2018
DOI: 10.1130/abs/2018sc-310271
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

LOW-COST MONITORING OF CO2 CONCENTRATIONS AND FLUXES WITHIN THE CRITICAL ZONE: INSIGHTS FROM THE SPRINGFIELD PLATEAU AQUIFER, NORTHWEST ARKANSAS

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, the LC-GEMS is a valid and promising technique for obtaining representative trends as well as preliminary data from field sites. The median percent difference between the LC-GEMS and C-sense reading on April 28th was 19.9% (grey squares), similar to the agreement previously found among other gas extraction systems [101]. The median percent difference between the LC-GEMS and C-sense reading on April 19th and 20th was 21.3% (black circles).…”
Section: Interpretation Of Field Measurement Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus, the LC-GEMS is a valid and promising technique for obtaining representative trends as well as preliminary data from field sites. The median percent difference between the LC-GEMS and C-sense reading on April 28th was 19.9% (grey squares), similar to the agreement previously found among other gas extraction systems [101]. The median percent difference between the LC-GEMS and C-sense reading on April 19th and 20th was 21.3% (black circles).…”
Section: Interpretation Of Field Measurement Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…As discussed in Section 2.6.4, the percent difference between the LC-GEMS and reference C-sense is on a similar order of magnitude compared to other current gas extraction techniques [29,101] for certain temperature changes. Future improvements can be made to the calibration protocol for the LC-GEMS to achieve good measurement agreement for temperatures outside the range of 15-20 ∘ C used to calibrate in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%