Methane Standards Made in Whole and Synthetic Air Compared by Cavity Ring Down Spectroscopy and Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detection for Atmospheric Monitoring Applications

Abstract

There is evidence that the use of whole air versus synthetic air can bias measurement results when analyzing atmospheric samples for methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and wavelength scanned-cavity ring down spectroscopy (WS-CRDS) were used to compare CH4 standards produced with whole air or synthetic air as the matrix over the mole fraction range of 1600-2100 nmol mol(-1). GC-FID measurements were performed by including ratios to a stable control cylinder, obtaining a typical relative standard measurement uncertainty of 0.025%. CRDS measurements were performed using the same protocol and also with no interruption for a limited time period without use of a control cylinder, obtaining relative standard uncertainties of 0.031% and 0.015%, respectively. This measurement procedure was subsequently used for an international comparison, in which three pairs of whole air standards were compared with five pairs of synthetic air standards (two each from eight different laboratories). The variation from the reference value for the whole air standards was determined to be 2.07 nmol mol(-1) (average standard deviation) and that of synthetic air standards was 1.37 nmol mol(-1) (average standard deviation). All but one standard agreed with the reference value within the stated uncertainty. No significant difference in performance was observed between standards made from synthetic air or whole air, and the accuracy of both types of standards was limited only by the ability to measure trace CH4 levels in the matrix gases used to produce the standards.