TY - JOUR
T1 - Reference Models for Lithospheric Geoneutrino Signal
AU - Wipperfurth, S. A.
AU - Šrámek, O.
AU - McDonough, W. F.
N1 - Funding Information:
The MATLAB code described in this study and used to generate its data are openly available in 4TU.ResearchData (http://doi.org/10.4121/uuid:d20c29a5-aba7-43d5-be46-7fba7e5fa093). Support for this study was provided by the University of Maryland Graduate School ALL-S.T.A.R. Fellowship and NSF EAPSI program Award 1713230 (to S. A. W.), NSF Grant EAR1650365 (to W. F. M.), and the Czech Science Foundation Grant GAČR 17-01464S (to O. Š.). There are no financial or interest conflicts with this work. We thank Fabio Mantovani, Bedřich Roskovec, and Steve Dye for insightful comments and discussion. We thank Haibo Zou, an anonymous reviewer, and John Lassiter for their efforts and constructive comments. S. A. W. modeled the geoneutrino signal and wrote the text, with significant input on model creation, data analysis, and the text from O. Š. and W. F. M.
Publisher Copyright:
©2020. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2020/2/1
Y1 - 2020/2/1
N2 - Debate continues on the amount and distribution of radioactive heat producing elements (i.e., U, Th, and K) in the Earth, with estimates for mantle heat production varying by an order of magnitude. Constraints on the bulk-silicate Earth's (BSE) radiogenic power also places constraints on overall BSE composition. Geoneutrino detection is a direct measure of the Earth's decay rate of Th and U. The geoneutrino signal has contributions from the local ((Formula presented.) 40%) and global ((Formula presented.) 35%) continental lithosphere and the underlying inaccessible mantle ((Formula presented.) 25%). Geophysical models are combined with geochemical data sets to predict the geoneutrino signal at current and future geoneutrino detectors. We propagated uncertainties, both chemical and physical, through Monte Carlo methods. Estimated total signal uncertainties are on the order of (Formula presented.) 20%, proportionally with geophysical and geochemical inputs contributing (Formula presented.) 30% and (Formula presented.) 70%, respectively. We find that estimated signals, calculated using CRUST2.0, CRUST1.0, and LITHO1.0, are within physical uncertainty of each other, suggesting that the choice of underlying geophysical model will not change results significantly, but will shift the central value by up to (Formula presented.) 15%. Similarly, we see no significant difference between calculated layer abundances and bulk crustal heat production when using these geophysical models. The bulk crustal heat production is calculated as 7 (Formula presented.) 2 TW, which includes an increase of 1 TW in uncertainty relative to previous studies. Combination of our predicted lithospheric signal with measured signals yield an estimated BSE heat production of 21.5 (Formula presented.) 10.4 TW. Future improvements, including uncertainty attribution and near-field modeling, are discussed.
AB - Debate continues on the amount and distribution of radioactive heat producing elements (i.e., U, Th, and K) in the Earth, with estimates for mantle heat production varying by an order of magnitude. Constraints on the bulk-silicate Earth's (BSE) radiogenic power also places constraints on overall BSE composition. Geoneutrino detection is a direct measure of the Earth's decay rate of Th and U. The geoneutrino signal has contributions from the local ((Formula presented.) 40%) and global ((Formula presented.) 35%) continental lithosphere and the underlying inaccessible mantle ((Formula presented.) 25%). Geophysical models are combined with geochemical data sets to predict the geoneutrino signal at current and future geoneutrino detectors. We propagated uncertainties, both chemical and physical, through Monte Carlo methods. Estimated total signal uncertainties are on the order of (Formula presented.) 20%, proportionally with geophysical and geochemical inputs contributing (Formula presented.) 30% and (Formula presented.) 70%, respectively. We find that estimated signals, calculated using CRUST2.0, CRUST1.0, and LITHO1.0, are within physical uncertainty of each other, suggesting that the choice of underlying geophysical model will not change results significantly, but will shift the central value by up to (Formula presented.) 15%. Similarly, we see no significant difference between calculated layer abundances and bulk crustal heat production when using these geophysical models. The bulk crustal heat production is calculated as 7 (Formula presented.) 2 TW, which includes an increase of 1 TW in uncertainty relative to previous studies. Combination of our predicted lithospheric signal with measured signals yield an estimated BSE heat production of 21.5 (Formula presented.) 10.4 TW. Future improvements, including uncertainty attribution and near-field modeling, are discussed.
KW - CRUST1.0
KW - CRUST2.0
KW - LITHO1.0
KW - U-Th-K
KW - geoneutrino
KW - heat production
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081041033&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85081041033&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1029/2019JB018433
DO - 10.1029/2019JB018433
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85081041033
SN - 2169-9313
VL - 125
JO - Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
JF - Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
IS - 2
M1 - e2019JB018433
ER -