Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The concept of uncertainty in an isotopic analysis is not uniform in the scientific community worldwide and can compromise the risk of false compliance assessment applied to carbon isotopic analyses in natural gas exploratory evaluation. In this work, we demonstrated a way to calculate one of the main sources of this uncertainty, which is underestimated in most studies focusing on gas analysis: the δ13C calculation itself is primarily based on the raw analytical data. The carbon isotopic composition of methane, ethane, propane, and CO2 was measured. After a detailed mathematical treatment, the corresponding expanded uncertainties for each analyte were calculated. Next, for the systematic isotopic characterization of the two gas standards, we calculated the standard uncertainty, intermediary precision, combined standard uncertainty, and finally, the expanded uncertainty for methane, ethane, propane, and CO2. We have found an expanded uncertainty value of 1.8‰ for all compounds, except for propane, where a value of 1.6‰ was obtained. The expanded uncertainty values calculated with the approach shown in this study reveal that the error arising from the application of delta calculation algorithms cannot be neglected, and the obtained values are higher than 0.5‰, usually considered as the accepted uncertainty associated with the GC-IRMS analyses. Finally, based on the use of uncertainty information to evaluate the risk of false compliance, the lower and upper acceptance limits for the carbon isotopic analysis of methane in natural gas are calculated, considering the exploratory limits between −55‰ and −50‰: (i) for the underestimated current uncertainty of 0.5‰, the lower and upper acceptance limits, respectively, are −54.6‰ and −50.4‰; and (ii) for the proposed realistic uncertainty of 1.8‰, the lower and upper acceptance limits would be more restrictive; i.e., −53.5‰ and −51.5‰, respectively.
The concept of uncertainty in an isotopic analysis is not uniform in the scientific community worldwide and can compromise the risk of false compliance assessment applied to carbon isotopic analyses in natural gas exploratory evaluation. In this work, we demonstrated a way to calculate one of the main sources of this uncertainty, which is underestimated in most studies focusing on gas analysis: the δ13C calculation itself is primarily based on the raw analytical data. The carbon isotopic composition of methane, ethane, propane, and CO2 was measured. After a detailed mathematical treatment, the corresponding expanded uncertainties for each analyte were calculated. Next, for the systematic isotopic characterization of the two gas standards, we calculated the standard uncertainty, intermediary precision, combined standard uncertainty, and finally, the expanded uncertainty for methane, ethane, propane, and CO2. We have found an expanded uncertainty value of 1.8‰ for all compounds, except for propane, where a value of 1.6‰ was obtained. The expanded uncertainty values calculated with the approach shown in this study reveal that the error arising from the application of delta calculation algorithms cannot be neglected, and the obtained values are higher than 0.5‰, usually considered as the accepted uncertainty associated with the GC-IRMS analyses. Finally, based on the use of uncertainty information to evaluate the risk of false compliance, the lower and upper acceptance limits for the carbon isotopic analysis of methane in natural gas are calculated, considering the exploratory limits between −55‰ and −50‰: (i) for the underestimated current uncertainty of 0.5‰, the lower and upper acceptance limits, respectively, are −54.6‰ and −50.4‰; and (ii) for the proposed realistic uncertainty of 1.8‰, the lower and upper acceptance limits would be more restrictive; i.e., −53.5‰ and −51.5‰, respectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.