Cited by 49Atmospheric chemistry and aerosolsToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Recommendations for reporting equivalent black carbon (eBC) mass concentrations based on long-term pan-European in-situ observations

Open access

Abstract

A reliable determination of equivalent black carbon (eBC) mass concentrations derived from filter absorption photometers (FAPs) measurements depends on the appropriate quantification of the mass absorption cross-section (MAC) for converting the absorption coefficient (babs) to eBC. This study investigates the spatial–temporal variability of the MAC obtained from simultaneous elemental carbon (EC) and babs measurements performed at 22 sites. We compared different methodologies for retrieving eBC integrating different options for calculating MAC including: locally derived, median value calculated from 22 sites, and site-specific rolling MAC. The eBC concentrations that underwent correction using these methods were identified as LeBC (local MAC), MeBC (median MAC), and ReBC (Rolling MAC) respectively. Pronounced differences (up to more than 50 %) were observed between eBC as directly provided by FAPs (NeBC; Nominal instrumental MAC) and ReBC due to the differences observed between the experimental and nominal MAC values. The median MAC was 7.8 ± 3.4 m2 g-1 from 12 aethalometers at 880 nm, and 10.6 ± 4.7 m2 g-1 from 10 MAAPs at 637 nm. The experimental MAC showed significant site and seasonal dependencies, with heterogeneous patterns between summer and winter in different regions. In addition, long-term trend analysis revealed statistically significant (s.s.) decreasing trends in EC. Interestingly, we showed that the corresponding corrected eBC trends are not independent of the way eBC is calculated due to the variability of MAC. NeBC and EC decreasing trends were consistent at sites with no significant trend in experimental MAC. Conversely, where MAC showed s.s. trend, the NeBC and EC trends were not consistent while ReBC concentration followed the same pattern as EC. These results underscore the importance of accounting for MAC variations when deriving eBC measurements from FAPs and emphasize the necessity of incorporating EC observations to constrain the uncertainty associated with eBC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108553

Cites

96 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The eBC mass concentration estimates may be overestimated because the MAC values used (6.3-6.6 m2 g−1 at 624 nm) are lower than local MAC values reported for the MAAP (10.6 ± 4.7 m2 g−1).

    “These relatively low values can however lead to an overestimation of the eBC mass concentration as suggested by the study of Savadkoohi et al. (2024), which reported that local MAC values for the MAAP were typically higher than the nominal value of the instrument (10.6 ± 4.7 m 2 g -1 ).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cavalli, 2010, Toward a standardized thermal-optical protocol for measuring atmospheric organic and elemental carbon: the eusaar protocol, ACS, Div. Environ. Chem. - Prepr. Ext. Abstr., 48, 443

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Savadkoohi, M., Pandolfi, M., Favez, O., Putaud, J.-P., Eleftheriadis, K., Fiebig, M., Hopke, P. K., Laj, P., Wiedensohler, A., Alados-Arboledas, L., Bastian, S., Chazeau, B., María, Á. C., Colombi, C., Costabile, F., Green, D. C., Hueglin, C., Liakakou, E., Luoma, K., Listrani, S., Mihalopoulos, N., Marchand, N., Močnik, G., Niemi, J. V., Ondráček, J., Petit, J.-E., Rattigan, O. V., Reche, C., Timonen, H., Titos, G., Tremper, A. H., Vratolis, S., Vodička, P., Funes, E. Y., Zíková, N., Harrison, R. M., Petäjä, T., Alastuey, A., & Querol, X.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (ES)
  • Institut national de l'environnement industriel et des risques (FR)
  • Joint Research Centre (IT)
  • National Centre of Scientific Research "Demokritos" (GR)
  • NILU (NO)
  • Clarkson University (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (DE)
  • Azienda Regionale per la protezione dell'ambiente Lombardia (IT)
  • Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (IT)
  • MRC Centre for Environment and Health (GB)
  • Empa (CH)
  • National Observatory of Athens (GR)
  • Finnish Meteorological Institute (FI)
  • Agenzia Regionale protezione ambientale del Lazio (IT)
  • University of Nova Gorica (SI)
  • Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ)
  • Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR)
  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (US)
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
  • King Abdulaziz University (SA)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
  • Savadkoohi, Marjan
  • Pandolfi, Marco
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-03
Volume
185
Pages
108553
ISSN
0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392627177
Cited by
49
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 7
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environment International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DORA Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa)) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DORA PSI (Paul Scherrer Institute) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • NILU Brage (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • RUNG (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • TECNALIA Publications (Fundación TECNALIA Research & Innovation) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Funders
Spanish Scientific Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
equivalent black carbon, mass absorption cross-section, aethalometer, elemental carbon, long-term trends
MeSH terms
Aerosols, Air Pollutants, Carbon, Environmental Monitoring, Seasons, Particulate Matter, Soot

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