Paper detail

Accretion of planetary matter and the lithium problem in the 16 Cygni stellar system

The 16 Cyg system is composed of two solar analogs with similar masses and ages. A red dwarf is in orbit around 16 Cyg A whereas 16 Cyg B hosts a giant planet. The abundances of heavy elements are similar in the two stars but lithium is much more depleted in 16 Cyg B that in 16 Cyg A, by a factor of at least 4.7. The interest of studying the 16 Cyg system is that the two star have the same age and the same initial composition. The presently observed differences must be due to their different evolution, related to the fact that one of them hosts a planet contrary to the other one. We computed models of the two stars which precisely fit the observed seismic frequencies. We used the Toulouse Geneva Evolution Code (TGEC) that includes complete atomic diffusion (including radiative accelerations). We compared the predicted surface abundances with the spectroscopic observations and confirmed that another mixing process is needed. We then included the effect of accretion-induced fingering convection. The accretion of planetary matter does not change the metal abundances but leads to lithium destruction which depends on the accreted mass. A fraction of earth mass is enough to explain the lithium surface abundances of 16 Cyg B. We also checked the beryllium abundances. In the case of accretion of heavy matter onto stellar surfaces, the accreted heavy elements do not remain in the outer convective zones but they are mixed downwards by fingering convection induced by the unstable $μ$-gradient. Depending on the accreted mass, this mixing process may transport lithium down to its nuclear destruction layers and lead to an extra lithium depletion at the surface. A fraction of earth mass is enough to explain a lithium ratio of 4.7 in the 16 Cyg system. In this case beryllium is not destroyed. Such a process may be frequent in planet host stars and should be studied in other cases in the future.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.