Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol

Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect large fugitive methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure sooner than traditional leak surveys, and quantification by CM solutions has been proposed as the foundation of measurement-based inventories. This study performed single-blind testing at a controlled release facility (release from 0.4 to 6400 g CH4/h) replicating conditions that were challenging, but less complex than typical field conditions. Eleven solutions were tested, including point sensor networks and scanning/imaging solutions. Results indicated a 90% probability of detection (POD) of 3-30 kg CH4/h; 6 of 11 solutions achieved a POD < 6 kg CH4/h, although uncertainty was high. Four had true positive rates > 50%. False positive rates ranged from 0 to 79%. Six solutions estimated emission rates. For a release rate of 0.1-1 kg/h, the solutions' mean relative errors ranged from -44% to +586% with single estimates between -97% and +2077%, and 4 solutions' upper uncertainty exceeding +900%. Above 1 kg/h, mean relative error was -40% to +93%, with two solutions within +/- 20%, and single-estimate relative errors were from -82% to +448%. The large variability in performance between CM solutions, coupled with highly uncertain detection, detection limit, and quantification results, indicates that the performance of individual CM solutions should be well understood before relying on results for internal emissions mitigation programs or regulatory reporting.

Automated summary

Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure, but this study found that the performance of different CM solutions varied greatly. Some solutions had a high probability of detection and accurate quantification, while others had high levels of uncertainty and false positive rates. The results indicate that the performance of individual CM solutions should be well understood before relying on them for emissions mitigation or regulatory reporting.