Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,158

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of biomass burning emissions part III: intensive optical properties of biomass burning particles

Open access
Reid, J. S., Eck, T. F., Christopher, S. A., Koppmann, R., Dubovik, O., Eleuterio, D. P., Holben, B. N., Reid, E. A., Zhang, J.·2005·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Abstract

Abstract. Because of its wide coverage over much of the globe, biomass burning has been widely studied in the context of direct radiative forcing. Such study is warranted as smoke particles scatter and at times absorb solar radiation efficiently. Further, as much of what is known about smoke transport and impacts is based on remote sensing measurements, the optical properties of smoke particles have far reaching effects into numerous aspects of biomass burning studies. Global estimates of direct forcing have been widely varying, ranging from near zero to −1 W m-2. A significant part of this difference can be traced to varying assumptions on the optical properties of smoke. This manuscript is the third part of four examining biomass-burning emissions. Here we review and discuss the literature concerning measurement and modeling of optical properties of biomass-burning particles. These include available data from published sensitivity studies, field campaigns, and inversions from the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) of Sun photometer sites. As a whole, optical properties reported in the literature are varied, reflecting both the dynamic nature of fires, variations in smoke aging processes and differences in measurement technique. We find that forward modeling or ''internal closure'' studies ultimately are of little help in resolving outstanding measurement issues due to the high degree of degeneracy in solutions when using ''reasonable'' input parameters. This is particularly notable with respect to index of refraction and the treatment of black carbon. Consequently, previous claims of column closure may in fact be more ambiguous. Differences between in situ and retrieved ωo values have implications for estimates of mass scattering and mass absorption efficiencies. In this manuscript we review and discuss this community dataset. Strengths and lapses are pointed out, future research topics are prioritized, and best estimates and uncertainties of key smoke particle parameters are provided.

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 · 10.5194/acp-5-827-2005

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,158

Metadata

Authors
Reid, J. S., Eck, T. F., Christopher, S. A., Koppmann, R., Dubovik, O., Eleuterio, D. P., Holben, B. N., Reid, E. A., & Zhang, J.
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2005-03-14
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
827-849
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W2163114065
Cited by
1,158
References
2
FWCI
41.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A review of biomass burning emissions part III: intensive optical properties of biomass burning particles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-5-827-2005
The paper
Reid, J. S., Eck, T. F., Christopher, S. A., Koppmann, R., Dubovik, O., Eleuterio, D. P., Holben, B. N., Reid, E. A., & Zhang, J. (2005). A review of biomass burning emissions part III: intensive optical properties of biomass burning particles. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-827-2005

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.