4.7 Article

Presolar stardust in meteorites: recent advances and scientific frontiers

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 209, 期 3-4, 页码 259-273

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(02)01153-6

关键词

presolar grains; meteorites; isotope ratios; asymptotic giant branch stars; stellar evolution; nucleosynthesis; galactic chemical evolution; supernovae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grains of stardust that formed in stellar outflows prior to the formation of the solar system survive intact as trace constituents of primitive meteorites. The presolar origin of the grains is indicated by enormous isotopic ratio variations compared to solar system materials. Identified presolar phases include diamond, silicon carbide, graphite, silicon nitride, corundum, spinel, hibonite, titanium oxide, and, most recently, silicates. Sub-grains of refractory carbides (e.g. TiC), and Fe-Ni metal have also been observed within individual presolar graphite grains. Isotopic compositions indicate that the grains formed in red giants, asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, supernovae and novae; thus they provide unique insights into the evolution of and nucleosynthesis within these environments. Some of the isotopic variations also reflect the chemical evolution of the galaxy and can be used to constrain corresponding models. Presolar grain microstructures provide information about physical and chemical conditions of dust formation in stellar environments; recent studies have focused on graphite grains from supernovae as well as SiC and corundum from AGB stars. The survival of presolar grains in different classes of meteorites has important implications for early solar system evolution. Recent analytical developments, including resonance ionization mass spectrometry, high spatial resolution secondary ion mass spectrometry and site-selective ion milling, should help solve many outstanding problems but are likely to also introduce new surprises. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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