Browsing by Subject "Ammonia background concentration"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1

Evaluation of calibrated passive sampling for quantifying ammonia emissions in multi‐plot field trials with slurry application
(2023) ten Huf, Martin; Reinsch, Thorsten; Kluß, Christof; Essich, Christoph; Ruser, Reiner; Buchen‐Tschiskale, Caroline; Pacholski, Andreas; Flessa, Heinz; Olfs, Hans‐Werner
Background: There is a great need for simple and inexpensive methods to quantify ammo- nia emissions in multi-plot field trials. However, methods that meet these criteria have to be thoroughly validated. In the calibrated passive sampling approach, acid traps placed in the center of quadratic plots absorb ammonia, enabling relative comparisons between plots. To quantify ammonia emissions, these acid trap samplings are scaled by means of a transfer coefficient (TC) obtained from simultaneous measurements with the dynamic tube method (DTM). However, dynamic tube measurements are also comparatively costly and time-consuming. Aims: Our objective was to assess the best practice for using calibrated passive sampling in multi-plot field trials. One particular challenge in such experiments is to evaluate the influence of ammonia drift between plots. Methods: In a series of eight multi-plot field trials, acid traps and DTM were used simulta- neously on all plots to measure ammonia emissions caused by different slurry application techniques. Data obtained by both methods were correlated, and the influence of the ubiquitous ammonia background on both methods was evaluated by comparing net values, including the subtraction of the background with gross values (no background subtraction). Finally, we provide recommendations for calculating a TC for calibrating relative differences between plots, based on simultaneous acid trap and dynamic tube measurements on selected plots. Results: Treatment mean values obtained by both methods correlated well. For most field trials, R2 values between 0.6 and 0.8 were obtained. Ammonia background concentrations affected both methods. Drift between plots contributed to the background for the acid traps, whereas the contamination of the chamber system might have caused the back- ground for the DTM. Treatments with low emissions were comparatively more affected by that background.