Earth's core contains 90 percent of Earth's sulfur, new research shows

Earth's core
Diagram of the Earth. Credit: Kelvinsong/Wikipeida

So perhaps there is some truth in the old legends of the underworld reeking of brimstone (or sulphur, as it is now called)? New research confirms that the Earth's core does in fact contain vast amounts of sulphur, estimated to be up to 8.5 x 1018 tonnes. This is about 10 times the amount of sulphur in the rest of the Earth, based on the most recent estimates (and for comparison, around 10% of the total mass of the Moon). This is the first time that scientists have conclusive geochemical evidence for sulphur in the Earth's core, lending weight to the theory that the Moon was formed by a planet-sized body colliding with the Earth. This work is reported in the peer-reviewed journal, Geochemical Perspectives Letters.

The Earth's core begins 2900km beneath our feet, so it is impossible to investigate directly. However, an international group of researchers have been able to develop indirect geochemical methods to show core composition.

As lead researcher Dr Paul Savage (Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, UK) said: "Scientists have suspected that there is sulphur in the core for some time, but this is the first time we have solid geochemical evidence to support the idea."

For a long time it has been known that the Earth's core is too light to be made only of iron and nickel, and it had been assumed that the core contained other lighter elements, such as sulphur, silicon, oxygen and carbon. However, given the depth of the core, this has been impossible to confirm directly. Fortunately, a cataclysmic event in the distant past - when the Earth collided with a large, planet-sized body, tearing off the part which became our Moon - left a fingerprint, which has been used to confirm the core content.

The researchers believe that the impact of the collision melted the Earth's mantle, allowing a sulphur-rich liquid to form in Earth's mantle, the vast middle layer between the core and the crust; some was probably lost into space, but some remained and sunk into the core. The key to confirming this lay in measuring the isotope ratios of elements (isotopes are atoms of the same element with slightly different masses) in the mantle, and comparing these to certain meteorites, which are believed to be the best match to the Earth's original composition.

Because of variability in mantle composition, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from measuring sulphur directly, so the researchers chose to analyse copper from the Earth's mantle and crust - copper is often bound to sulphur. "We chose copper, because it is a chalcophile element, which means it prefers to be in sulphide-rich material - so is a good element to trace the fate of sulphur on Earth," said senior author Professor Frédéric Moynier (Institut de Physique du Globe, Paris). "Generally, where there is copper, there is sulphur; copper gives us a proxy measurement for sulphur."

The work comprised 3 distinct stages:

  • Firstly, the researchers had to estimate the isotopic composition of copper in the Earth's mantle and crust.
  • Secondly, they had to estimate the isotopic composition of copper in the Earth before it formed a core, and was bombarded by giant impactors. Direct measurement is of course impossible, so they used meteorites, which are regarded as the best analogue.
  • Finally, they had to simulate which copper isotopic signature would be generated by the removal of sulphur-rich liquid after the 'giant impact'.

Using the state-of-the-art mass spectroscopes at the Washington University in St. Louis and the Institut de Physique du Globe, Paris, they were able to confirm that there was a difference of 0.025% in the copper isotopic ratios between the Earth mantle samples, and the meteorite samples. Because the isotopes of copper divide unevenly between a sulphur-rich liquid and the rest of Earth's mantle, this shows that a large amount of sulphur must have been removed from the mantle.

Paul Savage said: "This study is the first to show clear geochemical evidence that a sulphide liquid must have separated from the mantle early on in Earth's history - which most likely entered the core. We estimate that the quantity of sulphur in the core is vast, around 8.5 x 1018 tonnes, which to give an idea of scale, is around 10% of the mass of the Moon. In addition, the work adds weight to the theory that the Moon was formed via a collision between the Earth and another body.

"In a way, we can also say that we have life imitating art. For millennia, tales have been told of the underworld being awash with fire and brimstone. Now at least, we can be sure of the brimstone."

Commenting, Executive Co-Editor of Geochemical Perspectives Letters, Professor Graham Pearson (University of Alberta) said: "The presence and identity of other elements in the Earth's core has been one of the most enduring problems in geochemistry. Savage and colleagues provide very elegant evidence, using isotopes of as a tracer, of the stripping of vast amounts of from the Earth's early mantle into the core. So the core turns out to be a good place to hide quite substantial amounts of elements other than iron and nickel. This study will surely encourage others to persist in the search for evidence of other elements in the - data that is critically needed to complete our understanding of how the Earth formed and what the geochemical mass balance is in the Earth."


Explore further

Gradients in the Earth's outermost core

More information: Copper isotope evidence for large-scale sulphide fractionation during Earth's differentiation, Geochemical Perspectives Letters, v1, n1 , DOI: 10.7185/geochemlet.1506
Provided by European Association of Geochemistry
Citation: Earth's core contains 90 percent of Earth's sulfur, new research shows (2015, June 16) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-earth-core-percent-sulfur.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2373 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 16, 2015
FTA:
"The work comprised 3 distinct stages:
•Firstly, the researchers had to estimate the isotopic composition of copper in the Earth's mantle and crust.
•Secondly, they had to estimate the isotopic composition of copper in the Earth before it formed a core, and was bombarded by giant impactors. Direct measurement is of course impossible, so they used meteorites, which are regarded as the best analogue.
•Finally, they had to simulate which copper isotopic signature would be generated by the removal of sulphur-rich liquid after the 'giant impact'."

I dunno.... A lot of "estimating", "simulating" and direct measurement substitution goin' on, there....

Jun 17, 2015
Initially I had the same thoughts about the estimates, assumptions and simulations. After reading the paper I understand their use of estimates are scientifically valid, not wild guesses. The same with assumptions, they were based previous studies by other scientists. Simulations are a common tool in scientific research.

Having said all that I'd like to read some feedback from other scientists in their field.

Their paper is open source, the link is at the bottom of the article.
http://www.geoche...icle1506

Jun 17, 2015
It adds another successful test of the Great Impact though, same as when they discovered the slight O & W isotope differences between Earth and Moon, which attests to the correctness of GI.

Those differences are correctly predicted by the Earth/Moon accretion dating clock (of Bottke et al), which gets the same date as the direct Earth accretion clock for the GI age. So they test GI twice over, but also that majority of volatiles were asteroid veneer after this crust emptying the article describes a test of, consistent with that zircons tells of ocean (and continents) 4.4 billion years ago.

That is 6 more or less independent tests of GI right there - each step in the analyses are constraining in the evidence chain - and that gives GI with little wiggle room for other mechanisms of Moon (and "dirty" core) formation.

But what I want to know is how this affects the geodynamo? I need to find out! [/goes away for now]

Jun 17, 2015
Isnt it odd that in all our myths that uncannily describe our deep past there is no myth that supports our Moon - Luna- being born in an impact with the Earth.
I theorize that the Earth has layered elements due to its creation from ejected 'dirty gases' when our sun -Sol- imploded under a massive pressurized magnetic field from the giant red 'Beetle Sun." This magnetism may have been responsible for our suspended 'water veil.' Sol may be a magnetar, an end-stage result of the implosion of a red giant. Perhaps the red dwarf stars are the end product of the red giants instead of the other way round as currently thought.

Jun 20, 2015
Ok, I have read the paper now. And the 10 % of Moon mass - which itself is ~ 1 % of Earth mass - should have tipped me off: the additional S is limited to < 0.5 % by mass. It won't do anything with the dynamo.

For small planets like Mars, where S is ~15 % of the core mass, these effects of core segregation may men more, notes the paper.

@katesisco: When making claims, have evidence or you won't be believed. You have none for your fantasies of solar system formation, and the known astrophysics reject it. E.g. the Sun is a main sequence star, so in no way could it be a residual of a late stage red giant.

And of course, the myths you refer to are known to be rejected by geology et cetera too, independently of your inane apologetics (on a science site!). The latter makes you inherently unbelievable, because you are not motivated by either fact or the discipline that finds it out, science.

Jun 22, 2015
[Isn't] it odd that in all our myths that uncannily describe our deep past there is no myth that supports our Moon - Luna- being born in an impact with the Earth
No, it's not the least bit odd, at least not to anyone who isn't peddling religious fundamentalist dogma. Why would there be any myths at all about events that happened before there was even unicellular life on Earth? And the name of the Moon is not 'Luna', at least not in English (in which it is, oddly enough, the Moon), so unless we start speaking Spanish or Latin let's not just make things up or take our naming nomenclatures from science fiction. The rest of your "theorizing" isn't worth discussion.
.
.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more