TERC Evidence Pack — tLCAF (nvPM & Emissions)

Third‑party test • TERC (Sheffield) Test platform: Honeywell 131‑9A APU Conditions: RTL + Full Load Instrumentation: Dekati ELPI+ (nvPM)

Last updated: 04 Feb 2026

What this page is Evidence summary for airline & verifier discussions Designed to be compatible with MRV language: “can support…”, “where accepted…”, “subject to operator monitoring plan and verification”.

What it is not Not “compliance delivered” or “outcomes promised” We do not claim penalty avoidance, default overrides, guaranteed acceptance, or “certified for MRV”.

What we supply Fuel + QA + traceability evidence Batch-level documentation pack (CoA, chain-of-custody, and test reports) to support the operator’s own MRV workflow.

Use this phrasing externally “tLCAF is designed as a drop‑in Jet A‑1 product family. We provide fuel property and emissions evidence that may support an operator’s non‑CO₂ MRV process, subject to the operator’s approved monitoring plan and independent verification.”

Avoid this phrasing externally “ensures compliance”, “prevents penalties”, “overrides MRV defaults”, “certified for MRV”, “guarantees non‑CO₂ reductions”, or any SAF/crediting claim unless separately scoped and evidenced.

Key observation: lower nvPM (soot proxy) in the tested configuration

The TERC test report includes normalized nvPM number and mass comparisons against a Jet A‑1 baseline, measured at two operating conditions (RTL and Full Load). The plots show lower normalized nvPM for the DM‑XTech tLCAF sample under both conditions (see figure below).

Normalized nvPM number and mass (RTL and Full Load) — DM-XTech vs Jet A-1

Figure: Normalized nvPM number and mass results (RTL and Full Load) comparing DM‑XTech tLCAF against Jet A‑1 baseline (from the attached TERC report).

Why this matters (MRV-aware)

nvPM is one of the measurable emissions that is commonly used as a proxy for soot/particulate formation risk and is often discussed in the context of non‑CO₂ climate effects.
EU non‑CO₂ MRV frameworks rely on models and default values; when accepted by the operator and verifier, providing higher‑quality primary inputs can improve precision relative to generic defaults.
This page stays within “inputs not outcomes”: we show what was measured; the operator decides how it is used in reporting and verification.

Scope boundaries

This is a ground test on an APU test platform — it is not a flight trial and does not, by itself, quantify contrail/route‑level climate impact.
Any “CO₂e” or lifecycle claims require separate, scheme‑specific evidence (LCA, chain‑of‑custody, and applicable program rules).
All statements are batch‑ and test‑context specific.

Gaseous emissions: summary table (reported values)

Reported stack gas measurements during the same test campaign (RTL and Full Load). Values are shown as recorded in the report.

Condition	O₂ (%)	CO₂ (%)	CO (ppm)	NOx (ppm)	SO₂ (ppm)
Jet A‑1 — RTL	18.44	2.18	66.64	17.59	0.28
Jet A‑1 — Full Load	15.89	4.58	3.84	106.40	0.34
DM‑XTech tLCAF — RTL	18.42	2.21	60.57	17.91	0.29
DM‑XTech tLCAF — Full Load	15.71	4.69	2.35	104.67	0.28

Stack gas analyzer output table (Jet A-1 vs DM-XTech) for RTL and Full Load

Figure: Stack gas results table image from the report (included for traceability).

Fuel fingerprint: low aromatics (FIA) and density

The report includes a fuel “fingerprint” via FIA and density. These values are useful for documenting batch‑level fuel properties that can be referenced in QA packs and MRV data discussions.

FIA (ASTM D1319) — % v/v

Parameter	Result	Note
Aromatics	8.5	Reported value
Olefins	0.6	Reported value
Saturates	90.9	Reported value

Note: the report flags that aromatic content below the method’s lower working range can increase uncertainty. Where necessary, confirm low‑aromatic levels using a method validated for that range.

Density @ 15°C

Parameter	Result	Unit
Density	791.4	kg/m³

Trace elements (mg/kg)

Element	Result
Ca	0.037
Cu	0.007
Fe	0.008
Na	0.073
Pb	0.011
Sn	0.016

FIA report page image (ASTM D1319) showing aromatics, olefins and saturates

Figure: FIA report page image from the report.

Density report page image showing density at 15°C

Figure: Density report page image from the report.

EU non‑CO₂ MRV: how this evidence is intended to be used

Under the EU’s non‑CO₂ MRV framework, aircraft operators monitor and report non‑CO₂ aviation effects per flight, using the Commission’s IT tool (NEATS) or other Commission‑approved tools, within the operator’s approved monitoring plan.

Positioning (safe) We support the operator’s MRV by supplying documented fuel properties and measured emissions evidence. The operator and verifier decide whether and how these inputs are used in reporting.

Evidence pack contents (what we can deliver at batch level)

Batch CoA and fuel property sheet (including aromatic profile, density, and relevant QA parameters).
Chain-of-custody / traceability documentation (production, storage, transfer, blending if any).
Third‑party test report(s) relevant to nvPM and emissions (this page summarises one such report).
Data room bundle structure for sharing with airline technical teams and independent verifiers.

Hard boundaries (what we do not claim)

No statement that tLCAF “delivers compliance” or “ensures MRV acceptance.”
No statement of guaranteed contrail reduction or route‑level climate impact without dedicated flight trials and modelling.
No SAF, crediting, or lifecycle CO₂ claims unless separately evidenced and explicitly scoped.

⬇︎ Download source PDF (as hosted) Open: Approved & Forbidden Claims Open: Positioning Guardrails Memo

Public references (for readers who want the primary sources)

Disclaimer: This page is informational and is not legal or regulatory advice. Operators should consult their Competent Authority and accredited verifier.