Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:13:01.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What the D/O ratio tells us about the interstellar abundance of deuterium?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2010

Guillaume Hébrard
Guillaume Hébrard*
Affiliation:
Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, UMR7095 CNRS, Université Pierre & Marie Curie, 98bis boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France email: [email protected]
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.

The ionization balances for HI, OI and DI being locked together by charge exchange, the deuterium-to-oxygen ratio is considered to be a good proxy for the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio, in particular within the interstellar medium. As the DI and OI column densities are of similar orders of magnitude for a given sight line, comparisons of the two values are generally less subject to systematic errors than comparisons of DI and HI. Moreover, D/O is additionally sensitive to astration, because as stars destroy deuterium, they should produce oxygen. D/O measurements are now available for tens of lines of sight in the interstellar medium, most of them from FUSE observations. The D/H and D/O ratios show different pictures, D/H being clearly more dispersed than D/O. The low, homogeneous D/O ratio measured on distant lines of sight suggests a deuterium abundance representative of the present epoch that is about two times lower than this measured within the local interstellar medium.

Keywords

ISM: abundancesGalaxy: abundancescosmology: cosmological parametersultraviolet: ISM
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 5 , Symposium S268: Light Elements in the Universe , November 2009 , pp. 59 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

André, M. K., Oliveira, C. M., Howk, J. C., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartledge, S., Lauroesch, J., Meyer, D., & Sofia, U. 2004, ApJ, 613, 1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiappini, C., Renda, A., & Matteucci, F. 2002, A&A, 395, 789Google Scholar
Dupuis, J., Hébrard, G., Oliveira, C., Moos, H. W., & Sonnentrucker, P., 2009, ApJ, 690, 1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, S. D., Howk, J. C., Chayer, P., et al. 2002, ApJS, 140, 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, S. D., Hébrard, G., Tripp, T. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébrard, G., Lemoine, M., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2002, ApJS, 140, 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébrard, G. & Moos, H. W. 2003, ApJ, 599, 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébrard, G., Tripp, T. M., Chayer, P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoopes, C. G., Sembach, K. R., Hébrard, G., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lallement, R. & Bertin, P. 1992, A&A, 266, 479Google Scholar
Laurent, C., Vidal-Madjar, A., & York, D. G. 1979, ApJ, 229, 923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemoine, M., Vidal-Madjar, A., Hébrard, G., et al. 2002, ApJS, 140, 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, J. L., Diplas, A., Wood, B. E., et al. 1995, ApJ, 451, 335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, J. L. & Wood, B. E. 1996, ApJ, 463, 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, J. L., Draine, B. T., Moos, H. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. M. 2001, XVIIth IAP Colloquium, Paris, Edited by Ferlet, R. et al. , p. 135Google Scholar
Moos, H. W., Sembach, K. R., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2002, ApJS, 140, 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, C. M., Hébrard, G., Howk, J. C., et al. 2003, ApJ, 587, 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, C. M. & Hébrard, G., 2006, ApJ, 653, 345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, C. M., Moos, H. W., Chayer, P., & Kruk, J. W. 2006, ApJ, 642, 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prodanovic, T., Steigman, G., & Fields, B. D. 2009, arXiv:0910.4961Google Scholar
Redfield, S. & Linsky, J. L. 2004, ApJ, 602, 776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowden, S. L., Egger, R., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 1998, ApJ, 493, 715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonneborn, G., André, M., Oliveira, C., et al. 2002, ApJS, 140, 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmes, F. X., Truran, J. W., Lauroesch, J. T., & York, D. G. 1997, ApJ, 476, 464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidal-Madjar, A. & Ferlet, R. 2002, ApJ, 571, L169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williger, G., Oliveira, C., Hébrard, G., Dupuis, J., Dreizler, S., & Moos, H. W. 2005, ApJ 625, 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. E., Linsky, J. L., Hébrard, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, D. G. 1983, ApJ, 264, 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar