2002
DOI: 10.1023/a:1019820208377
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
29
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Stable isotopic signatures have been used successfully to constrain the budgets of atmospheric trace gases such as methane and carbon monoxide, by applying isotope mass balance models 5–9. The recent development of highly sensitive mass spectrometric techniques using continuous‐flow isotope ratio mass spectrometry (CF‐IRMS) to analyze the stable carbon isotope ratios of atmospheric components also enabled us to apply these models to determine the amounts of trace non‐methane hydrocarbons and methyl halides in the atmosphere 10–17…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stable isotopic signatures have been used successfully to constrain the budgets of atmospheric trace gases such as methane and carbon monoxide, by applying isotope mass balance models 5–9. The recent development of highly sensitive mass spectrometric techniques using continuous‐flow isotope ratio mass spectrometry (CF‐IRMS) to analyze the stable carbon isotope ratios of atmospheric components also enabled us to apply these models to determine the amounts of trace non‐methane hydrocarbons and methyl halides in the atmosphere 10–17…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main sources of chloromethane in the atmosphere are to date not clearly identified (Keppler et al, 2005). The estimate of the average global isotopic atmospheric composition is δ 13 C(CH 3 Cl) = −32.6 ‰ ( Thompson et al, 2002). This value is used for the pseudo-emission of chloromethane.…”
Section: Pseudo-emission Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…k Assigned equal to the upper limit of the atmospheric variation. m Error of the mean from Thompson et al (2002). 1.9 ‰ (at the average global discrimination of = 17 ‰ and δ 13 C(CO 2 ) = −8 ‰) and accounts for all plant emissions with the largest UFs at magnitudes of 3 (Guenther et al, 1995). The uncertainty of the biomass burning signatures is set to 2 ‰ referring to the upper limit of errors in atmospheric δ 13 C used to validate the C 3 /C 4 burnt vegetation distribution incorporated in the GFEDv2.1 inventory (Still et al, 2003).…”
Section: Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For chloromethane, Thompson et al. [46] found a global δ 13 C average of -36.2‰. Budgeting of atmospheric chloromethane based on isotopic composition of known sources suggests that additional emission sources with an average δ 13 C value of -41.9±7.8‰ exist.…”
Section: Source Apportionmentmentioning
confidence: 99%