Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Dec 6;56(23):16567-16581.
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c02136. Epub 2022 Nov 23.

Recent Advances Toward Transparent Methane Emissions Monitoring: A Review

Broghan M Erland  1   2 , Andrew K Thorpe  3 , John A Gamon  1   4
Affiliations
Review

Recent Advances Toward Transparent Methane Emissions Monitoring: A Review

Broghan M Erland et al. Environ Sci Technol. .

Abstract

Given that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be immediately reduced to avoid drastic increases in global temperature, methane emissions have been placed center stage in the fight against climate change. Methane has a significantly larger warming potential than carbon dioxide. A large percentage of methane emissions are in the form of industry emissions, some of which can now be readily identified and mitigated. This review considers recent advances in methane detection that allow accurate and transparent monitoring, which are needed for reducing uncertainty in source attribution and evaluating progress in emissions reductions. A particular focus is on complementary methods operating at different scales with applications for the oil and gas industry, allowing rapid detection of large point sources and addressing inconsistencies of emissions inventories. Emerging airborne and satellite imaging spectrometers are advancing our understanding and offer new top-down assessment methods to complement bottom-up methods. Successfully merging estimates across scales is vital for increased certainty regarding greenhouse gas emissions and can inform regulatory decisions. The development of comprehensive, transparent, and spatially resolved top-down and bottom-up inventories will be crucial for holding nations accountable for their climate commitments.

Keywords: bottom-up; methane emissions; monitoring technology; remote sensing; spectroscopy; top-down.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Taxonomy of sampling platforms and methods for estimating atmospheric methane emissions, arranged left to right according to approximate spatial sampling scale. Approximate ranges in the size of each method’s sample (e.g., pixel size or smallest resolvable sampling area) are provided at the top of each branch. Methods vary from bottom-up (toward the left) to top-down (toward the right). Note that some sensors and platforms (e.g., many airborne sensors) can be used for both extrapolation and downscaling and so can be considered as top-down or bottom-up, depending upon the analysis used. Tall towers are an exception to the ground-based sample size range as they often utilize inverse dispersion modeling and cover areas approaching the upper spatial scale of satellite methods. More color saturated upper branches depict the main method subcategories, while the lightly colored lower branches provide examples of techniques and data types.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Taxonomy of main ground-based methods for measuring methane emissions. Figures adapted* from ref s,,,,,. *Ref (69) reprinted with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Taxonomy of main airborne methods for measuring methane emissions. Figures adapted* from refs (20,28,84). *Ref (84) reprinted with permission from SPIE.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Taxonomy of main satellite methods for measuring atmospheric methane emissions. Figures adapted from refs (44,55,86).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Etheridge D. M.; Steele L. P.; Francey R. J.; Langenfelds R. L. Atmospheric methane between 1000 A.D. and present: Evidence of anthropogenic emissions and climatic variability. J. Geophys Res. Atmos 1998, 103 (D13), 15979–15993. 10.1029/98JD00923. - DOI
    1. Falkowski P.; Scholes R. J.; Boyle E.; Canadell J.; Canfield D.; Elser J.; Gruber N.; Hibbard K.; Hogberg P.; Linder S.; Mackenzie F. T.; Moore III B.; Pedersen T.; Rosenthal Y.; Seitzinger S.; Smetacek V.; Steffen W. Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. Science 2000, 290 (5490), 291–296. 10.1126/science.290.5490.291. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dlugokencky E. J.; Nisbet E. G.; Fisher R.; Lowry D. Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers. Philos. Trans R Soc. A Math Phys. Eng. Sci. 2011, 369 (1943), 2058–2072. 10.1098/rsta.2010.0341. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ciais P.; Sabine C.; Bala G.; Bopp L.; Brovkin V; House J. I.. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In Climate Change 2013; Edenhofer O., Pichs-Madruga R., Sokona Y., Farahani E., Kadner S., Seyboth K., Adler A., Baum I., Brunner S., Eickemeier P., Kriemann B., Savolainen J., Schlömer S., von Stechow C., T Z., J. C M., Zwickel T., Minx J.C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press, 2014; pp 465–570.
    1. Schuur E. A. G.; McGuire A. D.; Schädel C.; Grosse G.; Harden J. W.; Hayes D. J.; Hugelius G.; Koven C. D.; Kuhry P.; Lawrence D. M.; Natali S. M.; Olefeldt D.; Romanovsky V. E.; Schaefer K.; Turetsky M. R.; Treat C. C.; Vonk J. E. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 2015, 520, 171. 10.1038/nature14338. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types