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
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
复制标题
DOI：
10.1029/2006gb002914
复制
发表时间：
2007-08-31
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Ding, Luyi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hammes, Karen;Schmidt, Michael W. I.;Ding, Luyi
黑碳 (BC) 是化石燃料和生物质不完全燃烧的产物（在大气科学中称为元素碳 (EC)），由来自不同学科的 17 个实验室使用 7 种不同的方法在 12 种不同的材料中进行了定量。这些材料分为三类：(1) 潜在干扰材料，(2) 实验室生产的富含 BC 的材料，以及 (3) 含 BC 的环境基质（来自土壤、水、沉积物和大气）。这是此类类型（多方法、多实验室和多样本）的首次综合比较，主要关注用于土壤和沉积物BC研究的方法。潜在干扰材料（根据定义不含火源有机碳）的结果突出显示了个别方法可能高估 BC 浓度的情况。富含BC的材料（一种烟灰和两种炭）的结果表明，一些方法将所有三种材料中的大部分碳识别为BC，而其他方法仅将烟灰碳识别为BC。不同的方法还给出了环境基质中截然不同的BC含量。然而，这些变化可以根据其他两组材料的发现来理解，即一些方法错误地将非BC碳识别为BC，并且每种技术的检测效率在BC连续体中各不相同。我们发现，大气BC量化方法对于土壤和沉积物研究并不理想，因为在其方法中，这些方法将BC定义为吸光材料，无论其来源如何，导致应用于陆地和沉积材料时出现偏差。这项研究表明，任何合并通过不同方法生成的数据的尝试都必须考虑每种技术检测到的 BC 连续体的不同的、可操作定义的分析窗口，以及每种技术的局限性和潜在偏差。该环试验的一个主要目标是为土壤和沉积物研究中不同BC定量方法之间的选择提供基础。在本文中，我们总结了每种方法的优点和缺点。在未来的研究中，我们强烈建议根据此处分析的 BC 参考材料对土壤和沉积物中的 BC 分析的所有方法进行评估。
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.