4.6 Article

Massive open star clusters using the VVV survey V. Young clusters with an OB stellar population

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 588, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526618

关键词

stars: early-type; stars: massive; techniques: photometric; techniques: spectroscopic; Galaxy: disk; open clusters and associations: general

资金

  1. FONDECYT [3140605, 1120601, 1130140]
  2. ESO
  3. BASAL Center for Astrophysics and Associated Technologies [PFB-06]
  4. FONDAP Center for Astrophysics [15010003]
  5. Ministry for the Economy, Development, and Tourism's Programa Iniciativa Cientifica Milenio [IC12009]
  6. ALMA-CONICYT [31110002]
  7. Government of Chile
  8. CONICYT Gemini grant from the Programa de Astronomia del DRI Folio [32130012]
  9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  10. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. The ESO public survey VISTA Variables in the Via Lactea (VVV) has contributed with deep multi-epoch photometry of the Galactic bulge and the adjacent part of the disk over 526 sq. deg. More than a hundred cluster candidates have been reported thanks to this survey. Aims. We present the fifth article in a series of papers focused on young and massive clusters discovered in the VVV survey. In this paper, we present the physical characterization of five clusters with a spectroscopically confirmed OB-type stellar population. Methods. To characterize the clusters, we used near-infrared photometry (J, H, and K-S) from the VVV survey and near-infrared K-band spectroscopy from ISAAC at VLT, following the methodology presented in the previous articles of the series. Results. All clusters in our sample are very young (ages between 1-20 Myr), and their total mass are between (1.07(-0.30)(+0.40)) x 10(2) M-circle dot and (4.17(-2.08)(+4.15)) x 10(3) M-circle dot. We observed a relation between the clusters total mass M-ecl and the mass of their most massive stellar member m(max), for clusters with an age <10 Myr.

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

4.6
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