MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4230258884 · doi:10.5194/acp-2020-558

Airborne measurements of fire Emission Factors for African biomass burning sampled during the MOYA Campaign

2020· preprint· en· W4230258884 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patrick Barker, Grant Allen, Thomas J. Bannan, Archit Mehra, Keith Bower, Joseph Pitt, Stéphane Bauguitte, Dominika Pasternak, Rebecca Fisher, James Lee, Hugh Coe, M. W. Gallagher, Carl J. Percival, Euan G. Nisbet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNASA HeadquartersU.S. Geological SurveyUniversity of LeedsRoyal Holloway, University of LondonSight Research UKMinistry of Economy, Trade and IndustryNatural Resources CanadaUK Research and InnovationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCombustionBiomass (ecology)Carbon dioxideBiomass burningAtmospheric sciencesMethaneNitrous oxideVegetation (pathology)ForestryAnimal scienceMeteorologyGeographyEcologyChemistryAerosolBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Airborne sampling of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrous oxide (N2O) mole fractions was conducted during field campaigns targeting fires over Senegal in February and March 2017, and Uganda in January 2019. The majority of fire plumes sampled were close to, or directly over burning vegetation, with the exception of two longer-range flights over the West African Atlantic seaboard, (100–300 km from source) where the continental outflow of biomass burning emissions from a wider area of West Africa was sampled. Fire Emission Factors (EFs) and modified combustion efficiencies (MCEs) were estimated from the enhancements in measured mole fractions. For the Senegalese fires, mean EFs and corresponding one-standard deviation variabilities, in units of g per kg of dry fuel were 1.8 (± 0.06) for CH4, 1633 (± 56.4) for CO2 and 679 (± 1.6) for CO, with a mean MCE of 0.94 (± 0.005). For the Ugandan fires, mean EFs (in units of g kg−1) were 3.1 (± 0.1) for CH4, 1610 (± 54.9) for CO2 and 78 (± 1.9) for CO, with a mean modified combustion efficiency of 0.93 (± 0.004). A mean N2O EF of 0.08 (± 0.002) g kg−1 is also reported for one flight over Uganda; issues with temperature control of the instrument optical bench prevented N2O EFs from being obtained for other flights over Uganda. This study has provided new datasets of African biomass burning EFs and MCEs for two distinct study regions, in which both have been studied little by aircraft measurement previously. These results highlight the important intracontinental variability of biomass burning trace gas emissions, and can be used to better constrain future biomass burning emission budgets. More generally, these results highlight the importance of regional and fuel-type variability when attempting to spatially scale biomass burning emissions. Further work to constrain EFs at more local scales and for more specific (and quantifiable) fuel types will serve to improve global estimates of biomass burning emissions of climate-relevant gases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→