4.1 Article

182Hf-182W chronometry and the early evolution history in the acapulcoite-lodranite parent body

Journal

METEORITICS & PLANETARY SCIENCE
Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 675-684

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2008.tb00677.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSC
  2. Academia Sinica of Taiwan, ROC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An acapulcoite, Northwest Africa (NWA) 725, a transitional acapulcoite, Graves Nunataks (GRA) 95209, and a lodranite, NWA 2235, have been studied with the short-lived chronometer (HfW)-Hf-182-W-182 system in order to better constrain the early evolution history in the acapulcoite-lodranite parent body. Unlike the more evolved achondrites originating from differentiated asteroids-e.g., eucrites and angrites-bulk rock acapulcoites and lodranite are characterized by distinct W-182 deficits relative to the terrestrial W, as well as to the undifferentiated chondrites, epsilon(w) varies from -2.7 to -2.4. This suggests that live-Hf-182 was present during the formation of acapulcoites and lodranites, and their parent body probably had never experienced a global melting event. Due to the large uncertainties associated with the isochron for each sample, the bulk isochron that regressed through the mineral separates from all 3 samples has provided the best estimate to date for the timing of metamorphism in the acapulcoite-lodranite parent body, 5 (+6/-5) Myr after the onset of the solar system. It is thus inconclusive whether acapulcoites and lodranites have shared the same petrogenetic origin, based on the Hf-W data of this study. Nevertheless, the formation of acapulcoite-lodranite clan appears to have post-dated the metal-silicate segregation in differentiated asteroids. This can be explained by a slower accretion rate for the acapulcoite-lodranite parent body, or that it had never accreted to a critical mass that could allow the metal-silicate segregation to occur naturally.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available