jats:titleAbstract</jats:title>jats:pSatellite‐measured SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> mass loadings and ground‐based measurements of SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> emission rate are not directly comparable, with ∼40% differences between mean emissions reported by each technique from Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador, during late 2007. Numerical simulations of postemission processing and dispersal of Tungurahua's SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> emissions enable more effective comparison of ground‐ and satellite‐based SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> data sets, reducing the difference between them and constraining the impact of plume processing on satellite SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> observations. Ground‐based measurements of SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> emission rate are used as the model input, and simulated SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> mass loadings are compared to those measured by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI). The changing extent of SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> processing has a significant impact on daily variation in SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> mass loading for a fixed volcanic emission rate. However, variations in emission rate at Tungurahua are large, suggesting that overall volcanic source strength and not subsequent processing is more likely to be the dominant control on atmospheric mass loading. SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> emission rate estimates are derived directly from the OMI observations using modeled SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> lifetime. Good agreement is achieved between both observed and simulated mass loadings (∼21%) and satellite‐derived and ground‐measured SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> emission rates (∼18%), with a factor of 2 improvement over the differences found by simple direct comparison. While the balance of emission source strength and postemission processing will differ between volcanoes and regions, under good observation conditions and where SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> lifetime is ∼24 hours, satellite‐based sensors like OMI may provide daily observations of SOjats:sub2</jats:sub> mass loading which are a good proxy for volcanic source strength.</jats:p>