Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comprehensive laboratory measurements of biomass‐burning emissions: 2. First intercomparison of open‐path FTIR, PTR‐MS, and GC‐MS/FID/ECD

Open access
Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P. J., Hao, W. M., Shirai, T., Blake, D. R.·2004·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

Oxygenated volatile organic compounds (OVOC) can dominate atmospheric organic chemistry, but they are difficult to measure reliably at low levels in complex mixtures. Several techniques that have been used to speciate nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) including OVOC were codeployed/intercompared in well‐mixed smoke generated by 47 fires in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Fire Sciences Combustion Facility. The agreement between proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR‐MS) and open‐path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (OP‐FTIR) was excellent for methanol (PT/FT = 1.04 ± 0.118) and good on average for phenol (0.843 ± 0.845) and acetol (∼0.81). The sum of OP‐FTIR mixing ratios for acetic acid and glycolaldehyde agreed (within experimental uncertainty) with the PTR‐MS mixing ratios for protonated mass 61 (PT/FT = 1.17 ± 0.34), and the sum of OP‐FTIR mixing ratios for furan and isoprene agreed with the PTR‐MS mixing ratios for protonated mass 69 (PT/FT = 0.783 ± 0.465). The sum of OP‐FTIR mixing ratios for acetone and methylvinylether accounted for most of the PTR‐MS protonated mass 59 signal (PT/FT = 1.29 ± 0.81), suggesting that one of these compounds was underestimated by OP‐FTIR or that it failed to detect other compounds that could contribute at mass 59. Canister grab sampling followed by gas chromatography (GC) with mass spectrometry (MS), flame ionization detection (FID), and electron capture detection (ECD) analysis by two different groups agreed well with OP‐FTIR for ethylene, acetylene, and propylene. However, these propylene levels were below those observed by PTR‐MS (PT/FT = 2.33 ± 0.89). Good average agreement between PTR‐MS and GC was obtained for benzene and toluene. At mixing ratios above a few parts per billion the OP‐FTIR had advantages for measuring sticky compounds (e.g., ammonia and formic acid) or compounds with low proton affinity (e.g., hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde). Even at these levels, only the PTR‐MS measured acetonitrile and acetaldehyde. Below a few ppbv only the PTR‐MS measured a variety of OVOC, but the possibility of fragmentation, interference, and sampling losses must be considered.

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 · 10.1029/2003jd003874

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P. J., Hao, W. M., Shirai, T., & Blake, D. R.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2004-01-27
Volume
109
Issue
D2
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146996243
Cited by
189
References
1
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Comprehensive laboratory measurements of biomass‐burning emissions: 2. First intercomparison of open‐path FTIR, PTR‐MS, and GC‐MS/FID/ECD. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2003jd003874
The paper
Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P. J., Hao, W. M., Shirai, T., & Blake, D. R. (2004). Comprehensive laboratory measurements of biomass‐burning emissions: 2. First intercomparison of open‐path FTIR, PTR‐MS, and GC‐MS/FID/ECD. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003jd003874

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.