Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 867

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of quantification methods to measure fire‐derived (black/elemental) carbon in soils and sediments using reference materials from soil, water, sediment and the atmosphere

Open access
Hammes, Karen, Schmidt, Michael W. I., Smernik, Ronald J., Currie, Lloyd A., Ball, William P., Nguyen, Thanh H., Louchouarn, Patrick, Houel, Stephane, Gustafsson, Örjan, Elmquist, Marie, Cornelissen, Gerard, Skjemstad, Jan O., Masiello, Caroline A., Song, Jianzhong, Peng, Ping'an, Mitra, Siddhartha, Dunn, Joshua C., Hatcher, Patrick G., Hockaday, William C., Smith, Dwight M., Hartkopf‐Fröder, Christoph, Böhmer, Axel, Lüer, Burkhard, Huebert, Barry J., Amelung, Wulf, Brodowski, Sonja, Huang, Lin, Zhang, Wendy, Gschwend, Philip M., Flores‐Cervantes, D. Xanat, Largeau, Claude, Rouzaud, Jean‐Noël, Rumpel, Cornelia, Guggenberger, Georg, Kaiser, Klaus, Rodionov, Andrei, Gonzalez‐Vila, Francisco J., Gonzalez‐Perez, José A., de la Rosa, José M., Manning, David A. C., López‐Capél, Elisa, Ding, Luyi·2007·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

Black carbon (BC), the product of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass (called elemental carbon (EC) in atmospheric sciences), was quantified in 12 different materials by 17 laboratories from different disciplines, using seven different methods. The materials were divided into three classes: (1) potentially interfering materials, (2) laboratory‐produced BC‐rich materials, and (3) BC‐containing environmental matrices (from soil, water, sediment, and atmosphere). This is the first comprehensive intercomparison of this type (multimethod, multilab, and multisample), focusing mainly on methods used for soil and sediment BC studies. Results for the potentially interfering materials (which by definition contained no fire‐derived organic carbon) highlighted situations where individual methods may overestimate BC concentrations. Results for the BC‐rich materials (one soot and two chars) showed that some of the methods identified most of the carbon in all three materials as BC, whereas other methods identified only soot carbon as BC. The different methods also gave widely different BC contents for the environmental matrices. However, these variations could be understood in the light of the findings for the other two groups of materials, i.e., that some methods incorrectly identify non‐BC carbon as BC, and that the detection efficiency of each technique varies across the BC continuum. We found that atmospheric BC quantification methods are not ideal for soil and sediment studies as in their methodology these incorporate the definition of BC as light‐absorbing material irrespective of its origin, leading to biases when applied to terrestrial and sedimentary materials. This study shows that any attempt to merge data generated via different methods must consider the different, operationally defined analytical windows of the BC continuum detected by each technique, as well as the limitations and potential biases of each technique. A major goal of this ring trial was to provide a basis on which to choose between the different BC quantification methods in soil and sediment studies. In this paper we summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each method. In future studies, we strongly recommend the evaluation of all methods analyzing for BC in soils and sediments against the set of BC reference materials analyzed here.

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 · 10.1029/2006gb002914

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 867

Metadata

Authors
Hammes, K., Schmidt, M. W. I., Smernik, R. J., Currie, L. A., Ball, W. P., Nguyen, T. H., Louchouarn, P., Houel, S., Gustafsson, Ö., Elmquist, M., Cornelissen, G., Skjemstad, J. O., Masiello, C. A., Song, J., Peng, P., Mitra, S., Dunn, J. C., Hatcher, P. G., Hockaday, W. C., Smith, D. M., Hartkopf‐Fröder, C., Böhmer, A., Lüer, B., Huebert, B. J., Amelung, W., Brodowski, S., Huang, L., Zhang, W., Gschwend, P. M., Flores‐Cervantes, D. X., Largeau, C., Rouzaud, J., Rumpel, C., Guggenberger, G., Kaiser, K., Rodionov, A., Gonzalez‐Vila, F. J., Gonzalez‐Perez, J. A., de la Rosa, J. M., Manning, D. A. C., López‐Capél, E., & Ding, L.
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2007-08-31
Volume
21
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
OpenAlex
W2112931328
Cited by
867
References
2
FWCI
24.00
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: Comparison of quantification methods to measure fire‐derived (black/elemental) carbon in soils and sediments using reference materials from soil, water, sediment and the atmosphere. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2006gb002914
The paper
Hammes, K., Schmidt, M. W. I., Smernik, R. J., Currie, L. A., Ball, W. P., Nguyen, T. H., Louchouarn, P., Houel, S., Gustafsson, Ö., Elmquist, M., Cornelissen, G., Skjemstad, J. O., Masiello, C. A., Song, J., Peng, P., Mitra, S., Dunn, J. C., Hatcher, P. G., Hockaday, W. C., . . . Ding, L. (2007). Comparison of quantification methods to measure fire‐derived (black/elemental) carbon in soils and sediments using reference materials from soil, water, sediment and the atmosphere. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006gb002914

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.