Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 78 references

The $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$,n)$^{25}$Mg reaction -- state of the art, astrophysics, and perspectives

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The stellar neutron source 22Ne(α,n)25Mg has a rate that published evaluations place a factor of two to three apart, and the paper shows this difference moves s-process abundance predictions by up to a factor of three.

desk verdict A competent, well-hedged review of a messy reaction; the new content is modest (illustrative rate comparisons and a disclosed renormalization), but the synthesis is accurate and the central claim holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12008 v1 pith:UFTKHANU submitted 2025-05-17 nucl-ex

Andreas Best , Philip Adsley , Ryan Amberger , Umberto Battino , Thomas Chillery , Marco La Cognata , Richard James deBoer , Daniela Mercogliano
show 6 more authors
Shuya Ota David Rapagnani Ragandeep Singh Sidhu Roberta Spartà Aurora Tumino Michael Wiescher
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex
keywords 22Ne(alphan)25Mgreactions-processnucleosynthesisstellarneutronsourcesresonancestrengthsAGBstarsmassivenuclearratespresolargrains
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that the stellar neutron source 22Ne(α,n)25Mg, the main neutron producer for the weak s-process in massive stars and a strong flash neutron source in AGB stars, has a reaction rate still too uncertain for reliable nucleosynthesis predictions. Published rate evaluations differ by factors of two to three at the helium- and carbon-burning temperatures that matter, and the paper shows these differences translate directly into factor-of-three changes in the first s-process abundance peak and factor-of-two changes in the s-process contribution to 82Kr. The disagreement is traced to resonance parameters in the 22Ne+α system, above all the strength of the Ec.m.=706 keV resonance and the possible existence of a resonance near Ec.m.=540–557 keV. The paper documents the direct and indirect experiments now underway to settle these quantities, and a sympathetic reader would take away that the nuclear physics of one compound nucleus, 26Mg, is currently a dominant uncertainty in predicting the abundances of elements from iron to zirconium and beyond.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the level structure of the compound nucleus 26Mg just above the alpha separation energy, in particular the Ec.m.=706 keV resonance (the dominant neutron source at temperatures above about 0.25 GK) and the possible Ec.m.≈540–557 keV resonance below the directly measured region. The paper's argument runs through resonance strengths ωγ(α,n), extracted directly from thick-target neutron yields or indirectly as Γα from alpha-transfer and ANC experiments, combined with Γn/Γγ branching from recoil measurements. These ingredients enter the published rate evaluations that are compared in Fig. 4, and the same rates drive the post-processing nucleosynthesis calculations behind Figs. 5–6 and Table 3. The 706 keV strength comparison in Fig. 2 additionally depends on a factor-of-two renormalization of the 1993 gas-target value through the broad 1337 keV resonance, an assumption the paper flags as carrying quite large uncertainty.

What would settle it

A new direct measurement of the Ec.m.=706 keV resonance strength with independent neutron efficiency calibration returning a value near 180 μeV instead of roughly 100 μeV, or a direct detection of a resonance at Ec.m.≈540 keV with strength above the 60 neV upper limit, would overturn the rate comparison and the abundance shifts built on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the published 22Ne(α,n)25Mg reaction rates used in stellar models disagree by factors of two to three at typical helium-burning (~0.25 GK) and carbon-burning (~1 GK) temperatures, and that this disagreement matters: in post-processing nucleosynthesis calculations on a 15 solar-mass, Z=0.006 massive-star model, the choice of rate changes first-peak s-process production factors by about a factor of three and changes the weak s-process contribution to 82Kr by about a factor of two. The spread originates in the treatment of individual resonances, especially the Ec.m.=706 keV resonance, whose directly measured neutron strength ranges from about 80 to 234 μeV depending on the experiment, and the unconfirmed resonance near Ec.m.=540–557 keV, which is only bounded by upper limits. The paper also shows that indirect determinations of alpha partial widths from sub-Coulomb alpha transfer and asymptotic normalization coefficients imply a low 706 keV strength consistent with the more recent direct measurements, once the 1993 measurement is renormalized using the broad 1337 keV resonance. It concludes that the stellar rate remains uncertain until the 706 keV strength and the existence and strength of the 551 keV resonance are pinned down.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison that makes the direct 706 keV measurements look consistent assumes the 1993 value can be renormalized downward by a factor of two using the broad 1337 keV resonance, an assumption the paper itself says carries quite large uncertainty; if that scaling is wrong, the apparent agreement among direct measurements dissolves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weak s-process yields in massive stars, particularly the elements near zirconium, move by up to a factor of three depending on which published 22Ne(α,n)25Mg rate is adopted, so abundance predictions cannot be sharpened until the rate uncertainty shrinks.
  • The s-process contribution to 82Kr varies by about a factor of two between rate choices because of the activation of the 85Kr branching point during core helium burning, which directly affects the r/s decomposition for krypton isotopes.
  • The ongoing underground direct measurement campaign is expected to redetermine the 706 keV resonance strength and total width with high precision, which would remove the main anchor of the rate comparison.
  • Indirect experiments using alpha-transfer, ANC measurements, and the Trojan Horse Method aim to decide whether a resonance near 551–557 keV exists and how the 706 keV state branches between neutron and gamma channels, and those answers would settle the low-temperature rate.
  • If a stronger low-energy 22Ne(α,γ)26Mg channel exists, it would consume 22Ne before the neutron channel turns on, affecting s-process branch points and magnesium isotope ratios as well as the production of 26Al and 60Fe in massive stars.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the factor-of-two renormalization of the 1993 706 keV value is wrong, the apparent consensus around roughly 100 μeV could be an artifact; an independent high-precision direct measurement is the cleanest test.
  • The two bounding rate evaluations could be used to propagate a systematic nuclear-physics uncertainty into galactic chemical evolution models instead of choosing one, so the resulting yield spread would honestly represent current ignorance.
  • Krypton isotope ratios in meteorites or presolar grains may provide an independent astrophysical constraint on the rate once stellar mixing uncertainties are reduced, because the 82Kr s-process contribution varies by a factor of two.
  • The same resonance parameters that set the (α,n) rate also set the (α,γ) channel through the branching ratio, so a single precise measurement of the 706 keV total width would simultaneously improve predictions for 26Al and 60Fe yields in massive stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This review synthesizes the current experimental and theoretical status of the 22Ne(α,n)25Mg reaction rate, covering direct measurements, indirect constraints, the recent Shahina et al. (2024) result, and the ongoing/planned programs at EMMA-TRIUMF, TAMU, INFN-LNS, and LNGS. It compares the published rate sets of Longland et al. (Ref. [13]), Adsley et al. (Ref. [38]), and Wiescher et al. (Ref. [11]), reporting factors of 2–3 differences at He- and C-burning temperatures, and illustrates the astrophysical consequences with post-processing nucleosynthesis calculations for a 15 M☉, Z=0.006 massive-star model and for AGB models compared with presolar SiC grain data. The paper concludes that unresolved properties of the 706 keV resonance and of possible low-energy resonances near 551–557 keV are the dominant sources of the present rate uncertainty.

Significance. If the reported rate differences are correct, this is a valuable, up-to-date reference for the nuclear astrophysics community. The review carefully distinguishes direct measurements from upper limits and transparently labels uncertainties, especially the factor-of-two renormalization of the Drotleff et al. 1993 value in Fig. 2 and Table 1. That renormalization is disclosed as having large uncertainty, and the central comparison of rate sets does not depend on it: even if the renormalization were wrong, the Longland, Adsley, and Wiescher rates would still differ. The paper also makes the tested rates available through the ChANUREPS repository, which is a reproducibility strength. The main weakness is an internal inconsistency in the discussion of Kr isotope ratios, described below, which should be corrected before publication.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Table 3] The sentence 'the s-process contribution to 82Kr can vary by about a factor of 2' is not supported by the data presented. Table 3 lists only isotope ratios (i/82Kr) normalized to solar, not absolute 82Kr production factors. Because the 83Kr/82Kr and 84Kr/82Kr ratios are nearly constant across the three rate sets (0.49, 0.50, 0.50 and 0.43, 0.51, 0.50), the adjacent statement that the s-process contributions to 83Kr and 84Kr do not strongly depend on the rates would imply that the absolute 82Kr contribution is also nearly constant, which is in tension with the claimed factor-of-two variation. The factor-of-two variation actually visible in the table is in the 86Kr/82Kr ratio (0.11 vs 0.21). Please either present absolute yields for the Kr isotopes or rephrase the claim so that it refers to the isotope ratios actually shown.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 1, p. 2] The phrase 'directly directly access' contains a duplicated word; please remove one occurrence.
  2. [Table 1] The table header 'Nean reaction' appears garbled; it should read something like '22Ne(α,n) reaction'.
  3. [Sec. 2.2] 'in constrast' should be 'in contrast'.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] 'excitaton-energy' should be 'excitation-energy'.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The phrase 'the models employing ... seems to agree' should be 'seem to agree' to agree with the plural subject.
  6. [Sec. 2.1] 'remain open question' should be 'remains an open question'.
  7. [Sec. 2.1] The discussion of the Drotleff renormalization would be clearer if the text stated explicitly that the renormalized value is used only for the comparison in Fig. 2 and Table 1 and is not used in the rate comparisons of Section 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review synthesizes independent published rates and clearly discloses its one renormalization assumption.

full rationale

This paper is a review and comparison, not a derivation of a new reaction rate or a prediction from a fitted model. Its central claim is that published 22Ne(alpha,n)25Mg rate evaluations differ by factors of two to three at He- and C-burning temperatures and that these differences propagate to s-process abundance changes in illustrative stellar models. That claim is supported by comparing the independently published rates of Longland et al. (2012), Adsley et al. (2021), and Wiescher et al. (2023), which are cited as external results rather than assumed within the paper. Several of these cited works involve overlapping author groups, but the review does not invoke them as authoritative proof of its own conclusion: it explicitly contrasts their differing rate sets in Figs. 4-6 and Table 3. The one reanalysis embedded in the paper is the factor-of-two renormalization of the Drotleff et al. (1993) 706 keV resonance strength using the 1337 keV resonance, but the paper labels this as carrying 'quite large uncertainty' and does not rest its main astrophysical comparison on that single value. Even if the renormalization were wrong, the qualitative conclusion that the published rates differ would remain, because those rates incorporate different resonances and different indirect constraints. The astrophysical illustrations are explicitly framed as model-dependent, with the authors noting that changes in convective boundary mixing can mimic the effect of a lower rate. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument is justified solely by self-citation. The paper is a self-contained, appropriately hedged synthesis of the literature.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review article; the central claim is a synthesis of published data rather than a new derivation. The only new numerical adjustment is the renormalization of one literature resonance strength, listed as a free parameter. The astrophysical conclusions rest on published stellar models and reaction rates, treated as axioms from the cited literature.

free parameters (1)
  • Renormalization factor for Drotleff 1993 706 keV resonance strength = ~0.5 (strength reduced by factor of two)
    Introduced in Section 2.1 to reconcile Drotleff et al. [43] with Stuttgart values; the paper notes the scaling has 'quite large uncertainty' because the 1337 keV resonance is wide relative to target energy loss.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Published reaction rates from Refs. [13], [38], and [11] are accurately transcribed and applied.
    The stellar simulations in Sect. 3 use these rates without modification; any error in the rate files changes the abundance comparisons.
  • domain assumption The stellar structure models of Refs. [8] (15 Msun, Z=0.006) and [70] (M=2-3 Msun) are representative for the intended conclusions.
    Section 3 bases all abundance predictions on these selected models; the Z=0.006 choice is made to maximize weak s-process efficiency.
  • domain assumption Presolar SiC grains predominantly come from AGB stars of about 2 solar masses and solar metallicity.
    Section 3.2 relies on Ref. [73] for this assignment to interpret Fig. 6; if the parent-star population is different, the comparison loses meaning.
  • ad hoc to paper The renormalization of the Drotleff et al. 1993 706 keV strength by a factor of two is valid.
    Introduced in Sect. 2.1 to make the historical strengths mutually consistent; the paper states the scaling has 'quite large uncertainty'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$,n)$^{25}$Mg reaction -- state of the art, astrophysics, and perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UFTKHANU

@misc{pith2026250512008,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $^22$Ne($\alpha$,n)$^25$Mg reaction -- state of the art, astrophysics, and perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UFTKHANU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12008}
}
abstract

One of the most important stellar neutron sources is the $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$,n)$^{25}$Mg reaction, which gets activated both during the helium intershell burning in asymptotic giant branch stars and in core helium and shell carbon burning in massive stars. The $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$,n)$^{25}$Mg reaction serves as the main neutron producer for the weak s-process and provides a short but strong neutron exposure during the helium flash phase of the main s-process, significantly affecting the abundances at the s-process branch points. The cross section needs to be known at very low energies, as close as possible to the neutron threshold at $E_\alpha = 562$ keV ($Q = - 478$ keV), but both direct and indirect measurements have turned out to be very challenging, leading to significant uncertainties. Here we discuss the current status of the reaction, including recent and upcoming measurements, and provide a discussion on the astrophysical implications as well as an outlook into the near future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Longland, C

    R. Longland, C. Iliadis, A.I. Karakas, Reaction rates for the s- process neutron source 22Ne + α. Phys. Rev. C85, 065809 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [38]

    Adsley et al., Reevaluation of the 22Ne(α, γ)26Mg and 22Ne(α, n)25Mg reaction rates

    P. Adsley et al., Reevaluation of the 22Ne(α, γ)26Mg and 22Ne(α, n)25Mg reaction rates. Phys. Rev. C 103, 015805 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [11]

    Wiescher, R.J

    M. Wiescher, R.J. DeBoer, J. Görres, The resonances in the 22Ne+ α fusion reactions. The European Physical Journal A 59(1), 11 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    Meng Wang, F.G

    W.J. Meng Wang, F.G. Huang, G.A. Kondev, S. Naimi, The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (ii) tables, graphs and references*. Chin. Phys. C 45(3), 030003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [2]

    Bisterzo, R

    S. Bisterzo, R. Gallino, F. Käppeler, M. Wiescher, G. Imbriani, O. Straniero, S. Cristallo, J. Görres, R.J. deBoer, The branchings of the main s-process: their sensitivity to α-induced reactions on 13C and 22Ne and to the uncertainties of the nuclear network. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449(1), 506–527 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [3]

    Couch, A.B

    R.G. Couch, A.B. Schmiedekamp, W.D. Arnett, S-PROCESS Nucleosynthesis in Massive Stars: Core Helium Burning. Astro- phys J 190, 95–100 (1974)

    work page 1974

  7. [4]

    Lamb, W.M

    S.A. Lamb, W.M. Howard, J.W. Truran, I. Iben Jr., Neutron- capture nucleosynthesis in the helium-burning cores of massive stars. Astrophys J 217, 213–221 (1977)

    work page 1977

  8. [5]

    Raiteri, M

    C.M. Raiteri, M. Busso, R. Gallino, G. Picchio, S-Process Nucle- osynthesis in Massive Stars and the Weak Component. II. Carbon Burning and Galactic Enrichment. Astrophys J 371, 665 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 78 references
  1. [6]

    Pignatari, R

    M. Pignatari, R. Gallino, M. Heil, M. Wiescher, F. Käppeler, F. Herwig, S. Bisterzo, The Weak s-Process in Massive Stars and its Dependence on the Neutron Capture Cross Sections. Astrophys J 710(2), 1557–1577 (2010)

    2010

  2. [7]

    Pignatari, F

    M. Pignatari, F. Herwig, R. Hirschi, M. Bennett, G. Rockefeller, C. Fryer, F.X. Timmes, C. Ritter, A. Heger, S. Jones, U. Battino, A. Dotter, R. Trappitsch, S. Diehl, U. Frischknecht, A. Hungerford, G. Magkotsios, C. Travaglio, P. Young, NuGrid Stellar Data Set. I. Stellar Yie...

    2016

  3. [8]

    Ritter, F

    C. Ritter, F. Herwig, S. Jones, M. Pignatari, C. Fryer, R. Hirschi, NuGrid stellar data set - II. Stellar yields from H to Bi for stellar models with M ZA MS = 1–25 M⊙ and Z = 0.0001–0.02. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480(1), 538–571 (2018)

    2018

  4. [9]

    Kaeppeler, M

    F. Kaeppeler, M. Wiescher, U. Giesen, J. Goerres, I. Baraffe, M. El Eid, C.M. Raiteri, M. Busso, R. Gallino, M. Limongi, A. Chi- effi, Reaction Rates for 18O(α, γ)22Ne, 22Ne(α, γ ) 26Mg, and 22Ne(α, n)25Mg in Stellar Helium Burning and s-Process Nucle- osynthesis in Massive Sta...

    1994

  5. [10]

    S. Ota, G. Christian, W.N. Catford, G. Lotay, M. Pignatari, U. Battino, E.A. Bennett, S. Dede, D.T. Doherty, S. Hallam, F. Herwig, J. Hooker, C. Hunt, H. Jayatissa, A. Matta, M. Moukaddam, E. Rao, G.V . Rogachev, A. Saastamoinen, D. Scriven, J.A. Tostevin, S. Upadhyayula, R. W...

    2021

  6. [12]

    Karakas, M.A

    A.I. Karakas, M.A. Lugaro, M. Wiescher, J. Görres, C. Ugalde, The uncertainties in the 22ne+α-capture reaction rates and the produc- tion of the heavy magnesium isotopes in asymptotic giant branch stars of intermediate mass. Astrophys J 643(1), 471 (2006)

    2006

  7. [14]

    Woosley, A

    S.E. Woosley, A. Heger, Nucleosynthesis and remnants in massive stars of solar metallicity. Phys. Rep.442(1), 269–283 (2007). (The Hans Bethe Centennial V olume 1906-2006)

    2007

  8. [15]

    Gay, D.L

    P.L. Gay, D.L. Lambert, The isotopic abundances of magnesium in stars. Astrophys J 533(1), 260 (2000)

    2000

  9. [16]

    D. Yong, F. Grundahl, D.L. Lambert, P.E. Nissen, M.D. Shetrone, Mg isotopic ratios in giant stars of the globular cluster ngc 6752*. A&A 402(3), 985–1001 (2003)

    2003

  10. [17]

    Yong, D.L

    D. Yong, D.L. Lambert, I.I. Ivans, Magnesium isotopic abundance ratios in cool stars. Astrophys J 599(2), 1357 (2003)

    2003

  11. [18]

    Zinner, L.R

    E. Zinner, L.R. Nittler, P. Hoppe, R. Gallino, O. Straniero, C. Alexander, Oxygen, magnesium and chromium isotopic ratios of presolar spinel grains. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69(16), 4149– 4165 (2005) 1 9 . M .J a e g e r ,R .K u n z ,A .M a y e r ,J . W .H a m m e r ,G .S t a ...

    2005

  12. [20]

    Jaeger, Die Einfangreaktion 22Ne(α,n )25Mg - die Hauptneu- tronenquelle in massiven Sternen

    M. Jaeger, Die Einfangreaktion 22Ne(α,n )25Mg - die Hauptneu- tronenquelle in massiven Sternen. Phd thesis, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    A. Best, J. Görres, M. Junker, K.L. Kratz, M. Laubenstein, A. Long, S. Nisi, K. Smith, M. Wiescher, Low energy neutron background in deep underground laboratories. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 812, 1–6 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Balibrea-Correa, G.F

    J. Balibrea-Correa, G.F. Ciani, R. Buompane, F. Cavanna, L. Cse- dreki, R. Depalo, F. Ferraro, A. Best, Improved pulse shape dis- crimination for high pressure 3He counters. Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res., Sect. A 906, 103–109 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Wrean, C.R

    P.R. Wrean, C.R. Brune, R.W. Kavanagh, Total cross sections and thermonuclear reaction rates for 9Be(α,n )12C. Phys. Rev. C 49, 1205–1213 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    R. Kunz, S. Barth, A. Denker, H.W. Drotleff, J.W. Hammer, H. Knee, A. Mayer, Determination of the 9Be(α,n )12C reaction rate. P h y s .R e v .C53, 2486–2495 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    Q. Liu, M. Febbraro, R.J. deBoer, S. Aguilar, A. Boeltzig, Y . Chen, M. Couder, J. Görres, E. Lamere, S. Lyons, K.T. Macon, K. Manukyan, L. Morales, S. Pain, W.A. Peters, C. Seymour, G. Seymour, R. Toomey, B. Vande Kolk, J. Weaver, M. Wiescher, Low-energy cross-section measure...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Gula, R.J

    A. Gula, R.J. deBoer, S. Aguilar, J. Arroyo, C. Boomershine, B. Frentz, J. Görres, S. Henderson, R. Kelmar, S. McGuinness, K.V . Manukyan, S. Moylan, D. Robertson, C. Seymour, E. Shahina, W. Stech, J.W. Tan, M. Wiescher, 10B + α reactions at low energies. P h y s .R e v .C107,...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Wang, R.B

    T.R. Wang, R.B. V ogelaar, R.W. Kavanagh, 11B+α reaction rates and primordial nucleosynthesis. Phys. Rev. C 43, 883–896 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Borgwardt, J

    T.C. Borgwardt, J. Richard, A. deBoer, M. Boeltzig, J. Couder, A. Görres, M. Gula, K.V . Hanhardt, T. Manukyan, D. Kadlecek, F.S. Robertson, M. Wiescher, Deep underground measurement of 11B(α,n )14N. Phys. Rev. C 108, 035809 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Harms, K.L

    V . Harms, K.L. Kratz, M. Wiescher, Properties of22Ne(α,n )25Mg resonances. Phys. Rev. C 43(6), 2849–2861 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    P h y s .R e v .C110, 015801 (2024)

    Shahina et al., Strength measurement of the Elab α = 830 keV res- onance in the 22Ne(α,n )25Mg reaction using a stilbene detector. P h y s .R e v .C110, 015801 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Talwar et al., Probing astrophysically important states in the 26Mg nucleus to study neutron sources for the s process

    R. Talwar et al., Probing astrophysically important states in the 26Mg nucleus to study neutron sources for the s process. Phys. Rev. C 93, 055803 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    S. Ota, G. Christian, G. Lotay, W.N. Catford, E.A. Bennett, S. Dede, D.T. Doherty, S. Hallam, J. Hooker, C. Hunt et al., Decay 123 99 Page 14 of 15 Eur. Phys. J. A (2025) 61:99 properties of 22Ne + α resonances and their impact on s-process nucleosynthesis. Phys. Lett. B 802, ...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Jayatissa, G.V

    H. Jayatissa, G.V . Rogachev, V .Z. Goldberg, E. Koshchiy, G. Chris- t i a n ,J .H o o k e r ,S .O t a ,B . T .R o e d e r ,A .S a a s t a m o i n e n ,O .T r i p p e l l a , S. Upadhyayula, E. Uberseder, Constraining the 22Ne(α,γ )26Mg and 22Ne(α,n )25Mg reaction rates using ...

    2020

  26. [35]

    Adsley, J.W

    P. Adsley, J.W. Brümmer, T. Faestermann, S.P. Fox, F. Hammache, R. Hertenberger, A. Meyer, R. Neveling, D. Seiler, N. de Séréville, H.-F. Wirth, High-resolution study of levels in the astrophysically important nucleus 26Mg and resulting updated level assignments. Phys. Rev. C ...

    2018

  27. [36]

    Massimi et al., Neutron spectroscopy of 26Mg states: Constrain- ing the stellar neutron source 22Ne(α,n )25Mg

    C. Massimi et al., Neutron spectroscopy of 26Mg states: Constrain- ing the stellar neutron source 22Ne(α,n )25Mg. Phys. Lett. B 768, 1–6 (2017)

    2017

  28. [37]

    Y . Chen, G. Berg, R.J. deBoer, J. Görres, H. Jung, A. Long, K. Seetedohnia, R. Talwar, M. Wiescher, S. Adachi, H. Fujita, Y . Fujita, K. Hatanaka, C. Iwamoto, B. Liu, S. Noji, H.J. Ong, A. Tamii, Neutron transfer studies on25Mg and its correlation to neu- tron radiative captu...

    2021

  29. [39]

    Basunia, A.M

    M.S. Basunia, A.M. Hurst, Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 26. Nucl. Data Sheets 134, 1–148 (2016)

    2016

  30. [40]

    Shahina, D

    J. Shahina, D. Görres, M. Robertson, O. Couder, A. Gomez, M. Gula, T. Hanhardt, R. Kadlecek, P. Kelmar, A. Scholz, E. Simon, F.S. Stech, M. Wiescher, Direct measurement of the low-energy resonances in 22Ne(α, γ )26Mg reaction. Phys. Rev. C106, 025825 (2022)

    2022

  31. [41]

    Wolke, H.W

    K. Wolke, H.W. Becker, C. Rolfs, U. Schröder, H.P. Trautvetter, V . Harms, K.L. Kratz, J.W. Hammer, M. Wiescher, A. Wöhr, Helium burning of 22Ne. Z. Phys. A: Hadrons Nucl.334(4), 491–510 (1989)

    1989

  32. [42]

    Drotleff et al., New 22Ne(α,n ) 25Mg-resonances at very low energies relevant for the astrophysical s-process

    H.W. Drotleff et al., New 22Ne(α,n ) 25Mg-resonances at very low energies relevant for the astrophysical s-process. Z. Phys. A: Hadrons Nucl. 338, 367–368 (1991)

    1991

  33. [43]

    Drotleff et al., Reaction rates of the s-process neutron sources 22Ne(α,n )25Mg and13C(α,n )16O

    H.W. Drotleff et al., Reaction rates of the s-process neutron sources 22Ne(α,n )25Mg and13C(α,n )16O. The Astro. Journ.414, 735–739 (1993)

    1993

  34. [44]

    Giesen et al., The astrophysical implications of low-energy res- onances in 22Ne + α

    U. Giesen et al., The astrophysical implications of low-energy res- onances in 22Ne + α. Nucl. Phys. A 561, 95–111 (1993)

    1993

  35. [45]

    H. W. Drotleff, Untersuchung der s-prozess Neutronenquelle 22Ne(α,n)25Mg . PhD thesis, Ruhr-Univertsität Bochum (1992)

    1992

  36. [46]

    Strieder, private communication (2024)

    F. Strieder, private communication (2024)

    2024

  37. [47]

    S. Hunt, C. Iliadis, A. Champagne, L. Downen, A. Cooper, New measurement of the Eα = 0.83 MeV resonance in22Ne(α, γ )26Mg. Phys. Rev. C 99(4), 045804 (2019)

    2019

  38. [48]

    Piatti et al., First direct limit on the 334 keV resonance strength in 22Ne(α, γ)26Mg reaction

    D. Piatti et al., First direct limit on the 334 keV resonance strength in 22Ne(α, γ)26Mg reaction. The European Physical Journal A 58(10), 194 (2022)

    2022

  39. [49]

    Longland, C

    R. Longland, C. Iliadis, G. Rusev, A.P. Tonchev, R.J. deBoer, J. Görres, M. Wiescher, Photoexcitation of astrophysically important states in 26Mg. Phys. Rev. C 80, 055803 (2009)

    2009

  40. [50]

    Lotay et al., Identification ofγ -decaying resonant states in26Mg and their importance for the astrophysical s process

    G. Lotay et al., Identification ofγ -decaying resonant states in26Mg and their importance for the astrophysical s process. The European Physical Journal A 55, 109 (2019)

    2019

  41. [51]

    Massimi et al., Resonance neutron-capture cross sections of stable magnesium isotopes and their astrophysical implications

    C. Massimi et al., Resonance neutron-capture cross sections of stable magnesium isotopes and their astrophysical implications. Phys. Rev. C 85, 044615 (2017)

    2017

  42. [52]

    Koeler, Constraints on the 22ne(a, n)25mg s-process neutron source from analysis of natmg+n total and 25mg(n, g) cross sec- tions

    P.E. Koeler, Constraints on the 22ne(a, n)25mg s-process neutron source from analysis of natmg+n total and 25mg(n, g) cross sec- tions. Phys. Rev. C 66, 055805 (2002)

    2002

  43. [53]

    Schwengner, A

    R. Schwengner, A. Wagner, Y . Fujita, G. Rusev, M. Erhard, D. De Frenne, E.E. Grosse, A.R. Junghans, K. Kosev, K.D. Schilling, Dipole transition strengths in 26Mg. Phys. Rev. C79, 037303 (2009)

    2009

  44. [54]

    Berman, R.L

    B.L. Berman, R.L. Van Hemert, C.D. Bowman, Threshold Pho- toneutron Cross Section for26Mg and a Source of Stellar Neutrons. P h y s .R e v .L e t t .23, 386–389 (1969)

    1969

  45. [55]

    deBoer, M

    R.J. deBoer, M. Wiescher, J. Gorres, R. Longland, G. Iliadis, C. Rusev, A.P. Tonchev, Photoexcitation of astrophysically important states in 26mg. ii. ground-state-transition partial widths. Phys. Rev. C 82, 025802 (2010)

    2010

  46. [56]

    Limongi, O

    M. Limongi, O. Straniero, A. Chieffi, Massive Stars in the Range 13–25 Msolar : Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. II. The Solar Metal- licity Models. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement129(2), 625– 664 (2000)

    2000

  47. [57]

    Herwig, Evolution of Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars

    F. Herwig, Evolution of Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 43(1), 435–479 (2005)

    2005

  48. [58]

    Angulo, M

    C. Angulo, M. Arnould, M. Rayet, P. Descouvemont, D. Baye, C. Leclercq-Willain, A. Coc, S. Barhoumi, P. Aguer, C. Rolfs, R. Kunz, J.W. Hammer, A. Mayer, T. Paradellis, S. Kossionides, C. Chronidou, K. Spyrou, S. degl’Innocenti, G. Fiorentini, B. Ricci, S. Zavatarelli, C. Provi...

    1999

  49. [59]

    Raiteri, M

    C.M. Raiteri, M. Busso, R. Gallino, G. Picchio, L. Pulone, S- Process Nucleosynthesis in Massive Stars and the Weak Compo- nent. I. Evolution and Neutron Captures in a 25 M sun Star. Astro- phys J 367, 228 (1991)

    1991

  50. [60]

    Limongi, A

    M. Limongi, A. Chieffi, Presupernova Evolution and Explosive Nucleosynthesis of Rotating Massive Stars in the Metallicity Range -3 ≤ [Fe/H] ≤ 0. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 237(1), 13 (2018)

    2018

  51. [61]

    Pignatari, R

    M. Pignatari, R. Gallino, Metallicity dependence of the s-process in massive stars: theoretical predictions. Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana 78, 543 (2007)

    2007

  52. [62]

    Vassiliadis, P.R

    E. Vassiliadis, P.R. Wood, Evolution of Low- and Intermediate- Mass Stars to the End of the Asymptotic Giant Branch with Mass Loss. Astrophys J 413, 641 (1993)

    1993

  53. [63]

    Karakas, Updated stellar yields from asymptotic giant branch models

    A.I. Karakas, Updated stellar yields from asymptotic giant branch models. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403(3), 1413–1425 (2010)

    2010

  54. [64]

    Battino, C

    U. Battino, C. Lederer-Woods, B. Cseh, P. Denissenkov, F. Herwig, Mixing Uncertainties in Low-Metallicity AGB Stars: The Impact on Stellar Structure and Nucleosynthesis. Universe7(2), 25 (2021)

    2021

  55. [65]

    Gallino, C

    R. Gallino, C. Arlandini, M. Busso, M. Lugaro, C. Travaglio, O. Straniero, A. Chieffi, M. Limongi, Evolution and Nucleosynthesis in Low-Mass Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars. II. Neutron Capture and the S-Process. Astrophys J 497(1), 388–403 (1998)

    1998

  56. [66]

    Busso, R

    M. Busso, R. Gallino, G.J. Wasserburg, Nucleosynthesis in Asymp- totic Giant Branch Stars: Relevance for Galactic Enrichment and Solar System Formation. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 37, 239– 309 (1999)

    1999

  57. [67]

    Lugaro, A.I

    M. Lugaro, A.I. Karakas, M. Pet˝ o, E. Plachy, Do meteoritic sil- icon carbide grains originate from asymptotic giant branch stars of super-solar metallicity? Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 221, 6–20 (2018)

    2018

  58. [68]

    Lugaro, B

    M. Lugaro, B. Cseh, B. Világos, A.I. Karakas, P. Ventura, F. Dell’Agli, R. Trappitsch, M. Hampel, V . D’Orazi, C.B. Pereira, G. Tagliente, G.M. Szabó, M. Pignatari, U. Battino, A. Tattersall, M. Ek, M. Schönbächler, J. Hron, L.R. Nittler, Origin of Large Mete- oritic SiC Stard...

    2020

  59. [69]

    Dauphas, A.M

    N. Dauphas, A.M. Davis, B. Marty, L. Reisberg, The cosmic molybdenum-ruthenium isotope correlation. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 226(3–4), 465–475 (2004)

    2004

  60. [70]

    Battino, A

    U. Battino, A. Tattersall, C. Lederer-Woods, F. Herwig, P. Denis- senkov, R. Hirschi, R. Trappitsch, J.W. den Hartogh, M. Pignatari, N.G. Collaboration, NuGrid stellar data set - III. Updated low-mass 123 Eur. Phys. J. A (2025) 61:99 Page 15 of 15 99 AGB models and s-process n...

    2025

  61. [71]

    Barzyk, M.R

    J.G. Barzyk, M.R. Savina, A.M. Davis, R. Gallino, F. Gyngard, S. Amari, E. Zinner, M.J. Pellin, R.S. Lewis, R.N. Clayton, Constrain- ing the 13C neutron source in AGB stars through isotopic analysis of trace elements in presolar SiC. Meteoritics & Planetary Science 42(1103), 1...

    2007

  62. [72]

    Liu, M.R

    N. Liu, M.R. Savina, A.M. Davis, R. Gallino, O. Straniero, F. Gyn- gard, M.J. Pellin, D.G. Willingham, N. Dauphas, M. Pignatari, S. Bisterzo, S. Cristallo, F. Herwig, Barium Isotopic Composition of Mainstream Silicon Carbides from Murchison: Constraints for s- process Nucleosy...

    2014

  63. [73]

    Cristallo, A

    S. Cristallo, A. Nanni, G. Cescutti, I. Minchev, N. Liu, D. Vescovi, D. Gobrecht, L. Piersanti, Mass and metallicity distribution of par- ent AGB stars of presolar SiC. Astron. Astrophys. 644, A8 (2020)

    2020

  64. [74]

    Battino, M

    U. Battino, M. Pignatari, C. Ritter, F. Herwig, P. Denisenkov, J.W. Den Hartogh, R. Trappitsch, R. Hirschi, B. Freytag, F. Thielemann, B. Paxton, Application of a Theory and Simulation-based Convec- tive Boundary Mixing Model for AGB Star Evolution and Nucle- osynthesis. Astro...

    2016

  65. [75]

    Ugalde, A.E

    C. Ugalde, A.E. Champagne, S. Daigle, C. Iliadis, R. Longland, J.R. Newton, E. Osenbaugh-Stewart, J.A. Clark, C. Deibel, A. Parikh, P.D. Parker, C. Wrede, Experimental evidence for a natural parity state in 26Mg and its impact on the production of neutrons for the s process. P...

    2007

  66. [76]

    Tumino, C.A

    A. Tumino, C.A. Bertulani, M. La Cognata, L. Lamia, R.G. Piz- zone, S. Romano, S. Typel, The trojan horse method: a nuclear physics tool for astrophysics. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71(1), 345–376 (2021)

    2021

  67. [77]

    Pizzone, S

    R.G. Pizzone, S. Degl’Innocenti, M. La Cognata, L. Lamia, G.G. Rapisarda, S. Romano, M.L. Sergi, A. Tumino, Indirect investiga- tions on fusion reactions. The European Physical Journal A58(11), 234 (2022)

    2022

  68. [78]

    La Cognata, G.L

    Roberta Spartà, M. La Cognata, G.L. Guardo, S. Palmerini, M.L. Sergi, G. D’Agata, L. Lamia, D. Lattuada, A.A. Oliva, R.G. Pizzone, and others. Neutron-driven nucleosynthesis in stellar plasma. Frontiers in Physics 10, 896011 (2022)

    2022

  69. [79]

    A. Sen, G. Domínguez-Cañizares, N.C. Podaru, D. Mous, M. Junker, G. Imbriani, V . Rigato, A high intensity, high stability 3.5 MV Singletron™accelerator. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 450, 390–395 (2019). ( The 23rd International Confer- ence on Ion Beam Analysis )

    2019

  70. [80]

    Csedreki, G.F

    L. Csedreki, G.F. Ciani, J. Balibrea-Correa, A. Best, M. Aliotta, F. Barile, D. Bemmerer, A. Boeltzig, C. Broggini, C.G. Bruno, A. Caciolli, F. Cavanna, T. Chillery, P. Colombetti, P. Corvisiero, T. Davinson, R. Depalo, A. Di Leva, Z. Elekes, F. Ferraro, E.M. Fiore, A. Formico...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.