Ammonia emission following field application of animal slurry is a significant problem for the environment and human health. Accurate emission measurements are crucial for inventories, research, and mitigation. However, there may be large differences between results obtained with different methods. In this study measurement methods were compared in two field experiments: in Denmark (I-AU, trailing hose application, summer, arable land) and the Netherlands (II-WUR, slurry shallow injection, autumn, grassland) over 7 days each. Two micrometeorological methods (Integrated Horizontal Flux (IHF) and backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLS)) and three enclosure methods (Dräger tube method (DTM), wind tunnels (WT), and dynamic flux chambers (FC)) were included in one or both. Measuring in parallel eliminated effects of local factors influencing emission. Relative systematic error in micrometeorological methods (bLS variants and IHF) was estimated from measurements as about 25 % as a standard deviation among methods based on random-effects models. DTM emission measurements were lower than other methods by as much as 34 % of applied TAN compared to bLS. The emission rate measured by IHF followed the same pattern as the other methods soon after slurry application, but total emission was lower (5 % of applied TAN lower than bLS). Different concentration measurement methods used with bLS showed differences of 1–13 % of applied TAN. FC emission was 9–15 % of applied TAN higher than IHF and bLS, but 13 % lower than WT. WT emissions were high and depended on the air exchange rate. Overall relative uncertainty in total emission measured with micrometeorological methods was estimated at 24 and 31 % of the measured value (standard deviation), implying a 95 % confidence interval of about 60 %-160 % of emission measured in a single plot using a micrometeorological method.

中文翻译：

---

两次现场试验中两种微气象法和三种封闭法测量施浆后氨排放量的比较


动物泥浆现场施用后的氨排放对环境和人类健康来说是一个重大问题。准确的排放测量对于清查、研究和缓解至关重要。然而，使用不同方法获得的结果可能存在很大差异。在本研究中，在丹麦（I-AU，牵引软管应用，夏季，耕地）和荷兰（II-WUR，泥浆浅层注入，秋季，草地）的两次现场实验中对测量方法进行了比较，每次实验持续超过 7 天。两种微气象方法（积分水平通量 (IHF) 和后向拉格朗日随机方法 (bLS)）和三种封闭方法（德尔格管法 (DTM)、风洞 (WT) 和动态通量室 (FC)）包含在一种或两种方法中。并行测量消除了影响排放的当地因素的影响。根据测量结果估计，微气象方法（bLS 变体和 IHF）的相对系统误差约为 25%，作为基于随机效应模型的方法之间的标准差。与 bLS 相比，DTM 排放测量值比其他方法低了多达 34% 的应用 TAN。在浆料施用后不久，通过 IHF 测量的排放率与其他方法相同，但总排放量较低（所施用 TAN 的 5% 低于 bLS）。 bLS 使用的不同浓度测量方法显示所应用的 TAN 存在 1-13% 的差异。 FC 排放量为应用 TAN 的 9-15%，高于 IHF 和 bLS，但比 WT 低 13%。 WT 排放量很高，并且取决于空气交换率。 使用微气象方法测量的总排放量的总体相对不确定性估计为测量值的 24% 和 31%（标准差），这意味着使用微气象方法在单个地块测量的排放量的 95% 置信区间约为 60%-160% 。