Sounds of Undersea Gas Leaks

Maksimov, A. O.; Burov, B. A.; Salomatin, A.; Chernykh, Denis

doi:10.1007/978-981-10-2422-1_15

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Passive acoustic (r e ) measurement has only been demonstrated for low-flow bubble plumes where the individual bubble acoustic signatures can be identified (Leifer and Tang, 2006;Maksimov et al, 2016).…”

Section: Sonar Seep Bubble Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sonar gas flux estimation by bubble insonification: application to methane bubble flux from seep areas in the outer Laptev Sea

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Sonar surveys provide an effective mechanism for mapping seabed methane flux emissions, with Arctic submerged permafrost seepage having great potential to significantly affect climate. We created in situ engineered bubble plumes from 40 m depth with fluxes spanning 0.019 to 1.1 L s −1 to derive the in situ calibration curve (Q(σ )). These nonlinear curves related flux (Q) to sonar return (σ ) for a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a single-beam echosounder (SBES) for a range of depths. The analysis demonstrated significant multiple bubble acoustic scattering -precluding the use of a theoretical approach to derive Q(σ ) from the product of the bubble σ (r) and the bubble size distribution where r is bubble radius. The bubble plume σ occurrence probability distribution function ( (σ )) with respect to Q found (σ ) for weak σ well described by a power law that likely correlated with small-bubble dispersion and was strongly depth dependent. (σ ) for strong σ was largely depth independent, consistent with bubble plume behavior where large bubbles in a plume remain in a focused core.(σ ) was bimodal for all but the weakest plumes. Q(σ ) was applied to sonar observations of natural arctic Laptev Sea seepage after accounting for volumetric change with numerical bubble plume simulations. Simulations addressed different depths and gases between calibration and seep plumes. Total mass fluxes (Q m ) were 5.56, 42.73, and 4.88 mmol s −1 for MBES data with good to reasonable agreement (4-37 %) between the SBES and MBES systems. The seepage flux occurrence probability distribution function ( (Q)) was bimodal, with weak (Q) in each seep area well described by a power law, suggesting primarily minor bubble plumes. The seepage-mapped spatial patterns suggested subsurface geologic control attributing methane fluxes to the current state of subsea permafrost.

show abstract

Section: Sonar Seep Bubble Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sonar gas flux estimation by bubble insonification: application to methane bubble flux from seep areas in the outer Laptev Sea

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can have a major impact on ocean chemistry via dissolution and is a poorly understood part of the global carbon cycle [20][21][22][23] . Additionally, the release of each bubble produces an acoustic signal which can affect soundscape in local areas 1,12,24 . The sound is emitted as soon the bubble detaches from the seafloor and lasts ~20 ms, which given that bubbles tend to rise upwards of a speed of 20-30 cm/s confines the production to within ~5 mm of the seafloor.…”

Section: Subsurface Gas Releasementioning

confidence: 99%

Chapter 5: Ambient Bubble Acoustics -Seep, Rain and Wave Noise

Roche

Leighton

White

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This condition cannot be met for exo-oceans where no previous environmental knowledge exists, but the broad characterization of soundscapes and their geological and hydrographic processes are of high value, when crossed with the multiparametric data collection proposed with geochemical and oceanographic sensors. For example, the use of this technique on Earth revealed the presence of gas bubbling beyond the reach of optoacoustic imaging technologies and provided information on the extension of the phenomenon (Maksimov et al, 2016).…”

Section: Passive Acoustic Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%