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 accessAbstract
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.
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 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
Determination of the abundance and carbon isotope composition of elemental carbon in sediments
Bird, M. I., & Gröcke, D. R. (1997) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/s0016-7037(97)00157-9 · Cited by 193
Cited by
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Balch, J. K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Carlson, J. M., Cochrane, M. A., D’Antonio, C. M., DeFries, R. S., Doyle, J. C., Harrison, S. P., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1163886 · Cited by 3,351
Dynamic Molecular Structure of Plant Biomass-Derived Black Carbon (Biochar)
Keiluweit, M., Nico, P. S., Johnson, M. G., & Kleber, M. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es9031419 · Cited by 3,230
Lavallee, J. M., Soong, J. L., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2020) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14859 · Cited by 2,477
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
Libra, J. A., Ro, K. S., Kammann, C., Funke, A., Berge, N. D., Neubauer, Y., Titirici, M.-M., Fühner, C., Bens, O., Kern, J., et al. (2011) · Biofuels · doi:10.4155/bfs.10.81 · Cited by 1,756
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
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- 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.