{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025109170305676855, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004366812227074236, 'mean_word_length': 4.916129032258064, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
EH and EL Enstatite Chondrite Physical Properties: No Difference in Iron Content

Enstatite chondrites (ECs) are highly reduced meteorites marked by an abundance of enstatite and a depletion or absence of olivine. Of the many attempts to sort these meteor-ites on the basis of petrography or trace elements, the most widely used system divides the ECs into two groups, EH and EL, based on iron content [1], noting differences between the groups in siderophile trace elements and silicon in the metal. But do the two groups really differ in iron content? In many cases, the bulk compositions were determined from samples sig-nificantly smaller than 10g, while ECs are rich in large clasts and can be heterogeneous at this scale [2]. Grain density and magnetic susceptibility measurements of larger samples can resolve this issue, as they provide a quick and non-destructive measure of average whole-rock iron content.