4.7 Article

FIVE GROUPS OF RED GIANTS WITH DISTINCT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IN THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER NGC 2808

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 810, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/148

关键词

stars: abundances; stars: atmospheres; stars: Population II

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  2. National Science Foundation
  3. PRIN MIUR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The chemical composition of multiple populations in the massive globular cluster (GC) NGC 2808 is addressed with the homogeneous abundance reanalysis of 140 red giant branch stars. UVES spectra for 31 stars and GIRAFFE spectra for the other giants were analyzed with the same procedures used for about 2500 giants in 23 GCs in our FLAMES survey, deriving abundances of Fe, O, Na, Mg, Si, Ca, Ti, Sc, Cr, Mn, and Ni. Iron, elements from a capture, and those in the Fe group do not show intrinsic scatter. On our UVES scale, the metallicity of NGC 2808 is [Fe/H]. = -1.129 +/- 0.005 +/- 0.034 (+/- statistical +/- systematic error) with sigma = 0.030 (31 stars). The main features related to proton-capture elements are retrieved, but the improved statistics and the smaller associated internal errors allow us to uncover five distinct groups of stars along the Na-O anticorrelation. We observe large depletions in Mg, anticorrelated with enhancements of Na and also Si, suggestive of unusually high temperatures for proton captures. About 14% of our sample is formed by giants with solar or subsolar [Mg/Fe] ratios. Using the [Na/Mg] ratios, we confirm the presence of five populations with different chemical compositions that we call P1, P2, I1, I2, and E in order of decreasing Mg and increasing Na abundances. Statistical tests show that the mean ratios in any pair of groups cannot be extracted from the same parent distribution. The overlap with the five populations recently detected from UV photometry is good but not perfect, confirming that more distinct components probably exist in this complex GC.

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