Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Characterization of Humic Substances by Solid‐State Carbon‐13 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

Mao, J-D., Hu, W-G., Schmidt-Rohr, K., Davies, G., Ghabbour, E. A., Xing, B.·2000·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

The compositions of humic acids (HAs) from various Histosols in North America and Europe, of similarly treated plant‐extracted materials (PEMs), of coal‐extracted humic acids, and of International Humic Substances Society (IHSS) Florida peat were quantified by solid‐state 13 C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). In order to obtain quantitative intensities, the peak areas in direct‐polarization 13‐kHz magic‐angle spinning (DPMAS) 13 C NMR spectra were corrected for incomplete relaxation by factors measured in cross‐polarization spin‐lattice relaxation time (CP/T 1 ) experiments with total sideband suppression (TOSS). The elemental compositions (%C, %H, %O + N) of a peat sample, 8 HAs and 2 PEMs were estimated from the NMR results and compared with chemical analyses, as well as solution NMR for two of the HAs. The results are in good agreement, which shows that DPMAS corrected by CP/T 1 –TOSS permits quantitative characterization of HAs and PEMs. The compositions of the PEMs deviate significantly from those of the Histosol HAs. The compositions in terms of nine types of chemical groups were computed. The investigated HAs consist of more than 60% of aromatic and CO carbons (including both carbonyl and carboxyl groups). Previous cross‐polarization magic‐angle spinning (CPMAS) NMR experiments have significantly underestimated the ratio of sp 2 – to sp 3 –carbons; in particular, the true COO carbon fraction is a factor of two larger than estimated by CPMAS NMR. In spite of their wide range of geographical origins, the compositions of the Histosol HAs appear to be relatively uniform, suggesting that the search for a general model of Histosol HA structure is worthwhile. Eight models proposed in the literature do not reproduce the experimentally determined compositions, but a few models show promising partial agreement.

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 · 10.2136/sssaj2000.643873x

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
Mao, J.-D., Hu, W.-G., Schmidt-Rohr, K., Davies, G., Ghabbour, E. A., & Xing, B.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-05
Volume
64
Issue
3
Pages
873-884
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2077338652
Cited by
311
References
30
FWCI
27.19
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: Quantitative Characterization of Humic Substances by Solid‐State Carbon‐13 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2000.643873x
The paper
Mao, J.-D., Hu, W.-G., Schmidt-Rohr, K., Davies, G., Ghabbour, E. A., & Xing, B. (2000). Quantitative Characterization of Humic Substances by Solid‐State Carbon‐13 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.643873x

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.