Professional Documents
Culture Documents
main
January 2, 2017
c
ESO
2017
4
5
6
Laboratoire Univers et Particules de Montpellier, Universit de Montpellier, CNRS, UMR 5299, Montpellier, France
Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, Center for the Evolution of the Elements, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Institut dAstronomie et dAstrophysique, Universit Libre de Bruxelles, CP 226, Boulevard du Triomphe, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Notre Dame University-Louaize, PO Box 72, Zouk Mikal, Lebanon
Universit Cte dAzur, Observatoire de la Cte dAzur, CNRS, UMR7293, CS 34229, F-06304 Nice Cedex 4
Received / Accepted
ABSTRACT
Context. Determination of high precision abundances has and will always be an important goal of all spectroscopic studies. Iron
abundance, especially, plays a vital role as it is a pre-requisite to any chemical abundance analysis.
Aims. We investigate the role of hydrogen collisions in NLTE spectral line synthesis, by introducing a new general recipe to determine
inelastic charge transfer and bound-bound hydrogen collisional rates, based on fitting the quantum rates of several elements (Na i, Mg i,
Al i and Si i). We call this recipe the Quantum Fitting Method (QFM).
Methods. A new complete iron model atom was developed for the purpose of testing this method. It was first tested using a silicon
model atom and then applied on iron.
Results. Fe i and Fe ii line-by-line abundances were calculated for a sample of 24 benchmark stars of well-determined nonspectroscopic fundamental atmospheric parameters. Our results demonstrate that the QFM can be applicable in NLTE calculations
when detailed quantum rates are not available. Our NLTE iron calculations show that inelastic hydrogen charge transfer collisional
processes dominate over excitation, especially for metal-poor stars. Fe i and Fe ii ionization equilibrium was secured for most stars,
however attaining excitation equilibrium conditions predict lower effective temperatures than non-spectroscopic values for the metalpoor stars. Our results are also in good agreement with recent 1D and 3D NLTE analysis of metal-poor stars using unpublished
quantum data.
Conclusions. Our proposed quantum fitting method for estimating hydrogen collision rates is shown to be useful in NLTE calculations,
and in determining high accuracy iron abundances. Most importantly, it can furthermore be extended to other elements where quantum
calculations do not exist, and replace the unreliable classical widely used Drawin approximation.
Key words. atomic processes - line: formation - stars: abundances - stars: atmospheres - stars: late-type
1. Introduction
In the era of large-scale surveys tracing the history of stellar populations (e.g., RAVE, Steinmetz et al. 2006; APOGEE, Allende
Prieto et al. 2008; Gaia-ESO, Gilmore et al. 2012), there is an
important need for high accuracy detailed chemical composition
determinations.
Iron is a particularly important case as its numerous lines are
prominent in many stellar spectra, and the iron ionization equilibrium is often used to spectroscopically determine the surface
gravity of cool stars. Iron is a usual proxy for the metallicity, and
it is used as a reference in galactic chemical evolution relative to
which other elemental abundances are compared.
Most stellar spectroscopic analyses adopt the assumption of
Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE). This assumption is
however not always valid, especially when collisions are not
frequent enough to ensure equilibrium excitation and ionization
populations. Collisions, in cool stellar atmospheres, are mainly
due to electrons and hydrogen atoms. Electrons have larger thermal velocities than hydrogen atoms by a factor of order 43, and
unless they are less numerous than hydrogen atoms, they are
Si, Belyaev et al. 2014 and Ca, Barklem 2016; Belyaev et al.
2016) over the past decade.
No quantum calculations have been published yet for iron.
In the lack of these calculations, the Drawin (Drawin 1968,
1969a,b; Lambert 1993) approximation is customarily used to
estimate the rates. This approximation is originally derived from
the classical Thomson (1912) e + atom ionization rate equation.
The Drawin approximation has been applied to allowed boundbound (bb) and ionization bound-free (b f ) transitions, where it
has been shown to overestimate the collisional rates by orders of
magnitude (Barklem et al. 2010). A fudge-factor, SH , has been
applied in most studies to try to correct for the inadequacies of
the Drawin approximation. SH -factors between 0.1 and 3 have
been proposed for Fe i (e.g. Gehren et al. 2001; Korn et al. 2003;
Mashonkina et al. 2011; Bergemann et al. 2012), showing the inadequacy of this description further discussed in Barklem et al.
(2011).
Recently, charge transfer rates, corresponding to the ion-pair
production and mutual-neutralization processes: A + H
A+
+ H , have been shown to be larger than the bb-rates (Barklem
et al. 2010). They thus play an important, and in some cases
even dominating, role in the collisional processes (Lind et al.
2011; Osorio et al. 2015; Guitou et al. 2015). They must thus be
included in NLTE calculations.
In Ezzeddine et al. (2016), we used the Drawin approximation to estimate charge transfer rates, in the absence of any other
approximation. We defined two scaling-factors SH for bb and
b f , and SH (CT) for charge transfer rates, and tried to calibrate
them using benchmark stars spectra ( Cen A, HD 140283 and
the Sun). Our method used a 2 -minimization of differences between observed and calculated iron lines equivalent widths for
different sets of SH and SH (CT). We could not find a combination
of SH and SH (CT) that would work for the three stars. In previous
studies, not including charge transfer rates, the SH value was also
found to be star dependent (Mashonkina et al. 2011; Bergemann
et al. 2012).
This inability of the Drawin approximation to properly reproduce the behavior and magnitude of hydrogen collision rates
calls for another approach, as long as no quantum calculation
are made available. This is the motivation for our work, which
introduces a semi-empirical method to estimate the hydrogen
collision rates for both bb and charge transfer processes. It is
based on the observation that the few well determined quantum
rates all behave similarly, and can be described with simple
fitting functions. We test the method on Si and then use it to
estimate H-collisional rates for iron. Finally we use our best
estimate of the collisional rates to determine iron abundances for
a sample of 24 benchmark stars. We hereafter call this method
the "Quantum Fitting Method" (QFM).
This article is divided as follows: In Sec. 2, we introduce the
Quantum Fitting Method and its application to estimate the hydrogen collision rates for both charge transfer and de-excitation
rates. The method is first tested on Si in Sec. 3, and then applied
to Fe in Sec. 4, with a specially developed iron model atom, and a
set of benchmark stars with well determined parameters. Fe i and
Fe ii abundance determinations for the benchmark stars using the
QFM, and comparison to previous work are detailed in Sec. 5.
Finally, conclusions are presented in Sec. 6.
log QCT
a1 E
=
a2 E
1
E0
1
E0
+ log Qmax
for
1
E
<
1
E0
+ log Qmax
for
1
E
>
1
E0
(1)
Qmax = ( T 4 ) Q10000
(2)
10
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
Fig. 1. Charge transfer rate coefficients at T = 6000K (in logarithmic scale) for Na, Mg, Al and Si (filled triangles) from the quantum calculations
of Barklem et al. (2010), Belyaev et al. (2012), Belyaev (2013) and Belyaev et al. (2014) respectively and their corresponding fits (dashed lines).
1
The rate coefficients hvi as a function of the inverse transition energies E
for all four atoms show the same pattern of behavior with energy
1
1
3 1
peaking around loghvi 7 cm s for E between 0.5 and 1 eV .
El
Na
Mg
Al
Si
a11
1.50
2.12
7.46
1.20
a10
7.92
7.36
3.74
4.90
a2
2.60
3.42
4.90
3.52
1
E0
0.72
0.63
0.74
0.75
0.37
0.35
0.56
0.34
Q0
7.17
7.34
7.43
7.47
b31
0.04
0.01
0.88
0.08
b30
0.08
0.05
3.67
0.23
b21
0.48
0.09
5.89
0.70
b20
0.09
0.21
25.04
2.05
b11
1.69
0.54
8.43
1.36
b10
1.02
0.67
33.95
3.51
b0
9.84
9.05
10.87
9.45
Table 1. Charge transfer and bb hydrogen collision rates fitting coefficients obtained for Na, Mg, Al and Si.
b3
b2
b1
b0
(4)
The rates for all four elements can be best fit as a function of
E using a third degree polynomial:
where b30 , b31 , b20 , b21 , b10 , b11 and b0 for the four elements
are displayed in Tab. 1.
log Qbb = b3 E 3 + b2 E 2 + b1 E + b0
(3)
1
E0
3. Testing on Silicon
The similar behavior of the quantum rates for charge transfer
and bb transitions observed for the four atoms triggered us to
further test the QFM with the prospect of applying it to other
atoms, such as Fe.
We therefore tested the QFM on Si where comparison with
quantum hydrogen collision rates calculated by Belyaev et al.
(2014) is possible. We tested (i) whether the QFM is able to reproduce the NLTE calculations made using the quantum data,
and (ii) the effects of varying the fitting parameters from their
nominal values. For that purpose we developed a Si i / Si ii model
atom.
The Si i energy levels and the Si ii ground level (up to 8.15 eV)
were extracted from the NIST2 database (Martin & Zalubas
1983). The total number of Si i fine structure levels used in our
model is 296. This number is comparable to previous studies and
is equal to that used by Shchukina et al. (2012) in their NLTE,
3D-model atmosphere study of the silicon abundance in the Solar photosphere.
and log Qmax for charge transfer (upper panels), and de-excitation b1 , b2 ,
https://www.nist.gov/pml/atomic-spectra-database/
http://vald.astro.uu.se/
http://kurucz.harvard.edu/
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
Fig. 3. De-excitation rate coefficients at T = 6000 K (in logarithmic scale) for Na, Mg, Al and Si (empty circles) from the quantum calculations of
Barklem et al. (2010), Belyaev et al. (2012), Belyaev (2013) and Belyaev et al. (2014) respectively and their corresponding fits (dashed red lines).
The logarithmic of the rate coefficients hvi as a function of transition energies E for all four atoms show a similar pattern of decreasing behavior
with energy which can be fit by a third degree polynomial.
Star
log (Si)
log (Si)
Sun
7.549
0.016
HD 140283
5.303
0.094
Arcturus
7.287
0.051
Table 2. Adopted values for Si abundance for the three stars used in our
calculations and their respective uncertainties. References are found in
the text.
http://marcs.astro.uu.se/software.php
Article number, page 5 of 21
3.3. Method
3.3.1. Test 1: Is the QFM able to reproduce the results of the
quantum data?
Xi =
,
EW i (NLTE)
EW i (NLTE) EW i (LTE) QFM
Yi =
EW i (NLTE)
(5)
The dispersion between Y and X is more severe toward the weak lines (blue circles), corresponding to
EWQM (NLTE)/ < 6. This is strongly seen for the cases
of Arcturus and HD 140283 where the scatter is generally larger
than the Sun. This shows that the QFM can overestimate the
QM rates for the weak lines, i.e. shifting the EWQFM (NLTE)
closer to LTE than the QM model (Figs. 1 and 3 show this
overestimation for the CT and bb rates respectively).
Article number, page 6 of 21
hY Xi =
N
1 X i
(Y X i )
N i=1
(6)
mod
Yrel
=
N
i
i
EWref
1 X EWmod
i
N i=1
EWref
(7)
mod
mod
The standard deviations of Yrel
, Yrel
, are listed in Tab. 3
for all the models.
Varying the CT fitting parameters a1 , a2 , and E1 0 at
T = 6000 K within 50% of their reference values (see Fig. 5),
result in a small percentage of variation in the computed EWmod
mod
(Yrel
< 0.03, i.e. < 3%). Also, varying Q0 within 1 order
of magnitude from its reference value, shows slightly larger
scatter (Yrelmod < 0.07) than other parameters. This shows that
Q0 plays an expected important role in shifting the computed
EWmod , as it scales and shifts the rates by orders of magnitudes
from their nominal values.
YX
Arcturus
5000
5000
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
4.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
5.0
0
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
1
0
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
log(EWQM (NLTE)/)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.30
4.0
5000 10000150002000025000
YX
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.30
5000
0.3
0.05
0.0
0.2 -0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0.1
0
0.0
0.1
0.20.2
5000 10000150002000025000
0.2
5.5
0.0
0.2
6.0
0.4
YX
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.150
Sun
Y = [ EW QFM (NLTE) - EW(LTE) ] / EW QFM (NLTE)
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
6.5
0
5000 10000150002000025000
7.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
X = [ EW QM (NLTE) - EW(LTE) ] / EW QM (NLTE)
()
Fig. 4. NLTE equivalent widths calculated using the QM models versus those calculated using the QFM model for Si lines lying between 2000
25000 (left panels). Agreement within < 5% for the Sun and < 20% for Arcturus and HD 140283 is found between both models. Relative
differences between NLTE and LTE are also shown in the right panels for the QFM (denoted Y) versus the QM (denoted X) models for the Sun,
Arcturus and HD 140283 respectively. Lines are color-codes as a function of their reduced line strengths EWQM (NLTE)/. (Y X) as a function
of are shown in the small right black panels.
fitting coefficient
reference value
mod
Yrel
(102 )
model value
Sun
Q0
4.9
-3.5
0.75
-7.5
2.0
-2.0
0.5
-6.5
0.80
0.19
1.02
4.41
b31
b30
b21
b20
b11
b10
b0
-0.08
0.23
0.69
-2.05
-1.35
3.5
-9.75
-0.001
0.1
0.2
-1.0
-0.5
2.0
-8.0
3.57
4.94
4.01
6.42
1.88
5.73
9.88
a10
a2
1
E0
Arcturus HD 140283
CT coefficients
1.03
1.65
0.42
0.98
1.44
1.78
5.76
6.56
bb coefficients
6.25
8.72
5.27
9.38
6.87
9.87
7.52
8.73
6.64
8.62
8.74
9.50
10.87
12.54
mod
Yrel
(102 )
model value
Sun
Arcturus
HD 140283
7.0
-6.0
1.00
-8.5
0.11
0.22
1.29
4.79
1.14
0.86
1.55
5.88
2.26
1.23
1.75
6.51
-0.5
0.5
0.9
-3.0
-2.0
5.0
-11.0
4.26
3.57
7.92
2.71
7.59
3.87
9.52
5.27
7.66
8.02
6.77
8.57
7.48
11.53
9.85
8.72
8.72
9.70
9.95
8.64
13.05
Table 3. Si+H rates fitting parameters variations from the reference values for which NLTE calculations were performed.
of Y < 5% in the computed NLTE equivalent widths as compared to the reference QFM values. This means that the acceptable range of variation around the optimal values can be quite
broad.
4. Application to Iron
The similarity in the behavior of the mutual neutralization and
de-excitation quantum rates as a function of transition energies
for the different chemical species, and the comparable values obtained for the fitting parameters, especially for charge transfer
rates, motivated us to apply the QFM recipe to iron, instead of
the Drawin approximation to estimate the collision rates. The
aim in this section, is therefore to calibrate the iron fitting coefficients of the QFM using a well defined set of benchmark
stars. In what follows, we will introduce a newly developed
Fe i /Fe ii /Fe iii model atom (hereafter denoted as our iron model
atom) which was used for that purpose.
Article number, page 7 of 21
log bb (cm3 . s1 )
log
CT
(cm3 . s1 )
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
220.0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 0
QFM fit
Q max [ 9. 0, 6. 0]
1/E 0 [0. 50, 0. 75]
a 1 [2. 0, 6. 0]
a 2 [ 6. 0, 2. 0]
QM rates, T = 6000K
0.5
1.0
1.5
1
E
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
b0 = 8. 0
b0 = 11. 0
QFM fit
QM rates, T = 6000K
E (eV)
Fig. 5. Si i +H charge transfer (upper panel) and de-excitation (lower panel) QM rates and their reference QFM fits (black dotted lines). Models
with fitting coefficients varied from their nominal values within the ranges specified on the plots are also shown. a11 , a2 (dark and light shaded
areas respectively) and E1 0 (red horizontal line) are varied by 50% from their nominal values. Qmax (vertical blue line) and b0 (dotted blue and
green lines in lower panel) are varied by 1.0 orders of magnitude from their reference values respectively. The variations lead to < 10% relative
differences with respect to the reference QFM fit.
Our iron model atom was built up using all the Fe i energy
levels extracted from the NIST database (846 levels) from the
experimental analysis of Nave et al. (1994), up to 7.815 eV.
The model also includes the predicted high lying Fe i levels
(66 levels) from Peterson & Kurucz (2015), up to 8.392 eV.
The coupling between these high-lying levels and the low-lying
levels correspond to UV transitions, which are important for the
determination of abundances of stars from their UV spectra (Peterson 2011, 2013). Transitions between these high-lying levels
correspond to IR transitions which are used for iron abundances
determination in luminous red giants in dust-obscured regions
like the bulge, bar, and disk of the Milky Way (Majewski 2010).
The model atom was completed with all Fe ii levels from
Nave & Johansson (2013), with 1027 levels up to 19.83 eV,
corresponding to 189 spectroscopic terms. Only the ground
level of Fe iii was included.
To reduce the amount of computing time, as well as memory requirements, the number of levels were reduced by using
a super-level algorithm, in which sets of actual levels are combined into super-levels. The energy levels were combined into
super-levels as follows:
The fine structure levels of the ground and first excited states
of Fe i were included, up to 2 eV.
Article number, page 8 of 21
All other fine structure levels were combined into mean levels according to their statistical weights. The excitation potential of each mean level I (E I ) is a weighted mean of the
excitation potential of the corresponding fine structure levels i (Ei ), computed for a typical temperature T = 5000 K:
PN
Ei gi eEi /kT
E I = Pi=1
N
Ei /kT
i=1 gi e
(8)
where gi is the statistical weight of each level i, and the denominator is the mean level partition function at the temperature T .
After sorting the mean levels in increasing energy order, all
Fe i mean levels lying within an energy interval of 250 cm1
were combined into super-levels. The excitation energy of
each super level was computed in the same way as the mean
levels energy.
For Fe ii , mean levels lying within an increasing energy difference interval starting from 250 cm1 at the Fe ii ground
level up to 2500 cm1 toward the Fe iii ground level were
combined.
Our iron model super-atom contains 365 Fe i and 58 Fe ii levels,
as well as the continuum Fe iii level.
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
We used the VALD3 database to extract all the Fe i and Fe ii radiative bb transitions accounting to 79594 Fe i lines and 113964
Fe ii lines. The UV and IR lines (1568 lines) corresponding to
transitions from and to the predicted high lying levels (Peterson
& Kurucz 2015) were added, increasing the total number of
Fe i lines to 81162.
Individual transitions belonging to levels combined into
superlevels were combined into super-transitions. Oscillator
strengths were averaged using the same method as for the energy,
with a super-level partition function at T = 5000 K. Line broadening parameters (radiative or collisional), were averaged using the levels weights gi .
Our final iron model includes 24182 Fe i transitions and
1256 Fe ii transitions combined from the individual lines.
In addition, all levels were coupled to the next ion ground
level via b f photoionization transitions. For Fe i levels, we used
the photoionization cross-section tables calculated by Bautista
(1997). For Fe ii , we used the computation by Nahar & Pradhan
(1994) (ab-initio R-matrix close-coupling approach) from the
TOPBASE project. The tables correspond to calculations for 52
LS Fe i terms (for n 10 and l 9) of spin multiplicities 1,
3, 5 & 7, and for 83 Fe ii LS terms of spin multiplicities 2, 4,
6 & 8, coupled through photoionization to the ground Fe ii and
Fe iii levels respectively. For levels with no quantum calculations
and for JJ coupling terms, Kramers hydrogenic approximation
was used (Travis & Matsushima 1968).
TOPBASE photoionization energies for each level in the
model were shifted to match the threshold ionization energies in
NIST, and cross-sections were smoothed and resampled to 200
frequency points.
In the super-atom model, the bound-free rates were averaged
using the super-level partition functions.
4.1.3. Collisional transitions
Fe i and Fe ii .
hydrogen collisions:
The inclusion of the inelastic hydrogen collision rates in the iron
model using the QFM is explained in Sec. 4.2 below.
4.2. Method
g=
Fbol
1/4
( LD
)1/2 .
2
GM
R2
The spectra of the stars were collected using the UVES spectrograph at the VLT9 by the Gaia-ESO collaboration. The sources
of the UVES spectra are from the Advanced Data Products collection of the ESO Science Archive Facility, which were reduced by the standard UVES pipeline version 3.2 (Ballester et al.
2000), and from the UVES Paranal Observatory Project UVESPOP library which were reduced with tools written especially for
that library (Bagnulo et al. 2003).
For the three stars, a2 does not play an important role with
almost identical 2 values obtained for all models, with slightly
smaller values for a2 > 6.0 for Arcturus and HD 140283. It
can be clearly seen that Qmax plays the most important role in
the 2 variation. Interestingly, we find a consistent set of best
fitting parameters for Fe i charge transfer for all 3 stars where:
a10 = 6.0 , a2 = 6.0 ,
1
E0
Charge transfer
The best fitting parameters for Fe i charge transfer rates are
first determined through a comparison of the calculated EWmod
with the measured EWobs using a 2 minimization. For each
of the 3 comparison stars (the Sun, Arcturus and HD 140283),
a grid of NLTE models is calculated by varying the fitting
coefficients around their starting values, chosen equal to the Si
QFM parameters. The fitting coefficients a10 , a2 , E0 and Q0
variation intervals are listed in Tab. 5. a11 = 1.2 and = 0.35
were kept constant at their reference Si values. A total of 243
models were calculated for each star.
De-excitation
To find the best fitting coefficients for the de-excitation rates, the
fitting parameters from Eqn. 3 and 4 were varied for the values
shown in Tab. 5 in steps of param . The charge transfer rates were
kept constant at the best fitting values obtained above. Hence a
total of 5103 models was computed for each star. Similarly, the
calculated EWmod were compared to the measured EWobs using
a 2 minimization.
The fitting coefficient b0 is found to play the most important
role in varying the calculated EWcalc similar to that of log Qmax
for charge transfer rates. It can be seen in Fig. 7 that for values
smaller than b0 = 10 and greater than b0 = 8, EWcalc are
driven away from their corresponding EWobs with 2 increasing
to large values. A clear minimum is obtained for the three stars
at 8.5. The best fit is at b31 = 0.1 , b30 = 0.2 , b21 = 0.7 ,
b20 = 2.0 , b11 = 1.5 , b10 = 3.5 and b0 = 8.5 .
300
180
Sun
90
Arcturus
160
250
140
200
HD140283
80
70
a10
a2
1
E0
Q0
b31
b30
b21
b20
b11
b10
b0
step
100
param
param
param
param
= 2.0
= 2.0
= 0.25
= 1.0
param
param
param
param
param
param
param
= 0.1
= 0.1
= 0.2
= 1.0
= 0.5
= 1.0
= 1.0
The results for the 3 stars at a11 = 2.0 are shown in Fig. 6.
For Arcturus and HD 140283, a clear minimum is obtained at
Q0 = 8.5. The position of this minimum is independent of the
other parameters values, within their range of variation. This
minimum is compatible with an almost flat 2 minimum for
8
9
http://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/paranal/instruments/uves.html
http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/vlt/
150
variation interval
CT coefficients
[2.0, 6.0]
[6.0, 2.0]
[0.5, 1.0]
[-12.5,-4.5]
bb coefficients
[0.3, 0.1]
[0.1, 0.3]
[0.5, 0.9]
[3.0, 1.0]
[2.0, 1.0]
[2.5, 4.5]
[12.0, 6.0]
parameters
120
100
50
80
50
40
60
013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
b0
60
4013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
b0
3013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
b0
Fig. 7. 2 values obtained for different values of b0 for QFM deexcitation rates.
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
Star name (ID)
Metal-poor
HD 122563
HD 140283
HD 84937
FGK dwarfs
Eri
For
Cet
18 Sco
Sun
HD 22879
Cen A
Ara
Hyi
Vir
Boo
Procyon
HD 49933
Eri
FGK Giants
Arcturus
HD 220009
Leo
HD 107328
Gem
Vir
Hya
T eff [K]
T eff [K]
log g
log g
[Fe/H] [dex ]
[Fe/H] [dex]
t [JOF14] [Kms1 ]
4587
5522
6356
60
105
97
1.61
3.58
4.06
0.07
0.11
0.04
2.64
2.36
2.03
0.22
0.10
0.08
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.0
1.5
4954
5123
5414
5810
5777
5868
5792
5902
5873
6083
6099
6554
6635
5076
30
78
21
80
1
89
16
66
45
41
28
84
91
30
3.76
3.52
4.49
4.44
4.44
4.27
4.31
4.30
3.98
4.10
3.79
4.00
4.20
4.61
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.0002
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
+0.06
0.60
0.49
+0.03
+0.03
0.86
+0.26
+0.35
0.04
+0.24
+0.32
+0.01
0.41
0.09
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.13
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.0
0.7
4286
4217
4474
4496
4858
4983
5044
35
60
60
59
60
61
40
1.64
1.43
2.51
2.09
2.90
2.77
2.87
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.52
0.74
+0.25
0.33
+0.13
+0.15
+0.16
0.08
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.20
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.5
Table 4. The stars adopted in our study: fundamental parameters including the adopted T eff and their uncertainties T eff , and log g and their
uncertainties log g from Heiter et al. (2015a), [Fe/H] , [Fe/H] and microturbulent velocities t from Jofr et al. (2014) and those determined in
this work (see Sect. 5 below).
Fig. 9 and Tab. 6 show that larger iron abundances are obtained
from Fe ii lines than from Fe i for the three metal-poor stars
in our sample. However, a non-negligible abundance trend
Article number, page 11 of 21
a 2 =-2.0
Sun
140
1
E0 =0.5
120
100
80
60
13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
140
1
E0 =0.75
120
100
80
60
13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
140
1
E0 =1.0
120
100
80
60
13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
Q0
a 2 =-4.0
a 2 =-6.0
Arcturus
HD140283
80
500
1 =0.5
1
450
75
E0
E0 =0.5
400
70
350
65
300
250
60
200
55
150
5013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 10013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
80
500
1 =0.75
1
450
75
E0
E0 =0.75
400
70
350
65
300
250
60
200
55
150
5013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 10013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
80
500
1
1
450
75
E0 =1.0
E0 =1.0
400
70
350
65
300
250
60
200
55
150
5013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 10013 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
Q0
Q0
Fig. 6. 2 obtained as a function of the different CT fitting coefficient a2 , E1 0 and Q0 respectively at a10 = 2.0. Vertical panels display results
obtained for different E1 0 values, while different symbols display different a2 values. Panels of each vertical column represent the results for one
star respectively. All stars display a clear minimum 2 at Q0 8.5 independent of the other parameters.
100
1.4
80
1.2
1.0
N NLTE /N LTE
with EP exists for the three stars as well, most pronounced for
HD 122563 (/EP = 0.09 dex eV1 ). Note also the trend
with reduced equivalent width for HD 84937. These trends may
be due to errors in stellar parameters (most probably T eff , see
below).
60
40
0.8
0.6
0.4
20
Fe I
Fe II
Fe III
0.2
0
4
log 5000
0.0 4
log 5000
Fig. 10. NLTE iron ionization fractions (left panel) and total departure coefficients (NNLTE /NLTE ) (right panel) as a function of optical
depth 5000 for Fe i (full black lines) and Fe ii (dashed blue lines) and
Fe iii (dotted red lines) species in HD 122563.
ted in Fig. 11. Comparison with the Sun shows that departures
from LTE are larger in HD 122563.
As noted above, an abundance trend with line excitation exists for all three stars, which could be due to a T eff error. Uncertainties from Heiter et al. (2015a) range from 60 K to 105 K
for these stars, see Tab. 4. We therefore run additional models
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
0.05
0.05
Sun
HD140283
Procyon
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.2
0.05
(EWNLTE EWLTE)/EWLTE
0.05
0.10
0.4
0.10
0.15
0.6
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.8
0.20
0.25
all H collisions
no charge transfer collisions
no H collisions
1.0
0.25
0.35
0.30
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
log (EWLTE/)
log (EWLTE/)
FeI
FeII
6
log (EWLTE/)
Fig. 8. Impact of inelastic hydrogen collisions on calculated equivalent widths. Three cases are shown for each test star: all H-collisions included,
(ii) no charge transfer H-collisions, and (iii) no H-collisions. The relative equivalent width difference between LTE and NLTE is displayed for both
Fe i and Fe ii lines for each case.
The NLTE Fe ii abundances are very close to the LTE abundances, mostly slightly lower (by at most -0.03 dex). Fe i abun-
1.2
with variations of T eff and recompute the 2 . The best fit T eff is
deemed as the value for which the slope for the Fe i abundance
trend as a function of lower level excitation potential is minimized. We get an excellent fit for HD 122563 with T eff =4400 K,
[Fe i /H] = 2.63 0.04 and [Fe ii /H] = 2.57 0.03. This
value is 187 K lower than the fundamental one from Heiter et al.
(2015a), which is based on a direct angular diameter measurement (1.2% uncertainty) but a calibrated bolometric flux (4.7%
uncertainty). We also determine the best fit T eff =4450 K in LTE
which is found to be 50 K higher than the NLTE value. Lineby-line Fe i and Fe ii abundances at the best fit LTE and NLTE
T eff are shown in Fig. 12. A better agreement between Fe i and
Fe ii abundances is obtained in NLTE than LTE at these temperatures.
We also show that decreasing T eff by 22 K for HD 140283
and 106 K for HD 84937 can remove the abundance trends,
which also produces a much better agreement between Fe i and
Fe ii abundances, except for HD 140283. This indicates that
while our determined T eff agrees with the fundamental one
(within 22 K), a higher log g value is required to produce
ionization equilibrium. This result is shown in Sect. 5.2 and
Tab. 8 below, where increasing log g to 3.65 dex produces a
better agreement. We recommend a log g value of 3.65 0.05 for
HD 140283, in agreement with Creevey et al. (2015). The iron
abundances obtained with these new T eff are shown in Tab. 7.
Sun
1.0
0.8
HD122563
1.0
0.8
0.6
a5D
z7D o
x5D o
y3F o
v3D o
a6D
a4G
z6F o
0.4
0.2
0.0 5
1.2
1 0
log5000
0.6
a5D
z7D o
x5D o
y3F o
v3D o
a6D
a4G
z6F o
0.4
0.2
2 0.0 5
1 0
log5000
Fig. 11. Departure coefficients for the Sun and HD 122563 as a function
of optical depth 5000 for selected Fe i (black lines) and Fe ii (red lines)
energy levels.
NLTE
Star name (ID)
Metal-poor
HD 122563
HD 140283
HD 84937
FGK dwarfs
Eri
For
Cet
18 Sco
Sun
HD 22879
Cen A
Ara
Hyi
Vir
Boo
Procyon
HD 49933
Eri
FGK giants
Arcturus
HD 220009
Leo
HD 107328
Gem
Vir
Hya
LTE
NLTE correction
[Fe i /H]
[Fe ii /H]
[Fe/H]
[Fe i /H]
[Fe ii /H]
[Fe/H]
[Fe/H]
N Fe i
N Fe ii
2.66 0.11
2.43 0.05
2.01 0.09
2.46 0.06
2.38 0.03
2.03 0.10
2.65 0.11
2.43 0.06
2.11 0.09
2.77 0.11
2.56 0.05
2.19 0.07
2.46 0.04
2.39 0.07
2.03 0.04
2.76 0.13
2.57 0.09
2.21 0.18
0.11
0.13
0.10
90
47
39
4
3
2
0.07 0.11
0.56 0.10
0.50 0.09
0.05 0.10
0.01 0.07
0.86 0.08
0.31 0.09
0.39 0.13
0.04 0.07
0.16 0.08
0.37 0.03
0.00 0.07
0.49 0.07
0.10 0.12
0.09 0.12
0.69 0.05
0.52 0.05
0.02 0.08
0.05 0.06
0.91 0.06
0.20 0.07
0.26 0.08
0.08 0.03
0.19 0.07
0.34 0.03
0.03 0.07
0.48 0.07
0.02 0.08
0.06 0.12
0.57 0.11
0.50 0.09
0.04 0.11
0.006 0.06
0.86 0.08
0.31 0.09
0.39 0.13
0.04 0.07
0.16 0.08
0.37 0.03
0.004 0.07
0.49 0.07
0.09 0.12
0.03 0.12
0.62 0.09
0.53 0.09
0.006 0.10
0.04 0.07
0.92 0.08
0.27 0.09
0.35 0.11
0.09 0.07
0.11 0.09
0.33 0.15
0.07 0.07
0.57 0.06
0.11 0.13
0.09 0.12
0.68 0.05
0.50 0.05
0.01 0.09
0.07 0.04
0.90 0.06
0.21 0.07
0.26 0.09
0.07 0.03
0.19 0.08
0.34 0.22
0.03 0.07
0.46 0.08
0.04 0.08
0.04 0.12
0.63 0.09
0.53 0.09
0.007 0.10
0.04 0.08
0.92 0.08
0.26 0.09
0.35 0.11
0.09 0.07
0.11 0.09
0.33 0.16
0.06 0.08
0.56 0.07
0.11 0.13
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.02
207
209
196
228
117
145
216
218
209
231
188
140
87
215
20
18
13
26
14
19
24
26
25
29
18
24
7
13
0.55 0.10
0.71 0.09
0.26 0.16
0.26 0.10
0.12 0.10
0.09 0.09
0.07 0.09
0.47 0.12
0.85 0.08
0.19 0.23
0.36 0.11
0.05 0.16
0.06 0.11
0.06 0.08
0.55 0.10
0.74 0.09
0.28 0.17
0.28 0.10
0.12 0.15
0.06 0.09
0.08 0.09
0.60 0.10
0.77 0.09
0.23 0.17
0.33 0.09
0.06 0.15
0.02 0.09
0.01 0.08
0.44 0.13
0.83 0.08
0.24 0.23
0.34 0.12
0.09 0.17
0.10 0.11
0.06 0.09
0.60 0.10
0.78 0.09
0.26 0.17
0.34 0.09
0.06 0.15
0.03 0.10
0.02 0.08
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
217
213
223
203
237
221
207
20
17
24
23
16
26
24
Table 6. NLTE iron abundance calculations using our final iron model and the non-spectroscopic stellar parameters from Heiter et al. (2015a)
for our sample of benchmark stars. The columns correspond to the the NLTE and LTE Fe i , Fe ii and Fe average abundances and their standard
deviations. The NLTE corrections [Fe/H] and the number of Fe i and Fe ii lines used in the analyses are also shown.
HD122563
2.2
[Fe/H]
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2 1
Teff = 4450 K
0
2.2
LTE
1
= 0. 04
[Fe/H] = 2. 63
2.4
[Fe/H]
= 0. 10
[Fe/H] = 2. 78
FeI
FeII
2.6
2.8
3.0
Teff = 4400 K
3.2
1
non LTE
1
EP(eV)
Fig. 12. LTE (upper panel) vs. NLTE (lower) Fe i and Fe ii abundances as a function of excitation potential EP for the metal poor
star HD 122563 using the best fit "free" T eff = 4400 K in NLTE and
T eff = 4450 K in LTE.
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6 (
4.5
1
FeI
FeII
/ EP) = 0. 09
0
HD122563
(Fe)
7.5
6
7.5
6
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.9
4.8
4.7
(Fe)
HD140283
5.0
( / EP) = 0. 02
1
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3 (
5.2
1
( / EW) = 0. 007
7.0
HD84937
(Fe)
5.1
/ EP) = 0. 05
0
( / EW) = 0. 24
2
EP(eV)
7.5
6
7.0
6.5
log(EW/)
Fig. 9. NLTE Fe i (black circles) and Fe ii (red triangles) abundances as a function of excitation potential EP (left panels) and reduced equivalent
widths log(EW/) (right panels) for the metal-poor stars in our sample using the QFM and our final Fe model atom.
Star
HD 122563
HD 140283
HD 84937
For
18 Sco
Cen A
HD 49933
HD 107328
fund.
T eff
4587
5522
6356
5123
5810
5792
6635
4496
free
T eff
4400
5500
6250
5000
5750
5750
6500
4350
fund. free
T eff
187
22
106
123
60
42
135
146
[Fe i /H]
2.63 0.03
2.45 0.05
2.10 0.04
0.57 0.06
0.15 0.10
0.39 0.10
0.49 0.07
0.20 0.08
[Fe ii /H]
2.57 0.03
2.38 0.02
2.11 0.02
0.50 0.05
0.08 0.09
0.35 0.07
0.39 0.03
0.17 0.09
[Fe/H]
2.62 0.04
2.42 0.06
2.11 0.04
0.57 0.07
0.15 0.10
0.39 0.09
0.49 0.08
0.19 0.08
Table 7. Differences between fundamental and "free" effective temperatures obtained by forcing no trend in Fe i abundance as a function of EP in
NLTE for stars which exhibited such trends. Fe i , Fe ii NLTE iron abundances and their uncertainties obtained with these "free" T eff values are
also presented.
shown in Tab. 8). Our model atoms differ, as do the codes used.
We did not try to match their line list. For HD 140283, different
T eff ( 70 K difference) and log g ( 0.07 dex difference) were
used in the studies. We therefore also derive the Fe i and
Fe ii abundances for this star using a model atmosphere with the
same parameters as AMR16, which gave closer values to their
result.
Our abundance determination for HD 84937 is 0.17 dex
and 0.10 dex higher for Fe i and 0.05 dex and 0.09 dex higher
for Fe ii than those of MAS11 and BER12 respectively. For
HD 140283, comparison to BER12 (no calculations for this
star by MAS11) shows a 0.05 dex lower abundance for Fe i ,
while the Fe ii values are 0.06 dex higher. A notable difference
is the input stellar parameters where a 250 K higher T eff , and
0.12 dex higher logg values were used by BER12. We, therefore,
perform an additional NLTE computation for this star using
Procyon
HD 84937
HD 140283
HD 122563
MAS11
BER12
This work
MAS11
BER12
This work
MAS11
BER12
AMR16
This work
BER12
AMR16
This work(a)
This work(b)
This work(c)
MAS11
BER12
AMR16
This work(a)
This work(c)
T eff
5777
5777
5777
6510
6543
6554
6350
6408
6356
6356
5777
5591
5522
5591
5777
4600
4665
4587
4587
4665
log g
4.44
4.44
4.46
3.96
3.94
4.00
4.09
4.13
4.06
4.06
3.70
3.65
3.58
3.65
3.70
1.607
1.64
1.61
1.61
1.64
Fe I
7.540.09
7.440.05
7.460.07
7.320.07
7.370.04
7.450.07
5.320.07
5.390.07
5.450.07
5.490.09
5.070.09
4.980.09
5.020.05
4.940.09
5.120.09
4.980.10
4.870.12
4.700.07
4.790.11
4.930.11
Fe II
7.560.05
7.440.04
7.400.06
7.420.05
7.400.04
7.480.07
5.370.04
5.330.04
5.400.04
5.420.10
5.010.04
5.060.04
5.070.03
5.070.10
5.120.08
4.890.07
4.950.05
4.970.04
4.990.06
4.960.06
6. Conclusions
The work in this paper shed the light on the role of hydrogen
collisions in NLTE iron modeling in cool stellar atmospheres,
which is usually modeled with the semi-classical Drawin
approximation.
We introduce a new method to calculate hydrogen collisional
rates, which we call the Quantum Fitting Method (QFM), which
is based on fitting the existing quantum calculations of a few
Article number, page 16 of 21
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
References
Allen, C. W. 1973, Astrophysical quantities
Allende Prieto, C., Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R., et al. 2008, Astronomische
Nachrichten, 329, 1018
Amarsi, A. M., Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Collet, R. 2016, MNRAS
Anstee, S. D. & OMara, B. J. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 859
Asplund, M. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 481
Asplund, M., Nordlund, ., Trampedach, R., & Stein, R. F. 2000, A&A, 359,
743
Bagnulo, S., Jehin, E., Ledoux, C., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 10
Ballester, P., Modigliani, A., Boitquin, O., et al. 2000, The Messenger, 101, 31
Bard, A., Kock, A., & Kock, M. 1991, Astron. and Astrophys., 248, 315, (BKK)
Bard, A. & Kock, M. 1994, Astron. and Astrophys., 282, 1014, (BK)
Barklem, P. S. 2016, Phys. Rev. A, 93, 042705
Barklem, P. S., Anstee, S. D., & OMara, B. J. 1998, PASA, 15, 336
Barklem, P. S., Anstee, S. D., & OMara, B. J. 2015, abo-cross: Hydrogen broadening cross-section calculator, Astrophysics Source Code Library
Barklem, P. S., Belyaev, A. K., & Asplund, M. 2003, A&A, 409, L1
Barklem, P. S., Belyaev, A. K., Dickinson, A. S., & Gada, F. X. 2010, A&A,
519, A20
Barklem, P. S., Belyaev, A. K., Guitou, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A94
Barklem, P. S. & OMara, B. J. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 102
Bautista, M. A. 1997, A&AS, 122, 167
Bautista, M. A. & Pradhan, A. K. 1996, A&AS, 115, 551
Bely, O. & van Regemorter, H. 1970, ARA&A, 8, 329
Belyaev, A. K. 2013, A&A, 560, A60
Belyaev, A. K. & Barklem, P. S. 2003, Phys. Rev. A, 68, 062703
Belyaev, A. K., Barklem, P. S., Spielfiedel, A., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. A, 85,
032704
Belyaev, A. K., Yakovleva, S. A., & Barklem, P. S. 2014, A&A, 572, A103
Belyaev, A. K., Yakovleva, S. A., Guitou, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A114
Bergemann, M., Lind, K., Collet, R., Magic, Z., & Asplund, M. 2012, MNRAS,
427, 27
Bergemann, M. & Nordlander, T. 2014, NLTE Radiative Transfer in Cool Stars,
ed. E. Niemczura, B. Smalley, & W. Pych, 169185
Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Jofr, P., & Heiter, U. 2014, A&A, 566, A98
Carlsson, M. 1986, Uppsala Astronomical Observatory Reports, 33
Carlsson, M. 1992, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series,
Vol. 26, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. M. S. Giampapa & J. A.
Bookbinder, 499
Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L. 2010, A&A, 520, A57
Creevey, O. L., Thvenin, F., Berio, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A26
Creevey, O. L., Thvenin, F., Boyajian, T. S., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A17
Drawin, H.-W. 1968, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 211, 404
Drawin, H. W. 1969a, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 225, 470
Drawin, H. W. 1969b, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 225, 483
Ezzeddine, R., Merle, T., & Plez, B. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 850
Fuhr, J. R., Martin, G. A., & Wiese, W. L. 1988, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, Volume 17, Suppl. 4. New York: American Institute of
Physics (AIP) and American Chemical Society, 1988, 17, (FMW)
Gehren, T., Korn, A. J., & Shi, J. 2001, A&A, 380, 645
Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25
Guitou, M., Spielfiedel, A., Rodionov, D. S., et al. 2015, Chemical Physics, 462,
94
Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951
Heiter, U., Jofr, P., Gustafsson, B., et al. 2015a, A&A, 582, A49
Heiter, U., Lind, K., Asplund, M., et al. 2015b, Phys. Scr, 90, 054010
Jofr, P., Heiter, U., Soubiran, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A81
Jofr, P., Heiter, U., Soubiran, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A133
Korn, A. J., Shi, J., & Gehren, T. 2003, A&A, 407, 691
Kupka, F., Piskunov, N., Ryabchikova, T. A., Stempels, H. C., & Weiss, W. W.
1999, A&AS, 138, 119
Kupka, F. G., Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., Stempels, H. C., & Weiss,
W. W. 2000, Baltic Astronomy, 9, 590
Kurucz, R. & Bell, B. 1995, Atomic Line Data (R.L. Kurucz and B. Bell) Kurucz CD-ROM No. 23. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1995., 23
Kurucz, R. L. 2007, Robert L. Kurucz on-line database of observed and predicted
atomic transitions
Kurucz, R. L. 2013, Robert L. Kurucz on-line database of observed and predicted
atomic transitions
Lambert, D. L. 1993, Physica Scripta Volume T, 47, 186
Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Belyaev, A. K. 2011, A&A, 528, A103
Lind, K., Bergemann, M., & Asplund, M. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 50
Majewski, S. R. 2010, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 262, IAU Symposium, ed. G. R.
Bruzual & S. Charlot, 99110
Martin, W. C. & Zalubas, R. 1983, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 12, 323
Mashonkina, L., Gehren, T., Shi, J.-R., Korn, A. J., & Grupp, F. 2011, A&A,
528, A87
Mashonkina, L. I., Sitnova, T. N., & Pakhomov, Y. V. 2016, Astronomy Letters,
42, 606
Nahar, S. N. 1993, Phys. Scr, 48, 297
Nahar, S. N. & Pradhan, A. K. 1994, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular
Physics, 27, 429
Nave, G. & Johansson, S. 2013, ApJS, 204, 1
Nave, G., Johansson, S., Learner, R. C. M., Thorne, A. P., & Brault, J. W. 1994,
ApJS, 94, 221
Osorio, Y., Barklem, P. S., Lind, K., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A53
Pelan, J. & Berrington, K. A. 1997, A&AS, 122, 177
Peterson, R. C. 2011, ApJ, 742, 21
Peterson, R. C. 2013, ApJ, 768, L13
Peterson, R. C. & Kurucz, R. L. 2015, ApJS, 216, 1
Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., Weiss, W. W., & Jeffery, C. S.
1995, A&AS, 112, 525
Ryabchikova, T. A., Pakhomov, Y. V., & Piskunov, N. E. 2011, Kazan Izdatel
Kazanskogo Universiteta, 153, 61
Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., & Kurucz, R. L. 2015, Physics Scripta, 90,
article id. 054005
Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., Stempels, H. C., Kupka, F., & Weiss, W. W.
1999, Physica Scripta Volume T, 83, 162
Seaton, M. J. 1962a, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 79, 1105
Seaton, M. J. 1962b, in Atomic and Molecular Processes, ed. D. R. Bates, 375
Shchukina, N., Sukhorukov, A., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2012, ApJ, 755, 176
Steinmetz, M., Zwitter, T., Siebert, A., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1645
Stetson, P. B. & Pancino, E. 2008, PASP, 120, 1332
Thvenin, F. & Idiart, T. P. 1999, ApJ, 521, 753
Thomson, J. J. 1912, Philosophical Magazine, 23, 499
Travis, L. D. & Matsushima, S. 1968, ApJ, 154, 689
Unsold, A. 1955, Physik der Sternatmospharen, MIT besonderer Berucksichtigung der Sonne.
Zhang, H. L. & Pradhan, A. K. 1995, A&A, 293, 953
7.85
7.80
7.75
7.70
7.65 (
7.60
1
7.65
7.60
7.55
7.50
7.45
7.40
7.35 (
7.30
1
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8 (
6.7
1
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2 (
7.1
1
Eri
4
4.0
6
/ EP) = 0. 05
4.0
6
/ EP) = 0. 01
4.0
6
/ EP) = 0. 03
4.0
6
3.5
6
EP(eV)
4.0
6
/ EP) = 0. 05
4.0
6
/ EP) = 0. 07
4.0
6
/ EP) = 0. 02
2.5
6
/ EP) = 0. 01
3.5
6
3.0
6
3.5
6
/ EP) = 0. 03
3.5
6
/ EP) = 0. 01
4.0
6
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
18 Sco
3.5
Cet
3.0
3.5
3.0
( / EW) = 0. 02
0.5
( / EW) = 0. 06
3.5
( / EW) = 0. 06
1.0
( / EW) = 0. 08
/ EP) = 0. 04
0
1.5
3.0
2.5
( / EW) = 0. 005
3.5
3.0
Sun
/ EP) = 0. 0005
2.0
2.0
log(EW/)
1.5
1.0
0.5
HD22879
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Cen A
3.0
( / EW) = 0. 08
3.5
3.0
Ara
3.5
( / EW) = 0. 13
3.5
3.0
Hyi
( / EW) = 0. 05
For
( / EW) = 0. 02
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Vir
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3 (
7.2
1
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2 (
7.0
1
( / EW) = 0. 02
EP(eV)
3.0
2.5
2.0
log(EW/)
1.5
1.0
0.5
Boo
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2 (
6.0
1
8.2
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.4 (
7.2
1
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.8
7.6 (
7.4
1
/ EP) = 0. 01
/ EP) = 0. 0007
0
/ EP) = 0. 0005
0
( / EW) = 0. 04
2.5
( / EW) = 0. 03
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
Procyon
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3 (
7.2
1
FeI
FeII
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
HD49933
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2 (
7.0
1
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.6 (
1
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.4 (
1
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3 (
7.2
1
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
FGK Dwarfs
( / EW) = 0. 04
3.0
Eri
(Fe)
( / EW) = 0. 03
EP(eV)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
log(EW/)
1.5
1.0
0.5
Fig. 13. NLTE Fe i and Fe ii abundances as a function of excitation potential EP (left panels) and measured equivalent width EW (right panels) for
the FGK dwarf stars in our stars list using our final iron model atom.
Article number, page 18 of 21
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
( / EW) = 0. 05
4.0
6
4.0
6
4.0
6
4.0
6
3.0
6
3.5
6
3.5
6
/ EP) = 0. 01
0
/ EP) = 0. 06
0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
( / EW) = 0. 05
/ EP) = 0. 01
0
3.5
3.5
3.0
Leo
HD220009
/ EP) = 0. 003
Arcturus
FeI
FeII
( / EW) = 0. 08
3.5
3.0
HD107328
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
FGK Giants
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8 (
6.7
1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5 (
6.4
1
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4 (
7.3
1
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8 (
1
( / EW) = 0. 09
3.5
3.0
8.0
Gem
(Fe)
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
( / EP) = 0. 006
1
( / EW) = 0. 20
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
7.8
7.5
7.4
7.3
(Fe)
Vir
7.6
( / EP) = 0. 01
1
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3 (
7.2
1
( / EW) = 0. 03
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Hya
(Fe)
7.7
/ EP) = 0. 004
0
( / EW) = 0. 02
EP(eV)
3.0
log(EW/)
Fig. 14. NLTE Fe i and Fe ii abundances as a function of excitation potential EP (left panels) and measured equivalent width EW (right panels) for
the FGK giant stars in our stars list using our final iron model atom.
Free Teff
( / EW) = 0. 02
2
6.5
6
7.5
6
7.5
6
6.5
6
6.2
6
7.0
6
/ EP) = 0. 003
6.5
6
/ EP) = 0. 008
6.2
6
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
HD140283
/ EP) = 0. 008
HD122563
FeI
FeII
/ EP) = 0. 008
1
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
( / EW) = 0. 01
7.0
For
( / EW) = 0. 02
HD84937
/ EP) = 0. 005
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0 (
6.9
1
/ EP) = 0. 008
1
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
( / EW) = 0. 03
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
18 Sco
( / EW) = 0. 05
Cent A
/ EP) = 0. 0003
0
( / EW) = 0. 002
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
( / EW) = 0. 002
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
( / EW) = 0. 01
EP(eV)
Fig. 15. Fe i and Fe ii abundances obtained from best fit "free" T eff in Tab. 7
6.5
HD49933
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6 (
7.5
1
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3 (
7.2
1
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7 (
6.6
1
/ EP) = 0. 006
HD107328
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
(Fe)
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3 (
4.2
1
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6 (
4.5
1
5.40
5.35
5.30
5.25
5.20
5.15 (
5.10
1
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7 (
6.6
1
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
log(EW/)
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
R. Ezzeddine et al.: NLTE iron abundance determination in cool stars: Introducing the (QFM) method
element
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
(air)
[]
EP
[eV]
logg f
EW
[m]
EW
[m]
ref
element
4787.827
4794.354
4799.406
4808.148
4809.938
4869.463
4875.877
4877.604
4892.859
4905.133
4962.572
4986.223
4999.112
5023.498
5029.618
5031.914
5054.643
5088.153
5104.438
5129.631
5180.056
5197.936
5228.376
5243.776
5247.050
5253.021
5267.270
5285.127
5293.959
5294.547
5295.312
5320.036
5322.041
5326.143
5361.625
5379.574
5401.267
5409.133
5417.033
5441.339
5452.088
5472.708
5473.163
5491.832
5522.446
5539.280
5543.936
5546.506
5549.949
5560.211
5567.391
5577.025
5584.765
5618.632
5619.595
5636.696
5651.469
5652.317
5679.023
5680.240
5691.497
5717.833
5731.762
5741.848
5760.344
5848.126
5849.683
5855.076
5858.778
5861.108
5873.212
5881.280
5909.972
5927.789
5987.065
6034.035
6093.643
2.998
2.424
3.640
3.252
3.573
3.547
3.332
2.998
4.218
3.929
4.178
4.218
4.186
4.313
3.415
4.371
3.640
4.154
4.283
3.943
4.473
4.301
4.220
4.256
0.087
2.279
4.371
4.435
4.143
3.640
4.415
3.642
2.279
3.573
4.415
3.695
4.320
4.371
4.415
4.313
3.640
4.209
4.191
4.186
4.209
3.642
4.218
4.371
3.695
4.435
2.609
5.033
3.573
4.209
4.387
3.640
4.473
4.260
4.652
4.186
4.301
4.284
4.256
4.256
3.642
4.608
3.695
4.608
4.220
4.283
4.256
4.608
3.211
4.652
4.796
4.313
4.608
-2.604
-3.950
-2.130
-2.690
-2.620
-2.420
-1.900
-3.050
-1.290
-1.730
-1.182
-1.290
-1.640
-1.670
-1.950
-1.570
-1.921
-1.680
-1.590
-1.670
-1.160
-1.540
-1.190
-1.050
-4.949
-3.840
-1.596
-1.660
-1.770
-2.760
-1.590
-2.440
-2.802
-2.071
-1.330
-1.514
-1.820
-1.200
-1.580
-1.630
-2.802
-1.495
-2.040
-2.188
-1.450
-2.560
-1.040
-1.210
-2.810
-1.090
-2.568
-1.543
-2.220
-1.255
-1.600
-2.510
-1.900
-1.850
-0.820
-2.480
-1.450
-0.990
-1.200
-1.672
-2.390
-1.056
-2.890
-1.478
-2.160
-2.304
-2.040
-1.740
-2.587
-0.990
-0.429
-2.312
-1.400
36.86
10.90
31.24
23.68
16.90
20.21
54.27
17.33
52.12
32.50
53.31
42.27
30.80
23.52
47.44
23.21
34.21
34.92
30.10
44.62
45.24
29.79
56.16
58.89
65.21
17.80
27.84
24.84
25.80
11.25
25.12
17.46
59.47
36.93
41.62
57.98
21.27
50.06
30.99
28.56
12.75
40.69
16.23
10.01
40.36
17.00
59.97
47.09
7.39
48.96
62.74
9.27
36.89
47.68
30.84
17.9
15.66
23.53
55.18
8.59
37.01
57.6
55.38
30.62
21.69
38.96
6.61
20.85
12.05
6.98
16.78
14.77
30.49
40.96
73.56
7.44
29.58
0.25
0.48
0.49
0.24
0.43
0.02
1.21
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.22
1.88
2.60
4.06
0.68
0.21
0.32
1.16
2.54
8.05
0.04
1.13
1.45
0.77
0.81
0.25
0.67
0.15
0.32
0.28
0.32
2.46
0.32
0.76
1.12
0.33
0.19
0.57
0.34
0.25
0.29
1.44
1.04
0.27
0.30
0.07
0.25
0.94
1.59
0.40
3.26
0.19
1.35
0.19
0.54
1.68
0.37
0.29
0.36
0.80
0.88
2.82
1.80
0.54
1.56
0.66
0.45
0.35
0.12
0.16
0.42
0.72
0.92
0.49
2.03
0.31
1.33
K07
K07
K07
K07
FMW
K07
K07
K07
FMW
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
FMW
K07
K07
K07
FMW
FMW
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
FMW
FMW
K07
K07
FMW
K07
K07
K07
FMW
FMW
FMW
K07
K07
BK
K07
FMW
K07
K07
K07
K07
BKK
K07
K07
K07
FMW
K07
K07
K07
FMW
FMW
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
FMW
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe I
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
Fe II
(air)
[]
EP
[eV]
logg f
EW
[m]
EW
[m]
6096.664
6127.906
6151.617
6157.728
6165.360
6170.506
6173.334
6180.203
6187.989
6200.312
6226.734
6229.226
6270.224
6271.278
6293.924
6297.792
6311.500
6380.743
6436.406
6469.192
6481.870
6569.214
6574.227
6581.209
6591.313
6593.870
6597.559
6608.025
6609.110
6625.021
6627.544
6703.566
6710.318
6716.236
6739.521
6745.956
6750.151
6752.707
6786.858
6810.262
4993.350
5100.654
5132.661
5256.931
5264.802
5284.103
5325.552
5414.069
6149.245
6238.385
6239.942
6369.459
6456.379
6516.076
3.984
4.143
2.176
4.076
4.143
4.796
2.223
2.728
3.943
2.609
3.884
2.845
2.858
3.332
4.835
2.223
2.832
4.186
4.186
4.835
2.279
4.733
0.990
1.485
4.593
2.433
4.796
2.279
2.559
1.011
4.549
2.759
1.485
4.580
1.557
4.076
2.424
4.638
4.191
4.607
2.807
2.807
2.807
2.891
3.230
2.891
3.221
3.221
3.889
3.889
3.889
2.891
3.903
2.891
-1.830
-1.399
-3.295
-1.160
-1.473
-0.440
-2.880
-2.591
-1.620
-2.433
-2.120
-2.805
-2.470
-2.703
-1.717
-2.737
-3.141
-1.375
-2.580
-0.730
-2.981
-0.380
-5.004
-4.679
-2.081
-2.420
-0.970
-3.930
-2.691
-5.336
-1.590
-3.060
-4.764
-1.836
-4.794
-2.500
-2.618
-1.204
-1.970
-0.986
-3.684
-4.197
-4.094
-4.182
-3.130
-3.195
-3.160
-3.580
-2.841
-2.600
-3.573
-4.110
-2.185
-3.310
36.54
46.87
48.14
60.59
44.51
75.93
66.38
53.63
47.2
70.01
27.7
36.12
52.28
22.87
11.79
72.6
26.57
50.03
8.74
55.84
61.08
79.59
26.41
17.51
7.61
80.04
40.31
15.97
63.49
14.05
26.56
35.58
16.67
14.96
11.78
8.57
71.84
34.53
24.59
46.55
35.3
18.4
19.2
15.9
43.8
59.5
41.2
23.9
33.9
43.1
11.4
17.0
59.2
56.3
0.96
1.05
0.78
1.65
0.32
6.79
1.29
4.97
0.98
1.76
0.52
2.39
2.08
0.60
0.17
0.86
4.32
0.55
0.29
5.13
2.91
4.17
0.17
0.27
0.13
0.22
0.19
0.23
5.94
1.34
0.48
0.76
0.69
1.23
0.34
1.52
1.07
1.04
6.36
1.04
1.15
0.48
0.59
0.42
0.44
1.62
0.54
0.41
0.51
0.82
0.29
0.31
0.38
1.19
ref
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K07
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
K13
Table 9. Solar linelist used to determine iron abundances abundances for GBS. References respectively correspond to: K07 : (Kurucz 2007), FMW
: (Fuhr et al. 1988), BK: (Bard & Kock 1994), BKK: (Bard et al. 1991), K13: (Kurucz 2013).