Paper detail

The Curious Case of Elemental Abundance Differences in the Dual Hot Jupiter Hosts WASP-94AB

Binary stars provide an ideal laboratory for investigating the potential effects of planet formation on stellar composition. Assuming the stars formed in the same environment/from the same material, any compositional anomalies between binary components might indicate differences in how material was sequestered in planets, or accreted by the star in the process of planet formation. We present here a study of the elemental abundance differences between WASP-94AB, a pair of stars that each host a hot Jupiter exoplanet. The two stars are very similar in spectral type (F8 and F9), and their ~2700 AU separation suggests their protoplanetary disks were likely not influenced by stellar interactions, but WASP-94Ab's orbit -- misaligned with the host star spin axis and likely retrograde -- points towards a dynamically active formation mechanism, perhaps different than that of WASP-94Bb, which is not misaligned and has nearly circular orbit. Based on our high-quality spectra and strictly relative abundance analysis, we detect a depletion of volatiles (~-0.02 dex, on average) and enhancement of refractories (~0.01 dex) in WASP-94A relative to B (standard errors are ~0.005 dex). This is different than every other published case of binary host star abundances, in which either no significant abundance differences are reported, or there is some degree of enhancement in all elements, including volatiles. Several scenarios that may explain the abundance trend are discussed, but none can be definitively accepted or rejected. Additional high-contrast imaging observations to search for companions that may be dynamically affecting the system, as well as a larger sample of binary host star studies, are needed to better understand the curious abundance trends we observe in WASP-94AB.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.