Redline base oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you very much, Tom! I enjoy learning about these things.

emod, I would like for you to post, in this thread, the data you mentioned. It could be educational and certainly interesting.
 
Originally Posted By: emod
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.


Hi emod,

If you choose to post the information I will be happy to have a look and may be able to help.

Tom
 
Great!
I have made some translations and a few remarks on the pictures.
1: VOA



2: FTIR


3: GC - two test were carried out (in optimal conditions - first run and second run in the graphs below).




Here they are in one graph



4. And this is one last GC that contains comparison of the Toyota 0w20 (synthetic oil; pink line), Lukoil Super 5w40 (semi-synthetic oil; blue line) and M-8By (mineral oil; green line)
 
Last edited:
Tom, emod, JAG and everyone who contributed to this thread, thank you. The discussion appears to be evolving, rather than devolving as is so common on internet forums. Awesome
thumbsup2.gif
 
Hi emod,

The GC graphs you posted indicate this product is based primarily if not exclusively on a petroleum based distillate. Since the product is labeled "synthetic" it is likely the distillate is a Group III and/or Group III+ stock. I am not seeing any significant PAO, AN, or ester base oils, so if they are present the amounts are small.

For the future, if you post GC graphs I would prefer to not know the brand of oil at the time of offering my opinion. I do some consulting in this industry and do not want any appearance of bias or conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

For the future, if you post GC graphs I would prefer to not know the brand of oil at the time of offering my opinion. I do some consulting in this industry and do not want any appearance of bias or conflict of interest.


Tom, please accept my apologies. I didn't want to cause you trouble. I know that you are a very respected and recognized expert.
Thank you for your answer!
 
Not a problem emod. Just something to keep in mind if you choose to post more GC graphs. I am free to offer opinions but just want to avoid any appearances of bias or collusion.
 
Thanks emod and Tom! I had to brush up on interpreting GC graphs, so I found the following video which was helpful: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9j65SIlv4hM

Tom, what is causing those numerous narrow spikes earlier in time than the base oils? I would guess that the wide one very early on is the solvent and the later ones are the various additives. Is that right?
 
Hi Tom,
In addition to JAG’s question I also have a couple of questions:
1. Does the height (peak) of Gaussian distribution on the GC reflect the purity of the oil (less sulfur content and a more uniform structure of molecules)? Please see the pictures below.






2. Looking at the Gaussian distribution from the GC, can we make a parallel with the peak height of at 722.10 cm-1 wavenumber of the FTIR? Can we consider that this peak (at 722.10 cm-1 on FTIR) also gives some information about the type of the base oil? Usually a value of about 0.85A at 722.10 cm-1 is considered to correspond to a mineral oil; 0.95-1.0A at 722.10 cm-1 corresponds to VHVI/VHVI+/GTL, and a value above 1.1-1.2A at 722.10 cm-1 is associated with PAO. Can we make such conclusions? Please see the picture below.

 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JAG
Tom, what is causing those numerous narrow spikes earlier in time than the base oils? I would guess that the wide one very early on is the solvent and the later ones are the various additives. Is that right?


In going back and reading emod’s description of the GC procedure used I see that a pyrolytic evaporator @ 1000° was employed in this analysis. Therefore these are not really gas chromatograms but “pyrograms” and are not suitable for base oil determination.

A pyrolytic evaporator heats the sample to decomposition temperatures in order to thermally crack large molecules such as polymers that would not normally elute in gas chromatography. The smaller fragments resulting from such thermal cracking create a graphical thumbprint that may allow identification of the polymers. These are the numerous needle sharp peaks seen in the front end of the graphs emod posted.

While this pyrolytic GC method is useful in analyzing the large molecules in a motor oil, it may also crack some Group V base oils, in particular diesters, vegetable esters, some triesters, and perhaps others. Therefore my previously stated assessment is not valid since some base oils may have decomposed and no longer appear in a recognizable form.

Since the petroleum distillate did survive the pyrolysis, I would assume a PAO base oil would as well and I don’t see any. Beyond that I cannot form any opinion on other base oils as I do not have experience in pyrolytic gas chromatography.
 
Originally Posted By: emod
Hi Tom,
In addition to JAG’s question I also have a couple of questions:
1. Does the height (peak) of Gaussian distribution on the GC reflect the purity of the oil (less sulfur content and a more uniform structure of molecules)?
2. Looking at the Gaussian distribution from the GC, can we make a parallel with the peak height of at 722.10 cm-1 wavenumber of the FTIR?


Peak height in GC is a function of the sample size and the sensitivity or attenuation settings in the procedure. What matters are the shape and retention time of the peak (for identification) and the area under the peak (for quantification).

The shape of petroleum distillation products (height, width and symmetry) is a function of the feed stock, distillation/refining parameters, and blending. While a more narrow Gaussian distribution would imply a tighter range of volatility in the components, there are other factors at play as well, such as the type of GC column used and the GC temperature profile.

In short, to many variables for me to attempt to correlate the height or shape of the Gaussian distribution in a sample of unknown composition to purity or molecular uniformity.

Re FTIR, I do not have experience in interpreting mineral oil graphs by FTIR.
 
Hi Tom,
I greatly appreciate all of yours opinions because they always express detailed knowledge that cause reflection (thought-provoking knowledge
smile.gif
) .
Thank you for your efforts!
 
Tom, I figured that if Group III’s signature can be identified, then diesters can be identified too, because I think that diesters typically have superior thermal stability. See below. It mentions PAO, not Group III, but I would expect similarity between the two. I could be off base since I know so little about the tests that emod posted results from.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0965544118030179
Quote:
The thermal degradation, under oxidative pyrolysis conditions, of two synthetic lubricating base oils, poly-α-olefin (PAO) and di-ester (DE), was investigated. The main objective of the study was to characterize their behavior in simulated “areo-engine” conditions, i.e. compared the thermal stability and identified the products of thermal decomposition as a function of exposure temperature. Detailed characterizations of products were performed with Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR), gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry (GC/MS), viscosity experiments and four-ball tests. The results showed that PAO had the lower thermal stability, being degraded at 200°C different from 300°C for DE. The degradation also effected the tribological properties of lubricating oil. Several by-products were identified during the thermal degradation of two lubricants. The majority of PAO products consisted of alkanes and olefins, while more oxygen-containing organic compounds were detected in DE samples according to the observation of GC/MS analysis. The related reaction mechanisms were discussed according to the experimental results.
 
Originally Posted By: JAG
I could be off base since I know so little about the tests that emod posted results from.

JAG, I did some additional searches on the internet and I was able to find the entire document from which I have taken the examples (pyrolysis GC) in my previous post. If you are interested, I can post a link to the document. The document is in Russian language, but google translate is doing pretty well with translation from Russian to English.

I also have found the following case study of an unknown engine oil:

First, for the identification of compounds, the ASTM® D2887 calibration mix and the NIST 05 mass spectral library were used.


After that the oil sample was analyzed (the sample was identified by direct GC/MS analysis without previous pyrolysis):


According to the case study - in the above sample of oil a mixture of n-alkanes from C23H48 (n-tricosane) up to C38H78 (n-octatriacontane), diphenyloctylamin (P 524) (retention time tR = 28.80 min), antioxidant 4,4'-methylene-bis(2,6-ditert-butylphenol) (E 702) (retention time tR = 38.02 min), and synthetic esters - vinyl caprylate (P 534) (retention time tR = 48.41 min), and glyceryl tridecanoate (P 1186) (retention time tR = 52.07 min) were identified. Other additives (retention time tR = 20.31 min, 29.30 min, 37.11 min, 44.20 min, 56.46 min, and 62.36 min, respectively) could not be definitely identified. The total content of the determined organic additives in this oil sample was about 31%.

I hope that Tom will be able to give a more simple and understandable interpretation of the results and composition of the oil for the people with less knowledge (or with base knowledge) in GC and chemistry (I'm one of those people
smile.gif
).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JAG
Tom, I figured that if Group III’s signature can be identified, then diesters can be identified too, because I think that diesters typically have superior thermal stability. See below. It mentions PAO, not Group III, but I would expect similarity between the two. I could be off base since I know so little about the tests that emod posted results from.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0965544118030179



That paper is not useful on many levels. First it was not a thermal stability test, but rather an oxidative stability test, and the use of the term pyrolysis is incorrect. They tested DOA as the diester, which is not used in any high temperature lubricant applications due to its low viscosity, low Viscosity Index, and high volatility. The link only loaded the first two pages, but it appears they simply heated the samples at various temperatures for two hours in a steel beaker and then analyzed the samples. Furthermore, the base oils were not additized. Simply stirring neat base oils in a beaker on a hot plate for a couple of hours is unrealistic and I would never attempt to correlate those results to any real world applications.

A proper well controlled oxidation test used to qualify jet engine oils holds the oil at various high temperatures for 72 hours while blowing air through the oil, and with five different metal specimens submerged in the oil to catalyze reactions. Analysis is for change in viscosity, total acid number, sludge formation, and metal corrosion. This test shows PAOs and adipate type diesters (most common) to be close in oxidative stability when properly additized with the diester have somewhat better results.

Another common test combines oxidative, thermal, and hydrolytic conditions by heating the additized oils to >280°C in a thin film flowing over a steel panel for 24 hours in a chamber sparged with water saturated air to measure coking tendencies. Here PAOs fail miserably due to their lack of polarity and inability to solubilize and disperse degradation by-products, thus laying down polymeric and carbonaceous deposits. Diesters and POEs are substantially clean in this test. In fact, even Group I based oils show cleaner panels than PAO because they have some polarity.

The term "thermal stability" is often misapplied. A true thermal stability test is run in the absence of oxygen to eliminate oxidative reactions and focus only on molecular decomposition caused by heat, usually with a metal specimen in the oil for catalysis. Saturated hydrocarbons such as mineral oils are very thermally stable, in spite of their relatively poor oxidative stability. PAOs and POEs are also very thermally stable, but diesters suffer from the presence of a hydrogen on the beta carbon which triggers a series of thermal decomposition reactions at high temperatures (over 200°C). POEs do not have a beta hydrogen which is why they can be used at much higher temperatures than diesters.
 
Originally Posted By: emod

I hope that Tom will be able to give a more simple and understandable interpretation of the results and composition of the oil for the people with less knowledge (or with base knowledge) in GC and chemistry (I'm one of those people
smile.gif
).


The GC graph of the unidentified motor oil appears to be based primarily on a petroleum distillate with some additives. I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation however. Identification of peaks based solely on retention times is often unreliable.

The anti-oxidant peaks at 28.8 and 38.0 minutes appear correct and logical, but then they list a vinyl caprylate ester at 48.4 minutes. I cannot imagine why this monoester would be used in a motor oil, and if correct it would elute much earlier. And glyceryl tridecanoate seems odd - if it is intended to be a friction modifier there cheaper ones available.

On the other hand the series of sharp evenly spaced peaks at approximately 40, 44, 48, 52, and 56 is typical for a polyol ester, perhaps PE C5,C7 which has been used in motor oils and would be much more likely as an ester component.

Just an observation based on a single GC graph. It would take a lot more work to properly identify the components, such as spiking with known and probable ingredients.
 
That is fascinating data and discussion, guys. Thank you! Tom, if you were going to create a motor oil that passed API SN Plus requirements AND was meant to perform well in very long OCIs (ex. 20k miles), would you see any reason to use some amount of diester rather than have the ester portion be completely POE? Assume the market could bear a high-priced product of up to roughly $20/qt. I know that diester tends to be less expensive. From a purely performance perspective, I haven’t read anything that makes me think there are any overall advantages of a suitable diester over a suitable POE.
 
The first approved synthetic motor oils were based 100% on diesters and performed very well. Likewise Mobil 1 contained diesters for many years starting around 1980, so we know they work well for their intended purpose, which today in motor oils is as a blend component for PAOs to improve seal compatibility and additive solubility. The beta hydrogen thermal stability issue with diesters is not a problem in the environment a motor oil sees, but they would not be suitable in modern jet engines or some severe industrial applications such a curing oven chains.

If I were formulating the oil you describe I would choose POEs simply because they do everything a diester does and more. Their higher temperature stability would not be the driving factor, but rather volatility, cleanliness and lubricity. Esters get most of their advantages over PAOs from their polarity, and suitable POEs have more polarity than suitable diesters.
 
Thanks Tom. MP Thirty-K motor oil MSDS from 9/11/2011 shows
Polyalphaolefin (CAS 68649-12-7): 20-55%
Polyester Polyol (CAS Proprietary): 21-55%
Ditridecyl Adipate, Diester (CAS 16958-92-2): 10-24%
http://mptindustries.com/msds/MSDSThirty-KMotorOil.pdf

Do you have any thoughts on those choices and proportions? Seeing that was one of the reasons I asked why a formulator would choose both diester and POE. As an aside...oddly, the company states that separation can occur when the oil sits for an extended period. I find that surprising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom