Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 12 OF 19

Main Title Measurement of loblolly pine terpene emissions /
Other Authors
Author Title of a Work
Seila, R. L.
Publisher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory ; Center for Environmental Research Information [distributor],
Year Published 1982
Report Number EPA/600-S3-82-010
OCLC Number 09495915
Subjects Terpenes ; Loblolly pine ; Air--Pollution--Measurement
Internet Access
Description Access URL
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000TSGK.PDF
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
EJBD  EPA 600-S3-82-010 In Binder Headquarters Library/Washington,DC 11/14/2018
ELBD ARCHIVE EPA 600-S3-82-010 In Binder Received from HQ AWBERC Library/Cincinnati,OH 10/04/2023
Collation 5 pages : illustrations ; 28 cm
Notes
Caption title. At head of title: Project summary. "June 1982." "EPA/600-S3-82-010."
Contents Notes
"A new method for quantifying biogenic hydrocarbon emission rates without disturbing the vegetation is presented. An energy balance/Bowen ratio approach was used to estimate fluxes of alpha-pinene from measurements of net radiation and vertical gradients of alpha-pinene, temperature, and water vapor above a loblolly pine forest canopy. The mean flux for 20 determinations ranging from 19 to 84 /micro-g/m2/min was 41 /micro-g/mVmin. This method was compared to an enclosure method, in which foliage is enclosed with a Teflon bag for emission rate determinations. For this comparison, the energy balance/Bowen ratio flux values were converted to emission rate units of micro-g alpha-pinene/g dry needle mass/hr using site-specific biomass factors. Seventeen enclosure method determinations from mature loblolly pine trees yielded a median value of 4.7 /micro-g/g/hr over a range of 1.2 to 32 micro-g/g/hr. While both methods displayed relatively high variances, the variance of the enclosure method was considerably higher than that of the energy balance/Bowen ratio method. There was no statistically significant difference between the results of the two methods."--P. [1].