4.7 Article

Evaluation of the thermal/optical reflectance method for quantification of elemental carbon in sediments

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 69, Issue 4, Pages 526-533

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.03.035

Keywords

elemental carbon; black carbon; thermal/optical analysis; sediments; aerosols

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The IMPROVE thermal/optical reflectance (TOR) method, commonly used for EC quantification in atmospheric aerosols, is applied to soils and sediments and compared with a thermochemical method commonly applied to these non-atmospheric samples. TOR determines elemental carbon (EC) by an optical method, but it also yields thermally defined EC fractions in a 2% O-2/98% He oxidizing atmosphere at 550 degrees C (ECI), 700 degrees C (EC2), and 800 degrees C (EC3). Replicate TOR TC, OC, and EC values exhibited precisions of similar to +/- 10% as determined from multiple analyses of the same samples. EC abundances relative to total mass concentrations were within the ranges reported by other methods for diesel exhaust soot, n-hexane soot, wood and rice chars, and coals, as well as for environmental matrices. A direct comparison with the chemothermal (CTO) method of Gustafson et al. for ten soil and sediment samples demonstrated that almost all of the OC and ECI are eliminated, as is part of the EC2. The CTO soot carbon is bounded by the EC3 and EC2 + EC3 fractions of the IMPROVE TOR analysis. It might be possible to adjust these fractions to obtain better agreement between atmospheric aerosol and soil/sediment analysis methods. Given its linking the EC measurement in the atmosphere to sediments, the TOR method will not only provide useful information on the explanation and comparison between different environmental matrices, but also can be used to derive information on global cycling of EC. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available