This protocol (A document that describes how to quantitatively assess the net amount of CO₂ removed by a process. To Isometric, a Protocol is specific to a Project Proponent's process and comprised of Modules representing the Carbon Fluxes involved in the CDR process. A Protocol measures the full carbon impact of a process against the Baseline of it not occurring.) provides the requirements and procedures for the calculation of net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) (The amount of CO₂ emissions that would cause the same integrated radiative forcing or temperature change, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of GHG or a mixture of GHGs. One common metric of CO₂e is the 100-year Global Warming Potential.) removals from the atmosphere via Direct Air Capture (DAC). This protocol is developed for application to DAC processes or combinations of processes (e.g., solid sorption, liquid solvent, membrane processes, electrochemistry, etc.) in which a cradle-to-grave (Considering impacts at each stage of a product's life cycle, from the time natural resources are extracted from the ground and processed through each subsequent stage of manufacturing, transportation, product use, and ultimately, disposal.)GHG Assessment (An analysis of the balance of positive and negative emissions associated with a certain process, which includes all of the flows of CO₂ and other GHGs, along with other environmental or social impacts of concern.) can be accurately applied and in which the CO2 captured is stored geologically (or via a method demonstrated to be equivalent) for >1000 years.
The protocol was developed in line with latest scientific understanding and industry best-practices which inform the quantification of gross CO2 removed via DAC as well as the accounting of GHG emissions associated with DAC processes. Additionally, the protocol ensures:
Specific standards and protocols which are utilized as the foundation of this protocol and for which this protocol is intended to be fully compliant with are as follows:
Additional reference standards that inform the requirements and overall practices incorporated in this protocol include:
This protocol was developed based on the current state of the art and publicly available science regarding DAC and CO2storage (Describes the addition of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere to a reservoir, which serves as its ultimate destination. This is also referred to as “sequestration”.). Because DAC is still a developing approach to carbon dioxide removal (Activities that remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and store it in products or geological, terrestrial, and oceanic Reservoirs. CDR includes the enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture (DAC) and storage, but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human intervention.) with ever-expanding published literature, the protocol incorporates requirements that may be more stringent than some current regulations or other protocols related to DAC and CO2 storage. The approach taken here may be altered in future versions of the protocol as DAC and CO2 storage technology and research advance.
This protocol applies to projects that capture CO2 from ambient air and store captured CO2 geologically for >1000 years via processes (such as injection into saline aquifers and in-situ/ex-situ mineralization) to which cradle-to-grave GHG assessment can be accurately applied.
Projects that co-capture CO2 from on-site point sources may not be accounted for as claimed removals (A Removal which has been submitted by a Project Proponent, but which has not yet been Verified.), as they are not additional (An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention—for example, a CDR Project—causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario.). DAC projects should not be co-located with emissions sources which result from the development, use, processing, or combustion of fossil fuels or petrochemicals. Co-located facilities are classified as those on contiguous or adjacent properties. In extenuating circumstances, such as those allowing for substantial gains in efficiency (e.g., via waste heat utilization) with little risk of non-additionality, co-location of facilities may be evaluated.
Only DAC projects which meet a zero emissions baseline (A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.) (see Section 7.2) are eligible under this protocol. A project may qualify for this distinction by meeting one of the following conditions1:
The project must consider environmental and social impacts and the project proponent must provide evidence that the project will do no net environmental or social harm by complying with Section 3.7.1 of the Isometric Standard as well as the following requirements:
The following topics are covered briefly in this protocol due to their inclusion in the Isometric Standard, which governs all Isometric protocols. See in-text references to the Isometric Standard for further guidance.
For each specific project to be evaluated under this protocol, the project proponent must document project characteristics in a Project Design Document (PDD) as outlined in Section 3.2 of the Isometric Standard. The PDD will form the basis for project verification (A process for evaluating and confirming the net Removals and Reductions for a Project, using data and information collected from the Project and assessing conformity with the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which it is governed. Verification must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).) and evaluation in accordance with this protocol, and must include consideration of processes unique to DAC such as:
Projects must be validated (A systematic and independent process for evaluating the reasonableness of the assumptions, limitations and methods that support a Project and assessing whether the Project conforms to the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which the Project is governed. Validation must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).) and project net CO2e removals verified by an independent third party consistent with the requirements described in this Protocol as well as in Section 4 of the Isometric Standard.
The Verification and Validation Body (VVB) (Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.) must consider following requisite components:
The threshold for Materiality (An acceptable difference between reported Removals/emissions or Reductions/emissions and what an auditor determines is the actual Removal/emissions or Reduction/emissions.), considering the totality of all omissions, errors and mis-statements, is 5%, in accordance with Section 4.3 of the Isometric Standard.
Verifiers should also verify the documentation of uncertainty (A lack of knowledge of the exact amount of CO₂ removed by a particular process, Uncertainty may be quantified using probability distributions, confidence intervals, or variance estimates.) of the GHG Statement as required by Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard. Qualitative materiality issues may also be identified and documented, such as2:
Project validation and verification must incorporate site visits to project facilities in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14064-3, 6.1.4.2, including, at minimum, site visits during validation and initial verification to the DAC project and storage site. Validators should whenever possible observe operation of the capture and storage processes to ensure full documentation of process inputs and outputs through visual observation.
A site visit must occur at least once every 2 years at each location.
Verifiers and validators must comply with the requirements defined in Section 4 of the Isometric Standard. In addition, teams should maintain and demonstrate expertise associated with the specific technologies of interest, including solvent/sorbent chemistry, geological storage of CO2, electricity procurement and heat/power generation.
Competency must be demonstrated through the below relevant sectoral scope accreditations, or through demonstration of relevant experience, in accordance with Isometric's VVB policy:
CO2 removal via DAC and subsequent storage is often a result of a multi-step process (such as capture, desorption, CO2 transport, CO2 temporary holding, the CO2 injection process, etc.), with activities in each step sometimes managed and operated by different operators, companies, or owners. When there are multiple parties involved in the process (e.g., injection site operators), and to avoid double counting of CO2e removals, a single Project Proponent must be specified contractually as the sole owner of the CO2e removals. Contracts must comply with all requirements defined in Section 3.1 of the Isometric Standard.
The Removal Project Proponent should be able to demonstrate additionality (An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention—for example, a CDR Project—causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario.) through compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Isometric Standard. The baseline utilized to assess additionality must be project-specific and is described in Section 7.2 of this Protocol.
Additionality determinations should be reviewed and completed every five years (aligned with the crediting period), at a minimum, or whenever project operating conditions change significantly, such as the following:
Any review and change in the determination of additionality should not affect the availability of carbon finance and Verified Credits (A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.) for the current or past crediting periods (The period of time over which a Project Design Document is valid, and over which Removals or Reductions may be Verified, resulting in Issued Credits.), but if the review indicates the project has become non-additional, this should make the project ineligible for future credits3.
The uncertainty in the overall estimate of the net CO2e removal as a result of the project must be calculated and transparently presented. The total CO2e removed over a reporting period ([math: RP]; see Section 7.3.1) for a project, [math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP}], must be conservatively (Purposefully erring on the side of caution under conditions of Uncertainty by choosing input parameter values that will result in a lower net CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction than if using the median input values. This is done to increase the likelihood that a given Removal or Reduction calculation is an underestimation rather than an overestimation.) determined. Projects must comply with requirements outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.
Projects must report a list of all input variables used in the net CO2e removal calculation and their uncertainties, including:
The uncertainty information should at least include the minimum and maximum values of a variable. More detailed uncertainty information should be provided if available, as outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.
In addition, a sensitivity analysis (An analysis of how much different components in a Model contribute to the overall Uncertainty.) that demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final net CO2e uncertainty must be provided. Details of the sensitivity analysis method must be provided so that the results can be re-created. Parameters may be omitted from a full uncertainty analysis if a Sensitivity Analysis can demonstrate that the parameter contributes to <1% change in Removal. For all other parameters, information about Uncertainty must be specified.
In accordance with the Isometric Standard, all evidence and data related to the underlying quantification of CO₂e removal will be available to the public through Isometric's platform (A community resource where Project Proponents publish and visualize their early processes, Removal and Reduction data and Protocols – enabling the scientific community to share feedback and advice.). That includes:
The Project Proponent can request certain information to be restricted (only available to authorized buyers (An entity that purchases Removals or Reductions, often with the purpose of Retiring Credits to make a Removal or Reduction claim.), the Registry (A database that holds information on Verified Removals and Reductions based on Protocols. Registries Issue Credits, and track their ownership and Retirement.) and VVB) where it is subject to confidentiality. However, that does not apply to any numerical data produced or used as part of the quantification of CO₂e removed.
The scope of this protocol includes the cradle-to-grave GHG Assessment of all emissions associated with the following aspects of a DAC and storage project for CO2e removal, as summarized in Figure 1. A GHG Statement must be prepared, which must account for the following activities:
Emissions for processes within the system boundary should include all GHG sinks (Any process, activity, or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas, a precursor to a greenhouse gas, or an aerosol from the atmosphere.) and reservoirs (A location where carbon is stored. This can be via physical barriers (such as geological formations) or through partitioning based on chemical or biological processes (such as mineralization or photosynthesis).) from the construction or manufacturing of each project and associated equipment, closure of each project and disposal of associated equipment, and operation of each process (DAC system, CO2 transportation, CO2 storage). Projects are required to include embodied emissions of both equipment and consumables in the process, as summarized in Figure 1.
Note that this protocol does not require inclusion of emissions resulting from ancillary activities not directly related to project operations, such as research and development activities, corporate administrative activities and any associated facilities. It does include activities associated with long term assurance of durable (The amount of time carbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a CDR project – is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the Reservoir in question.) storage, including required monitoring activities and controls.
[Image: DAC]
Figure 1
Schematic of Direct Air Capture and CO2 sequestration process, with primary processes (red boxes) and GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs considered in the system boundary. Blue boxes represent calculated emissions using appropriate emission factors and conversion to CO2e while green boxes represent emissions of potential emissions of CO2 only.
Carbon fluxes (The amount of carbon exchanged between two or more Reservoirs over a period of time.) and associated GHG emissions and removals from the project may derive from, but are not limited to, the following sources:
The above greenhouse gases must be included in emission calculations for each calculation term identified in Figure 1, according to the following guidelines:
[Image: Example blue shaded term]
Calculation terms shaded in blue must account for potential emissions of CO2 and other GHG (e.g., CH4, and N2O) via use of appropriate emission factors and conversion to CO2e.
[Image: Example green shaded term]
Calculation terms shaded in green must account for potential emissions of CO2 only, as no other GHG emissions are expected from these types of sources.
As stipulated in Section 4, the baseline of qualifying projects is considered to be zero. The activity would not occur in a business as usual scenario, and there is no other business as usual counterfactual (An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.) at this time for extraction of CO2 from ambient air and its durable storage. Therefore, deduction of baseline CO2e emissions is not included.
DAC systems are typically operated continuously, with captured CO2 being transported and durably stored using a variety of potential processes. Due to the continuous nature of DAC systems, the equations below used to calculate removals will pertain to all net emissions occurring over an interval of time. This unit of time is defined as the Reporting Period, [math: RP], and is initially the time between injection commencing and verification and then between verifications.
The following sections outline the process for calculating the net CO2e removed for each reporting period based on total mass stored during that period, written hereafter as [math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP}].
Total emissions reductions may be adjusted in future years for a reporting period, [math: RP], due to reversals (The escape of CO₂ to the atmosphere after it has been stored, and after a Credit has been Issued. A Reversal is classified as avoidable if a Project Proponent has influence or control over it and it likely could have been averted through application of reasonable risk mitigation measures. Any other Reversals will be classified as unavoidable.) (see Section 8) that may occur over the duration of the long-term storage period.
Net CO2e removal for a process utilizing DAC with storage must be calculated as follows for a reporting period, [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Removal} = CO_2e_{Stored}\ –\ CO_2e_{Counterfactual}\ -\ CO_2e_{Emissions}]
(Equation 1)
Where;
The final net CO2e quantification must be conservatively determined, giving high confidence (95% or above) that the estimated mass of carbon was removed.
Type: Sequestration
[math: CO_2e_{Stored}] represents the mass of carbon as CO2e present in the CO2-containing injectant that is injected and stored in the geologic or engineered storage formation in a given [math: RP]. This is the gross mass stored and does not account for reversals of storage from the storage formation.
This can be calculated by using the the mass injected and the average concentration of CO2 of a set time period, summed across the whole [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Stored,\ RP} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} C_{mean, inj,t} \cdot m_{Inj,t}]
(Equation 2)
Where:
Calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Stored}] requires two primary measurements
The concentration of CO2 in the gaseous or supercritical CO2 stream must be:
If premixed dissolved CO2 is injected into the subsurface or during the ex-situ mineralization processes which may use a carbonate slurry, then the total carbon content must be determined via the analysis of samples of injectant or input stream, following:
Tests must be completed by an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory, or equivalent, with accreditation including the specific method of interest.
All samples must be collected as individual grab samples from the injectant stream. A minimum of three samples must be collected for each sampling event and for stable carbon mass flows, at a minimum this sampling must occur quarterly. The carbon content must then be conservatively estimated by using 1 standard error below the mean for either the reporting period or smaller time unit (Δt) set within the PDD. The Project will also be subject to random sampling, to alleviate the risk of any substantially different carbon content at given time:
Laboratories should complete standard quality assurance procedures on a schedule in accordance with their quality management plans and accreditation requirements to include:
The mass of injectant ([math: m_{Inj}]) is measured via use of a calibrated mass flow meter or volumetric flow meter and density measurements over a defined time interval (Δt). Preference is for high-accuracy flow meters such as coriolis or thermal mass flow meters, although other metering solutions are allowable. Flow metering must meet the following requirements:
Ex-situ mineralization may use carbonate slurries or other such injectants are produced, determination of weight of delivered CO2-containing injectant to the injection site may be performed using a calibrated scale. The total mass stored may be determined by the difference in delivery truck weight measured upon arrival at the injection facility and at departure, after offloading of product, either into closed-system temporary holding or directly stored.
Any truck scale used must have a current certification in accordance with applicable local, state, or federal regulations for legal-for-trade weights and measures. Testing and calibration of scales must utilize certified weights in accordance with local, state, or other regulations, calibration weights must meet NIST Handbook 44 specifications5, and scale testing and calibration must be performed by a state certified entity.
The project proponent must maintain the following records as evidence of gross CO2e stored in injected CO2 or CO2-containing injectant:
Records of all carbon content analyses and injections must be maintained by the injection facility or project proponent and provided for verification purposes for a period of five years.
Type: Counterfactual
For DAC with geologic sequestration, the counterfactual is considered to be 0 if all eligibility criteria are met and conditions outlined in Section 4 are also met.
However, there are considerations for counterfactual energy usage, which are discussed and accounted for within the Energy Use Accounting Module (see Section 7.4.3.1).
Type: Emissions
[math: CO_2e_{Emissions}] is is the total quantity of GHG emissions from operations and embodied emissions associated with the injections that occurred in reporting period, [math: RP]. This can be calculated as:
[math: CO_{2}e_{Emissions} = CO_{2}e_{Energy} + CO_{2}e_{Transportation} \\ + CO_{2}e_{Embodied} + CO_{2}e_{Misc. Project} + CO_2e_{Monitoring}]
(Equation 3)
Where:
Emissions associated with energy usage throughout all phases of the process must be accounted for, whether electricity or thermal energy, typically associated with fuel combustion.
Energy related emissions may include, but are not limited to:
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Electricity usage associated with the DAC process/facility must follow the [math: CO_2e_{Electricity,\ R}] calculation approach for intensive facilities whilst all other processes may follow the calculation approach for non-intensive processes/facilities.
Emissions related to transportation of CO2 or injectants for all injections during a reporting period must be accounted for, including the following:
Refer to Transportation Emissions Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Embodied GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing, delivery, and installation of all equipment and consumables used in the DAC process must be accounted for in each [math: RP]. The Project Proponent must identify all equipment and consumables used in the DAC process, identify appropriate cradle to grave emission factors, and allocate the emissions over an appropriate allocation period.
Project Proponents must account for all embodied emissions in DAC equipment and facilities, including but not limited to the following:
Heat generation equipment and heat transfer equipment must be accounted for, but embodied emissions may already be accounted for by emission factors used for fuel combustion (i.e., steam boiler) emissions consider full cradle-to-grave GHG emissions. Project Proponents should evaluate whether embodied emissions from equipment such as boilers are included in the energy emissions calculations, and if not, account for the embodied emissions here.
Project Proponents must account for all embodied emissions in DAC process consumables, equipment and facilities, including but not limited to the following:
Refer to Embodied Emissions Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Miscellaneous GHG emissions for emissions associated with injections for a given reporting period, that cannot be categorized by [math: CO_2e_{Energy}], [math: CO_2e_{Transportation}], [math: CO_2e_{Embodied}] or [math: CO_2e_{Monitoring}].
Projects are responsible for identifying and quantifying such emissions. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Emissions for the above examples are calculated as follows:
[math: CO_{2}e_{MiscProjct} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} m_{em,t} \cdot\ C_{GHG,t} \cdot\ GWP_{GHG}]
(Equation 4)
Where:
Quantification of [math: CO_2e_{Misc. Project}] in a given [math: RP], requires two primary measurements, the measurement of the total quantity of emissions and the analysis of emissions for CO2 and other GHG content.
The total quantity of emissions can be determined by various acceptable methods, including:
The concentration of CO2 or other GHGs in the emissions ([math: CO_2e_{Release}]) or tail gas ([math: CO_2e_{Tailgas}]) must be measured directly via one of the following methods:
The Project Proponent must maintain the following records as evidence supporting calculation of emissions from the DAC or CO2 conversion process:
This Protocol provides multiple options for durable storage of CO2. The Project Proponent can choose from available options when submitting their Project for verification:
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in saline aquifers.
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in mafic and ultramafic formations.
A module for Ex-Situ Mineralization will be coming soon.
Isometric would like to thank following contributors to this Protocol and relevant modules:
Isometric would like to thank following reviewers of this Protocol and relevant modules:
California Air Resources Board. (2022). Carbon Sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/carbon-sequestration-carbon-capture-removal-utilization-and-storage
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storagehttps://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf
International Organization for Standardization. (2008). Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (ISO JGCM GUM). https://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/GUM/JCGM100/C045315e-html/C045315e.html?csnumber=50461
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2011). ISO 14066:2011 Greenhouse gases — Competence requirements for greenhouse gas validation teams and verification teams. https://www.iso.org/standard/43277.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 14064-2:2019. Greenhouse Gases - Part 2: Specification With Guidance At The Project Level For Quantification, Monitoring And Reporting Of Greenhouse Gas Emission s Or Removal Enhancements. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66454.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 14064-3:2019. Greenhouse gases — Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66455.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO 9300:2022 Measurement of gas flow by means of critical flow nozzles. https://www.iso.org/standard/77401.html
Isometric. (n.d.). Isometric — Glossary: Defining the terms that appear regularly in our work. Isometric. https://isometric.com/glossary
Matthews, J.B.R. (Ed.). (2018). IPCC, 2018: Annex I: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R. (ed.)]. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of... Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.008
Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits, Version 3.0. (2022, May). https://carboncreditquality.org/methodology.html
NIST (2015, April 20). Overview of ASTM D7036: A Quality Management Standard for Emission Testing. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/10/31/overview-astm-d7036.pdf
NIST. (2023). Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices - 2023 Edition. NIST. https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/publications/nist-handbooks/handbook-44-current-edition
US Department of Energy. (2022) Best Practices for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACS). https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/FECM%20DACS%20LCA%20Best%20Practices.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, April 18). Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
Criteria provided in Verra 2023 Draft DAC Module: https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/DAC-Module-Public-Consultation-Draft.pdf↩
ISO 14064-3: 2019, Section 5.1.7 ↩
Adefila, Kehinde, Yong Yan, Lijun Sun, and Tao Wang. "Flow measurement of wet CO2 using an averaging pitot tube and coriolis mass flowmeters." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017): 289-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.06.005↩
https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/nist-handbook-44-current-edition↩
Lyons, L., Kavvadias, K. and Carlsson, J., Defining and accounting for waste heat and cold, EUR 30869 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-42588-5, doi:10.2760/73253, JRC126383. ↩
Flow meters must be calibrated to national traceable standards by an ISO 17025 accredited metrology laboratory. Flow meters may include critical nozzle flow meters (i.e. ISO 9300:2022 compliant meters), coriolis mass flow meters, and other applicable meters for mixed gas flows, as long as properly calibrated and maintained ↩
Dinh, Trieu-Vuong, In-Young Choi, Youn-Suk Son, and Jo-Chun Kim. "A review on non-dispersive infrared gas sensors: Improvement of sensor detection limit and interference correction." Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 231 (2016): 529-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.040↩
Sandoval-Bohorquez, Víctor Stivenson, Edwing Alexander Velasco Rozo, and Víctor G. Baldovino-Medrano. "A method for the highly accurate quantification of gas streams by on-line chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A 1626 (2020): 461355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461355↩