Abstract. Concurrent measurements of methane (CH4) and ethane (C2H6) can be used to identify and separate methane sources, as ethane is present in thermogenic sources (e.g., oil and natural gas) but not in biogenic sources (e.g., agriculture). In this study, we evaluated the performance of multiple Aeris MIRA Ultra instruments (Versions 1 and 2) through controlled laboratory tests and tower-based deployments under field conditions. The systems were modified with an external pump, flow control, a Nafion dryer, and a custom-built auxiliary box to automate the system and transmit near real-time data. We determined the best calibration approach for our application, given practical limitations, to be a full calibration cycle (with ambient and high calibration cylinders) about once per day and an ambient calibration cylinder sampled hourly. Measurement uncertainty was assessed, including the uncertainty due to instrument noise as a function of calibration frequency, uncertainty in the water vapor correction, and cylinder assignment uncertainty. Instrument noise was the dominant source of uncertainty for C2H6, while the water vapor correction dominated the CH4 uncertainty. For Version 2 systems with hourly calibrations and a Nafion dryer with counterflow, the mean total uncertainty, including both systematic errors and noise, of hourly averages was 0.8–3.0 ppb CH4 and 0.35–0.37 ppb C2H6. Laboratory intercomparisons showed network compatibility within 1.2 ppb CH4 and 0.23 ppb C2H6, and a collocated deployment with a NOAA Picarro system agreed within 1.8 ppb CH4. Instrument noise varied substantially amongst the instruments, with errors reaching up to 11 ppb CH4 and 2 ppb C2H6 for hourly means, with similar variability indicated in a 50 h cylinder test. With appropriate engineering and calibration, the Aeris MIRA Ultra has the potential to distinguish regional methane emission sources in many field settings.
Liu et al. (Tue,) studied this question.