Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 439–467 | Cite as

The measurement of natural sulfur emissions from soils and vegetation: Three sites in the Eastern United States revisited

  • Paul D. Goldan
  • William C. Kuster
  • Daniel L. Albritton
  • Fred C. Fehsenfeld


Sulfur fluxes from bare soils, naturally vegetated surfaces and from several agricultural crops were measured at two mid-continent sites (Ames, Iowa and Celeryville, Ohio) and from one salt water marsh site (Cedar Island, North Carolina) during a field program conducted jointly by the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, Washington State University Laboratory for Atmospheric Research and University of Idaho Department of Chemistry during July and August 1985. The sites were chosen specifically because they had been characterized by previous studies (Anejaet al., 1979; Adamset al., 1980, 1981). The NOAA gas chromatographic/dynamic-enclosure measurements yielded bare soil surfaces fluxes from the mid-continent sites composed predominantly of COS, H2S, CH3−S−CH3 (DMS) and CS2, all of which were strongly correlated with air temperature. Net fluxes of approximately 5 and 15 ng S/m2 min were observed in Iowa and Ohio, respectively, at appropriate weighted mean July temperatures. These fluxes are roughly a factor of 10 smaller than the earlier measurements, the greatest difference being in the measurement of the H2S flux. The presence of growing vegetation was observed to measurably increase the flux of H2S, significantly increase that of DMS and to decrease that of COS. Sulfur fluxes in the Cedar Island environs were observed to be both spatially and temporally much more variable and to include CH3SH as a measurable contributor. Net fluxes, composed predominantly of DMS and H2S, were estimated to be about 300 ngS/m2min during August; again about a factor of 10 lower than previous estimates. All measurements were corroborated to within about a factor of 2 by those of the other participating laboratories.

Key words

Sulfur sulfur flux biogenic sources biogenic emission enclosure methods soils vegetation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, D. F., Farwell, S. O., Robinson, E., and Pack, M. R., 1980. Biogenic sulfur emissions in the SURE region, EPRI Report EA-1516, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, D. F., Farwell, S. O., Robinson, E., Pack, M. R., and Bamesberger, W. L., 1981, Biogenic sulfur source strengths,Environ. Sci. Tech. 15, 1493–1498.Google Scholar
  3. Aneja, V. P., Overton, J. H.Jr., Cupitt, L. T., Durham, J. L., and Wilson, W. E., 1979a, Direct measurements of emission rates of some atmospheric biogenic sulfur compounds,Tellus 31, 174–178.Google Scholar
  4. Aneja, V. P., Overton, J. H.Jr., Cupitt, L. T., Durham, J. L. and Wilson, W. E., 1979b, Carbon disulphide and carbonyl sulphide from biogenic sources and their contributions to the global sulphur cycle,Nature 282, 493–496.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, K. A. and Bell, J. N. B., 1986, Vegetation — the missing sink in the global cycle of carbonyl sulphide (COS),Atmos. Environ. 20, 537–540.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, M. A., 1983, An experimental study of the fluxes of reduced sulfur gases from a salt water marsh, Ph.D. Thesis, MIT Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, Mass.; Coop Thesis 73, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  7. Delmas, R., Baudet, J., Servant, J., and Baziard, Y., 1980, Emissions and concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in the air of the tropical forest of the Ivory Coast and of temperate regions in France,J. Geophys. Res. 85, 4468–4474.Google Scholar
  8. Farwell, S. O., Kagel, R. A., Barinaga, C. J., Goldan, P. D., and Kuster, W. C., 1987, Intercomparison of two techniques for the preparation of gaseous sulfur calibration standards in the low-to-sub-PPB range,Atmos. Environ. 21, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. Foulger, B. E. and Simmonds, P. G., 1979, Drier for use in the determination of trace atmospheric gases,Anal. Chem. 51, 1089–1090.Google Scholar
  10. Goldan, P. D., Kuster, W. C., and Albritton, D. L., 1986, A dynamic dilution system for the production of sub-PPB concentrations of reactive and labile species.Atmos. Environ. 20, 1203.Google Scholar
  11. Goldan, P. D. and Kuster, W. C., 1987, A flame photometric detector with linear sulfur response and enhanced sensitivity,Anal. Chem. (submitted).Google Scholar
  12. Hansen, M. H., Ingvorsen, K., and Jorgensen, B. B., 1978, Mechanisms of hydrogen sulfide release from coastal marine sediments to the atmosphere,Limnol. Oceanogr. 23, 68–76.Google Scholar
  13. Hill, F. B., Aneja, V. P., and Felder, R. M., 1978, A technique for measurement of biogenic sulfur emission fluxes.J. Environ. Sci. Health A 13, 199–225.Google Scholar
  14. Kagel, R. A. and Farwell, S. O., 1986, Evaluation of metallic foils for preconcentration of sulfur containing gases with subsequent flash desorption/flame photometric detection.Anal. Chem. 58, 1197–1202.Google Scholar
  15. Kuster, W. C. and Goldan, P. D., 1987, Quantitation of the losses of gaseous sulfur compounds to enclosure walls,Environ. Sci. Tech. (submitted)Google Scholar
  16. Lamb, B., Westberg, H., Allwine, G., Bamesberger, L., and Guenther, A., 1987, Measurement of biogenic sulfur emissions from soils and vegetation: Application of dynamic enclosure methods with Natusch filter and GC/FPD analysis,J. Atmos. Chem. 5, 469–491.Google Scholar
  17. MacTaggart, D. L., Adams, D. F., and Farwell, S. O., 1987, Measurement of biogenic sulfur emissions from soil and vegetation using dynamic enclosure methods: Total sulfur gas emissions via MFC/FD/FPD determination,J. Atmos. Chem. 5, 417–437.Google Scholar
  18. Steudler, P. A. and Peterson, B. J., 1984, Contribution of gaseous sulphur from salt marshes to the global sulphur cycle,Nature 311, 455–457.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul D. Goldan
    • 1
  • William C. Kuster
    • 1
  • Daniel L. Albritton
    • 1
  • Fred C. Fehsenfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Aeronomy LaboratoryNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationBoulderU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations