MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SO2 emission rates and incorporation into the air pollution dispersion forecast during the 2021 eruption of Fagradalsfjall, Iceland

2024· article· en· W4393236888 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Pfeffer, Santiago Arellano, Sara Barsotti, Guðrún Nína Petersen, Talfan Barnie, Evgenia Ilyinskaya, Tryggvi Hjörvar, Enikö Bali, Gro B. M. Pedersen, Gunnar B. Guðmundsson, K. S. Vogfjörd, Eemu Ranta, Bergrún Arna Óladóttir, Brock A. Edwards, Yves Moussallam, Andri Stefánsson, Samuel Scott, J. F. Smekens, Matthew Varnam, Manuel Títos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersEEA GrantsAkademie Věd České RepublikySwedish National Space AgencyIcelandic Centre for ResearchEuropean Environment AgencyTechnology Agency of the Czech Republic
KeywordsLavaGeologyFlux (metallurgy)Impact craterVolcanoAtmospheric sciencesPlumeSeismologyMeteorologyPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the low-effusion rate Fagradalsfjall eruption (19 March – 18 September 2021), the emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) was frequently measured using ground-based UV spectrometers. The total SO2 emitted during the entire eruption was 970 ± 540 kt, which is only about 6% of the SO2 emitted during the similar length Holuhraun eruption (2014–2015). The eruption was divided into five phases based on visual observations, including the number of active vents and the occurrence of lava fountaining. The SO2 emission rate ranged from 44 ± 19 kg/s in Phase 2 to 85 ± 29 kg/s in Phase 5, with an average of 64 ± 34 kg/s for the entire eruption. There was notable variability in SO2 on short timescales, with measurements on 11 August 2021 ranging from 17 to 78 kg/s. SO2 flux measurements were made using scanning DOAS instruments located at different distances from and orientations relative to the eruption site augmented by traverses. Four hundred and forty-four scan and traverse measurements met quality criteria and were used, along with plume height and meteorological data, to calculate SO2 fluxes while accounting for wind-related uncertainties. A tendency for stronger SO2 flux concurrent with higher amplitude seismic tremor and the occurrence of lava fountaining was observed during Phases 4 and 5 which were characterized by intermittent crater activity including observable effusion of lava and gas release interspersed with long repose times. This tendency was used to refine the calculation of the amount of SO2 emitted during variably vigorous activity. The continuous seismic tremor time series was used to quantify how long during these eruption phases strong/weak activity was exhibited to improve the calculated SO2 flux during these Phases. The total SO2 emissions derived from field measurements align closely with results obtained by combining melt inclusion and groundmass glass analyses with lava effusion rate measurements (910 ± 230 kt SO2). Specifically, utilizing the maximum S content found in evolved melt inclusions and the least remaining S content in accompanying quenched groundmasses provides an identical result between field measurements and the petrological calculations. This suggests that the maximum SO2 release calculated from petrological estimates should be preferentially used to initialize gas dispersion models for basaltic eruptions when other measurements are lacking. During the eruption, the CALPUFF dispersion model was used to forecast ground-level exposure to SO2. The SO2 emission rates measured by DOAS were used as input for the dispersion model, with updates made when a significant change was measured. A detailed analysis of one mid-distance station over the entire eruption shows that the model performed very well at predicting the presence of volcanic SO2 when it was measured. However, it frequently predicted the presence of SO2 that was not measured and the concentrations forecasted had no correlation with the concentrations measured. Various approaches to improve the model forecast were tested, including updating plume height and SO2 flux source terms based on measurements. These approaches did not unambiguously improve the model performance but suggest that improvements might be achieved in more-polluted conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Volcanology and Geothermal ResearchSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207