Cited by 14Air Quality Monitoring and ForecastingAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsHydrological Forecasting Using AI

Machine learning for accurate methane concentration predictions: short-term training, long-term results

Open access
Luo, Ran, Wang, Jingyi, Gates, Ian·2023·Environmental Research Communications

Abstract

Although methane emissions from Alberta’s oil and gas sector have decreased in recent years, monitoring these emissions using Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) can be costly. Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems (PEMS), powered by machine learning, offer an alternative to or can supplement CEMS. However, effective machine learning models for methane emissions prediction rely heavily on the amount of training data. To address this, we compare the prediction performance of different neural network models, including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Stacked LSTM, Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM), using varying time intervals for training of methane concentration data from Alberta airshed stations. The results showed that the GRU model performed better with shorter datasets, whereas the LSTM and Stacked LSTM models outperformed the GRU and BiLSTM models when trained with more historical data. However, the study found that more training data did not necessarily result in significantly better prediction models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/2515-7620/acf0a3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) require regular calibration to maintain accurate and reliable measurements, which can be costly to maintain in remote locations like northern Alberta.

    “Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) units require regular calibration to maintain accurate and reliable measure- ments of emissions which can be costly to maintain in remote locations like northern Alberta (Luo et al., 2023).”
  • Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems (PEMS) may not always be accurate and have to be used in conjunction with CEMS.

    “However, PEMS may not always be accurate in which case they have to be used in conjunction with CEMS (Cheng and Hagen, 2006; Chien et al., 2003; Luo et al., 2023; Rezaei et al., 2020).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 14

Authors
Luo, R., Wang, J., & Gates, I.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Gates, Ian
Venue
Environmental Research Communications
Published
2023-08-01
Volume
5
Issue
8
Pages
081003
ISSN
2515-7620 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385828898
Cited by
14
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Canada First Research Excellence Fund (University of Calgary GRI Program)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
Keywords
methane emissions, methane concentration prediction, continuous emission monitoring, neural network model, LSTM, GRU, bidirectional LSTM, stacked LSTM, training data length, oil and gas industry, short-term training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review