Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparative analysis of black carbon in soils

Open access
Schmidt, Michael W. I., Skjemstad, Jan O., Czimczik, Claudia I., Glaser, Bruno, Prentice, Ken M., Gelinas, Yves, Kuhlbusch, Thomas A. J.·2001·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2000gb001284

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.

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

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

See all 325

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
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.