OCS, H2S, and CS2 fluxes from a salt water marsh

Abstract

The diurnal-to-monthly behavior of the fluxes of OCS, H2S, and CS 2 from a mixed-Spartina grass-covered site in a Wallops Island salt water marsh was determined through a series of experiments in August and September, 1982. Absolute flux values were determined for OCS and H2S, while only relative values were determined for CS2. The rates of emission of OCS and H2S were observed to vary diurnally and to be strongly influenced by tides. The time-averaged flux values show that such mixedSpartina stands are insignificant (<< 1%) global sources of H2S or CS2 and insignificant contributors to the global OCS cycle (< 1%). These results demonstrate that some marsh regions play a minor role in the global sulfur budget and, consequently, that the inclusion of such areas in extrapolations of measurements of more productive regions could lead to an overestimate of the role of salt water marshes in the global sulfur budget.

Flux of COS, DMS and CS₂ from various soils in Germany

“…Emission measurements were obtained by passing a sulfur-free sweep gas over a soil area enclosed by a dynamic gas emission chamber similar to the method described by , Carroll et al (1986), Cooper et al (1987), Jsrgensen and Okholm-Hansen (1 9 8 3 , Lamb et al (1987), MacTaggart et al (1987). MacTaggart et al have shown by the application of a twolayer-model that the lack of sulfur compounds in the gas used to sweep the emission chamber will not significantly change the sulfur flux rates from soils.…”

“…3 leads to emission of H2S (Rasmussen, 1974). Most of the existing measurements centered on coastal environments which have an extremely high emission capacity (Aneja et al, 1982;Carroll et al, 1986;Goldberg et al, 1981;Steudler and Peterson, 1984). Salt marshes or coastal marine sediments emit at least 10 to 100fold greater amounts of biogenic sulfur than inland soils and play an important role in local and regional atmospheric sulfur budgets.…”

Soil uptake of carbonyl sulfide in subtropical forests with different successional stages in south China

“…These methods generated an artificial COS gas concentration gradient between the headspace of the enclosure and the soil, and thus not only led to an overestimation of natural emission strength by enhancing the diffusion of COS from the soil into the headspace, but also masked the potential of soils as a sink. As a result, these estimates all indicated that soils are a source of COS [ Aneja et al , 1979; Steudler and Peterson , 1985; Carroll et al , 1986; Goldan et al , 1987; Fall et al , 1988; Staubes et al , 1989], contributing around 21–25% of the total global source [ Khalil and Rasmussen , 1984; Chin and Davis , 1993; Johnson et al , 1993]. In contrast, Castro and Galloway [1991] suggested a much enhanced role for soils in the removal of COS from the atmosphere, and De Mello and Hines [1994], using ambient air as sweep gases, consistently found that soils took up COS at rates of 3 to 30 ng S m −2 min −1 (1.6–15.6 pmol m −2 s −1 ).…”

Carbonyl Sulfide: A Review of Its Chemistry and Properties

“…Direct measurements of carbonyl sulfide emissions rates by soil/plant systems have been reported by Aneja et al, , Adams et al, and Lamb et al, among others. Steudler and Peterson 198,199 and Carroll et al studied carbonyl sulfide emission from marshes. Rennenenberg et al followed such emissions from spruce trees, Berresheim and Vulcan from the pine forest, and Kesselmeier et al from tropical tree species in Southern Cameroon .…”