Self-ignition during the explosive eruption of mud volcanoes can create flames that in some cases reach heights that exceed hundreds of meters. To study the controls on electrical discharge in natural mud, we performed laboratory experiments using a shock-tube apparatus to simulate explosive eruptions of mud. We vary the water content of the mud and proportions of fine particles. We measure electric discharge within a Faraday cage and we use a high-speed video camera to image the eruption of mud and some of the electric discharge events. We find that (a) decreasing the proportion of fine particles and (b) increasing water content each suppress the number and magnitude of electric discharge events. Experimentally observed mud volcano lightning occurs where particles exit from the vent and within the jet of erupting particles.

Key Points

Laboratory experiments show that jets of erupting mud can create electric discharge
Decreasing the proportion of fine particles and increasing water content suppress number and magnitude of electric discharge events
Electric discharge is one mechanism that may enable self-ignition of hydrocarbons during explosive mud volcano eruptions

Plain Language Summary

Vigorous mud volcano eruptions are often accompanied by large flames, which are the result of the self-ignition of natural gas blasted with the erupting mud. The mechanisms for this gas ignition are not yet understood. We study a potential self-ignition mechanism: volcanic lightning. We erupt mud in a laboratory setting and measure the conditions that promote lightning. We find that dry mud and mud with abundant fine particles create more lightning. For safety reasons, we studied mud samples with argon as the carrier gas for the eruption but expect that if a flammable gas was used, the lightning could ignite the gas.

1 Introduction

Mud breccias that erupt explosively at mud volcanoes are sometimes accompanied by flames produced by the self-ignition of methane and other hydrocarbons. Flames can reach heights up to one km (Planke et al., 2003), though are most often 60–100 m high (Bagirov et al., 1996). While most of these flaming eruptions are short-lived (Judd, 2005), once ignited, methane seeps can burn for millennia (e.g., Etiope et al., 2004) and in some cases burn hot enough and long enough to melt rock (Grapes et al., 2013) causing pyrometamorphism (Sokol et al., 2008). The spectacular flames garner widespread media attention and speculation about the reasons for the self-ignition. Sparks, other electric discharge, or spontaneous combustion are possible processes.

Self-ignition has long been attributed to collisions between rock fragments. Arnold and MacReady (1956) wrote that “sparks were probably formed by the striking together of some of the rocks, and the petroleum gas thus ignited” and Snead (1964) wrote that in “violent eruptions enough friction is exerted between rock fragments to ignite methane gas escaping with the liquid mud.” Electric discharge from erupting solids is, in fact, well documented. Volcanic lightning has been reported at least since Pliny's account of the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius. It accompanies nearly all styles of explosive eruption (e.g., Cimarelli & Genareau, 2022), from the small eruptions at Stromboli, Italy (Vossen et al., 2022) to almost 600,000 detected lightning strikes during the 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption that reached a height of >50 km. Electrical activity can occur both near the vent and in the plume, with the former promoted by high velocities and the latter by high volume fluxes (Smith et al., 2021). Jetting of fine ash is thought to be key for charging (McNutt & Thomas, 2015).

Not all mud eruptions self-ignite. Only “the most vigorous of such outbursts uproot trees, ignite methane” (Kopf, 2003). The Shikhzarli mud volcano, Azerbaijan, has flames in 74% of its eruptions (Kokh et al., 2017). Lokbatan, Azerbaijan, has a number of well documented explosive eruptions. The 5 January 1887 eruption produced a flame that reached a height greater than 600 m (Dimitrov, 2002). An example flaming eruption from Lokbatan on 20 September 2012 is shown in Figure 1 (Mazzini et al., 2021). Lokbatan erupted on 11 August 2022, with conflicting reports about whether the eruption was accompanied by flames. Investigations of the parameters which govern ignition can yield insights into eruption initiation and dynamics. Here, we study here the influence of grain size distribution and mud humidity (e.g., Springsklee, Scheu, et al., 2022; Stern et al., 2019) on electrical discharge in erupting mud.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Mud eruption of Lokbatan, Azerbaijan on 20 September 2012. Two vents are active at this time. The flame in the foreground may have been ignited by flames at the vent in the background (adapted from Mazzini et al. (2021)). Scale is obtained by triangulating the known vent locations and estimated location of the video recording.

Explosive eruptions are generally attributed to sealing of the vent between eruptions so that large overpressures are needed to initiate eruptions and unblock feeder channels and vents (Dimitrov, 2002; Mazzini & Etiope, 2017). Bagirov et al. (1996) compiled statistics of mud eruptions in Azerbaijan and found that gas self-ignites in 42% of eruptions. In a global assessment, Judd (2005) found that 30% of methane emitted at mud volcanoes ignites to produce flames. While explosive mud eruptions accompanied by flames are most abundantly documented in Azerbaijan, examples have been reported in Trinidad (Anderson, 1911), New Zealand (Ridd, 1970), and Pakistan (Snead, 1964). Self-igniting gas explosions from permafrost have also been documented (e.g., Bogoyavlensky et al., 2022) and may share processes in common with mud volcanoes.

Here we use laboratory shock-tube experiments to study the conditions that lead to electrical discharge events in explosively ejected mud. In these experiments, mud held in an autoclave is subjected to a rapid decrease in pressure and it erupts through a vent to form an expanding jet. This simulates the brecciation of the seal that confines overpressured sediments (Mazzini et al., 2021). The jet is imaged with a high-speed video camera, and electric discharge is measured with a Faraday cage. Similar experiments have been used to simulate volcanic lightning to understand how properties of the erupted materials and environmental variables control electrical activity (Cimarelli et al., 2014; Gaudin & Cimarelli, 2019; Stern et al., 2019). For the case of mud, we first document that electrical discharge can occur. We then assess how particle size and water content affect electrical activity.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Samples

Mud was collected from the Davis-Schrimpf hydrothermal field in the Imperial Valley, California, USA. The mud extrudes from gryphons (cone-shaped vents) 1–2 m in height. Bubbles that burst in the vents or pools of mud can also eject spatter. This mud is composed of 41% quartz, 27% clay minerals (illite, montmorillonite and kaolinite), 24% feldspar, and 9% carbonates (Tran et al., 2015). Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1 shows the particle size distribution measured with a Bettersizer S3 Plus laser particle size analyzer. The sub-10-micron fraction comprises 30.7 vol% of the mud.

For the experiments in which the mud is not fully saturated with water, the mud was initially dried and then hydrated in an environmental chamber at controlled humidity and temperature. In the process of drying, the mud became consolidated and was thus mechanically disaggregated with a vibratory disc mill prior to use in experiments, leading to an increase in the volume fraction of fine particles (<10 microns) (Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1) from 30.7 to 41.7 vol%. The proportion of fines is a crucial parameter in the number and intensity of discharges in experiments (Cimarelli et al., 2014; Gaudin & Cimarelli, 2019; Stern et al., 2019) and modeling based on these experiments (Rayborn & Jellinek, 2022).

The mineralogy and particle size distribution of the mud from the Davis-Schrimpf vents are similar to those of other mud volcanoes (Tran et al., 2015) which generally tend to erupt sediment deposited in deltaic and lacustrian settings. More deeply rooted mud volcanoes may have a greater proportion of illite among the clay minerals. The Davis-Schrimpf vents cannot ignite because the gas driving their eruptions (CO₂) is not flammable and there is no record of violent eruptions (Mazzini et al., 2011; Svensen et al., 2009).

To evaluate the potential role of particle size, we performed three additional experiments in which we added 0.17 mm diameter quartz sand. The grain size distribution of this sand is provided in Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1.

2.2 Experimental Facility

The experimental apparatus is shown in Figure 2 and is adapted from the system used in previous studies (Alidibirov & Dingwell, 1996; Cimarelli et al., 2014; Gaudin & Cimarelli, 2019; Stern et al., 2019). Samples were placed in a cylindrical steel autoclave, with sample chamber dimensions of 26 mm in diameter and 160 mm in length; the entire autoclave was electrically grounded. The autoclave was completely filled in all experiments. At this constant volume, variable densities of the mud + sand + water mixtures resulted in differing sample masses.

The samples were pressurized with argon gas to 10.2 ± 0.1 MPa. The sample was then subjected to a rapid decompression by the controlled disruption of iron rupture diaphragms that sit between the autoclave and the capture tank. Upon diaphragm rupture, the sample was free to expand as a gas-particle jet into the capture tank which was instrumented to record optically the expanding jet as well as flashes of light from electrical discharges using a V711 Phantom high-speed video camera. The entire capture tank was electrically insulated and served as a Faraday cage such that changes in charge over the course of the experiment could be recorded and quantified (Stern et al., 2019).

The frame rate of the camera was set to 15,000 frames/s. The video camera was employed in three different modes. The shutter was left open for either 4 µs (6% of the time between individual frames), 10 µs (Experiment 382—completely water-saturated mud), or 66.66 µs (continuous mode). In the first case, the images captured sharply the ejection of mud fragments, sand particles, as well as the dynamics of the gas phase. However, the probability of capturing visible electrical discharges was greatly reduced as the shutter remained closed for 94% of the experiment. In the third case, all electrical discharges visible in the field of view of the camera were captured at a high focal depth but the long exposure times did not allow us to capture the motion of the initially rapidly expanding jet thus causing trails and streaks from the gas phase and particles and resulting in more blurred images. Owing to the high concentration of particles, only electrical discharge events near the outside of the jet and where the jet emerges from the vent were visible to the camera.

3 Results

Figure 3 shows the evolution of electric current and charge with time over the course of an experiment with mud containing 2.92 wt% water (Experiment 378). Equivalent times series for all the experiments are plotted in Figure S2 in Supporting Information S1.

Following the rupture of the diaphragm, pressure in the autoclave drops (Figure 3a). Synchronized acquisition of pressure, electrical discharges, and video recording is triggered as soon as the pressure in the autoclave drops below 6.5 MPa (falling edge trigger) and represents time = 0 in the raw data (shifted by 1 ms in the processed data to include potential discharges from the very beginning of decompression). A pre-trigger (∼30%) ensures that we capture the decompression event in its entity. The decompression of the sample accelerates the mud upwards through the vent and into the capture tank, creating an expanding jet of gas and particles. Figure 3b shows the raw electrical current recorded by the Faraday cage. Each peak combined with an exponential decay identifies an electrical discharge event. The charging of the detector decays approximately exponentially with time. By fitting an exponential decay model to each event, it is possible to deconvolve the instrument response from the raw data in order to detect and count individual events and compute their magnitudes (Gaudin & Cimarelli, 2019).

Discharge events begin with the arrival of particles at the vent. Most, but not all, events generate a negative charge (Figure 3 and Figure S2 in Supporting Information S1). During the process of triboelectrification, large particles tend to be positively charged while small particles tend to acquire a negative charge (Forward et al., 2009; Lacks & Levandovsky, 2007; Lee et al., 2015). In our experiments, the discharges are positive as well as negative.

Table 1 summarizes for all 13 successful experiments the properties of sample used, the number and magnitude of discharge events, the total charge neutralized during each experiment and the detectable particle front velocity, observable by increased obscuration within the jet.

Table 1. Summary of Experiments

EXP	Material	Water [wt%]	Sand [wt%]	Total mass [g]	Autoclave pressure [MPa]	Positive discharges 0–5 ms [nC]	Negative discharges 0–5 ms [nC]	Number of positive discharges 0–5 ms	Number of negative discharges 0–5 ms	Particle front velocity [m/s]
377	Mud	0.00	0.0	72.97	10.08	855.6	−1068.0	178	246	291.1 ± 7.8
378	Mud	2.92	0.0	70.01	10.16	5.5	−400.2	1	28	304.4 ± 15.1
379	Mud + Sand	0.00	10.0	60.34	10.15	397.0	−621.6	56	152	397.3 ± 14.2
380	Mud + Sand	0.00	90.0	113.86	10.46	13.2	−100.4	6	22	292.6 ± 13.8
382	Mud	31.12	0.0	76.01	10.20	0.0	0.0	0	0	367.6 ± 2.9
383	Mud	5.06	0.0	62.03	10.23	0.0	−5.8	0	3	285.1 ± 5.1
385	Mud	0.00	0.0	78.95	10.30	226.5	−729.1	58	155	178.1 ± 44.1
386	Mud	0.00	0.0	60.77	10.14	75.8	−576.4	19	104	212.5 ± 14.7
387	Mud + Sand	0.00	50.0	82.93	10.20	24.4	−188.2	12	47	166.9 ± 8.0
388	Mud	0.62	0.0	57.01	10.30	38.1	−553.2	11	61	208.0 ± 39.1
389	Mud	0.62	0.0	57.60	10.11	4.3	−623.8	2	68	282.6 ± 19.8
390	Mud	3.49	0.0	47.03	10.35	0.0	−101.5	0	14	-
391	Mud	3.49	0.0	49.44	10.26	0.0	−96.9	0	11	286.2 ± 3.5

Note. For Experiment 390, no particle front velocity was measured because the video recording was not triggered.

Figure 4a shows the number of detected discharge events and Figure 4c shows the total charge accumulation, as a function of water content. Also shown for dry samples are the effects of adding sand (Figures 4b and 4d). The dry mud (without sand added) exhibits the greatest charging and the highest number of events (with a measurable variability in both parameters being observed in repeat experiments). The observations of the high-speed video reveal discharges within the upper part of the jet (Figure S3 in Supporting Information S1).

When sand or water has been added to the mud, both the number of discharge events and the total charging decrease. The addition of 2.9 wt% of water yielded a decrease of 93% of both the number of discharges observed, and the magnitude of the largest discharge event recorded. The addition of 5.1 wt% of water decreases the number of discharges observed by > 99%. A fully water-saturated mud experiment (31.1 wt% of water) produced no observed discharge events.

4 Discussion

Our experiments document that dry mud particles can become electrically charged and induce discharges during explosive mud volcano eruptions. Increasing water content of the mud, and decreasing fine fraction of mud particles by adding sand, both yield decreases in the number and magnitude of observed electrical discharge events.

The first stage in creating electric discharge is to charge particles. There are several particle charging mechanisms in natural particle-laden jets, and quantifying these processes remains the subject of active research (Arason et al., 2011; Björnsson et al., 1967; Cimarelli et al., 2014; James et al., 2000; Méndez Harper et al., 2021; Nicoll et al., 2019; Prata et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2010; Van Eaton et al., 2020). Ion transfer between colliding particles, triboelectrification, is generally thought to be the dominant process in thunderstorms (Mather & Harrison, 2006) and volcanic plumes (Cimarelli et al., 2014; Méndez Harper & Dufek, 2016). Fracto-electrification, in contrast, generated by fracturing particles (e.g., James et al., 2000) is likely insignificant in our experiments as we do not observe or expect significant fragmentation in these experiments since the particles are already very small and mostly non-porous (sand), and both of these particle attributes suppress further fragmentation during rapid gas expansion and/or particle collisions.

Prior to electrostatic discharging, charged particles need to be separated and surrounded by an electrically insulating medium to prevent charge transfer. In our experiments gas is the low-conductivity medium. The turbulence in jets and plumes, and the differential velocity of particles of different sizes, enable the charge separation (Cimarelli et al., 2014; Gaudin & Cimarelli, 2019). In more detail, the dynamics of particles depends on whether their motion is well-coupled to the surrounding fluid. The inertial response time $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0001$ of particles with diameter d and density $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0002$ in a fluid with density $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0003$ and viscosity $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0004$ is $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0005$ ; the time characterizing eddy circulation is $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0006$ , with $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0007$ and $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0008$ the vent radius and initial jet velocity, respectively (Jessop and Jellinek, 2014). The ratio of these time scales is the Stokes Number, $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0009$ . With our chosen definitions, $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0010$ kg/m³ (Tran et al., 2015), measured $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0011$ m/s (±61 m/s), and $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0012$ cm, then St < 1 for d < 10 microns and hence our fine particles will circulate in eddies. While details of particle-gas coupling depend on particle shape and drag coefficient, St is of order unity or less for particles smaller than 10 $urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl65210:grl65210-math-0013$ m (Figure S4 in Supporting Information S1).

In analogous experiments with volcanic ash it has also been observed that the number of discharge events increases with the fine fraction of volcanic ash (Gaudin & Cimarelli, 2019). The magnitude of individual discharge events in erupting volcanic ash is approximately linearly proportional to the erupted mass and the initial overpressure (Gaudin & Cimarelli, 2019). Thus, larger and more explosive eruptions will produce larger electrical discharges, and presumably this will increase the probability of ignition in the presence of methane or other flammable hydrocarbons. We note that natural muds and source rocks for mud breccia eruptions contain abundant fine particles (Dimitrov, 2002).

Our experiments show that even small amounts of water can suppress electric discharge. This may seem counterintuitive considering the common occurrence of lightning in clouds where ice particles and liquid water droplets are the charge carriers, but liquid water on particles can also enhance rapid charge leakage (Lorenz, 2018) and reduce charge accumulation (Méndez Harper et al., 2020). Wet volcanic eruptions also produce abundant volcanic lightning, such as the recent 2016–2017 Bogoslof, Alaska eruption (Van Eaton et al., 2020) and the 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption. Lightning in the plumes of these large, wet explosive volcanic eruptions may be enabled by the formation of ice above the atmospheric freezing level and hence electrification through mechanisms that operate in thunderstorms (Van Eaton et al., 2020). In fact, controlled laboratory experiments of volcanic particle jets reveal that as relative humidity and water content increase, the electrification of volcanic ash decreases (Méndez Harper et al., 2020). A mere 1.8 wt% water in volcanic ash has been observed to significantly decrease electrical discharge (Stern et al., 2019), quantitatively similar to our present findings with natural mud.

There are some limitations to generalizing from our experimental results. First, for safety reasons, we employed argon rather than methane as the compressing gas phase. Thus, in the absence of flammable gases we could not assess whether the electrical discharge events actually generate ignition and combustion of the gas. Further, gas composition and pressure both affect the minimum breakdown distance for electric discharge and therefore our results are not quantitatively applicable to discharges within a methane-dominated jet. Hackam (1969) compares the electrical breakdown for gases including N₂, CH₄, and CO₂ and emphasizes the significance of the gas composition for electric discharge. The role of gas properties is also the subject of ongoing research into electrical discharge in extraterrestrial atmospheres, for example, for brown dwarfs (Helling et al., 2013). Second, we have not yet systematically investigated the role of mineralogy on this phenomenon. Finally, we have not explored the effects of overpressure that initiates the eruption. The value of 10 MPa was chosen as it is similar to the tensile strength of rocks, though even larger overpressures may develop in the source region of mud volcanoes at depths of a few kilometers (e.g., Blouin, Imbert, et al., 2019; Blouin, Sultan, et al., 2019). Complete conversion of the experimental overpressure ∆P into kinetic energy and then gravitational potential energy would lead to eruption heights of ∆P/ρg where ρ is mud density and g is gravitational acceleration. This estimate neglects frictional losses and drag during eruption which would reduce height, but also acceleration of particles from gas expansion that increases height. If ∆P = 10 MPa, the ejection height would be 0.6 km for a bulk mud density of 1,600 kg/m³ (Tran et al., 2015); the mean ejection speed of 262 m/s in our experiments leads to ballistic heights of 3.5 km; these estimates are similar to heights of a few kilometers reported in large explosive mud volcano eruptions (Dimitrov, 2003).

5 Conclusions

Explosive eruption of dry mud creates electrical discharge events, and thus may be one mechanism to self-ignite methane in erupting mud. The conditions that promote electrification include the presence of fine particles and a limited amount of water. Although the mud and mud breccias that erupt during sustained eruptions generally have higher water contents that may dampen the propensity toward ignition, it may be an initial explosive venting through dry ground which provides the window of opportunity for self-ignition and initiation of prolonged flames.

Acknowledgments

B.S. and C.S. gratefully acknowledge financial support the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the TRR 235 Emergence of Life (Project-ID 364653263). D.B.D. was supported by 2018 ERC ADV Grant 834255 (EAVESDROP). CC was supported by DFG grant CI 254/2-1 and ERC CON Grant 864052 (VOLTA). M. M. is supported by the Humboldt foundation, CIFAR Earth 4D, and NSF 2042173. Special thanks go to the technical staff of the LMU workshop, especially Markus Sieber.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data of the performed experiments is online at the GFZ Data Services (Springsklee, Manga, et al., 2022). The obtained data was analyzed using the Pandas Data Analysis Library (McKinney, 2010; Reback et al., 2022) and visualized using the Matplotlib Library (Caswell et al., 2021; Hunter, 2007).

Supporting Information

References

Alidibirov, M., & Dingwell, D. B. (1996). An experimental facility for the investigation of magma fragmentation by rapid decompression. Bulletin of Volcanology, 58(5), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004450050149
10.1007/s004450050149
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Anderson, R. (1911). A new gas volcano in Trinidad. Science, 34(885), 834–835. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.34.885.834
10.1126/science.34.885.834
CASADSPubMedGoogle Scholar
Arason, P., Bennett, A. J., & Burgin, L. E. (2011). Charge mechanism of volcanic lightning revealed during the 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, B00C03. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008651
10.1029/2011JB008651
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Arnold, R., & MacReady, G. A. (1956). Island-forming mud volcano in Trinidad, British West Indies. AAPG Bulletin, 40, 2748–2758. https://doi.org/10.1306/5CEAE5E0-16BB-11D7-8645000102C1865D
10.1306/5CEAE5E0-16BB-11D7-8645000102C1865D
Google Scholar
Bagirov, E., Nadirov, R., & Lerche, I. (1996). Flaming eruptions and ejections from mud volcanoes in Azerbaijan: Statistical risk assessment from the historical records. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 14(6), 535–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/014459879601400603
10.1177/014459879601400603
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Björnsson, S., Blanchard, D. C., & Spencer, A. T. (1967). Charge generation due to contact of saline waters with molten lava. Journal of Geophysical Research, 72(4), 1311–1323. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ072i004p01311
10.1029/JZ072i004p01311
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Blouin, A., Imbert, P., Sultan, N., & Callot, J.-P. (2019). Evolution model for the Absheron mud volcano: From in situ observations to numerical modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 124(3), 766–794. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JF004872
10.1029/2018JF004872
ADSGoogle Scholar
Blouin, A., Sultan, N., Callot, J.-P., & Imbert, P. (2019). Sediment damage caused by gas exsolution: A key mechanism for mud volcano formation. Engineering Geology, 263, 105313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105313
10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105313
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bogoyavlensky, V., Bogoyavlensky, I., Nikonov, R., Sizov, O., Kishankov, A., & Kargina, T. (2022). Seyakha catastrophic blowout and explosion of gas from the permafrost in the Arctic, Yamal Peninsula. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 196, 103507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2022.103507
10.1016/j.coldregions.2022.103507
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Caswell, T. A., Droettboom, M., Lee, A., de Sales Andrade, E., Hoffmann, T., Hunter, J., et al. (2021). matplotlib/matplotlib: REL: v3.5.1. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5773480
Google Scholar
Cimarelli, C., Alatorre-Ibargüengoitia, M. A., Kueppers, U., Scheu, B., & Dingwell, D. B. (2014). Experimental generation of volcanic lightning. Geology, 42(1), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1130/G34802.1
10.1130/G34802.1
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Cimarelli, C., & Genareau, K. (2022). A review of volcanic electrification of the atmosphere and volcanic lightning. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 422, 107449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2021.107449
10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2021.107449
CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Dimitrov, L. I. (2002). Mud volcanoes—The most important pathway for degassing deeply buried sediments. Earth-Science Reviews, 59(1–4), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00069-7
10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00069-7
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Dimitrov, L. I. (2003). Mud volcanoes—A significant source of atmospheric methane. Geo-Marine Letters, 23(3–4), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-003-0140-3
10.1007/s00367-003-0140-3
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Etiope, G., Feyzullayev, A., Baciu, C., & Milkov, A. (2004). Methane emission from mud volcanoes in eastern Azerbaijan. Geology, 32(6), 465–468. https://doi.org/10.1130/G20320.1
10.1130/G20320.1
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Forward, K. M., Lacks, D. J., & Sankaran, R. M. (2009). Charge segregation depends on particle size in triboelectrically charged granular materials. Physical Review Letters, 102(2), 028001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.028001
10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.028001
CASADSPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gaudin, D., & Cimarelli, C. (2019). The electrification of volcanic jets and controlling parameters: A laboratory study. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 513, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.02.024
10.1016/j.epsl.2019.02.024
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Grapes, R., Sokol, E., Kokh, S., Kozmenko, O., & Fishman, I. (2013). Petrogenesis of Na-rich paralava formed by methane flares associated with mud volcanism, Altyn-Emel National Park, Kazakhstan. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 165(4), 781–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-012-0835-4
10.1007/s00410-012-0835-4
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hackam, R. (1969). Total secondary ionization coefficients and breakdown potentials of hydrogen, methane, ethylene, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide between mild steel coaxial cylinders. Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics, 2, 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/2/2/309
10.1088/0022-3700/2/2/309
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Helling, C., Jardine, M., Stark, C., & Diver, D. (2013). Ionization in atmospheres of brown dwarfs and extrasolar planets. III. Breakdown conditions for mineral clouds. The Astrophysical Journal, 767(2), 136. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/136
10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/136
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
James, M. R., Lane, S. J., & Gilbert, J. S. (2000). Volcanic plume electrification: Experimental investigation of a fracture-charging mechanism. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(B7), 16641–16649. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JB900068
10.1029/2000JB900068
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Jessop, D. E., & Jellinek, A. M. (2014). Effects of particle mixtures and nozzle geometry on entrainment into volcanic jets. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(11), 3858–3863. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060059
10.1002/2014GL060059
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Judd, A. (2005). Gas emissions from mud volcanoes. In G. Martinelli & B. Panahi (Eds.), Mud volcanoes, geodynamics and seismicity (pp. 147–157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3204-8_13
10.1007/1-4020-3204-8_13
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Kokh, S. N., Sokol, E. V., Dekterev, A. A., Kokh, K. A., Rashidov, T. M., Tomilenko, A. A., et al. (2017). The 2011 strong fire eruption of Shikhzarli mud volcano, Azerbaijan: A case study with implications for methane flux estimation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7043-5
10.1007/s12665-017-7043-5
CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kopf, A. J. (2003). Global methane emission through mud volcanoes and its past and present impact on the Earth's climate. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 92(5), 806–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-003-0341-z
10.1007/s00531-003-0341-z
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Lacks, D. J., & Levandovsky, A. (2007). Effect of particle size distribution on the polarity of triboelectric charging in granular insulator systems. Journal of Electrostatics, 65(2), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2006.07.010
10.1016/j.elstat.2006.07.010
CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Lee, V., Waitukaitis, S. R., Miskin, M. Z., & Jaeger, H. M. (2015). Direct observation of particle interactions and clustering in charged granular streams. Nature Physics, 11(9), 733–737. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3396
10.1038/nphys3396
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Lorenz, R. D. (2018). Lightning detection on Venus: A critical review. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 5, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-018-0181-x
10.1186/s40645-018-0181-x
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Mather, T. A., & Harrison, R. G. (2006). Electrification of volcanic plumes. Surveys in Geophysics, 27(4), 387–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-006-9007-2
10.1007/s10712-006-9007-2
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mazzini, A., Akhmanov, G., Manga, M., Sciarra, A., Huseynova, A., Huseynov, A., & Guliyev, I. (2021). Explosive mud volcano eruptions and rafting of mud breccia blocks. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 555, 116699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116699
10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116699
CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mazzini, A., & Etiope, G. (2017). Mud volcanism: An updated review. Earth-Science Reviews, 168, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.03.001
10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.03.001
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mazzini, A., Svensen, H., Etiope, G., Onderdonk, N., & Banks, D. (2011). Fluid origin, gas fluxes and plumbing system in the sediment-hosted Salton Sea Geothermal System (California, USA). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 205(3–4), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2011.05.008
10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2011.05.008
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
McKinney, W. (2010). Data structures for statistical computing in python. In S. Walt & J. Millman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (pp. 56–61). https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a
10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a
Google Scholar
McNutt, S. R., & Thomas, R. J. (2015). Chapter 62 - Volcanic lightning. In H. Sigurdsson (Ed.), The encyclopedia of volcanoes ( 2nd ed., pp. 1059–1067). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00062-6
10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00062-6
Google Scholar
Méndez Harper, J., Cimarelli, C., Cigala, V., Kueppers, U., & Dufek, J. (2021). Charge injection into the atmosphere by explosive volcanic eruptions through triboelectrification and fragmentation charging. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 574, 117162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117162
10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117162
CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Méndez Harper, J., Courtland, L., Dufek, J., & McAdams, J. (2020). Microphysical effects of water content and temperature on the triboelectrification of volcanic ash on long time scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(14), e2019JD031498. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031498
10.1029/2019JD031498
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Méndez Harper, J., & Dufek, J. (2016). The effects of dynamics on the triboelectrification of volcanic ash. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 121(14), 8209–8228. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024275
10.1002/2015JD024275
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Nicoll, K., Airey, M., Cimarelli, C., Bennett, A., Harrison, G., Gaudin, D., et al. (2019). First in situ observations of gaseous volcanic plume electrification. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(6), 3532–3539. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082211
10.1029/2019GL082211
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Planke, S., Svensen, H., Hovland, M., Banks, D., & Jamtveit, B. (2003). Mud and fluid migration in active mud volcanoes in Azerbaijan. Geo-Marine Letters, 23(3–4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-003-0152-z
10.1007/s00367-003-0152-z
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Prata, A. T., Folch, A., Prata, A. J., Biondi, R., Brenot, H., Cimarelli, C., et al. (2020). Anak Krakatau triggers volcanic freezer in the upper troposphere. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 3584. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60465-w
10.1038/s41598-020-60465-w
CASADSPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Rayborn, L., & Jellinek, A. M. (2022). Random forest predictions of fine ash concentration and charging processes from experimentally generated volcanic discharges. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(5), e2021JB023599. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB023599
10.1029/2021JB023599
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Reback, J., jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., Van den Bossche, J., Augspurger, T., Roeschke, M., et al. (2022). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, 1.4.2. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6408044
Google Scholar
Ridd, M. F. (1970). Mud volcanoes in New Zealand. AAPG Bulletin, 54, 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1306/5D25CA19-16C1-11D7-8645000102C1865D
10.1306/5D25CA19-16C1-11D7-8645000102C1865D
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Smith, C. M., Gaudin, D., Van Eaton, A. R., Behnke, S. A., Reader, S., Thomas, R. J., et al. (2021). Impulsive volcanic plumes generate volcanic lightning and vent discharges: A statistical analysis of Sakurajima volcano in 2015. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(11), e2020GL092323. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092323
10.1029/2020GL092323
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Snead, R. E. (1964). Active mud volcanoes of Baluchistan, West Pakistan. Geographical Review, 54(4), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/212981
10.2307/212981
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Sokol, E. V., Novikov, I. S., Zateeva, S. N., Sharygin, V. V., & Vapnik, Y. (2008). Pyrometamorphic rocks of the spurrite-merwinite facies as indicators of hydrocarbon discharge zones (the Hatrurim Formation, Israel). Doklady Earth Sciences, 420(1), 608–614. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X08040181
10.1134/S1028334X08040181
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Springsklee, C., Manga, M., Scheu, B., Cimarelli, C., & Dingwell, D. B. (2022). Experimental insights on electric discharges as a potential mechanism for self-ignition of mud volcanoes. GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/fidgeo.2022.026
10.5880/fidgeo.2022.026
Google Scholar
Springsklee, C., Scheu, B., Manga, M., Cigala, V., Cimarelli, C., & Dingwell, D. B. (2022). The influence of grain size distribution on laboratory-generated volcanic lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(10), e2022JB024390. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB024390
10.1029/2022JB024390
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Stern, S., Cimarelli, C., Gaudin, D., Scheu, B., & Dingwell, D. B. (2019). Electrification of experimental volcanic jets with varying water content and temperature. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(20), 11136–11145. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL084678
10.1029/2019GL084678
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Svensen, H., Hammer, Ø., Mazzini, A., Onderdonk, N., Polteau, S., Planke, S., & Podladchikov, Y. Y. (2009). Dynamics of hydrothermal seeps from the Salton Sea geothermal system (California, USA) constrained by temperature monitoring and time series analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(B9), B09201. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB006247
10.1029/2008JB006247
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Thomas, R. J., McNutt, S. R., Krehbiel, P. R., Rison, W., Aulich, G., Edens, H. E., et al. (2010). Lightning and electrical activity during the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, chapter 25. In J. A. Power, M. L. Coombs, & J. T. Freymueller (Eds.), The 2006 Eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska, (Vol. 1769, pp. 579–608). US Geological Survey Professional Paper. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1769/chapters/p1769_chapter25.pdf
Google Scholar
Tran, A., Rudolph, M. L., & Manga, M. (2015). Bubble mobility in mud and magmatic volcanoes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 294, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.02.004
10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.02.004
CASADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Van Eaton, A. R., Schneider, D. J., Smith, C. M., Haney, M. M., Lyons, J. J., Said, R., et al. (2020). Did ice-charging generate volcanic lightning during the 2016–2017 eruption of Bogoslof Volcano, Alaska? Bulletin of Volcanology, 82(3), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-019-1350-5
10.1007/s00445-019-1350-5
ADSWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Vossen, C. E. J., Cimarelli, C., Bennett, A. J., Schmid, M., Kueppers, U., Ricci, T., & Taddeucci, J. (2022). The electrical signature of mafic explosive eruptions at Stromboli volcano, Italy. Scientific Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12906-x
10.1038/s41598-022-12906-x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume49, Issue23

16 December 2022

e2022GL100852

Filename	Description
2022GL100852-sup-0001-Supporting Information SI-S01.pdf347.6 KB	Supporting Information S1
2022GL100852-sup-0002-Movie SI-S01.mp45.5 MB	Movie S1

Electric Discharge in Erupting Mud

Abstract

Key Points

Plain Language Summary

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Samples

2.2 Experimental Facility

3 Results

4 Discussion

5 Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Information

RESOURCES

PUBLICATION INFO

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Electric Discharge in Erupting Mud

Abstract

Key Points

Plain Language Summary

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Samples

2.2 Experimental Facility

3 Results

4 Discussion

5 Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Related

Information

RESOURCES

PUBLICATION INFO