Andy Connor, Jacob T. Shaw, Nigel Yarrow, Neil Howes, Jon Helmore, Andrew Finlayson, Patrick Barker and Rod Robinson
{"title":"A framework for describing and classifying methane reporting requirements, emission sources, and monitoring methods†","authors":"Andy Connor, Jacob T. Shaw, Nigel Yarrow, Neil Howes, Jon Helmore, Andrew Finlayson, Patrick Barker and Rod Robinson","doi":"10.1039/D4EA00120F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Industries, governments, and regulators need trustworthy emissions data to enable them to make informed decisions regarding methane abatement strategy and policies. There are many differing data reporting metrics, as well as a diverse range of both emission sources and methods for monitoring emissions. Different data structures and terminologies can be used to describe similar objects, activities, or characteristics associated with methane monitoring. There is no currently accepted definition of what constitutes a methane monitoring method. Since there is no common basis to describe this information, confusion concerning language, definitions, and terminology can arise which can undermine confidence in data. This paper describes a framework, based on a set of taxonomies and a common lexicon, which aims to address these issues by providing a common structure in which data requirements, emission sources and monitoring methods can be described. The principles of metrology and quality assurance are embedded into this framework along with a means to define the temporal and spatial scales of the reporting and monitoring. It is envisaged that this framework will be developed into a standard to help facilitate more reliable transfer of information between stakeholders internationally. Usage examples for this framework include: to aid the development of test standards (between test laboratories, site operators, and standards bodies); to help ensure the most cost-effective monitoring methods are deployed for a specific purpose; to help identify technological and methodological gaps between what monitoring is needed and what is available, or to help drive more focused innovation in this field.</p>","PeriodicalId":72942,"journal":{"name":"Environmental science: atmospheres","volume":" 11","pages":" 1203-1217"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/ea/d4ea00120f?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental science: atmospheres","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/ea/d4ea00120f","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Industries, governments, and regulators need trustworthy emissions data to enable them to make informed decisions regarding methane abatement strategy and policies. There are many differing data reporting metrics, as well as a diverse range of both emission sources and methods for monitoring emissions. Different data structures and terminologies can be used to describe similar objects, activities, or characteristics associated with methane monitoring. There is no currently accepted definition of what constitutes a methane monitoring method. Since there is no common basis to describe this information, confusion concerning language, definitions, and terminology can arise which can undermine confidence in data. This paper describes a framework, based on a set of taxonomies and a common lexicon, which aims to address these issues by providing a common structure in which data requirements, emission sources and monitoring methods can be described. The principles of metrology and quality assurance are embedded into this framework along with a means to define the temporal and spatial scales of the reporting and monitoring. It is envisaged that this framework will be developed into a standard to help facilitate more reliable transfer of information between stakeholders internationally. Usage examples for this framework include: to aid the development of test standards (between test laboratories, site operators, and standards bodies); to help ensure the most cost-effective monitoring methods are deployed for a specific purpose; to help identify technological and methodological gaps between what monitoring is needed and what is available, or to help drive more focused innovation in this field.