4.5 Article

The Geochemistry of Englacial Brine From Taylor Glacier, Antarctica

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2018JG004411

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [ANT-1144176, ANT-1727387, ANT-1144192, ANT-1144177]
  2. DLR Space Administration (German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy) [50NA1206, 50NA1207, 50NA1208, 50NA1209, 50NA1210, 50NA1211]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blood Falls is a hypersaline, iron-rich discharge at the terminus of the Taylor Glacier in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. In November 2014, brine in a conduit within the glacier was penetrated and sampled using clean-entry techniques and a thermoelectric melting probe called the IceMole. We analyzed the englacial brine sample for filterable iron (fFe), total Fe, major cations and anions, nutrients, organic carbon, and perchlorate. In addition, aliquots were analyzed for minor and trace elements and isotopes including D and O-18 of water, S-34 and O-18 of sulfate, U-234, U-238, B-11, Sr-87/Sr-86, and Br-81. These measurements were made in order to (1) determine the source and geochemical evolution of the brine and (2) compare the chemistry of the brine to that of nearby hypersaline lake waters and previous supraglacially sampled collections of Blood Falls outflow that were interpreted as end-member brines. The englacial brine had higher Cl- concentrations than the Blood Falls end-member outflow; however, other constituents were similar. The isotope data indicate that the water in the brine is derived from glacier melt. The H4SiO4 concentrations and U and Sr isotope suggest a high degree of chemical weathering products. The brine has a low N:P ratio of similar to 7.2 with most of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the form of NH4+. Dissolved organic carbon concentrations are similar to end-member outflow values. Our results provide strong evidence that the original source of solutes in the brine was ancient seawater, which has been modified with the addition of chemical weathering products.

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