Ethanol Challenge

A much better way is to google "chemical compatibility chart".

Like any chemical compound ethanol has specific properties of its own, and these can vary as it is blended with other substances. Being a 2 carbon oxygenated compound, it possesses different solvency characteristics to common gasoline constituents such as octanes, aromatics etc.

So the quick, easy and accurate answer to your question is "minimal to no effect of the correct blend of alcohol and other compounds on the interior portion of a fuel line properly designed for that blend", and this applies to any chemical. Now if you use something that's not designed for it......

Just one note- not trying to be pedantic, but the proper term as applied to rubber and other polymers is solvency, not corrosion. You are not incorrect though, as ethanol is definitely way more likely to cause corrosion problem with metals than typical gasoline or diesel fuels are!!

I have driven my Argentinian cars (no alcohol in the gasoline where I live) for the last 35 years to Brazil (25% ethanol in fuel since 1975) for summer holidays. On my first trip I was advised to change the fuel pump diaphragm and rubber fuel lines for the "new" ones sold in Brazil, which were approved for their fuel. Having done so, I never experienced any problem there. In those days air had a weird smell in large cities, which completely disappeared as fuel injection and electronic ignition turned to be standard in cars.

I've seen two different failure modes.

One is where rubbers and such absorb the new "solvent" and swell up, or actually shed lumps of goo. This has predictable effects. (I supervised a materials testing laboratory in auto industry for 25 years.)

The other failure mode was more personal. My Huskvarna chainsaw worked great until the ethanol fuels were introduced. Whenever used, I would run the saw to empty fuel tank so there was no storage concerns and easy re-starting. Summer usually meant the saw was in storage for a few months with no operation. fueled up and went to start the saw. Fuel line had brittle failure (longitudinal cracks) and was leaking fuel.

Replacement filter (in tank) and line was installed, ran OK for a year and then failed (same symptoms) when set ready for next winter's cutting.

Third line and filter suffered same fate. Contacted Huskvarna international help line and was advised they had (finally) replaced all stock in Australia with "ethanol ready" components. That was now seven years ago. Saw still runs fine.

Conclusion: The effect will depend on the specific tube that you test and the exposure method.

(If anyone wants to do the experiment suggested by Fredski, I suggest that you weigh the tube sample before and again after the test to get some indication of how much has been adsorbed into the material. You might not see the difference by eye, but with accurate scales you will detect the changes.

Yes, well put and I agree. New polymers are specifically formulated to resist the new fuels.

There's no "natural" rubber hose around these days.

Running a test lab was probably kinda like flying a plane. Hours of boredom separated by moments of excitement and maybe a little panic.

There may be other important factors in play that pieces of fuel line completely submerged in almost pure ethanol do not experience.

.

Making sure the outside of the tubing is exposed to changes in temperature, humidity and atmosphere that occur under the hood would provide some more confidence in a test. It would probably be worthwhile to run a test at the same time with the fluid being mostly ethanol with a very small portion of gasoline.

.

Sealing the ethanol and the ethanol with a small addition of gas in a length of tube just long enough to curve and join the ends without kinking would provide a convenient test sample that could be secured under the hood of the car to experience the stresses of that environment.

How relevant to the problems encountered with ethanol in gasoline would this be? The testing procedure is far from that of the actual use of the blended fuel in an engine. Where are you going to get the supplies to do this test?

1- Ethanol is 100% ethyl alcohol. The highest concentration readily available, and also paying the federal taxes, is 97% alcohol and 3% water, often referred to as Cologne Spirits. Pure ethanol requires mechanical and chemical further processing to make it 100%. The highest easily obtainable ethanol is 50% alcohol, Vodka. Use of any denaturant in the alcohol to make it cheaper will skew the results since it is not ethanol and could react differently. How will these differences in concentrations be handled?

2- What about the difference between the effects of pure ethanol and an ethanol/gasoline mix? How will these potential differences be accommodated?

3- The rubber tube used with the mixture on an engine is only exposed to the liquid on the inside. What effects will the tube completely immersed in the alcohol on both sides have vs. only one side?

4- How will the absorption of water vapors be reproduced? This leads to corrosion on metals if attached to the tube. What effect will this adjacent corrosion have on the rubber tube? How will that be accounted for?

Yes, an "out of curiosity" experiment will be interesting but doubtful if it will have much relevancy to the problems that have been discussed in proceeding postings.

Good Luck, Old Salt

I agree with your thoughts on the applicability of the test and made some suggestions in the previous comment as to how the test might be made more useful.

.

There is easily obtainable non-denatured alcohol available with greater than 50% alcohol. Most states in the US allow retail sales of Everclear 190 proof (95% ethanol). The few states that do not allow Everclear 190 do allow the retail sale of Everclear 151 proof (75.5% ethanol).

My note was based on the state that I reside in does not permit the sail of Everclear Alcohol 190 proof or Everclear 151 proof. This and the Cologne Spirits mentioned are the same, 190 proof. This is the azeotrope of an ethyl alcohol and water distillation (please pardon my use of 97%/194 proof in my answer). In many states this is only available at a chemical supply distributor and they must hold it in a very secure location within their facility due to federal regulations concerning the federal excise tax on it. The government is very strict on these materials since they want to make sure they get your money. A special permit is available for the non-tax transfer of proof gallons of ethyl alcohol but it requires much paperwork and a reconciliation of the books and the inventory.

The use of any concentration of ethanol/water/gasoline other than the levels present in gasoline will not represent the conditions incurred in the actual situation. Using 150 proofs, as well as 190 proofs, will not represent the actual conditions encountered in real life. They have water in them which fresh ethanol/gasoline does not have.

The Ethanol used for blending with gasoline is S.D.A 28-A, a combination of 200 proof ethanol and gasoline at a volumetric ratio of 1 gallon of gasoline to every 100 gallons of ethanol. By federal regulations only anhydrous alcohol can be used for the blending. The resultant "alcohol" is then blended with gasoline at the ratios displayed on retail gasoline pumps when it is blended at the refinery of blending facility. For fresh gasoline/alcohol mixes there is not water present. The absorption of water begins after it is exposed to water vapors, not before it is sold on the retail market. Within those 85 tank cars, at 10,000 gal each, rail consists of ethanol for blending there is therefore no water present.

All this means that the conditions described by the OP are not representative of what actually happens in true life with alcohol/gasoline/water mixtures. To be representative the tests must done with 200 proof alcohols, not anything with water present.

Of possible interest is that not only is there a federal excise tax on un-denatured alcohol but also state taxes. Also the S.D.A. 28-A formulation is only permitted for: as a fuel; automobiles and supplementary fuels; airplane and supplementary fuels; rocket and jet fuels; proprietary heating fuels and other fuel uses. (IRS form 720).

Good Luck, Old Salt

Everclear 190 proof seems readily available even via internet commerce. Fourteen states have laws on the books that prohibit the sale of Everclear 190, of which my state is one, but in my state (and I suspect in others) the sale of Everclear 151 is not prohibited.

.

I also have heard, and get the impression from viewing things like the website above, that the restrictions on sale of 190 proof might not be tightly enforced.

.

Your point about the ethanol being anhydrous when the fuel is blended is a good point.

.

I'm not so sure that we can be certain that the absorption of water does not occur prior to the retail sale. I've seen them filling the tanks, and I haven't seen any airtight seals. I suspect filling up the tankers is similar. I haven't seen any purge gas tanks on tanker trucks, so I suspect regular air is introduced into the tanks as the fuel is pumped out (and is there with its moisture when the tanks it refueled).

.

Pure ethanol is assertively hygroscopic, and I have serious doubts that after it gets shipped around, transfered between tanks, and finally pumped into the automobile's gas tank, that mass of absorbed water would be less than a couple percent of the mass of ethanol...at least anywhere in the Southeast year round, or anywhere in the East when it isn't winter.

.

The taxes on un-denatured alcohol are certainly no joke. I'm also happy to follow the prohibitions on consuming any of the alcohol above 190 proof as there might be benzene therein, or in the case of 28-A, as you just taught me, gasoline.

.

Beyond that even the 151 proof Everclear is noticeably hostile to the body, even if it isn't smallowed: Many many years ago, in preparation for a Halloween party on the beach, I stood at the edge of a pool and practiced over and over holding 151 in my mouth, spitting just a small amount into my cupped hand, lighting my palm with a lighter and then blowing a fireball.

.

It took a while and I learned to be very careful not to let any alcohol drip to the back of my hand, because then it got uncomfortably hot really fast. It took me a number of attempts buut in the end I had developed the ability reliably blow impressive fireballs and I had also developed a noticeable buzz even though I hadn't been drinking the Everclear (only absorbing it apparently).

.

Anyway, I had done that all unbenounced to anyone else, since it seemed like the effect would be better without the buildup. When we arrived at the beach it was pretty windy. When is was dark enough I judged the effect would be impressive, I stepped away (both so I wouldn't be queried and so that I didn't ignite anyone) to instill awe in everyone, but the damn wind was so strong that it was difficult to light my palm, and when I got it lit when I tried to blow the fireball, it didn't ignite.

.

I did that a couple times, to no avail. My spraying of ethanol, even though downwind, had apparently drawn the attention of a female friend who was already inebriated sufficiently to be making statements that said far more about her than she was possibly aware of at that time. She rushed over, wrapped her arms around me and said, " God you smell good! What is that cologne? That's the smell of a real man!"

.

"Everclear, my dear". I did get to blow fireballs later in the night when the wind died.

.

Anyway, long story...well, long story, long: when leaving the beach in the morning, the inside of my cheek felt rough, and as my tongue refused to leave it alone the outer layer right there balled up the way skin on your shoulders peeling from a sun burn a few days back will ball up under your fingers in the shower. This lead, much like peeling a former sunburn to strips peeling out of my mouth for everything except the top of my tongue. Weird feeling.

.

A couple weeks later I was introduced to some people who did performance art and they mentioned acts involving fire. As I related my selftaught fireball technique they looked at me like I was crazy. Their recommendation was to use "lamp oil", "but don't use the scented stuff, its got stuff in it that causes cancer".

.

Being pretty sure that even without the scents in it, holding lamp oil in my mouth was probably not good for me, and not really enjoying the feeling of the inside of my mouth sloughing its lining from a chemical burn, I' haven't spit another fireball to date.... though I can recommend a little black powder with a fuse in the bottom of a gallon size plastic cylindrical container (ice cream, dry laundry detergent, etc) sunk till the top is flush with the ground, with Cremora or even powdered milk filling the rest of the way up to the 3/4 mark, does create awe inspiring huge fireballs with an impressive 'whoosh'.

.

So, um, yeah.... the test won't be very representative, you are correct.

My familiarity with ethanol, especially pure and also cologne spirits, was developed during my educational years somewhat similar to your learning experiences. During a hiatus from school I worked as a temporary analytical chemist, the only job available in the chemistry industry in the area, where many of the tests and plant operations were extractions. These required copious quantities of high concentration ethanol. I soon learned that the job was extremely boring but would be more bearable if I mixed a little cologne spirits into my afternoon cola. It became even more bearable as I drank more of the altered cola. This was especially helpful on Fridays when there was a party that night.

Being the alert, scholastic and interested in many things I carried some of my analytical chemist experience back to school. I purposely chose one of my senior projects for the educational experience. It consisted of the distillation of several alcohols and then carefully testing the conductance of various concentrations and mixtures. Just happened that one of them was 200 proof ethanol! Reverting back to my practical educational days in the lab I changed the drink container from a water glass to a beaker. Oh, back to the easy Fridays in preparation for the parties! As time went by there were several Fridays in each week. Only precaution was to careful with the concentration, set up a reserve of "liquid" if the stock room might not open, and always look before pouring.

Ah, for the days of hard labors in the educational laboratory! Industry has never been like those days of self motivated education!

Good Luck, Old Salt

truth is not a compromise-

I caught something that has changed with the years in my posting. The DOT-111 tank car currently used to transport Ethanol is now 30,000 gallons. They still travel with a rail consist of at least one regular car behind the engines and then the 85 tank cars. That amounts to a rolling potentially flammable load of 2-1/2 million (2,550,000) gallons. As a volunteer Haz Mat responder for the county, I hope that I'm away on vacation when something goes wrong. There are at least a daily load of 85 cars going through my county.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Yep, and shipping it by pipeline is not possible. at least methanol could be synthesized at the refinery from syngas so you didn't have to ship it. The railroads LOVE ethanol for gasoline blending for that reason.

Hmmm.

DOT-111 tank car is a design the NTSB has described as 'inadequate' noting the higher frequency with which those cars lose product during accidents.

There was sufficient agreement to issue upgraded requirements, but only for newly constructed tank cars....but no need to worry about the remainder, they only comprise a little under 70% of the total national tank car fleet.

Yes, the NTSB has stated that modifications to the DOT-111 tank car, the work horse of tank cars, are necessary but unfortunately the railroads are not acting as fast as they want them to be. New car orders for tank cars are up considerably because of this. Canada has taken a more aggressive position on this, primarily due to the large number of deaths they had occurred last year when the unattended train burned up almost the entire town. That consist was crude but from the area where it was pumped from the liquids contain more vapor gases than from other areas. This makes the load more volatile than some other crude fuels like from the Gulf of Mexico or our southern states.

Ethanol is very similar in dangers as the crude oil from parts of Canada especially the oil sands areas. They are therefore treated as the same/similar materials railroad wise. No matter how it is looked at over 2-1/2 million gallons on a single train over a mile long contained in not the optimum rail cars has a potential to be a huge accident waiting to happen. These trains travel through some of the most populated areas of the country and some areas from the major rail yards to the refineries have less than optimum rails.

Good Luck, Old Salt

The bigger problem is intergranular cracking/corrosion in aluminum in contact with ethanol (titanium has that problem too.)

Hey, I'm familiar with susceptibility to intergranular corrosion for Ti (CP and alloys) in anhydrous methanol or methanol contaminated with chlorides. I'm also familiar with susceptibility to SCC for Ti alloys in pure ethanol or any Ti for ethanol contaminated by chlorides. I was under the impression that CP Ti held up well to ethanol (pure or diluted) , not exhibiting intergranular corrosion even with stress, as long as chlorides (or the like) are not present to any significant degree.

.

I know that is fairly specific, but if you have information about CP Ti susceptibility to ethanol in the absence of chloride contamination, I'd appreciate it if you would point me in the direction to find out more.

Yes, chlorides accelerate it, and even small amounts of water retard it. and the effect is alloy dependent as well. it was of concern when working subsea because chlorides are ubiquitous and inescapable. even on land, chloride contamination is common.

Right. I agree fully.

.

Just to be clear though, you are not aware of documented susceptibility of CP Ti in ethanol to intergranular corrosion, even in the presence of tensile stress, in the absence of significant chlorides, correct?

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/attachments/928-forum/695962d1358456016-e15-devils-brew-1-s2.0-s0016236110005983-main.pdf

btw apparently copper and zinc and brass all accellerate it by acting as a galvanic cell

Yeah, the problems with aluminum in ethanol are familiar. Trace amounts of iron is another common wear/corrosion product that also exacerbate intergranular corrosion in aluminum. It was titanium, specifically commercially pure, in ethanol, that got my attention.

Save your time..... it has been done by those of us in the motorcycle world... http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2/18291/Motorcycle-Article/EPA-Acknowledges-Ethanol-Damages-Engines.aspx

Also…Use real time testing , like the Motorcycle one mentioned. How about you use a combination of 2-stroke and 4-stroke outboard motors, each being run daily, then only once a week, then only being run once a month. The cars that run E-10 are almost always run daily, and separation is a small probability. Also, outboards are often in harsh environments, with more temperature changes and more changes in humidity…That , in my opinion affects the results as well...My 2 cents

I can't speak to fuel pumps or fuel lines for automobiles but do have a comment on materials used in construction of an ethanol plant if it means anything here. I was involved (MEP PM) on a 50MG plant EPC contract. From the distillation building to the storage tanks, which is pure ethanol, the piping was SCH 40 A106 welded carbon steel. That was 5-6 years ago and to my knowledge it has not failed.