Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Impact of biodiesel and renewable diesel on emissions of regulated

pollutants and greenhouse gases on a 2000 heavy duty diesel truck
Kwangsam Na a, *, Subhasis Biswas a, William Robertson a, Keshav Sahay a,
Robert Okamoto b, Alexander Mitchell b, Sharon Lemieux c
a
b
c

California Air Resources Board, Monitoring Laboratory Division, 9528 Telstar Ave., El Monte, CA 91731, USA
Industrial Strategies Division, 1900 14th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811, USA
Emissions Compliance, Automotive Regulations and Science Division, 9528 Telstar Ave., El Monte, CA 91731, USA

h i g h l i g h t s
 Effect of biodiesels (BD) and renewable diesel (RD) on regulated emissions (RE) was investigated on a chassis dynamometer.
 BD showed higher degree of emission reductions for PM, THC, and CO than RD.
 BD showed signicant increases in NOx emissions for 50% or higher blends.
 BD and RD impacts on CO2 and N2O emissions were of lower magnitude relative to other RE.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 4 August 2014
Received in revised form
17 February 2015
Accepted 23 February 2015
Available online 24 February 2015

As part of a broad evaluation of the environmental impacts of biodiesel and renewable diesel as alternative motor fuels and fuel blends in California, the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Heavy-duty
Diesel Emission Testing Laboratory conducted chassis dynamometer exhaust emission measurements on
in-use heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks (HHDDT). The results presented here detail the impact of biodiesel
and renewable diesel fuels and fuel blends as compared to CARB ULSD on particulate matter (PM),
regulated gases, and two greenhouse gases emissions from a HHDDT with a 2000 C15 Caterpillar engine
with no exhaust after treatment devices. This vehicle was tested over the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (UDDS) and the cruise portion of the California HHDDT driving schedule. Three neat blend
stocks (soy-based and animal-based fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesels, and a renewable diesel)
and CARB-certied ultra-low sulfur diesel (CARB ULSD) along with their 20% and 50% blends (blended
with CARB ULSD) were tested. The effects of blend level on emission characteristics were discussed on
g$km 1 basis. The results showed that PM, total hydrocarbon (THC), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were dependent on driving cycles, showing higher emissions for the UDDS cycles with medium
load than the highway cruise cycle with high load on per km basis. When comparing CARB ULSD to
biodiesels and renewable diesel blends, it was observed that the PM, THC, and CO emissions decreased
with increasing blend levels regardless of the driving cycles. Note that biodiesel blends showed higher
degree of emission reductions for PM, THC, and CO than renewable diesel blends. Both biodiesels and
renewable diesel blends effectively reduced PM emissions, mainly due to reduction in elemental carbon
emissions (EC), however no readily apparent reductions in organic carbon (OC) emissions were observed.
When compared to CARB ULSD, soy- and animal-based biodiesel blends showed statistically signicant
increases in nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions for 50% or higher biodiesel blends. The 20% blends of the
biodiesels showed no statistically signicant effect on NOx emissions on any cycle. In contrast, renewable
diesel slightly decreased NOx emissions and the degree of reduction was statistically signicant for 50%
or higher blends over the UDDS cycle, but not at the 20% blends. The highway cruise cycles did not show
a statistically strong NOx emission trend with increasing blend level of renewable diesel. Biodiesel and

Keywords:
Biodiesel
Renewable diesel
Regulated pollutants
Elemental carbon
Chassis dynamometer

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kna@arb.ca.gov (K. Na).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.054
1352-2310/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

308

K. Na et al. / Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

renewable fuel impacts on two greenhouse gases, CO2 and N2O emissions were of lower magnitude
when compared to other regulated pollutants emissions, showing a change in their emissions within
approximately 3% from the CARB ULSD.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Biodiesel is a widely recognized renewable and alternative fuel
for diesel engines which meets the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) registration requirements for fuels. The use and
production of biodiesel has been growing for the past decade and it
is projected to continue with the trend as governmental programs
and regulations promote the use of increasing levels of biofuel in
the transportation sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(when a complete carbon life cycle is considered). For instance, the
California Governor's Executive Orders S-1-07 (Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, LCFS) and S-06-06 have spurred biofuel development in
California by establishing targets for biofuel production and use
while pursuing 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of California's
transportation fuels by 2020 (Farrell and Sperling, 2007). In addition, the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) under the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandated that a minimum
of 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel fuel must be used in
the United States in 2009. On August 6, 2013, the EPA released its
nalized volume and percentage standards for four renewable fuel
categories e cellulosic, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuels,
and total renewables e under the 2013 RFS program. The EPA
proposes the use of 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuels in the
transportation sector, corresponding to a percentage standard of
9.74% (ratio of renewable fuel volume to gasoline or diesel volume)
(US EPA, 2013a).
A number of studies have suggested that biodiesel can lead to
higher NOx emissions (Karavalakis et al., 2009; Cheung et al., 2009;
Durbin et al., 2011; Hajbabaei et al., 2012). The potential for increase
in NOx emissions has been recognized as a major concern to the
application of biodiesel. This concern has resulted in a number of
earlier studies to measure NOx emissions from various biodiesel
mixtures (Durbin et al., 2000; US EPA, 2002; McCormick et al.,
2006; Sze et al., 2007; Durbin et al., 2011).
Renewable diesel is a synthetic diesel fuel with no oxygen and
aromatic compounds, which is produced based on the hydrogenation of fatty acids. In order for some consistency, renewable
diesel will be regarded as a diesel substitute from a renewable
feedstock which are not esters. Chemically, it involves direct catalytic hydrogenation of plant oils and animal fats which mainly
consist of triglycerides, into the corresponding alkanes. Side
products of this hydrogenation include propane and gasoline
components. The process has input exibility to convert any
vegetable oil or animal fat into an aliphatic product with characteristics similar to Fischer-Tropsch synthetic diesel. Though there
are differences with each company, renewable diesel is usually
subjected to thermal hydrotreating or pyrolysis-rapid thermal
processing. Unlike the yellow transesteried biodiesel, the product
is a clear and colorless hydrocarbon fuel, with a good Cetane
number and better combustion properties than even petroleumbased diesel. Engine dynamometer emissions testing using 100%
NExBTL renewable diesel reported reducing NOx emissions by
5e18% and PM by 5e28% compared to CARB-certied ULSD
(Hajbabaei et al., 2012). Most of the studies on vehicle emissions
have been generally focused on biodiesel impact using an engine
dynamometer (McGill et al., 2003; Fang et al., 2008; Hajbabaei

et al., 2012). However, little investigation has been done examining whole vehicles on Chassis Dynamometer on the effect of
blend levels of renewable diesel fuels on regulated emissions,
global warming gases, and chemical composition of particulate
matter in terms of a chassis dynamometer.
The California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Heavy-Duty Diesel
Emission Testing Laboratory conducted exhaust emission measurements from in-use heavy-duty vehicles on a chassis dynamometer with the purpose of comparing the regulated and
greenhouse gas emissions impact of biodiesel and renewable diesel
and blends to CARB ULSD over a range of driving cycles. To achieve
the goal of this study, a renewable diesel fuel and two biodiesels
with different feedstocks (soy- and animal-based diesels) were
used.
According to 2012 data compiled by R.L. Polk for the Diesel
Technology Forum, more than 28% of all trucks registered in the
United States (i.e., 2.5 million of the 8.6 million trucks) are equipped
with diesel particulate lter (DPF) (Polk, 2013). It is expected that
the number of DPF-equipped vehicles will continue to increase.
Even though the truck tested in this study lacks of exhaust aftertreatments and categorized into a fading technology vehicle, this
is an important class of diesel vehicles from an emission stand
point, as the majority of the emissions will be contributed by high
emitters in the near future. In addition, it will provide a reference
for comparison and evaluation on the impact of biodiesel and
renewable diesel on regulated emissions between not only
controlled and uncontrolled vehicle emissions, but also chassis
dynamometer and engine dynamometer tests. This study was
conducted as part of a broad evaluation of the environmental impacts of biodiesel and renewable diesel as motor fuels in California.
2. Experimental procedures
2.1. Testing facility
This study was conducted at the California Air Resources Board's
Heavy Duty Emission Test Laboratory (HDETL) in Los Angeles which
is equipped with a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer. The chassis
dynamometer (Schenck-Pegasus unit) is driven by a direct current
(DC) 447 kW (600 HP) motor that can absorb up to 492 kW (660 HP).
It utilizes a single 182.9 cm (diameter) roller and has the capacity to
simulate inertial weights from 2268 kg to 45,359 kg (5000 to
100,000 lbs). The chassis dynamometer cell is equipped with an
45.7 cm (diameter) full exhaust ow dilution tunnel (constant volume sampler, CVS). The total ow in the CVS during the testing was
70,792 LPM (2500 SCFM) maintained by a critical ow venturi. The
dilution air is ltered through a HEPA lter and carbon cartridges to
remove particles and gaseous impurities. The mixed ow (ow of
vehicular exhaust and dilution air) is fed to a train of gaseous and PM
instruments. The emission testing system is based on the Code of
Federal Regulations Section 40, Part 86, and Subpart N.
2.2. Vehicles and cycles
The details of the test vehicle are described in Table 1. This
vehicle was a Freightliner truck equipped with a 2000 C15

K. Na et al. / Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

309

Table 1
Description on vehicle tested.
Transmission

Manual

Odometer (km)

54 K

Inertia weight (kg)

26,646 (Cruise)
19,895 (UDDS)

Engine displacement (liter)

14.6

Caterpillar engine with no exhaust after-treatment devices and

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). For this test, two driving cycles
were employed: a lightly loaded Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (UDDS) and the more aggressive 80 km per hour (50 mile
per hour) CARB heavy heavy-duty diesel truck (HHDDT) cruise
cycle (CRC, 2007) at a higher test weight. The UDDS refers to U.S.
EPA's cycle developed for chassis dynamometer testing of heavyduty vehicles (US EPA, 2013a,b). A randomized test matrix was
used to minimize contributions from other factors such as diurnal
and temporal effects (Durbin et al., 2011).
2.3. Fuels tested
Four blend stocks used to formulate the test fuels for this study
were: (1) soy-based biodiesel, (2) animal-based biodiesel, (3)
renewable diesel, and (4) CARB-certied ultra-low sulfur diesel
(CARB ULSD). Of these fuels, the CARB ULSD was used as the
baseline for testing. The CARB ULSD was obtained from a California
renery. Two types of biodiesels from different feedstocks were
selected to provide a range of characteristics of biodiesel in terms of
Cetane number and degree of saturation. The biodiesels were
provided by the National Biodiesel Board, while the renewable
diesel used was supplied by Neste Oil Inc., and it is known as a
hydro-treated vegetable oil and or animal fat derived (NExBTL)
diesel fuel. For this study, the biodiesel and renewable diesel were
blended with the CARB ULSD from a single production lot in
different blending ratios. The neat soy-based biodiesel (Soy B100),
neat animal-based biodiesel (An B100), and neat renewable diesel
(R100) were blended with CARB ULSD at levels of 20% (Soy B20, An
B20, and R20) and 50% (Soy B50, An B50, and R50). Test fuel
blending was conducted using gravimetric method. Each test fuel
was stored in an individual drum with its headspace lled with
inert nitrogen to prevent oxidation. The Soy B100, An B100, R100,
and CARB ULSD fuels were analyzed in triplicate for the properties
under the ASTM International standard ASTM D6751 for Soy B100
and An B100 and D975 for R100 and ULSD. In addition, R100 cetane
was measured using the IQT test, which is more accurate for high
cetane fuels. Details of the fuels analyzed are provided in Table 2. In
this table, the straight CARB ULSD, Soy B100, An B100, and R100 are
presented. It is noted that carbon density is the highest for the
CARB ULSD showing 86% of the total mass of the fuel, followed by
R100 (85%), Soy B100 (77%), and An B100 (76%).
2.4. Emissions measurement
Emission data measured include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), total hydrocarbons (THC), carbon monoxide
(CO), organic carbon (OC), and elemental carbon (EC). Methane
(CH4), Carbon dioxide (CO2) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) were also
measured as representative of global warming gases. All data reported here are tunnel blank corrected. The CVS tunnel blanks were
collected over the same UDDS cycle duration (35 min) as used for
this study. PM and NOx measured in the CVS tunnel blanks were on
average 1.178 mg km 1 and 0.469 mg km 1, respectively.
In this study, CH4 emission data are not reported because the

Certication standard (g (kW-h)

NMHC

NOx

CO

PM

1.609

5.364

20.115

0.134

CH4 concentrations measured from exhaust were consistently

lower than those found in background air. PM was collected on
47 mm Teon lters by using a particle sampling unit (PSU, Horiba,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA). The sampling condition was maintained at
47 5  C in accordance with 40 CFR 1065 guidelines. PM mass
collected on these lters was weighed using UMX2 Mettler Toledo
microbalance (Mettler-Toledo LLC, Columbus, OH, USA) with a
readability of 0.1 mg. A Horiba exhaust gas analyzer (MEXA 7200D,
Horiba, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) was used for CO, CO2, THC, and NOx
analysis. N2O was collected in a ~4 L Teon bag from a CVS integrated sample bag and quantied with a Fourier Transform Infrared
spectrometer (FTIR, Thermo Scientic Nicolet 6700, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA) within eight hours of sampling. CO and CO2 were quantied
with non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) technique. THC and NOx were
analyzed with ame ionization detector and chemi-luminescence
detector, respectively. In this study, regulated emission data obtained from direct sampling from the CVS tunnel was used because
bag sampling caused a storage loss by gas adsorption to the sample
bag. To ensure data quality, performance of gas analyzer and CVS
tunnel were checked every week including linearization checks,
NOx efciency test, and propane recovery check. OC and EC samples
were collected on pre-red quartz lters and analyzed by CARB's
Southern Laboratory Branch of Monitoring Laboratory Division
using the DRI Thermo/Optical Carbon Analyzer Model 2001,
following the IMPROVE_A protocol. Their analytical methods are
described elsewhere (CARB, 2011).
2.5. Statistical analysis
The Data Analysis Tool provided by Microsoft Excel 2003 was used
to conduct t-test for the data set. The purpose of this test is to look into
how different fuel blend and blend levels signicantly affect the

Table 2
Test fuel properties.
Properties

Kinematic viscosity
(40  C), mm2/s
Physical distillation,
T90,  C, Max
Specic gravity
Flash point,  C, min
Cetane number
Cloud point,  C
Sulfur CONTENT,
ppm, Max
Nitrogen, ppm
Carbon (wt. %)
Hydrogen (wt. %)
Oxygen (wt. %)a
Total aromatics (wt. %)

Blend stock
CARB (ULSD)

Soy B100

An B100

R100

2.7

4.2

4.4

2.5

360

350

348

286

0.827
148
55.8
6.6
4.7

0.881
169
47.7
0.4
0.7

0.881
164
57.9
12.5
2.0

0.773
146
72.3
27.1
0.3

<1.0
86.1
13.7
0.2
18.7

2.9
76.7
12.0
11.3
NR

NRb
75.9
12.2
11.9
NR

1.3
84.8
15.1
3.0
0.4

Soy B: Soy-based biodiesel; An B: Animal-based biodiesel; R: Renewable diesel.

a
The highest probable oxygen content is determined by subtracting the sum of
the weight percentages of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen from 100% and assuming
that any remaining elements are present in negligible amounts.
b
Not reported.

310

K. Na et al. / Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

emission of regulated pollutants. For this test, two-tailed distribution

and two-sample assuming unequal variances were selected because
the distribution is not symmetrical. Test results with a p-value less
than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically signicant for this
test. Prior to applying the t-test to the data set, the outlier test was
performed in terms of the Interquartile Range (IQR) because the
number of data is not sufcient (i.e., six to eighteen points) to verify
Gaussian distribution. Any data that was less than or more than 1.5
times the IQR was considered an outlier.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. NOx emissions
Fig. 1(a) shows NOx emissions in grams per mile obtained
individually from varying blend levels on two different driving
cycles: a two consecutive UDDS cycle and the 80 km h 1 average
speed CARB HHDDT cruise cycle (also called highway cruise cycle in
this study). The x-axis lists fuels, blend levels, and test cycles. The
error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. As can be
seen in this gure, more NOx is emitted over the highway cruise
cycle with high load (inertia dyno weight (kg) of 26,646) than the
UDDS cycle with medium load (inertia dyno weight (kg) of 19,895)
independent of biodiesel feedstocks and their blend levels. It is
observed that the highway cruise cycle generates more exhaust
heat than the UDDS cycle. The average exhaust temperature was

measured as 262 22  C for the highway cruise and 193 8  C for

the UDDS cycle when using CARB ULSD fuel. The exhaust temperature was monitored at a position approximately 1.0 m away from
the tailpipe. Higher NOx emissions for the highway cruise cycle than
those for the UDDS cycle may be due to its higher load and combustion temperature on grams per mile basis.
When compared to CARB ULSD, soy-/animal-based biodiesel
blends generally showed a trend of increasing NOx emissions with
increasing blend level. In contrast, renewable biodiesel blends
show a trend of decreasing NOx emissions. Table 3 provides the
percent emissions differences relative to CARB ULSD for each biodiesel and renewable diesel blend with shaded numbers in this
table representing emissions differences that are statistically signicant. Values with a negative sign represent a decrease in regulated pollutants relative to CARB ULSD.
Both soy-/animal-based biodiesel blends show statistically signicant increases in NOx emissions for 50% or higher blend level
relative to CARB ULSD fuel. For example, Soy B50 and An B50 show
NOx increases of approximately 10% and 5%, respectively, for the
UDDS cycle. This increasing effect of biodiesels on NOx emissions is
consistent with previous studies (Karavalakis et al., 2009; Cheung
et al., 2009; Hajbabaei et al., 2012). The degree of unsaturation
and Cetane number of biodiesel are reported to be associated with
NOx emissions (Knothe, 2005; Pham et al., 2013). That is, the higher
the proportion of unsaturation and the lower the Cetane number,
the higher NOx emissions. Neat soy-based biodiesel typically

Fig. 1. Emission rates for regulated pollutants, NOx, PM, THC, and CO on grams per km basis.

K. Na et al. / Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

Table 3
Percent changes in emissions compared to the CARB ULSD fuel.
Driving cycle

Fuel

THC

UDDS  2

Soy B20
An B20
R20
Soy B50
An B50
R50
Soy B100
An B100
R100
Soy B20
An B20
R20
Soy B50
An B50
R50
Soy B100
An B100
R100

5.6
14.0
10.1
2.7
32.1
19.9
36.0
54.2
23.4
6.5
14.0
0.9
6.9
25.8
7.5
36.4
56.3
13.3

50 mph
Highway
Cruise

CO
9.4
11.1
0.7
25.1
24.8
9.3
32.8
40.5
14.8
15.9
8.4
3.3
25.9
24.2
8.6
41.7
43.6
18.8

NOx

CO2

PM

4.2
3.3
0.6
9.5
4.9
2.4
20.2
13.7
6.6
1.9
0.4
0.9
6.4
6.7
1.2
17.5
17.1
3.7

3.0
1.3
0.3
3.0
1.6
3.0
2.6
2.1
3.1
2.0
1.1
0.2
1.5
2.3
1.4
0.6
3.1
2.6

33.3
40.6
1.8
60.7
50.0
21.4
79.0
79.8
29.4
24.5
16.0
10.1
51.7
37.7
18.3
67.6
69.5
24.8

Note: shaded numbers represent statistically signicant % changes for p  0.05 at

95% condence interval.
Soy B: Soy-based biodiesel; An B: Animal-based biodiesel; R: Renewable diesel.

comprises more unsaturated compounds (~83%) and lower Cetane

number (~48) as compared with neat animal-based biodiesel being
typically composed of ~52% unsaturated compounds and Cetane
number of ~58 (Hoekman et al., 2012). This difference generally
results in higher NOx emissions for soy-based biodiesel than for
animal-based one. However, no signicant difference in NOx
emissions between Soy B100 and An B100 is observed in this study.
For renewable diesel blends, only neat renewable diesel, R100 is
shown in this study to have a statistically signicant reduction in
NOx emissions over the UDDS cycle.
3.2. PM emissions
Fig. 1(b) shows PM emissions rates in grams per kilometer for
CARB ULSD, soy-/animal based biodiesel, and renewable diesel
fuels and blends. Among the regulated pollutants measured in this
study, PM shows the greatest g km 1 reduction when using the
biodiesel and renewable diesel blends. Both test cycles show a
noticeable decrease in PM emissions with increasing blend levels of
biodiesels and renewable diesel. However, PM emissions are higher
for the UDDS cycle than the highway cruise cycle regardless of
diesel feedstocks and their blend levels, indicating duty cycle
dependence. It is noted that the degree of PM reduction for the soyand animal-based biodiesel blends when compared to CARB ULSD
is apparently larger than the corresponding reduction in PM
emissions found for the renewable diesel blends. Based on t-test,
the animal-based biodiesel blends show statistically similar reductions (at 95% condence interval) to the corresponding soybased biodiesel blends in PM emissions except for the blend level
of 50%. For renewable diesel when compared to CARB ULSD statistically signicant reductions in PM emissions are observed for
50% (R50) or higher blends over the UDDS cycle and for R100 over
the highway cruise cycle. As seen in Table 3, when compared with
CARB ULSD, PM emissions for Soy B100 and An B100 are signicantly reduced by 79% and 80% for the UDDS, and 68% and 70% for
the highway cruise, respectively. R100 also shows signicant reductions of 29% and 25% for the UDDS and the highway cruise,
respectively.
To gain further insight into the reduction of PM emissions
changes in the major components of PM, OC and EC were
investigated. Results are shown with respect to the blend levels

311

for the UDDS cycle in Fig. 2. As seen in this gure, EC emissions

markedly decrease with increasing blend levels for both biodiesels and renewable diesel. In contrast, OC emissions are
relatively consistent over all fuels including CARB ULSD. This
indicates that PM reduction is attributed primarily to decreasing
EC emission. EC emissions reductions of the soy-based biodiesel
and animal-based biodiesel blends are considerably larger than
those of the renewable diesel blends. For Soy B100 and An B100,
EC emissions are reduced by 81% and 80%, respectively while
R100 only shows a 20% reduction. However, the neat renewable
diesel shows slightly higher OC emissions reductions than the
two neat biodiesels.
3.3. THC emissions
THC is dened herein as the combination of methane and
gaseous non-methane hydrocarbon. As seen in Fig. 1(c) and Table 2,
soy-/animal-based biodiesels and renewable diesel blends when
compared to CARB ULSD show a trend of decreasing THC emissions
with increasing blend levels over both test cycles. The exception to
this trend is that soy-based biodiesel blend, Soy B20 is higher than
CARB ULSD in THC emissions for both driving cycles. However the
reason for this experimental result is unknown. Soy-based biodiesel blends show a different degree of reduction in THC emissions
from those of animal-based biodiesel and renewable diesel. The
magnitude of THC reduction for the animal-based biodiesel blends
is statistically signicantly higher than the corresponding reductions found for the blends of soy-based biodiesel and renewable
diesel by approximately 10%e30% and 10%e50%, respectively. As
listed in Table 3, for the UDDS cycle, Soy B100, An B100, and R100
show statistically signicant reductions in the THC emissions by
36%, 54%, and 23%, respectively. For the highway cruise cycle, two
neat biodiesel fuels, Soy B100 and An B100 offer statistically signicant reductions in THC emissions by 36% and 56%, respectively,
but neat renewable diesel, R100 did not show a statistically signicant reduction in THC emissions.
3.4. CO emissions
Fig. 1(d) shows CO emissions rates for blends of biodiesel and
renewable diesel and CARB ULSD fuel. The gure shows that biodiesel and renewable diesel blends when compared to CARB ULSD
results in a trend of increasing reduction in CO emissions with
higher blend levels for both driving cycles. This is consistent with
another study (Cheung et al., 2009). CO emissions are shown to be
different according to feedstocks and driving cycles. As expected
from less transient operation, CO emissions are less for the highway
cruise cycle than UDDS cycle regardless of biodiesel feedstocks and
their blend levels on g$km 1 basis. This implies that duty cycle
effects are larger than fuel effects for CO emissions. Biodiesel blends
are found to be more effective than CARB ULSD and renewable
diesel blends in reducing CO emissions for both cycles. However, no
statistically signicant differences in CO emissions were found
between the soy-based and the animal-based diesel blends. As seen
in Table 3, for all blend levels and both test cycles, both soy-based
and the animal-based diesels show a statistically signicant
reduction in CO emissions relative to CARB ULSD. CO emissions of
R20 and R50 are generally similar to those found on CARB ULSD for
both test cycles. However, R100 provides a statistically signicant
reduction in CO emissions for both test cycles.
3.5. Greenhouse gases emissions
The percent differences in emissions rates between biodiesel/
renewable diesel and CARB ULSD on two greenhouse gases, CO2

312

K. Na et al. / Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

Fig. 2. Emission rates for OC/EC obtained from different feedstocks and different blend levels of biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel for the UDDS driving cycle.

and N2O, are observed to be of lower magnitude than for other

regulated pollutants emissions for both UDDS and the highway
cruise cycles, showing a change in emissions of less than 3%. In
addition, no readily discernable trends were observed between the
test alternative fuels and CARB ULSD. It should be noted that only
tailpipe GHG emissions were analyzed in this study. To determine a
fuel's impact on climate change, a full fuel lifecycle analysis of GHG
emissions is necessary.
As seen in Fig. 3, CO2 g km 1 emissions are lower for the highway cruise cycle than the UDDS cycle regardless of biodiesel feedstocks and their blend levels (p < 0.05 at 95% condence interval)
though the magnitude of reduction in CO2 emissions is minor. CO2
emission pattern is opposite between the biodiesel blends and
renewable diesel blends. When switching fuel from CARB USLD to
animal-based biodiesel blends, CO2 emissions slightly increase
with higher blend levels with no statistical condence. In contrast,
renewable diesel blends show a decreasing trend in CO2 emissions
with increasing blend level. Small (approximately 3%) but statistically signicant increases in CO2 emissions for renewable diesel

blends are observed for 50% or higher biodiesel blends for the UDDS
cycle only. Caloric values for biodiesel (37e41 MJ/kg) are reported
to be lower than conventional diesel (42e46 MJ/kg) (Radich, 2013).
As a result, more biodiesel must be consumed to propel a diesel
vehicle the same distance than conventional diesel, emitting more
CO2 due to less energy content of biodiesel. However, this theory
doesn't seem to be always correct for real-world vehicle driving
situations. Conventional diesel (~86 wt.%) contains more carbon
than biodiesel (~77 wt.%), which means that there would be a
possibility for conventional diesel to form more CO2 than biodiesel
for the same amount of fuel burnt. This conicting property causes
an ambiguous difference in exhaust CO2 emissions between biodiesel and conventional diesel. Lower CO2 emissions for biodiesel
than for conventional diesel were also observed in the comprehensive US EPA study on biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions
(US EPA, 2002). We also observed lower CO2 emissions for soybased biodiesel only. However, the difference from the CARB
ULSD is less than 3%. Therefore, it seems that our test results fall
within the variation of entire set of results observed in literature

Fig. 3. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rates on grams per km basis.

K. Na et al. / Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

313

Fig. 4. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emission rates on grams per km basis.

(US EPA, 2002).

Fig. 4 shows N2O emissions with respect to biodiesel feedstocks,
blend levels, and UDDS cycle. Comparing CARB USLD to the two
FAME biodiesels and renewable diesel blends shows no statistically
signicant impacts on N2O emissions even though animal-based
biodiesel blends and renewable diesel blends show a small increase in N2O emissions over higher blends. In addition, no statistically signicant differences in N2O emissions are found between
fuel blends with an exception that N2O emission of Soy B50 is
signicantly larger than that of An B50.

4. Conclusions
The potential impacts of biodiesel and renewable diesel blends
on regulated emissions were investigated using a Freightliner truck
(2000 C15 Caterpillar engine) with no exhaust after-treatment
control device. Four types of fuels, (1) CARB-certied ultra-low
sulfur diesel (ULSD) baseline fuel, (2) soy-based biodiesel, (3)
animal-based biodiesel, and (4) renewable diesel were evaluated.
Emissions from the four different diesel fuels were evaluated at
blend levels of 20%, 50%, and 100%. The emission tests were conducted on a chassis dynamometer over two different test cycles.
The major results of this study are:
(1) Soy- and animal-based biodiesel blends when compared to
CARB ULSD showed statistically signicant increases in NOx
emissions for 50% or higher blend biodiesel blend on both
test cycles. The 20% biodiesel blends NOx differences did not
exceed the testing variability in this study on any cycle.
(2) Emissions between soy- and animal-based biodiesel blends
was observed despite the difference in the degree of unsaturation and cetane number. Soy B50/B100 and An B50/B100
showed NOx increases of approximately 10%/20% and 5%/14%,
respectively for the UDDS cycle. In contrast, renewable diesel
blends showed a trend of decreasing NOx emissions with
increasing blend levels. However, only R100 showed a statistically signicant reduction in NOx emissions over the
UDDS cycle.

(3) When compared to CARB ULSD, soy- and animal-based biodiesel blends offered statistically signicant reductions in PM
emissions for all ranges of blends and both test cycles. Soy
B20/B50/B100 and An B20/B50/B100 showed PM reductions
of approximately 33%/61%/79% and 41%/50%/80%, respectively for the UDDS cycle. Renewable diesel blends showed
statistically signicant PM reductions for 50% or higher blend
level for both test cycles. The PM reducing effect was higher
for soy- and animal-based biodiesel blends than for renewable diesel blends.
(4) PM reduction was mainly due to decreasing elemental carbon (EC). The reducing effect of the two biodiesels on EC
emissions was much larger than the effect of renewable
diesel. On the other hand OC emissions did not signicantly
change over biodiesel and renewable diesel blend levels.
(5) Compared to CARB ULSD, soy-/animal-based biodiesels and
renewable diesel blends showed a trend of moderately
decreasing THC emissions with increasing blend levels for
both test cycles. The magnitudes of THC reductions for the
animal-based biodiesel blends were higher than the corresponding reductions found for the blends of soy-based biodiesel and renewable diesel by approximately 10%e30% and
10%e50%, respectively.
(6) For all blend levels and both test cycles, both soy-based and
the animal-based biodiesels showed statistically signicant
reductions in CO emissions relative to CARB ULSD. Unlike
biodiesel blends, for renewable diesel blends, only R100
provides a statistically signicant reduction in CO emissions
for both test cycles.
(7) The difference in the emission rate between biodiesel/
renewable diesel fuels and CARB ULSD on two greenhouse
gases, CO2 and N2O emissions were observed to be of lower
magnitude when compared to other regulated pollutants
emissions for both test cycles, showing a change in their
emissions less than 3% relative to the baseline CARB ULSD.
(8) Lower CO2 emissions for soy-based biodiesel only were
observed despite its lower heating value than CARB ULSD.
However, the test results fell within the variation of entire set
of results observed in literature.

314

K. Na et al. / Atmospheric Environment 107 (2015) 307e314

Disclaimer
The statements and opinions expressed here are solely the authors and do not represent the ofcial position of the California Air
Resources Board. The mention of trade names, products, and organizations does not constitute endorsement.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank George Gatt, Thomas Ladzinski, Ralph
Rodas, Richard Ling, Peter Wong, Oliver Chang, Shaohua Hu, Jorn
Herner, and Tao Huai for their critical support. Additionally, the
authors are grateful to the National Biodiesel Board and Neste Oil
for donating the fuels for this project.
References
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2011. Procedure for Organic Carbon and
Elemental Carbon (OC/EC) Analysis of Vehicular Exhaust Particulate Matter
(PM) on Quartz Filters.
Cheung, C.S., Zhu, L., Huang, Z., 2009. Regulated and unregulated emissions from a
diesel engine fueled with biodiesel and biodiesel blended with methanol.
Atmos. Environ. 43, 4865e4872.
Coordinating Research Council (CRC), 2007. Heavy-duty Vehicle Chassis Dynamometer Testing for Emissions Inventory, Air Quality Modeling, Source
Apportionment and Air Toxics Emissions Inventory. CRC Report No. E55/59.
Durbin, T.D., Collins, J.R., Norbeck, J.M., Smith, M.R., 2000. Effects of biodiesel,
biodiesel blends, and a synthetic diesel on emissions from light heavy-duty
diesel vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 349e355.
Durbin, T.D., Miller, J.W., Johnson, K., Hajbabaei, M., Kado, N.Y., Kobayashi, R.,
Vogel, C.F.A., Matsumura, F., Wong, P.S., 2011. Final Report for the CE-CERT
Engine Testing Portion for the CARB Assessment of the Emissions from the
Use of Biodiesel as a Motor Vehicle Fuel in California Biodiesel Characterization
and NOx Mitigation Study. Final Report Prepared for CARB. California Air Resources Board (CARB). available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/
altdiesel/.

Fang, T., Lin, Y.-C., Foong, T.M., Lee, C.-F., 2008. Reducing NOx emissions from a
biodiesel-fueled engine by use of low-temperature combustion. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 42, 8865e8870.
Farrell, A.E., Sperling, D., 2007. A Low-carbon Fuel Standard for California Part 1 and
Part 2. Final report for The California Energy Commission. California Energy
Commission. http://www.energy.ca.-gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/.
Hajbabaei, M., Johnson, K.C., Okamoto, R.A., Mitchell, A., Pullman, M., Durbin, T.D.,
2012. Evaluation of impact of biodiesel and second generation biofuel on NOx
emissions for CARB diesel fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 9163e9173.
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Robbins, C., Ceniceros, E., Natarajan, M., 2012. Review of
biodiesel composition, properties, and specications. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 16, 143e169.
Karavalakis, G., Stournas, S., Bakeas, E., 2009. Effects of diesel/biodiesel blends on
regulated and unregulated pollutants from a passenger vehicle operated over
the European and the Athens driving cycles. Atmos. Environ. 43, 1745e1752.
Knothe, G., 2005. Dependence of biodiesel fuel properties on the structure of fatty
acid alkyl esters. Fuel Process. Technol. 86, 1059e1070.
McCormick, R.L., Williams, A., Ireland, J., Brimhall, M., Hayes, R.R., 2006. Effect of
Biodiesel Blends on Vehicle Emissions. Milestone Report, NREL/MP-540e40554,
October.
McGill, R., Storey, J., Wagner, R., Irick, D., Aakko, P., Westerholm, M., Nylund, N.,
Lappi, M., 2003. Emission Performance of Selected Biodiesel Fuels. SAE Paper
2003-01-1866.
Pham, P., Bodisco, T., Stevanovic, S., Rahman, M., et al., 2013. Engine performance
characteristics for biodiesels of different degrees of saturation and carbon chain
lengths. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 6, 188e198.
Polk, R.L., 2013. New Technology Clean Diesel Trucks with Near Zero Emissions
Make up 28% of All Trucks on U.S. Highways. Diesel Technology Forum (DTF)
available at: http://www.dieselforum.org.
Radich, A., 2013. Biodiesel Performance, Costs, and Use available at: http://www.eia.
gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/.
Sze, C., Whinihan, J.K., Olson, B.A., Schenk, C.R., Sobotowski, R.A., 2007. Impact of
Test Cycle and Biodiesel Concentration on Emissions. SAE paper 2007-01-4040.
United States Environmental Protection Agency US EPA, 2002. A Comprehensive
Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions. EPA 420-P-02e001,
October.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2013a. Regulatory
Announcement. EPA-420-F-13e007, January 2013.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2013b. Dynamometer
Drive Schedules available at: http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.
htm#vehcycles.