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

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
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
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
A novel approach to calibrating a photoacoustic absorption spectrometer using polydisperse absorbing aerosol
Katie Foster, Rudra Pokhrel, Matthew Burkhart, and Shane Murphy
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 3351–3363, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3351-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3351-2019, 2019
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Performance assessment of state-of-the-art and novel methods for remote compliance monitoring of sulfur emissions from shipping
Jörg Beecken, Andreas Weigelt, Simone Griesel, Johan Mellqvist, Alexander V. Conde Jacobo, Daniëlle van Dinther, Jan Duyzer, Jon Knudsen, Bettina Knudsen, and Leonidas Ntziachristos
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 5883–5895, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5883-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5883-2023, 2023
Short summary
Intercomparison of detection and quantification methods for methane emissions from the natural gas distribution network in Hamburg, Germany
Hossein Maazallahi, Antonio Delre, Charlotte Scheutz, Anders M. Fredenslund, Stefan Schwietzke, Hugo Denier van der Gon, and Thomas Röckmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 5051–5073, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5051-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5051-2023, 2023
Short summary
Comparison of photoacoustic spectroscopy and cavity ring-down spectroscopy for ambient methane monitoring at Hohenpeißenberg
Max Müller, Stefan Weigl, Jennifer Müller-Williams, Matthias Lindauer, Thomas Rück, Simon Jobst, Rudolf Bierl, and Frank-Michael Matysik
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4263–4270, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4263-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4263-2023, 2023
Short summary
Comparison of atmospheric CO, CO2 and CH4 measurements at the Schneefernerhaus and the mountain ridge at Zugspitze
Antje Hoheisel, Cedric Couret, Bryan Hellack, and Martina Schmidt
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2399–2413, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2399-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2399-2023, 2023
Short summary
Intercomparison of commercial analyzers for atmospheric ethane and methane observations
Róisín Commane, Andrew Hallward-Driemeier, and Lee T. Murray
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 1431–1441, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-1431-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-1431-2023, 2023
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.