pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29914 · v1 · pith:KWG5WL6Fnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Modeling carbon outgassing from chondritic planetesimals

Bo Peng , Diana Valencia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 00:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords carbon outgassingchondritic planetesimalsCC and NC chondritesvolatile depletionterrestrial planet accretionthermochemical evolutionplanetesimal fracturessintering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Carbon outgassing depletes more than half the carbon from most carbonaceous chondrite planetesimals but less than half from non-carbonaceous ones.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a thermochemical model for carbon loss from porous chondritic planetesimals by tracking internal heating, redox-driven production of CO and CO2, and escape through fractures. It applies the model to both non-carbonaceous (ordinary and enstatite) and carbonaceous (CI and CV) compositions, incorporating sintering that can trap carbon and dehydration effects in wet bodies. The results show more efficient depletion in the oxidized CC environment than in the reduced NC one, with clear dependence on body size and accretion time after CAI formation. This process matters because it shapes how much carbon these early bodies could deliver during the assembly of terrestrial planets. The work concludes that NC planetesimals are the more likely main carbon carriers.

Core claim

For 10-100 km planetesimals formed at 2 Myr after CAI formation, more than 50 percent of C is depleted in almost all CC bodies while less than 50 percent is depleted in almost all NC bodies. C depletion is more efficient on CC planetesimals than NCs due to the former's oxidized environment. Both the largest and the smallest bodies tend to preserve more C, the former due to sintering locking condensed C in against escape, while the latter due to efficient conductive cooling. Earlier accreted planetesimals deplete more C: bodies formed before about 1 Myr deplete most of their C. The results favor NC planetesimals as the C carriers during terrestrial planets' accretion from a mix of C-depleted

What carries the argument

The pressure-triggered global fracture venting mechanism that allows direct escape of CO/CO2 gas produced by redox reactions when local pressure exceeds confinement levels.

If this is right

  • NC planetesimals are favored as the C carriers during terrestrial planets' accretion.
  • Terrestrial planets likely accreted from a mix of C-depleted and C-rich bodies from both CC and NC reservoirs.
  • Earlier accreted planetesimals deplete more C, with bodies formed before about 1 Myr depleting most of their C.
  • Both the largest and the smallest bodies tend to preserve more C due to sintering and conductive cooling respectively.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Outgassing at the planetesimal stage can help explain Earth's overall volatile depletion relative to primitive chondrites.
  • The same fracture-venting process could influence delivery of other volatiles such as water during accretion.
  • Direct sampling or remote sensing of C/H ratios on asteroids from known CC and NC parent bodies could test the size- and time-dependent predictions.

Load-bearing premise

Global fractures form and vent excess gas directly to space whenever local gas pressure exceeds confinement levels.

What would settle it

Carbon abundance measurements in meteorites showing no systematic difference in depletion between CC-derived and NC-derived samples in the 10-100 km size range formed near 2 Myr after CAIs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29914 by Bo Peng, Diana Valencia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Chemical equilibrium with four chondritic redox states. Top: total equilibrium pressures vs. temperature. The highlighted region represents the lithostatic pressures of ∼10 - 100 km planetesimals. Bottom: molar CO/CO2 ratio in equilibrium with the four chondritic compositions. calculate the kinetic reaction rate (Section 2.4), which helps regulate the actual pore gas pressures, thus im￾pacting the composit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolutions of fiducial planetesimals with different chondritic compositions. Each plot is the contour of one quantity across time and radial location. Note that the total radius decreases due to sintering. From top row to bottom: EH, OC, CV, and CI bodies. Physical quantities from left to right: (i) temperature, (ii) condensed + gaseous C abundance normalized to the initial reservoir; > 1 relative abundanc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The fraction of total carbon reservoir left at 10 Myr, relative to a planetesimal’s initial C abundance, for planetesimals with varying radii. Blue, green, red, and or￾ange lines are bodies of EH, OC, CV, and CI compositions. Dashed lines are the fraction of bulk carbon in completely sintered layers. the thermochemical histories of planetesimals, we simu￾late four planetesimals composed of enstatite (EH), … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a: depth of the ignition point relative to the total radius at the time of ignition vs. the radius at 10 Myr after CAI. b: timing of ignition after CAI vs. the final radius. Same color codes as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: final bulk C abundances relative to the initial reservoir of CV (red lines) and OC (green lines) bodies formed at varied times. The dashed lines are the fraction of C locked by sintering. Bottom: the final bulk porosities of the same bodies. These are especially prominent in CI bodies smaller than ∼70 km (Figure 6b). These layers are pressurized by CO/CO2 gas against compaction when the interior tem￾p… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Estimated characteristic temperatures for out￾gassing (solid lines), sintering (dash-dot lines) and peak heat￾ing (dashed lines) in bodies accreted at 2 Myrs after CAI, with varying total radii and composition. The highlighted parts of the solid lines indicate the composition and radii for which significant C depletion is expected in the planetesimal. (Equation 69). ∆r = R − r is the distance of location r… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparing timescales of reaction kinetics with those of sintering across temperatures. Orange and blue bands: timescales of depletion using the rates that assume open-system flow with Pconf = 0, and an initial C content of 0.3 vol%. The orange band utilizes our fiducial reaction rates, while the blue band employs oxidation rates of car￾boxen from I. C. Jaramillo et al. (2014), a standard carbon black anal… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Diffusion timescales in fiducial Rc = 60 km bodies’ interiors, for different chondritic compositions. EH and OC lines are mostly overlapping. Solid lines are bod￾ies with intact matrices (K = 10−17m2 ), while dashed lines are fractured bodies (K = 10−13m2 ). Dash-dotted lines are EH and OC bodies if they had the same grain size as CCs, d = 1µm. The shaded region denotes timescales relevant for planetesima… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of (a) bulk C reservoirs and (b) porosi￾ties of OC and CV bodies with different grain sizes. The red lines are CV bodies with Rc = 60 km, while the green lines are OC bodies of the same size. Solid lines are bodies with grain sizes d = 1mm, while dashed lines are bodies with d = 1µm. The lines highlighted with gray shadows are our fiducial runs. Moving beyond our simple, binary approach, future … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Sample evolution of a Rc = 40 km CI body, with 3.5 wt% initial C abundance and comparison with low spatial resolution runs, as well as fiducial low C abundance ones. (a) Temperature evolution of the first million year since the planetesimal’s accretion. (b) Evolution of its C reservoir normalized to the initial abundance. (c) Evolution of its porosity. (d) Comparing runs with high vs. low C abundances and… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The thermochemical evolution of planetesimals is an underprobed stage of volatile delivery to terrestrial planets during their formation, and may contribute to the volatile depletion of the Earth relative to primitive chondrites. We have developed a model of C outgassing from porous, chondritic planetesimals. Our model tracks the thermal evolution and the production of CO/CO2 gas using the redox states of ordinary and enstatite chondrites (OC and EC, respectively, collectively the "NCs"), and CI and CV carbonaceous chondrites ("CCs"). We posit the formation of global fractures when local gas pressure exceeds confinement levels, which vent the excess directly to space, leading to efficient C depletion. We also account for sintering and the enthalpy of dehydration from wet carbonaceous chondrite bodies. We find that C depletion is more efficient on CC planetesimals than NCs due to the former's oxidized environment: for 10-100 km planetesimals formed at 2 Myr after CAI formation, > 50% of C is depleted in almost all CC bodies while < 50% is depleted in almost all NC bodies. Both the largest and the smallest bodies tend to preserve more C, the former due to sintering locking condensed C in against escape, while the latter due to efficient conductive cooling. Earlier accreted planetesimals deplete more C: bodies formed before ~ My deplete most of their C. Our results favor NC planetesimals as the C carriers during terrestrial planets' accretion. Terrestrial planets likely accreted from a mix of C-depleted and C-rich bodies from both CC and NC reservoirs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a thermochemical model tracking thermal evolution, CO/CO2 production from redox reactions in NC (ordinary/enstatite) and CC (CI/CV) chondrites, and C outgassing from porous planetesimals. It posits global fractures that vent excess gas directly to space when local pressure exceeds confinement, incorporates sintering and dehydration enthalpy, and reports that for 10-100 km bodies accreted at 2 Myr after CAI, >50% C is depleted in nearly all CC planetesimals while <50% is depleted in nearly all NC ones, favoring NC bodies as the primary C carriers during terrestrial planet accretion.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a size- and redox-dependent mechanism for planetesimal C depletion that could explain Earth's volatile budget relative to chondrites and the relative roles of NC versus CC reservoirs in accretion. Credit is due for grounding the model in established chondrite redox states and physical processes (sintering, dehydration) rather than fitting free parameters directly to the reported depletion fractions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline quantitative claim (>50% C depletion in almost all CC bodies vs. <50% in NC bodies for 10-100 km planetesimals at 2 Myr) depends on efficient near-complete removal of CO/CO2 via the posited global-fracture venting. This mechanism is introduced without a fracture-criterion equation, without derivation from first principles, and without any comparison to diffusive or porous-flow alternatives; if fractures do not form or vent globally, retained gas would lower net depletion and erase the reported CC-NC contrast.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: No error bars, sensitivity tests on the two free parameters (planetesimal radius, accretion time), or validation against independent constraints (e.g., measured C abundances in meteorites or other outgassing models) are presented, so the robustness of the size-dependent and redox-dependent depletion percentages cannot be assessed from the available text.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces the acronyms NCs and CCs after first use; a parenthetical definition on first appearance would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the model's grounding in established chondrite redox states and physical processes. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline quantitative claim (>50% C depletion in almost all CC bodies vs. <50% in NC bodies for 10-100 km planetesimals at 2 Myr) depends on efficient near-complete removal of CO/CO2 via the posited global-fracture venting. This mechanism is introduced without a fracture-criterion equation, without derivation from first principles, and without any comparison to diffusive or porous-flow alternatives; if fractures do not form or vent globally, retained gas would lower net depletion and erase the reported CC-NC contrast.

    Authors: We agree that the global-fracture venting assumption is essential to the reported depletion contrast. The manuscript posits fractures when local gas pressure exceeds confinement levels, enabling direct venting to space. However, no explicit fracture-criterion equation, first-principles derivation, or comparison to diffusive/porous-flow alternatives is provided. This is a valid point. We will add a dedicated methods subsection deriving the criterion (gas pressure versus lithostatic pressure plus tensile strength of sintered material), discuss its physical motivation, and compare outgassing efficiency to alternative transport mechanisms. We will also test reduced venting efficiency to quantify its effect on the CC-NC difference. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: No error bars, sensitivity tests on the two free parameters (planetesimal radius, accretion time), or validation against independent constraints (e.g., measured C abundances in meteorites or other outgassing models) are presented, so the robustness of the size-dependent and redox-dependent depletion percentages cannot be assessed from the available text.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes the lack of formal error bars, systematic sensitivity tests, and quantitative validation against meteorite C abundances or other models. While the results span 10-100 km radii and a range of accretion times, and the redox states are taken from measured chondrite properties, no uncertainty quantification or direct comparisons are shown. We will incorporate sensitivity tests on radius and accretion time (including variations in thermal conductivity and permeability), add error estimates where feasible, and include a validation section comparing predicted depletions to published meteorite carbon data and prior outgassing models. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model outputs derive from independent physical inputs

full rationale

The paper's depletion fractions emerge from a forward thermochemical model that ingests established redox states of chondrite classes, conductive cooling, sintering, and an explicit (if unverified) fracture-venting assumption. No equation or result is shown to be defined in terms of the target depletion percentages, no parameters are fitted to the CC-NC contrast, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain. The central claim therefore remains an independent model prediction rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about fracture formation and chondrite redox chemistry drawn from prior literature, plus exploration of size and formation-time parameters. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • planetesimal radius
    Model explores 10-100 km bodies; values chosen to represent typical planetesimal sizes.
  • accretion time after CAI
    2 Myr and earlier times tested; affects thermal evolution and depletion efficiency.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Global fractures form when local gas pressure exceeds confinement levels, venting excess gas directly to space
    Explicitly posited to produce efficient C depletion; central to the venting mechanism.
  • domain assumption Redox states of OC/EC versus CI/CV chondrites control CO/CO2 gas production rates
    Used to differentiate gas generation between NC and CC groups.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5818 in / 1496 out tokens · 30796 ms · 2026-06-29T00:40:33.710336+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., & Stroud, R

    Nittler, L. R., & Stroud, R. M. 2017, Chemie der Erde / Geochemistry, 77, 227, doi: 10.1016/j.chemer.2017.01.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemer.2017.01.007 2017

  2. [2]

    E., Bergin, E

    Anderson, D. E., Bergin, E. A., Blake, G. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7da1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7da1 2017

  3. [3]

    A., Telus, M., McCubbin, F

    Anzures, B. A., Telus, M., McCubbin, F. M., et al. 2024, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 3040, 55th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 1250

    2024

  4. [4]

    Beck, A. E. 1976, Geophysics, 41, 133, doi: 10.1190/1.1440596

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1440596 1976

  5. [5]

    A., Blake, G

    Bergin, E. A., Blake, G. A., Ciesla, F., Hirschmann, M. M., & Li, J. 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 8965, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500954112

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1500954112 2015

  6. [6]

    R., Füri, E., Lodders, K., & Marty, B

    Bermingham, K. R., Füri, E., Lodders, K., & Marty, B. 2020, SSRv, 216, 133, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00748-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00748-w 2020

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad182

    Binkert, F., & Birnstiel, T. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad182

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad182 2023

  8. [8]

    Bischoff, A., Scott, E. R. D., Metzler, K., & Goodrich, C. A. 2006, in Meteorites and the Early Solar System II, ed. D. S. Lauretta & H. Y. McSween, 679

    2006

  9. [9]

    A., Jackson, M

    Bland, P. A., Jackson, M. D., Coker, R. F., et al. 2009, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 287, 559, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.09.004 Braukmüller, N., Wombacher, F., Funk, C., & Münker, C. 2019, Nature Geoscience, 12, 564, doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0375-x

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.09.004 2009

  10. [10]

    J., Scott, E

    Brearley, A. J., Scott, E. R. D., Keil, K., et al. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 2081, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90326-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90326-8 1989

  11. [11]

    T., & Consolmagno, G

    Britt, D. T., & Consolmagno, G. J. 2003, M&PS, 38, 1161, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2003.tb00305.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2003.tb00305.x 2003

  12. [12]

    2024, Communications Chemistry, 7, 118, doi: 10.1038/s42004-024-01200-8

    Christ, O., Nestola, F., & Alvaro, M. 2024, Communications Chemistry, 7, 118, doi: 10.1038/s42004-024-01200-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s42004-024-01200-8 2024

  13. [13]

    D., Alexander, C

    Cody, G. D., Alexander, C. M. O., Yabuta, H., et al. 2008, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 272, 446, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.05.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.05.008 2008

  14. [14]

    2008, Chemie der Erde / Geochemistry, 68, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.chemer.2008.01.003

    Consolmagno, G., Britt, D., & Macke, R. 2008, Chemie der Erde / Geochemistry, 68, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.chemer.2008.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemer.2008.01.003 2008

  15. [15]

    M., Zolensky, M

    Corrigan, C. M., Zolensky, M. E., Dahl, J., et al. 1997, M&PS, 32, 509, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1997.tb01296.x Di Blasi, C., Branca, C., & Galgano, A. 2017, Energy Technology, 5, 19, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201600091

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1997.tb01296.x 1997

  16. [16]

    M., Jogo, K., Nagashima, K., et al

    Doyle, P. M., Jogo, K., Nagashima, K., et al. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7444, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8444

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms8444 2015

  17. [17]

    A., Cottrell, E., Hauri, E., Lee, K

    Fischer, R. A., Cottrell, E., Hauri, E., Lee, K. K. M., & Le Voyer, M. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 8743, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1919930117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1919930117 2020

  18. [18]

    R., & Elkins-Tanton, L

    Fu, R. R., & Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 390, 128, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.12.047

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2013.12.047 2014

  19. [20]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2017, Silicate Melting and Volatile Loss During Differentiation in Planetesimals, ed. L. T. Elkins-Tanton & B. P. Weiss, Cambridge Planetary Science (Cambridge University Press), 115–135, doi: 10.1017/9781316339794.006

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316339794.006 2017

  20. [21]

    2017, A&A, 606, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730480

    Gail, H.-P., & Trieloff, M. 2017, A&A, 606, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730480

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730480 2017

  21. [22]

    2008, Icarus, 194, 42, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.007

    Genda, H., & Ikoma, M. 2008, Icarus, 194, 42, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.007 2008

  22. [23]

    J., & Hopkins, P

    Giri, A., Dionne, C. J., & Hopkins, P. E. 2022, npj Computational Mathematics, 8, 55, doi: 10.1038/s41524-022-00741-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-022-00741-7 2022

  23. [24]

    A., Collinet, M., Treiman, A., et al

    Goodrich, C. A., Collinet, M., Treiman, A., et al. 2022, M&PS, 57, 1589, doi: 10.1111/maps.13889

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13889 2022

  24. [25]

    M., & Wright, I

    Grady, M. M., & Wright, I. P. 2003, SSRv, 106, 231, doi: 10.1023/A:1024645906350

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1024645906350 2003

  25. [26]

    E., & McSween, Jr., H

    Grimm, R. E., & McSween, Jr., H. Y. 1989, Icarus, 82, 244, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90038-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90038-9 1989

  26. [27]

    T., Peng, B., Ji, X., et al

    Gu, J. T., Peng, B., Ji, X., et al. 2024, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 629, 118618, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2024.118618

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2024.118618 2024

  27. [28]

    F., Giacobbe, C., & Viti, C

    Gualtieri, A. F., Giacobbe, C., & Viti, C. 2012, American Mineralogist, 97, 666, doi: 10.2138/am.2012.3952

    work page doi:10.2138/am.2012.3952 2012

  28. [29]

    Jan Hermann, Zeno Schätzle, and Frank Noé

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [30]

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, 1113-1122,10.1111/j.1945-5100.1998.tb01716.x

    Hashizume, K., & Sugiura, N. 1998, M&PS, 33, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1998.tb01722.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1998.tb01722.x 1998

  30. [31]

    2012, A&A, 537, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117177

    Kleine, T. 2012, A&A, 537, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117177

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117177 2012

  31. [32]

    J., & Sanders, I

    Hevey, P. J., & Sanders, I. S. 2006, M&PS, 41, 95, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2006.tb00195.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2006.tb00195.x 2006

  32. [33]

    Hirakawa, N., Kebukawa, Y., Furukawa, Y., et al. 2021,

    2021

  33. [34]

    Earth, Planets and Space, 73, 16, doi: 10.1186/s40623-020-01352-6

    work page doi:10.1186/s40623-020-01352-6

  34. [35]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2012, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 341-344, 48 , doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.06.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2012.06.015 2012

  35. [36]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2018, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 502, 262, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.08.023 27

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2018.08.023 2018

  36. [37]

    M., Bergin, E

    Hirschmann, M. M., Bergin, E. A., Blake, G. A., Ciesla, F. J., & Li, J. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2026779118, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2026779118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2026779118 2021

  37. [38]

    L., Sykioti, E

    Huber, M. L., Sykioti, E. A., Assael, M. J., & Perkins, R. A. 2016, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 45, 013102, doi: 10.1063/1.4940892

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4940892 2016

  38. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  39. [40]

    2006, ApJ, 648, 696, doi: 10.1086/505780

    Ikoma, M., & Genda, H. 2006, ApJ, 648, 696, doi: 10.1086/505780

    work page doi:10.1086/505780 2006

  40. [41]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 125, e2020JB019896, doi: 10.1029/2020JB019896

    Jain, C., & Korenaga, J. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 125, e2020JB019896, doi: 10.1029/2020JB019896

    work page doi:10.1029/2020jb019896 2020

  41. [42]

    2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 124, 310, doi: 10.1029/2018JB016558

    Jain, C., Korenaga, J., & Karato, S.-i. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 124, 310, doi: 10.1029/2018JB016558

    work page doi:10.1029/2018jb016558 2019

  42. [43]

    1994, GeoCoA, 58, 9, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(94)90442-1

    Jakobsson, S., & Oskarsson, N. 1994, GeoCoA, 58, 9, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(94)90442-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(94)90442-1 1994

  43. [44]

    C., Gaddam, C

    Jaramillo, I. C., Gaddam, C. K., Vander Wal, R. L., et al. 2014, Combustion and Flame, 161, 2951, doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.04.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.04.016 2014

  44. [45]

    2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 2021

  45. [46]

    2018, Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 38, 4283, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2018.05.015

    Kanchika, S., & Wakai, F. 2018, Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 38, 4283, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2018.05.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2018.05.015 2018

  46. [47]

    Kebukawa, Y., Nakashima, S., & Zolensky, M. E. 2010, M&PS, 45, 99, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.01008.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.01008.x 2010

  47. [48]

    2019, Geochemical Perspectives Letters, 12–17, doi: 10.7185/geochemlet.1918

    Keppler, H., & Golabek, G. 2019, Geochemical Perspectives Letters, 12–17, doi: 10.7185/geochemlet.1918

    work page doi:10.7185/geochemlet.1918 2019

  48. [49]

    602C `\.=

    Kimura, M., Grossman, J. N., & Weisberg, M. K. 2008, M&PS, 43, 1161, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2008.tb01120.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2008.tb01120.x 2008

  49. [50]

    J., Schofield, P

    King, A. J., Schofield, P. F., & Russell, S. S. 2021, GeoCoA, 298, 167, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.02.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2021.02.011 2021

  50. [51]

    2020, M&PS, 55, 1848, doi: 10.1111/maps.13548

    Kiryu, K., Kebukawa, Y., Igisu, M., et al. 2020, M&PS, 55, 1848, doi: 10.1111/maps.13548

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13548 2020

  51. [52]

    W., & Dominik, C

    Klarmann, L., Ormel, C. W., & Dominik, C. 2018, A&A, 618, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833719

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833719 2018

  52. [53]

    S., Burkhardt, C., Budde, G., & Kleine, T

    Kruijer, T. S., Burkhardt, C., Budde, G., & Kleine, T. 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114, 6712, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704461114 Le Guillou, C., & Brearley, A. 2014, GeoCoA, 131, 344, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2013.10.024

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1704461114 2017

  53. [54]

    A., & Nomura, H

    Lee, J.-E., Bergin, E. A., & Nomura, H. 2010, ApJL, 710, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/l21 2010

  54. [55]

    Li, C., & Brown, T. C. 2001, Carbon, 39, 725, doi: 10.1016/S0008-6223(00)00189-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0008-6223(00)00189-5 2001

  55. [56]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabd3632, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd3632

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd3632 2021

  56. [57]

    J., & Hands, T

    Golabek, G. J., & Hands, T. O. 2021, Science, 371, 365, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3091

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb3091 2021

  57. [58]

    K., Nakajima, M., & Fischer, R

    Lichtenberg, T., Schaefer, L. K., Nakajima, M., & Fischer, R. A. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 907, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10023

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.10023 2023

  58. [59]

    R., Sparkes, R., et al

    Lindgren, P., Lee, M. R., Sparkes, R., et al. 2020, GeoCoA, 289, 69, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.08.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2020.08.021 2020

  59. [60]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492

    work page doi:10.1086/375492 2003

  60. [62]

    , author Wiegert , P.A

    Macke, R. J., Consolmagno, G. J., & Britt, D. T. 2011b, M&PS, 46, 1842, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01298.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01298.x 1945

  61. [63]

    K., & Shuttleworth, R

    Mackenzie, J. K., & Shuttleworth, R. 1949, Proceedings of the Physical Society B, 62, 833, doi: 10.1088/0370-1301/62/12/310

    work page doi:10.1088/0370-1301/62/12/310 1949

  62. [64]

    J., & Krot, A

    MacPherson, G. J., & Krot, A. N. 2014, M&PS, 49, 1250, doi: 10.1111/maps.12316

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.12316 2014

  63. [65]

    2018, GeoCoA, 235, 21, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2018.04.032

    Mahan, B., Siebert, J., Blanchard, I., et al. 2018, GeoCoA, 235, 21, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2018.04.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2018.04.032 2018

  64. [66]

    2012, A&A, 542, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118176

    Fray, N. 2012, A&A, 542, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118176

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118176 2012

  65. [67]

    K., & Saxena, S

    Mathur, S., Tondon, P. K., & Saxena, S. C. 1967, Molecular Physics, 12, 569, doi: 10.1080/00268976700100731

    work page doi:10.1080/00268976700100731 1967

  66. [68]

    Matsui, T., Sugiura, N., & Brar, N. S. 1986, Meteoritics, 21, 109, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1986.tb01229.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1986.tb01229.x 1986

  67. [69]

    2022, GeoCoA, 316, 150, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.042

    Matsuoka, M., Nakamura, T., Miyajima, N., et al. 2022, GeoCoA, 316, 150, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.042 2022

  68. [70]

    1967, Carbon, 5, 331, doi: 10.1016/0008-6223(67)90049-8

    Mentser, M., & Ergun, S. 1967, Carbon, 5, 331, doi: 10.1016/0008-6223(67)90049-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0008-6223(67)90049-8 1967

  69. [71]

    Millat, J., & Wakeham, W. A. 1989, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 18, 565, doi: 10.1063/1.555827

    work page doi:10.1063/1.555827 1989

  70. [72]

    B., & Lewis, C

    Moore, C. B., & Lewis, C. F. 1967, J. Geophys. Res., 72, 6289, doi: 10.1029/JZ072i024p06289

    work page doi:10.1029/jz072i024p06289 1967

  71. [73]

    , author Wiegert , P.A

    Moskovitz, N., & Gaidos, E. 2011, M&PS, 46, 903, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01201.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01201.x 2011

  72. [74]

    W., Keil, K., & McCoy, T

    Muenow, D. W., Keil, K., & McCoy, T. J. 1995, Meteoritics, 30, 639, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1995.tb01161.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1995.tb01161.x 1995

  73. [75]

    2005, Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences, 100, 260, doi: 10.2465/jmps.100.260

    Nakamura, T. 2005, Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences, 100, 260, doi: 10.2465/jmps.100.260

    work page doi:10.2465/jmps.100.260 2005

  74. [76]

    2012, A&A, 543, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219157 28B

    Neumann, W., Breuer, D., & Spohn, T. 2012, A&A, 543, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219157 28B. Peng, D. V alencia

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219157 2012

  75. [77]

    2014, A&A, 567, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423648

    Neumann, W., Breuer, D., & Spohn, T. 2014, A&A, 567, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423648

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423648 2014

  76. [78]

    S., Breuer, D., & Kleine, T

    Neumann, W., Kruijer, T. S., Breuer, D., & Kleine, T. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 123, 421, doi: 10.1002/2017JE005411

    work page doi:10.1002/2017je005411 2018

  77. [79]

    2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 14017, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63768-4

    Neumann, W., Ma, N., Bouvier, A., & Trieloff, M. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 14017, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63768-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-63768-4 2024

  78. [80]

    1992, Jounral of Phase Equilibria, 13, 543, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02665767

    Okamoto, H. 1992, Jounral of Phase Equilibria, 13, 543, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02665767

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02665767 1992

  79. [81]

    2024, A&A, 692, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451908

    Okamoto, T., & Ida, S. 2024, A&A, 692, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451908

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451908 2024

  80. [82]

    2023, Science, 379, abo0431, doi: 10.1126/science.abo0431

    Okazaki, R., Marty, B., Busemann, H., et al. 2023, Science, 379, abo0431, doi: 10.1126/science.abo0431

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abo0431 2023

Showing first 80 references.