4.7 Article

H II REGION METALLICITY DISTRIBUTION IN THE MILKY WAY DISK

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 738, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/27

关键词

Galaxy: abundances; H II regions; radio lines: ISM

资金

  1. NSF [AST 0707853]
  2. SNF
  3. NSF from the NRAO [08-0030, 09-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The distribution of metals in the Galaxy provides important information about galaxy formation and evolution. H II regions are the most luminous objects in the Milky Way at mid-infrared to radio wavelengths and can be seen across the entire Galactic disk. We used the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) Green Bank Telescope to measure radio recombination line and continuum emission in 81 Galactic H II regions. We calculated LTE electron temperatures using these data. In thermal equilibrium metal abundances are expected to set the nebular electron temperature with high abundances producing low temperatures. Our H II region distribution covers a large range of Galactocentric radius (5-22 kpc) and samples the Galactic azimuth range 330 degrees-60 degrees. Using our highest quality data (72 objects) we derived an O/H Galactocentric radial gradient of -0.0383 +/- 0.0074 dex kpc(-1). Combining these data with a similar survey made with the NRAO 140 Foot telescope we get a radial gradient of -0.0446 +/- 0.0049 dex kpc(-1) for this larger sample of 133 nebulae. The data are well fit by a linear model and no discontinuities are detected. Dividing our sample into three Galactic azimuth regions produced significantly different radial gradients that range from -0.03 to -0.07 dex kpc(-1). These inhomogeneities suggest that metals are not well mixed at a given radius. We stress the importance of homogeneous samples to reduce the confusion of comparing data sets with different systematics. Galactic chemical evolution models typically derive chemical evolution along only the radial dimension with time. Future models should consider azimuthal evolution as well.

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