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 the mechanism and importance of brown carbon bleaching across the visible spectrum 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
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12881–12901, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12881-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12881-2024, 2024
Short summary
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
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
Improving consistency in methane emission quantification from the natural gas distribution systems across measurement devices
Judith Tettenborn, Daniel Zavala-Araiza, Daan Stroeken, Hossein Maazallahi, Carina van der Veen, Arjan Hensen, Ilona Velzeboer, Pim van den Bulk, Felix Vogel, Lawson Gillespie, Sebastien Ars, James France, David Lowry, Rebecca Fisher, and Thomas Röckmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3569–3584, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3569-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3569-2025, 2025
Short summary
Interpretation of mass spectra by a Vocus proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometer (PTR-MS) at an urban site: insights from gas chromatographic pre-separation
Ying Zhang, Yuwei Wang, Chuang Li, Yueyang Li, Sijia Yin, Megan S. Claflin, Brian M. Lerner, Douglas Worsnop, and Lin Wang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3547–3568, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3547-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3547-2025, 2025
Short summary
Improving the quantification of peak concentrations for air quality sensors via data weighting
Caroline Frischmon, Jonathan Silberstein, Annamarie Guth, Erick Mattson, Jack Porter, and Michael Hannigan
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3147–3159, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3147-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3147-2025, 2025
Short summary
Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 trends and comparison of two measurement systems at Pallas-Sammaltunturi station in Northern Finland
Antti Laitinen, Hermanni Aaltonen, Christoph Zellweger, Aki Tsuruta, Tuula Aalto, and Juha Hatakka
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3109–3133, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3109-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3109-2025, 2025
Short summary
Evaluating mass flow meter measurements from chambers for greenhouse gas emission from orphan wells and other point sources
Karl B. Haase and Nicholas J. Gianoutsos
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1201,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1201, 2025
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.
Share