Fuel 89 (2010) 1695–1699

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Stock loss studies on breathing loss of gasoline

Y.K. Sharma, Arakshita Majhi *, V.S. Kukreti, M.O. Garg
Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun 248005, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Volatile nature of gasoline is the prime reason for various kinds of losses, which occur during the course
Received 17 April 2009 of retailing operation. Standing storage or breathing loss, the expulsion of hydrocarbon vapors, occurs
Received in revised form 4 August 2009 during tranquil condition from the gasoline storage tank. Estimation of breathing loss is vital as it occurs
Accepted 5 August 2009
endlessly, consequently affecting the environment and economy of the nation. Present study proposes an
Available online 23 August 2009
empirical model to evaluate breathing loss of under ground storage (UGS) and above ground storage
(AGS) tanks using easily accessible variables.
Keywords:
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Air pollution
Gasoline
Breathing loss
AGS
UGS

1. Introduction
Gasoline is a vital source of automotive fuel widely used all
over the world. It is as vital to the economy of a country as
blood for a human being. The supply of gasoline from refinery
to end users involves its transfer from refinery to depots/termi-
nals through pipeline, where it is being stored in the storage
tanks. The distribution of gasoline [1] from depots/terminals to
the retail outlets (ROs) involves its transportation through tank
lorries to the underground storage (UGS) tanks. Finally the end
users are getting this fuel in their vehicle from UGS tanks
through dispensers. During this whole mechanism several kinds
of stock losses of gasoline appear. These losses categorize as
standing storage loss or breathing loss, vapor displacement loss
and handling loss. Breathing loss, the expulsion of hydrocarbon
vapors from the gasoline storage tank, occurs during tranquil
condition. The reason behind this is the climatic variation result-
ing in the changes in the temperature and atmospheric pressure.
These changes affect the available vapor space inside the storage
tanks due to contraction and expansion of gasoline. Another kind
of stock loss is displacement loss which appears during decanta-
tion of gasoline from tank lorries to the storage tanks as well as
during dispensing of fuel to the vehicle tanks. The third category
is handling loss which happens during filling operation at retail
outlets. Among the above three losses, breathing loss is continu-
ous loss as it occurs constantly throughout the day where as dis-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 135 2525716.
E-mail address: arakshita@iip.res.in (A. Majhi).
placement and handling losses are instantaneous and occur only
during filling operation. National Emission Inventory (NEI) pre-
dicted [2] the vapor emissions from the data supplied by US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as state and local
air pollution control agencies. Wongwises et al. [3] and Brenda
[4] have reported hydrocarbon losses during the refueling of pas-
senger cars. The general public is routinely exposed to the envi-
ronment of hydrocarbon vapors [5] during dispensing of gasoline
from underground storage (UGS) or above ground storage (AGS)
tanks at service stations. Gasoline is a complex mixture of lower
boiling (30–215 °C) hydrocarbon components in the range of C4–
C11 with traces of C3. Presence of lower aliphatic hydrocarbons
(C3–C5) is the prime reason for these kinds of stock losses in gas-
oline. Lower aliphatic hydrocarbons (C3–C5) have boiling point
below 28 °C, except n-pentane, consequently vaporize at ambient
temperature from the gasoline. Since the gasoline consist a num-
ber of lower boiling hydrocarbons, these hydrocarbons are re-
leased in the atmosphere [6] even at ambient temperature.
Emissions of hydrocarbon vapors can be controlled [7] to the ex-
tent of 98% by regulating the RVP of gasoline. Total losses from
storage tanks including standing storage loss were calculated by
Air Resources Board [8] using the data of tank volume, vapor
density, vapor space, vapor space expansion factor and vented
vapor saturation factor. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) adversely affect the health
[9] and also lead to significant stock losses. These emissions,
therefore, cause great concern with respect to both economic
as well as environmental/health point of views. Several past
studies have been reported for calculating different types of
losses [2,3,7,8], but no one has given optimal significance to

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2009.08.006
1696 Y.K. Sharma et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 1695–1699

evaluate breathing loss which is more of concern. However, draft
summary of the analysis of emission report of Pacific Environ-
mental Service, Inc. [8,9] has derived a complex equation for
estimation of the breathing loss. Jimmy [10] has reported a
method to calculate the breathing loss but his equation has been
designed to calculate it only on yearly basis. Hence, in the pres-
ent study, a generalized correlation model for estimation of
breathing loss of gasoline in the UGS as well as AGS in different
weather conditions on day to day basis, has been developed and
reported.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
Fifteen different grades of gasoline samples coded as MS 1–MS
15, were collected from different retail outlets in India. MS 1, 5, 6
and 7 have compliance with Euro III specifications where as rest
of the samples with Euro II specifications. These gasoline samples
were stored at 8 °C in a deep freeze and filled at ambient temper-
ature in storage tanks. The density, distillation characteristics and
RVP of these samples are determined using ASTM D- 4052, ASTM
D-86 and IP-323 methods, respectively [11,12].
To confirm the validity of proposed model another set of two
different grades of gasoline coded as MS 16 and 17, having compli-
ance with Euro II specifications are reported in Table 4.
The key characteristics and lighter hydrocarbon component
analysis of these gasolines are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Distribution of the individual hydrocarbons in these gasoline sam-
ples were estimated by GLC using a ‘‘100 m  0.25 mm  0.5 lm”
Petrocol DH capillary column in a 1000 Chemito Gas Chromato-
graph with temperature programming and electronic pneumatic
pressure control. The component-wise analysis was done using
HCE-30 expert hydrocarbon software.
2.2. Sample preparation
The experimental procedure for estimating the breathing loss of
the gasoline samples of different grades are as follows. Initially SS
(stainless steel) tanks, dimension of 28.9  10  10 cm of capacity
2350 cm3 simulating the dimensions of under ground storage tank
(UGS) of gasoline filling station were designed for this study. Dif-
ferent quantities of each grade gasoline sample is taken in these
SS tanks and are kept on AGS as well as in UGS in different weather
condition for fifteen days. The maximum (TL) and minimum (TX)
temperature on day to day basis is recorded through out the study.
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Light aliphatic hydrocarbon composition
The key characteristics of different grades of gasoline samples
depict that all of them are meeting the required specification limit
of density, distillation characteristics and Reid vapor pressure
(RVP) of Euro II and Euro III, respectively. The observed Reid vapor
pressure showed a significant dependency with the hydrocarbon
composition of these gasolines. It is revealed that different grades
of gasoline samples differ in their hydrocarbon composition. The
concentration of C4 and C5 hydrocarbons differ and found to be
of the order of 3.33–15.04 wt%. Lower boiling point and high vapor
pressure of light hydrocarbons play an important role in breathing
loss.
3.2. Experimental breathing losses at different temperatures
In this study the empty weight of the said tanks are taken and
known weighed quantity of gasoline samples are filled in it. Other
experimental data i.e. maximum temperature of day (TL), mini-
mum Temperature of day (TX), surface temperature of the tank
(Ts) and atmospheric pressure (Pa) were recorded. These tanks
are kept for fifteen days on above ground as well as in underground
storage (Fig. 1A and B). It is observed that significant quantities of
gasoline were off due to breathing loss. The experimental data of
breathing loss are recorded on day to day basis in AGS condition
where as it is recorded only after completion of 15 days in UGS
condition. The conditions of tanks are kept still since no sample
has been poured or withdrawn from the tank during the AGS as
well as UGS for fifteen days. In UGS condition said SS tanks with
partially filled gasoline samples are kept four feet below under-
neath of the earth for fifteen days (Fig. 1B). This breathing loss
was calculated experimentally by weight difference of the tank
and sample.
3.2.1. Observations
During this simulation study it is observed that the difference
between ambient temperature and surface temperature of the tank
(DT) is ±1.5 °C for UGS condition. It is observed that during cold cli-
mate DT is 1.5 °C where as during summer climate DT is 1.5 °C.
During AGS condition this difference is observed negligible hence
considered as zero because the surface temperature and ambient
temperature is same for AGS. Experimentally it is found that the
breathing losses during AGS condition are comparatively higher
than the breathing loss in UGS after 15 days. Similarly the loss

Table 1
Key characteristics of different grades of gasoline (for deriving equation).

Samples Density (kg/m3) E-70 (vol%) E-100 (vol%) E-180 (vol%) FBP (°C) RVP (kPa)
MS-1 771.0 25 51 96 185.6 50.4
MS-2 761.4 27 51 96 188.4 58.6
*
MS-3 761.4 29 58 166.2 58.6
*
MS-4 761.4 23 59.5 165.5 58.8
MS-5 771.0 20 45 95.5 202.1 50.4
MS-6 739.1 25 51 96 185.6 57.7
MS-7 738.8 27 51 96 188.4 57.8
*
MS-8 763.1 30 62 173.9 52.4
*
MS-9 763.1 30 62 173.9 52.4
*
MS-10 760.1 22 60 169.9 53.3
*
MS-11 753.8 29 63 171.6 59.3
*
MS-12 752.1 33 60 166.8 59.5
*
MS-13 743.6 32 54 186.5 60.0
*
MS-14 743.9 32 54 185.4 60.6
*
MS-15 761.4 23 59.5 165.5 58.8
Specification 720–775 0–45 40–70 Min 90 215 35–60
*
FBP reached before 180 °C.
 Y.K. Sharma et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 1695–1699 1697

Table 2
Hydrocarbon composition of different grades gasoline.

Components BP (°C) MS-1 MS-2 MS-3 MS-4 MS-5 MS-6 MS-7 MS-8 MS-9 MS-10 MS-11 MS-12 MS-13 MS-14 MS-15
n-Butane 0.5 0.23 2.00 0.22 0.03 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.19 2.01 1.68 1.23 0.88 0.23
t-Butane <0.50 0.23 0.00 0.21 0.29 0.23 0.65 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23
c-Butane <0.50 0.20 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
i-Pentane 27.8 5.20 12.55 5.15 4.04 5.18 4.14 3.92 3.91 3.91 3.13 9.89 9.15 13.81 12.55 5.20
Total (C4 + C5) – 5.86 14.55 5.76 4.43 5.84 4.98 4.82 4.13 4.13 3.33 11.90 10.83 15.04 13.43 5.86
Breathing loss (wt%) 0.08 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.14 0.26 0.31 0.38 0.34 0.22

Fig. 1. (A and B). Above ground and under ground storage tanks.

observed during summer is higher than the loss in winter. Other
parameters like RVP (Pr), the ratio between tank capacity and
quantity of gasoline present in that tank (UL) and mean tempera-
ture for fifteen days (T) has direct impact on breathing loss. The
mean temperature (T) is calculated by taking the average of max-
imum and minimum temperature of each day during 15 days.
3.3. Derivation of breathing loss equation
Breathing loss is the loss occurring in the storage tank due to
contraction and expansion of liquid because of variation in the
temperature of day and night [6]. Gasoline storage tank has vent
pipe (Fig. 1A), which opens to the atmosphere. These tanks are par-
tially filled with the volatile liquid (gasoline). Initially the liquid
and vapors would be at equilibrium i.e. partial pressure of the va-
pors would be equal to the saturation vapor pressure. Now due to
change in the climatic conditions temperature and atmospheric
pressure would also change. Ultimately the partial pressure of
the vapors would affect. If this partial pressure is higher than
atmospheric pressure breathing loss would occur. Normally, as
the temperature rises the atmospheric pressure decreases and par-
tial pressure increases resulting in the breathing loss. Therefore,
contraction and expansion of hydrocarbon vapors is directly
dependent on the temperature variation because it would affect
the partial pressure of these vapors and finally causes breathing
loss. RVP is being considered as another responsible factor because
it is directly related to the true vapor pressure of volatile liquid.
Higher RVP would cause higher breathing loss. The difference be-
tween atmospheric temperature and surface temperature of stor-
age tank (DT) is also partially affecting the breathing loss as it is
also a kind of temperature variation. It is observed that the breath-
ing loss in AGS is log linearism with respect to number of days for
all the grades of gasoline. Trends of breathing loss are alike for UGS
and AGS, because three variables have similar impact in UGS, ex-
cept the fourth one i.e. DT, which can affect the magnitude but
not the trend. To record the breathing loss with respect to number
of days is not feasible in UGS. Hence for developing empirical cor-
relation model for predicting the breathing loss it is understood
that the trend of the breathing loss in UGS and AGS would remain
same for different grades of gasoline in any environment.
The model (Equation) is the combination of two parts. One is
linear and other is logarithmic. Linear part of the model is derived
from the experimental data based on multiple linear regression
technique (MLR) using SYSTAT software. The linear equation has
regression coefficient R2 = 0.93 and standard error of esti-
mate = 0.028. From experimental data it is observed breathing loss
is not alone a linear function of the parameters taken. As the day
proceeds, the trend of breathing loss is logarithmic rather than lin-
ear. Thus a logarithmic factor generated on the basis of day wise
experimental breathing loss data of different grade gasoline.
The breathing loss can be calculated by the following log–linear
model for any number of days.
Lb ¼ ½ð0:033  DTÞ þ ð0:00272  TÞ þ ð0:0154  Pr Þ þ ð0:056  U L Þ
 0:866  ½0:85  LogðN þ 1Þ
where Lb is the breathing loss, DT is the difference between atmo-
spheric and surface temperature of the tank, and T is the mean aver-
age temperature of fifteen days.
T ¼ ½ðT L1 þ T X1 Þ=2 þ ðT L2 þ T X2 Þ=2 þ    þ ðT L15 þ T X15 Þ=2=15
where TL1 and TX1 are the maximum and minimum temperature of
the respective days.
Pr is the Reid vapor pressure, UL is the ratio between tank capac-
ity and volume of liquid present in the tank, UL = TV/VV, where TV is
1698 Y.K. Sharma et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 1695–1699

the total tank capacity and VV is the volume of liquid present in 0.3 Breathing Loss
(Experimental)
that tank. N is the number of days. 0.25

% Breathing Loss
Breathing Loss
The standard error of estimate for proposed log–linear model is 0.2
(Predicted)
0.024 wt%. for all the 15 grades of gasoline samples used in deriv- 0.15
ing the equation (Table 3). The standard error of estimate tells us
0.1
how spread out scores is with respect to their predicted values.
0.05
To understand the trend of breathing loss experimental results of
first set of experiment were plotted (Fig. 2) against the values de- 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
rived from proposed log–linear equation on days basis. In this No of Days
graph average values of breathing loss of all the grades of gasoline
for both experimental and predicted are plotted. Initially the Fig. 2. Trend of average of breathing loss during 15 days for MS 1 to MS 15
breathing loss follows a linear trend, later on as the days passes (Condition AGS).
the magnitude of breathing loss decreases and finally approach to-
wards logarithmic inclination. This can be understand as the lower
boiling components, which are the measure concern of the breath-

Breathing loss, %wt

0.4 Experimental
ing loss, evaporate fast due to temperature variation and hence Predicted
0.3
breathing loss is predominated by RVP. Once this variable becomes
less significant, other variables such as UL and T become more 0.2
imperative and hence drift the trend towards logarithmic. This 0.1
empirical model is a better approach than earlier researchers 0
[2,3,6,8] as all the parameters taken here are easily accessible to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
oil marketing companies and end users. No of Days

The applicability of this equation has been further checked by Fig. 3A. Breathing loss of MS-16 vs days.
experimental measured breathing loss performing on an another
set of experiment using different grades of gasoline samples (MS
16 and MS 17) and verified the data for seven days in AGS. Figs.
0.3
Experimental
3A and 3B depict very close proximity with the estimated and Breathing Loss, %wt 0.25 Predicted
0.2

Table 3 0.15
Variables to estimate breathing loss. 0.1
0.05
Sample no. Lb (wt%) DT (°C) T (°C) RVP (Pr) (kPa) (UL)
0
MS-1 0.08 0.0 13.37 50.4 2.66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MS-2 0.22 0.0 15.12 58.6 2.25 No of Days
MS-3 0.15 1.5 17.75 58.6 2.50
MS-4 0.17 1.5 17.75 58.8 2.48 Fig. 3B. Breathing loss of MS-17 vs days.
MS-5 0.07 1.5 17.75 50.4 2.52
MS-6 0.17 1.5 13.62 57.7 2.53
MS-7 0.17 1.5 16.62 57.8 2.66 experimentally achieved results. The standard errors of estimates
MS-8 0.17 1.5 25.50 52.4 1.77
are of 0.028 and 0.030 wt%, respectively.
MS-9 0.19 1.5 27.12 52.4 2.00
MS-10 0.14 1.5 25.50 53.3 1.57
MS-11 0.26 0.0 25.87 59.3 3.04
4. Conclusion
MS-12 0.31 0.0 25.87 59.5 3.99
MS-13 0.38 0.0 25.87 60.0 3.54
MS-14 0.34 0.0 25.87 60.6 3.33 Several researchers have reported the mathematical approach
MS-15 0.22 0.0 15.62 58.8 2.44 [2,3,6,8] for calculating the evaporation losses of gasoline. But
These data are for fifteen days. these studies do not provide a user friendly generalized model
for predicting the breathing loss for various grades of gasoline at
different storage conditions. The proposed log–linear model pro-
Table 4
vides a user friendly approach to help the oil marketing companies
Experimental data with key characteristics of gasoline samples (for equation and retail outlets for estimating the loss on day to day basis.
applicability). Parameters required to evaluate the breathing loss are the surface
Characteristics MS-16 MS-17
temperature of the tank, Reid vapor pressure and number of days,
minimum and maximum temperature variations and ullage of the
Lb (wt%) 0.49 0.53
DT (°C) 0.0 0.0
tanks, which are easily accessible to the users. The applicability of
T (°C) 20.63 20.63 reported model is tested on two independent gasolines. The stan-
RVP(Pr) (kPa) 63.9 52.6 dard errors of estimates are found to be 0.028 and 0.030 wt%,
UL 4.10 6.30 respectively. Hydrocarbon Composition data depicts that higher
Density (kg/m3) 734.3 751.2
the concentration of n-butane and i-pentane, higher is the breath-
E-70 (vol%) 35 18
E-100 (vol%) 58 40 ing loss. This study would also be an asset to the pollution control
E-180 (vol%) 96 96 agency.
FBP (°C) 190.0 199.0
RVP (kPa) 63.9 52.6
n-Butane 1.69 0.99 Acknowledgments
t-Butane 0.00 0.00
Butane 0.98 0.40 The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the SYSTAT soft-
Pentane 9.20 12.26
ware and support of hydrocarbon type analysis of gasoline samples
Total (C4 + C5) 13.65 11.87
provided by Sh. Jagdish Kumar and Ajay Pal of gas chromatography
 Y.K. Sharma et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 1695–1699
lab of analytical science division of Indian Institute of petroleum,
Dehradun, India.
References
[1] Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, Volume I: stationary point and
area Sources” section 5.2 Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids;
1995.
[2] Johonson, GT. Pacific environment services Inc, 5001. South Miami Boulevard
Research Triangle Park Nc 277019.A draft V 2.0. Developing a consistent
methodology to calculate VOC and HAP evaporative emission for stage I and
stage II operation at gasoline service station for the 1999 NEI.
[3] Wongwises S, Chanchaona S, Rattan Prayura I. Displacement losses from the
refueling operation of passenger cars. Thammasat Int J De Technol
1997;1:22–9.
[4] Brenda Shine. Midwest Research Institute, 401 Harison Oaks Blvd-Suite 350,
Cary, NC 27513.
1699
[5] Mac farland HN et al. A chronic inhalation study with unleaded gasoline vapor.
J Am College Toxicol 1984;3:231.
[6] Wongwises S, Rattana Prayura I, Chanchaona S. An evaluation of emission of
gasoline from storage sites and service station. Thammasat Int J Sci Technol
1997;2(2):1–17.
[7] Koehl WJ et al. Vehicle on board control of refueling emission system
demonstration on a 1985 vehicle. In: Proceedings of the international
meeting and exposition of fuels and lubricants, Philadelphia; 1986.
[8] Draft summary of the analysis of the emission report in 1999 NEI for stage I
and stage II operations at gasoline service stations (draft v2.0), Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Service, Inc, RTP, N.C, September 2002.
[9] Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, Vol. I, Stationary point and area
sources, Section 7.1, Organic liquid storage tanks; 1997.
[10] Jimmy Press, Estimate storage tank emissions, CEP article, 44–45; 2001
<http://www.cepmagzine.org>.
[11] American Society for Testing Materials, Annual book of ASTM standards, vol.
5.02 . Sec 5; 2005.
[12] Institute of Petroleum. Standard method for analysis and testing of petroleum
and related products. London: Institute of Petroleum; 2002.