Crucial components required for the emergence of life as we recognize it have been found in asteroid Bennu samples. This discovery suggests that Bennu might have transported the vital elements for life to Earth and potentially to other locations.
In 2020, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission gathered samples from Bennu, an asteroid that travels hundreds of millions of kilometers through space, situated between Mars and Jupiter. The mission successfully returned these samples to Earth in 2023. Since then, the 121 grams collected have been distributed to laboratories worldwide for examination, enabling scientists to start identifying various biological compounds.
Preliminary investigations uncovered the existence of water, carbon, and several organic molecules. Subsequently, they identified amino acids, formaldehyde, and all five nucleobases found in RNA and DNA, along with phosphates. However, these findings do not suffice for constructing molecules that encode genetic information, as the crucial sugars—ribose for RNA and deoxyribose for DNA—were not detected in the initial analysis of the Bennu samples.
Recently, Yoshihiro Furukawa and his team from Tohoku University in Japan ground some of the sample and mixed it with acid and water. They then utilized gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to separate and identify the mixture’s components.
This process confirmed the presence of ribose, alongside other sugars like lyxose, xylose, arabinose, glucose, and galactose, but notably lacked deoxyribose.
“This is a groundbreaking find, showing that sugars exist in extraterrestrial materials,” Furukawa remarked, noting that nearly all life relies on glucose for metabolic processes.
“This is a significant achievement of the OSIRIS-REx mission,” says Sara Russell, from the Natural History Museum in London. Although not part of Furukawa’s team, she also works with Bennu samples. “Previously, the only component missing was sugar, which has now been identified, confirming that all essential elements of RNA were present in this primitive asteroid.”
Furukawa and his colleagues propose that Bennu’s parent asteroid generated sugars from saltwater rich in formaldehyde, suggesting the asteroid was saturated with liquid and exhibited numerous chemical reactions.
“Earlier this year, we reported salt findings in the returned samples, indicating that Bennu’s parent body likely housed a saltwater pool,” Russell stated. “Such conditions would provide an optimal environment for synthesizing the complex organic materials found in Bennu.”
Evidence of saline water on Saturn’s moon Enceladus and the dwarf planet Ceres points towards the possibility that fundamental life ingredients might be plentiful throughout the solar system, according to Russell.
Furukawa’s research includes prior discoveries of ribose and other sugars in meteorites, but he emphasized concerns about potential contamination once these compounds reached Earth. “The presence of these sugars in the Bennu sample affirms the legitimacy of these results,” he stated.
The new findings suggest that the asteroid could indeed have supplied all the requisite components for life to other celestial bodies within the solar system, including Earth and Mars, according to Furukawa. The discovery of ribose but not deoxyribose further supports the RNA world hypothesis concerning life’s origins.
This hypothesis posits that, well before the advent of cellular life or DNA-based organisms, Earth’s earliest life forms were RNA molecules capable of carrying genetic information and self-replication.
The beauty industry often resists trends. From campaigns on aging to home LED masks, consumers have encountered a range of innovations. However, one particularly enduring trend over the last decade is the shift towards “natural” or “organic” beauty products.
At first glance, this sounds appealing: fewer plant ingredients, minimal processing, and no synthetic pesticides. What could be wrong with that? The reality is more complex.
Choosing “natural” beauty products may feel like a wise choice when considering our planet.
Yet, as the beauty industry comes under scrutiny for its environmental impact, we must move beyond greenwashing and evaluate whether relying on naturally grown resources is truly sustainable within a billion-dollar industry.
Growth Market
The global natural and organic beauty sector is currently seeing robust growth driven by heightened consumer interest, with projections estimating gross revenues of approximately £11.3 billion ($14.9 billion) by 2025.
In the UK alone, the natural cosmetics market is expected to reach around £210 million ($278 million) in 2025, with annual growth rates of about 2.74% over the next five years.
From ingredient-light serums to zero-waste shampoo bars, the diversity and volume of products available have never been greater. While this thriving market is exciting, it also presents challenges.
More products lead to increased material extraction, mining, and synthesis, as well as greater packaging and emissions throughout the supply chain.
This intricate situation can easily confuse well-meaning consumers, who may get caught up in labels like “natural” or “organic” without fully understanding their implications.
Steam distillation is a traditional method of extracting oil from flowers used to make rose water – Photo credit: Getty Images
There’s a common belief that if something is labeled “natural,” it must be beneficial for the environment. However, whether it’s Moroccan argan oil or Mexican aloe vera, obtaining natural ingredients often comes at a high price.
Crops require extensive land, water, and energy for cultivation.
Many high-demand crops are susceptible to climate change and, regrettably, are often linked to unethical labor practices. While we aspire for organic farming to represent a more sustainable approach, it can also lead to unintended negative outcomes.
For instance, many organic agricultural practices may yield lower crop outputs while occupying more land. This can result in deforestation as farmers seek additional land to maximize production of slowly-growing crops.
Naturally derived pesticides used in organic agriculture can also harm the soil.
Copper sulfate, commonly used in the wine industry’s “Bordeaux mixture,” has long been approved for use in organic farming but has recently faced regulation due to its negative effects on soil microbiomes and potential threats to local insect populations.
read more:
Lab-grown Materials
This is where biotechnology enters the conversation. While it may not have the allure of “Wild Harvest Lavender,” biotechnology could ultimately prove to be one of the planet’s most eco-friendly resources.
In simple terms, biotechnology utilizes scientific methods (often involving fermentation with yeast, plant sugars, or bacteria) to cultivate ingredients in laboratories, as opposed to sourcing them from nature. Think of it like brewing beer, but instead of a refreshing pint, you yield powerful active ingredients for moisturizers and shampoos.
These lab-generated components are molecularly identical to their natural counterparts and can be produced without ecosystem emissions, using significantly less water, land, and energy.
This highly controlled process can also be scaled efficiently while maintaining consistent quality.
For example, swapping “wild harvested lavender” for biotechnologically produced lavender essential oils can lead to substantial reductions in energy and water usage.
Producing 1g (0.04oz) of natural lavender oil requires about 20L (approximately 5 gallons) of water and about 4 megajoules of energy—roughly equivalent to watching TV for 20 hours.
In contrast, if biotechnologically produced, the same 1g can potentially require just 2-5L (0.5-1.3 gallons) of water and 1 megajoule of energy (the equivalent needed to boil a kettle).
Biotechnology has advanced significantly in recent years, although companies have yet to replicate every component of these unique essential oils.
Laboratory-grown cosmetic ingredients are molecularly identical to natural ingredients and could become a more sustainable alternative – Photo Credit: alamy
One ingredient successfully replicated is bisabolol, known for its soothing properties in the cosmetics field. It’s utilized in a diverse range of products, from hormone-related creams to sun care and baby products.
To extract natural bisabolol, it must be derived from Candea trees native to Brazil. This cultivation can lead to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem strain, with natural harvest quality varying based on weather conditions.
To obtain 1kg (2.2 pounds) of natural bisabolol, cutting down around 1-3 trees is necessary, with each tree taking 10-15 years to mature.
To create one ton (2,204 pounds) of bisabolol, approximately 3,000 to 5,000 trees are needed—a staggering statistic given the global demand is around 16 tons (35,000 pounds) annually.
Each tree consumes about 36,000 liters (9,500 gallons) of water over its lifetime (equivalent to 72,000 500ml bottles) and 75 megajoules of energy (approximately analogous to charging a smartphone 2,500 times).
Givaudan, a Swiss ingredient manufacturer, has already developed bisabolol through biotechnological means, resulting in a much higher specification than what natural agriculture can achieve.
Comparatively, biotechnological yields of bisabolol can utilize 90-95% less water and 50-60% less energy than natural Candeia tree yields, not to mention the hectares saved from potential deforestation.
Brands like Boots and Estée Lauder are investing in biotechnology.
Even smaller indie brands are beginning to highlight fermented or lab-grown ingredients. Eco Brand Biossance uses a similar moisturizing ingredient to squalene, but instead of harvesting it from shark fins, they derive it from sugarcane, claiming to save an estimated 20-30 million sharks each year.
Moreover, biotechnology ingredients tend to be purer, more stable, and often more effective than their natural counterparts, meaning your product will last longer, perform better, and evoke less guilt regarding the environment.
What Should I Look For?
For consumers, all this information can feel daunting, especially with packaging filled with misleading marketing buzzwords. However, here are a few straightforward tips for choosing cosmetic products that align with your values.
Seek out biotechnology or lab-grown ingredients, often labeled as “fermented origin,” “biodesign,” or “bioidentical” on ingredient lists.
Be cautious of common marketing greenwash terms like “eco-friendly,” “clean beauty,” “sustainable,” and “biodegradable.” Look for tangible values, timelines, or explanations backing these claims.
Avoid brands that shift their focus away from sustainability to other concerns, such as “opposing animal testing,” which has been banned by the EU since 1998 for British cosmetics.
While the notion that beauty should be “natural” is comforting, this approach isn’t necessarily the most sustainable choice, especially as the UK lacks a legal definition of what “natural” cosmetics entail.
If you genuinely want to protect the planet for future generations, it’s essential to move past the notion of nature as an infinite resource and start supporting smarter scientific innovations that collaborate with nature rather than oppose it.
Considering individual factors, a typical 70kg adult body comprises approximately 46kg (101 pounds) of oxygen, 13kg (27 pounds) of carbon, 7kg (15 pounds) of hydrogen, 2kg (4 pounds) of nitrogen, 2 pounds of calcium, and 2L of sulfur, along with magnesium and various trace elements.
In his book Body: A Guide for Residents, author Bill Bryson estimates that the total cost of these raw materials is over £116,000 ($150,000), based on the most expensive and chemically pure forms of each element.
If you’re inclined to refine elements for yourself, your costs will be lower.
For instance, using 52 liters (11 gallons) of water provides both oxygen and plenty of hydrogen, essentially at no cost. A simple setup for electrolysis can help you separate these gases easily.
Similarly, high-quality charcoal (about 70% carbon) can be purchased for around £56 ($75), and by adding 10kg (22 pounds) of ammonium sulfate fertilizer, priced at £23 ($31), you can produce nitrogen and sulfur. This brings you quite close to what you need.
Other elements are present in very small quantities, so adding another £10-15 ($13-20) will adjust your revised estimate to less than £100, or under $133.
Of course, humans aren’t merely composed of elements; they consist of complex organic molecules such as proteins and carbohydrates. The cost of creating these from raw elements would be minimal compared to the basic materials themselves.
If you can refine it yourself, the average human body is worth around 100 pounds. – Illustration credits: Daniel Bright
If the process seems daunting, a simpler alternative is to buy an entire pig (approximately £200 or $267 at auction) and grind it down into a usable chemical building block mixture.
From a molecular standpoint, the composition of pigs and humans is quite similar.
Alternatively, you can begin with pure energy. Since matter and energy are interchangeable, theoretically, an atom can be created from pure energy using a particle accelerator like the Large Hadron Collider.
However, to achieve a mass of 70kg (154 pounds), you would need about 10^17 joules of energy, equivalent to 1.75 trillion kilowatt-hours. This amount is roughly 70 times the total electricity consumed worldwide in a year.
This article answers the question posed by Phoebe Gray of Southampton: “What is the average human body?”
Please email us your questionsat Question @sciencefocus.com or reach out viaFacebook,Twitter or InstagramPage (don’t forget to include your name and location).
Explore our ultimateFun Fact & more amazing science pages
Nitrogen is an essential element for life and is an integral part of DNA and proteins. Most of the nitrogen on Earth exists in the atmosphere as gaseous nitrogen, denoted as N.2 However, most organisms cannot directly use nitrogen. In modern ecosystems, some microorganisms have specialized enzymes that convert nitrogen into nitrogen.2 It converts gases into a form that other living things can use. Fixed nitrogen These microorganisms Nitrogen fixing bacteria.
But 3 to 4 billion years ago, during a period in Earth's history called the Archean Era, life had not yet evolved and no nitrogen-fixing organisms existed, so scientists studying the origin of life are faced with a classic chicken-and-egg problem: life needed nitrogen to evolve, but before life evolved, there were no microorganisms to convert nitrogen into nitrogen.2 Let's turn gas into something we can use! So where did life get its nitrogen from before there were nitrogen-fixing organisms?
Researchers recently hypothesized that early life on Earth may have obtained fixed nitrogen from lightning. They propose that the high energy of a lightning spark could react with oxygen and N.2 Fixing atmospheric nitrogen2 The gas is converted into other usable forms of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides.
Geologists have studied the sedimentary rock record to understand nitrogen throughout Earth's history, but they had no way to distinguish lightning-derived nitrogen in rocks from other ancient sources of nitrogen. To explore whether lightning provided fixed nitrogen to early life, researchers led by Dr. Patrick Barth created “lightning” in a jar and tested whether it would react with nitrogen.2 It emitted gases and produced nitrogen oxides that had an identifiable signal.
To simulate lightning, the researchers used electrodes in glass flasks filled with different gas mixtures: To mimic modern-day Earth, Barth and his colleagues used a flask with a composition similar to our current atmosphere, containing 85 percent nitrogen.2 They also used flasks containing an atmosphere similar to that of Archean Earth, which scientists believe was about 83% nitrogen.20% oxygen, 16% carbon dioxide.
The researchers added 50 milliliters (about a quarter cup) of water to the bottom of each flask to allow any nitrogen oxides and other compounds produced during the reaction to dissolve in the water. They discharged each experimental flask to about 50 kilovolts for 15 to 60 minutes — nearly 10 times the voltage of an electric car battery.
The research team developed a device called Quadrupole Gas AnalyzerThey measured the nitrogen compounds in the gases coming out of each flask before and after they were ignited. They found that in the modern experiment, more fixed nitrogen was dissolved in the water than in the gas. But in the Archean experiment, the fixed nitrogen was split almost equally between the water and the gas.
After each reaction, the researchers placed the flask of water into an apparatus that measured the weight of the nitrogen atoms. Gas Source Mass SpectrometerThey explained that nitrogen atoms exist in two main forms with different masses, called isotopes. 14The N isotope is lighter and more abundant in nature, 15The N isotope is heavier and less common. The researchers used mass spectrometer data to calculate the ratios of nitrogen isotopes in the lightning-fixed nitrogen samples. They compared these nitrogen isotope ratios to those in rocks that are 3.1 to 3.8 billion years old to see if there was a match.
The researchers found that the nitrogen isotope ratio of the lightning-produced nitrogen was about 0.1% to 1% lighter than that of the rocks, and suggested that this difference in nitrogen isotopes indicates that most of the nitrogen in the Archean rocks was not produced by lightning.
The researchers also used the lightning flash rate on modern Earth to predict the amount of nitrogen oxides that lightning would produce per year. They estimated that the annual lightning flash rate alone could not have provided enough nitrogen to support ecosystems on early Earth. They explain that there was even less lightning in the Archean than there is today, so even less nitrogen was available to support early life.
The researchers concluded that lightning was not the main source of available nitrogen for early life. Because nitrogen-fixing organisms must have evolved very early in Earth's history, life did not need to rely solely on lightning, they suggested. However, one of the 3.7-billion-year-old rock samples showed nitrogen isotope ratios similar to lightning-fixed nitrogen, leading the researchers to speculate that small amounts of fixed nitrogen from lightning may have supported early life. Furthermore, the researchers suggested that the lightning-fixed nitrogen isotope ratios obtained in this study could be used to investigate how nitrogen is fixed on other planets in the solar system.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
