4.7 Article

The frequency of carbon stars among extremely metal-poor stars

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 633, 期 2, 页码 L109-L112

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/498502

关键词

Galaxy : abundances; Galaxy : halo; stars : carbon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We demonstrate that there are systematic scale errors in the [Fe/H] values determined by the Hamburg/ESO Survey (HES; and by inference by the HK survey in the past) for certain extremely metal-poor, highly C-enhanced giants. The consequences of these scale errors are that (1) the fraction of carbon stars at extremely low metallicities has been overestimated in several papers in the recent literature, (2) the number of extremely metal-poor stars known is somewhat lower than has been quoted in the recent literature, and (3) the yield for extremely metal-poor stars by the HES is somewhat lower than is stated in the recent literature. A preliminary estimate for the frequency of carbon stars among the giants in the HES sample with -4 < [Fe/H] < -2.0 dex is 7.4% +/- 2.9%; adding an estimate for the C-enhanced giants with [C/Fe] > 1.0 dex without detectable C-2 bands raises the fraction to 14% +/- 4%. We rely on the results of an extensive set of homogeneous, detailed abundance analyses of stars expected to have [Fe/H] <= -3.0 dex selected from the HES to establish these claims. We have found that the Fe metallicity of the cooler (T-eff less than or similar to 5200 K) C stars as derived from spectra taken with HIRES at Keck are a factor of similar to 10 higher than those obtained via the algorithm used by the HES project to analyze the moderate-resolution follow-up spectra, and this algorithm is identical to that used until very recently by the HK survey. This error in the Fe abundance estimate for C stars arises from a lowering of the emitted flux in the continuum bandpasses of the KP index (Ca II lambda 3933) and, particularly, the HP2 (H delta) index used to estimate [Fe/H] due to absorption from strong molecular bands.

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