4.6 Article

Ultraviolet extinction toward a quiescent molecular cloud in the Small Magellanic Cloud

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 541, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118712

关键词

dust, extinction; Magellanic Clouds; ultraviolet: ISM; stars: early-type

资金

  1. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  2. Chilean FONDECYT [1080335]
  3. Spanish Government Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [AYA2004-08260-C03, AYA2004-05395, AYA2007-64712, AYA2007-64052, AYA2010-17631]
  4. Ramon y Cajal Fellowship program
  5. FEDER
  6. Consejeria de Educacion of the Junta de Andalucia [TIC-101, P08-TIC-4075]
  7. Chilean Center for Astrophysics FONDAP [15010003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. The mean UV extinction law for the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) is usually taken as a template for low-metallicity galaxies. However, its current derivation is based on only five stars, which renders its universality questionable. More targets with measured extinction laws in the SMC are necessary to determine its possible dependence on parameters such as metallicity and star-forming activity. Aims. We aim to measure the UV extinction law for several stars in the quiescent molecular cloud SMC B1-1. Methods. We obtained HST/STIS slitless UV spectroscopy of a 25 '' x 25 '' field of view and combined it with ground-based NIR and visible photometry of the stars in the field. The results were processed using the Bayesian photometric package CHORIZOS to derive the visible-NIR extinction values for each star. The unextinguished spectral energy distributions (SEDs) obtained in this way were then used to derive the UV extinction law for the four most extinguished stars. We also recalculated the visible-NIR extinction for the five SMC stars with preexisting UV extinction laws. Results. The UV extinction law for four SMC B1-1 stars that are situated within several pc of each other differs significantly from star to star. The 2175 angstrom bump is moderately strong in one, weak in two, and absent in the fourth.

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