Advanced

Evaluating the performance of commonly used gas analysers for methane eddy covariance flux measurements: the InGOS inter-comparison field experiment

Peltola, O.; Hensen, A.; Helfter, C.; Marchesini, L. Belelli; Bosveld, F. C.; van den Bulk, W. C. M.; Elbers, J. A.; Haapanala, S.; Holst, Jutta LU and Laurila, T., et al. (2014) In Biogeosciences 11(12). p.3163-3186
Abstract
The performance of eight fast-response methane (CH4) gas analysers suitable for eddy covariance flux measurements were tested at a grassland site near the Cabauw tall tower (Netherlands) during June 2012. The instruments were positioned close to each other in order to minimise the effect of varying turbulent conditions. The moderate CH4 fluxes observed at the location, of the order of 25 nmol m(-2) s(-1), provided a suitable signal for testing the instruments' performance. Generally, all analysers tested were able to quantify the concentration fluctuations at the frequency range relevant for turbulent exchange and were able to deliver high-quality data. The tested cavity ringdown spectrometer (CRDS) instruments from Picarro, models G2311-f... (More)
The performance of eight fast-response methane (CH4) gas analysers suitable for eddy covariance flux measurements were tested at a grassland site near the Cabauw tall tower (Netherlands) during June 2012. The instruments were positioned close to each other in order to minimise the effect of varying turbulent conditions. The moderate CH4 fluxes observed at the location, of the order of 25 nmol m(-2) s(-1), provided a suitable signal for testing the instruments' performance. Generally, all analysers tested were able to quantify the concentration fluctuations at the frequency range relevant for turbulent exchange and were able to deliver high-quality data. The tested cavity ringdown spectrometer (CRDS) instruments from Picarro, models G2311-f and G1301-f, were superior to other CH4 analysers with respect to instrumental noise. As an open-path instrument susceptible to the effects of rain, the LI-COR LI-7700 achieved lower data coverage and also required larger density corrections; however, the system is especially useful for remote sites that are restricted in power availability. In this study the open-path LI-7700 results were compromised due to a data acquisition problem in our data-logging setup. Some of the older closed-path analysers tested do not measure H2O concentrations alongside CH4 (i.e. FMA1 and DLT-100 by Los Gatos Research) and this complicates data processing since the required corrections for dilution and spectroscopic interactions have to be based on external information. To overcome this issue, we used H2O mole fractions measured by other gas analysers, adjusted them with different methods and then applied them to correct the CH4 fluxes. Following this procedure we estimated a bias of the order of 0.1 g (CH4) m(-2) (8% of the measured mean flux) in the processed and corrected CH4 fluxes on a monthly scale due to missing H2O concentration measurements. Finally, cumulative CH4 fluxes over 14 days from three closed-path gas analysers, G2311-f (Picarro Inc.), FGGA (Los Gatos Research) and FMA2 (Los Gatos Research), which were measuring H2O concentrations in addition to CH4, agreed within 3% (355-367 mg (CH4) m(-2)) and were not clearly different from each other, whereas the other instruments derived total fluxes which showed small but distinct differences (+/- 10 %, 330-399 mg (CH4) m(-2)). (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Biogeosciences
volume
11
issue
12
pages
3163 - 3186
publisher
Copernicus Publications
external identifiers
  • wos:000338761200006
  • scopus:84902675084
ISSN
1726-4189
DOI
10.5194/bg-11-3163-2014
project
BECC
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
1c08b78f-7227-4391-a4ac-40b583c86824 (old id 4602510)
date added to LUP
2014-09-05 07:58:28
date last changed
2017-10-08 03:19:05
@article{1c08b78f-7227-4391-a4ac-40b583c86824,
  abstract     = {The performance of eight fast-response methane (CH4) gas analysers suitable for eddy covariance flux measurements were tested at a grassland site near the Cabauw tall tower (Netherlands) during June 2012. The instruments were positioned close to each other in order to minimise the effect of varying turbulent conditions. The moderate CH4 fluxes observed at the location, of the order of 25 nmol m(-2) s(-1), provided a suitable signal for testing the instruments' performance. Generally, all analysers tested were able to quantify the concentration fluctuations at the frequency range relevant for turbulent exchange and were able to deliver high-quality data. The tested cavity ringdown spectrometer (CRDS) instruments from Picarro, models G2311-f and G1301-f, were superior to other CH4 analysers with respect to instrumental noise. As an open-path instrument susceptible to the effects of rain, the LI-COR LI-7700 achieved lower data coverage and also required larger density corrections; however, the system is especially useful for remote sites that are restricted in power availability. In this study the open-path LI-7700 results were compromised due to a data acquisition problem in our data-logging setup. Some of the older closed-path analysers tested do not measure H2O concentrations alongside CH4 (i.e. FMA1 and DLT-100 by Los Gatos Research) and this complicates data processing since the required corrections for dilution and spectroscopic interactions have to be based on external information. To overcome this issue, we used H2O mole fractions measured by other gas analysers, adjusted them with different methods and then applied them to correct the CH4 fluxes. Following this procedure we estimated a bias of the order of 0.1 g (CH4) m(-2) (8% of the measured mean flux) in the processed and corrected CH4 fluxes on a monthly scale due to missing H2O concentration measurements. Finally, cumulative CH4 fluxes over 14 days from three closed-path gas analysers, G2311-f (Picarro Inc.), FGGA (Los Gatos Research) and FMA2 (Los Gatos Research), which were measuring H2O concentrations in addition to CH4, agreed within 3% (355-367 mg (CH4) m(-2)) and were not clearly different from each other, whereas the other instruments derived total fluxes which showed small but distinct differences (+/- 10 %, 330-399 mg (CH4) m(-2)).},
  author       = {Peltola, O. and Hensen, A. and Helfter, C. and Marchesini, L. Belelli and Bosveld, F. C. and van den Bulk, W. C. M. and Elbers, J. A. and Haapanala, S. and Holst, Jutta and Laurila, T. and Lindroth, Anders and Nemitz, E. and Rockmann, T. and Vermeulen, A. T. and Mammarella, I.},
  issn         = {1726-4189},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {12},
  pages        = {3163--3186},
  publisher    = {Copernicus Publications},
  series       = {Biogeosciences},
  title        = {Evaluating the performance of commonly used gas analysers for methane eddy covariance flux measurements: the InGOS inter-comparison field experiment},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-3163-2014},
  volume       = {11},
  year         = {2014},
}