Prochko - 1

Transferable Skills for Physicists 3rd Year

Review Article

Constrained Water-Rich Accretion Modelling of Earth

STUDENT ID NUMBER: 180000091

Word Count of main text is: 2491

This review article is submitted as part of module PH3014 or PH4040 at the University of St
Andrews. I have read and understood the University policy on academic misconduct that is
accessible from
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/teaching-and-learning/policies/gap.pdf
and/or I have successfully completed and understood the online training on Good Academic
Practice.

I declare that the attached piece of work is my own. Any text taken from the work of others is
presented within quotation marks and its source is acknowledged at the point of use. Apart from
these acknowledged quotations, this work is written in my own words, by me. I have
acknowledged the sources that I have used. Any pictures or diagrams taken from the work of
others have this acknowledged in the caption of the figure concerned.

Submission of this cover sheet is intended to indicate that the author has read and agreed to the
above statements.
 Prochko - 2

Constrained Water-Rich Accretion Modelling of Earth

Figure 1: Nasa Earth Observatory28

How did Earth Come to Have Water?

When we look at a model globe for the first time, after finding our homeland, we might spin
around from ocean to ocean remarking, “This globe is blue! How could there possibly be so much
water?” It would not be surprising if Ferdinand Magellan’s crew asked the same question after months
crossing the Pacific Ocean. Today, we are still trying to answer this phenomenon, albeit phrased more
scientifically: How and when did Earth come to have so much water? We have observed water on
neighboring planets and moons1 as well as detected water vapor in the atmospheres of exoplanetary
systems2, so what set of circumstances led to the composition of Earth today? To answer this question, we
must first ask ourselves a series of more questions. Did Earth always have water, having formed with a
composition already including so much water? Or, did Earth receive water from some exterior source,
like a collision or collisions with other interplanetary body or bodies? These series of questions have been
asked for several years1,3. The details of these discussions derive from the attempts of scientists to model
the formation process of Earth by computer simulations. These computer models require observational
data from our own and other solar systems, as well as intensive physical and chemical laboratory
experiments that provide necessary constraints.

Constructing an Accretion Model of Earth

If one tries to construct an accretion model of Earth and its formation process, they will find a
massive puzzle of unknown parameters and a jungle of chemical complexities. An accretion model of
 Prochko - 3

Earth looks at the different conditions present in the protoplanetary disk around our sun, necessitating the
involvement of all sorts of physics and chemistry. The different regions of temperature and density
necessarily affect what materials, like H20, can form or be accreted by planetesimals. See figure 2.

Figure 2: Tarbuck & Lutgens27; In brief: Cold gas clouds collapse, forming stars. The remaining matter not
absorbed by the star is “accreted” by future planets. In general1,3,7, water exists here as vapor (near sun) or ice (far
from sun).

A thoughtful approach must first consider the evidence at its disposal. On Earth, we can
quantitatively describe both the total mass of Earth’s water 4,5 and the chemical characteristics of the
water, namely through its isotopic ratios 1,3. In the immediate solar system, we can both qualitatively and
quantitatively characterize orbits, masses, and compositions of the sun, planets, and inter-planetary debris.
Finally, in the observations of neighboring molecular clouds and exo-planetary systems, we can
qualitatively identify chemical compositions, and estimate quantitatively physical characteristics such as
temperature profiles, regional densities, and material abundancies. With this evidence locally and in
foreign systems, we can begin to assemble the various pieces of the puzzle of Earth’s formation into a
model consistent with the present-day conditions.

The General Theories and Their Challenges

It is this very collaboration between scientific disciplines that leads to a diverse set of theories
and models upon which scientists continue their research. The development of these theories starts with
 Prochko - 4

the closest puzzle pieces: Earth’s water mass and its corresponding bulk D/H ratio. Presently, the estimate
of Earth’s ocean water is ~3 x 10-4 Earth masses4 and ~2 x 10-3 Earth masses in the mantle.5 The isotopic
composition of water is primarily in the Deuterium-Hydrogen (D/H) ratio of water molecules. That is, the
ratio of water molecules containing “heavy” hydrogen (D or 2H), HDO, as opposed to H2O. The D/H
ratio of Earth’s ocean water is no less than 1.5 x 10-4.5,6 It is useful to note, though, that we do not have
direct samples of water contained in the mantle, and only infer it has a similar D/H ratio to the ocean
water5.

Figure 3: ZME Science30; Large volumes of Earth’s water are contained in regions of the mantle. We do not have
any direct samples of this body of water, and have only inferred its composition from samples of volcanism 6,29

These are the “present-day conditions” mentioned above towards which the different models are
aimed at reproducing in simulation. Although not distinct, there are two main theories that develop these
planetary accretion models: a “dry” Earth accretion scenario and a “wet” Earth accretion scenario. In
essence, the “dry” Earth scenario addresses the problem that the material around Earth during its early
formation process would have been very dry1,3. Thus, it investigates the possibility of water-delivery to
Earth after its formation. The development of “dry” accretion models, then, necessarily must include
external sources of water like asteroids and comets, primarily “carbonaceous chondrites”.
 Prochko - 5

The “wet” Earth scenario suggests that Earth absorbed wet-planetesimals from other regions
during its formation process1. Such “wet” accretion models explore the different processes by which
water can be retained in the protoplanetary disk before being absorbed by Earth and how other regions
could have contributed to the accreted material.

The question then remains as to how well each model reproduces the present-day conditions.
Both scenarios must ensure that their final Earth possesses both enough water and Earth-like water. For
example, these models often explore “carbonaceous chondrites” as potential sources of water for the inner
solar system. These objects, either as meteorite samples on earth or inter-planetary objects in orbit, are
relatively unchanged leftovers from the protoplanetary disk, and contain hydrated minerals similar to
Earth’s water13, 3. The subsequent categorization of the theories by no means encompasses the entirety of
research ongoing, nor do they restrict them to their category. In fact, the simulations usually involve a
combination of both. The following descriptions merely provide a general line of reasoning by which one
might assign to the theories.

The “Wet” Accretion Model of Earth: Phyllosilicates and Pre/Inter-Formation Bombardment

The “wet” accretion model of Earth problem is twofold: determining if the rocky material that
Earth accreted can indeed store water molecules and how wet-planetesimals could have been sent into
Earth’s accretion zone during formation. Silicate dust grains can store water molecules within their cores
under certain conditions7. These are termed “phyllosilicates” and are often found in carbonaceous
chondrites. However, there still needs to be a source for the water. The foundation for these ideas initiates
with studies of water in molecular clouds. Ice water has been observed and modelled in molecular
clouds8,9, which would imply that a subsequent protoplanetary disk would contain water.
 Prochko - 6

Figure 4: ESA/Herschel/SPIRE21; Taurus Molecular Cloud, containing water vapor. These are star-forming
regions which house current and future protoplanetary disks.

Indeed, water vapor and atomic hydrogen have been reported near-infrared interferometry
observations of water vapor and atomic hydrogen within 1 AU of the young star MWC 480 10. As such,
the presence of water in the protoplanetary disk indicates that a planet forming at 1 AU could accrete
“wet”. While these findings open the door to a wet formation of terrestrial planets, they do not conclude
or determine this to be the case. Neither observations investigated the retention of water in the proto-
planetary disk through formation or the actual accretion of it by planetesimals.

Drake in 200511 laid out a simple model of nebular gas adsorption characterized in gas clouds by
H2, He, H20, and CO. He found that Earth could have absorbed up to 3 ocean masses of water in the initial
accretion phase. However, he was not able to determine as to whether the water could be retained, and
thus concluded that more research was necessary. Expanding upon this, de Leeuw et al.12 modelled the
adsorption of water onto fractal surfaces of fosterite (silicate) grains in the protoplanetary disk and
concluded that under temperature and gas pressure conditions in the accretion region of Earth at 1 AU,
the retention of water was thermodynamically possible.
 Prochko - 7

Figure 5: 12Fractal surface of fosterite (Mg – green, O – red, SiO4 - yellow, H – white). H2O can bind to the
structure of these silicate grains. “Adsorption” of water here is the adhesion of water vapor solid grains. These can
be future planetesimals for accretion.

However, it has been pointed out that there is no evidence of such grains in the samples of
meteorites received on Earth, supposedly representatives of the indicated wet grains 1. Recently, in 2018,
Thi et al.7 modelled the production of phyllosilicates, which we remember also trap water within the
silicate cores, in a protoplanetary disk. Their model produced these phyllosilicates throughout the
protoplanetary disc within 1 million years, allowing for accretion by planetesimals, within specific
constraints like temperature. See figure 6.

Figure 6: 7 The simulated abundances of water as a function of temperature in the gas and dust after 1 Myr
(left) and 5 Myrs (right). Key note: Only within 10 AU are the temperature high enough to enable both the
adsoprtion of water onto the silicate surface and the diffusion of water into the cores.

While promising, they were unable to predict whether this indeed yielded enough water in the
phyllosilicates to provide sufficient water to Earth. Neither does it imply that those water-rich
planetesimals were in the region of an accreting-Earth.
 Prochko - 8

This problem is addressed by the migration of wet-planetesimals, especially carbonaceous

chondrites, into Earth whilst it was still accreting. Various models have attempted to simulate this
migration. Morbidelli et al.14 modelled the migration of wet planet embryos from the outer asteroid belt
and subsequent accretion by Earth. While their main source of water delivery was wet planetesimals, they
did include partial delivery from inner asteroid belt comets and some Kuiper Belt objects. This is a
reoccurring factor in the planetary migration models of both scenarios. Similarly, Raymond et al.15 were
able to reproduce a wet Earth from wet asteroidal planetesimal migrations, but at the same time, their
models failed to produce a small enough Mars. The primary struggle of the models persists in producing
the present-day solar system conditions. In general, “wet” formation accretion models can produce similar
solar system conditions, to today, but they tend to require broader constraints like partial alternative water
sources to account for water discrepancies.

The “Dry” Accretion Model of Earth: Post-Formation Bombardment

These outstanding issues bring us to a surprisingly similar approach to the wet accretion process:
the “dry” accretion scenario. In fact, the models above include various scenarios also simulated in this
scenario. The scope of theories in this scenario model an already-formed Earth being bombarded by
water-rich bodies. One might more readily view the dry scenario by looking into the process of
deuterium fractionation, or the production of deuterated water. Cleeves et al. (2014)26 for example,
predicts D/H in our protoplanetary disk, focusing on the direct process producing non-negligible D/H
ratios: the ionization of H2 by both our sun and the local galactic radiation (a smaller factor but an
ambient factor to consider, nonetheless). While studies such as those of Thi et al. (2018) allow for the
possible abundance of water, the D/H ratio of such water often remains in question. Their simulation
results, seen in figure 7, of deuterium fractionation in the protoplanetary disk of our solar system, could
never produce D/H ratios in the region of 1 AU higher than 2 x 10 -5. Recall our estimates of Earth’s bulk
D/H being 1.5 x 10-4.
 Prochko - 9

Figure 7: In the top right, the projected D/H ratio of water ice is much lower than that of Earth. This low
D/H ratio might exclude the water-rich planetesimals in Earth’s accretion zone.

Though not solely due to projections like the above, many research teams have explored the
alternative source for water, assuming Earth formed in this low D/H region. The practical concerns are
the viability of these objects as sources, both in supply and in composition.

There have been many models over the past thirty years of the bombardment of young and late
Earth by objects further out in the disk1,3,16,17, including the models mentioned in the “wet” section. The
term “Late Heavy Bombardment” refers to a period of the solar system during which scattering of
planetesimals and material in the outer solar system resulted in the “bombardment” of the inner
planets1,3,15. Gomes et al.16 in 2005 and Walsh et al.17 in 2011 simulated such bombardments. If Saturn and
Jupiter enter orbital resonance (meaning their orbital periods are an integer ratio of each other), they exert
periodic increased gravitational influence on each other, resulting in an exchange of momentum. The
former simulated a 2:1 orbital resonance of the two planets, while the latter a 3:2. When the planets
exchange their momentum, they necessarily must shift their orbits. They thus migrate inwards, scattering
planetary debris, possibly containing hydrated material, into the terrestrial planets inside 1.5 AU before
eventually migrating back out to their current orbits. In 2017, Nesvorny, Roig, and Bottke18 studied the
surfaces of the Moon and terrestrial planets for craters from the impacts described in this period and
 Prochko - 10

modelled different variations of the orbital instability of the larger planets, reinforcing the bombardment
theory. These, and other models, did not conclude that it was specifically inner asteroid belts objects or
comets that were responsible for these bombardments 18, but they did establish good grounds to argue that
the inner planets were bombarded by many bodies and planetesimals after formation from the orbits of
Jupiter and Saturn, a note readily assumed by both scenarios.

The question remains whether these, or other, objects were responsible for Earth’s water. An
initial determination can be made by studying the D/H ratios of the Jupiter-class comets and the inner
asteroid belt. This study seems to destabilize the argument; though, as the general D/H ratio of Jupiter-
class comets varies3. In fact, some D/H ratios vary greatly, like the Rosetta spacecraft’s measurement of
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s D/H ratio as 5.3 x 10-4, three times that of Earth’s water19. These
underlying issues might suggest that the supposed comets disturbed by the Late Heavy Bombardment
were not responsible for delivering water to Earth. We can only look to future observations and samples
to deepen the empirical support for various source-regions of migrating planetesimals.

Discussion and Conclusion: Phyllosilicates, Carbonaceous Chondrites, Pre-, Inter-, AND Post-
Formation Bombardment?

It is important to note that these two scenarios have many overlapping assumptions and
conclusions. While the wet accretion scenario established the plausibility of water retention in the
protoplanetary disk, the models that most support its theory tend to involve post-formation water supply.
Meanwhile, the dry accretion scenario usually involves substantial contribution of wet planetesimal
accretion during Earth’s formation process. Furthermore, the supposed sources of a late collision with
comets and asteroids from outside 1 AU point to many objects that have D/H ratios drastically different to
Earth’s. Two largely discussed scientific reviews, that of Caselli P. and Ceccarelli C. (2012) and of van
Dishoeck et al. (2014), focus on this topic extensively. Both studies approach the topic similarly, and yet
they indeed disagree in certain conclusions. Caselli and Ceccarelli, for example, reason that new
measurements (at the time) from the Herschel telescope reavealing more cometary D/H similarities to
Earth strengthen the position of the dry scenario. However, van Dischoeck et al. state that most arguments
favor wet-planetesimal accretion and that bombardment may not have been dominant. Yet, even with
their leanings, both end their discussions and conclusions with the statement of a suspicion it is a heavy
blend of both scenarios.

As apparent from the continued debate as to the origin of Earth’s water, we will have to look to
the future observations for added constraints to the models. Specifically, the molecular cloud
spectroscopic surveys conducted by telescopes such as ALMA 20 and Herschel21 will reveal more
 Prochko - 11

information as the structure and density of star-forming regions. In addition, further exoplanetary
observations like NASA’s TESS22 and the HIRES23 instrument on the W. M. Keck Observatory have
revealed more and more transiting exoplanets. Studying these other solar systems provides more
information with which to formulate accretion models. NASA’s OSIRIS-REx 24 and JAXA’s Hayabusa
225, are returning physical samples of near-Earth asteroids. All of these, and many more sources of
measurements and laboratory experimentation, slowly help us piece together the puzzle that is Earth’s
formation. In the end, our question of where Earth’s water originated is more of a question of how our
specific solar system formed, which is in turn a much broader and more complicated question. Yet our
knowledge only grows from here, and as more observation and measurement is conducted, so will our
understanding of our own origins.

References

1. van Dishoeck, E. F., Bergin, E. A., Lis, D. C., & Lunine, J. I., Water: From Clouds to Planets,Protostars and
Planets VI (2014), 835
 Prochko - 12

2. Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I.P., Tinetti, G. et al., Water vapour in the atmosphere of the habitable-zone eight-
Earth-mass planet K2-18 b., Nat Astron 3 (2019), 1086–1091
3. Caselli, P., Ceccarelli, C., Our Astrochemical Heritage, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 20 (2012),
article id.56
4. L´ecuyer, C., Simon, L., Guy, F., Comparison of carbon, nitrogen and water budgets on Venus and the Earth.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 181 (2000), 33–40
5. Marty B, (2012), The origins and concentrations of water, carbon, nitrogen and noble gases on Earth, Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 313–314, 56–66
6. Deloule, E., Albarède, F., Sheppard, S.M.F., Hydrogen isotope heterogeneities in the mantle from ion probe
analysis of amphiboles from ultramafic rocks, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 105 (1991), 543-553
7. Thi, W. F., Hocuk, S., Kamp, I., Woitke, P., Rab, Ch., Cazaux, S., Caselli, P., D’Angelo, M., Warm dust
surface chemistry in protoplanetary discs, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 635 (2018), id.A16, 15 pp
8. Palla, F., Brand, J., Cesaroni, R., Comoretto, G., Felli, M, Water masers associated with dense molecular
clouds and ultracompact HII regions, Astronomy and Astrophysics 246 (1991), 249-263
9. Hollenbach, D., Kaufman, M. J., Bergin, E. A., Melnick, G. J., Water, O2 and Ice in Molecular Clouds, The
Astrophysical Journal, 690 (2008):1497–1521
10. Eisner J. A., Water vapour and hydrogen in the terrestrial-planet-forming region of a protoplanetary disk,
Nature 447 (2007), 562–564
11. Drake, M. J., Origin of water in the terrestrial planets, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 40 (2005), 519
12. De Leeuw, N. H., Catlow, C. R., et al., Where on Earth has our water come from?, Chemical Communications,
Issue 47 (2010)
13. Hartman, H., Fegley, B, Prinn, R. G., Lewis, J. S., Carbonaceous chondrites and the origin of life, Fourteenth
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Contribution 497 (1983)
14. Morbidelli, A., Chambers, J., Lunine, J. I., et al., Source regions and timescales for the delivery of water to the
Earth, Meteroritics & Planetary Science 35 (2010), 6
15. Raymond, S. N., O'Brien, D. P., Morbidelli, A. & Kaib, N. A., Building the terrestrial planets: constrained
accretion in the inner Solar System. Icarus 203 (2009), 644–662
16. Gomes, R., H. F. Levison, K. Tsiganis, Morbidelli, A., Origin of the Cataclysmic Late Heavy Bombardment
Period of the Terrestrial Planets, Nature 435 (2005), p. 466-469.
17. Walsh, K. J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., O'Brien, D. P., Mandell, A. M., A low mass for Mars from
Jupiter's early gas-driven migration, Nature 475 (2011), 206-209
18. Nesvorny, D., Roig, F., & Bottke, W. F., Modeling the Historical Flux of Planetary Impactors, The
Astronomical Journal 153 (2017), 103
19. Altwegg et al., 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, a Jupiter family comet with a high D/H ratio ,Science 347
(2015), 6220, 1261952
20. ALMA Observatory, ALMA, at first glance, https://www.almaobservatory.org/en/about-alma-at-first-
glance/#:~:text=Scientists%20foresee%20record%20harvests%2C%20where,objective%3A%20discovering
%20our%20cosmic%20origins [Accessed: 11/18/20]
21. The European Space Agency, Herschel Overview,
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel_overview [Accessed: 11/18/20]; Taurus
molecular cloud, http://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2012/10/Taurus_molecular_cloud [Accessed:
11/19/20]
22. NASA TV, TESS Exoplanet Mission, https://www.nasa.gov/content/about-tess [Accessed: 11/18/20]
23. W. M. Keck Observatory, HIRES Home Page, https://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/hires/ [Accessed: 11/18/20]
24. NASA TV, OSIRIS-REx Overview, https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex [Accessed: 11/18/20]
25. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, About Asteroid Explorer “Hayabusa2”,
https://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sas/hayabusa2/ [Accessed: 11/18/20]
26. Cleeves et al., The Ancient Heritage of Water Ice in the Solar System, Science 345 (2014),(6204), 1590-1593
 Prochko - 13

27. Tarbuck, E. J., Lutgens, F. K., Earth Science, 10th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2003 [first found in Mark Turski Earth
Science Lectures (2004), Plymouth State University]
28. Simmons, R., (2014), Elegant Figures, NASA Earth Observatory,
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/ [Accessed: 11/17/20]
29. D. G. Pearson, F. E. Brenker, F. Nestola, J. McNeill, L. Nasdala, M. T. Hutchison, S. Matveev, K. Mather, G.
Silversmit, S. Schmitz, B. Vekemans, L. Vincze, Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite
included within diamond, Nature 507 (2014), 7491
30. Andrei, M., First ringwoodite sample confirms huge quantities of water in Earth’s mantle, ZME Science (2014)
[figure credits only]