DIY Volcanoes: An Interview with Dr Ana Casas Ramos

Interview by Virginia Pl as

My research is in mostly experimental volcanology. I’m originally a chemical engineer but then I studied, during my masters, an active volcano in Mexico. When I did my PhD in Germany, I became more of an experimental volcanologist, using high temperature equipment like furnaces and putting gases and ash inside to react and see what happens during volcanic eruptions. What I’m doing [at the ANU] is taking that a bit farther and trying to do high temperature sulphur reactions, but with more complex minerals. The ash that I was working with was very glassy, and glasses react in a very rapid way compared with minerals. So minerals will have different reactions kinetically: a bit slower, a bit faster, depends on the mineral.

The more we constrain these reactions between sulphur and minerals on Earth, the better we can predict how much sulphur is going to be recycled in this cycle. And also [we can predict] climate implications, I think that’s the big goal. We need to know how much sulphur that is going to be released at some point after large eruptions, so we can put all that in a climate model.

It can change the climate such that it will become cooler after a very large eruption – let’s say something like 80 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide. If it’s a very large eruption, meaning it will reach the stratosphere, the sulphur interacts with atmospheric water and forms sulfuric acid droplets. Those molecules can reflect and absorb solar radiation, which means we will get less radiation. Less heat, less light. It has happened before, it will happen again, and the more we know, the better prepared I reckon we’ll be.

So you’re studying a lot of these things without having access to a physical volcano. Actually, yes! I did that in Germany [during my PhD] and I thought it was hilarious. I’m used to volcanoes – in Mexico you have them everywhere. And then you go to Germany and they have all these experimental setups, so you become a bit more separated from the field work. But it also shows you a lot that you could not see even being there because of a lot of these high temperature reactions, we cannot see them. I think that’s the beauty of experimental technology.

It’s very, very straightforward, actually. You need high temperatures. And by that I mean, we can get up to 1200 degrees. There are some that go up higher, but that’s a bit too much to set up, and also not safe if you’re working with gases. So I’d say the range between 900 and 1000 degrees is a bit of a limit. So you need a high temperature furnace and you need gases. That’s also a bit tricky because of all the safety regulations. No one likes to work with SO2 [sulphur dioxide] because it’s very corrosive. But that’s also the cool thing about this work, right? No one does it. So we come here and do it with safety measurements, of course. And then, samples: you need either mineral samples like the ones I’m using or rock samples that you can crush to make your ash or just rocks.

Then I try to build the setup. It’s a vertical furnace, where I insert my sample at the top. The sample is an open glass rod where I put my minerals at different heights and then I open the SO2 that comes from below and exits above. All the SO2 reacts [as it goes through]. I know the flow of the SO2 , so I know how much there is inside. And then I leave it for different times. One hour, two hours, three days. Then I take collected samples at different times so you can see the evolution of the reaction. I use different samples, different temperatures, different gas flows. Initially it is close to the volcano, would be around 700 to 2000 degrees. And as the eruption proceeds, it cools down. We have the whole range of temperatures. You know, we can really map the reaction.

The one that I used in Munich had a more specific name. It was called the Advanced Gas Ash Reactor (AGAR). I’m trying to build that here. I submitted an application last year to build a bigger volcano, because the one that I’m using now is sort of just a furnace. So I’m having all these ideas from Munich, and I hope I can build my own, which will be more volcano-like.

Mostly it’s the rotation part. [The current one I’m using] has a stationary set up. So the sample sits there, it passes through, then we have the heat – but that’s it. What I think is important for reactions, and to simulate volcanic eruptions, is a lot of motion. If you see a volcanic eruption, the gases and ash move very dynamically. The more movement you have, the more collisions you have between molecules and ash, the more reactions occur. But again, I hope I can get the funding to do that.

I think that if we could find a way to measure, for instance, the surface of the ash during those reactions, maybe with some sort of camera device inside, that would also give us a better idea of how particles behave. What happens with sulphur and ash is that gas molecules and ash collide. Sulphur gets absorbed onto the ash and forms calcium sulphate, which is a salt like sodium chlorine. It forms on the ash surface and that also helps ash particles to stick to each other, to aggregate, which also changes the dynamics of ash.

It’s something like that. If you have a lot of these collisions, a lot of these salts, it will change how much ash can travel because the ash particles become these aggregates, which will make them heavier and they fall faster. A lot of these large eruptions also disrupt air travel. So if we know more about this source of ash mobility that could be of advantage. In situ measurements of these reactions would be great. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but we’re always looking for collaborations. If there is some money around from engineering or things like that which could contribute to this project we would be very happy.

I’ll make sure to publish that. Honestly, we need help.

I think it complements very well. What I’ve found is that it’s great to have both. With hands-on fieldwork, with real samples and real volcanoes, you only see what’s coming out. You only see the outcome. Whereas when you do experimental technology, you go one step further and you see how what you see happens, and what’s the process behind it. When you have sort of both sides, inside and outside, and then you have a better explanation of what’s happening and how that can affect life.

Yeah, I’m trying to get to some volcanoes in the Pacific Islands, and trying to get gas measurements there and also some rock samples. We always try to couple both because you need both. If you’re on the volcano and you collect real samples and then you come here and do the experiments and you find similarities, it means that you’re doing it right.

I think people. That’s the missing part from experimental technology, the disconnect from the human impact of eruptions. In the lab you’re doing modelling and analysis and chemistry, whereas with active volcanoes, you actually have people living around volcanoes and in danger. They live there because most volcanic areas are quite fertile. They also have their own view on volcanoes. They don’t understand the chemistry, but they do have a connection: a bit of fear, a lot of respect, some legends too. I think that’s quite beautiful to understand. So you go and talk to the people and explain, the volcano is at rest now, but you have seen this and that in the last weeks or months. So, you know, be aware.

Not yet. I think that’s the missing part for me so far, I did my PhD in this and then you are very into the academic community mostly. Then covid happened, and we were very limited with interactions. But I think that’s the next step. I think that’s why I joined this workshop with Phil and all these guys. I think that’s what I want to do more – more science communication. I think I would like to connect that more: society and science.

I think just the fact that we’re women, I think that’s also very important. I learned this from my mum, and it was just great seeing her on the field. She was just tougher than any man. You would see her climbing volcanoes up and down, taking samples, talking to people and doing everything. If some women are reading this and feel like it’s a bit tough and everything, you can do it, it’s just a matter of your mindset.

She became a volcanologist after a very tragic eruption in Mexico. 1982 El Chichón erupted and killed around nine thousand people. It was very tragic, very sudden. The volcano wasn’t monitored then and that was part of the issue. But also, just people didn’t know. And even after the eruption, there was lots of funding available, which is ridiculous. You would think you know how these people died. That’s why she became very interested in that.

She was a professor at the time in Mexico City, at the National University in Mexico. And then she went back to Chiapas, which is where Chichón is, and she started looking for grants. She created a research institute to monitor the volcano. It actually took her 15 years to get that funding, which is ridiculous. And now she has, you know, her institute and seismologists, chemists, geophysicists, working on the volcano. She also does a lot of work with the communities of the volcano. So she goes there and works with people living around it: giving workshops, working also with children. They have a lot of activities so that children grow up learning about the volcano.

Yeah, she is.

My wish would be that, number one, [people know] they are not dangerous, per se. I feel like the danger is something that is man made, actually. Imagine if there was no one living near a volcano. There wouldn’t be a danger if there weren’t people milling around. The consequences of eruptions can be harmful for humans and life, but people shouldn’t be afraid. I think that’s what I’ve learned. The more we understand something, the less afraid we are of it and the more interesting it becomes, right? Because I feel like these are processes that are actually quite interesting. So, I would say fear is bad and science is good. That’s it.

Art by Fuz Buckley