the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Effectiveness of olivine dissolution in beach simulations for ocean alkalinity enhancement – insights from flow-through experiments
Abstract. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is required to mitigate climate change and to keep global warming below 1.5 to 2 °C. Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) in the coastal environment is a promising and relatively low-cost technique, that could enhance marine CO2 sequestration via silicate weathering. The high-energy environment in the surf zone is especially promising as constant grain collision provides a natural grinding mechanism, potentially enhancing alkaline mineral dissolution. In this study, we experimentally investigated the dissolution of dunite, an olivine-rich ultramafic rock, in natural Atlantic seawater using flow-through reactors. In the experiment, pure dunite (from now on referred to as olivine; forsterite endmember), beach sand (from the coast of West Brittany) and a mixture of olivine and beach sand (olivine/sand) was studied under turbulent and stagnant conditions, in order to identify the effect of grinding on mineral dissolution and alkalinity generation. We see, that alkalinity release was highest in all turbulent reactors compared to stagnant conditions, with the highest alkalinity release observed in the turbulent olivine/sand mixture (11.5 mmol mol-1 olivine d-1). The effective sand grinding and especially the hardness of the quartz grains, composing 49 wt.% of the sand, enhance olivine abrasion and rounding, and thus foster dissolution. This effect diminishes over experimental time, when an apparent steady state is reached after ca. 74 hours, where a constant alkalinity release from the turbulent olivine/sand treatment is attained with 1.1±0.6 mmol mol-1 olivine d-1; within error to turbulent treatments of pure olivine (1.0±0.2 mmol mol-1 olivine d-1). With respect to potentially toxic trace metals (Ni, Cr), we observed high concentrations in the first 24 hours for the olivine/sand treatment when mineral dissolution rates were high (Ni: 359 nmol L-1; Cr: 171 nmol L-1), but these decreased quickly to background seawater values (Ni: 18 nmol L-1; Cr: 19 nmol L-1). In addition, our results show that the natural alkalinity release from sand was not diminished by olivine addition, and that the probability of secondary mineral precipitation and by this CO2 release is mostly low, due to high dilution rates with ambient seawater. A cooperative alkalinity release by sand and olivine is expected in natural conditions where similar high dilution rates of reaction products will prevail. Our study shows that ephemeral peaks of high critical element (e.g. Ni) concentrations due to high mineral reaction rates in the beginning of the experiment can be avoided, thus, olivine addition to surf zones could be an efficient marine CDR technique for OAE applications in coastal environments.
- Preprint
(2130 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1508 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3096', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3096', Lennart Bach, 23 Jul 2026
Geilert et al., investigate weathering of olivine-bearing rock powder in different turbulene/sand regimes. The study is very interesting and provides an important dataset for the assessment of coastal enhanced weathering. I do have some major comments, but I think these can be dealt with in the review process.
I hope my comments help to further improve the manuscript.
Lennart Bach
Major comments:
I think the discussion on the “additionality problem” is not quite correct due to 2 issues.
- Additionality is defined as CDR in a perturbed scenario (here olivine added) minus CDR in a baseline scenario (here sand_only), i.e. Additionality = CDR_olivine-CDR_sand OR CDR_olivine/sand - CDR_sand_only. Geilert et al, investigate additionality on the basis of TA (not DIC) which is totally fine because doing this with carbon is often difficult (or impossible) as it requires exact knowledge of the source of alkalinity. In this case: Additionality = TA_olivine-TA_sand OR TA_olivine/sand – TA_sand_only. The analysis by Geilert seems to focus on the mixed olivine/sand treatment to interpret additionality. However, the mixed olivine/sand treatment is an anthropogenic scenario so that the sand_only treatment must be subtracted from it to estimate additionality (see equation above). When looking at Figure 2C, it appears that there could be a substantial additionality problem. In the turbulent treatments: delta_TA is quite similar in the sand_only and the other treatments after 100 hours, hovering around 20 umol/kg. As such, when you subtract the sand_only from the two olivine-amended treatments then there is not much additionality occurring after 100 hours (but quite a bit of additionality from 0-100 hours). The additionality problem is potentially even more pronounced in the stagnant treatment. Here, delta_TA is around zero, but frequently higher in the sand_only treatment, suggesting that the addition of olivine reduced TA release from sediments. Importantly, for the additionality problem (on the TA level!!) it does not really matter what the source of alkalinity is in the sand_only treatment. It only really matters how high TA emissions are relative to the anthropogenic scenario.
- It is argued that TA accumulation is lower in flow-through scenarios and therefore “that the additionality problem might occur less than originally proposed”. When looking at Fig. 5d in the Bach (2024) paper then it becomes clear that additionality costs on TA release were not described as a problem for these scenarios in the first place. It has been argued that the problem occurs in more acidic environments that provide fuel for TA production from sediments. Furthermore, it has been argued that dilution effectively mitigates the issue. As such, I think it is incorrect to state that it could be less of an issue than previously proposed, because it hasn’t been proposed as a problem for the conditions studied by Geilert et al.
Additional comments
In general, I think there are some minor grammar issues and some of the sentences were only understandable upon second read. On the other hand, I also appreciate that the text hasn’t been homogenised by some AI, so in fact I appreciate the human touch (and authenticity). But it could be useful to check for grammar issues.
Line 23: found that…?
Line 30: I don’t understand the phrase starting with “within…”. Can this be rephrased?
Line 34: see major comments.
Line 108: How effective was the removal of organics by autoclaving the sand? If all organics were lost, there is little potential to dissolve natural sand.
Line 132: Unclear if TA was also measured on incoming seawater. Please clarify.
Line 203: Was TA measured on each sampling day before and after reactor passage?
Line 245: When you say TA decreases, do you mean the generated amount of TA?
Line 247: Are within error? What is within error?
Line 410: Is it possible to distinguish between forsterite and fayalite in olivine?
Lines 541ff: This explanation in this paragraph is unclear to me. Both treatments are olivine-bearing, so what is compared here? Sand/olivine vs. just olivine?
Line 547: Would be more intuitive to talk about delta_TA here.
Line 551: It is also worth noting that Omega thresholds depend a lot on the availability of seed particles, hence this value is not necessarily transferrable to all conditions.
Line 591: I think the effect of dilution could be overestimated relative to the England and Bach study as they also used another olivine-bearing rock, most likely one with inherently lower forsterite content and therefore TA release potential.
Line 648: At least no net loss, but gross loss of olivine-derived TA is still possible if only part was precipitated as CaCO3.
Line 650: This conclusion is at odds with the section headline. The stagnant treatment, which is much more widespread in an oceanographic context than the extremely turbulent one is arguably more relevant.
Line 658: The second clause in the sentence (“…,though small increases…”) is unclear to me. How does SiO2 and MgO increases link with phyllosilicate formation?
Line 684: is the decline due to dilution? Perhaps worth mentioning the reason.
Line 701-706: See major comments.
Line 720: This transport and burial is the argument why I think the stagnant treatment is arguably the more important one (see the comment that refers to line 650). I think it is worth expanding on that because when olivine is added to beaches much of it will likely be buried or moved away from the swash zone quickly.
Line 728: I am not an expert on this but it seems implausible to assume that adding olivine to a beach (with surf) is easier than releasing it with a barge slightly offshore. Politically almost certainly, but also logistically.
Line 743: see major comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3096-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 156 | 44 | 11 | 211 | 20 | 8 | 9 |
- HTML: 156
- PDF: 44
- XML: 11
- Total: 211
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Please find attached my reviewer comments.
Kind regards