Paper detail

Evolution of Thermally Pulsing Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars II. Dust production at varying metallicity

We present the dust ejecta of the new stellar models for the Thermally Pulsing Asymptotic Giant Branch (TP-AGB) phase computed with the COLIBRI code. We use a formalism of dust growth coupled with a stationary wind for both M and C-stars. In the original version of this formalism, the most efficient destruction process of silicate dust in M-giants is chemisputtering by H2 molecules. For these stars we find that dust grains can only form at relatively large radial distances (r~5 R*), where they cannot be efficiently accelerated, in agreement with other investigations. In the light of recent laboratory results, we also consider the alternative case that the condensation temperature of silicates is determined only by the competition between growth and free evaporation processes (i.e. no chemisputtering). With this latter approach we obtain dust condensation temperatures that are significantly higher (up to Tcond~1400 K) than those found when chemisputtering is included (Tcond~900 K), and in better agreement with condensation experiments. As a consequence, silicate grains can remain stable in inner regions of the circumstellar envelopes (r~2 R*), where they can rapidly grow and can be efficiently accelerated. With this modification, our models nicely reproduce the observed trend between terminal velocities and mass loss rates of Galactic M-giants. For C-stars the formalism is based on the homogeneous growth scheme where the key role is played by the carbon over oxygen excess. The models reproduce fairly well the terminal velocities of Galactic stars and there is no need to invoke changes in the standard assumptions. At decreasing metallicity the carbon excess becomes more pronounced and the efficiency of dust formation increases. This trend could be in tension with recent observational evidence in favour of a decreasing efficiency, at decreasing metallicity.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.