Paper detail

Macroclumping as solution of the discrepancy between Hα and P v mass loss diagnostics for O-type stars

Recent studies of O-type stars demonstrated that discrepant mass-loss rates are obtained when different diagnostic methods are employed - fitting the unsaturated UV resonance lines (e.g. P v) gives drastically lower values than obtained from the Hα emission. Wind clumping may be the main cause for this discrepancy. In a previous paper, we have presented 3-D Monte-Carlo calculations for the formation of scattering lines in a clumped stellar wind. In the present paper we select five O-type supergiants (from O4 to O7) and test whether the reported discrepancies can be resolved this way. In the first step, the analyses start with simulating the observed spectra with Potsdam Wolf-Rayet (PoWR) non-LTE model atmospheres. The mass-loss rates are adjusted to fit best to the observed Hα emission lines. For the unsaturated UV resonance lines (i.e. P v) we then apply our 3-D Monte-Carlo code, which can account for wind clumps of any optical depths, a non-void inter-clump medium, and a velocity dispersion inside the clumps. The ionization stratifications and underlying photospheric spectra are adopted from the PoWR models. From fitting the observed resonance line profiles, the properties of the wind clumps are constrained. Our results show that with the mass-loss rates that fit Hα (and other Balmer and He II lines), the UV resonance lines (especially the unsaturated doublet of P v) can also be reproduced without problem when macroclumping is taken into account. There is no need to artificially reduce the mass-loss rates, nor to assume a sub-solar phosphorus abundance or an extremely high clumping factor, contrary to what was claimed by other authors. These consistent mass-loss rates are lower by a factor of 1.3 to 2.6, compared to the mass-loss rate recipe from Vink et al. Macroclumping resolves the previously reported discrepancy between Hα and P v mass-loss diagnostics.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.