Relevance: primary · Type: event
Confidence100%
The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted in January 2022.
Relevance: primary · Type: event
Confidence100%
The January 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai volcano launched a plume of ash, gas, and seawater 55 kilometers into the atmosphere.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption occurred 150 meters below sea level.
Relevance: supporting · Type: event
Confidence100%
The eruption lofted more than a hundred million metric tons of salty water into the atmosphere.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence90%
Researchers estimate the eruption produced approximately 300,000 to 330,000 tons of methane.
Relevance: primary · Type: event
Confidence100%
Chlorine-driven chemical reactions after the eruption destroyed roughly 900 tons of methane per day.
Relevance: primary · Type: event
Confidence100%
Formaldehyde was detected in the volcanic plume for several days despite normally breaking down within hours.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Formaldehyde is not emitted by volcanoes but forms as methane degrades in the atmosphere.
Relevance: primary · Type: event
Confidence100%
The presence of persistent formaldehyde suggests ongoing methane destruction via chemical reactions in the plume.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Highly reactive chlorine atoms can break down methane molecules.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Chlorine atoms can form when iron-rich Saharan dust mixes with salt-rich sea spray over the Atlantic Ocean under sunlight.
Relevance: supporting · Type: action
Confidence100%
Researchers used the European Space Agency’s Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument to monitor formaldehyde as a proxy for methane destruction.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Methane is responsible for roughly one-third of present-day global warming.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Methane persists in the atmosphere for about a decade, while carbon dioxide lingers for centuries.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Methane is about 80 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a 20-year period.
Relevance: supporting · Type: event
Confidence100%
The findings were published on May 7, 2026, in Nature Communications.
Maarten van Herpen, physicist
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Maarten van Herpen is a physicist with Acacia Impact Innovation in Heesch, Netherlands.
Maarten van Herpen, physicist
Relevance: primary · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"If we can see it in the volcano, we would also see it in a hypothetical intervention," van Herpen says.
Maarten van Herpen, physicist
Relevance: primary · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"It has emitted methane and then destroyed these emissions through the particles in the plume," van Herpen said.
Maarten van Herpen, physicist
Relevance: primary · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"Because formaldehyde only exists for a few hours, this showed that the cloud must have been destroying methane continuously for more than a week," van Herpen added.
Folkert Boersma, atmospheric scientist
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Folkert Boersma is an atmospheric scientist at Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands and was not involved with the study.
Folkert Boersma, atmospheric scientist
Relevance: supporting · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"It is quite surprising that these formaldehyde levels were observed," says Folkert Boersma. "That points to something that I did not know myself."
Folkert Boersma, atmospheric scientist
Relevance: supporting · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"We all know what to do," Boersma says. "It’s not shooting chlorine into the stratosphere, it’s just making sure that we reduce emissions."
Pete Edwards, atmospheric chemist
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Pete Edwards is an atmospheric chemist at the University of York in England and was not involved in the research.
Pete Edwards, atmospheric chemist
Relevance: supporting · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"I don’t think we should go anywhere near injecting chlorine into the stratosphere. We’ve done that before, and it didn’t go well," says Pete Edwards.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Chlorine reacts with ozone about 380 times faster than it does with methane in the cold stratosphere.
Pete Edwards, atmospheric chemist
Relevance: supporting · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"Chlorine in the stratosphere is a bad thing," Edwards says.
Matthew Johnson, chemistry professor
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Matthew Johnson is a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen and a study author.
Matthew Johnson, chemistry professor
Relevance: supporting · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"It’s new — and completely surprising" that the same chemical process observed over the Atlantic occurred in the volcanic plume, Johnson said.
Matthew Johnson, chemistry professor
Relevance: supporting · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"It’s an obvious idea for industry to try to replicate this natural phenomenon — but only if it can be proven to be safe and effective," Johnson said.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Chlorine is not usually a major component of volcanic eruptions.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence90%
Iron-based particles could theoretically be injected into the atmosphere over the ocean to mimic the observed chemical process and remove methane.
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
The study’s findings are based on observations in the stratosphere, while proposed methane removal strategies would occur in the troposphere.
Emily Dowd, climate scientist
Relevance: supporting · Type: background
Confidence100%
Emily Dowd is a climate scientist at the University of Leeds.
Emily Dowd, climate scientist
Relevance: supporting · Type: quote
Confidence100%
"The proposed chemistry still needs to be thoroughly tested in atmospheric models," Dowd told CNN.
forum Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.