Cargando…

Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol

[Image: see text] Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect large fugitive methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure sooner than traditional leak surveys, and quantification by CM solutions has been proposed as the foundation of measurement-based inventories. This study p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bell, Clay, Ilonze, Chiemezie, Duggan, Aidan, Zimmerle, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2023
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10100557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36977200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c09235
_version_ 1785025304324997120
author Bell, Clay
Ilonze, Chiemezie
Duggan, Aidan
Zimmerle, Daniel
author_facet Bell, Clay
Ilonze, Chiemezie
Duggan, Aidan
Zimmerle, Daniel
author_sort Bell, Clay
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect large fugitive methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure sooner than traditional leak surveys, and quantification by CM solutions has been proposed as the foundation of measurement-based inventories. This study performed single-blind testing at a controlled release facility (release from 0.4 to 6400 g CH(4)/h) replicating conditions that were challenging, but less complex than typical field conditions. Eleven solutions were tested, including point sensor networks and scanning/imaging solutions. Results indicated a 90% probability of detection (POD) of 3–30 kg CH(4)/h; 6 of 11 solutions achieved a POD < 6 kg CH(4)/h, although uncertainty was high. Four had true positive rates > 50%. False positive rates ranged from 0 to 79%. Six solutions estimated emission rates. For a release rate of 0.1–1 kg/h, the solutions’ mean relative errors ranged from −44% to +586% with single estimates between −97% and +2077%, and 4 solutions’ upper uncertainty exceeding +900%. Above 1 kg/h, mean relative error was −40% to +93%, with two solutions within ±20%, and single-estimate relative errors were from −82% to +448%. The large variability in performance between CM solutions, coupled with highly uncertain detection, detection limit, and quantification results, indicates that the performance of individual CM solutions should be well understood before relying on results for internal emissions mitigation programs or regulatory reporting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10100557
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101005572023-04-14 Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol Bell, Clay Ilonze, Chiemezie Duggan, Aidan Zimmerle, Daniel Environ Sci Technol [Image: see text] Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect large fugitive methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure sooner than traditional leak surveys, and quantification by CM solutions has been proposed as the foundation of measurement-based inventories. This study performed single-blind testing at a controlled release facility (release from 0.4 to 6400 g CH(4)/h) replicating conditions that were challenging, but less complex than typical field conditions. Eleven solutions were tested, including point sensor networks and scanning/imaging solutions. Results indicated a 90% probability of detection (POD) of 3–30 kg CH(4)/h; 6 of 11 solutions achieved a POD < 6 kg CH(4)/h, although uncertainty was high. Four had true positive rates > 50%. False positive rates ranged from 0 to 79%. Six solutions estimated emission rates. For a release rate of 0.1–1 kg/h, the solutions’ mean relative errors ranged from −44% to +586% with single estimates between −97% and +2077%, and 4 solutions’ upper uncertainty exceeding +900%. Above 1 kg/h, mean relative error was −40% to +93%, with two solutions within ±20%, and single-estimate relative errors were from −82% to +448%. The large variability in performance between CM solutions, coupled with highly uncertain detection, detection limit, and quantification results, indicates that the performance of individual CM solutions should be well understood before relying on results for internal emissions mitigation programs or regulatory reporting. American Chemical Society 2023-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10100557/ /pubmed/36977200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c09235 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Permits non-commercial access and re-use, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained; but does not permit creation of adaptations or other derivative works (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Bell, Clay
Ilonze, Chiemezie
Duggan, Aidan
Zimmerle, Daniel
Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol
title Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol
title_full Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol
title_fullStr Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol
title_full_unstemmed Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol
title_short Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol
title_sort performance of continuous emission monitoring solutions under a single-blind controlled testing protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10100557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36977200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c09235
work_keys_str_mv AT bellclay performanceofcontinuousemissionmonitoringsolutionsunderasingleblindcontrolledtestingprotocol
AT ilonzechiemezie performanceofcontinuousemissionmonitoringsolutionsunderasingleblindcontrolledtestingprotocol
AT dugganaidan performanceofcontinuousemissionmonitoringsolutionsunderasingleblindcontrolledtestingprotocol
AT zimmerledaniel performanceofcontinuousemissionmonitoringsolutionsunderasingleblindcontrolledtestingprotocol