The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative analysis of black carbon in soils
Open accessAbstract
Black carbon (BC), produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and vegetation, occurs ubiquitously in soils and sediments. BC exists as a continuum from partly charred material to highly graphitized soot particles, with no general agreement on clear‐cut boundaries of definition or analysis. In a comparative analysis, we measured BC forms in eight soil samples by six established methods. All methods involved removal of the non‐BC components from the sample by thermal or chemical means or a combination of both. The remaining carbon, operationally defined as BC, was quantified via mass balance, elemental composition or by exploiting benzenecarboxylic acids as molecular markers or applying 13 C MAS NMR (magic angle spinning nuclear magnetic resonance) spectroscopy. BC concentrations measured for individual samples vary over 2 orders of magnitude (up to a factor of 571). One possible explanation for this wide range of results is that the individual BC methods rely on operational definitions with clear‐cut but different boundaries and developed for specific scientific questions, whereas BC represents a continuum of materials with widely contrasting physicochemical properties. Thus the methods are inherently designed to analytically determine different parts of the continuum, and it is crucial to know how measurements made by different techniques relate to each other. It is clear from this preliminary comparative analysis that a collection of BC reference materials should be established as soon as possible 1 ) to ensure long‐term intralaboratory and interlaboratory data quality and 2) to facilitate comparative analyses between different analytical techniques and scientific approaches
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
Cited by
Atkinson, C. J., Fitzgerald, J. D., & Hipps, N. A. (2010) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0464-5 · Cited by 2,154
Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance
Dungait, J. A. J., Hopkins, D. W., Gregory, A. S., & Whitmore, A. P. (2012) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02665.x · Cited by 1,616
Review of the stability of biochar in soils: predictability of O:C molar ratios
Spokas, K. A. (2010) · Carbon Management · doi:10.4155/cmt.10.32 · Cited by 1,160
Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black carbon (biochar)
Zimmerman, A. R. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es903140c · Cited by 1,103
How does fire affect the nature and stability of soil organic nitrogen and carbon? A review
Knicker, H. (2007) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9104-4 · Cited by 874
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmidt, M. W. I., Skjemstad, J. O., Czimczik, C. I., Glaser, B., Prentice, K. M., Gelinas, Y., & Kuhlbusch, T. A. J.
- Venue
- Global Biogeochemical Cycles
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-167
- ISSN
- 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-9224
- OpenAlex
- W2115141878
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Comparative analysis of black carbon in soils. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2000gb001284
- The paper
- Schmidt, M. W. I., Skjemstad, J. O., Czimczik, C. I., Glaser, B., Prentice, K. M., Gelinas, Y., & Kuhlbusch, T. A. J. (2001). Comparative analysis of black carbon in soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000gb001284
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.