1. Background
The ratio of 232Th/238U
is refered to as kappa (κ), and is calculated by two methods. First, knowing
the abundance of the isotopes of Th and U yields a measured kappa ratio (κMEAS).
Second, the lead isotope ratio (208Pb*/206Pb*, “*” means this
ratio is the lead radiogenic ratio) yields a time-integrated kappa ratio (κPb),
because 208Pb and 206Pb are the decay products of 232Th
and 238U respectively [2]. Considering how the two kappa ratios are
calculated, κMEAS and κPb should equal to each other in a
certain reservoir. However, it is known that κMEAS and κPb
are different from each other in the continental crust as well as in the mantle.
To be more specific, the measured κ MEAS(C) is higher than the κPb(C)
of continental crust, while the κ MEAS(M) is lower than the
κPb(M) of mantle. Such strange phenomenon is commonly called the
kappa conundrum. [3]
2. The goal of study
4. Possible mechanism for the kappa conundrum
The
recent melt fractionation of Th and U seems to be a reasonable explanation for
the kappa conundrum. U series disequilibrium (238U -230Th)
provides evidence of the recent fractionation of Th and U [4,5]. However, both
Th and U are highly incompatible elements and have similar partition
coefficients, and the evidence that prevalent 230Th excesses (about
20%) in MORB suggests that melting during magma genesis does not cause
enrichment of U compare to Th in MORB [2]. Thus, there must be other explanation(s)
to the kappa conundrum.
A Monte Carlo simulation to investigate the
possible pathways of κ evolution. All the simulations are started at the bulk
silicate earth kappa ratio (κBSE), which equals to 4.0±0.2. Each
simulation is developed within 80 equal steps of 0.05688Ga, and within each
steps, the κ values randomly changed between -0.15 to +0.15. The successful
pathways are the ones that result in present values of κMEAS and κPb
of 2.5-2.7 or 3.7-3.8, respectively. I did the Monte Carlo Simulation for 1000
times for measured kappa ratio, with
each κ starting at 4.0 and ending up within the range of 2.4 to 2.6 for
measured kappa ratio.
Monte Carlo simulation of κPb
The Monte Carlo simulation result suggests that a major decline of κ value in the post-Archean period is required in the
history of the kappa ratio development, which means the abundance of Th and/or
U in the mantle and crust need to be changed.
As
we have discussed above, the melting fractionation is not an option. But there
is always more than one way to separate Th and U. A well-recognized mechanism
that could account for the decline of κ value in the post-Archean period is the
different solubility of U and Th’s ions under oxidized environments. [6]
Under
natural conditions, Th has only one state of oxidation, which is the highly
insoluble ion Th4+. On the other hand, U has more than one oxidation
states, which are U4+, U5+ and U6+. And among
those, U6+ behaves very differently from Th4+ and becomes
a highly soluble ion. As a result, compared to Th, U is more easily to be
carried away by the river fluids during weathering, and enter the ocean. Two
possibilities will occur under this situation. First, all of the U will sink into
the oceanic crust, and be directly returned to the continental crust at the
subduction zones, which will keep the kappa ratio unchanged but is also
unlikely to happen [7,8]. Second, at least some of the sank U will be
recycled back to the mantle by the act of plate tectonic cycle, which will lead
to the continuously decreasing of the mantle measured kappa ratio [6].
The
change of solubility of U ions can only affect the measured kappa ratio of the
Earth’s mantle and crust, but not the time-integrated kappa ratio. The reason
of it is the lost and gaining of U in the crust and mantle respectively will
directly affect the U abundance, which is the denominator of the measured kappa
ratio equation . Thus, the measured kappa ratio of the crust will
increase and the mantle’s will decrease comparing to the original values.
However, both 238U and 232Th are long-lived isotopes, so
the recent geological activities will not result in their decay daughter
elements’ abundance change. With T and decay
constants unchanged, the time-integrated kappa ratio is only proportional to the
208Pb*/206Pb* ratio. Thus, the lead isotope kappa ratio
will not be affected. Since the measured kappa ratio changed while lead kappa
ratio remains unchanged, it will certainly result in the unequal values of the
two ratios, which is consistent with our calculation results.
References
[1] Paul, D., W. M.
White, and D. L. Turcotte. "Constraints on the 232Th/238U ratio (κ) of the
continental crust." Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 4.12 (2003).
[2] Galer, S. J. G., and
R. K. O'Nions. "Residence time of thorium, uranium and lead in the mantle
with implications for mantle convection." (1985): 778-782.
[3] Elliott, Tim, Alan
Zindler, and Bernard Bourdon. "Exploring the kappa conundrum: the role of
recycling in the lead isotope evolution of the mantle." Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 169.1 (1999): 129-145.
[4] B. Bourdon, A.
Zindler, T. Elliott, C.H. Langmuir, Constraints on mantle melting at mid-ocean
ridges from global 238U=230Th disequilibrium data, Nature 384 (1996) 231– 235.
[5] C.C. Lundstrom, Q.
Williams, J.B. Gill, Investigating solid upwelling rates beneath mid-ocean
ridges using U-series disequilibria, 1: a global approach, Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 157 (1998) 151–165.
[6] Elliott, Tim, Alan
Zindler, and Bernard Bourdon. "Exploring the kappa conundrum: the role of
recycling in the lead isotope evolution of the mantle." Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 169.1 (1999): 129-145.
[7] Gill, James B., and
Ross W. Williams. "Th isotope and U-series studies of subduction-related
volcanic rocks." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54.5 (1990): 1427-1442.
[8] McDermott, Frank, and
Chris Hawkesworth. "Th, Pb, and Sr isotope variations in young island arc
volcanics and oceanic sediments." Earth and Planetary Science Letters
104.1 (1991): 1-15.

Cool project! I'm curious about how this is different than your current work?
ReplyDeleteWhat sort of outreach could you imagine for this project?
In the introduction you should discuss why the kappa ratio needs to be studied. You mention the values are not what was expected, but what are the implications?
ReplyDeleteWhat are the implications for your Monte Carlo results? You did a good job of explaining what they show, but what do they tell us about the kappa ratio (or our misunderstandings regarding it)?
ReplyDeleteYour speaking in this presentation is much improved over the previous ones.
I'm a little lost on the exactly what your proposed work will be. Will you only be running simulations and computer code or will you collecting samples and running analyses?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the significance of this work? Does it have application to early earth history?
ReplyDeleteIs Kpb a predicted value? I am not clear on what work you are proposing to do. I understand why the work is interesting - you explained that part well.
ReplyDeleteYou do a good idea setting up the Kappa Conundrum, and how you are looking at differences in the conundrum between the continental crust and morb, but I am unclear on how you plan on solving the conundrum. You mentioned doing additional modeling runs, but what exactly happens when you do these? For monte carlo simulations, what equation and variables are you randomly varying?
ReplyDeleteI'm just curious about why the Kpb is so different from Kmeas in the continental crust. It seems that there is no correlation between these two values. What is wrong with continental crust?
ReplyDelete