1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4: \usepackage{mathptmx}
5: \usepackage{natbib}
6:
7: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
8:
9:
10: \newcommand{\Deg}{\hbox{${}^\circ$\llap{.}}}
11: \newcommand{\Min}{\hbox{${}^{\prime}$\llap{.}}}
12: \newcommand{\Sec}{\hbox{${}^{\prime\prime}$\llap{.}}}
13:
14: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize\em eff}}$}
15: \newcommand{\yeff}{$y_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$}
16: \newcommand{\teffq}{$T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize \em eff}}^4$}
17: \newcommand{\zsun}{$Z_\odot$}
18: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_\odot$}
19: \newcommand{\ebv}{$E(B-V)$}
20: \newcommand{\hi}{H\,{\sc i}\rm}
21: \newcommand{\hii}{H\,{\sc ii}\rm}
22: \newcommand{\hei}{He\,{\sc i}\rm}
23: \newcommand{\heii}{He\,{\sc ii}\rm}
24: %\newcommand{\siii}{[S\,{\sc iii}]}
25: %\newcommand{\nii}{[N\,{\sc ii}]}
26: \newcommand{\oiii}{[O\,{\sc iii}]}
27: %\newcommand{\oii}{[O\,{\sc ii}]}
28: \newcommand{\sii}{[S\,{\sc ii}]}
29: \newcommand{\ariii}{[Ar\,{\sc iii}]}
30: \newcommand{\neiii}{[Ne\,{\sc iii}]}
31:
32: \newcommand{\caii}{Ca\,{\sc ii}}
33: \newcommand{\cai}{Ca\,{\sc i}}
34: \newcommand{\siii}{Si\,{\sc ii}}
35: \newcommand{\siiii}{Si\,{\sc iii}}
36: \newcommand{\siiv}{Si\,{\sc iv}}
37: \newcommand{\oi}{O\,{\sc i}}
38: \newcommand{\oii}{O\,{\sc ii}}
39: \newcommand{\nii}{N\,{\sc ii}}
40: \newcommand{\niii}{N\,{\sc iii}}
41: \newcommand{\cii}{C\,{\sc ii}}
42: \newcommand{\ciii}{C\,{\sc iii}}
43: \newcommand{\mgii}{Mg\,{\sc ii}}
44: \newcommand{\fei}{Fe\,{\sc i}}
45: \newcommand{\feii}{Fe\,{\sc ii}}
46: \newcommand{\tiii}{Ti\,{\sc ii}}
47: \newcommand{\crii}{Cr\,{\sc ii}}
48:
49: \newcommand{\te}{$T_e$}
50: \newcommand{\hbeta}{H$\beta$}
51: \newcommand{\halpha}{H$\alpha$}
52: \newcommand{\lin}{$\,\lambda$}
53: \newcommand{\llin}{$\,\lambda\lambda$}
54: \newcommand{\fglr}{\sc fglr\rm}
55: \slugcomment{}
56:
57: \shorttitle{A supergiants in NGC 300}
58: \shortauthors{Kudritzki et al.}
59:
60: \begin{document}
61:
62: %\journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal}
63: %\submitted{}
64:
65: \title{Quantitative Spectroscopy of 24 A supergiants in
66: the Sculptor galaxy NGC 300$^1$: Flux weighted gravity luminosity
67: relationship, metallicity and metallicity gradient\\[2mm]}\footnotetext[1]{Based
68: on VLT observations for ESO Large Programme 171.D-0004.}
69:
70:
71: \author{Rolf-Peter Kudritzki} \affil{Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn
72: Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822; kud@ifa.hawaii.edu}
73:
74: \author{Miguel A.~Urbaneja} \affil{Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn
75: Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822; urbaneja@ifa.hawaii.edu}
76:
77: \author{Fabio Bresolin} \affil{Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn
78: Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822; bresolin@ifa.hawaii.edu}
79:
80: \author{Norbert Przybilla} \affil{Dr. Remeis-Sternwarte Bamberg,
81: Sternwartstr. 7, D-96049 Bamberg, Germany;
82: przybilla@sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de}
83:
84:
85: \author{Wolfgang Gieren} \affil{Universidad de Concepci\'on, Departamento de F\'isica, Casilla 160-C, Concepci\'on, Chile; wgieren@astro-udec.udec.cl}
86:
87: \and
88:
89: \author{Grzegorz Pietrzy\'nski} \affil{Universidad de Concepci\'on, Departamento de F\'isica, Casilla 160-C, Concepci\'on, Chile; pietrzyn@hubble.cfm.udec.cl}
90:
91: \begin{abstract}
92: A quantitative spectral analysis of 24 A supergiants in the Sculptor Group
93: spiral galaxy NGC 300 at a distance of 1.9 Mpc is presented. A new method
94: is introduced to analyze low resolution ($\sim 5 \AA $) spectra, which
95: yields metallicities accurate to 0.2 dex including the uncertainties
96: arising from the errors in \teff\/ (5\%) and $log~g$ (0.2 dex).
97: For the first time the stellar metallicity
98: gradient based on elements such as titanium and iron in a galaxy beyond the
99: Local Group is investigated. Solar metallicity is measured in the center and 0.3 solar in the
100: outskirts and a logarithmic gradient of $-0.08$ dex/kpc. An average reddening
101: of E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.12 mag is obtained, however with
102: a large variation from 0.07 to 0.24 mag. We also determine stellar radii, luminosities
103: and masses and discuss the evolutionary status. Finally,
104: the observed relationship between absolute bolometric magnitudes M$_{bol}$ and flux
105: weighted gravities $g_{F} = g/$\teffq~is investigated. At high temperatures the
106: strengths of the Balmer lines depends solely on the flux-weighted gravity,
107: which allows a precise direct determination of $log~g_{F}$ with an accuracy of
108: 0.05 to 0.1 dex. We find a tight relationship between M$_{bol}$ and $log~g_{F}$
109: in agreement with stellar
110: evolution theory. Combining these new results with previous
111: work on Local Group galaxies we obtain a new flux weighted gravity luminosity
112: relationship (FGLR), which is very well defined and appears to be an excellent
113: alternative tool to determine distances to galaxies.
114:
115: \end{abstract}
116:
117: \keywords{galaxies: --- distances galaxies: abundances --- galaxies: stellar content --- galaxies:
118: individual (NGC300) --- stars: early-type}
119:
120: %==========================================================================
121:
122: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
123:
124: It has long been the dream of stellar astronomers to study individual stellar
125: objects in distant galaxies to obtain detailed spectroscopic information about
126: the star formation history and chemodynamical evolution of galaxies and to
127: determine accurate distances based on the determination of stellar
128: parameters and interstellar reddening and extinction. The most promising objects
129: for such studies are massive
130: stars in a mass range between 15 to 40 $M_{\odot}$ in the short-lived evolutionary
131: phase, when they leave the hydrogen main-sequence and cross the HRD in a few
132: thousand years as blue supergiants of late B and early A spectral type. Because of
133: the strongly reduced absolute value of bolometric correction when evolving towards
134: smaller temperature these objects increase their brightness in visual light and
135: become the optically brightest stars in the universe with absolute visual
136: magnitudes up to $M_{V} \cong -9.5$ rivaling with the integrated light brightness
137: of globular clusters and dwarf spheroidal galaxies.
138:
139: There has been a long history of quantitative spectroscopic studies of these
140: extreme objects. In a pioneering and comprehensive paper on Deneb
141: \citet{groth61} was the first to obtain stellar parameters and detailed
142: chemical composition. This work was continued by \citet{wolf71}, \citet{wolf72},
143: \citet{wolf73} in studies of A supergiants in the Milky Way and the Magellanic
144: Clouds. \citet{kud73} using newly developed NLTE model atmospheres found
145: that at the low gravities and the correspondingly low electron densities of these
146: objects effects of departures from LTE can become extremely important. With strongly
147: improved model atmospheres \citet{venn95a}, \citet{venn95b} and \citet{aufdenb02}
148: continued these studies in the Milky Way. Most recently, \citet{przybilla06} used
149: very detailed NLTE line formation calculations including ten thousands of lines in NLTE
150: (see also \citealt{przybilla00}, \citealt{przybilla01a}, \citealt{przybilla01b},
151: \citealt{przybilla01}, \citealt{przybilla02}) to determine stellar parameters and
152: abundances with hitherto unkown precision (\teff\/ to $\le 2$\%, $log~g$ to $\sim 0.05$ dex,
153: individual metal abundances to $\sim 0.05$ dex).
154: At the same time, utelizing the power of the new 8m to 10m class telescopes, high resolution
155: studies of A supergiants in many Local Group galaxies were carried out by \citet{venn99} (SMC),
156: \citet{mccarthy95} (M33), \citet{mccarthy97} (M31), \citet{venn00} (M31),
157: \citet{venn01} (NGC 6822), \citet{venn03} (WLM), and \citet{kaufer04} (Sextans A)
158: yielding invaluable information about the stellar chemical composition in these galaxies.
159:
160: The concept to go beyond the Local Group and to study A supergiants by means of
161: quantitative spectroscopy in galaxies out to the Virgo cluster has been first
162: presented by \citet{kud95} and \citet{kud98}. Following-up on this idea,
163: \citet{bresolin01} and \citet{bresolin02} used the VLT and FORS at 5 $\AA$ resolution
164: for a first investigation of blue supergiants in NGC 3621 (6.7 Mpc) and NGC 300 (1.9 Mpc). They were able
165: to demonstrate that for these distances and at this resolution spectra of sufficient S/N
166: can be obtained allowing for the quantitative determination of stellar parameters
167: and metallicities. \citet{kud03} extended this work and showed that stellar
168: gravities and temperatures determined from the spectral analysis can be used to
169: determine distances to galaxies by using the correlation between absolute bolometric
170: magnitude and flux weighted gravity $g_{F} = g/$\teffq\/ (FGLR).
171: However, while these were encouraging steps towards the use of A supergiants as quantitative
172: diagnostic tools of galaxies beyond the Local Group, the work presented in these papers
173: had still a fundamental deficiency. At the low resolution of 5 $\AA$ it is not possible
174: to use ionization equilibria for the determination of \teff\/
175: in the same way as in the high resolution
176: work mentioned in the previous paragraph. Instead, spectral types were determined and
177: a simple spectral type - temperature relationship as obtained for the Milky Way was
178: used to determine effective temperatures and then gravities and metallicities. Since
179: the spectral type - \teff\/ relationship must depend on metallicity (and also gravities),
180: the method becomes inconsistent as soon as the metallicity is significantly different from
181: solar (or the gravities are larger than for luminosity class Ia) and may lead to inaccurate
182: stellar parameters. As shown by \citet{evans03}, the uncertainties introduced in this
183: way could be significant and would make it impossible to use the FGLR for distance
184: determinations. In addition, the metallicities derived might be unreliable. This posed
185: a serious problem for the the low resolution study of A supergiants in distant galaxies.
186:
187: In this paper we present a solution to this problem and provide the first self-consistent
188: determination of stellar parameters and metallicities for A supergiants in galaxies
189: beyond the Local Group based on the quantitative model atmosphere analysis of low
190: resolution spectra. We apply our new method on 24 supergiants of spectral type
191: B8 to A5 in the Scultor Group spiral galaxy NGC 300 and obtain temperatures, gravities,
192: metallicities, radii, luminosities and masses. Note that while we have included a number
193: of late type B supergiants in this work, we refer to the whole sample as ``A supergiants''
194: in the following, for reasons of simplicity. We will compare some of our results with the
195: work by \citet{urbaneja05}, who performed a quantitative study of six early B-type
196: supergiants (B0.5 to B3). We will refer to those objects as ``B supergiants''. The reason
197: for this simplifying destinction is the difference in the analysis method. The temperatures
198: of the B supergiants (in this nomenclature) are determined from the ionization equilibria
199: of helium and silicon and metallicities result from the fit of individual spectral lines
200: of $\alpha$-elements such as oxygen, magnesium, silicon and carbon, whereas the
201: temperatures of the A supergiants are obtained from the Balmer jump and the metallicities
202: are determined from the spectral synthesis of many overlapping lines of different species
203: including heavy elements such as iron, chromium and titanium.
204:
205: The paper is organized as follows. After a brief description of the observations in
206: section 2 we provide a detailed discussion of the analysis method, i.e. the
207: determination of \teff, $log~g$, metallicity, E(B-V), radius, luminosity and mass
208: from the low resolution spectra and HST photometry, in section 3. Section 4 presents
209: the results of the analysis together with a discussion of their uncertainties. The
210: metallicity of NGC 300 obtained from this work is discussed in section 5 and compared
211: with previous work. Section 6 investigates stellar properties and evolutionary time scales.
212: The new FGLR is presented in section 7 together with a detailed discussion of the
213: uncertainties. Conclusions and outlook towards future work are given in section 8.
214:
215:
216: \section{Observations}\label{sec_obs}
217:
218: The spectroscopic observations were obtained with FORS1 at the ESO VLT in multiobject
219: spectroscopy mode in two consecutive nights of excellent seeing conditions (typical 0.7
220: arcsec, but long spells of 0.4 to 0.5 arcsec) on 2000 September 25 and 26 as part of the Auracaria Project (\citet{gieren05b}). Four
221: fields (A, B, C, D) were observed in five exposures, each lasting 45 minutes. The spectral
222: resolution is approximately 5~\AA~and the spectral coverage extends from shortward of
223: the Balmer jump to H${\beta}$ or beyond for most of our targets. The observational
224: data set has been described by \citet{bresolin02}. The paper also contains finding
225: charts, coordinates, photometry (ESO/MPI 2.2m WFI) and spectral types. Of the 62 confirmed
226: supergiants found with spectral types ranging from late O to F, 29 were of spectral type
227: B8 to A5 - the spectral type of interest for this study - and were not severely contaminated by HII emission or composite
228: (indicating a contribution of a star of different spectral type). 24 of those had a
229: S/N per pixel of about 40 or better, sufficient for our quantitative analysis. This
230: is the sample listed in Table 1 and selected for the work presented in the following.
231: The target designation is the same as in \citet{bresolin02}. Note that a quantitative spectral
232: analysis of the early type B supergiants (spectral type B0 to B3) has already been published by
233: \citet{urbaneja05}.
234:
235: The analysis method presented in the next section makes use of the strength of the
236: observed Balmer jump $D_{B}$. (Fortunately, FORS was developed with high UV throughput
237: as a design goal, which turns out to be an enormous advantage for our study).
238: To measure $D_{B}$ we selected one 45 minute exposure for each
239: of the observed fields (usually the exposure with the best seeing) and used standard
240: stars to obtain a flux calibration of our spectra, where special care was given to the
241: calibration in the near UV. While the single
242: exposures are somewhat noisy, they
243: do allow for a rather accurate measurement of $D_{B}$ (see next section).
244: Slit losses due to the 1 arcsec slitlets can be corrected for by renormalizing the
245: observed flux calibrated spectrum to the HST B-band photometry. They are unimportant
246: to first order, since $D_{B}$ is a relative measurement of fluxes shortward and longward
247: of 3647~\AA. However, we have to worry about second order effects caused by the
248: wavelength dependence of seeing and resulting wavelength dependent slit losses.
249: Fortunately, FORS is equipped with an atmospheric dispersion compensator, which was used
250: for our observations, thus, already correcting for slit losses caused by atmospheric dispersion.
251: The effects of wavelength dependent seeing were addressed in the following way. We
252: measured the FWHM of our spectra on the detector perpendicular to the direction of dispersion
253: as a function of wavelength. This provided us with an estimate of the seeing as a function
254: of wavelength. Assuming a Moffat-function (with exponent $\beta = 2$) for the PSF we were then
255: able to calculate slit-losses at every wavelength from the measured seeing FWHM using
256: the simple formulae
257:
258: % \begin{equation}
259: % PSF(\phi) \propto 1/\{1+(\phi/\alpha)^{2}\}^{\beta}
260: % \end{equation}
261: %
262: % \begin{equation}
263: % F_{\lambda}^{new} = F_{\lambda}^{old} (1 + (\alpha/w)^{2})^{0.5}
264: % \end{equation}
265: %
266: % \begin{equation}
267: % \alpha = 0.7769 FWHM(\lambda)
268: % \end{equation}
269:
270:
271: \begin{equation}
272: \begin{array}{l}
273: \displaystyle PSF(\phi) \propto 1/\{1+(\phi/\alpha)^{2}\}^{\beta} \\
274: \displaystyle F_{\lambda}^{new} = F_{\lambda}^{old} (1 + (\alpha/w)^{2})^{0.5} \\
275: \displaystyle \alpha = 0.7769 FWHM(\lambda)
276: \end{array}
277: \end{equation}
278:
279: w is the slit half-width corresponding to 0.5 arcsec.
280:
281: The relative flux corrections obtained in this way are small over the wavelength range,
282: which we use for measuring or fitting the Balmer jump $D_{B}$ (3585~\AA\/ to 3876~\AA).
283: The logarithm of ratio of the correction factors at these two wavelength are 0.016,
284: 0.070, 0.024 and 0.004 for fields A, B, C, D respectively, smaller or comparable to
285: the stochastic errors caused by the photon noise. Assuming a Moffat-function with $\beta = 3$
286: yields very similar results.
287:
288: The original photometry for our targets was obtained with the ESO 2.2m and the
289: Wide Field Imager as a result of a multiepoch survey for Cepheids (\citealt{bresolin02}).
290: \citet{bresolin04} have used these data for a study of blue supergiant
291: photometric variability. No significant variability has been found for our targets.
292:
293: Almost all of our targets were observed with HST/ACS in an investigation of the effects
294: of blending on the Cepheid distance to NGC 300 (\citealt{bresolin05}), which were found
295: to be negligible. With A supergiants being significantly brighter than Cepheids it is
296: obvious that blending and multiplicity should not be an issue for this study, as is also
297: confirmed by a comparison of the ground-based and HST/ACS V and I photometry.
298: \citet{bresolin05} detected an off-set of 0.1 mag between ESO/WFI and HST/ACS
299: B-band photometry, which they attributed to a calibration uncertainty of the ground-based
300: data. We will use the HST/ACS photometry for our targets, where available. For three
301: objects, we do not have HST data. In these cases, we use the ESO/WFI B, V, I data but
302: apply a 0.1 mag correction to the B-band.
303:
304:
305: \section{Analysis Method}\label{sec_analysis}
306:
307: For the quantitative analysis of the spectra we will use the same combination
308: of line blanketed model atmospheres and very detailed NLTE line formation calculations
309: as \citet{przybilla06} in their high signal-to-noise and high spectral resolution
310: study of galactic A-supergiants. The model atmosphere assumptions and the individual atomic
311: models used for the NLTE calculations have been described in this paper, which also
312: contains a variety of tests with regard to the accuracy and consistency that can be
313: obtained. In the spectral range to be used in our work (3500~\AA\/ to 5500~\AA) these
314: calculations reproduce the observed normalized spectra and the spectral energy
315: distribution, including the Balmer jump, extremely well. For the four objects studied,
316: \citet{przybilla06} calculated a relatively small grid of models centered around the
317: expected parameters for each star followed by more line formation calculations to obtain
318: element abundances, once the stellar parameters were determined. The large sample of 24
319: objects in our study requires a different approach. We calculate an extensive,
320: comprehensive and dense grid of model atmospheres and NLTE line formation covering the
321: potential full parameter range of all the objects in gravity, effective temperature and
322: metallicity. We then use the synthetic spectra and energy distributions obtained in this
323: multi-dimensional parameter space to constrain the stellar parameters. The gravities and
324: temperatures of the grid are displayed in Fig.~\ref{modelgrid}.
325:
326: At each grid point we have a set of models with line formation calculations for the
327: following metallicities [Z] = log Z/Z$_{\odot}$: -1.30, -1.00, -0.85, -0.70, -0.60, -0.50,
328: -0.40, -0.30, -0.15, 0.00, 0.15, 0.30. Z/Z$_{\odot}$ is the metallicity
329: relative to the sun in a sense
330: that the abundance for each element is scaled by the same factor relative to its solar
331: abundance. Solar abundances were taken from \citet{grevesse98}. We note that by
332: scaling abundances in this way we are not able to detect
333: deviations from the solar abundance pattern but only general changes in
334: metallicity. We are confident that it will be possible to extent this work to at least a
335: study of the relative ratio of $\alpha$- to iron-group elements as a function of
336: galactocentric distance. But at this stage we restrict our work to a discussion of stellar
337: metallicities and the metallicity gradient and postpone a more detailed study to
338: follow-up work.
339:
340: A determination of metallicities always requires an estimate of the photospheric
341: mictroturbulence velocity v$_{t}$ normally obtained from the constraint that
342: weak and strong lines of each ion should yield the same element abundance. At our
343: spectral resolution it is difficult to constrain mictroturbulence in this way, thus,
344: we rely on the results of the high resolution work done for A supergiants in the Milky Way
345: and Local Group galaxies, which, fortunately, shows a very consistent pattern of v$_{t}$
346: as a function of stellar gravities (\citealt{przybilla02}, \citealt{przybilla06},
347: \citealt{venn95a}, \citealt{venn95b}, \citealt{venn00}, \citealt{venn01},
348: \citealt{venn03}, \citealt{kaufer04}). At low
349: gravities the values of v$_{t}$ are about 8 km/sec and decrease to
350: lower values of about 4 km/sec at higher gravities. The values of v$_{t}$ adopted for this
351: study, accordingly, are also displayed in Fig.~\ref{modelgrid}.
352:
353: The analysis of the each of the 24 targets proceeds in three steps. First, the stellar
354: parameters (\teff\/ and $log~g$) are determined together with interstellar reddening
355: and extinction, then the metallicity is determined and finally, assuming a distance to
356: NGC 300, we obtain stellar radii, luminosities and masses. For the first step,
357: a well established method to obtain the stellar parameters of supergiants of late B to
358: early A spectral type is to use ionization equilibria of weak metal lines (OI/II; MgI/II;
359: NI/II etc.) for the
360: determination of effective temperature \teff\/ and the Balmer lines for the
361: gravities $log~g$. The most recent high resolution work cited in section~\ref{intro} has
362: very convincingly shown that very accurate results can be obtained in this way, when
363: detailed non-LTE line formation calculations are used. However, at the low resolution
364: of 5 \AA~the weak spectral lines of the neutral species disappear in the noise of the spectra
365: and an alternative technique is required to obtain temperature information.
366:
367: One simple way
368: is to use the information from stronger lines in the spectrum which define the
369: spectral type and then to apply a spectral type - temperature calibration based on the high
370: resolution quantitative spectroscopic work. This technique was used by \citet{bresolin01},
371: \citet{bresolin02} and \citet{kud03}. The disadvanteage of this method is obvious. As
372: soon as the metallicity of the objects investigated with this low resolution method is
373: significantly different from the metallicity of the objects which are used to calibrate
374: the spectral type effective temperature relationship, substantial errors can be introduced.
375: For instance, objects at a lower metallicity will have weaker characteristic metal lines
376: and will thus be assigned a spectral type earlier than an object of the same effective
377: temperature but higher metallicity. Thus, without a priori knowledge of the metallicity
378: this method might indeed introduce large uncertainties. \citet{evans03} have investigated
379: this effect for A supergiant of luminosity class II in the Magellanic Clouds by studying
380: the CaII lines and found significant effects. However, our targets are more luminous
381: (luminosity class I) and the spectral type classification used in the papers mentioned above
382: did not use the CaII lines, but the metal line spectrum in the range from 4400 to 4700 \AA.
383: Thus, an extended investigation is needed.
384:
385: Fortunately, the comprehensive model atmosphere and line formation grid described above
386: makes it easy to investigate the degeneracy of the metal line spectrum with temperature and
387: metallicity. All we have to do is to follow the iscontours of constant Balmer line
388: equivalent widths in the $(log~g, \log$~\teff) plane (see Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt}) (along
389: which the Balmer lines as a gravity indicators have identical profiles at 5 \AA
390: ~resolution) and to compare synthetic metal line spectra of models with different \teff\/
391: and [Z]. A rather dramatic example obtained in this way is shown in Fig.~\ref{degen} with
392: metal line spectra of three models at different pairs of \teff\/ and $log~g$, where the
393: Balmer line profiles are exactly the same. The models have different metallicity [Z].
394: The hottest model at \teff\/ = 10500~K with a metallicity slightly higher than solar
395: ([Z] = 0.15) has an almost identical metal line spectrum as the coolest model at
396: \teff\/ = 8750~K with a metallicity significantly lower than solar ([Z] = -0.50).
397:
398: Thus, while all three models have exactly the same Balmer line profiles and would fit
399: the observed Balmer lines of a hypothetical star to be analyzed, we would have a hard
400: time to independently determine temperature and metallicity from the rest of the spectrum, which looks
401: very similar for all three models. Fortunately, the strength of HeI $\lambda$ 4471 allows, in principle, to
402: distinguish between the hottest model and the two cooler ones, and this will be one of the
403: alternative techniques that we will use in the following. However, it seems impossible
404: to extract the temperature difference between the two cooler models from the spectra
405: displayed. We note the slightly enhanced strengths of the TiII lines at low temperature,
406: but using these lines as an independent temperature indicator while simultaneously fitting the Balmer lines would be based on an
407: assumption on the abundance ratio of titanium to iron, and, thus, the ratio of $\alpha$
408: -elements to iron-group elements. While the investigation of the possible variation of
409: the ratio as a function of galaxy evolution, is beyond the scope of this paper (see above),
410: it will
411: certainly become important in future work. We, thus, need a temperature
412: indicator independent from any a priori assumptions about general metallicity and
413: relative abundance ratios of metals. This is in particular important, as the spiral
414: galaxies, which we intend to investigate with our spectroscopic technique, are assumed
415: to have significant metallicity gradients and possibly also gradients, for instance, in
416: their $\alpha$ to iron-group element ratios.
417:
418: A very obvious way out of this dilemma is the use of the spectral energy distributions
419: (SEDs) and here, in particular of the Balmer jump $D_B$. Fig.~\ref{seddegen} and ~\ref{dbdegen}
420: show, how the degeneracy of the temperature vs. metallicity diagnostic is broken. Very
421: obviously, the SEDs and $D_B$'s of the three models with almost identical metal line spectra are
422: significantly different. While the observed photometry from B-band to I-band will be
423: used to constrain the interstellar reddening, we can use $D_B$ as a temperature diagnostic.
424: For stars of spectral type A this idea is certainly not new and goes back to the classical
425: work by Chalonge and Divan in the 1950's. For A supergiants it has been successfully
426: investigated and applied by \citet{groth61}, \citet{aydin72}, and \citet{kud73}.
427:
428: The basis for our diagnostic technique is given in
429: Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt}. It shows isocontours of constant H${\delta}$ equivalent width and of
430: constant values of the Balmer jump $D_{B}$. The Balmer jump is defined as below
431:
432: \begin{equation}
433: \begin{array}{l}
434: \displaystyle D_{B} = \langle log (F_{\lambda}^{long}) \rangle - \langle log (F_{\lambda}^{short}) \rangle \\
435: \displaystyle \langle log (F_{\lambda}^{long}) \rangle = \lbrace log F_{3782\AA} + log F_{3814\AA} + log F_{3847\AA} + log F_{3876\AA} \rbrace /4 \\
436: \displaystyle \langle log (F_{\lambda}^{short}) \rangle = \lbrace \sum_{i=1}^{N} log (F_{\lambda_{i}}) \rbrace /N, ~3585\AA \le \lambda_{i} \le 3627\AA
437: \end{array}
438: \end{equation}
439:
440: The wavelengths for the individual fluxes on the longward side are selected to avoid
441: the wings of the Balmer lines and stronger metal line features. In this definition,
442: the dependence of $D_B$ on [Z] is very weak and can be neglected, as an inspection of
443: our model grid shows. The same is true for the strengths of the Balmer lines and, thus,
444: the diagnostic diagram of Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt} is metallicity independent. While the two
445: sets of isocontours are not perfectly orthogonal, they certainly lead to well defined
446: intersection points except very close to the Eddington-limit.
447:
448: \subsection{Effective temperature, Gravity and Reddening}
449:
450: Guided by Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt} we apply the following diagnostic technique to determine
451: effective temperature and gravity. We use the normalized spectra of our targets to
452: interactively fit the Balmer lines profiles H$_{10}$ to H$_{\gamma}$ with our model
453: spectra grid in the $(log~g, \log$~\teff) plane (the fit curves obtained in this
454: way follow very closely the isocontours of Balmer lines as in the example of
455: Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt}). Then, we fit the observed SED and the Balmer jump in the same
456: diagnostic plane. Our multi-color photometry from B-band to I-band compared with
457: the model fluxes allows to determine reddening and extinction and the calibrated
458: FORS fluxes around the Balmer jump (see section ~\ref{sec_obs}) fitted with the
459: model fluxes yield a second fit curve for $D_{B}$ (again very similar to the
460: isocontours in Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt}). The intersection of the two fit curves defines
461: temperature and gravity.
462:
463: An example is given in Figs.~\ref{fitbalm}, ~\ref{fitsed},
464: and ~\ref{lgtfit} for object No. 21 of our sample. At a fixed value of effective
465: temperature the Balmer lines allow for a determination of $log~g$ within 0.05 dex
466: uncertainty. The uncertainty of Balmer jump $D_{B}$ measured from the SED fit can
467: be (conservatively) estimated to be 0.02 dex corresponding to a temperature
468: uncertainty $\rm^{+200}_{-150}$K at the fixed gravity of 1.55 at \teff\/ = 10000~K.
469: (The values of $D_{B}$ obtained from SED fit are given in Table 1).
470: Applying the same fit procedure at different effective temperatures in the
471: $(log~g, log$~\teff) plane leads to the fit diagram of Fig.~\ref{lgtfit}. While
472: the uncertainties at a fixed pair of \teff\/ and $log~g$ are rather small, the fact
473: that the two sets of fit curves for the Balmer lines and the Balmer jump are not
474: orthogonal leads to the significantly larger error box, which is obtained from the
475: intersection of the dashed curves. The uncertainty of our low resolution analysis
476: obtained in this way are $\rm^{+600}_{-470}$K for \teff\/ and $\rm^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$
477: dex for $log~g$, respectively. This is roughly a factor of two larger than what can
478: be obtained with high quality, high resolution spectra and the use of ionization
479: equilibria from weak lines (ses \citealt{przybilla06}) but still good enough to
480: determine metallicities [Z] with a reasonable accuracy, as we will demonstrate below.
481: The fit of \teff\/ and $log~g$ also yields the value of interstellar reddening
482: E(B-V) = 0.13 mag from a comparison of computed model fluxes with fluxes obtained
483: from HST photometry (see \citealt{bresolin04} for the photometric data). As for
484: the calculation of the reddening law we use the formulae given by \citet{cardelli89}
485: and R$_{V}$ = 3.1 for the the ratio of visual extinction A$_{V}$ and reddening E(B-V).
486:
487: The accurate determination of \teff\/ and $log~g$ is crucial for the use of
488: A supergiants as distance indicators using the relationship between absolute
489: bolometric magnitude $M_{bol}$ and flux weighted gravity $log~g_{F}$ defined as
490:
491: \begin{equation}
492: log~g_{F} = log~g - 4log T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize\em eff,4}}
493: \end{equation}
494:
495: where $T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize\em eff,4}} = T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize\em eff}}$/10000K(see \citealt{kud03}).
496: The relatively large uncertainties obtained with our fit
497: method may casts doubts whether $log~g_{F}$ can be obtained accurately enough.
498: Fortunately, the non-orthogonal behaviour of the fit curves in
499: Fig.~\ref{lgtfit} leads to errors in \teff\/ and $log~g$, which are correlated in a way
500: that reduces the uncertainties of $log~g_{F}$. This is demonstrated in
501: Fig.~\ref{lgftfit}, which shows the corresponding fit curves of the Balmer lines
502: and D$_{B}$ in the $(log~g, log$~\teff) plane. We obtain much smaller
503: uncertainties of $log~g_{F}$ for target No. 21, namely $\rm^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$.
504: We will discuss the physical reason behind this in section~\ref{sec_fglr}.
505:
506: We have applied this diagnostic technique on all targets, for which we were able
507: to obtain observations of the Balmer jump.
508: In two cases (target No. 0 and 10), the set-up of the FORS slitlets did not allow to
509: obtain spectral information shortward of the Balmer edge. For those, we use the strong
510: temperature dependence of the observed HeI lines to constrain \teff\/ (see Fig.~\ref{degen}).
511: For targets No. 2 and 4 we have used the observed HeI lines as an additional temperature
512: criterium, since for both of them the intersections of the $D_{B}$ and Balmer line fit
513: curves are not well defined. The errors in \teff\/ obtained in these four cases are
514: comparable to those obtained with the Balmer jump for most of the other stars. The HeI
515: lines provide a very useful alternative diagnostic tool, however this technique works
516: only at high enough temperatures and low gravities. The
517: results for \teff\/, $log~g$, $log~g_{F}$ and E(B-V) for all targets are
518: summarized in Table 1.
519:
520: Generally, the uncertainties for \teff\/, $log~g$, and $log~g_{F}$ are similar to
521: those obtained for our example target. However, for the effective temperature errors
522: $\Delta$\teff/\teff\/ there is a slight trend with temperature as shown by
523: Fig.~\ref{terror}, which comes from the fact that the Balmer jump becomes less
524: temperature dependent at higher temperatures (see Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt}). On average,
525: temperatures are accurate to 5 percent. This is an uncertainty roughly twice as large
526: as for the analysis of high resolution and high S/N spectra of similar objects
527: (see \citealt{przybilla06}). The uncertainties for gravities and flux weighted
528: gravities are 0.2 dex and 0.1 dex on average, again twice as large as for the analysis
529: of high quality spectra. This is a result of the larger uncertainty of the temperature
530: determination.
531:
532: \subsection{Metallicity}
533:
534: Knowing the stellar atmospheric parameters \teff\/ and $log~g$ we are able to
535: determine stellar metallicities by fitting the metal lines with our
536: comprehensive grid of line formation calculations. The fit procedure proceeds
537: in several steps. First, we define spectral windows, for which a good definition
538: of the continuum is possible and which are relatively undisturbed by flaws in
539: the spectrum (for instance caused by cosmic events) or interstellar emission
540: and absorption. A typical spectral window used for all of our targets is the
541: wavelength interval 4497~\AA\/ $\le \lambda \le$ 4607~\AA. Fig.~\ref{met1} shows
542: the synthetic spectrum calculated for the atmopsheric parameters of target
543: No. 21 (the example of the previous subsection) and for all the metallicities
544: of our grid ranging from -1.30 $\le$ [Z] $\le$ 0.30. It is very obvious that the
545: strengths of the metal line features are a strong function of metallicity. In
546: Fig.~\ref{met2} we show the observed spectrum of target No. 21 in this spectral
547: region overplotted by the synthetic spectrum for each metallicity. We use separate
548: plots for each metallicity, because the optimal relative normalization of the observed and
549: calculated spectra is obviously metallicity dependent. We address this problem by
550: renormalizing the observed spectrum for each metallicity so that the synthetic
551: spectrum always intersects the observations at the same value at the two edges of
552: the spectral window (indicated by the dashed vertical lines). The scaling of the
553: observed spectrum between the two edges is done by a simple linear interpolation.
554: The next step is a pixel-by-pixel comparison of calculated and normalized observed
555: fluxes for each metallicity.
556:
557: \begin{equation}
558: (O-C)^{2}([Z])_{i} = \lbrack \sum^{n_{pix}}_{j=1} (F([Z])_{j}^{obs} - F([Z])_{j}^{calc})^{2} \rbrack /n_{pix}
559: \end{equation}
560:
561: The index i refers to spectral window selected. If we define
562:
563: \begin{equation}
564: \chi ([Z])_{i} = S/N \ast (O-C)([Z])_{i},
565: \end{equation}
566:
567: where S/N is the signal-to-noise ration per resolution element, we can look for
568: the minimum $\chi ([Z])_{i}$ as a function of [Z] to determine metallicity. This
569: is done in Fig.~\ref{met3}, which yields [Z] = -0.40. Application of the same method
570: on different spectral windows provides additional independent information on
571: metallicity as shown in Fig.~\ref{met4} and ~\ref{met5}. The average metallicity
572: obtained from all windows is [Z] = -0.39 with a very small dispersion of only
573: 0.02 dex.
574:
575: While it seems that our method yields a very accurate metallicity for a
576: fixed pair of stellar parameters \teff\/ and $log~g$, we also need to consider the
577: effect of the stellar parameter uncertainties on the metallicity determination. This
578: is done by applying the same correlation method for [Z] for models at the extremes
579: of the error box for \teff\/ and $log~g$, as given by Fig.~\ref{lgtfit} and
580: Table 1. This increases the uncertainty of [Z] to $\pm$ 0.15 dex.
581:
582: We apply the same method to all the objects of our sample. The results are given in
583: Table 1. In some case the uncertainties are larger than for target No. 21, which is
584: caused by larger uncertainties of the atmospheric parameters or more noise in the
585: spectra or both.
586:
587: \subsection{Radii, Luminosities and Masses}
588:
589: The fit of the observed photometric fluxes with the model atmosphere fluxes was
590: used to determine interstellar reddening E(B-V) and extinction A$_{V}$ = 3.1 E(B-V).
591: Simultaneously, the fit also yields the stellar angular diameter, which provides
592: the stellar radius, if a distance is adopted. Alternatively, for the stellar
593: parameters (\teff\/, $log~g$, [Z]) determined through the spectral analysis
594: the model atmospheres also yield bolometric corrections BC, which we use to
595: determine bolometric magnitudes. These bolometric magnitudes then also allow us to
596: compute radii. The radii determined with these two different methods agree within
597: a few percent. We have chosen the latter method for the radii given in Table 2.
598: \citet{gieren05} in their multi-wavelength study of a large sample of Cepheids in
599: NGC 300 including the near-IR have determined a new distance modulus m-M = 26.37
600: mag, which corresponds to a distance of 1.88 Mpc. We have adopted these values to
601: obtain the radii and absolute magnitudes in Table 2.
602:
603: In the temperature range of 8300~K $\le$ 12000~K of our model grid
604: (see Fig.~\ref{modelgrid}) the individual BC-values of the models are well
605: represented by an analytical fit formula
606:
607: \begin{equation}
608: BC(T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize\em eff}}, log~g, [Z]) = f(log~g_{F}) - 4.3~ log~T_{4} (1 + log~T_{4}) + D_{Z}
609: \end{equation}
610:
611: where $T_{4}$ = \teff\//10000~K and
612:
613: \begin{equation}
614: \begin{array}{c}
615: \displaystyle D_{Z} = 0.09[Z](1+0.26[Z]) \\
616: \displaystyle f(log~g_{F}) =f_{max}(1-a~exp(-(log~g_{F}-x_{min})/h))\\
617: \end{array}
618: \end{equation}
619:
620: and a = 1-$f_{min}$/$f_{max}$, $f_{min}$ = -0.39, $f_{max}$ = -0.265,
621: $x_{min}$ = 1.075, h=0.17. The fit is accurate to 0.02 mag over the whole range
622: of model parameters. It allows us to estimate the uncertainties of bolometric
623: magnitudes arising from the uncertainties of the stellar parameters. The errors for
624: for M$_{bol}$ given in Table 2 include these uncertainties together with the
625: photometric errors.
626:
627: We note that in most cases fit formulae provided for bolometric corrections do not
628: include the effects of gravity. In the case of A supergiants this would lead to
629: significant error residuals of the fit of the order of 0.4 mag. Thus, the inclusion
630: of the function $f(log~g_{F})$ is essential for the expression of BC.
631:
632: In our model atmosphere approach to calculate bolometric corrections we convert
633: the model flux at the V-band effective wavelength into a V-magnitude in the
634: usual way using a constant, which transforms the flux of Vega into the Vega
635: V-magnitude. We then use the integral over the total model spectral energy distribution
636: and the effective temperature of the Sun (5777K) to calculate the bolometric
637: magnitude (assuming $M_{bol}^{\odot}$ = 4.74 mag). The difference between the
638: bolometric and the V-magnitudes calculated in this way then yields the bolometric
639: correction. This approach provides the correct bolometric correction for Vega,
640: which is exactly in the effective temperature range of the objects we are dealing
641: with. We have, therefore, decided not to re-normalize our BC values to avoid small
642: positive values at low effective temperatures, as has been suggested by \citet{buser78}
643: (but see also the full discussion on this matter in this paper). As a result, our
644: BC-values are about 0.12 mag larger than the ones given by \citet{przybilla06},
645: who have used the approach by \citet{buser78}.
646:
647: There are two ways to determine stellar masses. We can use the stellar gravities
648: together with the radii to directly calculate masses. We call the masses derived
649: in this way spectroscopic masses. Alternatively, masses can be estimated by
650: comparing the location of our target stars in the HRD with evolutionary tracks (\citealt{meynet05}).
651: Masses obtained in such a way are called evolutionary masses. Both values are
652: given in Table 2 for each target star. The uncertainties are discussed in section 4.2.
653:
654: \section{Results}\label{sec_results}
655:
656: In this section we discuss the main results of our quantitative spectral analysis.
657:
658: \subsection{Interstellar Reddening}
659:
660: Our quantitative spectroscopic method yields interstellar reddening and extinction
661: as a by-product of the analysis process. For objects embedded in the dusty disk of
662: a star forming spiral galaxy we expect a wide range of interstellar reddening E(B-V).
663: Indeed, we find a range from E(B-V) = 0.07 mag up to 0.24 mag. Fig.~\ref{nebv} shows
664: the distribution of interstellar reddening among the 24 stars of our sample. The
665: individual reddening values are significantly larger than the value of 0.03 mag
666: adopted in the HST distance scale key project study of Cepheids by \citet{freedman01}
667: and demonstrates the need for a reliable reddening
668: determination for stellar distance indicators, at least as long the study is
669: restricted to optical wavelengths. The average over our sample is
670: $\langle E(B-V) \rangle $ = 0.12 mag in close agreement with the value of 0.1 mag
671: found by \citet{gieren05} in their optical to near-IR study of Cepheids in NGC 300.
672: While Cepheids have somewhat lower masses than the A supergiants of our study and
673: are consequently somewhat older, they nonetheless belong to the same population and
674: are found at similar sites. Thus, we expect them to be affected by interstellar
675: reddening in the same way as A supergiants.
676:
677: \subsection{Stellar properties}
678:
679: The original motivation for the development of our analysis technique using the Balmer jump
680: was the degeneracy between the effective temperature derived from the spectral type and
681: metallicity. In Fig.~\ref{tsvsta} and ~\ref{dtsvsta} we compare the temperatures
682: obtained with the two different methods. We use the compilation by \citet{kud03}
683: for the relationship between spectral type and effective temperature. While there
684: is a clear correlation between the two temperatures, there is definitely a shift to
685: higher temperatures for \teff\/(spectral type), which is explained by the fact
686: that all of our targets have a metallicity smaller than in the solar neighborhood.
687: Fig.~\ref{dtsvsz} indicates that the effect becomes larger with decreasing
688: metallicity, exactly as expected (for the discussion of metallicities we refer
689: to the next section).
690:
691: Fig.~\ref{lgtngc300} shows the location of our targets in the
692: $(log~g, log$~\teff) plane compared to the early B-supergiants studied by
693: \citet{urbaneja05}. The comparison with evolutionary tracks (\citealt{meynet05}) gives a first
694: indication of the stellar masses in a range from 10 M$_{\odot}$ to 40 M$_{\odot}$.
695: Three targets have obviously higher masses than the rest of the sample and seem to be
696: on a similar evolutionary track as the objects studied by \citet{urbaneja05}.
697:
698: An alternative way to discuss the evolutionary status of our targets is the
699: classical HRD. This is done in Fig.~\ref{hrdngc300}. The evolutionary information
700: obtained from this diagram compared with Fig.~\ref{lgtngc300} appears to be
701: consistent. The B-supergiants seem to be more massive than most of the A
702: supergiants. The same three A supergiants apparently more massive than the rest
703: in Fig.~\ref{lgtngc300} are also the most luminous objects in Fig.~\ref{hrdngc300}.
704: This confirms that quantitative spectroscopy is -at least qualitatively - capable
705: to retrieve the information about absolute luminosities. Note that the fact that
706: all the B supergiants studied by \citet{urbaneja05} are more massive is simply
707: a selection effect of the V magnitude limited spectroscopic survey by
708: \citet{bresolin02}. At similar V magnitude as the A supergiants those objects
709: have higher bolometric corrections because of their higher effective temperatures
710: and are, therefore, more luminous and massive.
711:
712: The luminosity uncertainties for our targets range from 0.02 dex to 0.06 dex
713: (the latter rather large errors appear only in a few rare cases, see Table 2).
714: Correspondingly, Fig.~\ref{hrdngc300} allows to determine stellar masses based on
715: evolutionary tracks with a much better resolution than Fig.~\ref{lgtngc300}. We have used
716: the evolutionary tracks by \citet{meynet05} (and references therein) to construct
717: mass luminosity relationships in the A supergiant stage of the form
718:
719: \begin{equation}
720: log L/L_{\odot} = (a-bx)x+c,~x = log M/M_{\odot} - log M^{min}/M_{\odot}
721: \end{equation}
722:
723: The coefficients for different evolutionary models (with and without rotation,
724: Milky Way and SMC metallicity) are given in Table 4. The fit reproduces model
725: masses for a given luminosity (in the range $-6.5 \ge M_{bol} \ge -9.7 $)
726: to better than 5\% or 0.02 dex. With the bolometric magnitudes in Table 2 we can
727: then determine evolutionary masses, which are also given in Table 2. We have chosen
728: the mass-luminosity relationship for tracks with rotation and SMC abundance, the
729: other relationships give similar results. The reason why we selected Milky Way
730: and SMC metallicities as a representative grid of evolutionary tracks is that
731: only for those a complete set of tracks is available.
732:
733: With the small errors in luminosity, we obtain masses which formally have very
734: small uncertainties of at most 5\%. However, the masses are, of course, affected
735: by the systematic uncertainties of the evolutionary tracks through the effects of
736: mass-loss, rotation, mixing and opacity. One particular problem may arise through
737: blue loops from the red giant branch (RGB) or crossing to the blue from the RGB.
738: Fortunately, for the mass and luminosity range of interest
739: ($12 M_{\odot} \leq M \leq 30 M_{\odot}$, $-6.5 \leq M_{bol} \leq -9.3$)
740: we find that the published tracks (in particular at lower metallicity) do not show
741: significant loops or second crossings.
742:
743: An alternative way to determine masses is, of course, to use directly the stellar
744: gravities and radii determined through the fitting of stellar spectra and SEDs.
745: These spectroscopic masses are also given in Table 2. Note that we have not
746: included the effects of centrifugal forces on the effective stellar gravities
747: to derive spectroscopic masses. While this is important for O-stars
748: (see \citealt{repolust04}), the rotational velocities of A supergiants
749: ($\sim~$30 km/s) are too small and the radii too large to cause an effect.
750: Fig.~\ref{masses1} and
751: ~\ref{masses3} compare the masses derived by the two different
752: methods. Given the fact that uncertainties of the spectroscopic masses are roughly
753: as large as the gravity uncertainties (0.1 to 0.2 dex) the comparison is generally
754: encouraging. At the high mass end, we have agreement within the uncertainties. At
755: the low mass end, however, the evolutionary masses seem to be somewhat higher on
756: average. There is the indication of a trend of this effect to become stronger with
757: decreasing spectroscopic mass. At this point, we have no explanation for this
758: result. If it is not an artefact of the spectroscopic technique applied, then it
759: may indicate that the effects of blue loops are more important than the evolutionary
760: models available to us predict. Blue loops increase the luminosity at a given mass
761: ( at the low mass end the amount of mass-loss is still small at the RGB), thus,
762: their neglect would lead to an overestimate of the evolutionary mass.
763:
764: The most extreme object in the left part of Figures~\ref{masses1} and
765: ~\ref{masses3} ist target No. 17 of Tables 1 and 2. It is the object with the
766: lowest luminosity in the HRD (Fig.~\ref{hrdngc300}) corresponding to a mass of
767: 11 M$_{\odot}$. Its position in the $(log~g, log$~\teff) plane of
768: Fig.~\ref{lgtngc300} is right on the track with an initial mass of 15 M$_{\odot}$,
769: but with the low gravity determined through spectroscopy its radius is too small
770: to yield mass high enough in comparison with the evolutionary mass.
771:
772: \subsection{Metallicity Gradient}\label{sec_metal}
773:
774: The metallicities of the individual targets together with their galacto-centric
775: distance are given in Table 1 and allow us to discuss
776: the stellar metallicity and the metallicity gradient in NGC 300. Fig.~\ref{metgrad}
777: shows the stellar metallicities [Z] as function of galactocentric distance, expressed in terms of the isophotal radius,
778: $\rho/\rho_{0}$. Despite the scatter caused by the metallicity uncertainties of the
779: individual stars the metallicity gradient of the young disk population in NGC 300
780: is very clearly visible. A linear regression (excluding target No. 1, the outlier
781: at $\rho/\rho_{0}$ = 0.81 and [Z] = -0.04) for the combined A- and B-supergiant
782: sample yields
783:
784: \begin{equation}
785: [Z] = -0.06\pm{0.09} - 0.44\pm{0.12}~\rho/\rho_{0}
786: \end{equation}
787:
788: for the angular gradient. On a linear scale (d in kpc) we obtain
789:
790: \begin{equation}
791: [Z] = -0.06\pm{0.09} - 0.083\pm{0.022}~d.
792: \end{equation}
793:
794: We obtain a very similar regression, if we restrict the sample to A-supergiants only,
795: which indicates that there is no systematic abundance difference between these
796: two groups of stars. Our new result confirms the result obtained by
797: \citet{urbaneja05}, but with a much larger sample the metallicity gradient and the zero
798: point are now much better defined. Note that the metallicities of the B supergiants
799: refer to oxygen only with a value of log[N(O)/N(H)] = -3.31 adopted for the sun
800: (\citealt{allende01}). On the other hand, the A supergiant metallicities reflect
801: the abundances of a variety of heavy elements such as Ti, Fe, Cr, Si, S, and Mg.
802:
803: With this result we can resume the discussion started by \citet{urbaneja05}
804: and compare with oxygen abundances obtained from HII-region emission lines.
805: \citet{urbaneja05} used line fluxes published by \citet{deharveng88} and applied
806: various different published strong line method calibrations to determine nebular
807: oxygen abundances, which could then be used to obtain the similar regressions as
808: above. The results for zero points and gradients compared to our work are given in
809: Table 3 (for a discussion of the individual calibrations we refer to
810: \citealt{urbaneja05}).
811:
812: The different strong line method calibrations lead to significant differences in
813: the central metallicity as well as in the abundance gradient. The calibrations
814: by \citet{dopita86} and \citet{zaritsky94} predict a metallicity significantly
815: supersolar in the center of NGC 300 contrary to the other calibrations. Our work
816: yields a central metallicity slightly smaller than solar in good agreement with
817: \citet{denicolo02} and marginally agreeing with \citet{kobulnicky99},
818: \citet{pilyugin01}, and \citet{pettini04}. At the isophotal radius, 5.3 kpc
819: away from the center of NGC 300, we obtain an average metallicity significantly
820: smaller than solar [Z] = -0.50, close to the average metallicity in the SMC. The
821: calibrations by \citet{dopita86}, \citet{zaritsky94}, \citet{kobulnicky99}
822: do not reach these small values for oxygen in the HII regions either because their
823: central metallicity values are too high or the metallicity are gradients too shallow.
824:
825: In light of the substantial range of metallicies obtained from HII region emission
826: lines using different strong line method calibrations it seems to be extremely
827: valuable to have an independent method using young stars. It will be very important
828: to compare our results with advanced work on HII regions, which will avoid strong
829: line methods, and will use direct infomation about nebular electron temperatures
830: and densities (Bresolin et al., 2008, in preparation).
831:
832: As mentioned before, there is a suspicious outlier in Fig.~\ref{metgrad}. We have
833: checked the
834: stellar parameters and metallicity of this object several times and have not found
835: a reason to discard the high metallicity value found, which is 0.38 dex above the
836: average value at this galacto-centric distance. A similar example is target No.14
837: at the largest galacto-centric distance. While we cannot exclude that
838: something went wrong in the analysis, we also want to state very firmly that the
839: expectation of homogeneous azimuthal metallicity in patchy star forming spiral
840: galaxies seems naive to us. The continuation of this type of work on other galaxies
841: will show whether cases like this are common or not. We note that the high
842: resolution spectral analysis of A supergiants in WLM by \citet{venn03} has
843: detected a similar outlier case.
844:
845: So far, we have only tried to determine an average metallicity [Z] for each star.
846: Together with the challenge of an accurate determination of stellar parameters we
847: felt that this was a good first reasonable step to obtain quantitative information
848: from our low resolution spectra. While [Z] in the way how our method works is mostly
849: determined by an overlap of Fe, Ti and Cr lines, we have also observed that
850: certain spectral windows are dominated by a majority of lines of specific element species.
851: In future work we will try to use this observation to determine relative fractions
852: of abundances of $\alpha$- elements such as Mg and Ti to iron-group elements
853: such as Fe and Cr. It will be an important goal to investigate whether this
854: ratio is constant or not as a function of galactocentric distance.
855:
856:
857: \section{Stellar Properties and Evolutionary Lifetimes}\label{sec_lifet}
858:
859: The progenitor stars of the A supergiants of our sample were obviously O-stars
860: in a mass range between 15 to 25 M$_{\odot}$. The HST/ACS photometry of
861: \citet{bresolin05} allows to estimate how many of such progenitor stars are
862: present in exactly the same field. Fig.~\ref{cmd} shows the corresponding combined
863: color-magnitude diagram. Adopting our mean reddening of E(B-V) = 0.12 together with
864: the corresponding mean visual extinction of A$_{V}$ = 0.37, a distance
865: modulus of 26.37 mag, an absolute magnitude of M$_{V}$ = - 2.7 mag for a 15
866: M$_{\odot}$ star on the zero age main sequence, we can assume that all stars
867: brighter than m$_{V}$ = 24.0 mag are possible progenitors of A supergiants.
868: Fig.~\ref{counts} shows the number of star counts in our fields in bins of
869: 0.1 mag as a function of magnitude. The curve is well fitted by
870:
871: \begin{equation}
872: log~n = a_{\star} m_{V} + b_{\star}
873: \end{equation}
874:
875: and $a{\star}$ = 0.5622, $b_{\star}$ = -9.921 (see also \citealt{bresolin96},
876: \citealt{bresolin98}).
877: While the number of star counts starts to become incomplete at m$_{V}$ = 21.5 mag
878: we can extrapolate the fit to calculate the total cumulative number N of stars
879: down to m$_{V}$ = 24.0. We obtain N= $2.9\times10^{4}$ for the present number of
880: progenitor stars. Assuming continuous star formation and having 24 confirmed A
881: supergiants in the fields the ratio $24/2.9\times10^{4} = 8.3\times10^{-4}$ provides a
882: lower limit for the evolutionary lifetime in the A supergiant stage in units of
883: the main sequence lifetime.
884:
885: The total number of A supergiants in the observed fields in the mass range between
886: 15 to 25 M$_{\odot}$ can then be estimated from \citet{bresolin02}, who found a total
887: of 167 supergiant candidates in the combined color magnitude diagram. They obtained
888: spectra for 70 of those and detected 29 A supergiants, i.e. a fraction of 41\%.
889: Assuming the same fraction for the original total of 167 candidates leaves us with
890: an estimate of 69 A supergiants. The observed ratio of evolutionary lifetime in
891: the A supergiant stage to the main sequence lifetime is
892: then $69/2.9\times10^{4} = 2.4\times10^{-3}$.
893:
894: The corresponding lifetime ratio for evolutionary tracks is a strong function of
895: metallicity. Comparing calculations including the effects of rotation (\citealt{meynet05}) we obtain
896: $2\times10^{-2}$ for SMC metallicity and $2-8\times10^{-4}$ for Milky Way metallicity.
897: With metallicities for most of our target stars between these extremes we conclude
898: that our empirical lifetime estimate agrees with the prediction of the evolutionary
899: models.
900:
901: \section{Flux Weighted Gravity - Luminosity Relationship (FGLR)}\label{sec_fglr}
902:
903: As discussed in the previous sections, massive stars with masses in the range from
904: 12 M$_{\odot}$ to 40 M$_{\odot}$ evolve through the B and A
905: supergiant stage at roughly constant luminosity (see Fig.~\ref{hrdngc300}). In addition,
906: since the evolutionary timescale is very short when crossing through the B and A
907: supergiant domain, the amount of mass lost in this stage is small. This means that
908: the evolution proceeds at constant mass and constant luminosity. This has a very
909: simple, but very important consequence for the relationship of gravity and
910: effective temperature along each evolutionary track. From
911:
912: \begin{equation}
913: L \propto R^{2}T^{4}_\mathrm{eff} = \mathrm{const.} ; M = \mathrm{const.}
914: \end{equation}
915: follows immediately that
916: \begin{equation}
917: M \propto g\;R^{2} \propto L\;(g/T^{4}_\mathrm{eff}) = L~g_{F} = \mathrm{const.}
918: \end{equation}
919:
920: Thus, along the evolution through the B and A supergiant domain the
921: \emph{``flux-weighted gravity''} $g_{F} = g$/\teffq\/ should remain constant.
922: This means each evolutionary track of different luminosity in this domain is characterized
923: by a specific value of $g_{F}$. This value is determined by the relationship
924: between stellar mass and luminosity, which in a first approximation is a power law
925: \begin{equation}
926: L \propto M^{x}\;.
927: \end{equation}
928:
929: We note from section 4.2 that the mass-luminosity relationship has higher order
930: terms, but for simplicity we use this as a first order approximation to obtain
931:
932: \begin{equation}
933: L^{1-x} \propto (g/T^{4}_\mathrm{eff})^{x}\;.
934: \end{equation}
935:
936: With the definition of bolometric magnitude
937: $M_\mathrm{bol}$\,$\propto$\,$-2.5\log L$ we then derive
938:
939: \begin{equation}
940: -M_\mathrm{bol} = a_{FGLR}(\log~g_{F} - 1.5)) + b_{FGLR}\;.
941: \end{equation}
942:
943: This is the \emph{``flux-weighted gravity -- luminosity relationship''}
944: (FGLR) of blue supergiants. Note that the proportionality constant
945: $a_{FGLR}$ is given by the exponent of the mass -- luminosity power law through
946:
947: \begin{equation}
948: a_{FGLR} = 2.5 x/(1-x)\;,
949: \end{equation}
950:
951: for instance, for $x=3$, we obtain $a_{FGLR}=-3.75$. We have chosen the zero
952: point of the relationship at a flux weighted gravity of 1.5, which is in the
953: middle of the range encountered for blue supergiant stars.
954:
955: We can use the mass-luminosity relationships of different evolutionary tracks
956: (with and without rotation, for Milky Way and SMC metallicity) as discussed
957: in section 4.2 and characterized
958: by the coefficients given in Table 4 to calculate the different stellar
959: evolution FGLRs, which are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fglrev}. Very interestingly,
960: while different evolutionary model types yield somewhat different FGLRs,
961: the differences are rather small. The difference is largest between the two
962: sets of stellar evolution models for Milky Way metallicity with and without
963: the effects of rotation. The models with SMC metallicity and rotation yield
964: a FGLR rather close to the case with Milky way metallicity and rotation. Only
965: at higher luminosity, where the dependence of mass-loss on metallicity starts
966: to become important, is a larger difference from the Milky Way FGLR predicted.
967: This is also the parameter domain, where the curvature of the FGLR becomes
968: more significant, as to be expected from the non-linear mass-luminosity
969: relationship of section 4.2. The set of stellar evolution models at SMC
970: metallicity but without the effects of rotation yields a FGLR very close to the
971: one with rotation and the same metallicity.
972:
973: \citet{kud03} were the first to realize that the FGLR has a very interesting
974: potential as a purely spectroscopic distance indicator, as it relates two
975: spectroscopically well defined quantitities, effective temperature and gravity,
976: to the absolute magnitude. Compiling a large data set of spectroscopic high
977: resolution studies of A supergiants in the Local Group and with an approximate
978: analysis of low resolution data of a few targets in galaxies beyond the Local
979: Group (see discussion in previous chapters) they were able to prove the
980: existence of an observational FGLR rather similar to the theoretically
981: predicted one.
982:
983: With our improved analysis technique of low resolution spectra of A supergiants
984: and with the much larger sample studied in our new approach we can now resume
985: the investigation of the FGLR. We will do this in three steps. We will first
986: discuss the determination of flux weighted gravities $log~g_{F}$ from the Balmer
987: lines and will then introduce the new FGLR obtained for NGC 300. In this second step we will
988: also include the B supergiants analyzed by \citet{urbaneja05}. Finally, we
989: will compare the new results obtained for NGC 300 with the previous work on
990: Local Group A supergiants to find out whether a universal FGLR exists.
991:
992: \subsection{Balmer lines and Flux weighted Gravity}
993:
994: In Fig.~\ref{h6gt} we show the dependence of the strength of the Balmer line
995: H$_{\delta}$ characterized by its equivalent width W$_{\lambda}$(H${\delta})$
996: on gravity $log~g$ and effective temperature \teff\/. Obviously,
997: W$_{\lambda}$(H${\delta})$ depends on both, gravity and temperature, and the
998: non-horizontal isocontours displayed in Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt} are the result of
999: this dependence. The situation changes dramatically, if one looks at the
1000: dependence of W$_{\lambda}$(H${\delta})$ on flux-weighted gravity $log~g_{F}$
1001: as shown in Fig.~\ref{h6gft}. Now all the curves for higher effective temperatures are on
1002: top of each other and form a temperature independent relationship, which leads
1003: to practically horizontal isocontours in the $(log~g, log$~\teff) plane
1004: Fig.~\ref{isohdbgft}. All the other Balmer lines from H${\gamma}$ to H$_{10}$
1005: show a very similar behaviour.
1006:
1007: This has important consequences for the diagnostics of flux-weighted gravities.
1008: For objects hot enough the uncertainties of the effective temperature
1009: determination do not affect the determination of effective gravities. A simple
1010: measurement of the strengths of Balmer lines either through line profile fitting
1011: or by simply measuring the equivalent widths gives $log~g_{F}$ with rather
1012: high precision, as we have already pointed out in section 3.
1013:
1014: In terms of distance determination using the FGLR this is very encouraging. It
1015: means that errors in \teff\/ stemming from the application of an inaccurate
1016: relationship between spectral types and effective temperatures caused by
1017: non-solar metallicities, as for instance in the work by \citet{kud03}, are
1018: less important as long as the flux-weighted gravities $log~g_{F}$ are well
1019: determined and the objects are hot enough. Errors are only introduced through
1020: erroneous bolometric corrections and errors in E(B-V), when the observed
1021: wavelength-dependent magnitudes have to be transformed into de-reddened
1022: bolometric magnitudes. While this may still be a serious error source and
1023: should be avoided through the application of our diagnostic technique described
1024: in the previous chapters, the uncertainties of the primary quantity
1025: in the application of the method are significantly reduced increasing the
1026: reliability of the FGLR method.
1027:
1028: Because of the importance of this effect for distance determinations we have
1029: investigated the physical reasons leading to Fig.~\ref{h6gft} and~\ref{isohdbgft}.
1030: We discuss them in the remaining part of this subsection. The strength of
1031: absorption lines depends on the line strength $\beta_{\nu}$
1032:
1033: \begin{equation}
1034: \beta_{\nu} = \kappa^{L}_{\Delta \nu}/\kappa^{c}_{\nu},
1035: \end{equation}
1036:
1037: where $\kappa^{L}_{\Delta \nu}$ is the line absorption coefficient and
1038: $\kappa^{c}_{\nu}$ the continuum absorption coefficient at the frequency
1039: of the line. For H${\delta}$ and all other Balmer lines we have
1040:
1041: \begin{equation}
1042: \kappa^{L}_{\Delta \nu} \propto n_{2} \Phi(\Delta \nu)
1043: \end{equation}
1044:
1045: with $n_{2}$ the occupation number in the second level of hydrogen and
1046: $\Phi(\Delta \nu)$ the line broadening profile. Note that we have neglected the
1047: influence of stimulated emission, which is appropriate at the temperatures in
1048: question and for this qualitative discussion. For the supergiants the higher
1049: Balmer lines are always saturated in the Doppler line cores of the line profiles,
1050: where they simply reflect the source function in the outer atmosphere. However,
1051: the contribution to the equivalent widths of these Doppler cores is small. More
1052: important is the contribution from the line wings, where the line broadening is
1053: dominated by the Stark effect and the profile function is very well approximated
1054: by (see \citealt{unsoeld68}, p. 323 or \citealt{mihalas78}, p. 296)
1055:
1056: \begin{equation}
1057: \Phi(\Delta \nu) \propto n_{E} \Delta \lambda ^{-2.5}.
1058: \end{equation}
1059:
1060: $n_{E}$ is the local electron density. The continuum absorption coefficient at
1061: the wavelength of H$_{\delta}$ is well described by
1062:
1063: \begin{equation}
1064: \kappa^{c}_{\nu} = n_{E} \sigma _{E} (1 + n_{E} f(\lambda, T) \sigma/ \sigma _{E}).
1065: \end{equation}
1066:
1067: $\sigma$ is a cross section of $10^{-18} cm^{2}$ and $\sigma _{E}$ is the cross
1068: section for Thompson scattering at free electrons. The function $f(\lambda, T)$
1069: contains the contributions of all continuous true absorption processes, but is
1070: dominated by hydrogen free-free and bound-free absorption. In LTE a good
1071: approximation (better than 10\%) in the range between 8000~K and 15000~K and at
1072: the wavelength of H${\delta}$ is
1073:
1074: \begin{equation}
1075: f(\lambda, T) \approx 1.06~10^{-19} T^{-3}_{4}
1076: \end{equation}
1077:
1078: in units of cm$^{3}$. $T_{4}$ is the temperature in units of $10^{4}$~K. NLTE
1079: effects in the third level of hydrogen can have a small influence on
1080: $f(\lambda, T)$, but will change mostly the value of the constant but not the
1081: temperature dependence. The occupation number of hydrogen in the second level is
1082: given by
1083:
1084: \begin{equation}
1085: n_{2} \propto b_{2} n^{2}_{E} T^{-1.5} exp(E_{2}/kT)
1086: \end{equation}
1087:
1088: with $b_{2}$ the non-LTE departure coefficient and $E_{2}$ the
1089: ionization energy from the second level. k is the Boltzmann constant. For this
1090: equation we have assumed that most of the free electrons in the atmospheres come
1091: from hydrogen, a valid approximation. In our temperature range we find that we
1092: can approximate (within 25\%)
1093:
1094: \begin{equation}
1095: T^{-1.5}_{4} exp(E_{2}/kT) \approx 6.3 10^{1} T^{-6}_{4}
1096: \end{equation}
1097:
1098: This leads to the following expression for the line strength $\beta_{\nu}$
1099:
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: \beta_{\nu} \propto (n_{E} T^{-3}_{4})^{2}/(1 + 1.06~10^{-19} n_{E} T^{-3}_{4}\sigma /\sigma _{E}).
1102: \end{equation}
1103:
1104: Thus, the line strength in the wings of the hydrogen Balmer lines is obviously a
1105: function of electron density devided by the third power of temperature in the
1106: layers of the formation of line wings, which is close to the continuum optical
1107: depth $\tau_{\nu}^{c}$ = 2/3. It is straightfoward to estimate $n_{E} T^{-3}$ in
1108: these layers. Starting from the hydrostatic equation
1109: \begin{equation}
1110: dP/d \tau^{c}_{\nu} = -g(1-\Gamma) \rho /\kappa^{c}_{\nu}
1111: \end{equation}
1112:
1113: and with $\rho = m_{p}n_{p}(1 + 4Y),~n_{p} = n_{E},~P = n_{E}(2 + Y)kT$ and $\rho$,
1114: P, $n_{p}$, Y being mass density, gas pressure, proton number density and number
1115: ratio of helium to hydrogen, respectively, we obtain a differential equation for
1116: the electron density as a function of continuum optical depth (making the usual
1117: assumption that the logarithmic density gradient is much larger than the
1118: logarithmic temperature gradient) , which reads
1119:
1120: \begin{equation}
1121: (1 + n_{E}f(\lambda,T) \sigma/\sigma_{E})dn_{E} = A(g,\Gamma,T)d\tau^{c}_{\nu},
1122: \end{equation}
1123:
1124: where
1125:
1126: \begin{equation}
1127: A(g,\Gamma,T) = g(1-\Gamma)m_{p}(1 + 4Y)/(\sigma_{E}(2 + Y)kT)
1128: \end{equation}
1129:
1130: $\Gamma$ is the usual Eddington-ratio of Thompson scattering radiative acceleration
1131: devided by gravity, namely (assuming again n$_{E}$ = n$_{p}$)
1132:
1133: \begin{equation}
1134: \Gamma = 7.49~T^{4}_{4}(1 + Y)/(g(1 + 4Y) ~ \propto g_{F}^{-1}
1135: \end{equation}
1136:
1137: The integration of this differential equation is simple (again regarding the
1138: temperature gradient as negligible). We obtain at every continuum optical
1139: depth$\tau_{c}$
1140:
1141: \begin{equation}
1142: n_{E} + n_{E}^{2} \sigma f(\lambda,T)/(2\sigma_{E}) = A(g,\Gamma,T)\tau^{c}_{\nu}
1143: \end{equation}
1144:
1145: or
1146:
1147: \begin{equation}
1148: n_{E}\sigma f(\lambda,T)/\sigma_{E} = (1 + 2A(g,\Gamma,T)\tau^{c}_{\nu}\sigma f(\lambda,T)/\sigma_{E})^{1/2}-1.
1149: \end{equation}
1150:
1151: With $f(\lambda,T) \propto T^{-3}$ we see immediately that
1152:
1153: \begin{equation}
1154: n_{E}T^{-3} \propto (1 + g_{F}(1-\Gamma)*const.)^{1/2}.
1155: \end{equation}
1156:
1157: which means that the line strength $\beta_{\nu}$ depends solely on the flux
1158: weighted gravity and not on effective temperature. We also note that
1159: depending on whether the second term under the square root is small or large
1160: compared with unity (i.e. $g_{F}(1-\Gamma)$ small or large)
1161: we will have $n_{E}T^{-3} \propto g_{F}(1-\Gamma)$ or
1162: $\propto (g_{F}(1-\Gamma))^{0.5}$, respectively. Numerical solutions of the
1163: exact problem including full NLTE opacities and the temperature gradient
1164: show that this simple estimate is qualitatively correct and fairly accurate.
1165:
1166: These simple calculations explain the physical reason why the the strengths
1167: of the Balmer lines depend mostly on the flux weighted gravity and why the
1168: isocontours of the equivalent widths in Fig.~\ref{isohdbgft} are horizontal.
1169: However, they do not explain, why the isocontours bend upwards at higher
1170: temperature. The reason is the recombination of hydrogen at lower temperatures.
1171: While it is intuitively clear that recombination must lead to stronger hydrogen
1172: lines and thus to an upward turn of the isocontours, we verified this by simple
1173: numerical calculations solving the same problem as above but including the
1174: effects of recombination through the Saha formula. We also included the effects of atmospheric
1175: temperature stratifications by allowing for appropriate T($\tau^{c}_{\nu}$)
1176: relationships. At lower \teff\/ and higher $log~g$ hydrogen partly recombines.
1177: $\kappa^{c}_{\nu}$ becomes smaller ($\propto n_{E}^{2}$) and $\tau^{c}_{\nu}$
1178: is reached in much larger geometrical depth of much higher pressure and total
1179: number density. As a result, the effect of recombination is overcompensated and $n_{E}$
1180: at the optical depth of line wing formation is much larger than in the
1181: calculation without recombination at these temperatures and gravities.
1182:
1183:
1184: \subsection{The FGLR of NGC 300}
1185:
1186: With 24 A supergiants studied in this work and the 6 early type B supergiants
1187: investigated by \citet{urbaneja05} we have a large sample, which we can use for
1188: an observational test of the FGLR. For the A supergiants, all the data and their
1189: uncertainties have been discussed in the previous chapters. A similar
1190: discussion has been given by \citet{urbaneja05} for the B supergiants. Note, however,
1191: that \citet{urbaneja05} used the ground-based photometry by
1192: \citet{bresolin02}, which as discussed above has been superseded by the
1193: HST/ACS photometry presented and discussed by \citet{bresolin05}. With the effective
1194: temperatures, gravities and intrinsic energy distributions determined for
1195: each B supergiant by \citet{urbaneja05} we have used the new photometry
1196: to re-determine interstellar reddening and extinction, which then yields new
1197: stellar radii and absolute V and bolometric magnitudes. Note that
1198: \citet{urbaneja05} also used the old distance modulus by \citet{freedman01},
1199: which is significantly different from the new distance modulus determined by
1200: \citet{gieren05} based on on optical and IR observations of a large sample
1201: of Cepheids minimizing the errors caused by reddening.
1202:
1203: The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fglrngc300}, which reveals a clear and rather
1204: tight relationship of flux weighted gravity $log~g_{F}$ with bolometric magnitude
1205: $M_{bol}$. A simple linear regression yields $b_{FGLR}$ = 8.11 for the zero point and
1206: $a_{FGLR}$ = -3.52 for the slope. The standard deviation from this relationship is
1207: $\sigma$ = 0.34 mag.
1208:
1209: We also overplot the FGLRs predicted by stellar evolution theory (\citealt{meynet05}) as discussed
1210: in the previous paragraphs. At lower luminosities (or large $log~g_{F}$) they agree
1211: well with the observed linear regression. In particular, the FGLR for Milky Way
1212: metallicity is very close. For higher luminosities (or small $log~g_{F}$) the linear
1213: regression and the stellar evolution FGLRs diverge because of the curvature of the
1214: latter, which is caused by the fact that the exponent of the mass-luminosity
1215: relationship becomes smaller. Looking at the scatter of the data points around
1216: either the linear regression or the FGLR for Milky Way metallicity it is hard
1217: to tell which of the two is the better fit. Approximating the stellar evolution
1218: FGLRs by
1219:
1220: \begin{equation}
1221: \begin{array}{c}
1222: \displaystyle M_{bol} = \alpha(log~g_{F})(log~g_{F}-x_{0}) + M_{bol}^{0} \\
1223: \displaystyle \alpha(log~g_{F}) = \alpha_{0} + \alpha_{1}(x_{0} - log~g_{F}) + \alpha_{2}(x_{0} - log~g_{F})^{2} \\
1224: \end{array}
1225: \end{equation}
1226:
1227: %\begin{equation}
1228: %M_{bol} = \alpha(log~g_{F})(log~g_{F}-x_{0}) + M_{bol}^{0}
1229: %\end{equation}
1230: %
1231: %\begin{equation}
1232: %\alpha(log~g_{F}) = \alpha_{0} + \alpha_{1}(x_{0} - log~g_{F}) + \alpha_{2}(x_{0} - log~g_{F})^{2}
1233: %\end{equation}
1234: %
1235: (values for $\alpha_{0}, \alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}$ and $x_{0}$ are given in Table 4)
1236: we can calculate standard deviations to characterize the scatter around those. For
1237: Milky Way metallicity we obtain $\sigma$ = 0.35 mag, practically identical to
1238: scatter around the linear regression. The FGLR for SMC metallicity has a much
1239: stronger curvature (as the result of less mass-loss in the O-star stage of stellar
1240: evolution) and is shifted towards higher luminosities and seems to be worse fit of
1241: the data. This is confirmed by the standard deviation of $\sigma$ = 0.41 mag for this
1242: relationship. Applying a vertical shift of $\Delta M_{b0l}^{0}$ = 0.16 mag to the SMC
1243: metallicity relationship minimizes its standard deviation to $\sigma$ = 0.38 mag,
1244: still worse than for the linear regression and the FGLR for Milky Way metallicity.
1245: We note that most of our objects have metallicities between the Milky Way and the
1246: SMC comparable to the LMC. Unfortunatly, no complete set of models including the
1247: effects of rotation in the mass range needed is available at this metallicity at
1248: the moment.
1249:
1250: The new linear regression coefficients for the FGLR in NGC 300 are different from
1251: those obtained by \citet{kud03} ($a_{FGLR}$ = -3.85 and $b_{FGLR}$ = 7.96)
1252: resulting now in a higher luminosity zero point and a somewhat shallower slope. This
1253: is caused by a combination of different factors, a new distance modulus to NGC 300,
1254: improved HST photometry leading to larger extinction and a systematic change of stellar
1255: parameters as the result of the new diagnostic technique of the low resolution spectra.
1256:
1257: \subsection{The FGLR averaged over eight galaxies}
1258:
1259: In their first investigation of the empirical FGLR \citet{kud03} have added A supergiants
1260: from six Local Group galaxies with stellar parameters obtained from quantitative studies
1261: of high resolution spectra (Milky Way, LMC, SMC, M31, M33, NGC 6822) to their results for NGC 300 to
1262: obtain a larger sample. They also added 4 objects from the spiral galaxy NGC 3621
1263: (at 6.7 Mpc) which were studied at low resolution. We will add exactly the same
1264: data set to our new enlarged NGC 300 sample, however, with a few minor modifications.
1265: For the Milky Way we include the latest results from \citet{przybilla06} and \citet{schiller07} and
1266: for the two objects in M31 we use the new stellar parameters obtained by
1267: \citet{przybilla06b}. For the objects in NGC 3621 we apply new HST photometry.
1268: (Note that for the
1269: objects \teff\/ and $log~g$ were obtained from a spectral fit assuming LMC
1270: metallicity, i.e. the detailed technique developed here for the NGC 300 objects has
1271: not yet been applied. However, eliminating those objects from the sample does not
1272: change the results significantly). We have also re-analyzed the LMC objects using ionization equilibria for the temperature determination.
1273: The results are summarized in Table 5. The bolometric corrections for all objects are calculated using eq.(6).
1274:
1275: Fig.~\ref{fglrall} shows bolometric magnitudes and flux-weighted gravities for this
1276: full sample of eight galaxies revealing a tight relationship over one order of
1277: magnitude in flux-weighted gravity. The linear regression coefficients are
1278: $a_{FGLR} = -3.41\pm{0.16}$ and $b_{FGLR} = 8.02\pm{0.04}$, very simimilar to the NGC 300 sample
1279: alone. The standard deviation is
1280: $\sigma$ = 0.32 mag. The new coefficients are slightly different from the
1281: previous work by \citet{kud03} ($a_{FGLR}$ = -3.71 and $b_{FGLR}$ = 7.92)
1282: resulting in a FGLR brighter by 0.1 to 0.2 mag now in much closer agreement with
1283: stellar evolution. Compared with the new results the stellar evolution FGLR
1284: for Milky Way metallicity
1285: provides a fit of almost similar quality with a standard deviation of
1286: $\sigma$ = 0.31 mag. The stellar evolution FGLR fit for
1287: SMC metallicity is worse with $\sigma$ = 0.42 mag
1288: (applying $\Delta M_{b0l}^{0}$ = 0.20 mag reduces the standard deviation
1289: to $\sigma$ = 0.35 mag).
1290:
1291: We conclude that the simple linear regression fit of this sample is the best way
1292: to describe the empirical FGLR at this point. It is basically in agreement with
1293: stellar evolution theory, at least if mass-loss and rotational mixing affect the
1294: evolution as for the models with solar metallicity. We note that for the
1295: evolutionary models accounting for mass-loss and mixing based on SMC metallicity
1296: we have an offset relative to the observed FGLR by about 0.20 mag and a curvature
1297: stronger than observed. Again, we stress the need for a complete set of models
1298: including the effects of rotation at LMC metallicities.
1299:
1300: \section{Conclusions and Future Work}\label{sec_concl}
1301:
1302: The goal of this work has been to demonstrate the astrophysical potential of low
1303: resolution spectroscopy of A supergiant stars in galaxies beyond the Local Group.
1304: By introducing a novel method for the quantitative spectral analysis we are
1305: able to determine accurate stellar parameters, which allow us to test stellar
1306: evolution models including the evolutionary time scales in the A supergiant stage.
1307: Through the spectroscopic determination of stellar parameters we can also
1308: constrain interstellar reddening and extinction by comparing the calculated SED
1309: with broad band photometry. We find a very patchy extintion pattern as to be
1310: expected for a star forming spiral galaxy. The average extinction is in agreement
1311: with multi-wavelength studies of Cepheids including K-band photometry.
1312:
1313: The method also allows to determine stellar metallicities and to study stellar
1314: metallicity gradients. We find a metallicity close to solar in the center of
1315: NGC 300 and a gradient of $-$0.08 dex/kpc. To our knowledge this is the first
1316: systematic stellar metallicity study in galaxies beyond the Local Group
1317: focussing on iron group elements. In the future the method can be extended to
1318: not only determine metallicity but also the ratio of $\alpha$- to iron group
1319: elements as a function of galactocentric distance. The stellar metallicities
1320: obtained can be compared with oxygen abundance studies of HII regions using
1321: the strong line method. This allows us to discuss the various calibrations
1322: of the strong line method, which usually yield very different results.
1323:
1324: The improved spectral diagnostic method presented here enables us to very
1325: accurately determine stellar flux weighted gravities $log~g_{F}$ = $log~g$/\teffq\/
1326: and bolometric magnitudes, which we explain by a detailed discussion of the
1327: physical background of the spectroscopic diagnostics. We find that above a
1328: certain threshold in effective temperature a simple measurement of the strengths
1329: of the Balmer lines can be used to determine accurate values of $log~g_{F}$.
1330:
1331: Absolute bolometric magnitudes $M_{bol}$ and flux-weighted gravities $log~g_{F}$
1332: are tightly correlated. It is shown that such a correlation is expected for
1333: stars, which evolve at constant luminosity and mass. We discuss the observed
1334: ``flux-weighted gravity - luminosity relationship (FGLR)'' in detail and
1335: compare with stellar evolution theory. We find resonable agreement with
1336: evolutionary tracks which account for mass-loss and rotational mixing assuming
1337: solar metallicity. The agreement is less good for similar tracks with SMC
1338: metallicity.
1339:
1340: With a relatively small residual scatter of $\sigma$ = 0.3 mag the observed
1341: FGLR is an excellent tool to determine accurate spectroscopic distance to galaxies.
1342: It requires multicolor photometry and low resolution ($5\AA$) spectroscopy to
1343: determine effective temperature and gravity and, thus, flux-weighed gravity
1344: directly from the spectrum using the self-consistent method developed here.
1345: With effective temperature, gravity and metallicity determined we also know the
1346: bolometric correction, which is small for A supergiants, which means that errors
1347: in the stellar parameters do not largely affect the determination of bolometric
1348: magnitudes. Moreover, we know the intrinsic stellar SED and, therefore, can
1349: determine interstellar reddening and extinction from the multicolor photometry,
1350: which will allow the accurate determination of the reddening-free apparent
1351: bolometric magnitude. The application of the FGLR will then yield absolute
1352: magnitudes and, thus, the distance modulus. With the intrinsic scatter of
1353: $\sigma$ = 0.3 mag and 30 targets per galaxy one can estimate an accuracy of
1354: 0.05 mag in distance modulus (0.1 mag for 10 target stars).
1355:
1356: The advantage of the FGLR method for distance determinations is its
1357: spectroscopic nature, which provides significantly more information about
1358: the physical status of the objects used for the distance determination than
1359: simple photometry methods. Most importantly, metallicity and interstellar
1360: extinction can be determined directly. The latter is crucial for spiral and
1361: irregular galaxies because of the intrinsic patchiness of reddening and
1362: extinction.
1363:
1364: Since supergiant stars are known to show intrinsic photometric variability,
1365: the question arises whether the FGLR method is affected by such variability.
1366: For the our targets in NGC 300 this issue has been carefully investigated
1367: by \citet{bresolin04}, who studied their CCD photometry lightcurves
1368: obtained over many epochs in the parallel search for Cepheids in NGC 300. They
1369: concluded that amplitudes of photometric variability are very small and do
1370: not affect distance determinations using the FGLR method. The standard
1371: deviations from the mean V magnitude for subset of A supergiants identified
1372: as variable ranges between 0.03 to 0.05 magnitudes, with maximum amplitudes
1373: of the variability between 0.08 to 0.23 mag. This is clearly within the one
1374: $\sigma$ uncertainty found for the FGLR.
1375:
1376: The effects of crowding and stellar multiplicity are also important. However,
1377: in this regard A supergiants offer tremendous advantages relative to other
1378: stellar distance indicators. First of all, they are significantly brighter.
1379: \citet{bresolin05} using HST ACS photometry compared to ground-based
1380: photometry have studied the effects of crowding on the Cepheid distance
1381: to NGC 300 and concluded that they are negligible. With A supergiants being
1382: 3 to 6 magnitudes brighter than Cepheids it is clear that even with
1383: ground-based photometry only crowding is generally not an issue for these
1384: objects at the distance of NGC 300 and, of course, with HST photometry
1385: (and in the future JWST) one can reach much larger distances before crowding
1386: becomes important. In addition, any significant contribution by additional
1387: objects to the light of an A supergiant will become apparent in the spectrum,
1388: if the contaminators are not of a very similar spectral type, which is very
1389: unlikely because of the short evolutionary lifetime in the A supergiant stage.
1390: It is also important to note that A supergiants have evolutionary ages larger
1391: than 10 million years, which means that they have time to migrate into the
1392: field or that they are found in older clusters, which are usually less concentrated
1393: than the very young OB associations.
1394:
1395: It is evident that the type of work described in this paper can be
1396: in a straightforward way extended to the many spiral galaxies in the local volume
1397: at distances in the 4 to 7 Mpc range. Pushing the method we estimate
1398: that with present day 8m to 10m class telescopes and the existing very efficient
1399: multi-object spectrographs one can reach down with sufficient S/N to V = 22.5 mag in two nights of
1400: observing time under very good conditions. For objects brighter than
1401: $M_{V}$ = -8 mag this means metallicities and distances can be determined out
1402: to distances of 12 Mpc (m-M = 30.5 mag). This opens up a substantial volume
1403: of the local universe for metallicity and galactic evolution studies and
1404: independent distance determinations complementary to the existing methods. With
1405: the next generation of extremely large telescopes such as the TMT, GMT or the
1406: E-ELT the limiting magnitude can be pushed to V = 24.5 equivalent to
1407: distances of 30 Mpc (m-M = 32.5 mag).
1408:
1409: Acknowledgements: WG and GP gratefully acknowledge financial support from the
1410: Chilean FONDAP Center of Astrophysics under grant 15010003, and from the Chilean
1411: Centro de Astrofisica y Tecnologias Afines (CATA). We like to thank
1412: Vivan U and John Hillier for the careful reading of the manuscript and
1413: stimulating discussion. We also thank the anonymous referee for his constructive
1414: suggestions, which helped to improve the paper.
1415:
1416:
1417: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1418:
1419: \bibitem[Allende Prieto, Lambert \& Asplund\/(2001)]{allende01}
1420: Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D.L., \& Asplund, M. 2001, \apj, 556,
1421: L63
1422:
1423: \bibitem[Aufdenberg et al.\/(2002)]{aufdenb02}
1424: Aufdenberg, J. P., Hauschildt, P.H., Baron, E. et al. 2002, \apj, 570,
1425: 344
1426:
1427: \bibitem[Aydin (1972)]{aydin72}
1428: Aydin, C., 1972, \aap, 19, 369
1429:
1430: \bibitem[Bonanos et al.\/(2006)]{bonanos06}
1431: Bonanos, C., Stanek, K., Kudritzki, R.P. et al. 2006, \apj, 652, 313
1432:
1433: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.\/(1996)]{bresolin96}
1434: Bresolin, F., Kennicutt, R. et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 1009
1435:
1436: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.\/(1998)]{bresolin98}
1437: Bresolin, F., Kennicutt, R. et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 119
1438:
1439: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.\/(2001)]{bresolin01}
1440: Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., M\'endez, R. H., \& Przybilla, N. 2001, \apj, 548, L159
1441:
1442: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.\/(2002)]{bresolin02}
1443: Bresolin, F., Gieren, W., Kudritzki, R.-P., Pietrzy\'nski, G., \& Przybilla, N. 2002, \apj, 567, 277
1444:
1445: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.\/(2004)]{bresolin04}
1446: Bresolin, F., Pietrzy\'nski, G., Gieren, W., Kudritzki, R.-P., Przybilla, N. \& Fouque, P. 2004, \apj, 600, 182
1447:
1448: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.\/(2005)]{bresolin05}
1449: Bresolin, F., Pietrzy\'nski, G., Gieren, W. \& Kudritzki, R. P. 2005, \apj, 634, 1020
1450:
1451: \bibitem[Buser \& Kurucz \/(1978)]{buser78}
1452: Buser, R. \& Kurucz, R.L. 1978, \aap, 70, 555
1453:
1454: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.\/(1989)]{cardelli89}
1455: Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C. \& Mathis, J. S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
1456:
1457: \bibitem[Deharveng et al.\/(1988)]{deharveng88}
1458: Deharveng, L., Caplan, J., Lequeux, J., Azzopardi, M., Breysacher, J., Tarenghi, M., Westerlund, B. 1988, \aaps, 73, 407
1459:
1460: \bibitem[Denicolo et al.\/(2002)]{denicolo02}
1461: Denicolo, G., Terlevich, R.\& Terlevich, E. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 69
1462:
1463: \bibitem[Dopita \& Evans.\/(1986)]{dopita86}
1464: Dopita, M.A., Evans, I.N. 1986, \apj, 307, 431
1465:
1466: \bibitem[Evans \& Howarth\/(2003)]{evans03}
1467: Evans, C. J.\& Howarth, I.D. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1223
1468:
1469: \bibitem[Freedman et al.\/(2001)]{freedman01}
1470: Freedman et al. 2001, \apj, 553, 47
1471:
1472: \bibitem[Grevesse \& Sauval\/(1998)]{grevesse98}
1473: Grevesse, N.\& Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161
1474:
1475: \bibitem[Gieren et al.\/(2005a)]{gieren05}
1476: Gieren, W., Pietrzy\'nski, G., Soszynski, I., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R. P., Miniti, D., \& Storm, J. 2005, \apj, 628, 695
1477:
1478: \bibitem[Gieren et al.\/(2005b)]{gieren05b}
1479: Gieren, W. et al. 2005, ESO Messenger, 121, 23
1480:
1481: \bibitem[Gieren et al.\/(2006)]{gieren06}
1482: Gieren, W., Pietrzy\'nski, G., Nalewajko, K. et al. 2006, \apj, 647, 1056
1483:
1484: \bibitem[Groth\/(1961)]{groth61}
1485: Groth, H. G.1961, ZAp, 51, 231
1486:
1487: \bibitem[Holland\/(1998)]{holland98}
1488: Holland, S. 1998, AJ, 115, 1916
1489:
1490: \bibitem[Kaufer et al.\/(2004)]{kaufer04}
1491: Kaufer, A., Venn, K. A., Tolstoy, E., Pinte, C. \& Kudritzki, R. P. 2004, \aj, 127, 2723
1492:
1493: \bibitem[Kobulnicky et al.\/(1999)]{kobulnicky99}
1494: Kobulnicky, H.A., Kennicutt, R.C.\& Pizagno, J.L. 1999, \apj, 514, 544
1495:
1496: \bibitem[Kudritzki\/(1973)]{kud73}
1497: Kudritzki, R. P. 1973, \aap, 28, 103
1498:
1499: \bibitem[Kudritzki, Lennon \& Puls\/(1995)]{kud95}
1500: Kudritzki, R.-P., Lennon, D. J. \& Puls, J. 1995, {\it Quantitative spectroscopy of luminous blue stars in
1501: distant galaxies}, in Proc. ESO Workshop "Science with VLT", Eds. J. P.
1502: Welsh \& I. J. Danziger
1503:
1504: \bibitem[Kudritzki\/(1998)]{kud98}
1505: Kudritzki, R.P., 1998, {\it Quantitative spectroscopy of the brightest blue supergiant stars in
1506: galaxies}, in "Stellar Physics for the Local Group",
1507: eds. A. Aparicio, A. Herrero \&F. Sanchez (Cambridge University Press), p. 149
1508:
1509: \bibitem[Kudritzki et al.\/(1999)]{kud99}
1510: Kudritzki, R.-P., Puls, J., Lennon, D. J. et al. 1999,\aap, 350, 970
1511:
1512:
1513: \bibitem[Kudritzki, Bresolin \& Przybilla\/(2003)]{kud03}
1514: Kudritzki, R.-P., Bresolin, F., \& Przybilla, N. 2003, \apj, 582, L83
1515:
1516: \bibitem[McCarthy et al.\/(1995)]{mccarthy95}
1517: McCarthy, J. K., Lennon, D. J., Venn, K. A., Kudritzki, R. P., Puls, J. \&
1518: Najarro, F. 1995, \apj, 455, L135
1519:
1520: \bibitem[McCarthy et al.\/(1997)]{mccarthy97}
1521: McCarthy, J. K., Kudritzki, R. P., Lennon, D. J., Venn, K.A.
1522: \& Puls, J. 1997, \apj, 482, 757
1523:
1524: \bibitem[Meynet \& Maeder\/(2005)]{meynet05}
1525: Meynet, \& Maeder, A. 2005, \aap, 429, 581
1526:
1527: \bibitem[Mihalas\/(1978)]{mihalas78}
1528: Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar Atmospheres, W.H. Freeman and Company, 2nd edition
1529:
1530: \bibitem[Pettini \& Pagel\/(2004)]{pettini04}
1531: Pettini, M. \& Pagel, B.E.J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59
1532:
1533: \bibitem[Pilyugin\/(2001)]{pilyugin01}
1534: Pilyugin, L.S. 2001, \aap, 369, 594
1535:
1536: \bibitem[Przybilla et al.\/(2000)]{przybilla00}
1537: Przybilla, N., Butler, K., Becker, S. R., Kudritzki, R. P. \&
1538: Venn, K.A. 2000, \aap, 359, 1085
1539:
1540: \bibitem[Przybilla et al.\/(2001a)]{przybilla01a}
1541: Przybilla, N., Butler, K., Becker, S. R., \&
1542: Kudritzki, R. P. 2001a, \aap, 369, 1009
1543:
1544: \bibitem[Przybilla et al.\/(2001b)]{przybilla01b}
1545: Przybilla, N., Butler, K. \& Kudritzki, R. P. 2001b, \aap, 379, 936
1546:
1547: \bibitem[Przybilla \& Butler\/(2001)]{przybilla01}
1548: Przybilla, N. \& Butler, K. 2001, \aap, 379, 955
1549:
1550: \bibitem[Przybilla \/(2002)]{przybilla02}
1551: Przybilla, N. 2002, thesis, Fakultaet fuer Physik, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich
1552:
1553: \bibitem[Przybilla et al.\/(2006)]{przybilla06}
1554: Przybilla, N., Butler, K., Becker, S. R., \&
1555: Kudritzki, R. P. 2006a, \aap, 445, 1099
1556:
1557: \bibitem[Przybilla et al.\/(2008)]{przybilla06b}
1558: Przybilla, N., Butler, K., \&
1559: Kudritzki, R. P. 2008,in ``The Metal-Rich Universe'', eds. G. Israelian \& G. Meynet (Cambridge University Press), in press (astro-ph/0611044)
1560:
1561: \bibitem[Repolust et al.\/(2004)]{repolust04}
1562: Repolust, T., Puls, J., \& Herrero, A. 2004, \aap, 415, 349
1563:
1564: \bibitem[Schiller \& Przybilla \/(2007)]{schiller07}
1565: Schiller, F.\& Przybilla, N. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten 328, 656
1566:
1567: \bibitem[Unsoeld\/(1968)]{unsoeld68}
1568: Unsoeld, A. 1968, Physik der Sternatmosphaeren, Springer-Verlag, 2. Auflage
1569:
1570: \bibitem[Urbaneja et al.\/(2005)]{urbaneja05}
1571: Urbaneja, M. A., Herrero, A. J., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R. P., Gieren, W., Puls, J., J. K., Przybilla, N., Najarro, F..\&
1572: Pietrzynski, G. 2005, \apj, 622, 877
1573:
1574:
1575: \bibitem[Venn\/(1995a)]{venn95a}
1576: Venn, K. A. 1995a, \apjs, 99, 659
1577:
1578: \bibitem[Venn\/(1995b)]{venn95b}
1579: Venn, K. A. 1995a, \apj, 449, 839
1580:
1581: \bibitem[Venn\/(1999)]{venn99}
1582: Venn, K. A. 1999, \apj, 518, 405
1583:
1584: \bibitem[Venn et al.\/(2000)]{venn00}
1585: Venn, K. A., McCarthy, J. K., Lennon, D. J., Przybilla, N., Kudritzki, R. P. \&
1586: Lemke, M. 2000, \apj, 541, 610
1587:
1588: \bibitem[Venn et al.\/(2001)]{venn01}
1589: Venn, K. A., Lennon, D. J., Kaufer, A., McCarthy, J. K., Przybilla, N., Kudritzki, R. P., Lemke, M., Skillman, E. D. \&
1590: Smartt, S. J. 2001, \apj, 547, 765
1591:
1592: \bibitem[Venn et al.\/(2003)]{venn03}
1593: Venn, K. A., Tolstoy, E. Kaufer, A. et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 1326
1594:
1595:
1596: \bibitem[Wolf\/(1971)]{wolf71}
1597: Wolf, B.1971, \aap, 10, 383
1598:
1599: \bibitem[Wolf\/(1972)]{wolf72}
1600: Wolf, B.1972, \aap, 20, 275
1601:
1602: \bibitem[Wolf\/(1973)]{wolf73}
1603: Wolf, B.1973, \aap, 28, 335
1604:
1605: \bibitem[Zaritsky et al.\/(1994)]{zaritsky94}
1606: Zaritski, D., Kennicutt, R. C. \& Huchra, J.P. 1994, \apj, 420, 87
1607:
1608: \end{thebibliography}
1609:
1610: \clearpage
1611:
1612: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1613: % INSERTING A FIGURE
1614:
1615:
1616:
1617: \begin{figure}[!]
1618: \begin{center}
1619: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f1.eps}
1620: \caption[]{Parameter space of the model atmosphere grid used in this study. Different symbols refer
1621: to the microturbulence values used for the models. Open circles: $v_{t}$ = 8 km/s; open squares
1622: 7 km/sec; open triangles 6 km/sec; filled squares 5 km/sec; filled circles 4 km/sec. At each grid
1623: point metallicities from between [Z] = 0.3 to -1.30 are available (see text). \label{modelgrid} }
1624: \end{center}
1625: \end{figure}
1626:
1627: \begin{figure}
1628: %\plotone{f2}
1629: \begin{center}
1630: \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{f2.eps}
1631: \caption{The temperature-metallicity degeneracy of spectral types.
1632: Synthetic spectra of three A supergiant model atmospheres degraded to 5~\AA~resolution
1633: with (\teff, $log~g, [Z]$) = (10500~K, 1.40, 0.15) (top); (9500~K, 1.20, -0.30) (middle);
1634: (8750~K, 1.00, -0.50) (bottom). The latter two are vertically shifted by 0.1 and 0.2. Metal
1635: line identifications are given by the bars at the top (solid: FeII; dashed: CrII; dotted: TiII;
1636: dashed-dotted: MgII). Note the change of the strength of the HeI line at 4471~\AA~from the hottest
1637: to the cooler models.}
1638: \label{degen}
1639: \end{center}
1640: \end{figure}
1641:
1642: \begin{figure}
1643: %\plotone{f3}
1644: \begin{center}
1645: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f3.eps}
1646: \caption{Energy distributions of the models of Fig.~\ref{degen}. The fluxes are normalized at
1647: 4380 \AA. The hottest model has the steepest SED.}
1648: \label{seddegen}
1649: \end{center}
1650: \end{figure}
1651:
1652: \begin{figure}
1653: %% \plotone{f4}
1654: \begin{center}
1655: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f4.eps}
1656: \caption{Balmer jump fluxes of the models of Fig.~\ref{degen}. The fluxes are normalized at
1657: 3790 \AA. The hottest model has the smallest Balmer jump.}
1658: \label{dbdegen}
1659: \end{center}
1660: \end{figure}
1661:
1662: \begin{figure}
1663: %% \plotone{f5}
1664: \begin{center}
1665: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f5.eps}
1666: \caption{Isocontours of H${\delta}$ (solid) and $D_{B}$ (dashed) in the
1667: $(log~g, log$~\teff) plane. H${\delta}$ isocontours start with 1 \AA~equivalent width and
1668: increase in steps of 0.5 \AA. $D_{B}$ isocontours start with 0.1 dex and increase by 0.1 dex.
1669: The iscontours are calculated fro the model atmosphere and non-LTE line formation grid
1670: described in section 3 and Fig. 1.}
1671: \label{isohdbgt}
1672: \end{center}
1673: \end{figure}
1674:
1675: \begin{figure}
1676: \plotone{f6}
1677: \caption{Model atmosphere fit of two observed Balmer lines of target No. 21 of Table 1 for
1678: \teff\/ = 10000~K and $log~g$ = 1.55 (solid). Two additional models with same \teff\/
1679: but $log~g$ = 1.45 and 1.65, respectively, are also shown (dashed). Fits of other Balmer lines
1680: such as H$_{\gamma,8,9,10}$ are similar. Note that the calculated line profiles were folded
1681: with a Gaussian of 5~\AA~FWHM to account for instrumental broadening}
1682: \label{fitbalm}
1683: \end{figure}
1684:
1685:
1686: \begin{figure}
1687: %%\plotone{f7}
1688: \begin{center}
1689: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f7.eps}
1690: \caption{Model atmosphere fit of the observed Balmer jump of target No. 21 of Table 1 for
1691: \teff\/ = 10000~K and $log~g$ = 1.55 (solid). Two additional models with the same $log~g$
1692: but \teff\/ = 9750~K (dashed) and 10500~K (dotted) are also shown. The horizontal bar at
1693: 3600~\AA~represents the average of the flux logarithm over this wavelength interval, which
1694: is used to measure D${_B}$ (see text).}
1695: \label{fitsed}
1696: \end{center}
1697: \end{figure}
1698:
1699: \begin{figure}
1700: %%\plotone{f8}
1701: \begin{center}
1702: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f8.eps}
1703: \caption{($log~g, log$ \teff\/)-fit diagram for target No.21 of Table 1. The solid curves
1704: represent the best fits of the Balmer jump and the Balmer lines. The dashed curves
1705: correspond to the maximum fitting errors. }
1706: \label{lgtfit}
1707: \end{center}
1708: \end{figure}
1709:
1710: \begin{figure}
1711: %%\plotone{f9}
1712: \begin{center}
1713: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f9.eps}
1714: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{lgtfit} but for the flux weighted gravity $log~g_{F}$
1715: instead of gravity $log~g$.}
1716: \label{lgftfit}
1717: \end{center}
1718: \end{figure}
1719:
1720: \begin{figure}
1721: \plotone{f10}
1722: \caption{Effective temperature uncertainties $\pm \Delta$\teff/\teff\/ as a function of effective
1723: temperatures (see Table 1). Open and solid symbols refer to positive and negative errors, respectively.}
1724: \label{terror}
1725: \end{figure}
1726:
1727: \begin{figure}
1728: \plotone{f11}
1729: \caption{Synthetic metal line spectra calculated for the stellar parameters of target
1730: No.21 as a function of metallicity in the spectral window from 4497~\AA~to 4607~\AA.
1731: Metallicities range from [Z] = -1.30 to 0.30, as described in the text. The dashed
1732: vertical lines give the edges of the spectral window as used for a determination of
1733: metallicity. The synthetic spectra were folded with a Gaussian of 5~\AA~FWHM to
1734: account for the instrumental broadening. Rotational broadening is negligible
1735: for A supergiants at this resolution and not taken into account.}
1736: \label{met1}
1737: \end{figure}
1738:
1739: \begin{figure}
1740: \plotone{f12}
1741: \caption{Observed spectrum of target No. 21 for the same spectral window as
1742: Fig.~\ref{met1} overplotted by the same synthetic spectra for each metallicity
1743: separately. The line identification symbols plotted for [Z] = 0.15 are the same
1744: as in Fig.~\ref{met1}. For the renormalization of the observed spectrum at each
1745: different metallicity see discussion in the text. The abscissae are wavelengths in \AA.}
1746: \label{met2}
1747: \end{figure}
1748:
1749: \begin{figure}
1750: \plotone{f13}
1751: \caption{$\chi ([Z])_{i}$ as obtained from the comparison of observed and
1752: calculated spectra in Fig.~\ref{met2}. The solid curve is a third order polynomial
1753: fit.}
1754: \label{met3}
1755: \end{figure}
1756:
1757: \clearpage
1758: \begin{figure}[!]
1759: \begin{center}
1760: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14a.ps}
1761: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14b.ps}
1762: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14c.ps}
1763: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14d.ps}
1764: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14e.ps}
1765: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14f.ps}
1766: \caption[ ]{Determination of metallicity for target No. 21 in six more
1767: spectral windows. Line identifications are again given for the plots with
1768: [Z] = 0.15. Solid bars refer to FeII, dotted bars represent TiII in
1769: windows 2, 3, 4, 6, SiII in window 1 and HeI in window 5. Dashed bars
1770: indicate HeI in window 1 and 3 and MgII in window 4 and 6. The
1771: dashed-dotted bar in window 4 is HeI. The abscissae are wavelengths in \AA.}
1772: {\label{met4}}
1773: \end{center}
1774: \end{figure}
1775:
1776: \begin{figure}
1777: \plotone{f15}
1778: \caption{$\chi ([Z])_{i}$ for all seven spectral windows of target No.21.}
1779: \label{met5}
1780: \end{figure}
1781:
1782: \begin{figure}
1783: \plotone{f16}
1784: \caption{The interstellar reddening E(B-V) distribution of our targets.}
1785: \label{nebv}
1786: \end{figure}
1787:
1788: \begin{figure}
1789: %%\plotone{f17}
1790: \begin{center}
1791: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f17.eps}
1792: \caption{Effective temperatures according to spectral types compared with effective
1793: temperatures obtained from the quantitative spectral analysis. For discussion see text.}
1794: \label{tsvsta}
1795: \end{center}
1796: \end{figure}
1797:
1798: \clearpage
1799:
1800: \begin{figure}
1801: %%\plotone{f18}
1802: \begin{center}
1803: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f18.eps}
1804: \caption{Relative difference of spectral type and spectral analysis temperatures as a function
1805: of effective temperatures obtained from the quantitative spectral analysis.}
1806: \label{dtsvsta}
1807: \end{center}
1808: \end{figure}
1809:
1810: \clearpage
1811:
1812: \begin{figure}
1813: %%\plotone{f19}
1814: \begin{center}
1815: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f19.eps}
1816: \caption{Relative difference of spectral type and analysis temperatures as a function
1817: of metallicity obtained from the quantitative spectral analysis.}
1818: \label{dtsvsz}
1819: \end{center}
1820: \end{figure}
1821:
1822: \begin{figure}
1823: %%\plotone{f20}
1824: \begin{center}
1825: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f20.eps}
1826: \caption{NGC 300 A supergiants (circles, this study) and early B supergiants (squares,
1827: \citealt{urbaneja05}) in the $(log~g, log$~\teff) plane compared with evolutionary
1828: tracks by \citet{meynet05} of stars with 15 M$_{\odot}$ (solid), 25 M$_{\odot}$
1829: (dashed), and 40 M$_{\odot}$ (dashed-dotted), respectively. The tracks include the
1830: effects of rotation and are calculated for SMC metallicity (see \citealt{meynet05}).}
1831: \label{lgtngc300}
1832: \end{center}
1833: \end{figure}
1834:
1835: \clearpage
1836:
1837: \begin{figure}
1838: %%\plotone{f21}
1839: \begin{center}
1840: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f21.eps}
1841: \caption{
1842: NGC 300 A supergiants (circles, this study) and early B supergiants (squares,
1843: \citealt{urbaneja05}) in the HRD compared with evolutionary
1844: tracks for stars with 15 M$_{\odot}$ (solid),
1845: 20 M$_{\odot}$ (long-dashed), 25 M$_{\odot}$ (short-dashed),
1846: and 40 M$_{\odot}$ (dashed-dotted), respectively. The tracks include the
1847: effects of rotation and are calculated for SMC metallicity (see
1848: \citealt{meynet05}).}
1849: \label{hrdngc300}
1850: \end{center}
1851: \end{figure}
1852:
1853: \clearpage
1854:
1855: \begin{figure}
1856: %%\plotone{f22}
1857: \begin{center}
1858: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f22.eps}
1859: \caption{Comparison of evolutionary with spectroscopic masses for the NGC 300
1860: A supergiants of this study}
1861: \label{masses1}
1862: \end{center}
1863: \end{figure}
1864:
1865: \clearpage
1866:
1867: \begin{figure}
1868: %%\plotone{f23}
1869: \begin{center}
1870: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f23.eps}
1871: \caption{Logarithm of the ratio of evolutionary to spectroscopic masses as
1872: a function of the logarithm of spectroscopic mass.}
1873: \label{masses3}
1874: \end{center}
1875: \end{figure}
1876:
1877: \clearpage
1878:
1879: \begin{figure}
1880: %%\plotone{f24}
1881: \begin{center}
1882: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f24.eps}
1883: \caption{Metallicity [Z] as a function of angular galacto-centric distance
1884: $\rho/\rho_{0}$ (see Table 1) for the A-supergiants of this work (filled circles) and the
1885: early B-supergiants studied by \citet{urbaneja05} (filled squares). Note
1886: that for the latter metallicity refers to oxygen only. The dashed curve
1887: represents the regression discussed in the text. Note that typical uncertainties in [Z] are
1888: $\pm{0.2}$ dex.}
1889: \label{metgrad}
1890: \end{center}
1891: \end{figure}
1892:
1893: \begin{figure}
1894: \plotone{f25}
1895: \caption{HST/ACS color magnitude diagram of the observed fields in NGC 300.
1896: The position of our targets is indicated by filled circles and evolutionary tracks
1897: (\citealt{meynet05}) with 12, 15, 20 and 25 M$_{\odot}$ are overplotted.}
1898: \label{cmd}
1899: \end{figure}
1900:
1901: \begin{figure}
1902: \plotone{f26}
1903: \caption{The number of stars in Fig.~\ref{cmd} in 0.1 magnitude bins as a
1904: function of magnitude. The fit discussed in the text is shown as a straight line.}
1905: \label{counts}
1906: \end{figure}
1907:
1908: \begin{figure}
1909: %%\plotone{f27}
1910: \begin{center}
1911: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f27.eps}
1912: \caption{The FGLR as predicted by stellar evolution theory (\citealt{meynet05}) using the
1913: mass-luminosity relationship of eq. 8 and the coefficients of Table 4. The
1914: solid curve is calculated for solar metallicity and includes the effects of
1915: stellar rotation. The dashed-dotted curve is for the same metallicity but does
1916: not include rotation. The long-dashed curves assumes SMC metallicity and accounts
1917: for rotation (for this metallicity the curve without rotation is very similar).}
1918: \label{fglrev}
1919: \end{center}
1920: \end{figure}
1921:
1922: \begin{figure}
1923: %%\plotone{f28}
1924: \begin{center}
1925: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f28.eps}
1926: \caption{Equivalent width of H${\delta}$ as a function of gravity $log~g$ for
1927: models of different effective temperature ranging between 8300~K (top curve,
1928: crosses) to 15000~K (bottom curve, filled circles). The \teff\/ steps can
1929: be inferred from Fig.~\ref{modelgrid}. The metallicity is [Z] = -0.5, but the
1930: curves at different metallicity are very similar.}
1931: \label{h6gt}
1932: \end{center}
1933: \end{figure}
1934:
1935: \begin{figure}
1936: %%\plotone{f29}
1937: \begin{center}
1938: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f29.eps}
1939: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{h6gt}, but for the flux weighted gravity $log~g_{F}$.}
1940: \label{h6gft}
1941: \end{center}
1942: \end{figure}
1943:
1944: \begin{figure}
1945: %%\plotone{f30}
1946: \begin{center}
1947: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f30.eps}
1948: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{isohdbgt} but for the flux weighted gravity $log~g_{F}$
1949: instead of gravity $log~g$.}
1950: \label{isohdbgft}
1951: \end{center}
1952: \end{figure}
1953:
1954: \begin{figure}
1955: %%\plotone{f31}
1956: \begin{center}
1957: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f31.eps}
1958: \caption{The FGLR of A (solid circles) and B (open circles) supergiants in
1959: NGC 300 and the linear regression (solid). The stellar evolution
1960: FGLRs of Fig.~\ref{fglrev} for models with rotation are also overplotted
1961: (dashed: Milky Way metallicity, long-dashed: SMC metallicity).}
1962: \label{fglrngc300}
1963: \end{center}
1964: \end{figure}
1965:
1966: \begin{figure}
1967: %%\plotone{f32}
1968: \begin{center}
1969: \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f32.eps}
1970: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fglrngc300}, but with additional objects from 7
1971: other galaxies (see text).}
1972: \label{fglrall}
1973: \end{center}
1974: \end{figure}
1975:
1976: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
1977: % INSERTING A TABLE
1978:
1979: \input{tab1}
1980: \clearpage
1981:
1982: \input{tab2}
1983:
1984: \clearpage
1985:
1986: \input{tab3}
1987:
1988: \input{tab4}
1989:
1990: \clearpage
1991:
1992: \input{tab5}
1993:
1994: \clearpage
1995: %-------------------------------------------
1996:
1997: \end{document}
1998:
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002: