4.7 Article

Learning about the Intermediate Neutron-capture Process from Lead Abundances

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 887, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP170100521]
  2. Lendulet grant of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [LP17-2014]
  3. NKFIH KH_18 project [130405]
  4. NASA [NNX17AE32]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lead (Pb) is predominantly produced by the slow neutron-capture process (s process) in asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars. In contrast to significantly enhanced Pb abundances predicted by low-mass, low-metallicity AGB models, observations of Magellanic post-AGB stars show incompatibly low Pb abundances. Observations of carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars whose s-process enrichments are accompanied by heavy elements traditionally associated with the rapid neutron-capture process (r process) have raised the need for a neutroncapture process operating at neutron densities intermediate to the s and r process: the so-called i process. We study i-process nucleosynthesis with single-zone nuclear-network calculations. Our i-process models can explain the heavy-element abundance patterns measured in Magellanic post-AGB stars including their puzzlingly low Pb abundances. Furthermore, the heavy-element enhancements in the post-AGB and CEMP-i stars, particularly their Pb abundance, allow us to characterize the neutron densities and exposures of the i process that produced the observed abundance patterns. We find that the lower-metallicity CEMP-i stars ([Fe H] approximate to -2.5) have heavy-element abundances best matched by models with higher neutron densities and exposures (tau > 2.0 mbarn(-1)) compared to the higher-metallicity post-AGB stars ([Fe H] approximate to - 1.3, tau <.1.3 mbarn(-1)). This offers new constraints and insights regarding the properties of i-process sites and demonstrates that the responsible process operates on timescales of the order of a few years or less.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据