Stratospheric ozone depletion inside the volcanic plume shortly after the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption

Zhu, Yunqian; Portmann, Robert W.; Kinnison, Douglas; Toon, Owen B.; Millán, Luis; Zhang, Jun; Vömel, Holger; Tilmes, Simone; Bardeen, Charles G.; Wang, Xinyue; Evan, Stephanie; Randel, William J.; Rosenlof, Karen H.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334

Preprints

28 Jun 2023

| 28 Jun 2023

Stratospheric ozone depletion inside the volcanic plume shortly after the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption

Yunqian Zhu, Robert W. Portmann, Douglas Kinnison, Owen B. Toon, Luis Millán, Jun Zhang, Holger Vömel, Simone Tilmes, Charles G. Bardeen, Xinyue Wang, Stephanie Evan, William J. Randel, and Karen H. Rosenlof

Abstract. In-plume ozone depletion was observed for about ten days by Microwave Limb Sounder (Aura/MLS) right after the January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) eruption. This work analyzes the dynamic and chemical causes of this ozone depletion. The results show that the large water injection (~150 Tg) from the HTHH eruption, with ~0.0013 Tg injection of ClO (or ~0.0009 Tg of HCl), causes ozone loss due to strongly enhanced HOx and ClOx cycles and their interactions. Aside from the gas phase chemistry, the heterogeneous reaction rate for HOCl+HCl→Cl2+H₂O increases to 10⁴ cm^-3sec^-1 and is a major cause of chlorine activation, making this event unique compared with the springtime polar ozone depletion where HCl+ClONO₂ is more important. The large water injection causes relative humidity over ice to increase to 70 %–100 %, decreases the H₂SO₄/H₂O binary solution weight percent to 35 % compared with the 70 % ambient value, and decreases the plume temperature by 2–6 K. These changes lead to high heterogeneous reaction rates. Plume lofting of ozone-poor air is evident during the first two days after the eruption, but ozone concentrations quickly recover because its chemical lifetime is short at 20 hPa. With such a large seawater injection, we expect that ~5 Tg Cl was lifted into the stratosphere by the HTHH eruption in the form of NaCl, but only ~0.02 % of that remained as active chlorine in the stratosphere. lightning NOx changes are not the reason for the HTHH initial in-plume O₃ loss.

Received: 19 Jun 2023 – Discussion started: 28 Jun 2023

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 5546 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (5546 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

23 Oct 2023

Stratospheric ozone depletion inside the volcanic plume shortly after the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption

Yunqian Zhu, Robert W. Portmann, Douglas Kinnison, Owen Brian Toon, Luis Millán, Jun Zhang, Holger Vömel, Simone Tilmes, Charles G. Bardeen, Xinyue Wang, Stephanie Evan, William J. Randel, and Karen H. Rosenlof

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13355–13367, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13355-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13355-2023, 2023

Short summary

Yunqian Zhu et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1334, interesting work', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2023

General comments

The paper analyses stratospheric ozone depletion in the plume of a strong volcanic eruption with high water vapor and chlorine emissions, using satellite and radiosonde data and a comprehensive chemistry climate model. In general it is well written, provides the most important references (including classical ones) and should be published after some minor improvements.

Specific comments

Line 69: The full name of the model should be mentioned here, line 96 is too late.

Line 98: The horizontal resolution of the model should be provided too. How many grid points are typically within the volcanic plume?

Line 178 or earlier: Here one or two references should be provided. Line 364 is too late.

Line 209: Refer to Fig.2 concerning the time (As .. but ..).

Line 276: I suppose this is due to the high HOCl concentration and not due to reduced overhead ozone since the plume is at different locations at different altitudes due to the winds. Please expand a little bit here.

Line 291ff: Is this the NO scenario of Table 1 or is that only in the discussion section? Please clarify.

Line 381f: This can cause also ozone production involving HO₂ and CH₃O₂.

Technical corrections

Please use a larger font in Fig.8.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yunqian Zhu, 23 Aug 2023
  
  We appreciate your time and effort to review the manuscript. Your thoughtful comments helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please view our detailed response below for each question.
  General comments
  
  The paper analyses stratospheric ozone depletion in the plume of a strong volcanic eruption with high water vapor and chlorine emissions, using satellite and radiosonde data and a comprehensive chemistry climate model. In general it is well written, provides the most important references (including classical ones) and should be published after some minor improvements.
  
  Specific comments
  
  Line 69: The full name of the model should be mentioned here, line 96 is too late.
  Fixed.
  
  Line 98: The horizontal resolution of the model should be provided too. How many grid points are typically within the volcanic plume?
  Line 104, Add “The model has a horizontal resolution of 0.9° latitude × 1.25° longitude. The injection plume in the model includes about 40 grid points.”
  
  Line 178 or earlier: Here one or two references should be provided. Line 364 is too late.
  Line 182, add “[Shi et al., 2001]”.
  
  Line 209: Refer to Fig.2 concerning the time (As .. but ..).
  Line 147: add “from January 18 - 24”
  Line 231: add “from January 16 - 24”
  Line 231: add ““In-plume” is defined as in Figure 2. Note that MLS ozone retrievals were unaffected by the plume leading to the addition of two extra days of data for this figure.”
  
  Line 276: I suppose this is due to the high HOCl concentration and not due to reduced overhead ozone since the plume is at different locations at different altitudes due to the winds. Please expand a little bit here.
  
  We checked the HOCL photolysis reaction rate in the model. The fractional change of HOCl is almost the same as the fractional change of HOCl j value.
  We revised the Figure 7b, which ignored the small value of HOCl before.
  Line 307 add “due to the high HOCl mixing ratio”.
  
  Line 291ff: Is this the NO scenario of Table 1 or is that only in the discussion section? Please clarify.
  Line 324: add “Note that we don’t inject lightning NOx in this case, a possible scenario during the eruption phase, that can also further increase the O₃ production (detailed in the discussion section).”
  
  Line 381f: This can cause also ozone production involving HO₂ and CH₃O₂.
  CH3O2+NO is also twice as much as before. But much smaller than NO+HO2. So we haven’t put it in the text.
  Line 395: Add “Compared to the H2O_SO2 case, the simulated O₃ loss in the H2O_SO2_NO case increased by ~ 5x10⁵ molecules/cm³/sec, but at the same time, the O₃ production rate increased by ~ 5x10⁵ molecules/cm³/sec. The NO+HO₂ reaction rate in the H2O_SO2_NO case increases 5 times compared with the H2O_SO2 case.”
  
  Technical corrections
  
  Please use a larger font in Fig.8.
  Fixed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1334', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jul 2023
This is a nice model simulation analysis study trying to detangle the impact of various chemical compounds injected from HTHH eruption on stratospheric ozone depletion. The set of simulations are carefully designed and the paper is well written and should be accepted for publication discussion paper on ACPD after some minor revision.

“lightning” should be capitalized.

I guess by you are implying short-term ozone depletion by using the term “in-plume”, but this might look obvious to readers. I would suggest to add something like “near-term in-plume” or “after eruption in-plume” to let readers know that you are only looking at the first 10 days impact.

L98-99. The correct reference should be “GEOS-5 MERRA-2 meteorological reanalysis”.

L157-L176. I am not a big fan of people starting the discussions/sentences with “Figure 3a shows …”. A punchier way would be start with a scientific statement sentence with figure references in parenthesis, as you did in L193-L206. This issue is more problematic in this paragraph, as a lot of the sentences here are figure description and belongs in the figure caption, not in the text. The way it is written now, constantly switching between figure description and results interpretation, is very distracting. I would suggest re-write, following L193-L206 as a style example.

L273-L290. Can you be more qualitatively descriptive in rate changes, instead of just stating the numerical values? For example, instead of saying HO2+O3 reaction rate increases from 5x10^4 to 5x10^5 cm-3 sec-1, you can say the reaction rate increased by a factor of ten. Easier to comprehend if described that way.

L291-L297. See comment #4 above.

L330-333. I like this sentence, very good motivation description. May be add something similar in Introduction as well?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Yunqian Zhu, 23 Aug 2023
  We appreciate your time and effort to review the manuscript. Your thoughtful comments helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please view our detailed response below for each question.
  
  This is a nice model simulation analysis study trying to detangle the impact of various chemical compounds injected from HTHH eruption on stratospheric ozone depletion. The set of simulations are carefully designed and the paper is well written and should be accepted for publication discussion paper on ACPD after some minor revision.
  “lightning” should be capitalized.
  
  Fixed.
  
  I guess by you are implying short-term ozone depletion by using the term “in-plume”, but this might look obvious to readers. I would suggest to add something like “near-term in-plume” or “after eruption in-plume” to let readers know that you are only looking at the first 10 days impact.
  
  Line 23: change to “Near-term in-plume ozone depletion”.
  
  L98-99. The correct reference should be “GEOS-5 MERRA-2 meteorological reanalysis”.
  
  Fixed.
  
  L157-L176. I am not a big fan of people starting the discussions/sentences with “Figure 3a shows …”. A punchier way would be start with a scientific statement sentence with figure references in parenthesis, as you did in L193-L206. This issue is more problematic in this paragraph, as a lot of the sentences here are figure description and belongs in the figure caption, not in the text. The way it is written now, constantly switching between figure description and results interpretation, is very distracting. I would suggest re-write, following L193-L206 as a style example.
  
  rewrote this part Line 168-180: “MLS observed in-plume low ozone concentration at 20 hPa (Figure 3a), especially during these three days: ozone concentrations of 4.8 ppmv on January 17, 4.6 ppmv on January 20, and 5.1 ppmv on January 24. These are ozone anomalies of about 1.7 ppmv, 1.9 ppmv, and 1.4 ppmv, respectively. The anomalies are calculated using the background average values in this area (6.5 ppmv) subtracting the low ozone values. Note that any interpretation of these O₃ anomalies needs to consider the coarse MLS vertical resolution (~3 km). Because the plume is spatially small during the initial days, MLS tracks do not capture the maximum plume perturbation every day. The simulation with the water injection (Figure 3b) accelerates the HOx catalytic cycle and shows evident O₃ reduction, but less than observed. Once we inject ClO on top of the massive water injection (Figure 3c), O₃ loss is significantly enhanced and is close to the observations after January 18. The difference between Figure 3d and Figure 3c is caused by heterogeneous reactions, which usually only happen in the stratospheric polar springtime where they cause the Antarctic ozone hole and Arctic ozone depletion.”
  
  Move several sentences to Figure 3 caption “Figure 3d uses the same injection as Figure 3c but with heterogeneous reactions (i.e., HCl+HOCl, ClONO₂+H₂O, and ClONO₂+HCl) turned off. The simulated O₃ in the H2O_SO2 case uses one model time step each day that occurs near local noon.”
  
  L273-L290. Can you be more qualitatively descriptive in rate changes, instead of just stating the numerical values? For example, instead of saying HO2+O3 reaction rate increases from 5x10^4 to 5x10^5 cm-3 sec-1, you can say the reaction rate increased by a factor of ten. Easier to comprehend if described that way.
  
  Fixed from L302 to L326.
  
  L291-L297. See comment #4 above.
  
  Line 321: Change the sentence to “Besides the ozone loss reactions, ozone production reactions are also significantly altered by the water plume (Figure 7c).”
  
  Line 327: change the sentence to “Comparing the partitioning of Cly (Cl+ClO+2Cl₂+2Cl₂O₂+OClO+HOCl+ClONO₂+HCl+BrCl) reveals the in-plume chlorine activation processes (Figure 8).”
  
  L330-333. I like this sentence, very good motivation description. May be add something similar in Introduction as well?
  
  rewrite line 69-74: “Evan et al. [2023] report observations of decreased O₃ and HCl, and increased ClO in the first week following the HTHH eruption at 20 hPa, which is related to the injected H₂O exceeding the normal range of the stratospheric variability. Here we use the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model version 6 (WACCM6) model [Zhu et al., 2022] to analyze the dynamic and chemical contributors to this initial in-plume ozone depletion, and to understand the climate model performance.”
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1334, interesting work', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2023

General comments

The paper analyses stratospheric ozone depletion in the plume of a strong volcanic eruption with high water vapor and chlorine emissions, using satellite and radiosonde data and a comprehensive chemistry climate model. In general it is well written, provides the most important references (including classical ones) and should be published after some minor improvements.

Specific comments

Line 69: The full name of the model should be mentioned here, line 96 is too late.

Line 98: The horizontal resolution of the model should be provided too. How many grid points are typically within the volcanic plume?

Line 178 or earlier: Here one or two references should be provided. Line 364 is too late.

Line 209: Refer to Fig.2 concerning the time (As .. but ..).

Line 276: I suppose this is due to the high HOCl concentration and not due to reduced overhead ozone since the plume is at different locations at different altitudes due to the winds. Please expand a little bit here.

Line 291ff: Is this the NO scenario of Table 1 or is that only in the discussion section? Please clarify.

Line 381f: This can cause also ozone production involving HO₂ and CH₃O₂.

Technical corrections

Please use a larger font in Fig.8.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yunqian Zhu, 23 Aug 2023
  
  We appreciate your time and effort to review the manuscript. Your thoughtful comments helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please view our detailed response below for each question.
  General comments
  
  The paper analyses stratospheric ozone depletion in the plume of a strong volcanic eruption with high water vapor and chlorine emissions, using satellite and radiosonde data and a comprehensive chemistry climate model. In general it is well written, provides the most important references (including classical ones) and should be published after some minor improvements.
  
  Specific comments
  
  Line 69: The full name of the model should be mentioned here, line 96 is too late.
  Fixed.
  
  Line 98: The horizontal resolution of the model should be provided too. How many grid points are typically within the volcanic plume?
  Line 104, Add “The model has a horizontal resolution of 0.9° latitude × 1.25° longitude. The injection plume in the model includes about 40 grid points.”
  
  Line 178 or earlier: Here one or two references should be provided. Line 364 is too late.
  Line 182, add “[Shi et al., 2001]”.
  
  Line 209: Refer to Fig.2 concerning the time (As .. but ..).
  Line 147: add “from January 18 - 24”
  Line 231: add “from January 16 - 24”
  Line 231: add ““In-plume” is defined as in Figure 2. Note that MLS ozone retrievals were unaffected by the plume leading to the addition of two extra days of data for this figure.”
  
  Line 276: I suppose this is due to the high HOCl concentration and not due to reduced overhead ozone since the plume is at different locations at different altitudes due to the winds. Please expand a little bit here.
  
  We checked the HOCL photolysis reaction rate in the model. The fractional change of HOCl is almost the same as the fractional change of HOCl j value.
  We revised the Figure 7b, which ignored the small value of HOCl before.
  Line 307 add “due to the high HOCl mixing ratio”.
  
  Line 291ff: Is this the NO scenario of Table 1 or is that only in the discussion section? Please clarify.
  Line 324: add “Note that we don’t inject lightning NOx in this case, a possible scenario during the eruption phase, that can also further increase the O₃ production (detailed in the discussion section).”
  
  Line 381f: This can cause also ozone production involving HO₂ and CH₃O₂.
  CH3O2+NO is also twice as much as before. But much smaller than NO+HO2. So we haven’t put it in the text.
  Line 395: Add “Compared to the H2O_SO2 case, the simulated O₃ loss in the H2O_SO2_NO case increased by ~ 5x10⁵ molecules/cm³/sec, but at the same time, the O₃ production rate increased by ~ 5x10⁵ molecules/cm³/sec. The NO+HO₂ reaction rate in the H2O_SO2_NO case increases 5 times compared with the H2O_SO2 case.”
  
  Technical corrections
  
  Please use a larger font in Fig.8.
  Fixed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1334', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jul 2023
This is a nice model simulation analysis study trying to detangle the impact of various chemical compounds injected from HTHH eruption on stratospheric ozone depletion. The set of simulations are carefully designed and the paper is well written and should be accepted for publication discussion paper on ACPD after some minor revision.

“lightning” should be capitalized.

I guess by you are implying short-term ozone depletion by using the term “in-plume”, but this might look obvious to readers. I would suggest to add something like “near-term in-plume” or “after eruption in-plume” to let readers know that you are only looking at the first 10 days impact.

L98-99. The correct reference should be “GEOS-5 MERRA-2 meteorological reanalysis”.

L157-L176. I am not a big fan of people starting the discussions/sentences with “Figure 3a shows …”. A punchier way would be start with a scientific statement sentence with figure references in parenthesis, as you did in L193-L206. This issue is more problematic in this paragraph, as a lot of the sentences here are figure description and belongs in the figure caption, not in the text. The way it is written now, constantly switching between figure description and results interpretation, is very distracting. I would suggest re-write, following L193-L206 as a style example.

L273-L290. Can you be more qualitatively descriptive in rate changes, instead of just stating the numerical values? For example, instead of saying HO2+O3 reaction rate increases from 5x10^4 to 5x10^5 cm-3 sec-1, you can say the reaction rate increased by a factor of ten. Easier to comprehend if described that way.

L291-L297. See comment #4 above.

L330-333. I like this sentence, very good motivation description. May be add something similar in Introduction as well?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Yunqian Zhu, 23 Aug 2023
  We appreciate your time and effort to review the manuscript. Your thoughtful comments helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please view our detailed response below for each question.
  
  This is a nice model simulation analysis study trying to detangle the impact of various chemical compounds injected from HTHH eruption on stratospheric ozone depletion. The set of simulations are carefully designed and the paper is well written and should be accepted for publication discussion paper on ACPD after some minor revision.
  “lightning” should be capitalized.
  
  Fixed.
  
  I guess by you are implying short-term ozone depletion by using the term “in-plume”, but this might look obvious to readers. I would suggest to add something like “near-term in-plume” or “after eruption in-plume” to let readers know that you are only looking at the first 10 days impact.
  
  Line 23: change to “Near-term in-plume ozone depletion”.
  
  L98-99. The correct reference should be “GEOS-5 MERRA-2 meteorological reanalysis”.
  
  Fixed.
  
  L157-L176. I am not a big fan of people starting the discussions/sentences with “Figure 3a shows …”. A punchier way would be start with a scientific statement sentence with figure references in parenthesis, as you did in L193-L206. This issue is more problematic in this paragraph, as a lot of the sentences here are figure description and belongs in the figure caption, not in the text. The way it is written now, constantly switching between figure description and results interpretation, is very distracting. I would suggest re-write, following L193-L206 as a style example.
  
  rewrote this part Line 168-180: “MLS observed in-plume low ozone concentration at 20 hPa (Figure 3a), especially during these three days: ozone concentrations of 4.8 ppmv on January 17, 4.6 ppmv on January 20, and 5.1 ppmv on January 24. These are ozone anomalies of about 1.7 ppmv, 1.9 ppmv, and 1.4 ppmv, respectively. The anomalies are calculated using the background average values in this area (6.5 ppmv) subtracting the low ozone values. Note that any interpretation of these O₃ anomalies needs to consider the coarse MLS vertical resolution (~3 km). Because the plume is spatially small during the initial days, MLS tracks do not capture the maximum plume perturbation every day. The simulation with the water injection (Figure 3b) accelerates the HOx catalytic cycle and shows evident O₃ reduction, but less than observed. Once we inject ClO on top of the massive water injection (Figure 3c), O₃ loss is significantly enhanced and is close to the observations after January 18. The difference between Figure 3d and Figure 3c is caused by heterogeneous reactions, which usually only happen in the stratospheric polar springtime where they cause the Antarctic ozone hole and Arctic ozone depletion.”
  
  Move several sentences to Figure 3 caption “Figure 3d uses the same injection as Figure 3c but with heterogeneous reactions (i.e., HCl+HOCl, ClONO₂+H₂O, and ClONO₂+HCl) turned off. The simulated O₃ in the H2O_SO2 case uses one model time step each day that occurs near local noon.”
  
  L273-L290. Can you be more qualitatively descriptive in rate changes, instead of just stating the numerical values? For example, instead of saying HO2+O3 reaction rate increases from 5x10^4 to 5x10^5 cm-3 sec-1, you can say the reaction rate increased by a factor of ten. Easier to comprehend if described that way.
  
  Fixed from L302 to L326.
  
  L291-L297. See comment #4 above.
  
  Line 321: Change the sentence to “Besides the ozone loss reactions, ozone production reactions are also significantly altered by the water plume (Figure 7c).”
  
  Line 327: change the sentence to “Comparing the partitioning of Cly (Cl+ClO+2Cl₂+2Cl₂O₂+OClO+HOCl+ClONO₂+HCl+BrCl) reveals the in-plume chlorine activation processes (Figure 8).”
  
  L330-333. I like this sentence, very good motivation description. May be add something similar in Introduction as well?
  
  rewrite line 69-74: “Evan et al. [2023] report observations of decreased O₃ and HCl, and increased ClO in the first week following the HTHH eruption at 20 hPa, which is related to the injected H₂O exceeding the normal range of the stratospheric variability. Here we use the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model version 6 (WACCM6) model [Zhu et al., 2022] to analyze the dynamic and chemical contributors to this initial in-plume ozone depletion, and to understand the climate model performance.”
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1334-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Yunqian Zhu on behalf of the Authors (23 Aug 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (19 Sep 2023) by Holger Tost

AR by Yunqian Zhu on behalf of the Authors (19 Sep 2023) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

23 Oct 2023

Stratospheric ozone depletion inside the volcanic plume shortly after the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13355–13367, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13355-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13355-2023, 2023

Short summary

Yunqian Zhu et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 630 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
399	187	44	630	13	14

HTML: 399
PDF: 187
XML: 44
Total: 630
BibTeX: 13
EndNote: 14

Views and downloads (calculated since 28 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	110	43	7	160
Jul 2023	134	54	8	196
Aug 2023	55	28	5	88
Sep 2023	49	30	2	81
Oct 2023	51	32	22	105

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 28 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	110	43	7	160
Jul 2023	134	54	8	196
Aug 2023	55	28	5	88
Sep 2023	49	30	2	81
Oct 2023	51	32	22	105

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 597 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 597 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Cited

Latest update: 23 Oct 2023

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (5546 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

The 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption injected a large amount of water into the stratosphere. Ozone depletion was observed inside the volcanic plume. Chlorine and water vapor injected by this eruption exceeded the normal range, which made the ozone chemistry during this event occur at a higher temperature than polar ozone depletion. Unlike polar ozone chemistry where chlorine nitrate is more important, hypochlorous acid plays a large role in the in-plume chlorine balance and heterogeneous processes.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

Stratospheric ozone depletion inside the volcanic plume shortly after the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Cited

1 citations as recorded by crossref.