Transcript Comparing the possible compositions of different Motor Oil

COMPARING THE POSSIBLE
COMPOSITIONS OF DIFFERENT MOTOR
OIL SAMPLES.
Nathan Tompkins
Jared Poist
THE TESTED OIL BRANDS
Each sample was obtained locally
*Tom’s on George St
*Rutter’s on Richland.
*Each sample was 10w30
THE GOAL WE STRIVED FOR
Our goal was initially
*determine the chemical composition of a 10w30 sample of motor oil
* this was determined to be almost impossible, do to the fact that motor oils are very
complex mixtures that contain many additives not readily shared with the public.
Our goal revised
* Comparing structural results from three different Oil bands.
THE TOOLS FOR THE JOB
The chosen instrumentation
Fourier transform infrared spectrometer
Nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer
OBTAINED RESULTS
REFINING THE RESULTS
*The IR Data shows that the CITGO and Warren have a very similar makeup. The
larger peaks where all Carbon and Hydrogen related but this is to be expected
because of the large amounts of hydrocarbons in motor oils.
*The Quaker State had the same common peaks as the GITGO and Warren, with
the addition of a very large C=O bond and a CH2, CH3 stretch.
*CITGO and Quaker state have 35 unique carbons. The Warren had 41unique
carbons.
REFINING CON.
* CITGO’s chemical shift Range: 20.31-59.55
* Quaker States chemical shift Range : 14.15-59.54
*Warren’s chemical shift Range: 11.44 - 59.53
A table of typical chemical shifts in C-13
NMR spectra
carbon environment
chemical shift (ppm)
C=O (in ketones)
205 - 220
C=O (in aldehydes)
190 - 200
C=O (in acids and
esters)
170 - 185
C in aromatic rings
125 - 150
C=C (in alkenes)
115 - 140
RCH2OH
50 - 65
RCH2Cl
40 - 45
RCH2NH2
37 - 45
R3CH
25 - 35
CH3CO-
20 - 30
R2CH2
16 - 25
RCH3
10 - 15
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/anal
ysis/nmr/interpretc13.html
DOWN FALLS, CHANGES, AND
IMPROVEMENTS
*Our Samples were a little to complex.
*We could have tried using the GC/MS and or the XRF.
*We could have looked at samples from the same brand with varying
viscosities.
The End