4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Implications for eruptive processes as indicated by sulfur dioxide emissions from Kilauea Volcano, Hawai'i, 1979-1997

期刊

JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH
卷 108, 期 1-4, 页码 283-302

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-0273(00)00291-2

关键词

Kilauea; SO2; degassing; eruption rate; effusion rate; COSPEC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kilauea Volcano, Hawai'i, currently hosts the longest running SO2 emission-rate data set on the planet, starting with initial surveys done in 1975 by Stoiber and his colleagues. The 17.5-year record of summit emissions, starting in 1979, shows the effects of summit and east rift eruptive processes, which define seven distinctly different periods of SO, release. Summit emissions jumped nearly 40% with the onset (3 January 1983) of the Pu'u O'o-Kupaianaha eruption on the east rift zone (ERZ). Summit SO2 emissions from Kilauea showed a strong positive correlation with short-period, shallow, caldera events, rather than with long-period seismicity as in more silicious systems. This correlation suggests a maturation process in the summit magma-transport system from 1986 through 1993. During a steady-state throughput-equilibrium interval of the summit magma reservoir, integration of summit-caldera and ERZ SO2 emissions reveals an undegassed volume rate of effusion of 2.1 X 10(5) m(3)/d. This value corroborates the volume-rate determined by geophysical methods, demonstrating that, for Kilauea, SO2 emission rates can be used to monitor effusion rate, supporting and supplementing other, more established geophysical methods. For the 17.5 years of continuous emission rate records at Kilauea, the volcano has released 9.7 X 10(6) t (metric tonnes) Of SO2, 1.7 X 10(6) t from the summit and 8.0 X 10(6) t from the east rift zone. On an annual basis, the average SO2 release from Kilauea is 4.6 X 10(5) t/y, compared to the global annual volcanic emission rate of 1.2 X 10(7) t/y. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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