Cited by 11CO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry

Understanding the Lab‐Field Discrepancy in Mineral Dissolution From Flasks to Enhanced Rock Weathering

Brantley, S. L.·2025·Reviews of Geophysics

Abstract

For decades it has been observed that rates of silicate mineral reactions appear slower in field settings than when measured in the laboratory. Since the 1980s, researchers have proposed explanations for the discrepancy. Over that time, researchers have also advanced the state of laboratory and field rate measurements as well as models of mineral‐water reaction kinetics at different temporal and spatial scales. Developments in reactive transport modeling are constantly whittling away at the discrepancy as models are improved, coupled to hydrologic models, and driven by climate data. The lab‐field discrepancy has great relevance today because of the proposal that weathering of silicates (especially basalts) could be accelerated to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere and sequester it either as aqueous alkalinity or as carbonate mineral precipitate. Such “enhanced rock weathering” relies on mining and grinding silicate rock for dispersal on farmland to enable weathering by carbonic acid. In general, field rates become increasingly slower than lab rates at larger spatial and temporal scales because of factors related to surface area, hydrology, heterogeneities, biota, and system‐level effects. This implies surface area is not always an appropriate scaling factor. The measurements of enhanced rates of basalt weathering on croplands published so far are relatively consistent with previously published lab and field rates of basalt weathering because the durations of weathering are small…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2025rg000881

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Silicate dissolution is well known to slow over time as mineral surfaces age; thus, ideal rates quickly become inapplicable.

    “At the most fundamental level, silicate dissolution is well known to slow over time as mineral surfaces age; thus, ideal rates quickly become inapplicable. 16-18”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brantley, S. L.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Brantley, S. L.
Venue
Reviews of Geophysics
Published
2025-11-28
Volume
63
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0096-1043 (ISSN-L)
  • 8755-1209
  • 1944-9208
OpenAlex
W4416810978
Cited by
11
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Reviews of Geophysics (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wilson Foundation
  • College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University
  • Pennsylvania State University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geochemistry and Elemental Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Groundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Keywords
silicate dissolution, enhanced rock weathering, basalt weathering, CO2 sequestration, reactive transport modeling, weathering rates, surface area scaling, alkalinity, carbonate precipitation

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