Opinion: From Conversion Factors to Diagnostic Signals: Interpreting Response Ratios among eBC, EC, and rBC

Zhang, Zefeng

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-3596

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3596

Preprints

09 Jul 2026

| 09 Jul 2026

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

Opinion: From Conversion Factors to Diagnostic Signals: Interpreting Response Ratios among eBC, EC, and rBC

Zefeng Zhang

Note on duplicated preprint: although EGUsphere's policy does not support double preprinting, this preprint has a former version on EGUsphere.

Abstract. Equivalent black carbon (eBC), elemental carbon (EC), and refractory black carbon (rBC) are widely recognized as distinct operationally defined metrics related to black carbon (BC). Building on the terminology framework of Petzold et al. (2013), this Opinion focuses on a practical question: how should empirical relationships among these metrics be represented and used? Conversion factors are often used for cross-metric harmonization, but their variability may also contain information on aerosol state and method response. We propose treating ratios such as eBC/rBC, eBC/EC, and EC/rBC as response ratios, namely derived diagnostic observables that can serve as empirical conversion factors when averaged for harmonization, but as indicators of changes in aerosol state and method response when retained as time-varying quantities. This dual role implies a practical equivalence trilemma: method specificity, state-independent numerical equivalence, and aerosol-state sensitivity cannot all be fully retained when cross-metric relationships are compressed into fixed conversion factors. The trilemma makes explicit a trade-off that the BC measurement community already navigates. It concerns cross-metric harmonization rather than within-method standardization or metrological traceability. We recommend transparent reporting of primary observables, conversion assumptions, and response-ratio time series in multi-method datasets. Retaining response-ratio variability alongside harmonized products would allow multi-method BC datasets to support both comparability and aerosol-state interpretation.

Received: 19 Jun 2026 – Discussion started: 09 Jul 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Zefeng Zhang

Note on duplicated preprint: although EGUsphere's policy does not support double preprinting, this preprint has a former version on EGUsphere.

Status: open (until 20 Aug 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-3596', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jul 2026 reply
This article highlights the inevitable uncertainties arising from the diversity of observational methods and the varying definitions of black carbon (BC) based on different physical parameters, while also offering preliminary recommendations. This perspective is constructive and valuable. However, the paper lacks a systematic, quantitative comparison of existing methods based on a comprehensive review of the literature. Moreover, it would benefit from more detailed suggestions on solving current problems rather than solely identifying them.
Specifically, the following aspects could be elaborated:
regarding the harmonization of disparate BC datasets for global model use, practical steps could include establishing standardized data correction protocols, promoting reference instruments, and using advanced data assimilation techniques that account for methodological uncertainties.

On integrating different observational techniques, the article could discuss how to design coordinated measurements and use multivariate analysis to synthesize complementary data on BC mass, size, and mixing state into a more complete picture.

Concerning the treatment of method-dependent errors in model evaluation, detailed suggestions could involve using observation system simulation experiments to quantify bias propagation and encouraging models to provide "instrument-equivalent" outputs for a fairer comparison. Adding these focused solutions would enhance the paper's value in guiding future research and policy.

This article is generally constructive, but lack of quantitative comparison between different methodologies for BC measurements by really analysing on the existing literatures.
It has been separated too many subtitles.
It may benefit from giving more practical advice on how to deal with the exiting data, and what we can get from them.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3596-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3596', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Aug 2026 reply

This comment constitutes an extension of the seminal paper by Petzold et al. (2013), regarding the definitions of black carbon. While this does not introduce any new concepts, this is a timely piece, as there is much discussion within the metrological community currently regarding the standardisation of BC measurement as part of measurement networks such as GAW and ACTRIS, the implementation of the 2021 WHO recommendations, and international frameworks such as the Paris agreement, Gothenburg Protocol and 2024 EU Air Quality Directive. In a number of forums, the disagreements between the different measurement techniques are effectively treated as measurement artefacts to be calibrated out, rather than measurements of different intrinsic properties of the substance.

This work argues that rather than striving for exemplar conversions between the different quantities such as EC, eBC and rBC, we should instead be striving to treat variations in these conversions as sources of information in their own right. Because this has implications for how "black carbon" is treated in models and inventories in addition to observations, I would say that while this conceptual paper is based around measurements, the implications extend beyond it, so it should be considered in-scope on that basis. The most common example of this currently in use is the MAC, that the author makes extensive reference to and while variations in this quantity are something that people modelling the fundamental physics are accustomed to, I have often observed a tendency to treat this more simply in the applied aspects of atmospheric science, so this bears discussing here.

Perhaps my biggest issue with the core thesis here is that for as much as I agree that these conversion factors do tell one about the fundamental properties of the black carbon, as stated in the article, there is no avoiding the fact that they also account for instrument issues as well. So for instance, when performing filter-based measurements of eBC, the Babs parameter derived can be subject to scattering artefacts that are dependent not just on the physical instrument but also other non-absorbing aerosol that are present. Another one is the widely-documented issues that can throw off the split point during thermal-optical analysis, which are again dependent on both the method and the aerosol under investigation. These are dealt with in the article, but as such, they detract from the notion of the differing conversion factors being useful in anything other than a technical context. If they are indeed mainly technical artefacts, then this would place the article outside of the scope of ACP and more the realms of AMT.
In this spirit of this being a comment piece, I think the argument could be made far more strongly if better examples could be given for this approach demonstrating utility beyond simply diagnosing the technicalities of the measurement methods. One thing that may help to achieve this is presenting more quantitative data, as suggested by the other reviewer.

On a more minor note, I would say that much more attention needs to be paid to the definition of 'rBC' here because there are different ways of measuring this using incandescence. For the bulk Laser Induced Incandescence (LII) instruments, the calibration tends to relate to the mass-specific absorption cross section of the rBC, whereas with the Single Particle Soot Photometer (SP2), its is the boiling point. Currently in table 1, this is covered by the catch-all 'calibration' but this isn't particularly useful within the context of the paper.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3596-RC2

Zefeng Zhang

Note on duplicated preprint: although EGUsphere's policy does not support double preprinting, this preprint has a former version on EGUsphere.

Zefeng Zhang

Note on duplicated preprint: although EGUsphere's policy does not support double preprinting, this preprint has a former version on EGUsphere.

Viewed

Total article views: 274 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
202	52	20	274	19	25

HTML: 202
PDF: 52
XML: 20
Total: 274
BibTeX: 19
EndNote: 25

Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	192	48	20	260
Aug 2026	10	4	0	14

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	192	48	20	260
Aug 2026	10	4	0	14

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 180 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 180 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 06 Aug 2026

Short summary

Black carbon is commonly reported using different operational metrics, including eBC, EC, and rBC. These metrics are related but not directly interchangeable because they are based on different measurement principles. This Opinion article argues that ratios among them should be used not only as empirical conversion factors, but also as diagnostic signals that can provide information on aerosol state and measurement response.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0