The compatibilities of fuel system elastomers and plastics were evaluated for test fuels containing 16 vol.% isobutanol (iBu16) and 10 vol.% ethanol (E10). Elastomers included two fluorocarbons, four acrylonitrile butadiene rubbers (NBRs), and one type of fluorosilicone, neoprene, and epichlorohydrin/ethylene oxide. Plastic materials included four nylon grades, three polyamides, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyoxymethylene (POM), flexible polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyetherimide (PEI), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), and a phenol formaldehyde reinforced with glass fiber (GFPF). For each polymer material, the volume, mass, and hardness were measured before and after drying. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) measurements were also performed on the dried specimens. For the elastomer materials the measured properties were similar for both fuels. The fluorocarbons and fluorosilicone swelled the least (-20%), while more moderate (20-45%) expansion occurred for the two NBR hose grades and (ECO). HNBR, neoprene, and silicone exhibited high swelling and softening, which likely precludes their use in many fuel systems. For the plastic materials, the observed swell was low; Nylon 11 swelled around 15%, but otherwise, their measured swell was <10%. Many of the plastics also showed sensitivity to alcohol type, as the E10 test fuel often imparted appreciably higher swell than iBul6. In general, the plastic materials showed good compatibility with the iBu16 and E10 test fuels. The sole exception was the PVC material, which was structurally degraded from exposure to either fuel type. Compositional analysis showed high fuel retention in Nylon 12 and PVC. PVC also experienced a significant reduction in plasticizer compounds following exposure, which resulted in embrittlement and an increase in the glass-to-rubber transition temperature.

The compatibility of plastic materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for a test fuel representing gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. Prior investigations were performed on gasoline fuels containing 25, 50 and 85% ethanol, but the knowledge gap existing from 0 to 25% ethanol precluded accurate compatibility assessment of low level blends, especially for the current E10 fuel (gasoline containing 10% ethanol) used in most filling stations, and the recently accepted E15 fuel blend (gasoline blended with up to15% ethanol).For the majority of the plastic materials evaluated in this study, the wet volume swell (which is the parameter most commonly used to assess compatibility) was higher for fuels containing 25% ethanol, while the volume swell accompanying E10 was much lower. However, several materials, such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), fiberglass resins, and the polyethylene terephthalate co-polymer (PETG) exhibited similar volume expansions with both 10 and 25% ethanol.In the second part of this study, the compatibility performance of the infrastructure plastics in the E10 test fuel was compared to a test fuel containing 16% isobutanol (which has the same oxygen level as E10). The measured property changes (volume and hardness) in these two fuels were similar for the majority of the plastics tested. However, Nylon 6, Nylon 6,6, and the vinyl ester fiberglass resin showed much better compatibility with a 16% isobutanol blend than with a blend containing 10% ethanol.

The compatibility of elastomeric materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for test fuels representing neat gasoline and gasoline blends containing 10 and 17 vol.% ethanol, and 16 and 24 vol.% isobutanol. The actual test fuel chemistries were based on the aggressive formulations described in SAE J1681 for oxygenated gasoline. Elastomer specimens of fluorocarbon, fluorosilicone, acrylonitrile rubber (NBR), polyurethane, neoprene, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and silicone were exposed to the test fuels for 4 weeks at 60°C. After measuring the wetted volume and hardness, the specimens were dried for 20 hours at 60°C and then remeasured for volume and hardness. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) was also performed to determine the glass transition temperature (T g ). Comparison to the original values showed that all elastomer materials experienced volume expansion and softening when wetted by the test fuels. The fluorocarbons underwent the least amount of swelling ( 100%). The level of swelling for each elastomer was higher for the test fuels containing the alcohol additions. In general, ethanol produced slightly higher swell than the oxygen equivalent level of isobutanol. When dried, the fluorocarbon specimens were slightly swollen (relative to the baseline values) due to fuel retention. The NBRs and neoprene exhibited shrinkage and embrittlement associated with the extraction of plasticizers. SBR also experienced shrinkage (after drying) but its hardness returned to the baseline value. The dried volumes (and hardness values) of the silicone, SBR and fluorosilicone rubbers closely matched their original values, but the polyurethane specimen showed degradation with exposure to the test fuels containing ethanol or isobutanol. The DMA results showed that the test fuels effectively decreased T g for the fluorocarbons, but increased T g for the NBR materials. The T g values other elastomers were not affected by the test fuels.