4.7 Article

Lead isotope evidence for a young formation age of the Earth-Moon system

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 452, 期 -, 页码 36-43

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.07.010

关键词

Pb isotopes; Earth-Moon system; giant impact; Moon formation; Pb paradox; Earth's volatiles

资金

  1. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation [12-125692]
  2. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF97]
  3. European Research Council (ERC Consolidator grant) [616027-STARDUST2ASTEROIDS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A model of a giant impact between two planetary bodies is widely accepted to account for the Earth Moon system. Despite the importance of this event for understanding early Earth evolution and the inventory of Earth's volatiles critical to life, the timing of the impact is poorly constrained. We explore a data-based, two-stage Pb isotope evolution model in which the timing of the loss of volatile Pb relative to refractory U in the aftermath of the giant impact is faithfully recorded in the Pb isotopes of bulk silicate Earth. Constraining the first stage Pb isotopic evolution permits calculating an age range of 4.426-4.417 Ga for the inflection in the U/Pb ratio related to the giant impact. This model is supported by Pb isotope data for angrite meteorites that we use to demonstrate volatility-driven, planetary-scale Pb loss was an efficient process during the early Solar System. The revised age is similar to 100 Myr younger than most current estimates for the age of the Moon but fully consistent with recent ages for lunar ferroan anorthosite and the timing of Earth's first crust inferred from the terrestrial zircon record. The estimated loss of similar to 98% of terrestrial Pb relative to the Solar System bulk composition by the end of the Moon forming process implies that the current inventory of Earth's most volatile elements, including water, arrived during post-impact veneering by volatile-rich bodies. (C) 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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