4.7 Article

A comparative study of the hydroxy acids from the Murchison, GRA 95229 and LAP 02342 meteorites

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 74, 期 21, 页码 6206-6217

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.08.013

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydroxy acid suites extracted from the Murchison (MN), GRA 95229 (GRA) and LAP 02342 (LAP) meteorites have been investigated for their molecular, chiral and isotopic composition. Substantial amounts of the compounds have been detected in all three meteorites, with a total abundance that is lower than that of the amino acids in the same stones. Overall, their molecular distributions mirror closely that of the corresponding amino acids and most evidently so for the LAP meteorite. A surprising L-lactic acid enantiomeric excess was found present in all three stones, which cannot be easily accounted by terrestrial contamination; all other compounds of the three hydroxy acid suites were found racemic. The branched-chain five carbon and the diastereomer six-carbon hydroxy acids were also studied vis-a-vis the corresponding amino acids and calculated ab initio thermodynamic data, with the comparison allowing the suggestion that meteoritic hydroxyacid at these chain lengths formed under thermodynamic control and, possibly, at a later stage than the corresponding amino acids. C-13 and D isotopic enrichments were detected for many of the meteoritic hydroxy acids and found to vary between molecular species with trends that also appear to correlate to those of amino acids; the highest delta D value (+3450 parts per thousand) was displayed by GRA 2-OH-2-methylbutyric acid. The data suggest that, while the amino- and hydroxy acids likely relate to common presolar precursor, their final distribution in meteorites was determined to large extent by the overall composition of the environments that saw their formation, with ammonia being the determining factor in their final abundance ratios. (C) 2010 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