Dissecting NGC 3132: Tracing the mass-loss history of the southern ring planetary nebula
K. Bouvis, S. Akras, H. Monteiro, L. Konstantinou, P. Boumis, J. Garc\'ia-Rojas, D.R. Gon\c{c}alves, A. Monreal-Ibero, I. Aleman, K.N. Gourgouliatos

TL;DR
This study compares physical and chemical properties of NGC 3132 using advanced 3D modeling and observations from JWST, MUSE, and Spitzer, revealing complexities in mass-loss processes and limitations of traditional abundance estimation methods.
Contribution
It provides the first detailed comparison of empirical and photoionization models for NGC 3132, highlighting their agreement and discrepancies in abundance estimations.
Findings
Models and empirical methods agree on integrated properties.
Empirical method underestimates abundances by up to 35%.
IR data shows spatial correlations and new clumps in emission lines.
Abstract
Central to our understanding of stellar evolution and its impact on processes in our Galaxy and across the Universe is the study of mass loss. While the general framework is well established, recent JWST observations of objects like NGC 3132 have revealed intricate nebular structures, suggesting complex mass-loss processes likely driven by multiple star system at its core. These findings pose new challenges for the currently available investigation tools. The primary goal of this study is the first detailed comparison of the physical properties and chemical composition obtained for NGC 3132, based on the latest detailed 3D model and observations from MUSE, JWST and Spitzer. We evaluate the reliability of the traditional empirical method and photoionization model for abundances estimations, both based on the same available high-quality, spatially resolved observations. We find that the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
