Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2019-344
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2019-344
29 Jul 2019
 | 29 Jul 2019
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal HESS but the revision was not accepted.

Technical note: comparison of water vapor sampling techniques for stable isotope analysis

César Dionisio Jiménez-Rodríguez, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Thom Bogaard, Erika Vatiero, and Hubert Savenije

Abstract. Water vapor samples are key elements to describe the evaporation process thanks to the stable isotope signatures of δ2H and δ18O. However, its sampling is a difficult task that can introduce errors due to isotopic fractionation. This study investigates the consistency of different sampling techniques for atmospheric water vapor. The isotope signature of a parcel of air was determined with a cavity output spectroscopy device during a period of 3 hours (benchmark). This parcel of air was sampled simultaneously with 3 types of sampling bags made of different materials (metalized polyethylene -MPE-, polyvinyl fluoride -PVF-, low density polyethylene -LDPE-) and with 2 cryogenic baths running at two different pumping rates (3 L min-1 and 50 mL min-1). The tested water vapor sampling techniques differ in their ability to keep reliable measurements after sampling and are highly susceptible to procedural errors. MPE bags are the best option for measuring samples up to two weeks of storage after sampling. LDPE and PVF bags are only reliable if the measurement is performed on the same sampling day.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
César Dionisio Jiménez-Rodríguez, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Thom Bogaard, Erika Vatiero, and Hubert Savenije
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
César Dionisio Jiménez-Rodríguez, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Thom Bogaard, Erika Vatiero, and Hubert Savenije
César Dionisio Jiménez-Rodríguez, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Thom Bogaard, Erika Vatiero, and Hubert Savenije

Viewed

Total article views: 2,303 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,810 445 48 2,303 73 61
  • HTML: 1,810
  • PDF: 445
  • XML: 48
  • Total: 2,303
  • BibTeX: 73
  • EndNote: 61
Views and downloads (calculated since 29 Jul 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 29 Jul 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,849 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,839 with geography defined and 10 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 29 May 2024
Download
Short summary
Knowing the isotopic composition of water vapor in the air is a difficult task. The estimation of δ18O and δ2H has to be done carefully, because it is accompanied by a high risk of methodological errors (if it is sampled) or wrong assumptions that can lead to incorrect values (if it is modeled). The aim of this work was to compare available sampling methods for water vapor in the air and estimate their isotopic composition, comparing the results against direct measurements of the sampled air.