4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Aliphatic and aromatic terpenoid biomarkers in Cretaceous and Paleogene angiosperm fossils from Japan

Journal

ORGANIC GEOCHEMISTRY
Volume 41, Issue 9, Pages 975-980

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2010.03.007

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The distributions of aliphatic and aromatic terpenoids in Cretaceous and Paleogene angiosperm fossils from Japan were investigated Aliphatic A ring-degraded oleanane, ursane and lupane were found in all samples In addition, aliphatic gymnosperm-derived diterpenoids were detected in significant quantities Aromatic oleanane-type triterpenoids were the major components, with ursane- and lupane-type triterpenoids being minor compounds in all angiosperm fossils. In a Cretaceous gymnosperm fossil, major components included aliphatic labdane-. isopimarane- and abietane-type diterpenoids, aromatic abietane-type diterpenoids, and chrysene- and picene-type polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Trace amounts of oleanane-. ursane- and lupane-type triterpenoids were also identified It is likely that the aromatic triterpenoids were introduced to the gymnosperm fossil from the angiosperm-derived material in the sediments. We defined an angiosperm/gymnosperm index (al-AGI') as an alternative to the aliphatic triterpenoid/diterpenoid ratio proposed in the literature The al-AGI' index may underestimate the angiosperm contribution, because the aliphatic angiosperm-derived triterpenoids are more readily converted to aromatic counterparts than the ditemenoicls during diagenesis An aromatic angiosperm/gymnosperm index (ar-AGI) can be calculated using aromatic diterpenoids and triterpenoids We suggest that ar-AGI is best calculated using only the oleanane-, ursane- and lupane-type aromatic tnterpenoids, and that the chrysene- and picene-type PAHs be excluded (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available