Paper detail

New determination of abundances and stellar parameters for a set of weak G-band stars

Weak G-band (wGb) stars are very peculiar red giants almost devoided of carbon and often mildly enriched in lithium. Despite their very puzzling abundance patterns, very few detailed spectroscopic studies existed up to a few years ago, preventing any clear understanding of the wGb phenomenon. We recently proposed the first consistent analysis of published data for 28 wGb stars and identified them as descendants of early A-type to late B-type stars, without being able to conclude on their evolutionary status or the origin of their peculiar abundance pattern. We used newly obtained high-resolution and high SNR spectra for 19 wGb stars in the southern and northern hemisphere to homogeneously derive their fundamental parameters, metallicities, as well as the spectroscopic abundances for Li, C, N, O, Na, Sr, and Ba. We also computed dedicated stellar evolution models that we used to determine the masses and to investigate the evolutionary status and chemical history of the stars in our sample. We confirm that the wGb stars are stars in the mass range 3.2 to 4.2 M$_\odot$. We suggest that a large fraction could be mildly evolved stars on the SGB currently undergoing the 1st DUP, while a smaller number of stars are more probably in the core He burning phase at the clump. After analysing their abundance pattern, we confirm their strong N enrichment anti-correlated with large C depletion, characteristic of material fully processed through the CNO cycle to an extent not known in other evolved intermediate-mass stars. However, we demonstrate here that such a pattern is very unlikely due to self-enrichment. In the light of the current observational constraints, no solid self-consistent pollution scenario can be presented either, leaving the wGb puzzle largely unsolved.

preprint2015arXivOpen 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.