Premium
Application and assessment of a membrane‐based pCO 2 sensor under field and laboratory conditions
Author(s) -
Jiang ZongPei,
Hydes David J.,
Hartman Sue E.,
Hartman Mark C.,
Campbell Jon M.,
Johnson Bruce D.,
Schofield Bryan,
Turk Daniela,
Wallace Douglas,
Burt William J.,
Thomas Helmuth,
Cosca Cathy,
Feely Richard
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
limnology and oceanography: methods
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.898
H-Index - 72
ISSN - 1541-5856
DOI - 10.4319/lom.2014.12.264
Subject(s) - calibration , detector , environmental science , pressure sensor , alkalinity , remote sensing , analytical chemistry (journal) , computer science , chemistry , physics , thermodynamics , statistics , mathematics , telecommunications , environmental chemistry , geology
The principle, application, and assessment of the membrane‐based ProOceanus CO 2 ‐Pro sensor for partial pressure of CO 2 (pCO 2 ) are presented. The performance of the sensor is evaluated extensively under field and laboratory conditions by comparing the sensor outputs with direct measurements from calibrated pCO 2 measuring systems and the thermodynamic carbonate calculation of pCO 2 from discrete samples. Under stable laboratory condition, the sensor agreed with a calibrated water‐air equilibrator system at −3.0 ± 4.4 µatm during a 2‐month intercomparison experiment. When applied in field deployments, the larger differences between measurements and the calculated pCO 2 references (6.4 ± 12.3 µatm on a ship of opportunity and 8.7 ± 14.1 µatm on a mooring) are related not only to sensor error, but also to the uncertainties of the references and the comparison process, as well as changes in the working environments of the sensor. When corrected against references, the overall uncertainties of the sensor results are largely determined by those of the pCO 2 references (± 2 and ± 8 µatm for direct measurements and calculated pCO 2 , respectively). Our study suggests accuracy of the sensor can be affected by temperature fluctuations of the detector optical cell and calibration error. These problems have been addressed in more recent models of the instrument through improving detector temperature control and through using more accurate standard gases. Another interesting result in our laboratory test is the unexpected change in alkalinity which results in significant underestimation in the pCO 2 calculation as compared to the direct measurement (up to 90 µatm).