4.7 Article

The effective temperature scale of Galactic red supergiants: Cool, but not as cool as we thought

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 628, Issue 2, Pages 973-985

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/430901

Keywords

dust, extinction; stars : atmospheres; stars : fundamental parameters; stars : late-type; supergiants

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We usemoderate-resolution optical spectrophotometry and the new MARCS stellar atmosphere models to determine the effective temperatures of 74 Galactic red supergiants (RSGs). The stars are mostly members of OB associations or clusters with known distances, allowing a critical comparison with modern stellar evolutionary tracks. We find we can achieve excellent matches between the observations and the reddened model fluxes and molecular transitions, although the atomic lines Ca I lambda 4226 and Ca II H and K are found to be unrealistically strong in the models. Our new effective temperature scale is significantly warmer than those in the literature, with the differences amounting to 400 K for the latest type M supergiants (i.e., M5 I). We show that the newly derived temperatures and bolometric corrections give much better agreement with stellar evolutionary tracks. This agreement provides a completely independent verification of our new temperature scale. The combination of effective temperature and bolometric luminosities allows us to calculate stellar radii; the coolest and most luminous stars (KW Sgr, Case 75, KY Cyg, HD 206936 = mu Cep) have radii of roughly 1500 R-. ( 7 AU), in excellent accordance with the largest stellar radii predicted from current evolutionary theory, although smaller than that found by others for the binary VV Cep and for the peculiar star VY CMa. We find that similar results are obtained for the effective temperatures and bolometric luminosities using only the dereddened V - K colors, providing a powerful demonstration of the self-consistency of the MARCS models.

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