4.7 Article

Gas and dust from solar metallicity AGB stars

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 475, Issue 2, Pages 2282-2305

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx3338

Keywords

stars: abundances; stars: AGB and post-AGB; stars: carbon

Funding

  1. Ramon y Cajal fellowship [RYC2013-14182]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [AYA-2014-58082-P]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP170100521, FT110100475]
  4. Australian Research Council [FT110100475] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We study the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) evolution of stars with masses between 1M(circle dot)and8.5M(circle dot). We focus on stars with a solar chemical composition, which allows us to interpret evolved stars in the Galaxy. We present a detailed comparison with models of the same chemistry, calculated with a different evolution code and based on a different set of physical assumptions. We find that stars of mass >= 3.5M(circle dot) experience hot bottom burning at the base of the envelope. They have AGB lifetimes shorter than similar to 3 x 10(5) yr and eject into their surroundings gas contaminated by proton-capture nucleosynthesis, at an extent sensitive to the treatment of convection. Low-mass stars with 1.5M(circle dot) <= M <= 3M(circle dot) become carbon stars. During the final phases, the C/O ratio grows to similar to 3. We find a remarkable agreement between the two codes for the low-mass models and conclude that predictions for the physical and chemical properties of these stars, and the AGB lifetime, are not that sensitive to the modelling of the AGB phase. The dust produced is also dependent on the mass: low-mass stars produce mainly solid carbon and silicon carbide dust, whereas higher mass stars produce silicates and alumina dust. Possible future observations potentially able to add more robustness to the present results are also discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available