The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of a protocol for the quantification of black carbon in sediments
Abstract
Formation of highly condensed black carbon (BC) from vegetation fires and wood fuel combustion presumably transfers otherwise rapidly cycling carbon from the atmosphere‐biosphere cycle into a much slower cycling geological form. Recently reported BC fractions of total organic carbon (TOC) in surficial marine sediments span a wide range (2‐90%), leaving it presently unclear whether this variation reflects natural processes or is largely due to method differences. In order to elucidate the importance of BC to carbon burial the specificity of applied methods needs to be constrained. Here the operating range and applicability of a commonly used chemothermal oxidation (CTO) method is evaluated using putative BC standards, potentially interfering substances, and natural matrix standards. Test results confirm the applicability of the method to marine sediments. Integrity tests with model substrates suggest applicability to low‐carbon soils but only with a lower specificity to seawater particulate matter. The BC content of marine sediment samples in a set of studies employing the CTO method proved to be consistent with associated geochemical information. The radiocarbon content of the BC isolate in an environmental matrix standard was shown to be similar to the radiocarbon signature of pyrogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), here serving as molecular markers of combustion (fraction modern fM of BC was 0.065 ± 0.014 and of PAHs 0.056 ± 0.020), while being clearly distinct from the radiocarbon content of the bulk TOC (fM = 0.61 ± 0.08). Urgent questions such as the global accumulation rate of black carbon in soils and sediments may prove approachable with the chemothermal oxidation technique of BC quantification.
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
Black carbon in soils and sediments: Analysis, distribution, implications, and current challenges
Schmidt, M. W. I., & Noack, A. G. (2000) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/1999gb001208 · Cited by 1,334
Sequestration of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants by Geosorbents
Luthy, R. G., Aiken, G. R., Brusseau, M. L., Cunningham, S. D., Gschwend, P. M., Pignatello, J. J., Reinhard, M., Traina, S. J., Weber, W. J., & Westall, J. C. (1997) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es970512m · Cited by 1,037
Gustafsson, Ö., Haghseta, F., Chan, C., MacFarlane, J., & Gschwend, P. M. (1997) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es960317s · Cited by 927
Self-citationComparative organic geochemistries of soils and marine sediments
Hedges, J. I., & Oades, J. M. (1997) · Organic Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0146-6380(97)00056-9 · Cited by 744
The chemistry and nature of protected carbon in soil
Skjemstad, J., Clarke, P., Taylor, J., Oades, J., & Mcclure, S. (1996) · Australian Journal of Soil Research · doi:10.1071/sr9960251 · Cited by 528
De Leeuw, J. W., & Largeau, C. (1993) · Topics in Geobiology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2890-6_2 · Cited by 500
Self-citationMolecular Coproscopy: Dung and Diet of the Extinct Ground Sloth Nothrotheriops shastensis
Poinar, H. N., Hofreiter, M., Spaulding, W. G., Martin, P. S., Stankiewicz, B. A., Bland, H., Evershed, R. P., Possnert, G., & Pääbo, S. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.281.5375.402 · Cited by 496
Black Carbon in Deep-Sea Sediments
Masiello, C. A., & Druffel, E. R. M. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.280.5371.1911 · Cited by 493
Youngblood, W. W., & Blumer, M. (1975) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/0016-7037(75)90137-4 · Cited by 488
Importance of carbon active sites in the gasification of coal chars
Radović, L. R., Walker, P. L., Jr., & Jenkins, R. G. (1983) · Fuel · doi:10.1016/0016-2361(83)90041-8 · Cited by 477
Cited by
A review of biochar and its use and function in soil
Sohi, S. P., Krull, E., Lopez-Capel, E., & Bol, R. (2010) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(10)05002-9 · Cited by 2,240
Black carbon or brown carbon? The nature of light-absorbing carbonaceous aerosols
Andreae, M. O., & Gelencsér, A. (2006) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-6-3131-2006 · Cited by 2,006
New directions in black carbon organic geochemistry
Masiello, C. A. (2004) · Marine Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2004.06.043 · Cited by 832
Liu, P., Liu, W.-J., Jiang, H., Chen, J.-J., Li, W.-W., & Yu, H.-Q. (2012) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.085 · Cited by 643
Zhu, D., & Pignatello, J. J. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es0491376 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Gustafsson, Ö., Bucheli, T. D., Kukulska, Z., Andersson, M., Largeau, C., Rouzaud, J., Reddy, C. M., & Eglinton, T. I.
- Venue
- Global Biogeochemical Cycles
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 881-890
- ISSN
- 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-9224
- OpenAlex
- W2038261209
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 11.17
- 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: Evaluation of a protocol for the quantification of black carbon in sediments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2000gb001380
- The paper
- Gustafsson, Ö., Bucheli, T. D., Kukulska, Z., Andersson, M., Largeau, C., Rouzaud, J., Reddy, C. M., & Eglinton, T. I. (2001). Evaluation of a protocol for the quantification of black carbon in sediments. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000gb001380
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.