MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206329518 · doi:10.5194/epsc2021-97

Raman spectroscopy investigation of lunar surface endmembers and analogues

2021· preprint· en· W4206329518 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. Potin, S. Manigand, Nathalie Turenne, Sahejpal Sidhu, Stephanie Connell, D. M. Applin, E. A. Cloutis, C. M. Caudill, Jennifer Newmann, E.A. Lalla, Elizabeth A. Lymer, J. Freemantle, M. G. Daly, Roman V. Kruzelecky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsMPB Technologies & Communications (Canada)York UniversityUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyContext (archaeology)MeteoriteRegolithAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryGeologyAstrobiologyMaterials sciencePhysicsOpticsEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Raman spectroscopy for planetary rover-based exploration has become a primary tool to investigate in situ geological materials. With the support of the Canadian Space Agency and their Lunar Exploration Accelerator Program (LEAP), a Lunar Raman spectrometer (LunaR [1]) is being developed jointly between the University of Winnipeg, York University and MPB Communications. This instrument is intended to be installed onboard an exploration rover and acquired Raman spectroscopy of the lunar regolith in sunlit and permanently-shadowed regions. Calibration targets are needed in the context of this instrument, each typical of lunar mineralogical endmembers and consistent with the composition of the surface. We thus analysed in Raman spectroscopy a set of 46 samples, consisting of plagioclases, olivines, pyroxenes, oxides and basalts, and the lunar highland breccia meteorite Northwest Africa (NWA) 12593 [2]. In this analysis, we investigate the composition of the meteorite NWA 12593 using Raman signatures detected for our reference samples.Measurement protocols and spectral modelling Raman spectroscopy was performed in the laboratory using a B&W Tek iRaman Raman spectrometer with a 532 nm excitation laser and covering the spectral range from 175 to 4000 cm-1 with a spectral resolution of about 4cm-1. The size of the laser spot is 1mm, and the area viewed for the measurements covers a spot of 85µm on the sample. The integration time ranges from 500 to 65000 ms per spectrum, and for each sample we average between 1 to 250 spectra. These values are optimized for each sample before the scientific measurement to ensure a signal-to-noise ratio high enough to enable spectroscopic investigation and to avoid saturation of the detector when measuring high intensity peaks. The data are dark corrected during the measurement by the instrument software. Raman spectra are acquired for three spots of each sample.To accommodate the large amount of data to analyse, we developed a spectral deconvolution package in Python called Python Raman Analyzer (PyRANA). This package works with commands sent by the operator and allows the cleaning (i.e. detection and removal of hot pixels) and spectral modelling of the data. The continuum can be set as linear or as a 2nd order polynomial on a local scale. Several profiles are available to model the Raman peaks, such as Cauchy (symmetric and asymmetric), Gaussian (symmetric and asymmetric) and Breit-Wigner-Fano (BWF [3]). The spectral modelling allows the separation of blended features, too close from each other to be fully resolved, and thus the precise determination of the various band parameters. PyRANA, and all spectra presented in this analysis are available in free access in the SALSA database [4] (http://salsa.uwinnipeg.ca) Figure 1 presents the resulting modeling of a group of peaks detected on the Raman spectrum of the orthopyroxene sample PYX042.We used PyRANA on all samples and the lunar meteorite. All detected peaks are deconvoluted and used as indicators of the composition of the samples.Raman spectroscopy of the lunar meteorite Raman spectroscopy was performed on 11 various areas of the lunar meteorite, on some inclusions and the dark matrix. Figure 2 shows the location of the observed spots during the Raman measurement, and Figure 3 shows the associated spectra.Most of expected Raman signatures are difficult to detected in the raw spectra because of the strong fluorescence (seen here as the increase of the intensity with increasing Raman shift). Beside the capacity to deconvolute the Raman peaks, PyRANA allows the removal of the continuum from the data to better isolate the Raman peaks. It can be seen on the previous figure that we detected several Raman peaks for each location on the meteorite. We now compare the position of the Raman peaks detected on the meteorite with the various signatures resulting from the investigations of the reference surfaces presented above.We observe on the previous figure that the Raman signatures detected on the meteorites matched those resulting from the analysis of the reference samples. All studied spots are composed of pyroxenes and plagioclase, spots 7 to 11 also show clear signatures of olivine. Though the work presented here results only in qualitative analysis, the Raman spectroscopy coupled with spectral deconvolution allows a determination of the mineralogical composition of lunar samples [5].Conclusion We used pure single mineral samples of known compositions consistent with the composition of the lunar surface for the development of LunaR. The Raman spectroscopy analysis coupled with the spectral deconvolution with PyRANA allowed us to generate a Raman peak data base to be used in the future as references for the compositional investigation of lunar materials. We then determined the composition of the matrix and several inclusions of a lunar meteorite using the reference data previously acquired.Acknowledgments We acknowledge the support provided by the Canadian Space Agency through their Lunar Exploration Accelerator Program (LEAP). This study is also being supported with funding from NSERC, UWinnipeg, CFI, and MRIF. This research has made use of community-developed core Python packages for astronomy and scientific computing including Scipy [6, 7], Numpy [8] and Matplotlib [9].References [1] Cloutis et al., 52nd LPSC, 2021, 1473. [2] Gattacceca et al. Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 2020, 55, 1146–1150. [3] Eklund & Subbaswamy, Physical Review B, 1979, 20, 5157–5161. [4] Manigand et al., Canadian Lunar Workshop, 2021. [5] Potin et al., in prep. [6] Jones et al., 2001. [7] Virtanen et al., Nature Methods, 2020, 17, 261–272. [8] van der Walt et al. Computing in Science and Engineering, 2011, 13, 22–30. [9] Hunter et al. Computing in Science and Engineering, 2007, 9, 90–95.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207