Paper detail

Lithium abundances of halo dwarfs based on excitation temperatures. II. NLTE

One of the most important factors in determining the stellar lithium abundance is the effective temperature. In a previous study by the authors, new effective temperatures Teff for sixteen metal-poor halo dwarfs were derived using a local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) description of the formation of Fe lines. This new Teff scale reinforced the discrepancy. For six of the stars from our previous study we calculate revised temperatures using a non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) approach. These are then used to derive a new mean primordial lithium abundance in an attempt to solve the lithium discrepancy. Using the code MULTI we calculate NLTE corrections to the LTE abundances for the Fe I lines measured in the six stars, and determine new Teff's. We keep other physical parameters, i.e. log g, [Fe/H] and xi, constant at the values calculated in Paper I. With the revised Teff scale we derive new Li abundances. We compare the NLTE values of Teff with the photometric temperatures of Ryan et al. (1999, ApJ, 523, 654), the infrared flux method (IRFM) temperatures of Melendez & Ramirez (2004, ApJ, 615, 33), and the Balmer line wing temperatures of Asplund et al. (2006, ApJ, 644, 229). We find that our temperatures are hotter than both the Ryan et al. and Asplund et al. temperatures by typically ~ 110 K - 160 K, but are still cooler than the temperatures of Melendez & Ramirez by typically ~ 190 K. The temperatures imply a primordial Li abundance of 2.19 dex or 2.21 dex, depending on the magnitude of collisions with hydrogen in the calculations, still well below the value of 2.72 dex inferred from WMAP + BBN. We discuss the effects of collisions on trends of 7Li abundances with [Fe/H] and Teff, as well as the NLTE effects on the determination of log g through ionization equilibrium, which imply a collisional scaling factor SH > 1 for collisions between Fe and H atoms.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 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.