4.7 Article

Titanium isotopes and rare earth patterns in CAIs: Evidence for thermal processing and gas-dust decoupling in the protoplanetary disk

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 275-295

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2017.07.032

关键词

Calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs); Titanium isotopic composition; Heterogeneity; Supernovae; Protoplanetary disk

资金

  1. U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNX09AG39G, NNX15AF78G, NNX12AH60G]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation [EAR1144429]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Titanium isotopic compositions (mass-dependent fractionation and isotopic anomalies) were measured in 46 calcium-, aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) from the Allende CV chondrite. After internal normalization to Ti-49/Ti-47, we found that epsilon Ti-50 values are somewhat variable among CAIs, and that epsilon Ti-46 is highly correlated with epsilon Ti-50, with a best-fit slope of 0.162 +/- 0.030 (95% confidence interval). The linear correlation between epsilon Ti-46 and epsilon Ti-50 extends the same correlation seen among bulk solar objects (slope 0.184 +/- 0.007). This observation provides constraints on dynamic mixing of the solar disk and has implications for the nucleosynthetic origin of titanium isotopes, specifically on the possible contributions from various types of supernovae to the solar system. Titanium isotopic mass fractionation, expressed as delta'Ti-49 , was measured by both sample-standard bracketing and double-spiking. Most CAIs are isotopically unfractionated, within a 95% confidence interval of normal, but a few are significantly fractionated and the range delta'Ti-49 is from similar to-4 to similar to+4. Rare earth element patterns were measured in 37 of the CAIs. All CAIs with significant titanium mass fractionation effects have group II and related REE patterns, implying kinetically controlled volatility fractionation during the formation of these CAIs. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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