Loading…

Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid–sulfate waters

Many waters sampled in Yellowstone National Park, both high-temperature (30–94 °C) and low-temperature (0–30 °C), are acid–sulfate type with pH values of 1–5. Sulfuric acid is the dominant component, especially as pH values decrease below 3, and it forms from the oxidation of elemental S whose origi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied geochemistry 2009-02, Vol.24 (2), p.191-207
Main Authors: Kirk Nordstrom, D., Blaine McCleskey, R., Ball, James W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
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-a435t-dcbbd03c21efd13681c0fe8120d286c9c3d1e65b5ece5bf667c0f6e13380358c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-dcbbd03c21efd13681c0fe8120d286c9c3d1e65b5ece5bf667c0f6e13380358c3
container_end_page 207
container_issue 2
container_start_page 191
container_title Applied geochemistry
container_volume 24
creator Kirk Nordstrom, D.
Blaine McCleskey, R.
Ball, James W.
description Many waters sampled in Yellowstone National Park, both high-temperature (30–94 °C) and low-temperature (0–30 °C), are acid–sulfate type with pH values of 1–5. Sulfuric acid is the dominant component, especially as pH values decrease below 3, and it forms from the oxidation of elemental S whose origin is H 2S in hot gases derived from boiling of hydrothermal waters at depth. Four determinations of pH were obtained: (1) field pH at field temperature, (2) laboratory pH at laboratory temperature, (3) pH based on acidity titration, and (4) pH based on charge imbalance (at both laboratory and field temperatures). Laboratory pH, charge imbalance pH (at laboratory temperature), and acidity pH were in close agreement for pH < 2.7. Field pH measurements were predominantly used because the charge imbalance was ±10%, a selection process was used to compare acidity, laboratory, and charge balance pH to arrive at the best estimate. Differences between laboratory and field pH can be explained based on Fe oxidation, H 2S or S 2O 3 oxidation, CO 2 degassing, and the temperature-dependence of p K 2 for H 2SO 4. Charge imbalances are shown to be dependent on a speciation model for pH values
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2008.11.019
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20329909</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0883292708003818</els_id><sourcerecordid>20329909</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-dcbbd03c21efd13681c0fe8120d286c9c3d1e65b5ece5bf667c0f6e13380358c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1u2zAQhImgAeImeYbw1JvUXdKSqN6MoE0DGGmA_AA5ETS5qunKokvKDXzrO_QN8yRhYKPXnPYw8w12hrELhBIB68-r0mx-UrBLWpcCQJWIJWB7xCaoGlG0KKcf2ASUkoVoRXPCPqa0AoCqATFh5m7bd9vIDwk-jXHHQ8eXOxfDuKS4Nj1_NiPFxP3An6jvw3Maw0D8xow-DFm-NfHXF379yGfWu5e__1KOzMQBO2PHnekTnR_uKXv49vX-8nsx_3F1fTmbF2Yqq7FwdrFwIK1A6hzKWqGFjhQKcELVtrXSIdXVoiJL1aKr6ybrNaGUCmSlrDxln_a5mxh-bymNOrex-V8zUNgmLUCKtoU2G5u90caQUqROb6Jfm7jTCPptUr3S_yfVb5NqRJ0nzeRsT1Lu8cdT1Ml6Giw5H8mO2gX_bsYryNaG6w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20329909</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid–sulfate waters</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Kirk Nordstrom, D. ; Blaine McCleskey, R. ; Ball, James W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kirk Nordstrom, D. ; Blaine McCleskey, R. ; Ball, James W.</creatorcontrib><description>Many waters sampled in Yellowstone National Park, both high-temperature (30–94 °C) and low-temperature (0–30 °C), are acid–sulfate type with pH values of 1–5. Sulfuric acid is the dominant component, especially as pH values decrease below 3, and it forms from the oxidation of elemental S whose origin is H 2S in hot gases derived from boiling of hydrothermal waters at depth. Four determinations of pH were obtained: (1) field pH at field temperature, (2) laboratory pH at laboratory temperature, (3) pH based on acidity titration, and (4) pH based on charge imbalance (at both laboratory and field temperatures). Laboratory pH, charge imbalance pH (at laboratory temperature), and acidity pH were in close agreement for pH &lt; 2.7. Field pH measurements were predominantly used because the charge imbalance was &lt;±10%. When the charge imbalance was generally &gt;±10%, a selection process was used to compare acidity, laboratory, and charge balance pH to arrive at the best estimate. Differences between laboratory and field pH can be explained based on Fe oxidation, H 2S or S 2O 3 oxidation, CO 2 degassing, and the temperature-dependence of p K 2 for H 2SO 4. Charge imbalances are shown to be dependent on a speciation model for pH values &lt;3. The highest SO 4 concentrations, in the thousands of mg/L, result from evaporative concentration at elevated temperatures as shown by the consistently high δ 18O values (−10‰ to −3‰) and a δD vs. δ 18O slope of 3, reflecting kinetic fractionation. Low SO 4 concentrations (&lt;100 mg/L) for thermal waters (&gt;350 mg/L Cl) decrease as the Cl − concentration increases from boiling which appears inconsistent with the hypothesis of H 2S oxidation as a source of hydrothermal SO 4. This trend is consistent with the alternate hypothesis of anhydrite solubility equilibrium. Acid–sulfate water analyses are occasionally high in As, Hg, and NH 3 concentrations but in contrast to acid mine waters they are low to below detection in Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb concentrations. Even concentrations of SO 4, Fe, and Al are much lower in thermal waters than acid mine waters of the same pH. This difference in water chemistry may explain why certain species of fly larvae live comfortably in Yellowstone’s acid waters but have not been observed in acid rock drainage of the same pH.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-2927</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-9134</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2008.11.019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Freshwater</subject><ispartof>Applied geochemistry, 2009-02, Vol.24 (2), p.191-207</ispartof><rights>2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-dcbbd03c21efd13681c0fe8120d286c9c3d1e65b5ece5bf667c0f6e13380358c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-dcbbd03c21efd13681c0fe8120d286c9c3d1e65b5ece5bf667c0f6e13380358c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kirk Nordstrom, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaine McCleskey, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, James W.</creatorcontrib><title>Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid–sulfate waters</title><title>Applied geochemistry</title><description>Many waters sampled in Yellowstone National Park, both high-temperature (30–94 °C) and low-temperature (0–30 °C), are acid–sulfate type with pH values of 1–5. Sulfuric acid is the dominant component, especially as pH values decrease below 3, and it forms from the oxidation of elemental S whose origin is H 2S in hot gases derived from boiling of hydrothermal waters at depth. Four determinations of pH were obtained: (1) field pH at field temperature, (2) laboratory pH at laboratory temperature, (3) pH based on acidity titration, and (4) pH based on charge imbalance (at both laboratory and field temperatures). Laboratory pH, charge imbalance pH (at laboratory temperature), and acidity pH were in close agreement for pH &lt; 2.7. Field pH measurements were predominantly used because the charge imbalance was &lt;±10%. When the charge imbalance was generally &gt;±10%, a selection process was used to compare acidity, laboratory, and charge balance pH to arrive at the best estimate. Differences between laboratory and field pH can be explained based on Fe oxidation, H 2S or S 2O 3 oxidation, CO 2 degassing, and the temperature-dependence of p K 2 for H 2SO 4. Charge imbalances are shown to be dependent on a speciation model for pH values &lt;3. The highest SO 4 concentrations, in the thousands of mg/L, result from evaporative concentration at elevated temperatures as shown by the consistently high δ 18O values (−10‰ to −3‰) and a δD vs. δ 18O slope of 3, reflecting kinetic fractionation. Low SO 4 concentrations (&lt;100 mg/L) for thermal waters (&gt;350 mg/L Cl) decrease as the Cl − concentration increases from boiling which appears inconsistent with the hypothesis of H 2S oxidation as a source of hydrothermal SO 4. This trend is consistent with the alternate hypothesis of anhydrite solubility equilibrium. Acid–sulfate water analyses are occasionally high in As, Hg, and NH 3 concentrations but in contrast to acid mine waters they are low to below detection in Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb concentrations. Even concentrations of SO 4, Fe, and Al are much lower in thermal waters than acid mine waters of the same pH. This difference in water chemistry may explain why certain species of fly larvae live comfortably in Yellowstone’s acid waters but have not been observed in acid rock drainage of the same pH.</description><subject>Freshwater</subject><issn>0883-2927</issn><issn>1872-9134</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkM1u2zAQhImgAeImeYbw1JvUXdKSqN6MoE0DGGmA_AA5ETS5qunKokvKDXzrO_QN8yRhYKPXnPYw8w12hrELhBIB68-r0mx-UrBLWpcCQJWIJWB7xCaoGlG0KKcf2ASUkoVoRXPCPqa0AoCqATFh5m7bd9vIDwk-jXHHQ8eXOxfDuKS4Nj1_NiPFxP3An6jvw3Maw0D8xow-DFm-NfHXF379yGfWu5e__1KOzMQBO2PHnekTnR_uKXv49vX-8nsx_3F1fTmbF2Yqq7FwdrFwIK1A6hzKWqGFjhQKcELVtrXSIdXVoiJL1aKr6ybrNaGUCmSlrDxln_a5mxh-bymNOrex-V8zUNgmLUCKtoU2G5u90caQUqROb6Jfm7jTCPptUr3S_yfVb5NqRJ0nzeRsT1Lu8cdT1Ml6Giw5H8mO2gX_bsYryNaG6w</recordid><startdate>20090201</startdate><enddate>20090201</enddate><creator>Kirk Nordstrom, D.</creator><creator>Blaine McCleskey, R.</creator><creator>Ball, James W.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090201</creationdate><title>Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid–sulfate waters</title><author>Kirk Nordstrom, D. ; Blaine McCleskey, R. ; Ball, James W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-dcbbd03c21efd13681c0fe8120d286c9c3d1e65b5ece5bf667c0f6e13380358c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Freshwater</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kirk Nordstrom, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaine McCleskey, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, James W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Applied geochemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kirk Nordstrom, D.</au><au>Blaine McCleskey, R.</au><au>Ball, James W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid–sulfate waters</atitle><jtitle>Applied geochemistry</jtitle><date>2009-02-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>191</spage><epage>207</epage><pages>191-207</pages><issn>0883-2927</issn><eissn>1872-9134</eissn><abstract>Many waters sampled in Yellowstone National Park, both high-temperature (30–94 °C) and low-temperature (0–30 °C), are acid–sulfate type with pH values of 1–5. Sulfuric acid is the dominant component, especially as pH values decrease below 3, and it forms from the oxidation of elemental S whose origin is H 2S in hot gases derived from boiling of hydrothermal waters at depth. Four determinations of pH were obtained: (1) field pH at field temperature, (2) laboratory pH at laboratory temperature, (3) pH based on acidity titration, and (4) pH based on charge imbalance (at both laboratory and field temperatures). Laboratory pH, charge imbalance pH (at laboratory temperature), and acidity pH were in close agreement for pH &lt; 2.7. Field pH measurements were predominantly used because the charge imbalance was &lt;±10%. When the charge imbalance was generally &gt;±10%, a selection process was used to compare acidity, laboratory, and charge balance pH to arrive at the best estimate. Differences between laboratory and field pH can be explained based on Fe oxidation, H 2S or S 2O 3 oxidation, CO 2 degassing, and the temperature-dependence of p K 2 for H 2SO 4. Charge imbalances are shown to be dependent on a speciation model for pH values &lt;3. The highest SO 4 concentrations, in the thousands of mg/L, result from evaporative concentration at elevated temperatures as shown by the consistently high δ 18O values (−10‰ to −3‰) and a δD vs. δ 18O slope of 3, reflecting kinetic fractionation. Low SO 4 concentrations (&lt;100 mg/L) for thermal waters (&gt;350 mg/L Cl) decrease as the Cl − concentration increases from boiling which appears inconsistent with the hypothesis of H 2S oxidation as a source of hydrothermal SO 4. This trend is consistent with the alternate hypothesis of anhydrite solubility equilibrium. Acid–sulfate water analyses are occasionally high in As, Hg, and NH 3 concentrations but in contrast to acid mine waters they are low to below detection in Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb concentrations. Even concentrations of SO 4, Fe, and Al are much lower in thermal waters than acid mine waters of the same pH. This difference in water chemistry may explain why certain species of fly larvae live comfortably in Yellowstone’s acid waters but have not been observed in acid rock drainage of the same pH.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.apgeochem.2008.11.019</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0883-2927
ispartof Applied geochemistry, 2009-02, Vol.24 (2), p.191-207
issn 0883-2927
1872-9134
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20329909
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Freshwater
title Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid–sulfate waters
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T07%3A29%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sulfur%20geochemistry%20of%20hydrothermal%20waters%20in%20Yellowstone%20National%20Park:%20IV%20Acid%E2%80%93sulfate%20waters&rft.jtitle=Applied%20geochemistry&rft.au=Kirk%20Nordstrom,%20D.&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=191&rft.epage=207&rft.pages=191-207&rft.issn=0883-2927&rft.eissn=1872-9134&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2008.11.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20329909%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-dcbbd03c21efd13681c0fe8120d286c9c3d1e65b5ece5bf667c0f6e13380358c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=20329909&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true