4.0 Article

Non-LTE effects in NaI spectral lines in stellar atmospheres

期刊

ASTRONOMY REPORTS
卷 44, 期 12, 页码 790-803

出版社

MAIK NAUKA/INTERPERIODICA PUBL
DOI: 10.1134/1.1327637

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper examines the statistical equilibrium of Na I in stellar atmospheres with a wide range of parameters: T-eff = 4000-12500 K, log g = 0.0-4.5, and heavy element content [A] from 0.5 to -4.0. The effect of the overrecombination of Na I (i.e., excess relative to the equilibrium number density of Na I) is present over the entire range of parameters considered, and increases with T-eff and luminosity. Na I lines are stronger than in the LTE case, so that non-LTE corrections to the sodium abundance, Delta (NLTE), are negative. Eight Na I lines commonly employed in abundance analyses are used to construct the dependences of the non-LTE corrections on T-eff, log g, and metallicity. The non-LTE corrections are small only for the Na I lambda lambda 615.4, 616.0 nm lines in main-sequence stars: \Delta (NLTE)\ less than or equal to 0.08 dex. In all other cases, Delta (NLTE) depends strongly on T-eff and log g, and a non-LTE treatment must be applied if the sodium abundance is to be determined with an accuracy no worse than 0.1 dex. The profiles of solar Na I lines are analyzed in order to empirically refine two types of atomic parameters required for the subsequent analysis of the stellar spectra. In the solar atmosphere, inelastic collisions with hydrogen atoms influence the statistical equilibrium of Na I only weakly, and the classical Unsold formula underestimates the van der Waals constant C-6 The empirical correction Delta log C-6 is from 0.6 to 2 for various Na I lines. The sodium abundance in the solar atmosphere is determined based on line-profile analyses, yielding different results depending on whether the model atmospheres of Kurucz (log epsilon (Na), = 6.20 +/- 0.02) or Holweger and Muller ( log epsilon (Na) = 6.28 +/- 0.03) are applied. (C) 2000 MAIK Nauka/Interperiodica.

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

4.0
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