Abstract

The use of cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS) based portable greenhouse gas analyzers (PGAs) in closed-loop configuration to measure small sample volumes (< 1 l) for CH4 and CO2 concentrations is increasing and offers certain advantages over conventional measurement methods in terms of speed as well as the ability to measure directly in field locations. This first systematic assessment of the uncertainties, problems and issues associated with achieving reliable and repeatable measurement with this technique presents the adaptation, measurement range, calibration and maintenance, accuracy and issues of efficient operation, for one example instrument. Regular open-loop calibration, a precise loop volume estimate, leak free system, and a high standard of injection practices are necessary for accurate results. For 100 μl injections, measured values ranging from 4.5 to 9 x104 ppm (CH4), and 1000 ppm to 1 x106 ppm (CO2) are possible with uncertainties ±5.9% and ±3.0%, respectively, beyond 100 ppm CH4 correction may be necessary. Uncertainty arising from variations water vapour content and atmospheric pressure are small (0.24% and -0.9% to +0.5%, respectively). With good practice, individual operator repeatability of 1.9% (CH4) and 2.48% (CO2) can be achieved. Between operator injection error was around 3% for both gases for four operators. Slow syringe plunger operation (> 1s) is recommended; generally delivered more (ca. 3–4%) sample into the closed instrument loop than did rapid operation. Automated value retrieval is recommended; we achieved a 3 to 5-fold time reduction for each injection cycle (ca. <2 min), and operator reading, recording, and digitization errors are eliminated.

Highlights

  • The accelerating increase of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the major drivers for current and projected climate change [1]

  • We refer to measurement with a specific portable gas analyzer (UGGA, Los Gatos Research Inc.), the test procedures presented can be applied to other cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS)-based instruments, and aspects relating to sample injection are relevant to a wide range of instruments where manual injection is undertaken

  • We present data from three identical portable greenhouse gas analyzers (PGAs) (Ultra-portable Greenhouse Gas Analyzer (UGGA), model 915–0011, Los Gatos Research Inc., Mountain View, Calif., USA) with nominal measurement range 1 to 20000 ppm for CO2, 0.01 to 100 ppm for CH4, and 500 to 70000 ppm for water vapor, and manufacturer quoted accuracies of ±300 ppb (CO2), ±2 ppb (CH4) and ±100 ppm (H2O)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The accelerating increase of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the major drivers for current and projected climate change [1]. PGAs have generally been used to assess natural and anthropogenic sources or sinks of both gases [11,15,16,17] with eddy-covariance flux measurement [14,18], as well as for headspace gas measurement in closed chamber applications in terrestrial- and aquatic-environments [e.g., 12,13,19,20–22]. The aims of this article are to describe the adaptation for closed-loop operation and measurement, discuss technical aspects for essential maintenance and calibration, assess closed-loop measurement range, accuracy and precision, and, identify operational efficiencies and optimized data processing In this way, we present the first technical note supporting PGA users for optimal and satisfactory measurement of small gas volumes with the closed-loop technique. We refer to measurement with a specific portable gas analyzer (UGGA, Los Gatos Research Inc.), the test procedures presented can be applied to other CRDS-based instruments, and aspects relating to sample injection are relevant to a wide range of instruments where manual injection is undertaken (e.g., portable GC)

Instrument basics
Closed-loop adaptation
Instrument response and sample value calculation
Measurement range
Loop mixing volume
Mirror cleaning and laser ring-down
Leakage
Syringe care
Measurement uncertainty
Methane linear response range
Water vapour
Closed-loop test uncertainty
Atmospheric pressure
Sample injection
Stacked sample injection
Data processing
Manual data reading
Automated data extraction
Findings
Conclusions and recommendations
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.