Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-5-351-2012
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-5-351-2012

  10 Jan 2012

10 Jan 2012

Review status: this preprint was under review for the journal AMT. A revision for further review has not been submitted.

Flux correction for closed-path laser spectrometers without internal water vapor measurements

R. V. Hiller1, C. Zellweger2, A. Knohl3, and W. Eugster1 R. V. Hiller et al.
  • 1Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
  • 2Empa, Materials Science & Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland
  • 3Institute of Bioclimatology, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

Abstract. Recently, instruments became available on the market that provide the possibility to perform eddy covariance flux measurements of CH4 and many other trace gases, including the traditional CO2 and H2O. Most of these instruments employ laser spectroscopy, where a cross-sensitivity to H2O is frequently observed leading to an increased dilution effect. Additionally, sorption processes at the intake tube walls modify and delay the observed H2O signal in closed-path systems more strongly than the signal of the sampled trace gas. Thereby, a phase shift between the trace gas and H2O fluctuations is introduced that dampens the H2O flux observed in the sampling cell. For instruments that do not provide direct H2O measurement in the sampling cell, transfer functions from externally measured H2O fluxes are needed to estimate the effect of H2O on trace gas flux measurements. The effects of cross-sensitivity and the damping are shown for an eddy covariance setup with the Fast Greenhouse Gas Analyzer (FGGA, Los Gatos Research Inc.) that measures CO2, CH4, and H2O fluxes. This instrument is technically identical with the Fast Methane Analyzer (FMA, Los Gatos Research Inc.) that does not measure H2O concentrations. Hence, we used measurements from a FGGA to derive a modified correction for the FMA accounting for dilution as well as phase shift effects in our instrumental setup. With our specific setup for eddy covariance flux measurements, the cross-sensitivity counteracts the damping effects, which compensate each other. Hence, the new correction only deviates very slightly from the traditional Webb, Pearman, and Leuning density correction, which is calculated from separate measurements of the atmospheric water vapor flux.

R. V. Hiller et al.

 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

R. V. Hiller et al.

R. V. Hiller et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 1,811 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
912 810 89 1,811 69 62
  • HTML: 912
  • PDF: 810
  • XML: 89
  • Total: 1,811
  • BibTeX: 69
  • EndNote: 62
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 03 Aug 2021