A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@remsenmedia.com&api_key=81853a771c3a3a2c6b2553a65bc33b056f08&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Utilization of a Low-Cost Sensor Array for Mobile Methane Monitoring. | LitMetric

Utilization of a Low-Cost Sensor Array for Mobile Methane Monitoring.

Sensors (Basel)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.

Published: January 2024

The use of low-cost sensors (LCSs) for the mobile monitoring of oil and gas emissions is an understudied application of low-cost air quality monitoring devices. To assess the efficacy of low-cost sensors as a screening tool for the mobile monitoring of fugitive methane emissions stemming from well sites in eastern Colorado, we colocated an array of low-cost sensors (XPOD) with a reference grade methane monitor (Aeris Ultra) on a mobile monitoring vehicle from 15 August through 27 September 2023. Fitting our low-cost sensor data with a bootstrap and aggregated random forest model, we found a high correlation between the reference and XPOD CH concentrations (r = 0.719) and a low experimental error (RMSD = 0.3673 ppm). Other calibration models, including multilinear regression and artificial neural networks (ANN), were either unable to distinguish individual methane spikes above baseline or had a significantly elevated error (RMSD = 0.4669 ppm) when compared to the random forest model. Using out-of-bag predictor permutations, we found that sensors that showed the highest correlation with methane displayed the greatest significance in our random forest model. As we reduced the percentage of colocation data employed in the random forest model, errors did not significantly increase until a specific threshold (50 percent of total calibration data). Using a peakfinding algorithm, we found that our model was able to predict 80 percent of methane spikes above 2.5 ppm throughout the duration of our field campaign, with a false response rate of 35 percent.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10820073PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s24020519DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

random forest
16
forest model
16
low-cost sensors
12
mobile monitoring
12
low-cost sensor
8
error rmsd
8
methane spikes
8
methane
6
monitoring
5
low-cost
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!