4.6 Review

Chemical composition of the planet-harboring star TrES-1

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 131, 期 4, 页码 2274-2289

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/500639

关键词

planetary systems; solar neighborhood; stars : abundances; stars : individual (GSC 02652-01324); stars : kinematics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a detailed chemical abundance analysis of the parent star of the transiting extrasolar planet TrES-1. Based on high-resolution Keck HIRES and Hobby-Eberly Telescope HRS spectra, we have determined abundances relative to the Sun for 16 elements (Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, and Ba). The resulting average abundance of <[X/H]> = - 0.02 +/- 0.06 is in good agreement with initial estimates of solar metallicity based on iron. We compare the elemental abundances of TrES-1 with those of the sample of stars with planets, searching for possible chemical abundance anomalies. TrES-1 appears not to be chemically peculiar in any measurable way. We investigate possible signs of selective accretion of refractory elements in TrES-1 and other stars with planets and find no statistically significant trends of metallicity [X/H] with condensation temperature T-c. We use published abundances and kinematic information for the sample of planet-hosting stars ( including TrES-1) and several statistical indicators to provide an updated classification in terms of their likelihood to belong to either the thin disk or the thick disk of the Milky Way. TrES-1 is found to be very likely a member of the thin-disk population. By comparing alpha-element abundances of planet hosts and a large control sample of field stars, we also find that metal-rich ([Fe/H] greater than or similar to 0.0) stars with planets appear to be systematically underabundant in [alpha/Fe] by approximate to 0.1 dex with respect to comparison field stars. The reason for this signature is unclear, but systematic differences in the analysis procedures adopted by different groups cannot be ruled out.

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

4.6
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