Searching for life on mars: Degradation of surfactant solutions used in organic extraction experiments

Life-detection instruments on future Mars missions may use surfactant solutions to extract organic matter from samples of martian rocks. The thermal and radiation environments of space and Mars are capable of degrading these solutions, thereby reducing their ability to dissolve organic species. Successful extraction and detection of biosignatures on Mars requires an understanding of how degradation in extraterrestrial environments can affect surfactant performance. We exposed solutions of the surfactants polysorbate 80 (PS80), Zonyl FS-300, and poly[dimethylsiloxane-co-[3-(2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy)propyl]methylsiloxane] (PDMSHEPMS) to elevated radiation and heat levels, combined with prolonged storage. Degradation was investigated by measuring changes in pH and electrical conductivity and by using the degraded solutions to extract a suite of organic compounds spiked onto grains of the martian soil simulant JSC Mars-1. Results indicate that the proton fluences expected during a mission to Mars do not cause significant degradation of surfactant compounds. Solutions of PS80 or PDMSHEPMS stored at-20°C are able to extract the spiked standards with acceptable recovery efficiencies. Extraction efficiencies for spiked standards decrease progressively with increasing temperature, and prolonged storage at 60°C renders the surfactant solutions ineffective. Neither the presence of ascorbic acid nor the choice of solvent unequivocally alters the efficiency of extraction of the spiked standards. Since degradation of polysorbates has the potential to produce organic compounds that could be mistaken for indigenous martian organic matter, the polysiloxane PDMSHEPMS may be a superior choice of surfactant for the exploration of Mars

Extracting organic matter on Mars: A comparison of methods involving subcritical water, surfactant solutions and organic solvents

The first step in many life detection protocols on Mars involves attempts to extract or isolate organic matter from its mineral matrix. A number of extraction options are available and include heat and solvent assisted methods. Recent operations on Mars indicate that heating samples can cause the loss or obfuscation of organic signals from target materials, raising the importance of solvent-based systems for future missions. Several solvent types are available (e.g. organic solvents, surfactant based solvents and subcritical water extraction) but a comparison of their efficiencies in Mars relevant materials is missing. We have spiked the well characterised Mars analogue material JSC Mars-1 with a number of representative organic standards. Extraction of the spiked JSC Mars-1 with the three solvent methods provides insights into the relative efficiency of these methods and indicates how they may be used on future Mars missions

Thoracic electrical bioimpedance versus suprasternal Doppler in emergency care

OBJECTIVE: There are a number of cardiac output (CO) monitors that could potentially be used in the ED. Two of the most promising methods, thoracic electrical bioimpedance and suprasternal Doppler, have not been directly compared. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of CO monitoring using suprasternal Doppler and bioimpedance in emergency care and compare haemodynamic data obtained from both monitors. METHODS: Haemodynamic measurements were made on the same group of patients using bioimpedance (Niccomo, Medis, Germany) and suprasternal Doppler (USCOM, Sydney, Australia). RESULTS: Usable CO data were obtained in 97% of patients by suprasternal Doppler and 87% by bioimpedance. The median CO obtained by Doppler was 3.4 L/min lower than bioimpedance. The stroke volume median was lower by 51 mL in Doppler. CONCLUSIONS: These two methods of non-invasive cardiac monitoring are not interchangeable. The results suggest that the choice of non-invasive cardiac monitor is important, but the grounds on which to make this choice are not currently clear

Difference between upper arm and finger temperature for each patient.

<p>Difference between upper arm and finger temperature for each patient.</p

Temperature gradient in control group (mean and standard deviation) showing a significant decrease along the arm.

<p>Temperature gradient in control group (mean and standard deviation) showing a significant decrease along the arm.</p

Distribution of individual readings in ‘finger’ region in control, fever and sepsis patients.

<p>Distribution of individual readings in ‘finger’ region in control, fever and sepsis patients.</p