The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement of Dissolved Organic Matter Fluorescence in Aquatic Environments: An Interlaboratory Comparison
Abstract
The fluorescent properties of dissolved organic matter (DOM) are often studied in order to infer DOM characteristics in aquatic environments, including source, quantity, composition, and behavior. While a potentially powerful technique, a single widely implemented standard method for correcting and presenting fluorescence measurements is lacking, leading to difficulties when comparing data collected by different research groups. This paper reports on a large-scale interlaboratory comparison in which natural samples and well-characterized fluorophores were analyzed in 20 laboratories in the U.S., Europe, and Australia. Shortcomings were evident in several areas, including data quality-assurance, the accuracy of spectral correction factors used to correct EEMs, and the treatment of optically dense samples. Data corrected by participants according to individual laboratory procedures were more variable than when corrected under a standard protocol. Wavelength dependency in measurement precision and accuracy were observed within and between instruments, even in corrected data. In an effort to reduce future occurrences of similar problems, algorithms for correcting and calibrating EEMs are described in detail, and MATLAB scripts for implementing the study's protocol are provided. Combined with the recent expansion of spectral fluorescence standards, this approach will serve to increase the intercomparability of DOM fluorescence studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Nonparametric estimates of standard error: The jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods
EFRON, B. (1981) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/68.3.589 · Cited by 1,399
Cited by
Shutova, Y., Baker, A., Bridgeman, J., & Henderson, R. K. (2014) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.053 · Cited by 438
Wickland, K. P., Aiken, G. R., Butler, K., Dornblaser, M. M., Spencer, R. G. M., & Striegl, R. G. (2012) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2012gb004342 · Cited by 272
Self-citationWildfire Altering Terrestrial Precursors of Disinfection Byproducts in Forest Detritus
Wang, J.-J., Dahlgren, R. A., Erşan, M. S., Karanfil, T., & Chow, A. T. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es505836m · Cited by 134
Liu, Y., Ye, Q., Huang, W.-L., Feng, L., Wang, Y.-H., Xie, Z., Yong, S.-S., Zhang, S., Jiang, B., Zheng, Y., et al. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136307 · Cited by 75
Nai, H., Zhong, J., Yi, Y., Lai, M., He, D., Dittmar, T., Liu, C.-Q., Li, S.-L., & Xu, S. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c01593 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Murphy, K. R., Butler, K. D., Spencer, R. G. M., Stedmon, C. A., Boehme, J. R., & Aiken, G. R.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-11-11
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 9405-9412
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2003332760
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement of Dissolved Organic Matter Fluorescence in Aquatic Environments: An Interlaboratory Comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es102362t
- The paper
- Murphy, K. R., Butler, K. D., Spencer, R. G. M., Stedmon, C. A., Boehme, J. R., & Aiken, G. R. (2010). Measurement of Dissolved Organic Matter Fluorescence in Aquatic Environments: An Interlaboratory Comparison. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es102362t
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.