4.7 Article

Meteoritic evidence for a previously unrecognized hydrogen reservoir on Mars

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 410, Issue -, Pages 140-151

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.11.022

Keywords

Mars; shergottite; hydrogen isotope; ground ice; hydrated crust; ion microprobe

Funding

  1. NASA Mars Fundamental Research Program grant [NNX11AF57G]
  2. Astrobiology Institute grant
  3. Astromaterials Research and Exploration Sciences Directorate at NASA Johnson Space Center
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26800272] Funding Source: KAKEN
  5. NASA [146584, NNX11AF57G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fluvial landforms on Mars suggest that it was once warm enough to maintain persistent liquid water on its surface. The transition to the present cold and dry Mars is closely linked to the history of surface water, yet the evolution of surficial water is poorly constrained. Based on in situ hydrogen isotope (D/H) analyses of quenched and impact glasses in Martian meteorites, we provide evidence for the existence of a distinct but ubiquitous water/ice reservoir (D/H = similar to 2-3 times Earth's ocean water) that lasted from at least the time when the meteorites crystallized (173-472 million years ago) to the time they were ejected by impacts (0.7-3.3 million years ago), but possibly much longer. The origin of this reservoir appears to predate the current Martian atmospheric water (D/H = similar to 5-6 times Earth's ocean water) and is unlikely to be a simple mixture of atmospheric and primordial water retained in the Martian mantle (D/H approximate to Earth's ocean water). This reservoir could represent hydrated crust and/or ground ice interbedded within sediments. Our results corroborate the hypothesis that a buried cryosphere accounts for a large part of the initial water budget of Mars. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available