Examining Weathering of Magnesite in an Arid Environment: Implications For Jezero Crater
Introduction:Orbiter data indicatethe presence of carbonates in severallocations on the surface of Mars[1],but Jezero crater, landing site of the Perseverancerover,is the only known location where carbonatesap-pear coincident with evidence of fluvialand lacustrineactivity [2].On Earth, carbonates in close proximity to these paleoenvironments mayindicatethe presence of past microbial life,like stromatolites[3], that could re-sult inbiosignatures [2]. However,in other cases,car-bonates can also form throughthe alteration of mafic materialwiththe introductionof carbonic acid[4].Hy-drated magnesites have also been found in evaporative environments along lake shores, and in playas[5,6,7].Correctly interpreting past carbonates on Mars is there-fore critical in the search for past signs of life. In Jezero crater,both thenorthernand western fans haveMg-rich carbonates intermixed with olivine-rich material[8].According to CRISM data, magnesite(MgCO3), along with hydromagnesite(Mg5(CO3)4(OH)2•4H2O), arepotential candidatesfor these Mg-carbonates [2]. Considering the spatial con-text with olivine,there aremultiplepotential explana-tions for the presence ofMg-carbonatesin this locationincludingin-situformation via alterationof olivine-rich materialwith carbonic acid,transportationfrom farther up in the watershed, or precipitation of lacustrine car-bonates[2]. The formation of hydromagnesite rather than magnesite is favored when Mg2+saturated solutions have a high CO32-/HCO3-ratio, which, on Earth, is thought to be caused byinflow of groundwater [4]. Additionally, Mg-carbonates tend to precipitate under high pH condi-tions and are unstable at lower pH conditions [5]. Hy-dromagnesite is stable at atmospheric CO2pressure and temperature conditions common to most Earth surface environments [9]. However, it is subject to transfor-mation to magnesite after dehydration and concomitant brucite formation or dissolution and reprecipitation [10].Previousresearch suggests that hydrated car-bonates, including hydromagnesite, can formas weath-ering productsof mafic minerals in the presenceof H2O and CO2in subfreezing temperatures and would not de-hydrate under Martian atmospheric conditions [11,12].It is critical to understand the formation conditions of Mg-carbonatesbecause of the different implications for the past history of Martian environments. Therefore, in this work we are investigating the weathering of Mg-carbonatesin arid environments to helpbetter understand Mg-carbonates in Jezero crater. Study Area:The Ala-Mar Mines(East and West)near Ely, NVare the site ofmultiple magnesitedepositsfound within a calcareous tuff formationthat overlies Tertiary aged volcanic rocks.Here,magnesiteis formed via the alteration of the calcareous tuff and occurs innodules, veins,and lenses[13]. Previous work suggests magnesite deposits are associated with faults [13]. Within the West Mine, magnesite can be found in two maincontexts: (1) relatively circular zones of cauli-flower-like material found within (2) a more massivelensthat is heavily fractured on the surface.Methods.Samplesof both the cauliflower texture and more massive materialwere collectedat Ala Mar West Mine. Both samples were thenpowdered, sieved and analyzed with an inXitu Terra Portable XRD. The program QualX was used to identify potential mineral phases [14].Both samples were also optically inspected using 10x and 20x hand lenses.Figure 1. XRD patterns for the cauliflower magnesite (top) and massive magnesite (bottom). Ongoing and future work on the samples discussed above includes scanning electron microscopy (SEM), electron microprobe analysis (EMPA), and near-infra-red spectroscopy to determine whether hydromagnesite is present. Separation and analysis of the clay-size frac-tionby XRD will helpto better identify any phyllosili-cate phases present. Results and Discussion:Both textures are a white to light tan with a porcelain luster on weathered sur-faces, along with minor iron staining in some areas. Likewise, both textures are white with a porcelain luster on fresh surfaces. When broken apart, the massive mag-nesite shows macroscopic crystals, unlike the cauli-flower magnesite. XRD analysis shows that both samples have high concentrationsof magnesite with lesser amounts of thecarbonatemineral huntite(Mg3Ca(CO3)4; Figure1).The more massive samplecontainsa serpentine-groupmineral,with lizardite being apotential candidate. The cauliflower sample has several minor peaks that may correspond to hydromagnesite(Figure 1), although more work is needed to confirm this.Additionally, thecauliflower deposits closely resemble hydromagnesite deposits found in southwestern Turkey, formed via mi-crobialites[15].As such, it is likely that moreaqueous alterationor weatheringis occurring at the locations where the cauliflower magnesite is present. However, additional field work will need to be conducted to con-firm this hypothesis. Conclusions and Future Work:Future work will include field mapping of fault locations andadditional samplingof the different magnesite types as well as of the calcareous tuffmaterial.We will also look specifi-cally for potential weathering products of magnesite in this arid location, which may yield important insight into the Mg-carbonates located in Jezero crater. XRD analyses on aPANalytical XRDusing non-ambient stages will be used to investigate the stability of hydro-magnesiteat different humiditiesand temperatures, which has implications for samples to bereturned to Earth in the future. Additionally, thermal and evolved gas analysis of magnesite and hydromagnesite will be compared to results from Gale Craterto help interpret the mineralogy inthat location[16]. The results of this research will further ourunderstanding of carbonate for-mationin volcanic settingsandtheirweathering pro-cessesin arid environments. Acknowledgments:We acknowledge funding for this research from Jacobs Technology at the Johnson Space Center.We would also like to thank Ngoc Luu, Christopher Adcock, Richard Allanson, and the rest of the UNLV Soil Science Teamfor their continued sup-portwith troubleshooting and otherlab work. References:[1] Ehlmann, B.L., and Edwards, C.S. (2014) Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sci., 42, 291–315. [2] Horgan, B.H.N., et al. (2020) Icarus, 339, 113526. [3] Bosak, T., et al. (2013) Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sci, 41, 21–44. [4] Pohl, W.L. (1989) Gebriider Borntraege, 28, 1-13. [5] Müller, G., et al. (1972) Die Naturwissenschaften, 59, 158–164. [6] Walter, M.R., et al. (1973) Journal of Sedimentary Pe-trology, 43, 1021–1030. [7] Braithwaite, C.J.R., and Zedef, V. (1994) Sedimentary Geology, 92, 1–5. [8] Goudge, T.A., et al. (2015) JGR: Planets, 120, 775–808. [9] Langmuir, D. (1965) Journal of Geology, 73, 730–754. [10] Zhang, P., et al. (2000) Applied Geo-chem., 286, 1748–1753. [11] Calvin, W.M., et al. (1994) JGR, 99, 14659-14675. [12]Russell, M.J., et al. (1999) Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 156, p. 869–888. [13] Faust, G.T., and Callaghan, E. (1948) GSA Bulletin, 59, 11–74. [14] Altomare, A., et al. (2015) J. of Applied Crystallography, 48, 598–603. [15] Zedef, V.,et al. (2000) Economic Geology, 95, 429–445. [16] Leshin, L.A. et al., (2013) Science, 341, 1–9