Title: Cosmic pollution on Mars
Authors: Mark Allen1,2*, IngeLoes ten Kate3, George Cody4, Edwin Kite2, Karen Willacy1, Jason Weibel5
Affiliations:
1Science Division, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.
2Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
3Department of Earth Sciences, UtrechtUniversity, Budapestlaan 4,3584 CD Utrecht,The Netherlands.
4Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5251 Broad Branch Road, NW, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
5Chemistry Department, Shenandoah University, 1460 University Drive, Winchester, VA 22601, USA.
*Correspondence to: .
Abstract: In the same way as Earth, Mars is regularly bombarded by particles derived from asteroids and comets that contain organic material. Due to the Martian thin atmosphere, much of this organic material reaches the Martian surface relatively unprocessed. We have modeled the accumulation of this exogeneous organic material—cosmic pollution in effect—on the surface and its burial beneath the surface, taking into account decomposition due to ultraviolet radiation and galactic cosmic rays. The computed abundance of exogeneous organic material is a few parts per billion to a few parts per million by mass at the surface and for many meters beneath the surface. This material is predominantly insoluble polymeric organics. At these abundances, the meteoritic organics should be detectable by present and future landed experiments. As such, this amount of cosmic pollution can confound current and future plans to detect endogenous organic material that might be evidence for extinct or extant Martian life.
One Sentence Summary:Exogeneous organic material regularly deposited on the Martian surface may overwhelm attempts to detect endogeneous organic material that could be evidence for extinct or extant life.
Main Text: The Martian atmosphere is regularly bombarded by organic-containing particles derived from asteroids and comets, as is the case for the Earth (1). Due to the thin Martian atmosphere, many of these particles reach the surface relatively unaltered (2). One recent estimate for the surface meteoritic organic abundance is ~400 ppmm (parts per million by mass) that is based on a correlation with nickel detected on the Martian surface and assumes distribution over the top few meters, but no chemical degradation (3). A much lower estimate of ~4-10 ppmm, depending on latitude, was based just on consideration of ultraviolet degradation and limited mixing with the subsurface (4). With the advent of modern searches for organic chemicals on the surface or in the near subsurface, including the recent landing of the NASA Curiosity mission, a joint ESA-Roscosmos mission later in this decade, and planning for sample return, we chose to reexamine the implications of the influx of this cosmic pollution. We computed the expected abundance of exogeneous organic material both on the surface and below the surface. The abundances were computed as a balance between the exogeneous flux to the surface, chemical decomposition as a function of depth beneath the surface, and physical burial due to aeolian or sedimentation processes.
The model used for the calculations herein was derived from a coupled atmospheric chemistry/vertical transport model used to simulate atmospheres throughout the solar system (5). However, for the purposes of this paper, the surface is the top boundary of the model and transport to the subsurface is what counterbalances local chemical processes. In addition, the vertical transport is treated as advection, not diffusion. The spatial resolution for the calculations was finer near the surface and became coarser with increasing depth. The numerical values for the parameters in the model were derived from the literature.
The predicted total mass of cosmic material landing on the Martian surface is between 17 and 370 gm m-2 my-1(2). If the particles are of asteroidal origin, this would imply a flux of carbon to the surface between 35 and 767 mg m-2 my-1, while if of cometary origin, between 4.2 and 92 gm m-2 my-1 is landing on the Martian surface(6). The chemical composition of the carbon-containing phases of these particles is fairly similar whether derived from asteroids or comets—80% insoluble polymeric organic and 20% soluble organic molecules, such as amino acids, as found in primitive chondritic material (6)
As the chemical loss rates are a function of the chemical composition of the carbon-containing components of the exogeneous material, we treated separately the insoluble polymeric fraction and the soluble fraction. Of the possible molecules comprising the soluble fraction, we only could find in the literature measured or computed decomposition rates for amino acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), so we decided to treat the whole soluble faction as if it were one type of compound. For the purposes of the calculation herein, we assume that the organic fractions are isolated from and not protected by the inorganic matrix in which the organic fractions are delivered to the surface (if otherwise, the organic fractions will be protected, more stable, and even more abundant on the surface or in the near subsurface than estimated below).
There are three forms of chemical degradation discussed in the literature—oxidation processes, photolytic decomposition, and decomposition by ionizing radiation, particularly galactic cosmic rays. While oxidative decomposition of organic molecules on the Martian surface has been discussed since the days of the Viking mission (7), most recently inspired by the detection of perchlorate at the Phoenix lander site (8), there are no published oxidative decomposition timescales. In previous work, the consequences of ultraviolet and cosmic ray decomposition were treated separately; in this work we consider the consequences of these processes acting simultaneously. Ultraviolet decomposition of amino acids has been quantified for Mars conditions and we adopt a value for the inverse mean loss timescale of 1.7 x 10-6s-1. The published value was calculated assuming overhead illumination (9), so the value we have adopted has been adjusted downward by a factor of three to be consistent with a global diurnal average. Alternatively PAHs could represent the soluble fraction; the published ultraviolet decomposition rate (10) has been scaled downward as just discussed to provide an alternative mean loss timescale of 5.7 x 10-6s-1 for the soluble fraction. As the insoluble fraction is not a specific molecular compound, there have been no published measurements for ultraviolet decomposition. However, from the work of (4), we derived an inverse mean decomposition lifetime of 1.3 x 10-10 s-1. Cosmic ray decomposition has been studied for amino acids; we adopt of value of 1.3 x 10-16 s-1 based on the work of (11). Again there is no work published on insoluble cosmic ray decomposition, but (12) have shown a scaling with mass that allows an insoluble cosmic ray inverse loss timescale to be estimated from lower mass values (13), yielding a value of 5.3 x 10-15 s-1 based on a stoichiometry of C100H120O60N4 for the insoluble fraction (14).
The calculation includes these processes varying with depth beneath the surface. The mean attenuation depth for ultraviolet radiation of 0.078 cm (780 μm) was derived from the work of (15) and is consistent with an experimental value of 200 – 500 μm(16). The mean attenuation depth for cosmic ray penetration of 160 cm was derived from (13); our value was scaled upwards by a factor of 1.54 to account for differences in density (rock ~ 2 g cm-3 versus Mars soil ~ 1.3 g cm-3(17)).
As will be seen below, the near-surface abundance of exogeneous organic material is very sensitive to the local rate of burial by dust, silt and sand. Burial can slow decomposition of surface organics if not previously decomposed when exposed on the surface. Where layered sediments are forming, burial could be as fast as 30-100 μm/yr(18). Small craters can be filled in at a rate ≤1 μm/yr(19). General resurfacing rates are much slower, <0.01 μm/yr(20).
Table 1 summarizes the model parameters adopted for the model simulations reported herein. Figure 1 shows the chemical loss mean timescales corresponding to the photodecomposition and cosmic ray decomposition processes in Table 1. Also in Figure 1 is the timescale for burial to 1 cm depth at multiple burial rates. These timescales will be useful in understanding the model simulation results that follow. If oxidative loss timescales are ever computed for the Martian surface, these values can be compared to the timescales shown in Figure 1 from which the effect of oxidative loss on exogeneous organic abundances can be estimated.
Fig. 1. Mean timescales for loss of meteoritic organic fractions deposited on the Martian surface as a function of depth below the surface. Shown for the insoluble organic fraction (red lines) are photodecomposition (solid line) and cosmic ray decomposition (dash line) and, for the soluble organic fraction (blue lines), are photodecomposition with a rate coefficient of 1.7 x 10-6e(z/0.078) (solid line) and 5.7 x 10-6 e(z/0.078) (dash-dot line) and cosmic ray decomposition (dash line). The black lines are the timescales for burial to a depth of 1 centimeter at a rate of 100 μm/yr (solid line), 30 μm/yr (dot line), 1 μm/yr (dash line), and 0.01 μm/yr (dash-dot line).
Table 2 shows the specific parameters used in the different model simulations. In all cases, the computed abundances of meteoritic organics scales linearly with the adopted value for the infall flux of meteoritic organics. Table 1 shows that this assumption leads to a range in results of ~103 in each case, although this will not be shown explicitly in the rest of this paper.
Assuming the continuous deposition of meteoritic organics with no chemical decomposition and no burial, the Martian surface would be solidly covered with cosmic pollution (model simulation 1). The inclusion of burial transports the surface organics to large depths below the surface (model simulation 2, Figure 2 left). Model simulations 1 and 2, the latter with a meteoritic organic surface abundance of ~1 ppm, bracket the result reported in (3). In model simulation 3, chemical decomposition was added to burial as loss processes. As seen in Figure 1, the chemical decomposition timescales are much shorter than the timescales for burial, with the result that substantial abundances of the soluble meteoritic organics do not exist more than 1 μm beneath the surface (Figure 2 left). Figure 1 also shows that the chemical degradation timescales for the insoluble organic fraction are comparable to burial timescales and, consequently, the insoluble organic fraction abundance on and beneath the surface is not much different from model simulation 1. Increasing the rate of soluble organic photodegradation by a factor of ~3 (model simulation 4) decreases the soluble organic distribution by an order of magnitude.
Decreasing the rate of burial from 100 μm/yr (model simulation 3) to 30 μm/yr (model simulation 5) to 1 μm/yr (model simulation 6) and finally to 0.01 μm/yr (model simulation 7) has opposite effects on the accumulation of the soluble and insoluble organic fractions (Figure 2 right). As expected from the relative timescales in Figure 1, expanded exposure time on the surface reduces the abundances of the meteoritic soluble organics and more rapidly decreases the abundances with depth beneath the surface. Since the lifetime of the meteoritic insoluble organic fraction is comparable to burial timescales, slower burial timescales lead to increased surface accumulation. However, as the burial rate decreases, subsurface cosmic ray degradation ultimately does limit the depth at which substantial abundances exist. Over this range of burial rates, the surface abundances of meteoritic insoluble organics exceed 1 ppmm (abundances bracket the results of (4)).
Surface material burial rates of 30 - 100 μm/yr may be appropriate for the environment that Curiosity will be sampling. Burial rates of ~1 μm/yr may be appropriate for the sites in which the ExoMars lander will arrive. In both cases, Figure 2 shows that the meteoritic organics may be in many ppmm amounts in materials collected on the surface or retrieved from many meters depth.
Fig. 2. Mixing ratios for meteoritic insoluble organic fraction (red lines) and soluble organic fraction (blue lines) as a function of depth below the surface: (left) model simulations 2 - 4 (Table 2) are indicated by solid, dot, and dash lines, respectively; (right) model simulations 3, 5 – 7 are indicated by solid, dot, dash, and dash-dot lines, respectively. The sharp bends in lines are numerical artifacts of the variable model layer thickness with depth below the surface.
Figure 2 shows that the meteoritic organic infall flux can result in ppmm surface mixing ratios that are well within Mars lander instrument detection capabilities. The Viking Organic Analysis Experiment had a nominal detection limit of ppbm for simple organic compounds (21). However, since this experiment only heated samples up to 500 °C, it was recognized at the time that complex polymeric material would not have been detected. As the meteoritic insoluble organic fraction is the dominant exogeneous contribution to surface materials and only slightly decomposes in laboratory experiments above 600 °C (22), the presence of these organics on the surface was undetectable. In such laboratory experiments, thermal decomposition of the meteoritic insoluble organic phase yields a range of lighter organic compounds. Since the Curiosity Sample Analysis at Mars instrument suite heats samples well above 600 °C and has ppbm sensitivity (23), the predicted meteoritic organic surface abundance should be detectable.
The possible high level of cosmic pollution on the surface of Mars and to large depths below the surface can likely interfere with attempts to detect endogenous organic compounds that could serve as evidence for extinct or extant life. It may not be possible to drill to depths that are not dominated by the exogeneous organic material. Even in samples brought back to Earth, the organic component likely may be primarily exogeneous and overwhelm any remnant from an endogeneous source. Finally, the bombardment of Mars by organic-containing cosmic material extends back to the origin of Mars with the consequence that the organic content in rocks and sediments, and Martian meteoritic material found on the Earth surface (24), may be dominated by cosmic pollution.
References and Notes:
1.M. Bernstein, Prebiotic materials from on and off the early Earth. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences361, 1689 (2006).
2.G. J. Flynn, D. S. McKay, An Assessment of the Meteoritic Contribution to the Martian Soil. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth and Planets95, 14497 (1990).
3.A. S. Yen et al., Nickel on Mars: Constraints on meteoritic material at the surface. Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets111, (2006).
4.J. E. Moores, A. C. Schuerger, UV degradation of accreted organics on Mars: IDP longevity, surface reservoir of organics, and relevance to the detection of methane in the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets117, (2012).
5.M. Allen, Y. L. Yung, J. W. Waters, Vertical Transport and Photochemistry in the Terrestrial Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere (50-120 Km). Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics86, 3617 (1981).
6.G. D. Cody et al., Establishing a molecular relationship between chondritic and cometary organic solids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America108, 19171 (2011).
7.H. P. Klein, Viking Mission and the Search for Life on Mars. Reviews of Geophysics17, 1655 (1979).
8.M. H. Hecht et al., Detection of Perchlorate and the Soluble Chemistry of Martian Soil at the Phoenix Lander Site. Science325, 64 (2009).
9.I. L. ten Kate, J. R. C. Garry, Z. Peeters, B. Foing, P. Ehrenfreund, The effects of Martian near surface conditions on the photochemistry of amino acids. Planetary and Space Science54, 296 (2006).
10.L. R. Dartnell, M. R. Patel, M. C. Storrie-Lombardi, J. M. Ward, J. P. Muller, Experimental determination of photostability and fluorescence-based detection of PAHs on the Martian surface. Meteoritics & Planetary Science47, 806 (2012).
11.S. Iglesias-Groth, F. Cataldo, O. Ursini, A. Manchado, Amino acids in comets and meteorites: stability under gamma radiation and preservation of the enantiomeric excess. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society410, 1447 (2011).
12.G. Kminek, J. L. Bada, The effect of ionizing radiation on the preservation of amino acids on Mars. Earth and Planetary Science Letters245, 1 (2006).
13.A. A. Pavlov, G. Vasilyev, V. M. Ostryakov, A. K. Pavlov, P. Mahaffy, Degradation of the organic molecules in the shallow subsurface of Mars due to irradiation by cosmic rays. Geophysical Research Letters39, (2012).
14.J. Kissel, F. R. Krueger, The Organic-Component in Dust from Comet Halley as Measured by the Puma Mass-Spectrometer on board Vega-1. Nature326, 755 (1987).
15.C. Sagan, J. B. Pollack, Differential Transmission of Sunlight on Mars - Biological Implications. Icarus21, 490 (1974).
16.A. C. Schuerger, R. L. Mancinelli, R. G. Kern, L. J. Rothschild, C. P. McKay, Survival of endospores of Bacillus subtilis on spacecraft surfaces under simulated martian environments: implications for the forward contamination of Mars. Icarus165, 253 (2003).
17.K. E. Herkenhoff et al., in The Martian Surface: Composition, Mineralogy, and Physical Properties, J. F. Bell, Ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008), pp. 451-467.
18.K. W. Lewis et al., Quasi-Periodic Bedding in the Sedimentary Rock Record of Mars. Science322, 1532 (2008).
19.M. P. Golombek, paper presented at the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Houston, 2012.
20.M. P. Golombek et al., Erosion rates at the Mars Exploration Rover landing sites and long-term climate change on Mars. Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets111, (2006).
21.K. Biemann, Implications and Limitations of the Findings of the Viking Organic-Analysis Experiment. Journal of Molecular Evolution14, 65 (1979).
22.G. D. Cody et al., Organic thermometry for chondritic parent bodies. Earth and Planetary Science Letters272, 446 (2008).
23.P. R. Mahaffy et al., The Sample Analysis at Mars Investigation and Instrument Suite. Space Science Reviews170, 401 (2012).
24.M. A. Sephton et al., High molecular weight organic matter in martian meteorites. Planetary and Space Science50, 711 (2002).
Acknowledgments: We thank Y. L. Yung and R.-L. Shia for their assistance with the computer model used in this work. This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CaliforniaInstitute of Technology, under acontract with the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration.
Table 1. Model parameters.
Insoluble organic fraction / Soluble organic fractionSurface deposition flux (gm cm-2 s-1) / 8.9 x 10-20 - 2.4 x 10-16 / 2.2 x 10-20 – 5.9 x 10-17
Ultraviolet decomposition inverse mean timescale (s-1) / 1.3 x 10-10e(z/0.078) / 1.7 – 5.7 x 10-6e(z/0.078)
Cosmic ray decomposition inverse mean timescale (s-1) / 5.3 x 10-15e(z/123) / 1.3 x 10-16e(z/123)
Burial velocity (cm s-1) / 3.2 x 10-14 – 3.2 x 10-10
See text for references. z is distance below surface in cm.
Table 2.Model simulation parameters.