Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-341-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-341-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
31 Jan 2020
Research article |
| 31 Jan 2020
| 31 Jan 2020
Constraining the accuracy of flux estimates using OTM 33A
Rachel Edie
Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82070, USA
Anna M. Robertson
Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82070, USA
Robert A. Field
Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82070, USA
Jeffrey Soltis
Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82070, USA
Dustin A. Snare
All4 Inc., Kimberton, PA 19442, USA
Daniel Zimmerle
Energy Institute and Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University Energy Institute, 430 N College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA
Clay S. Bell
Energy Institute and Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University Energy Institute, 430 N College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA
Timothy L. Vaughn
Energy Institute and Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University Energy Institute, 430 N College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA
Shane M. Murphy
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82070, USA
Viewed
Total article views: 3,766 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 15 Aug 2019)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,418 | 1,264 | 84 | 3,766 | 370 | 82 | 91 |
- HTML: 2,418
- PDF: 1,264
- XML: 84
- Total: 3,766
- Supplement: 370
- BibTeX: 82
- EndNote: 91
Total article views: 2,770 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 31 Jan 2020)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,935 | 755 | 80 | 2,770 | 181 | 77 | 83 |
- HTML: 1,935
- PDF: 755
- XML: 80
- Total: 2,770
- Supplement: 181
- BibTeX: 77
- EndNote: 83
Total article views: 996 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 15 Aug 2019)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 483 | 509 | 4 | 996 | 189 | 5 | 8 |
- HTML: 483
- PDF: 509
- XML: 4
- Total: 996
- Supplement: 189
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 3,766 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 3,521 with geography defined
and 245 with unknown origin.
Total article views: 2,770 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 2,677 with geography defined
and 93 with unknown origin.
Total article views: 996 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 844 with geography defined
and 152 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Cited
32 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Temporal variation and grade categorization of methane emission from LNG fueling stations Y. Wang et al. 10.1038/s41598-022-23334-2
- Development and validation of a route planning methodology for vehicle-based remote measurements of methane and other emissions from oil and gas wells and facilities M. Gao et al. 10.1080/10962247.2022.2113182
- Methane emissions at pressure-regulating stations in China: A comparative analysis of various quantitative methods Z. Xie et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177703
- Estimating Regional Methane Emission Factors from Energy and Agricultural Sector Sources Using a Portable Measurement System: Case Study of the Denver–Julesburg Basin S. Riddick et al. 10.3390/s22197410
- Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol C. Bell et al. 10.1021/acs.est.2c09235
- Methane emissions from shale gas production sites in southern Sichuan, China: A field trial of methods M. Xue et al. 10.1016/j.accre.2023.07.001
- Continuous OTM 33A Analysis of Controlled Releases of Methane with Various Time Periods, Data Rates and Wind Filters R. Heltzel et al. 10.3390/environments7090065
- Ground-to-UAV, laser-based emissions quantification of methane and acetylene at long standoff distances K. Cossel et al. 10.5194/amt-16-5697-2023
- Quantification of methane emission rate from oil and gas wells in Romania using ground-based measurement techniques P. Korbeń et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00070
- A quantitative comparison of methods used to measure smaller methane emissions typically observed from superannuated oil and gas infrastructure S. Riddick et al. 10.5194/amt-15-6285-2022
- Likely substantial underestimation of reported methane emissions from United Kingdom upstream oil and gas activities S. Riddick & D. Mauzerall 10.1039/D2EE03072A
- A cautionary report of calculating methane emissions using low-cost fence-line sensors S. Riddick et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00021
- Active and inactive oil and gas sites contribute to methane emissions in western Saskatchewan, Canada J. Vogt et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00014
- Methane emissions from above-ground natural gas distribution facilities in the urban environment: A fence line methodology and case study in Calgary, Alberta, Canada C. Hugenholtz et al. 10.1080/10962247.2021.1942316
- Technical note: Interpretation of field observations of point-source methane plume using observation-driven large-eddy simulations A. Ražnjević et al. 10.5194/acp-22-6489-2022
- Machine learning techniques to increase the performance of indirect methane quantification from a single, stationary sensor R. Heltzel et al. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11962
- Comparison of Sub-Ppm Instrument Response Suggests Higher Detection Limits Could Be Used to Quantify Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Infrastructure S. Riddick et al. 10.3390/s24113407
- New Mexico Permian Basin Measured Well Pad Methane Emissions Are a Factor of 5–9 Times Higher Than U.S. EPA Estimates A. Robertson et al. 10.1021/acs.est.0c02927
- Advanced Leak Detection and Quantification of Methane Emissions Using sUAS D. Hollenbeck et al. 10.3390/drones5040117
- Evaluation of two common source estimation measurement strategies using large-eddy simulation of plume dispersion under neutral atmospheric conditions A. Ražnjević et al. 10.5194/amt-15-3611-2022
- Estimation and Applications of Uncertainty in Methane Emissions Quantification Technologies: A Bayesian Approach A. Wigle et al. 10.1021/acsestair.4c00030
- Assessment of methane emissions from pressure regulation stations in China F. Li et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2023.102031
- Estimating methane emissions from underground natural gas pipelines using an atmospheric dispersion-based method S. Tian et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00045
- Assessment of current methane emission quantification techniques for natural gas midstream applications Y. Liu et al. 10.5194/amt-17-1633-2024
- Controlled-release testing of the static chamber methodology for direct measurements of methane emissions J. Williams et al. 10.5194/amt-16-3421-2023
- Potential Underestimate in Reported Bottom-up Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations in the Delaware Basin S. Riddick et al. 10.3390/atmos15020202
- Application of Portable CH4 Detector Based on TDLAS Technology in Natural Gas Purification Plant Y. Liu et al. 10.3390/atmos14121709
- Understanding the Accuracy Limitations of Quantifying Methane Emissions Using Other Test Method 33A R. Heltzel et al. 10.3390/environments9040047
- Recent Advances Toward Transparent Methane Emissions Monitoring: A Review B. Erland et al. 10.1021/acs.est.2c02136
- Controlled-release experiment to investigate uncertainties in UAV-based emission quantification for methane point sources R. Morales et al. 10.5194/amt-15-2177-2022
- Measurement of methane emissions from CNG fueling stations in East China Y. Wang et al. 10.1007/s11356-022-20929-0
- Stationary and drone-assisted methane plume localization with dispersion spectroscopy M. Soskind et al. 10.1016/j.rse.2023.113513
32 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Temporal variation and grade categorization of methane emission from LNG fueling stations Y. Wang et al. 10.1038/s41598-022-23334-2
- Development and validation of a route planning methodology for vehicle-based remote measurements of methane and other emissions from oil and gas wells and facilities M. Gao et al. 10.1080/10962247.2022.2113182
- Methane emissions at pressure-regulating stations in China: A comparative analysis of various quantitative methods Z. Xie et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177703
- Estimating Regional Methane Emission Factors from Energy and Agricultural Sector Sources Using a Portable Measurement System: Case Study of the Denver–Julesburg Basin S. Riddick et al. 10.3390/s22197410
- Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol C. Bell et al. 10.1021/acs.est.2c09235
- Methane emissions from shale gas production sites in southern Sichuan, China: A field trial of methods M. Xue et al. 10.1016/j.accre.2023.07.001
- Continuous OTM 33A Analysis of Controlled Releases of Methane with Various Time Periods, Data Rates and Wind Filters R. Heltzel et al. 10.3390/environments7090065
- Ground-to-UAV, laser-based emissions quantification of methane and acetylene at long standoff distances K. Cossel et al. 10.5194/amt-16-5697-2023
- Quantification of methane emission rate from oil and gas wells in Romania using ground-based measurement techniques P. Korbeń et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00070
- A quantitative comparison of methods used to measure smaller methane emissions typically observed from superannuated oil and gas infrastructure S. Riddick et al. 10.5194/amt-15-6285-2022
- Likely substantial underestimation of reported methane emissions from United Kingdom upstream oil and gas activities S. Riddick & D. Mauzerall 10.1039/D2EE03072A
- A cautionary report of calculating methane emissions using low-cost fence-line sensors S. Riddick et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00021
- Active and inactive oil and gas sites contribute to methane emissions in western Saskatchewan, Canada J. Vogt et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00014
- Methane emissions from above-ground natural gas distribution facilities in the urban environment: A fence line methodology and case study in Calgary, Alberta, Canada C. Hugenholtz et al. 10.1080/10962247.2021.1942316
- Technical note: Interpretation of field observations of point-source methane plume using observation-driven large-eddy simulations A. Ražnjević et al. 10.5194/acp-22-6489-2022
- Machine learning techniques to increase the performance of indirect methane quantification from a single, stationary sensor R. Heltzel et al. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11962
- Comparison of Sub-Ppm Instrument Response Suggests Higher Detection Limits Could Be Used to Quantify Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Infrastructure S. Riddick et al. 10.3390/s24113407
- New Mexico Permian Basin Measured Well Pad Methane Emissions Are a Factor of 5–9 Times Higher Than U.S. EPA Estimates A. Robertson et al. 10.1021/acs.est.0c02927
- Advanced Leak Detection and Quantification of Methane Emissions Using sUAS D. Hollenbeck et al. 10.3390/drones5040117
- Evaluation of two common source estimation measurement strategies using large-eddy simulation of plume dispersion under neutral atmospheric conditions A. Ražnjević et al. 10.5194/amt-15-3611-2022
- Estimation and Applications of Uncertainty in Methane Emissions Quantification Technologies: A Bayesian Approach A. Wigle et al. 10.1021/acsestair.4c00030
- Assessment of methane emissions from pressure regulation stations in China F. Li et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2023.102031
- Estimating methane emissions from underground natural gas pipelines using an atmospheric dispersion-based method S. Tian et al. 10.1525/elementa.2022.00045
- Assessment of current methane emission quantification techniques for natural gas midstream applications Y. Liu et al. 10.5194/amt-17-1633-2024
- Controlled-release testing of the static chamber methodology for direct measurements of methane emissions J. Williams et al. 10.5194/amt-16-3421-2023
- Potential Underestimate in Reported Bottom-up Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations in the Delaware Basin S. Riddick et al. 10.3390/atmos15020202
- Application of Portable CH4 Detector Based on TDLAS Technology in Natural Gas Purification Plant Y. Liu et al. 10.3390/atmos14121709
- Understanding the Accuracy Limitations of Quantifying Methane Emissions Using Other Test Method 33A R. Heltzel et al. 10.3390/environments9040047
- Recent Advances Toward Transparent Methane Emissions Monitoring: A Review B. Erland et al. 10.1021/acs.est.2c02136
- Controlled-release experiment to investigate uncertainties in UAV-based emission quantification for methane point sources R. Morales et al. 10.5194/amt-15-2177-2022
- Measurement of methane emissions from CNG fueling stations in East China Y. Wang et al. 10.1007/s11356-022-20929-0
- Stationary and drone-assisted methane plume localization with dispersion spectroscopy M. Soskind et al. 10.1016/j.rse.2023.113513
Latest update: 15 Mar 2025
Short summary
Ground-based measurements of emissions from oil and natural gas production are important for understanding emission distributions and improving emission inventories. Here, measurement technique Other Test Method 33A (OTM 33A) is validated through several test releases staged at the Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center. These tests suggest OTM 33A has no inherent bias and that a group of OTM measurements is within 5 % of the known mean emission rate.
Ground-based measurements of emissions from oil and natural gas production are important for...
