Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

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

An Inter-Comparison of Instruments Measuring Black Carbon Content of Soot Particles

Open access
Slowik, Jay G., Cross, Eben S., Han, Jeong-Ho, Davidovits, Paul, Onasch, Timothy B., Jayne, John T., Williams, Leah R., Canagaratna, Manjula R., Worsnop, Douglas R., Chakrabarty, Rajan K., Moosmüller, Hans, Arnott, William P., Schwarz, Joshua P., Gao, Ru-Shan, Fahey, David W., Kok, Gregory L., Petzold, Andreas·2007·Aerosol Science and Technology

Abstract

Inter-comparison studies of well-characterized fractal soot particles were conducted using the following four instruments: Aerosol Mass Spectrometer-Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (AMS-SMPS), Single Particle Soot Photometer (SP2), Multi-Angle Absorption Photometer (MAAP), and Photoacoustic Spectrometer (PAS). These instruments provided measurements of the refractory mass (AMS-SMPS), incandescent mass (SP2) and optically absorbing mass (MAAP and PAS). The particles studied were in the mobility diameter range from 150 nm to 460 nm and were generated by controlled flames with fuel equivalence ratios ranging between 2.3 and 3.5. The effect of organic coatings (oleic acid and anthracene) on the instrument measurements was determined. For uncoated soot particles, the mass measurements by the AMS-SMPS, SP2, and PAS instruments were in agreement to within 15%, while the MAAP measurement of optically-absorbing mass was higher by ∼ 50%. Thin organic coatings (∼ 10 nm) did not affect the instrument readings. A thicker (∼ 50 nm) oleic acid coating likewise did not affect the instrument readings. The thicker (∼60 nm) anthracene coating did not affect the readings provided by the AMS-SMPS or SP2 instruments but increased the reading of the MAAP instrument by ∼ 20% and the reading of the PAS by ∼ 65%. The response of each instrument to the different particle types is discussed in terms of particle morphology and coating material.

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 · 10.1080/02786820701197078

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 277

Metadata

Authors
Slowik, J. G., Cross, E. S., Han, J.-H., Davidovits, P., Onasch, T. B., Jayne, J. T., Williams, L. R., Canagaratna, M. R., Worsnop, D. R., Chakrabarty, R. K., Moosmüller, H., Arnott, W. P., Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R.-S., Fahey, D. W., Kok, G. L., & Petzold, A.
Venue
Aerosol Science and Technology
Published
2007-04
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
295-314
ISSN
  • 0278-6826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-7388
OpenAlex
W2158288594
Cited by
277
References
1
FWCI
11.33
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: An Inter-Comparison of Instruments Measuring Black Carbon Content of Soot Particles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02786820701197078
The paper
Slowik, J. G., Cross, E. S., Han, J.-H., Davidovits, P., Onasch, T. B., Jayne, J. T., Williams, L. R., Canagaratna, M. R., Worsnop, D. R., Chakrabarty, R. K., Moosmüller, H., Arnott, W. P., Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R.-S., Fahey, D. W., Kok, G. L., & Petzold, A. (2007). An Inter-Comparison of Instruments Measuring Black Carbon Content of Soot Particles. Aerosol Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820701197078

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.