Catoctin/Fauquier contact

Catoctin/Fauquier contact
Power washing a quarry block near Aldie, VA that preserves a soft sediment contact of the Fauquier Formation cap carbonate and pillow basalt of the Catoctin Formation.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Kappa conundrum--The relationship between measured kappa ratio and time-integrated kappa ratio of the Earth’s depleted mantle

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


3. Current results

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.
5. Future plan
      
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.

8 comments:

  1. Cool project! I'm curious about how this is different than your current work?

    What sort of outreach could you imagine for this project?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What 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)?

    Your speaking in this presentation is much improved over the previous ones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is the significance of this work? Does it have application to early earth history?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You 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?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'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