Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

PTR-QMS versus PTR-TOF comparison in a region with oil and natural gas extraction industry in the Uintah Basin in 2013

Filetype[PDF-9.43 MB]


Select the Download button to view the document
This document is over 5mb in size and cannot be previewed
Details Related Documents You May Also Like

Details:

  • Journal Title:
    Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
  • Personal Author:
  • NOAA Program & Office:
  • Description:
    Here we compare volatile organic compound (VOC) measurements using a standard proton-transfer-reaction quadrupole mass spectrometer (PTR-QMS) with a new proton-transfer-reaction time of flight mass spectrometer (PTR-TOF) during the Uintah Basin Winter Ozone Study 2013 (UBWOS2013) field experiment in an oil and gas field in the Uintah Basin, Utah. The PTR-QMS uses a quadrupole, which is a mass filter that lets one mass to charge ratio pass at a time, whereas the PTR-TOF uses a time of flight mass spectrometer, which takes full mass spectra with typical 0.1 s-1 min integrated acquisition times. The sensitivity of the PTR-QMS in units of counts per ppbv (parts per billion by volume) is about a factor of 10-35 times larger than the PTR-TOF, when only one VOC is measured. The sensitivity of the PTR-TOF is mass dependent because of the mass discrimination caused by the sampling duty cycle in the orthogonal-acceleration region of the TOF. For example, the PTR-QMS on mass 33 (methanol) is 35 times more sensitive than the PTR-TOF and for masses above 120 amu less than 10 times more. If more than 10-35 compounds are measured with PTR-QMS, the sampling time per ion decreases and the PTR-TOF has higher signals per unit measuring time for most masses. For UBWOS2013 the PTR-QMS measured 34 masses in 37 s and on that timescale the PTR-TOF is more sensitive for all masses. The high mass resolution of the TOF allows for the measurements of compounds that cannot be separately detected with the PTR-QMS, such as oxidation products from alkanes and cycloalkanes emitted by oil and gas extraction. PTR-TOF masses do not have to be preselected, allowing for identification of unanticipated compounds. The measured mixing ratios of the two instruments agreed very well (R-2 >= 0.92 and within 20 %) for all compounds and masses monitored with the PTR-QMS.
  • Source:
    Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 8(1), 411-420.
  • DOI:
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Rights Information:
    CC BY
  • Compliance:
    Submitted
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files

More +

Related Documents

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at repository.library.noaa.gov

Version 3.26