Paper detail

The mass-loss rates of red supergiants and the de Jager prescription

Mass loss of red supergiants (RSG) is important for the evolution of massive stars, but is not fully explained. Several empirical prescriptions have been proposed, trying to express the mass-loss rate (Mdot) as a function of fundamental stellar parameters (mass, luminosity, effective temperature). Our goal is to test whether the de Jager et al. (1988) prescription, used in some stellar evolution models, is still valid in view of more recent mass-loss determinations. By considering 40 Galactic RSGs presenting an infrared excess and an IRAS 60-mu flux larger than 2 Jy, and assuming a gas-to-dust mass ratio of 200, it is found that the de Jager rate agrees within a factor 4 with most Mdot estimates based on the 60-mu signal. It is also in agreement with 6 of the only 8 Galactic RSGs for which Mdot can be measured more directly through observations of the circumstellar gas. The two objects that do not follow the de Jager prescription (by an order of magnitude) are mu Cep and NML Cyg. We have also considered the RSGs of the Magellanic Clouds. Thanks to the works of Groenewegen et al. (2009) and Bonanos et al. (2010), we find that the RSGs of the SMC have Mdots consistent with the de Jager rate scaled by (Z/Zsun)**(alpha), where Z is the metallicity and alpha is 0.7. The situation is less clear for the LMC RSGs. In particular, for luminosties larger than 1.6E+05 Lsun, one finds numerous RSGs (except WOH-G64) having Mdot significantly smaller than the de Jager rate, and indicating that Mdot would no longer increase with L. Before this odd situation is confirmed through further analysis of LMC RSGs, we suggest to keep the de Jager prescription unchanged at solar metallicity in the stellar evolutionary models and to apply a (Z/Zsun)**0.7 dependence.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.