首页> 外文期刊>Global Biogeochemical Cycles >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
【24h】

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

机译:比较使用土壤,水,沉积物和大气中的参考物质测量土壤和沉积物中火衍生(黑色/元素)碳的定量方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:黑碳(BC)是化石燃料和生物质不完全燃烧的产物(在大气科学中被称为元素碳(EC)),由来自不同学科的17个实验室使用7种不同方法对12种不同材料进行了定量。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)。这是该类型(多方法,多实验室和多样品)的首次全面比较,主要关注用于土壤和沉积物BC研究的方法。潜在干扰物质的结果(从定义上讲,不含任何源自火的有机碳)突显了个别方法可能高估BC浓度的情况。富含BC的材料(一个烟灰和两个炭)的结果表明,某些方法将所有三种材料中的大部分碳鉴定为BC,而其他方法仅将烟灰碳鉴定为BC。不同的方法还为环境矩阵提供了广泛不同的BC含量。但是,可以根据其他两组材料的发现来理解这些差异,即某些方法错误地将非BC碳识别为BC,并且每种技术的检测效率在BC连续体中都会有所不同。我们发现,大气中的BC定量方法不适用于土壤和沉积物研究,因为在其方法学中,无论其起源如何,这些方法都将BC定义为吸光材料,因此在应用于陆地和沉积材料时会产生偏差。这项研究表明,任何尝试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所检测到的BC连续体的不同,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。该环试验的主要目的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依据。在本文中,我们总结了每种方法的优缺点。在未来的研究中,我们强烈建议对照此处分析的一组BC参考材料评估所有分析土壤和沉积物中BC的方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号