z-logo
Premium
A Simple Conductimetric CO 2 Analyzer with Automatic Recalibration: III. Dynamic Response
Author(s) -
Wall Gerard W.,
Acock Basil
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.2134/agronj1995.00021962008700010014x
Subject(s) - spectrum analyzer , carbon dioxide , chemistry , analytical chemistry (journal) , gas analyzer , environmental science , sampling (signal processing) , volumetric flow rate , nitrogen , chromatography , environmental chemistry , thermodynamics , optics , physics , organic chemistry , detector
Conductimetric CO 2 analyzers provide an economical means of monitoring and controlling carbon dioxide concentration ([CO 2 ]) in plant growth cabinets. When conductimetric CO 2 analyzers are being used to measure canopy CO 2 uptake over a period and compare that with light received, it is essential to know the time between an air sample leaving the canopy and its [CO 2 ] being registered by the analyzer. A four‐way analysis of variance in three replicates of a split split‐plot design was used to examine the response time of the conductimetric CO 2 analyzers to successive step changes in [CO 2 ] (∆[CO 2 ]) from 200 to 400, 600, 800, and 1000 μL L −1 , at temperatures of 10, 20, 30, and 40°C, at air flows rates of 540, 1880, and 3700 mm 3 s ‐1 , and at water flow rates of 1.0, 0.66, and 0.33 mL s −1 . Response times ranged from 30 to 542 s across all treatments. Significant differences were observed between individual conductimetric CO 2 analyzers, with response time means ranging from 99 to 145 s. Each analyzer, therefore, is unique and must be recalibrated following a change in any one component. A significant water flow rate ✕ temperature interaction was observed (response time means ranged from 86 to 177 s). Comparing these response time means to the 900‐s sampling period indicates that an individual conductimetric CO 2 analyzer will adjust to the new steady state following a change in control within 9.5 to 20% of the sampling period. Only 1 data record out of 96 within a diurnal cycle is lost if an alteration in the CO 2 control set point for the plant growth cabinet is made. This data loss is acceptable.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here