4.7 Article

Deriving model-based Te-consistent chemical abundances in ionized gaseous nebulae

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 441, Issue 3, Pages 2663-2675

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu753

Keywords

methods: data analysis; ISM: abundances; galaxies: abundances

Funding

  1. Spanish National Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics [AYA2010-21887-C04-01]
  2. Galaxias y Cosmologia of the Junta de Andalucia (Spain) [PEX2011-FQM7058, TIC114]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The derivation of abundances in gaseous nebulae ionized by massive stars using optical collisionally excited emission lines is studied in this work, comparing the direct or T-e method with updated grids of photoionization models covering a wide range of input conditions of O/H and N/O abundances and ionization parameter. The abundances in a large sample of compiled objects with at least one auroral line are re-derived and later compared with the chi(2)-weighted-mean abundances from the models. The agreement between the abundances using the two methods both for O/H and N/O is excellent with no additional assumptions about the geometry or physics governing the H-II regions. Although very inaccurate model-based O/H are obtained when no auroral lines are considered, this can be overcome assuming empirical laws between O/H, log U, and N/O to constrain the considered models. In this way, for 12+log(O/H) > 8.0, a precision better than 0.1 dex consistent with the direct method is attained. For very low Z, models give higher O/H values and a high dispersion, possibly owing to the contamination of the low-excitation emission lines. However, in this regime, the auroral lines are usually well detected. The use of this procedure, in a publicly available script, HII-CHI-MISTRY, leads to the derivation of abundances in faint-/high-redshift objects consistent with the direct method based on collisionally excited lines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available