Validation and error assessment of the mobile tracer gas dispersion method for measurement of fugitive emissions from area sources.
Validation and error assessment of the mobile tracer gas dispersion method for measurement of fugitive emissions from area sources.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.036
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
8.1
通讯作者：
A. Fredenslund;T. Rees-White;R. Beaven;A. Delre;A. Finlayson;Jonathan Helmore;G. Allen;C. Scheutz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Fredenslund;T. Rees-White;R. Beaven;A. Delre;A. Finlayson;Jonathan Helmore;G. Allen;C. Scheutz
为了评估示踪气体扩散法的准确性，进行了一项控制释放试验，该方法用于测量全场垃圾填埋场甲烷(CH4)排放量以及其他区域来源的逃逸排放。两个小组使用安装在两辆车上的分析仪器进行了测量，以测量距离释放地点1.2-3.5 公里处的目标(甲烷)和示踪剂气体的顺风向浓度。受控目标气体释放率为5.3或10.9 kg CH4h−1，目标气体和示踪气体的释放距离为12 m~14 0 m。进行了五次测量活动，其中羽流被横穿2至31次。在量化10.9 kg CH4h−1的受控释放时，A组的速率差异不大于1.1 kg CH4h−1，B组的速率差异不大于1.0 kg CH4h−1，测量的目标气体排放量与受控释放的一致。在目标气体释放率较低(5.3kgCH4h−1)的战役中出现了高达18%的较大误差。用交叉羽流积分法计算示踪气体与目标气体的比值最准确(误差最小)，而使用其他计算方法误差较大(高达49%)。通过建立误差预算并与基于释放试验的测量误差进行比较，可以得出结论，在进行测量时遵循最佳实践，示踪气体分散测量的总误差很可能小于20%。
A controlled release test was carried out to assess the accuracy of the tracer gas dispersion method, which is used to measure whole-site landfill methane (CH4) emissions as well as fugitive emissions from other area sources. Two teams performed measurements using analytical instruments installed in two vehicles, to measure downwind concentrations of target (CH4) and tracer gases at distances of 1.2–3.5 km from the release locations. The controlled target gas release rates were either 5.3 or 10.9 kg CH4h−1, and target and tracer gases were released at distances between 12 m and 140 m from each other. Five measurement campaigns were performed, where the plume was traversed between 2 and 31 times. The measured target gas emissions agreed well with the controlled releases, with rate differences no greater than 1.1 kg CH4h−1for Team A and 1.0 kg CH4h−1for Team B when quantifying a controlled release of 10.9 kg CH4h−1. This corresponds to a maximum error of ±10%. A larger error of up to 18% was seen in the campaign with a lower target gas release rate (5.3 kg CH4h−1). Using a cross plume integration method to calculate tracer gas to target gas ratios provided the most accurate results (lowest error), whereas larger errors (up to 49%) were observed when using other calculation methods. By establishment of an error budget and comparison with the measured error based on the release test, it could be concluded that following best practice when performing measurements, the overall error of a tracer gas dispersion measurement is very likely to be less than 20%.