MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412122235 · doi:10.5194/epsc-dps2025-1119

Laboratory Evaluation of a Methane Spectrometer for the Martian Atmosphere

2025· preprint· en· W4412122235 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Axelrod, John E. Moores, H. M. Sapers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologyMethaneAtmosphere of MarsAtmosphere (unit)Environmental scienceSpectrometerMartianAtmospheric methaneMars Exploration ProgramAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingPhysicsChemistryMeteorologyGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Methane observed in the Martian atmosphere is not stable on geological timescales, suggesting a source on Mars that is active today [1]. Several theories have been proposed that link this atmospheric methane to emission from ancient subsurface reservoirs (such as methane hydrate clathrates) [2,3], hot water/rock reactions (e.g. Fisher Troph-Type Processes) [4], exogenous input of organic material (e.g. Interplanetary Dust Particles), [5] or biological activity [4]. However, methane is currently measured in the near-surface atmosphere only a few times per year, making testing these theories challenging [6, 7]. Methane on Earth is primarily biological, making the methane cycle on Mars of great astrobiological interest. This instrument could also provide important thermochemical data about the Martian subsurface[1].Figure 1: The ABB breadboard prototype spectrometer.Figure 1: The schematic for the experimental breadboard spectrometer.The Martian Atmospheric Gas Evolution (MAGE) experiment was proposed to provide the data needed to distinguish between different theories of the origin and evolution of methane in the Martian atmosphere. A small gas spectrometer, based around the ABB Integrated Cavity-enhanced Optical Spectroscopy (ICOS), is a Canadian instrument that could be deployed to sample the concentration of atmospheric methane on an hourly basis [3].Methodology: For this work, we use an experimental ICOS spectrometer which represents a prototype of a future spectrometer capable of flight to Mars. Images of the breadboard instrument (Figure 1) and its schematic (Figure 2are shown. The prototype spectrometer contains 2 lasers, a 1659 nm laser analyzing concentrations of 12CH4 and 13CH4, and a 1650 nm laser analyzing concentrations of 12CH4 and CO2.The prototype spectrometer’s 1659 nm laser was tested using with a balance gas of carbon dioxide. Mass flow controllers were used to make methane concentrations of 1000 ppmv and 10 ppmv. Tedlar bags were used to make theoretical concentrations of methane of 1 ppmv and 10 ppbv by serial dilution. As there was difficulty obtaining a concentration of methane below 10 ppm due to methane contamination of the CO2 background gas, the runs of 10 ppm, 1 ppm, and 10 ppb are considered equivalent due to background gas contamination. The graphs below show the raw data, processed data with a uniform window filter of size 10 applied, and the data with the drift removed by subtracting the filtered data from the raw data. A mean line goes through the center of the graph. The integration times discussed further in the results section are calculated using the results with the drift removed.Figure 3: Concentrations of 12CH4 from the prototype spectrometerFigure 4: Concentrations of 13CH4 from the prototype spectrometer.Results: As the seasonal background of methane on Mars ranges in concentration from 0.2-0.7 ppbv, with periodic high spikes of up to 45 ppbv [7], sensitivity in this range would make a flight instrument based on ours suitable for the detection of methane. The instrument takes an average of 16 hours of operation to reach 95% confidence that the concentrations of 13CH4 detected are within 1 ppb of the true value, while it takes an average of 56,647 hours to reach 95% confidence that the values of 12CH4 are within 1 ppb of true values. The significant drop in integration time when observing 13CH4 vs 12CH4 is due to a more stable signal response at lower concentrations of gas. The results from the 10 ppm, 1 ppm and 10 ppb runs are averaged to obtain the operational times discussed above, as they are considered replicas. The long measurement time is largely due to instability caused by noise within the instrument, clearly seen in the results for both 12CH4 and 13CH4 (Figure 3 and Figure 4).Future Work: Future modifications include testing under Mars-like conditions, including testing the instrument with Mars analogue mixtures of gases. This will include pressure changes in the atmosphere to observe how the limits of detection change. If deployed on a Mars rover, or on a rotorcraft, the instrument could help to constrain the potential sinks and sources of Martian methane. Acknowledgments: This work was funded by the Canadian Space Agency FAST program grant No, 19FAYORA13 and is being pursued in collaboration with ABB Inc.References: [1] Atreya, S. K., Mahaffy, P. R., & Wong, A.‐S. (2007). Planetary Space Science, 55(3), 358–369. [2]Stevens, A. H., Patel, M. R. & Lewis, S. R. Icarus 281, 240–247 (2017). [3] Lasue, J., Quesnel, Y., Langlais, B. & Chassefière, E. Icarus 260, 205–214 (2015). [4] Oehler, D. Z., & Etiope, G. (2017)., 17(12), 1233–1264.1657 [5] Schuerger, A.C., Moores, J., Clausen, C., Barlow, N., Britt, D., 2012. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 117, E08007.. [6] Webster, C. R., Mahaffy, P. R., Atreya, S. K., Moores, J. E., Flesch, G. J., Malespin, C., et al. (2018). Science, 360(6393), 1093–1096. [7] Moores, J.E., Sapers, H.M., Oehler, D., Newman, C. and Whyte, L. (2021) 8 pp. published in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol 53, issue 4. https://baas.aas.org/pub/2021n4i125/release/1

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207