Volatiles Workshop Report Compressed2

Funded by NSF-MGG 2025625
Volatiles from Source to Surface:

A GeoPRISMS Synthesis Workshop
May 23–26, 2022: Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
Last Updated: March 17, 2023 (v 1.1.2)
Workshop group photo taken outside of Montana Hall at MSU. (Photo credit Madison Myers)
Organizing Committee:
Madison Myers (Montana State University, Lead Organizer)
Taryn Lopez (University of Alaska Fairbanks, Co-Chair)
Dan Rasmussen (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Co-Chair)
Michael Hudak (Williams College, Co-Chair)
Megan Newcombe (University of Maryland, Co-Chair)
Behnaz Hosseini (Montana State University, Website Designer)
1
Report of the Volatiles from Source to Surface GeoPRISMS Synthesis Workshop
Beyond this report, please explore the workshop website, which contains videos of the keynote
presentations and interviews with participants that were influenced in some capacity by
GeoPRISMS. All aspects of this workshop were funded by NSF-MGG grant 2025625.
Motivation
Attendees of the 2019 GeoPRISMS Synthesis and Integration Theoretical and Experimental
Institute (TEI) identified that small, interdisciplinary, science-question-focused workshops are an
essential element of the final phase of the GeoPRISMS program. Additional input was received
at the 2019 AGU Mini-Workshops, culminating in a discussion that a coordinated set of
workshops focused on science topics that cross-cut Rift Initiation and Evolution (RIE) and
Subduction Cycles and Deformation (SCD) focus sites would best serve the community. The
importance of encouraging early career involvement in both the planning stages and in
attendance at these workshops was also heavily emphasized. To meet these community needs,
two workshops were held in 2022: Structure and Deformation at Plate Boundaries at the
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and Volatiles from Source to Surface at Montana State
University (this workshop).
The goals for the Volatiles from Source to Surface Workshop were: (i) to showcase recent
GeoPRISMS research that has advanced our understanding of volatiles; (ii) to facilitate the
formation of new, interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly for early career scientists and
motivate future research collaborations; (iii) to promote best practices for the archiving of data
and educational materials; and (iv) to produce outreach materials in the form of short videos to
highlight GeoPRISMS participants and scientific results. Goal (iv) was shared with the Structure
and Deformation at Plate Boundaries workshop. Graduate students from the Science and Natural
History Filmmaking program at Montana State University attended both workshops to produce
outreach videos highlighting GeoPRISMS science and scientists.
Introduction
Over the last decade, the GeoPRISMS program led to community-driven, interdisciplinary
science advances in the understanding of rifts and subduction zones globally. The program was
organized primarily around five primary sites between the RIE and SCD initiatives: Eastern
North America (ENAM), East African Rift System (EARS), Cascadia, Alaska-Aleutians, and
New Zealand. From these five sites, there have been over 30 funded proposals on magma and
volatile quantification. At the onset of the GeoPRISMS program, integration across primary sites
in both the RIE and SCD initiatives was essential, as it was key to the original science plan, as
well as highlighted by the community at the 2019 TEI Synthesis Workshop. Volatiles from
Source to Surface is one of five overarching science themes that has guided the GeoPRISMS
initiative over the last decade, making key contributions to these fundamental areas of research.
Specifically, four science questions motivated this workshop:
2
I. How and where are volatiles (e.g., water, carbon dioxide, sulfur, chlorine, fluorine) stored
and transferred in the Earth?
II. What is the impact of volatiles on rheology, seismicity, and conductivity?
III. What are the volatile controls on the evolution of continental crust and how can we better
use barometers to understand plumbing systems?
IV. How do volatiles influence volcanism (eruptive style)?
Volatiles play a fundamental role in nearly every Earth process occurring in and around plate
margins. These include the structural and compositional evolution of a subducting slab, rift
initiation, mantle melting, magmatic differentiation, magma ascent, and volcanic eruption and
gas emission. These processes exert fundamental controls over the composition and properties of
Earth’s crust, mantle, and atmosphere. Our ability to understand the link between these processes
and track their distribution and migration throughout Earth is a fundamental requirement for
linking observation and process. Interdisciplinary research projects allow for topics such as
volatile transport to be approached from multiple perspectives and in varied tectonic settings,
providing more observations and more robust models than can be achieved by single-discipline
studies. Fundamental to the success of interdisciplinary projects, however, is a basic
understanding of all of the involved methodologies and their limitations. The early-career portion
of this conference served to help bridge that gap for upcoming scientists that have had less
exposure to these topics, with pre-assigned readings that helped to onboard this portion of the
community. The topics addressed here also are related to burgeoning community projects,
including the Subduction Zones in Four Dimensions (SZ4D) initiative (McGuire et al., 2017) and
the Community Network for Volcanic Eruption Response (CONVERSE), with representatives
from both of these communities attending this workshop.
Workshop Structure
The Volatiles from Source to Surface GeoPRISMS Synthesis Workshop took place from May 23
to 26, 2022 at Montana State University (MSU) in Bozeman, MT. Our organizing committee was
composed of six early-career scientists with strong ties to volatile measurement and cycling, with
half having been either directly or tangentially impacted by the GeoPRISMS program. The
workshop had over 90 applicants, with 50 in-person participants accepted based on an
anonymous review of their applications. The accepted participants included 23 current graduate
students, with 35 distinct institutions represented. In addition, approximately 57% of all
attendees self-identified with an underrepresented group (non-white, first generation, LGBTQ+,
disability) in the Earth Sciences.
The main workshop was preceded by a half-day Early Career Session on May 23, 2022, which
was open to students and untenured scientists within 5 years of their PhD. This pre-workshop
meeting was attended by 27 participants (54% of attendees) and focused around networking,
confidence building on anticipated research topics, and exploring future career options. For the
3
main workshop, the meeting was structured around eight keynote talks that were chosen to again
represent a mix of career stages, disciplines, genders, and race. These talks covered a wide range
of research disciplines (petrology, geochemistry, geodesy, seismology, magnetotellurics,
numerical modeling, remote sensing), and focused mostly on the current state and future
directions of these fields. Six of eight talks were successfully recorded and now available on the
workshop website. Talks were scheduled on two separate days, and interspersed with breakout
discussion and poster sessions. All participants were invited to present their research findings in
a poster session, which resulted in 38 poster presentations. To facilitate discussion and
participation across all attendees, four breakout sessions were held where participants were
randomly assigned to one of five groups. A discussion moderator and scribe were assigned for
each group (total 20 moderators, and 20 scribes). Broadly, these focused on (i) identifying
remaining and new science questions; (ii) data and technology needs and synergies; and (iii)
visions for the future. In between these two workshop days we organized a field trip to
Yellowstone National Park, where three separate techniques for measuring gases were
demonstrated (Appendix A). Each of these days and activities is discussed in more detail below.
Day 1: Early Career Session

May 23, 2023
Figure 1: Early Career Session group photo in Ballroom B at MSU. (Photo credit Madison Myers)
A half-day Early Career Session preceding the main workshop was held on May 23, 2022. We
had 23 early-career researchers participate in the session (Figure 1), with 4-6 additional
workshop members serving as facilitators, speakers, and panelists. The primary objectives of the
Early Career Session were to provide opportunities to (i) learn about the motivation and goals of
4
large, community-driven programs, (ii) facilitate confidence-building and engagement among

early-career researchers in preparation for the main workshop discussion and (iii) foster
networking between early-career researchers across disciplines. To start, each student gave a
1-minute lightning presentation of their research interests as a way of introducing themselves. To
facilitate discussion and networking, as well as build the voices of early-career researchers, a
breakout session was run focused on the same questions that would be covered in the main
meeting, but instead of responding to a research talk, the participants were guided to focus on the
pre-assigned readings that were sent a week earlier. The breakout questions used here, as well as
in the entire meeting, were:
● What are the key open questions or needs related to this topic?
This can be facilitated by the list of questions compiled by all participants (Appendix X),
new questions proposed by speakers, or new questions contributed during breakout
meetings.
● What are potential solutions to these challenges?

Examples could include new observations, synthesis of existing data, high P/T
experiments, numerical modeling, etc.
● What opportunities exist for multidisciplinary collaboration/research to address

these challenges?
Can these lead to proposal, project, and/or paper ideas?
There were then a series of presentations, including an overview of how large-scale programs
work by Terry Plank (Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory), how to
navigate and apply to the NSF by Jenn Wade (NSF), and then a career panel, where the majority
of jobs represented were outside of classic academia: Jenn Wade (NSF), Társilo Girona
(University of Alaska, Fairbanks), Taryn Lopez (University of Alaska, Fairbanks), Peter Kelly
(USGS-Cascades Volcano Observatory), and Chelsea Neil (Los Alamos National Lab). At the
end, students were encouraged to form dinner groups focused around research topics of interest,
again mimicking a strategy that would be implemented later in the meeting.
Day 2: Main Meeting

May 24, 2022
The first all–person workshop day started with reviewing the ground rules for a safe and
inclusive meeting prior to participating in an icebreaker event (Figure 2). The icebreaker event
took place outdoors, and included a range of questions to encourage participants to get to know
one another, with ~2 minutes allowed per question before participants were rotated to meet a new
colleague. This event was widely successful and the questions and format were later used by
other events (e.g., SZ4D Community Meeting in Houston, TX in November 2022).
5
Figure 2: Ice-breaker event with “speed dating” questions providing 2 minutes of conversation between
two random participants before inner or outer circles rotated. (Photo credit Madison Myers)
We then proceeded to listen to two invited talks that focused on Theme 1, which is also the title
of Terry Plank’s opening talk: Volatile cycling over space and time. The second talk in this theme
was by Ikuko Wada, focused on Tectonic controls on volatile cycling & volcanism. Proceeding
these two talks, we went directly into breakout groups to discuss the breakout questions listed
above applied to our first theme. During all breakout sessions, participants were also encouraged
to look through the specific questions that were submitted by all applicants related to the themes
of this workshop (Appendix B).
After lunch and prior to starting the afternoon program, we had a pop-up presentation by Diana
Roman on SZ4D. Madison Myers then introduced the field trip agenda for the following day, and
went over a land acknowledgment for the Indigenous people of Yellowstone that have been
displaced by western colonialism to produce the park we enjoy today. Next, two additional
keynote talks focused on Theme 2 (Magma Ascent: Petrologic and Remote Tools) were
presented. These talks were by Társilo Girona on Volatile influence on magma properties and
volcano dynamics and Michelle Muth on Capabilities and limitations of petrologic methods for
characterizing magma storage, ascent, and degassing followed by breakout groups. Instead of
having report-backs/debriefings on the discussion points, we moved directly into a poster session
as these report-backs/debriefings have often been viewed as repetitive and uninspiring. However,
the main points of these breakout groups were later assembled by Madison Myers and Michael
Hudak, which were presented to close out the workshop.
6
Figure 3: Afternoon poster session in the Leigh Lounge at MSU. (Photo credit Madison Myers)
The poster sessions were broken into two groups based on the topics covered during the keynote
talks, and how participants self-identified in their research topic (Appendix C; Figure 3). During
the poster session, many participants had individual meetings in a nearby room, including a
‘booth’ set up by Jenn Wade to answer questions in regards to the NSF funding system. Also
during this time the two MSU filmmakers met with individuals that expressed interest in being
interviewed about their path in science, and influenced by the GeoPRISM program. To end the
day, dinner sign up sheets were highlighted, which allowed an individual to propose a dinner
location and others to join them, where a research topic (or cuisine) would be the linking thread.
Day 3: Mid-Workshop Field Trip to Yellowstone

May 25, 2022
The field trip to Yellowstone National Park occurred on the second full day and included several
(8) vehicles with a field trip leader in each vehicle, along with a field trip guide. The trip
included three main stops: (i) Mammoth Hot Springs (MHS), (ii) Norris Geyser Basin (NGB)
7
and (iii) Mud Volcano (MV), with gas demonstrations occurring at NGB and MV (Figure 4).
Groups of ~3 vehicles were rotated at each stop to keep numbers down at any one locality, as per
the requirements of our Yellowstone educational permit.
Figure 4: Field trip group learning about gas monitoring near Steamboat Geyser in the Norris Geyser
Basin. (Photo credit random park visitor)
The three instruments/techniques demonstrated include: (i) multi-GAS, (ii) direct gas sampling,
and (iii) diffuse soil CO2 flux. These techniques were demonstrated by pre-invited field leads,
including: Peter Kelly and Laura Clor (both USGS-Cascades Volcano Observatory) and Allan
Lerner demonstrating multi-GAS measurements at MV, Taryn Lopez (University of Alaska,
Fairbanks) demonstrating direct gas sampling at NGB, and Tobias Fischer (University of New
Mexico) demonstrating soil CO2 flux measurements at NGB. All field assistants were also
instrumental (no pun intended) in creating an informational packet for participants to learn more
about the sampling techniques (Appendix A). Each group of vehicles used radios to
communicate, allowing for optional stops (e.g., the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone).
8
Day 4: Main Meeting

May 26, 2022
In the morning, we heard four keynote talks addressing Themes 3 (Electrical Resistivity and
Continuous Gas) and 4 (Fluid Reactions and Seismic Records) with a breakout session following
both the first set and the second. The first two keynote talks were presented by Tobias Fischer
(Capabilities and limitations of volcanic gas methods for characterizing tectonic and volcanic
processes) and Samer Naif (Capabilities and limitations of geophysical methods for tracking
volatile/fluid migration and storage on tectonic scales). The second two were by Gabe Epstein
(Multidisciplinary methods for quantifying/tracking volatile migration and storage on tectonic
scales) followed by Diana Roman (Multidisciplinary methods for quantifying/tracking volatile
migration and storage on volcanic scales)
During lunch, Michael Hudak and Madison Myers went through all the breakout session scribes
notes, and compiled what were recurring themes or specific suggestions addressing the
previously outlined breakout questions. Following the after-lunch poster session, filming, and
meeting time, we reconvened for the last time to review this compilation, and for people to
provide additional commentary on any gaps to this document. These ideas of all participants in
this workshop (listed in Appendix D) are summarized below.
Major Scientific Takeaways (Combined Breakout Sessions and Closing Brainstorming)
Major Questions from Breakout Sessions

1. GEOPHYSICAL FLUID SIGNAL: How does the composition of volatiles influence the
resulting geophysical signals? Do water and carbon follow the same path? Can we image
other fluids/gases with EM? What techniques are required to track carbon (or sulfur,
argon, etc.)? What is the time scale of fluid migration? From a seismic perspective, how
can we distinguish signals from gas movement versus magma movement?
2. GAS DURING REPOSE: What happens to the gas phase in between eruptions? How
long is magma sitting in the lower crust, and while the magma chamber is
assimilating/crystallizing is the gas being stored or is it leaking out? What is controlling
that? What time resolution of gas measurement data during intereruptive periods is
needed to effectively monitor a volcano and capture the activity?
3. HIGH P-T EXPERIMENTS: What capacity needs to be added to experimental labs to
make high P-T conductivity measurements to have a wide range of rock and fluid
compositions? What should the community focus on?
4. REDOX: How can redox degassing be characterized and how it affects volatile contents?
How would these characterizations of redox change be with shallow degassing or across
a magmatic transcrustal system?
5. DIFFUSION MODELS: How can we ensure that diffusion modeling of single crystals is
9
representative of an entire magma body? How do we properly characterize a magmatic

system using diffusion chronometry? How many samples do we really need? How can
crystal clocks be leveraged to understand intrusion histories beyond experimental
timescales?
6. VOLATILE CONTENT OF THE SLAB: Can we increase resolution for seismic and MT
“blobs”? Can we distinguish between different models of fluid or hydrous phase
distribution (i.e. serpentine) in slabs or the mantle wedge? And can we improve imaging
deep into continental crust? How do we detect evidence for serpentine geochemically?
7. MODERN VS ANCIENT SUBDUCTION ANALOGY: How can we better link
observations of exhumed material from ancient subduction zones to geophysical and
geochemical observations in modern/active subduction zones?
8. ACROSS & ALONG ARC VARIABILITY: How can we better constrain front and back
arc differences & similarities in fluid/melt inputs? Variability in the slab/mantle
wedge/crust along the arc?
Potential Solutions to Explore as Discussed in Breakout Sessions

● Giant review paper(s) bringing subduction zone disciplines together
● More workshops of techniques and methods (multilingual science) with advantages and
disadvantages identified, characterize the processes dominating
● Add in a machine learning component
● Database standards for geoscience data–make this more accessible?
● Risk-analysis in order to determine which volcanoes need more instruments
● Determine baseline/background activity of target volcanoes, help interpret less frequent
measurements
● Conduct more high P-T experiments to address the gap in resistivity measurements on
fluids, melts, and hydrous; increase experimental observations to ground truth models
● Leverage new methods of data collections–drones and satellites
● Serpentinite characterization standardization
● Collaboration between seismologists and rock physicists to constrain parameters: better
understanding of knob turning parameters and existing constraints
● Bring in ore deposit people
Open Brainstorming Session

● Engage geothermal companies–reflection data. Get them excited and potentially
financially contributing to the science.
● Identify how many magmatic recharge events lead to eruptions but how many do not?
Crystal clocks. Elemental zoning.
● Volcanic seismic record goes back 30 years. Take into consideration when compiling
datasets and creating a framework of past informs on future.
● Intermediate magmatic processes. Utilize the plutonic record for understanding fluids.
10
Engage the ore deposit community.

● Engage with local communities. Observations that we haven’t thought about.
● Numerical community. Come help us understand end members.
● Reassessing some of the assumptions going into models–be honest on the limits
● Commitment to the failed attempts.
● Community should work together to come up with a list of targeted experiments.
● What can we do right now to help target the volcanoes to put arrays on?
● Leveraging existing datasets. Finding the gaps?
● Structured review papers.
● Digitizing older datasets. GPS datasets. Getting it all into the same format. Data rescue
grants. Maybe something we should get!
● Data sets properly used
● Constraining input, interpretation of standardization, what happens to the fluid as it is
going down is needed prior to interpreting it going upward
● Checking our assumptions in an interdisciplinary way
● Can we make a XY component diagram that summarizes our fields
● A workshop on serpentine! Workshops that focus on one very specific topic.
● How do we get magma flux from gas flux?
● Make friends with metamorphic petrologists
● Social media output from workshops
● Make sure we are highlighting where the source begins–ocean floor vents!
● Developing new modeling tools that are open source–benchmarked
● Contributions from remote sensing, geodesy, InSAR
● Develop common tools for storing data, open data, grading system for how processed
your data is. Planetary Data System could serve as an example
● What are the critical datasets that should be preserved? How do we want that data to be
structured?–Earthchem is working on a volcano data/interactive interface
● Fluid inclusions–let’s not forget what information they can provide
Appendices
A. Field Trip Gas Sampling Techniques

B. Participant Submitted Volatile-Related Questions
C. Poster Presentations, Authors, and Titles
D. List of Participants
A. Field Trip Gas Sampling Techniques

Below is an overview of three methods/techniques used to measure volcanic gases that will be
demonstrated on Wednesday’s field trip. These include: (1) multi-GAS, (2) direct gas sampling,
and (3) diffuse soil CO2 flux. These overviews were compiled by field leads: Peter Kelly, Laura
11
Clor, Allan Lerner, and Taryn Lopez, with the exception of the published soil CO2 flux primer,
which was written by Kristen Rahilly.
Measuring Volcanic Gas Compositions with Multi-GAS
Volcanic gas compositions can yield important insights into magmatic and hydrothermal systems
(e.g. Giggenbach 1987; Gerlach 1993; Symonds et al. 2001). Furthermore, striking temporal
variations in gas compositions have led to important inferences about magmatic processes (e.g.
Gerlach and Casadevall 1986; Burton et al. 2007; Werner et al. 2012; Shinohara et al. 2015) and
show great promise for helping to forecast eruptions (e.g. Noguchi and Kamiya 1963; Aiuppa et
al. 2007; de Moor et al. 2016). The main theoretical framework for interpreting volcanic gas
compositions is well established, but obtaining regular measurements using traditional direct
sampling methods (e.g. Giggenbach, 1987) can be very difficult due to the hazardous nature of
volcanic vents and alternative canonical methods, such as airborne measurements (e.g. Werner et
al., 2012), are expensive and
logistically challenging.
Figure A1: Photo of discrete

multi-GAS measurement of a
plume from East Lake hot springs,
Newberry Volcano, Oregon (Kelly
and Clor, 2021).
Consequently, low-cost instruments

to continuously monitor volcanic gas compositions have been in development for a long time
(e.g. Sato and McGee 1981; McGee et al. 1987), but the hot, humid, and corrosive nature of
volcanic gases pose significant challenges for the long-term survivability of monitoring
instruments. Fortunately immense progress has been made in this area in the past 15-20 years, as
evidenced by the proliferation of the “multi-GAS” (multiple Gas Analyzer System; Aiuppa et al.
2005; Shinohara 2005) technique, which takes advantage of improvements in environmental and
industrial gas sensors (e.g. Snyder et al. 2013), and is now used routinely for obtaining
measurements of volcanic gas compositions.
12
Figure A2: Photos showing the (a) exterior (Kelly and Clor, 2021) and (b) interior (USGS photo)
of two multi-GAS stations. Major components in (a) consist of the station enclosure and
meteorological sensors that include a temperature and relative humidity probe and an ultrasonic
anemometer. In (b) the multi-GAS instrument and satellite modem are installed on a shelf above
a bank of lead-acid batteries that are charged by solar panels. The solar charge controllers and
power management equipment are located near the top of the photo, and calibration gases and
scrubber chemicals (soda lime and anhydrite) can be seen in the lower left. The scrubber
chemicals are used to monitor the sensors’ baseline drift and the calibration gases, which include
one bottle of CO2+SO2 in air and one bottle of H2S in N2, are sampled automatically every 28.25
days to monitor accuracy and precision.
Broadly, multi-GAS are a class of in situ instruments that simultaneously measure the
abundances of major volcanic gas species (i.e. H2O, CO2, SO2, and H2S) in plumes for the
purpose of calculating diagnostic gas ratios (e.g. H2O/CO2, CO2/SO2, H2S/SO2, etc.). At present,
multi-GAS instruments are not available commercially and are instead assembled by individual
research groups. Many follow the general approaches of Aiuppa et al. (2005) and Shinohara
(2005), where plume-air is drawn by a pump through miniature optical and electrochemical gas
sensors that are arranged in series and integrated with a datalogger and other electronics into a
compact, field-portable package. However, due to the custom nature of multi-GAS instruments,
many variations exist within this framework and some have included sensors to measure
additional species like H2 (Aiuppa et al. 2011) or HCl (Roberts et al., 2017), or have been
constructed as non-pumped, passive sampling systems (Roberts et al., 2012).
Critical advantages of multi-GAS instruments compared to other in situ measurement techniques

are: (a) the ease of use and portability, enabling broad spatial gas surveys, and (b) the ability to
run the instrument semi-continuously to produce temporal records of gas emissions. However,
13
compared to direct gas sampling, multi-GAS instruments are more limited in the types of gas
species that can be measured and are currently unable to analyze isotopic signatures.
Figure A3: Plots of multi-GAS (a) H2O/CO2 ratio time series, (b) H2O/CO2 ratios versus CO2
mixing ratios, (c) CO2/H2S ratio time series, and (d) CO2/H2S ratios versus H2S mixing ratios
from Norris Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park (Lewicki et al., 2017). All values are
half-hourly averages and the gas ratios are given as molar quantities. Solid symbols represent the
best estimates of fumarolic gas compositions and were selected based on analytical and
meteorological criteria. Plots (b) and (d) show model binary mixing curves that illustrate
compositional mixing trends between a ‘fumarole gas’ end member and a ‘soil gas’ end member.
The multi-GAS technique has proven to be a practical, flexible, and valuable approach for
obtaining measurements of volcanic gas compositions, as shown by numerous ground-based
field campaigns (Figure 1), airborne missions using helicopters (e.g. Werner et al. 2017),
fixed-wing aircraft (e.g. Hidalgo et al. 2018), and small unoccupied aerial systems (e.g.
McGonigle et al. 2008; Shinohara 2013; Rüdiger et al. 2018), as well as long-term, ground-based
monitoring stations (e.g. Aiuppa et al. 2007; Aiuppa et al. 2009; Ilyinskaya et al. 2015;
Shinohara et al. 2015; de Moor et al. 2016; Lewicki et al. 2017) (Figures 2 & 3).
Despite these substantial advances, the field is relatively immature when compared to established
geophysical monitoring disciplines: at present, multi-GAS instruments are difficult to obtain; no
established data formats exist; the community has not agreed upon benchmarking standards for
14
instruments or data processing routines; and no framework or organization exists to facilitate

archiving, sharing, and making data public. These challenges stand to be addressed with future
work to fully realize the potential of the multi-GAS technique and to maximize the scientific and
societal benefit of volcanic gas monitoring.
Direct Sampling of Volcanic Gases: “The Giggenbach Method”
Volcanic gases from fumarolic vents can be sampled directly using vacuum-sealed collection
bottles containing highly-alkaline water (high-pH). This sampling technique is commonly
referred to as the Giggenbach method, after the prominent gas geochemist who pioneered the
technique, Werner Giggenbach (Giggenbach, 1975). Volcanic gases are directed into the bottle
from the gas vent known as a fumarole via a series of thermally-equilibrated, chemically and
thermally resistant tubes (e.g. silica, titanium, Pyrex; Fig. 4). Once the tubing has been flushed of
ambient air, the bottle’s inlet port is opened and gases flow into the inverted bottle, bubbling up
through the alkaline solution. During sample collection, the insoluble gases fill the bottle’s
headspace, acid gases are absorbed into the solution, and water vapor condenses in the bottle
(Giggenbach, 1975). When full (i.e., no more incoming gas bubbles are observed), the bottle is
sealed and taken back to the laboratory for analysis. This sampling method reduces
post-collection secondary reactions between gas species, thereby preserving the volcanic gas
composition. In the laboratory, head-space gases (e.g. H2, N2, Ar, He) are analyzed using gas
chromatography, dissolved acidic gases (e.g. CO2, SO2, H2S, HCl, HF) are analyzed using ion
chromatography and wet chemistry techniques, and water is quantified by sample mass
difference after subtracting the mass of the dissolved gases.
This technique can be applied with minor variations for sampling lower temperature and/or
diffuse gases from steaming ground or bubbling springs (appropriate for hydrothermal systems
common at Yellowstone) by using an inverted funnel and silicone tubing (Bergfeld et al., 2011).
Evacuated bottles without an alkaline solution can also be used if samples will be analyzed
quickly (to minimize post sampling chemical reactions) and in this case, the isotopic composition
of CO2 within the sample can be analyzed using mass spectrometry. Helium isotopes can also be
analyzed using a similar technique, but due to the small size of the He atom it must be sampled
within copper tubes instead of the more permeable silica bottles, to minimize diffusive loss.
15
Figure A4: Gas sample collection from a bubbling spring at Korovin Volcano, Alaska, using the
Giggenbach method. Left: Inverted “Giggenbach bottle” with gases seen bubbling up through
solution during collection. Right: Sample setup using an inverted funnel over the degassing
source, silicone tubing, and a syringe is used to purge the sample line of ambient air. (Photo
credit Taryn Lopez)
The chemical and isotopic composition of volcanic gases can be used to identify volatile sources
and characterize subsurface conditions with relevance to both tectonic and volcanic-scale
processes. The ultimate sources of volatiles contributing to volcanic gas emissions can be
identified by comparing the isotopic composition of key gas species against the same
composition of a reference, such as mantle, organic sediment, air, etc. Two and three-component
mixing models can then be used to calculate the proportion of gases derived from the potential
deep volatile sources (e.g., Sano and Marty, 1995). For example, the C and He chemical and
isotopic composition of volcanic gases can be used to inform volatile cycling studies and to
estimate the proportion of subducted slab volatiles recycled back to the atmosphere vs. subducted
to the deep mantle (e.g. Fig. 5; Lopez et al., in prep). The composition of volcanic gases can also
be used to characterize conditions within the mid- to shallow-crust and identify volcanic
processes, such as magma ascent. Specifically, the ratio of key volcanic gases with different
magma solubilities (e.g. relatively insoluble CO2 vs soluble SO2) can be used along with
solubility models to determine the approximate depth of magma degassing. For example, a high
CO2/SO2 ratio may indicate gases derived from deep magma recharge while a low CO2/SO2
could indicate shallow magma degassing (e.g. Werner et al., 2013). Similarly, different
solubilities of volcanic gases within water can be used to identify the removal of water-soluble
gases within a subsurface hydrothermal system, in a process commonly referred to as
“scrubbing” (e.g. Symonds et al., 2001). For example, SO2 and HCl are more water soluble than
16
CO2 or H2S, such that a gas composition depleted in SO2 and HCl and enriched in CO2 and H2S
can indicate a mixed volcanic-hydrothermal system, where the measured volcanic gas
composition has been modified by the shallow hydrothermal system (e.g., Fischer et al., 2021).
Figure A5: Example three component mixing model results for Aleutian-Alaska volcanic gases.
(A) The measured gas composition with respect to volatile end-member sources of subducted
organic sediment (SED), subducted slab altered oceanic crust (AOC), and the mantle (M).
Symbols are colored by arc segment (blue = eastern, green = central, red = western). (B)
Along-arc variation in proportion of volatiles supplied by the three end-members in (A). Figure
from Lopez et al., in prep.
Direct gas sampling has several advantages and disadvantages for informing volcanic systems
compared to other in situ gas measurement techniques, such as multi-GAS instruments. Direct
gas samples provide the most comprehensive look at the composition of volcanic gas emissions
including major and trace species, as well as the isotope composition of key species. However,
direct samples represent degassing from a single location and at one moment in time, in
comparison to multi-GAS-type spatial surveys or temporally-continuous measurements from
autonomous stations. Direct sample collection and analysis is also quite time consuming, and
sampling requires a person to be in a potentially hazardous location (active volcanic vent,
exposed to toxic gases) for extended time periods (~1 hour or more).
17
Soil CO2 flux measurements
18
References
Aiuppa, A., Federico, C., Giudice, G., Giuffrida, G., Guida, R., Gurrieri, S., Liuzzo, M., Moretti,
R., Papale, P., 2009. The 2007 eruption of Stromboli volcano: Insights from real-time
measurement of the volcanic gas plume CO2/SO2 ratio. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 182,
221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOLGEORES.2008.09.013
Aiuppa, A., Federico, C., Giudice, G., Gurrieri, S., 2005. Chemical mapping of a fumarolic field:
La Fossa Crater, Vulcano Island (Aeolian Islands, Italy). Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L13309.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023207
Aiuppa, A., Moretti, R., Federico, C., Giudice, G., Gurrieri, S., Liuzzo, M., Papale, P., Shinohara,
H., Valenza, M., 2007. Forecasting Etna eruptions by real-time observation of volcanic gas
composition. Geology 35, 1115. https://doi.org/10.1130/G24149A.1
Aiuppa, A., Shinohara, H., Tamburello, G., Giudice, G., Liuzzo, M., Moretti, R., 2011. Hydrogen
in the gas plume of an open-vent volcano, Mount Etna, Italy. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B10204.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008461
Bergfeld, D., Lowenstern, J.B., Hunt, A.G., Pat Shanks III, W., Evans, W.C., 2014. Gas and
Isotope Chemistry of Thermal Features in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming Scientific
Investigations Report 2011–5012.
Burton, M., Allard, P., Mure, F., La Spina, A., 2007. Magmatic Gas Composition Reveals the
Source Depth of Slug-Driven Strombolian Explosive Activity. Science (80-. ). 317,
227–230. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141900
de Moor, J.M., Aiuppa, A., Pacheco, J., Avard, G., Kern, C., Liuzzo, M., Martínez, M., Giudice,
G., Fischer, T.P., 2016. Short-period volcanic gas precursors to phreatic eruptions: Insights
from Poás Volcano, Costa Rica. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 442, 218–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EPSL.2016.02.056
Fischer, T.P., Lopez, T.M., Aiuppa, A., Rizzo, A.L., Ilanko, T., Kelley, K.A., Cottrell, E., 2021.
Gas Emissions From the Western Aleutians Volcanic Arc. Front. Earth Sci. 9, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.786021
Gerlach, T.M., 1993. Thermodynamic evaluation and restoration of volcanic gas analyses: An
example based on modern collection and analytical methods. Geochem. J. 27, 305–322.
Gerlach, T.M., Casadevall, T.J., 1986. Fumarole emissions at Mount St. Helens volcano, June
1980 to October 1981: Degassing of a magma-hydrothermal system. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res. 28, 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0273(86)90009-0
19
Giggenbach, W.F., 1975. A simple method for the collection and analysis of volcanic gas
samples. Bull. Volcanol. 39, 132–145.
Giggenbach, W.F., 1987. Redox processes governing the chemistry of fumarolic gas discharges
from White Island, New Zealand. Appl. Geochemistry 2, 143–161.
Hidalgo, S., Battaglia, J., Arellano, S., Sierra, D., Bernard, B., Parra, R., Kelly, P., Dinger, F.,
Barrington, C., Samaniego, P., 2018. Evolution of the 2015 Cotopaxi Eruption Revealed by
Combined Geochemical & Seismic Observations. Geochemistry, Geophys. Geosystems.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GC007514
Kelly, P.J., Clor, L.E., 2021. Data from Monitoring Volcanic Gases in Plumes and Ambient Air,
Newberry Volcano, Oregon.
Lewicki, J.L., Kelly, P.J., Bergfeld, D., Vaughan, R.G., Lowenstern, J.B., 2017. Monitoring gas
and heat emissions at Norris Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, USA based on a
combined eddy covariance and Multi-GAS approach. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 347,
McGee, K.A., Sutton, A.J., 1994. Eruptive activity at Mount St Helens, Washington, USA,
1984-1988: a gas geochemistry perspective. Bull Volcanol 56, 435–446.
McGee, K.A., Sutton, J., Sato, M., 1987. Use of satellite telemetry for monitoring active
volcanoes, with a case study of a gas-emission event at Kilauea Volcano, December 1982,
in: Volcanism in Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350. pp. 821–825.
McGonigle, A.J.S., Aiuppa, A., Giudice, G., Tamburello, G., Hodson, A.J., Gurrieri, S., 2008.
Unmanned aerial vehicle measurements of volcanic carbon dioxide fluxes. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 35, L06303. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032508
Noguchi, K., Kamiya, H., 1963. Prediction of volcanic eruption by measuring the chemical
composition and amounts of gases. Bull. Volcanol. 26, 367–378.
Rahilly, K. Measuring forgotten volcanic CO2. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 11 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0006-5
Roberts, T.J., Braban, C.F., Oppenheimer, C., Martin, R.S., Freshwater, R.A., Dawson, D.H.,
Griffiths, P.T., Cox, R.A., Saffell, J.R., Jones, R.L., 2012. Electrochemical sensing of
volcanic gases. Chem. Geol. 332–333, 74–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMGEO.2012.08.027
Roberts, T.J., Lurton, T., Giudice, G., Liuzzo, M., Aiuppa, A., Coltelli, M., Vignelles, D.,
20
Salerno, G., Couté, B., Chartier, M., Baron, R., Saffell, J.R., Scaillet, B., 2017. Validation of
a novel Multi-Gas sensor for volcanic HCl alongside H2S and SO2 at Mt. Etna. Bull.
Volcanol. 79, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1114-z
Rüdiger, J., Tirpitz, J.-L., Maarten De Moor, J., Bobrowski, N., Gutmann, A., Liuzzo, M., Ibarra,
M., Hoffmann, T., 2018. Implementation of electrochemical, optical and denuder-based
sensors and sampling techniques on UAV for volcanic gas measurements: examples from
Masaya, Turrialba and Stromboli volcanoes. Atmos. Meas. Tech 11, 2441–2457.
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2441-2018
Sano, Y., Marty, B., 1995. Origin of carbon in fumarolic gas from island arcs. Chem. Geol. 119,
265–274.
Sato, M., McGee, K., 1981. Continuous monitoring of hydrogen on the south flank of Mount St.
Helens, in: Lipman PW, M.D. (Ed.), The 1980 Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington.
US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1250. pp. 209–219.
Shinohara, H., 2013. Composition of volcanic gases emitted during repeating Vulcanian eruption
stage of Shinmoedake, Kirishima volcano, Japan. Earth, Planets Sp. 65, 667–675.
https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2012.11.001
Shinohara, H., 2005. A new technique to estimate volcanic gas composition: plume
measurements with a portable multi-sensor system. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 143,
Shinohara, H., Ohminato, T., Takeo, M., Tsuji, H., Kazahaya, R., 2015. Monitoring of volcanic
gas composition at Asama volcano, Japan, during 2004–2014. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.
303, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOLGEORES.2015.07.022
Snyder, E.G., Watkins, T.H., Solomon, P.A., Thoma, E.D., Williams, R.W., Hagler, G.S.W.,
Shelow, D., Hindin, D.A., Kilaru, V.J., Preuss, P.W., 2013. The Changing Paradigm of Air
Pollution Monitoring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11369–11377.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es4022602
Symonds, R.B., Gerlach, T.M., Reed, M.H., 2001. Magmatic gas scrubbing: implications for
volcano monitoring. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 108, 303–341.
Werner, C., Evans, W.C., Kelly, P.J., McGimsey, R., Pfeffer, M., Doukas, M., Neal, C., 2012.
Deep magmatic degassing versus scrubbing: Elevated CO<inf>2</inf>
emissions and C/S in the lead-up to the 2009 eruption of Redoubt Volcano, Alaska.
Geochemistry, Geophys. Geosystems 13. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003794
21
Werner, C., Kern, C., Coppola, D., Lyons, J.J., Kelly, P.J., Wallace, K.L., Schneider, D.J.,
Wessels, R.L., 2017. Magmatic degassing, lava dome extrusion, and explosions from Mount
Cleveland volcano, Alaska, 2011–2015: Insight into the continuous nature of volcanic
activity over multi-year timescales. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2017.03.001
B. Participant Submitted Volatile-Related Questions

Here is a list of participant-submitted questions organized by theme that can be used to foster
breakout discussion as needed.
TECTONIC CONTROLS ON VOLATILE CYCLING & VOLCANISM:

● What factors contribute to the diversity of volcanism observed both regionally and
globally?
● How do volcanoes behave across multiple eruption cycles, and how does this reflect their
tectonic context (e.g., arc vs. rift; subduction geometry)? Is eruptive style linked in any
way to the age of the arc?
● To what extent do global-scale differences in volatile cycling drive measurable
differences in volcanic behavior (e.g., eruption style, edifice size and shape, eruption
frequency).
● How do variations in subduction zone characteristics (e.g., slab dip, composition of
subducting sediments, age of subducting plate) influence volatile-cycling and fluid/melt
phase stabilities across the subduction zone?
● What do variations in radiogenic isotopes (Pb, Sr, Nd, Hf, He, etc.) and magmatic
volatiles (CO2, H2O, S, F, Cl) in convergent and intraplate volcanoes reveal about large
to small scale processes (i.e. mantle source heterogeneity, extents of melting, crustal
assimilation, magma transportation, mixing, storage and degassing).
● How (and when and where) do volatile (and magmatic fluids) extraction/addition impact
the strength and thus tectonic evolution of a rift system?
● How does volatile reaction thermodynamics contribute to the heat budgets and other
physical properties that are important to the geodynamics of subduction backarcs?
● How do volatiles affect lithospheric thermal transport, lithospheric strength properties
and the bulk composition of the continental crust?
VOLATILE CYCLING OVER SPACE AND TIME:
Global scale
● How was volatile cycling different in the past? (warmer mantle, different subducted bulk
composition). Have volatile fluxes into and out of the solid earth changed over time?
● How can we improve estimates of volatile inputs and outputs at subduction zones in order
to provide more robust estimates of global volatile fluxes (e.g., how can we improve
22
estimates of outputs in the forearc and backarc, what returns to the mantle, and what gets
"stuck" in the crust and subcontinental lithospheric mantle)?
● To what extent are the different volatile cycles coupled, e.g., is there coupling between
the water and carbon cycles?
● How do volcanic volatile fluxes affect climate?
● What mechanisms link volatile recycling within subduction zones to the oxygen fugacity
of arc magmas?
Slab
● How much of the slab-derived fluid actually enters the mantle wedge? How much is
transported with the slab to the deep mantle?
● How do different volatile species behave during slab dehydration, and what factors can
control their behavior (e.g., evidence for pulsed fluid release from the slab)?
● What are the compositions of fluids released from subducting slabs with different thermal
regimes?
● What is the incoming volatile budget of subducting slabs?
● How will volatiles behave during the opening of an asthenospheric slab window (e.g.,
Andean Volcanic Belt)?
● How do volatiles affect metamorphic processes at various temperatures and pressures?
● Where are volatiles hosted within rocks/minerals and what impact does this have on
volatile recycling. When/where/how are different volatiles mobilized?
Mantle wedge
● How fast do fluids migrate through the mantle wedge?
● What are the mechanisms of fluid transport from the base of the mantle wedge to the
surface?
● What facilitates volatile storage in the mantle?
● Are volatile elements distributed homogeneously throughout the mantle?
● What is the fate today of upper mantle fluxed by slabs from ancient subduction zones?
Crust
● How are volatile elements and isotopes fractionated during fluid transit through the crust?
Can we identify these fractionations and correct for them?
● What is the role that volatiles play in the formation of ore deposits?
● What volatiles are efficient concentrators of economic metals and what is/are the
mechanism(s) that allows this to occur?
● How can we better constrain global volcanic trace element emissions?
● How do the volatile contents of arc magmas vary over time, especially relative to flare-up
timing?
23
Rift:
● Where and for how long are volatiles stored in the mantle and crust before being
mobilized in rift systems?
● How and where in the rift system are volatiles replenished during rifting?
VOLATILE INFLUENCE ON MAGMA PROPERTIES AND ERUPTION STYLE:

● How can we relate real-time degassing measurements to petrologic evidence of changes
in volatile flux (before, during and after eruption)?
● To what extent do volatiles influence volcanic eruption style?
● How do volatiles affect magmatic differentiation at high temperatures and high
pressures?
● What factors control inter-eruption duration?
● What are the physical and chemical effects of dissolved volatiles on magmas of varying
composition? How do those effects feed (back) into eruption dynamics? At what depths
do feedbacks between volatiles and magma rheology manifest?
● How do bubbles in magma interact with the crystal cargo? How do these interactions
affect eruptive style?
● How do variations in volatile distributions at depth manifest themselves at the surface?
What case study eruptions can be used to examine this issue?
● Why do some (but not all) mafic centers produce plinian eruptions?
● What controls transitions in eruptive style from explosive to effusive during single
eruptions?
● How does volatile content influence the residence times of crystals? How can these
timescales be related with above-ground observations?
● What techniques can be used to evaluate conduit conditions during magma ascent and
degassing?
● What is the volume fraction of exsolved volatiles in the magma reservoir? How does this
relate to eruptive potential?
● Is the exsolved volatile phase in magma storage regions sourced from volatiles brought
into the magma reservoir with volatile-rich basaltic recharge, or does it form during
crystallization and exsolution of cooling magma already in the reservoir? How can we
distinguish these eruption triggers in the petrologic record?
● How can we effectively link observations (gas, petrology) with models?
● How do volatiles influence pyroclastic flow behavior?
● How can we better link geochemistry, geophysics, and models (physics-based and/or
machine learning) to better understand processes and potentially anticipate volcanic
activity?
24
VOLATILE/FLUID CONTROLS ON AND INTERACTIONS WITH THE CRUST

● How can volatile transport at subduction zones be linked to the evolution of the
continental crust?
● How do volatiles control crustal evolution? How could this apply to other planetary
bodies (like the moon or Mars)?
● How does vapor deposition contribute to the geochemistry of rocks surrounding volcanic
vents?
● How do volatiles within a magma interact with the surrounding crust?
● To what extent can magmas scavenge volatiles from the crust that they are stored in (e.g.
CO2 from carbonates)?
● How important are volatiles for producing continental crust-like compositions?
● How does magmatic gas interact with rocks as it erupts? What reactions might you see at
the surface?
● Magmatic degassing and its contribution to the mineral surface alteration.
MULTIDISCIPLINARY METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING/TRACKING VOLATILE

MIGRATION AND STORAGE ON TECTONIC SCALES
● How can we better facilitate collaboration and discussion between geochemists and
geophysicists? What techniques are being used? What questions are open? How might
the expertise of a different field help answer them?
● How can we constrain volatile flux rates across entire trans crustal magmatic systems?
● How do faults influence the ways that water enters subduction zones?
● How can laboratory experiments be used to investigate volatile behavior at T/P extremes?
● How can we better model volatile behavior in melts? What data are needed to fill in the
gaps?
● How do you upscale observations into large, tectonic models?
● How do the fluid/melt properties vary across subduction zones? What are their
implications on mass/energy transport?
● How do fluids in subduction zones influence the construction of continental crust?
● How can volcanic rocks provide insight on the volatile contents of the mantle?
MULTIDISCIPLINARY METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING/TRACKING VOLATILE

MIGRATION AND STORAGE ON VOLCANIC SCALES
● How can we better utilize emitted volcanic gases to understand magmatic and volcanic
processes? In what ways can a stronger link between petrology, gas geochemistry,
geodesy, and modeling help? What experiments or natural systems could be leveraged
towards this goal?
● How do magma chamber processes affect volcanic outgassing (passive or active)?
● What models currently exist for magmatic degassing? How accurate are they? How could
they be improved?
25
● At depth, what transport mechanisms for volatiles are dominant under what conditions?
Does gas transport via fracture networks (brittle)? Or through porous or diffusive
processes? Are volatiles mostly carried along with magma during dike or sill injection or
separately?
● How can different types of background volcanic activity be simplified into governing
factors such that they can be modeled more simply?
● How do volcanoes behave across eruption cycles?
● What are the relationships between CO2 and H2O in upper crustal magmas based on melt
inclusions and experiments?
● What kind of petrologic, gas, and geophysical data do we need to reduce uncertainties in
our models?
● How can improved sulfur degassing models and sulfur flux estimates be leveraged in
volcanic monitoring applications?
● How can we relate volatile fluxes to magma fluxes?
● How can we reconcile volatile degassing inferred from melt inclusions, measured in
gases, and calculated thermodynamically (especially including sulfur).
● How can we obtain reliable and well-constrained estimates of primary, undegassed
magma volatile concentrations and masses?
● What experimental constraints could improve our understanding of volatiles during
magma ascent?
● What are the processes involved in the storage and transport of volatiles?
● How can we expand and utilize existing toolboxes to further explore the relationship
between volatile exchange and volcanic eruptions?
● What is the relationship between the volatile contents of crystals, melt, and volatiles?
● How can we leverage the rock record to understand volatile cycling at volcanoes?
VOLATILE, FLUID AND RESERVOIR PROPERTIES AND THEIR CHEMICAL

EVOLUTION
● What role does chemical disequilibrium play in fluid transport and storage within the
system?
● What phases are volatiles in during movement and subsequent storage?
● How might late-stage fluid alteration obfuscate original volatile signatures?
● What chemical and isotope (H, C, N, O, noble gases, etc.) fractionations and alterations
are occurring during fluid transit through the crust? Can we identify these and/or correct
for them?
● What are the frontiers of research on the chemistry, redox state, origin, transport
mechanism of volatiles?
● What is the role of gas-solid reactions on global volatile fluxes?
● What is the absolute range of volatiles (H2O, CO2, S etc) dissolved in magmas in the
lower crust?
26
● What controls the sulfur contents and sulfur isotopes in the parental arc magmas? What
are the inputs? What processes happen during subduction? And in the crust?
● Do volatiles impact the mantle in ways that we aren't thinking about yet?
● How are volatile contents and behavior affected by mass-transfer processes of magmas
(i.e., mixing, crustal assimilation, fractional crystallization)? How are these processes
registered in the chemistry of (accessory) mineral phases and melts? What are effective,
accurate ways to analyze and correlate them?
CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR

TRACKING VOLATILE/FLUID STORAGE AND MIGRATION
● What is the degree and spatial distribution/extent of partial melting in the mantle wedge?
● How do different disciplines track volatile migration on local (volcano) to regional
(subduction zone) scales?
● How can you interpret geophysical data in terms of volatile fluxes?
● Can we seismically monitor the accumulation and migration of volatiles associated with
volcanoes?
● How can we quantify the crustal deformation pre and post eruptions?
● How generally/robustly will we be able infer changes in subsurface volatile contents,
particularly with geophysical data? How can we advance our ability to make quantitative
assessments of changes in eruptive potential from this information?
● How can seismicity and gas monitoring data be leveraged together to understand fluid
movement for well monitored magmatic systems?
● What impact do volatiles have on seismic wave speeds moving through the mantle?
● What are the means we have to improve detecting a free volatile phase in the subsurface?
● How does the chemistry of fluids and hydrous minerals impact the geophysical
observations?
CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF PETROLOGIC METHODS FOR

CHARACTERIZING MAGMA STORAGE, ASCENT, AND DEGASSING
● How reliable are preserved volatile records (e.g., in melt inclusions and embayments) of
magma storage, decompression, ascent, and degassing?
● How can we truly link timescales from volatile diffusion studies to monitoring signals?
● What are the means we have to improve detecting a free volatile phase in the subsurface?
● How do we analyze volatiles in melt inclusions? What are the pitfalls? Specifically, how
to analyze and interpret FTIR spectra?
● How can we improve estimates of dissolved water content and the water saturation state
of melt?
● What petrological indicators can be developed to understand the role of exsolved
volatiles in ascent dynamics?
● Is there a maximum amount of volatiles melt inclusions can hold?
27
● Can we determine volatile contents of effusively erupted magmas that have lost
pre-eruptive volatile contents due to diffusion?
● What are novel techniques to measure volatile content? Are there alternative nominally
anhydrous mineral phases that can act as tracers?
● How are volatile compositions of primary magmas best preserved? Particularly when
dealing with relatively insoluble volatiles such as CO2 in mafic magmas.
● Can petrologic data inform our understanding of the total volatile mass of a system?
CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF VOLCANIC GAS METHODS FOR

CHARACTERIZING SUBDUCTION AND MAGMATIC/VOLCANIC PROCESSES
● How can we adequately model volcanic gas emissions from volatile solubility data? How
can we use these models to forecast eruptions in light of gas composition monitoring?
● What do gas emissions tell us about subsurface processes occurring before, during, and
after eruptions?
● What is needed to improve our ability to interpret gas data? Better models? More
measurements?
● What is the role of kinetic limitations on volatile exsolution in interpreting volcanic gas
compositions?
● What remote-sensing and in-situ techniques exist?
● How do volcanic CO2 emission cycles relate to eruptive behavior?
● How can seismicity and gas monitoring data be leveraged together to understand fluid
movement for well-monitored magmatic systems?
● Have precursory trends in trace element emissions been observed?
● How can we explain volatile input and output inconsistencies at volcanic systems?
BEST PRACTICES FOR COLLABORATION AND RESULT DISSEMINATION:

● What is the rapid response program? How does it link to the USGS, NOAA, and other
government agencies?
● How can our community share and compile data more efficiently?
● How can we develop and share more open-source computational tools to study magmatic
volatiles (e.g., VESIcal)?
● What are the best practices to follow when integrating multiple sources of volatile data?
What strengths and limitations are inherent in the different approaches?
● Is there value in revisiting older studies in light of updated models?
28
C. Poster Presentations, Authors, and Titles
DAY ONE POSTERS
Allan H Lerner Magma storage depths and excess CO2 fluids from the
explosive Keanakako'i tephra (Kilauea Volcano, Hawai'i) based
on measurements of melt and fluid inclusions
Behnaz Hosseini Intra-experimental consistency and cautionary tales in
embayment-derived magma decompression rates
Cesar Andres Bucheli-Olaya Linking volatile behavior and eruptive style in Central Andean
volcanoes: the cases of Lascar and Uturuncu
D. Skye Kushner First Estimates of Volcanic Mercury Emissions from Three
Alaska Eruptions
Emily Renee Johnson Along-arc variations in basalt volatile contents in the Cascades
Emma Burkett Open-Access Code in Composition Dependent Elemental
Diffusion Models in Plagioclase for Magmatic Pacing and
Storage Applications
Emma McCully Using volatiles to investigate the magmatic plumbing system
and petrogenesis of an off-axis seamount chain at the EPR
Heather Brianne Winslow Examining volatile solubility in crystal mushes and their impact
on mush reactivation
Imani Ashante Guest The Effect of Slab Window Volcanism in the Southern
Patagonian Back Arc
Jade Marie Bowers Volatiles and the Curacautin Ignimbrite of Llaima Volcano,
Chile
Jaime D. Barnes Cycling of fluid-mobile elements through the forearc of Costa
Rica
Jamshid Akbar Moshrefzadeh Timescales of Magmatic Processes from Diffusion
Chronometry in Pyroxenes of the 2009 Eruption of Redoubt
Justine Giovanna Grabiec Halogens in the upper continental crust: systematics from
pluton to volcano
Kathryn J Scholz The modulation of eruption size and magma chamber growth by
magmatic volatiles in mafic and silicic systems
29
Kayla Iacovino VESIcal: An open-source thermodynamic model engine for

mixed volatile (H2O-CO2) solubility in silicate melts... and
more!
Lissie Connors Understanding volatile and redox behavior of Nyiragongo and
Nyamulagira's most primitive magmas
Mario, Velazquez Whole-Rock Vs. Micro analysis of 87Sr/86Sr Aztec Wash
Pluton as a test of mush zone differentiation
Meghan R Guild Carbon in the Lithospheric Mantle of the Colorado Plateau:
Implications for the Deep Carbon Cycle
Michael Ryan Hudak Sources and fluxes of nitrogen in volcanic arcs: A fluid
inclusion perspective
Silvia Camila Castilla Montagut Magma storage conditions prior to the largest known plinian
eruption of Cerro Machin volcano, Colombia
Wang-Ping CHEN Volatiles during continental convergence
DAY TWO POSTERS
Anthony R. Lowry In-Situ Volatiles and Melts from Seismic, Isostatic, and Mineral
Physics Constraints
Peter Kelly Building Resilient, Sustainable, and Open Multi-GAS Volcanic
Gas Monitoring Networks
Chelsea Wren Neil Noble gas transport in the subsurface: volatiles as a signature of
nuclear detonation
Cynthia Ebinger Volatiles, seismicity, and rheology in extensional zones
Dennis Lee Harry Rift2Ridge: A community approach to integrative science in
extensional systems
Emilie Saucier Relating Deformation and Gas Flux using a sealed system
model at Telica Volcano, Nicaragua
Helen Janiszewski Improved Estimates of Crustal Magmatic Storage through
Seismic Receiver Functions
Joshua Allen Crozier Evolving magma temperature and volatile contents over the
30
2008-2018 eruption of Kilauea Volcano

Laura Elizabeth Clor Continuous, real-time monitoring of gas emissions by
multiGAS at Yellowstone Volcano
Lexi Kenis Sulfur Sequestration in Anhydrite Through Alteration of Calcic
Wall Rock
Marissa Rene Castillo Dynamics of Groundwater and volatile interactions
Morteza Safari An experimental technique for investigating volcanic vapor
deposits and gas-rock reaction
Nicole Kristen Benshoff (was Monitoring volcanic carbon dioxide flux by remote sensing of
Guinn) vegetation
Peter Joseph Kelly When Does Childhood End? Toward a More Mature, Resilient,
and Open Volcano Gas Community
Valerie Wasser Preliminary Model of Near-real Time Eruption Volume
Calculations at Arc-Volcanoes Using Multidisciplinary Data
Wang-Ping Chen Volatiles during continental convergence (Tentative)
Xiaotao Yang Seismic Velocity Changes below the Great Sitkin Volcano in
Central Aleutian Islands Associated with Recent Eruptive
Activities
D. List of Participants
Allan Lerner alerner@uoregon.edu
Behnaz Hosseini behnazhosseini@montana.edu
César A. Bucheli-Olaya cab767s@missouristate.edu
Chelsea Neil cwneil@lanl.gov
Cindy Ebinger cebinger@tulane.edu
Dan Rasmussen rasmussend@si.edu
Dennis Harry Dennis.Harry@colostate.edu
Diana Roman droman@carnegiescience.edu
Emilie Saucier eps5654@psu.edu
Emily Johnson erjohnson@usgs.gov
Emma Burkett emma.burkett@unh.edu
Emma McCully emmamccully@u.boisestate.edu
Gabe S Epstein epstein128@gmail.com
Heather Winslow hwinslow@nevada.unr.edu
Helen Janiszewski hajanisz@hawaii.edu
31
Ikuko Wada iwada@umn.edu

Imani Guest imani_guest@brown.edu
Jade Bowers jadebowers@u.boisestate.edu
Jaime Barnes jdbarnes@jsg.utexas.edue
Jamshid Moshrefzadeh jamoshrefzadeh@alaska.edu
Jenn Wade
Josh Crozier jcrozier@usgs.gov
Justine Grabiec jgrabiec@usc.edu
Kate Scholz scholz.kathryn@gmail.com
Kayla Iacovino kayla.iacovino@nasa.gov
Laura Clor lclor@usgs.gov
Laura Dobeck laura.dobeck@montana.edu
Lexi Kenis lkenis@unm.edu
Lissie Connors lconnors@uoregon.edu
Madison Myers madison.myers@montana.edu
Mario Velazquez mariov2@illinois.edu
Marissa Rene Castillo castillo.271@buckeyemail.osu.edu
Megan Newcombe newcombe@umd.edu
Meghan Guild meghan.guild@austin.utexas.edu
Michelle Muth muthm@si.edu
Mike Hudak michael.hudak@whoi.edu
Mike Krawczynski mikekraw@wustl.edu
Morteza Safari morteza.safari@stonybrook.edu
Nicole Guinn nkguinn@uh.edu
Peter Kelly pkelly@usgs.gov
Samer Naif snaif@eas.gatech.edu
Shuo Ding sd3210@columbia.edu
Silvia Castilla Montagut sccm1705@umd.edu
Skye Kushner dskushner@alaska.edu
Társilo Girona tarsilo.girona@alaska.edu
Taryn Lopez tmlopez@alaska.edu
Terry Plank tplank@LDEO.columbia.edu
Tobias Fischer fischer@unm.edu
Tony Lowry tony.lowry@usu.edu
Valerie Wasser vkwasser@alaska.edu
Wang-Ping Chen wpchen@Illinois.edu
Xiaotao Yang xtyang@purdue.edu
32

Volatiles Workshop Report Compressed2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volatiles Workshop Report Compressed2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Funded by NSF-MGG 2025625

Volatiles from Source to Surface:

Day 1: Early Career Session

large, community-driven programs, (ii) facilitate confidence-building and engagement among

● What are potential solutions to these challenges?

● What opportunities exist for multidisciplinary collaboration/research to address

Day 2: Main Meeting

Day 3: Mid-Workshop Field Trip to Yellowstone

Day 4: Main Meeting

Major Scientific Takeaways (Combined Breakout Sessions and Closing Brainstorming)

Major Questions from Breakout Sessions

representative of an entire magma body? How do we properly characterize a magmatic

Potential Solutions to Explore as Discussed in Breakout Sessions

Open Brainstorming Session

Engage the ore deposit community.

A. Field Trip Gas Sampling Techniques

A. Field Trip Gas Sampling Techniques

Measuring Volcanic Gas Compositions with Multi-GAS

Figure A1: Photo of discrete

Consequently, low-cost instruments

Critical advantages of multi-GAS instruments compared to other in situ measurement techniques

instruments or data processing routines; and no framework or organization exists to facilitate

Direct Sampling of Volcanic Gases: “The Giggenbach Method”

Soil CO2 flux measurements

B. Participant Submitted Volatile-Related Questions

TECTONIC CONTROLS ON VOLATILE CYCLING & VOLCANISM:

VOLATILE CYCLING OVER SPACE AND TIME:

VOLATILE INFLUENCE ON MAGMA PROPERTIES AND ERUPTION STYLE:

VOLATILE/FLUID CONTROLS ON AND INTERACTIONS WITH THE CRUST

MULTIDISCIPLINARY METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING/TRACKING VOLATILE

MULTIDISCIPLINARY METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING/TRACKING VOLATILE

VOLATILE, FLUID AND RESERVOIR PROPERTIES AND THEIR CHEMICAL

CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR

CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF PETROLOGIC METHODS FOR

CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF VOLCANIC GAS METHODS FOR

BEST PRACTICES FOR COLLABORATION AND RESULT DISSEMINATION:

C. Poster Presentations, Authors, and Titles

DAY ONE POSTERS

Kayla Iacovino VESIcal: An open-source thermodynamic model engine for

DAY TWO POSTERS

2008-2018 eruption of Kilauea Volcano

Ikuko Wada iwada@umn.edu

You might also like