4.6 Article

Dynamical masses of two young globular clusters in the blue compact galaxy ESO338-IG04

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 461, Issue 2, Pages 471-483

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054461

Keywords

galaxies : evolution; galaxies : individual : ESO338-IG04 (Tol 1924-416); galaxies : starburst; galaxies : star clusters; galaxies : stellar content

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present high-resolution echelle spectroscopy, obtained with the UVES spectrograph on ESO/VLT, of two luminous star clusters in the metal-poor blue compact galaxy ESO338-IG04 at a distance of 37.5 Mpc. Cross-correlating with template stars, we obtain line-of-sight velocity dispersions of 33 and 17 km s(-1). By combining with size estimates from Hubble Space Telescope images we infer dynamical masses of 1.3 x 10(7) M-circle dot and 4.0 x 10(6) M-circle dot for the two clusters, making them among the most massive known. The less massive cluster is the faintest cluster for which a dynamical mass has yet been obtained. In both clusters we detect Balmer absorption lines which we use to estimate their ages. From the younger (similar to 6 Myr) and more massive cluster, we detect He II lambda 4686 emission of intermediate width, indicating the presence of very massive O-stars. Moreover, analysis of the [ O III] lambda 5007 and Ha emission lines from the region near the younger cluster indicates that it is associated with a bubble expanding at similar to 40 km s(-1). We also see from the Na ID absorption lines indications of neutral gas flows towards the younger cluster. We compare the dynamical masses with those derived from photometry and discuss implications for the stellar initial mass function (IMF) in each cluster. Both clusters are compatible with rather normal IMFs which will favour their long-term survival and evolution into massive bona fide globular clusters.

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