A framework for evaluating biosignature potential against the abiotic baseline on ocean worlds

arxiv: 2605.15337 · v1 · pith:DWRQVQJZnew · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

A framework for evaluating biosignature potential against the abiotic baseline on ocean worlds

Peter M. Higgins , Weibin Chen , Oliver Warr , Lucas M. Fifer , Wanying Kang , Charles S. Cockell , Barbara Sherwood Lollar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 15:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP

keywords biosignaturesabiotic baselineEnceladusocean worldscarbon isotopesamino acid chiralitylife detectionhydrothermal processes

0 comments p. Extension

pith:DWRQVQJZ Add to your LaTeX paper

What is a Pith Number?

\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{DWRQVQJZ}

Prints a linked pith:DWRQVQJZ badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

Uncertainties in abiotic processes prevent definitive biosignature detection from isotopic measurements on Enceladus.

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

This paper develops a quantitative framework for evaluating potential biosignatures against the full range of abiotic processes on ocean worlds. Applying the framework to Enceladus shows that carbon isotope ratios in methane and carbon dioxide overlap sufficiently with non-biological sources to make future measurements inconclusive for proving life. The work also demonstrates that failing to account for the abiotic baseline raises the risk of overlooking actual biosignatures if they are present. It concludes that reliable interpretation requires complementary data on internal temperatures and other geophysical properties for Enceladus and similar bodies.

Core claim

The authors develop a quantitative framework for holistically evaluating abiotic baselines on ocean worlds to guide life detection strategies. Using Enceladus as an example, they assess the potential of CH4 isotopes and their relationship with CO2, and amino acid chirality, as biosignatures. They find that uncertainties in abiotic processes currently prevent hypothetical future δ13C_CO2 and δ13C_CH4 measurements from definitively inferring a biosphere on Enceladus. Their results quantitatively show that neglecting the abiotic baseline risks false negative life detection claims for both isotopic and chiral biosignatures.

What carries the argument

A quantitative framework for holistically evaluating abiotic baselines on ocean worlds that assesses uncertainty and variability in abiotic processes capable of overlapping with, attenuating, or obfuscating biosignatures.

If this is right

Hypothetical future δ13C_CO2 and δ13C_CH4 measurements would not suffice to infer a biosphere on Enceladus.
Neglecting the abiotic baseline increases the likelihood of false negative life detection claims for isotopic and chiral signals.
Complementary geophysical observations constraining internal temperatures to within ~10-100°C are needed for reliable biosignature interpretation.
Improved characterization of rheology, lithology, initial abiotic organic inventory, and ocean transport timescales would help resolve current ambiguities on Enceladus and similar worlds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same framework could highlight comparable interpretation challenges when applied to other candidate biosignatures on Enceladus.
Missions targeting ocean worlds may need to combine isotopic data with multiple geophysical measurements to overcome single-signal limitations.
Experimental studies of hydrothermal chemistry under relevant pressure and temperature conditions could tighten abiotic baseline estimates.

Load-bearing premise

Existing models of abiotic processes on Enceladus are adequate to quantify baseline uncertainties and overlaps with potential biosignatures.

What would settle it

A refined abiotic model or direct measurement that narrows the uncertainty range in δ13C values under Enceladus conditions to show clear separation from expected biological ranges would test whether definitive inference remains blocked.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15337 by Barbara Sherwood Lollar, Charles S. Cockell, Lucas M. Fifer, Oliver Warr, Peter M. Higgins, Wanying Kang, Weibin Chen.

read the original abstract

Ocean worlds are considered as targets for life detection missions because they meet several key requirements for habitability. However, identifying potential life on other worlds requires observing clear and unambiguous biosignature signals above the existing abiotic baseline. Consequently, this necessitates evaluating uncertainty and variability in the abiotic baseline, including processes that can overlap, attenuate, or obfuscate biosignatures before they are observed. This article develops a quantitative framework for holistically evaluating abiotic baselines on ocean worlds to guide life detection strategies. Using Enceladus as an example, we assess the potential of using: i) CH$_{4}$ isotopes and their relationship with CO$_{2}$, and ii) amino acid chirality as biosignatures, demonstrating that uncertainties in abiotic processes currently prevent hypothetical future ${\delta}^{13}$C$_{\mathrm{CO2}}$ and ${\delta}^{13}$C$_{\mathrm{CH4}}$ measurements from definitively inferring a biosphere on Enceladus. Additionally, our results quantitatively show that neglecting the abiotic baseline risks false negative life detection claims for both isotopic and chiral biosignatures. Interpreting these and other alternative biosignatures on Enceladus, Europa, Titan, and similar planetary bodies therefore requires complimentary geophysical observations such as constraining internal temperatures to within $\sim$10-100$^{\circ}$C, and improving characterisation of the target's rheology, lithology, initial abiotic organic inventory and ocean transport timescales.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a useful framework for weighing biosignatures against abiotic baselines on ocean worlds, but the claim that isotopes cannot diagnose life on Enceladus rests on fairly broad abiotic fractionation ranges.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors have created a framework for checking potential biosignatures against abiotic processes on ocean worlds, and they apply it to show that carbon isotope ratios in CO2 and CH4 probably won't give a clear yes or no on life at Enceladus right now. They also flag that skipping the baseline check could cause us to miss actual biological signals. What the paper does well is pull together isotopic and chirality approaches in one place and stress how geophysical details like ocean temperature and transport times affect interpretation. This kind of holistic view is helpful when planning what measurements to prioritize for future missions. The softer part is the abiotic baseline itself. The argument that isotopes are not diagnostic hinges on the abiotic fractionation ranges being wide enough to overlap with biology. Those ranges seem based on general hydrothermal and serpentinization data. If the paper had used more Enceladus-specific temperature, pH, and mineral constraints to narrow them, the conclusion might shift. It would have been good to see a sensitivity analysis on that. The work is aimed at people in planetary science and astrobiology who deal with life detection on icy bodies. It engages honestly with the literature on abiotic chemistry and raises a legitimate caution. Even with the uncertainty in the ranges, the central point about needing better constraints holds up. I think this deserves a serious referee. Reviewers could help tighten the geochemical assumptions and check if the framework is generalizable to Europa or Titan. So, my recommendation is to send it out for peer review rather than reject it at the desk.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quantitative framework for holistically evaluating abiotic baselines on ocean worlds to guide life detection strategies. Using Enceladus as the primary example, it assesses the biosignature potential of CH₄–CO₂ carbon isotope relationships (δ¹³C) and amino acid chirality, concluding that uncertainties in abiotic processes prevent hypothetical future δ¹³C_CO2 and δ¹³C_CH4 measurements from definitively inferring a biosphere. The work also quantitatively demonstrates that neglecting the abiotic baseline risks false-negative life-detection claims and recommends complementary geophysical observations (e.g., internal temperature constraints to ∼10–100 °C) for Enceladus, Europa, Titan, and similar bodies.

Significance. If the quantitative assessments of abiotic uncertainty ranges and overlap with biological signals are rigorously justified and reproducible, the framework would offer a useful systematic approach for interpreting potential biosignatures on icy ocean worlds. It correctly stresses the need to characterize baseline variability to reduce false-negative risks and integrates chemical and geophysical constraints, which could inform mission planning and data interpretation for future Enceladus or Europa missions.

major comments (2)

[Framework application to Enceladus isotopic biosignatures] The central claim that uncertainties in abiotic processes prevent definitive inference from future δ¹³C_CO2 and δ¹³C_CH4 measurements rests on the width and justification of the abiotic fractionation ranges adopted for Enceladus hydrothermal and serpentinization pathways. The manuscript must explicitly state these ranges (with sources and any Enceladus-specific temperature/pH/mineral constraints) and demonstrate full overlap with plausible biological fractionation; if the intervals are drawn from broad literature compilations rather than target-specific constraints, the overlap may be artificially large and the non-diagnosticity conclusion weakened.
[Quantitative results and discussion] The assertion that results 'quantitatively show' that neglecting the abiotic baseline risks false-negative claims for both isotopic and chiral biosignatures requires explicit models, uncertainty propagation, or overlap calculations. No such quantitative details, equations, or error analysis are evident in the presented text, leaving the load-bearing demonstration unsupported.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and notation] Standardize isotopic notation throughout (e.g., δ¹³C_CO₂ and δ¹³C_CH₄) for typographic clarity and consistency with geochemical literature.
[Conclusions and recommendations] The recommended internal-temperature constraint of ∼10–100 °C would benefit from a brief reference to the specific interior models or rheology constraints that motivate this range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and have made revisions to improve the clarity and rigor of the quantitative framework as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Framework application to Enceladus isotopic biosignatures] The central claim that uncertainties in abiotic processes prevent definitive inference from future δ¹³C_CO2 and δ¹³C_CH4 measurements rests on the width and justification of the abiotic fractionation ranges adopted for Enceladus hydrothermal and serpentinization pathways. The manuscript must explicitly state these ranges (with sources and any Enceladus-specific temperature/pH/mineral constraints) and demonstrate full overlap with plausible biological fractionation; if the intervals are drawn from broad literature compilations rather than target-specific constraints, the overlap may be artificially large and the non-diagnosticity conclusion weakened.

Authors: We appreciate this feedback and agree that explicit justification of the abiotic ranges is essential for the robustness of our conclusions. In the revised manuscript, we will include a new table that explicitly lists the adopted abiotic fractionation ranges for both hydrothermal and serpentinization pathways, along with their sources from the literature. We have incorporated Enceladus-specific constraints where available, such as estimated ocean pH and temperature ranges from geophysical models. While the ranges are informed by terrestrial analogs due to limited in situ data, we argue that this does not artificially inflate the overlap; rather, it reflects the current state of knowledge and the inherent variability in abiotic processes. We will also add a discussion demonstrating the overlap with biological fractionation ranges, showing that even with tightened constraints, significant ambiguity remains. This strengthens our non-diagnosticity conclusion. revision: partial
Referee: [Quantitative results and discussion] The assertion that results 'quantitatively show' that neglecting the abiotic baseline risks false-negative claims for both isotopic and chiral biosignatures requires explicit models, uncertainty propagation, or overlap calculations. No such quantitative details, equations, or error analysis are evident in the presented text, leaving the load-bearing demonstration unsupported.

Authors: We regret that the quantitative details were not sufficiently prominent in the submitted version. The framework does include quantitative assessments: we employ overlap integrals and Monte Carlo simulations to propagate uncertainties in abiotic and biotic fractionation factors, calculating the probability that an observed signal could be explained abiotically. For the isotopic biosignatures, this involves modeling the δ¹³C values under various scenarios and computing the degree of overlap. Similar quantitative metrics are used for chirality. These are described in the Methods section and illustrated in the figures. To address the referee's concern, we will expand the Results and Discussion sections to explicitly include the key equations for uncertainty propagation and overlap calculations, along with sensitivity analyses. This will make the demonstration of false-negative risks more transparent and reproducible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the biosignature evaluation framework

full rationale

The paper develops a quantitative framework for assessing biosignature potential by compiling and evaluating uncertainties in abiotic processes from external literature on hydrothermal and serpentinization pathways for Enceladus. The key demonstration—that δ¹³C_CO2 and δ¹³C_CH4 measurements cannot definitively infer a biosphere—arises from the overlap between these independently sourced abiotic baseline ranges and plausible biological fractionation signals. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or self-citation chain within the paper; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not rename or smuggle in results via internal definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is limited to the abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The work implicitly relies on standard domain assumptions from planetary science and astrobiology regarding ocean world geochemistry and habitability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5804 in / 1248 out tokens · 63195 ms · 2026-05-19T15:31:03.959771+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

mass balances are constructed as: J_in + ∑J_in→out + J_out = 0 (1) … R_in J_in + … = 0 (2) … ε ≡ k_h/k_l − 1 … Δδ¹³C = δ¹³C_X − δ¹³C_Y
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArrowOfTime.lean entropy_monotone unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

racemization rate constants k(T) … D/L(t) evolution via Eq. 12

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

,)+[𝐶𝑂3])𝑅&#

Cometary. CH4 and methanol make up the bulk of organic material in the ices of molecular clouds which formed the solar system bodies89, so may have been trapped in clathrates in the planetesimals that constituted Saturn's feeding zone90. Future noble gas measurements (particularly Xe) may help determine how much primordial CH4 could have been delivered in...

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01372-6 2009
[2]

Biosignature Threshold

Steel, E. L., Davila, A. & McKay, C. P . Abiotic and Biotic Formation of Amino Acids in the Enceladus Ocean. Astrobiology 17, 862–875 (2017). 13. Higgins, P . M. Modelling extraterrestrial habitability, biomass and biosignatures through the bioenergetic lens. (The University of Edinburgh, 2022). 14. MacKenzie, S. M. et al. The Enceladus Orbilander Mission...

work page doi:10.1144/jgs2021-134 2017
[3]

Khawaja, N. et al. Low-mass nitrogen-, oxygen-bearing, and aromatic compounds in Enceladean ice grains. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 489, 5231–5243 (2019). 25. Waite, J. H. et al. Liquid water on Enceladus from observations of ammonia and 40Ar in the plume. Nature 460, 487–490 (2009). 26. Ray, C. et al. Oxidation processes diversify t...

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114248 2019
[4]

& Berndt, M

Horita, J. & Berndt, M. E. Abiogenic Methane Formation and Isotopic Fractionation Under Hydrothermal Conditions. Science 285, 1055–1057 (1999). 37. Taran, Y . A., Kliger, G. A., Cienfuegos, E. & Shuykin, A. N. Carbon and hydrogen isotopic compositions of products of open-system catalytic hydrogenation of CO2: Implications for abiogenic hydrocarbons in Ear...

work page 1999
[5]

R., Postberg, F

Glein, C. R., Postberg, F . & Vance, S. D. The Geochemistry of Enceladus: Composition and Controls. in Enceladus and the Icy Moons of Saturn (eds Schenk, P . M., Clark, R. N., Howett, C. J. A., Verbiscer, A. J. & Waite, J. H.) 39--56 (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 2018). doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816537075-ch003. 48. Fifer, L. M., Catling, D....

work page doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816537075-ch003 2018
[6]

Takai, K. et al. Cell proliferation at 122°C and isotopically heavy CH4 production by a hyperthermophilic methanogen under high-pressure cultivation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 10949–10954 (2008). 59. Botz, R., Pokojski, H.-D., Schmitt, M. & Thomm, M. Carbon isotope fractionation during bacterial methanogenesis by CO2 reduction. ...

work page doi:10.1109/aero.2016.7500777 2008
[7]

E., Foustoukos, D

Miller, K. E., Foustoukos, D. I., Cody, G. D. & Alexander, C. M. O. Experimental heating of complex organic matter at Titan’s interior conditions supports contributions to atmospheric N2 and CH4. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 390, 38–56 (2025). 71. Batther, H. K. et al. The stable carbon isotope fractionation of methanogenesis products at complete carbo...

work page 2025
[8]

An Introduction to Isotopic Calculations

Hayes, J. An Introduction to Isotopic Calculations. https://hdl.handle.net/1912/27058 (2004) doi:10.1575/1912/27058. 84. Etiope, G. & Sherwood Lollar, B. Abiotic methane on Earth. Rev. Geophys. 51, 276–299 (2013). 85. McCollom, T. M. & Seewald, J. S. Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Compounds in Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Environments. Chem. Rev. 107, 382–401 (200...

work page doi:10.1575/1912/27058 1912
[9]

Yuen, G., Blair, N., Des Marais, D. J. & Chang, S. Carbon isotope composition of low molecular weight hydrocarbons and monocarboxylic acids from Murchison meteorite. Nature 307, 252–254 (1984). 96. Müller, D. R. et al. High D/H ratios in water and alkanes in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured with Rosetta/ROSINA DFMS. A&A 662, A69 (2022). 97. Grundy...

work page 1984
[10]

Sekine, Y . et al. High-temperature water–rock interactions and hydrothermal environments in the chondrite-like core of Enceladus. Nature Communications 6, 8604 (2015). 108. McDermott, J. M., Seewald, J. S., German, C. R. & Sylva, S. P . Pathways for abiotic organic synthesis at submarine hydrothermal ﬁelds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 7668–7672 (2015). 1...

work page 2015
[11]

& Krooss, B

Schloemer, S. & Krooss, B. M. Molecular transport of methane, ethane and nitrogen and the inﬂuence of di`usion on the chemical and isotopic composition of natural gas accumulations. Geoﬂuids 4, 81–108 (2004). 119. Nakajima, M. & Ingersoll, A. P . Controlled boiling on Enceladus. 1. Model of the vapor-driven jets. Icarus 272, 309–318 (2016). 120. Villanuev...

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02009-6 2004
[12]

Meyer, C. R. et al. A Potential Mushy Source for the Geysers of Enceladus and Other Icy Satellites. Geophysical Research Letters 52, e2024GL111929 (2025). 131. Bu`o, J. J., Meyer, C. R. & Parkinson, J. R. G. Dynamics of a Solidifying Icy Satellite Shell. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 126, e2020JE006741 (2021). 132. Glavin, D. P ., Callahan, M. ...

work page 2025

[1] [1]

,)+[𝐶𝑂3])𝑅&#

Cometary. CH4 and methanol make up the bulk of organic material in the ices of molecular clouds which formed the solar system bodies89, so may have been trapped in clathrates in the planetesimals that constituted Saturn's feeding zone90. Future noble gas measurements (particularly Xe) may help determine how much primordial CH4 could have been delivered in...

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01372-6 2009

[2] [2]

Biosignature Threshold

Steel, E. L., Davila, A. & McKay, C. P . Abiotic and Biotic Formation of Amino Acids in the Enceladus Ocean. Astrobiology 17, 862–875 (2017). 13. Higgins, P . M. Modelling extraterrestrial habitability, biomass and biosignatures through the bioenergetic lens. (The University of Edinburgh, 2022). 14. MacKenzie, S. M. et al. The Enceladus Orbilander Mission...

work page doi:10.1144/jgs2021-134 2017

[3] [3]

Khawaja, N. et al. Low-mass nitrogen-, oxygen-bearing, and aromatic compounds in Enceladean ice grains. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 489, 5231–5243 (2019). 25. Waite, J. H. et al. Liquid water on Enceladus from observations of ammonia and 40Ar in the plume. Nature 460, 487–490 (2009). 26. Ray, C. et al. Oxidation processes diversify t...

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114248 2019

[4] [4]

& Berndt, M

Horita, J. & Berndt, M. E. Abiogenic Methane Formation and Isotopic Fractionation Under Hydrothermal Conditions. Science 285, 1055–1057 (1999). 37. Taran, Y . A., Kliger, G. A., Cienfuegos, E. & Shuykin, A. N. Carbon and hydrogen isotopic compositions of products of open-system catalytic hydrogenation of CO2: Implications for abiogenic hydrocarbons in Ear...

work page 1999

[5] [5]

R., Postberg, F

Glein, C. R., Postberg, F . & Vance, S. D. The Geochemistry of Enceladus: Composition and Controls. in Enceladus and the Icy Moons of Saturn (eds Schenk, P . M., Clark, R. N., Howett, C. J. A., Verbiscer, A. J. & Waite, J. H.) 39--56 (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 2018). doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816537075-ch003. 48. Fifer, L. M., Catling, D....

work page doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816537075-ch003 2018

[6] [6]

Takai, K. et al. Cell proliferation at 122°C and isotopically heavy CH4 production by a hyperthermophilic methanogen under high-pressure cultivation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 10949–10954 (2008). 59. Botz, R., Pokojski, H.-D., Schmitt, M. & Thomm, M. Carbon isotope fractionation during bacterial methanogenesis by CO2 reduction. ...

work page doi:10.1109/aero.2016.7500777 2008

[7] [7]

E., Foustoukos, D

Miller, K. E., Foustoukos, D. I., Cody, G. D. & Alexander, C. M. O. Experimental heating of complex organic matter at Titan’s interior conditions supports contributions to atmospheric N2 and CH4. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 390, 38–56 (2025). 71. Batther, H. K. et al. The stable carbon isotope fractionation of methanogenesis products at complete carbo...

work page 2025

[8] [8]

An Introduction to Isotopic Calculations

Hayes, J. An Introduction to Isotopic Calculations. https://hdl.handle.net/1912/27058 (2004) doi:10.1575/1912/27058. 84. Etiope, G. & Sherwood Lollar, B. Abiotic methane on Earth. Rev. Geophys. 51, 276–299 (2013). 85. McCollom, T. M. & Seewald, J. S. Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Compounds in Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Environments. Chem. Rev. 107, 382–401 (200...

work page doi:10.1575/1912/27058 1912

[9] [9]

Yuen, G., Blair, N., Des Marais, D. J. & Chang, S. Carbon isotope composition of low molecular weight hydrocarbons and monocarboxylic acids from Murchison meteorite. Nature 307, 252–254 (1984). 96. Müller, D. R. et al. High D/H ratios in water and alkanes in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured with Rosetta/ROSINA DFMS. A&A 662, A69 (2022). 97. Grundy...

work page 1984

[10] [10]

Sekine, Y . et al. High-temperature water–rock interactions and hydrothermal environments in the chondrite-like core of Enceladus. Nature Communications 6, 8604 (2015). 108. McDermott, J. M., Seewald, J. S., German, C. R. & Sylva, S. P . Pathways for abiotic organic synthesis at submarine hydrothermal ﬁelds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 7668–7672 (2015). 1...

work page 2015

[11] [11]

& Krooss, B

Schloemer, S. & Krooss, B. M. Molecular transport of methane, ethane and nitrogen and the inﬂuence of di`usion on the chemical and isotopic composition of natural gas accumulations. Geoﬂuids 4, 81–108 (2004). 119. Nakajima, M. & Ingersoll, A. P . Controlled boiling on Enceladus. 1. Model of the vapor-driven jets. Icarus 272, 309–318 (2016). 120. Villanuev...

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02009-6 2004

[12] [12]

Meyer, C. R. et al. A Potential Mushy Source for the Geysers of Enceladus and Other Icy Satellites. Geophysical Research Letters 52, e2024GL111929 (2025). 131. Bu`o, J. J., Meyer, C. R. & Parkinson, J. R. G. Dynamics of a Solidifying Icy Satellite Shell. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 126, e2020JE006741 (2021). 132. Glavin, D. P ., Callahan, M. ...

work page 2025