February 2019

Volume 15, Number 1

ISSN 1811-5209

Planet Mercury
BERNARD CHARLIER and OLIVIER NAMUR, Guest Editors

Origin and Differentiation

Exploration by Spacecraft
Inside the Iron Planet
Volcanism
Surface Composition
Role of Reducing Conditions
Elements is published jointly by the Mineralogical
Society of America, the Mineralogical Society
of Great Britain and Ireland, the Mineralogical
Association of Canada, the Geochemical Society,
the Clay Minerals Society, the European
Association of Geochemistry, the Inter­national
Association of GeoChemistry, the Société
Française de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie,
the Association of Applied Geochemists,
the Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft,
the Società Italiana di Mineralogia e Petrologia,
the International Association of Geoanalysts,
the Polskie Towarzystwo Mineralogiczne
(Mineralogical Society of Poland), the Sociedad
Española de Mineralogía, the Swiss Society of
Mineralogy and Petrology, the Meteoritical
Society, and the Japan Association of Mineralogical
Sciences. It is provided as a benefit to members
of these societies.
Elements is published six times a year. Individuals
are encouraged to join any one of the partici­
pating societies to receive Elements. Institutional
subscribers to any of the following journals—
American Mineralogist, Clay Minerals,
Mineralogical Magazine, and The Canadian
Miner­alogist—also receive one copy of Elements
as part of their 2019 subscription. Institu­tional
subscriptions are available for US$165 (US$180
non-US addresses) a year in 2019. Contact the
executive editor (jrosso.elements@gmail.com) for
information.
Copyright 2019 by the Mineralogical Society
of America
All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form,
including translation to other languages, or by
any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical,
including photocopying or information storage
and retrieval systems—without written permission
from the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.
Publications mail agreement no. 40037944
Printed in USA
ISSN 1811-5209 (print)
ISSN 1811-5217 (online)
elementsmagazine.org
pubs.geoscienceworld.org/
elements
Volume 15, Number 1 • February 2019 The interior structure of
Mercury. The relatively thick
crust (ca. 40 km) overlies the
comparatively thin mantle
(ca. 400 km). A hypothetical
iron sulfide layer might
occur at the core-mantle
boundary, overlying the
Planet Mercury
liquid outer core (radius of
ca. 2,000 km). The innermost
part of Mercury is made of
Guest Editors: Bernard Charlier and Olivier Namur a solid core suggested to
have a radius < 1,000 km.
Copyright © Mark A. Garlick
9 The Origin and Differentiation of Planet Mercury
Bernard Charlier and Olivier Namur
15 The Exploration of Mercury by Spacecraft
Sean C. Solomon and Paul K. Byrne
21 Mecury: Inside the Iron Planet
Steven A. Hauck, II and Catherine L. Johnson
27 Volcanism on Mercury
Rebecca J. Thomas and David A. Rothery
33 The Surface Composition of Mercury
Larry R. Nittler and Shoshana Z. Weider
39 The Role of Reducing Conditions in Building Mercury
Camille Cartier and Bernard J. Wood
D E PA R T M E N T S
Editorial – Mineralogical Revelations From Space Odysseys. . . . . 3
From the Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Meet the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Society News
Mineralogical Society of Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Mineralogical Association of Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland . . . . . . . . . 50
Mineralogical Society of America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Meteoritical Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Geochemical Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
International Association of GeoChemistry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Clay Minerals Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Association of Applied Geochemists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
European Association of Geochemistry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Calendar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Meeting Report – SOTA7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
CosmoELEMENTS – Impact Earth: A New Resource. . . . . . . . . . 70
Parting Shot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Advertisers in this Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1

The Mineralogical
Society of America is for
individuals interested in
mineralogy, crystallography,
petrology, and geochem­
istry. Founded in 1919, the
Society promotes, through
research, education, and publications, the
understanding and application of miner­
alogy by industry, universities, government,
and the public. Membership benefits include
Elements magazine, access to the electronic
version of the American Mineralogist, as well
as discounts on journals, Reviews in Miner­
alogy & Geochemistry series, textbooks,
monographs, reduced registration fees for
meetings and short courses, and participa­
tion in a society that supports the many
facets of mineralogy.
Society News Editor: Andrea Koziol
(akoziol1@udayton.edu)
Mineralogical Society of America
3635 Concorde Pkwy Ste 500
Chantilly, VA 20151-1110, USA
Tel: +1 (703) 652-9950
Fax: +1 (703) 652-9951
www.minsocam.org
Membership information:
msa.minsocam.org/membership.html
The Mineralogical
Society of Great Britain
and Ireland is an inter­
national society for all
those working in the
mineral sciences. The
society aims to advance the
knowledge of the science of miner­alogy and
its application to other subjects, including
crystallography, geochemistry, petrology,
environmental science and economic
geology. The society furthers its aims
through scientific meetings and the publica­
tion of scientific journals, books and mono­
graphs. The society publishes Mineralogical
Magazine and Clay Minerals. Students receive
the first year of membership free of charge.
All members receive Elements.
Society News Editor: Kevin Murphy
(kevin@minersoc.org)
The Mineralogical Society
12 Baylis Mews, Amyand Park Road
Twickenham, Middlesex  TW1 3HQ, UK
Tel.: +44 (0)20 8891 6600
Fax: +44 (0)20 8891 6599
info@minersoc.org
www.minersoc.org
The Mineralogical
­ ssociation of Canada
A zation for over 40 years. Its
was incorpor­ated in 1955
to promote and advance
the knowledge of miner­
alogy and the related disci­
plines of crystal­lography,
petrol­ogy, geochemistry, and economic
geology. Any person engaged or inter­ested
in these fields may become a member of the
Association. Membership benefits include a
subscrip­tion to Elements, reduced cost for
sub­scribing to The Canadian Mineralogist, a
20% discount on Topics in Mineral Sciences,
formerly Short Course series volumes, and
special publica­tions, and a discount on the
registration fee for annual meetings.
Society News Editor: Johanne Caron
(johanne.caron@ete.inrs.ca)
Mineralogical Association of Canada
490, de la Couronne
Québec, QC G1K 9A9, Canada
Tel.: 418-653-0333; fax: 418-653-0777
office@mineralogicalassociation.ca
www.mineralogicalassociation.ca
The Clay Minerals
Society (CMS) began as the
Clay Minerals Committee
of the US National Academy
of Sciences – National
Research Council in 1952.
In 1962, the CMS was
incorporated with the primary purpose of
stimu­lating research and disseminating
information relating to all aspects of clay
science and technology. The CMS holds
annual meetings, workshops, and field trips,
and publishes Clays and Clay Minerals and
the CMS Workshop Lectures series. Member­
ship benefits include reduced registration fees
to the annual meeting, discounts on the
CMS Workshop Lectures, and Elements.
Society News Editor: Katerina Dontsova
(dontsova@email.arizona.edu)
The Clay Minerals Society
3635 Concorde Pkwy Ste 500
Chantilly, VA 20151-1110, USA
Tel.: 703-652-9960; fax: 703-652-9951
cms@clays.org
www.clays.org
E lements
PARTICIPATING SOCIETIES
The Geochemical Society
(GS) is an international
organization founded in
1955 for students and
scientists involved in the
practice, study, and teaching
of geochemistry. Our
programs include cohosting the annual
Goldschmidt ConferenceTM, editorial over­
sight of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
(GCA), supporting geochemical symposia
through our Meeting Assistance Program,
and supporting student development
through our Student Travel Grant Program.
GS annually recognizes excellence in
geochemistry through its medals, lectures,
and awards. Members receive a subscription
to Elements, special member rates for GCA
and G-cubed, and publication and confer­
ence discounts.
Society News Editor: Kevin Johnson
(kjohnson@geochemsoc.org)
Geochemical Society Business Office
Carnegie Institution for Science
Abelson Bldg, Rm G05
5241 Broad Branch Road, NW
Washington, DC 20015-1305, USA
Tel: +1 (202) 478-8836
gsoffice@geochemsoc.org
Explore GS online at www.geochemsoc.org
Founded in 1985, the
European Association
of Geochemistry is a
non-­profit organization
dedicated to promoting
geochemistry internation­
ally. The society is a
dynamic association that organizes the
Goldschmidt Conference ® in Europe,
publishes Geochemical Perspectives and
Geochemical Perspectives Letters, recognizes
scientific excellence through awards,
supports Early Career Scientists, sponsors
workshops and conferences in Europe,
organizes Distinguished Lecture and
Outreach Programs, publishes job opportu­
nities, newsletters and blogs, and partners
with other learned societies to strengthen
geochemistry internationally.
Society News Editor: Alice Williams
(awilliams@eag.eu.com)
Membership information:
www.eag.eu.com/membership
The International
­Association of
GeoChemistry (IAGC) has
been a preeminent inter­na­
tional geo­chemical organi­
principal objectives are to
foster cooperation in the advancement of
applied geochemistry by sponsoring specialist
scientific symposia and the activities organized
by its working groups and by support­ing its
journal, Applied Geochemistry. The adminis­tra­
tion and activities of IAGC are conducted by
its council, comprising an Executive and ten
ordinary members. Day-to-day administration
is performed through the IAGC business office.
Society News Editor: Chris Gardner
(BusinessOffice@IAGC-Society.org)
IAGC Business Office
275 Mendenhall Laboratory
125 South Oval Mall
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Tel.: 614-688-7400; fax: 614-292-7688
www.iagc-society.org
The Société Française
de Minéralogie et de
Cristallographie, the
French Mineralogy and
Crystallography Society,
was founded on March 21,
1878. The purpose of the
society is to promote mineralogy and crys­
tallography. Membership benefits include
the European Journal of Mineralogy, Elements,
and reduced registration fees for SFMC
meetings.
Society News Editor: Monique Seyler
(Monique.seyler@univ.lille1.fr)
SFMC
Case postale 115, 4 place Jussieu
75252 Paris cedex 05
sfmc@ccr.jussieu.fr
www.sfmc-fr.org
The Association of
Applied ­Geochemists is
an international organiza­
tion founded in 1970 that
specializes in the field of
applied geochemistry. It
aims to advance the science
of geochem­istry as it relates to exploration
and the environment, further the common
interests of exploration geochemists, facili­
tate the acquisition and distribution of
2 F ebruary 2019
scientific knowledge, promote the exchange
of information, and encourage research and
development. AAG membership includes
the AAG journal, Geochemistry: Exploration,
Environment, ­Analysis; the AAG newsletter,
EXPLORE; and Elements.
Society News Editor: John Carranza
(ejmcarranza@gmail.com)
Association of Applied Geochemists
P.O. Box 26099
Nepean, ON K2H 9R0, Canada
Tel.: 613-828-0199; fax: 613-828-9288
office@appliedgeochemists.org
www.appliedgeochemists.org
The Deutsche
­Mineralogische
­Gesellschaft (DMG;
German Mineralogical
Society) was founded in
1908 to “promote miner­
alogy and all its subdisci­
plines in teaching and research as well as
the personal relationships among all
members. Its great tradition in geoscience is
reflected in the list of honorary fellows,
which include M. v. Laue, G. v. Tschermak,
P. Eskola, C.W. Correns, P. Ramdohr, and H.
Strunz, to name a few. Today, the subdisci­
plines in the DMG are also bridging the gap
with other communities such as materials
science, solid state chemistry-physics, and
environmental sciences. The society espe­
cially tries to support young researchers,
e.g. to attend conferences and short courses.
Membership benefits include the European
Journal of Mineralogy, Elements, and GMit.
Society News Editor: Klaus-Dieter Grevel
(klaus-dieter.grevel@rub.de)
Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft
post@dmg-home.org
www.dmg-home.org
The Società Italiana
di Mineralogia e
­Petrologia (Italian Society
of Mineralogy and Petro­
logy), established in 1940,
is the national body repre­
senting all researchers
dealing with mineralogy, petrology, and
related disciplines. Membership benefits
include receiving the European Journal of
Mineralogy, Plinius, and Elements, and a
reduced registration fee for the annual meeting.
Society News Editor: Costanza Bonadiman
(bdc@unife.it)
Società Italiana di Mineralogia e ­Petrologia
Dip. di Scienze della Terra
Università di Pisa, Via S. Maria 53
I-56126 Pisa, Italy
Tel.: +39 050 2215704
Fax: +39 050 2215830
segreteria@socminpet.it
www.socminpet.it
The International Asso-
ciation of Geoanalysts is
a worldwide organization
supporting the profes­sional
interests of those involved
in the analysis of geological
and environmental mate­
rials. Activities include the management of
proficiency-testing programmes for bulk-rock
and micro-analytical methods, the production
and certification of reference materials and
the publication of the association’s journal,
Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research.
Society News Editor: Michael Wiedenbeck
(michawi@gfz-potsdam.de)
International Association of Geoanalysts­
Ms. Jennifer Cook, Hon. Sec.
British Geological Survey
Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GC, UK
jmc@bgs.ac.uk
geoanalyst.org
The Polskie ­Towarzystwo
Mineralogiczne (Mineral­
ogical Society of Poland),
founded in 1969, draws
together professionals and
amateurs interested in miner­
alogy, crystal­lography,
petrology, geochemistry, and economic
geology. The society promotes links between
mineralogical science and education and
technology through annual conferences,
Affiliated Societies
The International Mineralogical Association, the
European Mineralogical Union, and the International
Association for the Study of Clays are affiliated societies
of Elements. The affiliated status is reserved for those
organizations that serve as an “umbrella” for other groups in the fields of min­er­a logy,
geochemistry, and petrology, but that do not themselves have a membership base.
field trips, invited lectures, and publish­ing.
Membership benefits include subscriptions
to Mineralogia and Elements.
Society News Editor: Zbigniew Sawłowicz
(zbigniew.sawlowicz@uj.edu.pl)
Mineralogical Society of Poland
Al. Mickiewicza 30,
30-059 Kraków, Poland
Tel./fax: +48 12 6334330
ptmin@ptmin.pl  www.ptmin.pl
The Sociedad Española
de Mineralogía (Spanish
­Mineralogical­­ Society) was
founded in 1975 to promote
research in mineralogy,
petrology, and geochemistry.
The society organizes annual
conferences and furthers the training of
young researchers via seminars and special
publications. The SEM Bulletin published
scientific papers from 1978 to 2003, the year
the Society joined the European Journal of
Mineralogy and launched Macla, a new
journal containing scientific news, abstracts,
and reviews. Membership benefits include
receiving the European Journal of Mineralogy,
Macla, and Elements.
Society News Editor: Encarnación Ruiz-Agudo
(encaruiz@ugr.es)
Sociedad Española de Mineralogía
npvsem@lg.ehu.es  www.ehu.es/sem
The Swiss Society
of Mineralogy and
Petrology was founded in
1924 by professionals from
academia and industry and
amateurs to promote knowl­
edge in the fields of miner­
alogy, petrology, and geochemistry and to
disseminate it to the scientific and public
communities. The society coorganizes the
annual Swiss Geoscience Meeting and
publishes the Swiss Journal of Geosciences
jointly with the national geological and
paleontological societies.
Society News Editor: Torsetn Vennemann
(torsten.vennemann@unil.ch)
Swiss Society of Mineralogy and Petrology
Université de Fribourg / Sciences de la Terre
Chemin du Musée 6, Pérolles
CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 26 300 89 36
Fax: +41 26 300 97 65
ssmp.scnatweb.ch
The Meteoritical Society
is an international organiza­
tion founded in 1933 for
scientists, collectors, and
educators to advance the
study of meteorites and
other extraterrestrial mate­
rials and their parent asteroids, comets, and
planets. Members receive our journal, Mete-
oritics & Planetary Science, reduced rates for
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, which we
cosponsor, the Meteoritical Bulletin, and
Elements. We organize annual meetings,
workshops, and field trips, and support
young planetary scientists worldwide.
Through our medals and awards, we recognize
excellence in meteoritics and allied fields.
Society News Editor: Cari Corrigan
­(corriganc@si.edu)
Membership information:
meteoriticalsociety.org
The Japan Association
of Mineralogical
Sciences (JAMS) was estab­
lished in 2007 by merging
the Mineralogical Society
of Japan, founded in 1955,
and the Japanese Associa­
tion of Mineralogists, Petrologists, and
Economic Geologists, established in 1928.
JAMS covers the wide field of mineral
sciences, geochemistry, and petrology.
Membership benefits include receiving the
Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological
Sciences (JMPS), the Ganseki-Koubutsu-
Kagaku (GKK), and Elements.
Society News Editor: Atsusui Kyono
(kyono@geol.tsukuba.ac.jp)
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences
c/o Graduate School of Science, Tohoku
University
Aoba, Sendai, 980-8578, Japan
Tel./fax: 81-22-224-3852
KYL04223@nifty.ne.jp
jams.la.coocan.jp

PRINCIPAL EDITORS
NANCY L. ROSS, Virginia Tech, USA
(nross@vt.edu)
JONATHAN D. BLUNDY, University of Bristol,
UK (jon.blundy@bristol.ac.uk)
JOHN M. EILER, Caltech, USA
(eiler@gps.caltech.edu)
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
BLANCA BAULUZ, Sociedad Española
di Mineralogía
COSTANZA BONADIMAN, Società Italiana
di Mineralogia e Petrologia
VALÉRIE BOYSE, Société Française
de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie
CATHERINE CORRIGAN, Meteoritical Society
KATERINA M. DONTSOVA, The Clay Minerals
Society
BARBARA L. DUTROW, Mineralogical
Society of America
MASAKI ENAMI, Japan Association
of Mineralogical Sciences
DANIEL J. FROST, European Association
of Geochemistry, Chair
BERNARD GROBÉTY, Swiss Society of
Mineralogy and Petrology
MARK E. HODSON, Mineralogical Society
of Great Britain and Ireland
HEATHER JAMIESON, Mineralogical
Association of Canada
KLAUS MEZGER, Deutsche Mineralogische
Gesellschaft
MAREK MICHALIK, Mineralogical Society
of Poland
RYAN R.P. NOBLE, Association of Applied
Geochemists
ORFAN SHOUAKAR-STASH, International
Association of GeoChemistry
SASHA TURCHYN, Geochemical Society
MICHAEL WIEDENBECK, International
Association of Geoanalysts
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
JODI J. ROSSO (jrosso.elements@gmail.com)
EDITORIAL OFFICE
2710 Crimson Way, Floyd 263
Richland, WA 99354-1671, USA
Tel/Fax: (509) 420-5331 (UTC-8)
Layout: POULIOT GUAY GRAPHISTES
Copy editor: PATRICK ROYCROFT
Proofreader: PATRICK ROYCROFT
Printer: ALLEN PRESS
The publishers assume no responsibility for
any statement of fact or opinion expressed
in the published material. The appearance
of advertising in this magazine does not
constitute endorsement or approval of the
quality or value of the products or of the
claims made for them.
elementsmagazine.org
DON’T MISS AN ISSUE OF ELEMENTS.
Join a participating society!
E lements
EDITORIAL
MINERALOGICAL REVELATIONS
FROM SPACE ODYSSEYS
DOI: 10.2138/gselements.15.1.3
Sir Arthur C. Clarke (1917–
2008), perhaps best known
for the 1968 book and film
2001: A Space Odyssey, once
stated that “The only way
of discovering the limits of
the possible is to venture
a little way past them into
the impossible.” As you
Nancy Ross
enjoy this issue of Elements
on planet Mercury, think about the remarkable
achievement of sending a spacecraft to Mercury,
the closest planet to the Sun.
Getting to Mercury is difficult, not only because
the speed required to reach it is relatively high but
also because the Sun’s gravitational field pulls on
any spacecraft that is sent into Mercury’s orbit.
The NASA MESSENGER probe, launched 2004, was
the first to orbit Mercury and, as described in
this issue, revealed many unique and enigmatic
aspects of the planet. On 20 October 2018, the
ESA/JAXA BepiColombo spacecraft was launched
and began its seven-year journey to Mercury.
This mission joins a myriad of other spacecraft
sent out to explore the solar system’s planetary
expanse. On 5 November 2018, Voyager II, which
was launched in 1977 on a mission to explore the
outer planets, exited the heliosphere and entered
interstellar space after flybys of Jupiter (1979),
Saturn (1981), Uranus (1986) and Neptune (1989).
On 26 November 2018, the NASA InSight lander
safely touched down on Mars. It is the first space
robotic explorer designed to study the interior of
a planet by using seismology, geodesy, and heat
flow measurements. On 3 December 2018, the
NASA spacecraft OSIRIS-REx reached the carbona­
ceous asteroid Bennu and discovered the presence
of water. On 3 January 2019, China successfully
landed the Chang’e-4 spacecraft on the far side of
the Moon, this probe carrying a suite of instru­
ments to analyze this unexplored region.
Each of these, and other, missions gather data
from “natural laboratories” that encompass a
wide range of composition, pressure, and tem­
perature conditions. The acquired data answer
some questions, but typically raise more, about
the origin and evolution of our planetary system.
For example, one of the surprising findings of
the MESSENGER mission to Mercury was the
unusually high sulfur and low FeO content of
its surface lavas, suggesting highly reducing
conditions during its formation. As described
by Cartier and Wood (2019 this issue), insights
into these redox conditions can be gained
from studying the possible building blocks of
Mercury, such as enstatite chondrites which are
also highly reduced. These chondrites contain a
wide variety of unusual sulfides, including the
alkali copper–iron sulfide mineral, djerfisherite,
with composition K6 (Fe2+,Cu,Ni) 25S26Cl. I must
admit that I was not familiar with djerfisherite
and intrigued by its complex chemistry. It turns
out that djerfisherite has an elegant structure with
sulfur atoms arranged in a cubic close-packed
arrangement and edge-sharing FeS 4 tetrahedra
forming Fe8S14 clusters that form the backbone
of the structure. The iron atoms themselves form
3 F ebruary 2019
Artist’s rendition of the “super-Earth” planet
Figure 1 55 Cancri e, in the constellation of Cancer,
which was initially dubbed the “diamond planet”. Note
the core! Image Credit: Travis Metcalfe and Ruth Bazinet,
Harvard -Smithsonian Center for A strophysics
perfect cubes and, with interatomic separations
of 2.74 Å, there are likely Fe–Fe bonded interac­
tions that may account for the material’s semi­
conductor properties.
Some of the most fascinating mineralogical rev­
elations are coming from the discovery of exo­
planets orbiting stars beyond our solar system.
On 30 August 2004, an exoplanet now named
55 Cancri e was discovered 40 light-years away in
the constellation of Cancer the crab (McArthur
et al. 2004). The mass of this exoplanet is about
8.63 times that of Earth, and its diameter is about
twice that of the Earth. This classes it as a “super-
Earth” planet. Similar to Mercury, 55 Cancri e
is the innermost known planet in its planetary
system, but its orbital year takes less than 18
hours (!) compared to the 88 days for Mercury. In
2012, it was announced that 55 Cancri e could be
a carbon planet (Madhusudhan et al. 2012), and
speculations arose that it could have a diamond-
rich interior (Fig. 1). Interestingly, in Arthur C.
Clarke’s 1982 book sequel, 2010: Odyssey Two, one
of his extraterrestrial characters discovered that
“the core of Jupiter, forever beyond human reach,
was a diamond as big as the Earth.” While the
diamond hypothesis has been challenged (Teske
et al. 2013), studies are ongoing to explain the
unusual properties of 55 Cancri e. Indeed, the
discoveries of 55 Cancri e and other super-Earth
planets have motivated a number of theoretical
and experimental studies that are expanding our
knowledge of the stabilities of materials under
extreme conditions of pressure and temperature.
It is time to end my odyssey into space and return
to Earth. As I have time to reflect, it is clear that
mineralogists have a rich and diverse playground
of natural laboratories in which to explore the
state of matter. The field of mineralogy is well
positioned to expand along with the space mis­
sions and to embrace the amazing discoveries
about the materials that comprise the universe.
Nancy L. Ross, Principal Editor
REFERENCES
Cartier C, Wood BJ (2019) The role of reducing condi­
tions in building Mercury. Elements 15: 39-45
Madhusudhan N, Lee KKM, Mousis O (2012) A
possible carbon-rich interior in super-Earth 55
Cancri e. Astrophysical Journal Letters 759, doi:
10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L40
McArthur BE and 11 coauthors (2004) Detection of a
Neptune-mass planet in the ρ1 Cancri system using
the Hobby-Eberly Telescope. Astrophysical Journal
Letters. 614: L81–L84
Teske JK, Cunha K, Schuler SC, Griffith CA, Smith
VV (2013) Carbon and oxygen abundances in cool
metal-rich exoplanet hosts: a case study of the C/O
ratio of 55 Cancri. Astrophysical Journal 778, doi:
10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/132
 FROM THE EDITORS
ABOUT THIS ISSUE
Mercury is one of the five planets in our solar system that can be
seen from our night sky without the aid of a telescope or binoculars.
It has been observed by humans for thousands of years. One of the
earliest records of Mercury comes from a pair of ancient Babylonian
tablets that report astronomical events dating from about 1300 BC, the
Mul.Apin, which was a formal catalogue of constellations, stars, and
planets in Babylonian astronomy. These tablets contain the cutting-
edge science by ancient astronomers who were the first to recognize
that astronomical phenomena were periodic and the first to apply math­
ematics to their predictions. Mercury was known as one of the five
“wandering stars” that appeared to move across the sky. Because of its
comparatively rapid motion across the sky with respect to the stars, the
ancient Greeks may have associated this celestial body with the swift
messenger of the gods, Hermes. The official scientific name we now
use, according to the International Astronomical Union, corresponds
to the ancient Roman name for their messenger god, Mercury. It wasn’t
until Copernicus (1473–1543) developed his model of a heliocentric
solar system in 1543 CE that astronomers realized that Mercury was a
planet. Galileo (1564–1642) confirmed this in the 17th century.
Despite being known for mil­
lennia, Mercury poses a chal­
lenge to astronomers. Mercury A B
is small, less than one half
of Earth’s diameter, making
it only about as wide as the
Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore,
although visible from Earth,
Mercury never travels far from
the Sun in the sky. That means
it always rises or sets within
two hours of the Sun, sits low
on the horizon, and is rarely
observable when the sky is
fully dark. Conditions need
to be just right to observe this
planet from Earth. Most of us,
especially those of us who live
at latitudes higher than the
45th parallel, have probably
rarely noticed Mercury in the Figure 1
(A) Image of Mercury collected
sky. Venus, Mars, and Jupiter in 2007 using the 4.1-meter
Solar Astrophysical Research Telescope at
are much easier to spot. It’s Cerro Pachon (Chile). Credit: G. Cecil,
challenging to obtain clear University North C arolina, USA
INTRODUCING JOHN M. EILER,
PRINCIPAL EDITOR (2019–2021)
With the start of 2019, John M. Eiler joins
the Elements editorial team. He is taking on
the role as our geochemistry principal editor.
John is an isotope geochemist who aims to
“reveal the genetics of everything” – the his­
tory of each molecule in the natural world as
written in its isotopic signature. He likes to
tackle a diverse and wide range of topics: for
example, studying the history and petrology
of ancient mountain belts; elucidating the
role of subducted materials in the origin and
evolution of igneous rocks; “taking the temperature” of meteorites from
Mars, of 150 million-year-old dinosaurs, and of deep-sea corals; and
determining the magnitude and duration of past glaciation events.
John, and his research group, continue to develop technologies and
methods to unleash the power of isotopes for studying almost every
area of the natural sciences. One of his more visible developments has
been with “clumped isotope” geochemistry.
E lements
detailed images of Mercury from Earth. Even the most powerful land-
based telescopes only reveal Mercury as a small, relatively “featureless”,
grey disk (Fig. 1A) or as a small black dot transiting the Sun (https://svs.
gsfc.nasa.gov/12235; https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/cesar/mercury-
transit-20161). Despite the observational difficulties, Greek astronomer
Eugène Antoniadi, while working at the 33-inch refractor telescope
at the Meudon Observatory (France), was able to produce a map of
Mercury, which he published in 1934 (Fig. 1B). The map showed bright
and dark features which were, according to Antoniadi, were “very pale
and difficult to distinguish”. Interestingly, Antoniadi named many of
these albedo features by drawing upon Greek mythology, in particular
the myths about Hermes, and after locations in Italy (e.g., Liguria) and
Greece (e.g., Pieria). His map of Mercury was used by astronomers for
almost 50 years and the regional names coined by Antoniadi are still
in use today.
Mercury was one of the least understood planets until the latter part of
the 20 th century. It was only after the advent of space exploration that
we were able to study Mercury in more detail. During 1974 and 1975,
the NASA space probe Mariner 10 provided the first close-up images
of Mercury. And, as discussed
by the authors in this issue,
NASA’s MESSENGER (MErcury
Surface E N v i r o n m e nt ,
GEochemistry, and Ranging)
mission to Mercury (2004–
2015) has further advanced
our understanding of this
fascinating planet. We look
forward with eager antici­
pation the results of the
recently launched E SA/
JAXA BepiColumbo probe to
Mercury: it should arrive at
the planet in December 2025.
While we wait for the next
batch of scientific measure­
ments from Mercury to arrive,
we hope you enjoy the articles
in this issue of Elements.
(B) The 1934 map of the planet Mercury
that was used by astronomers for almost 50
years. It was drawn by Eugène M. Antoniadi
(1870–1944), a noted Greek astronomer
who worked most of his life in France.
John is based at the California Institute of Technology (USA) where he
has worked as a research fellow (1994–1998), professor (1998–2008),
and now as the Robert P. Sharp Professor of Geology and Geochemistry
(2008– ). John has been recognized for his contributions to the geo­
sciences and has been the recipient of the 2002 James B. Macelwane
Medal (American Geophysical Union), the 2002 Mineralogical Society
of America Award, the 2012 Arthur Day Medal (Geological Society of
America), and was elected a member of the US National Academy of
Sciences in 2016.
We are pleased to have John join the Elements editorial team. John is
already working with the guest editors and authors of the August 2019
issue “Weathering: A Unifying Process in the Geosciences”.
PROPOSE A TOPIC FOR ELEMENTS
There are so many more topics to feature in Elements. In March 2019,
the editorial team will meet to evaluate proposals for inclusion in
our lineup. We invite you to contact one of the Elements editors and
submit a thematic proposal for consideration! For more information
about submitting a proposal, please visit http://elementsmagazine.org/
publish-in-elements/.
Nancy Ross, Jon Blundy, John Eiler, and Jodi Rosso
4 F ebruary 2019
 SU PP ORT I NG R E SE A RC H
C A L L FOR S C HOL A R S H I P A PPL IC AT ION S

We kindly invite researchers to apply for the annual Dr. Eduard Gübelin Research Scholarship,
a grant supporting a scientific research project in the field of gemmology in the broadest sense.

The annual value is up to USD 30,000

Submission deadline: 30 June 2019

For guidelines, application forms and further information please visit:

gubelingemlab.com /scholarship

Dr. Eduard Gübelin Association for Research & Identification of Precious Stones
Maihofstrasse 102 6006 Lucerne Switzerland T: +41 41 429 17 17 info@gubelingemlab.com
 Paul K. Byrne is Assistant Professor of Planetary
Science at North Carolina State University (USA).
He graduated with a PhD in planetary geology from
Trinity College Dublin (Ireland) in 2010 and, as a
postdoctoral fellow from 2011 to 2015 at the
Carnegie Institution’s Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism (Washington DC, USA) and the Lunar
and Planetary Institute (Texas, USA), he participated in NASA’s
MESSENGER mission to Mercury. He was named a NASA Early Career
Fellow in 2015. Through a combination of remotely sensed data, phys-
ical and numerical modeling, and fieldwork at analog sites, his research
focuses on the links between surface and interior processes on rocky
and icy solar system bodies.
Camille Cartier is a young assistant professor
teaching geology at the University of Lorraine
(France). Her research is focused on magmatic pro-
cesses that have led to the formation and evolution
of planetary bodies (e.g. Earth, Moon, Mercury,
asteroids). Combining experimental petrology, cos-
mochemistry and thermodynamical modelling, she
has worked on several topics, linked by a common thread: the impact
of oxygen fugacit y on phase equilibria and trace element
partitioning.
Bernard Charlier is an igneous petrologist inter-
ested in the magmatic processes that have led to the
chemical differentiation of the Earth’s crust
(including the genesis of ore deposits) and on the
formation and evolution of terrestrial bodies
(Moon, Mars and Mercury). His research combines
fieldwork, petrography, geochemistry, high-temper-
ature experimental petrology, and thermodynamics. He has been the
head of the Laboratory for Experimental Petrology at the University of
Liège (Belgium) since 2016.
Steven A. Hauck, II is a professor at Case Western
Reserve University (Ohio, USA) where he researches
the structure and evolution of planets and their
interiors. Hauck has an undergraduate degree in
aerospace engineering and mechanics and a PhD
in Earth and planetary sciences. He was a partici-
pating scientist on the MESSENGER mission to
Mercury and is the current Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets. His research focuses on analyzing spacecraft data sets
derived from laser altimetry and gravity in concert with geophysical
models to understand how planets lose heat and how the processes
associated with heat loss influence a planet’s history.
Catherine L. Johnson is a professor at the University
of British Columbia (Canada) and a senior scientist
at the Planetary Science Institute (Arizona, USA).
Her research focuses on using geophysical satellite
and ground-based data sets to understand the sur-
faces and interiors of rocky planets, moons and
asteroids. She has a BSc (Hons) in geophysics from
the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and a PhD in geophysics from
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (California, USA). She was a
BACK ISSUES OF ELEMENTS AVAILABLE
ORDER ONLINE at
msa.minsocam.org/backissues
E LEMENTS
participating scientist on the MESSENGER mission to Mercury and is a
co-investigator on the OSIRIS REx mission to asteroid Bennu and on the
InSight mission to Mars.
Olivier Namur is an assistant professor at the
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), where he
teaches igneous and metamorphic petrology. His
research focusses on magma differentiation, mantle
melting and crust formation on Earth and on other
terrestrial bodies (the Moon, Mars and Mercury).
He has a special interest in the formation and evolu-
tion of mafic layered intrusions and basaltic volcanoes. His research
combines fieldwork, geochemistry, thermodynamic and numerical
modeling and experimental petrology.
Larry R. Nittler is a cosmochemist at the Carnegie
Institution of Washington (USA) who studies the
origin and evolution of stars, the Milky Way Galaxy,
and the solar system, both through laboratory anal-
ysis of extraterrestrial materials and through plan-
etary remote sensing via spacecraft. He obtained a
BA in physics from Cornell University (New York,
USA) and a PhD in physics from Washington University in St. Louis
(Missouri, USA). He worked on the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous -
Shoemaker mission to asteroid Eros, has played leading roles in the
analysis of comet and solar wind samples returned by NASA’s Stardust
and Genesis missions, respectively, and served as deputy principal inves-
tigator on NASA’s MESSENGER mission to Mercury. He is currently a
NASA participating scientist on the Japanese asteroid sample-return
mission, Hayabusa2, a member of the ESA/JAXA BepiColombo Mercury
mission team, and director of the Carnegie ion microprobe
laboratory.
David A. Rothery is Professor of Planetary
Geosciences at the Open University (UK), where he
chairs the level 2 planetary science course. Formerly
a terrestrial volcanologist, he has been involved
with the ESA’s BepiColombo mission to Mercury for
more than a decade. He is lead co-investigator for
geology on the Mercury Imaging X-ray Spectrometer
and leads ESA’s Mercury Surface and Composition Working Group.
Since 2018, he has been leading a work package on a European
Commission Horizon 2020 project called ‘Planmap’ directed at
improving European capabilities in planetary mapping. He has a par-
ticular interest in preparing the best possible MESSENGER-based geo-
logical maps of Mercury in order to set the context for BepiColombo
studies.
Rebecca J. Thomas is a planetary geologist
researching Mercury, Mars, and the Moon. Her work
primarily looks at geomorphological surface evi-
dence for the processes at work in these terrestrial
bodies and how they interact: this includes volca-
nism and its relationship with tectonism. Her
research on Mercury has focused on volatile-related
landforms such as sites of probable explosive volcanism. Her research
on Mars has encompassed seeking evidence for past or current presence
of habitable environments.
DIGITAL ACCESS
elementsmagazine.org
or pubs.geoscienceworld.org/elements
6 F EBRUARY 2019
 Sean C. Solomon is the Director of the Lamont–
Doherty Earth Observatory (Columbia University)
and is the William B. Ransford Professor of Earth
and Planetary Science at Columbia University (New
York, USA). He earlier served as Director of the
Carnegie Institution’s Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism (Washington DC, USA) and was
Professor of Geophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(USA). He was principal investigator for the MESSENGER mission to
Mercury and a co-investigator on the Magellan mission to Venus, on
NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor team, and the GRAIL mission to the Moon.
A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Solomon was the
President of the American Geophysical Union. In 2014, he received the
National Medal of Science from President Barack Obama.
Shoshana Z. Weider is a program scientist in the
Planetary Science Division of NASA’s Science
Mission Directorate, based at NASA Headquarters
in Washington DC (USA). She obtained an
MEarthSci degree from the University of Oxford
(UK), followed by a PhD in lunar geology from
Birkbeck College, University of London (UK). She
then worked on NASA’s MESSENGER mission to Mercury as a postdoc-
toral fellow at the Carnegie Institution for Science (Washington DC,
E LEMENTS
USA). She analyses and interprets geochemical remote sensing data for
terrestrial planets (mainly Mercury and the Moon). In parallel with her
work in planetary science, Shoshana is a science writer and editor. She
has held several science communication positions, including at the
European Space Agency (The Netherlands) and at Imperial College
London (UK). See www.shoshanazweider.com.
Bernard J. Wood is a research professor in the
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford
(UK). He previously held positions at Northwestern
University (Illinois, USA), the University of
Manchester (UK), and the University of Bristol (UK).
His research interests are in the application of high-
pressure–high-temperature experiments to under-
stand the structure and evolution of the Earth. During his career, he
has applied experiments to solve problems in the thermodynamic prop-
erties of minerals, geobarometry and geothermometry, the nature of
the seismic discontinuities in the mantle, and the factors that control
crystal–melt partitioning of trace elements. Currently, his principal
interest is in the accretion and differentiation of the Earth.
7 F EBRUARY 2019
 Bringing EPMA
to your fingertips!
The best resolution and
sensitivity on the market,
with touchscreen interface.
Celebrating 60 years of Electron Probe
MicroAnalysis, CAMECA has released its
latest Castaing probe.

The SXFive-TACTIS optimizes Electron Probe

MicroAnalysis at low energy to support
challenging applications in geo and materials
sciences. Its dual interface has been
specifically designed for multi-user facilities
to take full advantage of a single tool.

SX EPMA analysis of corundum (Al2O3) from Mount Carmel volcanic ejecta. Local interactions of mantle-derived CH4−H2 fluids with basaltic magmas produce desilication
of the magma and supersaturation in Al2O3 leading to rapid growth of corundum. From: Griffin WL et al. First terrestrial occurrence of tistarite (Ti2O3): ultra-low oxygen fugacity in the
upper mantle beneath Mount Carmel, Israel. Geology 2016;44:815–8.

Also supporting geo and cosmoscientists:

NanoSIMS 50L IMS 7f-GEO LEAP 5000
®

High sensitivity, High throughput Atom Probe Tomography

high spatial resolution SIMS for geoscience (APT) system for
The new generation
SIMS laboratories 3D nanoscale analysis
Large Geometry SIMS

www.cameca.com • cameca.info@ametek.com
 The Origin and Differentiation
of Planet Mercury

Bernard Charlier1 and Olivier Namur2

1811-5209/19/0015-0009$2.50  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.15.1.9

U
nique physical and chemical characteristics of Mercury have been A major unsolved question for
revealed by measurements from NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft. The Mercury is the origin of its much
higher metal/silicate fraction (i.e.,
closest planet to our Sun is made up of a large metallic core that is metal enrichment) compared to
partially liquid, a thin mantle thought to be formed by solidification of a other terrestrial planets. Several
silicate magma ocean, and a relatively thick secondary crust produced by processes have been invoked to
explain this metal enrichment
partial melting of the mantle followed by volcanic eruptions. However, the (Ebel and Stewart 2018). It may
origin of the large metal/silicate ratio of the bulk planet and the conditions be related to the composition
of accretion remain elusive. Metal enrichment may originate from primordial of the inner part of the nebula
where Mercury formed, but other
processes in the solar nebula or from a giant impact that stripped most of
mechanical processes may also
the silicate portion of a larger planet leaving Mercury as we know it today. have occurred after the formation
Keywords : MESSENGER, BepiColombo, terrestrial planet, magma crystallization, of the (proto-)planet. We present
interior structure some possible causes of metal/
silicate fractionation, including
element fractionation in the
INTRODUCTION solar nebula (condensation sequence, dynamical mecha-
Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun and an end-member nism), impact erosion, and high-temperature evaporation
terrestrial body in terms of internal structure and surface of the silicate shell. Mercury’s formation processes and
composition in our solar system. As described by Solomon internal structure are now being revealed thanks to the
and Byrne (2019 this issue), Mercury has been explored data collected by MESSENGER, but much remains to be
both by Earth-based telescopes and by two NASA space- explained. The BepiColumbo mission will undoubtedly
craft missions: Mariner 10 (1974–1975) and MESSENGER answer more questions.
(2008–2015). The third mission to Mercury, BepiColombo,
was launched by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the
Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) on 20 October 2018 and
will reach the orbit of Mercury in 2025. In this article, we
review the major characteristics of the interior structure
and surface of Mercury, focusing on the size and composi-
tion of the different layers of this planet which had an early
history dominated by differentiation through mantle–
core segregation followed by magma-ocean solidification,
volcanic activity, cratering and impact melting. All these
processes led to the present-day structure of Mercury as
depicted in Figure 1. The most striking characteristic of
Mercury, besides its small size, is the relatively large mass
fraction that the core represents (~65% of the total mass
of the planet). Mercury also has a thick crust (~35 km)
relative to the size of the mantle (~400 km) and, possibly,
an FeS layer at the core–mantle boundary. The inner core
is solid, the outer core is molten. The composition of the
surface of Mercury (Nittler and Weider 2019 this issue) is
also unique, with very low iron but high sulfur contents,
which point to highly reducing conditions during plane-
tary differentiation.

The interior structure of Mercury. The relatively thick

Figure 1
crust (~40 km) overlies the comparatively thin mantle
(~400 km). A hypothetical iron sulfide layer might occur at the
core–mantle boundary, overlying the liquid outer core (radius of
1 Department of Geology, University of Liege ~2,000 km). The innermost part of Mercury is probably a solid core
4000 Sart Tilman, Belgium having a radius of < 1,000 km. Figure Copyright © Mark A. Garlick.
E-mail: b.charlier@uliege.be
2 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven
3001 Leuven, Belgium
E-mail: olivier.namur@kuleuven.be

E lements , V ol . 15, pp. 9–14 9 F ebruary 2019

THE DIFFERENTIATION OF MERCURY
The internal structure of Mercury has evolved over time
in conjunction with the cooling of the planet. A primor-
dial fully molten state (Fig. 2A) enabled the separation
of a metallic core from a silicate magma ocean. Upon
cooling, these two chemically distinct reservoirs started
crystallizing, forming a growing solid inner core and a
silicate mantle, potentially capped by a graphite primary
crust that floated on the silicate mantle (Vander Kaaden
and McCubbin 2015) (Fig. 2B). Inner-core crystallization
and latent-heat release led to an initial phase of mantle
heating that produced strong mantle convection and
partial melting of the mantle by decompression. Magmas
produced in the mantle moved to the surface where lava
flow accumulation formed the secondary volcanic crust
(Fig. 2C). Progressive cooling of the mantle below its solidus
temperature, as well as planetary contraction, both led to
the termination of significant magmatism at about 3.6 Ga
(Fig. 2D). Further morphological modification of the crust
is related to meteorite bombardment, which produced
cratering and impact melting. A peculiar feature of Mercury
is the very low abundance of iron, and especially Fe2+,
at the surface, despite the bulk planet being significantly
enriched in iron compared to other terrestrial planets and
meteorites. This indicates that highly reducing conditions
(low-oxygen abundances) prevailed during differentiation
and that nearly all of the iron was extracted to the core
in its metallic form.
A
B
The four key events in the origin hypothesis of
Figure 2
Mercury. (A) Global melting of the planet and separa-
tion of a metallic core from a silicate magma ocean. (B) Cooling of
the planet, progressive crystallization of the solid inner core, poten-
tial formation of an FeS layer at the core–mantle boundary, and
crystallization of the magma ocean to produce the primordial
mantle and a graphite flotation crust. (C) Partial melting of the
E lements
The Crust
Surface imaging and compositional data acquired by
MESSENGER have revealed that the physical and composi-
tional characteristics of Mercury’s present-day surface are
largely controlled by volcanism and impacts (see Thomas
and Rothery 2019 this issue). The oldest terrains are dated
to 4.1 Ga using crater density, and the youngest to ~3.5 Ga
(Marchi et al. 2013). The surface of Mercury is covered by
a range of volcanic features. The thickness of the crust is
estimated to be 35 ± 18 km using the geoid-to-topography
ratio (Padovan et al. 2015).
The primordial crust of Mercury might have been a
graphite flotation lid, which is probably the source of
the carbon that is identified today at the surface of the
crust (an average C concentration of ~1 wt%) and mostly
concentrated in low-reflectance material (up to 4–5 wt% C)
(Peplowski et al. 2016). Under reducing conditions, C did
not partition strongly into the core, but, rather, stayed in
Mercury’s silicate magma ocean (Li et al. 2017). Magma-
ocean solidification together with low C solubility in
silicate melts might, therefore, have led to early saturation
in solid graphite and its flotation on a residual melt from
the magma ocean (Vander Kaaden and McCubbin 2015).
Although carbon at the surface may be a remnant from
the primary crust, the bulk of the crust as we see it
today was formed during secondary volcanic processes.
Different terranes can be distinguished based on their
composition (Nittler and Weider 2019 this issue) and on
their mineralogical characteristics (Namur and Charlier
2017). The high-Mg province (likely dominated by olivine)
mantle, production of the secondary crust, and synchronous
cratering of the surface. (D) Termination of major volcanism at
about 3.6 Ga and global planetary contraction. Figure Copyright ©
Mark A. Garlick.
10 F ebruary 2019
contrasts with the Mg-poor and Al-rich northern volcanic
plains, which are dominated by plagioclase. The surface
of Mercury is also enriched in sulfur compared to other
terrestrial planets and may also contain other important
volatile elements such as F and Cl (Nittler and Weider 2019
this issue). Sulfur concentrations range from 0.5 to 3.5 wt%
S, most probably as the solid phases of FeS and (Ca,Mg,Fe)
S or as quenched immiscible droplets.
The late-stage evolution of Mercury’s crust is marked by
contraction tectonics, responsible for the formation of
lobate scarps (Byrne et al. 2014), and by impact cratering.
Late volcanic expressions, such as vents and pyroclastic
deposits, occur most commonly associated with craters,
as do bright deposits called “hollows” which are possibly
related to the loss of volatiles (Blewett et al. 2011). Some
late-stage processes, such as bombardment or thermal
migration of elements, might also have affected the compo-
sition of the crust. Exogeneous processes that include
elemental delivery from projectiles is likely and may also
have contributed to the presence of carbon, which acts as a
darkening agent. The proximity of Mercury to the Sun and
its 3:2 spin–orbit resonance results in long days and nights
with very large temperature contrasts. This in itself might
affect the redistribution of some volatile elements, such
as sodium, from the hot equator to the much colder poles
(Peplowski et al. 2014). Due to limited MESSENGER data
for alkali elements in the southern hemisphere, volatile
redistribution has currently only been investigated for
the northern part of the planet. New measurements by
BepiColombo in the southern hemisphere will be highly
informative regarding the primary or secondary origin
of high-sodium abundances in the region of Mercury’s
northern volcanic plains.
The Mantle
Cooling and crystallization of the magma ocean were
responsible for the formation of the mantle, which today
has an estimated thickness of 420 ± 30 km (Hauck et al.
2013) (Fig. 1). Crystallization of the magma ocean may
have formed different lithologies that later partially
melted to form the secondary volcanic crust. Based on
high-temperature–high-pressure experiments, as well as
thermodynamic modelling, primordial mantle sources
were constrained to be lherzolitic and only differ by their
content of clinopyroxene and a Na-bearing phase (albitic
plagioclase or jadeitic pyroxene) (Namur et al. 2016b). Melt
extraction and the formation of a volcanic crust progres-
sively changed the mantle mineralogy, leaving behind the
residual minerals olivine and orthopyroxene (harzburgite)
(Namur et al. 2016b). Modelling also indicates that the
mantle potential temperature and depth for the initial
melting required for the older high-Mg region was ~1,650 °C
and 360 km, whereas for the younger lavas of the northern
volcanic plains the conditions were ~1,410 °C and 160 km.
This supports a strong secular cooling of Mercury’s mantle
between ~4.1 Ga and 3.6 Ga. The thermal and convective
states of the mantle may also have been perturbed by large
impacts, which may have affected the source depth and
volume of magmatism with, for example, the production
of large volumes of magma in the largest basins, such as
Caloris and Rembrandt.
Sulfur is also an important component of Mercury’s
mantle. Because sulfur behaves as a lithophile element
under reducing conditions (see Cartier and Wood 2019
this issue), the solubility of S in the silicate melt of the
magma ocean was very high, with a probable concentration
ranging from 7 to 11 wt% S (Namur et al. 2016a). Due to
low concentrations of Fe2+ in the silicate shell, it is likely
that crystallization of the magma ocean produced CaS and
MgS minerals, i.e., oldhamite and niningerite.
E lements
The Core
The mean density of Mercury is 5.43 ± 0.01 g·cm−3, which
indicates the presence of a large metallic core (Fig. 1). The
outer liquid–core boundary is estimated to be at a radius
of ~2,000 km (Hauck et al. 2013). Thermodynamic and
thermal-evolution models favor the presence of a solid
inner core with a radius in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 km
(Dumberry and Rivoldini 2015; Knibbe and van Westrenen
2018).
Experiments on metal−silicate equilibration under reducing
conditions have revealed that significant Si can be incor-
porated into metal (Malavergne et al. 2010; Chabot et al.
2014), and the core of Mercury may, therefore, be mainly
composed of metallic Fe and Si. Due to the relatively small
size of Mercury and the large immiscibility field in the Fe–
Si–S system, the S concentration in the Fe–Si core is probably
below 2 wt% S (Namur et al. 2016a). The presence of an FeS
layer at the mantle–core interface has been suggested by
modelling of the moment of inertia of Mercury (Hauck et
al. 2013). Experiments on sulfur solubility in silicate and
metal melts also support the idea that an FeS layer may
exist. The thickness of the FeS layer is strictly correlated to
the S concentration in the bulk Mercury and to the condi-
tions of oxygen fugacity, which strongly control S solubility
in metal and silicate melts. For a realistic assumption of 3–5
wt% S in the bulk planet and differentiation at IW-5.4±0.4
(with IW being the iron–wüstite oxygen fugacity buffer),
the thickness of an FeS layer would range from 0 km to
90 km. In the scenario of a primordial FeS layer, its forma-
tion would impact the composition of the silicate portion
and, especially, the distribution of chalcophile elements
which would then be depleted in the mantle and the crust.
Even for lower bulk concentrations of sulfur in Mercury, a
sulfide layer could form during crystallization of the inner
core. Solid Fe–Si alloy crystals would then form the inner
core, and the sulfur would be progressively enriched in
the residual metal liquid, potentially reaching the sulfur
capacity of the metallic liquid. Light FeS would be produced
by exsolution and then float to the core–mantle boundary.
In the scenario of a late-stage growing FeS layer exsolved
from the outer core, no depletion in chalcophile elements
would be expected in the overlying silicate magmas.
FORMATION MODELS
The debate on the origin of Mercury is intimately linked
to the question of metal/silicate fractionation in the early
solar nebula and in planets, as well as to the origin of
metal-rich chondrites. Enstatite chondrites (EH chondrites)
or, potentially, carbonaceous bencubbinite chondrites (CB
chondrites) may represent the building blocks that accreted
to form Mercury (Malavergne et al. 2010). These chondrites
might not exactly represent the building blocks but may
have sampled the Mercury feeding zone in a metal-enriched
inner disk. This would imply that a common process was
responsible for the principal characteristics of both the EH
and CB chondrites as well as the characteristics of Mercury,
i.e., reduced mineral assemblages, high metal/silicate ratios
and minor depletion in volatiles. Processes likely to explain
the origin of Mercury, as we see it today, could be classified
into two end-members. One end-member is related to the
evolution of the solar nebula and its ability to fractionate
metal from silicate, while the other considers an increase
in metal/silicate ratio through violent collisions or high-
temperature evaporation on a protoplanet with an initially
more modest metal fraction.
11 F ebruary 2019
Metal–Silicate Fractionation in the Nebula
There are several pre-accretion processes able to fractionate
metal from silicate in the solar nebula (Fig. 3). These
processes are based either on the removal of silicate or on
the accumulation of metal, either of which will result in
a comparatively higher proportion of metal over silicates
in the inner part of the solar nebula than further away
from the Sun. They include the contrasting condensation
temperatures for different phases (metal vs. silicates) in the
nebula, the dynamical phenomenon of metal and silicate
separation that is photophoresis [the process whereby
intense light, as from the Sun, can cause small particles
in a very dilute medium to move and separate] (Wurm et
al. 2013), and aerodynamic sorting due to the physical
properties of silicate and metal bodies in the gaseous
nebula (Weidenschilling 1978).
Volatility-dependent metal−silicate fractionation at medium
temperatures (1,300−1,700 K) and low pressure during the
condensation of the nebula may occur because of varia-
tions of temperature with heliocentric distance (Fig.  3).
This process might be responsible for the metal enrichment
of some meteorites and perhaps of Mercury, because Fe
metal starts to condense at higher temperatures than Mg
silicates at high total pressure (Ebel and Grossman 2000).
Calculations of condensation sequences using vapors of
solar composition show that a very high-density region
Key processes that affected the early inner solar
Figure 3
nebula. Enrichment of metal over silicate materials in
the inner solar nebula may be due to the higher condensation
temperature for metal compared to silicate or to photophoretic
separation of metal and silicate. Under this scenario, the high
E lements
(i.e., high-metal fraction but still including silicates) where
Mercury may form directly by condensation occurs at a
relatively high pressure of 0.01 to 0.001 bar in the nebula
and at temperatures of 1,400−1,600 K. However, conden-
sation temperatures of Fe-alloy and forsterite, which are
the two major components of planetesimals, vary greatly
from one model to another, thereby making it difficult to
precisely estimate under what conditions Mercury, with
its current metal/silicate ratio, may have formed directly
by condensation.
Wurm et al. (2013) suggested that photophoresis could
preferentially push silicate dust away from the Sun because
of the low thermal conductivity of such dust compared to
metal micronuggets. This would deplete the inner-most
solar system of silicates. Aerodynamic sorting prior to accre-
tion might also result in a metal-rich inner nebula because
of the progressive decay in orbits with planetesimals as
a result of gas drag (Weidenschilling 1978). This latter
process could be responsible for the more effective removal
of brittle, comminuted silicates compared to tougher iron
during rotation of the inner nebula because orbital decay
is slower for denser, larger bodies. To fully appreciate
how these dynamic processes may have ­contributed to
the formation of Mercury, additional information on the
chemical, physical, and magnetic environment in which
Mercury formed would be needed.
metal/silicate ratio of Mercury (and of other bodies from the inner
solar system, such as enstatite chondrite meteorites) is inherited
from primordial nebular processes. The snow line is the approxi-
mate distance from the Sun where volatiles condense into solid ice
grains. Figure Copyright © Mark A. Garlick.
12 F ebruary 2019
 Early impact stripping of the silicate portion of
Figure 4
Mercury. A giant collision between a relatively large
proto-Mercury and a smaller planet could be responsible for the
origin of the high metal/silicate ratio in Mercury today. This colli-
sion is responsible for the ejection of material from the whole outer
silicate portion of the planet. Most of this material must not subse-
quently be reaccreted in order to leave a metal-rich core and a
smaller silicate portion. Figure Copyright © Mark A. Garlick.
Collisional Stripping and Inefficient Accretion
The high metal/silicate ratio of Mercury could have been
inherited during collisional processes through successive
impacts that might have been responsible for rapid colli-
sional stripping of the silicate portion of the planet (Benz
et al. 1988) (Fig. 4). This process is also referred to as colli-
sional or cratering erosion, and a range of such impact-
related scenarios has been considered (Asphaug and Reufer
2014). One or more head-on or “hit-and-run” collisions
(with a range of possible impact parameters, such as the
velocity and relative size and mass of target and impactor,
and the impact angle) between proto-Mercury and another
body or bodies would be responsible for the ejection of
material from the outer silicate portion of the planet. This
ejecta cloud would not subsequently reaccrete, meaning
that such a collision would affected the whole volume of
the planet to leave a metal-rich core and a smaller silicate
outer portion.
Post-Accretion Evaporation Model
A molten proto-Mercury may have been exposed to very
high temperatures, which could have been responsible for
70% –80% vaporization of the silicate portion of the planet
(Fegley and Cameron 1987). Temperatures in the range
2,500−3,500 K may have been reached in the primitive
inner part of the solar nebula for a significant period of
time, vaporizing silicate material that could have been
carried away by the solar winds. This process, however,
is not appropriate to explain the origin of Mercury
because this model would predict that the planet should
be depleted in alkalis and enriched in titanium relative
to chondrite material, but it is not. However, the model
E lements
itself is of interest because a disintegrating super-Mercury
(same density but larger than Mercury) has possibly been
observed by NASA’s Kepler space telescope around a dwarf
star with macroscopic particles escaping its atmosphere
(Rappaport et al. 2012). Although probably not applicable
to Mercury, such a process could potentially explain the
formation of some high-density exoplanets.
PERSPECTIVES
Mercury, the innermost planet of our solar system, might
not be exceptional when one considers the range of
rocky exoplanets. Some exoplanets are now recognized as
composed of rock and iron and with mass–radius relation-
ships that classify them as sub-Mercury-sized, Mercury-
like, or super-Mercury planets (e.g., Barclay et al. 2013).
In addition to the models mentioned above for the origin
of Mercury, very dense iron planets have been suggested
to potentially represent the remnant cores of gas giants
(Mocquet et al. 2014). The burgeoning field of research
on exoplanets will contribute to and benefit from a better
understanding of Mercury. The ESA/JAXA BepiColombo
spacecraft is now on its way to explore Mercury in even
greater detail. A new era in the understanding of planet
Mercury will start as soon as the first data from its two
comprising spacecraft (the Mercury Planetary Orbiter and
the Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter) will be sent back to
Earth. However, one of the ultimate future goals is to land
on Mercury and collect in situ chemical and mineralogical
measurements: this should be a priority of future missions.
Until then, the collection of enstatite achondrites (aubrites)
and unclassified meteorites should be further scrutinized
as being potential “messages” from Mercury.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Mark A. Garlick for designing the figures; Jean
Clair Duchesne and Jurrien Knibbe for valuable comments
on the original manuscript; and reviewers Nancy Chabot,
Anne Pommier and Denton Ebel for improving the final
text.
13 F ebruary 2019
REFERENCES
Asphaug E, Reufer A (2014) Mercury and
other iron-rich planetary bodies as
relics of inefficient accretion. Nature
Geoscience 7: 564-568
Barclay T and 57 coauthors (2013) A
sub-Mercury-sized exoplanet. Nature
494: 452-454
Benz W, Slattery WL, Cameron AGW
(1988) Collisional stripping of
Mercury’s mantle. Icarus 74: 516-528
Blewett DT and 17 coauthors (2011)
Hollows on Mercury: MESSENGER
evidence for geologically recent volatile-
related activity. Science 333: 1856-1859
Byrne PK and 5 coauthors (2014)
Mercury’s global contraction much
greater than earlier estimates. Nature
Geoscience 7: 301-307
Cartier C, Wood BJ (2019) The role
of reducing conditions in building
Mercury. Elements 15: 39-45
Chabot NL, Wollack EA, Klima RL,
Minitti ME (2014) Experimental
constraints on Mercury’s core compo-
sition. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 390: 199-208
Dumberry M, Rivoldini A (2015)
Mercury’s inner core size and core-
crystallization regime. Icarus 248:
254-268
Ebel DS, Grossman L (2000)
Condensation in dust-enriched systems.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 64:
339-366
Ebel DS, Stewart ST (2018) The elusive
origin of Mercury. In: Solomon SC,
Anderson BJ, Nittler LR (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 497-515
Fegley B Jr, Cameron AGW (1987) A
vaporization model for iron/silicate
fractionation in the Mercury proto-
planet. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 82: 207-222
ELEMENTS ISSUES ON
v7n1
v8n1
v14n2
E lements
Hauck SA II and 12 coauthors (2013) The
curious case of Mercury’s internal struc-
ture. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Planets 118: 1204-1220
Knibbe JS, van Westrenen W (2018)
The thermal evolution of Mercury’s
Fe–Si core. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 482: 147-159
Li Y, Dasgupta R, Tsuno K (2017) Carbon
contents in reduced basalts at graphite
saturation: implications for the degas-
sing of Mars, Mercury, and the Moon.
Journal of Geophysical Research:
Planets 122: 1300-1320
Malavergne V, Toplis MJ, Berthet S, Jones
J (2010) Highly reducing conditions
during core formation on Mercury:
implications for internal structure and
the origin of a magnetic field. Icarus
206: 199-209
Marchi S and 5 coauthors (2013) Global
resurfacing of Mercury 4.0–4.1 billion
years ago by heavy bombardment and
volcanism. Nature 499: 59-61
Mocquet A, Grasset O, Sotin C (2014)
Very high-density planets: a possible
remnant of gas giants. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society
A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences 372, doi: 10.1098/
rsta.2013.0164
Namur O, Charlier B (2017) Silicate
mineralogy at the surface of Mercury.
Nature Geoscience 10: 9-13
Namur O, Charlier B, Holtz F, Cartier C,
McCammon C (2016a) Sulfur solubility
in reduced mafic silicate melts: implica-
tions for the speciation and distribu-
tion of sulfur on Mercury. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 448: 102-114
Namur O and 5 coauthors (2016b)
Melting processes and mantle sources of
lavas on Mercury. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 439: 117-128
SPACE
v15n1
ORDER ONLINE at
msa.minsocam.org/backissues
DIGITAL ACCESS
v10n1 elementsmagazine.org
pubs.geoscienceworld.org/elements
14
Nittler LR, Weider SZ (2019) The surface
composition of Mercury. Elements 15:
33-38
Padovan S, Wieczorek MA, Margot J-L,
Tosi N, Solomon SC (2015) Thickness
of the crust of Mercury from geoid-to-
topography ratios. Geophysical Research
Letters 42: 1029-1038
Peplowski PN and 10 coauthors (2014)
Enhanced sodium abundance in
Mercury’s north polar region revealed
by the MESSENGER Gamma-Ray
Spectrometer. Icarus 228: 86-95
Peplowski PN and 9 coauthors (2016)
Remote sensing evidence for an ancient
carbon-bearing crust on Mercury.
Nature Geoscience 9: 273-276
Rappaport S and 10 coauthors (2012)
Possible disintegrating short-period
super-Mercury orbiting KIC 12557548.
The Astrophysical Journal 752, doi:
10.1088/00004-637X/752/1/1
Solomon SC, Byrne PK (2019) The
exploration of Mercury by spacecraft.
Elements 15: 15-20
Thomas RJ, Rothery DA (2019) Volcanism
on Mercury. Elements 15: 27-32
Vander Kaaden KE, McCubbin FM (2015)
Exotic crust formation on Mercury:
consequences of a shallow, FeO-poor
mantle. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets 120: 195-209
Weidenschilling SJ (1978) Iron/silicate
fractionation and the origin of Mercury.
Icarus 35: 99-111
Wurm G, Trieloff M, Rauer H (2013)
Photophoretic separation of metals and
silicates: the formation of Mercury-
like planets and metal depletion in
chondrites. The Astrophysical Journal
769, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/78
v12n3
v11n1
F ebruary 2019
 The Exploration of Mercury
by Spacecraft
Sean C. Solomon1 and Paul K. Byrne2

1811-5209/19/0015-0015$2.50  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.15.1.15

T
he planet Mercury is sufficiently close to the Sun to pose a major MARINER 10
challenge to spacecraft exploration. The Mariner 10 spacecraft flew Whereas the first spacecraft to
by Mercury three times in 1974–1975 but viewed less than half of the visit Earth’s nearest planetary
neighbors, Venus and Mars, were
surface. With the three flybys of Mercury by the MESSENGER spacecraft in launched early in the 1960s by the
2008–2009 and the insertion of that probe into orbit about Mercury in 2011, Soviet Union and the United States,
our understanding of the innermost planet substantially improved. In its four more than a decade passed before
the first spacecraft was sent to
years of orbital operations, MESSENGER revealed a world more geologically Mercury. NASA’s Mariner 10 space-
complex and compositionally distinctive, with a more dynamic magnetosphere craft was launched in November
and more diverse exosphere–surface interactions, than expected. With the 1973 on a trajectory that, with
the aid of a gravity-assist flyby of
launch of the BepiColombo dual-orbiter mission, the scientific understanding Venus, led to an encounter with
of the innermost planet has moved another major step forward. Mercury four-and-a-half months
Keywords : Mercury, Mariner 10, MESSENGER, BepiColombo later. The spacecraft (Fig. 1) carried
an imaging system, two magne-
tometers, an infrared radiometer,
INTRODUCTION two ultraviolet spectrometers, two
The initial global exploration of the planet Mercury was plasma detectors, two charged-particle telescopes, and a
recently completed by the MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, radio science experiment (Dunne and Burgess 1978).
GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) mission of the US In the original design for the mission, Mariner 10 was to have
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). flown by Mercury only once. In the early 1970s, Giuseppe
During three Mercury flybys and more than four years in (“Bepi”) Colombo (1920–1984), a mathematician and celes-
orbit about Mercury, the MESSENGER spacecraft imaged tial mechanics expert from the University of Padua (Italy),
the entire surface, mapped the composition of surface visited the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (California, USA)
materials, determined the planet’s magnetic and gravity where the Mariner 10 mission was developed and pointed
fields, measured global topography, assayed the composi- out to mission designers that a propulsive maneuver after
tion of Mercury’s neutral atmosphere and charged-particle
environment, and documented the structure of Mercury’s
magnetosphere and its dynamic response to changes in
the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (Solomon
and Anderson 2018). Now underway is the BepiColombo
mission of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), scheduled to insert
two spacecraft into coplanar orbits about Mercury in late
2025 (Benkhoff et al. 2010). This paper offers an overview
of these two missions, from the rationale for a Mercury
orbiter mission following the initial reconnaissance of the
planet by the Mariner 10 spacecraft, to the first concept
studies that led to the selection of the MESSENGER and
BepiColombo missions for flight, through instrument selec-
tion and spacecraft development and launch, to a summary
of findings from the MESSENGER mission and current plans
to build on that scientific framework with observations to
be acquired by BepiColombo.

1 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,

Columbia University
Palisades, NY 10964, USA
E-mail: solomon@ldeo.columbia.edu
2 Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
The Mariner 10 spacecraft, including scientific instru-
North Carolina State University Figure 1
ments, telecommunications antennas, and solar arrays.
Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
UV = ultraviolet. Image credit: NASA
E-mail: paul.byrne@ncsu.edu

E lements , V ol . 15, pp. 15–20 15 F ebruary 2019

the first Mercury encounter could transfer the spacecraft
to an orbit with a period twice that of Mercury (Balogh et
al. 2007). In such a resonant orbit, the spacecraft would
reencounter Mercury every two Mercury years (a Mercury
year lasts ~88 Earth days). Mariner 10 flew by Mercury
successfully a total of three times, in March and September
1974 and in March 1975.
Because of Mercury’s 3:2 spin–orbit resonance—a dynam-
ical state also first pointed out by Colombo—a solar day on
Mercury (the period of the day–night cycle to an observer
on the surface) is equal to two Mercury years. As a result,
the same hemisphere of the planet was sunlit during each
of the Mariner 10 flybys. The spacecraft thus acquired
images of only ~45% of the surface, but that fraction was
sufficient to document the generally high areal density of
impact craters, characterize the largest tectonic features on
the planet, and discern the major types of morphological
units on the surface. Mariner 10 also discovered Mercury’s
global magnetic field, detected bursts of energetic charged
particles inside Mercury’s magnetosphere, and measured
the abundances of neutral hydrogen and helium in
Mercury’s exosphere (Dunne and Burgess 1978).
MERCURY ORBITER CONCEPTS
After the Mariner 10 mission, scientific advisory committees
in the USA (e.g., COMPLEX 1978) recommended to NASA
that the next logical step in the exploration of Mercury
would be an orbiter mission. Moreover, the primary objec-
tives of such a mission were also clear, including deter-
mining surface composition on global and regional scales,
ascertaining the structure and state of the planet’s interior,
and improving the coverage and resolution of orbital
imaging (COMPLEX 1978). In the 1970s, however, there
were no mission designs that permitted orbit insertion at
Mercury with conventional chemical propulsion systems,
and it was thought that a Mercury orbiter mission would
have to await the development for flight of a low-thrust
propulsion system such as a solar sail or solar electric
propulsion (COMPLEX 1978).
In 1985, mission design expert Chen-Wan Yen at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory devised a new class of trajectories
that utilized multiple gravity assists at Venus and Mercury
to place a spacecraft into orbit about Mercury with only
a chemical propulsion system (Yen 1989). Her discovery
stimulated detailed studies of Mercury orbiter missions over
the next several years in both Europe and the USA (Balogh
et al. 2007; McNutt et al. 2018). Moreover, at about the
same time, important discoveries were made by ground-
based astronomers, including the detection of sodium and
potassium in Mercury’s exosphere (e.g., Potter and Morgan
1985) and the documentation of radar-reflective deposits
in Mercury’s polar regions that were postulated to consist
mostly of water ice (e.g., Slade et al. 1992). Notwithstanding
this progress in both mission design concepts and scientific
motivation, no spacecraft mission to Mercury was selected
for flight until the end of the 1990s.
In the USA, the key to selecting a Mercury orbiter mission
was NASA’s Discovery Program, which was established early
in the 1990s and soon began soliciting, on a regular basis,
proposals for spacecraft missions led by a scientific investi-
gator and limited in total mission cost, development time,
and launch vehicle requirements. Missions to Mercury were
among the earliest to receive funding for concept studies
under that program (Kicza and Vorder Bruegge 1995), and
at least two Mercury missions were proposed in response
to each of the program’s announcements of opportunity
in 1994, 1996, and 1998. The MESSENGER mission was
proposed to the Discovery Program in 1996 and 1998, and,
on the basis of the second proposal, NASA selected the
mission for flight in July 1999.
E lements
The roots of the BepiColombo mission also go back to the
1990s (Balogh et al. 2007; Benkhoff et al. 2010; McNutt et
al. 2018). A Mercury orbiter mission was proposed to ESA in
1993 in response to a “Call for Ideas,” and such a mission
was selected in 1996 as a candidate in the agency’s Horizons
2000+ scientific program. In October 2000, ESA’s Science
Programme Committee approved BepiColombo—a mission
name that had been adopted by the same committee 13
months earlier—as a “Cornerstone” mission. The mission
concept at the time called for two orbiters, one focused
on the planet and the other on the magnetosphere and
planetary environment, as well as a lander, all delivered to
Mercury by solar electric propulsion. Budget reductions one
year later, however, led to the removal of the lander from
the mission design and a baseline mission that involved a
split launch of the orbiters on Soyuz–Fregat rockets. In 1997
and in parallel to ESA’s plans, Japan’s Institute of Space
and Astronautical Science (ISAS)—later to become part of
JAXA—formed a Mercury Exploration Working Group to
develop plans for a Mercury orbiter mission focused on
magnetospheric science. Discussions with ESA about collab-
oration on the BepiColombo mission began in 1999, and an
agreement for ISAS to provide the magnetospheric orbiter
for BepiColombo was formally approved in 2003. A new
mission profile involved the common launch and transport
to Mercury of the two orbiters. Selection of payload instru-
ments for the orbiters was completed in 2004.
MESSENGER
Mission Objectives and Design
The MESSENGER mission was designed to address six
key scientific questions (Solomon and Anderson 2018):
(1) What planetary formational processes led to the high
ratio of metal to silicate in Mercury? (2) What is the
geological history of Mercury? (3) What are the nature
and origin of Mercury’s magnetic field? (4) What are the
structure and state of Mercury’s core? (5) What are the
radar-reflective materials at Mercury’s poles? (6) What are
the important volatile species and their sources and sinks
on and near Mercury? These questions built on the objec-
tives for a Mercury orbiter mission set out after the Mariner
10 mission (COMPLEX 1978) as well as on the results from
ground-based astronomy in the two decades that followed.
The key questions were deemed capable of being addressed
by measurements that could be made from orbit, and their
answers would bear not only on the nature of Mercury but
more generally on the origin and comparative evolution of
the inner planets as a group. From those questions followed
specific scientific objectives, measurement requirements,
payload instruments, and a mission design that would
satisfy all requirements.
The MESSENGER payload consisted of seven scientific
instruments plus the spacecraft communication system.
There was a dual imaging system for wide and narrow
fields of view, monochrome and color imaging, and stereo;
gamma-ray, neutron, and X-ray spectrometers for mapping
surface composition; a magnetometer; a laser altimeter; a
combined ultraviolet (UV) and visible spectrometer and a
visible–near-infrared (NIR) spectrograph to survey both
exospheric species and surface mineralogy; and a combined
energetic particle and plasma spectrometer to sample
charged species in the magnetosphere (Fig. 2).
The MESSENGER spacecraft was launched on 3 August
2004, followed an interplanetary cruise phase that lasted
6.6 years, and included six planetary flybys: one of Earth,
two of Venus, and three of Mercury itself. During the
Mercury flybys, MESSENGER mapped nearly the entire
planet in color, imaged most of the area unseen by Mariner
10, completed initial measurements of the composi-
tion of Mercury’s exosphere and neutral tail, and made
16 F ebruary 2019

The instrument payload on the MESSENGER spacecraft.
Figure 2
Spacecraft power was provided by two solar arrays.
The ceramic-cloth sunshade protected the spacecraft bus and all
electronic systems from solar heating. NIR = near infrared. Image
credit : NASA
initial characterizations of the structure and dynamics
of Mercury’s magnetosphere. Those three flybys not only
returned the first new spacecraft data from Mercury in more
than three decades, they were also invaluable to planning
MESSENGER’s orbital operations. Science data acquisition
planning for the flybys demonstrated the complex interplay
between imaging and competing remote-sensing observa-
tions, as well as with spacecraft operational constraints
on pointing, power management, navigation, and achiev-
able rates of change to spacecraft attitude. The manual
approach to the design of observational and spacecraft
command sequences for the flybys was replaced for the
mission orbital phase with a software system that combined
observational requirements, spacecraft capabilities, and
operational constraints with orbit solutions to conduct an
automated search for optimal observation opportunities
and convert such information to spacecraft attitude and
instrument commands. This software greatly accelerated
the science acquisition planning and command genera-
tion processes, enabled ready recovery from any loss of
data, and easily accommodated the addition of targeted
observations throughout orbital operations (Solomon and
Anderson 2018).
On 18 March 2011, the MESSENGER spacecraft was inserted
into a highly eccentric, 12-hour orbit about the planet
Mercury. The initial orbit had an inclination of 82.5°, a
periapsis (closest approach) altitude of ~200 km, a periapsis
latitude of 60°N, and an apoapsis (orbital high point)
altitude of ~15,200 km in the southern hemisphere. The
primary mission originally approved by NASA included
one Earth-year of orbital observations. After orbit insertion,
because a second Earth-year of observations would provide
a substantial advance in our understanding of Mercury
beyond what would be achieved after one year in orbit,
all spacecraft subsystems and payload instruments were
healthy, and there was sufficient propellant to continue
orbital operations for at least another year, NASA approved
a first extended mission through 18 March 2013. A pair of
propulsive maneuvers in April 2012 reduced MESSENGER’s
orbital period from 12 to 8 hours, giving the spacecraft
more time each day close to the planet’s surface. The effect
E lements
of the gravitational pull of the Sun during the primary
and first extended missions was to raise both the altitude
and latitude of periapsis between successive MESSENGER
orbits, so several propulsive maneuvers were executed to
keep periapsis altitude within the range 200–500 km.
MESSENGER’s first extended mission raised fresh questions
about Mercury that could be addressed only with new
measurement campaigns. As the end of the first extended
mission drew near, and given the healthy state of the space-
craft and instrument payload, the ample power margin,
and the remaining propellant, NASA approved a second
extended mission of approximately two Earth-years in
duration. There were two novel aspects of MESSENGER’s
second extended mission. First, a maximum in the solar
cycle occurred during the first year of the second extended
mission operations, and the remainder of that year and all
of the second year captured the waning phase of the solar
cycle. Moreover, the second year of MESSENGER’s second
extended mission featured periapsis altitudes lower than
at any earlier time in the mission, i.e., closer to Mercury’s
surface than any spacecraft had been before. In contrast to
the primary and first extended missions, during the second
extended mission the effect of the gravitational attraction
of the Sun was to decrease periapsis latitude and altitude
progressively between successive orbits. An optimized set
of propulsive maneuvers conducted with MESSENGER’s
remaining propellant permitted four separate campaigns
of several days to one week each during which the periapsis
altitude was nearly steady at 15 to 25 km, providing oppor-
tunities to observe regions of Mercury with the full instru-
ment suite at horizontal resolutions markedly superior to
those attained earlier. Once propellant was exhausted, the
spacecraft finally impacted the planet on 30 April 2015.
Scientific Findings
MESSENGER’s measurements of Mercury’s surface compo-
sition and global magnetic and gravitational fields and
the documentation of Mercury’s volcanic features and
processes are described in other papers in this issue.
Noteworthy findings include the unexpectedly high surface
abundances of volatile elements in, and the chemically
reduced character of, Mercury’s surface materials (Ebel
and Stewart 2018; Nittler et al. 2018); the planet’s axially
symmetric but equatorially asymmetric magnetic field
(Johnson et al. 2018); an internal structure characterized
by a larger metallic core and a thinner silicate shell of crust
and mantle than anticipated prior to the mission (Margot
et al. 2018; Phillips et al. 2018); tectonic features that
accommodated substantially more crustal shortening than
previously recognized, thereby resolving a long-standing
discrepancy between photogeological observations and
the predictions from thermal history models (Byrne et al.
2018a; Hauck et al. 2018); and evidence from images that
plains volcanism was widespread on Mercury and probably
dominated the emplacement of Mercury’s crust but had
largely ended by 3.5 Ga (Byrne et al. 2018b; Chapman
et al. 2018; Denevi et al. 2018). The youngest large-scale
effusive volcanic deposits on Mercury, the smooth plains,
are concentrated within a single hemisphere (Fig. 3),
indicating a hemispherical difference in temperature or
melt extraction during the era of plains formation that may
have left associated hemispherical differences in modern
core–mantle boundary characteristics related to the offset
of Mercury’s dipolar magnetic field from the planetary
center (Hauck et al. 2018; Johnson et al. 2018).
Magnetosphere
MESSENGER observations showed that Mercury’s magneto-
sphere is much smaller than, but broadly similar in struc-
ture to, that of Earth, and it effectively acts to energize
solar wind plasma and channel it to the planetary surface.
17 F ebruary 2019
 persistent exospheric morphology from one Mercury year
to another, and variations in emission intensity during
each year generally match those expected from variations
in solar flux with Mercury’s position in its orbit (Killen et al.
2018; McClintock et al. 2018). Exospheric Mg is enhanced
over a large high-Mg region identified on Mercury from
orbital geochemical remote sensing (McCoy et al. 2018),
the first clear link demonstrated between surface compo-
sition and exospheric characteristics (Merkel et al. 2018)
(Fig. 4).

The distribution across Mercury’s surface of smooth
Figure 3
plains deposits (blue), the vast majority of which are
volcanic (Denevi et al. 2018). Most smooth plains deposits are
located in Mercury’s northern hemisphere. The background plane-
tary image is a MESSENGER global mosaic: the left and right views
are in orthographic projection centered at 60°N, 150°E, and 60°S,
330°E, respectively.
Magnetic reconnection between the planetary and solar
wind magnetic fields at Mercury occurs with an intensity
an order of magnitude greater than at Earth (Slavin et al.
2018). Plasma pressures within 1,000 km of the planetary
surface often exceed the magnetic pressure, leading to
intense precipitation of plasma electrons and ions onto
the planetary surface (Korth et al. 2018). The existence of
bursts of energetic particles in Mercury’s magnetosphere—a
major discovery from the Mariner 10 flybys—was confirmed
almost as soon as MESSENGER began orbital observations,
and the energetic particles were shown to be electrons.
The most energetic bursts appeared to be produced in the
midnight sector of Mercury’s magnetosphere, in support
of the view that energetic electrons are accelerated in the
near-tail region and then injected onto closed magnetic
field lines on the planetary nightside during substorm-like
events (Slavin et al. 2018). MESSENGER’s magnetic field
observations demonstrated the presence of electric currents
that flow along magnetic lines of force toward and away
from the planet above Mercury’s northern hemisphere;
such currents are analogous to Birkeland currents at Earth
but close through the planet rather than in an ionosphere
(Korth et al. 2018).
Polar Deposits
MESSENGER imaging confirmed that all of Mercury’s polar
deposits identified from Earth-based radar measurements
are confined to areas of permanent or persistent shadow
(Chabot et al. 2018). Neutron spectrometry indicated that
Mercury’s northern-hemisphere polar deposits contain, on
average, a hydrogen-rich layer at least tens of centime-
ters thick, generally covered by a surficial layer 10–30 cm
thick that is lower in hydrogen content. Measurements
of NIR surface reflectance with MESSENGER’s laser altim-
eter revealed that some polar deposits near the north pole
are brighter than Mercury’s average surface, but polar
deposits farther from the pole are darker than average.
Correlation of observed reflectance with surface and near-
surface temperatures derived from insolation models tied
to measured topography indicated that the optically bright
regions are consistent with the presence of surficial water
ice, whereas polar deposits with dark surfaces have tempera-
ture structures consistent with water ice buried beneath an
insulating surface layer of other volatile materials, most
likely complex organic deposits, that are stable to variable
but higher temperatures than water ice. Long-exposure
images of the polar deposits, those with both bright and

Exosphere
With UV- and visible-wavelength spectrometry, MESSENGER
showed that neutral Na, Ca, and Mg are the dominant
constituents in Mercury’s exosphere; additional constit-
uents detected from orbit included H, Al, Ca +, and Mn
(Killen et al. 2018; McClintock et al. 2018). The distri-
butions of exospheric Na, Ca, and Mg with altitude and
local time differ, and these different distributions indicate
a different mix of source and transport processes for each
atomic species (Killen et al. 2018). Sodium, the most
abundant constituent, exhibits a two-component structure,
implying that multiple source processes supply exospheric
atoms with different energies. In contrast, Ca and Mg show
predominantly single-component altitude profiles that are
indicative of high-energy processes. Whereas sodium is
distributed approximately uniformly over the dayside,
calcium emission exhibits a strong dawn enhancement.
Magnesium distribution is similar to that of calcium except Figure 4 (Top) Locations of MESSENGER observations of Mg
that the dayside emission is distributed over a larger range emission at 300-km tangent altitude near the dawn
terminator. Red and blue symbols indicate alternating Mercury
of local time and the dawn–dusk contrast is less pronounced
years. The background plot is a map of the Mg/Si weight ratio of
(McClintock et al. 2018). MESSENGER observations of the surface material determined from orbit by X-ray spectrometry
Na exosphere did not show evidence for strong short-term (Nittler et al. 2018) shown in Robinson projection centered at 0°N,
spatial and temporal variability, a result at odds with many 0°E. (B ottom ) Mg emission values (kR = kiloRayleigh) versus
ground-based observations, suggesting that the short-term Mercury longitude. The variation within a given Mercury year is a
function of Mercury’s position in its eccentric orbit about the Sun,
variations originate almost completely in mid- to high- but the difference between alternating years reflects enhanced
latitude dayside regions of the exosphere not well viewed emission over Mercury’s high-Mg region. A dapted from M erkel et al.
by MESSENGER. The Na, Ca, and Mg exospheres exhibit a (2018).

E lements 18 F ebruary 2019

dark surfaces, indicate that the deposits appear to be draped The MPO will operate in a 2.3-hour orbit of 480 × 1,500 km
over small impact craters and display sharp edges, charac- altitude, whereas Mio will take 9.3 hours to complete its
teristics that are consistent with geologically recent, or even orbit with altitudes of 590 × 11,640 km. Unlike MESSENGER,
ongoing, emplacement. Impacts onto Mercury of comets or neither the MPO nor Mio features a single large, sunward-
volatile-rich asteroids could have provided both the water pointed sunshade. Instead, the BepiColombo spacecraft will
ice and the dark, organic-rich material (Chabot et al. 2018). manage their thermal loads with low-solar-absorptivity
coatings, thermal blankets, spin stabilization for Mio, and
Hollows for the MPO a large radiator that will never face the Sun
One of the most surprising results of MESSENGER’s (Benkhoff et al. 2010; McNutt et al. 2018). Both space-
high-resolution imaging of Mercury’s surface was the craft will be powered by solar cells and will communicate
discovery of what are termed “hollows.” Hollows are fresh- directly with Earth via high- and medium-gain antennas.
appearing depressions, without raised rims, commonly The orbital phase of the mission will last one Earth year,
with high surface reflectance and often with bright halos, and there will be an option for a one-year extended mission.
but morphologically distinct from impact and volcanic The two BepiColombo spacecraft carry a total of 16 instru-
craters (Blewett et al. 2018). Hollows are concentrated on ments, with 11 on the MPO and five on Mio (Benkhoff
Mercury’s low-reflectance material color unit (Denevi et et al. 2010). The MPO carries imaging, geochemical and
al. 2018; Murchie et al. 2018) within impact craters and exospheric remote sensing, and particle spectrometers, a
basins (Blewett et al. 2018), material inferred to have been laser altimeter, a magnetometer, an accelerometer, and
excavated from depth by impact (Denevi et al. 2018). a radio science package (Fig. 5). Mio is equipped with a
Candidate mechanisms for forming these hollows involve plasma particle experiment and plasma wave instrument,
recent loss of volatiles through sublimation, space weath- a spectral imager, a dust monitor, and another magne-
ering, or outgassing (Blewett et al. 2018). High-resolution tometer. The MPO will also test gravitational theory and
images of hollows indicate a narrow range of hollows make precise measurements of the temporal variation of
depths, favoring the hypothesis that hollows cease to the gravitational constant (Benkhoff et al. 2010).
deepen when a volatile-depleted lag deposit becomes
sufficiently thick to protect the underlying surface. Even
OUTLOOK
the highest-resolution images reveal no superposed impact
craters, implying that hollows are geologically very young Although the MESSENGER and BepiColombo missions
(Blewett et al. 2018). were conceived and selected by their sponsoring agencies
at similar times, their development schedules differed
BEPICOLOMBO markedly. The MESSENGER mission was proposed,
designed, and developed within the tight budgetary and
The joint ESA–JAXA BepiColombo mission, like MESSENGER, schedule constraints of the NASA Discovery Program by a
was designed to address a broad menu of scientific objec- scientific and engineering team that was in place and with
tives. These include improving our understanding of the an instrument payload that was well defined at the time of
origin and evolution of a planet near its parent star; the the mission proposal. In contrast, the BepiColombo mission
form, interior structure, geology, and composition of is a more ambitious and costly endeavor, one that faced the
Mercury; the composition and dynamics of the planet’s
exosphere; the structure and dynamics of its magneto-
sphere; the origin of Mercury’s magnetic field; and tests of
Einstein’s theory of general relativity (Benkhoff et al. 2010).
BepiColombo launched on an Ariane 5 rocket from the
Guiana Space Centre northwest of Kourou (French Guiana)
on 20 October 2018 (UTC). The mission architecture
includes four spacecraft elements: the two probes that will
independently operate at Mercury—the Mercury Planetary
Orbiter (MPO) and the Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter
(MMO), the latter renamed Mio by JAXA in June 2018—a
sunshield (termed the Magnetospheric Orbiter Sunshield
and Interface) to protect Mio during the cruise to Mercury,
and the Mercury Transfer Module. This last element houses
the solar electric propulsion system, which will provide the
majority of thrust required to reach orbit about Mercury,
and a chemical bi-propulsion system for smaller maneuvers
and attitude control during cruise (Benkhoff et al. 2010;
McNutt et al. 2018).
The trajectory BepiColombo will take to Mercury is similar
to that employed by the MESSENGER mission. BepiColombo
will fly past Earth in April 2020 before making two flybys
of Venus, in October 2020 and August 2021. The spacecraft
ensemble will then make six close approaches to Mercury
from October 2021 through January 2025, progressively
decreasing its velocity relative to its target until it is weakly
captured by Mercury’s gravitational field in December
2025 (McNutt et al. 2018). Upon capture, Mio will be
decoupled from the MPO before being spin-stabilized by Two views of the Mercury Planetary Orbiter spacecraft
Figure 5
its own propulsion system, after which a chemical propul- (one of the BepiColombo mission’s two independent
sion system integrated into the MPO will make final orbit- orbiters) and its instrument payload. The solar array powers the
insertion maneuvers for that spacecraft (Benkhoff et al. spacecraft. In addition to the instruments shown, a radio science
package, another particle analyzer, an accelerometer, a gamma-ray
2010). spectrometer, and a neutron spectrometer are housed within the
spacecraft bus itself. IR = infrared, UV = ultraviolet. Image credit: ESA.

E lements 19 F ebruary 2019

challenges of multinational and multiagency cooperation
and involved payload selection well after mission approval.
Although not originally planned to be sequential, the two
missions will build on one another in a synergistic fashion.
By including many instruments that are similar to those
that flew on MESSENGER, BepiColombo will return measure-
ments that can be readily compared with those from, and
will enhance the findings of, the earlier mission. That
the Mercury Planetary Orbiter will have a much less eccen-
tric orbit than MESSENGER will enable measurements of
surface properties and topography and gravity at substan-
tially higher resolution in Mercury’s southern hemisphere.
Data from the magnetometers on the Mercury Planetary
Orbiter and Mio will allow, for the first time, the acqui-
sition of simultaneous observations of Mercury’s helio-
spheric environment and the magnetospheric response
to changes in that environment (McNutt et al. 2018).
Moreover, BepiColombo carries instruments not previously
flown to Mercury, such as a thermal infrared imager, which
promises new information on the mineralogy of Mercury’s
surface materials, and plasma wave receivers, which will
provide novel insight into Mercury’s magnetospheric
dynamics (Benkhoff et al. 2010; McNutt et al. 2018).
Although the exploration of Mercury by spacecraft has
lagged behind that of Venus and Mars for more than half
a century, our understanding of the innermost planet
and its distinctive characteristics is undergoing a scien-
tific renaissance, begun with the successful completion of
the MESSENGER mission in 2015 and continuing with the
BepiColombo mission in the coming decade.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to all the engineers, scientists, and space-
craft mission specialists who have worked on the Mariner
10, MESSENGER, and BepiColombo missions. We also thank
Johannes Benkhoff, Bernard Charlier, Ralph McNutt,
Olivier Namur, David Rothery, Rita Schulz, and Tim van
Hoolst for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

REFERENCES NASA Scientific and Technical McNutt RL Jr, Benkhoff J, Fujimoto M,

Balogh A and 6 coauthors (2007) Missions
to Mercury. Space Science Reviews 132:
611-645
Benkhoff J and 8 coauthors (2010)
BepiColombo—comprehensive explora-
tion of Mercury: mission overview
and science goals. Planetary and Space
Science 58: 2-20
Blewett DT, Ernst CM, Murchie SL, Vilas F
(2018) Mercury’s hollows. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 324-345
Byrne PK, Klimczak C, Şengör AMC
(2018a) The tectonic character of
Mercury. In: Solomon SC, Nittler
LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury: The
View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp
249-286
Byrne PK, Whitten JL, Klimczak C,
McCubbin FM, Ostrach LR (2018b)
The volcanic character of Mercury.
In: Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 287-323
Chabot NL, Lawrence DJ, Neumann
GA, Feldman WC, Paige DA (2018)
Mercury’s polar deposits. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 346-370
Chapman CR and 8 coauthors (2018)
Impact cratering on Mercury. In:
Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 217-248
COMPLEX (Committee on Lunar and
Planetary Exploration) (1978) Strategy
for Exploration of the Inner Planets:
1977–1987. National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 105 pp
Denevi BW, Ernst CM, Prockter LM,
Robinson MS (2018) The geologic
history of Mercury. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 144-175
Dunne JA, Burgess E (1978) The Voyage
of Mariner 10: Mission to Venus and
Mercury. Special Publication SP-424,
Information Office, Washington, D.C.,
224 pp
Ebel DS, Stewart ST (2018) The elusive
origin of Mercury. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 497-515
Hauck SA II and 5 coauthors (2018)
Mercury’s global evolution. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 516-543
Johnson CL, Anderson BJ, Korth
H, Phillips RJ, Philpott LC (2018)
Mercury’s internal magnetic field. In:
Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 114-143
Kicza M, Vorder Bruegge R (1995) NASA’s
Discovery Program. Acta Astronautica
35, Supplement 1: 41-50
Killen RM, Burger MH, Vervack RJ Jr,
Cassidy TA (2018) Understanding
Mercury’s exosphere: models derived
from MESSENGER observations. In:
Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 407-429
Korth H and 5 coauthors (2018) Structure
and configuration of Mercury’s magne-
tosphere. In: Solomon SC, Nittler
LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury: The
View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp
430-460
Margot J-L, Hauck SA II, Mazarico E,
Padovan S, Peale SJ (2018) Mercury’s
internal structure. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 85-113
McClintock WE and 5 coauthors (2018)
Observations of Mercury’s exosphere:
composition and structure. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 371-406
McCoy TJ, Peplowski PN, McCubbin FM,
Weider SZ (2018) The geochemical and
mineralogical diversity of Mercury.
In: Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 176-190
Anderson BJ (2018) Future missions:
Mercury after MESSENGER. In:
Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 544-569
Merkel AW and 6 coauthors (2018)
Evidence connecting Mercury’s magne-
sium exosphere to its magnesium-rich
surface terrane. Geophysical Research
Letters 45: 6790-6797
Murchie SL and 5 coauthors (2018)
Spectral reflectance constraints on
the composition and evolution of
Mercury’s surface. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 191-216
Nittler LR, Chabot NL, Grove TL,
Peplowski PN (2018) The chemical
composition of Mercury. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 30-51
Phillips RJ and 5 coauthors (2018)
Mercury’s crust and lithosphere: struc-
ture and mechanics. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 52-84
Potter A, Morgan T (1985) Discovery of
sodium in the atmosphere of Mercury.
Science 229: 651-653
Slade MA, Butler BJ, Muhleman DO
(1992) Mercury radar imaging: evidence
for polar ice. Science 258: 635-640
Slavin JA and 6 coauthors (2018)
Mercury’s dynamic magnetosphere.
In: Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 461-496
Solomon SC, Anderson BJ (2018) The
MESSENGER mission: science and
implementation overview. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 1-29
Yen CWL (1989) Ballistic Mercury orbiter
mission via Venus and Mercury gravity
assists. Journal of the Astronautical
Sciences 37: 417-432

E lements 20 F ebruary 2019

 Mercury: Inside the Iron Planet
Steven A. Hauck, II1 and Catherine L. Johnson2,3
1811-5209/19/0015-0021$2.50  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.15.1.21
N
ASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft orbited Mercury from 2011 to 2015 and
has provided new insights into the interior of the innermost planet.
Mercury has a large metallic core ~2,000 km in radius covered by a thin
layer of rock only ~420 km thick. Furthermore, a surprisingly large fraction
of this outer layer was produced by melting of deeper rocks, forming a light
crust ~35 km thick. The core is now known to produce a magnetic field that
has intriguing similarities and differences compared to Earth’s field. Some
rocks near the surface are magnetized, and the strongest magnetizations
are likely to be >3.5 billion years old. This new understanding of Mercury’s
interior is helping reveal how rocky planets operate.
Keywords : Mercury, MESSENGER mission, internal structure, magnetic field,
metallic core
INTRODUCTION
The planet Mercury has long held the fascination of scien-
tists both because it eluded extended investigation and
because of several enigmas about how the planet formed
and evolved. Chief among these open questions was
how the interior of the planet is organized, referred to
by planetary scientists as its “internal structure”. For the
terrestrial (i.e., rocky) planets of the inner solar system and
Earth’s Moon, the basic structure is a series of concentric
layers that are distinguished primarily by their density: the
central core of the planet comprises metallic iron alloys
and is overlain by less dense silicate rock layers.
Determining the internal structure of a planetary body is
crucial for developing an understanding of how it formed
and the processes that have shaped its history. For example,
the ratio of rock-to-metal is an indicator of how the planet
formed because it is the result of the chemical compo-
sition of the building blocks of the planet and also the
processes that brought the planet together (see Charlier and
Namur 2019 this issue). Knowledge of interior layering also
provides necessary information to understand if and how
a magnetic field is or was generated in a metallic core and
the manner in which the solid rock of the interior delivers
heat to the surface during planetary cooling.
1 Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH, USA
E-mail: hauck@case.edu
2 Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
E-mail: cjohnson@eoas.ubc.ca
3 Planetary Science Institute
1700 East Fort Lowell, Suite 106
Tucson, AZ, USA
E lements , V ol . 15, pp. 21–26 21
Scientists can determine the
internal structure of a planet
using a variety of approaches. On
Earth, the primary method uses
seismometers to measure sound
waves that pass through the planet
as the result of earthquakes. Sadly,
among the other bodies in our
solar system, only the Moon has
had a network of seismometers,
installed by the Apollo astronauts,
to study its interior. In the case
of Mercury, the primary tools to
peer inside the planet are measure-
ments of its size, its mass, how it
spins, and its magnetic field.
Two enigmas about Mercury and
its deep interior have persisted for decades. First, the
planet’s high average density suggested a metallic core
occupying 72% –90% of the planetary radius (see Schubert
et al. 1988), compared with ~55% for Earth, Venus, and
Mars. Hence, although Mercury is a rocky planet, it is,
relatively, significantly more metal-rich than the other
terrestrial planets. Second was the discovery that Mercury
has a magnetic field perhaps similar to Earth’s but about
100 times weaker (Ness et al. 1974). However, whether this
field was generated in the planet’s metal core, in the rocks
nearer the surface, or by some other exotic mechanism was
unknown (Schubert et al. 1988).
THE LAYERED IRON PLANET
Mariner 10 was the first spacecraft to visit Mercury in
1974–1975, and it provided a broad-brush understanding
of how the planet is organized. Yet, the observations from
that mission could not strongly constrain the nature of
the layering. In the absence of seismic data, information
about how a planet rotates and the spatial variation in the
gravity field are needed for determining a planet’s internal
structure. In particular, the planet’s moment of inertia—
the resistance changes in rotation—can help inform how
mass is distributed in the interior. Qualitatively, for planets,
smaller moments of inertia mean more of the mass is near
the center of the planet and larger values imply mass is
more homogeneously distributed.
Mercury is unique in that it is the only planet or moon in
the solar system that has been observed to be in a 3:2 spin–
orbit resonance. That is, Mercury spins on its axis three
times for every two orbits around the Sun. Mercury is also
in a special orbital and rotational configuration called a
Cassini state (e.g., Peale 1988). In this state, the preces-
sion of the planet’s spin rate and the rate at which the
orbit precesses are equal, and the rotation axis is close
to, but not exactly, perpendicular to the orbital plane.
This means that, unlike Earth, Mercury does not have
F ebruary 2019
seasons. Peale (1988) used this set of rotational circum-
stances to outline an elegant methodology to determine Earth Mercury
(a) whether Mercury’s core has a liquid portion, (b) the
t Crus
Crus
moment of inertia of the planet, and (c) the fraction of
t
the moment of inertia that results from just the solid rock
ntle
lying atop a liquid outer core. His calculation approach
p er Ma Man
tle
required measuring only four quantities: the small tilt of Up
antle
the rotation axis (known as the obliquity), the change in
w er M
the rotation rate of the planet due to the Sun’s tug on its
rotational bulge (called the physical libration), and two
Lo Liqu
measures of the largest-scale variation of the gravity field id
– the flattening of the gravity field along the rotation axis
Oute
r
and, similarly, the flattening of the field at the equator. Core
id
Although Mariner 10 made measurements of Mercury’s
Liqu
gravity field during its three flybys, uncertainties in the er
parameters were large and the obliquity and physical libra- Out
tion could not be measured at all. Technological advances
in radar, laser altimetry, and gravity analysis eventually
Core
led to multiple approaches to determining the obliquity
and physical librations of Mercury. Using Earth-based So
radar measurements of Mercury’s rotation over several Inn lid
years, Margot et al. (2007) determined the obliquity and Co er
physical libration and discovered that the planet has a Relative sizes re
liquid portion to its metallic core. These same data were
crucial to the determination of the internal layering of Internal layering of Mercury compared to Earth.
Mercury after MESSENGER became the first spacecraft to Figure 1
Mercury has a proportionally larger metallic core and
orbit Mercury in 2011 and proceeded to precisely measure smaller silicate mantle than the Earth. The inset shows the relative
the gravity field (Hauck et al. 2013; Rivoldini and Van sizes of the two planets. The patterned fill for the solid inner core of
Mercury is to indicate that the existence and size of a solid inner
Hoolst 2013). Recent analyses of the MESSENGER laser core is uncertain.
altimetry and image-based digital terrain models have
improved the accuracy and precision of the parameters
needed to fill in the four key parameters for a Peale experi-
ment (Margot et al. 2018). MESSENGER’s determination of Mercury’s gravity field,
and, hence, the moment of inertia, led to an early surprise:
A common way to describe a planet’s internal layering is
the metallic core is larger—and the outer rock shell is
one focused on the primary mineralogical composition
thinner—than once thought. The top of the liquid core
over a range of depths. For Earth (Fig. 1), the innermost
was found to be only 420–435 km below the surface (Table
layers are a solid and liquid metallic iron alloy. Above the
1), whereas previously it was commonly assumed to be
metal are three layers with different dominant silicate
at ~600 km, despite a large uncertainty in the estimate.
and oxide minerals: the lower mantle, the upper mantle,
Mercury’s metallic core has a density of ~7,000 kg m−3 and
and the crust. Whereas the crust is the result of accumu-
the average density of the rock layer is about ~3,300 kg m−3.
lated partial melts of the mantle, the primary distinction
The core density is much less than that expected for pure
between Earth’s upper and lower mantle are the different
iron at the pressures in Mercury’s core and indicates the
mineral assemblages that are stable under different pressure
presence of a substantial quantity of light elements, likely
regimes. Because Mercury is smaller than Earth, the
silicon and/or sulfur, alloyed with the iron. Such elements
pressures in its interior are lower, and pressure-induced
are important because they reduce the melting tempera-
mineralogical changes within the rocky portion do not
tures of iron alloys (by up to several hundred or even a
induce pronounced additional layering. However, Mercury
thousand degrees Celsius) and, hence, are consistent with
is similarly arranged in a configuration that has one or
the determination of a liquid layer in the core. Interpreting
more metal phases overlain by two or more rock layers.
the internal layering of a planet from a single measure
The measurement of the moment of inertia and the portion
of the moment of inertia due solely to the solid layer above
the liquid outer core has transformed our understanding
Table 1 ESTIMATES OF MERCURY’S INTERNAL LAYERING
of Mercury’s interior. In order to determine the layering
that produces those observations, scientists use computer
Crust–mantle boundary depth Source
simulations of layered planets and compare them with
data for the average density of the planet, the moment of 35 ± 18 km Padovan et al. (2015)
inertia, and the fraction of the moment of inertia from > 35 km James et al. (2015)
the outermost solid layer. These simulations may be as
Core–mantle boundary depth
simple as two layers or contain several thousand layers
(Margot et al. 2018). Each layer has a density assigned 419 ± 30 km Hauck et al. (2013)
to it based on the kind of material and the pressure and 435 ± 39 km Rivoldini and Van Hoolst (2013)
temperature expected at the depth of the layer. The density
Silicate shell (crust + mantle) density
for each layer is calculated from an equation-of-state that
is based upon laboratory experiments and describes how 3,380 ± 200 kg m –3 Hauck et al. (2013)
the density of a material varies as a function of pressure Core density
and temperature.
6,980 ± 280 kg m –3 Hauck et al. (2013)
7,233 ± 267 kg m –3 Rivoldini and Van Hoolst (2013)

E lements 22 F ebruary 2019

of the moment of inertia is nonunique
because there are direct tradeoffs between
Magnetic Field Strength Relative to Earth
the density and thicknesses of layers.
However, additional information, such
as composition, or additional measures
of layering, such as the fraction of the
moment of inertia due to the outermost
solid layer, reduce, though do not elimi-
nate, this nonuniqueness in interpreta-
tion. At present, the uncertainty in the
moment of inertia values, due primarily
to uncertainty in the very small tilt of
the rotation axis, is a major factor in the
difficulty of being able to discriminate
additional layers, such as a solid inner
core. Future improvements in rotation
and gravity parameters for Mercury will
lead to a better knowledge of the internal
layering.
Measurement of geographical variations 0.001
in gravity, as well as the shape of the
planet, provides an independent way to
estimate the thickness of the outermost layer of rock: the
crust. Variations in the gravity field are the result of small
differences in the mass below a point on the surface. Some
of those differences are due to the topography—compared
to an even surface, mountains have more mass and basins
have less mass—but some result from spatial variations in
the thickness or density of rock layers. By assuming that
the topography of Mercury is essentially in hydrostatic
equilibrium and that the observed gravity field is the result
of that topography and variations in the thickness of the
crust, it is possible to determine the average crustal thick-
ness and its lateral variations (James et al. 2015; Padovan
et al. 2015). Furthermore, those studies indicate Mercury’s
average crustal thickness is more than 35 km, which means
that it accounts for more than 10% of the volume of the
rocky material of the planet. Such a large volume of crust
implies that crust formation has been quite efficient on
Mercury compared to the other rocky planets (James et
al. 2015).
MAGNETIC MERCURY
Mercury’s Core Dynamo
The detection of Mercury’s magnetic field by Mariner 10
raised a host of questions, the most important of which
was the field’s origin. During the 1970s, it was not known if
Mercury’s core was partly liquid. So, whether the magnetic
field could even be generated in the core was debated,
because some thermal evolution models predicted that the
core would have solidified very early in Mercury’s history
(Schubert et al. 1988). Evidence supporting a liquid core
was not yet known (Margot et al. 2007). Further, Mariner
10 discovered that Mercury’s magnetic field, relative to
the size of the planet, was substantially weaker than other
planetary magnetic fields, such as Earth’s. Magnetic fields
are stronger the closer one is to their source, so the fact
that Mariner 10 was close to Mercury’s core (because the
core is large) made the weakness of the field even more
perplexing. Alternatively, the field might have been the
result of rocks magnetized in an ancient, now extinct, core
field, but this hypothesis suffered from two problems: the
magnetized rock layers would need to be much stronger
or thicker than on Earth, and the structure of the field
appeared to be global rather than regional.
Results from MESSENGER firmly established that the
magnetic field structure is similar to Earth’s field in that
it is dipolar (like the field of a bar magnet) with the same
polarity as Earth’s field. This field structure rules out a
E lements
magnetic field axis
N
10
rotation axis
N
1
0.1
0.01
S
S
Earth Mercury
Schematic comparison of the relative magnetic field
Figure 2
strengths and dipole orientations of the internally
generated magnetic fields of Earth and Mercury. The solid line
indicates the orientation of the spin axis relative to how the planet
orbits the Sun. The thick colored bar shows the strength of the field
relative to Earth’s field. Mercury’s field is 1% of the Earth’s and the
center of the dipole field is offset northward along the rotation axis.
Earth image is from Apollo 17, Mercury image is from MESSENGER.
crustal origin for the field (Anderson et al. 2008). However,
unlike Earth, Mercury’s magnetic equator does not pass
through the center of the planet (Fig. 2) but is offset ~480
km north along the rotation axis (Anderson et al. 2011).
Also, unlike Earth, the magnetic dipole axis (i.e., the
line joining magnetic north and south poles) is aligned
with Mercury’s rotation axis. Furthermore, reanalysis of
Mariner 10 data confirms that this offset dipole structure
has likely been unchanged since the 1970s (Philpott et al.
2014). These magnetic-field characteristics place important
constraints on the properties of the interior: specifically,
the convecting liquid iron alloy that generates a dynamo
in the core needs to be able to produce a field that is weak,
unusually symmetric with respect to the planet’s rotation
axis, and that has a magnetic equator that is offset far
north of the geographic equator.
Magnetized Rocks
Toward the end of its mission, MESSENGER’s orbit moved
progressively closer to the planet. At its lowest altitudes (less
than ~50 km above the planet’s surface), magnetic field
measurements yielded the discovery of weak, spatially local-
ized, signals that resulted from magnetized rocks (Johnson
et al. 2015). This unprecedented set of observations, taken
so close to the planet, has allowed maps of the distribution
of magnetization to be made (Hood 2016; Johnson et al.
2018). The maps (e.g., Fig. 3) show that much of the crust
in the northern hemisphere of Mercury is weakly magne-
tized and that stronger magnetizations are associated with
the region around Mercury’s largest impact crater (Caloris,
which is ~1,550 km wide) and also with some, but not
all, other impact craters. As for Earth rocks, some of this
magnetization is likely induced in iron-bearing minerals by
Mercury’s present field, but the strongest magnetizations
point to at least some of the magnetization being a relic
of an ancient dynamo field (Johnson et al. 2015, 2018).
Understanding the depth extent of the magnetization and
what minerals in the crust or mantle carry this signal are
areas of current investigation.
23 F ebruary 2019
 Û law). These annual changes are small,
but because Mercury’s core is large,
they are measurable and their magni-
&DORULV tude has independently confirmed the
depth to the top of the core (Johnson et
Û 3ODQLWLD



al. 2016). Changing solar wind condi-

Û
í

&LUF tions can also induce much smaller

XP&
DORUL currents in iron-bearing rocks in the
VSOD mantle that could, in future, allow the
LQV electrical conductivity, and by infer-
ence the mineralogy, of Mercury’s
silicate shell to be probed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR
MERCURY’S FORMATION
AND EVOLUTION
%RUHDOLV
íÛ

Û
Understanding the internal layering
3ODQLWLD of a planet is a key first step toward
unraveling how the planet ended up in
the state we observe today. The amount
of iron that Mercury contains can be
compared with the types of meteorites
1RUWKHUQVPRRWKSODLQV that might have formed the planet’s
building blocks, and it could constrain
the final outcome of computer simula-
tions for how the planet was assembled.
Precisely why Mercury has a much
í

Û

Û

larger fraction of metal-to-rock than

the other terrestrial planets remains
an enduring enigma (Ebel and Stewart
2018).
Û
Mantle Convection and Crustal
Formation
The diverse records of geology on each
      of the four terrestrial planets and the
Earth’s Moon are a testament to the
0DJQHWL]DWLRQ6WUHQJWK$P multitude of paths that a large rocky
Map of magnetization strength overlain on shaded
Figure 3
relief for Mercury’s northern hemisphere, from 30°N
to the pole. The magnetization strength assumes a 10 km thick
magnetized layer, and scales inversely with the layer thickness.
The black contour outlines the largest contiguous volcanic province
on Mercury, the Northern smooth plains. Magnetizations denoted
by the reddish/brown hues are too strong to be explained in terms
of magnetization induced in the present field, and, thus, likely
comprise an ancient (remanent) component. The Caloris basin, the
surrounding plains, and another major basin that is filled by smooth
volcanic material (Borealis Planitia) are labeled. Grid lines are every
10° of latitude and 15° of longitude; 10° of latitude on Mercury is
~430 km. Units of magnetization strength are in amperes per meter
(A/m).
An Interior that “sees” the Surrounding
Space Environment
Mercury’s large iron core, eccentric orbit, and the absence
of a significant atmosphere results in unique interactions
between the planet’s interior and the surrounding space
environment. Similar to Earth, the region around Mercury
that contains the planet’s magnetic field, known as the
magnetosphere, responds to the solar wind. Time varia-
tions in the solar wind pressure (e.g., resulting from a 50%
change in the planet’s distance from the Sun during a
Mercurian year) drive compression and expansion of the
wind-sock-shaped magnetosphere. Mercury’s core attempts
to resist these changes by generating electric currents
(Faraday’s law) at the very top of the core, which in turn
results in annual variations in the dipole field (Ampere’s
E lements
body may take through time. The
principal process that leads a planet
through its history is the loss of heat
to space. Transporting heat from the deep interior of a
planet to the surface, and the resultant cooling, drive
crucial processes such as tectonic activity, volcanism,
mantle convection, the generation of a magnetic field,
and the production (or not) of an atmosphere. A major
question prior to MESSENGER was whether Mercury’s rock
mantle was capable of convection, the slow flow of solid
rock that also occurs within the Earth (Redmond and King
2007). Mantle convection is the most efficient way to cool
a planet; however, whether it occurs depends very strongly
on the thickness of the mantle. Thin layers do not convect
easily, and, until MESSENGER, the mantle thickness was
uncertain. Surprisingly, even though Mercury’s mantle is
now known to be substantially thinner than the often
previously assumed 600 km, numerical models show that
mantle convection has been likely for most of Mercury’s
history, possibly to the present day (Hauck et al. 2018).
Mantle convection is crucial for the production of crustal
rocks. During convection, warmer rock rises from the deep
interior and cooler rock sinks. The rising rock tends to cool
very little during its upward trajectory, but the pressure it
feels from the overlying rock lessens. The melting tempera-
ture of rock is quite sensitive to pressure, and, thus, the
rising rock may partially melt. The melt, or magma, then
rises quickly and is the source for the volcanic rocks
observed at the surface. On Mercury, nearly all the volcanic
rocks on the surface are older than 3.5 billion years old
(Byrne et al. 2018b), and the volume of volcanism and
24 F ebruary 2019
the physical characteristics of the rocks suggest that the
lavas were very hot when they erupted. Thus, the volcanic
record provides observational evidence for early vigorous
mantle convection.
The Tectonic Record of Global Contraction
There is another curious observation that is linked to
Mercury’s interior structure, convection, and melting of
the mantle. Mercury is shrinking. Mariner 10 discovered
that the 45% of the planet’s surface that it saw contained
large contractional tectonic features called lobate scarps,
but no complementary extensional features. The interpreta-
tion was that the planet must have shrunk over time, its
radius decreasing by 0.5–2 km over the past 4 billion years
(Watters et al. 1998). Global, higher resolution imagery
from MESSENGER has led to a dramatic revision of that
estimate: the planet has shrunk by 5–7 km in radius (Byrne
et al. 2014; Byrne et al. 2018a). This global contraction
is a powerful constraint that simulations of Mercury’s
history must explain (Hauck et al. 2018). Contraction is
directly related to how much the interior has cooled and
to the thickness and thermal expansion properties of the
internal layers. When the entire planet is contracting and
its surface is compressing, pathways for rising magma from
the mantle are closed. As a result, the waning of surface
volcanic activity more than 3.5 billion years ago is likely
related to both the shrinking of the planet and to a reduc-
tion in the amount of melt created in its interior (Byrne et
al. 2018b; Hauck et al. 2018).
Mercury’s Enigmatic Dynamo
Cooling of a planet and layering within the core govern
whether a magnetic field can be generated in the core
and the resulting strength and structure of that field. The
presence of elements such as silicon and sulfur in the core
are critical to Mercury’s ability to retain a partly liquid
core today. The rapid convective motions that can generate
a magnetic field require buoyancy sources. However, the
precise combination of these sources, and how they might
have varied through time, is unknown. In Mercury, as
at Earth, there are two such buoyancy sources: (1) light
elements that are concentrated into the liquid core (and
then rise through it) as the core solidifies from the center
outward; (2) the heat flowing from the core into the mantle
as a consequence of the inevitable cooling of the planet.
However, stably stratified layers at the top of Mercury’s core
may play an important role in explaining the weak strength
and peculiar geometry of the magnetic field (Christensen
and Wicht 2008). Indeed, such stratification may arise
from crystallization of the core from the top down, rather
than the bottom up (like the Earth), and from the core
cooling so slowly that convective motions are restricted to
deeper zones within the core. Furthermore, the discovery
that Mercury likely also had a magnetic field in its ancient
past (Johnson et al. 2015) places an important constraint
on the evolution of Mercury’s core structure and cooling
over time.
OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Observations by MESSENGER have fundamentally changed
how we view Mercury and have raised new questions about
how planetary interiors are organized and evolve. One
set of outstanding questions relates to the composition
and state of the outer core, including the core–mantle
boundary region. Understanding the properties of the core
is fundamental for constraining the source(s) of buoyancy
E lements
for driving the convection responsible for magnetic field
generation, as well as Mercury’s cooling and contraction
history.
Early estimates of Mercury’s internal layering from
MESSENGER data suggested the possibility of a solid iron
sulfide layer at the base of the rocky mantle and at the
top of the liquid outer core (see review in Margot et al.
2018). Such an idea was consistent with, but not required
by, chemical information about surface materials and the
moment of inertia data. Chemical data from MESSENGER
now indicates that surface materials formed in relatively
oxygen-poor conditions (Nittler et al. 2011) and suggested
a possible core composition of iron, sulfur, and silicon.
The result would be two immiscible core liquids that could
separate by density, with sulfur-rich liquids floating, and,
perhaps, later freezing onto the core–mantle boundary.
Later geochemical work has led to a debate as to whether
Mercury’s core composition permits formation of two
liquids that are capable of separating (Chabot et al. 2014;
Namur et al. 2016).
Related to the properties of the core–mantle boundary
region are the mechanisms that could produce stratifica-
tion of the outermost liquid core (Hauck et al. 2018) and
how the core is undergoing solidification. The issue of the
existence of a solid inner core and its size remains open. For
Earth, recent work shows that standard ideas for how solids
start solidifying in its core have traditionally neglected an
important energy barrier for the spontaneous nucleation
of crystals, a factor that also applies to Mercury (Huguet
et al. 2018).
MESSENGER has enabled a new baseline of knowledge
regarding Mercury’s magnetic field. However, important
questions such as the regional-scale (nondipole) structure
in the magnetic field and its variability on timescales
of years to decades remain. At Earth, this structure has
provided key diagnostics of the role of the core–mantle
boundary in determining the patterns of convective flow
in the outer core (see summary in Johnson et al. 2018).
MESSENGER has shown that such nondipole structure is
certainly weak, but that it may also be masked by varia-
tions in the fields that are not of internal origin. These
latter fields could, in the future, themselves be a tool to
detect the electrical conductivity structure of Mercury’s
crust and mantle.
The discovery of Mercury’s crustal field demonstrates the
presence of magnetized rocks; however, two issues of funda-
mental importance remain unresolved. First, what minerals
carry the magnetization? Second, are the magnetized
rocks in the crust and/or in the upper mantle? Modeling
of MESSENGER observations can address this question,
yet fundamental trade-offs remain because the measured
crustal fields can be matched by stronger magnetizations
deep below the surface or weaker ones close to the surface.
Third, how much of the planet’s magnetization is induced
in the present-day field, and how much magnetization is
“permanent” and was locked in during the presence of an
ancient field? For Earth rocks, laboratory measurements
can investigate how much magnetization was induced by
measuring the rock in a field-free environment versus the
rock being in the Earth’s magnetic field. Addressing this
issue for Mercury is challenging because of the absence
of samples from the surface, but it is of critical impor-
tance to understanding where on the planet, and when,
any ancient magnetizations were acquired. Progress can be
made on these issues by laboratory measurements of the
magnetic properties of candidate iron-bearing minerals
that are compatible with the geochemical constraints on
Mercury’s crustal composition (Strauss et al. 2016).
25 F ebruary 2019
When it arrives at Mercury in the mid-2020s, the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
BepiColombo mission will provide many opportunities
We gratefully acknowledge Dan O’Shaughnessy, Jim
to improve our understanding of the planet’s interior. In
McAdams and Haje Korth for planning the low altitude
particular, BepiColombo comprises two spacecraft that will
observations that enabled the discovery of Mercury’s
have different orbits around the planet. The BepiColombo
crustal magnetic field. This work was supported by the
Mercury Planetary Orbiter will be in a quite different orbit
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
from that of MESSENGER and will obtain greatly improved
Canada (CLJ), NASA Solar System Workings Program grant
gravity, magnetic field, and topography data. The second
NNX15AH31G (SAH). The research contributions of CLJ
spacecraft, the Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter (also called
and SAH were supported during the MESSENGER mission
Mio) will have an orbit that will often provide simultaneous
by the MESSENGER Participating Scientist Program.
information on solar wind conditions, thereby allowing
unprecedented studies of the interaction of the internal
magnetic field and the surrounding space environment.
Collectively, these new data, together with modeling
efforts and laboratory measurements, will open a new era
of discovery and understanding of Mercury from its surface
to its interior.

REFERENCES
Anderson BJ and 7 coauthors (2008) The
structure of Mercury’s magnetic field
from MESSENGER’s first flyby. Science
321: 82-85
Anderson BJ and 9 coauthors (2011)
The global magnetic field of Mercury
from MESSENGER orbital observations.
Science 333: 1859-1862
Byrne PK and 5 coauthors (2014)
Mercury’s global contraction much
greater than earlier estimates. Nature
Geoscience 7: 301-307
Byrne PK, Klimczak C, S. engör AMC
(2018a) The tectonic character of
Mercury. In: Solomon SC, Nittler
LR, Anderson BJ eds., Mercury: The
View after MESSENGER, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp
249-286
Byrne PK, Whitten JL, Klimczak C,
McCubbin FM, Ostrach LR (2018b)
The volcanic character of Mercury.
In: Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 287-323
Charlier B, Namur O (2019) Origin and
Differentiation of Planet Mercury.
Elements 15: 9-14
Chabot NL, Wollack EA, Klima RL,
Minitti ME (2014) Experimental
constraints on Mercury’s core compo-
sition. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 390: 199-208
Christensen U, Wicht J (2008) Models
of magnetic field generation in partly
stable planetary cores: applications to
Mercury and Saturn. Icarus 196: 16-34
Ebel DS, Stewart ST (2018) The elusive
origin of Mercury. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 497-515
Hauck SA II and 5 coauthors (2018)
Mercury’s global evolution. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 515-542
Hauck SA II and 12 coauthors (2013) The
curious case of Mercury’s internal struc-
ture. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Planets 118: 1204-1220
Hood LL (2016) Magnetic anomalies
concentrated near and within Mercury’s
impact basins: early mapping and
interpretation. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets 121: 1016-1025
Huguet L, Van Orman JA, Hauck SA
II, Willard MA (2018) Earth’s inner
core nucleation paradox. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 487: 9-20
James PB, Zuber MT, Phillips RJ, Solomon
SC (2015) Support of long-wavelength
topography on Mercury inferred from
MESSENGER measurements of gravity
and topography. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets 120: 287-310
Johnson CL, Anderson BJ, Korth
H, Phillips RJ, Philpott LC (2018)
Mercury’s internal magnetic field. In:
Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 114-143
Johnson CL and 16 coauthors (2015)
Low-altitude magnetic field measure-
ments by MESSENGER reveal Mercury’s
ancient crustal field. Science 348:
892-895
Johnson CL and 8 coauthors (2016)
MESSENGER observations of induced
magnetic fields in Mercury’s core.
Geophysical Research Letters 43:
2436-2444
Margot J-L, Hauck SA II, Mazarico E,
Padovan S, Peale SJ (2018) Mercury’s
internal structure. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 85-113
Margot J-L, Peale SJ, Jurgens RF, Slade
MA, Holin IV (2007) Large longitude
libration of Mercury reveals a molten
core. Science 316: 710-714
Namur O and 5 coauthors (2016) Melting
processes and mantle sources of lavas
on Mercury. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 439: 117-128
Ness NF, Behannon KW, Lepping RP,
Whang YC, Schatten KH (1974)
Magnetic field observations near
Mercury: preliminary results from
Mariner 10. Science 185: 151-160
Nittler LR and 14 coauthors (2011)
The major-element composition of
Mercury’s surface from MESSENGER
X-ray spectrometry. Science 333:
1847-1850
Padovan S, Wieczorek MA, Margot J-L,
Tosi N, Solomon SC (2015) Thickness
of the crust of Mercury from geoid-to-
topography ratios. Geophysical Research
Letters 42: 1029-1038
Peale SJ (1988) The rotational dynamics
of Mercury and the state of its core. In:
Vilas F, Chapman CR, Matthews MS
(eds) Mercury. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, pp 461-493
Philpott LC and 6 coauthors (2014)
Constraints on the secular variation
of Mercury’s magnetic field from the
combined analysis of MESSENGER and
Mariner 10 data. Geophysical Research
Letters 41: 6627-6634
Redmond HL, King SD (2007) Does
mantle convection currently exist on
Mercury? Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors 164: 221-231
Rivoldini A, Van Hoolst T (2013)
The interior structure of Mercury
constrained by the low-degree gravity
field and the rotation of Mercury. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 377-378:
62-72
Schubert G, Ross MN, Stevenson DJ,
Spohn T (1988) Mercury’s thermal
history and the generation of its
magnetic field. In: Vilas F, Chapman
CR, Matthews MS (eds) Mercury.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp
429-460
Strauss BE, Feinberg JM, Johnson CL
(2016) Magnetic mineralogy of the
Mercurian lithosphere. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Planets 121:
2225-2238
Watters TR, Robinson MS, Cook AC
(1998) Topography of lobate scarps
on Mercury: new constraints on the
planet’s contraction. Geology 26:
991-994

E lements 26 F ebruary 2019

 Volcanism on Mercury
Rebecca J. Thomas1 and David A. Rothery2

1811-5209/19/0015-0027$2.50  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.15.1.27

M
ercury’s volcanic nature has been revealed by NASA’s MESSENGER deposits had initially been thought
mission. We now know that all, or most, of the surface has, at to be volcanic but were later estab-
lished to have formed by ponding
some point, been flooded by lavas, sometimes in extremely volumi- of material fluidized during basin-
nous eruptions. The ages of Mercury’s lava surfaces reveal that large-volume forming impacts (Wilhelms 1976).
effusive volcanism ceased about 3.5 billion years ago due to planetary cooling. It was argued that Mercury’s
smooth plains bore more similar-
Mercury’s crust then went into a state of global contraction, thereby impeding ities to these impact-produced
further magma ascent. However, some smaller-scale volcanism continued plains than to the volcanic lunar
at zones of crustal weakness, particularly at impact craters. Much of this maria (Latin for “seas”) because of
a less pronounced spectral contrast
later volcanism has been violently explosive, with volatile gases potentially
with the surrounding uplands, as
helping the magma rise and ripping it apart when released to the vacuum well as a lack of associated volcanic
at the surface. constructs and the morphology of
superposing tectonic structures.
Keywords : lava plains, explosive volcanism, thermal evolution, Mercury
Offered in response, however,
were the findings that the volume
INTRODUCTION of Mercury’s smooth plains is
Given its heavily impact-cratered surface, which makes it greater than would be expected to result from the forma-
superficially similar to the ancient terrains of the Earth’s tion of nearby basins. There is also some spectral contrast
Moon, it may come as a surprise that Mercury is now with surrounding material (if not as great as between the
believed to have been almost totally resurfaced by volcanic lunar maria and lunar highlands), and the areal density of
activity. Evidence from the recent MESSENGER mission has impact cratering on the plains is generally lower than that
supported the conclusion that all, or most, of Mercury’s on nearby basin rims and ejecta, indicating a younger age
present surface materials were formed by voluminous (Strom et al. 1975). All of this argued in favor of a volcanic
volcanic outpourings, although modified by the effects genesis for the smooth plains, but the issue remained
of impact cratering. unresolved until the MESSENGER mission.

The scientific journey that led to this new understanding
was several decades in the making. Our first close-up images
of Mercury, captured during flybys of NASA’s Mariner 10
spacecraft, provided only equivocal evidence for the origin
of the planet’s surface. It was quickly discovered that
some regions are relatively smooth, forming plains both
between impact craters in the more heavily cratered (and,
thus, older) regions and in discrete relatively uncratered
(younger) regions. However, it was unclear whether the
resurfacing that formed these plains occurred through
volcanism or nonvolcanic processes, such as impact
events or the influence of mass wasting or even an early
atmosphere (Strom et al. 1975).
In particular, the question of whether the younger plains
are volcanic became a matter of extensive discussion.
Arguing against a volcanic origin was the plains’ similarity
to the light-colored Cayley plains on the Moon. These lunar
1 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics
University of Colorado
3665 Discovery Drive
Boulder, CO 80303, USA
E-mail: rebecca.thomas@lasp.colorado.edu
2 Department of Physical Sciences
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
E-mail: david.rothery@open.ac.uk
The images obtained from MESSENGER have greater resolu-
tion than those from Mariner 10 and showed morphological
and stratigraphic features that confirmed that the smooth
plains are indeed the products of effusive volcanism.
Furthermore, several strands of evidence showed that the
slightly older intercrater plains are also volcanic. It is now
understood that little, if any, of Mercury’s surface is in
situ primary crust and that virtually the entire surface was
emplaced volcanically or was excavated and overturned by
impacts. There is also evidence for explosive volcanism,
potentially continuing long after the cessation of the large-
volume plains-forming volcanism. Together, these observa-
tions provide crucial strands of evidence for the thermal
and geological evolution of the planet.
MERCURY’S VOLCANIC PLAINS
Smooth Plains
Mercury’s smooth plains cover about 27% of the planet’s
surface (Denevi et al. 2013) (Fig. 1). The largest expanse
is at high northern latitudes; initially referred to as the
Northern Volcanic Plains (NVP), it is now known as
Borealis Planitia. A host of observations confirm that
most of Mercury’s smooth plains, including Borealis,
are volcanic rather than impact melt (Head et al. 2008,
2011). Morphological evidence comes from fully buried
(“ghost”) and partially filled impact craters within plains
that themselves usually occupy impact basins (Fig. 2A). The

E lements , V ol . 15, pp. 27-32 27 F ebruary 2019

 The extent of the smooth plains (white transparent
Figure 1
overlay) as mapped by Denevi et al. (2013). Plains infill
impact basins and occur outside them. The basemap is a global
mosaic of Mercury with color enhanced to highlight spectral and,
by extension, compositional variations. Symbols are as follows:
BP = Borealis Planitia; CE = plains around the Caloris impact basin;
CI = plains within the Caloris basin. Image courtesy of NASA/Johns
Hopkins U niversity A pplied Physics L aboratory/C arnegie Institution of
Washington.

presence of these underlying craters shows that enough
time elapsed for impacts to occur on the basin floor after
basin formation but before the emplacement of the infilling
plains. Observations such as this demonstrate that the
smooth plains must be significantly younger than the basin
in which they occur and, so, are not directly related to the
impact event that formed the basin.
Another strand of morphological evidence for the volcanic
nature of the smooth plains is a characteristic type of
shortening tectonic structure that is seen on these plains,
the so-called “wrinkle ridge” (Fig. 2A). This landform is
typical of lava plains on other terrestrial bodies. Though
Mercury has no clear examples of vents or fissures from
which the plains-forming flows were erupted, this does
not undermine the volcanic interpreta-
tion because flood basalts on the Earth
and Moon typically bury their own vents.
A B
obstacles in their path and, perhaps, carving the channels
(Byrne et al. 2013). To accomplish this, flow must have
been turbulent, with the lava moving quickly and likely
having a low viscosity. Furthermore, analysis of the size
and number of buried and nonburied impact craters across
Borealis Planitia indicates that a 0.7–1.8 km thickness of
lava was emplaced across this vast area—some 7% of the
planet’s surface—over a relatively short period, perhaps on
the order of 100 My.
Intercrater Plains
Although better preservation of morphological features
makes it easier to determine that the smooth plains are
volcanic, it has become clear that virtually all of Mercury’s

Spectral data, too, support a volcanic

origin. Mercury’s smooth plains are
sometimes spectrally distinct from the
surrounding older terrain (F ig . 2B).
This is good evidence that they are also
compositionally distinct, which supports
a volcanic origin involving changes in
composition by means of partial melting.
The final piece of evidence against the
impact hypothesis for the smooth plains is
their widespread distribution. Many large
expanses of plains are situated far from
any plausible source impact basin and
have much greater volumes than would
be predicted by an impact.
Other observed features enable a more subtle under- Figure 2 (A) Buried (‘ghost’) impact craters (marked ‘G’) and
standing of the form that this volcanism took. Multiple wrinkle ridges (indicated by white arrows) in Borealis
Planitia. The background image is an excerpt from the global
broad, branching channels containing streamlined monochrome mosaic centered on 59.1°N, 38.5°E. Illumination is
landforms fringe one margin of Borealis Planitia (Fig. 3). from the ESE. (B) Much of the floor of the Tolstoj impact basin (rim
It is extremely unlikely that liquid water could ever have indicated by a white dashed line) is occupied by spectrally distinct
existed on Mercury’s surface, so water can be discounted smooth plains thought to be volcanic. The image is an excerpt from
the enhanced color global mosaic centered on −16.4°N, −165.0°E.
as a viable erosive agent. These channels must, therefore, Images courtesy of NASA/Johns Hopkins U niversity A pplied Physics
indicate voluminous lava flows capable of streamlining L aboratory/C arnegie Institution of Washington.

E lements 28 F ebruary 2019

surface is likewise probably volcanic. There is a relative
scarcity of impact craters in the 20–128 km diameter range
on Mercury’s surface compared with ancient lunar surfaces,
indicating that there was a period of widespread resur-
facing early in Mercury’s history. This occurred before and
during the heavy bombardment that occurred throughout
the inner solar system up to about 3.8 billion years ago.
That this resurfacing was the result of effusive volcanism is
supported by an observed continuum in spectral character
and morphology between the smooth plains (Fig. 2) and
the more cratered intercrater plains (Fig. 4) (e.g., Whitten et
al. 2014). Moreover, spectral data show no distinct break in
spectral properties between smooth and intercrater plains
(Murchie et al. 2015). Indeed, material excavated from
beneath the surface of the older, darker plains has the
same spectral properties as the smooth plains (Ernst et al.
2010). This observation suggests that the smooth and inter-
crater plains have comparable compositions and that their
spectral contrast is a result of ongoing mixing with other
material by impacts and space weathering, which tend to
darken and redden surfaces over time. In essence, the only
fundamental way that the two types of plains differ is in
the areal density of superposed impact craters—and even An example of a channel near Borealis Planitia thought
in this, there can be continuity or overlap in crater density Figure 3
to have been carved or modified by lava flow.
between areas mapped as the two different plain types “Islands” within the channel are streamlined into “teardrop” shapes
(Whitten et al. 2014; Byrne et al. 2016). (indicated by a white arrow), indicating erosion by a fluid.
Illumination from the ESE. The image is an excerpt from the
Mercury global monochrome mosaic centered on 57.7°N, 113.7°E.
Lava Composition Image courtesy of NASA/Johns Hopkins U niversity A pplied Physics
Evidence for voluminous lava eruption and turbulent L aboratory/C arnegie Institution of Washington.
flows inevitably raises the question of lava composition.
Was turbulence a result of inherently low viscosity and/
or high magma temperature, or did it result from excep-
the wide variations in silicate geochemistry across Mercury.
tionally high effusion rates? The composition of Mercury’s
The spatial heterogeneity in source chemistry is particu-
lavas is also a crucial probe into the planet’s interior and
larly interesting with regard to the internal dynamics of
could even tell of secular changes within the planet. As
the planet, as it indicates that mantle mixing was ineffi-
discussed by Nittler and Weider (2019 this issue), Mercury’s
cient during the period of voluminous volcanic eruptions
surface is chemically heterogeneous but consistently high
on Mercury.
in magnesium and low in iron compared with other terres-
trial bodies. When converted into normative mineralogy, Experimental and numerical modeling on the basis of the
this indicates alkali-rich komatiitic to boninitic composi- most recent lava compositions of Borealis Planitia indicate
tions (Vander Kaaden et al. 2017). If found on Earth, such that these voluminous flows would have had a low viscosity
compositions would indicate moderate-to-high eruptive (10–20 Pa s) because of their low Al 2O3 and high Na 2O
temperatures. Additionally, alkali (Ca and Na) concentra- content. High effusion rates (>10,000 m3/s), similar to those
tions are relatively high, particularly in Borealis Planitia. inferred for large igneous provinces on Earth, would have
been required to emplace them over hundreds of kilome-
The finding that Mercury’s surface is dominantly volcanic
ters to form the Borealis Planitia (Vetere et al. 2017). The
indicates that the varied “geochemical terranes” discussed
extremely high buoyancy proposed for Mercurian magmas
by Nittler and Weider (2019 this issue) relate to differ-
(Vander Kaaden et al. 2017) is consistent with such high
ences in lava composition. Broadly, such differences may
effusion rates as long as crustal conditions were conducive
result from changes in the depth and degree of mantle
for melt ascent to the surface.
melting over time. More mafic, heavily cratered parts of the
volcanic crust, for example, have been shown by crystal-
lization experiments to require partial melting at approxi-
MERCURY’S EXPLOSIVE VOLCANISM
mately 360 km depth at a mantle potential temperature of We have already remarked on the absence of visible
1,650 °C, whereas the more plagioclase-rich composition of eruptive sources (fissures or vents) for Mercury’s plains
relatively young smooth plains, such as Borealis Planitia and volcanism. However, numerous irregular pits have been
those inside the Caloris basin, is consistent with melting discovered on Mercury that have been interpreted as
at only 160 km at 1,410 °C (Namur and Charlier 2017). explosive volcanic vents (Fig. 5). There are as many as 174
However, the heterogeneity of lava compositions is much of these pits across the planet (e.g., Thomas et al. 2014a;
more complex than a simple “old versus young” dichotomy, Jozwiak et al. 2018). The interpretation of these landforms
and the observed chemistries of different regions cannot as vents, as opposed to impact craters, is supported by their
be related to each other in a straightforward evolutionary elongate or irregular planform morphology; their uneven,
time series (Weider et al. 2015). For example, the most multilevel floors (Rothery et al. 2014; Jozwiak et al. 2018);
heavily cratered regions of Mercury show a wide range the lack of a thick blanket of surrounding ejecta; and the
of Mg/Si ratios in X-ray spectrometer data. In contrast, absence of a prominent raised rim. Additionally, most pits
the volcanic plains inside and outside the Caloris impact are surrounded by spectrally distinct low-albedo material
basin, which are compositionally distinct on the basis of with a diffuse outer margin known as a facula (Figs. 5B, 5D,
spectral and elemental data, show evidence for interspersed 5F). The spectral distinctiveness of the faculae supports a
or even contemporaneous plains emplacement (Rothery et volcanic origin, and the lack of associated flow features and
al. 2017). Thus, spatial as well as temporal differences in the diffuse nature of their outer edges indicate a particu-
mantle chemistry and degree of melting must account for late-dominated deposit, pointing to an explosive volcanic

E lements 29 F ebruary 2019


A view dominated by intercrater plains, which have
Figure 4
been shown to be the result of early volcanism.
Illumination from the ESE. The image is an excerpt from the
Mercury global monochrome mosaic centered on 36.2°N, 107.5°E.
Image courtesy of NASA/Johns Hopkins U niversity A pplied Physics
L aboratory/C arnegie Institution of Washington.
eruption (Kerber et al. 2009). Explosive volcanism occurs
when a volatile component exsolves from, or is encoun-
tered by, erupting magma. Under Mercury’s airless condi-
tions, the violent expansion of such volatiles in the gaseous
phase would have expelled particles ballistically from a
point-like vent to produce an umbrella-like plume similar
to those observed on Jupiter’s volcanically active moon, Io.
The deposits commonly show little topographic expression
and rarely obscure the underlying landforms, indicating
that they do not form substantial volcanic constructs but
are, rather, a distally thinning mantling layer (Thomas et
al. 2014b). Intriguingly, new numerical modelling indicates
that, under Mercury’s airless conditions, it would be impos-
sible to build a more topographically distinct cone by
purely pyroclastic processes (Brož et al. 2018).
The largest example of explosive volcanism is Nathair
Facula, which lies northeast of the Rachmaninoff basin
and extends for 130 km around a 4 km deep pit (Figs. 5A,
5B). On average, the faculae are larger than pyroclastic
deposits on the Moon, despite Mercury’s higher gravity
which would cause ballistically ejected particles to fall
closer to a vent. This disparity in size may indicate that
Mercury’s explosive volcanism was powered by a higher
proportion of volatiles than that on the Moon, perhaps
on a par with those powering eruptions on Earth (Thomas
et al. 2014b).
THE HISTORY OF VOLCANISM
The areal density of impact craters that are superposed
on the intercrater plains dates the plains to the period
of heavy bombardment, indicating that this was a period
of widespread volcanic resurfacing. The lower cratering
density on the smooth plains suggests that they were
emplaced later, between approximately 3.9 Ga and 3.5 Ga
(Byrne et al. 2016), indicating that volcanism became more
localized after the heavy bombardment and that the volca-
nism of the large-volume plains ceased relatively early in
the planet’s history.
E lements
This fall-off in effusive volcanism is most likely due to
the thermal evolution of the planet. Like other terrestrial
bodies, Mercury will have undergone ongoing cooling as it
lost its heat of formation, much of its core solidified, and its
radiogenic isotopes decayed, providing decreasing opportu-
nities for mantle melting over time (Peplowski et al. 2011).
Furthermore, this cooling led to global contraction (Byrne
et al. 2014) and, ultimately, to a lithospheric stress state
dominated by horizontal compression. Such a stress state
will tend to inhibit magma ascent to the surface. Indeed,
where younger smaller-scale possible volcanic flow surfaces
have been identified, they tend to occur on the floors of
impact craters (e.g., Prockter et al. 2010). These sites are
locations where the resetting of the compressive stress, the
removal of overburden, the deposition of subsurface heat,
and the presence of fractures and faults would best favor
magma ascent in this later period when, more generally,
global contraction came to dominate Mercury’s geological
character (Byrne et al. 2016).
The timing of Mercury’s explosive volcanism fits well
within this picture. In the vast majority of cases, explosive
vents occur where the subsurface is likely fractured, thereby
making this subsurface relatively conducive to magma
ascent (e.g., Jozwiak et al. 2018; Klimczak et al. 2018).
The structural connection to vent formation is supported
by vent locations within craters: vents are often elongated
circumferential to the crater rim (e.g., Figs. 5C, 5D) or occur
at the site where craters have a central uplift (e.g., Figs. 5E,
5F). Vents are also frequently located along the leading edge
of a lobate scarp (e.g., Figs. 5E, 5F), the surface expression
of a thrust fault that is a relatively advantageous structural
location for magma migration to the surface. In some of the
crater-hosted examples, the vent has punched up through
crater-floor lava deposits, most famously where numerous
vents and associated deposits fringe the volcanic infill of
the Caloris basin, a few tens of kilometers inwards of its
rim (Head et al. 2008; Rothery et al. 2014). This spatial
relationship indicates a sequence of events where the basin
was first infilled by voluminous lavas and then small vents
and pyroclastic deposits were formed by late-stage, smaller-
scale eruptions through the thinnest, rimward parts of the
lava infill. Furthermore, where it is possible to date vents
or deposits on the basis of superposition relationships,
they are found to have been formed during all periods of
Mercury’s history, with some appearing to be less than a
billion years old (Thomas et al. 2014a; Jozwiak et al. 2018).
This indicates that explosive volcanic activity continued on
Mercury well after the period when the most voluminous
effusive eruptions had ceased.
It is not surprising that explosive volcanism should have
been able to outlast voluminous effusive flow, given the
horizontally compressive tectonic regime in effect at
Mercury for the last few billion years. Volatiles are able to
provide overpressure in addition to that provided by magma
buoyancy alone so, where eruption was possible because of
the presence of preexisting lithospheric fractures, volatile-
enhanced magma (made so either through exsolution or
assimilation of country rock during ascent) would be most
able to make use of those zones of weakness.
Volatiles and Their Sources
The recognition of explosive volcanism on Mercury
from MESSENGER flyby images was unexpected. Several
of the formation models for Mercury that predated the
MESSENGER mission had predicted that the planet would
be depleted in volatiles, making explosive volcanism
improbable. However, data from MESSENGER provided
several independent lines of evidence for a nonvolatile-
depleted surface (Nittler and Weider 2019 this issue). These
new data indicate the abundant presence of elements such
30 F ebruary 2019
 A C
B D
Pits and surrounding faculae (i.e., bright spots and
Figure 5
areas that, in the images here, are relatively bright
and/or red) on the surface of Mercury, interpreted collectively as
explosive volcanic vents with surrounding pyroclastic deposits.
(A) Close-up of the compound vent at the center of Nathair Facula,
northeast of the Rachmaninoff impact basin at 35.8°N, 64.0°E, in
monochrome (illumination from the SE). Base image: MESSENGER
MDIS EW1014012379G. (B) Nathair Facula in its wider geographic
context, northeast of the Rachmaninoff impact basin at 35.8°N,
64.0°E, in color (illumination from the W); the close-up of 5A is the
central (and brightest) feature of 5B. Base image: color composites
based on MESSENGER MDIS EW0239664243F and EW0254913709G
and global color mosaic. (C) A pit with a surrounding facula circum-
ferential to the rim of Picasso impact crater at 3.4°N, 50.4°E, in
as carbon, chlorine, and sulfur that could form volatile
species capable of powering explosive eruptions (Weider
et al. 2016). However, some of the plausible volatile species
would require oxidation in order to exsolve from Mercury’s
initially reducing magmas. To address this issue, it is desir-
able to identify the volatile species that powered Mercury’s
explosive eruptions and their sources.
Because we do not have access to samples, it is challenging
to determine the composition of materials observed on
Mercury. It is even more challenging to characterize what
is now missing, i.e., the volatiles lost during eruption.
The problem is exacerbated by the small spatial extent
of the faculae thought to represent Mercury’s pyroclastic
deposits, which generally makes it impossible to detect
them in MESSENGER compositional datasets. However, for
the largest, Nathair Facula (Fig. 5B), there is some evidence
of elemental depletion. X-ray spectrometer data acquired
under uniquely advantageous conditions (a solar flare
resulting in an abnormally high X-ray flux) showed a clear
depletion in sulfur relative to both silicon and calcium
compared with the surrounding material (see Fig. 3 in
Nittler and Weider 2019 this issue). Additionally, neutron
spectrometer data obtained at low altitude imply a depletion
of 1% –2% in carbon (Weider et al. 2016). Interpretation
E lements
E
F
monochrome (illumination from the E). Note that the lobate struc-
tures on the crater floor are thought to be tectonic rather than
volcanic. Base image: excerpt from the MESSENGER global
monochrome mosaic (D) As for 5C but in color (illumination from
the E). Base image: color composite based on MESSENGER MDIS
EW1014443535I. (E) A pit surrounded by a facula at the center of
the Geddes impact crater at 27.2°N, –29.5°E where it is crossed by
the surface expression of a thrust fault (a lobate scarp), in
monochrome (illumination from the W). Base image: excerpt from
the MESSENGER global monochrome mosaic. (F) As for 5E but in
color (illumination from the SE). Base image: MESSENGER MDIS
color composite based on EW1020465015F. Images courtesy of
NASA/Johns Hopkins U niversity A pplied Physics L aboratory/C arnegie
Institution of Washington.
of these results suggest that sulfur- and carbon-bearing
volatile species may have powered the eruption, leaving
behind a deposit depleted in these elements.
The involvement of sulfur (S) and carbon (C) is certainly
not improbable on Mercury. It is now known that Mercury
has a high surface concentration of S compared with
other planets, and the importance of C (in the form of
graphite) is being increasingly recognized (Nitter and
Weider 2019 this issue). Furthermore, the level of observed
depletion in these elements in Nathair Facula, if incor-
porated in Mercury-appropriate volatile species, is suffi-
cient to produce an explosive volcanic eruption ejecting
pyroclasts out to 130 km (Weider et al. 2016). However, S
and C are highly soluble in Mercury’s reducing interior,
so the magma would need to have been oxidized by some
means to cause volatile species to exsolve. Such exsolution
could have occurred by the assimilation of oxide-bearing
country rock or by oxide-bearing magmas assimilating C-
and S-bearing country rock. This latter option is especially
interesting in light of work indicating that Mercury’s lower
crust is graphite-bearing (Vander Kaaden and McCubbin
2015) and that explosive volcanism is common in regions
where low-reflectance material such as graphite occurs in
the substrate (Thomas et al. 2014b). Magmas encountering
such material in the subsurface may have been the means by
31 F ebruary 2019
which melts attained the elevated volatile content required
to propagate to the surface despite global contraction. Such
an explanation would make Mercury’s explosive eruptions
somewhat akin to phreatic or phreatomagmatic eruptions
on Earth, where the eruption is driven by the heat from
the magma turning near-surface water into steam, rather
than by expansion of exsolved magmatic volatiles.
A UNIQUE VOLCANIC PLANET
Mercury’s surface is the product of a long history of
volcanic activity, with most activity occurring within
the first quarter of the solar system’s history. Because of
Mercury’s chemistry, its lavas are unusually low in iron,
high in magnesium, and high in alkalis. Mercurian explo-
sive volcanism was probably powered by volatile species
that are different from the H2O, CO2, and SO2 phases that
are usually responsible for such eruptions on Earth. The
powerful Mercurian eruptions were capable of ejecting
particles to great distances, most probably through volatile-
release in oxidation reactions involving sulfur and carbon
during the ascent of magma through the crust.
The means by which eruptions have occurred has been
strongly governed by the planet’s slow cooling history
and the resulting global contraction. This phenomenon
greatly restricted the routes available for lava to reach the
surface, bringing large-volume effusive lava eruptions to a
halt ~3.5 Ga. After that, the best means by which lava could
reach the surface was via fractures opened by impact crater
formation and by tectonic deformation. In some cases, the
fractures below impact craters and lobate scarps may have
allowed small-scale magma bodies to ascend and erupt onto
crater floors. In others, eruption was aided by an enhanced
concentration of volatiles, either intrinsic to or assimi-
lated into the magma from crustal materials. Exsolution
of these volatiles would have countered the unfavorable
crustal stress state and so facilitated eruptions. Explosive
eruptions of this type likely persisted into the last billion
years. Thus, through a combination of surface fracturing
by impacts and tectonic stresses and the availability of
volatiles, Mercury has maintained some level of volcanic
activity through the majority, if not all, of its history.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Paul Byrne and Lionel Wilson for their construc-
tive reviews of this paper.

REFERENCES
Brož P, Č adek O, Wright J, Rothery
DA (2018) The apparent absence of
kilometer-sized pyroclastic volcanoes
on Mercury: are we looking right?
Geophysical Research Letters 45:
12,171-12,179
Byrne PK and 7 coauthors (2013) An
assemblage of lava flow features on
Mercury. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets 118: 1303-1322
Byrne PK and 5 coauthors (2014)
Mercury’s global contraction much
greater than earlier estimates. Nature
Geoscience 7: 301-307
Byrne PK and 9 coauthors (2016)
Widespread effusive volcanism on
Mercury likely ended by about 3.5
Ga. Geophysical Research Letters 43:
7408-7416
Denevi BW and 13 coauthors (2013)
The distribution and origin of
smooth plains on Mercury. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Planets 118:
891-907
Ernst CM and 9 coauthors (2010)
Exposure of spectrally distinct material
by impact craters on Mercury: implica-
tions for global stratigraphy. Icarus 209:
210-223
Head JW and 10 coauthors (2008)
Volcanism on Mercury: evidence from
the first MESSENGER flyby. Science 321:
69-72
Head JW and 12 coauthors (2009)
Volcanism on Mercury: evidence from
the first MESSENGER flyby for extrusive
and explosive activity and the volcanic
origin of plains. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 285: 227-242
Jozwiak LM, Head JW, Wilson L
(2018) Explosive volcanism on
Mercury: analysis of vent and deposit
morphology and modes of eruption.
Icarus 302: 191-212
Kerber L and 5 coauthors (2009)
Explosive volcanic eruptions on
Mercury: eruption conditions, magma
volatile content, and implications for
interior volatile abundances. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 285: 263-271
Klimczak C, Crane KT, Habermann MA,
Byrne PK (2018) The spatial distribution
of Mercury’s pyroclastic activity and
the relation to lithospheric weaknesses.
Icarus 315: 115-123
Murchie SL and 15 coauthors (2015)
Orbital multispectral mapping of
Mercury with the MESSENGER Mercury
Dual Imaging System: evidence for the
origins of plains units and low-reflec-
tance material. Icarus 254: 287-305
Namur O, Charlier B (2017) Silicate
mineralogy at the surface of Mercury.
Nature Geoscience 10: 9-13
Nittler and Weider (2019) The surface
composition of Mercury. Elements 15:
33-38
Ostrach LR and 6 coauthors (2015)
Extent, age, and resurfacing history of
the northern smooth plains on Mercury
from MESSENGER observations. Icarus
250: 602-622
Peplowski PN and 16 coauthors (2011)
Radioactive elements on Mercury’s
surface from MESSENGER: implications
for the planet’s formation and evolu-
tion. Science 333: 1850-1852
Peplowski PN and 11 coauthors (2015)
Constraints on the abundance of
carbon in near-surface materials on
Mercury: results from the MESSENGER
gamma-ray spectrometer. Planetary and
Space Science 108: 98-107
Prockter LM and 12 coauthors (2010)
Evidence for young volcanism on
Mercury from the third MESSENGER
flyby. Science 329: 668-671
Rothery DA, Thomas RJ, Kerber L
(2014) Prolonged eruptive history of
a compound volcano on Mercury:
volcanic and tectonic implications.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 385:
59-67
Rothery DA, Mancinelli P, Guzzetta L,
Wright J (2017) Mercury’s Caloris basin:
continuity between the interior and
exterior plains. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets 122: 560-576
Strom RG, Trask NJ, Guest JE (1975)
Tectonism and volcanism on Mercury.
Journal of Geophysical Research 80:
2478-2507
Thomas RJ, Rothery DA, Conway SJ,
Anand M (2014a) Long-lived explosive
volcanism on Mercury. Geophysical
Research Letters 41: 6084-6092
Thomas RJ, Rothery DA, Conway SJ,
Anand M (2014b) Mechanisms of explo-
sive volcanism on Mercury: implica-
tions from its global distribution and
morphology. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets 119: 2239-2254
Vander Kaaden KE, McCubbin FM (2015)
Exotic crust formation on Mercury:
consequences of a shallow, FeO-poor
mantle. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets 120: 195-209
Vander Kaaden KE and 6 coauthors
(2017) Geochemistry, mineralogy, and
petrology of boninitic and komatiitic
rocks on the mercurian surface: insights
into the mercurian mantle. Icarus 285:
155-168
Vetere F and 8 coauthors (2017)
Experimental constraints on the
rheology, eruption, and emplacement
dynamics of analog lavas comparable
to Mercury’s northern volcanic plains.
Journal of Geophysical Research:
Planets 122: 1522-1538
Weider SZ and 10 coauthors (2015)
Evidence for geochemical terranes on
Mercury: global mapping of major
elements with MESSENGER’s X-ray
spectrometer. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 416: 109-120
Weider SZ and 12 coauthors (2016)
Evidence from MESSENGER for sulfur-
and carbon-driven explosive volcanism
on Mercury. Geophysical Research
Letters 43: 3653-3661
Whitten JL, Head JW, Denevi BW,
Solomon SC (2014) Intercrater plains
on Mercury: insights into unit defini-
tion, characterization, and origin from
MESSENGER datasets. Icarus 241: 97-113
Wilhelms DE (1976) Mercurian volcanism
questioned. Icarus 28: 551-558

E lements 32 F ebruary 2019

 The Surface Composition
of Mercury
Larry R. Nittler1 and Shoshana Z. Weider1

1811-5209/19/0015-0033$2.50  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.15.1.33

G
eochemical data from MESSENGER have revealed details of Mercury’s Obtaining an improved under-
surface composition, showing that it differs from the other rocky standing of Mercury’s chemical
composition was critical to
planets in the inner solar system. For example, the planet’s surface addressing several of MESSENGER’s
is enriched in S and C, and depleted in Fe, indicating that Mercury formed guiding scientific questions. The
under much more reducing conditions than other planets. The surface is also spacecraft was developed to carry
multiple instruments that could
enriched in Mg and depleted in Al and Ca. Observed elemental heterogeneities be used to determine the planet’s
and percent levels of graphite suggest that Mercury underwent a magma constituents. Here, we review these
ocean phase early in its history. These findings have important implications instruments, the scientific infor-
mation they provided from the
for understanding Mercury’s origin and evolution.
four years of MESSENGER’s orbital
Keywords : Mercury, MESSENGER, geochemistry, remote sensing, mission, and the new constraints
surface composition, spectroscopy on Mercury’s surface composition.
We also briefly outline how this
knowledge of Mercury’s surface
INTRODUCTION composition can be used to study the bulk composition,
Planets are born in disks of gas and dust as they circle origin, and geological evolution of this enigmatic inner-
and accrete around young stars. The bulk compositions of most planet. For more details on these topics, we refer the
newly forming planets are shaped by several processes at a reader to other articles in this issue and to the recent review
wide range of scales, from high-temperature dust conden- by Nittler et al. (2018).
sation to large-scale collisions. Bulk composition is also a
primary factor in determining the internal structure and MEASURING COMPOSITION FROM SPACE
geological history of a planet. As rocky planets differentiate, The MESSENGER Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer
a dense core separates and is surrounded by silicate shells. (GRNS) detected high-energy photons (γ-rays) and neutrons
The silicate surface forms and is subsequently modified that emanated from the planet’s surface (Peplowski et al.
by geological processes (e.g., volcanism and tectonics) and 2012; Lawrence et al. 2013). As illustrated in Figure 1, γ-rays
by impacts with other bodies. Therefore, determining the with characteristic energies are emitted during the decay of
elemental composition of a rocky world can reveal crucial naturally occurring radioactive nuclei, including isotopes
information about planetary formation and evolution. of K, U, and Th. Interactions between galactic cosmic rays
As the innermost planet of our solar system, Mercury and (high-energy charged particles hurtling through space) and
its composition are of key importance for understanding its atomic nuclei in surface rocks release neutrons that, in
own origin and that of rocky worlds in general—both in our turn, can interact with other nuclei to also produce charac-
solar system and in the ever-increasing number of known teristic γ-rays. By detecting and determining the energy
extrasolar planetary systems. Prior to NASA’s MESSENGER of the γ-rays and neutrons, the GRNS sensors provided
mission, however, little was known about the composition measurements of many important elements, including H,
of Mercury. Mercury’s anomalously high density indicated C, Na, Al, Si, S, Cl, K, Ca, Fe, Th, and U. The low signal-
that its dense core, which is almost certainly dominated by to-background ratios for both the γ-ray and neutron data,
Fe, makes up a much larger fraction of the planet’s mass however, meant that it was only possible to obtain compo-
than the cores of the other terrestrial planets (i.e., Venus, sitional measurements for Mercury’s northern hemisphere,
Earth, and Mars) and the Moon. In contrast, measurements because MESSENGER’s highly eccentric polar orbit brought
of reflected sunlight from Mercury’s surface show that the the spacecraft close to the planet over high northern
silicates therein contain much less Fe than those at the latitudes.
surface of the other terrestrial bodies of the solar system. The MESSENGER X-Ray Spectrometer (XRS) measured
Measurements of Na, Ca, and K within Mercury’s very X-rays of characteristic energy that were emitted from
tenuous atmosphere (its “exosphere”) suggest that these Mercury’s surface when surface atoms were irradiated by
elements are also present on the planet’s surface. X-rays from the Sun’s multimillion-degree coronal plasma
(Nittler et al. 2011) (Fig. 1). This planetary, remote-sensing
X-ray fluorescence method is analogous to the standard
X-ray fluorescence laboratory technique, but the remote-
1 Department of Terrestrial Magnetism sensing version involves a rapidly changing source (the
Carnegie Institution of Washington
5241 Broad Branch Rd NW Sun), nonconstant viewing geometry, low signal-to-noise
Washington DC 20015, USA ratios, and a lack of measurement standards. Nonetheless,
E-mail: lnittler@carnegiescience.edu, as shown below, quantitative global mapping of several
shoshana.weider@gmail.com

E lements , V ol . 15, pp. 33–38 33 F ebruary 2019


ays
ic r
osm
ic c
nt X-ray
Ne
ut
t
ro
lac
γ- n
So
ra
Ga
y
la
Fluoresce
rX
-ra
y
Figure 1 MESSENGER’s X-Ray Spectrometer (XRS) and
Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer (GRNS)
instruments were used to obtain quantitative abundance estimates
for several geochemically important elements in Mercury’s surface.
The XRS was used to measure fluorescent X-rays from the planet
(yellow arrow) that were induced by interactions between irradi-
ating solar X-rays (white arrow) and atoms at Mercury’s surface.
The GRNS detected γ-rays (green arrow) and neutrons (purple
arrow) produced by either radioactive decay or interactions
between galactic cosmic rays (blue arrows) and atomic nuclei. Image
credit : NASA/J ohns H opkins U niversity A pplied Physics L aboratory /
C arnegie Institution of Washington
important rock-forming elements—including Mg, Al, Si,
S, Ca and Fe—was achieved with the MESSENGER XRS. To
detect elements heavier than Si, however, infrequent solar
flares were required. The XRS maps of S, Ca, and Fe, there-
fore, do not have total global coverage. Unlike the GRNS,
the XRS collected useful data in the southern hemisphere,
albeit with much poorer spatial resolution than for the
north (again because of the spacecraft’s eccentric orbit).
In general (with the exception of elements measured directly
from their radioactive decay), it is more difficult to calcu-
late absolute elemental abundances from the MESSENGER
GRNS and XRS data than to measure elemental (mass)
ratios. Such ratios, therefore, are more often reported, and
the MESSENGER results are normally provided as ratios
of elements to Si. Silicon is a good choice because it is
abundant, measured by both techniques, and it typically
exhibits little heterogeneity on planetary surfaces. We also
note that the XRS and GRNS probe to different depths in
the surface (tens of µm versus tens of cm, respectively).
The data analysis methods for both instruments also rely
somewhat on modeling and uncertain inputs (e.g., atomic
and/or nuclear physics data). As such, it is encouraging that
the results from both instruments are generally consistent
for those elements measured in common (Al, Si, S, Ca,
and Fe).
MERCURY’S SURFACE COMPOSITION
Volatile Elements on Mercury
The wide range of temperatures experienced by planetary
materials during their formation and evolution can lead to
the fractionation of elements that are more volatile from
those that are less so (those that are refractory). The volatile
content of a planet can, thus, be an indication of forma-
tion conditions. For example, the Moon has a substan-
E lements
tially lower volatile abundance than the Earth, which is
taken as evidence for high-temperature lunar formation
in a circumplanetary disk following a giant collision of a
Mars-size impactor with the proto-Earth. Similarly, many
pre-MESSENGER models of Mercury’s formation predicted
that the planet, or its building blocks, experienced very
high temperatures and would be severely depleted in
moderately volatile elements. Such elements (e.g., S, K, Na)
are those that condense from the gas phase at temperatures
between a few hundred and about one thousand Kelvin.
The discovery of several moderately volatile elements at
relatively high concentrations in Mercury’s surface was,
therefore, one of the biggest surprises from MESSENGER’s
geochemical results.
Early in MESSENGER’s orbital mission, detections of γ-rays
from the radioactive decay of 40K, 232Th, and 238U were
used to determine that Mercury’s surface has, by weight,
an average of ~1,300 ppm K, ~0.16 ppm Th, and ~90 ppb U
(Peplowski et al. 2012; Nittler et al. 2018). These elements
are particularly useful for elucidating Mercury’s early condi-
tions because they have different volatilities, but similar
compatibilities, during silicate melting. Their relative
abundances at the surface of a differentiated planet should,
therefore, reflect that of its bulk silicate portion. Indeed, the
ratio of moderately volatile K to refractory Th is commonly
taken to be a sensitive tracer of bulk volatile contents. The
MESSENGER results indicate that Mercury’s relatively high
volatile content is similar to that of Mars, although all
rocky planets are somewhat depleted in moderately volatile
elements compared with the Sun (Fig. 2). This interpreta-
tion of the K/Th ratio is complicated by the possibility of
element fractionation during core formation (McCubbin
et al. 2012), but the MESSENGER measurements provide
additional evidence of Mercury’s volatile enrichment.
For example, GRNS data (Peplowski et al. 2014; Evans et
al. 2015) revealed that both volatile Na and Cl are also
abundant on Mercury’s surface. Results for both elements
show latitudinal variation: Na ranges from 2.6 wt% at the
equator to ~5 wt% at high northern latitudes, whereas Cl
varies from 1,200 ppm at the equator to 2,500 ppm at high
northern latitudes. As with K/Th, Mercury’s Cl/K ratio is
similar to that of Mars (and to that of the Sun) (Fig. 2),
which is strong evidence for Mercury’s volatile enrichment.
Sun
10,000 Mercury
Mars
Earth Venus
K/Th
1,000
Moon
100
0.01 0.10 1.00
Cl/K
Figure 2 The K/Th weight ratio of Mercury’s surface as a
function of its Cl/K weight ratio, as determined from
MESSENGER Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer data
(Peplowski et al. 2012; Evans et al. 2015). The Mercury results are
shown in comparison with those of other inner solar system rocky
bodies (Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars) and the Sun.
34 F ebruary 2019
In addition to the variations in Na and Cl abundance,
the GRNS measurements revealed heterogeneities in the
abundance of K across Mercury’s northern hemisphere
(Peplowski et al. 2012). It was hypothesized that thermal
redistribution (via diffusion) of these elements could be
responsible for these observations. That is, these moder-
ately volatile elements could be transported from Mercury’s
hottest regions (reaching up to 700 K) to colder areas
(e.g., the poles, with maximum temperatures <300 K)
over geological timescales. Variations in the abundance
of nonvolatile major elements (e.g., Mg) (Weider et al.
2015), however, correlate with those of the more volatile
elements. Thermal effects, therefore, are unlikely to have
been a major cause of the observed geochemical variations,
albeit with one important exception. A marked decrease
in the measured neutron flux at high northern latitudes is
indicative of an increase in the abundance of H (Lawrence
et al. 2013). Together with other lines of evidence, these
GRNS data have been used to infer the presence of substan-
tial water-ice deposits within permanently shadowed polar
impact craters (Chabot et al. 2018). These ice deposits most
likely formed via gradual redistribution of water molecules
to the cold traps in the craters. It is likely that the water was
delivered via comet and/or volatile-rich asteroid impacts.
Another surprise from the early MESSENGER orbital
observations was the discovery of S (a moderately volatile
element) at weight percent concentrations in Mercury’s
surface (Nittler et al. 2011; Evans et al. 2012). Mercury’s
surface has an average of ~4 wt% S, which is an order of
magnitude greater than Earth’s typical crust (<0.1 wt% S).
The high S abundance is additional evidence of Mercury’s
high volatile content, but, more importantly, it has impli-
cations for understanding the planet’s redox conditions
(discussed in more detail below).
Nonvolatile Major Elements on Mercury
The MESSENGER XRS and GRNS data show that Mercury’s
major-element surface composition is markedly different
from that of the Earth and Moon (Nittler et al. 2011, 2018).
In addition to its unusually high S abundance, Mercury
has, on average, higher Mg/Si and lower Al/Si and Ca/Si
ratios compared with typical terrestrial and lunar crustal
A B
High-Mg Mg/Si Caloris
region basin 0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Ca/Si
0.10
Al/Si
0.36
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.12
0.08
(A) Maps of Mg/Si (upper) and Al/Si (lower) weight
Figure 3
ratios across Mercury’s surface in an orthographic
projection, centered on –40°E (left) and 140°E (right) longitudes.
The element-ratio maps are overlain on a base-map created from
MESSENGER imagery. Red horizontal lines marked on the ratio scales
indicate global averages. For comparison, Earth’s crust has average
Mg/Si and Al/Si ratios of ~0.08 and ~0.3, respectively.
E lements
rocks (Fig. 3). Mercury’s average surface Fe abundance is
1–2 wt% (Evans et al. 2012; Weider et al. 2014), which
is lower than the average for Earth’s crust (4–8 wt%).
Reflectance spectroscopy results constrain the amount of
oxidized Fe (FeO) on Mercury’s surface to <1 wt% (Murchie
et al. 2015). Mercury’s surface Fe must, therefore, be present
in a reduced form (as a metal and/or sulfide).
The relatively high Mg/Si ratio, as well as the low Al/Si and
Fe/Si ratios, are evidence that Mercury’s crust did not form
as a lunar-like flotation crust dominated by plagioclase.
There is a strong correlation between the Ca/Si and S/Si
ratios measured by the XRS across the planet (Fig. 3B).
This was originally interpreted as evidence for Ca-bearing
sulfides (Nittler et al. 2011), but may just reflect mixing
of compositional end-members. In fact, the only measure-
ment that lies significantly away from the correlation trend
is that of a large, bright pyroclastic deposit northeast of
the Rachmaninoff impact basin (Weider et al. 2016). It is
thought that the oxidation of sulfide species (via reaction
with oxides in the magma or assimilated materials) during
the ascent of magma in this pyroclastic eruption created
S-bearing volatile species. The loss of these species could
account for the anomalous Ca/S trend for the region (see
Thomas and Rothery 2019 this issue).
The earliest MESSENGER orbital geochemical data indicated
substantial heterogeneity on Mercury (Nittler et al. 2011;
Peplowski et al. 2012), and four years of orbital data allowed
elemental variations to be investigated in greater detail. In
particular, maps of elemental ratios (e.g., Fig. 3A) and of
neutron emission fluxes revealed the presence of “geochem-
ical terranes,” i.e., regions with compositions distinct from
their surroundings (McCoy et al. 2018; Nittler et al. 2018).
In some, but not all, cases, these terranes align with well-
defined geological boundaries. There is no consensus on the
exact definition or number of such terranes, but perhaps
the most distinctive is the “high-Mg region,” a large area
in Mercury’s western hemisphere that exhibits the highest
Mg/Si, S/Si, Ca/Si, and Fe/Si ratios, and the lowest Al/Si
ratios on the planet (Fig. 3A). At another compositional
extreme, the interior volcanic plains of Mercury’s largest
confirmed impact feature, the Caloris basin, have a compo-
sition that is relatively rich in Al and poor in Mg, S, K, and
0.4
Earth crust
0.3
Rachmaninoff
PD
0.2
0.1
Mercury
average
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
S/Si
(B) Graph of Ca/Si as a function of S/Si for ~1,400 MESSENGER
X-Ray Spectrometer measurements (blue circles). The yellow box
indicates the range of these element ratios in Earth’s crust and the
purple star indicates the composition of a large pyroclastic deposit
(PD on figure) near the Rachmaninoff basin. Data after Weider et al.
(2016).
35 F ebruary 2019
Fe. The large expanse of volcanic smooth plains at high
northern latitudes is enriched in K, relative to Caloris, but
exhibits at least two compositional terranes, one with very
low Mg and Al abundances, and another with more inter-
mediate composition and distinctive neutron flux.
On the basis of its extremely high Mg content, it was
postulated that the high-Mg region could be the degraded
remains of a very large impact basin that contains exposed
mantle material (Weider et al. 2015). Subsequent studies,
however, have shown that this interpretation is highly
unlikely (Namur and Charlier 2017). It is more probable
that the compositions of the high-Mg region and the other
geochemical terranes primarily reflect variations in the
degree of melting from chemically heterogeneous source
regions in the mantle (discussed more below) and subse-
quent impact modification (Namur and Charlier 2017;
McCoy et al. 2018).
Carbon on Mercury
MESSENGER’s spectral reflectance measurements show that
Mercury’s surface is substantially darker than that of the
Moon. The low surface abundances of Fe and Ti on Mercury,
however, rule out ilmenite (FeTiO3), which is the Moon’s
primary darkening phase, as a major component and the
reason for the planet’s low reflectance. Instead, modeling of
Mercury’s reflectance spectra has shown that a few weight
percent C, in the form of fine-grained graphite, could be
responsible for darkening the planet’s surface (Murchie et
al. 2015). Moreover, analysis of GRNS γ-ray data provided
an average upper limit of ~4 wt% C for Mercury’s surface
(Peplowski et al. 2015), which is consistent with the reflec-
tance modeling. Such an abundance is substantially higher
than for other terrestrial bodies. For example, C makes up
less than 0.2 wt% of Earth’s crust.
In addition to the γ-ray data, MESSENGER neutron measure-
ments were an invaluable part of identifying C as a major
darkening phase on Mercury’s surface. Carbon is a poor
absorber of low-energy (<1 electron volt) neutrons, so
variations in C abundance can lead to variations in the
flux of these neutrons from the planet’s surface. The
darkest material on Mercury is known as “low-reflectance
material.” This material is heterogeneously distributed
A B
65
Altitude (km)
Latitude
Neutrons (cts/s)
250 km
30
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30
East longitude
(A) A region of Mercury enriched in low-reflectance
Figure 4
material (dark blue in this enhanced-color representa-
tion, which is based on a mathematical treatment of MESSENGER
color imagery). (B) Spacecraft altitude and low-energy neutron
count rate for a portion of a MESSENGER orbit on 23 August 2014.
The blue symbols indicate when the spacecraft was above the
E lements
and thought to be excavated from depth in the crust by
impact processes (Denevi et al. 2009). Towards the end
of the MESSENGER mission, the spacecraft altitude was
low enough for spatially resolved low-energy neutron
measurements to be performed with the GRNS instru-
ment. Measurements from three low-reflectance-material-
enriched (to varying degrees) areas clearly indicated an
increase in neutron flux compared with the immediate
surroundings (Peplowski et al. 2016). These results were
best explained by an enhanced C abundance (Fig. 4) in the
low-reflectance material regions. The combined spectral,
γ-ray, and neutron results provide convincing evidence that
weight percent levels of C are present on Mercury, likely in
the form of graphite. In addition, the most C-rich material
appears to be endogenic and to have been exposed at the
surface via impact excavation.
IMPLICATIONS OF MERCURY’S SURFACE
COMPOSITION
It was recognized early in MESSENGER’s orbital mission that
the high S and low Fe contents of Mercury’s surface are
indicators of Mercury’s formation under much more chemi-
cally reducing conditions than the other terrestrial planets
(Nittler et al. 2011). Experimental work has shown that
as the availability of O decreases in a planetary environ-
ment, less Fe and more S are partitioned into silicate melts
(e.g., Namur et al. 2016a). Mercury’s MESSENGER-derived
surface composition (and, by extension, its mantle compo-
sition) is, therefore, evidence of formation from highly
reduced starting materials, such as the asteroidal parent
bodies of enstatite chondrite meteorites. Estimates of the
O fugacity (the amount of O available to participate in
chemical reactions) of Mercury’s interior range from three
to seven orders of magnitude below the iron–wüstite buffer,
where the reaction Fe + ½O2 → FeO obtains equilibrium
(Zolotov et al. 2013; Namur et al. 2016a). These estimates
are based on S-partitioning experiments (as a function
of redox conditions). For comparison, the O fugacity of
Earth’s upper mantle is at least 100 times higher than the
iron–wüstite buffer. In addition to Mercury’s unusually
large core, the planet also seems to have formed under
much more reducing conditions than the other terrestrial
01:36 01:42 01:48 01:54 02:00
1000
100
10
30
25
20
01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46 01:47 01:48 01:49
23 August 2014
low-reflectance material area shown in 4A. The neutron counts (in
counts per second) are higher for the low-reflectance material than
expected from the average trend (blue curve) of values measured
outside the low-reflectance material (green symbols) for the orbit.
This indicates an enhanced abundance of carbon. Figures modified
from Peplowski et al . (2016).
36 F ebruary 2019
planets. Many of the geologic implications of this reduced
chemistry are explored further by Cartier and Wood (2019
this issue).
The MESSENGER surface composition results have stimu-
lated several recent experimental and/or theoretical studies
aimed at determining the mineral assemblages that could
be present on Mercury’s surface, and better understanding
the composition and geological evolution of the planet’s
thin silicate mantle (e.g., Stockstill-Cahill et al. 2012;
Namur et al. 2016b; McCubbin et al. 2017; Namur and
Charlier 2017; Vander Kaaden et al. 2017; McCoy et al.
2018). The results of these studies show that Mercury’s
surface is mainly dominated by FeO-poor pyroxene
(enstatite) and olivine (forsterite), Na-rich plagioclase, and
Mg–Ca–Fe-sulfide assemblages, with varying amounts of
these minerals accounting for the variation among the
planet’s geochemical terranes. Although early results
suggested similarities with terrestrial komatiites (Nittler et
al. 2011), more recent work suggests that Mercury’s surface
rocks are better characterized as norites or boninites (e.g.,
Vander Kaaden et al. 2017). The elemental heterogeneity
observed on the surface likely reflects both a chemically
heterogeneous (layered) mantle, as well as variable-
degree partial melts that produced the surface plains lava
flows. Consideration of both the inferred mantle melting
temperatures and the surface ages for different geochemical
terranes provides evidence for strong secular cooling of the
mantle prior to 3.7 Ga (Namur et al. 2016b).
By using mineralogies that were derived from melting
experiments on Mercury’s end-member compositions,
Nittler et al. (2018) back-calculated the original composi-
tion of the mantle sources for Mercury’s surface lavas. The
results show that Mercury’s bulk silicate composition is
consistent with that of enstatite chondrite meteorites (once
a Si-rich metallic melt has been subtracted from them). This
indicates that Mercury’s original silicate building blocks
fall within the observed range of known planetesimal
compositions in the inner part of the Sun’s protoplanetary
disk. Although enstatite chondrites are often cited as the
best meteoritic analogs for Earth’s precursor materials, this
argument is largely made on isotopic grounds. Indeed,
Earth is substantially less reduced than enstatite chondrites
or Mercury (Cartier and Wood 2019 this issue).
The chemical heterogeneity of Mercury’s mantle—as
evidenced by the geochemical terranes—can be explained
if Mercury went through a “magma ocean” phase early
in its history (i.e., when at least its silicate portion would
have been largely molten). Fractional crystallization in
the magma ocean, followed by sinking and/or floating
of different mineral phases, and subsequent convective
overturn, could have given rise to the large-scale chemical
variations that are observed. Although a feldspar-rich crust
floating on a lunar magma ocean is the accepted explana-
tion for the highly Al-rich nature of the lunar highlands,
Mercury’s highly reduced composition means that the
mineralogies of its magma ocean and flotation crust would
have been different (Vander Kaaden and McCubbin 2015;
Cartier and Wood 2019 this issue). Given the low Fe content
of Mercury’s silicate portion, it is unlikely that there was
a sufficient density contrast between plagioclase and the
FeO-poor magma for a plagioclase-rich (Al-rich) crust to
form, which is consistent with the MESSENGER surface
composition results. In fact, only one phase—graphite—is
thought to have been stable in the reducing conditions
of Mercury’s magma ocean and have a sufficiently low
density to float (Vander Kaaden and McCubbin 2015).
The observations of high C abundances within Mercury’s
low-reflectance material could be a chemical signature of
E lements
this “exotic” primordial graphite flotation crust (Vander
Kaaden and McCubbin 2015; Cartier and Wood 2019 this
issue; Charlier and Namur 2019 this issue).
Mercury’s bulk composition is a parameter of extreme
importance in understanding the origin of the planet, but
accurate estimates of this depend on the highly uncertain
composition of its large metallic core. Cartier and Wood
(2019 this issue) point out that Mercury’s highly reduced
state makes it likely that the core contains significant
amounts of Si. However, our lack of a detailed under-
standing of how Mercury formed, as well as limitations
in present elemental partitioning data, mean that a wide
range of compositions are possible (Namur et al. 2016a;
Nittler et al. 2018). Geochemical considerations and plane-
tary interior models (based on geophysical measurements
of Mercury’s gravity field) have also led to the suggestion
that Mercury’s large Fe–Si-rich core is surrounded by a thin
layer of FeS. Figure 5 shows a range of possible bulk Fe/Si
and Mg/Si ratios for Mercury. These values are based on
assumptions regarding the amount of Si and S in the core,
and the possible presence of an FeS layer at the base of the
mantle (Nittler et al. 2019). Although the estimated bulk
Fe/Si ratio varies by a factor of eight (depending on the
assumed core composition), this graph clearly illustrates
Mercury’s strongly anomalous composition among the
terrestrial planets—a fact that has been recognized since
its high density was discovered.
20
r
ye
15 la
S
Fe
km
Bulk 10
0 er 0 wt%
lay
Fe/Si
10 Mercury S
Fe cor
e
no i in
S
ing
as
re
5 inc
Sun Earth
25 wt% E
chondrites
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Mg/Si
Figure 5 The Fe/Si weight ratio as a function of Mg/Si ratio for
the Sun, Earth, enstatite (E) chondrite meteorites, and
Mercury bulk composition estimates. A wide range of bulk composi-
tions for Mercury are possible, depending on how much Si is
contained in the planet’s metallic core and if there is an FeS layer at
the base of the mantle. Modified from N ittler et al. (2018).
OUTLOOK
The rich geochemical data sets returned by the MESSENGER
spacecraft have revealed a volatile-enriched and highly
chemically reduced planetary surface. After decades of
data-poor speculation regarding Mercury’s chemical
nature, the most recent results from MESSENGER allow
some prior models of Mercury’s origin to be excluded
(Ebel and Stewart 2018). The overall question of how
Mercury obtained its anomalous, extremely metal-rich,
composition, however, remains unanswered. The combined
anomalous core size, volatile enrichment, and chemically
37 F ebruary 2019
reduced nature present a major challenge for modeling
Mercury’s formation and planetary accretion in the inner
solar system. Looking forward to 2025, geochemical
instruments onboard the European Space Agency/Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency BepiColombo mission will
provide data that will build on the MESSENGER results
and provide important new insights into the innermost
planet’s geochemical character, origin, and evolution. In
particular, BepiColombo will allow high-resolution mapping
REFERENCES
Cartier C, Wood BJ (2019) Mercury differ-
entiation under reducing conditions.
Elements 15: 39-45
Chabot NL, Lawrence DJ, Neumann
GA, Feldman WC, Paige DA (2018)
Mercury’s polar deposits. In: Solomon
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 346-370
Charlier B and Namur O (2019) Planet
Mercury: an end-member of our solar
system. Elements 15: 9-14
Denevi BW and 10 coauthors (2009) The
evolution of Mercury’s crust: a global
perspective from MESSENGER. Science
324: 613-618
Ebel DS, Stewart ST (2018) The elusive
origin of Mercury. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 497-515
Evans LG and 13 coauthors (2012) Major-
element abundances on the surface of
Mercury: results from the MESSENGER
Gamma-ray Spectrometer. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Planets 117, doi:
10.1029/2012JE004178
Evans LG and 10 coauthors (2015)
Chlorine on the surface of Mercury:
MESSENGER gamma-ray measurements
and implications for the planet’s forma-
tion and evolution. Icarus 257: 417-427
Lawrence DJ and 12 coauthors (2013)
Evidence for water ice near Mercury’s
north pole from MESSENGER neutron
spectrometer measurements. Science
339: 292-296
McCoy TJ, Peplowski PN, McCubbin FM,
Weider SZ (2018) The geochemical and
mineralogical diversity of Mercury.
In: Solomon SC, Nittler LR, Anderson
BJ (eds) Mercury: The View after
MESSENGER. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 176-190
McCubbin FM, Riner MA, Vander
Kaaden KE, Burkemper LK (2012)
Is Mercury a volatile-rich planet?
Geophysical Research Letters 39, doi:
10.1029/2012GL051711
E lements
of elemental abundances across Mercury’s southern
hemisphere, a region that has remained uncharacterized
and/or unresolved in the MESSENGER data sets.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Asmaa Boujibar, Bernard Charlier,
Francis McCubbin, Olivier Namur, and Patrick Peplowski
for helpful comments that improved this article.
McCubbin FM and 9 coauthors (2017) Mercury: results from the MESSENGER
A low O/Si ratio on the surface of Gamma-Ray Spectrometer. Planetary
Mercury: evidence for silicon smelting? and Space Science 108: 98-107
Journal of Geophysical Research:
Peplowski PN and 9 coauthors (2016)
Planets 122: 2053-2076
Remote sensing evidence for an ancient
Murchie SL and 15 coauthors (2015) carbon-bearing crust on Mercury.
Orbital multispectral mapping of Nature Geoscience 9: 273-276
Mercury with the MESSENGER Mercury
Solomon SC, Byrne PK (2019) The
Dual Imaging System: evidence for the
exploration of Mercury by spacecraft.
origins of plains units and low-reflec-
Elements 15: 15-20
tance material. Icarus 254: 287-305
Stockstill-Cahill KR, McCoy TJ, Nittler
Namur O, Charlier B (2017) Silicate
LR, Weider SZ, Hauck SA (2012)
mineralogy at the surface of Mercury.
Magnesium-rich crustal compositions
Nature Geoscience 10: 9-13
on Mercury: implications for magma-
Namur O, Charlier B, Holtz F, Cartier C, tism from petrologic modeling. Journal
McCammon C (2016a) Sulfur solubility of Geophysical Research: Planets 117,
in reduced mafic silicate melts: implica- doi: 10.1029/2012JE004140
tions for the speciation and distribu-
Thomas R, Rothery DA (2019) Volcanism
tion of sulfur on Mercury. Earth and
on Mercury. Elements 15: 27-32
Planetary Science Letters 448: 102-114
Vander Kaaden KE, McCubbin FM (2015)
Namur O and 5 coauthors (2016b)
Exotic crust formation on Mercury:
Melting processes and mantle sources of
consequences of a shallow, FeO-poor
lavas on Mercury. Earth and Planetary
mantle. Journal of Geophysical
Science Letters 439: 117-128
Research: Planets 120: 195-209
Nittler LR and 14 coauthors (2011)
Vander Kaaden KE and 6 coauthors
The major-element composition of
(2017) Geochemistry, mineralogy, and
Mercury’s surface from MESSENGER
petrology of boninitic and komatiitic
X-ray spectrometry. Science 333:
rocks on the mercurian surface: insights
1847-1850
into the mercurian mantle. Icarus 285:
Nittler LR, Chabot NL, Grove TL, 155-168
Peplowski PN (2018) The chemical
Weider SZ, Nittler LR, Starr RD, McCoy
composition of Mercury. In: Solomon
TJ, Solomon SC (2014) Variations in the
SC, Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds)
abundance of iron on Mercury’s surface
Mercury: The View after MESSENGER.
from MESSENGER X-Ray Spectrometer
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
observations. Icarus 235: 170-186
pp 30-51
Weider SZ and 10 coauthors (2015)
Peplowski PN and 11 coauthors (2012)
Evidence for geochemical terranes on
Variations in the abundances of potas-
Mercury: global mapping of major
sium and thorium on the surface of
elements with MESSENGER’s X-Ray
Mercury: results from the MESSENGER
Spectrometer. Earth and Planetary
Gamma-Ray Spectrometer. Journal of
Science Letters 416: 109-120
Geophysical Research: Planets 117, doi:
10.1029/2012JE004141 Weider SZ and 12 coauthors (2016)
Evidence from MESSENGER for sulfur-
Peplowski PN and 10 coauthors (2014)
and carbon-driven explosive volcanism
Enhanced sodium abundance in
on Mercury. Geophysical Research
Mercury’s north polar region revealed
Letters 43: 3653-3661
by the MESSENGER Gamma-Ray
Spectrometer. Icarus 228: 86-95 Zolotov MY and 5 coauthors (2013) The
redox state, FeO content, and origin of
Peplowski PN and 11 coauthors (2015)
sulfur-rich magmas on Mercury. Journal
Constraints on the abundance of
of Geophysical Research: Planets 118:
carbon in near-surface materials on
138-146
38 F ebruary 2019
 The Role of Reducing
Conditions in Building Mercury

Camille Cartier1 and Bernard J. Wood2

1811-5209/19/0015-0039$2.50  DOI: 10.2138/gselements.15.1.39

E
xtremely reducing conditions, such as those that prevailed during the planet, and that its formation and
accretion and differentiation of Mercury, change the “normal” pattern of differentiation occurred under
low oxygen fugacity (fO2 ) condi-
behaviour of many chemical elements. Lithophile elements can become tions (Zolotov et al. 2013). Such
chalcophile, siderophile elements can become lithophile, and volatile elements conditions are unique among the
can become refractory. In this context, unexpected elements, such as Si, are solar system’s terrestrial planets
and have induced a variety of
extracted to the core, while others (S, C) concentrate in the silicate portion features that, in combination, are
of the planet, eventually leading to an exotic surface mineralogy. In this peculiar to Mercury: a large and
article, experimental, theoretical and cosmochemical arguments are applied partially molten core (Hauck and
Johnson 2019 this issue), explosive
to the understanding of how reducing conditions influenced Mercury, from
volcanism (Thomas and Rothery
the nature of its building blocks to the dynamics of its volcanism. 2019 this issue), and exotic
Keywords : Mercury, enstatite meteorites, planetary differentiation, oxygen surface mineralogy (Namur and
fugacity, element partitioning Charlier 2017). Moreover, because
Mercury’s extremely low f O2 is
INTRODUCTION comparable with that of enstatite
meteorites, it is likely that Mercury’s primitive building
The bulk chemical composition of a planet is controlled blocks formed in the solar nebula in similarly reducing
by the nature of the primitive materials which accrete to environments.
it and by late accretionary processes such as giant impacts.
The differentiation and structure of the resultant planet MERCURY AND OTHER REDUCED SOLAR
then develops through extensive melting to produce the
SYSTEM OBJECTS
“magma ocean” stage, which in turn leads to the formation
of the core, the mantle and the primordial crust. During How Do We Estimate the Oxygen Fugacity
this stage, several phases are in equilibrium: a silicate of Planetary Materials?
liquid, a metallic liquid, and, depending on the bulk From a thermodynamic point of view, oxygen fugacity is
amount of sulfur, one or more sulfide liquids. The pressure, equivalent to the equilibrium partial pressure (p) of oxygen
temperature and chemical composition of the system set in a given environment (e.g., the atmosphere, rocks, and
the geochemical behaviour of the chemical elements, so on). Air, which has a total pressure of 1.013 bar at sea
which partition into the different reservoirs according level has a mole fraction of oxygen of 0.2095. This means
to their affinities: lithophile (“rock-loving”) elements that the fO of air is 1.013 bar × 0.2095 = 0.212 bar (log
2
concentrate in the silicate portion of the planet; sidero- fO = –0.68), which results in highly oxidizing conditions.
2
phile (“metal-loving”) and chalcophile (“sulfide-loving”) During the condensation of the first solids in the nebula,
elements are mainly extracted to the core. The cooling and fO was controlled by the partial pressure of O2, which was
2
crystallization of the magma ocean lead to the formation itself imposed by the composition of the gas and, in partic-
of the mantle and the primitive crust. Subsequently, the ular, its high H/O ratio. This comes from the equilibrium:
internal energy of the young planet continues to dissipate,
driving mantle melting and volcanic episodes that form H2 + 0.5O2 = H2O (1)
a secondary crust. The MESSENGER spacecraft, which was
The equilibrium constant for reaction (1), Kw, is derived
launched by NASA in 2004 and spent four years orbiting
from thermodynamic measurements. At, for example
the planet Mercury between 2011 and 2015 before its
1,600 K, the logarithm of Kw is 5.185 (value from thermo-
termination, has provided data on this secondary crust
dynamic tables). This gives us:
of Mercury. pH2O
log K w = 5.185 = log (2)
Among the compositional data obtained by MESSENGER, pH2 • pO02.5
the unusually high S and low FeO contents of the surface
lavas has resulted in the idea that Mercury is a “reduced” If we make the usual assumption that the nebula pressure
was 10 −4 bar, then calculating all C as CO and the remaining
O as H2O yields an H2O pressure of 5 × 10 −8 bar. Given that
the gas is > 99% H2 means that pH2 is almost exactly the
1 Centre de Recherches Pétrographiques et Géochimiques
Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France same as the total pressure, i.e., 10 −4 bar. Therefore,
E-mail: Camille.cartier@univ-lorraine.fr log pO2 = 2pH2O – 2log pH2 – 10.37
2 Department of Earth Sciences
University of Oxford
log pO2 = 2(–7.3) – 2(–4) – 10.37 = –16.97 (3)
Oxford, United Kingdom
E-mail: bernie.wood@earth.ox.ac.uk with the result for pO2 (or also fO2 ) in bar.

E lements , V ol . 15, pp. 39–45 39 F ebruary 2019

 A B
(A) Oxygen fugacities of various objects of the solar
Figure 1
system, relative to iron–wüstite (IW) equilibrium, and
compared with the f O2 of a nebular gas of solar composition.
Chondrite f O2 range is represented by a dashed line to express that
chondrites are highly unequilibrated objects. Abbreviations: CAI =
calcium–aluminium inclusion; CO3 chondrite = carbonaceous
Ornans-type chondrite, petrologic type 3; EH4 = high-enstatite
chondrite, petrologic type 4; EL6 = low-enstatite chondrite, petro-
logic type 6; H chondrite = high-metal chondrite; MORB =
mid-ocean ridge basalt. (B) Urey–Craig-type diagram showing Fe
distribution in terrestrial planets and many varieties of chondrite
It is easier to conceptualize this result by considering
elements such as Fe, which is more abundant than H2 in
terrestrial planets. If we react Fe metal with a sample of
FeO (wüstite), then the fO2 for the iron–wüstite equilibrium
(IW) is defined by:
FeO = Fe + 0.5O2 (4)
At 1,600 K and 10 −4 bar, the log(fO2 ) or log(pO2 ) for equilib-
rium (4) is −10.44, which means that the solar gas (log
fO2 = −16.97, from equation 3 above) is 6.5 log fO2 units
more reducing than the IW equilibrium (IW−6.5), which
is shown in Figure 1A.
Given the high concentration of Fe in the solar system,
fO2 in planets is usually defined by the distribution of iron
between its three common oxidation states: Fe 0, Fe2+ and
Fe3+. In the state of Fe 0, the element makes alloys, whereas
the Fe2+ and Fe3+ states tend to form silicates and oxides.
Thus, the oxidation state can be roughly translated into
petrological terms and, at a planetary scale, into varying
proportions of silicates, oxides, and metals. In the case of
the Earth, the ratio of oxidized to reduced iron leads to
an fO2 about 2 log units below IW at the time of accretion;
for Mars or Vesta, this ratio is about one log fO2 unit more
oxidized (Fig. 1).
Another way of estimating fO2 consists of using oxybarom-
eters. These are fO2 proxies, experimentally calibrated and
based on the change of valence state and/or the chemical
behaviour of some elements, called “redox-sensitive
elements”, with fO2 . For example, Ti, which occurs exclu-
sively in the form of Ti4+ in terrestrial silicates, changes to
Ti3+ under highly reducing conditions. Measuring the Ti3+/
Ti4+ ratio in a refractory calcium–aluminium-rich inclu-
sion (CAI) embedded in a chondritic meteorite provides
an estimate of 7 log units below IW (IW–7) for the condi-
tions of condensation of these objects in the solar nebula
(Grossman et al. 2008) (Fig. 1A).
E lements
(anhydrous bulk). “Oxidized Fe” occurs as or within silicates and
oxides; “reduced Fe” occurs as or within metal and sulfides.
Abbreviations: C = carbonaceous chondrite; CB = Bencubbin-type
carbonaceous chondrite; CI = Ivuna-type carbonaceous chondrite;
CH = high-metal carbonaceous chondrite; CR = Renazzo-type
carbonaceous chondrite; EC = enstatite chondrite; H = high-metal
chondrite; L = low total-Fe chondrite; LL = low total-Fe and
low-metal chondrite; R = Rumuruti-type chondrite. Planetary and
chondrite data calculated after L odders and Fegley (1998) and
Jarosewich (1990).
Oxygen Fugacity on Mercury
A starting point for estimating the fO2 of Mercury is to
consider the distribution of Fe after segregation of the
metallic Fe-rich core. The iron concentrations at the
surface, as measured by MESSENGER, are 0.4 < Fe wt% <
2.7, with a mean content of 1.5 wt% (Weider et al. 2015).
Assuming that all the iron is oxidized (i.e., in the form of
FeO) and is representative of the planet bulk silicate, one
can calculate an effective fO2 in the range of 2.8 to 4.5 log
units below IW. This makes Mercury the most reduced
planet of the inner solar system (Fig. 1). When we investi-
gate the details of Mercury’s surface composition (Fig. 2),
we find S contents up to 3.5%, which are values used
by Namur et al. (2016a) as an alternative oxybarometer.
Indeed, sulfur redox state and solubility in silicate melts
is strongly dependent on oxygen fugacity (see discussion
below). Using sulfur abundances in Mercury lavas, Namur
et al. (2016a) estimated a mean fO2 of IW−5.4.
The apparent mismatch between the fO2 given by Fe and
that given by S has often been considered a paradox,
because at fO2 < IW–4, experiments show that silicate
melts do not contain more than 1 wt% FeO (Chabot et al.
2014; Malavergne et al. 2014) (Fig. 2). This paradox can
be resolved by considering that, at Mercury’s surface, Fe is
mainly carried by sulfides (Ca–Mg sulfides containing a few
wt% of Fe) (Fig. 2B) rather than silicates, something that
has been suggested by spectral data. Such sulfides could
have formed as an immiscible melt during core formation
and be stored in the mantle.
The Redox Gradation Among Solar
System Objects
It has been known for half a century that, in ordinary
chondrites, the abundance of oxidized iron anticorrelates
with the abundance of metal and the total iron amount
(Urey and Craig 1953). This anticorrelation is illustrated in
40 F ebruary 2019
 A B
(A) Sulfur and iron contents measured at Mercury’s
Figure 2
surface (yellow dots) normalized to the mean Si
surface content of 25 wt% and compared to experimental silicate
melts compiled from the literature. This figure illustrates Mercury’s
“iron paradox” i.e., none of the experimental silicate melts,
whatever the redox conditions, match Mercury’s surface
­composition.
a “Urey–Craig diagram”, which plots oxidized iron contents
versus reduced iron for terrestrial planets and for chondritic
meteorites (Fig. 1B). Thus, most carbonaceous chondrites,
which come from the outer part of the asteroid belt, are
oxidized objects and their bulk iron content is similar to
that of the nebula, as represented by CI (carbonaceous
Ivuna-type) chondrites. In contrast, enstatite chondrites
and bencubbinites are, together with Mercury, the most
reduced objects. This gradation also correlates with water
contents which seem, at first glance, to increase with
heliocentric distance. The origin of these correlations is
still debated, and various phenomena have been invoked:
temperature-driven chemical fractionation during conden-
sation of the nebular gas, magnetic and cosmic processes
(such as photophoresis) and water-driven oxidation occur-
ring during planetary migrations in the early solar system
(Charlier and Namur 2019 this issue). The solar system’s
chemical gradation indicates that planetary accretion
close to the Sun would probably produce a Mercury-like
object. The high core/silicate ratio of Mercury may, there-
fore, simply reflect the environment of formation rather
than, as has been suggested, mantle that has been lost by
a giant impact. Further, the high core/silicate ratio also
suggests that reduced meteorites, bencubbinites, enstatite
chondrites, and enstatite achondrites (aubrites) may have
formed in a similar nebular environment and under very
low oxygen fugacities.
It is worth noting that Cr and Ti stable isotope compo-
sitions of meteorites and planets contradict the idea of
a continuous chemical gradation in the solar system
and show, on the contrary, a dichotomy (Warren et al.
2011). Interpreting the available data for these two stable
isotopes suggests that the planetary objects of our solar
system would be affiliated to two distinct reservoirs in
the accretion disc: (1) an inner reservoir that would have
given birth to the terrestrial planets and the ordinary and
enstatite chondrites; (2) an outer reservoir, located beyond
Jupiter’s orbit, that would have given birth to carbonaceous
chondrites, including the metal-rich bencubbinites.
E lements
(B) Sulfur and iron correlation at Mercury’s surface matches the
mean Fe/S ratio of Mg–Ca–Fe–S melts produced in highly reducing
experiments and in some exotic sulfides found in enstatite meteor-
ites, in particular daubréelite, niningerite and keilite. Therefore, the
accumulation of different amounts of such a phase in Mercury’s
lavas is a possible explanation of Mercury’s Fe paradox. Exp =
experimental. Data from Weider et al. (2015).
Enstatite Meteorites: Mercury’s
Building Blocks?
Because of their apparent redox state, enstatite chondrites
and bencubbin-like chondrites (CB chondrites) have
historically been considered as possible building blocks
for Mercury. In the following, we describe briefly these
two groups of meteorites and show that neither of them
match the bulk composition of Mercury. More generally,
the idea that chondrites are planetary building blocks is
challenged by the chemical and isotopic mismatches. The
chondrites are better used to highlight special features of
planets and assign them to particular conditions in the
accretion disc. In addition, isotopic arguments seem to rule
out the possibility of a genetic link between bencubbinites
and Mercury (Warren et al. 2011). However, it is important
to study these meteorites because they are the only ones
to match Mercury’s bulk iron content.
Enstatite Meteorites
Enstatite chondrites are dry and reduced meteorites which
may be linked to M-type asteroids [those made dominantly
Fe(Ni) metal] located in the innermost asteroid belt. Unlike
other chondrites, which mainly contain olivine, their major
silicate phase is near-pure end-member orthopyroxene (FeO
< 1 wt%). They also contain large amounts (~13–28 vol%)
of Fe(Ni) metal and this metal contains several wt% silicon.
The combination of low FeO and Si-bearing metal indicates
that enstatite chondrites formed in a very reduced nebular
environment (see discussion below). Another remarkable
feature of enstatite chondrites is the occurrence of a wide
variety of unusual sulfides: mainly Ti–Cr-bearing troilite
(FeS), oldhamite ((Ca,Mg)S), niningerite ((Mg,Fe,Mn)S)
(Fig. 3) and other sulfides formed by cations that are usually
lithophile (such as djerfisherite K6Na(Fe,Cu,Ni)25S26Cl). The
sulfides in enstatite chondrites also contain trace nitrides
and carbides: the stabilities of such compounds also require
extremely low fO2 (Keil 2010), even more reducing than
the solar gas (Fig. 1).
Aubrites are enstatite achondrites which share most of the
special features of enstatite chondrites. They are mainly
composed of FeO-free enstatite, minor albitic plagioclase,
nearly FeO-free diopside and forsterite, and accessory
exotic sulfides. As in enstatite chondrites, the sulfides in
aubrites are formed by cations that are usually lithophile
41 F ebruary 2019
 prior to an experiment (Fig. 4). Metallic
A B
elements can undergo oxidation–reduc-
tion reactions analogous to reaction (4),
which is the Fe–FeO equilibrium, that are
mainly controlled by fO2 . Let us consider
the typically lithophile element silicon:
SiO2 (silicate) = Si (metal) + O2(gas) (5)

As fO2 is reduced, the reaction is “pulled”

to the right, which tends to stabilize
the metal at the expense of the oxide
dissolved in the silicate. In this metal–
silicate equilibrium, the geochemical
behaviour of Si is quantified by its parti-
(A) Scanning electron microscope chemical map of an tion coefficient D Si, defined as follows:
Figure 3
enstatite chondrite. The mineralogy of these meteor-
ites is similar to the putative mineralogy of Mercury’s mantle. [Si]metal
Map  courtesy L. Piani, Hokkaidō U niversity, Japan. (B) Photograph of a DSi = (6)
bencubbin-like chondrite. These meteorites are the only ones to [Si]silicate
share Mercury’s iron bulk abundance. Abbreviations: Ch =
chondrule; En = enstatite; Mes = glassy mesostasis; Met = metal; Thus, as can be seen in Figure 5B, Si becomes increasingly
Nin = niningerite; Old = oldhamite; Tr = troilite. siderophile as fO2 is reduced. At the conditions of Mercury
Image credit S. K amabch. differentiation, we therefore expect that a substantial
amount of Si is incorporated in the core-forming alloys.
The opposite effect is observed for sulfur, which partitions
(Ca, Mg), and the trace iron-metal blebs contain significant less strongly into the metal with decreasing fO2 and changes
amounts of Si (Keil 2010). At the moment, aubrites are its behaviour from siderophile to lithophile under IW−5
the best analogue rocks of the surface of Mercury. Should (Fig. 5A). This can be understood in terms of the following
any meteorites arrive from Mercury, they would almost equilibrium:
certainly be classified as an aubrite. Petrology experi-
ments show that partial melting of enstatite chondrites Fe (metal) + S2– (silicate) + 0.5O2(gas) = FeS (metal) + O2− (silicate) (7)
produce melts that, in terms of major elements, are
At high fO2 , sulfur resides as FeS in the metal. As fO2 is
similar to aubrites and to Mercury’s surface composition
decreased, the reaction is pulled to the left, causing the
(McCoy et al. 1999). This is principally due to their high
S to enter the silicate melt as a sulfide species, resulting
S contents (3–5 wt%) and the virtual absence of FeO from
in S2– replacing O2− in the silicate framework. The metal
their silicate. Enstatite chondrites cannot, however, be
then becomes S-poor (Kilburn and Wood 1997). Thus, the
the major building blocks of Mercury because their bulk
solubility of sulfur in silicate melts dramatically increases
Fe content is too low (20–35 wt%) compared to that of
from <1 wt% S at IW−2 to >10 wt% S at IW−8 (Namur et
Mercury (60–70 wt% Fe).
al. 2016a). Under the redox conditions of Mercury, lavas
Bencubbinite (CB) Chondrites will then contain several wt% sulfur.
Bencubbinites are a rare group of carbonaceous chondrites. At last, under strongly reducing conditions, many nominally
As with other chondrites, they are aggregations of more or lithophile elements, including uranium, partition strongly
less spherical silicate and metal clasts, but they are distin- into the sulfide (Wohlers and Wood 2015). The reason for
guished by their extremely high modal abundance of this can be understood in terms of the exchange of U and
Fe-rich metal (40–75 wt%) (Figs. 1 and 3). Trace siderophile Fe between silicate and sulfide:
element abundances and distribution among metal blebs
suggest a mixed origin: part of the metal likely condensed
from a nebular gas, whereas the rest probably came from
the vaporization of planetesimal cores during violent
impacts (Lauretta et al. 2009). However, although much
richer in metal than enstatite chondrites, bencubbinites
probably formed under less-reducing conditions, given the
slightly higher FeO contents (≤ 3.5 wt%) of their silicates
and more variable Si contents of their metals. Unlike
enstatite chondrites, CB chondrites are highly depleted
in moderately volatile lithophile elements (Lauretta et al.
2009). This results in CB chondrites being low in volatile
sulfur: they contain few sulfide minerals, though princi-
pally Cr-bearing troilite. Thus, given their low-sulfur
chemistry, they cannot be the source of the high-sulfur
content of Mercury.

THE BEHAVIOUR OF ELEMENTS UNDER

STRONGLY REDUCING CONDITIONS
There have been a number of studies aimed at under-
standing the behaviour of elements under the strongly
reducing conditions of early Mercury (e.g., Kilburn and
Wood 1997; Chabot et al. 2014; Namur et al. 2016a).
Backscattered electron image of an experimental
Experimentally, conditions of IW−3 or lower can be Figure 4
charge. The experiment was performed by Namur et
reproduced with the use of a strong reducing agent, such al. (2016a) at 5 GPa, 1,800 °C and at a fo2 of IW–5.5 in order to
as metallic Si which is mixed with the starting material simulate Mercury magma ocean conditions. Image courtesy O. Namur.

E lements 42 F ebruary 2019

 A C
 UO2(silicate) + 2FeS (sulfide) = 2FeO (silicate) + US2(sulfide) (8)
By lowering the FeO content of the silicate, i.e., decreasing
the fO2 , we “pull” the equilibrium to the right, forcing U
into the sulfide and increasing D U (the partition coefficient
of U between sulphide and silicate). As can be seen in
Figure 5C, at the silicate melt compositions appropriate for
Mercury (< 0.5 wt% FeO), U behaves as a chalcophile, with
D U > 10. This leads to the possibility of concentrating U in
a potential sulfide layer which would provide a radioactive
heat source at the top of the core.
MAKING MERCURY UNDER REDUCING
CONDITIONS
Condensation–Accretion
The first stage of making Mercury involves condensation
of a solar gas. During this process, lithophile elements,
such as Ca and Mg, should condense into silicates while
siderophile elements, such as Fe and Ni, should (according
to thermodynamic calculations) condense into a metal
alloy (Lodders 2003). During further cooling, sulfur reacts
with the Fe to produce FeS, and many volatile chalcophile
elements (e.g., Ag, Pb …) should enter this sulfide phase. As
discussed above, the solar gas is quite reducing. Chemical
reactions under such conditions explain the mineralogy of
most chondrites, but not that of the more reduced meteor-
ites, such as enstatite chondrites. The latter are notable for
containing exotic sulfides and trace carbides and nitrides,
which should not be produced from a gas of solar composi-
tion. One way of generating a stable assemblage of these
compounds from a cooling solar-like gas is to enrich it
in graphitic dust. Raising the C/O ratio increases the CO
abundance, reduces the concentration of H2O, raises H2 /
H 2O, and lowers the fO2 (Ebel and Alexander 2011). Given
their reduced mineral assemblages, enstatite chondrites
and the precursors of Mercury probably formed, at least
in part, from primitive solids that condensed under such
E lements
Figure 5 (A) Sulfur metal/silicate partition coefficients, shown
as a function of relative oxygen fugacity. Compilation of experi-
ments conducted at 4–7 GPa, the estimated pressure of Mercury’s
core–mantle boundary. IW = iron–wüstite buffer. (B) As for 5A but
for silicon. (C) Uranium sulfide/silicate partition coefficients
obtained at 1.5 GPa, shown as a function of the silicate Fe content.
Mercury’s silicate mean FeO is calculated from the mean f O2 value.
Sources for the data used in Figure 5 can be found at
­elementsmagazine.org
chemical conditions. A hot and highly reducing nebular
environment plausibly existed close to the young Sun in a
portion of the accretion disk enriched in C-bearing dust.
The condensation of refractory sulfides of Ca and Mg –
but also of K, Na and Cl (Ebel and Sack 2013) – in such a
nebular environment would also have led to the apparent
enrichment of Mercury in elements (such as S, Na, K, Cl)
that are normally regarded as volatile and, hence, expected
to be depleted in the inner solar system. In the same way,
the presence of carbon in the form of refractory graphite
would have contributed to the bulk “volatile” budget of
the planet.
Core Formation
The segregation of a metal core is likely to have continued
throughout Mercury’s accretion during multiple magma-
ocean episodes (Fig. 6). At an estimated fO2 around 5.4
log units below IW, almost all Fe is present as metal (Fe 0 )
and forms alloys with significant amounts of Si, because
the metal/silicate partition coefficient of Si is close to 1
(Fig. 5). Assuming that Mercury’s silicate shell is peridotitic
in Si content (~20 wt%), the equilibrium metal should,
therefore, contain about 20% Si. This estimate is consistent
with geophysical models that predict about 15 wt% Si in
Mercury’s core (Margot et al. 2018). Silica lowers the core
melting temperature, thus, the expected Si core content
could explain why a large portion of Mercury’s core is still
molten and is still generating a magnetic field (Knibbe and
van Westrenen 2018).
Under these conditions, there is a large miscibility gap
in the Fe–Si–S liquid system (Morard and Katsura 2010),
which means that any excess metallic FeS forms a separate
phase (Fig. 4). These conditions are so reducing, however,
that S also behaves as a lithophile element that dissolves in
the magma ocean in the form of S2− (Fig. 5A) and is bound
mainly to Ca, Mg and the little remaining Fe (Namur et al.
2016a). Assuming that, during core segregation, the silicate
43 F ebruary 2019
 Summary sketch showing the four main steps of
Figure 6
Mercury’s formation: accretion, core formation,
magma ocean crystallization and secondary volcanism. At each
stage, very low oxygen fugacities influenced the behaviour of
was sulfide-saturated, this would then lead to 7–11 wt%
S in the silicate mantle (Namur al. 2016a). Immiscibility
between Fe–Si liquids and FeS would result in an inter-
mediate-density layer of sulfide above the metallic core.
The thickness of this putative sulfide layer (Fig. 6) would
depend on the total S content of the planet. This is difficult
to quantify because the abundance of sulfur is extremely
variable between the different chondrite classes. Because
enstatite chondrites show the highest sulfur contents (5.8
wt% for high-iron meteorites), they can be used as an upper
limit. Assuming sulfide saturation of the mantle and this
maximum plausible S content, an FeS layer of about 90 km
thickness can be calculated. The formation of an FeS layer
during Mercury’s differentiation is of particular impor-
tance because it would have trapped significant amounts
of U, which is the main radioactive heat-producing element
of planetary interiors (Fig. 5C) (Wohlers and Wood 2015).
However, as the sulfide would only be 90 km thick at its
maximum, the main uranium budget (more than 85%)
would remain in the silicate magma ocean after core forma-
tion. It should also be noted that, during core formation,
small quantities of an additional immiscible Mg–Ca–Fe
sulfide melt (such a melt having been found in some
extremely reducing experiments) could have stayed in the
magma ocean. Such a phase could explain how Mercury is
so reduced but still store little iron in its silicate (Malavergne
et al. 2014) (Fig. 2). Finally, carbon, in a manner analogous
to sulfur, likely adopts lithophile behaviour under highly
reducing conditions and concentrates in the silicate portion
of the planet at the expense of the core. Although experi-
mental data relevant to Mercurian conditions for C are
still scarce, a recent study shows that reducing conditions
tend to exclude C from the metal phase (Li et al. 2017).
Magma Ocean Crystallization
As the planet cooled and the silicate crystallized, we
anticipate that there formed a crystalline assemblage
dominated by forsterite and enstatite, with lesser amounts
of clinopyroxene and minor amounts of CaS, MgS and
FeS. Experiments conducted on analogues of Mercury’s
E lements
elements. Arrows schematize element partitioning, with big arrows
for contrasted behaviour (partition coefficients >> or << 1) and
small arrows for more equitable partitioning (partition coefficients
≤ or ≥ 1).
surface lavas, allied to chemical modelling, confirm that
the liquids were produced by partial melting of lherzolitic
mantle under highly reducing conditions (Namur et al.
2016b). Due to the crystallization of mafic minerals, the
magma ocean would have been concentrated in incompat-
ible carbon to finally reach graphite saturation (Li et al.
2017) and precipitation. This graphite would be buoyant
and rise through the melt column to form a primary flota-
tion crust (Fig. 6). The possible role of graphite flotation
and the formation of an early crust are consistent with
the detection of endogenic graphite at Mercury’s surface
(Peplowski et al. 2016).
The Later Stages of Secondary Volcanism
and Surface Processes
Between 4.2 Ga and 3.7 Ga, Mercury’s mantle underwent
repeated melting events that contributed to the strong
secular cooling of the planet (Namur al. 2016b) and to
the formation of its secondary volcanic crust. Although
effusive volcanism shaped much of Mercury’s surface,
a few pyroclastic deposits and volcanic vents show that
explosive volcanism also existed (Thomas and Rothery
2019 this issue). Explosive eruptions are driven by the
exsolution of volatile species from the liquid phase during
magma decompression. On Earth, the main volatile species
involved in volcanism are CO2, H2O and SO2 . On Mercury,
the very low fO2 would, depending on H content, tend to
favour the stability of CO, COS, and S2 gases (Zolotov 2011).
During Mercury’s mantle melting, the pressure–tempera-
ture–fO2 conditions allowed 1–4 wt% sulfur to dissolve in
the silicate liquids in the form of sulfide complexes (Namur
et al. 2016a). These partial melts ascended through the
mantle and eventually came into contact with the putative
primary graphite-rich crust, possibly entraining graphite
crystals during their continued ascent (McCubbin et al.
2017). As these partial melts ascended through the crust,
primary melts also came into contact with crustal silicates.
The assimilation of oxides from crustal rocks into shallow
magma chambers would have led to the partial oxidation
of the sulfide complexes in the silicate melt, producing
44 F ebruary 2019
volcanic S2 (Zolotov 2011). Additionally, some silicate melt
oxides would have been reduced to metals by the graphite
(during a reaction similar to the “smelting” process used
in metallurgy), producing a substantial volume of CO
(McCubbin et al. 2017). Once the lavas erupted and the
volatiles liberated, additional graphite might also have
reacted with surface material and reduced some SiO2 to
metallic Si. This phenomenon could account, together
with space weathering, for the underabundance of oxygen
relative to cation-forming elements at the surface of
Mercury (McCubbin et al. 2017). Finally, depending on
cooling rates at the planetary surface, the melt could have
quenched as a glass or could have crystallized minerals
dominated by plagioclase, diopside, forsterite, enstatite, a
SiO2 phase, and various sulfides (mainly CaS, MgS and FeS)
(Namur and Charlier 2017). Such a surface mineralogy is
an additional feature that makes Mercury unique among
the terrestrial planets.
SUMMARY
Mercury displays unique characteristics that make it an
end-member of our solar system (Charlier and Namur 2019
this issue). These exotic features – an extremely large and
silicon-rich core, a graphitic primary crust, and a secondary
crust made of S-rich/FeO-poor lavas – are the consequence
of Mercury differentiating under highly reducing condi-
tions. The intrinsic low fO2 of Mercury’s building materials
is itself inherited from particular nebular conditions. The
planet probably accreted in a portion of the nebular disk
that was enriched in graphitic dust and that was very close
to the Sun.

REFERENCES
Charlier B, Namur O (2019) Origin and
differentiation of planet Mercury.
Elements 15: 9-14
Chabot NL, Wollack EA, Klima RL,
Minitti ME (2014) Experimental
constraints on Mercury’s core compo-
sition. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 390: 199-208
Ebel DS, Alexander CMO’D (2011)
Equilibrium condensation from
chondritic porous IDP enriched vapor:
implications for Mercury and enstatite
chondrite origins. Planetary and Space
Science 59: 1888-1894
Ebel DS, Sack RO (2013) Djerfisherite:
nebular source of refractory potas-
sium. Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology 166: 923-934
Grossman L, Beckett JR, Fedkin AV,
Simon SB, Ciesla FJ (2008) Redox
conditions in the solar nebula: obser-
vational, experimental, and theoretical
constraints. Reviews in Mineralogy and
Geochemistry 68: 93-140
Hauck SA II, Johnson CL (2019) Mercury:
inside the iron planet. Elements 15:
21-26
Jarosewich E (1990) Chemical analyses of
meteorites: a compilation of stony and
iron meteorite analyses. Meteoritics and
Planetary Science 25: 323-337
Keil K (2010) Enstatite achondrite meteor-
ites (aubrites) and the histories of their
asteroidal parent bodies. Chemie der
Erde - Geochemistry 70: 295-317
Kilburn MR, Wood BJ (1997) Metal–
silicate partitioning and the incompati-
bility of S and Si during core formation.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 152:
139-148
Knibbe JS, van Westrenen W (2018)
The thermal evolution of Mercury’s
Fe–Si core. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 482: 147-159
Lauretta DS and 8 coauthors (2009) The
Fountain Hills unique CB chondrite:
insights into thermal processes on
the CB parent body. Meteoritics and
Planetary Science 44: 823-838
Li Y, Dasgupta R, Tsuno K (2017) Carbon
contents in reduced basalts at graphite
saturation: implications for the degas-
sing of Mars, Mercury, and the Moon.
Journal of Geophysical Research:
Planets 122: 1300-1320
Lodders K (2003) Solar system
abundances and condensation tempera-
tures of the elements. Astrophysical
Journal 591: 1220-1247
Lodders K, Fegley B Jr (1998) The
Planetary Scientist’s Companion.
Oxford University Press, 400 pp
Malavergne V and 11 coauthors (2014)
How Mercury can be the most reduced
terrestrial planet and still store iron in
its mantle. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 394: 186-197
Margot J-L, Hauck SA II, Mazarico E,
Padovan S, Peale SJ (2018) Mercury’s
internal structure. In: Solomon SC,
Nittler LR, Anderson BJ (eds) Mercury:
The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 85-113
McCoy TJ, Dickinson TL, Lofgren GE
(1999) Partial melting of the Indarch
(EH4) meteorite: a textural, chemical,
and phase relations view of melting
and melt migration. Meteoritics and
Planetary Science 34: 735-746
McCubbin FM and 9 coauthors (2017)
A low O/Si ratio on the surface of
Mercury: evidence for silicon smelting?
Journal of Geophysical Research:
Planets 122: 2053-2076
Morard G, Katsura T (2010) Pressure–
temperature cartography of Fe–S–Si
immiscible system. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 74: 3659-3667
Namur O, Charlier B (2017) Silicate
mineralogy at the surface of Mercury.
Nature Geoscience 10: 9-13
Namur O, Charlier B, Holtz F, Cartier C,
McCammon C (2016a) Sulfur solubility
in reduced mafic silicate melts: implica-
tions for the speciation and distribu-
tion of sulfur on Mercury. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 448: 102-114
Namur O and 5 coauthors (2016b)
Melting processes and mantle sources of
lavas on Mercury. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 439: 117-128
Peplowski PN and 9 coauthors (2016)
Remote sensing evidence for an ancient
carbon-bearing crust on Mercury.
Nature Geoscience 9: 273-276
Thomas RJ, Rothery DA (2019) Volcanism
on Mercury. Elements 15: 27-32
Urey HC, Craig H (1953) The composi-
tion of the stone meteorites and the
origin of the meteorites. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 4: 36-82
Warren PH (2011) Stable-isotopic anoma-
lies and the accretionary assemblage of
the Earth and Mars: a subordinate role
for carbonaceous chondrites. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 311: 93-100
Weider SZ and 10 coauthors (2015)
Evidence for geochemical terranes on
Mercury: global mapping of major
elements with MESSENGER’s X-Ray
Spectrometer. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 416: 109-120
Wohlers A, Wood BJ (2015) A Mercury-
like component of early Earth yields
uranium in the core and high mantle
142Nd. Nature 520: 337-340
Zolotov M (2011) On the chemistry of
mantle and magmatic volatiles on
Mercury. Icarus 212: 24-41
Zolotov MY and 5 coauthors (2013) The
redox state, FeO content, and origin of
sulfur-rich magmas on Mercury. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Planets 118:
138-146

E lements 45 F ebruary 2019

 Mineralogical Society of Poland
www.ptmin.agh.edu.pl
PRESIDENT’S CORNER
Dear Members of the Mineralogical Society of
Poland (PTMin),
The election of the new PTMin board was held
7 December 2018 during the general election
assembly of PTMin’s members. I wish to thank
all PTMin members who voted. The continued
active engagement of PTMin members is crucial
for the ongoing success of the society.
Tomasz Bajda The results of the 2019–2020 elections are as
follows:
President: Tomasz Bajda (AGH [Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza]
University of Science and Technology, Kraków).
Vice-Presidents: Jakub Matusik (AGH University of Science and
Technology, Kraków), Marek Michalik (Jagiellonian University, Kraków).
Secretaries: Agnieszka Klimek (AGH University of Science and
Technology, Kraków); Justyna Topolska (AGH University of Science
and Technology, Kraków).
Treasurer: Krzysztof Szopa (University of Silesia, Katowice).
Librarian: Grzegorz Rzepa (AGH University of Science and Technology,
Kraków).
Board Members: Marek Awdankiewicz (University of Wrocław),
Wojciech Franus (Lublin University of Technology), Jakub Kierczak
(University of Wrocław), Monika Kasina (Jagiellonian University,
Kraków).
Audit Commission: Jarosław Majka (AGH University of Science and
Technology, Krakow), Jacek Puziewicz (University of Wrocław), Tadeusz
Szydłak (AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków).
Thank you very much for electing me as President of PTMin for a
second term of office. I congratulate the newly elected members of the
PTMin board. The upcoming term of office for the PTMin board will be
a time of intense work. In 2020, PTMin, together with other European
mineralogical societies, will organize the 3rd European Mineralogical
Conference (https://emc2020.ptmin.eu/).
In 2019, as for previous years, we will also hold the XXVI Session of
the Petrology Group of the PTMin. This year, the session meeting will
be organized by the Warsaw Branch.
I wish all PTMin members a successful 2019!
Tomasz Bajda, President
RESULTS FOR THE 2018 BEST MINERALOGICAL
SCIENCES THESIS AND DISSERTATION COMPETITION
During the general election assembly of PTMin’s members on 7
December 2018, the results of the competition for the best master’s
thesis and doctoral dissertation in the field of mineralogical sciences
were announced. The competition is organized by PTMin, and the
competition committee comprised Arek Derkowski (Chairman), Boż ena
Gołe˛biowska, and Michał Skiba.
The winner of the competition for the best doctoral thesis in 2018 is:
Karolina Kośmińska (AGH University of Science and Technology,
Kraków). Dissertation title: “Meso-Neoproterozoic Evolution of the
Caledonian Basement of SW Svalbard”. Her supervisor was Maciej
Manecki (AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków).
E lements
The winners of the
competition for the
best master’s thesis,
from the left: Bartosz
Pieterek, Janina
Wiszniewska (one
of the supervisors),
Anna Grabarczyk,
Tomasz Bajda.
The two winners of the competition for the best master’s thesis in
2018 are:
Anna Grabarczyk (Warsaw University). Thesis title: “Genesis of
Jotunites and Related Rocks from the Bilwinowo IG-1 (Suwałki Massif)
and the Sejny IG-1, IG-2 (Sejny Intrusion) Boreholes in NE Poland”.
Her supervisors were Bogusław Bagiński (Warsaw University), Janina
Wiszniewska (Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute).
Bartosz Pieterek (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań). Thesis title:
“Layer Boundaries Attract Sulfides Throughout the Igneous Layering of
the Lower Oceanic Crust: IODP Hole U1473A, Atlantis Bank, Southwest
Indian Ridge”. His supervisor was Agata Duczmal-Czernikiewicz (Adam
Mickiewicz University, Poznań).
25th MEETING OF THE PETROLOGY GROUP OF
THE MINERALOGICAL SOCIETY OF POLAND:
PETROLOGY IN NARROW AND WIDE PERSPECTIVE
The jubilee 25th meeting was held 25–28 October 2018 in the Brunów
Palace in Lower Silesia (SW Poland). It was co-organized by the
University of Wrocław, the Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznań ),
and the Copper Museum (Legnica). The organizing committee was
chaired by Magdalena Matusiak-Małek (University of Wrocław), who
was supported by vice-chairpersons Agata Duczmal-Czernikiewicz
(Adam Mickiewicz University, Pooznań) and Jacek Puziewicz (University
of Wrocław). The main aims of the jubilee meeting were to not only
present the results of scientific studies on rocks but also to show the
wide usage of petrology in other sciences. Therefore, the theme (and
subtitle) of the meeting was “petrology in narrow and wide perspective”.
The invited speakers presented a set of excellent talks on a wide range
of petrological themes. Professor Justyna Baron (University of Wrocław)
discussed ways in which petrologists might cooperate with archae-
ologists. The main area of cooperation would likely be establishing
the provenance of stone material used for artefact production, but
petrology could also give clues on the firing conditions of ceramics
and metal and the origin of natural pigments. Professor Hilary Downes
(Birkbeck, University of London, UK) gave a fabulous presentation on
the origin of ureilitic meteorites. This type of meteorite is mostly made
of olivine and low-Ca pyroxenes and possibly represents the mantle of
an ancient planetesimal. Ureilites are, in fact, strongly heterogeneous in
terms of their texture, chemistry, and isotopic composition, and they
record numerous processes, such as melt injection, shock metamor-
phism, and even space weathering. Thus, they give us a glimpse into
otherwise unknown solar system history. As an equilibrium counter-
balance to the cosmic topics, Professor Marek Grad (University of
Warsaw) discussed the structure of the Earth’s lithosphere at a margin
between the Precambrian East European Craton and Variscan and
Alpine Europe. This zone is nowadays known as the Teisseyre–Tornquist
Zone, but establishing its true nature and location involved a long
process of co-operation between geologists and geophysicists. Dr. Károly
Hidas (Instituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra, Consejo Superior
46 F ebruary 2019
de Investigaciones Científicas and Universidad de Granada, Spain) tion. Separate from the Kryza Awards, the organizing committee gave
illustrated how to combine X-ray micro-computed tomography with an oral presentation award to Dorota Środek (University of Silesia),
electron backscatter diffraction to reconstruct the reaction history of and poster presentation awards to Kamil Nowak, Wiktoria Gmochowska
metaperidotites formed by the dehydration of serpentinite in a subduc- (both University of Wrocław) and Magdalena Tuchowska (University of
tion zone. The combination of the two methods, when supported by Science and Technology, Kraków). The best student scientific project
geochemical data, constitutes a new approach for deciphering the evolu- went to Karolina Bałaga and Katarzyna Gajewska (Geological Science
tion of rock sequences. Group of the AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków) for
their project “One-Pot Synthesis of Magnetic Composites based on
The links between petrology and other sciences were also a feature of
Synthetic Hydrotalcite”.
the “regular” oral and poster presentations. A book of abstracts has
been published in Mineralogia - Special Papers and is available online at In keeping with tradition, the last day of the meeting was dedicated to
www.mineralogia.pl. Because the meeting celebrated the society’s 25th a field trip that related thematically to the topic of the conference. The
jubilee, Prof. Jacek Puziewicz (University of Wrocław) announced that participants visited an old sandstone quarry in Lwówek Ś la˛ski, where
a special issue of Chemie der Erde/Geochemistry will be dedicated to the usage and preservation of this popular construction stone was discussed.
“narrow and wide perspective” of petrology. Bad weather did not stop the participants of the field trip from visiting
the Old Copper Basin in Leszczyna,
where copper had been smelted from
the 13th to 19th centuries. Nowadays,
this area is an archaeological reserve,
but it is also a perfect locality to study
the threats related to the weathering
of smelting wastes. Grodziec Castle
was the last stop of the field trip: it had
been built on a basaltic plug elevated
above the surrounding area. As such,
this elevated basaltic plug was a perfect
location for human settlement from
prehistoric times, as was discussed
by the invited archaeologists. The
Grodziec basanite itself contains
numerous xenoliths of mantle rocks,
Participants representing fifteen research institutions from Poland, Great Britain,
Sweden, and Hungary. and so the evolution of the lithospheric mantle beneath SW Poland
could not go unmentioned.
In the evenings, after the serious
scientific debates of the day had
What of the meeting more generally? This jubilee 25th meeting gathered subsided, the meeting became a
over 80 scientists from Poland, Sweden, Great Britain, and Hungary. platform for social life and for
Almost half of the participants were PhD or MSc students. The meeting less official matters. One of the
was a great forum by which to exchange ideas between experienced results of the meeting was the
The new logo of the Petrology Group
and young scientists. The Petrology Group of Mineralogical Society establishment of a new logo of of PTMin.
of Poland awarded two young scientists the Professor Ryszard Kryza the Petrology Group.
Young Researcher Award: Michał Bukała (University of Science and
The 25th Meeting of the Petrology Group of the Mineralogical Society
Technology, Kraków) for the best oral presentation, and Bartosz Pieterek
of Poland would not have been possible without the generous support
(Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) for the best poster presenta-
of our sponsors: Marmor-Glanz Polska, JEOL, Bureau Veritas Polska,
and Labsoft.
The 26th Meeting of the Petrology Group of the
Mineralogical Society of Poland will take place
in autumn 2019 in Che˛ciny (Kielce voivod-
ship). We hope to see you there!!
Magdalena Matusiak-Małek

Promising young researchers with their diplomas for the best talks, posters and
scientific project.

E lements 47 F ebruary 2019

 Mineralogical Association of Canada

www.mineralogicalassociation.ca

UPCOMING GAC–MAC–IAH JOINT MEETING —— Sedimentology, stratigraphy and paleontology

Where Geosciences Converge
12–15 May 2019
Québec City, QC, Canada
The Geological Association of Canada (GAC ® ), the Mineralogical
Association of Canada (MAC) and the Canadian National Chapter of
the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH-CNC) invite
geoscientists to their joint annual meeting in Québec City. Participants
will have the opportunity to visit and discover the warmth and charms
of Québec and explore not only the historic district of the city, Old
Québec, which is a UNESCO World Heritage site, but also the many
attractive natural sites in the wider region. These include outcrops repre-
senting the convergence of three geological regions: the Appalachian
Orogenic belt, the St. Lawrence Platform and the Grenville Province.
The conference’s title is “Where Geosciences Converge”, which is
a signal that the conference aims to promote collaboration and to
stimulate discussion among geoscientists during the symposia, specials
sessions, short courses and field trips under the umbrella of four multi-
disciplinary themes:
ƒƒ Geosystems and Hydrogeosystems
ƒƒ Resources, Energy and Environment
ƒƒ Geosciences and Society
ƒƒ Big Data for Geosciences
ƒƒ General Sessions, including:
—— Mineralogy and crystallography
—— Igneous and metamorphic petrology
—— Geophysics
—— Structural geology and tectonics
—— General hydrogeology
—— Glacial geology and geomorphology in Canada.
Field Trips Summary
PRE-MEETING ONE-DAY
“UPPER ORDOVICIAN SUCCESSION IN THE QUÉBEC CITY AREA:
TRANSITION FROM CARBONATE TO CLASTIC FORELANDS”
Denis Lavoie (Geological Survey of Canada, Québec).
“CHAMPLAIN SEA DELTAS AND THE ST-NARCISSE MORAINE
IN THE PORTNEUF AND MAURICIE REGIONS OF SOUTHERN
QUEBEC: 3-D STRATIGRAPHIC MODELING AND REGIONAL
AQUIFER SYSTEMS”
Michel Parent (Geological Survey of Canada), René Lefebvre (Institut
national de la recherche scientifique, Québec, Canada), Yves Leblanc
(Richelieu Hydrogéologie Inc, Canada), Guillaume Légaré-Couture
(INRS), Yves Michaud (Geological Survey of Canada).
“THE CHARLEVOIX IMPACT STRUCTURE AND SEISMIC ZONE”
Léopold Nadeau (Geological Survey of Canada, Québec, retired) and
Gordon Osinski (University of Western Ontario, Canada).
“QUÉBEC, A FORTIFIED CITY: GEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
HERITAGE”
Sébastien Castonguay (Geological Survey of Canada, Québec) and Parks
Canada.

GAC–MAC–IAH 2019 JOINT MEETING

Where Geosciences Converge
Québec City, QC, Canada
12–15 May 2019
The Geological Association of Canada (GAC®), the Mineralogical Association of Canada (MAC) and the Canadian National Chapter of
the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH-CNC) are currently preparing the GAC–MAC–IAH/CNC 2019 conference, and
invite you to mark these dates in your agenda: 12–15 May 2019.

Registration opens March 1, Early Bird rates end April 14

Registration details and information on plenary talks, symposia, special and general sessions, short courses, and field trips, outreach
and social events are available at gacmacquebec2019.ca. We invite geoscientists to our joint annual meeting in historic Québec, a
UNESCO World-Heritage site. Participants will have the opportunity to visit and discover the warmth and charms of Québec and
explore its many attractive natural sites.

E lements 48 F ebruary 2019

PRE-MEETING THREE-DAY
“GEOHERITAGE OF THE GASPE
PENINSULA: EXAMPLES OF THE PERCÉ
UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK AND THE
MIGUASHA WORLD HERITAGE SITE”
Pierre Verpaelst (Comité national canadien
pour les Géoparcs, Québec) and André
Desrochers (University of Ottawa, Canada).
POST-MEETING ONE-DAY
“IMPACT OF AN IRREGULAR MARGIN
ON THE SEDIMENTARY EVOLUTION OF
A NARROW SHELF-SLOPE ENVIRONMENT
(QUÉBEC CITY AREA)”
Pierre A Cousineau (Université du Québec à
Chicoutimi, Canada) and Hugues Longuépée
(Champion Iron Ltd, Canada).
POST-MEETING TWO-DAY
“THE THETFORD MINES OPHIOLITE AND
ITS OROGENIC CONTEXT”
Jean Bédard (Geological Survey of Canada,
Québec) and Alain Tremblay (Université du
Québec à Montréal, Canada).
POST-MEETING THREE-DAY
“GEOHERITAGE IN DEVELOPMENT:
CRITICAL THINKING IN AQUIFER TEST
INTERPRETATION
Christopher J. Neville (Chief Hydrogeologist,
S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.,
Maryland, USA)
PRE-MEETING TWO-DAY
SCALING PREDICTIONS OF MINE WASTE
GEOCHEMISTRY WITH REACTIVE
TRANSPORT MODELLING
Richard Amos (Carleton University, Ontario,
Canada), David Blowes (University of
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada), David Wilson
(University of Waterloo).
INTRODUCTION TO RESERVOIR
GEOMECHANICS
E. Konstantinovskaya (University of Alberta,
Canada).
ORE SYSTEMS WITH IOA, IOCG, ALBITITE-
HOSTED U AND AFFILIATED DEPOSITS
L. Corriveau (Commission géologique du
Canada, Québec), E. Potter (Commission
géologique du Canada, Ottawa), D. Harlov
(GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam,
Germany), X.-F. Zhao (China University of
Geosciences).
POST-MEETING ONE-DAY
GEO- AND THERMOCHRONOLOGY
METHODS AND APPLICATIONS
E. Enkelmann (University of Calgary,
Canada), William Matthews (University
of Calgary, Canada).
LASER ABLATION APPLIED TO ORE
DEPOSIT
S.-J. Barnes, P. Bédard, S. Dare, C. Duran,
D. Savard [all Université du Québec à
Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada].
UNDETERMINED DATE ONE-DAY
ISOTOPES APPLIED TO GEOTHERMAL
RESOURCES
Daniele L. Pinti (GEOTOP, Université
du Québec à Montréal, Canada), Orfan
Shouakar-Stash (University of Waterloo,
Canada).
I hope this assortment of field trips and short
courses will appeal to the broad geoscientific
community and that you will visit Québec for
GAC–MAC–IAH 2019. For full details on the
technical program, travel and accommodation
information visit: gacmac-quebec2019.ca.

$5000
THE CHARLEVOIX ASTROBLEME AND AN INTRODUCTION
SAGUENAY FJORD ASPIRING GEOPARKS” TO APPLIED The Mineralogical
Pierre Verpaelst (Canadian National GROUNDWATER Association of
Committee for Geoparks) and André MODELING USING Canada
Desrochers (University of Ottawa, Canada). VISUAL MODFLOW will award two $5000

“MAGNETITE–APATITE (MTAP)
DEPOSITS AND RELATED ROCKS IN THE
FLEX
Brayden McNeill Scholarships scholarships to graduate
students, one to a student
enrolled in an MSc program
(Waterloo and one to a student in a PhD
ADIRONDACK MOUNTAINS, NEW YORK
Hydrogeologic, program. The applicable fields
STATE” of study are:
Ontario, Canada).
John M. Hanchar (Memorial University of • Mineralogy
Newfoundland, Canada), Marian Lupulescu MID-MEETING • Crystallography
(New York State Museum, USA), and Jeff ONE-DAY • Geochemistry
Chiarenzelli (St. Lawrence University, USA). • Mineral Deposits
HOW TO DEVELOP • Petrology
Short Courses Summary AND PROMOTE
GEOHERITAGE
PRE-MEETING ONE-DAY WITH EXAMPLES
Deadline to apply:
OF UNESCO WORLD
May 1, 2019
GEOSCIENCES AND SOCIETY: A TEACHING
WORKSHOP HERITAGE SITES
Anne-Marie Ryan (Dalhousie University, AND GEOPARKS Eligibility
Earth Sciences, Canada), Charly Bank André Desrochers  Students entering the second
year of an MSc program or the
(University of Toronto, Canada). (University of second or third year of a PhD
Ottawa, Canada), program at a Canadian university
INTRODUCTION TO DATA SCIENCE Pierre Verpaelst in September 2019.
FOR GEOLOGISTS (Comité national  Canadian citizens enrolled in the
M. Blouin (GeoLearn, USA), L. Perozzi canadien pour les
above or equivalent programs
at any university.
(GeoLearn, USA), J. Simon (Geolearn, Géoparcs, Québec).
USA), M. Claprood (Centre Eau Terre For more information,
contact the business office :
Environnement, Institut national de la
Mineralogical Association of Canada
recherche scientifique, Canada). 490 de la Couronne
Québec, Qc G1K 9A9, Canada
office@mineralogicalassociation.ca
INDICATOR MINERAL EXPLORATION
METHODS Application form available at
www.mineralogicalassociation.ca
G. Beaudoin (Université Laval), S. Makvandi
(Corem, Québec).

E lements 49 F ebruary 2019

 Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland

www.minersoc.org

FROM THE NEW PRESIDENT to discuss the geological, industrial, environmental and socio-economic
developments in the challenges that the decarbonisation of energy and
To take over as president of a learned society which
transport presents.
has a track record of playing a leading role in
mineralogy for nearly 150 years is a great honour Themes will include:
and a privilege, but also a great challenge. The ƒƒ Geology and resources of critical metals
needs and expectations of members are very
ƒƒ Raw materials for the decarbonisation of energy and transport
different from what they were when I first joined.
However, the Mineralogical Society of Great ƒƒ Life-cycle analysis
Britain and Ireland (MinSoc) has always been ƒƒ Ethical sourcing of critical metals
willing and able to adapt to the times, most
The convenors are Eimear Deady, Jindrich Kynicky, Aoife Brady, Alicja
Bruce Yardley recently through our partnership with Cambridge
Lacinska and Kevin Murphy.
University Press. To justify our existence, we must
provide meetings, publications and services that are tailored to the
needs of our members, or we run the risk of having no members! We
must also act as careful stewards of the MinSoc’s finances to enable
those services to be provided long into the future.
Our special interest groups (SIGs), in particular, do a fantastic job of
providing a succession of inexpensive and accessible meetings in their
fields (as well as granting awards, student bursaries, presenter prizes and
much more). But the MinSoc has an identity as a community beyond
those of the SIGs, and I hope that we can build on this identity in the
next few years. It is nice to go to meetings with other specialists with
similar interests, but we can also learn a lot from those who work in
somewhat different fields if they have to tackle the same underlying
problems that we do. I hope that, in future, we can organise some
one- or two-day interdisciplinary meetings involving multiple special
interest groups and focus on a shared theme. Members who think
this a good idea and have suggestions for appropriate topics, please
get in touch. We also need to begin to plan for our 150th anniversary.
I googled the word for “150 th anniversary” during a recent meeting
Further details available at
of the MinSoc Council: expect to hear “sesquicentenary” many times
www.minersoc.org/3rd-inter-
over the coming months!
national-critical-metals-confer-
The only reason I am able to begin to tackle such strategic issues is ence.html. A link to online
that my predecessor, Hilary Downes, had done such a fantastic job over registration is live at that site.
the past three years. Working with our treasurer, John Adams, and the
office team of Kevin Murphy and Russell Rajendra, Hilary succeeded in MINERALS IN A
stabilizing the society’s income and in controlling costs. As a result, I SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
have the chance to look forward strategically. No wonder her parting
“Minerals in a Sustainable
advice to me was, “Don’t wreck it”!
Future” is the title of a joint
Prof. Bruce Yardley meeting to be held 13 June
2019 at the British Geological
CRITICAL METALS – A MEETING OF THE APPLIED Survey and to be hosted by the
MINERALOGY GROUP Applied Mineralogy Group and
the Environmental Mineralogy
30 April–2 May 2019, Royal College of Surgeons, Group’s Annual Research in
Edinburgh (UK) Progress Meeting.
Critical metals have been a topic We are inviting posters and oral
of intense research, interest and presentations in any branch of
investment in recent years. Metals applied and environmental mineralogy and biogeochemistry, including
such as the rare earth elements, sustainable mining; resource recovery from waste (mine tailings and
cobalt, lithium and graphite, to industrial wastes); low energy ore (bio-) processing; environmental
name but a few, are the back-bone issues related to mineral extraction; and land remediation.
of the decarbonisation movement
as we transition to a metal-intense, We have two superb keynote speakers: Mr Andrew Bloodworth (British
low-carbon economy. Geological Survey’s Science Director for Minerals and Waste) and Dr
Ronan Courtney (University of Limerick, Ireland). The meeting will also
This conference seeks to bring include the demonstration of a chosen imaging or analytical electron
together leading scientists, indus- microscopy-based technique and/or a guided geological walk.
trialists and those interested in
ethical sourcing of critical metals Registration opens in April 2019. Participant cost is a very reasonable
£10.

E lements 50 F ebruary 2019

METAMORPHIC STUDIES GROUP
EMU NOTES IN MINERALOGY
You are invited to the Research in Progress Meeting
Volume 19 in the European Mineralogical Union-
to be held 5 March 2019 at the University of
Mineralogical Society Notes in Mineralogy
Portsmouth (UK).
Series: Mineralogical Crystallography is available
from the Mineralogical Society of Great Britain
GEOCHEMISTRY GROUP & Ireland and from the Mineralogical Society
#GGRiP2019 of America.
The 2019 Geochemistry Group’s Research in
Progress Meeting will be held 15–17 April at the At the dawn of structural crystallography, Walther Friedrich, Paul
University of Portsmouth (UK). Knipping, and Max von Laue carried out the first experiments and
developed the theory of X-ray diffraction. From the early days,
This is the only annual meeting held in the UK when even the simpler inorganic structures filled an entire PhD
that has geochemistry as its sole theme, and it study, structural crystallography evolved at its own pace and found
provides an opportunity for PhD students and new partners in chemistry, physics, materials science, biology and
early career researchers to present and discuss their research in a other fields of physical sciences. Both morphological and structural
relaxed atmosphere. Submissions are welcomed from all fields, including crystallography, however, have remained as important instruments
aquatic, atmospheric, cosmo-, igneous, isotope, metamorphic and ocean in the mineralogist’s toolbox until today. Efforts to enhance the
geochemistry. existing instrumentation, to improve our understanding of the
See our websites for further information and details of how to register: theory of diffraction, to study nanoparticulate or poorly ordered
www.geochemistry.group; www.minersoc.org/geochem.html; www. materials, and to master large, complex structures continue in all
geolsoc.org.uk/geochemistry. fields of physical sciences. Mineralogy can thus use the fruits of this
labour and include them in its toolbox.
SOCIETY AWARDS: REMINDER
THANK YOU TO OUR EDITORS!
Thank you to the editorial teams of both our journals, Mineralogical
Magazine and Clay Minerals. They are the people who make the journals
happen. These unsung heroes are named below.

Mineralogical Magazine
Please remember to nominate somebody for a Mineralogical Society Principal Editors: Prof. Roger Mitchell
medal. The society offers the Schlumberger Award, the Collins Medal and Dr Stuart Mills
and the Max Hey Medal, as well as the Best Paper Award in honour Structures Editor: Prof. Peter Leverett
of R. A. Howie. The closing date for receipt of nominations is 19 April Review Articles Editor: Hilary Downes
2019. Details at www.minersoc.org/awards.html. Don’t put it off … Production Editor: Helen Kerbey
nominate a colleague today! Associate Editors
Makoto Arima Irina Galuskina
Kevin Murphy, Executive Director Daniel Atencio G. Diego Gatta
Ferdinado Bosi Charles Geiger Leone Melluso
SOCIETY MEDAL WINNERS Sapienza Ian Graham Koichi Momma
Sam Broom-Fendley Edward Grew Thomas Mueller
Linda Campbell Jason Harvey Brian O’Driscoll
Aniket Chakrabarty David Hibbs Katherine Pfaff
Andrew Christy Anthony Kampf Michael Rumsey
Claire Corkhill Sergey Krivovichev Oleg Siidra
Ian Coulson František Lausek Craig Storey
Giancarlo Della Martin Lee
Ventura Juraj Majzlan
Dr Oliver Lord Dave Craw Jon Lloyd
Max Hey Medallist 2018 Collins Medallist 2018 Mineralogical Society
Clay Minerals
Schlumberger Awardee Principal Editor: Prof. George Christidis
2018 Associate Editors
Pilar Aranda Juan Jiménez Millán
David L. Bish Peter Komadel
Martine Buatier João A. Labrincha
Maggie Cusack (left, with MinSoc Javier Cuadros Laurent J. Michot
President, Hilary Downes), Mineralogical Eric Ferrage Miroslav Pospisil
Society Schlumberger Awardee 2017
Saverio Fiore Giora Rytwo
Stephen Hillier Balwant Singh Asuman Türkmenoǧlu
F. Javier Huertas Helge Stanjek Laurence N. Warr
Warren Huff Chun-Hui (Clayton)
Zhou

E lements 51 F ebruary 2019

 Mineralogical Society of America
www.minsocam.org
PRESIDENT’S LETTER
MSA at 100: Professional Service
In my last President’s Letter, I noted
the next three would deal with
teaching, research, and service. And
while all of us might not teach or do
research, we all should be performing
professional service. My former depart-
ment chair once told me that for every
paper I submit, I should review two to
three. The above photo of a 13-year
Mickey Gunter
younger me was taken at the 2005
Goldschmidt Conference in Moscow
(Idaho, USA) that I co-organized.
While it might be easy to determine how many papers we should review,
I think it is harder to determine how many international meetings we
should organize! Regardless, meetings don’t organize themselves, nor
do professional societies run themselves, nor do journals publish
themselves: these all depend largely on the volunteer efforts by society/
association members or by dedicated staff.
A major part of MSA’s organization consists of 31 committees with
some 148 individuals filling them. So, for a society of roughly 2,100
members, one can see that, at any one time, 7% of us are involved in
the operation of the society. Most of these committees are filled on a
three-year term, so much of the “memory” in our system resides in our
Executive Director of going-on 25 years (yep, 25% of MSA’s life!), Alex
Speer. As many of you know, Alex will be retiring at the end of 2019
and, as Mike Brown promised in his last letter, I have the pleasure of
announcing Alex’s replacement: Dr. Ann Benbow. Ann comes to us
most recently as the executive director of the Archaeological Institute
of America, and before that she’d spent over a decade as director of
geoscience education and public understanding (as well as the director
of education, outreach, and development) at the American Geosciences
Institute. Her official start date is 1 March 2019, so there will be a
10-month overlap with Alex.
There’s been another important change in probably the second most
important MSA undertaking: the editorship of the American Mineralogist.
Keith Putirka will be stepping down from this role as editor as we return
to a two-editor model to better cover the breadth of our membership.
The new incoming editors have served as associate editors for many
years: Don Baker of McGill University (Québec, Canada) and Hongwu
Xu of Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico, USA). I would
like to thank Keith for his tireless service and the creative ideas he
has had over the past seven years. He leaves the journal in very good
shape, especially with the recent increase in the impact factor. Thank
you, Keith!
I’ve always viewed service as the most important role of an academic,
or, as I stated at the outset, that all of us should give our most impor-
tant commodity—our time. MSA clearly is a society run by dedicated
volunteers, and I’d like to take this opportunity thank all of them and to
encourage all of you to become more involved with MSA. Finally, along
with giving time, giving money is also a good thing! As such, my major
goal as president will be to establish a centennial fund so that MSA can
fully fund its outreach activates (e.g., the lecture program, mineralogy
for kids, MSA-talk). Much of this will be done in collaboration with
our incoming executive director because Ann has had considerable
experience in this area—so stay tuned for more on that. And, really
finally, just in case you are wondering how often you should serve as
President of the MSA, based on our current membership, it would be
once in 2,100 years!
Mickey Gunter, MSA President
E lements
NOTES FROM CHANTILLY
ƒƒ MSA will have electronic balloting for the 2019 election of 2020 MSA
officers and councilors. The slate of candidates is as follows: President:
Carol D. Frost (University of Wyoming, USA); Vice President (one to
be selected): Howard W. Day (University of California, Davis, USA)
or Mark Ghiorso (OFM Research, Washington, USA). Secretary (one
to be selected): Kim Tait (Royal Ontario Museum, Canada) or Razvan
Caracas (École normale supérieure de Lyon, France); Councilor
position 1 (one to be selected): Przemyslaw Dera (University of
Hawaii, USA) or Mainak Mookherjee (Florida State University, USA).
Councilor position 2 (one to be selected): Fangzhen Teng (University
of Washington, USA) or Francis McCubbin (NASA Johnson Space
Centre, USA). Thomas S. Duffy (Princeton University) continues
in office as Treasurer. Continuing councilors for 2019 will be Jay
J. Ague (Yale University, USA), Donna L. Whitney (University of
Minnesota, USA), Mark J. Caddick (Virginia Tech, USA), and Adam
C. Simon (University of Michigan, USA).
ƒƒ All 2017 and 2018 MSA members have been contacted by mail,
electronically, or both about renewing their membership for 2019.
If you have not renewed your MSA membership, please do so. If you
have not received a notice by the time you read this, please contact
the MSA Business Office. You can also renew online anytime.
ƒƒ In addition to nominating individuals for MSA awards described
in the notice of this issue, consider other societies’ awards and
grants: GSA’s Mineralogy, Geochemistry, Petrology, and Volcanology
Division’s (MGPV) Distinguished Geologic Career Award and the
MGPV Early Career Awards; American GeoScience Institute’s Ian
Campbell Medal; and the GSA Graduate Student Research Grants,
especially the Specialized Awards such as the Lipman Research Fund;
and the GSA Mineralogy, Geochemistry, Petrology, and Volcanology
Division research grants.
J. Alex Speer
MSA Executive Director
AWARD NOMINATIONS
Nominations Sought for 2020 Awards
Nominations must be received by 1 June 2019
The Roebling Medal (2020) is MSA’s highest award and is given for
eminence as represented by outstanding published original research
in mineralogy.
The Dana Medal (2020) recognizes continued outstanding scientific
contributions through original research in the mineralogical sciences
by an individual in the middle of their career.
Mineralogical Society of America Award (2020) is given for
outstanding published contribution(s) prior to awardee’s 35th birthday
or within 7 years of the PhD.
The Distinguished Public Service Medal (2021) is presented to an
individual who has provided outstanding contributions to public policy
and awareness about mineralogical topics through science.
Society Fellowship is the recognition of a member’s significant scien-
tific contributions. Nomination is undertaken by one member, with
two members acting as cosponsors. Form required, contact committee
chair or MSA home page.
Submission requirements and procedures are on MSA’s home page:
http://www.minsocam.org/
52 F ebruary 2019
 RESEARCH GRANTS
The Mineralogical Society of America 2019 Grants for
RESEARCH IN CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
from the Edward H. Kraus Crystallographic Research Fund with contri-
butions from MSA membership and friends
STUDENT RESEARCH IN MINERALOGY
AND PETROLOGY
from an endowment created by MSA members
Selection is based on the qualifications of the appli-
cant; on the quality, innovativeness, and scientific
significance of the research of a written proposal;
and on the likelihood of success of the project. There
will be up to three US$5,000 grants having the
restriction that the money be used in support of
research. Application instructions and online submission are avail-
able on the MSA website, http://www.minsocam.org. Completed
applications must be submitted by 1 March 2019.
MSA CENTENNIAL SYMPOSIUM
20-21 June 2019
Washington D.C., USA
Join us in celebrating
the 100th MSA Birthday!
This symposium will feature 44 speakers who will address a range
of exciting themes:
ƒƒ The mineralogy of Mars
ƒƒ Diamonds and plate tectonics
ƒƒ Minerals and sustainability
ƒƒ Unraveling the roots of continents
ƒƒ Mineral dusts and human health
and more…
Registrants will attend a private evening reception at the National
Museum of Natural History for viewing of the Janet Annenberg
Hooker Hall of Geology, Gems, & Minerals!
Symposium information can be found at: http://www.minsocam.org/
MSA/Centennial/MSA_Centennial_index.html
E lements
PUBLICATIONS ON PLANETARY MATERIALS
For more description and table of contents of these books, and for ordering
online, visit www.minsocam.org or contact Mineralogical Society of
America, 3635 Concorde Pkwy Ste 500, Chantilly, VA 20151-1110 USA
phone: +1 (703) 652-9950 fax: +1 (703) 652-9951
MINERALOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
AND GEOCHEMICAL SOCIETY
Short Course Announcements
REACTIVE TRANSPORT IN NATURAL
AND ENGINEERED SYSTEMS
Organizers : Jennifer L. Druhan, University of Illinois
Christophe Tournassat, French Geological Survey, Orléans (BRGM)
17-18 August 2019
(before the Goldschmidt Conference, 18-23 August 2019, Barcelona, Spain)
Reactive transport principles are now
employed to address a wide variety of natural
and engineered systems across diverse spatial
and temporal scales, in tandem with
advances in computational capacity, quanti-
tative imaging and reactive interface charac-
terization techniques. We have reached a
timely moment to update and expand the
1996 RiMG volume 34 on reactive transport
with an associated workshop featuring
presentations by chapter authors and opportunities for discussion and posters.
This workshop will emphasize the diversity of applications which have devel-
oped in the past ~20 years, with emphasis on recent novel applications,
techniques, and current requirements necessary to foster future advancement.
The intent is to highlight key areas of development and provide a platform
to foster discussion and provide education and networking opportunities for
graduate students, early career scientists and established researchers interested
in RT principles.
Description and registration online at https://goldschmidt.info/2019/.
53 F ebruary 2019
 Meteoritical Society

http://meteoriticalsociety.org

2019 INCOMING PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS OFFICERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

It is an honor and pleasure to serve as President
of the Meteoritical Society; this society has been
my “professional home” for more than two
decades. As I begin my term, I want to express my
gratitude to Trevor Ireland for his able leadership
as president for the last two years, and I welcome
Brigitte Zanda as she assumes the role of vice presi-
dent. By the way, this is the first time in the
society’s history that women have served as presi-
Meenakshi Wadhwa, dent and vice president at the same time! Brigitte Zanda Karen Ziegler
President
I was fortunate to be introduced to the joys of
studying meteorites and isotope cosmochemistry in graduate school
at Washington University in St. Louis (Missouri, USA) by Ghislaine
Crozaz and Ernst Zinner. After completing my doctorate in 1994, I
had the honor of working with Guenter Lugmair as a postdoctoral
researcher at the University of California at San Diego (USA) and was
subsequently appointed curator of meteorites at the Field Museum in
Chicago (Illinois, USA). My eleven years in Chicago (1995–2006) were
thoroughly fun: I worked with wonderful colleagues, established an Munir Humayun Trevor Ireland
isotope cosmochemistry laboratory, and was even there for the Park
Forest meteorite fall (in March of 2003)! In 2006, I was appointed
Director of the Center for Meteorites Studies and a professor in the The Meteoritical Society will consist of a number of new officers this
newly established School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona year. Meenakshi Wadhwa (Arizona State University, see above)
State University (USA). Arizona State University has been a tremen- will be transitioning from vice president to president, and Brigitte
dously exciting place to be, with the best part being the opportunity Zanda (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France) will
to mentor some wonderful students. be the incoming vice president. Munir Humayun (University of
Central Florida, USA) will serve as our new secretary, and Karen
My research interests are broadly in the area of isotope and trace
Ziegler (University of New Mexico, USA) will begin her term as our
element geochemistry of planetary materials, including meteorites, to
new treasurer. Trevor Ireland (Australian National University) will
understand the timescales and processes involved in the formation of
continue to serve, albeit in his new capacity as past-president. We
the solar system and planets. A common thread through much of my
thank this new slate of officers in advance for their efforts to lead the
career has been a deep interest and involvement in the collection and
Meteoritical Society through the next two years.
curation of planetary materials (whether they are meteorites recov-
ered here on Earth, or materials returned by spacecraft), the unique The Meteoritical Society Council will consist of Neyda Abreu
research that is enabled by them, as well as the education and outreach (Pennsylvania State University in DuBois, USA), Catherine (Cari)
opportunities afforded by them. I recognize that we are at a particu- Corrigan (Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural
larly exciting time for our field: both the Hayabusa2 and OSIRIS-REx History, Washington, DC, USA), Chris Herd (University of Alberta,
spacecraft recently reached their target asteroids (Ryugu and Bennu, Canada), Kuljeet Kaur Marhas (Physical Research Laboratory,
respectively), and it has been amazing to see their surfaces come into Ahmedabad, India), Takashi Mikouchi (The University Museum,
view for the first time. These spacecraft will soon be sampling these two The University of Tokyo, Japan), Pierre Rochette (Aix-Marseille
asteroids, with Hayabusa2 expected to bring back samples from Ryugu University, Marseille, France), Mario Trieloff (Heidelberg University,
by end of my term as president in late 2020, and OSIRIS-REx expected Heidelberg, Germany), and Maria Eugenia Varela (Instituto
to return samples of Bennu a little less than three years later. Moreover, de Ciencias Astronómicas, de la Tierra y del Espacio, Buenos Aires,
there is even hope for samples to be returned from the surface of a Argentina).
comet, the Moon, and Mars in the not too distant future. Indeed, we
We would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Mike
are at the threshold of the golden age of sample-return missions, and
Zolensky, who is rotating off of the council after six years as an
it is exciting to consider the astounding discoveries that await us. So,
officer; Mike Weisberg as secretary; Candace Kohl as treasurer; and
what better time than now to make a push for making the Meteoritical
Keiko Nakamura-Messenger, François Robert, Caroline Smith,
Society more inclusive and diverse than it has been? We need, and
who are rotating off as councilors, for their years of dedicated service
welcome, the breadth of perspectives and expertise to learn as much
to keeping the Meteoritical Society operating smoothly! We would also
as possible from the samples that are expected to be brought back from
like to honor Christine Floss for her years of service to the society
different places in our solar system!
before she passed away earlier this year.
During my term as president, I will work to encourage the participa-
tion of women and underrepresented minorities in meteoritics and
planetary science. Also, I believe that we, as an international organiza-
tion, should support initiatives that foster even greater involvement by
our international members at our annual meetings and other society RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP NOW!
matters. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with your sugges-
tions in these areas. Please renew by 31 March 2019; after that date, a US$15 late fee
will be assessed. You can renew online at:
Meenakshi (Mini) Wadhwa http://metsoc.meteoriticalsociety.net
Meteoritical Society President 2019–2020

E lements 54 F ebruary 2019

2018 SOCIETY FELLOWS WORKSHOP ON CURATION OF METEORITES
AND EXTRATERRESTRIAL MATERIALS
The first Workshop on the Curation of Meteorites and Extraterrestrial
Samples was hosted 10–13 September 2018 by the Vatican Observatory
in Castel Gandolfo (Italy). Thirty curators and manager of collections
attended the meeting, representing 23 institutions from all over the
globe; three more curators participated by telepresence.
Thanks in part to a travel assistance grant provided by the Meteoritical
Society, most of the large and a few smaller worldwide collections were
Audrey Bouvier Hasnaa Chennaoui- Takashi Mikouchi represented. The main objectives of the meeting were to better organize
(University of Western Aoudjehane (Hassan II (The University Museum, the meteorite curation community, to share best practices, to discuss
Ontario, Canada) University of Casablanca, The University of Tokyo,
Morocco) Japan)
problems and issues pertinent to scientific curation, and to provide an
opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the different collections and
how they are curated. We were also able to move forward with a recom-
mendation for the recognition of individual specimens and sources
in publications. The workshop was organized around presentations
that introduced institutional collections and that were interspersed
with presentations and discussions on topics of concern for the group,
such as how best to preserve and make accessible the record of speci-
mens, concerns regarding new acquisitions and keeping track of laws
regarding meteorite possession and purchase in various countries, how
Henner Busemann Barbara Cohen Akira Tsuchiyama to enforce loan conditions for scientific researchers who use collection
(Institute for Geochemistry (NASA Goddard Space (University of Kyoto, specimens, and so on. Understanding the vastly different structures
and Petrology, ETH Zurich, Flight Center, Maryland, Japan) under which individual collections operate and how those structures
Switzerland) USA) influence decisions, as well as finding common ground, was an impor-
tant outcome of the meeting.
The workshop was organized by R. Macke (Vatican Observatory) and
L. Ferrière (Natural History Museum Vienna, Austria) with the hope
of better serving the community of researchers in extraterrestrial
materials.

Nancy Chabot Ian Franchi Qing-Zhu Yin

(Johns Hopkins Applied (The Open University, (University of California
Physics Laboratory, UK) at Davis, USA)
Maryland, USA)

THE BARRINGER FAMILY FUND FOR METEORITE

IMPACT RESEARCH
The Barringer Crater Company has established a special fund to support
fieldwork by eligible students interested in the study of impact cratering
processes. The Barringer Family Fund for Meteorite Impact Research will
provide a number of competitive grants in the range of US$2,500 to
US$5,000 to support field research at known or suspected impact sites
worldwide. Grant funds may be used to assist with travel and subsis-
tence costs, as well as for laboratory and computer analysis of research
samples and findings. Master’s, doctoral and postdoctoral students
enrolled in formal university programs are eligible. Applications to
the fund are due by 7 April 2019, with notification of grant awards
by 9 June 2019. Additional details about the fund and its application
process can be found at: http:/www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Awards/
Barringer_Fund.

ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE

2019  Sapporo (Japan) 8–12 July
2020  Glasgow (Scotland) 9–13 August
2021  Chicago (Illinois, USA) dates TBD
2022  Perth (Australia) dates TBD

E lements 55 F ebruary 2019

 Geochemical Society
www.geochemsoc.org
JEFF CATALANO NAMED EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF GCA
The Geochemical Society (GS) and the Meteoritical
Society (MS) are pleased to announce the appoint-
ment of Jeff Catalano, Professor of Aqueous
Geochemistry and Mineralogy at Washington
University in St. Louis (USA), as the next Executive
Editor of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. This
journal is jointly sponsored by the two societies
and publishes research papers in a wide range of
subjects in terrestrial geochemistry, meteoritics,
Jeff Catalano and planetary geochemistry. Prof. Catalano began
his term on 1 January 2019.
The Joint Publication Committee of the GS and MS conducted an inter-
national search last year to find a new editor to succeed outgoing editor
Marc Norman. The committee was chaired by Steve Shirey and also
included George Flynn, Mark Rehkamper, Thorsten Kleine, Jisun Park,
and Tina van De Flierdt. These volunteers committed many hours to
reviewing the applications and talking to the candidates. The societies
are very grateful for the excellent work that they did!
Said Prof. Catalano in December 2018 upon his appointment, “I am
grateful to the Geochemical Society and Meteoritical Society for
selecting me as the next Executive Editor of Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta. GCA is my home journal and has been since my days as a graduate
student. I believe that my time as an Associate Editor along with all
that I have learned over the years from my mentors, collaborators,
students, and faculty colleagues have prepared me well to manage this
journal. I hope that I can live up to the standard set by my predecessor,
Marc Norman, and look forward to working with him on a smooth
transition.”
“My top priority as Executive Editor will be maintaining GCA as the
leading disciplinary journal in the field of geochemistry. The excel-
lent group of Associate Editors are critical to meeting this goal. These
geochemists represent all branches of our field and their experience
and knowledge ensures a rigorous and fair review process. I will work
diligently to ensure that GCA stays the journal of choice for established
researchers in geochemistry but also adapts to accommodate new direc-
tions and interests, as reflected in the diversity of research presented
annually at the Goldschmidt Conference.”
In addition to his duties as Executive Editor, Prof. Catalano will also
serve as an ex-officio member of the GS board of directors.
MARC NORMAN COMPLETES TERM AS GCA
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Prof. Marc Norman (Australian National
University) retired from Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta in December 2018 after a successful six-year
term as Executive Editor. During his tenure, the
journal continued to grow in size and stature,
achieving an impact factor of 4.690 in 2017 and
a 5-year impact factor of 5.052. Each year, GCA
routinely received more than 1,000 manuscripts
… and Prof. Norman read them all.
Marc Norman
“Marc has done a remarkable job leading the
journal during his tenure,” said GS President Roberta Rudnick. “He is
known for his fair treatment of every submission to GCA and for taking
time to provide individual and constructive feedback to authors. He
brought stability and efficiency to the journal, which can be clearly
seen in metrics like an improved time-to-decision. Less quantifiable
but just as important, Marc maintained GCA’s reputation as the most
E lements
important publication in geochemistry. On behalf of the Geochemical
Society and the entire community, I thank him for his dedication, good
judgement, and excellent stewardship of the journal.”
In addition to the 24 regular volumes published each year, GCA also
produced eight special issues during Prof. Norman’s tenure. He was
responsible for recruiting a large and diverse team of nearly 90 associate
editors having expertise over the entire breadth of geochemistry and
meteoritics.
GS ADOPTS A CODE OF ETHICS
In 2016, the GS board established an Ethics Committee to determine
whether the society should adopt a formal code of behavior for its
members. The society’s bylaws have long stated that membership is
open to “any person of good character and unchallenged basic scientific
integrity and honesty.” Beyond this general statement, however, the
society had no official statement of what constitutes ethical behavior
as it relates to the organization’s programs and activities.
The committee quickly determined that a society of the GS’s size should
have a code of ethics to clearly state the values of professional behavior
that its members aspire to. After studying other organizations’ codes
and consulting legal experts, it became clear that the society actually
needed two documents: a code of conduct for all attendees of the
Goldschmidt Conference (whether GS members or not) and a society
code of ethics to define the “good character” mentioned in the bylaws.
Following nearly a year of development, the GS and the European
Association of Geochemistry adopted the first code of conduct for
a Goldschmidt Conference in 2018 (the Goldschmidt Conference is
the joint annual meeting of the two societies). This code of conduct
explains the conduct expected of anyone who participates in the confer-
ence and outlines a procedure for addressing any instances of harass-
ment that might take place during the meeting.
With the conference policy in place, the Ethics Committee then turned
to the code of ethics. The opening statement sets the tone: “As a profes-
sional society, the GS is committed to providing an open, diverse,
and supportive environment and expects the highest standards of
ethical conduct among its members and participants at its activities
to encourage the free expression and exchange of scientific ideas.”
While an ethics code is necessary for organizations like the GS to
deal with discrimination, misconduct, and other issues, the Ethics
Committee wanted to make the policy an aspirational guide that can
help the society become a more inclusive forum for its current and
potential members. Given that the GS has members in 70 countries,
the committee drew on resources from many countries in order to
make it as representative as possible of different perspectives on profes-
sional integrity. After more than a year of discussion and revisions, the
committee finished its work in fall (autumn) 2018, and the GS board
formally adopted the code in December 2018.
The code of ethics is available at: www.geochemsoc.org/about/
membership/code-ethics. A document like this must necessarily
evolve to stay relevant, so the society welcomes comments to
gsoffice@geochemsoc.org.
MEETING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Geochemical Society’s Meeting Assistance Program provides
support for symposia or conferences related to geochemistry, and all
GS members are eligible to apply. Sponsorships provide US$2,000, and
the society may award up to four per year. The GS Program Committee
reviews applications twice a year; the next deadline is 31 March 2019.
For more information, visit: tinyurl.com/GeoChemMAP.
56 F ebruary 2019
 International Association of GeoChemistry

www.iagc-society.org

FROM THE PRESIDENT INTRODUCING OUR NEW VICE PRESIDENT,

By the time this message is published in Elements, JODIE MILLER
my challenge as International Association for Although I started out in metamorphic petrology,
GeoChemistry (IAGC) President for the two-year these days I regard myself as an Earth scientist,
term will be over. At the transition period between with diverse research interests in isotope geochem-
the president and the past-president position, I istry and mineralogy. Much of my work focusses
would like to first thank Ian Cartwright for his on isotope hydrology and examines the relation-
dedication to the IAGC as he transitions out of ship between surface water and groundwater
the past-president position. I also would like to systems, particularly in semi-arid and arid
welcome Neus Otero, current IAGC Vice President, climates on the west coast of southern Africa. My
Philippe Négrel who will take over the IAGC President role in long-term goal is to better understand the sustain-
2019. Finally, I am happy to announce that Jodie ability and vulnerability of groundwater systems
Miller from Stellenbosch University (South Africa) will be the next vice and how they will be affected by climate change. In addition to this
president. work, I continue to work in the field of mineralogy with respect to
minerals processing and am interested in novel ways in which isotopes
Within my two-year term as president, the largest changes in the
can be used to track the minerals processing value chain. Outside of
association concerned our IAGC-sponsored Working Group meetings.
research, I am passionate about teaching and particularly in helping
During the last Applied Isotope Geochemistry (AIG) meeting in Copper
students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have supervised over 60
Mountain (Colorado, USA), the council agreed on a new meeting format.
postgraduate students from honours level through to PhD and have
Under the leadership of two former IAGC Presidents (Richard Wanty,
been the programme coordinator for Earth sciences at Stellenbosch
2012–2014; and Russell Harmon, 2010–2012) and with the help of
University (South Africa) for over 10 years. I look forward to serving
Yousif Kharaka, Tom Bullen, and the IAGC Council, we decided to create
the IAGC during this exciting time of transition to the new IAGC
a unified IAGC International Conference. The first event of this new era
International Conference and will work to continue our mission to
will be the Water–Rock Interaction and Applied Isotope Geochemistry
promote cooperation and education in geochemistry around the world.
(WRI–AIG) conference in Tomsk (Russia) under the umbrella of two
of the historically largest working groups (the Geochemistry of the Jodie Miller
Earth’s Surface (GES) being the third largest). However, as the GES Stellenbosch University, South Africa
group had already initiated the planning process for its next meeting
in Switzerland, the second fully consolidated conference involving all
working groups will be held in 2021 at a location to be announced
soon. Please check the IAGC website (www.iagc-society.org) for details
or check the Tomsk meeting website (wri16.com).
The second important activity of my tenure concerned Applied
Geochemistry, the official journal of the IAGC. Michael Kersten has
agreed to renew his position as Executive Editor after again volun-
teering for this role and having the enthusiastic support of the council.
Michael will, therefore, continue as the Executive Editor for the next
three years. We hope to see more review articles in Applied Geochemistry
and a continued clear increase in the science citation index. This is
something where you, the members, can help by submitting some of
your best research results. Consider Applied Geochemistry when planning
to write a review article, and discuss your idea with Michael should
you have such plans.
Last but not least, 2018 was the year of the passing of two IAGC
luminaries: Tom Bullen and Mel Gascoyne. The IAGC and the wider pubs.geoscienceworld.org/elements
geochemistry community mourn the passing of these great scientists,
colleagues, and friends. For more, I encourage you to read the remem-
brances for Tom and Mel published in Applied Geochemistry (Harmon
2018; Shouakar-Stash et al. 2018), as well as in the IAGC Newsletter
(No. 68, August 2018; and no. 69, November 2018) which are available
from http://www.iagc-society.org/newsletters.html.
Finally, I thank the officers, council, and the Business Office Manager
for all the help I received during the two years of my term as president,
and I wish the best for the IAGC and the incoming officers. I will remain
active and strongly supportive of the IAGC.
Philippe Négrel, BRGM, France
Harmon R (2018) Remembrance Melvyn (Mel) Gascoyne, 1948–2018. Applied
Geochemistry 98: 473
Shouakar-Stash O and 5 coauthors (2018) A remembrance of Thomas (Tom)
Bullen, 1951–2018. Applied Geochemistry 98: 474-475

E lements 57 F ebruary 2019

 The Clay Minerals Society
www.clays.org
THE PRESIDENT’S CORNER
Happy New Year!
As fast as the year will go, I hope we are all filled
with excitement for the new beginning of a new
year, which always brings new deadlines, new
obligations, new challenges, but, more impor-
tantly, new opportunities for success, adventures,
and discoveries. New leadership in The Clay
Minerals Society is also ahead, with different
perspectives and renewed energy to make a mark
on the society’s direction. We share the desire to
Lynda B. Williams move forward and to respect all those who
contribute to making The Clay Minerals Society
a welcoming home for international scientists and
policy makers.
After many years of working to increase the profile
of the research performed by our members and by
other authors, The Clay Minerals Society council
has chosen Springer Nature as its publishing
partner in order to increase our visibility world-
wide. The advantages to authors will be:
1. Access to > 9,000 institutional libraries.
2. Greatly reduced time between acceptance and
publication online.
3. Immediate abstracting and indexing (appearing in, for example,
the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus).
4. Marketing to a wide range of disciplines (materials science, energy,
agriculture, medicine, climate, and others), not just the geoscience
community.
5. No charge for color printing.
6. Upon publication of their paper, authors will immediately receive
a URL for the version of record of their work, which they can share
with interested parties. This link will allow any interested party,
including grant agencies, access to the full-text version through
Springer Nature’s SharedIt tool.
This decision was not made lightly but followed many long hours of
committee discussions and negotiations by Editor-in-Chief Joseph
Stucki and Managing Editor Kevin Murphy. Our intention is to broaden
the readership of our journal, to attract new interest and understanding
of the wide variety of research conducted on clays, and to highlight our
deep knowledge of clay minerals and their role in environmental and
climate science, energy, agriculture, medicine, and materials. When you
consider that the focus of this journal touches every aspect of human
sustainability, it should be one of the premier journals in which the
scientific public can discover critical advances in clay nanoscience and
technology. The journal is produced with the backing and oversight of
scores of talented clay specialists, thereby ensuring quality communica-
tion of our fundamental conceptual progress.
Please join me in thanking our editorial staff for their dedication and
efforts on our behalf. We hope you will look for and enjoy reading
the first issue of Clays and Clay Minerals published in partnership with
Springer Nature in February 2019, which will include papers from
The Clay Minerals Society’s most recent workshop entitled Medicinal
Applications of Clays. The issue will be guest-edited by Jin-Ho Choy
from Ewha Woman’s University (Republic of Korea).
Lynda B. Williams, Arizona State University
(Lynda.Williams@asu.edu)
President, The Clay Minerals Society
E lements
2018 CMS PROFESSIONAL AWARD RECIPIENT
SPOTLIGHT
Prof. Stephen Hillier received the 2018 Marion L.
and Chrystie M. Jackson Mid-Career Clay Scientist
Award at the 55th Clay Minerals Society Annual
Meeting, which took place at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (USA) in June 2018.
Prof. Hillier gave an acceptance speech titled
“Digital Soil Mineralogy”. Steve is a clay mineralo-
gist working in the Environment and Biochemical
Sciences group at the James Hutton Institute
(formerly the Macaulay Institute) (Scotland). He
undertook his PhD at the University of Southampton (UK), followed
by postdocs in Paris (France) and Bern (Switzerland), and he specializes
in the identification and quantification of clay minerals by X-ray diffrac-
tion methods. He is also well known for his excellent track record in
the Reynolds Cup competition for the best quantitative clay analysis.
Steve’s interests and publications currently centre on the use of quanti-
tative clay mineralogical analysis to understand soil properties and the
development of the data-driven programs to further the “Digital Soil
Mineralogy” concept. He also leads the commercial mineralogy group
at the James Hutton Institute. He is a visiting professor in the Department
of Soil and Environment at the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences in Uppsala and was Conference Chair for Euroclay 2015 in
Edinburgh (Scotland). He is also Chair of the newly formed Clay
Minerals Task Group of the International Centre for Diffraction Data,
the reviews editor for Clay Minerals, Chair of the International Union
of Soil Science Commission on Soil Mineralogy, and maintains the
joint Clay Minerals Society/Mineralogical Society ‘Images of Clay’
archive.
STUDENT RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT
Congratulations to Brian Joseph Ares from
Michigan State University’s Department of Earth
and Environmental Sciences (USA) for winning
the 2018 CMS Student Research Grant!
Brian’s research focusses on the abundant authi-
genic illite cement that has been identified within
the Mississippian age Michigan “Stray” sandstone
and the Sandstone Member of the Marshall
Formation in the Michigan Basin (USA). This illite
has been petrographically determined to be the most recent event in
the paragenetic sequence of these formations. The purpose of Brian’s
research is to evaluate the feasibility of multiple conflicting hypotheses
regarding the source of potassium ions required for the formation of
this illite cement within the sandstone facies. Petrographic light micros-
copy and scanning electron microscopy of samples taken from cores
throughout the Michigan Basin will be used to characterize localities
containing abundant illite and to provide input for modelling and
mass-balance budgets. Inverse aqueous geochemical modelling will
be used to determine the chemical composition of formational pore
fluids. Powder X-ray diffraction will also be performed on highly illitic
samples to evaluate illite crystallinity and to determine the temperature
of illite formation.
CMS MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
Don’t forget to renew your membership for 2019!
58 F ebruary 2019
 Association of Applied Geochemists

www.appliedgeochemists.org

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT case, this will enable us to both further geochemical research and to
help develop the next generation of geochemical leaders. Our cospon-
As I write this, my first president’s message of 2019,
sorship of the upcoming “Mineral Systems of the Pacific Rim” (PACRIM)
and reflect upon the achievements of the past
conference in New Zealand in April 2019, for example, will include
year, I’m pleased to say that it has been an active
support for the travel of some AAG members to Auckland to present
and fruitful one for the Association of Applied
research results and to attend short courses on applied geochemistry.
Geochemists (AAG). We held a successful 28th
International Applied Geochemistry Symposium Stephen Cook
(IAGS) in Vancouver (British Columbia, Canada) AAG President
as part of the wider Resources for Future
Generations (RFG 2018) Conference, and we 29 th IAGS AT VIÑA DEL MAR (CHILE)
awarded the Gold and Silver Medals of the associa-
The International Applied Geochemistry Symposium (IAGS) is the AAG
tion to three esteemed colleagues at our gala dinner at the Vancouver
biennial symposium on applied geochemistry for professionals from
Aquarium. The many hours put into this by the AAG’s local organizing
industry, government departments, and academia. It provides opportu-
committee, headed by Dr. Peter Winterburn (University of British
nities to exchange ideas and advances related to the use of geochemistry
Columbia), paid off with an excellent slate of technical sessions and
in the mineral resources field and to geochemical analytical methods
short courses. Gold Medals for outstanding scientific contributions and
and environmental geochemistry, among other applied areas. The AAG
achievement in applied geochemistry were awarded to Prof. Reijo
Council has unanimously approved Viña del Mar (Chile) as the venue
Salminen of the Geological Survey of Finland (for 2016) and to Stuart
for the 29th IAGS, to be held in 2020.
Averill, founder of Overburden Drilling Management Ltd (for 2017).
The 2016 Silver Medal was awarded to Dr. David Cohen of the University The city of Viña del Mar, in central Chile, is located 120 km north-
of New South Wales (Australia) for his long-standing and dedicated west of the capital city of Chile, Santiago. It is a well-known tourist
service to the AAG. A proposal for the next symposium to be held in destination, famous for its beaches, the neighbouring world heritage
Viña del Mar (Chile) in 2020 has been accepted by the AAG Council, city of Valparaiso and abundant parks. The city lies west of the coastal
and planning by the local organizing committee is well underway cordillera in which wineries thrive among the valleys, together with
under the direction of Dr. Brian Townley. We have a new Editor-in other productive activities that include gold and base-metal mining.
Chief this past year, Dr. Scott Wood, for our journal Geochemistry: The location of Viña del Mar is easy to access and represents a great
Exploration, Environment, Analysis (GEEA), and our association is on a starting point for pre- and post-symposium activities, including field
solid financial footing. Both our website and our newsletter, EXPLORE, trips and social or tourist activities.
provide AAG information and technical articles at a high standard of
content and presentation to geochemists and other geoscientists. We
were also a cosponsor of the recent Australian Geoscience Council
Convention in Adelaide (South Australia).
For all this, we can thank our council, our regional councilors, coordina-
tors and committee chairs, the members of the IAGS local organizing
committee for both 2018 and 2020, and indeed all of the members
of the AAG for their solid support of their time and energies over the
course of this and previous years. This is a fitting point to welcome, on
behalf of the Executive Council and the entire AAG, those Fellows who
will be joining AAG Council for the coming two-year term 2019–2020:
John Carranza, Patrice de Caritat and Dave Heberlein. John and Patrice
have both served on past councils, while Dave is a first-time councilor.
As well, I am delighted to report that Renguang Zuo and Tom Meuzelaar
will be continuing on from the 2017–2018 Council, serving their second
consecutive 2-year terms. All five will join 2018–2019 Councilors
Maurizio Barbieri, David Murphy, Graham Sylvester, Yulia Uvarova and
Erick Weiland. I also want to extend my thanks to departing councilors
David Cohen, Juan Carlos Ordonez Calderon and Ray Lett for their
service and contributions to the association over the previous terms. Pre- and post-symposium activities will include field trips to the ore
deposits and mines of northern Chile (Antofagasta region), of north
As the calendar turns to 2019, it is now time to think strategically of
central Chile (Atacama and Coquimbo regions) and of central Chile
the future direction of the AAG, and how to position it for continuing
(Valparaiso to O’Higgins regions); to wineries of central Chile; and
success and growth in the coming years. Two of my objectives as presi-
trips that will explore the tectonic and magmatic evolution of the
dent are to increase our membership and to expand our level of educa-
Andes along an east–west transect through the Aconcagua Valley, from
tional research support for the next generation of geochemists. The
Chile to Argentina, among other possibilities. Short courses on different
success of the two will be closely related. The membership of the AAG
topics of applied geochemistry will be offered, including exploration in
stood at 396 in late 2018, including 131 fellows, 246 regular members
areas of transported overburden; geology, geochemistry and wine; and
and 18 students. This includes 26 new members (17 regular members
environmental geochemistry and tailings. The coastal region of Chile
and 9 students), although our total membership is down slightly from
is highly touristic, with plenty of activities available for the social and
the 403 in 2017. Over the coming months, we will be devising and
accompanying persons programs.
implementing action plans to increase our membership, transition
eligible current members to fellow status and, very importantly, increase Brian Townley
our levels of student sponsorship and educational support. In the latter Chair, 29th IAGS Local Organizing Committee

E lements 59 F ebruary 2019

 European Association of Geochemistry
www.eag.eu.com
PRESIDENT’S CORNER
It is an honour to become the President of
European Association of Geochemistry (EAG). I
have been “president-in-training” over the last
two years, learning the ropes from Past-President
Bernard Marty and the “past-past president”,
Liane Benning. It is a clever governance: you learn
the ropes, then you govern, and afterwards you
pass on your valuable knowledge to the new presi-
dent and vice president. Bernard and Liane, thank
Sigurður Reynir you for your good work. The EAG has done very
Gislason
well during Bernard’s term. Goldschmidt2017 in
Paris (France) was the largest ever, with pioneering science and an
exciting social program, all in the setting of a truly beautiful city. It
was memorable to meet Hélène Langevin-Joliot, the granddaughter of
Pierre and Marie Curie, and to listen to her describe her grandparents’
lives and research in her plenary talk. I also have to mention the concert
by the ‘band’ Double Scotch that was such a hit, starring Bernard Marty
on electric guitar and Alice Williams, from the EAG office, as lead
singer. They were fantastic. Elsewhere, the EAG publications keep on
growing, especially Geochemical Perspectives Letters. Our journal
Geochemical Perspectives has achieved a five-year impact factor of 9.7,
and the impact factor of Geochemical Perspectives Letters will be
announced in June 2019. We are all grateful to the editors and the
editorial office for their commitment and hard work.
The EAG is an energetic community that relies on the efforts of
unselfish and generous individuals: these are the many councillors
and committee members listed at www.eag.eu.com/about. On behalf of
everyone at EAG, I would like to thank the council and board members
who are moving on this year – Liane Benning, Andreas Kappler, Antje
Boetius, Don Canfield and Kirsten Küsel – and to welcome in the new
members who joined in January: Kate Kiseeva, Alberto Vitale Broverone,
Dan Frost and Maud Boyet.
We are also blessed with a strong and dynamic business office, managed
by Marie-Aude Hulshoff and co-run by Alice Williams. Their task list is
long: Goldschmidt conferences, society matters, publications, websites,
newsletters, workshops, outreach programs, awards and – last but
certainly not least – they keep the rest of us on track and make sure
the tasks get done.
Organising the Goldschmidt Conference in Europe is EAG’s greatest
task, managed by the Organising and Science Committee and the Local
Organising Committee, who make sure we get the best of what each
city has to offer. I would like to thank Antje Boetius, Chair of the 2017
Organising and Science Committee, and Marc Chaussidon, Chair of the
2017 Local Organising Committee, as well as their respective commit-
tees, for the success of Goldschmidt2017 in Paris.
According to the Goldschmidt Conference tradition, its scope spans
“the origin of the Earth and planets, the chemical processes that have
shaped Earth’s evolution over time, the interconnections between life
and the physical world, the search for new resources, and the environ-
mental challenges facing today’s world.” Humanity faces a number of
large challenges, from global warming to environmental hazards. The
world looks to us for help, and we must find a way to reach out to the
public and the policy makers and to help solve some of these problems.
Goldschmidt2019 is coming up in just few months, 18–23 August, with
a cutting-edge science program co-organised by Helen Williams and
Derek Vance and their committees, and a local program organised by
Joan Marti Molist and his team. We look forward to welcoming you to
the beautiful city of Barcelona (Spain), with great local food, culture
E lements
and architecture to enjoy, and a conference venue right by the beach.
Perhaps our main concern will be how to keep people in the sessions.
I can’t wait to see you all there!
Sigurður Reynir Gíslason, EAG President
CHANGES IN THE EAG COUNCIL
The council recently elected two new councillors, Dan Frost and Maud
Boyet, to serve as co-chairs for the Goldschmidt2021 Organising and
Science Committees.
Dan Frost is Professor of Experimental Geosciences
at the Bayerisches Geoinstitut at the University of
Bayreuth (Germany). His research focuses on
chemical and physical processes in the deep interior
of the Earth. Dan was an EAG council member from
2009 to 2014 and is the Chair of the Executive
Committee for Elements, where he also represents
the EAG.
Maud Boyet is a CNRS senior research scientist at
the Laboratoire Magmas et Volcans, Université
Clermont-Auvergne (France). Maud specializes in
trace element and isotope geochemistry and has
research interests in the chronology of early solar
system processes, the early silicate history of plane-
tary bodies, the evolution of the Earth’s mantle,
mantle dynamics, and techniques for high-preci-
sion chemical and isotope analysis.
In the council elections last autumn, EAG members also elected two
new councillors, who will serve for three years.
Kate Kiseeva is a lecturer in geochemistry at
University College Cork (Ireland). Her research
interests focus on the behaviour of chalcophile
elements in mantle processes and on high-pressure
mantle geochemistry, metasomatism in the cratonic
mantle, and upper- and lower-mantle inclusions
in diamonds.
Alberto Vitale Brovarone is a researcher at
Torino University (Italy) and with the CNRS
(France). His research centres on fluid–rock
exchanges and volatile recycling from the seafloor
to subducting slabs, and his work has mainly
focused on the deep carbon cycle, particularly on
the genesis and recycling of high-pressure abiotic
hydrocarbons in subduction zones.
Finally, Mihály Pósfai, who joined the EAG Council in 2018, has been
elected by the council to serve as EAG Secretary from 2019.
Mihály Pósfai is a professor of Environmental
Science at the University of Pannonia, Hungary. His
research interests include biomineralization and
biomimetic synthesis of magnetic nanostructures,
the nucleation of carbonate minerals in freshwater
ecosystems, and the properties and climate effects
of individual atmospheric particles.
The EAG would like to thank those council members who finished
their terms at the end of 2018: Antje Boetius, Don Canfield, Andreas
Kappler, Kirsten Küsel, and former President Liane Benning.
60 F ebruary 2019
 Abstract submission deadline: 29 March
Early registration deadline: 18 June

… accessible … … in a fabulous location

An exciting conference…
—— Fantastic science
—— Great networking opportunities
—— Subsidised student registration
—— Subsidised Early Career program
—— Subsidised onsite childcare
—— Beautiful city between mountains and sea
—— Wonderful cuisine and wineries
—— Unique culture and incredible architecture

goldschmidt.info/2019

THEMES AND THEME CHAIRS

01 Early Solar system and early planets
Vinciane Debaille, Shogo Tachibana, Hanika Rizo
02 Mantle and Core
James Day, Anat Shahar, Julien Siebert
03 Earth’s Lithosphere Formation, Evolution
and Recycling
Cin-Ty Lee, Janet Hergt, Sonja Aulbach
04 Nano to Microscale processes
Sumit Chakraborty, Steven Reddy, Dominique
Tobler
05 Minerals and Energy for High Tech Societies
Sarah Gleeson, Sasha Wilson, Jianwei Li
06 Magmas and Volcanoes
Tamsin Mather, Alessandro Aiuppa, Fidel Costa
07 Co-evolving life and environments
through deep time
Axel Hofmann, Aubrey Zerkle, Tais W. Dahl,
Benjamin Johnson
08 Climate of the past, present and future
Heather Stoll, James Rae, Jess Tierney
09 Weathering, erosion and the critical zone
Heather Buss, Clifford Riebe, Philip Pogge von
Strandmann
10 Chemistry of the Oceans and Atmosphere
Laura Robinson, Alex Baker, Thomas Weber
11 Geobiology and biomarkers
Drew Gorman-Lewis, Jennifer Glass,
Ricardo Amils, Laura Villanueva
12 Metals and nutrients in terrestrial
and freshwater systems
Ruben Kretzschmar, Laura Wasylenki,
Jeffrey Catalano
13 Biogeochemistry of contaminants
and pollutants
Karen Hudson-Edwards, Jiubin Chen,
Carl Lamborg
14 Communicating Science
Sarah Simpson
We look forward to seeing you
in Barcelona!

E lements 61 F ebruary 2019

 German Mineralogical Society

www.dmg-home.org

FROM THE PRESIDENT Other changes in our scientific field are currently in progress. The
aggressive pricing by some established publishers of scientific journals
Dear friends and members of the DMG,
and the foundation of several dubious predatory publishers prompted
With the start of 2019, it is my pleasure to serve many scientific societies to promote open access publishing. This matter
the German mineralogical community as the new will also concern our own European Journal of Mineralogy (EJM). I expect
President of the DMG. I follow in the footsteps of that open access options will be available for the EJM in the near future.
recent past-presidents Reiner Klemd and François
There will be also a change in the review board 316 (short title:
Holtz, and many others who did a great job as
Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Crystallography) of the German research
president in the past. Their continuous support
funding organization, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG),
and their ongoing engagement will have an
where the membership terminates in 2019 and new members will need
Reinhard X. Fischer important impact on the future of our society. I
to be elected for the period 2020–2023. The DMG has submitted a list
especially thank Reiner for his efforts in promoting
of ten candidates who have the support of other societies as well. I
our science both within Germany and to the wider world. With his
am asking all our members to send in their votes by fall/autumn 2019
improvisational talent and personal commitment, he always tried to
to the DFG. The review board will be renamed as the Mineralogy,
push our field to the forefront of internationally oriented research. I
Petrology, and Geochemistry review board, a name that had caused
will do my best to follow my predecessors on this route. It will be my
some irritation among our crystallographic colleagues who now feel
task to find the balance between the autonomy of the DMG and its
no longer represented. However, the next chance to debate the matter
“local and familiar” atmosphere and its integration into the broader
will be for the period starting in 2024.
geoscientific community. This will only be possible with the support
of the established members of the steering committee—especially our What else has changed? Our general assembly has decided to make some
Treasurer, Gerhard Franz, and our Secretary, Klaus-Dieter Grevel— and minor corrections to our statutes concerning the terms of office, and
all the other numerous people who are keeping this engine running. there have been some changes to the rules for awarding the Ramdohr
I am proud to be a member of this team. Prize to student members. Starting in 2019, there will be two separate
prizes for oral and poster presentations on our annual meetings, each
There are rotational changes in the chairs of our sections as well. Horst
now having an award of €500.
Marschall (petrology), Axel Schmitt (geochemistry), Christoph Berthold
(crystallography), and Christiane Stephan-Scherb (applied mineralogy)
take over the offices from Timm John, Ronny Schönberg, Helmut Klein,
and Christoph Berthold, respectively. Catherine McCammon (University
of Bayreuth, Germany) resigns from our advisory council being replaced
by Kilian Pollok (Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany), and Ina
Alt (Heidelberg University, Germany) follows Thomas Rose (German
Mining Museum, Germany) as student member in this council. I thank
all acting and resigning members, and especially the newcomers, for
their commitment to our society. In our umbrella organization, the
Dachverband der Geowissenschaften (DVGeo), François Holtz (our
former president) resigns as vice president, being replaced by Timm
John (Free University Berlin). Thank you, François, for all your activi-
ties in various services for our society!
When I started studying mineralogy at the University of Mainz
(Germany) in 1975, I did not expect that mineralogy would undergo
so many transitions: first from a diploma study program mainly focused
on mineralogical topics, to a broad geoscience Bachelor subject, and
later to various specialized MSc programs. Education has changed
to include training with high-tech instruments, such as the high-
resolution electron microscope or the X-ray tomography machine, OUR THEMES
in addition to the established methods of X-ray diffraction, spectros-
copy, and analytical chemistry. These skills make mineralogy a unique
discipline that has many applications in both industry and research.
I followed this trend, learning the basics in crystal chemistry from
Ekkehart Tillmanns in Mainz to learning even more as a postdoc under
Werner H. Baur (University of Illinois at Chicago, USA). I was intro-
duced to the technical aspects in the field of zeolite science during my
time at the DuPont Experimental Station in Wilmington (Delaware,
USA) in Bob Shannon’s group: Bob is well known for his approaches
combining crystal chemical aspects with materials’ properties. Finally,
I got an insight view into the world of petrology from Martin Okrusch
at the Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg (Germany). I learned
that every field has its own significance and importance and that we
mineralogists become stronger and more versatile if we interact with
our neighbouring disciplines.

E lements 62 F ebruary 2019

The DMG will continue to support young scientists by offering
workshops and short courses on various aspects of modern miner-
alogy and by financial support for attending conferences. This is widely
appreciated by the students in our society, who represent about 25% of
DMG members. I will put all my effort into further supporting young
scientists, and I thank all those in our community who help organize
these training programs. This makes our society an agile platform for
scientific activities.
Finally, I invite all of you to participate in our annual meetings:
in September 2019 in Münster, and then in 2020 at the European
Mineralogical Conference in Krakow (Poland). I hope that I will see
all of you at these meetings.
All the best,
Reinhard X. Fischer (DMG President)
ANNUAL MEETING 2019
DMG-SECTIONS GEOCHEMISTRY AND PETROLOGY
& PETROPHYSICS
Heidelberg
The annual meeting of the DMG sections of Geochemistry and Petrology
& Petrophysics will take place 24–25 May 2019 at Heidelberg University
(Germany). The primary focus of the meeting is the presentation of
current research activities of both sections in a common forum. Junior
scientists (master’s and PhD students) will also have the opportunity
in this interdisciplinary event to present their projects and preliminary
results to a broad scientific audience.
This meeting will take place at the Institute of Earth Sciences (located
at Im Neuenheimer Feld 235 in Heidelberg).
https://www.geow.uni-heidelberg.de/md/chemgeo/geow/forschungs-
gruppen/schmitt/overview_map_aktualisiert_20160503.pdf.
Heidelberg University; Im Neuenheimer Feld; Geoscience Building. Photo : J. Harvey
E lements
The meeting starts on Friday (May 24) with registration from 11 AM;
the talks start at 1 PM. A snack lunch will be provided. The end of the
meeting will be after the talk and poster awards on Saturday (May 25)
at 2 PM at the latest. The traditional barbeque will take place in front
of the Institute of Earth Sciences on Friday evening so that discus-
sions can continue in a casual atmosphere and new contacts can be
made. Interested participants will have the opportunity to join labora-
tory tours. Furthermore, participants will be encouraged to visit the
geological and mineralogical museum and see the exhibition “200 Years
of Geosciences in Heidelberg”.
To cover the expenses for catering there will be a service charge of €30
to be paid at registration on-site. External student DMG members can
apply for a travel allowance of €50 and are kindly asked to prove their
student membership at the venue.
In the vicinity of the university there are several hotels, a youth hostel
and accommodation possibilities via the internet. The institute can
be reached easily by tram or bus (~10 minutes from central station
or from the old town). See https://www.geow.uni-heidelberg.de/HIP/
travelinformation_en.html.
Details on the application process will be announced about one month
before the meeting. For more information, please contact Sonja Storm:
DMG-Heidelberg@geow.uni-heidelberg.de.
We look forward to welcoming many participants to Heidelberg and
to an exciting meeting!
Kind regards, and see you soon,
Sonja Storm, Axel Schmitt, Lucie Tajcmanovà,
Mario Trieloff (Heidelberg Univerity); Horst Marschall
(University of Frankfurt)
DMG AWARDS FOR YOUNG SCIENTISTS
Starting in 2019, two separate Paul Ramdohr Awards are given,
one for the best oral presentation and one for the best poster presenta-
tion by a student at the annual meeting of the German Mineralogical
Society (DMG). Student members of the DMG may apply when submit-
ting an abstract for GeoMünster 2019. Application forms can be
downloaded from https://www.dmg-home.org/fileadmin/downloads/
Form-Paul-Ramdohr-Preisallg_v1.pdf.
In memory of the late petrologist and geochemist Beate Mocek, the
Beate Mocek Prize of the German Mineralogical Society was created
by her family to encourage female young scientists in the areas of
petrology and geochemistry. Female undergraduate or PhD students
who are members of the DMG are eligible to apply for this prize. Please
submit your application by 30 June 2019 to our president Reinhard X.
Fischer (rfischer@uni-bremen.de).
63 F ebruary 2019
 Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences
http://jams.la.coocan.jp
FROM THE PRESIDENT
It is a great honor for me to have been appointed
President of the Japan Association of Mineralogical
Sciences (JAMS). At the broadest level, the Japan
Association of Mineralogical Sciences aims to
further develop the fields of mineral sciences and
the Earth and planetary sciences.
The Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences
was established in 2007 by merging the Japanese
Association of Mineralogists, Petrologists, and
Masaki Enami,
President Economic Geologists (established in 1928) with
the Mineralogical Society of Japan (founded in
1955). In 2016, it was transformed from a private association to a
general incorporated association. Thus, we have taken new steps toward
building trust among the general public and in academic circles, and
we have an improving legal stability. Today, JAMS is a credible academic
society that is open to the general public. During its long history,
JAMS has contributed important research on topics in a wide variety
of fields, including material science, environmental science, and life
science, in addition to the solid Earth and planetary sciences. Further,
the society has contributed towards the development of new interdis-
ciplinary fields through collaborating with researchers in the areas of
disaster science, archaelogy, and forensic science, among others. The
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences is a member of the Japan
Geoscience Union, and its members are actively engaged in organizing
scientific sessions, as well as research presentations on mineral sciences.
We will continue to disseminate widely and assertively across different
fields the importance of “mineral science” as a basic element of the
Earth and planetary sciences.
Many members of JAMS have participated in, and made significant
contributions to, important and major projects in the field of Earth
and planetary sciences. The asteroid probe Hayabusa, which means
“peregrine falcon”, successfully completed a sample-return mission from
the asteroid Itokawa. Its successor, Hayabusa 2, reached the asteroid
Ryugu (which is the palace of the sea god according to a Japanese
legend) after three-and-a-half years of space travel and is now trans-
mitting clear and beautiful images to the Earth. Hayabusa 2 will land
on Ryugu and attempt to collect valuable rock and soil samples and
bring them back to the Earth. Young researchers with experience in
the Hayabusa project (and associated fields) will be able to study these
samples and reveal previously unknown characteristics of the asteroid
Ryugu.
We have not yet succeeded in collecting rock samples directly from the
upper mantle by our own efforts. In other words, from the viewpoint
of sampling, the mantle is further away than the Moon or asteroid
Itokawa! One of the major goals of the deep Earth exploration (drilling)
vessel Chikyu is the drilling and sampling of the Earth’s crust down
to the mantle; many researchers from around the world have now
participated in this ongoing project. Continuous core samples from
the crust–mantle boundary have also been collected through onshore
drilling of the Oman ophiolite (on the Arabian Peninsula), which was
carried out simultaneously with the Chikyu project. Currently, various
analyses are underway onboard the Chikyu, and many members of
JAMS are playing important roles in the mantle drilling and Oman
ophiolite projects.
People living on islands, like many members of JAMS, inevitably
experience trench-type earthquakes and tsunamis. Clay and serpentine
minerals may have a significant role in the occurrence these earth-
quakes. Therefore, there is an increasing interest in these minerals.
Members of JAMS will undoubtedly contribute greatly to the research in
E lements
this field. Results of research in a wide range of fields will be published
in the Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences (JMPS). I invite all
of you to visit the JMPS website (http://jams.la.coocan.jp/jmps.htm).
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences
President
Prof. Masaki Enami
INVITATION TO THE JAPAN GEOSCIENCE UNION
MEETING 2019
We are pleased to inform you that the Japan
Geoscience Union (JpGU) meeting will be
held 26–30 May 2019 at Makuhari Messe in
Chiba (Japan). The JpGU meeting will bring
together researchers from different special-
ties and from many institutes around the
world. The JpGU has been promoting joint
sessions with the American Geophysical
Union (AGU), the Asia Oceania Geosciences
Societ y (AOGS) and the European
Geosciences Union (EGU). In 2018, the meeting had approximately
8,000 attendees. More details are available at http://www.jpgu.org/
meeting_e2019/.
JOURNAL OF MINERALOGICAL
AND PETROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Vol. 113, No. 6, December 2018
Original Articles
Determination of the locations of Mn and Fe in Mn-bearing
andalusite by anomalous X-ray scattering and X-ray absorp-
tion fine structure analyses – Hiroshi ARIMA, Yuki TANI, Kazumasa
SUGIYAMA and Akira YOSHIASA
Variable-temperature single-crystal X-ray diffraction study of
SrGeO3 high-pressure perovskite phase – Akihiko NAKATSUKA,
Akira YOSHIASA, Keiko FUJIWARA and Osamu OHTAKA
Pressure-induced structural changes of basaltic glass –
Tomonori OHASHI, Tatsuya SAKAMAKI, Ken-ichi FUNAKOSHI and
Akio SUZUKI
Ore-microscopy and geochemistry of gold–silver Telluride
mineralization in southwestern Hokkaido, Japan – Euis T.
YUNINGSIH, Hiroharu MATSUEDA and Ildrem SYAFRIE
Letters
Formation of Fe(III)-oxides on the magnetite surfaces in the
low-temperature hydrothermal reaction – Tomoya TAMURA,
Ryo SUGAYA and Atsushi KYONO
Finding of talc- and kyanite-bearing amphibolite from the
Paleoproterozoic Usagaran Belt, Tanzania – Keiko MORI, Tatsuki
TSUJIMORI and Nelson BONIFACE
64 F ebruary 2019
 ECMS
2019
9th EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON
MINERALOGY AND SPECTROSCOPY

Prague, Czech Republic

September 11-14, 2019
Confirmed workshops Key speakers Organizer
Michal Dušek: Peter C. Burns
JANA2006 – crystal structure Janice Bishop
computation package Sergey V. Krivovichev
Lee A. Groat & Jan Cempírek: Anna Vymazalová
Gemstone deposits Juraj Majzlan
Sergey S. Lobanov Czech Geological Society

Conference mission
ECMS 2019 will deal with mineralogy, spectroscopy and related fields of science, with a special focus on the
interplay between short-range and long-range information to account for crystalline and amorphous materials
physical properties.
The Conference will bring together both theoretically and experimentally oriented scientists, providing them with
an opportunity to share ideas and learn from one another.

Conference site
Břevnov Monastery

ecms2019.eu

 2019
March 10–14  TMS (Minerals,
Metals & Materials Society) 2018
148th Annual Meeting & Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX, USA. Web page: www.
tms.org/tms2019
March 18–22  50 th Lunar and Plan-
etary Science Conference, Houston
area, USA. Web page www.hou.usra.
edu/meetings/lpsc2019/
March 18–21  Origin, Evolution &
Dynamics of the Earth & Planetary
Interiors, Misasa, Japan. Web page:
www.misasa.okayama-u.ac.jp/symp/
index.php
March 31–April 4  257th ACS
National Meeting & Exposition,
Orlando, FL, USA. Web page: www.
acs.org/
April 7–12  EGU General Assembly
2019, Vienna, Austria. Web page:
www.egu2019.eu
April 11–14  Rochester Mineral-
ogical Symposium, Rochester, NY USA.
Web page: www.rasny.org/minsymp/
April 22–26  Materials Research
Society Spring Meeting, Phoenix, AZ,
USA. Web page: www.mrs.org/spring
2019
April 25–26  4th Edition of Inter-
national Conference on Advanced
Spectroscopy, Crystallography, and
Applications in Modern Chemistry,
Rome, Italy. Web page: crystallography.
euroscicon.com/
OUR THEMES
E lements
CALENDAR
May 12–15  GAC–MAC IAH–CNC
Joint Meeting; Geological Association
of Canada, Mineralogical Association
of Canada and the Canadian National
Chapter of the International Associa-
tion of Hydrogeologists, Quebec City,
QC, Canada. Web page: gacmac-
quebec2019.ca/
May 19–22  AAPG 2019 Annual
Convention & Exhibition, San Antonio,
TX, USA. Web page: www.aapg.org/
events/conferences/ace
May 29–31  North American Work-
shop on Laser Ablation (NAWLA),
Austin TX USA. Web page: www.jsg.
utexas.edu/nawla2019/
June 11–14  DMG Short Course:
Solid-State NMR Spectroscopy
Bochum, Germany. Contact Michael
Fechtelkord (michael.fechtelkord@rub.
de).
June 18–20  4th Planetary Data
Workshop, Flagstaff, AZ USA.
Webpage: www.hou.usra.edu/meet-
ings/planetdata2019/
June 20–21  Mineralogical Society
of America Centennial Symposium,
Washington, DC, USA. Details forth-
coming.
June 23–29  ECROFI 2019 (European
Current Research on Fluid Inclu-
sions), Budapest, Hungary. Web page:
ecrofi2019.elte.hu
66
June 24–28  AbSciCon 2019,
Bellevue, WA USA. Web page: connect.
agu.org/abscicon/home
June 24–27  QMA 2019: Quantitative
Microanalysis 2019, Minneapolis, MN
USA. Web page: the-mas.org/events/
topical-conferences/qma-2019/
July 1–5  EUROCLAY 2019, Paris,
France. Web page: euroclay2019.
scienceconf.org
July 8–12  82nd Annual Meeting of
the Meteoritical Society, Sapporo,
Japan. Web page: meteoriticalsociety.
org/?page_id=18
July 15–19  5th Earth Educators
Rendezvous, Nashville, TN USA.
Webpage: serc.carleton.edu/earth_
rendezvous/2019/index.html
July 20–24  American Crystal-
lographic Association Meeting,
Covington, KY, USA. Web page:
forthcoming
July 21–26  WRI-16 and AIG-13:
1st IAGC International Conference
Tomsk, Russia. Web page: wri16.com
July 22–26  Ninth International
Conference on Mars, Pasadena, CA,
USA. Web page: www.hou.usra.edu/
meetings/ninthmars2019/
August 4–8  Microscopy & Micro-
analysis 2019, Portland, OR, USA. Web
page: www.microscopy.org/events/
future.cfm/
F ebruary 2019
August 11–16  Tools in Biogeo-
chemistry Short Course, Tübingen,
Germany. Contact Andreas Kappler
(andreas.kappler@uni-tuebingen.
de) or Casey Bryce (casey.bryce@uni-
tuebingen.de)
August 18–23  Goldschmidt 2019,
Barcelona, Spain. Web page: Gold-
schmidt.info/2019
August 18–23  32 nd European
Crystallography Meeting (ECM-32),
Vienna, Austria. Web page: ecm2019.
org/home/
August 25–29  258th ACS National
Meeting & Exposition, San Diego, CA,
USA. Web page: www.acs.org/
September 3–7  10 th Interna-
tional Congress on the Application
of Raman Spectroscopy in Art and
Archaeology, Potsdam, Germany. Web
page: www.raa2019.de/
September 8–12  The First Billion
Years: Habitability, Big Sky, MT USA.
Web page: www.hou.usra.edu/meet-
ings/habitability2019/
September 9–13  Young-Earth-
Scientist (YES) congress: ‘Rocking
Earth’s Future’, Berlin, Germany. Web
page: yesdeutschland.weebly.com/
September 11–14  European
Conference on Mineralogy and Spec-
troscopy 2019, Prague, Czech Republic.
Web page: ecms2019.eu/

September 22-25  GeoMünster
2019, Münster, Germany. Webpage:
www.geomuenster2019.de
September 22–25  Geological
Society of America Annual Meeting,
Phoenix, AZ, USA. Web page: www.
geosociety.org/GSA/Events/Annual_
Meeting/GSA/Events/gsa2019.aspx
September 25–28  Mines and
Wines–Discoveries in the Tasmanides,
Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia. Web
page: www.minesandwines.com.au/
September 29–October 3
­Materials Science & Technology
2019 Technical Meeting and Exhibi-
tion (MS&T19), Portland, OR, USA.
Webpage: www.matscitech.org/
September 30–October 3  Large
Meteorite Impacts and Planetary
Evolution VI Conference, Brasilia, Brazil.
Information: wolf.uwer@gmail.com
October 7–11  DMG Short Course:
In Situ Analysis of Isotopes and Trace
Elements by Femtosecond Laser
Ablation ICP–MS, Hannover, Germany.
Contact Stefan Weyer (s.weyer@miner-
alogie.uni-hannover.de)
November 18–22  DMG Short
Course: Introduction to Secondary
Ion Mass Spectrometry in the Earth
Sciences, Potsdam, Germany. Contact
Michael Wiedenbeck (michael.wieden-
beck@gfz-potsdam.de)
December 1–6  Materials Research
Society Fall Meeting, Boston, MA,
USA. Web page: www.mrs.org/fall2019
E lements
CALENDAR
December 9–13  AGU Fall Meeting,
San Francisco, CA, USA. Details
forthcoming
 2020
rd
January 26–31  43 ­International
Conference and Expo on Advanced
Ceramics and Composites
(ICACC’20), Daytona Beach, FL, USA.
Web page forthcoming
February 23– 27  TMS 2020
149 th Annual Meeting & Exhibition,
San Diego, CA, USA. Webpage: www.
tms.org/tms2020
March 22–26  259 th ACS National
Meeting & Exposition, Philadelphia, PA
USA. Web page: www.acs.org/
April 13–17  Materials Research
Society Spring Meeting, Phoenix, AZ,
USA. Web page: www.mrs.org/spring
2020
May 3–8  EGU General Assembly
2020, Vienna, Austria. Web page: www.
egu2020.eu
June 21–26  2020 Goldschmidt
Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Webpage forthcoming
August 2–6  Microscopy & Micro-
analysis 2020, Milwaukee, WI USA.
Web page forthcoming
August 9–14  Meteoritical
Society Annual Meeting, Glasgow,
UK. Webpage: meteoriticalsociety.
org/?page_id=18
67
August 16–20  260 th ACS National
Meeting & Exposition, San Francisco, The meetings convened by the
CA USA. Web page: www.acs.org/ societies partici­pating in Elements
October 4–8  Materials Science are highlighted in yellow. This
& Technology 2020, combined meetings calendar was compiled by
with ACerS 122nd Annual Meeting Andrea Koziol (more meetings are
(MS&T20), Pittsburgh, PA USA. Web listed on the calendar she maintains
page: forthcoming at https://sites.google.com/a/
udayton.edu/akoziol1/home/miner-
October 25–28  Geological Society
of America Annual Meeting, Montreal, alogy-and-petrology-meetings).
Canada. Web page: forthcoming To get meeting information listed,
please contact her at
November 29–December 3
akoziol1@udayton.edu
Materials Research Society Fall
Meeting, Boston, MA, USA. Web page:
www.mrs.org/fall2020
December 7–11  AGU Fall Meeting,
San Francisco, CA, USA. Details
forthcoming
Inform Elements readers about
upcoming short courses,
workshops, meetings
and conferences.
Contact Andrea Koziol
(akoziol1@udayton.edu)
and Jodi Rosso
(jrosso.elements@gmail.com)
Visiting the UK?
i
The Great Eucrite Ring in the Palaeocene
Ardnamurchan Ring Complex
In 2019 Lochaber Geopark is running
Geotours to classic localities in the West
Highlands of Scotland, led by professional
geologists. To find out more visit:
www.lochabergeopark.org.uk Scottish Registered
Charity SC038372
F ebruary 2019
 MEETING REPORT
SOTA7: STATE OF THE [CONTINENTAL] ARC
In September 2018, 32 participants from 25 institutions took part
in the highest-altitude State of the Arc (SOTA) meeting yet: SOTA7.
Participants spent a week in San Pedro in the Chilean Atacama Desert,
situated on top of the world’s thickest continental arc crust. A mixture
of keynote, regular, and “pop-up” talks and posters explored the realms
of geochemistry, geophysics, experimental petrology, and numerical
models to address topics in arc magmatism: these included volcano
“personality”, the movement of volatiles, compositional evolution, how
to match geophysical studies with petrology, and how eruptions are
triggered.
There were extensive discussions on the role of the crust. How do
magmas interact with the crust? How do magmas transit through the
crust? How do magmas modify and are modified by the crust? Whereas
in other arcs the mantle inputs are continually being described and
constrained in ever-increasing detail, elucidating processes in the
mantle remain a challenge in continental arcs such as the Andes.
Here, poor constraints exist for how magma is input into the crust
and how magma differentiation is controlled by fractionation versus
recycling. New approaches that utilize improved temporal records
through detailed age dating and that utilize volume estimates from
high-resolution digital elevation models that integrate heat and mass
balance calculations over an entire arc segment may refine the relative
roles. However, until we have more accurate estimates for plutonic–
volcanic ratios within individual arcs, in addition to across-arc settings,
ambiguous models will persist for crustal growth and recycling.
The discussion converged on the general view that the more we advance
our understanding of magmatism at convergent margins, the more
difficult it becomes to define end-members. At first glance this could
seem rather obvious and discouraging, but, in our opinion, this signals
the progressive maturity of geology. Hence, as it has been the case
for science in general, the way forward is the integration of multiple
approaches to generate consistent and cross-validated datasets on
which to build models for magmatism at convergent margins. The
single most important base for this development is the collection of
the largest possible amount of high-quality data, a pathway that has
been delineated by the career effort of the three “senators of Andean
magmatism” who shared with us their knowledge during the SOTA7
meeting: Gerhard Wörner, Suzanne Kay, and Shan de Silva.
A special role at the SOTA7 meeting was given to economic geology,
motivated by the exceptional importance of Chilean ore deposits to the
world’s economies and by the vast amount of data that these extinct
systems have provided to our understanding of magma assembly in the
crust. The Andes offer a unique opportunity to relate crustal magmatism
with tectonic controls, this being most apparent during the generation
of porphyry deposits that frequently show a correlation with inter-
secting large-scale faults. Furthermore, the role of tectonics manifests
itself in the longevity of the convergent margin and the progressive
eastward stepping of the volcanic arc. The related process of subduction
erosion can modify the underlying arc mantle, creating an excellent
link to tectonic and geochemical studies.
Highlights of the week were the spectacular fieldtrips, showcasing the
area’s unrivalled scenery and geology. Participants experienced the
giddiness of 4,800 m altitudes when on the daytrip to the Altiplano,
E lements
which was led by Shan de Silva (Oregon State University, USA), Dale
Burns (Stanford University, California, USA) and assisted by Axel
Schmitt (Heidelberg University, Germany). There, participants saw
volcanic deposits from the waxing and waning of the La Pacana Volcano
supereruption. Later in the week, Felipe Aguilera (Universidad Católica
del Norte, Chile) took participants to Lascar Volcano, the most active
volcano in the Central Volcanic Zone in western South America, to
observe several generations of eruption deposits.
Post-conference fieldtrips gave participants the opportunity to ascend
the Lascar stratovolcano and to journey further north into the Andes
through a marvelous geological section of the active convergent margin
from the Coastal Cordillera to the volcanoes of the Altiplano. The
outstanding nature of the exposure and the scale of geological struc-
tures, immediately clarified to the participants the reasons why the
Central Andes are such an exceptional natural laboratory to study the
interaction between magmatism, mountain building processes, and
climate. The journey started from the base where participants observed
molasse-type sediments that were deposited during a magmatic lull
associated with a period of flat-slab subduction. The increased coupling
associated with the flat-slab led to uplift, erosion and the deposition
of massive amounts of sediments. This period was followed by the
deposition of several large ignimbrites that now constitute the base on
which the modern arc volcanoes are built. These processes took place
in association with dramatic climatic modifications that led first to
aridification and then to hyper-aridification. The remaining portion of
the fieldtrip focused on the Taapaca and Parinacota Volcanoes.
During the fieldtrip, it became evident that a full understanding of
magmatism at convergent margins cannot be achieved with a one-sided
approach but must include a broader geological perspective and include
not only the impact of geological processes on surface dynamics but also
a consideration of the feedbacks of climate on geology. Such a realiza-
tion was sparked from the discussions with Prof. Gerhard Wörner and
his exceptional ability to discuss large-scale processes starting from field
observations and not-too-busy geochemical diagrams. This capacity
requires deeply rooted understanding of geology and should serve as
an example for future generation of geologists.
Lastly, the contributions from early career scientists were invaluable.
An “early career scientist” day allowed everyone to become part of
the family and gave these scientists an opportunity to showcase their
research. A lively poster session furthered the involvement of the more
junior scientists in the discussion, and such activities added positively
to their overall experience. Thus, a new crop of excited “SOTAphiles”
is becoming part of the community and will ensure that future SOTA
conferences will continue to explore the “state of the arc”. Such future
SOTAs will have their own flavor as the organizers and locations change
and the focus may shift from detailed discussion about the mantle
wedge, which dominated the discussion of the Santorini SOTA, to the
role of the crust, as was extensively discussed in this Central Andes
SOTA.
Further information on the San Pedro SOTA conference, including its
detailed program and the field guides of the excursions for download,
can be found at: https://www.sota7.org/.
Philipp Ruprecht, Luca Caricchi and Lucy McGee
68 F ebruary 2019
 HPX Series
INERT HOTPLATES

Designed for the Most

Challenging
Ultratrace Applications

SUPERIOR TEMPERATURE CONTROL

Edge-To-Edge Uniformity

HIGHEST SAFETY STANDARDS

Heat Shielding Sides and Base as Standard

BEST IN CLASS TWO-YEAR WARRANTY

Fully Self-Serviceable

NEW! CUSTOMIZATION AVAILABLE

Contact Savillex for Details

See for yourself why more and more labs Learn More
are switching to the HPX hotplate. www.savillex.com
 CosmoELEMENTS

IMPACT EARTH: A NEW RESOURCE FOR OUTREACH, TEACHING, AND RESEARCH

Gordon R. Osinski1 and Richard A. F. Grieve1
DOI: 10.2113/gselements.15.1.70
At the core of the Impact Earth initiative is the website www.impacte-
When one mentions the word “geology”, most people will likely think
arth.com. It features background information on the threat of meteorite
of volcanoes, glaciers, or majestic mountain ranges. Beginning in the
impacts on Earth, the detection of meteors and fireballs, an introduc-
late 18th century with the work of pioneering Scottish geologist James
tion to meteorites, and an overview of the formation and recognition of
Hutton (1726–1797), uniformitarianism emerged as a central tenet of
meteorite impact craters. A listing of the University of Western Ontario’s
geology and remained so well into the 20 th century. Central to the idea
growing meteorite collection is also provided, as is a fireball camera
of uniformitarianism is the concept of gradualism, whereby processes
integrated with the Southern Ontario All-Sky Meteor Camera Network
throughout time occur at the same or similar rates, leading to the
(Fig. 1) (Weryk et al. 2008). A central feature of the website is a new
famous concept that “The present is the key to the past.”
In the 21st century, the realization that asteroids and comets have
struck, and continue to strike, planetary bodies throughout geological
time has revolutionized our understanding of solar system history and
evolution. It is now widely recognized that impact cratering is one of
the most important and fundamental geological process in the solar
system (Osinski and Pierazzo 2012). Indeed, impact craters are one of
the most common geological landforms on most of the rocky terrestrial
planets, asteroids, and many of the rocky and icy moons of the inner
and outer solar system. Once thought to be purely a planetary science
“problem,” it is also now apparent that impact events have profoundly
affected the origin and evolution of Earth, its environment, and the
habitability of our planet (Grieve 2017). Furthermore, the fireball event
of 15 February 2013 in Chelyabinsk (Russia) (Brown et al. 2013) served
as a wakeup call that impact events are not a thing of the past and
could still, in practice, occur at any time.
Which brings us to the Impact Earth initiative. This is a large-scale,
global project set up by the Centre for Planetary Science and Exploration
at the University of Western Ontario (Canada) that has the twin goals
of increasing public awareness and interest in, and of encouraging the
teaching and research on, meteorite impacts and the closely related All-sky camera image taken at 9:03 PM on 25 September 2009 by
Figure 1 the University of Western Ontario’s Southern Ontario All-Sky Meteor
themes of meteors and fireballs themselves, meteorite falls, and crater- Camera Network (SOMN). This camera recorded a fireball in the evening sky over
forming events. The fact that Impact Earth is hosted at the University of the western end of Lake Ontario (Canada). Subsequent recovery efforts led to the
Western Ontario (Canada) is a significant advantage because researchers discovery of the Grimsby meteorite (Brown et al. 2011).
there are studying all aspects of meteorite impacts.
The Impact Earth database can trace its origins back over 50 years.
In Canada, the systematic search for impact structures was initiated
in 1955 by Dr. Carlyle S. Beals, who was the who was the Dominion
Astronomer of Canada at the Dominion Observatory (Ottawa, Canada)
at the time. Searches initially involved the examination of over 200,000
aerial photographs of the Canadian Shield. The first published world-
wide listing of impact structures on Earth was by Dr. Michael R. Dence
(Dence 1972), who listed 50 confirmed structures and an equal number
of “possible” structures. Over time, additional structures were added,
as were other data on their nature and characteristics, and a searchable
digital database was created and maintained initially at the Earth Physics
Branch of Canada’s Department of Energy and, later, at the Geological
Survey of Canada in Ottawa. The current listing is an outgrowth of these
earlier efforts but is a full relational-database, with enhanced available
attributes and search capabilities. Over the coming months and years,
further attributes such as shock metamorphic effects and geophysical
attributes will be added to the current database and released publicly.
In doing so, it is hoped that the Impact Earth database will provide
an important new tool for researchers interested in meteorite impact
craters and their effects.

1 Department of Earth Sciences & Centre for Planetary Science and Exploration The product of the Impact Cratering Activity available through
Figure 2 the Impact Earth website. Impact into flour and cocoa powder.
University of Western Ontario
London, ON, Canada
E-mail: gosinski@uwo.ca, rgrieve2@uwo.ca

E lements 70 F ebruary 2019

 CosmoELEMENTS

searchable database of all confirmed impact craters on Earth and many
of their most salient attributes, such as age, size, year of discovery, and
so on. At present, the web site contains data on 195 structures. Only
craters with confirmed evidence for shock metamorphism (French and
Koeberl 2010) are listed (see also the October 2017 CosmoELEMENTS
article by Ludovic Ferriere).
In order to increase not just public awareness but also to facilitate the
teaching of meteoritics and meteorite impacts in elementary/primary
schools through to universities, a series of resources are available to the
community through the Impact Earth website. The Impact Cratering
Activity is designed to follow an inquiry-based learning approach where
students develop their own experiment while working through the steps
of the scientific method. The aim of this activity is for the students
to gain an understanding of the basic characteristics of impact craters
and how they form throughout the solar system. This activity can be
modified for students in Grades 6 to 12, and the best part is that they get
to create their own craters – and make a mess (!) – in layered mixtures
of flour and cocoa powder (Fig. 2). A unique aspect of this activity is
the availability of rock kits that can be requested for loan through a
simple online form. The foundation rock kits contain a variety of rocks
from several impact craters around the world (Fig. 3), and worksheets
are available for teachers to guide them, and their students, through
the use of the kits. Other activities have also been developed and are
available on the Impact Earth website. For example, Mission Meteorite
is an interactive station-based activity designed to help students under-
stand the different types of meteorites using scientific inquiry methods
and questioning.
A major inhibitor to teaching students about meteorite impacts at the
undergraduate and graduate level is the scarcity of materials. There is
not an Earth science department around that doesn’t have hand samples
of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks, but very few have the
products of a meteorite impact. As such, the Impact Earth rock kits are
also available for loan to university instructors. For these more advanced
levels, a selection of petrographic thin sections is also available, as are
more specialized rock kits featuring the products of individual craters.
At present, kits are available for the Gow Lake, Haughton, Mistastin
Lake, Sudbury and West Clearwater Lake impact structures in Canada,
and the Ries and Rochechouart impact structures in Germany and
France, respectively.
As we enter a new age of exploration of the solar system – including the
return to the Moon where impact craters are the dominant geological
landform – it is hoped that the Impact Earth initiative will provide a
valuable resource for researchers and the public alike and stimulate
interest in the study of fireballs, meteorites, and impact craters. Here
on Earth, there are still many impact craters awaiting detection, and
we look forward to featuring these new discoveries in the Impact Earth
database! Check out the website www.impactearth.com and follow
Impact Earth on Twitter @impact_craters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Impact Earth was funded by grants from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada’s PromoScience program
and the Canadian Geological Foundation, together with support from
the Department of Earth Sciences and the Faculty of Science at the
University of Western Ontario.

REFERENCES
Brown PG and 32 coauthors (2013) A
500-kiloton airburst over Chelyabinsk and
an enhanced hazard from small impactors.
Nature 503: 238-241
Brown P and 8 coauthors (2011) The fall of
the Grimsby meteorite—I: Fireball dynamics
and orbit from radar, video, and infrasound
records. Meteoritics & Planetary Science 46:
339-363
Dence MR (1972) The nature and significance
of terrestrial impact structures. Proceedings
of the 24th International Geological Congress,
pp 77-89
French BM, Koeberl C (2010) The convincing
identification of terrestrial meteorite impact
structures: what works, what doesn’t, and
why. Earth-Science Reviews 98: 123-170
Ferriere L (2017) Search (and discovery) of
new impact craters on Earth. Elements 13:
358-359
Grieve RAF (2017) Logan Medallist 4.
Large-scale impact and Earth history.
Geoscience Canada 44: doi.org/10.12789/
geocanj.2017.44.113
Osinski GR, Pierazzo E (Eds) (2012) Impact
Cratering: Processes and Products. Wiley-
Blackwell, 330 pp
An example rock kit comprising seven samples from the Haughton
Figure 3 impact structure (Canada). The kits are provided in pelican cases to Weryk RJ and 6 coauthors (2008) The
protect the samples during transport and in classrooms. Southern Ontario All-sky Meteor Camera
Network. Earth, Moon, and Planets 102:
241-246

E lements 71 F ebruary 2019

 PARTING SHOT

SPOT THE DOT ...

Can you locate Mercury
as it hovers over the Sun during its 2016 transit?
Image  courtesy of NASA/SDO

ADVERTISERS IN THIS ISSUE

9th European Conference on Mineralogy and Spectroscopy 65

Analab 72
Cambridge University Press 7
CAMECA 8
Follow Elements on: Dr. Eduard Gübelin Association 5
Excalibur Mineral Corporation 72
@Elements_Mag GAC–MAC–IAH Conference 48

@elementsmagazine Gemological Institute of America Inside Back Cover

Lochaber Geopark 67
online elementsmagazine.org ODLAB Inside Front Cover
ProtoXRD Back Cover
Savillex 69

Nobody likes cleaning the dishes

RARE MINERALS
FOR RESEARCH EASYTRACECLEANER
Cleans it for you!
F
ROM our inventory of over 200,000 specimens, we can supply your research specimen
needs with reliably identified samples from worldwide localities, drawing on old,
historic pieces as well as recently discovered exotic species. We and our predecessor
companies have been serving the research and museum communities since 1950. Inquiries
by email recommended.

le
nt roducib
Efficiweblanks and rep
Ver y lo
mic acid quantity
Ec o no
ver y low
Needs ame tim
e
es
le are at th
Flexib kind of labw
ny /rinse c
ycles
n
Clean a ral clea
Pure samples suitable for standards are readily available. Pictured above are:
te o ne or seve ds NEW!
Opera g to your nee
Zircon from Malawi, Fluorapatite from Mexico, and Spinel from Myanmar.

accordin
Excalibur Mineral Corp. S a f e
24/7 w
it hou t o
and
perator od NEW!
mini ho ore at
Works laced under a Learn m
.fr
nala b
1885 Seminole Trail, Ste 202,Charlottesville, VA 22901-1160, USA
p
Telephone: 434-964-0875; Fax: 434-964-1549 can be ww w.a
www.excaliburmineral.com | email: info@excaliburmineral.com

E lements 72 F ebruary 2019

 Liddicoat Postdoctoral Research
Fellowships in Mineralogy, Materials
Science and Gemology at GIA
GIA (Gemological Institute of America®) invites qualified candidates to apply for the Richard T. Liddicoat
Postdoctoral Research Fellowships at its Carlsbad, California and New York City locations. The one- to two-
year fellowships encourage early career scientists to pursue full-time academic research in mineralogy,
geology, physics, materials science and other fields related to gemology – the study of diamonds, colored
gemstones, pearls and their treatment. Fellows are expected to conduct creative, independent, publishable
research and collaborate with GIA scientists, outside research institutions and universities.

The fellowship includes a competitive annual stipend ($60,000+), research funding and approved travel
subsidies. Benefits include health, dental and vision, and potential reimbursement of relocation expenses.

The start date of each fellowship is flexible, but accepted candidates should begin by Jan. 31, 2020. Applicants
must have received their Ph.D. in a relevant field by the start date, and preferably within the last three years.

Applications are due by April 30, 2019. For more information visit GIA.edu/research-careers

GIA Research Fellow Unveils Clues

About Earth’s Mantle
In a recent study published in Science magazine
(Dec. 16, 2016), GIA Postdoctoral Research
Fellow Evan Smith and coauthors uncovered
clues about Earth’s deep mantle by examining
the distinct characteristics of large, exceptional
gem diamonds known as “CLIPPIR” diamonds.
Not normally available for research, inclusions
found in these cut diamond pieces led to two
Evan Smith, Ph.D. breakthrough discoveries.

Established in 1931, GIA is the world’s foremost authority on diamonds, colored gemstones and pearls.
A public benefit, nonprofit institute with locations in 13 countries, GIA is the leading source of research
knowledge, standards and education in gems and jewelry. Visit GIA.edu

CARLSBAD NEW YORK ANTWERP BANGKOK DUBAI GABORONE HONG KONG

JOHANNESBURG LONDON MUMBAI RAMAT GAN SURAT TAIPEI TOKYO
©GIA 2018. GIA® and Gemological Institute of America® are registered trademarks of Gemological Institute of America, Inc.

RSCH180004_Elements_Fellowship_Ad_v2.indd 1 11/19/18 10:56 AM