4.5 Article

Water sorption on martian regolith analogs: Thermodynamics and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy

期刊

ICARUS
卷 204, 期 1, 页码 114-136

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.06.013

关键词

Mars, surface; Spectroscopy; Mineralogy; Experimental techniques

资金

  1. CNRS
  2. Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The near-infrared reflectance spectra of the martian surface present strong absorption features attributed to hydration water present in the regolith. In order to characterize the relationships between this water and atmospheric vapor and decipher the physical state of water molecules in martian regolith analogs, we designed and built an experimental setup to measure near-IR reflectance spectra under martian atmospheric conditions. Six samples were studied that cover part of the diversity of Mars surface mineralogy: a hydrated ferric oxide (ferrihydrite), two igneous samples (volcanic tuff, and dunite sand), and three potential water rich soil materials (Mg-sulfate, smectite powder and a palagonitic soil, the JSC Mars-1 regolith stimulant). Sorption and desorption isotherms were measured at 243 K for water vapor pressure varying from 10(-5) to similar to 0.3 mbar (relative humidity: 10(-4) to 75%). These measurements reveal a large diversity of behavior among the sample suite in terms of absolute amount of water adsorbed, shape of the isotherm and hysteresis between the adsorption and desorption branches. Simultaneous in situ spectroscopic observations permit a detailed analysis of the spectral signature of adsorbed water and also point to clear differences between the samples. Ferric (oxy)hydroxides like ferrihydrite or other phases present in palagonitic soils are very strong water adsorbent and may play an important role in the current martian water cycle by allowing large exchange of water between dust-covered regions and atmosphere at diurnal and seasonal scales. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据