connected to a resistor, an electric current is generated between the cathode and the anode. The
current generated is proportional to the concentration of gas. [23-24] TEMPEST Electrochemical Analyzer allows
detection of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) and the sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the range of
parts per million per Volume (ppmV).
The TEMPEST Analyzer has a long pipe which can be inserted in the car exhaust to collect the gas sample to be
analyzed. We performed this collection in two sequences for each vehicle: the first one, with the engine turned on
and without acceleration, i.e., 1000 rpm of rotation speed; and the second one, with the vehicle engine turned on and
with acceleration, i.e., 3000 rpm of rotation speed.
In Brazil, legislation [25] requires the use of a methodology (protocols) to evaluate the vehicular emissions in
these running regimes of the engines: low and high rotation speeds. The vehicles are scrutinized every year
according to governmental criteria that regulate transport in the country.
Using the TEMPEST Analyzer, we have detected the pollutant emission of forty gasoline powered vehicles and
twenty ethanol powered vehicles. In this study, we have selected ten vehicles of each fuel to analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of pollutant emissions by ethanol and gasoline powered vehicles was divided two stages. Firstly, we
analyzed separately the emission of CO, NOx and SO2 in ten gasoline powered vehicles and in 10 ethanol-powered
vehicles. These vehicles are listed on the first and second column of Table 2.
Then, we gathered in the same graph pairs of similar ethanol and gasoline powered vehicles in order to perform a
comparative analysis of CO, NOx and SO2 emissions from these vehicles. Vehicles 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are powered by
gasoline and vehicles 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are powered by ethanol. Vehicles 1 and 2 are from the same manufacturer
(Wolkswagen) with similar manufacture year (95 and 94). Vehicles 3 and 4 are from similar models and also have
similar manufacturing year (1999 and 2000). Vehicles 5 and 6 are from different models, but have the same
54 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60

manufacture year . Vehicles 7 and 8 are from similar models and same manufacture year (2007). Vehicles 9 and 10
have the same manufacture year and power. These vehicles are listed on the third column of Table 2.

Table 2. Vehicles identification (brand, year of manufacture and engine power)

Gasoline
1. Ford Pickup 96 2.0
2. GM Corsa 96 1.0
3. GM Corsa 97 1.0
4. GM Corsa 2000 1.0
5. GM Astra 2000 2.0
6. GM Celta 2003 1.0
7. Ford Ecosport 2004 1.6
8. Ford Fiesta 2005 1.0
9. Ford Ranger 2007 2.3
10. Ford Focus 2008 2.0
Vehicles
Ethanol
1. VW Parati 94 1.8
2. Dodge Dakota 2000 3.9
3. VW Gol 2007 1.0
4. Fiat Stilo 2007 1.0
5. VW Polo 2008 1.4
6. VW Fox 2008 1.0
7. GM Prisma 2008 1.4
8. Fiat Uno Mille 2009 1.0
9. Citroen Model 2009 1.6
10. VW Polo 2009 2.0
Gasoline and ethanol
1. VW Santana 95 2.0 - Gasoline
2. VW Parati 94 1.8 – Ethanol
3. Dodge Dakota Sport 99 3.9 – Gasoline
4. Dodge Dakota 2000 3.9 – Ethanol
5. Ford Ranger 2007 2.3 – Gasoline
6. GM Meriva 2007 1.8 – Ethanol
7. Fiat Uno 2007 1.0 – Gasoline
8. Fiat Stilo 2007 1.0 – Ethanol
9. Fiat Doblô 2008 1.8 – Gasoline
10. Honda Civic 2008 1.8 – Ethanol

Figure 2 refers to CO measures from ten gasoline powered vehicles. These vehicles are identified (brand,
fabrication year and engine power) on Table 2. We can notice that, for all vehicles, CO emission is higher in the not
accelerated mode of operation. This behaviour is justified, since in low rotation mode the combustion, temperature
is lower and there is a higher incidence of incomplete combustion, causing a greater emission of carbon monoxide.
We can also notice that, in general, older vehicles have higher emissions of CO, which means they have less
efficient burn. It is possible that in such vehicles CO catalyst is not working properly, perhaps because of some
blockage. Vehicles 5 and 6, however, worth mentioning because, although they are not the youngest, have very low
emissions of CO, which means they had good maintenance.

25000

20000
CO (ppmV)

15000
Not accelerated
Accelerated
10000

5000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 2140 2130 2125 1542 2698 1251 6008 1404 6973 7666
Accelerated 1104 1183 1053 1091 1701 305 4265 1025 3984 3386
Vehicles

Figure 2. CO emission from gasoline powered vehicles.

In Figure 3, we can observe NOx emissions from the same group of gasoline powered vehicles (Table 2). We can
notice that, in general, vehicles emit higher amounts of NOx in high speed mode, when the combustion chamber
temperature is higher. The vehicle 6, which shows NOx low emission was out of operation just before the measure,
which means that the combustion chamber temperature was low if compared to the other vehicles.
 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60 55

500
450
400
350
NOx (ppmV)

300
Not accelerated
250
Accelerated
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 8 236 29 13 4 1 50 57 135 24
Accelerated 21 464 185 126 471 1 0 345 140 186
Vehicles

Figure 3. NOx emission from gasoline powered vehicles.

Figure 4 presents SO2 emissions of gasoline powered vehicles identified on Table 2. SO2 emission is related to
the oxidation of sulphur compounds in fuel. In some cases, when the crank case oil leaks into the combustion
chamber, the emission of SO2 can be higher. The fuel quality also influences the emission of SO2. We can notice
that, in general, older vehicles emit more SO2 than newer vehicles. Vehicles 5 and 6, as we observed in CO analysis,
should have a good maintenance, once SO2 emission of these cars is also reduced.

1400

1200

1000
SO2 (ppmV)

800 Not accelerated

600 Accelerated

400

200

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 934 923 1300 362 140 34 487 446 271 338
Accelerated 13 359 333 510 98 9 146 273 87 145
Vehicles

Figure 4. SO2 emission from gasoline powered vehicles.

In Figure 5, we can observe CO emissions of ten ethanol powered vehicles described on Table 2. We can notice
that ethanol vehicles follow the trend observed previously in gasoline vehicles, where the CO emission is higher in
low speed mode. Vehicle 1 is an exception, since it has CO high emissions in the both modes of operation. Probably,
this vehicle, much older than the others, has bad combustion efficiency. We also note that newer vehicles, especially
vehicles 6, 9 and 10, have lower CO emission.
56 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60

25000

20000
CO (ppmV)

15000
Not accelerated
Accelerated
10000

5000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 2137 1577 1893 2153 1013 6433 1589 1448 5935 487
Accelerated 2139 1271 8001 983 7071 1728 1885 266 3931 147
Vehicles

Figure 5. CO emission from ethanol powered vehicles.

Figure 6 refers to NOx emissions from the same 10 ethanol powered vehicles (Table 2). In this case, the presence
of nitrogen oxides is not related to fuel, since there is no nitrogen in ethanol composition. The group NOx, therefore,
is only present due to oxidation of nitrogen present in the air. We can notice once again that, for most vehicles, the
NOx emission is higher in high speed mode, where the temperature in the combustion chamber is probably higher
than in the low speed mode.

60

50

40
NOx (ppmV)

Not accelerated
30
Accelerated
20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 1 1 13 3 13 0 12 37 0 11
Accelerated 10 4 12 0 43 6 11 50 0 12
Vehicles

Figure 6. NOx emission from ethanol powered vehicles.

SO2 emissions from ethanol powered vehicles identified on Table 2 can be observed in Figure 7. The presence of
this molecule in ethanol vehicles was unexpected, since there is no presence of sulphur compound in the fuel.
However, the hypothesis that there is oil leakage from the crankcase to the combustion chamber would explain the
presence of gas. We can notice that, in general, older vehicles (1, 3 and 4) exhibited greater SO2 emission, while the
 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60 57

newest ones (9 and 10) emit it in smaller amounts. This situation was somewhat expected, since, in older vehicles, it
is expected that there is more oil leaks than in newer vehicles.

1200

1000

800
SO2 (ppmV)

Not accelerated
600
Accelerated
400

200

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 1119 36 462 996 155 115 245 121 37 0
Accelerated 455 56 149 0 104 72 11 0 49 0
Vehicles

Figure 7. SO2 emission from ethanol powered vehicles.

In order to make a comparative analysis between the emission from gasoline and ethanol powered vehicles, we
have chosen five cars of each fuel, considering similar models and manufacturing year. The odd vehicles are
gasoline powered, while the pair vehicles are ethanol powered. These vehicles are identified on Table 2.
CO emission for this group of vehicles is shown in Figure 8. We can notice that vehicle 2 (ethanol powered) has
a higher CO emission than vehicle 1 (gasoline powered), perhaps due to a badly maintenance. Nevertheless,
vehicles 3 and 5 emitted more CO than vehicles 4 and 6. We can also notice that, in not accelerated mode, vehicle 7
presented greater CO emission, but in accelerated mode the situation was reversed. Finally, for the last couple of
cars, we can observe that ethanol vehicles has lower CO emission than the gasoline vehicle.

25000

20000
CO (ppmV)

15000
Not accelerated
Accelerated
10000

5000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 1008 2137 1107 1577 6973 212 6999 2153 6026 19
Accelerated 2459 2139 6848 1271 3984 88 2535 983 3791 32
Vehicles

Figure 8. CO emission from gasoline and ethanol powered vehicles.

58 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60

Analyzing NOx emission (Figure 9), we can notice that the difference between the emission of gasoline ethanol
powered vehicles becomes more significant. Looking at the pairs of vehicles 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8, we observe that
gasoline vehicles emission is significantly greater than ethanol vehicles emission. The presence of nitrogen
compounds in gasoline fuel can explain this difference. We can also observe that the newest vehicles (9 and 10),
besides being powered by different fuels, presented the smallest emissions of nitrogen oxides.

700

600

500
NOx (ppmV)

400 Not accelerated

300 Accelerated

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 11 1 12 1 135 3 12 3 0 1
Accelerated 5 10 634 4 140 0 11 0 0 0
Vehicles

Figure 9. NOx emission from gasoline and ethanol powered vehicles.

Finally, analyzing SO2 emission (Figure 10), we can notice that vehicles 3 and 5 (gasoline powered) have greater
emission than vehicles 4 and 6 (ethanol powered). However, for the 1st couple of cars, the opposite occurs, because
the vehicle 2 has higher SO2 emissions that the vehicle 1. Probably, vehicle 2 has not good maintenance, once it
emits a large amount of the gas. Vehicle 8 has a higher emission than the vehicle 7 in the not accelerated. Vehicles 9
and 10, younger than the others, have almost null SO2 emission.

1200

1000

800
SO2 (ppmV)

Not accelerated
600
Accelerated
400

200

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not accelerated 258 1119 390 36 271 9 262 996 0 2
Accelerated 86 455 234 56 87 0 35 0 0 0
Vehicles

Figure 10. SO2 emission from gasoline and ethanol powered vehicles.
 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60 59

4. Conclusion

In this study, we could notice that the anthropogenic emissions of pollutant gases have caused various
environmental problems. Transport is responsible for a sizable portion of air pollutants emission. TEMPEST
Electrochemical Analyzer premised the measurement of CO, NOx and SO2 in gasoline and ethanol powered
vehicles. We observed that that almost all analyzed vehicles (using ethanol or gasoline fuel) emit these pollutants in
the range of ppmV. NOx emissions were clearly lower for ethanol powered vehicles, but for SO2 and CO emission,
this difference was not significant. Variables such manufacture year, model, maintenance, combustion temperature,
power and engine rotation speed were, much of time, more important in the analysis of pollutant emission than the
used fuel.
The outlook indicates that the Brazilian ethanol production should increase considerably in the near future,
but it’s important that this increase occurs respecting food production, the Brazilian biodiversity and adequate
working conditions. Furthermore, to actually reduce the emission of pollutant gases, fuel replacing is not enough. It
is necessary to implement policies to encourage the reduction of pollutant sources around the world.

References

[1] IPCC, Report of Working Group I, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Paris, February (2007).
[2] J. Hansen et al., Target atmosphere CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim . The Open Atmospheric Science journal,
2, 217-231, (2008).
[3] P. Nathan et al., Attribution of polar warming to human influence Nature Geoscience, Vol. 1, (2008).
[4] S. G. Miraglia, An Evaluation of Air Pollution Health Impacts and Costs in São Paulo, Brazil. Environmental
Management Vol. 35, (2005).
[5] J. F. Mendes, and L. T. Silva, Determinação do Índice de Qualidade do Ar numa Cidade de Média Dimensão.
Engenharia Civil UM. Número 27, (2006).
[6] LANCET UCL - Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Managing the
health effects of climate change, (2009).
[7] A. Lacerda, T. Leroux, and T. Morata, Efeitos ototóxicos da exposição ao monóxido de carbono: uma revisão.
Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica, Barueri (SP), v. 17, n. 3, (2005).
[8] M. Ramadour, et al, Prevalence of asthma and rhinitis in relation to long-term exposure to gaseous air pollutants,
Allergy 55: 1163 -1169, (2000).
[9] J. M. D. Cónsul et al., Decomposição catalítica de óxidos de nitrogênio. Química Nova 27, (2004).
[10] Y-L. Lee et al., Climate, traffic-related air pollutants and allergic rhinitis prevalence in middle-school children
in Taiwan, Eur Respir J, 21: 964-970, (2003).
[11] C. Baird. Química Ambiental. Bookman, 2002.
[12] Gao Lijie et al, Model analysis of seasonal variations in tropospheric ozone and carbon monoxide over East
Asia, Advances in Atmosphere Sciences, Vol. 26, No.2, 312-318 (2009).
[13] K. M. Latha, K. V. S. Badarinath, Correlation between black carbon aerosols, carbon monoxide and
tropospheric ozone over a tropical urban site, Atmospheric Research 71, 265 -274 (2004)
[14] CPS - THE COLLEGE OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES. The Technology of Gasoline and Diesel
Fuel. Oxford, (2001).
[15] J. MARTINS, Motores de Combustão Interna. 1.ed. Portugal: Publindústria Edições Técnicas, (2005).
[16] D. Tilman, J. Hill, C. Lehman, Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Imput High-Diversity Grassland Biomass.
Science. Vol 314. 1598-1600, (2007).
[17] A. J. Regauskas et al., The Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials. Science. Vol 311. 484-289, (2006).
[18] I. C. Macedo Feasibility of Biomass-Derived Ethanol as a Fuel for Transportation. (Project ME-T1007-
ATN/DO-9375-ME), Activity 6: Potentials in Relation to Sustainability Criteria, SENER/BID, México, (2006).
[19] R. W. Howarth et al., Rapid assessment of biofuels and environment: overview and key findings. Pages 1-13 in
R.W. Rowarth and S. Bringezu (eds), Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land
Use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels
Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummerbach Germany. Connel University, Ithaca NY, USA. (2008)
[20] OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016. <http://www.fao.org/publications/en/> Jan 23, 2010.
[21] Brazil. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. Statistical Yearbook of the Agro-Energy, (2009).
60 J. R. Tavares et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 4 (2011) 51–60

[22] R. R. Mello, Desenvolvimento de Sensores de Gases à base de Ferritas do Tipo MFe2O4 (M = Mn, Zn e Ni).
Dissertação de Mestrado em Física. Universidade Estadual de Maringá, (2008).
[23] J. Janata and M. Josowics. Conducting polymers in eletronic chemical sensors. Nature Materials, 2, 19-24,
(2003).
[24] A. J. Bard and L. R. Falkner, Electrochemical methods: Fundamentals and Applications, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.: New York, (2001).
[25] Brazil, National Environmental Commission (CONAMA) N. 007, 31 August, 1993.
<http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama> December 3, 2009.