The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparison of two closed-path cavity-based spectrometers for measuring air–water CO2 and CH4 fluxes by eddy covariance

Comparison of two closed-path cavity-based spectrometers for measuring air–water CO2 and CH4 fluxes by eddy covariance
Comparison of two closed-path cavity-based spectrometers for measuring air–water CO2 and CH4 fluxes by eddy covariance
In recent years several commercialised closed-path cavity-based spectroscopic instruments designed for eddy covariance flux measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapour (H2O) have become available. Here we compare the performance of two leading models – the Picarro G2311-f and the Los Gatos Research (LGR) Fast Greenhouse Gas Analyzer (FGGA) at a coastal site. Both instruments can compute dry mixing ratios of CO2 and CH4 based on concurrently measured H2O, temperature, and pressure. Additionally, we used a high throughput Nafion dryer to physically remove H2O from the Picarro airstream. Observed air–sea CO2 and CH4 fluxes from these two analysers, averaging about 12 and 0.12 mmol m−2 day−1 respectively, agree within the measurement uncertainties. For the purpose of quantifying dry CO2 and CH4 fluxes downstream of a long inlet, the numerical H2O corrections appear to be reasonably effective and lead to results that are comparable to physical removal of H2O with a Nafion dryer in the mean. We estimate the high-frequency attenuation of fluxes in our closed-path set-up, which was relatively small ( ≤  10 %) for CO2 and CH4 but very large for the more polar H2O. The Picarro showed significantly lower noise and flux detection limits than the LGR. The hourly flux detection limit for the Picarro was about 2 mmol m−2 day−1 for CO2 and 0.02 mmol m−2 day−1 for CH4. For the LGR these detection limits were about 8 and 0.05 mmol m−2 day−1. Using global maps of monthly mean air–sea CO2 flux as reference, we estimate that the Picarro and LGR can resolve hourly CO2 fluxes from roughly 40 and 4 % of the world's oceans respectively. Averaging over longer timescales would be required in regions with smaller fluxes. Hourly flux detection limits of CH4 from both instruments are generally higher than the expected emissions from the open ocean, though the signal to noise of this measurement may improve closer to the coast.
1867-8548
5509-5522
Yang, Mingxi
46902f09-514d-4461-91e6-85766fa50ad3
Prytherch, John
f80e0f1d-58b4-4c8e-8481-cb432bd8ef1f
Kozlova, Elena
83d36d30-235d-4978-9e37-cad44d84fe89
Yelland, Margaret J.
8ee38a8f-c6cc-4f96-9c7f-f184c2885b2e
Parenkat Mony, Deepulal
98e2d9b1-5f38-4a1b-a640-bd81346a9d38
Bell, Thomas G.
e5eef569-e063-4f1a-832f-0230d5f6f961
Yang, Mingxi
46902f09-514d-4461-91e6-85766fa50ad3
Prytherch, John
f80e0f1d-58b4-4c8e-8481-cb432bd8ef1f
Kozlova, Elena
83d36d30-235d-4978-9e37-cad44d84fe89
Yelland, Margaret J.
8ee38a8f-c6cc-4f96-9c7f-f184c2885b2e
Parenkat Mony, Deepulal
98e2d9b1-5f38-4a1b-a640-bd81346a9d38
Bell, Thomas G.
e5eef569-e063-4f1a-832f-0230d5f6f961

Yang, Mingxi, Prytherch, John, Kozlova, Elena, Yelland, Margaret J., Parenkat Mony, Deepulal and Bell, Thomas G. (2016) Comparison of two closed-path cavity-based spectrometers for measuring air–water CO2 and CH4 fluxes by eddy covariance. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9 (11), 5509-5522. (doi:10.5194/amt-9-5509-2016).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In recent years several commercialised closed-path cavity-based spectroscopic instruments designed for eddy covariance flux measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapour (H2O) have become available. Here we compare the performance of two leading models – the Picarro G2311-f and the Los Gatos Research (LGR) Fast Greenhouse Gas Analyzer (FGGA) at a coastal site. Both instruments can compute dry mixing ratios of CO2 and CH4 based on concurrently measured H2O, temperature, and pressure. Additionally, we used a high throughput Nafion dryer to physically remove H2O from the Picarro airstream. Observed air–sea CO2 and CH4 fluxes from these two analysers, averaging about 12 and 0.12 mmol m−2 day−1 respectively, agree within the measurement uncertainties. For the purpose of quantifying dry CO2 and CH4 fluxes downstream of a long inlet, the numerical H2O corrections appear to be reasonably effective and lead to results that are comparable to physical removal of H2O with a Nafion dryer in the mean. We estimate the high-frequency attenuation of fluxes in our closed-path set-up, which was relatively small ( ≤  10 %) for CO2 and CH4 but very large for the more polar H2O. The Picarro showed significantly lower noise and flux detection limits than the LGR. The hourly flux detection limit for the Picarro was about 2 mmol m−2 day−1 for CO2 and 0.02 mmol m−2 day−1 for CH4. For the LGR these detection limits were about 8 and 0.05 mmol m−2 day−1. Using global maps of monthly mean air–sea CO2 flux as reference, we estimate that the Picarro and LGR can resolve hourly CO2 fluxes from roughly 40 and 4 % of the world's oceans respectively. Averaging over longer timescales would be required in regions with smaller fluxes. Hourly flux detection limits of CH4 from both instruments are generally higher than the expected emissions from the open ocean, though the signal to noise of this measurement may improve closer to the coast.

Text
amt-9-5509-2016 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (3MB)
Archive
amt-9-5509-2016-supplement - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (489kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 2 November 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 18 November 2016
Organisations: National Oceanography Centre, Marine Physics and Ocean Climate

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 407601
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/407601
ISSN: 1867-8548
PURE UUID: 841a9005-7c1f-48a8-8976-c9aa707e920f

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 16 Apr 2017 16:59
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 13:02

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Mingxi Yang
Author: John Prytherch
Author: Elena Kozlova
Author: Margaret J. Yelland
Author: Deepulal Parenkat Mony
Author: Thomas G. Bell

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×