Cited by 178Coal and Its By-productsGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils

Spheroidal Carbonaceous Fly Ash Particles Provide a Globally Synchronous Stratigraphic Marker for the Anthropocene

Open access
Rose, Neil L.·2015·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Human impacts on Earth are now so great that they have led to the concept of a new geological epoch defined by this global human influence: the Anthropocene. While not universally accepted, the term is increasingly popular and widely used. However, even among proponents, there is considerable debate regarding when the epoch may have started, from coeval with the Holocene, through the Industrial Revolution, to the mid-20th century when unprecedented human activities resulted in exponential increases in population, resource consumption, and pollutant emission. Recently, this latter period, known as the Great Acceleration, appears to be becoming the more widely accepted start date. To define any start point, a global stratigraphic marker or Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) is typically required. Here, spheroidal carbonaceous fly ash particles (SCPs), byproducts of industrial fossil-fuel combustion, are proposed as a primary marker for a GSSP at the time of the Great Acceleration. Data from over 75 lake sediment records show a global, synchronous, and dramatic increase in particle accumulation starting in c. 1950 driven by the increased demand for electricity and the introduction of fuel-oil combustion, in addition to coal, as a means to produce it. SCPs are morphologically distinct and solely anthropogenic in origin, providing an unambiguous marker. This is a clear signal of great stratigraphic utility representing a primary driving force for global anthropogenic change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.5b00543

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rose, N. L.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Rose, Neil L.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2015-03-19
Volume
49
Issue
7
Pages
4155-4162
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2029265316
Cited by
178
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
16.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Coal and Its By-products
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Keywords
Anthropocene, Great Acceleration, GSSP, stratigraphic markers, fossil fuel combustion, lake sediments, industrial pollution, anthropogenic change
MeSH terms
Coal, Fossil Fuels, Fuel Oils, Geology, Humans, Human Activities, Industry, Geologic Sediments, Lakes, Coal Ash

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review