Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-341-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-341-2020
Research article
 | 
31 Jan 2020
Research article |  | 31 Jan 2020

Constraining the accuracy of flux estimates using OTM 33A

Rachel Edie, Anna M. Robertson, Robert A. Field, Jeffrey Soltis, Dustin A. Snare, Daniel Zimmerle, Clay S. Bell, Timothy L. Vaughn, and Shane M. Murphy

Related authors

Evaluating the accuracy of downwind methods for quantifying point source emissions
Mercy Mbua, Stuart N. Riddick, Elijah Kiplimo, and Daniel Zimmerle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3161,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3161, 2024
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
Short summary
Understanding Absorption by Black Versus Brown Carbon in Biomass Burning Plumes from the WE-CAN Campaign
Yingjie Shen, Rudra P. Pokhrel, Amy P. Sullivan, Ezra J. T. Levin, Lauren A. Garofalo, Delphine K. Farmer, Wade Permar, Lu Hu, Darin W. Toohey, Teresa Campos, Emily V. Fischer, and Shane M. Murphy
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3114,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3114, 2024
Short summary
Simulations of winter ozone in the Upper Green River basin, Wyoming, using WRF-Chem
Shreta Ghimire, Zachary J. Lebo, Shane Murphy, Stefan Rahimi, and Trang Tran
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9413–9438, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9413-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9413-2023, 2023
Short summary
A quantitative comparison of methods used to measure smaller methane emissions typically observed from superannuated oil and gas infrastructure
Stuart N. Riddick, Riley Ancona, Mercy Mbua, Clay S. Bell, Aidan Duggan, Timothy L. Vaughn, Kristine Bennett, and Daniel J. Zimmerle
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 6285–6296, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6285-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6285-2022, 2022
Short summary
Examination of brown carbon absorption from wildfires in the western US during the WE-CAN study
Amy P. Sullivan, Rudra P. Pokhrel, Yingjie Shen, Shane M. Murphy, Darin W. Toohey, Teresa Campos, Jakob Lindaas, Emily V. Fischer, and Jeffrey L. Collett Jr.
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13389–13406, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13389-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13389-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Alternate materials for the capture and quantification of gaseous oxidized mercury in the atmosphere
Livia Lown, Sarrah M. Dunham-Cheatham, Seth N. Lyman, and Mae S. Gustin
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6397–6413, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6397-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6397-2024, 2024
Short summary
Lower-cost eddy covariance for CO2 and H2O fluxes over grassland and agroforestry
Justus G. V. van Ramshorst, Alexander Knohl, José Ángel Callejas-Rodelas, Robert Clement, Timothy C. Hill, Lukas Siebicke, and Christian Markwitz
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6047–6071, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6047-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6047-2024, 2024
Short summary
Towards a high quality in-situ observation network for oxygenated volatile organic compounds (OVOCs) in Europe: transferring traceability to the International System of Units (SI) to the field
Maitane Iturrate-Garcia, Thérèse Salameh, Paul Schlauri, Annarita Baldan, Martin K. Vollmer, Evdokia Stratigou, Sebastian Dusanter, Jianrong Li, Stefan Persijn, Anja Claude, Rupert Holzinger, Christophe Sutour, Tatiana Macé, Yasin Elshorbany, Andreas Ackermann, Céline Pascale, and Stefan Reimann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2236,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2236, 2024
Short summary
Evaluation of optimized flux chamber design for measurement of ammonia emission after field application of slurry with full-scale farm machinery
Johanna Pedersen, Sasha D. Hafner, Andreas Pacholski, Valthor I. Karlsson, Li Rong, Rodrigo Labouriau, and Jesper N. Kamp
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4493–4505, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Methodology and uncertainty estimation for measurements of methane leakage in a manufactured house
Anna Karion, Michael F. Link, Rileigh Robertson, Tyler Boyle, and Dustin Poppendieck
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2129,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2129, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Allen, D. T.: Emissions from oil and gas operations in the United States and their air quality implications, J. Air Waste Manage., 66, 549–575, 2016. a
Alvarez, R. A., Pacala, S. W., Winebrake, J. J., Chameides, W. L., and Hamburg, S. P.: Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 6435–6440, 2012. a
Alvarez, R. A., Zavala-Araiza, D., Lyon, D. R., Allen, D. T., Barkley, Z. R., Brandt, A. R., Davis, K. J., Herndon, S. C., Jacob, D. J., Karion, A., Kort, E. A., Lamb, B. K., Lauvaux, T., Maasakkers, J. D., Marchese, A. J., Omara, M., Pacala, S. W., Peischl, J., Robinson, A. L., Shepson, P. B., Sweeney, C., Townsend-Small, A., Wofsy, S. C., and Hamburg, S. P.: Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain, Science, 2, 7204–9, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Bell, C., Vaughn, T., Zimmerle, D., Herndon, S., Yacovitch, T., Heath, G., Pétron, G., Edie, R., Field, R., Murphy, S., Robertson, A., and Soltis, J.: Comparison of methane emission estimates from multiple measurement techniques at natural gas production pads, Elem. Sci. Anth., 5, 1–14, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p
Brandt, A. R., Heath, G. A., Kort, E. A., O'Sullivan, F., Pétron, G., Jordaan, S. M., Tans, P., Wilcox, J., Gopstein, A. M., Arent, D., Wofsy, S., Brown, N. J., Bradley, R., Stucky, G. D., Eardley, D., and Harriss, R.: Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems, Science, 343, 733–735, 2014. a, b
Download
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.