...
首页> 外文期刊>Agricultural and Forest Meteorology >Comparison of CO2, CH4 and N2O soil-atmosphere exchange measured in static chambers with cavity ring-down spectroscopy and gas chromatography
【24h】

Comparison of CO2, CH4 and N2O soil-atmosphere exchange measured in static chambers with cavity ring-down spectroscopy and gas chromatography

机译:用腔衰荡光谱法和气相色谱法比较静态室中CO2,CH4和N2O的土壤-大气交换

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

A laboratory and field experiment compared fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O measured with cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) and gas chromatography (GC). The comparison between CRDS and GC showed that average CO2 fluxes were significantly higher for CRDS in both the laboratory and field, but the same experimental treatments effects were detected for both techniques. Compared to CRDS, the GC technique was severely limited in detecting CH4 fluxes in both the laboratory and field. Thus, only 16% of measured GC fluxes were detectable in the laboratory and none in the field whereas CRDS could detect 65% and 97% of the CH4 fluxes in the laboratory and field. In contrast, N2O fluxes measured with CRDS and GC were not different for both the laboratory and field. It was observed that a lower proportion of N2O fluxes could be detected with CRDS (73%) than GC (92%) in the laboratory and similar recovery (65% and 68%) for the field. Thus, the same treatment effects were observed for both CRDS and GC. Furthermore, the comparison between CRDS and GC showed that enclosure times as short as 600 s for our field study site are suitable to estimate the same treatment effects, but not necessarily flux magnitude. We conclude that CRDS and GC can provide the same level of information regarding treatment effects in both laboratory and field experiments for CO2 and N2O, but not for CH4 and it is possible to reduce enclosure time without comprising comparability between the two techniques. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:实验室和现场实验比较了用腔衰荡光谱(CRDS)和气相色谱(GC)测量的CO2,CH4和N2O通量。 CRDS和GC的比较表明,在实验室和现场,CRDS的平均CO2通量均明显更高,但是两种技术均检测到相同的实验处理效果。与CRDS相比,气相色谱技术在实验室和现场都严重限制了CH4通量的检测。因此,在实验室中只能检测到16%的已测量GC通量,而在现场则没有检测到,而CRDS在实验室和现场中可以检测到65%和97%的CH4通量。相反,在实验室和现场,用CRDS和GC测量的N2O通量没有差异。据观察,在实验室中,使用CRDS可以检测到的N2O通量比例要比GC(92%)的比例低(73%),而在现场则可以检测到类似的回收率(65%和68%)。因此,对于CRDS和GC均观察到相同的治疗效果。此外,CRDS和GC的比较表明,对于我们的现场研究场地而言,封闭时间短至600 s适合估算相同的处理效果,但不一定能估算通量。我们得出的结论是,CRDS和GC可以在实验室和野外实验中为CO2和N2O提供相同水平的信息,而对于CH4则不能,并且可以在不包含两种技术之间可比性的情况下减少封闭时间。 (C)2015 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号