Paper detail

A $\sim$32-70 K formation temperature range for the ice grains agglomerated by comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations are used to reproduce the N$_2$/CO ratio ranging between 1.7 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ and 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{-2}$ observed {\it in situ} in the Jupiter family comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the ROSINA mass spectrometer aboard the Rosetta spacecraft, assuming that this body has been agglomerated from clathrates in the protosolar nebula. Simulations are done using an elaborated interatomic potentials for investigating the temperature dependence of the trapping within a multiple guest clathrate formed from a gas mixture of CO and N$_2$ in proportions corresponding to those expected for the protosolar nebula. By assuming that 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko agglomerated from clathrates, our calculations suggest the cometary grains must have been formed at temperatures ranging between $\sim$31.8 and 69.9 K in the protosolar nebula to match the N$_2$/CO ratio measured by the ROSINA mass spectrometer. The presence of clathrates in Jupiter family comets could then explain the potential N$_2$ depletion (factor up to $\sim$87 compared to the protosolar value) measured in 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.