Paper detail

Planets or asteroids? A geochemical method to constrain the masses of White Dwarf pollutants

Polluted white dwarfs that have accreted planetary material provide a unique opportunity to probe the geology of exoplanetary systems. However, the nature of the bodies which pollute white dwarfs is not well understood: are they small asteroids, minor planets, or even terrestrial planets? We present a novel method to infer pollutant masses from detections of Ni, Cr and Si. During core--mantle differentiation, these elements exhibit variable preference for metal and silicate at different pressures (i.e., object masses), affecting their abundances in the core and mantle. We model core--mantle differentiation self-consistently using data from metal--silicate partitioning experiments. We place statistical constraints on the differentiation pressures, and hence masses, of bodies which pollute white dwarfs by incorporating this calculation into a Bayesian framework. We show that Ni observations are best suited to constraining pressure when pollution is mantle-like, while Cr and Si are better for core-like pollution. We find 3 systems (WD0449-259, WD1350-162 and WD2105-820) whose abundances are best explained by the accretion of fragments of small parent bodies ($<0.2M_\oplus$). For 2 systems (GD61 and WD0446-255), the best model suggests the accretion of fragments of Earth-sized bodies, although the observed abundances remain consistent ($<3σ$) with the accretion of undifferentiated material. This suggests that polluted white dwarfs potentially accrete planetary bodies of a range of masses. However, our results are subject to inevitable degeneracies and limitations given current data. To constrain pressure more confidently, we require serendipitous observation of (nearly) pure core and/or mantle material.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors2 topics

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.