Repository logo
 

Comparison of quantification methods to measure fire-derived (black/elemental) carbon in soils and sediments using reference materials from soil, water, sediment and the atmosphere

dc.contributor.authorHammes, Karen
dc.contributor.authorSchmidt, Michael W.I.
dc.contributor.authorSmernik, Ronald J.
dc.contributor.authorCurrie, Lloyd A.
dc.contributor.authorBall, William P.
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Thanh H.
dc.contributor.authorLouchouarn, Patrick
dc.contributor.authorHouel, Stephane
dc.contributor.authorGustafsson, Orjan
dc.contributor.authorElmquist, Marie
dc.contributor.authorCornelissen, Gerard
dc.contributor.authorSkjemstad, Jan O.
dc.contributor.authorMasiello, Caroline A.
dc.contributor.authorSong, Jianzhong
dc.contributor.authorPeng, Ping'an
dc.contributor.authorMitra, Siddhartha
dc.contributor.authorDunn, Joshua C.
dc.contributor.authorHatcher, Patrick G.
dc.contributor.authorHockaday, William C.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Dwight M.
dc.contributor.authorHartkopf-Froder, Cristoph
dc.contributor.authorBohmer, Axel
dc.contributor.authorLuer, Burkhard
dc.contributor.authorHuebert, Barry J.
dc.contributor.authorAmelung, Wulf
dc.contributor.authorBrodowski, Sonja
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Lin
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Wendy
dc.contributor.authorGschwend, Philip M.
dc.contributor.authorFlores-Cervantes, D. Xanat
dc.contributor.authorLargeau, Claude
dc.contributor.authorRouzaud, Jean-Noel
dc.contributor.authorRumpel, Cornelia
dc.contributor.authorGuggenberger, Georg
dc.contributor.authorKaiser, Klaus
dc.contributor.authorRodionov, Andrei
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Vila, Francisco J.
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Perez, Jose A.
dc.contributor.authorde la Rosa, Jose M.
dc.contributor.authorManning, David A. C.
dc.contributor.authorLopez-Capel, Elisa
dc.contributor.authorDing, Luyi
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-12T14:31:58Z
dc.date.available2014-03-12T14:31:58Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.descriptionCopyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.en_US
dc.description.abstractBlack carbon (BC), the product of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass (called elemental carbon (EC) in atmospheric sciences), was quantified in 12 different materials by 17 laboratories from different disciplines, using seven different methods. The materials were divided into three classes: (1) potentially interfering materials, (2) laboratory-produced BC-rich materials, and (3) BC-containing environmental matrices (from soil, water, sediment, and atmosphere). This is the first comprehensive intercomparison of this type (multimethod, multilab, and multisample), focusing mainly on methods used for soil and sediment BC studies. Results for the potentially interfering materials (which by definition contained no fire-derived organic carbon) highlighted situations where individual methods may overestimate BC concentrations. Results for the BC-rich materials (one soot and two chars) showed that some of the methods identified most of the carbon in all three materials as BC, whereas other methods identified only soot carbon as BC. The different methods also gave widely different BC contents for the environmental matrices. However, these variations could be understood in the light of the findings for the other two groups of materials, i.e., that some methods incorrectly identify non-BC carbon as BC, and that the detection efficiency of each technique varies across the BC continuum. We found that atmospheric BC quantification methods are not ideal for soil and sediment studies as in their methodology these incorporate the definition of BC as light-absorbing material irrespective of its origin, leading to biases when applied to terrestrial and sedimentary materials. This study shows that any attempt to merge data generated via different methods must consider the different, operationally defined analytical windows of the BC continuum detected by each technique, as well as the limitations and potential biases of each technique. A major goal of this ring trial was to provide a basis on which to choose between the different BC quantification methods in soil and sediment studies. In this paper we summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each method. In future studies, we strongly recommend the evaluation of all methods analyzing for BC in soils and sediments against the set of BC reference materials analyzed here.en_US
dc.identifier.citationGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles; 21:3 p. GB3016en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/2006GB002914
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10342/4357
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GB002914/abstracten_US
dc.subjectBiogeochemical cyclesen_US
dc.subjectBiogeochemical processes
dc.subjectBiogeochemical modeling
dc.titleComparison of quantification methods to measure fire-derived (black/elemental) carbon in soils and sediments using reference materials from soil, water, sediment and the atmosphereen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
ecu.journal.issue3
ecu.journal.nameGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles
ecu.journal.pagesGB3016
ecu.journal.volume21

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
comparison of quantification methods.pdf
Size:
307.34 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article