Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Geochemical and mineralogical interpretation of the Viking inorganic chemical results

Toulmin, Priestley, Baird, A. K., Clark, B. C., Keil, Klaus, Rose, H. J., Christian, R. P., Evans, P. H., Kelliher, W. C.·1977·Journal of Geophysical Research

Abstract

The elemental analyses whose basis is described in the preceding two papers represent the composition of samples of Martian fines; the only undetermined major constituents thought to be present are H2O, CO2, Na2O, and possibly NOx. The samples are principally silicate particles, with some admixture of oxide and probably carbonate minerals; the fines appear to have been indurated to a variable degree by a sulfate-rich intergranular cement. The overall elemental composition is dissimilar to any single known mineral or rock type and apparently represents a mixture of materials. Close chemical similarity among samples at each site, and between the two sites, indicates effective homogenization of the fines, presumably by planetary windstorms, and further suggests that the samples analyzed represent the fine, mobilizable materials over a large part of the planet's surface. Low trace element, alkali, and alumina contents suggest that the great preponderance of the materials in the mixture is of mafic derivation; highly differentiated, salic igneous rocks or their weathering products are insignificant components of the samples. Normative calculations, comparisons with reference libraries of analytical data, and mathematical mixture modeling have led to a qualitative mineralogical model in which the fines consist largely of iron-rich smectites (or their degradation products), carbonates, iron oxides, probably in part maghemite, and sulfate minerals concentrated in a surface duricrust. The original smectites may have formed by interaction of mafic magma and subsurface ice, and the sulfates (and carbonates?) may have been concentrated in the surface crust by subsurface leaching, upward transport, and evaporation of intergranular moisture films. Testing and refinement of this and competing models will accompany continuing acquisition of samples and data and refinement of the analyses, particularly with respect to the critical light elements Mg, Al, and Si.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/js082i028p04625

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Toulmin, P., Baird, A. K., Clark, B. C., Keil, K., Rose, H. J., Christian, R. P., Evans, P. H., & Kelliher, W. C.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research
Published
1977-09-30
Volume
82
Issue
28
Pages
4625-4634
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016573828
Cited by
375
References
45
FWCI
27.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Geochemical and mineralogical interpretation of the Viking inorganic chemical results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/js082i028p04625
The paper
Toulmin, P., Baird, A. K., Clark, B. C., Keil, K., Rose, H. J., Christian, R. P., Evans, P. H., & Kelliher, W. C. (1977). Geochemical and mineralogical interpretation of the Viking inorganic chemical results. Journal of Geophysical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/js082i028p04625

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.