Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 869

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH Carbon Measurements

Chow, Judith C., Watson, John G., Crow, Dale, Lowenthal, Douglas H., Merrifield, Thomas·2001·Aerosol Science and Technology

Abstract

Organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) are operationally defined by the analysis methods, and different methods give in different results. The IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) and NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) thermal evolution protocols present different operational definitions. These protocols are applied to 60 ambient and source samples from different environments using the same instrument to quantify differences in implemented protocols on the same instrument. The protocols are equivalent for total carbon sampled on quartz-fiber filters. NIOSH EC was typically less than half of IMPROVE EC. The primary difference is the allocation of carbon evolving at the NIOSH 850°C temperature in a helium atmosphere to the OC rather than EC fraction. Increasing light transmission and reflectance during this temperature step indicate that this fraction should be classified as EC. When this portion of NIOSH OC is added to NIOSH EC, the IMPROVE and NIOSH analyses are in good agreement. The most probable explanation is that mineral oxides in the complex particle mixture on the filter are supplying oxygen to neighboring carbon particles at this high temperature. This has been demonstrated by the principle of the thermal manganese oxidation method that is also commonly used to distinguish OC from EC. For both methods, the optical pyrolysis adjustment to the EC fractions was always higher for transmittance than for reflectance. This is a secondary cause of differences between the two methods, with transmittance resulting in a lower EC loading than reflectance. The difference was most pronounced for very black filters on which neither reflectance nor transmittance accurately detected further blackening due to pyrolysis.

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 · 10.1080/02786820119073

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 869

Metadata

Authors
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Crow, D., Lowenthal, D. H., & Merrifield, T.
Venue
Aerosol Science and Technology
Published
2001-01
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
23-34
ISSN
  • 0278-6826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-7388
OpenAlex
W1997573841
Cited by
869
References
0
FWCI
23.73
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: Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH Carbon Measurements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02786820119073
The paper
Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Crow, D., Lowenthal, D. H., & Merrifield, T. (2001). Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH Carbon Measurements. Aerosol Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820119073

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.