4.7 Article

Nucleosynthesis of zinc and iron peak elements in Population III type II supernovae: Comparison with abundances of very metal poor halo stars

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 565, Issue 1, Pages 385-404

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/323946

Keywords

Galaxy : halo; nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances stars : abundances; stars : Population II; supernovae : general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We calculate nucleosynthesis in core collapse explosions of massive Population III stars and compare the results with abundances of metal-poor halo stars to constrain the parameters of Population III supernovae. We focus on iron peak elements, and, in particular, we try to reproduce the large [Zn/Fe] observed in extremely metal-poor stars. The interesting trends of the observed ratios [Zn, Co, Mn, Cr, V/Fe] can be related to the variation of the relative mass of the complete and incomplete Si-burning regions in supernova ejecta. We find that [Zn/Fe] is larger for deeper mass cuts, smaller neutron excess, and larger explosion energies. The large [Zn/Fe] and [O/Fe] observed in the very metal-poor halo stars suggest deep mixing of complete Si-burning material and a significant amount of fallback in Type II supernovae. Furthermore, large explosion energies (E-51 greater than or similar to 2 for M similar to 13 M. and E-51 greater than or similar to 20 for M greater than or similar to 20 M.) are required to reproduce [Zn/Fe] similar to 0.5. The observed trends of the abundance ratios among the iron peak elements are better explained with this high-energy ( hypernova II) model than with the simple deep mass cut effect because the overabundance of Ni can be avoided in the hypernova models. We also present the yields of pair instability supernova explosions of M similar or equal to 130-300 M. stars and discuss that the abundance features of very metal-poor stars cannot be explained by pair instability supernovae.

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