4.7 Article

A spectroscopic survey of EC4, an extended cluster in Andromeda's halo

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14830.x

关键词

stars: kinematics; galaxies: individual: M31; galaxies: star clusters

资金

  1. NSERC
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H004165/1, PP/E00105X/1, ST/F001967/1, PP/C002229/1, ST/G001979/1, ST/H004157/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. STFC [ST/H004165/1, PP/E00105X/1, ST/H004157/1, ST/G001979/1, ST/F001967/1, PP/C002229/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a spectroscopic survey of candidate red giant branch stars in the extended star cluster, EC4, discovered in the halo of M31 from our Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope/MegaCam survey, overlapping the tidal streams, Streams 'Cp' and 'Cr'. These observations used the DEep Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph mounted on the Keck II telescope to obtain spectra around the CaII triplet region with similar to 1.3 angstrom resolution. Six stars lying on the red giant branch within two core radii of the centre of EC4 are found to have an average nu(r) = -287.9(-2.4)(+1.9) km s(-1) and sigma(nu,corr) = 2.7(-2.7)(+4.2) km s(-1), taking instrumental errors into account. The resulting mass-to-light ratio for EC4 is M/L = 6.7(-6.7)(+15) M-circle dot/L-circle dot a value that is consistent with a globular cluster within the 1 sigma errors we derive. From the summed spectra of our member stars, we find EC4 to be metal-poor, with [Fe/H] = -1.6 +/- 0.15. We discuss several formation and evolution scenarios which could account for our kinematic and metallicity constraints on EC4, and conclude that EC4 is most comparable with an extended globular cluster. We also compare the kinematics and metallicity of EC4 with Streams 'Cp' and 'Cr', and find that EC4 bears a striking resemblance to Stream 'Cp' in terms of velocity, and that the two structures are identical in terms of both their spectroscopic and photometric metallicities. From this, we conclude that EC4 is likely related to Stream 'Cp'.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据