Articles | Volume 23, issue 13
Technical note
11 Jul 2023
Technical note |  | 11 Jul 2023

Technical note: Intercomparison study of the elemental carbon radiocarbon analysis methods using synthetic known samples

Xiangyun Zhang, Jun Li, Sanyuan Zhu, Junwen Liu, Ping Ding, Shutao Gao, Chongguo Tian, Yingjun Chen, Ping'an Peng, and Gan Zhang


Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-379', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Apr 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiangyun Zhang, 20 May 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-379', Will Meredith, 18 Apr 2023
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiangyun Zhang, 20 May 2023

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Xiangyun Zhang on behalf of the Authors (20 May 2023)  Author's response   Author's tracked changes   Manuscript 
ED: Publish as is (05 Jun 2023) by Katye Altieri
AR by Xiangyun Zhang on behalf of the Authors (07 Jun 2023)  Manuscript 
Short summary
The results show that 14C elemental carbon (EC) was not only related to the isolation method but also to the types and proportions of the biomass sources in the sample. The hydropyrolysis (Hypy) method, which can be used to isolate a highly stable portion of ECHypy and avoid charring, is a more effective and stable approach for the matrix-independent 14C quantification of EC in aerosols, and the 13C–ECHypy and non-fossil ECHypy values of SRM1649b were –24.9 ‰ and 11 %, respectively.
Final-revised paper