Chemical fingerprints of hot Jupiter planet formation

25Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Context. The current paradigm to explain the presence of Jupiter-like planets with small orbital periods (P < 10 days; hot Jupiters), which involves their formation beyond the snow line following inward migration, has been challenged by recent works that explore the possibility of in situ formation. Aims. We aim to test whether stars harbouring hot Jupiters and stars with more distant gas-giant planets show any chemical peculiarity that could be related to different formation processes. Methods. Our methodology is based on the analysis of high-resolution échelle spectra. Stellar parameters and abundances of C, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn for a sample of 88 planet hosts are derived. The sample is divided into stars hosting hot (a < 0.1 au) and cool (a > 0.1 au) Jupiter-like planets. The metallicity and abundance trends of the two sub-samples are compared and set in the context of current models of planet formation and migration. Results. Our results show that stars with hot Jupiters have higher metallicities than stars with cool distant gas-giant planets in the metallicity range +0.00/+0.20 dex. The data also shows a tendency of stars with cool Jupiters to show larger abundances of α elements. No abundance differences between stars with cool and hot Jupiters are found when considering iron peak, volatile elements or the C/O, and Mg/Si ratios. The corresponding p-values from the statistical tests comparing the cumulative distributions of cool and hot planet hosts are 0.20, <0.01, 0.81, and 0.16 for metallicity, α, iron-peak, and volatile elements, respectively. We confirm previous works suggesting that more distant planets show higher planetary masses as well as larger eccentricities. We note differences in age and spectral type between the hot and cool planet host samples that might affect the abundance comparison. Conclusions. The differences in the distribution of planetary mass, period, eccentricity, and stellar host metallicity suggest a different formation mechanism for hot and cool Jupiters. The slightly larger α abundances found in stars harbouring cool Jupiters might compensate their lower metallicities allowing the formation of gas-giant planets.

References Powered by Scopus

Solar System Abundances and Condensation Temperatures of The Elements

3782Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Parsec: Stellar tracks and isochrones with the PAdova and TRieste Stellar Evolution Code

3210Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star

3144Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Heavy metal rules. I. exoplanet incidence and metallicity

62Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

An ultrahot Neptune in the Neptune desert

55Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Properties and Occurrence Rates for Kepler Exoplanet Candidates as a Function of Host Star Metallicity from the DR25 Catalog

52Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Maldonado, J., Villaver, E., & Eiroa, C. (2018). Chemical fingerprints of hot Jupiter planet formation. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 612. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201732001

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

50%

Researcher 4

40%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Physics and Astronomy 10

71%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 2

14%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

7%

Business, Management and Accounting 1

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 8

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free