Figure 1
Comparison of the count and emission rate of equipment leaks detected by OGI and FID-based surveys. Figure 1 shows the number (left) and emission rate (right) of equipment leak emissions detected in the field campaign using optical gas imaging (OGI), flame ionization detection (FID) following EPA Method 21 with a 500 parts per million (ppm) threshold, or both detection methods. Results indicate that the FID-based surveys identified a larger count of leaks but that OGI-based surveys detected a similar percentage of overall emissions. Emissions and leak counts labeled in yellow were from two sites where only OGI emission surveys were undertaken. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.368.f1

Comparison of the count and emission rate of equipment leaks detected by OGI and FID-based surveys. Figure 1 shows the number (left) and emission rate (right) of equipment leak emissions detected in the field campaign using optical gas imaging (OGI), flame ionization detection (FID) following EPA Method 21 with a 500 parts per million (ppm) threshold, or both detection methods. Results indicate that the FID-based surveys identified a larger count of leaks but that OGI-based surveys detected a similar percentage of overall emissions. Emissions and leak counts labeled in yellow were from two sites where only OGI emission surveys were undertaken. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.368.f1

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal