ARTICLE IN PRESS

Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100

www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

The influence of air–fuel ratio on engine performance

and pollutant emission of an SI engine using
ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels
Chan-Wei Wua, Rong-Horng Chenb, Jen-Yung Pua, Ta-Hui Lina,
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Tainan 71043, Taiwan, ROC
Received 1 October 2003; received in revised form 5 January 2004; accepted 26 January 2004

Abstract

Ethanol–gasoline-blended fuel was tested in a conventional engine under various air–fuel equivalence ratios (l) for its
performance and emissions. The amount of fuel injection was adjusted manually by an open-loop control system using
a CONSULT controller. It was found that without changing throttle opening and injection strategy, l could be
extended to a leaner condition as ethanol content increased. The results of engine performance tests showed that torque
output would increase slightly at small throttle valve opening when ethanol–gasoline-blended fuel was used. It was also
shown that CO and HC emissions were reduced with the increase of ethanol content in the blended fuel, which resulted
from oxygen enrichment. At an air–fuel equivalence ratio slightly larger than one, the smallest amounts of CO and HC
and the largest amounts of CO2 resulted. It was noted that under the lean combustion condition, CO2 emission was
controlled by air–fuel equivalence ratio; while under the rich combustion condition, CO2 emission is offset by CO
emission. It was also found that CO2 emission per unit horse power output for blended fuel was similar or less than that
for gasoline fuel. From the experimental data, the optimal ethanol content in the gasoline and air–fuel equivalence ratio
in terms of engine performance and air pollution was found.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ethanol–gasoline-blended fuel; Air–fuel ratio; Pollutant emission; Engine performance

1. Introduction fuel, we need to look for other energy sources to

With the rapid development of the industry and
society, the requirement of fossil fuels is growing higher
and higher, so there is great anxiety about the shortage
of energy because of finite reserves or other political
reasons (such as petroleum crisis and the Persian Gulf
War). Besides designing more efficient engines to save
Corresponding author. Tel.: 886 6 2752525x62167; fax:
886 6 2352973.
E-mail address: thlin@mail.ncku.edu.tw (T.-H. Lin).
completely or partially substitute the fuels we are using
at present. Then the demand and dependence on fossil
fuels can be lowered. Furthermore, environmental
protection issues have been emphasized around the
world in recent years, so it is urgent to find some clean
and suitable alternative fuels to meet environmental
needs.
In alcohols, methanol and ethanol are used most often
as fuels and fuel additives. It is known that natural gas is
needed in manufacturing methanol. But natural gas
is not abundant in Taiwan, so the goal of energy

1352-2310/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.01.058
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7094 C.-W. Wu et al. / Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100
independence cannot be reached. Since ethanol can be
fermented and distilled from crops, it can be considered
as a renewable energy. Based on economic and
environmental considerations for Taiwan, we have more
interest in using ethanol as fuel instead of methanol.
Moreover, for most unleaded gasoline, methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) is still a problem because it will
pollute groundwater and harm human health. It may be
possible for ethanol to replace MTBE in the future.
The properties of gasoline and ethanol are quite
different from each other because of their chemical and
physical differences. For the Reid’s vapor pressure
value, gasoline is higher than ethanol. The evaporative
emission of ethanol is thus smaller when it is stored, but
this will also cause cold-start problem. In theory, for an
un-throttled Otto-cycle engine, the efficiency
can be
written as
¼ 1  ð1=gk1 Þ; where g is compression ratio
and k is specific heat ratio. The research octane number
of ethanol is higher than that of gasoline; this will
improve antiknock property of engine. Thus if we use
ethanol as the fuel, we can raise the compression ratio so
that the heat efficiency and engine power output can be
improved. In modern engines, however, if we use pure
ethanol as fuel, we will need to modify the engine
designs. To avoid changing engine design, we put
emphasis on ethanol–gasoline-blended fuel and then
some engine performance will be improved such as cold-
start and antiknock property.
Many researches have focused on ethanol–gasoline-
blended fuels. Furey and King (1980) showed that
evaporative emissions were increased significantly by
adding 10% ethanol to gasoline, but were increased less
with 15% MTBE in gasoline. Exhaust HC, CO, and
NOx emissions from a car without closed-loop fuel
control were significantly lower with the ethanol and
MTBE fuel blends than with gasoline. Radwan (1985)
pointed out that by using 50% ethanol and 50%
gasoline the maximum antiknock limit was attained.
Ethanol has higher cetane number, so in early
researches, it was mainly used in diesel engine (Aulich
et al., 1994). Hamdan and Jubran (1986) in their study
found out that by using 5% ethanol, optimum engine
output can be obtained and the heat efficiency increases
by 4–21% under partial loading. Because of the lower
flash point and auto-ignition temperature of gasoline,
ethanol can be more safely transported or preserved
than gasoline. It is noteworthy, however, that ethanol
will corrode mechanical components, especially those
made of copper, brass and aluminum materials owing to
water solubility of ethanol (Coelho et al., 1996). In order
to reduce this problem on fuel delivery system, it is
advisable to use fluorocarbon rubber as a replacement
for the above-mentioned materials.
The environmental protection issue has gradually
become important in many industrial countries in which
a major part of air pollution is caused by vehicles. Thus,
another goal of using ethanol–gasoline fuel is to lower
exhaust emissions. Because ethanol contains an oxygen
atom, it can provide additional oxygen and reduce
engine exhaust emission such as CO. In the national
vehicle and fuel laboratory of American EPA, Guerrieri
et al. (1995) made a test and discovered that as ethanol
content was increased up to 40%, the emission of
organic matter hydrocarbon equivalent and total
hydrocarbon (including methane and ethane) increased
a little at first and then decreased along with CO
emission, and the CO2 emission decreased with ethanol
content over 25%. In Washington, DC and Chicago
laboratories, Kelly et al. (1999) used three fuels: base
gasoline, E50 and E85 in 21 cars and concluded that
using E85 would decrease non-methane hydrocarbon
emission and CO emission in comparison with base
gasoline. Palmer (1986) showed that the gasoline
containing 10% ethanol could lower CO emission about
30%. Moreira and Goldemberg (1999) pointed out that
the aromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzene), which are
toxic, were eliminated and the sulfur content was
reduced as well by using ethanol–gasoline-blended fuel
because the ethanol has the same antiknock improving
quality as the aromatics have and the sulfur content in
gasoline was more than that in ethanol; the aromatics
and sulfur can be replaced and reduced by using ethanol.
Some studies (Chao et al., 2000; Rideout et al., 1994)
showed that using ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels would
increase the emission of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and
acetone. Although the emission of aldehyde will increase
when ethanol is used as a fuel, the damage to the
environment by the emitted aldehyde is far less than that
by the poly nuclear aromatics emitted from burning
gasoline. Alexandrian and Schwalm (1992) indicated
that different air–fuel ratios would clearly change CO
emission. Using ethanol–gasoline-blended fuel would
produce less CO and NOx than using gasoline, especially
in rich condition. Taylor et al. (1996) used four alcohol
fuels to blend with gasoline and concluded that adding
ethanol can reduce CO, HC and NO emissions. Hsieh et
al. (2002) has recently studied different ethanol–gaso-
line-blended fuel in an engine with a closed-loop system,
and found that adding ethanol would cause leaning
effect and decreased CO and HC about 10–90% and
20–80%, respectively. However, NOx emission de-
pended on the engine operating condition rather than
the ethanol content and the result was not conclusive.
Al-Hasan (2003) investigated the effect of using
unleaded gasoline–ethanol blends on SI engine perfor-
mance and exhaust emission. The results showed that
blending unleaded gasoline with ethanol increased the
brake power, torque, volumetric and brake thermal
efficiencies and fuel consumption, while it decreased the
brake specific fuel consumption and equivalence air–fuel
ratio. The CO and HC emission concentrations in the
engine exhaust decreased, while the CO2 concentration
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.-W. Wu et al. / Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100 7095

increased. From the above literature review, we realize
that alcohol–gasoline-blended fuels can effectively re-
duce the pollutant emission and slightly enhance engine
performance. But the influence of air–fuel ratio on
engine performance and pollutant emissions by using
different ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels was not yet
clearly studied. Therefore, we used an open-loop
control system to work on the overall understanding
on the correlations of ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels,
air–fuel equivalences, engine performance and exhaust
emissions.
2. Experimental setup
Our experimental apparatus include four major sys-
tems namely, the engine system, power measurement
system, exhaust system and injection system. The first
three systems can be referred to Hsieh’s (Hsieh et al.,
2002) experimental equipments. The engine system used
in the experiment is a 4-cylinder 8-valve commercial
engine New Sentra GA16DE, which is a 1600 cm3 multi-
point injection gasoline engine with cylinder bore and
stroke 76.0 and 88.0 mm, respectively. The ports arrange-
ments are Dual Overhead Camshaft (D.O.H.C.) and the
compression ratio is 9.5. The engine output power was
measured by the eddy-current dynamometer made by
BORGHI & SAVERI (FE60-100-150 series).
In the experiment, the concentrations of exhaust gas
species, including CO, CO2 and HC, were measured on-
line by the gas analyzer UREX-5000-4T with pre-
calibration. The air–fuel equivalence ratio l
(l ¼ ðm_ air =m
_ fuel Þ=ðm
_ air =m
_ fuel Þs the subscript s refers to
the stoichiometric condition) can be calculated simulta-
neously by the gas analyzer according to the composi-
tion of the exhaust. The location of on-line sampling of
exhaust gas was described in Hsieh’s apparatus (Hsieh et
al., 2002). Exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) and cata-
lysts are not used in the engine. In the injection system,
we used CONSULT controller to adjust the amount of
injection manually to change the air–fuel equivalence
ratio. For a fixed throttle opening (at 20–100%), the
system original injection strategy was to adjust at l
around 0.9. We manually changed injection rate from
25% to 25% of the original. Then l can be calculated
according to the injected volume percentage of ethanol
and gasoline along with air flow rate (obtained from
oxygen sensor in the exhaust stream). l is used as our
basis of comparison for different ethanol–gasoline-
blended fuels.
The experimental conditions were as follows: two
engine speeds, 3000 and 4000 rpm and six throttle valve
openings, 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% (wide
open throttle) were used. The fuels were E0, E5, E10,
E20 and E30, indicating the content of ethanol in
different volume ratios (e.g., E5 contains 5% ethanol
and 95% gasoline in volume) (Table 1). The controllable

Table 1
Properties of different ethanol/gasoline-blended fuels (E0, E5, E10, E20, E30)

Property item Test fuel Method

E0 E5 E10 E20 E30

Density (kg/l at 15.5 1C) 0.7575 0.7591 0.7608 0.7645 0.7682 ASTM D4052
RON (octane number) 95.4 96.7 98.1 100.7 102.4 ASTM D2699
RVP (kPa at 37.8 1C) 53.7 59.3 59.6 58.3 56.8 ASTM D5191
Sulfur (wt%) 0.0061 0.0059 0.0055 0.0049 0.0045 ASTM D5453
Washed gum (mg/100 ml) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 ASTM D381
Unwashed gum (mg/100 ml) 18.8 18.6 17.4 15 14.4
Lead content (g/l) o0.0025 o0.0025 o0.0025 o0.0025 o0.0025 ASTM D3237
Corrosivity (3 h at 50 1C) 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a ASTM D130
Distillation temperature (1C) ASTM D86
IBP 35.5 36.5 37.8 36.7 39.5
10 vol% 54.5 49.7 50.8 52.8 54.8
50 vol% 94.4 88.0 71.1 70.3 72.4
90 vol% 167.3 167.7 166.4 163.0 159.3
End point 197.0 202.5 197.5 198.6 198.3
Heating value (cal/g) 10176 9692 9511 9316 8680
Carbon (wt%) 86.60 87.70 86.70 87.60 86.00
Hydrogen (wt%) 13.30 12.20 13.20 12.30 13.90
H/C ratio 1.84 1.67 1.83 1.68 1.94
Residue (vol%) 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Color Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Visual
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7096 C.-W. Wu et al. / Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100

range of injection was between+25% and 25% of
original injection strategy and an increment of 5% was
used for a step.
3. Results and discussions
The difference between open- and closed-loop control
is that in the closed-loop control, the on-board central
unit controls the fuel injection strategy with feedback
signal from the oxygen sensor placed in the exhaust pipe,
while in open-loop control, injection is adjusted manually
to change the air–fuel equivalence ratio. In this study, we
use open-loop control to investigate the influence of the
air–fuel ratio on engine performance and pollutant
emission of ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels.
3.1. Torque output
Fig. 1 shows the influence of air–fuel ratio on torque
output using ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels at two
engine speeds and various throttle valve openings. At
the same engine speed, the torque output rises with the
increase of throttle valve opening because the amount of
fuel injection becomes larger and more heat is produced.
For all throttle valve openings, when air–fuel equiva-
lence ratio is slightly smaller than one, maximum torque
output is available. With the increase of l, torque output
is getting smaller, because the amount of combustible
vapor in the cylinder reduces. With the decrease of l,
although the amount of combustible vapor increases,
torque is still getting smaller because of incomplete
combustion.
For the influence of different ethanol–gasoline-
blended fuels on engine output, it deserved to be noted
that with increasing ethanol content, torque output
slightly increases, especially in small throttle opening
(20% and 40%) at 3000 and 4000 rpm. It can be seen
from Fig. 1 that at 20% throttle opening and 3000 rpm,
using E5 leads to higher torque output in lean condition.
At 40% throttle opening and 4000 rpm, using E20 and
E30 results in higher torque output and the increment is
about 5–8%. Between 60% and 100% throttle openings
at 3000 and 4000 rpm, the trend of torque output
variation due to ethanol addition is not clear. From the
figure, we can find that at l  0:95 and 4000 rpm, using
E30 can produce the highest torque output.

3.2. Brake-specific heat consumption (bshc)

140
130 3000 rpm 4000 rpm
120 Test Fuel From the experimental data, we can calculate the bshc
E0
110 E05 value to investigate the variation of heat consumption
100 E10
E20 when using different volume ratios of ethanol–gasoline-
90 100% E30
80
blended fuels. bshc can be defined as follows:
130 _ GH G þ m
_ E H E Þ=brake power;
bhsc ¼ ðm
120
110 where HG is the heating value of gasoline, HE the
100 _ G the mass consumption rate
heating value of ethanol, m
90 80% of gasoline and m _ E the mass consumption rate of
Torque (Nm)

80
130 ethanol.
120 Fig. 2 focused on bshc variations of different
110 ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels and different air–fuel
100
90
equivalence ratios at 3000 and 4000 rpm. The calories
60%
80 used in Fig. 2 are based on raising the temperature of 1 g
130 of water by 1 1C. From the result we find that when l is
120 around unity, the value of bshc is the smallest. The
110
reason was that power output in this situation is the
100
90 largest owing to complete combustion. On the other
40%
80 hand, bshc will be higher in richer or leaner condition
80 because of lower power output due to incomplete
60 combustion. Thus the engine needs more heat consump-
40 tion to maintain the same power output. It can also be
20
20% found that bshc increases when engine speed rises.
0 At a fixed throttle opening and a fixed engine speed,
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
the amount of air intake is a constant. To obtain the
λ
same l, we need more volume flowrate of ethanol–gaso-
Fig. 1. The influence of air–fuel ratio on torque output using line-blended fuel than base gasoline (E0) because the
ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels under different rotational air–fuel ratio of gasoline is 1.6 times of ethanol. The
speeds and throttle valve openings. added volume flowrate compensate for the 1.6 times
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.-W. Wu et al. / Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100 7097

1500 emission, because there is not sufficient oxygen to

3000 rpm 4000 rpm
convert all carbon atoms of fuel into CO2. Thus, the
1200 Test Fuel
E0 most important parameter that affects CO emission is
E05
900 E10
E20
the air–fuel equivalence ratio.
100%
E30 Fig. 3 shows the variations of CO emission concen-
600 tration for different fuels under different air–fuel
1200
equivalence ratios. It can be seen obviously from the
figure that at fixed engine speed, as throttle opening
900 become larger, l can be extended to richer condition and
80% CO gets higher accordingly. With air–fuel equivalence
bshc (cal/kW)

600
ratio approaching unity, CO emission diminishes, and
1200 even becomes zero in lean condition.
As to the effect of different ethanol contents on CO
900 emission, CO emission is likely to be reduced due to
60% oxygen enrichment coming from ethanol. This result can
600
be regarded as a ‘‘pre-mixed oxygen effect’’ to make the
1200 reaction go to a more complete state. From Fig. 3, it can
be found that E10 always produces the smallest amount
900
of CO at l  1:04:
40%
600
1500 3.3.2. CO2 emission
1200 Fig. 4 indicates the variation of CO2 emission for
900
different ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels under different
600
20%
300
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.6 12
λ 10 3000 rpm 4000 rpm
8 Test Fuel
E0
Fig. 2. The influence of air–fuel ratio on bshc value using 6 E05
E10
ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels under different rotational 4 E20
speeds and throttle valve openings. 2 100% E30
0
10
8
lower heating value of ethanol than that of gasoline. 6
According to these factors, there is no appreciable 4
difference on the bshc between using pure gasoline and 2 80%
CO Emission (%)

ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels, as observed in Fig. 2. 0

10
But at 20% throttle valve opening, in general, the bshc 8
increases with the increase of ethanol content, instead. 6
From the figure, we can find that at l  1:03 and 4
throttle opening larger than 40%, using E30 can obtain 2 60%
0
the lowest bshc, and that at 20% throttle opening, using
10
E0 or E10 can obtain the lowest bshc. 8
6
4
3.3. Engine exhausts emission analysis 2 40%
0
In this study, we use exhaust analyzer to measure the 10
exhaust species concentration to recognize the influence 8
of different ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels at different 6
4
air–fuel equivalence ratios on exhaust emissions. The 2 20%
following sections discussed separately the regulated 0
emissions: CO, CO2 and HC. 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
λ
3.3.1. CO emission Fig. 3. The influence of air–fuel ratio on CO emission using
Generally speaking, as the engine is running in rich ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels under different rotational
condition, the exhaust will contain large amount of CO speeds and throttle valve openings.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7098 C.-W. Wu et al. / Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100

14 C8 H15 þ 11:75ðO2 þ 3:76N2 Þ

12 3000 rpm 4000 rpm
Test Fuel ! 8CO2 þ 7:5H2 O þ 44:18N2 ; ð2Þ
10 E0
E05
8 E10
6 100% E20 8
E30 ) CO2 ð%Þgasoline ¼ 100% ¼ 15:33ð%Þ:
4 8 þ 44:18
12 Formulae (1) and (2) are the complete combustion
10 processes of pure gasoline and ethanol. Since the
8 exhaust analyzer adopts dry analysis, the result shows
CO2 Emission (%)

6 80% that as the ethanol content increases, CO2 emission will

4 slightly decrease. From the figure, we can find that for
12
10
8
6 60%
4
12
10
8 mainly caused by three mechanisms: (a) misfiring or
6 40%
4 lean situation, or when the air–fuel mixture contains
12
10
8
6
20%
4
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.8
λ
Fig. 4. The influence of air–fuel ratio on CO2 emission using
ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels under different rotational
speeds and throttle valve openings.
air–fuel equivalence ratios. The result shows that when l
is slightly larger than one, the amount of CO2 emission
is the largest, owing to complete combustion. When l is
far away from unity, for l41, the total amount of CO2
emission stays a constant, but with the air–fuel
equivalence ratio increases, the inhaled air increases.
Thus, the concentration of CO2 emission would decrease
due to dilution. For lo1, the concentration of CO2
emission is offset by CO emission. CO and CO2 have
complementary correlation, that is, with increasing CO
emission, the amount of CO2 decreases.
With regard to the effect of different ethanol contents
on CO2 emission, it can be clearly discovered that
adding ethanol can decrease CO2 emission. The reason
can be given from the following chemical formulae:
C2 H5 OH þ 3ðO2 þ 3:76N2 Þ
! 2CO2 þ 3H2 O þ 11:28N2 ;
2 condition and fuel to reduce HC emission is to use E10
) CO2 ð%Þethanol ¼ 100% ¼ 15:06ð%Þ
2 þ 11:28
all the tested fuels, the maximum CO2 emission appears
at l  1:01; but using E30 can produce the minimum
CO2 emission.
3.3.3. HC emission
In general, the unburned hydrocarbon in exhaust is
incomplete combustion, which occurs in highly rich or
large amount of burned exhaust or nitrogen to
make flame propagate incompletely in combustion
chamber; (b) flame quenching effect, which takes
place near combustion chamber surface area or
clearance and (c) deposits or oil membrane, which
1 1.2 1.4 1.6
absorbs fuel.
Fig. 5 shows the variation of HC emission for
different ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels under different
air–fuel equivalence ratios. It can be found that the
minimum HC emission occurs in the condition of
stoichiometric to slightly lean combustion, under which
conditions there is sufficient air to make unburned HC
participate in oxidation reaction. However, if combus-
tion condition is too lean or too rich, HC emission will
rise as observed from Fig. 5. For example, when l is
larger than 1.4 at 20% throttle opening, the amount of
HC emission increases because combustion becomes
highly incomplete.
Concerning the effect of different fuels on HC
emission, it can be clearly found in Fig. 5 that as
the ethanol content increases, HC emission will
decrease for all throttle openings. Ethanol does not
contain lead, so formation of porous deposits can be
avoided. In addition, ethanol molecules are polar, which
cannot be absorbed easily by un-polar molecule in
lubricating oil layer; and therefore ethanol can lower the
possibility of producing HC emission. From the figure, it
can be found that the reduction of HC is about 5–30%.
Above 40%, for both 3000 and 4000 rpm, there are
strange peaks between l=0.9 and 1 for E0 and E5
ð1Þ blended fuels. For a fixed throttle opening, the
concentration of unburned hydrocarbons at 4000 rpm
is less than that at 3000 rpm. The optimal operation
at l  1:02:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.-W. Wu et al. / Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100 7099

240 4. Unburned HC is the product of incomplete combus-

3000 rpm 4000 rpm
180 Test Fuel
tion. It is related to air–fuel equivalence ratios. When
120
E0
E05
l is slightly larger than one, HC emission is the
E10
E20
lowest; but if l is far from one, HC emission will rise
60
100% E30 again. It is noted that adding ethanol can reduce HC
0 emission because of oxygen enhancement.
180
120 According to these results, we conclude that using E10
blended fuel at an air–fuel equivalence ratio slightly
HC Emission (ppm)

60
80% larger than one can reduce pollutant emission efficiently.
0
180
120
Acknowledgements
60
60%
0 This study was financially supported by the Commis-
180 sion on Sustainable Development Research, National
Science Council, and the Bureau of Air Quality
120
Protection and Noise Control, Environmental Protec-
60 tion Administration, Taiwan, ROC, under the contract
40%
0 of NSC88-EPA-Z006-008.
180
120
60 References
20%
0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Alexandrian, M., Schwalm, M., 1992. Comparison of ethanol
λ and gasoline as automotive fuels. ASME papers 92-WA/
DE-15.
Fig. 5. The influence of air–fuel ratio on HC emission using Al-Hasan, M., 2003. Effect of ethanol–unleaded gasoline blends
ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels under different rotational on engine performance and exhaust emission. Energy
speeds and throttle valve openings. Conversion and Management 44, 1547–1561.
Aulich, T.R., He, X., Grisanti, A.A., Knudson, C.L., 1994.
Gasoline evaporation—ethanol and nonethanol blends.
Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 44,
1004–1100.
4. Conclusion Chao, H.R., Lin, T.C., Chao, M.R., Chang, F.H., Huang, C.I.,
Chen, C.B., 2000. Effect of methanol-containing additive on
In this study, engine performance and pollutant diesel engine. Journal of Hazardous Materials 13 (1), 39–54.
emission were measured on the utilization of the Coelho, E. P.D., et al., 1996. Fuel injection components
ethanol–gasoline-blended fuel under different air–fuel developed for Brazilian fuels. SAE paper 962350.
Furey, R.L., King, J.B., 1980. Evaporative and exhaust
equivalence ratios. The results showed that the air–fuel
emissions from cars fueled with gasoline containing ethanol
equivalence ratio and ethanol content play an important or methyl tert-butyl ether. SAE preprints, No. 800261, p. 19.
role in combustion process. We made the conclusions as Guerrieri, D.A., Caffrey, P.J., Rao, V., 1995. Investigation into
follows: the vehicle exhaust emissions of high percentage ethanol
blends. SAE paper No. 950777, pp. 85–95.
1. When air–fuel ratio is slightly smaller than one, Hamdan, M.A.S., Jubran, B.A., 1986. The effect of ethanol
maximum torque output and minimum bshc are addition on the performance of diesel and gasoline engines.
available. Using ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels im- Dirasat 13 (10).
proves torque output. However, bshc does not Hsieh, W.D., Chen, R.H., Wu, T.L., Lin, T.H., 2002. Engine
change noticeably. performance and pollutant emission of an SI engine using
ethanol–gasoline blended fuels. Atmospheric Environment
2. CO emission depends on air–fuel equivalence ratio.
(36), pp. 403–410.
With the increase of ethanol content, CO emission is
Kelly, K.J., Bailey, B.K., Coburn, T., Clark, W., Lissiuk, P.,
reduced due to oxygen enrichment coming from 1999. Federal test procedure emissions test results from
ethanol. ethanol variable-fuel vehicle Chevrolet luminas. SAE paper
3. CO2 emission depends on air–fuel equivalence ratio 990602, pp. 249–260.
and CO emission concentration. The maximum CO2 Moreira, J.R., Goldemberg, J., 1999. The alcohol program.
concentration appears at l  1: Energy Policy (27), 229–245.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
7100 C.-W. Wu et al. / Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 7093–7100

Radwan, M.S., 1985. Performance and knock limits of
ethanol–gasoline blends in spark-ignited engines. SAE
paper 850213.
Rideout, G., Kirshenblat, M., Prakash, C., 1994. Emissions
from methanol, ethanol and diesel powered urban transit
buses. SAE International Truck&Bus Meeting & Exposi-
tion, Seattle, WA.
Taylor, A.B., Moran, D.P., Bell, A.J., 1996. Gasoline/alcohol
blends: exhaust emissions, performance and burn-rate in a
multi-valve production engine. SAE paper 961988, pp. 143–160.