This study demonstrates an approach to measure methane gas concentrations in aqueous samples using portable optical analyzers coupled to an injection chamber in a closed loop. The results are similar to conventional gas chromatography, presenting a practical and low-cost alternative particularly suitable for remote field studies.
Measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes and pools in ecosystems are becoming increasingly common in ecological studies due to their relevance to climate change. With it, the need for analytical platforms adaptable to measuring different pools and fluxes within research groups also grows. This study aims to develop a procedure to use portable optical spectroscopy-based gas analyzers, originally designed and marketed for gas flux measurements, to measure GHG concentrations in aqueous samples. The protocol involves the traditional headspace equilibration technique followed by the injection of a headspace gas subsample into a chamber connected through a closed loop to the inlet and outlet ports of the gas analyzer. The chamber is fabricated from a generic mason jar and simple laboratory supplies, and it is an ideal solution for samples that may require pre-injection dilution. Methane concentrations measured with the chamber are tightly correlated (r2 > 0.98) with concentrations determined separately through gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) on subsamples from the same vials. The procedure is particularly relevant for field studies in remote areas where chromatography equipment and supplies are not readily available, offering a practical, cheaper, and more efficient solution for measuring methane and other dissolved greenhouse gas concentrations in aquatic systems.
Ecosystems at the terrestrial-aquatic interphase, like wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and creeks, are important sinks and sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)1,2. CH4, specifically, is produced during anaerobic respiration in the saturated pore spaces of sediment pores. Once it is produced, a fraction is oxidized and transformed to CO2, while the rest will eventually diffuse through the water column and vegetation or burst out into bubbles3. The concentration of CH4 in the water saturating the sediment pores (i.e., porewater) at a given time offers a glimpse into the balance between CH4 produced, consumed, and transported4. When measured over vertical profiles or time, porewater concentration also allows for identifying zones more active in CH4 production and consumption and their seasonal variation.
Traditionally, the methods to determine the concentration of GHG from porewater in ecosystems involve processing water samples collected in the field to equilibrate gases in a created headspace. Then, the headspace is analyzed through gas chromatography to determine the concentrations5. While this method is widely applied in ecological studies, it requires bench-top gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) systems that entail allocating conventional lab space and a high degree of expert knowledge to calibrate and operate (for example6). It also requires the use of specialized consumables, such as large tanks of carrier gasses (i.e., Nitrogen (N2) and Helium (He)), which are not readily available in remote locations. These requirements and the associated logistics of sample transport to the lab may constrain sampling design and, in some cases, limit the study's scope when chromatography equipment is unavailable.
This study aimed to develop an alternative method to measure dissolved greenhouse gas concentrations from headspace samples of aqueous solutions using portable optical spectroscopy-based gas analyzers. This type of optical gas analyzer is a cost-effective alternative to standard GC-FID systems, and its portability makes it an ideal choice for fieldwork applications. Portable optical spectroscopy-based gas analyzers produce high-frequency gas concentration measurements (i.e., ~ 1 s-1) with 2 – 5 s response times, depending on the brands and models. These instruments are designed and marketed primarily for determining gas fluxes from GHG-emitting surfaces like soils, water, and vegetation7,8,9. Optical analyzers allow flux calculation from continuous concentration measurements in non-steady state headspace chambers deployed over the emitting surfaces of interest. In their regular intended use with surface chambers, the high-frequency measurements of the rate of change in concentrations observed in the chamber and known chamber dimensions, pressure, and temperature allow for interpretation of those data as for the rate of emission (or uptake) per surface area (i.e., surface fluxes)10. However, portable gas analyzers are neither equipped nor optimized for dissolved concentrations in aqueous media, necessitating additional adaptations and interpretations for that type of analysis.
Leveraging previous demonstrations of the use of optical analyzers to determine concentrations in discrete samples from headspaces8, we designed a small, closed chamber (i.e., no emitting surfaces) that connects to the analyzer in a closed loop. The change in concentrations after the injection of the headspace gas subsample, followed by dilution calculations, allows for determining the original headspace's concentrations. The precision of this approach was evaluated by comparing its results to those obtained through GC-FID in the same samples. The method is further demonstrated through a use case that analyzed the vertical profiles of CH4 in porewater samples collected from experimental sites in a freshwater marsh in Louisiana.
1. Porewater sampling and analysis
2. Greenhouse gas concentration measurement
3. Validation against standard chromatography measurements
Optical analyzer versus gas chromatography
The results obtained through gas chromatography and the optical analyzer for the three groups of standards showed good linear fits (i.e., r2 > 0.98) with slopes close to one (Figure 4). The slopes of the regressions in the three experiments were statistically similar (F(2) = 0.478, p = 0.623), suggesting the reproducibility of the results. It is important to note that the slopes in all three cases were larger than one, indicating that, on average, one can anticipate a slight underestimation of the gas concentrations measured with the optical analyzer compared to concentrations obtained through chromatography. However, the intercepts at zero are different (F(1) = 1648.49, p <0.0001), which warns caution when interpreting low CH4 concentrations (i.e., <10 µmol/mol). In fact, at these lowest concentrations, the optical analyzer and chromatography showed the largest relative errors (Table 1), suggesting the challenges of measuring at low concentrations.
Field test: using the protocol to determine methane concentrations in porewater from two vegetation patches in coastal wetlands of Louisiana
The porewater CH4 concentrations determined from field samples show distinct vertical and temporal dynamics (Figure 5). These patterns are expected in wetland ecohydrological settings like the ones sampled, where diverse wetland vegetation can modulate CH4 production and oxidation and the resulting gas exchange with the atmosphere17,18. The RSD was ± 10.03%, less than the 15% typically used as a threshold in quality control and assurance (QC/QA) protocols employing chromatography on greenhouse gas analyses19.
Figure 1: Protocol overview. Schematic showing the main steps of the protocol. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: System components. (A) Main components and (B) a detailed view of the injection chamber. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Concentrations during injections. CH4 concentrations in the injection chamber during a selected measurement show the typical response after the injection of the sample. The areas highlighted indicate the concentrations before and after the injection considered for the calculations. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Comparison between measurements with this method and chromatography. The linear relationships between CH4 headspace concentrations determined with gas chromatography (GC-FID) and concentrations determined with this method for the three experiments had good linear fits (i.e., r2 > 0.98). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Use case demonstration. Porewater concentrations in patches dominated by (A) Sagittaria lancifolia, and (B) a mix of Sagittaria lancifolia and Typha latifolia. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
CH4 standard [ppm] | GC [%] | Optical analyzer [%] |
5 | 24.3 | 22.8 |
10 | 9.6 | 3.4 |
15 | 16.7 | 6.1 |
20 | 0.6 | 3.4 |
25 | 1 | 6 |
30 | 1.5 | 6.7 |
35 | 1.7 | 8 |
40 | 1.3 | 13.3 |
45 | 1.4 | 8.2 |
50 | 0.2 | 6.9 |
55 | 1.4 | 7.9 |
60 | 1.6 | 4.6 |
65 | 0.4 | 8.8 |
70 | 2.4 | 4.3 |
75 | 1.4 | 6.3 |
80 | 0.9 | 7 |
85 | 0.4 | 4.1 |
90 | 1.6 | 3.3 |
95 | 3.4 | 9 |
100 | 4.2 | 3.3 |
Table 1: Relative error (%). Gas chromatography (GC) and optical analyzer measurements of the same check standard vial.
This study demonstrated the applicability of portable optical spectroscopy-based gas analyzers coupled to a custom-made injection chamber to analyze headspaces created from water samples. The demonstration focused on CH4, but the protocol could be applied to analyzing other relevant GHGs like CO2 and N2O8. The goal was to expand on previous systematic assessments of these closed-loop systems that represent an alternative analytical platform to conventional gas chromatography in GHG concentration measurement studies.
Similar to gas chromatography, in this approach, it is critical to use check standards to ensure quality control and assessment in the analysis process. The standards analyzed with the method were comparable with those of standard chromatography (Figure 4). However, the main perceived advantages include the lack of carrier gases or frequent calibration routines. Users can also run samples immediately after sampling in the field, reducing the time allowed for microbial oxidation of reactive species like CH4 in water samples. Even when GHG-free gas to create the headspace needed in sample preparation is unavailable, users could still create headspaces using ambient air, assuming that the concentration in the water of interest is above that of air20. There are also perceived disadvantages, such as the time required to measure large sample sets. Although single sample analysis can take a similar time to that of GC-FID, there are no automated ways to conduct injections in optical analyzers, and more operation time is required for this approach than for more established GC-autosampler systems.
The main difference between this approach and other closed-loop systems with in-line injection ports (e.g.,8) is the addition of an injection chamber. In it, high-concentration samples can be diluted as part of the regular operation during analysis, avoiding additional steps to dilute the samples before their injection in the loop. In practice, the operator can proceed with injections from the headspace into the chamber instead of creating dilutions for samples with suspected high concentrations. The chamber volume can be modified and made larger to accommodate samples of high concentration or smaller for samples with low concentrations. Another advantage of this method compared to other closed-loop systems with in-line injections in terms of efficiency in analyzing multiple samples is the possibility of stack injections without flushing the chamber right after each injection. The dilution in the injection chamber allowed methane concentration in the loop to remain consistently below 100 ppm CH4 during the 20-stacked injection approach we tested, which previous work identified as the loop concentration threshold at which accuracy in CH4 analysis starts dropping3.
Overall, this method is suitable for sample analysis in remote locations or cases when chromatographs, including portable ones21, are not feasible or available. For example, scientists in field expeditions in remote locations will be able to determine actual GHG concentrations in water bodies and aqueous systems after some simple steps to create the headspace and make decisions regarding sampling priorities and needs in the spot instead of having to bring the samples back to a lab or field station equipped with chromatography.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This work was funded through DOE awards DE-SC0021067, DE-SC0023084, and DE-SC0022972. The porewater concentration data of the sampled sites at the marsh is publicly available at ESS-DIVE Data Archive (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1997524 , accessed on June 21, 2024)
1/4 in. I.D. x 3/8 in. O.D. Clear Vinyl Tubing | Home Depot | SKU # 702098 | Use to couple stopcocks and tubing connected to the instrument. Two short pieces (~4 cm). |
5/16 – 5/8 in. Stainless Steel Hose Clamp | Everbilt | 6260294 | Use to secure tubing connecting the stopcock valves and tubing connected to the instrument. |
Crack-Resistant Teflon PFA Semi-Clear Tube for chemicals, 5/32" ID, 1/4" OD | McMaster-Carr | 51805K86 | Use to connect the injection chamber to the inlet and outlet ports of the instrument. We used two 0.68 m-long tubing in our experiment. |
Drill with titanium step drillbit | Multiple companies | Use to drill the holes for septum and stopcocks in the jar's metallic lid. | |
Gay butyl septum (stopper) | Weathon Microliter | 20-0025-B | Use as injection port and as vial septum (if compatible). |
Headspace vials 20ml (23x75mm), Clear, Crimp Rounded Bottom | Restek | 21162 | Use to store the headspace sample. |
Heavy Duty Steel Bond Epoxy GorillaWeld | Gorilla | 4330101 | Use to glue stopcock valves and septum to the jar's metallic lid. |
Hypodermic Needles | Air-Tite Products Co. | N221 | Use to extract water from field vials, inject heaspace sample in vial and inject subsample to the injection chamber. |
Mason jar (12 oz) | Ball, Kerr, Jarden | Larger or smaller chamber volumes can be chosen depending on sample concentrations. | |
Optical spectroscopy-based gas analyzer | Multiple companies | Picarro G4301, Licor 7810, Licor 7820, ABB GLA131-GGA | These are some specific examples of analyzers that could be coupled to the injection chamber. We recognize that it is not an extensive list and other optical spectroscopy analyzers may also be suitable for the method. |
Stopcock valve | DWK Life Sciences | 420163-0001 | Keep the valves open during normal operation. |
Syringe (2.5 mL) | Air-Tite Products Co. | R2 | Use to extract subsamples from the headspace vials and inject them in the injecion chamber for analysis. |
Syringe (30 mL) | Air-Tite Products Co. | R30HJ | Use to create headspace for gas analysis. |
.