Sort by
Decision-Grade Risk and Cost Mapping for Illegal Gold Mining at Crucitas, Costa Rica: Prioritization, Phased Remediation Portfolios, and Uncertainty-Aware Policy Ranking
Andrea Navarro Jiménez
Posted: 04 March 2026
Comparative Performance of Gaussian Plume and Backward Lagrangian Stochastic Models for Near-Field Methane Emission Estimation Using a Single Controlled Release Experiment
Aashish Upreti
,Kira Shonkwiler
,Stuart N. Riddick
,Daniel Zimmerle
Methane (CH4) is a major component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. Increasing atmospheric methane concentrations are attributed to emissive anthropogenic activities by an average of 13 ppb per yr since 2020 and are linked to a changing global climate. Mitigating CH4 emissions from oil and gas production sites has recently become a target to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, however, monitoring the efficacy of mitigation strategies depends on accurate quantification of CH4 emissions at the facility-level. Near-field quantification of methane (CH4) emissions from oil and gas (O&G) facilities remains challenging due to the effects of atmospheric variability and sensor configuration on atmospheric dispersion models. This study evaluates the performance of two atmospheric dispersion models, the Gaussian Plume (GP) and backward Lagrangian Stochastic (bLS), by comparing calculated CH4 emissions to controlled single-point emissions of between 0.4 and 5.2 kg CH4 h-1. Emissions were calculated by both models using 121 individual sets of measurements comprising five-minute averaged downwind methane mixing ratios and matching meteorological data. Comparison shows the bLS approach showed better predictive performance with twice as many emission estimates were within a factor of two (FAC2) of the known emission rates compared to those calculated using the GP approach. The emissions calculated by the bLS model also had a lower multiplicative error and reduced bias relative to GP. Other error-based metrics further confirmed the bLS model performed better, as it yielded lower RMSE and MAE than GP. Statistical analysis of the emission data shows the lateral and vertical alignment of source and sensor plays a critical role in emission estimations as measurements made closer to the plume centerline and at a distance between 40 to 80 m downwind yielded the best FAC2 agreement. High wind meander degraded ability of both approaches to generate representative emissions particularly with the GP approach as it violates the modelling approach’s assumption of steady-state emissions. Data suggest emissions calculated by the bLS model are comprehensively in better agreement but the computational demands of the modeling approach and integration into fenceline systems limit real-time applicability. While it is likely that the results presented here are suitable for informing leak detection technology in relatively flat unvegetated environments, it is currently unknown if these findings will be applicable in more vertiginous or heavily vegetated oil and gas producing regions of the Marcellus or Uinta Basins.
Methane (CH4) is a major component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. Increasing atmospheric methane concentrations are attributed to emissive anthropogenic activities by an average of 13 ppb per yr since 2020 and are linked to a changing global climate. Mitigating CH4 emissions from oil and gas production sites has recently become a target to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, however, monitoring the efficacy of mitigation strategies depends on accurate quantification of CH4 emissions at the facility-level. Near-field quantification of methane (CH4) emissions from oil and gas (O&G) facilities remains challenging due to the effects of atmospheric variability and sensor configuration on atmospheric dispersion models. This study evaluates the performance of two atmospheric dispersion models, the Gaussian Plume (GP) and backward Lagrangian Stochastic (bLS), by comparing calculated CH4 emissions to controlled single-point emissions of between 0.4 and 5.2 kg CH4 h-1. Emissions were calculated by both models using 121 individual sets of measurements comprising five-minute averaged downwind methane mixing ratios and matching meteorological data. Comparison shows the bLS approach showed better predictive performance with twice as many emission estimates were within a factor of two (FAC2) of the known emission rates compared to those calculated using the GP approach. The emissions calculated by the bLS model also had a lower multiplicative error and reduced bias relative to GP. Other error-based metrics further confirmed the bLS model performed better, as it yielded lower RMSE and MAE than GP. Statistical analysis of the emission data shows the lateral and vertical alignment of source and sensor plays a critical role in emission estimations as measurements made closer to the plume centerline and at a distance between 40 to 80 m downwind yielded the best FAC2 agreement. High wind meander degraded ability of both approaches to generate representative emissions particularly with the GP approach as it violates the modelling approach’s assumption of steady-state emissions. Data suggest emissions calculated by the bLS model are comprehensively in better agreement but the computational demands of the modeling approach and integration into fenceline systems limit real-time applicability. While it is likely that the results presented here are suitable for informing leak detection technology in relatively flat unvegetated environments, it is currently unknown if these findings will be applicable in more vertiginous or heavily vegetated oil and gas producing regions of the Marcellus or Uinta Basins.
Posted: 04 March 2026
Non-Surgical Management of Ulcerative Facial Basal Cell Carcinoma Using Cryotherapy and Topical Imiquimod: A Case Report
Naguib El Sayed El Farnawany
Posted: 04 March 2026
A Pyrophosphate-Based Energy Economy Enables Sucrose Storage in the Oxygen-Limited Sugarcane Culm
Frederik Botha
Posted: 04 March 2026
Genetic and Phylogenetic Studies in Manilkara: A Review of Molecular Markers
Einstein Bravo
,Alfonso H. del Río
,Héctor V. Vásquez
,Einstein Sánchez
,Omer Cruz
,Eli Pariente
,Rosalynn Y. Rivera
,Carlos I. Arbizu
Posted: 04 March 2026
Fluorescent SSR-Based DNA Fingerprinting and Molecular Identity Card Development for 69 Mandarin Accessions
Xiao Xiao Wu
,Shi Man Wu
,Hai Meng Fang
,Ding Huang
,Chuan Wu Chen
,Bing Hai Lou
,Ping Liu
,Yang Tang
,Jing Feng
,Chong Ling Deng
Posted: 04 March 2026
Classification Model of Emotional Tone in Hate Speech and Its Relationship with Inequality and Gender Stereotypes, Using NLP and Machine Learning Algorithms
Aymé Escobar Díaz
,Ricardo Rivadeneira
,Walter Fuertes
,Washington Loza
Posted: 04 March 2026
Design of a Real-Time, Heuristic-Based Scheduling and Power Management Algorithm for a Re-Entry CubeSat
Máté Keller
,Daniel Aleksandrov
,Valentijn De Smedt
,Jurgen Vanhamel
Posted: 04 March 2026
Transformer-Based Pipeline for Speech-to-Text Transcription and Automated Text Synthesis
R Karthick
Posted: 04 March 2026
Design and Validation of an IoT-Based Blood Pressure Monitoring System for Rabbits
Carlos Exequiel Garay
,Gonzalo Nicolás Mansilla
,Rossana Elena Madrid
,Agustina González Colombres
,Susana Josefina Jerez
Posted: 04 March 2026
Metformin for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Moving Beyond Observational Studies to Causal Inference Through Target Trial Emulation and Advanced Analytics
Amr Ahmed
Posted: 04 March 2026
Governing Environmental Decisions in the Age of AI: Algorithmic Sustainability as a Policy Review
Ghayth Tintawi
,Khuloud Ali
Posted: 04 March 2026
Optimizing Functional and Safety Properties of a Marine Allergen: Maillard-Induced Conjugation of Chitosan and Saccharides Attenuates the Allergenicity of Turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) Parvalbumin
Linda Dzadu
,Qi'an Han
,Sheng Yin
,Manman Liu
,Shiwen Han
,Huilian Che
Posted: 04 March 2026
Enhanced Antibacterial Performance of PANI–CdS/Au Nanocomposites Synthesized by Chemical Routes
Raad Al-Kilabi
,Abdulameer H. Ali
,Hude Al-Allaq
,Elias F. Muhammed
,Sahib Alkulaibi
,Adel Alkhayatt
,Hussein Al-Shabani
,Thmr Ihsan
,Haider Al-Hello
Posted: 04 March 2026
From Core to Edge: Habitat Signatures in the Otoliths of Genidens genidens
Marina Paixão-Gil
,Felippe Alexandre Daros
,Mario Vinicius Condini
,Maurício Hostim-Silva
Posted: 04 March 2026
On the Cross-Scale Prospects of the Logarithmically Corrected Gravitational Potential: From Black Hole Singularities to Galactic Rotation
Huang Hai
Posted: 04 March 2026
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Exclusive Breastfeeding Among Mothers in Ife East Local Government Area, Ile Ife, Osun State. Nigeria
Adelowo Adefisayo Adewoyin
,Olarinde Olaniran
,Jospphine Kikelomo Ajayi
,Olarenwaju Oluwayemisi Olaniran
,Elizabeth Yetunde Amao
,Ayorinde Ololade Arogundade
,Sunday Akinola Lowo
Posted: 04 March 2026
OncoReasoner: An Interpretable Regulatory Network Inference Framework for HPV E6/E7-Induced Transcriptomic Perturbations Leveraging Large Language Models
Youssef Ahmedm
,Ruotong Luan
Posted: 04 March 2026
Simulating Team Psychological Safety with Large Language Models
Jonathan H. Westover
Posted: 04 March 2026
Sensitivity Analysis of Variational Quantum Classifiers for Identifying Dummy Power Traces in Side-Channel Analysis
Seungun Park
,Yunsik Son
Posted: 04 March 2026
of 5,636