Evaluating the performance of a UAV-based in situ methane sensor for quantifying point source emissions
Abstract. Methane (CH4) is the second most important greenhouse gas, and accurate quantification of its emissions is critical for mitigating climate change. In this study, we thoroughly evaluated the performance of an in situ CH4 sensor (Axetris) for quantifying anthropogenic CH4 emissions when deployed on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Sensor stability was assessed through laboratory tests under controlled and varying temperature conditions. Under stable conditions, the sensor achieved a precision of 63 ppb at 2 Hz. Furthermore, the tests revealed the necessity of temperature control and provided a water vapour correction term to ensure accurate measurements. Additionally, the sensor was used to quantify whole-farm CH4 emissions, yielding a mean flux of 4.1 ± 1.6 gCH4/s averaged over four flights. This mean flux was comparable to the value of 4.2 ± 1.1 gCH4/s obtained from the established AirCore technique. Finally, an uncertainty analysis based on the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck method was used to determine the influence of various sources of uncertainty. This analysis revealed that both wind-related uncertainties and background determination can significantly increase the overall uncertainty when not properly constrained. Furthermore, instrumental errors play a dominant role for smaller fluxes, while meteorological uncertainties remain significant even with repeated flights. Nevertheless, careful flight planning, e.g., ensuring extensive sampling outside of the plume and comprehensive wind monitoring, can reduce these uncertainties. Overall, our results demonstrate that a cost-effective sensor can provide reliable CH4 flux estimates with uncertainties comparable to those of established UAV-based systems.
Competing interests: One of the co-authors is on the editorial board of AMT
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.