Loading…

A comparison of satellite- and ground-based measurements of SO2 emissions from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador

Satellite‐measured SO2 mass loadings and ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are not directly comparable, with ∼40% differences between mean emissions reported by each technique from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador, during late 2007. Numerical simulations of postemission processing and disper...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres 2014-04, Vol.119 (7), p.4264-4285
Main Authors: McCormick, Brendan T., Herzog, Michael, Yang, Jian, Edmonds, Marie, Mather, Tamsin A., Carn, Simon A., Hidalgo, Silvana, Langmann, Baerbel
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-31d25da17eec8eb7c89825999cbc37f6f2cd91e64aa71c3506635c76e545d4bd3
cites
container_end_page 4285
container_issue 7
container_start_page 4264
container_title Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres
container_volume 119
creator McCormick, Brendan T.
Herzog, Michael
Yang, Jian
Edmonds, Marie
Mather, Tamsin A.
Carn, Simon A.
Hidalgo, Silvana
Langmann, Baerbel
description Satellite‐measured SO2 mass loadings and ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are not directly comparable, with ∼40% differences between mean emissions reported by each technique from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador, during late 2007. Numerical simulations of postemission processing and dispersal of Tungurahua's SO2 emissions enable more effective comparison of ground‐ and satellite‐based SO2 data sets, reducing the difference between them and constraining the impact of plume processing on satellite SO2 observations. Ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are used as the model input, and simulated SO2 mass loadings are compared to those measured by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI). The changing extent of SO2 processing has a significant impact on daily variation in SO2 mass loading for a fixed volcanic emission rate. However, variations in emission rate at Tungurahua are large, suggesting that overall volcanic source strength and not subsequent processing is more likely to be the dominant control on atmospheric mass loading. SO2 emission rate estimates are derived directly from the OMI observations using modeled SO2 lifetime. Good agreement is achieved between both observed and simulated mass loadings (∼21%) and satellite‐derived and ground‐measured SO2 emission rates (∼18%), with a factor of 2 improvement over the differences found by simple direct comparison. While the balance of emission source strength and postemission processing will differ between volcanoes and regions, under good observation conditions and where SO2 lifetime is ∼24 hours, satellite‐based sensors like OMI may provide daily observations of SO2 mass loading which are a good proxy for volcanic source strength. Key PointsSpace‐based monitoring of volcanic degassingComparison of satellite‐ and ground‐based data
doi_str_mv 10.1002/2013JD019771
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1638400087</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3532024351</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-31d25da17eec8eb7c89825999cbc37f6f2cd91e64aa71c3506635c76e545d4bd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkE1PAjEQhjdGEwl68wc08epqv7s9EhUUiSSA0VtT2i4u7m6x3VX59y7BEOcyc3iemcybJBcIXiMI8Q2GiIzvIJJCoKOkhxGXaSYlPz7M4u00OY9xDbvKIKGM9pL1ABhfbXQooq-Bz0HUjSvLonEp0LUFq-Db2qZLHZ0FldOxDa5ydRN37HyKgauKGAtfR5AHX4FFW6_aoN9bDb58aXTtr8C9abX14Sw5yXUZ3flf7ycvw_vF7UM6mY4ebweT1BDKcUqQxcxqJJwzmVsKk8kMMymlWRoicp5jYyVynGotkCEMck6YEdwxyixdWtJPLvd7N8F_ti42au3bUHcnFeIko7vvRUeRPfVdlG6rNqGodNgqBNUuTfU_TTUeze4YwgJ3Vrq3iti4n4Olw4figgimXp9His4pnA2zJyXJL3LBeEA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1638400087</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of satellite- and ground-based measurements of SO2 emissions from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>McCormick, Brendan T. ; Herzog, Michael ; Yang, Jian ; Edmonds, Marie ; Mather, Tamsin A. ; Carn, Simon A. ; Hidalgo, Silvana ; Langmann, Baerbel</creator><creatorcontrib>McCormick, Brendan T. ; Herzog, Michael ; Yang, Jian ; Edmonds, Marie ; Mather, Tamsin A. ; Carn, Simon A. ; Hidalgo, Silvana ; Langmann, Baerbel</creatorcontrib><description>Satellite‐measured SO2 mass loadings and ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are not directly comparable, with ∼40% differences between mean emissions reported by each technique from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador, during late 2007. Numerical simulations of postemission processing and dispersal of Tungurahua's SO2 emissions enable more effective comparison of ground‐ and satellite‐based SO2 data sets, reducing the difference between them and constraining the impact of plume processing on satellite SO2 observations. Ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are used as the model input, and simulated SO2 mass loadings are compared to those measured by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI). The changing extent of SO2 processing has a significant impact on daily variation in SO2 mass loading for a fixed volcanic emission rate. However, variations in emission rate at Tungurahua are large, suggesting that overall volcanic source strength and not subsequent processing is more likely to be the dominant control on atmospheric mass loading. SO2 emission rate estimates are derived directly from the OMI observations using modeled SO2 lifetime. Good agreement is achieved between both observed and simulated mass loadings (∼21%) and satellite‐derived and ground‐measured SO2 emission rates (∼18%), with a factor of 2 improvement over the differences found by simple direct comparison. While the balance of emission source strength and postemission processing will differ between volcanoes and regions, under good observation conditions and where SO2 lifetime is ∼24 hours, satellite‐based sensors like OMI may provide daily observations of SO2 mass loading which are a good proxy for volcanic source strength. Key PointsSpace‐based monitoring of volcanic degassingComparison of satellite‐ and ground‐based data</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-897X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-8996</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/2013JD019771</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Airborne particulates ; atmospheric chemistry ; Degassing ; Emission measurements ; Emissions ; Geophysics ; modeling ; Monitoring instruments ; remote sensing ; Satellites ; Sulfur dioxide ; sulphur dioxide ; Tungurahua ; volcanic degassing ; Volcanoes</subject><ispartof>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres, 2014-04, Vol.119 (7), p.4264-4285</ispartof><rights>2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-31d25da17eec8eb7c89825999cbc37f6f2cd91e64aa71c3506635c76e545d4bd3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McCormick, Brendan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Jian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edmonds, Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mather, Tamsin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carn, Simon A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hidalgo, Silvana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langmann, Baerbel</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of satellite- and ground-based measurements of SO2 emissions from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador</title><title>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres</title><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res. Atmos</addtitle><description>Satellite‐measured SO2 mass loadings and ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are not directly comparable, with ∼40% differences between mean emissions reported by each technique from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador, during late 2007. Numerical simulations of postemission processing and dispersal of Tungurahua's SO2 emissions enable more effective comparison of ground‐ and satellite‐based SO2 data sets, reducing the difference between them and constraining the impact of plume processing on satellite SO2 observations. Ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are used as the model input, and simulated SO2 mass loadings are compared to those measured by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI). The changing extent of SO2 processing has a significant impact on daily variation in SO2 mass loading for a fixed volcanic emission rate. However, variations in emission rate at Tungurahua are large, suggesting that overall volcanic source strength and not subsequent processing is more likely to be the dominant control on atmospheric mass loading. SO2 emission rate estimates are derived directly from the OMI observations using modeled SO2 lifetime. Good agreement is achieved between both observed and simulated mass loadings (∼21%) and satellite‐derived and ground‐measured SO2 emission rates (∼18%), with a factor of 2 improvement over the differences found by simple direct comparison. While the balance of emission source strength and postemission processing will differ between volcanoes and regions, under good observation conditions and where SO2 lifetime is ∼24 hours, satellite‐based sensors like OMI may provide daily observations of SO2 mass loading which are a good proxy for volcanic source strength. Key PointsSpace‐based monitoring of volcanic degassingComparison of satellite‐ and ground‐based data</description><subject>Airborne particulates</subject><subject>atmospheric chemistry</subject><subject>Degassing</subject><subject>Emission measurements</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Geophysics</subject><subject>modeling</subject><subject>Monitoring instruments</subject><subject>remote sensing</subject><subject>Satellites</subject><subject>Sulfur dioxide</subject><subject>sulphur dioxide</subject><subject>Tungurahua</subject><subject>volcanic degassing</subject><subject>Volcanoes</subject><issn>2169-897X</issn><issn>2169-8996</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkE1PAjEQhjdGEwl68wc08epqv7s9EhUUiSSA0VtT2i4u7m6x3VX59y7BEOcyc3iemcybJBcIXiMI8Q2GiIzvIJJCoKOkhxGXaSYlPz7M4u00OY9xDbvKIKGM9pL1ABhfbXQooq-Bz0HUjSvLonEp0LUFq-Db2qZLHZ0FldOxDa5ydRN37HyKgauKGAtfR5AHX4FFW6_aoN9bDb58aXTtr8C9abX14Sw5yXUZ3flf7ycvw_vF7UM6mY4ebweT1BDKcUqQxcxqJJwzmVsKk8kMMymlWRoicp5jYyVynGotkCEMck6YEdwxyixdWtJPLvd7N8F_ti42au3bUHcnFeIko7vvRUeRPfVdlG6rNqGodNgqBNUuTfU_TTUeze4YwgJ3Vrq3iti4n4Olw4figgimXp9His4pnA2zJyXJL3LBeEA</recordid><startdate>20140416</startdate><enddate>20140416</enddate><creator>McCormick, Brendan T.</creator><creator>Herzog, Michael</creator><creator>Yang, Jian</creator><creator>Edmonds, Marie</creator><creator>Mather, Tamsin A.</creator><creator>Carn, Simon A.</creator><creator>Hidalgo, Silvana</creator><creator>Langmann, Baerbel</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140416</creationdate><title>A comparison of satellite- and ground-based measurements of SO2 emissions from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador</title><author>McCormick, Brendan T. ; Herzog, Michael ; Yang, Jian ; Edmonds, Marie ; Mather, Tamsin A. ; Carn, Simon A. ; Hidalgo, Silvana ; Langmann, Baerbel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-31d25da17eec8eb7c89825999cbc37f6f2cd91e64aa71c3506635c76e545d4bd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Airborne particulates</topic><topic>atmospheric chemistry</topic><topic>Degassing</topic><topic>Emission measurements</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Geophysics</topic><topic>modeling</topic><topic>Monitoring instruments</topic><topic>remote sensing</topic><topic>Satellites</topic><topic>Sulfur dioxide</topic><topic>sulphur dioxide</topic><topic>Tungurahua</topic><topic>volcanic degassing</topic><topic>Volcanoes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McCormick, Brendan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Jian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edmonds, Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mather, Tamsin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carn, Simon A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hidalgo, Silvana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langmann, Baerbel</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McCormick, Brendan T.</au><au>Herzog, Michael</au><au>Yang, Jian</au><au>Edmonds, Marie</au><au>Mather, Tamsin A.</au><au>Carn, Simon A.</au><au>Hidalgo, Silvana</au><au>Langmann, Baerbel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of satellite- and ground-based measurements of SO2 emissions from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador</atitle><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres</jtitle><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res. Atmos</addtitle><date>2014-04-16</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>119</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>4264</spage><epage>4285</epage><pages>4264-4285</pages><issn>2169-897X</issn><eissn>2169-8996</eissn><abstract>Satellite‐measured SO2 mass loadings and ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are not directly comparable, with ∼40% differences between mean emissions reported by each technique from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador, during late 2007. Numerical simulations of postemission processing and dispersal of Tungurahua's SO2 emissions enable more effective comparison of ground‐ and satellite‐based SO2 data sets, reducing the difference between them and constraining the impact of plume processing on satellite SO2 observations. Ground‐based measurements of SO2 emission rate are used as the model input, and simulated SO2 mass loadings are compared to those measured by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI). The changing extent of SO2 processing has a significant impact on daily variation in SO2 mass loading for a fixed volcanic emission rate. However, variations in emission rate at Tungurahua are large, suggesting that overall volcanic source strength and not subsequent processing is more likely to be the dominant control on atmospheric mass loading. SO2 emission rate estimates are derived directly from the OMI observations using modeled SO2 lifetime. Good agreement is achieved between both observed and simulated mass loadings (∼21%) and satellite‐derived and ground‐measured SO2 emission rates (∼18%), with a factor of 2 improvement over the differences found by simple direct comparison. While the balance of emission source strength and postemission processing will differ between volcanoes and regions, under good observation conditions and where SO2 lifetime is ∼24 hours, satellite‐based sensors like OMI may provide daily observations of SO2 mass loading which are a good proxy for volcanic source strength. Key PointsSpace‐based monitoring of volcanic degassingComparison of satellite‐ and ground‐based data</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/2013JD019771</doi><tpages>22</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2169-897X
ispartof Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres, 2014-04, Vol.119 (7), p.4264-4285
issn 2169-897X
2169-8996
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1638400087
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Airborne particulates
atmospheric chemistry
Degassing
Emission measurements
Emissions
Geophysics
modeling
Monitoring instruments
remote sensing
Satellites
Sulfur dioxide
sulphur dioxide
Tungurahua
volcanic degassing
Volcanoes
title A comparison of satellite- and ground-based measurements of SO2 emissions from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T22%3A56%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20satellite-%20and%20ground-based%20measurements%20of%20SO2%20emissions%20from%20Tungurahua%20volcano,%20Ecuador&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20geophysical%20research.%20Atmospheres&rft.au=McCormick,%20Brendan%20T.&rft.date=2014-04-16&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=4264&rft.epage=4285&rft.pages=4264-4285&rft.issn=2169-897X&rft.eissn=2169-8996&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/2013JD019771&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E3532024351%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-31d25da17eec8eb7c89825999cbc37f6f2cd91e64aa71c3506635c76e545d4bd3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1638400087&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true