Evidence for Abiotic Dimethyl Sulfide in Cometary Matter
Technological progress related to astronomical observatories such as the recently launched James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) allows searching for signs of life beyond our solar system, namely, in the form of unambiguous biosignature gases in exoplanetary atmospheres. The tentative assignment of a 1...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Astrophysical journal 2024-11, Vol.976 (1), p.74 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Technological progress related to astronomical observatories such as the recently launched James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) allows searching for signs of life beyond our solar system, namely, in the form of unambiguous biosignature gases in exoplanetary atmospheres. The tentative assignment of a 1 σ –2.4 σ spectral feature observed with JWST in the atmosphere of exoplanet K2-18b to the biosignature gas dimethyl sulfide (DMS; sum formula C 2 H 6 S) raised hopes that, although controversial, a second genesis had been found. Terrestrial atmospheric DMS is exclusively stemming from marine biological activity, and no natural abiotic source has been identified—neither on Earth nor in space. Therefore, DMS is considered a robust biosignature. Since comets possess a pristine inventory of complex organic molecules of abiotic origin, we have searched high-resolution mass spectra collected at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, target of the European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission, for the signatures of DMS. Previous work reported the presence of a C 2 H 6 S signal when the comet was near its equinox, but distinction of DMS from its structural isomer ethanethiol remained elusive. Here we reassess these and evaluate additional data. Based on differences in the electron ionization-induced fragmentation pattern of the two isomers, we show that DMS is significantly better compatible with the observations. Deviations between expected and observed signal intensities for DMS are |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0004-637X 1538-4357 |
DOI: | 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8565 |