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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Applied geochemistry 2009-02, Vol.24 (2), p.191-207 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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
<
2.7. Field pH measurements were predominantly used because the charge imbalance was <±10%. When the charge imbalance was generally >±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 <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 (<100
mg/L) for thermal waters (>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
<
2.7. Field pH measurements were predominantly used because the charge imbalance was <±10%. When the charge imbalance was generally >±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 <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 (<100
mg/L) for thermal waters (>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 & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & 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
<
2.7. Field pH measurements were predominantly used because the charge imbalance was <±10%. When the charge imbalance was generally >±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 <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 (<100
mg/L) for thermal waters (>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 |