Coupled strontium-sulfur cycle modeling and the Early Cretaceous sulfur isotope record

Kristall, Brian; Jacobson, Andrew D.; Sageman, Bradley B.; Hurtgen, Matthew T.

doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.01.047

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 153 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cretaceous Period reveal that background seawater sulphate concentrations were much lower (5 -10 mM) 12,13,14,15,16 than the modern ocean (28 mM).…”

Section: Sulphur Isotope Signals and Fluid Inclusion Data Recorded Du...mentioning

confidence: 96%

Ferruginous oceans during OAE1a and the collapse of the seawater sulphate reservoir

Bauer¹,

Bottini²,

Katsev³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At 28 mM seawater sulphate is one of the largest oxidant pools at Earth’s surface and its concentration in the oceans is generally assumed to have remained above 5 mM since the early Phanerozoic (400 Ma). Intermittent and potentially global oceanic anoxic events (OAEs) are accompanied by changes in seawater sulphate concentrations and signal perturbations in the Earth system associated with major climatic anomalies and biological crises. Ferruginous (Fe-rich) ocean conditions developed transiently during multiple OAEs, implying strong variability in seawater chemistry and global biogeochemical cycles. The precise evolution of seawater sulphate concentrations during OAEs remains uncertain and thus models that aim to mechanistically link ocean anoxia to broad-scale disruptions in the Earth system remain largely equivocal. Here we show that during OAE1a, 125 Ma, the oceans were anoxic and ferruginous for more than 1 million years. Development of ferruginous conditions at this time requires low seawater sulphate concentrations, which likely dropped to < 70 μM or more than a hundred times lower than modern. This collapse in the seawater sulphate pool over just a few hundred thousand years or less, reveals previously unrecognized dynamics in Phanerozoic Earth surface redox budgets with potential to dramatically alter global biogeochemical cycles, marine biology, and climate on remarkably short time-scales.

show abstract

“…Cretaceous Period reveal that background seawater sulphate concentrations were much lower (5 -10 mM) 12,13,14,15,16 than the modern ocean (28 mM).…”

Section: Sulphur Isotope Signals and Fluid Inclusion Data Recorded Du...mentioning

confidence: 96%

Ferruginous oceans during OAE1a and the collapse of the seawater sulphate reservoir

Bauer¹,

Bottini²,

Katsev³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The x-axis box and whisker plot represent ∂ δ 34 SSulfate/ ∂ t calculated using Aptian S-isotope data from (Gomes et al, 2016;Kristall et al, 2018;Mills et al, 2017). The y-axis box and whisker plot represents Δ 34 SSulfate-Pyrite from (Gomes et al, 2016;Kristall et al, 2018;Mills et al, 2017) The pink shaded region represents the parameter space where the ranges between the 25 th and 75 th percentiles of the Δ 34 SCAS and ∂δ 34 SSulfate/∂t distributions overlap, corresponding to a likely range of range of seawater sulfate estimates. (b) All data points represent paired cogenetic S-isotope data for Aptian sulfate (δ 34 SSulfate) and sulfide (δ 34 SPyrite) (Gomes et al, 2016).…”

Section: Figures and Captionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…under for scenario in (a). Aptian δ 34 S data as follows; circles (Gomes et al, 2016), squares (Mills et al, 2017), triangles (Kristall et al, 2018), diamonds (Paytan et al, 2004). The blue shading represents a 5-point δ 34 S moving average of all data using a 2s.d.…”

Section: Figures and Captionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rate method estimates seawater sulfate concentrations with the product of pyrite burial fluxes and the isotopic difference between cogenetic sulfate and sulfide ( 34 SSulfate-Pyrite) divided by the maximum rate of change in seawater sulfate δ 34 S. The MSR trend method is based on empirical relationships between  34 SSulfate-Pyrite and sulfate concentrations observed in modern environments (Algeo et al, 2015). When applied to OAE1a using existing S-isotope data (Gomes et al, 2016;Kristall et al, 2018;Mills et al, 2017;Paytan et al, 2004), these methods yield estimates for seawater sulfate that are less than 1-3 mM (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ferruginous oceans during OAE1a and collapse of the marine sulfate pool

Bauer

Bottini

Katsev³

et al. 2022

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sampling and analytical methods are significantly varied, and occasionally some mistakes or unclear writing are included in some papers, e.g., soluble sulfate was not removed during carbonate associated sulfate (CAS, the trace sulfate preserved in carbonate rocks by isomorphism) extraction, 58,59 written CrCl 3 , not CrCl 2 in the extraction of chromium reduction sulfur (CRS, mainly as pyrite and elemental sulfur), [60][61][62] unclear in method details, 63 which may mislead newcomers to the field or lead to incorrect data-based correlations and conclusions. 64 Chemical treatment methods for sulfur are complex.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedures from samples to sulfur isotopic data: A review

Zhao,

Guo,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Rapid Comm Mass Spectrometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RationaleSulfur isotopes have been widely used to solve some key scientific questions, especially in the last two decades with advanced instruments and analytical schemes. Different sulfur speciation and multiple isotopes analyzed in laboratories worldwide and in situ microanalysis have also been reported in many articles. However, methods of sampling to measurements are multifarious, and occasionally some inaccuracies are present in published papers. Vague methods may mislead newcomers to the field, puzzle readers, or lead to incorrect data‐based correlations.MethodsWe have reviewed multiple methods on sulfur isotopic analyses from the perspectives of sampling, laboratory work, and instrumental analysis in order to help reduce operational inhomogeneity and ensure the fidelity of sulfur isotopic data. We do not deem our proposed solutions as the ultimate standard methods but as a lead‐in to the overall introduction and summary of the current methods used.ResultsIt has been shown that external contamination and transformation of different sulfur species should be avoided during the sampling, pretreatment, storage, and chemical treatment processes. Conversion rates and sulfur isotopic fractionations during sulfur extraction, purification, and conversion processes must be verified by researchers using standard or known samples. The unification of absence of isotopic fractionation is needed during all steps, and long‐term monitoring of standard samples is recommended.ConclusionThis review compiles more details on different methods in sampling, laboratory operation, and measurement of sulfur isotopes, which is beneficial for researchers' better practice in laboratories. Microanalyses and molecular studies are the frontier techniques that compare the bulk sample with the elemental analysis/continuous flow–gas source stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry method, but the latter is widely used. The development of sulfur isotopic measurements will lead to the innovation in scientific issues with sulfur proxies.

show abstract

Coupled strontium-sulfur cycle modeling and the Early Cretaceous sulfur isotope record

Cited by 5 publications

References 153 publications

Ferruginous oceans during OAE1a and the collapse of the seawater sulphate reservoir

Ferruginous oceans during OAE1a and the collapse of the seawater sulphate reservoir

Ferruginous oceans during OAE1a and collapse of the marine sulfate pool

Procedures from samples to sulfur isotopic data: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About