Keith:
Yep... they«re from the ASAE. Yep. The sent me the whole stuff (I think...
it«s rather long and most interesting... still haven«t gone through all of
it. They seem like various reports)
The authors & work:
Krahl J., Baum K., U. Hackbarth H., Jeberien E., Munack A., Schtt C.,
Schrder O., Walter N., Bnger J., Mller M. M., Weigel A. - "Gaseous
Compounds, Ozone Precursors, Particle Number and Particle Size
Distributions, and Mutagenic Effects Due to Biodiesel" - 2001 - ASAE, Vol
44(2): 179-191
(The publications sent to me where different works on the same topic:
emissions ant mutagenesis, and each one is written by combinations of the
names listed above)
Your conspiracy theory might be right. Krahl«s RME showed 760 ppm while
their SME showed 1760 ppm (I think those were the values). Evidently RME
holds less water than SME. And we all know Europe favours the first and USA
favours the latter. Who knows. Anyway I see it practically impossible to
vacuum seal (or at least dry seal) our home made BD production... and my
sunflowerME (over 1000 ppm water) worked OK.
A former teacher of mine is currently studying water injection IN DIESEL
ENGINES with very good results (at the Universidad Tecnolgica Nacional,
which readily favours research... as opposed to my Univ.). I«ve been trying
to contact him but I can never find him. He«s a mechanical engineer (who
tought me thermodynamics and fluid mechanics a couple of years ago). «t
could be interesting to find out what he knows.
Best wishes,
Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Now that you mention Knothe
> Hi Christian
>
> >Dear Keith,
> >
> >I was also wondering: In the papers the guys from Germany sent me ("the
> >guys", with all due respect), they showed walues of dissolved water for
SME
> >of about 1250 ppm. My own sunflowerME resulted (as previously discussed)
in
> >something between 1000 and 2000 ppm.
>
> Knothe's an American, by the way, he works for ARS. But I guess you
> know that. Did they send you a full copy of the Bunger, Krahl report?
>
> >WHY ON EARTH does DIN specify 300 ppm and why does ASTM specify 500 ppm
max
> >if it seems BIODIESEL WILL SUCK UP WATER (either atmospheric or form the
> >washing stages) to reach a water saturation content COMFORTABLY ABOVE the
> >ammount specified by ASTM & DIN???
>
> Maybe it's a protection racket.
>
> As discussed previously, the Euro standards seem to deliberately
> favour rapeseed biodiesel and exclude soy biodiesel, for no good
> reason other than keeping the US out of the market.
>
> If you recall, it was Camillo Holecek of Energea in Austria who told
> us about these water standards and said they were all nonsense, that
> it would pick up 1200 ppm anyway. Actually he said they were
> producing biodiesel with only 50 ppm. He also said it wouldn't be
> that way anymore by the time it got into a car's tank. But it's
> easily arranged for it to still be 50 ppm on arrival at a quality
> testing lab. On the other hand, that might not be so easily arranged
> for a backyarder or a small-scale operation. I guess you could get it
> down with heat treatment though - cheat, in other words.
>
> Maybe I just don't trust the big guys. Well, anybody who still does
> hasn't been paying a lot of attention lately. But could be I'm seeing
> plots where there aren't any. Maybe the standards are just stupid.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
>
> >Regards,
> >
> >Christian
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 2:52 PM
> >Subject: Re: [biofuel] No more French fry WVO?
> >
> >
> > > >I received some ordinary post mail from Mr. Hendrik Stein & G. Knothe
> > > >concerning various emission tests by & Prof. Krahl in Germany. They
> >reported
> > > >traceo of acrolein and aldehides in emissions.
> > > >
> > > >The issue of acrolein was somewhat treated (in part by me) some weeks
> >ago.
> > > >
> > > >Best wishes,
> > > >
> > > >Christian
> > >
> > > That's this one, below, Bunger, Krahl et al. I know that Gerhard
> > > Knothe cites these results, and there's been some controversy about
> > > that. The other person who cited Bunger, Krahl et al was a certain
> > > Associate Professor Jim Olsson of the Department of Physical
> > > Chemistry at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden.
> > > You can find out more about that in the Files section at the list
> > > website, in a folder marked "Swedish_biodiesel_study - Junk science":
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/files/Swedish_biodiesel_study/
> > >
> > > A.k.a. the :"frying pan study". "Rapeseed oil and biodiesel used as a
> > > green alternative to conventional vehicle fuels can produce 10 times
> > > more cancer-causing emissions and pollutants than diesel." These
> > > findings were reported by Reuters. Olsson's "flame reactor" burned
> > > the test samples at only 550 deg C (1022 deg F) at normal atmospheric
> > > pressure, whereas a diesel engine burns the fuel at up to 2000 deg C
> > > (3632 deg F) at a pressure of about 100 bar (96.7 atmospheres), with
> > > completely different results.
> > >
> > > After a lot of protest from scientists and industry, Chalmers
> > > University itself published a retraction of the study, signed by
> > > Johan Carlsten, Chalmers' Vice President: "The conditions in the
> > > flame reactor are not directly comparable with those in a combustion
> > > engine... This study does not allow direct conclusions about
> > > corresponding emissions from diesel engines..." See "Rapeseed oil as
> > > fuel":
> > > http://www.chalmers.se/Nyheter/2001/vecka08/rapsolja.html
> > >
> > > Olsson previously worked for Volvo, and it's thought that Volvo
> > > funded this study. Some time later, after Chalmers had already
> > > published its retraction, Volvo UK issued a press release slamming
> > > biodiesel:
> > >
> > > "Bio-diesel is 10 times more carcinogenic than low sulphur diesel,
> > > exhaust fumes smell like oily chips and running costs are inflated.
> > > Volvo Car UK has questioned the latest report by the British
> > > Association of Bio Fuels and Oils promoting Bio-diesel as the 'fuel
> > > of the future' as misleading. As part of its own research into
> > > Bio-diesel and based on recent Swedish research, Volvo claims
> > > Bio-diesel is dirtier, smellier and less fuel efficient than low
> > > sulphur diesel, and engines are more costly to maintain." Etc etc.
> > >
> > > This was published in the British motoring press. Volvo too was
> > > forced to withdraw this ridiculous nonsense and publish a retraction,
> > > though with very poor grace indeed, and the press published that too.
> > > Biofuel list members had quite a lot to do with all this, especially
> > > Terry de Winne.
> > >
> > > Volvo seem to be trying to protect their investment in their new
> > > "Bi-Fuel" cars, which they tout as environmentally friendly, and they
> > > see biodiesel as competition. So they smeared it. Actually the
> > > Bi-Fuel Volvos run on CNG, which is a fossil fuel, with just about
> > > the same carbon emissions as any other fossil fuel, and is about as
> > > green as Chairperson Mao's little book. Volvo says the cars will also
> > > run on methane (biogas), and I suppose one in a million might
> > > actually do that. I think Sweden's into cheap natural gas supplies,
> > > which is probably behind Volvo's, um, thinking.
> > >
> > > Nobody else seems to have reproduced the results of Bunger, Krahl et
> > > al that I know of. On the contrary, many well-founded tests have
> > > found quite the opposite. According to a U.S. Department of Energy
> > > study completed at the University of California at Davis, the use of
> > > pure biodiesel instead of petroleum-based diesel fuel could offer a
> > > 93.6% reduction in cancer risks from exhaust emissions exposure.
> > >
> > > You can download the UC Davis report here - Acrobat file, 3.1Mb.
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/UCDavisBiodiesel.pdf
> > >
> > > Summary, Results and Discussion sections of the report, in html
format,
> >here:
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/UCDavisSumm.html
> > >
> > > So. Here below's the Bunger, Krahl et al study details. I haven't
> > > seen the full report. If anyone's in a position to get hold of it,
> > > I'd much appreciate a copy.
> > >
> > > I suppose the moral of it all is: Don't burn veggie oil in a frying
pan!
> > >
> > > There's also an apparent misclassification of water pollution
> > > standards in Germany, where biodiesel is a class 1 hazard, and fossil
> > > diesel is in class 2 (worse). It only refers to water pollution and
> > > no other aspects of toxicity or hazard. In fact biodiesel is used to
> > > clean up marine oil spills. In North America it is not classed as
> > > hazardous goods.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> > >
> > > Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects, particle size and concentration
> > > analysis of diesel engine emissions using biodiesel and petrol diesel
> > > as fuel
> > > Bunger J, Krahl J, Baum K, Schroder O, Muller M, Westphal G, Ruhnau
> > > P, Schulz TG, Hallier E
> > > ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
> > >
> > > 74: (8) 490-498 OCT 2000
> > >
> > > Document type: Article Language: English Cited
> > > References: 61 Times Cited: 0
> > > Abstract:
> > > Diesel engine exhaust particles (DEP) contribute substantially to
> > > ambient air pollution. They cause acute and chronic adverse health
> > > effects in humans. Biodiesel (rapeseed oil methyl ester, RME) is used
> > > as a "green fuel" in several countries. For a preliminary assessment
> > > of environmental and health effects of RME, the
> > > particulate-associated emissions from the DEP of RME and common
> > > fossil diesel fuel (DF) and their in vitro cytotoxic and mutagenic
> > > effects were compared. A test tractor was fuelled with RME and DF and
> > > driven in a European standard test cycle (ECE R49) on an engine
> > > dynamometer. Particle numbers and size distributions of the exhausts
> > > were determined at the load modes "idling" and "rated power".
> > > Filter-sampled particles were extracted and their cytotoxic
> > > properties tested using the neutral red assay, Mutagenicity was
> > > tested using the Salmonella typhimurium/microsome assay. Despite
> > > higher total particle emissions, solid particulate matter (soot) in
> > > the emissions from RME was lower than in the emissions from DF. While
> > > the size distributions and the numbers of emitted particles at "rated
> > > power" were nearly identical for the two fuels, at "idling" DF
> > > emitted substantially higher numbers of smaller particles than RME.
> > > The RME extracts caused fourfold stronger toxic effects on mouse
> > > fibroblasts at "idling' but not at "rated power" than DF extracts.
> > > The extracts at both load modes were significantly mutagenic in TA98
> > > and TA100. However, extracts of DF showed a fourfold higher mutagenic
> > > effect in TA98 land twofold in TA100) than extracts of RME. These
> > > results indicate benefits as well as disadvantages for humans and the
> > > environment from the use of RME as a fuel for tractors. The lower
> > > mutagenic potency of DEP from RME compared to DEP from DF is probably
> > > due to lower emissions of polycyclic aromatic compounds. The higher
> > > toxicity is probably caused by carbonyl compounds and unburned fuel,
> > > and reduces the benefits of the lower emissions of solid particulate
> > > matter and mutagens from RME.
> > >
> > > Author Keywords:
> > > biodiesel, rapeseed oil, diesel engine emissions, particulate matter,
> > > ultrafine particles, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, mutagenicity,
> > > cytotoxicity
> > >
> > > KeyWords Plus:
> > > PARTICULATE AIR-POLLUTION, MULTIVARIATE STATISTICAL-ANALYSIS,
> > > CARBON-BLACK, LUNG-CANCER, TOXICOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, EXHAUST
> > > PARTICULATE, CHRONIC INHALATION, TITANIUM-DIOXIDE, DNA-ADDUCTS, TEST
> > > SYSTEM
> > >
> > > Addresses:
> > > Bunger J, Univ Gottingen, Inst Arbeits & Sozialmed, Waldweg 37,
> > > D-37073 Gottingen, Germany.
> > > Univ Gottingen, Inst Arbeits & Sozialmed, D-37073 Gottingen, Germany.
> > > Bundesforsch Anstalt Landwirtschaft, Inst TEchnol & Biosyst Tech,
> > > D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany.
> > >
> > > Publisher:
> > > SPRINGER-VERLAG, NEW YORK
> > >
> > > IDS Number:
> > > 370PF
> > >
> > > ISSN:
> > > 0340-5761
> > >
> > > SEARCH LIBRIS for the current journal and if available order the
> > > article via LIBRIS ILL Request.
> > >
> > > Article 1 of 89
> > >
> > > Copyright © 2001 Institute for Scientific Information
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 4:21 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: [biofuel] No more French fry WVO?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/06/06252002/ap_47645.asp
> > > > > > - 6/25/2002
> > > > > > WHO hosts urgent meeting on acrylamide in food
> > > > >
> > > > > Permit me to carry the thought process a wee tad further for us
> > > > > common laypersons.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone ever given much thought to the decay product of glycerin
> > > > > under conditions of inadequate combustion? Oddly enough it's call
> > > > > acrolein - rather toxic to living things, especially breathing
> > > > > "things," at least according to every MSDS sheet I've read.
> > > > >
> > > > > So take that "decay consideration," slap a bunch of potato shreds
> > > > > in a high temp tri-glyceride bath, or bake a grain product with a
> > > > > high oil content, and what might you think you'll get? Perhaps
> > > > > acrilomide?
> > > > >
> > > > > Glycerin, in the form of triglycerides, exposed to semi-high
> > > > > temps of frying and baking...~350* Fahrenheit.
> > > > >
> > > > > But then there is this statement:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Swedish researchers said that "fried, oven-baked, and
> > > > > deep-fried potato and cereal products may contain high levels of
> > > > > acrylamide." The same results were not found in boiled products."
> > > > >
> > > > > A bit odd that water boils at 212* Fahrenheit, ~140* lower and a
> > > > > considerably less "destructive" temp range than baking or frying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes one wonder if there won't be a rush in the appliance and
> > > > > food processing markets for products that can cook foods in the
> > > > > temperature range of boiling, rather than frying and baking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also makes one wonder if there won't be a rush for oils that are
> > > > > 100% FFAs, rather than a blend of tri-glycerides and FFAs. That
> > > > > would sure throw a kink in biodiesel manufacture when using waste
> > > > > restaurant oils. It would force every shadetree biodieseler to
> > > > > move towards high pressure esterification, rather than "STP"
> > > > > transesterification.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would also put some pressure on the animal feed and rendering
> > > > > industries to move away from using reprocessed WVOs as
> > > > > protein/energy additives to feed. Would be a shame to kill the
> > > > > AKC registered family pet simply by feeding it Puppy Chow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd Swearingen
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
mensaje enviado desde http://www.iespana.es
emails (pop)-paginas web (espacio ilimitado)-agenda-favoritos (bookmarks)-foros
-Chat
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
