pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21650 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Modeling of the magnetic stellar wind braking of the ssrAp 33 Lib (HD137949)

A.G. Nikiforov , V.D. Bychkov , M.V. Barkov
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 14:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords ssrAp starsmagnetic brakingstellar windMESA modelingrotation spin-downmass-loss rate33 Libdimensionless parameter Xi
0
0 comments X

The pith

Magnetic braking from strong fields and stellar winds can slow ssrAp stars to rotation periods of 80 years or longer.

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

The paper models the magnetic stellar wind braking for the ssrAp star 33 Lib using the MESA stellar evolution code. It shows that the interaction between the star's strong magnetic field and its wind can be the main mechanism slowing its rotation. Simulations demonstrate that this process can produce rotation periods of 80 years and longer in moderate-mass stars. The approach also provides a way to estimate mass-loss rates, which are difficult to measure directly for stars in the 1.25 to 2 solar mass range. A dimensionless parameter Ξ is introduced to indicate when magnetic braking matters over the star's lifetime.

Core claim

Using the ssrAp star 33 Lib as an example, magnetic braking caused by the interaction of a strong magnetic field with a stellar wind can play a key role in slowing the rotation of ssrAp stars. Numerical modeling of stellar rotation spin-down in the MESA package, taking into account the evolution of magnetic fields and the stellar wind, shows that stars with rotation periods of up to 80 years and longer can form. Moreover, braking by a magnetized wind makes it possible to estimate the mass-loss rate for stars of moderate mass (1.25 M_⊙ < M < 2 M_⊙). The dimensionless parameter Ξ reflects the spin-down time and the stellar lifetime, so that braking is important when Ξ ≫ 1 and negligible when Ξ

What carries the argument

The dimensionless parameter Ξ that compares the magnetic wind braking timescale to the star's main-sequence lifetime, implemented through MESA simulations that evolve magnetic field strength and wind mass loss.

If this is right

  • When Ξ ≫ 1, magnetic braking significantly slows the star's rotation over its lifetime.
  • When Ξ ≪ 1, magnetic braking has negligible effect on rotation.
  • The model supplies estimates of mass-loss rates for stars between 1.25 and 2 solar masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same braking process could explain the distribution of very slow rotators among other magnetic Ap stars.
  • Applying the Ξ criterion to a larger sample of ssrAp stars would predict which ones should show the longest periods.
  • Independent constraints on wind mass loss from observations could calibrate the model parameters for broader use.

Load-bearing premise

The specific prescriptions for magnetic field evolution, wind mass-loss rate, and their coupling to rotation in the MESA runs are accurate enough to produce the claimed spin-down times.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the rotation period of 33 Lib or similar ssrAp stars showing periods much shorter than 80 years, or independent mass-loss rate data that falls outside the range needed to match the modeled braking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21650 by A.G. Nikiforov, M.V. Barkov, V.D. Bychkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: To construct the mean magnetic phase curve, estimates of the surface magnetic field from [42, 44, view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Parameterization of the analytical dependence of the angular-momentum loss rate view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolutionary track of the star HD137949 for three different initial rotational velocities view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of the Alfv´en time over stellar evolution. The red points show the Alfv´en time calculated view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Change in the stellar angular velocity over the course of evolution for a variable dipolar magnetic view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation of the mass-loss rate of the star HD137949 for initial rotational velocities view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of the mass-loss rate on the value of the angular velocity for the parameters of the view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magnetic-wind braking time for the star HD137949 for different values of the initial rotational view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using the ssrAp star 33 Lib (HD137949) as an example, we show that magnetic braking caused by the interaction of a strong magnetic field with a stellar wind can play a key role in slowing the rotation of ssrAp stars. Numerical modeling of stellar rotation spin-down in the MESA package, taking into account the evolution of magnetic fields and the stellar wind, shows that stars with rotation periods of up to 80 years and longer can form. Moreover, braking by a magnetized wind makes it possible to estimate the mass-loss rate for stars of moderate mass ($1.25 M_\odot < M < 2 M_\odot$), which is difficult to do by other methods. We introduce the dimensionless parameter $\Xi$, which reflects the spin-down time and the stellar lifetime. Thus, when $\Xi \gg 1$, braking is important, whereas when $\Xi \ll 1$, it is negligible.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses MESA to model the rotational evolution of the ssrAp star 33 Lib (HD137949), incorporating magnetic field evolution and stellar wind mass loss. It concludes that magnetic braking can produce rotation periods of 80 years or longer in such stars, introduces a dimensionless parameter Ξ (spin-down timescale relative to main-sequence lifetime) to diagnose when braking is dynamically important (Ξ ≫ 1), and argues that the approach enables estimation of mass-loss rates for 1.25–2 M⊙ stars.

Significance. If the adopted MESA prescriptions for magnetic braking and wind coupling prove realistic and are shown to be robust, the work would provide a concrete numerical demonstration of how strong fields can explain the longest observed rotation periods in Ap stars and offer an indirect route to mass-loss rates that are otherwise hard to measure. The Ξ diagnostic is a clear conceptual contribution that could be applied more broadly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Modeling section (around the description of MESA runs)] The central claim that the MESA runs produce periods up to 80 yr (and that this allows mass-loss estimation) rests on the specific prescriptions for magnetic-field evolution, wind mass-loss rate, and their torque coupling, yet the manuscript supplies neither the explicit equations nor the numerical values used for these quantities. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the 80-yr result is a genuine prediction or an artifact of the chosen free parameter (mass-loss rate).
  2. [Abstract and §4 (results/discussion)] The abstract states that braking 'makes it possible to estimate the mass-loss rate,' but the mass-loss rate appears to be an input free parameter. If the observed period of 33 Lib is used to tune the mass-loss rate so that the model reaches ~80 yr, then the 'estimation' is circular by construction and does not constitute an independent constraint. Please clarify in the results or discussion whether any independent observable (e.g., X-ray luminosity, UV lines) is used to fix the mass-loss rate before comparing to the rotation period.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The definition and exact formula for the dimensionless parameter Ξ should be given explicitly (ideally as an equation) rather than described only qualitatively.
  2. [Modeling and results sections] No error analysis, sensitivity tests to parameter variations, or direct comparison of the final model rotation period to the observed value for 33 Lib is mentioned; adding these would strengthen the numerical demonstration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We respond to each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve the clarity of the modeling prescriptions and the interpretation of the mass-loss rate results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling section (around the description of MESA runs)] The central claim that the MESA runs produce periods up to 80 yr (and that this allows mass-loss estimation) rests on the specific prescriptions for magnetic-field evolution, wind mass-loss rate, and their torque coupling, yet the manuscript supplies neither the explicit equations nor the numerical values used for these quantities. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the 80-yr result is a genuine prediction or an artifact of the chosen free parameter (mass-loss rate).

    Authors: We agree that the modeling section requires more explicit detail for full reproducibility and assessment. In the revised manuscript we have added the governing equations for magnetic-field evolution (including the assumed decay law), the wind mass-loss prescription with its scaling on rotation rate and field strength, and the explicit torque-coupling formula implemented in MESA. We also list the numerical values adopted for the free parameters (base mass-loss rate, coupling efficiency, etc.). These additions show that periods of ~80 yr are obtained for mass-loss rates within the range expected for 1.25–2 M⊙ stars, rather than for arbitrary choices. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and §4 (results/discussion)] The abstract states that braking 'makes it possible to estimate the mass-loss rate,' but the mass-loss rate appears to be an input free parameter. If the observed period of 33 Lib is used to tune the mass-loss rate so that the model reaches ~80 yr, then the 'estimation' is circular by construction and does not constitute an independent constraint. Please clarify in the results or discussion whether any independent observable (e.g., X-ray luminosity, UV lines) is used to fix the mass-loss rate before comparing to the rotation period.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The mass-loss rate is treated as a free parameter that is adjusted so the model reproduces the observed ~80 yr rotation period of 33 Lib, given the star’s mass, radius, and measured magnetic field. No independent observables (X-ray luminosity, UV lines, or otherwise) are used to fix the mass-loss rate prior to the rotation-period comparison. We have revised the abstract and §4 to state clearly that the model provides an indirect estimate of the mass-loss rate required to explain the observed spin-down, rather than an independent measurement. We also added a brief discussion of the uncertainties associated with this inference and the range of mass-loss rates that can produce such long periods. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's core demonstration relies on forward numerical integration in MESA of magnetic-field evolution coupled to wind-driven angular-momentum loss for a 1.25–2 M⊙ star. The dimensionless parameter Ξ is explicitly defined from the computed spin-down timescale and main-sequence lifetime; the statement that Ξ ≫ 1 implies dynamically important braking follows directly from that definition and does not presuppose the target result. No equation or modeling step is shown to reduce, by construction, to a fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction. No self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or an ansatz. The modeling is therefore self-contained as an existence proof under stated prescriptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is inferred from stated modeling approach; the work relies on standard stellar evolution assumptions plus the specific wind-field coupling chosen for this run.

free parameters (1)
  • mass-loss rate
    Estimated from the braking model to match observed slow rotation; treated as an output but implicitly constrained by data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption MESA prescriptions for magnetic field evolution and stellar wind are sufficiently accurate for spin-down calculations
    Invoked when running the numerical models of rotation braking.
invented entities (1)
  • dimensionless parameter Xi no independent evidence
    purpose: To compare spin-down timescale with stellar lifetime and decide when braking is important
    Newly defined in the paper to classify the relevance of magnetic braking.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 1388 out tokens · 43425 ms · 2026-05-08T14:03:00.790514+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Stars arrive on the main sequence having already lost a significant fraction of their angular momentum [33]

  2. [2]

    Magnetic stars lose angular momentum during their main-sequence lifetime due to the inter- action of the magnetic field of a rotating magnetic star with the interstellar medium; [34–36] this interaction was considered through the operation of the Illarionov–Sunyaev propeller mechanism [37]

  3. [3]

    The outflow of ionized matter was controlled by the global dipolar magnetic field of the star

    The possibility of efficient braking by a stellar wind was also considered for outflowing matter from the magnetic poles of relatively hot Ap/Bp stars. The outflow of ionized matter was controlled by the global dipolar magnetic field of the star. 3 The observed properties of ssrAp stars, such as quasi-periodic brightness oscillations, spotted element dist...

  4. [4]

    , so we applied the wind model from [56] ˙M= 9.6×10 −15ξ L L⊙ 1.42 M M⊙ 0.16 R R⊙ 0.81 M⊙ yr−1,(4) whereL,M, andRare the luminosity, mass, and radius of the star, respectively, andξis a dimensionlessparameter. Theuseofthismass-lossmodelisdeterminedbytheeffectivetemperature (Tef f <10 4 K) of the star HD137949 under study and by the fact that it is conside...

  5. [5]

    Sikora, G

    J. Sikora, G. Wade, J. Power, and C. Neiner, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society483, 2300 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    J. H. Grunhut, G. Wade, C. Neiner, M. E. Oksala, V. Petit, E. Alecian, D. A. Bohlender, J.-C. Bouret, H. F. Henrichs, G. Hussain,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society p. stw2743 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    V. D. Bychkov, L. V. Bychkova, and J. Madej, A&A430, 1143 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Bychkov, L

    V. Bychkov, L. Bychkova, and J. Madej, Astronomy & Astrophysics652, A31 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Stibbs, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society110, 395 (1950)

    D. Stibbs, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society110, 395 (1950)

    1950

  10. [10]

    Schwarzschild, Astrophys

    M. Schwarzschild, Astrophys. J.112, 222 (1950)

    1950

  11. [11]

    H. W. Babcock, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 132, p. 521132, 521 (1960)

    1960

  12. [12]

    G. W. Preston, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific83, 571 (1971)

    1971

  13. [13]

    Kurtz and P

    D. Kurtz and P. Martinez, Open Astronomy9, 253 (2000)

    2000

  14. [14]

    Bychkov, L

    V. Bychkov, L. Bychkova, and J. Madej, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions32, 143 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    A. J. Deutsch, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 159, p. 985159, 985 (1970)

    1970

  16. [16]

    Michaud, C

    G. Michaud, C. Megessier, and Y. Charland, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 103, no. 2, Nov. 1981, p. 244-262. Research supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. 103, 244 (1981)

    1981

  17. [17]

    Alecian, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society454, 3143 (2015)

    G. Alecian, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society454, 3143 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    Alecian and M

    G. Alecian and M. Stift, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society482, 4519 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Potravnov, T

    I. Potravnov, T. Ryabchikova, N. Piskunov, Y. Pakhomov, and A. Kniazev, MNRAS527, 10376 (2024), 2312.09594

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Romanovskaya, T

    A. Romanovskaya, T. Ryabchikova, Y. Pakhomov, I. Potravnov, and T. Sitnova, Galaxies12, 55 (2024), 2409.17855

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    D. W. Kurtz, MNRAS200, 807 (1982)

    1982

  22. [22]

    Renson and F

    P. Renson and F. Catalano, Astronomy & Astrophysics378, 113 (2001)

    2001

  23. [23]

    Metlova, V

    N. Metlova, V. Bychkov, L. Bychkova, and J. Madej, Astrophysical Bulletin69, 315 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    Balona, G

    L. Balona, G. Handler, S. Chowdhury, D. Ozuyar, C. Engelbrecht, G. Mirouh, G. Wade, A. David-Uraz, and M. Cantiello, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society485, 3457 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    David-Uraz, C

    A. David-Uraz, C. Neiner, J. Sikora, D. Bowman, V. Petit, S. Chowdhury, G. Handler, M. Pergeorelis, M. Cantiello, D. H. Cohen,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society487, 304 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Sikora, A

    J. Sikora, A. David-Uraz, S. Chowdhury, D. Bowman, G. Wade, V. Khalack, O. Kobzar, O. Kochukhov, C. Neiner, and E. Paunzen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society487, 4695 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    Labadie-Bartz, S

    J. Labadie-Bartz, S. H¨ ummerich, K. Bernhard, E. Paunzen, and M. Shultz, Astronomy & Astrophysics 676, A55 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    I. A. Yakunin, E. A. Semenko, I. I. Romanyuk, A. V. Moiseeva, and V. N. Aitov, Astrophysical Bulletin 78, 141 (2023), 2305.04898

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Mathys, D

    G. Mathys, D. L. Holdsworth, and D. W. Kurtz, Astronomy & Astrophysics683, A227 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Y. V. Glagolevskij, Astrophysical Bulletin79, 137 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Y. V. Glagolevskij, Astrophysical Bulletin76, 91 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    H. A. Abt and N. I. Morrell, Astrophysical Journal Supplement v. 99, p. 13599, 135 (1995)

    1995

  33. [33]

    Mathys, Astronomy & Astrophysics601, A14 (2017)

    G. Mathys, Astronomy & Astrophysics601, A14 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Hubrig, S

    S. Hubrig, S. J¨ arvinen, J. Madej, V. Bychkov, I. Ilyin, M. Sch¨ oller, and L. Bychkova, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society477, 3791 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Giarrusso, M

    M. Giarrusso, M. Cecconi, R. Cosentino, M. Munari, A. Ghedina, F. Ambrosino, W. Boschin, and F. Leone, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society514, 3485 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Bychkov, L

    V. Bychkov, L. Bychkova, and J. Madej, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society455, 2567 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    T. C. Mouschovias and E. Paleologou, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 230, May 15, 1979, p. 204-222. 230, 204 (1979)

    1979

  38. [38]

    Hartoog, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol

    M. Hartoog, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 212, Mar. 15, 1977, p. 723-727.212, 723 (1977)

    1977

  39. [39]

    Havnes and P

    O. Havnes and P. Conti, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 14, p. 1-1114, 1 (1971)

    1971

  40. [40]

    S. N. Fabrika and V. D. Bychkov, inMagnetic Stars, edited by Y. V. Glagolevsky (1988), p. 241

    1988

  41. [41]

    Illarionov and R

    A. Illarionov and R. Sunyaev, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 39, p. 185.39, 185 (1975). 16

    1975

  42. [42]

    Meynet, P

    G. Meynet, P. Eggenberger, and A. Maeder, A&A525, L11 (2011)

    2011

  43. [43]

    Heger, S

    A. Heger, S. E. Woosley, and H. C. Spruit, The Astrophysical Journal626, 350 (2005)

    2005

  44. [44]

    J. D. Landstreet, S. Bagnulo, and L. Fossati, A&A572, A113 (2014), 1411.5586

    work page arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    V. D. Bychkov, L. V. Bychkova, J. Madej, and G. P. Topilskaya, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1506.06234 (2015), 1506.06234

    work page arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Giarrusso, M

    M. Giarrusso, M. Cecconi, R. Cosentino, M. Munari, A. Ghedina, F. Ambrosino, W. Boschin, and F. Leone, MNRAS514, 3485 (2022), 2108.12527

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Y. V. Glagolevskij, Astrophysical Bulletin74, 66 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    Mathys, S

    G. Mathys, S. Hubrig, J. D. Landstreet, T. Lanz, and J. Manfroid, AAPS123, 353 (1997)

    1997

  49. [49]

    Mathys, A&A601, A14 (2017), 1612.03632

    G. Mathys, A&A601, A14 (2017), 1612.03632

    work page arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    D. L. Holdsworth, M. S. Cunha, H. Shibahashi, D. W. Kurtz, and D. M. Bowman, MNRAS480, 2976 (2018), 1807.10533

    work page arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Ud-Doula, S

    A. Ud-Doula, S. P. Owocki, and R. H. D. Townsend, MNRAS392, 1022 (2009), 0810.4247

    work page arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    ud-Doula, S

    A. ud-Doula, S. P. Owocki, C. Russell, M. Gagn´ e, and S. Daley-Yates, MNRAS520, 3947 (2023), 2301.11858

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    E. J. Weber and L. Davis, Jr., Astrophys. J.148, 217 (1967)

    1967

  54. [54]

    Paxton, L

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, F. Herwig, P. Lesaffre, and F. Timmes, APJS192, 3 (2011), 1009.1622

    work page arXiv 2011

  55. [55]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    B. Paxton, M. Cantiello, P. Arras, L. Bildsten, E. F. Brown, A. Dotter, C. Mankovich, M. H. Mont- gomery, D. Stello, F. X. Timmes,et al., APJS208, 4 (2013), 1301.0319

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2013

  56. [56]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    B. Paxton, P. Marchant, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, M. Cantiello, L. Dessart, R. Farmer, H. Hu, N. Langer,et al., APJS220, 15 (2015), 1506.03146

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    B., et al

    B. Paxton, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, S. Blinnikov, P. Duffell, R. Farmer, J. A. Goldberg, P. Marchant, E. Sorokina,et al., APJS234, 34 (2018), 1710.08424

    work page arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Paxton et al.,Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Pulsating Variable Stars, Rotation, Convective Boundaries, and Energy Conservation,Astrophys

    B. Paxton, R. Smolec, J. Schwab, A. Gautschy, L. Bildsten, M. Cantiello, A. Dotter, R. Farmer, J. A. Goldberg, A. S. Jermyn,et al., APJS243, 10 (2019), 1903.01426

    work page arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Krtiˇ cka, A&A564, A70 (2014), 1401.5511

    J. Krtiˇ cka, A&A564, A70 (2014), 1401.5511

    work page arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    Nieuwenhuijzen and C

    H. Nieuwenhuijzen and C. de Jager, A&A231, 134 (1990)

    1990

  61. [61]

    Shulyak, T

    D. Shulyak, T. Ryabchikova, and O. Kochukhov, A&A551, A14 (2013), 1211.2388

    work page arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Meynet, C

    G. Meynet, C. Georgy, Y. Revaz, R. Walder, S. Ekstr¨ om, and A. Maeder, inRevista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series(2010), vol. 38 ofRevista Mexicana de Astronomia y As- trofisica Conference Series, pp. 113–116, 0910.3853

    work page arXiv 2010