Paper detail

The effect of including molecular opacities of variable composition on the evolution of intermediate-mass AGB stars

Calculations from stellar evolutionary models of low- and intermediate-mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars provide predictions of elemental abundances and yields for comparison to observations. However, there are many uncertainties that reduce the accuracy of these predictions. One such uncertainty involves the treatment of low-temperature molecular opacities that account for the surface abundance variations of C, N, and O. A number of prior calculations of intermediate-mass AGB stellar models that incorporate both efficient third dredge-up and hot bottom burning include a molecular opacity treatment which does not consider the depletion of C and O due to hot bottom burning. Here we update the molecular opacity treatment and investigate the effect of this improvement on calculations of intermediate-mass AGB stellar models. We perform tests on two masses, 5 M$_{\odot}$ and 6 M$_{\odot}$, and two metallicities, $Z~=~0.001$ and $Z~=~0.02$, to quantify the variations between two opacity treatments. We find that several evolutionary properties (e.g. radius, $T_{\rm eff}$ and $T_{\rm bce}$) are dependent on the opacity treatment. Larger structural differences occur for the $Z~=~0.001$ models compared to the $Z~=~0.02$ models indicating that the opacity treatment has a more significant effect at lower metallicity. As a consequence of the structural changes, the predictions of isotopic yields are slightly affected with most isotopes experiencing changes up to 60 per cent for the $Z~=~0.001$ models and 20 per cent for the $Z~=~0.02$ models. Despite this moderate effect, we conclude that it is more fitting to use variable molecular opacities for models undergoing hot bottom burning.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.