| Literature DB >> 26694712 |
Zongcheng Ling1,2,3, Bradley L Jolliff2, Alian Wang2, Chunlai Li3, Jianzhong Liu4, Jiang Zhang1, Bo Li1, Lingzhi Sun1, Jian Chen1, Long Xiao5, Jianjun Liu3, Xin Ren3, Wenxi Peng6, Huanyu Wang6, Xingzhu Cui6, Zhiping He7, Jianyu Wang7.
Abstract
The chemical compositions of relatively young mare lava flows have implications for the late volcanism on the Moon. Here we report the composition of soil along the rim of a 450-m diameter fresh crater at the Chang'e-3 (CE-3) landing site, investigated by the Yutu rover with in situ APXS (Active Particle-induced X-ray Spectrometer) and VNIS (Visible and Near-infrared Imaging Spectrometer) measurements. Results indicate that this region's composition differs from other mare sample-return sites and is a new type of mare basalt not previously sampled, but consistent with remote sensing. The CE-3 regolith derived from olivine-normative basaltic rocks with high FeO/(FeO+MgO). Deconvolution of the VNIS data indicates abundant high-Ca ferropyroxene (augite and pigeonite) plus Fe-rich olivine. We infer from the regolith composition that the basaltic source rocks formed during late-stage magma-ocean differentiation when dense ferropyroxene-ilmenite cumulates sank and mixed with deeper, relatively ferroan olivine and orthopyroxene in a hybridized mantle source.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26694712 PMCID: PMC4703877 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9880
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Location of the Chang'e-3 landing site.
(a) Chang'e-1 CCD image with boundaries of typical mare basalt units7. (b) Chang'e-2 CCD image and (c) LROC NAC image (LROC NAC M1142582775R). (d) The traverse map of the Yutu rover and the locations of APXS and VNIS measurements. (e) Panoramic view of the ‘Zi Wei' crater by the Panoramic Camera on the Yutu rover at the CE3-0008 site.
Figure 2X-ray spectrum and chemical compositions of Chang'e-3 soils from APXS.
(a) APXS spectrum CE3-0006_2 overlain on the calibration spectrum. Comparison of Chang'e-3 site surface soil samples with Apollo and Luna samples217 in (b) FeO versus TiO2, (c) FeO versus MgO and (d) FeO versus CaO.
Compositional data in weight percent and results of CIPW norm of Chang'e-3 soils from Yutu APXS after calibration.
| SiO2 | 41.8±3.1 | 42.3±3.2 | 41.6±3.1 | 39.6±3.0 | 42.0±3.1 | 41.2±3.1 |
| TiO2 | 5.0±0.1 | 5.2±0.1 | 5.1±0.1 | 4.6±0.1 | 5.2±0.1 | 5.0±0.1 |
| Al2O3 | 10.0±0.7 | 9.8±0.6 | 10.0±0.7 | 9.3±0.6 | 9.9±0.7 | 9.7±0.6 |
| Cr2O3 | ||||||
| FeO | 21.7±2.0 | 22.7±2.1 | 22.6±2.1 | 23.0±2.1 | 22.6±2.1 | 22.8±2.1 |
| MnO | ||||||
| MgO | 8.1±0.1 | 6.3±0.1 | 7.0±0.1 | 11.0±0.1 | 6.7±0.1 | 8.1±0.1 |
| CaO | 12.3±0.4 | 12.6±0.4 | 12.6±0.4 | 11.2±0.3 | 12.6±0.4 | 12.1±0.4 |
| Na2O | ||||||
| K2O | 0.11±0.01 | 0.12±0.01 | 0.11±0.01 | 0.11±0.01 | 0.12±0.01 | 0.11±0.01 |
| P2O5 | ||||||
| Plag (wt.%) | 28 | 27 | 28 | 26 | 28 | 27 |
| Di (wt.%) | 29 | 31 | 31 | 26 | 31 | 29 |
| Hy (wt.%) | 15 | 20 | 15 | 3 | 18 | 13 |
| ∑ Px (wt.%) | 45 | 52 | 46 | 29 | 49 | 42 |
| Ol (wt.%) | 16 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 20 |
| Ilm (wt.%) | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 |
| Plag (vol.%) | 34 | 33 | 34 | 32 | 33 | 33 |
| Di (vol.%) | 31 | 33 | 32 | 28 | 33 | 31 |
| Hy (vol.%) | 14 | 18 | 14 | 3 | 16 | 12 |
| ∑ Px (vol.%) | 45 | 51 | 46 | 31 | 49 | 43 |
| Ol (vol.%) | 14 | 8 | 12 | 30 | 10 | 17 |
| Ilm (vol.%) | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| Plag An | 88 | 88 | 88 | 88 | 88 | 88 |
| Oliv Fo | 46 | 38 | 41 | 51 | 40 | 43 |
| Mg# | 40 | 33 | 36 | 46 | 34 | 38 |
Among the four locations, only two (CE3-0006 and CE3-0008) were analysed by APXS.
*The compositional data are normalized to 99% to allow for missing elements. (Missing elements Cr2O3, MnO, Na2O and P2O5 are set to 0.3, 0.3, 0.3 and 0.1 wt.% for more reasonable calculations of CIPW norms. Fe3+/FeTotal are assumed to be 0.0 for lunar minerals for the CIPW calculations.
†CE3-0006_1 is for reference in the test mode with a detection distance of ∼5 cm above the surface soils, and thus is not included in the calculation of Mean_0006). Mean_0006 is the average value of CE3-0006_2 and CE3-0006_3. Mean_all is the average value of CE3-0006_2 and CE3-0006_3 and CE3-0008. Among the four locations, only two (CE3-0006 and CE3-0008) were analysed by APXS.
‡In the CIPW calculation, we refer to the sum of HCP components (Di Wo, Di En and Di Fs) as Di, whereas the Hy is the sum of Hy En and Hy Fs. Mg#, 100Mg/(Mg+Fe) atomic.
Figure 3Visible-NIR spectral properties and mineral chemistry of Chang'e-3 soils from VNIS.
(a) Combined VNIS spectra (450–2,400 nm) from sites 0005, 0006, 0007 and 0008. The inset image is from site CE3-0006 of the VNIS (450–950 nm) image mode at 750 nm. The dashed circle indicates the region measured by the VNIS-point spectral mode (900–2,400 nm). (b) VNIS spectra after continuum removal. (c) Pyroxene VNIS peak positions of the CE-3 soils overlain on experimental results from Adams27 and Cloutis and Gaffey28. (d) Fo values of olivine in four CE-3 soils derived from VNIS spectra, overlain on calibration lines (Sunshine and Pieters20).
MGM results of the four VNIS spectra.
| Olivine | 884 | 138 | −0.103 | 878 | 135 | −0.026 |
| 1,134 | 139 | −0.076 | 1,136 | 122 | −0.073 | |
| 1,248 | 291 | −0.099 | 1,260 | 237 | −0.059 | |
| HCP | 1,029 | 144 | −0.196 | 1,031 | 145 | −0.179 |
| 2,236 | 337 | −0.070 | 2,371 | 404 | −0.099 | |
| LCP | 948 | 110 | −0.106 | 935 | 122 | −0.091 |
| 1,971 | 240 | −0.035 | 2,024 | 373 | −0.051 | |
| HCP/LCP | 1.8 (LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.35) | 2.0 (LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.34) | ||||
| HCP/LCP | 2.0 (LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.33) | 1.9 (LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.34) | ||||
| HCP/OL | 2.0 (OL/(OL+HCP)≈0.34) | 3.0 (OL/(OL+HCP)≈0.25) | ||||
| Olivine | 874 | 148 | −0.038 | 870 | 136 | −0.037 |
| 1,158 | 121 | −0.045 | 1,123 | 146 | −0.068 | |
| 1,261 | 251 | −0.053 | 1,234 | 268 | −0.063 | |
| HCP | 1,043 | 166 | −0.175 | 1,017 | 142 | −0.144 |
| 2,359 | 429 | −0.145 | 2,224 | 395 | −0.069 | |
| LCP | 944 | 130 | −0.076 | 932 | 111 | −0.060 |
| 1,983 | 309 | −0.065 | 1,965 | 271 | −0.030 | |
| HCP/LCP | 2.3 (LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.30) | 2.4 (LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.29) | ||||
| HCP/LCP | 2.2(LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.31) | 2.3 (LCP/(LCP+HCP)≈0.30) | ||||
| HCP/OL | 3.3 (OL/(OL+HCP)≈0.23) | 2.3 (OL/(OL+HCP)≈0.30) | ||||
*The HCP/LCP is the volume ratio of HCP to LCP, determined by the 1- and 2-μm band-strength ratio for the two phases. The normalized band-strength ratios, LCP/(HCP+LCP), indicating the fractions of LCP in the mixtures, are also given for references in brackets. The consistencies in LCP/(LCP+HCP)s for the 1- and 2-μm bands are important in showing that olivine and other mineral absorptions are not skewing the MGM results32.
†The HCP/OL is the volume ratio of HCP to olivine, determined by the peak strength ratio for the two phases (1 μm peak of HCP versus ∼1.25 μm peak of olivine). The normalized band-strength ratios, OL/(HCP+OL), are also indicated in brackets.
‡Spectrally, HCP has the maximum absorption of the 1-μm feature located beyond 980 nm and the 2-μm feature, beyond 2,200 nm, whereas LCP has these features located at <980 nm and 2,200 nm, respectively.
Mineralogy of Chang'e-3 soils derived from APXS data using mixture modelling of the chemical composition.
| Olivine | 11.9 | 9.2 | 10.5 | 23.4 | 9.8 | 14.4 |
| Augite | 36.4 | 37.1 | 36.2 | 31.6 | 36.6 | 35.0 |
| Pigeonite | 16.9 | 18.4 | 17.9 | 13.2 | 18.2 | 16.5 |
| Plagioclase | 27.7 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 25.8 | 27.6 | 27.0 |
| Ilmenite | 8.0 | 8.3 | 8.5 | 7.7 | 8.4 | 8.2 |
| Sum | 101.2 | 100.7 | 101.1 | 101.8 | 100.9 | 101.2 |
| Olivine_chem | Fo38.2 | Fo34.7 | Fo36.1 | Fo49.6 | Fo35.4 | Fo40.1 |
| Augite_chem | En30.1Wo33.7Fs36.2 | En24.8Wo34.9Fs40.6 | En30.5Wo33.7Fs35.8 | En39.5Wo32.2Fs28.4 | En27.7Wo34.3Fs38.2 | En31.6Wo33.6Fs34.9 |
| Pigeonite_chem | En35.7Wo20.1Fs44.2 | En28.1Wo21.0Fs50.9 | En29.6Wo20.7Fs49.7 | En35.7Wo20.1Fs44.2 | En28.9Wo20.9Fs50.3 | En31.1Wo20.6Fs48.3 |
| χ2/ν | 13.8 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 19.6 | 12.9 | 15.1 |
Mineral proportion values in wt.%.
*Minerals shown in italics (apatite and Cr-spinel) are based on assumed input values for P2O5 and Cr2O3 in similar mare basalts (Papike et al.17) to more accurately model Ca and Fe. Model mineral component compositions are given in Supplementary Table 7.
†χ2/ν is a measure of the goodness of fit of the mixing model and is the error-weighted sum of squares of differences between model and actual compositions divided by the number of chemical parameters (oxides) minus the number of mixing components (minerals)53.
‡Mean_0006 is the average value of CE3-0006_2 and CE3-0006_3. Mean_all is the average value of CE3-0006_2 and CE3-0006_3 and CE3-0008.