Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite Sensors
In this study, we focus on the eruption of Mount Etna on Christmas 2018, which emitted great amounts of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi>...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | Remote Sensing |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/3/758 |
| _version_ | 1797623369134243840 |
|---|---|
| author | Claire Lamotte Virginie Marécal Jonathan Guth Giuseppe Salerno Stefano Corradini Nicolas Theys Simon Warnach Lorenzo Guerrieri Hugues Brenot Thomas Wagner Mickaël Bacles |
| author_facet | Claire Lamotte Virginie Marécal Jonathan Guth Giuseppe Salerno Stefano Corradini Nicolas Theys Simon Warnach Lorenzo Guerrieri Hugues Brenot Thomas Wagner Mickaël Bacles |
| author_sort | Claire Lamotte |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In this study, we focus on the eruption of Mount Etna on Christmas 2018, which emitted great amounts of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> from 24th to 30th December into the free troposphere. Simulations based on two different estimations of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> emission fluxes are conducted with the chemistry-transport model MOCAGE in order to study the impact of these estimations on the volcanic plume modeling. The two flux emissions used are retrieved (1) from the ground-based network FLAME, located on the flank of the volcano, and (2) from the spaceborne instrument SEVIRI onboard the geostationary satellite MSG. Multiple spaceborne observations, in the infrared and ultraviolet bands, are used to evaluate the model results. Overall, the model results match well with the plume location over the period of the eruption showing the good transport of the volcanic plume by the model, which is linked to the use of a realistic estimation of the altitude of injection of the emissions. However, there are some discrepancies in the plume concentrations of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> between the two simulations, which are due to the differences between the two emission flux estimations used that are large on some of the days. These differences are linked to uncertainties in the retrieval methods and observations used to derive <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> volcanic fluxes. We find that the uncertainties in the satellite-retrieved column of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> used for the evaluation of the simulations, linked to the instrument sensitivity and/or the retrieval algorithm, are sometimes nearly as large as the differences between the two simulations. This shows a limitation of the use of satellite retrievals of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> concentrations to quantitatively validate modeled volcanic plumes. In the paper, we also discuss approaches to improve the simulation of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> concentrations in volcanic plumes through model improvements and also via more advanced methods to more effectively use satellite-derived products. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T09:27:56Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-fc6a3250e3fa4c5e91e13fe0fe3c5268 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2072-4292 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T09:27:56Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Remote Sensing |
| spelling | doaj.art-fc6a3250e3fa4c5e91e13fe0fe3c52682023-11-16T17:53:49ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922023-01-0115375810.3390/rs15030758Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite SensorsClaire Lamotte0Virginie Marécal1Jonathan Guth2Giuseppe Salerno3Stefano Corradini4Nicolas Theys5Simon Warnach6Lorenzo Guerrieri7Hugues Brenot8Thomas Wagner9Mickaël Bacles10Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, 31057 Toulouse, FranceCentre National de Recherches Météorologiques, CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, 31057 Toulouse, FranceCentre National de Recherches Météorologiques, CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, 31057 Toulouse, FranceIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, INGV, Osservatorio Etneo, 95125 Catania, ItalyIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, INGV, ONT, 00143 Roma, ItalyRoyal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, BIRA-IASB, 1180 Brussels, BelgiumMax Planck Institute for Chemistry, MPIC, 55128 Mainz, GermanyIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, INGV, ONT, 00143 Roma, ItalyRoyal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, BIRA-IASB, 1180 Brussels, BelgiumMax Planck Institute for Chemistry, MPIC, 55128 Mainz, GermanyCentre National de Recherches Météorologiques, CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, 31057 Toulouse, FranceIn this study, we focus on the eruption of Mount Etna on Christmas 2018, which emitted great amounts of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> from 24th to 30th December into the free troposphere. Simulations based on two different estimations of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> emission fluxes are conducted with the chemistry-transport model MOCAGE in order to study the impact of these estimations on the volcanic plume modeling. The two flux emissions used are retrieved (1) from the ground-based network FLAME, located on the flank of the volcano, and (2) from the spaceborne instrument SEVIRI onboard the geostationary satellite MSG. Multiple spaceborne observations, in the infrared and ultraviolet bands, are used to evaluate the model results. Overall, the model results match well with the plume location over the period of the eruption showing the good transport of the volcanic plume by the model, which is linked to the use of a realistic estimation of the altitude of injection of the emissions. However, there are some discrepancies in the plume concentrations of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> between the two simulations, which are due to the differences between the two emission flux estimations used that are large on some of the days. These differences are linked to uncertainties in the retrieval methods and observations used to derive <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> volcanic fluxes. We find that the uncertainties in the satellite-retrieved column of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> used for the evaluation of the simulations, linked to the instrument sensitivity and/or the retrieval algorithm, are sometimes nearly as large as the differences between the two simulations. This shows a limitation of the use of satellite retrievals of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> concentrations to quantitatively validate modeled volcanic plumes. In the paper, we also discuss approaches to improve the simulation of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi><mn>2</mn></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> concentrations in volcanic plumes through model improvements and also via more advanced methods to more effectively use satellite-derived products.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/3/758SO<sub>2</sub> flux estimationMount Etna eruptionmodelingvolcanic plume dispersionmulti-sensor comparison |
| spellingShingle | Claire Lamotte Virginie Marécal Jonathan Guth Giuseppe Salerno Stefano Corradini Nicolas Theys Simon Warnach Lorenzo Guerrieri Hugues Brenot Thomas Wagner Mickaël Bacles Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite Sensors Remote Sensing SO<sub>2</sub> flux estimation Mount Etna eruption modeling volcanic plume dispersion multi-sensor comparison |
| title | Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite Sensors |
| title_full | Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite Sensors |
| title_fullStr | Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite Sensors |
| title_full_unstemmed | Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite Sensors |
| title_short | Impact of SO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimation in the Modeling of the Plume of Mount Etna Christmas 2018 Eruption and Comparison against Multiple Satellite Sensors |
| title_sort | impact of so sub 2 sub flux estimation in the modeling of the plume of mount etna christmas 2018 eruption and comparison against multiple satellite sensors |
| topic | SO<sub>2</sub> flux estimation Mount Etna eruption modeling volcanic plume dispersion multi-sensor comparison |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/3/758 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT clairelamotte impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT virginiemarecal impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT jonathanguth impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT giuseppesalerno impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT stefanocorradini impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT nicolastheys impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT simonwarnach impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT lorenzoguerrieri impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT huguesbrenot impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT thomaswagner impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors AT mickaelbacles impactofsosub2subfluxestimationinthemodelingoftheplumeofmountetnachristmas2018eruptionandcomparisonagainstmultiplesatellitesensors |