pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.16859 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Constructing Earth Formation History Using Deep Mantle Noble Gas Reservoirs

Vincent Savignac , Eve J. Lee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 19:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Earth formationnoble gasesneon isotopesmagma oceansplanetary embryossolar nebulagiant impacts
0
0 comments X

The pith

The concentration of primordial neon in Earth's deep mantle requires formation from 0.3 Earth-mass embryos in a solar nebula depleted by at least 100 times in gas density.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses simulations of gas accretion and neon dissolution to show that only 0.3 Earth-mass embryos in a highly depleted solar nebula can explain the observed primordial neon in deep mantle plumes. Smaller embryos do not accrete enough gas to melt the mantle, while larger ones over-enrich it with neon. This points to Earth starting to form during the dispersal of the solar nebula. Light noble gases trace this gas phase while heavier ones trace solid accretion, consistent with multiple giant impacts after the nebula cleared.

Core claim

By simulating the growth of primordial gas envelopes on planetary embryos and the dissolution of nebular neon into their magma oceans under chemical equilibrium, the calculations tightly constrain the embryo mass that matches deep mantle neon concentrations to about 0.3 Earth masses in a nebula with gas density reduced by a factor of 100 or more. Embryos of smaller mass cannot reach the required melting temperatures, and larger ones produce too high neon levels. This supports the idea that Earth's formation began with the assembly of these embryos while gas was still present but depleted, followed by giant impacts after dispersal.

What carries the argument

Simulation of primordial envelope growth with modern gas accretion schemes and calculation of nebular neon dissolution into magma oceans at chemical equilibrium.

If this is right

  • Embryos smaller than 0.3 Earth masses cannot accrete enough gas for the mantle to melt basalt.
  • Larger embryos accrete excessive gas, overproducing neon in the deep mantle.
  • Earth's formation started with ~0.3 Earth-mass embryos during solar nebula dispersal.
  • Light noble gases (He, Ne) in the deep mantle reflect primordial gas accretion history.
  • Heavy noble gases (Ar, Kr, Xe) probe early solid accretion processes, consistent with at least two giant impacts after nebula dispersal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This constraint on embryo mass can be compared to independent models of terrestrial planet formation that include both gas and solid accretion.
  • Similar neon signatures on other terrestrial planets could reveal differences in their formation timing relative to nebula dispersal.
  • Using heavy noble gas isotopes could provide an independent check on the solid accretion timeline separate from the gas record.
  • Confirmation would favor scenarios where Mars-sized embryos form while gas is still dissipating from the disk.

Load-bearing premise

The neon isotopic ratios observed in deep mantle plumes directly reflect the quantity of nebular gas that dissolved into the magma oceans of 0.3 Earth-mass embryos, without significant later loss, mixing or fractionation changing the concentration.

What would settle it

Deep mantle samples showing neon concentrations or isotopic compositions inconsistent with those expected from 0.3 Earth-mass embryos accreting in a 100x gas-depleted nebula, or evidence of substantial post-accretion alteration of the neon signal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.16859 by Eve J. Lee, Vincent Savignac.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Layered structure of Earth embryos considered in this work. Embryos are divided into a rocky interior and a surrounding gas envelope accreted from the primordial neb￾ula of the solar system. We assume that the rocky interior is made of an innermost iron core and an outer silicate man￾tle, analogous to the Earth’s current internal structure. As argued in Section 2.1, the energy transport within the in￾ner a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Formation of primordial gas envelopes atop rocky interiors embedded at 1 au in the minimum-mass solar neb￾ula of C. Hayashi (1981), with gas density depleted by a factor of fdep = 10−2 (see Equation 8). Top: Radial profiles (solid) of the temperature and pressure (T, P) of the envelope with mass Menv for a rocky interior of mass Mrock = 0.2M⊕, extending from the radius of the rocky interior Rrock to the Bo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dissolution calculation of the concentration of primordial 22Ne captured at the molten surface of magma oceans on Earth embryos embedded in the solar nebula. Subfigures (a), (b), (c) and (d) present our results for protocore masses of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4M⊕, respectively. For each case, the upper panel shows the temperature T0 of the envelope-mantle boundary as a function of time and the lower panel the resu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the favored Earth formation scenario implied by our results. Top: From left to right, we show the different formation stages of the Earth from a side-view of a truncated solar nebula, which is initially rich in gas (yellow) and dust (gray dots). As the disk progressively dissipates, the coagulation of solids (see Section 4.1.1) leads to the formation of a set of three ∼ 0.3M⊕ embr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Orbit crossing time tX of 0.3M⊕ embryos as￾sembled at a ∼ 1 au with eccentricity e = 0.001, as a func￾tion of orbital spacing k. The eccentricity damping timescale tdamp of the embryos in a gaseous nebular depleted by fac￾tors fdep = [10−2 , 10−3 , 10−4 ] are displayed with cyan, yel￾low and magenta dashed horizontal lines, respectively. The damping times are multiplied by 10 to assess the merger cri￾terio… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dissolution parameters of 5 non-radiogenic iso￾topes (AX) of nebular noble gases (3He, 22Ne, 36Ar, 84Kr, and 130Xe) into basaltic melt. The abundances of each iso￾topes nAX are taken from the analysis of M. Asplund et al. (2021). We use the elemental values of Henry’s constant kX (See Equation 12) of G. Iacono-Marziano et al. (2010) for He, Ne and Ar and the ones of A. Jambon et al. (1986) for Kr and Xe, e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the expected concentrations of primordial nebular gas dissolved in the mantle with the mea￾sured deep mantle concentrations measured by B. Marty (2012) in plume samples. A dotted one-to-one line centered on 22Ne is shown to illustrate how the 36Ar, 84Kr and 130Xe reservoirs cannot be purely explained by the capture of pri￾mordial volatiles as isotopic measurements argue is the case for Ne (C.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Estimates of the noble gas sourcing in the deep mantle reservoirs of 3He, 22Ne, 36Ar, 84Kr, and 130Xe. Contributions from dissolved primordial gas from the solar nebula, CI carbonaceous chondrites incorporated during early formation of rocky interiors and recycled gas subducted from the Earth’s secondary atmosphere are represented in yellow, green and magenta, respectively. Concentrations are normalized to… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Surface temperature T0 (upper panel) between the basaltic mantle of Earth embryos and primordial gas en￾velopes, along with the resulting concentration of primor￾dial neon c22Ne,p dissolved in the mantle (lower panel), both as functions of Menv/Mrock. We compare the input atmo￾spheric parameters and the resulting dissolved neon con￾tent (given by Equation 12) of the solution reported by the thermodynamic m… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Noble gases are powerful probes of the Earth's early history, as they are chemically inert. Neon isotopic ratios in deep mantle plumes suggest that nebular gases were incorporated into the Earth's interior. This evidence implies the Earth's formation began when there was still gas around, with Earth embryos accreting primordial gas and a fraction of that gas dissolved into molten magma. In this work, we examine these implications, simulating the growth of primordial envelopes using modern gas accretion schemes, and computing the dissolution of nebular Ne into magma oceans following chemical equilibrium. We find that the embryo mass that reproduces the deep mantle concentration of primordial Ne is tightly constrained to $\sim 0.3 M_\oplus$, within a solar nebula depleted by $\geq 100 \times$ in gas density. Embryos of smaller masses cannot accrete enough gas to allow the mantle to reach the melting temperature of basalt. Embryos of larger masses accrete way too much gas, producing excessive Ne concentrations in the deep mantle. Based on our calculations, we suggest that the Earth's formation began with the assembly of $\sim 0.3 M_\oplus$ embryos during the dispersal of the solar nebula. Light noble gases (He, Ne) in the deep mantle reflect the primordial gas accretion history of the Earth, while heavy noble gases (Ar, Kr, Xe) probe early solid accretion processes. Our results are consistent with the final assembly of the Earth through at least two giant impacts after the dispersal of the nebula.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models nebular gas accretion onto growing Earth embryos using modern schemes and computes chemical-equilibrium dissolution of primordial neon into magma oceans. It concludes that only embryos of mass ∼0.3 M⊕ accreting in a solar nebula depleted by ≥100× in gas density can reproduce the observed concentration of primordial Ne in deep-mantle plumes, implying that Earth’s formation began with the assembly of such embryos during nebula dispersal; light noble gases trace gas accretion while heavy ones trace solid accretion, and the final Earth assembled via at least two post-nebula giant impacts.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing retention, the work supplies a quantitative geochemical anchor for the mass and timing of the earliest terrestrial embryos, directly connecting deep-mantle noble-gas data to disk dispersal and the giant-impact phase of terrestrial accretion. It offers a falsifiable link between observed mantle Ne and specific nebular conditions that can be tested with improved retention models or additional isotopic systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / numerical results] Abstract and the numerical results section: the statement that embryo mass is “tightly constrained” to ∼0.3 M⊕ rests on tuning both embryo mass and the nebula depletion factor until the computed mantle Ne concentration matches the observed value. No error bars, Monte-Carlo sensitivity runs, or demonstration that the match is unique within plausible uncertainties are presented; the result is therefore a fit rather than an independent prediction.
  2. [Discussion / giant-impact paragraph] Discussion of giant impacts (final paragraph and any retention discussion): the model stops at dissolution into the embryo magma ocean and does not quantify the fraction of dissolved Ne that survives the two or more giant impacts required to assemble the final Earth after nebula dispersal. Global melting, atmospheric blow-off, and vigorous convection during these events can degas or fractionate noble gases; without a retention-efficiency factor or bounding calculation the inferred embryo mass remains sensitive to an untested preservation assumption that is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the exact functional form and numerical implementation of the gas-density depletion factor and how it enters the accretion-rate equations.
  2. [Results] Add a short table or plot showing how the final mantle Ne concentration varies with embryo mass for at least two different depletion factors so readers can judge the claimed tightness of the constraint.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / numerical results] Abstract and the numerical results section: the statement that embryo mass is “tightly constrained” to ∼0.3 M⊕ rests on tuning both embryo mass and the nebula depletion factor until the computed mantle Ne concentration matches the observed value. No error bars, Monte-Carlo sensitivity runs, or demonstration that the match is unique within plausible uncertainties are presented; the result is therefore a fit rather than an independent prediction.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that our determination of the embryo mass involves matching the model output to the observed Ne concentration, making it a constrained fit. We will revise the abstract and the numerical results section to avoid implying an independent prediction and instead emphasize that the mass is found by reproducing the observed value. Furthermore, we will add a sensitivity analysis section exploring variations in input parameters such as gas depletion factor, accretion timescale, and solubility, to provide uncertainty ranges and demonstrate that the ∼0.3 M⊕ remains the best match within plausible uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion / giant-impact paragraph] Discussion of giant impacts (final paragraph and any retention discussion): the model stops at dissolution into the embryo magma ocean and does not quantify the fraction of dissolved Ne that survives the two or more giant impacts required to assemble the final Earth after nebula dispersal. Global melting, atmospheric blow-off, and vigorous convection during these events can degas or fractionate noble gases; without a retention-efficiency factor or bounding calculation the inferred embryo mass remains sensitive to an untested preservation assumption that is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: This is a valid concern, as our model currently assumes that the Ne dissolved in the embryo's magma ocean is preserved through later stages. We will revise the discussion section to include a qualitative and semi-quantitative assessment of Ne retention during giant impacts, referencing studies on atmospheric erosion and mantle degassing in impacts. We will provide bounding estimates for the retention fraction and discuss how lower retention would require adjustments to the initial embryo mass or nebula conditions to still match observations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: model solves for embryo mass to match external Ne observation

full rationale

The paper deploys independent physical models of gas accretion and chemical-equilibrium dissolution to identify the embryo mass whose computed mantle Ne concentration matches the observed deep-mantle value. This is a standard forward-model constraint exercise, not a self-referential loop. The derived mass (~0.3 M⊕) is the explicit solution to the matching condition rather than an input renamed as output; no equations reduce to each other by construction, and no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks (nebular gas accretion physics and solubility data) and does not present fitted parameters as independent predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result depends on fitting embryo mass and nebula depletion to match observed Ne, plus domain assumptions about gas incorporation and equilibrium dissolution.

free parameters (2)
  • embryo mass = ~0.3 M_earth
    Adjusted until simulated mantle Ne concentration matches deep-mantle observations
  • solar nebula gas density depletion factor = >=100x
    Set to at least 100x to avoid over-accretion while still allowing sufficient Ne dissolution
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Neon isotopic ratios measured in deep mantle plumes record nebular gas that dissolved into early magma oceans
    Invoked to link observations directly to embryo accretion history
  • domain assumption Dissolution of nebular neon into magma oceans follows chemical equilibrium
    Used to compute the amount of Ne retained in the mantle

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5563 in / 1503 out tokens · 58453 ms · 2026-05-17T19:51:50.406907+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

185 extracted references · 185 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    1985, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, 90, C545

    Abe, Y., & Matsui, T. 1985, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, 90, C545

    work page 1985

  2. [2]

    B., Canup, R

    Agnor, C. B., Canup, R. M., & Levison, H. F. 1999, Icarus, 142, 219, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1999.6201

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6201 1999

  3. [3]

    S., & Anders, E

    Alaerts, L., Lewis, R. S., & Anders, E. 1979a, GeoCoA, 43, 1399, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(79)90134-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(79)90134-0

  4. [4]

    S., & Anders, E

    Alaerts, L., Lewis, R. S., & Anders, E. 1979b, GeoCoA, 43, 1421, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(79)90136-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(79)90136-4

  5. [5]

    N., Izidoro, A., & Morbidelli, A

    Cieza, L. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475–496, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch021

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  6. [6]

    1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X 23

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  7. [7]

    W., & Ahrens, T

    Anderson, W. W., & Ahrens, T. J. 1994, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 4273, doi: 10.1029/93JB03158

    work page doi:10.1029/93jb03158 1994

  8. [8]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  9. [9]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03117, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03117

    Bailey, A., & Zhu, Z. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03117, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03117

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.03117 2023

  10. [10]

    J., & Barfod, D

    Ballentine, C. J., & Barfod, D. N. 2000, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 180, 39, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00161-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0012-821x(00)00161-8 2000

  11. [11]

    2005, Nature, 433, 33, doi: 10.1038/nature03182

    Cassidy, M. 2005, Nature, 433, 33, doi: 10.1038/nature03182

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03182 2005

  12. [12]

    V., Broadley, M

    Bekaert, D. V., Broadley, M. W., & Marty, B. 2020, Scientific Reports, 10, 5796, doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62650-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62650-3 2020

  13. [13]

    2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 105, 8232, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711679105

    Porcelli, D. 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 105, 8232, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711679105

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0711679105 2008

  14. [14]

    G., Fortier, A., & Brunini, A

    Benvenuto, O. G., Fortier, A., & Brunini, A. 2009, Icarus, 204, 752, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.003 2009

  15. [15]

    J., & Fahey, A

    Bernatowicz, T. J., & Fahey, A. J. 1986, GeoCoA, 50, 445, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(86)90197-3 B´ ethune, W., & Rafikov, R. R. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1870

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(86)90197-3 1986

  16. [16]

    L., Gnanadesikan, A., et al

    Bianchi, D., Sarmiento, J. L., Gnanadesikan, A., et al. 2010, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 297, 379, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.037 2010

  17. [17]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition, 643–655

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition, 643–655

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    Birch, F. 1964, J. Geophys. Res., 69, 4377, doi: 10.1029/JZ069i020p04377

    work page doi:10.1029/jz069i020p04377 1964

  19. [19]

    B., Stewart, W

    Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., & Lightfoot, E. N. 2007, Transport Phenomena, revised 2nd edn. (New York: John Wiley & Sons)

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    2025, A&A, 694, A318, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452394

    Brasser, R. 2025, A&A, 694, A318, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452394

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452394 2025

  21. [21]

    W., Barry, P

    Broadley, M. W., Barry, P. H., Bekaert, D. V., et al. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 13997, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2003907117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2003907117 2020

  22. [22]

    2000, M&PS, 35, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01485.x

    Busemann, H., Baur, H., & Wieler, R. 2000, M&PS, 35, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01485.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01485.x 2000

  23. [23]

    Cameron, A. G. W., & Ward, W. R. 1976, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Vol. 7, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 120

    work page 1976

  24. [24]

    Canup, R. M. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.082201.113457

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.082201.113457 2004

  25. [25]

    Canup, R. M. 2008, Icarus, 196, 518, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.03.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.03.011 2008

  26. [26]

    Canup, R. M. 2012, Science, 338, 1052, doi: 10.1126/science.1226073

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1226073 2012

  27. [27]

    M., & Asphaug, E

    Canup, R. M., & Asphaug, E. 2001, Nature, 412, 708, doi: 10.1038/35089010

    work page doi:10.1038/35089010 2001

  28. [28]

    2006, Icarus, 180, 496, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.017

    Chambers, J. 2006, Icarus, 180, 496, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.017 2006

  29. [29]

    2015, Chemical Geology, 417, 173, doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2015.09.020 ´Cuk, M., & Stewart, S

    Colin, A., Moreira, M., Gautheron, C., & Burnard, P. 2015, Chemical Geology, 417, 173, doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2015.09.020 ´Cuk, M., & Stewart, S. T. 2012, Science, 338, 1047, doi: 10.1126/science.1225542 D’Angelo, G., Weidenschilling, S. J., Lissauer, J. J., &

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2015.09.020 2015

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Bodenheimer, P. 2021, Icarus, 355, 114087, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114087

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114087 2021

  31. [31]

    2003, Icarus, 165, 326, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00198-2

    Dauphas, N. 2003, Icarus, 165, 326, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00198-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00198-2 2003

  32. [32]

    2017", month =

    Dauphas, N. 2017, Nature, 541, 521, doi: 10.1038/nature20830

    work page doi:10.1038/nature20830 2017

  33. [33]

    2011", month =

    Dauphas, N., & Pourmand, A. 2011, Nature, 473, 489, doi: 10.1038/nature10077

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10077 2011

  34. [34]

    M., Barry, P

    Day, J. M., Barry, P. H., Hilton, D. R., et al. 2015, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 153, 116, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2015.01.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2015.01.008 2015

  35. [35]

    M., Jones, T

    Day, J. M., Jones, T. D., & Nicklas, R. W. 2022, Chemical Geology, 587, 120626, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2021.120626

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2021.120626 2022

  36. [36]

    Day, J. M. D., Hilton, D. R., Pearson, D. G., et al. 2005, Geology, 33, 733, doi: 10.1130/G21625.1

    work page doi:10.1130/g21625.1 2005

  37. [37]

    Day, J. M. D., & Moynier, F. 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 372, 20130259, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2013.0259

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0259 2014

  38. [38]

    J., & Robinson, K

    Desch, S. J., & Robinson, K. L. 2019, Geochemistry, 79, 125546, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2019.125546

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemer.2019.125546 2019

  39. [39]

    H., Bryson, J

    Dodds, K. H., Bryson, J. F. J., Neufeld, J. A., & Harrison, R. J. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06704, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006704

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006704 2021

  40. [40]

    2008, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 271, 181, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.062

    Elkins-Tanton, L. 2008, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 271, 181, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.062

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.062 2008

  41. [41]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 113, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105503

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105503 2012

  42. [42]

    1995, Journal of geophysical research, 100, 3829, doi: 10.1029/94JB02913

    Farley, K., Maier-Reimer, E., Schlosser, P., & Broecker, W. 1995, Journal of geophysical research, 100, 3829, doi: 10.1029/94JB02913

    work page doi:10.1029/94jb02913 1995

  43. [43]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585, doi: 10.1086/428642

    work page doi:10.1086/428642 2005

  44. [44]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J

    Freedman, R. S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25 2014

  45. [45]

    2016, GEOCHEMICAL JOURNAL, 50, 27, doi: 10.2343/geochemj.2.0398 24

    Genda, H. 2016, GEOCHEMICAL JOURNAL, 50, 27, doi: 10.2343/geochemj.2.0398 24

    work page doi:10.2343/geochemj.2.0398 2016

  46. [46]

    2008, Icarus, 194, 42, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.007

    Genda, H., & Ikoma, M. 2008, Icarus, 194, 42, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.007 2008

  47. [47]

    1993, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed

    Grevesse, N., & Noels, A. 1993, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed. N. Prantzos, E. Vangioni-Flam, & M. Casse, 15–25

    work page 1993

  48. [48]

    Halliday, A. N. 2000, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 176, 17, doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(99)00317-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0012-821x(99)00317-9 2000

  49. [49]

    Halliday, A. N. 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 366, 4163, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0209

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0209 2008

  50. [50]

    Halliday, A. N. 2013, GeoCoA, 105, 146, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2012.11.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2012.11.015 2013

  51. [51]

    Hansen, B. M. S. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/1131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/1131 2009

  52. [52]

    L., & Jacobsen, S

    Harper, Jr., C. L., & Jacobsen, S. B. 1996, Science, 273, 1814, doi: 10.1126/science.273.5283.1814

    work page doi:10.1126/science.273.5283.1814 1996

  53. [53]

    K., & Davis, D

    Hartmann, W. K., & Davis, D. R. 1975, Icarus, 24, 504, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(75)90070-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(75)90070-6 1975

  54. [54]

    Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement , year = 1981, volume = 70, pages =

    Hayashi, C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35, doi: 10.1143/PTPS.70.35

    work page doi:10.1143/ptps.70.35 1981

  55. [55]

    1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed

    Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y. 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews, 1100–1153

    work page 1985

  56. [56]

    S., Baur, H., Bochsler, P., et al

    Heber, V. S., Baur, H., Bochsler, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/2/121 2012

  57. [57]

    R., Gr¨ onvold, K., Macpherson, C

    Hilton, D. R., Gr¨ onvold, K., Macpherson, C. G., & Castillo, P. R. 1999, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 173, 53, doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(99)00215-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0012-821x(99)00215-0 1999

  58. [58]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2000, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 1, 1042, doi: 10.1029/2000GC000070

    work page doi:10.1029/2000gc000070 2000

  59. [59]

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science , author =

    Hohenberg, C. M., Thonnard, N., & Meshik, A. 2002, M&PS, 37, 257, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2002.tb01108.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2002.tb01108.x 2002

  60. [60]

    Holland, G., & Ballentine, C. J. 2006, Nature, 441, 186, doi: 10.1038/nature04761

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04761 2006

  61. [61]

    Holland, G., Cassidy, M., & Ballentine, C. J. 2009, Science, 326, 1522, doi: 10.1126/science.1179518

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1179518 2009

  62. [62]

    R., Lewis, R

    Huss, G. R., Lewis, R. S., & Hemkin, S. 1996, GeoCoA, 60, 3311, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(96)00168-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(96)00168-8 1996

  63. [63]

    2010, Chemical Geology, 279, 145, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2010.10.017

    Gaillard, F. 2010, Chemical Geology, 279, 145, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2010.10.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2010.10.017 2010

  64. [64]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 604, 388, doi: 10.1086/381724

    work page doi:10.1086/381724 2004

  65. [65]

    Scattering of

    Ida, S., & Makino, J. 1993, Icarus, 106, 210, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1167

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1167 1993

  66. [66]

    , keywords =

    Ikoma, M., Nakazawa, K., & Emori, H. 2000, ApJ, 537, 1013, doi: 10.1086/309050

    work page doi:10.1086/309050 2000

  67. [67]

    (2024) Indian Space Research Organisation, Department of Space

    Izidoro, A., Bitsch, B., & Dasgupta, R. 2021, ApJ, 915, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfe0b 2021

  68. [68]

    G., Kurz, M

    Jackson, M. G., Kurz, M. D., & Hart, S. R. 2009, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 287, 519, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.08.039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.08.039 2009

  69. [69]

    A., & Morbidelli, A

    Jacobson, S. A., & Morbidelli, A. 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 372, 0174, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2013.0174

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0174 2014

  70. [70]

    1986, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 50, 401, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(86)90193-6

    Jambon, A., Weber, H., & Braun, O. 1986, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 50, 401, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(86)90193-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(86)90193-6 1986

  71. [71]

    2017, Icarus, 293, 199, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.022

    Jaupart, E., Charnoz, S., & Moreira, M. 2017, Icarus, 293, 199, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.022 2017

  72. [72]

    Jeanloz, R. 1979, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 6059, doi: 10.1029/JB084iB11p06059

    work page doi:10.1029/jb084ib11p06059 1979

  73. [73]

    1987, Nature, 325, 332, doi: 10.1038/325332a0

    Jephcoat, A., & Olson, P. 1987, Nature, 325, 332, doi: 10.1038/325332a0

    work page doi:10.1038/325332a0 1987

  74. [74]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Johansen, A., & Lacerda, P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x 2010

  75. [75]

    2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 2021

  76. [76]

    A., & Chambers, J

    Kaib, N. A., & Chambers, J. E. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2554

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2554 2016

  77. [77]

    A., & Cowan, N

    Kaib, N. A., & Cowan, N. B. 2015, Icarus, 252, 161, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.013 2015

  78. [78]

    W., Rubin, A

    Kallemeyn, G. W., Rubin, A. E., & Wasson, J. T. 1994, GeoCoA, 58, 2873, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(94)90121-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(94)90121-x 1994

  79. [79]

    W., & Wasson, J

    Kallemeyn, G. W., & Wasson, J. T. 1981, GeoCoA, 45, 1217, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(81)90145-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(81)90145-9 1981

  80. [80]

    2020, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 548, 116469, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116469

    Kaminski, E., Limare, A., Kenda, B., & Chaussidon, M. 2020, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 548, 116469, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116469

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116469 2020

Showing first 80 references.