Haha, no not quantum linear algebra. I’ll give you an example I did the other night. Assumed aniline points of PAO, AN, and ester of 125, 94, and 0 C, respectively. Assume additive package and carrier oil has no effect on the mixture’s aniline point. Assume that out of the base oil mix, PAO comprises 95% and that AN plus ester comprises 5%. Assume that the mixture’s aniline point is 121 C. Solving for percentage of AN yields 2.1% and then percentage of ester is 5% -2.1% = 2.9%. With those aniline points, no combination of percentages can yield a mixture aniline point above the aniline point of the oil with the highest aniline point. Likewise, no combination can yield a mixture aniline point below the aniline point of the oil that has the lowest aniline point.
Redline base oils
- Thread starter JAG
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Well put, Tom.
Can't help but sense the general theme of some posters 'wanting to believe' that Redline is compositionally no different than their favourite big name synthetics.
And of course the opposite as well, hence the clash IMHO.
So the on the shelf at Sino Mart 'synthetics' have as much POE/PAO content (as well as moly, or the trimer equivalent amount) in their base stocks as Red Line and Motul (and Millers, Torco, etc., etc.)?
(Whether or NOT it "matters", as all of the big name brand pushers are compelled to point out that it does not whatsoever, to everyone/amyone who will listen.)
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Well put, Tom.
Can't help but sense the general theme of some posters 'wanting to believe' that Redline is compositionally no different than their favourite big name synthetics.
And of course the opposite as well, hence the clash IMHO.
So the on the shelf at Sino Mart 'synthetics' have as much POE/PAO content (as well as moly, or the trimer equivalent amount) in their base stocks as Red Line and Motul (and Millers, Torco, etc., etc.)?
(Whether or NOT it "matters", as all of the big name brand pushers are compelled to point out that it does not whatsoever, to everyone/amyone who will listen.)
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Well put, Tom.
Can't help but sense the general theme of some posters 'wanting to believe' that Redline is compositionally no different than their favourite big name synthetics.
And of course the opposite as well, hence the clash IMHO.
So the on the shelf at Sino Mart 'synthetics' have as much POE/PAO content (as well as moly, or the trimer equivalent amount) in their base stocks as Red Line and Motul (and Millers, Torco, etc., etc.)?
(Whether or NOT it "matters", as all of the big name brand pushers are compelled to point out that it does not whatsoever, to everyone/amyone who will listen.)
M1 EP 0w-20 might
At least on the PAO side of things.
But that wasn't my point. It was more in respect to the claims or beliefs that Redline is exceptional and that the oil is majority POE, setting it apart from products in the same boutique category like AMSOIL. We really have no idea how different a product like say AMSOIL's signature series is to Redline's street oils in terms of base oil composition.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Well put, Tom.
Can't help but sense the general theme of some posters 'wanting to believe' that Redline is compositionally no different than their favourite big name synthetics.
And of course the opposite as well, hence the clash IMHO.
So the on the shelf at Sino Mart 'synthetics' have as much POE/PAO content (as well as moly, or the trimer equivalent amount) in their base stocks as Red Line and Motul (and Millers, Torco, etc., etc.)?
(Whether or NOT it "matters", as all of the big name brand pushers are compelled to point out that it does not whatsoever, to everyone/amyone who will listen.)
M1 EP 0w-20 might
But that wasn't my point. It was more in respect to the claims or beliefs that Redline is exceptional and that the oil is majority POE, setting it apart from products in the same boutique category like AMSOIL. We really have no idea how different a product like say AMSOIL's signature series is to Redline's street oils in terms of base oil composition.
Originally Posted By: JAG
The accuracy of the estimates is a function of how well the assumptions match the unknowable reality. The assumptions are stated, and the result is a function of the assumptions. It is a “if this, then that” process. The one making the estimates needs to be aware that the estimate is an estimate, which differs from the actual value. Discussing the accuracy of the estimate is something that should be done. Whether or not one wants to make estimates should not be criticized. Different strokes for different folks. Some people would rather not delve into such matters and others like to. It is not folly to make an estimate when the methods and assumptions are stated. Such things are done every day in the scientific and engineering communities. Bordering on obsession means bordering on having an unhealthy psychological/behavioral problem. That is quite the inaccurate and unfair accusation to make.
Hi JAG,
My apologies if you took offense at my post. It wasn’t aimed at you specifically, but rather at the common practice on this board of obsessing over base oil content and trying to determine PAO/ester/mineral oil ratios by extrapolating physical data such as Noack volatility, pour point, aniline point, viscosity index, density, CCS viscosity, HTHS viscosity, and C=O absorbance. There are sometimes directional clues from these data points, but there are just too many variables in motor oil formulations for these methods to render useful base oil ratios.
I agree assumptions are an important part of scientific investigation, provided the assumptions are based in fact and reasonably bracket the variables. Naturally the more assumptions made, the wider the plus/minus variation in the conclusion, and at some point the results lose meaningful value. Too many assumptions can make estimates indistinguishable from guesses.
In the case of synthetic motor oils, several large and important variables cannot be captured from physical data, specifically the type and grade of PAOs, the type and grade of esters, the type and grade of mineral oils, and the type and quantity of the additives in the formulation. These have a major influence on the physical properties and therefore on any conclusions drawn therefrom. No fact based assumptions that can reasonably bracket these unknowns, especially since their properties often overlap.
While SDSs may list PAO and mineral oil content, the ranges tend to be very broad, the type and grades are not noted, and the esters, additives, and other base oils such as PAGs or ANs may not be listed. At best the physical data of the finished oil may allow us to deduce that the oil has a decent slug of some kind of ester, or likely has a high content of some grade of PAO, but more specific than that becomes spurious.
If one really wants to know the base oil types and ratios, only gas chromatography will yield this data with meaningful accuracy.
Tom
The accuracy of the estimates is a function of how well the assumptions match the unknowable reality. The assumptions are stated, and the result is a function of the assumptions. It is a “if this, then that” process. The one making the estimates needs to be aware that the estimate is an estimate, which differs from the actual value. Discussing the accuracy of the estimate is something that should be done. Whether or not one wants to make estimates should not be criticized. Different strokes for different folks. Some people would rather not delve into such matters and others like to. It is not folly to make an estimate when the methods and assumptions are stated. Such things are done every day in the scientific and engineering communities. Bordering on obsession means bordering on having an unhealthy psychological/behavioral problem. That is quite the inaccurate and unfair accusation to make.
Hi JAG,
My apologies if you took offense at my post. It wasn’t aimed at you specifically, but rather at the common practice on this board of obsessing over base oil content and trying to determine PAO/ester/mineral oil ratios by extrapolating physical data such as Noack volatility, pour point, aniline point, viscosity index, density, CCS viscosity, HTHS viscosity, and C=O absorbance. There are sometimes directional clues from these data points, but there are just too many variables in motor oil formulations for these methods to render useful base oil ratios.
I agree assumptions are an important part of scientific investigation, provided the assumptions are based in fact and reasonably bracket the variables. Naturally the more assumptions made, the wider the plus/minus variation in the conclusion, and at some point the results lose meaningful value. Too many assumptions can make estimates indistinguishable from guesses.
In the case of synthetic motor oils, several large and important variables cannot be captured from physical data, specifically the type and grade of PAOs, the type and grade of esters, the type and grade of mineral oils, and the type and quantity of the additives in the formulation. These have a major influence on the physical properties and therefore on any conclusions drawn therefrom. No fact based assumptions that can reasonably bracket these unknowns, especially since their properties often overlap.
While SDSs may list PAO and mineral oil content, the ranges tend to be very broad, the type and grades are not noted, and the esters, additives, and other base oils such as PAGs or ANs may not be listed. At best the physical data of the finished oil may allow us to deduce that the oil has a decent slug of some kind of ester, or likely has a high content of some grade of PAO, but more specific than that becomes spurious.
If one really wants to know the base oil types and ratios, only gas chromatography will yield this data with meaningful accuracy.
Tom
Hello Tom and thank you for your response. You are a true gentleman. I realize there is error in my estimate of ester content in Red Line and that it could be quite large. I’m ok with that. In some cases I would rather make an estimate with error than not make one and be forced to say “I have no idea.”. It’s just a personal preference, plus I enjoy doing it. I can understand why some people would rather not make such an estimate, due to excessive error, even if they knew how to make one.
Yes Tom, THANK YOU for your contributions/vast knowledge on this site!
Just so that I am quoting a real figure (and not totally guessing), just approximately what would a single gas chromatography, performed on a single oil sample, cost an individual, private consumer, from a private, independent testing company, (since we do not have whole multiple floor labs filled with techs to do this for us like the major oil blenders/manufacturers do)?
Just so that I am quoting a real figure (and not totally guessing), just approximately what would a single gas chromatography, performed on a single oil sample, cost an individual, private consumer, from a private, independent testing company, (since we do not have whole multiple floor labs filled with techs to do this for us like the major oil blenders/manufacturers do)?
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Yes Tom, THANK YOU for your contributions/vast knowledge on this site!
Just so that I am quoting a real figure (and not totally guessing), just approximately what would a single gas chromatography, performed on a single oil sample, cost an individual, private consumer, from a private, independent testing company, (since we do not have whole multiple floor labs filled with techs to do this for us like the major oil blenders/manufacturers do)?
There is an SN specification test called Standard Test Method for Estimation of Engine Oil Volatility by Capillary Gas Chromatography (ASTM D6417) that measures volatility by gas chromatography. I have seen some GC graphs from this test that are run under conditions that would allow me to interpret the base oil composition, at least visually. Petro-Lubricant Testing Labs lists the test for $373, and other labs run it as well, such as Intertek and Savant and I'm sure others.
This test reports a percent volatility result that is determined by GC, but one would need a copy of the GC graph to see the base oils. I'm not sure if they automatically include the graph with the results so you would have to ask.
Also the Institute of Materials sells test results from hundreds of motor oils they acquired from the field, including ASTM D6417. The prices for individual test results are quite low, but I'm not sure if they include the GC graph or what restrictions they may have on the use of the data.
The GC graph requires experienced interpretation to identify the base oils. I may be able to offer an opinion there provided the oil brand is not identified to me.
Yes Tom, THANK YOU for your contributions/vast knowledge on this site!
Just so that I am quoting a real figure (and not totally guessing), just approximately what would a single gas chromatography, performed on a single oil sample, cost an individual, private consumer, from a private, independent testing company, (since we do not have whole multiple floor labs filled with techs to do this for us like the major oil blenders/manufacturers do)?
There is an SN specification test called Standard Test Method for Estimation of Engine Oil Volatility by Capillary Gas Chromatography (ASTM D6417) that measures volatility by gas chromatography. I have seen some GC graphs from this test that are run under conditions that would allow me to interpret the base oil composition, at least visually. Petro-Lubricant Testing Labs lists the test for $373, and other labs run it as well, such as Intertek and Savant and I'm sure others.
This test reports a percent volatility result that is determined by GC, but one would need a copy of the GC graph to see the base oils. I'm not sure if they automatically include the graph with the results so you would have to ask.
Also the Institute of Materials sells test results from hundreds of motor oils they acquired from the field, including ASTM D6417. The prices for individual test results are quite low, but I'm not sure if they include the GC graph or what restrictions they may have on the use of the data.
The GC graph requires experienced interpretation to identify the base oils. I may be able to offer an opinion there provided the oil brand is not identified to me.
Originally Posted By: JAG
I dug up some links from the Russian forum. I was hoping to find a graph of the IR spectrum results but did not. However, they do show the numerical values for oxidation and nitration from the ASTM E 2412 test. The oxidation level is 91 for the 5W-20 and 129 for the 5W-40, likely indicating more esters in it. I did not try to translate all of the text, but if someone does, they may find more noteworthy info. than I found. Ok, so here we go:
Red Line 5W-20
VOA test results forum page: http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/8425-red-line-5w-20-svezhee/
VOA test results’ image: http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-2-0-88326400-1378458363.jpg
You can also look at UOA results.
Many oils, including other Red Line viscosity grades are about 1/4 of the way down this page:
http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/7906-idealnye-masla-po-vashemu-mneniyu/page-30#entry628868
What do you think, Tom?
Hello JAG and Tom NJ,
Here it is the FTIR (IR spectrum) of the Redline 5w-20 from oil-club.ru (green line) that was made in 2013. I hope it will help you in your analysis.
And this is FTIR of the Redline 0w40 that was made in 2015:
I dug up some links from the Russian forum. I was hoping to find a graph of the IR spectrum results but did not. However, they do show the numerical values for oxidation and nitration from the ASTM E 2412 test. The oxidation level is 91 for the 5W-20 and 129 for the 5W-40, likely indicating more esters in it. I did not try to translate all of the text, but if someone does, they may find more noteworthy info. than I found. Ok, so here we go:
Red Line 5W-20
VOA test results forum page: http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/8425-red-line-5w-20-svezhee/
VOA test results’ image: http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-2-0-88326400-1378458363.jpg
You can also look at UOA results.
Many oils, including other Red Line viscosity grades are about 1/4 of the way down this page:
http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/7906-idealnye-masla-po-vashemu-mneniyu/page-30#entry628868
What do you think, Tom?
Hello JAG and Tom NJ,
Here it is the FTIR (IR spectrum) of the Redline 5w-20 from oil-club.ru (green line) that was made in 2013. I hope it will help you in your analysis.
And this is FTIR of the Redline 0w40 that was made in 2015:
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: emod
Hello JAG and Tom NJ,
Here it is the FTIR (IR spectrum) of the Redline 5w-20 from oil-club.ru (green line) that was made in 2013. I hope it will help you in your analysis.
Thanks but not really. Both graphs show strong absorbance at 1735 (C=0 stretching) which can come from multiple sources besides ester base oils. That said the Red Line oils do show a much stronger absorbance here than most other motor oils which is likely due to an ester base oil. As for which ester and how much, the graphs don't help, nor do they address Group III content.
Hello JAG and Tom NJ,
Here it is the FTIR (IR spectrum) of the Redline 5w-20 from oil-club.ru (green line) that was made in 2013. I hope it will help you in your analysis.
Thanks but not really. Both graphs show strong absorbance at 1735 (C=0 stretching) which can come from multiple sources besides ester base oils. That said the Red Line oils do show a much stronger absorbance here than most other motor oils which is likely due to an ester base oil. As for which ester and how much, the graphs don't help, nor do they address Group III content.
Thanks Tom!
Unfortunately many people believe that strong absorbance at 1735 indicates that the oil contains over 50% (even 70%) esters, which is obviously not true.
Unfortunately many people believe that strong absorbance at 1735 indicates that the oil contains over 50% (even 70%) esters, which is obviously not true.
Originally Posted By: emod
Thanks Tom!
Unfortunately many people believe that strong absorbance at 1735 indicates that the oil contains over 50% (even 70%) esters, which is obviously not true.
Depends which ester, and which additives. That's the problem with FTIR - you cannot quantify unless you first qualify, that is, know all of the ingredients in the formulation.
Thanks Tom!
Unfortunately many people believe that strong absorbance at 1735 indicates that the oil contains over 50% (even 70%) esters, which is obviously not true.
Depends which ester, and which additives. That's the problem with FTIR - you cannot quantify unless you first qualify, that is, know all of the ingredients in the formulation.
Thank you emod and Tom! Most motor oils have a much smaller spike at 1735/cm than Red Line, so most motor oils’ additive packages contribute a small amount to the spike there. Suppose that the additive package is assumed to contribute nothing to that spike. Also suppose the esters consist of a blend of the following (assumption) in a proportion that yields a KV at 100C of 9 cSt (assumption), which applies to Red Line 5W-20. For these esters, that proportion of the first to the second ester is 2.23 to 1. Ratio comes from 69% and 31% amounts, relative to combination of the two esters.
Trimelllitate ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Polyol ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Tom, would you be willing to make the above assumptions, or those you think are better, and make estimates?
By the way, I looked at the Institute of Materials we sight and they seem to not have data on Red Line oils.
Trimelllitate ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Polyol ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Tom, would you be willing to make the above assumptions, or those you think are better, and make estimates?
By the way, I looked at the Institute of Materials we sight and they seem to not have data on Red Line oils.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Making estimates from physical properties such as aniline points, densities, and C=O absorbance without knowing which PAOs, which esters, and which additives are used may be a fun exercise, but borders on folly and obsession.
The emphasis is mine. Tom, that's the BITOG songbook.
Making estimates from physical properties such as aniline points, densities, and C=O absorbance without knowing which PAOs, which esters, and which additives are used may be a fun exercise, but borders on folly and obsession.
The emphasis is mine. Tom, that's the BITOG songbook.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: emod
Hello JAG and Tom NJ,
Here it is the FTIR (IR spectrum) of the Redline 5w-20 from oil-club.ru (green line) that was made in 2013. I hope it will help you in your analysis.
Thanks but not really. Both graphs show strong absorbance at 1735 (C=0 stretching) which can come from multiple sources besides ester base oils. That said the Red Line oils do show a much stronger absorbance here than most other motor oils which is likely due to an ester base oil. As for which ester and how much, the graphs don't help, nor do they address Group III content.
Yeah, but the important thing is "it is different from most other oils" which is good enough for most of us
Originally Posted By: emod
Hello JAG and Tom NJ,
Here it is the FTIR (IR spectrum) of the Redline 5w-20 from oil-club.ru (green line) that was made in 2013. I hope it will help you in your analysis.
Thanks but not really. Both graphs show strong absorbance at 1735 (C=0 stretching) which can come from multiple sources besides ester base oils. That said the Red Line oils do show a much stronger absorbance here than most other motor oils which is likely due to an ester base oil. As for which ester and how much, the graphs don't help, nor do they address Group III content.
Yeah, but the important thing is "it is different from most other oils" which is good enough for most of us
Originally Posted By: JAG
Thank you emod and Tom! Most motor oils have a much smaller spike at 1735/cm than Red Line, so most motor oils’ additive packages contribute a small amount to the spike there. Suppose that the additive package is assumed to contribute nothing to that spike. Also suppose the esters consist of a blend of the following (assumption) in a proportion that yields a KV at 100C of 9 cSt (assumption), which applies to Red Line 5W-20. For these esters, that proportion of the first to the second ester is 2.23 to 1. Ratio comes from 69% and 31% amounts, relative to combination of the two esters.
Trimelllitate ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Polyol ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Tom, would you be willing to make the above assumptions, or those you think are better, and make estimates?
By the way, I looked at the Institute of Materials we sight and they seem to not have data on Red Line oils.
Well there are a few things wrong with your assumptions.
The additives contribute significantly to the oil's viscosity, so the base oil blend viscosity would likely need to be between 5-7 cSt @ 100°C depending on the formulation, not 9 cSt.
The trimellitate ester you reference would not be a good choice for motor oils due to its low VI and high pour point. I have only seen these used in motor oils once, back in the 70s, and then a lighter version. A better high viscosity blending base oil would be a small amount of 100+ cSt PAO, or a large amount of 8 cSt PAO. If the high blend component is to be an ester, a complexed POE or a dimerate would be better.
The POE you reference can be used but is also not the best choice due to the high content of C5 fatty acids in the ester. These can cause odor and possibly corrosion if hydrolyzed. A better and most common choice would be a C8C10 TMP which has a KV100 of 4.4 cSt, a VI of 140, a Noack of 3%, and a pour point of -54°C. Other choices for the ester could include PE or TMP esters with fatty acids C7-10, linear and branched, or complexed or etherized POEs.
Fact is there are many many combinations of different esters, PAOs, and Group IIIs that can be used to make a 5W-20 synthetic oil, and without knowing which choices are in the formulation they cannot be quantified by FTIR. Different esters give different absorbance at 1735 cm-1, and the FTIR cell sample thickness also affects relative absorbance. Just not a useful method for quantifying base oil compositions/ratios in unknown formulations. If you know the complete formulation except for the base oil ratios, then FTIR can quantify the ester portion through methods of addition.
Thank you emod and Tom! Most motor oils have a much smaller spike at 1735/cm than Red Line, so most motor oils’ additive packages contribute a small amount to the spike there. Suppose that the additive package is assumed to contribute nothing to that spike. Also suppose the esters consist of a blend of the following (assumption) in a proportion that yields a KV at 100C of 9 cSt (assumption), which applies to Red Line 5W-20. For these esters, that proportion of the first to the second ester is 2.23 to 1. Ratio comes from 69% and 31% amounts, relative to combination of the two esters.
Trimelllitate ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Polyol ester: https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector....e=en-us&u=1
Tom, would you be willing to make the above assumptions, or those you think are better, and make estimates?
By the way, I looked at the Institute of Materials we sight and they seem to not have data on Red Line oils.
Well there are a few things wrong with your assumptions.
The additives contribute significantly to the oil's viscosity, so the base oil blend viscosity would likely need to be between 5-7 cSt @ 100°C depending on the formulation, not 9 cSt.
The trimellitate ester you reference would not be a good choice for motor oils due to its low VI and high pour point. I have only seen these used in motor oils once, back in the 70s, and then a lighter version. A better high viscosity blending base oil would be a small amount of 100+ cSt PAO, or a large amount of 8 cSt PAO. If the high blend component is to be an ester, a complexed POE or a dimerate would be better.
The POE you reference can be used but is also not the best choice due to the high content of C5 fatty acids in the ester. These can cause odor and possibly corrosion if hydrolyzed. A better and most common choice would be a C8C10 TMP which has a KV100 of 4.4 cSt, a VI of 140, a Noack of 3%, and a pour point of -54°C. Other choices for the ester could include PE or TMP esters with fatty acids C7-10, linear and branched, or complexed or etherized POEs.
Fact is there are many many combinations of different esters, PAOs, and Group IIIs that can be used to make a 5W-20 synthetic oil, and without knowing which choices are in the formulation they cannot be quantified by FTIR. Different esters give different absorbance at 1735 cm-1, and the FTIR cell sample thickness also affects relative absorbance. Just not a useful method for quantifying base oil compositions/ratios in unknown formulations. If you know the complete formulation except for the base oil ratios, then FTIR can quantify the ester portion through methods of addition.
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Yeah, but the important thing is "it is different from most other oils" which is good enough for most of us
Yes I get that - it is after all an oil forum!
Yeah, but the important thing is "it is different from most other oils" which is good enough for most of us
Yes I get that - it is after all an oil forum!
Thank you for the detailed reply, Tom. You mentioned high content of C5 fatty acids in the POE I referenced. Do you mean free fatty acids or that it was made from C5 fatty acids?
I have a question to JAG (as a topic starter) and Tom (as an expert).
I couldn’t find a GC of the Red Line oil, but I was lucky to find VOA + FTIR (both from oil-club.ru) + GC (from student graduation research paper - I am not sure that this is a correct term, but I hope that you will understand what I mean) of the Toyota 0w20 oil.
Do you want me to post this information in this topic - for a purely educational purposes?
If the data from the GC allows it – Tom will be able to say a couple of words about the oil composition and interpretation of the GC, and also may be able to make some correspondence to FTIR and VOA of the oil (if possible), which I think will be very useful for all of us.
Here it is some preliminary information about GC test:
The sample of the synthetic oil (Toyota" 0W-20) was tested on a gas chromatograph "Chromatec Crystal 5000.2" with a flame ionization detector and a pyrolytic evaporator "Chromatec Crystal 5000.2" - chromatograph with capillary quartz column TR-1MS, 30 m long, inner diameter 0.32 mm and temperature 50 ° C. Nitrogen was used as the carrier gas. The nitrogen pressure was 35.00 kPa, the gas flow rate was 20.20 cm3 / min at a rate of 5 ml / min. The study was carried out at an evaporator temperature of 280 ° C and a detector temperature of 300 ° C. The temperature of the thermostat was programmed from 50 to 300 ° C at a rate of 10 ° C / min. The heating temperature of the pyrolytic evaporator was 1000 ° C. The heating time is 70 seconds. A sample was prepared (as follow) - 10 mm3 of hexane was added to 1 mm3 synthetic oil of the brand "Toyota" 0W-20. The resulting mixture was placed in a thermostat for 20 minutes to evaporate the hexane. This was done to obtain the same and accurate value of the concentration of the selected oil. The resulting extract was injected into the chromatograph injector in an amount of 1.0 mm3 using a SGE-Chromatec-02 - 10 micro liter, with a fixed needle in a mode without dividing the carrier gas. Duration of the analysis is 60 minutes.
P.S. Please excuse me for my English, it is not my native language.
I couldn’t find a GC of the Red Line oil, but I was lucky to find VOA + FTIR (both from oil-club.ru) + GC (from student graduation research paper - I am not sure that this is a correct term, but I hope that you will understand what I mean) of the Toyota 0w20 oil.
Do you want me to post this information in this topic - for a purely educational purposes?
If the data from the GC allows it – Tom will be able to say a couple of words about the oil composition and interpretation of the GC, and also may be able to make some correspondence to FTIR and VOA of the oil (if possible), which I think will be very useful for all of us.
Here it is some preliminary information about GC test:
The sample of the synthetic oil (Toyota" 0W-20) was tested on a gas chromatograph "Chromatec Crystal 5000.2" with a flame ionization detector and a pyrolytic evaporator "Chromatec Crystal 5000.2" - chromatograph with capillary quartz column TR-1MS, 30 m long, inner diameter 0.32 mm and temperature 50 ° C. Nitrogen was used as the carrier gas. The nitrogen pressure was 35.00 kPa, the gas flow rate was 20.20 cm3 / min at a rate of 5 ml / min. The study was carried out at an evaporator temperature of 280 ° C and a detector temperature of 300 ° C. The temperature of the thermostat was programmed from 50 to 300 ° C at a rate of 10 ° C / min. The heating temperature of the pyrolytic evaporator was 1000 ° C. The heating time is 70 seconds. A sample was prepared (as follow) - 10 mm3 of hexane was added to 1 mm3 synthetic oil of the brand "Toyota" 0W-20. The resulting mixture was placed in a thermostat for 20 minutes to evaporate the hexane. This was done to obtain the same and accurate value of the concentration of the selected oil. The resulting extract was injected into the chromatograph injector in an amount of 1.0 mm3 using a SGE-Chromatec-02 - 10 micro liter, with a fixed needle in a mode without dividing the carrier gas. Duration of the analysis is 60 minutes.
P.S. Please excuse me for my English, it is not my native language.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JAG
Thank you for the detailed reply, Tom. You mentioned high content of C5 fatty acids in the POE I referenced. Do you mean free fatty acids or that it was made from C5 fatty acids?
The ester is made from C5 acid (along with other fatty acids from C6-C10) and has no free fatty acid. That POE was designed for aviation jet engines and is therefore required to flow readily at -40°C and pour at -54°C. In order to achieve these low temperature flow properties in a pentaerythritol ester one needs to react with high amounts of C5 acid, generally from 40-60% of the acid mix. It is a fine ester and could be used in PCMOs, it's just not one I would chose for an environment with a fair amount of hot water and acid present from blow-by. Should any hydrolysis occur, any liberated C5 acid stinks more and is more corrosive than the higher acids. For such environments I prefer esters based on C7+ fatty acids. In other words there are better choices.
Thank you for the detailed reply, Tom. You mentioned high content of C5 fatty acids in the POE I referenced. Do you mean free fatty acids or that it was made from C5 fatty acids?
The ester is made from C5 acid (along with other fatty acids from C6-C10) and has no free fatty acid. That POE was designed for aviation jet engines and is therefore required to flow readily at -40°C and pour at -54°C. In order to achieve these low temperature flow properties in a pentaerythritol ester one needs to react with high amounts of C5 acid, generally from 40-60% of the acid mix. It is a fine ester and could be used in PCMOs, it's just not one I would chose for an environment with a fair amount of hot water and acid present from blow-by. Should any hydrolysis occur, any liberated C5 acid stinks more and is more corrosive than the higher acids. For such environments I prefer esters based on C7+ fatty acids. In other words there are better choices.
- Status
