Airborne observations of trace gases over boreal Canada during BORTAS: campaign climatology, air mass analysis and enhancement ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In situ airborne measurements were made over eastern Canada in summer 2011 as part of the BORTAS experiment (Quantifying the impact of BOReal forest fires on Tropospheric oxidants over the Atlantic using Aircraft and Satellites). In this paper we present observations of greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4) and other biomass burning tracers (CO, HCN and CH3CN), both climatologically and through case studies, as recorded on board the FAAM BAe-146 research aircraft. Vertical profiles of CO2 were generally characterised by depleted boundary layer concentrations relative to the free troposphere, consistent with terrestrial biospheric uptake. In contrast, CH4 concentrations were found to rise with decreasing altitude due to strong local and regional surface sources. BORTAS observations were found to be broadly comparable with both previous measurements in the region during the regional burning season and with reanalysed composition fields from the EU Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Change (MACC) project. We use coincident tracer–tracer correlations and a Lagrangian trajectory model to characterise and differentiate air mass history of intercepted plumes. In particular, CO, HCN and CH3CN were used to identify air masses that have been recently influenced by biomass burning. Examining individual cases we were able to quantify emissions from biomass burning. Using both near-field (< 1 day) and far-field (> 1 day) sampling, boreal forest fire plumes were identified throughout the troposphere. Fresh plumes from fires in northwestern Ontario yield emission factors for CH4 and CO2 of 8.5 ± 0.9 g (kg dry matter)−1 and 1512 ± 185 g (kg dry matter)−1, respectively. We have also investigated the efficacy of calculating emission factors from far-field sampling, in which there might be expected to be limited mixing with background and other characteristic air masses, and we provide guidance on best practice and limitations in such analysis. We have found that for measurements within plumes that originated from fires in northwestern Ontario 2–4 days upwind, emission factors can be calculated that range between 1618 ± 216 and 1702 ± 173 g (kg dry matter)−1 for CO2 and 1.8 ± 0.2 and 6.1 ± 1 g (kg dry matter)−1 for CH4.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".