Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:57:29.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Oxygen Abundances in Exoplanet Host Star C/O Ratios: A Case Study of 55 Cnc

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2014

Johanna K. Teske ,
Katia Cunha ,
Verne V. Smith ,
Simon C. Schuler  and
Caitlin A. Griffith
Johanna K. Teske
Affiliation:
Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, email: [email protected]
Katia Cunha
Affiliation:
Observatório Nacional, Brazil
Verne V. Smith
Affiliation:
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
Simon C. Schuler
Affiliation:
University of Tampa
Caitlin A. Griffith
Affiliation:
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We derive the C/O ratio for the exoplanet host star 55 Cnc based on archive Keck/HIRES spectra. The C/O ratio varies widely depending on which oxygen abundance indicator – the 6300.3 Å [O I] line, the 6363.8 Å [O I] line, or the 7774 Å O I triplet – is used, and we find there is still a large uncertainty even based on individual abundance indicators. This case study demonstrates that caution and care are necessary when determining exoplanet host star C/O ratios, and when considering host star C/O ratios in inferring exoplanet compositions.

Keywords

planetary systems: formation – stars: abundances – stars: individual (55 Cnc)
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 8 , Symposium S299: Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems , June 2013 , pp. 307 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013 

References

Borucki, W. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caffau, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, 126Google Scholar
Caffau, E., et al. 2008, AAP, 488, 1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delgado Mena, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2349Google Scholar
Fabbian, D., et al. 2009, AAP, 500, 1221Google Scholar
Fortney, J. J. 2012, ApJL, 747, L27Google Scholar
Gillon, M., et al. 2012, AAP, 539, A28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiselman, D. 2001, NAR, 45, 559Google Scholar
Madhusudhan, N., et al. 2012, ApJL, 759, L40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, B. E., et al. 2004, ApJL, 614, L81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissen, P. E. 2013, AAP, 552, A73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, I., et al. 2007, AAP, 465, 271Google Scholar
Schuler, S. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeda, Y. 2003, AAP, 402, 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar