the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ocean alkalinity enhancement approaches and the predictability of runaway precipitation processes – Results of an experimental study to determine critical alkalinity ranges for safe and sustainable application scenarios
Abstract. To ensure the safe and efficient application of Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE), it is crucial to investigate its impacts on the carbonate system. While various modeling studies showed promising results in the past, there has been a lack of empirical data to support the applicability of this technology in natural environments. Recent studies have described the effect of runaway precipitation in the context of OAE, showing that calcium carbonate formation was triggered if certain Ωaragonite saturation threshold levels were exceeded. This precipitation can adversely affect the carbon storage capacity and may in some cases result in CO2 emissions. Experiments at the Espeland Marine Biological Station (Bergen, Norway) were conducted to systematically study the chemical consequences of OAE deployment. The experiments lasted for 20–25 days to monitor the temporal development of carbonate chemistry parameters after alkalinity addition and the eventually triggered carbonate precipitation process. Identified uniform patterns before and during the triggered runaway process can be described by empirical functional relationships. For the CO2-equilibrated approaches, total alkalinity levels (TA) of up to 6500 µeq kgsw-1 remained stable without loss of total alkalinity (TA) for up to 20 days. Higher implemented TA levels, up to 11200 µeq kgsw-1, triggered runaway carbonate formation. Ones triggered, the loss of alkalinity continued until Ωaragonite values leveled out at 5.8–6.0, resulting still in a net gain of 3600–4850 µeq kgsw-1 in TA. The CO2-non-equilibrated approaches, however, remained only stable for TA additions of up to 1000 µeq kgsw-1. The systematic behavior of treatments exceeding this level allows to predict the duration of transient stability and the quantity of TA loss after this period. Once triggered, the TA-loss continued in the CO2-non-equilibrated approaches until Ωaragonite values of 2.5–5.0 were reached, in this case resulting in a net loss of TA. To prevent a net loss of TA, treated water must be diluted below the time-dependent critical levels of TA and Ωaragonite within the identified transient stability duration. Identified stability and loss patterns of added TA depend on local environmental conditions impacting the carbonate system, like salinity, temperature, biological activity, and particle abundance. Implementation of such identified stability and loss patterns into ocean biogeochemical models, capable of resolving mixing patterns of treated and untreated water parcels, would allow to predict, from the geochemical perspective, safe local application levels of TA, as well as the fate of added alkalinity, and therefore a more realistic carbon storage potential as if neglecting observed carbonate system response to OAE.
- Preprint
(3211 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(960 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2611', Andrew Dickson, 05 Mar 2024
I apologize for the time it took me to get to writing this review. I found this to be an interesting manuscript introducing what is likely to become a real problem if Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) is to become well established as an mCDR approach.
The authors carried out a simple series of experiments to assess what happens after increasing seawater alkalinity. They studied the addition of two alternate solutions: one a simple strong alkali, the other a similar solution that had been equilibrated with CO2 at a partial pressure of ~420 µatm. They showed that large additions of alkalinity to a seawater could trigger the precipitation of calcium and magnesium carbonates, as well as magnesium hydroxide, thus reducing the alkalinity in the final solution. If however, the alkaline solution had been pre-equiilibrated with CO2, then higher alkalinity levels could be achieved without triggering the precipitation process. The experiments suggest that the kinetic process that is involved here is somewhat reproducible in its behavior (note: the experiments did not appear to be scrupulously replicated, rather they were repeated with differing initial solution compositions over a range of total alkalinity (and for the addition of pre-equiliibrated solution, also an associated range of total dissolved inorganic carbon).
That said, I did find the author's figures and text awkward to read and understand. The difficulty is that they are describing a time-dependent process, where an initial solution composition (formed as a mixture between seawater and a synthetic solution (either NaOH, or an Na2CO3/NaHCO3 mixture with a nomiinal p(CO2) of 420 µatm) changes as a result of precipitating inorganic solids: CaCO2, MgCO3, Mg(OH)2 . The changes are complex due to the equilibrium chemistry of CO2 in such systems, with not only the total alkalinity and total dissolved inorganic carbon changing, but also other compositional properties such as p(CO2), pH, and Ωaragonite.
The time-dependent process the authors describe is illustrated as a simple conceptual plot in Fig. 9, and also illustrated as alkalinity loss in Figs. 5 & 6. Essentially the earlier figures (2,3,4) show the experimental measurements over the course of 20 or 25 days (depending on the experiments). It is these three figures that are hardest to follow (as in them the time dependence is not so clear, and the scales chosen seem somewhat arbitrary).
Nevertheless, I feel the authors are adequately clear in what they did, and in what they found and I believe the paper is a useful first step in this potentially important area.
That said, I have a significant number of small comments (some addressing typos) that I feel the authors should consider changing.
The unit "µeq kgsw–1 " for alkalinity seems both old-fashioned, and (sliightly) problematic. First, the use of equivalents has been deprecated in physical chemistry for many decades with moles being a preferred alternative. Second, as the experimental solutions are a mixture of natural seawater and another inorganic solution, referring to the amount content of a component as "per kilogram of seawater" seems misleading; strictly it is per kilogram of solution (viz amount content)
(line 37) "Once" not "Ones"
(lines 46-48) This does not read right, perhaps words are missiing?
(lines 58-59) I do not feel that the oceanic residence time for inorganic carbon is a meaningful concept when discussing OAE. If a parcel of seawater is taking up CO2 it is, by definition, at the surface not well-mixed around the ocean.
(line 68) "ground" not "grinded"
(Fig. 1 legend). pCO2 is a partial pressure, and thus should be expressed in pressure units (e.g. 420 µatm) not as a mole fraction (420 ppm)
(lines 122-123) What magnitude are "Minor shifts"?
(lines 125-131) What are the measurement uncertainties of these techniques?
(line 195) missing word?
(line 227) The maximum value for mol% C is high enough to suggest some bicarbonate may also be present in these solids (or there is a typo?)
(line 317) What are "varying framework conditions"?
(line 326) Is "excluded" the word intended here?
(line 420) Although these experiments had low suspended sediment, I'd hesitate to generalize in this way.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2611-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2611', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Apr 2024
Suitner et al. evaluated the tendency of carbonate precipitation associated with ocean alkalinity enhancement. This is a widely interested topic and the paper adds some interesting new experimental results to this thread of research. I have some suggestions for the authors to hopefully help improve the manuscript.
First, the authors might want to be more specific and careful in some expressions, for example, in the abstract, Line 27, what does “promising results in the past” exactly mean? You may want to specify to be more “scientific”. Also, in the abstract, concepts like “runaway precipitation” (Line 28-29) and “CO2-equilibrated approaches” (Line 35) are used without definitions, which might be confusing to readers that are not familiar with the field.
There is a typo in Line 37, “ones” should be “once”.
Second, the figures are a little hard to read – y axis are not uniform between “biotic” and “abiotic” conditions (left and right panels in Figure 2 and 3), making it hard to compare the two scenarios. Also, there seems to be way less alkalinity added in the biotic experiments than the abiotic? Why is this? The two terms – “biotic vs. abiotic” are basically “unfiltered vs. filtered”. Since the manuscript is basically about thermodynamically-driven inorganic carbonate precipitation, and the two conditions (biotic and abiotic) do not show significant differences (is this true? It is hard to tell with the different TA addition ranges and y-axis), the authors could simply use “unfiltered and filtered seawater” for simplicity.
Figure 5 and 6 only have 2 scenarios – abiotic CO2-equilibrated and biotic non-CO2 equilibrated. Why are the other 2 not shown? Biotic CO2-equilibrated and abiotic non-CO2 equilibrated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2611-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
546 | 166 | 33 | 745 | 34 | 13 | 20 |
- HTML: 546
- PDF: 166
- XML: 33
- Total: 745
- Supplement: 34
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1