4.6 Article

Metallicity and the spectral energy distribution and spectral types of dwarf O-stars

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 419, 期 1, 页码 319-334

出版社

E D P SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040074

关键词

stars : atmospheres; stars : early-type; stars : fundamental parameters; stars : abundances; ISM : HII regions; ISM : planetary nebulae : general

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a systematic study of the effect of metallicity on the stellar spectral energy distribution (SED) of 0 main sequence (dwarf) stars, focussing on the hydrogen and helium ionizing continua, and on the optical and near-IR lines used for spectral classification. The spectra are based on non-LTE line blanketed atmosphere models with stellar winds calculated using the CMFGEN code of Hillier & Miller (1998). We draw the following conclusions. First, we find that the total number of Lyman photons emitted is almost independent of line blanketing effects and metallicity for a given effective temperature. This is because the flux that is blocked by the forest of metal lines at lambda < 600 Angstrom is redistributed mainly within the Lyman continuum. Second, the spectral type, as defined by the ratio of the equivalent widths of He I lambda4471 and Hell lambda4542, is shown to depend noticeably on the microturbulent velocity in the atmosphere, on metallicity and, within the luminosity class of dwarfs, on gravity. Third, we confirm the decrease in T-eff for a given spectral type due to the inclusion of line blanketing recently found by e.g. Martins et al. (2002). Finally, we find that the SED below similar to450 Angstrom is highly dependent on metallicity. This is reflected in the behaviour of nebular fine-structure line ratios such as [Ne III]/[Ne 11] 15.5/12.8 and [Ar III]/[Ar II] 9.0/7.0 mum. This dependence complicates the use of these nebular ratios as diagnostic tools for the effective temperature determination of the ionizing stars in H 11 regions and for age dating of starburst regions in galaxies.

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