Technical note: Gas Chromatography vs. Mid-Infrared Laser Absorption Spectroscopy: A comparison of methods for measuring greenhouse gas fluxes from arable soils

Abstract. For the study of soil-atmosphere exchange of green-house gases, a commonly adopted method is to monitor the change of gas concentrations in closed chambers. Accurate determination of CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations is therefore essential for reliable flux estimations. This study compares two techniques to determine these gas concentrations: Gas Chromatography (GC) and mid-infrared laser absorption spectroscopy (LAS). We compared both techniques by carrying out simultaneous chamber measurements under field conditions on two separate days covering a range of fluxes. The GC method involved syringe sampling into gas-tight vials and subsequent laboratory analysis. In contrast to that, a LAS analyzer was directly connected to the chambers (tubing system) and thus enabled real-time, high-temporal resolution data. We calculated gas fluxes based on GC- and LAS-derived concentration measurements, using seven distinct flux calculation setups, including systematic variations in chamber enclosure times (30, 20 and 10 min) for LAS data. Across both measurement days, the comparison resulted in a high level of agreement for determined CO2 fluxes with a normalized Root Mean Square Error (nRMSE): 5.79 – 16.70 %. A high level of agreement between the methods was also observed for N2O fluxes (nRMSE: 14.63 – 24.64 %). In contrast, there was a comparatively low agreement between methods for CH4 fluxes (nRMSE: 88.42 – 94.54 %). N2O and CH4 fluxes highlighted the superior precision of LAS, as it detected significant fluxes (> minimum detectable flux) that were not significant with GC. For CH4 this explains the low agreement between methods regarding arable soils that are dominated by (low) CH4-consumption fluxes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-08-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2862
Primary Topic
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Technical note: Gas Chromatography vs. Mid-Infrared Laser Absorption Spectroscopy: A comparison of methods for measuring greenhouse gas fluxes from arable soils

Carolina Bilibio, Tobias K. D. Weber, C. Eckhardt, Andreas Gattinger et al.
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
article

Technical note: Gas Chromatography vs. Mid-Infrared Laser Absorption Spectroscopy: A comparison of methods for measuring greenhouse gas fluxes from arable soils

Carolina Bilibio, Tobias K. D. Weber, C. Eckhardt, Andreas Gattinger, Claudia Kammann, Wolfgang Aumer, Carolyn‐Monika Görres, Maria R. Finckh, Christian Bruns, Morten Möller
article en

Abstract

Abstract. For the study of soil-atmosphere exchange of green-house gases, a commonly adopted method is to monitor the change of gas concentrations in closed chambers. Accurate determination of CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations is therefore essential for reliable flux estimations. This study compares two techniques to determine these gas concentrations: Gas Chromatography (GC) and mid-infrared laser absorption spectroscopy (LAS). We compared both techniques by carrying out simultaneous chamber measurements under field conditions on two separate days covering a range of fluxes. The GC method involved syringe sampling into gas-tight vials and subsequent laboratory analysis. In contrast to that, a LAS analyzer was directly connected to the chambers (tubing system) and thus enabled real-time, high-temporal resolution data. We calculated gas fluxes based on GC- and LAS-derived concentration measurements, using seven distinct flux calculation setups, including systematic variations in chamber enclosure times (30, 20 and 10 min) for LAS data. Across both measurement days, the comparison resulted in a high level of agreement for determined CO2 fluxes with a normalized Root Mean Square Error (nRMSE): 5.79 – 16.70 %. A high level of agreement between the methods was also observed for N2O fluxes (nRMSE: 14.63 – 24.64 %). In contrast, there was a comparatively low agreement between methods for CH4 fluxes (nRMSE: 88.42 – 94.54 %). N2O and CH4 fluxes highlighted the superior precision of LAS, as it detected significant fluxes (> minimum detectable flux) that were not significant with GC. For CH4 this explains the low agreement between methods regarding arable soils that are dominated by (low) CH4-consumption fluxes.

University of Kassel (DE), Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE), Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (DE), Hochschule Geisenheim University (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.