Next Article in Journal
Cross-Correlation and Cross-Spectral Analysis of the Hydrographs in the Northern Part of the Dinaric Karst of Croatia
Next Article in Special Issue
History of the Terminal Cataclysm Paradigm: Epistemology of a Planetary Bombardment That Never (?) Happened
Previous Article in Journal
Picking Up the Pieces—Harmonising and Collating Seabed Substrate Data for European Maritime Areas
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ethical and Social Aspects of a Return to the Moon—A Geological Perspective
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Using Size and Composition to Assess the Quality of Lunar Impact Glass Ages

1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
2
Department of Physics, Albion College, Albion, MI 49224, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geosciences 2019, 9(2), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020085
Submission received: 30 November 2018 / Revised: 5 February 2019 / Accepted: 6 February 2019 / Published: 13 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Lunar Studies)

Abstract

:
Determining the impact chronology of the Moon is an important yet challenging problem in planetary science even after decades of lunar samples and other analyses. In addition to crater counting statistics, orbital data, and dynamical models, well-constrained lunar sample ages are critical for proper interpretation of the Moon’s impact chronology. To understand which properties of lunar impact glasses yield well-constrained ages, we evaluated the compositions and sizes of 119 Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17 impact glass samples whose compositions and 40Ar/39Ar ages have already been published, and we present new data on 43 others. These additional data support previous findings that the composition and size of the glass are good indicators of the quality of the age plateau derived for each sample. We have further constrained those findings: Glasses of ≥200 μm with a fraction of non-bridging oxygens (X(NBO)) of ≥0.23 and a K2O (wt%) of ≥0.07 are prime candidates for argon analyses and more likely to yield well-constrained 40Ar/39Ar ages. As a result, science resulting from impact glass analyses is maximized while analytical costs per glass are minimized. This has direct implications for future analyses of glass samples for both those in the current lunar collection and those that have yet to be collected.

1. Introduction

Lunar samples continue to be invaluable to the study of the Moon’s impact history. The Moon’s well-preserved surface and its close proximity allow for a better understanding of Earth’s own impact history and can also help inform models of the solar system’s dynamical evolution. Material recovered from the Apollo missions (e.g., bulk rock samples and regolith) along with lunar meteorites found on Earth provide important sources of information on these histories. Despite the wealth of data provided by these sources, however, the impact history of the Moon has proven to be complex and difficult to decipher [1,2]. Therefore, correct interpretation of the impact sample data is crucial for reconstructing an accurate impact history.
Impact glasses, which form from droplets of melt that have been ballistically transported from energetic impact events and are deposited into surrounding regolith, are one important source of data. These glasses retain the chemical composition of their target material and age of impact, making them powerful probes of regional geology and impact history [3]. However, interpretations must be made with caution. In order to make inferences of impact history, both the compositions and ages of glasses must be taken into account. For example, not all glasses are impact in origin. The Moon experienced a period of active volcanism between 3.8–3.2 Ga [4], so glasses must be screened for those that are volcanic in origin. Fortunately, the volcanic glasses can be characterized by a high MgO/Al2O3 ratio, chemical homogeneity, and Mg-correlated abundances of Ni, among other criteria (see [5] for more details). Age data that are not further supplemented with geochemical data can also lead to overestimates in the number of impact events needed to explain glasses that have similar ages.
In this work, a set of 119 impact glasses whose compositions and age assessments have been characterized (e.g., [6,7,8,9,10]) from Apollo regolith samples 14259,624; 15221,21; 64501,225; 66041,127; and 71501,262, and new data from 43 others, were studied. We created bivariate density plots and applied statistical methods to quantify the factors—particularly size and composition—that are important for yielding well-constrained 40Ar/39Ar ages.

2. Materials and Methods

The lithophile element compositions (e.g., Al2O3, MgO, and TiO2) for the new set of 43 lunar impact glasses were determined by electron microprobe analysis, which allows for the determination of chemical composition in small samples and is well-suited for impact glasses that are typically hundreds of microns in size [5] (see Supplementary Table S1 for major-element data). Ages were determined using 40Ar/39Ar dating by means of laser step-heating a glass sample to degas argon that is measured at each heating step. The 40Ar/39Ar ratios represent an apparent age measurement that can be plotted against the amount of released 39Ar, creating an age spectrum (i.e., a “plateau”, see Supplementary Figure S1). The age quality of a sample is determined by the number of steps that are statistically concordant (i.e., yield the same age within error), following the general practice of Jourdan (2012) [11]. Details of the geochemical and geochronological analyses can be found elsewhere [6,7,8].
Herein, 40Ar/39Ar ages of impact glasses have been assessed according to how well-constrained each age is: Poor, fair, or good (as in [7]). Glasses with ‘good’ quality ages include >50% 39Ar in their age assessment [12] with most steps being concordant; ‘fair’ ages are similar but with fewer concordant steps; and ‘poor’ ages had no concordant steps. Age data of the 43 new glasses with ‘good’ and ’fair’ age assessments can be found in Table 1 and “poor” glasses in Supplementary Table S2. Scatter plots and kernel density estimation plots (a type of probability distribution for bivariate data) were created to compare various glass characteristics (e.g., size, compositions, quality of age) and trends. Thus, by working backwards, i.e., determining the quality of 40Ar/39Ar age for each glass and then determining what characteristics of the glass may have affected how well the age was measured, general guidelines for determining a priori which glasses (based on, for example, size and/or composition) are likely to yield well-constrained 40Ar/39Ar ages have been established.

3. Results

In a series of heating experiments on large lunar glasses, Gombosi et al. (2015) determined that the fraction of non-bridging oxygens (X(NBO)) is inversely related to the diffusion of argon gas through glass [13]. In a companion study, Zellner and Delano (2015) [7] assessed hundreds of lunar impact glasses and proposed that glasses high in Fe and Ti were more likely to retain argon despite eons of diurnal heating of the lunar surface. Thus, glasses with larger X(NBO) should be more likely to retain argon [7,13,14,15]. Larger glasses, by virtue of their size, should also possess a larger quantity of argon than smaller ones.
Figure 1 shows a comparison between X(NBO) and the size of glasses of all age quality assessments. Spread exists across all age qualities making trend determinations somewhat difficult. To clearly determine whether or not any trends exist within or among the various data sets, glasses with ‘poor’ and ‘good’ age assessments were plotted separately and with a density estimate plot as shown in Figure 2.
The density plot estimates the distribution of size and X(NBO) data using concentric rings that fade to lighter colors with decreasing concentration of data. The density regions for glasses with age assessments qualified as ‘good’ are centered around larger sizes and higher X(NBO). These ‘good’ glasses have a median size of 260 µm while glasses with ‘fair’ age assessments have a median size of 208 µm. Based on the median values of size and X(NBO) of glasses with ‘poor’ age assessments, we estimate that a cutoff size of 200 µm and an X(NBO) of about 0.23 can be used to distinguish between ‘poor’ and ‘good’ quality age assessments (shown as dashed lines in Figure 2).
In addition to size and X(NBO), the amount of potassium in the glass is useful for distinguishing among glasses that are likely (or not) to yield well-constrained ages. Since 40K decays into 40Ar, it would be expected that samples with high K2O content would yield well-constrained ages. Indeed, it can be see that, in general, glasses with ‘poor’ and ‘fair’ age assessments have a lower K2O content (mean values of 0.196 and 0.237, respectively) compared to ‘good’ glasses (mean value 0.382), and we selected a cutoff of K2O (wt%) = 0.07, the median value of ‘poor’ glasses. There are exceptions, though, as some ‘poor’ glasses of size >200 µm have K2O (wt%) well in excess of the median value, so other criteria, such as in the value of X(NBO), should be considered during the selection process (Figure 3).
Table 2 shows how applying different criteria can affect the number of glasses of each age (quality) assessment compared to the fraction of ‘good’ glasses. Applying a single criterion such as size typically yields 51–56% of glasses having a ‘good’ age assessment, while using both size and X(NBO) increases the fraction of ‘good’ glasses by an additional 9–14%. With the additional consideration of K2O content, 71% of the glasses analyzed for 40Ar/39Ar yielded ‘good’ ages.

4. Discussion

Zellner and Delano (2015) [7] derived a relationship between impact glass size and shape and argon gas diffusivity in impact glasses while studying a set of nearly 100 glasses from the Apollo 12, 14, 16, and 17 landing sites. The study determined that impact glasses with a X(NBO) of <0.25 were unlikely to yield reliable 40Ar/39Ar ages. Our expanded data set, which includes newly acquired data from 43 additional samples and samples from Apollo 15 [9], supports and further constrains the findings of the previous study. From this study, we find that along with limits on size and X(NBO), choosing glasses with K2O (wt%) ≥ 0.07 will more likely result in well-constrained ages. It should also be noted that impact glass shape is another important selection factor. Prior work modeling the impact and transport of material on the Moon suggests that impact spheres are biased toward younger ages [16], as suggested by [7], while impact shards are more likely to be representative of total impact flux over all time [7].
The results of this study have direct implications for the future study of lunar samples. For example, three samples collected at the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 landing sites remain unopened, including two core vacuum sample containers (69001 and 73001) and one special environment sample container (15014). It has recently been suggested that one of these samples should be opened and analyzed [17]. Additionally, the proposed MoonRise and planned Chang’e 5 missions would return over a kilogram of rock fragments and regolith from the South Pole-Aitken Basin and two kilograms of regolith from the Mons Rumker region of Oceanus Procellarum, respectively. Analyses of these samples have the potential to further refine our understanding of the Moon’s impact chronology, basin formation processes, and thermal evolution [18,19]. By using the criteria outlined in this paper, we can maximize the science potential of these samples.

5. Conclusions

The impact history of the Moon is complex and its proper interpretation requires careful analysis of sample data. In this study, we have presented data that support and further refine the parameters of size and composition to aid in and expedite the selection of choice lunar impact glasses for argon dating. In particular, by choosing glasses with a size ≥ 200 μm, X(NBO) ≥ 0.23, and K2O ≥ 0.07, the maximum number of samples are most likely to yield well-constrained 40Ar/39Ar ages. These findings will be important to consider when selecting and studying lunar impact glasses that are likely to be brought to Earth during any future returns of lunar regolith samples, such as by the proposed Moonrise mission [18] and the planned Chang’e 5 mission [20].

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/9/2/85/s1, Table S1: Major-element compositions for Apollo 14, 16, and 17 lunar impact glasses, Table S2: K2O (wt%), X(NBO), and age data for Apollo 14, 16, and 17 lunar impact glasses, Figure S1: 40Ar/39Ar data for 43 newly analyzed Apollo 14, 16, and 17 lunar impact glasses.

Author Contributions

Data curation, N.Z.; formal analysis, P.N.; visualization, P.N.; writing—original draft preparation, N.Z. and P.N.; writing—review and editing, N.Z. and P.N.; supervision, N.Z.; funding acquisition, N.Z.

Funding

This research was funded by NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics grant #1516884 and by NASA Solar System Workings grant #NNX16AT34G.

Acknowledgments

NEBZ thanks Stefan Blachut, Oana Vesa, and Ray Cook for contributing to initial evaluations of trends in compositional data. These students were supported by Albion College’s Foundation for Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity. The authors thank Tim Swindle for his insight and guidance in interpreting 40Ar/39Ar ages and Clark Isachsen and Sky Beard for assistance with obtaining the age data. The authors thank Vera Fernandes and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions that greatly improved the focus of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bottke, W.F.; Norman, M.D. The Late Heavy Bombardment. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2017, 45, 619–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fernandes, V.A.; Fritz, J.; Weiss, B.P.; Garrick-Bethell, I.; Shuster, D.L. The bombardment history of the Moon as recorded by 40Ar-39Ar chronology. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2013, 48, 241–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zellner, N.E.B.; Spudis, P.D.; Delano, J.W.; Whittet, D.C.B. Impact glasses from the Apollo 14 landing site and implications for regional geology. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2002, 107, 5102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Papike, J.; Ryder, G.; Shearer, C. Lunar Samples. In Planetary Materials; Mineralogical Society of America: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; pp. 5.001–5.234. [Google Scholar]
  5. Delano, J.W. Pristine lunar glasses: Criteria, data, and implications. J. Geophys. Res. 1986, 91, D201–D213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Delano, J.W.; Zellner, N.E.B.; Barra, F.; Olson, E.; Swindle, T.D.; Tibbetts, N.J.; Whittet, D.C.B. An integrated approach to understanding Apollo 16 impact glasses: Chemistry, isotopes, and shape. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2007, 42, 993–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zellner, N.E.B.; Delano, J.W. 40 Ar/39 Ar ages of lunar impact glasses: Relationships among Ar diffusivity, chemical composition, shape, and size. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 161, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zellner, N.E.B.; Delano, J.W.; Swindle, T.D.; Barra, F.; Olsen, E.; Whittet, D.C.B. Evidence from 40Ar/39Ar ages of lunar impact glasses for an increase in the impact rate ∼800Ma ago. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2009, 73, 4590–4597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zellner, N.E.B.; Norman, M.D. Compositions and Ages of Apollo 15 Lunar Impact and Volcanic Glasses: First Results. In Proceedings of the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Woodlands, TX, USA, 19–23 March 2012. Abstract #1711. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zellner, N.E.B.; Nguyen, P.Q.; Vesa, O.; Cook, R.D.; Blachut, S.T.; Delano, J.W.; Swindle, T.D.; Beard, S.; Isachsen, C. Only Specific Lunar Impact Glasses Record Episodic Events on the Moon. In Proceedings of the 48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 20–24 March 2017. Abstract #2619. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jourdan, F. The 40Ar/39Ar dating technique applied to planetary sciences and terrestrial impacts. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 2012, 59, 199–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Swindle, T.D.; Weirich, J.R. The Effect of Partial Thermal Resetting on 40Ar-39Ar “Plateaus”. In Proceedings of the 48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 20–24 March 2017. Abstract #1265. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gombosi, D.J.; Baldwin, S.L.; Watson, E.B.; Swindle, T.D.; Delano, J.W.; Roberge, W.G. Argon diffusion in Apollo 16 impact glass spherules: Implications for 40$Ar/39$Ar dating of lunar impact events. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 148, 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mysen, B.; Richet, P. Silicate Glasses and Melts: Properties and Structure; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, S.K. Simplicity in melt densification in multicomponent magmatic reservoirs in Earth’s interior revealed by multinuclear magnetic resonance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 6847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, Y.-H.; Minton, D.A.; Zellner, N.E.B.; Hirabayashi, M.; Richardson, J.E.; Fassett, C.I. No Change in the Recent Lunar Impact Flux Required Based on Modeling of Impact Glass Spherule Age Distributions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2018, 45, 6805–6813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shearer, C.; Neal, C.; Zeigler, R. Unopened Treasures in the Apollo 17 Sample Collection. A Perspective for Future Research and Missions. In Proceedings of the 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Woodlands, TX, USA, 19–23 March 2018. Abstract #1253. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jolliff, B.L.; Shearer, C.K.; Papanastassiou, D.A.; Alkalai, L.; Moonrise Science Team. MoonRise: South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Mission for Solar System Science. In Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, Washington, DC, USA, 14–16 September 2010. Abstract #3072. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jolliff, B.L.; Shearer, C.K.; Papanastassiou, D.A.; Liu, Y.; MoonRise Science Team. Why Do We Need Samples from the Moon’s South Pole-Aitken Basin and What Would We Do with Them? In Proceedings of the 48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 20–24 March 2017. Abstract #1300. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhao, J.; Xiao, L.; Qiao, L.; Glotch, T.D.; Huang, Q. The Mons Rümker volcanic complex of the Moon: A candidate landing site for the Chang’E-5 mission. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2017, 122, 1419–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Plot comparing non-bridging oxygens (X(NBO)) and size for all 162 impact glasses with ‘good’ (green), ‘fair’ (yellow), and ‘poor’ (blue) age assessments. (b) Comparison of 74 glasses after imposing a minimum lower size limit of 200 μm and an X(NBO) ≥ 0.23. Data in both figures are from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
Figure 1. (a) Plot comparing non-bridging oxygens (X(NBO)) and size for all 162 impact glasses with ‘good’ (green), ‘fair’ (yellow), and ‘poor’ (blue) age assessments. (b) Comparison of 74 glasses after imposing a minimum lower size limit of 200 μm and an X(NBO) ≥ 0.23. Data in both figures are from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
Geosciences 09 00085 g001
Figure 2. Bivariate density plots of size and X(NBO) for (a) ‘poor’ glasses and (b) ‘good’ glasses (as defined in the text). Darker shading represents a higher spatial density of glasses for that region of the plot. Univariate distribution estimates for size and X(NBO) are shown on the right and top edges of each figure. Dashed lines indicate a median cutoff size of ≥200 μm and an X(NBO) value of ≥0.23. Data in both figures are from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
Figure 2. Bivariate density plots of size and X(NBO) for (a) ‘poor’ glasses and (b) ‘good’ glasses (as defined in the text). Darker shading represents a higher spatial density of glasses for that region of the plot. Univariate distribution estimates for size and X(NBO) are shown on the right and top edges of each figure. Dashed lines indicate a median cutoff size of ≥200 μm and an X(NBO) value of ≥0.23. Data in both figures are from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
Geosciences 09 00085 g002
Figure 3. Plot comparing X(NBO) and K2O (wt%) for 100 impact glasses sizes of ≥200 µm with ‘good’ (green), ‘fair’ (yellow), and ‘poor’ (blue) age assessments (as defined in the text). K2O (wt%) = 0.07 and X(NBO) = 0.23 are indicated by the dashed lines. Data are from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
Figure 3. Plot comparing X(NBO) and K2O (wt%) for 100 impact glasses sizes of ≥200 µm with ‘good’ (green), ‘fair’ (yellow), and ‘poor’ (blue) age assessments (as defined in the text). K2O (wt%) = 0.07 and X(NBO) = 0.23 are indicated by the dashed lines. Data are from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
Geosciences 09 00085 g003
Table 1. K2O (wt%), X(NBO), and age data for Apollo 14, 16, and 17 lunar impact glasses for good or fair glasses. "ND" means not determined. Assessment of argon release patterns are ‘good’ if >50% 39Ar was used in the age and most of the steps were concordant; ‘fair’ if some of the steps were concordant; and ‘poor’ if none of the steps were concordant.
Table 1. K2O (wt%), X(NBO), and age data for Apollo 14, 16, and 17 lunar impact glasses for good or fair glasses. "ND" means not determined. Assessment of argon release patterns are ‘good’ if >50% 39Ar was used in the age and most of the steps were concordant; ‘fair’ if some of the steps were concordant; and ‘poor’ if none of the steps were concordant.
Sample#K2O (wt %)X (NBO)Age (Ma)± 2σ (Ma)# Steps, % 39Ar Used in AgeNotes on AgeAssessment of AgeSize (µm)Shape
Apollo 1460.150.3037335922, 68.4weightedfair150dumbbell
14,259,62480.260.308251269, 97.9weightedgood174shard
110.580.321310206, 95plateaugood300shard
160.210.3235572498, 85plateaugood300shard
210.160.32213854, 97.8plateaugood250.5oblong
250.290.28326862, 1002 stepsfair199.5dumbbell
260.500.331792688, 91plateaugood300shard
290.430.311088876, 73.6weightedgood250.5sphere
330.300.3144424293, 60weightedfair174sphere
430.280.424916310, 93.4plateaugood250.5shard
470.880.3234572772, 97weightedgood150sphere
650.580.3437982261, 1001 stepfair199.5shard
700.360.3227093881, 881 stepfair199.5sphere
1230.140.2923307003, 100plateaufair199.5sphere
1250.610.29330416362, 100weightedfair199.5shard
1450.400.2929847793, 90.8weightedgood150sphere
1480.160.303631225, 100plateaugood250.5sphere
1500.150.19361024963, 100plateaufair150dumbbell
1580.720.2120162583, 75.6weightedgood199.5shard
1600.350.3635266851, 791 stepfair199.5shard
1630.450.3031356112, 94plateaugood199.5shard
1670.470.28106196, 93.6plateaugood300shard
Apollo 161910.110.3210002307, 67.3plateaufair250.5shard
64,501,2252040.210.2439051686, 90.7plateaugood349.5shard
2070.100.369253588, 89plateaugood300shard
2310.110.3515731906, 72.8plateaugood324shard
2620.790.2828182492, 80.5weightedfair199.5shard
Apollo 172890.110.3413239044, 64weightedfair199.5sphere
71,501,2623750.330.2634754521, 1001 stepfair250.5shard
Table 2. Comparison of how applying various selection criteria to lunar impact glasses can affect the likelihood of analyzing glasses that will yield 40Ar/39Ar ages of ‘good’ quality. Data used from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
Table 2. Comparison of how applying various selection criteria to lunar impact glasses can affect the likelihood of analyzing glasses that will yield 40Ar/39Ar ages of ‘good’ quality. Data used from [6,7,8,9,10] and Table 1.
CriteriaFraction of Good Glasses# Good# Fair# PoorTotal
Size Only (≥200 µm)0.56562321100
X(NBO) Only (≥0.23)0.51613128120
K2O Only (≥0.07)0.55602623109
Size and X(NBO)0.6548141274
Size, X(NBO), and K2O0.71398855

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nguyen, P.; Zellner, N. Using Size and Composition to Assess the Quality of Lunar Impact Glass Ages. Geosciences 2019, 9, 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020085

AMA Style

Nguyen P, Zellner N. Using Size and Composition to Assess the Quality of Lunar Impact Glass Ages. Geosciences. 2019; 9(2):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020085

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nguyen, Pham, and Nicolle Zellner. 2019. "Using Size and Composition to Assess the Quality of Lunar Impact Glass Ages" Geosciences 9, no. 2: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020085

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop