ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Optimized methods for diffusive greenhouse gas flux analyses in inland waters.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inland waters are considered hotspots of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and have been extensively researched. Static chamber (STAT) and thin boundary layer (BLE) are two commonly used methods for analyzing diffusive GHG emissions from inland waters. However, the STAT method is often disturbed by GHG bubbles; meanwhile, many kinds of headspace gas are used in the BLE method, but the differences between their diffusive GHG emission analysis results are not understood. In this study, the chamber in the STAT method was modified to combat the disturbances from GHG bubbles, and the typically used gases for the BLE method, namely, pure nitrogen, air, and filtered air, were comparatively studied. Results demonstrated that the modified chamber could effectively prevent the invasion of GHG bubbles; it increased the success rate from 67 to 90% in the field test, with no obvious impacts on the results of the GHG emission analyses. The use of air and filtered air in the BLE method yielded the lower values of GHG emissions relative to pure nitrogen, and this finding was potentially attributed to the inhibition effects of the residual GHGs and high humidity in air and filtered air on the extraction of diffusive GHGs from the surface water. This study improved the commonly used methods for diffusive GHG emission analysis, and the current findings are beneficial to the study of GHG emissions from inland waters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31520385What 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.