| Literature DB >> 31262822 |
Celia Dalou1, Evelyn Füri2, Cécile Deligny2, Laurette Piani2, Marie-Camille Caumon3, Mickael Laumonier4, Julien Boulliung2, Mattias Edén5.
Abstract
The present-day nitrogen isotopic compoEntities:
Keywords: core formation; fractionation; ion probe; nitrogen isotopes; speciation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31262822 PMCID: PMC6642344 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1820719116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Redox conditions, N elemental and isotopic compositions of the samples, and calculated N elemental and isotopic fractionations
| Sample | [N]silicate, ppm) | [N]metal, ppm | 15N/14N initial | αmetal-silicate | ∆15Nmetal-silicate, ‰ | [H2O]silicate, wt% | ||||
| HB01 | −3.13 | 186 ± 2 | 28 ± 3 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 72 ± 10 | −171 ± 28 | 0.77 ± 0.09 | −257 ± 22 | 0.20 ± 0.04 |
| HB05 | −0.45 | 235 ± 36 | 1,571 ± 1,287 | 7 ± 2 | 0.67 ± 0.07 | 23 ± 3 | −27 ± 4 | 0.95 ± 0.02 | −49 ± 1 | 0.267 ± 0.002 |
| HB15 | −1.40 | 420 ± 22 | 682 ± 267 | 1.6 ± 0.8 | 8.0 ± 0.8 | 25 ± 4 | −88 ± 13 | 0.89 ± 0.05 | −116 ± 6 | 0.13 ± 0.03 |
| HB3 | −1.46 | 448 ± 5 | 1,493 ± 149 | 3.3 ± 0.2 | 0.80 ± 0.08 | 36 ± 5 | −95 ± 13 | 0.87 ± 0.01 | −135 ± 1 | 0.13 ± 0.09 |
| HB4 | −1.21 | 493 ± 12 | 1,488 ± 14 | 3.02 ± 0.05 | 0.85 ± 0.08 | 16 ± 2 | −70 ± 10 | 0.92 ± 0.01 | −89 ± 1 | 0.13 ± 0.03 |
| A05 | −2.15 | 855 ± 18 | 669 ± 126 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.67 ± 0.07 | 11 ± 2 | −14 ± 2 | 0.976 ± 0.002 | −25 ± 1 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
Reported errors are 2σ SDs.
Estimated from the addition of 14Si3N4 and 15Si3N4 to the starting material. SDs on were estimated from weighing uncertainties related to the addition of Si3N4 to the starting material, and thus are larger than αmetal-silicate and ∆15Nmetal-silicate (‰), which were directly determined from SIMS measurements.
Analyzed by SIMS (1280 HR2) following the method of Sobolev et al. (37). Details of the measurement conditions and standards are given in .
Large error due to C heterogeneities, likely graphite microinclusions, in the metal blobs.
Fig. 1.DNmetal-silicate as a function of fO2. Large symbols represent DNmetal-silicate values from this study, and small symbols are results from several previous studies: diamonds and red x’s (17), blue x’s (16), black x’s (21), gray circles (20), empty circles (22), triangles (18, 37, 50, 51), and blue crosses (15). All fO2 values were recalculated following the procedure described in the text. Following this calculation, only 2 of the 4 samples from Li et al. (16) have log fO2 < ΔIW. Error bars represent 2σ SDs. P–T conditions have only a small effect on DNmetal-silicate and explain the scatter among the overall decreasing trend with decreasing fO2. Our data measured using SIMS (Fe-rich basalt and andesite) are in agreement with previously published DNmetal-silicate values measured by EPMA.
Fig. 2.Representative normalized Raman spectra of N species in silicate glasses and metal alloys of samples HB01, HB3, and A05: (A) N2 isotopomers in silicate glasses, (B) NH complexes in silicate glasses, and (C) Fe–N bonds in metal alloys. The Raman shifts of N species are significantly different depending on speciation (N2 versus NH complexes) and whether N is dissolved in metal alloy or silicate glass. Details of our Raman analysis are presented in .
Fig. 3.Effect of N loss (A and B) and fO2 (C and D) on N-isotopic fractionation ∆15Nmetal-silicate. (A) Modeled effect of N loss by Rayleigh distillation on the δ15Nnorm values of silicate glasses as a function of fN, the fraction of N remaining in the sample at the end of the experiments compared with the initial N content of the starting materials. The values represent measured 15N/14Nsilicate ratios normalized to the initial 15N/14N ratio of the starting material (see text and Table 1). Rayleigh distillation was modeled for N2 loss (green curve) and NH3 loss (red curve) as , where α is the fractionation factor approximated here by = 1.02 for N2 loss and by = 1.03 for NH3 loss. The positive δ15N values measured in our silicate glasses can be explained by the Rayleigh distillation model, suggesting that N loss may have increased the δ15N values of the silicate glasses. (B) Evolution of δ15N in the silicate glasses (closed symbols) and in the metal blobs (open symbols) as a function of fN. The δ15Nnorm values represent measured 15N/14N ratios (p representing the metallic or silicate phase) normalized to the initial 15N/14N ratio of the starting material (see text and Table 1), and the gray line at 0‰ represents the initial δ15Nnorm value. The difference between the δ15N values measured in the metal and the silicate phases (δ15Nmetal − δ15Nsilicate) approximates the calculated ∆15Nmetal-silicate values. Considering that positive values may have been produced by N loss, the difference between the initial (0‰) and the values corresponds to ∆15N*, the N-isotopic fractionation corrected for N loss. (C) ∆15Nmetal-silicate as a function of fO2, showing both calculated ∆15Nmetal-silicate (blue symbols) and ∆15N* (purple symbols). The small blue x's are reproduced from Li et al. (16), with fO2 values recalculated following the procedure described in the text. Error bars represent 2σ SDs. Whereas the uncertainties on ∆15Nmetal-silicate are determined from the SDs on 15N/14N ratios measured by SIMS, the larger uncertainties on fN, δ15Nnorm values, and ∆15N* are derived from the weighing uncertainties associated with the addition of Si314N4 and Si315N4 to the starting materials. The dashed line represents a linear regression (r2 > 0.9) on the ∆15Nmetal-silicate values measured in Fe-rich basalt. ∆15Nmetal-silicate data describe 2 trends that can be explained by compositionally dependent differences in N speciation in the silicate glasses (see text). (D) Evolution of δ15Nnorm in the silicate glasses and metal blobs as a function of fO2. This plot shows that positive values can also be produced by N-isotopic fractionation during metal segregation from the melt via the formation of 14N–Fe bonds in the metal from 14N in NH complexes in the melt. This process becomes more important as the fO2 decreases due to the increasing stabilization of NH complexes in the melt under more reducing conditions.
Fig. 4.Modeled δ15N values of the silicate proto-mantle during core formation as a function of core–mantle equilibration and fO2 conditions of the magma ocean. We explored 2 different values: the lowest (−45‰) and highest (−15‰) values measured in enstatite chondrites (13). The respective values used for DNmetal-silicate and ∆15Nmetal-silicate were 7 and −49‰ at IW, 3.02 and −89‰ at ∆IW −1, and 0.2 and −257‰ at ∆IW −3.1 (Table 1). The present-day value of the mantle is −5 ± 2‰ (gray bar; the thickness of the bar represents the 2σ SD), based on a compilation from diamonds and MORBs (3). This model assumes that ∆15Nmetal-silicate was not affected by Rayleigh distillation during the experiments, and thus only considers that the mantle’s value was modified by core–mantle fractionation without accounting for the effect of degassing. After 30% core–mantle (metal–silicate) equilibration, the modeled fO2 variations account for a difference in the mantle δ15N value of up to 27‰. The vertical bar between −51 and −25‰ represents the plausible range of δ15N values of Earth’s building blocks necessary to produce the present-day δ15Nmantle value of −5 ± 2‰ at fO2 conditions between ∆IW −3 and −0.5, assuming that core formation is the only process that fractionated N isotopes during the Earth’s early history. At ∆IW −3.1, assuming a value of −25‰ for Earth’s building blocks, complete metal–silicate equilibration is required to reach the present-day δ15Nmantle value. In contrast, at IW, conditions under which N is siderophile, the present-day δ15Nmantle value is attained at 60% metal–silicate equilibration from any source of N with a ≥ −45‰.