Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

COMPARISON OF LABORATORY DISSOLVED GAS ANALYSIS VERSUS AN ON-LINE MONITORING SYSTEM

Michael P. Anderson Bonneville Power Administration mpanderson@bpa.gov http://www.bpa.gov

John V. Hinshaw Serveron Corporation john.hinshaw@serveron.com http://www.serveron.com

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

ABSTRACT An on-line dissolved gas monitoring system was installed on a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transformer with a history of gassing. A special monitoring protocol was established to compare the on-line results with conventional dissolved gas analysis. Oil samples were taken from the transformer on a weekly basis and submitted to three different laboratories. Samples were taken for a period of 17 weeks. The results from each lab and the on-line monitor varied. However, the data showed consistent gassing trends from each analysis. Variations in oxygen and nitrogen showed evidence of air contamination in some samples. Possible reasons for variations are discussed. BACKGROUND BPA purchased six 500 kV, 336 MVA single-phase transformers from English Electric in 1965. One transformer started gassing after initial energization in 1969. The transformer was degassed in 1981, 1983, 1986, 1995, 2001, and again in 2003. A repair was made in 1995, but the problem was not fixed. However, the problem does not appear to be severe. The transformer is in service with this known problem. The unit will be degassed in the future as needed. A Serveron (Hillsboro, Oregon) TrueGas monitor was installed on the transformer in June 2003, after degassing the oil. A sampling program began on June 6, 2003, and ran through the end of September. Three gas-inoil samples were collected weekly in 500cc stainless steel cylinders. The samples were submitted to the Doble Chemistry lab in Watertown, Massachusetts; the TJH2B lab in Sacramento, California; and the BPA Chemistry lab in Vancouver, Washington. The three labs performed the dissolved gas analysis using ASTM Method D3612-02 (1). This method has 3 alternative methods of analysis. The participating labs used either Method A, vacuum extraction; or Method C, headspace analysis. Each method uses a gas chromatograph to determine the gas content of the oil. The difference in method lies in the manner of preparing the sample for analysis. The Doble lab used Method C only. The TJH2B lab used either Method A or Method C. The BPA lab used a modified Method A throughout the study and Method C during the latter half. BPA has a number of low gas content transformers in its system. The extraction apparatus in D-3612-02 Method A Figure 2 was modified to allow the extraction of larger oil samples. In this way, the gas-in-oil analysis can be performed for this equipment. The sample syringe size was increased to 100 ml. The degassing flask size was increased to 250 ml. The reference column was eliminated. The gas collection tube was replaced with a gas collection bulb. The gas volume is not measured. The Total Gas is calculated by measuring the pressure change after adding a known amount of oil. The pressure difference is multiplied by a constant to yield the Total Gas. Injecting known amounts of gas into the extraction apparatus, and measuring the resulting pressure change determine this constant. The corrections for: temperature, pressure, and the Ostwald coefficients are not applied. The gas-in-oil concentrations are calculated by multiplying the amount of each gas determined by the gas chromatograph by the percent Total Gas times 100. The BPA Chemistry lab performs this analysis exclusively for the Bonneville transmission system. This modification has been in use for longer than 15 years. The history of gas-in-oil analysis for equipment on the system shows that the results have been very consistent and reproducible over this period. The Serveron TrueGas online monitor collects gas that has permeated across an oil-to-gas extraction membrane from oil that circulates continuously between the transformer and the monitor. An analysis is performed every 4 hours by a built-in gas chromatograph. Results are stored in the online instrument for electronic retrieval. RESULTS General Observations The BPA lab results by Method A (vacuum extraction) for all of the tested gases tended to be as much as two to four times greater higher than the data from the other labs and the Serveron monitor. However, the BPA Method C (headspace) results are similar to the results from the other labs, even though the test specimen was taken from the same cylinder as the specimen used in the Method A analysis. Possible reasons for this observation will be presented in the Discussion section of this paper. Graphs of each of the gases (see Figures 1 12) show the same gassing trends for all of the measurements, despite the differences in overall concentrations.

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

A problem was discovered with the manual sampling during the study. Analysis results from each lab had random samples that were extremely high in Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Total Gas (see Figures 9 11). Those samples appeared to be contaminated with air. Three test specimens were collected in stainless steel cylinders from the transformer each week. The cylinders were numbered in the order taken. Each lab received samples with the same number throughout the study. The source of the problem was determined to be worn valves on the sample cylinders. The oil was hot when it was placed into the cylinders. The oil contracted as it cooled in the cylinder, creating a partial vacuum. This pulled air past the worn valve into the sample container. To attempt to eliminate the problem, the valves were replaced on the cylinders used in the latter part of the study. Samples from the last three weeks of the study did not show this problem. Hydrogen Results (see Figure 2) The Hydrogen results showed the greatest variation of any of the gases in the study. The BPA Method A (vacuum extraction method) data was significantly higher than the other measurements, including the BPA Method C (headspace method) data of the same sample. The vacuum extraction data was 2x to 4x greater than the data from the other labs. The results from Doble, TJH2B, and the BPA headspace analysis were consistent with each other. The Serveron online monitor data was significantly lower than all of the lab results. From discussions with Serveron, the levels of hydrogen in this transformer exceeded the maximum range of the system. The Serveron monitor incorporates gas sample compression that produces enhanced sensitivity for low-gassing transformers such as the one in this study. The result was that the hydrogen measurement results were somewhat suppressed but roughly proportional to the laboratory data. The gassing trend was the same as the labs data, but smaller in scale. Methane Results (see Figure 3) The methane data clustered together better than the Hydrogen data. The BPA vacuum extraction results were still the highest. The Serveron results were near the average value for all of the data. The Doble, TJH2B, and BPA headspace analyses were consistent with each other and tended to be approximately half of the BPA Method A results. Ethane Results (see Figure 4) The ethane data shows less lab-to-lab variation than the methane data. The BPA Method A gas levels are not the highest for all of the sample dates. The Doble, BPA Method A, and BPA Method C results group together slightly above the average. The Serveron data lies close to the average. The TJH2B ran slightly below the average levels. Ethylene Results (see Figure 5) The ethylene data shows more variation for the various methods than did the ethane data. The BPA vacuum extraction results are consistently the highest. The Serveron, Doble, and BPA headspace values are near the average. The TJH2B data lies below the average. Acetylene Results (see Figure 6) The acetylene data ranges from 0 to 16 ppm. The BPA vacuum extraction data is consistently the highest. The rest of the data is grouped around the average value. All of the data shows the same trends. Carbon Monoxide Results (see Figure 7) The BPA Method A data is consistently the highest. The other results are arrayed slightly above and below the average value. Again, the data all follow a similar trend over time. Carbon Dioxide Results (see Figure 8) Carbon monoxide gas shows a greater spread of the data. The BPA vacuum extraction results are consistently the highest, while the Serveron, Doble, and BPA headspace values are near the average. The TJH2B data is above the average for the first few weeks and then falls below the average for the remainder of the study. Total Dissolved Combustible Gases Results (see Figure 9) The Total Dissolved Combustible Gases is the sum of the amounts of all of the combustible gases. The BPA Method A data are the highest. The results from the other measurements group closely together. The Serveron online monitor results lay along the average of this group. The Doble and BPA Method C data lay together slightly

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

above the average. The TJH2B results tend to be slightly below the average. The BPA vacuum extraction data tends to be 1.5 times greater than the average. Oxygen Results (see Figure 10) Oxygen was one of the gases greatly affected by the sampling problem. The large spikes on the graph represent contaminated oil samples. The values of the uncontaminated samples range between 500 and 2400 ppm. The labs are fairly consistent with each other for the oxygen level in the absence of obvious contamination. The Serveron monitor results range from 34 to 134 ppm, which is substantially lower than those of the laboratories. It is not clear what caused this difference. It could be that the process of manual sampling introduces air into the oil, even when obvious problems such as those described in the previous paragraph are not apparent. Even with gas compression of the sample, the oxygen levels reported by the Serveron monitor were several times lower than the system maximum response level. Nitrogen Results (see Figure 11) Nitrogen was another of the gases greatly affected by the apparent sampling problem. The large spikes on the graph represent the contaminated oil samples. The values of the uncontaminated samples range between 7,500 and 24,100 ppm. The BPA Method A consistently yielded the highest values. The Doble, TJH2B, and BPA headspace data were consistent with each other. The Serveron monitor does not directly measure the amount of nitrogen in the oil. Instead, Serveron provided estimates of the nitrogen level based on the measured total gas pressure in the gas extractor. The values ranged from 4500 to 7500 ppm. This is significantly lower than the laboratory amounts, which could be due to the nature of this type of estimate or to air contamination that occurs in obtaining a manual sample. Total Gas Results (see Figure 12) The total gas amount was another property greatly affected by the sampling problem. The total gas content of the oil is directly measured in Method A. In Method C, the total gas is calculated by summing up the amounts of all of the measured gases. The large spikes on the graph, which range from 6 to 10 percent, represent the contaminated oil samples, and these spikes also correlate with the observed nitrogen and oxygen spikes. The values of the uncontaminated samples range between 1.0 and 3.0 percent. The BPA vacuum extraction method consistently yielded the highest values, and the Doble, TJH2B, and BPA headspace values were similar to each other. The Serveron total gas level was calculated by summing the dissolved gases as in Method C, and then adding the estimated dissolved nitrogen concentration. These values ranged from 0.5 to 1.2 percent. The reported lower levels of oxygen and nitrogen are the major reason for the lower total gas content of the Serveron measurements. DISCUSSION The BPA lab results by Method A (vacuum extraction) for all of the tested gases are generally higher than the data from the other labs and the Serveron monitor. The Bonneville data is as much as two to four times greater. However, the BPA Method C (headspace) results are similar to the results from the other labs, even though the test specimen was taken from the same cylinder as the specimen used in the extraction. There are some possible reasons for the higher values observed. First, there may be a bias introduced by the fact that different equipment is being used at each lab. However, the BPA headspace gas chromatograph has been used to analyze oil samples extracted by Method A. The results were equivalent to those obtained to the gas chromatographs used in this study to analyze the Method A test specimens. So, equipment bias may not explain the observed differences. Secondly, a bias may exist because of calibration differences between labs. The Doble lab and the TJH2B lab use gas-in-oil standards to calibrate their equipment. The BPA lab uses gas standards to calibrate the equipment used for both methods. The BPA headspace results are similar to the results from the other two labs. This suggests that the calibration differences may not be the main cause of the higher values seen in the BPA vacuum extraction data. Thirdly, the results may be dependent on the method used. In Method A, the gases are extracted from the oil. Correction factors are used to account for the different extraction efficiencies of each gas. In Method C, the

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

gases are in equilibrium between the oil and a gas headspace. Equilibrium constants are used in the calculation of the amount of each gas. These constants account for the differences of each gas partitioning into the headspace. It is possible that the vacuum method, as run by the Bonneville lab, is somehow more efficient in extracting the gases from the oil sample, yielding higher measured values. This seems to be the most likely cause of the higher observed values for the BPA vacuum data. How much does the Method A modification contribute to the higher values observed? An effort to determine this amount was made. Data, from one of the samples, had corrections applied to each gass result for temperature, pressure, and the Ostwald coefficients. Comparing the BPA Method A values to the corrected values, the estimate showed: Hydrogen +7.8%, Methane +5.3%, Ethane 6.4%, Ethylene 2.3%, Acetylene +12.6%, Carbon Monoxide +7.0%, Carbon Dioxide +1.0%, Oxygen +7.0%, and Nitrogen +7.5%. This estimate is significant, but does not come close to the factor of 2x to 4x observed in the study.

Conclusions The comparison of the data from the three labs and the Serveron on-line monitor indicates that the results depend to some extent on the method of analysis. Method A (vacuum extraction), as run by the Bonneville Power Administration lab generally yielded the highest values for each of the gases. Method C (headspace analysis) showed the best inter-laboratory correlation. The Serveron on-line monitor generally agreed very well with the laboratory data. In most cases, the Serveron results were close to the mean of the data. Exceptions to this were: hydrogen, oxygen, the nitrogen estimate, and the total gas content calculation. The graphs show the same gassing trends, regardless of method or equipment used. The comparison of the plotted data shows the lines for each lab fluctuating in the same manner. References 1. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 10.03 Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the following for their assistance, without which this paper would not have been possible: Lance Lewand, Doble Engineering; Jon Reichman, TJH2B; and Paul Fischer, Serveron Corporation. Biography Michael P. Anderson graduated from the University of Washington in 1975 with a B.S. in Chemistry and a B.S. in Physics. He worked 14 years as a coatings chemist for Olympic Stain in Seattle, Washington. In 1989, He joined the Bonneville Power Administration, in Vancouver, Washington. He is currently the team lead for the BPA Chemistry Lab. Mr. Anderson is a member of ASTM Committee D-27 on Electrical Insulating Liquids and Gases. John V. Hinshaw graduated from Duke University in 1979 with a PhD. in analytical chemistry. He worked in the laboratory analytical instrument industry for 20 years in instrument design, engineering, research, and development. He joined Serveron Corporation in 2000 as Senior Staff Engineer. Dr. Hinshaw is a member of the American Chemical Society and the International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry, and he is the Chair of ASTM Subcommittee E-13.19 on Chromatography as well as a member of ASTM D-27.

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

APPENDIX
Summary of Results
10000

C2H4 CH4 1000 CO2 H2 CO2 O2 C2H4 CH4 CO H2 10 C2H6 C2H2 C2H6 CO O2

gas-in-oil (ppm)

100

C2H2 1

0.1 05/31/03

06/20/03

07/10/03

07/30/03

08/19/03

09/08/03

09/28/03

H2

CH4

C2H6

C2H4

C2H2

CO

CO2

O2

Figure 1. Comparison of All Gas Results Individual points: Weekly lab results; Solid lines: Online monitor results

Hydrogen Results
1800 1600 1400 1200 ppm 1000 800 600 400 200 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 2. Comparison of Hydrogen Results

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Methane Results
2500 2000 1500 ppm 1000 500 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 3. Comparison of Methane Results

Ethane Results
400 350 300 250 ppm 200 150 100 50 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 4. Comparison of Ethane Results

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Ethylene Results
3000 2500 2000 ppm 1500 1000 500 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 5. Comparison of Ethylene Results

Acetylene Results
18 16 14 12 ppm 10 8 6 4 2 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 6. Comparison of Acetylene Results

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Carbon Monoxide Results

120 100 80

ppm

60 40 20 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 7. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Results

Carbon Dioxide Results

1200 1000 800 ppm 600 400 200 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 8. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Results

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Total Dissolved Combustible Gases

8000 7000 6000 5000 PPM 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/12 9/19 9/26
10/6

6/6

7/4

8/1

8/8

SAMPLE DATE BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA HDSP

Figure 9. Comparison of Total Dissolved Combustible Gases Results

Oxygen Results
25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

ppm

Figure 10. Comparison of Oxygen Results

9/5

10

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Nitrogen Results
90000 80000 70000 60000 ppm 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 12. Comparison of Total Gas Results

Total Gas Results

12.00 10.00 8.00
Per Cent

6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 5/19 6/8 6/28 7/18 8/7 8/27 9/16 10/6 Sample Date BPA DOBLE TJH2B TRUEGAS BPA/HDSP

Figure 12. Comparison of Total Gas Results

11

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Table of Gas-in-Oil Sample Results - part 1

Sample Date 9/26/03 9/26/03 9/26/03 9/26/03 9/26/03 9/19/03 9/19/03 9/19/03 9/19/03 9/19/03 9/12/03 9/12/03 9/12/03 9/12/03 9/12/03 9/5/03 9/5/03 9/5/03 9/5/03 9/5/03 8/29/03 8/29/03 8/29/03 8/29/03 8/29/03
Hydrogen Methane Ethane Ethylene Acetylene Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Oxygen Nitrogen Lab TDCG %Total Gas

1315 713 691 742 316 1183 730 684 815 184 1462 1071 724 966 306 1393 775 765 909 321 1493 753 699 705 170

2345 1292 1390 1314 1767 2090 1404 1410 1569 1607 2317 1490 1468 1229 1687 2319 1428 1399 1341 1787 2312 1366 1304 1311 1573

241 265 338 170 252 234 284 339 193 252 246 296 325 156 245 254 294 312 221 256 253 276 295 105 232

2801 1895 2150 1417 1920 2633 2048 2160 1665 1899 2855 2135 2175 1319 1871 2844 2122 2104 1754 1947 2819 1968 1933 1014 1739

6 3 5.2 4 5.9 8 4 6.2 4 7.2 11 5 6.1 10 8.1 14 7 9.5 7 9.8 8 4 5 3 5.7

93 67 57 52 61 80 72 57 60 55 93 76 67 51 58 92 73 66 45 64 104 74 71 64 60

891 669 652 475 749 827 751 650 537 732 907 770 678 447 716 946 816 729 629 788 977 797 673 389 718

1609 1199 1340 1856 34 1267 1374 1490 599 30 1696 2232 727 1859 32 1591 1324 16359 21605 31 1867 2181 810 656 32

18083 8597 11000 13505 7500 14858 9461 10700 10131 7500 18593 12191 11508 13593 7500 22928 9137 68570 76248 7500 24175 11436 11200 10994 6500

BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas

6801 4235 4631 3699 4322 6228 4542 4656 4306 4004 6984 5073 4765 3731 4175 6916 4699 4656 4277 4385 6989 4441 4307 3202 3780

2.98 1.60 1.76 1.95 1.26 2.46 1.75 1.75 1.56 1.23 3.08 2.17 1.77 1.96 1.24 2.95 1.74 9.03 10.28 1.27 3.32 2.02 1.70 1.52 1.10

12

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Table of Gas-in-Oil Sample Results - part 2

Sample Date 8/22/03 8/22/03 8/22/03 8/22/03 8/22/03 8/15/03 8/15/03 8/15/03 8/15/03 8/15/03 8/8/03 8/8/03 8/8/03 8/8/03 8/8/03 8/1/03 8/1/03 8/1/03 8/1/03 7/25/03 7/25/03 7/25/03 7/25/03 7/18/03 7/18/03 7/18/03 7/18/03
Hydrogen Methane Ethane Ethylene Acetylene Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Oxygen Nitrogen Lab TDCG %Total Gas

1104 669 565 432 190 1328 771 481 685 158 1083 712 537 527 151 1572 533 708 149 1347 328 282 123 882 89 391 83

1833 1151 1190 1094 1506 2202 1311 1031 1339 1465 1753 1203 1031 956 1268 1938 973 1313 1257 1649 732 763 1074 1351 479 757 863

278 229 247 183 227 240 255 274 211 224 188 245 261 81 212 271 248 197 209 215 210 134 179 201 172 113 145

2165 1643 1680 1423 1692 2671 1848 1694 1696 1670 2115 1733 1620 761 1578 2194 1545 1593 1569 1751 1268 1057 1361 1609 1017 931 1105

8 4 4.8 2 6.1 11 5 4 6 7.3 7 4 3 2 5.6 9 3 5 7 8 3 4 6.7 7 4 3 5.1

81 62 54 40 59 96 79 49 59 58 82 68 52 54 53 88 49 59 53 82 38 36 49 76 23 42 46

709 640 565 536 711 945 731 493 568 700 756 732 502 279 667 787 488 578 676 622 434 390 585 611 441 361 539

2485 3096 7790 20062 31 1586 1669 1734 2483 32 1413 5479 1943 812 29 1653 3647 2078 28 1808 4816 5588 30 1951 16965 530 37

19108 13779 28500 68747 6500 18457 10908 9745 18397 6500 16081 17024 10935 10005 6500 18402 17135 16435 6500 19263 13770 18006 6500 16955 39930 8007 6500

BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas

5469 3758 3741 3174 3680 6548 4269 3533 3996 3582 5228 3965 3504 2381 3268 6072 3351 3875 3244 5052 2579 2276 2793 4126 1784 2237 2247

2.95 1.86 4.06 9.25 1.09 2.95 1.86 1.55 2.54 1.08 2.51 2.84 1.69 1.35 1.05 2.83 2.46 2.30 1.04 2.75 2.16 2.63 0.99 2.55 5.91 1.11 0.93

13

Presented at the 2004 International Conference of Doble Clients, March 21 26th, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts

Table of Gas-in-Oil Sample Results - part 3

Sample Date 7/11/03 7/11/03 7/11/03 7/11/03 7/3/03 7/3/03 7/3/03 7/3/03 6/27/03 6/27/03 6/27/03 6/27/03 6/20/03 6/20/03 6/20/03 6/20/03 6/13/03 6/13/03 6/13/03 6/13/03 6/7/03 6/7/03 6/7/03 6/7/03 6/6/03 6/6/03 6/6/03 6/6/03
Hydrogen Methane Ethane Ethylene Acetylene Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Oxygen Nitrogen Lab TDCG %Total Gas

855 52 173 93 899 325 191 105 584 266 92

1193 349 419 880 1171 633 660 744 959 541 676

172 148 115 137 167 173 157 124 127 111 147

1407 866 652 1052 1353 950 949 965 1134 782 931

8 4 3 5.9 11 5 5 7.6 16 5 11

73 18 29 50 94 4 40 44 59 1 48

587 450 354 522 690 234 522 487 425 214 515

1629 20658 2661 48 1958 2410 1170 58 1544 10666 1927

16800 47962 10747 6500 18878 10747 8895 6500 14751 38191 11663

107
57 29 10

685
99 66 71

104
11 13 19

858
140 97 108

12
1 0 0

43
47 2 40

415
332 176 425

106
1306 1611 15849

5500
13371 8788 56849

27
30 16 22

64
62 41 16

10
8 6 2

104
89 71 28

0.8
1 0 0

30
40 1 12

293
293 167 125

127
5560 2106 2379

4500
36267 9132 10021

14
27 14 21 9 6 17

41
70 37 12 34 22 9

6.1
9 6 3 3 3 2

68
90 61 20 43 39 16

0.8
1 1 0 0 0 0

27
43 1 8 34 1 10

242
244 115 81 191 109 90

134
899 1690 2648 544 1622 2413

4500
13812 7592 10621 10779 7693 10065

BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas BPA Doble TJH2B TrueGas

3708 1437 1391 2218 3695 2090 2002 1990 2880 1706 1905 1809 355 207 248 236 231 135 80 157 240 120 64 123 71 54

2.47 7.05 1.52 0.93 2.67 1.55 1.26 0.90 2.14 5.08 1.60 0.78 1.62 1.08 7.34 0.52 4.60 1.15 1.26 0.50 1.49 0.95 1.34 1.23 0.95 1.26

14