BODYSURFER – Great presentation! Your work required a great deal of time and effort. It’s greatly appreciated! The following tests were performed some months ago. I hope they serve as a compliment to yours. The three additives chosen were used as they seem to be the most popular. I’m not engaged in the sale or promotion of any products nor am I connected in any way to any of the companies involved. The following is not a critique nor is it to be construed as a scientific paper.

EMULSIFIERS/SOLUBILIZERS/DEMULSIFIERS:

Test 1
Emulsifying / “Solubilizing” efficacy of PS & FPPF: To each of three beakers containing 250ml of diesel were added, at labeled dosage levels, proportional amounts of Stanadyne, Power Service (white bottle) and FPPF Fuel Power using the standard conversion of 1 gallon = 3785.412ml and 1oz = 29.57353ml. A 4th control beaker contained 250ml fuel w/o additives. To each beaker was added 1ml of distilled water and stirred vigorously for 10 min each. After stirring ceased, the water immediately separated into large drops on the bottom which easily coalesced in every sample when nudged together with the glass stirring rod. I then doubled the dose of FPPF and stirred again. The beakers were stirred daily for 2 weeks; the water was drawn off and measured with a 1ml pipette (the 1ml is divided by 100 measurement lines). All samples still read, as close as measurable with a pipette, 1 ml of water after 2 weeks of sitting. No uptake of water resulted by additives at any practical amount.

Test 2 - See photos below
4 other beakers were prepared, same control sample as above, w/o additive, one with Power Service and one with Stanadyne, both at standard dosages, and one with 4 times the recommended amount of FPPF Fuel Power. To all were added 0.054 ml (a measured drop) of distilled water at 74F and stirred, the drop settling within seconds to the bottom. After stirring all 4 beakers a few times per week for 8 weeks, I saw no visual difference in size of the water drop in any and could measure no difference with a 0.2 ml pipette. The proportionally larger dose of FPPF was used owing to personal curiosity as the bottle states it contains glycol ether, an emulsifier. See photos below.

Test 3
In addition, another solution was prepared of 250ml diesel, same control sample, w/ twice the recommended dose of FPPF, placed in a separatory funnel (see photo) to which 4ml of distilled water was added. It was shaken vigorously for several minutes with the water forming a separate layer within seconds after shaking stopped. It was let set overnight and shaken several more times the next day, let settle and a sample of the diesel layer drawn off and sent to Blackstone Labs for a water analysis (Karl Fisher method). The lab report showed 0.019% (190ppm) of water which is about average for any diesel coming straight from the neighborhood pump. According to Blackstone Labs, the normal amount of water found in diesel is 0.01% (100ppm) to 0.02% (200ppm). How much of the 0.019% was already in the fuel will only be known after the control sample is analyzed. Once again, there was no appreciable uptake of water by additive. See lab report photo below.

A consideration is that these attempts to put water in solution with the additives were all conducted at 74 F. Fuel containing additives with emulsifiers, especially alcohol, as in PS 911 or glycol ether, found in FPPF, might absorb a little more water when warmed up but, of concern is the increased amount put in solution through warming will tend to coalesce and drop out as the truck sets cooling during the night. Interestingly, Chevron is experimenting with adding water to diesel (Performix) for older engines to lower NOX emissions. Their product is said to look like milk, not a clear solution.

OEM Filters:
Of further consideration is that the new OEM 2 micron Racor filters are chemically treated to demulsify and block water. In conversation with a couple of Racor Filter division engineers I posed the following questions: What would happen if free water were to completely fill the trap and filter? For what it’s worth, the reply was that, “The Aquabloc treatment would hold and that the engine would starve for fuel”. I also asked what affect a “solubilizer” or emulsifier would have on the Aquabloc and was told not to use them. It would be interesting to have fuel analyzed, with and without additives, before and after passing through an OEM filter.

CORROSION INHIBITORS & RUST:

Test 4
To 4 beakers of fuel, one control and three with labeled amounts of additives, 10 ml of distilled water was added to each and vigorously mixed. Four lengths of small angle iron were cleaned with alcohol, dried, one side cleaned bare with a grinder, and were placed in the beakers and allowed to sit for 5 days. All showed an amount of rust where the metal was in the water phase while the ends in the fuel layer remained rust free and shiny in all samples, with and without additives.

Rust:
According to Racor, “The [filter] can is electrolytic tin coated, both inside and outside then powder coated over the outside and guaranteed not to rust”, for what it’s worth. I assume much of the rust being found in filters is from a contaminated fuel supply. The tank is polyethylene and the fuel lines, I’m guessing, are stainless. Being new to this truck I would defer to those that have a good understanding of the fuel system construction as to where exposed steel might be. In possible instances of actual corrosion of filter cans, there most likely are reactions taking place that involve more than just water in the fuel. Canned foods with water don’t rust the tin coated cans. Microbial by-product reactions perhaps?

These simple tests were performed months ago to appease my own curiosity and with no initial intent to post; therefore they’re somewhat lacking in scientific rigor and proper presentation.ASTM D2709 spec is 500 ppm (0.05%) water and sediment max. Try as I may, I couldn’t get this particular diesel sample to hold more than 190 ppm (0.019%) of water, an average amount found in diesel without additives, even with twice the recommended amount of FPPF. Still on the shelf sealed, the control sample of diesel hasn’t been analyzed, in part because of monetary constraints. However, we know it would show an amount of 0.019% (190 ppm) or less and even if we were to attribute the entire 0.019% to FPPF (extremely unlikely), or any other additive, it wouldn’t be a relevant amount of water. For some perspective, 1 ppm expressed as distance is 1 inch in ~16 miles. It would be slitting hairs while incurring the cost of shipping flammables and outside lab analysis.

CONCLUSIONS:

Power Service (white bottle) and FPPF Fuel Power clearly failed to perform as advertised regarding water dispersion or the placement of water in solution. Under the conditions present during testing, PS (white bottle) and FPPF Fuel Power appears not to contain emulsifiers/solubilizers in sufficient quantity to dissolve water at any practical levels when used at recommended dosage amounts, and in the case of FPPF Fuel Power at least, even when used at 4 times recommended amount. (Approximately 4oz or ½ bottle per 30gal tank). I assume that, as FPPF contains glycol ether, that in much larger amounts it should emulsify some water. Glycol ether, found in FPPF will form a colloidal emulsion of water in diesel, not a clear solution. Mixing a small amount of glycol ether with the same amount of water in a clear beaker or glass of diesel you’ll notice, after mixing and settling, most of the water won’t be picked up. A penlight or small flashlight, placed against the side of the glass at the diesel layer will reveal the water picked up by the ether is in a colloidal emulsion appearing as a cloud. Using a magnifier (jeweler’s loupe is perfect) it becomes recognizable that the emulsion cloud is formed mainly of small water globules. As for the demulsifying properties of Stanadyne, a separation layer formed a little faster and “cleaner” than the control fuel in the separatory funnel although the difference was slight to the eye.

I realize not everyone will be happy with the results of these tests but, they are very simple tests that anyone can do and replicate the results. The test with the measured drop of water was performed twice, with the same results, while the rest were performed once. All tests were done with the same diesel sample.

Measurements used were per label instructions. FPPF was also used at 2x and 4x recommended amounts.
Stanadyne – 0.52ml in 250ml fuel
Power Service – 0.63ml in 250ml fuel
FPPF Fuel Power – 0.07ml, 0.14ml & 0.28ml, each in 250ml fuel (0.28ml in 250ml fuel = approximately ½ bottle in a 30gal fuel tank.)

Label directions:
Stanadyne: 8oz per 30gal
Power Service (white bottle): 32oz per 100gal
FPPF Fuel Power: 8oz per 240gal

All testing was at 74 F with humidity 7% to 13%.

Lubricity: Southwest Research provides some limited testing information on several brands at: http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=1156 (http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=1156)

Mileage increase studies: see “Fuel economy” at: http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/L2_2_1_rf.htm#SUB4 (http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/L2_2_1_rf.htm#SUB4)
In personal road tests with each additive over the same 1400 mile open highway, cruse control on, I detected no difference in mileage between the three additives and straight diesel. Likewise, no subjective difference in engine sound or feel was noted. The primary advantage of using quality additives would seem not to be handling water but possibly the added lubricity that some affords.

Further reading: "Alcohols and Ethers: A Technical Assessment of Their Application as Fuels and Fuel Components." API Publication #4261

Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, by John B. Heywood, PhD - McGraw Hill

Automotive Fuels Reference Book, by Keith Owen & Trevor Coley
Modern Petroleum Technology, edited by G.D.Hobson & John Wiley & Sons

Photos

Good job on the test's.

So learning from what you saw in the results which addative would you use ?

.

4 years ago tech from injector pump manufacturer told me that if I ran an additive to make sure it seperated the water from the fuel. That an additive that emulsified the water would only make any water in the fuel "small" enough to get past the filter/water seperator and then find its way right into the injector pump and then on to the injectors. It sure made sense 4 years ago and this test seems to show the same thing. I'm glad I listened.

Good job on the test's.

So learning from what you saw in the results which addative would you use ?

.

Thanks for the compliment.

Considering the filter is chemically treated with “Aquabloc” to demulsify and block water, I wouldn’t want to put anything through it that has the opposite effect. Couple that with the desire to avoid any possibility of warranty problems later on, the results by Southwest Labs, and the fact that there is only one additive that is recommended by all the major diesel manufacturers, except Cummins, (who last I heard recommends no additives), and other reasons relating to the chemistry of surfactants, I use Stanadyne. It’s hard to find at stations but can be found on-line and Eric (Merchant Automotive) on the DP carries it.

It’s not as if there is just one chemist or chem engineer somewhere that has convinced Racor, GM, Ford, Volvo, Deere and all the rest to advise against the use of agents that suspend water in solution. It’s a consensus of teams of chemists and engineers from several companies. With the advent of the new ultra close tolerance, high pressure injection systems, perhaps the days of being able to use emulsifiers, at least with these new systems, are gone. If I was worried by or having problems with water I might consider a pre-filter w/water trap. In the end, people should weigh their own considerations, think for themselves and go with what they feel most comfortable with.

I have performed the water test like FPPF does it on their site using Fuel Power both isolated and in the presence of diesel fuel. The water disappeared and could not be located with water finding paste as advertised.

http://www.fppf.com/pdemos_flash.html

I have performed the water test like FPPF does it on their site using Fuel Power both isolated and in the presence of diesel fuel. The water disappeared and could not be located with water finding paste as advertised.

http://www.fppf.com/pdemos_flash.html (http://www.fppf.com/pdemos_flash.html)



Just as a comment on the test performed on that website, it sure looked like they were using a lot of additive compared to the diesel that was in the bottle. Of course they didn't give any actual measurements, but it looked like the final solution was about 30% additive (looked to be about 100 ml of diesel with at least 30-50 ml of additive and about 5 ml of water). I realize I can't expect scientific considerations from an infomercial, but it would be nice if companies stayed at least close to real-world application.

I thought the same thing Hab.

I have performed the water test like FPPF does it on their site using Fuel Power both isolated and in the presence of diesel fuel. The water disappeared and could not be located with water finding paste as advertised.

http://www.fppf.com/pdemos_flash.html


JK, Thanks for the post. I reviewed the advertising demo of FPPF. The advertising demo fails to represent real life conditions. Holding a ruler to my monitor, I noticed they used ~25% FPPF to fuel. The amount used in the demo would be equivalent to ~6.5 gallons of FPPF to my 26 gal tank – not very realistic. The amounts of additives to diesel used in my test were actual proportions taken from the bottle labels and very carefully measured.

As I stated, FPPF contains glycol ether, an emulsifier and that with much greater amounts it should pick up water. As to a clear solution, the standard test to quickly check for a colloidal emulsion, is to shine a small flashlight, held against the side of the container, in a somewhat darkened room. If you mix diesel in “solution” with glycol ether (the emulsifier in FPPF) and water then shine a small flashlight (held up against the glass) through it while looking through a magnifier, you’ll quickly notice it’s a colloid, not a clear solution. The flashlight technique is used because it’s often quite difficult to see by just looking at the container, especially if the container is shaped as a cylinder with a small diameter like used in the advertising demo. Try it with a beaker so the light has some travel distance. Water paste, such as the “Kolor Kut” brand I have here, is very crude and about the only thing it’s suitable for is placing on the end of a long measuring stick to check for free water at the bottom of a tank. The method I used was to use proportions as per bottle instructions and send the sample to a reputable independent lab to have it checked using Karl Fisher titration – the accepted standard.

Personally, I saw the inability to pick up any appreciable water at labeled dosage as a plus. If it were to “dissolve” water in fuel we’d then be facing the questions as to whether some would coalesce and drop out in the injector pump as the truck cooled, how the glycol ether would interact with the chemical treatment of the filter elements, and what affect the water would have when the relatively weak hydrogen bonds, holding the water in suspension, let go at the conditions met at the injector tips and the water turns to steam. If FPPF made a product that did not contain anything to absorb water but instead focused on lubricity, it would be much more attractive, to me at least.

Using anything that puts water in solution would seem to defeat the purpose of the water trap and filter, be it pre filter w/trap or the OEM. Sorry this is so long winded but brevity has never been one of my strong points.:o:

1 part water to 1 part Fuel Power is about the extent of the treatment. When used regularly, it will keep the fuel system dry, but any big slugs of water it will not.

A while back someone had a suspect batch of "wet" fuel. My recommendation there (short of draining/drying out the tank) was to use a half bottle or so of Fuel Power per tank.

Using simple reasoning we KNOW that there is water in fuel. We have seen evidence of this water in the form of rust in the fuel filter canister, yet the water is seldom if ever found when draining the filter so it has to be traveling untreated through the filter media. Those running the FPPF additive report shiny clean "innards" of the filter can.

Personally, I run Total Power for the cleaner/lubricity, cetane, and the somewhat "watered down" ability to remove water...

I run FPPF religiously and have found rust in the filter can a time or two. Never cared much about it, though, as it was on the dirty side. Assuming the rust is from water contamination (a sticky assumption at best) it takes such a tiny amount of water to cause rust that you would never see that amount in the drain.

I don't know what Racor uses as water blocking treatment on their filter, but I know some manufacturers use a starch-based treatment. When water is present, it swells to plug the pores. Engine starves for fuel-you know something is wrong-you change the filter. If Racor uses something similar, it could be actually absorbing what tiny amounts of water are causing the rust, thus not allowing it to be drained. Just a thought...

Just wanted to clarify that by rust in the filter can I mean growth attacking the can, not just flakes or chunks.

1 part water to 1 part Fuel Power is about the extent of the treatment. When used regularly, it will keep the fuel system dry, but any big slugs of water it will not.

A while back someone had a suspect batch of "wet" fuel. My recommendation there (short of draining/drying out the tank) was to use a half bottle or so of Fuel Power per tank.

Using simple reasoning we KNOW that there is water in fuel. We have seen evidence of this water in the form of rust in the fuel filter canister, yet the water is seldom if ever found when draining the filter so it has to be traveling untreated through the filter media. Those running the FPPF additive report shiny clean "innards" of the filter can.

Personally, I run Total Power for the cleaner/lubricity, cetane, and the somewhat "watered down" ability to remove water...

Very strange, as the photo above (see photos with test) is of one drop of water that was stired several times a week for two months without the water drop changing in size, much less being emulsified. The amount used in that test was 0.28ml FPPF Fuel Power per 250ml fuel which is equal to a half bottle per tank. It was roughly 15 drops of FPPF for the 1 drop of water.

We don't KNOW that there is water in fuel unless you're referring to the average 100 to 200 parts per million which is negligible. Spec is 500ppm water and sediment max. Those amounts are not even close to being visible. We do know that fuel contaminated with rust and water is sometimes picked up at the pump. As to rust in the can being evidence of water, we can only surmise it probably was mixed with water somewhere. Powdered rust will suspend in diesel so it is very possible to have one without the other. Water and diesel will sit in a tin coated can indefinitly without rusting. Water and foods sit for years in tin coated cans without rusting. It would surely seem that the rust is either coming in with the fuel or there are chemical reactions going on that involve more than just water and diesel. If the rust being found by some is not from a contaminated supply, then what is rusting and what is in that particular fuel that would go through tin if the can is rusting? If the fuel is to Spec., there's not enough water to matter. If a filter can is corroded, it would be very interesting to send it in to Racor and have them analyze just what was going on and in the mean time surely buy fuel at a different supplier. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take a close look at it in the lab at no charge. I've seen results of lab tests where a diesel pipeline pump clogged with rust carried by carboxylate corrosive inhibitors in the additive package with NO WATER PRESENT at all in or near the pump.

Another point, brought up in a PM earlier today, is the possibility that the diesel I used (from Pilot Truck Stop) may have a demulsifier in it coming from the pump. There are additives placed in the fuel before we get it. I'll try the test again tomorrow with pure kerosene to rule out any possibility of demulsifiers being present.

Just wanted to clarify that by rust in the filter can I mean growth attacking the can, not just flakes or chunks.

A spot on the can is what I have observed. I think the cause is a defect in the coating, rather than water in the fuel. If it were due to water in and of itself, it should be more generalized. When I have observed the phenomenom, it is just a single spot an inch or two up the side of the can. Doesn't make sense that it would be caused by water alone.

Pump diesel contains an additive package. It was brought to my attention in a PM that it might be possible the diesel I used in the tests (from a Pilot truck stop) contained a demulsifier which may have interfered with the additives being tested and accounting for some of the results obtained. To confirm or eliminate that possibility, I repeated some of the tests with kerosene. To three beakers, containing 250ml kerosene each, was added 0.054ml of distilled water at 74 F. One beaker was left as a control, the labeled dose of FPPF was placed in one and twice the recommended dose placed in the third beaker. All were vigorously stirred and let set for 1 hour then photographed. The results were identical with those of the diesel tests with no visible amount of water being put into solution by the FPPF. The kerosene was hand pumped from a labeled 55gal drum. It obviously is dyed red, the first time I’ve seen dyed kerosene.

Body_Surfer and c12719,

Thank you for your meticulous testing of diesel fuel additives.

Your tests reinforce my decission to NOT used water emulsifiers or "solubilizers" in my diesel truck.

I also have spoken with engineers from diesel pump manufacturers and every single one has told me the same thing "Do NOT use water emulsifiers..." I have personally seen with my own eyes what a small amount of moisture can do to an injection pump when left to sit overnight. That information along with test results from Southwest Research have convinced me that if I'm going to use any fuel treatment it's going to be one containing demulsifers such as Stanadyne's.

I have never seen a fuel treatment containing water emulsifiers that will permanently keep water in suspension. Every one that I've seen will eventually allow the water to fall out of suspension and settle out. If this happens while the engine is shut down overnight and the water has somehow already passed through the water separator, it can and often does cause damage to the injection system.

Several years ago, I was involved in extensive durability testing of diesel engines using Stanadyne pumps and injectors as well as injection systems from Diesel Equipment and Bosch. I quickly learned that I want to do everything in my power to keep the water OUT of the injection system.

Great work guys!