Production of sulphate-rich vapour during the Chicxulub impact and implications for ocean acidification


The mass extinction event at the Cretaceous/Palaeogene boundary 65.5 Myr ago has been widely attributed to the Chicxulub impact1,2, but the mechanisms of extinction remain debated1,3,4,5,6. In the oceans, near-surface planktonic foraminifera suffered severe declines, in contrast to the relatively high survival rates of bottom-dwelling benthic foraminifera7. The vapour produced by an impact into Chicxulub’s target rocks, which include sulphate-rich anhydrite, could have led to global acid rain, which can explain the pattern of oceanic extinctions4,5. However, it has been suggested that most of the sulphur in the target rocks would have been released as sulphur dioxide and would have stayed in the stratosphere for a long time6. Here we show, from impact experiments into anhydrite at velocities exceeding 10 km s−1, that sulphur trioxide dominates over sulphur dioxide in the resulting vapour cloud. Our experiments suggest that the Chicxulub impact released a huge quantity of sulphur trioxide into the atmosphere, where it would have rapidly combined with water vapour to form sulphuric acid aerosol particles. We also find, using a theoretical model of aerosol coagulation following the Chicxulub impact, that larger silicate particles ejected during the impact efficiently scavenge sulphuric acid aerosol particles and deliver the sulphuric acid to the surface within a few days. The rapid surface deposition of sulphuric acid would cause severe ocean acidification and account for preferential extinction of planktonic over benthic foraminifera.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up.
Figure 2: The SO3/SO2 ratios of impact-induced vapours as a function of impact velocities and peak shock pressures for impacts involving Murchison meteorite and anhydrite, obtained from the mass spectra of vapours using a QMS.
Figure 3: Modelled temporal trends in the oceanic CO32− concentrations at a water depth of 60 m, following the impact.


  1. 1

    Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F. & Michel, H. V. Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction. Science 208, 1085–1108 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Schulte, P. et al. The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Science 327, 1214–1218 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Wolbach, W. S. et al. Global fire at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary. Nature 334, 665–669 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Pope, K. O., Baines, K. H., Ocampo, A. C. & Ivanov, B. A. Impact winter at the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinctions: Results of a Chicxulub asteroid impact model. Earth Plant. Sci. Lett. 128, 719–725 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Pierazzo, E., Hahmann, A. N. & Sloan, L. C. Chicxulub and climate: Radiative perturbations of impact-produced S-bearing gases. Astrobiology 3, 99–118 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    D’Hondt, S. et al. Surface-water acidification and extinction at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary. Geology 22, 983–986 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Sigurdsson, H. et al. Geochemical constraints on source region of Cretaceous/Tertiary impact glasses. Nature 353, 839–842 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Maruoka, T. & Koeberl, C. Acid-neutralizing scenario after the Cretaceous–Tertiary impact event. Geology 31, 489–492 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Vajda, V. et al. Indication of global deforestation at the Cretaceous– Tertiary boundary by New Zealand Fern Spike. Science 294, 1700–1702 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Pope, K. O., Baines, K. H., Ocampo, A. C. & Ivanov, B. A. Energy, volatile production and climate effects of the Chicxulub Cretaceous/Tertiary impact. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 21645–21664 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Ohno, S. et al. Sulfur chemistry in laser-simulated impact vapor clouds: Implications for the K/T impact event. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 218, 347–361 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Kadono, T. et al. Impact experiments with a new technique for acceleration of projectiles to velocities higher than Earth’s escape velocity of 11.2 km/s. J. Geophys. Res. 115, E04003 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Ohno, S. et al. Direct measurements of impact devolatilization of calcite using a laser gun. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L13202 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Kadono, T. et al. in Proc. Shock Compression of Condensed Matter—2011 (eds Elert, M. L., Buttler, W. T., Borg, J. P., Jordan, J. L. & Vogler, T. J.) Flyer acceleration by high-power laser and impact experiments at velocities higher than 10 km/s. 847–850 (American Institute of Physics, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Ohno, S. et al. in Proc. Shock Compression of Condensed Matter—2011 (eds Elert, M. L., Buttler, W. T., Borg, J. P., Jordan, J. L. & Vogler, T. J.) Direct measurement of chemical composition of SOx in impact vapor using a laser gun. 851–854 (American Institute of Physics, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Yang, W. & Ahrens, T. J. Shock vaporization of anhydrite and global effects of the K/T bolide. Earth Plant. Sci. Lett. 156, 125–140 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Trinquier, A., Birck, J-L. & Allégre, C. J. The nature of the K/T impactor. A 54Cr reappraisal. Earth Plant. Sci. Lett. 241, 780–788 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Anderson, W. W. & Ahrens, T. J. in Proc. Shock Compression of Condensed Matter—1997 (eds Schmidt, S. C., Dandekar, D. P. & Forbes, J. W.) Shock wave equations of state of chondritic meteorites. 115–118 (American Institute of Physics, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Ivanov, B. A. et al. Degassing of sedimentary rocks due to Chicxulub impact: Hydrocode and physical simulations. Geol. Soc. Am. Special Paper 307, 125–139 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Toon, O. B. et al. Environmental perturbations caused by the impacts of asteroids and comets. Rev. Geophys. 35, 41–78 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Pope, K. O. Impact dust not the cause of the Cretaceous–Tertiary mass extinction. Geology 30, 99–102 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Pierazzo, E., Kring, D. A. & Melosh, H. J. Hydrocode simulations of the Chicxulub impact event and the production of climatically active gases. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 28606–28625 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Smit, J. The global stratigraphy of the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary impact ejecta. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 75–113 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Seinfeld, J. H. & Pandis, S. N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change (Wiley, (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Alegret, L., Thomas, E. & Lohmann, K. C. End-Cretaceous marine mass extinction not caused by productivity collapse. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 728–732 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Brett, R. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction: A lethal mechanism involving anhydrite target rocks. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 56, 3603–3606 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Lyons, J. R. & Ahrens, T. J. in High-Pressure Shock Compression of Solids V (eds Davison, L., Horie, Y. & Sekine, T.) Terrestrial acidification at the K/T boundary. 181–197 (Springer, (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Misra, S. & Froelich, P. N. Lithium isotope history of Cenozoic seawater: Changes in silicate weathering and reverse weathering. Science 335, 818–823 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Oliver, L. et al. Silicate weathering rates decoupled from the 87Sr/86Sr ratio of the dissolved load during Himalayan erosion. Chem. Geol. 201, 119–139 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Preisinger, A. et al. Cretaceous–Tertiary profile, rhythmic deposition, and geomagnetic polarity reversals of marine sediments near Bjala, Bulgaria. Geol. Soc. Am. Special Paper 356, 213–229 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank the GXII technical crew for their support. This research was supported in part by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (MEXT) and by a joint research project of the Institute of Laser Engineering, Osaka University. This study has been supported by Grant-in-Aid 2424407 and 25120006. The authors also thank late G. Igarashi for discussions during the early phase of this study.

Author information




S.O., T.K., T.M. and S.S. conceived the study and wrote the paper. S.O., T.K., K.K., T.H., T. Sakaiya, K.S., Y.H., T. Sano, T.W., K.O. and S.S. carried out the experimental work using the GXII and analysed the results. S.O. and S.S. created the sweeping out model and carried out the calculations.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sohsuke Ohno.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 488 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ohno, S., Kadono, T., Kurosawa, K. et al. Production of sulphate-rich vapour during the Chicxulub impact and implications for ocean acidification. Nature Geosci 7, 279–282 (2014).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing