ArticleGeochemical transactions2014
Multiple sulfur isotopes fractionations associated with abiotic sulfur transformations in Yellowstone National Park geothermal springs.
Article in Geochemical transactions, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiological and genomic evidence of cysteine degradation and aerobic hydrogen sulfide production in freshwater bacteria.mSystems · 2023Article
- Review
- A review of the mechanisms of mineral-based metabolism in early Earth analog rock-hosted hydrothermal ecosystems.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2019Review
- Origin of Life's Building Blocks in Carbon- and Nitrogen-Rich Surface Hydrothermal Vents.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Elemental Sulfur Formation byFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- Sulfidic Anion Concentrations on Early Earth for Surficial Origins-of-Life Chemistry.Astrobiology · 2018Article
- Impact of Aeolian Dry Deposition of Reactive Iron Minerals on Sulfur Cycling in Sediments of the Gulf of Aqaba.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe paper presents a quantification of main (hydrogen sulfide and sulfate), as well as of intermediate sulfur species (zero-valent sulfur (ZVS), thiosulfate, sulfite, thiocyanate) in the Yellowstone National Park (YNP) hydrothermal springs and pools. We combined these measurements with the measurements of quadruple sulfur isotope composition of sulfate, hydrogen sulfide and zero-valent sulfur. The main goal of this research is to understand multiple sulfur isotope fractionation in the system, which is dominated by complex, mostly abiotic, sulfur cycling.
resultsWater samples from six springs and pools in the Yellowstone National Park were characterized by pH, chloride to sulfate ratios, sulfide and intermediate sulfur species concentrations. Concentrations of sulfate in pools indicate either oxidation of sulfide by mixing of deep parent water with shallow oxic water, or surface oxidation of sulfide with atmospheric oxygen. Thiosulfate concentrations are low (<6 μmol L(-1)) in the pools with low pH due to fast disproportionation of thiosulfate. In the pools with higher pH, the concentration of thiosulfate varies, depending on different geochemical pathways of thiosulfate formation. The δ(34)S values of sulfate in four systems were close to those calculated using a mixing line of the model based on dilution and boiling of a deep hot parent water body. In two pools δ(34)S values of sulfate varied significantly from the values calculated from this model. Sulfur isotope fractionation between ZVS and hydrogen sulfide was close to zero at pH < 4. At higher pH zero-valent sulfur is slightly heavier than hydrogen sulfide due to equilibration in the rhombic sulfur-polysulfide - hydrogen sulfide system. Triple sulfur isotope ((32)S, (33)S, (34)S) fractionation patterns in waters of hydrothermal pools are more consistent with redox processes involving intermediate sulfur species than with bacterial sulfate reduction. Small but resolved differences in ∆(33)S among species and between pools are observed.
conclusionsThe variation of sulfate isotopic composition, the origin of differences in isotopic composition of sulfide and zero-valent sulfur, as well as differences in ∆(33)S of sulfide and sulfate are likely due to a complex network of abiotic redox reactions, including disproportionation pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.