Lead in Martian Meteorites-- Observations and Inconsistencies: I. Chassigny

[摘要] The history of Pb isotope analyses of the martian meteorites (SNC) and their interpretations is laden with difficulties. Two different analytical groups have interpreted their ancient (= 4 Ga) shergottite Pb ages as primary [1-5]. A Nakhla age of approximately 4.3 Ga has been interpreted to be primary as well [2]. This is in stark contrast to the young (= 1.4 Ga) crystallization ages defined by the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, and KAr systems [6]. Possibly, a better interpretation for the ancient Pb ages is that they reflect the formation times of the various SNC source regions [7]. A difficulty in dealing with Pb is that terrestrial contamination is ubiquitous, unlike the other chronometer systems noted above. This issue is complicated by the fact that radioactive decay causes localized mineral damage. So washing and leaching to remove Pb contamination tends to remove in situ radiogenic Pb. This issue is further compounded because U and Th are often concentrated in phosphates and other minor phases, so the leaching process tends to remove these, especially phosphates. Another difficulty is that it is not clear whether the observed Pb isotopic variation in leachates, residues, and ion-microprobe analyses is due to terrestrial or to indigenous martian Pb contamination [e.g., 8]. A third difficulty is that the shergottites on the one hand, and the nakhlites and chassignites on the other, appear to have come from separate source regions with different chemical compositions [e.g., 7]. Thus, it is expected that their Pb isotopic characteristics would be different. And even if all these meteorite types came from the same source region, their igneous ages differ considerably. The nakhlites and chassignites are ~1.4 Ga and the shergottites are = 600 Ma [e.g., 6]. This age difference alone should assure that the two distinct SNC groups have differing Pb isotopic signatures.

[发布日期] 2017-03-20

[学科分类] 天文学(综合)