ArticlePloS one2018
Measuring CO2 and CH4 with a portable gas analyzer: Closed-loop operation, optimization and assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Dietary Tannic Acid and Tea Polyphenol Supplementation on Rumen Fermentation, Methane Emissions, Milk Protein Synthesis and Microbiota in Cows.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Effects of chironomid larvae density and mosquito biocide on methane and carbon dioxide dynamics in freshwater sediments.PloS one · 2024Article
- Methane emissions from trees planted on a closed landfill site.Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA · 2022Article
- Correction: Measuring CO2 and CH4 with a portable gas analyzer: Closed-loop operation, optimization and assessment.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS) based portable greenhouse gas analyzers (PGAs) in closed-loop configuration to measure small sample volumes (< 1 l) for CH4 and CO2 concentrations is increasing and offers certain advantages over conventional measurement methods in terms of speed as well as the ability to measure directly in field locations. This first systematic assessment of the uncertainties, problems and issues associated with achieving reliable and repeatable measurement with this technique presents the adaptation, measurement range, calibration and maintenance, accuracy and issues of efficient operation, for one example instrument. Regular open-loop calibration, a precise loop volume estimate, leak free system, and a high standard of injection practices are necessary for accurate results. For 100 μl injections, measured values ranging from 4.5 to 9 x104 ppm (CH4), and 1000 ppm to 1 x106 ppm (CO2) are possible with uncertainties ±5.9% and ±3.0%, respectively, beyond 100 ppm CH4 correction may be necessary. Uncertainty arising from variations water vapour content and atmospheric pressure are small (0.24% and -0.9% to +0.5%, respectively). With good practice, individual operator repeatability of 1.9% (CH4) and 2.48% (CO2) can be achieved. Between operator injection error was around 3% for both gases for four operators. Slow syringe plunger operation (> 1s) is recommended; generally delivered more (ca. 3-4%) sample into the closed instrument loop than did rapid operation. Automated value retrieval is recommended; we achieved a 3 to 5-fold time reduction for each injection cycle (ca. <2 min), and operator reading, recording, and digitization errors are eliminated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.