Formation of amorphous molybdenum sulfide in abiotic and biotic sulfidic conditions: A comparative study on molybdenum sequestration mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Concentrations of sedimentary molybdenum (Mo) have been used as a proxy for palaeoceanographic redox conditions based on the distinctive behaviour of Mo under oxic versus euxinic (i.e., anoxic and sulfidic) conditions. However, the mechanisms that govern Mo sequestration in various euxinic settings are not fully resolved. It has previously been proposed that sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB), the main drivers and regulators of euxinic conditions, can actively take up and reduce Mo intracellularly and passively induce Fe-independent Mo complexation and reduction at their cell surfaces. However, uncertainties remain regarding the underlying interactions and relative contributions of these proposed biotic Mo sequestration pathways. In this study, systematic experiments were carried out to examine the interactions among Mo(VI) species (MoO42- or MoS42-), ferrous iron (Fe2+) and SRB with a focus on combinations of conditions that lead to reductive Mo precipitation. The speciation of aqueous Mo and composition, structure, oxidation states and bonding environment of precipitated Mo-sulfides were analysed using UV-vis spectrophotometry (UV-vis), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and synchrotron-based X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS). Results indicate that SRB does not directly reduce Mo but, rather, plays a passive role in mediating Mo sequestration by providing sulfide and potential nucleation sites at their reactive cell surfaces for precipitation. However, even in the presence of SRB cells, Fe2+ was required for Mo precipitation in all conditions tested. By identifying the limiting (and non-limiting) factors in the Mo reduction and sequestration process, this study provides significant new insights for interpreting Mo palaeoredox proxies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".