4.7 Article

A New Test of Copper and Zinc Abundances in Late-type Stars Using Ultraviolet Cu II and Zn II Lines

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 857, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab71f

关键词

nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances; stars: abundances; stars: atmospheres; stars: individual; stars: population II; ultraviolet: stars

资金

  1. STScI [AR-15051]
  2. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  3. Physics Frontier Center/JINA-CEE - U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) [PHY 14-30152]
  4. Swedish Research Council
  5. project grant The New Milky Way from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present new abundances derived from Cu I, Cu II, Zn I, and Zn II lines in six warm (5766 <= T-eff <= 6427 K), metal-poor (-2.50 <= [Fe/H] <= -0.95) dwarf and subgiant (3.64 <= log g <= 4.44) stars. These abundances are derived from archival high-resolution ultraviolet spectra from the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph on board the Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based optical spectra from several observatories. Ionized Cu and Zn are the majority species, and abundances derived from Cu II and Zn II lines should be largely insensitive to departures from local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). We find good agreement between the [Zn/H] ratios derived separately from Zn I and Zn II lines, suggesting that departures from LTE are, at most, minimal (less than or similar to 0.1 dex). We find that the [Cu/H] ratios derived from Cu II lines are 0.36 +/- 0.06 dex larger than those derived from Cu I lines in the most metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] < 1.8), suggesting that LTE underestimates the Cu abundance derived from Cu I lines. The deviations decrease in more metal-rich stars. Our results validate previous theoretical non-LTE calculations for both Cu and Zn, supporting earlier conclusions that the enhancement of [Zn/Fe] in metal-poor stars is legitimate, and the deficiency of [Cu/Fe] in metal-poor stars may not be as large as previously thought.

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