Paper detail

Multi-wavelength diagnostics of accretion in an X-ray selected sample of CTTSs

High resolution X-ray spectroscopy has revealed soft X-rays from high density plasma in Classical T-Tauri stars (CTTSs), probably arising from the accretion shock region. However, the mass accretion rates derived from the X-ray observations are consistently lower than those derived from UV/optical/NIR studies. We aim to test the hypothesis that the high density soft X-ray emission is from accretion by analysing optical accretion tracers from an X-ray selected sample of CTTSs in a homogeneous manner. We analyse optical spectra of a sample of CTTSs and calculate the accretion rates based on measuring optical emission lines. These are then compared to the accretion rates derived from the X-ray spectroscopy. We find that, for each CTTS in our sample, the different optical tracers predict mass accretion rates that agree within the errors, albeit with a spread of ~1 order of magnitude. Typically, mass accretion rates derived from Halpha and HeI 5876 Ang are larger than those derived from Hbeta, Hgamma and OI. When comparisons of the optical mass accretion rates are made to the X-ray derived mass accretion rates, we find that: a) the latter are always lower (but by varying amounts); b) the latter range within a factor of ~2 around 2x10^{-10} M_odot yr^{-1}, despite the fact that the former span a range of ~3 orders of magnitude. We suggest that the systematic underestimation of the X-ray derived mass accretion rates could depend on the density distribution inside the accretion streams, where the densest part of the stream is not visible in the X-ray band because of the absorption by the stellar atmosphere. We also suggest that a non-negligible optical depth of X-ray emission lines produced by post-shock accreting plasma may explain the almost constant mass accretion rates derived in X-rays if the effect is larger in stars with larger optical mass accretion rates.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 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.