4.3 Article

Depth-resolved chemical mapping of rock coatings using Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy: Implications for geochemical investigations on Mars

期刊

PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 24-33

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2016.04.003

关键词

Mars; Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy; Rock coatings; Depth profiling; Svalbard

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canadian Space Agency (CSA)
  3. McDonnell Center for Space Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis
  4. NASA Mars Fundamental Research Program [NNX13AJ18G]
  5. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of Spain
  6. NASA [NNX13AJ18G, 472773] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We demonstrate that Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) is capable of identifying the presence of natural rock coatings, and we define LIBS signatures of complex multi-layered coatings. This is illustrated by detailed LIBS analysis, in Mars-simulated conditions, of a rock collected in the Svalbard Islands, and which is analogous to some altered Martian rocks. The sample is a basaltic rock with sub mm Ca-Mg-Fe-Si rich mineral coatings. LIBS elemental analysis of several distinct regions on the surface of the rock demonstrates the variability of chemical compositions of the various coatings, which is confirmed by complementary scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Furthermore, the LIBS analysis as a function of the depth at different locations shows chemical variability, indicative of penetration through thin coatings of varying composition. Fine-scale, three-dimensional LIBS analysis is of interest for identifying and characterizing coatings on martian rocks, likely originating from aqueous processes, providing a rapid chemical composition as a function of the layers and further understanding of the formation of the deposits and on planetary evolution. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by 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

4.3
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