State of The Industry Report On Air Quality Emissions From Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/25095
State of the Industry Report on Air Quality

Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet
Fuels (2018)
DETAILS
44 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-47524-2 | DOI 10.17226/25095
CONTRIBUTORS
Booz Allen Hamilton, Environmental Consulting Group, Missouri University of
Science and Technology, and Csonka Aviation Consultancy, LLC; Airport
BUY THIS BOOK Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. State of the
Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet
Fuels. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25095.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels
ACRP
Web-Only Document 35:
State of the Industry

Report on Air Quality
Emissions from
Sustainable Alternative
Jet Fuels
Booz Allen Hamilton
McLean, Virginia
In association with
Environmental Consulting Group

Annapolis, Maryland
Missouri University of Science and Technology

Rolla, Missouri
Csonka Aviation Consultancy, LLC

Lebanon, Ohio
Contractor’s Final State of the Industry Report for ACRP 02-80

Submitted April 2018
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ACRP
Web-Only Document 35:
State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from

Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels
Booz Allen Hamilton

McLean, Virginia
In association with

Annapolis, Maryland

Rolla, Missouri

Lebanon, Ohio
Contractor’s Final State of the Industry Report for ACRP Project 02-80
Submitted April 2018
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It was conducted through the Airport Cooperative
Research Program (ACRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or
persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit
purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular
product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit
uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material,
request permission from CRP.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They
are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine;
or the program sponsors.
The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been
edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT

ON AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS
FROM SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE
JET FUELS
Prepared for:
ACRP 02-80
Transportation Research Board of The National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
APRIL
Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved.
2018
Submitted By:
Booz Allen Hamilton,
McLean, VA
In association with:
Annapolis, MD
Rolla, MO
Lebanon, OH
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPONSORSHIP
This work was sponsored by:
The Federal Aviation Administration and was conducted in the Airport Cooperative
Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
DISCLAIMER
This is an uncorrected draft as submitted by the contractor. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied herein are those of
the contractor. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the Academies, or the program sponsors.

of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved.
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_________________________________________________________________________________________ 4
2. BACKGROUND________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6
2.1. Test Campaigns____________________________________________________________________________________________ 6
2.2. Aircraft Engines____________________________________________________________________________________________ 6
2.3. Conventional Jet Fuel_______________________________________________________________________________________ 7
2.4. Synthetic Fuels____________________________________________________________________________________________ 7
2.5. Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuel Production____________________________________________________________________ 8
2.6. Pollutant Species___________________________________________________________________________________________ 9
2.7. Report Identification________________________________________________________________________________________ 9
3. POLLUTANT EMISSIONS______________________________________________________________________________________ 10
3.1. CO2 and H2O_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 10
3.2. SOx______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10
3.3. PM2.5_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10
3.4. CO______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11
3.5. UHC_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11
3.6. NOx______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12
3.7. HAP_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12
4. KNOWLEDGE GAPS__________________________________________________________________________________________ 12
4.1. Scope of Testing__________________________________________________________________________________________ 12
4.2. SOx______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
4.3. PM______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
4.4. CO______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
4.5. UHC_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
4.6. NOx______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
4.7. HAP_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15
4.8. Future Testing_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15
5. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY__________________________________________________________________________________ 15
6. REFERENCES________________________________________________________________________________________________ 29
7. APPENDIX___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 32

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 3
Copyright National
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aviation has a long and successful record of improving operational performance and fuel efficiency over time and is now seeking
to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and offset emissions that may result from growing demand for air travel. U.S.
and international airlines have committed to reducing lifecycle CO2 emissions from aircraft operations. The primary means
for reducing these emissions is using alternative jet fuels produced from non-petroleum sources, referred to as sustainable
alternative jet fuels (SAJF).
The aviation industry uses an ASTM International specification standard (ASTM D7566) to define alternative fuels that have been
approved by the industry as being safe for use in commercial aircraft. To date, five different fuel production pathways have been
defined. Table ES-1 summarizes those fuels as well as the number of reports in the literature that evaluated emissions from
testing of those synthesized fuels.
The industry is presently reviewing additional alternative jet fuel production pathways, which may add new qualified fuels to this
list in the future. Figure ES-1 summarizes those fuels and Section 2 of the report defines them in more detail.
Number of Emissions
Annex # Fuel Production Pathway Tests Reported in
Literature
A1 Fischer-Tropsch Hydroprocessed Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK) 15
Synthesized Paraffinic Kerosene from Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids

A2 13
(HEFA-SPK)
Synthesized Iso-Paraffins Produced from Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars

A3 3
(HFS-SIP)
Synthesized Kerosene with Aromatics Derived by Alkylation of Light Aromatics

A4 0
from Non-Petroleum Sources (FT-SPK/A)
Alcohol-to-Jet Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (ATJ-SPK) limited initially to the use

A5 of ethanol and isobutanol, but eventually intended to allow the use of any C2-C5 4
alcohol
Table ES-1: Industry Approved Alternative Jet Fuels included in ASTM D7566

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 4
Copyright National
While the primary purpose for airlines to use SAJF is to reduce CO2
emissions, emissions of other pollutants may also be reduced, which
could be significantly beneficial to airports. However, these reductions
are not yet well defined, leaving airports unable to realize what may be FUEL PRODUCTION PATHWAY
substantial benefits. The research team team analyzed the published
technical literature to validate that SAJF use does reduce air pollutant ATJ-SPK; Expansion of Annex A5 (ATJ-SPK)
emissions (i.e., PM2.5, SOx, CO, UHC, NOx) and does not cause any of to include the use of ethanol as a feedstock
them to increase. Table ES-2 summarizes the body of literature that
was screened to identify essential reports that include quantitative HDO-SAK; Synthesized Aromatic Kerosene
via the catalytic conversion of sugars
data on results from emissions testing of SAJF. The data in these
reports was analyzed in detail to define the impact of using SAJF on air CHJ; Catalytic Hydrothermolysis Jet via
pollutants of interest to airports. Isoconversion of lipids, fats, oils or greases
The summarization of these reports and their emissions data shows HFP-HEFA; High Freeze Point HEFA, using
that SAJF, when blended with conventional jet fuel as defined in D7566, HDRD (aka Green Diesel) as a blending agent
significantly reduces SOx and PM, generally reduces CO and UHC
emissions, and minimally reduces or has no effect on NOx emissions.
Figure ES-1: Fuel Production Pathways Currently
Figure ES-2 summarizes the impact of SAJF on aircraft emissions. Undergoing Review
This report describes why these findings are expected based on
an understanding of the mechanisms of pollutant production when Document
Search Criteria
burning jet fuel in aircraft engines and how this is repeatedly confirmed Hits
by the data collected from numerous tests and measurement
campaigns. 35,136 Alternative jet fuel emissions
Following this Executive Summary, Section 2 provides a discussion Alternative jet fuel emissions +
of the scope of this report including emission testing campaigns, 9,369
criteria pollutants
SAJF production and approved fuels, and pollutant species. Section
3 provides information on the source of the different pollutant species Alternative jet fuel emissions +
that result from fuel combustion. Section 4 describes the knowledge 73 criteria pollutants + emission
gaps in the current literature and testing to date. Section 5 is an measurements
annotated bibliography that highlights key findings from several
reports, which influenced the findings of this literature survey. Section 6 Reports with quantitative emissions
51
includes a complete reference list, and Section 7 is an appendix, which analysis (used in this literature review)
summarizes the impacts of alternative fuels on the emissions of SOx, Table ES-2: Identifying Reports for Literature Review
PM2.5, CO, UHC, NOx, and HAP from individual reports.
100%
90%
Neat
80%
50% Blend
70%
Reductions (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SOx PM2.5 CO UHC NOx HAP
Figure ES-2: Representative Air Pollutant Emission Reductions from the Use of SAJF

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 5
Copyright National
2. BACKGROUND SAJF emissions testing. The various testing campaigns

showed that emissions testing on a given engine could
This State of the Industry report is a “reference document” produce repeatable and consistent results for any given
that captures the current status of knowledge regarding fuel. However, engine to engine differences are significant.
emissions from the use of sustainable alternative jet fuels The age/pedigree of the engine, time since last overhaul,
(SAJF). The research team conducted a review of available and cleanliness of fuel components, such as nozzles, can
research, literature, and measurement campaigns to affect combustion and consequently emissions.
enhance our current understanding of the local air quality
For a series of tests performed on a given engine, the
emissions benefits and impacts of SAJF as well as SAJF
changes in emissions will be a reflection of the thrust
blends relative to conventional jet fuel. We drilled down
setting (i.e., fuel flow) and fuel composition. In general, fuel
into the data and extracted and analyzed the essential
chemistry has a much greater impact on emissions than
emissions testing data to quantify typical emissions
the difference among engines. The relationship between
impacts of SAJF use. The review results are focused
fuel composition and emissions is discussed below.
specifically on air quality emissions of criteria pollutants
from SAJF. The report also includes an analysis of gaps in The emissions tests conducted in the reports included
our current understanding of the production of pollutants in this literature review were performed at various engine
from SAJF. thrust settings intended to reflect an aircraft’s main engine
performance. The basis for selecting specific thrust
2.1. TEST CAMPAIGNS settings correlates with the landing-and-takeoff (LTO) cycle
as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization
Department of Defense (DoD) and National Aeronautics (ICAO) and used for engine certification testing. As a
and Space Administration (NASA) have been primarily general representation, taxiing aircraft use low thrust
responsible for most of the SAJF testing to date. DoD (4%). Full thrust (100%) is used to represent takeoff as the
conducted tests on many of the different aircraft they aircraft comes up to speed quickly to get off the ground.
operate to qualify their use of SAJF. NASA has been Once in the air, the thrust is reduced somewhat (85%)
conducting research on aircraft engine emissions to as the aircraft climbs to cruise altitude. A thrust setting
evaluate their environmental impact for several years. of 30% is representative of the thrust an aircraft uses on
Many of these research programs included DoD research approach to landing. These thrust settings are commonly
labs, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) experts, aircraft used for emissions testing although in actual operation,
and engine manufacturers, universities, and scientific thrust settings vary and typically are lower than these
experts. Some of the more significant test programs were: values.
• APEX, September 2006 In a similar way, tests conducted on APUs use three power
• AAFEX-I, January 2009 settings – “no load” or “ready-to-load,” environmental
• AAFEX-II, March 2011 control system, and “maximum load” or “main engine
start,” which reflect in-use APU thrust settings. The
• ACCESS-I, February-April, 2013
no load setting is equivalent to idle on aircraft main
• ACCESS-II, May, 2014 engines. The environmental control system setting is
an intermediate power setting used when the APU is
Much of the literature reviewed in this report comes from
providing secondary electric power and ventilation to an
reports on these projects or analyses of the data produced
aircraft parked at the gate. The main engine start setting is
during these projects.
a high-power setting used when starting the aircraft main
engines.
2.2. AIRCRAFT ENGINES
Aircraft main engines are designed to operate most
Today’s commercial and military aircraft rely on modern, efficiently at cruise power since the majority of fuel use
high-efficiency, sophisticated turbine engines to deliver is during cruise. Lower power operation, such as for
the safety, operability, and efficiency demanded from idling and taxiing, is less efficient from a fuel combustion
the sector. Additionally, auxiliary power units (APU) are standpoint. As a result, emission species that reflect
smaller turbine engines utilizing similar design principles engine efficiency, notably CO and UHC, are higher per
which also perform consistently and reliably. Aircraft unit of fuel consumed at low power operation and lower at
main engines and APUs were the primary test beds for high power operation. Conversely, NOx emissions, which

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 6
Copyright National
are produced at high temperature, are higher at high thrust include fatty acid methyl ethers (FAME) and ethanol,
and lower at low thrust. Similarly, with an APU, CO and which are both oxygenated compounds. These emission
UHC emissions are higher at the “no load” setting and studies provided useful data illustrating the relationship
lower at “maximum load” while the reverse is true for NOx. of fuel composition and emissions. Also, the D7566
specification does not address the sustainability of the
fuel per se. Generally, the sustainability of any alternative
2.3. CONVENTIONAL JET FUEL
jet fuel production depends not only on the source of the
Various emissions tests of jet fuel, SAJF, and blends hydrocarbons used to produce the fuel, but many other
of the two are evaluated in this literature review. measures of societal acceptability associated with the
Different research groups used different jet fuels in their fuel’s production, including economic, environmental,
experiments, which usually reflected the most readily and social factors. Fuel produced from coal, petroleum,
available conventional jet fuel. The different fuels, based or natural gas feedstocks is not considered sustainable,
on different fuel specifications, however, are very similar. as the feedstocks are fundamentally not renewable. Fuel
The Jet A specification is used commercially throughout produced from renewable biological feedstocks (e.g.,
the U.S. and generally not available outside of the country. plant-derived oils, agricultural wastes, forestry residues)
Jet A-1 specification fuel, which is used outside the U.S., or recycled carbonaceous sources (e.g., municipal solid
is very similar to Jet A with the primary difference being waste, industrial off-gases, atmospheric CO2)), might
a slightly lower freeze point for Jet A-1. The U.S. military be considered as meeting the minimum threshold for
formerly used JP-8 jet fuel, which is very similar to Jet A-1 consideration of sustainability. However, being renewable
but includes a static dissipater, corrosion inhibitor, and or recyclable is not a sufficient criterion, and other aspects
anti-icing additives. They have recently changed to Jet A-1 of societal impact must be evaluated to entitle such
with those additives. The combustion of these three fuels fuels as “sustainable.” Determining the sustainability of
is very similar from an emissions standpoint and for the a given fuel type or production lot is often complex and
purpose of this report they are assumed to be equivalent. beyond the scope of this report, but information exists that
shows that there are examples of fuels being able to be
2.4. SYNTHETIC FUELS sustainably produced per the definitions in ASTM D7566
annexes.
ASTM International, an international standard setting
organization, maintains a standard specification D1655 To date, the aviation industry has added five annexes
for aviation turbine fuels, referred to as conventional jet to D7566 for producing different synthetic blending
fuel. The organization also is responsible for establishing components. Fuels produced according to these annexes
specifications for synthetic blending components, are referred to in this report as sustainable alternative jet
designated D7566. While most of the reports reviewed fuels (SAJF).
for this investigation used alternative fuels that would
meet D7566, some of the fuels would not meet this 1. Fischer-Tropsch Hydroprocessed Synthetic Paraffinic
specification (even though these studies were conducted Kerosene (FT-SPK), uses a synthesis gas feedstock,
prior to publication of the D7566 specification). These produced by thermally converting hydrocarbon

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 7
Copyright National
materials, which can include various sources of aromatic hydrocarbons via a process described as
renewable biomass such as municipal solid waste, HydroDeOxygenation.
agricultural wastes, forest wastes, wood, and energy 2. Catalytic Hydrothermolysis Jet (CHJ) – A two-
crops. Synthesis gas (CO and H2) is then converted step process of catalytic hydrothermolysis and
employing catalytic processes in a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) hydroprocessing where bio-oils are converted to
reactor into liquid hydrocarbons such as diesel or jet hydrocarbons in the jet fuel range using water (under
fuel. FT-SPK must be blended with conventional jet fuel high temperature and pressure) as a catalyst. Alkylation
at levels up to 50%. produces aromatics so it is possible the fuel could be
2. Synthesized Paraffinic Kerosene from Hydroprocessed used without the need for blending.
Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA-SPK) is produced by 3. FHP-HEFA – High Freeze Point HEFA (aka Green Diesel,
reacting an oil or fat-based feedstock, such as fats and or HEFA+), is using hydrogenation-derived renewable
oils derived from vegetables, animals, or waste oil, with diesel as a blending agent with jet fuel.
hydrogen. HEFA-SPK can be blended with conventional
jet fuel up to 50%.
2.5. SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE JET
3. Synthesized Iso-Paraffins produced from
FUEL PRODUCTION
Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars (HFS-SIP), are
produced by hydroprocessing and fractionation of The five SAJF approved by the industry in ASTM D7566
synthetic hydrocarbons derived from the fermentation each follow a different production process beginning with
of plant-based sugars such as sugar, corn, or forest somewhat different feedstocks, however, the resulting
wastes, to produce farnesene, a 15-carbon hydrocarbon fuel when blended with conventional jet fuel meets the
molecule. HFS-SIP must be blended with conventional specification for conventional jet fuel. Fuels produced from
jet fuel, at levels up to 10%. non-sustainable feedstocks such as coal, petroleum, or
natural gas can also meet the ASTM specifications under
4. Synthesized Kerosene with Aromatics Derived by
Annex 1 and perform identically to conventional jet fuel.
Alkylation of Light Aromatics from Non-Petroleum
Some of the emissions testing evaluated for this report
Sources (SPK/A), includes aromatics that can possibly
were conducted on GTL (gas-to-liquid) fuels. Because they
reach higher blend rates than other synthetic fuels.
meet the D7566 specification, their emissions performance
A minimum of 8% aromatics is required in SAJF
is equivalent to SAJF and a valid source of data for this
blends to ensure sufficient seal swell as a way to
analysis.
prevent fuel system leaks. According to the ASTM
D7566 specification, the SPK/A synthetic blending Hydroprocessing is an important step in producing jet
component shall be comprised of FT-SPK combined fuels, both conventional and SAJF. In refineries producing
with synthesized aromatics from the alkylation of non- conventional jet fuel, one of the final steps is treating
petroleum derived light aromatics, primarily benzene. the fuel with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst.
These fuels must be blended with conventional jet fuel, The hydrogen reacts with sulfur, nitrogen, and other
at levels up to 50%. unwanted elements (heteroatoms) present in the fuel to
5. Alcohol-to-Jet Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (ATJ-SPK) reduce impurities required by internationally accepted fuel
is produced from alcohols that have been produced specifications. Hydroprocessing at the refinery reduces,
from fermentable sugars which in turn have been rather than eliminates, these components to ensure they
produced from renewable feedstocks such as sugar, are below the allowable limits.
corn, or industrial or forest wastes. ATJ-SPK to be Hydroprocessing is also the final step in the five SAJF
blended with conventional jet fuel, at levels up to 30% production pathways approved to date. It is an important
(although as of this writing, an effort is underway to step in producing HEFA-SPK fuels to remove oxygen from
increase the maximum blending level to a higher 50%). feedstocks (i.e., deoxygenate). This is typical for feedstocks
Several other fuel production pathways are currently being containing triglycerides such as animal fats and oils from
evaluated under ASTM D7566 for approval as blending soybeans, palm, algae, jatropha, and other oily plants.
components. At the time of this report, the following fuels In all five SAJF production processes, hydroprocessing
are in the approval process: essentially removes all sulfur and heteroatoms that may
be present. It also converts the fuel stream into a more
1. HDO-SAK – A bioforming process that converts
uniform composition, converting aromatics and high
aqueous carbohydrate solutions into a mixture of

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 8
Copyright National
molecular weight hydrocarbon compounds into straight terms but in this report the differences were ignored.
chain compounds (normal paraffins or n-paraffins). Finally,
Two of the reports use the chemical class “aldehydes” as a
distillation separates the primary fuel components from
surrogate for HAPs and one report measures formaldehyde
lighter and heavier molecules to leave a fuel stream
(HCHO) as a representative of all aldehydes. This has
comprised mostly of molecules containing 8-18 carbon
proven to be reasonable in prior research as indicative
atoms. Some branched molecules (iso-paraffins) are
of that component of the emissions. Formaldehyde is
present. One significant result of this process is that the
commonly the most prevalent aldehyde in aircraft engine
synthetic fuels have a higher hydrogen content and higher
emissions and the proportion of formaldehyde to the other
energy mass density compared to conventional jet fuel.
hydrocarbons in the emissions remains consistent at
As the volumetric energy density goes up with increased different emission rates.
hydrogen content, the mass of fuel used decreases. An
PM (particulate matter), often referred to as soot, means
indication of the changes to the fuel properties was that
nvPM (non-volatile PM) when used in this report. Some
frequently during test campaigns, fuel flow and shaft
studies measured PM2.5, which is non-volatile PM smaller
speeds decreased with increasing SAJF blend percentage.
than 2.5 micrometers in diameter and is the regulated size
These changes are consistent with higher energy mass
classification of PM. Aircraft engine emissions of nvPM
density of the alternative fuels, which result in a constant
are even smaller, in the PM1.0 and smaller range. For the
energy input with lower fuel mass flow. Higher heating
purpose of this report, these terms are assumed to be
value (BTU/lbm) leads to lower fuel burn and reduced
equivalent.
emissions on a mass basis. This improves fuel efficiency
and reduces emissions.
2.7. REPORT IDENTIFICATION
2.6. POLLUTANT SPECIES The research team team collected, reviewed, and compiled
data from research reports from all aircraft engine emission
Specific emissions and pollutant species addressed in this
tests of SAJF and related research projects. This includes
report include:
testing sponsored by DoD, NASA, FAA, aircraft and
• Sulfur oxides expressed as SOx engine Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), fuel
• Non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM also referred to as producers, and other organizations. Missouri University of
PM) Science & Technology (MS&T) technical library database,
the open Internet, and frequently cited reports were
• Carbon monoxide (CO) searched to identify the reports in this literature survey. The
• Unburned hydrocarbons (UHC) collected information includes university and government
• Nitrogen oxides expressed as NOx publications, briefings, and other technical reports. Table 1
shows how the universe of reports was reduced to just the
• Hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
reports pertinent for this study.
For some pollutant species, slightly different terms are
used in different reports. For example, UHC (unburned An analysis of these reports and data shows that SAJF,
hydrocarbons) as used in this report. Other research when blended with conventional jet fuel, significantly
reports use HC (hydrocarbons), VOC (volatile organic reduces SOx and PM, generally reduces CO and UHC
carbon), and THC (total hydrocarbons). There are slight emissions, and minimally reduces or has no effect on
differences in the chemical compounds that makeup these NOx emissions. The variability in emissions data will
Document Hits Search Criteria
35,136 Alternative jet fuel emissions
9,369 Alternative jet fuel emissions + criteria pollutants
73 Alternative jet fuel emissions + criteria pollutants + emission measurements
51 Reports with quantitative emissions analysis (used in this literature review)
Table 1: Identifying Reports for Literature Review

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 9
Copyright National
be evaluated in more detail in a subsequent phase of 3.3. PM2.5

this project. This report describes why these findings
PM2.5 as defined in the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality
are expected based on analysis of the mechanisms of
Standards (NAAQS), is a regulatory standard for the
pollutant production when burning jet fuel in aircraft
criteria pollutant described as fine particulate matter and
engines and how this is repeatedly confirmed by the
is based on measuring the mass of the particles with
data collected from numerous tests and measurement
diameters <2.5 micrometers. Particulate matter directly
campaigns.
emitted from jet engines and detected at the engine exit
plane falls into this category, however, these particles
typically have diameters that range in the 10 to 100
3. POLLUTANT EMISSIONS nanometers (a nanometer is one thousand times smaller
than a micrometer). These particles are the products of
This section summarizes the findings of the impact of
incomplete combustion within the engine’s combustor
SAJF use on the pollutants of interest. It is an evaluation
and are largely carbonaceous. The non-carbonaceous
of the body of literature on SAJF emissions testing.
particles, referred to as volatile particles, are typically
Since we are in the early stages of SAJF production,
heavy hydrocarbons. The carbonaceous particles are
fuels from only a few different production pathways have
often referred to as non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM)
been tested. However, the fuels tested meet the D7566
and sometime referred to as soot. They are found to
specification so their emissions performance is expected
vary monotonically with the aromatic content of the
to be an excellent indicator of the emissions performance
fuel. Suitable metrics for nvPM emissions are (1) the
of predominantly paraffinic fuels produced by future
number-based emission index (EIn), which is the number
production pathways.
of particles generated per kg of fuel burned, and (2) the
mass-based emissions index (EIm), which is the mass of
3.1. CO2 AND H2O particulate matter generated per kg of fuel burned. The
CO2 and H2O are the primary products of hydrocarbon- NAAQS is a mass-based regulation. The U.S. does not
based fuel combustion (>99%) and the relative proportion regulate for particle number emissions, however particle
of each species is defined by the H/C ratio of a given fuel. number may be more important for evaluating the health
SAJFs typically are found to have higher H/C ratios than effects of particle emissions, therefore, Eln has attracted
conventional fuels (~1%), largely due to the additional more interest recently. Changes in EIn ranged from -22 to
hydroprocessing, which is the final step in most fuel -99% (Christy 2015, Timko, Andersen 2011, Dally, Moore,
production processes. Christy 2017, Chen, Shila, Chan, Colker, Byersdorf, Li
2013, Cain, Huang, Moore, Lobo 2011, Corporan 2010).
Changes in EIm ranged from -20 to -95% (Christy 2015,
3.2. SOX Timko, Andersen 2011, Dally, Moore, Christy 2017, Shila,
SOx emissions are produced by the oxidation of sulfur Chan, Colker, Beyersdorf, Li 2013, Cain, Lobo 2011).
present in the fuel, and emissions levels are directly And changes in GMD (geometric mean diameter) ranged
proportional to the fuel sulfur content. Typically, the from -2 to +16% for FAME (Lobo 2011, Timko) and from
sulfur content in SAJFs is very low (< 0.003%wt) and in -12 to +1% for 100% FT and 50% blend (Lobo 2011).
the case of blends of SAJFs with conventional fuels the Similar reductions were observed but not quantified for
sulfur content is dominated by the level of sulfur in the SPK (Cain), FT coal (Vander Wal, Timko), and biofuels
conventional jet fuel component of the blend (Corporan (Chen). Chen analyzed for sulfate ions present in the
2010, Stratton, Corporan 2012, Moses 2008). For nvPM component of the exhaust and found them to be
conventional jet fuels, typical sulfur levels of 0.3%wt are the dominant particle-bound anion. Chen also found them
reported. In Beyersdorf, the authors report the use of pure to be reduced in concentration for the range of alternative
FT fuels resulted in EISO2 reductions of greater than 90%, fuels studied compared to conventional jet fuel.
and intermediate reductions for blends.
Table A.2: Alternative Fuel Impact on PM2.5 Emissions
Table A.1: Alternative Fuel Impact on SOx Emissions in the in the Appendix summarizes the PM emission impacts
Appendix summarizes the SOx emission impacts reported reported in the literature reviewed for this project.
in the literature reviewed for this project.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 10
Copyright National
3.4. CO Table A.3: Alternative Fuel Impact on CO Emissions in the

Appendix summarizes the CO emission impacts reported
CO emissions are the product of incomplete combustion.
They are quantitatively dependent on engine type, engine
combustor technology, and engine combustion efficiency.
Factors that influence the production of CO include fuel 3.5. UHC
air ratio, fuel injection/atomization/mixing, combustor UHC emissions are the products of incomplete
inlet conditions, and engine power settings. The net combustion. Factors governing UHC emissions include
result being that, independent of fuel type burned, for a engine type, combustion efficiency and associated
given engine type, CO emissions are found to decrease parameters such as combustor temperature and pressure,
with increasing engine power setting since at low power engine power setting, and the H/C ratio of the fuel.
engines operate less efficiently (Boeing). Fuels with higher Incomplete combustion can result in both cracking and
hydrogen/carbon (H/C) ratios yield greater combustion partial combustion of the fuel. Both processes result in
efficiency and lower CO emissions and therefore modest the formation of species not present in the original fuel
reductions in CO emissions are observed when SAJFs composition. In seven studies using four engines and
with higher H/C ratios (10-25% Corpran 2011, Boeing) are three combustor rigs and a range of alternative fuels,
compared with conventional fuels (Corpran 2010, Timko, changes in UHC emissions appeared to be both engine/
Carter 2011, Corpran 2012, Christy 2015, Andersen 2011). combustor rig and fuel specific, sometimes decreasing
In contrast to the generally observed reductions in CO (Cain, Beyersdorf, Chen, Li 2013), and in some cases no
emissions, for the case of SIP fuels no significant changes change was observed (Corporan 2010, Altaher, Chi).
in CO were observed when compared to conventional
fuels (Roland), and in the case of AATJ-SPK fuels CO was Table A.4: Alternative Fuel Impact on UHC Emissions in
observed to increase compared to conventional fuels for the Appendix summarizes the UHC emission impacts
low engine power settings (Edwards). reported in the literature reviewed for this project.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 11
Copyright National
3.6. NOX on HAP emissions are extremely limited. Four alternate

fuels and their blends with Jet A-1 were studied by Li
NOx emissions arise from the oxidation of nitrogen in
et al. using an APU as the emissions source. Overall,
the combustor. The primary source of nitrogen in the
all four alternate fuels/blends showed equivalent (two
combustor is that which is present in the combustion
HEFA blends) or lower aldehyde emissions (FAE blend)
air flow. Compared to this atmospheric source, nitrogen
compared to Jet A-1. Formaldehyde appeared to be the
chemically bound in the fuel is not considered a significant
dominant aldehyde species (Li 2014). In similar studies
source of engine NOx emissions. Factors affecting NOx
by Corporan (Corporan 2012) and Timko discussing the
emissions include flame temperature, flame residence
limit of uncertainty for HAPs measurements, no significant
time, fuel air ratio, combustor inlet conditions, engine
differences in HAPs production are seen for the alternate
power settings, humidity, ambient temperature, and fuel
fuels studied.
hydrogen content. Since thermal NOx is not specifically
related to fuel composition, it is instead very similar Table A.6: Alternative Fuel Impact on HAP Emissions in
between conventional jet fuel and SAJF. The increased the Appendix summarizes the HAP emission impacts
H/C ratio in SAJF noted previously can produce small reported in the literature reviewed for this project.
reductions in NOx emissions due to the lower mass of fuel
burned and may also increase the rate of NOx creation
due to higher combustion temperature. The evidence that
fuel composition indirectly affects NOx emissions is mostly
4. KNOWLEDGE GAPS
reported to be small, less than 10% (Wey, Li 2013, Cain, As noted in earlier sections of this report, there have
Corporan 2010, Bhagwan, Colker, Chan, Chi, Rahmes, been several emissions tests conducted to evaluate
Corpran 2010, Andersen 2011, Corpran 2011, TImko, the performance of SAJF as well as to measure their
Boeing, Carter 2011, Stratton, Corpran 2012, Del Rosario, emissions. The emissions testing was primarily focused
Roland, Andersen 2015, Christy 2015, Edwards). The on evaluating emissions of nvPM, however, many of
exception was from a study of biofuels by Chen where the testing programs also recorded emissions of other
reductions in NOx of up to 70% were observed. However criteria pollutants. In light of the evolution of SAJF
this study evaluated several oxygenated fuels including development, the emissions testing was not systematic
ethanol, which resulted in lower combustion temperature or extensive. However, the SAJF tested met the D7566
for these blends. Among all of the tests specifically specification and when blended, the tested fuels met
reporting NOx emissions, 25 of 45 showed no change in the commercial jet fuel specification D1655. As a result,
NOx emissions, 9 showed NOx reductions of less than the emissions performance should be representative of
10%, 7 showed NOx emissions either slightly up or slightly SAJF more broadly. Tests were conducted on a variety of
down depending on engine power setting, 2 showed NOx engines ranging from auxiliary power units to commercial
increases of 5% or less, and, as mentioned, 1 showed a aircraft main engines as well as several military aircraft
70% reduction. engines. Also, as noted earlier, different fuels produced
from different feedstocks were used for blending which
Table A.5: Alternative Fuel Impact on NOx Emissions in the
may have some (probably minor) effect on emissions.
Appendix summarizes the NOx emission impacts reported
The result is a limited data set to be used for evaluating
emissions performance across a range of engines, power
settings, pollutant species, and blend percentages. A
3.7. HAP limited data set results in larger error bars and more
limited confidence in the relationship between SAJF
Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are volatile organic
composition engine emissions.
compounds (VOC) found in the UHC component of
aircraft exhaust emissions. ICAO reported some examples
of HAPs that have been identified as representative 4.1. SCOPE OF TESTING
pollutants from airport sources including formaldehyde,
Table 2 shows the range of engines tested on different
acetaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, benzene,
fuels.
naphthalene, toluene, xylene and propionaldehyde
(ICAO). These compounds play an important role in As noted earlier, emissions testing on a given engine
atmospheric chemistry and urban air quality (ICAO, could produce repeatable and consistent results for any
Leikauf, Koenig) and have major health concerns (Li given fuel. Engine to engine differences, however, are
2014). Studies concerning the impact of alternate fuels

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 12
Copyright National
Conventional Jet
Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuel SAJF
Fuel
Annex A1 Annex A2 Annex Annex Annex
FT-SPK HEFA-SPK A3 A4 A5
Jet FT FT Beef Fats & ATJ-
Engine JP-8 Jet A Camelina SIP SPK/A
A-1 CTL GTL Tallow Grease SPK
131-9 APU
√ √ √ √
B37, A320*
GTCP85
APU √ √
B737
AE3007
√ √
ERJ145
CFM56 DC8 √ √ √ √ √
CFM56-2
√ √ √ √
DC8
CFM56-5C4
A340
CFM56-7
√ √ √ √
B737
CFM56-7B
√ √
B737
F117
√ √ √
C-17
F117-
PW-100 √ √ √ √
C-17
PW308C DF
√ √
2000
PW615F
Citation √ √
Mustang
SaM146
√ √
RRJ75
T63
√ √ √ √ √
Bell OH-58
T63-A-700
√ √ √ √ √ √
Bell OH-58
TF33 √ √
B-52
TF34
√ √
A-10
TPE331-10
√ √
J 31
TPE331-
19YGD √ √
J 41
Table 2: Fuel Testing by Engine Type for Reported Emissions Data

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 13
Copyright National
significant. The age of an engine, time since last overhaul, small, the resulting impact on CO emissions is generally
and cleanliness of fuel components, such as nozzles, can small. Specific testing to identify these changes is needed
affect combustion and consequently emissions. This is even to more carefully relate CO emissions to H/C fuel ratio.
significant for engines of the same type and model number. Also, since CO emissions are higher at low power due to
This presents a challenge in comparing emissions data engines being less efficient at low power, testing should
across multiple tests, hence the need for more systematic focus on lower power operations, although testing at
testing to refine the results. multiple thrust levels (7%, 30%, 85%, and 100%) is
recommended.
4.2. SOX
As noted in Section 2, SOx emissions are proportional to 4.5. UHC
the sulfur content of the fuel. However, not all sulfur is Similar to CO, UHC emissions are related to engine
emitted as SOx. Some sulfur is retained on the soot particles efficiency and are higher at low power since engines are
that make up a large component of nvPM, and there are designed to maximize efficiency at high power when
some aerosol particles that contain sulfur. It would be very engines consume the most fuel. H/C ratio in the fuel
useful if researchers could partition sulfur in fuel into SOx, influences combustion efficiency. SAJF often have a
aerosol, and nvPM. While in general, fuel sulfur content is slightly higher H/C ratio compared to conventional jet fuel
proportional to SOx it is not possible to complete a material as a result of the hydrotreating of the fuel as one of the
balance without knowing where all sulfur emissions go. This final steps in most SAJF processing, or due to a higher
is not essential for understanding the air quality impacts of overall percentage of paraffins and iso-paraffins versus
SAJF per se but is important for understanding and tracking cyclo-paraffins and aromatics. Since the differences
the fate of the fuel sulfur. are small, the resulting impact on UHC emissions are
generally small. Specific testing to identify these changes
is needed to more carefully relate UHC emissions to H/C
4.3. PM
fuel ratio. Also, UHC emissions are higher at low power
Significant reductions in PM emissions as a result of using since engines are less efficient at low power so this testing
SAJF blends are a positive outcome. For that reason it should focus on lower power testing although testing
would be beneficial to more carefully/specifically relate the at multiple thrust levels (7%, 30%, 85%, and 100%) is
number based emission index (EIn) (the number of particles recommended.
generated per kg of fuel burned), and the mass based
emissions index (EIm) (the mass of particles generated per
kg of fuel burned), to engine thrust to better quantify the 4.6. NOX
overall benefits. Also, since PM emissions are found to vary As noted in Section 3, NOx emissions reflect flame
monotonically with the aromatic content of the fuel, this temperature, flame residence time, fuel air ratio, combustor
relationship should be quantified. Additionally, more detailed inlet conditions, engine power settings, humidity, ambient
study of the relationship between PM emissions and the temperature, and fuel hydrogen content. Thus, compared
concentration of naphthalene as a share of total aromatics in to conventional jet fuel, only minor changes in NOx
the fuel is needed. Naphthalene appears to play an outsized emissions have been detected in SAJF testing and most
role in the production of nvPM emissions from aircraft commonly there has been no change that resulted from
engines. increasing the SAJF blend percentage. Because the
differences in emissions are small, thorough testing is
needed to evaluate NOx emissions, being careful to repeat
4.4. CO
the same engine conditions (e.g., fuel air ratio, humidity,
Only modest changes are seen in CO emissions between and ambient temperature) with neat conventional jet fuel
conventional jet fuel and SAJF. They are largely related to and different blend percentages of SAJF for different fuel
engine design and operating conditions. However, the H/C composition.
ratio in the fuel influences combustion efficiency. SAJF often
have a slightly higher H/C ratio compared to conventional
jet fuel as a result of the hydrotreating of the fuel as one of
the final steps in most SAJF processing, or due to a higher
overall percentage of paraffins and iso-paraffins versus
cyclo-paraffins and aromatics. Since the differences are

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 14
Copyright National
4.7. HAP 4.8. FUTURE TESTING

Only a few of the emissions testing programs had specific Going forward, additional, more systematic testing would
evaluations of the composition of the UHC emissions be beneficial to confirm the findings reported here and to
so very limited data on HAP emissions are available. fill gaps in our current understanding. In particular, being
To evaluate HAP emissions, UHC emissions must be able to relate the molecular composition of SAJF, and in
evaluated for their component species. Additional particular the H/C ratio, would be especially useful.
testing of each SAJF fuel to measure HAPs in the UHC
component of the engine exhaust is needed.
5. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
This section presents a short description of the scope and contents of the references that reported the most essential
findings regarding emissions from SAJF. It includes key findings from emission tests project reports (APEX, AAFEX, etc.),
ASTM research reports/annexes, and emissions analysis reports by researchers for FAA, CLEEN, DoD, NASA, ACRP,
PARTNER, and ASCENT.
Altaher, Mohamed A., Andrews, Gordon E., and Li, Hu, PM Characteristics of Low NOx Combustor Burning Biodiesel
and its Blends with Kerosene, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2013: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition
GT2013, June 3-7, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
This work investigated the particulate number concentrations and size distributions of exhaust gases emitted from a radial
swirler based low NOx gas turbine combustor. The tests were conducted under atmospheric pressure and 600K at reference
Mach number of 0.017 and 0.023. A baseline of natural gas combustion was compared with a waste rapeseed cooking oil
methyl ester biodiesel (WME), its blend with kerosene B20, B50 and pure kerosene.
• The most common blending ratio is 20% of biodiesel, termed B20.

• The combustion test facility consisted of an air supply fan, venturi flow metering, electrical preheaters, 250mm diameter
air plenum chamber, 76mm outlet diameter double passage radial swirler, 76mm diameter throat 40mm long wall fuel
injector, 330mm long 140mm diameter uncooled combustor, followed by a bend in the water-cooled exhaust pipe with
an observation window on the combustor center line.
• Lean combustion low NOx radial swirler flame stabilizers were operated close to 0.5 equivalence ratio at 600K and one
atmosphere pressure and were shown to have extremely low PM mass emissions of about 1mg/kg for gas and liquid
fuel. B100 could be burnt without any major increase in particle number emissions.
Anderson, B.E., et al., Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX), NASA Project Report NSAS/TM-2011-217059,
February 2011.
This is a report on the AAFEX project, probably the most extensively studied test of alternative jet fuel use in aircraft
engines. All of the testing in this project was on-wing engines tested on the ground and evaluation of neat jet fuel (JP-8),
a blend of 50% JP-8/50% Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from natural gas, a blend of 50% JP-8/50% Fischer-Tropsch
fuel produced from coal, neat Fischer-Tropsch fuel from natural gas, and neat Fischer-Tropsch fuel from coal. The test
bed was a DC-8 with CFM56 engines owned by NASA. Emissions from the aircraft’s APU were also tested. In addition
to NASA Langley and Glenn Research Centers, participating research organizations included: U.S. Air Force Arnold and
Wright Patterson Air Force Bases, Aerodyne Research, Inc., General Electric, Harvard University, Missouri University of
Science and Technology, Montana State University, Pennsylvania State University, Pratt and Whitney, U.S. EPA, and United
Technologies.
• “Relative to JP-8, burning alternative fuels generally reduced engine CO, THC, and NOx emissions.”
• “HAPs emissions were significantly lower for FT fuels.”

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 15
Copyright National
• “Burning 50% blends of JP-8 and the FT fuels did not produce significant reductions in certification gas species
emissions.”
• At engine power settings above 30%, the authors found that NOx emissions increase with ambient temperature.
• CO emissions dependence on ambient temperature was similar among all fuels studied and only prevalent below 30%
engine power settings.
• Emissions from two versions of the same engine varied from 2-5 times as much, indicating the importance of conducting
tests of neat and blended fuels on the same engine.
• Lube oil and similar compounds were between 50-70% of the organic aerosol emissions while products of incomplete
combustion were 50-30% of the total.
• THC emissions from FT fuels were an average of 37% lower than those for JP-8.
• CO emissions were an average of 9% lower than those for JP-8.
• NOx emissions were relatively insensitive to fuel type and operating conditions.
• “AAFEX results are consistent with previous studies and indicate that engines and aircraft support equipment burning
synthetic fuels generate substantially less PM and HAPs emissions than those burning standard petroleum-based fuels.”
• 70% of VOC emissions were small molecular weight compounds roughly equally divided between fuel cracking products
and partially oxidized products.
Anderson, B. NASA Langley Research Center, Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails & Cruise Emissions (ACCESS-2)
Flight Experiment, ACCESS Science and Implementation Teams, 09 January 2015.
This is a briefing on the results of the ACCESS-2 Measurement Testing
• “Significant Results – No difference in NOx, CO, HC emissions between fuels.”
Beyersdorf, A. J., Timko, M. T., Ziemba, L. D., Bulzan, D., Corporan, E., Herndon, S. C., Howard, R., Miake-Lye, R., Thornhill,
K. L., Winstead, E., Wey, C., Yu, Z., and Anderson, B. E., Reductions in Aircraft Particulate Emissions due to the use of
Fischer–Tropsch Fuels, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 11–23, 2014.
Standard petroleum JP-8 fuel, pure synthetic fuels produced from natural gas and coal feedstocks using the Fischer–Tropsch
(FT) process, and 50% blends of both fuels were tested in the CFM-56 engines on a DC-8 aircraft.
• Dramatic reductions in soot emissions were measured for both the pure FT fuels (reductions in mass of 86% averaged over
all powers) and blended fuels (66%) relative to the JP-8 baseline with the largest reductions at idle conditions.
• At full power, soot emissions were reduced from 103 to 24 mg kg−1 (JP-8 and natural gas FT, respectively). The alternative
fuels also produced smaller soot (e.g., at 85% power, volume mean diameters were reduced from 78 nm for JP-8 to 51 nm
for the natural gas FT fuel).
• For the pure FT fuels, reductions (94% averaged over all powers) in downwind particle number emissions were similar to
those measured at the exhaust plane (84%). However, the blended fuels had less of a reduction (reductions of 30–44%)
than initially measured (64%). The likely explanation is that the reduced soot emissions in the blended fuel exhaust plume
resulted in promotion of new particle formation microphysics, rather than coating on pre-existing soot particles, which is
dominant in the JP-8 exhaust plume. Downwind particle volume emissions were reduced for both the pure (79 and 86%
reductions) and blended FT fuels (36 and 46%) due to the large reductions in soot emissions. In addition, the alternative
fuels had reduced particulate sulfate production (near zero for FT fuels) due to decreased fuel sulfur content.
• Use of the FT fuels resulted in reductions in EIUHC of 40% and in EISO2 of over 90%. Blended fuel emissions of UHCs
and SO2 were intermediate between JP-8 and the FT fuels.
• No trend with respect to power is seen in the EIBC mass reductions with average FT / JP-8 ratios of 0.14 ± 0.05 and Blend/
JP-8 ratios of 0.34 ± 0.15 for all powers. However, the largest EIN and EIV reductions were seen at mid-powers as a result
of a shift in the soot size. These reductions were over 95% for the neat FT fuels and 85% for the blended fuels.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 16
Copyright National
• Aerosol volume (and mass) was significantly reduced for all the neat alternative fuels and blends with JP-8, while EIN
was only significantly reduced for the neat FT fuels.
Bhagwan, R., Habisreuther, P., Zarzalis, N., and Turrini, F., An Experimental Comparison of the Emissions
Characteristics of Standard Jet A-1 and Synthetic Fuels, Flow Turbulence Combustion (2014) 92:865–884.
The investigated synthetic fuels are (a) Fully synthetic jet fuel (FSJF), (b) Fischer Tropsch synthetic paraffinic kerosene
(FT-SPK), (c) FT-SPK+20% hexanol, and (d) FT-SPK+50% naphthenic cut. The measurements are performed in a tubular
combustor equipped with a burner based on the principle of air-blast atomization.
• At 0.3 MPa of combustor pressure, blending of either hexanol or a naphthenic cut in FT-SPK led to increase in both,
CO and NOX formations due to the probable decrease in their atomization qualities. FT-SPK had the highest NOX and
Jet A-1 had the lowest NOX owing to the differences in their combustor temperatures (due to difference in their sooting
tendencies) at same inlet conditions of reactants.
• All investigated fuels in the present work, except the blend of hexanol with FT-SPK, have almost similar characteristics
concerning the CO2 production.
• At a combustor pressure of 0.8 MPa, lower formation of both CO and NOX were observed for all investigated fuels. With
an increase in the combustor pressure from 0.3 MPa to 0.8 MPa, maximum values of EI CO for the all tested fuels were
reduced by approximately 70%. The emissions characteristics of the investigated synthetic fuels with the burner are very
close to that of standard Jet A-1 fuel at higher pressure conditions (0.54 MPa and 0.8 MPa).
Boeing Company, UOP, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes
(Bio-SPK), Report Version 5.0, Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0.06 on
Emerging Turbine Fuels, Research Report D02-1739, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 28 June 2011.
This is the second ASTM research report on a new annex for producing SAJF under D7566. Six different companies
provided Bio-SPK fuels for testing and testing was carried out at 50% and 100% alternative fuel. Emissions testing was
carried out on three different engines: 131-9 APU (used on B737 and A320), TPE331-10, and CFM56-7B. For the first two
the baseline fuel was JP-8 and for the latter Jet A.
• “The fuel flow with the Bio-SPK blend was 1.3% lower at [the high power] condition on a mass basis due to the higher
[lower heating value] of the biofuel.”
• “The NOx emissions … were 5% higher with the biofuel blend, but would be slightly less … due to the lower biofuel blend
fuel flow.”
• For the APU, “the UHC and CO emissions were very low at the [high power] conditions, and were significant only at
the [low power] condition. There was a 25% reduction in UHC emissions and a 20% reduction in CO emissions at [low
power] conditions, indicating a small improvement in combustion efficiency.”
• For the TPE331-10 turboprop engine, “there was no significant difference between the NOx levels from the biofuel or the
baseline JP-8 at any power setting. NOx emissions were slightly higher at some conditions, and slightly lower at others.
This is also true for the CO data except at the lowest power setting where the biofuel produces a slightly lower CO level.”
• “CO and UHC emissions are very low at the higher power settings, and small changes can result in large percentage
changes. Unburned hydrocarbons were only significant at the lowest power settings, where they were 5 to 20% lower
with the biofuel.”

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 17
Copyright National
Cain, J., DeWitt, M., Blunck, D., Corporan, E., Striebich, R., Anneken, D., Klingshirn, C., Roquemore, W. M., and Vander
Wall, R., Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emissions From a Turboshaft Engine Burning Conventional,
Alternative, and Surrogate Fuels, Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 2290−2302.
Allison T63-A-700 turboshaft engine operated at four power settings.
Testing was performed with a specification JP-8, a synthetic paraffinic kerosene, and four two-component surrogate
mixtures that comprise compound classes within current and future alternative fuels.
• Major gaseous emissions were only slightly affected, with trends consistent with those expected based on the overall
hydrogen content of the fuels. However, minor hydrocarbon and aldehyde emissions were significantly more sensitive to
the fuel chemical composition.
• Nonvolatile PM emissions (soot) were strongly affected by the fuel chemical composition. Paraffinic fuels produced
significantly lower PM number and mass emissions relative to aromatic-containing fuels, with the paraffin structure
affecting sooting propensity.
• The CO emissions for the paraffinic fuels were reduced by approximately 10−20% (compared to JP-8) over the full range
of power conditions evaluated. Notably, the CO and CO2 emissions for the m-xylene/C12 blend were equivalent to those
for JP-8, which could be expected since the hydrogen content of these fuels was almost identical. The trends for the
total unburned hydrocarbon emissions were consistent with those for CO, with a 10−20% reduction (compared with
JP-8) at the lowest power setting. The total NOx (NO + NO2) emissions were minimally affected during operation with the
various fuels, which is reasonable since the formation of these species is primarily thermally driven and the turbine exit
temperature was maintained constant.
• All fuels produced similar unimodal particle size distributions, with higher sooting fuels producing larger mean diameter
particles. On the basis of similarities in the nonvolatile particle size distributions, it is hypothesized that the fuel
composition primarily affects the overall PM formation rate, but the controlling growth and formation mechanisms are
similar. This hypothesis was supported by TEM analysis that showed that the soot microstructure was similar during
operation with the different fuels. The effect of fuel composition on the total PM mass emissions was consistent with that
for the overall particle number emissions, but mass reductions were slightly higher due to shifts in the size distributions
to smaller particle size.
Carter, N., Stratton, R.W., Bredehoeft, M.K., and Hileman, J.I., Energy and Environmental Viability of Select Alternative
Jet Fuel Pathways, 47th AIAA/ASME, SAE, ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, San Diego, CA, AIAA 2011-5968,
31 July – 03 August 2011.
This report compared emissions of NOx, PM2.5, CO, and UHC from conventional commercial and military jet fuels with SAJF
from Fischer-Tropsch, Biomass-to-Liquid (BTL), and Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet (HRJ) processes. The data compared
in this analysis is taken from multiple project reports, which are included in the bibliography for the present report.
• “…NOx emissions from military aircraft tend to be lower while primary PM2.5, CO, and UHC emissions tend to be higher
than their civilian aircraft counterparts. This is indicative of military aircraft being less efficient at lower power settings
than civil aircraft during the LTO cycle.”
• “Emissions were … energy normalized by the fuel specific energy using the lower heating value provided in each test
document.”
• For 100% SPK with emissions normalized to conventional jet fuel, NOx ranged from 0.91-1.01, CO ranged from 0.74-
0.87, and UHC ranged from 0.68-0.76.
• For 50% SPK blends with emissions normalized to conventional jet fuel, CO ranged from 0.83-0.91 and UHC ranged
from 0.76-0.86; NOx was not reported for fuel blends.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 18
Copyright National
Chan, T.W., Chishty, W. A., Canteenwalla, P., Buote, D., and Davidson, C.R., Characterization of Emissions From the
Use of Alternative Aviation Fuels, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbines and Power, January 2016, Vol. 138 / 011506-1.
The test engine used in the investigation was a General Electric CF-700-2D-2 turbofan engine.
Steady state operation was conducted at three engine load settings: ground idle, 80%, and 95%, corresponding to
roughly 8000, 14,000, and 16,000 engine rpm, respectively. The latter two settings represent the aircraft cruise and takeoff
conditions.
Fully (unblended) SKA. This fuel is produced by a process known as catalytic hydrothermolysis (CH), which converts
plant oils into high-density aromatic, cycloparaffin, and iso-paraffin hydrocarbons. The test fuel used in the study was
derived from an industrial feedstock called brassica carinata, which is a high yield oilseed and optimally suitable for jet fuel
production. This fuel is referred to as 100% CH-SKA in the paper.
Fully (unblended) SPK derived from synthesis gas and through the FT process using iron or cobalt as catalyst. The FT-SPK
fuel typically contains a complex mixture of paraffins and isoparaffins but contains no aromatics or sulfur. The test fuel used
in the study was derived from coal and natural gas in a two-to-one ratio by volume. It is referred to as 100% FT-SPK in this
paper.
Semisynthetic HEFA synthesized paraffinic kerosene was blended (in 50–50 proportion by volume) with Jet A-1 fuel. The
oilseed feedstock for HEFA-SPK fuel was Camelina sativa, which is an industrial nonfood crop. The production of this fuel
involves the hydrotreating and/or hydrocracking processes, which produces paraffinic hydrocarbon, and the fuel typically
contains no aromatics or sulfur. In the paper, the 50–50 fuel blend is referred to as 50% HEFA-SPK.
• In general, operating the engine on various fuels had a small impact on the gaseous emissions. Among all fuels,
operating on Jet A-1 generated the highest CO2 emissions, followed by the 100% CH-SKA, 50% HEFA-SPK, and then
100% FT-SPK. The NOx emissions for various fuels at idle condition were about 2 g/kg fuel and slightly over 4 g/kg fuel
at 95% engine load.
• Relative to Jet A-1, the particle number emissions from the 100% CH-SKA fuel showed moderate reductions of 7–25%
over the range of engine load conditions. While for the 50% HEFA-SPK and 100% FT-SPK fuels, the particle number
emissions reductions were from 40–60% and 70–95%, respectively.
• BC mass emissions from various alternative fuels indicated similar reduction trend with respect to Jet A-1. For 100%
CH-SKA fuel the reduction was in the range of 38–50% over the various engine loads. When switching to the 50% HEFA-
SPK fuel, the reductions were about 58–82% while the 100% FT-SPK fuel showed BC emissions reduction of 70–95%.
The BC mass emissions for the Jet A-1 and the three alternative fuels correlated well with the variations in the aromatic
and hydrogen contents and H/C ratio in the fuels.
Chen, L., Zhang, Z., Lu, Y., Zhang, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, C., Roskilly, A., Experimental Study of the Gaseous and
Particulate Matter Emissions from a Gas Turbine Combustor Burning Butyl Butyrate and Ethanol Blends, Applied
Energy 195 (2017) 693–701.
This paper reports the gaseous pollutants and particulate matter (PM) emissions of a gas turbine combustor burning butyl
butyrate and ethanol blends. The gas turbine has been tested under two operational conditions to represent the cruise
(condition 1) and idle (condition 2) conditions of aero engines. Aviation kerosene RP-3 and four different biofuels using
butyl butyrate (BB) and ethanol blends were tested and compared to evaluate the impact of fuel composition on CO, NOx,
unburned hydrocarbon (UHC), and PM emissions under the two operational conditions.
Results indicated that under idle and cruise conditions the CO emissions from butyl butyrate and ethanol blends were
higher than that of RP-3 due to the relatively lower combustion temperature of the biofuels compared with that of RP-3.
Results of the NOx emission comparison indicated the biofuels produced less NOx than RP-3 and the increase of ethanol
content in the biofuels could reduce the NOx and UHC emissions.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 19
Copyright National
PM mass emission index at cruise was higher than that at idle for the biofuels, while the trend was opposite to that of RP-3.
The concentration of CO emissions from biofuel blends was significantly higher than that of RP-3 during both cruise and
idle states. The increase of the ethanol content in the biofuels led to a rise of CO emissions. The biofuel blends effectively
reduced the NOx emissions by up to 70.4% compared with RP-3 under both cruising and idling states. The increase of
ethanol fraction could further depress the NOx emissions. Biofuels produced less UHC than RP-3 by at most 60.9% (BE-50)
except for pure butyl butyrate. The combustion temperature and the oxidation effect by oxygen compositions in the fuels
are two primary factors influencing UHC emissions. To all biofuels, particles smaller than 20 nm dominated particle number
emissions under cruise, and the concentrations decreased dramatically as particle size increased larger than 20 nm. Ca2+
turned out to be the majority ion among the five cation ions and its molar percentage increased from 18.1% to 36.6% with
increasing ethanol content.
Christie, S., D4.3 Emissions Report and Database of Systems Key Performance Parameters, ITAKA Collaborative
Project, FP7-308807, 30 April 2015.
This project report describes emissions testing of a HEFA fuel produced from used cooking oil. Emissions tests were
performed using Garret Honeywell GTCP85 APU. Tests were run at 3 power levels typical of APU operation: idle/no load,
environmental control system/intermediate load, and main engine start/highest power. The fuel was off-spec as a result of
elevated aromatics (1.4% compared to 0.5% limit for ASTM D7566). The tested blends were from 0-100% HEFA combined
with Jet A-1.
• “… engine performance data showed … reduction in fuel flow in proportion to the mass-corrected specific energy
density of the fuel blend.”
• “…reduction in smoke number with blend ratio was linear to a good approximation” and “… the rate of reduction with
blend ratio was approximately the same for all engine conditions.”
• “… both the number and mass based emission indices for [nvPM] reduce almost linearly with increasing … blend
fraction.”
• “For gaseous emissions, no statistically significant change in the emissions of NOx or UHC was observed with increasing
… blend fraction.”
• Changes in ambient conditions (temperature, relative humidity, and pressure) showed a slight correlation with UHC
emissions.
• No correlation between NOx emissions and ambient conditions was observed.
• “… a small but statistically significant reduction in CO was observed with increasing … biofuel fraction.”
• Slight correlation of CO emissions with ambient temperature and pressure.
• Data in this report show that “the change in the emission indices for the species CO, UHC, NOx with increasing biofuel
blend fraction is either null or edging towards a modest decrease with increasing blend ratio.”
Christie, S., Lobo, P., Lee, D., Raper, D., “Gas Turbine Engine Nonvolatile Particulate Matter Mass Emissions:
Correlation with Smoke Number for Conventional and Alternative Fuel Blends,” Environ. Sci. & Techn. 2017, 51, 988-
996.
• This study evaluates the relationship between the emissions parameters of smoke number (SN) and mass concentration
of nonvolatile particulate matter (nvPM) in the exhaust of a gas turbine engine for a conventional Jet A-1 and a number of
alternative fuel blends.
• The data shows that correlation between SN and nvPM mass concentration still adheres to the first order approximation
(FOA3), and this agreement is maintained over a wide range of fuel compositions.
• The study used a Garrett Honeywell GTCP85-129 auxiliary power unit (APU).
• The chemical composition of the test fuels was managed by introducing various blends of Jet A-1 and a used cooking oil
derived, hydrotreated esters and fatty acid (UCO-HEFA) kerosene.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 20
Copyright National
• Hence, on the microscopic scale, the fuel-induced reduction in the mass of emitted nvPM corresponds to the emission
of fewer and smaller units of particulate matter.
Colket, M., Heyne, J., Rumizen, M., Gupta, M., Jardines, A., Edwards, T., Roquemore, W. M., Andac, G., Boehm, R., Zelina,
J., Lovett, J., Condevaux, J., Bornstein, S., Rizk, N., Turner, D., Graves, C., Anand, M.S., An Overview of the National Jet
Fuels Combustion Program, AIAA SciTech Forum 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 4-8 January 2016, San Diego,
California.
• Several ground-based engine tests (PW308 in March 2008; AAFEX-I in January 2009 and AAFEX-II in March 2011)
were conducted to evaluate alternative fuel effects on emissions under real-world conditions. The AAFEX ground tests
used the NASA DC-8 aircraft with CFM56-2-C engines, testing JP-8, Fischer-Tropsch (F-T), F-T blends, Hydrotreated
Renewable Jet fuels (HRJ), HRJ blends, and high-sulfur F-T. Results showed that these alternative fuels and blends
had a minor effect on gaseous emissions. No effect on engine performance was evident within the accuracy of the
data. Volatile and non-volatile combustion-generated particulates were substantially reduced when operating with the
alternative fuels.
• The follow-on to the AAFEX ground tests was the ACCESS (Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise EmiSSions)
flight test program using a low-sulfur Jet-A and a 50/50 Jet-A/HEFA blend. Seven 4-hour test flights were conducted
May 5-30, 2014 using the NASA DC-8 aircraft with CFM56-2-C engines. Sampling of engine exhaust was conducted
using three chase aircrafts (NASA HU-25, DLR Falcon 20 and NRC Canada T-33) which measured gaseous species
(CO2, CO, CH4, H2, hydrocarbons, H2SO4, NO, NO2, O3), fine (> 10 nm) and ultrafine (> 5 nm) aerosols, soot mass, and
aerosol composition. There was no difference in DC-8 performance or fuel system operation between the fuels, nor any
difference in NOx, CO or HC emissions. The 50/50 Jet-A/HEFA blend did reduce soot particle number and soot mass
emissions by 50% relative to the low-sulfur Jet-A for ground and at cruise.
Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Anneken, D., Alternative Fuels Tests on a C-17 Aircraft: Emissions
Characteristics, Air Force Research Laboratory, Interim Report, AFRL-RZ-WP-TR-2011-2004, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, OH, December 2010.
This is a report on emissions testing conducted on a military C-17 aircraft positioned on the ground. The aircraft engines
were F117-PW-100, equivalent to PW2000, which are commonly used on Boeing 757-200 aircraft. The base jet fuel used
was JP-8, which was tested neat and also blended with a beef-tallow-derived hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel and a coal
derived Fischer-Tropsch fuel. Blends of 50/50 JP-8/HRJ and 50/25/25 JP-8/HRJ/FT were evaluated.
• “… significantly lower CO emissions (20-40%) were observed with the fuel blends. This could be attributed to the
environmentally favorable chemical composition (lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio…) and reduced ring compounds in the
fuel blends, which contributed to improved combustion characteristics particularly at lower combustion temperatures”
(lower thrust levels).
• “Test data also show negligible differences in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions between the fuels.”
• “Results show that HAPs are more prevalent at low engine power and that formaldehyde was the most dominant HAP for
this engine…”
• “Lower [HAP] emissions … were produced with both fuel blends compared to JP-8.”
Corporan, E., Edwards, T., Shafer, L., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Zabarnick, S., West, Z., Striebich, R., Graham, J., Klein,
J., Chemical, Thermal Stability, Seal Swell, and Emissions Studies of Alternative Jet Fuels, Energy & Fuels, 2011, 25,
955-966, 2 March 2011.
This report presents the results of testing six alternative jet fuels, three Fischer-Tropsch fuels and three HRJ fuels. Emissions
test results were compared to emissions testing of JP-8. The test bed for emissions testing was a T63-A-700 turboshaft
engine.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 21
Copyright National
• One of the Fischer-Tropsch fuels was produced from coal and the other two were produced from natural gas.
• The three HRJ fuels were from a mixed feedstock of waste fats and greases (primarily poultry fat), camelina oil, and beef
tallow.
• All six synthetic fuels had very low aromatics, negligible sulfur, higher heat of combustion, and higher hydrogen content
compared to JP-8.
• “Gaseous emissions … show that the alternative fuels had negligible impact on CO2, NOx, and formaldehyde; however,
statistically significant reductions in carbon monoxide (CO) and UHC were observed.”
• “Reductions of 10-25% in CO were observed with the various alternative fuels relative to JP-8.”
• “… moderately lower (~20-30%) UHC were produced with the SPK fuels compared to JP-8.”
• “Emissions data demonstrate that the neat paraffinic fuels produced significantly lower soot and moderately lower
unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide than baseline JP-8 fuel.”
Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Anneken, D., Shafer, L., Striebich, R., Comparison of Emissions
Characteristics of Several Turbine Engines Burning Fischer-Tropsch and Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids
Alternative Jet Fuels, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11-15 June 2012.
The report summarizes the impacts of alternative jet fuels, both neat fuels and blends, on gaseous and particulate matter
emissions of aircraft turbine engines. The following engines were studied: T63 (military turboshaft), CFM56-7, CFM56-
2, F117, TF33, and PW308. The fuels studied were Fischer-Tropsch fuels produced from coal and natural gas and
hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) from animal fats and plant oils, all of which were compared to JP-8 for these
studies.
• “Gaseous emissions measurements show modest reductions of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons and
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) with the alternative fuels for several engines; however, no clear dependency of fuel
impacts based on engine characteristics were observed.”
• Heats of combustion from all of the SAJF were higher than the conventional jet fuel. Similarly, and related, the hydrogen
content of the SAJF were higher than the conventional jet fuel.
• “Identifying a particular combustor characteristic [fuel atomizers, combustor type (annular or tubular)] to correlate with
emissions was not possible in this study.”
• “In general, differences in most gaseous emissions between baseline and blended fuels for all the engines tested were
relatively small.”
• “Most relative CO emissions with the neat alternative fuels and blends were between 0.8-1.0, with no dependency on
engine power.”
• “The lower carbon content in the neat alternative fuels theoretically contributes to reduced CO emissions; however, these
differences are relatively small.”
• “Similar minor reductions in unburned hydrocarbons emissions were also observed.”
• “Negligible differences in NOx emissions for the fuel blends were observed.”
• “Investigation of engine operation with alternative fuels and blends on the production of HAPs is of interest to determine
if the selectivity of these trace compounds is impacted.”
• “For the limited measurements performed, the aldehyde [HAP] emissions with the alternative fuels (and blends) show
no significant differences from those for JP-8; however, additional measurements are merited to further evaluate if the
production of these HAPs is affected.”
• “It is notable that although the SPK/HEFA fuels are aromatic-free, they do produce aromatic species (soot precursors)
and subsequently soot during combustion.”

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 22
Copyright National
Dally B., “Reduced Emissions via Synthesized Aromatic Kerosene”, ASCENT Seattle WA, Oct 2015.
Investigated: Fuel composition, total aromatics, simulated altitudes, engine conditions, gaseous emissions (CO, CO2, THC,
NO, NOx), and particle emissions (total PM, nvPM number, mass, and size).
• Fuels: Jet A, JetA/HEFA, and SAK/HEFA

• Simulated altitudes (Kft): 27, 29.5, 37, 39, 40
• Observed significant reductions in nvPM number and mass due to SAK blends; approximately 35-70% over a range of
power and altitudes.
• No detectable difference in combustor performance from SAK blends vs. Jet A blends.
Del Rosario, R., Koudelka, J., Wahls, R., Madavan, N., Bulzan, D., Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment II (AAFEX II)
Overview, 19 September 2012.
This is a briefing to the Interagency Working Group on Alternative Fuels that provides highlights of the AAFEX II test.
• “Negligible effect of fuel type on engine performance when compared on mass measurement basis and corrected for
heating value within accuracy of measurements.”
• “Slight reduction in NOx emissions at higher power conditions for F-T fuel.”
• “Scatter in CO and HC emissions at idle and sub-idle due more to temperature effects than fuel type.”
Edwards, T., Meyer, D., Johnston, G., McCall, M., Rumizen, M., Wright, M., Evaluation of Alcohol to Jet Synthetic
Paraffinic Kerosenes (ATJ-SPK), Report Version (1.10), Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and
Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels, Research Report D02-1828, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1 April 2016.
This is the fifth ASTM research report on a new annex for producing SAJF under D7566. Five different fuel providers
produced ATJ-SPK using a variety of alcohol feedstocks (also referred to as Alcohol-to-Jet ATJ). A blend of 50% ATJ-
SPK and conventional jet fuel plus 100% ATJ-SPK were tested in a variety of engines (AE 3007 combustor section, TFE34
engine, PW615F engine, and TPE331 engine).
• The 50/50 fuel blend “produced somewhat higher CO and UHC at low power conditions and comparable NOx levels to
the baseline JP-8.”
• When tested on the PW 615F, “no negative impact was observed on [specific fuel consumption], gaseous emissions (CO,
HC, CO2, NOx), smoke number, or PM.
• For the TPE331-10YGD engine, testing “demonstrated an average of 0.9 percent lower fuel flow and 1.1 percent higher
SFC (specific fuel consumption) with the 50/50 blend of … ATJ and JP-8 compared to the baseline JP-8 fuel at the
various ambient temperatures, engine speeds, and torque ranges tested in the dynamometer test cell. These lower
measured fuel flows can be attributed to the 0.9 percent higher net heat of combustion of the ATJ blend … relative to the
JP-8 baseline fuel.”
Li, H., et al., Influence of Fuel Composition, Engine Power, and Operation Mode on Exhaust Gas Particulate Size
Distribution and Gaseous Emissions from a Gas Turbine Engine, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-94854.
The impact of fuel composition, engine power (idle and full power) and operation mode (cold and hot idle) on the gaseous
emissions, particle number and mass concentrations, and size distributions from an aircraft auxiliary power unit (APU) was
investigated. A re-commissioned Artouste MK113 APU engine was used.
• Alternate fuels studied (with respect to Jet A1):

-- 100% GTL
-- 50% HEFA/50% JetA1

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 23
Copyright National
-- 50% HEFA/50% Napthenic cut

-- 10% FAE/90% JetA1
-- 75% HEFA/25% JetA1
• At the idle condition, NOx emissions were slightly greater for 50% HEFA/50% Napthenic cut; ~2.3g/kg than JetA1 (2.2g/
kg.
• Alternative fuels produced similar or slightly lower NOx emissions compared to JetA1.
• JetA1 produced the highest number and mass peak particle emissions, especially for mass size distributions. The GTL
fuel produced the much lower number and mass peak particle emissions at cold and hot idle, indicating an excellent
performance for low engine power combustion.
• There were clear correlations between fuel H/C ratio and particle number and mass emission distributions in terms
of concentration, emission index EIn and EIm, and particle diameter GMD. As the fuel H/C ratio increased, particle
concentration, EIn and EIm and GMD were decreased. This is because the fuel H/C ratio essentially is a reflection of fuel
hydrocarbon compositions.
• In general, alternative fuels/blends had similar levels of NOx emissions with JetA1 at both idle and full power conditions
due to the similar flame temperatures for all the fuels. The reduced CO and UHC at idle from alternative fuels/blends
demonstrated improved combustion performance due to higher contents of paraffinic hydrocarbons and lower fractions
of aromatic hydrocarbons in alternative fuels and their blends compared to JetA1.
Li, H., Altaher, M., Wilson, C., Blakey, S., Chung, W., Rye, L., Quantification of Aldehydes Emissions from Alternative
and Renewable Aviation Fuels using a Gas Turbine Engine, Atmospheric Environment 84 (2014) 373-379.
In this research, three renewable aviation fuel blends, including two HEFA (Hydrotreated Ester and Fatty Acid) blends and
one FAE (Fatty Acids Ethyl Ester) blend with conventional Jet A-1 along with a GTL (Gas to Liquid) fuel, have been tested for
their aldehydes emissions on a small gas turbine engine. An Artouste MK113 APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) engine was used
as a test bed for the emission measurements.
Overall, all four alternative fuels/blends showed equivalent or lower aldehyde emissions compared to Jet A-1. Formaldehyde
appeared to be the dominant aldehyde species. The detailed conclusions are as follow:
• Two HEFA/Jet A-1 fuel blends (fuels F and I) had similar emissions for all three aldehydes at three engine operational
modes with Jet A-1.
• The FAE blend (fuel H) showed decreased values at idle and increased values at full power for formaldehyde emissions.
The contradictory effect of the FAE blend between idle (lower than Jet A-1) and full power (higher than Jet A-1) could be
due to the trade-off between positive effect (improved oxidation by fuel born oxygen) and negative effect (deteriorated
atomisation caused by higher viscosity and low volatility) of FAE.
• Neat GTL fuel achieved notable reductions in formaldehyde (~30%) and acrolein (36-64%) at idle compared to Jet A-1.
The lower formaldehyde emissions could be because of its lower tendency for scissions due to its straight carbon chain.
Overall, formaldehyde emissions were 2-3 times higher at idle than that at full power.
Lobo, P., Hagen, D., Whitefield, P., Comparison of PM Emissions from a Commercial Jet Engine Burning Conventional,
Biomass, and Fischer-Tropsch Fuels, Environmental Science & Technology, 1 November 2011.
This paper presents the results of a comparison of particulate matter (PM) emissions from a commercial jet engine (CFM56-
7B) burning several alternative biomasses (fatty acid methyl ester, FAME) and F-T-based fuels, and their blends with Jet A1.
The engine was cycled through a matrix of reproducible engine power settings where for each power setting steady-state
emissions and engine data were recorded. The engine power settings selected were as follows: 3%, 7%, 30%, 45%, 65%,
85%, and 100% rated thrust.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 24
Copyright National
• For all fuels studied, the PM emission size distribution at all engine power settings was found to be log-normal.
• For a given fuel, GMD, EIn, and EIm increased linearly with engine power setting from 7% to 100% rated thrust.
• Both EIn and EIm were found to decrease with decreasing fuel aromatic content at each of the four operational points
in the LTO cycle. The largest reduction in EIn was observed when emissions at 7% power for the Jet A1 and 100% F-T
fuels were compared, where the aromatic contents were 18.5% and ~ 0% respectively.
• Factors relating to fuel oxygen content and viscosity mitigate the reduction of PM associated with reduced fuel aromatic
content for the 20% FAME and 40% FAME fuels.
Moore, R., et al., Biofuel blending reduces PM emissions from aircraft engines at cruise conditions, Nature 21420,
doi:10.1038.
This report presents observations from research aircraft that sampled the exhaust of engines onboard a NASA DC-8
(CFM56-2-C1) aircraft as they burned conventional Jet A fuel and a 50:50 (by volume) blend of Jet A fuel and a biofuel
derived from camelina oil.
• It shows that, compared to using conventional fuels, biofuel blending reduces particle number and mass emissions
immediately behind the aircraft by 50 to 70 per cent.
• The tests were conducted during 2013–2014 as part of the Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions
Study (ACCESS) at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center in Palmdale, California, USA.
• The greatest effect on emissions is associated with a reduction in black-carbon-equivalent mass, with the biofuel blend
exhibiting emission that are 30%–50% of those seen for the petroleum-based Jet A fuels.
• “…blending petroleum-based fuels with a HEFA biojet fuel reduces the volatile and non-volatile particle emissions by
50%–70% at atmospheric cruise conditions.”
Moses, C.A, Comparative Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels (FT-SPK), Final Report, Coordinating Research
Council, Inc., Universal Technology Corporation, CRC project No. AV-2-04a, Alpharetta, GA, September 2008.
This report to the Aviation Committee of the Coordinating Research Council was requested by ASTM to confirm production
of alternative jet fuels on which specification D7566 initially was based. It reports on the testing of five semi-synthetic
paraffinic jet fuels produced via Fischer-Tropsch technology, one fuel from coal and four fuels from natural gas. The fuels
were blended with Jet A, Jet A-1, or JP-8 to a 50/50 blend. Following production of synthesis gas via Fischer-Tropsch
and subsequent production of mixed hydrocarbon streams, the final step in each process was hydroprocessing, which
produced a synthetic kerosene with high hydrogen content relative to base jet fuel and high net heat of combustion. The
neat fuels are essentially free of sulfur and aromatic compounds. This led to approval of generic Fischer-Tropsch fuels under
ASTM specification D7566. No emissions testing was reported in the report.
Moses, C., Evaluation of Synthesized Aromatics Co-Produced with Iso-Paraffinic Kerosene for the Production of
Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuel (SKA), Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.
J0 on Aviation Fuels, Section D02.J0.06 on Emerging Turbine Fuels, Research Report D02-1810, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1 November 2015.
This is the fourth ASTM research report on a new annex for producing SAJF under D7566. This synthetic jet fuel is similar to
FT-SPK with the inclusion of aromatics intentionally produced in a final reaction step. This annex to the D7566 specification
allows for 50% SKA blended with conventional jet fuel. No emissions testing is presented in this research report used to
support approval of the annex.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 25
Copyright National
Rahmes, T., et al., Sustainable Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK) Jet Fuel Flights and Engine Tests
Program Results, 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, integration and operations conference, AIAA 2009-7002, Sept 2009.
This report documents the progress in the use of sustainable, naturally derived oils to produce 50% Bio-SPK blends
that were tested in commercial aircraft, systems, and engines. The feedstock selection and processing methods used to
produce a SPK will be discussed, as will the fuel property testing, engine performance, operability and emissions results,
and flight test results.
A reduction in NOx and smoke emissions was observed with Bio-SPK addition to the conventional jet fuel, although the
impact on NOx emissions (~1-5%) can be considered quite small, especially considering the level of uncertainty associated
with the test.
• The large variation in HC levels cannot necessarily be attributed to fuel properties.

• The observed increase in CO and HC emissions might also be explained by the reduction in flame temperature.
• The addition of the Bio-SPK to the conventional jet fuel was found to have insignificant effects on emissions.
• There was a slight reduction in NOx (~1-5%), and an increase in the CO (~5-9%) and HC emissions (~20-45%).
• These observed changes in NOx, CO, and HC emissions are primarily explained by the anticipated reduction in the flame
temperature.
• Additionally, the impact on spray quality and flame location is also expected to play a major role for emissions levels,
especially for CO and HC.
• Lower smoke emissions (~13-30%) were also observed.
• The emissions tests of the regulated species were compared for the jet fuel, 50%, and 100% ratios used, and showed
no significant changes in HC, CO, or NOx. The smoke number decreased as the percentage of the biofuel to Jet A-1 was
increased.
Roland, O., Garcia, F., TOTAL New Energies, Amyris, Inc., U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Evaluation of Synthesized
Iso-Paraffins Produced from Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars (SIP Fuels), Final Version (3.), Committee D02 on
Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels, Research Report D02-1776,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 15 June 2014.
This is the third ASTM research report on a new annex for producing SAJF under D7566. The approved SIP (also referred
to as Direct Sugar to Hydrocarbons DSHC) fuels pathway limits blending to 10% SAJF with conventional jet fuel since the
fuel produced is essentially a single compound (farnesane) with 15 carbon atoms that falls within the conventional jet fuel
specification. Emissions testing was performed on SaM146 and CFM56-5C4 jet engines and a 131-9 APU with the biofuel
blended with Jet A-1.
• Tests with the SaM146 showed no significant effect on CO, UHC, and NOx emissions of the SIP fuel compared to the
reference Jet A-1.
• In testing the CFM56 engine, emissions of CO were “identical for the SIP fuels and the reference Jet A-1.”
• For NOx “… some slight difference among the SIP fuels and the reference Jet A-1 is discernible: for most power settings,
emissions from the SIP fuels are below the emissions from the reference Jet A-1, whereas for cruise they are above.”
• “… in conclusion, SIP fuels show similar, if not better, emission performances than the reference Jet A-1.”
Shila, J., and Johnson, M., Estimation and Comparison of Particle Number Emission Factors for Petroleum-based and
Camolina Biofuel Blends used in a Honeywell TFE-109 Turbofan Engine, AIAA SciTech Forum, 54th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, San Diego, California, 4-8 January 2016.
• This study investigated the particulate matter emissions coming out of the TFE-109 turbofan engine exhaust to calculate
the particle number concentration emissions factors (EIn) for the three different types of fuels. The fuels were provided
by the Air Force. The Air Force Research Lab conducted the fuel analysis and blending of the fuels. The fuels were

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 26
Copyright National
categorized based on the volumetric percentage of Jet A content they contained. The first type of fuel was 100% Jet A
fuel, the second batch contained 75% Jet A and 25% camelina biofuel, and the third fuel type contained 50% Jet A and
50% camelina biofuel.
• These results are in agreement with other studies conducted in which the average EIn (in particles per kilogram of fuel)
ranged between 3e16 and 1e17 for the AAFEX study, between 1e15 and 1e16 for the APEX study, and between 3e16
and 2e17 for the UNA-UNA study. The 75/25 blended fuel results were inconsistent with the two fuels in terms of range
of emissions factors.
Stratton, R.W., Wolfe, P.J., Hileman, J.I., Impact of Non-CO2 Combustion Effects on the Environmental Feasibility of
Alternative Jet Fuels, Environmental Science & Technology 45 (24) 10736-10743, 22 November 2011.
• The upper and lower bounds of NOX reduction were based on experimental results from Bester and Yates (2009), Bulzan
et al. (2010), and Dewitt et al. (2008). The functional form of the distribution was chosen to reflect a conservative estimate
within the bounds of experimental data. NOX emissions are strongly dependent on engine throttle setting, specific
engine/combustor technology, and ambient temperature.
• Soot reductions from SPK use in the PW308 varied from 95% at idle to 50% at 85% of full throttle; similarly, SPK fuel in
the CFM56 led to a 98% reduction in soot at idle and a 70% reduction at 85% of full throttle.
• The mode of the distribution is consistent with measurements from Bester and Yates (2009) and Bulzan et al. (2010), who
measured average reductions of 85% and 90% in soot emissions over the throttle range of a CFM-56-2C1 engine using
coal based F-T jet fuel from Sasol and natural gas based F-T jet fuel from Shell, respectively.
• “The purely paraffinic nature and lack of sulfur in SPK fuels result in increased specific energy, decreased energy density,
and changes to the emissions characteristics of CO2, H2O, soot, sulfates, and NOx.”
• NOx emissions from the SPK fuel were 90-100% of those from conventional jet fuel.
Timko, M.T., Herndon, S.C., de la Rosa Blanco, E., Wood, E.C., Yu, Z., Miake-Lye, R.C., Knighton, W.B., Shafer, L., DeWitt,
M.J., Corporan, E., Combustion Products of Petroleum Jet Fuel, a Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Fuel, and a Biomass
Fatty Acid Methyl Ester Fuel for a Gas Turbine Engine, Combustion Science and Technology, 183: 1039-1068, 2011, 13
April 2011.
This report presents combustion emissions data for a natural gas-derived Fischer-Tropsch alternative jet fuel both neat
and blended 50/50 with Jet A-1 and both 20/80 and 40/60 blends of a fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) [FAME includes
oxygenated compounds and does not meet the D7566 specification for SAJF] with Jet A-1. The emissions testing was
performed using a CFM56-7 commercial jet engine. Emissions of NOx, CO, speciated VOC (including oxygenates, olefins,
and aromatic compounds), and PM were measured.
• “… the effects of alternative fuels on [emissions of] CO and HCHO [formaldehyde, a surrogate for UHC] are relatively
modest.”
• The lack of robust temperature-correction protocol for HCHO emissions and the sensitivity of HCHO emissions to fuel
flow rate may obscure a modest decrease for alternative fuel combustion.
• For FT fuel combustion, NOx emissions are reduced by 10% (100% FT fuel) and 5% (50% FT fuel blend) compared
to Jet A. however, “… the difference [in NOx emissions] between Jet A and 50% FT fuel combustion is not statistically
significant.”
• “… replacing some or all of the Jet A-1 with the alternative fuels tends to reduce PM mass, number, and size.” Soot
mass, particle number density, and size are reduced for combustion of alternative fuels when compared to Jet A. The PM
reduction effect is most pronounced at low power and diminishes as power is increased.
• “Overall, emissions performance improved or stayed the same when all or part of the Jet A-1 content was replaced by an
alternative fuel.”
• “For FT fuel combustion, NOx emissions are reduced by 10% (100% FT fuel) and 5% (50% FT blend) compared to Jet
A.”

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 27
Copyright National
State of the
the Industry
IndustryReport
Reporton
onAir
AirQuality
QualityEmissions
Emissionsfrom
from
Sustainable
Sustainable
Alternative
Alternative
JetJet
Fuels
Fuels
• “Combustion of alternative fuels and fuel blends modifies the VOC composition profile,” which can be divided into three
parts: (1) hydrocarbons, (2) oxygenates (increased for combustion of alternative fuels), and (3) aromatics (reduced in
proportion to decreasing Jet A-1 content of the fuel).
Vander Wal, R., Bryg, V., Huang, C., Insights into the Combustion Chemistry Within a Gas-Turbine Driven Auxiliary
Power Unit as a Function of Fuel Type and Power Level using Soot Nanostructure as a Tracer, Fuel 115 (2014) 282–
287.
• Particulate emissions were collected from an auxiliary power unit (APU) directly upon TEM grids for particle
characterization by HRTEM. Carbonaceous emissions from two fuels, a coal-based Fischer–Tropsch and standard JP-8
were compared, each at three power levels. Differences in soot nanostructure, specifically fullerenic content, reveal
changes in the combustion chemistry with engine power level, as do differences in aggregate size between the two fuels.
As inferred from the soot nanostructure, comparison between fuels demonstrates the impact of fuel structure upon soot
formation chemistry.
• The APU is a small gas-turbine engine, Honeywell Model GTCP85-98CK whose exhaust is mixed with bleed air and
exhausted just before the wing spar.
• Comparisons between the FT and JP-8 fuels provides further support in that for the same power level, soot from the
JP-8 fuel contains less fullerenic nanostructure, reflecting its substantial aromatic content that accelerates soot formation
and minimizes the impact of partial premixing. Differences in aggregate size between the two fuels at each power level
are consistent with this interpretation. At each power larger aggregates, indicative of a locally higher fuel concentration
is observed for the JP-8 fuel. Therein soot structure across length scales preserves a record of the gas phase species
concentration and identity contributing to its formation and growth. This suggests nanostructure can be used as an in
situ tracer of the early combustion chemistry within the engine.
Wey, C, and Bulzan, D., Effects of Bio-Derived Fuels on Emissions and Performance Using a 9-Point Lean Direct
Injection Low Emissions Concept, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-94888.
A 9-point lean direct low emissions combustor concept was utilized to evaluate gaseous emissions performance of two bio-
derived alternative jet fuels and a JP-8 fuel for comparison.
• The bio-derived jet fuels utilized for the testing included a Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) or sometimes
termed Hydrotreated Renewable Jet (HRJ) fuel, and a fuel produced from direct fermentation of sugar called AMJ-710
from Amyris.
• For the conditions evaluated in the present study, there were no significant differences in NOx emissions between the
three fuels for the conditions tested for the 9-point LDI configuration.
• At 350 and 250 psia, CO emissions do not show any significant differences between the three fuels. At 150 psia, CO
emissions from the HRJ fuel were slightly lower at higher fuel/air ratios.
• Combustion efficiencies were very high, greater than 99.9% for the operating ranges examined and again, no significant
differences were found between the fuels. There were no significant differences in CO EI emissions between the various
fuels and JP-8/alternative fuel blends.
• Gaseous emissions measured using a 9-point LDI concept showed no significant differences between the fuels.

Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 28
of Sciences.
Sciences.All
Allrights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
6. REFERENCES
1. Altaher, M., Andrews, G., and Li, H., PM Characteristics of Low NOx Combustor Burning Biodiesel and its Blends
with Kerosene, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2013: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition GT2013, June
3-7, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA
2. Anderson, B.E., et al., Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX), NASA Project Report NSAS/TMI2011I217059,
February 2011.
3. Anderson, B. NASA Langley Research Center, Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails & Cruise Emissions (ACCESS-2)
Flight Experiment, ACCESS Science and Implementation Teams, 09 January 2015.
4. ASTM D1655-16a, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1
April 2016.
5. ASTM D7566-16b, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1 July 2016.
6. Beyersdorf, A. J., Timko, M. T., Ziemba, L. D., Bulzan, D., Corporan, E., Herndon, S. C., Howard, R., Miake-Lye, R.,
Thornhill, K. L., Winstead, E., Wey, C., Yu, Z., and Anderson, B. E., Reductions in Aircraft Particulate Emissions due to
the use of Fischer–Tropsch Fuels, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 11–23, 2014.
7. Bhagwan, R., Habisreuther, P., Zarzalis, N., and Turrini, F., An Experimental Comparison of the Emissions
Characteristics of Standard Jet A-1 and Synthetic Fuels, Flow Turbulence Combustion (2014) 92:865–884.
8. Biddle T., Pratt & Whitney Emissions Test to Determine the Effect of Sasol Fully Synthetic Jet-A Fuel on the
Emissions of a Commercial Combustor, Southwest Research Institute, 2-007.
9. Blakey, S., Rye, L., Wilson, C.W., Aviation Gas Turbine Alternative Fuels: A Review, Proceedings of the Combustion
Institute, 33 (2011), 2863-22885, 09 November 2010.
10. Boeing Company, UOP, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes
(Bio-SPK), Report Version 5.0, Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0.06 on
Emerging Turbine Fuels, Research Report D02-1739, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 28 June 2011.
11. Brem, T.B., et al., Effects of Fuel Aromatic Content on Nonvolatile Particulate Emissions of an In-Production
Aircraft Gas Turbine, Environmental Science & Technology2015, 49 (22), 13149-13157, 23 October 2015.
12. Cain, J., DeWitt, M., Blunck, D., Corporan, E., Striebich, R., Anneken, D., Klingshirn, C., Roquemore, W. M., and Vander
Wall, R., Characterization of Gaseous and Particulate Emissions From a Turboshaft Engine Burning Conventional,
Alternative, and Surrogate Fuels, Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 2290−2302.
13. Carter, N. A., Stratton, R.W., Bredehoeft, M.K., and Hileman, J.I., Energy and Environmental Viability of Select
Alternative Jet Fuel Pathways, 47th AIAA/ASME, SAE, ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 31 July – 03 August
2011, San Diego, CA, AIAA 2011-5968.
14. Carter, N. A., Environmental and Economic Assessment of Microalgae-Derived Jet Fuel, Laboratory for Aviation and
the Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 2012.
15. Chan, T.W., Chishty, W. A., Canteenwalla, P., Buote, D., and Davidson, C.R., Characterization of Emissions From the
Use of Alternative Aviation Fuels, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbines and Power, January 2016, Vol. 138 / 011506-1.
16. Chen, L. Zhang, Z. Lu, Y., Zhang, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, C., Roskilly, A. P., Experimental Study of the Gaseous and
Particulate Matter Emissions from a Gas Turbine Combustor Burning Butyl Butyrate and Ethanol Blends, Applied
Energy 195 (2017) 693–701.
17. Christie, S., D4.3 Emissions Report and Database of Systems Key Performance Parameters, ITAKA Collaborative
Project, FP7-308807, 30 April 2015.
18. Christie, S., Lobo, P., Lee, D., Raper, D., Gas Turbine Engine Nonvolatile Particulate Matter Mass Emissions:
Correlation with Smoke Number for Conventional and Alternative Fuel Blends, Environ. Sci. & Techn. 2017, 51, 988-
996.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 29
Copyright National
19. Colket, M., Heyne, J., Rumizen, M., Gupta. M., Jardines, A., Edwards, T., Roquemore, W. M., Andac, G., Boehm, R.,
Zelina, J., Lovett, J., Condevaux, J., Bornstein, S., Rizk, N., Turner, D., Graves, C., Anand, M.S., An Overview of the
National Jet Fuels Combustion Program, AIAA SciTech Forum 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 4-8 January
2016, San Diego, California.
20. Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Anneken, D., Alternative Fuels Tests on a C-17 Aircraft: Emissions
Characteristics, Air Force Research Laboratory, Interim Report, AFRL-RZ-WP-TR-2011-2004, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, OH, December 2010.
21. Corporan, E., Edwards, T., Shafer, L., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Zabarnick, S., West, Z., Striebich, R., Graham, J.,
Klein, J., Chemical, Thermal Stability, Seal Swell, and Emissions Studies of Alternative Jet Fuels, Energy & Fuels,
2011, 25, 955-966, 2 March 2011.
22. Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Anneken, D., Shafer, L., Striebich, R., Comparison of Emissions
Characteristics of Several Turbine Engines Burning Fischer-Tropsch and Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids
Alternative Jet Fuels, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11-15 June 2012.
23. Daily, B., Ginestra, C., Reduced Emissions Via Synthesized Aromatic Kerosene, Virent briefing to ASCENT Seattle,
WA, 13 October 2015.
24. Del Rosario, R., Koudelka, J., Wahls, R., Madavan, N., Bulzan, D., Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment II (AAFEX II)
Overview, 19 September 2012.
25. Donohoo, P. Scaling Air Quality Effects from Alternative Jet Fuel in Aircraft and Ground Support Equipment,
M.Sc. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2010.
26. Edwards, T., Meyer, D., Johnston, G., McCall, M., Rumizen, M., Wright, M., Evaluation of Alcohol to Jet Synthetic
Paraffinic Kerosenes (ATJ-SPK), Report Version (1.10), Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels,
and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels, Research Report D02-1828, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1 April 2016.
27. Hendricks, R.C., Bushnell, D., Particulate Emissions Hazards Associated with Fueling Heat Engines, International
Journal of Rotating Machinery, Volume 2011, Article ID 415296, 18 March 2011.
28. Hermann, F, Comparison of Combustion Properties Between a Synthetic Jet Fuel and Conventional Jet A-1, In:
Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo. Nevada; 2005. GT2005-68540.
29. Huang, C.J., Vander Wal, R.L., Effect of Soot Structure Evolution from Commercial Jet Engine Burning Petroleum
Based JP-8 and Synthetic HRJ and FT Fuels, Energy and Fuels, 2013, 27, 4946-4958, 24 July, 2013.
30. ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance, first edition, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 999 University Street,
Montreal, Quebec CA H3C5H.
31. Koenig, J.Q., Health Effects of Ambient air Pollution, How safe is the air we breathe, Kluwer Academic 2000.
32. Leikauf, G. D., Hazardous Air Pollutants and Asthma, Environmental Health Perspective, 110 (suppl 4), 505-526,
2002.
33. Lew, L., Biddle, T., United Technologies Corporation, P&WC Engine Test and Combustor Rig Test Performed on
20 Percent Amyris Farnesane/Jet A Blend, for the Continuous Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program, East
Hartford, CT, 16 April 2014.
34. Li, H, et al., Influence of Fuel Composition, Engine Power, and Operation Mode on Exhaust Gas Particulate Size
Distribution and Gaseous Emissions from a Gas Turbine Engine, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-94854.
35. Li, H., Altaher, M., Wilson, C., Blakey, S., Chung, W., Rye, L., Quantification of Aldehydes Emissions from Alternative
and Renewable Aviation Fuels using a Gas Turbine Engine, Atmospheric Environment 84 (2014) 373-379.
36. Lobo, P., Hagen, D., Whitefield, P., Comparison of PM Emissions from a Commercial Jet Engine Burning
Conventional, Biomass, and Fischer-Tropsch Fuels, Environmental Science & Technology, 1 November 2011.
37. Lobo, P., Christie, S., Khandelwal, B., Blakey, S.G., Raper, D.W., Evaluation of Non-volatile Particulate Matter
Emission Characteristics of an Aircraft Auxiliary Power Unit with Varying Alternative Jet Fuel Blend Ratios,
Energy and Fuels, 2015, 29, 7705-7711, 16 October, 2015.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 30
Copyright National
38. Moore, R., Shook, M,. Beyersdorf, A., Corr, C., Herndon, S., Knighton, W., Miake-Lye, R., Thornhill, K., Winstead, E.,
Yu, Z., Ziemba, L., Anderson, B., Influence of Jet Fuel Composition on Aircraft Engine Emissions: A Synthesis of
Aerosol Emissions Data from the NASA APEX, AAFEX, and ACCESS Missions, Energy and Fuels, 2015, 29, 2591-
2600, 25 February, 2015.
39. Moore, R., et al., Biofuel Blending Reduces PM Emissions from Aircraft Engines at Cruise Conditions, Nature
21420, doi:10.1038.
40. Moses, C.A, Comparative Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels (FT-SPK), Final Report, Coordinating Research
Council, Inc., Universal Technology Corporation, CRC project No. AVI 2I04a, Alpharetta, GA September 2008.
41. Moses, C., Evaluation of Synthesized Aromatics Co-Produced with Iso-Paraffinic Kerosene for the Production of
Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuel (SKA), Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants, Subcommittee
D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels, Section D02.J0.06 on Emerging Turbine Fuels, Research Report D02-1810, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1 November 2015.
42. Rahmes, T.F., Kinder, J.D., Henry, T.M., Crenfeldt, G.,LeDuc, G.F., Zombanakis, G.P., Abe, Y., Lambert, D.M., Lewis,
C., Juenger, J.A., Andac, M.G., Reilly, K.R., Holmgren, J.R., McCall, M.J., Bozzano, A.G., Sustainable Bio-Derived
Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK) Jet Fuel Flights and Engine Tests Program Results, 9th AIAA Aviation
Technology, integration and operations conference, AIAA 2009-7002, Sept, 2009.
43. Roland, O., Garcia, F., TOTAL New Energies, Amyris, Inc., U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Evaluation of
Synthesized Iso-Paraffins Produced from Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars (SIP Fuels), Final Version (3.),
Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants, Subcommittee D02.J0 on Aviation Fuels,
Research Report D02-1776, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 15 June 2014.
44. Shila, Jacob J., and Johnson, Mary E., Estimation and Comparison of Particle Number Emission Factors for
Petroleum-based and Camolina Biofuel Blends used in a Honeywell TFE-109 Turbofan Engine, AIAA SciTech
Forum, 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, California, 4-8 January 2016.
45. Shouse, D.T., Neuroth, C., Hendricks, R.C., Lynch, A., Frayne, C.W., Stutrud, J.S., Corporan, E., Hankins, T. Alternate-
fueled Combustor-sector Performance: Part A: Combustor Performance Part B: Combustor Emissions, 2010.
ISROMAC13-2010-49.
46. Speth, R.R., Rojo, C., Malina, R., Barrett, S.R.H., Black Carbon Emissions Reductions from Combustion of
Alternative Jet Fuels, Atmospheric Environment 105 (2015) 37-42, 19 January 2015.
47. Stratton, R.W., Wolfe, P.J., Hileman, J.I., Impact of Non-CO2 Combustion Effects on the Environmental Feasibility of
Alternative Jet Fuels, Environmental Science & Technology 45 (24) 10736-10743, 22 November 2011.
48. Timko, M.T., Herndon, S.C., de la Rosa Blanco, E., Wood, E.C., Yu, Z., Miake-Lye, R.C., Knighton, W.B., Shafer, L.,
DeWitt, M.J., Corporan, E., Combustion Products of Petroleum Jet Fuel, a Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Fuel, and a
Biomass Fatty Acid Methyl Ester Fuel for a Gas Turbine Engine, Combustion Science and Technology, 183: 1039-
1068, 2011, 13 April 2011.
49. Vander Wal, R., Bryg, V., Huang, C., Insights into the Combustion Chemistry Within a Gas-Turbine Driven Auxiliary
Power Unit as a Function of Fuel Type and Power Level using Soot Nanostructure as a Tracer, Fuel 115 (2014)
282–287.
50. Wey, C, and D. Bulzan, Effects of Bio-Derived Fuels on Emissions and Performance Using a 9-Point Lean Direct
Injection Low Emissions Concept, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-94888.
51. Winchester, N., Malina, R., Staples, M.D., Barrett, S.R.H., The Impact of Advanced Biofuels on Aviation Emissions
and Operations in the U.S., Energy Economics 49 (2015) 482-491, 8 April 2015.

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 31
Copyright National
7. APPENDIX
This appendix includes tables summarizing the impacts of alternative fuels on the emissions of SOx, PM2.5, CO, UHC, NOx,
and HAP.
Alt Fuel Ref Fuel Engine Impact Ref #
FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2C1 EI_SO2  90% for pure FT, and  intermodiatly for blends. 6
HEFA JP-8 F117-PW-100 SO2  50% for 50% blend. 20
Table A.1: Alternative Fuel Impact on SOx Emissions
ATJ-SPK JP-8 PW615F Smoke # & P. no Δ 26
Beef F117-PW-100 nvPM N  63% at idle; nvPM GMD  10-15%; EIm  50-
JP-8 20
Tallow = PW2000 70% at 63% power; SN no Δ.
Beef
JP-9 T63-A-701 Soot  significantly. 21
Tallow
TFE-109
Camelina Jet A nvPM EIn  at power settings of 10% and 30%. 44
Honeywell
Camelina JP-10 T63-A-702 Soot  significantly. 21
CF-700-2D-2
CH-SKA Jet A2 BC mass  38-50% 15
GE
Fats &
JP-11 T63-A-703 Soot  significantly. 21
Grease
FT GTL Jet A1 CFM56-7B EIn , EIm  36
FT GTL Jet A1 CFM56-7 nvPM N & Mass & GMD  48
nvPM Mass  86% averaged over power for pure FT, 

FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2C1 66% for blended FT/JP-8, largest reduction at idle; EI_N  6
95% for pure FT and  85% for blends
EIn  varied monotonically with power: factor 200 at idle,

FT GTL JP-8 CFM-56-2C factor 4 at max thrust; EIm  factor 30 at 45-65% power, 2
factor 7 at 85% power
Table A.2: Alternative Fuel Impact on PM2.5

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 32
Copyright National
FT GTL JP-8 T63-A-700 Soot  significantly. 21
FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-7 EIn  up to 80% 22
FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2 EIn  up to 80% 22
FT GTL JP-8 PW308 EIn  up to 35% 22
FT_AAFEX JP-8 CFM56-2-C nvPM  19
CF-700-2D-2
FT-SPK Jet A1 nvPM N  70-95%; BC mass  70-95%. 15
GE
HEFA JP-8 CFM56-8 EIn  up to 80% 22
HEFA JP-8 CFM56-3 EIn  up to 80% 22
HEFA JP-8 PW309 EIn  up to 35% 22
HEFA, TRS-18
Jet A nvPM N & Mass  35-70% 23
SAK Microturbo
CF-700-2D-2
HEFA-SPK Jet A3 nvPM N  40-60%; BC mass 58-82% 15
GE
HRJ-
JP-9 CFM56-2-C nvPM  19
AAFEX
Allison
SPK JP-8 nvPM N, Mass, and GMD  12
T63-A-700
SPK JP-8 PW308 Soot  95% at idle & 50% at 85% power 25
SPK JP-8 CFM56 Soot  98% at idle & 70% at 85% power 25
GTCP85-
129 Garrett
UCO HEFA Jet A nvPM N & Mass & GMD  18
Honeywell
APU
Continued Table A.2: Alternative Fuel Impact on PM2.5

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 33
Copyright National
Allison
SPK JP-8 CO  10-20% except no Δ for the m-xylene/C12 blend 12
T63-A-700
Sasol
Jet A CO  19% in LTO cycle 8
FSJF
FT-SPK Jet A1 CO  when lean &  when rich 28
Combustor
FT-GTL JP-8 CO  45
sector
FT_AAFEX JP-8 CFM56-2-C Minor Δ in gaseous emissions 19
HRJ-
JP-9 CFM56-2-C Minor Δ in gaseous emissions 19
AAFEX
Bio fuel RP-3 av kero Combustor rig CO  16
Beef F117-PW-100
JP-8 CO  20-40% 20
Tallow = PW2000
FT GTL JP-8 CFM-56-2C CO  9% 2
AE 3007
ATJ-SPK JP-8 CO  slightly at low power 26
combustor
ATJ-SPK JP-8 TFE34 CO  slightly at low power 26
ATJ-SPK JP-8 PW615F 0 26
TPE331-
ATJ-SPK JP-8 CO  slightly at low power 26
10YGD
Beef
JP-9 T63-A-701 CO  10-25% 21
Tallow
Bio-SPK Jet A CFM56-7B CO  5-9% 10
Bio-SPK JP-8 TPE331-10 CO no Δ except slightly  at low power 10
Bio-SPK JP-8 TFE731-5 CO  ~2% at idle 10
Camelina JP-10 T63-A-702 CO  10-25% 21
DSHC Jet A1 SaM146 0 43
DSHC Jet A1 CFM56-5C4 0 43
Table A.3: Alternative Fuel Impact on CO

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 34
Copyright National
Fats &
JP-11 T63-A-703 CO  10-25% 21
Grease
FT GTL Jet A1 CFM56-7 Modest changes in CO 48
FT GTL JP-8 T63-A-700 CO  10-25% 21
FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-7 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
FT GTL JP-8 F117 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
FT GTL JP-8 TF33 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
FT GTL JP-8 PW308 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
HEFA JP-8 CFM56-8 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
HEFA JP-8 CFM56-3 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
HEFA JP-8 F118 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
HEFA JP-8 TF34 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
HEFA JP-8 PW309 Normalized C. 0.8-1.0. 22
Normalized: CO 0.74-0.87 for 100% alt fuel. Normalized: CO

SPK 13
0.83-0.91 for 50% blend.
Continued Table A.3: Alternative Fuel Impact on CO

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 35
Copyright National
AE 3007
ATJ-SPK JP-8 UHC  slightly at low power 26
combustor
ATJ-SPK JP-8 TFE34 UHC  slightly at low power 26
TPE331-
ATJ-SPK JP-8 UHC  slightly at low power 26
10YGD
Beef
JP-9 T63-A-701 UHC  20-30% 21
Tallow
RP-3 aviation
Bio fuel Combustor rig UHC  by up to 61%. Increasing ethanol content  UHC. 16
kerosene
Bio-SPK JP-8 TPE331-10 UHC  5-20% at lowest power 10
Bio-SPK JP-8 TFE731-5 UHC  ~2% at idle 10
Camelina JP-10 T63-A-702 UHC  20-30% 21
Fats &
JP-11 T63-A-703 UHC  20-30% 21
Grease
FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2C1 EI_UHC  40% for pure FT, and  intermodiatly for blends. 6
FT GTL JP-8 CFM-56-2C THC  22%. 2
FT GTL JP-8 T63-A-700 UHC  20-30% 21
HRJ-
AAFEX
Sasol
Jet A UHC no Δ at idle. 8
FSJF
Normalized: UHC 0.68-0.76 for 100% alt fuel. Normalized:

SPK 13
UHC 0.76-0.86 for 50% blend.
GTCP85 Garret
UCO SPK Jet A1 Honeywell 0 17
APU
Table A.4: Alternative Fuel Impact on UHC

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 36
Copyright National
9 pt lean direct
AMJ JP-8 low emissions 0 50
combustor
AE 3007
ATJ-SPK JP-8 0 26
combustor
ATJ-SPK JP-8 TFE34 0 26
ATJ-SPK JP-8 PW615F 0 26
TPE331-
ATJ-SPK JP-8 0 26
10YGD
Beef F117-PW-100
JP-8 0 20
Tallow = PW2000
Beef
JP-9 T63-A-701 0 21
Tallow
Bio fuel RP-3 av kero Combustor rig NOx  by up to 70%. Increasing ethanol content  NOx. 16
Bio-SPK Jet A CFM56-7B - (1-5%) 42
Bio-SPK Jet A CFM56-7B NOx  1-5% 10
Bio-SPK JP-8 TPE331-10 0 10
Bio-SPK JP-8 TFE731-5 NOx  3.5% at cruise condition 10
Camelina JP-10 T63-A-702 0 21
CF-700-
CH-SKA Jet A2 2D-2 General NOx  7-25% 45
Electric
DSHC Jet A1 SaM146 0 43
DSHC Jet A1 CFM56-5C4 NO. slightly  except slightly  at cruise 43
DSHC Jet A1 131-9 APU NO. slightly  except slightly  at cruise 43
MK113 APU
FAE Jet A1 Slightly  34
Artouste
Fats &
JP-11 T63-A-703 0 21
Grease
FT GTL Jet A1 CFM56-7 NOx  10% for 100% FT and  5% for 50% blend 48
Table A.5: Alternative Fuel Impact on NOx

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 37
Copyright National
FT GTL JP-8 CFM56-2 0 22
FT GTL JP-8 F117 0 22
FT GTL JP-8 TF33 0 22
FT GTL JP-8 PW308 0 22
FT GTL
Jet A CFM56-7B -10% 48
(100%)
FT GTL
Jet A CFM56-7B -5% 48
(50%)
FT_AAFEX JP-8 CFM56-2-C Minor Δ in NOx 19
Combustor
FT-GTL JP-8 NOx  when lean &  when rich. 45
sector
Tubular
FT-SPK Jet A1 NOx  at low pressure; no Δ at high pressure. 7
combustor
FT-SPK Jet A1 NOx  always except when rich at high inlet air temp. 28
MK113 APU
HEFA Jet A1  except slightly  at idle 34
Artouste
9 pt lean direct
HEFA JP-8 low emissions 0 50
combustor
HEFA JP-8 CFM56-8 0 22
HEFA JP-8 F118 0 22
HEFA JP-8 TF34 0 22
HEFA JP-8 PW309 0 22
HRJ-
JP-9 CFM56-2-C Minor Δ in NOx 19
AAFEX
HVO Jet A JT9D-7R4G2 0 42
Sasol
Jet A NOx  4% in LTO cycle 8
FSJF
Continued Table A.5: Alternative Fuel Impact on NOx

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 38
Copyright National
SPK Normalized: NOx 0.91-1.01 13
GTCP85 Garret
UCO SPK Jet A1 Honeywell 0 17
APU
Continued Table A.5: Alternative Fuel Impact on NOx

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 39
Copyright National
Beef F117-PW-100
JP-8 HAP  20
Tallow = PW2000
Beef
JP-9 T63-A-701 Formaldehyde no Δ 21
Tallow
Camelina JP-10 T63-A-702 Formaldehyde no Δ 21
MK113 APU
FAE Jet A3 Formaldehyde  at idle,  at high power. 35
Artouste
Fats &
Grease
MK113 APU Formaldehyde  30% Acrolein  36-64% at idle;

FT GTL Jet A1 35
Artouste Formaldehyde  by factor 2-3 at high power.
FT GTL Jet A1 CFM56-7 Modest changes in HCHO 48
FT GTL JP-8 CFM-56-2C HAPS  significantly, e.g. EI-benzene  factor 5 at idle. 2
FT GTL JP-8 T63-A-700 Formaldehyde no Δ 21
FT GTL JP-8 F117 0 22
FT GTL JP-8 TF33 0 22
FT GTL JP-8 PW308 0 22
MK113 APU
HEFA Jet A2 No Δ in aldehyde emissions. 35
Artouste
HEFA JP-8 F118 0 22
HEFA JP-8 TF34 0 22
HEFA JP-8 PW309 0 22
Table A.6: Alternative Fuel Impact on HAP

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 40
Copyright National
HRJ-
AAFEX
Beef F117-PW-100
JP-8 HAP  20
Tallow = PW2000
Beef
Tallow
Camelina JP-10 T63-A-702 Formaldehyde no Δ 21
MK113 APU
FAE Jet A3 Formaldehyde  at idle,  at high power. 35
Artouste
Fats &
Grease
Continued Table A.6: Alternative Fuel Impact on HAP

Academy of
of Sciences.
Sciences. All
All rights
rights reserved.
reserved. 41
Copyright National

State of The Industry Report On Air Quality Emissions From Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of The Industry Report On Air Quality Emissions From Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

State of the Industry Report on Air Quality

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

State of the Industry

Environmental Consulting Group

Missouri University of Science and Technology

Csonka Aviation Consultancy, LLC

Contractor’s Final State of the Industry Report for ACRP 02-80

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

State of the Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from

Booz Allen Hamilton

Environmental Consulting Group

Missouri University of Science and Technology

Csonka Aviation Consultancy, LLC

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

A1 Fischer-Tropsch Hydroprocessed Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK) 15

Synthesized Paraffinic Kerosene from Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids

Synthesized Iso-Paraffins Produced from Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars

Synthesized Kerosene with Aromatics Derived by Alkylation of Light Aromatics

Alcohol-to-Jet Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (ATJ-SPK) limited initially to the use

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

2. BACKGROUND SAJF emissions testing. The various testing campaigns

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Document Hits Search Criteria

35,136 Alternative jet fuel emissions

9,369 Alternative jet fuel emissions + criteria pollutants

73 Alternative jet fuel emissions + criteria pollutants + emission measurements

51 Reports with quantitative emissions analysis (used in this literature review)

Table 1: Identifying Reports for Literature Review

Copyright National Academy

be evaluated in more detail in a subsequent phase of 3.3. PM2.5

Copyright National Academy

3.4. CO Table A.3: Alternative Fuel Impact on CO Emissions in the

Copyright National Academy

3.6. NOX on HAP emissions are extremely limited. Four alternate

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

4.7. HAP 4.8. FUTURE TESTING

• The most common blending ratio is 20% of biodiesel, termed B20.

Copyright National Academy

This is a briefing on the results of the ACCESS-2 Measurement Testing

• “Significant Results – No difference in NOx, CO, HC emissions between fuels.”

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Allison T63-A-700 turboshaft engine operated at four power settings.

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

Copyright National Academy

• Fuels: Jet A, JetA/HEFA, and SAK/HEFA

• Alternate fuels studied (with respect to Jet A1):

Copyright National Academy