Next Article in Journal
Numerical Simulation of Internal Flow Field in Optimization Model of Gas–Liquid Mixing Device
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Modeling Method for Optimal Allocation of Wellhead Targets in Large Well Clusters
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/pr12081706
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Average Carbon Number Analysis and Relationship with Octane Number and PIONA Analysis of Premium and Regular Gasoline Expended in Ecuador

by
Katherine Pazmiño-Viteri
1,
Katty Cabezas-Terán
1,
Daniel Echeverría
1,
Marcelo Cabrera
1,2 and
Sebastián Taco-Vásquez
1,*
1
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Av. Ladrón de Guevara E11-253, Quito 170525, Ecuador
2
Facultad de Ciencias Técnicas, Universidad Internacional del Ecuador UIDE, Quito 170411, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2024, 12(8), 1706; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12081706
Submission received: 12 June 2024 / Revised: 6 August 2024 / Accepted: 11 August 2024 / Published: 14 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Chemical Processes and Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The quality of fuel depends on its chemical composition, which influences engine performance. Gas chromatography, a cornerstone of global oil and fuel R&D, remains crucial for ensuring the quality of petroleum products and regulatory compliance. Scientists use the most accurate analysis (PIONA) as a tool derived from gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry to identify and quantify hydrocarbons that influence resistance to detonation, which is determined by the research octane number (RON). This study introduces the “average carbon number (ACN)”, calculated from the molar chemical composition of commercial gasoline samples sold in Ecuador (Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline). A quantitative comparison of the ACN with techniques applied using standardized international procedures reveals that the ACN characterizes gasoline samples by providing insight into the distribution shape of carbon graphs. A comprehensive statistical analysis demonstrates the potential usefulness of ACN in characterizing fuel composition, highlighting its relevance in broader fuel quality assessments without the need for carbon distribution plots.

1. Introduction

Gasoline is a petroleum-derived liquid fuel commonly used in internal combustion engines and obtained by refining fossil fuels through fractional distillation and then subsequent blending [1,2]. Chemically, it is a complex mixture of volatile hydrocarbons, such as paraffins, naphthenes (cyclic alkanes), aromatics, and olefins, consisting of carbon atoms between C4 and C12 and boiling points ranging from 30 to 260 °C [3,4]. Commercially, it is manufactured to meet the needs of the automotive industry, following the specifications and regulations of the place of production and distribution [5,6]. Thus, gasoline production involves: (i) distilling crude oil and separating it into fractions based on boiling points; (ii) performing cracking, branching/isomerization to refine these fractions, and (iii) removing undesirable contents, such as sulfur [7,8]. Catalytic cracking, a widely employed and crucial process in refineries, converts heavy oils into commercially valuable gasoline by controlling temperature and pressure to break down the long-chain hydrocarbons found in heavy gas oil [9,10]. In the 1950s, the catalytic cracking method began to be promoted for breaking down long-chain molecules into shorter ones, improving gasoline yields [10,11]. Octane rating refers to the pressure and temperature to which a fuel must be subjected before it mixes with air before reaching the auto-ignition point. Therefore, gasoline with a higher octane rating will have better anti-knock characteristics, thereby resulting in smoother and more efficient vehicle performance [12,13]. In summary, refining practices, the origin of oil, and the added additives alter the properties of gasoline [14,15]. The characteristics that gasoline should have include antiknock resistance (related to octane rating), desirable volatility, good fuel economy, minimal deposition on engine surfaces, efficient combustion, and low pollutant emissions. To determine whether gasoline meets these parameters, properties such as density, octane number, vapor pressure, distillation range, oxygen content, and chemical composition are often evaluated [16,17]. Octane number (ON) is defined as the volume percentage of i-octane in a mixture of n-heptane and i-octane that produces the same knock intensity as a fuel in an internal combustion engine test under ASTM standard conditions [18,19].
The assessment of crude oils is crucial for predicting the physical properties of gasoline, monitoring and evaluating refining processes, and determining the quality of final products [20,21]. For example, the composition of automotive gasoline varies depending on the crude oil source, the refining process, and even the presence of residues in the storage tank [22,23]. According to some references, typical gasoline compounds have concentrations (% v/v) as follows (Table 1):
Gasoline may also contain some chemical compounds comprised of oxygen, nitrogen, or sulfur [26], additives such as aliphatic alcohols and methyl ethers [27], and, in some cases, impurities. The chemical composition of gasoline, in particular the proportion of the various compounds and the additives added by each refinery, determines its physical properties and engine performance characteristics [5]. For example, isoparaffins are more desirable in gasoline because of their higher resistance to engine knock compared to paraffins, which break down easily [28]. On the other hand, aromatic hydrocarbons can increase research octane number (RON) and motor octane number (MON) [26], which are directly related to octane number measurements [18]. Olefins can improve fuel octane number and anti-knock performance, as well as increase the reactivity of gasoline in combustion processes [29]. Consequently, gasoline containing long-chain paraffins with fewer branches and olefins with more than four carbon atoms is more prone to autoignition, while one with high levels of branched paraffins, olefins, and aromatic compounds is more resistant to the same phenomenon [30,31].
Globally regulated compounds such as lead, sulfur, benzene, and other aromatic compounds, as well as olefins and oxygenates, are part of the main chemical composition of gasoline [32]. These compounds have a significant impact on vehicle exhaust emissions [33]. Additives, such as tetraethyl and tetramethyl lead, are often added to gasoline to increase octane because they are less expensive yet can cause significant health effects [34]. Higher aromatic content reduces combustion efficiency, as aromatics break down more slowly than other hydrocarbons [35]. This is also associated with significantly increased emissions of non-methane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, particulate matter, particulate number, and black carbon [36,37,38]. Fuels with high olefin content result in exhaust emissions with higher olefin content, which increases the potential for ozone formation as well as the propensity for the growth of gum deposits on intake valves and engine injectors [39]. Therefore, determining the chemical composition of commercially available gasoline is essential to verify its quality and even predicting the composition of exhaust emissions [40].
Several tests can be performed to verify whether the quality of gasoline meets the technical specifications set in each region or country. For instance, to measure the anti-knock capability of gasoline, three methods can be used: the motor octane number (MON) which is determined at high speeds; the research octane number (RON), which is determined at low speeds; and the running octane number, which shows the real behavior in a vehicle [1]. Research octane number (RON) is a measure of the resistance of the fuel to ignite early [41]. Premature igniting causes knocking and diminishes efficiency in reciprocating engines [26]. RON is obtained using a CFR (Cooperative Fuel Research) engine according to ASTM D2699-21 [42]. Worldwide, gasoline on the market is differentiated by its RON, with at least two types of gasoline available in most countries [43].
The European Standard EN 228 specifies that the minimum RON of gasoline should be 95 [44]. However, outside Europe, gasoline sold may still be below this minimum octane number. Octane number is mainly affected by the presence of aromatic hydrocarbons, isoparaffins, olefins, and additives [45], as mentioned above. MON is often preferred over RON since it is evaluated under conditions similar to those of a real engine [46]. It is evaluated using a CFR test engine with a preheated fuel mixture, higher engine speed, and variable ignition timing to further probe the fuel knock resistance [47]. Complementarily, over the years, many scientists have attempted to estimate and/or predict the octane number (ON and RON) of fuels with alternative methods to those already established by international standards (ASTM 2699-23) [48], where fuel composition plays a more important role. To mention some examples, articles have been published with results relating to different kinds of mathematical correlations [49,50] like linear relationship [51], partial quadratic regression [52,53], non-linear regression [54,55], multi-linear combination [56], hydrocarbon blending ratios [45,57,58,59], thermodynamics modeling and simulation [60,61], QSPR models [62,63], computational formulations [64,65], artificial neural networks [66,67], quantum mechanics methods [68], extreme machine learning [69], among others [44,70,71,72] As technology advances, it can be deduced that increasingly sophisticated approaches are being used that can bridge the gap between experimental and empirical methods.
Several types of gasoline are marketed in Ecuador, although not all are offered throughout the country. The two types of gasoline expended in Quito, the capital, are assembled in the Esmeraldas refinery. They are called Súper gasoline and Extra gasoline. These two types of gasoline, distinguished mainly by their RON, must comply with the specifications established in the Ecuadorian Technical Standard INEN 935. It requires that the RON reach a minimum of 85 and 92 for Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline, respectively. Regarding the chemical composition of gasoline, INEN 935 regulates the compounds that contribute to atmospheric pollution, establishing maximum levels for aromatics, benzene, and olefins at 30%, 1%, and 18% for 85 RON gasoline and 35%, 2%, and 25% for 92 RON gasoline [73]. Súper gasoline has many advantages, such as high engine performance, which decreases premature self-ignition of the fuel-air mixture, avoiding knocking. It also improves service life by reducing maintenance costs of vehicles and environmentally harmful combustion gases [74]. Its vapor pressure is 60 KPa, the maximum sulfur percentage is 0.065, and its gum content is 4 mg/100 mL [14]. Currently, some users claim to blend Súper gasoline and Extra gasoline for different reasons. A 70/30 blend of Súper gasoline and Extra gasoline, respectively, is optimal for combustion, while a 50/50 mix is more affordable since it maintains the same combustion characteristics while saving more fuel [75]. According to several studies, Súper gasoline outperforms other types of gasoline available in Ecuador in terms of mileage per gallon because lower-octane gasoline can cause problems of rattling, reduction in power, and therefore the efficiency of the engine, leading to higher maintenance costs [76]. In addition, its emissions analysis shows that it is the most environmentally friendly gasoline [11]. By June 2024, the price of Súper gasoline was $4.11 per gallon, while the price of Extra gasoline was $2.465 per gallon. This paper also aims to provide Ecuadorian customers with insights into the composition of these two gasoline grades, enabling them to make informed decisions about which grade is more suitable for their vehicles. Another fuel known as ECOPAIS is composed of 95% base gasoline and 5% ethanol, which has been proven to increase the power and torque of vehicles [77]. This gasoline is more cost-effective and reduces the clogging of vehicle filters because ethanol is a good solvent and scrubber [76]. The problem with this type of gasoline is the high concentration of sulfur and its subsequent deposit inside car engines, which leads to higher sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions into the environment, causing toxic effects in the atmosphere [78].
Despite the valuable information that the chemical profile of gasoline can provide, published studies on the subject are scarce. The chemical profile of gasoline has been analyzed in some countries, such as the United Kingdom [79], Australia [80], Saudi Arabia [81], China [82], the United States [83], and Brazil [84], of which the last three are summarized in Table 2 since their results were reported by The Hydrocarbon Group. In 2014, a chemical characterization of gasoline distributed in Quito, Ecuador, was performed, specifically to quantify BTEX aromatic compounds [9]. However, in September 2015, a new Fluid Catalytic Cracking reactor came into operation at the Esmeraldas Refinery, which promised to obtain high-octane gasoline in addition to increasing operational capacity [85]. Since then, and to our knowledge, no new chemical characterization has yet been performed to verify the hydrocarbon profile. The present study aims to provide a detailed chemical profile of the two types of gasoline (Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline) marketed in Quito, Ecuador, using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS), classifying the compounds separately according to the hydrocarbon group to which they belong (PIONA analysis). As a novelty, the distribution of the number of carbons in gasoline was used to calculate an average carbon number, a feature recently proposed by Taco-Vásquez and Holtzapple [86]. It has not been employed before to describe gasoline, but it has to do with other types of hydrocarbons like alkane sulfonic acid [87]. Additionally, the RON of gasoline samples was verified using ASTM D2699-21 [42].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

Seventy-seven commercial gasoline samples (54 Extra gasoline and 23 Súper gasoline) were collected from several gas stations located primarily in Quito, Ecuador and other cities in neighboring provinces on specific days in June and July 2022. Thermodynamics II students collected samples of different volumes. Each type of gasoline was randomly picked up from the nearest gas station to the students’ location. Table A1 in Appendix A shows detailed information on the samples. To visualize more precisely the geographic position and distribution of the sampling sites, the following link is provided: https://earth.google.com/earth/d/1xTHaw_buZZzLJq1ytklQVfsNNk2nPrEL?usp=sharing (accessed on 10 August 2024); however, a general map is also shown in Figure 1. After sampling, samples were stored at 20 °C in suitable containers with screw caps until further analysis.

2.2. Determination of Research Octane Number

The Research Octane Number (RON) test was conducted at LACBAL-EPN (Laboratory of Fuels, Biofuels, and Lubricating Oils) using a Cooperative Fuels Research (CFR) engine under ASTM D2699-21 [42]. Certificates for each type of gasoline are presented in Supplementary Materials File S1-Octane Analysis. This standard describes how to measure the resistance to detonation of the fuel when the engine is fully loaded and operating at low revolutions per minute (rpm). The CFR consisted of a continuously variable compression ratio single-cylinder engine with appropriate load and accessory equipment and instrumentation, mounted on a stationary base. The engine operated at a constant speed of 600 ± 6 rpm. The equipment included a knock meter to determine the knock characteristics of the fuel. The octane number was quantified using a scale with heptane (n-C7H16) as zero and isooctane (C8H18: 2,2,4-trimethylpentane) as 100. The detailed procedure follows the ASTM standard mentioned above [42].

2.3. GC-MS Analysis

The separation and identification of all compounds present in the gasoline samples were performed by GC-MS, using a Clarus 590 gas chromatograph (Perkin Elmer, Hopkinton, MA, USA) coupled to a Clarus SQ 8 S mass spectrometer (Perkin Elmer, Hopkinton, MA, USA) and an autosampler. A Zebron ZB-5MS GC capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) from Phenomenex Inc. (Torrance, CA, USA) was used. Helium gas (99.99% purity) served as the carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1 mL/min with an injection volume of 0.5 μL and a 300:1 split ratio. The injector temperature was maintained at 250 °C, and the ion-source temperature was 200 °C. The oven temperature program was: (i) initial temperature of 30 °C (isothermal for 35 min); (ii) ramped at 5 °C/min up to 125 °C; (iii) and then at 30 °C/min up to 290 °C (isothermal for 1 min). For GC-MS detection, an electron ionization system in electron impact mode with an ionization energy of 70 eV was employed. The relative percentage of each component was calculated by comparing its average peak area to the total area. The software adopted to manage the mass spectra and chromatograms was Turbo-Mass ver. 6.1.2, and the library database was NIST 2017.

2.4. PIONA Analysis

For the seventy-seven samples, each was analyzed twice using GC-MS, resulting in 154 spectrograms categorized by carbon number and hydrocarbon type. For Extra gasoline, the total number of observations was one hundred-eight, whereas for Súper gasoline, the number of observations was forty-six. The PIONA analysis determines the molar concentration (percentage) of paraffins (P), isoparaffins (I), olefins (O), naphthenes (N), and aromatics (A), which are the main hydrocarbon components, along with any non-hydrocarbon components such as phenols, acids, alcohols, and monoaromatic steroids, among others [88,89]. Each sample was analyzed multiple times with a gas chromatograph. From the chromatograms generated by the system, the areas of the peaks corresponding to each type of chemical compound were obtained with a mass spectrometer primarily based on their retention indices (RI) [90]. To determine the specific concentration of each of these hydrocarbons, three runs of three diverse sets of standard hydrocarbons were performed to establish correction factors to normalize the data through calibration curves. For example, the first set was composed of the following carbon number standards: C5-pentane, C6-hexane, C7-heptane, C8-octane, C12-dodecane, C16-hexadecane, cyclohexene, methyl-cyclohexane, benzene, toluene, o-xylene, p-xylene, naphthalene, cumene, and hexene; the second set was composed by cyclohexane and cyclohexene, and finally, the third set was composed by 1-hexene, 1-decene, and 1-dodecene. Hence, the real molar concentrations of each sample were obtained. The concentrations obtained from each sample were grouped according to the type of hydrocarbon with a certain number of carbons, and the oxygenates were classified through the use of a programming code generated in RStudio version 2023.06.0+421 “Mountain Hydrangea” (Supplementary Materials File S2-Script Data Carbon Number). With this information, we proceeded to calculate the average carbon number (ACN).

2.5. Calculation of the Average Carbon Number

According to Taco-Vásquez and Holtzapple [86], the average carbon number (ACN) of the total of hydrocarbons can be represented by the average of the values obtained by multiplying the total sum of the molar percentage of the chemical compounds (type of hydrocarbon) with the same carbon number by that carbon number and dividing by one hundred, which is the sum of all percentages. For instance, Equation (1), derived from the one presented in Mull and Rommens [87], calculates the ACN as follows:
A C N T o t a l = ∑ C N C N × ∑ T H % M T H , C N ∑ C N ∑ T H % M T H , C N  
where CN is the carbon number, TH is the type of hydrocarbon, and %M is the molar percentage that depends on two variables, TH and CN (the type of hydrocarbon corresponding to a specific carbon number).
Since the concentrations of the oxygenated compounds were mostly zero, to represent the calculated ACN data, only the rest of the hydrocarbon types mentioned in the previous section were reported. However, to calculate the ACN of each type of hydrocarbon (ACNTH), it is necessary to adjust by rearranging some terms of Equation (1), thus having Equation (2). In Equation (1), to perform the calculation, it is necessary to multiply the sum of the molar concentrations of all types of hydrocarbons by each carbon number and divide by the double sum of all the obtained concentrations. Besides, for Equation (2), the numerator is shortened to only the sum of the product of the molar concentration by each carbon number of a single hydrocarbon type.
A C N T H = ∑ C N C N × % M T H , C N ∑ C N % M T H , C N
PIONA analysis and calculation of the two types of ACN are detailed in the Supplementary Materials for Extra gasoline (Supplementary Materials File S3-Results Summary Extra and for Súper gasoline (Supplementary Materials File S4-Results Summary Súper), respectively.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Each data set was subjected to normality tests to determine the appropriate analysis method. After determining that the data did not follow a normal distribution (Supplementary Materials File S5-Minitab Files), nonparametric tests such as Mann–Whitney and Kolmogorov–Smirnov for two-sample comparisons, and Mood Median and Kruskal–Wallis with Bonferroni’s adjustment for multisample comparisons (Supplementary Materials File S6-Statgraphics Files) were used.

3. Results

3.1. Determination of Research Octane Number

Table 3 presents the results of the research octane number conducted at LACBAL of Escuela Politécnica Nacional.
As we can verify in Table 3, these RON values align with those analyzed by Druet Rodríguez and Vera Castro [14], which approximate 84–86 octane for Extra gasoline and 91–93 octane for Súper gasoline, respectively. According to Thomas [91], lead compounds are used in gasoline to increase the octane number by about 5–10 units [92], as unleaded gasoline is more expensive to produce or import and, therefore, is less available in developing countries. A study conducted in 2022 found that gasoline commercialized in Ecuador still contains measurable quantities of lead [34], even though in 1996, Ministerial Agreement 112 [92] approved the elimination of lead from gasoline sold in Ecuador since 1998. Also, according to Dell et al. [93], tetraethyl lead was added to retard the onset of auto-ignition, thus obtaining satisfactory compression ratios with lower octane fuel [94]. These findings explain why Ecuadorian gasoline still contains high levels of lead, suggesting that the actual octane ratings of the fuel are even lower than those required by Ecuadorian law and the ones set by the global standards [81,82,84] mentioned in Table 2.

3.2. PIONA Analysis

Figure 2 shows the average total molar concentration of each of the hydrocarbon types present in the Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline samples. These values were calculated with correction and normalization factors. Similar to the previous section, by comparing the molar concentrations of olefins and aromatics obtained from Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline, it can be inferred that they are not very different from those reported by Rocha-Hoyos et al. [95]. In fact, it can be shown that the use of correction factors to calculate and adjust the values obtained from the chromatograms performed was a well-executed approach. Furthermore, according to the analyses reported by Ali and Aboul-Fotouh [96], after having characterized several gasoline blends, they conclude that if a blend has among its highest components isoparaffins, aromatics, and naphthenes, it is very likely that the RON would be higher than 80. It can be observed in Table 3 that the two types of gasoline analyzed meet this premise. Likewise, Ali and Aboul-Fotouh reported the percentages of the later-mentioned hydrocarbons, and they vary between 38 and 39%, 28–31%, and 15–16%, respectively [96]. On the other hand, the addition of significant amounts of aromatics, oxygenates (such as tetraethyl lead “TEL” or methyl tert-butyl ether “MTBE”), and olefins have been repeatedly criticized for their detrimental effects on the environment and human health [97,98,99]. These compounds are primarily responsible for influencing the mass of exhaust emissions composed of HC, CO, unburned total hydrocarbon content (THC), and NOx, as well as for favoring the formation of ozone in the environment and toxic air pollutants such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde [100,101]. For this reason, new types of additives have been investigated over time. Currently, some researchers have demonstrated the benefits of using additives containing alcohols (ethanol [102], propanol [103], butanol [104], and others) or ethers (ethyl tert-butyl ether, “ETBE” [101]) by providing an increase in gasoline octane number [105] and a reduction in THC, CO, and particulate matter emissions [106,107]. Therefore, based on the bibliographical data presented in Table 1 and Figure 2, it can be inferred that the composition of Ecuadorian gasoline samples that meet international standards is low.
These arguments could explain why Extra gasoline has a higher concentration of oxygenates (0.02%) compared to Súper gasoline, which is reflected in a lower average RON value. The use of oxygenates can have a significantly counterproductive effect on gasoline quality [14]. For example, from one point of view, it enhances RON [26] by improving acceleration performance; however, it increases pollutant emissions [108]. Perdih and Perdih [109] further assert that a structural comparison of n-alkanes vs. branched alkanes shows that low RON fuel-air mixes may knock because alkanes with a significant number (3 to 7) of adjacent CH2 groups may create a small number of gem-diperoxydiol groups. Furthermore, Speight states that aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene and toluene), highly branched iso-paraffins (iso-octane), and olefins (di-isobutylene) tend to have high antiknock values. Normal paraffins, such as n-heptane, have a low antiknock value, while low-branched iso-paraffins and naphthenic hydrocarbons, such as cyclohexane, rank in an intermediate position [110]. In refineries, olefins are developed and blended with the final oil to raise octanes; they do not occur naturally in crude oil [71,111]. This has allowed countries that do not have strict regulations on fuel composition to add up to 20% of total olefins, as is the case in Ecuador [112]. Considering all these facts, in comparison with Extra gasoline, Súper gasoline exhibits higher amounts of branched alkanes (isoparaffins), linear olefins, and aromatics, whereas it has lower levels of paraffins (n-alkanes) and naphthenes, which overall grants it a higher RON. Nevertheless, Szybist and Splitter [113] emphasized that it is necessary to analyze the other physicochemical properties of gasoline. Because they, together with a private company, were able, through trial and error, to blend four types of hydrocarbons (aromatic, saturated, olefins, and ethanol) in different proportions to create three distinct gasolines with a nominal RON of 98 ± 0. Simultaneously, these formulations exhibited different octane sensitivity values (S = RON − MON) of 1.3, 10.5, and 10.8, respectively.
On the other hand, when comparing the concentrations obtained from the gasoline samples analyzed in this study with the values reported by various sources described in Table 1, it is more likely that the gasoline sold in Ecuador adheres to the requirements stated for the Latin American (reference country: Brazil) market, given the climatic and environmental laws of the area [83]. As mentioned above, gasoline blends are produced according to the market where they are sold, and therefore, the blends have concentrations different from the standards of the main international markets.
Complementarily, Figure 3 shows the distribution of hydrocarbon types by carbon number, more commonly called the carbon distribution plot, for the average Extra gasoline (Figure 3a) and Súper gasoline (Figure 3b) samples. This graph is required because the fractions of distillates in gasoline tend to overlap. With this distribution, it is easier to identify at which carbon number the maximum molar concentration of a specific hydrocarbon is found [114]. This will contribute to the shape of the distribution of the total composition by carbon number. For Extra gasoline, Figure 3 shows the concentration of isoparaffins and branched olefins contribute most to the shape of the final composition distribution, whereas for Súper gasoline, the concentration of isoparaffins and aromatics are the main components. In addition, for Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline, the carbon distribution ranges from carbon number C4 to C12, just like the graph presented by Altin and Eser for a typical gasoline [115]. Both a/b graphs in Figure 3 show similar types of hydrocarbons. However, according to the carbon number in which a higher concentration is visualized, a higher content of isoparaffins and aromatics can be seen in the Súper gasoline samples, as well as a lower content of branched olefins and naphthenes. These variables are similar to the data presented in the literature cited above (see Table 2) and would explain why Súper gasoline samples have a higher-octane value (see Table 3).
In terms of composition and carbon number arrangement, Pitz et al. [116], have established that both paraffins and isoparaffins are mostly at C5–C7, with isoparaffins being selectively included as they increase the octane number. Naphthenes, which come from intermediate “residues” of the refining process, are cyclic alkanes with isomers ranging from C6 to C7. For olefins, branched olefins are preferred to linear olefins since there is a higher number of C5–C7 isomers (better octane number), but a lower concentration of C4 species. Therefore, the concentration of branched olefins is higher than that of linear olefins, such as methyl butenes and methyl pentenes. On the other hand, naphthenes and olefins range from C7 and above. For aromatics, benzene (C6) concentration is extremely limited due to its carcinogenic effects; therefore, toluene (up to 35%) is possibly added. Oxygenates are added to the final blend up to approximately 15%; hence, they are not naturally present in crude oil. In addition, according to Castillo et al. [117], Súper gasoline (higher octane number) has a higher content of short-branched isoparaffins and olefins, which can be corroborated in the comparison of Figure 3a with Figure 3b.

3.3. Analysis of Average Carbon Number

The results obtained from the calculation of the total average carbon number (ACNTotal) of each of the samples of Extra gasoline (Figure 4a and Figure 5a) and Súper gasoline (Figure 4b and Figure 5b) and the one calculated according to the type of hydrocarbon (ACNTH) (see Figure 6) are presented below. Figure 4 shows that the ACN histogram varies by less than one unit for 99% of all samples. The distribution of the average carbon number value of the Extra gasoline samples is monomodal, with a greater number of values concentrated in the ranges of 6.76 to 7.09 with a total of seventy-seven samples. The remaining twenty-eight analyses were classified according to higher ranges (7.09–8.44) with lower frequencies. Meanwhile, the values of Súper gasoline samples show a bimodal distribution with a wider concentration of samples across four ranges from 6.58 to 6.95 with a number of twenty, twenty-four, sixteen, and fifteen samples, respectively. Additionally, across the range of 6.95 to 7.50, eighteen samples are distributed with lower frequencies.
For Extra gasoline, Figure 5 shows that the ACNTH is 7.0 ± 0.3, and for Súper gasoline, it is 6.8 ± 0.2. As it can be concluded, the standard deviation is higher in the population of Extra gasoline samples. Extra gasoline samples have components that are more likely to evaporate in more unfavorable environmental conditions [117], i.e., actual conditions that are found at a gas station, and as a result, their concentration values change in greater proportion. This directly affects the calculated ACN, which has a larger standard deviation. The average ACN of the Extra gasoline samples is also higher because of the elevated concentration of branched olefins (Figure 2). There seems to be an inverse correlation between the ACN and RON numbers of the two types of gasoline analyzed. Therefore, the higher the octane number, the lower the average carbon number.
Figure 6 shows the ACN by hydrocarbon type and indicates that the number of carbons is no longer so unequal in value when compared to the bar graph data of the molar concentrations in Figure 2. However, several statistical tests have been performed to determine if they differ significantly. Figure 6 shows that an average ACN has been calculated from the ACNs calculated by type of hydrocarbon. This calculus was useful to refute the equality in obtaining the ACNTotal by Equation (1) instead of an average of the ACNs calculated with Equation (2). On the other hand, the ACNTotal has been compared with the value provided in the research of Altin and Eser [115], where the reported ACN is 6.8 calculated from a mass composition. The values calculated in our research are close to this proposed value, where we have 7.0 ± 0.3 and 6.8 ± 0.2 for Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline, respectively. Further statistical analysis of all variables is given in Section 3.4.

3.4. Statistical Analysis

Table 4 shows the p-values of the non-parametric tests used to determine whether or not there was equality or non-equality between the different data sets. The null hypothesis is rejected when the true p-value is less than 0.05 (significance level), indicating that the samples are not equal or are not within an interval that allows them to be considered similar. Within the same variable or category, the average carbon number of the Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline sample sets was compared. Additionally, two distinct numbers of the Mann–Whitney (MW) and Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) tests have been computed for each group. While the MW test compares medians, the KS test analyzes the distributions of the two samples under analysis.
Table 4 compares the molar concentrations of each type of hydrocarbon between Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline; only the molar concentration of paraffins meets the null hypothesis. In both tests, the median and type of distribution of the data are similar. For Extra and Súper gasolines, Figure 3 shows a rather analogous distribution that is observed only for paraffins. However, when the ACNs are compared between isoparaffins and linear olefins, the medians of both types of hydrocarbons are similar or equal, but the shape of the data distribution is not. Similarly, the same phenomenon occurs with the comparison of the molar concentration of the oxygenates in both gasoline grades. When comparing the medians or the shape of the data distribution in the rest of the variables, neither the variables nor their shapes are similar since both markers are less than 0.05. Therefore, it can be argued that the calculated ACN does not follow the same trend as the molar composition of each gasoline.
However, when the multiple comparison methods for the ACNs were calculated, the p-values were equal to zero, meaning that all medians are different according to the Mood median and the Kruskal–Wallis test performed with the statistical software. As previously indicated, Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline were compared, considering each type of hydrocarbon. Significant differences between each pair of sample medians were obtained using the Kruskal–Wallis Bonferroni correction, shown in Table 5. If there is a highly significant difference between the two variables, it has also been shown in the data displayed using an asterisk next to each value and changing the font color to red to have a better visualization of the results. The positive or negative limits for each pair of variables were used to validate these differences. These limits vary depending on the pair of variables considered, but most commonly they fluctuate under three ranges: ±190.876, ±196.937, and ±202.817. Any value that exceeds these thresholds in any direction (positive or negative integers), determines the variables as significantly different.
Table 5 shows the ACN of the same type of hydrocarbon between the Extra and Súper gasoline samples and determines that the ACNs of paraffins, isoparaffins, linear olefins, aromatics, and the ACNTotal are equivalent, whereas the ACNs of branched olefins and naphthenes is not equivalent. Only for the calculated ACNTotal can it be deduced that there would be no difference if this value were calculated from a molar or mass concentration, as shown by the similarity between our graphs and the ones exhibited by Altin and Eser [115], who utilized the mass concentration in their calculus to obtain the distribution plots. Alfin and Eser, as many other authors mentioned above, also affirmed that fuels, instead of achieving a certain distribution of hydrocarbons by classes or sizes, are often manufactured to fulfill the allowed limits imposed by industry requirements and regulations. From this point of view, Bonferroni corrections are adequate to determine that both types of gasoline are equal if only the ACNTotal is taken into consideration. For Extra and Súper gasolines, when comparing different types of hydrocarbons, the ACN of the isoparaffins of Extra gasoline is similar to that of linear and branched olefins and naphthenes of Súper gasoline. Linear olefins of Extra gasoline are similar to isoparaffins, branched olefins, and naphthenes of Súper gasoline; the branched olefins and naphthenes of Extra gasoline have the same ACNTotal as Súper gasoline. The ACNTotal of Extra gasoline is similar to the aromatics of Súper gasoline. Now, when comparing the types of hydrocarbons in the same group of gasoline, for Extra gasoline, we have similarities between isoparaffins-linear olefins and branched olefins-naphthenes; for Súper gasoline, equivalence is among isoparaffins-linear and branched olefins-naphthenes.

4. Conclusions

This paper explores the average carbon number and type of hydrocarbon analysis of the two most common commercial gasolines sold in Quito, Ecuador (Extra and Súper gasoline), using the GC-MS method to determine qualitatively and quantitatively their composition. The research octane number (RON) values for Extra and Súper gasoline were found to be consistent with previous studies, indicating an average RON of 85.7 for Extra gasoline and 92.4 for Súper gasoline. Additionally, for Súper gasoline, the average carbon number was ~6.8, whereas for Extra gasoline, the average carbon number was ~7. Therefore, gasoline with slightly shorter-chain hydrocarbons has higher octane numbers.
The PIONA analysis revealed that the molar concentrations of olefins and aromatics in the Ecuadorian gasoline samples are comparable to those reported in other studies. The use of correction and normalization factors was validated as an effective method for calculating these concentrations. For Extra and Súper gasoline, high-octane aromatic carbon distribution ranges from C6 to C9, whereas isoparaffin carbon distribution ranges from C5 to C8. Both isoparaffins and aromatics have high octane ratings, which increases the overall octane numbers of both gasolines studied. The most abundant hydrocarbons found in Extra and Súper gasoline, going from the highest to the lowest percentage of composition, are isoparaffins, aromatics, branched olefins, paraffins, naphthenes, and linear olefins. However, the average carbon number for each type of hydrocarbon varies depending on the type of hydrocarbon. For instance, the ACN of paraffins is about 5.2; meanwhile, the ACN of aromatics is about 8.3.
On the other hand, a statistical analysis was performed with the fifty-four and twenty-three samples of Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline, respectively. This analysis confirmed significant differences between Extra and Súper gasoline in terms of molar concentrations and average carbon number (ACN) values. The non-parametric tests, including Mann–Whitney and Kolmogorov–Smirnov, indicated that the samples are not equal, supporting the conclusion that Ecuadorian gasoline has unique characteristics influenced by local production and import practices.
Finally, this paper provides a new insight into the relationship between the composition analysis of gasoline and octane ratings. Compositional analysis includes average carbon number analysis and the type of hydrocarbon distribution. The concept of average carbon number is new and introduced in this study and could potentially serve as a tool to characterize fuels in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pr12081706/s1. File S1-Octane Analysis; File S2-Script Data Carbon Number; File S3-Results Summary Extra; File S4-Results Summary Super; File S5-Minitab Files; File S6-Statgraphics Files.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.T.-V. and K.C.-T.; methodology, D.E., K.C.-T., K.P.-V. and M.C.; software, K.C.-T. and K.P.-V.; validation, K.P.-V. and S.T.-V.; formal analysis, K.P.-V., K.C.-T. and S.T.-V.; investigation, K.C.-T. and K.P.-V.; resources, S.T.-V. and D.E.; data curation, K.C.-T. and K.P.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, K.C.-T. and S.T.-V.; writing—review and editing, K.P.-V., D.E. and S.T.-V.; visualization, K.P.-V.; Supervision, S.T.-V.; project administration, S.T.-V.; funding acquisition, S.T.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by Escuela Politécnica Nacional-EPN partially via the project PIMI 16-07. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

Data Availability Statement

All information will be available in a public repository after acceptance.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Escuela Politécnica Nacional, the Laboratory of Fuels, Biofuels, and Lubricating Oils (LACBAL) for their support for the research octane number analysis of the samples, and the students and interns of the Laboratory of Thermodynamics for their help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Supplemental information on the samples collected for this work.
Table A1. Supplemental information on the samples collected for this work.
N°Gasoline TypeVolume
(mL)		SamplerGas
Station		LocationCoordinatesCollection Date
dd/mm/yy		Collection TimeReception Date
dd/mm/yy		Reception Time
1Extra-Melanie MuelaPrimaxIñaquito0°10′29″ S 78°29′16″ W07/02/2215:00:0007/04/227:30:00
2Extra40Liney MejíaPrimaxCarcelén0°05′30″ S 78°28′36″ W07/03/2219:52:0007/04/227:21:00
3Extra50Guido AcevedoMobilLa Magdalena0°14′27″ S 78°31′38″ W07/03/2217:00:0007/04/227:20:00
4Extra260Lizbeth AlarcónPetroecuadorQuitumbe0°17′49″ S 78°33′32″ W07/03/2216:44:0007/04/227:22:00
5Extra40Zaid FalcónPrimaxMariscal Sucre0°11′48″ S 78°29′58″ W07/03/2212:30:0007/04/227:10:00
6Extra60Jessica TotoyPrimaxSangolquí0°21′56″ S 78°28′30″ W07/03/2210:37:0007/04/227:20:00
7Extra-Gabriela CalvachePrimaxLa Mena0°15′24″ S 78°32′36″ W07/02/2214:00:0007/04/227:20:00
8Extra125Angie AvilésPetroecuadorPosmasqui0°03′27″ S 78°27′18″ W07/03/2218:05:0007/04/227:20:00
9Extra250Karen PoncePetroecuadorCalderón0°06′30″ S 78°27′01″ W07/10/2217:15:0007/11/2210:30:00
10Extra-Janina ChusquilloPrimaxJipijapa0°08′38″ S 78°28′11″ W06/09/2210:00:0006/10/2211:00:00
11Extra340Melanie ChamorroPrimaxLa Magdalena0°14′49″ S 78°31′12″ W07/04/2217:00:0007/05/2213:54:00
12Extra-Cassidy GarzónPrimaxMariscal Sucre0°11′48″ S 78°29′58″ W07/04/2211:00:0007/05/2214:00:00
13Extra100Josselyn LópezPrimaxMariscal Sucre0°11′48″ S 78°29′58″ W07/03/2211:00:0007/05/2213:50:00
14Extra110María PinoPrimaxKennedy0°08′03″ S 78°28′26″ W07/04/2219:00:0007/05/2213:50:00
15Extra50Rodrigo AndradePetroecuadorConocoto0°15′12″ S 78°29′02″ W07/03/2221:00:0007/07/2215:00:00
16Extra1000Andrea PicoPDVComité del Pueblo0°06′39″ S 78°28′45″ W07/07/2218:50:0007/08/227:51:00
17Extra600Job SegoviaMasgasChimbacalle0°14′41″ S 78°31′06″ W07/07/227:59:0007/08/227:26:00
18Extra50Javier VillegasMobilLa Magdalena0°14′27″ S 78°31′38″ W07/07/2221:45:0007/08/227:20:00
19Extra350María GavilanesE. S. FigueroaSalcedo1°02′29″ S 78°35′08″ W07/05/2210:35:0007/07/227:23:00
20Extra200Alisson ClavijoPrimaxQuitumbe0°18′13″ S 78°32′32″ W07/08/2216:00:0007/09/227:00:00
21Extra25Salma CadenaPrimaxSangolquí0°18′30″ S 78°26′44″ W06/09/2215:00:0006/10/2210:50:00
22Extra25Salomé ZapataTerpelCochapamba0°09′17″ S 78°29′49″ W06/09/2216:20:00----
23Extra500Melany CarreraMasgasTumbaco0°12′42″ S 78°23′15″ W07/08/2214:00:0007/11/2213:15:00
24Extra200Carlos CadenaPrimaxSangolquí0°18′30″ S 78°26′44″ W07/08/2217:30:0007/11/2210:01:00
25Extra220Laura PalaciosPetroecuadorComité del Pueblo0°06′56″ S 78°28′45″ W07/10/2217:38:0007/11/229:23:00
26Extra200Cynthia CarvajalPetroecuadorQuitumbe0°17′49″ S 78°33′32″ W07/09/2210:00:0007/11/229:00:00
27Extra100Samanta OrtizPrimaxEl Condado0°06′19″ S 78°30′00″ W07/10/2215:30:0007/11/2211:00:00
28Extra100Dayerlin GuerreroPrimaxEl Inca0°09′33″ S 78°28′59″ W07/10/2212:36:0007/11/227:10:00
29Extra250Daniel CervantesP&SSan Antonio0°00′24″ N 78°26′25″ W07/10/2213:00:0007/11/2211:00:00
30Extra-Patricia MoreiraTerpelConocoto0°17′27″ S 78°27′51″ W07/10/2216:36:0007/11/2210:36:00
31Extra350Pamela BonillaPetroecuadorGuamaní0°18′41″ S 78°32′50″ W07/10/2212:35:0007/12/2211:06:00
32Extra200Fernanda MorenoPrimaxIñaquito0°11′48″ S 78°29′35″ W07/10/2218:20:0007/11/2211:05:00
33Extra100Cristian SopaPetroecuadorGuamaní0°20′56″ S 78°32′57″ W07/09/2219:30:0007/11/2211:00:00
34Extra750Daniel GuerreroPetroecuadorLa Mena0°15′50″ S 78°33′00″ W07/10/2214:40:0007/11/228:45:00
35Extra250Karen PoncePetroecuadorCalderón0°06′30″ S 78°27′01″ W07/10/2217:15:0007/11/2210:30:00
36Extra1000Katherine ChulcaPetroecuadorCalderón0°06′30″ S 78°27′01″ W07/10/2221:15:0007/11/2211:00:00
37Extra500Mishell VegaMasgasTumbaco0°12′42″ S 78°23′15″ W07/08/2214:00:0007/11/227:15:00
38Extra-Patricia MoreiraTerpelConocoto0°17′27″ S 78°27′51″ W07/10/2216:36:0007/11/2210:36:00
39Extra200Stalin AureaPetroecuadorAmbato1°13′42″ S 78°36′16″ W07/08/2220:00:0007/11/227:00:00
40Extra300Gabriel EspinozaPrimaxSangolquí0°20′43″ S 78°27′19″ W07/09/228:30:0011/07/229:00:00
41Extra200Katherine MartínezTerpelLa Magdalena0°14′58″ S 78°31′16″ W07/10/2217:42:0007/11/229:00:00
42Extra100Bryan TupeTerpelTambillo0°24′29″ S 78°32′50″ W07/10/2220:00:0007/11/2211:00:00
43Extra50Lizeth LoachaminPrimaxSangolquí0°20′43″ S 78°27′19″ W07/10/2210:20:0007/11/228:40:00
44Extra50Jhon SuquitanaPrimaxAmaguaña0°20′43″ S 78°27′19″ W07/10/2210:00:0007/11/227:20:00
45Extra150Sandra ChangoPrimaxAmbato1°15′00″ S 78°37′58″ W07/08/2217:27:0007/11/2211:00:00
46Extra-Jhuliana VinuezaPrimaxAlangasí0°19′36″ S 78°23′43″ W07/10/2210:30:0007/11/228:40:00
47Extra200Katherine VegaMasgasAtuntaqui0°18′50″ N 78°13′26″ W07/10/2215:00:0007/10/227:20:00
48Extra250Robinson YandúnP&SCotocollao0°07′16″ S 78°30′18″ W07/11/2221:45:0007/12/228:30:00
50Extra100Dayana MerizaldeMobilLa Magdalena0°14′27″ S 78°31′38″ W07/10/2216:07:0007/11/227:00:00
51Extra50Lizbeth AbrilPetroecuadorSangolquí0°18′11″ S 78°27′57″ W06/06/2217:00:0006/07/2214:00:00
52Extra500Juliett FernándezPrimaxJipijapa0°08′38″ S 78°28′11″ W07/09/2212:45:0007/11/2210:30:00
53Extra Santiago PatiPrimaxComité del Pueblo0°06′02″ S 78°28′17″ W07/09/22
54Extra-Juan NoroñaTerpelConocoto0°17′27″ S 78°27′51″ W07/11/225:45:0007/11/2213:15:00
1Súper-Melanie MuelaPrimaxIñaquito0°10′29″ S 78°29′16″ W07/02/2215:00:0007/04/227:30:00
2Súper40Liney MejíaPrimaxCarcelén0°05′30″ S 78°28′36″ W07/03/2219:52:0007/04/227:21:00
3Súper50Guido AcevedoMobilLa Magdalena0°14′27″ S 78°31′38″ W07/03/2217:00:0007/04/227:20:00
4Súper260Lizbeth AlarcónPetroecuadorQuitumbe0°17′49″ S 78°33′32″ W07/03/2216:44:0007/04/227:22:00
5Súper40Zaid FalcónPrimaxMariscal Sucre0°11′48″ S 78°29′58″ W07/03/2212:30:0007/04/227:10:00
6Súper25Mario GuilcapiPetroecuadorChimbacalle0°14′13″ S 78°30′29″ W06/10/2210:30:0006/10/2210:50:00
7Súper25Mario GuilcapiPrimaxChimbacalle0°14′49″ S 78°30′20″ W06/10/2210:25:0006/10/2210:50:00
8Súper-Janina ChusquilloPrimaxMariscal Sucre0°08′38″ S 78°28′11″ W06/09/2210:00:0006/10/2211:00:00
9Súper-Cassidy GarzónPrimaxMariscal Sucre0°11′48″ S 78°29′58″ W07/04/2211:00:0007/05/2214:00:00
10Súper200Esteban MoralesShellIñaquito0°11′31″ S 78°29′19″ W07/02/2217:30:0007/05/2213:30:00
11Súper1000Andrea PicoPDVComité del Pueblo0°06′39″ S 78°28′45″ W07/07/2218:55:0007/08/227:51:00
12Súper600Job SegoviaMasgasChimbacalle0°14′41″ S 78°31′06″ W07/07/227:59:0007/08/227:26:00
13Súper50Javier VillegasMobilLa Magdalena0°14′27″ S 78°31′38″ W07/07/2221:45:0007/08/227:20:00
14Súper25Salma CadenaPrimaxSangolquí0°18′30″ S 78°26′44″ W06/09/2215:00:0006/10/2210:50:00
15Súper25Salomé ZapataTerpelCochapamba0°09′17″ S 78°29′49″ W06/09/2216:20:00
16Súper220Laura PalaciosPetroecuadorComité del Pueblo0°06′56″ S 78°28′45″ W07/10/2217:40:0007/11/229:23:00
17Súper200Stalin AureaPetroecuadorAmbato1°13′42″ S 78°36′16″ W07/08/2220:00:0007/11/227:00:00
18Súper250Karen PoncePetroecuadorCalderón0°06′30″ S 78°27′01″ W07/10/2217:15:0007/11/2210:30:00
19Súper1000Landy FloresPrimaxMariscal Sucre0°12′00″ S 78°29′30″ W07/11/228:45:0007/11/229:15:00
20Súper5Mateo TeránMasgasIñaquito0°11′22″ S 78°28′52″ W07/10/2212:03:0007/11/229:00:00
21Súper50Lizbeth AbrilPetroecuadorSangolquí0°18′11″ S 78°27′57″ W06/06/2217:00:0006/07/2214:00:00
22Súper-Juan NoroñaTerpelConocoto0°17′27″ S 78°27′51″ W07/11/225:45:0007/11/2213:15:00
23Súper150Luis CuevaPetroecuadorSangolquí0°19′29″ S 78°26′26″ W07/11/226:30:0007/11/2211:10:00

References

  1. Pérez Darquea, D.G. Estudio de Emisiones Contaminantes Utilizando Combustibles Locales. INNOVA Res. J. 2018, 3, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Höök, M.; Hirsch, R.; Aleklett, K. Giant Oil Field Decline Rates and Their Influence on World Oil Production. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2262–2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vempatapu, B.P.; Kanaujia, P.K. Monitoring Petroleum Fuel Adulteration: A Review of Analytical Methods. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2017, 92, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. O’Neil, M.J.; Heckelman, P.E.; Roman, K.J. (Eds.) The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 14th ed.; Merck and Co., Inc.: Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lois, E.; Keating, E.L.; Gupta, A.K. Fuels. In Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology; Meyers, R.A., Ed.; Elsevier: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 275–314. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jones, D.S.J.S. Quality Control of Products in Petroleum Refining. In Handbook of Petroleum Processing; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 705–737. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kaltschmitt, T.; Deutschmann, O. Fuel Processing for Fuel Cells. In Advances in Chemical Engineering (Volume 41); Sundmacher, K., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–64. [Google Scholar]
  8. Siddiqui, M.A.B.; Aitani, A.M. FCC Gasoline Sulfur Reduction by Additives: A Review. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2007, 25, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Salazar Almeida, A.P. Cuantificación de Los Aditivos BTEX Presentes En La Gasolina Distribuída En El Distrito Metropolitano de Quito y Análisis Ingenieril Del Trabajo de La Refinería; Universidad San Francisco de Quito: Quito, Ecuador, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  10. Speight, J.G. Fouling During Catalytic Cracking. In Fouling in Refineries; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 271–302. [Google Scholar]
  11. Terneus Páez, C.F.; Cabrera Mera, A.G.; Grandes Villamarín, R.D. Impact Analysis of Migration from Súper Gasoline to Others of Lower Octane Number in Ecuador. In Recent Advances in Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Energy; Botto Tobar, M., Cruz, H., Díaz Cadena, A., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2021; Volume 763, pp. 95–108. ISBN 978-3-030-72211-1. [Google Scholar]
  12. Antamba Guasgua, J.F.; Reyes Campaña, G.G.; Granja Paredes, M.E. Estudio Comparativo de Gases Contaminantes En Un Vehículo M1, Utilizando Gasolina de La Comunidad Andina. Enfoque UTE 2016, 7, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, Y.; Kasseris, E.; Heywood, J.; Han, D.; Kim, J.; Lee, K.; Kang, H.; Zhou, J.; Mizuno, K.; Seitz, S.; et al. Benefits of Octane-On-Demand in an E10-Gasoline Engine Vehicle Using an On-Board Fuel Separator; No. 2022-01-0424; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Druet Rodríguez, F.A.; Vera Castro, P.V. Evaluación Técnica y Optimización Del Uso de Aditivos Comerciales Para Elevar El Octanaje de Las Gasolinas En El Ecuador; Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fisher, I.P. Effect of Feedstock Variability on Catalytic Cracking Yields. Appl. Catal. 1990, 65, 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. MacLean, H.L.; Lave, L.B. Evaluating Automobile Fuel/Propulsion System Technologies. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2003, 29, 1–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Maharjan, S.; Elbaz, A.M.; Roberts, W.L. Study of the Effect of Research Octane Number on the Auto-Ignition of Lubricant Oil Surrogates (n-Hexadecane). ACS Omega 2022, 7, 2766–2773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ghosh, P.; Hickey, K.J.; Jaffe, S.B. Development of a Detailed Gasoline Composition-Based Octane Model. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fahim, M.A.; Alsahhaf, T.A.; Elkilani, A. Refinery Feedstocks and Products. In Fundamentals of Petroleum Refining; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 11–31. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sinche Arias, D.F. Caracterización Físico-Química de Naftas Producidas En La Refinería Estatal de Esmeraldas, Mediante Cromatografía de Gases; Universidad Central del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  21. Aitani, A.M. Oil Refining and Products. In Encyclopedia of Energy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 715–729. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ugena, L.; Moncayo, S.; Manzoor, S.; Rosales, D.; Cáceres, J.O. Identification and Discrimination of Brands of Fuels by Gas Chromatography and Neural Networks Algorithm in Forensic Research. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2016, 2016, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mueller, C.J.; Cannella, W.J.; Kalghatgi, G.T. Fuels for Engines and the Impact of Fuel Composition on Engine Performance. In Encyclopedia of Automotive Engineering; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, Z.; Yang, C.; Yang, Z.; Brown, C.E.; Hollebone, B.P.; Stout, S.A. Petroleum Biomarker Fingerprinting for Oil Spill Characterization and Source Identification. In Standard Handbook Oil Spill Environmental Forensics; Stout, S.A., Wang, Z., Eds.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2016; pp. 131–254. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuppusamy, S.; Maddela, N.R.; Megharaj, M.; Venkateswarlu, K. An Overview of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. In Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  26. Demirbas, A.; Balubaid, M.A.; Basahel, A.M.; Ahmad, W.; Sheikh, M.H. Octane Rating of Gasoline and Octane Booster Additives. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2015, 33, 1190–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jalili, V.; Amin Rashidi, M.; Mehrifar, Y.; Koozekonan, A.G.; Zendehdel, R. A Comprehensive Review on Microextraction Techniques for Sampling and Analysis of Fuel Ether Oxygenates in Different Matrices. Microchem. J. 2021, 168, 106437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sarıkoç, S. Fuels of the Diesel-Gasoline Engines and Their Properties. In Diesel and Gasoline Engines; Viskup, R., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-1-78985-447-3. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hajbabaei, M.; Karavalakis, G.; Miller, J.W.; Villela, M.; Xu, K.H.; Durbin, T.D. Impact of Olefin Content on Criteria and Toxic Emissions from Modern Gasoline Vehicles. Fuel 2013, 107, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Paulo, J.M.; Barros, J.E.M.; Barbeira, P.J.S. Differentiation of Gasoline Samples Using Flame Emission Spectroscopy and Partial Least Squares Discriminate Analysis. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 4355–4361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Boot, M.D.; Tian, M.; Hensen, E.J.M.; Mani Sarathy, S. Impact of Fuel Molecular Structure on Auto-Ignition Behavior—Design Rules for Future High Performance Gasolines. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2017, 60, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schifter, I.; Díaz, L.; Sánchez-Reyna, G.; González-Macías, C.; González, U.; Rodríguez, R. Influence of Gasoline Olefin and Aromatic Content on Exhaust Emissions of 15% Ethanol Blends. Fuel 2020, 265, 116950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hochhauser, A.M. Review of Prior Studies of Fuel Effects on Vehicle Emissions. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2009, 2, 541–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. González Dota, E.V. Detección de Plomo En Gasolina Ecopaís, Extra, Súper y Diesel Expendida En Ecuador; Universidad de Guayaquil: Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  35. Amaral, L.V.; Santos, N.D.S.A.; Roso, V.R.; Sebastião, R.d.C.d.O.; Pujatti, F.J.P. Effects of Gasoline Composition on Engine Performance, Exhaust Gases and Operational Costs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, L.; Zhang, Z.; Gong, W.; Liang, Z. Quantifying the Effects of Fuel Compositions on GDI-Derived Particle Emissions Using the Optimal Mixture Design of Experiments. Fuel 2015, 154, 252–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Karavalakis, G.; Short, D.; Vu, D.; Russell, R.; Hajbabaei, M.; Asa-Awuku, A.; Durbin, T.D. Evaluating the Effects of Aromatics Content in Gasoline on Gaseous and Particulate Matter Emissions from SI-PFI and SIDI Vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 7021–7031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, Y.; Zheng, R.; Qin, Y.; Peng, J.; Li, M.; Lei, J.; Wu, Y.; Hu, M.; Shuai, S. The Impact of Fuel Compositions on the Particulate Emissions of Direct Injection Gasoline Engine. Fuel 2016, 166, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. He, Z.; Zhang, L.; Liu, G.; Qian, Y.; Lu, X. Evaluating the Effects of Olefin Components in Gasoline on GDI Engine Combustion and Emissions. Fuel 2021, 291, 120131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Biernat, K. Criteria for the Quality Assessment of Engine Fuels in Storage and Operating Conditions. In Storage Stability of Fuels; InTech: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ferreiro-González, M.; Ayuso, J.; Álvarez, J.A.; Palma, M.; Barroso, C.G. New Headspace-Mass Spectrometry Method for the Discrimination of Commercial Gasoline Samples with Different Research Octane Numbers. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 6249–6254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. ASTM D2699-21; Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number of Spark Ignition Engine Fuel. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
  43. Ferreiro-González, M.; Ayuso, J.; Álvarez, J.A.; Palma, M.; Barroso, C.G. Gasoline Analysis by Headspace Mass Spectrometry and near Infrared Spectroscopy. Fuel 2015, 153, 402–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Abdul-Manan, A.F.N.; Kalghatgi, G.; Babiker, H. Exploring Alternative Octane Specification Methods for Improved Gasoline Knock Resistance in Spark-Ignition Engines. Front. Mech. Eng. 2018, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Myers, M.E.; Stollsteimer, J.; Wims, A.M. Determination of Gasoline Octane Numbers from Chemical Composition. Anal. Chem. 1975, 47, 2301–2304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dutta, S.; Madav, V.; Joshi, G.; Naik, N.; Kumar, S. Directional Synthesis of Aviation-, Diesel-, and Gasoline Range Hydrocarbon Fuels by Catalytic Transformations of Biomass Components: An Overview. Fuel 2023, 347, 128437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cerri, T.; D’Errico, G.; Onorati, A. Experimental Investigations on High Octane Number Gasoline Formulations for Internal Combustion Engines. Fuel 2013, 111, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. ASTM D2699; Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel 1. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 1–48.
  49. Abou El Leil, I.M.; Mezughi, K.M.; Altayeb, S.A.; Abodera, G.A. Prediction of Octane Numbers of Petroleum Fractions Using Approaches Correlations. Int. Sci. Technol. J. 2022, 30, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dias, T.; Oliveira, R.; Saraiva, P.; Reis, M.S. Predictive Analytics in the Petrochemical Industry: Research Octane Number (RON) Forecasting and Analysis in an Industrial Catalytic Reforming Unit. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2020, 139, 106912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Muller, A. New Method Produces Accurate Octane Blending Values. Oil Gas J. 1992, 90, 30–1388. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mendes, G.; Aleme, H.G.; Barbeira, P.J.S. Determination of Octane Numbers in Gasoline by Distillation Curves and Partial Least Squares Regression. Fuel 2012, 97, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Issa, H.M. Prediction of Octane Numbers for Commercial Gasoline Using Distillation Curves: A Comparative Regression Analysis between Principal Component and Partial Least Squares Methods. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2024, 42, 1233–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van Leeuwen, J.A.; Jonker, R.J.; Gill, R. Octane Number Prediction Based on Gas Chromatographic Analysis with Non-Linear Regression Techniques. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1994, 25, 325–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nikolaou, N.; Papadopoulos, C.E.; Gaglias, I.A.; Pitarakis, K.G. A New Non-Linear Calculation Method of Isomerisation Gasoline Research Octane Number Based on Gas Chromatographic Data. Fuel 2004, 83, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Metwally, M.M. Approach to Accurate Octane Number Calculation for Gasoline Blending. Acad. Res. Community Publ. 2019, 2, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rusin, M.H.; Chung, H.S.; Marshall, J.F. A “Transformation” Method for Calculating the Research and Motor Octane Numbers of Gasoline Blends. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1981, 20, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schoen, W.F.; Mrstik, A.V. Calculating Gasoline Blend Octane Ratings. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1955, 47, 1740–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Maylin, M.V.; Kirgina, M.V.; Sviridova, E.V.; Sakhnevitch, B.V.; Ivanchina, E.D. Calculation of Gasoline Octane Numbers Taking into Account the Reaction Interaction of Blend Components. Procedia Chem. 2014, 10, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hay, G.; Loria, H.; Satyro, M.A. Thermodynamic Modeling and Process Simulation through PIONA Characterization. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 3578–3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oduola, M.K.; Iyaomolere, A.I. Development of Model Equations for Predicting Gasoline Blending Properties. Am. J. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Smolenskii, E.A.; Ryzhov, A.N.; Bavykin, V.M.; Myshenkova, T.N.; Lapidus, A.L. Octane Numbers (ONs) of Hydrocarbons: A QSPR Study Using Optimal Topological Indices for the Topological Equivalents of the ONs. Russ. Chem. Bull. 2007, 56, 1681–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al-Fahemi, J.H.; Albis, N.A.; Gad, E.A.M. QSPR Models for Octane Number Prediction. J. Theor. Chem. 2014, 2014, 520652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ahmed, A.; Goteng, G.; Shankar, V.S.B.; Al-Qurashi, K.; Roberts, W.L.; Sarathy, S.M. A Computational Methodology for Formulating Gasoline Surrogate Fuels with Accurate Physical and Chemical Kinetic Properties. Fuel 2015, 143, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chuzlov, V.A.; Nazarova, G.Y.; Dolganov, I.M.; Dolganova, I.O.; Seitenova, G.Z. Calculation of the Optimal Blending Component Ratio by Using Mathematical Modeling Method. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2019, 37, 1170–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tipler, S.; D’Alessio, G.; Van Haute, Q.; Parente, A.; Contino, F.; Coussement, A. Predicting Octane Numbers Relying on Principal Component Analysis and Artificial Neural Network. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2022, 161, 107784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abdul Jameel, A.G.; Van Oudenhoven, V.; Emwas, A.-H.; Sarathy, S.M. Predicting Octane Number Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Artificial Neural Networks. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 6309–6329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. AL-Sayd Toohi, H.; Ahmed, Z. Developing a New Method for Calculating the Octane Number Based on Quantum Mechanics Methods. Coll. Basic Educ. Res. J. 2023, 19, 835–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, X.; Shi, X.; Tong, C.; Li, Y. Prediction of Octane Number of Gasoline Based on Improved Extreme Learning Machine. In Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Proceedings of the 2018 37th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Wuhan, China, 25–27 July 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 8055–8059.
  70. Benavides, A.; Zapata, C.; Benjumea, P.; Franco, C.A.; Cortés, F.B.; Ruiz, M.A. Predicting Octane Number of Petroleum-Derived Gasoline Fuels from MIR Spectra, GC-MS, and Routine Test Data. Processes 2023, 11, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wallington, T.J.; Kaiser, E.W.; Farrell, J.T. Automotive Fuels and Internal Combustion Engines: A Chemical Perspective. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006, 35, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schlichting, S.; Methling, T.; Oßwald, P.; Zinsmeister, J.; Riedel, U.; Köhler, M. Numerical Prediction of Research Octane Numbers via a Quasi-Dimensional Two-Zone Cylinder Model. Appl. Energy Combust. Sci. 2022, 11, 100079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalización (INEN). Productos Derivados Del Petróleo. Gasolina. Requisitos; Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalización (INEN): Quito, Ecuador, 2021; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
  74. Arias-Andramunio, L.P.; Otero-Potosí, S.A.; Fraga-Portilla, J.A. Comportamiento Del Rendimiento y El Nivel de Contaminación Entre La Gasolina Súper y Ecopaís. Polo Del Conoc. 2022, 7, 2254–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rojas-Reinoso, V.; Alvarez-Loor, J.; Zambrano-Becerra, H.; Soriano, J.A. Comparative Study of Gasoline Fuel Mixture to Reduce Emissions in the Metropolitan District. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Morquecho Andrade, F.L. Análisis de Rendimiento y Costo de Los Combustibles Ecopaís y Súper. INNOVA Res. J. 2018, 3, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Castillo Rivera, E.O.; Mora Díaz, L.B. Análisis, Estudio y Modelamiento Matemático Para La Caracterización Energética de Las Gasolinas Comerciales En Función de Los Parámetros de Calidad Referentes a La Norma ASTM; Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas: Sangolquí, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rocha-Hoyos, J.; Llanes-Cedeño, E.A.; Andrade-Villarreal, J.; Caiza-Quishpe, L.; Leguísamo-Milla, J. Incidencia Del Uso de Gasolina Extra y Mezcla Al 5 % Con Etanol Anhidro En Los Microfiltros de Los Inyectores Multipunto. Enfoque UTE 2019, 10, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Suppajariyawat, P.; de Andrade, A.F.B.; Elie, M.; Baron, M.; Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J. The Use Of Chemical Composition And Additives To Classify Petrol And Diesel Using Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry And Chemometric Analysis: A Uk Study. Open Chem. 2019, 17, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sandercock, P.M.; Du Pasquier, E. Chemical Fingerprinting of Unevaporated Automotive Gasoline Samples. Forensic Sci. Int. 2003, 134, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. El Naggar, A.Y.; Elkhateeb, A.; Altalhi, T.A.; El Nady, M.M.; Alhadhrami, A.; Ebiad, M.A.; Salem, A.A.; Elhardallou, S.B. Hydrocarbon Compositions and Physicochemical Characteristics for the Determination of Gasoline Quality: An Implication from Gas Chromatographic Fingerprints. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2017, 39, 1694–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tang, G.; Sun, J.; Wu, F.; Sun, Y.; Zhu, X.; Geng, Y.; Wang, Y. Organic Composition of Gasoline and Its Potential Effects on Air Pollution in North China. Sci. China Chem. 2015, 58, 1416–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ritter, S. Chemical & Engineering News. 2005, p. 37. Available online: https://pubsapp.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8308gasoline.html (accessed on 10 August 2024).
  84. Ré-Poppi, N.; Almeida, F.F.P.; Cardoso, C.A.L.; Raposo, J.L.; Viana, L.H.; Silva, T.Q.; Souza, J.L.C.; Ferreira, V.S. Screening Analysis of Type C Brazilian Gasoline by Gas Chromatography—Flame Ionization Detector. Fuel 2009, 88, 418–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Araujo, A. Arrancó La FCC de La Refinería de Esmeraldas. El Comercio, 1 October 2015; 1. [Google Scholar]
  86. Taco-Vasquez, S.; Holtzapple, M.T. Conversion of Acetone and Mixed Ketones to Hydrocarbons Using HZSM-5 Catalyst in the Carboxylate Platform. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0277184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mul, P.; Rommens, H.C.W. Alkane Sulfonic Acid or Sulfonate Composition and Use Thereof in Enhanced Oil Recovery. European Patent EP2 995 670A1, 10 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
  88. Speight, J.G. The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; ISBN 9780429118494. [Google Scholar]
  89. Berkowitz, N. Fossil Hydrocarbons; Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 1997; ISBN 9780120910908. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kapur, G.S.; Singh, A.P.; Sarpal, A.S. Determination of Aromatics and Naphthenes in Straight Run Gasoline by 1H NMR Spectroscopy. Part, I. Fuel 2000, 79, 1023–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Thomas, V.M. The Elimination of Lead in Gasoline. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1995, 20, 301–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Simanzhenkov, V.; Idem, R. Crude Oil Chemistry, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; ISBN 9780429214998. [Google Scholar]
  93. Dell, R.M.; Moseley, P.T.; Rand, D.A.J. Development of Road Vehicles with Internal-Combustion Engines. In Towards Sustainable Road Transport; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 109–156. [Google Scholar]
  94. Guharoy Sarkar, C. Tetraethyllead (TEL) in Gasoline as a Case of Contentious Science and Delayed Regulation: A Short Review. Orient. J. Chem. 2020, 36, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rocha-Hoyos, J.C.; Tipanluisa, L.E.; Zambrano, V.D.; Portilla, Á.A. Estudio de Un Motor a Gasolina En Condiciones de Altura Con Mezclas de Aditivo Orgánico En El Combustible. Inf. Tecnol. 2018, 29, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shedid Ali, N. The Effect of Compositions (PIONA) on the Octane Numbers of Environmental Gasolines of Reformate, Isomerate and Hydrocracked Naphtha Blends by Using GC. Int. J. Oil Gas Coal Eng. 2017, 5, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Nadim, F.; Zack, P.; Hoag, G.E.; Liu, S. United States Experience with Gasoline Additives. Energy Policy 2001, 29, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Health Effects Institute. The Potential Health Effects of Oxygenates Added to Gasoline. A Review of the Current Literature; Health Effects Institute: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  99. Caprino, L.; Togna, G.I. Potential Health Effects of Gasoline and Its Constituents: A Review of Current Literature (1990–1997) on Toxicological Data. Environ. Health Perspect. 1998, 106, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Koehl, W.J.; Benson, J.D.; Burns, V.; Gorse, R.A.; Hochhauser, A.M.; Reuter, R.M. Effects of Gasoline Composition and Properties on Vehicle Emissions: A Review of Prior Studies—Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program. In Proceedings of the International Fuels & Lubricants Meeting & Exposition, San Fracisco, CA, USA, 1 October 1991; Volume 100, pp. 715–747. [Google Scholar]
  101. Lin, M.; Zhang, X.; Wen, M.; Zhang, C.; Kong, X.; Jin, Z.; Zheng, Z.; Liu, H. Effects of Unconventional Additives in Gasoline on the Performance of a Vehicle. Energies 2022, 15, 1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lin, Y.-C.; Jhang, S.-R.; Lin, S.-L.; Chen, K.-S. Comparative Effect of Fuel Ethanol Content on Regulated and Unregulated Emissions from Old Model Vehicles: An Assessment and Policy Implications. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2021, 12, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Karimi Abiyazani, N.; Pirouzfar, V.; Su, C.-H. Enhancing Engine Power and Torque and Reducing Exhaust Emissions of Blended Fuels Derived from Gasoline-Propanol-Nano Particles. Energy 2022, 241, 122924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Elfasakhany, A. Experimental Study of Dual N-Butanol and Iso-Butanol Additives on Spark-Ignition Engine Performance and Emissions. Fuel 2016, 163, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ancillotti, F.; Fattore, V. Oxygenate Fuels: Market Expansion and Catalytic Aspect of Synthesis. Fuel Process. Technol. 1998, 57, 163–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Reddy Saragada, D.B.; Danaiah, P.; Dattu, V.S.N. Impact of ETBE Proportions on RCCI Engine to Analyse Performance and Emission Characteristics. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 62, 6740–6748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jesu Godwin, D.; Edwin Geo, V.; Thiyagarajan, S.; Leenus Jesu Martin, M.; Maiyalagan, T.; Saravanan, C.G.; Aloui, F. Effect of Hydroxyl (OH) Group Position in Alcohol on Performance, Emission and Combustion Characteristics of SI Engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 189, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Kong, X.; Zhang, S.; Wen, M.; Liu, H. Effects of Different Additives on Physicochemical Properties of Gasoline and Vehicle Performance. Fuel Process. Technol. 2023, 242, 107668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Perdih, A.; Perdih, F. Chemical Interpretation of Octane Number. Acta Chim. Slov. 2006, 53, 306–315. [Google Scholar]
  110. Speight, J.G. Handbook of Petroleum Product Analysis, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002; ISBN 9781118369265. [Google Scholar]
  111. Rankovic, N.; Bourhis, G.; Loos, M.; Dauphin, R. Understanding Octane Number Evolution for Enabling Alternative Low RON Refinery Streams and Octane Boosters as Transportation Fuels. Fuel 2015, 150, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Santana Romo, F.M.; Basantes Moreano, L.F.; Trujillo Sánchez, S.F.; de Los Ángeles Delgado Montenegro, I.; Moncayo Espín, C.R. Chemical Approach “Structure-Conformation” of Regular Gasoline in the Ecuadorian Fuel Market. Rev. Investig. Talent. 2024, 11, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Szybist, J.P.; Splitter, D.A. Understanding Chemistry-Specific Fuel Differences at a Constant RON in a Boosted SI Engine. Fuel 2018, 217, 370–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bawase, M.A.; Reve, S.D.; Shete, S.V.; Saraf, M.R. Carbon Number Distribution by Gas Chromatography for Identification of Outlying Diesel Sample. J. AdMet Päper 2012, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  115. Altin, O.; Eser, S. Carbon Deposit Formation from Thermal Stressing of Petroleum Fuels. ACS Div. Fuel Chem. Prepr. 2004, 49, 764–766. [Google Scholar]
  116. Pitz, W.J.; Cernansky, N.P.; Dryer, F.L.; Egolfopoulos, F.N.; Farrell, J.T.; Friend, D.G.; Pitsch, H. Development of an Experimental Database and Chemical Kinetic Models for Surrogate Gasoline Fuels. In Proceedings of the SAE World Congress & Exhibition, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 16–19 April 2007; SAE Technical Papers Series. pp. 195–216. [Google Scholar]
  117. Castillo, J.; Guzmán-Beckmann, L.; Escola, B.; Reyes, E. Influencia de Las Condiciones de Almacenamiento En La Presión de Vapor Reid, Formación de Gomas y El Número de Octano Research de La Gasolina. Rev. Politécnica 2023, 52, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 12 01706 g001
Figure 1. Condensate map of the main sampling locations of Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline.
Figure 1. Condensate map of the main sampling locations of Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline.
Processes 12 01706 g001
Processes 12 01706 g002
Figure 2. Mean molar concentrations of the different hydrocarbons available in Extra and Súper gasoline.
Figure 2. Mean molar concentrations of the different hydrocarbons available in Extra and Súper gasoline.
Processes 12 01706 g002
Processes 12 01706 g003
Figure 3. Mean molar concentration of the different hydrocarbons per carbon number present in (a) Extra gasoline and (b) Súper gasoline.
Figure 3. Mean molar concentration of the different hydrocarbons per carbon number present in (a) Extra gasoline and (b) Súper gasoline.
Processes 12 01706 g003
Processes 12 01706 g004
Figure 4. Histograms of the distribution of the total average carbon number values of the different analyzed samples of (a) Extra gasoline and (b) Súper gasoline.
Figure 4. Histograms of the distribution of the total average carbon number values of the different analyzed samples of (a) Extra gasoline and (b) Súper gasoline.
Processes 12 01706 g004
Processes 12 01706 g005
Figure 5. Scatter graphs of the total average carbon number values of the different analyzed samples of (a) Extra gasoline and (b) Súper gasoline.
Figure 5. Scatter graphs of the total average carbon number values of the different analyzed samples of (a) Extra gasoline and (b) Súper gasoline.
Processes 12 01706 g005
Processes 12 01706 g006
Figure 6. Bar chart of the calculated values of the average carbon number according to the types of hydrocarbons present in Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline.
Figure 6. Bar chart of the calculated values of the average carbon number according to the types of hydrocarbons present in Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline.
Processes 12 01706 g006
Table 1. Typical bulk composition of gasoline [7,24,25].
Table 1. Typical bulk composition of gasoline [7,24,25].
GroupCompound ClassGasoline Composition (%)
[7][24][25]
Saturates 50–60
Alkanes4–745–554–8
Isoalkanes25–40 25–40
Cyclo-alkanes6–16~53–7
Olefins 6–165–102–5 (30 *)
Cicloalkenes 1–4
Aromatics 20–5025–4020–50
BTEX 15–35
PAHs
Sulfur <0.05
Metals (ppm)
* Some cases have documented contents up to this percentage. BTEX: acronym for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. PAHs: abbreviation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Table 2. Gasoline composition classified by hydrocarbon groups, distributed in Saudi Arabia [81], China [82], and Brazil [84].
Table 2. Gasoline composition classified by hydrocarbon groups, distributed in Saudi Arabia [81], China [82], and Brazil [84].
CountrySaudi Arabia [81] 1China [82] 2Brazil [84] 1
RON919592939597N/A
Hydrocarbon
Group		Volume Percent of Total Hydrocarbons per Group Type
(% v/v)
Paraffins25.3229.2250.20 442.40 437.40 435.80 48.21
Isoparaffins26.7427.9616.08
Olefins1.481.449.0012.5012.4015.0018.48
Naphthenes2.964.10N/AN/AN/AN/A9.64
Aromatics29.0929.0631.9037.0041.4040.9015.87
OxygenatesN/A 3N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A26.75
MTBEN/AN/A4.304.601.802.90N/A
AnilineN/AN/A0.280.260.240.60N/A
Total C143.952.04N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
OthersN/AN/A8.908.108.908.30N/A
Unknowns10.456.17N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
1 The compounds were analyzed by GC-FID. 2 The compounds were analyzed by GC-MS. 3 N/A: not analyzed or not reported. 4 The data are reported as alkanes (paraffins and isoparaffins).
Table 3. Research octane numbers of Extra and Súper gasoline analyzed at the LACBAL laboratory.
Table 3. Research octane numbers of Extra and Súper gasoline analyzed at the LACBAL laboratory.
N° SampleExtra GasolineSúper Gasoline
185.593.5
285.793.0
385.990.8
Mean ± Standard Deviation85.7 ± 0.292.4 ± 1.4
Table 4. p-values resulted from the comparison between Extra and Súper gasoline samples regarding variables of molar composition and ACN.
Table 4. p-values resulted from the comparison between Extra and Súper gasoline samples regarding variables of molar composition and ACN.
Type of Variablep-Value Comparing Extra Gasoline and Súper GasolineType of Variablep-Value Comparing Extra Gasoline and Súper Gasoline
Molar % of
paraffins		0.18 MW
0.32 KS		ACN of
paraffins		1.26 × 10−3 MW
1.05 × 10−4 KS
Molar % of
Isoparaffins		0.00 MW
0.00 KS		ACN of
Isoparaffins		0.27 MW
0.02 KS
Molar % of
Linear Olefins		1.47 × 10−5 MW
2.84 × 10−5 KS		ACN of
Linear Olefins		0.26 MW
1.84 × 10−5 KS
Molar % of
Branched Olefins		3.82 × 10−12 MW
0.00 KS		ACN of
Branched Olefins		1.29 × 10−7 MW
0.00 KS
Molar % of
Naphthenes		0.00 MW
0.00 KS		ACN of
Naphthenes		0.00 MW
0.00 KS
Molar % of
Aromatics		2.17 × 10−11 MW
0.00 KS		ACN of
Aromatics		2.39 × 10−10 MW
0.00 KS
Molar % of
Oxygenates		0.35 MW
0.00 KS
ACNTotal7.68 × 10−12 MW
0.00 KS
MW p-value calculated with the Mann–Whitney test. KS p-value calculated with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. p-value < 0.05 (significance level) means that the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 5. Differences between the medians determined by the Kruskal–Wallis test for the average carbon number (ACN) variable for each of the types of hydrocarbons present in the Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline samples.
Table 5. Differences between the medians determined by the Kruskal–Wallis test for the average carbon number (ACN) variable for each of the types of hydrocarbons present in the Extra gasoline and Súper gasoline samples.
Type of Hydrocarbon
per Type of Gasoline		Extra GasolineSúper Gasoline
ParaffinsIsoparaffinsLinear
Olefins		Branched
Olefins		NaphthenesAromaticsParaffinsIsoparaffinsLinear
Olefins		Branched
Olefins		NaphthenesAromaticsTotal ACN
Extra gasolineParaffinsN/A------------------------
Isoparaffins−329.55 *N/A----------------------
Linear Olefins−364.84 *−35.29N/A--------------------
Branched Olefins−703.58 *−374.03 *−338.74 *N/A------------------
Naphthenes−685.96 *−356.41 *−321.12 *17.62N/A----------------
Aromatics−1140.27 *−810.71 *−775.42 *−436.69 *−454.31 *N/A--------------
ACNTotal−897.96 *−568.41 *−533.12 *−194.38 *−212.00 *242.31 *−941.24 *−608.12 *−585.63 *−425.84 *−523.67 *190.74148.75
Súper gasolineParaffins−43.28−372.83 *−408.12 *−746.86 *−729.24 *−1183.54 *N/A------------
Isoparaffins289.85 *−39.71−74.99−413.74 *−396.12 *−850.42 *−333.12 *N/A----------
Linear Olefins312.33 *−17.22−52.51−391.25 *−373.63 *−827.94 *−355.61 *−22.48N/A--------
Branched Olefins472.13 *142.57107.28−231.46 *−213.84 *−668.14 *−515.40 *−182.28−159.80N/A------
Naphthenes374.29 *44.749.45−329.28 *−311.67 *−765.98 *−417.57 *−84.45−61.9697.83N/A----
Aromatics1088.70 *759.15 *723.86 *385.12 *402.74 *−51.57−1131.98 *−798.86 *−776.37 *−616.58 *−714.41 *N/A--
ACNTotal−749.22 *−419.66 *−384.37 *−45.64−63.25391.05 *−792.50 *−459.37 *−436.89 *−227.09 *−374.93 *339.48 *N/A
* and font in red: Indicates a significant difference. N/A means not applicable for comparing the same sample. -- repeated value specified in subsequent rows.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pazmiño-Viteri, K.; Cabezas-Terán, K.; Echeverría, D.; Cabrera, M.; Taco-Vásquez, S. Average Carbon Number Analysis and Relationship with Octane Number and PIONA Analysis of Premium and Regular Gasoline Expended in Ecuador. Processes 2024, 12, 1706. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12081706

AMA Style

Pazmiño-Viteri K, Cabezas-Terán K, Echeverría D, Cabrera M, Taco-Vásquez S. Average Carbon Number Analysis and Relationship with Octane Number and PIONA Analysis of Premium and Regular Gasoline Expended in Ecuador. Processes. 2024; 12(8):1706. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12081706

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pazmiño-Viteri, Katherine, Katty Cabezas-Terán, Daniel Echeverría, Marcelo Cabrera, and Sebastián Taco-Vásquez. 2024. "Average Carbon Number Analysis and Relationship with Octane Number and PIONA Analysis of Premium and Regular Gasoline Expended in Ecuador" Processes 12, no. 8: 1706. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12081706

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop