Reliable and comparable quantification methods are needed for assessing the effectiveness of the biogas production and utilisation process in mitigating methane (CH₄) emissions as well as improving the database for emission inventories. The objective of this study was to compare and validate CH₄ emissions quantified at two agricultural biogas plants, for up to three days, using diverse on-site (two teams) and off-site methods (three teams), including differential absorption lidar (DIAL), tracer gas dispersion (TDM) and inverse dispersion modelling (IDM). For plant 1, with a constant combined heat and power (CHP) load, the average emission factor varied from 0.3% CH₄ (on-site approaches) to 1.2% CH₄ (off-site approaches). On-site approaches underestimated overall emissions due to many small (unquantified) CH₄ leakages. All methods observed comparable average emission factors for plant 2, ranging between 1.9 and 2.2% CH₄. In this case, the majority of emissions emanated from just a few sources. However, correcting the significant influence of the varying CHP load during the measurement campaign revealed significant differences between TDM and IDM (DIAL did not participate). It was demonstrated that TDM and IDM could recover the emission rate from a known point source (controlled release of CH₄ via a small diffuser) within an accuracy of 93 ± 15% (TDM) and 92 ± 17% (IDM) under favourable and similar conditions.

需要可靠且可比较的量化方法来评估沼气生产和利用过程在减少甲烷（CH ₄）排放以及改进排放清单数据库方面的有效性。本研究的目的是比较和验证在两个农业沼气厂量化的 CH ₄排放量，为期三天，使用各种现场（两个团队）和场外方法（三个团队），包括差分吸收激光雷达（ DIAL)、示踪气体扩散 (TDM) 和逆扩散建模 (IDM)。对于电厂 1，热电联产 (CHP) 负荷恒定，平均排放因子从 0.3% CH ₄（现场方法）到 1.2% CH _4不等（场外方法）。_{由于许多小的（未量化的）CH 4}泄漏，现场方法低估了总排放量。所有方法都观察到工厂 2 的可比平均排放因子，范围在 1.9 和 2.2% CH ₄之间。在这种情况下，大部分排放仅来自少数几个来源。然而，在测量活动期间纠正变化的 CHP 负载的显着影响揭示了 TDM 和 IDM 之间的显着差异（DIAL 没有参与）。证明了 TDM 和 IDM 可以在 93 ± 15% (TDM) 和 92 ± 17% (IDM) 的准确度内恢复已知点源的排放率（通过小型扩散器控制 CH ₄释放）和 92 ± 17% (IDM)。类似的条件。