2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.07.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A reassessment of current volcanic emissions from the Central American arc with specific examples from Nicaragua

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
125
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
10
125
3
Order By: Relevance
“…More specifically, our results are qualitatively consistent with the CO 2 /SO 2 ratio of 2.7, proposed by Hilton et al (2002) as representative of volcanic gas emissions in the Central american Volcanic arc (CaVa). a slightly lower CO 2 /SO 2 ratio (1-2.2) was proposed for CaVa by (Mather et al 2006), which is still within the range of variation of our results.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…More specifically, our results are qualitatively consistent with the CO 2 /SO 2 ratio of 2.7, proposed by Hilton et al (2002) as representative of volcanic gas emissions in the Central american Volcanic arc (CaVa). a slightly lower CO 2 /SO 2 ratio (1-2.2) was proposed for CaVa by (Mather et al 2006), which is still within the range of variation of our results.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Such corrections account for dark spectrum, offset and stray light. We estimate that the error in the column amount contributes 0.006-0.014 to the squared variation coefficient of the total flux, whilst error contributions from the distance traversed perpendicular to the plume and from the assumed wind direction following the approached detailed in Mather et al (2006) are 0.001-0.006 and ∼ 0.003 respectively. Note however that all these errors are negligible in comparison to uncertainties in the plume speed (e.g., Stoiber et al, 1983).…”
Section: Errors In the So 2 Flux Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Error in the SO 2 flux measurements is derived from four different factors, including the retrieved column amount, the distance perpendicular to the plume transport direction, the angle between the assumed wind direction and the traverse path and the plume transport speed (Mather et al, 2006). Error in the retrieved SO 2 column amount depends on many factors (Stutz and Platt, 1996;Hausmann et al, 1999;Kern et al, 2010), but we assume that the dominant error is induced by variable cloudiness that we compensate using artificial constant dark, calculated from each recorded spectrum, in the range of blind pixel (pixel below 290 nm) (Tsanev, 2008).…”
Section: Errors In the So 2 Flux Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the days of our observations, mean wind speed and direction were of ~5 m s -1 toward the SW. Error in SO 2 flux detection by UV spectroscopy depends mainly on the uncertainty in the plume-wind speed (e.g. Doukas, 2002;Mather et al, 2006). Stoiber et al (1983) estimated uncertainty in flux calculation between 10-40%.…”
Section: Uv Spectroscopymentioning
confidence: 99%