Comparison of halocarbon measurements in an atmospheric dry whole air sample

Abstract The growing awareness of climate change/global warming, and continuing concerns regarding stratospheric ozone depletion, will require continued measurements and standards for many compounds, in particular halocarbons that are linked to these issues. In order to track atmospheric mole fractions and assess the impact of policy on emission rates, it is necessary to demonstrate measurement equivalence at the highest levels of accuracy for assigned values of standards. Precise measurements of these species aid in determining small changes in their atmospheric abundance. A common source of standards/scales and/or well-documented agreement of different scales used to calibrate the measurement instrumentation are key to understanding many sets of data reported by researchers. This report describes the results of a comparison study among National Metrology Institutes and atmospheric research laboratories for the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), and 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113); the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) and 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); and the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a), all in a dried whole air sample. The objective of this study is to compare calibration standards/scales and the measurement capabilities of the participants for these halocarbons at trace atmospheric levels. The results of this study show agreement among four independent calibration scales to better than 2.5% in almost all cases, with many of the reported agreements being better than 1.0%

Comparison of halocarbon measurements in an atmospheric dry whole air sample

Abstract The growing awareness of climate change/global warming, and continuing concerns regarding stratospheric ozone depletion, will require continued measurements and standards for many compounds, in particular halocarbons that are linked to these issues. In order to track atmospheric mole fractions and assess the impact of policy on emission rates, it is necessary to demonstrate measurement equivalence at the highest levels of accuracy for assigned values of standards. Precise measurements of these species aid in determining small changes in their atmospheric abundance. A common source of standards/scales and/or well-documented agreement of different scales used to calibrate the measurement instrumentation are key to understanding many sets of data reported by researchers. This report describes the results of a comparison study among National Metrology Institutes and atmospheric research laboratories for the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), and 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113); the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) and 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); and the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a), all in a dried whole air sample. The objective of this study is to compare calibration standards/scales and the measurement capabilities of the participants for these halocarbons at trace atmospheric levels. The results of this study show agreement among four independent calibration scales to better than 2.5% in almost all cases, with many of the reported agreements being better than 1.0%

CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide at background and urban level)

CCQM-K120.a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community, with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction. This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison. The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric monitoring community, matrix matched to real air, over the mole fraction range of 250 μmol/mol to 520 μmol/mol. CCQM-K120.b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation, analytical certification and purity analysis. It is considered as a Track A comparison. It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participant's reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmol/mol. Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures This study has involved a comparison at the BIPM of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories. Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120.a, CCQM-K120.b) and just one solely in the CCQM-K120.b comparison. The standards were sent to the BIPM where the comparison measurements were performed. Two measurement methods were used to compare the standards, to ensure no measurement method dependant bias: GC-FID and FTIR spectroscopic analysis corrected for isotopic variation in the CO2 gases, measured at the BIPM using absorption laser spectroscopy. Following the advice of the CCQM Gas Analysis Working Group, results from the FTIR method were used to calculate the key comparison reference values