4.7 Review

Ocean fertilization by pyrogenic aerosol iron

期刊

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41612-021-00185-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [20H04329]
  2. Integrated Research Program for Advancing Climate Models (TOUGOU) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan [JPMXD0717935715]
  3. Institute for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya University
  4. DFG (German Research Foundation) [YE170/2-1]
  5. PalMod (Federal Ministry of Education and Research Germany) [BMBF 01LP1505C]
  6. UK NERC -Natural Environment Research Council [NE/S00579X/1]
  7. NERC CENTA Ph.D. studentship grant [NE/L002493/1]
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20H04329] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aerosols supply bioaccessible iron to marine biota, impacting climate through biogeochemical feedbacks. Research shows that pyrogenic aerosol iron has higher solubility than lithogenic aerosol, with a significant contribution to atmospheric supply of dissolved iron to the ocean. Models suggest pyrogenic iron enhances marine productivity more efficiently than lithogenic sources, but quantifying its impact on marine biogeochemical cycles under changing air quality and climate remains challenging.
Aerosols supply bioaccessible iron to marine biota which could affect climate through biogeochemical feedbacks. This paper review progresses in research on pyrogenic aerosol iron. Observations and laboratory experiments indicate that the iron solubility of pyrogenic aerosol can be considerably higher than lithogenic aerosol. Aerosol models highlight a significant contribution of pyrogenic aerosols (similar to 20%) to the atmospheric supply of dissolved iron into the ocean. Some ocean models suggest a higher efficiency of pyrogenic iron in enhancing marine productivity than lithogenic sources. It is, however, challenging to quantitatively estimate its impact on the marine biogeochemical cycles under the changing air quality and climate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据