The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH Carbon Measurements
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.
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
Cited by
Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment
Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., et al. (2013) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171 · Cited by 6,385
A technology‐based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion
Bond, T. C., Streets, D. G., Yarber, K. F., Nelson, S. M., Woo, J., & Klimont, Z. (2004) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2003jd003697 · Cited by 2,393
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
Formation of Urban Fine Particulate Matter
Zhang, R., Wang, G., Guo, S., Zamora, M. L., Ying, Q., Lin, Y., Wang, W., Hu, M., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00067 · Cited by 1,426
Cavalli, F., Viana, M., Yttri, K. E., Genberg, J., & Putaud, J.-P. (2010) · Atmospheric Measurement Techniques · doi:10.5194/amt-3-79-2010 · Cited by 965
Metadata
- Authors
- Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Crow, D., Lowenthal, D. H., & Merrifield, T.
- Venue
- Aerosol Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.