4.6 Article

Gaia FGK benchmark stars: abundances of α and iron-peak elements

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 582, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526604

Keywords

methods: data analysis; stars: atmospheres; Galaxy: abundances

Funding

  1. European Union FP7 programme through ERC [320360]
  2. Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2012-541]
  3. Swedish National Space Board (Rymdstyrelsen)
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K000985/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. UK Space Agency [ST/N000641/1, ST/K000756/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. STFC [ST/K000985/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context. In the current era of large spectroscopic surveys of the Milky Way, reference stars for calibrating astrophysical parameters and chemical abundances are of paramount importance. Aims. We determine elemental abundances of Mg, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, and Ni for our predefined set of Gaia FGK benchmark stars. Methods. By analysing high-resolution spectra with a high signal-to-noise ratio taken from several archive datasets, we combined results of eight different methods to determine abundances on a line-by-line basis. We performed a detailed homogeneous analysis of the systematic uncertainties, such as differential versus absolute abundance analysis. We also assessed errors that are due to non-local thermal equilibrium and the stellar parameters in our final abundances. Results. Our results are provided by listing final abundances and the different sources of uncertainties, as well as line-by-line and method-by-method abundances. Conclusions. The atmospheric parameters of the Gaia FGK benchmark stars are already being widely used for calibration of several pipelines that are applied to different surveys. With the added reference abundances of ten elements, this set is very suitable for calibrating the chemical abundances obtained by these pipelines.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available