Vapor Pressure in Petroleum Engineering: Importance for Fuel Volatility, Storage Safety, and Emissions

Abstract:

Vapor pressure is a fundamental property of petroleum fluids that profoundly influences their behavior across the petroleum industry. This review provides a comprehensive examination of why vapor pressure is important in petroleum engineering, focusing on its role in fuel volatility, storage and transport safety, and evaporative emissions. 

Fuel volatility, as measured by parameters like Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), determines how readily fuels like gasoline evaporate, affecting engine cold start performance and the risk of vapor lock in hot conditions. In storage and transportation, the vapor pressure of crude oil and refined products must be managed to prevent excessive vapor formation that could lead to safety hazards such as tank overpressure or pump cavitation. Vapor pressure also directly impacts environmental factors: higher volatility fuels contribute to greater evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds, which are regulated due to air quality concerns.

This review emphasizes the classic RVP measurement methodology and contrasts it with modern vapor pressure testing techniques such as the ASTM D6378 triple expansion method. Applications and considerations of vapor pressure are discussed broadly across upstream production, midstream handling, and downstream fuel use.

 The paper is structured to provide both technical depth and practical industry relevance, highlighting how effective management of vapor pressure is essential for operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, and safety from the oil field to the fuel tank.

Introduction:

In petroleum engineering, understanding and controlling the volatility of hydrocarbons is of great importance. Volatility refers to how easily a liquid converts to vapor. The volatility of a given liquid is quantified by vapor pressure, which is the equilibrium pressure exerted by a liquid’s vapors at a given temperature [1]. 

Petroleum products span a wide range of volatilities, from liquefied petroleum gas that boils at sub-ambient temperatures to heavy crude oils that emit negligible vapor at room conditions [2]. 

Vapor pressure is a unifying parameter that influences many aspects of petroleum production, processing, and use. For instance, it dictates the behavior of gasoline in an engine, the design of storage tanks and pipelines for crude oil, and the amount of hydrocarbon vapors released into the atmosphere during handling. A key metric for volatility in industry is the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). RVP is defined as the vapor pressure of a petroleum sample at 37.8 °C (100 °F) measured in a specific apparatus with a 4:1 vapor-to-liquid ratio. 

This decades-old standard measure has been deeply ingrained in fuel specifications and regulatory standards, especially for automotive gasoline [3]. RVP provides a convenient single number to characterize fuel volatility. However, as petroleum fluids are complex mixtures, vapor pressure behavior can vary with conditions and composition, and other measures such as True Vapor Pressure (TVP) are sometimes used for engineering calculations. 

Modern analytical methods have also been developed to measure vapor pressure more accurately and efficiently than the traditional RVP apparatus. This review paper explores the importance of vapor pressure across the petroleum industry. It will first explain the fundamentals of vapor pressure and volatility in the context of petroleum fluids. 

It then examines how vapor pressure affects fuel performance in engines, the safety of storage and transportation systems, and the magnitude of evaporative emissions. Special emphasis is given to Reid Vapor Pressure and to contemporary alternatives like the ASTM D6378 triple expansion vapor pressure test. Applications and examples are drawn from upstream (production and processing), midstream (transportation and storage), and downstream (refining and fuel usage) sectors. 

By covering both technical principles and practical considerations, the goal is to provide an industry-focused understanding of why vapor pressure management is essential from oil wells to end-user fuel dispensing.

Understanding Vapor Pressure and Volatility:

Vapor pressure is fundamentally a thermodynamic property that indicates a liquid’s propensity to evaporate. For a pure substance, the vapor pressure at a given temperature is the pressure at which the liquid’s vapor is in equilibrium with its liquid phase. In other words, it is the pressure exerted by molecules escaping the liquid surface when evaporation and condensation rates are balanced. 

A higher vapor pressure at a given temperature means the liquid is more volatile and will evaporate more readily. Temperature has a strong effect on vapor pressure. As temperature increases, vapor pressure rises exponentially, following relations such as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation or empirical fits like the Antoine equation. 

This means that a petroleum fluid which is stable as a liquid at a low temperature may produce significant vapor at a higher temperature. For complex hydrocarbon mixtures like crude oil or gasoline, vapor pressure behavior is more complicated than for a single-component liquid. These mixtures do not have a single boiling point. Instead, they gradually release lighter components as vapor as temperature rises, or pressure drops. 

Engineers often refer to the concept of a “bubble point” for mixtures, which is the condition (specific temperature for a given pressure, or vice versa) at which the first bubbles of vapor form out of the liquid. The True Vapor Pressure (TVP) of a hydrocarbon mixture is typically defined as its equilibrium vapor pressure at a given temperature when no air is present – essentially the bubble point pressure if the liquid is in a closed system with very small vapor space.

 TVP is an important concept for storage conditions, especially when the vapor space above a liquid is minimal (as is the case in a pressurized container or a tank with a floating roof). If the fluid’s vapor pressure exceeds the ambient pressure, boiling will occur. In petroleum applications, the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) is a specific standardized measurement of vapor pressure that provides a comparable volatility value for different gasoline blends, crude oils, and other volatile products [3]. 

As defined by ASTM method D323, RVP is measured at 37.8 °C in an apparatus where the sample is allowed to reach equilibrium with a fixed vapor-to-liquid ratio of 4:1. The resulting pressure (reported in absolute units, typically kilopascals or pounds per square inch) is the RVP. Because of the test conditions, RVP is lower than the true vapor pressure that the liquid would have at the same temperature in an unlimited expansion (i.e., with no air and full evaporation) [3]. 

The presence of a limited headspace and the prior chilling and handling of the sample can cause some of the lightest components to be lost or not fully contribute to the pressure. Nonetheless, RVP has proven very useful as an index of volatility [3]. For example, a gasoline with an RVP of 60 kPa (about 8.7 psi) is considered moderately volatile, whereas an RVP of 90 kPa (13 psi) would indicate a highly volatile fuel (typical of winter-grade gasoline) [4]. 

By contrast, diesel fuel has an RVP on the order of only a few kilopascals, reflecting its very low volatility [5]. Understanding vapor pressure is critical because it links directly to operational and safety considerations. If crude oil has high vapor pressure at ambient conditions, it will readily release vapors when stored in a tank, potentially creating flammable atmospheres or causing pressure buildup. 

If a fuel has too low a vapor pressure, it may not vaporize sufficiently in an engine’s combustion system under cold conditions; too high a vapor pressure, and the fuel may vaporize excessively in fuel lines or tanks. Thus, finding the right volatility “window” is a key part of formulating fuels and designing production systems. In the following sections, we delve into how these principles manifest in different segments of the petroleum industry.

Fuel Volatility and Engine Performance

One of the most visible impacts of vapor pressure is on the performance and drivability of gasoline in automotive engines. Gasoline must vaporize appropriately in the engine’s intake and combustion chambers to mix with air and burn efficiently. If the fuel is not volatile enough, an engine can become difficult to start in cold weather because insufficient vapor is formed to ignite. 

On the other hand, if the fuel is too volatile (evaporating too readily), it can cause problems in hot weather, such as vapor lock. Vapor lock occurs when gasoline boils in the fuel delivery system (for example, in fuel lines or carburetors), creating vapor bubbles that impede fuel flow [5]. This was a common issue in older carbureted engines operating on high-RVP fuel on hot days. 

Modern fuel-injected engines operate at higher fuel pressures which mitigate vapor formation, but even they are designed with fuel volatility in mind to avoid any risk of vapor-induced fuel pump cavitation or erratic fuel metering [6]. Refiners adjust gasoline RVP seasonally to ensure the fuel volatility stays within an optimal range.

 In winter, engines require more volatile fuel to ignite in cold temperatures, so gasoline sold in cold climates is typically blended to have a higher RVP. This is often achieved by blending lighter hydrocarbons such as butane into the gasoline pool. Butane has a high vapor pressure and is an economical blending component that boosts RVP effectively and adding even a few percent can raise the RVP significantly [7]. 

In summer, the allowable RVP of gasoline is reduced by refining processes that remove some light components or by limiting the amount of butane and other highly volatile substances in the blend. For example, a winter gasoline might have an RVP around 13 psi (90 kPa) to guarantee easy starts on freezing mornings, whereas a summer gasoline might be formulated to about 7–9 psi (48–62 kPa) to reduce vapor formation during hot weather operation [3]. 

These values are often mandated by regulations as well, reflecting both performance and emissions considerations. Volatility must also be balanced with other performance factors. If gasoline volatility is too low (RVP too low), not only cold starting suffers, but combustion may become less efficient at low temperatures, leading to misfires or increased engine deposits [8]. 

If volatility is too high, engines may experience issues like hot restart difficulties (fuel vaporizing in fuel rails after a hot soak) and increased evaporative emissions from the fuel tank [9]. Thus, fuel specifications include RVP limits that ensure the fuel will perform reliably across the expected range of ambient conditions. 

Other metrics, such as the distillation curve of gasoline (which indicates the temperatures at which fractions of the fuel boil off), complement RVP to characterize volatility in different temperature ranges. However, RVP remains the key single number that fuel blenders and engine designers refer to for assessing gasoline volatility.

 It is worth noting that not all petroleum-derived fuels require high volatility. Diesel fuel operates in compression-ignition engines and is injected as liquid into hot, high-pressure air in the cylinder and relies on high injection pressure and fine atomization rather than fuel vapor pressure for combustion [10]. 

Consequently, diesel has a very low vapor pressure and would be problematic if it evaporated readily. Diesel vapor lock is generally not a concern and diesel vehicles face opposite issues in extreme cold, handled by fuel additives and heaters rather than volatility adjustments) [11]. Jet fuel (kerosene) similarly has low volatility for safety and performance at altitude, and it is specified by traits like flash point more than RVP [12].

 Nonetheless, even these fuels must have vapor pressures low enough to avoid excessive evaporation or tank pressurization in the conditions they are stored and used. For gasoline and other spark-ignition fuels, controlling vapor pressure is central to providing consistent engine performance and avoiding operational problems.

Vapor Pressure in Production,  Storage, and Transport Safety

Beyond engine performance, vapor pressure is critically important for the safe handling of petroleum fluids in upstream and midstream operations. When crude oil is produced from a reservoir, it often contains dissolved gases (light hydrocarbons like methane, ethane, propane, butanes, and others) held in solution under the high pressures underground. 

As the fluid is brought to the surface and pressure is reduced, these light components can come out of solution as gas [13].

The condition at which gas begins to evolve is essentially when the fluid’s vapor pressure equals the operating pressure, akin to reaching the bubble point [14]. 

To ensure operational safety and meet transport requirements, producers perform a step called stabilization on the crude oil. Stabilization involves removing the volatile lighter fractions from the crude (for example, through flash separators or a stabilizer column) until the resulting “stabilized” oil has a vapor pressure low enough for safe storage and transport [15]. 

Pipeline and storage specifications commonly set an upper limit on crude oil vapor pressure. These limits ensure that the crude will not vaporize excessively in transit or storage. Crude oil with too high a vapor pressure could cause undue vapor formation in pipelines, which can lead to two-phase flow issues, reduced throughput, or even pipeline vibration and integrity concerns [16]. 

It can also lead to cavitation in pumps that move the crude: if the suction pressure of a pump drops below the vapor pressure of the liquid, vapor bubbles form in the pump impellers and collapse, potentially damaging the equipment [16]. To avoid this, pipeline operators measure the vapor pressure or bubble point of the crude and require producers to strip out excess dissolved gases. 

For example, a pipeline may require that the oil’s Reid Vapor Pressure is below a certain threshold (e.g., 10 or 12 psi) at a standard temperature before it can be accepted [17]. This practice prevents issues down the line and ensures that transport vessels (whether pipelines, tank cars, or tankers) are not handling a fluid that will continuously emit large volumes of vapor [18]. 

Storage tank safety is also directly tied to vapor pressure. Crude oil and refined products are often stored in large tanks at or near atmospheric pressure [19]. If a liquid has a high vapor pressure under those conditions, vapors will fill the tank’s headspace until the pressure is equal to the vapor pressure of the liquid. Tanks are equipped with vents or pressure-relief mechanisms to avoid overpressure, but these vapors can be hazardous.

 In fixed-roof tanks (tanks with a rigid roof and a vapor space above the liquid), a high-vapor-pressure liquid will result in frequent venting of vapors to relieve pressure, increasing the risk of fire and the release of pollutants [19]. To mitigate this, very volatile liquids are often stored in pressure vessels or in floating-roof tanks. A floating-roof tank has a roof that floats on the liquid’s surface, eliminating most of the vapor space.  

This design keeps the vapor-to-liquid ratio near zero, effectively preventing significant pressure buildup. The concept is the same as keeping the V/L ratio low to approximate true vapor pressure conditions and as long as the roof is on the liquid, the vapor pressure exerted is largely contained in solution [20]. Despite engineering controls, there have been incidents that illustrate the dangers of not managing vapor pressure. 

For instance, highly volatile light crude oils transported in rail tank cars have led to concerns after accidents in which rapid vapor release and ignition worsened the severity of explosions. In response, some jurisdictions have imposed vapor pressure limits for crude-by-rail shipments; as an example, regulators in one major shale oil producing region mandated that crude oil must be conditioned to a vapor pressure of no more than roughly 13.7 psi at ambient temperature before loading onto railcars [21]. 

The rationale is that oils with vapor pressure comparable to gasoline (which can be around 13.5 psi for winter gasoline) should be handled with similar precautions. By reducing the vapor pressure through stabilization (letting excess light ends boil off under controlled conditions at the well site and capturing or flaring them), the transported crude oil is less likely to vent dangerous vapors or overpressure its container under normal temperature fluctuations. 

Another safety issue tied to vapor pressure is the possibility of BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion) events, although these are more common with pressurized liquefied gases. In the context of petroleum liquids like crude oil or gasoline stored in tanks, a scenario to avoid is one where a fire or heat source causes the liquid in a sealed container to heat up.

 If the vapor pressure rises with temperature and exceeds the tank’s design pressure, the tank can fail and suddenly release vapor that may ignite explosively. Maintaining vapor pressure within safe limits and using pressure-relieving devices are thus essential defenses against such catastrophic events.

 In summary, throughout production, storage, and transportation, knowing and controlling the vapor pressure of petroleum fluids is a key safety concern. It informs the design of equipment (from choosing between a fixed-roof or floating-roof tank, to determining pipeline operating pressure and pump requirements) and operational procedures (like how much light gas to remove from crude or how to manage surge conditions).

 The industry’s ability to test and monitor vapor pressure in real time, with modern vapor pressure analyzers installed on pipelines or loading facilities, provides an additional layer of safety by allowing quick response if a fluid’s volatility is out of specification. Ultimately, ensuring that the vapor pressure of a hydrocarbon liquid is below the pressures it will encounter in its handling prevents unplanned vapor releases and the many problems that could follow.

Vapor Pressure and Environmental Emissions:

The propensity of petroleum liquids to evaporate is not only a performance and safety issue, but also an environmental one. When fuels or crude oils evaporate, the resulting vapors are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can contribute to air pollution. In particular, gasoline evaporation is a significant source of VOC emissions in urban areas, which in the presence of sunlight and nitrogen oxides lead to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog) [22]. 

Regulators pay close attention to fuel vapor pressure as a lever to control these evaporative emissions. Evaporative emissions occur at multiple stages: from vehicle fuel tanks (especially as gasoline expands and contracts with temperature changes), during refueling operations, and from storage tanks and distribution terminals. A higher vapor pressure fuel will emit more vapors for a given temperature [23]. 

This is why in many jurisdictions, gasoline RVP is legally capped during the summer months when temperatures are high, and ozone formation is a concern. For example, in the United States, federal regulations mandate a maximum RVP of 9.0 psi for gasoline sold in summer in most areas, with some more sensitive regions requiring a limit of 7.8 psi. These limits are relaxed in winter when evaporative emissions are less problematic (and higher RVP is needed for vehicle starting) [4]. 

By lowering the fuel’s vapor pressure, less gasoline will evaporate from vehicle tanks and fueling systems, thereby cutting down the amount of hydrocarbons released to the atmosphere. This has a direct benefit in reducing smog-forming potential. In addition to regulations on fuel composition, technical solutions have been implemented to curb emissions regardless of fuel volatility. 

For example, modern cars have onboard vapor recovery canisters that capture fuel tank vapors, and many fuel pumps have vapor recovery systems to collect fumes during refueling. However, controlling the fuel’s inherent vapor pressure remains a fundamental step because it directly addresses the root cause of evaporation. A fuel formulated to have a lower RVP will simply generate fewer vapors at any given temperature, making it easier for emissions control systems to cope and reduce the baseline emissions. 

Vapor pressure is also a key factor in emissions from crude oil storage and handling. When oil is stored in a tank, especially a fixed-roof tank, it will emit vapors in a process known as “breathing” losses. Daily temperature changes cause the tank’s contents to expel and inhale air, carrying vapors out during expansion [24]. There are also working losses when the tank level changes (for instance, during loading or unloading) [24].

The magnitude of these losses depends on the liquid’s vapor pressure. Higher-TVP crude or condensate can emit large volumes of VOCs (including not only alkanes but also hazardous air pollutants like benzene). Environmental regulations often require vapor controls (like internal floating roofs, vapor recovery units, or flaring systems) for storage tanks that hold material above certain vapor pressure thresholds. 

As of recent updates, these thresholds have been getting lower, meaning even moderately volatile liquids now trigger mandatory controls. This trend reflects a growing emphasis on reducing emissions of methane and other VOCs from upstream and midstream operations to address air quality and climate change concerns. From a broader perspective, measuring and understanding vapor pressure helps environmental engineers estimate emission inventories and design mitigation strategies. 

The equations and models used to predict evaporative losses (such as those in the EPA’s AP-42 guidance for storage tanks) use vapor pressure (or true vapor pressure at the storage temperature) as a key input. By plugging in accurate vapor pressure data for the liquids stored, companies can determine if emissions will stay within permitted levels or if additional controls are needed.

 In fuel distribution, similar calculations apply to loading losses when filling tank trucks or railcars; controlling the RVP of the loaded product can reduce the amount of vapor displaced and lost to the atmosphere during loading. In summary, vapor pressure has dual significance for the environment. It influences how much volatile pollutant can escape from a given fuel or oil, and it is relatively straightforward to adjust through product blending and processing.

It serves as a controllable parameter in efforts to make petroleum use cleaner. The balance sought is often to formulate fuels that are volatile enough to function well, but not so volatile that they cause excessive emissions. This is a clear example of how engineering considerations intersect with environmental priorities in the petroleum industry.

Measuring Vapor Pressure:  Reid Method and Modern Alternatives 

Accurate measurement of vapor pressure is necessary to manage all the aforementioned aspects, from ensuring fuel meets a target RVP, to verifying that crude oil is stabilized for safe transport, to calculating emissions. Over the years, several standardized methods have been developed to measure vapor pressure of petroleum products. 

The Reid Vapor Pressure method has been the industry workhorse since the early 20th century, but newer methods offer improvements in convenience and precision [25]. This section outlines the traditional RVP test and then discusses advanced methods like the ASTM D6378 triple expansion technique.

The classic Reid Vapor Pressure test (ASTM D323) uses a specialized apparatus commonly known as a Reid bomb. In this method, a sample of liquid is first chilled to 0 – 1 °C, air-saturated via shaking of container, and then placed in a test chamber that is connected to a second chamber of fixed volume (the vapor chamber). The chambers are configured such that the final volume ratio of vapor space to liquid is 4:1. 

Once the sample is introduced and the apparatus is sealed, it is immersed in a constant-temperature bath at 37.8 °C (100 °F) and shaken or agitated until equilibrium is reached. As the sample warms, it partially vaporizes into the headspace. The pressure in the apparatus rises and eventually stabilizes. This equilibrium pressure, corrected to absolute units, is recorded as the Reid Vapor Pressure [3].

The Reid method is straightforward and has been used for generations in fuel laboratories. It provides a single, reproducible number that correlates with a fuel’s volatility behavior. However, it has some limitations. One limitation is that it requires relatively large sample volumes and manual handling steps (chilling, transferring to the apparatus, etc.), which introduce opportunities for light components to escape before the measurement. 

For instance, when transferring the chilled sample into the apparatus, any vapor that forms in the process is lost and not accounted for, which can slightly depress the measured RVP for very volatile samples. Additionally, because the method intentionally includes a small amount of air in the vapor chamber, the measured pressure is actually the total pressure of fuel vapor plus any dissolved gases and the air. For gasoline and similar products, this is not a major issue, but it means RVP is not the same as the absolute vapor pressure of the pure fuel components alone. Instead, it is a standardized partial vapor pressure.

Another limitation is that ASTM D323 is not suitable for some types of samples. If a material has a very high vapor pressure or contains gases that cannot remain liquid at 0 °C (for example, LPG or very light condensates), the Reid apparatus cannot hold them in liquid form to start with. Also, if a sample happens to solidify at the initial chill temperature (just below 0 °C), the method cannot be performed (though this situation is uncommon for fuels). 

Despite these limitations, RVP measurements have been deeply embedded in regulations (e.g., summer gasoline RVP limits are defined in terms of ASTM D323 or equivalent methods) and in product specifications. Thus, even as new methods emerge, the Reid methods legacy persists in how engineers discuss volatility. Modern instruments and methods often aim to produce results that are equivalent to or similar with Reid Vapor Pressure, for continuity with historical data and standards (Figure 1).

To address some of the shortcomings of the Reid method and to facilitate easier testing, automated “mini” methods were developed. ASTM D5191 is one such method, introduced in the 1990s, which uses a small sample (around 1 mL) injected into a small-volume chamber under controlled conditions [26]. In D5191, the chamber is initially evacuated (providing a vacuum) then the liquid is injected and allowed to partially vaporize at the test temperature (37.8 °C) [26]. 

The pressure is measured and then mathematically converted to a value termed Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent (DVPE). DVPE is a DVP-equivalent number that corrects for the fact that no air was present in the chamber dry refers to extra ‘corking’ step that prevents moisture from entering the sample in D4953. Correlation equations are used so that DVPE matches what the DVP would have been for the same sample [26]. 

ASTM D5191 has become widely used in petroleum labs because it is quicker and uses less sample than D323 (D4953 is what is used for oxygenated fuels, so the D323 reference is dated. CARB is the only body that correlates D5191 to D323 as RVPE), and it can be fully automated. It is particularly useful for gasoline and similar fuels. In fact, many regulatory contexts allow the use of D5191 results as long as they are correlated to DVP. Building on this trend of improved vapor pressure testing, the ASTM D6378 test (often referred to as the triple expansion method) was developed around 1999 [27]. 

This method is a significant advancement in that it can determine the absolute vapor pressure of a sample by accounting for dissolved gases in one integrated procedure. In a triple expansion instrument, a sample is drawn into a temperature-controlled chamber without the need for pre-chilling or air saturation. The test involves a series of expansions: initially the chamber is filled with the liquid sample, then it is expanded (increased in volume) in three steps. 

After each expansion, the pressure is allowed to stabilize and is recorded. The expansions create different vapor-to-liquid ratios, and by measuring the total pressure at these ratios, the instrument’s software can extrapolate the contributions of air and dissolved gases versus the vapor pressure of the liquid portion [27]. The outcome of an ASTM D6378 test is often reported as “VPx” at a specified vapor-liquid ratio (where X usually = 4 to mimic RVP conditions).  

Importantly, D6378 directly provides the partial pressure from air and dissolved gases , and ultimately the absolute vapor pressure of only the liquid sample (Pabs = Ptot – Pgas) [27]. For example, in a gasoline sample, air that was originally in solution can come out during the test; the triple expansion method can quantify how much pressure is from air and subtract it, yielding the vapor pressure that is purely due to the fuel’s own vapors. 

This is a clear advantage over the Reid method, which confounds fuel and air pressure and requires the sample to be conditioned by shaking with air. ASTM D6378 and related modern methods (such as ASTM D6377, which is a similar expansion method tailored for crude oils and can measure vapor pressure at very low vapor-liquid ratios approaching true bubble point conditions [28]) offer superior precision and broader applicability.  

They can measure vapor pressures up to very high ranges which covers very volatile samples that Reid bombs cannot contain. They are also faster. A complete triple expansion test can often be done in a few minutes. Because of this, these methods have enabled on-line vapor pressure monitoring. Another added benefit is compact and automated nature of the method as it is a simple tabletop test with little to no room for manual error. Many vapor pressure testing devices are multifunctional, i.e., perform an array of global vapor pressure methodologies. Figure 2 shows the RVP Pro vapor pressure analyzer for petroleum products, which is compliant with ASTM D5191, D6378, D6377, international equivalent methods, as well as ASTM D5188 for vapor lock temperature.

Devices based on D6378 can be installed in refineries or loading terminals to continuously check the vapor pressure of product streams [29]. From an industry perspective, the introduction of mini-methods and expansion methods has improved the ability to control product quality. Refiners blending gasoline can get nearly real-time feedback on RVP by using an automated analyzer, allowing them to fine-tune blending recipes (for instance, adding less-expensive components such as butane until the target RVP is just met, but not exceeded, thereby maximizing gasoline volume without violating specifications). 

The difference between a product’s vapor pressure and the regulated vapor pressure limit is called ‘giveaway’ and is realized in terms of lost revenue opportunity. RVP Pro utilizes patent-pending thermal isolation technology for unmatched heating and cooling cycling. By isolating the mounting points for the measuring-cell thermoelectric components, from the backplate, the thermal waste from each measurement is accumulated on and expelled from only the heat sink via the internal cooling fans.

This translates into the shortest possible measuring intervals, returning the measuring chamber to the next measurement’s injection temperature, within one or two minutes.  For crude oil shippers, portable vapor pressure testers can confirm that a batch of oil meets a pipeline’s vapor pressure criteria before it is injected, helping avoid shipment delays or reprocessing. RVP Pro delivers performance and precision that is paramount for profitable trading in today’s climate. 

Being over-spec on crude oil stabilization (vapor pressure is above limit) may cause your product to be refused at the custody transfer point or allow the receiver to pay based on rates for cheaper products, such as NGL’s. Precision-based confidence allows producers to blend ‘tighter,’ without risking asset damage or fines due to non-compliance. Although these modern instruments might report “absolute” vapor pressure, they can also output results in terms of estimated RVP or DVP to maintain continuity with regulatory language. In practice, the petroleum industry now often uses ASTM D6378 or D5191 instruments in place of the old Reid apparatus but will still refer to the numbers as “RVPE” for consistency.

 The precision of these methods is generally high, improving confidence in measurements that are critical for safety and compliance. For example, while a manual Reid measurement might have a repeatability on the order of a few tenths of a psi, a triple expansion measurement can achieve very tight repeatability.

 This increased accuracy means specification limits can be approached more closely without risk, which has economic benefits (e.g., minimizing vapor pressure ‘giveaway’ - blending closer to the true limit so no octane-rich components are wasted). Table 1 summarizes the key differences between the legacy ASTM D323 Reid method and the modern ASTM D6378 triple expansion method, highlighting apparatus design, test conditions, and practical considerations. 

In summary, vapor pressure testing has evolved from a somewhat laborious but effective method to modern automated methods that yield more information and require less effort. The Reid Vapor Pressure test remains the reference point historically and legally, especially for gasoline volatility, but methods like ASTM D6378 represent the state-of-the-art, enabling comprehensive vapor pressure determination (including absolute vapor pressure and vapor-liquid equilibrium behavior) in a single analyzer. 

Embracing these modern methods allows petroleum engineers and quality control specialists to better manage vapor pressure – ensuring fuels meet performance needs while complying with safety and environmental constraints. RVP Pro’s small footprint, integrated carrying handle, lightweight design, robust construction, and wide range of applications make it ideal for vapor pressure measurements in both laboratory and field.   
 

Discussion:

Vapor pressure plays a pivotal role in petroleum engineering, linking the fields of reservoir production, processing, fuel formulation, transportation, and air pollution control through a common thread of volatility. This review has highlighted that vapor pressure is not an abstract thermodynamic concept reserved for textbooks, but a practical parameter that must be monitored and controlled to achieve desired outcomes. 

In the upstream and midstream context, appropriate control of vapor pressure through crude oil stabilization and careful handling is essential to prevent equipment damage, avoid dangerous pressure build-ups, and comply with transport safety standards. Something as fundamental as preventing pump cavitation or choosing the right storage tank design comes down to understanding the fluid’s vapor pressure relative to operating conditions. 

In the downstream context of fuel usage, vapor pressure, encapsulated by the Reid Vapor Pressure specification, directly affects how fuels perform in engines and how safely they can be distributed. By tailoring gasoline volatility to ambient conditions, refiners ensure that vehicles start reliably in winter and run smoothly in summer without vapor lock. 

At the same time, they minimize evaporative losses that would cause pollution and fuel wastage. From an environmental standpoint, vapor pressure is a driving factor in emissions of volatile hydrocarbons. Managing the vapor pressure of products reduces emissions at the source. Combined with hardware solutions for emission capture, this helps the industry meet air quality regulations and protect public health. 

Across all these areas, a consistent theme is that you cannot manage what you do not measure. Thus, the methods for determining vapor pressure are of high importance. The traditional RVP test gave the industry a common language for volatility and remains embedded in standards. Modern alternatives like the ASTM D6378 triple expansion method carry that legacy forward with greater accuracy and convenience. They empower engineers to gain a more detailed picture of how a fluid will behave, by distinguishing between dissolved gases and inherent vapor pressure, for example, and to do so quickly in the field or plant.

 In conclusion, vapor pressure is a key parameter that must be respected and controlled throughout petroleum engineering operations. By understanding its influence on fuel performance, safety in storage and transport, and environmental emissions, industry professionals can make informed decisions, whether in designing a separator to achieve a target crude oil vapor pressure, blending a batch of gasoline to meet a summer RVP limit, or installing emissions controls on a tank. 

The safe, efficient, and responsible operation of petroleum processes is underpinned by careful attention to vapor pressure. As the industry continues to evolve with new fuel formulations and stricter environmental standards, the fundamental importance of vapor pressure is certain to remain, underscoring its role as a cornerstone of petroleum engineering practice.

About the Authors 

Dr. Raj Shah, is a Director at Koehler Instrument Company in New York, where he has worked for the last 25 plus years. He is an elected Fellow by his peers at ASTM, IChemE, ASTM, AOCS, CMI, STLE, AIC, NLGI, INSTMC, Institute of Physics, The Energy Institute and The Royal Society of Chemistry. 

An ASTM Eagle award recipient, Dr. Shah recently coedited the bestseller, “Fuels and Lubricants handbook”, details of which are available at ASTM’s Long-awaited Fuels and Lubricants Handbook https://bit.ly/3u2e6GY. He earned his doctorate in Chemical Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University and is a Fellow from The Chartered Management Institute, London. Dr. Shah is also a Chartered Scientist with the Science Council, a Chartered Petroleum Engineer with the Energy Institute and a Chartered Engineer with the Engineering council, UK.

Dr. Shah was recently granted the honorific of “Eminent engineer” with Tau beta Pi, the largest engineering society in the USA. He is on the Advisory board of directors at Farmingdale university (Mechanical Technology), Auburn Univ (Tribology), SUNY, Farmingdale, (Engineering Management) and State university of NY, Stony Brook (Chemical engineering/ Material Science and engineering). 

An Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, in the Department of Material Science and Chemical Engineering, Raj also has over 725 publications and has been active in the energy industry for over 3 decades. More information on Raj can be found at https://shorturl.at/JDPZN

Mathew Roshan is a Chemical and Molecular Engineering Undergraduate Student at Stony Brook University where he is a research assistant at the Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center performing research on carbon capture and hydrogen storage. He also works as an intern under Dr. Raj Shah studying advanced fuel technology at Koehler Instrument Company and is a member of the SBU chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). 

 Parth Patel is an intern at Koehler Instrument Company working on advanced Vapor pressure technology.

Angelina Precilla is a Technical Application Engineer at Koehler Instrument Company, where she supports global customers and distributors by providing technical guidance, product recommendations, and training. With a background in chemical engineering from Stony Brook University, she has conducted research on sustainable energy solutions, catalysts for CO₂-to-methanol conversion, and advancements in industrial lubricants.

Her professional experience spans technical writing, product documentation, and cross-functional collaboration, with published literature reviews on topics such as artificial photosynthesis, 3D concrete printing, and green hydrogen. Multilingual and detail-oriented, Angelina combines her engineering expertise with strong communication skills to bridge the gap between innovation and practical application.
 

Works Cited:

[1]    M. Stahn, S. Grimme, T. Salthammer, U. Hohm, and W.-U. Palm, “Quantum chemical calculation of the vapor pressure of volatile and semi volatile organic compounds,” Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2153–2166, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1039/D2EM00271J.
 

[2]    J. E. Woodrow and J. N. Seiber, “Vapor-pressure measurement of complex hydrocarbon mixtures by headspace gas chromatography,” J. Chromatogr. A, vol. 455, pp. 53–65, Jan. 1988, doi: 10.1016/S0021-9673(01)82106-3.
 

[3]    “Reid Vapor Pressure - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/reid-vapor-pressure
 

[4]    O. US EPA, “Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure.” Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-reid-vapor-pressure
 

[5]    A. Manickam Wash, T. Kumar, R. Mohsin, Z. Abdul Majid, and M. Fahmi Abdul Ghafir, “Application of factor analysis in the determination of vapor lock tendency in aviation gasolines/motor gasoline/blends and the compatibility as alternatives in naturally aspirated aviation engines,” Alex. Eng. J., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 5703–5724, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2021.04.012.
 

[6]    G. M. Magnotti and S. Som, “Assessing Fuel Property Effects on Cavitation and Erosion Propensity Using a Computational Fuel Screening Tool,” J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, vol. 142, no. 111015, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1115/1.4048457.
 

[7]    “(PDF) 20-OMSWP-2020-03-Butane Blending,” ResearchGate, Aug. 2025, Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378709430_20-OMSWP-2020-03-Butane_Blending
 

[8]    “(PDF) Review: Fuel Volatility Standards and Spark-Ignition Vehicle Driveability,” ResearchGate, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.4271/2016-01-9072.
 

[9]    H. Hata, S. Tanaka, G. Noumura, H. Yamada, and K. Tonokura, “Evaluation of Gasoline Evaporative Emissions from Fuel-Cap Removal after a Real-World Driving Event,” Atmosphere, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 1110, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/atmos11101110.
 

[10]    J. A. Bittle and T. J. Jacobs, “On the Relationship Between Fuel Injection Pressure and Two-Stage Ignition Behavior of Low Temperature Diesel Combustion,” J. Energy Resour. Technol., vol. 134, no. 042201, Aug. 2012, doi: 10.1115/1.4007252.
 

[11]    “Effectiveness of Cold Flow Additives on Various Biodiesels, Diesel, and Their Blends”, Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.25219
 

[12]    William J. Hughes Technical Center (U.S.). Fuel Flammability Task Group, “Review of the Flammability Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil Transport Aircraft Fuels Tanks,” DOT/FAA/AR-98/26, June 1998. doi: 10.21949/1404578.
 

[13]    T. Ahmed, “Part 1 - Fundamentals of Reservoir Fluid Behavior,” in Working Guide to Reservoir Rock Properties and Fluid Flow, T. Ahmed, Ed., Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing, 2010, pp. 1–30. doi: 10.1016/B978-1-85617-825-9.00001-6.
 

[14]    L. Ciabattoni, S. Cardarelli, M. D. Somma, G. Graditi, and G. Comodi, “A Novel Open-Source Simulator Of Electric Vehicles in a Demand-Side Management Scenario,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 1558, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14061558.
 

[15]    H. Al-Ali, “Process simulation for crude oil stabilization by using Aspen Hysys,” Upstream Oil Gas Technol., vol. 7, p. 100039, Sept. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.upstre.2021.100039.
 

[16]    S. Li, H. Yang, R. Liu, S. Zhou, and K. Fan, “Phase Behavior and Flowing State of Water-Containing Live Crude Oil in Transportation Pipelines,” Energies, vol. 18, no. 5, p. 1116, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/en18051116.
 

[17]    R. A. Meidl, “Is There a Correlation Between Vapor Pressure and the Severity of Crude Oil Transportation Incidents?,” Rice Univ. Bak. Inst. Public Policy, Mar. 2019, Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/vapor-pressure-crude-oil-transport
 

[18]    “Distillation, heat recovery meet RVP specification for stabilized crude,” Offshore. Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.offshore-mag.com/business-briefs/equipment-engineering/article/16757398/distillation-heat-recovery-meet-rvp-specification-for-stabilized-crude
 

[19]    M. Hilpert, A. M. Rule, B. Adria-Mora, and T. Tiberi, “Vent pipe emissions from storage tanks at gas stations: Implications for setback distances,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 650, pp. 2239–2250, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.303.
 

[20]    “Buoyancy Tank - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/buoyancy-tank
 

[21]    P. Dittrick, “North Dakota producers face new vapor pressure standards,” Oil & Gas Journal. Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ogj.com/drilling-production/production-operations/unconventional-resources/article/17271570/north-dakota-producers-face-new-vapor-pressure-standards
 

[22]    D. Shan et al., “Variations, sources, and effects on ozone formation of VOCs during ozone episodes in 13 cities in China,” Front. Environ. Sci., vol. 10, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1084592.
 

[23]    M. Hilpert, “Setbacks for gas stations in a world with regionally varying emissions factors and acceptable health risks,” Front. Environ. Health, vol. 2, June 2023, doi: 10.3389/fenvh.2023.1214376.
 

[24]    J. R. Beckman and J. R. Gilmer, “Model for predicting emissions from fixed-roof storage tanks,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 646–651, Oct. 1981, doi: 10.1021/i200015a011.
 

[25]    D. J. Gaspar et al., “Measuring and predicting the vapor pressure of gasoline containing oxygenates,” Fuel, vol. 243, pp. 630–644, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.01.137.
 

[26]    A. Drews, “Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method),” in Manual on Hydrocarbon Analysis, 6th Edition, A. Drews, Ed., 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Consho hocken, PA 19428-2959: ASTM International, 1998, pp. 816-816–5. doi: 10.1520/MNL10962M.
 

[27]    “EAP - Oil Shale publications.” Accessed: Aug. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://kirj.ee/oil-shale-publications/
 

[28]    G. Instruments, “Vapor Pressure in the Transport, Storage, and Bending of Crude Oil,” AZoM. Accessed: Aug. 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18157
 

[29]    G. G. Ismayilov, V. H. Nurullayev, and E. H. Iskenderov, “The Role of Saturated Vapor Pressure of Cavitations in the process of oil supply”.