4.7 Article

The Importance of the 13C(α, n)16O Reaction in Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 859, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac177

关键词

nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances; stars: AGB and post-AGB

资金

  1. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Perugia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-mass asymptotic giant branch stars are among the most important polluters of the interstellar medium. In their interiors, the main component (A greater than or similar to 90) of the slow neutron capture process (the s-process) is synthesized, the most important neutron source being the C-13(alpha, n)O-16 reaction. In this paper, we review its current experimental status, discussing possible future synergies between some experiments currently focused on the determination of its rate. Moreover, in order to determine the level of precision needed to fully characterize this reaction, we present a theoretical sensitivity study, carried out with the FUNS evolutionary stellar code and the NEWTON post-process code. We modify the rate up to a factor of 2 with respect to a reference case. We find that variations of the C-13(alpha, n)O-16 rate do not appreciably affect s-process distributions for masses above 3 M-circle dot at any metallicity. Apart from a few isotopes, in fact, the differences are always below 5%. The situation is completely different if some C-13 burns in a convective environment: this occurs in FUNS models with M < 3 M-circle dot at solar-like metallicities. In this case, a change of the C-13(alpha, n)O-16 reaction rate leads to nonnegligible variations of the element surface distribution (10% on average), with larger peaks for some elements (such as rubidium) and neutron-rich isotopes (such as Kr-86 and Zr-96). Larger variations are found in low-mass, low-metallicity models if protons are mixed and burned at very high temperatures. In this case, the surface abundances of the heavier elements may vary by more than a factor of 50.

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