the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Gas-Equilibrium Membrane Inlet Mass Spectrometery (GE-MIMS) for water at high pressure
Matthias S. Brennwald
Antonio P. Rinaldi
Jocelyn Gisiger
Alba Zappone
Rolf Kipfer
Abstract. Gas species are widely used as natural or artificial tracers to study fluid dynamics in environmental and geological systems. The recently developed gas-equilibrium membrane-inlet mass spectrometry (GE-MIMS) method is most useful for accurate and autonomous on-site quantification of dissolved gases in aquatic systems. GE-MIMS works by pumping water through a gas equilibrator module containing a gas headspace, which is separated from the water by a gas-permeable membrane. The partial pressures of the gas species in the headspace equilibrate with the gas concentrations in the water according to Henrys Law, and are quantified with a mass spectrometer optimized for low gas consumption (miniRUEDI or similar). However, the fragile membrane structures of the commonly used equilibrator modules break down at water pressures ≳ 3 bar. These modules are therefore not suitable for use in deep geological systems or other environments with high water pressures. To this end, the SysMoG® MD membrane module (Solexperts AG, Switzerland; “SOMM”) was developed to withstand water pressures of up to 100 bar. Compared to the conventionally used GE-MIMS equilibrator modules, the mechanically robust construction of the SOMM module entails slow and potentially incomplete gas/water equilibration. We tested the gas-equilibration efficiency of the SOMM and developed an adapted protocol that allows correct operation of the SOMM for GE-MIMS analysis at high water pressures. This adapted SOMM GE-MIMS technique exhibits a very low gas consumption from the SOMM to maintain the gas/water equilibrium according to Henrys Law and provides the same analytical accuracy and precision as the conventional GE-MIMS technique. The analytical potential of the adapted SOMM GE-MIMS technique was demonstrated in a high-pressure fluid-migration experiment in an underground rock laboratory. The new technique overcomes the pressure limitations of conventional gas equilibrators and thereby opens new opportunities for efficient and autonmous on-site quantification of dissolved gases in high-pressure environments, such as in research and monitoring of underground storage of CO2 and waste deposits, or in the exploration of natural resources.
- Preprint
(768 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Matthias S. Brennwald et al.
Status: open (until 27 Sep 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gi-2023-12', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Aug 2023
reply
Review of manuscript “Gas-Equilibrium Membrane Inlet Mass Spectrometry (Ge-MIMS) for water at high pressure”
Journal: Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems
Date: August 2023
Overview
In this manuscript, the authors present the results of a new technique for dissolved gas measurements in subsurface water samples at high pressures. The technique is based on gas-liquid equilibration (GE-MIMS device), and measurement with a residual gas analyzer (the mini RUEDI). The mini RUEDI coupled to GE-MIMS was shown to perform well for the determination of dissolved gas, but usually uses a LIMM membrane that breaks at water pressures above approximatively 3 bar. In this paper, the authors describe tests made with a SOMM membrane that can withstand water pressures up to 100 bar. The SOMM membrane was developed for this application. As highlighted by the authors, this work is of great relevance for the field as measurement of dissolved gas in high pressure fluids (e.g. deep subsurface) is up to now still a technical challenge.
The paper is well structured, and the results give proof of evidence for the authors’ statements. The paper should be accepted, with minor technical precisions. Please find below some questions and minor comments for the improvement of the manuscript.
General remarks
- I would appreciate in the discussion an opening on challenges that could occur at higher pressures (i.e. closer to the maximum that can withstand). Does the equilibration time with the SOMM membrane (and thus the required maximum duty cycle) vary with the water pressure?
- Could suspended solids be a challenge for the use of such membranes (LIMM and SOMM)? In the different experiments was the water filtered to avoid such issue?
- What are the current methods used for measurement of dissolved gases in the subsurface (other than GE-MIMS coupled to mini RUEDI)? What are the advantages of the mini RUEDI compared to these methods? This could be a nice addition to the introduction/discussion.
Specific comments
- Line 53: typo, However
- Lines 93-94: please give information on the local aquifer in term of location, turbidity, suspended solids (see general remark 3)
- Lines 93-94: please precise the parameters of the mini RUEDI used (i.e. flushing time, number of repetition on the detectors)
- Line 139: “SOMM can be as low as” change to “SOMM should be as low as”
- Line 147: “slight trend”, please precise (i.e. Increase? Decrease? Significative?)
- Lines 153-163: should go to material and methods (as a 2.5 Field test subchapter)
- Line 189: is the GE-MIMS protocol only about changing the duty cycle, or were other parameters of the mini RUEDI changed as well?
- Line 192: “there is therefore no need for …”, what do you mean by no need? The conclusion should be that with SOMM the temporal resolution cannot be as high as with LIMM. Using the term "no need" sounds like it is a default of LIMM that we can sample more often.
- Line 193: “allows”, same comment as 8: this is not really a positive aspect, should be replaced by something like “the very low duty cycle is also required to prevent gas depletion in the gas phase, and the resulting offset of the partial pressures measured with the mini RUEDI”
- Line 194: “avoids”, same comment as a 8 and 9: this is not really a positive aspect, should be replaced by “is necessary to”
- Lines 209-211: it would be nice to add references of studies where dissolved gas measurement was a limitation/was hindered
Comments on figures
- Figure 3: which LIMM data did you use for each SOMM data for the calculation of RSD, average of SOMM data/average of LIMM data?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2023-12-RC1
Matthias S. Brennwald et al.
Matthias S. Brennwald et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
204 | 28 | 5 | 237 | 1 | 3 |
- HTML: 204
- PDF: 28
- XML: 5
- Total: 237
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1