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 CH 2, CH 3 stretch. *CITGO and Quaker state have 35 unique carbons. The Warren had 41unique carbons.

REFINING CON. * CITGO’s chemical shift Range: * Quaker States chemical shift Range : *Warren’s chemical shift Range: A table of typical chemical shifts in C-13 NMR spectra carbon environmentchemical shift (ppm) C=O (in ketones) C=O (in aldehydes) C=O (in acids and esters) C in aromatic rings C=C (in alkenes) RCH 2 OH RCH 2 Cl RCH 2 NH R 3 CH CH 3 CO R 2 CH RCH 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