A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors
<p>Biomass burning (BB) emits large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) and aerosols that impact the climate and adversely affect human health. Although much research has focused on quantifying BB emissions on regional to global scales, field measurements of BB emission factors (EFs) are spar...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| Online Access: | https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/4271/2022/amt-15-4271-2022.pdf |
| _version_ | 1811312005097717760 |
|---|---|
| author | R. Vernooij P. Winiger M. Wooster M. Wooster T. Strydom L. Poulain U. Dusek M. Grosvenor G. J. Roberts N. Schutgens G. R. van der Werf |
| author_facet | R. Vernooij P. Winiger M. Wooster M. Wooster T. Strydom L. Poulain U. Dusek M. Grosvenor G. J. Roberts N. Schutgens G. R. van der Werf |
| author_sort | R. Vernooij |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Biomass burning (BB) emits large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) and aerosols that impact the climate and adversely affect human health. Although much research has focused on quantifying BB emissions on regional to global scales, field measurements of BB emission factors (EFs) are sparse, clustered and indicate high spatio-temporal variability. EFs are generally calculated from ground or aeroplane measurements with respective potential biases towards smouldering or flaming combustion products. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have the potential to measure BB EFs in fresh smoke, targeting different parts of the plume at
relatively low cost. We propose a light-weight UAS-based method to measure
EFs for carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>), methane (CH<span class="inline-formula"><sub>4</sub></span>),
and nitrous oxide (N<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>O) as well as PM<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2.5</sub></span> (TSI Sidepak AM520) and
equivalent black carbon (eBC, microAeth AE51) using a combination of a
sampling system with Tedlar bags which can be analysed on the ground and
with airborne aerosol sensors. In this study, we address the main challenges
associated with this approach: (1) the degree to which a limited number of
samples is representative for the integral smoke plume and (2) the performance of the lightweight aerosol sensors. While aerosol measurements
can be made continuously in a UAS set-up thanks to the lightweight
analysers, the representativeness of our Tedlar bag filling approach was
tested during prescribed burning experiments in the Kruger National Park,
South Africa. We compared fire-averaged EFs from UAS-sampled bags for
savanna fires with integrated EFs from co-located mast measurements. Both
measurements matched reasonably well with linear <span class="inline-formula"><i>R</i><sup>2</sup></span> ranging from 0.81
to 0.94. Both aerosol sensors are not factory calibrated for BB particles
and therefore require additional calibration. In a series of smoke chamber
experiments, we compared the lightweight sensors with high-fidelity equipment
to empirically determine specific calibration factors (CF) for measuring BB
particles. For the PM mass concentration from a TSI Sidepak AM520, we found
an optimal CF of 0.27, using a scanning mobility particle sizer and
gravimetric reference methods, although the CF varied for different
vegetation fuel types. Measurements of eBC from the Aethlabs AE51
aethalometer agreed well with the multi-wavelength aethalometer (AE33)
(linear <span class="inline-formula"><i>R</i><sup>2</sup></span> of 0.95 at <span class="inline-formula"><i>λ</i>=880</span> nm) and the wavelength
corrected multi-angle absorption photometer (MAAP, <span class="inline-formula"><i>R</i><sup>2</sup></span> of 0.83 measuring at <span class="inline-formula"><i>λ</i>=637</span> nm). However, the high variability in observed BB mass absorption cross-section (MAC) values (<span class="inline-formula">5.2±5.1</span> m<span class="inline-formula"><sup>2</sup></span> g<span class="inline-formula"><sup>−1</sup></span>) suggested re-calibration may be required for individual fires. Overall, our results indicate that the proposed UAS set-up can obtain representative BB
EFs for individual savanna fires if proper correction factors are applied
and operating limitations are well understood.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T10:28:46Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c68b5d5b49bd42c3ad77c63fbddb88d2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1867-1381 1867-8548 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T10:28:46Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| spelling | doaj.art-c68b5d5b49bd42c3ad77c63fbddb88d22022-12-22T02:50:15ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Measurement Techniques1867-13811867-85482022-07-01154271429410.5194/amt-15-4271-2022A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factorsR. Vernooij0P. Winiger1M. Wooster2M. Wooster3T. Strydom4L. Poulain5U. Dusek6M. Grosvenor7G. J. Roberts8N. Schutgens9G. R. van der Werf10Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsDepartment of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsKing's College London, Environmental Monitoring and Modelling Research Group, Department of Geography, London, UKNational Centre for Earth Observation (NERC), Leicester, UKSouth African National Parks (SANParks), Scientific Services, Skukuza, South AfricaAtmospheric Chemistry Department (ACD), Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), Leipzig, GermanyCentre for Isotope Research (CIO), Energy and Sustainability Research Institute Groningen (ESRIG), Groningen, the NetherlandsKing's College London, Environmental Monitoring and Modelling Research Group, Department of Geography, London, UKGeography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UKDepartment of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsDepartment of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands<p>Biomass burning (BB) emits large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) and aerosols that impact the climate and adversely affect human health. Although much research has focused on quantifying BB emissions on regional to global scales, field measurements of BB emission factors (EFs) are sparse, clustered and indicate high spatio-temporal variability. EFs are generally calculated from ground or aeroplane measurements with respective potential biases towards smouldering or flaming combustion products. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have the potential to measure BB EFs in fresh smoke, targeting different parts of the plume at relatively low cost. We propose a light-weight UAS-based method to measure EFs for carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>), methane (CH<span class="inline-formula"><sub>4</sub></span>), and nitrous oxide (N<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2</sub></span>O) as well as PM<span class="inline-formula"><sub>2.5</sub></span> (TSI Sidepak AM520) and equivalent black carbon (eBC, microAeth AE51) using a combination of a sampling system with Tedlar bags which can be analysed on the ground and with airborne aerosol sensors. In this study, we address the main challenges associated with this approach: (1) the degree to which a limited number of samples is representative for the integral smoke plume and (2) the performance of the lightweight aerosol sensors. While aerosol measurements can be made continuously in a UAS set-up thanks to the lightweight analysers, the representativeness of our Tedlar bag filling approach was tested during prescribed burning experiments in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. We compared fire-averaged EFs from UAS-sampled bags for savanna fires with integrated EFs from co-located mast measurements. Both measurements matched reasonably well with linear <span class="inline-formula"><i>R</i><sup>2</sup></span> ranging from 0.81 to 0.94. Both aerosol sensors are not factory calibrated for BB particles and therefore require additional calibration. In a series of smoke chamber experiments, we compared the lightweight sensors with high-fidelity equipment to empirically determine specific calibration factors (CF) for measuring BB particles. For the PM mass concentration from a TSI Sidepak AM520, we found an optimal CF of 0.27, using a scanning mobility particle sizer and gravimetric reference methods, although the CF varied for different vegetation fuel types. Measurements of eBC from the Aethlabs AE51 aethalometer agreed well with the multi-wavelength aethalometer (AE33) (linear <span class="inline-formula"><i>R</i><sup>2</sup></span> of 0.95 at <span class="inline-formula"><i>λ</i>=880</span> nm) and the wavelength corrected multi-angle absorption photometer (MAAP, <span class="inline-formula"><i>R</i><sup>2</sup></span> of 0.83 measuring at <span class="inline-formula"><i>λ</i>=637</span> nm). However, the high variability in observed BB mass absorption cross-section (MAC) values (<span class="inline-formula">5.2±5.1</span> m<span class="inline-formula"><sup>2</sup></span> g<span class="inline-formula"><sup>−1</sup></span>) suggested re-calibration may be required for individual fires. Overall, our results indicate that the proposed UAS set-up can obtain representative BB EFs for individual savanna fires if proper correction factors are applied and operating limitations are well understood.</p>https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/4271/2022/amt-15-4271-2022.pdf |
| spellingShingle | R. Vernooij P. Winiger M. Wooster M. Wooster T. Strydom L. Poulain U. Dusek M. Grosvenor G. J. Roberts N. Schutgens G. R. van der Werf A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| title | A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors |
| title_full | A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors |
| title_fullStr | A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors |
| title_full_unstemmed | A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors |
| title_short | A quadcopter unmanned aerial system (UAS)-based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors |
| title_sort | quadcopter unmanned aerial system uas based methodology for measuring biomass burning emission factors |
| url | https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/4271/2022/amt-15-4271-2022.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rvernooij aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT pwiniger aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT mwooster aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT mwooster aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT tstrydom aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT lpoulain aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT udusek aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT mgrosvenor aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT gjroberts aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT nschutgens aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT grvanderwerf aquadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT rvernooij quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT pwiniger quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT mwooster quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT mwooster quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT tstrydom quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT lpoulain quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT udusek quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT mgrosvenor quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT gjroberts quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT nschutgens quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors AT grvanderwerf quadcopterunmannedaerialsystemuasbasedmethodologyformeasuringbiomassburningemissionfactors |