the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A New Technique for Airborne Measurements to Quantify Methane Emissions Over a Wide Range: Implementation and Validation
Abstract. Methane (CH4) is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 84 times higher than carbon dioxide (CO2) over 20 years. CH4 is produced from many natural and anthropogenic sources which can be further classified as biogenic or thermogenic in origin. The largest biogenic sources result from anaerobic decay such as wetlands, melting permafrost, or the breakdown of organic matter in the guts of ruminant animals. Thermogenic CH4 is generated during the breakdown of organic matter at high temperatures and pressure within the Earth's crust, a process which also produces more complex trace hydrocarbons such as ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8). Emissions of thermogenic CH4 are dominated by the fossil fuel energy sector, and the presence of elevated C2H6 along with CH4 can be used to distinguish oil and gas emissions from biogenic sources. This work outlines the development and deployment of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) outfitted with a fast (1 Hz) and sensitive (1–2 ppb s-1) CH4 & C2H6 sensor and ultrasonic anemometer. The UAV platform is a vertical-takeoff, hexarotor vehicle capable of vertical profiling to 120 m altitude and plume sampling across scales up to 1 km. This system has been used for direct quantification of point sources, as well as distributed emitters such as landfills, with source rates as low as 0.04 kg h-1 and up to 1500 kg h-1. Simultaneous measurements of CH4 and C2H6 mixing ratios, vector winds, and positional data allows for source classification (biogenic versus thermogenic), differentiation, and emission rates without the need for modeling or a priori assumptions about winds, vertical mixing, or other environmental conditions. The UAS has been deployed throughout the Southwest United States for system validation and targeted quantification of various sources emitting at or below the detection limits of other aircraft and satellite systems. This system offers a direct, repeatable method of horizontal and vertical profiling of emission plumes at scales that provide complementary information for regional aerial surveys as well as local ground-based monitoring.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2827 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2827 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-760', Abdullah Bolek, 24 Mar 2024
I think the manuscript is well written and it is a fine contribution to the literature.
However, I believe the manuscript might improve a bit more with a few adjustments, which are given below.
1) Line 150: Authors are neglecting the effect of the pitch and roll angles on the wind measurement of Trisonica mini which is not a bad estimation if the copter does not pitch and roll during flight (i.e. maybe only during hovering at a certain altitude). However, in line 211, the flight speed was given as between 2 - 5 m/s which I think will force the copter to roll or pitch at about 10 - 15 degrees. Considering the placement of the anemometer (~0.8 m over the propeller plane), the angular momentum might become non-negligible I think. Therefore, there might be a bias in the wind speed measurements during the flight. I think this should be clarified, if there is a small effect this needs to be shown by the authors. I think checking Donnel et al. (2018) paper might help with this (https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-2986).
Â
2) Figure 3, from the figure it looks like the widths of each spike are not similar. If the flight characteristics are the same for each repeated crosswind flight why than the width of these spikes are different? Is this because of the environmental conditions? Additionally, why the background CH4 is increasing over time? CH4 concentrations are between 2.2 - 2.3 ppm before 800 s, and it increases at about 2.5 ppm at the end of the measurement. I would expect that the background signal will be more or less similar during the flight and when the drone sees the plume the spikes will occur. Maybe this figure needs more explanation.Â
3) Line 259: Why the flight was conducted 130 m away from the source? Why not closer, was there any restrictions?
4) Line 265: This is a bit cryptic. How did the authors find the lower quantification threshold here? What are the standard flight conditions? Also, in Table 1, how did the authors come up with the Mira Pico uncertainties? When I check the manual only information given about the instrument is the sensitivity which is <1 ppb/s and the drift which is given as 30 ppb. Maybe adding a bit more explanation for Figure 7 might help here.
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-760-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-760', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Apr 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-760', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-760', Abdullah Bolek, 24 Mar 2024
I think the manuscript is well written and it is a fine contribution to the literature.
However, I believe the manuscript might improve a bit more with a few adjustments, which are given below.
1) Line 150: Authors are neglecting the effect of the pitch and roll angles on the wind measurement of Trisonica mini which is not a bad estimation if the copter does not pitch and roll during flight (i.e. maybe only during hovering at a certain altitude). However, in line 211, the flight speed was given as between 2 - 5 m/s which I think will force the copter to roll or pitch at about 10 - 15 degrees. Considering the placement of the anemometer (~0.8 m over the propeller plane), the angular momentum might become non-negligible I think. Therefore, there might be a bias in the wind speed measurements during the flight. I think this should be clarified, if there is a small effect this needs to be shown by the authors. I think checking Donnel et al. (2018) paper might help with this (https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-2986).
Â
2) Figure 3, from the figure it looks like the widths of each spike are not similar. If the flight characteristics are the same for each repeated crosswind flight why than the width of these spikes are different? Is this because of the environmental conditions? Additionally, why the background CH4 is increasing over time? CH4 concentrations are between 2.2 - 2.3 ppm before 800 s, and it increases at about 2.5 ppm at the end of the measurement. I would expect that the background signal will be more or less similar during the flight and when the drone sees the plume the spikes will occur. Maybe this figure needs more explanation.Â
3) Line 259: Why the flight was conducted 130 m away from the source? Why not closer, was there any restrictions?
4) Line 265: This is a bit cryptic. How did the authors find the lower quantification threshold here? What are the standard flight conditions? Also, in Table 1, how did the authors come up with the Mira Pico uncertainties? When I check the manual only information given about the instrument is the sensitivity which is <1 ppb/s and the drift which is given as 30 ppb. Maybe adding a bit more explanation for Figure 7 might help here.
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-760-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-760', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Apr 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-760', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-760/egusphere-2024-760-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jonathan Dooley, 10 Jun 2024
Peer review completion
Post-review adjustments
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
426 | 192 | 27 | 645 | 18 | 20 |
- HTML: 426
- PDF: 192
- XML: 27
- Total: 645
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Jonathan F. Dooley
Kenneth Minschwaner
Manvendra K. Dubey
Sahar H. El Abbadi
Evan D. Sherwin
Aaron G. Meyer
Emily Follansbee
James E. Lee
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2827 KB) - Metadata XML