z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Application of the LI‐COR CO 2 analyzer to volcanic plumes: A case study, volcán Popocatépetl, Mexico, June 7 and 10, 1995
Author(s) -
Gerlach T. M.,
Delgado H.,
McGee K. A.,
Doukas M. P.,
Venegas J. J.,
Cárdenas L.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: solid earth
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.67
H-Index - 298
eISSN - 2156-2202
pISSN - 0148-0227
DOI - 10.1029/96jb03887
Subject(s) - volcano , geology , plume , magma , seismology , meteorology , physics
Volcanic CO 2 emission rate data are sparse despite their potential importance for constraining the role of magma degassing in the biogeochemical cycle of carbon and for assessing volcanic hazards. We used a LI‐COR CO 2 analyzer to determine volcanic CO 2 emission rates by airborne measurements in volcanic plumes at Popocatépetl volcano on June 7 and 10, 1995. LI‐COR sample paths of ∼72 m, compared with ∼1 km for the analyzer customarily used, together with fast Fourier transforms to remove instrument noise from raw data greatly improve resolution of volcanic CO 2 anomalies. Parametric models fit to background CO 2 provide a statistical tool for distinguishing volcanic from ambient CO 2 . Global Positioning System referenced flight traverses provide vastly improved data on the shape, coherence, and spatial distribution of volcanic CO 2 in plume cross sections and contrast markedly with previous results based on traverse stacking. The continuous escape of CO 2 and SO 2 from Popocatépetl was fundamentally noneruptive and represented quiescent magma degassing from the top of a magma chamber ∼5 km deep. The average CO 2 emission rate for January‐June 1995 is estimated to be at least 6400 t d −1 , one of the highest determined for a quiescently degassing volcano, although correction for downwind dispersion effects on volcanic CO 2 indicates a higher rate of ∼9000 t d −1 . Analysis of random errors indicates emission rates have 95% confidence intervals of ∼±20%, with uncertainty contributed mostly by wind speed variance, although the variance of plume cross‐sectional areas during traversing is poorly constrained and possibly significant.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here