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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHammes, K.
dc.contributor.authorSchmidt, M.
dc.contributor.authorSmernik, R.
dc.contributor.authorCurrie, L.
dc.contributor.authorBall, W.
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, T.
dc.contributor.authorLouchouarn, P.
dc.contributor.authorHouel, S.
dc.contributor.authorGustafsson, O.
dc.contributor.authorElmquist, M.
dc.contributor.authorCornelissen, G.
dc.contributor.authorSkjemstad, J.
dc.contributor.authorMasiello, C.
dc.contributor.authorSong, J.
dc.contributor.authorPeng, P.
dc.contributor.authorMitra, S.
dc.contributor.authorDunn, J.
dc.contributor.authorHatcher, P.
dc.contributor.authorHockaday, W.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, D.
dc.contributor.authoret al.
dc.date.issued2007
dc.description.abstract<jats:p>Black 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.</jats:p>
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityKaren Hammes, Michael W. I. Schmidt, Ronald J. Smernik, Lloyd A. Currie, William P. Ball, Thanh H. Nguyen,, Patrick Louchouarn,, Stephane Houel, Örjan Gustafsson, Marie Elmquist, Gerard Cornelissen, Jan O. Skjemstad, Caroline A. Masiello, Jianzhong Song, Ping'an Peng, Siddhartha Mitra, Joshua C. Dunn, Patrick G. Hatcher, William C. Hockaday, Dwight M. Smith, Christoph Hartkopf-Fröder, Axel Böhmer, Burkhard Lüer, Barry J. Huebert, Wulf Amelung, Sonja Brodowski, Lin Huang, Wendy Zhang, Philip M. Gschwend, D. Xanat Flores-Cervantes, Claude Largeau, Jean-Noël Rouzaud, Cornelia Rumpel, Georg Guggenberger, Klaus Kaiser, Andrei Rodionov, Francisco J. Gonzalez-Vila, José A. Gonzalez-Perez, José M. de la Rosa, David A. C. Manning, Elisa López-Capél, Luyi Ding
dc.identifier.citationGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles, 2007; 21(3):WWW 1-WWW16
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/2006GB002914
dc.identifier.issn0886-6236
dc.identifier.issn1944-9224
dc.identifier.orcidSmernik, R. [0000-0001-6033-5855]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/44775
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAmer Geophysical Union
dc.rights© 2007 by the American Geophysical Union
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1029/2006gb002914
dc.subjectblack carbon
dc.subjectelemental carbon
dc.subjectintercomparison
dc.subjectsoil
dc.subjectwater
dc.subjectsediment
dc.subjectatmosphere
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 atmosphere
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Earth and Environmental Sciences publications