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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer review

Authors

  • Karen 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 S. Gonzalez-Perez
  • José M. de la Rosa
  • David A.C. Manning
  • Elisa López-Capél
  • Luyi Ding

External Research Organisations

  • Universität Zürich (UZH)
  • University of Adelaide
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Columbia University
  • Stockholm University
  • Rice University
  • The Ohio State University
  • University of Denver
  • Geologischer Dienst NRW
  • University of Bonn
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE)
  • Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
  • Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)
  • Newcastle University
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
  • Binghamton University
  • Government of Canada
  • Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
View graph of relations

Details

Original languageEnglish
Article numberGB3016
JournalGlobal biogeochemical cycles
Volume21
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 31 Aug 2007
Externally publishedYes

Abstract

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.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Cite this

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. / Hammes, Karen; Schmidt, Michael W.I.; Smernik, Ronald J. et al.
In: Global biogeochemical cycles, Vol. 21, No. 3, GB3016, 31.08.2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer review

Hammes, K, Schmidt, MWI, Smernik, RJ, Currie, LA, Ball, WP, Nguyen, TH, Louchouarn, P, Houel, S, Gustafsson, Ö, Elmquist, M, Cornelissen, G, Skjemstad, JO, Masiello, CA, Song, J, Peng, P, Mitra, S, Dunn, JC, Hatcher, PG, Hockaday, WC, Smith, DM, Hartkopf-Fröder, C, Böhmer, A, Lüer, B, Huebert, BJ, Amelung, W, Brodowski, S, Huang, L, Zhang, W, Gschwend, PM, Flores-Cervantes, DX, Largeau, C, Rouzaud, JN, Rumpel, C, Guggenberger, G, Kaiser, K, Rodionov, A, Gonzalez-Vila, FJ, Gonzalez-Perez, JS, de la Rosa, JM, Manning, DAC, López-Capél, E & Ding, L 2007, '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', Global biogeochemical cycles, vol. 21, no. 3, GB3016. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002914
Hammes, K., Schmidt, M. W. I., Smernik, R. J., Currie, L. A., Ball, W. P., Nguyen, T. H., Louchouarn, P., Houel, S., Gustafsson, Ö., Elmquist, M., Cornelissen, G., Skjemstad, J. O., Masiello, C. A., Song, J., Peng, P., Mitra, S., Dunn, J. C., Hatcher, P. G., Hockaday, W. C., ... Ding, L. (2007). 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. Global biogeochemical cycles, 21(3), Article GB3016. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002914
Download
@article{5515eae6d6b8419eb466574e004a3371,
title = "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",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Karen Hammes and Schmidt, {Michael W.I.} and Smernik, {Ronald J.} and Currie, {Lloyd A.} and Ball, {William P.} and Nguyen, {Thanh H.} and Patrick Louchouarn and Stephane Houel and {\"O}rjan Gustafsson and Marie Elmquist and Gerard Cornelissen and Skjemstad, {Jan O.} and Masiello, {Caroline A.} and Jianzhong Song and Ping'an Peng and Siddhartha Mitra and Dunn, {Joshua C.} and Hatcher, {Patrick G.} and Hockaday, {William C.} and Smith, {Dwight M.} and Christoph Hartkopf-Fr{\"o}der and Axel B{\"o}hmer and Burkhard L{\"u}er and Huebert, {Barry J.} and Wulf Amelung and Sonja Brodowski and Lin Huang and Wendy Zhang and Gschwend, {Philip M.} and Flores-Cervantes, {D. Xanat} and Claude Largeau and Rouzaud, {Jean No{\"e}l} and Cornelia Rumpel and Georg Guggenberger and Klaus Kaiser and Andrei Rodionov and Gonzalez-Vila, {Francisco J.} and Gonzalez-Perez, {Jos{\'e} S.} and {de la Rosa}, {Jos{\'e} M.} and Manning, {David A.C.} and Elisa L{\'o}pez-Cap{\'e}l and Luyi Ding",
year = "2007",
month = aug,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1029/2006GB002914",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
journal = "Global biogeochemical cycles",
issn = "0886-6236",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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

AU - Hammes, Karen

AU - Schmidt, Michael W.I.

AU - Smernik, Ronald J.

AU - Currie, Lloyd A.

AU - Ball, William P.

AU - Nguyen, Thanh H.

AU - Louchouarn, Patrick

AU - Houel, Stephane

AU - Gustafsson, Örjan

AU - Elmquist, Marie

AU - Cornelissen, Gerard

AU - Skjemstad, Jan O.

AU - Masiello, Caroline A.

AU - Song, Jianzhong

AU - Peng, Ping'an

AU - Mitra, Siddhartha

AU - Dunn, Joshua C.

AU - Hatcher, Patrick G.

AU - Hockaday, William C.

AU - Smith, Dwight M.

AU - Hartkopf-Fröder, Christoph

AU - Böhmer, Axel

AU - Lüer, Burkhard

AU - Huebert, Barry J.

AU - Amelung, Wulf

AU - Brodowski, Sonja

AU - Huang, Lin

AU - Zhang, Wendy

AU - Gschwend, Philip M.

AU - Flores-Cervantes, D. Xanat

AU - Largeau, Claude

AU - Rouzaud, Jean Noël

AU - Rumpel, Cornelia

AU - Guggenberger, Georg

AU - Kaiser, Klaus

AU - Rodionov, Andrei

AU - Gonzalez-Vila, Francisco J.

AU - Gonzalez-Perez, José S.

AU - de la Rosa, José M.

AU - Manning, David A.C.

AU - López-Capél, Elisa

AU - Ding, Luyi

PY - 2007/8/31

Y1 - 2007/8/31

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36749022108&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1029/2006GB002914

DO - 10.1029/2006GB002914

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:36749022108

VL - 21

JO - Global biogeochemical cycles

JF - Global biogeochemical cycles

SN - 0886-6236

IS - 3

M1 - GB3016

ER -

By the same author(s)